Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

Sean Czarniecki

GMS Experts
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


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. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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?
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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).
  10. 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!
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. MODFLOW-USG & CLN cells staying wet

  14. SFR Package - Arc interpolation control

    Thanks again - I spoke with my GIS guy yesterday and it seems that getting the segment starting and ending elevations wouldn't be that difficult. I'll just have to figure out how best to get them into GMS. Did you do it via cut and paste into the dialog box for the segments, or through a MODFLOW input file? Right now, GMS looks to a binary file for the array. I think I was recently successful in getting an input file to ignore the binary file, but in another case, I was not successful (I don't recall the details on which package it was), so just curious as to which way you went.
  15. SFR Package - Arc interpolation control

    Thanks, Bruce. I totally agree that the SFR2 package is better than drains or rivers when you are actually trying to get the correct water balance in a watershed. That's why we're using it. The issue is that the region is mountainous, so using one segment for a 30,000 m long stretch of stream/river doesn't put the streambed at the right elevation for much of that length. I like your thought of using GIS, but like you said, it would be pretty high-level work.....I may have to go that route though if I don't figure out a better way to do this in GMS. Do we know if there is an upper bound to the number of SFR2 segments allowed? Without accounting for elevation changes, I will have around 100 segments in the drainage basin. If I wanted to be precise in accuracy, I could easily get to 1000 segments (I wouldn't likely if I did it manually, but if I went the GIS route, I would shoot for high accuracy).