Version 4 (modified by clevy, 16 months ago) (diff)

Name and subject of the action

Last edition: 12/01/20 17:07:31 by davestorkey

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


Action extend the range of options for calculating the horizontal pressure force (IMMERSE action)
PI(S) Mike Bell, Amy Young
Digest extend the range of options for calculating the horizontal pressure force using line (Shchepetkin & Mc Williams? 2003) or area integrals (Lin 1997) and finite volume higher order methods (Engwirda et al. 2017).
Dependencies None
Branch source:/NEMO/branches/{YEAR}/dev_r{REV}_{ACTION_NAME}
Previewer(s) Dave Storkey
Reviewer(s) Dave Storkey
Ticket #XXXX


Will attach pdf files in future. Code is expected to be submitted in 2020. Further developments in future years are likely to be needed.


Describe flow chart of the changes in the code.
List the Fortran modules and subroutines to be created/edited/deleted.
Detailed list of new variables to be defined (including namelists),
give for each the chosen name and description wrt coding rules.

Documentation updates

Using previous parts, define the main changes to be done in the NEMO literature (manuals, guide, web pages, …).


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.


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?

These developments will be assessed using the idealised seamount configuration introduced by Beckmann & Haidvogel (1993). This is a standard, widely used test case for evaluating the performance of hpg calculations. It consists of a Gaussian bump bathymetry initialised with the flow at rest, and an expontential vertical density perturbation profile. These developments should introduce no change to results unless the new hpg options are activated. If activated, the new schemes should result in a reduction of spurious currents in regions of sloping bathymetry when using terrain following coordinates (sco). The test configuration requires a bespoke set of MY_SRC files, a modification to the eosbn2.F90 module, and several namelist parameters. This configuration currently exists as a UKMO branch from r4.0.2 ( though does not yet run on multiple processors. There is no obvious single verification value. Ideally, the result would be a reduction in error with respect to the standard sco formulation. This may be defined in terms of a reduction in the maximum error (i.e. |umax_new| < |umax_sco|) or it may be a reduction in the time integrated value. Depending on the scheme in question, there may also be results which should be identically zero.


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


  • 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?


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.