Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Research Paper

Behaviours of wall and soil during pre-excavation dewatering under T

different foundation pit widths
⁎
Chao-Feng Zenga,c, , Gang Zhengb, Xiao-Feng Zhoua, Xiu-Li Xuea, Hai-Zuo Zhoub
a
Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Engineering for Stability Control and Health Monitoring, School of Civil Engineering, Hunan University of Science and
Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, China
b
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
c
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China

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

Keywords: Dewatering before excavation can induce obvious wall deflection; however, engineers rarely monitor it before
Deep excavation excavation. This traditional monitoring data will undervalue the environmental effect induced by foundation pit
Dewatering construction. In this study, a dewatering test conducted in a large-scale foundation pit is reported. Then, 35
Wall defection numerical models considering different pit widths are developed to simulate the dewatering process based on the
Ground deformation
test results. The pit deformation behaviours during dewatering with different pit widths (Wp) are analysed. The
Groundwater seepage
Numerical analysis
results indicate that time effect and size effect are two features of dewatering-induced deformation: (1) the pit
deformations grow rapidly during the first few days of dewatering, but the growth rate decreases continuously;
(2) the wider pit exhibits greater deformations, but there exists a critical pit width (approximately 40 m in this
study), within which the pit deformations grow rapidly (average approximately 0.03% of Wp increase); however,
with Wp being greater than the critical width, the pit behaviours demonstrate a slight difference.

1. Introduction
In recent years, a mass of underground structures have been con-
structed in large cities due to the rapid urbanization [1–5]. The deep
excavation technique is extensively used to help realize underground
space exploitation and ensure safety during construction [6–13]. When
the foundation pit is excavated in the vicinity of existing buildings or
facilities, a large challenge to engineers is deformation control. These
engineers must strictly restrict the environmental deformation caused
by foundation pit construction [14–16].
In fact, the construction process of a foundation pit comprises many
stages, which can be generally classified into two groups [9], as shown
in Fig. 1. One group represents the work conducted before soil ex-
cavation, mainly including the construction of a retaining wall and pre-
excavation dewatering (PED). Additionally, PED is also called test
pumping and is used to check whether the discharge rate of pumping
wells and the groundwater drawdown in wells can meet the design
requirement [17–22]. Moreover, PED has also been employed as a
pumping test before soil excavation to obtain the hydraulic parameters
of aquifers [23,24], evaluate the hydraulic barrier effect of retaining
walls [12,25–28], or optimize the dewatering system [11,17,29–33].
The other construction group represents the activities carried out
during soil excavation, covering the staged excavation and dewatering,
the construction of slabs or struts, the removal of struts and backfill,
and the groundwater level recovery [34].
Among the above stages, we can easily understand that the stages
during soil excavation can cause retaining wall and soil deformations
since the existing relevant studies have fully proven these effects
[35–40]. In contrast, researchers are not sure whether PED can lead to
retaining wall deflection because less attention and very limited in-
vestigations have been devoted to it. Although some scholars
[11,17,27,32,41–44] have carried out PED tests and relevant numerical
simulations, their concerns relate to the dewatering-induced drawdown
curve and soil settlement induced by drawdown. These investigators
did not investigate the behaviour of the retaining wall and its re-
lationship with soil settlement during PED. In fact, most engineers
consider that there is no wall deflection before soil excavation and
believe that wall deflections start from the first step of soil excavation.
For this reason, in most projects, engineers rarely monitor the wall
deflections during PED until soil excavation begins. Since retaining
walls have already existed before PED, the retaining wall may show a
deformation response during PED. That is, the wall deflection may

⁎
Corresponding author at: Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Geotechnical Engineering for Stability Control and Health Monitoring, School of Civil Engineering,
Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, Hunan 411201, China.
E-mail address: cfzeng@hnust.edu.cn (C.-F. Zeng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103169
Received 27 February 2019; Received in revised form 21 May 2019; Accepted 12 July 2019
0266-352X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Fig. 1. Entire construction process of a foundation pit.
occur much earlier.
Based on field observations in a metro foundation pit, Zheng et al.
[21] found that retaining walls can develop an apparent deflection
during the PED stage, and the maximum deflection can reach 10 mm.
Based on numerical simulations, Zeng et al. [9] noted that the total
pressure in the soil-wall interface inside the pit decreases progressively
during PED, which disequilibrates the original total pressure on both
sides of the retaining wall. Under the action of a pressure difference, the
retaining wall develops an inward deflection, which further induces the
surrounding ground deformation due to the ground loss behind the
wall. The above analysis indicates that the PED stage has already in-
duced considerable retaining wall deflection and surrounding ground
deformation. The monitoring data that does not include the deforma-
tion caused before soil excavation will undervalue the environmental
effect of foundation pit construction. Hence, engineers and researchers
should consider this part of the deformation when they create a design,
conduct monitoring or embark on a relevant study.
However, until now, minimal attention has been attracted to this
problem. Although Zheng et al. [21] and Zeng et al. [9] have conducted
some PED tests and numerical simulations focusing on this issue, their
research was only based on a single foundation pit with a pit width of
approximately 20 m. The obtained results cannot reflect the wall and
soil behaviours in foundation pits with different widths. In addition, the
measured data regarding PED-induced pit deformation are extremely
few, and thus far, we have never found a case study reporting the re-
sponse of a retaining wall to PED in a large-scale foundation pit.
In this paper, an in situ PED test conducted in a large-scale foun-
dation pit is reported. The observed retaining wall deflection is ana-
lysed. Then, 35 finite element (FE) models are developed to simulate
the PED test. The models are verified by field measurements and used to
investigate the deformation behaviours of retaining wall and sur-
rounding soil during PED under different foundation pit widths.
Moreover, the mechanism by which foundation pits with different
widths will exhibit different responses during PED is clarified. On this
basis, some schemes are developed to help engineers better design the
PED process and analyse PED-induced wall and soil deformation.
2. Case study: PED in a large-scale foundation pit
2.1. Project description and soil conditions
Fig. 2 shows a large-scale foundation pit for commercial buildings in
Tianjin, China. The pit was 190–270 m long, 180–190 m wide, and
15.3–17.25 m deep with an area of approximately 43,890 m2. In the pit,
there were four 17.25-m-deep rectangular shafts that were used for the
construction of high-rise buildings (i.e., B1-B4). The remaining places
were 15.3 m deep and were applied to construct some annex structures.
Because the general contractor required that building B4 should be
constructed in advance, a row of φ900@1100 bored piles were adopted
north of B4, dividing the large-scale pit into two parts (note: φ900@
1100 means 900 mm in diameter and 1100 mm in pile spacing). A
braced excavation technique was employed in the southern part of the
pit, and soil berms were used in the northern part of the pit for tem-
porary support.
2
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
The large-scale pit was surrounded by city roads on the north, west
and east sides, and an existing tunnel called the Tianjin Underground
Diameter Line (TUDL) on the south side. TUDL, with an overall length
of 5000 m and a diameter of 11.6 m, is the first urban railway shield
tunnel used for high-speed trains in China. The minimum distance be-
tween the TUDL and the pit was approximately 16.5 m. The buried
depth of the tunnel was approximately 13 m.
Considering the existence of the TUDL, diaphragm walls were em-
ployed as retaining structures on the south side of the large-scale pit
with depths and thicknesses of approximately 33.1 m and 1.2 m, re-
spectively. However, single-row bored piles were applied to retain soils
in the remaining locations of the large-scale pit with φ1000@1200 in
the north side and φ900@1100 in the others. All the outer retaining
piles were buried at approximately 28.8 m below the ground surface
(BGS). The design values of elastic modulus, axial compressive strength,
and the axial tensile strength of concrete for both the diaphragm wall
and bored pile were 30 GPa, 14.3 MPa and 1.43 MPa, respectively [45];
the design values of these three parameters for the two level of concrete
struts were 31.5 GPa, 16.7 MPa and 1.57 MPa, respectively [45]. A row
of φ850@600 soil–cement mixed piles was installed behind the outer
retaining structures as sealing curtains. The depth of the sealing cur-
tains was slightly larger than that of the corresponding retaining
structures and was long enough to block groundwater seepage from
beyond the foundation pit. A row of φ800@1000 bored piles, with the
same properties as the retaining structure, was set up to isolate the
TUDL to reduce the tunnel deformation caused by the pit construction.
The specific location of the TUDL can be seen in Fig. 2(b). In addition,
according to the national construction standard in China [46], the
alarm value of wall deflection for this project was 0.2% of the final
excavation depth (i.e., approximately 30.6 mm).
Fig. 3 presents the typical soil profile and soil properties at the
foundation pit site. The deposit at the site is the typical soft deposit in
Tianjin [23,47] and mainly consists of saturated silts, silty clays and
silty sands in the upper 50 m BGS. There is one phreatic aquifer (la-
belled Aq0) and three confined aquifers (labelled AqI, AqII and AqIII)
within 50 m BGS. The aquifers are separated by aquitards. In situ
pumping tests conducted previously showed that the hydraulic con-
nections among Aq0, AqI, AqII and AqIII were not apparent. The long-
term phreatic water level was observed at depths of approximately
1.8 m BGS. Hydrostatic equilibrium for the three confined aquifers was
reached at approximately 7, 9 and 10.5 m BGS from the upper to the
lower layers.
2.2. Arrangement of the dewatering wells and observation instruments
The dewatering technique was adopted inside the foundation pit to
lower the water level to below the final excavation depth. Fig. 2(a)
shows the plane layout of the dewatering wells. There were 227 wells
inside the pit. The well spacing was 12–20 m, and the drainage area for
a well was approximately 200–250 m2, which is consistent with the
local experience [48,49]. The well length was 24 m, which indicates
that the well bottom was located in AqI. This design decision was made
because the final excavation depth was close to the top of AqI, and the
water level in AqI should be lowered to avoid confined water entering
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Fig. 2. Diagrams of the investigated foundation pit: (a) plan view; and (b) cross-section at A-A.
the base of the pit [25,26,50–52]. In addition, from the perspective of
construction technology, the wells were drilled with a diameter of
800 mm and were fitted with a non-sand concrete well liner with a
diameter of 500 mm. Because there were no fine sands in the concrete,
the well structure was full of gaps, and the groundwater around the well
could easily flow into the well under the action of a seepage gradient.
The borehole annuli were filled with gravel along the well depth. In
addition, each well was equipped with a submersible pump. The pump
3
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
can be allocated at different depths in the dewatering well by engineers
to accomplish dewatering at varying depths.
Fig. 2(a) also shows the plan arrangement of observation instru-
ments. There were 20 inclinometer tubes (i.e., C1-C20) mounted on the
retaining structures to monitor their deflections. The inclinometer ac-
curacy can reach ± 0.02 mm/0.5 m, which meets the requirement
specified by the national construction standard in China [53]. The
length of the inclinometer tube was approximately 29 m. The
C.-F. Zeng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Fig. 3. Typical soil profile and soil properties at the foundation pit site in this study and in Ref. [9]. Note: γ = unit weight; ω = water content; e0 = initial void ratio;
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility; N = SPT blow counts; Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity.

observation wells G1-G8 and YG1-YG2 were used to monitor the water connection between the wall behaviour and the dewatering progress
level change in Aq0 and AqI, respectively, outside the pit during con- inside the pit, Table 1 shows the PED construction details near each
struction. In addition, the soil and tunnel deformation markers were inclinometer tube. In addition, the PED test site reported in this study
also mounted around the pit, but because the environmental deforma- was approximately 2 km from a metro foundation pit site, in which a
tions were not observed during the PED construction, their markers are PED test was also conducted [9]. The soil conditions within 50 m BGS in
not shown in Fig. 2(a). the two sites are extremely similar (see Fig. 3). Hence, Fig. 4 also
presents the comparisons of the PED-induced wall deflection observed
in these two project sites.
2.3. PED test and field observation results
The following points can be obtained according to Fig. 4. First,
cantilever-type wall deflections were observed at all of the available
After the retaining structures and dewatering wells were set up on
inclinometer tubes, and the wall deflections became more apparent as
site, a PED test was conducted inside the foundation pit to check
the dewatering time elapsed (i.e., time-dependent effect). In practical
whether the discharge rate of the dewatering wells and drawdown in
engineering, engineers should notice this time effect and avoid long-
the dewatering wells can meet the design requirement. The PED test
term dewatering before soil excavation. Otherwise, the engineers
lasted 21 days (i.e., from May 24th to June 13th in 2013). During the
should take countermeasures to restrict the PED-induced deformation
test, the dewatering wells were opened to pump water the moment they
(e.g., installing the first level of the struts on the wall top in advance
were buried and formed. The pumps in the wells were always allocated
and then conducting the PED and subsequent soil excavation).
at 17.75 m BGS (i.e., approximately 2.5 m below the final excavation
Second, the maximum wall deflection of approximately 15 mm ap-
depth). In the first few days, it was found that a mass of wells did not
peared at C8 and reached approximately 50% of the alarm value of the
yield groundwater or yielded only a small amount of groundwater. The
wall deflection for this project. Because the designers did not consider
discharge rate of these wells was only 1–4 m3/d, which is significantly
this part of the wall deflection when designing the retaining wall, they
smaller than the designed discharge rate (i.e., 40 m3/d). The reasons
did not select a stronger retaining wall to restrain a larger deformation.
were the collapse of hole during the drilling of wells, and the untimely
Under such conditions, the appearance of a wall deflection before soil
development of dewatering wells after the well completion had been
excavation will make the deformation control in the follow-up series of
done. For this reason, the engineers reconstructed 78 wells near these
constructions (e.g., soil excavation) quite passive. Apparently, it is
poor-quality wells from May 31st to June 9th. The discharge rate of the
difficult to let the final accumulative wall deflection be smaller than the
newly reconstructed wells was stable and ranged from 20 m3/d to
alarm value or the allowable value if additional measures are not
40 m3/d. Meanwhile, the water level in the wells declined continuously
adopted to restrain the deformation. In this project, the final wall de-
and was located at the pump depth at the end of the PED test, which
flection at C8 was approximately 60 mm, which reached approximately
meant that the designed dewatering depth was reached. At that mo-
197% of the alarm value and led to the fracture of the city road behind
ment, it was concluded that the well quality was reliable and met the
C8. The above analysis indicates that the designers should consider the
design requirement.
PED-induced wall deflection when comparing schemes and thus select a
During the PED test, the water level change outside the foundation
stronger retaining wall to restrain the deformation induced by the en-
pit was observed. The water levels at G6 and G7 fell approximately
tire construction processes of the foundation pit, including the PED-
1.1 m and 0.2 m, respectively. However, the water levels at other lo-
induced deformation.
cations were basically unchanged. This behaviour indicates that the
Third, the development of the PED-induced wall deflection is closely
sealing curtain may have some defects near G6 and G7, causing a de-
related to the dewatering progress in the vicinity of the wall. Taking the
gree of hydraulic connection between the inside and outside of the
wall deflection change at C8 as an example (see Fig. 4(c)), before the
foundation pit near G6 and G7.
new wells were reinstalled near C8 (i.e., before June 6th), the wall
During the PED test, retaining wall deflections were also observed.
deflection induced by 7-day PED (i.e., from May 30th to June 6th) was
Unfortunately, it was inconvenient to conduct monitoring at many lo-
rather small. This effect may be because the water level decline inside
cations, such as C1-C4 and C11-C20, during the test due to conflicts in
the pit around C8 was not apparent before June 6th since the discharge
the construction. In this paper, only measurements at C5, C7, C8 and
rate of dewatering wells near C8 was extremely small. Under such
C10 were introduced. Fig. 4 shows the measured wall deflections at
conditions, the wall deflection will not be greatly developed due to the
these locations. To facilitate the following description and develop a

4
C.-F. Zeng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Fig. 4. Measured wall deflections at (a) C5, (b) C7, (c) C8 and (d) C10 and their comparison with those reported by Zeng et al. [9].

Table 1 metro pit reported by Zheng et al. [21] increased by 10 mm during the
. Date for starting dewatering and reconstructing new wells near each in- 10-day PED (note: the dewatering depth in the metro pit was 16 m,
clinometer tube. which is close to 17.75 m in this study). A similar rule can also be found
Inclinometer tubes Date for starting Date for reconstructing new at C5, C8 and C10. In practical engineering, PED in a large-scale
dewatering wells foundation pit with a greater width should be conducted more care-
fully, and on this occasion, the engineers should increase the mon-
C5 June 2nd /
itoring frequency of the retaining wall deflection during PED con-
C7 June 2nd June 7th
C8 May 30th June 6th struction.
C10 June 6th / The above analyses reveal that the foundation pit width may have a
great effect on the PED-induced deformation. To further obtain the
deformation behaviours of the retaining wall and surrounding ground
unapparent transformation of the pore-water pressure to the effective during PED under different foundation pit widths and to seek the me-
stress [9]. However, after the new wells were reinstalled near C8 (i.e., chanism of why the foundation pit with different widths will exhibit
after June 6th), the PED-induced wall deflection obviously increased different responses during PED, a series of numerical simulations were
since the water level inside the pit declined continuously. The max- conducted.
imum wall deflection increased by 14 mm during the 7-day PED (i.e.,
from June 6th to June 13th). This wall deflection increment is ap-
proximately 12 times larger than that caused by the former 7-day PED 3. Numerical model
(i.e., from May 30th to June 6th). In practical PED construction, the
engineers may need to dynamically adjust the PED scheme (e.g., adjust 3.1. Simulation method and calculation range
the dewatering depth) according to the monitoring wall deflection.
Once a large deflection increment appears, they should reduce the de- In this Section, 35 numerical models considering different founda-
watering depth or even stop PED. tion pit widths were established to simulate the PED process. For sim-
Moreover, the PED-induced wall deflection will be more apparent in plicity, the plane shape of the foundation pit was set as a rectangle in all
a wider foundation pit than in a narrow pit under roughly the same PED of the models, the pit length (Lp) was kept unchanged at Lp = 200 m,
condition (i.e., roughly the same soil condition, dewatering time and and the pit width (Wp) was varied from 20 m to 200 m (i.e., Wp = 20,
dewatering depth). For example, as for C7 (see Fig. 4(b)), the maximum 30, 40, 80, 120, 160 and 200 m). In addition, the dewatering depth (Hd)
deflection increased by 11.7 mm during the 10-day PED (i.e., from June was also selected as a changing parameter (i.e., Hd = 5.5, 11, 16, 19
2nd to June 12th). However, the maximum wall deflection in a narrow and 21.5 m) in the simulations to help better reveal the Wp effect on the
PED-induced wall and soil deformations under different Hd values. All

5
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Fig. 5. Mesh of the model and layout of the foundation pit.
of the models were developed in the package ABAQUS, which considers
soil-fluid coupling based on the Biot consolidation theory [54].
Zeng et al. [9] developed a numerical model to simulate a PED test
in a metro foundation pit, which was approximately 2 km away from
the large-scale foundation pit described in Section 2.1. The soil condi-
tions in the two pit sites were extremely similar, and only the thickness
of the soil layers was slightly different (see Fig. 3). In Zeng’s model, the
Wp and Hd were set as 20 m and 16 m, respectively. Apparently, the
calculation case in Zeng’s model is one of the conditions considered in
this study, and thus, the computed results in Zeng’s study can be em-
ployed as a comparison with those in this study. To facilitate this
comparison, some model information such as the soil conditions and
properties adopted in this study (see Section 3.3) are set to be the same
as those in Zeng’s model.
Taking the case of Wp = Lp = 200 m as an example, Fig. 5 shows the
mesh of the FE model. Only a quarter of the foundation pit was simu-
lated in the model due to the symmetry. The model calculation range
was set to 200 m by 200 m in-plane, and thus the distance of the outer
soil boundaries (the asymmetric sides) to the retaining wall was 100 m,
which exceeds the range of the influence radius of the dewatering well
estimated by Sichardt’s formula [55]. The vertical depth of the model
was 50 m, along which the model soils were divided into 9 layers.
3.2. Initial-boundary conditions
The initial water level was assumed to be located at the ground
surface, and the soils are considered to be under the normally con-
solidated state before dewatering [9]. The soil boundary will influence
the computed results if the boundary conditions are not reasonably
defined [41]. Since the outer soil boundaries (the asymmetric sides)
were specified beyond the range of the influence radius of the well, i.e.,
there were no pumping-induced soil deformations there, the soil
movements at the two asymmetric sides and the bottom boundary were
restricted in all directions. The grid points over two symmetric sides
were restrained from movement in the horizontal direction perpendi-
cular to the symmetric sides but were free to move in other directions.
In addition, a constant-head hydraulic boundary was applied on the two
asymmetric sides with the water head at the ground surface. The two
symmetric sides and the bottom of the soil were considered to be im-
permeable.
3.3. Soil, retaining wall and soil-structure interaction simulations
The behaviour of the soils was assumed to obey the constitutive
theory of modified cam-clay (MCC) [56] during dewatering. Table 2
summarizes the main parameters for each soil layer. K0 was obtained
based on pressuremeter testing. The parameters λ, κ and M were cal-
culated from the triaxial test results. KH and KV were acquired by an
inversion calculation based on pumping tests reported by Zeng et al.
[9]. In addition, the Poisson’s ratio for the silty clays and clays and for
the silts and silty fine sands was set to 0.33 and 0.30, respectively [21].
6
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
The linear elastic model was used to simulate the behaviour of the re-
taining wall. The elastic modulus of the retaining wall was 30 GPa [45].
The unit weight and Poisson's ratio of the retaining wall were set to
25 kN/m3 and 0.2, respectively [21]. The wall was considered to be
impermeable, and its thickness was set to 1 m for all the models. The
soil-structure interface in ABAQUS was a zero-thickness interface
formed by duplicated nodes of soil and structure elements in contact. It
can simulate slip along the soil-structure interface. The friction beha-
viour complies with the Coulomb frictional law. A detailed description
of the interface property can be seen in Zheng et al. [57].
3.4. Dewatering well simulation
The dewatering wells in the model were arranged according to their
usual distribution in engineering practice. For the 20-m-wide founda-
tion pit, the wells were set up in two rows [9,21,58]. For the pits with
widths greater than 30 m, the wells were distributed evenly with the
drainage area for a well of approximately 200–250 m2, which is con-
sistent with that in the project described in Section 2.2. Fig. 5 shows the
plane layout of the dewatering wells in the case of Wp = Lp = 200 m.
There were a total of 49 wells in this 1/4 model. The well spacing was
14.6 m, and the distance between well and retaining wall was 5 m. In
other calculation cases, the dewatering well distribution is similar to
that in the case of Wp = Lp = 200 m, but the well spacing has a slight
difference. In all of the models, the wells were always kept at one length
(i.e., 24 m); this well length is consistent with that in the case study. In
practical engineering, there are two types of material often used for
producing the structure of dewatering wells. One is steel, and the other
is non-sand concrete. In the case study reported in Section 2, the latter
material was used for the dewatering well; therefore, this type of de-
watering well was simulated in all of the numerical models in this
study. The linear elastic model was employed for the dewatering well.
According to compression test, the elastic modulus of the non-sand
concrete used for dewatering well was approximately 10.6 GPa. The
unit weight and Poisson's ratio of the well were set to 23 kN/m3 and
0.2, respectively [21].
The function of the dewatering well was simulated by applying a
seepage boundary on a zone where the screen of the dewatering well
was located. In this paper, the drainage-only flow (DOF) seepage
boundary [9,21] was set on the screen zone because this seepage
boundary can well simulated the practical dewatering process in the
case study. The DOF boundary assumes that the pore fluid velocity (vn)
at the specified zone was equal to kspw (i.e., vn = kspw) when pw is
positive, where ks is termed the seepage coefficient and pw is the pore-
water pressure on the element surface. Apparently, for a specific ks, vn
will decrease due to pw decrease with the elapsed dewatering time; in
PED process in the case study, the discharge rate of dewatering well
would also decrease with the dewatering time elapsed due to the weak
hydraulic connection between inside and outside of the foundation pit.
Therefore, in the numerical model, the moment that the DOF boundary
is activated, the dewatering process in the case study can be well
C.-F. Zeng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Table 2
Main parameters for each soil layer.
Soil classification Hydrogeology Depth (m, BGS) γ (kN/m3) ω (%) e0 N (blows/0.3 m) Parameters for MCC model

K0 KH (m/d) KV (m/d) ecs λ κ M

Silty clays Phreatic aquifer 0–5.5 19.35 29.9 0.811 4.4 0.49 0.1 0.1 0.961 0.0553 0.0065 0.979
Clayey silts Phreatic aquifer 5.5–11 19.30 26.5 0.792 11.2 0.43 0.5 0.5 0.906 0.0312 0.0036 1.192
Silty clays Aquitard 11–19 20.10 26.4 0.696 7.5 0.5 5e−4 1e−4 0.890 0.0445 0.0052 0.979
Sandy silts Confined aquifer 19–24 20.15 21.9 0.640 22.4 0.42 1 1 0.777 0.0293 0.0034 1.202
Clays Aquitard 24–27 19.75 30.4 0.764 16.1 0.55 5e−5 1e−5 0.962 0.0397 0.0046 0.800
Sandy silts Confined aquifer 27–33 20.65 20.2 0.583 26.7 0.35 1 0.7 0.727 0.0283 0.0033 1.202
Silty clays Aquitard 33–37 20.50 22.4 0.611 16 0.39 5e−4 3e−4 0.786 0.0320 0.0037 0.900
Silty fine sands Confined aquifer 37–42 20.05 18.2 0.585 49.3 0.3 2.5 1.5 0.686 0.0191 0.0022 1.382
Silty clays Aquitard 42–50 19.30 23.8 0.676 – 0.39 5e−4 2e−4 0.851 0.0305 0.0035 0.900

Note: γ = unit weight; ω = water content; e0 = initial void ratio; N = SPT blow counts; K0 = coefficient of the earth pressure at rest; KH = horizontal hydraulic
conductivity; Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity; ecs = critical state void ratio at reference pressure (1 kPa); λ = slope of the normal consolidation line; κ = slope of
the elastic swelling line; M = frictional constant.

Fig. 6. Computed η contour at Section 1-1 for the case of: (a) Wp = 200 m, Hd = 16 m; and (b) Wp = 200 m, Hd = 19 m.

simulated. The initial value of ks can be calculated using Eq. (1), where dewatering depth in all of the models was the same and was at 24 m. In
D is the well diameter; L is the length of the screen range; and q is the simulating the cases with different dewatering depth (Hd), the DOF
discharge rate. The derivation process of Eq. (1) can be referred to in boundary was applied on a specified zone in the well-soil interface; for
Zheng et al. [21]. The parameter q observed in the PED tests in this example, as to the cases of Hd = 5.5, 11, 16, 19 and 21.5 m, the de-
study and reported by Zeng et al. [9] can be adopted to calculate ks. watering simulation can be achieved with only applying the DOF
q boundary on a depth range of 5.5, 11, 16, 19 and 21.5 m in the well-soil
ks = interface.
πDLpw (1)

In addition, it should be noted that although the well length was

specified as 24 m in all of the models, it did not mean that the

7
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
3.5. Simulation procedure
After the soil initial state was established and the wall and dewa-
tering wells were installed in the model, the DOF seepage boundary was
activated, i.e., the PED process was simulated. For simplicity, let all of
the wells pump water simultaneously. The dewatering simulation time
was set to 21 days. Considering that the mass of the foundation pits
were not equipped with the first level of struts before PED, all of the
simulations in this study were conducted based on this situation.
4. Results and analyses
4.1. Model verification
4.1.1. Groundwater seepage
In the finite element analysis, the real drawdown of the water table
during dewatering was not considered, while the model can reflect the
effect of reductions in pore-water pressure in the soil for the case where
the water table remains unchanged. Similar treatment of water table
during dewatering simulation can also be seen in some literatures (e.g.,
Booker and Carter [59], Booker and Carter [60], Zheng et al. [21], and
Zeng et al. [9]). In the model, the change in the pore-water pressure
(pw) can demonstrate the groundwater seepage. During the PED simu-
lation, the pw of the soils around the wells decreased, which means that
the water volume is reduced. For clearly describing the groundwater
seepage inside and outside the foundation pit during PED, a normalized
index called drainage degree (η) is defined by the pw reduction (Δpw)
during dewatering divided by the initial pw value (pw, ini) (i.e., η = Δpw/
pw, ini). η is close to 1 during the PED simulation.
Taking the two cases of (Wp = 200 m, Hd = 16 m) and
(Wp = 200 m, Hd = 19 m) as examples, Fig. 6 shows the computed η
contour at Section 1-1 (see Fig. 5) at the end of dewatering. A denser
contour is observed around the wells, meaning that a greater hydraulic
gradient (i) formed there. With the action of i, drainage occurs. The
parameter η is larger for the soil elements with a closer distance to the
wells due to the depression cone formed around the wells
[10,41,42,61]. For both of the cases, η is greater than (or equal to) 0.8
for the soils very close to the wells within Hd, indicating that the water
level decline in or near the wells can be roughly equal to the dewatering
depth. This result is consistent with the field measurements (see Section
2.3).
In addition, by comparing Fig. 6(a) and (b), it can be seen that with
an increase in Hd, the soil zone with pw reduction is deeper. However, in
spite of this, the η values outside the foundation pit are always equal to
0 for both cases, i.e., the water level outside the pit is almost un-
changed. This result indicates that the retaining wall can effectively
block the hydraulic connection between the inside and outside of the
foundation pit, providing that there is no defect in the wall. This result
is also in accord with the field measurements (see Section 2.3).
4.1.2. Retaining wall deflection
Fig. 7 shows the change in the maximum wall deflection (δhm) over
the dewatering time (t) for three cases with a similar foundation pit
width (Wp) and dewatering depth (Hd). One is the case (i.e.,
Wp = 180–190 m and Hd = 17.75 m) reported in Section 2.1, and the
others are two calculation cases with the same Wp (i.e., 200 m) but
different Hd values (i.e., 16 and 19 m). Apparently, the difference of the
foundation pit geometry between in the numerical model and in the
case study influences the matching degree between the computed and
observed results. However, the computed curves and the trendline of
the observed data have similar shapes. Both the observed and computed
results indicate that δhm increases nonlinearly with t, and the growth
rate decreases continuously. Because the wall deflection grows rapidly
in the first few days, the engineers should increase the monitoring
frequency of the wall deflection during that time.
Moreover, Zeng et al. [9] concluded that the PED with greater
8
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
Fig. 7. Variation of δhm with t for the cases with similar Wp and Hd.
dewatering depth (Hd) will lead to a larger wall deflection. Hence, the
observed δhm should lie between the two computed curves. Apparently,
when t < 4 days, the monitoring data are below the simulating curves,
indicating that the calculated results overestimate the PED-induced
δhm. However, after t > 4 days, the observed and computed results
correspond with the aforementioned conclusion obtained by Zeng et al.
[9]. In the following, the computed data used in texts and figures are
the values after dewatering for 21 days, which is much longer than
4 days. Therefore, the use of the computed results to investigate the
PED-induced deformation is reasonable and reliable.
4.2. Effect of the foundation pit width
4.2.1. Wall deflection and surface settlement profiles
(1) General trend: the size effect
Taking the cases with Hd = 19 m as examples, Fig. 8 presents the
wall deflection and surface settlement profiles with different foundation
pit widths (Wp). Apparently, all of the wall deflection curves show a
cantilever-type profile. At shallow locations, the wall deflections are
more apparent with an increase in Wp. However, at deep locations, the
variation law of wall deflection with Wp is exactly the opposite, i.e., a
wider foundation pit exhibits smaller wall deflection. This behaviour
indicates that the foundation pit size greatly affects the wall behaviours
during PED. In the following, this phenomenon is referred to as the size
effect.
The surface settlement curves show a spandrel-type profile. Unlike
the complex change in the wall deflection, the variation in surface
settlement with Wp is monotonic. That is, a wider foundation pit always
shows a larger surface settlement. This variation law is consistent with
that of wall deflections at shallow locations. Hence, it can be considered
that the surface settlement is primarily influenced by wall deflections at
shallow locations. Moreover, an empirical curve for estimating surface
settlement is adopted as a comparison with the computed surface set-
tlement for the cases of Wp = 20 and 200 m. It should be noted that the
empirical curves shown in Fig. 8 were created based on the Hsieh-Ou
curve [62] after replacing the excavation depth used in their paper with
the PED depth; the reason the Hsieh-Ou curve can be referred to esti-
mating the PED-induced surface settlement is that the surface settle-
ment mechanism due to PED is similar to that due to soil excavation
[9]. For a narrow foundation pit (e.g., Wp = 20 m), the empirical curve
is well matched by the computed curve. However, for a wider foun-
dation pit, relatively great mismatches can be seen in the range of d/
Hd < 2. In addition, within a small distance from the wall (i.e., d/
Hd < 1), severe differential settlement will appear in a wide pit, which
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Fig. 8. (a) Wall defection and surface settlement profiles under Hd = 19 m for the foundation pit with different width; (b) surface settlement in the range of d/
Hd < 2.
may cause the buildings or public facilities within this distance to be
damaged.
(2) Mechanism of the size effect
Zheng et al. [21] noted that the soil inside the foundation pit will
move towards the middle axis of the pit during PED. Because the re-
taining wall is embedded in the soil, the soil movement will affect the
retaining wall response. In fact, the reason for the aforementioned size
effect is that soil movement inside the foundation pit differs in different
cases. Taking the cases with Hd = 19 m as examples, Fig. 9 presents the
zone of soil horizontal deformation (δhs) inside the foundation pit at
different Wp values. In Fig. 9, t = the retaining wall thickness,
Wp′ = the net width of the foundation pit, and Wp = Wp′ + 2t. To fa-
cilitate the description, δhs, hz is adopted to represent the horizontal
length of the δhs zone at different buried depths, and δhs, vx=0 is em-
ployed to represent the vertical length of the δhs zone at the soil-wall
interface (i.e., the location of x = 0).
Apparently, at shallow locations, δhs, hz will be greater with
9
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
increasing Wp. In particular, δhs, hz at the ground surface increases from
0.47Hd to 1.73Hd with Wp changing from 20 m to 200 m. This finding
indicates that the shallow soil movement inside the pit will be more
apparent in a wider foundation pit. Hence, at shallow locations, a larger
retaining wall deflection will appear in a wider pit since the wall will
move with the soil. However, δhs, vx=0 decreases as Wp increases, which
means that at deep locations, δhs, hz will decrease with increasing Wp
(note: this trend is especially obvious when Wp changes from 20 m to
40 m). Hence, at deep locations, the soil movement inside the pit will be
smaller in a wider pit, which eventually leads to the appearance of
smaller wall deflections in a wider pit.
Notably, in the cases of Wp = 20, 30 and 40 m, δhs, hz at shallow
locations basically reaches Wp′/2. Because the soils on both sides of the
middle axis of the foundation pit will move towards the middle axis
[21], and meanwhile, there exists symmetry in the numerical model,
Wp′/2 is the maximum value that δhs, hz can obtain. This result indicates
that in the cases of Wp = 20, 30 and 40 m, shallow soil movement on
one side of the middle axis may suffer the deformation restraint effect
from the soil movement on the other side. Apparently, in a narrower
C.-F. Zeng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Fig. 9. δhs zone inside the foundation pit under Hd = 19 m for the cases with different Wp: (a) Wp = 20 m, (b) Wp = 30 m, (c) Wp = 40 m, (d) Wp = 80 m, (e)
Wp = 120 m, (f) Wp = 160 m, (g) Wp = 200 m.

foundation pit, this deformation restraint effect will be more apparent,

and thus, the shallow soil movement and the corresponding wall de-
flection will be smaller. Most likely, because the soil movement at
shallow location is restricted in the narrow pit, the soils at deep location
can move more apparently due to the deformation compatibility arising
in the soils and at the soil-wall interface [21].
Moreover, in the cases with Wp larger than 40 m, the soil movement
inside the pit will not be affected by the aforementioned deformation
restraint effect since δhs, hz is always smaller than Wp′/2. In this con-
dition, it can be seen that the δhs zones in these cases have little dif-
ference, and their δhs, hz values at the ground surface averages ap-
proximately 1.7 Hd with smaller differences. This result indicates that
δhs, hz is primarily related to Hd rather than Wp, providing that the soil
movement inside the pit is not restricted.

4.2.2. Maximum wall deflection (δhm) and maximum surface settlement

(δvm)
Fig. 10. Variations of δhm and δvm with Wp under different Hd.
(1) General trend: the existence of the critical foundation pit
width
cases with greater Ηd (e.g., Ηd > 16 m), it appears to have a critical
foundation pit width, which is approximately 40 m. Within this critical
Fig. 10 shows the changes in δhm and δvm with Wp at different de-
width, the variations in δhm and δvm are sensitive to a change in Wp, and
watering depths (Ηd). Generally, δhm and δvm become greater with in-
a fast growth in δhm and δvm can be seen. However, with Wp being
creasing Wp, and their variation laws are basically identical. For the

10
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Fig. 11. Relationship between δhm and δvm.
greater than the critical width, δhm and δvm become insensitive to the
Wp change, showing little difference among the cases. Moreover, for the
cases with smaller Ηd (e.g., Ηd < 16 m), the Wp effect on the wall and
ground movement will be weak, and all the cases basically show the
same δhm and δvm under equal Ηd.
In addition, from Fig. 10, for the same Wp and Ηd, PED-induced δvm
is always smaller than PED-induced δhm. To better understand the re-
lationship between δhm and δvm, Fig. 11 summarizes δhm and δvm from
all the calculation cases in this study. The δvm values lie between
δvm = 0.45δhm and δvm = 0.76δhm. With an increase in Ηd, the corre-
sponding δvm values are closer to the upper bound. This finding in-
dicates that PED will lead to more apparent surrounding surface set-
tlement (compared to wall deflection) in a deeper foundation pit due to
the required larger dewatering depth. Moreover, plenty of researchers
(e.g., Mana et al. [63], Moormann et al. [64], and Tan et al. [65]) have
obtained the relationship between δhm and δvm during soil excavation;
to reveal the difference of this relationship between in this study and in
previous studies, a comparison is made and is shown in Fig. 11. It can
be seen that the PED-induced δvm/δhm had a smaller range than the
reported δvm = 0.5δhm to δvm = 1.0δhm by Mana et al. [63],
δvm = 0.5δhm to δvm = 2.0δhm by Moormann et al. [64], and
δvm = 0.3δhm to δvm = 2.0δhm by Tan et al. [65]. It should be noted that
the data obtained in references [63–65] were from excavation projects
in soft clays in many cities (e.g., San Francisco, Chicago, and Shanghai);
all of these data only covered the deformations induced during soil
excavation, and did not include the deformations induced before soil
excavation (e.g., the PED-induced deformations). More data about the
PED-induced deformations needs to be gathered to form a much better
Fig. 12. Relationship between (a) Δδhm/ΔWp and ln(Wp/Hd); and (b) Δδvm/ΔWp and ln(Wp/Hd).
11
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
recognition about this type of deformations.
(2) Mechanism of the existence of the critical width
According to the description in Section 4.2.1, three facts can be
obtained: (1) during PED, the zone of soil horizontal deformation (δhs)
inside the foundation pit will enlarge continuously; (2) if the δhs zone
reaches the middle axis of the foundation pit, then the deformation
restraint effect (DR effect) between the soils on both sides of the middle
axis begins to appear; and (3) if the foundation pit is wide enough, then
there will be no DR effect occurring inside the pit.
Based on Facts (2) and (3), it can be concluded that there exists a
critical width, which determines whether the DR effect could appear
inside the pit. If the foundation pit width is smaller than this critical
width, then the DR effect will occur, which will restrict soil movement
inside the pit and further limit the development of the wall deflection.
Under this condition, the narrower pit will exhibit a more apparent DR
effect, which eventually leads to a smaller wall deflection. Hence,
Fig. 10 shows a fast decrease in δhm and δvm within the critical width.
However, if the foundation pit width is greater than the critical width,
then the DR effect will not appear inside the pit. Under this condition,
the δhs zone and soil movement inside the pit will have little difference
under the same dewatering depth (see Fig. 9(d)–(g)). Therefore, Fig. 10
shows that δhm and δvm become insensitive to the Wp change as Wp is
greater than the critical width.
4.2.3. δhm increment and δvm increment
In practical engineering, many foundation pits of different sizes can
be observed under similar geological conditions in the same city.
Typically, if the designers want to evaluate the PED-induced wall de-
flection and surface settlement, then they should develop a complicated
soil-fluid numerical model to compute them, as described in Section 3.
This calculation is a time-consuming process, and sometimes the results
may be not reliable since they are not verified by field measurements.
However, if we can develop a mathematical relationship between the
deformation increment and the pit size increment based on the mass of
the computed and observed results, then one can easily calculate the
PED-induced deformations of a planned foundation pit according to the
measured deformations of an already built pit with a similar size and
soil condition. This relationship should be useful in a preliminary
analysis. For this purpose, the computed and observed δhm increment
(i.e., Δδhm) and δvm increment (i.e., Δδvm) are analysed in this section.
After analysing and processing a large amount of data, we find that
the variation in Δδhm/ΔWp (or Δδvm/ΔWp) with the logarithm of Wp/Hd
(i.e., ln(Wp/Hd)) follows a unified relationship, which can be seen in
Fig. 12. Δδhm/ΔWp and Δδvm/ΔWp signify the δhm increment and the
δvm increment under the corresponding Wp increment, respectively.
C.-F. Zeng, et al.
Apparently, with an increase in ln(Wp/Hd), Δδhm/ΔWp and Δδvm/ΔWp
decrease nonlinearly. We can use two simple equations to fit the data,
and thus, it is convenient to calculate the PED-induced δhm and δvm
based on the already known δhm and δvm from another foundation pit
with similar width and dewatering depth. This may be beneficial for the
preliminary design of PED in a foundation pit.
In addition, when ln(Wp/Hd) is smaller than 1 (i.e., Wp is < 2.72
Hd), the values of Δδhm/ΔWp and Δδvm/ΔWp are relatively great, which
means that a smaller ΔWp could lead to a larger Δδhm and Δδvm, re-
spectively. Hence, in a foundation pit with variable Wp (for example, in
a metro pit, the Wp of standard segment is usually smaller than that of
end shafts), if Wp of this pit is smaller than 2.72Hd, then the PED-in-
duced δhm and δvm in different pit segments may differ even under the
same PED depth; the pit segment with a larger Wp will generally exhibit
greater δhm and δvm values (note: in the location close to the corner of
the pit, the corner effect on the deformation behaviour of foundation pit
should be also considered). On this occasion, the designers should re-
duce the PED depth in the pit segment with a larger Wp for fear of the
occurrence of overlarge δhm and δvm values in that segment.
5. Discussion
The above analyses prove that the time-dependent effect and the
size effect are two features of PED-induced deformation. Meanwhile,
mathematical equations are proposed to evaluate the PED-induced
maximum wall deflection and maximum surface settlement. It is hoped
that these results can help engineers better design the PED process and
analyse the PED-induced wall and soil deformation. Notably, all the
calculated and measured results in this paper are based on the strata
condition with soft-to-stiff silty clays and silts alternately appearing
within 50 m BGS. Hence, the obtained results (e.g., the critical foun-
dation pit width, the relationship between the maximum wall deflection
and the maximum surface settlement, and the mathematical relation-
ship between the deformation increment and the pit size increment) can
be applied to analyse the PED-induced deformations under similar
strata conditions. However, the applicability of the obtained results in
this study in analysing the PED process in sandy gravel strata needs to
be further studied or verified.
In addition, the computed results in this study are overall consistent
with the field measurements (see Section 4.1). However, on the surface,
there still appears to be some differences in the observed and numerical
results. In the case study, it is found that the PED-induced wall de-
flections, both at shallow and deep locations, are greater in a wider
foundation pit than those in a narrow pit under roughly the same PED
condition (see Fig. 4). Nevertheless, the numerical results indicate that
at shallow locations, the wall deflections will be larger with increasing
foundation pit width (Wp), but at deep locations, the wall deflections
decrease as Wp increases (see Fig. 8). There seems to be a conflict in the
wall behaviour at deep locations for the computed and observed results,
but they are all reasonable. The reason may be as follows. In Fig. 4, the
wall deflections monitored in this study are the retaining pile deflec-
tions, while the wall deflections quoted from Zheng et al. [21] are the
diaphragm wall deflections. Apparently, the diaphragm wall possesses a
greater stiffness and a better integrity and thus has a stronger ability to
match the deformation between the wall top and the wall sections
below the wall top [9,21]. In contrast, the retaining pile movements are
under fewer restrictions below the wall top, and thus, the piles can
develop a relatively larger deflection at deep locations. This effect can
be apparently seen from Fig. 4 because the deflection difference be-
tween the diaphragm wall and retaining pile becomes greater with in-
creasing depth. From this point of view, the observed results are rea-
sonable. As for the numerical results, since the diaphragm wall is
adopted in all of the models, the effect of structure stiffness on the
results can be eliminated. In fact, the computed results can better reflect
the Wp effect on the wall behaviours during PED. As described in
Section 4.2.1, the deformation restraint effect of soil movement inside
12
Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169
the pit and the deformation compatibility arising in the soils and at the
soil-wall interface can account for the computed wall behaviour at deep
locations. Hence, the computed results are to some degree reasonable,
but the obtained wall behaviour at deep locations still requires further
verification. In addition, in the future, more refined simulation such as
using discrete-element method or discontinuous deformation analysis
[66] can be conducted to investigate the problem of PED-induced de-
formation.
6. Concluding remarks
This paper reports a PED test in a large-scale foundation pit. The
observed retaining wall deflection during PED was analysed. Then, 35
numerical models considering different foundation pit widths were
developed to simulate the PED test. The models were verified by field
measurements and were used to investigate the effect of foundation pit
width on the behaviours of the retaining wall and surrounding soil
during PED. The following conclusions can be obtained:
(1) In the PED test, cantilever-type wall deflections were observed, and
the maximum deflection reached 15 mm (approximately 50% of the
alarm value for the project). The deflection development is closely
related to the PED progress inside the pit. A fast increase in wall
deflection can be observed if an apparent water level decline ap-
pears near the wall. In practical PED construction, the engineers
need to dynamically adjust the PED depth according to the mon-
itoring wall deflection. Once a large deflection increment appears,
they should reduce the dewatering depth or even stop PED.
(2) The PED-induced deformation is dependent on the PED time (i.e.,
the time effect). As PED starts, the wall and soil deformations grow
fast during the first few days, but the growth rate decreases con-
tinuously. The engineers should increase the monitoring frequency
of the wall and surrounding soil deformations during the first few
days of PED.
(3) The PED-induced deformation is dependent on the foundation pit
size (i.e., size effect). In a wider foundation pit, the maximum wall
deflection (δhm) and the maximum surface settlement (δvm) are
more apparent compared to those in a narrow pit under the same
PED condition. The δvm values average approximately 0.70δhm. In
addition, there exists a critical pit width (approximately 40 m in
this study), which determines the deformation behaviours of the
wall and soil during PED. Within this critical width, the variations
in δhm and δvm are sensitive to a change in the pit width (Wp).
However, with Wp being greater than the critical width, the Wp
effects on δhm and δvm are weak. The engineers should especially
notice that in a pit with variable Wp, when Wp is exactly smaller
than 2.72Hd (a value obtained in this study), the PED-induced δhm
and δvm may differ apparently in different pit segments, even if the
PED depth in each segment is the same.
(4) The reason for the size effect is that the soil movement inside the pit
differs in different cases. In a narrow pit (less than approximately
40 m in this study), the soil movement on one side of the middle
axis will restrict the soil and wall movements on the other side. This
deformation restraint (DR) effect will be more apparent in a nar-
rower pit, and thus, a smaller wall deflection can be observed in
narrower pits. However, if the pit is sufficiently wide, there will be
no DR effect inside the pit. Under this condition, the wall and soil
movements will exhibit little difference under the same PED con-
dition.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [grant number 51708206]; the China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation [grant numbers 2018M633297 and 2019T120797];
and the China Scholarship Council [grant number 201808430270].
C.-F. Zeng, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 115 (2019) 103169

Finally, we deeply appreciate for the warm and efficient work by edi- [32] Zhang YQ, Wang JH, Chen JJ, Li MG. Numerical study on the responses of
tors and reviewers. groundwater and strata to pumping and recharge in a deep confined aquifer. J
Hydrol 2017;548:342–52.
[33] Wang JX, Liu XT, Liu SL, Zhu YF, Pan WQ, Zhou J. Physical model test of trans-
References parent soil on coupling effect of cut-off wall and pumping wells during foundation
pit dewatering. Acta Geotech 2018.
[34] Wu Y-X, Lyu H-M, Han J, Shen S-L. Dewatering-induced building settlement around
[1] Zeng CF, Zheng G, Xue XL, Mei GX. Combined recharge: A method to prevent
a deep excavation in soft deposit in Tianjin, China. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ground settlement induced by redevelopment of recharge wells. J Hydrol
2019;145(5):05019003.
2019;568:1–11.
[35] Orazalin ZY, Whittle AJ, Olsen MB. Three-dimensional analyses of excavation
[2] Pujades E, Vázquez-Suñé E, Culí L, Carrera J, Ledesma A, Jurado A. Hydrogeological
support system for the Stata Center basement on the MIT campus. J Geotech
impact assessment by tunnelling at sites of high sensitivity. Eng Geol
Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(7):05015001.
2015;193:421–34.
[36] Finno RJ, Roboski JF. Three-dimensional responses of a tied-back excavation
[3] Goh ATC, Zhang RH, Wang W, Wang L, Liu HL, Zhang WG. Numerical study of the
through clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005;131(3):273–82.
effects of groundwater drawdown on ground settlement for excavation in residual
[37] Clough GW, O'Rourke TD. Construction induced movements of insitu walls. Geotech
soils. Acta Geotech 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-019-00843-5.
Spec Publ 1990;25:439–70.
[4] Xu YS, Shen SL, Lai Y, Zhou AN. Design of sponge city: Lessons learnt from an
[38] Hsieh PG, Ou CY. Mechanism of buttress walls in restraining the wall deflection
ancient drainage system in Ganzhou, China. J Hydrol 2018;563:900–8.
caused by deep excavation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2018;82:542–53.
[5] Lyu H-M, Shen S-L, Zhou A, Yang J. Perspectives for flood risk assessment and
[39] Whittle AJ, Corral G, Jen LC, Rawnsley RP. Prediction and performance of deep
management for mega-city metro system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
excavations for courthouse station, Boston. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
2019;84:31–44.
2015;141(4):04014123.
[6] Tan Y, Lu Y. Forensic diagnosis of a leaking accident during excavation. J Perform
[40] Hashash YMA, Whittle AJ. Ground movement prediction for deep excavations in
Constr Facil 2017;31(5):04017061.
soft clay. J Geotech Eng 1996;122(6):474–86.
[7] Goh ATC, Zhang F, Zhang W, Zhang Y, Liu H. A simple estimation model for 3D
[41] Liu KW, Su Q, Yue F, Liu B, Zhao WH, Yue F. Effects of suffusion-induced contact
braced excavation wall deflection. Comput Geotech 2017;83:106–13.
variation on dynamic responses of saturated roadbed considering hydro-mechanical
[8] Serrano-Juan A, Pujades E, Vázquez-Suñè E, Crosetto M, Cuevas-González M.
coupling under high-speed train loading. Comput Geotech 2019;113. https://doi.
Leveling vs. InSAR in urban underground construction monitoring: Pros and cons.
org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2019.103095. Article ID 103095.
Case of la sagrera railway station (Barcelona, Spain). Eng Geol 2017;218:1–11.
[42] Shen SL, Wu YX, Misra A. Calculation of head difference at two sides of a cut-off
[9] Zeng CF, Xue XL, Zheng G, Xue TY, Mei GX. Responses of retaining wall and sur-
barrier during excavation dewatering. Comput Geotech 2017;91:192–202.
rounding ground to pre-excavation dewatering in an alternated multi-aquifer-
[43] Zhang YQ, Li MG, Wang JH, Chen JJ, Zhu YF. Field tests of pumping-recharge
aquitard system. J Hydrol 2018;559:609–26.
technology for deep confined aquifers and its application to a deep excavation. Eng
[10] Wang JX, Deng YS, Ma RQ, Liu XT, Guo QF, Liu SL, et al. Model test on partial
Geol 2017;228:249–59.
expansion in stratified subsidence during foundation pit dewatering. J Hydrol
[44] Zhang YQ, Wang JH, Li MG. Effect of dewatering in a confined aquifer on ground
2018;557:489–508.
settlement in deep excavations. Int J Geomech 2018;18(10):04018120.
[11] Wu YX, Shen SL, Yuan DJ. Characteristics of dewatering induced drawdown curve
[45] Code for concrete structure design. GB 50010–2010. Beijing: China Architecture
under blocking effect of retaining wall in aquifer. J Hydrol 2016;539:554–66.
and Building Press, China Academy of Building Research; 2010.
[12] Pujades E, Jurado A, Carrera J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Dassargues A. Hydrogeological
[46] Technical Code for Monitoring of Building Foundation Pit Engineering. Beijing:
assessment of non-linear underground enclosures. Eng Geol 2016;207:91–102.
China Planning Press, Shandong Construction Department; 2009.
[13] Lim A, Ou CY, Hsieh PG. Investigation of the integrated retaining system to limit
[47] Wu YX, Lyu HM, Shen JS, Arulrajah A. Geological and hydrogeological environ-
deformations induced by deep excavation. Acta Geotech 2018;13(4):973–95.
ment in Tianjin with potential geohazards and groundwater control during ex-
[14] Liang R, Wu W, Yu F, Jiang G, Liu J. Simplified method for evaluating shield tunnel
cavation. Environ Earth Sci 2018;77(10):392.
deformation due to adjacent excavation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
[48] Liu GB, Wang WD. Excavation engineering handbook (in Chinese). 2nd ed. Beijing:
2018;71(Supplement C):94–105.
Chinese Construction Industry; 2009.
[15] Li MG, Chen JJ, Wang JH, Zhu YF. Comparative study of construction methods for
[49] Yao TQ, Shi ZH, Cao HB. Foundation pit dewatering Handbook (in Chinese). 1st ed.
