Pre-print version of paper published as:

Preene, M (2008). Groundwater control for construction. Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers, Water Management 161, WM6, December, 323–331.

GROUNDWATER CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM THE PAST AND

CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

Author

Martin Preene BEng PhD CEng FICE CGeol FGS CSci CEnv FCIWEM
UK Groundwater Manager, Golder Associates (UK) Limited, Leeds, UK

This version revised 30 July 2007, following receipt of Assessor Comments

Page 1
 Preene – Groundwater Control

GROUNDWATER CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION: LESSONS FROM THE PAST AND

CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

Martin Preene BEng PhD CEng FICE CGeol FGS CSci CEnv FCIWEM
UK Groundwater Manager, Golder Associates (UK) Limited, Leeds, UK

Abstract
Groundwater control encompasses the range of techniques used to allow construction
projects such as tunnels or basement excavations to be carried out in dry and stable
conditions. Two principal approaches can be used: groundwater control by pumping, which
lowers groundwater levels in the vicinity of an excavation; or groundwater control by
exclusion, which relies on low permeability cut-off walls around the excavation. Existing
groundwater control technologies have been developed pragmatically, often on an empirical
basis, in response to groundwater problems encountered on construction projects in the
past. In the future, it is unlikely that there will be significant changes in groundwater control
technology. The real challenge for the future of groundwater control methods will be the
need to better predict, monitor and mitigate the impacts on the groundwater environment.
The greater focus on environmental impacts from groundwater control is partly due to
increasing regulation of groundwater control works, and partly because of the increasing
importance of environmental management in the planning of construction projects.

Introduction
Groundwater control is the process of controlling groundwater levels and flows, typically on
a temporary basis, to allow excavations to be made below groundwater level in dry and
stable conditions. Established temporary works construction techniques have been
developed1 to allow groundwater control to be routinely achieved in a wide range of
geological conditions, for diverse projects from small shallow excavations to very large and
deep tunnels and underground caverns.

Dealing with groundwater during construction, however, has not always been routine.
Modern practice has evolved, like many engineering processes, based partly on advances in
theoretical understanding, and partly on empirical rules developed from past experience
(both successes and failures). In fact, possibly because of the significant empirical element,
the traditional view of groundwater control is that it is an art best left to the cognoscenti.

Future improvements in practice are likely to be derived similarly in an empirical fashion, in

response to changing requirements for the execution of construction projects. This paper
will consider the factors driving change in construction (such as the need to limit
environmental impacts and the increased re-use of brownfield sites), and challenges for the
future development of groundwater control technology will be identified.

The need for groundwater control

When sub-surface engineering works such as tunnels or basements penetrate below
groundwater level, the presence of groundwater has the potential to cause significant
problems. Groundwater inflows, and the associated excess pore water pressures, can have a
dramatic destabilising effect on soils in and around an excavation. The shear strength of a
soil is directly related a parameter known as effective stress s', defined in Terzaghi’s
equation of effective stress2

s' = s - u (1)

Page 2
 Preene – Groundwater Control

where s is the total stress resulting from the self weight of the soil and any external loads,
and u is the pore water pressure in the soil. Shear strength t is related to effective stress by
the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:

t = s'tanf¢ (2)

where f¢ is the angle of effective friction of the soil.

Applying equations (1) and (2) to the excavation in Figure 1 shows that for a soil element
immediately below the base of the excavation, removal of the soil will reduce total stress s.
If pore water pressure u is not reduced by artificial means, then effective stress will reduce,
resulting in a corresponding reduction in the soil’s shear strength. This will reduce the ability
of the soil immediately around the excavation to sustain loads, and is likely to result in
instability of the sides and base of the excavation. There are numerous examples of
excavations that have experienced severe instability as a result of inadequate control of
groundwater3,4.

Consideration of equations (1) and (2) presents a simple solution to avoid groundwater-
induced instability in excavations – control of groundwater locally around the excavation in
such a way as to manage pore water pressures and prevent effective stresses falling to
unacceptably low levels. This is the basis of the group of construction techniques collectively
known as groundwater control.

There are two principal types of groundwater control: pumping and exclusion. Each takes a
radically different approach to attaining the same objective, avoidance of groundwater-
induced instability.

Groundwater control by pumping (Figure 2a) involves installing an array of sumps or wells in
or around an excavation, and pumping from those wells to temporarily lower groundwater
levels to below the base of the excavation. The lowering (or ‘drawdown’) of groundwater
levels will reduce pore water pressures around the excavation, and prevent effective
stresses falling to unacceptable levels. This approach is known as dewatering or construction
dewatering.

The alternative approach of groundwater control by exclusion (Figure 2b) involves installing
a notionally impermeable physical barrier or cut-off wall around the excavation. If the
barrier can be driven deep enough to intersect a very low permeability geological stratum
below the excavation, the net result is to effectively isolate the excavation from the
surrounding groundwater regime. Once any water trapped within the area enclosed by the
cut-off wall has been pumped out, pore water pressures within the excavation should be
very low, ensuring that effective stresses do not fall to unacceptable levels.

Table 1 presents a summary of the most commonly used methods of groundwater control.
Figure 3 summarises the range of performance of pumped groundwater control systems, in
relation to two key parameters, drawdown of groundwater level, and soil permeability.

Early technology
During the first half of the 19th century, steam driven pumps were introduced into civil
engineering practice and were used by, among others, Telford and I K Brunel. Perhaps the
first use of pumping technology as part of a rational plan to control groundwater for an

Page 3
 Preene – Groundwater Control

engineering project was in the 1830s by Robert Stephenson for the Kilsby Tunnel on the
London to Birmingham railway6.

Following repeated inundation of the tunnel by groundwater during construction,

Stephenson established a line of pumping wells, drained by steam pumps, alongside the line
of the tunnel. Many months of pumping (at up to 490 m3/hour), directed using Stephenson’s
close observations of the changes in groundwater levels resulting from pumping,
successfully controlled groundwater and allowed the tunnel to be completed. The approach
of using an array of groundwater abstraction points, located outside the excavation itself
was radical at the time, but set a template for groundwater control by pumping that is still
used today.

During the 19th century early generations of groundwater exclusion methods were
developed in the mining industry in the form of close fitting ‘tubbing’ used to line shafts and
keep water out. These tubbings were initially made from timber, and later from cast iron. In
the very early years of the 20th century British mines made the first use of artificial ground
freezing (where chilled brines were used to freeze groundwater) and the ‘cementation’
method where cement-based grouts were used to prevent groundwater flow through pores
and fissures in soils and rocks7. These techniques were soon added to the repertoire of civil
engineers.

During the first half of the 20th century there were notable developments in practical
groundwater control technology, often resulting when improved equipment fell into the
hands of engineers faced with the need to work below the water table. In North America, in
1925 Thomas Moore introduced improvements to the small diameter wellpoints used for
shallow dewatering. His system, which allowed the wellpoints to be jetted into the ground
using high pressure water, continues to form the basis of wellpoint systems around the
world, more than 80 years later8.

In Britain, H. J. B Harding (later Sir Harold) was involved, through his work for the contractor
Mowlem, in the introduction of the deep well method to Britain. Deep wells using
submersible pumps had been used for groundwater lowering in Germany from 1896
onwards, but were not a method recognised in Britain. In the 1930s Mowlem took up licence
agreements with Siemens Bau-Union to use their geotechnology patents for, among other
things, groundwater lowering by deep wells. Harding used ten deep wells, each equipped
with a Siemens Submersible pump, during construction of the King George V graving dock at
Southampton9, 10. This groundwater control system was based on exactly the same physical
principles as Stephenson’s Kilsby Tunnel a century earlier, but with the technology updated
to contemporary levels.

Into the modern era

In the years from the immediate post war period to the end of the 20th century, there was
little change in the equipment used for wellpoint and deep well dewatering, other than
incremental improvements resulting from the availability of new and better materials from
which to construct pumps and pipework. Occasionally, new techniques were introduced,
such as the ejector well system first used in the United States in the 1960s, which had its first
large-scale application in Britain on the A55 Conwy crossing project in the late 1980s11.

The real advances in groundwater control resulted from the accumulation of collective
experience of the application of the various techniques. Because many of the techniques
were developed from a practical rather than a theoretical basis, much of the experience

Page 4
 Preene – Groundwater Control

became concentrated in specialist contracting companies, instead of consulting engineers or

academic bodies. Companies such as Soil Mechanics Limited carried out numerous large
scale groundwater control projects in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, and many of their staff
ultimately moved on and spread their experience around several successful groundwater
control contractors in the 1970s, 1980s and beyond.

The improvements in groundwater control practice were supported by some publications

that selflessly shared some of the hard won experience acquired by contractors. First in
1981, J P Powers, then of the Moretrench American Corporation, produced his book
Construction Dewatering which outlined North American Practice. Now in its third edition8,
this remains a thorough and readable book. In the United Kingdom, in 1986 CIRIA produced
Report 113 Control of Groundwater for Temporary Works12, largely based on the experience
of Pat Cashman from his work with Soil Mechanics Limited, Sykes and other organisations. In
the late 1990s CIRIA produced Report C515 Groundwater Control Design and Practice1, again
based on the experience of a specialist contractor, this time WJ Groundwater Limited.

Current groundwater control practice

Beyond the 1990s and into the 21st century, there were no radical changes in the way that
groundwater control works were executed. More subtle changes were apparent in the way
that groundwater control became better integrated into the planning of construction
projects, as a result of the cultural changes implemented in many parts of the construction
industry following the publication of the Latham13 and Egan14 reports.

Latham and Egan reviewed the then performance of the UK construction industry and
recommended specific improvements to planning and execution, and promoted increased
efficiency and integration between the different parties involved in projects. With hindsight,
the concept of having more integrated planning on projects has often improved the way that
groundwater control has been carried out.

Under the old, often adversarial, contractual system, the need to control groundwater was
often left as a last minute temporary works fix for the contractor (after many other aspects
of the project had been finalised), and was procured as a cost driven ‘distress purchase’. If
the integrated approach of Latham and Egan is followed, it is more likely that key
constraints, such as the need to control groundwater, will be identified as risks early on in
planning. This can allow rational assessment, and open discussion between the various
parties to construction, of the potential risks and the way they could be managed. This
opens up a wide range of options to control groundwater including, for example, redesign of
the permanent works to reduce (or avoid completely) the need for groundwater control. The
Channel Tunnel Rail Link, constructed in the UK from the mid 1990s onward is a good
example of how the need to control groundwater was one of the key factors considered
throughout the design process when assessing options for structures below ground level15.

Another subtle change is the increased ability to gather and manage geotechnical data16 via
electronic datalogging systems, often accessed remotely via GSM modems, with data
disseminated via web-based platforms. Such technology opens up the opportunity of
providing some degree of automation or ‘self regulation’ of pumped groundwater control
systems. The operation of pumps could be regulated automatically, in real time, based
purely on groundwater level readings monitored in boreholes and piezometers around the
excavations. This is of particular interest where there is a need to use mitigation measures,
such as artificial recharge, to limit any detrimental impacts of drawdown of groundwater
levels on the surrounding area17.

Page 5
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Challenges for the future

It is likely that the future challenges for those involved in controlling groundwater for
engineering projects will not be primarily technological. The performance of the
technologies used for groundwater control are governed by the laws of physics. For
example, the range of application of pumped well groundwater control methods shown in
Figure 3 are unlikely to significantly change in the future. Any improvements in technology
are most likely to come from incremental refinements in methods, or by technology
transfers from other industries.

The real challenges in the future are likely to be in relation to the way that the potential
environmental impacts of groundwater control are managed. Until relatively recently, little
attention was paid to assessing the potential environmental impacts associated with
groundwater control, either as the result of abstraction of groundwater, or as a result of the
installation of physical barriers to groundwater flow.

Traditionally, groundwater has been viewed quite differently by civil engineers working on
construction projects, and water resources managers (such as hydrogeologists). To the civil
engineer groundwater is a potential problem requiring a solution. Engineers know that
projects which require working below groundwater level are inherently more difficult than
those that do not. Their response has been to pragmatically develop the groundwater
control technologies outlined in this paper, to allow such works to be successfully executed.
In contrast, to the hydrogeologist, groundwater is a potential resource, valuable when
abstracted for use as drinking or process water, and also when contributing to natural
features such as springs, streamflow, wetlands, etc.

It has long being recognised that if there is no system by which national, regional or local
bodies can regulate the abstraction of groundwater, there is a risk that aquifers (geological
strata of soil and rock that can yield groundwater) may be over exploited. Typically, this
occurs where the volumes abstracted from an aquifer significantly exceed the long term
average inflows from infiltration, inter-aquifer flow and other sources. There are numerous
examples from around the world of urban areas where, due to the local concentration of
abstraction, groundwater levels fell significantly in the time from the industrial revolution to
the present day18. A well known example is the Chalk aquifer beneath central London, where
excessive abstraction in the late 19th and early 20th century caused groundwater levels in the
deep Chalk aquifer to fall from close to ground level, to between 50 and 90m depth19.
Changes in water use, and the relocation of industry away from central London have
resulted in significant reductions in annual abstractions, allowing groundwater levels to
slowly recover toward their original levels (Figure 4). Perversely, the rise in groundwater
levels may cause its own problems for existing below ground engineering infrastructure, and
may require additional abstraction to be implemented to prevent groundwater levels from
rising further.

In many countries the need to regulate abstraction has been recognised, and legislation
implemented that requires the all significant groundwater abstractions be controlled by a
system of licensing which sets limits on abstraction volumes. Licensing systems are intended
to set a balance between the need for water of individual abstractors, and the need for
rational overall management of groundwater resources. In England and Wales a licensing
system has been in place since the 1960s, and has latterly been administered by the
Environment Agency via the Water Resources Act 1991.

Page 6
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Interestingly, under the system in England and Wales, abstractions for groundwater control
(so called dewatering abstractions) were exempted from the requirement for licensing.
Hence dewatering was not directly regulated in relation to the rate of abstraction, and the
potential impact on the groundwater environment. In practice, for the great majority of
dewatering systems any impacts outside the immediate area of the works were minimal.
This is probably because the rate of abstraction from dewatering pumping was a tiny
fraction of the recharge available to the aquifer, or the area of aquifer dammed by a cut-off
wall was small in relation to the extent of the aquifer. However, in a small number of cases,
often involving large scale abstractions from highly permeable aquifers such as the Chalk,
significant lowering of groundwater levels has occurred over a very wide area, perhaps 1 km
or more from the site being dewatered.

When such significant impacts have occurred, engineering mitigation measures (such as
artificial recharge of groundwater to reduce net abstraction from the aquifer) have been
implemented to manage impacts. However, in many cases these mitigation measures are
adopted after the event, instead of being planned from the start, based on a rational
assessment of the potential groundwater impacts. In essence, assessment of groundwater
impacts was often not high on the agenda when projects were planned.

However, changes in European legislation will move groundwater impacts from engineering
projects up the agenda. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), adopted by the
European Union in 2000 is intended to establish a Framework for the protection of surface
and groundwater. In relation to groundwater, the WFD should promote long term protection
of groundwater quality (by preventing and remediating groundwater pollution) and
groundwater quantity (by controlling abstraction volumes to prevent over-exploitation of
aquifers).

Cumulatively, it is possible that, on a local level, abstractions for groundwater control may
form a significant proportion of total groundwater abstractions. The management of water
resources in line with the WFD will be much easier if dewatering abstractions are licensed in
a similar way to other groundwater abstractions, and recent changes in legislation have
facilitated this. From 2007, in England and Wales, dewatering abstractions of greater than
20 m3/day will require licensing as set out the Water Act 2003. In Scotland, since April 2006,
abstractions of greater than 10 m3/day have required consenting under the Water
Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, and this includes
dewatering abstractions. An abstraction licensing system is planned for Northern Ireland in
200820.

As part of the process to obtain a license from the regulatory bodies, there will be a likely
requirement to assess the groundwater impacts (a process sometimes known as a
hydrogeological impact appraisal or HIA21). The wide range of impacts on the groundwater
environment that can result from groundwater control have been recognised22. Often, the
primary focus is on the impacts associated with abstraction, such as drawdown of
groundwater levels resulting in reduction of yield from nearby water supply boreholes, the
drying out of groundwater-dependent natural features such as wetlands or other surface
water features, and the reduction of baseflow to rivers. With the increased requirement to
protect of groundwater resources, other impacts have become recognised, including
changes in groundwater flow paths caused by construction works, and the impact of
discharge of the water arising from dewatering pumping. Table 2 summarises the types of
impacts on groundwater that can potentially arise from below ground construction works.

Page 7
 Preene – Groundwater Control

One case worth considering further is when groundwater control is carried out on or near a
brownfield site, where there is existing groundwater contamination. The effect of pumping
or of installing a cut-off wall will change the groundwater flow regime and will alter the way
that groundwater contamination migrates beneath the site. It is possible that the changes in
hydraulic gradient and direction of groundwater flow can cause groundwater contamination
to migrate much more quickly, or even in a radically different direction than under natural
conditions (Figure 5).

This is a potential problem that affects groundwater control works in areas where there is a
legacy of existing ground contamination, for example from industrial land uses. But
conversely, the fact that groundwater control systems can affect the movement of plumes of
contaminated groundwater can, with a little ingenuity, be turned to advantage. Pumped
groundwater control systems have been modified to deliberately extract contaminated
groundwater and treat it to reduce contamination to acceptable levels – an approach known
as pump and treat23 (Figure 6). The concept of cut-off walls conventionally used to block
groundwater flow has been adapted by forming all or part of the wall from a permeable
material that can react with groundwater, removing contamination as groundwater flows
through it (Figure 7). This concept is known as a permeable reactive barrier or PRB24. A key
factor affecting the future use of these systems is that since traditional groundwater control
systems have been largely optimised through many years use, and there is little expectation
of significant improvement in performance. However, remediation techniques derived from
some of the groundwater control technologies are at a relatively early stage in their
development, and significant improvements in performance may be anticipated in the
future.

The foregoing sections have concentrated on the water-based impacts of groundwater

control. There is an inevitability about impacting, to a lesser or greater degree, on
groundwater. However, it may be that in the future geotechnical processes such as
groundwater control will be selected partly on an assessment of the overall environmental
impact of processes. Pumps used in dewatering systems probably use natural resources in
the form of fossil fuels (either directly as diesel fuel, or indirectly via mains electricity) and
correspondingly produce carbon emissions. Groundwater exclusion methods can involve the
use of toxic chemicals (grouts) or use large amounts of energy (refrigeration plants used for
artificial ground freezing). A range of sustainability appraisal tools that could be used to
allow some degree of comparison between different engineering processes that interact
with groundwater25, but thus far they have not been widely applied to geotechnical
engineering processes. Perhaps in the future measures of natural resource utilisation and
carbon footprint will be a fundamental part of the design and specification of groundwater
control works.

Conclusions
The traditional view of groundwater control may be that it is a black art, but that should not
obscure that fact that it has a firm rational foundation. The existing technologies have
evolved to meet the pragmatic requirements of construction projects. There is now a wide
range of established and proven techniques available to control groundwater. The principal
challenges for the future are unlikely to be technological, but are likely to involve a change in
focus to recognise the environmental impacts that can result when groundwater is
controlled. Changes in regulation, and the increasing importance of environmental
management when planning construction projects, result in the need to better predict,
monitor and mitigate the impacts on the groundwater environment that can result when
groundwater control is carried out.

Page 8
 Preene – Groundwater Control

References

1. PREENE, M, ROBERTS, T O L, POWRIE, W and DYER, M R (2000). Groundwater Control

– Design and Practice. Construction Industry Research and Information Association,
CIRIA Report C515, London.

2. POWRIE, W (2004). Soil Mechanics: Concepts and Applications, 2nd edition. Spon,
London.

3. HARTWELL, D J and NISBET, R M (1987). Groundwater problems associated with the

construction of large pumping stations. Groundwater Effects in Geotechnical
Engineering (Hanrahan, E T, Orr, T L L and Widdis, T F, eds). Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp691–694.

4. WARD, W H (1957). The use of simple relief wells in reducing water pressure beneath
a trench excavation. Géotechnique, 7(3), 134–139.

5. CASHMAN, P M and PREENE, M (2001). Groundwater Lowering in Construction: A

Practical Guide. Spon, London 476pp.

6. PREENE, M (2004). Robert Stephenson (1803–59) – the first groundwater engineer.

200 Years of British Hydrogeology (Mather, J D, Ed.). Geological Society Special
Publication 225, London, 107–119.

7. YOUNGER, P L (2004). ‘Making water’: the hydrogeological adventures of Britain’s

early mining engineers. 200 Years of British Hydrogeology (Mather, J D, Ed.).
Geological Society Special Publication 225, London, 121–157.

8. POWERS, J P, CORWIN, A B, SCHMALL, P C and KAECK, W E (2007). Construction

Dewatering and Groundwater Control: New Methods and Applications, 3rd Edition.
Wiley, New York.

9. McHAFFIE, M G J (1938). Southampton docks extension. Journal of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, 9, 184–219.

10. HARDING, H J B (1938). Correspondence on Southampton docks extension. Journal of

the Institution of Civil Engineers, 9, 562–564.

11. POWRIE, W and ROBERTS, T O L (1990). Field trial of an ejector well dewatering
system at Conwy, North Wales. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 23, 169–
185.

12. SOMERVILLE, S H (1986). Control of Groundwater for Temporary Works. Construction

Industry Research and Information Association, CIRIA Report 113, London.

13. LATHAM, M (1994). Constructing the Team. Final Report of the Government/Industry
Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction
Industry. HMSO July, London.

Page 9
 Preene – Groundwater Control

14. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS: LONDON

(DETR) (1998). Rethinking Construction. The Report of the Construction Task Force.
HMSO, London.

15. WHITAKER, D (2004). Groundwater control for the Stratford CTRL station box.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering 157, Oct.,
183–191.

16. HOLMES. G, ROSCOE, H and CHODOROWSKI, A (2005). Construction monitoring of cut

and cover tunnels. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering 158, Oct., 187–196.

17. HAYWARD, D (1999). Wonderful challenge: engineers forming vast station boxes for
the Copenhagen metro face extremely tight ground settlement controls. Ground
Engineering, 32, No. 11, Nov., 30.

18. WILKINSON, W B and BRASSINGTON, F C (1991). Rising groundwater levels – an

international problem. Applied Groundwater Hydrology – A British Perspective
(Downing, R A and Wilkinson, W B, eds). Clarendon Press, Oxford.

19. SIMPSON, B, BLOWER, T, CRAIG, R N and WILKINSON, W B (1989). The Engineering

Implications of Rising Groundwater Levels in the Deep Aquifer Beneath London.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, Special Publication 69,
London.

20. CLOSE, P (2007). The Water Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations
(Northern Ireland). Groundwater Pressures and Opportunities. Proceedings of the 27th
Annual Conference, International Association of Hydrogeologists (Irish Group),
Tullamore, 1.11–1.13.

21. BOAK, R, BELLIS, L, LOW, R, MITCHELL, R, HAYES, P, McKELVEY, P and NEALE, S (2007).
Hydrogeological Impact Appraisal for Dewatering Abstractions. Science Report
SC040020/SR1. Environment Agency, Bristol.

22. PREENE, M and BRASSINGTON, F C (2003). Potential groundwater impacts from civil
engineering works. Water and Environmental Management Journal 17, No. 1, March,
59–64.

23. HOLDEN, J M W, JONES, M A, FERNADO, M-W and WHITE, C (1998). Hydraulic

Measures for Control and Treatment of Groundwater Pollution. Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, CIRIA Report 186, London.

24. CAREY, M A, FRETWELL, B A, MOSLEY, N G and SMITH, J W N (2002). Guidance on the

Design, Construction, Operation and Monitoring of Permeable Reactive Barriers.
National Groundwater and Contaminated Land Centre Report NC/01/51. Environment
Agency, Bristol.

25. WATER UK (2003). Sustainability – Broadening the Perspective. Water UK, London.

Page 10
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Page 11
Table 1: Commonly used methods of groundwater control

Method Principal of operation Key advantages Key disadvantages

Groundwater control by pumping
Sump pumping Groundwater is allowed to seep into the excavation, where it is collected in pits Simple and cheap, equipment widely available The pumped water may contain suspended fine particles
or sumps, to be pumped away by robust pumps removed from the soil; this can result in instability of the
excavation and environmental problems when the water is
discharged
Wellpoints A line or ring or small diameter shallow wells (wellpoints) are installed around Uses widely available equipment, flexible in application Suction lift limitations mean that drawdowns of greater than 5–6
the excavation, and pumped by a suction pump located at ground level m below pump level cannot be achieved by a single stage of
wellpoints
Deep wells An array of boreholes (deep wells) are drilled around the excavation, fitted Depth of is drawdown not limited by suction lift (drawdown Less flexible in use than some other methods
with appropriate wellscreens. Each deep well is pumped by a submersible limited only by soil stratification and depth of borehole)
pump within the borehole
Ejector wells High pressure water is circulated through nozzle and venturi systems (ejectors) Depth of drawdown is not limited by suction lift. Can be Drawdown typically limited to a maximum depth of 30–50 m.
located within a series of boreholes. The ejectors act as jet pumps to remove highly effective in depressurising and stabilising low Cannot handle large groundwater flow rates. Low energy
water and create a vacuum permeability soils such as silts efficiency
Groundwater control by exclusion
Steel sheet-piling Interlocking steel piles are driven, pushed or vibrated into the ground to form a Uses widely available equipment. Can be used to form Boulders, buried obstructions or bedrock can make installation of
cut-off wall around the excavation temporary cut-offs (where the piles are extracted following piles difficult or limit penetration that can be achieved
completion of the works), avoiding any long term
obstruction of natural groundwater flow
Concrete Continuous concrete cut-off wall formed from interlocking concrete panels Produces a structure that can be used to form part of the Permanent, may cause long term obstruction of natural
diaphragm walls (diaphragm walls) or interlocking bored piles permanent works. Can penetrate hard soils and weak rocks groundwater flow
and bored pile walls
Slurry trench Continuous trench is excavated and filled with a slurry of bentonite or Relatively quick and cheap to install Permanent, may cause long term obstruction of natural
bentonite-cement groundwater flow.
Injection grouting Cement-based or synthetic chemical fluids are injected into the ground via an Relatively flexible in application. Can be used to great Permanent, may cause long term obstruction of natural
array of closely-spaced boreholes. The grout permeates into the soil or rock, depths. groundwater flow. Multiple stages of treatment may be required
infilling the pores or fissures to achieve sufficiently low permeability
Jet grouting An aggressive jetting method is used to form overlapping columns of soil/grout Can penetrate hard soils and weak rocks Permanent, may cause long term obstruction of natural
mixture groundwater flow. Can be messy and create large volumes of
waste slurry
Artificial ground A wall of frozen ground (a freezewall) is formed around the excavation by Effective in a wide range of ground conditions. Ground Relatively expensive and specialised technique. Can be difficult to
freezing circulating a low temperature fluid (calcium chloride or liquid nitrogen) through freezing is temporary, so the freezewall will slowly dissipate achieve a complete freezewall if groundwater velocities are
an array of closely-spaced freezetubes drilled around the excavation following completion of the works, avoiding any long term significant

Page 12
 Preene – Groundwater Control

obstruction of natural groundwater flow

Page 13
Table 2: Impacts on groundwater conditions from civil engineering works (from Preene
and Brassington, 200322)

Category Potential impacts Duration Relevant construction activities

1 Abstraction Ground settlement Temporary Dewatering of excavations and tunnels
Derogation of individual sources using wells, wellpoints and sumps
Effect on aquifer – groundwater levels Drainage of shallow excavations or
Effect on aquifer – groundwater quality waterlogged land by gravity flow
Depletion of groundwater dependent
Permanent Permanent drainage of basements,
features
tunnels, road and rail cuttings, both from
pumping and from gravity flow
2 Pathways for Risk of pollution from near surface Temporary Vertical pathways created by site
groundwater flow activities investigation and dewatering boreholes,
Change in groundwater levels and open excavations, trench drains, etc.
quality Horizontal pathways created by
trenches, tunnels and excavations
Permanent Vertical pathways created by inadequate
backfilling and sealing of site
investigation and dewatering boreholes
and excavations and by permanent
foundations, piles and ground
improvement processes
Horizontal pathways created by
trenches, tunnels and excavations
3 Barriers to Change in groundwater levels and Temporary Barriers created by temporary or
groundwater flow quality removable physical cut-off walls such as
sheet-piles or artificial ground freezing
Permanent Barriers created by permanent physical
cut-off walls or groups of piles forming
part of the foundation or structure or by
linear constructions such as tunnels and
pipelines
Barriers created by reduction in aquifer
hydraulic conductivity (e.g. by grouting
or compaction)
4 Discharge to Discharge of polluting substances from Temporary Leakage and run-off from construction
groundwaters construction activities activities (e.g. fuelling of plant)
Artificial recharge (if used as part of the
dewatering works)
Permanent Leakage and run-off from permanent
structures
Discharge via drainage soakaways
5 Discharge to Effect on surface waters due to Temporary Discharge from dewatering systems
surface waters discharge water chemistry, temperature
Permanent Discharge from permanent drainage
or sediment load
systems

Page 14
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 1: Instability of excavation due to inadequate control of groundwater

Page 15
 Preene – Groundwater Control

a) Groundwater control by pumping (from Cashman and Preene, 20015, reproduced

by kind permission of Spon Press)

Figure 2: Approaches to control of groundwater

Page 16
 Preene – Groundwater Control

b) Groundwater control by exclusion (from Cashman and Preene, 20015, reproduced

by kind permission of Spon Press)

Figure 2: Approaches to control of groundwater

Page 17
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 3: Range of application of pumped well groundwater control techniques – adapted

from Roberts and Preene (1994), and modified after Cashman (1994) (from Preene et al.
20001: reproduced by kind permission of CIRIA)

Page 18
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 4: Rising groundwater levels beneath central London (redrawn from Simpson et al.
198919)

Page 19
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 5: Interaction between groundwater control by pumping and groundwater

contamination beneath a brownfield site

Page 20
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 6: Pump and treat system to control groundwater pollution

Page 21
 Preene – Groundwater Control

Figure 7: Permeable reactive barrier (PRB) to control groundwater pollution

Page 22