Fuel moisture model pull request final changes 2020

https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792

Fuel moisture model not activated should not change results on fire problems

https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792#issuecomment-582070283 46b548370c9eff7c9 (right after merge develop at 33bf83c664426b2674)

Using same input files in test/em_fire and test/em_fire/two_fires. The fuel moisture flags are missing thus at defaults values.

SM

configure -d, 13, nesting 1

1. /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-with-develop branch fuel_moisture_model at 46b548370c9eff7c9a8
2. /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-develop branch develop at 33bf83c664426b267452

ncdiff test/em_fire/wrfout_d01_2006-01-01_09:06:00 OK (the default simple_hill case)

ncdiff test/em_fire/two_fires/wrfout_d01_2006-01-01_10:00:00 OK

DM

configure, 15, nesting 1

1. /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-with-develop-dm at 46b548370c9eff7c9
2. /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-develop-dm at 33bf83c664426b2674

ncdiff test/em_fire/wrfout_d01_2006-01-01_09:06:00 OK (the default simple_hill case)

ncdiff test/em_fire/two_fires/wrfout_d01_2006-01-01_10:00:00 OK

Result

Branch fuel_moisture_model at 46b548370c9eff7c9a8 and branch develop at 33bf83c664426b267452 give the same output files, except XLONG and XLAT which are now set in ideal.exe and the fuel moisture variables, which do not exist in branch develop, and are not in registry packages yet.

There is a small but statistically significant difference in variable FIRE_SMOKE between 1 processor with debugging on and 16 processors optimized, relative difference up to 0.013. The difference is exactly the same with or without the fuel moisture model.

Comparison of netcdf files done by https://github.com/openwfm/wrf-fire-matlab/blob/b5f918af9127ca9335b5ac8d32dd3c5d7769a9db/netcdf/ncdiff.m

Update the pull request commit message

https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792#issuecomment-579035015 there should be 15 files modified

Done, https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792#issuecomment-582208931

km_opt=5 fix now in the develop branch, merge

https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792#issuecomment-579035675

• /glade/u/home/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-base-dm tag fuel-moisture-model-base-dec10-2019 at f9559af4b8a835f71 vs. /glade/u/home/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-with-develop-dm branch fuel-moisture-model-merged-with-develop at 46b548370c9eff7c9
• /glade/u/home/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-base-dm/test/em_fire/rain/ vs /glade/u/home/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-with-develop-dm/test/em_fire/rain: no change with np=16

Done at 46b548370c9eff7c9

Fire group comments

tps://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/pull/792#issuecomment-579397773

registry package using fmoist_run variable

also fmoist_interp:

• based on /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-with-develop at 46b548370c9eff7c9a8bb7
• fmoist_run: /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-package branch fuel-moisture-model-package at 46066cd0de4dd4f3f9a8ae83b7e5329d3ff
• fmoist_interp: /glade/work/jmandel/merge/WRF-Fire-merge-package-interp branch fuel-moisture-model-package at d564d7da21e33eaec9f

In progress, branch https://github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge/tree/fuel-moisture-model-package now at d564d7da21e33e

Perhaps remove fmoist_freq and just leave fmoist_dt

Good idea; we use fmoist_dt anyway.

Fixed dt only

In module_fr_fire_driver.F, there is a comment about “time – assume dt does not change”. Is that true or does the FFM work also with time varying dt?

Currently the time keeping supports fixed time step only.

Does the FFM work with restart?

We use it with restart with https://github.com/openwfm/wrf-fire all the time, but the port WRF (this PR) is yet to be tested. Thanks for the reminder.

fire_ifun_end

• The call to fire_driver_em() has now fire_ifun_end = 2, where it used to be 3. According to the code comments in module_fr_fire_driver.F, fire_ifun_end = 3 has to do with initialization of time step. Is that skipped now or embedded within fire_ifun_end = 2?

fuel classes initialized for a real case

• How are the fuel classes initialized for a real case? It seems that the FM values are prescribed from the solution of the fuel moisture model? Could you document/explain that?

The variables FMC_GC and FMEP are assumed by WRF to be in wrfinput. We set them by running a version of the model in Python with RAWS data assimilation. This is at the moment done through GEOGRID. As discussed last summer, METGRID is more appropriate for that purpose. It would also allow to input several time levels of FMC_GC and FMEP. The FMEP variable containts modified parameters from RAWS data assimilation.