The Design Document page provides a description of the algorithms, implementation and planned testing including unit, verification, validation and performance testing. Please read Step 1.3 Performance Expectations that explains feature documentation requirements from the performance group point of view.
...
In the table below, 4.Equ means Equations and Algorithms, 5.Ver means Verification, 6.Perf - Performance, 7. Val - Validation, 
- competedcompleted, 
- in progress, 
- not done
| HTML Comment |
|---|
|
...
completed, |
| Page Properties | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Expand | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
|
Title:
...
Improvements to Satellite Simulators
Requirements and Design
ACME Atmosphere Group
...
Summary
Requirements
Requirement: name-of-requirement-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
Each requirement is to be listed under a ”section” heading, as there will be a one-to-one correspondence between requirements, design, proposed imple- mentation and testing. Requirements should not discuss technical software issues, but rather focus on model capability. To the extent possible, require- ments should be relatively independent of each other, thus allowing a clean design solution, implementation and testing plan. improve the capability of the satellite simulators to facilitate an "apple-to-apple" comparison of modeled clouds with satellite observations. COSP implement the new COSP code to the ACME model. This work includes upgrading the COSP code for improving its computational efficiency and adding Calipso cloud phase diagnostics.Requirements
Date last modified: Sep 11, 2015
Contributors: Yuying Zhang
- replace COSP version1.3 using COSP version1.4 in the ACME model
- modify the interface code
- add radiatively active snow in all simulators with fixed lidar snow treatment error
Algorithmic Formulations
Design solution:
short-description-of-proposed-solution-herereference
Date last modified: Sep 11, 2015
Contributors:
(add your name to this list if it does not appear)
For each requirement, there is a design solution that is intended to meet that requirement. Design solutions can include detailed technical discussions of PDEs, algorithms, solvers and similar, as well as technical discussion of performance issues. In general, this section should steer away from a detailed discussion of low-level software issues such as variable declarations, interfaces and sequencing.
Design and Implementation
Implementation: short-desciption-of-implementation-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
This section should detail the plan for implementing the design solution for requirement XXX. In general, this section is software-centric with a focus on software implementation. Pseudo code is appropriate in this section. Links to actual source code are appropriate. Project management items, such as svn branches, timelines and staffing are also appropriate. How do we typeset pseudo code?
Planned Verification and Unit Testing
Verification and Unit Testing: short-desciption-of-testing-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
How will XXX be tested? i.e. how will be we know when we have met requirement XXX. Will these unit tests be included in the ongoing going forward?
Planned Validation Testing
Validation Testing: short-desciption-of-testing-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
How will XXX be tested? What observational or other dataset will be used? i.e. how will be we know when we have met requirement XXX. Will these unit tests be included in the ongoing going forward?
Planned Performance Testing
Performance Testing: short-desciption-of-testing-here
Date last modified:
Contributors: (add your name to this list if it does not appear)
How will XXX be tested? i.e. how will be we know when we have met requirement XXX. Will these unit tests be included in the ongoing going forward?
Yuying Zhang
A. Bodas-Salcedo, M. J. Webb, S. Bony, H. Chepfer, J.-L. Dufresne, S. A. Klein, Y. Zhang, R. Marchand, J. M. Haynes, R. Pincus, V. O. John, 2011: COSP: satellite simulation software for model assessment. BAMS. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1
Design and Implementation
Date last modified: Sep 11, 2015
Contributors: Yuying Zhang
- Start from the ACME model in the "master" branch
- Made the changes according to the interface code for the COSP1.4 implementation in CAM (bug identified version cam5_3_88)
- Fixed the bug identified by Po-Lun Ma for the assignment of convective ice mixing ratio
- Replaced the old COSP code with the new version and added the radiatively active snow in all simulators
- After the test, push the COSP branch to the GitHub server. Set the pull request and ask for the integrator to merge the changes to the master.
Planned Verification and Unit Testing
Date last modified: Oct 5, 2015
Contributors: Yuying Zhang
COSP v1.4 will be compared to COSP v1.3 for all simulators. For those simulators that are not changed, they should yield the same results. For those simulators that are upgraded, the yielded differences will be analyzed to make sure that they are from the expected changes in these simulator codes.
Planned Validation Testing
Date last modified: Oct 5, 2015
Contributors: Yuying Zhang
The output from the original model with COSP v1.3 and the modified model with the COSP1.4 upgrade are examined.
- The output from the ISCCP/MISR/Calipso simulators are exactly the same as before.
- The output from the Radar/MODIS simulators have slight differences that come from the changes in these simulator codes from COSP1.3 to COSP1.4.
Some selected comparisons are shown in COSPinACME.pptx
Planned Performance Testing
Date last modified: Oct 5, 2015
Contributors: Yuying Zhang
The new COSP code has been restructured to greatly improve computational efficiency (particularly for the CloudSat simulator) and Calipso cloud phase diagnostics will be output. An offline run of COSP shows ~30% reduction in computational costs. The performance test still needs to be done with inline running COSP with ACME by working on with the performance team.