KARSTEN BOLDING
Space Applications Institute, CEC—Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
ABSTRACT
In this comparative study, four different algebraic secondmoment turbulence closure models are investigated
in detail. These closure schemes differ in the number of terms considered for the closure of the pressure–strain
correlations. These four turbulence closures result in the eddydiffusivity principle such that the closure as
sumptions are contained in dimensionless socalled stability functions. Their performance in terms of Prandtl
number, Monin–Obukhov similarity theory, and length scale ratios are first tested against data for simple flows.
The turbulence closure is then completed by means of a k–e twoequation model, but other models such as the
twoequation model by Mellor and Yamada could also be used. The concept of the steadystate Richardson
number for homogeneous shear layers is exploited for calibrating the sensitivity of the four models to shear and
stable stratification. Idealized simulations of mixed layer entrainment into stably stratified flow due to surface
stress and due to free convection are carried out. For the latter experiment, comparison to recent large eddy
simulation data is made. Finally, the wellknown temperature profile data at OWS Papa are simulated for an
annual cycle. The main result of this paper is that the overall performance of the new secondmoment closure
model by Canuto et al.—expressed as nondimensional stability functions—is superior compared to the others
in terms of physical soundness, predictability, computational economy, and numerical robustness.
Large et al. (1994) (see also Large and Gent 1999) in notation is explained. To our experience, differences
which profiles for eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity in notation have long been a major obstacle for ex
are constructed based on the Monin–Obukhov similarity change between various schools of statistical model
theory and Deardorff’s countergradient fluxes without ing. In the appendix sections d–f, exact forms of the
any consideration of statistical moments. The success stability functions suggested by Kantha and Clayson
of this model can only be explained by the fact that (1994), Rodi (1980), and Hossain (1980) (version of
statistical models still do not fulfil some basic require Burchard and Baumert (1995)) and Canuto et al. (2001)
ments: They mix too little (see Martin 1985), they do are given. This should help the reader to better un
not generally reproduce nonlocal processes [D’Alessio derstand these functions. In section 8g, the exact for
et al. (1998) try to solve this problem by introducing mulations for the k and the e equation are given, as
nonlocal fluxes empirically on top of their statistical derived from the Navier–Stokes equations and the
local model], they rarely consider rotation, and they do Reynolds decomposition.
not sufficiently consider breaking surface [the breaking
surface wave parameterization suggested by Craig and
Banner (1994) has not yet been successfully imple 2. Basic mean flow equations
mented into twoequation models] or internal waves The basic model assumption for obtaining the so
(generally, internal waves are reduced to background called Reynolds equations is that any flow property
diffusivity in ocean models). X may be decomposed into a mean and a fluctuating
In this paper we carry out a comparative analysis of part:
four algebraic secondmoment closure models and their
quasiequilibrium versions. Their characteristics are fur X 5 X 1 X. ˜ (1)
thermore compared to empirical data for the turbulent Here, X is called the ensemble average [see, e.g., Lesieur
Prandtl number, the Monin–Obukhov similarity, and (1997)] and will alternatively be denoted by ^X&. It is
length scale ratios. assumed that ^X X̃& 5 0, ^X̃& 5 0, ^X & 5 X̃, and ^XY & 5
Furthermore, we demonstrate how these closure XY (see e.g., Haidvogel and Beckmann 1999).
schemes can be embedded into a twoequation turbu After application of this Reynolds decomposition and
lence model (here the wellknown k–e model) in such the boundary layer approximation, the Navier–Stokes
a way that mixing in stratified shear flows is well re equations and transport equations for active tracers
produced. The concept of steadystate Richardson (temperature T and salinity S), can be formulated as the
numbers for homogeneous shear layers has already socalled Reynolds equations for mean quantities:
been used by Burchard and Baumert (1995) for cali
brating an empirical buoyancy parameter in k–e mod ]t u 1 ]x (u 2 ) 1 ]y (u y ) 1 ]z (u w ) 1 ]z ^ũw̃& 2 ]z (n ]z u )
els. This approach is modified here in the same way 1
that Burchard (2001) recently did for the k–kL model 52 ] p 1 f y,
by Mellor and Yamada (1982). The wellknown en r0 x
trainment experiment by Kato and Phillips (1969) is ]t y 1 ]x ( y u ) 1 ]y ( y 2 ) 1 ]z ( y w ) 1 ]z ^ỹ w̃& 2 ]z (n ]z y )
used here as a simple performance test for these sec
ondmoment closures, all embedded into a k–e model. 1
All models are furthermore applied for simulating the 52 ] p 2 f u,
r0 y
free convection experiment by Willis and Deardorff
(1974) and the results are compared to recent large ]t T 1 ]x (u T ) 1 ]y ( y T ) 1 ]z (w T ) 1 ]z ^w̃T&
˜ 2 ]z (n9]z T )
eddy simulation (LES) data by Mironov et al. (2000).
In a final performance test, the secondmoment clo 1
5 ] I,
sures suggested by Kantha and Clayson (1994), which cp r 0 z
is a slight improvement of the models of Mellor and
Yamada (1982) and Galperin et al. (1988), and Canuto ]t S 1 ]x (u S ) 1 ]y ( y S ) 1 ]z (w S ) 1 ]z ^w̃S&
˜ 2 ]z (n 0]z S )
et al. (2001) are compared by means of applying them 5 0. (2)
to the wellknown mixed layer dataset OWS Papa
(northern Pacific). This clearly shows the improve In these equations, u, y , and w are the x (eastward), the
ments achieved by the closure of Canuto et al. (2001). y (northward), and the z (upward) velocity components,
The paper is structured as follows: After presenting respectively, and t is time; w is calculated diagnostically
the mean flow equations (section 2), the procedure for from the incompressibility condition
various secondmoment closures is discussed (section ] xu 1 ] yy 1 ] zw 5 0. (3)
3). Twoequation models are introduced in section 4
and their stationary solutions are investigated in sec The pressure p is hydrostatic with
tion 5. Idealized and ocean mixed layer studies are
] zp 1 gr 5 0 (4)
presented in sections 6a–c. Final conclusions are dis
cussed in section 7. In section a of the appendix our with gravitational acceleration g and density r. Earth
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1945
rotation is considered through the Coriolis frequency f tioned algebraic rules for the ensemble averaging of
5 2v sin(f) with the earth’s angular velocity v and tensors. The exact forms for the Reynolds stress and the
latitude f (positive for Northern Hemisphere). In the heat flux equation can be found, for example, in Launder
temperature (or local heat balance) equation, further et al. (1975) or Canuto (1994).
terms are solar radiation I (in W m 22 ) in the water column The equations are presented here in a closed form
(generally calculated from the given surface radiation as with the exception of thirdorder correlators occurring
an exponentially decreasing function with depth), the spe on the lefthand sides causing turbulent transport of the
cific heat capacity of seawater Cp , and a mean density secondorder correlators. The three approaches dis
r 0 . The molecular diffusivities for momentum, temper cussed here differ mainly in the manner how the pres
ature, and salinity are given by n, n9, and n0, respectively. sure–strain correlators P ij 5 ^ũ i] j p̃& 1 ^ũ j] i p̃& and P Ti
Together with an equation of state giving density as 5 ^T̃] i p̃& are parameterized. All approaches neglect ro
function of T, S, and p and suitable boundary conditions, tational terms, although they are known to be important
Eq. (2) is the physical basis for most marine models for free convection (see Mironov et al. 2000).
ranging from estuarine, over coastal, shelf sea, basin, In the following the Reynolds stress, the heat flux,
and global ocean scale. and the temperature variance equations are given as
The ocean circulation modeler might miss terms for prognostic equations (sections 3a and 3b), then an al
horizontal mixing in Eq. (2). They do not appear here gebrazation is discussed (section 3c) and finally the
due to the boundary layer approximation. All mesoscale boundary layer approximation is applied (section 3d).
activity is already included in the equations above
through the advective terms. Mesoscale activity only a. Reynolds stress equation
needs to be parameterized because of the generally rath
er coarse horizontal resolution in ocean models and has After neglecting viscous and rotational effects and
therefore to be considered as part of the discretization. parameterizing pressure–strain correlators, the Reynolds
In contrast, vertical turbulent transport needs to be pa stress equations can be closed in the following form
rameterized due to the Reynolds decomposition and the (see Canuto et al. 2001):
hydrostatic approximation even for the (theoretical) lim ]t ^ũ i ũ j & 1 ]l (u l ^ũ i ũ j & 1 ^ũ i ũ j ũ l &)
it of arbitrarily fine model resolution. Therefore, in hy
1 2
drostatic ocean models, vertical and horizontal mixing « 2
must not be parameterized with the same model ap 5 2c1 ^ũ i ũ j & 2 dij k (R1)
k 3
proach.
1 2
The main differences between all these models are due 2 2
to boundary conditions, coordinate transformations, nu 1 (1 2 c2 ) Pij 2 dij P 1 dij P (R2)
3 3
merical aspects, and, of course, the closure assumptions
for the unknown secondorder correlators ^ũw̃&, ^ỹw̃&,
1 (1 2 c )1B 2 d B2 1 d B
2 2
^w̃T̃&, and ^w̃S̃&, which are the Reynolds stresses, the tur 3 ij ij ij (R3)
bulent heat flux, and the turbulent salinity flux. 3 3
For the derivation of these fluxes, we apply a major 2 c4 kSij (R4)
simplification that is used by almost all turbulence clo
sure models: during the closure procedure, only one 2 c5 Z ij (R5)
active tracer is considered. Afterward, the derived flux
2
parameterization for one active tracer is applied to the 2 dij « (R6). (5)
other tracers in analogy. By means of this simplification, 3
consideration of correlators such as ^T̃S̃& is avoided. Here, the following definitions are used:
Pij 5 2]l u i ^ũ l ũ j & 2 ]l u j ^ũ l ũ i &,
3. Secondmoment closure
Bij 5 bi ^ũ j T&
˜ 1 bj ^ũ i T&
˜ (6)
Here, three different approaches for closing the sec
ondorder moments ^ũw̃&, ^ỹ w̃&, and ^w̃T̃& will be pre are production due to shear and buoyancy with b1 5
sented. They have been published by b 2 5 0, and b 3 5 2g] T r/r, where the traces define the
shear and the buoyancy production:
R Kantha and Clayson (1994, hereafter KC),
R Burchard and Baumert (1995) [based on the work of 1 1
P 5 Pll , B 5 Bll . (7)
Rodi (1980) and Hossain (1980); hereafter RH], and 2 2
R Canuto et al. (2001 hereafter CA). Further definitions are shear
All of these approaches are based on the exact forms 1
of the Reynolds stress and the heat flux equation. These Sij 5 (]i u j 1 ]j u i ) (8)
2
forms can be derived from the Navier–Stokes and the
local heat balance equations by applying the aforemen and
1946 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
and Yamada (1982) chose the same value for c1T that
1 2 1 2
2 2
Z ij 5 Vil ^ũ l ũ j & 2 dlj k 1 Vjl ^ũ l ũ i & 2 dil k (9) KC did, but used c 2T 5 c 3T 5 0.
3 3 Finally a dynamic equation of the temperature vari
with vorticity ance ^T̃ 2 & has to be used:
1 ]t ^T˜ 2 & 1 ]j (u j ^T˜ 2 & 1 ^ũ i T˜ 2 &)
Vij 5 (]j u i 2 ]i u j ). (10)
2
5 22^ũ i T&]j T (T1)
The parameters c1 , . . . , c 5 have been introduced for
parameterization of the pressure–strain correlators. 1 « ˜2
22 ^T & (T2). (12)
Setting them all to zero would result in the neglect of cT k
these terms. The single terms have the following mean Here the terms are production by mean gradient (T1)
ing: return to isotropy (R1) (see Rotta 1951), shear and dissipation (T2), which is often denoted as x. No
production (R2), buoyancy production (R3), noniso basic difference can be found in the three approaches
tropic contribution due to shear (R4), and contribution considered in this paper, and the parameter c T varies
due to vorticity (R5). For the physical relevance of the only little (see Table 1).
terms (R4) and (R5), see Shih and Shabbir (1992) and
Canuto (1994). The empirical parameters are given in
Table 1. It can be seen that the model KC neglects c. Algebrazation
pressure–strain effects due to shear and buoyancy pro
duction and vorticity, the model RH neglects effects The stability functions discussed in this paper are
of terms (R4) and (R5), and only the model CA con derived from the dynamic equations (5), (11), and (12)
siders all terms. The calibration of these empirical pa by means of two different approaches. The basic ap
rameters is referenced in the respective publications of proach is to neglect time variation and advective and
the KC, the RH, and the CA models. It should be noted turbulent transports of Reynolds stresses ^ũ i ũ j &, heat
that in the original version of the RH model, wall prox fluxes ^ũ i T̃&, and the autocorrelation ^T̃ 2 &. In order to
imity functions have been included in the parameters retain the transport of turbulent kinetic energy k, the
(see Hossain 1980). These are neglected here. TKE equation multiplied with (⅔)d ij has to be subtracted
from the Reynolds stress equation (5) first, and then the
lefthand side of the resulting transport equation for
b. Heat flux and temperature variance equation ^ũ i ũ j & 2 (⅔)d ij k is set to zero. Furthermore, the left
Formulating the heat flux and the temperature vari hand sides of the heat flux equation and the equation
ance equation on the same closure level as the Reynolds for ^T̃ 2 & are set to zero as well.
stress equation given above results in Mellor and Yamada (1974, 1982) used this approach
for their socalled level 2½ model. They justify the ne
]t ^ũ i T&
˜ 1 ]j (u j ^ũ i T&
˜ 1 ^ũ i ũ j T&)
˜
glect of transports for ^ũ i ũ j & and ^ũ i T̃& by a scaling pro
« ˜ cedure where terms are ordered by their degree of de
5 2c1T ^ũ i T& (H1) viation from isotropy. This results in their level 3 model.
k The additional neglect of transport terms in the ^T̃ 2 &
2 (1 2 c2T )^ũ j T&]
˜ j u i 2 ^ũ i ũ j &]j T (H2) equation then allows for a complete algebraization.
In the present paper, a nonequilibrium version of the
1 (1 2 c3T )bi ^T˜ 2 & (H3) model suggested by Kantha and Clayson (1994) is de
rived by applying the above discussed algebraization
1 c4T ^ũ i T&V
˜ ij (H4). (11)
procedure to Eqs. (5), (11), and (12). This is an exten
In (11), the righthand side terms have the following sion of the Mellor and Yamada (1974, 1982) level 2½
physical meaning: return to isotropy (H1), production model in which the parameterization of the pressure
by mean gradients (H2), production by buoyancy (H3), correlations in the heat flux equation are simpler, be
and contribution due to vorticity (H4). Here, the KC cause of c 2T 5 c 3T 5 0. The quasiequilibrium model
and RH models neglect the (H4) term whereas CA con by Kantha and Clayson (1994) is achieved from the
siders all terms (see Table 1). The closure by Mellor nonequilibrium model by applying the equilibrium con
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1947
dition P 1 B 5 « to the resulting equations (see section of the eddy viscosity and the eddy diffusivity principle:
3f).
The same approach for algebraization is used by Can
uto et al. (2001). After this procedure, a linear system k2
^ũw̃& 5 2cm ] u, (15)
of algebraic equations for ^ũ i ũ j &, ^ũ i T̃&, and ^T̃ 2 & is ob « z
tained for the nonequilibrium version of the model by k2
Kantha and Clayson (1994) and the model by Canuto ^ỹ w̃& 5 2cm ]z y , (16)
«
et al. (2001).
˜ 5 2c9m k ]z T
2
A different, less rigorous procedure for the algebrai ^w̃T& (17)
zation of the Reynolds stress equation has been sug «
gested by Rodi (1976). The basic assumption is that the with the eddy viscosity nt and diffusivity n9t , respectively:
ratio of transport of Reynolds stresses to the transport
of TKE [see Eq. (A37)] is equal to the ratio of Reynolds
stresses to TKE: k2 k2
nt 5 cm , nt9 5 c9m . (18)
]t ^ũ i ũ j & 1 ]l (u l ^ũ i ũ j & 1 ^ũ i ũ j ũ l &) ^ũ i ũ j & « «
5 . (13)
P1B2« k This reflects the relation of Kolmogorov (1942) and
Prandtl (1945), which assumes that eddy viscosity and
A similar approach is then used for the heat flux equation: diffusivity are proportional to a velocity scale and a length
scale of turbulence. Here k1/2 is the velocity scale and
]t ^ũ i T&
˜ 1 ]l (u l ^ũ i T&
˜ 1 ^ũ l ũ i T˜ )& 1 ^ũ i T&
˜
5 . (14) k 3/2
P1B2« 2 k L 5 cL (19)
«
This alternative approach has been first applied by Rodi
(1980) to the Reynolds stress equation and by Hossain with c L 5 (c m0 ) 3/4 a macrolength scale for energy con
(1980) to the heat flux equation. taining eddies, calculated by means of the Taylor (1935)
The transport equation for the temperature fluctuation scaling. In (19) c m0 is the value for c m resulting from B
autocorrelation ^T̃ 2 & is algebraized in the same manner 5 0 and P 5 «. (see Table 1).
as for the previously discussed models simply by setting All the information on secondorder correlators is
the transport to zero. Application of this method for now contained in the rather complex, nondimensional
algebrazation to the transport equations (5), (11), and stability functions c m and c9m . Despite their differences,
(12) leads to a nonlinear system of algebraic equations these stability functions depend for all models on only
for ^ũ i ũ j &, ^ũ i T̃&, and ^T̃ 2 &. two nondimensional parameters, the shear number and
the buoyancy number, respectively:
1) MODEL OF KANTHA AND CLAYSON (1994) of the same form as the stability functions originally
suggested by Mellor and Yamada (1982) with the ex
In Kantha and Clayson (1994), only the quasiequi ception that c 2 and c 3 are nonzero now.
librium version of the stability functions is given. How In our notation (15)–(17), this set of stability func
ever, full versions can also be derived, which are then tions may be formulated as
0.1682 1 0.03269a N
cm 5
1 1 0.4679a N 1 0.07372a M 1 0.01761a N a M 1 0.03371a N2
0.1783 1 0.01586a N 1 0.003173a M
c9m 5 . (21)
1 1 0.4679a N 1 0.07372a M 1 0.01761a N a M 1 0.03371a N2
The exact form of (21) in terms of the empirical pa been solved in numerical models by using the value for
rameters (see Table 1) contained in Eqs. (5), (11), and (P 1 B)/e 2 1 on an old time level. In this form, the
(12) is given in section d of the appendix. stability functions have been presented first by Rodi
(1980) and Hossain (1980).
However, because of (P 1 B)/« 5 c m a M 2 c9ma N ,
2) MODEL OF RODI (1980), HOSSAIN (1980), AND these equations for c m and c9m can be expressed as im
BURCHARD AND BAUMERT (1995) plicit functions of a M and a N . The evaluation procedure
that has been suggested by Burchard and Baumert
In contrast to the models of Kantha and Clayson (1995) is first solving for (P 1 B)/« 2 1 and then
(1994) and Canuto et al. (2001), the model of Rodi inserting that value into the formulations for c m and
(1980) and Hossain (1980) in the version of Burchard c9m. This procedure is discussed in detail in the section
and Baumert (1995) results in stability functions c m and e of the appendix.
c9m, which not only depend on a M and a N , but addition
ally depend on the nondimensional term (P 1 B)/« 2
1, that is, on the degree of deviation from local tur 3) MODEL OF CANUTO ET AL. (2001)
bulence equilibrium. This is a consequence of the spe The stability functions as they result from the closure
cific closure concept used in that model; see Eqs. (13) assumptions carried out by Canuto et al. (2001) are as
and (14). Traditionally, these stability functions have follows:
Despite the higher complexity of the transport equations exact form can be found in section f of the appendix.
for Reynolds stresses and heat fluxes due to consider In their paper, Canuto et al. (2001) give another set of
ation of more terms for the pressurestrain correlators, stability functions derived on the ground of different
these stability functions are structurally similar to those assumptions. They will be denoted by CB and are of
of Kantha and Clayson (1994). the following form:
These stability functions will be denoted by CA. The
FIG. 1. Complete version of stability functions c m and c9m displayed as functions of the nondimensional
buoyancy number a N and shear number a M according to Kantha and Clayson (1994). The white area
indicates that the functions are not defined there. The bold line marks the equilibrium state P 1 B 5 «.
f. Quasiequilibrium stability functions For stable stratification, laboratory and LES data for
Quasiequilibrium is defined as the state where pro the turbulent Prandtl number Pr 5 c m /c9m are compared
duction and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy are to the turbulent Prandtl number computed by the quasi
balanced; that is, P 1 B 5 «. This can be transformed equilibrium stability functions (see Fig. 6). All the func
to the relation tions are within the uncertainty of the data. Only the
KC quasiequilibrium stability functions do not reach
c m a M 2 c9m a N 5 1. (24) high turbulent Prandtl numbers due to their relatively
This quasiequilibrium state has often been used for small critical gradient Richardson number.
simplifying stability functions depending on both a M Another way of displaying the quasiequilibrium sta
and a N . The most wellknown example is the work of bility functions is to transform them into the Monin–
Galperin et al. (1988) where relation (24) has been used Obukhov similarity form. This has already been sug
for improving the performance of the stability functions gested by various authors (see Mellor and Yamada 1982;
proposed by Mellor and Yamada (1982), which have Kantha and Clayson 1994). Monin and Obukhov (1954)
been proven to be numerically unstable (see Deleersnij found for the atmospheric boundary layer nondimen
der and Luyten 1994). Galperin et al. (1988) found by sional relations between fluxes of momentum and heat
applying the scale analysis introduced by Mellor and and gradients of velocity and density, respectively.
Yamada (1974) that it is not a model inconsistency to Based on the Monin–Obukhov length, L M 5 2u*3 /(kB),
prescribe P 1 B 5 e only for the stability functions but gradients of momentum and buoyancy can be expressed
still retain the full dynamic TKE equation. as follows:
The bold lines in Figs. 1–4 indicate the quasiequi
1 2 1 2
librium states for the four sets of stability functions u* z9 B z9
]z u 5 FM , ]z b 5 2 FH (25)
discussed in this paper. The stability functions suggested kz9 LM kz9u* LM
by Galperin et al. (1988) are expressed as functions of
with the distance from the boundary z9 and buoyancy
a N . Relation (24) allows us also to express the stability
b 5 2g(r 2 r 0 )/r 0 .
functions depending on the gradient Richardson number
With the friction velocity
Ri 5 a N /a M , which has often been done for further
analyzing the stability functions as shown in Fig. 5 for k2
the four sets of stability functions. The maximum value u*2 5 cm ] u,
« z
of Ri that can be reached in quasiequilibrium is called
the ‘‘critical’’ Richardson number Ri c . For the models the buoyancy flux
discussed here, they have the values shown in Table 2. k2
It can be seen that the model of Kantha and Clayson B 5 2c9m ]b
(1994) already suppresses turbulence for stratifications « z
around Ri 5 0.2, whereas the other models allow for and the macro length scale L 5 kz9, the variables z 5
mixing at Richardson numbers significantly higher. z9/L M , F M , and F H can be expressed as
1950 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 2. Same as Fig. 1 but for the Rodi (1980) and Hossain (1980) [version of Burchard and Baumert
(1995)] stability functions.
1 2
«
1/2
boundaries with constant shear and stratification. This
leads to the concept of homogeneous shear layers. Math LO 5 (33)
N3
ematically formulated, this concept leads to vanishing
diffusion terms in all turbulence equations such that they and the buoyancy scale
become ordinary differential equations only depending k 1/2
on time t. After denoting k̇ 5 ] t k and «˙ 5 ] t «, the Lb 5 . (34)
equations for k and « may be written as N
« Another important length scale is the Ellison scale, de
k̇ 5 P 1 B 2 «, «˙ 5 (c«1 P 1 c«3 B 2 c«2 «). (31) fined as L E 5 2r̃/] zr̃ (with the density fluctuation r̃),
k
which is often set equal to the Thorpe scale and is related
to the macrolength scale L [see Eq. (19)] as follows (see
a. Steadystate Richardson number Baumert and Peters 2000):
If k̇ and «˙ are zero, then the total equilibrium of the
L
k–« model is reached and the following relation, which LE 5 (35)
is a precondition for the steady state, can be derived: 2C(cm0 ) 3
1952 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 1 but for the Canuto et al. (2001) (version A) stability functions.
with C 5 1.4. When assuming structural equilibrium have to be compared to empirical curves based on lab
for the k–« model in the homogeneous shear layer ap oratory experiments; see Baumert and Peters (2000):
proximation, then the ratios L E /L O and L E /L b can be
LE LE
expressed as follows: ø 4.2Ri 3/4 , ø 1.6Ri 1/2 . (37)
LO Lb
LE 1 3/4 LE 1 1/2
5 a , 5 a . (36) Figure 9 shows this functional relationship. It can be
LO 2C N Lb 2C N
clearly seen that all curves except those resulting from
In order to calculate these ratios for the algebraic sec the KC model are in fairly good agreement with the
ondmoment closures presented here, a relation between empirical curves.
a M and a N is obtained after deriving a dynamic equation
for t and then setting ṫ 5 0. This allows for displaying
6. Mixed layer studies
L E /L O and L E /L b as functions of the gradient Richardson
number. For this calculation, the parameter c «3 has to An idealized wind entrainment experiment and an
be prescribed, which we take for a steadystate gradient idealized free convection experiment have been chosen
Richardson number of Ri st 5 0.25 (see Table 2). These here in order to test the k–« model together with the
FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 1 but for the Canuto et al. (2001) (version B) stability functions.
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1953
FIG. 5. Quasiequilibrium versions of stability functions displayed as functions of the gradient Richardson number Ri
(a) Model of Kantha and Clayson (1994), (b) model of Rodi (1980) and Hossain (1980), (c) model A of Canuto et al.
(2001), (d) model B of Canuto et al. (2001). For the se versions of the Kantha and Clayson (1994) model, a steadystate
Richardson number of Ri st 5 0.225 was used.
stability functions of Kantha and Clayson (1994) (KC), applied to the OWS Papa data and their results compared
Rodi (1980) and Hossain (1980) (RH), and Canuto et to temperature profile observations. It should be noted
al. (2001) (CA, CB). Furthermore, the quasiequilibrium that the scope of this paper is to test mixed layer models
version of the KC model and the full CA model are to be implemented into threedimensional ocean models.
We therefore do not intend to compare here the model
performance to measurements of turbulent quantities for
TABLE 2. Critical Richarson number Ri c and c«3 . The latter is based
on a steadystate gradient Richardson number of Rist 5 0.25, but for which data are usually available only on short time
the model KC, Rist 5 0.225 was used. scales.
Model Ric c «3
a. Wind entrainment
KC 0.235 20.404
RH 0.615 20.444 A wind entrainment experiment is used in order to
CA 0.847 20.629 test the assumptions on the stationary gradient Rich
CB 1.02 20.566
ardson number Ri st . The wind entrainment experiment
1954 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 10. Development of the mixed layer depth (deepest point with k . 10 25 J kg 21 ) for the simulation of the Kato–
Phillips experiment. Model results for the complete versions of the models A (left) and B (right) of Canuto et al.
(2001) for various values of Ri st .
1956 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 11. Development of the mixed layer depth (deepest point with k . 10 25 J kg 21 ) and profiles of
mixing coefficients and TKE after 30 h for the simulation of the Kato–Phillips experiment. Model results
for the complete versions of the (a) model of Kantha and Clayson (1994), (b) Rodi (1980) and Hossain
(1980), (c) model A of Canuto et al. (2001), and (d) model B of Canuto et al. (2001). For all model runs,
Ri st 5 0.25 has been chosen, with the exception of the KC model, where Ri st 5 0.225 was used.
rate equation (28) has been used with the values for c «3 and therefore produces useless results. This has already
from Table 3. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the non been reported by Deleersnijder and Luyten (1994) for
equilibrium version of the KC model [it should be noted the similar model of Mellor and Yamada (1982). In
that it is the quasiequilibrium version suggested by contrast to this, the quasiequilibrium version of the KC
Kantha and Clayson (1994)] tends to strong oscillations model performs well; the empirical and simulated mixed
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1957
FIG. 12. Development of the mixed layer depth (deepest point with k . 10 25 J kg 21 ) and profiles of
mixing coefficients and TKE after 30 h for the simulation of the Kato–Phillips experiment. Model results
for the quasiequilibrium versions of the (a) model of Kantha and Clayson (1994), (b) Rodi (1980) and
Hossain (1980), (c) model A of Canuto et al. (2001), and (d) model B of Canuto et al. (2001). For all model
runs, Ri st 5 0.25 has been chosen, with the exception of the KC model, where Ri st 5 0.225 was used.
layer depth are very close to each other (see Fig. 12). mixed layer experiment do unfortunately not exist.
It is however strange that the profile of turbulent kinetic However, in a large eddy simulation study of a similar
energy shows a maximum in the lower part of the mixed experimental setup (but with consideration of rotation)
layer. This effect has already been demonstrated by Bur carried out by Moeng and Sullivan (1994) such a local
chard et al. (1998). Turbulence measurements for this maximum of k is not visible.
1958 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 13. Free convection experiment of Willis and Deardorff (1974). Profiles of the normalized temperature profile (T 2 Tmax )/T , normalized
*
temperature flux ^w̃T̃&/w T , and the normalized autocorrelations ^ũ 2 &/w*2 , ^w̃ 2 &/w*2 , and ^T̃ 2 &/T 2* and dissipation rate «/B 0 calculated by using
different models for the *stability
* functions: Kantha and Clayson (1994) (KC), Rodi (1980) and Hossain (1980) (RH), Canuto et al. (2001)
version A (CA), and Canuto et al. (2001) version B (CB). The model simulations are compared to LES simulations by Mironov et al. (1999).
The other sets of stability functions at show (i) a Bryan (1969), the depth is here the height of the ho
perfect fit with the empirical curve of Price (1979), (ii) mogenized layer] and the KPP model [see Large et al.
the expected monotone decrease of turbulent kinetic en (1994), the value has been estimated from their Fig. 1].
ergy down from the surface, and (iii) a numerically As expected, all depths for the models presented here
stable performance. are between the latter two depths. The least deepening
(11.2 m) is provided by the convective adjustment
scheme, which does not perform any active entrainment
b. Free convection
in terms of steepening the buoyancy gradient below the
Although strong convective events occur in the ocean convective boundary layer. The models presented here
in only a few areas, they are important for the ocean mix deeper (11.9–12.5 m) due to their capability of
circulation and it is therefore desirable that they are reproducing active entrainment. The fully empirical,
sufficiently reproduced by turbulence closure models. nonlocal KPP model provides further deepening (13.0
A free convection simulation similar to the laboratory m) of the convective boundary layer.
experiment carried out by Willis and Deardorff (1974) Furthermore, after 3 days of cooling profiles of var
will be presented here. The scenario simulated here is ious quantities are shown, normalized by the Deardorff
the same as that used by Large et al. (1994). By means convective velocity scale w* 5 (B 0 H)1/3 , the tempera
of a constant negative surface heat flux of 100 W m 22 , ture scale T* 5 (n9t ] z T)  z50 /w*, and the surface buoy
a convective boundary layer is entrained into a stably ancy flux B 0 versus z/H. Here H is the depth of the
stratified ocean with a surface temperature of 228C and entrainment layer the base of which is defined as the
a temperature gradient of 18C per 10 m. Shear and ro height with the minimum heat flux. The results for mean
tation are not present. For this free convection simu temperature, heat flux, dissipation rate, and the vari
lation recent LES data are available (see Mironov et al. ances ^ũ 2 &, ^w̃ 2 &, and ^T̃ 2 & [see Eqs. (A10)–(A12)] are
2000). shown in Fig. 13. Three shortcomings of the model are
In Table 3, the entrainment depth (position of mini obvious:
mum normalized turbulent heat flux) for all experiments
after 3 days of cooling is given. Comparison is made 1) Countergradient fluxes occur over a large portion
to a simple scheme with convective adjustment [see (roughly 20.8 # z/H # 20.4) of the convective
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1959
FIG. 15. Relative heat content of the water column at OWS Papa
from Mar 1961 to Mar 1962. Bold line: 5 day means of heat content
FIG. 14. Budget of the TKE equation calculated from the CA as calculated from measured temperature profiles. Thin line: 5 day
model compared to LES data from Mironov et al. (1999). Diss: means of heat content as calculated from surface heat fluxes.
turbulent dissipation rate; Buoy: buoyancy production; Turb: tur
bulent transport. For the LES data, turbulent and pressure transport
are added together here. All terms are normalized with the surface
buoyancy flux B 0 , the height is normalized with the entrainment
layer depth. Kantha and Clayson 1994; D’Alessio et al. 1998). As
for any realistic oceanic test case, other factors than the
choice of the mixed layer model also play an important
role for the agreement between the model results and
boundary layer, which is not included in the model
the measurements. First of all, the momentum and heat
because of its inherent downgradient approximation.
fluxes at the sea surface are never available as direct
Therefore, temperature profiles of LES and turbu
observations but are calculated using bulk formulae.
lence closures are principally different. This suggests
Measurements such as fractional cloud cover are never
that nonlocal processes are important here.
exact. Furthermore, horizontal advection of heat and
2) The height of the active entrainment layer is under
salt, neglected in onedimensional water column mod
estimated by the turbulence closure models. This can
els, can strongly influence the measured profiles of tem
best be seen in the profiles of ^w̃T̃& and ^T̃ 2 &. Potential
perature and salinity. Maybe most important, the bulk
reasons could here be the downgradient approxi
formulae for the parameterization of crosssurface flux
mation for the TKE flux and the fact that turbulent
es of momentum, heat, and freshwater are strictly em
transport of ^w̃T̃& and ^T̃ 2 & is neglected. It can be
pirical.
seen from Fig. 14 that the TKEdiffusion term is
How the bulk formulae for surface heat and momen
qualitatively reproduced by the model (here CA), but
tum fluxes have been used here is discussed in detail in
underestimated by a factor of approximately 2.
Burchard et al. (1999). The relative heat content of the
3) The profile of ^ũ 2 & near the surface suggests that the
upper 250 m of the water column from temperature
turbulent transport of this quantity should not be
profiles and surface heat fluxes between March 1961
neglected here.
and March 1962 is shown in Fig. 15. Until the beginning
It should be noted that Canuto et al. (1994) obtained of November 1961 (around day 310), the agreement
good agreement between LES data and simulation re between the curves is sufficient enough for allowing for
sults for a free convection experiment with a full Reyn onedimensional simulation. Afterward, cold water is
olds closure model using dynamic transport equations horizontally advected, a process described in detail by
for ^w̃T̃&, ^T̃ 2 &, ^w̃ 2 &, ^ũ 2 &, and « including complex al Large et al. (1994). For mixing below the thermocline,
gebraic closure schemes for all relevant thirdorder mo an internal wave and shear instability parameterization
ments. It should be the aim of future work to find a as suggested by Large et al. (1994) has been used.
reasonable compromise between this complex model by Figure 17 shows results of the model simulations with
Canuto et al. (1994) and the twoequation models pre the stability functions of Canuto et al. (2001) in com
sented here, in terms of both efficiency and predict parison to measured temperature profiles (Fig. 16). The
ability. overall temperature evolution is well simulated by this
model. A more detailed comparsion between measure
ments and two different model simulations of temper
c. Wind and convective mixing in the open sea
ature profiles is shown in Fig. 18. Besides the afore
For the northern Pacific, longterm observations of mentioned Canuto et al. (2001) model (CA) the simu
meteorological parameters and temperature profiles are lations are carried out here additionally with the quasi
available. OWS Papa at 508N, 1458W has the advantage equilibrium version of Kantha and Clayson (1994)
that it is situated in a region where the horizontal ad (KC). Until day 210, the agreement between both sim
vection of heat and salt is assumed to be small. Various ulations and the observations is fairly good. Then,
authors used these data for validating turbulence closure around day 240, the models predict a too shallow mixed
schemes (Denman 1973; Martin 1985; Large et al. 1994; layer, obviously due to erroneous surface fluxes or
1960 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
FIG. 16. Temperature evolution for OWS Papa in the northern Pacific Ocean from Mar
1961 to Mar 1962 from CTD measurements.
strong advective events such as downwelling (see Fig. tha and Clayson (1994), who had (while applying a kL
15), where a mismatch between the heat content of the instead of an « equation) to use a background diffusivity
water column and the accumulated surface heat fluxes five times higher in order to predict the SST realistically.
is evident around day 240. It can be seen as well that This leads however to a thermocline too diffusive com
the KC model predicts a slightly shallower mixed layer pared to measured temperature profiles (see Burchard
than the CA model. This has the consequence that the et al. (1999)).
KC model overpredicts the SST during summer (days
210–280 see Fig. 19). Until day 280, the rms error for
7. Discussion and conclusions
SST between both simulations and the observations is
rather small, 0.368C for the Canuto et al. (2001) and The concept of the steadystate gradient Richardson
0.338C for the Kantha and Clayson (1994) model. How number Ri st is applied here for adjusting mixed layer
ever, the SST evolution strongly depends on the internal models such that they realistically predict the mixed
wave parameterization, and thus these rms errors are not layer depth and consequently the sea surface tempera
discriminative of the quality of the turbulence models. ture in the ocean. The simulations of the wind entrain
It should be noted that we have used exactly the pa ment experiment suggest a value of Ri st 5 0.25. Al
rameters of Large et al. (1994) for this, other than Kan though the empirical relation for the mixed layer sug
FIG. 17. Temperature evolution for OWS Papa in the northern Pacific Ocean from Mar
1961 to Mar 1962. Results of the simulation with the version A of the Canuto et al. (2001)
model with the stationary gradient Richardson number set to Rist 5 0.25.
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1961
FIG. 18. Measured and simulated temperature profile at station OWS Papa during spring and summer 1961. The
simulations were carried out with the quasiequilibrium version of the Kantha and Clayson (1994) model with the
stationary gradient Richardson number set to Rist 5 0.225 and the version A of the Canuto et al. (2001) model with
the stationary gradient Richardson number set to Rist 5 0.25.
gested by Price (1979), Eq. (38), cannot be used for because of its critical gradient Richardson number of
calibrating Ri st in a strict way, it can be concluded from Ri c 5 0.235. We therefore used Ri st 5 0.225 only for
Fig. 10 that it should be between 0.2 and 0.3. According this model, and the predicted mixed layer depth is in
to Schumann and Gerz (1995), Ri st , 0.25 should hold. good agreement with the curve of Price (1979). It should
By analyzing laboratory data from Rohr (1985) obtained be noted again, that the KC model is a slight improve
from homogeneously shearlayered saltwater flow, they ment of the models of Mellor and Yamada (1982) and
conclude that Ri st 5 0.16 6 0.06, a value significantly Galperin et al. (1988), which compute Ri c 5 0.19. The
smaller than the value we suggest. The discrepancy wind entrainment experiment shows that the stability
could be explained by the argument that mixed layer functions of Kantha and Clayson (1994) do not perform
dynamics are quantitatively different than homogeneous well. This is due to inherent numerical instabilities (full
shear layers due to the nonnegligible vertical fluxes of version) and an unrealistic local maximum of turbulent
turbulent quantities. More efficient parameterizations kinetic energy right above the pycnocline (quasiequi
for turbulent transport of TKE than the downgradient librium version). A further weakness of the KC model
approach used here could assumedly result in more re became apparent when the ratios of Ellison to Ozmidov
alistic estimates for Ri st . length scale and Ellison to buoyancy length scale had
Eight different sets of stability functions are tested been compared to empirical curves for structural equi
here, namely the full and the quasiequilibrium versions librium turbulence. These ratios were far larger than
of Kantha and Clayson (1994) (KC), Rodi (1980) and those for the other models, which all performed suffi
Hossain (1980) [version of Burchard and Baumert ciently well. For the case of free convection, all models
(1995), RH], and versions A and B of Canuto et al. predict significant deviations from recent LES data. The
(2001) (CA, CB). The analysis of the quasiequilibrium major deficiencies are possibly due to the neglect of
versions of the stability functions shows that the model turbulent fluxes of second moments, which can in prin
of Kantha and Clayson (1994) cannot reach Ri st 5 0.25 ciple be added to the models presented here.
1962 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
Ruiz Villarreal (Santiago de Compostela, Spain), Pierre which the stability functions depend are here conse
Philippe Mathieu (Reading, United Kingdom), and quently expressed as
Georg Umgiesser (Venice, Italy) for their support in the
k2 2 k2 2
framework of the General Ocean Turbulence Model aM 5 S , aN 5 N . (A4)
(GOTM, online at http://www.gotm.net), which has «2 «2
been used for the presented numerical calculations. And With the Mellor and Yamada (1974, 1982) notation for
we would like to express that we highly appreciated the these nondimensional parameters,
suggestions of two anonymous referees.
L2 2 L2 2
gm 5 S , gh 5 N , (A5)
Mathematical Details q2 q2
0 0 b ^ũT&
˜
˜
Bij 5 0 0 b ^ỹ T& (A8)
b ^ũT&
˜ b ^ỹ T&
˜ 2b ^w̃T&˜
0 0 ]z u 0 0 ]z u
1 1
Sij 5 0 0 ]z y , Vij 5 0 0 ]z y . (A9)
2 2
]z u ]z y 0 2]z u 2]z y 0
2 k E 2 nt (]z u ) 2 2 E 3 nt (]z y ) 2 2 B
^ũ 2 & 5 k 1 E1 , (A10)
3 «
1 2
P B
1 1 E4 1 21
« «
2 k 2E 3 nt (]z u ) 2 1 E 2 nt (]z y ) 2 2 B
^ỹ 2 & 5 k 1 E1 , (A11)
3 «
1 2
P B
1 1 E4 1 21
« «
2 k (E 2 2 E 3 )nt (]z u ) 1 (E 2 2 E 3 )nt (]z y ) 2 2 2B
2
^w̃ 2 & 5 k 2 E1 , (A12)
3 «
1 2
P B
1 1 E4 1 21
« «
k
^T˜ 2 & 5 cT nt9 (]z T ) 2 , (A13)
«
1 2 1 2 1 2
P1B P1B P1B
5 4 3
3
1 k1 1 k2 a11 5 2 c3 . (A21)
« « « 2
1k 1
« 2
1k 1
« 2
P1B P1B
2
5 6
k 2 5 4a 3 (a 3 1 a10 a N ) 1 4a1 (2a 3 1 a10 a N ) 1 a12 1 P B
c 1T 1
2 «
1 21
«
8 2
1 a11 a N 1 2a 7 a N 2 (1 2 a 5 )a 5 a M ,
3 3 1 2 c3 1
D 5 11 aN,
1 2 1 2 5 6 5 6
16 1 1 P B 1 P B
k 3 5 a11 a1 1 a 3 a N 1 4a 7 a1 1 a 3 1 a10 a N a N c1 1 1 2 1 c1T 1 1 21
3 2 2 « « 2 « «
4 (A23)
2 a 5 (1 2 a 5 )(2a 3 1 a10 a N )a M
3
1 8a 3 a1 (a 3 1 a10 a N ) 1 2a12 (2a 3 1 a10 a N ) 3
2 c3
4 2 1
1 2 E 5 11 Aa N ,
8 1 1
2 (c1 2 1) a M (1 2 a 5 ) 2 a N ,
5 6 5 6
3 P B 1 P B
3 4 2 c1 1 1 2 1 c1T 1 1 21
16 « « 2 « «
k 4 5 a1 a 3 a11 a N 1 4a1 a 7 (a 3 1 a10 a N )a N
3 (A24)
8 16 1 2 c3
2 a 3 a 5 (1 2 a 5 )(a 3 1 a10 a N )a M 1 a 7 a11 a N2 H512
3 3 1 2 c2
8 1 2 c2T
1 a 5 a 7 a 9 a M a N 1 4a12 a 3 (a 3 1 a10 a N ) 3
1
Aa N .
