Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve numerical solution for waves in sea ice #738

Open
cmbitz opened this issue Jul 8, 2022 · 10 comments
Open

Improve numerical solution for waves in sea ice #738

cmbitz opened this issue Jul 8, 2022 · 10 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@cmbitz
Copy link
Collaborator

cmbitz commented Jul 8, 2022

The numerical solution for wave attenuation in sea ice employs time splitting, which is only order dtg accurate. It is a noticeable error when dtg > 500 s or so. I've included a pdf to illustrate the error.

I recommend two solutions. (1) first don't use time splitting for the sea ice attenuation and instead include the sea ice "source" with the other sources and (2) employ subcycling on the global time step when the sea ice concentration is between say 5 and 95%. Happy to provide code.

Reducing dtg is a costly alternative.

See attached pdf
TimeSplittingProblem.pdf

@cmbitz cmbitz added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 8, 2022
@JessicaMeixner-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

@cmbitz if you have code, it would be great if you could make a PR with the update. I can run any of the regression tests if needed.

@aronroland
Copy link
Collaborator

I appreciate your contribution and I think that we really need to include the sea-ice source term in the sub-cycling and as well in the implicit scheme as source terms rather then within the splitting.

@dabail10
Copy link

dabail10 commented Jun 5, 2024

Hi all,

Here is a branch with Cecilia's proposed changes. I'm happy to discuss the best way to format these.

https://github.com/dabail10/WW3/tree/ic4method8

@NickSzapiro-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for sharing these developments, @dabail10 @cmbitz ! Do I understand correctly that the changes in model/src/w3srcemd.F90 are intended for all IC4 methods? Do you know if any other IC4M* developers have looked at these changes?

@erinethomas
Copy link
Contributor

It does appear to apply to all the IC4 methods. I have only tested it with one so far (the IC4M8 that @cmbitz helped develop) in E3SM.

@NickSzapiro-NOAA
Copy link
Contributor

NickSzapiro-NOAA commented Jun 25, 2024

Then maybe the next step is to make a PR, as @JessicaMeixner-NOAA suggested.

@dabail10 wrt the branch you shared, there are different implementations of the changes (if suitable) in

Thanks @erinethomas! The IC4M8 you use will be "renumbered" as IC4M10 (in #1211) since #1176 is already merged

@erinethomas
Copy link
Contributor

@NickSzapiro-NOAA - yes- I am working on an out of date version of WW3 (before those merges occurred) so my numbers are out of sync!

@JessicaMeixner-NOAA
Copy link
Collaborator

Looking forward to a PR to the WW3 develop branch! Please let me know if you have questions.

@dabail10
Copy link

I will try to update to the latest version. I had forked off the NCAR dev/unified branch.

@dabail10
Copy link

dabail10 commented Jul 2, 2024

I'm not sure how easy this will be. The dev/unified fork under ESCOMP is 91 commits ahead and 53 commits behind. I need to discuss with @alperaltuntas .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants