Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Topics Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • mHM mHM
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributor statistics
    • Graph
    • Compare revisions
  • Issues 52
    • Issues 52
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 8
    • Merge requests 8
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Artifacts
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Model experiments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • mhmmhm
  • mHMmHM
  • Issues
  • #21
Closed
Open
Issue created Oct 30, 2018 by Andreas Marx@marxaMaintainer

Filed capacity estimation in mo_mpr_soilmoist.f90

Please check: FC values for Germany were too low compared to available publications. Therefore I checked the code and found that the Twarakavi, et. al. 2009, WRR EQ7 differs from what is coded and therefore made changes in two lines:

elemental pure subroutine field_cap( thetaFC, & ! Output Ks, thetaS, Genu_Mual_n ) ! Input

[...]

! x = (field_cap_c1) * (field_cap_c2 + log10( Ks ))
! thetaFC = thetaS * exp( x * log(Genu_Mual_n) )

x =  field_cap_c1 * (field_cap_c2 + log10( Ks ) )  ! (Twarakavi, et. al. 2009, WRR) EQ7 exponent

thetaFC =  Genu_Mual_n ** x

The result is that FC values are in the expected range now for Germany. aET values now show lower value in summer time (~0.35mm/day) and almost unchanged in winter - please keep in mind that I did not re-calibrate the model.

Edited Oct 30, 2018 by Andreas Marx
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking