Version 18 (modified by mathiot, 5 years ago) (diff)

Last edited Timestamp?


Author : Mathiot

ticket : XXXX

Branch : dev_r5589_is_oce_cpl (copy of trunk at r5589.


Description

Purpose

Allow NEMO to restart with a new geometry beneath the ice shelf (grounding line migration, i.e advance or retreat as well as calving front migration). This branch allow to test ice sheet/ocean coupling at each restart time step through netcdf file exchange.

Limitation

  • It is not suitable if high frequency coupling is needed. Because the model need to be stop each time you want to couple ocean/ice sheet.
  • It not a conservative method (NEMO is creating/losing volume/mass/salt/heat at the coupling time step if the geometry change). I.e., under a pure dynamics ice sheet advance, your mean ssh will stay constant.

Method

notation: bt = barotropic transport, if not precise, U/V/T/S mean properties of the top wet cell.

  • Thin/enlarge a top cell : T/S/SSH are unchanged, U/V in the top cell are corrected to keep bt_b = bt_n (useful to improve stability)
  • 'Dry a cell' case: set mask = 0, T/S = 0, U/V = 0, bt is corrected to keep bt_b = bt_n and ssh_b = ssh_n
  • 'Dry a column' case: set mask = 0, T/S = 0, U/V = 0 and ssh = 0
  • 'Wet a cell' case: set mask to 1, T/S = MEAN(T(ji+1,jj), T(ji-1,jj), T(ji,jj+1), T(ji,jj-1)) (if no neighbour along i/j axis check along the k axis), SSH unchanged, U/V = 0. If no neighbour, set mask to 0.
  • 'Wet a column' case: set mask to 1, T/S = MEAN(T(ji+1,jj), T(ji-1,jj), T(ji,jj+1), T(ji,jj-1)) (if no neighbour along i/j axis check along the k axis), SSH unchanged, U/V = 0. If no neighbour, set mask to 0.

As the before and now fields are not really compatible (modification of the geometry), the restart time step is prescribed to be an euler time step instead of a leap frog and fields_b = fields_n (only if coupling between ice sheet and ocean).

An option is available to keep trend due to unconservation of Vol./heat/salt to 0 using what is done for runoff with specified T/S. I.e the location and the amount of extra/loss vol./heat/salt is diagnosed, saved and used to come back to a acceptable level of conservation before the next restart time step. The vol./heat/salt is removed/added as close as possible to the source/sink location using the techniques used in sbcrnf to prescribed a source of volume/heat/salt in the runoff. This option is only suitable for global ocean modeling. It has only been tested in the ISOMIP+ 3 and 4 experiments during 5 coupling steps. Only 5, because afterward the sea level was going ridiculously high.

Added routines

  • iscplini.F90: read namelist, allocation …
  • iscplrst.F90: restart extrapolation
  • iscplhsb.F90: compute the volume/heat/salt correction (if asked)

Modified routines

  • istate.F90: call iscpl routine
  • divcur.F90: apply volume correction
  • trasbc.F90: apply heat/aslt correction
  • lib_fortran.F90: at this stage, need all of these to diagnose all is OK. HAVE to be removed before or during review process.
  • lbclnk.F90: add a routine to add correction term over the halo and afterward set the halo to 0. (Need to set a flag because not done for north fold but as the north fold do nut cut the Greenland, it is OK)
  • domngb.F90: I add an optional argument to be able to do this beneath the ice shelf (i.e. at level jk instead of 1).
  • domain.F90: Call to domwri modified, because if coupling, mask could be change in iscpl routine (closed pool or other weird configuration due to the extrapolation process. (3 solutions: let as it is now, simplify it and move it to the end of istate.F90 or build a proper flood filling algorithm to apply in domzgr and keep the call to dom_wri as it is).
  • domzgr.F90: modification of zgr_isf, because in case of coupling, we do not dig the bathymetry to ensure at least 2 wet cells in the water column. (if no coupling, isf draft and bathy could be dig to ensure this condition). NOT YET CLEAN
  • + small modifications in order to have dev_r5589_is_oce_cpl branch compatible to dev_r5151_UKMO_ISF. Could leads to some issue during the merge of these 2 branches (modification of umask_i by ssumask …).

Extra comments (useful information for the ISOMIP+/MISOMIP setup)

Version r5598 (initial commit):

  • contains many hard coded stuff related to ISOMIP+ (modified some physct, add a dmp file different to the one used in the initial condition … All of them should has been removed from the branch after in revision XXXX.
  • Have an error in compilation about the name of one subroutine
  • Need to be compile in 2 dime because of error in dependencies

ALL this issue are solved in the commit rXXXX > r5598.


Testing

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

NVTK TestedYES
Other model configurationsISOMIP+ EXP 2 and 3
Processor configurations tested[ Enter processor configs tested here ]
If adding new functionality please confirm that the
New code doesn't change results when it is switched off
and ''works'' when switched on
YES

(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
Is this change expected to preserve all diagnostics?
,,''Preserving answers in model runs does not necessarily imply preserved diagnostics. ''
YES

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
Does your change require a change in compiler options?NO

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

&namrun        !   parameters of the run
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
   ln_iscpl    = .false.    !  cavity evolution forcing or coupling to ice sheet model
...
/
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
&namsbc_iscpl  !   land ice / ocean coupling option
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   rn_fiscpl = 7440     ! (number of time step) conservation period (maybe should be fix to the coupling frequencey of restart frequency)
   ln_hsb    = .true.   ! activate conservation module (conservation exact after a time of rn_fiscpl)
/

Resources

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

The call of these routines is done only during the restart step. I described below the change of the istate routines timing as well as the memory:

  • With coupling after modification: istate = XXXX
  • Without coupling after modification: istate = 0.01 s
  • Without coupling before modification: istate = 0.01 s
  • Overall timing/memory before modification (ORCA2-LIM3 SETTE config): CPU time: 643 s/ Max resident set size: 480 592 kb
  • Overall timing/memory after modification (ORCA2-LIM3 SETTE config): CPU time: 680 s/ Max resident set size: 482 432 kb

IPR issues

Has the code been wholly (100%) produced by NEMO developers staff working exclusively on NEMO?YES

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……….