[MITgcm-support] Behavior of Ptracers at Orlanski boundary
Yilang Xu
yxu at whoi.edu
Mon Apr 15 09:52:54 EDT 2019
Hi Martin,
Thanks very much for your reply. I have been using RBCS to prescribe an area of continuous supply of ptracers following post (http://mailman.mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/2017-December/011372.html), which might not be a perfect solution to mimic salt. However it works to some extent.
In my experiments, the boundary values would not matter as long as they don't accumulate. By looking at exp4, I realized that I almost forgot RBCS can be used to enforce ptracers decay at the boundary. Let me check the model behavior later.
Best,
Yilang
On 4/15/19, 04:42, "MITgcm-support on behalf of Martin Losch" <mitgcm-support-bounces at mitgcm.org on behalf of Martin.Losch at awi.de> wrote:
Hi Yilang,
I am not sure about the combination of your orlanski and rbcs, maybe test if turning off rbcs will help.
Maybe you can use exp4 as a simple example. I recall that there, the ptracer leaving the domain it actually works quite well and I don’t see, why the orlanski BC should destroy that behavoir.
Martin
> On 15. Apr 2019, at 08:10, Yilang Xu <yxu at whoi.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin and Jean-Michel,
>
> Thanks very much for your advice. I set up a test case and add " OBCS_u1_adv_Tr(1) = 1," in data.obcs, but the plot behaves the same as the case does without it. Generally, the problem is that the ptracer starts to accumulate to a large number after it reaches the Orlanski boundary. I am trying to use ptracer to mimic salt. They behave relatively in a similar way except for the cells near the boundary. I have attached a vertical slice of the ptracer for demonstration.
>
> My current implementation is the same as suggested in the old post (http://mailman.mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/2012-October/008012.html). Ptracer is resotred by RBCS on a small surface area, and " OBCS_u1_adv_Tr(1) = 1," is the only ptracer-related line in data.obcs (but this did not change any behavior). I am wondering what could be improved if I want to advect the ptracer out properly. Implementing Orlanski BC for ptracers could be a choice in the future.
>
> Thanks,
> Yilang
>
>
> On 4/12/19, 12:03, "MITgcm-support on behalf of Jean-Michel Campin" <mitgcm-support-bounces at mitgcm.org on behalf of jmc at mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Yilang,
>
> Did you try, for each passive tracer "iTr":
> OBCS_u1_adv_Tr(iTr) = 1,
> This will force to use 1rst Order upwind advection-scheme at OB location
> but only in the case of an outflow. This could help the passive tracer to
> leave the domain without accumulating.
> An example can be found here:
> verification/so_box_biogeo/input/data.obcs
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 09:41:44AM +0200, Martin Losch wrote:
> > Hi Yilang,
> >
> > I think that your only way out is to change the boundary conditions for the passive tracers. You obviously read this old post. Now you know what I mean by “keep your fingers crossed”.
> >
> > As a quick fix, I usually try to use some approximate v.Neumann BC, but that’s already implemented in the example given in the old post <http://mailman.mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/2012-October/008012.html>
> >
> > If that doesn’t help you’ll probably have to try to implement Orlanski BC’s for passive tracers …
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > > On 11. Apr 2019, at 21:51, Yilang Xu <yxu at whoi.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > As MITgcm suggests, the implementation of Orlanski OBCS and Ptracers together is not recommended by the current version of the code. Following some previous discussions
> > > (e.g., http://mailman.mitgcm.org/pipermail/mitgcm-support/2012-October/008012.html), I comment out the part that stops the model in obcs_calc.F and obcs_check.F.
> > >
> > > As a result, the model behaves well until the ptracer reaches the Orlanski boundary. I notice the occurrence of instability or aggregation of ptracer when it comes near boundary cells.
> > > I wonder if there is any solution to this problem. Appreciate your help.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yilang
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > > http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MITgcm-support mailing list
> > MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> > http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
> _______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
>
>
> <ptracers_side_y_-75.9946degree_100days.png><data.obcs><data.rbcs><data.ptracers>_______________________________________________
> MITgcm-support mailing list
> MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
> http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
_______________________________________________
MITgcm-support mailing list
MITgcm-support at mitgcm.org
http://mailman.mitgcm.org/mailman/listinfo/mitgcm-support
More information about the MITgcm-support
mailing list