WRF_vortex simulation: WRFV4.1 vs WRFV4.4

[dhKim]

Hello,

I am running the WRF_vortex simulation for tropical cyclone.

There were no problems with the WRFV4.1 simulation under the settings in the namelist attached below.
However, WRFV4.4 simulation crashes under the same settings.
This difference occurs only when I use P3 cloud microphysics option for both.

Can you please let me know the reason for this and how to run the WRFV4.4 simulation successfully for this case?
I attached the namelist.input and rsl.error files for WRFV4.4 simulation below.

Thank you.

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
Apologies for the delay in response to this. Are you still having trouble with this? I just ran a test simulation with your namelist.input file and with wrfv4.4. Since I didn't have your met_em* files, I created my own, based on your namelist (meaning my domain was almost certainly set up in a different location). Based on your num_metgrid_levels, I assumed you were likely using GFS input, so I used GFS 0.25 degree data. My simulation is running okay, without any problems. I am using quite a bit more processors that you - 128 total, where you're only using 4.

1. Can you try to see if this would work with more processors?
2. If not, can you share your namelist.wps file and your met_em* files so I can try to test this with your exact input? The met* files will be too large to attach here, so take a look at the home page of this forum for instructions on sharing large files.

Thanks!

 

[dhKim]

Hi,
Thank you for your response.

I still have crashing problems for WRFV4.4 run.
Since the sizes of met_em files are too large to upload, I attached namelist.wps instead.
I used GFS 0.25 data for input as you did.
(from "gfs.0p25.2019102112.f000.grib2" to "gfs.op25.2019102300.f000.grib2")

If the reason for crashing is the number of processors, at least how many processors should I use?
(I have 24 processors in maximum)

Thank you.

 

[kwerner]

Thanks for sharing that. I still am not able to get the same issue you are. Doing everything seemingly identical to you, it runs without an issue. Did you happen to modify the code in any way, or are you using pristine (out-of-the-box) WRF and WPS code?

 

[dhKim]

No, I didn't....

I obtained my WRF/WPS codes from tar files uploaded on the GitHub repository of the WRF release.

The strangest thing is that the issue occurs only when I choose P3 microphysics option...

In case the environment for WRF compilation is a factor, I've attached the log files for the configuration and compilation of WRF/WPS.

Thank you.

 

[kwerner]

Hi,
I was finally able to get it to fail with a different Intel compiler (Intel Classic); however, I was able to get it to run, even when using P3 microphysics, if I switched the cumulus scheme to the New Tiedtke option (option 16), which is typically recommended for tropical domains. Would you be willing to use that cumulus option instead of Kain-Fritsch?

 

[dhKim]

Hi,

Using the New Tiedtke option for cumulus, I was finally able to get it to run!!!
It also worked even under the more computationally expensive setting, which I had originally planned.
(three domains; the second and third domains are vortex-following; the finest resolution is 1.3 km).

Finally, could you please let me know why the combination of Kain-Fritsch and P3 resulted in crashing problems under the Intel compiler environment?

Thank you for your kind responses!

 

[kwerner]

I'm so happy to hear that you were able to get it to run! That's great news.

Unfortunately I have no idea why that combination wasn't working for you. It could be several factors that may be combined with one or more settings in your namelist. It would probably take quite a while for us to track down that issue. I will let you know if we are ever able to figure that out.