TITLE PAGE

INVESTIGATION OF AQUIFER BEHAVIOUR OF GROUNDWATER

POTENTIALS, A CASE STUDY OF FACULTY OF ENGINEERING,

ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

(ESUT), AGBANI.

PRESENTED BY

OKUGO, JOSEPH NNAOGO.

2019030190268

SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(ESUT), ENUGU.

JULY, 2024
 APPROVAL PAGE

This is to certify that this project titled “INVESTIGATION OF

AQUIFER BEHAVIOUR OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIALS, A CASE

STUDY OF FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, ENUGU STATE

UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT), AGBANI”

submitted to the department of Civil Engineering, in the Faculty

of Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and

Technology (ESUT), was carried out by Okugo, Joseph Nnaogo,

with registration number: 2019030190268 and was duly

supervised and found worthy of acceptance.

……………………………….. ……………………….

Engr. Dr. C. Odenigbo Date

(Project Supervisor)

……………………………….. ………………………..

Engr. Dr. C. Odenigbo Date

(Head of Department)

………………………………… ………………………

External examiner Date

 CERTIFICATION PAGE

This is to certify that this project titled “INVESTIGATION OF

AQUIFER BEHAVIOUR OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIALS, A CASE

STUDY OF FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, ENUGU STATE

UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ESUT), AGBANI”

submitted to the department of Civil Engineering, in the Faculty

of Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and

Technology (ESUT), was carried out by me.

……………………………………. ……………………

Okugo, Joseph Nnaogo Date

 DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to Almighty God for His infinite Grace

and mercy upon me, throughout this project work, and to my

family for their immeasurable support in my career.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My greatest appreciation goes to the Almighty God for His infinite

Grace upon me throughout this project.

I am grateful to my supervisor and HoD, Civil Engineering

department, Engr. Dr. C. Odenigbo, for his immeasurable

assistance towards the successful completion of this project.

My sincere appreciation also, to all the lecturers in the

department of Civil Engineering, and Faculty of Engineering by

extension. You all have played a great role in making this project

work a success.

Special thanks to my beloved father and mother, Hon. Sunday

Ogbunne and Lolo Patience Okugo, respectively, and to my

siblings, for their kindness and assistance towards the successful

completion of my project.

Finally, I wish to appreciate my senior colleague, Engr. Anukwu

Chiedozie Joshua, and all my friends and course-mates, for their

moral support and all.

May God almighty reward you, and bless all of your life

endeavours, in Jesus’ name, Amen.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page

Approval

Dedication

Acknowledgement

Table of contents

Abstract

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.0 Background of Study

1.1 Geology and Hydrogeology of the Study Area.

1.2 Physiography and Drainage

1.3 Statement of Problem.

1.4 Objective of Study

1.5 Significance of Study

1.6 Scope of the Study

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review
2.0 Aquifer

2.1 Classification of Aquifer

2.2 Physical Properties of Aquifers

2.3 Geological Formations, Affecting Aquifer Behaviour

2.4 Groundwater Flow Dynamics

2.5 Principles of Groundwater Flow (Darcy’s Law of Hydraulic

Conductivity).

2.6 Darcy’s Law

2.7 Aquifer Recharge and Discharge Processes.

2.8 Pumping Test.

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Materials and Methods.

CHAPTER FOUR

Data Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions, Recommendation, References and Apendix

5.1 Conclusions and Recommendation

5.2 References

5.3 Apendix
 Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background of Study.

Groundwater is a valuable, indispensable and vulnerable natural resource,

which should be explored and used to build a database for efficient management

and land-use planning (Wattanasen, 2008 and Eze & Eze, 2015). This is

important because increasing demand for potable water occasioned by the ever-

increasing population, inability of major city dams to meet demands, and

collapse of many public water systems have led to increase in groundwater

abstraction for domestic use. Generally, groundwater provides a reasonable

constant supply and possesses excellent quality that requires little or no

treatment in most cases (Asiwaju et al, 2013). Excessive abstraction of

groundwater from neighbourhood boreholes and hand-dug wells sometimes

stresses the hydrogeologic system and alters the groundwater flow pattern.

Moreover, groundwater is vulnerable to contamination from anthropogenic

sources, which is transmitted in the direction of flow. Hydro geophysical

investigation adopts nonintrusive geophysical methods to investigate drillable

prospects and characterise reservoir properties. Electrical resistivity (ER) and

very-low-frequency electromagnetic (VLFEM) methods have been extensively

applied in groundwater investigation, determination of depth to bedrock and

analysis of superficial deposits in basement complex terrains. The VLFEM

technique has proven useful, effective and efficient in detecting long, straight,

electrical conductors, identifying viable drillable groundwater exploitation sites

and locating fractures (Hutchinson et al, 2002 and Bayewu et al, 2012).

Compared with many other geophysical methods, as a reconnaissance tool, it

provides a cost-effective and relatively fast approach to delineate fractures in

the shallow subsurface. The ER method using vertical electrical sounding

(VES) field procedure has often been used in routine groundwater exploration

both in alluvial and hard rock environment (Yadav et al, 1997 and Muchingami

et al, 2012). Aquifers in basement complex environments are located in the

weathered layer or fractured bedrock (Odunsanaya et al, 1990 and Akinrinade &

Olabode, 2015). Aquifer properties that influence groundwater flow include

transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity and homogeneity of the materials that

constitute the internal architecture of the aquifer (Harb et al, 2010). Evaluation

of the hydraulic gradient, as well as the flow rate and direction of the associated

groundwater, is a fundamental aspect of hydrogeologic characterisation.

Hydrogeologic investigations therefore focus on these aquifers as targets for

drillable prospects.

Generally, basement rocks have low permeability and porosity, properties that

influence their electrical properties (Bayewu et al, 2012 and Hutchinson et al,
2010). Identifying viable groundwater exploitation sites should take into

consideration potential pollution sources that can easily affect the groundwater

system and transmit the contamination to wider areas. Hence, knowledge of

groundwater flow properties is required to make holistic predictions and

suggest remediation for possible pollution.

The likelihood of groundwater contamination by the subsurface

sewage disposal system is high, especially in areas wherein septic

systems are closely spaced and bedrock is covered by little or no soil

(Eze & Eze, 2015 and Panagiotakis et al, 2015). If septic systems are

located in sensitive areas or are poorly built, they can cause

pollution of water supplies and the environment. In addition,

improper waste handling has in many cases resulted in serious

groundwater contamination (Banda et al, 2014). Effluents

discharged to the subsurface by drain fields often percolate into the

same aquifer tapped by wells for domestic supply. This pollution

can have serious environmental and economic implications

(McQuillain, 2004). However, because the soil acts as a natural

filter, effluents from septic systems can be prevented from seeping

into the underlying aquifer (Henriet, 1976). depending on the

aquifer’s protective capacity, as indicated by the longitudinal unit

conductance value (Oladapo et al, 2004 and Iloeje, 1981).

Thus, groundwater exploitation, environmental impact assessment

and site’s spatial development planning are interrelated. The aim of

this study is to identify drillable groundwater prospects and

determine the optimum location to site a proposed septic system.

1.1 Geology and Hydrogeology of the Study Area

The study area [Faculty of Engineering, Enugu State University of

Science and Technology (ESUT), Agbani], is bounded by latitudes

″6018”N and 6019″N and longitudes 7032″E and 7033″E and falls

under the Awgu Lithostratigraphic unit, which is the topmost

formation that was deposited from Coniacian – early Santonian

stratigraphic succession of the Southern Benue Trough of Nigeria

(Ariwodo, 2022). The Awgu Formation is underlain by Ezeaku

Formation. According to Kogbe (1976), the Coniacian - Santonian

regression resulted in the deposition of the Agbani Sandstone, that

marked the end of sedimentary infilling of the Southern Benue

Trough. It is majorly consisting of Sandstone, Shale, Siltstone, and

heteroliths, with maximum bed thickness of about 2 m. The area is

characterized by two climatic seasons (dry and wet seasons) and lies
within the tropical rain forest/Guinea savannah belt of Nigeria.

Hydrologically speaking, the Agbani Sandstone is aquiferous. The

recharge of the aquifer is copious judging from the rainfall pattern

of the region, while the existence of springs in the area confirms the

presence of the water bearing sands whose exposure due to erosion

leak water to the surface.

Fig 1.0: Location map of the study area, showing sounding station

and some other faculties of ESUT.

Figure 1.1: Geological and mineral resources map of the southern portion of

Enugu State.

1.2 Physiography and Drainage

The study area is low-lying, about 137 m above sea level. This result in the

swamping of some areas by small rivers formed from the springs issuing from

the exposed Agbani Sandstone bodies. The existing rivers are tributaries of the

area.

1.3 Statement of Problem

1. The behaviour of aquifers, in my study area, including the recharge rates,

flow dynamics, and response to seasonal variations is not well understood.

2. There is a concern about the potential risk of groundwater depletion due to

excessive extraction or unsustainable usage practices.

3. It is observed that climate change may be influencing groundwater recharge

patterns and aquifer behaviours, leading to uncertainties about future water

availability.

4. There is a need to develop effective strategies for sustainable groundwater

management to ensure long-term water security for the Faculty of

Engineering.

1.4 Objective of Study.

To comprehensively investigate the behaviour of aquifers in the Faculty of

Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT), and

assess their ground water potentials to support sustainable water resource

management.

The following are some of the study goals.

i. To determine the physical and hydrogeological properties of

the aquifer such as porosity, permeability, hydraulic

conductivity and storage capacity.

 ii. To investigate the mechanisms and rates of groundwater

recharge to understand the replenishment of the aquifer

system.

iii. To monitor and analyse seasonal variations and trends in

groundwater levels to assess aquifer behaviour over time.

iv. To assess the quality of groundwater within the aquifer, to

determine its suitability for various uses and identify potential

contamination sources.

v. Develop a mathematical model to simulate aquifer behaviour

and predict responses to different management and climatic

scenarios.

vi. To investigate interactions between groundwater and surface

water bodies, to assess their influence on aquifer behaviour

and water availability.

vii. To provide data and insights to support the development of

sustainable groundwater management practices, including

groundwater recharge strategies and extraction regulations.

viii. To identify the potential risk to the aquifer system, such as

overexploitation, pollution, or changes in land use, and

propose mitigation measures.

ix. To contribute valuable information for regional water

resource planning, including identifying if the area has high

groundwater potential and conservation measures.

x. To contribute to the broader scientific understanding of

aquifer behaviour, groundwater potentials, and their

implications for water resource management and

environmental sustainability.

1.5 Significance of Study.

This research will assist water resources engineers or civil

engineering contractors in comprehending the geology of the study

area, designing the most cost-effective borehole, and gauging the

yield of the study area.

1.6 Scope of Study.

This study will be focused on the aquifer behaviour such as porosity,

permeability, hydraulic conductivity and storage capacity, and the

behaviour of the groundwater in respect to weather and climatic

changes. A field work will be carried out, using the ER-VES

(Electrical Resistivity, Vertical Eletrical Sounding) method.

 CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review.

2.0 AQUIFER.

A permeable stratum or a geological formation of permeable

material, which is capable of yielding appreciable quantities of

ground-water under gravity, is known as aquifer (Odenigbo, 2014).

The term “appreciable quantity” is relative, depending upon the

availability of the groundwater. In the regions where groundwater is

available with great difficulty (e.g Nsukka Formation), even fine-

grained materials containing very less quantities of water may be

classified as principal aquifers (Odenigbo, 2014).

When an aquifer is overlain by a confined bed of impervious

materials, then thus confined bed of overburden is called aquiclude.

2.1 Classification of Aquifers.

Aquifers vary in depth, lateral extent, and thickness; but in general,

all aquifers fall into one of the three categories, i.e

i. Unconfined aquifers or non-artesian aquifers: The top most

water bearing stratum having no confined impermeable

over burden (i.e aquiclude) lying over it, is known as

unconfined aquifer or non-artesian aquifer.

ii. Confined aquifer or artesian aquifer: When an aquifer is

confined on its upper and under surface, by impervious

rock formations (I.e aquicludes), and is also broadly

inclined so as to expose the aquifer somewhere to the

catchment area, at a higher level for the creation of

sufficient hydraulic head, it is called a confined aquifer or

artesian aquifer.

iii. Perched aquifers: Perched aquifer is a special case which is

sometimes found to occur within an unconfined aquifer. If

within the zone of saturation, an impervious deposit below

a pervious deposit is found to support a body of saturated

 material, then this body of saturated material which is a

kind of aquifer is known as perched aquifer. The top

surface of the water held in the perched aquifer is known

as the perched water table (Odenigbo, 2014).

2.2 Physical Properties of Aquifers

i. Transmission

The ability of an aquifer to transmit water – or of an aquitard to slow the flow of

water – is the second essential ingredient controlling groundwater movement. It

is also the most variable in natural materials; distances in astronomy are the

only other quantity in nature that varies over a similar range! For example, the

difference in groundwater flow rate for shale vs. gravel is a factor of

1,000,000,000,000 (yup…one trillion). That’s the difference between the size of

an iPhone and the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Groundwater transport properties are described by two related quantities.

Hydraulic Conductivity, denoted by K, is a measure of the ability of a particular

fluid (usually water) to flow through the rock or sediment. Permeability,

denoted by a lower-case k, is often also termed “intrinsic permeability” and

describes the ability of the geologic formation alone to transmit fluid. Although

related, the key difference is that hydraulic conductivity combines properties of

the geologic formation and the fluid, whereas permeability describes only the

rock properties. As described in Sidebar 1, the basic concept of hydraulic

conductivity emerged from a series of ingenious experiments conducted in the

mid-1880s by Henri Darcy, a French Engineer. These experiments led to

Darcy’s Law, which forms the foundation for much of modern hydrogeology

and petroleum engineering.

To illustrate the difference between K and k, consider the sandstone in Figure

14 below. The sandstone itself has a permeability, which is controlled by the

size of the grains and pore spaces through which water can percolate, and the

connectedness and geometry of the pores (more on that in a moment!). That

permeability is a characteristic of the sandstone, regardless of whatever fluid

might be moving through it, the temperature, or anything else. But the flow rate

of water through this sandstone will be different than for oil, or for air, or any

other fluid. So, the same sandstone also has a hydraulic conductivity specific to

a given fluid of interest.

ii. Storage

Porosity (usually denoted by the symbol η, which is Greek letter 'eta') is the

primary aquifer property that controls water storage, and is defined as the

volume of void space (i.e., that can hold water in the zone of saturation) as a

proportion of the total volume (Figure 2.0).

Figure 2.0. Schematic diagrams illustrating porosity in sedimentary rock with

two different particle, or grain sizes (left), and in a crystalline rock (right). In

the latter example, the porosity is restricted to the boundaries between “grains”

that remains after they crystallized or grew, and is usually <2-5%.

Porosity is expressed as either a fraction, or a percentage:

 η=Vvoids/Vtotal, or if reported as a percentage,

η=(Vvoids/Vtotal)x100

For aquifers composed of sedimentary rocks or sediments, porosity is usually in

the range of ~10-35%. For unfractured crystalline rock, porosity is quite a bit

lower - on order of a few percent - because there is little porosity between

individual grains other than the vary narrow interfaces along their boundaries

(Figure 2.0).

Several factors can affect porosity. In sedimentary rock and sediments, controls

on porosity include sorting, cementation, overburden stress (related to burial

depth), and grain shape. Poorly sorted sedimentary deposits, in which there is a

wide distribution of grain sizes, typically have lower porosity than well-sorted

ones (Figure 2.1). This is because the finer particles are able to fill in spaces

between the larger grains. Cementation caused by precipitation of minerals

(typically calcium carbonate or silica) at grain boundaries also reduces porosity

(Figure 2.1). Angular grains generally allow more efficient packing of particles

than rounded or spherical ones, also leading to slightly lower porosity. Finally,

the more deeply sediments or sedimentary rock are buried, the larger the weight

of the overburden; the higher stress leads to compaction, tighter packing of the

grains, and lower overall porosity.

Secondary processes that act on the rock or sediment after its formation,

primarily weathering by physical or chemical mechanisms, can also affect

porosity. Physical weathering by wind or water movement can remove fine

clay-sized particles from the sediment (a process termed winnowing), leading to

increased porosity near the Earth’s surface. Chemical weathering of certain rock

types can lead to clay and oxide formation; depending on the environment and

initial composition of the aquifer grains, the clays and oxides may subsequently

be removed (porosity increase), or they may grow at the boundaries of other

particles and reduce the porosity.

In fractured rock (whether fractured crystalline or cemented sedimentary rock),

porosity is typically ~2-5%. The pore space is almost entirely composed of the

fractures or cracks themselves, which are typically a millimeter or less in

aperture (Figure 2.2). Two primary factors control porosity – and the

connectedness of porosity – in fractured rock. First, increased stress, related to

the depth of burial and the weight of the overburden, exerts a clamping force

that causes the closure of cracks or fractures (decreases fracture aperture). In

some types of rock – most notably limestones – chemical weathering occurs via

dissolution as water flows along and through fractures. This leads to increased

fracture aperture. Significant enlargement of fractures can lead to the

development of karst, typified by large open fractures, caves, and caverns, as

well as sinkholes and hummocky topography that ensue as the underlying rock

is gradually dissolved (Figure 2.3).

Interestingly, grain size does not affect porosity. For example, consider a box

filled with spherical particles packed as tightly as possible. The proportion of

empty space (porosity) would be the same whether the particles are marble-

sized, pea-sized, or golf ball-sized; the porosity is controlled entirely by the

geometry of the particles – not their dimensions. As we’ll see in the next

section, however, grain size does strongly affect the ability of aquifers to

transmit water because it directly controls the size of the pore spaces where the

water percolates. For example, unconsolidated clays (grain sizes of a few to tens

of microns) commonly have porosities of over 50-60%, but they transmit water

only one-thousandth to one millionth as well as sands with porosities of 20-30%

(grain sizes of a few hundred microns).

Specific Yield (denoted as Sy) is another important quantity for water storage in

unconfined aquifers. Sy is defined as the proportion of water occupying void

spaces that drains under gravity. Because some water is bound, or adsorbed, to

the aquifer particles or fractures, the specific yield is always lower than the

porosity. The attraction between water molecules and the aquifer is due – you

guessed it! – to the polar nature of water and surface tension. In sands and

fractured rock, Sy is typically a large fraction (>90%) of the porosity, whereas

in fine-grained sedimentary deposits Sy may be as low as a few percent because

the surface area interacting with water molecules is higher, and pores are

smaller, allowing the aquifer to retain more water. In unconfined aquifers, Sy

controls the amount of water that can be extracted by pumping.

In confined aquifers, the compressibility of the aquifer is the dominant control

on water storage and release. As described above (see Figure 8, right panel),

when water is extracted from confined aquifers by pumping or flow to natural

springs, the aquifer remains saturated, but the water pressure decreases. Upon

depressurization, the aquifer itself can compress slightly. If water is recharged

or injected, the opposite occurs: pressure increases and the aquifer expands very

slightly. Essentially, by increasing water pressure, more water mass is being

“crammed” into the pore space in the aquifer, and vice versa. Although

exaggerated, one way to visualize this is to think of pores in the rock or aquifer

as a juice box. By changing the pressure inside the box, it will expand or

contract. In the same way that a soft juice box will deform more than a stiff one

for a given change in pressure, a more compressible aquifer will yield more

water than a stiffer aquifer, for the same depressurization. The storage of water

in confined aquifers is termed the specific storage, and reported in units of

Volume of water/Volume of aquifer per change in water level (so the units are

1/length; e.g., 1/m or 1/ft).

Figure 2.1. (Left) Poorly sorted sediment, with fine particles filling spaces

between larger grains. (Right) Cementation in pore spaces (gray) that

reduces the porosity.

Source: Earthsci.org (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License), after lecture notes(link is external) from

S.A. Nelson.
Figure 2.2. Schematic diagram illustrating the difference between intergranular

porosity in sedimentary rock (top) and fracture porosity (bottom).

Figure 2.3. Schematic of a karst system.

iii. Viscosity and Density

More specifically, it is the viscosity and density of the fluid that matter. More

viscous fluids will flow more slowly through the same rock than less viscous

ones. This is important for comparing different fluids (say, oil vs. water –

whether you are thinking about an oil reservoir or contamination of

groundwater by a gasoline spill). It is also important in considering the effects

of temperature, because water viscosity decreases with increasing temperature:

it’s less than half as viscous at 90° than at 32° F. So even for the same aquifer,

the hydraulic conductivity goes up if it is warmer! This makes some sense – if

the water is less viscous (i.e. “thinner”), it will flow more easily through the

aquifer.

So…that’s how we define permeability and hydraulic conductivity. But what

controls their magnitude? The main factors are grain size and shape, sorting,

porosity (degree of compaction or fracture aperture), particle orientation or

alignment that affects the tortuosity of the flow path, and cementation.

Tortuosity is a measure of how far fluid must go to “circumnavigate” its way

around particles: higher tortuosity indicates that water must go farther to get to

its destination (a more tortuous path). For all of these mechanisms, the key
underlying control on groundwater movement is the viscous resistance resulting

from the interaction of the fluid with solid surfaces in the aquifer (grain edges or

fracture walls

2.3 Geological Formations Affecting Aquifer Behaviour.

An aquifer is a geological formation in which groundwater flows

through with ease. Aquifers should therefore have both permeability

and porosity. Examples of these geological formations which form

aquifers include sandstone, conglomerate, fractured limestone, and

unconsolidated sand and gravel formations. Another example of

an aquifer system is a fractured volcanic rock formation such as

columnar basalt. The rubble zone where volcanic flow exists is

usually both porous and permeable, thus allowing for good aquifer

systems (Wattanasen, 2008 and Eze & Eze, 2015). Furthermore,

geological formations such as granite and schist have low porosity,

and so are usually classified as poor aquifers. However, once they

become fractured, they can produce good aquifers (Wattanasen,

2008 and Eze & Eze, 2015). Furthermore, for a well to be

productive, the well itself should be drilled into the ground to

penetrate the aquifer. If groundwater is abstracted from the well at a

rate faster than the aquifer is recovered, there is a decline in the

water table, sometimes to a point that the well dries. As pumping

occurs, the water table normally declines, resulting in a cone of

depression at the well. Moreover, groundwater flow generally

follows the slope of the water table, thus in this case, groundwater

flows in the direction of the well being pumped. Not all aquifers can

be seen as groundwater reservoirs (Wattanasen, 2008 and Asiwaju et

al, 2013). These reservoirs are, however, found underground but

only in cavernous geological formations where the formations

surrounding fractures or cracks have undergone dissolution, forming

open channels which allow rapid water movement similar to that of

a river. Furthermore, since groundwater migrates at a slow rate

through pore spaces of aquifer material, the only living organisms,

that could float as it would in an actual river, are bacteria or viruses

which are minute enough to migrate through pore spaces. Movement

of groundwater through an aquifer occurs as groundwater is forced

through a pore space of geological formations. Hence, porosity

essentially defines an aquifer. To add, porosity of certain aquifers

also allows them to act as good filters generating natural

purification (Eze & Eze, 2015 and Asiwaju et al, 2013). Since effort

is required for forcing water movement through small pores, there is

a loss in groundwater energy as it flows. This eventually results in

decreased hydraulic head in the direction of groundwater flow. On

the other hand, when pores are large in size, there is increased
permeability, less energy loss, and rapid groundwater movement.

Subsequently, groundwater migration is rapid for aquifers with large

pores, such as in the case of the lower Port Neuf River aquifer or in

cases where porosity is a result of fractures which are

interconnected. It is also significantly rapid in fractured rock

aquifers such as the basalts of the eastern Snake River Plain. Despite

being good aquifers, they are vulnerable to spreading of

contamination which is challenging and often impossible to

prevent (Asiwaju et al, 2013).

2.4 Groundwater Flow Dynamics

Groundwater flow dynamics refers to the movement of water

beneath the Earth’s surface, through permeable materials like soil

and rock. It involves processes like infiltration (water entering

ground), percolation (water moving downward through soil), and

groundwater flow (movement of water through aquifers). Factors

such as topography, geology, climate and human activities influence

these dynamics, impacting water availability, quality, and

sustainability.

2.5 Principle of Groundwater Flow (Darcy’s law of Hydraulic

Conductivity).
The principle of groundwater flow revolves around the movement of

water through soil and rock layers beneath the Earth’s surface. Its

driven primarily by gravity and the natural pressure differences

within the subsurface.

Here are the key principles:

i. Porosity: This refers to the amount of open space in soil or

rock where water can be stored. Odenigbo, (2014) defined

porosity as a quantitative measurement of the interstices or

voids present in the soil. It is generally defined as the

percentage of the voids present in a given volume of soil

aggregate.

ii. Permeability: Permeability is defined as th ability of a rock

or unconsolidated sediment, to transmit or pass water through

itself ( Odenigbo, 2014).

iii. Gradient: Groundwater flows from areas of high elevation

( high hydraulic head) to areas of low elevation ( low

hydraulic head), following the slope of the water table.

iv. Recharge and Discharge: Recharge occurs when water

infiltrates the ground and replenishes the groundwater, while

discharge happens when groundwater flows back to the

surface through springs, streams or wells.

2.6 Darcy’s Law.

Darcy’s law (Equation 1) states that the volumetric flow rate, Q, is proportional

to: (1) the difference in hydraulic head along a length interval, ΔL; (2) a

coefficient K (hydraulic conductivity), which accounts for restriction to flow

imposed by the solid medium and for the density and viscosity of the fluid

flowing through the porous medium (in this case, water through sand); and (3)

the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the flow direction:

−K ( h2−h 1 ) A
Q= (1)
∆L

The negative sign accounts for the fact that we define flow as positive in the

direction of decreasing head (water flows from higher elevations to lower

elevations). For example, in Figure 2, the term h2-h1 is negative, so introducing

the negative sign results in a positive value for Q.

The nature and properties of hydraulic conductivity are described in more detail

in the Groundwater Project book by Woessner and Poeter (2020). The term (h2-

h1)/ ΔL can be expressed more generally as the hydraulic gradient as shown in

Equation 2 below.
 ∆h
∆l

(2)

Hydraulic gradient is often denoted with an i, which is represented by the slope

of the dashed line in Figure 2. Darcy’s law can therefore be expressed as

Equation 3.

Q= -kiA (3)

Darcy’s law applies to laminar (non-turbulent) flow conditions, meaning that

the rate of water flow is slow enough that the trajectories of water particles do

not crisscross as they migrate through the interconnected voids of the porous

media. By “water particle”, we mean an aggregate of water molecules

occupying a sufficiently small volume such that it can migrate through the

interconnected network of pore spaces without separation. This volume may be

on the order of cubic micrometers or less. Darcy’s law is discussed in depth by

Woessner and Poeter (2020).

2.7 Aquifer Recharge and Discharge Processes.

Aquifer Recharge

Aquifer recharge is water that moves from the land surface or unsaturated zone

into the saturated zone. Quantitative estimation of recharge rate contributes to

the understanding of large-scale hydrologic processes. It is important for

evaluating the sustainability of groundwater supplies, though it does not equate

with a sustainable rate of extraction. Where contamination of an aquifer is a

concern, estimating the recharge rate is a first step toward predicting solute

transport to the aquifer. Recharge may cause a short- or long-term rise of the

water table. Artificial drainage, e.g., with horizontal porous pipes buried at a

chosen depth, is sometimes used to maintain a minimal thickness of vadose

zone for agricultural or other purposes.

Recharge rates vary considerably in time and space. Recharge often occurs

episodically in response to storms and other short-term, high-intensity inputs.

For a given amount of infiltration, temporal concentration enhances recharge

because it entails shorter residence times for water in the portions of the soil

from which evapotranspiration takes place. Similarly, a larger fraction will

become recharge if it is concentrated in narrow channels such as fingers

or macropores, not only because this tends to hasten its passage through the

unsaturated zone, but also because the water then occupies less of the volume of

soil from which evapotranspiration takes place.

Groundwater Recharge

Worldwide, aquifers are, for many reasons, an important source of water that

acquires vital importance in arid and semiarid regions. Natural replenishment of

aquifers occurs very slowly. Continuous exploitation of groundwater at a rate

greater than replenishment therefore results in overexploitation with the

associated effects that go beyond those of simply extracting water. To overcome

these impacts, aquifer recharge with recycled water is now being performed

(Jiménez, 2003), and has become an important element of integrated water

resource management .

Natural Recharge Mechanisms

i. Precipitation: Precipitation is any liquid or frozen water that forms in

the atmosphere and falls back to the earth. It comes in many forms, like

rain, sleet, and snow. Along with evaporation and condensation,

precipitation is one of the three major parts of the global water cycle.

Precipitation forms in the clouds when water vapor condenses into bigger and

bigger droplets of water. When the drops are heavy enough, they fall to the

earth. If a cloud is colder, like it would be at higher altitudes, the water droplets

may freeze to form ice. These ice crystals then fall to the earth as snow, hail, or

rain, depending on the temperature within the cloud and at Earth’s surface. Most
rain actually begins as snow high in the clouds. As the snowflakes fall through

warmer air, they become raindrops.

Particles of dust or smoke in the atmosphere are essential for precipitation.

These particles, called “condensation nuclei,” provide a surface for water vapor

to condense upon. This helps water droplets gather together and become large

enough to fall to the earth.

A common misconception is that when raindrops fall, they have a teardrop

shape. In fact, smaller raindrops (ones that are approximately one millimeter

(0.039 inches) across) are almost perfectly spherical. Larger raindrops (two to

three millimetres (0.078-0.118 inches) across) are also round, but with a small

indent on their bottom side. They look more like kidney beans when falling.

Very large rain drops (larger than 4.5 millimetres (0.177 inches)) have a huge

indent and look more like a parachute. These extra-large drops usually end up

splitting into two smaller droplets. The indents on raindrops are caused by air

resistance.

Precipitation is always fresh water, even when the water originated from the

ocean. This is because sea salt does not evaporate with water. However, in some

cases, pollutants in the atmosphere can contaminate water droplets before they

fall to the ground. The precipitation that results from this is called acid rain.

Acid rain does not harm humans directly, but it can make lakes and streams
more acidic. This harms aquatic ecosystems because plants and animals often

cannot adapt to the acidity.

ii. Infiltration: Infiltration is the process by which water on the

ground surface enters the soil. It is commonly used in

both hydrology and soil sciences. The infiltration capacity is

defined as the maximum rate of infiltration. It is most often

measured in meters per day but can also be measured in other

units of distance over time if necessary. (Kirkham, 2014).

(The infiltration capacity decreases as the soil moisture

content of soils surface layers increases. If the precipitation

rate exceeds the infiltration rate, runoff will usually occur

unless there is some physical barrier.

2.8 Pumping Test.

A pumping test is a field experiment in which a well is pumped at a controlled

rate and water-level response (drawdown) is measured in one or more

surrounding observation wells and optionally in the pumped well (control well)

itself; response data from pumping tests are used to estimate the hydraulic

properties of aquifers, evaluate well performance and identify aquifer

boundaries. Aquifer test and aquifer performance test (APT) are alternate
designations for a pumping test. In petroleum engineering, a pumping test is

referred to as a drawdown test.

Pumping Test or Pump Test? Although the terms pumping test and pump

test are often applied interchangeably, the use of pumping test is preferred

(Woessner and Anderson 2002). If you're testing the performance of a pump,

use pump test; if you're testing the performance of an aquifer through the

action of pumping a well, use pumping test.

Figure 2.4. Typical well configuration for pumping test in nonleaky confined

aquifer.
The goal of a pumping test, as in any aquifer test, is to estimate hydraulic

properties of an aquifer system. For the pumped aquifer, one seeks to

determine transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity (horizontal and vertical)

and storability (storage coefficient).

Common types of pumping tests are;

 Constant-rate tests maintain pumping at the control well at a constant

rate. This is the most commonly used pumping test method for

obtaining estimates of aquifer properties.

 Step-drawdown tests proceed through a sequence of constant-rate steps at

the control well to determine well performance characteristics such as

well loss and well efficiency.

 Recovery tests use water-level (residual drawdown) measurements after

the termination of pumping. Although often interpreted separately, a

recovery test is an integral part of any pumping test.

Pre- And Post-Test Water Levels

Pre- and post-test water-level measurements are essential for the identification

of trends (e.g., barometric fluctuations) that may require correction prior to

pumping test data interpretation. A linear schedule is recommended for

monitoring water levels before and after the test. Pre-test water-level

measurements should begin at least several days before pumping begins.

Figure 2.5. Identification of regional water-level trend from pre- and post-test

monitoring (Heath 1983)

The decision to terminate a pumping test is best made on the basis of

hydrogeologic conditions at the test site and the objectives of the test. Longer
tests may be necessary to estimate specific yield in an unconfined aquifer or to

observe boundary effects.

Plotting and inspecting pumping test data as they are collected in the field can

help one in deciding when it's appropriate to end a pumping test.

 Have the objectives of the test been achieved?

 Have sufficient late-time data been collected to estimate specific yield in

an unconfined aquifer?

 Has the test continued long enough to detect and locate aquifer

boundaries?

Other factors may influence the planned duration of a pumping test including

budgetary constraints and regulatory requirements. Often, applicable regulations

may establish a minimum duration required for a test, but longer tests may be

necessary to achieve other test objectives

 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Materials and methods

One vertical electrical sounding (VES) was carried out at the Faculty of

Engineering, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT), as

shown in Figure 1.0 above. The Nigeria Geological Survey Agency (NGSA,

2006), was instrumental, showing the study area.

The field data was acquired with Omega/ABEM Terrameter SAS 300B

model, employing the Schlumberger electrode configuration. The instrument

measures the resistance of the subsurface earth structure sampled by the

survey. Resistance of the earth subsurface measured by the instrument was

used to calculate the apparent resistivity of the earth model using the

geometric factor of the Schlumberger configuration. The maximum current

electrode separation (AB) achieved in the field ranged from 600 to 800 m,

depending on the accessibility along each profile.

 Values of apparent resistivity obtained from the field measurements at the

sounding station was plotted as ordinate against half-current electrode

separation (AB/2) as abscissa on log-log graphs. The field curves were first

interpreted by partial curve matching technique in order to estimate the true

resistivity and thickness of the layers using the two-layer curves of Orellena

and Mooney (1966). These initial estimates were then used as the starting

parameters for the computer iteration process of RESIST Version1 (Vander,

1988) software. This was used to obtain better estimates of the true resistivity

values of the geoelectric layers and their corresponding thicknesses after

several iterations. Results obtained from the VES data interpretation were

used to compute the aquifer transmissivity, T, using the analytical

relationship of Niwas and Singhal (1981):

KS
T = K R = σ

Where k, , R and S are the hydraulic conductivity, electrical conductivity,

transverse resistance, and longitudinal conductance of the aquiferous layer,

respectively. The transverse resistance, R, and longitudinal conductance, S,

were obtained from the VES interpretation results using the equations of Maillet

(1947) given by:

R = hi ῤi

and
 hi
S = ῤi

Where hi and ῤi are the thickness and resistivity of the aquiferous layer for each

VES station, respectively, (Marlum Nig. Limited, personal communication).

gave K = 0.37 m/day from a pumping test on Eng. Fac. BH.1. The three

parameters (R, S, and K) were subsequently used to calculate the aquifer

transmissivity, T, for each VES station.

 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 RESULTS

Table 4.1: geoelectric models

Figure 4.1: representative curve.
Figure 4.2: Litho-log
 Figure 4.3: Contour map of the study area.

4.1 DISCUSSION

The apparent resistivity curves of the interpreted VES data

predominantly suggested the existence of six geoelectric layers.

Schlumberger array, layered model, parameter resolution matrix,

representative curve, contour map and litho-log of the surveyed

location, were interpreted and summarized, as shown in figures 4.1 to

4.3 above. The first layer resistivity value, and thickness are

498.6Ωm, and 8.75m, respectively. The second layer resistivity value,

and thickness are 1903.7Ωm, and 3.1m, respectively. The third layer

resistivity value, and thickness are 210.2Ωm, and 72.04m,

respectively. The fourth layer resistivity value, and thickness are

444.6Ωm, and 69.02m, respectively. The fifth layer resistivity value,

and thickness are 12.93Ωm, and 200.4m, respectively. While the sixth

layer resistivity value, and thickness are 34.18Ωm, and infinitum

depth, respectively.

A correlation between the VES results and the lithologic log of the

borehole, is as shown in Figure 4.5, above. This correlation was used

to infer the lithology of the VES results. The first layer was inferred

to be top dry brown sand while the second layer was inferred to be

lateritic sandy clay. The third layer was inferred to be shaly sand,

while the fourth layer was inferred to be sandy shale sandstones. The

sandy shale sandstones, preceded the shale layer, which comprises of

the fifth and sixth layers.

From the resistivity, thickness, and transmissivity of the aquiferous

layer obtained for each sounding station, contour maps of the aquifer

resistivity, thickness, and transmissivity of the study area were

obtained using Surfer 8 (Golden Software Inc., 2002) as shown in

Figures 4.6 below.

The aquifer thickness from the VES results is highly variable as is

the electrical resistivity with depth. The litho-log profile (Figure 4.5),

showed that the aquifer is more developed at the bottom of the study

area, in the north-south direction, up to a maximum of 125 m. The

transmissivity map also showed the same trend, ranging from 17.57 to

35.58 /day. This is an expected result because of the direct

relationship between aquifer thickness and transmissivity. High

aquifer transmissivity and reasonable aquifer thickness are favourable

conditions for drilling productive boreholes. This explains why a

would-be borehole facility at the Faculty of Engineering will be

productive.

Pumping test.

Below is the pumping data collected from an existing borehole, within

the study area, on the 26th of June, 2024, at an incremental interval of

30mins each.

Date Q B (m) s (m) T(m2/day) K(m/day) S

26/06 (l/s)
10:00am 1.30 2.40 1.17 17.57 7.32 0.00025734
10:30am 0.42 1.7 0.32 20.75 12.21 0.00081063
11:30am 1.44 4.00 0.64 35.58 8.89 0.00101755
1:00pm 1.62 6.00 1.05 24.39 4.10 0.00051457
3:00pm 1.62 8.00 1.35 18.97 2.37 0.0000732

Where Q is the discharge

B is the thickness

s is the drawdown

T is the transmissivity

K is the permeability and

S is the storage coefficient

Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

Application of VES technique has enabled the delineation of the area

with good prospect for groundwater development programme in the

University. The aquifer in the study area comprises of shale. The

aquifer thickness is variable and ranges from

124.7m to 352.2m m while the transmissivity ranges from 17.57 to

35.58 /day.

