Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'conceptual model'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • News
    • Forum Feedback
  • Arc Hydro Groundwater
    • Using AHGW
  • GMS
    • Using GMS
    • GMS Feature Requests
    • MODFLOW
  • SMS
    • Using SMS
    • Hydraulic Models
    • Wave Modeling
    • Other Models
    • SMS News
    • FHWA - SMS User
  • WMS
    • Using WMS
    • General Hydrology
    • Urban Hydrology
    • Hydraulics and Floodplain Modeling
    • WMS Feature Requests
    • FHWA - WMS User

Calendars

There are no results to display.


Found 2 results

  1. Hello, it is often the case to treat WEL package data (e. g. well pumping/injection rate or specified flow BCs) as adjustable parameters when doing inverse modelling for parameter estimation or optimisation. I would like to see a better GMS handlig of this. One cannot use conceptual model at all when trying to define specified inflow BCs as parameters, because GMS treats the Key value as flow rate and distribute it between the cells intersected by the BC conceptual model geometry. In the case of pumping well it is possible to specify Key value in the conceptual model and map it to MODFLOW (hopefully) correctly. However there is no check whether this exact Key value does not appear in the regular pumping data. This could easily lead to an error. Especialy when the model is continuosly used and the pumping data with some key values are reasigned over and over during the model application. I would consider wise to be able to specify in GMS whether a particular value is Key value or not and to treat it accordingly in GMS. Also a model checker should check for conflicts in the WEL package for the reasons described above. This obviously extends to MNW package as well. I am wondering if anybody else experienced this problem and would like to see this implemented.
  2. I've a Local Model of a site that include a slope from 300 to 350 m asl. A cross-section is attached to the post. I set up a Modflow Ugrid model with only 1 layer. Now I'm asked to insert a Barrier, so I need a new layer because Barriers don't reach the bottom of the aquifer. Is it correct to insert a new layer with constant top elevation (320 m abs) and set inactive the cells where the top elevation is less than 320? The Coverage for the Boundary condition (CHD at elevation 300 m asl, see attached cross section) is to be set to Autoassign BC including lower cells? How can I set the same boundary condition if it starts at an elevation of 325 m asl and ends at 300 m asl? Thank you aquaveo-h1.pdf
×