Roots depth

[Jauch]

Hi,

Could you post here your porous media file?
Also, the rain is the same than was in the last working simulation?

[epelde.ane@gmail.com]

yes yes, the only thing I changed was the executable david sent me to fix the problem with roots depth.

here goes the porous media!

START_WITH_FIELD : 1
OUTPUT_TIME : 0 864000
THETA_HYDRO_COEF : 0.995
CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH : 1e-15
CUT_OFF_THETA_LOW : 1e-15
HORIZONTAL_K_FACTOR : 5.0
THETA_TOLERANCE : 0.002
MAX_ITERATIONS : 1000

CONDUCTIVITYFACES : 3
CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH_GW_TABLE : 0.0001

COMPUTE_SOIL_FIELD : 1

LIMIT_EVAP_WATER_VEL : 1
LIMIT_EVAP_HEAD : 1
HEAD_LIMIT : -100.

<beginwaterlevel>
NAME : waterlevel
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : ASCII_FILE
DEFAULTVALUE : 0
!REMAIN_CONSTANT : 0
FILENAME : ..\General Data\Initial conditions\A_DTM_ND_ND-0.5m.dat
<endwaterlevel>

<beginimpermeablefraction>
NAME : impermeablefraction
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : ASCII_FILE
!INITIALIZATION_METHOD : CONSTANT
DEFAULTVALUE : 0
REMAIN_CONSTANT : 1
FILENAME : ..\General Data\Other\Impermeabilization\imperm.dat
<endimpermeablefraction>



!----- Hydraulic Soil Properties
!acuifero
<beginhorizon>
KLB : 1
KUB : 3
<beginproperty>
NAME : SoilID
DEFAULTVALUE : 5
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : CONSTANT
REMAIN_CONSTANT : 1
!INITIALIZATION_METHOD : ASCII_FILE
!FILENAME : ..\General data\others\porous_media\SoilID\horizon1.dat
<endproperty>
<beginproperty>
NAME : Theta
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : CONSTANT
DEFAULTVALUE : 0.5
<endproperty>
<endhorizon>

!soil
<beginhorizon>
KLB : 4
KUB : 8
<beginproperty>
NAME : SoilID
DEFAULTVALUE : 5
!INITIALIZATION_METHOD : CONSTANT
!REMAIN_CONSTANT : 1
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : ASCII_FILE
FILENAME : ..\General data\other\porous media\soil_map.dat
<endproperty>
<beginproperty>
NAME : Theta
INITIALIZATION_METHOD : CONSTANT
DEFAULTVALUE : 0.5
<endproperty>
<endhorizon>


<beginsoiltype>
ID : 1
THETA_S : 0.4820
THETA_R : 0.0901
N_FIT : 1.5202
SAT_K : 1.29e-6
ALPHA : 0.84
L_FIT : 0.50
THETA_CV_MIN : 0.2844
THETA_CV_MAX : 0.3791
<endsoiltype>

<beginsoiltype>
ID : 2
THETA_S : 0.3991
THETA_R : 0.0609
N_FIT : 1.4737
SAT_K : 1.39e-6
ALPHA : 1.11
L_FIT : 0.50
THETA_CV_MIN : 0.2844
THETA_CV_MAX : 0.3791
<endsoiltype>

<beginsoiltype>
ID : 3
THETA_S : 0.4387
THETA_R : 0.0645
N_FIT : 1.6626
SAT_K : 2.11e-6
ALPHA : 0.51
L_FIT : 0.50
THETA_CV_MIN : 0.2844
THETA_CV_MAX : 0.3791
<endsoiltype>

<beginsoiltype>
ID : 4
THETA_S : 0.4418
THETA_R : 0.0792
N_FIT : 1.4145
SAT_K : 9.47e-7
ALPHA : 1.58
L_FIT : 0.50
THETA_CV_MIN : 0.2844
THETA_CV_MAX : 0.3791
<endsoiltype>

<beginsoiltype>
ID : 5
THETA_S : 0.3870
THETA_R : 0.0387
N_FIT : 1.4484
SAT_K : 4.43e-6
ALPHA : 2.67
L_FIT : 0.50
THETA_CV_MIN : 0.2844
THETA_CV_MAX : 0.3791
<endsoiltype>
CONTINUOUS : 1

[Jauch]

Hello Ane,

In fact, there are a problem with a keyword.
You are using "CONDUCTIVITYFACES", but in the code it is "CONDUTIVITYFACE".

Because it is different in your input data file, the model do not find it and always use the value 1 (by default, average).
Try to use the correct one CONDUTIVITYFACE with 3 or 5.

Cheers.

[epelde.ane@gmail.com]

Nothing.. I changed conductivityface to 1,2, 3 and 5, but nothing..
thanks!

The error came with the exe file, cause I´ve tried running the simulation with previous executable and no problem!

[Jauch]

Sorry to ask, but have you changed the keyword also, or only the value of the keyword?
Because if you do not changed the keyword (it do not have the "c" before the T), it will still use always value 1, do not matter what you set the keyword...

[epelde.ane@gmail.com]

Oooo noo..
you are right!! that was the problem!! lets see what happens with the roots now
thanks!

[Jauch]

lol

No problems
Let's hope that everything works now

[epelde.ane@gmail.com]

Hello!!

With the change made, the roots depth fits to the maximum of the growth database, but now, I find that the flow in the rivers change a lot, specially the baseflow. I attach a screencap ( the blue line is the simulation made with old exe).
Is this due to executable? maybe new keywords?

thanks!!

[Jauch]

Hello Ane,

The change in the base flow that you show in the graph is usually can be caused by three different keywords:

1. FC_K_FACTOR
2. HORIZONTAL_K_FACTOR
3. CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH_GW_TABLE

The first two are factors that multiply the vertical conductivity in order to find the horizontal conductivity. The first is for the cells with drainage nodes, while the second is applied to all other cells. If no value is specified to FC_K_FACTOR, it assumes the same value as HORIZONTAL_K_FACTOR (that has a default value of 1.0). High values for FC_K_FACTOR will increase the base flow.

But in your case, the most probable cause is the value in CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH_GW_TABLE. Some time ago its behavior it was changed. Now, it is used here:

Code: Select all

                !Find 1. non saturated cell           
doK:            do K = Me%ExtVar%KFloor(i, j), Me%WorkSize%KUB
                    if (Me%Theta(i,j,k) < (Me%CV%LimitThetaHiGWTable * Me%RC%ThetaS(i, j, k))) then
                        exit doK
                    endif
                enddo doK


The code above is used to find the first cell that is not saturated, starting at the bottom of the column. The model will understand that any cell IS saturated if its water content is greater than ( LimitThetaHiGWTable x ThetaS), where, LimitThetaHiGWTable is the value in CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH_GW_TABLE and ThetaS is the value for saturated water content in that cell.

Now, the default value for CUT_OFF_THETA_HIGH_GW_TABLE is 0.99. This means that a cell will be considered saturated if its water content is at least 99% of the saturated water content.

But I remember to see in your input data file a value of 0.0001. This will make the model assumes that every cell is ALWAYS saturated, and so, you will have a constant flow from groundwater to the river, leading to the graph you showed.

I think the value in this keyword is the culprit of this behavior.
Change it to something more realistic for the way it is used now (like 0.99 or 0.98) and you probably will have similar results on both simulations.

[epelde.ane@gmail.com]

Ok! Thanks for the explanation