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

WRF Chem 4.3.2 & WUDAPT LCZ

HJORQUER

New member
Hello everybody

I am running WRF Chem 4.3.2 using WUDAPT LCZ land use data (41 lu classes), setting use_wudapt_lcz = 1.

When I run WRF only (no chemistry options set at all) the model runs OK and generates meteorological output for 3 nested domains (9, 3 and 1 km).

However, when I run the chemistry options (chem_opt = 106) the model crushes after writing the initial output on domain 1.

I do not understand which options in the &chem part could be causing the runtime problem

I am enclosing the namelist file and the rsl.error. files
 

Attachments

  • namelist.input.txt
    8.2 KB · Views: 37
  • rsl.error.0000.txt
    26.6 KB · Views: 7
  • rsl.error.0001.txt
    26.6 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0002.txt
    26.9 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0005.txt
    27 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0004.txt
    23.7 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0003.txt
    30 KB · Views: 0
Hi,

To see if it is an issue with the optical calculations, try to:
Set opt_pars_out = 0
or
Set aer_op_opt = 0, and aer_ra_feedback = 0

You can also try using more cores if you have that available. Please let me know your findings.

Jordan
 
Hi Jordan

I have sequentially disabled those optical options, and increased the number of cores from 6 to 9, but the crash (SIGSEGV fatal error) remains.

I am uploading here the updated rsl.error output and namelist

Regards

Héctor
 

Attachments

  • namelist.input.txt
    8.2 KB · Views: 7
  • rsl.error.0000.txt
    26.8 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0001.txt
    33 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0006.txt
    23.6 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0005.txt
    35.8 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0004.txt
    28.1 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0003.txt
    25.2 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0002.txt
    26.3 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0007.txt
    26.7 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0008.txt
    29.1 KB · Views: 0
Hi,

To see if it is an issue with the optical calculations, try to:
Set opt_pars_out = 0
or
Set aer_op_opt = 0, and aer_ra_feedback = 0

You can also try using more cores if you have that available. Please let me know your findings.

Jordan
Hi Jordan

I have sequentially disabled those optical options, and increased the number of cores from 6 to 9, but the crash (SIGSEGV fatal error) remains.

I am uploading here the updated rsl.error output and namelist

Regards

Héctor
 

Attachments

  • namelist.input.txt
    8.2 KB · Views: 5
  • rsl.error.0003.txt
    25.2 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0002.txt
    26.3 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0001.txt
    33 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0000.txt
    26.8 KB · Views: 1
  • rsl.error.0007.txt
    26.7 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0006.txt
    23.6 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0005.txt
    35.8 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0004.txt
    28.1 KB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0008.txt
    29.1 KB · Views: 0
Hi Héctor,

Thanks for trying this. Can you also try to use chem_opt = 105 or 107? If the error persists, recompile the model with a DEBUG option by uncommenting "
# -g $(FCNOOPT) -traceback" in FCDEBUG in WRF/configure.wrf. You should not need to perform a clean.

Jordan
 
Hi Héctor,

Thanks for trying this. Can you also try to use chem_opt = 105 or 107? If the error persists, recompile the model with a DEBUG option by uncommenting "
# -g $(FCNOOPT) -traceback" in FCDEBUG in WRF/configure.wrf. You should not need to perform a clean.

Jordan
Hi Jordan

I have tried other chemical mechanisms (105, 107) but the problem persits. I am not sure how to use the recompiled model to spot where the error happens

Regards

Héctor
 

Attachments

  • namelist.input.txt
    8.2 KB · Views: 7
  • rsl.error.0000.txt
    1 MB · Views: 2
  • rsl.error.0001.txt
    1 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0002.txt
    1 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0003.txt
    1 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0004.txt
    1 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0005.txt
    1 MB · Views: 0
Hi Héctor,

Thanks for trying this. Can you also try to use chem_opt = 105 or 107? If the error persists, recompile the model with a DEBUG option by uncommenting "
# -g $(FCNOOPT) -traceback" in FCDEBUG in WRF/configure.wrf. You should not need to perform a clean.

Jordan
Hi Jordan

I am attaching another unsuccesful run, there are more messages but I am not able to understand what could be wrong

Regards

Héctor
 

Attachments

  • namelist.input.txt
    9.2 KB · Views: 16
  • rsl.error.0000.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 4
  • rsl.error.0001.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0002.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0003.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0004.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • rsl.error.0005.txt
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
have you solved this issue? I want to used wudapt with wrfchem too but I am at WPS stage
Hello
I have not come back to this issue yet. It might be a problem with my input files. For the time being I am using the BEP option (option 2 in sf_urban_physics) along with Boulac PBL model. The model runs fine.

So, try WUDAPT-LCZ with your own case and let me know what happens.

Some tips:
a) make sure that the LCZ map that you have generated with W2W makes sense for your study area (no evident land use misclassification). In case some grid cell is incorrectly assigned, you can edit the geo_em.d0* file directly to make those changes (I use MATLAB).
b) Check that the URBPARM_LCZ.TBL file distributed with WRF installation has the correct bulding height histograms, they should have 5 m increments (5, 10, 15, ...) for all LCZ classes. In some WRF installations, those heights go in 3 m increments (3, 6, 9 ,,,) thus they should not be used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zth
Thank you for the tips, I have an old lcz(2018) for my city but when I try to use w2w with my geo_em_d0* files I always get an error

Using layer 0 of the LCZ GeoTIFF. Can be changed with -l (--lcz-band)
--> Check LCZ integrity, in terms of class labels, projection and extent
LCZ labels as expected (1 to 17)
LCZ provided as WGS84 (EPSG:4326)
ERROR: LCZ domain should be larger than WRF domain in all directions.
LCZ bounds (xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax): (-17.7210656098258, 13.83764863657711, -16.1840481586973, 15.46988750782228)
WRF bounds (xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax): (-17.990726470947266, 13.280853271484375, -15.958621978759766, 15.464736938476562)

My understanding is that the lcz domain should be bigger than the inner domain (d03) for me. I am trying to adjust this wrf inner domain but still no success. The generation of accurate lcz looks complicated but I am reading the process to see if I'll be able to generate on for my city Dakar (Senegal)
 
Thank you for the tips, I have an old lcz(2018) for my city but when I try to use w2w with my geo_em_d0* files I always get an error

Using layer 0 of the LCZ GeoTIFF. Can be changed with -l (--lcz-band)
--> Check LCZ integrity, in terms of class labels, projection and extent
LCZ labels as expected (1 to 17)
LCZ provided as WGS84 (EPSG:4326)
ERROR: LCZ domain should be larger than WRF domain in all directions.
LCZ bounds (xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax): (-17.7210656098258, 13.83764863657711, -16.1840481586973, 15.46988750782228)
WRF bounds (xmin, ymin, xmax, ymax): (-17.990726470947266, 13.280853271484375, -15.958621978759766, 15.464736938476562)

My understanding is that the lcz domain should be bigger than the inner domain (d03) for me. I am trying to adjust this wrf inner domain but still no success. The generation of accurate lcz looks complicated but I am reading the process to see if I'll be able to generate on for my city Dakar (Senegal)
Hello

We use the recently released global LCZ map:


The global map is here:


Regards
Hector
 
Thank you Hector, now I'll look at the global map and wonder about the extraction of the lcz based on my wrf domain?
 
Thank you Hector, now I'll look at the global map and wonder about the extraction of the lcz based on my wrf domain?
Hello

We use global mapper to extract domains from the global LCZ map, the extracted map is then processed with W2W

Regards
Héctor
 
Hello

The problem was the version I was using. I have moved to version 4.4 and it works fine.
Regards
Hello

I'm very interested in WRF-chem with LCZ, and I followed w2w and your namelist from Jul 8, 2022. However, the NO and NO2 in urban are both 0. Have you met this issue or modified your namelist since then?
Regards
 
Hello

I'm very interested in WRF-chem with LCZ, and I followed w2w and your namelist from Jul 8, 2022. However, the NO and NO2 in urban are both 0. Have you met this issue or modified your namelist since then?
Regards
Hello
I have also gotten zero gaseous species concentrations for some modeling periods, while for others I have not encountered this issue.
It seems there is something relating to the dry deposition, which leads to zero concentrations and they remain zero thereafter, because WRF does not allow negative values. But I don't know how to fix it.
For the time being, I am using BEP option but without LCZ (use_wudapt_lcz=0). The results for the gaseous species are positive all the time.
Regards
 
Top