Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docs for dynamics, switch to Glen's A #26

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 10, 2016
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
860 changes: 0 additions & 860 deletions docs/Getting_started.ipynb

This file was deleted.

4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions docs/centerlines.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
.. _centerlines:

Centerlines
===========
12 changes: 6 additions & 6 deletions docs/examples.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Examples
========

Test for Latex:

$$ a = b^2 + c^2$$
Getting started
===============

The best way to get you started with OGGM is to run the example case study
in the Öztal region. You will find a jupyter notebook
[here](https://github.com/OGGM/oggm/blob/master/docs/notebooks/getting_started.ipynb)
or in the ``oggm/docs/notebooks`` directory.
242 changes: 242 additions & 0 deletions docs/flowline.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
Ice dynamics
============

The glaciers in OGGM are represented by a depth integrated flowline
model. The equations for the isothermal shallow ice are solved along
the glacier centerline, computed to represent best the flow of ice
along the glacier (see for example `antarcticglaciers.org`_ for a general
introduction about the various type of glacier models).

.. _antarcticglaciers.org: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/numerical-ice-sheet-models/hierarchy-ice-sheet-models-introduction/

Here we present the basic physics and numerics of the two models
implemented currently in OGGM, the ``FluxBasedModel`` (homegrown model with a
rather simple numerical solver) and the ``MUSCLSuperBeeModel`` (mass-conserving
numerical scheme, see [Jarosch_etal_2013]_).



Basics
------

Let :math:`S` be the area of a cross-section perpendicular to the
flowline. It has a width :math:`w` and a thickness :math:`h` and, in this
example, a parabolic bed shape.

.. figure:: ../files/hef_flowline.jpg
:width: 80%

Example of a cross-section along the glacier flowline. Background
image from
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/alps/hintereisferner/index-de.html

Volume conservation for this discrete element implies:

.. math::

\frac{\partial S}{\partial t} = w \, \dot{m} - \nabla \cdot q

where :math:`\dot{m}` is the mass-balance, :math:`q = u S` the flux of ice, and
:math:`u` the depth-integrated ice velocity ([Cuffey_Paterson_2010]_, p 310).
This velocity can be computed from Glen's flow law as a function of the
basal shear stress :math:`\tau`:

.. math::

u = u_d + u_s = f_d h \tau^n + f_s \frac{\tau^n}{h}

The second term is to account for basal sliding, see e.g. [Oerlemans_1997]_ or
[Golledge_Levy_2011]_. It introduces an additional free parameter :math:`f_s`
and will therefore be ignored in a first approach. The deformation parameter
:math:`f_d` is better constrained and relates to Glen's
temperature‐dependent creep parameter :math:`A`:

.. math::

f_d = \frac{2 A}{n + 2}

The basal shear stress :math:`\tau` depends e.g. on the geometry of the bed
[Cuffey_Paterson_2010]_. Currently it is assumed to be
equal to the driving stress :math:`\tau_d`:

.. math::

\tau_d = \alpha \rho g h

where :math:`\alpha` is the slope of the flowline and :math:`\rho` the density
of ice. Both the ``FluxBasedModel`` and the ``MUSCLSuperBeeModel`` solve
for these equations, but with different numerical schemes.

Bed thickness inversion
-----------------------

To compute the initial ice thikness :math:`h_0`, OGGM follows a methodology
largely inspired from
[Farinotti_etal_2009]_ but using a different apparent mass-balance
(see also: :ref:`mass-balance`) and another calibration algorithm.

The principle is simple. Let's assume for now that we know the ice velocity
:math:`u` along the flowline of our present-time glacier. Then the
above equations can be used to compute the section area :math:`S` out of
:math:`u` and the other ice-flow parameters. Since we know the present-time
width :math:`w` with accuracy, :math:`h_0` can be obtained by assuming a
certain geometrical shape for the bed.

In OGGM, a number of climate and glacier related parameters are fixed prior to
the inversion, leaving only one free parameter for the calibration of the
bed inversion procedure: the inversion factor :math:`f_{inv}`. It is defined
such as:

.. math::

A = f_{inv} \, A_0

With :math:`A_0` the standard creep parameter (2.4e-24). Currently,
:math:`f_{inv}` is calibrated to minimize the volume RMSD of all glaciers
with a volume estimation in the `GlaThiDa`_ database. It is therefore
neither glacier nor temperature dependent and does not account for
uncertainties in GlaThiDa's glacier-wide thickness estimations, two
approximations which should be better handled in the future.

.. _parabolic shape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola#Area_enclosed_between_a_parabola_and_a_chord

.. _GlaThiDa: http://www.gtn-g.ch/data_catalogue_glathida/


Flux based model
----------------

Most flowline models treat the volume conservation equation as a
diffusion problem, taking advantage of the robust numerical solutions
available for this type of equations. The problem with this approach is that
it develops the :math:`\partial S / \partial t` term to solve for
ice thikness :math:`h` directly, thus implying different diffusion equations
for different bed geometries (e.g. [Oerlemans_1997]_ with a trapezoidal bed).

The OGGM flux based model solves for the :math:`\nabla \cdot q` term on a
staggered grid (hence the name). It has the advantage that the model numerics
are the same for any bed shape, but it makes one important simplification:
the stress :math:`\tau = \alpha \rho g h` is always the same, regardless of the
bed shape. This doesn't mean that the shape has no influence on the
glacier evolution, as explained below.


Glacier bed shapes
------------------

OGGM implements a number of possible bed-shapes. Currently the shape has no
direct influence on ice dynamics, but it does influence how the width of the
glacier changes with ice thickness and thus will influence the mass-balance
:math:`w \, \dot{m}`. It appears that the flowline model is quite sensitive
to the bed shape.


VerticalWallFlowline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


.. figure:: ../files/bed_vertical.png
:width: 40%


The simplest shape. The glacier width does not change with ice thickness.


TrapezoidalFlowline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


.. figure:: ../files/bed_trapezoidal.png
:width: 40%


Trapezoidal shape with two degrees of freedom. The width change with thickness
depends on :math:`\lambda`. [Golledge_Levy_2011]_ uses :math:`\lambda = 1`
(a 45° wall angle).


ParabolicFlowline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


.. figure:: ../files/bed_parabolic.png
:width: 40%


Parabolic shape with one degree of freedom, which makes it particulary
useful for the bed inversion: if :math:`S` and :math:`w` are known:

.. math::

h = \frac{3}{2} \frac{S}{w}

The parabola is defined by the single bed-shape parameter
:math:`P_s = 4 h / w^2`. Very small values of this parameter imply very
`flat` shapes, unrealistically sensitive to changes in :math:`h`. For this
reason, the default in OGGM is to use the mixed flowline model.

MixedFlowline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A combination of trapezoidal and parabolic flowlines. If the bed shape
parameter :math:`P_s` is below a certain threshold, a trapezoidal shape is
used instead.


MUSCLSuperBeeModel
------------------

A shallow ice model with improved numerics ensuring mass-conservation in
very steep walls [Jarosch_etal_2013]_. The model is currently in
development to account for various bed shapes and tributaries and will
likely become the default in OGGM.


Glacier tributaries
-------------------

Glaciers in OGGM have a main centerline and, sometimes, one or more
tributaries (which can themsleves also have tributaries, see
:ref:`centerlines`). The number of these tributaries depends on many
factors, but most of the time the algorithm works well.

The main flowline and its tributaries are all handled the same way and
are modelled individually. The difference is that tributaries can transport
mass to the branch they are flowing to. Numerically, this mass transport is
handled by adding an element at the end of the flowline with the same
properties (with, thickness...) as the last grid point, with the difference
that the slope :math:`\alpha` is computed with respect to the altitude of
the point they are flowing to. The ice flux is then computed normally and
transferred to the downlying branch.

The computation of the ice flux is always done first from the lowest order
branches (without tributaries) to the highest ones, ensuring a correct
mass-redistribution. The angle between tributary and main branch ensures
that the former is not decoupled from the latter. If the angle is positive
or if no ice is present at the end of the tributary, no mass exchange occurs.


References
----------

.. [Cuffey_Paterson_2010] Cuffey, K., and W. S. B. Paterson (2010).
The Physics of Glaciers, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.

.. [Farinotti_etal_2009] Farinotti, D., Huss, M., Bauder, A., Funk, M., &
Truffer, M. (2009). A method to estimate the ice volume and
ice-thickness distribution of alpine glaciers. Journal of Glaciology, 55
(191), 422–430.

.. [Golledge_Levy_2011] Golledge, N. R., and Levy, R. H. (2011).
Geometry and dynamics of an East Antarctic Ice Sheet outlet glacier, under
past and present climates. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Earth Surface, 116(3), 1–13.

.. [Jarosch_etal_2013] Jarosch, a. H., Schoof, C. G., & Anslow, F. S. (2013).
Restoring mass conservation to shallow ice flow models over complex
terrain. Cryosphere, 7(1), 229–240. http://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-229-2013

.. [Oerlemans_1997] Oerlemans, J. (1997).
A flowline model for Nigardsbreen, Norway:
projection of future glacier length based on dynamic calibration with the
historic record. Journal of Glaciology, 24, 382–389.
5 changes: 4 additions & 1 deletion docs/index.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,7 +27,10 @@ Documentation

examples
installing-oggm
glacierdir-gen.rst
centerlines
mass-balance
flowline
glacierdir-gen
api


Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions docs/mass-balance.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
.. _mass-balance:

Mass-balance
============
Loading