[MITgcm-devel] stevens boundary conditions

[Jean-Michel Campin]

Martin,

It's not a bad idea to put those masks in gmredi routines, I agree. 
> so I am ready to check this in, if you do not object.
Yes, go for it.

Jean-Michel

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 03:34:38PM +0100, Martin Losch wrote:
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> rather than introducing another df-field, I decided to apply the maskInC directly in the gmredi routines (gmredi_rtransport and gmredi_calc_diff). All the changes that I did to implement option 2 did not change any results, so I am ready to check this in, if you do not object.
> 
> Martin
> 
> Index: generic_advdiff/gad_advection.F
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/generic_advdiff/gad_advection.F,v
> retrieving revision 1.69
> diff -r1.69 gad_advection.F
> 810c810
> <      &        )*rkSign
> ---
> >      &        )*rkSign*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> Index: generic_advdiff/gad_calc_rhs.F
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/generic_advdiff/gad_calc_rhs.F,v
> retrieving revision 1.58
> diff -r1.58 gad_calc_rhs.F
> 522c522
> <           fVerT(i,j,kUp) = fVerT(i,j,kUp) + af(i,j)
> ---
> >           fVerT(i,j,kUp) = fVerT(i,j,kUp) + af(i,j)*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 718a719
> > C     for Stevens OBC: keep only vertical diffusive contribution on boundaries
> 724,725c725,726
> <      &   *( (fZon(i+1,j)-fZon(i,j))
> <      &     +(fMer(i,j+1)-fMer(i,j))
> ---
> >      &   *( (fZon(i+1,j)-fZon(i,j))*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> >      &     +(fMer(i,j+1)-fMer(i,j))*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 730c731
> <      &                  )
> ---
> >      &                  )*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> Index: gmredi/gmredi_calc_diff.F
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/gmredi/gmredi_calc_diff.F,v
> retrieving revision 1.10
> diff -r1.10 gmredi_calc_diff.F
> 58a59
> >      &           *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 64a66
> >      &           *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 75a78
> >      &           *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 81a85
> >      &           *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> Index: gmredi/gmredi_rtransport.F
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /u/gcmpack/MITgcm/pkg/gmredi/gmredi_rtransport.F,v
> retrieving revision 1.16
> diff -r1.16 gmredi_rtransport.F
> 133c133
> <      &      - _rA(i,j,bi,bj)
> ---
> >      &      - _rA(i,j,bi,bj)*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 137c137
> <      &      - _rA(i,j,bi,bj)
> ---
> >      &      - _rA(i,j,bi,bj)*maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 167a168
> >      &        *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 184a186
> > c    &    *maskInC(i,j,bi,bj)
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Jean-Michel Campin wrote:
> 
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > I did some tests to check that seaice obcs were clean
> > (but don't remember how I did them !),
> > and did not pass unless I put useKPP=F (would need to
> > investigate within KPP code how to make diffusivity & viscosity
> > independant of value from the other side). I think GGL90
> > might also have similar issues but should be easier to fix.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jean-Michel
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:34:39PM +0100, Martin Losch wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Martin Losch wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> (in fact, in seaice_obcs test.exp. 
> >>>> which is using KPP, some of the western OB values already 
> >>>> influence the Eastern side).
> >> 
> >> How do you see that? Do I need to modify the exp to see that? Or is the flag OBCS_uvApplyFac enough?
> >> 
> >> M.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> >> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> >> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-devel mailing list
> > MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> > http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-devel mailing list
> MITgcm-devel at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-devel