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

net/publication/280231779

EVALUATION OF THREE ANALYSIS METHODS OF DEWATERING SYSTEMS

Article  in  Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering · December 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 1,616

3 authors, including:

Basuony M. El-Garhy
University of Tabuk
39 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Behavior of Raft Foundation Constructed on Soft Soil Reinforced with Granular Piles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Basuony M. El-Garhy on 21 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EVALUATION OF THREE ANALYSIS METHODS OF
DEWATERING SYSTEMS
By
3
Basuony El-Garhy, Abdel-Fattah Youssef, 2 and Karim Roshdy
1

ABSTRACT

Construction of many structures such as buildings with basement, powerhouses, dams, locks,
tunnels, and sewage lines require excavation in the soil below the groundwater table. Such
excavation requires lowering the groundwater table below the bottom of the excavation to
ensure dry working condition for construction operations. In this paper a computer program is
developed and called EASYFLOW for predicting the drawdown of groundwater table using
mathematical formulas for different dewatering systems. The developed program is written in
Visual Basic language and tested against hand calculation of drawdown using mathematical
formulas for dewatering systems. Evaluation of three analysis methods usually used to
analyze different dewatering systems is also presented and discussed. These methods are
mathematical formulas method (EASYFLOW program), flow net method, and numerical
modeling method (e.g., Visual MODFLOW program). The evaluation process is based on
comparison between the predicted drawdown using the analysis methods (i.e., mathematical
formulas method, flow net method, and numerical modeling method) and the measured
drawdown for four cases of dewatering systems constructed in four sites (three sites in Egypt
and one site in London).

INTRODUCTION

The presence of groundwater on a site will have considerable effect on the design of
structures, on the work of construction, and on the overall cost. Construction of many
structures such as buildings with basement, powerhouses, dams, locks, tunnels, sewage lines
and graving docks require excavation in the soil below the groundwater table. Lowering the
groundwater table below the bottom of the excavation is very important to ensure dry
working condition for construction operations. In some cases the excavation may be
underlain by a pervious stratum under artesian pressure which if not relieved can rupture the
bottom of the excavation with attended development of sand boils and loss of material from
the soil beneath the structure.
Techniques for controlling groundwater may be divided into three main categories (Powers,
1992; Cashman, 1997): (1) removing of groundwater from the excavated site by pumping
from ditches. This type of groundwater control must include a filter to prevent migration of
fines and possible development of piping in the soil being drained, (2) lowering of
groundwater table beneath the bottom of the excavation using deep wells, well points, and
vertical sand drain, and (3) isolation of the excavation from the inflow of groundwater by a
sheet pile wall, grout curtain, slurry or concrete cutoff wall, or by freezing.

1
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minufiya
University, Shebin El-Koom, Egypt. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Minufiya University, Shebin El-Koom, Egypt.
3
Graduate student, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Minufiya
University.
In this paper a computer program is developed using mathematical formulas and called
EASYFLOW for predicting the drawdown of groundwater table for different dewatering
systems. The developed program is written in Visual Basic language and tested against hand
calculation of drawdown using mathematical formulas for dewatering systems. Evaluation of
three analysis methods usually used to analyze different dewatering systems is also presented
and discussed. These methods are mathematical formulas method (EASYFLOW program),
flow net method, and numerical modeling method (e.g., Visual MODFLOW program). The
evaluation process is based on comparison between the predicted drawdown using the
analysis methods (i.e., mathematical formulas method, flow net method, and numerical
modeling method) and the measured drawdown for four cases of dewatering systems
constructed in four sites (three sites in Egypt and one site in London).

ANALYSIS METHODS OF DEWATERING SYSTEMS

The most common methods found in the literature for analysis of dewatering systems are the
mathematical formulas method, the flow net method, and the numerical modeling method
(Powers, 1992; U.S. Army, 2004). Brief description of these methods is presented in the
following sections.

Mathematical Formulas Method

There are a number of mathematical formulas found in the literature that can be used to
predict the drawdown of groundwater table for simple cases of dewatering systems. These
formulas depend on the type of flow in the pervious layer in which the well screen is set (i.e.,
artesian flow, gravity flow or combined), the type of well (i.e., fully penetrated or partially
penetrated well), the type of seepage source (i.e., line source or circular source), and the
number of wells (i.e., single or multiple-wells). Mathematical formulas were presented in a
number of references (i.e., Leonards,1962; U.S. Army, 2004). These formulas are also
presented and discussed by Roshdy (2006).

