Difference between revisions of "Porting WRF-SFIRE fuel moisture model to WRF4"

From openwfm
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[Category:WRF-Fire merge]]
 
[[Category:WRF-Fire merge]]
 
==Initial progress==
 
==Initial progress==
* I started {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}} from {{wrf-branch|develop}} as recommended in [https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Workflow-for-WRF-Code-Modification WRF instructions].  
+
* I started {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}} from {{wrf-branch|develop}} as requested in [https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Workflow-for-WRF-Code-Modification WRF instructions]. Note that the current WRF is at {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|v4.0.3}} which is a few commits behind {{wrf-branch|develop}}.
 
* Cherry pick {{wrf-fire-commit|f8193dad36|2011-09-25  adding moisture variables}} and {{wrf-fire-commit|5a6c4b8c06|2011-09-26 21:55:09 using variable fuel moisture in fmc_g}}. Making minimal changes against original. I had to check and understand any changes not just resolve the conflicts. Hard to automate. So that took a bit of time.
 
* Cherry pick {{wrf-fire-commit|f8193dad36|2011-09-25  adding moisture variables}} and {{wrf-fire-commit|5a6c4b8c06|2011-09-26 21:55:09 using variable fuel moisture in fmc_g}}. Making minimal changes against original. I had to check and understand any changes not just resolve the conflicts. Hard to automate. So that took a bit of time.
 
* I created {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|fuel-moisture-model-added-fmc_g}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|added-fmc_g}} at {{wrf-fire-merge-commit|132444f0db6754417|}}. The result should  
 
* I created {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|fuel-moisture-model-added-fmc_g}} and {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|added-fmc_g}} at {{wrf-fire-merge-commit|132444f0db6754417|}}. The result should  
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
==Continued progress==
 
==Continued progress==
The WRF4 code with the fuel moisture model from wrf-fire is being created in {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}}. It is not ready for testing yet.
+
The WRF4 code with the fuel moisture model from wrf-fire is being created in {{wrf-fire-merge-branch|fuel-moisture-model}}. It is not ready for testing yet. Note that the merge is started from {{wrf-branch|develop}} as requested in [https://github.com/wrf-model/WRF/wiki/Workflow-for-WRF-Code-Modification WRF instructions]. The current WRF is at {{wrf-fire-merge-tag|v4.0.3}} which is few commits behind {{wrf-branch|develop}}.
  
 
==The original plan (one out of several actually)==
 
==The original plan (one out of several actually)==

Revision as of 14:32, 23 January 2019

Initial progress

Testing of fmc_g added

Get the test code:

git clone ssh://git@github.com/openwfm/WRF-Fire-merge.git
cd WRF-Fire-merge
git checkout added-fmc_g
git log

to make sure you are at commit 132444f0db67544179c7998f5653c488dd41e836 . Build on kingspeak following How_to_build_WRF4#University_of_Utah_CHPC and run the basic hill test case:

cd test/em_fire
./ideal.exe
./wrf.exe >& wrf.log &

This will use fuel moisture from namelist.fire. To read fmc_g from wrfinput, set

fire_fmc_read=0

in namelist input. This will change as more of wrf-fire is merged in. In any case, fmc_g in wrfinput has to be set by other means, such as using ncreplace in Matlab.

To run real problem, build WPS for this WRF. Variable fmc_g should be in wrfinput but not set, you have to set it by other means.

Testing to be done:

  • WRF4 built from branch develop and this version should give the same results (with fire_fmc_read=0 in namelist.input, or not set)
  • From the testing I have already done it seems that the code is slow. I do not know why. I do not know if that is already the case for WRF4 (currently at 4.0.3). Compare speed with wrf-fire on the hill problem.
  • A real problem

Continued progress

The WRF4 code with the fuel moisture model from wrf-fire is being created in branch fuel-moisture-model. It is not ready for testing yet. Note that the merge is started from branch develop as requested in WRF instructions. The current WRF is at tag v4.0.3 which is few commits behind branch develop.

The original plan (one out of several actually)

Too much complexity. There were quite a few conflicts already in cherry pick to 3cdb542af7ce submitted to 3.3 where not much changed. After a day or so, I decided I may as well do it right.

See also