Inverse three-dimensional groundwater modeling using the finite-difference method for recharge estimation in a glacial till aquitard
Date
Authors
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
The Department of Agronomy seeks to teach the study of the farm-field, its crops, and its science and management. It originally consisted of three sub-departments to do this: Soils, Farm-Crops, and Agricultural Engineering (which became its own department in 1907). Today, the department teaches crop sciences and breeding, soil sciences, meteorology, agroecology, and biotechnology.
History
The Department of Agronomy was formed in 1902. From 1917 to 1935 it was known as the Department of Farm Crops and Soils.
Dates of Existence
1902–present
Historical Names
- Department of Farm Crops and Soils (1917–1935)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
Knowledge of groundwater recharge rates is essential for developing sustainable groundwater resources management schemes and for assessing the susceptibility of the groundwater system to contamination by leachable nutrients and toxic compounds such as nitrates and pesticides. This study was carried out to develop a method for estimating groundwater recharge in a glacial till aquitard using inverse groundwater modeling based on the USGS modular finite–difference groundwater model. The three–dimensional model incorporated the effects of the various hydrogeologic properties, such as hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, storage coefficient, and porosity, and hydrologic processes influencing recharge such as evapotranspiration and subsurface drainage. The model also accounted for the spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity in the oxidized and unoxidized layers based on geostatistical analysis. The groundwater model was calibrated and validated using years with adequate groundwater data. Inverse modeling was consequently performed using the calibrated model and simulation results yielded generally fair agreement between observed and calculated head distribution. Simulation results indicated that the annual net groundwater recharge for the five–year simulation period considered ranged from 18.7 mm/yr to 33.2 mm/yr, constituting approximately 2.3% to 4.3% of the annual precipitation in the area. The recharge estimates are within the typical range of recharge for the humid Midwest. The finite–difference model could serve as an alternative method for estimating groundwater recharge in a glacial till aquitard.
Comments
This article is published as Ella, V. B., S. W. Melvin, R. S. Kanwar, L. C. Jones, R. Horton. 2002. Inverse three-dimensional groundwater modeling using the finite-difference method for recharge estimation in a glacial till aquitard. Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 45(3): 703–715. doi: 10.13031/2013.8829. Posted with permission.