Closed bolding closed 3 years ago
what says the traceback?
On 10/28/20 8:34 AM, Karsten Bolding wrote:
Running the box_cartesian case in 2D the model gives segmentation fault when enabling 2D momentum advection
Maybe related to X-grid not being properly defined
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BoldingBruggeman/getm-rewrite/issues/1, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2RV6U4OJCFDYNROI6X6ATSM7CRRANCNFSM4TB56NCQ.
the issue is not investigated yet - I just comment out the call when I run with test_cartesian
where can I find test_cartesian?
On 10/28/20 9:00 AM, Karsten Bolding wrote:
the issue is not investigated yet - I just comment out the call when I run with test_cartesian
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BoldingBruggeman/getm-rewrite/issues/1#issuecomment-717765608, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2RV6Q6D23PWSTQQ7C2N6LSM7FQ7ANCNFSM4TB56NCQ.
it is just: ./getm_exe /data/kb/getm-setups/box_cartesian/topo.nc adjust the path to topo.nc many things hard coded in the exe file
can't compile. seems that the repo is not updated with your last changes(?)
[ 94%] Building Fortran object CMakeFiles/getm_exe.dir/src/getm.F90.o /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:187:38:
length = size(self%bathymetry%pgrid%c1) 1 Error: ‘pgrid’ at (1) is not a member of the ‘type_bathymetry’ structure /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:192:38:
length = size(self%bathymetry%pgrid%c2) 1 Error: ‘pgrid’ at (1) is not a member of the ‘type_bathymetry’ structure /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:347:59:
call self%dynamics%momentum%do_3d(self%mode_split) 1 Error: Missing actual argument for argument ‘dt’ at (1) /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:360:81:
call temperature%calculate(self%timestep,momentum%pk,momentum%qk,nuh) 1 Error: Missing actual argument for argument ‘rad’ at (1) /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:241:39:
call self%output%initialize(self%fm) 1 Error: More actual than formal arguments in procedure call at (1) /media/work/kklingbe/tools/bb-getm/code/src/getm.F90:181:48:
call self%domain%configure(self%logs,self%fm) 1 Error: Type mismatch in argument ‘imin’ at (1); passed TYPE(type_logging) to INTEGER(4)
On 10/28/20 11:52 AM, Karsten Bolding wrote:
it is just: ./getm_exe /data/kb/getm-setups/box_cartesian/topo.nc adjust the path to topo.nc many things hard coded in the exe file
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BoldingBruggeman/getm-rewrite/issues/1#issuecomment-717853047, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2RV6RDJOG3MKO4CXLSSPTSM7ZVTANCNFSM4TB56NCQ.
forgot to push - sorry
The X-grid is not properly configured - I'll fix that
after properly configuration of X-grid the advection does not give errors and results are different with and without advection - further tests are required
the X-grid calculations must be checked - in uvx_depths() and depth_update()
shouldn't it read:
XG%D(i,j)=max(0.25_real64(UG%D(i,j)+UG%D(i+1,j)+VG%D(i,j)+VG%D(i,j+1)),-XG%H(i,j)+self%Dmin) + XG%D(i,j)=max(0.25_real64(TG%D(i,j)+TG%D(i+1,j)+TG%D(i,j+1)+TG%D(i+1,j+1)),-XG%H(i,j)+self%Dmin) !KB XG%alpha(i,j)=1._real64 #ifdef USE_MASK diff --git a/src/domain/uvx_depths.F90 b/src/domain/uvx_depths.F90 index da90e11..6af6100 100644 --- a/src/domain/uvx_depths.F90 +++ b/src/domain/uvx_depths.F90 @@ -137,8 +137,8 @@ module SUBROUTINE uvx_depths(self) ! X-mask do j=XG%jmin+1,XG%jmax do i=XG%imin+1,XG%imax - if (TG%mask(i,j) > 0 .and. TG%mask(i+1,j) > 0 .and. & - TG%mask(i,j) > 0 .and. TG%mask(i,j+1) > 0) then + if (TG%mask(i,j ) > 0 .and. TG%mask(i+1,j ) > 0 .and. & + TG%mask(i,j+1) > 0 .and. TG%mask(i+1,j+1) > 0) then XG%mask(i,j)=1 end if end do @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ module SUBROUTINE uvx_depths(self) do j=XG%jmin,XG%jmax do i=XG%imin,XG%imax if (XG%mask(i,j) > 0) then - XG%H(i,j) = 0.25_real64(UG%H(i,j)+UG%H(i+1,j)+VG%H(i,j)+VG%H(i,j+1)) + XG%H(i,j) = 0.25_real64(TG%H(i,j)+TG%H(i+1,j)+TG%H(i,j+1)+VG%H(i+1,j+1)) end if end do end do
?
On 10/29/20 10:50 AM, Karsten Bolding wrote:
after properly configuration of X-grid the advection does not give errors and results are different with and without advection - further tests are required
the X-grid calculations must be checked - in uvx_depths() and depth_update()
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/BoldingBruggeman/getm-rewrite/issues/1#issuecomment-718561982, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC2RV6Q2H3W7I7SENXVXYTDSNE3HBANCNFSM4TB56NCQ.
and 3. change as the X-grid is used for advection of U and V I thought it was better the depth is consistent with the depths at the U and V points is it no the same if DU and DV are not modified by drying=
change you are right
On 10/29/20 2:37 PM, Karsten Bolding wrote:
1.
and 3. change as the X-grid is used for advection of U and V I thought it was better the depth is consistent with the depths at the U and V points is it no the same if DU and DV are not modified by drying=
but then it should be DU(i,j)+DU(i,j+1) and/or DV(i,j)+DV(i+1,j)
that is for sure correct - and I even had the figure in front of me :-)
Running the box_cartesian case in 2D the model gives segmentation fault when enabling 2D momentum advection
Maybe related to X-grid not being properly defined