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

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Based on the information you have provided, it sounds like you may have a confining layer where your lower aquifer has a higher head than the upper aquifer (upward gradient). If you were measuring this with wells out in the field, you would see the shallow overburden wells with a lower water elevation than the deeper overburden (or bedrock). In this scenario, the actual water table (which you would look at for nearby effects) is typically the water elevation of the shallow overburden, unless something allows water to get past the confining layer (like a well that is screened across all inter
  2. I've never assigned stage using a TIN, so I'm just guessing here. It sounds like your polygon manages the bed elevation and conductance, so that is working properly. However, when you use the TIN to assign transient stage data, does it only assign stage data where there are nodes? If a node doesn't land in the partially covered cell, then stage data would remain zero. Again, I'm just brainstorming.....
  3. First - you won't see existing drains in the Project Manager if you are pulling in an existing model. You will see them graphically, but can only change them using the menu system. Second - You have to make a new Conceptual Model and then add a new Conceptual Coverage to that Model.
  4. My first thought is that you are running this as a steady-state model. That would set up a situation where your starting heads and where the solution wants to be is too far apart. The solution immediately oscillates significantly and can't converge. I suggest that you make it transient. That should help.
  5. Check to make sure you don't have 2 river nodes in the same cell. That can sometimes happen if drawing rivers with arcs and there is an overlap of lines. If that isn't the issue and you don't mind me looking at your model, I'd be up for it.
  6. I have Build 10.4.10 installed and I see the Horizons -> 3D Mesh option come up when I look for it. My only guess is that your license doesn't include the 3D Mesh module. The pop-up box you show on your screen shot actually covers up the view of the available module icons, so I can't answer that by looking at your screen. However, the location where the 2D Mesh module would normally be (between the solids module and the 2D grid module) does not show the icon for the 2D Mesh module, so I'm guessing that you don't have either of the 2D Mesh or 3D Mesh modules. You can figure this out by l
  7. If I have this right, multipliers for Recharge in MODFLOW are not applied on a cell-specific basis, but rather by stress period across the entire grid. Therefore, if you want different multipliers for each stress period, you can do this in a spreadsheet (one column), copy the cells, and drop them into the GMS recharge input box. If you need to multiply different areas of your grid, you will have to do that manually, but creating data sets (one for each recharge and one for the multipliers) and multiplying the data sets before pulling them into the recharge rate input. Right now, that's
  8. If your river stage is below the river bottom, then you definitely want to switch to one of the stream packages. The stream packages allow the river/stream to go up and down based on the surrounding groundwater elevation and flows in the stream.
  9. Okay - so the way your first post was worded, it sounded like you were getting different head results in the NWT than the USG runs. Your latest post suggests that what you are comparing are "observation" results (which is probably why the topic is titled as it is). Can you confirm that? Can you also confirm that by manually checking cells in the NWT and USG simulations that the heads are similar? I know that I had issues with observations in my USG simulations (and seem to recall asking about it as well - there might even be a post on this board about it), so I managed it in other ways (se
  10. I think the difference may be in the MODFLOW build itself. While working with MODFLOW-USG a couple of years ago (which, if I understand correctly, would use similar code to MODFLOW-NWT), an updated version came out which changed how calculations were performed for "dry" cells (due to users who didn't agree with how the solver handled those cells). It changed my model results and would have negated the work I had done for half a year. Working with the GMS developers, we solved it by using the older MODFLOW executable during my model runs. It is easy to do this by directing GMS to run the ol
  11. Well, based on what I'm seeing, you have one side of your model that has a constant head boundary condition and the other 3 are No flow boundaries. If this is the case, the only way for the water (which you are adding through recharge) to leave the model is through the constant head boundary. Therefore, the groundwater elevation has to get high enough for the gradient to want to flow towards the constant head. At a minimum, it will need to be at the elevation of the constant head boundary. If the conductivity of the peat layer is too low, this will create quite a mound. I'm thinking that y
  12. Sorry that my suggestion hasn't worked out - I haven't used UGrid before, so I don't have an answer for you.
  13. An excellent question. I don't know if the GMS tools will work to do this or not with the Ugrid (I haven't tried it in your situation). In other cases, I would take a side view of the grid (general mode), select the layer with the layer select tool, right mouse button, redistribute from 1 to 2 layers.
  14. To simulate it exactly as you show it, you would have to split Layer 1 into 2 layers, so that the HFB goes up to the elevation you choose. The other way to do it (without splitting layers) could be to allow flow through the HFB that is equivalent to the fraction of layer thickness that is open (the HFB is across the full thickness, but not totally impermeable).
  15. The 3 sides with rock don't need anything. The 4th side needs some condition to allow water to leave (or enter), such as a constant or general head boundary...river/stream, etc.
  • Create New...