| name | course-context |
| description | Course-specific context for ETH Zurich Groundwater course (651-4023-00). Use when creating exercises, assessments, rubrics, lecture materials, or aligning content with learning objectives. Knows the Limmat Valley case study, grading structure, and teaching philosophy. |
Groundwater Course Context (ETH Zurich 651-4023-00)
You are assisting with the development and improvement of the Groundwater course at ETH Zurich. This skill provides the course-specific context needed to create aligned materials.
Course Overview
| Attribute | Value |
|---|
| Course Code | 651-4023-00 |
| Credits | 4 ECTS |
| Level | MSc Earth Sciences / Engineering Geology |
| Department | Geothermal Energy and Geofluids Group (GEG), ETH Zurich |
| Instructors | Dr. Xiangzhao Kong, Dr. Beatrice Marti |
| Teaching Assistant | Louise Noel du Payrat |
Brief Description
The course provides an introduction to quantitative (analytical and numerical) analysis of groundwater flow, solute transport, and unsaturated flow.
Four Fundamental Aspects
Groundwater is treated as:
- Natural System - Part of hydrologic cycle; distribution, movement, interaction with geologic framework
- Resource - Exploration, development, production; mapping and simulation tools
- Environmental System - Aquifers as dispersive propagation systems for chemical/pollution stresses
- Managed System - Integrated approach to use, conservation, remediation, quality control
Special emphasis on cross-over between hydrogeology and rock mechanics / engineering geology.
Learning Objectives (Bloom's Taxonomy Aligned)
LO1: Understanding Flow & Transport Principles
Students will be able to describe and explain (Understand) the basic principles of groundwater flow and solute transport processes, identify (Apply) relevant boundary conditions for various practical scenarios, and evaluate (Evaluate) their significance in groundwater modeling contexts.
LO2: Problem Formulation
Students will be able to construct (Apply) simple, practical groundwater flow and solute transport problems, analyze (Analyze) their underlying assumptions, and adapt (Create) them to address real-world challenges.
LO3: Analytical & Numerical Methods
Students will be able to solve (Apply) fluid flow and solute transport problems using simple analytical and/or numerical methods, compare (Analyze) the results for different scenarios, and justify (Evaluate) their choice of method.
LO4: Critical Evaluation
Students will be able to critically evaluate (Evaluate) a groundwater modeling report by assessing (Analyze) its methodology, assumptions, and conclusions, and recommend (Create) improvements to enhance its scientific rigor.
Mapping Bloom's Levels
| Level | Verb | Where Applied |
|---|
| Remember | Recall, list, define | Prerequisite knowledge |
| Understand | Describe, explain | LO1 |
| Apply | Identify, construct, solve | LO1, LO2, LO3 |
| Analyze | Analyze, compare, assess | LO2, LO3, LO4 |
| Evaluate | Evaluate, justify, critically evaluate | LO1, LO3, LO4 |
| Create | Adapt, recommend | LO2, LO4 |
Course Structure (HS26 Revision)
New Structure: Theory First, Project Second
| Phase | Weeks | Content | Assessment |
|---|
| Theory | 1-8 | Lectures + Exercises | Formative quiz (flow), Comprehensive exam |
| Project | 9-14 | Case Study (numerical modeling) | Report + Presentation |
This addresses student feedback about overlap between exam prep and project work.
Assessment Timeline
Week 1-4: Flow Theory
↓
Week 5: Formative Quiz (Flow) - Low stakes, feedback-focused
↓
Week 5-8: Transport Theory
↓
Week 8: Comprehensive Exam (Flow + Transport) - 50% of grade
↓
Week 9-14: Numerical Project
↓
Week 14: Presentation + Report Submission - 50% of grade
Weekly Topics (Planned)
| Week | Topic | Key Concepts | Assessment |
|---|
| 1 | Introduction | Water cycle, porosity, REV, aquifer types, water budget | |
| 2 | Flow Fundamentals | Hydraulic head, Darcy's law, flow equation, storativity | |
| 3 | Flow Problems | Boundary conditions, problem formulation, flow nets | |
| 4 | Analytical Solutions (Flow) | Well hydraulics, Theis, Cooper-Jacob, superposition | |
| 5 | Numerical Methods (Flow) | Finite differences, MODFLOW basics, grid design | Formative Quiz |
| 6 | Unsaturated Zone | Vadose zone, capillary pressure, Richards equation | |
| 7 | Water Chemistry & Transport | Meteoric water, ADE, advection, dispersion, retardation | |
| 8 | Transport Solutions | Analytical solutions, numerical transport, MT3D/GWT | Comprehensive Exam |
| 9-10 | Project: Flow Model | Case study implementation, calibration concepts | |
| 11-12 | Project: Transport Model | Transport scenarios, sensitivity analysis | |
| 13 | Project: Analysis | Uncertainty, documentation, interpretation | |
| 14 | Presentations | Student presentations, peer feedback | Report + Presentation |
Assessment Structure
Grade Components
| Component | Weight | Timing | Format |
|---|
| Formative Quiz | 0% (feedback only) | Week 5 | Short online quiz, immediate feedback |
| Comprehensive Exam | 50% | Week 8 | Closed-book, 2 hours, covers all theory |
| Project Report | 25% | Week 14 | Group (2-3 students), written documentation |
| Project Presentation | 25% | Week 14 | 15 min per group |
Formative Quiz (Flow) - Week 5
Purpose: Early feedback on flow concepts before moving to transport
| Aspect | Details |
|---|
| Stakes | Ungraded (0%) - purely formative |
| Format | ~10-15 questions, multiple choice + short numeric |
| Duration | 20-30 minutes |
| Topics | Darcy's law, flow equation, boundary conditions, well hydraulics |
| Feedback | Immediate, with explanations for each answer |
| Retakes | Unlimited - students can practice until comfortable |
Sample Question Types:
- "Which boundary condition is appropriate for...?" (conceptual)
- "Calculate the drawdown at distance r using Theis" (calculation)
- "What assumption is violated when...?" (critical thinking)
Comprehensive Exam - Week 8
Purpose: Summative assessment of all theoretical content
| Aspect | Details |
|---|
| Weight | 50% of final grade |
| Format | Closed-book, 2 hours |
| Allowed | One A4 page handwritten notes (both sides), calculator |
| Content | Flow (60%) + Transport (40%) |
| Questions | Short-answer essay + hand calculations |
Exam Structure:
- Part A: Flow (Darcy, flow equation, BCs, well hydraulics, numerical concepts)
- Part B: Transport (ADE, advection/dispersion, analytical solutions, numerical concepts)
- Questions similar to homework exercises
Project Report Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | Excellent (6) | Good (5) | Satisfactory (4) | Needs Work (3-) |
|---|
| Problem Definition | 10% | Clear objectives, well-justified scope | Clear objectives, adequate scope | Objectives stated but vague | Unclear or missing objectives |
| Conceptual Model | 15% | Comprehensive, well-reasoned assumptions explicitly stated | Good conceptual basis, most assumptions stated | Basic conceptual model, some assumptions missing | Inadequate conceptualization |
| Model Implementation | 20% | Correct setup, appropriate discretization, all packages justified | Mostly correct, minor issues | Functional but with notable issues | Major implementation errors |
| Calibration/Validation | 15% | Rigorous process, appropriate metrics, uncertainty discussed | Good calibration, metrics reported | Basic calibration attempted | Poor or missing calibration |
| Results & Interpretation | 20% | Insightful analysis, physical reasoning, limitations acknowledged | Good analysis, reasonable interpretation | Basic interpretation | Superficial or incorrect interpretation |
| Documentation | 10% | Professional quality, reproducible, clear figures | Good documentation, mostly clear | Adequate documentation | Poor or missing documentation |
| Writing Quality | 10% | Clear, concise, well-structured, correct terminology | Good writing, minor issues | Understandable but needs improvement | Difficult to follow |
Project Presentation Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | Excellent (6) | Good (5) | Satisfactory (4) | Needs Work (3-) |
|---|
| Content | 40% | Key points clear, appropriate depth, technically accurate | Good coverage, mostly accurate | Basic content, some gaps | Missing key content or errors |
| Visualization | 20% | Clear, informative figures, appropriate complexity | Good visuals, mostly clear | Adequate visuals | Poor or confusing visuals |
| Delivery | 20% | Confident, clear, good pace, handles questions well | Good delivery, minor issues | Understandable, some awkwardness | Difficult to follow |
| Time Management | 10% | Within time, well-paced | Slightly over/under, adequate pacing | Notable time issues | Significantly over/under |
| Team Coordination | 10% | Seamless transitions, balanced participation | Good coordination | Some coordination issues | Poor coordination |
Case Study: Limmat Valley Aquifer
Overview
The course uses a real-world case study based on the Limmat Valley aquifer in Zurich, Switzerland.
Why Limmat Valley?
- Real-world complexity at manageable scale
- High-quality publicly available data
- Relevant local context for ETH students
- Active groundwater management (drinking water, thermal use)
- River-aquifer interaction
- Urban influences
Model Specifications (MODFLOW 6)
| Aspect | Specification |
|---|
| Software | MODFLOW 6 via FloPy |
| Grid | Flexible (DISV) with local refinement |
| Layers | 1 (simplified) to 3 (detailed) |
| Extent | ~15 km along Limmat valley |
| Resolution | 50-200 m (coarse), 10-25 m (refined areas) |
| Time | Steady-state and transient options |
| Starting Point | Pre-calibrated model provided to students |
Key Features to Model
| Component | Package | Notes |
|---|
| Aquifer properties | NPF | Heterogeneous K field |
| River-aquifer exchange | RIV | Limmat, Sihl rivers |
| Recharge | RCH | Spatially variable |
| Pumping wells | WEL | Major abstractions |
| Lateral boundaries | GHB/CHD | Valley margins |
| Transport | GWT | Conservative tracer scenarios |
Available Data
| Data Type | Source | Coverage |
|---|
| Geology | Cantonal geological maps | Full extent |
| Topography (DEM) | swisstopo | 2m resolution |
| River stages | BAFU gauging stations | Hourly, multi-year |
| Groundwater levels | Cantonal monitoring | ~50 wells, multi-year |
| Pumping rates | Water utilities | Monthly/annual |
| Recharge estimates | Derived from precipitation | Gridded |
Student Tasks (Typical)
- Understand the hydrogeological setting
- Explore the pre-calibrated numerical model
- Run steady-state and transient simulations
- Compare results to observations
- Analyze sensitivity to key parameters
- Interpret flow patterns and water budget
- Apply scenarios (changed pumping, climate)
- Document methodology and findings
Teaching Philosophy
Core Principles
-
Conceptual Understanding First
- Equations follow from physical understanding
- Always ask "why?" before "how?"
