8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

1/86

A Comparative Analysis of

Groundwater Model

Formulation

The San Andres-Glorieta Case Study

June 1984

Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited. RD-22

US Army Corps

of EngineersHydrologic Engineering Center

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

2/86

Standard Form 298(Rev. 8/98)Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searchingexisting data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding thisburden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Defense, ExecutiveServices and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall besubject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE(DD-MM-YYYY)June 1984

2. REPORT TYPEResearch Document

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLEA Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Model Formulation

The San Andres-Glorieta Case Study

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)Dennis B. McLaughlin

5F. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)US Army Corps of Engineers

Institute for Water Resources

Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)609 Second Street

Davis, CA 95616-4687

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

RD-22

10. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

.

14. ABSTRACTThis report is concerned primarily with the technical choices which influence the predictions made by groundwater models.In order to keep the discussion specific, attention is focused on a typical modeling case study. This case study involves a

public utility wanting permission to pump groundwater from an aquifer, and provided model results that suggested the

impacts of its proposed pumpage plan would be acceptable. Local water users responded by sponsoring severalindependent modeling studies using the same ground water model, with varying results. Overall, the introduction of

computer modeling seemed to create more confusion that it dispelled. The case study analysis in this report was undertaken

with the belief that the case study might reveal some important insights about the basic strengths and weaknesses of

modeling technology.

15. SUBJECT TERMSgroundwater, San Andres-Glorieta aquifer, New Mexico; comparative analysis; water supply; impacts, drawdowns, casestudy, groundwater models, modeling16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATIONOF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Ub. ABSTRACT

Uc. THIS PAGE

U

17. LIMITATIONOFABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBEROFPAGES

86 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

3/86

A Comparative Analysis ofGroundwater Model Formulation

The San Andres-Glorieta Case Study

June 1984

US Army Corps of EngineersInstitute for Water ResourcesHydrologic Engineering Center609 Second StreetDavis, CA 95616

(530) 756-1104(530) 756-8250 FAXwww.hec.usace.army.mil RD-22

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

4/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

5/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

6/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

7/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

8/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

9/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

10/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

11/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

12/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

13/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

14/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

15/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

16/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

17/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

18/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

19/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

20/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

21/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

22/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

23/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

24/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

25/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

26/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

27/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

28/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

29/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

30/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

31/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

32/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

33/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

34/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

35/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

36/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

37/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

38/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

39/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

40/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

41/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

42/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

43/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

44/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

45/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

46/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

47/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

48/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

49/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

50/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

51/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

52/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

53/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

54/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

55/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

56/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

57/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

58/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

59/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

60/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

61/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

62/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

63/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

64/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

65/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

66/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

67/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

68/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

69/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

70/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

71/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

72/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

73/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

74/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

75/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

76/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

77/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

78/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

79/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

80/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

81/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

82/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

83/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

84/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

85/86

8/12/2019 Comparative GW Models Formulation

86/86