-
Indeed strange. If p >= 0, then S should be 1. Moisture content cannot be 1, since it is relative to the total porosity.<br>
Also if I were you, I would verify whether this is not an effect on any of your visualization settings. Technical support can give you some hints about this.<br>
Cheers<br>
Carlos
-
Yes, of course. You would need to place observation points. You can take a lot of the steps in the Introductory Tutorial below:
https://www.mikepoweredbydhi.com/-/media/shared%20content/mike%20by%20dhi/flyers%20and%20pdf/product-documentation/feflow-introductory-tutorial.pdf
-
Hi Ander,<br>
You are not forced to work with only excel files. FEFLOW has a variety of file formats in 2D/3D and support several industry file formats. The most popular formats within the users are Shapefiles and text files (*.dat). The data is interpolated at each of the FEFLOW nodes, for this operation the user requires a vector file rather than a raster.<br>
<br>
Our technical support can give you some hints about this. You can reach them at mike@dhigroup.com.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Carlos<br>
<br>
-
There are several reasons of your observation, being the most simple one the discretization. If you would like to improve the vertical moisture profile in the unsaturated zone, you basically need to work with more slices.
Also, FEFLOW does not apply directly the recharge to the water table. The fact that you are solving the Richards eq., FEFLOW is capable to simulate the propagation of the wetting front (let's say from top surface) down to the water table. If you are getting less recharge, then it may be you need to improve parameter settings (conductivity, unsaturated param. etc).
Cheers
Carlos
-
Hi Agustín,
You would need first to create a 2D polyline and then simply right-click on the line name to open the Cross-Section view. In the case of 3D Unstructured meshes, I would recommend you to import a 2D shapefile (or similar), since you can automatically create a 2D Polyline for cross-section using the external map file.
Cheers
Carlos
-
Hi Joshua,
I have just checked with the latest FEFLOW release (FEFLOW 7.5 - Update 1). It seems this was an old bug, which has been fixed already.
In case you have any question, I encourage you to get in touch with the official technical support mike.de@dhigroup.com
Cheers
Carlos
-
Hi Bradley,<br>
You can track the rate (m3/d) / period (m3) budgets through a set of charts based on nodal selections only. However, the functionality is not intended for a massive monitoring of selections. If you are really interested to work with budget calculations at the elemental scale, then I would recommend you to take a look on the different API functions available. For example you can prepare a Python script having the functionality expected. Below, you have the link to the entire list of functions:<br>
<br>
http://www.feflow.info/html/help75/feflow/13_Programming/IFM/API/appendix_b_index.html<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Carlos<br>
-
Yes, we have recently finished an extension to support Python 3.10 in FEFLOW. However, this will be available only in the next release (Nov. 2022).
Cheers
Carlos
-
Hi Maria,
The problem you are describing may be related to the combination of flow and heat transport boundary conditions. Can you check whether the rate budget means sense (or fulfill your expectations) in terms of the Fluid-Flux boundary? FEFLOW uses a backward approach for the budget calculation, i.e. it uses the resulting primary solution (head, concentration and temperature) to compute the fluid, mass and heat rate budgets. That means that sometimes what you set (e.g. Fluid-Flux BC) is not always what you get. Finer the mesh discretization is, better these two numbers are approaching to each other.
Cheers
Carlos
-
Hi Davide,
You do not need to wait until the end of the optimisation to see the results. Even before you start the run, you can go to Edit -> Save Parameters in FEM. This will trigger the interpolation using the settings behind the Parameter Definitions, so you can check whether the resulting interpolation fulfil your expectations.
The "patchy" distribution is either attributed to the given range in the variogram, the number of pilot points and/or a combination of these two. If I were you, I would simply increase the number of pilot points (as a test by a factor of 2) and check the results. As a way to debug, FePEST writes in the GUI the average pilot point separation, which should go in accordance with the variogram range.
Cheers
Carlos