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.
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.
| 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 |
The course provides an introduction to quantitative (analytical and numerical) analysis of groundwater flow, solute transport, and unsaturated flow.
Groundwater is treated as:
Special emphasis on cross-over between hydrogeology and rock mechanics / engineering geology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| 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 |
| 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.
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
| 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 |
| 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 |
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:
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:
| 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 |
| 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 |
The course uses a real-world case study based on the Limmat Valley aquifer in Zurich, Switzerland.
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Conceptual Understanding First
Learning by Doing
Real-World Relevance
Scaffolded Complexity
Transparent Expectations
Early Feedback
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 |
| 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. |