Closed DevonKerins closed 2 years ago
Sorry, the first figure is wrong - the mixing doesn't seem off for the first case. But rather the second case still holds.
Hi,
I ran the second case (CoalCreek3.zip) file and stream chemistry in results file is correct according to my calculations. I have attached the result files and figure I plotted. Let me know if you are getting different results.
Thanks, Kayal CoalCreek3_results_numexp.txt
No issue - I'm just overlooking things :) Thanks Kayal
Describe the bug It seems there is an issue with the river mixing. When I manually calculate the river concentration (C0Q0 + C1Q1 + C2Q2)/(Q0+Q1+Q2) I get a different river concentration than the model output.
Furthermore, if I change the proportion of Q2 vs. Q1 the concentrations in the river don't seem to reflect the new proportion of ground vs. soil water.
To Reproduce I have uploaded two input files Case 1. CoalCreek2 has "Results" from HBV where Q2 represents about 20% of river flow Case 2. CoalCreek3 has "Results" from HBV where Q2 represents about 50% of river flow
Expected behavior I would expect the river concentration output from Case 2 would be closer to the LZ concentration. However, this isn't the case. Case 2 still seems to show about the same relative mixing as Case 1 between the UZ DOC concentration and the LZ DOC concentration.
Additional context
CoalCreek2.zip CoalCreek3.zip