Karanka

Hello Blair, thank you for your interest and for your help.

You got that right, to isolate my system I added three no-flow bc on 3/4 of the structure.

The fourth side corresponds to a small river (so it may be a condition of the third kind) of which we have a few annual values; also from the analysis the river is disconnected from the underlying aquifer fed only by precipitation.

For this reason it was decided not to include a condition of the third kind on this side but leave the program to free simulate a water table.

I wanted to ask if this reasoning was totally wrong (considering that the river does not drain the aquifer and is not drained by the same)?

thanks

Karanka

Hello thank you for the suggestions, both in the saturated and unsaturated simulations I have not not acceptable solution, with values of hydraulic head in the unsaturated simultaion considerably high.

I do not think that the recharge is too high: I tried to remove it but the values are still too high or meaningless.

Thanks

Karanka

Hello first of all thank you for your reply.

Yes, I realize that this approach is quite complicated but in my case I have a partially saturated aquifer or otherwise variable.

I tried to run a simulation with the first option (standard groundwater-flow equation) of Feflow considering:

- unconfined aquifer;
- phreatic surface
- constrained for head

In this case, the result shows a complete saturation of the structure that is not the reality.

For this reason I was thinking of switching to a simulation with variable satured media.

Thanks

Karanka

Good evening, I am a new member of the forum.

I'm getting close to little use of FEFLOW software. In particular, I ran a simulation of a [b]unsatured or variably satured media (Richards' equation)[/b] by constructing a mesh composed of two layers.

After entering boundary conditions (no flow limits on three sides of the structure) and recharge (annual applied to the first slice) I tried a simulation.

From the results I get a value of the hydraulic head significantly elevated even higher than the topography of reference!

I wanted to know if anyone had any idea of what could be a possible cause of the problem, in particular, may be linked to a wrong value of the reference system?

thanks

Karanka