Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Shortwave radiation balance at the wall missing reflected direct and diffuse radiation reflection from the wall terms. #2101

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2024

Conversation

joshi994
Copy link
Contributor

@joshi994 joshi994 commented Aug 29, 2024

TYPE: Bug fix

KEYWORDS: Shortwave radiation balance, reflected radiation, shadowing effect, single-layer urban canopy model (SLUCM), direct and diffuse radiation.

SOURCE: Parag Joshi, Katia Lamer (Brookhaven National Laboratory)

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:

Problem:
The single-layer urban canopy model missed a couple of terms that represent the direct and diffuse radiation reaching at a wall reflected from the other wall. It leads to an inaccurate calculation of the shortwave radiation at the walls.

Solution:
Mathematical formulation by Kusaka et. al. (2001) was followed to verify the equations used in the SLUCM module in WRF. The equations are corrected.

More details can be found in this attachment.

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: module_sf_urban.F

TESTS CONDUCTED:

  1. It compiles.
  2. It passes the Jenkins tests.

RELEASE NOTE:
This PR corrects the shortwave radiation balance at the wall, particularly the reflected direct and diffuse radiation reaching the wall which leads to underestimation of SW radiation at the wall.

@joshi994 joshi994 requested a review from a team as a code owner August 29, 2024 14:00
@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

Could you also attach your pdf file (or snapshot) you sent to me that showing the equation and code difference?

@joshi994
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could you also attach your pdf file (or snapshot) you sent to me that showing the equation and code difference?

@cenlinhe I have attached the document.

@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

cenlinhe commented Aug 29, 2024

@chenghaow @tslin2 @xuelingbo This is the bug we discussed through emails in the last few days, please also review this proposed bug fix to see if it looks good to you when you have time. Thank you! We need multiple approvals from urban model experts.

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

The regression test results:

Test Type              | Expected  | Received |  Failed
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = = =
Number of Tests        : 23           24
Number of Builds       : 60           57
Number of Simulations  : 158           150        0
Number of Comparisons  : 95           86        0

Failed Simulations are: 
None
Which comparisons are not bit-for-bit: 
None

@weiwangncar weiwangncar changed the base branch from master to release-v4.6.1 August 30, 2024 01:22
@tslin2
Copy link

tslin2 commented Aug 30, 2024

@chenghaow @tslin2 @xuelingbo This is the bug we discussed through emails in the last few days, please also review this proposed bug fix to see if it looks good to you when you have time. Thank you! We need multiple approvals from urban model experts.

The fix looks good to me, considering longwave included radiation reflection.

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@cenlinhe Would this bug fix be ready for 4.6.1 release? The release could be a few weeks away.

@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

yes, I think so. I will review and approve it next week.

@xuelingbo
Copy link

@chenghaow @tslin2 @xuelingbo This is the bug we discussed through emails in the last few days, please also review this proposed bug fix to see if it looks good to you when you have time. Thank you! We need multiple approvals from urban model experts.

The fix looks good to me

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@cenlinhe Can you review this PR?

@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

This bug fix looks good to me, which includes the missing multireflection shortwave radiation flux at the building wall. The original Kusaka 2001 equation has that term but it is missing in the code implementation.
I approve it.

Copy link
Contributor

@cenlinhe cenlinhe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I approve it.

@weiwangncar weiwangncar merged commit fa023f2 into wrf-model:release-v4.6.1 Oct 16, 2024
3 of 10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants