Denim Umeshkumar Anajwala

I fully agree with Pete: If you only need to select nodes, you can create a User Data distribution with specific values for the selected nodes. With a loop over all nodes you can then easily identify the nodes you need.

If it is not a huge rise, I'd ignore it as an artifact. Reducing the element size vertically would most probably work, but at a relatively large expense in the sense of additional nodes - so if you can get away without it, you should try.

Actually the ideal element size is the element size that gives you the 'correct' drawdown - with smaller elements you over-estimate, with larger ones you under-estimate. With this element size, the virtual radius is equal to the real well radius. Please note that the calculation of the ideal element size and virtual radius is based on a 2D analytical solution (no 3D effects of the well, no regional gradient). For most cases, this assumption is no problem at all.
You can find some information in chapter 13.5.3 (page 690) of the FEFLOW book. It refers to borehole heat exchangers and heat transport, but the concept is exactly the same for a well.

You can alter the grid in the sense of refining, moving nodes and switching edges. You can coarsen the mesh if you have refined it previously. You cannot, however, get coarser than the initial status.

Yes, this will work fine.

BEst regards,
Peter

As FEFLOW uses a porous-media approach (aside from the possibility of inputting discrete fractures as conduits). It does, however, not calculate the EPM properties for you. You'll have to do this outside FEFLOW.

Deactivated elements do not exist in the model. Thus FEFLOW will simply NOT consider the deactivated part at all. It is treated as if it weren't part of the model. So you might have to put boundary conditions on the interface of the active and deactivated parts.

Here's the old video. The swf file in the zip archive can be opened by any web browser.

The zero isoline can be understood as the groundwater table. It should actually fit to the current hydraulic heads.

Thanks Soren. I guess that you're using the semi-analytic Eskilsson/Claesson method. With this, it should work perfectly fine through IFM. Applying the fully transient Al-Khoury approach, however, strictly speaking, the temperature values of the inflow / outflow pipes in the BHE would have to be switched when changing flow direction (which is not possible via IFM). Just changing the connection, the inflow pipe will stay the inflow pipe, rather than (as in reality) making the former outflow pipe the new inflow pipe. This will only affect the results during a very short period, though. So if you only switch seasonally, it should not pose a problem.