Stable Numerical Implementation of a Turbulence Scheme with Two Prognostic Turbulence Energies

Ján Mašek aCzech Hydrometeorological Institute, Prague, Czech Republic

Search for other papers by Ján Mašek in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9385-2506
,
Ivan Bašták Ďurán bGoethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Search for other papers by Ivan Bašták Ďurán in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Radmila Brožková aCzech Hydrometeorological Institute, Prague, Czech Republic

Search for other papers by Radmila Brožková in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Full access

Abstract

In this paper, we present a new and more stable numerical implementation of the two-energy configuration of the Third Order Moments Unified Condensation and N-dependent Solver (TOUCANS) turbulence scheme. The original time-stepping scheme in TOUCANS tends to suffer from spurious oscillations in stably stratified turbulent flows. Because of their high frequency, the oscillations resemble the so-called fibrillations that are caused by the coupling between turbulent exchange coefficients and the stability parameter. However, our analysis and simulations show that the oscillations in the two-energy scheme are caused by the usage of a specific implicit–explicit temporal discretization for the relaxation terms. In TOUCANS, the relaxation technique is used on source and dissipation terms in prognostic turbulence energy equations to ensure numerical stability for relatively long time steps. We present both a detailed linear stability analysis and a bifurcation analysis, which indicate that the temporal discretization is oscillatory for time steps exceeding a critical time-step length. Based on these findings, we propose a new affordable time discretization of the involved terms that makes the scheme more implicit. This ensures stable solutions with enough accuracy for a wider range of time-step lengths. We confirm the analytical outcomes in both idealized 1D and full 3D model experiments.

Significance Statement

The vertical turbulent transport of momentum, heat, and moisture has to be parameterized in numerical weather prediction models. The parameterization typically employs nonlinear damping equations, whose numerical integration can lead to unphysical, time-oscillating solutions. In general, a presence of such numerical noise negatively affects the model performance. In our work, we address numerical issues of the recently developed scheme with two prognostic turbulence energies that have more realism and physical complexity. Specifically, we detect, explain, and design a numerical treatment for a new type of spurious oscillations that is connected to the temporal discretization. The treatment suppresses the oscillations and allows us to increase the model time step more than 4 times while keeping an essentially non-oscillatory solution.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Ján Mašek, jan.masek@chmi.cz

Abstract

In this paper, we present a new and more stable numerical implementation of the two-energy configuration of the Third Order Moments Unified Condensation and N-dependent Solver (TOUCANS) turbulence scheme. The original time-stepping scheme in TOUCANS tends to suffer from spurious oscillations in stably stratified turbulent flows. Because of their high frequency, the oscillations resemble the so-called fibrillations that are caused by the coupling between turbulent exchange coefficients and the stability parameter. However, our analysis and simulations show that the oscillations in the two-energy scheme are caused by the usage of a specific implicit–explicit temporal discretization for the relaxation terms. In TOUCANS, the relaxation technique is used on source and dissipation terms in prognostic turbulence energy equations to ensure numerical stability for relatively long time steps. We present both a detailed linear stability analysis and a bifurcation analysis, which indicate that the temporal discretization is oscillatory for time steps exceeding a critical time-step length. Based on these findings, we propose a new affordable time discretization of the involved terms that makes the scheme more implicit. This ensures stable solutions with enough accuracy for a wider range of time-step lengths. We confirm the analytical outcomes in both idealized 1D and full 3D model experiments.

Significance Statement

The vertical turbulent transport of momentum, heat, and moisture has to be parameterized in numerical weather prediction models. The parameterization typically employs nonlinear damping equations, whose numerical integration can lead to unphysical, time-oscillating solutions. In general, a presence of such numerical noise negatively affects the model performance. In our work, we address numerical issues of the recently developed scheme with two prognostic turbulence energies that have more realism and physical complexity. Specifically, we detect, explain, and design a numerical treatment for a new type of spurious oscillations that is connected to the temporal discretization. The treatment suppresses the oscillations and allows us to increase the model time step more than 4 times while keeping an essentially non-oscillatory solution.

© 2022 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Ján Mašek, jan.masek@chmi.cz

1. Introduction

The Third Order Moments Unified Condensation and N-dependent Solver (TOUCANS) turbulence scheme was developed within the numerical weather prediction (NWP) system Aire Limitée Adaptation Dynamique Développement International (ALADIN). Because the TOUCANS scheme was designed for a spectral model with the two-time level semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian scheme, emphasis was put on stability and accuracy for long time steps. As one of the key components of the so-called ALARO-1 canonical model configuration of ALADIN (Termonia et al. 2018), the TOUCANS scheme encompasses several scientific choices, mainly (i) no critical gradient Richardson number, (ii) two prognostic turbulence energies: turbulence kinetic energy (TKE; ek) and turbulence total energy (TTE; es), and (iii) modeling of moisture influence on the turbulence mixing via the buoyancy term in the TKE equation. They are described in Bašták Ďurán et al. (2014, 2018, hereinafter BD14 and BD18, respectively). An option particularly interesting for NWP is the two-energy scheme of BD18, employing a prognostic TKE along with a prognostic TTE. The ratio of prognostic energies es/ek is used as the only stability parameter of the turbulence scheme. Even though the two-energy scheme employs only a downgradient approach, it exhibits more continuous space–time behavior and deeper mixing than a traditional TKE scheme. Such behavior is in better agreement with the large eddy simulation results.

The numerical implementation of a downgradient turbulence scheme is prone to oscillations, the so-called fibrillations. They were described in Kalnay and Kanamitsu (1988), along with an overview of tested time schemes and with a treatment proposal. Since then, other so-called antifibrillation schemes suiting for NWP models were elaborated, e.g., the work of Girard and Delage (1990) and more recently Bénard et al. (2000). Specifically, fibrillations are bounded high frequency oscillations with a vertical wavelength equal to twice the model level spacing Δz. There are two ingredients responsible for the generation of the fibrillations: (i) the coupling between momentum and potential temperature via the turbulent exchange coefficients and (ii) the only partially implicit discretization of the vertical diffusion term, where, for feasibility reasons, the nonlinear exchange coefficient is treated explicitly in time. Fibrillations thus appear in the momentum and the thermodynamic variables under specific conditions and for model time steps exceeding ∼100 s (see section 4 of Bénard et al. 2000).

When going from the K-type schemes (Louis 1979) to the prognostic TKE ones, the antifibrillation treatment becomes unnecessary. The reason is a calculation of the exchange coefficients from the prognostic TKE instead of its gradient estimation via wind shear. As a result of additional prognostic information about the turbulence intensity, the evolution of the exchange coefficients is smoother, transferring more information between the model time steps. This remains true also in presence of water phase changes—for example, in clouds.

Naturally, the abovementioned advantage of the TKE based computation of the exchange coefficients is preserved in TOUCANS when using the two-energy scheme. Therefore, it was a surprise to detect noisy patterns in the turbulent fluxes, a kind of ∼2Δt oscillations, since nothing like that was expected. These oscillations tend to appear in stable stratification conditions, and, in contrast with the previous experience with fibrillations, they have a smooth vertical structure. Another important property is that their coupling with momentum and thermodynamic variables is weak. Consequently, they are harder to detect since they are not that apparent in the wind and temperature fields. The core of our work is to describe and numerically analyze this new type of oscillations, appearing in the two-energy scheme as implemented in TOUCANS. Based on this analysis, we propose an iterative method for the time scheme, which focuses on the suppression of the oscillation generation.

The structure of the paper is as follows: section 2 briefly describes the TOUCANS turbulence scheme. Section 3 provides motivation for our work by demonstrating the problem of the ∼2Δt oscillations. Section 4 explains the mechanism by which the oscillations are generated in a simplified system. An alternative temporal discretization to avoid the ∼2Δt oscillations in a full system is also proposed. Section 5 demonstrates the performance of the proposed treatment in 1D and 3D tests. Section 6 summarizes the treatment and the method and outlines the future work on the topic.

2. The two-energy scheme

To study the numerical aspects of the two-energy scheme, we first highlight its essential components. We start from the continuous formulation and proceed to spatial and temporal discretization aspects. Two minor updates of the TOUCANS scheme with respect to BD18 formulation are also described: (i) separate length scales for the molecular dissipation and for the eddy diffusivity and (ii) separate turbulent exchange coefficients for the TKE and the TTE. Both updates affect our analysis of the ∼2Δt oscillations.

a. Continuous formulation

Prognostic equations for the TKE and the turbulence potential energy (TPE; ep) are given by Eqs. (55) and (59) of BD18:
ekt+ADV(ek)=z(Kekekz)+I+II2ekτk and
ept+ADV(ep)=z(Kepepz)II2epCpτk,
where ADV() is an advection term; z is height; Kek and Kep are the TKE and the TPE exchange coefficients, respectively; I is the TKE shear production term; II is the TKE buoyant production/destruction term; τk is the TKE dissipation time scale; and Cp is a dimensionless closure constant such that 0 < Cp < 1. The sum of Eqs. (1) and (2) gives a prognostic equation for the TTE:
est+ADV(es)=z(Kesesz)+I2esτs, with
esek+ep.

The first terms on the right-hand side (RHS) of Eqs. (1)(3) are downgradient diffusion parameterizations of the turbulence diffusion and pressure correlation terms, and they represent the turbulent transport of the prognostic energies. The turbulent transport term in Eq. (3) would be obtained from Eqs. (1) and (2) only for Kep=Kek, implying also Kes=Kek. This was the case in BD18, but here we proceed differently. We do not specify the TPE exchange coefficient Kep, which is not entering further considerations, instead we postulate the relationship for the TTE exchange coefficient Kes, as will be explained later. The two-energy scheme is then build up on prognostic Eqs. (1) and (3).

By construction, the TTE dissipation term is a sum of the TKE and the TPE dissipation terms:
2esτs2ekτk+2epCpτk.
Together with the definition in Eq. (4) it yields the formula for the TTE dissipation time scale:
τs=Cprr(1Cp)τk,res/ek,
where the ratio r of the turbulence energies represents a stability parameter. This parameter can be linked to the flux Richardson number Rif = −II/I under an equilibrium assumption by neglecting the local evolution, turbulent transport and advection of the turbulence energies:
Rif=r1r(1Cp).
Expressing r from Eq. (7) and inserting it into Eq. (6) gives the final formula for the TTE dissipation time scale:
τs=[1(1Cp)Rif]τk.
The source terms I and II are defined via the turbulent fluxes:
I=uw¯uzυw¯υzandII=sLw¯EsL+qtw¯Eqt
Here u and υ are the horizontal wind components, w is the vertical wind component, sL is the static energy given by Eq. (20) of BD18, qt is the total specific water content, and the factors EsL and Eqt are given by Eqs. (21) and (22) of BD18. A bar denotes Reynolds averaging, and a prime denotes perturbation from the mean value.
Within the K theory, the turbulent fluxes are approximated via the local gradients. Proportionality factors are momentum and heat exchange coefficients, KM and KH:
uw¯=KMuz,υw¯=KMυz, and
sLw¯=KHsLz,qtw¯=KHqtz,
so that the source terms are simplified to
I=KM[(uz)2+(υz)2]S2andII=KH[EsLsLz+Eqtqtz]Nmoist2.
In the above given formulas, S2 is the squared wind shear and Nmoist2 is the squared moist Brunt–Väisälä frequency derived by Marquet and Geleyn (2013) from the specific entropy of the moist air.
In BD18, a single length scale Ln is used for the computation of the TKE dissipation time scale, τk, as well as for the computation of the momentum and the heat exchange coefficients, KM and KH [see Eqs. (3), (13), and (14) in BD18]. However, in the updated version of the TOUCANS scheme, τk is defined via the molecular dissipation length scale Lϵ and the exchange coefficients are expressed via the eddy diffusivity length scale LK:
τk=2LϵCϵek,
KM=CKLKχ3ek,andKH=C3CKLKϕ3ek,
where Cϵ and CK are dimensionless closure constants; C3 is the inverse turbulent Prandtl number at neutrality; and χ3 and ϕ3 are stability functions for momentum and heat, respectively. The stability functions depend on the flux Richardson number Rif, related to the stability parameter r by Eq. (7). Their shape is given by Eqs. (C1) of appendix C.
There is a stability-dependent relation between the length scales Lϵ, LK, and Ln, derived in appendix A:
Lϵ=Ln/Fϵ,LK=LnFϵ1/3, and
Ln4=LϵLK3,
with the stability factor Fϵ given by Eq. (A8) of appendix A.

All results presented in our paper were obtained with a height-dependent turbulent length scale Ln given by Eq. (C2) of appendix C, the vertical profile of which is determined by the height of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). In this formulation, there is no direct influence of the TKE on Ln, which simplifies the analysis of the spurious ∼2Δt oscillations.

The expressions for the TKE and the TTE exchange coefficients Kek and Kes are given only at the end of section 2b since their choice is closely related to discretization aspects. Another issue important for the numerical implementation of the scheme are realizability constraints, explained in appendix B.

b. Discretization aspects

Prognostic Eqs. (1) and (3) can be jointly written as
et+ADV(e)=z(Keez)+2τ(e˜e),
where the subscripts k and s were omitted for brevity and 2(e˜e)/τ is a relaxation term representing sources and sinks, written via equilibrium TKE and TTE values:
e˜kτk2(I+II)ande˜sτs2I.
Temporal discretization of Eq. (17) is done using a split scheme. First the local evolution of the turbulence energies is done, followed by their advection handled by the semi-Lagrangian scheme. The local evolution over the time step Δt is discretized as follows:
e+e0Δt=z[βKe0e+z+(1β)Ke0e0z] +2τ0[e˜0βτe+(1βτ)e0],
where superscripts 0 and + indicate quantities valid at the time levels t and t + Δt, respectively. The β and βτ are implicitness factors for vertical diffusion and relaxation. The antifibrillation treatment of Bénard et al. (2000) is turned off by setting β = 1, that is, the classical discretization of the vertical diffusion term with an explicit exchange coefficient and an implicit diffused quantity. For the relaxation term, overimplicit treatment with βτ = 1.5 was used originally [Eq. (69) of BD18], following the work of Kalnay and Kanamitsu (1988).1 As will be shown in section 3, however, setting βτ = 1.5 is not sufficient to obtain a non-oscillatory scheme when the equilibrium energy e˜ depends on prognostic energy e.
Equation (19) is vertically discretized on a staggered grid as depicted in Fig. 1. The turbulence energy e is defined on full levels i, and the quantities Ke, τ, and e˜ are defined on half levels i˜. When needed, the half-level value of e is evaluated as an arithmetic average of its adjacent full-level values, with a special treatment at the top and bottom boundaries. Conversely, a full-level value of a half-level quantity X is evaluated as a weighted average:
Xi=αiδiXi˜1+(1αiδi)Xi˜,
where αi and δi denote logarithmic pressure thickness, explained in Fig. 1. Vertical derivatives in the turbulent transport term are evaluated using central finite differences.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Vertical staggering used in the ALADIN system. The atmosphere is sliced into N layers. Quantities representing mean layer properties are evaluated on the so-called full levels 1, 2, …, N (dashed lines). Fluxes between layers are evaluated on layer interfaces or the so-called half levels 0˜,1˜,,N˜ (solid lines). Here, δiln(pi˜/pi˜1) denotes logarithmic pressure thickness of the layer i, and αiln(pi˜/pi) denotes logarithmic pressure thickness between the full level i and the half level i˜, where p is a hydrostatic pressure.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Equation (19) is evaluated on full levels, where the prognostic TKE and TTE are evolved. Application of the above given discretization rules, with the relaxation term evaluated on half levels and interpolated to full levels, leads to a tridiagonal system for energies ei+, with the ith row having the following form:
(,ac,1+a+b+c+d,bd,)i·(ei1+ei+ei+1+)=RHSi0,
ai=βτΔtτi˜10αiδi,bi=βτΔtτi˜0(1αiδi),ci=βΔtKei˜10ΔziΔzi˜1,di=βΔtKei˜0ΔziΔzi˜,
Δzi=zi˜1zi˜,andΔzi˜=zizi+1.
Because of a property ai, bi, ci, di > 0, the matrix of the system in Eq. (21) is strictly diagonally dominant and thus invertible. All elements on the main diagonal are positive. For sufficiently high vertical resolutions, off-diagonal elements are negative, dominated by −ci and −di. In such a case, all elements of the inverse matrix are positive, yielding non-oscillatory response of the turbulence energy to localized forcing. For low vertical resolutions, however, off-diagonal elements of the system matrix become positive, being dominated by ai and bi. Signs of the inverse matrix then form a chessboard pattern, contaminating the response to localized forcing by 2Δz noise.
Spurious 2Δz noise in the numerical solution can be avoided by limiting off-diagonal elements aici and bidi to nonpositive values for each i. This translates into the following conditions for the product Keτ:
Kei˜0τi˜0βτβαi+1δi+1Δzi+1Δzi˜,
Kei˜0τi˜0βτβ(1αiδi)ΔziΔzi˜,
which can be expressed as a single limitation:
Kei˜0τi˜0βτΔzi˜β×max[(1αiδi)Δzi,αi+1δi+1Δzi+1].
If the condition in Eq. (24) is not fulfilled, it is forced by local increase in the exchange coefficient.
In BD18, it was assumed that the exchange coefficients for the TKE and the TTE are equal. In the updated version of the TOUCANS scheme, we define the TTE exchange coefficient as
Kes=Kekτkτs.
The definition in Eq. (25) is motivated pragmatically. It enables us to make the TKE and the TTE solvers vertically non-oscillatory by a single modification to the system, thanks to the form of the condition in Eq. (24). If Kes were equal to Kek (as is assumed in BD18), then the condition (24) would have to be valid for the minimum between τk and τs instead of τk and τs individually. This is more restrictive than using Eq. (25).
Like BD18, we derive the TKE exchange coefficient Kek from a basic assumption that it is proportional to the product of Ln and ek (Cuxart et al. 2000; Mironov and Machulskaya 2017):
Kek=CeLnFϵek,
where Ce is a calibration constant. The stability factor Fϵ comes from an additional requirement that the product Kekτk is proportional to Ln2 with a constant factor [see Eqs. (13) and (15)]. Such enforcement on the form of Kek is arbitrary, but it still follows the basic assumption KekLnek. In addition, it ensures that the numerical stabilization of the solver is independent of a stability parameter, which makes the TKE and the TTE solvers more robust.

3. Spurious ∼2Δt oscillations in the two-energy scheme

Experimentation with the two-energy scheme revealed that it tends to generate spurious ∼2Δt oscillations in stable atmospheric conditions. The oscillations appear in the prognostic TKE and TTE, subsequently affecting the flux Richardson number, the turbulent exchange coefficients and the turbulent fluxes, while momentum and thermodynamic variables are influenced only weakly. We demonstrate the nature of the oscillations in idealized conditions and in NWP conditions.

In all presented experiments, the TOUCANS turbulence scheme used the two-energy option, and the so-called model II of BD14. The parameterization of the third-order moments was switched off for simplicity. Closure constants and other tunings of the TOUCANS scheme, including numerical thresholds, are summarized in Tables C1C3 of appendix C.

a. Idealized simulations

Idealized simulations were performed with the single column model (SCM) setup of the Integrated Forecast System (IFS), namely, with the OpenIFS (ECMWF 2020), which is a portable version of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model IFS. The code used in this paper is based on the IFS model cycle 40r1 (ECMWF 2014), which already contains the core TOUCANS subroutines. The interface that enables us to call the TOUCANS scheme from the IFS physics has been added for the purpose of this paper. Also, the TOUCANS implementation was updated according to the description in section 2.

The oscillatory behavior of the model was analyzed in stable conditions, which were suspected to be necessary for the generation of the oscillations. The chosen case was developed by the Global Energy and Water Exchanges project (GEWEX), and it is based on the GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary Layer Study (GABLS) project (Holtslag 2006; Beare et al. 2006; Cuxart et al. 2006). The case assumes dry atmosphere. The initial state is neutrally stratified up to the height of 100 m, with a constant potential temperature profile of 265 K. Higher up, the initial stratification is stable, with a potential temperature increase of 0.01 K m−1. Boundary layer is driven by an imposed geostrophic wind of 8 m s−1 (the latitude is assumed to be 73°), the surface pressure is kept at constant value of 1013.2 hPa. The prescribed surface potential temperature starts from the initial value of 265 K and cools by 0.25 K h−1. The roughness length for both momentum and heat is 0.1 m. The experiment design enables simulations without a radiation scheme, when the initially neutral layer stabilizes because of the prescribed surface cooling. The length of the simulations is 9 h.

We performed OpenIFS SCM simulations using hydrostatic dynamical core with the two-time level semi-Lagrangian scheme. The target time-step length was 90 s, corresponding to the ALARO-1 configuration with a horizontal mesh size of 2.3 km. A reference solution was provided by a SCM simulation with time-step length of 1 s. All SCM simulations used 91 vertical levels with 17 levels in the lowest 2 km and 8 levels in the lowest 400 m, which was our region of interest. Given the case design, the OpenIFS SCM simulations used only the turbulence scheme; the remaining physical parameterizations were turned off.

The SCM simulations confirmed the generation of the ∼2Δt oscillations in stable stratification. The problem is illustrated in Figs. 24. Figure 2 shows evolution of selected quantities on the 87th full and half model levels (approximately 155 and 125 m above the ground). Configuration with a time step of 90 s (red) suffers from oscillations in the TKE, TTE, and especially in the turbulent heat flux. In contrast, the temperature evolution remains smooth. Shortening of the time step to 45 s (brown) does not remove these oscillations, it only reduces their amplitude. The reference solution with a time step of 1 s (dashed black) is oscillation-free.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Evolutions calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 87th model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 87th model half level, and (d) temperature on the 87th model full level. Red indicates a time step of 90 s, brown indicates a time step of 45 s, and dashed black gives the reference with a time step of 1 s. All simulations used βτ = 1.5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Vertical profiles after 7.5-h OpenIFS SCM simulations of the GABLS1 case: (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature. The horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 2 are depicted; the meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 2. Dashed red and brown lines denote turbulent heat flux from the previous model time step.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Vertical-time cross sections of (left) turbulent heat flux and (right) temperature, calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a),(b) time step of 90 s, (c),(d) time step of 45 s, and (e),(f) the reference with a time step of 1 s. All simulations used δ = 0 (no oscillation treatment) and βτ = 1.5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Figure 3 illustrates that ∼2Δt oscillating modes have a smooth (non-oscillatory) vertical structure, which makes them different from the classical fibrillations. The differences in the vertical profiles of the turbulent heat flux between subsequent model time steps (Fig. 3a) reveal that these oscillations are most severe in the capping temperature inversion of the ABL (Fig. 3b). A more complete picture of ∼2Δt oscillations is provided by the vertical-time cross sections in Fig. 4, where the vertical coherence of the oscillations is evident.

b. NWP simulations

To demonstrate the problem also in NWP conditions, we performed a 3D test using the ALADIN model in its ALARO-1 configuration. General description of the ALARO configuration can be found in Termonia et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2018). Here we list only the key properties relevant for our work: The model is integrated using the nonhydrostatic fully elastic spectral dynamical kernel, with a vertical finite-difference discretization using the Lorenz grid. A two-time level temporal discretization with one iteration of the centered-implicit scheme, combined with a semi-Lagrangian advection, allows for a time step equal to 90 s. Configuration of the TOUCANS turbulence scheme was the same as in the SCM simulations.

The 3D test was run on a domain covering Central Europe, with a horizontal mesh size of 2.3 km and 87 vertical levels, with 29 levels in the lowest 2 km. To verify the role of atmospheric stability in generating the oscillations, we have selected a 12-h window starting at 0000 UTC 21 April 2020. Atmospheric conditions in the target area were characterized by few clouds, with a strongly stable ABL at night, which quickly destabilized after sunrise.

Figure 5 shows the turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level (∼130 m above the ground) after a 3-h forecast. A large portion of the domain, for example, the whole of Poland, is covered by a short-scale noise resulting from the horizontally uncorrelated ∼2Δt oscillations. In the marked point, 12-h evolutions of selected quantities are displayed in Fig. 13 by red lines (see section 5b). In this point, the 82nd model half level lies within the capping temperature inversion of the ABL. The ∼2Δt oscillations are most severe in the turbulent heat flux, but they disappear as soon as the turbulent heat flux becomes oriented upward (negative in our convention), i.e., when the local temperature stratification becomes unstable.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level (∼130 m above the ground). The 3-h ALARO-1 forecast valid at 0300 UTC 21 Apr 2020 is shown, calculated with a time step of 90 s and βτ = 1.5. The flux is positive downward, with stably stratified areas in blue. For better readability, only the part of the integration domain covering Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia is displayed. The red cross denotes point 52°N, 17°E, further inspected in Figs. 13 and 14, below.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

4. Proposed treatment of the ∼2Δt oscillations

It has been empirically shown that the ∼2Δt oscillations are generated if and only if the relaxation term 2(e˜e)/τ is activated in Eq. (17). Therefore, the temporal discretization of this term is the main object of our analysis. In this section, the 2Δt oscillations are first analyzed in a simplified system. We trace their cause and propose an iterative treatment that extends the range of admissible time-step lengths Δt. After finding an optimal configuration, the treatment is generalized for the full model.

a. Simplified system displaying the t oscillations

Let us assume that we have a system of two ordinary differential equations for unknown functions x(t) and y(t) of the form:
dxdt=1τ[xx˜(x)],x(xy),
where τ > 0 is a relaxation time, and x˜(x) is an equilibrium term with a fixed point x:
x˜(x)=x.
When the equilibrium term is linearized around x as
x˜(x)x+M(xx),
the system in Eq. (27) can be reformulated for deviation Δxxx:
ddtΔx=1τ(IM)Δx,
where I is a unit matrix and M is a Jacobian matrix x˜/x evaluated at x.
We will further assume that the system matrix (IM) has real positive eigenvalues λ1 and λ2, with associated eigenvectors ξ1 and ξ2. In such a case, the solution for Δx(t) is non-oscillatory and converges to zero for t→∞. In other words, the relaxation term ensures convergence of x(t) toward x. An initial state Δx directed along eigenvector ξj decays as exp(−λjt/τ), so that the evolution factor between successive time steps is as follows:
Λjexact=exp(λjΔtτ)=exp(λjγ),
where we have introduced the nondimensional time step γ ≡ Δt/τ.
Temporal discretization of the system in Eq. (30) must be consistent. Implicit discretization reads as
Δx+Δx0Δt=1τ(IM)Δx+,
yielding the following time-step evolution:
Δx+=[I+γ(IM)]1ΛimplΔx0.
It is trivial to check that the evolution matrix Λimpl has eigenvectors ξj, associated with eigenvalues
Λjimpl=11+λjγ.
Since 0<Λjimpl<1, the implicit discretization in Eq. (32) ensures non-oscillatory convergence of the numerical solution to zero. Moreover, eigenvalues Λjimpl tend to zero for γ → +∞, which is the same asymptotic behavior as for exact evolution factors given by Eq. (31).
The main problem with the implicit discretization of the system in Eq. (27) is that it cannot be reduced to the matrix inversion in Eq. (33) when the dependence x˜(x) is nonlinear. For this reason, Eq. (19) employs a mixed-type discretization of the relaxation term. In current notation it reads as
Δx+Δx0Δt=1τ[βτΔx++(1βτ)Δx0]+1τMΔx0,
where βτ ≥ 0 is the implicitness factor. Expressing Δx+ from Eq. (35) does not require a matrix inversion:
Δx+=[Iγ1+βτγ(IM)]ΛexplΔx0,
and, therefore, it can be used also for a nonlinear problem. The evolution matrix Λexpl (where “expl” refers to the explicit discretization of the equilibrium term) has also the eigenvectors ξj, this time associated with eigenvalues
Λjexpl=1+(βτλj)γ1+βτγ.
Equation (37) always ensures Λjexpl<1. However, requirement Λjexpl>0 is guaranteed unconditionally only for βτλj. When βτ < λj, non-oscillatory behavior of its associated eigenmode imposes an upper limit on the time-step length Δtτ/(λjβτ). For longer time steps, 2Δt oscillations appear, and for βτ < λj/2 they eventually become unstable with Λjexpl<1.
The above described analysis suggests that the discretization in Eq. (35) should be ideally used with the implicitness factor βτ = max(λ1, λ2). However, such choice has a drawback when eigenvalues λ1 and λ2 are very different. If λ1 > λ2 (recall that they are both positive) then the choice βτ = λ1 gives
Λ1expl=11+λ1γandΛ2expl=1+(λ1λ2)γ1+λ1γ.
Equation (38) for Λ1expl is identical to the implicit formula in Eq. (34). However, the expression for Λ2expl is different, yielding a positive limit 1 − λ2/λ1 for γ → +∞. Therefore, convergence of the associated eigenmode to zero will be too slow for long time steps, deteriorating accuracy of the numerical solution especially for λ1λ2. In such situations, the discretization in Eq. (35) is inappropriate, and a different approach that is closer to the implicit discretization in Eq. (32) has to be found for nonlinear problems.

b. Iterative treatment of the t oscillations in the simplified system

A straightforward way to avoid 2Δt oscillations in the numerical solution of the system (27) is to use implicit discretization of the whole relaxation term [x˜(x)x]/τ. To be applicable in the nonlinear model, an implicit treatment must be achieved iteratively, involving only inversions of linear operators. For this reason, we propose the following iterative discretization of Eq. (30):
Δx+(n+1)Δx0Δt=1τ[Δx+(n+1)δMΔx+(n)(1δ)MΔx0],
where n is the iteration number and δ is the implicitness factor of the equilibrium term. The solution for Δx+(n+1) reads as
Δx+(n+1)=δγMΔx+(n)+[I+(1δ)γM]Δx01+γ.
The starting value Δx+(0) can be provided by the solution with the explicitly treated equilibrium term, that is, by Eq. (40) with δ = 0:
Δx+(0)=(I+γM)Δx01+γ.
It can be easily checked that the converged solution of Eq. (40) with δ = 1 is identical to the implicit solution in Eq. (33). When iterations converge, the solver in Eq. (40) provides the desired solution without the need of inverting the operator involving matrix M.

We will now examine the convergence of the solver Eqs. (40)(41). Because of the linearity of the system, it is sufficient to check the convergence for eigenvectors of the matrix M. From Eq. (41) it follows that if Δx0 is directed along the eigenvector ξj, then the starting iteration Δx+(0) preserves this direction. Equation (40) guarantees that all higher iterations Δx+(n) are also directed along the eigenvector ξj. We can therefore introduce amplification factors Λj(n), defining the stretching of the vector Δx+(n) with respect to Δx0ξj.

Equations (40) and (41) provide recurrent relation for iterated amplification factors Λj(n):
Λj(n+1)=δγ(1λj)Λj(n)+1+(1δ)γ(1λj)1+γ and
Λj(0)=1+γ(1λj)1+γ.
We recall that the eigenvalue of the matrix M associated with the eigenvector ξj is (1 − λj).
Equation (42) is a simple linear recursion:
Λj(n+1)=AjΛj(n)+Bj,
with coefficients
Aj=δγ(1λj)1+γandBj=1+(1δ)γ(1λj)1+γ.
Therefore, iterations of Eq. (44) converge to the fixed point Λj=Bj/(1Aj) if and only if |Aj| < 1. Divergence occurs for δ(λj − 1) > 1, but only when γ ≥ 1/[δ(λj − 1) − 1]. Smaller δ provides wider convergence interval for the nondimensional time step γ. For example, δ = 1 gives unconditional convergence for λj ≤ 2, while δ = 0.25 for λj ≤ 5.

Properties of various temporal discretizations of the system in Eq. (30) are illustrated in Fig. 6, assuming the eigenvalue λj = 50. The desired implicit discretization (gray) is non-oscillatory, but it overestimates the exact response (black). Explicit discretization of the equilibrium term with βτ = 1 (brown) yields oscillations for γ0.02 (negative amplification factor), and the oscillations are unstable for γ0.04 (amplification factor smaller than −1). The situation improves only marginally by using βτ = 1.5 (red). The limit solution n = ∞ with δ = 0.25 (light green) lies between implicit (gray) and explicit (red and brown) solutions. Odd iterations (solid lines) lie above the limit solution, even iterations (dashed lines) below it. Even iterations have thus stronger tendency to oscillate than odd iterations.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Amplification factors Λj for the exact solution (black) of the system in Eq. (30) with eigenvalue λj = 50, and for various discretizations of the equilibrium term: implicit (gray) and explicit with βτ = 1.5 (red) and 1 (brown), iterated 1–4 times with δ = 0.25 (green), and the limit solution n = ∞ obtained as the fixed point of Eq. (44) with δ = 0.25 (light green). Even and odd iterations are plotted with dashed and solid lines, respectively, with n denoting the number of iterations. The dashed vertical line denotes the value of γ below which iterations of Eq. (44) converge to the limit solution.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

The solution with one iteration of the equilibrium term is of particular interest, since it has smallest tendency to oscillate. Inserting Eq. (43) into Eq. (42) with n = 0 yields the amplification factor:
Λj(1)=1+(2λj)γ+(1λj)(1δλj)γ2(1+γ)2.
For given implicitness parameter δ and for assumed range of eigenvalues λj ∈ [1, λmax], the numerical evaluation of Eq. (46) enables one to find a critical time step γcrit at which the amplification factor Λj(1) exits the interval [0, 1) for the first time. While the amplification factor stays in the interval [0, 1), the numerical solution converges to the fixed point without oscillations. Figure 7 shows the dependence γcrit(δ) for three values of λmax. A maximum value of γcrit is gained for the solution with δ ≈ 0.25, where it is about 4 times as high as for the explicit solution with δ = 0. A larger λmax yields a smaller critical time step γcrit, with a roughly inverse proportionality. The shape of γcrit(δ) dependence suggests that it might be beneficial to use δ slightly bigger than 0.25.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Critical nondimensional time step γcrit as a function of the implicitness factor δ for the scheme with single iteration. Eigenvalues λj range from 1 to λmax. The thin vertical line denotes the nearly optimal value δ = 0.25.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Figure 8 demonstrates accuracy of the single iteration with δ = 0.25 (green) at the opposite end of the spectrum, namely, for eigenvalue λj = 2. For γ < 1 the amplification factor is remarkably close to the exact value (black). For γ1.3 the amplification factor becomes negative, and the damped oscillations appear. Explicit discretization of the equilibrium term is now much more sensitive to parameter βτ. Increasing βτ from 1 (brown) to 1.5 (red) moves the amplification factor more than half-way toward the implicit solution (gray), and it ensures non-oscillatory solution for γ ≤ 2.

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Amplification factors Λj for the exact solution of the system in Eq. (30) with eigenvalue λj = 2, and for various discretizations of the equilibrium term. The meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 6; lines with n = 2, 3, and 4 are omitted.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

c. Iterative treatment of the t oscillations in the full system

The application of the iterative treatment in the full system leads to a replacement of Eq. (19) by
e+(n+1)e0Δt=z[Ke0e+(n+1)z]+2τ0{δe˜[e+(n)]+(1δ)e˜(e0)e+(n+1)},
where n is the iteration number, δ is the implicitness factor introduced for the equilibrium energy e˜, and the implicitness factors β and βτ are both set to 1. Solving Eq. (47) for the energy e+(n+1) is achieved by inversion of the linear operator.

In section 4b, we analyzed convergence properties of the iterative solver in Eq. (47) for a simplified linear system. We concluded that one corrective iteration of the solver with the implicitness factor δ close to 0.25 is optimal for suppressing the 2Δt oscillations. Using δ = 1 is not recommended, because it results in a narrow convergence interval, so that the desired implicit solution is not approached for the time-step lengths of interest. Using δ = 0.25 with more than one corrective iteration is also not recommended, since it makes the solution more prone to oscillations. In the following, we apply the solver procedure from section 4b on the nonlinear system in Eq. (17), omitting the advection term that is treated separately.

The preliminary step is taken by solving Eq. (47) for δ = 0 and n = 0, denoting e+(1) as e(+):
ek|s(+)ek|s0Δt=z[Kek|s0ek|s(+)z]+2τk|s0[e˜k|s0ek|s(+)],
where the equilibrium energies are evaluated using Eqs. (18) at the time level t. The shear and buoyancy terms are calculated from the turbulent fluxes coming from the previous model time step, using Eqs. (9) evaluated at the time level t.
Equation (48) provides t + Δt estimates of the prognostic energies ek|s(+). These estimates are used in the second step of the solver iteration to update the flux Richardson number, the stability functions, and the turbulent exchange coefficients for momentum and heat. The exchange coefficients are defined by Eqs. (14). We can write their updated values as
KM|H(+)=KM|H[ek(+),es(+),Ln0].
The turbulent fluxes can be then recomputed from the updated exchange coefficients by using the local downgradient approach:
uw¯(+)=KM(+)u0z,υw¯(+)=KM(+)υ0z and
sLw¯(+)=KH(+)sL0z,qtw¯(+)=KH(+)qt0z.
It is then possible to update the shear and buoyancy terms:
I(+)=KM(+)(S0)2andII(+)=KH(+)(Nmoist0)2,
and finally also the equilibrium energies:
e˜k(+)τk02[I(+)+II(+)]ande˜s(+)τs02I(+).
The updated equilibrium energies at the time level t + Δt are weighted with their values at the time level t, using the implicitness factor δ:
e˜k|s*=δe˜k|s(+)+(1δ)e˜k|s0.
The resulting equilibrium energies e˜k|s* are used to get the final prognostic energies ek|s+ at the time level t + Δt by solving Eq. (47) for n = 1, denoting e+(2) as e+:
ek|s+ek|s0Δt=z(Kek|s0ek|s+z)+2τk|s0(e˜k|s*ek|s+).
The proposed treatment thus requires one to compute the TKE and the TTE solvers twice. The solver in Eq. (55) differs from Eq. (48) in the expression for the equilibrium energies. Setting δ to zero restores the scheme to its original setup with ek|s+=ek|s(+).

The update of the equilibrium energies is only partial, omitting recomputation of the turbulence length scale Ln in the exchange coefficients in Eq. (49) and recomputation of the wind shear S and the moist Brunt–Väisälä frequency Nmoist in the source terms in Eq. (52). Such simplification is acceptable for the treatment of the ∼2Δt oscillations, since the oscillations are only weakly coupled to momentum and thermodynamic variables. Full update of the equilibrium energies would require a corrective iteration of a substantial part of the model time step, making the treatment rather costly.

The dissipation time scales τk|s could be also updated by the ek|s(+) estimates obtained from Eq. (48) according to Eqs. (13) and (8). However, update of the dissipation time scales has a negligible influence on the generation of oscillations; therefore they are evaluated only explicitly in time.2

5. Performance in 1D and 3D models

In this section, the performance of the proposed oscillation treatment is demonstrated in both the SCM simulations and the 3D tests. The sensitivity of the treatment to changes in the time-step length and in the implicitness factor δ are particularly tested to verify the theoretical applicability limits of the method. Furthermore, the influence of the proposed treatment on the nonlocality of the turbulence scheme is analyzed.

a. 1D results

Figure 9 demonstrates that evolutions after the treatment are smooth, free from the spurious ∼2Δt oscillations, reasonably reproducing the reference solution with a time step of 1 s (dashed black). The treatment is effective even with a time step of 180 s (blue), where only weak oscillations in the TKE and in the turbulent heat flux start to be visible around hour 3. This indicates that the oscillation treatment gets close to its applicability limit. The treatment with a time step of 180 s also causes somewhat stronger drift from the reference solution than with a time step of 90 s (green). Similar observation holds for the vertical profiles shown in Fig. 10. It is important to notice that the treatment sharpens the capping temperature inversion of the ABL (Fig. 10b), and the effect is more pronounced with a longer time step. This is caused by the local downgradient estimation of the turbulent fluxes in the recomputation of the source terms at the time level t + Δt. We elaborate on this in section 5c. We also note that for a time step of 1 s the model sensitivity to δ disappears (not shown), confirming the convergence of our treatment for Δt → 0.

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Evolutions calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 87th model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 87th model half level, and (d) temperature on the 87th model full level. Green indicates a time step of 90 s with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1, blue indicates a time step of 180 s with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1, and dashed black gives the reference with a time step of 1 s, δ = 0, and βτ = 1.5.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

Vertical profiles after 7.5-h OpenIFS SCM simulations of GABLS1 case: (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature. The horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 9 are depicted; the meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 9.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Overall accuracy of the proposed treatment with δ = 0.25 can be judged by comparing the vertical-time cross sections in Fig. 11 with the reference in Fig. 4. The simulations with a time step of 90 s are very close for βτ = 1.5 (Figs. 11a,b) and βτ = 1 (Figs. 11c,d), confirming that with the oscillation treatment, there is no need to use over-implicit discretization of the relaxation term. The target configuration with a time step of 90 s and βτ = 1 (Figs. 11c,d) is oscillation-free, and it is reasonably close to the reference solution (see Figs. 4e,f). The simulation is able to capture the quick growth of the ABL between hours 1 and 2, but it does not produce its further growth to 300 m after the third hour.3 The simulation with a doubled time-step length (Figs. 11e,f) remains almost oscillation-free, but the ABL height prediction is less accurate, staying around 200 m most of the time. All simulations develop a deeper temperature minimum on the 87th model full level (∼155 m above the ground) than the reference solution. This is consistent with temperature profiles in Fig. 10.

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11.

Vertical-time cross sections of (left) turbulent heat flux and (right) temperature, calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a),(b) time step of 90 s with βτ = 1.5, (c),(d) time step of 90 s with βτ = 1, and (e),(f) a time step of 180 s with βτ = 1. All simulations used δ = 0.25.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Linear analysis performed in section 4b shows that the proposed oscillation treatment with δ = 0.25 extends the range of the non-oscillatory time-step lengths roughly 4 times. Bifurcation analysis performed in appendix D shows that there is an additional gain of stability in the nonlinear case, accompanied with a drift that is, however, acceptably small. The analysis explains our experimental finding that the proposed treatment is stable (non-oscillatory) up to the time-step lengths of ∼180 s.

b. 3D results

A final test of the proposed treatment of the ∼2Δt oscillations must demonstrate its proper functionality in the 3D model with full physics. It must also confirm that the treatment has affordable computational cost.

Figure 12 shows the turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level (∼130 m above the ground) after a 3-h forecast obtained with our treatment using βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25. Relative to Fig. 5 the noise is greatly reduced, remaining only over a few hardly noticeable localized areas.

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12.

As in Fig. 5, but for experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The red cross denotes point 52°N, 17°E, further inspected in Figs. 13 and 14, below.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Figure 13 shows the model evolution at a selected grid point on the 82nd model full and half levels (approximately 150 and 130 m above the ground). The treatment with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 (green) lies mostly within the envelope given by the oscillating original solution (red). The 1 K drift of the temperature, which leads to an inversion sharpening, is an exception. Lowering the implicitness factor to δ = 0.2 (yellow) reduces the temperature drift. On the other hand it is not sufficient to fully suppress the 2Δt oscillations, which visibly contaminate the turbulent heat flux. These oscillations are damped, but they are also continually generated, as discussed in appendix D. They disappear for δ = 0.25, because this setting yields essentially nonnegative linear amplification factor.

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13.

The 12-h evolutions at the point marked in Figs. 5 and 12. ALARO-1 integrations starting at 0000 UTC 21 Apr 2020 are shown for (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 82nd model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level, and (d) temperature on the 82nd model full level. Red is the reference with δ = 0 and βτ = 1.5, yellow is the experiment with δ = 0.2 and βτ = 1, and green gives the experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The time-step length was 90 s.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Figure 14 confirms conclusions resulting from the idealized GABLS1 case: (i) the vertical structure of the ∼2Δt oscillating modes is smooth (Fig. 14a); and (ii) the treatment with δ > 0 sharpens the capping temperature inversion of the ABL (Fig. 14b). The latter effect follows from the reduced nonlocality of the two-energy scheme, discussed in section 5c. We found this side effect to be beneficial for the ALARO-1 model configuration, alleviating the problem of too-early-eroded stable layers.

Fig. 14.
Fig. 14.

Vertical profiles of the (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature at the point marked in Figs. 5 and 12. The 3-h ALARO-1 forecasts valid at 0300 UTC 21 Apr 2020 are shown. The meaning of colors is the same as in Fig. 13. Dashed lines depict the turbulent heat flux from the previous model time step (the green dashed and solid lines coincide). The vertical axis extends from the ground (the 87th model half level) to the height ∼800 m (the 70th model half level). Horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 13 are depicted.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Based on these results, we propose to use a single corrective iteration of the TKE and the TTE solvers with the implicitness factors βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 to eliminate the ∼2Δt oscillations that contaminate the solution obtained with the original implementation of the two-energy scheme. The proposed treatment increases the computational cost of the full 3D model by ∼0.15%, which is negligible.

c. Impact on the nonlocality of the turbulence scheme

Figures 10 and 14 reveal that a side-effect of the proposed ∼2Δt oscillation treatment are sharper temperature inversions. This is a consequence of updating the turbulent fluxes in the t + Δt estimates of the source terms using the local downgradient relations in Eqs. (50) and (51). The turbulent fluxes are otherwise calculated by the vertical diffusion solver, which uses the explicit exchange coefficient and the implicit diffused variable. Therefore, the solver can propagate local forcing across several layers within a single time step, leading to nonlocality of the resulting turbulent fluxes.4 Updating the turbulent fluxes by Eqs. (50) and (51) does the opposite, using the implicit exchange coefficient and the explicit diffused variable. This is why the updated equilibrium energies in Eq. (53) are local, evaluated from the turbulent fluxes proportional to the local gradients. Weighting Eq. (54) then combines the nonlocal equilibrium energies e˜k|s0 with their local estimates e˜k|s(+), decreasing nonlocality of the two-energy scheme.

As was demonstrated in BD18, the nonlocality of the two-energy scheme is beneficial in unstable stratification, e.g., for developing shallow convection. In stable stratification the two-energy scheme has the tendency to overestimate the penetration of the stable layers, coming from a too intense nonlocal mixing. For this reason, decreased nonlocality due to the ∼2Δt oscillation treatment is a welcome effect, improving the performance in stable stratification without much influence on the unstable one.5 To illustrate the effect, we have picked a case with persisting temperature inversion, and compared the model profiles after 6-h integration with an atmospheric sounding. As can be seen in Fig. 15, the measured temperature (black) increases abruptly by ∼12°C in the inversion layer. The model is unable to represent such sharp temperature gradient with or without our ∼2Δt oscillation treatment. However, the inversion with the oscillation treatment (green) is more pronounced than without it (red).

Fig. 15.
Fig. 15.

Temperature profile at station Praha-Libuš (50.008°N, 14.447°E). The 6-h ALARO-1 forecasts starting at 0000 UTC 11 Nov 2021 are shown: red is the original configuration with δ = 0 and βτ = 1.5, and green is the experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The black line is a reference 0600 UTC sounding. The length of the model time step is 90 s.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Because of the beneficial impact of the proposed ∼2Δt oscillation treatment on stable layers, there is no immediate need to decouple the treatment from the nonlocality aspect. Should such need arise, a fully nonlocal treatment of the ∼2Δt oscillations could be achieved by replacing Eqs. (50) and (51) with a vertical diffusion solver for the momentum and the moist variables, using the updated exchange coefficients given by Eq. (49). The degree of the nonlocality of the two-energy scheme could then be controlled independently by weighting the flux Richardson number between the nonlocal value obtained from the prognostic TKE and TTE, and the local value inverted from the local gradient Richardson number. Investigation of this possibility is, however, out of scope of this paper.

6. Conclusions

The presented work is devoted to the improvement of the two-energy configuration of the TOUCANS turbulence scheme in stable stratification. While the two-energy scheme has better performance than the traditional TKE schemes in most situations, it tends to generate spurious oscillations in stable stratification. Evidence can be found not only in real-case 3D experiments, but also in idealized 1D simulations.

We have analyzed the origin and properties of these new type of oscillations. Because of their high frequency, the oscillations resemble the “classical” fibrillations, which are caused by the coupling between turbulent exchange coefficients and the stability parameter. However, the oscillations in the two-energy scheme are generated for a different reason: an implicit-explicit temporal discretization of the relaxation terms. Note that the relaxation technique is used on source and dissipation terms in prognostic turbulence energy equations to ensure numerical stability for relatively long time steps.

Using a simplified system with relaxation, we have shown that the generation of the ∼2Δt oscillations is associated with a sequence of period doubling bifurcations. This process starts at particular time-step length, which depends on the local gradient Richardson number.

To suppress the spurious oscillations, we have proposed a treatment with a single corrective iteration of the TKE and the TTE solvers, making discretization of the relaxation terms more implicit. The linear stability analysis and the bifurcation analysis show that the proposed treatment is effective, increasing the time-step range for the stable (non-oscillatory) solutions more than 4 times. Experiments with idealized 1D and full 3D models confirm that for operationally used time-step lengths, the oscillations are efficiently suppressed with negligible computational overhead. The proposed treatment already entered operations at Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, where ALARO-1 configuration is run with a horizontal mesh size of 2.3 km and a time step of 90 s.

There are two interesting aspects related to our treatment of the ∼2Δt oscillations in the two-energy scheme that were not covered in this paper. First, implementation of a fully nonlocal oscillation treatment would enable to suppress the oscillations without affecting the nonlocal character of the scheme. The strength of the nonlocal mixing could be controlled independently from the oscillation treatment, via a modification of the flux Richardson number. The local value, obtained from local gradients, and the nonlocal value, obtained from the prognostic energies, would be blended together using a tunable blending ratio. Second, it is tempting to develop a fully implicit discretization of the relaxation terms, which would remove the oscillations unconditionally. Due to the nonlinearity of the problem, an iterative approach with suitable preconditioner would have to be found. These two aspects will be the subject of further research.

1

A particular result of Kalnay and Kanamitsu (1988) is that, for relaxation coefficient proportional to the square root of the prognostic variable (2/τe in our notations), linear amplification factors for the backward implicit scheme and for the scheme with explicit coefficient and prognostic variable extrapolated to the time level t + 1.5Δt are the same. Please consult their Table 1 for schemes b and g, using P = 0.5 and γ = 1.5.

2

The dissipation time scales in the equilibrium terms 2e˜k|s/τk|s actually cancel out because of the definition in Eq. (18). Consistent with Eqs. (1) and (3), the dissipation time scales affect only the dissipation terms −2ek|s/τk|s.

3

Here we adopt an ad hoc definition of the ABL top as the level at which the turbulent heat flux falls under 0.2 W m−2 (i.e. where blue and white colors meet).

4

This part of nonlocality in TOUCANS is a discretization aspect. It vanishes for the short Δt, when the vertical interaction distance 2kΔt is smaller than Δz, so that the explicit discretization of the diffusion equation is stable.

5

Weaker sensitivity in unstable stratification is given by the shape of stability functions, which saturate quickly for negative flux Richardson numbers.

A1

Equilibrium TKE is obtained from Eq. (18), by setting ek=e˜k and estimating the TKE source terms via the downgradient approach [see Eq. (12)].

D1

Such matching is approximate when τkτs, but it is fully sufficient for our purpose.

D2

This follows from the fact that the ratios τs/τk, e˜k/ek, and e˜s/es depend neither on the wind shear S nor on the turbulence length scales LK and Lϵ.

Acknowledgments.

