Scheduled Downtime
On Friday 21 April 2023 @ 5pm MT, this website will be down for maintenance and expected to return online the morning of 24 April 2023 at the latest

Boundary discontinuity after data assimilation

This post was from a previous version of the WRF&MPAS-A Support Forum. New replies have been disabled and if you have follow up questions related to this post, then please start a new thread from the forum home page.

Jiwon Lee

New member
Discontinuity occurs severely at the boundary between domain 1 and domain 2 after data is transferred to domain 2.

The discontinuity is too large to explain as a result of data assimilation.

I used the same namelist, but I did not have any problems in V3, but this happened in V4.

The physics of both domains are the same

What is the problem?

&domains
time_step = 20,
time_step_fract_num = 0,
time_step_fract_den = 1,
max_dom = 3,

e_we = 352, 250, 226,
e_sn = 352, 361, 196,
e_vert = 60, 60, 60,
p_top_requested = 5000,
num_metgrid_levels = 32,
num_metgrid_soil_levels = 4,
dx = 9000, 3000, 1000,
dy = 9000, 3000, 1000,
grid_id = 1, 2, 3,
parent_id = 0, 1, 2,
i_parent_start = 1, 145, 78,
j_parent_start = 1, 127, 155,
parent_grid_ratio = 1, 3, 3,
parent_time_step_ratio = 1, 1, 1,
feedback = 1,
smooth_option = 0,
/

&physics
mp_physics = 16, 16, 16,
ra_lw_physics = 1, 1, 1,
ra_sw_physics = 1, 1, 1,
radt = 10, 10, 10,
sf_sfclay_physics = 1, 1, 1,
sf_surface_physics = 2, 2, 2,
bl_pbl_physics = 1, 1, 1,
bldt = 0, 0, 0,
cu_physics = 11, 11, 11,
cudt = 5, 5, 5,
isfflx = 1,
ifsnow = 1,
icloud = 1,
surface_input_source = 1,
num_soil_layers = 4,
sf_urban_physics = 0, 0, 0,
sst_update = 0,
do_radar_ref = 1,
num_land_cat = 33,
/

&fdda
/

&dynamics
hybrid_opt = 0,
w_damping = 0,
diff_opt = 1, 1, 1,
km_opt = 4, 4, 4,
diff_6th_opt = 0, 0, 0,
diff_6th_factor = 0.12, 0.12, 0.12,
base_temp = 290.
damp_opt = 3,
zdamp = 5000., 5000., 5000.,
dampcoef = 0.2, 0.2, 0.2
khdif = 0, 0, 0,
kvdif = 0, 0, 0,
non_hydrostatic = .true., .true., .true.,
moist_adv_opt = 1, 1, 1,
scalar_adv_opt = 1, 1, 1,
gwd_opt = 1,
/

&bdy_control
spec_bdy_width = 5,
spec_zone = 1,
relax_zone = 4,
specified = .true., .false.,.false.,
nested = .false., .true., .true.,
/

&grib2
/

&namelist_quilt
nio_tasks_per_group = 0,
nio_groups = 1,
/
 

Attachments

  • problem.png
    problem.png
    83.1 KB · Views: 3,693
If you run the case without data assimilation, do you still see the large discrepancy between the parent - child domain?
 
I notice the setting parent_time_step_ratio =1, 1, 1 and time_step=20.
Can you change time_step=54 and parent_time_step_ratio =1, 3, 3?
 
Ming Chen said:
If you run the case without data assimilation, do you still see the large discrepancy between the parent - child domain?

If I do not use material assimilation, the above problem does not occur.

I compared WRFRUN in V3 and V4 using the same data assimilation output, boundary problem occurs only in V4.
 
Ming Chen said:
I notice the setting parent_time_step_ratio =1, 1, 1 and time_step=20.
Can you change time_step=54 and parent_time_step_ratio =1, 3, 3?

The same problem occurs with parent_time_step_ratio = 1, 3, 3.

I will increase the time_step.

Good advice thanks !!!!
 
I will forward your message to our experts in data assimilation. This is a problem caused by data assimilation. Hope they can get back to you soon.
 
I have moved this topic to the data assimilation section of the forum, as this is a problem that is specifically related to DA.
 
To the original poster, would you please specify at what point during your workflow this error arises? You will have a forecast (simultaneous for both domains) and a data assimilation execution for each domain, for a total of three different executions. Thank you.
 
Top