Convection permitting resolution

[bllamptey]

View attachment namelist.inputHello,
I am trying to run WRF at convection permitting resolution (d1 =9 and d2=3). I currently have my time step =16 and ERA-Interim to drive WRF.

After running real.exe I get a warning that "vapor pressure exceeds total pressure, setting Qv to 1.E-6", although I also get the message that real.exe has run successfully;

I go ahead and run wrf.exe and I get the following at the bottom of rsl.error.0000

33913 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 module_integrate: calling solve interface
33914 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 grid spacing, dt, time_step_sound= 9000.000 16.00000 4
33915 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 calling inc/HALO_EM_MOIST_OLD_E_7_inline.inc
33916 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 calling inc/PERIOD_BDY_EM_MOIST_OLD_inline.inc
33917 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 calling inc/HALO_EM_A_inline.inc
33918 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 calling inc/PERIOD_BDY_EM_A_inline.inc
33919 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 calling inc/HALO_EM_PHYS_A_inline.inc
33920 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 Top of Radiation Driver
33921 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 CALL cldfra1
33922 d01 2011-01-01_00:18:08 CALL rrtmg_lw
33923 forrtl: error (78): process killed (SIGTERM)
33924 Image PC Routine Line Source
33925 wrf.exe 00000000033B7F21 tbk_trace_stack_i Unknown Unknown
33926 wrf.exe 00000000033B605B tbk_string_stack_ Unknown Unknown
33927 wrf.exe 000000000332F9E4 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33928 wrf.exe 000000000332F7F6 tbk_stack_trace Unknown Unknown
33929 wrf.exe 00000000032B8E99 for__issue_diagno Unknown Unknown
33930 wrf.exe 00000000032C064C for__signal_handl Unknown Unknown
33931 libpthread-2.17.s 00002B00E42055E0 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33932 wrf.exe 000000000214FC59 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33933 wrf.exe 000000000214D358 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33934 wrf.exe 0000000002142367 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33935 wrf.exe 000000000192640E Unknown Unknown Unknown
33936 wrf.exe 0000000001AA0822 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33937 wrf.exe 00000000013ADC55 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33938 wrf.exe 0000000001217DA4 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33939 wrf.exe 000000000051019F Unknown Unknown Unknown
33940 wrf.exe 000000000040D751 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33941 wrf.exe 000000000040D704 Unknown Unknown Unknown
33942 wrf.exe 000000000040D69E Unknown Unknown Unknown
33943 libc-2.17.so 00002B00E4433C05 __libc_start_main Unknown Unknown
33944 wrf.exe 000000000040D5A9 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Any hints about how to resolve this to enable wrf.exe run to the end will be appreciated.
Also the water vapour issue after running real.exe.

Kindly find attached my namelist.input

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
Thanks. Can you please package all of your rsl.* files into one *.tar file and attach that? Can you also attach your wrfinput_d01 file?

 

[bllamptey]

Hello,
Kindly find the requested files attached.
Kind regards

 

[bllamptey]

Latest namelist.input

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
I have a few suggestions:

1) If you do a full listing on your rsl* files, you'll see that rsl.out.0007 has a file size of 5.1GB, while all the others are 2.3 MB. Any reason why this would be happening? This is likely a problem with your system, and not related to WRF, itself. I have a strong suspicion that this is causing the model stop. Even when code is compiled with large file support (which v4.0.3 is, by default), the largest file size you can output is 4 GB, without causing problems. I would look into why this may be happening - you may need to discuss this with your systems administrator of your institution, if you have one.

2) I would suggest turning off debug_level (i.e., set this to 0). We actually removed this option from the default namelist beginning with V4.0 because it doesn't really provide any insightful information and simply makes the rsl* files large and difficult to sort through.

3) Your domains are pretty large, and you're only using 24 processors. This could be another hindering component to your runs. I would suggest increasing the number of processors. Take a look at this FAQ regarding the ideal number of processors to use: http://forum.mmm.ucar.edu/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=5082
I would try to increase by a decent amount (without having too many - based on the rule of thumb in that post) if you have that capability.

Kelly