We are grateful to Luc Gerard for reporting the problem with the two-energy scheme, as well as for initial help with analyzing its likely causes. We thank also Filip Váňa for enlightening of the stabilization technique developed for the pseudo-TKE solver, inherited by the two-energy scheme. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their really detailed comments and valuable suggestions, considerably improving our paper. Radmila Brožková and Ján Mašek thank the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic for its financial support under Grant SS02030040, Prediction, Evaluation and Research for Understanding National Sensitivity and Impacts of Drought and Climate Change for Czechia (PERUN). Ivan Bašták Ďurán was supported by Hans Ertel Centre for Weather Research of DWD Grant 4818DWDP4 (third phase: the Atmospheric Boundary Layer in Numerical Weather Prediction).

Data availability statement.

Output from SCM simulations in the NetCDF format is accessible via Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5052629). For information about the data from the 3D model simulations, please contact the corresponding author.

APPENDIX A

Derivation of Eddy Diffusivity and Molecular Dissipation Length Scales

The relationship between the eddy diffusivity length scale LK and the molecular dissipation length scale Lϵ is obtained according to Redelsperger et al. (2001). We assume that the two-energy scheme equilibrium relationships for momentum flux and TKE,A1
uw¯2+υw¯2=χ32CK3CϵLK3LϵS4χ3(1Rif) and
ek=CKCϵLKLϵS2χ3(1Rif),
match the similarity laws in the surface layer (see e.g., Redelsperger et al. 2001):
uw¯2+υw¯2=(κz)4S4ϕm4 and
ek=α(κz)2S2ϕE,
where κ is von Kármán constant, z is height, S is wind shear, ϕm and ϕE are stability functions, and α is a closure constant.
We assume that
ϕE=1/ϕm2,
which is strictly valid only for stable stratification, and we express ϕm according to Eq. (36) of Cheng et al. (2002):
ϕm=χ33/4(1Rif)1/4.
Matching of Eq. (A1) with Eq. (A3), and Eq. (A2) with Eq. (A4), leads to
LK=κzCKαFϵ1/3,Lϵ=Cϵα3/2κzFϵ, and
Fϵ(Rif)=[1Rifχ3(Rif)]3/4.
Like in Redelsperger et al. (2001), LK is equal to Lϵ at neutrality. Combined with neutrality relation Fϵ = 1, we get a generally valid expression for the closure constant α:
α=(CKCϵ)1/2.
Inserting it into the relations in Eqs. (A7) yields
LK=Cϵ1/4CK3/4κzFϵ1/3andLϵ=Cϵ1/4CK3/4κzFϵ
so that the length scale at neutrality is
Ln=Cϵ1/4CK3/4κz.
Elimination of factor κz from Eqs. (A10) and (A11) finally provides the relations in Eq. (15) between the length scales. We assume that these relations are valid not only in the surface layer, but also in the layers above. This approach ensures smooth vertical transition in the parameterization of turbulence.

APPENDIX B

Realizability Constraints and Numerical Protections

The two-energy scheme is a subject to three realizability constraints. They must be ensured by the numerical implementation so as to get a physically meaningful scheme.

The first realizability constraint results from the physical definition of the turbulence energies. Both ek and es are by definition nonnegative (see, e.g., Zilitinkevich et al. 2013). The prognostic Eqs. (1) and (3) are consistent with this constraint. In a continuous formulation, the TKE transport processes (advection and vertical turbulent transport) cannot produce negative ek when it is nonnegative in the initial and boundary conditions. Sum I + II can be negative in very stable situations when the TKE buoyant destruction −II exceeds its shear production I. However, it cannot reverse the sign of ek since it vanishes for ek → 0. The same is true for the TKE dissipation term.

The situation with es is similar to that with ek. The TTE shear production I in Eq. (3) is nonnegative, and the TTE dissipation term vanishes for es → 0. The system of Eqs. (1) and (3) thus guarantees ek, es ≥ 0 everywhere. For easier numerical implementation, the prognostic energies are truncated from below by a small positive value emin:
ek,esemin=108Jkg1.
The admissible region in (ek, es) space is depicted in Fig. B1.
Fig. B1.
Fig. B1.

Admissible region for prognostic TKE and TTE (blue/red), and for evaluation of the flux Richardson number (deeper blue/red). When the prognostic energies lie outside a region bounded by the lines Rif=Rifmin and Rif=Rifmax, their ratio r = es/ek must be truncated before the flux Richardson number Rif is evaluated.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

The second realizability constraint comes from the requirement to have a positive TTE dissipation time scale, as is the case for the TKE dissipation time scale. From Eq. (6), it follows that the factor r/[r − (1 − Cp)] must be positive. The option r < 0 is excluded by the limitation in Eq. (B1); therefore, we must have
r>1Cp.
This limitation also guarantees that the flux Richardson number Rif given by Eq. (7) has the sign of ep = esek; that is, it is a valid stability parameter.
The third realizability constraint comes from the fact that Rif used in the stability functions χ3 and ϕ3 may not exceed a critical value Rifcrit (corresponding to the infinite gradient Richardson number Ri → +∞). When Rif is diagnosed from the non-equilibrium energies (ek, es) by Eq. (7), ratio r must be restricted from above:
r<1(1Cp)Rifcrit1Rifcrit.

Practical implementation of the realizability constraints in Eqs. (B1)(B3) is as follows:

  1. The initial prognostic energies (ek0,es0) are limited to positive values (≥emin) to suppress eventual numerical undershoots coming from the semi-Lagrangian advection scheme.

  2. The ratio r=es0/ek0 is truncated to fit interval [rmin, rmax], ensuring that the constraints (B2) and (B3) are respected. However, the prognostic energies remain untouched. In practice, it is convenient to choose the limit values Rifmin and Rifmax for the flux Richardson number within the interval (,Rifcrit), and to convert them to rmin and rmax by inverting Eq. (7). Both sets of limit values, used in our experiments, are given in Table C2 of appendix C.

  3. Provisional value of the flux Richardson number Rifprov is calculated by Eq. (7), using the truncated r.

  4. To prevent “jumpiness” when turbulence has negligible intensity, Rifprov is pushed toward Rifmax when both ek and es are small, yielding final value Rif of the flux Richardson number:
    Rif=wRifmax+(1w)Rifprov,
    w=(ecritemin)2(ecritemin)2+(ekemin)2+(esemin)2, and
    ecrit=107Jkg1.
    Protection of the flux Richardson number from the “jumpiness” prevents artificial generation of turbulence due to numerical inaccuracy. The weight w is therefore equal to 1 when ek = es = emin, and it is practically zero when any of the turbulence energies is at least one order of magnitude greater than the critical value ecrit.
  5. The protected flux Richardson number Rif is used in the evaluation of the stability functions χ3 and ϕ3, as well as in Eq. (8), which delivers the TTE dissipation time scale τs.

  6. New values of (ek+,es+) are calculated by solving Eq. (19) with the limitation in (B1). Prognostic equations for both TKE and TTE are solved in the same way.

  7. The new values of (ek+,es+) are advected by the semi-Lagrangian scheme, yielding initial values for the next time step.

We stress that the constraints in Eqs. (B2) and (B3) on the ratio r, limiting the deeper blue/red region in Fig. B1, do not apply to the prognostic energies (ek, es). The prognostic energies can occupy the whole quadrant allowed by the realizability constraint in Eq. (B1). Enforcing the constraints in Eqs. (B2) and (B3) by modification of the prognostic energies would be prone to “jumpiness,” perturbing their smooth evolution.

APPENDIX C

Used Settings of the TOUCANS Turbulence Scheme

Basic TOUCANS settings used throughout this paper are listed here. Table C1 gives closure constants and some derived parameters. Specifically, parameters P and R enter TOUCANS stability functions for momentum and heat [Eqs. (11) and (12) of BD18]:
χ3=1RifR1Rifandϕ3=1RifP1Rif.
Table C1

The closure constants and derived parameters that were used for BD14 turbulence model II.

Table C1
Table C2 gives numerical tresholds, and Table C3 provides tuning for the mixing length Ln [Eq. (26) of Bašták Ďurán et al. 2020]:
Ln=Cϵ1/4CK3/4κz1+κzλm×1+exp(amzHABL+bm)βm+exp(amzHABL+bm),
where z is height and HABL is the ABL height.
Table C2

Numerical thresholds used in this paper. The lower limit for Rif is unnecessarily strict; experiments could have been run with Rifmin=1000 (i.e., with virtually no lower limit for Rif).

Table C2
Table C3

Used tunings of the Geleyn–Cedilnik turbulence length scale Ln. Values used in OpenIFS SCM follow from Bašták Ďurán et al. (2020).

Table C3

APPENDIX D

Bifurcation Analysis of the Nonlinear System

Analysis performed in sections 4a and 4b raises an important question: What happens with the numerical solution of the nonlinear relaxation problem in Eq. (27) when the analytical fixed point x loses linear stability in a given discretization, that is, when the absolute value of the amplification factor exceeds 1? In such case, qualitative behavior of the numerical solution is determined by the shape of x˜(x) dependence. In general there exists a range of possibilities, classified by the theory of dynamical systems (see e.g., Hale and Koçak 1991). In the most severe case an unbounded growth occurs, leading to the numerical instability. In the most favorable case a stable fixed point appears in the vicinity of the unstable one, attracting the numerical solution. Another important scenario is a generation of periodic or nonperiodic oscillations.

To get the conclusions relevant for our problem, we analyze the two-equation system of TKE and TTE, driven by the fully nonlinear relaxation terms:
ekt=2τk(eke˜k)andest=2τs(ese˜s).
The stable fixed point of the continuous system in Eq. (D1) is given by the following formulas:
ek=CKCϵLKLϵ(χ3C3ϕ3Ri)S2 and
es=CKCϵLKLϵ[χ3(1Cp)C3ϕ3Ri]S2,
where Ri is the gradient Richardson number. In the fixed point it is related to the flux Richardson number using the equilibrium relation (51) of BD18. TKE dissipation time scale in the fixed point can be expressed as
τk=2LϵCϵek=2CKCϵ(1Rif)S.
TTE dissipation time scale in the fixed point can be obtained from its TKE counterpart using Eq. (8).
Before performing the numerical analysis, we derive a link between the atmospheric stability and the system eigenvalues λj. By introducing a single time scale:
τ=12τkτs,
we can match the system in Eq. (30) to the linearization of the system in Eq. (D1).D1 This yields the system matrix:
IM=I(e˜k,e˜s)(ek,es),
whose eigenvalues λ1,2 in the analytical fixed point can be found numerically. They are shown in Fig. D1, noting that the Jacobian matrix in the fixed point depends only on the gradient Richardson number Ri. When Ri ranges from −3 to 3, the dominant eigenvalue λ1 remains below 2 on the unstable side, but it exceeds 100 on the stable side. The minor eigenvalue λ2 has a constant value of 1. Both eigenvalues are positive, confirming that the fixed point in the continuous system is stable (attracting). Values of λ1 much bigger than 1 explain why the original discretization in Eq. (19) suffers from the ∼2Δt oscillations when the atmospheric stratification is sufficiently stable. As we explained in section 4a, setting βτ = λ1 would remove the oscillations, but the strong asymmetry between values of λ1 and λ2 would result in a considerable accuracy loss.
Fig. D1.
Fig. D1.

Eigenvalues of the system matrix [I(e˜k,e˜s)/(ek,es)] evaluated in the fixed point, as a function of the gradient Richardson number.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Using the relation between the gradient Richardson number and the system eigenvalues, we can set up a numerical experiment with λ1 = 50 as in Fig. 6. According to Fig. D1, the gradient Richardson number Ri = 1.58 must be set, corresponding to the flux Richardson number Rif=0.981×Rifcrit. When we reformulate the system in Eq. (D1) in the dimensionless variables t/τ, ek/ek and es/es, its properties are fully determined by the gradient Richardson number.D2

Limit solutions of the nonlinear system in Eq. (D1), discretized in the original and the newly proposed ways, can be visualized using the so-called bifurcation diagrams presented in Fig. D2. For each nondimensional time-step length γ, the system was integrated numerically from initial conditions ek/ek=0.8 and es/es=1. After dimensionless time t/τ = 100, which is long enough to skip the transition effect, the solution was checked for periodicity. If the periodic state was reached, all values obtained during one period are plotted; otherwise, the last 128 values are plotted.

Fig. D2.
Fig. D2.

Bifurcation diagrams for two discretizations of the system in Eq. (75) with Ri = 1.58, showing the limit solution as a function of a nondimensional time step: red is the original discretization with βτ = 1.5 and δ = 0 for dimensionless (a) TKE and (c) TTE and green is the proposed treatment with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 for dimensionless (b) TKE and (d) TTE. Thin horizontal lines denote the stable fixed point of the continuous system. Dashed vertical lines denote the time-step lengths inspected in Fig. D3.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

According to Fig. 6, the analytical fixed point in the original discretization with βτ = 1.5 and δ = 0 should remain stable until γ ≈ 0.043, where the amplification factor reaches the value of −1. This is confirmed by the left column in Fig. D2, where the period doubling bifurcation creates a stable limit cycle of length 2Δt at γ ≈ 0.042 [for an explanation of the elements of bifurcation theory, please consult Hale and Koçak (1991)]. Further increase of the time-step length leads to a sequence of the period doubling bifurcations, generating the stable limit cycles of lengths 4Δt, 8Δt, 16Δt, …, eventually resulting in a nonperiodic behavior (chaos). A common feature of the limit solutions beyond γ ≈ 0.042 is the presence of significant 2Δt component, which is the most striking characteristics of the observed oscillations. The amplitude of the oscillations remains finite, and it increases with the time-step length.

The situation for the treatment with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 is different. According to Fig. 6, the analytical fixed point loses stability at γ ≈ 0.089, where the amplification factor reaches the value of 1. Therefore, we can expect that for the longer time steps the limit solution will not oscillate, but it will be drifted from the analytical fixed point. The right column in Fig. D2 confirms that this is the case, although for the given initial conditions the drift starts earlier at γ ≈ 0.072. It means that around this time-step length a new stable fixed point is created, drifted by few percent from the analytical fixed point. The diagrams show that this new fixed point shifts with the time-step length and it remains stable until γ ≈ 0.138, where the period doubling bifurcation creates a stable limit cycle of length 2Δt. The rest of scenario is the same as for the original discretization. In both cases, the relative drift of the oscillating limit solution is stronger for the TKE, which is mostly underestimated, than for the TTE, where the overestimation prevails (with respect to the analytical fixed point).

We complete the picture by examining the TKE and the TTE evolution during the transition toward the limit solution. They are shown in Fig. D3 for the time-step lengths indicated in the bifurcation diagrams in Fig. D2. The reference solution (dashed black) is provided by the original discretization with a short time step γ = 0.01. After initial spin-up, it converges to the analytical fixed point monotonically. Using a longer time step γ = 0.1 (red) leads to the undamped ∼2Δt oscillations, with the mean value drifted from the analytical fixed point. With the same time-step length, the proposed treatment (green) yields a non-oscillatory solution, converging to the new fixed point, with a drift from the analytical fixed point comparable to the original discretization (red). With the time step shortened to γ = 0.07 (brown) the drift disappears, and the solution remains very close to the reference. On the other hand, the time step γ = 0.135 (blue), which is near the edge of drifted region in Fig. D2, generates the damped 2Δt oscillations. This is because the first period doubling bifurcation, creating undamped oscillations with the period of 2Δt, occurs when the amplification factor passes through the value of −1.

Fig. D3.
Fig. D3.

Nonlinear relaxation toward the limit solution, showing evolution of the dimensionless (a) TKE and (b) TTE. Several discretizations of the system in Eq. (75) with Ri = 1.58 are presented: The dashed black is the reference solution with βτ = 1.5, δ = 0 and with a nondimensional time step γ = 0.01; the red is the same as the reference but with γ = 0.1; and brown, green, and blue are the solutions with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 and with γ = 0.07, 0.1, and 0.135, respectively. Thin horizontal lines denote the stable fixed point of the continuous system.

Citation: Monthly Weather Review 150, 7; 10.1175/MWR-D-21-0172.1

Experiments performed with the 3D model confirm that although the damped oscillations decay with time, they can visibly contaminate the solution. Possible causes are the evolving gradient Richardson number, interaction with the vertical diffusion and the advection terms, or the vertical staggering of the prognostic and equilibrium turbulence energies. All these aspects, not included in our simplified system in Eq. (D1), displace the model out of the fixed point. The relaxation term is trying to push it back, generating the damped 2Δt oscillations continually. For this reason it does not make sense to use the implicitness factor δ < 0.25, since the amplification factor in the analytical fixed point would become negative for the intermediate time-step lengths (for δ = 0.25 this happens only marginally, as can be seen in Fig. 6). Using δ0.3 does not make sense either, since a larger δ results in the earlier drift of the limit solution, as well as in the earlier onset of the 2Δt oscillations.

Bifurcation analysis performed in this appendix revealed that the numerical solution of our nonlinear relaxation problem remains bounded after the analytical fixed point x loses linear stability. The subsequent scenario depends on the employed discretization. For the original discretization, the 2Δt oscillations appear immediately via the period doubling bifurcation. For the proposed treatment, the loss of linear stability is delayed, and there is an intermediate stage with a new stable fixed point, drifted from the analytical one. The new fixed point finally loses stability via the period doubling bifurcation. Both discretizations are thus conditionally stable (non-oscillatory), but the stability range for the proposed treatment is wider. The outlined picture, obtained for the dominant eigenvalue λ1 = 50, remains qualitatively valid as long as λ1 ≫ 1. For smaller λ1 the ∼2Δt oscillations are not a problem in practice, since in this case they appear for time-step lengths longer than what is allowed by the model dynamics.

REFERENCES

  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J.-F. Geleyn, and F. Váňa, 2014: A compact model for the stability dependency of TKE production-destruction-conversion terms valid for the whole range of Richardson numbers. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 30043026, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0203.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J.-F. Geleyn, F. Váňa, J. Schmidli, and R. Brožková, 2018: A turbulence scheme with two prognostic turbulence energies. J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 33813402, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0026.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J. Schmidli, and R. Bhattacharya, 2020: A budget-based turbulence length scale diagnostic. Atmosphere, 11, 20, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11040425.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beare, R. J., and Coauthors, 2006: An intercomparison of large-eddy simulations of the stable boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 247272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-2820-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bénard, P., A. Marki, P. N. Neytchev, and M. T. Prtenjak, 2000: Stabilization of nonlinear vertical diffusion schemes in the context of NWP models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 19371948, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<1937:SONVDS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cheng, Y., V. M. Canuto, and A. M. Howard, 2002: An improved model for the turbulent PBL. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 15501565, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<1550:AIMFTT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuxart, J., P. Bougeault, and J.-L. Redelsperger, 2000: A turbulence scheme allowing for mesoscale and large-eddy simulations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 130, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656202.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuxart, J., and Coauthors, 2006: Single-column model intercomparison for a stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 273303, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-3780-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ECMWF, 2014: IFS documentation—CY40R1. Part IV: Physical processes. ECMWF Doc., 190 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9204-part-iv-physical-processes.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ECMWF, 2020: OpenIFS home. ECMWF, accessed 1 July 2021, https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS.

  • Girard, C., and Y. Delage, 1990: Stable schemes for nonlinear vertical diffusion in atmospheric circulation models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 737745, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118<0737:SSFNVD>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, J. K., and H. Koçak, 1991: Dynamics and Bifurcations. Springer-Verlag, 574 pp., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4426-4.

