mHM terminates without returning an error

[klekarkar]

Dear mHM community,

I am running mHM for the first time and I encountered a case where the model terminates quietly without returning an error.
The model loads the inputs but then stops after reading the number of outlets at L0 and L1. I have thoroughly checked the mhm.nml for any inconsistencies with the knowledge I have.
My model model resolutions are in EPSG 4326 as follows:
L0: 0.001935125
L1, L11: 0.0078125
L2: 0.25

The answer that was given to a similar case in the discussion did not appear to be clear (at least to me).

I would appreciate your assistance to get past this step. I have attached the mhm.nml for reference.

Thanks!

mhm_nml.zip

[BryanSouzaM]

It seems the problem is related to mRM.

As a first attempt, could you replace the "0" values in your fdir.asc file with -9999?

Vinicius B.

[StephanThober]

I also think so. Did you check that the river network is correct and contains no loops?

Stephan

[klekarkar]

Thanks for the suggestions, @StephanThober and Bryan
I followed the suggestion of Bryan and then investigated the files to find any loops but it appears there are none.
Even after implementing the suggestions, the model still terminates at the same point of the simulation.

[pallavhydro]

Hi @klekarkar

I have the following suggestions for debugging:

1. You are running the model at less than a km. Could you try running it at 0.25 degree (both $L_1$ and $L_{11}$)? That should clear out whether the issue is with the fdir.
2. Could you also make a run with current setting (fine resolution) but with the routing turned off i.e., processCase(8) = 0 in mhm.nml. And then share the output ConfigFile.log here.

Cheers
Pallav

[klekarkar]

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, @pallavhydro . I ran the model at 0.25 degrees and it worked alright, I have even run it at higher resolution. It was a matter of computation time because the domain was relatively large so I compiled it on a HPC and waited for it to finish.
One issue I ran into is that if I do not provide observed flow, the model still tries to calculate the performance but would (obviously) run into an arithmetic error. The error the model spits out is quite vague (attached screenshot) so it might be useful if something more explicit could be added into the model for this step. I had observations for my domain so I managed to fix it.

Is there a switch to turn off this model evaluation step, e.g., when one does not have any observations?
I will mark your reply an answer but I would appreciate your feedback on my last question.

Best wishes,
Katoria.

[pallavhydro]

Hi Katoria

Great to know you are progressing.

The error you sent is a bug. Sorry about that. There were some recent developments which is the source of the no gauge issue. We are on it!

For the time being, a hack could be, for setup where there are not gauge observations, the user can create a dummy observation file (say with -9999 values). That should get help to circumvent the bug for now.

Cheers
Pallav