-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
How to handle basins without a level demand in allocation #1428
Comments
I think the default behavior is ok, to not allow abstractions from Basins unless we know there is surplus water. I can imagine some Basins don't have a demand for low water levels, but can have a surplus. In this case we can attach a LevelDemand node with only a Perhaps for that it is good to make both https://deltares.github.io/Ribasim/core/usage.html#sec-level_demand |
Proposal from Martijn is fine to me. If no LevelDemand is set, one can basically utilize all water from a basin in allocation. |
My proposal was to not allow any use in that case. I feel like that behavior is safer against over abstraction. Modelers need to opt in to Basin sources. Then again, local precipitation should perhaps always be a source. Should any storage increase be a source, but not all storage, to avoid unsustainable use? Not sure what most modelers would expect here. I feel like it is quite an important choice. |
We discussed this together, and decided that the current behavior of not allowing Basin storage as a source by default is the conservative thing to do, and easy to explain. If modelers expect a particular Basin's storage to be used, they can attach a LevelDemand to indicate from which level it is considered surplus water. #1430 will help with this as well. |
As proposed in #1428 (comment) This makes it easier to use LevelDemand in case you only care about a shortage or surplus situation. --------- Co-authored-by: Bart de Koning <74617371+SouthEndMusic@users.noreply.github.com>
Currently the allocation algorithm only takes local available water of basins (including their forcings) into account when these basins have a level demand. That is because the level demand defines when a basin is in a demand or a supply state. When the basin doesn't have a level demand, there is no reference for this. However, modellers probably still expect for instance that a large amount of precipitation on a basin is taken into account in allocation, even if that basin has no level demand. Should we actually implement something for this, or should we just thoroughly document that this is the behavior of basins in allocation?
@gijsber @visr
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: