1 / 23

Comparisons of Numerical Aspects in POM and ROMS

Comparisons of Numerical Aspects in POM and ROMS. Tal Ezer Princeton University (in collaboration with H. Arango (Rutgers) & A. Shchepetkin (UCLA); Supported by ONR). Part of an initiative to develop, evaluate and test an expert Terrain-following Ocean Modeling System (TOMS).

carla-sloan
Télécharger la présentation

Comparisons of Numerical Aspects in POM and ROMS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparisons of Numerical Aspects in POM and ROMS Tal Ezer Princeton University (in collaboration with H. Arango (Rutgers) & A. Shchepetkin (UCLA); Supported by ONR)

  2. Part of an initiative to develop, evaluate and test an expert Terrain-following Ocean Modeling System (TOMS) Compare numerical elements and parameterizations in POM and ROMS/TOMS in terms of their numerical errors, numerical stability, computational cost etc. • Time stepping algorithms • Advection schemes • Pressure gradient schemes • Other numerical and configuration aspects

  3. Model attributes- similarities and differences

  4. Model configuration ROMS/TOMS POM

  5. Seamount configuration test Very steep case h=4050m, w=50km s=0.36, r=14.2 moderately steep h=2700m, w=100km s=0.07, r=2.7 S=max(DH/2H) r=max(sDH/HDs) grid=(64x64x20), Dx=8km

  6. Zonal flow -50cm 0 +50cm Topography Sea surface height

  7. Effect of advection scheme on model: Surface elevation anomaly ADV2- 2nd ord. cnt. POM ROMS ADV4- 4th ord. cnt. ADV3- 3rd ord. upst. ROMS ROMS

  8. Effect of advection scheme on model: Stream function anomaly ADV2- 2nd ord. cnt. ADV4- 4th ord. cnt. ADV3- 3rd ord. upst.

  9. Advection Schemes in ROMS Second Order Centered Third Order Upstream Bias Fourth Order Centered V

  10. Time-stepping schemes(split mode: baroclinic/internal and barotropic/external) * Different terms in 3D ROMS may be treated differently

  11. Coupling of barotropic (external) and baroclinic (internal) modes in ROMS weights Un+1 = SamUm Un+½ = S bm’Um’ DTE 1<m<N, N=DTI/DTE DTI

  12. Sensitivity to internal (DTI) & external (DTE) time steps ROMS UNSTABLE STABLE TDI/DTE POM CFL=13s

  13. Computational cost for different models & parameterizations

  14. The adjustment process in POM and ROMS: forced case (zonal flow)

  15. Roms- sensitivity of adjustment procesto time step choices DTE=12s DTE=24s DTI=360s DTI=720s

  16. Sensitivity to bottom topography T=85min T=85s T=111min T=111s

  17. Pressure Gradient Schemes

  18. Structure ofV (cm/s) in ROMS for different PG schemes (medium seamount case) R-DJ (Vmax=3.7) R-PJQ (Vmax=0.03) R-FPJ (Vmax=30) R-DJC (Vmax=0.06) R-WDJ (Vmax=0.3)

  19. PG errors- moderately steep seamount

  20. PG errors- very steep seamount

  21. (preliminary) conclusions • New numerical schemes show promising results in reducing numerical errors while saving computational costs. • However, the behavior of these schemes may be more complicated than standard schemes, and require users for more careful choices of model parameterizations. • Therefore, communication between developers and users is important. • Further developments and testing of more elements for TOMS will continue.

  22. And finally, no matter what car you drive (POM, ROMS, etc.) … … enjoy the ride as much as we enjoy building the car… THANK YOU

More Related