3
8
2 (c1 2 1)
3
c1T 1 5
1 P B
1 2 1 c1T 1
2 « «
1 P B
6
1 21
2 « « 5 6
(A25)
1
2 [ 1
3 (1 2 a 5 )(2a 3 1 a10 a N )a M 2 a1 1 a 3 a N ,
2 1 2 ] The anisotropy ^w̃ 2 &/k is then obtained from
c1 2 1
^w̃ 2 & 2
c1 1 5
P
«
B
1 21
« 6
5 . (A26)
k 3 2 c2 1 2 c2 H
E2 a
D M
5 6 5 6
3 P B P B
c1 1 1 2 1 c1 1 1 21
« « « «
1966 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
1 2 c2 H ^w̃ 2 & 4
t 2 5 [L 25 (3L 23 2 L 22 ) 2 0.75(L 26 2 L 27 )] ,
cm 5 , (A27) t0
5 6
P G D k
c1 1 1 21
« « 16
t 3 5 L 4 (4L 4 1 3L 8 ) ,
A ^w̃ &
2 t0
c9m 5 . (A28)
5 6
1 P G k t 4 5 {L 4 [L 2 L 6 2 3L 3 L 7 2 L 5 (L 22 2 L 32 )]
c1T 1 1 21
2 « « 16
1 L 5 L 8 (3L 32 2 L 22 )} ,
The coefficients for calculating the autocorrelators in t0
Eqs. (A10)–(A12) are given as
16
t 5 5 0.25(L 22 2 3L 23 )(L 26 2 L 27 ) (A33)
2 t0
(1 2 c3 )
3 1 2 c2 with
E1 5 , E2 5 2 ,
c1 1 2 c3 4 1 1 2 c2 1 2 c2 1 c5
L1 5 , L2 5 , L3 5 ,
1 2 c2 1 15 c1 2c1 2c1
E3 5 , E4 5 . (A29)
1 2 c3 c1 c3 2 1
L4 5 , L 5 5 2c1T , L 6 5 1 2 c2T ,
2c1
5 1
f. Exact form of the Canuto et al. (2001) stability L 7 5 1 2 c2T , L 8 5 cT . (A34)
functions 3 3
It should be noted that c 4T 5 ⅔c 2T .
Only for version A of the Canuto et al. (2001) stability The coefficients for calculating the autocorrelators in
functions, the exact form is given here: equations (A10)–(A12) are given as
4 1 L 2 1 3L 3 L2
s0 1 s1 a N 1 s 2 a M E1 5 L 4 , E2 5 , E3 5 ,
cm 5 , (A30) 3 2 L4 L4
1 1 t1 a N 1 t 2 a M 1 t 3 a N2 1 t 4 a N a M 1 t 5 a M2
E 4 5 0. (A35)
s4 1 s5 a N 1 s6 a M
c9m 5 , (A31)
1 1 t1 a N 1 t 2 a M 1 t 3 a N2 1 t 4 a N a M 1 t 5 a M2
where g. Exact equations for k and «
The turbulent kinetic energy k, defined as the kinetic
2 energy per unit mass of the velocity fluctuations is de
s0 5 1.5L 1 L 25 ,
t0 fined as
1
[ 1
s1 5 2L 4 (l 6 1 L 7 ) 1 2L 4 L 5 L 1 2 L 2 2 L 3
3 1 2
k 5 ^ỹ i2 &,
2
(the unit is usually J kg 21 ). A transport equation for k
(A36)
1 1.5L 1 L 5 L 8
] 8
t0
,
can be derived directly from the exact transport equation
for the Reynolds stresses (see, e.g., Sander 1998):
2
s2 5 2L 5 ,
t0
2
s4 5 2L 5 ,
t0
8
s5 5 2L 4 ,
t0 1 7 8
1 1
]t k 1 ]j ỹ j k 1 ỹ j ỹ i2 2 n ]j k 1 ^ỹ j p̃&
2 r0 2
s6 5
[
2
L (3L 23 2 L 22 ) 2 0.5L 5 L 1 (3L 3 2 L 2 )
3 5
5 2^ỹ j ỹ i &]j y i 2

z
 
g
^ỹ r̃& 2 n ^(]j ỹ i ) 2 &.
r0 3
z
 
z

(A37)
and
1 0.75L 1 (L 6 2 L 7 )
] 8
t0
(A32)
P
« 5 n^(] j ỹ i ) 2 &
«
(A38)
AUGUST 2001 BURCHARD AND BOLDING 1967
(the unit is usually W kg 21 ), which appears as a sink ——, A. Howard, Y. Cheng, and M. S. Dubovikov, 2001: Ocean
on the lefthand side of the k equation, an exact equation turbulence. Part I: Onepoint closure model momentum and heat
vertical diffusivities. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 31, 1413–1426.
can be derived as well: Craig, P. D., and M. L. Banner, 1994: Modeling waveenhanced tur
bulence in the ocean surface layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 24, 2546–
1 2
n 2559.
]t « 1 ]j ỹ j « 1 ^ỹ j n (]j ỹ i ) 2 & 2 n ]j « 1 2 ^] ỹ ] p̃&
r0 i j i D’Alessio, S. J. D., K. Abdella, and N. A. McFarlane, 1998: A new
secondorder turbulence closure scheme for modeling the oce
g anic mixed layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 1624–1641.
5 22n 2 ^(]ij ỹ l ) 2 & 2 2n ] ^ỹ ] r̃& 2 2n ^]j ỹ i ]l ỹ i ]j ỹ l & Deleersnijder, E., and P. Luyten, 1994: On the practical advantages
r0 j 3 j of the quasiequilibrium version of the Mellor and Yamada level

z
 
z
 
z
 2.5 turbulence closure applied to marine modelling. Appl. Math.
P« B« «« Model., 18, 281–287.
Denman, K. L., 1973: A timedependent model of the upper ocean.
2 2n ]j y l ^]j ỹ i ]l ỹ i & 2 2n ]l y i ^]j ỹ i ]j y l & J. Phys. Oceanogr., 3, 173–184.
Galperin, B., L. H. Kantha, S. Hassid, and A. Rosati, 1988: A quasi
2 2n ]jl y i ^ỹ l ]j ỹ i &. (A39) equilibrium turbulent energy model for geophysical flows. J.
Atmos. Sci., 45, 55–62.
It is evident that both equations (A37) and (A39), are Haidvogel, D. B., and A. Beckmann, 1999: Numerical Ocean Cir
culation Modelling. Series on Environmental Science and Man
not affected by Coriolis rotation and that pressure fluc
agement, Vol. 2, Imperial College Press, 318 pp.
tuations do not act as sources or sinks for k and «, but Hossain, M. S., 1980: Mathematische Modellierung von turbulenten
only transport these quantities as advective or diffusive Auftriebsströmungen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Karls
transports. The righthand side of the transport equation ruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, 145 pp.
for k can be left unchanged; however, the righthand Kantha, L. H., and C. A. Clayson, 1994: An improved mixed layer
model for geophysical applications. J. Geophys. Res., 99,
side of the « equation needs some drastic empirical as 25 235–25 266.
sumptions to be closed. In principle, it is assumed that Kato, H., and O. M. Phillips, 1969: On the penetration of a turbulent
the sources and sinks of « (after scaling them with the layer into stratified fluid. J. Fluid Mech., 37, 643–655.
turbulent timescale k/«) are proportional to those in the Kolmogorov, A. N., 1942: The equations of turbulent motion on an
k equation [see Eq. (28)]. The empirical coefficients c «1 , incompressible fluid. Izv. Akad. Nauk. USSR, Ser. Fiz., VI (1–
2), 56–58.
c «2 , and c «3 are then derived from laboratory experi Large, W. G., and P. R. Gent, 1999: Validation of vertical mixing in
ments (freely decaying grid turbulence for c «2 ) and the an equatorial ocean model using large eddy simulations and
loglaw (c «1 , see Rodi 1980). The meaning of c «3 has observations. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 29, 449–464.
first been discussed in detail by Burchard and Baumert ——, J. C. McWilliams, and S. C. Doney, 1994: Oceanic vertical
(1995) and is further investigated in this paper (see sec mixing: A review and a model with nonlocal boundary layer
parameterization. Rev. Geophys., 32, 363–403.
tion 5). Launder, B. E., 1975: On the effect of a gravitational field on the
turbulent transport of heat and momentum. J. Fluid Mech., 67,
569–581.
REFERENCES ——, and D. Spalding, 1972: Mathematical Models of Turbulence.
Baumert, H., and H. Peters, 2000: Secondmoment closures and Academic Press, 169 pp.
length scales for weakly stratified turbulent shear flows. J. Geo ——, G. J. Reece, and W. Rodi, 1975: Progress in the development
phys. Res., 105, 6453–6468. of a Reynoldsstress turbulence closure. J. Fluid Mech., 68, 537–
Bryan, K., 1969: A numerical model for the study of the world ocean. 566.
J. Comput. Phys., 4, 347–376. Lesieur, M., 1997: Turbulence in Fluids. 3d ed. Kluwer Academic,
Burchard, H., 2001: Note on the q 2 l equation by Mellor and Yamada 515 pp.
(1982). J. Phys. Oceanogr., 31, 1377–1387. Martin, P. J., 1985: Simulation of the mixed layer at OWS November
——, and H. Baumert, 1995: On the performance of a mixedlayer and Papa with several models. J. Geophys. Res., 90, 903–916.
model based on the k–e turbulence closure. J. Geophys. Res., Mellor, G. L., 1989: Retrospect on oceanic boundary layer modeling
100, 8523–8540. and second moment closure. Parameterization of SmallScale
——, and O. Petersen, 1999: Models of turbulence in the marine Processes: Proc ‘Aha Huliko’ a Hawaiian Winter Workshop,
environment—A comparative study of twoequation turbulence Manoa, HI, University of Hawaii, 251–271.
models. J. Mar. Syst., 21, 29–53. ——, 2001: Onedimensional, ocean surface layer modeling: A prob
——, ——, and T. P. Rippeth, 1998: Comparing the performance of lem and a solution. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 31, 790–803.
the Mellor–Yamada and the k–e twoequation turbulence models. ——, and T. Yamada, 1974: A hierarchy of turbulence closure models
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 10 543–10 554. for planetary boundary layers. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1791–1806.
——, K. Bolding, and M. R. Villarreal, 1999: GOTM—A general ——, and ——, 1982: Development of a turbulence closure model
ocean turbulence model. Theory, applications and test cases. for geophysical fluid problems. Rev. Geophys., 20, 851–875.
European Commission Rep. EUR 18745 EN, 103 pp. Mironov, D. V., V. M. Gryanik, C.H. Moeng, D. J. Olbers, and T.
Businger, J. A., J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and E. F. Bradley, 1971: H. Warncke, 2000: Vertical turbulence structure and second
Flux profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J. moment budgets in convection with rotation: A largeeddy sim
Atmos. Sci., 28, 181–189. ulation study. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 126, 477–515.
Canuto, V. M., 1994: Large eddy simulation of turbulence: A subgrid Moeng, C.H., and P. P. Sullivan, 1994: A comparison of shear and
model including shear, vorticity, rotation and buoyancy. Astro buoyancydriven planetary boundary layer flow. J. Atmos. Sci.,
phys. J., 428, 729–752. 51, 999–1022.
——, F. Minotti, C. Ronchi, M. Ypma, and O. Zeman, 1994: Second Monin, A. S., and A. M. Obukhov, 1954: Basic laws of turbulent
order closure PBL model with new thirdorder moments: Com mixing in the ground layer of the atmosphere. Akad. Nauk SSSR
parison with LES data. J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 1605–1618. Geofiz. Inst. Tr., 151, 163–187.
1968 JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY VOLUME 31
Prandtl, L., 1945: Über ein neues Formelsystem für die ausgebildete Rotta, J. C., 1951: Statistische Theorie nichthomogener Turbulenz.
Turbulenz. Nachr. Akad. Wiss., Goettingen, Math.Phys. Kl., Z. Phys., 129, 547–572.
p. 6. Roussenov, V., E. Stanev, V. Artale, and N. Pinardi, 1995: A seasonal
Price, J. F., 1979: On the scaling of stressdriven entrainment ex model of the Mediterranean Sea general circulation. J. Geophys.
periments. J. Fluid Mech., 90, 509–529. Res., 100, 13 515–13 538.
Rodi, W., 1976: A new algebraic relation for calculating the Reynolds Sander, J., 1998: Dynamic equations and turbulent closures in geo
stresses. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 56, T219–T221. physics. Continuum Mech. Thermodyn., 10, 1–28.
——, 1980: Turbulence models and their application in hydraulics. Schumann, U., and T. Gerz, 1995: Turbulent mixing in stably stratified
International Association for Hydraulic Research, Delft, Neth shear flows. J. Appl. Meteor., 34, 33–48.
Shih, T. S., and A. Shabbir, 1992: Advances in modeling the pressure
erlands, 104 pp.
correlation terms in the second moment equations. Studies in
——, 1987: Examples of calculation methods for flow and mixing Turbulence, T. B. Gatsky, S. Sarkar, and C. G. Speziale, Eds.,
in stratified flows. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 5305–5328. SpringerVerlag, 91–128.
Rohr, J. J., 1985: An experimental study of evolving turbulence in Taylor, G. I., 1935: Statistical theory of turbulence, Parts i–iv. Proc.
uniform mean shear flow with and without stable stratification. Roy. Soc. London, 151A, 421–478.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of San Diego, 271 pp. Willis, G. E., and J. W. Deardorff, 1974: A laboratory model of the
Rosati, A., and K. Miyakoda, 1988: A general circulation model for unstable planetary boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1297–
upper ocean simulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 18, 1601–1626. 1307.