Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Determing boundary condition

    Hi, I think the flow could be calculated as a difference between the head in the model cell and corresponding head at the boundary. Conductance is the proportionality constant. Therefore Q = C (h1 - h2). If you know the head at the boundary (in the neighboring aquifer) and in the model cell, conductance could be easily calculated from the above formula for each model cell and the flow through the boundary would be as specified for each cell.
  3. Last week
  4. Stochastic MODFLOW cancel button: bug?

    This error still seems to be present when running Stochastic Modflow. I still get the same error message as described above. There is no difference if all solutions converges or if there are a few solution that are not converging. The model works perfectly fine in a forward run. I use the NWT solver. Any ideas on how to solve this issue?
  5. Interesting... It probably is a bug. But I have just experienced this issue once.
  6. Hi Mina I did change the name of the project as you advised to no avail. It seems it is a bug in GMS!
  7. Hi Speedy I seen this problem. Change the name of the project and do not use numbers or points. Maybe solved.
  8. Hi Fahad I did not alter pilot points. Also when I take the model files and run GMS on a different computer I do not have this problem!
  9. I have seen this. I think I solved the issue by changing my pilot points' values.
  10. Earlier
  11. Hello everybody I encounter this problem from time to time with the latest version of GMS (10.3). When I run PEST parameter estimation, the runs are not shown in the MODFLOW/PEST window, despite pest is running and I can see the PEST files being updated. I am not sure why this problem occur? Any help is appreciated. Thanks
  12. GMS - Data Calculator for selected 2DGrid data set

    This is a good idea and support this feature request - it will be helpful!
  13. Sediment Transport Problem

    I found a somewhat stable solution so I should be fine for the near future.
  14. strip form vs wrap form observation points

    I would like to save depth profiles of concentration over time. I change the SAVUCN to T. And to make strip form I turn the IFMTCN to -1 in the .btn file. But the output files (saved as .OBS) are still in the wrap form. I have also attached the image of a section of .btn file which helps to define observation points and saving format. Any help is greatly appreciated. Somayeh
  15. Index is out of range

    I switched to GMS 10.3.5 and the error message does not appear anyone indeed. Thank you for your help. Fanny
  16. user-defined rxns.dll with jacrxns.dll

    I am trying to work with RT3D using a rnxs.dll file as a user-defined reaction function and it works fine. My systems of reactions are so stiff and I would like to define a jacobian function that works along with it. I follow the same steps of making and compiling the rxns.dll for jacrxns.dll file. But the result that I get by Isolver=2 (gear with explicit jacobian) is different from Isolver=1 (general gear solver). I would like to know if the jacrxns.dll file should be compiled separately from rxns.dll or not? If yes, should they be somehow linked together? Or there is no need for that? Any comment on this topic is greatly appreciated. Somayeh
  17. PCG vs PCGN

    I have a question about the speed of PCG and PCGN calculations. I am using an x64 bit computer having 16 cores. In my case, if I run a PEST calculation using PCGN solver then it takes about 100% of the CPU. If I run the same model using PCG solver it only takes about 5% of the CPU. However, the time it takes for PEST to complete the first 5 iterations using PCG is less than once it uses PCGN. I was expecting PCGN to be faster than PCG. Am I missing something here?
  18. Water level change with recharge

    You can simply edit the cell sizes using bore holes. If you don't have you need to create boreholes, make a solid and then map it to MODFLOW.
  19. Water level change with recharge

    You have another BC other than three no-flow? If so, that may be an issue. If you have more than one layer you may play with the layer thicknesses. But I guess the starting head is the issue in your model.
  20. Sediment Transport Problem

    Hello, I've been working with the current version of SMS and SRH-2D for some time now but am running into a bit of difficulty trying to interpret the results for a sediment transport analysis. As a precursor to a full blown sediment transport model, I put together a proof of concept model that I drew up in AutoCAD to test what is known about the site. This is just so I can get more immediate results prior to modeling the actual test site, knowing the time it can take to run such a simulation. A quick Summary of the site: The river of interest has had a large sediment extraction, for a nearby road, in the form of a trench which is what the below figures represent. Recent field observations suggest that the front side of the trench is filling with sediment while the back side is scouring. The end goal of what I am doing is to provide some time scale in which it will be completely refilled again. Problem: Currently, I have the parameters such that after a simulation, deposition occurs within the trench but erosion from the backside seems to not occur, contrary to what has been reported. I have used a wide range of sediment sizes from 0.125 mm to 20 mm, a range of discharges from 20 cms to 100 cms and usually 48-72 hours to see any changes. As a side note, I have run through the sediment transport tutorials that are offered through Aquaveo and used the sediment parameters from those tutorials as a baseline for my model. Is there any general concerns I should have on drawings that I have imported and output results I get? Also, is anyone familiar with any ideas on input parameters that could produce what has been observed? I am running out of ideas myself so any new approach I could try would be greatly appreciated. I also apologize in advance as I have not tried to explain this to anyone in detail so if there is any other crucial information that may be telling of this situation, I can happily provide more details. thanks, Isaac
  21. Index is out of range

    Are you using the latest version of GMS? If not, try that first. If you are, then it is possible that there is a bug and you should contact support.
  22. Transient spatially distributed recharge

    We will be adding a feature to the next version of GMS to apply rasters to various stress periods in the Areal packages (RCH, EVT, ETS). There will not be a need to import these into your project they can be processed directly from the RCH package.
  23. MT3DMS Error with MODFLOW-NWT

    Thanks Alan, that's helpful to know.
  24. MT3DMS Error with MODFLOW-NWT

    SEAWAT is based on MODFLOW 2000, not NWT. That may cause you problems. Also, if you use MODFLOW-NWT and your model includes SFR, LAK, or UZF then MODFLOW will write an HFF file that is in a format the MT3DMS does not recognize and you will have to use MT3D-USGS.
  25. LPF package

    It is difficult to answer this question without seeing your model. I don't know of any reported bugs with this feature so you may have missed a step. If you need further help feel free to contact support.
  26. Currently GMS reports an Error if negative values are input for the FEMWATER hydraulic conductivity tensor values. We have recently learned that in some cases these values can be negative. This feature request is to change GMS so that instead of reporting an error, a warning message will be displayed. A warning message would still be nice, since from our understanding most cases will only have positive values in the tensor. -Cody
  27. Yes, clearly all your modelled heads are all overestimated. Obvious quick fixes to try would include increasing K and/or lowering recharge. Try playing with PEST ranges.
  1. Load more activity