- Fewer equations, deeper understanding
-
Learning by Doing
- Numerical project applies lecture concepts
- Exercises mirror exam problems
- Self-assessment with immediate feedback
-
Real-World Relevance
- Case study uses actual Swiss data
- Connect to professional practice
- Discuss model limitations honestly
-
Scaffolded Complexity
- Start simple, add complexity gradually
- Pre-calibrated model as starting point
- Students modify and analyze, not build from scratch
-
Transparent Expectations
- Clear learning objectives per notebook
- Published rubrics before assignments
- Example of "good" work provided
-
Early Feedback
- Formative quiz after flow section
- Students know where they stand before high-stakes exam
- Opportunity to adjust study approach
What Students Should NOT Need to Do
- Write FloPy code from scratch
- Debug complex Python errors
- Understand every line of provided code
- Spend >60 hours on project (target for 4 ECTS)
What Students SHOULD Be Able to Do
- Modify model parameters and understand effects
- Interpret model outputs physically
- Recognize when assumptions are violated
- Write clear technical documentation
- Present findings to non-specialist audience
Key References
Primary Textbook
- Domenico, P.A. & Schwartz, F.W. (1990). Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Wiley.
Supplementary
- Freeze, R.A. & Cherry, J.A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice Hall. (Free via Groundwater Project)
- Anderson, M.P., Woessner, W.W. & Hunt, R.J. (2015). Applied Groundwater Modeling. Academic Press.
- Bear, J. (1979). Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill.
Practical Guides
- Chiang, W.-S. & Kinzelbach, W. (2001). 3-D Groundwater Modeling with PMWIN. Springer.
- Kruseman, G.P. & de Ridder, N.A. (1991). Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data. ILRI.
Exercise Alignment Matrix
When creating exercises, ensure coverage across learning objectives:
| Topic | LO1 (Understand) | LO2 (Apply/Create) | LO3 (Solve/Analyze) | LO4 (Evaluate) |
|---|
| Darcy's law | Explain when valid | Formulate problem | Calculate K, q | Assess assumptions |
| Flow equation | Describe terms | Set up BCs | Solve analytically | Compare methods |
| Well hydraulics | Explain Theis assumptions | Adapt to unconfined | Apply Cooper-Jacob | Evaluate test quality |
| Transport | Describe advection/dispersion | Formulate ADE | Solve 1D problems | Assess Peclet regime |
| Numerical modeling | Explain discretization | Build simple model | Run scenarios | Evaluate model quality |
Content Development Guidelines
For Lecture Slides (PDFs exist)
- Each topic has presentation slides ready
- Exercises should align with slide content
- Self-assessments should test key concepts from slides
For Exercises
- Solvable on paper - No computer required for core calculation
- Exam-aligned - Same format as exam questions
- Progressive difficulty - Basic → Applied → Critical thinking
- Clear solutions - Step-by-step, with physical interpretation
For Formative Quiz
- Immediate feedback - Students see correct answer + explanation right away
- Unlimited retakes - Low pressure, encourages practice
- Coverage - All major flow topics from weeks 1-4
- Diagnostic - Identifies specific misconceptions
For Case Study Notebooks
- Learning objectives at top of each notebook
- Connection to lectures - Reference relevant slide content
- Expected outputs - Students know if results are reasonable
- Completion markers - Track progress through material
Common Student Questions (FAQ)
| Question | Response |
|---|
| "Do I need to know Python?" | Basic familiarity helps, but you won't write code from scratch. Focus on understanding what the code does. |
| "What's on the exam?" | Short-answer questions and hand calculations covering flow and transport. Exercises are representative. One A4 notes page allowed. |
| "Does the quiz count?" | No, the formative quiz is ungraded. It's for your benefit to check understanding before the exam. |
| "How is the project graded?" | Report (25%) + presentation (25%). Rubric published at project start. Focus on understanding over complexity. |
| "Can I use AI tools?" | For learning, yes. For assessed work, you must understand and explain everything you submit. |
| "How much time should the project take?" | Target ~40-50 hours over the project phase. If it's taking much longer, ask for help. |