Flow Net Method

Flow net method is limited to analyze two dimensional flow (sectionional elevation or plan
view) and the third dimension assumed infinite in extent and usually used in case of irregular
configuration of the seepage source. The path of water is called a flow line, each flow line
originates at a point of high head and terminates at a point where the net head is zero (U.S.
Army, 2004). The distribution of head causing the flow of water through the soil is
represented by equipotential lines, each equipotential line represents a contour of equal head.
For drawing the flow net the boundary conditions affecting the flow pattern must be known.
Drawing the flow net are governed by the following rules (U.S. Army, 2004):

1. Flow lines and equipotential lines intersect at right angles and form curvilinear squares.
2. If the entire section can not be divided conveniently into squares, a row of rectangles will
remain and the ratio of the length of each rectangle side shall remain constant.
3. A drainage surface exposed to air is neither an equipotential nor flow line and the squares
at this surface are incomplete.
4. For gravity flow, equipotential lines intersect the phreatic surface at equal intervals of
elevation each interval being a constant fraction of the total net head.

For homogeneous soils, the results of the flow net method depend mainly on the value of the
coefficient of permeability (Bowles, 1996).
Numerical Modeling Method
Recently, numerical modeling is increasingly employed to solve the groundwater flow in the
soil mass and a number of software packages are developed. These software packages use the
finite difference or the finite element techniques to solve the groundwater flow problem. The
finite difference method is used to solve the partial-differential equations describing the
system by using algebraic equations to approximate the solution at discrete points in a
rectangular grid. The grid can be one, two, or three-dimensional (U.S. Army, 2004). The
points in the grid called nodes represent the average for the surrounding rectangular block
(cell). Although adjacent nodes have an effect on the solution process, the value for a
particular node is distinct from its neighboring nodes. Visual MODFLOW is an example of
software package using the finite difference technique (Harbaugh et. al., 2000).

The finite element technique is different from the finite difference technique in that the area
between adjacent nodes forms an element over which exact solution values are defined
everywhere by means of basis functions (U.S. Army, 2004). A main practical difference is
that finite element codes allow for flexible placement of nodes which can be important in
defining irregular boundaries. However, defining a unique location for each finite element
node requires a more labor-intensive grid setup than that of finite difference.

The numerical modeling process of groundwater flow problem is required to define the
nature of the problem by knowing the type of flow (artesian or gravity flow), the types of
wells (fully or partially penetrating wells), the soil properties such as coefficient of
permeability for different layers, the type of seepage source (line or circular source), and the
distance from seepage source to the dewatering system.

Visual MODFLOW Program

In this paper the Visual MODFLOW program is used in the analysis of dewatering systems.
Visual MODFLOW is able to solve the three-dimensional groundwater flow equation in a
porous medium by using the finite-difference technique. This fully-integrated package
combines powerful analytical tools with a logical menu structure. The input parameters and
results of Visual MODFLOW program can be visualized in 2D (sectionional elevation or
plan view) or 3D during displaying of the results. Details about input data, run, and output for
Visual MODFLOW program can be found in Harbaugh et. al. (2000)

COMPUTER PROGRAM USING MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS

Hand calculation of drawdown using mathematical formulas due to one well takes some time
and may be subjected to errors due to the large number of parameters in the mathematical
formulas. More time may be required for hand calculation of drawdown due to multiple-well
systems because in this case the drawdown will be calculated at a number of points due to a
number of wells. The problem will be more difficult and time consuming in case of
parametric study. Therefore, a computer program based on Visual Basic language is
developed and called EASYFLOW. The program is able to calculate the drawdown of
groundwater table due to a number of wells (up to 200 well) embedded in different soil
conditions, and for different sources of seepage (i.e., circular and line sources).

EASYFLOW is designed with a friendly user interface for input and output data. In addition,
parametric study can be done simply and quickly by EASYFLOW. The developed program
EASYFLOW is able to solve the eight cases shown in Fig. 1.
 Groundwater Flow Problems

Artesian Flow Garvity Flow

Fully Penetrating Wells Partially Penetrating Wells Fully Penetrating Wells Partially Penetrating Wells

case (1) case (2) case (3) case (4) case (1) case (2) case (3) case (4)
Circular Source Line Source Line Source Circular Source Circular Source Line Source Line Source Circular Source

Figure 1. Groundwater flow cases that can be solved by the developed program EASYFLOW

Solving Steps of EASYFLOW Program

Three steps should be done to predict the drawdown of groundwater table by EASYFLOW
program. These steps are: (1) Input data, (2) calculation of drawdown, and (3) output data.

