/[MITgcm]/MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_model.tex
ViewVC logotype

Contents of /MITgcm_contrib/articles/ceaice/ceaice_model.tex

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Revision Graph Revision Graph


Revision 1.1 - (show annotations) (download) (as text)
Tue Feb 26 19:27:26 2008 UTC (17 years, 4 months ago) by dimitri
Branch: MAIN
File MIME type: application/x-tex
split sections into separate files:
ceaice_abstract.tex
ceaice_intro.tex
ceaice_model.tex
ceaice_forward.tex
ceaice_adjoint.tex
ceaice_concl.tex
(because cnh remarked that our authorship system was not sufficiently fancy)

1 \section{Model}
2 \label{sec:model}
3
4 \subsection{Dynamics}
5 \label{sec:dynamics}
6
7 The momentum equation of the sea-ice model is
8 \begin{equation}
9 \label{eq:momseaice}
10 m \frac{D\vek{u}}{Dt} = -mf\vek{k}\times\vek{u} + \vtau_{air} +
11 \vtau_{ocean} - m \nabla{\phi(0)} + \vek{F},
12 \end{equation}
13 where $m=m_{i}+m_{s}$ is the ice and snow mass per unit area;
14 $\vek{u}=u\vek{i}+v\vek{j}$ is the ice velocity vector;
15 $\vek{i}$, $\vek{j}$, and $\vek{k}$ are unit vectors in the $x$, $y$, and $z$
16 directions, respectively;
17 $f$ is the Coriolis parameter;
18 $\vtau_{air}$ and $\vtau_{ocean}$ are the wind-ice and ocean-ice stresses,
19 respectively;
20 $g$ is the gravity accelation;
21 $\nabla\phi(0)$ is the gradient (or tilt) of the sea surface height;
22 $\phi(0) = g\eta + p_{a}/\rho_{0}$ is the sea surface height potential
23 in response to ocean dynamics ($g\eta$) and to atmospheric pressure
24 loading ($p_{a}/\rho_{0}$, where $\rho_{0}$ is a reference density);
25 and $\vek{F}=\nabla\cdot\sigma$ is the divergence of the internal ice stress
26 tensor $\sigma_{ij}$.
27 When using the rescaled vertical coordinate system, z$^\ast$, of
28 \citet{cam08}, $\phi(0)$ also includes a term due to snow and ice
29 loading, $mg/\rho_{0}$.
30 Advection of sea-ice momentum is neglected. The wind and ice-ocean stress
31 terms are given by
32 \begin{align*}
33 \vtau_{air} = & \rho_{air} C_{air} |\vek{U}_{air} -\vek{u}|
34 R_{air} (\vek{U}_{air} -\vek{u}), \\
35 \vtau_{ocean} = & \rho_{ocean}C_{ocean} |\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}|
36 R_{ocean}(\vek{U}_{ocean}-\vek{u}), \\
37 \end{align*}
38 where $\vek{U}_{air/ocean}$ are the surface winds of the atmosphere
39 and surface currents of the ocean, respectively; $C_{air/ocean}$ are
40 air and ocean drag coefficients; $\rho_{air/ocean}$ are reference
41 densities; and $R_{air/ocean}$ are rotation matrices that act on the
42 wind/current vectors.
43
44 For an isotropic system the stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}$ ($i,j=1,2$) can
45 be related to the ice strain rate and strength by a nonlinear
46 viscous-plastic (VP) constitutive law \citep{hibler79, zhang98}:
47 \begin{equation}
48 \label{eq:vpequation}
49 \sigma_{ij}=2\eta(\dot{\epsilon}_{ij},P)\dot{\epsilon}_{ij}
50 + \left[\zeta(\dot{\epsilon}_{ij},P) -
51 \eta(\dot{\epsilon}_{ij},P)\right]\dot{\epsilon}_{kk}\delta_{ij}
52 - \frac{P}{2}\delta_{ij}.
53 \end{equation}
54 The ice strain rate is given by
55 \begin{equation*}
56 \dot{\epsilon}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2}\left(
57 \frac{\partial{u_{i}}}{\partial{x_{j}}} +
58 \frac{\partial{u_{j}}}{\partial{x_{i}}}\right).
59 \end{equation*}
60 The maximum ice pressure $P_{\max}$, a measure of ice strength, depends on
61 both thickness $h$ and compactness (concentration) $c$:
62 \begin{equation}
63 P_{\max} = P^{*}c\,h\,e^{[C^{*}\cdot(1-c)]},
64 \label{eq:icestrength}
65 \end{equation}
66 with the constants $P^{*}$ and $C^{*}$. The nonlinear bulk and shear
67 viscosities $\eta$ and $\zeta$ are functions of ice strain rate
68 invariants and ice strength such that the principal components of the
69 stress lie on an elliptical yield curve with the ratio of major to
70 minor axis $e$ equal to $2$; they are given by:
71 \begin{align*}
72 \zeta =& \min\left(\frac{P_{\max}}{2\max(\Delta,\Delta_{\min})},
73 \zeta_{\max}\right) \\
74 \eta =& \frac{\zeta}{e^2} \\
75 \intertext{with the abbreviation}
76 \Delta = & \left[
77 \left(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}^2+\dot{\epsilon}_{22}^2\right)
78 (1+e^{-2}) + 4e^{-2}\dot{\epsilon}_{12}^2 +
79 2\dot{\epsilon}_{11}\dot{\epsilon}_{22} (1-e^{-2})
80 \right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}
81 \end{align*}
82 The bulk viscosities are bounded above by imposing both a minimum
83 $\Delta_{\min}=10^{-11}\text{\,s}^{-1}$ (for numerical reasons) and a
84 maximum $\zeta_{\max} = P_{\max}/\Delta^*$, where
85 $\Delta^*=(5\times10^{12}/2\times10^4)\text{\,s}^{-1}$. For stress
86 tensor computation the replacement pressure $P = 2\,\Delta\zeta$
87 \citep{hibler95} is used so that the stress state always lies on the
88 elliptic yield curve by definition.
89
90 In the so-called truncated ellipse method the shear viscosity $\eta$
91 is capped to suppress any tensile stress \citep{hibler97, geiger98}:
92 \begin{equation}
93 \label{eq:etatem}
94 \eta = \min\left(\frac{\zeta}{e^2},
95 \frac{\frac{P}{2}-\zeta(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})}
96 {\sqrt{(\dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22})^2
97 +4\dot{\epsilon}_{12}^2}}\right).
98 \end{equation}
99
100 In the current implementation, the VP-model is integrated with the
101 semi-implicit line successive over relaxation (LSOR)-solver of
102 \citet{zhang98}, which allows for long time steps that, in our case,
103 are limited by the explicit treatment of the Coriolis term. The
104 explicit treatment of the Coriolis term does not represent a severe
105 limitation because it restricts the time step to approximately the
106 same length as in the ocean model where the Coriolis term is also
107 treated explicitly.
108
109 \citet{hunke97}'s introduced an elastic contribution to the strain
110 rate in order to regularize Eq.\refeq{vpequation} in such a way that
111 the resulting elastic-viscous-plastic (EVP) and VP models are
112 identical at steady state,
113 \begin{equation}
114 \label{eq:evpequation}
115 \frac{1}{E}\frac{\partial\sigma_{ij}}{\partial{t}} +
116 \frac{1}{2\eta}\sigma_{ij}
117 + \frac{\eta - \zeta}{4\zeta\eta}\sigma_{kk}\delta_{ij}
118 + \frac{P}{4\zeta}\delta_{ij}
119 = \dot{\epsilon}_{ij}.
120 \end{equation}
121 %In the EVP model, equations for the components of the stress tensor
122 %$\sigma_{ij}$ are solved explicitly. Both model formulations will be
123 %used and compared the present sea-ice model study.
