Last edited Timestamp?

Author : rbourdal and greffray

ticket : #1121

Branch : 2013/dev_r4022_MERCATOR5_PAPA1D


Addition of a new reference configuration. This is a 1D configuration, at the PAPA station (145E, 55N), to work on the vertical component of NEMO. The reference test case uses input files (download This tarfile is composed by:

  • a bathymeter file :
  • a monthly mean climatology for Chlorophyll :
  • 2 forcing files (hourly data) : forcing_PAPASTATION_y20*.nc
  • an initialization file for T/S:
  • an file with observed temperature

The purpose reference simulation begins 15 June 2010 and ended 14 June 2011. We have fixed the vertical grid at 75 levels (1m at the surface). This simulation is forced by operational analysis of ECMWF resampled at 1h. The initial conditions for T/S are deduced from observations of the 15 June 2010. We have added a file with daily mean observed temperatures. These data have been re-interpolated on the computing grid (file usefull for a quick first validation with daily model outputs)

The compilation of this configuration is ensured by 2 cpp_key :

  • key_c1d to call 1D routines
  • key_c1d_papa to call specific routine (par_C1D_PAPA.h90)

The bathymetry file is read in namelist (nn_bathy=1) but could be switch off (nn_bathy=0) and prescribed by a new namelist parameter: rn_bathy/=0 (default =0 implied rn_bathy=deptw(jpkm1)) The defaul namelist used a k-epsilon closure and the defaul iodef.xml save fields with a frequency of 1 hour and 1 day.

Routines list in the branch:

par_C1D_PAPA.h90 : new routine. description of the conf (lon/lat, grid type,…)

par_oce.F90 : add call of par_C1D_PAPA.h90 (under key_c1d_papa)

istate.F90 : No change !

domain.F90 : read in namelist new real : rn_bathy

dom_oce.F90: declaration of rn_bathy (default vaue at 0)

domzgr.F90 : if rn_bathy .GT. 0.1m bathy=rn_bathy … else bathy=gdepw_0(jpk)(default case)

After compilation, the code can be launch using these commands:


mkdir rundir cd rundir

cp ../*.xml . cp ../namelist . cp ../opa .

ln -s ${DIR_ARCHI_INIT}/ ./ ln -s ${DIR_ARCHI_INIT}/ ./ ln -s ${DIR_ARCHI_INIT}/ . ln -s ${DIR_ARCHI_INIT}/forcin* .



Testing could consider (where appropriate) other configurations in addition to NVTK].

NVTK Tested'''NO'''
Other model configurations'''NO'''
Processor configurations tested[ 1 ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on

(Answering UNSURE is likely to generate further questions from reviewers.)

'Please add further summary details here'

  • Processor configurations tested
  • etc——

Bit Comparability

Does this change preserve answers in your tested standard configurations (to the last bit) ?'''YES/NO '''
Does this change bit compare across various processor configurations. (1xM, Nx1 and MxN are recommended)'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve answers in all possible model configurations?'''YES/NO'''
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''

If you answered '''NO''' to any of the above, please provide further details:

  • Which routine(s) are causing the difference?
  • Why the changes are not protected by a logical switch or new section-version
  • What is needed to achieve regression with the previous model release (e.g. a regression branch, hand-edits etc). If this is not possible, explain why not.
  • What do you expect to see occur in the test harness jobs?
  • Which diagnostics have you altered and why have they changed?Please add details here……..

System Changes

Does your change alter namelists?'''YES/NO '''
Does your change require a change in compiler options?'''YES/NO '''

If any of these apply, please document the changes required here…….


''Please ''summarize'' any changes in runtime or memory use caused by this change……''

IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?'''YES/ NO '''

If No:

  • Identify the collaboration agreement details
  • Ensure the code routine header is in accordance with the agreement, (Copyright/Redistribution? etc).Add further details here if required……….
Last modified 7 years ago Last modified on 2013-11-15T09:33:07+01:00