Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum
Bruce Campbell

Native Text File Differences

Recommended Posts

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.  
 
image.png.f0b7f32ea3a0a1acd5e7dbe5dd01f6db.png
 
Here's the same well using outputs from the model run using the native text files. 
 
image.png.028410981b11a23e5c1f2e34d2740375.png
 
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...