FINITE DIFFERENCES

Finite differences is a numerical technique that reduces the solution of ordinary and partial
differential equations to the solution of a system of simultaneous linear equations. The approach
employs the Taylor expansion which, for a one-dimensional function of x is:

 df ( x)  ∆x  d f ( x)  ∆x  d f ( x)  ∆x n  d n f ( x) 
2 2 3 3
f ( x + ∆x ) = f ( x ) + ∆x   +   +   + L +   (1)
 dx  2!  dx 2  3!  dx 3  n!  dx n 

Finite differences implements the Taylor expansion on an equally spaced grid system of nodes
that cover the domain in which the problem is set. For simplicity, we will consider a spatial
domain with nodes separated by a distance, ∆x, as shown below:

• • • •
x x + ∆x

Because finite difference solutions involve a mesh composed of many nodes, it is convenient to
introduce index notation allowing us to develop solution techniques that step through all nodes in
the domain using a “For” loops having i as its index.

i i+1
• • • •
x x + ∆x

We can further simplify the notation by denoting f(x) simply by f so that f(x) evaluated at, say,
node i + 1 would be fi+1.

DEVELOPING A FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM FOR THE FIRST DERIVATIVE

If one wished to represent the first derivative of the function, f(x), the first two terms of the Taylor
expansion given in eq. (1) could be used:

 df ( x) 
f ( x + ∆x ) = f ( x ) + ∆x   (2)
 dx 

Rearranging eq. (2) gives:

df ( x) f ( x + ∆x) − f ( x)
= (3)
dx ∆x

Converting to index notation gives:

df ( x) f i +1 − f i
= (4)
dx ∆x

which is an equation whose algebraic right hand side expresses the value of the derivative on the
left hand side. Equation (4) is an example of a finite difference algorithm in that it provides an
algebraic expression to represent a derivative.

1
THE SECOND DERIVATIVE

Many engineering problems involve derivatives of higher order. It is possible to develop finite
difference algorithms for higher order derivatives by using Taylor expansions creatively.
Consider the spatial mesh shown below:

i-1 i i+1
• • • • •
x - ∆x x x + ∆x

Expressing the finite difference algorithm of eq. (1) to four terms and applying it to an expansion
from x forward to x + ∆x gives:

df ( x) ∆x 2 d 2 f ( x) ∆x 3 d 3 f ( x )
f ( x + ∆x) = f ( x) + ∆x + + (5)
dx 2! dx 2 3! dx 3

Performing a similar expansion backward from x to x - ∆x gives:

df ( x) ∆x 2 d 2 f ( x) ∆x 3 d 3 f ( x)
f ( x − ∆x) = f ( x) − ∆x + − (6)
dx 2! dx 2 3! dx 3

Adding eqs. (5) and (6) and converting to index notation gives:

d2 f
f i −1 − 2 f i + f i +1 = ∆x 2 (7)
dx 2

Equation (7) can be rearranged to give:

d 2 f ( x) f i −1 − 2 f i + f i +1
= (8)
dx 2
∆x 2

The right hand side of eq. (8) provides an algebraic expression for the second derivative.

THE LAPLACE EQUATION

The LaPlace equation is applied to many transport processes -- situations where matter or energy
moves through materials. Specific examples include heat transfer, pollution transport, and flow of
water in soils. The one-dimensional form of the equation is:

d 2 f ( x)
=0 (9)
dx 2

Introducing the algorithm of eq. (8) into eq. (9) gives:

f i −1 − 2 f i + f i +1
=0 (10)
∆x 2

Because it is impractical for ∆x equal to infinity, eq. (10) becomes:

2
 f i −1 − 2 f i + f i +1 = 0 (11)

Eq. (11) could constitute one equation of a system of simultaneous equations written at each and
every node in the spatial domain in which the problem is set.

Alternatively, for an x = g(x) iterative approach, eq. (11) can be rearranged to give

f i +1 + f i −1
fi = (12)
2

Before we can proceed further with these two approaches, we need to know how to handle
boundary conditions.

SIMPLE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

If one were to write an equation of the form of eq. (11) at each node within a one-dimensional
domain, there would be n equations and n + 2 unknowns. The dilemma of too few equations is
resolved by introducing boundary conditions at each end of the domain. Consider, for example,
the problem of a long horizontal sand lens through which leachate is seeping from a landfill into a
surrounding groundwater aquifer. Assume that the left end of the lens is in contact with the solid
waste, and has a total hydraulic head, F0 = 40 feet. The other end is in contact with an aquifer
surrounding the landfill, and has a total hydraulic head, F6 = 20 feet. The discretized domain
would appear:

f: F0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 F6
LANDFILL • • • • • • • AQUIFER
i: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

where the numbers at the bottom are the node indexes; F0 and F6 are the known end total
hydraulic heads, and f1 through f5 are the unknown interior total hydraulic heads for which we
wish to solve. Writing eq. (11) at each interior node gives a system of five equations and five
unknowns:

− 2 f1 + f 2 = − F0 = −40
 f −2f + f =0
 1 2 3

 f 2 − 2 f 3 + f 4 =0 (13)
 f −2f + f =0
 3 4 5
 f 4 − 2 f 5 = − F6 = −20

or

− 2 1 0 0 0   f1  − 40
 1 −2 1  
 0 0   f 2   0 
0    
1 −2 1 0  f3  =  0  (14)
   
0 0 1 − 2 1  f4 0 
   
0 1 − 2  f 5  − 20
 0 0

3
which is of the form [A]{x} = {b}. It should be noted in passing that the [A] matrix has certain
special characteristics, and is referred to as a tridiagonal banded symmetric matrix. It is also
diagonally dominant. Why is each of these terms applicable?

Eq. (14) can be solved by any of the direct matrix methods for linear systems of equations:

 − .83 − .67 − .50 − .33 − .17 − 40 36.67 

− .67 − 1.33 − 1 − .67 − .33  0  33.33

[ ]
{x}= A {b}= − .50 − 1 − 1.5 − 1
−1

  
− .50  0  =  30 


(15)
 − .33 − .67 − 1 − 1.33 − .67  0  26.67 
   
− .17 − .33 − .50 − .67 − .83 − 20  23.33


Adding the end conditions and plotting the results gives the rather uninteresting linear graph
shown below. We will see later, however, that other problems give more interesting results.

45
40
TOTAL HYDRAULIC HEAD

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DISTANCE

Because eqs. (13) is diagonally dominant, it also lends itself to solution by iterative methods.
Recall that in iterative methods, each equation in a system is solved for one unknown in terms of
the others, and each unknown must appear once as the left hand side of an equation. Because of
the diagonal nature of [A], it is logical to pull the term with the –2 coefficient to the left hand side
in each equation. Thus we end up with a system of the form:

 F0 + f 2
 f1 = 2
 f1 + f 3
 f2 =
 2
 f2 + f4
 f3 = (15)
 2
 f = f3 + f5
 4 2
 f 4 + F6
 f5 =
 2

These five equations can then be solved iteratively to yield the final solution. A spreadsheet offers
a perfect medium for implementing this solution. Because the sand lens is horizontal, we can

4
choose a spreadsheet row and allocate, say, A1 through G1 to contain the total hydraulic heads at
the two end nodes and five intermediate nodes. To establish the end conditions, type –40 in cell
A1 and –20 in cell G1. In cell B1, implement the finite difference algorithm of the first of eqs.
(15) by entering the formula =(A1+C1)/2. Copy this formula into cells C1 through F1, letting
Excel automatically increment the cell addresses to implement the rest of eqs. (15).

Excel will get terribly upset at this point, popping up a window that tells you that you have
circular calculations. It may even launch you into a help screen, assuming that you are hopelessly
at sea. Get rid of the help screen. Get rid of the little paperclip. Circular calculations occur when
the value in a cell depends on other cells that form a loop back to the original cell. The reason that
Excel gets so upset is because you have potentially set up an infinite loop of calculations that
could hang up your computer indefinitely.

What Excel really wants you to do is to impose some control over the recalculation process. To
do so, assert Tools/Options and click on the Calculation page. Click on the Manual radio button
in the Calculation pane. (The Automatic button will go off.) Now, the spreadsheet will only
recalculate formulas when you tell it to – thus no infinite loop.

You need to tell Excel more about how you want the recalculation process to work. Turn on the
Iteration radio button, and edit Maximum Iterations to, say, 10. Note that Calc Now is set to
function key F9 and leave that value unchanged. Hit OK. From now on, any time you hit function
key F9, the spreadsheet will recalculate itself 10 times.

Hit F9 a few times and watch the values in A1:G1. Note that they ultimately converge to the
answers that we got using matrix methods to solve for the temperatures. Start this process all
over, but make a chart to plot A1:G1. Watch the graph change as you hit F9.

MORE COMPLICATED BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Often, boundary conditions involve the derivative of the dependent variable. Typical physical
problems requiring derivative boundary conditions occur when there are impervious boundaries
(seepage), insulated boundaries (heat transfer), and clamped boundaries (cantilever beams). In
each of these cases, the boundary condition requires that the derivative of the dependent variable
with respect to the coordinate direction perpendicular (normal) to the boundary be set to zero.

These boundary conditions are introduced into the finite difference scheme using a Taylor
expansion to perform the special differencing normal to the nodes on the boundary. Consider, for
example, the situation shown below where the sand lens treated in the previous section is plugged
(impervious) at the landfill end:

fa f0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 F6

° • • • • • • •
a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Note that the left boundary is now denoted by f0 instead of F0 because the total hydraulic head is
unknown. In addition, we have introduced a phantom node, designated as node a, to the left of the
boundary.

Taking the Taylor expansion carried out to two terms in the x direction about node 0 gives:

5
  df ( x)
 f 1 = f 0 + ∆x dx
 df ( x)
(16)
 f a = f 0 − ∆x
 dx

Subtracting the two equations gives:

df ( x)
f1 − f a = 2∆x (17)
dx

df ( x)
Recalling that the boundary condition requires that = 0 leads to:
dx

f1 = f a (18)

Converting eq. (18) to index notation gives the general form:

f i −1 = f i +1 (19)

as the condition that must hold at a zero gradient boundary.

APPLYING THIS TO THE SAND LENS

Assume that, instead of the left end of the sand lens being held at 40 feet, it is perfectly
impervious. Instead of setting F0 = 40, we need to impose the zero gradient condition of eq. (19)
at node 0. The LaPlace algorithm is:

f a − 2 f 0 + f1 = f1 − 2 f 0 + f1 = −2 f 0 + 2 f1 = 0 (20)

Thus, eq. (13) becomes:

− 2 f 0 + 2 f 1 = 0
f −2f + f =0
 0 1 2
 f1 − 2 f 2 + f 3 = 0
 (21)
 f2 − 2 f3 + f4 = 0
 f3 − 2 f4 + f5 = 0

 f 4 − 2 f 5 = − F6 = −20

Note that the phantom node, a, is no longer directly involved in the solution. Of the form
[A]{x} = {b}, eq. (21) has the solution:

 f 0  20
f   
 1  20
 f 2  20
 =  (22)
 f 3  20
 f 4  20
   
 f 5  20

6
Again, not a particularly interesting solution. It simply shows that a plugged lens contains liquid
at constant total hydraulic head.

Introduce this same effect into your spreadsheet solution by replacing the 40 in cell A1 with the
formula =(2*B1)/2. Reason out how this implements eq. (20). Watch the solution evolve as you
hit F9 (Recalc).

MORE EXAMPLES OF ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

Example 1 - A highway engineer wishes to design a dip in a roadway that conforms to certain
conditions controlling its shape. The constraints are quantified by a differential equation
describing the elevation, y, as a function of distance, x, with the boundary conditions y(0) = 0 and
y(2) = -1. The governing differential equation is:

d2y
=5 (23)
dx 2

We will use a spreadsheet solution with ∆x = 0.1. The finite difference algorithm based on eq.
(11) is:

y i −1 − 2 y i + y i +1
=5 (24)
( ∆x ) 2

Introducing ∆x = 0.1, rearranging, and solving for yi gives:

y i = ( y i −1 + y i +1 − .05) / 2 (25)

The length of 2.0 requires 21 nodes (including the boundaries). Cell A1 gets the value 0. Cell U1
gets the value –1. Cell B1 gets the formula =(A1+B1-.05)/2. This formula is copied to cells C1
through T1. The result is graphed below. What is the shape of this function?

-0.5

-1
E L E V A T IO N

-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
DISTANCE
T IM E

7
Example 2 – Often differential equations involve more complex algebraic forms. A contractor
wishes to design a concrete conveyor system to pour concrete in an excavation. In order to avoid
separation in the mix, he must provide a system that maintains a prescribed relationship between
elevation and time. The boundary conditions are y(1) = 2 and y(3) = -1. Again, use ∆t = 0.1. The
governing differential equation is:

d2y  t
− 1 −  y = t (26)
dt 2
 5

The equation can be differenced to give:

y i −1 − 2 y i + y i +1  t 
− 1 − i  y i = t i (27)
∆t 2
 5

Solving for yi gives:

∆t 2 − y i +1 − y i −1
yi = (28)
∆t 2
− 2 − ∆t 2 + ti
5

The spreadsheet solution tabulation must now explicitly include the time because it constitutes
the ti term in the algorithm of eq. (28). Assuming that the value of 0.1 for ∆t is placed in cell C1,
the formula in cell B1 would be:

=($A$3*$A$3 – C1 – A1)/(-2 - $A$3*$A$3 + ($A$3*$A$3*B2)/5) (29)

The spreadsheet output and a graph of the results is shown below.

2 1.67 1.36 1.07 0.81 0.56 0.33 0.12 -0.07 -0.25 -0.41 -0.55 -0.68 -0.79 -0.88 -0.95 -1.01 -1.04 -1.05 -1.04 -1 y
1 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3 t
0.1

2.5
2
1.5
ELEVATION

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
TIME

8
Example 3 – The following differential equation governing elevation versus time has gradient
boundary conditions:

d2y dy dy
2
= 4y = 0 at t = 1 = −1 at t = 3 (30)
dt dt dt

Assuming that ∆t = .1, we will have 21 nodes. The finite difference algorithm for a regular
interior node is:

y i −1 − 2 y i + y i +1
= 4 yi (31)
∆t 2

Solving for yi gives:

y i = ( y i −1 + y i +1 ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) (32)

Using a phantom node to the left of t = 1 and enforcing the zero gradient boundary condition
gives an algorithm of the form:

y1 − y a
=0 (33)
2 ∆t

or

y a = y1 (34)

Thus the algorithm for the left boundary is

y 0 = ( y a + y1 ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) = (2 y1 ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) (35)

At the t = 3 boundary (node 21), we introduce a phantom node, b, to the right of node 21. The
boundary condition is enforced by the finite difference algorithm:

y b − y 20
= −1 (36)
2 ∆t

or

yb = y 20 − 2∆t (37)

Putting this into the algorithm for the governing differential equation give the following
algorithm for node 21:

y 21 = ( y 20 + y b ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) = ( y 20 + y 20 − 2∆t ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) = (2 y 20 − 2∆t ) /(2 + 4∆t 2 ) (38)

The resulting spreadsheet is:

-0.007 -0.007 -0.008 -0.010 -0.013 -0.016 -0.020 -0.026 -0.033 -0.043 -0.054 -0.068 -0.086 -0.108 -0.135 -0.167 -0.208 -0.257 -0.318 -0.392 -0.482 y
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 t
0.1

9
Shown graphically:

-0.1

-0.2
ELEVATION

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
TIME

10
 TIME DEPENDENT PROBLEMS

Transport processes such as diffusion are normally time dependent, and are governed by a partial
differential equation of the form:

∂f ( x ) ∂ 2 f ( x)
=D (39)
∂t ∂x 2

where D is a (constant) transport coefficient characterizing the particular system being analyzed.

The LaPlace term on the right side can be differenced as in eq. (8). The left hand side represents
the first derivative with respect to time, and can be differenced at spatial node, i, by taking a
Taylor expansion to two terms in time:

∂f ( x)
f i n +1 = f i n + ∆t (40)
∂t

where the superscripts denote present time, n, and future time, n + 1.

Rearranging gives the following expression for the time derivative:

∂f ( x) f i n +1 − f i n
= (41)
∂t ∆t

Putting eqs. (41) and (10) into eq. (39) gives the following finite difference algorithm for one-
dimensional time dependent diffusion:

f i n +1 − f i n  f n − 2 f i n + f i n+1 
= D  i −1  (42)
∆t  ∆x 2 
 

In eq. (42), all the terms in f n are known because they represent values at present time. The value
of the term f i n +1 is the only unknown, and can be brought to the left hand side:

f i n +1 = D
∆t
∆x 2
(f n
i −1 )
− 2 f i n + f i n+1 + f i n (43)

Now define

∆t
λ≡D (44)
∆x 2

Putting eq. (44) into eq. (43) gives:

f i n +1 = λ f i n−1 + (1 − 2λ ) f i n + λ f i n+1 (45)

11
In passing, note the similarity between eq. (45) and the x = g(x) iterative approaches that we have
used before. We are predicting some “new” value of f i n +1 based on “old” values f n . It’s just that
these new values are not simply better values, but they are values at some particular future time.
In other words, instead of iterating to a solution, we are marching through time to approach some
ultimate, steady-state configuration.

This all fits together because, after some period of time, eq. (39) does indeed reach steady state.
This means that the value of f is no longer changing; i.e.:

∂f ( x) ∂ 2 f ( x)
=D =0
∂t ∂x 2

Because D cannot practically be zero:

∂ 2 f ( x)
=0
∂x 2

which is simply the LaPlace equation.

Thus, iterative solutions to the LaPlace equation can be viewed as a process marching through
time to a steady state configuration. However, because we have not introduced a diffusion
coefficient, D, we cannot know where we are in time at any particular step.

A SIMPLE EXAMPLE

A pollutant is diffusing through a 60 meter long sand lens into a ground water aquifer. The
diffusion coefficient of the pollutant in the water is D = 3x10-5 cm2/sec. Assume that the initial
concentration of pollutant in the sand lens is zero, that the pollutant concentration at the landfill
end of the lens is always 15 micrograms/liter, and that the pollutant concentration at the aquifer
end of the lens is always zero. Calculate the pollution profile as a function of time.

We will use a mesh spacing of 10 meters, thus 7 nodes are required. We will use a time step, ∆t,
of 5 seconds. This gives λ = 0.05 (dimensionless).

We can use the same illustration that we used for the example of water flowing out of a landfill
through a sand lens. It’s just that a pollutant is diffusing through the lens now instead of
contaminated liquid flowing through it:

f: F0 f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 F6
LANDFILL • • • • • • • AQUIFER
i: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The boundary conditions are F0 = 15 micrograms/liter and F6 = 0. The governing algorithm at

interior nodes is given by eq. (45).

12
We will develop an iterative approach to the solution using a spreadsheet. To allow us to modify
the time step if we want, we will store the value of λ is cell I1, and refer to it using $I$1 in
formulas that need its value. To begin the solution, A1 through G1 will contain the initial
conditions. Cells A2 through G2 will contain formulas that implement the boundary conditions
and the governing finite difference algorithm at the end of the first time step. To implement the
boundary conditions, cell A2 will contain the constant 15, and cell G2 will contain the constant 0.

The finite difference algorithm of eq. (45) will be implemented in cell B2 by the formula:
=$I$1*A1 + (1 – 2*$I$1)*B1 + $I$1*C1. This formula can then be copied into cells C2 through
F2 to implement eq. (45) at all of the regular interior nodes. The range A2:G2 will then show the
value of f at the end of the first time step:

15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.05

15 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0

Notice that only node 1 has changed its value (0.750). Notice also that Excel did not get upset
about circular calculations. This is because we have none. Why?

Now we need to march the process forward through time. The initial value (n) for step 2 will be
the values in row 2 of the spreadsheet. Thus, if we copy the formulas in row 2 down to row three,
they will produce the step 2 results. This process can be repeated by copying the range A2:G2
down the page.

Before doing this, however, it would be nice to keep track of time. To do this, enter 0 (the initial
time) in cell H1. In cell H2, put the formula =H1 + 5. This will increment the time by ∆t = 5 sec.
When we copy the formulas down the page, we want to copy the range A2:H2 so that we
increment the time as well as the finite difference algorithms.

After copying the formulas down to cell 201 ( t = 1000 seconds) the results are:

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05
15 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 5
15 1.425 0.0375 0 0 0 0 10
15 2.034375 0.105 0.001875 0 0 0 15
15 2.586188 0.196313 0.006938 9.38E-05 0 0 20
15 3.087384 0.306338 0.016064 0.000431 4.69E-06 0 25
15 3.543963 0.430876 0.029796 0.001192 2.58E-05 0 30
15 3.96111 0.566477 0.04842 0.002564 8.28E-05 0 35
15 4.343323 0.710305 0.07203 0.004732 0.000203 0 40
15 4.694506 0.860042 0.100579 0.007871 0.000419 0 45
15 5.018058 1.013792 0.133917 0.012134 0.000771 0 50
… … … … … … … …
15 12.1856 9.455536 6.871459 4.455799 2.185861 0 1000

How long do you think it will take the process to reach steady state? What will the final f values
be?

13
The graph below shows the results at selected times:

16
14 t=0
(microgranms/liter)
CONCENTRATION
12 t = 125 sec
10
t = 270 sec
8
t = 490 sec
6
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
TIME (sec)

14
 MULTIDIMENSIONAL PROBLEMS

Finite difference solutions can be easily extended to more than one dimension. The corresponding
form of the LaPlace equation [eq. (9)] for two dimensions is:

∂ 2 f ( x, y ) ∂ 2 f ( x, y )
+ =0 (46)
∂x 2 ∂y 2

We now institute a two-dimensional grid system in ∆x and ∆y, but with the restriction that
∆y = ∆x (i.e., a square grid). If we denote the y direction by an index, j, and follow the steps
previously taken in eqs. (5) through (8), but differencing in the y direction, we get an equation
corresponding to eq. (8):

∂ 2 f ( x, y ) f j −1 − 2 f j + f j +1
= (47)
∂y 2
∆x 2

where ∆x appears in the denominator because we chose ∆y = ∆x.

Implementing eq. (46) by adding eqs. (8) and (47) gives:

∂ 2 f ( x, y ) ∂ 2 f ( x, y ) f i −1, j + f i , j +1 + f i +1, j + f i , j −1 − 4 f i , j
+ = (48)
∂x 2
∂y 2
∆x 2

For the LaPlace term to be equal to zero as required by the governing eq. (46), we get:

f i −1, j + f i , j +1 + f i +1, j + f i , j −1 − 4 f i , j
=0 (49)
∆x 2

and, again because ∆x cannot be zero:

f i −1, j + f i , j +1 + f i +1, j + f i , j −1
f i, j = (50)
4

Thus, as in the one-dimensional case, the LaPlace equation requires that the value at the node in
question be equal to the average of the values at the surrounding nodes.

A SIMPLE PROBLEM

Consider a domain that is 1,000 feet square, and which initially has a uniform total hydraulic head
of 30 feet over the entire domain. Assume that this head continues to be maintained around the
boundary of the area. However, in the center of the area, a water well is drilled that draws the
total hydraulic head down to 10 feet at the well. Calculate the total hydraulic head over the
domain after well draw down. Assume LaPlace’s equation holds.

The domain is represented in the range A1:K11 in a spreadsheet so that ∆x = ∆y = 100 feet. Enter
30 in the ranges A1:K1, A1:A11, K1:K11, and A11:K11 to impose the boundary conditions
around the periphery of the site. Enter 10 in cell F6 to impose the draw down caused by the well.

15
Put the spreadsheet into manual recalculation, and press F9 until steady state is reached. The
resulting head distribution is shown in tabular and graphic form below.

30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
30.0 29.6 29.2 28.8 28.5 28.4 28.5 28.8 29.2 29.6 30.0
30.0 29.2 28.4 27.5 26.8 26.5 26.8 27.5 28.4 29.2 30.0
30.0 28.8 27.5 26.1 24.7 23.9 24.7 26.1 27.5 28.8 30.0
30.0 28.5 26.8 24.8 22.2 19.5 22.1 24.7 26.8 28.5 30.0
30.0 28.4 26.5 23.9 19.6 10.0 19.5 23.9 26.5 28.4 30.0
30.0 28.6 26.9 24.8 22.2 19.6 22.1 24.7 26.8 28.5 30.0
31.0 29.2 27.7 26.2 24.8 23.9 24.7 26.1 27.5 28.8 30.0
30.0 29.3 28.5 27.6 26.8 26.5 26.8 27.5 28.4 29.2 30.0
30.0 29.6 29.2 28.8 28.5 28.4 28.5 28.8 29.2 29.6 30.0
30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0

35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
S10
5.0 S7
0.0
S4
1

S1
9

11

16