Version 6 (modified by agn, 4 months ago) (diff)

PHYPRO-01_agn_OSMOSIS_science

Last edition: 06/02/20 16:47:50 by agn

The PI is responsible to closely follow the progress of the action, and especially to contact NEMO project manager if the delay on preview (or review) are longer than the 2 weeks expected.

  1. Summary
  2. Preview
  3. Tests
  4. Review

Summary

Action PHYPRO-01_agn_OSMOSIS_science
PI(S) George Nurser
Digest Improvements to OSMOSIS OBL to improve behaviour in shelf-sea areas and under sea ice
Dependencies If any
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Names
Reviewer(s) Names
Ticket #2352

Description

Improve OSMOSIS ocean boundary layer (OBL) model in 3 areas:

  1. Ensure consistent behaviour of OSMOSIS-OBL under ice. Revert to classic shear turbulence based on ice-ocean turbulent friction velocity where ice areal coverage is high; scale with ice fraction between shear turbulence and Langmuir turbulence model. Where Stokes drift unavailable, move to parametrised form.
  1. Improve representation of OSMOSIS-OBL mixing in equatorial regions. Include mixing associated with shear of mean flow as in equatorial undercurrent.
  1. Mixing in shelf seas. The OSMOSIS-OBL is primarily a surface boundary layer model and so is not set up for bottom-driven tidal mixing. We intend to transition to GLS in shelf seas.

􏱔􏱦􏱋􏱌􏱧􏱎 􏱺􏱢􏱟􏱺􏱢􏱞􏱢 􏱪􏱏􏱱􏱎􏱔􏱎 􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱎􏱋 􏱪􏱎􏱬􏱷􏱣􏱏􏱎􏲀 􏱣􏱜 􏱐􏱱􏱎 􏱐􏱋􏱌􏱦􏱣􏱏􏱪 􏱴􏱪􏱱􏱎􏱬􏱋 􏱾􏱣􏱐􏱱 􏱎􏲄􏱓􏱬􏱐􏱌􏱋􏱣􏱬􏱤 􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱎􏱋􏱏􏱓􏱋􏱋􏱎􏱜􏱐􏱵 􏱬􏱜􏱩 􏱣􏱜 􏱪􏱱􏱬􏱤􏱤􏱌􏱾 􏱪􏱱􏱎􏱤􏱫 􏱪􏱎􏱬􏱪 􏱴􏱣􏱜􏱐􏱎􏱋􏱬􏱏􏱐􏱣􏱌􏱜 􏱾􏱣􏱐􏱱 􏱕􏱌􏱐􏱐􏱌􏱔 􏱕􏱌􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱬􏱋􏱝 􏱤􏱬􏱝􏱎􏱋􏱵􏲂 􏱰􏱎􏱧􏱎􏱤􏱌􏱦 􏱩􏱣􏱬􏱨􏱜􏱌􏱪􏱐􏱣􏱏􏱪 􏱎􏱜􏱎􏱋􏱨􏱝 􏱕􏱓􏱩􏱨􏱎􏱐 􏱐􏱌 􏱬􏱪􏱪􏱓􏱋􏱎 􏱎􏱜􏱎􏱋􏱨􏱎􏱐􏱣􏱏 􏱏􏱌􏱜􏱪􏱣􏱪􏱐􏱎􏱜􏱏􏱝􏲂􏱞􏱔􏱦􏱋􏱌􏱧􏱎 􏱺􏱢􏱟􏱺􏱢􏱞􏱢 􏱪􏱏􏱱􏱎􏱔􏱎 􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱎􏱋 􏱪􏱎􏱬􏱷􏱣􏱏􏱎􏲀 􏱣􏱜 􏱐􏱱􏱎 􏱐􏱋􏱌􏱦􏱣􏱏􏱪 􏱴􏱪􏱱􏱎􏱬􏱋 􏱾􏱣􏱐􏱱 􏱎􏲄􏱓􏱬􏱐􏱌􏱋􏱣􏱬􏱤 􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱎􏱋􏱏􏱓􏱋􏱋􏱎􏱜􏱐􏱵 􏱬􏱜􏱩 􏱣􏱜 􏱪􏱱􏱬􏱤􏱤􏱌􏱾 􏱪􏱱􏱎􏱤􏱫 􏱪􏱎􏱬􏱪 􏱴􏱣􏱜􏱐􏱎􏱋􏱬􏱏􏱐􏱣􏱌􏱜 􏱾􏱣􏱐􏱱 􏱕􏱌􏱐􏱐􏱌􏱔 􏱕􏱌􏱓􏱜􏱩􏱬􏱋􏱝 􏱤􏱬􏱝􏱎􏱋􏱵􏲂 􏱰􏱎􏱧􏱎􏱤􏱌􏱦 􏱩􏱣􏱬􏱨􏱜􏱌􏱪􏱐􏱣􏱏􏱪 􏱎􏱜􏱎􏱋􏱨􏱝 􏱕􏱓􏱩􏱨􏱎􏱐 􏱐􏱌 􏱬􏱪􏱪􏱓􏱋􏱎 􏱎􏱜􏱎􏱋􏱨􏱎􏱐􏱣􏱏 􏱏􏱌􏱜􏱪􏱣􏱪􏱐

