Most ground water modeling courses focus on the use of computer models and pay little or no attention to traditional analytic solutions to ground water flow problems. This shift in education seems logical. Why waste time to learn about the method of images, or why study analytic solutions to one-dimensional or radial flow problems? Computer models solve much more realistic problems and offer sophisticated graphical output, such as contour plots of potentiometric levels and ground water path lines. However, analytic solutions to elementary ground water flow problems do have something to offer over computer models: insight. For instance, an analytic one-dimensional or radial flow solution, in terms of a mathematical expression, may reveal which parameters affect the success of calibrating a computer model and what to expect when changing parameter values. Similarly, solutions for periodic forcing of one-dimensional or radial flow systems have resulted in a simple decision criterion to assess whether or not transient flow modeling is needed. Basic water balance calculations may offer a useful check on computer-generated capture zones for wellhead protection or aquifer remediation. An easily calculated "characteristic leakage length" provides critical insight into surface water and ground water interactions and flow in multi-aquifer systems. The list goes on. Familiarity with elementary analytic solutions and the capability of performing some simple hand calculations can promote appropriate (computer) modeling techniques, avoids unnecessary complexity, improves reliability, and is likely to save time and money. Training in basic hand calculations should be an important part of the curriculum of ground water modeling courses.
[1]
Otto D Strack,et al.
Three‐Dimensional Streamlines in Dupuit‐Forchheimer Models
,
1984
.
[2]
Otto D Strack,et al.
Groundwater mechanics
,
1989
.
[3]
Admir Ceric,et al.
On using simple time‐of‐travel capture zone delineation methods
,
2005,
Ground water.
[4]
J. Bear.
Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media
,
1975
.
[5]
Henk M. Haitjema,et al.
Comparing a three-dimensional and a Dupuit-Forchheimer solution for a circular recharge area in a confined aquifer
,
1987
.
[6]
C. E. Jacob,et al.
Plane potential flow of ground water with linear leakage
,
1954
.
[7]
M Muskat,et al.
THE FLOW OF HOMOGENEOUS FLUIDS THROUGH POROUS MEDIA: ANALOGIES WITH OTHER PHYSICAL PROBLEMS
,
1937
.
[8]
J. Bear,et al.
On the movement of water bodies injected into aquifers
,
1965
.
[9]
F. W. Schwartz,et al.
Fundamentals of Ground Water
,
2002
.
[10]
H. Haitjema,et al.
Selecting MODFLOW Cell Sizes for Accurate Flow Fields
,
2001,
Ground water.
[11]
D. Kirkham.
Explanation of paradoxes in Dupuit‐Forchheimer Seepage Theory
,
1967
.
[12]
G. Bruggeman.
Analytical solutions of geohydrological problems
,
1999
.
[13]
J. Skopp,et al.
Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, 2nd edition
,
1999
.
[14]
L. Townley.
The response of aquifers to periodic forcing
,
1995
.
[15]
R. Hunt,et al.
Simulating Ground Water‐Lake Interactions: Approaches and Insights
,
2003,
Ground water.
[16]
C. J. Hemker,et al.
Steady groundwater flow in leaky multiple-aquifer systems
,
1984
.