Waters, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Dec  2019, Pages 55-66; DOI: 10.31058/j.water.2019.11004 10.31058/j.water.2019.11004

Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow in Shendi Sub-Basin, Sudan

, Vol. 2, Issue 1, Dec  2019, Pages 55-66.

DOI: 10.31058/j.water.2019.11004

Adil Balla Elkrail 1* , Amin Dafaalla 2 , Mohamed Adlan 3

1 Department of Hydrogeology, Faculty of Petroleum and Minerals, Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan

2 Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Nahr Anneel University, Sudan

3 Department of Hydrogeology, Faculty of Petroleum and Minerals, Al-Neelain University, Khartoum, Sudan

Received: 2 December 2019; Accepted: 5 December 2019; Published: 9 December 2019

Full-Text HTML | Download PDF | Views 215 | Download 129


This study investigated the groundwater regime of the porous medium of Cretaceous sedimentary formation in Shendi sub-basin. The aims of this study are to determine the aquifer characteristics, groundwater flow dynamic, and groundwater balance and storage capacity of the aquifer, using groundwater model techniques. A three dimensional numerical model was developed for two aquifer system to simulate groundwater flow through variably saturated porous medium. Visual MODFLOW, Geographical Information System (GIS) and Aquifer Test techniques were used for model conceptualization, data processing and obtained results manipulation. Model simulation was optimized by using a trial and error method. Acceptable model calibration was obtained with root mean square error (RMS) of 0.313 m and absolute residual mean (ARM) of 0.124 m, normalized root mean square (NRMS%) of 0.6 % and mass balance discrepancy of 0.01% with water reserve of 14.36 m3/d after all prevailing abstraction activities. The general groundwater flow direction, as depicted from model results, is towards east and northeast with a cone of depression at the center of the area, which attributed to heavy abstraction for agricultural activities. The annual groundwater supply from well fields in both aquifers was estimated to be 37×106 m3. Aquifers storage capacities of covering area of 8325 km2 were calculated to be 60×106 m3 and 63×106 m3 for upper and lower aquifer respectively. The sensitivity analyses reflected that the model was more sensitive to hydraulic conductivity and least sensitive to specific storage. The model was validated after sufficient testing had been performed to ensure an acceptable level of predictive accuracy.


Groundwater Modeling, Simulation, Aquifers, Visual MODFLOW, Hydrogeological Parameters, Specific Coefficient, Water Budget


© 2017 by the authors. Licensee International Technology and Science Press Limited. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


[1] Jin, W.; Steward, D.R. The transition of flow patterns through critical stagnation points in two-dimensional groundwater flow. J. Advances in Water Resources. 2007, 30 (2007), 16-28.

[2] Bredehoeft Chairman J.D.P.; Betzinski C.; Cruickshank Villanueva G.; De Marsily A.A., Konoplyantsev J.U. Uzo (1982). Ground-water models Volume I. Concepts, problems, and methods of analysis with examples of their application, U. S Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

[3] Scanlon, B.R.; Mace, R.E.; Barrett, M.E.; Smith, B. Can we simulate regional groundwater flow in a karst system using equivalent porous media models? Journal of Hydrology, 2003, 276, 137-158.

[4] Das, P.; Begam, S.; Singh, M.K. Mathematical modeling of groundwater contamination with varying velocity field. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 2017, 65(2), 192-204.

[5] Yadav, R.R.; Kumar, L.K. Two-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with Temporal and Scale-Dependent Dispersion: Analytical Solution. International Journal of Advance in Mathematics, 2018, 2, 90-111.

[6] Henrik Madsen; Michael Kristensen. A multi-objective calibration framework for parameter estimation in the MIKE SHE integrated hydrological modelling system. Model CARE 2002, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Modelling, Prague, Czech Republic (Eds. K. Kovar and Z. Hrkal), Acta Universitatis Carolinae - Geologica 2002, 46(2/3), 270-273.

[7] Holzbecher, E.; Sorek, S. Numerical Models of Groundwater Flow and Transport, Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Edited by M G Anderson. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2005.

[8] Ryder, P.D. Hydrology of the Floridan aquifer system in west-central Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, United States, 1985, F60-F63.

[9] Kuniansky, E.L. Multilayer finite-element model of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers, Central Texas. In: Dutton, A.R., (Ed.), Multilayer Finite-Element Model of the Edwards and Trinity Aquifers, American Institute of Hydrology, 1993, 234-249.

[10] Teutsch, G. An extended double-porosity concept as a practical modelling approach for a karstified terrain. Hydrogeol. Processes in Karst Terranes, Proc. of the Antalya Symp. And Field Seminar, Oct. 1990, Intl. Assoc. Hyd. Sci. Publ. 1993, 207, 281292.

[11] Angelini, P.; Dragoni, W. The problem of modeling limestone springs: the case of Bagnara (North Apennines, Italy). Ground Water, 1997, 35 (4), 612–618.

[12] Keeler, R.R.; Zhang, Y.K. Modeling of groundwater flow in a fractured-karst aquifer in the Big Springs Basin, Iowa. Geol. Soc. Am., Abs. Programs. 1997, 29 (4), 25.

[13] Greene, E.A.; A.M. Shapiro; J.M. Carter. Hydrogeologic characterization of the Minnelusa and Madison aquifers near Spearfish, South Dakota. US Geol. Surv., Water Resour. Inv. Rept. 1999, 98-4156, 64.

[14] Larocque, M.; Banton, O.; Ackerer, P.; Razack, M. Determining karst transmissivities with inverse modeling and an equivalent porous media. Ground Water. 1999, 37, 897-903.

[15] Anderson, M.P.; Woessner, W.W. Applied Groundwater Modeling, Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport; Academic Press, New York, 1992, 381.

[16] Harbaugh, A.W.; McDonald, M.G. User’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an update to the US Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geol. Surv., Open-File Rep. 1996, 96-485, 56.

[17] Whiteman, A. The Geology of the Sudan Republic; Oxford, Clarendon press, London, 1971, 290.

[18] Vail, J.R. Outline of the geology and mineral deposits of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan. Overseas Geology & Mineral Resources, the Stationery Office Books, London, 1978, 49-67.

[19] Wycisk, P.; Klitzsch, E.; Jass, C.; Reynolds, O. Intracratonic sequence development and structural control of Phanerozoic strata in Sudan. Berliner geowiss. Abh. A 120: 45-86.

[20] Andrew, G. The geology of the Sudan. In J. D. TOTHILL (eds.), Agriculture in the Sudan, 84-128, Oxford University Press, 1948.

[21] Kruseman, G.P.; De Ridder, N.A. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, 2nd Revised Edition, International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Netherlands, 1990.

[22] K. Marcin Widomski; Dariusz Kowalski; Małgorzata Iwanek; Grzegorz Łagód. Modeling of Water Flow and Pollutants Transport in Porous Media with exemplary calculations in FEFLOW. Politechnika Lubelska, Lublin University of Technology, Lublin, Poland, 2013.

[23] Holzbecher, E.; Sorek, S. Numerical Models of Groundwater Flow and Transport, Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Edited by M G Anderson. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2005.

[24] Batu, V. Applied Flow and Solute Transport Modeling in Aquifers, Fundamental Principles and Analytical and Numerical Methods. Taylor & Francis Group publisher, 2006.

[25] National Research Council (NRC). Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment, contamination potential under conditions of uncertainty. Committee on Techniques for Assessing Groundwater Vulnerability, Water science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences Environment and Resources. National Academic Press, Washington DC, 1993.

Related Articles