Newer
Older
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
\documentclass[../main/NEMO_manual]{subfiles}
\begin{document}
\chapter{Ocean Tracers (TRA)}
\label{chap:TRA}
\chaptertoc
\paragraph{Changes record} ~\\
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{l||X|X}
Release & Author(s) & Modifications \\
\hline
{\em 4.0} & {\em Christian \'{E}th\'{e} } & {\em Review } \\
{\em 3.6} & {\em Gurvan Madec } & {\em Update } \\
{\em $\leq$ 3.4} & {\em Gurvan Madec and S\'{e}bastien Masson} & {\em First version} \\
\end{tabularx}
}
\clearpage
% missing/update
% traqsr: need to coordinate with SBC module
%STEVEN : is the use of the word "positive" to describe a scheme enough, or should it be "positive definite"?
%I added a comment to this effect on some instances of this below
Using the representation described in \autoref{chap:DOM}, several semi -discrete space forms of
the tracer equations are available depending on the vertical coordinate used and on the physics used.
In all the equations presented here, the masking has been omitted for simplicity.
One must be aware that all the quantities are masked fields and that
each time a mean or difference operator is used, the resulting field is multiplied by a mask.
The two active tracers are potential temperature and salinity.
Their prognostic equations can be summarized as follows:
\[
\text{NXT} = \text{ADV} + \text{LDF} + \text{ZDF} + \text{SBC}
+ \{\text{QSR}, \text{BBC}, \text{BBL}, \text{DMP}, \text{ISF}\}
\]
NXT stands for next, referring to the time-stepping.
From left to right, the terms on the rhs of the tracer equations are the advection (ADV),
the lateral diffusion (LDF), the vertical diffusion (ZDF),
the contributions from the external forcings (SBC: Surface Boundary Condition,
QSR: penetrative Solar Radiation, and BBC: Bottom Boundary Condition),
the contribution from the bottom boundary Layer (BBL) parametrisation, an internal damping (DMP) and
the contribution from the floating ice shelves (ISF) term.
The terms QSR, BBC, BBL, DMP and ISF are optional.
The external forcings and parameterisations require complex inputs and complex calculations
(\eg\ bulk formulae, estimation of mixing coefficients) that are carried out in the SBC,
LDF, ZDF and ISF modules and described in \autoref{chap:SBC}, \autoref{chap:LDF},
\autoref{chap:ZDF} and \autoref{chap:LIO}, respectively.
Note that \mdl{tranpc}, the non-penetrative convection module,
is located in the \path{./src/OCE/TRA} directory because it directly modifies the tracer fields.
However, it is described alongside the model's vertical physics (ZDF), together with other available
parameterizations of convection. Similarly, \mdl{tramle}, which implements the mixed-layer eddy parameterization,
and \mdl{traisf}, which handles ice-shelf fluxes, are also included in the \path{./src/OCE/TRA} directory
but are addressed in their respective contexts respectively (LDF) and (LIO).
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
In the present chapter we also describe the diagnostic equations used to
compute the sea-water properties (density, Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency, specific heat and
freezing point with associated modules \mdl{eosbn2} and \mdl{phycst}).
The different options available to the user are managed by namelist logicals.
For each equation term \textit{TTT}, the namelist logicals are \textit{ln\_traTTT\_xxx},
where \textit{xxx} is a 3 or 4 letter acronym corresponding to each optional scheme.
The equivalent code can be found in the \textit{traTTT} or \textit{traTTT\_xxx} module,
in the \path{./src/OCE/TRA} directory.
The user has the option of extracting each tendency term on the RHS of the tracer equation for output
(\np{ln_tra_trd}{ln\_tra\_trd} or \np[=.true.]{ln_tra_mxl}{ln\_tra\_mxl}),
as described in \autoref{chap:DIA}.
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Tracer advection (\textit{traadv.F90})]{Tracer advection (\protect\mdl{traadv})}
\label{sec:TRA_adv}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{namtra_adv}
\caption{\forcode{&namtra_adv}}
\label{lst:namtra_adv}
\end{listing}
When considered (\ie\ when \np{ln_traadv_OFF}{ln\_traadv\_OFF} is not set to \forcode{.true.}),
the advection tendency of a tracer is expressed in flux form,
\ie\ as the divergence of the advective fluxes.
Its discrete expression is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_adv}
ADV_\tau = - \frac{1}{b_t} \Big( \delta_i [ e_{2u} \, e_{3u} \; u \; \tau_u]
+ \delta_j [ e_{1v} \, e_{3v} \; v \; \tau_v] \Big)
- \frac{1}{e_{3t}} \delta_k [w \; \tau_w]
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is either T or S, and $b_t = e_{1t} \, e_{2t} \, e_{3t}$ is the volume of $T$-cells.
The flux form in \autoref{eq:TRA_adv} implicitly requires the use of the continuity equation.
Indeed, it is obtained by using the following equality:
$\nabla \cdot (\vect U \, T) = \vect U \cdot \nabla T$ which
results from the use of the continuity equation,
$\partial_t e_3 + e_3 \; \nabla \cdot \vect U = 0$
(which reduces to $\nabla \cdot \vect U = 0$ in linear free surface,
\ie\ \key{linssh} specified instead of \key{qco}).
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
Therefore it is of paramount importance to
design the discrete analogue of the advection tendency so that
it is consistent with the continuity equation in order to
enforce the conservation properties of the continuous equations.
In other words, by setting $\tau = 1$ in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv}) we recover
the discrete form of the continuity equation which is used to calculate the vertical velocity.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.66\textwidth]{TRA_adv_scheme}
\caption[Ways to evaluate the tracer value and the amount of tracer exchanged]{
Schematic representation of some ways used to evaluate the tracer value at $u$-point and
the amount of tracer exchanged between two neighbouring grid points.
Upsteam biased scheme (ups):
the upstream value is used and the black area is exchanged.
Piecewise parabolic method (ppm):
a parabolic interpolation is used and the black and dark grey areas are exchanged.
Monotonic upstream scheme for conservative laws (muscl):
a parabolic interpolation is used and black, dark grey and grey areas are exchanged.
Second order scheme (cen2):
the mean value is used and black, dark grey, grey and light grey areas are exchanged.
Note that this illustration does not include the flux limiter used in ppm and muscl schemes.}
\label{fig:TRA_adv_scheme}
\end{figure}
The key difference between the advection schemes available in \NEMO\ is the choice made in
space and time interpolation to define the value of the tracer at the velocity points
(\autoref{fig:TRA_adv_scheme}).
Along solid lateral and bottom boundaries a zero tracer flux is automatically specified,
since the normal velocity is zero there.
At the sea surface the boundary condition depends on the type of sea surface chosen:
\begin{description}
\item [linear free surface] (\key{linssh} specified)
the first level thickness is constant in time:
the vertical boundary condition is applied at the fixed surface $z = 0$ rather than
on the moving surface $z = \eta$.
There is a non-zero advective flux which is set for
all advection schemes as $\tau_w|_{k = 1/2} = T_{k = 1}$,
\ie\ the product of surface velocity (at $z = 0$) by the first level tracer value.
\item [non-linear free surface] (\key{qco} specified)
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
convergence/divergence in the first ocean level moves the free surface up/down.
There is no tracer advection through it so that
the advective fluxes through the surface are also zero.
\end{description}
In all cases, this boundary condition retains local conservation of tracer.
Global conservation is obtained in non-linear free surface case,
but \textit{not} in the linear free surface case.
Nevertheless, in the latter case,
it is achieved to a good approximation since the non-conservative term is
the product of the time derivative of the tracer and the free surface height,
two quantities that are not correlated
\citep{roullet.madec_JGR00, griffies.pacanowski.ea_MWR01, campin.adcroft.ea_OM04}.
The velocity field that appears in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv} is
the centred (\textit{now}) \textit{effective} ocean velocity, \ie\ the \textit{eulerian} velocity
(see \autoref{chap:DYN}) plus the eddy induced velocity (\textit{eiv}) and/or
the mixed layer eddy induced velocity (\textit{eiv}) when those parameterisations are used
(see \autoref{chap:LDF}).
Several tracer advection scheme are proposed,
namely a $2^{nd}$ or $4^{th}$ order \textbf{CEN}tred schemes (CEN),
a $2^{nd}$ or $4^{th}$ order \textbf{F}lux \textbf{C}orrected \textbf{T}ransport scheme (FCT),
a \textbf{M}onotone \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{S}cheme for
\textbf{C}onservative \textbf{L}aws scheme (MUSCL),
a $3^{rd}$ \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{B}iased \textbf{S}cheme (UBS, also often called UP3),
and a \textbf{Q}uadratic \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{I}nterpolation for
\textbf{C}onvective \textbf{K}inematics with
\textbf{E}stimated \textbf{S}treaming \textbf{T}erms scheme (QUICKEST).
The choice is made in the \nam{tra_adv}{tra\_adv} namelist,
by setting to \forcode{.true.} one of the logicals \textit{ln\_traadv\_xxx}.
The corresponding code can be found in the \textit{traadv\_xxx.F90} module,
where \textit{xxx} is a 3 or 4 letter acronym corresponding to each scheme.
By default (\ie\ in the reference namelist, \textit{namelist\_ref}),
all the logicals are set to \forcode{.false.}.
If the user does not select an advection scheme in the configuration namelist
(\textit{namelist\_cfg}), the tracers will \textit{not} be advected!
Details of the advection schemes are given below.
The choosing an advection scheme is a complex matter which depends on the
model physics, model resolution, type of tracer, as well as the issue of numerical cost.
In particular, we note that
\begin{enumerate}
\item CEN and FCT schemes require an explicit diffusion operator while
the other schemes are diffusive enough so that they do not necessarily need additional diffusion;
\item CEN and UBS are not \textit{positive} schemes \footnote{negative values can appear in
an initially strictly positive tracer field which is advected},
implying that false extrema are permitted.
Their use is not recommended on passive tracers;
\item It is recommended that the same advection-diffusion scheme is used on
both active and passive tracers.
\end{enumerate}
Indeed, if a source or sink of a passive tracer depends on an active one,
the difference of treatment of active and passive tracers can create
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
very nice-looking frontal structures that are pure numerical artefacts.
Nevertheless, most of our users set a different treatment on passive and active tracers,
that's the reason why this possibility is offered.
We strongly suggest them to perform a sensitivity experiment using a same treatment to
assess the robustness of their results.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[CEN: Centred scheme (\forcode{ln_traadv_cen})]{CEN: Centred scheme (\protect\np{ln_traadv_cen}{ln\_traadv\_cen})}
\label{subsec:TRA_adv_cen}
% 2nd order centred scheme
The \textbf{CEN}tred advection scheme (CEN) is used when \np[=.true.]{ln_traadv_cen}{ln\_traadv\_cen}.
