If the density driven inflow and the (normal) outflow are balanced at the beginning the water level remains constant, which is good.
However, if over 2 years of simulation the level first sinks (by about 0.5 m) and then rises again the water level does not end up exactly at the initial water level. The deviation is 2.4 cm in my case. In case of manual inflow placement, the water level ends up exactly at the initial water level. So to (approximate) method of density-driven inflow seems not to work perfectly or it has an error somewhere.
Bug solved. Still, the vertical advection is non-zero at the bottom for density-driven inflow placement if the plume goes to the lake bottom. Conceptually, this might be wrong.
If the density driven inflow and the (normal) outflow are balanced at the beginning the water level remains constant, which is good. However, if over 2 years of simulation the level first sinks (by about 0.5 m) and then rises again the water level does not end up exactly at the initial water level. The deviation is 2.4 cm in my case. In case of manual inflow placement, the water level ends up exactly at the initial water level. So to (approximate) method of density-driven inflow seems not to work perfectly or it has an error somewhere.