  • Holtslag, B., 2006: Preface: GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary-Layer Study (GABLS) on stable boundary layers. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 243246, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9008-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalnay, E., and M. Kanamitsu, 1988: Time schemes for strongly nonlinear damping equations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 116, 19451958, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1988)116<1945:TSFSND>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Louis, J.-F., 1979: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 17, 187202, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117978.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marquet, P., and J.-F. Geleyn, 2013: On a general definition of the squared Brunt-Väisälä frequency associated with the specific moist entropy potential temperature. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 85100, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1957.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mironov, D. V., and E. Machulskaya, 2017: A turbulence kinetic energy–scalar variance turbulence parameterization scheme. COSMO Tech. Rep. 30, 60 pp., http://www.cosmo-model.org/content/model/documentation/techReports/cosmo/docs/techReport30.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Redelsperger, J. L., F. Mahé, and P. Carlotti, 2001: A simple and general subgrid model suitable both for surface layer and free-stream turbulence. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 101, 375408, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019206001292.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Termonia, P., and Coauthors, 2018: The ALADIN system and its canonical model configurations AROME CY41T1 and ALARO CY40T1. Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 257281, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-257-2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, Y., and Coauthors, 2018: 27 years of regional cooperation for limited area modelling in Central Europe. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 14151432, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0321.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zilitinkevich, S. S., T. Elperin, N. Kleeorin, I. Rogachevskii, and I. Esau, 2013: A hierarchy of energy- and flux-budget (EFB) turbulence closure models for stably-stratified geophysical flows. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 146, 341373, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-012-9768-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Save
  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J.-F. Geleyn, and F. Váňa, 2014: A compact model for the stability dependency of TKE production-destruction-conversion terms valid for the whole range of Richardson numbers. J. Atmos. Sci., 71, 30043026, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-13-0203.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J.-F. Geleyn, F. Váňa, J. Schmidli, and R. Brožková, 2018: A turbulence scheme with two prognostic turbulence energies. J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 33813402, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0026.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bašták Ďurán, I., J. Schmidli, and R. Bhattacharya, 2020: A budget-based turbulence length scale diagnostic. Atmosphere, 11, 20, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11040425.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beare, R. J., and Coauthors, 2006: An intercomparison of large-eddy simulations of the stable boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 247272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-004-2820-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bénard, P., A. Marki, P. N. Neytchev, and M. T. Prtenjak, 2000: Stabilization of nonlinear vertical diffusion schemes in the context of NWP models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 128, 19371948, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2000)128<1937:SONVDS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cheng, Y., V. M. Canuto, and A. M. Howard, 2002: An improved model for the turbulent PBL. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 15501565, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<1550:AIMFTT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuxart, J., P. Bougeault, and J.-L. Redelsperger, 2000: A turbulence scheme allowing for mesoscale and large-eddy simulations. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 130, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712656202.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cuxart, J., and Coauthors, 2006: Single-column model intercomparison for a stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 273303, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-3780-1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ECMWF, 2014: IFS documentation—CY40R1. Part IV: Physical processes. ECMWF Doc., 190 pp., https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default/files/elibrary/2014/9204-part-iv-physical-processes.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ECMWF, 2020: OpenIFS home. ECMWF, accessed 1 July 2021, https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/OIFS.

  • Girard, C., and Y. Delage, 1990: Stable schemes for nonlinear vertical diffusion in atmospheric circulation models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 118, 737745, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1990)118<0737:SSFNVD>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hale, J. K., and H. Koçak, 1991: Dynamics and Bifurcations. Springer-Verlag, 574 pp., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4426-4.

  • Holtslag, B., 2006: Preface: GEWEX Atmospheric Boundary-Layer Study (GABLS) on stable boundary layers. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 118, 243246, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-005-9008-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalnay, E., and M. Kanamitsu, 1988: Time schemes for strongly nonlinear damping equations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 116, 19451958, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1988)116<1945:TSFSND>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Louis, J.-F., 1979: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 17, 187202, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117978.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marquet, P., and J.-F. Geleyn, 2013: On a general definition of the squared Brunt-Väisälä frequency associated with the specific moist entropy potential temperature. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 139, 85100, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1957.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mironov, D. V., and E. Machulskaya, 2017: A turbulence kinetic energy–scalar variance turbulence parameterization scheme. COSMO Tech. Rep. 30, 60 pp., http://www.cosmo-model.org/content/model/documentation/techReports/cosmo/docs/techReport30.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Redelsperger, J. L., F. Mahé, and P. Carlotti, 2001: A simple and general subgrid model suitable both for surface layer and free-stream turbulence. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 101, 375408, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019206001292.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Termonia, P., and Coauthors, 2018: The ALADIN system and its canonical model configurations AROME CY41T1 and ALARO CY40T1. Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 257281, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-257-2018.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, Y., and Coauthors, 2018: 27 years of regional cooperation for limited area modelling in Central Europe. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 14151432, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0321.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zilitinkevich, S. S., T. Elperin, N. Kleeorin, I. Rogachevskii, and I. Esau, 2013: A hierarchy of energy- and flux-budget (EFB) turbulence closure models for stably-stratified geophysical flows. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 146, 341373, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-012-9768-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fig. 1.

    Vertical staggering used in the ALADIN system. The atmosphere is sliced into N layers. Quantities representing mean layer properties are evaluated on the so-called full levels 1, 2, …, N (dashed lines). Fluxes between layers are evaluated on layer interfaces or the so-called half levels 0˜,1˜,,N˜ (solid lines). Here, δiln(pi˜/pi˜1) denotes logarithmic pressure thickness of the layer i, and αiln(pi˜/pi) denotes logarithmic pressure thickness between the full level i and the half level i˜, where p is a hydrostatic pressure.

  • Fig. 2.

    Evolutions calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 87th model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 87th model half level, and (d) temperature on the 87th model full level. Red indicates a time step of 90 s, brown indicates a time step of 45 s, and dashed black gives the reference with a time step of 1 s. All simulations used βτ = 1.5.

  • Fig. 3.

    Vertical profiles after 7.5-h OpenIFS SCM simulations of the GABLS1 case: (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature. The horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 2 are depicted; the meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 2. Dashed red and brown lines denote turbulent heat flux from the previous model time step.

  • Fig. 4.

    Vertical-time cross sections of (left) turbulent heat flux and (right) temperature, calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a),(b) time step of 90 s, (c),(d) time step of 45 s, and (e),(f) the reference with a time step of 1 s. All simulations used δ = 0 (no oscillation treatment) and βτ = 1.5.

  • Fig. 5.

    Turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level (∼130 m above the ground). The 3-h ALARO-1 forecast valid at 0300 UTC 21 Apr 2020 is shown, calculated with a time step of 90 s and βτ = 1.5. The flux is positive downward, with stably stratified areas in blue. For better readability, only the part of the integration domain covering Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia is displayed. The red cross denotes point 52°N, 17°E, further inspected in Figs. 13 and 14, below.

  • Fig. 6.

    Amplification factors Λj for the exact solution (black) of the system in Eq. (30) with eigenvalue λj = 50, and for various discretizations of the equilibrium term: implicit (gray) and explicit with βτ = 1.5 (red) and 1 (brown), iterated 1–4 times with δ = 0.25 (green), and the limit solution n = ∞ obtained as the fixed point of Eq. (44) with δ = 0.25 (light green). Even and odd iterations are plotted with dashed and solid lines, respectively, with n denoting the number of iterations. The dashed vertical line denotes the value of γ below which iterations of Eq. (44) converge to the limit solution.

  • Fig. 7.

    Critical nondimensional time step γcrit as a function of the implicitness factor δ for the scheme with single iteration. Eigenvalues λj range from 1 to λmax. The thin vertical line denotes the nearly optimal value δ = 0.25.

  • Fig. 8.

    Amplification factors Λj for the exact solution of the system in Eq. (30) with eigenvalue λj = 2, and for various discretizations of the equilibrium term. The meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 6; lines with n = 2, 3, and 4 are omitted.

  • Fig. 9.

    Evolutions calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 87th model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 87th model half level, and (d) temperature on the 87th model full level. Green indicates a time step of 90 s with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1, blue indicates a time step of 180 s with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1, and dashed black gives the reference with a time step of 1 s, δ = 0, and βτ = 1.5.

  • Fig. 10.

    Vertical profiles after 7.5-h OpenIFS SCM simulations of GABLS1 case: (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature. The horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 9 are depicted; the meaning of the colors is the same as in Fig. 9.

  • Fig. 11.

    Vertical-time cross sections of (left) turbulent heat flux and (right) temperature, calculated by OpenIFS SCM for the GABLS1 case: (a),(b) time step of 90 s with βτ = 1.5, (c),(d) time step of 90 s with βτ = 1, and (e),(f) a time step of 180 s with βτ = 1. All simulations used δ = 0.25.

  • Fig. 12.

    As in Fig. 5, but for experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The red cross denotes point 52°N, 17°E, further inspected in Figs. 13 and 14, below.

  • Fig. 13.

    The 12-h evolutions at the point marked in Figs. 5 and 12. ALARO-1 integrations starting at 0000 UTC 21 Apr 2020 are shown for (a) TKE and (b) TTE on the 82nd model full level, (c) turbulent heat flux on the 82nd model half level, and (d) temperature on the 82nd model full level. Red is the reference with δ = 0 and βτ = 1.5, yellow is the experiment with δ = 0.2 and βτ = 1, and green gives the experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The time-step length was 90 s.

  • Fig. 14.

    Vertical profiles of the (a) turbulent heat flux and (b) temperature at the point marked in Figs. 5 and 12. The 3-h ALARO-1 forecasts valid at 0300 UTC 21 Apr 2020 are shown. The meaning of colors is the same as in Fig. 13. Dashed lines depict the turbulent heat flux from the previous model time step (the green dashed and solid lines coincide). The vertical axis extends from the ground (the 87th model half level) to the height ∼800 m (the 70th model half level). Horizontal lines denote model levels at which evolutions in Fig. 13 are depicted.

  • Fig. 15.

    Temperature profile at station Praha-Libuš (50.008°N, 14.447°E). The 6-h ALARO-1 forecasts starting at 0000 UTC 11 Nov 2021 are shown: red is the original configuration with δ = 0 and βτ = 1.5, and green is the experiment with δ = 0.25 and βτ = 1. The black line is a reference 0600 UTC sounding. The length of the model time step is 90 s.

  • Fig. B1.

    Admissible region for prognostic TKE and TTE (blue/red), and for evaluation of the flux Richardson number (deeper blue/red). When the prognostic energies lie outside a region bounded by the lines Rif=Rifmin and Rif=Rifmax, their ratio r = es/ek must be truncated before the flux Richardson number Rif is evaluated.

  • Fig. D1.

    Eigenvalues of the system matrix [I(e˜k,e˜s)/(ek,es)] evaluated in the fixed point, as a function of the gradient Richardson number.

  • Fig. D2.

    Bifurcation diagrams for two discretizations of the system in Eq. (75) with Ri = 1.58, showing the limit solution as a function of a nondimensional time step: red is the original discretization with βτ = 1.5 and δ = 0 for dimensionless (a) TKE and (c) TTE and green is the proposed treatment with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 for dimensionless (b) TKE and (d) TTE. Thin horizontal lines denote the stable fixed point of the continuous system. Dashed vertical lines denote the time-step lengths inspected in Fig. D3.

  • Fig. D3.

    Nonlinear relaxation toward the limit solution, showing evolution of the dimensionless (a) TKE and (b) TTE. Several discretizations of the system in Eq. (75) with Ri = 1.58 are presented: The dashed black is the reference solution with βτ = 1.5, δ = 0 and with a nondimensional time step γ = 0.01; the red is the same as the reference but with γ = 0.1; and brown, green, and blue are the solutions with βτ = 1 and δ = 0.25 and with γ = 0.07, 0.1, and 0.135, respectively. Thin horizontal lines denote the stable fixed point of the continuous system.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 196 0 0
Full Text Views 351 178 13
PDF Downloads 366 166 10