124 The EVP-model uses an explicit time stepping scheme with a short
125 timestep. According to the recommendation of \citet{hunke97}, the
126 EVP-model is stepped forward in time 120 times within the physical
127 ocean model time step (although this parameter is under debate), to
128 allow for elastic waves to disappear. Because the scheme does not
129 require a matrix inversion it is fast in spite of the small timestep
130 \citep{hunke97}. For completeness, we repeat the equations for the
131 components of the stress tensor $\sigma_{1} =
132 \sigma_{11}+\sigma_{22}$, $\sigma_{2}= \sigma_{11}-\sigma_{22}$, and
133 $\sigma_{12}$. Introducing the divergence $D_D =
134 \dot{\epsilon}_{11}+\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$, and the horizontal tension
135 and shearing strain rates, $D_T =
136 \dot{\epsilon}_{11}-\dot{\epsilon}_{22}$ and $D_S =
137 2\dot{\epsilon}_{12}$, respectively, and using the above abbreviations,
138 the equations can be written as:
139 \begin{align}
140 \label{eq:evpstresstensor1}
141 \frac{\partial\sigma_{1}}{\partial{t}} + \frac{\sigma_{1}}{2T} +
142 \frac{P}{2T} &= \frac{P}{2T\Delta} D_D \\
143 \label{eq:evpstresstensor2}
144 \frac{\partial\sigma_{2}}{\partial{t}} + \frac{\sigma_{2} e^{2}}{2T}
145 &= \frac{P}{2T\Delta} D_T \\
146 \label{eq:evpstresstensor12}
147 \frac{\partial\sigma_{12}}{\partial{t}} + \frac{\sigma_{12} e^{2}}{2T}
148 &= \frac{P}{4T\Delta} D_S
149 \end{align}
150 Here, the elastic parameter $E$ is redefined in terms of a damping timescale
151 $T$ for elastic waves \[E=\frac{\zeta}{T}.\]
152 $T=E_{0}\Delta{t}$ with the tunable parameter $E_0<1$ and
153 the external (long) timestep $\Delta{t}$. \citet{hunke97} recommend
154 $E_{0} = \frac{1}{3}$.
155
156 For details of the spatial discretization, the reader is referred to
157 \citet{zhang98, zhang03}. Our discretization differs only (but
158 importantly) in the underlying grid, namely the Arakawa C-grid, but is
159 otherwise straightforward. The EVP model, in particular, is discretized
160 naturally on the C-grid with $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$ on the
161 center points and $\sigma_{12}$ on the corner (or vorticity) points of
162 the grid. With this choice all derivatives are discretized as central
163 differences and averaging is only involved in computing $\Delta$ and
164 $P$ at vorticity points.
165
166 For a general curvilinear grid, one needs in principle to take metric
167 terms into account that arise in the transformation of a curvilinear
168 grid on the sphere. For now, however, we can neglect these metric
169 terms because they are very small on the \ml{[modify following
170 section3:] cubed sphere grids used in this paper; in particular,
171 only near the edges of the cubed sphere grid, we expect them to be
172 non-zero, but these edges are at approximately 35\degS\ or 35\degN\
173 which are never covered by sea-ice in our simulations. Everywhere
174 else the coordinate system is locally nearly cartesian.} However, for
175 last-glacial-maximum or snowball-earth-like simulations the question
176 of metric terms needs to be reconsidered. Either, one includes these
177 terms as in \citet{zhang03}, or one finds a vector-invariant
178 formulation for the sea-ice internal stress term that does not require
179 any metric terms, as it is done in the ocean dynamics of the MITgcm
180 \citep{adcroft04:_cubed_sphere}.
181
182 Lateral boundary conditions are naturally ``no-slip'' for B-grids, as
183 the tangential velocities points lie on the boundary. For C-grids, the
184 lateral boundary condition for tangential velocities is realized via
185 ``ghost points'', allowing alternatively no-slip or free-slip
186 conditions. In ocean models free-slip boundary conditions in
187 conjunction with piecewise-constant (``castellated'') coastlines have
188 been shown to reduce in effect to no-slip boundary conditions
189 \citep{adcroft98:_slippery_coast}; for sea-ice models the effects of
190 lateral boundary conditions have not yet been studied.
191
192 Moving sea ice exerts a stress on the ocean which is the opposite of
193 the stress $\vtau_{ocean}$ in Eq.\refeq{momseaice}. This stess is
194 applied directly to the surface layer of the ocean model. An
195 alternative ocean stress formulation is given by \citet{hibler87}.
196 Rather than applying $\vtau_{ocean}$ directly, the stress is derived
197 from integrating over the ice thickness to the bottom of the oceanic
198 surface layer. In the resulting equation for the \emph{combined}
199 ocean-ice momentum, the interfacial stress cancels and the total
200 stress appears as the sum of windstress and divergence of internal ice
201 stresses: $\delta(z) (\vtau_{air} + \vek{F})/\rho_0$, \citep[see also
202 Eq.\,2 of][]{hibler87}. The disadvantage of this formulation is that
203 now the velocity in the surface layer of the ocean that is used to
204 advect tracers, is really an average over the ocean surface
205 velocity and the ice velocity leading to an inconsistency as the ice
206 temperature and salinity are different from the oceanic variables.
207
208 Sea ice distributions are characterized by sharp gradients and edges.
209 For this reason, we employ positive, multidimensional 2nd and 3rd-order
210 advection scheme with flux limiter \citep{roe85, hundsdorfer94} for the
211 thermodynamic variables discussed in the next section.
212
213 \subparagraph{boundary conditions: no-slip, free-slip, half-slip}
214
215 \begin{itemize}
216 \item transition from existing B-Grid to C-Grid
217 \item boundary conditions: no-slip, free-slip, half-slip
218 \item fancy (multi dimensional) advection schemes
219 \item VP vs.\ EVP \citep{hunke97}
220 \item ocean stress formulation \citep{hibler87}
221 \end{itemize}
222
223 \subsection{Thermodynamics}
224 \label{sec:thermodynamics}
225
226 In the original formulation the sea ice model \citep{menemenlis05}
227 uses simple thermodynamics following the appendix of
228 \citet{semtner76}. This formulation does not allow storage of heat
229 (heat capacity of ice is zero, and this type of model is often refered
230 to as a ``zero-layer'' model). Upward heat flux is parameterized
231 assuming a linear temperature profile and together with a constant ice
232 conductivity. It is expressed as $(K/h)(T_{w}-T_{0})$, where $K$ is
233 the ice conductivity, $h$ the ice thickness, and $T_{w}-T_{0}$ the
234 difference between water and ice surface temperatures. The surface
235 heat budget is computed in a similar way to that of
236 \citet{parkinson79} and \citet{manabe79}.
237
238 There is considerable doubt about the reliability of such a simple
239 thermodynamic model---\citet{semtner84} found significant errors in
240 phase (one month lead) and amplitude ($\approx$50\%\,overestimate) in
241 such models---, so that today many sea ice models employ more complex
242 thermodynamics. A popular thermodynamics model of \citet{winton00} is
243 based on the 3-layer model of \citet{semtner76} and treats brine
244 content by means of enthalphy conservation. This model requires in
245 addition to ice-thickness and compactness (fractional area) additional
246 state variables to be advected by ice velocities, namely enthalphy of
247 the two ice layers and the thickness of the overlying snow layer.
248 \ml{[Jean-Michel, your turf: ]Care must be taken in advecting these
249 quantities in order to ensure conservation of enthalphy. Currently
250 this can only be accomplished with a 2nd-order advection scheme with
251 flux limiter \citep{roe85}.}
252
253
254 \subsection{C-grid}
255 \begin{itemize}
256 \item no-slip vs. free-slip for both lsr and evp;
257 "diagnostics" to look at and use for comparison
258 \begin{itemize}
259 \item ice transport through Fram Strait/Denmark Strait/Davis
260 Strait/Bering strait (these are general)
261 \item ice transport through narrow passages, e.g.\ Nares-Strait
262 \end{itemize}
263 \item compare different advection schemes (if lsr turns out to be more
264 effective, then with lsr otherwise I prefer evp), eg.
265 \begin{itemize}
266 \item default 2nd-order with diff1=0.002
267 \item 1st-order upwind with diff1=0.
268 \item DST3FL (SEAICEadvScheme=33 with diff1=0., should work, works for me)
269 \item 2nd-order wit flux limiter (SEAICEadvScheme=77 with diff1=0.)
270 \end{itemize}
271 That should be enough. Here, total ice mass and location of ice edge
272 is interesting. However, this comparison can be done in an idealized
273 domain, may not require full Arctic Domain?
274 \item
275 Do a little study on the parameters of LSR and EVP
276 \begin{enumerate}
277 \item convergence of LSR, how many iterations do you need to get a
278 true elliptic yield curve
279 \item vary deltaTevp and the relaxation parameter for EVP and see when
280 the EVP solution breaks down (relative to the forcing time scale).
281 For this, it is essential that the evp solver gives use "stripeless"
282 solutions, that is your dtevp = 1sec solutions/or 10sec solutions
283 with SEAICE\_evpDampC = 615.
284 \end{enumerate}
285 \end{itemize}

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.22