Its order ($2^{nd}$ or $4^{th}$) can be chosen independently on
horizontal (iso-level) and vertical direction by
setting \np{nn_cen_h}{nn\_cen\_h} and \np{nn_cen_v}{nn\_cen\_v} to $2$ or $4$.
CEN implementation can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_cen} module.
In the $2^{nd}$ order centred formulation (CEN2), the tracer at velocity points is evaluated as
the mean of the two neighbouring $T$-point values.
For example, in the $i$-direction :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_adv_cen2}
\tau_u^{cen2} = \overline T ^{i + 1/2}
\end{equation}
CEN2 is non diffusive (\ie\ it conserves the tracer variance, $\tau^2$) but
dispersive (\ie\ it may create false extrema).
It is therefore notoriously noisy and must be used in conjunction with
an explicit diffusion operator to produce a sensible solution.
When the model is time-stepped using
a leapfrog scheme in conjunction with an Asselin time-filter,
$T$ in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_cen2}) is the \textit{now} tracer value.
In contrast, when the model employs an RK3 scheme,
$T$ in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_cen2}) refers to the \textit{before} tracer value
during the first stage,and the \textit{now} tracer value during the second and third stages.
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
Note that using the CEN2, the overall tracer advection is of second order accuracy since
both (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv}) and (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_cen2}) have this order of accuracy.
% 4nd order centred scheme
In the $4^{th}$ order formulation (CEN4),
tracer values are evaluated at u- and v-points as a $4^{th}$ order interpolation,
and thus depend on the four neighbouring $T$-points.
For example, in the $i$-direction:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_adv_cen4}
\tau_u^{cen4} = \overline{T - \frac{1}{6} \, \delta_i \Big[ \delta_{i + 1/2}[T] \, \Big]}^{\,i + 1/2}
\end{equation}
In the vertical direction (\np[=4]{nn_cen_v}{nn\_cen\_v}),
a $4^{th}$ COMPACT interpolation has been prefered \citep{demange_phd14}.
In the COMPACT scheme, both the field and its derivative are interpolated,
which leads, after a matrix inversion, spectral characteristics similar to schemes of higher order
\citep{lele_JCP92}.
Strictly speaking, the CEN4 scheme is not a $4^{th}$ order advection scheme but
a $4^{th}$ order evaluation of advective fluxes,
since the divergence of advective fluxes \autoref{eq:TRA_adv} is kept at $2^{nd}$ order.
The expression \textit{$4^{th}$ order scheme} used in oceanographic literature is
usually associated with the scheme presented here.
Introducing a ``true'' $4^{th}$ order advection scheme is feasible but, for consistency reasons,
it requires changes in the discretisation of the tracer advection together with
changes in the continuity equation, and the momentum advection and pressure terms.
A direct consequence of the pseudo-fourth order nature of the scheme is that it is not non-diffusive,
\ie\ the global variance of a tracer is not preserved using CEN4.
Furthermore, it must be used in conjunction with an explicit diffusion operator to
produce a sensible solution.
As in CEN2 case, when the model is time-stepped using
a leapfrog scheme in conjunction with an Asselin time-filter,
$T$ in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_cen4}) is the \textit{now} tracer value.
In contrast, when the model employs an RK3 scheme,
$T$ in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_cen4}) refers to the \textit{before} tracer value
during the first stage,and the \textit{now} tracer value during the second and third stages.
At a $T$-grid cell adjacent to a boundary (coastline, bottom and surface),
an additional hypothesis must be made to evaluate $\tau_u^{cen4}$.
This hypothesis usually reduces the order of the scheme.
Here we choose to set the gradient of $T$ across the boundary to zero.
Alternative conditions can be specified,
such as a reduction to a second order scheme for these near boundary grid points.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[FCT: Flux Corrected Transport scheme (\forcode{ln_traadv_fct})]{FCT: Flux Corrected Transport scheme (\protect\np{ln_traadv_fct}{ln\_traadv\_fct})}
\label{subsec:TRA_adv_tvd}
The \textbf{F}lux \textbf{C}orrected \textbf{T}ransport schemes (FCT) is used when
\np[=.true.]{ln_traadv_fct}{ln\_traadv\_fct}.
Its order ($2^{nd}$ or $4^{th}$) can be chosen independently on
horizontal (iso-level) and vertical direction by
setting \np{nn_fct_h}{nn\_fct\_h} and \np{nn_fct_v}{nn\_fct\_v} to $2$ or $4$.
FCT implementation can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_fct} module.
In FCT formulation, the tracer at velocity points is evaluated using
a combination of an upstream (UP1) and a centred scheme.
For example, in the $i$-direction :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_adv_fct}
\begin{split}
\begin{cases}
T_{i + 1} & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} < 0 \\
T_i & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} \geq 0 \\
\end{cases} \\
\tau_u^{fct} &= \tau_u^{up1} + c_u \, \big( \tau_u^{cen} - \tau_u^{up1} \big)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $c_u$ is a flux limiter function taking values between 0 and 1.
The FCT order is the one of the centred scheme used
(\ie\ it depends on the setting of \np{nn_fct_h}{nn\_fct\_h} and \np{nn_fct_v}{nn\_fct\_v}).
There exist many ways to define $c_u$, each corresponding to a different FCT scheme.
The one chosen in \NEMO\ is described in \citet{zalesak_JCP79}.
$c_u$ only departs from $1$ when the advective term produces a local extremum in the tracer field.
The resulting scheme is quite expensive but \textit{positive}.
It can be used on both active and passive tracers.
A comparison of FCT-2 with MUSCL and a MPDATA scheme can be found in \citet{levy.estublier.ea_GRL01}.
For stability reasons (see \autoref{chap:TD}),
$\tau_u^{cen}$ is evaluated in (\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_fct}) using the \textit{now} tracer while
$\tau_u^{up1}$ is evaluated using the \textit{before} tracer.
The FCT procedure is among the most computationally intensive components of the code.
Under RK3 time-stepping, it typically runs three times per cycle.
A practical optimization is to use a CEN algorithm to estimate tracer advective terms
during stages 1 and 2, reserving the full FCT procedure for stage 3.
The FCT involves integrating low-order advection and fluxes, which are then used to compute
corrective fluxes. These are obtained by subtracting low-order fluxes from high-order fluxes
and applying the nonoscillatory limiter routine. The resulting corrective flux divergence is
added to the right-hand side. To mitigate instabilities caused by low-order integration,
sub-stepping is applied.
Local implicit vertical advection (\np[=.true.]{ln_zad_Aimp}{ln\_zad\_Aimp}) is required
within the FCT scheme due to the low-order integration.
The process is optimized when \np[=1]{nn_fct_imp}{nn\_fct\_imp} and less efficient when
\np[=2]{nn_fct_imp}{nn\_fct\_imp}.
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[MUSCL: Monotone Upstream Scheme for Conservative Laws (\forcode{ln_traadv_mus})]{MUSCL: Monotone Upstream Scheme for Conservative Laws (\protect\np{ln_traadv_mus}{ln\_traadv\_mus})}
\label{subsec:TRA_adv_mus}
The \textbf{M}onotone \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{S}cheme for \textbf{C}onservative \textbf{L}aws
(MUSCL) is used when \np[=.true.]{ln_traadv_mus}{ln\_traadv\_mus}.
MUSCL implementation can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_mus} module.
MUSCL has been first implemented in \NEMO\ by \citet{levy.estublier.ea_GRL01}.
In its formulation, the tracer at velocity points is evaluated assuming
a linear tracer variation between two $T$-points (\autoref{fig:TRA_adv_scheme}).
For example, in the $i$-direction :
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_adv_mus}
\tau_u^{mus} = \lt\{
\begin{split}
\tau_i &+ \frac{1}{2} \lt( 1 - \frac{u_{i + 1/2} \, \rdt}{e_{1u}} \rt)
\widetilde{\partial_i \tau} & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} \geqslant 0 \\
\tau_{i + 1/2} &+ \frac{1}{2} \lt( 1 + \frac{u_{i + 1/2} \, \rdt}{e_{1u}} \rt)
\widetilde{\partial_{i + 1/2} \tau} & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} < 0
\end{split}
\rt.
\]
where $\widetilde{\partial_i \tau}$ is the slope of the tracer on which
a limitation is imposed to ensure the \textit{positive} character of the scheme.
The time stepping is performed using a forward scheme,
that is the \textit{before} tracer field is used to evaluate $\tau_u^{mus}$.
For an ocean grid point adjacent to land and where the ocean velocity is directed toward land,
an upstream flux is used.
This choice ensure the \textit{positive} character of the scheme.
In addition, fluxes round a grid-point where a runoff is applied can optionally be computed using
upstream fluxes (\np[=.true.]{ln_mus_ups}{ln\_mus\_ups}).
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[UBS a.k.a. UP3: Upstream-Biased Scheme (\forcode{ln_traadv_ubs})]{UBS a.k.a. UP3: Upstream-Biased Scheme (\protect\np{ln_traadv_ubs}{ln\_traadv\_ubs})}
\label{subsec:TRA_adv_ubs}
The \textbf{U}pstream-\textbf{B}iased \textbf{S}cheme (UBS) is used when
\np[=.true.]{ln_traadv_ubs}{ln\_traadv\_ubs}.
UBS implementation can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_ubs} module.
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
The UBS scheme, often called UP3, is also known as the Cell Averaged QUICK scheme
(\textbf{Q}uadratic \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{I}nterpolation for
\textbf{C}onvective \textbf{K}inematics).
It is an upstream-biased third order scheme based on an upstream-biased parabolic interpolation.
For example, in the $i$-direction:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_adv_ubs}
\tau_u^{ubs} = \overline T ^{i + 1/2} - \frac{1}{6}
\begin{cases}
\tau"_i & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} \geqslant 0 \\
\tau"_{i + 1} & \text{if~} u_{i + 1/2} < 0
\end{cases}
\quad \text{where~} \tau"_i = \delta_i \lt[ \delta_{i + 1/2} [\tau] \rt]
\end{equation}
This results in a dissipatively dominant (i.e. hyper-diffusive) truncation error
\citep{shchepetkin.mcwilliams_OM05}.
The overall performance of the advection scheme is similar to that reported in
\cite{farrow.stevens_JPO95}.
It is a relatively good compromise between accuracy and smoothness.
Nevertheless the scheme is not \textit{positive}, meaning that false extrema are permitted,
but the amplitude of such are significantly reduced over the centred second or fourth order method.
Therefore it is not recommended that it should be applied to
a passive tracer that requires positivity.
The intrinsic diffusion of UBS makes its use risky in the vertical direction where
the control of artificial diapycnal fluxes is of paramount importance
\citep{shchepetkin.mcwilliams_OM05, demange_phd14}.
Therefore the vertical flux is evaluated using either a $2^nd$ order FCT scheme or
a $4^th$ order COMPACT scheme (\np[=2 or 4]{nn_ubs_v}{nn\_ubs\_v}).
For stability reasons (see \autoref{chap:TD}),
the first term in \autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs} (which corresponds to a second order centred scheme)
is evaluated using the \textit{now} tracer (centred in time) while
the second term (which is the diffusive part of the scheme),
is evaluated using the \textit{before} tracer (forward in time).
This choice is discussed by \citet{webb.de-cuevas.ea_JAOT98} in
the context of the QUICK advection scheme.
UBS and QUICK schemes only differ by one coefficient.
Replacing 1/6 with 1/8 in \autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs} leads to the QUICK advection scheme
\citep{webb.de-cuevas.ea_JAOT98}.
This option is not available through a namelist parameter, since the 1/6 coefficient is hard coded.
Nevertheless it is quite easy to make the substitution in the \mdl{traadv\_ubs} module and
obtain a QUICK scheme.
Note that it is straightforward to rewrite \autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs} as follows:
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:TRA_adv_ubs2}
\tau_u^{ubs} = \tau_u^{cen4} + \frac{1}{12}
\begin{cases}
+ \tau"_i & \text{if} \ u_{i + 1/2} \geqslant 0 \\
- \tau"_{i + 1} & \text{if} \ u_{i + 1/2} < 0
\end{cases}
\intertext{or equivalently}
% \label{eq:TRA_adv_ubs2b}
u_{i + 1/2} \ \tau_u^{ubs} = u_{i + 1/2} \, \overline{T - \frac{1}{6} \, \delta_i \Big[ \delta_{i + 1/2}[T] \Big]}^{\,i + 1/2}
- \frac{1}{2} |u|_{i + 1/2} \, \frac{1}{6} \, \delta_{i + 1/2} [\tau"_i] \nonumber
\end{gather}
\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs2} has several advantages.
Firstly, it clearly reveals that the UBS scheme is based on the fourth order scheme to which
an upstream-biased diffusion term is added.
Secondly,
this emphasises that the $4^{th}$ order part (as well as the $2^{nd}$ order part as stated above) has to be evaluated at the \textit{now} time step using \autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs}.
Thirdly, the diffusion term is in fact a biharmonic operator with
an eddy coefficient which is simply proportional to the velocity:
$A_u^{lm} = \frac{1}{12} \, {e_{1u}}^3 \, |u|$.
Note the current version of \NEMO\ uses the computationally more efficient formulation
\autoref{eq:TRA_adv_ubs}.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[QCK: QuiCKest scheme (\forcode{ln_traadv_qck})]{QCK: QuiCKest scheme (\protect\np{ln_traadv_qck}{ln\_traadv\_qck})}
\label{subsec:TRA_adv_qck}
The \textbf{Q}uadratic \textbf{U}pstream \textbf{I}nterpolation for
\textbf{C}onvective \textbf{K}inematics with \textbf{E}stimated \textbf{S}treaming \textbf{T}erms
(QUICKEST) scheme proposed by \citet{leonard_CMAME79} is used when
\np[=.true.]{ln_traadv_qck}{ln\_traadv\_qck}.
QUICKEST implementation can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_qck} module.
QUICKEST is the third order Godunov scheme which is associated with the ULTIMATE QUICKEST limiter
\citep{leonard_CMAME91}.
It has been implemented in \NEMO\ by G. Reffray (Mercator Ocean) and
can be found in the \mdl{traadv\_qck} module.
The resulting scheme is quite expensive but \textit{positive}.
It can be used on both active and passive tracers.
However, the intrinsic diffusion of QCK makes its use risky in the vertical direction where
the control of artificial diapycnal fluxes is of paramount importance.
Therefore the vertical flux is evaluated using the CEN2 scheme.
This no longer guarantees the positivity of the scheme.
The use of FCT in the vertical direction (as for the UBS case) should be implemented to
restore this property.
\cmtgm{Cross term are missing in the current implementation....}
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Tracer lateral diffusion (\textit{traldf.F90})]{Tracer lateral diffusion (\protect\mdl{traldf})}
\label{sec:TRA_ldf}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{namtra_ldf}
\caption{\forcode{&namtra_ldf}}
\label{lst:namtra_ldf}
\end{listing}
The lateral diffusion operator for tracers models the physical process of horizontal mixing.
NEMO provides multiple options that can be combined to construct a lateral diffusion operator
suited to the advection scheme, resolution, and coordinate system of the experiment.
These options are defined in the \nam{tra_ldf}{tra\_ldf} namelist variables.
Choices for specifying the lateral diffusion operator includes :
(i) the operator type and scale which specifies the form of the operator and thus the spatial
scale at which it acts,
(ii) the direction of action which defines the orientation of the operator.
For rotated operators, additional options must be specified,
slope is computed in the \mdl{ldfslp} module (see \autoref{chap:LDF})
(iii) the eddy diffusivity structure, which control the temporal and
spatial distribution of eddy diffusivity (see \autoref{chap:LDF}).
These combinations allow users to construct a diffusion operator that aligns
with the specific requirements of their experiment.
The lateral diffusion of tracers is evaluated using a forward scheme,
\ie\ the tracers appearing in its expression are the \textit{before} tracers in time.
It is not true in case ot a rorated operator. In this case a vertical component that appears,
it is solved implicitly together with the vertical diffusion term
(see \autoref{chap:TD}).
When \np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_msc}{ln\_traldf\_msc},
a Method of Stabilizing Correction is used in which the pure vertical component is split into
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
an explicit and an implicit part \citep{lemarie.debreu.ea_OM12}.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Type of operator (\forcode{ln_traldf_}\{\forcode{OFF,lap,blp}\})]{Type of operator (\protect\np{ln_traldf_OFF}{ln\_traldf\_OFF}, \protect\np{ln_traldf_lap}{ln\_traldf\_lap}, or \protect\np{ln_traldf_blp}{ln\_traldf\_blp})}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_op}
Three operator options are proposed and, one and only one of them must be selected:
\begin{description}
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_OFF}{ln\_traldf\_OFF}}] no operator selected,
the lateral diffusive tendency will not be applied to the tracer equation.
This option can be used when the selected advection scheme is diffusive enough
(MUSCL scheme for example).
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_lap}{ln\_traldf\_lap}}] a laplacian operator is selected.
This harmonic operator takes the following expression:
$\mathcal{L}(T) = \nabla \cdot A_{ht} \; \nabla T $,
where the gradient operates along the selected direction (see \autoref{subsec:TRA_ldf_dir}),
and $A_{ht}$ is the eddy diffusivity coefficient expressed in $m^2/s$ (see \autoref{chap:LDF}).
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_blp}{ln\_traldf\_blp}}] a bilaplacian operator is selected.
This biharmonic operator takes the following expression:
$\mathcal{B} = - \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L}(T)) = - \nabla \cdot b \nabla (\nabla \cdot b \nabla T)$
where the gradient operats along the selected direction,
and $b^2 = B_{ht}$ is the eddy diffusivity coefficient expressed in $m^4/s$
(see \autoref{chap:LDF}).
In the code, the bilaplacian operator is obtained by calling the laplacian twice.
\end{description}
Both laplacian and bilaplacian operators ensure the total tracer variance decrease.
Their primary role is to provide strong dissipation at the smallest scale supported by the grid while
minimizing the impact on the larger scale features.
The main difference between the two operators is the scale selectiveness.
The bilaplacian damping time (\ie\ its spin down time) scales like
$\lambda^{-4}$ for disturbances of wavelength $\lambda$
(so that short waves damped more rapidelly than long ones),
whereas the laplacian damping time scales only like $\lambda^{-2}$.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Action direction (\forcode{ln_traldf_}\{\forcode{lev,hor,iso,triad}\})]{Direction of action (\protect\np{ln_traldf_lev}{ln\_traldf\_lev}, \protect\np{ln_traldf_hor}{ln\_traldf\_hor}, \protect\np{ln_traldf_iso}{ln\_traldf\_iso}, or \protect\np{ln_traldf_triad}{ln\_traldf\_triad})}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_dir}
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
\NEMO\ provides three primary approaches for simulating diffusion,
each influencing whether a rotation needs to be applied to the diffusion operator.
(see \autoref{fig:TRA_ldf_dir})
\begin{description}
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_lev}{ln\_traldf\_lev}}] :
the direction of action aligns with the vertical coordinate level and
there is no need for any rotation of the operator
(this is not recommended in \textit{s}-coordinate).
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_hor}{ln\_traldf\_hor}}] :
horizontal levels apprximates geopotential levels.
They do not necessarly align along the vertical coordinate levels.
In \textit{z}-coordinate (\np[=.true.]{ln_zco}{ln\_zco}) horizontal levels
align with z-levels. So no rotation is needed.
In \textit{s}-coordinate (\np[=.true.]{ln_sco}{ln\_sco}) horizontal levels
do not align with s-levels.
Therefore a rotation of the diffusion operator is required.
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_iso}{ln\_traldf\_iso}} or {\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_triad}{ln\_traldf\_triad}} ] :
diffusion follows isoneutral layers, which are often sloped relative to both
horizontal and models levels.
In this case the diffusion operator is always rotated.
\end{description}
The discrete forms of these operators are presented in the following two subsections.
They include one iso-level operator (\mdl{traldf\_lev}),
which requires no additional rotation beyond the natural one associated with the model levels,
and two rotated operators (\mdl{traldf\_iso} and \mdl{traldf\_triad}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{TRA_ldf_dir}
\caption[Combination of direction of action of diffusive operators and of the choice of vertical coordinate]{
Overview of the tracer diffusive operator selected (rotated (iso, triad) or non-rotated (lev)) based on
the vertical coordinate and the direction of action specified}
\label{fig:TRA_ldf_dir}
\end{figure}
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Iso-level (bi-)laplacian operator (\forcode{ln_traldf_iso})]{Iso-level (bi-)laplacian operator ( \protect\np{ln_traldf_iso}{ln\_traldf\_iso})}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_lev}
In z-coordinate with or without partial steps (\np[=.true.]{ln_zco}{ln\_zco}
or \np[=.true.]{ln_zps}{ln\_zps}), the iso-level diffusion operator
is also a horizontal operator (i.e.acting along geopotential surfaces).
Choices \np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_lev}{ln\_traldf\_lev}
and \np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_hor}{ln\_traldf\_hor} are thus equivalent.
While in s-coordinate (\np[=.true.]{ln_sco}{ln\_sco}),
it is simply an iso-level diffusion operator (\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_lev}{ln\_traldf\_lev}).
In both cases, it significantly contributes to diapycnal mixing.
It is therefore never recommended, even when using it in the bilaplacian case.
The laplacian diffusion operator acting along the model (\textit{i,j})-surfaces is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_ldf_lap}
D_t^{lT} = \frac{1}{b_t} \Bigg( \delta_{i} \lt[ A_u^{lT} \; \frac{e_{2u} \, e_{3u}}{e_{1u}} \; \delta_{i + 1/2} [T] \rt]
+ \delta_{j} \lt[ A_v^{lT} \; \frac{e_{1v} \, e_{3v}}{e_{2v}} \; \delta_{j + 1/2} [T] \rt] \Bigg)
\end{equation}
where $b_t = e_{1t} \, e_{2t} \, e_{3t}$ is the volume of $T$-cells and
where zero diffusive fluxes is assumed across solid boundaries,
first (and third in bilaplacian case) horizontal tracer derivative are masked.
The iso-level laplacian operator (\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_lap}{ln\_traldf\_lap})
is implemented in the \rou{tra\_ldf\_lap} subroutine found in the \mdl{traldf\_lev} module.
The module also contains \rou{tra\_ldf\_blp},
to compute the iso-level bilaplacian operator (\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_blp}{ln\_traldf\_blp}).
Note that in the partial step $z$-coordinate (\np[=.true.]{ln_zps}{ln\_zps}),
tracers in horizontally adjacent cells are located at different depths in the vicinity of the bottom.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection{Standard and triad (bi-)laplacian operator}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_iso_triad}
%% =================================================================================================
\subsubsection[Standard rotated (bi-)laplacian operator (\textit{traldf\_iso.F90})]{Standard rotated (bi-)laplacian operator (\protect\mdl{traldf\_iso})}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_iso}
This operator is used when \np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_iso}{ln\_traldf\_iso},
regardless of the chosen vertical coordinate, to ensure that diffusion is oriented
along isoneutral surfaces.
In s-coordinates (\np[=.true.]{ln_sco}{ln\_sco}), it is also applied when
a horizontal diffusion direction is specified (\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_hor}{ln\_traldf\_hor}).
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
The general form of the second order lateral tracer subgrid scale physics (\autoref{eq:MB_zdf})
takes the following semi-discrete space form in $z$- and $s$-coordinates:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_ldf_iso}
\begin{split}
D_T^{lT} = \frac{1}{b_t} \Bigg[ \quad &\delta_i A_u^{lT} \lt( \frac{e_{2u} e_{3u}}{e_{1u}} \, \delta_{i + 1/2} [T]
- e_{2u} r_{1u} \, \overline{\overline{\delta_{k + 1/2} [T]}}^{\,i + 1/2,k} \rt) \Bigg. \\
+ &\delta_j A_v^{lT} \lt( \frac{e_{1v} e_{3v}}{e_{2v}} \, \delta_{j + 1/2} [T]
- e_{1v} r_{2v} \, \overline{\overline{\delta_{k + 1/2} [T]}}^{\,j + 1/2,k} \rt) \\
+ &\delta_k A_w^{lT} \lt( \frac{e_{1w} e_{2w}}{e_{3w}} (r_{1w}^2 + r_{2w}^2) \, \delta_{k + 1/2} [T] \rt. \\
& \qquad \quad \Bigg. \lt. - e_{2w} r_{1w} \, \overline{\overline{\delta_{i + 1/2} [T]}}^{\,i,k + 1/2}
- e_{1w} r_{2w} \, \overline{\overline{\delta_{j + 1/2} [T]}}^{\,j,k + 1/2} \rt) \Bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $b_t = e_{1t} \, e_{2t} \, e_{3t}$ is the volume of $T$-cells,
$r_1$ and $r_2$ are the slopes between the surface of computation ($z$- or $s$-surfaces) and
the surface along which the diffusion operator acts (\ie\ horizontal or iso-neutral surfaces).
The way these slopes are evaluated is given in \autoref{sec:LDF_slp}.
At the surface, bottom and lateral boundaries,
the turbulent fluxes of heat and salt are set to zero using the mask technique
(see \autoref{sec:LBC_coast}).
The operator in \autoref{eq:TRA_ldf_iso} involves both lateral and vertical derivatives.
For numerical stability, the vertical second derivative must be solved using
the same implicit time scheme as that used in the vertical physics (see \autoref{sec:TRA_zdf}).
For computer efficiency reasons, this term is not computed in the \mdl{traldf\_iso} module,
but in the \mdl{trazdf} module where, if iso-neutral mixing is used,
the vertical mixing coefficient is simply increased by
$\frac{e_{1w} e_{2w}}{e_{3w}}(r_{1w}^2 + r_{2w}^2)$.
This formulation conserves the tracer but does not ensure the decrease of the tracer variance.
Nevertheless the treatment performed on the slopes (see \autoref{chap:LDF}) allows the model to
run safely without any additional background horizontal diffusion \citep{guilyardi.madec.ea_CD01}.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsubsection[Triad rotated (bi-)laplacian operator (\forcode{ln_traldf_triad})]{Triad rotated (bi-)laplacian operator (\protect\np{ln_traldf_triad}{ln\_traldf\_triad})}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_triad}
An alternative scheme developed by \cite{griffies.gnanadesikan.ea_JPO98} which
ensures tracer variance decreases is also available in \NEMO\
(\np[=.true.]{ln_traldf_triad}{ln\_traldf\_triad}).
A complete description of the algorithm is given in \autoref{apdx:TRIADS}.
The lateral fourth order bilaplacian operator on tracers is obtained by
applying (\autoref{eq:TRA_ldf_lap}) twice.
The operator requires an additional assumption on boundary conditions:
both first and third derivative terms normal to the coast are set to zero.
The lateral fourth order operator formulation on tracers is obtained by
applying (\autoref{eq:TRA_ldf_iso}) twice.
It requires an additional assumption on boundary conditions:
first and third derivative terms normal to the coast,
normal to the bottom and normal to the surface are set to zero.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsubsection{Option for the rotated operators}
\label{subsec:TRA_ldf_options}
\begin{labeling}{{\np{ln_botmix_triad}{ln\_botmix\_triad}}}
\item [{\np{ln_traldf_msc}{ln\_traldf\_msc} }] Method of Stabilizing Correction (both operators)
\item [{\np{rn_slpmax}{rn\_slpmax} }] Slope limit (both operators)
\item [{\np{ln_triad_iso}{ln\_triad\_iso} }] Pure horizontal mixing in ML (triad only)
\item [{\np{rn_sw_triad}{rn\_sw\_triad} }] \forcode{=1} switching triad;
\forcode{= 0} all 4 triads used (triad only)
\item [{\np{ln_botmix_triad}{ln\_botmix\_triad}}] Lateral mixing on bottom (triad only)
\end{labeling}
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Tracer vertical diffusion (\textit{trazdf.F90})]{Tracer vertical diffusion (\protect\mdl{trazdf})}
\label{sec:TRA_zdf}
Options are defined through the \nam{zdf}{zdf} namelist variables.
The formulation of the vertical subgrid scale tracer physics is the same for
all the vertical coordinates, and is based on a laplacian operator.
The vertical diffusion operator given by (\autoref{eq:MB_zdf}) takes
the following semi-discrete space form:
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_zdf}
D^{vT}_T = \frac{1}{e_{3t}} \, \delta_k \lt[ \, \frac{A^{vT}_w}{e_{3w}} \delta_{k + 1/2}[T] \, \rt] \quad
D^{vS}_T = \frac{1}{e_{3t}} \; \delta_k \lt[ \, \frac{A^{vS}_w}{e_{3w}} \delta_{k + 1/2}[S] \, \rt]
\]
where $A_w^{vT}$ and $A_w^{vS}$ are the vertical eddy diffusivity coefficients on
temperature and salinity, respectively.
Generally, $A_w^{vT} = A_w^{vS}$ except when double diffusive mixing is parameterised
(\ie\ \np[=.true.]{ln_zdfddm}{ln\_zdfddm}) or when differential mixing is activated in the parameterization of internal wave-driven mixing (\ie\ \np[=.true.]{ln_tsdiff}{ln\_tsdiff}).
The way these coefficients are evaluated is given in \autoref{chap:ZDF} (ZDF).
Furthermore, when iso-neutral mixing is used,
both mixing coefficients are increased by $\frac{e_{1w} e_{2w}}{e_{3w} }({r_{1w}^2 + r_{2w}^2})$ to
account for the vertical second derivative of \autoref{eq:TRA_ldf_iso}.
At the surface and bottom boundaries, the turbulent fluxes of heat and salt must be specified.
At the surface they are prescribed from the surface forcing and added in a dedicated routine
(see \autoref{subsec:TRA_sbc}), whilst at the bottom they are set to zero for heat and salt unless
a geothermal flux forcing is prescribed as a bottom boundary condition (see \autoref{subsec:TRA_bbc}).
The large eddy coefficient found in the mixed layer together with high vertical resolution implies
that there would be too restrictive constraint on the time step if we use explicit time stepping.
Therefore an implicit time stepping is preferred for the vertical diffusion since
it overcomes the stability constraint.
Because the vertical mixing is always solved implicitly, the update of the tracer fields described in \autoref{eq:TRA_nxt} is done in \mdl{trazdf} module.
%% =================================================================================================
\section{External forcing}
\label{sec:TRA_sbc_qsr_bbc}
Changes in the heat and salt content of the ocean's surface layer result from
water mass exchanges between the ocean and the atmosphere, land surfaces, icebergs
or sea ice (\mdl{trasbc}).
Runoff related fluxes are distributed vertically.
The assimilation module integrates the ocean model with observational data.
When activated, it is necessary to correct from the concentration and dilution
effects associated with variations in sea surface height.
Changes due to water mass exchanges between the ocean and ice-shelves
are managed in \mdl{traisf}.
Additionally, there is the solar flux, which requires special treatment
as it penetrates deeper into the ocean,
necessitating the vertical distribution of the associated heat content (\mdl{traqsr}).
\NEMO\ can also account for heating caused by geothermal flux (\mdl{trabbl})
across the seafloor.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Surface boundary condition (\textit{trasbc.F90})]{Surface boundary condition (\protect\mdl{trasbc})}
\label{subsec:TRA_sbc}
The surface boundary condition for tracers is implemented in a separate module (\mdl{trasbc}) instead of
entering as a boundary condition on the vertical diffusion operator (as in the case of momentum).
This has been found to enhance readability of the code.
The two formulations are completely equivalent;
the forcing terms in trasbc are the surface fluxes divided by the thickness of the top model layer.
Changes in heat content and salt content associated with surface mass fluxes are linked
to exchanges with the atmosphere (\textit{emp}) and sea ice (freezing, melting, ridging, etc.).
These are exclusively accounted for in the non-solar surface flux ($Q_{ns}$) for heat content
and in the surface salt flux (\textit{sfx}) for salt content (see \autoref{chap:SBC} for further details).
This help since the forcing formulation is the same for any tracer (including temperature and salinity).
When (\np[=.false.]{ln_traqsr}{ln\_traqsr}), the solar flux is not distributed over the surface
and is simply added to the non-solar flux.
Changes in heat content and salt content associated with runoff (\textit{rnf}) when \np[=.true.]{ln_rnf}{ln\_rnf}
are distributed vertically, requiring specific treatment, and are therefore handled separately.
The surface module (\mdl{sbcmod}, see \autoref{chap:SBC}) provides the following forcing fields
(used on tracers):
\item [$Q_{ns}$] The non-solar part of the net surface heat flux that crosses the sea surface
(\ie\ the difference between the total surface heat flux and
the fraction of the short wave flux that penetrates into the water column,
see \autoref{subsec:TRA_qsr})
plus the heat content associated with of the mass exchange with the atmosphere and lands.
\item [\textit{sfx}] The salt flux resulting from ice-ocean mass exchange
(freezing, melting, ridging...)
\item [\textit{emp}] The mass flux exchanged with the atmosphere (evaporation minus precipitation) and
possibly with the sea-ice and icebergs.
\item [\textit{rnf}] The mass flux associated with runoff
(see \autoref{sec:SBC_rnf} for further detail of how it acts on temperature and salinity tendencies)
\end{labeling}
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent In an \textbf{RK3 environment}, the first two stages focus solely on
estimating advection, Coriolis, and pressure gradient terms.
The absence of vertical diffusion terms during these initial integrations justifies
the exclusion of salt and heat forcing. Indeed, it saves two calls of \rou{traqsr}
which is computationally expensive.
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
However, for compatibility with the continuity equation, it is necessary to account
for mass flux forcing (\textit{emp}) at the surface.
This change of mass at the first level should not impact the salt and temperature,
so the first level must be corrected from concentration and dilution effects.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_sbc_12}
F^T_{kstg = 1,2} = - \frac{\textit{emp}}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} \lt. T \rt|_{k = 1} \qquad
F^S_{kstg = 1,2} = - \frac{\textit{emp}}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} \lt. S \rt|_{k = 1}
\end{equation}
\noindent At the last stage, the surface boundary condition on temperature and salinity is applied as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_sbc_3}
F^T_{kstg = 3} = \frac{1}{C_p} \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} Q_{ns} \qquad
F^S_{kstg = 3} = \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} \textit{sfx}
\end{equation}
\noindent In the linear free surface case (\key{linssh}),
an additional terms correct both temperature and salinity at the third stage only.
On temperature, this term remove the heat content associated with
mass exchange that has been added to $Q_{ns}$.
On salinity, this term mimics the concentration/dilution effect that would have resulted from
a change in the volume of the first level.
As \textit{emp} includes all the mass fluxes, resulting surface boundary condition is applied as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_sbc_lin_3}
F^T_{kstg = 3} = \frac{1}{C_p} \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}}
(Q_{ns} + C_p \, \textit{emp} \lt. T \rt|_{k = 1}) \qquad
F^S_{kstg = 3} = \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}}
(\textit{sfx} + \textit{emp} \lt. S \rt|_{k = 1})
\end{equation}
Note that an exact conservation of heat and salt content is only achieved with
non-linear free surface.
In the linear free surface case, there is a small imbalance.
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent In a \textbf{leapfrog environment},
the surface boundary condition on temperature and salinity is applied as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_sbc}
F^T = \frac{1}{C_p} \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} \overline{Q_{ns} }^t \qquad
F^S = \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}} \overline{\textit{sfx}}^t
\end{equation}
where $\overline x^t$ means that $x$ is averaged over two consecutive time steps
($t - \rdt / 2$ and $t + \rdt / 2$).
Such time averaging prevents the divergence of odd and even time step (see \autoref{chap:TD}).
In the linear free surface case (\key{linssh}),
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
an additional term has to be added on both temperature and salinity.
On temperature, this term remove the heat content associated with
mass exchange that has been added to $Q_{ns}$.
On salinity, this term mimics the concentration/dilution effect that would have resulted from
a change in the volume of the first level.
The resulting surface boundary condition is applied as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_sbc_lin}
F^T = \frac{1}{C_p} \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}}
\overline{(Q_{ns} - C_p \, \textit{emp} \lt. T \rt|_{k = 1})}^t \qquad
F^S = \frac{1}{\rho_o \lt. e_{3t} \rt|_{k = 1}}
\overline{(\textit{sfx} - \textit{emp} \lt. S \rt|_{k = 1})}^t
\end{equation}
Note that an exact conservation of heat and salt content is only achieved with
non-linear free surface.
In the linear free surface case, there is a small imbalance.
The imbalance is larger than the imbalance associated with the Asselin time filter
\citep{leclair.madec_OM09}.
This is the reason why the modified filter is not applied in the linear free surface case
(see \autoref{chap:TD}).
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Solar radiation penetration (\textit{traqsr.F90})]{Solar radiation penetration (\protect\mdl{traqsr})}
\label{subsec:TRA_qsr}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{namtra_qsr}
\caption{\forcode{&namtra_qsr}}
\label{lst:namtra_qsr}
\end{listing}
Options are defined through the \nam{tra_qsr}{tra\_qsr} namelist variables.
When the penetrative solar radiation option is used (\np[=.true.]{ln_traqsr}{ln\_traqsr}),
the solar radiation penetrates the top few tens of meters of the ocean.
If it is not used (\np[=.false.]{ln_traqsr}{ln\_traqsr}) all the heat flux is absorbed in
the first ocean level.
Thus, in the former case a term is added to the time evolution equation of temperature
\autoref{eq:MB_PE_tra_T} and the surface boundary condition is modified to
take into account only the non-penetrative part of the surface heat flux:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_PE_qsr}
\begin{gathered}
\pd[T]{t} = \ldots + \frac{1}{\rho_o \, C_p \, e_3} \; \pd[I]{k} \\
Q_{ns} = Q_\text{Total} - Q_{sr}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $Q_{sr}$ is the penetrative part of the surface heat flux (\ie\ the shortwave radiation) and
$I$ is the downward irradiance ($\lt. I \rt|_{z = \eta} = Q_{sr}$).
The additional term in \autoref{eq:TRA_PE_qsr} is discretized as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_qsr}
\frac{1}{\rho_o \, C_p \, e_3} \, \pd[I]{k} \equiv \frac{1}{\rho_o \, C_p \, e_{3t}} \delta_k [I_w]
\end{equation}
The shortwave radiation, $Q_{sr}$, consists of energy distributed across a wide spectral range.
The ocean is strongly absorbing for wavelengths longer than 700 $nm$ and
these wavelengths contribute to heat the upper few tens of centimetres.
The fraction of $Q_{sr}$ that resides in these almost non-penetrative wavebands, $R$, is $\sim$ 58\%
(specified through namelist parameter \np{rn_abs}{rn\_abs}).
It is assumed to penetrate the ocean with a decreasing exponential profile,
with an e-folding depth scale, $\xi_0$, of a few tens of centimetres
(typically $\xi_0 = 0.35~m$ set as \np{rn_si0}{rn\_si0} in the \nam{tra_qsr}{tra\_qsr} namelist).
For shorter wavelengths (400-700 $nm$), the ocean is more transparent,
and solar energy propagates to larger depths where it contributes to local heating.
The way this second part of the solar energy penetrates into
the ocean depends on which formulation is chosen.
In the simple 2-waveband light penetration scheme (\np[=.true.]{ln_qsr_2bd}{ln\_qsr\_2bd})
a chlorophyll-independent monochromatic formulation is chosen for the shorter wavelengths,
leading to the following expression \citep{paulson.simpson_JPO77}:
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_qsr_iradiance}
I(z) = Q_{sr} \lt[ Re^{- z / \xi_0} + (1 - R) e^{- z / \xi_1} \rt]
\]
where $\xi_1$ is the second extinction length scale associated with the shorter wavelengths.
It is usually chosen to be 23~m by setting the \np{rn_si0}{rn\_si0} namelist parameter.
The set of default values ($\xi_0, \xi_1, R$) corresponds to
a Type I water in Jerlov's (1968) classification (oligotrophic waters).
Such assumptions have been shown to provide a very crude and simplistic representation of
observed light penetration profiles (\cite{morel_JGR88}, see also \autoref{fig:TRA_qsr_irradiance}).
Light absorption in the ocean depends on particle concentration and is spectrally selective.
\cite{morel_JGR88} has shown that an accurate representation of light penetration can be provided by
a 61 waveband formulation.
Unfortunately, such a model is very computationally expensive.
Thus, \cite{lengaigne.menkes.ea_CD07} have constructed a simplified version of
this formulation in which visible light is split into three wavebands:
blue (400-500 $nm$), green (500-600 $nm$) and red (600-700 $nm$).
For each wave-band, the chlorophyll-dependent attenuation coefficient is fitted to
the coefficients computed from the full spectral model of \cite{morel_JGR88}
(as modified by \cite{morel.maritorena_JGR01}), assuming the same power-law relationship.
As shown in \autoref{fig:TRA_qsr_irradiance}, this formulation,
called RGB (\textbf{R}ed-\textbf{G}reen-\textbf{B}lue),
reproduces quite closely the light penetration profiles predicted by the full spectal model,
but with much greater computational efficiency.
The 2-bands formulation does not reproduce the full model very well.
The RGB formulation is used when \np[=.true.]{ln_qsr_rgb}{ln\_qsr\_rgb}.
The RGB attenuation coefficients (\ie\ the inverses of the extinction length scales) are
tabulated over 61 nonuniform chlorophyll classes ranging from 0.01 to 10 $g.Chl/L$
(see the routine \rou{trc\_oce\_rgb} in \mdl{trc\_oce} module).
Four types of chlorophyll can be chosen in the RGB formulation:
\begin{description}
\item [{\np[=0]{nn_chldta}{nn\_chldta}}] a constant 0.05 $g.Chl/L$ value everywhere;
\item [{\np[=1]{nn_chldta}{nn\_chldta}}] an observed time varying chlorophyll deduced from
satellite surface ocean color measurement spread uniformly in the vertical direction;
\item [{\np[=2]{nn_chldta}{nn\_chldta}}] same as previous case except that
a vertical profile of chlorophyl is used.
Following \cite{morel.berthon_LO89},
the profile is computed from the local surface chlorophyll value;
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_qsr_bio}{ln\_qsr\_bio}}] simulated time varying chlorophyll by
\TOP\ biogeochemical model.
In this case, the RGB formulation is used to calculate both
the phytoplankton light limitation in \PISCES\ and the oceanic heating rate.
\end{description}
A new 5-bands scheme is also available (\np[=.true.]{ln_qsr_5bd}{ln\_qsr\_5bd}).
It is an extension of the RGB scheme by adding a fifth ultra-violet component (UV) to the 4 other wavebands.
As for the RGB scheme, the UV waveband follows the same power-law as described in \cite{morel_JGR88} and \cite{morel.maritorena_JGR01}.
The chlorophyll-dependent attenuation coefficients are also derived from these articles.
The proportion of each band is set up in the namelist by using \np{rn_abs}{rn\_abs} to define the near-infrared proportion and
\np{rn_par}{rn\_par} to define the visible proportion. The UV proportion is then simply determined by $1 - rn\_abs - rn\_par$.
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
The trend in \autoref{eq:TRA_qsr} associated with the penetration of the solar radiation is added to
the temperature trend, and the surface heat flux is modified in routine \mdl{traqsr}.
When the $z$-coordinate is preferred to the $s$-coordinate,
the depth of $w-$levels does not significantly vary with location.
The level at which the light has been totally absorbed
(\ie\ it is less than the computer precision) is computed once,
and the trend associated with the penetration of the solar radiation is only added down to that level.
Finally, note that when the ocean is shallow ($<$ 200~m),
part of the solar radiation can reach the ocean floor.
In this case, we have chosen that all remaining radiation is absorbed in the last ocean level
(\ie\ $I$ is masked).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.66\textwidth]{TRA_Irradiance}
\caption[Penetration profile of the downward solar irradiance calculated by four models]{
Penetration profile of the downward solar irradiance calculated by four models.
Two waveband chlorophyll-independent formulation (blue),
a chlorophyll-dependent monochromatic formulation (green),
4 waveband RGB formulation (red),
61 waveband Morel (1988) formulation (black) for a chlorophyll concentration of
(a) Chl=0.05 $mg/m^3$ and (b) Chl=0.5 $mg/m^3$.
From \citet{lengaigne.menkes.ea_CD07}.}
\label{fig:TRA_qsr_irradiance}
\end{figure}
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Bottom boundary condition (\textit{trabbc.F90}) - \forcode{ln_trabbc})]{Bottom boundary condition (\protect\mdl{trabbc} - \protect\np{ln_trabbc}{ln\_trabbc})}
\label{subsec:TRA_bbc}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{nambbc}
\caption{\forcode{&nambbc}}
\label{lst:nambbc}
\end{listing}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.66\textwidth]{TRA_geoth}
\caption[Geothermal heat flux]{
Geothermal heat flux (in mW m$^{-2}$) estimated by \cite{lucazeau_GGG19}.}
\label{fig:TRA_geothermal}
\end{figure}
Usually, it is assumed that there is no heat or salt exchange across the ocean floor,
\ie\ a no-flux boundary condition is applied to active tracers on the ocean floor.
This is the default option in \NEMO, which is implemented using the masking technique.
Nevertheless, there is a non-zero heat flux from the seabed associated with solid earth cooling.
This flux is small compared with surface fluxes (the global mean value is thought to be close to 0.1 W m$^{-2}$ \citep{stein.stein_N92}),
but it continuously warms the ocean and acts on the densest water masses. Including this flux
in a global ocean model can increase the deepest overturning cell
(\ie\ the one associated with the Antarctic Bottom Water) by
a few Sverdrups \citep{emile-geay.madec_OS09}. It should be recalled that including geothermal heating also implies a persistent heat flux out of the surface ocean (and ultimately through the top-of-atmosphere), even at steady state. The net heat flux out of the ocean induced by geothermal forcing is focused in the Southern Ocean, where Antarctic Bottom Water is ultimately upwelled.
The options for this heat exchange at the bottom of the ocean are defined in section \nam{bbc}{bbc}.
The presence of geothermal heating is controlled by
setting the namelist parameter \np{ln_trabbc}{ln\_trabbc} to true.
When \np{nn_geoflx}{nn\_geoflx} is set to 1, a constant geothermal heating is applied,
the value of which is given by the namelist parameter \np{rn_geoflx_cst}{rn\_geoflx\_cst}.
When \np{nn_geoflx}{nn\_geoflx} is set to 2,
a spatially varying geothermal heat flux is applied,
provided by a NetCDF file whose name is defined in the namelist section \nam{bbc}{bbc}. It is recommended to use the state-of-the-art estimate of geothermal heat fluxes by \cite{lucazeau_GGG19}, available on NEMO global grids at https://doi.org/10.17882/103233. This estimate is illustrated in
\autoref{fig:TRA_geothermal}; the global mean ocean value is 85 mW m$^{-2}$ and the globally integrated flux is 31 TW.
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Bottom boundary layer (\textit{trabbl.F90} - \forcode{ln_trabbl})]{Bottom boundary layer (\protect\mdl{trabbl} - \protect\np{ln_trabbl}{ln\_trabbl})}
\label{sec:TRA_bbl}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{nambbl}
\caption{\forcode{&nambbl}}
\label{lst:nambbl}
\end{listing}
Options are defined through the \nam{bbl}{bbl} namelist variables.
In a $z$-coordinate configuration, the bottom topography is represented by a series of discrete steps.
This is not adequate to represent gravity driven downslope flows.
Such flows arise either downstream of sills such as the Strait of Gibraltar or Denmark Strait,
where dense water formed in marginal seas flows into a basin filled with less dense water,
or along the continental slope when dense water masses are formed on a continental shelf.
The amount of entrainment that occurs in these gravity plumes is critical in
determining the density and volume flux of the densest waters of the ocean,
such as Antarctic Bottom Water, or North Atlantic Deep Water.
$z$-coordinate models tend to overestimate the entrainment,
because the gravity flow is mixed vertically by convection as
it goes ''downstairs'' following the step topography,
sometimes over a thickness much larger than the thickness of the observed gravity plume.
A similar problem occurs in the $s$-coordinate when
the thickness of the bottom level varies rapidly downstream of a sill
\citep{willebrand.barnier.ea_PO01}, and the thickness of the plume is not resolved.
The idea of the bottom boundary layer (BBL) parameterisation, first introduced by
\citet{beckmann.doscher_JPO97},
is to allow a direct communication between two adjacent bottom cells at different levels,
whenever the densest water is located above the less dense water.
The communication can be by a diffusive flux (diffusive BBL),
an advective flux (advective BBL), or both.
In the current implementation of the BBL, only the tracers are modified, not the velocities.
Furthermore, it only connects ocean bottom cells,
and therefore does not include all the improvements introduced by \citet{campin.goosse_T99}.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Diffusive bottom boundary layer (\forcode{nn_bbl_ldf=1})]{Diffusive bottom boundary layer (\protect\np[=1]{nn_bbl_ldf}{nn\_bbl\_ldf})}
\label{subsec:TRA_bbl_diff}
When applying sigma-diffusion
(\np[=.true.]{ln_trabbl}{ln\_trabbl} and \np{nn_bbl_ldf}{nn\_bbl\_ldf} set to 1),
the diffusive flux between two adjacent cells at the ocean floor is given by
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_bbl_diff}
\vect F_\sigma = A_l^\sigma \, \nabla_\sigma T
\]
with $\nabla_\sigma$ the lateral gradient operator taken between bottom cells,
and $A_l^\sigma$ the lateral diffusivity in the BBL.
Following \citet{beckmann.doscher_JPO97}, the latter is prescribed with a spatial dependence,
\ie\ in the conditional form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_bbl_coef}
A_l^\sigma (i,j,t) =
\begin{cases}
A_{bbl} & \text{if~} \nabla_\sigma \rho \cdot \nabla H < 0 \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $A_{bbl}$ is the BBL diffusivity coefficient,
given by the namelist parameter \np{rn_ahtbbl}{rn\_ahtbbl} and
usually set to a value much larger than the one used for lateral mixing in the open ocean.
The constraint in \autoref{eq:TRA_bbl_coef} implies that sigma-like diffusion only occurs when
the density above the sea floor, at the top of the slope, is larger than in the deeper ocean
(see green arrow in \autoref{fig:TRA_bbl}).
In practice, this constraint is applied separately in the two horizontal directions,
and the density gradient in \autoref{eq:TRA_bbl_coef} is evaluated with the log gradient formulation:
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_bbl_Drho}
\nabla_\sigma \rho / \rho = \alpha \, \nabla_\sigma T + \beta \, \nabla_\sigma S
\]
where $\rho$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of
$\overline T^\sigma$, $\overline S^\sigma$ and $\overline H^\sigma$,
the along bottom mean temperature, salinity and depth, respectively.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Advective bottom boundary layer (\forcode{nn_bbl_adv=1,2})]{Advective bottom boundary layer (\protect\np[=1,2]{nn_bbl_adv}{nn\_bbl\_adv})}
\label{subsec:TRA_bbl_adv}
%\sgacomment{
% "downsloping flow" has been replaced by "downslope flow" in the following
% if this is not what is meant then "downwards sloping flow" is also a possibility"
%}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{TRA_BBL_adv}
\caption[Advective/diffusive bottom boundary layer]{
Advective/diffusive Bottom Boundary Layer.
The BBL parameterisation is activated when $\rho^i_{kup}$ is larger than $\rho^{i + 1}_{kdnw}$.
Red arrows indicate the additional overturning circulation due to the advective BBL.
The transport of the downslope flow is defined either
as the transport of the bottom ocean cell (black arrow),
or as a function of the along slope density gradient.
The green arrow indicates the diffusive BBL flux directly connecting
$kup$ and $kdwn$ ocean bottom cells.}
\label{fig:TRA_bbl}
\end{figure}
%!! nn_bbl_adv = 1 use of the ocean velocity as bbl velocity
%!! nn_bbl_adv = 2 follow Campin and Goosse (1999) implentation
%!! i.e. transport proportional to the along-slope density gradient
\cmtgm{This section has to be really written}
When applying an advective BBL (\np[=1..2]{nn_bbl_adv}{nn\_bbl\_adv}),
an overturning circulation is added which connects two adjacent bottom grid-points only if
dense water overlies less dense water on the slope.
The density difference causes dense water to move down the slope.
\begin{description}
\item [{\np[=1]{nn_bbl_adv}{nn\_bbl\_adv}}] the downslope velocity is chosen to
be the Eulerian ocean velocity just above the topographic step
(see black arrow in \autoref{fig:TRA_bbl}) \citep{beckmann.doscher_JPO97}.
It is a \textit{conditional advection}, that is,
advection is allowed only if dense water overlies less dense water on the slope
(\ie\ $\nabla_\sigma \rho \cdot \nabla H < 0$) and if the velocity is directed towards greater depth
(\ie\ $\vect U \cdot \nabla H > 0$).
\item [{\np[=2]{nn_bbl_adv}{nn\_bbl\_adv}}] the downslope velocity is chosen to be proportional to
$\Delta \rho$, the density difference between the higher cell and lower cell densities
\citep{campin.goosse_T99}.
The advection is allowed only if dense water overlies less dense water on the slope
(\ie\ $\nabla_\sigma \rho \cdot \nabla H < 0$).
For example, the resulting transport of the downslope flow, here in the $i$-direction
(\autoref{fig:TRA_bbl}), is simply given by the following expression:
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_bbl_Utr}
u^{tr}_{bbl} = \gamma g \frac{\Delta \rho}{\rho_o} e_{1u} \, min ({e_{3u}}_{kup},{e_{3u}}_{kdwn})
\]
where $\gamma$, expressed in seconds, is the coefficient of proportionality provided as
\np{rn_gambbl}{rn\_gambbl}, a namelist parameter, and
\textit{kup} and \textit{kdwn} are the vertical index of the higher and lower cells, respectively.
The parameter $\gamma$ should take a different value for each bathymetric step, but for simplicity,
and because no direct estimation of this parameter is available, a uniform value has been assumed.
The possible values for $\gamma$ range between 1 and $10~s$ \citep{campin.goosse_T99}.
\end{description}
Scalar properties are advected by this additional transport $(u^{tr}_{bbl},v^{tr}_{bbl})$ using
the upwind scheme.
Such a diffusive advective scheme has been chosen to mimic the entrainment between
the downslope plume and the surrounding water at intermediate depths.
The entrainment is replaced by the vertical mixing implicit in the advection scheme.
Let us consider as an example the case displayed in \autoref{fig:TRA_bbl} where
the density at level $(i,kup)$ is larger than the one at level $(i,kdwn)$.
The advective BBL scheme modifies the tracer time tendency of
the ocean cells near the topographic step by the downslope flow \autoref{eq:TRA_bbl_dw},
the horizontal \autoref{eq:TRA_bbl_hor} and the upward \autoref{eq:TRA_bbl_up} return flows as follows:
\begin{alignat}{5}
\label{eq:TRA_bbl_dw}
\partial_t T^{do}_{kdw} &\equiv \partial_t T^{do}_{kdw} &&+ \frac{u^{tr}_{bbl}}{{b_t}^{do}_{kdw}} &&\lt( T^{sh}_{kup} - T^{do}_{kdw} \rt) \\
\label{eq:TRA_bbl_hor}
\partial_t T^{sh}_{kup} &\equiv \partial_t T^{sh}_{kup} &&+ \frac{u^{tr}_{bbl}}{{b_t}^{sh}_{kup}} &&\lt( T^{do}_{kup} - T^{sh}_{kup} \rt) \\
\shortintertext{and for $k =kdw-1,\;..., \; kup$ :}
\label{eq:TRA_bbl_up}
\partial_t T^{do}_{k} &\equiv \partial_t S^{do}_{k} &&+ \frac{u^{tr}_{bbl}}{{b_t}^{do}_{k}} &&\lt( T^{do}_{k +1} - T^{sh}_{k} \rt)
\end{alignat}
where $b_t$ is the $T$-cell volume.
Note that the BBL transport, $(u^{tr}_{bbl},v^{tr}_{bbl})$, is available in the model outputs.
It has to be used to compute the effective velocity as well as the effective overturning circulation.
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Tracer damping (\textit{tradmp.F90})]{Tracer damping (\protect\mdl{tradmp})}
\label{sec:TRA_dmp}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{namtra_dmp}
\caption{\forcode{&namtra_dmp}}
\label{lst:namtra_dmp}
\end{listing}
In some applications it can be useful to add a Newtonian damping term to
the temperature and salinity equations :
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_dmp}
\pd[T]{t} = \cdots - \gamma (T - T_o) \qquad \pd[S]{t} = \cdots - \gamma (S - S_o)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the inverse of a time scale,
and $T_o$ and $S_o$ are given temperature and salinity fields (usually a climatology).
Options are defined in the namelist section \nam{tra_dmp}{tra\_dmp}.
The restoring term is added when the namelist parameter \np{ln_tradmp}{ln\_tradmp} is set to true.
It also requires that both \np{ln_tsd_init}{ln\_tsd\_init} and
\np{ln_tsd_dmp}{ln\_tsd\_dmp} are set to true in the namelist section\nam{tsd}{tsd} and that
\np{sn_tem}{sn\_tem} and \np{sn_sal}{sn\_sal} structures are correctly defined
(\ie\ that $T_o$ and $S_o$ are provided in input files and read using \mdl{fldread},
see \autoref{subsec:SBC_fldread}).
The restoring coefficient $\gamma$ is a three-dimensional array read in
the \rou{tra\_dmp\_init} routine.
The file name is specified by the namelist variable \np{cn_resto}{cn\_resto}.
The \texttt{DMP\_TOOLS} are provided to allow users to generate the netcdf file.
The two main cases in which \autoref{eq:TRA_dmp} is used are
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\textit{\alph*})]
\item the specification of the boundary conditions along
the artificial walls of a limited-domain basin, and
\item the computation of the velocity field associated with a given $T$-$S$ field
(e.g. to build the initial state of a prognostic simulation,
or to use the resulting velocity field for a passive tracer study).
\end{enumerate*}
The first case applies to regional models with artificial walls instead of open boundaries.
In the vicinity of these walls, $\gamma$ takes on large values (equivalent to a time scale of a few days),
whereas it is zero inside the model domain.
The second case corresponds to the use of the robust diagnostic method \citep{sarmiento.bryan_JGR82}.
It allows us to find the velocity field consistent with the model dynamics, while
keeping a $T$, $S$ field close to a given climatological field ($T_o$, $S_o$).
The robust diagnostic method is very efficient in preventing temperature drift in
intermediate waters, but it produces artificial sources of heat and salt in the ocean.
It also has undesirable effects on the ocean convection.
It tends to prevent deep convection and the subsequent formation of deep-waters
by over-stabilising the water column.
The namelist parameter \np{nn_zdmp}{nn\_zdmp} determines whether damping should be applied
throughout the water column or only below the mixed layer (defined either by a density or $S_o$ criterion).
It is common to set the damping to zero in the mixed layer, as the adjustment time scale there is short
\citep{madec.delecluse.ea_JPO96}.
For generating \textit{resto.nc},
see the documentation for the DMP tools supplied with the source code under \path{./tools/DMP_TOOLS}.
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Tracer time evolution (\textit{traatf.F90})]{Tracer time evolution (\protect\mdl{traatf})}
\label{sec:TRA_nxt}
Options are defined through the \nam{dom}{dom} namelist variables.
The general framework for tracer time stepping is a modified leap-frog scheme
\citep{leclair.madec_OM09}, \ie\ a three level centred time scheme associated with
a Asselin time filter (cf. \autoref{sec:TD_mLF}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_nxt}
\begin{alignedat}{5}
&(e_{3t}T)^{t + \rdt} &&= (e_{3t}T)_f^{t - \rdt} &&+ 2 \, \rdt \,e_{3t}^t \ \text{RHS}^t \\
&(e_{3t}T)_f^t &&= (e_{3t}T)^t &&+ \, \gamma \, \lt[ (e_{3t}T)_f^{t - \rdt} - 2(e_{3t}T)^t + (e_{3t}T)^{t + \rdt} \rt] \\
& && &&- \, \gamma \, \rdt \, \lt[ Q^{t + \rdt/2} - Q^{t - \rdt/2} \rt]
\end{alignedat}
\end{equation}
where RHS is the right hand side of the temperature equation,
the subscript $f$ denotes filtered values, $\gamma$ is the Asselin coefficient,
and $S$ is the total forcing applied on $T$ (\ie\ fluxes plus content in mass exchanges).
$\gamma$ is initialized as \np{rn_atfp}{rn\_atfp}, its default value is \forcode{10.e-3}.
Note that the forcing correction term in the filter is not applied in linear free surface
(\key{linssh}) (see \autoref{subsec:TRA_sbc}).
Not also that in constant volume case, the time stepping is performed on $T$,
not on its content, $e_{3t}T$.
Vertical mixing is always solved implicitly,
with updates to the \textit{next} tracer fields handled in the \mdl{trazdf} module.
The array swapping and Asselin filtering are performed in the \mdl{traatf} module.
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
In order to prepare for the computation of the \textit{next} time step,
a swap of tracer arrays is performed: $T^{t - \rdt} = T^t$ and $T^t = T_f$.
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Equation of state (\textit{eosbn2.F90})]{Equation of state (\protect\mdl{eosbn2})}
\label{sec:TRA_eosbn2}
\begin{listing}
\nlst{nameos}
\caption{\forcode{&nameos}}
\label{lst:nameos}
\end{listing}
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Equation of seawater (\forcode{ln_}\{\forcode{teos10,eos80,seos}\})]{Equation of seawater (\protect\np{ln_teos10}{ln\_teos10}, \protect\np{ln_teos80}{ln\_teos80}, or \protect\np{ln_seos}{ln\_seos})}
\label{subsec:TRA_eos}
The \textbf{E}quation \textbf{O}f \textbf{S}eawater (EOS) is
an empirical nonlinear thermodynamic relationship linking
seawater density, $\rho$, to a number of state variables,
most typically temperature, salinity and pressure.
Because density gradients control the pressure gradient force through the hydrostatic balance,
the equation of state provides a fundamental bridge between
the distribution of active tracers and the fluid dynamics.
Nonlinearities of the EOS are of major importance, in particular influencing the circulation through
determination of the static stability below the mixed layer,
thus controlling rates of exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean interior
\citep{roquet.madec.ea_JPO15}.
Therefore an accurate EOS based on either the 1980 equation of state
(EOS-80, \cite{fofonoff.millard_bk83}) or TEOS-10 \citep{ioc.iapso_bk10} standards should
be used anytime a simulation of the real ocean circulation is attempted \citep{roquet.madec.ea_JPO15}.
The use of TEOS-10 is highly recommended because
\begin{enumerate*}[label=(\textit{\roman*})]
\item it is the new official EOS,
\item it is more accurate, being based on an updated database of laboratory measurements, and
\item it uses Conservative Temperature and Absolute Salinity
(instead of potential temperature and practical salinity for EOS-80),
both variables being more suitable for use as model variables
\citep{ioc.iapso_bk10, graham.mcdougall_JPO13}.
\end{enumerate*}
EOS-80 is an obsolescent feature of the \NEMO\ system, kept only for backward compatibility.
For process studies, it is often convenient to use an approximation of the EOS.
To that purposed, a simplified EOS (S-EOS) inspired by \citet{vallis_bk06} is also available.
In the computer code, a density anomaly, $d_a = \rho / \rho_o - 1$, is computed,
with $\rho_o$ a reference density.
Called \textit{rho0} in the code,
$\rho_o$ is set in \mdl{phycst} to a value of \texttt{1,026} $Kg/m^3$.
This is a sensible choice for the reference density used in a Boussinesq ocean climate model,
as, with the exception of only a small percentage of the ocean,
density in the World Ocean varies by no more than 2\% from that value \citep{gill_bk82}.
Options which control the EOS used are defined through the \nam{eos}{eos} namelist variables.
\begin{description}
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_teos10}{ln\_teos10}}] the polyTEOS10-bsq equation of seawater
\citep{roquet.madec.ea_OM15} is used.
The accuracy of this approximation is comparable to the TEOS-10 rational function approximation,
but it is optimized for a Boussinesq fluid and
the polynomial expressions have simpler and more computationally efficient expressions for
their derived quantities which make them more adapted for use in ocean models.
Note that a slightly higher precision polynomial form is now used
replacement of the TEOS-10 rational function approximation for hydrographic data analysis
\citep{ioc.iapso_bk10}.
A key point is that conservative state variables are used:
Absolute Salinity (unit: $g/kg$, notation: $S_A$) and
Conservative Temperature (unit: $\deg{C}$, notation: $\Theta$).
The pressure in decibars is approximated by the depth in meters.
With TEOS10, the specific heat capacity of sea water, $C_p$, is a constant.
It is set to $C_p$ = 3991.86795711963 $J.Kg^{-1}.\deg{K}^{-1}$,
according to \citet{ioc.iapso_bk10}.
Choosing polyTEOS10-bsq implies that the state variables used by the model are $\Theta$ and $S_A$.
In particular, the initial state defined by the user have to be given as
\textit{Conservative} Temperature and \textit{Absolute} Salinity.
In addition, when using TEOS10, the Conservative SST is converted to potential SST prior to
either computing the air-sea and ice-sea fluxes (forced mode) or
sending the SST field to the atmosphere (coupled mode).
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_eos80}{ln\_eos80}}] the polyEOS80-bsq equation of seawater is used.
It takes the same polynomial form as the polyTEOS10,
but the coefficients have been optimized to accurately fit EOS80 (Roquet, personal comm.).
The state variables used in both the EOS80 and the ocean model are:
the Practical Salinity (unit: $psu$, notation: $S_p$) and
Potential Temperature (unit: $\deg{C}$, notation: $\theta$).
The pressure in decibars is approximated by the depth in meters.
With EOS, the specific heat capacity of sea water, $C_p$, is a function of
temperature, salinity and pressure \citep{fofonoff.millard_bk83}.
Nevertheless, a severe assumption is made in order to have a heat content ($C_p T_p$) which
is conserved by the model: $C_p$ is set to a constant value, the TEOS10 value.
\item [{\np[=.true.]{ln_seos}{ln\_seos}}] a simplified EOS (S-EOS) inspired by
\citet{vallis_bk06} is chosen,
the coefficients of which has been optimized to fit the behavior of TEOS10 (Roquet, personal comm.)
(see also \citet{roquet.madec.ea_JPO15}).
It provides a simplistic linear representation of both cabbeling and thermobaricity effects which
is enough for a proper treatment of the EOS in theoretical studies \citep{roquet.madec.ea_JPO15}.
With such an equation of state there is no longer a distinction between \textit{conservative} and
\textit{potential} temperature, as well as between \textit{absolute} and
\textit{practical} salinity.
S-EOS takes the following expression:
\begin{gather*}
% \label{eq:TRA_S-EOS}
d_a(T,S,z) = \frac{1}{\rho_o} \big[ - a_0 \; ( 1 + 0.5 \; \lambda_1 \; T_a + \mu_1 \; z ) * T_a \big.
+ b_0 \; ( 1 - 0.5 \; \lambda_2 \; S_a - \mu_2 \; z ) * S_a
\big. - \nu \; T_a S_a \big] \\
\text{with~} T_a = T - 10 \, ; \, S_a = S - 35 \, ; \, \rho_o = 1026~Kg/m^3
\end{gather*}
where the computer name of the coefficients as well as their standard value are given in
\autoref{tab:TRA_SEOS}.
In fact, when choosing S-EOS, various approximation of EOS can be specified simply by
changing the associated coefficients.
Setting to zero the two thermobaric coefficients $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$
remove thermobaric effect from S-EOS.
Setting to zero the three cabbeling coefficients $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\nu)$
remove cabbeling effect from S-EOS.
Keeping non-zero value to $a_0$ and $b_0$ provide a linear EOS function of T and S.
\end{description}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
coeff. & computer name & S-EOS & description \\
\hline
$a_0 $ & \np{rn_a0}{rn\_a0} & $1.6550~10^{-1}$ & linear thermal expansion coeff. \\
\hline
$b_0 $ & \np{rn_b0}{rn\_b0} & $7.6554~10^{-1}$ & linear haline expansion coeff. \\
\hline
$\lambda_1$ & \np{rn_lambda1}{rn\_lambda1} & $5.9520~10^{-2}$ & cabbeling coeff. in $T^2$ \\
\hline
$\lambda_2$ & \np{rn_lambda2}{rn\_lambda2} & $5.4914~10^{-4}$ & cabbeling coeff. in $S^2$ \\
\hline
$\nu $ & \np{rn_nu}{rn\_nu} & $2.4341~10^{-3}$ & cabbeling coeff. in $T \, S$ \\
\hline
$\mu_1 $ & \np{rn_mu1}{rn\_mu1} & $1.4970~10^{-4}$ & thermobaric coeff. in T \\
\hline
$\mu_2 $ & \np{rn_mu2}{rn\_mu2} & $1.1090~10^{-5}$ & thermobaric coeff. in S \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Standard value of S-EOS coefficients}
\label{tab:TRA_SEOS}
\end{table}
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection[Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency]{Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency}
\label{subsec:TRA_bn2}
An accurate computation of the ocean stability (i.e. of $N$, the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency) is of paramount importance as determine the ocean stratification and
is used in several ocean parameterisations
(namely TKE, GLS, Richardson number dependent vertical diffusion, enhanced vertical diffusion,
non-penetrative convection, tidal mixing parameterisation, iso-neutral diffusion).
In particular, $N^2$ has to be computed at the local pressure
(pressure in decibar being approximated by the depth in meters).
The expression for $N^2$ is given by:
\[
% \label{eq:TRA_bn2}
N^2 = \frac{g}{e_{3w}} \lt( \beta \; \delta_{k + 1/2}[S] - \alpha \; \delta_{k + 1/2}[T] \rt)
\]
where $(T,S) = (\Theta,S_A)$ for TEOS10, $(\theta,S_p)$ for TEOS-80, or $(T,S)$ for S-EOS, and,
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the thermal and haline expansion coefficients.
The coefficients are a polynomial function of temperature, salinity and depth which
expression depends on the chosen EOS.
They are computed through \textit{eos\_rab}, a \fortran\ function that can be found in \mdl{eosbn2}.
%% =================================================================================================
\subsection{Freezing point of seawater}
\label{subsec:TRA_fzp}
The freezing point of seawater is a function of salinity and pressure \citep{fofonoff.millard_bk83}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TRA_eos_fzp}
\begin{gathered}
T_f (S,p) = \lt( a + b \, \sqrt{S} + c \, S \rt) \, S + d \, p \\
\text{where~} a = -0.0575, \, b = 1.710523~10^{-3}, \, c = -2.154996~10^{-4} \text{and~} d = -7.53~10^{-3}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
\autoref{eq:TRA_eos_fzp} is only used to compute the potential freezing point of sea water
(\ie\ referenced to the surface $p = 0$),
thus the pressure dependent terms in \autoref{eq:TRA_eos_fzp} (last term) have been dropped.
The freezing point is computed through \textit{eos\_fzp},
a \fortran\ function that can be found in \mdl{eosbn2}.
%% =================================================================================================
%\subsection{Potential Energy anomalies}
%\label{subsec:TRA_bn2}
% =====>>>>> TO BE written
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Wave induced transport]{Wave induced transport}
\label{sec:TRA_stoke_drift}
The Stokes drift is a wave-driven mechanism that results in the net transport of mass and momentum,
defined as the difference between the motion of a fluid parcel (Lagrangian velocity) and
the flow observed at a fixed point (Eulerian velocity).
Due to the asymmetry in the orbital paths of water particles, a net forward motion occurs.
Further details are available in \autoref{subsec:SBC_wave_sdw}.
Incorporating Stokes drift is critical for improving ocean circulation models.
Notably, the tracer advection equation is modified to allow Eulerian ocean models to account for
unresolved wave effects.
When simulating waves \np{ln_wave}{ln\_wave} and activating Stokes drift effect \np{ln_sdw}{ln\_sdw}
three-dimensional Stokes velocity is merely added to the tracers advective transports by \rou{tra\_adv\_trp},
a \fortran\ function that can be found in \mdl{traadv}.
Since horizontal velocities are modified, the vertical velocity requires to be recomputed.
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
The divergence of the wave tracer flux equals the mean tracer advection induced by the three-dimensional Stokes velocity,
ensuring the consistence between the continuity equation and tracers evolution equations.
Thus the barotropic divergence requires to take the stoke drift divergence into account.
Note that Stoke drift velocity also contributes to the shear computation,
the Coriolis term (see \autoref{subsec:SBC_wave_stcor}).
It is also used to compute the vortex force added to the relative vorticity term in the
Vector Invariant Formulation of the momentum equations (see \autoref{subsec:SBC_wave_vf}).
%% =================================================================================================
\section[Internal wave filtering]{Internal wave filtering}
\label{sec:TRA_shuman}
Internal gravity waves can sometimes disrupt an experiment by making the model unstable,
restricting the usable time step, or enhancing undesirable vertical mixing.
They can also introduce complex frequencies that complicate result analysis.
The studies by \citep{brown.campana_MWR78} and Shuman (1971) demonstrate that
applying a time-averaging technique to the pressure term can mitigate the impact of these waves,
thereby allowing the maximum time step to be reached without causing instabilities linked to
internal gravity waves.
It is equivalent to time-average the pressure term in the momentum right hand side equations and
the time integrated transports.
In \NEMO\ , for sake of simplicity, we retain the second option.
When \np[=.true.]{ln_shuman}{ln\_shuman} transports are time-averaged in \rou{tra\_adv\_trp},
a \fortran\ function that can be found in \mdl{traadv}.
Since horizontal velocities are modified, the vertical velocity requires to be recomputed.
\subinc{\input{../../global/epilogue}}
\end{document}