4.5 Article

Evaluation of land subsidence by considering underground structures that penetrate the aquifers of Shanghai, China

Journal

HYDROGEOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages 1623-1634

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-012-0892-9

Keywords

Subsidence; Groundwater flow; Underground structures; Numerical modelling; China

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [41102175, 41072209]
  2. Exceptional PhD dissertation of the Graduate School of Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Underground structures that penetrate into aquifers can cause groundwater-level drawdown and land subsidence. Numerical analyses, based on a three-dimensional (3-D) groundwater flow model incorporated with a 1-D consolidation model, have been conducted to assess the behaviour of seepage and effect on subsidence by considering underground structures in the multi-aquifer-aquitard system of Shanghai, China. Two extreme scenarios were examined: (1) distributed underground structures, and (2) concentrated underground structures around the heavily urbanized area. In the first scenario, the aquifer with underground structures was substituted with another material that possessed a lower hydraulic conductivity, established using the effective-medium theory; when the ratio of the volume of the underground structures to that of selected aquifer layers-(1) low-pressure partially-confined aquifer (Aq02), (2) the first confined aquifer (AqI), and (3) the second confined aquifer (AqII)-increases by 10 %, subsidence increases by about 3, 3 and 32 %, respectively. In the second scenario, part of the aquifer material was directly replaced by the structure material (very low hydraulic conductivity). In this situation, when the ratio of the volume of the underground structure to the volume of aquifers Aq02, AqI or AqII increases by 10 %, subsidence increases by about 5, 8 or 20 %, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available