Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal 0784415706, 9780784415702

Citation preview

INVESTIGATION OF LAND SUBSIDENCE DUE TO FLUID WITHDRAWAL Land Subsidence Task Committee

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal Prepared by Land Subsidence Task Committee

Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Land Subsidence Task Committee, author. Title: Investigation of land subsidence due to fluid withdrawal. Description: Reston : American Society of Civil Engineers, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal provides a detailed look overview of the occurrence and control of land subsidence due to fluid withdrawal”--Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021022252 | ISBN 9780784415702 (paperback) | ISBN 9780784483329 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Subsidences (Earth movements) | Water withdrawals--Environmental aspects. | Groundwater. Classification: LCC QE600.2 .A44 2021 | DDC 551.3/07--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021022252 Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia 20191-4382 www.asce.org/bookstore | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in US Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an email to [email protected] or by locating a title in the ASCE Library (https://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415702. Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-1570-2 (print) ISBN 978-0-7844-8332-9 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. 27 26 25 24 23 22    1 2 3 4 5

Contents Preface......................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................ix Chapter 1  Introduction................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................1 1.2 Background...............................................................................................................2 1.3 Occurrence and History of Subsidence...........................................................4 1.4 Problems Resulting from Subsidence........................................................... 29 References......................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 2  Subsidence Processes..............................................................45 2.1 Compaction Caused by Fluid Extraction..................................................... 46 2.1.1 Extraction of Pore Fluids...................................................................... 46 2.1.2 Groundwater............................................................................................ 47 2.1.3 Hydrocarbons.......................................................................................... 48 2.1.4 Geothermal Fluids.................................................................................. 49 2.2 Hydrocompaction................................................................................................ 50 References......................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 3 Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater............................................................................. 55 3.1 Theory of Aquifer-System Compaction........................................................ 55 3.1.1 Principle of Effective Stress................................................................. 58 3.1.2 Aquifer-System Compressibility and Storage Concepts........... 59 3.1.3 Theory of Hydrodynamic Consolidation.......................................64 3.2 Stress Causing Aquifer-System Compaction.............................................. 65 3.2.1 Static Stresses........................................................................................... 66 3.2.2 Dynamic Stresses.................................................................................... 71 3.3 Stress–Strain Relationship in Susceptible Aquifer Systems................... 73 3.3.1 Stress–Strain Analysis............................................................................ 74 3.3.2 Compressibilities of Clays and Sands from Tests in the Lab and Field............................................................................................ 77 References......................................................................................................................... 78 Chapter 4 Identification, Measurement, Mapping, and Monitoring................................................................................83 4.1 Ground-Based Geodetic Surveys................................................................... 86 4.1.1 Precise Differential Leveling............................................................... 87 iii

iv

Contents

4.1.2 Global Positioning System.................................................................. 89 4.1.3 Other Techniques for Measuring Land-Surface Change.......... 91 4.1.4 Extensometry.......................................................................................... 92 4.1.5 Tripod-Mounted LiDAR......................................................................102 4.1.6 Other Techniques of Subsurface Measurement........................104 4.2 Airborne and Spaced-Based Geodetic Surveys.......................................106 4.2.1 LiDAR.........................................................................................................107 4.2.2 Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry...................................108 4.3 Horizontal Displacement................................................................................. 112 References....................................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 5  Subsidence Analysis and Simulation.................................... 121 5.1 Empirical Methods............................................................................................. 121 5.2 Quasi-Theoretical Approach..........................................................................122 5.2.1 Wadachi’s (1940) Model.....................................................................122 5.2.2 Subsidence as a Function of Liquid Extraction.........................123 5.2.3 Ratio of Subsidence to Head Decline............................................ 127 5.2.4 Clay Content–Subsidence Relation................................................ 129 5.2.5 Depth–Porosity Model.......................................................................130 5.3 Theoretical Approach....................................................................................... 135 5.3.1 Aquitard Drainage Model..................................................................136 5.3.2 Poroelasticity Model...........................................................................145 5.3.3 Other Constitutive Models................................................................150 5.3.4 Other Types of Subsidence Models............................................... 151 References.......................................................................................................................154 Chapter 6 Methods to Mitigate Subsidence Caused by Groundwater Withdrawal...................................................... 163 6.1 Reduction in Groundwater Withdrawal.....................................................164 6.2 Artificial Recharge of Aquifer Systems........................................................164 6.3 Case Histories of the Methods Used............................................................166 6.3.1 Shanghai, China....................................................................................166 6.3.2 Venice, Italy.............................................................................................166 6.3.3 Japan.........................................................................................................168 6.3.4 United States..........................................................................................168 References.......................................................................................................................169 Appendix A: S  tandards Used for Laboratory Tests and Field Sampling for Properties of Sediments in Subsiding Areas..................................................................... 173 A.1 General Need of Tests....................................................................................... 173 A.2 Field Sampling..................................................................................................... 173 A.3 Composite Logs of Core Holes...................................................................... 179 A.4 Methods of Laboratory Analysis................................................................... 179 A.4.1 Particle-Size Distribution...................................................................180

Contents

v

A.4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity.......................................................................180 A.4.3 Unit Weight............................................................................................. 181 A.4.4 Specific Gravity of Solids................................................................... 181 A.4.5 Porosity and Void Ratio...................................................................... 181 A.4.6 Water (Moisture) Content.................................................................. 181 A.4.7 Atterberg Limits....................................................................................182 A.4.8 Consolidation.........................................................................................183 A.5 Results of Laboratory Analyses.....................................................................186 A.5.1 Particle-Size Distribution...................................................................186 A.5.2 Hydraulic Conductivity.......................................................................190 A.5.3 Specific Gravity, Unit Weight, and Porosity.................................196 A.5.4 Atterberg Limits and Indexes........................................................... 197 A.5.5 Consolidation.........................................................................................202 A.5.6 Relationships between Soil-Engineering and Hydrogeologic Terms and Concepts.............................................208 References....................................................................................................................... 212 Appendix B: Notations, Symbols, and Glossary....................................... 215 B.1 Notations and Symbols.................................................................................... 215 B.2 Glossary..................................................................................................................220 References.......................................................................................................................226 Appendix C: Conversion Table...................................................................227 Index............................................................................................................. 231

Preface This Committee Report has been prepared by the Land Subsidence Task Committee,  the Managed Aquifer Recharge Standards Committee, and the Environmental and Water Resources Institute’s Standards Development Council of ASCE. The provisions of this document are guiding principles written in permissive language and, as such, offer to the user a series of options or instructions, but do not prescribe a specific course of action. Significant judgment is left to the user of this document. This Committee Report presents the occurrence, mechanics, measurement, analysis and simulation, and control of land subsidence owing to fluid withdrawal with emphasis on groundwater withdrawal. They are drawn from many published scientific and engineering studies and rely heavily upon and complement the Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Ground-Water Withdrawal (Poland 1984) published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The SI and other metric units used in this Task Committee Report can be converted to US customary units by using the table in Appendix C.

vii

Acknowledgments ASCE acknowledges the work of the Land Subsidence Task Committee and the parent Managed Aquifer Recharge Committee, the Standards Development Council, and the Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI). These committees comprise individuals from many backgrounds, including scientists and engineers with a wide range of practical and research experience in civil engineering and earth science. Members of the Land Subsidence Task Committee have been the following: Past Chairs—A. Ivan Johnson, Keith R. Prince, and Devin L. Galloway; Past Secretary—Conrad G. Keyes, Jr.; Chair—Zhuping Sheng; Vice Chair and Secretary—Jiang Li; Members—Brij B. S. Singhal (India material), Earl F. Burkholder, Ahmed Elaksher, Stanley R. Peters, and Bennington J. Willardson. Marti E. Ikehara (retired, National Geodetic Survey) provided valuable assistance in reviewing and revising the geodetic aspects of this document. The EWRI Standards Development Council (ExCom for the ASCE/EWRI standards) approved the total development process and provided the final draft to ASCE Publications for copy editing. The TC members who reviewed this current version of this Task Committee report were as follows: Earl F. Burkholder, Global COGO, Inc. Ahmed Elaksher, New Mexico State University Devin L. Galloway, Scientist Emeritus, United States Geological Survey Marti E. Ikehara, retired, National Geodetic Survey A. Ivan Johnson, retired, United States Geological Survey Conrad G. Keyes, Jr., retired, New Mexico State University Jiang Li, Morgan State University Keith R. Prince, retired, United States Geological Survey Zhuping Sheng, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center at El Paso Brij B. S. Singhal (India material), University of Roorkee Stanley R. Peters, Castle Rock Consulting, LLC. Bennington J. Willardson, Chair of the MAR Standards Committee

References Poland, J. F., ed. 1984. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, App. A–E. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

ix

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Land subsidence can occur on local and regional scales worldwide. Often, it is only discovered after buildings and important infrastructure get damaged. Many mechanisms cause land subsidence. These mechanisms include the following: • Withdrawal of groundwater, oil, and gas from subsurface zones; • Sediment compaction (e.g., hydrocompaction and natural consolidation); • Compaction and oxidation of organic soils; • Dissolution of evaporite and carbonate minerals—karst, subsurface fluid withdrawal; and • Injection-associated geothermal power generation, underground mining, and thawing permafrost. Many subsidence areas throughout the world have been identified in recent decades, and researchers report more subsidence areas every year. It is very likely that many areas of historical and ongoing subsidence have not yet been identified. Accelerating the development of natural resource to sustain growing populations and economies threatens to exacerbate land subsidence. This is especially true in the development of groundwater systems comprising unconsolidated alluvial, lacustrine, or shallow marine deposits. These aquifer systems are particularly susceptible to compaction and accompanying land subsidence. Many planners of industrial complexes, urban developments, and water-resource systems are inadequately informed about the potential subsidence hazards that can result from the extraction of subsurface fluids. These fluids are principally groundwater from aquifer systems but also oil and gas and associated brines from petroleum and natural gas reservoirs.

1.1  PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Ground-Water Withdrawal (Poland et al. 1984) forms the basis for this Committee Report. This book on the Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal presents the occurrence, mechanics, measurement, analysis and simulation, and control of land subsidence 1

2

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

because of fluid withdrawal. Emphasis is placed on subsidence caused by aquifersystem compaction, which typically accompanies groundwater withdrawal from susceptible aquifer systems. Chapter 2 discusses land subsidence processes and is based on previous work by Ms. Alice Allen (Poland et al. 1984). Subsidence has many natural and anthropogenic causes. When investigating subsidence associated with groundwater withdrawal, it is useful to have some knowledge of other types of subsidence and the geologic environments in which they are likely to occur. The rudimentary mechanics of subsidence attributed to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids are presented in Chapter 3. The emphasis is on aquifer-system compaction accompanying groundwater withdrawal. The theory relating the hydraulic and mechanical stresses to deformation of the aquifer system and land subsidence is presented. Chapter 4 reviews traditional geodetic techniques, hydrogeologic techniques, and airborne and space-based techniques for identifying, measuring, mapping, and monitoring aquifer-system compaction and land subsidence. Chapter 5 presents some of the empirical and theoretical approaches to analyze and simulate aquifer-system compaction and subsidence. Chapter 6 briefly discusses methods and measures used to mitigate subsidence hazards associated with groundwater withdrawal. Appendix A presents laboratory analyses and field sampling procedures used to support field subsidence investigations. An index to notations and symbols is provided in Appendix B.1. Definitions of principal terms and concepts used in this book are provided in Appendix B.2. Appendix C contains useful factors to convert SI units and other metric units to United States’ customary units.

1.2 BACKGROUND In the last eight decades, rapidly increasing demands for groundwater, oil, and gas have resulted in most of the major identified subsidence areas. In the United States, subsidence attributed to groundwater extraction has affected large portions of south-central Arizona; Las Vegas Valley, Nevada; and the San Joaquin and Santa Clara Valleys, California. Groundwater extraction accounts for major subsidence in aquifer systems in Mexico City, Mexico. Shanghai and large regions of the North China Plain (NCP) of China are affected. Tokyo and more than 40 other locations in Japan are also affected. Subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal ranges a fraction of a meter in Venice, Italy. Tianjin has experienced more than 3 m; Tokyo has experienced more than 4 m; and Mexico City and the San Joaquin Valley have subsided 9 m or more. Globally, the areal extent of subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal ranges from about 10 km2 in the San Jacinto Valley to 14,000 km2 in the San Joaquin Valley, both in California, to nearly 49,000 km2 in the Hebei Plain, NCP, China. Major areas of subsidence related to oil production include oil fields at Houston-Galveston Bay, Texas, and Long Beach, California; Daqing in China; and Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela.

Introduction

3

Land subsidence related to gas production includes gas fields in the Po Delta in Italy, Niigata in Japan, and the Groningen area in the Netherlands. The total costs (direct and indirect) of subsidence are difficult to quantify accurately and vary widely. In China, the estimate of total cost because of nationwide land subsidence is large—as much as $US 71.4 billion, of which $US 42 billion are estimated for Shanghai (Yang et al. 2005). However, in the United States, and elsewhere globally, estimated damages from known subsidence totals hundreds of millions of dollars (NRC 1991, Galloway et al. 1999, Freeze 2000). Nevertheless, predicted future damages may exceed several billion dollars if no damage-prevention activities are undertaken (Freeze 2000). Many areas of known subsidence are along coasts, where subsidence contributes to relative sea-level rise and coastal flooding which may be exacerbated by eustatic sea-level rise attributed to global warming. Populated and industrialized coastal areas are typically protected from flooding by systems that include dikes, floodwalls, locks, and pumping stations. Subsidence compromises these flood-protection systems because they are lower relative to the sea level. Subsidence changes topographic and hydraulic gradients and often adversely affects the conveyance of streams and the design capacity of engineered canals, drains, and sewers. Structural failure of buildings, pipelines, roadways, and other structures at or near land surface occurs because of tensional or compressional stresses caused by differential subsidence and flexure of the surface sediments. Costly compression and shear failures of deep oil or water-well casings frequently occur (Poland and Ireland 1965, Poland and Davis 1969, Borchers 1998a). Subsidence caused by fluid withdrawal and compaction of susceptible aquifer systems and petroleum reservoirs is often a subtle phenomenon. The problem becomes evident only when pipelines crack, well casings fail, or shorelines are inundated. Fluid injection has been used primarily to enhance groundwater recharge or petroleum production in depleted aquifer systems and oil reservoirs. This has mitigated some of the subsidence in these areas. Even so, most of the accumulated subsidence in these systems is permanent. Much of the source information for this document is derived from previously published land subsidence compilations—guidebooks, summary reports, and symposia and conference proceedings. Most of the remaining source material for this Committee Report is derived from applied laboratory and field research articles on aquifer-system compaction attributed to groundwater extractions. “Land subsidence” was included in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) program of the International Hydrological Decade, 1965 to 1974. In that decade, UNESCO organized the 1st International Symposium on Land Subsidence in Tokyo in 1969. In 1975, land subsidence was retained under the framework of the International Hydrological Programme (IHP) as Subproject 8.4 “Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Groundwater Exploitation.” UNESCO formed the associated Working Group on Land Subsidence that subsequently produced the Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence due to Ground-Water Withdrawal (Poland 1984). The out-of-print “Guidebook” is available in the electronic form at UNESCO (2021).

4

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Since the 1st International Symposium on Land Subsidence, eight more international symposia on land subsidence were convened through the cooperation of UNESCO with the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) and several other agencies and organizations. The proceedings of each of the symposia comprise numerous scientific papers covering the various types of subsidence identified throughout the world (Tison 1969, IAHS 1977, Johnson et al. 1986, Johnson 1991, Barends et al. 1995, Carbognin et al. 2000, Zhang et al. 2005, Carreón-Freyre et al. 2010, Daito and Galloway 2015). The proceedings constitute a rich source of research and case study on subsidence attributed to groundwater extraction. Johnson (2005) gave a historical overview of land subsidence through the first six international symposia and an introduction to the seventh symposium. This book draws extensively from the proceedings of these international symposia. The Proceedings of the Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symposium on Land Subsidence (Borchers 1998b) provided important information for this book. A historical overview of Dr. Poland’s guided subsidence research is given in Borchers (1998b, pp. 1–59). Other useful compilations that provided important information to this Committee Report include Man Induced Land Subsidence (Holzer 1984); Land Subsidence—International Symposium, 11–15 December, 1989 (Singh and Saxena 1991); Land Subsidence—The Last Five Years: Report by Technical Committee TC 12 (Carter and Johnson 1993); Land Subsidence in the United States (Galloway et al. 1999); and proceedings from three conferences convened by the US Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group (Prince et al. 1995, Prince and Leake 1997, Prince and Galloway 2003).

1.3  OCCURRENCE AND HISTORY OF SUBSIDENCE Figure 1-1 shows the selected known areas of subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal in the world. Table 1-1 summarizes and updates information from Poland (1984) on 46 of the principal subsidence areas throughout the world outside the United States. The subsidence is classified in terms of vertical magnitude. The subsiding areas attributed to groundwater withdrawal ranged from minor casing protrusion in Bangkok, Thailand, and 0.15 m of subsidence in Venice, Italy, to nearly 10 m in Mexico City, Mexico. The areal extent of subsidence ranged from small areas of about 25 km2 in the Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, to about 49,000 km2 in the Hebei Plain, China. The reported principal subsidence areas in Japan are integrated over large regions in some cases. For example, according to Yamamoto (1977), Japan had 40 subregional or discrete subsiding areas in 1977, and the number of subsiding areas in Japan is increasing. Most of the subsidence identified in Japan was attributed to groundwater withdrawal from intensely populated topographically low areas bordering the ocean. The city of Nagoya in the eastern part of Nobi Plain, Japan, is one such example. Large areas of this city (about 300 km2) subsided below sea

Introduction

5

Figure 1-1. Principal areas of known global land subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal (see Table 1-1 for areas outside the United States; see Figure 1-2 and Table 1-2 for subsidence areas attributed to groundwater, oil and gas extractions within the United States). level. As a result of legislation, groundwater withdrawal was restricted beginning in 1974 and water levels were recovered. However, excessive recovery of water levels posed problems of liquefaction as the area is prone to earthquakes (Oshima et al. 1991). The subsidence in Shanghai, China, was attributed to groundwater withdrawal that occurred between 1921 and 1965. Poland (1984) identified 17 principal subsidence areas in the United States attributed to groundwater withdrawal (Figure 1-2). Subsidence magnitudes ranged from 0.3 m in Savannah, Georgia, to 9 m on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (Los Banos-Kettleman City area), California. Subsidence exceeding 1 m was identified in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas. California had the greatest extent of subsidence at 16,000 km2, Texas was second with 12,000 km2, and Arizona was third with 2,700 km2. Figure 1-3 shows the 51 selected areas of known subsidence in the United States and the associated aquifer systems where subsidence is attributed principally or secondarily to groundwater or oil and gas extractions. The increased number of areas shown here versus those identified by Poland (1984) reflects new information. Table 1-2 lists some details of each location shown in Figure 1-3. Subsidence in 47 of the areas is attributed principally to groundwater withdrawal. All but 4 of the 47 subsidence areas produce groundwater from 1 of 6 principal aquifer systems— the Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers, the California Coastal Basin aquifers, the Central lowlands aquifer system, the Central Valley (California) aquifer system, the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system, and the Rio Grande aquifer system. Since the publication of Poland’s Guidebook in 1984, the occurrence, recognition, and assessment of subsidence in China has dramatically increased. Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal was observed in 16 cities and provinces

Location name

Latrobe Valley

Inland Basin (Fen-Wei Faulted Basin), Taiyuen, Datong, Yuci, Jiexiu Inland Basin (Fen-Wei Faulted Basin), Xi’an Jianghan Plain, Hubei North China Plain, Anhui North China Plain, Beijing North China Plain, Hebei Plain

Country

Australia

China

116.3915 0.85 (1987) 350 Late (>0.2 m) 1950s–2005 116.8394 2.25 (1998) 48,550 1950–1998 (>0.2 m)

39.9045

38.3059

115.8145 1.2 (1994)

32.9058

360

N/A

114.2794 N/A

30.5723

1970–1994

N/A

1950–1992

109.0000 1.94 (1992) 120

34.3333

100 1961–1978 (>0.2 m) 585b 1956–2000b

112.7041 2.8b

146.4741 1.6 (1977)

Time of principal occurrence

37.6972

−38.2111

Latitude

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

—

—

—

—

—

—

2

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

He et al. (2005), Yang et al. (2005) He et al. (2005), Yang et al. (2005), and Wang and Wang (2005)

Yang et al. (2005)

Yang et al. (2005)

Lee et al. (1996), and Yang et al. (2005)

Ma et al. (2005), Yang et al. (2005)

Gloe (1977, 1984)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States.

6 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Country

126.5554 N/A 120.1652 0.84 (2002) 2,500 (>0.1 m) 121.4817 2.63 (2005) About 400

39.1295

43.8669

30.2531

31.2407

31.5751

117.1908 3.19

37.4460

Yangtze River Delta, Suzhou, Wuxi and Changzhou areas

116.2793 0.3

36.0926

North China Plain, Henan North China Plain, Shandong North China Plain, Tianjin Northeast Plain, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongliang Yangtze River Delta, HangJia-Hu area Yangtze River Delta, Shanghai

120.2868 1.45 (2005) 5,800 (>0.2 m)

N/A

10,000

N/A

N/A

114.3415 0.337

Latitude

Location name

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

1960–2005

1921–1991

1960–2002

N/A

1959–2000

N/A

1970–2005

Time of principal occurrence

—

1, 2, 3

2

—

—

—

—

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Shanghai Hydrogeological Team (1973), Shi and Bao (1984), and Yang et al. (2005) Chen et al. (2003, 2005), Xia et al. (2005), Yang et al. (2005), and Guo et al. (2006)

Li et al. (2006)

He et al. (2005), Yang et al. (2005) Yang et al. (2005)

Yang et al. (2005)

Yang et al. (2005)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

Introduction

7

47.5300

47.7759

Debrecen

Visonta

Hungary

44.5000

44.6500

Bologna

Modena

Italy

−6.2500 36.3300 30.4047

Jakarta Mashhad Valley Rafsanjan Plain

Indonesia Iran

51.5002

London

Great Britain

Latitude

Location name

Country

10.9333 0.85 (1984)

11.3400 2.7 (1984)

106.8333 0.2 (1997) 59.5000 0.9 (2005) 55.9827 0.9 (1999)

20.0315 0.5 (1975)

21.6394 0.42 (1975)

−0.1262 0.35 (1976)

150

500

650 70 N/A

40

390

450

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

1972–1980

1943–2000

1982–1997 1995–2005 N/A

1961–1975

1920–75

1865–1932

Time of principal occurrence

—

—

3 N/A —

—

—

—

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Longfield (1932), Wilson and Grace (1942), and Water Resources Board (1972) Orlóczi (1969), Miskolczi (1967), and Székely (1975) Kesserü (1970, 1972) Abidin et al. (2001) Motagh et al. (2007) Mousavi and El Naggar (2000) Pieri and Russo (1984), Bergonzoni and Elmi (1985), Capra and Folloni (1991), and Stramondo et al. (2007) Russo (1986)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued) 8 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Japanc

Country

33.1584

130.1433 1.238 (2008)

327

 12.3388 0.15 (1976) About 400

45.4343

Chikugo/Saga Plain, Saga Prefecture

 12.1966 1.20 (1977) about 600

44.4157

2,600

Ravenna, including EmigliaRomagna coastland Venice

 12.6167 3.2 (?)

45.0000

Latitude

Po Delta

Location name

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

?–?

1952–1970

1955–1977

1951–1966

Time of principal occurrence

2

1, 2

1, ?

4

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Schrefler et al. (1977), Zambon (1967), and Caputo et al. (1972) Bertoni et al. (1973), Carbognin et al. (1978, 1984b), and Teatini et al. (2005a, b) Gambolati and Freeze (1973), Gambolati et al. (1974), and Carbognin et al. (1977, 1984a) Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan (2009)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

Introduction

9

Country 141.0079 139.7120 139.7956 138.9728 136.7849 136.7227 135.3897 135.4418

Latitude

37.5953

36.1325

35.9218

37.8761

35.0975

35.0432

34.6993

34.6830

Location name

Haramachi, Fukushima Prefecture Kanto Plain, Ibaraki Prefecture Kanto Plain, Saitama Prefecture Niigata Plain, Niigata Prefecture Nobi Plain, Aichi Prefecture Nobi Plain, Mie Prefecture Osaka Plain, Hyogo Prefecture Osaka Plain, Osaka Prefecture 2.922 (2007)

1.490 (2008) 1.581 (2008) 2.965 (2007)

2.827 (2008)

1.774 (2008)

1.194 (2008)

1.647 (2004)

635

50

120

735

804

1650

52

41

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

1935–1942, 1950–1963?

1935–1941, 1955–1965

?–1984

1965–1975?

1955–1973

1961?–2008?

?–?

1969?–1983

Time of principal occurrence

2

2

2

2

2, 4, 5

2

2

2

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

10 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Mexico

Country

Celaya Guadalajara León

20.5219

?

955

−100.8118 >2 (2006)

35.6707

211

900

139.8229 4.488 (2008)

35.5201

2138

−102.2962 1.3 (2004)

139.7065 1.407 (1954)

35.6752

Southern part of Kanto Plain, Chiba Prefecture Southern part of Kanto Plain, Kanagawa Prefecture Southern part of Kanto Plain, Tokyo Metropolitan Abasolo Aguascalientes

21.8806

139.9130 2.115 (2008)

Latitude

Location name

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

1980–2006

?

?–1941, 1955–1984

1930–1940, 1950–1965

1963–1974

Time of principal occurrence

?

2

2,4

2

2,4

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Romero-Navarro et al. (2010) Farina et al. (2007)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

Introduction

11

Country

Latitude

19.4103

19.7108

20.5920

22.1290 19.2879

Location name

Mexico City

Morelia

Puebla Querétaro Valley

San Luis Potosi Toluca Valley

Time of principal occurrence

? ?

−100.9837 −99.6468 2 (2008)

?

−100.4092 2 (?)

−101.2167 >0.8 (2004)

1962–2008

?

1983–present

−99.1305 13.5 (2004) About 225 1862–2004 (?)

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

?

?

?

1,2

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Calderhead et al. (2010)

Carreón-Freyre et al. (2005)

Marsal and Mazari (1959), Comisión Hidrólogica de la Cuenca del Valle de México, SRH. (1953–70), Comisión de Aguas del Valle de México, SRH. (1975), FigueroaVega (1984), and Auvinet (2009) Farina et al. (2007), Padilla-Gil et al. (2010)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

12 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Manila (northern Manila Bay)

Location name

Murcia, Vega Media of the Segura River Taiwan Changhua (Republic County of China) Chiayi County Kaohsiung County Pingtung County Tainan County Yunlin County

Spain

Phillipines

Country

120.4818 120.5733 120.3003 120.5374 120.2974 120.3896

23.9929

23.4562 22.7980

22.4914 23.1748 23.7558

3.22 0.84 (?) 2.24 (?)

1.34 (?) 0.23 (?)

2.29 (?)

.08 (2004)

−1.1297

37.9854

? ? ?

? ?

?

N/A

1972–2004 1988–2004 1975–2004

1988–2004 1987–2004

1985–2004

1993–2004

1991–2003

N/A

>1 (2003)

120.7500

14.8000

Latitude

Time of principal occurrence

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

? ? ?

? ?

?

?

?

Identified mitigation measurea

(Continued)

Liu et al. (2005) Liu et al. (2005) Liu et al. (2005)

Liu et al. (2005) Liu et al. (2005)

Liu et al. (2005)

Siringan and Rodolfo (2003), Rodolfo and Siringan (2006) Tomás et al. (2005)

Selected principal references

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

Introduction

13

Hanoi

Vietnam

21.0238

13.7538

Latitude

105.8547

100.5018

N/A

1.6 (1991)

N/A

4550

?

?

1978–1986+

N/A

Identified mitigation measurea

Time of principal occurrence

Piancharoen (1977), Brand and Balasubramaniam (1977), Yamamoto (1984), Nutalaya et al. (1989), and Yong et al. (1991) Giao and Ovaskainen (2000), Thu and Fredlund (2000), and Rodolfo and Siringan (2006)

Selected principal references

Note: N/A = not applicable. aMitigation Measure: 1 = ground-water withdrawal has been reduced as a result of substituting imported or locally treated surface water; 2 = ground-water withdrawal has been reduced by regulation; 3 = artificial recharge of ground water has been implemented; 4 = pumping of gas-bearing water was stopped by legal action; and 5 = re-injection of all gas-bearing water has been required. bFor Taiyuen. c Accumulated subsidence greater than 0.1 m.

Bangkok

Location name

Thailand

Country

Maximum Area of subsidence subsidence Longitude (m) (km2)

Table 1-1.  Principal Areas of Global Land Subsidence Attributed to Groundwater Extraction Outside the United States. (Continued)

14 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Introduction

15

Figure 1-2.  Magnitude and areal extent of land subsidence for 17 principal subsidence areas in the United States identified by Poland (1984) that are attributed to groundwater withdrawal (the numbers in columns represent the areas of subsidence in square kilometers). in the 1990s. The area of subsidence ranged from 0.3 km2 in Fuzhou to 10,000 km2 in Tianjin, and the total area of subsidence in China was about 50,000 km2. By 2003, however, the total subsiding area had extended to 93,855 km2, affecting more than 50 cities and other areas primarily in the Yangtze River Delta (YRD),

Figure 1-3. Selected, known areas of land subsidence, owing principally or secondarily to groundwater or oil and gas extractions (see Table 1-2) in the 48 conterminous United States and associated aquifer systems. Source: Modified from Galloway et al. (2008).

Arizona

State

Avra Valley

East Salt River Basin

Eloy, Picacho Basin

2

3

Location name

1

Map ID

32.7525

33.2525

32.4372

Latitude

Fluid W

W

W

Longitude −111.3158

−111.6461

−111.5556

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Aquifer name

1, 2, 3

1, 2

1, 2, 3

(Continued)

Strange (1983), Hanson (1989), Hanson et al. (1990), Carruth et al. (2007) Poland (1981), Harmon (1982), Péwé and Larson (1982), Strange (1983), Harris (1994), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008) Pashley (1961), Robinson and Peterson (1962), Winikka (1963/64), Poland and Davis (1969), Schumann and Poland (1969), Laney et al. (1978), Strange (1983), Schumann et al. (1986), Carpenter (1993), Harris (1994)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2.  Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions.

16 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

State

W W W

W

−113.1558 −113.5849 −109.1475

−111.9636

McMullen Valley Basin

San Simon Basin

Stanfield Basin

6

7

8

32.8786

32.2344

33.8147

33.4147

Harquahala Plain

Fluid

5

Longitude W

Latitude

Gila Bend Basin 32.94736 −112.75082

Location name

4

Map ID

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Aquifer name

1, 2, 3

None

None

2

None

(Continued)

Holzer (1980a), Strange (1983), Harris (1997), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008) Laney et al. (1978), Schumann et al. (1986), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008)

Strange (1983), B. Conway personal communication (2008) Strange (1983), B. Conway, ADWR, written communication (2008) B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

17

California

State

Wilcox Basin

11

Antelope Valley

West Salt River Basin

10

12

Tucson Basin

Location name

9

Map ID

34.7344

31.9814

33.5422

32.2217

Latitude

Fluid W

W

W

W

Longitude −110.9697

−112.3733

−109.8814

−118.1333

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Aquifer name

1, 2, 3

2

1, 2

1, 2, 3

(Continued)

Strange (1983), Hanson (1989), Carruth et al. (2007), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008) Poland (1981), Harmon (1982), Péwé and Larson (1982), Strange (1983), Harris (1994), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008) Holzer (1980a), Strange (1983), Harris (1997), B. Conway, ADWR, personal communication (2008) Mankey (1963), McMillan (1973), Ikehara and Phillips (1994), Galloway et al. (1998), Nishikawa et al. (2001), Hoffmann et al. (2003), Leighton and Phillips (2003)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

18 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

State

Chino Basin (and adjacent Claremont and Pomona basins) Coachella Valley

Elsinore Trough (Elsinore, Temecula and Wolf valleys)

14

16

15

ArvinBakersfieldMaricopa area (San Joaquin Valley)

Location name

13

Map ID Longitude

Aquifer name

W

W

W

33.6858 −116.1833

33.6919 −117.4646

California Coastal Basin aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

W, O&G Central Valley aquifer system

Fluid

34.5186 −117.75

35.3669 −119.0189

Latitude

1, 2, 3

2

1

(Continued)

Lofgren (1975a), Poland et al. (1975), Ireland et al. (1984), Ireland (1986), Williamson et al. (1989), Swanson (1998), Galloway and Riley (1999), Faunt et al. (2015) Fife et al. (1976), Geomatrix (1994), Kleinfelder (1996, 1999), Peltzer (1999a, b), Ferretti et al. (2000), Wildermuth Environmental (2006) Ikehara et al. (1997), Sneed et al. (2001), Sneed et al. (2002), Sneed and Brandt (2007) Shlemon and Davis (1992)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

19

State

O&G

Lost Hills35.6161 −119.6603 Belridge (San Joaquin Valley) Lucerne Valley 34.4444 −116.95

19

W

W

Los Banos36.7539 −120.3783 Kettleman City area (San Joaquin Valley)

18

20

W

35.2172 −117.8494

Fluid

Fremont Valley

Longitude

17

Latitude

Location name

Map ID

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

N/A

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers Central Valley aquifer system

Aquifer name

?

1

(Continued)

Sneed et al. (2003), Stamos et al. (2007)

Bull (1975), Bull and Poland (1975), Poland et al. (1975), Ireland et al. (1984), Ireland (1986), Williamson et al. (1989), Swanson (1998), Galloway and Riley (1999), Larson et al. (2001), Faunt et al. (2015) Fielding et al. (1998)

Holzer (1984), Pampeyan et al. (1988)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

20 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

State

Redondo Beach 33.8444

Sacramento Valley

San Bernardino

San Jacinto Basin

23

24

25

26

33.7839

34.1053

39.0233

35.6978

Paso Robles

22

34.9381

Latitude

Mojave River Basin

Location name

21

Map ID Fluid W W  O&G W

W

W

Longitude −116.6114 −120.6217 −118.3881 −121.9581

−117.2942

−116.9572

California Coastal Basin aquifers

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Central Valley aquifer system

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers California Coastal Basin aquifers N/A

Aquifer name

?

1, 2, 3

2,3

(Continued)

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (1990), Hodgkinson et al. (1996) Lofgren and Ireland (1973), Williamson et al. (1989), Blodgett et al. (1990), Ikehara (1995), Faunt et al. (2015) Lofgren (1969), Miller and Singer (1971), Lu and Danskin (2001), Danskin et al. (2006) Lofgren (1976), Holzer (1984)

Valentine et al. (2001)

Sneed et al. (2003), Stamos et al. (2007)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

21

State

Santa Ana Basin

Santa ClaraCalleguas Basin (Oxnard Plain) Santa Clara Valley

Tulare-Wasco area (San Joaquin Valley)

27

28

30

29

Location name

Map ID Fluid

Aquifer name

Central Valley aquifer system

−119.3299 W

35.83

California Coastal Basin aquifers

37.3531 −121.9047 W

California Coastal Basin aquifers 34.1919 −119.1769 W, O&G California Coastal Basin aquifers

Longitude

33.7481 −117.8744 W

Latitude

1

1, 2, 3

?

(Continued)

Tolman and Poland (1940), Poland (1969; 1977; 1984a), Poland and Ireland (1988), Ingebritsen and Jones (1999), Hanson et al. (2004) Lofgren and Klausing (1969), Poland et al. (1975), Holzer (1980b), Ireland et al. (1984), Williamson et al. (1989), Swanson (1998), Galloway and Riley (1999), Faunt et al. (2015)

Bawden et al. (2001), Bawden (2003) Hanson (1995), Hanson et al. (2003)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

22 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

35

36

37

Idaho

Louisiana

Baton Rouge

Raft River area

Savannah area

Dover area

34

Georgia

Bowers area

33

Delaware

Denver area

Wilmington

31

32

Location name

Colorado

State

Map ID

30.4436

42.5989

32.0808

39.1561

39.0594

39.74

33.7892

Latitude

Fluid O&G W W

W

W W W

Longitude −118.2632 −104.9922 −75.4022

−75.5264

−81.0908 −113.2292 −91.1869

Denver Basin aquifer system Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system Surficial aquifer system Snake River Plain basin-fill aquifers Central lowlands aquifer system

N/A

Aquifer name 3

(Continued)

Davis and Rollo (1969), Wintz et al. (1970), Smith and Kazmann (1978), Whiteman (1980)

Lofgren (1975b)

Davis et al. (1963, 1977)

Holdahl and Morrison (1974), Davis (1987)

Holdahl and Morrison (1974), Davis (1987)

Gilluly and Grant (1949), Poland and Davis (1969) Poland and Davis (1969)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

23

Nevada

State

Pahrump Valley

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

−115.1397 W

36.1583 −115.9633 W

Las Vegas Valley 36.1719

40.8589

40

41

Aquifer name

W, O&G Central lowlands aquifer system

Fluid

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

−90.0249

Longitude

−117.1175 W

30.0346

Humboldt Valley

New Orleans

38

Latitude

39

Location name

Map ID

1, 2, 3

(Continued)

Maxey and Jameson (1948), Malmberg (1964), Mindling (1971), Harrill (1976), Holzer (1984), Bell and Price (1991), Amelung et al. (1999), Pavelko et al. (1999), Pavelko (2000), Hoffmann et al. (2001), Pavelko et al. (2006), Bell et al. (2008) Utley (2004)

Rollo (1966), Kazmann and Heath (1968), Zilkoski and Reese (1986), Hart and Zilkoski (1994), Burkett et al. (2003) Baffoe-Twum et al. (2006)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

24 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Corpus Christi

27.7964 −97.4036

45

South Carolina Texas O&G

W

W

46

44

W

Baranagat 40.3108 −74.035 Bay-New York Coastal area Rio Rancho, 35.2417 −106.66 Albuquerque Basin Charleston 32.79305 −79.9412

43

New Mexico

W

39.3808 −74.4514

Atlantic City-Ocean City

Fluid

42

Longitude

New Jersey

Latitude

State

Location name

Map ID

Surficial aquifer system N/A

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system Rio Grande aquifer system

Aquifer name

?

(Continued)

Kreitler (1976), Kreitler and Gustavson (1976)

Paley and Talwani (1986)

Heywood (1997), Heywood et al. (2002)

Balazs (1974), Davis (1977, 1987), Chi and Reilinger (1984)

Balazs (1974), Davis (1977, 1987), Chi and Reilinger (1984)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

25

Utah

State

Salt Lake Valley

Hueco-Bolson, El Paso

48

49

HoustonGalveston area

Location name

47

Map ID

W

40.7596 −111.8883

Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers

Rio Grande aquifer system

W

Aquifer name

31.7664 −106.4961

Fluid W, O&G Central lowlands aquifer system

Longitude

29.7606 −95.37

Latitude 1,2

(Continued)

Pratt and Johnson (1926), Winslow and Doyel (1954), Winslow and Wood (1959), Gabrysch (1969), Gabrysch and Bonnet (1975a), Jorgensen (1975), Gabrysch (1984), Holzer and Bluntzer (1984), Coplin and Galloway (1999), Coplin and Lanning-Rush (2002), Gabrysch and Neighbors (2005) Heywood (1993, 2003), Heywood and Yager (2003) Bawden et al. (2004)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

26 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

WilliamsburgWest Point area

51

Fluid W

W

Longitude −76.9769

−76.5392

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system

Aquifer name

Holdahl and Morrison (1974), Davis (1977, 1987), Pope (2002), Pope and Burbey (2003) Holdahl and Morrison (1974), Davis (1977, 1987)

Identified mitigation measure Selected principal references

Source: Modified from Galloway et al. (2008). Note: Map ID—Map identification number in Figure 1-2; Latitude–Longitude—approximate in decimal degrees, reference datum is NAD83; Fluid—W = groundwater, O&G = oil and gas; Aquifer Name (US Geological Survey 2003)—N/A = not applicable.

37.2753

Franklin-Suffolk 36.7367

50

Virginia

Latitude

State

Location name

Map ID

Table 1-2. Locations of Selected, Known Subsidence in the United States Attributed to Groundwater and Oil and Gas Extractions. (Continued)

Introduction

27

28

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

the North China Plain (NCP), and the Fen-Wei Faulted Basin (FWB) (He et al. 2005, Yang et al. 2005). The maximum subsidence reported was 3.19 m in Tianjin, China. In China, significant increases in water demand created increasing demand on groundwater for water supply. Groundwater constitutes about 45% of the water supply in the NCP, covering an area of 70,000 km2, including Tianjin, Beijing, and the Provinces of Hebei, Shandong, and Henan. The total annual average groundwater extraction in the NCP area was 15.66 billion m3 in the 1970s and 21.10 billion m3 in the 1980s. The extraction decreased to 19.93 billion m3 in the 1990s due to depletion of shallower (300 to 400 m deep) groundwater resources, a shift to extracting groundwater from greater depths (600 m), and efforts to control subsidence (Table 1-3). Groundwater overdraft is common in the NCP area to meet the increasing demand. The estimated total overdrafts were 2.27 billion m3 during 1980 to 1995 in Beijing, 6.44 billion m3 during 1984 to 1993 in Shandong, and 51.8 billion m3 during 1980 to 1997 in Hebei (He et al. 2005). Land subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal has been developing rapidly and is a severe problem in more than 50 cities and provinces in China. Significant land subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal has been reported for the NCP, YRD, and FWB. In the NCP, the total area with subsidence greater than 0.2 m extends more than 52,387 km2—about 75% of the NCP area. Tianjin is the city with the greatest amount and rate of subsidence in China. Cumulative subsidence in two districts in the Tianjin is about 3 m. The average rates of annual subsidence in these two districts in 1985 were 82 and 111 mm/year, respectively. The values of cumulative subsidence in Beijing and Hebei Province are 0.85 and 1.96 m, respectively. In the YRD area, subsidence was reported primarily from Shanghai and the areas of Su-Xi-Chang and Hang-Jia-Hu. Subsidence in the YRD totaled more than 4,200 km2. The maximum subsidence in Shanghai was 2.63 m in 1964 with a maximum annual rate of 287 mm/year that was significantly reduced to Table 1-3.  Average Annual Groundwater Withdrawals in the North China Plain, China. 1970s

1980s

1990s

Province/ city

Amount (108 m3)

Intensity (104 m3/ km2)

Amount (108 m3)

Intensity (104 m3/ km2)

Amount (108 m3)

Intensity (104 m3/ km2)

Hebei Henan Shandong Tianjin Beijing Total

88.04 29.94 13.80 7.14 17.65 156.57

12.04 15.20 4.49 6.44 29.42 11.13

123.50 39.17 16.02 8.09 24.31 211.09

16.89 19.88 5.21 7.29 40.52 15.00

103.40 40.57 22.98 7.48 24.83 199.26

14.14 20.59 7.47 6.74 41.38 14.16

Source: Modified from He et al. (2005).

Introduction

29

17 mm/year in 1971 after artificial recharge was implemented between 1966 and 1990. The largest cumulative subsidence in the Su-Xi-Chang area is 1.45 m. The maximum annual rate of subsidence in the Su-Xi-Chang area is 40 to 50 mm/year. The greatest subsidence measured in the Hang-Jia-Hu area is larger than 1 m. The maximum subsidence rate in this area is 41.9 mm/year. Subsidence observed in the FWB includes the cities of Xi’an and Taiyuan. The total subsiding area in this inland basin extends to 377 km2. In Taiyuan, the largest cumulative subsidence is 1.97 m, with an annual rate of 0.114 mm/year. In Xi’an, the maximum subsidence is 1.94 m, and the greatest annual subsidence rate is 300 mm/year. Intensive groundwater extraction in Hanoi, Vietnam, caused a subsidence of 20 to 60 mm/year estimated during 1988 to 1993 (Thu and Fredlund 2000) and in 1998 (Giao and Ovaskainen 2000). Corollary effects such as enhanced flooding, earth fissures and damage to buildings have been attributed to the subsidence (Rodolfo and Siringan 2006). Excessive pumping of groundwater from confined alluvial aquifers in Bangkok, Thailand, has caused considerable land subsidence that has created flooding problems and widespread damage to buildings and other infrastructure. The rate of groundwater pumping (1.2 to1.4 million m3/day) was twice the naturalrecharge rate between 1980 and 1990. The accumulated maximum subsidence during this period was about 750 mm with a maximum rate of 100 mm/year (Phien-wej et al. 1991). In Kolkata, in eastern India, subsidence concerns were expressed due to heavy withdrawal of groundwater during the construction of the metro rail project. However, there are no measurable accounts of subsidence (Saxena and Singh 1991). Singh and Singh (2005) describe the potential for aquifer-system compaction in the Quaternary alluvium of the Indo-Gangetic plains in areas where groundwater use has increased and groundwater levels are falling. The international survey on land subsidence database, originally started by the UNESCO Working Group (8.4) on Land Subsidence, provides a digital relational database on land subsidence. The database is currently maintained by the US Geological Survey (Prince et al. 2003) to make existing information available for analysis and synthesis of subsidence information and to facilitate the collection of new information about other case studies.

1.4  PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM SUBSIDENCE The problems associated with subsidence caused by aquifer-system compaction accompanying subsurface fluid withdrawal include the following: 1. Changes in the natural gradients of streams, and the as-built gradients of engineered water conveyance structures (canals, irrigation ditches, sewers, and drains); 2. Increased riverine and coastal flooding;

30

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

3. Ground ruptures (earth fissure formation and induced motion of surface faults) leading to damages to engineered structures [pipelines, transportation corridors (roadways, railways, subways), buildings, levees, and dams]; 4. Damage to wells penetrating the deforming affected lithologic units; 5. Changes in erosion and deposition of surficial sediments; and 6. Alteration of freshwater and brackish wetland ecosystems. In coastal areas subsidence typically contributes to relative sea-level rise which exacerbates coastal flooding and shoreline erosion.

References Abidin, H. Z., R. Djaja, D. Darmawan, S. Hadi, A. Akbar, H. Rajiyowiryono, et al. 2001. “Land subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its geodetic monitoring system.” Nat. Hazard. 23 (2/3): 365–387. Amelung, F., D. L. Galloway, J. W. Bell, H. A. Zebker, and R. J. Laczniak. 1999. “Sensing the ups and downs of Las Vegas: InSAR reveals structural control of land subsidence and aquifer-system deformation.” Geology 27 (6): 483–486. Auvinet G. 2009. “Land subsidence in Mexico City.” In Proceedings, ISSMGE TC36 Workshop, “Geotechnical engineering in urban areas affected by land subsidence: The cases of Mexico City, Bangkok and other large cities”. London: International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Baffoe-Twum, E., J. W. Bell, S. W. Tyler, and J. R. Fischer. 2006. “Using InSAR to determine aquifer system response in north central Nevada related to mine dewatering.” Eos Trans. AGU 87 (52): Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H51D-0520. Balazs, E. I. 1974. “Vertical crustal movement on the Atlantic Coastal Plain as indicated by precise leveling.” In Proc., Annual Meeting Geological Society of America. Boulder, Colorado: GSA. https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/. Barends, F. B. J., F. J. J. Brouwer, and F. H. Schröder. 1995. “Land subsidence.” In Proc., 5th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Publication No. 234. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Bawden, G. W. 2003. “Separating ground-water and hydrocarbon-induced surface deformation from geodetic tectonic contraction measurements across metropolitan Los Angeles, California.” In Proc., Technical Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf., edited by K. R. Prince and D. L. Galloway, 81–89. Open-File Rep. No. 03-308. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Bawden, G. W., B. J. Stolp, W. Chang, R. B. Smith, and J. T. Brandt. 2004. “Subsidence induced by ground-water withdrawals across Wasatch Front, Salt Lake Valley, Utah.” Eos Trans. AGU 85 (47): Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract G51B-0083. Bawden, G. W., W. Thatcher, R. S. Stein, K. W. Hudnut, and G. Peltzer. 2001. “Tectonic contraction across Los Angeles after removal of groundwater pumping effects.” Nature 412: 812–815. Bell, J. W., F. Amelung, A. Ferretti, M. Bianchi, and F. Novali. 2008. “Permanent scatterer InSAR reveals seasonal and long-term aquifer system response to groundwater pumping and artificial recharge.” Water Resour. Res. 44: W02407. Bell, J. W., and J. G. Price. 1991. Subsidence in Las Vegas Valley, 1980–91—Final project report. Open-File Rep. No. 93-4, 10 Sect., 9 Plates, Scale 1:62,500. Reno, NV: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Introduction

31

Bergonzoni, A., and C. Elmi. 1985. “La geologia dell’area Bolognese in relazione al fenomeno della subsidenza.” Inarcos 456: 2–24. Bertoni, W., L. Carbognin, P. Gatto, and G. Mozzi. 1973. Note interpretative preliminari sulle cause della subsidenza in atto a Ravenna. Technical Rep. No. 65. Venezia: CNR, Lab. per lo Studio della Dinamica delle Gradi Masse. Blodgett, J. C., M. E. Ikehara, and J. S. Williams. 1990. “Monitoring land subsidence in Sacramento Valley, California, using GPS.” Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. J. Surv. Eng. 116 (2): 112–130. Borchers, J. W. 1998a. “Using down-well television surveys to evaluate land subsidence damage to water wells in the Sacramento Valley, California.” In Proc., Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symp. on Land Subsidence, Case Studies and Current Research, edited by J. W. Borchers, 89–105. Assoc. of Eng. Geologists Special Publication 8. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing. Borchers, J. W. ed. 1998b. “Land subsidence case studies and current research.” In Proc., Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symp. on Land Subsidence. Assoc. of Eng. Geologists Special Publication 8. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing. Brand, E. W., and A. S. Balasubramaniam. 1977. “Soil compressibility and land subsidence in Bangkok.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 365–374. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Bull, W. B. 1975. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal in the Los BanosKettleman City area, California, Part 2, Subsidence and compaction of deposits. Professional Paper No. 437-F. Reston, VA: US Geo1ogical Survey. Bull, W. B., and J. F. Poland. 1975. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal in the Los Banos-Kettleman City area, California, Part 3. Interrelations of water-level change, change in aquifer-system thickness, and subsidence. Professional Paper No. 437-G. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Burkett, V. R., D. B. Zilkoski, and D. A. Hart. 2003. “Sea-level rise and subsidence: Implications for flooding in New Orleans, Louisiana.” In Proc., Technical Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf., edited by K. R. Prince and D. L. Galloway, 63–70. Open-File Rep. No. 03-308. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Calderhead, A. I., A. Martel, P.-J. Alasset, A. Rivera, and J. Garfias. 2010. “Land subsidence induced by groundwater pumping, monitored by D-InSAR and field data in the Toluca Valley, Mexico.” Can. J. Remote Sens. 36 (1): 9–23. Capra, A., and G. Folloni. 1991. “Subsidence controls in the town of Bologna.” In Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. I. Johnson, 443–452. Publication No. 200. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Caputo, M., G. Folloni, A. Gubellini, L. Pieri, and M. Unguendoli. 1972. “Survey and geometric analysis of the phenomena of subsidence in the region of Venice and its hinterland.” Riv. Ital. di Geofisica, Milano 21 (1/2): 19–26. Carbognin, L., G. Gambolati, and A. I. Johnson, eds. 2000. “Land subsidence.” In Vols. 1 and 2 of Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Venice, Italy: CNR. Carbognin, L., P. Gatto, and G. Mozzi. 1984a. “Case history no. 9.3. Venice, Italy.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 161–174. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Carbognin, L., P. Gatto, and G. Mozzi. 1984b. “Case history no. 9.15. Ravenna, Italy.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 291–303. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

32

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Carbognin, L., P. Gatto, G. Mozzi, and G. Gambolati. 1978. “Land subsidence of Ravenna and its similarities with the Venice case.” In Proc., Engineering Foundation Conf. on Evaluation and Prediction of Subsidence, edited by S. K. Saxena, 254–266. Reston, VA: ASCE. Carbognin, L., P. Gatto, G. Mozzi, G. Gambolati, and G. Riccari. 1977. “New trend in the subsidence of Venice.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 65–81. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Carpenter, M. C. 1993. Earth-fissure movements associated with fluctuations in groundwater levels near the Picacho Mountains, south-central Arizona, 1980–84. Professional Paper No. 497-H. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Carreón-Freyre, D., M. Cerca, and D. L. Galloway, eds. 2010. “Land subsidence, associated hazards and the role of natural resources development.” In Proc., 8th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Publication No. 339. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Carreón-Freyre, D., M. Cerca, and M. Hernández-Marín. 2005. “Propagation of fracturing related to land subsidence in the Valley of Querétaro, Mexico.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 155–164. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Carruth, R. L., D. R. Pool, and C. E. Anderson. 2007. Land subsidence and aquifer-system compaction in the Tucscon Active Management Area, south-central Arizona, 1987–2005. Scientific Investigations Rep. No. 2007-5190. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Carter, P. G., and A. I. Johnson. 1993. “Land subsidence—The last five years: Report by Technical Committee TC 12.” In Vol. 5 of Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio De Janeiro, 13–18 Aug. 1989. 3,201. Netherlands: Balkema. Chen, C., J. Cheng, S. Pei, and J. Liu. 2005. “Numerical model of land subsidence caused by groundwater abstraction and its countermeasure—By example of Suzhou City.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 672–679. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Chen, C., S. Pei, and J. Jiao. 2003. “Land subsidence caused by groundwater exploitation in Suzhou City, China.” Hydrogeol. J. 11 (2): 275–287. Chi, S. C., and R. E. Reilinger. 1984. “Geodetic evidence for subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in many parts of the United States of America.” J. Hydrol. 67 (1–4): 155–182. Comisión de Aguas del Valle de México, SRH. 1975. Boletín de Mecánica de Suelos, Núm. 7. Comisión Hidrólogica de la Cuenca del Valle de México, SRH. 1953–1970. Boletín de Mecánica de Suelos, Núm. 1–6. Coplin, L. S., and D. L. Galloway. 1999. “Houston-Galveston, Texas—Managing coastal subsidence.” In Land subsidence in the United States, edited by D. L. Galloway, D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, 35–48. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Coplin, L. S., and J. Lanning-Rush. 2002. Water-level altitudes 2002 and water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper Aquifers and compaction 1973–2001 in the Chicot and Evangeline Aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas. Open-File Rep. No. 01-134, 15 plates. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Daito, K., and D. L. Galloway, eds. 2015. “Prevention and mitigation of natural and anthropogenic hazards due to land subsidence.” In Proc., 9th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence (NISOLS), Proc. IAHS, 372. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Accessed September 5, 2016. http://www.proc-iahs.net/372/index.html. Danskin, W. R., K. R. McPherson, and L. R. Woolfenden. 2006. Hydrology, description of computer models, and evaluation of selected water-management alternatives in the San

Introduction

33

Bernardino area, California. Open-File Rep. No. 2005-1278. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Davis, G. H. 1977. “Potential for land subsidence due to reduction of artesian head in the Atlantic Coastal Plain.” In Proc., Hydraulics in the Coastal Zone, Specialty Conf., 152–160. Reston, VA: ASCE. Davis, G. H. 1987. “Land subsidence and sea level rise on the Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States.” Environ. Geol. Water Sci. 10 (2): 67–80. Davis, G. H., H. B. Counts, and S. R. Holdahl. 1977. “Further examination of subsidence at Savannah, Georgia 1955–1975.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. Land Subsidence, 347–354. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Davis, G. H., and J. R. Rollo. 1969. “Land subsidence related to decline of artesian head at Baton Rouge, Lower Mississippi Valley, USA.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 174–184. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Davis, G. H., J. B. Small, and H. B. Counts. 1963. “Land subsidence related to decline of artesian pressure in the Ocala Limestone at Savannah, Georgia.” In Geological Society of America Engineering Geology Case Histories, No. 4, edited by P. D. Trask and G. A. Kiersch, 1–8. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Environmental Management Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan. 2009. http://www.env.go.jp/water/jiban/dir_h20/index.html Farina, P., Avila-Olivera, J. A., and Garduño-Monroy, V. H. 2007. “Structurally-controlled urban subsidence along the Mexican volcanic belt (MVB) monitored by InSAR.” In Proceedings Envisat Symposium 2007, Montreux, Switzerland, 23–27 April 2007. ESA SP-636, July 2007. Faunt, C. C., Sneed, M., Traum, J., and Rrandt, J. T. 2015. “Water availability and land subsidence in the Central Valley, California, USA.” Hydrogeol J 24: 675–684. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x Ferretti, A., C. Prati, and F. Rocca. 2000. “Nonlinear subsidence rate estimation using permanent scatterers in differential SAR interferometry.” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 38 (5): 2202–2212. Fielding, E. J., R. G. Blom, and R. M. Goldstein. 1998. “Rapid subsidence over oil fields measured by SAR interferometry.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 27: 3215–3218. Fife, D. L., D. A. Rodgers, G. W. Chase, R. H. Chapman, and E. C. Sprotte. 1976. Geologic Hazards in Southwestern San Bernardino County, California. Special Rep. No. 113. Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology. Figueroa Vega, G. E. 1984. “Case history no. 9.8. Mexico., D. F., Mexico.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 217–232. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Freeze, R. A. 2000. “Social decision making and land subsidence.” In Vol. 1 of Proc. Sixth Symp. Land Subsidence, Ravenna, September 2000, edited by L. Carbognin, 353–384. Padova, Italy: La Garangola. Gabrysch, R. K. 1969. “Land-surface subsidence in the Houston–Galveston region, Texas.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 43–54. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Gabrysch, R. K. 1984. “Case history no. 9.12—The Houston-Galveston region, Texas, U.S.A.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 253–262. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

34

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Gabrysch, R. K., and C. W. Bonnet. 1975a. Land-surface subsidence in the Houston– Galveston region, Texas. Rep. No. 188. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board. Gabrysch, R. K., and R. J. Neighbors. 2005. “Measuring a century of subsidence in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, USA.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 379–387. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Galloway, D. L., G. W. Bawden, S. A. Leake, D. G. Honegger. 2008. “Land subsidence hazards.” In Chap. 2 in Landslide and land subsidence hazards to pipelines, edited by R. L. Baum, et al., 33–106. Open-File Rep. No. 2008-1164. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Galloway, D. L., K. W. Hudnut, S. E. Ingebritsen, S. P. Phillips, G. Peltzer, F. Rogez, et  al. 1998. “Detection of aquifer system compaction and land subsidence using interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California.” Water Resour. Res. 34 (10): 2573–2585. Galloway, D. L., D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, eds. 1999. Land subsidence in the United States. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Galloway, D. L., and F. S. Riley. 1999. “San Joaquin Valley, California—Largest human alteration of the Earth’s surface.” In Land subsidence in the United States, edited by D. L. Galloway, D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, 23–34. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Gambolati, G., and R. A. Freeze. 1973. “Mathematical simulation of the subsidence of Venice 1, Theory.” Water Resour. Res. 9 (3): 721–733. Gambolati, G., P. Gatto, and R. A. Freeze. 1974. “Mathematical simulation of subsidence of Venice, 2, Results.” Water Resour. Res. 10 (3): 563–577. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. 1994. Final report ground fissuring study. California. Project No. 2360. San Francisco, CA: California Dept. of Corrections, California Institution for Men, Chino. Giao, P. H., and E. Ovaskainen. 2000. “Preliminary assessment of Hanoi land subsidence with reference to groundwater development.” Lowland Technol. Int. 2 (2): 17–29. Gilluly, J., and U. S. Grant. 1949. “Subsidence in the Long Beach Harbor Area, California.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 60: 461–530. Gloe, C. S. 1977. “Land subsidence related to brown coal open cut operations, Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 399–401. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Gloe, C. S. 1984. “Case history no. 9.1. Latrobe Valley, Victoria, Australia.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 145–153. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Guo, S., J. Yu, Z. Fang, J. Zhao, R. Wang, Y. Zhang, et al. 2006. Investigation and assessment on groundwater resources and geological hazards on Yangtze Delta. [In Chinese.] Rep. No. 200603. Beijing: China Geological Survey. Hanson, R. T. 1989. Aquifer-system compaction, Tucson Basin and Avra Valley, Arizona. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 88-4172. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Hanson, R. T. 1995. “Land subsidence in the Oxnard Plain of the Santa Clara–Calleguas Basin, Ventura County, California.” In Proc., U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf., edited by K. R. Prince, D. L. Galloway, and S. A. Leake, 32–34. Abstracts and summary: Open-File Rep. No. 94-532. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Hanson, R. T., S. R. Anderson, and D. R. Pool. 1990. Simulation of ground-water flow and potential land subsidence, Avra Valley, Arizona. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 90-4178. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.

Introduction

35

Hanson, R. T., Z. Li, and C. C. Faunt. 2004. Documentation of the Santa Clara Valley regional ground-water/surface-water flow model, Santa Clara Valley, California. Scientific Investigations Rep. No. 2004-5231. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Hanson, R. T., P. Martin, and K. M. Koczot. 2003. Simulation of ground-water/surface-water flow in the Santa Clara—Calleguas ground-water basin, Ventura County, California. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 02-4136. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Harmon, D. B. 1982. “Subsidence in northeast Phoenix: a new problem for engineers.” Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology Fieldnotes 12 (3): 10–11. Harrill, J. R. 1976. Pumping and ground-water storage depletion in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 1955–74. Division of Water Resources Bulletin No. 44. Carson City, NV: Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources Harris, R. C. 1994. A reconnaissance of earth fissures near Apache Junction, Chandler Heights, and southwestern Picacho Basin. Open-File Rep. No. 94-11, 2 plates (1:24,000). Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Survey. Harris, R. C. 1997. Earth fissures in the Bowie-San Simon area, Cochise County, Arizona. Open-File Rep. No. 97-19, 1 Plate (1:24,000). Tucson, AZ: Arizona Geological Survey. Hart, D., and D. Zilkoski. 1994. Mapping a moving target—The use of GIS to support the development of a subsidence model in the New Orleans Region, 555–569. Des Plaines, IL: Urban and Regional Information Association. He, Q., X. Ye, W. Liu, Z. Li, and C. Li. 2005. “Land subsidence in the Northern China Plain (NCP).” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 18–29. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Heywood, C. E. 1993. “Monitoring aquifer compaction and land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in the El Paso, Texas - Juarez, Chihuahua area.” In U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf.—Abstracts and Summary, edited by K. R. Prince, D. L. Galloway, and S. A. Leake. Open-File Rep. No. 94-532. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Heywood, C. E. 1997. “Piezometric-extensometric estimations of specific storage in the Albuquerque basin, New Mexico.” In Proc., Technical Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf., edited by K. R. Prince, and S. A. Leake, 21–26. OpenFile Rep. No. 97-47. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Heywood, C. E. 2003. Summary of extensometric measurements in El Paso, Texas. WaterResources Investigations Rep. No. 03-4158. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Heywood, C. E., D. L. Galloway, and S. V. Stork. 2002. Ground displacements caused by aquifer-system water-level variations observed using interferometric synthetic aperture radar near Albuquerque, New Mexico. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 02-4235. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Heywood, C. E., and R. M. Yager. 2003. Simulated ground-water flow in the Hueco Bolson, an alluvial-basin aquifer system near El Paso, Texas. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 02-4108. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Hodgkinson, K. M., R. S. Stein, K. W. Hudnut, J. Satalich, and J. H. Richards. 1996. Damage and restoration of geodetic infrastructure caused by the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Open-File Rep. No. 96-517. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Hoffmann, J., D. L. Galloway, and H. A. Zebker. 2003. “Inverse modeling of interbed storage parameters using land subsidence observations, Antelope Valley, California.” Water Resour. Res. 39 (2): SBH 5-1–5-10. Hoffmann, J., H. A. Zebker, D. L. Galloway, and F. Amelung. 2001. “Seasonal subsidence and rebound in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, observed by synthetic aperture radar interferometry.” Water Resour. Res. 37 (6): 1551–1566.

36

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Holdahl, S. R., and N. L. Morrison. 1974. “Regional investigations of vertical crustal movements in the US, using precise relevelings and mareograph data.” Tectonophysics 23: 373–390. Holzer, T. L. 1980a. Reconnaissance maps of earth fissures and land subsidence, Bowie and Willcox areas, Arizona. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1156, 2 Sheets, 1:24,000. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Holzer, T. L. 1980b. “Faulting caused by ground-water level declines, San Joaquin Valley, California.” Water Resour. Res. 16 (6): 1065–1070. Holzer, T. L., ed. 1984. Vol. 6 of Man induced land subsidence. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology. Reston, VA: Geological Society of America. Holzer, T. L., and R. L. Bluntzer. 1984. “Land subsidence near oil and gas fields, Houston, Texas.” Ground Water 22 (4): 450–459. IAHS (International Association of Hydrological Sciences). 1977. Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Ikehara, M. E. 1995. Data from the Woodland land-subsidence monitoring station, Yolo County, California, water years 1988–92. Open-File Rep. No. 94-494. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Ikehara, M. E., and S. P. Phillips. 1994. Determination of land subsidence related to groundwater level declines using global positioning system and leveling surveys in Antelope Valley, Los Angeles and Kern Counties, California, 1992. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 94-4184. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Ikehara, M. E., S. K. Predmore, and D. J. Swope. 1997. Geodetic network to evaluate historical elevation changes and to monitor land subsidence in Lower Coachella Valley, California, 1996. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 97-4237, Scale 1:63,000, 1 Sheet (folded in envelope). Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Accessed April 21, 2013. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974237. Ingebritsen, S. E., and D. R. Jones. 1999. “Santa Clara Valley, California—A case of arrested subsidence.” In Land subsidence in the United States, edited by D. L. Galloway, D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, 15–22. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Ireland, R. L. 1986. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California, as of 1983. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 85-4196. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Ireland, R. L., J. F. Poland, and F. S. Riley. 1984. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, California as of 1980. Professional Paper No. 437-I. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Johnson, A. I. ed. 1991. “Land Subsidence.” In Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Publication No. 200. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Johnson, A. I. 2005. “A historical overview of land subsidence through the past six symposia.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 7–9. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Johnson, A. I., L. Carbognin, and L. Ubertini, eds. 1986. Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Publication No. 151. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Jorgensen, D. G. 1975. Analog-model studies of ground-water hydrology in the Houston district, Texas. Report No. 190. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development Board. Kazmann, R. G., and M. M. Heath. 1968. “Land subsidence related to ground-water off take in the New Orleans area.” Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc. Trans. xviii: 108–113. Kesserü, Z. 1970. “Felszini süllyedés vizszintsüllyesztés követ-keztében” [“Land subsidence due to the effect of sinking the ground-water table”]. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia

Introduction

37

IV: Bánya vizvédelmi Konferencíaja [Budapest IV. Conference of mine-drainage networks], Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Kesserü, Z. 1972. “Forecasting potential building damages due to the effect of sinking the underground-water table.” In Vol. 5 of Proc., II. Int. Conf. of Mining Geodesy. Budapest, Hungary. Kleinfelder. 1996. Chino Basin subsidence and fissuring study, Chino, California. Project No. 58-5264-02. Diamond Bar, CA: Kleinfelder. Kleinfelder. 1999. Update of subsidence map, Chino, California. Project No. 58-9040-01. Diamond Bar, CA: Kleinfelder. Kreitler, C. W. 1976. “Faulting and land subsidence from ground-water and hydrocarbon production, Houston-Galveston, Texas.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 435–446. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Kreitler, C. W., and T. C. Gustavson. 1976. “Geothermal resources of the Texas Gulf Coast—Environmental concerns arising from the production of geothermal waters.” In Proc., 2nd Geopressure, Geothermal Conf. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas at Austin. Laney, R. L., R. H. Raymond, and C. C. Winikka. 1978. Maps showing water-level declines, land subsidence, and earth fissures in south-central Arizona. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. 78-83, 2 Maps. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Larson, K. J., H. Basagaolu, and M. Mario. 2001. Numerical simulation of land subsidence in the Los Banos-Kettleman City area, California. Technical Completion Rep. Contribution No. 207. Davis, CA: Univ. of California Davis Water Resources Center. Lee, C. H., J. M. Zhang, and Y. X. Zhang. 1996. “Evolution and origin of the ground fissures in Xian, China.” Eng. Geol. 43 (1): 45–55. Leighton, D. A., and S. P. Phillips. 2003. Simulation of ground-water flow and land subsidence in the Antelope Valley ground-water basin, California. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 03-4016. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Li, C., X. Tang, and T. Ma. 2006. “Land subsidence caused by groundwater exploitation in the Hangzhou-Jiaxing-Huzhou Plain, China.” Hydrogeol. J. 14: 1652–1665. Liu, C. H., W. C. Hung, F. L. Tu, S. Ouyang, S. H. Chen, H. P. Huang, and C. C. Lee. 2005. “Integrated investigation of land subsidence due to groundwater pumping in the west Taiwan.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 39–52, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Lofgren, B. E. 1969. Estimated subsidence in the Chino and Bunker Hill–Yucaipa areas in southern California for postulated water-level lowering, 1965–2015. Open-File Rep. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Lofgren, B. E. 1975a. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, Arvin-Maricopa area, California. Professional Paper No. 437-D. US Geological Survey. Lofgren, B. E. 1975b. Land subsidence and tectonism, Raft River Valley, Idaho. Open-File Rep. No. 75-585. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Lofgren, B. E. 1976. “Land subsidence and aquifer-system compaction in the San Jacinto Valley, Riverside County, California—A progress report.” J. Res. US Geol. Surv. 4 (1): 9–18. Lofgren, B. E., and R. L. Ireland. 1973. Preliminary investigation of land subsidence in the Sacramento Valley, California. Open-File Rep. No. 74-1064. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Lofgren, B. E., and R. L. Klausing. 1969. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, Tulare-Wasco area California. Professional Paper No. 437-B. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.

38

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Longfield, T. E. 1932. The subsidence of London. Ordnance Survey Professional Paper, New Ser., No. 14. Lu, Z., and W. R. Danskin. 2001. “InSAR analysis of natural recharge to define structure of a ground-water basin, San Bernardino, California.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (13): 2661– 2664. doi: 10.1029/2000GL012753. Ma, T., Y. Wang, S. Yan, R. Ma, and C. Yan. 2005. “Causes of land subsidence in Taiyuan City, Shanxi, China.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 102–110. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Malmberg, G. T. 1964. Land subsidence in Las Vegas valley, Nevada 1935–63. Water Resources Information Series Rep. No. 5. Carson City, NV: Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources. Mankey, E. T. 1963. Tabulation of elevation differences for earth movement study in Antelope Valley from 1928 to 1960. J.N. 0301.02, variously paged, and Survey Division File Map No. 65-56. Los Angeles: Dept. of County Engineer, Survey Division. Marsal, R. J., and M. Mazarí. 1959. El Subsuelo de la Ciudad de México. Primer Panamericano Congreso de Mecánica de Suelos y Cimentaciones, 614. 2nd ed. Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. [1969, is bilingual in Spanish and English.] Maxey, G. B., and C. H. Jameson. 1948. Geology and water resources of Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Indian Springs Valleys, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada. Water Resources Bulletin No. 5. Carson City, NV: Nevada State Engineer. McMillan, J. F. 1973. Land subsidence—Antelope Valley area of Los Angeles County. Survey Division File Map No. 65-58. Los Angeles: Dept. of County Engineer, Survey Division. Miller, R. E., and J. A. Singer. 1971. Subsidence in the Bunker Hill–San Timoteo area, southern California. Open-File Rep. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey (currently not available online). Mindling, A. 1971. A summary of data relating to land subsidence in Las Vegas Valley. Reno, NV: Univ. of Nevada, Desert Research Institute Publication. Miskolczi, L. 1967. A debreceni mozgásvizgálatok geodéziai tanulságai (Geodetic methodology of land subsidence measurements in Debrecen). Geodézia és Kartográfia 19: 1. Motagh, M., Y. Djamour, T. R. Walter, H. U. Wetzel, J. Zschau, and S. Arabi. 2007. “Land subsidence in Mashhad Valley, northeast Iran: results from InSAR, levelling and GPS.” Geophys. J. Int. 168: 518–526. Mousavi, S. M., and M. H. El Naggar. 2000. “Application of GPS to evaluate land subsidence in Iran.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by L. Carbognin, G. Gambolati, and A. I. Johnson, 107–112. Venice, Italy: CNR. Nishikawa, T., D. L. Rewis, and P. Martin. 2001. Numerical simulation of ground-water flow and land subsidence at Edwards Air Force Base, Antelope Valley, California. WaterResources Investigations Rep. No. 01-4038. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. NRC (National Research Council). 1991. Mitigating losses from land subsidence in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nutalaya, P., R. N. Yong, T. Chumnankit, and S. Buapeng. 1989. “Land subsidence in Bangkok during 1978–1988.” In Proc., Workshop on Land Subsidence—What’s Next. Orlóczi, I. 1969. “Water balance investigations based upon measurement of land subsidence caused by ground-water withdrawal.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 224–232. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology.

Introduction

39

Oshima, T., K. Ueshita, and K. Daito. 1991. “Land subsidence and groundwater condition in Nagoya.” In Proc., Int. Symp. Land Subsidence, edited by B. Singh, and N. C. Saxena, 283–321. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Padilla-Gil, L. L., Ávila-Olivera, J. A., Huape-Padilla, A. G. A., and Granados-Garcia, M. E. 2010. “Need to integrate land subsidence into the legal instruments of Mexico: Morelia, Michoa Michoacán case study.” In Land Subsidence, Associated Hazards and the Role of Natural Resources Development, Proceedings of EISOLS 2010. edited by D. CarreonFreyre, M. Cerca, and D.L. Galloway. 432–434. Publication 339. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Paley, C. M., and P. Talwani. 1986. “Recent vertical crustal movement near Charleston, South Carolina.” J. Geophys. Res. 91 (B9): 9056–9066. Pampeyan, E. H., T. L. Holzer, and M. M. Clark. 1988. “Modern ground failure in the Garlock fault zone, Fremont Valley, California.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 100: 677–691. Pashley, E. F., Jr. 1961. “Subsidence cracks in alluvium near Casa Grande, Arizona.” Arizona Geol. Soc. Digest 4: 95–101. Pavelko, M. T. 2000. Ground-water and aquifer-system-compaction data from the Lorenzi Site, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1994–99. Open-File Rep. No. 00-362. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Pavelko, M. T., J. Hoffmann, and N. A. Damar. 2006. Interferograms showing land subsidence and uplift in Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, 1992–99. Scientific Investigations Rep. No. 2006-5218. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Pavelko, M. T., D. B. Wood, and R. J. Laczniak. 1999. “Las Vegas, Nevada—Gambling with water in the desert.” In Land subsidence in the United States, edited by D. L. Galloway, D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, 49–64. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Peltzer, G. 1999a. “Subsidence Monitoring Project: City of Chino.” March 14, 1999. Peltzer, G. 1999b. “Subsidence Monitoring Project: City of Chino.” May 9, 1999. Péwé, T. L., and M. K. Larson. 1982. Origin of land subsidence and earth fissures in northeast Phoenix, Arizona. Open-File Rep. No. 82-09. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology. Phien-wej, N., P. Nutalaya, and W. Sophonsakulrat. 1991. “Current land subsidence of Bangkok and contemplated remedial measures.” In Proc., Int. Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by B. Singh, and N. C. Saxena, 312–321. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Piancharoen, C. 1977. “Ground water and land subsidence in Bangkok, Thailand.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 355–364. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Pieri, L., and Russo, P. 1984. “The survey of soil vertical movements in the region of Bologna.” In Land subsidence—Proc. of the Third International Symposium on Land Subsidence, edited by A. I. Johnson, L. Carbognin, and L. Ubertini, 235–245. Publication No. 151, Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Poland, J. F. 1969. “Land subsidence and aquifer system compaction, Santa Clara Valley, California.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 285–294. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Poland, J. F. 1977. “Land subsidence stopped by artesian-head recovery, Santa Clara Valley, California.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 124–132. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Poland, J. F. 1981. “Subsidence in the United States due to groundwater withdrawal.” J. Irrig. Drainage Div. 107 (IR2): 115–135.

40

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Poland, J. F., ed. 1984. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Studies and reports in hydrology 40, App. A-E. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Poland, J. F., and G. H. Davis. 1969. “Land subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids.” In Vol. 2 of Reviews in Engineering Geology, edited by D. J. Varnes and G. Kiersch, 187–269. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Poland, J. F., and R. L. Ireland. 1965. Shortening and protrusion of a well casing due to compaction of sediments in a subsiding area in California, B180–B183. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 525-B. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Poland, J. F., and R. L. Ireland. 1988. Land subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, California, as of 1982. Professional Paper No. 497-F. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Poland, J. F., B. E. Lofgren, R. L. Ireland, and R. G. Pugh. 1975. Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley as of 1972. Professional Paper No. 437-H. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Pope, J. P. 2002. “Characterization and modeling of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawals from the confined aquifers of the Virginia Coastal Plain.” MS thesis, Department of Geological Sciences, Virginia Tech. Pope, J. P., and T. J. Burbey. 2003. “Characterization and modeling of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawals from the confined aquifers of the Virginia Coastal Plain.” In Proc., Technical Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf., edited by K. R. Prince, and D. L. Galloway, 49–56. Open-File Rep. No. 03-308. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Pratt, W. E., and D. W. Johnson. 1926. “Local subsidence of the Goose Creek oil field.” J. Geol. 34: 577–590. Prince, K. R., and D. L. Galloway, eds. 2003. U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conf erence, Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Galveston, Texas, November 27–29, 2001. Open-File Rep. 03-308. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Prince, K. R., D. L. Galloway, and S. A. Leake, eds. 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conference, Edwards Air Force Base, Antelope Valley, California, November 18–19, 1992; abstracts and summary. Open-File Rep. No. 94-532. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Prince, K. R., and S. A. Leake, eds. 1997. U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conference, Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 14–16, 1995. Open-File Rep. No. 97-47. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Prince, K. R., R. Sonenshein, and G. Karavitis. 2003. “International land subsidence data base.” In Proc., 7th Int. Symp. Land Subsidence, edited by Z. Agen, G. Shiliang, L. Carbognin, and A.I. Johnson, 524–531. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers. Robinson, G. M., and D. E. Peterson. 1962. Notes on earth fissures in southern Arizona. Circular No. 466. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Rodolfo, K. S., and F. P. Siringan. 2006. “Global sea-level rise is recognised, but flooding from anthropogenic land subsidence is ignored around northern Manila Bay, Philippines.” Disasters 30 (1): 118–139. Rollo, J. R. 1966. “Ground-water resources of the greater New Orleans area, Louisiana. Louisiana Geological Survey.” Water Resour. Bull. 9: 69. Romero-Navarro, M. A., Martínez, J. P., Ortiz, J., de León, M. E. Z., Araiza-Garaygordobil G., and Mendoza, E. 2010. Land Subsidence, Associated Hazards and the Role of Natural Resources Development, Proceedings of EISOLS 2010. Publication 339. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology.

Introduction

41

Russo, P. 1986. “Results of recent levellings in the region of Modena.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. I. Johnson, L. Carbognin, and L. Ubertini, 213–224. Publication No. 151. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Saxena, N. C., and B. Singh. 1991. “Subsidence research in India.” In Proc., Int. Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by B. Singh and N. C. Saxena, 178–187. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Schrefler, B. A., R. W. Lewis, and V. A. Norris. 1977. “A case study of the surface subsidence of the Polesine area.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 1 (4): 377–386. Schumann, H. H., R. L. Laney, and L. S. Cripe. 1986. “Land subsidence and earth fissures caused by ground-water depletion in southern Arizona.” In Regional aquifer systems of the United States, southwest alluvial basins of Arizona, edited by I. W. Anderson and A. I. Johnson, 81–91. Monograph Series 7. Middleburg, VA: American Water Resources Association. Schumann, H. H., and J. F. Poland. 1969. “Land subsidence, earth fissures, and groundwater withdrawal in south-central Arizona, USA.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 295–302. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Shanghai Hydrogeological Team. 1973. “On the control of surface subsidence in Shanghai.” [In Chinese.] Acta Geol. Sin. 2: 243–254. Shlemon, R. J., and P. Davis. 1992. “Ground fissures in the Temecula area, southwestern Riverside County, California.” In Engineering geology practice in southern California, edited by B. W. Pipkin and R. J. Proctor, 275–288. Association of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section Special Publication No. 4. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing. Shi, L. and M. Bao. 1984. Case History No. 9.2. Shanghai, China, Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Studies and reports in hydrology 40, App. A-E. Poland, J. F., ed. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Singh, B., and N. C. Saxena. 1991. In Proc., Int. Symp., Land Subsidence. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Singh, R. P., and K. N. Singh. 2005. “Land subsidence in the Quaternary deposits of the Indo-Gangetic plains, India.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 72–81. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Siringan, F. P., and K. S. Rodolfo. 2003. “Relative sea level changes and worsening floods in the western Pampanga Delta: Causes and some possible mitigation measures.” Sci. Diliman 15: 1–12. Smith, C. G., and R. G. Kazmann. 1978. Subsidence in the capital area ground-water conservation district—an update. Bulletin No. 2. Baton Rouge, LA: Capital Area Ground-Water Conservation Commission. Sneed, M., and J. Brandt. 2007. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using global positioning system surveying and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996–2005. Scientific Investigations Rep. No. 2007-5251. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Sneed, M., M. E. Ikehara, D. L. Galloway, and F. Amelung. 2001. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using global positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996–98. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 01-4193. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Sneed, M., M. E. Ikehara, S. V. Stork, F. Amelung, and D. L. Galloway. 2003. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using interferometric synthetic aperture radar and

42

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

global positioning system, San Bernardino County, Mojave Desert, California. WaterResources Investigations Rep. No. 03-4015. US Geological Survey. Sneed, M., S. V. Stork, and M. E. Ikehara. 2002. Detection and measurement of land subsidence using global positioning system and interferometric synthetic aperture radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1998–2000. Water-Resources Investigations Rep. No. 02-4239. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Stamos, C. L., K. R. McPherson, M. Sneed, and J. T. Brandt. 2007. Water-level and land subsidence studies in the Mojave River and Morongo ground-water basins. Scientific Investigations Rep. No. 2007-5097. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Stramondo, S., M. Saroli, C. Tolomei, M. Moro, F. Doumaz, A. Pesci, et al. 2007. “Surface movements in Bologna (Po Plain—Italy) detected by multitemporal DInSAR.” Remote Sens. Environ. 110: 304–316. Strange, W. E. 1983. Subsidence monitoring for State of Arizona. National Geodetic Survey. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Swanson, A. A. 1998. “Land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, updated to 1995.” In Proc., Dr. Joseph F. Poland Symp. on Land Subsidence—Case Studies and Current Research, edited by J. W. Borchers, 75–79. Association of Engineering Geologists Special Publication No. 8. Belmont, CA: Star Publishing. Székely, F. 1975. “Mathematical model for the cone of depression of waterworks in loose sedimentary basins.” In Proc., Hydrogeology of Great Sedimentary Basins, Conf. of Budapest, edited by A. Rónai, 246–256. Publication No. 120. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Teatini, P., M. Ferronato, G. Gambolati, W. Bertoni, and M. Gonella. 2005a. “A century of land subsidence in Ravenna, Italy.” Environ. Geol. 47: 831–846. Teatini, P., M. Ferronato, G. Gambolati, W. Bertoni, M. Gonella, M. Morelli, et al. 2005b. “Land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in the Emilia–Romagna coastland, Italy.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 55–64. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Thu, T. M., and D. G. Fredlund. 2000. “Modelling subsidence in the Hanoi City area, Vietnam.” Can. J. Geotechnol. 37 (3): 621–637. Tison, L. J., ed. 1969. Vols. 1–2 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence. Publication Nos. 88–89. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrological Sciences. Tolman, C. F., and J. F. Poland. 1940. “Ground-water, salt-water infiltration, and groundsurface recession in Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara County, California.” Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 21 (Pt. 1): 23–35. Tomás, R., Y. Márquez, J. M. Lopez-Sanchez, J. Delgado, P. Blanco, J. J. Mallorquí, et al. 2005. “Mapping ground subsidence induced by aquifer overexploitation using advanced differential SAR interferometry: Vega Media of the Segura River (SE Spain) case study.” Remote Sens. Environ. 98: 269–283. UNESCO 2021. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Studies and reports in hydrology 40, App. A-E. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Accessed on July 26, 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000065167?posInSet=7&queryId=d 3db0442-4cbe-4b0b-9a17-a88e651f5a3f. US Army Corp of Engineers. 1990. “Storm damage reduction for King Harbour (Redondo Beach).” General Design Memorandum No. 3. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles District (Draft). US Geological Survey. 2003. “Principal aquifers of the 48 conterminous United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (ver. 1.0).” Accessed April 22, 2013. http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/aquifrp.html.

Introduction

43

Utley, J. A. “Using InSAR and GPS to Detect Ground Subsidence in Pahrump Valley, Southern Nevada/California.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2004. Print. Valentine, D. W., J. N. Densmore, D. L. Galloway, and F. Amelung. 2001. Use of InSAR to identify land-surface displacements caused by aquifer-system compaction in the Paso Robles area, San Luis Obispo County, California, March to August 1997. Open-File Rep. 00-447. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Unpaginated CD-ROM. Wang, C., and L. Wang. 2005. “The study on controlling the land subsidence of Cangzhou City.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 887–896. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Water Resources Board. 1972. The hydrogeology of the London Basin. Reading, MA: Water Resources Board. Whiteman, C. D., Jr. 1980. Measuring local subsidence with extensometers in the Baton Rouge area, Louisiana 1975–79. Water Resources Technical Rep. 20, 2 Plates. Baton Rouge, LO: Louisiana Dept. of Transportation and Development, Office of Public Works. Wildermuth Environmental. 2006. Chino Basin optimum basin management program: Management zone 1 interim monitoring program—MZ1 summary report. Prepared for the MZ-1 Technical Committee. Lake Forest, CA: Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. Williamson, A. K., D. E. Prudic, and L. A. Swain. 1989. Ground-water flow in the Central Valley, California. Professional Paper 1401-D. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Wilson, G., and H. Grace. 1942. “The settlement of London due to underdrainage of the London Clay.” J. Inst. Civ. Eng. 19 (2): 100–127. Winikka, C. C. 1963/64. “Subsidence in the Eloy-Picacho area.” In Proc., 10th and 11th Arizona Land Surveyors’ Conf., 39–43. Tucson, AR: Arizona Engineering Experiment Station, Univ. of Arizona. Winslow, A. G., and W. W. Doyel. 1954. “Land-surface subsidence and its relation to the withdrawal of ground water in the Houston-Galveston region. Texas.” Econ. Geol. 49 (4): 413–422. Winslow, A. G., and L. A. Wood. 1959. “Relation of land subsidence to ground-water withdrawals in the upper Gulf Coast region, Texas.” Mining Eng. 214: 1030–1034. Wintz, W. A., Jr., R. G. Kazmann, and Smith, C. G., Jr. 1970. Subsidence and ground water off take in the Baton Rouge area. Bulletin No. 6. Baton Rouge, LO: Louisiana State Univ., Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute. Xia, Y., J. Wu, X. Shi, B. Jiang, and X. Zhu. 2005. “Forecast of subsidence caused by pumping shallow groundwater in the representative plot of Suzhou–Wuxi–Changzhou area.” In Vol. 2 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 736–743. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Yamamoto, S. 1977. “Recent trend of land subsidence in Japan.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 9–15. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Yamamoto, S. 1984. “Case history no. 9.6. Nobi Plain, Japan.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 195–204. Studies and Reports in Hydrology No. 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Yang, G., Z. Wei, and C. Huang. 2005. “Advances and challenge in research on land subsidence in China.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 3–9. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers.

44

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Yong, R. N., P. Nutalaya, A. M. O. Mohamed, and D. M. Xu. 1991. “Land subsidence and flooding in Bangkok.” In Proc., 4th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, edited by A. I. Johnson, 407–416. Publication No. 200. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Zambon, M. 1967. “Abbassamenti del suolo per estrazioni di acqua e gas-Deduzioni ed indirizzi logicamente consequenti per la sistemazione del Delta del diume Po.” In Atti del XXIII Congresso Nazionale delle Bonifiche, 345–370. Zhang, A., S. Gong, L. Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, eds. 2005. Vols. 1–2 of Proc., 7th Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers. Zilkoski, D. B., and S. M. Reese. 1986. Subsidence in the vicinity of New Orleans as indicated by analysis of geodetic leveling data. Technical Rep. NOS 120 NGS 38. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

CHAPTER 2

Subsidence Processes

Subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal develops principally under two types of contrasting environments and mechanical processes. The first is aquifer-system compaction in unconsolidated deposits comprising a significant fraction of finegrained compressible material (silts and clays). The second is collapsing cavities in areas with underground voids such as those that occur naturally in karst terrains. Aquifer-system compaction is the principal emphasis of this committee report. Most of the subsiding areas listed in Tables 1-1 to 1-3, where subsidence is attributed mostly or in part to groundwater extraction, occur over aquifer systems comprising aquifers and aquitards (confining units and interbeds). The aquifers typically comprise a significant fraction of coarse-grained (sands and gravels) deposits with relatively high horizontal (lateral) permeability and relatively low compressibility. The aquitards are fine grained (clays and silts) with low (horizontal and vertical) permeability and high compressibility. The aquifers in these systems tend to transmit most of the groundwater supplied to the extraction wells, and the aquitards tend to supply much of the extracted groundwater derived from storage in the aquifer system. The lowering of hydraulic heads in the aquifers in response to groundwater extraction creates vertical hydraulic gradients that drive groundwater from the aquitards to the aquifers. As hydraulic heads in the aquitards decline in response to groundwater drainage into the aquifers, the effective or intergranular stresses in the aquitards increase and cause the aquitards to compact. Some compaction also occurs in the coarse-grained fraction of the aquifer, but this tends to be relatively small and largely reversible. Aggregate compaction throughout the thickness of the aquifer system manifests as land subsidence. Aquitard compressibility is governed by the mechanical and physicochemical factors of the clay minerals (principally montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite, and chlorite). The most compressible mineral of the fine-grained fraction of the aquitards is the clay mineral montmorillonite. Montmorillonite is prevalent in many aquifer systems affected by compaction and subsidence attributed to groundwater extraction. Poland (1984) found that montmorillonite constitutes 60% to –80% of the clay minerals in the affected aquifer systems in California (Meade 1967), Arizona (Poland 1968), Texas (Corliss and Meade 1964), and Mexico City (Marsal and Mazarí 1959). Illite is the principal clay mineral in 45

46

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

compacting aquifer systems in the Tapei Basin, Taiwan (Hwang and Wu 1969), and Tokyo (Tokyo Metropolitan Government 1969). The second type of subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal is the collapse of cavities or underground voids. These underground voids may be saturated and partially filled with unconsolidated deposits, and they receive buoyant support from the groundwater and variably saturated infilling deposits. When the water table is lowered, the buoyant support is removed, the hydraulic gradient increases, and the overlying unconsolidated material may move downward into openings in the underlying voids (Poland 1984). This type of subsidence occurs in karst terrains and is manifest by sinkholes. According to Newton (1977, 1984), an estimated 4,000 anthropogenic sinkholes had formed in the karst regions of Alabama since 1900, in contrast to less than 50 natural sinkholes. In addition, thousands of anthropogenic sinkholes with diameters ranging from 1 to 100 m are found in carbonate terrain from Florida to Pennsylvania (Stringfield and Rapp 1977). Carbonate and evaporite rocks are susceptible to sinkhole formation when the water table is lowered. In populated areas, the formation of sinkholes can produce a variety of problems related to the maintenance of human-made structures and pollution of water supplies (Poland 1984).

2.1  COMPACTION CAUSED BY FLUID EXTRACTION Compaction or land subsidence associated with extracting fluids such as water, crude oil, and natural gas from subsurface formations is the best understood of all natural and anthropogenic land-subsidence processes.

2.1.1  Extraction of Pore Fluids Many subsidence areas where subsidence is caused by pumping of groundwater, hydrocarbons, and geothermal fluids have been identified, monitored for surface and subsurface changes, and ameliorated based on devised corrective measures. Decades ago, the topic of “Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal” was reviewed by Poland and Davis (1969). Experience in identifying and coping with subsidence caused by groundwater withdrawal is reported in the case histories of Poland (1984). Extraction of subsurface fluids, principally groundwater, from clastic sediments has permanently lowered the elevations of about 26,000 km2 of land in the conterminous United States—an area of a similar extent to the State of Massachusetts (Holzer and Galloway 2005). Permanent subsidence can occur when fluids are removed by pumpage or drainage. The reduction of fluid pressure in the pores and cracks of aquifer systems, and petroleum and geothermal reservoirs, results in deformation of the aquifer system or reservoir. Both the aquifers and the aquitards that constitute the aquifer systems, and their equivalents in petroleum and geothermal reservoirs, undergo deformation but to different

Subsidence Processes

47

degrees. Almost all the permanent subsidence in aquifer systems is attributable to the compaction of aquitards during the typically slow process of aquitard drainage (Tolman and Poland 1940). This chapter focuses on the development of groundwater resources in aquifer systems because most subsidence attributed to subsurface-fluid withdrawal is caused by groundwater extractions (Galloway et al. 1999). The subsidence process is similar for hydrocarbon and geothermal resource development. Two types of ground motion typically occur in susceptible aquifer systems and hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs: deformation and ground failures. Deformation in the form of vertical and horizontal displacements occurring on the land surface or at depth is the principal hazard associated with subsurfacefluid extraction. Other types of geological hazards and ground failures, namely, earth fissures and surface faults, are associated with areas of differential vertical ground displacement (Galloway et al. 2008; Holzer 1980a, 1984b). Earth fissures can be caused by both horizontal and differential vertical movements of the aquifer system due to fluid withdrawal from the aquifer (Li 2007a, b, c; Helm 1994; Sheng et al. 2003).

2.1.2 Groundwater More than 80% of the identified 44,000 km2 of subsidence in the Unites States is a consequence of human impact on subsurface water. The rising demand for water, spurred by the increasing development of land and water resources, will exacerbate existing land-subsidence problems and initiate new ones. Most of the waterrelated subsidence is caused by the compaction of compressible sediments in and around areas of extensive groundwater pumping. Land subsidence attributable to aquifer-system compaction is an overlooked hazard and an environmental consequence of groundwater withdrawal in many areas (Galloway et al. 1999). The arid southwestern United States is especially vulnerable because surface-water supplies are limited and groundwater in unconsolidated basin-fill deposits is a major source of water supply. Coastal regions are commonly affected because they are often underlain by unconsolidated, compressible coastal plain and shallow marine sediments. Some of the hazards and environmental consequences include damage to engineered structures, earth fissures, increased coastal and riverine flooding, loss of saltwater- and freshwater-marsh ecosystems, and reactivation of surface faults creating new potential pathways for surface runoff to contaminate aquifers. Long-term groundwater-level declines can result in a vast one-time release of “water of compaction” from compacting aquitards. This manifests itself as land subsidence and is common in alluvial aquifer systems, especially those including semiconsolidated, low-permeability silt and clay layers (aquitards) of sufficient aggregate thicknesses. This water can be a significant percentage of the total pumpage. For example, Lofgren (1975) estimated that 40% of the water pumped from the middle of the Arvin-Maricopa subsidence area in the southern San Joaquin Valley, California, was derived from permanent compaction of the

48

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

aquifer system. This represents a roughly equivalent overall reduction in the total storage capacity of the aquifer system. This “water of compaction” cannot be restored by allowing water levels to recover to their predevelopment status because of nonelastic/nonrecoverable compaction of the aquitard. In recent decades, increasing recognition has been given to the critical role of aquitards in the intermediate and long-term response of alluvial aquifer systems to groundwater pumpage. In many such systems, interbedded layers of silts and clays, once dismissed as nonwater-yielding, constitute the bulk of the groundwater storage capacity of the confined aquifer system. These aquitards have substantially greater porosity and compressibility and, in many cases, have a greater aggregate thickness compared with the more transmissive, coarser-grained sand and gravel layers. Aquitards are much less permeable than aquifers, and the vertical drainage of aquitards into adjacent pumped aquifers may proceed very slowly. This causes the aquitard to lag far behind the changing water levels in adjacent aquifers. The duration of a typical irrigation season may allow only a modest fraction of the potential yield from aquitard storage to enter the aquifer system before pumping ceases for the season and groundwater levels recover in the aquifers. Such lagged response within the inner portions of a thick aquitard may be largely isolated from the higher frequency seasonal fluctuations and influenced more by lowerfrequency, longer-term trends of changes in groundwater levels. The aquitard is compacted because more fluid is squeezed from the interior of the aquitard. Recent overviews of anthropogenic land subsidence attributed to groundwater extraction are presented by Gambolati et al. (2006), Galloway and Burbey (2011), Galloway (2013), Galloway and Sneed (2013), and Galloway and Leake (2017). The mechanics of aquifer-system compaction are discussed in Chapter 3.

2.1.3 Hydrocarbons Land subsidence caused by hydrocarbon production has been documented in basins throughout the world (Poland and Davis 1969, Yerkes and Castle 1969, Martin and Serdengecti 1984, Van Hasselt 1992, Chilingarian et al. 1995, Nagel 2001). The first subsidence attributed to subsurface-fluid withdrawal in the literature was the subsidence of the Goose Creek oil field on Galveston Bay near Houston, Texas (Pratt and Johnson 1926). The subsided volume amounted to about 20% of the produced volume of oil, gas, water, and sand. The subsidence submerged the nearby Gaillard Peninsula in the bay. Morton et  al. (2006) attributed some of the subsidence along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast to hydrocarbon production. This subsidence is contributing to relative sea-level rise and loss of wetlands. In Japan, heavy extraction of gas and brine from poorly consolidated sediments in the coastal city of Niigata caused a part of the city to sink below sea level in 1961. Parts of the city and port of Long Beach, California, suffered major problems from rapid (as much as 0.75 m/year) land subsidence from 1937 to 1962. The subsidence was related to the extraction of oil, gas, and associated water from the underlying Wilmington oil field (Harris and Harlow 1947, Gilluly and Grant

Subsidence Processes

49

1949, Mayuga and Allen 1969, Poland and Davis 1969). The principal problems in Long Beach were caused by flooding, but structura damage to infrastructure, including pipelines, was attributed to horizontal strains on the periphery of the subsidence bowl. The total subsidence in Long Beach, California, was as large as 9 m before the land surface was stabilized by an integrated program of fluid injection to balance the extraction. The amount of subsidence at Long Beach, California, was nearly proportional to (about 39%) the amount of oil and associated water extracted (Poland and Davis 1969). The Lost Hills and Belridge oil fields in the San Joaquin Valley, California, subsided at a rate of about 400 mm/ year during 1995 to 1996. Subsidence was attributed to the compaction of the petroleum reservoirs (Fielding et al. 1998). The area of Daqing is the largest oil-producing region in China. Crude-oil production began in 1959 and natural gas production began in 1961 from the Daqing Oil Field. In 1976, the oilfield’s annual crude-oil production exceeded 45 million metric tons. In 2007, about 37 million metric tons of crude oil and more than 2.5 billion m3 of natural gas were produced (CNPC, 2009). As much as 1.5 m of land subsidence attributed to oil and gas extraction has occurred. The subsidence has been further complicated by groundwater withdrawal. In the mid-1980s, the technique of waterflooding was applied to maintain peak rates of oil production. This technique increased annual crude-oil production by more than 3.0 million metric tons but required significant amount of groundwater; about 3 metric tons of injected groundwater was required to produce 1 metric ton of crude oil. As a result, 3.9 × 108 m3/year of groundwater was extracted from a shallow aquifer at depths from 86 to 184 m and subsequently recharged into the oil reservoir at a depth of about 1.37 km. Groundwater levels in the shallow aquifer have declined as much as 50 m, and a widespread 5,560 km2 cone of depression in the groundwater potentiometric surface has developed in Daqing. The estimated maximum cumulative subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawal was about 1 m (Zhou et al. 2005).

2.1.4  Geothermal Fluids Several areas have experienced subsidence because of fluid withdrawal from geothermal fields, including Wairakei in New Zealand (Figure 2-1) and the Imperial Valley, Long Valley, and Geysers in California (Howle et al. 2003, Allis et al. 2009). In Wairakei, the ground surface has subsided by as much as 15 m since 1953 at annual rates as high as 450 mm during the 1970s (Allis et al. 2009). Subsidence in these areas depends on fluid pressure and temperature changes. This is unlike subsidence in groundwater and petroleum reservoirs, where the changes are largely isothermal. In groundwater and petroleum reservoirs, the reinjection of fluids to maintain fluid pressure can arrest subsidence. In geothermal fields, the cooler reinjected fluids can exacerbate thermally induced subsidence. At the Casa Diablo geothermal well field near Mammoth Lakes, California, subsidence attributed to geothermal fluid extraction and thermal contraction of the rocks is superimposed on caldera-scale uplift attributed to magmatic intrusion at depth occurring near the Long Valley Caldera (Howle et al. 2003).

50

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Figure 2-1.  Land subsidence in the Wairakei-Tauharo geothermal system, Wairakei, New Zealand, 1953–2005. Source: Modified from Figure 6 of Allis et al. (2009), with permission from Elsevier.

2.2 HYDROCOMPACTION Certain materials of unusually low density, deposited in areas of low rainfall, undergo significant compaction when they become thoroughly wetted. These natural soils or fills are often described as being metastable. When water is first applied in quantities sufficient to penetrate below the root zone, the clay bonds are drastically weakened by wetting. The weight of the overburden then crushes out the excess porosity. The process of densifying to achieve the strength required to

Subsidence Processes

51

support the existing overburden may reduce the bulk volume by as much as 10%, the amounts increasing with increasing depth and overburden load. The process, termed “hydrocompaction,” “near-surface subsidence,” or “hydroconsolidation,” produces rapid and irregular subsidence of the ground surface, ranging from 1 to nearly 5 m (Poland 1984). A review of the phenomenon of hydrocompaction by Lofgren and Klausing (1969) describes the process and associated subsidence occurrences in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Most of the potential hydrocompaction latent in anomalously dry, lowdensity sediments is realized as rapidly as the sediments are thoroughly wetted. The process goes rapidly to completion with the initial thorough wetting and is not subject to reactivation through subsequent cycles of decreasing and increasing moisture content. However, an increase in the surface load, such as a bridge footing or a canal full of water, can cause additional compaction in prewetted sediments. A hydrocompaction event is largely controlled by the rate at which the wetting front of infiltrating water can move downward through the sediments. A site underlain by a thick sequence of poorly permeable sediments may continue to subside for months or years as the slowly descending wetting front weakens progressively deeper deposits. If the surface-water source is seasonal or intermittent, the progression is further delayed. Localized compaction beneath a water-filled pond or ditch often leads to vertical shear failure at a depth between the water-weakened sediments and the surrounding dry material. On the surface, this process surrounds the subsiding flooded area with an expanding series of concentric tensional fissures with considerable vertical offsets. This is a severely destructive event when it occurs beneath an engineered structure. Reclamation projects that import and distribute irrigation water have encountered subsidence problems in dry areas underlain by loess and mudflow deposits. Studies conducted in the mid-1950s led to a better understanding of hydrocompaction and to the identification of long reaches of the California Aqueduct route through the San Joaquin Valley, which were underlain by deposits susceptible to hydrocompaction. Construction of the aqueduct through these reaches was preceded by prewetting the full thickness of susceptible deposits beneath the aqueduct alignment. Prewetting compacted deposits to a nearly stable state. These measures added more than 2 years and millions of dollars to the cost of the project. Field and laboratory studies of the hydrocompaction mechanisms and requisite conditions preceded the construction of the California Aqueduct (Bull 1964, CDWR 1964). The laboratory tests included analyses of soil cores from depths to 30 m. Field investigations included studies of continuously flooded test plots equipped with subsurface benchmarks at various depths and, in some cases, with soil-moisture probes. These studies demonstrated that hydrocompaction occurred in the alluvial-fan sediments above the highest prehistoric water table and in areas where sparse rainfall and ephemeral runoff had never penetrated below the zone subject to summer desiccation by evaporation and transpiration. In these circumstances, the initial high porosity of the sediments is sun-baked

52

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

into the deposits and preserved by their high dry strength. Numerous bubble cavities and desiccation cracks often increase the porosity in these soils. The porosity and cracks often were preserved even if the soil was subjected to the increasing load of more than 30 m of accumulating overburden. In the San Joaquin Valley, California, such conditions are associated with areas of very low average rainfall and infrequent, flashy, sediment-laden runoff from small, relatively steep upland watersheds underlain by easily eroded shales and mudstones. The resulting muddy debris flow and poorly sorted stream sediments typically contain montmorillonite clay in proportions that cause it to act, when dry, as a strong interparticulate bonding agent. Aeolian soils or loess deposits within arid or semiarid terrain often have low in-place densities resulting from cementation and/ or negative pore-suction particle bonding. Fine-grained soils placed under dry conditions and without effective watering during compaction result in susceptible fill. Numerous cases of settlement or collapse of these susceptible fills exist with thicknesses of up to 30 m.

References Allis, R., C. Bromley, and S. Currie. 2009. “Update on subsidence at the Wairakei–Tauhara geothermal system, New Zealand.” Geothermics 38 (1): 169–180. Bull, W. B. 1964. Alluvial fans and near-surface subsidence in Western Fresno County, California. Professional Paper No. 437-A. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 1964. Design and construction studies of shallow land subsidence for the California Aqueduct in the San Joaquin Valley—Interim report. Sacramento, CA: CDWR. CNPC. 2009. Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.cnpc.com.cn/cnpc/index.shtml. Chilingarian, G. V., E. C. Donaldson, and T. F. Yen, eds. 1995. Vol. 41 of Subsidence due to fluid withdrawal (developments in petroleum science). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Corliss, J. B., and R. H. Meade. 1964. Clay minerals from an area of land subsidence in the Houston-Galveston Bay area, Texas. Professional Paper No. 501-C, C79-C81. Geological Survey Research. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Fielding, E. J., R. G. Blom, and R. M. Goldstein. 1998. “Rapid subsidence over oil fields measured by SAR interferometry.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 27: 3215–3218. Galloway, D. L. 2013. “Subsidence induced by underground extraction.” In Encyclopedia of natural hazards, edited by P. T. Bobrowsky, 979–985. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Galloway, D. L., G. W. Bawden, S. A. Leake, and D. G. Honegger. 2008. “Land subsidence hazards.” In Chap. 2 in Landslide and land subsidence hazards to pipelines, edited by R. L. Baum, et al., 33–106. Open-File Rep. No. 2008-1164. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Galloway, D. L., and T. J. Burbey. 2011. “Review—Land subsidence accompanying groundwater extraction.” Hydrogeol. J. 19 (8): 1459–1486. Galloway, D. L., D. R. Jones, and S. E. Ingebritsen, eds. 1999. Land subsidence in the United States. Circular No. 1182. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Galloway, D. L., and S. A. Leake. 2017. “Regional land subsidence caused by the compaction of susceptible aquifer systems accompanying groundwater extraction.” In Chap. 56 in Handbook of applied hydrology. 2nd ed., edited by V. P. Singh, 56.1–56.11. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Subsidence Processes

53

Galloway, D. L., and M. Sneed. 2013. “Analysis and simulation of regional subsidence accompanying groundwater abstraction and compaction of susceptible aquifer systems in the USA.” B. Soc. Geol. Mex. 65 (1): 123–136. Gambolati, G., P. Teatini, and M. Ferronato. 2006. “Anthropogenic land subsidence.” In Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences, part 13, groundwater, ed. by M. G. Anderson, 1–17. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Gilluly, J., and U. S. Grant. 1949. “Subsidence in the Long Beach Harbor Area, California.” Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 60: 461–530. Harris, F. M., and E. H. Harlow. 1947. “Subsidence of the Terminal Island-Long Beach Area, California.” Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Proc. 73 (8): 1197–1218. Helm, D. C. 1994. “Horizontal aquifer movement in a Theis–Thiem confined aquifer system.” Water Resour. Res. 30 (4): 953–964. Holzer, T. L. 1980a. Reconnaissance maps of earth fissures and land subsidence, Bowie and Willcox areas, Arizona. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1156, 2 Sheets, 1:24,000. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Holzer, T. L. 1984b. “Ground failure induced by ground-water withdrawal from unconsolidated sediment.” In Vol. 6 of Man-induced land subsidence. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, edited by T. L. Holzer, 67–105. Reston, VA: Geological Society of America. Holzer, T. L., and D. L. Galloway. 2005. “Impacts of land subsidence caused by withdrawal of underground fluids in the United States.” In Vol. 16 of Humans as geologic agents. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, edited by J. Ehlen, W. C. Haneberg, and R. A. Larson, 87–99. Reston, VA: Geological Society of America. Howle, J. F., J. O. Langbein, C. D. Farrar, and S. K. Wilkinson. 2003. “Deformation near the Casa Diablo geothermal well field and related processes Long Valley caldera, Eastern California, 1993–2000.” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 127 (3–4): 365–390. Hwang, J. M., and C. M. Wu. 1969. “Land subsidence problems in Taipei Basin.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 21–34. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Li, J. 2007a. “Transient radial movement of a confined leaky aquifer due to variable well flow rates.” J. Hydrol. 333 (2–4): 542–553. Li, J. 2007b. “Analysis of radial movement of an unconfined leaky aquifer due to pumping and injection.” Hydrogeol. J. 15 (6): 1063–1076. Li, J. 2007c. “ Analysis of radial movement of a confined aquifer due to pumping and injection.” Hydrogeol. J. 15 (3): 442–458. Lofgren, B. E. 1975. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, Arvin-Maricopa area, California. Professional Paper No. 437-D. US Geological Survey. Lofgren, B. E., and R. L. Klausing. 1969. Land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, Tulare-Wasco area California. Professional Paper No. 437-B. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Marsal, R. J., and M. Mazarí. 1959. El Subsuelo de la Ciudad de México. Primer Panamericano Congreso de Mecánica de Suelos y Cimentaciones, 614. 2nd ed. [1969, bilingual in Spanish and English.] Martin, J. C., and S. Serdengecti. 1984. “Subsidence over oil and gas fields.” In Vol. 6 of Man-induced land subsidence. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, edited by T. L. Holzer, 23–34. Reston, VA: Geological Society of America. Mayuga, M. N., and D. R. Allen. 1969. “Subsidence in the Wilmington oil field, Long Beach, California, USA.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., edited by L. J. Tison, 66–79. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology.

54

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Meade, R. H. 1967. Petrology of sediments underlying areas of land subsidence in central California. Professional Paper No. 497-C. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey. Morton, R. A., J. C. Bernier, and J. A. Barras. 2006. “Evidence of regional subsidence and associated interior wetland loss induced by hydrocarbon production, Gulf Coast region, USA.” Environ. Geol. 50: 261–274. Nagel, N. B. 2001. “Compaction and subsidence issues within the petroleum industry— From Wilmington to Ekofisk and beyond.” Phys. Chem. Earth 26: 3–14. Newton, J. G. 1977. “Induced sinkholes—A continuing problem along Alabama highways.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 453–463. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Newton, J. G. 1984. “Alabama, U.S.A.” In Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal, edited by J. F. Poland, 245–251. Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Poland, J. F. 1968. “Compressibility and clay minerals of sediments in subsiding groundwater basins, southwestern United States.” In Proc., Geological Society of America 81st Annual Meeting. Program. Special Paper 121. Reston, VA: Geological Society of America. Poland, J. F., ed. 1984. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Studies and Reports in Hydrology 40, App. A-E. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Poland, J. F., and G. H. Davis. 1969. “Land subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids.” In Vol. 2 of Reviews in engineering geology, edited by D. J. Varnes and G. Kiersch, 187–269. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Pratt, W. E., and D. W. Johnson. 1926. “Local subsidence of the Goose Creek oil field.” J. Geol. 34: 577–590. Sheng, Z., D. C. Helm, and J. Li. 2003. “Mechanisms of earth fissuring caused by groundwater withdrawal.” J. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 9 (4): 313–324. Stringfield, V. T., and J. R. Rapp. 1977. “Land subsidence resulting from withdrawal of ground water in carbonate rocks.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Symp. on Land Subsidence, 447– 452. Publication No. 121. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Hydrological Sciences. Tokyo Metropolitan Government. 1969. Land subsidence in Tokyo. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan Government. Tolman, C. F., and J. F. Poland. 1940. “Ground-water, salt-water infiltration, and groundsurface recession in Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara County, California.” Trans., Am. Geophys. Union 21 (pt. 1): 23–35. Van Hasselt, J. P. 1992. “Reservoir compaction and surface subsidence resulting from oil and gas production.” Geol Mijn 71: 107–118. Yerkes, R. F., and R. O. Castle. 1969. “Surface deformation associated with oil and gas field operation in the United States.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Tokyo Symp., Land Subsidence, edited by L. J. Tison, 55–64. Publication No. 88. Wallingford, UK: International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Zhou, Y., B. Li, J. Chen, J. Yang, F. Hu, D. Du, and Q. Don. 2005. “Genesis analysis on land subsidence in Daqing Oil Field.” In Vol.1 of Land Subsidence—Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Land Subsidence, edited by A. Zhang, S. Gong, L., Carbognin, and A. I. Johnson, 196–206. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers.

CHAPTER 3

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

Three types of subsurface-fluid withdrawal from susceptible geologic settings have caused significant subsidence of the same order of magnitude (6 to 9 m) but of different areal extents: groundwater extraction; the production of oil, gas, and associated water; and hot water or steam withdrawal for geothermal power. The extraction of groundwater accounts for the majority of the subsidence (Galloway et al. 1999, Holzer and Galloway 2005). Therefore, this chapter focuses on aquifer mechanics and land subsidence resulting from aquifer-system compaction caused by groundwater extraction. Many of the principles and aquifer mechanics discussed can be applied to the compaction of hydrocarbon and geothermal reservoirs. The material presented in this chapter provides the basis to understand how the various approaches to analyzing and modeling deformation of aquifer systems follow from the basic relationship among the head, stress, compressibility, and groundwater flow. The emphasis is on the hydrogeologic approach and regional aquifer-system compaction, but many tie-ins to the soil engineering and geotechnical approaches are included. The emphasis on the hydrogeologic approach is owing to the regional nature of the processes with respect to groundwater extraction.

3.1  THEORY OF AQUIFER-SYSTEM COMPACTION Land subsidence associated with groundwater withdrawal from porous granular media is caused by a decrease in the volume of the aquifer system. Withdrawing groundwater from the aquifer system decreases pore-fluid pressures, which, in turn, reduces pore volume. Support for the overlying material—the overburden or equivalent geostatic stress—is provided by pore-fluid pressure and the compliant granular structure surrounding the pores, the so-called skeleton of the aquifer 55

56

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

system. A shift in the balance of support, from support provided by pore-fluid pressure to support provided by the skeleton of the aquifer system, causes the skeleton to deform slightly. Both the aquifers and the aquitards that constitute the aquifer system undergo deformation in response to changing pore-fluid pressure but to different degrees. This phenomenon, known to hydrogeologists as compaction and soil engineers as consolidation, is based on the theory of primary one-dimensional consolidation of clays (Terzaghi 1925, Terzaghi and Peck 1967). This theory has been applied to most practical issues such as soil deformation or land settlement in the last 75 years, in particular largely applied to estimate the magnitude and rate of settlement or compaction of fine-grained clay deposits (aquitards) within a stressed aquifer system because of a given change in load. The change in load on the aquitards can normally be of the following two different cases: (1) an increase in pore-water pressure because of changing total stress (e.g., caused by a load on the land surface) and (2) a decrease in pore-water pressure in an aquifer system (e.g., caused by groundwater withdrawal, assuming a constant total stress). Both cases can be considered “excess pore water” deviated from the hydrostatic pressure, and the principle of effective stress can be applied. Compaction takes place when excess pore-water pressure slowly dissipates through the stressed deposits, accompanied by a gradual stress transfer from the pore water to the granular structure of the deposits. In particular, the change in pore-water pressure gradually shifts onto the soil skeleton and becomes effective stress. When the effective stress exceeds the previous maximum stress on the granular media, the compaction becomes permanent and irreversible. In the field, almost all permanent subsidence occurs because of the irreversible compaction or consolidation of aquitards. An aquitard drainage model (Tolman and Poland 1940) has been developed and applied to many successful investigations in land subsidence based on the consolidation theory. Figure 3-1 illustrates component hydrogeologic units of an idealized aquifer system in heterogeneous unconsolidated basin-fill deposits. The figure depicts a water table or an unconfined aquifer; a confining unit (laterally extensive, relatively thick aquitard); a confined aquifer; and a relatively impermeable bedrock at the base of the aquifer system. Variable thickness interbeds (laterally discontinuous aquitards)—relatively low-permeability, fine-grained deposits (e.g., silts and clays)—are interspersed with the aquifer material—relatively high-permeability, coarse-grained deposits (e.g., sands and gravels). The number and thickness of interbeds and confining units, collectively termed aquitards, determine the susceptibility of an aquifer system to compaction because of effective stress increases. This is true because aquitards are highly compressible compared with the clastic sand or sand and gravel of the aquifers. In this chapter, compaction refers to the change in vertical thickness that accompanies changing stresses on the aquifer system. A decrease in thickness is positive compaction, and an increase in thickness is negative compaction. All aquifer systems undergo some degree of deformation in response to changes in effective stress. The seasonal cycle of recharge and discharge from unconsolidated heterogeneous aquifer systems typically causes measurable elastic or recoverable

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

57

Figure 3-1.  Hydrogeologic units of an idealized aquifer system and interface stresses between a confined aquifer and an aquitard. Source: Modified from Galloway et al. (1999).

compaction (Riley 1969, Poland and Ireland 1988, Heywood 1997). This results in a commensurate uplift and subsidence of the land surface that can be measured in millimeters to centimeters (Amelung et al. 1999, Bawden et al. 2001, Hoffmann et al. 2001, Lu and Danskin 2001, Heywood et al. 2002). Aquitards within or adjacent to unconsolidated aquifers that undergo changes in the hydraulic head are susceptible to compaction. Changes in the hydraulic head accompany the development of the groundwater resources. As groundwater flows from storage in the aquitards to the coarser-grained sediments that compose the aquifers, elastic or inelastic compaction can occur, causing subsidence. The stress history of the aquitards determines whether the compaction is elastic or inelastic. When an unconsolidated heterogeneous aquifer system is developed as a groundwater resource, most of the groundwater produced comes initially from storage in the aquifers, the more permeable interbeds, and the fringes of thicker aquitards. After some time, lowered heads in the adjacent aquifers establish vertical head gradients between the aquifers and the interior parts of the thicker or less-permeable aquitards. The vertical gradients cause groundwater to flow from storage in the aquitards into the aquifers. When the magnitude and areal

58

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

extent of the head decline in the aquifers become large, a significant fraction of the water supplied to pumping wells may come from aquitard storage (Poland et al. 1975). Typically, for thick aquitards, the next cycle of pumping begins before the fluid pressures or equivalent heads in the aquitards have equilibrated with the previous cycle. The lagged response within the inner portions of a thick aquitard may largely be isolated from the higher-frequency seasonal fluctuations and more influenced by lower-frequency, longer-term trends of changes in groundwater levels. Because the migration of increased effective stress into the aquitard accompanies its drainage, as more fluid is released from storage in the interior of the aquitard, larger and larger effective stresses propagate farther into the aquitard. At stresses greater than the preconsolidation stress, the lag in aquitard drainage increases by comparable factors, and concomitant compaction may require decades or centuries to approach completion. The theory of hydrodynamic consolidation (Terzaghi 1925)—an essential element of the aquitard drainage model—describes the delay involved in draining aquitards when heads are lowered in adjacent aquifers as well as the residual compaction that may continue long after drawdowns in the aquifers have essentially stabilized. Numerical modeling based on Terzaghi’s theory has successfully simulated complex histories of compaction observed in response to measured groundwater-level fluctuations (see Chapter 5).

3.1.1  Principle of Effective Stress Karl von Terzaghi (1936) first proposed the concept of effective stress in relation to soil consolidation. Effective stress is a measure of the stress on the soil skeleton (the collection of particles in contact with each other). It cannot be measured but must be calculated from the difference between two parameters that can be measured or estimated with reasonable accuracy. The effective stress ( σ′) on a plane within a soil mass is the difference between total stress (σ) and pore-water pressure (p) σ′ = σ − Ip



(3-1a)

The principle of effective stress previously described can be expressed in terms of stress tensors σij′ = σij − δij p



(3-1b)



or in the expanded form



′ σ xy ′ σ xz ′ σ xx σ xx σ xy σ xz p00 σ ′yx σ ′yy σ ′yz = σ yx σ yy σ yz − 0 p 0 ′ σzy ′ σzz′ σzx σzy σzz 00 p σzx

(3-1c)

where p = Pore-fluid pressure; σij′ and σij = Components of the effective stress and total stress tensors of order 2, respectively; and δij or I = Kronecker delta;

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

59

where i and j for i = 1 to 3 and j = 1 to 3 represent the Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z, respectively. For a fluid such as potable groundwater, the fluid cannot sustain shear stress, and therefore, the off-diagonal components of the effective and total stress tensors are equal. Equation (3-1b) shows that changes in the effective stress can result from changes in the total stress or changes in the pore-fluid pressure. The total stress is given by the geostatic stress (load) of the overlying saturated and unsaturated sediments and tectonic stresses. If the aquitards are assumed to be horizontal and laterally extensive with respect to their thickness, the changes in porefluid pressure gradients within the interbeds will be primarily vertical. If one further assumes that the resulting strains are also primarily vertical (zz), a onedimensional form of Equation (3-1b) becomes

σzz′ = σzz − p

(3-2)

where σzz′ and σzz are the normal effective stress and normal total stress in the vertical direction, respectively. For the case where the total stress remains constant in time, the change in effective stress is equal in magnitude and opposite in sense to the change in the pore-fluid pressure

∆σzz′ = −∆p

for ∆σ zz

= 0

(3-3)

where Δ denotes an increment of change. The change in effective stress causes the aquifer system to deform. When the effective stress is decreased by an increase in pore-fluid pressure, the aquifer system expands; and when a decrease in pore-fluid pressure increases the effective stress the aquifer system compresses. In deformable geologic units, the deformation is elastic for current effective stresses less than or equal to the previous maximum effective stress and is inelastic for current effective stresses greater than the previous maximum effective stress. The process can be quantified in terms of two skeletal compressibilities: one for elastic deformation and one for inelastic deformation. Each compressibility can be applied to the aquifer system as a whole or to the individual aquitards.

3.1.2  Aquifer-System Compressibility and Storage Concepts For a nondeformable coordinate, the volume skeletal compressibility of porous unconsolidated granular material, α, can be expressed as (Freeze and Cherry 1979)

α=

−(∆VT /VT0 ) ∆σV′

(3-4)

where σV′  = Volume effective stress; VT0  = Initial volume of a control volume, VT, prior to an incremental change in the volume effective stress, ∆σV′ ;

60

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

∆VT = VT −VT0  = Change in the control volume; and ∆VT /VT0  = Bulk volume strain. The volume strain defined in Equation (3-4) can also be accordingly expressed in terms of void ratio, e, by ∆e /(1 + e0 ) , where ∆e = e − e0 and e0 are the change in the void ratio and the initial void ratio (see details in Appendix A.4.5), respectively. One-dimensional skeletal compressibility, α , can be simplified from Equation (3-4) and written in terms of the vertical effective stress and vertical strain as

α=

−(∆b /b0 ) ∆σzz′

(3-5)

where ∆b = b − b0 is the change in thickness of a control volume, where b and b0 are the current and initial thickness of a deformable geologic unit, respectively. This is the matrix compressibility used in standard formulations for transient saturated groundwater flow (Jacob 1940, 1950). Two skeletal compressibilities can be further defined as follows: (1) αe for the elastic range of stress where σzz′ ≤ σzz′ max (the previous maximum effective stress); and (2) αv for the virgin or inelastic range of stress where σzz′ > σzz′ max . For effective stress changes below the previous maximum effective stress (preconsolidation stress threshold), the compaction or expansion of both aquitards and aquifers is elastic—that is, approximately proportional to the change in effective stress over a moderate range in stress and fully recoverable if the stress reverts to the initial condition. For effective stress changes above the preconsolidation stress threshold, the “virgin” compaction of aquitards is chiefly inelastic—that is, not fully recoverable on a decrease in effective stress. This virgin compaction includes a recoverable elastic component that is small when compared with the inelastic component. The virgin compaction is roughly proportional to the change in the logarithm of effective stress. In contrast to aquitards, the compaction of aquifers is elastic, but it may include an inelastic component. In poorly sorted and angular sands, and especially in micaceous sands, the inelastic component may dominate. In confined aquifer systems, the water released from storage and supplied to pumping wells under transient-flow conditions comes from the expansion of the water and the compression of the sediments that constitute the matrix or granular skeleton of the aquifer system (Meinzer 1928, Jacob 1940). Fluid unit weight and compressibility, the one-dimensional matrix or skeletal compressibility [Equation (3-5)], and porosity determine the specific storage of the aquifer system as defined by (Jacob 1940)

Ss∗ = γw (α∗ + n∗βw )

where * = Properties of the aquifer system; Ss* = Aquifer-system specific storage; γw = Unit weight of water;



(3-6)

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

61

α∗  = Aquifer-system skeletal compressibility; n* = Aquifer-system porosity, usually determined in the laboratory (see Appendix A.4.5 for details); and βw = Compressibility of water. Note that this development of the specific storage assumes uniaxial (vertical) strain, constant matrix and fluid compressibility, and incompressible solid grains. Because only the vertical component of displacement and strain are used, the formulation of the one-dimensional skeletal compressibility [Equation (3-5)] and the formulation of specific storage [Equation (3-6)] limit the use of this approach in applications where significant horizontal deformation occurs (see Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 for a more detailed discussion of these limitations). Theoretically, and practically, however, some horizontal displacement occurs in aquifer systems in response to pumping and seasonal recharge/discharge stresses (Wolff 1970; Carpenter 1993; Helm 1994; Hsieh 1996; Bawden et al. 2001; Burbey 2001; Li 2007a, b, c). These displacements often are highly localized and occur near pumping wells, local heterogeneities, and the margins of groundwater basins. At regional scales and for regional groundwater flow and aquifer-system compaction models, the local horizontal displacements contribute little to the overall change in groundwater storage (Hoffmann et  al. 2003). Approaches using the onedimensional storage term, and the more complex three-dimensional poroelasticity approaches, yield nearly identical head and volume–strain distributions. This results in both approaches yielding nearly identical volumes of water released from storage because of subsidence (Burbey 2001). These factors and the paucity of regional horizontal-displacement measurements in developed groundwater basins have led to a wide application of analytical and numerical models to address regional land subsidence problems using the one-dimensional storage term. Helm (1976) and Leake and Galloway (2007) present techniques for using the one-dimensional specific storage to account for stress-dependent variations in skeletal compressibility. Van der Kamp and Gale (1983) present an expression for the one-dimensional specific storage that accounts for the compressibility of solid grains. The aquifer-system specific storage [Equation (3-6)] can be expressed as the sum of two component specific storages, skeletal and a fluid specific storage

Ss∗ = Ss∗k + Ssw∗

(3-7)

Ss∗k = γwα∗

(3-8)

Ssw∗ = γwn∗βw

(3-9)

where and

where Ss∗k is the aquifer-system skeletal specific storage and Ssw∗ is the aquifersystem fluid (water) specific storage.

62

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Similar to compressibility, two aquifer-system skeletal specific storages can be defined, one for each of the elastic and inelastic ranges of stress (Riley 1969)

Ss∗ke = γwαe∗

(3-10)



Ss∗kv = γwαv∗

(3-11)

where Ss∗ke  = Aquifer-system skeletal elastic specific storage, Ss∗kv  = Aquifer-system skeletal inelastic specific storage, αe∗  = Aquifer-system elastic skeletal compressibility, and αv∗  = Aquifer-system inelastic skeletal compressibility. Similarly, the various specific storages defined for aquifer systems can be defined for the aquitards where ′ denotes the properties of the aquitards

Ss ′ = γw (α′ + n′βw )

(3-12)



Ss ′ = Ss k′ + Ssw′

(3-13)



Ss k′ = γwα′

(3-14)



Ssw′ = γwn′βw

(3-15)



′ = γ α′ Ss ke w e

(3-16)



′ = γ α′ Ss kv w v

(3-17)



Ss = γw (α + nβw )

(3-18)



S s = Ss k + S s w

(3-19)



Ss k = γ w α

(3-20)



Ssw = γwnβw

(3-21)



Ss ke = γwαe

(3-22)



Ss kv = γwαv

(3-23)

and for the aquifers

where n′ and n = Aquitard and aquifer porosities, respectively; α′ and α  = Aquitard and aquifer skeletal compressibilities, respectively;

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

63

αe′ and αe  = Aquitard and aquifer elastic skeletal compressibilities, respectively; αv′ and αv  = Aquitard and aquifer inelastic skeletal compressibilities, respectively; Ss ′ and Ss = Aquitard and aquifer specific storages, respectively; Ss k′ and Ss k  = aquitard and aquifer skeletal specific storages, respectively; Ssw′ and Ssw  = Aquitard and aquifer fluid (water) specific storages, respectively; ′ and Ss  = Aquitard and aquifer skeletal elastic specific storages, Ss ke ke respectively; and ′ and Ss  = Aquitard and aquifer skeletal inelastic specific storages, Ss kv kv respectively. For coarse-grained aquifers, the aquifer elastic and inelastic skeletal compressibilities are approximately equal ( αe ≈ αv ), and the expression for the aquifer skeletal specific storage in Equation (3-20) can be rewritten Ssk  γwαe



(3-24)

The aquifer-system storage coefficients can be expressed in terms of the aquifer-system skeletal storage, fluid (water) storage, and aquifer-system specific storage, and the component skeletal specific storages and fluid (water) specific storages of the aquitards and aquifers (Riley 1969, Helm 1975) S∗ = Sk∗ + Sw∗ = Ss∗b∗ = (Ss∗kb∗ ) + (Ssw∗ b∗ )

(3-25)

= (Ss k′ b′ + Ss kb) + (Ssw′ b′ + Sswb) or in terms of the component skeletal compressibilities, fluid compressibility, and component porosities from Equations (3-14), (3-15), (3-20), and (3-21), where

 (α′b′ + αb)   (n′b′ + nb)   +  βw γw  Ss∗ =  γw    ′ (b + b)   (b′ + b) 

Ss∗  = Aquifer-system specific storage coefficient; Sk∗ , and Sw∗  = Aquifer-system storage coefficient, aquifer-system skeletal storage coefficient, and aquifer-system fluid (water) storage coefficient, respectively; b∗, b′, and b = Aggregate thicknesses of the aquifer system, aquitards, and aquifers, respectively, where b∗ = b′ + b ; α∗ = (α′b′ + αb) / (b′ + b)  = Aquifer system compressibility; and n∗ = (n′b′ + nb) / (b′ + b) = Aquifer system porosity. The aquifer-system skeletal and fluid (water) storage coefficient in Equation (3-25) can be expressed in terms of the component skeletal storages of the aquitards and aquifers:

64

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Sk∗ = Sk′ + Sk = Ss k′ b′ + Ss kb,

Sw∗ = Sw′ + Sw = Ssw′ b′ + Sswb

(3-26)

where Sk′ , Sw′ and Sk ,Sw are the skeletal and fluid (water) storage coefficients of the aquitards and aquifers, respectively. Similar to compressibilities and aquitard skeletal specific storages, Sk′ is defined separately for the elastic and inelastic ranges of stress for the aquitards:



′ b′ Sk′ = Ske′ = Ss ke ′ b′ ′ = Ss kv Sk′ = Skv

σzz′ ≤ σzz′ max , σzz′ > σzz′ max

(3-27)

For the aquifers, the elastic compressibility sufficiently defines Ss k [Equation (3-24)] and therefore Sk for both ranges of stress,

Sk = Ss kb

(3-28)

Typically, skeletal inelastic specific storages of interbeds and confining units constituting the aquitards are several orders of magnitude larger than skeletal specific storages of coarse-grained aquifers, which are typically more than three times larger than fluid (water) specific storage. Therefore, for effective stresses greater than the preconsolidation stress, virtually all water derived from interbed and confining-unit storage can be attributed to the inelastic compressibility of the aquitards. The storativities of the aquitards, and the drainage of these units, largely govern the compaction of these aquifer systems and account for all but a negligible amount of the land subsidence that often accompanies groundwater development in aquifer systems.

3.1.3  Theory of Hydrodynamic Consolidation The theory of hydrodynamic consolidation describes the delay in draining aquitards when pore-fluid pressures (heads) are lowered in adjacent aquifers, as well as any residual compaction of the aquitards that may continue long after the fluid pressures are initially lowered. The application of the hydrodynamic consolidation theory of soil mechanics to explain the theory of aquifer-system compaction has been summarized by (Riley 1969) The well-known hydrodynamic (Terzaghi [1925]) theory of soil consolidation can provide a semi-quantitative explanation for the phenomenon of repeated permanent compaction during successive cycles of loading and unloading through about the same stress range. In the context of this problem a central tenet of consolidation theory states that an increase in stress applied to a ‘clay’ stratum (aquitard) becomes effective as a compressive grain-to-grain load only as rapidly as the heads (pore pressures) in the aquitard can decay toward equilibrium with the head in the adjacent aquifer(s). Because of the low permeability and relatively high compressibility of the interbedded aquitards, the consolidation (compaction) of a multi-layered aquifer system in response

65

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

to increased applied stress is a strongly time-dependent process, and complete or ‘ultimate’ consolidation is not attained until a steady-state vertical distribution of head exists throughout the aquifer system. Transient heads in the aquitards higher than those in the adjacent aquifers (termed residual excess pore pressures) are a direct measure of the remaining primary consolidation that will ultimately occur under the existing stress. The time required to attain any specified dissipation of average excess pore pressure within a homogenous aquitard bounded above and below by aquifers depends on the following three factors: (1) compressibility of the aquitard, (2) length of the draining path (or aquitard’s thickness), and (3) permeability of the aquitard. The time constant for a doubly draining aquitard can be defined by (Riley 1969, Helm 1975) 2

τ′ =



Ss ′ (b′/2) K z′

(3-29)

where

τ ′  = Time constant for a doubly draining aquitard; K z′  = Saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard, which is

usually determined in the laboratory (see Appendix A.4.2 for details); Ss ′ = Ss e′ = Ss ke′ + Ss w′ = Elastic range of stress; and ′ Ss ′ = Ss v′ ≅ Ss kv = Inelastic range of stress because Ss kv′  Ss w′ .

For convenience, it is customary to define a dimensionless time factor, TD, such that

TD =

t τ′

(3-30)

For TD equals unity, τ ′ is the time, t, required to attain about 93% of the ultimate consolidation. Time constants can be computed for both the elastic ( τ e′ ) and the inelastic ( τ v′ ) stress ranges. A detailed development of the hydrodynamic consolidation theory for soils summarized in the preceding paragraphs for aquitards may be found in Scott (1963).

3.2  STRESS CAUSING AQUIFER-SYSTEM COMPACTION Lofgren (1968) describes three types of stresses that are involved in the compaction of an aquifer system These are closely interrelated, yet of such different nature that a clear distinction is of utmost importance. The first of these is a gravitational stress, caused by the effective weight of overlying deposits, which is transmitted downward through the grain-to-grain contacts in the

66

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

deposits. The second, a hydrostatic stress due to the weight of the interstitial water, is transmitted downward through the water. The third is a dynamic seepage stress exerted on the grains by the viscous drag of vertically moving interstitial water. The first and third are additive in their effect and together comprise the grain-to-grain stress, which effectively changes the void ratio [as defined in Appendix A.4.5] and mechanical properties of the deposit; it is commonly known as the “effective stress.” Two methods are normally considered for effective stress analysis. One approach is to consider the geostatic load, which combines the total weight of grains and water in the system, and the neutral, or hydrostatic, stress. The other method considers the static gravitational effective stress of the grains, which comprises their true weight above the water table and submerged (buoyed) weight below the water table, and the vertical seepage stresses that may exist in the system. The second approach has been proven to be the simplest and clearest in subsidence investigation (Lofgren 1968). The various stresses are either static or dynamic. The static stresses are the gravitational stresses—geostatic and hydrostatic stresses. Their magnitudes are independent of fluid flow. The dynamic stresses are the seepage stresses that result from fluid flow through the porous skeletal matrix of the granular medium. Their dependence on fluid flow requires a description of the fluid-flow process to evaluate the migration of stresses through low permeability units in the aquifer system.

3.2.1  Static Stresses Figure 3-1 illustrates the static stresses acting on a plane at the interface between a confined aquifer and a thick discontinuous aquitard. The total load—the geostatic stress, σzz, exerted on the interface is balanced by the hydrostatic stress—porefluid pressure, p, and the load borne by the skeleton of the aquifer system at the interface—the vertical effective stress, σ zz′ . The geostatic and hydrostatic stresses can be expressed as (Poland and Davis 1969) σzz = dmγm + ds γsat

(3-31)



γm = γ s (1− n) + nw γw

(3-32)



γsat = γ s − n(γ s − γw )

(3-33)

p = ds γ w

(3-34)

where

and

where γm = Unit weight of moist sediments above the water table (see Appendix A.4.3 for more details);

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

67

γs = Unit weight of solids (see Appendix A.4.3 for more details); γsat = Unit weight of saturated sediments below the water table (see Appendix A.4.3 for more details); nw = Volumetric moisture content of sediments in the unsaturated zone, as a fraction of total (solids and voids) volume; dm = Depth below the land surface in the unsaturated-zone interval, land surface (z = 0) to the water table ( z = z wt , where zwt is the depth to the water table); and ds = Depth of interest in the saturated zone. These stresses commonly are expressed in terms of force per unit area but may be expressed in terms of hydraulic head by dividing the quantities by the unit weight of water, γw. For example, fluid pressure [hydrostatic stress, Equation (3-34)] expressed in terms of the equivalent hydraulic head (Hubbert 1969) is



h=

∫

p p0

dp + he ρw ( p) g

(3-35a)

or for pw ≠ f ( p)

h=

p p + he = + he ρw g γw

(3-35b)

where h = Total hydraulic head; ρw = Density of water; ρw(p) = Density of water as a function of pressure, f(p); g = Gravitational acceleration, and he = Elevation head referenced to an arbitrary datum. Equation (3-35b) is the expression for the head in terms of pressure assuming that the density of water varies negligibly with changes in fluid pressure. For ease of comparison and computation of stresses with respect to changes in the hydraulic head, stresses are expressed in terms of the height of an equivalent column of water in meters. The unit weights of water, sediment grains, moist sediments above the water table, and saturated sediments below the water table are expressed in terms of meters of water per unit thickness in meters. The effective stress is the difference between the geostatic stress and the hydrostatic stress [Equation (3-2)]. A change in effective stress resulting from a given head change, in general, differs in unconfined (water table) and confined aquifers. In an unconfined aquifer, a change in head corresponds to a change in the position of the water table. The draining or rewetting of pore space in the zone of water-table fluctuation changes the geostatic stress on the underlying sediments in the unconfined aquifer and any underlying confined aquifers. A change in effective stress caused by a head change in an unconfined aquifer can be described by

68

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

∆σ ′ = −γw (1− n + nw )∆hwt

(3-36)

where ∆hwt = ∆p/γ w is the change in the head of the water table (Poland and Davis 1969). The effective stress referred to in Equation (3-36) is the vertical effective stress ( σ zz′ ). For convenience, in this chapter the subscripts zz are omitted from this term unless otherwise noted. In a confined aquifer, the geostatic stress changes negligibly with changes in head in the confined aquifer. That the change is negligible is because of the small changes in the unit weight of water associated with the expansion or compression of water. A change in effective stress caused by a head change in a confined aquifer can be described by (Poland and Davis 1969)

∆σ ′ = −γw∆hc

(3-37)

where ∆hc = ∆p/γ w is the change in the head of the confined aquifer. It is important to note that the change in effective stress caused by a head change in an unconfined aquifer is reduced by a factor of (1− n + nw ) to that caused by an equivalent head change in a confined aquifer. The change in applied stress within a confined aquifer system, because of changes in both the water table and the artesian head, is expressed concisely by Poland et al. (1972, p. 6):

∆σ ′ = −γw (∆hc − ∆hwt S y )

(3-38)

where Sy is the average specific yield (expressed as a decimal fraction) in the interval of water-table fluctuation. The relationship among geostatic, hydrostatic, and effective stresses shown in Figure 3-2 serves to illustrate the principle of effective stress. Figure 3-2(a) shows the

Figure 3-2.  Stress diagrams for an unconfined (water table) aquifer and a confined aquifer in an idealized aquifer system: (a) original state, (b) head decline in water table, stable confined aquifer, and (c) stable water table, head decline in underlying confined aquifer. Source: Modified from Leake and Galloway (2007).

