Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Missing zero-order decay for the solid phase in GWE #2142

Closed
cneyens opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 4 comments
Closed

Missing zero-order decay for the solid phase in GWE #2142

cneyens opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@cneyens
Copy link

cneyens commented Jan 16, 2025

Chapter 10 of the Supplemental Technical Information for MODFLOW 6 (v6.6.0) describes the Groundwater Energy Model. Equations 10-1 to 10-3 show that zero-order decay for both the solid and aqueous phase can be simulated. This is also explicitly stated in the accompanying text. In the IO guide however, only aqueous decay is described, which is indeed only used for decay in the aqueous phase and not both the aqueous and solid phase (as can be be verified by comparing to an analytical solution).

Is the solid-phase zero-order decay input missing from the input guide or is this functionality not implemented yet (in contrast to what's described in the Supplemental guide)?

@cneyens cneyens added the bug label Jan 16, 2025
@emorway-usgs
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, @cneyens. We're taking a closer look. When you say, "as can be verified by comparing to an analytical solution," did you set up a test?

@cneyens
Copy link
Author

cneyens commented Jan 16, 2025

I made a single-cell GWE model with only zero-order production as heat source (see attached notebook).

gwe_decay.zip

@emorway-usgs
Copy link
Contributor

Working on fix, @cneyens. Thanks for the example, it'll definitely help ensure the code is working properly.

@emorway-usgs
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks again for pointing out this issue, @cneyens, we appreciate your patience as we worked on the fix in #2155. The next nightly build should be good to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants