Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. CE-QUAL-W2 - what am I missing?

    Hi folks, First time WMS user here, apologies if this is a simple question. I am following the tutorial here: http://wmstutorials-10.0.aquaveo.com/35 WaterQualityModeling-CEQUALW2.pdf and have a couple of questions. I have a simple lake, that doesn't not require any additional branches. Do I need to specify this in WMS, or can I skip this step? Second, when creating CE-QUAL segments under coverage I cannot build polygons, is it because they are not snapping to the lake extent? (which I cannot seem to get to work either). Thanks, Simon
  3. Last week
  4. Materials Coverage - one or multiple?

    If the roughness values are different for each model scenario you should create a materials coverage for each, and then use the appropriate materials coverage in the corresponding simulation.
  5. Do you all create a different materials coverage for each model scenario (unconstricted, existing, proposed alt 1, proposed alt 2, etc.) or do you create one materials coverage and use it for each run?
  6. HorizonID

    The "Auto-Assign Horizon" tool referenced on the wiki is currently only available in GMS (the Groundwater Modeling System). When using this tool, it is important to review the results since they can often have problems with complex borehole data. Another method such as classifying the data based on material or unit descriptions will need to be used to populate HorizonIDs in a BorePoint feature class.
  7. 12.2 HEC-RAS Sim

    I see now, you have to purchase the module.
  8. 12.2 HEC-RAS Sim

    I have the tutorial for making a mesh for HEC-RAS in SMS, but when I right-click, there is no HEC-RAS under new simulation. I am using 12.2.11.
  9. Computational time of the transient model

    Hi Petra -- I've been struggling with long run times for a couple of large (up to about 8 million active cell) models, also. I'm doing PEST parameter estimation calibration runs across my local network and see differences in run times depending on the computer capabilities. On older machines (4-5 years old) the run times are usually around 10 hours. On a brand new machine (Dell Latitude - lots of RAM and a fast processor) the run times are about 4 hours. I'm using MODFLOW-NWT and have a unconfined surficial layer and have gotten very good results. I suspect the difference in run times you see from HUF as compared to NWT is the ability of NWT to handle dry and flooded cells better than HUF. If you don't already have one, suggest you get a new fast machine with at least 32 GB of RAM. Also, I've been back and forth with Rich Niswonger, one of the authors of the NWT code on my large model solver settings. He's run the model(s) and suggested a set of NWT solver settings for my models. Would be glad to post them here, if you would like to have them.
  10. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Just run from command line: pest case with case being the name of the modified PEST control file.
  11. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Thanks for your advice Michal. I have tried your suggestion with ADDREG1 but GMS writes over the control file when a new run is initiated. Any suggestion on how to bypass this issue?
  12. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Hi, no problem, you are welcome. In GMS it should be automatic, based on whether you check either Prefered homogeneous regularization or Prefered value regularization. However according to the recent experiences I strongly recommend not to do it this way. Be aware of the bug mentioned earlier regarding the usage of natural logarithm instead of decadic in GMS. I have no idea how this impacts the inversion process, but I would avoid it. If you have no log-transformed parameters, it should not be a problem, though. You can add prefered value regularization to the control file very easily by using the command line utlity from the PEST suite called ADDREG1. See the documentation to PEST (newpestman2.pdf, p. 21). It should make all the changes to the Control file necessary to run regularized inversion.
  13. HorizonID

