Advertisement

Ocean Dynamics

, Volume 60, Issue 2, pp 317–330 | Cite as

Estimation of the internal pressure gradient in σ-coordinate ocean models: comparison of second-, fourth-, and sixth-order schemes

  • Jarle BerntsenEmail author
  • Lie-Yauw Oey
Article

Abstract

Sigma-coordinate ocean models are attractive because of their abilities to resolve bottom and surface boundary layers. However, these models can have large internal pressure gradient (IPG) errors. In this paper, two classes of methods for the estimation of the IPGs are assessed. The first is based on the integral approach used in the Princeton Ocean Model (POM). The second is suggested by Shchepetkin and McWilliams (2003) based on Green’s theorem; thus, area integrals of the pressure forces are transformed into line integrals. Numerical tests on the seamount problem, as well as on a northwestern Atlantic grid using both classes of methods, are presented. For each class, second-, fourth-, and sixth-order approximations are tested. Results produced with a fourth-order compact method and with cubic spline methods are also given. The results show that the methods based on the POM approach in general give smaller errors than the corresponding methods given in Shchepetkin and McWilliams (2003). The POM approach also is more robust when noise is added to the topography. In particular, the IPG errors may be substantially reduced by using the computationally simple fourth-order method from McCalpin (1994).

Keywords

Ocean modeling Sigma-coordinates Internal pressure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank two reviewers and the editor for constructive remarks. The first author has received support from The Research Council of Norway through the CORDINO project grant 146526/420. The second author was partially supported by Minerals Management Service contract numbers M08PC20007.

References

  1. Barnier B, Marchesiello P, de Miranda A, Molines J-M, Coulibaly M (1998) A sigma-coordinate primitive equation model for studying the circulation in the South Atlantic. Part I: model configuration with error estimates. Deep-Sea Res I 45:543–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckmann A, Haidvogel D (1993) Numerical simulation of flow around a tall isolated seamount. Part I: problem formulation and model accuracy. J Phys Oceanogr 23:1736–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berntsen J (2002) Internal pressure errors in sigma-coordinate ocean models. J Atmos Ocean Technol 19(9):1403–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berntsen J, Furnes G (2005) Internal pressure errors in sigma-coordinate ocean models- sensitivity of the growth of the flow to the time stepping method and possible non-hydrostatic effects. Cont Shelf Res 25:829–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berntsen J, Thiem Ø (2007) Estimating the internal pressure gradient errors in a σ-coordinate ocean model for the Nordic Seas. Ocean Dyn 57:417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berntsen J, Xing J, Davies A (2008) Numerical studies of internal waves at a sill: sensitivity to horizontal size and subgrid scale closure. Cont Shelf Res 28:1376–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumberg A, Mellor G (1987) A description of a three-dimensional coastal ocean circulation model. In: Heaps N (ed) Three-dimensional coastal ocean models. Coastal and Estuarine Series, vol 4. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  8. Chu P, Fan C (1997) Sixth-order difference scheme for sigma coordinate ocean models. J Phys Oceanogr 27:2064–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu P, Fan C (2003) Hydrostatic correction for sigma coordinate ocean models. J Geophys Res 108:3206–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciappa A (2006) An operational comparative test of z-levels PGF schemes to reduce pressure gradient errors of the ocean model POM. Ocean Model 12:80–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Di Lorenzo E, Young W, Smith S (2006) Numerical and analytical estimates of M 2 tidal conversion at steep oceanic ridges. J Phys Oceanogr 36:1072–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ezer T, Arango H, Shchepetkin A (2002) Developments in terrain-following ocean models: intercomparisons of numerical aspects. Ocean Model 4:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortunato A, Baptista A (1996) Evaluation of horizontal gradients in sigma-coordinate shallow water models. Atmos-ocean 34:489–514Google Scholar
  14. Gary J (1973) Estimation of truncation errors in transformed coordinate, primitive equation atmospheric models. J Atmos Sci 30:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haney R (1991) On the pressure gradient force over steep topography in sigma coordinate ocean models. J Phys Oceanogr 21:610–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kantha L, Clayson C (2000) Numerical models of oceans and oceanic processes. In: International geophysics series, vol 66. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Kliem N, Pietrzak J (1999) On the pressure gradient error in sigma coordinate ocean models: a comparison with a laboratory experiment. J Geophys Res 104:29781–29799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCalpin J (1994) A comparison of second-order and fourth-order pressure gradient algorithms in a σ-coordinate ocean model. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 18:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellor G (2003) Users guide for a three-dimensional, primitive equation, numerical ocean model. Technical report, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. Mellor G, Ezer T, Oey L-Y (1994) The pressure gradient conundrum of sigma coordinate ocean models. J Atmos Ocean Technol 11:1126–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mellor G, Oey L-Y, Ezer T (1998) Sigma coordinate pressure gradient errors and the seamount problem. J Atmos Ocean Technol 15:1122–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oey L-Y, Lee H-C, Schmitz W Jr (2003) Effects of winds and Caribbean eddies on the frequency of loop current eddy shedding: a numerical study. J Geophys Res 108(C10):3324. doi:10.1029/2002JC001698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orzag S, Israeli M (1974) Numerical simulation of viscous incompressible flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 6:282–318Google Scholar
  24. Robertson R, Padman L, Levine M (2001) A correction to the baroclinic pressure gradient term in the Princeton ocean model. J Atmos Ocean Technol 18:1068–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shchepetkin A, McWilliams J (2003) A method for computing horizontal pressure-gradient force in an oceanic model with a non-aligned vertical coordinate. J Geophys Res 108(C3, 3090). doi:10.1029/2001C001047 Google Scholar
  26. Sikirić M, Janeković I, Kuzmić M (2009) A new approach to bathymetry smoothing in sigma-coordinate ocean models. Ocean Model 29:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slørdal L (1997) The pressure gradient force in sigma-co-ordinate ocean models. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 24:987–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Song Y (1998) A general pressure gradient formulation for ocean models. Part I: scheme design and diagnostic analysis. Mon Weather Rev 126:3213–3230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Song Y, Wright D (1998) A general pressure gradient formulation for ocean models. Part II: energy, momentum and bottom torque consistency. Mon Weather Rev 126:3231–3247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stelling G, Van Kester J (1994) On the approximation of horizontal gradients in sigma coordinates for bathymetry with steep bottom slopes. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 18:915–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations