Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Evaluation of optimized depth of waterproof curtain to mitigate negative T

impacts during dewatering
⁎ ⁎
Xu-Wei Wanga, Tian-Liang Yangb, Ye-Shuang Xua, , Shui-Long Shenc,
a
State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean, and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
800 Dong Chuan Road, Minhang District, Shanghai 200240, China
b
Key Laboratory of Land Subsidence Monitoring and Prevention, Shanghai 201204, China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong 515063, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Corrado Dewatering using a combination of waterproof curtain and pumping wells is commonly adopted to ensure the
Corradini, Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance stability of foundation pits in multi-aquifer strata. However, dewatering is likely to result in environmental
of Gokmen Tayfur, Associate Editor problems. This paper investigates the impact on surroundings owing to the interaction between the waterproof
Keywords: curtain and pumping wells by numerical simulation. The depth of the diaphragm wall penetrating the dewa-
Depth of waterproof curtain tering aquifer (D) and the filter length of pumping wells (L) are varied in the simulation. The relationship
Filter length between approximate hydraulic gradient (Δi) or ground settlement outside the foundation pit (S) with curtain
Environmental effect depth ratio RD (D over the thickness of the dewatering confined aquifer Ha) or filter length ratio RL (L/Ha) can be
Dewatering
divided into three change parts, namely initial gradual, middle sharp and final gentle part. Three values of RD
and RL, namely effective, suggested and control value, are proposed. RD and RL should vary between the effective
and control value. The suggested value of RD and RL is recommended in actual engineering by comprehensive
consideration. The effective, suggested and control value of RD can be calculated by a linear equation according
to the value of RL.

1. Introduction
With rapid urbanisation, an increasing number of underground in-
frastructures have been extensively constructed in the coastal cities of
China, such as metro tunnels and foundation pits (Liao et al., 2016; Liu
et al., 2018, 2019, Lyu et al., 2018, 2019; Tan et al., 2019; Zhou and
Liao, 2016). Without appropriate planning, this is likely to result in
certain hazards (Zheng et al., 2016; Lyu et al., 2017, 2018a; Wu et al.,
2018, 2019; Xu et al., 2018a). The excavated depths of foundation pits
have increased, and excavated areas have also grown; e.g. the Hang-
zhong Road station in metro line No.10 of Shanghai has an excavation
area of over 7500 m2 and is 344 m long and 20–24 m wide (Zhou et al.,
2010); the Qianjiang Century City station in metro line No. 2 of
Hangzhou is 290 m long, 22 m wide and 26 m deep (Wang et al., 2017).
Generally, Quaternary deposits in the coastal regions of China exhibit
multi-aquifer–aquitard alternative strata (Xu et al., 2009, 2017a,
2018b; Shen et al., 2013; Zeng et al., 2018, 2019), which are rich in
groundwater. Groundwater control is essential for the safe construction
of foundation pits. Generally, one of the measurements conducted to
prevent uprush is dewatering while excavating deep foundation pits
(Wu et al., 2015a; Wang et al., 2016). However, foundation pit dewa-
tering is likely to result in some negative impacts, such as soil de-
formation (Bawden et al., 2001; Calderhead et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2012;
Pujades et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2018), damage to adjacent buildings
and metro lines (Song et al., 2014; Tan and Lu. 2018a; Wu et al.,
2017a), and sand flow or piping phenomenon (Zhang et al., 2013).
Before excavation, underground structures such as diaphragm walls
(Wu et al., 2017b; Pujades et al., 2014) and mixing piles (Ma et al.,
2014) have been constructed to improve the stability of foundation pits
and reduce the entrance of groundwater to the excavation as water-
proof curtain. Waterproof curtain can reduce the seepage area, extend
the seepage path, and change the seepage direction of groundwater in
the foundation pit (Jiao et al., 2008; Vilarrasa et al., 2011; Pujades
et al., 2012a,b). Therefore, a dewatering system combined with wa-
terproof curtain and pumping wells is generally adopted to regulate
these hazardous environmental effects of foundation pit dewatering (Xu
et al., 2016).
Theoretically, if the waterproof curtain disregarding the relatively
common defects (Bruce et al., 1989) completely cuts off the hydraulic
connection of the dewatering aquifer inside and outside the pit, the

⁎
Correspondence authors.
E-mail addresses: 392538143@sjtu.edu.cn (X.-W. Wang), xuyeshuang@sjtu.edu.cn (Y.-S. Xu), shensl@stu.edu.cn (S.-L. Shen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.123969
Received 9 April 2019; Received in revised form 15 July 2019; Accepted 17 July 2019
Available online 18 July 2019
0022-1694/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X.-W. Wang, et al.
Nomenclature
D depth of the diaphragm wall penetrating the dewatering
aquifer
De depth of excavation
Dw depth of diaphragm wall
e void ratio
Fs safety coefficient
hi thickness of each layer of soil between the bottom surface
of the foundation pit and the top surface of the underlying
confined aquifer
hp difference between the groundwater level and top surface
of the confined aquifer
H hydraulic head of groundwater
Ha the thickness of the dewatering aquifer
HTi thickness of calculated soil layer i
i, j axes of x, y, z in Cartesian coordinate system
K hydraulic conductivity of the dewatering aquifer
Kh horizontal hydraulic conductivity
Kij hydraulic conductivity of different direction
Kv vertical hydraulic conductivity
L filter length of the pumping wells
environmental effects of foundation pit dewatering are slight. However,
the increasing excavation depth of the foundation pit increases the re-
quired depth of the waterproof curtain to completely cut off the de-
watering aquifer, which renders construction more challenging and
uneconomical. Presently, dewatering inside the pit with waterproof
curtain with a partially cut-off dewatering aquifer is generally adopted
for deep foundation pits (Shen et al., 2017; Tan and Lu, 2017, 2018b;
Xu et al., 2017b; Zhang et al., 2017). An appropriate depth of the wa-
terproof curtain penetrating the dewatering aquifer is important for
effective engineering. A few studies indicated that both the depth of the
waterproof curtain and the filter length of the pumping well can impact
the ground settlement outside the waterproof curtain (Ni et al., 2013;
Wu et al., 2016). Foundation pit dewatering should consider the in-
teraction between the waterproof curtain and pumping wells (labelled
as wall–well action). Generally, laboratory tests are adopted to analyse
the wall–well action on the environmental effects considering the
convenient operation and short time (Wang et al., 2018, 2019; Xu et al.,
2014, 2019). However, there is a certain difference between laboratory
tests and real construction because of the assumptions in the laboratory
tests. Generally numerical simulations are used to consider the wall–-
well action in practical engineering cases (Larson et al., 2001; Chai
et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2014). Optimized method has been used in
evaluating the optimized soil parameters (Yin et al., 2017, 2018; Lyu
et al., 2019b,c). To evaluate the optimized depth of the waterproof
curtain, some optimized method can be applied by analyzing the nu-
merical simulation results.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate optimized depth of the
Fig. 1. Plan view of foundation pit and layout of pumping and observational wells.
2
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
m the number of soil layers
mv soil coefficient of volume compressibility
Ps overburden pressure between the bottom surface of the
foundation pit and the top surface of the underlying con-
fined aquifer
Pw uplift force of artesian water in the initial state
q external source/sink flux
R influence radius of dewatering
RD ratio of D to Ha
RL ratio of L to Ha
S ground settlement outside the foundation pit
Si the compression of soil layer i
Ss specific storage
Ssub total land subsidence
t time
γsi unit weight of each soil layer between the bottom surface
of the foundation pit and the top surface of the underlying
confined aquifer
γw unit weight of water
Δh drawdown of the dewatering aquifer
Δi approximate hydraulic gradient
Δσ’ effective stress
waterproof curtain penetrating the dewatering aquifer during dewa-
tering within foundation pit to protect the environment. First, the
project profile and pumping tests are introduced. Then, the effect of
wall–well action on the environment is investigated through numerical
simulation. The reliability of the numerical simulations is verified by
the results of pumping tests. The relationship between the depth of the
waterproof curtain penetrating the dewatering aquifer and the filter
length of the pumping wells is discussed. Finally, the appropriate depth
of waterproof curtain depth is recommended by optimized method
considering the filter length of the pumping wells.
2. Project description
Fig. 1 shows the plan view of foundation pit and layout of pumping
and observational wells in a certain station of metro line No. 1 in
Ningbo, which is a coastal city in eastern China (SGMEIC, 2010). The
total excavation area of the project is 3960 m2, and the total length of
excavation is 172 m. The project includes a standard part (Zone I) of
length 157 m and a shield end well part (Zone II) of length 15 m. The
width of Zone I is 19.30 m and that of Zone II is 23.60 m. The ex-
cavation depth (De) of Zone I is 22.40 m and that of Zone II is 23.96 m.
A diaphragm wall with a thickness of 1 m is adopted as the foundation
pit enclosure structure and waterproof curtain. The buried depth of the
diaphragm wall (Dw) in Zone I is 40 m and that in Zone II is 43 m.
The elevation of the ground surface in the project is +2.50 to
+4.00 m. The soil layers from top to bottom are artificial filled soil
(labelled as 11), silty clay with sand (12), grey mucky silt (13), clay (21),
X.-W. Wang, et al. Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969

mucky clay (22), mucky soil (23), silt mealy sand (31), grey mucky silt 3. Pumping test
(32), grey silty clay (41), clay (42), silty clay (51), silty clay (52), sandy
silt (53), silty clay (62), silty clay (71), silt mealy sand (81), silty clay The acceptable groundwater level to prevent uprush by the under-
(91), and clay (92). The soil profile and properties of the soils are shown lying confined aquifer can be calculated by the following equation
in Fig. 2. (MOHURD, 2011):
Soil system related to the project is a typical multi-aquifer–aquitard
Ps ∑ hi × γsi
alternative strata. The aquitard layer is labelled as AdI to AdIV. The = ⩾ Fs
groundwater system includes a phreatic aquifer (labelled as Aq01), Pw hp × γw (1)
confined aquifer in the superficial layer (Aq02), the first confined
where Ps is the overburden pressure between the bottom surface of the
aquifer (AqI), and the second confined aquifer (AqII). Detailed in-
foundation pit and the top surface of the underlying confined aquifer
formation of the aquifers is described as follows:
(kPa); Pw is the uplift force of artesian water in the initial state (kPa); hi
is the thickness of each layer of soil between the bottom surface of the
(1) Aq01: the buried depth of the groundwater level of Aq01 is −0.3 to
foundation pit and the top surface of the underlying confined aquifer
−1.5 m (a negative value implies that it is below ground surface); it
(m); hp is the difference between the groundwater level and top surface
lies within the layers of silty clay and sand (Layers 11 and 12) and is
of the confined aquifer (m); γsi is the unit weight of each soil layer
affected by rainfall, spring tides, and surface water. The water in-
between the bottom surface of the foundation pit and the top surface of
flow rate of a single well is 1–10 m3/d, and the hydraulic con-
the underlying confined aquifer (kN/m3); γw is the unit weight of water
ductivity is 0.001–1.2 m/d.
(kN/m3); and Fs is the safety coefficient, which is considered as 1.05 in
(2) Aq02: the burial depth of the groundwater level of Aq02 layer is
this study (MOHURD, 2011).
−1.0 to −2.5 m; it lies within the silt mealy sand layer (Layer 31).
In this case, the bottom of the foundation pit is located on AdII. H is
The water inflow rate of a single well is 5–15 m3/d, and the hy-
required to be less than 14.86 m, which implies that the drawdown of
draulic conductivity is 0.16–0.41 m/d.
AqI should be greater than 11.84 m. Therefore, it is necessary to im-
(3) AqI: the burial depth of the groundwater level of AqI is −1.7 to
plement foundation pit dewatering to ensure the safety of the founda-
−4 m; it lies within sandy silt layer (Layer 53). The water inflow
tion pit. To evaluate the influence of dewatering on the environment,
rate of a single well is 15–50 m3/d, and the hydraulic conductivity
the pumping test should be implemented before construction.
is 0.01–7.40 m/d.
The pumping tests were conducted after constructing the diaphragm
(4) AqII: the burial depth of the groundwater level of AqII is −3.5 to
wall in this case. The arrangement of pumping and observation wells is
−5.5 m; it lies within the silt mealy sand layer (Layer 81). The
shown in Fig. 1. J1–J6 are pumping wells inside the foundation pit at a
water inflow rate of a single well is 200–1500 m3/d, and the hy-
buried depth of 40 m; JG1 and JG2 are both pumping wells and ob-
draulic conductivity is 2.5–45 m/d.
servation wells inside the foundation pit at a buried depth of 40 m.
G1–G3 are observation wells outside the foundation at a buried depth of

Fig. 2. Soil profile and properties of construction site. (See above-mentioned reference for further information.)

3
X.-W. Wang, et al. Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969

Fig. 3. Structure and insertion depth of wells.

Table 1
Conditions for each pumping test.
Test Pumping well Monitoring well Pumping time (h) Recovery time (h) Discharge rate of pumping well (m3/h)

Single-well J2 J3 9 3.15 2.5

Double-well JG1, J2 J1, J3 10.53 20.3 1.83 (JG1)
2.79 (J2)
Multiple-well J2–J5 J1, J6, 24 97.17 1.5–2.5
JG1–JG2 G1, G2

Fig. 4. Three-dimensional model domain and the grid mesh.

Fig. 5. Plane view of local enlarged mesh in the foundation pit.

36 m. The structure and insertion depth of wells is shown in Fig. 3. The
pumping tests comprise single-well, double-well, and multiple-well
pumping tests. The conditions for each pumping test are displayed in
Table 1.

4
X.-W. Wang, et al. Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969

Table 2
Soil parameters used in the numerical simulation.
No. Soil layer Thickness (m) γ (kN/m3) e Kv (m/d) Kh (m/d) Ss (m−1)

1 Aq01 3 19.00 0.85 1.20E−02 2.00E−01 3.75E−03

2 AdI 9 18.1 0.98 2.70E−04 1.60E−03 1.31E−04
3 Aq02 2 19.2 0.84 8.50E−02 1.70E−01 4.50E−03
4 AdII 16 18.90 0.94 6.70E−05 2.00E−04 1.15E−04
5 AqI 12 19.50 0.73 4.23E−01 2.07E+00 5.38E−03
6 AdIII 8 17.20 1.25 4.90E−04 1.80E−03 2.97E−04
7 AqII 12 18.90 0.78 8.68E−01 6.91E+00 8.00E−03
8 AdIV 10 17.80 0.95 7.90E−04 5.80E−03 2.97E−04
Diaphragm wall 0.01 1.00E−10 1.00E−10 1.59E−09

Note: γ = unit weight; e = void ratio; Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity; Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Ss = specific storage.

Fig. 7. Ground settlement and groundwater drawdown with different values of

Fig. 6. Comparison of measured and simulated groundwater drawdown of D: (a) Section I–I (see Fig. 5); (b) Point G12.
observation wells in pumping test: (a) single-well pumping test; (b) double-well
pumping test; (c) multiple-well pumping test. of x, y, z in Cartesian coordinate system, H = hydraulic head of
groundwater, q = external source/sink flux, t = time, and Ss = specific
4. Numerical analysis storage, Ss ≈ γwmv, γw = unit weight of water, mv = soil coefficient of
volume compressibility.
4.1. Numerical theory Based on Terzaghi’s 1D consolidation theory (Terzaghi, 1943), if the
total vertical pressure is constant during withdrawal or the recharge of
A numerical simulation method which combines three-dimensional groundwater from an aquifer, the following equation could be applied:
(3D) groundwater seepage model and one-dimensional (1D) con-
Δσ ′
solidation settlement model is used to analyse the environmental effects ΔH = −
γw (3)
of dewatering (Shen and Xu, 2011; Xu et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2015b).
The basic equation of 3D groundwater seepage model is (Bear, 1979): where Δσ′ = change of effective stress.
The total ground settlement, Ssub, is accumulated by compression
∂ ⎛ ∂H ⎞ ∂H value of each soil layer, as showin in Eq. (4):
⎜Kij ⎟ − q = Ss
∂x i ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ ∂t (2) m m
Ssub = ∑ Si ≈ ∑ Ssi HT i ΔHi
where Kij = hydraulic conductivity of different direction, i, j = axes i= 1 i= 1 (4)

5
X.-W. Wang, et al.
Fig. 8. Ground settlement and groundwater drawdown with different values of
L: (a) Section I–I (see Fig. 5); (b) Point G12.
Fig. 9. Groundwater drawdown at two sides of diaphragm wall.
where m = the number of soil layers, Si = the compression of soil layer
i, HTi = thickness of calculated soil layer i.
4.2 Model setup
According to the Gearhart theory (Musy and Drobot, 2004), the
influence radius of dewatering, R, is 491.4 m, which is calculated by the
following equation.
6
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
Fig. 10. Relationship between Δi and RD (Sections I–I and II–II in Fig. 5): (a)
Section I–I; (b) Section II–II.
R = 10Δh K (5)
where Δh is the drawdown of the dewatering aquifer; K is the hydraulic
conductivity of the dewatering aquifer.
The plan size of the numerical model is required to be larger than
the influence radius. The plan size of the numerical model is 1600 m
long and 1600 m wide. The vertical size of the model is set as 72 m,
which is the buried depth of the bottom of AdIV layer. Fig. 4 shows the
three-dimensional model domain and the grid mesh. The number of
nodes and elements in each plane are 1412 and 1470, respectively. The
mesh size is 100 × 100 m at a distance outside the foundation pit. Local
refined mesh inside the foundation pit is 4 × 4 m, as shown in Fig. 5.
The hydrogeologic system includes eight strata according to the
actual hydrogeological condition and is further subdivided into 29
layers in vertical, among which the AdI, AdII, AdIII and AdIV layer are
equally subdivided into 3, 4, 2 and 2 sub-layers, respectively, and AqI
and AqII layer are equally subdivided into 12 and 4 sub-layers, re-
spectively. The total number of nodes and elements of the 3D numerical
model are 40,948 and 41,160.
The placement of diaphragm wall, pumping and observation wells is
shown in Fig. 5 according to the engineering case. Points G11, G12,
G21, and G22 are used for the discussion of the simulation results. The
initial groundwater levels of Aq01, Aq02, AqI, and AqII are set as
−1.0 m, −2.0 m, −3.0 m, and −4.5 m, respectively. The groundwater
level of the four lateral boundaries is set as fixed hydraulic head
boundary, which is equal to the initial groundwater level. The bottom
boundary is set as the confining boundary.
X.-W. Wang, et al. Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969

Fig. 11. Relationship between S and RD: (a) P1 on section I–I; (b) P2 on section
Fig. 12. Relationship between Δi and RL: (a) Section I–I; (b) Section II–II.
II–II.

outside the foundation pit. The largest measured drawdown of the well
4.3. Soil parameters
J6 is 13.7 m, whereas it is only 2.5 m for G1. The results demonstrate
that the water retaining effect of the diaphragm walls is adequate. The
Initial soil parameters shown in Fig. 2 are applied in the numerical
largest simulated drawdown of the well J6 is 13.3 m and that of G1 is
model to simulate the single-well pumping test. Then the soil para-
2.4 m; the deviations are 2.9% and 4.0%, respectively. These results
meters are inversed by fitting the results of the numerical simulation
also demonstrate that the simulated results fit the measured data rea-
with the single-well pumping test. Finally, the inversed parameters are
sonably.
applied to simulate the double-well and multiple-well pumping tests. If
the simulation result cannot fit the double-well and multiple-well
4.4. Simulated results
pumping tests well, the soil parameters should be adjusted again ac-
cording the aforementioned steps. Finally, the soil parameters are de-
The aforementioned numerical model and soil parameters obtained
termined until the simulation results fit all pumping tests well. The final
through an inverse analysis are used to analyse the multiple-well
soil parameters determined by the aforementioned steps are tabulated
pumping test. To analyse the wall–well action on the environmental
in Table 2. Fig. 6 presents a comparison of the measured and simulated
effects, the buried depth of the diaphragm wall and length of the filter
groundwater drawdown of the observation wells in the pumping tests.
of pumping well are varied. The buried depth of the diaphragm wall
During the process of dewatering, the computed groundwater
(Dw) ranges from 30 m to 42 m with an increment of 1 m; this implies
drawdown increases synchronously with the measured data. When the
that the depth of the diaphragm wall penetrating the dewatering
pumping wells are turned off, the groundwater level rises back to the
aquifer (D) ranges from 0 m to 12 m. The top of the pumping well filter
original level. For example, as shown in Fig. 6b, the largest measured
is located on the top of the dewatering aquifer layer. The buried depth
drawdowns of observation wells J3 and J1 are 5.0 m and 7.4 m, re-
of the bottom of the pumping well filter ranges from 34 m to 42 m with
spectively, in the double-well pumping test. The largest deviation be-
an increment of 1 m; this implies that the filter length (L) changes from
tween the measured and simulated groundwater drawdowns of J3 is
4 m to 12 m.
1.18% and that of J1 is 2.01%. The simulated result fits the measured
Fig. 7a shows the ground settlement and groundwater drawdown
data reasonably.
with different values of D when L is 6 m. Ground settlement of a point
Fig. 6c shows the measured and simulated groundwater drawdowns
outside the diaphragm wall (labelled as G12) is 13 mm when D is 0 m
of the observation wells in the multiple-well pumping test. The ob-
and is approximately 5 mm when D is 11 m. The groundwater draw-
servation wells J1 and J6 are inside the foundation pit, and G1 and G2
down of point G12 is 10.20 m when D is 0 m and is 3.43 m when D is
are outside the pit. It is apparent that the groundwater drawdowns of
11 m. As shown in Fig. 7b, the ground settlement and groundwater
the observation wells inside the foundation pit is larger than those
drawdown of point G12 both decreases with the increase in D.

7
X.-W. Wang, et al.
Fig. 13. Relationship between S and RL: (a) P1 on section I–I; (b) P2 on section
II–II.
Fig. 8a depicts the ground settlement and groundwater drawdown
with different values of L when D is 6 m. Ground settlement at point
G12 is 8 mm when L is 4 m and is approximately 9 mm when L is 12 m.
The groundwater drawdown at point G12 is 7.80 m when L is 4 m and is
8.79 m when L is 12 m. Both ground settlement and groundwater
drawdown increases with the increase in L, as shown in Fig. 8b.
Moreover, the degree of influence on the groundwater drawdown and
ground settlement outside the foundation pit of D is larger than L.
5. Discussions
5.1. Buried depth of diaphragm wall
Fig. 9 shows the groundwater drawdown at two sides of the dia-
phragm wall when L is 6 m. G11 and G12, and G21 and G22 are two
groups of points at the two sides of the diaphragm wall. The seepage
path increases with the increase in D owing to the blocking effect of the
diaphragm wall. Therefore, the groundwater recharge volume from
outside the pit to the inside decreases. Consequently, the groundwater
drawdown outside the foundation pit decreases with the increase in D,
whereas that inside the foundation pit increases. Since the length of
foundation pit is much larger than the width, the influence of founda-
tion pit borders on dewatering is dissymmetry (Ou et al., 1996; Finno
et al., 2007), which causes the groundwater drawdown of G11 is large
while G21 is small.
The real seepage distance between G11 and G12 is a curve bypassed
the bottom of diaphragm wall, which is difficult to calculate. Therefore,
the seepage distance in calculation process is approximate to the length
8
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
Fig. 14. Relationship between RD and RL (Δi is the controlling variation): (a)
Suggested value of RD; (b) Effective and control value of RD.
of a polyline, which is from the middle of well filter outside the pit to
the diaphragm wall bottom, and then to the middle of well filter inside
the pit. The quotient of the division of the difference in the groundwater
levels by the seepage distance between two observation wells is defined
to approximate hydraulic gradient (Δi). To analyse the influence of D
and L on the groundwater level, Δi between two points at the two sides
of the diaphragm wall, including G11 and G12, and G21 and G22, is
calculated. Fig. 10 presents the relationship between Δi and RD, which
is defined as the ratio of D to the thickness of the confined aquifer (Ha)
on sections I–I and II–II. L is set to 6 m and consequently RL, the ratio of
L to Ha, is 50%. Deeper diaphragm wall has better blocking effect on the
groundwater seepage so that groundwater drawdown outside the
foundation pit decreases with the increase in D. So Δi increases with the
increase in RD. The relationship between Δi and RD is fitted by the
Boltzmann curve, which can be divided into three change parts, namely
initial gradual, middle sharp and final gentle part. The x-coordinate of
the maximum and minimum value of second derivative of the Boltz-
mann curve is defined as effective and control value of RD, respectively.
Initially, when RD is small, Δi increases gradually owing to the negli-
gible water-retaining effect of the diaphragm wall. Then, Δi increases
sharply with the continuous increase in RD when RD is larger than the
effective value. From this moment, the water-retaining effect of the
diaphragm wall can be gradually observed. The gradient of Δi at the
X.-W. Wang, et al.
Fig. 15. Relationship between RD and RL (S is the controlling variation): (a)
Suggested value of RD; (b) Effective and control value of RD.
Fig. 16. Conceptual diagram of procedure to search optimized RD.
contraflexure point of the Boltzmann curve (A2 in Fig. 10) is the largest.
The x-coordinate of the contraflexure point of Boltzmann curve is set as
the suggested value of RD. When RD is increased to the control value,
the water-retaining effect of the diaphragm wall is not strengthened.
Thus, Δi gradually increases again. To play the water-retaining effect,
RD should vary between the effective and control value. In theory, the
environmental effects of dewatering decrease with the increase in D.
However, deeper diaphragm wall means more expensive and difficult to
construct. So comprehensive considering the economic and environ-
mental effects, the suggested value of RD is recommended in actual
engineering.
The effective, suggested and control values of RD for section I–I are
45.8%, 53.5% and 61.3% and for section II–II are 50.6%, 55.2% and
59.7%, respectively. If the groundwater drawdown is regarded as the
control objective, the effective, suggested and control values of RD are
approximately 51%, 56% and 62%, respectively, when RL is 50% by a
9
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
comprehensive consideration of the two sections.
A point on section I–I at a distance of 138 m from the diaphragm
wall (labelled as P1) and a point on section II–II at a distance of 186 m
from the diaphragm wall (labelled as P2) are selected to study the re-
lationship between ground settlement (S) and RD (Fig. 11). On the
whole, S decreases with the increase in RD, because deeper diaphragm
wall has better water-retaining effect. The relationship between S and
RD also can be fitted by the Boltzmann curve which is divided into three
change parts, namely initial gradual, middle sharp and final gentle part.
Settlement control is critical in construction engineering, which
requires settlement to be minimised. As shown in Fig. 11a, the sug-
gested value of RD is 55.4% for the point P1 and 55.5% for P2. The
effective and control values of RD for the point P1 are 40.0% and 70.9%,
and that for P2 are 40.1% and 70.8%. If ground settlement is regarded
as the control objective, the suggested value of RD is approximately
56%. The effective and control values of RD are approximately 41% and
71%, respectively, when RL is 50% by a comprehensive consideration of
the two sections. By the comprehensive control of the groundwater
drawdown and ground settlement outside the foundation pit, after
comparing the values decided by Δi and S respectively, the suggested
value of RD is 56% when RL is 50%.
5.2. Filter length
The relationship between Δi and RL when RD is 50% is shown in
Fig. 12. On the whole, Δi decreases with an increase in RL, because
longer filter length makes water-retaining effect of diaphragm wall
smaller. The relationship can also be fitted by the Boltzmann curve. Δi
first varies smoothly in initial gradual part, and then quickly in middle
sharp part, and gradually in final gentle part with the increase in RL.
When RL is small, the depth of the diaphragm wall penetrating the
dewatering aquifer layer is relatively large; this implies that the water-
retaining effect of the diaphragm wall is remarkable so that the change
in Δi is small. The water-retaining effect of the diaphragm wall wea-
kened with the continuous increase in RL, and Δi decreased sharply.
When RL was increased to a certain extent, Δi again decreased gradu-
ally.
According to the aforementioned definition of the effective, sug-
gested and control value, the three values of RL are 85.6%, 68.6%,
51.6% for sections I–I and 82.6%, 67.2%, 51.8% for section II–II. RL
should be larger than the control value but less than the effective value.
Theoretically, if RL is small, the environmental effects of dewatering are
slight. However, higher pumping rates and long dewatering times are
required to ensure groundwater drawdown inside the foundation pit if
the filter length is excessively small. That is to say, shorter well filter
make the groundwater drawdown more difficult. So comprehensive
considering the dewatering efficiency and environmental effects, the
suggested value of RL is recommended in actual engineering. If Δi is
regarded as the control objective, the effective, suggested and control
values of RL are approximately 82%, 67% and 51%, respectively, when
RD is 50% by a comprehensive consideration of the two sections.
Fig. 13 shows the relationship between S and RL. On the whole, S
increases with an increase in RL, because longer filter length makes
larger drawdown of groundwater outside the pit and then ground set-
tlement outside the pit also increases. The relationship can also be fitted
by the Boltzmann curve. The effective, suggested and control values of
RL are 94.6%, 75.7% and 57.0% for the point P1, and are 91.7%, 74.7%
and 57.7% for P2. If ground settlement is regarded as the control ob-
jective, the control, suggested and effective values of RL are 57%, 74%
and 91%, respectively, when RD is 50% by a comprehensive con-
sideration of the two sections. Considering the comprehensive control
of the groundwater drawdown and ground settlement, after comparing
the values decided by Δi and S respectively, the effective, suggested and
control values of RL are 82%, 67% and 51% when RD is 50%.
X.-W. Wang, et al.
5.3. Relationship between RL and RD
To determine the common relationship between RD and RL, more
cases with different values of D and L were considered. Each effective,
suggested and control values of RD with different RL are conducted and
the relationship between RD and RL with Δi as the control objective is
presented in Fig. 14. The relationship between the effective, suggested
and control values of RD with RL can be fitted by linear fitting. The
effective, suggested and control values of RD both increase with the
increase in RL. It is convenient to determine the effective, suggested and
control values of RD according to the value of RL. For example, if RL is
equal to 70%, the effective, suggested and control values of RD are
46.7%, 54.9% and 63.0% on section I–I, and are 50.9%, 55.8% and
60.7% on section II–II. Therefore, if Δi is regarded as the control ob-
jective, RD is recommended to be approximately 56% when RL is 70%.
On the whole, the suggested value of RD is recommended to range from
51% to 57% when RL is larger than 10%. As shown in Fig. 14, when RL
increases 10%, the effective, suggested and control values of RD on
section I–I increase 4.3%, 5.9% and 7.4% respectively, and are 1.4%,
2.9% and 4.3% on section II–II. The difference among the effective,
suggested and control value is about 1.5%. The difference between the
three values of RD for sections I–I and section II–II is approximately 3%,
due to the impact of RD on section I-I is larger than section II–II.
Fig. 15 presents the relationship between RD and RL when taking S
as the control objective. The relationship of the effective, suggested and
control values of RD with RL can be also fitted by linear fitting. All of the
three values of RD increases with the increase in RL. It is convenient to
determine the effective, suggested and control values of RD according to
the value of RL. For example, when RL is equal to 70%, the effective,
suggested and control values of RD are 42.3%, 58.0% and 73.7% for P1,
and are 42.3%, 57.9% and 73.5% for P2. Therefore, if S is regarded as
the control objective, RD is recommended to be 58.0% when RL is 70%.
On the whole, the suggested value of RD ranges from 50% to 62% when
RL is larger than 10%. As shown in Fig. 15, when RL increases 10%, the
effective, suggested and control values of RD on section I–I increase
12.6%, 13.5% and 14.5%, and are 12.3%, 13.5% and 14.6% on section
II–II. The difference among the effective, suggested and control value is
about 1.1%.
5.4. Procedure to search optimized curtain depth ratio RD
Fig. 16 shows the conceptual diagram of the procedure to search
optimized curtain depth ratio RD. For a given dewatering project, the
procedure to search optimized RD is as follows: (i) to establish numer-
ical model based on the project profile, engineering geology and hy-
drogeology condition. The pumping tests are used to back calculate the
hydraulic parameters and verify the reliability of the numerical model;
(ii) to analysis the environmental effects due to dewatering by the nu-
merical model. Δi and S is calculated considering different value of RD
and RL. (iii) to evaluate the optimized value of RD. For each RL, the
relationship between Δi (and S) and RD are analyzed by curve fitting.
After these, the effective, suggested and control value of RD are ob-
tained by mathematical analysis of the fitted curve. Although the three
values of RD are different in different field project, the curtain depth
ratio RD can be obtained by following this proposed procedure.
6. Conclusions
This paper investigated the depth of waterproof curtain and filter
length of pumping wells in confined aquifer for controlling the en-
vironmental impact during dewatering in foundation pit. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this study:
(1) Numerical simulation was employed to analyse foundation pit de-
watering project. The relationship between Δi (or S) with RD (or RL)
can be divided into three change parts, namely initial gradual,
10
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
middle sharp and final gentle part. Three values of RD and RL,
namely effective, suggested and control values are proposed. RD and
RL should vary between the effective and control value. The sug-
gested value of RD and RL is recommended in actual engineering by
comprehensive consideration.
(2) Δi increases while S decreases with increase of RD, which is because
deeper diaphragm wall has better water-retaining effect. The ef-
fective, suggested and control values of RD are 41%, 56% and 71%
when RL is 50%. By a comprehensive considering of Δi and S, when
RL is 50% RD is recommended to be 56%, which is the suggested
value of RD.
(3) Δi decreases while S increases with increase in RL, because longer
filter length reduces water-retaining effect of diaphragm wall. The
effective, suggested and control values of RL are 82%, 67% and 51%
when RD is 50%. By a comprehensive considering of Δi and S, when
RD is 50%, RL is recommended to be 67%, which is the suggested
value of RL.
(4) The relationship of the effective, suggested and control RD with RL
can be fitted linearly so that the effective, suggested and control
values of RD can be calculated by a linear equation according to the
value of RL. By a comprehensive considering of Δi and S, the sug-
gested value of RD ranges from 50% to 62% when RL is larger than
10%.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The research work described herein was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 41877213) and
Key Laboratory of Land Subsidence Monitoring and Prevention,
Ministry of Land and Resources in China. This financial support is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Bear, J., 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bawden, G.W., Thatcher, W., Stein, R.S., Hudnut, K.W., Peltze, R.G., 2001. Tectonic
contraction across Los Angeles after removal of groundwater pumping effects. Nature
412 (6849), 812–815.
Bruce, D.A., DePaoli, B., Mascardi, C., Mongilardi, E., 1989. Monitoring and quality
control of a 100 meter deep diaphragm wall. In: DFI International Conference on
Piling and Deep Foundations, London, May, pp. 15–18.
Calderhead, A.I., Therrien, R., Rivera, A., Martela, R., Garfiasd, J., 2011. Simulating
pumping-induced regional land subsidence with the use of InSAR and field data in the
Toluca Valley, Mexico. Adv. Water Resour. 34, 83–97.
Chai, J.C., Shen, S.L., Zhu, H.H., Zhang, X.L., 2004. Land subsidence due to groundwater
drawdown in Shanghai. Geotechnique 54 (2), 143–147.
Finno, R.J., Blackburn, J.T., Roboski, J.F., 2007. Three-dimensional effects for supported
excavations in clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (1), 30–36.
Jiao, J.J., Leung, C., Ding, G.P., 2008. Changes to the groundwater system, from 1888 to
present, in a highly-urbanized coastal area in Hong Kong, China. Hydrogeol. J. 16 (8),
1527–1539.
Larson, K.J., Başaǧaoǧlu, H., Mariño, M.A., 2001. Prediction of optimal safe ground water
yield and land subsidence in the Los Banos-Kettleman City area, California, using a
calibrated numerical simulation model. J. Hydrol. 242 (1–2), 79–102.
Liao, S.M., Wei, S.F., Shen, S.L., 2016. Structural responses of existing metro stations to
adjacent deep excavations in Suzhou, China. J. Perform. Construct. Facilit. ASCE 30
(4), 04015089.
Liu, X.X., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.N., Xu, Y.S., 2019. Evaluation of foam conditioning effect on
groundwater inflow at tunnel cutting face. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 43,
463–481.
Lyu, H.M., Wang, G.F., Cheng, W.C., Shen, S.L., 2017. Tornado hazards on June 23rd in
Jiangsu Province, China: preliminary investigation and analysis. Nat. Hazards 85 (1),
597–604.
Lyu, H.M., Sun, W.J., Shen, S.L., Arulrajah, A., 2018a. Flood risk assessment in metro
systems of mega-cities using a GIS-based modeling approach. Sci. Total Environ. 626,
1012–1025.
Liu, X.X., Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., Yin, Z.Y., 2018. Analytical approach for time-dependent
groundwater inflow into shield tunnel face in confined aquifer. Int. J. Num. Anal.
Meth. Geomech. 42 (1), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.2760.
Lyu, H.M., Shen, J.S., Arulrajah, A., 2018b. Assessment of geohazards and preventative
X.-W. Wang, et al.
countermeasures using AHP incorporated with GIS in Lanzhou, China. Sustainability
10 (2), 304.
Lyu, H.M., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.N., Yang, J., 2019a. Perspectives for flood risk assessment
and management for mega-city metro system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 84,
31–44.
Lyu, H.M., Sun, W.J., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.N., 2019b. A newly designed expert system of
triangular fuzzy AHP and its application to risk analysis for metro tunnel construction
(published online). J. Construct. Eng. Manage. ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001757.
Lyu, H.M., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.N., Zhou, W.H., 2019c. Flood risk assessment of metro
systems in a subsiding environment using the interval FAHP-FCA approach. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 50 (2019), 101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101682.
Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.C., Ge, L., 2013. A simple data reduction method for pumping tests
with tidal, partial penetration, and storage effects. Soils Found. 53 (6), 894–902.
Ma, L., Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Sun, W.J., 2014. Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of
aquifers with piles. Hydrogeol. J. 22 (2), 371–382.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China
(MOHURD), 2011. Code for Design of Building Foundation. GB50007-2011 (in
Chinese).
Musy, A., Drobot, R., 2004. VIrtual CAmpus In hydrology and water REsources
(VICAIRE). Ohrid.
Ou, C.Y., Chiou, D.C., Wu, T.S., 1996. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of deep
excavations. J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (5), 337–345.
Pujades, E., Ander, L., Carrera, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Jurado, A., 2012a. Barrier effect of
underground structures on aquifers. Eng. Geol. 145–146 (6), 41–49.
Pujades, E., Carrera, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Jurado, A., Vilarrasa, V., Mascuñano-Salvador,
E., 2012b. Hydraulic characterization of diaphragm walls for cut and cover tunnel-
ling. Eng. Geol. 125 (27), 1–10.
Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Jurado, A., 2014. Dewatering of a deep ex-
cavation undertaken in a layered soil. Eng. Geol. 178, 15–27.
Pujades, E., De Simone, S., Carrera, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Jurado, A., 2017. Settlements
around pumping wells: analysis of influential factors and a simple calculation pro-
cedure. J. Hydrol. 548, 225–236.
Shanghai Geological &Mineral Engineering Investigation Company (SGMEIC), 2010.
Pumping test report of East-Gate station of Ningbo metro-line 1 (in Chinese).
Shen, S.L., Xu, Y.S., 2011. Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced by ground-
water pumping in Shanghai. Can. Geotech. J. 48, 1378–1392.
Shen, S.L., Ma, L., Xu, Y.S., Yin, Z.Y., 2013. Interpretation of increased deformation rate
in aquifer IV due to groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Can. Geotech. J. 50 (11),
1129–1142.
Shen, S.L., Wu, Y.X., Misra, A., 2017. Calculation of head difference at two sides of a cut-
off barrier during excavation dewatering. Comput. Geotech. 91, 192–202.
Song, J.X., Nie, X.H., Zhang, J.Y., 2014. Prediction technology of adjacent underground
pipelines damage caused by excavations dewatering. Build. Sci. 15, 74–79 (in
Chinese).
Tan, Y., Lu, Y., 2017. Why excavation of a small air shaft caused excessively large dis-
placements: forensic investigation. J. Perform. Construct. Facilit. ASCE 31 (2),
04016083.
Tan, Y., Lu, Y., 2018. Responses of shallowly buried pipelines to adjacent deep excava-
tions in Shanghai soft ground. J. Pipel. Syst. Eng. Pract. ASCE 9 (2), 05018002.
Tan, Y., Lu, Y., Wang, D., 2018. Deep excavation of the Gate of the Orient in Suzhou stiff
clay: composite earth-retaining systems and dewatering plans. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 144 (3), 05017009.
Tan, Y., Wei, B., Lu, Y., Yang, B., 2019. Is basal reinforcement essential for long and
narrow subway excavation bottoming out in Shanghai soft clay? J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 145 (5), 05019002.
Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York.
Vilarrasa, V., Carrera, J., Jurado, A., Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., 2011. A methodology
for characterizing the hydraulic effectiveness of an annular low permeability barrier.
Eng. Geol. 120 (1), 68–80.
Wang, J.X., Liu, X.T., Xiang, J.D., Jiang, Y.H., Feng, B., 2016. Laboratory model tests on
water inrush in foundation pit bottom. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 1072.
Wang, J.X., Liu, X.T., Wu, Y.B., Liu, S.L., Wu, L.G., Lou, R.X., Lu, J.X., Yin, Y., 2017. Field
experiment and numerical simulation of coupling non-Darcy flow caused by curtain
and pumping well in foundation pit dewatering. J. Hydrol. 549, 277–293.
Wang, J.X., Deng, Y.S., Ma, R.Q., Liu, X.T., Guo, Q.F., Liu, S.L., Shao, Y.L., Wu, L.B., Zhou,
J., Yang, T.L., Wang, H.M., Huang, X.L., 2018. Model test on partial expansion in
stratified subsidence during foundation pit dewatering. J. Hydrol. 557, 489–508.
Wang, J.X., Liu, X.T., Liu, S.L., Zhu, Y.F., Pan, W.Q., Zhou, J., 2019. Physical model test of
transparent soil on coupling effect of cut-off wall and pumping wells during foun-
dation pit dewatering. Acta Geotech. 14 (1), 141–162.
Wu, Q., Liu, Y.Z., Luo, L.H., Liu, S.Q., Sun, W.J., Zeng, Y.F., 2015a. Quantitative eva-
luation and prediction of water inrush vulnerability from aquifers overlying coal
seams in Donghuantuo Coal Mine, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 74, 1429–1437.
Wu, H.N., Shen, S.L., Yang, J., 2017a. Identification of tunnel settlement caused by land
subsidence in soft deposit of Shanghai. J. Perform. Construct. Facilit. ASCE 31 (6),
11
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123969
04017092.
Wu, Y.X., Shen, S.L., Wu, H.N., Xu, Y.S., Yin, Z.Y., Sun, W.J., 2015b. Environmental
protection using dewatering technology in a deep confined aquifer beneath a shallow
aquifer. Eng. Geol. 196, 59–70.
Wu, Y.X., Shen, S.L., Yuan, D.J., 2016. Characteristics of dewatering induced drawdown
curve under barrier effect of retaining wall in aquifer. J. Hydrol. 539, 554–566.
Wu, Y.X., Shen, J.S., Chen, W.C., Hino, T., 2017b. Semi-analytical solution to pumping
test data with barrier, wellbore storage, and partial penetration effects. Eng. Geol.
226, 44–51.
Wu, Y.X., Lyu, H.M., Shen, J., Arulrajah, A., 2018. Geological and hydrogeological en-
vironment in Tianjin with potential geohazards and groundwater control during
excavation. Environ. Earth Sci. 77 (10), 392.
Wu, Y.X., Lyu, H.M., Han, J., Shen, J.S., 2019. Dewatering-induced building settlement
around a deep excavation in soft deposit in Tianjin, China. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 145 (5), 5019003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002045.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Du, Y.J., 2009. Geological and hydrogeological environment in
Shanghai with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures. Eng.
Geol. 109 (3), 241–254.
Xu, Y.S., Ma, L., Shen, S.L., Sun, W.J., 2012. Evaluation of land subsidence by considering
underground structures that penetrate the aquifers of Shanghai, China. Hydrogeol. J.
20 (8), 1623–1634.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Ma, L., Sun, W.J., Yin, Z.Y., 2014. Evaluation of the blocking effect of
retaining walls on groundwater seepage in aquifers with different insertion depths.
Eng. Geol. 183, 254–264.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Ren, D.J., Wu, H.N., 2016. Analysis of factors in land subsidence in
Shanghai: a view based on a strategic environmental assessment. Sustainability 8 (6),
573.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, J.S., Wu, H.N., Zhang, N., 2017a. Risk and impacts on the environment of
free-phase biogas in Quaternary deposits along the coastal region of Shanghai. Ocean
Eng. 137, 129–137.
Xu, Y.S., Wu, H.N., Wang, Z.F., Yang, T.L., 2017b. Dewatering induced subsidence during
excavation in a Shanghai soft deposit. Environ. Earth Sci. 76 (9), 351–365.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, S.L., Lai, Y., Zhou, A.N., 2018a. Design of Sponge City: lessons learnt from
an ancient drainage system in Ganzhou, China. J. Hydrol. 563, 900–908.
Xu, Y.S., Shen, J.S., Zhou, A.N., Arulrajan, A., 2018b. Geological and hydrogeological
environment with geohazards during underground construction in Hangzhou: a re-
view. Arab. J. Geosci. 11 (18), 544.
Xu, Y.S., Yan, X.X., Shen, S.L., Zhou, A.N., 2019. Experimental investigation on the
blocking of groundwater seepage from a waterproof curtain during pumped dewa-
tering in an excavation. Hydrogeol. J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-01992-3.
(In press).
Yang, L.Q., 2014. Numerical Simulation of Land Subsidence Considering Both Effects of
Load and Groundwater Exploitation and Applications. Doctoral Dissertation. China
University of Geosciences, Wuhan (in Chinese).
Yin, Z.Y., Jin, Y.F., Shen, S.L., Huang, H.W., 2017. An efficient optimization method for
identifying parameters of soft structured clay by an enhanced genetic algorithm and
elastic-viscoplastic model. Acta Geotech. 12 (4), 849–867.
Yin, Z.Y., Jin, Y.F., Shen, J.S., Hicher, P.Y., 2018. Optimization techniques for identifying
soil parameters in geotechnical engineering: comparative study and enhancement.
Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 42 (2), 70–94.
Zeng, C.F., Xue, X.L., Zheng, G., Xue, T.Y., Mei, G.X., 2018. Responses of retaining wall
and surrounding ground to pre-excavation dewatering in an alternated multi-aquifer-
aquitard system. J. Hydrol. 559, 609–626.
Zeng, C.F., Zheng, G., Xue, X.L., Mei, G.X., 2019. Combined recharge: a method to prevent
ground settlement induced by redevelopment of recharge wells. J. Hydrol. 568, 1–11.
Zhang, X.S., Wang, J.X., Wong, H., Leo, C.J., Liu, Q., Tang, Y.Q., Yan, X.L., Sun, W.H.,
Huang, Z.Q., Hao, X.H., 2013. Land subsidence caused by internal soil erosion owing
to pumping confined aquifer groundwater during the deep foundation construction in
Shanghai. Nat. Hazards 69 (1), 473–489.
Zhang, Y.Q., Wang, J.H., Chen, J.J., Li, M.G., 2017. Numerical study on the responses of
groundwater and strata to pumping and recharge in a deep confined aquifer. J.
Hydrol. 548, 342–352.
Zheng, G., Zeng, C.F., Diao, Y., Xue, X.L., 2014. Test and numerical research on wall
deflections induced by pre-excavation dewatering. Comput. Geotech. 62, 244–256.
Zheng, G., Dai, X., Diao, Y., Zeng, C.F., 2016. Experimental and simplified model study of
the development of ground settlement under hazards induced by loss of groundwater
and sand. Nat. Hazards 82 (3), 1869–1893.
Zheng, G., Cao, J.R., Cheng, X.S., Ha, D., Wang, F.J., 2018. Experimental study on the
artificial recharge of semiconfined aquifers involved in deep excavation engineering.
J. Hydrol. 557, 868–877.
Zhou, N.Q., Pieter, Vermeer, A., Lou, R.X., Tang, Y.Q., Jiang, S.M., 2010. Numerical si-
mulation of deep foundation pit dewatering and optimization of controlling land
subsidence. Eng. Geol. 114, 251–260.
Zhou, W.F., Liao, S.M., 2016. The analysis and control of inrush and mud gushing in the
broken rock tunnel under high water pressure. Proc. Eng. 165, 259–264.