[MITgcm-support] Smagorinsky viscosity
Malte Jansen
mfj at uchicago.edu
Fri Mar 13 17:10:45 EDT 2015
Thanks, Jody!
-Malte
> On Mar 13, 2015, at 9:15 PM, Jody Klymak <jklymak at uvic.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Malte,
>
> I think its true that you can make an anisotropic non-hydrostatics simulation that better simulates non-linear internal waves, if that is what you are interested in. But delta x still needs to be pretty small. See Vitousek and Fringer 2011 (Oc. Modelling). If getting the proper shape of non-linear internal waves is important, then non-hydrostatic is worth the extra computational expense. From an energetic point of view, its not as clear that it helps. As I said it depends on what you are trying to simulate.
>
> Cheers, Jody
>
>
>
>> On 13 Mar 2015, at 11:45 AM, Malte Jansen <mfj at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Jody,
>>
>> Are you arguing that the combination of non-hydrostatic with anisotropic grid is never desirable? It is my understanding that in the presence of stratification, turbulence (and waves) generally remain anisotropic, even for scales/processes where it might be preferable not to use the hydrostatic approximation. E.g. I thought that a hydrostatic model cannot reproduce the exact dispersion relation for internal waves, nor would it be adequate to properly represent symmetric instability - yet the aspect ratios here are still commonly much larger than one. There seem to be a range of publications which make use of non-hydrostatic models with anisotropic grids, so I don’t seem to be the only one who thinks this is reasonable, but I’m certainly not an expert on this smaller-scale stuff, so please do corrected me if I’m wrong.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Malte
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Jody Klymak <jklymak at uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do I understand it correctly though that Smag3D uses the same viscosity coefficient for the horizontal and vertical? I’m using a 1:5 grid aspect ratio, so I don’t think I would want that.
>>>
>>> Yes, Smagorinsky uses just one viscosity for all three dimensions.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you would want 3-D Smagoronsky if your grid is 1:5. Non-hydrostatic is a bit questionable as well. What are you trying to simulate?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jody
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Malte
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jody Klymak <jklymak at uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Malte,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just looked into this with Ruth Musgrave's help as well. 3-D Smagorinsky works pretty well. Your grid can be anisotropic, but probably not too anisotropic. If you are using non-hydrostatic you probably don't want a grid that is too anisotropic anyways. As written, it does not do any enhanced diffusivity, though I have a straight forward mod to enhance the diffusivities as well. I guess I dont' know about any issues with the vertical advection scheme. I'd have to take a look at it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe it just uses Dearborn's scheme. So the Smagorinsky constant is just a constant. I found to get energy to balance you had to tune this constant, so it would be great if someone moved towards a Germano type scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont' have access to my files right now, but will in a few hours, but its pretty straightforward to try. A little less straightforward if you want your own diagnostics into the dissipation terms and matching diffusivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know anything about 2-D Smagorinsky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, Jody
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Malte Jansen <mfj at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can anybody give me (or point me to) a brief update on the Smagorinsky viscosity implementation? The documentation seems to say that the vertical component of the Smagorinsky viscosity has not yet been implemented. Is that still true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also found an old post stating that Smag does not yet work at all for the non-hydrostatic version. Is that still true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There now also is a Smag3D. Is there any documentation for that? Do I see it correctly that Smag3D is fully isotropic (and thus probably not recommended if the model grid is anisotropic)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am running a non-hydrostatic model with non-isotropic grid. So my question is basically if there is an existing implementation of the Smagorinsky viscosity that should be adequate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Malte
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>>>>>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>>>>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>>>>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>>>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>>>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jody Klymak
>>> http://web.uvic.ca/~jklymak/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MITgcm-support mailing list
>> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
>> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
> --
> Jody Klymak
> http://web.uvic.ca/~jklymak/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
More information about the MITgcm-support
mailing list