Potential issue with GSFLOW runoff calculations

[etrianaGIT]

I experimented with two runs with the same GSFLOW model and compared the results showing different runoff estimates resulting in the upper basin, which doesn't have any lakes or diversions. The two runs are:
(1) using a recent GSFLOW.exe compiled to generate the segments output. The segment output (net depletion) is simulated in MODSIM as static. (Mode: GSFLOW in the control file)
(2) using the coupled MODSIM-GSFLOW code with a MODSIM network that uses iterations and convergence between the two models. (Mode: MODSIM-GSFLOW in the control file)
The comparison of the result of the routed runoff from the upper basin in MODSIM shows the following behavior

and the difference is more notorious in the peak flows.

• the blue line being the GSFLOW mode run.

[etrianaGIT]

I tired running the same model with the coupled code but on GSFLOW5 mode and the model seem to struggle with convergence

[rsregan]

GSFLOW5 mode requires a couple different parameters than GSFLOW mode which could explain the convergence issue R. Steve Regan U.S. Geological Survey 303-236-5008 (office) PO Box 25046, MS 413 Bldg 53 Denver Federal Center Lakewood, CO 80225-0046 success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem — it’s more about finding the right problem to solve

…

________________________________ From: Enrique Triana ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 6:03 PM To: rniswon/modsim ***@***.***> Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rniswon/modsim] Potential issue with GSFLOW runoff calculations (Issue #19) This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. I tired running the same model with the coupled code but on GSFLOW5 mode and the model seem to struggle with convergence [image]<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fuser-images.githubusercontent.com%2F25967992%2F192909325-94688fbb-5310-4453-b7a7-5c9a66601d8d.png&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C72ec2e429dc74268b50608daa1ae093e%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638000066157091442%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HEFqzc8Is7PV%2FoLhSzrVwIxykWFqyeaFzfkSeVQW5m4%3D&reserved=0> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frniswon%2Fmodsim%2Fissues%2F19%23issuecomment-1261585102&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C72ec2e429dc74268b50608daa1ae093e%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638000066157091442%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=k4BmRhjxv0H5fd95X%2B0SjyEj3DQBpvVnnoVSDFHoTVM%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FACLN2FL6Y5LAGOLV6O5H7KLWATMENANCNFSM6AAAAAAQYFXTZE&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C72ec2e429dc74268b50608daa1ae093e%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638000066157091442%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QTe8%2FuezOsH%2BsU0eN6ccsZcdpIAIYCtyuC5j7SdCCu0%3D&reserved=0>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[etrianaGIT]

Ahh, okay -with just GSFLOW mode - the start of the simulation has similar messages.

[etrianaGIT]

[Update]

The input files of the test model were in GSFLOW 4 version, so they needed to be updated to GSFLOW5, which uses fractions and offset parameters for precipitation and temperature. The new parameters file was generated using the convert function of GSFLOW.
....\bin\gsflow_v2.exe .\ag-gsp.control -set model_mode CONVERT

The parameter file created was placed in the input\prms folder and the new parameter file was added to the control file. This parameter files allow simulation with GSFLOW5 and MODSIM-GSFLOW modes.

This run uses the C# code but in GSFLOW5 mode -

Inflows at the control point are the same to the GSFLOW stand-alone results.

Need to do a test with MODSIM-GSFLOW mode to see if the initial discrepancies improve.

[etrianaGIT]

[Update 2]

These results correspond to a MODSIM-GSFLOW mode run with the C# code. At the reservoir inflow - control point - inflows are similar to the previous GSFLOW5 run; however, the peak flows are lower in the MODSIM-GSFLOW mode than in GSFLOW5 mode (running with the coupling code).

The MODSIM-GSFLOW mode peaks are lower than the stand-alone GSFLOW run.

Are these results worrisome? Any ideas how to start debugging these differences?

[emorway-usgs]

@etrianaGIT It might be more illustrative if you can show a plot of the differences. It'll be easier to get a feel for just how different things are with that type of plot.

[etrianaGIT]

Here is a plot that compares each flow value between the two modes (not sure how meaningful it is)

The differences are

[emorway-usgs]

There are the obvious spikes, but there also looks to be the large differences early in time on the order of 20 acft/day, which would equate to 900,000ft^3/day, which is a lot of water in today water scarce world.

[rsregan]

I had something come up tomorrow between 10:15 and 1:30 MT, but am available otherwise tomorrow and all day Tues and Wed. Sorry R. Steve Regan U.S. Geological Survey 303-236-5008 (office) PO Box 25046, MS 413 Bldg 53 Denver Federal Center Lakewood, CO 80225-0046 success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem — it’s more about finding the right problem to solve

…

________________________________ From: Eric Morway ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 2:24 PM To: rniswon/modsim ***@***.***> Cc: Regan, Robert S ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rniswon/modsim] Potential issue with GSFLOW runoff calculations (Issue #19) This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. There are the obvious spikes, but there also looks to be the large differences early in time on the order of 20 acft/day, which would equate to 900,000ft^3/day, which is a lot of water in today water scarce world. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frniswon%2Fmodsim%2Fissues%2F19%23issuecomment-1263989822&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C5e471befcf7c434db47108daa321bd32%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638001662549249861%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8t%2FyLu86iriGbE0GWUYGVvprCwiQWis9IKz90wOdKO8%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FACLN2FOJZMZQMJIHX6FHYYTWA5D6VANCNFSM6AAAAAAQYFXTZE&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C5e471befcf7c434db47108daa321bd32%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638001662549249861%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zT4AuwF3nlIa5wXizr2FwRFZaljt28I%2BHhJRV9nmnIk%3D&reserved=0>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[rsregan]

I'm merging master into develop_modsim so that the updated PRMS is included. This requires adding 2 new files to the project: dynamic_soil_param_read.f90 and strmflow_character.f90. There are 2 other files I'm not sure about merging. gw2uzf1_NWT.f and gsflow_prms2mf.f90. gwf2uzf1_NWT.f and gsflow_prms2mf.f90 include code of NUZTOP = 5 gwf2uzf1_NWT uses ABS(IUZFBND(ncck, nrck) on line 1200 and the section of code from 1532 to 1561 is commented out in the master branch I have not pushed the changes R. Steve Regan U.S. Geological Survey 303-236-5008 (office) PO Box 25046, MS 413 Bldg 53 Denver Federal Center Lakewood, CO 80225-0046 success is rarely about finding the right solution to a problem — it’s more about finding the right problem to solve

…

________________________________ From: Eric Morway ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 2:24 PM To: rniswon/modsim ***@***.***> Cc: Regan, Robert S ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [rniswon/modsim] Potential issue with GSFLOW runoff calculations (Issue #19) This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. There are the obvious spikes, but there also looks to be the large differences early in time on the order of 20 acft/day, which would equate to 900,000ft^3/day, which is a lot of water in today water scarce world. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Frniswon%2Fmodsim%2Fissues%2F19%23issuecomment-1263989822&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C5e471befcf7c434db47108daa321bd32%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638001662549249861%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8t%2FyLu86iriGbE0GWUYGVvprCwiQWis9IKz90wOdKO8%3D&reserved=0>, or unsubscribe<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnotifications%2Funsubscribe-auth%2FACLN2FOJZMZQMJIHX6FHYYTWA5D6VANCNFSM6AAAAAAQYFXTZE&data=05%7C01%7Crsregan%40usgs.gov%7C5e471befcf7c434db47108daa321bd32%7C0693b5ba4b184d7b9341f32f400a5494%7C0%7C0%7C638001662549249861%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zT4AuwF3nlIa5wXizr2FwRFZaljt28I%2BHhJRV9nmnIk%3D&reserved=0>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[emorway-usgs]

@rsregan The files you mentioned, namely dynamic_soil_param_read.f90 and strmflow_character.f90 are not yet in the develop_modsim branch, as far as I can tell. Perhaps when you jump on the code sprint call, we will be able to get this sorted out.