International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.

Available online at www.ijagcs.com

IJACS/2013/5-11/1158-1163
ISSN 2227-670X ©2013 IJACS Journal

Mathematical Simulation of Water Budget in Evan

Plain Using MODFLOW and Comparison with
Manually Computed Budget
Manochehr Chitsazan1, Nassim Sohrabi2, Vahab Amiri3, Taleb Moradi Nezhad4
1. Professor of Hydrogeology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz
2.M.Sc of Hydrogeology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz
3. Ph. D Student of Hydrogeology, Kharazmi University of Tehran
4-M.Sc of Hydrogeology, Kharazmi University of Tehran

Corresponding author email:n.sohrabi1986@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Mathematical-numerical models and estimated water balance is one of the suitable
ways to identify and management of water resources in the country that is highly depends on the
groundwater. Nowadays groundwater simulating models have a decisive role in the development
and application of rational water policies. The aim of this study was obtaining water budget by
mathematical equations on the groundwater model, which will improve data quality with
mathematical optimization methods. This technique is based on the groundwater data that derived
from simulation model of finite differences of Evan plain and assessment of the obtained results by
unit hydrograph and comparing them to manual water budget. The results showed that mathematical
models due to data optimization and different hydro geological zones are able to present suitable
data and aquifer simulation. In addition, the constructed model in this project is proposed as reliable
model which can be used in future studies in order to management policies.
Key words: Water Budget; Mathematical models; Evan plain; GIS; GMS

INTRODUCTION

Water is an essential resource for all life on the planet. Of the water resources on earth only three
percent of it is fresh and two-thirds of the freshwater is locked up in ice caps and glaciers. Of the remaining one
percent, a fifth is in remote, inaccessible areas and much seasonal rainfall in monsoonal deluges and floods
cannot easily be used. At present only about 0.08 percent of all the world’s fresh water(Carylon, 2008) is
exploited by mankind in ever increasing demand for sanitation, drinking, manufacturing, leisure and
agriculture.Much effort in water resource management is directed at optimizing the use of water and in
minimizing the environmental impact of water use on the natural environment.Successful management of any
resources requires accurate knowledge of the resource available, the uses to which it may be put, the
competing demands for the resource, measures to and processes to evaluate the significance and worth of
competing demands and mechanisms to translate policy decisions into actions on the ground. One of the
biggest concerns for our water-based resources in the future is the sustainability of the current and even future
water resource allocation (Walmsly and Pearce, 2010).
As water becomes more scarce the importance of how it is managed grows vastly. Finding a balance
between what is needed by humans and what is needed in the environment is an important step in the
sustainability of water resources. As the world's population rises and consumes more food (currently exceeding
6%, it is expected to reach 9% by 2050), industries and urban developments expand, and the emerging biofuel
crops trade also demands a share of freshwater resources, water scarcity is becoming an important issue
(Grafton and Hussey, 2011).
The purpose of groundwater management is probably at a local maximum possible use of groundwater to
meet the needs of users inside and outside the study area (Doherty, 2000). The management should be
arranged that prevent the harmful effects of it such as excessive withdrawals, poor quality of water and its
effects on the drinking water and crops (Chiang and Kinzelbach, 2001). Iran, with an average rainfall of 260
mm of the world, is one of the arid countries and is limited water resources. Factors such as population growth,
the need for more food, the need to improve health and social welfare, industrial development and the
protection of ecosystems, water demand is growing. Classified according to the UN, Iran not only in terms of
tension and crisis bring but also social tensions - political and health risks. With the problems, one of long-term
goals of the strategic management of water is budget between water demand and water resources at the
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (11), 1158-1163, 2013

lowest possible cost. To meet the increasing water demand in the country, need to consider appropriate
strategies in different sectors that can be useful to develop new methods for the efficient management.
Exploitation of water resources must be done in a manner that is consistent with the preservation of water
resources for future generations. So the management of these resources plays an important role in sustainable
development (Mozafari et al, 2005). In water management, the ‘Budget’ is a key word which is calculation of
quantitative assessment of an aquifer at the specific period. There are several ways to study groundwater
budget, but today, the use of modern techniques has a special place in order to optimize the management of
water resources and research on qualitative and quantitative parameters of aquifers. These techniques can be
noted to simulation of groundwater flow systems by computer modeling. Using GIS with mathematical models,
increases our ability to understand and manage water resources (Freedman and Ibaraki, 2002). Model is a
Device for an understanding of the physical systems that can be obtained using equation and if it is made the
desired effect, it can be used as a management tool for water resources planning. Preparation of Groundwater
models is so important that some to apply critical decisions and analysis, it is necessary to know the
management (Brewer et al, 2003). Model By inversion theory, the minimum error and the best fit is calibrated
and with regard to the actual conditions of aquifer and optimized the hydraulic parameters, provides appropriate
information for future decisions (Mozafari et al., 2005). Since 1970, different types of simulation of groundwater
and management strategy was proposed and successfully applied to real-scale groundwater systems (Onta,
1995; Finney et al., 1992).

Geographical condition of area

Evan plain with an area of approximately 195 km and geographical coordinates 470 59 to 480 9 E and
32 14 to 320 24 N is located in northwest of Kohzestan province, and in west of Karkheh River. Evan plain
0

lead from northern to the Band Mazarhe highlands, from east to Dezful-Andimeshk and Karkheh rivers, from
west to the Abbas Plains west and from south to Chnanhe Plain. Main road access to the area is Andimesk-
Dehloran. Figure 1 shows the geographical location and geological map of Evan Plain. Evan is an alluvial plain
that are originated from left deposits of Karkheh River. In the study area, the ancient to modern Aghajari
Formation and its Lehbry portion in the northwest, Bakhtiari Formation in the north, south and southwest and
present sediment are outcropped. Karkheh River with orientation from north to south is the main river in the
basin. This river is the eastern border of the Evan plains. In this area, the highest elevation point in the northern
plains region is about 214 meters and its slope is from north to south and the climate is arid type (Samani et al,
2007).

Fig.1. Geographical location of Evan Plain

DISCUSSION
The mathematical model (in this study, GMS) and GIS were used to investigate the groundwater flow system in
Evan plain. For this purpose, all available information including geology, meteorology, hydrology, and satellite
images were collected and processed in GIS. Developing the conceptual model is the most important part of
the modeling process. It simplifies the field situation and organizes associated field data for easy analysis of the
system. It is critical that the conceptual model be a valid representation of the vital hydrogeological conditions
and involves definition of the hydro-stratigraphic units, water balances and flow system (Nabidi, 2002). Then,
the network of model domain which covered an area with approximately 500*500 m2 created with 39 cell in X
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (11), 1158-1163, 2013

direction and 42 cell in Y direction. The designed model was completed with add the information about bedrock
depth, values of hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, hydraulic boundaries, recharging sources, pumping wells
etc. to each cell. The mathematical model of Evan plain developed for unstable state in period 2005-2006. The
next step was calibration; Figure 2 shows the error mean in year 2005.

Fig.2. Mean error in calibration step

Results of model run in instable state indicated that model simulation of groundwater flow direction has the
good agreement with real state (draw the contour with piezometric observations) and this was indicated
goodness of designed model and prove the its accuracy for Evan plain. Figure 3 shows the observed and
simulated groundwater direction in Evan plain for first stress period.

Fig.3. Observations and calculations water level relating to the first period of stress.

After model calibration, the verification process was followed by change in some parameters such as
pumping rates to decrease the observed differences in some observation wells or piezometric points. Fitting
curve of computed and observed values in verification step (first stress period) is presented in Figure 4.

Fig.4. Estimated and observed values in the first period of stress, in verification step
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (11), 1158-1163, 2013

After verification of model, it used for calculation of water budget in Evan plain for 2005 year. The
model results for this run are presented in Table 1.

Table.1. Components and amounts of water budget in Evan plain

Budget component input output
Wells 0 -113374166
Recharge 136293767.1 0
Groundwater flow 9288828.90 -23866104.58
Total 145582596 -137240270.7
output-Input 8342325.29

Therefore, the model results showed that the water budget are positive and is equal 8.34 MCM in 2005,
that it is indicating a positive change. The drawn unit hydrograph for year 2005 (Fig.5), showed the growing
trend which this confirmed the positive change in groundwater volume.

Fig.5. Unit hydrograph for year 2005

Manually Budget groundwater in the study area was prepared based on hydro-climatology data and
available maps of the water table in year 2005. Difference of input and output components showed the change
of water in this plain. Manually computed values of water budget components in Evan plain for year 2005 are
presented in table 2 (Samani et al, 2007).

Table.2. Manually computed values of budget Component

Budget parameters Value (MCM)

Rainfall 7.9
Surface currents and floods 0.58
Input
Return of consumed water 17.5
parameters
Groundwater inputs 23.7
Total input 103.7
Pumping wells 89.5
Underground output 4
Output
Total output 93.5
parameters
Output- input 10.2
Change of volume 10.4
Error 0.2

The manually computed of aquifer budget was equal 10.2 million cubic meters that this showed the
accuracy of model calculation for budget in this plain. One of the features of GMS6.5 is its capability to
separation of area to different zones and help to calculation of budget for each zone. Thus by using the map
module, the features (e.g. specific zone) was created in conceptual model and then each of these areas was
created an identification number (ID). After transforming the conceptual model into a numerical model, it used
to the Budget calculation in each zone. Figure 6 is shown zoning of model domain in order to obtain the budget
of each region based on hydrogeological, hydrological, geological, and meteorological conditions.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (11), 1158-1163, 2013

Fig.6. Zoning of model range in order to obtain the budget for each zone

Table 3 indicates the water budget of model related to each zone for year 2005. The results showed
that budget of zone 1, 3 is positive and budget of 4, 2 is negative. So, more attention of responsible people for
manage the water resources in zones 4 and 2 is necessary.

Table.3. Eater budget of model the related to each region in 2005

Number identification ID=1 ID=2 ID=3 ID=4

Water budget(m3 /d) 4144.1 -2086.9 28102.1 -131885.98

CONCLUSIONS

Linking the geographic information system (GIS) with numerical models (in this study, GMS) helped time
saving, precise evaluation, more data collecting and finally design and implement the accurate model for Evan
plain. Also the use of GIS capabilities to deliver results and manage databases helps expedite the process of
calibration model. The aim of this study was obtaining water budget by mathematical equations on the
groundwater model, which will improve data quality with mathematical optimization methods. This technique is
based on the groundwater data that derived from simulation model of finite differences of Evan plain and
assessment of the obtained results by unit hydrograph and comparing them to manual water budget. The
model results showed that the water budget are positive and is equal 8.34 MCM in 2005 which this results was
confirmed by analysis the hydrograph in this time period. The manually computed of aquifer budget was equal
10.2 million cubic meters that this showed the accuracy of model calculation for budget in this plain. The results
showed that mathematical models due to data optimization and different hydro geological zones are able to
present suitable data and aquifer simulation. The results showed that budget of zone 1, 3 is positive and budget
of 4, 2 is negative. So, more attention of responsible people for manage the water resources in zones 4 and 2
is necessary. In addition, the constructed model in this project is proposed as reliable model which can be
used in future studies in order to management policies.

REFERENCE
Brewer K, Fogle T, Stieve A, Barr C. 2003. Uncertainty Analysis with Site-Specific Groundwater Models: Experiences and
Observations. Available online: http://www.osti.gov/bridge.
Carolyn F. 2008. The Impact of Climate Change: The World's Greatest Challenge in the Twenty-first Century , New Holland
Publishers Ltd.
Chiang W, Kinzelbach W. 2001. Processing Modflow. A Simulation System for Modeling Groundwater Flow and pollution.
Springer Verlag. Berlin.
Doherty J. 2000. Model Independent Parameter Estimation Using PEST. Watermark Numerical Computing.
Finney BA, Samsuhadi Willis R. 1992. Quasi-three dimensional optimization model of Jakarta basin. J Water Resour Plan
Manage ASCE 118(1):18–3.
Freedman V, Ibaraki M. 2002. Effects of chemical reactions on density-dependent fluid flow: on the numerical formulation and the
development of instabilities. Adv Water Resoure 25(4):439–453.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 5 (11), 1158-1163, 2013

Grafton QR, Hussey K. 2011. Water Resources Planning and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mozafari J, Chitsazan M, Magedi H. 2005. Optimized management Getovand plain using finite difference model. MA thesis,
University of Shahid Chamran.
Nabidi IK. 2002. Development of 3-D conceptual hydrogeological model for Lake Navaisha area. WREM. Enschede, ITC, the
Netherlands.
Onta PR, Das Gupta A. 1995. Regional management modelling of a complex groundwater system for land subsidence control.
Water Resources Management 9(1):1–25.
Samani S, Kalantary N, Rahimi H. 2007. Effect of Karkheh Dam on Evan Plains aquifer. MA thesis, University of Shahid
Chamran.
Walmsly N, Pearce G. 2010. Towards Sustainable Water Resources Management: Bringing the Strategic Approach up-to-date.
Irrigation & Drainage Systems, 24(3/4), 191-203.