Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

Sean Czarniecki

GMS Experts
  • Content count

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Sean Czarniecki last won the day on August 4 2009

Sean Czarniecki had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

1 Follower

About Sean Czarniecki

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Just for kicks, you might try lowering your specified head to see if you can achieve a reasonable calibration. Have you accounted for evapotranspiration? Could your recharge be too high? Are your calibration measurements being influenced by any tidal effects (you said "coast," but are running steady state, which is an average condition....perhaps your measurements were taken under a lower tidal influence)? Just some things to consider.
  2. Water level change with recharge

    Not knowing what your boundary conditions are, I'll assume that the cell goes dry in an area which isn't impacted by boundary conditions (even if no-flow). Your starting head may be too different than what the final elevation is going to be. The calculations will do an interation which may come to a solution below the bottom of the cell (think of the iterative process as a wave where the model goes up and down at smaller amplitudes until it gets to the solution). If the low value is below the bottom of the cell and there is no rewetting, the cell is dry and won't rewet. You might have to try starting heads that are actually lower to be closer to the final solution. Just my initial thinking.
  3. Modflow 2000-transient model result

    You've provided some good information. However, I can only provide you my thoughts based on what I see. It is unclear to me which layer(s) you are pumping in. Based on the K of layer 1, that wouldn't be a great layer to withdraw water from, compared to Layer 2. It is not shocking to see Layer 1 cells drying out around the wells, based on the low K value. I'm not seeing anything really wrong with your head results. They will not be exactly the same (which is how you have upward/downward gradients in an aquifer).
  4. Modflow 2000-transient model result

    When you have a confined layer, it typically doesn't dry out. Therefore, if it *should* dry out, there is a good chance that you are going to see unrealistic heads in the model for that layer. You might want to make Layer 1 be unconfined and see how that goes.....or the Layer 2 head may be more appropriate to use (depending on what you are trying to show and how close it is to Layer 1 in the other cells).
  5. Tracking particles in Modflow-USG doesn't works

    Older versions can still be used if you find a newer one has a bug. I have done that many times in the past....and if you have any issue with the license, getting a temporary one usually isn't a problem.
  6. Cell dimension change more than 50% in .............

    Note that it is just a warning and not an error. The model will still run. Typically, it is preferred to have cell sizes transition from smaller to larger without too big of a jump. Better for numerical calculations. This warning is probably due to your layer thicknesses being more than 50% different....and is not unusual, especially when dealing with lower layers in a model.
  7. 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!
  8. Observations in MODFLOW-USG

    At one point during my current project (a transient MODFLOW-USG simulation), I was attempting to create observation points to make some plots. It didn't seem to be working. I know that I've had some minor issues in the past getting the observations to work correctly, so I didn't think too much of it and got the info I needed in another way. However, I found myself with a little time today and figured that I would look into it a bit more. I pulled up an old model where I had a transient simulation to see if I had done anything different (I did not). I then ran my model using MODFLOW-2005 (after removing USG-specific stuff) and even though I didn't converge, the observations points appear to have worked. Are observations not set up to work in MODFLOW-USG?
  9. Fonts and Icons in 10.3

    I'm sure there is an easy way to change the project explorer fonts and icon sizes in 10.3 (they are much larger than I would like on my screen...much different than 10.2), but I'm not finding it. If anyone knows and can pass on that info, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
  10. Potential Bug in CLN Well pkg?

    Just wanted to let you know that this is still not fixed in the latest build (GMS 10.3.3). I haven't checked the latest build of 10.2.
  11. CLN well head results in binary file

    Right. I have around 200 wells in my CLN network. I need to see the heads at each individual well. These values are output into a binary file. I'm kind of shocked to see that GMS produces a binary file without reading it in afterwards. Do you have a suggested way that I could look at the results by opening the binary file directly? I'm looking at some free software, but it didn't seem to translate well. This raises another question - when the solution contours are produced for display in GMS, do they take the individual CLN wells into account? I have a feeling that they don't, even though that is one of the reasons to use the CLN package along with MODFLOW-USG (to be able to have multiple wells in one cell and not have them act like one well for the entire cell).
  12. CLN well head results in binary file

    I would like to see head results at each individual CLN well in my model. They are supposedly output into a binary CLN_HD file....but I can't seem to look at them in GMS. Can anyone help me out here? The CLN_CB file gets pulled in to the model after the run, but the CLN_DD, CLN_HD, and CLN_IB files do not appear to be. This is time-critical - if anyone has a way for me to see these results, I would appreciate it. (note that I'm using GMS 10.3.3 - I don't think that the CLN_CB file even got pulled into GMS 10.2, but I haven't fully looked into it) Thanks!
  13. problem horizon to solids

    It could be that some shallower boreholes are throwing things off for you if they don't go down deep enough to define your layering. I know that in the past I have made polygons in my cross sections which extend downward from a shallow borehole to help fix this issue. I can't say it will work for your situation - you may just have to either put in a dummy borehole or remove the shallow one.
  14. Model Checker with SFR2 Package

    I second the suggestion, although the MODFLOW output file tells you this immediately. The model crashes and the elevation errors are listed right at the end of the output file.
×