Spencer Whitman Grad Student

It might be that you are trying to use too many licenses at once.

It might also be some other issue related to parameterization or mass balance errors.

What you can do is look at the log files in the Setup_Process_n directory in your autocal setup directory, and see if the log file says why the simulation failed.

Hello.

As a follow-up to this question, my current model has a few different soil zones, and the vertical discretization varies vertically in each zone in order to add finer discretization at each layer interface along the vertical profile.

When I look at the results, either directly from the 3DUZ.dfs3 file, or from a 2D timeseries extracted from it, the results are displayed with uniformly sized grid cells, even though that is not the case in the model setup.  You can see in the attached image that one zone is misaligned with the other, even though they extend to the same vertical depth (~12 m).

I am wondering if there is some way to plot a cross section from the 3DUZ.dfs3 file with vertical discretization sized (scaled) as specified in the model setup under Unsaturated Flow > Soil Profile Definitions.

If there is a solution that would involve some post-processing outside of MIKE  as well I am interested to hear that also.  I think I could do it if I could somehow extract the 3D grid of vertical discretization, or a 3D grid of actual depth instead of just the cell numbers.

Thank You

Does anyone on this group have experience with using coupled FEFLOW-MIKE 21?

If so, have you used MIKE SHE?

I currently use MIKE SHE for distributed watershed modeling and am wondering what the best use case scenarios are for each?  Pros/cons for each?

Many thanks!

Hey Firas,

Surely you are measuring precipitation over some time period?

Or are you wanting to use a constant rate in absence of observed data?  You can use a constant rate also.

I would think it would be fairly easy then to convert the data to a rate.

I am having mass balance issues in my model when I use the Richards Equation based solution that are not present when I use the gravity drainage solution.

In my model, there are some areas that are intermittently ponded.  These ponded areas are underlain by a fixed position groundwater table about 10m below ground surface.

Example of a ponded interval in first image.

I show below results first from a model run that starts as a precipitation event generates runoff and fills the depression.  I then extract the detailed uz water balance from a cell within the ponded area.

t looks to me like an issue with the UZ-SZ coupling, which is affecting recharge.



Here's what I think might be going on (2nd image, plot):



This is for a simulation that uses REq, and starts up at the start of a storm event, so it ponds immediately.



For the first couple of days, increases in UZ storage are keeping up with infiltration, so wb error is fairly low.



As the soil wets up beneath the ponded area, and the moisture  starts to reach the SZ, increases in storage slow down.  What should also be happening here is that the sz recharge should start to make up the difference.  I'm not sure yet why it's not, but this IS what happens when I use the gravity drainage option.



Finally you see and inflection point where uz changes in storage really slow down.  I think this is where the vertical seepage front is nearly saturated and intercepting the SZ.  At this point the imbalance between infiltration and UZ dS is more sever, causing error to rise.  Again, I think that recharge should rise here.

In contrast, the second plot is from the same simulation that uses the gravity drainage option.

Notice that sz recharge keeps up with infiltration, and wb error stays fairly low and constant.

Is the fixed water table position causing a mass balance error when I used the REq based solution??

I would like to simulate a deep water table without explicitly including a deep vadose zone in order to limit computational time.

In other software, I usually do this with a unit gradient lower boundary condition.

Is there any way to do this in MIKE SHE, or any other way to simulate a deep water table without actually including computational nodes between my depth of interest and the deep water table?

Thanks,

Is there any way to set up AUTOCAL such that one does not have to re-run the Setup_Process_n models to diagnose failed simulations?

e.g. write last few lines of a log file to AutoCalSimErr.dat or something like this?

I have gone through the manuals and not found much.

I have been waiting for over 45 minutes for licenses to release so that I can re-start an AUTOCAL simulation.

I have completely closed all MIKE applications and it still shows 6 of my licenses are being used.

Do you have any suggestions for how to expedite the release of licenses?

When I bring in a topographic surface (e.g. as xyz points), what steps, if any, does MIKE SHE do to process the data?

Are the data smoothed in any way, sinks filled, etc.?

Or does the user need to fully condition the data before import?

Thanks,

Is there any way other than using GeoScene 3D to view computational layers in MIKE SHE?  So far all I can do is view by layer as a rectangle grid from the  ...3DUZ.df3 file, but this doens't show any of the bedding topography, which I need to see to really understand that the model is set up correctly.  If not, can students using the labkit obtain a license to use GeoScene3D?

Thanks for any help!