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

69

Table 3-1.  Properties Used to Compute Stresses Shown in Figure 3-2 and Table 3-2. Specified properties γs γw n nw γw γsat (1− n + nw )

Computed properties

2.62 × 104 9.81 × 103 0.40 0.10 1.67 × 104 1.96 × 104 0.70

Source: Adapted from Leake and Galloway (2007). Note: Units for γ terms are newtons per cubic meter; units for n terms are dimensionless.

state of stresses in the aquifer system under static conditions (heads throughout the aquifer system are hydrostatic heads) and where the heads in the unconfined and confined aquifers are equal. Stresses for the idealized aquifer system are computed [Equations (3-31) to (3-34)] using the specified values for properties shown in Table 3-1, usually obtained from laboratory tests (see Appendix A for details). Figure 3-2(b) shows the stresses after a 30 m lowering of the water table. Table 3-2 shows the computed stresses using Equations (3-31) to (3-34), (3-35b), and (3-36) at depth horizons a and b in Figure 3-2(b). The geostatic stress decreases slightly below the depth of the original water table. The unconfined aquifer below the depth of the active water table, the confining unit, and the confined aquifer are affected equally by a 9 m decrease in the geostatic stress. The hydrostatic stress decreases in the unconfined aquifer by 30 m and is unchanged in the confined aquifer. Within the confining unit, decreases in the hydrostatic stress vary linearly from 30 m at the top to 0 m at the bottom. The effective stress increases 21 m [a factor of 0.7 (Table 3-1) times the head decrease] in the unconfined aquifer below the active water table, and decreases 9 m in the confined aquifer, equivalent in magnitude to the decrease in geostatic stress in the confined aquifer. In this example, effective stress in the confining unit is unchanged at a depth of 104 m below the land surface, a depth equivalent to 70% of its thickness from the top (90 m) to the bottom (110 m). At this depth in the confining unit, the decrease in geostatic stress, which decreases effective stress, completely offsets the decrease in hydrostatic stress (at hydraulic equilibrium), which increases effective stress. The change in effective stress, therefore, is zero. Above and below this depth in the confining unit, the change in effective stress is increased and decreased, respectively. Similarly, in Figure 3-2(c), Equations (3-31) to (3-34), (3-35b), and (3-37) are used to compute stresses (Table 3-2) resulting from a 30 m lowering of the

55

20

130

130 100

dsb

144.15

144.15 135.15 294.3

294.3 285.3 55

55 25 100

130 130

hb

ha

σb /γ w

σb /γ w

Geostatic stress, σ

 89.15

 89.15 110.15

σb′ /γ w

194.3

164.3 155.3

σb′ /γ w

0

— 21

∆σa′ /γ w

30

— −9

∆σb′ /γ w

Change in effective stress from Effective stress, σ ′ original state

Source: Adapted from Leake and Galloway (2007). Note: Unit of thickness is meters; unit of head as h = p /γ w is meters; and units of stress as σ /γ w and σ ′ /γ w are meters; — = no data.

55 25

20 50

Original state Water-table decline, stable confined aquifer Head change in confined aquifer, stable water table

dsa

dm

Condition

Thickness

Hydrostatic stress, p

Table 3-2.  Computed Stresses at Two Depth Horizons (a and b) Shown in Figure 3-2.

70 Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

71

hydraulic head in the confined aquifer for a static water table in the overlying unconfined aquifer. The geostatic stress is unchanged throughout the thickness of the aquifer system. The hydrostatic and effective stresses are unchanged in the unconfined aquifer, and decreased and increased by 30 m, respectively, in the confined aquifer. Within the confining layer, under conditions of fluid-pressure equilibration, increases in effective stress vary linearly from zero at the top to 30 m at the bottom.

3.2.2  Dynamic Stresses For the aquitards (interbeds and confining units), which have relatively low vertical hydraulic conductivities and typically relatively high specific storages compared with aquifers, the flux of pore waters and the diffusion of hydraulic heads in the aquitards are small and time-dependent. Hence, a stress change applied at an aquifer–aquitard boundary by a head change in an adjacent confined aquifer becomes effective or active in an aquitard only as rapidly as heads equilibrate with those in the adjacent aquifer(s). Hydraulic equilibrium may take months or years to attain; the time is proportional to the aquitard specific storage and the square of the aquitard thickness, and inversely proportional to the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard [e.g., Equation (3-29)]. The stress relations shown in Figure 3-2 serve to illustrate the principle of effective stress under static conditions but do not emphasize the dynamic nature of the head and stress disequilibrium as a result of nonsteady (transient) flow conditions in the aquifer system. The concept of seepage stress has been used to describe the process whereby the stresses applied to the aquifers become effective or active in the aquitards as heads equilibrate in the aquifer system. The vertical hydraulic gradient developed across the thickness of an aquitard by a head change in an adjacent confined aquifer induces largely vertical groundwater flow in the aquitard that is impeded by the low vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard. The stress imposed on the aquitard in the direction of flow, as the diffusion of hydraulic head change, progresses through the thickness of the aquitard is known as seepage stress. The reduction in the head in the confined aquifers creates a bidirectional vertical hydraulic gradient outward from the center of the aquitard inducing upward and downward drainage from the aquitard. The upward and downward pore-water flow is driven out of the aquitard by hydraulic force, but internal stresses in the aquitard are assumed to have no impact on the rest of the aquifer system. Thus, the effective stress can increase only as rapidly as the excess head decreases. The dissipation of excess pore-water pressure within the aquitard can be described by using a one-dimensional diffusion equation in the vertical direction (e.g., Helm 1975, 1978) along with the given boundary and initial conditions:

∂ 2h 1 ∂h = ∂z 2 Dz′ ∂t

(3-39)

72

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

Figure 3-3.  Nonsteady flow in doubly-draining aquitard subject to a step change (decrease) in hydraulic head in the surrounding aquifer. where Dz′ is the ratio K z′ Ss ′ , the vertical hydraulic diffusivity of the aquitard. Solutions of this diffusion equation originally were given in terms of analogous heat diffusion within a solid (aquitard) bounded by two parallel planes (aquifers) subject to various initial and boundary conditions. The solution for the following initial and boundary conditions,



h(z , 0) = hi ,  b0′  h± , t  = hi +∆h,  2 

where z = 0 = Horizontal midplane of the aquitard of initial thickness b0′ , hi = Initial head in the aquitard, and Δh = Step head change along the boundaries ( z = ± b0′ 2 ) of the doubly drained aquitard is given by the infinite series (Carslaw and Jaeger 1959):



  4 h(z , t ) − hi = ∆h 1−  π 

∞

k

(−1)

∑ 2k + 1 k=0

 2k + 1)πz     b0′ 

e−(π t /4τ ) cos ( 2

k′

(3-40)

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

73

Table 3-3. Measured and Computed Hydraulic Properties for a Thick Doubly Draining Aquitard in Antelope Valley, Mojave Desert, California. b0′ K z′

19.2 m 1.70 × 10  m/year 1.15 × 10−3 1/m 6.96 × 10−6 1/m −3

Ssv′ ′ Sse′ = Sske + Ssw′

Source: Sneed and Galloway (2000).

in which 2

τ k′ =

(b0′ / 2) Ss ′ 2 (2k +1) K z′

where the integer, k, is a variable for summation in Equation (3-40) and τ k′ is the time factor corresponding to the value of k. The time-dependent equilibration of heads in a representative thick doubly draining aquitard in Antelope Valley, California, subject to a step change in the head in the surrounding aquifer is computed using Equation (3-40), and is illustrated in Figure 3-3. The aquitard hydraulic properties are given in Table 3-3. An initial head hi in the aquitard and aquifer of 0 m and a change in the head in the aquifer Δh of −10 m are specified arbitrarily. Vertical head profiles are shown for increments of 0.05τ ′ in the interval 0 − 1τ ′ . The time constants τ ′ computed using Equation (3-29) for the inelastic and elastic stress ranges are τ v′ = 63.4 year and τ e′ = 140 days, respectively. Heads in thick aquitards responding to stresses in the inelastic range typically require years to decades or longer to equilibrate, whereas periods of days to months may be sufficient to equilibrate with stresses in the elastic range owing to the much smaller elastic specific storage of the aquitard. Figure 9.13.2 of Poland and Lofgren (1984) indicates that the areas in the San Joaquin Valley, California, have been appreciable subsidence along with groundwater withdrawal mainly from confined aquifer systems.

3.3  STRESS–STRAIN RELATIONSHIP IN SUSCEPTIBLE AQUIFER SYSTEMS In heterogeneous unconsolidated basin-fill, and other alluvial aquifer systems, changes in hydraulic head typically cause measurable deformation of the land surface owing to accumulated strains in the compressible deposits within the aquifer system. The compressibility α [Equation (3-5)] embodied in the skeletal specific storage coefficients governs the process. A measurement of two of the

74

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

three properties—applied stress, strain, or compressibility (skeletal specific storage)—allows a calculation of the unknown third property.

3.3.1  Stress–Strain Analysis Riley (1969) first demonstrated how to construct stress–strain curves using the field data from the Pixley site in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California. That is, field measurements of compaction and correlative change in the water level not only serve as monitors of the response of the aquifer system to changes in applied stress but also provide the essential data for stress–strain curves (Riley 1969). The stress–strain relations can be used to calibrate storage and compressibility parameters of the aquifer system with certain assumptions. Figure 3-4 shows field measurements of water-level change, that is, change in the applied stress and compaction at Pixley in a period of 12 years. Figure 3-4(b) is based on the field data and shows the curves of stress change versus strain for 101 m thickness of the confined aquifer system. Figure 3-4(a) indicates that the change in stress applied to all strata within the depth interval is calculated

Figure 3-4.  Change in applied stress, compaction, and stress–strain relation computed for a borehole extensometer site (23/25-16N) near Pixley, Fresno County, California. (a) Change in applied stress computed for Well 23/25-16N3, perforated in the interval 110 to 128 m depth, and compaction computed for the 101 m interval—131 to 232 m depth. (b) Stress change versus strain in the 101 m interval. Source: Modified from Figure 1 of Riley (1969), with permission of IAHS Press; Poland et al. (1975).

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

75

using the hydrographs (Poland 1984b), Figure 3-5(a) of Well 16N3. This stresschange graph is plotted with stress increasing downward to emphasize the close correlation with a declining artesian head. The compaction within the 131 to 232 m deep interval [Figure 3-4(a)] is evaluated using the difference between the measurements at two extensometers installed in the intervals 0 to 131 and 0 to 232 m (Poland 1984b). The stress–strain diagram [Figure 3-4(b)] represents the mechanical response (change in thickness) of the 131 to 232 m depth interval to change in the effective stress. It is plotted from the data given in Figure 3-4(a). For convenience, stress change is expressed in equivalent units of the hydraulic head. Attention is directed to (1) the annual variation of the change in applied stress for the confined aquifer system in response to the characteristic seasonal pumping for irrigation—the main seasonal increase in applied stress occurs in spring to late summer followed by a reduction of applied stress to a seasonal minimum late in the winter; (2) the reduced rate of compaction during years of small increases in applied stress (small seasonal drawdown of water level in Well l6N3), such as 1962 to 1963, 1967, and 1969; (3) the small but definite expansion of the deposits [Figure 3-4(a)] in most winters, accompanying the seasonal reduction in applied stress (water-level recovery); and (4) the series of annual stress–strain loops [Figure 3-4(b)], formed by the annual cycles of stress increase and decrease. As originally described by Riley (1969) The descending segments of the annual loop are of particular interest since they represent the resultant of two opposing tendencies—one toward continuing compaction and one toward elastic expansion in response to decreasing applied stress. Expansion of the more permeable strata of the aquifer system must be essentially concurrent with the observed rise in head in wells. However, the first reduction of stress may produce only a slight reduction in compaction rate. Evidently, initial expansion of the aquifers is concealed by continuing compaction of the interbedded aquitards as water continues to be expelled under the influence of higher pore pressures remaining within the regions of the beds.” The established maximum excess pore pressure in the middle of a doubledraining aquitard is related to the parameters that control the time-consolidation function. For a relatively short pumping season, the maximum excess pore pressures may have a large range of values, particularly in a sequence of aquitards of widely varying thicknesses and physical properties. When head in the aquifers rises and stress declines during a recharge or unloading period, the thinnest, (or) most permeable, and (or) least compressible aquitards, containing the least excess pore pressure, may quickly respond with recoverable deformation, but the thickest, (or) least permeable, and (or) most compressible beds may continue to compact at diminishing rates through most or perhaps all of the period of head recovery and stress relief. Such a delayed response can be found through the stress–strain relation in the descending portions of the annual loops. In Figure 3-4(b), the lower part of the descending curve approximates a straight line (dotted line) with a positive slope in 1968 and 1970, suggesting that

76

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

essentially all excess pore pressures have been exceeded by the rising heads and that the entire aquifer system is expanding in accordance with its elastic modulus (inverse of compressibility). During the unloading–reloading period, the lower parts of the descending segments of the annual loops for the winters of 1968 to 1969 and 1969 to 1970 and the latter part of 1970 are two approximately parallel straight lines, as shown by the extended upward dotted lines. The constant slope of the dotted lines indicates linear elastic behavior and can be used to estimate the aquifer-system skeletal elastic storage coefficient ∗ Ske =



∆b∗ = 6.4 ×10−4 ∆h

(3-41)

where ∆b∗ = b∗ − b0∗ is the change in the thickness of the aquifer system, where b∗ and b0∗ are the current and initial thicknesses of the aquifer system, respectively. The component of the aquifer-system skeletal elastic specific storage Ss ∗ke is



Ss∗ke =

∆b∗ 6.4 ×10−4 S∗ = ke∗ = = 6.3×10−6 1/m ∗ 101 m b0 ∆h b0



(3-42)

where ∆b∗ b0∗ represents the vertical strain in Figure 3-4(b) and can be considered a conservative estimate of the bulk volume strain, ∆VT VT , in the field. The aquifer-system skeletal elastic compressibility αe∗ is 0



αe∗ =

−6 −1 Ss∗ke 6.3×10 m = = 6.4 ×10−7 kPa−1 γw 9.8 kPa ⋅ m−1



(3-43)

It is of interest to note that αe∗ is about 1.5 times βw [4.4 × 10−7 kPa−1 at 15.5°C (Freeze and Cherry 1979)]. Accounting for the porosity of the aquifer system, if n* = 0.4, Ss ∗w  = 1.7 × 10−6 1/m [Equation (3-9)], and Ss∗ke is about 3.7 times Ss ∗w , which suggests that for a change per unit in head, the volume of water released from (or taken into) storage per unit volume of the saturated porous medium by recoverable deformation of the medium can be 3.7 times the volume released by elastic deformation of the pore water itself. Elastic storage and compressibility parameters derived from other stress– strain relations are described for a well in western Fresno County, California (Poland and Lofgren 1984), and for a well in San Jose, California (Poland 1984a). Figure 3-4(b) illustrates how virgin specific storage and compressibility parameters can be evaluated when stresses exceed the past maximum effective stresses (preconsolidation stress). Straight line A–A′ is drawn through the annual hysteresis loops approximately at the level at which the rising elastic compaction curve crosses over the descending expansion curve. The reciprocal of the slope of line A–A′ represents the component of the storage coefficient, S, for the inelastic deformation of the aquifer-system skeleton

∗ Skv =

∆b∗ = 6.8×10−2 ∆h

(3-44)

Aquifer Mechanics and Land Subsidence due to Groundwater

77

The component of specific storage because of inelastic (nonrecoverable) deformation of the aquifer-system skeleton is



Ss∗kv =

∗ 6.8×10−2 Skv = = 6.7 ×10−4 1/m ∗ 101 m b0

(3-45)



Although the average value in Equation (3-45) is for inelastic deformation of the entire aquifer system, it is reasonable to assume that the clay interbeds are the primary contributors to irrecoverable deformation in the aquifer system. The average nonrecoverable specific storage of the aquitards is defined by the ratio ′ , and the initial aggregate thickness, b0′ , of of the inelastic storage coefficient, Skv aquitards, which is 70 m (Poland 1984b):



′ = Ss kv

′ 6.8×10−2 Skv = = 9.7×10−4 1/m 70 m b0′

(3-46)



Consequently, the average compressibility of the aquifer-system skeleton in the virgin range of stressing, αv∗ can be found by (Poland 1984b)



αv∗ =

−4 −1 Ss∗kv 6.7 ×10 m = = 6.8×10−5 kPa −1 γw 9.8 kPa ⋅ m−1



(3-47)

Comparing αv∗ [Equation (3-43)] with αv∗ [Equation (3-47)], one may find that the compressibility of the measured interval of the aquifer system at Pixley in the virgin range of stress is about 100 times greater than that in the elastic range of stress (Figure 3-4). In other words, in multiaquifer systems, the values of the compressibility and storage parameters may be 10 to 100 times greater when the applied stresses are in the virgin range of stressing than those when the applied stresses are in the elastic range. This fact is important and helpful when one interprets aquifer tests and makes estimates of the usable storage capacity of a confined aquifer system. Holzer (1981) showed that alluvial aquifer systems in subsiding areas of Arizona, California, and Texas are naturally overconsolidated by the equivalent of about 16 to 63 m of water-level decline, and that many values of the natural preconsolidation stress fall in the range of 25 to 40 m.

3.3.2  Compressibilities of Clays and Sands from Tests in the Lab and Field Effective stresses, including the increase applied by pumping, in general, are in the range of 980 to 9,800 kPa for aquifer systems penetrated by wells within depths of 60 to 900 m (Poland 1984b). This depth range includes about all the stressed sediments given in Table 1-1. Within this stress range, sands, in general, are much less compressible than clays. However, at effective stresses of 9,800 to 19,600 kPa sands may be as compressible as clays or siltstones. Roberts (1969) made a laboratory study of the compressibility of sands and clays as determined from one-dimensional consolidation tests (see Appendix A.4.8 for

78

Investigation of Land Subsidence due to Fluid Withdrawal

a description of a one-dimensional consolidation test and A5.5 for consolidation test analysis) at stresses up to 68,600 kPa. The tests showed that in the range of effective stresses from 9,800 to 19,600 kPa, some sands were as compressible as typical clays. Roberts noted that sands are relatively incompressible at low stresses (