MF6 Triangular vs NWT Structured on Demonstrative Forcing

Note

This page and its static assets are auto-generated by python -m tools.doc_gallery. The Sphinx build only reads committed PNG and JSON artifacts.

This case reuses the demonstrative annual forcing chosen to make temporal head changes and drainage signatures easier to read. It compares the committed triangular MODFLOW 6 run against the structured MODFLOW-NWT baseline, again through a shared fine raster, but with a forcing regime designed for stronger visual contrast than the moderate case.

See also

Read the gallery and validation reading guide if you want the parameter mapping, a recommended reading order, and the first modifications to try.

Summary comparison figure for mf6 triangular vs nwt structured on demonstrative forcing.

Case Setup

• Reference simulation: MODFLOW 6 on the committed triangular support.

• Candidate simulation: MODFLOW-NWT on the 60x60 structured support.

• Compared observables mirror the moderate different-support case so the main reading change is the forcing regime, not the observable list.

What It Shows

• How the different-support MF6/NWT comparison behaves when the forcing regime is tuned for stronger visible contrast.

• How the same observable set can be reused across moderate and demonstrative regimes to separate regime effects from support effects.

• How execution-time bars and flux panels behave on a more showcase-oriented scenario.

Key Parameters

• The demonstrative forcing/hydraulic setup is chosen to make temporal and drainage signatures easier to read than in the softened moderate case.

• The fine-raster comparison remains active, so map metrics are still computed after resampling onto a common grid.

• Use this page alongside the moderate different-support case to separate regime sensitivity from mesh-family sensitivity.

How To Read It

• Compare this page to the moderate different-support case before drawing conclusions about the mesh effect alone.

• If a mismatch grows mainly here, the forcing regime is amplifying it; if it stays similar, the support transfer is probably the dominant cause.

• Do not read the demonstrative label as ‘more correct’; it is a more expressive scenario, not a stronger validation claim.

Next Steps

• Use the gallery and validation reading guide to distinguish example pages, comparison pages, and validation pages.

• Go back to the simulation walkthrough when you need to inspect one contributing run in isolation.

Reproduce

Run the underlying example or validation case with:

python -m tools.doc_gallery

Refresh the committed gallery artifacts with:

python -m tools.doc_gallery

Source Pointers

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_comparison_manifest.json

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_comparison_metrics.json

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_observables.csv

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_summary_metrics.csv

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_difference_metrics.csv

Artifacts

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative.png

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/example12_mf6_vs_nwt_different_meshes_demonstrative_summary.json stores the displayed metrics plus source hashes used by python -m tools.doc_gallery --check.