search

MESH-Model / MESH-Dev

This repository contains the official MESH development code, which is the basis for the 'tags' listed under the MESH-Releases repository. The same tags are listed under this repository. Legacy branches and utilities have also been ported from the former SVN (Subversion) repository. Future developments must create 'forks' from this repository.
Other
1 stars 3 forks source link

Numerical improvements in `WATROUTE` component of `MESH` #51

Open kasra-keshavarz opened 8 months ago

kasra-keshavarz commented 8 months ago

Just a very general idea, regardless of geospatial fabric issues, that it would be great if the presumed numerical improvements done with other versions of MESH are implemented into this stand-alone version.

This issue (or feature request) comes from a combination of various conversations done during the MESH-relevant meeting.

mee067 commented 7 months ago

I am not clear what you mean by "numerical improvements"? Do you refer to the precision of calculations?

dprincz commented 6 months ago

Agreed. I'm not sure what's meant by this issue.

dprincz commented 6 months ago

Talked to Shervan about this today. @kasra-keshavarz this requires further clarification, as well as the sample setup to demonstrate where/how this condition occurs.

From recent setups from an updated/ @fuadyassin's workflow, the only instability we see is in subbasins that correspond to water bodies/lakes which have "river" properties that are uncharacteristic of actual riverine channels and causes RTE to switch to a finer time-stepping (e.g., perfect 1.0/45deg slope, very small channel length, very small drainage area). Those would be automatically resolved when water bodies are properly identified as such, where riverine routing would be inactive. @fuadyassin is exploring this.

Along very similar lines, we've observed unrealistic parameterizations of HLSS parameters where non-mineral soils would be expected to exist. This will probably cause similar issues, in terms of classifying "soils" versus other commonly recognized land-surface types (e.g., inland water, barren/outcrop surfaces, urban/town areas, ice/glacier, organic/wetlands, burned/scorched firelands, marine/ocean, etc..). In terms of an agnostic classification via the workflow, @fuadyassin will also explore this, at least for these types of areas that we can currently support (i.e., those with CLASS, CLASSIC, CTEM, CSLM, WATFLOOD, SPS and SVS); though this would also be useful for Martyn's plans with CIROH/SUMMA, from what I saw in a recent presentation.