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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Road widths unrealistic in urban LCZ Table #1954

Open
bfkg opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

Road widths unrealistic in urban LCZ Table #1954

bfkg opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 7 comments

Comments

@bfkg
Copy link

bfkg commented Dec 21, 2023

Different to the classification in URBPARM.TBL where the road widths are 8–10 m, in the LCZ parameters file, the default widths are betweeen 39 and 108 m.

WRF/run/URBPARM_LCZ.TBL

Line 42 in 3dd1546

ROAD_WIDTH: 98.9, 39.2, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0, 108.0

This leads to occasional model crashes and unrealistic surface temperatures of > 350 K.

I suggest to provide more realistic default values with respect to the WUDAPT method, or even multiple exemplary files for certain cities or typical for countries.
@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@cenlinhe Can you take a look at this report? Thanks.

@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

These road width values do seem to be too large. I am not sure the history of these values. @andreazonato Do you know where these default values come from? Do you have recommended (more realistic) values to replace them? I did not find any road width data in Stewart and Oke's LCZ paper.

@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

I discussed this with Alberto Martilli (expert on WRF-urban modeling). He does not know where these default values come from, but he suggested to make them equivalent to those used in the multilayer scheme (see STREET PARAMETER section towards the end of the file). Same thing for ROOF_WIDTH and ZR values. He will provide me with an updated URBPARM_LCZ.TBL file and I will create a PR for it once I have the updated file.

@cenlinhe cenlinhe mentioned this issue Jan 4, 2024
Merged
@cenlinhe
Copy link
Contributor

cenlinhe commented Jan 4, 2024

I submitted this PR (#1969) based on Alberto Martilli's suggestion to solve this issue.

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@bfkg Can you see if proposed change fixes your issue?

weiwangncar pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2024
@cenlinhe
Update urban LCZ parameter table with more reasonable values (#1969)
6156b78 
TYPE: enhancement

KEYWORDS: urban, parameter

SOURCE: Reported by Benjamin Fersch (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany), fixed by Alberto Martilli (CIEMAT, Spain)

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:
Problem:
Current urban LCZ parameter table includes some unreasonable values for urban morphology (e.g., too large road width) and thermal properties (e.g., CAPR, CAPB, CAPG, AKSR, AKPB, AKPG). The LCZ classification is mainly a classification based on morphology, rather than thermal properties, so it should use the same thermal properties for different LCZs unless users have specific information from other local data sources.

Solution:
Use morphological parameters correspond to mid-range values of Stewart and Oke 2012, and all the LCZ classes have the same thermal properties.

ISSUE: [For use when this PR closes an issue.](#1954)

LIST OF MODIFIED FILES: 
URBPARM_LCZ.TBL

TESTS CONDUCTED: 
1. The mods fix the problem.
2. It passed regression tests.

RELEASE NOTE: Update urban LCZ parameter table (URBPARM_LCZ.TBL) with more reasonable values.
@bfkg
Copy link
Author

bfkg commented Jan 26, 2024 via email

@weiwangncar
Copy link
Collaborator

@bfkg Thanks for your response.

@jesusff jesusff mentioned this issue May 13, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@weiwangncar @bfkg @cenlinhe