the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Numerical strategies for representing Richards' equation and its couplings in snowpack models
Abstract. The physical processes of heat conduction, liquid water percolation, and phase changes govern the transfer of mass and energy in snow. They are therefore at the heart of any physics-based snowpack model. In the last decade, the use of Richards' equation has been proposed to better represent liquid water percolation in snow. While this approach allows the explicit representation of capillary effects, it can also be problematic as it usually presents a large increase in numerical complexity and cost. This notably arises from the problem of applying a water retention curve in a fully-dry medium such as snow, leading to a divergence and degeneracy in Richards' equation. Moreover, the difficulty of representing both dry and wet snow in a single framework hinders the concomitant solving of heat conduction, phase changes, and liquid percolation. Rather, current models employ a sequential approach, which can be subject to non-physical overshoots. To treat these problems, we propose the use of a regularized water retention curve (WRC), that can be applied to dry snow. Combined with a variable switch technique, this opens the possibility of solving the energy and mass budgets in a fully consistent and tightly coupled manner, whether the snowpack contains dry and/or wet regions. To assess the behavior of the proposed scheme, we compare it to other implementations based on loose-coupling between processes and on the state-of-the-art strategies in snowpack models. Results show that the use of a regularized WRC with a variable switch greatly improve the robustness of the numerical implementation, consistently allowing timesteps greater or equal to 900 s, which results in faster and cheaper simulations. Furthermore, the possibility of solving the physical process in a fully-coupled and concomitant manner results in a slightly reduced error level compared to implementations based on the traditional sequential treatment. However, we did not observe any numerical oscillations and/or divergence sometimes associated with a sequential treatment. This indicates that a sequential treatment remains a potentially interesting tradeoff, favoring computational cost for a small decrease in precision.
- Preprint
(1570 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-444', Richard L.H. Essery, 13 Jul 2025
This is a good paper, and I suggest that it will be publishable with corrections that are merely clarifications or editorial.
1
Vapour transport can also be important; it is only in line 79 that we learn that it is neglected here.2
The highly relevant paper by Wever et al. (2014) is almost “in the last decade”, but modelling percolation of water in snow under gravity and capillarity goes back at least as far as Colbeck (1974).
https://doi.org/10.3189/S002214300002339X27
Between bucket schemes and solving the Richards equation, an intermediate approach of calculating water percolation under gravity without capillarity is used in some models (e.g., SNTHERM).74
Is this transposition to 2D or 3D arrays of 1D columns? Inclusion of lateral flows is not so straightforward.81
If wanting to retain Fcond as a vector for generality, GMD guidelines require it to be printed in boldface. Alternatively, as it is a scalar in the 1D framework, the divergence could simply be ∂zFcond.Figure 1
Does the inset serve any useful purpose? Mention it in the caption if so, and remove it if not.234
There are models that allow liquid water in snow below the fusion temperature, e.g.,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1249.1
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019672326
The harmonic average seems to be the natural choice, corresponding to adding the conductances in adjacent layers in series.344
Models 4 and 5 have not yet been introduced.397
It would be good to show temperature, density and SSA for this stratigraphy.Figure 2
Where is the water that appears at the base of the snow before the surface melt water arrives coming from?Figure 4
Why do increasing timesteps run right to left on the x axis? – not wrong, but unconventional if there is not a clear reason.505
“internal ice layers” sounds like horizontal layers are being discussed, whereas I think it is actually vertical columns.
Minor corrections:The text uses both “Richard’s equation” and “Richards’ equation”, and it is often “the Richards equation” in literature. Pick one!
Delete commas in lines 9, 24, 105, 144, 287, 348, 405, 473, 523 and 525
Semicolons are not required before numbered equations.
22
I’m not sure of the authors’ intended emphasis, but “likely” is not the right word here.70
“requires determining and solving the equations”124
Brackets around γ are unnecessary138
“it is also necessary”141
“on the liquid water content”146
“a water-saturated material” or “water-saturated materials”165
“even though”
“held still”199
“applies to both”202-203
“accounted for in the ice budget to properly close the mass budget”210
“both melting and refreezing impact the snow density”215
Do not start a new paragraph here.226
“6 unknowns”257
“parts of the equations behave differently”259
“On the contrary”260
“the snow is at its fusion point”279
“has also”286
“also depend on the values”308
“the parameters”315
“the appearance of overshoots”336
1/cos γ346
“or gets stuck”349
“rewound”373
“a day”
“an hour”378
“budget solutions”404
“longwave radiation”405
“shortwave radiations”421
Delete “of”436
“Significantly increased”442
“timesteps”
“understanding of”450
“models 2 and 3”452
“the other models”457
“can be efficiently cheapened” (or “can be made more efficient” would be better)467
“typically by an order of magnitude”468
“with small timesteps”475
“better in one metric”5.3
“resolution” should be “solution” throughout this section508
“shares”54
“matric flow”Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-444-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-444', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Aug 2025
This paper is of high quality, discussing various implementation strategies for Richards equation in snow cover models. It focusses on an improved treatment of the dry limit of the equation, as well as on a tight coupling with phase changes. This indeed addresses one of the outstanding questions in the field of snow modeling. Some simple test cases are run, to demonstrate the various approaches and setups. The writing is mostly of high quality. I generally think that the paper can be published, after taking my minor considerations into account.
I have a few issues with somewhat more important feedback.
1. I would like to see the discussion of existing literature improved. It is too focused on the recent studies, and too focused on the SNOWPACK and CROCUS models. Examples:
- L31: "it has been proposed in the last decade": I think the earliest implementation of Richards equation in a snow model I am aware of is Jordan 1983 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/WR019i004p00979), but there is also work by Colbeck, Illangasekare et al., 1990. I think Daanen and Nieber (2009) were also using Richards equation in their model, before SNOWPACK. I think the paper should provide a bit more historical context, even though there is not a need to do an extensive literature review. It's more that I think it's important to provide a proper historical perspective and context.
- The sentence in L61 "Rather, snowpack models rely on a ... 1D framework" is too generalized and not acknowledging the work that has been done extending modeling to 2D and 3D. For example the work by researchers Webb, Leroux, Hirashima. I would like to see the work of those researchers, and maybe others I overlooked, included in the discussion.
2. Section 2.2.1: I think it is critical to discuss that this discrepancy in the dry limit is partly because drying water retention curves are being used (i.e., water retention curves derived from drying snow samples). In a wetting snow sample, the water retention curve may actually nicely approach 0 residual water content. Hysteresis has been used in snow modeling in other studies: Leroux and Pomeroy (2017): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309170817300040.
3. I think that the paper currently insufficiently discusses that implicit methods can be numerically stable, but still that doesn't mean that they are accurate. I think this is important to convey to the reader. So for example, I would not write in the conclusions: "which can run with timesteps of 15 min and above", without immediately making a remark about the accuracy of the solution. The reason I'm saying this, is because in Fig. 4, it looks like that the most advanced models perform worse at the largest time steps. That is just something to be very careful about. I also wonder if it is not better to show two Figures for Fig. 4: one where each numerical approach is tested for time step sensitivity, by taking 1s simulations for each of the approaches as a benchmark. And the other the current Fig. 4, showing the estimated accuracy under the assumption that Model 1 at 1s timesteps can serve as a benchmark. That would also more clearly deal with the fact that if model 1 run at 1 second time step is considered the reference for determining error-statistics, like RMSE, it is quite obvious that model 1 performs best and creeps closer and closer to the reference simulation when the time step reduces. I wonder if Models 3-5 actually just have another solution, and that for that reason, their performance is relatively constant, compared to the benchmark.
I also have a few minor comments:
L68: "effective" may require a definition in this context.
L79: "neglecting the influence of water vapor": isn't the effect of water vapour included in lambda, as is common for snowcover models?
Section 2.1: I found this section somewhat overly complex. I don't fully understand why the possibility of phase changes is not directly included in Eq. 1. Now, Eq. 5 is basically incompatible with Eq. 1, because melt is introduced at a later stage. I think this section could be simplified in this regard.
L162: "as snow below the fusion is considered dry". In fact, an argument that is sometimes used is that snow contains a thin water film, even below zero. And that for that reason, it can be assumed that theta is never truly 0 in snow. I'm not sure what the authors think about this argument.
L165: If one would set the hydraulic conductivity to 0, it would be possible to suppress any liquid water flow and tiny liquid water amounts. So it is not a given that there is a tendency for percolation, I think.
L204: "for melting refreezing event in" is a somewhat broken phrasing
L205-206: This is actually not the case in SNOWPACK. Maybe it was removed at some point, since Bartelt and Lehning 2002 is cited. But I'm quite sure that phase changes translate volumetric contents between the ice and water phase. If models refreeze by increasing volumetric ice content, and melt by reducing element length, repeated melt-freeze cycles basically generate artificial ice layers, because it is an inconsistent approach. The current approach and reasoning in SNOWPACK is exactly what is described in L209-L212.
L219: "Replacing Eq. 5 ..." is somewhat broken phrasing.
L228: "we discretize as well" not sure this is proper phrasing
L330: "when on the of the cell" needs rephrasing
L346-347: "get stuck in cycles". I would say instead of the algorithm diverges, the solution diverges. And instead of get stuck in cycles, I would say that the solution oscillates.
L361-362: This sentence is a bit unclear. I assume that this is not shown in the paper, so I would write: "This did not modify the results (not shown)." To signal to the readers that this is not further discussed.
L372: "evolution of density". When there is melt, the density can change very rapidly. I suggest to write "the timescales for snow compaction".
L397-398: "To better capture the generally steep gradients of density, temperature, ..., near the surface" is more accurate phrasing I think.
L405: "radiation"
L426: I think a brief explanation of what can be seen needs to be added. For example that the daily cycles can be seen in panel a, that ponding can be observed, etc. In this light, I was wondering if the liquid water that can be seen at the snow/soil transition is coming from above, or generated from below due to the soil heat flux? Or is it a suction from the soil that is somehow considered?
Fig. 2b: To me, it looks like the pattern of meltwater infiltration is inconsistent with what was written on L416: “a constant rain flux ...lasting the whole simulation”. Because around 0.5 day into the simulation, the downward percolation stops. I think with continued rain, this should also continue to percolate further. Maybe this is something the authors can double check, or explain in the manuscript what exactly happens in the simulation.
L457: "can be efficiently cheapen" not sure about this phrasing.
Fig. 3: There is no need for colors in fact, since each panel shows one line. I think it might be easier to interpret the figure when it is black and white, but I leave it up to the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-444-RC2
Model code and software
Supplementary Material to "Numerical strategies for representing Richards' equation and its couplings in snowpack models" Kevin Fourteau https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14753491
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
928 | 51 | 11 | 990 | 17 | 38 |
- HTML: 928
- PDF: 51
- XML: 11
- Total: 990
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 38
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1