1 |
% $Header: /u/gcmpack/manual/part2/nonlin_frsurf.tex,v 1.7 2001/11/13 20:27:54 adcroft Exp $ |
2 |
% $Name: $ |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
\subsection{Non-linear free surface} |
7 |
\label{sect:nonlinear-freesurface} |
8 |
|
9 |
Recently, new options have been added to the model |
10 |
that concern the free surface formulation. |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
\subsubsection{Non-uniform linear-relation for the surface potential} |
14 |
|
15 |
The linear relation between surface pressure/geo-potential |
16 |
($\Phi_{surf}$) and surface displacement ($\eta$) could be considered |
17 |
to be a constant ($b_s=$ constant) |
18 |
\marginpar{add a reference to part.1 here} |
19 |
but is in fact dependent on the position ($x,y,r$) |
20 |
since we linearize: |
21 |
$$\Phi_{surf}=\int_{R_o}^{R_o+\eta} b dr \simeq b_s \eta |
22 |
~\mathrm{with}~ b_s = b(\theta,S,r)_{r=R_o} |
23 |
\simeq b_s(\theta_{ref}(R_o),S_{ref}(R_o),R_o)$$ |
24 |
Note that, for convenience, the effect on $b_s$ of the local surface |
25 |
$\theta,S$ are not considered here, but are incorporated in to |
26 |
$\Phi'_{hyd}$. |
27 |
|
28 |
For the ocean, $b_s = g \rho_{surf} / \rho_o \simeq g$ is a very good |
29 |
approximation since the relative difference in surface density are |
30 |
usually small and only due to local $\theta,S$ gradients (because the |
31 |
upper surface, $R_o = 0$, is essentially flat). Therefore, they can |
32 |
easily be incorporated in $\Phi'_{hyd}$. |
33 |
|
34 |
For the atmosphere, however, because of topographic effects, the |
35 |
reference surface pressure $R_o$ has large spatial variations that |
36 |
are responsible for significant $b_s$ variations (from 0.8 to 1.2 |
37 |
$[m^3/kg]$). For this reason, we use a non-uniform linear coefficient |
38 |
$b_s$. |
39 |
|
40 |
In practice, in an oceanic configuration or when the default value |
41 |
(TRUE) of the parameter {\bf uniformLin\_PhiSurf} is used, then $b_s$ |
42 |
is simply set to $g$ for the ocean and $1.$ for the atmosphere. |
43 |
Turning {\bf uniformLin\_PhiSurf} to "FALSE", tells the code to |
44 |
evaluate $b_s$ from the reference vertical profile $\theta_{ref}$ |
45 |
({\it S/R INI\_LINEAR\_PHISURF}) according to the reference surface |
46 |
pressure $P_o$ ($=R_o$): $b_s = c_p \kappa (P_o / Pc)^{(\kappa - 1)} |
47 |
\theta_{ref}(P_o)$ |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
\subsubsection{Free surface effect on column total thickness |
51 |
(Non-linear free surface)} |
52 |
|
53 |
The total thickness of the fluid column is $r_{surf} - R_{fixed} = |
54 |
\eta + R_o - R_{fixed}$. In most applications, the free surface |
55 |
displacements are small compared to the total thickness |
56 |
$\eta << H_o = R_o - R_{fixed}$. |
57 |
In the previous sections and in older version of the model, |
58 |
the linearized free-surface approximation was made, assuming |
59 |
$r_{surf} - R_{fixed} \simeq H_o$ when the horizontal transport is |
60 |
computed, either in the continuity equation or in tracer and momentum |
61 |
advection terms. |
62 |
This approximation is dropped when using the non-linear free surface |
63 |
formulation and the total thickness, including the time varying part |
64 |
$\eta$, is consisdered when computing horizontal transport. |
65 |
Implications for the barotropic part are presented hereafter. |
66 |
In sections \ref{sect:freesurf-tracer-advection} and |
67 |
\ref{sect:freesurf-momentum-advection}, consequences for tracer |
68 |
and momentum are brifly discussed. a more detailed description |
69 |
is available in \cite{campin:02}. |
70 |
|
71 |
|
72 |
In the non-linear formulation, the continuous form of the model equations |
73 |
remains unchanged, except for the 2D continuity equation |
74 |
(\ref{eq:discrete-time-backward-free-surface}) which is now |
75 |
integrated from $R_{fixed}(x,y)$ up to $r_{surf}=R_o+\eta$ : |
76 |
|
77 |
\begin{displaymath} |
78 |
\epsilon_{fs} \partial_t \eta = |
79 |
\left. \dot{r} \right|_{r=r_{surf}} + \epsilon_{fw} (P-E) = |
80 |
- {\bf \nabla}_h \cdot \int_{R_{fixed}}^{R_o+\eta} \vec{\bf v} dr |
81 |
+ \epsilon_{fw} (P-E) |
82 |
\end{displaymath} |
83 |
|
84 |
Since $\eta$ has a direct effect on the horizontal velocity (through |
85 |
$\nabla_h \Phi_{surf}$), this adds a non-linear term to the free |
86 |
surface equation. Several options for the time discretization of this |
87 |
non-linear part can be considered, as detailed below. |
88 |
|
89 |
If the column thickness is evaluated at time step $n$, and with |
90 |
implicit treatment of the surface potential gradient, equations |
91 |
(\ref{eq-solve2D} and \ref{eq-solve2D_rhs}) becomes: |
92 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
93 |
\epsilon_{fs} {\eta}^{n+1} - |
94 |
{\bf \nabla}_h \cdot \Delta t^2 (\eta^{n}+R_o-R_{fixed}) |
95 |
{\bf \nabla}_h b_s {\eta}^{n+1} |
96 |
= {\eta}^* |
97 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
98 |
where |
99 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
100 |
{\eta}^* = \epsilon_{fs} \: {\eta}^{n} - |
101 |
\Delta t {\bf \nabla}_h \cdot \int_{R_{fixed}}^{R_o+\eta^n} \vec{\bf v}^* dr |
102 |
\: + \: \epsilon_{fw} \Delta_t (P-E)^{n} |
103 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
104 |
This method requires us to update the solver matrix at each time step. |
105 |
|
106 |
Alternatively, the non-linear contribution can be evaluated fully |
107 |
explicitly: |
108 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
109 |
\epsilon_{fs} {\eta}^{n+1} - |
110 |
{\bf \nabla}_h \cdot \Delta t^2 (R_o-R_{fixed}) |
111 |
{\bf \nabla}_h b_s {\eta}^{n+1} |
112 |
= {\eta}^* |
113 |
+{\bf \nabla}_h \cdot \Delta t^2 (\eta^{n}) |
114 |
{\bf \nabla}_h b_s {\eta}^{n} |
115 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
116 |
This formulation allows one to keep the initial solver matrix |
117 |
unchanged though throughout the integration, since the non-linear free |
118 |
surface only affects the RHS. |
119 |
|
120 |
Finally, another option is a "linearized" formulation where the total |
121 |
column thickness appears only in the integral term of the RHS |
122 |
(\ref{eq-solve2D_rhs}) but not directly in the equation |
123 |
(\ref{eq-solve2D}). |
124 |
|
125 |
Those different options (see tab.?? for the one still available) |
126 |
have been tested and show litle differences. However, we recommand |
127 |
the use of the most precise method (the 1rst one) since the |
128 |
computation cost involved in the solver matrix update are negligeable. |
129 |
|
130 |
\begin{center} |
131 |
\begin{tabular}[htb]{|l|c|l|} |
132 |
\hline |
133 |
parameter & value & description \\ |
134 |
\hline |
135 |
& -1 & linear free-surface, restart from a pickup file \\ |
136 |
& & produced with \#undef EXACT\_CONSERV code\\ |
137 |
\cline{2-3} |
138 |