Input Data
In this step the user should define and input all the parameters required to create the 2D mesh
and to calculate the drawdown. These parameters are:

1. Soil profile, soil properties, and well numbers (i.e., coefficient of permeability, initial
water table height or piezometric surface, thickness of the pervious stratum, number of
wells, and the required drawdown at well).
2. The radius of influence (R) or let the program calculate it from the following empirical
equation (U.S. Army, 2004):

R  Ch k (1)

Where h = drawdown at the well in meters, R in meters, and k in m/sec. C is a factor

equal to 3000 for radial flow to pumped wells and 1500 to 2000 for line flow to a line of
wells.
3. The parameters of the two dimensional mesh at its grid points where the drawdown will
be predicted (i.e., the number of horizontal lines (Nx) spaced horizontally at a distance Sy,
and the number of vertical lines (Ny), spaced vertically at a distance Sx as shown in Fig. 2).
4. The following parameters for each well: discharge, radius, well number, and well
coordinate as shown in Fig. 2.

The positions of the wells may be inside or outside the mesh area and not necessary to be at
the grid points of the mesh. In case of flow from line source of seepage EASYFLOW
program consider the line source of seepage on Y-axis of Fig. 2.

Calculation of Drawdown
The developed program EASYFLOW uses the mathematical formulas to calculate the
drawdown at the grid points is based on the following steps:
1. Select the suitable case to be solved (one case from the eight cases of Fig. 1).
2. Calculation of the grid points coordinates in the two-dimensional mesh.
3. Calculation of the diagonal distances between the grid points of the mesh and the wells.
4. Calculation of the drawdown from the suitable mathematical formula for the selected case.
 Y

(x ,y)w2 w2

Sy
Well 2
(x ,y)
w1 w1

yw2
Well 1
y
w1

X
(0,0) Sx
xw1
x w2

Figure 2. Window of the two dimensional mesh of EASYFLOW

Output Data
EASYFLOW displays the output data in two forms: (1) table that presents the drawdown at
all the grid points. The values of the drawdown can be copied and pasted in Excel data sheet
or saved as ASCII file and (2) quick window to display drawdown at any point inside or
outside the mesh.

Testing the Accuracy and Reliability of EASYFLOW Program

The program accuracy and reliability is tested by comparing the predicted drawdown from
EASYFLOW program with that calculated by hand using mathematical formulas.

The solved problem was a case of artesian flow from circular source of seepage consisting of
16 wells with radius of 0.30 m and pumping rate of 227.08 m3/hr for each well. The pervious
stratum was fine to medium sand with coefficient of permeability of 4.86 m/hr, the
piezometric surface (H) was 42.67 m, and the thickness of pervious stratum (D) was 22.86 m
as shown in Fig. 3. The radius of influence R assumed to be equal 1525 m (Leonards, 1962).

The predicted drawdown along section (A-A) of the excavation is shown in Fig. 4. The value
of the drawdown obtained by hand calculation at point (C) is 14.44 m (calculated by
Leonards, 1962). As shown in Fig. 4, the predicted drawdown at the center of the excavation
by EASYFLOW and hand calculation are nearly equal.
 3m 3m

19.81 19.81
42.67 Clay Point (C) Clay 42.67

22.86 Sand 22.86

k = 4.86 m/hr

Imprevios layer
SECTION A-A
(a)
186
32 38 46 38 32
1 2 3 4
25
16 5
30
A A
15 6
Point (C)
46 156

14 7
30

13 8
25

12 11 10 9
PLAN

(b)
Figure 3. Soil profile and well data: (a) Section (A-A),
(b) Plan view, (After Leonards, 1962)

0
2
4
6
Drawdown (m)

8
10
12
14
EASYFLOW
16 Hand calculation
18
20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance from center of the excavation (m)

Figure 4. Predicted drawdown by EASYFLOW and

hand calculation along section A-A of the excavation
EVALUATION OF ANALYSIS METHODS OF DEWATERING SYSTEMS

The evaluation of three analysis methods of dewatering systems is presented and discussed.
These methods are:

1. Numerical modeling method: The analysis using numerical modeling method is

performed by Visual MODFLOW program.
2. Mathematical formulas method: The analysis using mathematical formulas is performed
by the developed program EASYFLOW.
3. Flow net method.