Implementation

The development branch for 2019-WP action VALID-02_GeorgeN-evalOSMOSIS has recently been synchronized with source:/NEMO/trunk@12925 (changesets [12928] and [12934])and will form the basis for the source-code "streamlining" activities of action 2020WP/ENHANCE-14_smueller_OSMOSIS_streamlining. A new branch with the new physics will be spun-off this streamlined branch 2020WP/ENHANCE-14_smueller_OSMOSIS_streamlining.

Changes will be mostly restricted to the routine zdfosm.F90. There will be a new subroutine added to handle the shear-induced mixing.

Documentation updates

An extra paragraph or two will be added to the documentation in section 9.1.5 of the manual.

Preview

Since the preview step must be completed before the PI starts the coding, the previewer(s) answers are expected to be completed within the two weeks after the PI has sent the request to the previewer(s).
Then an iterative process should take place between PI and previewer(s) in order to find a consensus

Possible bottlenecks:

  • the methodology
  • the flowchart and list of routines to be changed
  • the new list of variables wrt coding rules
  • the summary of updates in literature

Once an agreement has been reached, preview is ended and the PI can start the development into his branch.

Tests

Once the development is done, the PI should complete the tests section below and after ask the reviewers to start their review.

This part should contain the detailed results of SETTE tests (restartability and reproducibility for each of the reference configuration) and detailed results of restartability and reproducibility when the option is activated on specified configurations used for this test

Regular checks:

  • Can this change be shown to produce expected impact (option activated)?
  • Can this change be shown to have a null impact (option not activated)?
  • Results of the required bit comparability tests been run: are there no differences when activating the development?
  • If some differences appear, is reason for the change valid/understood?
  • If some differences appear, is the impact as expected on model configurations?
  • Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
  • If no, is reason for the change valid/understood?
  • Are there significant changes in run time/memory?

Review

A successful review is needed to schedule the merge of this development into the future NEMO release during next Merge Party (usually in November).

Assessments:

  • Is the proposed methodology now implemented?
  • Are the code changes in agreement with the flowchart defined at preview step?
  • Are the code changes in agreement with list of routines and variables as proposed at preview step?
    If, not, are the discrepancies acceptable?
  • Is the in-line documentation accurate and sufficient?
  • Do the code changes comply with NEMO coding standards?
  • Is the development documented with sufficient details for others to understand the impact of the change?
  • Is the project literature (manual, guide, web, …) now updated or completed following the proposed summary in preview section?

Finding:

Is the review fully successful? If not, please indicate what is still missing


Once review is successful, the development must be scheduled for merge during next Merge Party Meeting.