deep excavations above shield tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press; 2006.
2018;71(Supplement C):329–39.
[50] Xu YS, Shen SL, Du YJ. Geological and hydrogeological environment in Shanghai
[16] Xu C, Chen Q, Wang Y, Hu W, Fang T. Dynamic deformation control of retaining
with geohazards to construction and maintenance of infrastructures. Eng Geol
structures of a deep excavation. J Perform Constr Facil 2016;30(4):04015071.
2009;109(3–4):241–54.
[17] Wang JX, Liu XT, Wu YB, Liu SL, Wu LG, Lou RX, et al. Field experiment and
[51] Shen SL, Ma L, Xu YS. Interpretation of increased deformation rate in aquifer iv due
numerical simulation of coupling non-Darcy flow caused by curtain and pumping
to groundwater pumping in shanghai. Can Geotech J 2013;50(11):1129–42.
well in foundation pit dewatering. J Hydrol 2017;549:277–93.
[52] Shen SL, Wu HN, Cui YJ. Long-term settlement behaviour of metro tunnels in the
[18] Cashman PM, Preene M. Groundwater lowering in construction: a practical guide to
soft deposits of Shanghai. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2014;40:309–23.
dewatering. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012.
[53] Technical code for monitoring of building foundation pit engineering. GB50497-
[19] Zeng CF, Yuan ZC, Xue XL, Zheng G, Mei GX. Countermeasures to retaining wall
2009. Beijing: China Planning Press, Shandong Construction Department; 2009.
deflection induced by pre-excavation dewatering. In: Qiu T, Tiwari B, Zhang Z,
[54] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. J Appl Phys
editors. Proceedings of GeoShanghai 2018 International Conference: Advances in
1941;12(2):155–64.
Soil Dynamics and Foundation Engineering: Springer, Singapore; 2018. p. 455–63.
[55] Li M-G, Wang J-H, Chen J-J, Zhang Z-J. Responses of a newly built metro line
[20] Zeng CF, Zheng G, Xue XL. Wall deflection induced by pre-excavation dewatering in
connected to deep excavations in soft clay. J Perform Constr Facil
large-scale excavations. Chin J Geotech Eng 2017;39(6):1012–21.
2017;31(6):04017096.
[21] Zheng G, Zeng CF, Diao Y, Xue XL. Test and numerical research on wall deflections
[56] Roscoe KH, Burland JB. On the generalized stress-strain behavior of ‘wet’ clay. In:
induced by pre-excavation dewatering. Comput Geotech 2014;62:244–56.
Heyman J, Leckie FA, editors. Engineering Plasticity. Cambridge: Cambridge
[22] Zheng G, Zeng CF. Lateral displacement of diaphragm wall by dewatering of
University Press; 1968. p. 535–609.
phreatic water before excavation. Chin J Geotech Eng 2013;35(12):2153–63.
[57] Zheng G, Diao Y, Ng CWW. Parametric analysis of the effects of stress relief on the
[23] Shen SL, Wu YX, Xu YS, Hino T, Wu HN. Evaluation of hydraulic parameters from
performance and capacity of piles in nondilative soils. Can Geotech J
pumping tests in multi-aquifers with vertical leakage in Tianjin. Comput Geotech
2011;48(9):1354–63.
2015;68:196–207.
[58] Wang ZW, Ng CW, Liu GB. Characteristics of wall deflections and ground surface
[24] Wu YX, Shen JS, Cheng WC, Hino T. Semi-analytical solution to pumping test data
settlements in Shanghai. Can Geotech J 2005;42(5):1243–54.
with barrier, wellbore storage, and partial penetration effects. Eng Geol
[59] Booker J, Carter J. Long term subsidence due to fluid extraction from a saturated,
2017;226:44–51.
anisotropic, elastic soil mass. Quart J Mech Appl Math 1986;39(1):85–98.
[25] Pujades E, Vàzquez-Suñé E, Carrera J, Jurado A. Dewatering of a deep excavation
[60] Booker JR, Carter JP. Analysis of a point sink embedded in a porous elastic half
undertaken in a layered soil. Eng Geol 2014;178:15–27.
space. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1986;10(2):137–50.
[26] Pujades E, Vázquez-Suñé E, Carrera J, Vilarrasa V, De Simone S, Jurado A, et al.
[61] Feng Q, Zhan H. Constant-head test at a partially penetrating well in an aquifer-
Deep enclosures versus pumping to reduce settlements during shaft excavations.
aquitard system. J Hydrol 2019;569:495–505.
Eng Geol 2014;169:100–11.
[62] Hsieh PG, Ou CY. Shape of ground surface settlement profiles caused by excavation.
[27] Xu YS, Shen SL, Ma L, Sun WJ, Yin ZY. Evaluation of the blocking effect of retaining
Can Geotech J 1998;35(6):1004–17.
walls on groundwater seepage in aquifers with different insertion depths. Eng Geol
[63] Mana AI, Clough GW. Prediction of movements for braced cuts in clay. J Geotech
2014;183:254–64.
Eng Div 1981;107(6):759–77.
[28] Pujades E, López A, Carrera J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Jurado A. Barrier effect of under-
[64] Moormann C. Analysis of wall and ground movements due to deep excavations in
ground structures on aquifers. Eng Geol 2012;145–146:41–9.
soft soil based on a new worldwide database. Soils Found 2004;44(1):87–98.
[29] Wu YX, Shen SL, Xu YS. Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off wall in
[65] Tan Y, Wang D. Characteristics of a large-scale deep foundation pit excavated by the
gravel aquifer. I: Field observations. Can Geotech J 2015;52(10):1526–38.
central-island technique in Shanghai soft clay. I: Bottom-up construction of the
[30] Wu YX, Shen SL, Yin ZY, Xu YS. Characteristics of groundwater seepage with cut-off
central cylindrical shaft. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(11):1875–93.
wall in gravel aquifer. II: Numerical analysis. Can Geotech J 2015;52(10):1539–49.
[66] Huang GH, Jiao YY, Wang L, Zhao Q. Three-dimensional spherical DDA method for
[31] Wang JX, Wu YB, Liu XT, Yang TL, Wang HM, Zhu YF. Areal subsidence under
modeling friction problems. Int J Geomech 2017;17(5):E4016016.
pumping well–curtain interaction in subway foundation pit dewatering: conceptual
model and numerical simulations. Environ Earth Sci 2016;75(3):1–13.

13