The evaluation process is based on comparing the predicted drawdown from the three
analysis methods with the measured drawdown at four sites. These sites are:

1. Fully penetrating gravity well constructed during construction of pump house at Sidi-Krir,
Egypt ( Youssef, 2004).
2. Partially penetrating artesian multiple-well system constructed during construction of
water station at Shebin El-Koom, Egypt (Arab contractors, 2005).
3. Partially penetrating gravity multiple-well system constructed during construction of
pipeline of length 200 m at Sohag, Egypt (Bondok, 2002).
4. Multiple-well system at London found in the literature (Kinght et.al., 1996).

Fully Penetrating Gravity Well at Sidi-Krir, Egypt

A fully penetrating gravity well was constructed at Sidi-Krir site with radius 0.25 m and
pumping rate of 132 m3/hr (Youssef, 2004). The coefficient of permeability was 2.7 m/hr as
measured from pumping test and height of groundwater table (H) was 17.5 m as measured
from boring. The soil profile at Sidi-Krir site consists of four layers: the top layer was fine
sand of thickness 0.5 m followed by fine to medium sand layer of thickness 2.5 m and the
third layer was silty sand of thickness 14.5 m followed by clay layer of thickness 2.5 m.

The measured drawdown at the well was 3.45 m (Youssef, 2004). The predicted drawdown
from Visual MODFLOW and EASYFLOW programs at different points away from the well
are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Measured and predicted drawdown by Visual MODFLOW

and EASYFLOW programs at Sidi-Krir site

Distance from Predicted drawdown from Predicted drawdown Measured

the well (m) Visual MODFLOW (m) from EASYFLOW (m) Drawdown (m)
0.25 3.5 3.4 3.45 m
1 2.7 2.66
2 2.32 2.30
5 1.86 1.83
10 1.52 1.49
20 1.19 1.16
50 0.76 0.73
100 0.43 0.41
200 0.10 0.10
Fig. 5 shows the flow net for this problem. The predicted drawdown values from flow net
method at different points away from the well is presented in Table 2. Comparison between
measured and predicted drawdown using Visual MODFLOW program, EASYFLOW
program, and flow net method at different points away from the well is shown in Fig. 6..

23.5
23

22
21
19 20 1 2
18 1918 3
17 17
16
4
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
5
7
6
5
4

15 6
14 7
13 8
12 11 10 9

Nf = 20 and Ne = 23.5

Figure 5. Flow net at Sidi-Krir site

Table 2. Predicted drawdown from the

Flow net method at Sidi-Krir site
Distance from Predicted drawdown from
well (m) flow net method (m)
0.25 3.47
1.1 2.73
8.3 1.55
20.5 1.18
50.4 0.75
120 0.35
215 0.068
 0.0

0.5

1.0
Drawdown (m)

1.5
Visual MODFLOW
2.0
EASYFLOW
2.5
Flow nets
3.0
Measured
3.5

4.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Distance from the well (m)

Figure 6. Comparison between measured and predicted drawdown by

Visual MODFLOW program, EASYFLOW program, and flow net
method at different points away from the well at Sidi-Krir Site

Partially Penetrating Artesian Multiple-Well System at Shebin El-Koom, Egypt

The dewatering system at Shebin El-Koom site consists of 8 partially penetrating artesian
wells (Arab contractors, 2005). The well radius was 0.25 m and the pumping rate of each
well was 80 m3/hr. The coefficient of permeability was measured from pumping test to be 3
m/hr. The penetration length was 12 m. The soil profile at Shebin El-Koom site consists of
four layers: the top layer was silty clay of thickness 1 m followed by medium silty clay layer
of thickness 2.0 m, the third layer was stiff to medium silty clay of thickness 4.5 m followed
by sandy clay layer of thickness 1.5 m, and the fifth layer was medium to coarse sand of
thickness 11 m. The arrangement of wells in the site was as shown in Fig. 7.

