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

Fixes occasional instabilities in the surface layer option 1 #1286

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 23, 2020

Conversation

pedro-jm
Copy link
Contributor

@pedro-jm pedro-jm commented Sep 14, 2020

TYPE: bug fix

KEYWORDS: occasional instabilities, sfclayrev, look up tables

SOURCE: Pedro A. Jimenez (NCAR/RAL)

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
For some occasions the model turns unstable, and this was found to be originating due to the surface layer option 1, with
the upper boundary values of the look up tables.

Solution:
Avoiding using the look up tables of the integrated similarity functions for the last tabulated value.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES:
M phys/module_sf_sfclayrev.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:

  1. After introducing the fix the model no longer turns unstable in the specific instances noted.
  2. The jenkins tests are all PASS.

RELEASE NOTE: A minor fix (excluding use of the upper bounding value of the look-up table) was introduced to avoid occasional instabilities in the surface layer option 1.

@pedro-jm pedro-jm requested a review from a team as a code owner September 14, 2020 16:37
@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@pedro-jm Does this mean the model will never hit nzol+1 = 1000?

@dudhia
Copy link
Collaborator

dudhia commented Sep 14, 2020 via email

@davegill davegill changed the title Fixes occasional inestabilities in the surface layer option 1 Fixes occasional instabilities in the surface layer option 1 Sep 18, 2020
@davegill
Copy link
Contributor

@pedro-jm
Would you explicitly state why the ".lt. 1000" was a problem and the ".le. 1000" was the answer. Just a sentence. Is this some boundary of a look-up table?

@pedro-jm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@davegill
Good point. I can not. This resolves the instabilities but I can not explain why.

@davegill
Copy link
Contributor

@dudhia

Would you explicitly state why the ".lt. 1000" was a problem and the ".le. 1000" was the answer. Just a sentence. Is this some boundary of a look-up table?

Jimy,
Any idea why this PR fixes a problem?

@dudhia
Copy link
Collaborator

dudhia commented Sep 18, 2020 via email

@vikramjakhr
Copy link

reopening for testing

@vikramjakhr vikramjakhr reopened this Sep 19, 2020
@vikramjakhr
Copy link

reopen for testing

@vikramjakhr vikramjakhr reopened this Sep 19, 2020
@vikramjakhr
Copy link

reopen for testing

@vikramjakhr vikramjakhr reopened this Sep 19, 2020
@vikramjakhr
Copy link

reopen

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm ok with this PR.

@davegill
Copy link
Contributor

@weiwangncar @dudhia
Folks,
Basically, the person who contributed this software wants to make a change. I am COMPLETELY ok with that. Wei has already said she is fine with this PR. This PR is ready to be approved and merged.

@weiwangncar weiwangncar merged commit 2d70219 into wrf-model:release-v4.2.2 Oct 23, 2020
vlakshmanan-scala pushed a commit to scala-computing/WRF that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2024
…1286)

TYPE: bug fix

KEYWORDS: occasional instabilities, sfclayrev, look up tables

SOURCE: Pedro A. Jimenez (NCAR/RAL)

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
For some occasions the model turns unstable, and this was found to be originating due to the surface layer option 1, with
the upper boundary values of the look up tables.

Solution:
Avoiding using the look up tables of the integrated similarity functions for the last tabulated value.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES:
M phys/module_sf_sfclayrev.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:
After introducing the fix the model no longer turns unstable in the specific instances noted.
The jenkins tests are all PASS.

RELEASE NOTE: A minor fix (excluding use of the upper bounding value of the look-up table) was introduced to avoid occasional instabilities in the surface layer option 1.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants