Denim Umeshkumar Anajwala

Yes, this would work, of course. You can also put the MMLIST data into a separate file, this would save you the (OK - minor) effort to browse the fem file for this section.

At the moment there is no way to access MLIST data via IFM, also not in version 6.1. We are thinking about changing the way time-varying material data is stored in the near future, and this will influence the access via IFM. For this, at this time no interface functionality was added.

From what I think to remember, the difference between the two functions is the following:
- IfmGetMatFlowSinkSource: Gives you the value of the sink/source parameter
- IfmGetMatFlowRechargeValue: Gives you the value of the sink/source parameter in a 2D model and the value of the in/outflow on top/bottom parameter in 3D.

Please let me know if this doesn't fit to your observations as I might be wrong here.

There are no differences between the directions in the calculation. So stability differences - if they occur - are probably due to a different discretization level in horizontal and vertical direction.

Hi Ashley,

Please switch to the classic interface, choose Edit > Edit Problem Attributes > Mesh geometry > Check Properties > Indicate triangles violating Delauney criterion.
For 6.1 this feature is available as auxiliary data in the data panel; information about the mesh quality can be found in the problem summary within the problem settings' dialog.

The transfer boundary needs to include an area, e.g., to be set at entire element faces. These faces can be faces on a slice (from version 6.1 on called Slice Faces) or between the slices (from version 6.1 on called Join Faces). So a transfer boundary set to at least two nodes on one slice and the same nodes on the next slice indeed works well. This option is used very commonly for relatively narrow streams (as alpine creeks). I have attached an image depicting the different ways.

Best regards,
Peter

I'd typically do it as a horizontal model as with vertical layers you might indeed not be able to represent the relatively complex geometry. If the elevation gradient is not too steep on the surface, you might use the top slice as the sea bottom beyong the shoreline, having the underlying layers with a minimum thickness before. Material properties would have to be adapted regionally to avoid that aquitards existing only on land inhibit a connection of the sea boundary (on slice 1 in this case) and the confined aquifers below.

The cross-section view at the moment allows any shape of the cross-section. A projection of wells or pathlines thus would not be unique. That's the main reason why at the moment these options are not available. For the future, we will have to decide on either a geometrical restriction of the underlying lines, or an additional 'snap width' for features projected on the cross section.

Tim,
for some - so far unexplained - reason the Map Properties panel sometimes comes up outside the screen coordinates. Please pick your entire FEFLOW window and move it around - typically by doing this the missing panel will be moved into the screen and you can move it manually to a location within the main FEFLOW window.

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Blair,
we're a bit behind with the documentation (as this needs to be done after finishing the functionality), but one of the next beta versions will have an updated help file. I hope this will help.

BR
Peter

Hi Faby,

I try to extend my explanation. First, let's clarify those equations:

Eq. 3-15 is the horizontal formulation for the unconfined aquifer. It is depth-integrated and yields the (depth-integrated) Darcy velocity, thus it has the unit [m²/s].
The more general formulation is (3-2), however it also contains a buoyancy term. The unit is [m/s], and yields the Darcy velocity.

Eq. 3-16 yields the depth-integrated mass-source term, thus its unit is [kg/m²*s].

The Dupuit approximation is a simplification of 3D settings, practically reducing your first equation to two dimensions, assuming the vertical flow is negligible. The same is valid for any density effects, that's why you don't have any buoyancy term in the 2D formulations (3-10 and 3-15).
Using 3D models in FEFLOW, the Dupuit approximation is not valid. But in 2D horizontal models, these so-called aquifer-averaged-, or horizontal equations are used. The formulations in chapter 3.2 are part of them, so you often find depth-integrated formulas.
Please read chapter 1.5 in the RF for more details.


Bastian