See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257794235

Numerical study of dewatering in a large deep foundation pit

Article in Environmental Earth Sciences · June 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s12665-012-1972-9

CITATIONS READS

69 2,365

6 authors, including:

J. X. Wang Bo Feng
Tongji University Tongji University
146 PUBLICATIONS 1,738 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 218 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bo Feng on 11 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872
DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-1972-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Numerical study of dewatering in a large deep foundation pit
Jianxiu Wang • Bo Feng • Haipeng Yu •
Taiping Guo • Guangyun Yang • Junwu Tang
Received: 25 March 2011 / Accepted: 30 August 2012 / Published online: 15 September 2012
Ó Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract During foundation pit excavation, groundwater
is often the most important factor that affects pit stability.
Dewatering is widely used in pit excavation to avoid uplift
of excavation floors due to high water pressure. The
characteristics of seepage in small-scale deep foundation
pits of high-rise buildings or in the long narrow foundation
pits of subway stations have been extensively investigated.
However, the characteristics of seepage in large-scale deep
excavations have not been studied. This paper investigates
the large deep excavation of the buildings in Oriental
Fisherman’s Wharf. The total area of the construction site
is 33,917 m2. Single-well and group-well field pumping
tests were performed and a numerical simulation by 3D
finite difference method (FDM) was carried out. The sim-
ulation used results from the field pumping tests. The
permeability parameters of the confined aquifer were then
revised, based upon comparisons of simulation and obser-
vation results. Subsequently, dewatering schemes were
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1972-9) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
J. Wang
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering
of Ministry of Education, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
J. Wang (&)  B. Feng  H. Yu  T. Guo
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University,
Shanghai 200092, China
e-mail: wang_jianxiu@163.com
B. Feng
e-mail: 1983fengbo@tongji.edu.cn
G. Yang  J. Tang
Shanghai Geological Construction Co., Ltd.,
Shanghai 200072, China
simulated by FDM forward analysis. The simulation results
show that dewatering schemes can minimize seepage and
uplift in large excavation pits, though settlement outside
the pit may need treatment measures.
Keywords Large deep foundation pit  Dewatering 
3D FDM numerical simulation  Field pumping test
Introduction
Rapid urbanization in Shanghai has resulted in the develop-
ment of an increasing number of underground spaces. These
spaces are devoted to projects such as underground trans-
portation systems, underground commercial centers, under-
ground highways, and super high-voltage substations. These
projects entail deep excavations. Dewatering is widely used
to reduce the piezometric levels around foundation pits; if
improperly handled, however, it can easily cause land sub-
sidence, geological disasters, and major security incidents
(His et al. 1994; Luo et al. 2008; Tang et al. 1999).
Many researchers have investigated characteristics of
seepage in the small-scale deep foundation pits of high-rise
buildings and in the long narrow deep foundation pits of
subway stations. Depending on the position of the bottom of
the diaphragm wall in a confined aquifer, three modes of
seepage around a foundation pit are identified (Wu et al. 2003).
In Mode III, the diaphragm wall partly extends into a confined
aquifer, partly isolating the hydraulic connection between the
excavated section and the water in the host material. The
installed depth of the diaphragm wall influences the drawdown
and subsidence outside the pit (Wang et al. 2009).
A 3D numerical simulation approach has been adopted
to calculate dewatering in a deep foundation pit (Feng et al.
2005; Luo et al. 2006a, b; Jiang and Zong 2010; Wang
123
864
et al. 2009). However, the foundation pits in these studies
were not large. The characteristics of seepage in large deep
excavations are unknown. The main objective of this study
was to investigate the seepage and pressure characteristics
around large deep foundation pits during dewatering.
Background
Engineering background
The buildings in Oriental Fisherman’s Wharf are located near
Huangpu River, Shanghai, China. The buildings are a
35-storey tower, a 7-storey fish-shaped building, a 4-storey
commercial street, and a large area 3-storey basement covers
almost all the excavation area. The buried depth of the base-
ment bottom plate is about 13–14 m below ground. The
maximum dimensions of the foundation pit are 240 m (length)
and 190 m (width). The total area of the foundation pit is
33,917 m2. The excavation extends 10.7–16.1 m below the
ground surface and up to 20 m at the elevator shaft. Figure 1
shows the plan layout of the foundation pit and three buildings.
Strata distribution
According to the geotechnical investigation report provided by
SGIDI (Zhang 2007), the foundation soils in the study site are
all Quaternary unconsolidated sediments with poor physical
N
.
upu RD
Yangsh
u RD.
Jiangp
Fig. 1 Plan view of the foundation pit
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872
and mechanical properties. The shallow stratum in the con-
struction site is beach soil, formed by the ancient Huangpu
River. Confined aquifer ˜2 (is simplified as the yellow area in
Fig. 2, ESM only) is discontinuously distributed in the con-
struction site and significantly increases the difficulty of
dewatering. The strata distributions are listed in Table 1.
Hydro-geological conditions
The main types of groundwater in the foundation pit are the
unconfined water in the shallow clay aquifer, the first
confined water in the shallow aquifer of layer ˜2, and the
second confined water in the deep aquifer of layer þ. The
buried depths of the piezometric heads for layers ˜2 and þ
are 8.10–8.90 m (elevation -3.40 to -4.20 m) and
8.07–8.58 m (elevation -3.37 to -3.88 m). The perme-
ability parameters of all the strata obtained using the
constant-head permeability test (for sandy soil), falling-
head permeability test (for clayey soil), and constant-head
borehole permeameter test are listed in Table 2.
Mathematical model and calculation method
Mathematical model
The governing equation for the unsteady flow of the con-
fined aquifer is given in Eq. (1).
Dandong RD.
Huangpu River
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872 865

Table 1 Strata distributions where kxx, kyy, kzz are the hydraulic conductivities along
Strata Name of soil Layer Elevation of layer
the x, y, and z coordinate axes, respectively. These axes are
serial layer thickness (m) bottom (m) assumed to be parallel to the major axes of the hydraulic
conductivities (LT-1); h is the piezometric head at point
 Impurity fill 2.10 to 8.60 2.53 to -4.01
(x, y, z) (L); W denotes a volumetric flux per unit volume
`0–1 Clay silt 5.00 to 7.00 -3.58 to -6.81 that represents sources and/or sinks of water, with W \ 0.0
(Beach soil)
for flows out of the groundwater system, and W [ 0.0 for
`0–2 Silty sand 0.60 to 4.10 -5.36 to -8.41
(Beach soil) flows in (T-1); Ss represents the specific storage of the
´ Mucky silty clay 2.70 to 7.00 -3.87 to -6.99 porous material at point (x, y, z) (L-1); t is time (T); X is
ˆ Mucky clay 2.80 to 7.80 -10.55 to -12.69
the computational domain; h0 denotes the initial piezo-
˜1 Clay 3.30 to 9.60 -15.08 to -21.37
metric head at point (x, y, z) (L); C2 is the second type of
boundary condition; nx, ny, nz are the unit normal vectors
˜2 Sandy silt 2.30 to 14.80 -17.87 to -35.59
on boundary C2 along the x, y, and z directions; and q is the
˜3 Silty clay 1.30 to 12.70 -20.27 to -38.87
lateral recharge per unit area on boundary C2 (L3T-1).
Þ Silty clay 1.00 to 4.70 -24.38 to -27.64
Equation (1), combined with the boundary and initial
þ Silty sand 27.10 to 31.60 -61.37 to -64.26
conditions, describes the transient 3D groundwater flow in

8      
>
> o oh o oh o oh oh
>
> k xx þ k xx þ k xx  W ¼ Ss          ðx; y; zÞ 2 X
>
> ox ox oy oy oz oz ot
< 
oh oh oh  ; ð1Þ
>
> kxx þ kyy þ kzz  ¼ qðx; y; z; tÞ                   ðx; y; zÞ 2 C2
>
> on x on y on z C2
>
>
: hðx; y; z; tÞj ¼ h ðx; y; zÞ                                     ðx; y; zÞ 2 X
t¼t0 0

Table 2 Permeability parameters

Strata serial Name of soil layer Depth of test point (m) Constant-head borehole permeameter Laboratory permeability test (cm/s)
test (cm/s)
All test points Avg.

`0–1 Clayey silt (Beach soil) 5.00–7.00 3.13 9 10-5 6.87 9 10-5 Kv = 1.73 9 10-4
-4
5.00–7.00 1.06 9 10 Kh = 2.72 9 10-4
-4 -4
`0–2 Silty sand (Beach soil) 10.00–11.00 4.17 9 10 4.17 9 10 Kv = 5.17 9 10-4
Kh = 1.10 9 10-3
´ Mucky silty clay 6.50–8.50 1.74 9 10-5 1.74 9 10-5 Kv = 5.36 9 10-6
Kh = 8.61 9 10-6
-6 -6
ˆ Mucky clay 11.00–13.00 8.98 9 10 8.63 9 10 Kv = 6.83 9 10-8
-6
14.00–16.00 8.28 9 10 Kh = 7.04 9 10-8
-5 -6
˜1 Clay 20.00–21.00 1.30 9 10 8.89 9 10 Kv = 4.37 9 10-6
-6
16.00–18.00 4.78 9 10 Kh = 8.31 9 10-6
-4
22.00–24.00 1.70 9 10
˜2 Sandy silt 22.00–24.00 1.07 9 10-5 1.19 9 10-5 Kv = 1.63 9 10-6
-5
27.50–29.50 1.30 9 10 Kh = 2.06 9 10-6
-6 -6
˜3 Silty clay 30.00–31.50 8.77 9 10 8.77 9 10
Þ Silty clay 26.50–28.50 6.50 9 10-6 6.50 9 10-6 Kv = 1.37 9 10-7
Kh = 1.37 9 10-7
þ Silty sand 36.00–37.50 2.38 9 10-4 1.78 9 10-4 Kv = 2.20 9 10-4
-4
33.00–35.00 1.28 9 10 Kh = 4.15 9 10-4
33.00–35.00 1.68 9 10-4

123
866
a heterogeneous and anisotropic medium, provided that the
principal axes of the hydraulic conductivities are aligned
with the coordinate directions. Except for very simple
systems, the analytical solutions for Eq. (1) are rarely
possible; therefore, the FDM, in which the groundwater
flow system is divided into a grid of cells, is used to obtain
approximate solutions.
Finite-difference solution for groundwater flow
Michael et al. (1988) provided a finite-difference solution
for groundwater flow. The solution follows the application
of the continuity equation: the sum of all flows into and out
of a cell must be equal to the rate of change in the cell
storage. Under the assumption that the density of ground-
water is constant, the continuity equation that expresses the
balance of cell flow is
X hm
Dh
Qi ¼ Ss DV; ð2Þ
Dt
P where CR, CC, and CV are the hydraulic conductances
where Qi is the flow rate into a cell (L3T-1); DV denotes
the volume of a cell (L3); and Dh represents the change in
the piezometric head over a time interval of Dt(T).
The term on the right-hand side is equivalent to the
volume of water taken into the storage over a time interval
Dt, given a change in the Dh head. Equation (2) is stated in
terms of inflow and storage gain. Outflow and loss are
represented by defining outflow as negative inflow and loss
as negative gain.
If there are many external sources and stresses (i.e.,
pumping, recharge, evaporation, drainage, and river infil-
tration) that affect a single cell, the combined flow is
generally expressed by
Qsi;j;k ¼ Pi;j;k  hi;j;k þ Qi;j;k ; ð3Þ
where Qsi;j;k is the net flow from all external stresses into
cells i,j,k (L3T-1); Pi, j, k is the coefficient of the head from
the external stresses (L2T-1); Qi, j, k is the flow directly
injected into the cell (L3T-1); and hi, j, k is the piezometric
head at nodes i, j, k.
Considering six adjacent cells and the external flow
rates, the continuity of Eq. (2) to cells i,j,k can therefore be
expressed as
Qi;j1=2;k þ Qi;jþ1=2;k þ Qi1=2;j;k þ Qiþ1=2;j;k þ Qi;j;k1=2
Dhi;j;k
þ Qi;j;kþ1=2 þ Qsi;j;k ¼ Ssi;j;k  Drj Dci Dvk  ; ð4Þ
Dt
where the subscript notation ‘‘1/2’’ is used to express the
volumetric fluid discharge through the face between nodes.
For example, Qi;j1=2;k represents the volumetric fluid
discharge through the face between nodes i, j, k, and i, j-1,
k (L3T-1); Drj, Dci, and Dvk are the dimensions of the cell
Dhi;j;k
along the column, row, and vertical directions (L); and Dt
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872
is a finite-difference approximation of the derivation of the
piezometric head with respect to time (LT-1), which can be
expressed by the finite-difference form
Dhi;j;k hm m1
i;j;k  hi;j;k
¼ m ; ð5Þ
Dt t  tm1
where hm m1
i;j;k and hi;j;k are the piezometric heads at cells i, j,
k at time steps m and m-1 (L); and tm and tm-1 are the
times at time steps m and m-1 (T).
According to Darcy’s Law, the finite-difference
approximation of cells i, j, k can be expressed by (Arlen
et al. 2000)
CRi;j1=2;k  ðhm m m m
i;j1;k  hi;j;k Þ þ CRi;jþ1=2;k  ðhi;jþ1;k  hi;j;k Þ
þ CCi1=2;j;k  ðhm m m m
i1;j;k  hi;j;k Þ þ CCi1=2;j;k  ðhiþ1;j;k  hi;j;k Þ
þ CVi;j;k1=2  ðhm m m m
i;j;k1  hi;j;k Þ þ CVi;j;k1=2  ðhi;j;kþ1  hi;j;k Þ
m1
i;j;k  hi;j;k
þ Pi;j;k  hm þ Qi;j;k ¼ Ssi;j;k ðDrj Dci Dvk Þ ð6Þ
i;j;k
tm  tm1
between nodes i, j, k, and a neighboring node (L2T-1),
which equal the hydraulic conductivity times the cell area
through which the flow passes divided by the length of the
cell in the flow direction. The subscript notation ‘‘1/2’’ is
used to designate the hydraulic conductance between
nodes, as opposed to instead of the hydraulic conductance
within a cell. For example, CRi;j1=2;k represents the con-
ductance between nodes i, j, k and i, j-1, k.
Equation 6 is the finite-difference form of the continuity
equation of the 3D unsteady flow, which can be iteratively
solved. In the equation, the coefficients of the various head
terms are all known, as is the head at beginning time step
m
hm1
i;j;k . The seven heads at time t and the end of the time
step are unknown, that is, they are part of the head distri-
bution that is to be predicted. The equation cannot be
independently solved because it represents a single equa-
tion with seven unknowns. However, an equation of this
type can be written for each active cell in the mesh. A
system of ‘‘n’’ equations with ‘‘n’’ unknowns is formed
because only one unknown head exists for each cell. Such a
system can be simultaneously solved.
Calculation of additional land subsidence
The layer-wise summation method is adopted to calculate
land subsidence. The additional land subsidence caused by
dewatering can be evaluated as follows (MOHURD 2002):
X n
DPi
s¼ u Hi ; ð7Þ
Esi
i¼1
where s is the total additional land subsidence caused by
dewatering (m); u is the empirical coefficient, defined as
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872 867

1.0 in this calculation; n denotes the number of soil layers in Strata profile
the calculation range; DPi represents the additional load of
calculated soil layer caused by dewatering (KPa); Esi is the
compression modulus of the calculated soil layer (KPa); and
Hi is the thickness of the calculated soil layer (m).
The additional load of the soil layer caused by dewa-
tering can be calculated as follows:
DP ¼ cw ðh1  h2 Þ: ð8Þ
where h1 and h2 are the piezometric heads in the calculated
soil layer before and after dewatering (m); and cw is the
specific weight of the water (kN/m3).

FDM numerical model

According to the local experience in Shanghai, the influence

radius of many pit dewatering projects is 1,000 9 1,000 m
from a pit (Wang et al. 2009). In this study, the calculation
range of the model is defined as 2,000 9 2,000 m, with 89
rows and 146 columns (Fig. 1, ESM only). In the vertical
direction, 60 m below the ground surface is considered on
the basis of the strata distributions. The different parameter Fig. 2 Construction details of the pumping wells and observation
wells
zones are shown in Fig. 2 (ESM only). The initial head of
each unit is obtained from field observation results. The
Table 3 Pumping schemes
boundary condition of the model is defined as a constant
head boundary. The diaphragm wall is defined as the Scheme serial Test mode Pumping well Started at Ended at
impermeable boundary. The permeability parameters of all Scheme I Sing-well K1 15:30, 11:30,
the strata in the calculation range are listed in Table 2. Sep. 24 Sep. 27
Scheme II Sing-well K2 13:30, 13:00,
Sep. 29 Oct. 3
Numerical simulation of field pumping test Scheme III Group-well K1 and K2 15:00, 21:00,
Oct. 11 Oct. 15
Test scheme design

To obtain the initial head, pumping capacity, and perme-

ability of the confined aquifer in the excavation zone, three
single-well and one group-well in-situ pumping tests were
conducted. The layouts of the pumping and observation
wells are shown in Fig. 1. Figure 2 shows the construction
details of all the wells, together with the geological profile.
Pumping wells K1 and K2, and observation wells G1 and
G2 were installed in layer ˜2.
Three pumping tests were conducted between 24 Sept
and 15 Oct 2008. The schedules of the well operations are
listed in Table 3.
2.1 m3/h; the stable drawdowns in G1 and G2 were 1.15
and 0.69 m, respectively.
Scheme II
The drawdowns in the two observation wells and the
pumping rate of K2 are shown in Figs. 5 (ESM only) and 6
(ESM only). The maximum pumping rate of K2 was
1.9 m3/h; the stable drawdowns in G1 and G2 were 3.05
and 1.95 m, respectively.

Test results Scheme III

Scheme I The group-well pumping test was performed for Scheme

III. The drawdowns and the pumping rates are shown in
The drawdowns in the two observation wells and the Figs. 7 (ESM only) and 8 (ESM only). The maximum
pumping rate of K1 are shown in Figs. 3 (ESM only) and 4 pumping rates of K1 and K2 were 1.7 and 2.6 m3/h,
(ESM only). The maximum pumping rate of K1 was respectively; the stable drawdowns in G1 and G2 were 5.18

123
868
and 3.12 m, respectively, indicating that the group-well
effectively increases drawdowns.
For all three schemes the pumping rates fluctuated, as
the confined aquifer ˜2 is sandy silt and discontinuously
distributed in the construction site.
Numerical simulation of field pumping test
and parameter revision
A 3D numerical simulation based on the results of the field
pumping tests combined with the strata distribution was
performed to revise the hydrogeological parameters of
confined aquifer ˜2. K1 and K2 single-well pumping tests
and G1 observation data were adopted to revise the
parameters of confined aquifer ˜2 by fitting the calculated
value to the observation value. The fitting curves of the
calculated and observed piezometric heads are shown in
Fig. 3. The root mean square errors were 0.062 m and
0.124 m in the two models fitted to the observations. The
simulation results show that the calculated piezometric
head is comparable with that of the observed results. After
the 3D FDM simulation, the hydraulic conductivity of layer
˜2, which was obtained from the field pumping tests, was
modified (Table 4).
Numerical simulation of foundation pit dewatering
Dewatering requirement
To avoid the uplift of the excavation floor due to water
pressure in the confined aquifer, the soil pressure from the
bottom plate of the foundation pit to the top plate of a
confined aquifer must be greater than the uplift force of the
confined water. According to the geological investigation,
the buried depth of the piezometric head of layer ˜2 was
7.00 m (elevation 4.70 m) under adverse conditions. In an
excavation, the buried piezometric head should be more
than 1 m under the bottom plate to facilitate construction.
The stability of the bottom plate of a foundation pit can be
calculated as follows (MOHURD 2002):
RH  cs  Fs  cw  h; ð9Þ
where H is the distance from the bottom plate of the
foundation pit to the top plate of a confined aquifer (m); cs
is the unit weight of soils in the calculation domain
(kN/m3); h is the distance from the piezometric head of the
confined water to the top plate of a confined aquifer (m); cw
is the specific weight of water (kN/m3); and Fs is the factor
of safety, defined as 1.10 in this calculation.
The calculation results of the drawdown requirements of
each excavation depth are listed in Table 5.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872
Dewatering design
On the basis of the dewatering requirement and past
experience, the excavation site that needed dewatering was
divided into three small regions (Fig. 4). The number of
wells installed in each region is listed in Table 6. The
layout of the wells is shown in Fig. 4.
Numerical simulation of groundwater flow
and land subsidence
The three regions were individually calculated. To ensure
consistency in the calculation results, discretized grids of
inverse analysis were used in the numerical simulation.
(1) Region I: Pumping wells QJ1–QJ7 were operated for
120 h. The contour lines of piezometric head in
Region I after pumping are shown in Fig. 5. The
elevation of the piezometric head inside the pit was
less than -13 m, which is more than twice the
requirement for piezometric head control.
Eight points that are located 5 m away from the
calculation region were selected to compute the
settlement. The calculation results in Table 7 show
that the land subsidence at most of the calculation
points exceeds the control requirements. Conse-
quently, additional treatments should be provided to
protect the surrounding environment.
(2) Region II: Pumping wells QJ23–QJ26 were operated
for 120 h. The contour lines of the piezometric head
in Region II after pumping are shown in Fig. 6. The
elevation of the piezometric head within the dewa-
tering region was less than -10 m, which exceeds the
requirement for piezometric head control.
Six points that are located 5 m away from the
calculation region were selected to compute the
settlement. The calculation results in Table 8 show
that the land subsidence at most of the calculation
points is beyond the control requirements. Additional
treatments should be provided to protect the sur-
rounding environment.
(3) Region III: Pumping wells QJ8–QJ22 were operated
for 120 h. The contour lines of the piezometric head
in Region III after pumping are shown in Fig. 7. The
elevation of the piezometric head within the dewa-
tering region after pumping satisfies the control
requirements, except for QJ13. After checking all
possible factors, the failure was found to be caused by
an incorrect distribution of strata around QJ13 in the
geotechnical investigation report. The filter tube was
installed into impermeable layer ˜3. The error was
corrected by raising the height of the filter tube into
confined aquifer ˜2.
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872 869

Fig. 3 Fitting curves in

parameter revision model
a K1 operated b K2 operated

123
870 Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872

Table 4 Reversed hydraulic conductivity of layer ˜2 Table 6 Well arrangement at each region
Pumping well Observation well Hydraulic conductivity (cm/s) Region Number of depressurizing Number of observation
well well
Kh Kv
I 7 (QJ1–QJ7) 2 (QJG1–QJG2)
K1 G1 1.10 9 10-5 2.20 9 10-6
II 4 (QJ23–QJ26) 1 (QJG5)
K2 G1 6.50 9 10-6 1.30 9 10-7
III 15 (QJ8–QJ22) 2 (QJG3–QJG4)
AVG. 8.25 9 10-6 1.16 9 10-6

Table 5 Drawdown requirements of each excavation depth

Excavation Fs (calculated) Drawdown Elevation of
depth (m) requirement piezometric head
(m) control (m)

10.70 1.25 – –
13.80 0.86 2.40 -5.70
14.30 0.79 3.20 -6.50
14.75 0.72 3.90 -7.20
16.45 0.50 6.70 -10.00

The aforementioned calculation results for dewatering

illustrate that the dewatering scheme is reasonable for pit
dewatering. However, the elevation of the piezometric head
within the entire dewatering region was greater than the
control requirements, causing large settlement outside the
dewatering region. In engineering practice, fewer pumping
wells are needed to satisfy drawdown requirements, and Fig. 5 Contour line of piezometric head corresponding to Reign I

Fig. 4 Layout of
depressurizing wells and
observation wells

123
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872 871

Table 7 Calculation results of land settlement (Region I)

Calculation Piezometric Piezometric Drawdown Settlement
point head before head after (m) (mm)
dewatering dewatering
(m) (m)

1 -2.8 -10.0 7.2 -37.8

2 -2.8 -10.5 7.7 -40.5
3 -2.8 -12.0 9.2 -48.6
4 -2.8 -13.0 10.2 -53.7
5 -2.8 -4.2 1.4 -7.5
6 -2.8 -8.3 5.5 -29.1
7 -2.8 -11.1 8.3 -43.8
8 -2.8 -11.0 8.2 -43.2

Fig. 7 Contour line of piezometric head corresponding to Region III

Figure 9a (ESM only) shows the traditional dewatering

Fig. 6 Contour line of piezometric head corresponding to Reign II
method using pumping wells. The water table cannot be
reduced effectively unless the pumping capacity is large
enough. A larger drawdown is produced near the pumping
well and a correspondingly larger land subsidence is
induced. Figure 9b (ESM only) shows the dewatering
method combining a pumping well with a diaphragm wall
out of the pumping well. The seepage field near the
pumping well is disturbed. The changed flow direction is
nearly parallel to the diaphragm wall, along which more
loss of water head is produced inside the wall and less
outside the wall. In other words, the land subsidence can be
reduced. If the drawdown outside the pit still cannot meet
the demand, a recharge well can be installed near the
diaphragm wall to balance the excessive drawdown
(Fig. 9c ESM only), and the excessive settlement can be
alleviated effectively (Wang et al. 2012).

Table 8 Calculation results of settlement (Region II)

Calculation Piezometric Piezometric Drawdown Settlement Conclusion
point head before head after (m) (mm)
dewatering dewatering A case study on the dewatering of a large deep foundation
(m) (m)
pit is presented in this paper. Two single-well and one
1 -2.8 -3.6 0.8 -4.2 group-well field pumping tests in the confined aquifer were
2 -2.8 -3.8 -1.0 -5.3 conducted. A 3D numerical model based on the field
3 -2.8 -11.2 8.4 -44.4 pumping tests was applied to revise the hydraulic param-
4 -2.8 -9.7 6.9 -36.3 eters obtained from the laboratory permeability tests. The
5 -2.8 -11.1 8.3 -43.8 revised hydraulic conductivity of layer ˜2 was 8.25 9
6 -2.8 -10.6 7.8 -41.1 10-6 cm/s in the horizontal direction and 1.16 9 10-6 cm/s
in the vertical direction.
The drawdown requirements of the confined water in the
excess wells can be adopted as reserves. Monitoring of the excavation region, which extended from 2.40–6.70 m,
surrounding environment should be improved, and addi- were calculated. On the basis of the dewatering require-
tional treatments, such as recharge, should be prepared for ments, the excavation that required dewatering was divided
excessive settlement outside the foundation pit. into three regions. According to experience, a number of

123
872
pumping wells were installed in the confined aquifer in
each region.
To verify the feasibility of the dewatering scheme, FDM
forward analysis was performed on the basis of the revised
numerical model in the back analysis. The simulation
results show that the drawdown of the confined water
within the entire dewatering region was greater than the
drawdown requirements and greater than twice the
requirements for Regions I and III. However, a relatively
large settlement around the dewatering region occurred.
Addition of a diaphragm reduced the pumping well draw-
down and settlement outside the foundation pit. Additional
treatments, such as recharge, may also be needed to protect
the surrounding environment.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41072205), the
Shanghai Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
10ZR1431500), and the S&T Cooperation Program of Qingpu Dis-
trict, Shanghai–Tongji University.
References
Arlen WH, Edward RB, Mary CH, Michael GM (2000) Modflow-
2000, the US Geological Survey modular groundwater model-
user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow
process. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92, Reston,
Virginia
Feng XL, Xiong WL, Hu T (2005) Application of 3d coupling model
of seepage and stress for simulating deep foundation fits
dewatering. Chin J Geotech Eng 24:1196–1201 (in Chinese)
His JP, Carter JP, Small JC (1994) Surface subsidence and drawdown
of the water table due to pumping. Geotechnique 44:381–396
123
View publication stats
Environ Earth Sci (2013) 69:863–872
Jiang XL, Zong JH (2010) Three-dimensional finite element analysis
of seepage fields in foundation pit. Chin J Geotech Eng
28:564–568 (in Chinese)
Luo ZJ, Li L, Yao TQ (2006a) Coupling model of three dimensional
seepage and land-subsidence for dewatering of deep foundation
pit in loose confined aquifers. Chin J Geotech Eng 28:1947–1951
(in Chinese)
Luo ZJ, Li L, Cao HB (2006b) Numerical simulation of three-
dimensional seepage field of a deep foundation pit during
dewatering in a complex composite aquifer system—a case
study of dewatering of a pit at the Shanghai finance center. J Eng
Geol 14:72–76 (in Chinese)
Luo ZJ, Zhang YY, Wu YX (2008) Finite element numerical
simulation of three-dimensional seepage control for deep
foundation pit dewatering. J Hydrodyn 20:596–602
Michael G, McDonald, Arlen WH (1988) A modular three-dimen-
sional finite-difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey Open-File Report 83–875, Reston, Virginia
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s
Republic of China (MOHURD) (2002) Code for design of
building foundation. China Building Industry Press, Beijing (in
Chinese)
Tang YQ, Li QM, Cui JY (1999) Accidental analysis and treatment of
foundation pit project. China Architecture and Building Press,
Beijing (in Chinese)
Wang JX, Hu LS, Wu LG, Tang YQ, Zhu YF, Yang P (2009)
Hydraulic barrier function of the underground continuous
concrete wall in the pit of Metro station and its optimization.
Environ Geol 57:447–453
Wang JX, Feng B, Liu Y, Wu LG, Zhu YF, Zhang XS, Tang YQ,
Yang P (2012) Controlling subsidence caused by de-watering in
a deep foundation pit. Bull Eng Geol Environ doi:10.1007/
s10064-012-0420-0
Wu LG, Liu SN, Li HR, Yao Y (2003) Design and execution of
dewatering of and theory of seepage in deep excavation. China
Communication Press, Beijing (in Chinese)
Zhang FG (2007) Geotechnical investigation report of the Oriental
Fisherman’s Wharf buildings. Shanghai Geotechnical Investiga-
tions and Design Institute Co.Ltd (SGIDI), Shanghai (in Chinese)