Carlos Andres Rivera Villarreyes Global Product Specialist - FEFLOW

Hi Jimmy,

You have several options depending on the type of domain (2D / 3D) and mesh (quad, triangular, prism, tetrahedra, etc.). All these are available through the Data panel under the section "Auxiliary parameters".

Cheers
Carlos

Hi swhit

The answer really depends on the application case. In the case of M21 - FEFLOW coupling, you provide a framework for fully-hydrodynamical coupling. MIKE 21 FM is responsible to solve the 2D hydraulic and send this feedback to FEFLOW. A typical application would be the assessment of flooding events and their interaction with groundwater. Coupling supports mass and heat transport also.
In the case of MSHE - FEFLOW, MSHE looks the problem at the catchment hydrology and supports information not available in FEFLOW, e.g. role of land-use and vegetation in the net recharge estimation, etc. A common application is to estimate groundwater recharge through MSHE and this includes all hydrological cycle. Subsequently such information can be used in a detailed groundwater model in FEFLOW.
We have applied several coupling mechanisms in multiple projects. Let me know if you need more details.

Regards
Carlos Rivera

Hi Jimmy,
Unfortunately, the error message is not very clear. Maybe you are trying to assign a parameter type unsupported by PEST. I would recommend you to get in touch with the technical support (mike.de@dhigroup.com). They can investigate the problem deeply and give you a solution.

Best regards
Carlos Rivera

Hi,

You can use the following script to understand the syntaxis with MLW.

    ## Define Boundary Conditions for Flow
    # NoBC = 0
    # Dirichlet (1st kind) =1
    # Neumann (2nd kind) = 2
    # Cauchy (3rd kind) = 3
    # Single well (4th kind) = 4
    # Gradient-type (only for unsaturated problems) = 5
    BcFlowType = 4

    #Load documents
    doc=ifm.loadDocument(FEM_FILE)

    #Print all Multilayer Well attributes
    for nNode in range(0,doc.getNumberOfNodes()):

        if doc.getBcFlowType(nNode) == BcFlowType:
            if doc.queryMultiLayerWellInfo(nNode) == None:
                print(Normal Well BC found")
            else:
                MLWInfo=doc.queryMultiLayerWellInfo(nNode)
                # Print MLW ID, Name, Top Elevation, Bottom Elevation, Top Node, Bottom Node
                print(MLWInfo.getId(), MLWInfo.getName(), MLWInfo.getTopElevation(),
                    MLWInfo.getBottomElevation(), MLWInfo.getTopNode(), MLWInfo.getBottomNode())

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