Theo

Good day Sean, Thank you for you reply. Maybe my approach is wrong!? The open pit areas will be backfilled after mine development and therefore I still need to give a representative hydraulic conductivity (e.g. 0.5m/d) to the excavated areas (backfilled). So, the recovered groundwater level "recovers" to the 'initial stage' as set in the LAK package. It would have been great if the 'initial stage' in the LAK package could be set according to a TIN. The problem is that the "model" I am working with has very high topography. The pits are located in the top and sloped parts of mountainous area

Good day GMS community and other. So am I modelling a typical open pit mine scenario, however I am struggling to model groundwater recovery (rebound) to natural (calibrated head) conditions. - please see attachment. I did the follow steps using GMS 9. 1. Developed conceptual model; 2. Used drain package to represent the bottom of the open pits; 3. Calculated (using zone id's) pit inflows; 4. Modelled the groundwater level during mining (Life of Mine). Thus bottom of the open pits represents my post mine heads. My objective is to calculate how long the groundwater level (post mine head) will ta

HI Alan, Thanks for the reply. My main problem was my recharge input data - as it is a transient model the required data should be transient as well (obviously) Cheers, Theo

Dear All, I am struggling to figure out why my flow budget is not tabulating recharge as a "Flow In" value. Background: So I competed a steady state groundwater flow model, using NWT solver in GMS 8.3. The steady state flow model works perfectly (i.e.. flow budget shows a value as "flow in" for recharge, calibrated, heads, etc.) However, as soon as I change the steady state groundwater flow model to a transient model, using transient observation data, no value is "read" in the flow budget for recharge. So i played around to sort this out, using transient recharge data or single value recharge