Assessment of settlements caused by
Instn
groundwater control
M. Preene, BEng, PhD, CEng, MICE, CGeol, FGS, MCIWEM
& Lowering of groundwater levels by
pumping increases vertical e€ective stress
in the soil around an excavation. The
resulting ground settlements are normally
small, but in certain circumstances may be
large enough to cause damage to sur-
rounding structures. This paper describes
the mechanism of these settlements and
presents a simple risk assessment
methodology for initial identi®cation of
zones where buildings may be at varying
degrees of risk of damage. These risk
zones can help to determine the extent of
preconstruction building condition surveys
needed, or to assess the need
for settlement mitigation or avoidance
measures. Potential uncertainties in the
assessments are discussed.
Keywords: geotechnical engineering;
groundwater; subsidence
Notation
a length of groundwater control system
b width of groundwater control system
Cd correction factor for e€ective stress
cv coecient of consolidation of soil
D thickness of soil layer, thickness of
con®ned aquifer
E 0o sti€ness of soil in one-dimensional com-
pression
H initial saturated thickness of uncon®ned
aquifer, initial piezometric level of
con®ned aquifer
h maximum drainage path length for ver-
tical drainage
kh coecient of permeability in the hori-
zontal direction
kv coecient of permeability in the vertical
direction
L distance of in¯uence
mv coecient of volume compressibility of
soil
R average degree of consolidation of a soil
layer
r radial distance from centre of ground-
water control system for radial ¯ow
re equivalent radius of groundwater control
system
s drawdown
s av average drawdown in soil layer
sw target drawdown in the excavation
(s/s w ) ratio of drawdown to target drawdown
in the excavation
Proc.
Civ. Engrs
Geotech. Engng,
2000, 143, Oct.,
177±190
Paper 12243
Written discussion
Tr time factor for radial ¯ow closes 21 December
Tv time factor for vertical drainage 2000
t elapsed time since pumping began
Du reduction in pore water pressure Manuscript received
Duav average pore water pressure reduction in 7 January 2000;
a soil layer revised manuscript
accepted 31 May
x linear distance from edge of ground-
2000
water control system for plane ¯ow
gw unit weight of water
Ds0v Increase in vertical e€ective stress
r compression of a soil layer
r corr corrected compression of a soil layer
rt e€ective compression of a soil layer at
time t
r total ground settlement
r ult ultimate compression of a soil layer
Introduction
If an excavation is made below groundwater
level, groundwater control by pumping (also
known as construction dewatering) may be used
as part of the temporary works. The practicali-
ties of pumping will depend on the method
used 1 but all methods, whether pumping from
wells, wellpoints or sumps, will reduce pore
water pressures and increase vertical e€ective
stress in the soil around the excavation,
perhaps for some considerable distance away.
2. These increases in e€ective stress will
result in ground settlements every time
groundwater control by pumping is carried out.
In the great majority of cases movements are so
small that no distortion or damage is apparent
in nearby structures. However, in some circum-
stances settlements may be large enough to
cause distortions resulting in e€ects ranging
from slight cracking of architectural ®nishes to
major structural damage. These e€ects may
extend several hundred metres from the
groundwater control system, and could a€ect
large numbers of structures. This paper
describes the circumstances and mechanisms
by which settlements may result from ground-
water control operations, and proposes a risk
assessment method to determine, at the early
stage of a project, whether such settlements
should be of concern.
The problem
3. The magnitude and distribution of
ground settlements resulting from groundwater M. Preene,
control are dependent on the groundwater ¯ow Groundwater Team
pattern, soil strati®cation and the spacial dis- Leader, Ove Arup &
tribution of soil sti€ness. This is a complex Partners, Leeds
177
 PREENE
three-dimensional and time-variant problem;
precise analysis would require a site-speci®c
numerical model. This has been done on major
projects with critical structures at risk. 2,3
However, such detailed work is unlikely to be
economic or feasible for many smaller-scale
projects such as basement construction, shaft
sinking or open-cut pipelines.
4. An important di€erence between settle-
ments from groundwater control and those from
tunnelling or excavation is the potential extent
of the zone of signi®cant settlement. Normally,
settlement due to tunnelling or excavation is a
relatively local phenomenon, becoming negligi-
ble at a distance of a few times the excavation
depth. In contrast, where a highly permeable
stratum is present beneath compressible allu-
vial soils, settlements can occur at large dis-
tances from the groundwater control system; in
a case described by Powrie, 4 damage was
reported 500 m away from an excavation.
5. Unfortunately, the area covered by pre-
construction building condition (or dilapida-
tion) surveys often does not extend far enough
to include all structures which may be a€ected
by groundwater control. In that case it is not
possible to determine at an early stage how
many structures should be investigated further
(either due to their historic nature or intoler-
ance to settlements), or may require mitigation
measures. Also, in the event of damage being
alleged, buildings often lie outside the zone
initially surveyed, making assessment of the
validity of claims more dicult.
6. The limited extent of preconstruction
condition surveys may explain the paucity of
case history data available for settlement and
damage arising from groundwater control. This
contrasts with tunnelling-induced settlements
where established methods exist 5 to estimate
the extent of the zone of signi®cant settlement.
This allows baseline data to be obtained prior
to construction, and helps generate de®nitive
case data of settlements and damage.
7. There is a need for a risk assessment
methodology suitable for use on smaller-scale
projects, where data may be limited, to assess
the zones where potentially damaging settle-
ments are possible. Such zones can help deter-
mine the extent of preconstruction building
condition surveys and identify critical struc-
tures at risk, for which more detailed assess-
ment may be necessary.
Settlements due to poorly-controlled
groundwater
8. In addition to e€ective stress settlements,
which are the main subject of this paper,
settlements can occur if excavations fail due to
inadequate groundwater control. If pore water
pressures are not reduced suciently, uncon-
trolled seepage (termed a `boil' or `blow') can
lead to failure. Such events can normally be
178
avoided with adequate investigation and plan-
ning but, sadly, these continue to happen. 6,7 If a
failure occurs local settlements can be much
larger than from an e€ective groundwater
control system.
9. Powers 8 identi®es conditions when
inadequate groundwater control may lead to
settlement. In practice, most problems can be
avoided provided the groundwater control
system is appropriate for the conditions. 1 One
particular problem occurs if ®ne soil particles
are continually drawn from the ground during
pumping (known as loss of ®nes). During early
stages of pumping it is normal for some ®nes to
be drawn through a well or sump, as a more
permeable zone develops. However, if pumping
of ®nes continues for extended periods sub-
surface erosion channels may develop and
subsequently collapse, leading to unpredictable
and potentially large settlements.
Effective stress settlements from
groundwater control
10. Assuming that groundwater control pre-
vents the excavation failures previously
described, ground settlements result purely
from the reduction in pore water pressure and
increase in e€ective stress that occurs when
groundwater levels are lowered (or drawn
down) by pumping.
11. Pore water pressures in soil layers will
respond di€erently to groundwater pumping
depending on their permeability in relation to
other strata. For the purposes of settlement
assessments, strata can be approximated to one
of three categories: aquifer, aquitard, and
aquiclude (Fig. 1), de®ned as follows.
(a) Aquifer. A signi®cantly permeable Fig. 1. Groundwater
stratum (generally the most permeable ¯ow in aquifers,
stratum present). Dewatering wells nor- aquitards and
mally pump directly from the aquifer; aquicludes

groundwater ¯ow will be predominantly
horizontal. Due to the high permeability,
e€ective stress changes (and hence com-
pression) occur contemporaneously with
the drawdown of water levels. Con®ned and
semi-con®ned aquifers are overlain by
aquicludes and aquitards respectively, and
have an initial piezometric level above the
top of the aquifer so the aquifer is satu-
rated throughout. An uncon®ned aquifer is
characterized by the top of the aquifer
being open to atmosphere, with a water
table or phreatic surface below ground
level (Appendix 1).
(b) Aquitard. A stratum of lower permeabil-
ity than the aquifer (normally at least two
orders of magnitude less). During pumping,
groundwater ¯ow in the aquitard will tend
to be vertical, draining towards the aquifer.
E€ective stress changes and compression
of the aquitard will occur slowly, at a rate
controlled by the consolidation parameters
for vertical drainage.
(c) Aquiclude. A stratum of very low perme-
ability. During the period of pumping from
an adjacent aquifer, no signi®cant pore
water pressure reductions occur in the
aquiclude. This implies that compression of
an aquiclude resulting from groundwater
control will be negligible.
12. Figure 1 shows a section through a
schematic drawdown curve for radial ¯ow in a
con®ned or semi-con®ned aquifer. Pumping
results in pore water pressure reductions in the
aquifer and any overlying and underlying
aquitards (but not, by de®nition, in any aqui-
cludes). The e€ect on an individual soil layer
can be considered using an elastic analysis
which gives the ultimate vertical compression
r ult , of a soil layer of thickness D subject to a
uniform increase in vertical e€ective stress Ds0v
as
 
D
r ult ˆ Ds0v …1†
E0o
where E0o is the sti€ness of the soil in one-
dimensional compression. Equation (1) is some-
times written in terms of m v (the coecient of
volume compressibility, where E0o ˆ 1=mv ).
However, the use of E0o is preferred because
e€ective stress compression occurs in both
coarse and ®ne-grained soils, and m v is nor-
mally only quoted for ®ne-grained soils such as
silts and clays.
13. It is useful to express equation (1) in
terms of pore water pressure reduction Du or
drawdown s, because these parameters can be
measured in the ®eld. Neglecting any change in
the unit weight of soil, the vertical total stress
is unchanged by groundwater lowering, so Ds0v
ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL
will be equal to the reduction in pore water
pressure Du, therefore
 
D
r ult ˆ Du …2†
E0o
14. The assumption of constant total stress
is reasonable, because many ®ne-grained soils
remain e€ectively saturated for some depth
above the groundwater level, with no change of
unit weight. Even when soils desaturate, the
reduction in unit weight is relatively small and,
given the uncertainties in other parameters, can
be neglected without signi®cant error. For the
case shown in Fig. 1 with the wells fully
penetrating a con®ned or semi-con®ned aquifer,
groundwater ¯ow will be horizontal, the pore
water pressure reduction will be constant with
depth and Du ˆ gw s (where g w is the unit weight
of water). Compression at distance r from the
centre of the excavation can be related to
drawdown at that point.
 
D
r ult ˆ gw s …3†
E0o
15. This allows the compression at any
distance r to be determined, provided the
drawdown s or pore water pressure reduction
Du are known. This requires a model of the
distribution of drawdown with distance.
Several expressions are available from hydro-
geological theory, relating drawdown s to a
constant pumped ¯ow rate. However, most
groundwater control systems are designed to
achieve a target drawdown in the excavation,
rather than a target ¯ow rate. They tend to
operate under conditions of constant drawdown
at the excavation, not constant ¯ow rate. A
useful parameter, which will be known for most
groundwater control systems, is the target
drawdown at the edge of the excavation, s w .
This gives
   
s D
r ult ˆ g w sw …4†
sw E0o
which, if the variation of s/s w with distance is
known, allows estimation of a compression
plotted against distance curve. Curves of s/s w
in con®ned or semi-con®ned aquifers are avail-
able for radial ¯ow to excavations modelled as
equivalent wells (of radius r e ) from Rau 9 (Fig. 2),
and for plane ¯ow to linear excavations (such
as pipeline trenches) from Powrie and Preene 10
(Fig. 3). Fig. 2 or 3 gives the drawdown
distribution in an aquifer layer; substitution of
the aquifer thickness and sti€ness into equation
(4) will give the compression of the aquifer
16. The relationships shown in Figs 2 and 3
are time-dependent and describe how, as
pumping continues, a zone of drawdown propa-
gates outward in the aquifer away from the
dewatering system. The period for which
pumping continues is an important factor when
assessing settlements. In given ground condi-
179
 PREENE

tions, a dewatering system pumped for a long Distance: r /re

1 10 20 30 40 50
period (i.e. several months) will create greater 0
settlements over a wider area than the same Tr = 10 Tr = 100
system pumped for a much shorter period. Tr = 1000
17. As discussed earlier, the drawdowns 0·2
(and hence compressions) are time-dependent
and are controlled by the aquifer properties. 0·4
However, there is an additional time-depen- Tr = 10 000

s /sw
dency that must be considered for low perme-
ability aquitards. In general, r ult can only fully 0·6
develop when sucient time has passed for
water to drain out of the soil in response to the
0·8
groundwater lowering. An aquifer, by de®ni-
tion, is signi®cantly permeable and for all Tr = (k hE ′o/γw)t/re2 using aquifer parameters

practical purposes r ult develops at the same 1·0

time as the lowering of groundwater levels
(which are estimated directly from Fig. 2 or 3). Fig. 2. Dimensionless drawdown for horizontal radial ¯ow to an
18. In contrast, vertical drainage from an equivalent well in a con®ned or semi-con®ned aquifer 9
aquitard into an aquifer will occur more slowly,
at a rate controlled by the consolidation para-
meters of the aquitard. The ultimate compres-
sion of an aquitard layer still results from the Distance: x /L
drawdown in the aquifer; s/s w for the aquifer is 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
0
used, but the aquitard thickness and sti€ness
are substituted into equation (4).
19. However, the pore water pressure reduc- 0·2
tions and compression of an aquitard will lag
behind those of the aquifer. So, for an aquitard,
the e€ective compression r t at time t after 0·4
drainage begins is
s /sw

r t ˆ Rr
rult (5) 0·6

where R is the average degree of consolidation

of the soil layer. R can be determined in terms 0·8
of a non-dimensional time factor T v as shown L = √[12(k hE ′o/γw)t ] using aquifer parameters
on Fig. 4 11 for various drainage conditions and 1·0
distribution of pore water pressure reductions.
The time factor is de®ned as Fig. 3. Dimensionless drawdown for horizontal plane ¯ow to an equivalent
  slot in a con®ned or semi-con®ned aquifer 10
t
Tv ˆ c v 2 …6†
h
where c v is the coecient of consolidation, and
h is the maximum drainage path length for
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 Tv
vertical drainage within the soil layer. For 0
vertical drainage from aquitard to aquifer, c v is
expressed in terms of the aquitard properties as 0·2
1
 0 Tv = cvt /h2 using aquitard properties
Eo 0·4
c v ˆ kv …7†
gw 2
0·6
where k v is the vertical permeability of the
aquitard, and the other terms are as de®ned 0·8
previously. Thus, having calculated the ulti- 3
1·0
mate compression of an aquitard layer from
equation (4), the compression at a given time R
One-way drainage
Initial excess pore water pressure increasing linearly
can be estimated from equations (5)±(7) and 1
with depth
Fig. 4.
Two-way drainage
20. The ultimate compression obtained from 2 Any linear initial pore water pressure distribution
equation (4) and Fig. 2 or 3 is for a con®ned or
One-way drainage
semi-con®ned aquifer where the drawdown or Initial excess pore water pressure decreasing linearly
3
pore water pressure reduction (and therefore with depth
the increase in e€ective stress) is constant with
depth. In aquitards, uncon®ned aquifers or Fig. 4. Average degree of consolidation of a soil layer plotted against
con®ned aquifers with large drawdowns this time 11
180

will not be the case (Appendix 1). The average
e€ective stress increase across the depth of the
stratum will be less than for the same draw-
down in a con®ned aquifer, so the calculated
compression must be corrected by multiplying
by a correction factor for e€ective stress C d of
between 0´5 and 1´0.
r corr ˆ Cd r …8†
where r corr is the corrected compression of a
soil layer, and r is the ultimate compression of
an aquifer layer or the e€ective compression of
an aquitard layer. Values of C d are derived in
Appendix 1 and plotted in Fig. 5.
Settlement damage to structures
21. From a practical point of view it is
necessary to consider the magnitude of defor-
mations which result in the onset of varying
degrees of damage. Much of the published
literature is summarized in Burland and
Wroth 12 which highlighted some of the com-
plexities of the relationship between ground
movements and damage. Allowable deforma-
tions have been proposed for settlements
resulting from tunnelling, 5 excavations, 13 and
building on ®ll. 14 No study has concentrated on
damage from groundwater control induced set-
tlements. This may be due, in part, to the fact
that building condition surveys tend not to
cover all of the areas where settlements
develop. Without such survey data, when
damage does occur, it can be dicult to classify
the degree of damage resulting from settle-
ments, because the original condition of the
building is not known.
22. It is well known that buildings are not
generally damaged by settlement per se, rather
by di€erential settlement or distortion across
the structure. Figs 2 and 3 imply that, in
uniform soil conditions, groundwater control
creates a settlement pro®le that will distort
structures in hogging (Fig. 6(a)). This contrasts
with tunnelling-induced settlement pro®les
which, at various distances, can cause both
hogging and sagging. Figs 2 and 3 also show
that the drawdown (and settlement) curve
moves away from the groundwater control
system as time passes. This implies, for struc-
tures within the zone of in¯uence, potential
settlements and di€erential movements will
increase while pumping continues; the greatest
potential for damage will exist immediately
prior to the end of the pumping period.
23. The fact that most groundwater control
systems do not result in damaging settlements
suggests that damage is relatively unlikely
purely from a building distorting to follow a
theoretical settlement curve in uniform soil
conditions. An obvious demonstration of this is
the general settlement of central London due to
pumping from the deep aquifer; 15 because
ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL
settlement occurred over a wide area, building Fig. 5. Correction
damage or distortion was negligible, despite factor for e€ective
signi®cant settlements. stress
24. Froggat 16 points out that many existing
approaches ignore potential variations in soil
conditions around excavations, and base
damage assessments purely on the distortion
resulting from theoretical settlement curves
such as Figs 2 and 3. However, because of the
potentially large area a€ected by groundwater
control, it could be argued that variations in
soil conditions are a more important factor for
this case, compared with the more localized
settlements resulting from tunnelling or exca-
vation. Powers 17 states that the presence of a
stratum of soft compressible soil at a site is the
most signi®cant factor causing damage to
structures when groundwater control is carried
out. Such compressible soils increase the mag-
nitude of settlements, but also increase the
magnitude of any di€erential settlements
caused by variations in soil conditions or
foundation types beneath buildings (Fig. 6).
The worst case would arise when the full
magnitude of the settlement is applied as
di€erential settlement across the structure.
This could occur if a building was built partly
on alluvium or peat and partly on denser soils
(Fig. 6(b)), or if the structure was partly on
piles and partly on footings (Fig. 6(c)).
Criteria for risk assessment
25. While it is possible to estimate the
theoretical distortion due to the settlement
curve in uniform soil conditions, it is proposed
that a more useful and realistic measure of the
potential for damage is the total settlement at a
structure, together with a check on the tilt of
the structure (tilt is based on rigid body
181
 PREENE

rotation, assuming all of the settlement occurs

as di€erential settlement across the structure,
or across an individual structural element).
26. Limits on tilt and settlement can be set
to allow zones of varying risk to be identi®ed.
Table 1 presents tentative values, based on
Lake et al. 5 The Lake et al. values are based on
damage resulting from tunnelling-induced
settlement pro®les that include both hogging
and sagging zones, rather than the purely
hogging deformations expected from ground-
water lowering. Although less than ideal, at
present, these tunnelling-derived values can be Fig. 6. Deformations
used as a starting point for assessments. The from groundwater
accuracy of future assessments may be control induced
improved if ®eld data can be gathered from settlements:
sites where groundwater control is being (a) deformation of
carried out. structure due to
27. Table 2 13 describes the degree of settlement pro®le in
damage likely to broadly correspond with each uniform soils;
risk category. These limits are based on small- (b) deformation of
scale industrial and domestic properties, not structure due to
deemed to be unusually sensitive to deforma- change in soil
tions because of their construction, age or use. conditions; and
A key part of any risk assessment process, (c) deformation of
described in the next section, is the identi®ca- structure due to
tion and more detailed consideration of sensi- change in foundation
tive structures. type

Risk assessment methodology

28. For preliminary assessment, maximum
ground settlements must be estimated to allow
development of risk zones using parameters
that are easily determinable, assuming the
proposed scope of groundwater control is
known, and site investigation data are avail-
able.
29. The principal steps in settlement esti-
mation are as follows.
(a) Develop a simpli®ed ground pro®le for the
site, consisting of layers categorized as
aquifer, aquitard or aquiclude, with each
layer having uniform soil properties. As a
general guide aquifers would typically
have a horizontal permeability, k h , in
excess of 10 76 m/s, and aquicludes have
a vertical permeability, k v , of less than
10 79 m/s.
(b) Assign parameters to each soil layer. For
all layers below initial groundwater level D
and Eo0 must be determined. Additionally,
k h is required for aquifers and k v and h for
aquitards. Aquiclude parameters are not
needed because, by de®nition, aquicludes
will not undergo compression.
(c) Assess the parameters of the groundwater
control works.
(i) Maximum period of pumping. Since
drawdowns and settlements tend to be

Table 1 Tentative limits of building settlement and tilt for damage risk assessment 5

Risk category Maximum Building tilt Anticipated e€ects

settlement: mm

Negligible 510 51/500 Super®cial damage unlikely

Slight 10±50 1/500±1/200 Possible super®cial damage, unlikely to have structural signi®cance
Moderate 50±75 1/200±1/50 Expected super®cial damage and possible structural damage to
buildings; possible damage to rigid pipelines
Severe 75 41/50 Expected structural damage to buildings and expected damage to rigid
pipelines or possible damage to other pipelines

Notes:
Maximum settlement is based on the nearest edge of the structure to the groundwater control system.
Tilt is based on rigid body rotation, assuming that all of the maximum settlement occurs as di€erential settlement across the width of the
structure, or across an element of the structure.
The risk category is to be based on the more severe of the settlement or tilt criteria.

182
 ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL

Table 2. Classi®cation of visible damage 13

Class of Description of damage* Approximate width

damage of cracks{

Negligible Hairline cracks 50´1 mm

Very slight Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. 51 mm
Cracks in exterior brickwork visible upon close inspection
Slight Cracks easily ®lled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior 55 mm
cracks visible, some repointing may be required for weather-tightness. Doors and windows may stick
slightly
Moderate Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings. 5±15 mm or several
Tuck-pointing and possibly replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may be required. cracks 43 mm
Doors and windows sticking. Utility service may be interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired
Severe Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of sections of walls, especially over doors and 15±25 mm, also
windows required. Windows and door frames distorted, ¯oor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulge depends on number
noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Utility service disrupted of cracks
Very severe Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Beams lose bearing; walls lean Usually 425 mm,
badly and require shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Danger of instability depends on number
of cracks

* Location of damage in the building or structure must be considered when classifying degree of damage.
{ Crack width is only one aspect of damage and should not be used as a direct measure of it.

greater for longer periods of pumping, undergone ground movements from

the conservative approach is to assess
settlements at the end of the dewater-
ing period (just before the pumps are
turned o€). This could be based on the
construction programme, but it is
prudent to assess the implications if
the project were to overrun.
(ii) Dimensions and geometry of the
groundwater control system. Ground-
water ¯ow to long trench excavations
will tend to be plane, normal to the line
of the trench. Flow to relatively small
circular or rectangular excavations
will tend to be radial. For radial ¯ow
the equivalent radius r e must be esti-
mated. For a rectangular ring of wells
(of plan dimensions a by b) r e can be
approximated to
a‡b
re ˆ …
p Calculation and summing can be carried
(iii) Target drawdown s w (in the aquifer) at
the groundwater control system.
Drawdown is the di€erence between
initial and lowered groundwater levels;
these should be selected with care. The
lowered water level is normally taken
as the target level within the excava-
tion, rather than the level in individual
dewatering wells. If groundwater
levels vary naturally under tidal or
seasonal in¯uences, the initial ground-
water level should be taken as the
lowest of the natural groundwater
levels. This is justi®ed because the
assessment is for additional ground
settlements from groundwater control.
Existing structures will have already
natural groundwater level variations.
(iv) Correction factor for e€ective stress.
The correction factor C d must be
estimated. Apart from con®ned aqui-
fers with small drawdowns, C d will be
less than unity (in the range 0´5±1´0).
This reduces predicted settlements
compared to those where e€ective
stress changes are estimated directly
from the drawdown of the phreatic
surface or piezometric level.
(d ) At a given distance from the groundwater
control system, ground settlement r total (at
the end of the pumping period) can then be
estimated. This is the sum of the corrected
compression of all aquifer layers (C d r ult ),
and all aquitard layers (C d r t ).
r total ˆ …r
rcorr †all aquifers ‡ …r
rcorr †all aquitards
(10)
9†
out by spreadsheet, allowing settlements to
be predicted at various distances. The
compression r ult , of an aquifer or aquitard
can be estimated using the aquifer draw-
down from Fig. 2 or 3 and substituting the
appropriate thickness and sti€ness para-
meters into equation (4). For aquitards, r t
must be estimated from equations (5)±(7)
and Fig. 4. Compressions must be corrected
using C d from Fig. 5. C d is related to
drawdown, and will vary with distance; C d
will generally be smaller near the ground-
water control system (where drawdowns
are large) than at greater distances where
C d will approach unity.
(e) The calculated settlement at various dis-
tances allows the extent of risk zones
183
 PREENE
(de®ned by the criteria of Table 1) to be
marked on a plan of the site and the
surrounding area. The simplest form of
risk zones assumes soil conditions do not
vary with distance. For radial ¯ow the
simple risk zones will be a series of
concentric circles centred on the ground-
water control system (Fig. 7(a)); for plane
¯ow to a long trench the simple risk zones
will be parallel lines on either side of the
trench.
( f ) The risk zones should then be re®ned by
considering potential changes in ground
conditions with distance. The presence of
soft compressible soils (perhaps of alluvial
or postglacial origin) is a key indicator of
the potential for damaging settlements, and
similarly their absence reduces the risk of
damage. The compressible soils may be
absent or of di€erent thickness in some
parts of the risk zones. Geological mapping
(from published information, or carried out
during site investigation) can help deline-
ate the extent of compressible soils. This
can be a very powerful tool; Powrie 4
184
Fig. 7. Settlement risk
zones: (a) idealized
settlement risk zones
for radial ¯ow to a
groundwater control
system
describes a case where reported damage
extended to the mapped edge of a peat
stratum, with no damage where peat was
absent. Inclusion of geological mapping
data will tend to produce non-circular risk
zones for radial ¯ow (Fig. 7(b)), and may
reduce the extent of the zones and the
number of structures at risk.
30. Once the risk zones have been marked
on a plan, and the number and type of
structures at risk identi®ed, appropriate actions
will be required. It is important to recognize
that the risk assessment identi®es that damage
is anticipated in the slight, moderate and severe
risk zones. Initial actions are summarized in
Table 3. Additional assessments may be needed
for structures in the moderate or severe risk
zones, and for sensitive structures within the
slight risk zone.
31. Additional assessment of individual
structures will require additional data includ-
ing: construction type; foundation type; any
changes of construction or foundations within
the building and, where possible, more detailed

information on ground conditions beneath the
building. This can allow a more detailed assess-
ment of the di€erential settlement and resulting
distortion anticipated at each structure. Predic-
tions can be compared with published damage
Table 3. Suggested actions for risk categories5
Risk category Description of likely
damage
Negligible Super®cial damage unlikely
Slight Possible super®cial
damage, unlikely to have
}
structural signi®cance
Moderate Expected super®cial
damage and possible
structural damage to
buildings; possible damage
to rigid pipelines
Severe Expected structural
damage to buildings and
expected damage to rigid
pipelines or possible
damage to other pipelines
ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL
Fig. 7. (b) Settlement
risk zones for radial
¯ow to a groundwater
control system based
on variation in soil
type from geological
mapping
criteria for the appropriate type of structure (e.g.
Boscardin and Cording 13 for masonry structures
or various authors collated in Burland and
Wroth 12 for framed structures) to estimate the
level of damage more accurately.
Actions required
None, except for any buildings identi®ed as being sensitive, for which a detailed
assessment should be made
Building condition survey, to identify any pre-existing cracks or distortions. Identify
any buildings or pipelines which may be sensitive, and carry out detailed assessment.
Determine whether mitigation or avoidance measures are required locally
Building condition survey and structural assessment. Assess buried pipelines and
services
Determine whether anticipated damage is acceptable or whether mitigation or
avoidance measures are required
185
 PREENE

32. Depending on the nature of the project
and the number and types of structure at risk,
some (or perhaps all) of the potential damage
may be deemed unacceptable. In such cases
measures will be required to mitigate or avoid
damage to structures. Table 4 lists settlement
mitigation or avoidance measures. In addition
to mitigation or avoidance there is a third
option, rarely considered explicitlyÐthat is,
acceptance of settlement. Powers 17 suggests
that, provided damage risk is not more than
slight, accepting minor claims from third
parties may be more economical than deploying
large-scale mitigation measures. On many pro-
jects this would be controversial and could
present a public-relations challenge, but might
be appropriate where relatively few structures
were classi®ed as being slightly at risk. A
preconstruction building condition survey
would be essential for this approach.
Uncertainties in assessments
33. The methodology described in this
paper is intended to be a ®rst step in assess-
ment of the damaging settlements that may
result from groundwater control. Because of the
need to base the assessment on parameters that
are available or determinable for even small-
scale projects, the method contains a number of
uncertainties, and is best applied using engi-
neering judgement and experience. Appropriate
use of the method requires an understanding of
these uncertainties.
34. Equation (4) shows the parameters
required to estimate ultimate settlement. The
drawdown s w at the excavation can be esti-
mated fairly accurately. The thickness D of an
individual soil layer is likely to be known
within reasonable limits (assuming appropriate
borehole and geological mapping information is
available). These parameters are unlikely to
result in large errors in assessments. In con-
trast, the remaining parameters of drawdown
variation with distance s/s w , and soil sti€ness
E0o can be dicult to estimate appropriately and
can create large errors and uncertainties.
35. The dimensionless curves of drawdown
plotted against distance in Figs 2 and 3 assume
uniform aquifer properties and boundary con-
ditions. This is not a good assumption if the
aquifer is of limited extent, or where an
impermeable feature forms a barrier boundary
across the aquifer. In that case the drawdown
curve will be very ¯at, and distant drawdowns
and settlements will be rather greater than
predicted from Figs 2 and 3. 4 Conversely, if the
aquifer is in hydraulic connection with a close
source of recharge (such as a body of surface
water) the drawdowns and settlements may be
smaller than predicted. Numerical modelling of
the drawdown response may help, but this
approach is most suited to cases when detailed
aquifer data, such as pumping test results, are
available.
36. Predicted settlements are clearly depen-
dent on the values of soil sti€ness used in
calculations. Sti€ness will generally need to be
estimated for coarse-grained granular soils, for
®ne-grained cohesive soils, and perhaps for
more unusual soils such as peat. For small-scale
projects, the data from which soil sti€ness can
be inferred may be limited, perhaps consisting
of standard penetration test results for granular
soils and oedometer test results for cohesive
soils. Detailed discussion of measurement of
soil sti€ness is beyond the scope of this paper.
Preene et al. l list some of the methods of
estimating soil sti€ness. Matthews et al. 18
compare sti€nesses estimated by geophysics
with values from other methods; considerable
variation is reported.
37. One of the most important factors when
estimating soil sti€ness is that the values used
must be appropriate to the levels of stress and
strain which the soil will undergo during the
lowering of groundwater levels.

Table 4. Measures to mitigate or avoid groundwater control induced settlement damage

Mitigation of settlement Possible measures

Protect individual structures Prior to the works, underpin the foundations of some or all of the structures at
risk

Reduce the number of
structures at risk
Reduce drawdowns by reducing the depth of excavation below groundwater
level
Reduce the extent of the risk zones by minimizing the period of pumping
Use cut-o€ walls to reduce external drawdowns
Use a groundwater recharge system to minimize external drawdowns

Avoidance of settlement Relocate excavation away from vulnerable structures

Redesign project to avoid excavation below groundwater level, or excavate
under water
Carry out excavation within a notionally impermeable cut-o€ structure*

* If a cut-o€ structure is used to avoid external drawdowns it is essential that a groundwater monitoring regime
is in place to allow any leaks in the cut-o€ to be identi®ed before signi®cant settlements can occur.

186

38. It is now widely recognized that soils
are much sti€er at small strains than at higher
strains. Conventional laboratory testing
methods (such as the oedometer test) tend to
operate at much larger strains than occur
during groundwater lowering, and may indicate
lower sti€nesses, resulting in overprediction of
settlement. In any case, if oedometer sti€nesses
are used, values should be taken from the stress
increments similar to the e€ective stress in the
soil layer after drawdown.
39. The stress history and degree of over-
consolidation of a soil also has an important
in¯uence on soil sti€ness. Fig. 8 shows an
idealized plot of oedometer test data. A
normally consolidated soil (which has never
been subjected to a vertical e€ective stress
greater than the current value) compresses
along the normal compression line. An over-
consolidated soil (which has experienced a
greater vertical e€ective stress than at present)
will tend to be much sti€er and will compress
along the unload±reload line, provided the pre-
consolidation pressure is not exceeded. The pre-
consolidation pressure is the maximum vertical
e€ective stress to which the soil has been
subjected; soil sti€ness is reduced signi®cantly
at stresses greater than the pre-consolidation
pressure, compared with lower stresses.
40. If e€ective stress during groundwater
lowering exceeds the pre-consolidation pres-
sure, then much larger settlements may result.
Estimation of the pre-consolidation pressure
can be important, especially for lightly over-
consolidated alluvial soils, to ensure that
appropriate sti€ness values are used. Powers 8
and Helm 19 state that predicted settlements are
often overestimates because the degree of over-
consolidation is underestimated. Overconsoli-
dation can result not only from the removal of
overburden (due to erosion or de-glaciation) but
would also result if groundwater levels have
previously been lower than present-day levels.
Conclusions
41. E€ective stress settlements occur every
time groundwater levels around an excavation
are lowered by pumping. These settlements
may occur over a very wide area, but are often
too small to cause distortion or damage to
buildings. However, preconstruction building
condition surveys do not always cover the
whole area of signi®cant settlements; as a
result, relatively few de®nitive case histories
exist with data on groundwater control induced
drawdowns, settlements and damage.
42. Complete modelling of these settlements
can only be done using three-dimensional
numerical models; this is unlikely to be a
practicable or economic option for many
smaller-scale projects. For such projects the
risk assessment methodology presented in this
paper can allow initial identi®cation of zones
ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL
Fig. 8. Idealized
oedometer test data.
Increasing e€ective
stress causes a
normally consolidated
soil to move from A nc
along the normal
compression line.
Increasing e€ective
stress causes an
overconsolidated soil
to move along the
unload±reload line
from A oc towards B.
If the e€ective stress
exceeds the pre-
consolidation pressure
at B, then the soil
sti€ness reduces and
where buildings are at varying degrees of risk the soil continues to
of damage. These risk zones can help to compress along the
determine the extent of preconstruction build- normal compression
ing condition surveys needed, or to assess the line
need for settlement mitigation or avoidance
measures. If, on future projects, the extent of
building condition surveys can be increased to
cover the majority of structures at signi®cant
risk, not only will any damage claims be easier
to assess, but more case study data would be
gathered to allow re®nement of the method.
43. The trigger values of settlement of each
risk level are tentative, and should be applied
using engineering judgement and experience.
More detailed investigations and analysis
should be carried out if important or critical
structures are identi®ed as being at signi®cant
risk. The accuracy of future assessments may
be improved if ®eld data can be gathered from
sites where groundwater control is being
carried out and if additional ®eld-scale research
is carried out into groundwater control induced
settlements and damage.
Appendix 1. Assessment of effective
stress changes in aquifers and aquitards
44. When calculating the compression of an
aquifer or aquitard layer, it is convenient to
determine the average drawdown s av (or
average pore water pressure reduction Duav )
based on the e€ective stress in an individual
layer. Depending on the nature of the stratum,
and initial groundwater conditions, s av may be
di€erent to the drawdown s estimated from Fig.
2 or 3. An e€ective stress correction factor C d
can be applied, where C d = s av /s.
45. The correction factors given later in this
appendix are based on the following assump-
tions.
(a) The vertical total stress remains constant
during drawdown, implying that the
increase in e€ective stress is equal to the
reduction in pore water pressure.
187
 PREENE

(b) Aquifers are relatively coarse-grained and Initial After drawdown s

cannot sustain negative pore water press-
Shaded area
ures above the phreatic surface. s represents
(c) Aquitards are relatively ®ne-grained and reduction in
may develop negative pore water pressures Unconfined
pore water
pressure
above the phreatic surface, provided aquifer H
recharge of water from ground level is (H – s)
relatively small.
(d ) Groundwater ¯ow in aquifers is predomi-
nantly horizontal. This will be the case if
wells fully penetrate the aquifer, and if γwH γw(H – s) γws
drawdowns in uncon®ned aquifers are a
small proportion of the total saturated (a)
depth.
Initial After drawdown s

Aquifers: unconfined Shaded area

s
46. Assuming an initial saturated depth of represents
H above the base of the aquifer, Fig. 9(a) shows reduction in
pore water
the pore water pressure distributions before pressure
and after the phreatic surface is lowered by a
(H – s)
drawdown s. The shaded area represents the Confined H
D
reduction in pore water pressure within the aquifer
aquifer. The average pore water pressure
reduction over the depth of the aquifer can be
expressed as:
  γwH γw(H – s) γws
2sH ÿ s2
Duav ˆ gw …11† (b)
2H
and the average drawdown sav ˆ Duav =gw .
Initial After drawdown s

Aquifers: confined or semi-confined Shaded area

represents
47. For a con®ned aquifer of thickness D, s reduction in
and initial piezometric level of H above the base pore water
of the aquifer, the distribution of pore water pressure
pressure reduction with depth will depend on Confined
H
D
the level to which the piezometric level is aquifer (H – s)
lowered.
48. Drawdown level above the top of the
aquifer. Figure 9(b) shows the case when the
aquifer remains con®ned after a drawdown of s. γwH γw(H – s) γws

The shaded area shows that the reduction of

pore water pressure within the aquifer is
constant with depth, and
Duav ˆ gw s (12)
49. Drawdown level below the top of the
aquifer. For drawdowns greater than (H 7 D)
the aquifer becomes e€ectively uncon®ned, and
pore water pressure reductions are not constant
with depth (Fig. 9(c)).
 
2DH ‡ 2sH ÿ D2 ÿ s2 ÿ H 2
Duav ˆ gw …13†
2D
and sav ˆ Duav =gw .
Aquitards
50. In principle, when the phreatic surface
is drawn down in an aquitard, negative pore
water pressures will develop above the lowered
phreatic surface. However, recharge of water
from above can maintain pore water pressures
above the phreatic surface at zero. 11 The
188
(c)
recharge may be provided by rainfall in®ltra- Fig. 9. Pore water
tion, natural or arti®cial recharge or by the pressure reductions in
presence of an overlying aquifer or perched aquifers: (a)
water table. uncon®ned aquifer;
51. The aquitard pore water pressure dis- (b) con®ned or semi-
tributions described next are for ultimate con- con®ned aquifer:
ditions, when drainage to the aquifer is drawdown level above
complete. the top of the aquifer;
52. Zero pore water pressures above the and (c) con®ned or
phreatic surface. In this case (Fig. 10(a)) the semi-con®ned aquifer:
pore water pressure reduction distribution is drawdown level below
identical to that of an uncon®ned aquifer. the top of the aquifer
53. Negative pore water pressures above the
phreatic surface. The amount of recharge
necessary to maintain zero pore water pressures
is dependent on the vertical permeability k v of
the aquitard. If k v is 10 78 m/s a recharge of
0´9 mm/day is required, increasing to 9 mm/day
if k v is 10 77 m/s and to 90 mm/day if k v is
 ASSESSMENT OF
SETTLEMENTS CAUSED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTROL

10 76 m/s. Powrie 11 points out that, apart from

Original phreatic
in mountainous regions, average annual UK surface Initial After drawdown s
rainfall is generally in the range 1500±650 mm. Shaded area
If all the rainfall was able to recharge the represents
reduction in
ground, this corresponds to between 4´1 and pore water s
1´7 mm/day. This implies that recharge from pressure
rainfall alone may not be sucient to prevent
the development of negative pore water press- Aquitard H
ures. When estimating settlements, a judgement
must be taken as to whether negative pore (H – s)
Positive pore
water pressures develop. Even if rainfall in®l- water pressures
tration is insucient to maintain pore water
0
pressures at zero, consideration should be given Underlying 0
γwH γw(H – s) γw s
to recharge contributions from perched water aquifer

tables or, in urban areas, leaking sewers and (a)

water mains.
54. Figure 10(b) shows the case when nega- Initial After drawdown s
tive pore water pressures develop. Provided the
air entry value of the aquitard (the negative Original phreatic Shaded area represents
pore water pressure at which the soil begins to surface reduction in pore water
pressure
desaturate) is not reached, the pore water Negative pore
pressure reduction is constant with depth, and water pressures
is the same as a con®ned aquifer. It is also s
apparent that the pore water pressure reduc-
tions occur both below and above the phreatic
Aquitard H
surface. This implies that when estimating
aquitard compression when negative pore water (H – s)
pressures develop, it may be necessary to Positive pore
include compression above the phreatic surface. water pressures

Underlying 0 0
γwH γw(H – s) γw s
aquifer
Effective stress correction factor
55. As an aid to estimation of settlements a (b)
correction factor for e€ective stress changes
C d = s av /s can be de®ned in terms of s (draw-
down), D (thickness of con®ned aquifer) and H (e) Aquitard: with negative pore water Fig. 10. Pore water
(initial saturated thickness of uncon®ned pressures pressure reductions in
aquifer or initial piezometric level of con®ned aquitards: (a) zero
Cd ˆ 1
0 (18)
aquifer). C d can be expressed in terms of a pore water pressures
dimensionless drawdown s/H and an aspect The thickness of the aquitard used for this above phreatic
ratio for con®ned aquifers D/H, as: case should include the zone of negative pore surface; and (b)
water pressure above the phreatic surface. negative pore water
(a) Uncon®ned aquifer (D=H ˆ 1) 56. Values of C d are plotted on Fig. 5. pressures above
s phreatic surface
Cd ˆ 1 ÿ 0
5 …14† References
H
1. P R E E N E M., R O B E R T S T. O. L., P O W R I E W. and
(b) Con®ned aquifer: drawdown level above D Y E R M. R. Groundwater Control: Design and
Practice. Construction Industry Research and
the top of the aquifer (D=H ˆ 0)
Information Association, London, 1997, CIRIA
Report FRCP/50.
Cd ˆ 1
0 (15)
2. K N I G H T D. J., S M I T H G. L. and S U T T O N J. S.
Sizewell B foundation dewateringÐsystem
(c) Con®ned aquifer: drawdown level below design, construction and performance monitoring.
the top of the aquifer GeÂotechnique, 1996, 46, No. 3, 473±490.
2 0 13 3. H A Y W A R D D. Wonderful challenge: engineers
D s forming vast station boxes for the Copenhagen
62 2 B 1 C7
Cd ˆ 0
54 ‡ ÿ H ÿ H ÿ @ A5 metro face extremely tight ground settlement
s D s D D s controls. Ground Engineering, 1999, 32, No. 11,

H H H H H H Nov., 30.
…16† 4. P O W R I E W. Ground movements due to construc-
tion dewatering. Groundwater Problems in Urban
(d ) Aquitard: no negative pore water pressures Areas (Wilkinson W. B., ed.). Thomas Telford,
s London, 1994, pp. 237±250.
Cd ˆ 1 ÿ 0
5 …17† 5. L A K E L. M., R A N K I N W. J. and H A W L E Y J. Predic-
H tion and E€ects of Ground Movements Caused by
189
 PREENE
Tunnelling in Soft Ground Beneath Urban Areas.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, 1996, CIRIA Report PR30.
6. B A U E R G. E., S C O T T J. D., S H I E L D S D. H. and
W I L S O N N. E. The hydraulic failure of a co€er-
dam. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1980, 17,
574±583.
7. G R E E N W O O D D. A. Re-levelling a gas holder at
Rhyl. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology,
1984, 17, No. 4, 319±326.
8. P O W E R S J. P. DewateringÐAvoiding its Unwanted
Side E€ects. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, 1985.
9. R A U D. B. Construction dewatering by vacuum
wells. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 1973, 217±224.
10. P O W R I E W. and P R E E N E M. Time±drawdown
behaviour of construction dewatering systems in
®ne soils. GeÂotechnique, 1994, 44, No. 1, 83±100.
11. P O W R I E W. Soil Mechanics: Concepts and Applica-
tions. Spon, London, 1997.
12. B U R L A N D J. B. and W R O T H C. P. Settlement of
buildings and associated damage. Proceedings of
the British Geotechnical Society Conference on
Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, 1975, pp.
611±654.
13. B O S C A R D I N M. D. and C O R D I N G E. J. Building
response to excavation-induced settlement. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1989, 115,
No. 1, Jan. 1±21.
14. S K I N N E R H. D. and C H A R L E S J. A. Problems
Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary:
email: wilson_l@ice.org.uk; fax: +44 (0)20 7799 1325; or post to Lesley Wilson,
Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1±7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.
190
associated with building on a variable depth of
®ll. Ground Engineering, 1999, 32, No. 7, July,
32±35.
15. S I M P S O N B., B L O W E R T., C R A I G R. N. and W I L K -
I N S O N W. B. The Engineering Implications of
Rising Groundwater in the Deep Aquifer Below
London. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, London, 1989, CIRIA
Special Publication 69.
16. F R O G A T T I. J. Groundwater Disturbance and
Surface Settlements Around a Dewatered Sand
and Gravel Quarry. PhD dissertation, Nottingham
Trent University, 1997.
17. P O W E R S J. P. Construction Dewatering: New
Methods and Applications. Wiley, New York,
1992, 2nd edn.
18. M A T T H E W S M. C., H O P E V. S. and C L A Y T O N C. R. I.
The geotechnical value of ground sti€ness deter-
mined using seismic methods. In Modern Geo-
physics in Engineering Geology (McCann D. M.,
Eddleston M., Fenning P. J. and Reeves G. M.
(eds)). Geological Society Engineering Geology
Special Publication No. 12, London, 1997, pp. 113±
123.
19. H E L M D. C. Field-based computational techniques
for predicting subsidence due to ¯uid withdrawal.
In Man-induced Land Subsidence (Holzer T. L.
(ed.)). Reviews in Engineering Geology VI, The
Geological Society of America, Boulder, 1984, pp.
1±22.