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

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 06/03/20 15:59:36 by emanuelaclementi

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 ASINTER-02_emanuelaclementi_Waves
PI(S) Emanuela Clementi
Digest New ocean-wave mixing compliant with bulks and OBL mixing
Dependencies #2155
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Gurvan Madec
Reviewer(s) Names
Ticket #2339

Description

This action is an activity of IMMERSE Task5.2 and focuses on the upgrade the ocean-wave coupling representation.

The final aim is to include an additional wave coupling development by mid 2020, which consists in modified
vertical mixing due to breaking waves: the energy flux explicitly evaluated by a wave model
(through the dissipation term in the wave energy balance equation) will be used as a new source of vertical mixing.

The first step is to include recent works on enhanced ocean mixing due to breaking waves (Couvelard et al., 2019)
and outcomes from WAVE2NEMO CMEMS service evolution project.

In addition, new wave developments detailed in Ticket #2155
should be revised to be compliant with bulks and OBL mixing in NEMO reference version.

Implementation

A branch will be created including wave induced terms following Couvelard et al., 2019.

Namelist, ZDF, DYN and SBC routines are impacted:

  • Namelist modifications to move all related wave parameters in namsbc_wave (except ln_wave) and include new parameters.
  • Update sbcmod.F90, sbcwave.F90 , sbccpl.F90, sbccpl.F90, cpl_oasis3.F90 to include additional wave parameters and coupling:
    • Chranock coefficient from wave model
    • wind stress corrected by wave intake
    • TKE surface BC from wave model
    • Bernoulli head, waves' inuced pressure
    • Breivik 2016 profile
    • Vortex force activation
  • Modify sbcblk_algo_ecmwf.F90 to add Charnok coupling
  • Modify dynvor.F90, dynzad.F90 to add vortex focre term:
  • Modify dynspg.F90 to account for depth-independent Bernoulli head
  • Modifications to tke.F90:
    • Langmuir mixing parameterization including the Stokes Drift contribution using Craik-Leibovich velocity scale (cpl_sdrftx) or Surface Stokes drift deduced from surface stress.
    • Modified shear production term in the TKE equation due to the Stokes Drift
    • Add 2 cases to evaluate en, zdiag, zd_lw, zd_up: Dirichlet Boundary Condition using surface TKE flux from waves and without wave coupling
    • Modifications to allow for Neumann boundary condition
    • Mixing length: add evaluation if coupling with waves
    • Modifiy TKE due to surface and internal wave breaking
    • In tke_avn include the mixing length evaluated if waves data are available

Documentation updates

NEMO manual will be modified following Couvelard et al., 2019 to include:

  • the modification of the wind-stress by waves through the Charnock parameter,
  • the modifications of the NEMO governing equations through the Vortex force and wave-induced surface pressure terms,
  • the addition of a Langmuir turbulence parameterization,
  • the modifications to the TKE scheme.

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?

  • Test case name: Not defined yet. Draft name: NEMO-WAVE cpouling
  • Test case functionality: This test case should check the correct NEMO-WAVE processes implementation, particularly the wave induced mixing
  • Test case setup: Not defined yet
  • Test case verification value: Not defined yet
  • Status of the test case as for now: Not defined 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.