& 0 & Linear free-Surface \\ |
139 |
\cline{2-3} |
140 |
nonlinFreeSurf & 4 & Non-linear free-surface \\ |
141 |
\cline{2-3} |
142 |
& 3 & same as 4 but neglecting |
143 |
$\int_{R_o}^{R_o+\eta} b' dr $ in $\Phi'_{hyd}$ \\ |
144 |
\cline{2-3} |
145 |
& 2 & same as 3 but do not update cg2d solver matrix \\ |
146 |
\cline{2-3} |
147 |
& 1 & same as 2 but treat momentum as in Linear FS \\ |
148 |
\hline |
149 |
& 0 & do not use $r*$ vertical coordinate (= default)\\ |
150 |
\cline{2-3} |
151 |
select\_rStar & 2 & use $r^*$ vertical coordinate \\ |
152 |
\cline{2-3} |
153 |
& 1 & same as 2 but without the contribution of the\\ |
154 |
& & slope of the coordinate in $\nabla \Phi$ \\ |
155 |
\hline |
156 |
\end{tabular} |
157 |
\end{center} |
158 |
|
159 |
|
160 |
\subsubsection{Free surface effect on the surface level thickness |
161 |
(Non-linear free surface): Tracer advection} |
162 |
\label{sect:freesurf-tracer-advection} |
163 |
|
164 |
To ensure global tracer conservation (i.e., the total amount) as well |
165 |
as local conservation, the change in the surface level thickness must |
166 |
be consistent with the way the continuity equation is integrated, both |
167 |
in the barotropic part (to find $\eta$) and baroclinic part (to find |
168 |
$w = \dot{r}$). |
169 |
|
170 |
To illustrate this, consider the shallow water model, with uniform |
171 |
Cartesian horizontal grid: |
172 |
$$ |
173 |
\partial_t h + \nabla \cdot h \vec{\bf v} = 0 |
174 |
$$ |
175 |
where $h$ is the total thickness of the water column. |
176 |
To conserve the tracer $\theta$ we have to discretize: |
177 |
$$ |
178 |
\partial_t (h \theta) + \nabla \cdot ( h \theta \vec{\bf v})= 0 |
179 |
$$ |
180 |
Using the implicit (non-linear) free surface described above (section |
181 |
\ref{sect:pressure-method-linear-backward}) we have: |
182 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
183 |
h^{n+1} = h^{n} - \Delta_t \nabla \cdot (h^n \, \vec{\bf v}^{n+1} ) \\ |
184 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
185 |
The discretized form of the tracer equation must adopt the same |
186 |
``form'' in the computation of tracer fluxes, that is, the same value |
187 |
of $h$, as used in the continuity equation: |
188 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
189 |
h^{n+1} \, \theta^{n+1} = h^n \, \theta^n |
190 |
- \Delta_t \nabla \cdot (h^n \, \theta^n \, \vec{\bf v}^{n+1}) |
191 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
192 |
|
193 |
The use of a 3 time-levels timestepping scheme such as the Adams-Bashforth |
194 |
make the conservation less straitforward. |
195 |
The current implementation with the Adams-Bashforth time-stepping |
196 |
provides an exact local conservation and prevents any drift in |
197 |
the global tracer content (\cite{campin:02}). |
198 |
Compared to the linear free-surface method, an additional step is required: |
199 |
the variation of the water column thickness (from $h^n$ to $h^{n+1}$) is |
200 |
not incorporated directly into the tracer equation. Instead, the |
201 |
model uses the $G_\theta$ terms (first step) as in the linear free |
202 |
surface formulation (with the "{\it surface correction}" turned "on", |
203 |
see tracer section): |
204 |
$$ |
205 |
G_\theta^n = \left(- \nabla \cdot (h^n \, \theta^n \, \vec{\bf v}^{n+1}) |
206 |
- \dot{r}_{surf}^{n+1} \theta^n \right) / h^n |
207 |
$$ |
208 |
Then, in a second step, the thickness variation (expansion/reduction) |
209 |
is taken into account: |
210 |
$$ |
211 |
\theta^{n+1} = \theta^n + \Delta_t \frac{h^n}{h^{n+1}} G_\theta^{(n+1/2)} |
212 |
$$ |
213 |
Note that with a simple forward time step (no Adams-Bashforth), |
214 |
since |
215 |
$ |
216 |
\dot{r}_{surf}^{n+1} |
217 |
= - \nabla \cdot (h^n \, \vec{\bf v}^{n+1} ) = (h^{n+1} - h^{n}) |
218 |
/ \Delta_t |
219 |
$ |
220 |
these two formulations are equivalent. |
221 |
|
222 |
Implementation in the MITgcm is as follows. The model ``geometry'' |
223 |
(here the {\bf hFacC,W,S}) is updated just before entering {\it |
224 |
SOLVE\_FOR\_PRESSURE}, using the current $\eta$ field. Then, at the |
225 |
end of the time step, the variables are advanced in time, so that |
226 |
$\eta^n$ replaces $\eta^{n-1}$. At the next time step, the tracer |
227 |
tendency ($G_\theta$) is computed using the same geometry, which is |
228 |
now consistent with $\eta^{n-1}$. Finally, in S/R {\it |
229 |
TIMESTEP\_TRACER}, the expansion/reduction ratio is applied to the |
230 |
surface level to compute the new tracer field. |
231 |
|
232 |
|
233 |
\subsubsection{Free surface effect on the surface level thickness |
234 |
(Non-linear free surface): Momentum advection} |
235 |
\label{sect:freesurf-momentum-advection} |
236 |
|
237 |
With the flux form formulation, advection of momentum |
238 |
can be treated exactly as the tracer advection is. |
239 |
Here the expansion/reduction factors ($hFacW^{n+1}/hFacW^n$ for $u$ |
240 |
and $hFacS^{n+1}/hFacS^n$ for $v$) are simply applied in the |
241 |
subroutine {\it TIMESTEP}. |
242 |
|
243 |
Regarding momentum advection, |
244 |
the vector invariant formulation is similar to the |
245 |
advective form (as opposed to the flux form) and therefore |
246 |
does not need specific modification to include the |
247 |
free surface effect on the surface level thickness. |
248 |
Updating the {\bf hFacC,W,S} and the {\bf recip\_hFac}(s) |
249 |
at one given place (like describe before) is sufficient. |
250 |
|
251 |
\subsubsection{Non-linear free surface and vertical resolution} |
252 |
\label{sect:nonlin-freesurf-dz_surf} |
253 |
|
254 |
When the amplitude of the free-surface variations becomes |
255 |
as large as the vertical resolution near the surface, |
256 |
the surface layer thickness can decrease to nearly zero or |
257 |
can even vanishe completly. |
258 |
This later possibility has not been implemented, and a |
259 |
minimum relative thickness is imposed ({\bf hFacInf}, |
260 |
parameter file {\em data}, namelist {\em PARM01}) to prevent |
261 |
numerical instabilities caused by very thin surface level. |
262 |
|
263 |
A better atlternative to the vanishing level problem has been |
264 |
found and implemented recently, and rely on a different |
265 |
vertical coordinate $r^*$~: |
266 |
The time variation ot the total column thickness becomes |
267 |
part of the r* coordinate motion, as in a $\sigma_{z},\sigma_{p}$ |
268 |
model, but the fixed part related to topography is treated |
269 |
as in a height or pressure coordinate model. |
270 |
A complete description is given in \cite{adcroft:04}. |
271 |
|
272 |
The time-stepping implementation of the $r^*$ coordinate is |
273 |
identical to the non-linear free-surface in $r$ coordinate, |
274 |
and differences appear only in the spacial discretisation. |
275 |
\marginpar{needs a subsection ref. here} |
276 |
|