feat(GWE): Introduce Groundwater Energy Transport #1493
Conversation
christianlangevin
left a comment
christianlangevin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great, @emorway-usgs. I had a bunch of really minor comments in here that could all be addressed after a merge. Have a quick look and let me know if we should merge this morning.
On a more consequential note, we should probably discuss a bit more the package naming conventions for GWE. We can do this after the merge. For example, GWE has an MST Package, but the input for the MST Package is different from the input for the GWT MST Package. I wonder if this will ultimately cause confusion. Not sure there is a right or wrong answer, but we might think about whether the FYTPE uniquely describes a package or whether package format is now uniquely defined by MODELTYPE and FTYPE.
emorway-usgs
added
onhold
|
This PR will need changes analogous to what's been done in #1597 |
MODFLOW-ORG#1493 (comment) and reran mf6ivar.py, which updated the tex files in this commit
|
This PR should also consider implementation of the changes in #1603 before being brought in. |
…t in fmi_fc(). Removing.
… is the dominant process in heat transport
…al solutions from Carslaw & Jaeger (1947)
… failing as downloaded contents from its failure are working locally.
… Actions doesn't yield the same output that the logs are reporting. This particular autotest has an analytical solution (and a plot) that might be better shown on the modflow6-examples repo anyway
3 participants
Perhaps there would be a way to generalize what's going on here and reduce duplication?
Let the PR fun begin...