Four-Simulation Moderate Suite on Example12

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 expands the comparison from two simulations to four. It combines one same-grid solver comparison (MF6 vs NWT on 60x60) with one same-solver support comparison (MF6 structured vs MF6 triangular), then adds Boussinesq on the committed triangular mesh to expose a broader simulation spread under the same moderate forcing.

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 four-simulation moderate suite on example12.

Case Setup

• Reference simulation: MODFLOW 6 on the 60x60 structured grid.

• Additional simulations: MODFLOW-NWT on the same grid, MODFLOW 6 on committed triangles, and Boussinesq on the same committed triangles.

• The case keeps one observable family across all simulations so the page can separate solver and support effects without changing the reading frame.

What It Shows

• How one page can separate solver-family effects, support-family effects, and a broader simulation spread.

• How multi-simulation map comparisons and point chronicles stay interpretable when one reference simulation is kept explicit.

• How outlet flux, native flux panels, and execution times complement the map-based metrics in a four-simulation suite.

Key Parameters

• The chosen reference simulation matters more here than in the two-simulation pages because every metric is read relative to mf6_mod_s60.

• The two triangular simulations share the same committed support, which helps isolate the solver-family jump from MF6 to Boussinesq once you are already off the structured grid.

• Use the execution-time bars as a complement, not a ranking by itself: the suite mixes different support families and solver implementations on purpose.

How To Read It

• Start with the same-grid MF6/NWT interpretation, then move to the same-solver MF6 structured-vs-triangular shift, then read the Boussinesq triangular simulation last.

• This page is not meant to collapse everything into one scalar ranking; it is meant to show which comparison axis explains each mismatch.

• If the suite feels dense, use the dedicated two-simulation cases first and come back here for synthesis.

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/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_comparison_manifest.json

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_comparison_metrics.json

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_observables.csv

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_summary_metrics.csv

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_difference_metrics.csv

Artifacts

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate.png

• docs/source/_static/capability_gallery/simulation_comparison/ex12_multi_simulation_moderate_summary.json stores the displayed metrics plus source hashes used by python -m tools.doc_gallery --check.