Carlos Andres Rivera Villarreyes Global Product Specialist - FEFLOW

Hi Jimmy,

The FEFLOW IFM package (both C++ and Python) comes together with the FEFLOW installation. Also FEFLOW should create environmental variables, which makes easy to load the IFM module in your Python script.
You should simply need to write "import ifm" in your script to load the FEFLOW Python package.

Regards
Carlos

Hi Christian,

Unfortunately, the workflow is unsupported. The workaround is to copy the X,Y,Z information (typically starting after the second row from the file) to a *.dat file.

Cheers
Carlos

The latest FEFLOW 7.4 includes a nodal parameter (Auxiliary data) named "Nodal depth". Such as parameter uses as reference the elevation of Slice 1 to compute the depth. You can easily use the information in any expression as commented above.

Hi,

IfmLake plug-in uses a nodal distribution named "IfmTransfer" with units [1e-4 1/d] to define the transfer coefficients for the lakes. If you can read more details about this implementation in the user manual (page 2).

Regards,
Carlos Rivera

Thanks for reporting!
Regarding to Bug #1, this somehow happens in the following situation: 1) a new param. definition is created as "one layer adjustable and other tied" and 2) a second param. def. is created and tied to the first group. PEST tool complains that you cannot tied parameter to another existing tied param, which is correct! FePEST manages to create the parameters and groups properly at the beginning. But if you edit any parameter, the groups are somehow recreated not fully correct.
Solution: You correct manually the tied parameter(s) (from group 2) by tidying up to another parameter, which is not being "adjustable" / "calibrable" (from group 1).

If you need more details, support team (mike.de@dhigroup.com) is aware of the problematic and has some workarounds.

Apologizes for the inconvenience. We are planning a correction in the next update.

Happy new year!
Carlos Rivera

Hi Samia,

Allowing the creation of the material time-stages through the IFM interface is one of the prioritizes for the future release. There are some workaround, but they require few more extra code lines.

Cheers
Carlos

Maybe it is worthy for other users: you can work with value = float("nan") and pass this to the API function in order to create the power value. I think a numpy NAN definition should also work.

Cheers
Carlos

Hi,

did you figure out a solution to the mentioned problem? Otherwise let us talk in detail through the official support channel (mike@dhigroup.com).

Cheers, Carlos

Hi Stephen,

Actually FePEST does not use obs2obs.exe, since we have our own implementation. The easiest workflow is to connect the time series of head measurements to an existing observation point in the FEM file. Later in FePEST, you can create an Observation Definition, which depends on head differences (TIME1 - TIME2). By default the head differences are defined based on consecutive temporal records. HOWEVER, you can manipulate later the table, e.g. in Excel, and edit the time column (e.g. TIME - TIME INITIALS or anything else).

Cheers
Carlos

Hi Paul,

The situation explained is a typical case. FEFLOW uses a backward calculation for the budgets. This means that you impose certain Fluid-Flux value and not necesarily you get the same in the budget panels. The budget calculation is based on the primary solution (heads). As you described, the case is very well observable in unsaturated models. From my experience this happens often when you add water into a very unsaturated profile. You can correct this mistmatch by improving the mesh discretization at the location of the boundary and/or using an analytical formulation for the capacity (Unsaturated Settings in the Problem Settings dialog).

Regards
Carlos