    Is there a tool to automatically populate my BorePoint feature class HorizonID field? I would like to create rasters and eventially GeoVolumes from these points. According to wiki, there is something called Auto-Assign Horizon but I haven't been able to locate it. I am currently using ArcGIS 10.0.
  14. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Hi, stupid question but how do I change from estimation mode to regularization mode in GMS? I have tried to use the PARREP utility to make a change in the pst (PEST control file) file but GMS keeps to run in estimation mode. I tried this and then the model was able to run once (really fast). I have however not examined the results with PESTCHEK. As I mentioned earlier, I have been able to make this work without fixed pilot points.
  15. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Jonas, I have noticed, you were not running PEST in Regularization mode. That is probably the source for your error.
  16. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Ok, thats definately a progress, PEST does not crash anymore . This is realy a weird bug, it should not crash so violently. To your new problem. Try turning SVD-Assist and Regularization off and set NOPTMAX to 0. Lets see if it works. Also try running PESTCHEK and examine the output.
  17. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Hi, I tried with your suggestion to turn off preferred homogeneous regularization but keeping preferred value on. Unfortunately it resulted in these error messages:
  18. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Hi, I have encountered the same error with my model. The reason why PEST and PESTCHEK crashed has something to do with the Regularization option. With Prefered homogeneous regularization option checked several empty regularization observation groups were created in the PEST control file. I believe there is something wrong with the Prior information data section in the PEST control file. After turning Regularization off or changing to it Prefered value everything runs just fine. There are three scatter point sets in my model with many parameters for different model layers. There are Totaly 18 parameters defined with PP for multiple model layers. It looks to me like some bug in writing the Prior information with such setup. Edit1: There were no fixed PP in my formulation. Edit2: There seems to be more errors. Here are some of the parameters and corresponding PI written by GMS: sc1v1 log factor 22.321 1.00000E-08 1000.0 general 1.0000 0.0000 1 sc1v2 log factor 16.947 1.00000E-08 1000.0 general 1.0000 0.0000 1 sc1v3 log factor 4.1647 1.00000E-08 1000.0 general 1.0000 0.0000 1 sc1v4 log factor 4.4251 1.00000E-08 1000.0 general 1.0000 0.0000 1 sc1v5 log factor 33.072 1.00000E-08 1000.0 general 1.0000 0.0000 1 * prior information pi0 1.0 * log(sc1v1) = 3.1055498123169 1.0 regul_1 pi1 1.0 * log(sc1v2) = 2.830082654953 1.0 regul_1 pi2 1.0 * log(sc1v3) = 1.4266545772552 1.0 regul_1 pi3 1.0 * log(sc1v4) = 1.4872899055481 1.0 regul_1 pi4 1.0 * log(sc1v5) = 3.4986937046051 1.0 regul_1 Log10(22.321) = 1.349, not 3.106 as supplied by GMS. Its the natural logarithm. However according to the PEST manual, it must be decadic:
  19. Earlier
  20. Computational time of the transient model

    Hi everyone, I would like to ask about the length of the computational time of the transient model. I have built already several more complex models, but my transient models never exceeded 1 or max 2 hours to be finished. Not this time. I had built (I have to admit rather big model) with the number of the cells around 3 000 000. As flow package there is used HUF and as the solver PCG2. For the steady state my model finishes somewhere at the 10th iteration with the total computational time around 7 min. Built on that is the transient model with 27 stress periods. From previous experience I would guess the maximum time around 1.5 hour – stress periods usually are getting faster to be run. What surprised me is that I am getting to the time more than 4 hours. Changing convergence criteria doesn’t help me, as the problem is not the convergence of the model itself – at least for outer iterations (for each stress period I have convergence within 3 – 5 iterations). Neither changes of the solver had helped me. In my model occurs several bigger places with dry cells – but I am not allowing rewetting – could it be the problem? I had built similar model in with NWT solver – there was the time around 1.5 hour to complete transient model. Is there any reason why HUF should cause longer computation? Thanks for any kind of the tips or ideas to get this model faster ;-)
  21. Overtopping Option Error - Pressure Flow BC

    The IFACE error occurs when SRH-2D has difficulty mapping the pressure zone. The best practice is to align the boundary condition arcs so that they form a rectangle rather than a parallelogram. When structures are skewed to the channel this can be challenging and sometimes warrants slightly changing the alignment of the BC arc such that it may not perfectly align with the bridge face. The skewed mesh elements (poor mesh quality) could also cause a stability issue. The upper example should be ok, but for the lower example try to realign the mesh elements and boundary condition arcs to form a rectangle. This should solve the IFACE error.
  22. I am trying to use the overtopping function for several bridges with pressure flow BCs. 4 or 5 of the 12 bridges work fine, however, several return errors at the start of the SRH2D simulation. Attached are screenshots of the two errors I've run into. Interestingly, the model will run fine if the bridges that return errors with overtopping enabled are switch to pressure flow BC with no overtopping. Has anyone run into similar issues/found and ways to resolve? Thanks!
  23. Hello, I have encountered a problem with exporting native modflow files from GMS. Some of the model parameters are defined using Pilot points. Lets say that I would like to use different version of MODFLOW to calibrate the model. I have succesfully exported the MODFLOW native files and I was able to start USGS version of modflow. The input data are read correctly, first stress period is solved, however during the second period MODFLOW stops. Here is the end of the output file: PERCENT DISCREPANCY = -0.03 PERCENT DISCREPANCY = -0.03 TIME SUMMARY AT END OF TIME STEP 1 IN STRESS PERIOD 1 SECONDS MINUTES HOURS DAYS YEARS ----------------------------------------------------------- TIME STEP LENGTH 2.67840E+06 44640. 744.00 31.000 8.48734E-02 STRESS PERIOD TIME 2.67840E+06 44640. 744.00 31.000 8.48734E-02 TOTAL TIME 2.67840E+06 44640. 744.00 31.000 8.48734E-02 1 1 STRESS PERIOD NO. 2, LENGTH = 29.00000 ----------------------------------------------- NUMBER OF TIME STEPS = 1 MULTIPLIER FOR DELT = 1.000 INITIAL TIME STEP SIZE = 29.00000 PARAMETER "sc1v1 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION PARAMETER "sc1v2 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION PARAMETER "sc1v3 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION PARAMETER "sc1v4 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION .... PARAMETER "GHB_3405 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION PARAMETER "GHB_3409 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION PARAMETER "GHB_3406 " IN PARAMETER INPUT FILE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED -- STOP EXECUTION When modflow starts no interpolation is performed for the pilot points. I assume there is some custom routine in the GMS version that handles the interpolation from PP to the MF grid array. Please advice how this is supposed to be handled or what am I doing wrong.
  24. Initial water level for TUFLOW

    Hi Fahad, Are you able to please clarify your boundary configuration? From your diagram, it looks to me as if the green lines should be your downstream boundaries (as they are located at catchment outlets) not upstream boundaries. Thanks, Ellis
  25. Fixed pilot points in PEST NSMC

    Unfortunately not. Strange since the whole model works without fixed PP.
  26. The study area I want to model in TUFLOW is as below. I have couple of question about the Initial water level and the boundary conditions. 1. The DEM I have is merged with the bathymetry and vertical datum for that is NAVD1988. 2. I want to use two upstream boundary conditions (marked by green line in the picture). And both of the station gages are at the same level from the vertical datum. (Datum of gage is at 0.00 ft NAVD of 1988) 3. The red circled are my downstream boundary conditions. But they datum of gage are not always at 0.00 ft of NAVD88. For example the middle red circled one says ''Datum of gage is 3.89 ft above NAVD of 1988''. So do I need to add 3.89ft to the readings of water level to bring the data to the same vertical datum? 4. What would be my Initial water level value? In the website it says that " It is generally a good idea for the initial water level to match the downstream boundary condition at the start of a run." But I have three different water level reading for three different stations at downstream initially. Which one I would pick for Initial Water level value.
  27. The study area I want to model in TUFLOW is as below. I have couple of question about the Initial water level and the boundary conditions. 1. The DEM I have is merged with the bathymetry and vertical datum for that is NAVD1988. 2. I want to use two upstream boundary conditions (marked by green line in the picture). And both of the station gages are at the same level from the vertical datum. (Datum of gage is at 0.00 ft NAVD of 1988) 3. The red circled are my downstream boundary conditions. But they datum of gage are not always at 0.00 ft of NAVD88. For example the middle red circled one says ''Datum of gage is 3.89 ft above NAVD of 1988''. So do I need to add 3.89ft to the readings of water level to bring the data to the same vertical datum? 4. What would be my Initial water level value? In the website it says that " It is generally a good idea for the initial water level to match the downstream boundary condition at the start of a run." But I have three different water level reading for three different stations at downstream initially. Which one I would pick for Initial Water level value.
  28. Observations in MODFLOW-USG

    Boy, you want us to actually read the documentation? Thanks - I was actually hoping that you could point me to something like that!
  1. Load more activity
×