W1

W8 W2 A
Excavation Boundary Pz2

W7 Pz1 W3
34.0

W6 W4

W5

Figure 7. The arrangement of wells and piezometers at Shebin El-Koom site

The measured drawdown at piezometers Pz1 and Pz2 were 3.4 m and 3.45 m, respectively
(Arab contractors, 2005). This problem is a 3D problem and can’t be solved by the flow net
method. Also, the available mathematical equation (i.e., EASYFLOW program) that
presented by U.S. Army (2004) is only able to predict the drawdown at the center of the
excavation. The predicted drawdown at the center of the excavation by EASYFLOW is 4.08
m.

The arrangement of wells on the 3D mesh of Visual MODFLOW program is shown in Fig. 8.
Comparison between measured and predicted drawdown by Visual MODFLOW program and
mathematical equation is shown in Fig. 9. Referring to Fig. 9, it is observed that: (1)
mathematical equation or EASYFLOW program predicted drawdown value 20% greater than
the measured drawdown, (2) Visual MODFLOW program predicted drawdown value 2% less
than the measured drawdown.

Figure 8. Arrangement of wells on the 3D mesh of Visual MODFLOW

program at Shebin El-Koom site
 0

1
Drawdowm (m)

3 Visual MODFLOW
EASYFLOW
4 Measured

5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Ditance form center of the excavation (m)

Figure 9. Comparison between measured and predicted drawdown from Visual MODFLOW
and EASYFLOW programs along section (A-A) at Shebin El-Koom Site

Partially Penetrating Gravity Multiple-Well System at Sohag, Egypt

The dewatering system at Sohag site consists of 6 partially penetrating gravity wells
constructed to dewater an excavation to place a pipeline of length 200 m (Bondok, 2002).
The diameter and the pumping rate for each well were 0.25 m and 130 m3/hr, respectively.
The coefficient of permeability was 3.6 m/hr as measured from a pumping test. The soil
profile at Sohag site consists of five layers: the top layer was silty clay of thickness 1 m
followed by fine sand layer of thickness 3 m, the third layer was medium to fine sand of
thickness 1 m followed by medium to coarse sand layer of thickness 2 m, and the fifth layer
was medium sand of thickness 13 m.

The arrangement of wells and piezometer is as shown in Fig. 10. The measured drawdown at
piezometer Pz was 3.15 m (Bondok, 2002).

6.10 15.90 7.40 7.90 20.00

W1 W2 Pz W3

8.00 Excavation Boundary

W4 W5 W6
24.10 12.00 15.00 6.50

Figure 10. The arrangements of wells and piezometer

at Sohag site (After Bondok, 2002)
Figure 11 shows comparison between measured and predicted drawdown by Visual
MODFLOW and EASYFLOW programs. As shown in Fig. 11, at the center of the
excavation, EASYFLOW program predicted drawdown 25 % smaller than the measured
drawdown and Visual MODFLOW program predicted drawdown 0.3 % smaller than the
measured drawdown.

1
Drawdowm (m)

Visual MODFLOW
EASYFLOW
3
Measured

4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Ditance form center of the excavation

Figure 11. Comparison between measured and predicted drawdown by Visual

MODFLOW and EASYFLOW programs along section (A-A) at Sohag site

Kinght et.al. (1996)

Kinght et.al. (1996) reported the design and construction of dewatering system for an area of
90000 m2 called Sizewell B with a 56 m deep diaphragm wall of thickness 0.80 m and
average permeability of 1E-8 m/sec. The excavation was 15 m below the groundwater table.
The measurements extended four years after the construction of dewatering system. The
purpose of diaphragm wall is to reduce lowering of groundwater table outside the
construction area to minimize the settlement that may occur below a near power station called
Sizewell A as shown in Fig. 12.

The soil profile at the site (Sizewell B) is shown in Fig. 13. The original groundwater level
was 6.40 m below the ground surface. The location of the dewatering wells was as shown in
Fig. 14. Horizontal and vertical permeabilities were 2.3 x 10-4 m/s and 2.3 x 10-5 m/s,
respectively as determined from pumping tests.

A network of monitoring piezometers (numbers 201 to 212) was installed inside and outside
the diaphragm wall in order to monitor the drawdown in the groundwater level.

