Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. Hi, I have created MODFLOW model for a region near the coastline and It ran successfully in both steady and transient state. Currently there is no sink or source terms to make the model simple. Once the model achieve a stable solution, they will be added later. Then, I tried to run it in with SEAWAT and model shows the error that Memory is not enough. I tried both Parallel, 64Bit options as well as both of them in combination but did not get any luck. The way that I ran the SEAWAT model is as follows. I assume that I did it correct but please let me know if you have any alternative ways. 1. Run MODFLOW in steady state. 2. Change the model and output to transient state. 3. Assign steady state heads in step 1 above as the initial heads for the run. 4. Map MODFLOW to the grid. 5. Map MT3DMS to the grid. 6. Run SEAWAT. My model grid has 512 x 646 x 12 cells (12 layers). Number of total and active cells are 3,969,024 and 1,416,464 respectively . Since I did not have any success in running the model in GMS, I decided to run the SEAWAT model in text based USGS format. I exported the MODFLOW model from GMS to the regular text based USGS format. However, I do not see such a format change for either MT3DMS and SEAWAT option in GMS. 1. I assume that either MT3DMS or SEAWAT does not require such a conversion. Please correct me if I am incorrect. 2. Also, I think that the SEAWAT name file in the SEAWAT folder that GMS produces (.swn file) may not be the correct one to run SEAWAT in USGS format because the type, format, number of files and the content in the files are different. Please see the files and sizes of GMS and USGS formats of MODFLOW in the screen shots below. Can you please advise me how to make the name file to run in USGS format using these GMS files? I am planning to use the USGS version of SEAWAT executable and/source code to run the model since Aquaveo executable might have been customized to its data file types and may not match the requirements. Please let me know if you have any suggestion on this. I very much appreciate all your thoughts, suggestions and help to resolve this issue. Best regards, Lalith
  3. Hi, I have created MODFLOW model for a region near the coastline and It ran successfully in both steady and transient state. Currently there is no sink or source terms to make the model simple. Once the model achieve a stable solution, they will be added later. Then, I tried to run it in with SEAWAT and model shows the error that Memory is not enough. I tried both Parallel, 64Bit options as well as both of them in combination but did not get any luck. The way that I ran the SEAWAT model is as follows. I assume that I did it correct but please let me know if you have any alternative ways. 1. Run MODFLOW in steady state. 2. Change the model and output to transient state. 3. Assign steady state heads in step 1 above as the initial heads for the run. 4. Map MODFLOW to the grid. 5. Map MT3DMS to the grid. 6. Run SEAWAT. My model grid has 512 x 646 x 12 cells (12 layers). Number of total and active cells are 3,969,024 and 1,416,464 respectively . Since I did not have any success in running the model in GMS, I decided to run the SEAWAT model in text based USGS format. I exported the MODFLOW model from GMS to the regular text based USGS format. However, I do not see such a format change for either MT3DMS and SEAWAT option in GMS. 1. I assume that either MT3DMS or SEAWAT does not require such a conversion. Please correct me if I am incorrect. 2. Also, I think that the SEAWAT name file in the SEAWAT folder that GMS produces (.swn file) may not be the correct one to run SEAWAT in USGS format because the type, format, number of files and the content in the files are different. Please see the files and sizes of GMS and USGS formats of MODFLOW in the screen shots below. Can you please advise me how to make the name file to run in USGS format using these GMS files? I am planning to use the USGS version of SEAWAT executable and/source code to run the model since Aquaveo executable might have been customized to its data file types and may not match the requirements. Please let me know if you have any suggestion on this. I very much appreciate all your thoughts, suggestions and help to resolve this issue. Best regards, Lalith
  4. Hi, I found that when making a film loop for flow trace from SRH-2D output, sometimes the video I got is just blank (as attached file). Do anyone know what cause this and how to fix it? sms.avi
  5. Earlier
  6. Hi, I have recently started using the UZF package to simulated groudwater flow in a regional model. I firstly developed a steady state model using spatially distributed recharge from a surface model. I was using the «recharge» and the «EVT» package. With this configuration i was able to obtain a water budget with % error < 0.001%. When i replaced the recharge and EVT packages by the UZF, the water budget output file shows a line with a component called «HORT+DUNN» which i suspect to be the surface runoff flow. This component is not well describe in the USGS MODFLOW documentation. The problem is that this volume of water is only present in the «IN» part. In then creates a poor water balance ~1% to 5% error. If i remove it from the balance, the % error is good (> 0.01%). Any idea of how to deal with this water budget component? Regards
  7. So I have figured it out from PEST manual (5th edition) - Watermark Numerical Computing: The relative composite sensitivity of a log-transformed parameter is determined by multiplying the composite sensitivity of that parameter by the absolute log of the value of that parameter. Adam
  8. Sure. Click out the river using the observation coverage. Plot it. You got the elevations and length, so you can determine slope.
  9. Can I determine slope of river using SMS interface?
  10. Hi, There is Rel. Sensitivity column in the ASCII file with .sen extension coming from PEST estimation. Could someone please explain me, how the value of relative sensitivity is determined? Thanks, Adam
  11. Dear Chris, @Chris Smemoe in wms , I created new coverage type rain gauge and inputted depth values in mm for 12 rain gauge stations of one watershed : I wanna create hydrograph using HEC-1 model to find the peak discharge value of the watershed based on these depths values of the stations for a return period of 2 years and 5 min duration . I simulated the model and got the hydrograph . but the problem is the hydrograph shows no discharge (flat curve ) as shown in the enclosed picture here why does that ? ?? please notice the precipitation depths in the first picture.( the curve number of the watershed is 90, and the initial abstraction (Ia) according to CN is 5.66 mm, I can find answer with you ? thanks in advance!
  12. Sorry, hope I didn't mess you up. I forgot they changed it a few releases ago. My apologies.
  13. calberts

    "ABORT"

    pagesk, if you abort the simulation, you would lose the results since SRH-Post would not run and give you the final _XMDF.dat file. I found myself in a similar situation once and found that you can override the original simulation end time by using the _DIP.dat file. See Appendix C of the SRH-2D user manual Page 91 https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/computer software/models/srh2d/downloads/Manual-SRH2D-v2.0-Nov2008.pdf The process would look like this: 1. while srh is running, open the _DIP.dat file in a text editor 2. copy and paste in the start and end lines as well as the command to override the total simulation time (see below for example, this would override the simulation end time and make it stop at hour 9) $DATAC TOTAL_SIMULATION_TIME = 9.0 $ENDC 3. Save the text file, SRH will then read it and override the end time Note: If you will run the simulation again and do not wish for it to stop at that override time, you need to manually delete the lines in the file added in step 2 above, or delete the _DIP.dat file. -calberts
  14. Yup. You can actually look at the results while the model is running.
  15. pagesk

    "ABORT"

    I'm monitoring a model and I can see that the peaks of my hydrographs have passed. There are still several hours of model to run. If I "Abort" the model, will I be able to post process and review the model simulation data that has been calculated. I should have investigated this earlier, but now with the model having run for hours, I don't want to lose that information.
  16. I resolved the issue, one of the nodes was at the junction between a patch mesh and a pave mesh. Needs to be full inside a "patch " mesh.
  17. Fcernst, you likely have already moved on from this question, but for sake of providing an answer for others out there that may be facing a similar question, the elements are generated based upon the spacing of the arc vertices and nodes. To see a great demonstration of this, check out the meshing tutorial at the link below. http://smstutorials-13.0.aquaveo.com/SMS_MeshGeneration.pdf -calberts
  18. I'm getting an error " Wrong IFACE matching occurred in structure_internal.f90 #4" Error code 139762 and the same error message with error code 51575. It seems the errors may be related to pressure flow boundaries. Do the error code numbers have any significance that would help me find the error? I've checked to see see that my pressure flow boundary arcs are properly attached to to the vertices in my mesh generating file. A "Patch" type mesh is assigned between the pressure flow arcs.
  19. Definitely worth a try. It would make sense since it is say 500 nodes.
  20. The internal sink arcs are defined by two nodes and a couple of vertices. But the arcs are long, several thousand feet, so they cross many mesh cells. If you think that may be the cause I could probably shorted the arcs or split the flow between several shorter arcs. Thanks
  21. Do you have any BC lines that have more than 500 nodes? I would start there.
  22. As in the title PreSRH-2D stopped due to the following "Number of nodes exceeded 500 in sec_str.f90 Weir_up Error Code is: 502" Immediately before this message, the Command Line box said "***TVF file is read in successfully" I do not have a weir in my model. The only thing I would suggest is unusual about this model is that it has "internal sinks" to simulate local run on in addition to the normal inlet Qs at the defined channels. Anywhere to suggest to start trouble shooting?
  23. Hi Bruce, it is hard to tell. I suggest you to compare the HK and Sy arrays of the HDF5 and native MF version of your model. See if they are different. They should be exactly same. You could read the HDF file directly using Python for instance, see the discussion here. Good luck Michal
  24. among the hydrological models which model is better when studying an intermediate watershed?
  25. Hi -- I'm getting different water-level results with GMS 10.4.7 files when I switch from a PEST calibrated binary version to native text files. Here's the workflow: 1) Build and calibrate the models using PEST in GMS, 2) Get good results and acceptable calibration, using pilot points for aquifer horizontal hydraulic conductivities (HK) and specific yield (Sy) (for the surficial aquifer), 3) Interpolate the calibrated pilot point HK and Sy data to a 2-D grid created from the 3-D grid (same cell size and alignment) with the same interpolation methods as PEST used, 4) Replace the parameters (pilot points and drain conductances) in a new set of GMS files with calibrated values, 5) Used the Kriging interpolation method in both the PEST calibration process and when the resulting pilot point set is interpolated to the 2D grid in the native text files, 6) Write the files out as native text, do a forward run, and import results into GMS, 7) Compare key observations from the native text file results to the original binary GMS files. Here's a plot of one of the wells using outputs from the original calibrated binary GMS files. Here's the same well using outputs from the model run using the native text files. I've gone through the process of replacing the PEST variables in GMS with the final calibrated parameters twice and get the same results. One thing I have noticed is the dataset info differs between the calibrated pilot points and the version that I interpolated to the 2D grid. Here's a comparison of the dataset info for one of the pilot point datasets: Orig Cal PP Interp to 2D Grid Min 1.072 1.072 Max 904.99 734.94 Range 903.91 733.87 Mean 129.78 48.05 Median 50.132 20.75 SD 212.28 77.46 Why would these be so different? Both were done using the Kriging interpolation method. Any ideas would be appreciated!
  26. Rob Virtue

    Modflow - modpath

    Arto, hydraulic conductivity determines how much volume flows through fro a given aquifer for a given area an gradient. Imagine a block of aquifer and a block of water being extruded out of the side as it flows. If the aquifer was all space (porosity of 1) a particle of water would flow through the aquifer at the same rate is is extruded out the side. If the porosity is only half (0.5) and everything else remains the same, the velocity of a particle in water in the aquifer has to flow twice as fast to keep the block of water moving out. If your porosity is 0.01 for the same K, it has to move 100 times as fast. This is expressed in the Darcy flow velocity equation V=K*(dh/dl)/Pe where V = velocity K= hydraulic conductivity dh/dl = hydraulic gradient Pe = effective porosity. Particle flow velocity is inversely proportional to effective porosity, if all other parameters remain the same. This may seem counter intuitive, because you are thinking that less pore space means lower flow, but remember, you are keeping hydraulic conductivity the same, so the volumetric water flow stays the same.
  27. What conductance value are you using for the drain and what are the Kh & Kv of the high conductivity layers? A higher drain conductance is required to fully drain a higher conductivity layer.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...