Advertisement

Ocean Dynamics

, 59:671 | Cite as

Quantitative analysis of numerically induced mixing in a coastal model application

  • Hannes RennauEmail author
  • Hans Burchard
Article

Abstract

In recent years, various attempts have been made to estimate the amount of numerical mixing in numerical ocean models due to discretisation errors of advection schemes. In this study, a high-resolution coastal model using the ocean circulationmodel GETM is applied to the Western Baltic Sea, which is characterised by energetic and episodic inflows of dense bottom waters originating from the Kattegat. The model is equipped with an easy-to-implement diagnostic method for obtaining the numerical mixing which has recently been suggested. In this diagnostic method, the physical mixing is defined as the mean tracer variance decay rate due to turbulent mixing. The numerical mixing due to discretisation errors of tracer advection schemes is defined as the decay rate between the advected square of the tracer variance and the square of the advected tracer, which can be directly compared to the physical variance decay. The source and location of numerical mixing is further investigated by comparing different advection schemes and analysing the amount of numerical mixing in each spatial dimension during the advection time step. The results show that, for the setup used, the numerically and physically induced mixing have the same orders of magnitude but with different vertical and horizontal distributions. As the main mechanism for high numerical mixing, vertical advection of tracers with strong vertical gradients has been identified. The main reason for high numerical mixing is due to bottom-following coordinates when density gradients, especially for regions of steep slopes, are advected normal to isobaths. With the bottom-following coordinates used here, the horizontal gradients are reproduced by a spurious sawtooth-type profile where strong advection through, but not along, the vertical coordinate levels occurs. Additionally, the well known relation between strong tracer gradients and high velocities on the one and high numerical mixing on the other hand is approved quantitatively within this work.

Keywords

Ocean model Physical mixing Numerical mixing Advection schemes Variance decay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The presented work has been carried out in the framework of the international QuantAS Consortium (quantification of water mass transformation processes in the Arkona Sea), which is partially supported by the QuantAS-Off project (QuantAS—Impact of Offshore Wind Farms, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) and the QuantAS-Nat project (QuantAS—Natural processes, funded by the German Research Foundation).

References

  1. Adcroft A, Hallberg R (2006) On methods for solving the oceanic equations of motion in generalized vertical coordinates. Ocean Model 11:224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arakawa A, Lamb VR (1977) Computational design of the basic dynamical processes of the ucla general circulation model. Math Comput Phys 17:173–263Google Scholar
  3. Beckmann A, Döscher R (1997) A method for improved representation of dense water spreading over topography in geopotential-coordinate models. J Phys Oceanogr 27:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleck R (2002) An oceanic general circulation model framed in hybrid isopycnic-cartesian coordinates. Ocean Model 4:55–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burchard H, Beckers J-M (2004) Non-uniform adaptive vertical grids in one-dimensional numerical ocean models. Ocean Model 6:51–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burchard H, Bolding K (2002) GETM—a general estuarine transport model. Scientific documentation. Tech Rep EUR 20253 EN. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  7. Burchard H, Rennau H (2008) Comparative quantification of physically and numerically induced mixing in ocean models. Ocean Model 20:293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burchard H, Bolding K, Villarreal MR (1999) GOTM—a general ocean turbulence model. Theory, applications and test cases. Tech Rep EUR 18745 EN. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  9. Burchard H, Janssen F, Bolding K, Umlauf L, Rennau H (2009) Model simulations of dense bottom currents in the Western Baltic Sea. Cont Shelf Res 29:205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burchard H, Lass H, Mohrholz V, Umlauf L, Sellschopp J, Fiekas V, Bolding K, Arneborg L (2005) Dynamics of medium-intensity dense water plumes in the Arkona Sea, Western Baltic Sea. Ocean Dyn 55:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campin J-M, Goosse H (1999) Parameterization of density-driven downsloping flow for a coarse-resolution ocean model in z-coordinate. Tellus 51A:412–430Google Scholar
  12. Cheng Y, Canuto VM, Howard AM (2002) An improved model for the turbulent PBL. J Atmos Sci 59:1550–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ezer T (2005) Entrainment, diapycnal mixing and transport in three-dimensional bottom gravity current simulations using the Mellor-Yamada turbulence scheme. Ocean Model 9:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ezer T (2006) Topographic influence on overflow dynamics: idealized numerical simulations and faroe bank overflow. J Geophys Res 111:C02002. doi: 10.1029/2005JC003195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ezer T, Arango HG, Shchepetkin AF (2002) Developments in terrain-following ocean models: intercomparisons of numerical aspects. Ocean Model 4:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ezer T, Mellor GL (2004) A generalised coordinate ocean model and a comparison of the bottom boundary layer dynamics in terrain-following and in z-level grids. Ocean Model 6:379–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feistel R, Nausch G, Matthäus W, Hagen E (2003) Temporal and spatial evolution of the Baltic deep water renewal in spring 2003. Oceanologia 45:623–642Google Scholar
  18. Fennel W, Seifert T, Kayser B (1991) Rossby radii and phase spedds in the Baltic Sea. Cont Shelf Res 11:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández V, Dietrich DE, Haney RL, Tintoré J (2005) Mesoscale, seasonal and interannual variability in the Mediterranean Sea using a numerical ocean model. Progr Oceanogr 66:321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerdes R (1993) A primitive equation ocean circulation model using a general vertical coordinate transformation. 1. Description and testing of the model. J Geophys Res 98:14683–14701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerdes R, Köberle C, Willebrand J (1991) The influence of numerical advection schemes on the results of ocean general circulation models. Clim Dyn 5:211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffies SM, Pacanowski RC, Hallberg RW (2000) Spurious diapycnal mixing associated with advection in a z-coordinate ocean model. Mon Weather Rev 128:538–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirsch C (1988) Numerical computation of internal and external flows, vol 1: fundamentals of numerical discretisation. Wiley series in numerical methods in engineering. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Hodges BR, Delavan SK (2004) Numerical diffusion and dissipation in hydrostatic models of internal waves. In: ASCE engineering mechanics conference proceedings, 13–16 June 2004Google Scholar
  25. James ID (1996) Advection schemes for shelf sea models. J Mar Sys 8:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killworth PD, Edwards NR (1999) A turbulent bottom boundary layer code for use in numerical ocean models. J Phys Oceanogr 29:1221–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kõuts T, Omstedt A (1993) Deep water exchange in the Baltic Proper. Tellus 45(A):311–324Google Scholar
  28. Kunze E, Sandford TB (1996) Abyssal mixing: where is it not. J Phys Oceanogr 26:2286–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lass HU, Mohrholz V (2003) On the dynamics and mixing of inflowing salt-water in the Arkona Sea. J Geophys Res 108:3042. doi: 10.1029/2002JC001465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ledwell JR, Watson AJ, Law CS (1993) Evidence of slow mixing across the pycnocline from an open-ocean tracer-release experiment. Nature 364:701–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legg S, Hallberg RW, Girton JB (2006) Comparison of entrainment in overflows simulated by z-coordinate, isopycnal and non-hydrostatic models. Ocean Model 11:69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonard BP (1991) The ULTIMATE conservative difference scheme applied to unsteady one-dimensional advection. Comput Math Appl Mech Eng 88:17–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LeVeque RJ (1992) Numerical methods for conservation laws. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  34. Mellor GL, Ezer T, Oey L-Y (1994) The pressure gradient conundrum of sigma coordinate ocean models. J Atmos Ocean Technol 11:1126–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mellor GL, Oey L-Y, Ezer T (1998) Sigma coordinate pressure gradient errors and the seamount problem. J Atmos Ocean Technol 15:1122–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesinger F, Arakawa A (1976) Numerical methods used in atmospheric models. GARP Publ. Series, vol 1, no 17. WMO, Geneva, 64 pp (Available from WMO/ICSU. Case Postale No 2300, CH-1121 Geneva 20, Switzerland)Google Scholar
  37. Morales Maqueda MA, Holloway G (2006) Second-order moment advection scheme applied to Arctic Ocean simulation. Ocean Model 14:197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pacanowski RC, Gnanadesikan A (1998) Transient response in a z-level ocean model that resolves topography with partial cells. Mon Weather Rev 126:3248–3270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pietrzak J (1998) The use of TVD limiters for forward-in-time upstream-biased advection schemes in ocean modeling. Mon Weather Rev 126:812–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reissmann JH, Burchard H, Feistel R, Hagen E, Lass HU, Mohrholz V, Nausch G, Umlauf L, Wieczorek G (2009) State-of-the-art review on Baltic mixing and consequences for eutrophication. Progr Oceanogr (in press)Google Scholar
  41. Riemenscheider U, Legg S (2007) Regional simulations of the Faroe Bank Channel overflow in a level model. Ocean Model 17:93–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rood RB (1987) Numerical advection algorithms and their role in atmospheric transport and chemistry models. Rev Geophys 25:71–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rooth C, Östlund G (1972) Penetration of tritium into the Atlantic thermocline. Deep-Sea Res 19:481–492Google Scholar
  44. Sanderson B (1998) Order and resolution for computational ocean dynamics. J Phys Oceanogr 28:1271–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sellschopp J, Arneborg L, Knoll M, Fiekas V, Gerdes F, Burchard H, Lass HU, Mohrholz V, Umlauf L (2006) Direct observations of a medium-intensity inflow into the Baltic Sea. Cont Shelf Res 26:2393–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shchepetkin AF, McWilliams JC (1998) Quasi-monotone advection schemes based on explicit locally adaptive dissipation. Mon Weather Rev 126:1541–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shchepetkin AF, McWilliams JC (2003) A method for computing horizontal pressure-gradient force in an oceanic model with a nonaligned vertical coordinate. J Geophys Res 108. doi: 10.1029/2001JC001047 Google Scholar
  48. Shchepetkin AF, McWilliams JC (2005) The regional oceanic modelling system (ROMS): a split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model. Ocean Model 9:347–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smolarkiewicz PK (1983) A simple positive definite advection scheme wih small implicit diffusion. Mon Weather Rev 111:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smolarkiewicz PK, Margolin LG (1998) Mpdata: a finite-difference solver for geophysical flows. J Comput Phys 140:459–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Song YT, Chao Y (2000) An embedded bottom boundary layer formulation for z-coordinate ocean models. J Atmos Ocean Technol 17:546–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Toole JM, Polzin KL, Schmidt RW (1994) Estimates of diapycnal mixing in the abyssal ocean. Science 264:1120–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Umlauf L, Arneborg L, Burchard H, Fiekas V, Lass HU, Mohrholz V, Prandke H (2007) The transverse structure of turbulence in a rotating gravity current. Geophys Res Lett 34:L08601. doi: 10.1029/2007GL029521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Umlauf L, Burchard H, Bolding K (2005) General ocean turbulence model. Source code documentation. Tech Rep, vol 63. Baltic Sea Research Institute Warnemünde, Warnemünde, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  55. Veronis G (1977) Use of tracers in circulation studies. In: Goldberg ED et al (eds) The sea, vol 6. Wiley InterScience, Chichester, pp 169–188Google Scholar
  56. Webb DJ, Cuevas BD, Richmond C (1998) Improved advection schemes for ocean models. J Atmos Ocean Technol 15:1171–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Winters KB, D’Asaro EA (1996) Diascalar flux and the rate of fluid mixing. J Fluid Mech 317:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Winters KB, Lombard PN, Riley JJ, D’Asaro EA (1995) Available potential energy and mixing in density-stratified fluids. J Fluid Mech 289:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winther NG, Morel YG, Evensen G 2007 Efficiency of high order numerical schemes for momentum advection. J Mar Syst 67:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winton M, Hallberg R, Gnanadesikan A (1998) Simulation of density-driven frictional downslope flow in z-coordinate ocean models. J Phys Oceanogr 28:2163–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xing J, Davies AM (2007) On the importance of non-hydrostatic processes in determining tidally induced mixing in sill regions. Cont Shelf Res 27:2162–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research WarnemündeRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations