-
We had completely revised our websites. Therefore the download pages were down for a while. You find the manuals on http://www.feflow.info/index.php?id=28 now.
Cheers,
Peter
-
I am having the same issue as above.
Cauchy boundary inflow rates are large and do not change with in-transfer rate. Even when it is set to zero. How do I scale the stream conductivity (in this direction)?? I used the constraint method.. but this is undesirable. I still want to have inflow from streams, but just need to scale the magnitude somehow.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Blair.
-
Thank you Gianmarco for your useful tip. It worked very well and I could finish my work yesterday.
Best regards,
Vlad
-
Could please anyone help me with the transformation of SHP-point-files into trp-files for PEST-observations? I managed to import SHP-points as normal observation points into Feflow an than export them as trp-files, but the third column remains 0.00000. Thanks in advance, Vlad
-
After discussing this matter at FEFLOW Services we have found the reason of the problem:
Additional to the [i]Power Function ID's [/i]the user has had defined [i]Time Constant Data[/i] too (in the <Assign> Database > Data regionalization dialog).
Therefore, as Time Constant Data were defined, FEFLOW uses these values for the regionalization, not as expected the Power Funtion ID's.
-
In a transient model, it should be possible to assign power fxns as BCs the same way as with const. values in a steady state model. The field you link would be the power fxn ID. You pbly have to make sure the power fxns get defined in FeFlow first, otherwise it might default to a const. value. I'm pretty sure my colleague did that recently .... Chris
-
Hey Zebra,
I use C++ myself. Isn't that "state of the art" as well? ;-)
Chris
-
Hey Zebra,
I didn't know that was possible yet. I thought, that was part of the new FeFlow 6 which won't be available for another little while from what I have been told.
What interface are you using to write IFMs in Python right now?
Chris
-
Hey Steve,
I just finished a great mesh building exercise myself, and here is an idea that I used to get refinements into my model without having to do it manually in FeFlow/GridBuilder.
Define the refinement in your GIS and import the already refined super-elements into FeFlow.
I know, that sounds easy in theory, and is a little tricky in practice. But it works.
Here is roughly how I did it.
1) Defined my model domain
2) Defined "cut-lines" which were later used to cut the domain into super-elements
3) Refined the cut-lines where necessary
4) Cut the model domain into super-elements (which preserved the refinement)
5) Imported those super-elements to FeFlow via the super-mesh import filter
In step 3) I used a script that iterates through selected lines and adds extra vertices along the lines to define the refinement. That's probably the trickiest part. I can provide the script for the GIS Manifold.
How does that sound?
Chris
PS: The screenshot shows part of the mesh. You can see how there are different refinements defined along the model border and the red vs. the blue lines.
-
I don't have any experience with TMesh, but could you add line add-ins to define those wells? Would that force TMesh to generate nodes and elements with the desired discretization? This is just as guess and might work, or totally blow up the mesh generation process.
Good luck, Chris