<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols;">
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Hi everyone,</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">I'm currently running an ice shelf configuration with hFacMin=0.1, hFacMinDr=20, and vertical resolution ranging from 10 m (top few layers) to 25 m (in the cavity) to 100+ m (deep ocean). I'm trying to decrease hFacMinDr
so I can get a better representation of the ice shelf base, as the current value of 20 m combined with the 25 m resolution in the cavity doesn't allow the partial cells to do very much.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">I'm trying to get hFacMinDr=5 working. I expected to have to reduce the timestep to prevent vertical CFL errors, and at this point I have reduced the timestep by a factor of 4 (which should exactly compensate for the
thinner cells, given the CFL criterion is linear, correct?) However, the simulation still looks very strange, in particular the bottom water temperature and salinity in a few patches on the continental shelf (not in the cavity): it looks like checkerboard
instabilities or false extrema, even though I'm using a flux-limited advection scheme (33). In some cells, the temperature goes down to -7 C.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">I checked the CFL terms in the monitor output, and the vertical terms are on the order of 1e-2. This is similar to my <span style="font-size: 12pt;">previous simulations with hFacMinDr=20. and timestep 4 times larger.
So, why am I still seeing these instabilities? Are they still CFL errors (despite what the monitor terms seem to suggest) or could they be something else?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I am using the linear free surface until I find a stable timestep for hFacMinDr=5, so we can rule out any problems related to nonlinear free surface or r*.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Many thanks,</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Kaitlin Naughten</span></p>
</div>
<hr>
<small>This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material
supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system</small>.
<hr>
</body>
</html>