The result of this study has provided additional baseline data on the

aquifer characteristics of the area. This will no doubt guide borehole

programme in the University with a view to drilling productive

boreholes.

5.2: Recommendations

In determining the groundwater potential of the study area, the geology,

hydrogeology and geophysical investigation of the study area were integrated in

analyzing and interpreting the survey result. Hence, the recommendation being

made is based on the above-mentioned approach. Due to the nature of the

underlying rocks, the water bearing formation delineated within the study areas

are viable for borehole drilling. A recommended depth of 124.7m (409ft)

should be drilled at the Faculty of Engineering, Enugu State University of

Science and Technology (ESUT). The drilling should be supervised by an

experienced Hydrogeologist or Civil Water Resources Engineer, in order to

monitor changes in local geology and moreover supervise the drilling activities

and equally design the water well and ensure that the installation of

casings/screens are done according to design. Moreover, drilling method can be

done either by down-the-hole-hammering or rotary type of drilling.

REFERNCES.
Akinrinade, O. J., Olabode, O. P. (2015): Integrated geophysical approach to

aquifer delineation in crystalline basement environment. International Journal

of Scientific and Engineering Research (IJSER), France, 6(10), pp. 107–127.

Ariwodo W.U, 2022: Geology of Agbani and its Environs. Downloaded from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362541790.

Asiwaju-Bello, Y. A., Olabode, F. O., Duvbiama, O. A., Iyamu, J. O,

Adeyemo, A. A., Onigbinde, M. T. (2013): Hydrochemical evaluation of

groundwater in Akure Area, Southwestern Nigeria, for irrigation purpose.

European International Journal of Science and Technology, 2(8), pp. 235–249.

Banda, L. J., Mbewe, A. R., Nzala, S. H., Halwindi, H. (2014): Effect of siting

boreholes and septic tanks on groundwater quality in St. Bonaventure

Township of Lusaka District, Zambia. International Journal of Environmental

Sciences Toxic Research, 2(9), pp. 191– 198.

Bayewu, O. O., Oloruntola, M. O., Mosuro, G. O., Watabuni, F. G. (2012):

Groundwater exploration in Ago-Iwoye Area of Southwestern Nigeria, using

Very Low Frequency Electromagnetic (VLF-EM) and electrical resistivity

methods. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering Research,

1(3), pp. 452–462. doi: 10.6088/ijaser.0020101046

Eze, C. L., Eze, E. M. (2015): Investigation of possible groundwater

contamination from septic system siting in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Journal of

Natural Sciences Research, 5(10), pp. 83–87.

Harb, N., Haddad, K., Farkh, S. (2010): Calculation of transverse resistance to

correct aquifer resistivity of groundwater saturated zones: implications for

estimating its hydrogeological properties, Lebanese Science Journal, 11(1), pp.

105–115.

Henriet, J. P. (1976): Direct application of the Dar Zarrouk parameters in

groundwater surveys. Geophysics Prospective, 24, pp. 344–353.

Hutchinson, P. J., Barta. L. S. (2002): VLF surveying to delineate longwall

mine induced fractures. Leading Edge, pp. 491–493.

Hutchinson, P. J., Beird, M. H., Mitchell, M. (2010): Groundwater purveying

using very low frequency fracture delineation methods. Proceedings from the

2010 Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and

Environmental Problems, pp. 294–301. http://geo-image.com/documents/30.pdf

Iloeje, N. P. (1981): A New Geography of Nigeria (New revised edition).

Longman Nigeria Limited, Lagos, Pg. 201.

Kogbe CA. (1976) Paleogeographic history of Nigeria from Albian times. In Kogbe, C.A.

(ed). Geology of Nigeria. Elizabethan Publishers, Lagos. ;237-252.

M.B, Kirkham (2014). "Preface to the Second Edition". Principles of Soil and

Plant Water Relations. pp. xvii–xviii. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-420022-7.05002-

3. ISBN 9780124200227.

McQuillain, D. (2004): Ground-Water Quality Impacts from On-Site Septic

Systems. Proceedings of 13th Annual Conference on National Onsite

Wastewater Recycling Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp.

1–13.

Muchingami, I., Hlatywayo, D. J., Nel, J. M., Chuma, C. (2012): Electrical

resistivity survey for groundwater investigations and shallow subsurface

evaluation of the basaltic-greenstone formation of the urban Bulawayo aquifer.

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 50–52, pp. 44–51.

Odenigbo C. O, 2014. Water Resources, Engineering and Management. Page

31.
Odusanya, B. O., Amadi, U. M. P. (1990): An empirical resistivity model for

predicting shallow groundwater in the Basement Complex Water Resources.

Journal of Nigeria Association of Hydrogeologists, 2, pp. 77–87.

Panagiotakis, I., Dermatas, D., Vatseris, C., Chrysochoou, M., Papassiopi, N.,

Xenidis, A., Vaxevanidou, K. (2015): Forensic investigation of a Chromium VI

groundwater plume in Thiva, Greece. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 281, pp.

27–34.

Sundararajan, N., Nandakumar, G., Chary, M. N., Ramam, K. Srinivas, Y.

(2007): VES and VLF—an application to groundwater exploration, Khammam,

India. The Leading Edge, pp. 708–716.

Wattanasen, K., Elming, S. (2008): Direct and indirect methods for

groundwater investigations: A case study of MRS and VES in the Southern part

of Sweden. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 66, pp. 104–117.

Yadav, G. S., Singh, P. N., Srivastava, K. M. (1997): Fast method of resistivity

sounding for shallow groundwater investigations. Journal of Applied

Geophysics, 36, pp. 45–52.