Version 11 (modified by jchanut, 4 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 06/05/20 13:22:57 by jchanut

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 AGRIF-03_jchanut_vert_coord_interp
PI(S) Jérôme Chanut and James Harle
Digest Online vertical interpolation with AGRIF (2019 cont.)
Dependencies Nesting tools update, i.e. #2129 + new step flowchart
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) S. Masson
Reviewer(s)
Ticket #2222

Description

This is a continuation from the IMMERSE task started in 2019. Changes to allow for vertical interpolation in NEMO have been implemented in December 2019 in the trunk. This task will eventually provide additional corrections and an update of the Nesting Tools. Since the idea is to use the DOMAINcfg tool for AGRIF, the task tackled in AGRIF-05_rblod_CMEMS (#2129) should ideally be completed first.

Implementation

Documentation updates

Preview

Tests

VORTEX test case

  • Functionality: Detect nesting errors. Evaluate new algorithms. Check volume/tracer conservation with 2 way nesting.
  • Setup: Self advected vortex over a beta plan. No forcing, flat bottom. Analytical definition of geostrophically balanced vortex.
  • Verification value: No analytical solution of the solution exists. The parent domain at high resolution is usually used to have a quantitative measure of the nesting errors.

One can nevertheless implement the following unit tests:

Global volume should be conserved at machine accuracy

Perfect symmetry of the results if switching hemisphere or reversing earth rotation

1:1 nesting (i.e. no refinement in the zoom) and fully explicit time stepping mode should not change the results

  • Status: available as part of NEMO test cases suite on svn.

2DV OVERFLOW test case

  • Functionality: Detect nesting errors with 1d varying topography. Evaluate vertical grid change within AGRIF zooms.
  • Setup: based on existing OVERFLOW test case with an AGRIF zoom over the slope. Since offline bathymetry connection is important here, input domain file have to be provided. That's the main difference with existing test case.
  • Verification value: No analytical solution of the solution exists. The parent domain at high resolution can be used to have a quantitative measure of the nesting errors. This test can be used to easily detect errors in the vertical coordinate change algorithm if vertical grids are actually identical.
  • Status: Test case already set up but not transferred on any repository yet.

BOWL OVERFLOW test case (TBC)

  • Functionality: Detect nesting errors with 2d varying topography. Evaluate vertical grid change within AGRIF zooms.
  • Setup: Similar to the 2d OVERFLOW test case above but with 2d varying topography.
  • Verification value: No analytical solution of the solution exists. The parent domain at high resolution can be used to have a quantitative measure of the nesting errors.
  • Status: Not available yet.

2DV UPWELLING test case (TBC)

  • Functionality: Detect nesting errors with 1d varying topography. Evaluate vertical grid change within AGRIF zooms and potential artefacts in the connection of surface/bottom boundary layers.
  • Setup: issued form COMODO test cases, that's a stationary solution of a wind forced shelf overflow.
  • Verification value: Analytical solution.
  • Status: Not available yet.

DOME test case (TBC)

  • Functionality: That's the classical experiment used in the literature to evaluate the numerical impact on dense overflows. It illustrates here the potential benefit of using a local vertical coordinate change and/or horizontal refinement on a longer time scale.
  • Setup: Forced dense water flow in a channel over a linear slope (hence need bdy forcing).
  • Verification value: No analytical solution of the solution exists. The parent domain at high resolution can be used to have a quantitative measure of the nesting errors.
  • Status: Not available yet.

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.