Hernan,
I am a little confused with the bottom stress calculation in ROMS. There are 3 ways for this calculation using either linear drag coefficient, quadratic bottom drag coefficient, or logarithmic formulation via bottom roughtness. Only one method should be chosen. I find bottom stress is calculated in two places. One is in subroutine set_vbc.F, where bottom stress is proportional to the velocity at the lowest grid near the bottom. And antother is in subroutine step2d.F. Here bottom stress is proportional to the depth integrated velocity, which is true if only barotropic mode is simulated, and obviously it is different from that calculated in set_vbc.F in a 3D simulation. Bottom stress should be the same in both barotropic mode and baroclinic mode in a 3D simulation. Therefore it makes sense to me only in these two situations.
1) Only 2D not 3D simulation is done. In this case, set_vbc.F is not called. bottom stress is only calculated in step2d.F.
2) Choose logarithmic formulation for 3D simulation, then bottom stress is calculated only in set_vbc.F, since step2d.F does not compute bottom stress when linear or quadratic drag coefficient is zero.
If we simulate 3D circulation and choose linear or quadratic bottom drag coefficient instead of bottom roughness, we will run into this situation that bottom stress is different in barotropic and baroclinic mode.
I may misunderstand the code. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Liejun
Bottom stress in ROMS
Moderators: arango, kate, robertson
 arango
 Site Admin
 Posts: 1085
 Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 4:41 pm
 Location: IMCS, Rutgers University
 Contact:
Hi Liejun,
Yes, there are several ways to add bottom stress in ROMS:
Notice that in schemes 1 to 3, only one value is greater than zero. This is a must in order to have the appropriate code executed.
The logarithmic law of the wall is only apply to 3D configurations. It does not make sense, I think, to apply this to shallowwater applications neither to barotropic components "ubar" and "vbar". It is only applied to bottom baroclinic velocities!!! In 3D applications, the logarithmic bottom stress or other BBL formulations enter in the 2D equations (step2d) in the vertically integrated residual terms "rufrc" and "rvfrc".
Do this makes sense?
Good luck,
Hernan G. Arango
arango@imcs.rutgers.edu
Yes, there are several ways to add bottom stress in ROMS:
Code: Select all
1) Linear RDRG > 0, RDRG2 = 0, Zob = 0
2) quadratic RDRG = 0, RDRG2 > 0, Zob = 0
3) law of wall RDRG = 0, RDRG2 = 0, Zob > 0
4) bottom boundary layer model
The logarithmic law of the wall is only apply to 3D configurations. It does not make sense, I think, to apply this to shallowwater applications neither to barotropic components "ubar" and "vbar". It is only applied to bottom baroclinic velocities!!! In 3D applications, the logarithmic bottom stress or other BBL formulations enter in the 2D equations (step2d) in the vertically integrated residual terms "rufrc" and "rvfrc".
Do this makes sense?
Good luck,
Hernan G. Arango
arango@imcs.rutgers.edu

 Posts: 15
 Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:21 pm
 Location: University of New South Wales, Australia
Bottom Velocities
Hi,
In a 3D application with quadratic bottom friction what do the velocities at the lowest level in the model represent?
Are they a shear velocity (u*) or the velocity at the top of an assumed constant stress bottom boundary layer or something different?
cheers,
Deborah
In a 3D application with quadratic bottom friction what do the velocities at the lowest level in the model represent?
Are they a shear velocity (u*) or the velocity at the top of an assumed constant stress bottom boundary layer or something different?
cheers,
Deborah
 m.hadfield
 Posts: 520
 Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:12 am
 Location: NIWA
I think it does all work out correctly in the end, owing to the mysterious workings of the 2D/3D coupling. But I can't guarantee that. A while back I ran a test case with a doubly periodic domain initialized with a vertically uniform flow and confirmed that the deceleration of the flow matched the expected values. I could dig that up for you if you want to verify it.If we simulate 3D circulation and choose linear or quadratic bottom drag coefficient instead of bottom roughness, we will run into this situation that bottom stress is different in barotropic and baroclinic mode.
I may misunderstand the code. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Velocity at top of an assumed boundary layer.In a 3D application with quadratic bottom friction what do the velocities at the lowest level in the model represent?
Are they a shear velocity (u*) or the velocity at the top of an assumed constant stress bottom boundary layer or something different?
For a 3D application, the bottom stress is computed in set_vbc.F and is not computed in step2d.F at all.
From step2d.F:
It enters the barotropic mode through the magic of 2D/3D coupling (as does surface momentum stress).
This is one of the things that took me quite a while to completely figure out when I was working on the diagnostics.
From step2d.F:
Code: Select all
# ifndef SOLVE3D
!
!
! Add in bottom stress.
!
!
This is one of the things that took me quite a while to completely figure out when I was working on the diagnostics.