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

net/publication/276351096

Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. I:

Field observations

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · February 2015

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2014-0285

CITATIONS READS
100 1,155

4 authors:

Yong-Xia Wu Shui-Long Shen

Shanghai University of Engineering Science Shantou University
23 PUBLICATIONS   1,083 CITATIONS    407 PUBLICATIONS   14,071 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yeshuang Xu Zhen-Yu Yin

Shanghai Jiao Tong University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
100 PUBLICATIONS   3,878 CITATIONS    345 PUBLICATIONS   8,176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Excavation collapse - tunnel collapse- underground construction works View project

Modelling of permeation and fracturing grouting in loess: laboratory investigations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shui-Long Shen on 11 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
1

ARTICLE
Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in
gravel aquifer. I: Field observations1
Yong-Xia Wu, Shui-Long Shen, Ye-Shuang Xu, and Zhen-Yu Yin
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

Abstract: This paper presents a case history of the leakage behavior during dewatering tests in the gravel strata of an excavation
pit of a metro station in Hangzhou, China. The groundwater system at the test site is composed of a phreatic aquifer underlain
by an aquitard and a confined aquifer with coarse sand and gravel. The sandy gravel stratum has very high hydraulic conduc-
tivity. The maximum depth of the excavation is 24 m below the ground surface, which reaches the middle of the aquitard strata,
where the thickness of the clayey soil is insufficient to maintain the safety of the base of the excavation. To understand the
hydrological characteristics of gravel strata, single- and double-well pumping tests were conducted, where a cut-off wall was
installed 43 m deep with its base penetrating 2 to 3 m into the aquifer. Test results show that this partial cut-off of the aquifer
cannot effectively protect the base of the excavation from the upward seepage force of the groundwater during excavation.
Therefore, a new cut-off wall (second phase) was constructed to a depth of 54 m to cut off the confined aquifer. A second pumping
test was conducted after the construction of the second phase cut-off wall, and test results show that this full cut-off combined
with dewatering can control groundwater effectively during excavation. This finding indicates that when a deep excavation is
conducted in a confined aquifer with high hydraulic conductivity, determination of the depth of the retaining wall should be
based on three factors: the stability of the base, the upward seepage stability, and settlement control.

Key words: gravel strata, deep excavation, pumping test, cut-off walls, dewatering, settlement.
For personal use only.

Résumé : Le présent article décrit un exemple typique d’infiltration d’eaux souterraines lors d’essais d’assèchement réalisés
dans les couches de gravier d’une excavation creusée pour construire une station de métro à Hangzhou, en Chine. Le réseau
hydrologique souterrain sur le lieu des essais est composé d’une nappe phréatique surmontant un aquitard et d’un aquifère
confiné constitué de sable grossier et de gravier. La couche de sable et de gravier présente une conductivité hydraulique très
élevée. La profondeur maximale de l’excavation est de 24 m sous la surface du sol, c’est-à-dire qu’elle atteint le milieu des couches
de l’aquitard, où l’épaisseur du sol argileux est insuffisante pour maintenir la stabilité la base de l’excavation. Pour comprendre
les caractéristiques hydrologiques des couches de gravier, on a réalisé des essais de pompage à l’aide d’un puits unique et d’un
puits double, dans lesquels une paroi de séparation a été installée sur 43 m de profondeur, la base de cette séparation pénétrant
sur 2 à 3 m de profondeur dans l’aquifère. Les résultats des essais montrent que cette division partielle de l’aquifère ne permet
pas de protéger efficacement la base de l’excavation contre la force d’infiltration ascendante des eaux souterraines durant les
travaux d’excavation. Par conséquent, une nouvelle paroi (seconde phase) a été construite sur 54 m de profondeur pour
introduire une séparation dans l’aquifère confiné. De nouveaux essais de pompage ont été réalisés après l’installation de la paroi
de séparation construite lors de la seconde phase. Les résultats de ces essais montrent que cette nouvelle séparation complète,
combinée à un assèchement, peut permettre de maîtriser efficacement l’infiltration des eaux souterraines durant les travaux
d’excavation. Cette conclusion prouve que, lorsqu’une excavation profonde est creusée dans un aquifère confiné présentant une
conductivité hydraulique élevée, la profondeur de la paroi de rétention devrait être déterminée en fonction de trois facteurs : la
stabilité de la base, la stabilité de l’infiltration ascendante et le contrôle de l’affaissement. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : couches de gravier, excavation profonde, essai de pompage, parois de séparation, assèchement, affaissement.

Introduction located in this kind of soft deposit, retaining structures, such as

jet grouting columns (Shen et al. 2013b; Wang et al. 2013b), deep
In recent years, urbanization in China has led to the need for a
mixing piles (Shen et al. 2003; Huang and Han 2009), and cut-off
wide range of underground spaces, such as metro tunnels, sub-
walls (Tan and Wang 2013a, 2013b; Pujades et al. 2014), are com-
ways, underground shopping centers, and underground parking monly adopted for mitigating ground movement or improving
lots. During construction of these underground spaces, deep pits stability during excavation. In excavations, it is necessary to lower
are usually excavated in the soft Quaternary deposits of the the groundwater level inside the excavation pit so that it is lower
coastal regions (Peng et al. 2011; Ng et al. 2012; Tan and Wei 2012). than the pit excavation depth to prevent upward seepage into the
The soft Quaternary deposits along the coastal regions of China excavation and to maintain dry working conditions. When the
are generally multi-aquifer-aquitard systems (Chai et al. 2004; excavation is above a confined aquifer, the earth pressure be-
Shen and Xu 2011; Xu et al. 2012, 2013). When excavation pits are tween the excavation base and the confined aquifer is insufficient

Received 19 July 2014. Accepted 18 February 2015.

Y.-X. Wu, S.-L. Shen, and Y.-S. Xu. State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
No. 800 Dongchuan Rd., Shanghai 200240, China.
Z.-Y. Yin. LUNAM University, EcoleCentrale Nantes, GeM UMR CNRS, 6183, Nantes, France.
Corresponding author: Shui-Long Shen (e-mail: slshen@sjtu.edu.cn).
1This is a companion paper to Wu et al. (Part II), Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52 [This issue.] (2015) [dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0289].

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1–13 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0285 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 23 February 2015.
 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
2 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 1. Plan view of excavated area.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

to resist the confined groundwater pressure, and the piezometric confined aquifer. In part II, Wu et al. (2015) describe the results
head should be lowered to prevent the confined water from en- from numerical computations in which the experimental obser-
For personal use only.

tering the base of the excavation (Wu 2003). Quicksand or internal vations were used to calibrate the numerical model to draw fur-
piping erosion often occurs in construction as a result of soil ther conclusions about the leaking behavior of a cut-off wall in a
erosion induced by groundwater seepage (Shaqour and Hasan gravel aquifer.
2008; Shen et al. 2014).
For deep excavation pits that require the pumping of confined Project description
groundwater, a combination of cut-off wall and dewatering with
Hangzhou is located at the estuary of the Qiantang River on the
large-diameter wells is usually adopted during excavation. The
eastern coast of China. The excavation was for an interchange
cut-off wall is constructed as the retaining structure to prevent
metro station, which is near the railway station of Hangzhou. This
lateral groundwater inflow, and dewatering reduces the piezometric
station is an interchange point of Hangzhou metro line Nos. 1 and 5.
head beneath the excavation (Miyake et al. 2008; Roberts et al.
2009; Xu et al. 2013). This method has been used for many types of The station is situated 2.5 km from the Qiantang River. Figure 1
excavations, such as tunnels (Luo et al. 2008; Pujades et al. 2012a, shows a plan view of the construction site with the expected
2012b, 2014), subway stations (Zhou et al. 2010), and basements excavation depths. The area lies along West Lake Road with Cheng-
(Wang et al. 2013a). However, sometimes a cut-off wall is not deep zhan Road to the west. There are several buildings around the exca-
enough to cut off the groundwater and as such dewatering usually vation pit. There is a six-storey concrete building located on the
lasts for several months or even more than a year. This long-term north side of the excavation pit, a high-rise concrete structure of
dewatering causes the groundwater level to decline greatly over 25 storeys (the Changbao building) and a nine-storey concrete build-
an extended period of time, which may cause ground settlement ing (Liqun building) to the south, and a two-storey concrete building
or even pipeline breakage, subsidence, and differential settle- to the east. Many utility pipelines also surround the excavation pit.
ment of surrounding buildings (Shen et al. 2006, 2014; Roy and The excavation pit consists of five sections (sections I to V as shown in
Robinson 2009). Therefore, the depth of the cut-off wall should be Fig. 1). This paper discusses section II, in which the excavation pit has
determined by both the stability of the excavation base and the an area of approximately 58 m by 21 m.
waterproof properties of the wall. A reasonable design assumes
that the designers are acquainted with both the geological and Geotechnical conditions
hydrogeological characteristics of the soils. Laboratory testing
Subsurface soil formations
(Chapuis 1992; Masrouri et al. 2009; Ma et al. 2014) and pumping
Figure 2 depicts the sectional view of section II. The construc-
tests (Jean 1996; Chapuis and Chenaf 2003; Ou and Chen 2010) are
two ways commonly used to understand the hydrogeological tion site has an elevation of 7 to 8 m above sea level. The Quater-
characteristics of soils. In most cases, in situ pumping tests pro- nary system in this area is marine and fluvial sediment with a
vide the more accurate results. Thus, the use of pumping tests is depth of 53 m. The first layer is uncontrolled fill in a loose state to
an appropriate approach to obtain the hydrogeological parame- a depth of 5 m. Under the fill layer, a sequence of layered sand is
ters. Additionally, to better understand the effects of field testing, present at the site, to a depth of 18 m. These are underlain by
finite element models are commonly applied (Doyle et al. 2014; multilayered soft soil, including silty clay, clay, and silty clay with
Khalilzad et al. 2014). sand, with a thickness of over 20 m. The stress state of soft soil is
This paper is the first of a two-part series investigating the at the normally to slightly overconsolidated state and is classified
behavior of groundwater seepage during pumping tests in a deep as clay with low plasticity, based on the Unified Soil Classification
foundation pit in Hangzhou, China. Part I of this series presents System (USCS; ASTM 2011) method. A gravel layer lies beneath the
the results of the full-scale field pumping tests conducted in the soft soil, with some medium coarse sand and occasional clay
foundation pit of a metro station excavated in clayey soil over a lenses mixed within the gravel layer. The depth of the gravel layer

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 3

Fig. 2. Cross-sectional view of excavation (cross section n–n= in Fig. 1). Yao and Shi 2006). Quicksand may happen when the excavation is
carried out in sand, and piping may occur when the excavation is
undertaken over a confined aquifer. For this project, the underly-
ing confined aquifer will influence the safety of the excavation pit.
Figure 5 shows a diagram of excavation piping.
The earth pressure, Pcz, is given by

(1) Pcz ⫽ ␥sh

and the confined water pressure, Pw, is given by

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

(2) Pw ⫽ ␥wH

where h is the vertical distance between the base of the excavation

and the top of the confined aquifer, ␥s is the unit weight of the
soil, H is the vertical distance between the top of the confined
aquifer and the groundwater level of the confined aquifer, and ␥w
is the unit weight of the water.
The safety factor, Fs, is given by

Pcz
(3) Fs ⫽
ranges from 40 to 53 m below the ground surface. Base rock lies at Pw
the bottom of the gravel strata.
Figure 3 depicts the soil profiles along with basic soil properties. In this case, the minimum depth of the confined aquifer is
The initial void ratio, e0, was determined based on the physical taken as 39.4 m, the groundwater level is taken as 10.5 m, the unit
properties of the soil obtained from the laboratory tests. Water
weight of water is taken as 10 kN/m3, and the unit weight of soil is
contents are generally close to the liquid limit, while the plasticity
taken as 18.5 kN/m3. Therefore, Pcz is equal to 284.9 kPa, Pw is
For personal use only.

index of the silt clay is about 21%, and the compression index, Cc,
equal to 289 kPa, and Fs is equal to 0.98, which is less than 1.1.
was obtained from laboratory oedometer tests (Yin 1999; Yin and
According to Chinese Design Code guidelines, the safety factor
Graham 1999; Yin et al. 2002). Figure 4 shows the grain-size distri-
should be greater than or equal to 1.1 (MCPRC 2002). To satisfy
bution of the soil at different depths. It can be seen that the
safety requirements, the groundwater head should be lowered to
material in the gravel strata comprises 46%–50% gravel, 32%–36%
sand, and less than 18% fine soil. 13.5 m below the ground surface in this case.

Groundwater hydrology Construction program

The soft deposit in Hangzhou is a multi-aquifer-aquitard system The construction program of section II before excavation is as
with a high groundwater level (Zhang et al. 1998, 2009; Lin et al. follows:
1999). The Quaternary deposit in this site consists of a phreatic
aquifer, an aquitard, and a confined aquifer. Figure 2 shows the 1. Construction of first phase cut-off wall — According to the original
hydrogeological profile of the construction site. The values of design, a 43 m deep cut-off wall was constructed as the soil
horizontal hydraulic conductivity, kh, and vertical hydraulic con- retaining structure. The cut-off wall was made of reinforced
ductivity, kv, in Fig. 3 were determined by laboratory testing. The concrete with a thickness of 1.0 m.
phreatic aquifer is composed mainly of sandy silt and sand and 2. Phase I pumping tests — To better understand the geological
has a thickness of 13.6 to 16.0 m. The confined aquifer is composed formation of the gravel layer, pumping tests were repeated
mainly of gravel with a thickness of 12.3 to 13.0 m. In this article, using three 50 m deep wells, between 31 August 2008 and
the ground surface is taken as the reference datum, and the phre- 9 September 2008. Both single- and double-well pumping tests
atic water level is –1.2 to –2.4 m, which changes with the seasons. were conducted. The pumping tests showed that the hydraulic
The water level of the confined aquifer is –10.5 m. conductivity of the gravel formation was high, and recharge
from the surrounding area was rapid as the retaining wall just
Base stability and insertion depth of retaining wall penetrated into the top 2 to 3 m of the confined aquifer. Sev-
eral wells were installed to meet the requirements of the ex-
Depth of cut-off wall for soil retaining
cavation within the first phase of the cut-off wall. However,
The depth of the excavation in section II is 24.0 m, and the
the groundwater recovered very quickly after the pump was
excavation base is in the aquitard. The depth of the cut-off wall in
shut down. Thus, a second cut-off wall with full penetration of
the design was determined based on the stability of the base, with
analysis of the slip circle in accordance with the Chinese Design the confined aquifer was recommended to cut off the ground-
Code (MCPRC 2002), but it did not consider the effect of upward water recharge from beyond the foundation pit during exca-
seepage under a critical hydraulic gradient. The effect of the hy- vation.
draulic gradient is solved by dewatering within the confined aqui- 3. Construction of second phase of cut-off wall — The second phase of
fer through well pumping. Based on the stability analysis, the the cut-off wall was constructed at the side of the first phase
depth of the cut-off wall was designed to be 43 m with the base wall, from 40 to 54 m deep. This second phase of the cut-off
penetrating into the aquifer by 2 to 3 m, which is considered just wall was made from concrete with a thickness of 0.8 m. In this
adequate to retain the soil. case, the cut-off wall can theoretically completely cut off the
groundwater seepage from beyond the foundation pit in the
Hydraulic stability of the base confined aquifer.
Hydrogeological problems can be caused by groundwater dur- 4. Phase II pumping tests — From 25 August 2009 to 13 September
ing excavation and these include quicksand and piping (Wu 2003; 2009, another group of pumping tests was performed using six

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
4 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 3. Soil profile and properties at construction site.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15
For personal use only.

hydraulic hydraulic

Fig. 4. Grain-size distribution of soil at construction site.

wells to verify the dewatering effect. Single-, double-, and vation. However, dewatering from both phreatic and confined
triple-well pumping tests were conducted. Test results showed aquifers may cause subsidence of the surroundings. In this case,
that three wells had the ability to lower the groundwater head lowering the groundwater head in the confined aquifer had to be
to 13.5 m below the ground surface even though leakage oc- conducted in the gravel strata. The dewatering plan should be
curred in the second cut-off wall. designed according to the hydrogeological parameters (hydraulic
conductivity, specific storage, and radius of influence) of the
Design basis for groundwater control strata, particularly within gravel. The flow rate of the well is also
Dewatering is usually conducted by pumping groundwater us- a significant parameter that can be obtained from field pumping
ing various types of wells to lower the water table during exca- tests.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 5

Fig. 5. Diagram of excavation piping. Results and analyses

Groundwater head
Figure 8 presents the variation in groundwater head in the
observed wells during the first five sets of pumping tests with a
43 m deep cut-off wall. From Fig. 8, within each pumping test, the
change in groundwater head follows a similar trend. At the begin-
ning of each pumping test, the groundwater head declined rap-
idly at first and then more gently until it reached a steady level.
After the pump was shut down, the groundwater head recovered
quickly (within 150 min). For the first set of single-well tests, the
results for well H8 show that the groundwater level in both H7
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

(located within the foundation pit) and H10 (located outside the
foundation pit) were almost the same after 420 min of pumping.
Therefore, the depth of the cut-off wall penetrating 2 to 3 m into
the confined aquifer is not enough to block the groundwater seep-
age into the foundation pit. For the second set of single-well tests,
confined the groundwater head in H8 was lower than that in H10, which
was due to the distance between H8 and H7 (12.8 m) being shorter
than the distance between H7 and H10 (22.5 m).
Figure 9 plots the groundwater head in the observed wells with
the elapsed time during pumping tests where there was a 54 m
deep cut-off wall. The groundwater head in all of the observed
Field pumping tests and field instrumentation wells both inside and outside of the excavation pit declined dur-
Phase I pumping tests with 43 m deep cut-off wall ing each pumping test. The drawdown in the excavation pit was
greater than that outside the pit, showing that the second phase
Figure 6 shows the plan view of the wells and settlement mon-
of the cut-off wall played a significant role in blocking groundwa-
itoring points. Two wells (H7 and H8) were located in the excava-
ter seepage from outside into the foundation pit. Theoretically, if
tion pit of section II, and the third well (H10) was located outside the cut-off wall has cut off the confined aquifer completely, the
of the excavation pit (see Fig. 6a). Figure 7 plots the structure of
For personal use only.

groundwater head outside the excavation pit should not decline.

the wells and the installation depths of the cut-off walls. As shown The test results indicate that there were leakages in the second
in Fig. 7, pumping wells H7, H8, and H10 were installed to a depth phase of the cut-off wall. As shown in Fig. 9b, the maximum
of 50 m and the initial depth of the first phase cut-off wall was groundwater head was –12.43 m in well H10 and –11 m in well H1
43 m. The three wells were partially penetrating wells with an during the second set of triple-well pumping tests, which indi-
internal radius of 273 mm and an external radius of 650 mm. The cates that the second phase of the cut-off wall leaked unevenly
screens of all wells were 9 m long. Groundwater levels were re- and the worst leakage occurred near well H10. For the first set of
corded from when the pumping commenced until the groundwa- triple-well tests, the pumping wells were operated one at a time so
ter level fully recovered during the pumping tests. Pumping tests that the groundwater level in H5 was reduced in stages.
included three sets of single-well tests, two sets of double-well Figure 10 presents the recovery curves of the groundwater level
tests, one set of repeated single-well tests, and one set of repeated for both depths of cut-off wall. The groundwater level recovered
17.6% in the excavation pit, and 23.5% outside the excavation,
double-well tests. Table 1 shows the schedule of the well opera-
within 1 min for the case of the 43 m deep cut-off wall (first phase),
tions during pumping tests. In addition, 22 settlement points (la-
while the corresponding values were 7.2% and 25.8% for the case of
beled C1 to C22) were set up around the pumping wells and were
the 54 m deep cut-off wall (second phase), illustrating that the
observed by a level instrument to investigate the influence of the 54 m deep cut-off wall has a better ability to block groundwater
pumping tests on the surrounding environment (see Fig. 6a). seepage in gravel strata than the 43 m deep cut-off wall.
As shown in Figs. 8, 9, and 10, a periodic variation of the ground-
Phase II pumping tests with 54 m deep cut-off wall
water head was observed due to the daily tide. Figure 11 shows the
The results of the above pumping tests led to the conclusion measured variation of the groundwater head. It can be seen that
that the 43 m deep cut-off wall was not deep enough to prevent the groundwater head in the confined aquifer follows a pattern of
recharge from beyond the foundation pit during pumping. There- rising and falling every day (Fig. 11). Unfortunately, a complete
fore, the second phase of the cut-off wall was constructed to a cycle of periodic fluctuation of groundwater variation was not
depth of 54 m and three new wells (H1, H2, and H5) were installed monitored due to limited time.
to a depth of 43, 47, and 46 m, respectively (see Figs. 6b and 7).
Wells H2 and H5 were in the excavation pit, with the well screens Settlement
from 40 to 46 m, and 40 to 45 m below the ground surface. Well H1 Figure 12 shows the development of ground settlements of
was outside of the foundation pit, with the screen between 40 and the points C1 to C4, C12 to C16, C17 to C22, and C5 to C11 where the
42 m below the ground surface. Pumping tests included one set of depth of the cut-off wall was 43 m. During pumping tests, the
measured ground surface settlements increased with elapsed
single-well tests, one set of double-well tests, and two sets of
time. The values of the settlements were small, and the maximum
triple-well tests. Table 2 shows the schedule of the well opera-
ground settlement was 1.4 mm. However, settlements increased
tions. As shown in Fig. 6b, 16 settlement points (labeled B16 to B23, more rapidly after the completion of pumping tests, due to the
B26 to B30, and T36 to T38) were surveyed to investigate the influ- construction of other underground projects.
ence of the pumping tests on the surrounding environment. Pi- Figure 13 shows the development of ground settlements along
ezometers were used to monitor the pressure head during the sections B16 to B19, B21 to B23, B26 to B30, and T36 to T38, where
pumping tests. Pressure readings were taken at frequencies of the depth of the cut-off wall was 54 m. According to the field data,
once every 5 s during the first 20 min, and once every 5 min the ground settlements were similar to those observed during
thereafter. pumping tests carried out in 2008. It can be seen from Fig. 13 that

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
6 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 6. Plan view of wells and settlement monitoring points: (a) phase I pumping test, (b) phase II pumping test.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

Fig. 7. Structure of the wells.

For personal use only.

there is some heave of the ground. This may be due to the follow- with an increase of pumping rate, while the drawdown at H10
ing causes: (i) pumping time is short in each pumping test, so that increases slowly. This phenomenon indicates that a low pumping
the drawdown of confined water is small as the cut-off wall has rate can lead to a relatively large drawdown in the excavation pit,
isolated the confined aquifer; (ii) because the test site is situated at and a relatively small drawdown outside the excavation pit, even
a road intersection, heavy road traffic may have caused some though the 54 m deep cut-off wall leaks to some extent. When the
vibration of the ground. cut-off wall is 43 m deep, the drawdown at H10 increases slowly
Relationship between drawdown and pumping rate with an increase of pumping rate. As the 43 m cut-off wall only
The relationships between the drawdown and pumping rates of penetrated into the top 2 to 3 m of the confined aquifer and the
the two groups of pumping tests are depicted in Fig. 14. The curves pumping well was 50 m deep, the groundwater between the in-
demonstrate a linear growth with different gradients. When the side and outside of the pit was connected. Thus, the drawdown at
cut-off wall is 54 m deep, the drawdown at H5 increases rapidly H10 occurred directly after pumping was conducted within the

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 7

Table 1. Process of pumping tests in phase I.

Pumping Observation Starting time Pumping Recovery
Test type well well [date] time (min) time (min)
Single well H8 H7, H10 2125 [31 Aug.] 670 401
Double well H7, H8 H10 1915 [1 Sep.] 740 700
Single well H7 H8, H10 1918 [2 Sep.] 802 675
Double well H7, H8 H10 1940 [3 Sep.] 809 3211
Single well H8 H10 1433 [6 Sep.] 1080 1814
Repeat single well H8 H8, H10 1735 [8 Sep.] 60 40
1915 [8 Sep.] 60 40
2050 [8 Sep.] 60 132
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

Repeat double well H7, H8 H8, H10 2125 [9 Sep.] 60 35

2300 [9 Sep.] 60 30
0030 [10 Sep.] 60 183

Table 2. Process of pumping test in phase II.

Pumping Observation Starting time Pumping Recovery
Test type well well [date] time (min) time (min)
Single well H8 H5, H7, H10 2130 [25 Aug.] 1449 1478
Double well H7, H8 H5, H10 902 [1 Sep.] 647 1569
Triple well H8 H5 909 [5 Sep.] 137 0
H7, H8 H5 1126 [5 Sep.] 450 0
H2, H7, H8 H5, H10 1856 [5 Sep.] 802 1422
H1, H5, H10 1855 [13 Sep.] 120 485

Fig. 8. Variation of groundwater head during pumping tests with 43 m cut-off wall.
For personal use only.

excavation pit. Also pumping within the excavation pit created a confined aquifer 2 to 3 m, and the penetrating depth is 15% to 20%
large drawdown cone, and as a result the groundwater level out- of the thickness of the aquifer. Therefore, the influence of the wall
side the excavation declined significantly. is ignored, and pumping in the infinite confined layer is consid-
ered. The single-well pumping test results undertaken in the case
Relationship between groundwater head and settlement
of the 43 m deep cut-off wall are analyzed using the Cooper and
Figure 15 illustrates the relationship between groundwater
Jacob (1946) method (referred to as the Cooper–Jacob method).
head and settlement when the cut-off wall is 43 m deep. Ground
surface settlement was affected by dewatering in the confined Figure 16 shows the drawdown, s, versus logt for the H8 pumping
aquifer. The influence was limited because pumping time for each tests at a constant flow rate, Q = 87 m3/h, and for the H7 pumping
set of tests was short. Moreover, there is no regular pattern of test at Q = 70 m3/h. In applying the Cooper–Jacob method, a mod-
settlement due to the action of repeatedly going through the ification was made, in which the straight line in Fig. 16 was ob-
pump startup and shutdown process. tained using regression analysis to maintain accurate calculation.
According to the Cooper–Jacob method, the hydraulic parameters
Analysis of aquifer parameters can be obtained as follows.
When the penetration depth of the cut-off wall into the con- The transmissivity, T, is given by the slope, ⌬s, of the linear
fined aquifer is less than 20% of the thickness of the aquifer, the portion of the graph as
effect on the seepage field of the cut-off wall can be negligible,
based on previous experience in China (Yao and Shi 2006). In the 2.30Q
(4) T⫽
current study, the 43 m deep cut-off wall just penetrated into the 4␲⌬s

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
8 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 9. Variation of groundwater head during pumping test with Fig. 11. Fluctuation of groundwater head in confined aquifer.
54 m cut-off wall: (a) single- and double-well pumping tests; (b) two
groups of triple-well pumping tests.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

The hydraulic conductivity, k, is obtained from the transmissiv-

ity as

T
(6) k⫽
M

where M is the thickness of the confined aquifer.

Note that the drawdown of the observation wells (Fig. 16) in the
early stages diverges from the fitted straight line, indicating that
For personal use only.

early pumping is affected by the partial penetration of the pump-

ing well (Kruseman and de Ridder 1990; Istok and Dawson 1991; Ni
et al. 2011) and pipe storage (Driscoll 1986; Chapuis and Chenaf
2003). Drawdown in the later stages is affected by tidal variations
(Liu 1996; Chapuis et al. 2006). Through regression analysis, the
Cooper–Jacob curve is obtained by using the drawdown data that
were not affected by the partial penetration effect, pipe storage,
and tidal variations.
The pumping test results were also analyzed using the Theis
Fig. 10. Recovery curve of groundwater head. (1935) method. Figure 17 shows a graph of logs versus logt. All of
the drawdown data can be fitted by the Theis curve and only the
fitting result of well H8 is presented. For the Theis method, the
transmissivity is given by

Q
(7) T⫽ W(u)
4␲s

and the storage coefficient is given by

4Tt
(8) S⫽ u
r2

where u is an independent variable of well function (= r2S/(4Tt)),

W(u) is well function, and t is time. An arbitrary point A is selected,
and its coordinates s, t, W(u), and 1/u obtained. In this case, the
point is selected where the coordinates of the Theis curve are
W(u) = 1 and 1/u = 1. Equations (7) and (8) can give T and S, and the
hydraulic conductivity is given by eq. (6).
The specific storage, Ss, is obtained from the storage coeffi-
and the storage coefficient, S, is given by the time intercept, t0, as cient as
2.25Tt0 S
(5) S⫽ (9) Ss ⫽
r2 M

where r is the distance of the observation well from the pumping Table 3 shows the hydrogeological parameters obtained from
well. With the given values of ⌬s, t0, and r, T and S can be deter- the Cooper–Jacob method and the Theis method. The two meth-
mined based on eqs. (4) and (5). ods give similar results, showing that both methods are effective

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 9

Fig. 12. Development of surface settlement during pumping tests in the 43 m cut-off wall case: (a) section C1 to C4; (b) section C5 to C11;
(c) section C12 to C16; (d) section C17 to C22.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15
For personal use only.

for this field case. However, the hydraulic conductivities obtained the Cooper–Jacob method can give more accurate results than
from the Theis method are less than those from the Cooper–Jacob the Theis method. From these results, it can be deduced that the
method. As the drawdown curve (Fig. 17) is relatively gentle, there hydraulic parameters of aquifers with gravel are much greater
is a high degree of randomness when the drawdown data are than those of aquifers in other nearby regions such as Shanghai
fitted with the Theis curve. For the Cooper–Jacob method, the (Chai et al. 2004; Shen and Xu 2011; Shen et al. 2013a; Xu et al. 2014)
randomness is avoided by using regression analysis. Therefore, and Tokyo (Shen et al. 2006).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
10 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 13. Development of surface settlement during pumping tests in the 54 m cut-off wall case: (a) sections B16–B19, (b) sections B21–B23,
(c) sections B26–B30, (d) sections T36–T38.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15
For personal use only.

It should be pointed out that both of the aforementioned analyti- so that the hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal direction is
cal methods were derived based on the assumption that the aquifer greater than that in the vertical direction. Therefore, more detailed
soil is isotropic homogenous material. Thus, the obtained hydraulic analysis should be adopted to obtain more accurate values for hy-
parameters are the average value for the aquifer. In fact, in most draulic parameters, and this will be introduced in the companion
cases the aquifer sand contains clay lenses in the horizontal direction paper (Wu et al 2015).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 11

Fig. 14. Relationship between drawdown and pumping rate. Fig. 17. Graph of logs versus logt according to Theis method.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

Fig. 15. Relationship between groundwater head and settlement.

by dewatering using well pumping to reduce the hydraulic
gradient to below the critical hydraulic gradient. Based on
this, the first phase of cut-off wall with a combination of
pumping wells was designed and constructed to a depth of
43 m, which partially penetrated into the confined aquifer.
2. To verify the effectiveness of pumping in the confined aquifer,
pumping tests were conducted after the phase I cut-off wall
was constructed. The results of pumping tests indicate that
For personal use only.

the hydraulic conductivity of the gravel strata is very high, and

groundwater replenishment from outside the excavation pit is
very rapid. Moreover, the groundwater head recovered very
quickly when the pumps were shut down. Therefore, dewater-
ing in such a situation may be not enough to prevent seepage
failure of the excavation base.
3. Based on the results of the first set of pumping tests, and to
reduce the risk of base instability due to seepage from the
lower confined aquifer, the second phase of the cut-off wall
Fig. 16. Graph of s versus logt with different pumping rate.
was constructed adjacent to the first phase. This cut-off wall
was constructed to a depth of 54 m, which penetrated fully
into the confined aquifer and increased the blocking of
groundwater during dewatering.
4. After the second phase of the cut-off wall was constructed,
pumping tests were conducted again. This wall with full cut-
off of the confined aquifer greatly increased the ability to
block the groundwater seepage compared with the first phase
cut-off wall with partial cut-off. However, results from the
second set of pumping tests show that there is some leakage of
the second cut-off wall due to the difficulty in controlling the
construction quality of the cut-off wall in the gravel layer.
5. The induced settlement outside the foundation pit during the
pumping tests was small (within 3 mm) for both depths of
cut-off wall. This indicates the deformation is within the elas-
tic region. There are some differences between the cases of the
43 m deep wall and the 54 m deep wall. The maximum settle-
ment at most of the monitored points in the case of the 43 m
wall were greater than those in the 54 m deep wall case, in
which the maximum settlement at most of the points was
Conclusions within 1 mm. However, there was one point that had a maxi-
The following conclusions can be drawn based on the field ob- mum settlement of 3 mm, indicating leakage in the adjacent
servation from the pumping tests of this case study. cut-off wall.
6. Based on the pumping tests, hydraulic parameters, such as
1. The design depth of the cut-off wall was determined based on hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storage coefficient
the heave resistance of the base according to Chinese design of the gravel layer, are estimated using both the Cooper–Jabob
codes, which did not consider the effect of the upward seepage method and the Theis method. Based on the Cooper–Jacob
force. Based on this design, in most cases, cut-off walls are method, hydraulic conductivity, k, is 128.97 m/day; transmis-
designed to partially penetrate into a confined aquifer. The sivity, T, is 1.94E−2 m2/s; and storage coefficient, S, is 6.88E−3;
risk of upward seepage force in a confined aquifer is reduced Based on the Theis method, k is 118.18 m/day, T is 1.74E−2 m2/s,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
12 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Table 3. Hydrogeological parameters.

k
Pumping Observation
Method well well r (m) T (m2/s) S (cm/s) (m/day) Ss (1/m)
Cooper and Jacob H7 H8 12.8 2.09E−2 2.42E−3 0.1607 138.84 1.86E−4
H10 22.5 1.98E−2 2.32E−3 0.1523 131.59 1.78E−4
H8 H7 12.8 1.77E−2 2.04E−2 0.1362 117.64 1.57E−3
H10 13.0 1.92E−2 2.38E−3 0.1479 127.81 1.83E−4
Average — 1.94E−2 6.88E−3 0.1493 128.97 5.29E−4
Theis H7 H8 12.8 1.72E−2 1.51E−2 0.1322 114.26 1.16E−3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

H10 22.5 1.78E−2 7.33E−3 0.1368 118.20 5.64E−4

H8 H7 12.8 2.40E−2 3.01E−2 0.1436 124.09 2.31E−3
H10 13.0 1.86E−2 6.02E−3 0.1344 116.19 5.92E−4
Average — 1.74E−2 1.50E−2 0.1368 118.18 1.16E−3
Note: r, distance of observation well from pumping well; T, transmissivity; S, storage coefficient; k, hydraulic conductivity;
Ss, specific storage.

and S is 1.50E−2. In addition, the Cooper–Jacob method can Liu, K.F. 1996. Tide-induced ground-water flow in deep confined aquifer. Jour-
give more accurate results than the Theis method by using nal of Hydraulic Engineering, 122(2): 104–110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1996)122:2(104).
regression analysis. However, both methods are based on the Luo, Z.J., Zhang, Y.Y., and Wu, Y.X. 2008. Finite element numerical simulation of
assumption of isotropic homogeneous soil in the aquifer, three-dimensional seepage control for deep foundation pit dewatering.
from which the anisotropic behavior of hydraulic parameters Journal of Hydrodynamics, Series B, 20(5): 596–602. doi:10.1016/S1001-
cannot be obtained. 6058(08)60100-6.
Ma, L., Xu, Y.-S., Shen, S.-L., and Sun, W.-J. 2014. Evaluation of the hydraulic
conductivity of aquifers with piles. Hydrogeology Journal, 22(2): 371–382.
Acknowledgements doi:10.1007/s10040-013-1068-y.
The research work described herein was funded by the National Masrouri, F., Bicalho, K.V., and Kawai, K. 2009. Laboratory hydraulic testing in
Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 41372283), unsaturated soils. In Laboratory and field testing of unsaturated soils.
National Key Technology R&D Program of China (Grant No. Springer, the Netherlands. pp. 79–92. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8819-3_7.
Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China (MCPRC). 2002. Code
For personal use only.

2012BAJ01B02), and National Basic Research Program of China

for design of building foundation. GB50007-2002. Beijing China Architecture
(973 Program: 2015CB057806). This financial support is gratefully & Building Press. [In Chinese.]
acknowledged. Miyake, N., Kohsaka, N., and Ishikawa, A. 2008. Multi-aquifer pumping test to
determine cutoff wall length for groundwater flow control during site exca-
References vation in Tokyo, Japan. Hydrogeology Journal, 16(5): 995–1001. doi:10.1007/
s10040-008-0276-3.
ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering pur-
Ng, C.W.W., Hong, Y., Liu, G.B., and Liu, T. 2012. Ground deformations and
poses (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM standard D2487. Ameri-
can Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa. soil–structure interaction of a multi-propped excavation in Shanghai soft
Chai, J.-C., Shen, S.-L., Zhu, H.-H., and Zhang, X.-L. 2004. Land subsidence due to clays, Géotechnique, 62(10): 907–921. doi:10.1680/geot.10.P.072.
groundwater drawdown in Shanghai. Géotechnique, 54(2): 143–147. doi:10. Ni, J.C., Cheng, W.-C., and Ge, L. 2011. A case history of field pumping tests in a
1680/geot.2004.54.2.143. deep gravel formation in the Taipei Basin, Taiwan. Engineering Geology,
117(1–2): 17–28. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.10.001.
Chapuis, R.P. 1992. Similarity of internal stability criteria for granular soils.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 711–713. doi:10.1139/t92-078. Ou, C.-Y., and Chen, S.-H. 2010. Performance and analysis of pumping tests in a
Chapuis, R.P., and Chenaf, D. 2003. Effects of monitoring and pumping well pipe gravel formation. Bulletin of Engineering and Geological Environments,
capacities during pumping tests in confined aquifers. Canadian Geotechnical 69(1): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10064-009-0218-x.
Journal, 40(6): 1093–1103. doi:10.1139/t03-059. Peng, F.-L., Wang, H.-L., Tan, Y., Xu, Z.-L., and Li, Y.-L. 2011. Field measurements
Chapuis, R.P., Bélanger, C., and Chenaf, D. 2006. Pumping test in a confined and finite-element method simulation of a tunnel shaft constructed by pneu-
aquifer under tidal influence. Ground Water, 44(2): 300–305. doi:10.1111/j. matic caisson method in Shanghai soft ground. Journal of Geotechnical and
1745-6584.2005.00139.x. PMID:16556212. Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(5): 516–524. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
Cooper, H.H., and Jacob, C.E. 1946. A generalized graphical method for evalu- 5606.0000460.
ating formation constants and summarizing well-field history. Transac- Pujades, E., Carrera, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Jurado, A., Vilarrasa, V., and
tions of the American Geophysical Union, 27(4): 526–534. doi:10.1029/ Mascuñano-Salvador, E. 2012a. Hydraulic characterization of diaphragm
TR027i004p00526. walls for cut and cover tunnelling. Engineering Geology, 125(27): 1–10. doi:
Doyle, J.D., Howard, I.L., Gartrell, C.A., Anderton, G.L., Newman, J.K., and 10.1016/j.enggeo.2011.10.012.
Berney, E.S., IV. 2014. Full-scale instrumented testing and three-dimensional Pujades, E., López, A., Carrera, J., Vázquez-Suñé, E., and Jurado, A. 2012b. Barrier
modeling of airfield matting systems. International Journal of Geomechan- effect of underground structures on aquifers. Engineering Geology,
ics, 14(2): 161–170. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000272. 145–146(2012): 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.07.004.
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and wells. 2nd ed. Johnson Division, St. Paul, Pujades, E., Vázquez-Suñé, E., Carrera, J., Vilarrasa, V., De, Simone, S., Jurado, A.,
Minn. Ledesma, A., Ramos, G., and Lloret, A. 2014. Deep enclosures versus pumping
Huang, J., and Han, J. 2009. 3D coupled mechanical and hydraulic modeling of a to reduce settlements during shaft excavations. Engineering Geology, 169(4):
geosynthetic-reinforced deep mixed column-supported embankment. Geo- 100–111. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.11.017.
textiles and Geomembranes, 27(4): 272–280. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009. Roberts, T.O.L., Botha, C.P., and Welch, A. 2009. Design and operation of a large
01.001. dewatering system in Dubai. In Proceedings of the 17th International Confer-
Istok, J.D., and Dawson, K.J. 1991. Aquifer testing: design and analysis of pump- ence on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt.
ing and slug tests. CRC Press, USA. Roy, D., and Robinson, K.E. 2009. Surface settlements at a soft soil site due to
Jean, J.S. 1996. Pumping testing using a siphon well. Water Resources Manage- bedrock dewatering. Engineering Geology, 107(3–4): 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.
ment, 10(2): 81–105. doi:10.1007/BF00429681. enggeo.2009.05.006.
Khalilzad, M., Gabr, M.A., and Hynes, M.E. 2014. Effects of woody vegetation on Shaqour, F.M., and Hasan, S.E. 2008. Groundwater control for construction pur-
seepage-induced deformation and related limit state analysis of levees. Inter- poses: a case study from Kuwait. Environmental Geology, 53(8): 1603–1612.
national Journal of Geomechanics, 14(2): 302–312. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM. doi:10.1007/s00254-007-0768-9.
1943-5622.0000304. Shen, S.-L., and Xu, Y.-S. 2011. Numerical evaluation of land subsidence induced
Kruseman, G.P., and de Ridder, N.A. 1990. Analysis and evaluation of pumping by groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
test data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, 48(9): 1378–1392. doi:10.1139/t11-049.
Wageningen. Shen, S.-L., Han, J., Huang, X.-C., and Du, S.-J. 2003. Laboratory studies on prop-
Lin, C.M., Huang, Z.H., Zhi, S.Z., Li, C.X., and Jiang, W.S. 1999. Quaternary sedi- erty changes in surrounding clays due to installation of deep mixing col-
mentary characteristics and processes in the Hangzhou Bay Coastal Plain. umns. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 21(1): 15–35. doi:10.1080/
Acta Geologica Sinica, 72(2): 120–130. [In Chinese.] 10641190306711.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Pagination not final (cite DOI) / Pagination provisoire (citer le DOI)
Wu et al. 13

Shen, S.-L., Xu, Y.-S., and Hong, Z.-S. 2006. Estimation of land subsidence based Wu, L.G. 2003. Design and execution of dewatering and theory of seepage in
on groundwater flow model. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 24(2): deep excavation. China Communications Press, Beijing, China.
149–167. doi:10.1080/10641190600704848. Wu, Y.-X., Shen, S., Yin, Z.-Y., and Xu, Y.-S. 2015. Characteristics of groundwater
Shen, S.-L., Ma, L., Xu, Y.-S., and Yin, Z.-Y. 2013a. Interpretation of increased seepage with cut-off wall in gravel aquifer. II: Numerical analysis. Canadian
deformation rate in aquifer IV due to groundwater pumping in Shanghai. Geotechnical Journal, 52. [This issue.] doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0289.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(11): 1129–1142. doi:10.1139/cgj-2013-0042. Xu, Y.-S., Ma, L., Shen, S.-L., and Sun, W.-J. 2012. Evaluation of land subsidence by
Shen, S.-L., Wang, Z.-F., Yang, J., and Ho, C.-E. 2013b. Generalized approach for considering underground structures that penetrate the aquifers of Shanghai,
prediction of jet grout column diameter. Journal of Geotechnical and China. Hydrogeology Journal, 20(8): 1623–1634. doi:10.1007/s10040-012-0892-9.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(12): 2060–2069. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) Xu, Y.-S., Shen, S.-L., Du, Y.-J., Chai, J.-C., and Horpibulsuk, S. 2013. Modelling the
GT.1943-5606.0000932. cutoff behavior of underground structure in multi-aquifer-aquitard ground-
Shen, S.-L., Wu, H.-N., Cui, Y.-J., and Yin, Z.-Y. 2014. Long-term settlement behav- water system. Nature Hazards, 66(2): 731–748. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0512-y.
iour of metro tunnels in the soft deposits of Shanghai. Tunnelling and Un- Xu, Y.-S., Shen, S.-L., Ma, L., Sun, W.-J., and Yin, Z.-Y. 2014. Evaluation of the
derground Space Technology, 40(1): 309–323. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2013.10.013. blocking effect of retaining walls on groundwater seepage in aquifers with
Tan, Y., and Wang, D. 2013a. Characteristics of a large-scale deep foundation pit
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Shanghai Jiao Tong University on 06/08/15

different insertion depths. Engineering Geology, 183: 254–264. doi:10.1016/j.

excavated by the central-island technique in Shanghai soft clay. I: Bottom-up enggeo.2014.08.023.
construction of the central cylindrical shaft. Journal of Geotechnical and
Yao, T.Q., and Shi, Z.H. 2006. Handbook of foundation pit dewatering. China
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(11): 1875–1893. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.
Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China.
1943-5606.0000928.
Yin, J.-H. 1999. Non-linear creep of soils in oedometer tests. Géotechnique, 49(5):
Tan, Y., and Wang, D. 2013b. Characteristics of a large-scale deep foundation pit
699–707. doi:10.1680/geot.1999.49.5.699.
excavated by the central-island technique in Shanghai soft clay. II: Top-down
construction of the peripheral rectangular pit. Journal of Geotechnical and Yin, J.-H., and Graham, J. 1999. Elastic viscoplastic modelling of the time-
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(11): 1894–1910. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT. dependent stress-strain behavior of soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
1943-5606.0000929. 36(4): 736–745. doi:10.1139/t99-042.
Tan, Y., and Wei, B. 2012. Observed behaviors of a long and deep excavation Yin, J.-H., Zhu, J.-G., and Graham, J. 2002. A new elastic viscoplastic model for
constructed by cut-and-cover technique in Shanghai soft clay. Journal of time dependent behaviour of normally and over consolidated clays: theory
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(1): 69–88. doi:10.1061/ and verification. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39(1): 157–173. doi:10.1139/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000553. t01-074.
Theis, C.V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface Zhang, J.Q., Zhang, H.J., and Li, C.X. 1998. Characteristics of the late Quaternary
and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage. stratigraphic sequence in the Deltaic Area of Yangtze River. Journal of Tongji
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 16(2): 519–524. University, 26(4): 438–442. [In Chinese.]
Wang, J., Feng, B., Yu, H., Guo, T., Yang, G., and Tang, J. 2013a. Numerical study Zhang, J., Gong, X.N., Ding, X.Y., and Gao, J. 2009. Study on the properties of
of dewatering in a large deep foundation pit. Environmental Earth Sciences, confined aquifer of old stream in Hangzhou. Bulletin of Science and Tech-
69(3): 863–872. doi:10.1007/s12665-012-1972-9. nology, 25(5): 643–648. [In Chinese.]
Wang, Z.-F., Shen, S.-L., Ho, C.-E., and Kim, Y.-H. 2013b. Investigation of field- Zhou, N., Vermeer, P.A., Lou, R., Tang, Y., and Jiang, S. 2010. Numerical simula-
installation effects of horizontal twin-Jet grouting in Shanghai soft soil tion of deep foundation pit dewatering and optimization of controlling
deposits. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50(3): 288–297. doi:10.1139/cgj-2012- land subsidence. Engineering Geology, 114(3–4): 251–260. doi:10.1016/j.
For personal use only.

0199. enggeo.2010.05.002.

Published by NRC Research Press

View publication stats