Denim Umeshkumar Anajwala

The command line option (only available for FEFLOW command line mode) is indeed a hard limit on ALL parallelizations.

Yes, there is: As this setting is typically model-independent, it is found in the Tools menu rather than the Problem Settings. Go to Tools - Global Settings - Parallel Computing for setting the number of CPUs used.

We're currently working on a new and much better solution for the changelog (bug list) of FEFLOW. I have to ask for a little bit of patience, though...

The derefinement only works on parts of the mesh that have been refined before. If the mesh has been created in a fine way originally, there's currently no way to coarsen it in a certain area.

You can start the streamlines from a stored selection rather than the current selection. In this case, no selection markers will be shown.

Hi.

FEFLOW 64 bit install stopped working. I tried to repair the install but still not working. A screen capture at crash time is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2yIyA7qMw-cUGh0Yzh1TmhVNFE/view?usp=sharing

And the crash dump file is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2yIyA7qMw-ceFI1LUNCUXhCTnc/view?usp=sharing

FEFLOW 32bit works perfectly. Also for creating IFM plug-ins with VS 2013. The crash problem occurs in the 64bit version.

Any suggestion? Thanks in advance

Unless you look at very local effects, it is sufficient to consider the screened interval of the well. As the conductivity in the open pipe is very high compared to the aquifer, the head difference within the well pipe will be very small. thus the vertical location of the pump (FEFLOW assumes the lowest node) is typically not crucial. If for some reasons you think it might be, you can do a comparison by using a Well BC plus discrete features for the well instead of a multilayer well. Technically this is identical, but you can place the Well BC in any node you want.

Blair,

I don't think that there are general issues with imbalance, but the solution of course gets more difficult in the phreatic case due to potentially large parameter contrasts. I'd recommend to turn on the error norm visualization (in the context menu of the User Data section in the Data panel) to see whether there are regions in the model with a large remaining error. Having idenified those, you might have a better insight into potential solutions.

Good luck!
Peter

There's no general answer to this question, and maybe we should also add the fully unsaturated solution as the third option. You may refer to the corresponding chapters in the FEFLOW User Manual to get information on the advantages and disadvantages of the three options for specific application cases.

Michael,
the most crucial condition for mesh generation for unstructured geometries is that there are no overlaps or intersections of any elements in the DXF or 3DS file. We don't have much exerperience with Surpac yet, but such overlaps or intersections are very common in output of other geological modelling software (as for visualization clean geometry is not a condition). This, however, should not be the case for the 3D Studio Max output of a simple sphere. Could you send me the 3ds file of the sphere  (psc@dhigroup.com)? I'ld like to check it myself. I've run a large number of tests with simple geometries created in SketchUp and Blender (to test their intersection capabilities), and simple geometry 3ds output worked fine for meshing in FEFLOW.

Best regards,
Peter