Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment. October, 2004; Vol.

4, 51-62
Copyright Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818
www.azojete.com.ng

GROUNDWATER MODELLING WITH LIMITED DATA: A CASE

STUDY OF YOBE RIVER BASIN, NORTH EAST NIGERIA
Hassan, M.1, R.C. Carter2 and K.R. Rushton2

Abstract
An exploratory numerical groundwater model of a shallow aquifer interacting with a river in a semi-arid zone
was developed using MODFLOW. The model simulated field data adequately as well as the physical processes
presented in its conceptual framework. The conceptualization of the aquifer to exist under both confined and
unconfined conditions can be adequately described in the model. Water balance from the model shows that river
to aquifer flow dominates aquifer recharge processes, and its magnitude is limited not only by relative head
difference, but also by the transmissivity and hydraulic gradient of the aquifer.

1. Introduction

Groundwater models are tools that are aimed at predicting the consequences of a proposed
action. They are also used in an interpretive sense to gain insight into the controlling
parameters in a site-specific setting or as a framework for assembling and organising field
data and formulating ideas about system dynamics. The techniques of groundwater modelling
are well documented in Wang and Anderson (1982), Anderson and Woessner (1992) and
Spitz and Moreno (1996).

The modelling of groundwater is primarily of value when adequate extensive data exist. In
such situations, conventional calibration and validation approaches may be possible. But
detailed measurements throughout a site are both impractical and expensive. In such cases, the
model is constrained to represent the site to those that are acceptably realistic. The inherent
scarcity of data is particularly relevant in developing countries where there is limited
information about soil and aquifer properties, and where monitoring and record keeping may
be poor. Therefore, models which display economy of complexity, but which are based on
sound conceptual frameworks are needed. The models must reflect those features of the
groundwater system, which really matter. They must also be credible and reliable.

1.1 Study area and background

The area under study is located in the semi-arid zone of north-east Nigeria (Figure 1), which
is characterised by low rainfall and reduced river flow. In the last three decades, rainfall has
decreased by about 30% (Hess et al., 1995) and annual discharge by the major headwaters of
rivers Hadejia and Jamaare has decreased by almost 60%. The reduction in the discharge
from these rivers to the Yobe Basin is due to construction of dams across them in addition to
low rainfall. As a result of these changes in the hydrology of the area, both the Federal and
State governments in the North East Arid Zone (NEAZ) have made tremendous efforts
towards developing and managing the existing water resources. Reports of various
professional water consultants, such as Schultz (1975), IWACO (1985), Water Surveys

1
Department of Physics, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri. Nigeria
2
Institute of Water and Environment, Cranfield University, Silsoe. Bedford, MK45 4DT UK.
Groundwater modelling with limited data

(1986), Diyam (1987) and NEAZDP (1990) with various terms of reference were engaged for
two decades (1975-1995) with the mandate to develop the groundwater in the river basin.

Figure 1: Map of the study area

Figure 1: Map of the study area

These previous works have identified four natural features that limit opportunities for the
development of water resources in the area. They include aridity, highly seasonal climate,
climates that have shown major changes or trends in recent decades and poor aquifer (Carter,
1998). These studies did not address the state of the groundwater in the area or state possible
management strategies based on water availability. Studies by Alkali (1995) as well as Carter
and Alkali (1996) suggested that the shallow aquifer in the Yobe Basin has complex
hydrogeologic features. For example, it was discovered that the aquifer is covered extensively
with low permeability clay that hinders vertical infiltration of water. According to them, the
dominant factor in the recharge of the aquifer is the river and that the aquifer is capable of
converting from unconfined to confined conditions. Another desk study that consists of photo-
interpretation of the geomophological features of the Yobe floodplain by Marinof-Petkoff
(1994) and hydrogeological and geophysical studies by Hassan (2002) have shown that some
areas of the Yobe River Basin are covered by permeable deposits.

In all the studies carried out in the area, there was difficulty in assessing the aquifer potential
based on the existing field data. There was complete lack of historical data in some cases. For
example, data on groundwater level fluctuation, recharge estimates, aquifer parameters and
lithology are not readily available. In the cases where some data, such as river stage variation
and discharge exist, there were problems of missing records. Carrying out conventional
modelling in such cases is difficult.
52
AZOJETE Vol. 4 2004

Some or all of the problems discussed above need to be addressed in the context of existing
data. This limitation of data has constrained the development of a full-scale model where
calibration, verification, validation and prediction are possible. In view of this, an exploratory
groundwater model was developed using MODFLOW to assess the aquifer potential based on
the existing data.

2. Methodology and model preparation

MODFLOW is a computer program, which was developed by the United States Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia, for modelling groundwater flow. It uses a block-centred finite
difference approach to solve the three-dimensional equations for groundwater flow in porous
media. A detailed description of MODFLOW can be found in McDonald and Harbaugh
(1987).

The idealized conceptual model was used to design and simulate various scenarios using the
MODFLOW model. A combined pre- and post-processor, model independent graphical
interface called Groundwater Vistas was used for data input and for interactive modelling
with MODFLOW.

2.1 Description of the conceptual model

The River Yobe system as conceptualised in Hassan (2002) is shown in Figure 2. It consists
of the following:
The aquifer geometry and the boundary show that the aquifer is 10 m thick and 4 km
wide with the river almost in the middle. It has clay cover in some places whose
thickness varies from 0.5 to 3 m. A no flow boundary condition in the north and a
constant head in the south that allows small seepage to the upland bound it.
The landforms show that the Yobe floodplain consists of areas that could allow
vertical recharge. The flow processes in the aquifer are vertical recharge from rainfall,
overland flooding and river to aquifer flow.
Aquifer parameters such as storage coefficient and hydraulic conductivity cover a
range of values.
The river-aquifer interaction is represented with a varying river coefficient; the
magnitude of flow between the river and the aquifer depends on relative head
difference between water in the river and groundwater in the aquifer

53
Groundwater modelling with limited data

Figure 2: Conceptual model of the Yobe river system

The modelled area was discretized three-dimensionally. The size of the grid blocks were 500
m in the x-direction and variable in the y-direction with the smallest being 35 m and the
largest 150 m. Each grid consists of 3 columns and 50 rows with row25 containing the river.
In the vertical direction, the model consists of a 16 m thick layer. Figure 3 shows the finite
difference grid of the study area.

Figure 3: Finite difference grid of area of study showing River Yobe

and the area of interest (shaded)

54
AZOJETE Vol. 4 2004

2.2 Data requirements

Input data to the model consists of the three major external stresses: river stage time series
with a varying river coefficient, vertical recharge and leakage. The methods and procedures
for obtaining these data include both geophysical and hydrogeological investigations as
discussed in Hassan and Carter (2004). Figures 4, 5 and 6 show the starting conditions and
time series of the input data respectively. The input for one year consists of 36 stress periods
each with a length of 10 days and a single time step. This was repeated for 2.4 years (86 stress
periods) with stress period one starting from 30th October. The choice of the number and
length of stress periods and time steps was dictated by the rapid change in the river stage.

Figure 4: Starting conditions

40

39
Water Level (m ald)

38

37

36

35

34
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86
Stress Periods (10 days)

Figure 5: River stage variations with time

55
Groundwater modelling with limited data

1200
Flow (m3/day/500m of aquifer length)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86

-400
Stress period (10 days long)
-600
-800
-1000
-1200

Figure 6: Recharge and leakage input

Sensitivity analysis was carried out on the wide range of aquifer parameters to arrive at
acceptable values. These parameters and their values are as follows:

i) Kh= 0.1 m/day (unconfined); and Kh=15 m/day (confined region)

ii) SCc = 0.001 (confined); and SCu = 0.05 (unconfined)
iii) VL = 1.5 x10-5 m/day (the clay cover was modelled as a leakage factor that
allows water to seep continuously into the aquifer).
Where, Kh is hydraulic conductivity, SCc and SCu are storage coefficients for the
confined and unconfined conditions respectively and VL is vertical leakage.

A recharge value of 1.25 mm/day was estimated using a water balance model (Hess, 1997).
This is equivalent to 50 mm of recharge per annum. This amount is consistent with
independent estimates by Carter et al. (1994) and Edmonds et al. (2002). The recharge was
applied to rows 29 to 33 and in stress periods 32 to 35 inclusive. Figure 7 shows an extract of
the finite difference grid area of interest and the recharging zone. These stress periods
correspond to 10th 19th September to 10th 19th October respectively when recharge is
believed to occur.

56
AZOJETE Vol. 4 2004

Figure 7: Finite difference grid of area of interest showing recharge area

The outputs from the model consisting of groundwater heads for each of the 86 stress periods
were used for calculation of the various flow processes. The river to aquifer flow is calculated
using Equation 1.

Qriv= Criv x HDIFF (Rushton and Tomlinson, 1979). 1

where Criv is the river coefficient and HDIFF is the relative head difference between
water level in the river and the groundwater head in the aquifer.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 The groundwater hydrographs

The modelled groundwater hydrograph for node (27, 2) compared with a field observed
groundwater head variation from piezometer P7 is shown in Figure 8 for an area located near
and to the south of the river. This area was conceptualized to be largely unconfined. The
figure suggests a strong influence of the river on the groundwater compared with heads far
away from the river node. The plot also suggests a good measure of representation of the
groundwater level fluctuation taking place in the vicinity of the river. A side-by-side
comparison of the modelled groundwater heads far from the river with piezometers located at
similar distances is indicated in Figure 9, but in the largely confined north, the modelled
groundwater hydrographs show little variation near or far from the river.
57
Groundwater modelling with limited data

40.00

39.50

39.00

38.50
Water levels (m ald)

38.00

37.50 Modelled
37.00 P7

36.50

36.00

35.50

35.00

34.50
23 28 33 38 43 48 53
Stress periods (10 days long)

Figure 8: Observed and modelled groundwater heads for node (27, 2)

mald = meters above local datum

Modelled heads at node (33,2), 637.5 Observed hydrogrph of P6, 600 m from
m from the river the river
Water levels (m ald)

39 39
Water level (m ald)

30th Oct 31st Oct

38 38
37 37
36
36
35
35
23 28 33 38 43 48
04/06/98 12/09/98 21/12/98 31/03/99
Stress periods (10 days length)
Date

Figure 9: Groundwater heads at 600 m south of the river; (a) modelled, (b) observed
mald = meters above local datum

3.1 Groundwater flow in the aquifer

The various groundwater flows in the aquifer were calculated from the groundwater heads
using Darcys law and the Richards continuity equation. Figure 10 shows the flow from the
58
AZOJETE Vol. 4 2004

aquifer (node 25, 2) beneath the river to adjacent nodes north and south of the river. The
results show that the flow to the confined north is much smaller than the flow to the
unconfined south. Similar results are shown in Figure 11 where nodes (17, 2) and (32, 2) are
located 637.5m away from the river in both directions. The figure suggests that the model has
the ability to exhibit the rapidity and inertia of the confined and unconfined conditions
obtained in the north and south of the basin respectively.

1200
1000 North
South
800
600
400
Flow (m3/day)

200
0
-200 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

-400
-600
-800
-1000 Stress period (10 day long)

-1200

Figure 10: Groundwater flow from the aquifer to the north

and south of the river node (25, 2)

59
Groundwater modelling with limited data

Ground w ater flow at 673.5 m from the river

400

300

200 Node 33,2

Node 17,2
100
Flow (m 3/d)

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
-100

-200

-300

-400
Stress Period (10 days long)

Figure 11: Groundwater flow from the aquifer to nodes (17, 2)

and (32, 2), 637.5 m away from the river

3.3 River-aquifer flow

The modelled groundwater heads at the river node together with the input river stage and river
coefficient were used to calculate the river to aquifer flows. Figure 12 shows the flow with
positive values indicating flow from river to aquifer. The result indicates that the river is
adequately represented because the aquifer responded to changes in the river level. It also
shows that during recharge, the flow to the aquifer decreases even at high river level. This
suggests that Qriv is limited both by the ability of the aquifer to transmit water and the
magnitude of HDIFF.

3.4 The water balance

The water balance consists of the difference between the total water flowing into the aquifer
and the total water coming out of it. This is in turn equal to the change in storage. The inflow
consists of recharge (the leakage through low permeable surfaces) and the river to aquifer
flow. The outflow consists of the flow from the aquifer to river during low river stage and the
boundary outflow. Figure 13 shows the time series plot of the water balance for one year. It
indicates that the river to aquifer flow dominates all inflows (about 70%) to the model area.

4. Conclusion

The basic and exploratory single layer model has demonstrated the ability to simulate
adequately the observed field data. It also reflected the physical processes presented in its
conceptualization. Despite uncertainties in the estimates of some parameters such as river
coefficients and aquifer parameters, the similarity between the model results and observed
60
AZOJETE Vol. 4 2004

data is encouraging. The model was able to demonstrate that in confined areas, less water
enters the aquifer and there is immediate response to changes in the application of stress when
compared to the unconfined areas. The results from the model are plausible and represent to
some extent the understanding incorporated in its conception.

References

Alkali, A.G. (1995). River-Aquifer Interaction in the middle Yobe River Basin, Northeast
Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis. Silsoe College.
Anderson, M.P. and W.W. Woessner (1992). Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of
Flow and Advective Transport. Academic Press, Inc., San Diago,CA. 381pp.
Carter, R.C., E.D. Morgulis, J. Dottridge and J.U. Agbo (1994). Groundwater modelling with
limited data: a case study in a semi-arid dunefield of northeast Nigeria. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology, 27: S85-S94.
Carter, R.C. (1998). Prospects for Sustainable Water Management Policy in Sub-Saharan
Africa, with Special Reference to the Northeast Arid Zone of Nigeria. In Water
Resources Management, A Comparative Perspective. Ed. Dhirendra K. Vajpeyi.
Carter, R.C. and A.G. Alkali (1996). Shallow Groundwater in the Northeast Arid Zone of
Nigeria. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology. 29: 341-355.
Diyam Consultants. (1987). Kano State Shallow Aquifer Study. Final reports Vol. 1. Kano,
Nigeria.
Edmunds, W.M., E. Fellman, I.B. Goni and C. Prudhomme. (2002). Spatial and temporal
distribution of groundwater recharge in northern Nigeria. Hydrogeology Journal
10:.205-215.
Hassan, M. (2002). Exploratory groundwater modelling in data-scarce environments: The
shallow alluvial aquifer of River Yobe Basin, North East Nigeria. Unpublished PhD
Thesis Cranfield University UK.
Hassan, M. and R.C. Carter (2004). Development of Conceptual Model: Towards Developing
a Numerical Groundwater Model of a River-aquifer Interaction. Nigerian Journal of
Physics. 16(1) 117-125
Hess, T.M. (1997). BALANCE - A soil water balance model manual. Unpublished, Cranfield
University, UK.
Hess, T.M., W. Stephens and U.M. Maryah. (1995). Rainfall Trends in the North East Arid
Zone of Nigeria, 1961-1990. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,74: 87-97.
IWACO (1985). Study of the Water Resources in the Komadougou Yobe Basin. Report No. 5.
Groundwater Resources. International water supply consultants. Rotterdam,
Netherlands.
Marinof-Petkoff, M.N. (1994(. A Geomorphological study of the Yobe River Floodplain:
Implication for Groundwater Recharge. Unpublished MSc. Thesis. Cranfield
University.
McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh, (1987). A modular three-dimensional finite-difference
groundwater flow model. Techniques of water resources investigations. 06-A1, US
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 576p.
NEAZDP (1990). Groundwater Resources Report. PMU, Northeast Arid Zone Irrigation
Project. Garin Alkali, Gashua. Yobe State, N.E. Nigeria.
Rushton, K.R. and L.M. Tomlinson (1979). Possible mechanisms for leakage between
aquifers and rivers. Journal of Hydrology. 40: 49-65.
61
Groundwater modelling with limited data

Shultz International Limited. (1975). Hadejia River Basin Study. Water Resources Vol. E.
Vancouver, Canada.
Spitz, K. and J. Moreno (1996). A practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute Transport
Modeling. John Wiley and Sons, INC. New York.
Wang, H.F. and M.P. Anderson (1982). Introduction to Groundwater Modelling: Finite
Difference and Finite Element Methods. Academic Press. San Diago
Water Surveys Group (1986). Investigation of the Shallow Aquifers for Lowland Irrigation in
Bauchi State. N.E. Nigeria. Main Report, Vol. 1. Kaduna Nigeria.

62