As shown in Fig. 15 the average measured drawdown inside and outside the diaphragm wall
from the total discharge of 26 l/sec was 17 m and 2 m, respectively (Kinght et.al., 1996).
 Figure 12. Plan view shows the location of Sizewell B and Sizewell A
(After, Kinght et.al., 1996)

Dunes and
Diaphram wall enclosure beach
Water deposits
levels Original ground level North sea

Excavation

Norwish Crage sands

Stifclay
Stiff caly

Consolidated gray silt

Porly charcterized dense silt and fine silt

Figure 13. Soil profile in the site, Sizewell B, (After Kinght et.al., 1996)
 Diaphragm wall

101 102

103

108
109 104

106 105
107

Dewatering well
0 50 100 m

Figure 14. Arrangement of dewatering wells (After Kinght et.al., 1996)

300 5

250
0
200
Total discharge

Average drawdown
-5
150

100 -10

50
-15
0

-50 -20
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Years
Total discharge Drawdown
flowmeters for each pump) (Average of piezometers 201-206
(cumulative flow of and 211)

Figure 15. Drawdown and discharge plotted against time

(Redrawn from Kinght et.al., 1996)

The dewatering system in this case is complex and can’t be analyzed by EASYFLOW
program and flow net method. Therefore, Visual MODFLOW program was used only to
solve this complex dewatering system. Figure 16 shows the contour lines of the predicted
drawdown obtained by Visual MODFLOW program inside and outside the diaphragm wall.

As shown in Fig. 16, the predicted average drawdown inside and outside the diaphragm wall
is 17.80 m and 2 m, respectively which compared well with the measured drawdown inside
and outside the diaphragm wall.
 Figure 16. Contour lines of the predicted drawdown by Visual MODFLOW
inside and outside the diaphragm wall

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions reached from this study are:

1. The developed program EASYFLOW can be used to easily analyze simple

dewatering systems with satisfied accuracy. Also, EASYFLOW can be used to
rapidly examine various design options.
2. In case of partially penetrating artesian well, the predicted drawdown by
mathematical formulas (i.e., EASYFLOW) greater than the measured
drawdown by 20% and in case of partially penetrating gravity well the
predicted drawdown smaller than the measured drawdown by 25%.
3. Numerical modeling method (i.e., Visual MODFLOW program) can be
successfully used to analyze simple and complex dewatering systems. In all the
studied cases, excellent comparisons are obtained between the predicted
drawdown by Visual MODFLOW and the measured drawdown.
 4. The method of flow net can be successfully used to analyze the dewatering
systems with fully and partially penetrating wells in case of line source of
seepage. However, it can’t be used to analyze the dewatering systems with
partially penetrating artesian and gravity wells in case of circular source of
seepage.

REFERENCES

1. Arab Contractor, (2005), “Report for Lowering the Groundwater Table for Water
Station at Shebin El-Koom,” Egypt.
2. Bondok, Abdel-Aziz, (2002), “Report for Lowering the Groundwater Table for
Construction of Pipeline at Sohag,” Egypt.
3. Bowles, J. E., (1996), “Foundation Analysis and Design,” 5th Eition, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York.
4. Cashman, P. M., (1997), “Control of Groundwater by Groundwater Lowering,”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Civil Engineering, Vol. 145, No.
1, pp 1-8.
5. Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., (2000),
"MODFLOW-2000," The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Groundwater Model
User Guide to Modularization Concepts and The Groundwater Flow Process.
6. Knight, D. J., Smith, G. L., and Sutton, J. S., (1996), “Sizewell B Foundation 18.
Dewatering system Design-Construction and Performance Mentoring,”
Geotechnique Vol. 46, No. 3, pp 473-490.
7. Leonards, G.A., (1962), “Dewatering in Foundation Engineering,” Chapter 3, in
Foundation Engineering, Mansur, C. I., and Kaufman, R., Editors, pp. 241-350
McGraw Hill, New York.
8. McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., (1988), “A modular three-dimensional
finite-difference ground-water flow model,” U.S. Geological Survey, Techniques
of Water-resources Investigations Book 6.
9. Powers, J.P., (1992), “Construction dewatering: new methods and applications,”
2nd edition Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
10. Roshdy, Karim F., (2006), “Evaluation of Different Analysis Methods of
Dewatering Systems,” M.Sc. thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Minufiya
University, Egypt.
11. U.S. Army, (2004), “Dewatering and Groundwater Control,” TM 5-818-5.
12. Youssef, A. A., (2004), “Report for Lowering the Groundwater Table at Sidi-Krir,"
Egypt.

View publication stats