Advertisement

Open Boundary Conditions and Nesting Techniques

  • Lars Petter RøedEmail author
Chapter
  • 690 Downloads
Part of the Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and Environment book series (STEGE)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to discuss open boundaries and some of the techniques used to deal with them. An open boundary is defined as a computational boundary at which disturbances originating in the interior of the computational domain are allowed to leave without disturbing or deteriorating the interior solution (Røed and Cooper, Advanced physical oceanographic numerical modelling. D. Reidel Publishing Co, Dordrecht, 1986). Even though the governing equations are still valid at these boundaries, they nonetheless constitute a boundary in a numerical sense. Hence, we focus on how to construct conditions, or open boundary conditions (OBCs), in such a way that disturbances originating in the interior of the computational domain are indeed allowed to leave without disturbing or deteriorating the interior solution.

Keywords

Open Boundary Conditions Nesting Technique Flow Relaxation Scheme (FRS) Sponge Condition Exterior Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berenger J-P (1994) A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. J Comput Phys 126:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blayo E, Debreu L (2005) Revisiting open boundary conditions from the point of view of characteristics. Ocean Model 9(3):234–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.07.001
  3. Blayo E, Debreu L (2006) Nesting ocean models. In: Chassignet E, Verron J (eds) Ocean weather forecasting: an integrated view of oceanography. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–146.  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4028-8_5
  4. Chapman DC (1985) Numerical treatment of cross-shelf open boundaries in a barotropic coastal ocean model. J Phys Oceanogr 15:1060–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charney JG, Fjørtoft R, von Neumann J (1950) Numerical integration of the barotropic vorticity equation. Tellus 2:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper C, Thompson JD (1989) Hurricane generated currents on the outer continental shelf. J Geophys Res 94:12, 513–12,539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies HC (1985) Limitation of some common lateral boundary schemes used in regional NWP models. Mon Weather Rev 111:1002–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies HC (1976) A lateral boundary formulation for multilevel prediction models. Q J R Meteorol Soc 102:405–418.  https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710243210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Debreu L, Blayo E (2008) Two-way embedding algorithms: a review. Ocean Dyn 58:415–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-008-0150-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Debreu L, Marchesiello P, Penven P, Cambon G (2012) Two-way nesting in split-explicit ocean models: algorithms, implementation and validation. Ocean Model 49–50:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engedahl H (1995) Use of the flow relaxation scheme in a three-dimensional baroclinic ocean model with realistic topography. Tellus 47A:365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedstrøm GW (1979) Nonreflecting boundary conditions for nonlinear hyperbolic systems. J Comput Phys 30:222–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martinsen EA, Engedahl H (1987) Implementation and testing of a lateral boundary scheme as an open boundary condition in a barotropic ocean model. Coast Eng 11:603–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mason E, Molemaker J, Shchepetkin AF, Colas F, McWilliams J (2010) Procedures for offline grid nesting in regional ocean models. Ocean Model 35:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Müller M, Homleid M, Ivarsson K-I, Køltzow MA, Lindskog M, Andrae U, Aspelien T, Bjørge D, Dahlgren P, Kristiansen J, Randriamampianina R, Ridal M, Vignes O (2017) AROME-MetCoOp: a Nordic convective-scale operational weather prediction model. Weather Forecast 32:609–627.  https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-16-0099.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Navon IM, Neta B, Hussaini MY (2004) A perfectly matched layer approach to the linearized shallow water equations models. Mon Weather Res 132(6):1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orlanski I (1976) A simple boundary condition for unbounded hyperbolic flows. J Comput Phys 21:251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Palma ED, Matano RP (2000) On the implementation of open boundary conditions to a general circulation model: The 3-d case. J Geophys Res 105:8605–8627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Platzman GW (1954) The computational stability of boundary conditions in numerical integration of the vorticity equation. Arch Meteorol Geophys Bioklimatol 7:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Røed LP, Cooper CK (1986) Open boundary conditions in numerical ocean models. In: O’Brien J (ed) Advanced physical oceanographic numerical modelling, series C: mathematical and physical sciences, vol 186. D. Reidel Publishing Co, Dordrecht, pp 411–436Google Scholar
  21. Røed LP, Cooper CK (1987) A study of various open boundary conditions for wind-forced barotropic numerical ocean models. In: Nihoul JCJ, Jamart BM (eds) Three-dimensional models of marine and estuarine dynamics. Elsevier oceanography series, vol 45. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp 305–335Google Scholar
  22. Røed LP, Smedstad OM (1984) Open boundary conditions for forced waves in a rotating fluid. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 5:414–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schot SH (1992) Eighty years of Sommerfeld’s radiation condition. Hist Math 19:385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi XB, Hackett B, Røed LP (1999) Documentation of DNMI’s MICOM version, part 2: implementation of a flow relaxation scheme (FRS), Research Report 87, Norwegian Meteorological Institute [Available from Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Postboks 43 Blindern, N-0313 Oslo, Norway]Google Scholar
  25. Shi XB, Røed LP, Hackett B (2001) Variability of the Denmark strait overflow: a numerical study. J Geophys Res 106:22 277–22 294Google Scholar
  26. Sundström A, Elvius T (1979) Computational problems related to limited-area modeling. GARP publication series, vol 17. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, p 11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeosciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Meteorological InstituteOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations