water

Article
Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater Exploitation in Unconfined
Aquifers: Experimental and Numerical Assessment with
Computational Fluid Dynamics
Dayana Carolina Chalá 1 , Edgar Quiñones-Bolaños 1 and Mehrab Mehrvar 2, *

1 Environmental Modeling Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Cartagena,

Cartagena de Indias, Bolivar 130005, Colombia; [email protected] (D.C.C.);
[email protected] (E.Q.-B.)
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, 350 Victoria Street,
Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-(416)-979-5000 (ext. 556555); Fax: +1-(416)-979-5083

Abstract: Land subsidence is a global challenge that enhances the vulnerability of aquifers where
climate change and driving forces are occurring simultaneously. To comprehensively analyze this
issue, integrated modeling tools are essential. This study advances the simulation of subsidence
using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD); it assessed the effects of exploitation and recharge of
groundwater on the vertical displacement of coarse and fine sands in a laboratory-scale aquifer. A
model was developed by integrating the Navier–Stokes equations to study the groundwater flow
and Terzaghi’s law for the vertical displacement of sands. The boundary conditions used were
Dirichlet based on the changes in the hydraulic head over time. The specific storage coefficient was
used to calibrate the model. The findings confirmed that subsidence occurs at slower rates in soil
with fine sands with average particle diameters of 0.39 mm than in coarse sands with average
particle diameters of 0.67 mm. The maximum discrepancy between the experimental and the
numerical reaffirms that CFD platforms can be used to simulate subsidence dynamics and potentially
Citation: Chalá, D.C.; allow the simultaneous simulation of other dynamics. Concluding remarks and recommendations
Quiñones-Bolaños, E.; Mehrvar, M. are highlighted considering the up-to-date advances and future work to improve the research on
Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater
subsidence in unconfined aquifers.
Exploitation in Unconfined Aquifers:
Experimental and Numerical
Keywords: soil compaction; groundwater; computational fluid dynamics (CFD); numerical modeling;
Assessment with Computational
coastal aquifers; vertical deformation
Fluid Dynamics. Water 2024, 16, 467.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030467

Academic Editors: Paraskevas

Tsangaratos, Ioanna Ilia, Wei Chen 1. Introduction
and Xia Zhao
The potential global exposure to land subsidence according to Herrera-García et al. [1]
Received: 29 December 2023 estimated a total of 31 countries with evidenced cases of subsidence in 2021 and up to
Revised: 19 January 2024 85 countries experiencing land subsidence in 2040. It is expected that by 2040 a total of
Accepted: 29 January 2024 484 million inhabitants will be potentially threatened by land subsidence in an area of
Published: 31 January 2024 12 million km2 of the world, with a probability greater than 50%. This pressing situation
asks for further investigations to prevent and manage land subsidence, especially when
it is related to the exploitation of unconfined aquifers in coastal regions and threatens the
sustainability of the freshwater supply.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Advances in Land Subsidence Studies in Aquifers
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
Subsidence due to the exploitation of fluids is the most studied type of subsidence.
conditions of the Creative Commons
The first recollection of land subsidence due to fluid withdrawal was made by Poland
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and Davis [2], including the cases of subsidence due to the exploitation of oil, water, and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ gas. Important examples of land subsidence were assessed in the cities of Goose Creek,
4.0/). Texas [3]; Wilmington, California [4]; Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela [5]; Niigata, Japan [6];

Water 2024, 16, 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16030467 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2024, 16, 467 2 of 25

Po Delta, Italy [7]; and lower Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta, Bangladesh [8], and cases of
high exploitation of groundwater in Japan [9]; Mexico City (Mexico) [10]; and Arizona [11],
Nevada [12], and California (USA) [13]. At that time, the San Joaquin Valley of California
presented the highest levels of studied subsidence with up to 9 m from 1925 to 1977. The
photographic evidence of the consequences of this rate of subsidence continues to bring
attention to the matter nowadays, and it has become a benchmark for the great changes
that subsidence can create to the landscape [14].
From 1992 onwards, radar images aquifers by SAR satellites have been used for InSAR
studies as a supportive tool for land subsidence monitoring and to validate predictive
models. This technique has shown effectiveness for the monitoring of subsidence in
extensive regions [15,16]. Algorithms have also been developed to solve land subsidence
problems assuming vertical compaction, such as MODFLOW SUB-WT and MODFLOW
SUB [17,18], and with less frequency estimating numerical solutions with the application
of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Both tools are based on the soil consolidation
equations of Terzaghi’s law and Biot’s approach.
Major advances to assess and model land subsidence in coastal aquifers have occurred
during the last decades in countries such as the USA, Japan, China, and throughout
Europe [19–24]. Moreover, there is a variety of dynamics associated with land subsidence
that require further study. The dynamics include the change of porosity and permeability
due to soil compaction [25], subsidence in sandy aquifers [26–28], and the integration of
subsidence and salinity intrusion in unconfined aquifers [29].
Table 1 shows a summary of aquifers over the world that evidence land subsidence
due to groundwater exploitation. It presents the various aquifer geological characteris-
tics, groundwater exploitation, methods to collect subsidence data, type of simulation
performed, and maximum evidenced subsidence.

Table 1. Aquifers affected by land subsidence.

Groundwater
Aquifers and Geological Data Type of Maximum
Exploitation Total References
Study Area Characteristics a Collection Simulation Subsidence
or per Year
Chicot and
Time series
Evangeline aquifer He, L, UNCO 5 m/year - 49 mm/year [30]
and InSAR
units (USA)
Lower Bengal Delta Numerical Transient with
H, He, L, UNCO 5m 63 mm/year [31]
(Bangladesh) simulation MODFLOW
Aguascalientes Fast Fourier
H, UNCO, Faults, R 3.5 m/year SBAS InSAR 120 mm/year [10]
Valley (Mexico) Transform
InSAR, settlement
Morelia (Mexico) H, UNCO, Faults, R 15 m/year - 90 mm/year [32]
data
Willcox Basin 6 m/year InSAR, Hydraulic Storage loss
He, L, CO 140 mm/year [11]
(Arizona) Aprox. data estimation
Wuxi City (China) He, L, UNCO, CO 68 m Extensometer - 41.95 mm/year [33]
Finite Element
Guangming Village He, L, UNCO,
1m Experimental setup –Interfaced 2–5 mm [34]
(China) Faults, R
Elements
InSAR, Geohazard
Capo Colonna
He, UNCO, Faults - Exploitation - 47 mm/year [35]
(Italy)
Platform
Pingdu District
H, UNCO 2400 mL/min Experimental set up - 0.708 mm [36]
(China)
Chandigarh tri-city
He, L, CO 0.2 m/year InSAR, Field data Neural network 8 mm/year [37]
(India)
Bohai Bay (China) He, L, CO 1.7 × 107 m3 /year InSAR, Field data Neural network 80–150 mm/year [23]
Water 2024, 16, 467 3 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

Groundwater
Aquifers and Geological Data Type of Maximum
Exploitation Total References
Study Area Characteristics a Collection Simulation Subsidence
or per Year
Fuhuayuan (FHY)
deep foundation He, L, CO 0.24 m/year Experimental set up DEM–CFD 8.7 mm [38]
pit project
Yangtze River Delta
He, L, UNCO, CO 0.75 m/year Experimental setup - 7–10 mm [39]
(China)
Xuwei area (China) He, L, UNCO, CO 2.34 mm/month Experimental setup - 14.04 mm [40]
Cycles of 27%
Hypothetical This
H, UNCO exploitation and Experimental setup CFD 2–4 mm
aquifer study
recharge
Notes: a He: Heterogeneous aquifer, H: Homogeneous aquifer, L: Layered aquifer, Faults: Aquifer with evidenced
faults, UNCO: Unconfined aquifer, CO: Confined aquifer, R: Analyzed recharge rates.

Some of the mentioned studies and up-to-date advances consider surface deformation
monitoring and field data to develop land subsidence models. Similarly, research about
aquifers in Latin America includes field studies of the rates of land subsidence due to
groundwater exploitation, and large-scale assessments [20,41,42]. However, comprehen-
sive field campaigns involve extended periods of time and financial expenses. Mechanisms
related to suffosion soil removal could be evidenced when assessing land subsidence in the
field. It can manifest as a loss of volume or local erosion of the finer particles transported by
seepage flow through the coarser particles or faults. It can result in soil instability and land-
slides [43]. Suffosion has not been linked to land subsidence in many studies; nevertheless,
as mentioned by Najafi and Faghihmaleki, it could contribute to the enhancement of land
subsidence in some specific cases [44]. Another area for enhancing land subsidence studies
lies in the application of conventional numerical models. These models rely on assumptions
related to the aquifer’s nature and primarily focus on groundwater exploitation as the
driving force for land subsidence. This premise is applicable when land subsidence is
the only evaluated threat for an aquifer. However, in the case of coastal aquifers where
salinity intrusion poses an additional challenge, the application of conventional models
is not enough. Various cases including Antonellini et al. [24], Eggleston and Pope [19],
Yu and Michael [31], and Essink and Kooi [21] demonstrate the correlation between land
subsidence and increased salinity concentrations in the aquifers. To analyze intrinsic factors
that are affected by land subsidence and the changes that could affect salinity intrusion, the
models require more robust capabilities such as the integration of various physics offered
by CFD software.
To overcome the limitations of large-scale field studies and conventional numerical
models, this study suggests the experimental recreation of land subsidence in a laboratory-
scale setup subjected to exploitation and recharge. Lab-scale studies have proved to be
adequate and cost-effective for the analysis of local dynamics and the study of small-scale
subsidence dynamics. This study also considers CFD models to estimate aquifer compaction
over time. It considers Terzaghi’s law as the general soil dynamics equation and couples it
with the groundwater flow equation in terms of the aquifer storage coefficient. Applying
CFD models allows the future coupling of land subsidence results with other dynamics
such as salinity intrusion, consequently expanding the research scope of coastal aquifer
numerical simulations. Their advantage over conventional models relies on the ability to
integrate and solve partial differential equations representing simultaneous processes that
occur in a specific control volume [45,46].
Two types of sand were analyzed for this research, namely coarse sand with an
average particle diameter of 0.67 mm, also known as 12–20 grade sand, and fine sand with
an average particle diameter of 0.39 mm, known as 30–40 grade sand, to analyze its vertical
deformation after each cycle of exploitation and recharge. The experimental methodology
followed the approach for the vertical deformation of sand suggested by Li et al. [28],
Water 2024, 16, 467 4 of 25

where the vertical deformation was measured after each cycle of exploitation and recharge.
Furthermore, the experimental findings were applied for the development of a numerical
model coupling Navier–Stokes equations for groundwater flow and Terzaghi’s law.
This research provides a comprehensive theoretical background of land subsidence
modeling, including mathematical approaches for simulating vertical displacement of
the sands, groundwater dynamics, and changes in water pressure within the aquifer.
The experimental setup and procedures are described in detail, highlighting the applied
methodology and materials used. Additionally, the results and discussions from both
experimental and numerical simulations are presented and analyzed. Finally, the study
concludes with essential remarks and recommendations.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Mathematical Modeling of Land Subsidence
There are mainly two approaches in the mathematical modeling of land subsidence:
Terzaghi’s law and Biot’s approach [47,48]. The former considers land subsidence as
the vertical displacement resulting from compaction of the confining layers induced by
water pressure variation, and the latter considers the land subsidence as a two- or three-
dimensional problem, analyzing the consolidation of the soil and its vertical and horizontal
movement due to water pressure changes and strain distribution.
Bear and Corapcioglu developed three mathematical models based on these ap-
proaches to simulate regional land subsidence induced by groundwater pumping [49–51].
They comprised equations for vertical displacements based on Terzaghi’s law [49], vertical
and horizontal displacements [51], and equations for phreatic aquifers based on Biot’s
approach [50]. Commonly used numerical models to simulate land subsidence are based
on Terzaghi’s law.
Figure 1 illustrates the decline of the water table in an unconfined coastal aquifer,
considering the effects of land subsidence and the interaction between the hydrostatic (p)
and geostatic stresses (σ). Figure 1 also depicts that the water table is in a constant state
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEWand the hydrostatic stress and geostatic stress are not altered, showing a constant effective
5 of 27
stress (σ’), and after the water exploitation occurs, and the hydrostatic stress is lowered,
changing the geostatic stress, and increasing the effective stress.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Stress
Stress diagrams
diagrams for
for the
the water
water table
table decline
decline in
in an
an unconfined
unconfined aquifer.
aquifer.

Continuous
Continuous cycles
cycles of
of water
water table
table decline
decline and
and recharge
recharge can lead to a retained change
in the effective stress even after the water table is replenished. This This dynamic
dynamic results
results in
alterations to the aquifer soil and water
water dynamic.
dynamic. Consequent
Consequent change
change to the
the effective
effective stress
stress
strongly depends
dependson onthe
the aquifer
aquifer geology
geology andand the specific
the specific storagestorage of the aquifer.
of the aquifer. The
The amount
amount of subsidence
of subsidence is governed
is governed by various
by various factorsfactors such
such as as effective
effective pressure,
pressure, thickness,
thickness, and
compressibility
and of the
compressibility ofaquifer, the length
the aquifer, of time
the length overover
of time which increased
which loadload
increased is applied (for
is applied
(for subsidence due to external loads), and the rate and type of stress [52]. The degree and
rate of consolidation (vertical) and horizontal displacement depend on the stress-strain
relationship of the solid matrix comprising the aquifer [9].
The mathematical premise states that a total load of soil and water (and everything
that adds load at the ground surface, including atmospheric pressure) above the consid-
Water 2024, 16, 467 5 of 25

subsidence due to external loads), and the rate and type of stress [52]. The degree and
rate of consolidation (vertical) and horizontal displacement depend on the stress-strain
relationship of the solid matrix comprising the aquifer [9].
The mathematical premise states that a total load of soil and water (and everything
that adds load at the ground surface, including atmospheric pressure) above the considered
surface plane, is balanced by an effective intergranular stress (σ′ ) in the solid matrix of
soil and by a pressure (p) in the water. This definition is described by Equation (1), which
represents Terzaghi’s law, all terms with the magnitude of [ML−1 T−2 ].

σ = σ′ + p (1)

To consider land subsidence in an aquifer, the solid matrix must be studied as com-
pressible. The theoretical foundation to mathematically describe land subsidence includes
two main stages: the fluid dynamic component and the structural deformation. The fluid
dynamic component considers the mass balance of groundwater in the aquifer and ex-
pands the term for water accumulation. Equation (2) shows the abbreviated form of the
groundwater momentum equation, with the fluid transport on the left side represented by
Darcy’s law and the water accumulation term on the right side.
 → ∂(ρφ)
∇ ρv = (2)
∂t
→
where ρ [ML−3 ], v [LT−1 ], φ [-], and t [T] are the fluid density, flux velocity, porosity, and
time, respectively. The momentum equation exposes that the difference in the fluid flow
entering and exiting the cavity is equal to the accumulated mass of fluid in the cavity
(negative when it is being accumulated), expressed in Equation (3).
 → ∂(ρφ)
∇ ρv = − (3)
∂t
The land subsidence formulation also considers the influence of the water pore pres-
sure and the intergranular or effective stress, with the consideration of the specific stor-
age [53]. Equation (4) shows the expansion of the groundwater accumulation term to
consider those factors.
 
∂(ρφ) ∂φ ∂ρ ∂φ ∂ρ ∂p
=ρ +φ = ρ +φ (4)
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂p ∂p ∂t

where ρ [ML−3 ], φ [-], t [T], and p [ML−1 T−2 ] are the fluid density, porosity, time, and
fluid pressure, respectively. Each term of the parenthesis in Equation (4) relates to the
aquifer’s elastic properties. The first term considers the change of the porosity over time,
and the second term is the fluid density change. Both terms are related to the variation of
the water pressure. The change in the porosity and the density can be further described
using Equation (5) and Equation (6), respectively. The coefficients α and β represent the
solid matrix compressibility and the pressure changes in the voids normally filled with
water, both with units of [ML−1 T−2 ]−1 .

1 ∂φ
α= (5)
1 − φ ∂p

and
1 ∂ρ
β= (6)
ρ ∂p
Replacing Equations (5) and (6) in Equation (4) results in Equation (7).

∂(ρφ) ∂p
= ρ[α(1 − φ) + βφ] (7)
∂t ∂t
Water 2024, 16, 467 6 of 25

Equation (7) can also be simplified, defining the term in square brackets as the specific
storage S [LT2 M−1 ] in terms of water pressure. From this first stage, the spatial gradient of
the fluid pore pressure is estimated. Equation (7) is used in the structural stage to estimate
the compaction and the resulting subsidence of the ground surface.

∂(ρφ) ∂p
= ρS (8)
∂t ∂t
Replacing Equation (8) in Equation (2), the groundwater mass balance equation takes
the form of Equation (9).
∂p →
ρS + ∇·(ρ v ) = 0 (9)
∂t
Furthermore, the structural deformation component considers soil mechanics and
calculates the total compaction of layers of the aquifer based on soil parameters such as
the void ratio, e, and the soil porosity, φ. The void ratio is defined as the ratio of the pore
volume to the grain volume, and the porosity is the ratio of the pore volume to the total
volume. The following relationship holds:
φ
e = Pore volume/(Total volume − Pore volume) = (10)
(1 − φ)

Considering that the deformation occurs only in the void spaces of the porous media
and that the grains are incompressible compared to the total porous volume. The com-
paction (η) can be expressed by Equation (11), as it is a consequence of the reduction of the
initial void space caused by an increase in the effective stress.

∆e
η=b (11)
1 + e0

where b [L] and e0 [-] are the initial thickness of the layer and the initial void ratio, respec-
tively. Equation (10) can be further expanded to account for the coefficient of compressibility
and to be in function of the hydraulic head difference. Assuming one vertical stress and
strain, the vertical ground displacement resulting in vertical stress can be expressed in
terms of a change in groundwater head, described by Equation (12).

η ≈ S* ∆h ≈ bSh ∆h (12)

where η [L] is the compaction, S* [-] is the storage coefficient, and Sh the specific storage
[L−1 ] in terms of the hydraulic head.

2.2. Groundwater Flow Equations

This numerical model for land subsidence caused by overexploitation includes the
groundwater flow equations. Equations (9) and (12) are used to estimate the aquifer’s
water pressure based on the drawdown, and the consequent compaction using Terzaghi’s
approach. The flux velocity in Equation (9) is calculated following Darcy’s law, as stated in
Equation (13).
→ k →

v =− ∇p − ρ g (13)
µ
→
where k [L2 ], µ [ML−1 T−1 ], and g [LT−1 ] are the intrinsic permeability of the aquifer, the
viscosity of the water, and the acceleration due to gravity, respectively. In terms of hydraulic
head, the flux velocity can be expressed as Equation (14).

(ρ − ρf )
 
→ kρf g
v =− ∇h + ∇Z (14)
µ ρf
Water 2024, 16, 467 7 of 25

where
kρg
K= (15)
µ
Equation (15) represents the hydraulic conductivity, considering a constant density of
the water and replacing the fluid and porous media characteristics. Equation (9) can be
expressed in terms of the hydraulic head as denoted by Equation (16):

( ρ − ρf )
  
∂h
∇· −K ∇h + ∇Z = Sh (16)
ρf ∂t

In addition, considering that the density in the groundwater remains the same,
Equation (16) can be expressed as Equation (17), also known as groundwater flow or
continuity equation.
∂h
∇·(−K(∇h)) = Sh (17)
∂t

Recharge and Discharge of Groundwater

The relationship between strain and stress is estimated with the measurements of the
change on the hydraulic head after each cycle of recharge and exploitation of water. The
stress-strain behavior depends on a variety of factors, including the sand properties, the
amount of stress, and the number and magnitude of cycles. The variation of the effective
stress can be estimated by averaging the additional stress according to the sand thickness
above and below the water table, similar to the work of Li et al. [28]. Equation (18) describes
the variation of the effective stress with the hydraulic head change.

∆σ′ = ∆σ′ 1 ·∆h + ∆σ′ 2 ·h2 /(∆h + h2 )

(18)

where ∆σ′ [ML−1 T−2 ] is the effective stress variation and h2 [L] is the water table depth
after withdrawal. Considering the exploitation and recharge cycles, Equation (18) can be
modified for Equation (19), where γ [ML−1 T−2 ] is the unit weight of water.

γ·∆h+∆σ′ 2 ·h2
∆σ′ = (∆h+h2 )
withdrawal
′ (19)
∆σ′ = −γ·(∆h +∆σ 2 ·h2
∆h+h2 )
recharge

3. Materials and Methods

The experimental setup is shown in Figure 2. It consists of a rectangular tank with
2.70 m (length) × 1.25 m (height) × 0.10 m (width) divided into three compartments
(3, 7, 10) a central compartment containing the porous media (2.50 m long) and two lateral
compartments (0.10 m long) for observing the water level. A fine screen mesh (4, 9) with
holes of 0.074 mm (also known as mesh No. 200) separates the lateral compartments from
the central compartment, preventing sand from flowing from the central into the side ones.
The sand was silica sand, specifically quarzitic sand with 94.7% silica content. Fine and
coarse sand with effective diameters of 0.39 mm and 0.67 mm, respectively, were used.
There are also two side chambers (2, 11) that control the water level. These chambers
are connected to the tank through pipes and transparent flexible tubes. The tank is made of
transparent Plexiglas with a thickness of 15 mm and is supported by a reinforced steel frame.
Steel tension pins were also added to strengthen the tank and prevent side deformation.
Three vertical displacement transducers were located at the top of the central compartment
separated 1.25 m from each other (8). The displacement transducers (LVDT) were the
Model Humbolt type HM-2310.04 range 0.4′′ (10 mm) with a precision of 0.001 mm. Two
side reservoirs (1, 14) with their respective pumps (5, 13) were included to store freshwater
and supply the lateral chambers, the left tank with a volume of 250 L and the right tank
with a volume of 500 L.
 partment separated 1.25 m from each other (8). The displacement transducers (LVDT)
were the Model Humbolt type HM-2310.04 range 0.4″ (10 mm) with a precision of 0.001
mm. Two side reservoirs (1, 14) with their respective pumps (5, 13) were included to store
freshwater and supply the lateral chambers, the left tank with a volume of 250 L and the
Water 2024, 16, 467 right tank with a volume of 500 L. 8 of 25

Figure 2. Experimental setup for land subsidence experiments. 1. Left-side reservoir, 2. Left-side
Figure 2. Experimental setup for land subsidence experiments. 1. Left-side reservoir, 2. Left-side
chamberfor
chamber forwater
waterlevel
levelcontrol,
control,3.3. Left-side
Left-sidecompartment,
compartment,4.4.Lateral
Lateralmesh,
mesh,5.5.Inlet
Inletpump,
pump,6.6.Ball
Ball
valve, 7. Central compartment with porous media, 8. Vertical displacement transducers,
valve, 7. Central compartment with porous media, 8. Vertical displacement transducers, 9. Lateral 9. Lateral
mesh,10.
mesh, 10.Right-side
Right-sidecompartment,
compartment,11. 11.Right-side
Right-sidechamber
chamberforforwater
waterlevel,
level,12.
12.Ball
Ballvalve,
valve,13.
13.Inlet
Inlet
pump,and
pump, and14.
14.Right-side
Right-sidereservoir.
reservoir.

3.1.Experimental
3.1. ExperimentalProcedure
Procedure
The first step was to pack the sand simultaneously with the water on the lateral
compartments. To guarantee the uniformity of the grain size and avoid the formation of air
spaces and undesired strata, a packing technique was applied. It consisted of filling 10 cm
of water prior to adding 10 cm of sand, this process was repeated until the amount of soil
reached 1.10 cm. This process was applied for both coarse and fine sand.
The subsidence process was measured every 24-h using both analog and digital
longitudinal vertical displacement transducers (LVDT) type HM-2310.04 Modelo Humbolt
range 0.4′′ (10 mm) and a precision of 0.001 mm. The exploitation was simulated by
lowering the water level from 1.1 to 0.8 m in chambers (2) and (11), and the recharge was
simulated by increasing the water level from 0.8 to 1.1 m. To initiate the exploitation cycles
(lowering and increasing the water level), the hydraulic head was set to its initial height
of 1.1 m. The surface level of the sand was registered at the beginning of the experiment,
and it was considered the reference level to measure the vertical displacement of the sand.
Hereafter, the hydraulic head was lowered to 0.8 m and this level was maintained for 24 h.
The subsequent exploitation cycle began 24 h after the previous one, lowering the water
table by 30 cm. A total of four scenarios of exploitations, recharge, and stabilization cycles
were conducted, including two for fine sand and two scenarios for coarse sand. The selected
drawdown was considered based on the evidenced depletion of unconfined aquifers
subjected to overexploitation. Among the considered drawdowns are a 50% drawdown
of the Lower Bengal Delta [31], a 43% drawdown of the Aguascalientes Valley, 42% at the
Wuxi city aquifer, and an average drawdown of 27.66% of the total depth of the Arroyo
Grande Aquifer, an unconfined sandy aquifer in Cartagena, Colombia. Therefore, for this
study, the considered drawdown was 30 cm, also equivalent to a 27% drawdown of the
experimental setup.

3.2. Numerical Modeling of Land Subsidence

The numerical model used the software COMSOL Multiphysics 6.0 under the assump-
tions of one-dimensional compaction and no additional sources of stress. Consequently,
Equation (20) is obtained and applied for the estimation of the aquifer vertical displacement.
Water 2024, 16, 467 9 of 25

 
∂ ∂h ∂h
K = Sh (20)
∂y ∂y ∂t
where K, ∂h ∂h
∂y , Sh , and ∂t , are the hydraulic conductivity in the vertical axis, the hydraulic
head in the vertical axis, and the specific storage in terms of hydraulic head and the
hydraulic head over time, respectively. Simulation with Terzaghi’s approach involves using
the skeletal-specific storage or aquifer compressibility to calculate the vertical compaction
η (m) with Equation (21). This compaction is one-dimensional and follows a conventional
flow model (Equation (9)). The results are used in post-processing to calculate vertical
compaction based on Terzaghi’s theory [54].

η = Sh b(−h) (21)

where b is the standard notation for the vertical thickness of aquifer sediments [L] and h [L]
is the hydraulic head.

3.3. Boundary Conditions

The selected boundary conditions for solving the set of equations using Terzaghi’s
approach are as follows:
No-flow boundary conditions for the top and bottom boundaries are expressed by
Equation (22).
→
− ρ v0 = 0 (22)
Lateral boundary conditions are head-controlled, with a change of the hydraulic head
over time, as described by Equation (23).

p = p0 − ρgh (23)

where h is the hydraulic head at the boundary variating over time. Figure 3 shows the
recreated scenarios; fine sand with the first scenario (A) and second scenario (B), and coarse
sand with the first scenario (C) and second scenario (D). The variation of the hydraulic
head over time represents the change of the water table level in the left- and right-side
compartments used to recreate the cycles of exploitation and recharge.

3.4. Parameters Considered for the Simulation

The numerical simulation of the land subsidence experiment considered the initial
parameters presented in Table 2, along with the physical and mechanical properties sum-
marized in Table 3. The grain distribution and classification of the sand are depicted in
Figure 4.

Table 2. Parameters for the numerical simulation.

Variable Description Value

ρ Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
p Fluid pressure 0 Pa
h (0) Initial hydraulic head 1.1 m
h(t) Hydraulic head over time f(t)

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of the sands.

Specific Effective Hydraulic

Sand Type Porosity (%)
Gravity, Gs Diameter (mm) Conductivity, K (m/s)
Fine sand 2.65 0.39 43.3 2 × 10−4
Coarse sand 2.74 0.67 48.8 6.5 × 10−4
 where h is the hydraulic head at the boundary variating over time. Figure 3 shows the
recreated scenarios; fine sand with the first scenario (A) and second scenario (B), and
coarse sand with the first scenario (C) and second scenario (D). The variation of the hy-
Water 2024, 16, 467 draulic head over time represents the change of the water table level in the left- and right-
10 of 25
side compartments used to recreate the cycles of exploitation and recharge.

Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 27

ℎ 0 Initial hydraulic head 1.1 m

ℎ 𝑡 Hydraulic head over time f(t)

Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of the sands.

Sand Specific Effective Porosity Hydraulic

Type Gravity, Gs Diameter (mm) (%) Conductivity, K (m/s)
Fine sand 2.65 0.39 43.3 2 × 10−4
Figure
Coarse 3. Hydraulic head over time for the cycles of recharge and exploitation. (A) First scenario of
Figure 3. Hydraulic head over time for the cycles of recharge and exploitation. (A) First scenario
2.74 scenario of coarse
coarse sand, (B) Second 0.67 48.8 of fine sand,6.5
sand, (C) First scenario × (D)
and 10−4Second
sand
of coarse sand, (B) Second scenario of coarse sand, (C) First scenario of fine sand, and (D) Second
scenario of fine sand.
scenario of fine sand.
3.4. Parameters Considered for the Simulation
The numerical simulation of the land subsidence experiment considered the initial
parameters presented in Table 2, along with the physical and mechanical properties sum-
marized in Table 3. The grain distribution and classification of the sand are depicted in
Figure 4.

Table 2. Parameters for the numerical simulation.

Variable Description Value

𝜌 Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
p Fluid pressure 0 Pa

Figure 4. Test soil particle size distributions.

Figure 4. Test soil particle size distributions.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Experimental Results
This section presents the experimental results of the land subsidence laboratory scale
simulation conducted to investigate the vertical displacement due to water exploitation
and recharge in sands. The experiment involved subjecting the aquifer to recharge and
Water 2024, 16, 467 11 of 25

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Experimental Results
This section presents the experimental results of the land subsidence laboratory scale
simulation conducted to investigate the vertical displacement due to water exploitation
and recharge in sands. The experiment involved subjecting the aquifer to recharge and
exploitation cycles, with varying hydraulic heads. The measurements were obtained from
three sensors, and the findings highlight the influence of cyclic exploitation on the pore
pressure and subsequent changes in effective stress, in accordance with Terzaghi’s law.

4.1.1. Coarse Sand

Figure 5 depicts the vertical deformation of the coarse sand in two scenarios of water
exploitation and recharge. The cycles are depicted with gray bars; the hydraulic head
was changed with continued cycles of water tables of 1.1 m and 0.8 m. The first scenario
depicted in Figure 5a showed an average maximum total displacement of 2.57 mm after
19 cycles and 692 h while the second scenario depicted in Figure 5b showed a maximum
vertical deformation of 3.7 mm after 625.4 h and 15 cycles. The second scenario had a
constant hydraulic head from 0 to 200 h; during that time, there was no vertical deformation.
After the first cycle of exploitation was recreated, the vertical deformation increased, as
observed after 200 h of the experiment.
The measurements were obtained from three sensors; during the first scenario, sensor
2 presented technical issues and therefore the measurements were neglected. For the
second scenario, the issue was solved, and the three measurements were considered. The
correlation coefficient for the measurements in the first and second scenarios was 0.99,
suggesting a strong linear relationship.
Terzaghi’s law explains that an increase in effective stress within a soil or aquifer
leads to enhanced compaction and deformation [55]. This is evidenced in the observed
increase in vertical displacement during the cyclic exploitation of the coarse sand. As the
sand underwent repeated cycles of recharge and exploitation, the change in the hydraulic
head altered the pore pressure, affecting the effective stress on the sands. Consequently,
compaction occurred, and it resulted in increased vertical displacement of the surface, as
evidenced in Figure 5.
Figure 6 shows the continued variation of the effective stress generated with the cycles
of exploitation and the resulting vertical strain for the coarse sand. The first scenario
(Figure 6a) showed a continued increase and decrease in effective stress with the water
table changes, this being compared to the constant increase in strain. The second scenario
(Figure 6b) showed that the effective stress was constant, and the strain was low when the
water table is stable, beginning to increase with the subsequent changes in the water table.
This behavior represents the continued tendency of the coarse sand to vertically deform
over time with the increase and decrease in the water table. This has been previously
evidenced in laboratory scale experiments [56,57] and field data [58] where only a small
proportion of compression was recovered in sandy aquifers after the groundwater level
was replenished.
The strain slope for scenario 1 remains relatively constant over time, indicating consis-
tent exploitation and recharge levels. However, a notable change in slope occurred after
315 h when the hydraulic head was reduced to 0.4 m (as shown in Figure 6a), increasing
the strain slope. For scenario 2 (Figure 6b) the strain initially exhibited an average constant
value of 1.8 × 10−4 up to 212 h, corresponding to a steady water level of 1 m. Upon the
beginning of the first exploitation, the water level decreased to 0.8 m, causing the strain
to increase to 1 × 10−3 . The strain then remained constant as long as the water level was
maintained and subsequently increased to 2 × 10−3 after the second cycle of exploitation.
After the second cycle starting at 358 h, the strain slope remained stable, leading to progres-
sive vertical deformation of the soil with each consequent cycle of recharge and discharge
until reaching a maximum average strain of 3.4 × 10−3 .
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27

Water 2024, 16, 467 12 of 25

3.0 1.20

Vertical displacement (mm)

2.5 1.00

Hydraulic head (m)

2.0 0.80

1.5 0.60

1.0 0.40

0.5 0.20

0.0 0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (h)

Hydraulic head Sensor 1 Sensor 3

(a)
4.5 1.2
Vertical displacement (mm)

4
1
3.5

Hydraulic head (m)

3 0.8
2.5
0.6
2
1.5 0.4
1
0.2
0.5
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (h)

Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Sensor 3 Hydraulic head

(b)
Figure 5. Variation
Figure of water
5. Variation tabletable
of water and vertical deformation
and vertical in coarse
deformation sand.sand.
in coarse (a) The
(a) first scenario
The first and and
scenario
(b) second scenario
(b) second of coarse
scenario sand.sand.
of coarse

The first scenario of strain shows a constant increase in vertical deformation after
approximately 150 h. The maximum strain for the second scenario was higher than the
maximum strain for the first scenario due to an increase in deformation in the second
scenario after 190 h. This behavior agrees with the constant rates of exploitation and
recharges in the first scenario, different from the second scenario where the cycles were not
constant, as depicted in Figure 6b. The change in the slope of the strain over time shows
that the continued recharge and discharge of water in the coarse sand contributes to the
densification of the sand, reducing the strain slope with the continued cycles, alike previous
work from Li et al. [28].
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27
Water 2024, 16, 467 13 of 25

(a)

(b)
Figure 6. Stress–strain
Figure plot
6. Stress–strain over
plot time.
over (a) (a)
time. TheThe
first scenario
first andand
scenario (b)(b)
second scenario
second of coarse
scenario sand.
of coarse sand.

The first
The two scenario of strain
repetitions of theshows
coarsea sand
constant increase
exhibited in vertical
variations deformation
in strain, which after
can be
attributed to the
approximately 150 initial
h. Theanisotropy
maximumofstrain the samples
for thecaused
secondby horizontally
scenario oriented
was higher grains
than the or
result from
maximum the for
strain sandthe packing technique
first scenario due[28].
to anThe differences
increase in the cyclesinofthe
in deformation exploitation
second
are a relevant
scenario after 190 factor thatbehavior
h. This contributes to the
agrees withstrain
thedifference. It was
constant rates ofobserved
exploitationthat and
the strain
re-
increased during water exploitation, which is also evident in Figure
charges in the first scenario, different from the second scenario where the cycles were not 5. Our experimental
findings
constant, asconfirm
depictedthe in application
Figure 6b. The of Terzaghi’s
change in the lawslope
to analyze the dynamic
of the strain over time behavior
shows of
land
that thesubsidence
continued in coarse sands.
recharge The findings
and discharge within
of water the
theexperimental
coarse sandresults of coarse
contributes sand
to the
highlight the
densification of significance of considering
the sand, reducing theslope
the strain effects of cyclic
with exploitation
the continued on effective
cycles, stress
alike previ-
ousand subsequent
work from Li etdeformation.
al. [28].
The two repetitions of the coarse sand exhibited variations in strain, which can be
4.1.2. Fine Sand
attributed to the initial anisotropy of the samples caused by horizontally oriented grains
or resultThe
fromfinethesand
sandscenarios showed a [28].
packing technique decrease in the rate of
The differences in subsidence,
the cycles of with a vertical
exploitation
aredisplacement
a relevant factorthatthat
occurred mostly
contributes tobecause
the strain ofdifference.
a delayed response to water
It was observed table
that the changes.
strain
The cycles of recharge and discharge for the fine sand were conducted
increased during water exploitation, which is also evident in Figure 5. Our experimental in the same manner
findings confirm the application of Terzaghi’s law to analyze the dynamic behaviormore
as with the coarse sand; however, the capillarity forces with the fine sand held of
saturation
land subsidence thanin the
coarsecoarse
sands.sandTheafter the water
findings with thetable was lowered.
experimental Figure
results 7 shows
of coarse sandthe
locationthe
highlight of significance
the capillarity fringe whenthe
of considering theeffects
water oftable is fixed
cyclic at 0.8 mon
exploitation foreffective
side A with
stressthe
fine sand, and side
and subsequent deformation. B with the coarse sand. The capillary fringe occurs when a percentage
 The fine sand scenarios showed a decrease in the rate of subsidence, with a vertical
displacement that occurred mostly because of a delayed response to water table changes.
The cycles of recharge and discharge for the fine sand were conducted in the same manner
as with the coarse sand; however, the capillarity forces with the fine sand held more sat-
Water 2024, 16, 467 uration than the coarse sand after the water table was lowered. Figure 7 shows the 14location
of 25
of the capillarity fringe when the water table is fixed at 0.8 m for side A with the fine sand,
and side B with the coarse sand. The capillary fringe occurs when a percentage of satura-
tion is trapped
of saturation in theinmicropores
is trapped of the
the micropores ofsand, depending
the sand, on whether
depending the porosity
on whether is high
the porosity
or low.
is high Sands
or low. withwith
Sands a higher porosity
a higher have
porosity lessless
have capillary force
capillary than
force finer
than sands
finer [53].[53].
sands

Figure
Figure 7. Water
7. Water tabletable ofm
of 0.8 0.8inm(A)
in fine
(A) fine
sandsand
and and (B) coarse
(B) coarse sand.sand.

Figure
Figure 8 shows
8 shows the the vertical
vertical displacement
displacement in fine
in fine sand;sand; it occurred
it occurred withwith periods
periods of no
of no
vertical displacement and periods of continued displacement, with a delayed response to to
vertical displacement and periods of continued displacement, with a delayed response
the the
waterwater
tabletable change,
change, initiating
initiating vertical
vertical deformation
deformation after
after the the second
second cycle ofcycle of exploita-
exploitation.
Thistion. This behavior
behavior agrees with agrees
the with the deformation
vertical vertical deformation
of denseof dense
sand sandbyfound
found Li et by Li et al.
al. [28].
[28]. According
According tofor
to Li et al., Li the
et al.,
firstfor thesecond
and first and second
cycles cycles
the sand the sand
behaved behaved
as an elastic as an elastic
material,
not material,
evidencing notvertical
evidencing vertical deformation.
deformation. Consequently, Consequently,
with the increase within the increase inand
exploitation exploi-
tation and recharge cycles, the vertical deformation increased. This
recharge cycles, the vertical deformation increased. This indicates a non-recoverable plastic indicates a non-recov-
erableofplastic
behavior behavior
the sand, of the sand,
and continued and continued
densification of thedensification
soil until theofdeformation
the soil untilreduces
the defor-
withmation
the number
reduces of cycles.
with the The maximum
number vertical
of cycles. Thedisplacement
maximum vertical for scenario 1 was 2.6 mm
displacement for sce-
afternario
425.31 h,
wasequivalent to 19 425.3
2.6 mm after days of h, experiment,
equivalent to with a totalofofexperiment,
19 days 12 cycles ofwithrecharge and
a total of 12
discharge,
cycles of and for scenario
recharge 2 the maximum
and discharge, and fordisplacement
scenario 2 thewasmaximum
5.06 mm after three months
displacement wasof5.06
the mm
experiment,
after three with a totalof
months ofthe
2404.8 h and 38 with
experiment, cyclesa of recharge
total of 2404.8 andh discharge.
and 38 cycles In scenario
of recharge
2, atand
424discharge.
h and 12 cycles, the maximum vertical displacement was 2
In scenario 2, at 424 h and 12 cycles, the maximum vertical displacementmm, evidencing a
difference
was 2 mm, of 0.6evidencing
mm from the first scenario.
a difference of 0.6 mm from the first scenario.
TheThe
correlation
correlationcoefficient
coefficient between
betweenthe the
three measurements
three measurements for for
scenario 1 was
scenario 0.97.
1 was 0.97.
During
Duringthe the
second scenario,
second scenario, some of the
some measurements
of the measurements from the the
from sensors were
sensors neglected
were neglected
duedueto errors in the
to errors datadata
in the readings.
readings. These datadata
These reading issues
reading were
issues attributed
were to electricity
attributed to electricity
failures in the facilities. After the data-cleaning process, it was
failures in the facilities. After the data-cleaning process, it was observed that observed that the thethree
three
sensors
sensors followed the same tendency, maintaining a correlation coefficient of 0.96. This
followed the same tendency, maintaining a correlation coefficient of 0.96. This co-
coefficient
efficientevidences
evidencesa close
a close agreement
agreement between
between thethe
data measurements.
data measurements. TheThetendency
tendencyof of
the fine sand shows that with the continued cycles the vertical deformation increases and
sustains a constant slope.
The strain over time shows an increase after the cycles of exploitation, similar to the
deformation with coarse sand. Figure 9 shows the strain and variation of effective stress
over time, occurring after the cycles of exploitation of the fine sand. The strain progress over
time shows a more subtle strain slope than the coarse sand scenarios, with gradual increases
resulting from a delayed response to the water table change and lower compaction rates.
Zhang et al. [57] obtained a similar experimental response to the simulation of fine sands
 Water 2024, 16, 467 15 of 25

Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 27

subjected to intermittent exploitation, with a strain that increased with the exploitation
rates and then reached a period of low deformation.

3.5 1.2

Vertical displacement (mm)

3 1

Hydraulic head (m)

2.5
0.8
2
0.6
1.5
0.4
1

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (h)

Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Sensor 3 Hydraulic head

(a)
7 1.2

6
Vertical displacement (mm)

Hydraulic head (m)

5
0.8
4
0.6
3
0.4
2

1 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (h)

Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Sensor 3 Head

(b)
Figure 8. Variation
Figure of the
8. Variation of water table
the water andand
table vertical deformation
vertical forfor
deformation finefine
sand type
sand 30–40
type forfor
30–40 the (a)(a) first
the
first scenario
scenario and
and (b)
(b) second
second scenario
scenario of
of fine
fine sand.
sand.

Figure 9a shows that for the first scenario of fine sand, the strain continued to increase
when the stress was constant, and it did not rapidly increase with the change in effective
stress. After the effective stress increased with the lowering of the hydraulic head at 156 h,
and then recovered at 181.9 h, the change in strain reduced from 0.00109 to 0.0011. However,
after this cycle and before the next exploitation, the strain continued increasing, evidencing
the slower response of the vertical deformation after the exploitation cycles.
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27
Water 2024, 16, 467 16 of 25

(a)

(b)
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Strain
Strainand
andeffective
effectivestress variation
stress over
variation time
over forfor
time the the
(a) first scenario
(a) first and and
scenario (b) second
(b) second
scenario of fine sand.
scenario of fine sand.

4.2. Numerical Resultsthe strain and the effective stress variation resulting from the changes
Figure 9 depicts
in theAfter
hydraulic head presented
the experiments in Figure 3.a numerical
were developed, The relationship
model between
was designedeffective stress
to explore
variation
the capabilities of CFD platforms to recreate subsidence experimental results in sands.that
and the hydraulic head changes are explained in Equation (19). It introduces To
during
guaranteethethe
cycles of discharge,
numerical there
stability is an
of the increase
results in effective
a mesh stress,
convergence and a decrease
assessment in
was per-
effective stress
formed. The duringmeshes
selected recharge. Thetheir
with increase in effective
respective stress
degrees occurs due
of freedom andtonumber
the drainage
of el-
of water from the thickness of the soil that was previously saturated, and that
ements are presented in Table 4. The estimation of compaction over time for the first is no longer
Water 2024, 16, 467 17 of 25

under the influence of pore water pressure. The opposite is evidenced by an increase in
the water table, increasing the pore water pressure, and reducing the effective stress. This
estimation has been previously applied in the works of Li et al. [28] and presented in the
theory of land subsidence [53].
Figure 9b evidenced that for the second scenario of fine sand, the beginning of the
vertical displacement was also delayed. After two cycles of exploitation and recharge the
first readings of displacement were observed. Four moments of apparent recovery of the
sand were evidenced at 703.5 h, 848.1 h, 919.5 h, and 1063 h, which show a lowering of
the strain followed by an increase with the next cycle. This behavior has been observed in
previous studies analyzing sandy strata, including observations of delayed land subsidence
in aquifers subjected to artificial recharge and exploitation [39], the rebound of strain after
the cycles of drainage and recharge in an experimental study [40], and the numerical
simulation of groundwater exploitation and recharge [59]. It also shows an initial increase
in strain after the effective stress was reduced, presenting a similar behavior to the first
scenario of fine sand presented in Figure 9a.

4.2. Numerical Results

After the experiments were developed, a numerical model was designed to explore
the capabilities of CFD platforms to recreate subsidence experimental results in sands.
To guarantee the numerical stability of the results a mesh convergence assessment was
performed. The selected meshes with their respective degrees of freedom and number
of elements are presented in Table 4. The estimation of compaction over time for the
first scenario of coarse sand was selected for the mesh assessment and the results of the
assessment are presented in Figure 10. The resulting compaction showed a close agreement
with the results with each mesh. However, after 324 h, 336 h, and 360 h, the coarser
and normal meshes showed a disagreement with the value of compaction. The more
stable estimation of compaction was obtained with the finer to the extra fine mesh. The
average standard deviation between the coarse mesh and the finer mesh was 0.35% and
the finer mesh and the extra fine did not present deviation over time. For the estimation of
compaction, the mesh with the best performance was the finer mesh with 72,152 elements
and a maximum element size of 0.0308. The minimum element quality of the mesh
was 0.085, the average element quality was 0.1224, and the geometry of the elements
was triangular.

Table 4. Selected meshes for the mesh sensitivity assessment.

Mesh DOF Number of Elements

Coarse (fluid dynamics) 25,685 12,658
Normal (fluid dynamics) 170,799 28,192
Finer (fluid dynamics) 435,543 72,152
Extra fine (fluid dynamics) 689,835 343,972

The Courant number was considered as a target to select the element size and the mesh.
Due to the slower velocity and considering the mesh sensitivity assessment performed with
the first scenario of coarse sand, the finer mesh with 72,152 elements was selected. In this
research, the backward differentiation formula scheme was applied, considering that it has
been shown to provide stability to problems that involve groundwater transport [60]. The
free time stepping option was also employed, which allows the time step to be adjusted
automatically based on local error estimates. For more detailed information about the time
discretization scheme used in COMSOL Multiphysics 6.0, please refer to the COMSOL
Multiphysics User’s Guide [60].
The hydraulic head was a key input parameter to define the variation of the water level
in the numerical model. The numerical model considered all experimentally acquired data,
such as initial porosity estimated using the Standard Test Methods For Specific Gravity Of
 element quality was 0.1224, and the geometry of the elements was triangular.

Table 4. Selected meshes for the mesh sensitivity assessment.

Water 2024, 16, 467 Mesh DOF Number of Elements 18 of 25

Coarse (fluid dynamics) 25,685 12,658
Normal (fluid dynamics) 170,799 28,192
Soil SolidsFiner
By Water
(fluidPycnometer
dynamics) ASTM D854-00, the Hydraulic Conductivity
435,543 72,152 estimated
using a Permeameter ASTM
Extra fine (fluid D5084-16, and the689,835
dynamics) soil grain size distribution estimated using
343,972
the Unified Soil Classification System ASTM D2487-17e1.

Figure 10. Mesh convergence results from compaction over time for the first scenario of coarse sand.
Figure 10. Mesh convergence results from compaction over time for the first scenario of coarse
sand.
The resulting vertical displacement obtained by the experimental results was used
to compare and calibrate the subsidence results from the numerical model. COMSOL
The Courant number was considered as a target to select the element size and the
Multiphysics 6.0 was used to solve vertical displacement with Terzaghi’s law. The specific
mesh. Due to the slower velocity and considering the mesh sensitivity assessment per-
storage was selected as the calibration parameter and based on the range of specific storage
suggested with
formed the first
by Kuang scenario
et al. [61] for of coarse sand,
unconfined the finer
aquifers and mesh with 72,152
the estimated elements
average was
specific
selected. In this research, the backward differentiation formula
storage considering the average compaction per hydraulic head changes. scheme was applied, con-
sidering that it has been shown to provide stability to problems that involve groundwater
4.2.1. Coarse[60].
transport SandThe free time stepping option was also employed, which allows the time
step to bethe
Using adjusted automatically
finer mesh, based
the first and on local
second error estimates.
scenarios of coarse For
sandmore
weredetailed infor-
simulated,
mation about the time discretization scheme used in COMSOL Multiphysics
and the results are depicted in Figure 11. The numerical simulations were performed with 6.0, please
refer to the
Terzaghi’s COMSOL
Equation (12) Multiphysics User’s Guide
and the groundwater [60].
flow equation in terms of storage coefficient
(Equation (17)). The numerical results obtained a close agreement with the confidence
interval obtained with the experimental results; this interval is depicted in gray shading,
the selected specific storage for the numerical model that obtained the best agreement
with the experiments is depicted with the black continued line, and the second closest is
presented with the black hyphened line.
The specific storage was selected within a range of specific storages for coarse sands
with low grade and hydraulic conductivity close to 0.00067 m/s. The evaluated range
was 9 × 10−4 m−1 , 7 × 10−4 m−1 , 5 × 10−4 m−1 , 3.5 × 10−4 m−1 , 3 × 10−4 m−1 , and
1.91 × 10−4 m−1 according to Kuang et al. [61].
The specific storage that was better adjusted to the first scenario was 3.5 × 10−4 m−1
and for the second scenario was 9 × 10−4 m−1 . The average absolute error between the
numerical model results and the media of the experimental results for the first scenario
was 0.14 mm, with the highest discrepancy when estimating vertical deformation at 668.9 h
and 692.35 h of 0.31 mm and 0.317 mm, respectively. For the second scenario, the average
absolute error was 0.34 mm with the highest discrepancy at 309.8 h with 0.93 mm.
 Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Water 2024, 16, 467 19 of 25

(a) First scenario

(b) Second scenario

Figure
Figure 11. Vertical 11. Vertical
displacement displacement
in the coarse sandinfor
thethe
coarse sand
(a) first for(b)
and thesecond
(a) firstscenario.
and (b) second scenario.

The first scenarioForofthe

coarse sandcase
second (Figure 11a) showed
of coarse the maximum
sand (Figure 11b), it vertical displace-
is observed both in the e
ment obtained mental
by the experiment was 2.8 mm by sensor two and 2.57 mm and
data and the numerical results that the initial displacement was2.56 mmdelayed un
obtained by sensors one and three. The maximum displacement obtained by the model
lowering of the water table started. The maximum vertical displacement according
with the specific × 10−4 m−interval
storage of 3confidence
experimental
1 was 2.01 mm and 2.6 mm with the storage of
was 3.86 mm and the minimum was 3.61 mm, wh
− 4 − 1
3.5 × 10 m maximum. From the value
beginning of theby
experiment until model
500 h, the
obtained the numerical wasspecific storage
4.19 mm. The of
range of s
Water 2024, 16, 467 20 of 25

3 × 10−4 m−1 adjusted with the media of the experimental results and after 507.9 h the
vertical displacement adjusted better with storage of 3.5 × 10−4 m−1 .
For the second case of coarse sand (Figure 11b), it is observed both in the experimental
data and the numerical results that the initial displacement was delayed until the lowering
of the water table started. The maximum vertical displacement according to the experimen-
tal confidence interval was 3.86 mm and the minimum was 3.61 mm, while the maximum
value obtained by the numerical model was 4.19 mm. The range of specific storages that
were evaluated for this scenario of coarse sand was 9 × 10−4 m−1 , 7 × 10−4 m−1 , and
1 × 10−3 m−1 . The storage that was better adjusted was the 9 × 10−4 m−1 with an average
absolute error to the experimental media of 0.34 mm with the highest discrepancy at 309.8 h
with 0.93 mm. The specific storage of 1 × 10−3 m−1 had a closer agreement to the media of
the experimental results after 300 h and after 457 h the best agreement was obtained with
9 × 10−4 m−1 .
The numerical results and the experimental results for coarse sand showed a constant
tendency of increasing vertical displacement; over time, it was evidenced that the slope
started to decrease with the continued cycles of exploitation.

4.2.2. Fine Sand

Figure 12 depicts the vertical displacement over time for the fine sand. The evaluated
range of specific storages for the fine sands included 4 × 10−4 m−1 , 4.5 × 10−4 m−1 ,
5 × 10−4 m−1 , and 6 × 10−4 m−1 . For the first scenario of fine sand (Figure 12a), the
best agreement was obtained with the storage coefficient of 5 × 10−4 m−1 and for the
second scenario was 4.5 × 10−4 m−1 . The average absolute error for the first scenario was
0.33 mm with respect to the media of the experimental results. From the beginning of the
experiment up to 279 h the best agreement was with 5 × 10−4 m−1 and after 279 h the best
agreement was with the coefficient of 6 × 10−4 m−1 with an average error of 0.34 mm. The
maximum vertical deformation obtained with 6 × 10−4 m−1 was 2.5 mm, a difference of
0.18 mm with respect to the experiment. The average absolute error for the second scenario
(Figure 12b), was 0.29 mm with respect to the media of the experiments. The agreement
between the experimental and numerical results for the second scenario shows the potential
of integrative tools such as CFD to simulate land subsidence. This scenario lasted more than
three months and the simulation recreated the tendency of vertical deformation observed
in the experiments.
Along the different periods, the vertical displacement showed a close increase in
subsidence over time. The simulation shows a constant slope of compaction, but for the
experimental case, periods with low to no compaction were observed. This was evidenced
in the first scenario after 200 h and at 300 h again, with constant cycles of exploitation and
recharge, and in the second scenario after 250 h and at 500 h. The late response of finer
sediments has been evidenced by various studies [39,40,57] and one of its consequences is
delayed land subsidence after the water head declines.
From all experimental and simulated results, it is observed that the tendency of
land subsidence in sands is to increase with each cycle of exploitation and recharge. The
strain slope reduces over time and, according to the literature, it continues to deform
until it reaches a maximum deformation and reduction of the specific storage [62]. In
this study, the maximum vertical displacement for all scenarios was not reached, but a
vertical displacement of sand of up to 5 mm was recreated with the longest experiment,
evidencing that high displacement can occur in sands subjected to continued exploitation
rates. The highest slopes for vertical deformation were obtained with the coarse sand, with
an estimated deformation after 600 h of 4.19 mm for the simulation and an average of
3.7 mm with the experimental results. The tendency of the results agrees with Wu et al. [62]
and Lv et al. [27], reaffirming that sands can rearrange their pores with each cycle of
exploitation and recharge, consequently generating vertical displacement of the surface.
The specific storage of an aquifer indicates the percentage of water storage alter-
ation corresponding to a unit change in the hydraulic head within the aquifer. Consid-
Water 2024, 16, 467 21 of 25

ering the extensive collection of data and references for unconfined aquifers presented
by Kuang et al. [61], the specific storage for unconfined aquifers is expected to be dis-
tributed in the range of 105 –10−3 m−1 , with the highest frequency for unconfined aquifers
of 10−5 –10−4 m−1 . The specific storages evaluated and considered to adjust to the numer-
ical REVIEW
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER model agree with the range provided by Kuang et al. [61], with storage coefficients 23 of
of 3 × 10−4 m−1 , 9 × 10−4 m−1 , 3.9 × 10−4 m−1 , and 5 × 10−4 m−1 for coarse and fine
sand, respectively.

(a) First scenario

(b) Second scenario

Figure displacement
Figure 12. Vertical 12. Vertical displacement in the
in the fine sand forfine
thesand forand
(a) first the (a)
thefirst and thescenario.
(b) second (b) second scenario.

5. Conclusions
The understanding of land subsidence impact in unconfined aquifers is key to im
proving the estimation of the driving forces that act upon aquifers and threaten their su
tainability. Among those forces, salinity intrusion and the transport of anthropogenic po
lutants are threats that can be altered due to specific storage changes and land subsidenc
Water 2024, 16, 467 22 of 25

5. Conclusions
The understanding of land subsidence impact in unconfined aquifers is key to im-
proving the estimation of the driving forces that act upon aquifers and threaten their
sustainability. Among those forces, salinity intrusion and the transport of anthropogenic
pollutants are threats that can be altered due to specific storage changes and land subsi-
dence. This study incorporates its novelty into the estimation of land subsidence based on
Terzaghi’s approach using Computational Fluid Dynamics, and the simulation of scenarios
of land subsidence for up to three months in coarse and fine sands using an experimental
setup. Relevant remarks are highlighted in the following statements:
1. During the continued cycles of recharge and exploitation, both sands showed contin-
ued compaction that kept increasing over time. However, the deformation of coarse
sand occurred at higher rates than for the fine sand. At times when the hydraulic
head was maintained constant, the deformation for the coarse sand was significantly
reduced, and for fine sands, it evidenced a delayed response;
2. The estimation of land subsidence following Terzaghi’s approach agreed with the
vertical displacement behavior observed in laboratory experiments. Nevertheless, it
required the adjustment of the model considering the aquifer’s specific storage and
detailed characterization of its physical characteristics;
3. The average absolute error of the numerical model to recreate the experimental results
of land subsidence was 0.14 mm for the first scenario of coarse sand, 0.34 mm for
the second scenario of coarse sand, 0.33 mm first the first scenario of fine sand, and
0.29 mm for the second scenario of fine sand. The maximum discrepancy of 0.34 mm
was obtained for the second scenario of coarse sand where the maximum experimental
subsidence was 3.86 mm;
4. The variation of effective stress and strain in sand subjected to withdrawal-recharging
cycles revealed different patterns of deformation behavior with grain sizes and dis-
tributions. Both types of sand showed mostly inelastic deformation that did not
rebound, except the fine sand, which evidenced three rebounds after a month of cycles
of exploitation and recharge;
5. The experimental results evidenced that in addition to the specific storage that con-
tributes to deformation, fine and coarse sands show a different response to capillarity
effects due to their different effective diameter and porosity. Therefore, unconfined
aquifers with fine sands are able to maintain more saturation within the micropores
after the water table is lowered, contributing to a slower or delayed response to the
water table changes;
6. The variation of the specific storage in unconfined aquifers is a pressing topic that
requires further study. The consequent reduction in storage coefficient could alter the
groundwater flow and other simultaneous dynamics occurring in the aquifer.
Large-scale simulation of land subsidence in unconfined aquifers based on satellite
and in situ data is suggested to test more robust subsidence models with the application
of CFD. Countries with abundant coastal aquifers and groundwater resources such as
Colombia require further research regarding land subsidence, especially in coastal zones
where it has been evidenced and where there is a potential for groundwater supply with
the coastal groundwater reserves.
Future work could oversee the microscopical rearrangement of pores in unconfined
aquifers due to constant cycles of recharge and discharge in fine sands, including its
relationship to the porosity and possible increase in the aquifer’s capillarity. Assessments
should also consider the land subsidence distribution in highly heterogeneous and layered
fine-sand aquifers. The relationship between land subsidence and other mechanisms such
as suffosion is an interesting subject for future study and will be considered by the authors
during future work that will be undertaken.
Additionally, research could consider the change of storage coefficient in unconfined
aquifers due to land subsidence and its relationship with the changes in groundwater
flow in the aquifer. Other approaches could explore large-scale land subsidence with CFD
Water 2024, 16, 467 23 of 25

considering Biot’s approach and include the estimation of geotechnical properties of the
soil, such as Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio. The authors will continue advancing
this topic to reduce the existing knowledge gaps.

Author Contributions: This article was a collaborative effort. The conceptualization was led by
research supervisors, E.Q.-B. and M.M., while the extensive experimentation and analysis were
carried out by D.C.C., guided by both supervisors. D.C.C. took the lead in drafting the manuscript,
with contributions and feedback from all authors during critical revisions. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Minciencias (Ministry of science, technology, and innovation,
Colombia); OCAD; fund for science, technology, and innovation of General royalties’ system in
Colombia (FCTel-SGR) through the Convocatoria 8 and project BPIN 2020000100372; Canadian
Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship Program (QES), Canada; University of Cartagena,
Colombia; and Toronto Metropolitan University Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The financial support of Minciencias (Ministry of science, technology, and inno-
vation, Colombia); OCAD; fund for science, technology, and innovation of General royalties’ system
in Colombia (FCTel-SGR) through the Convocatoria 8 and project BPIN 2020000100372; Canadian
Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship Program (QES), Canada; The Emerging Leaders of
the Americas Program (ELAP); University of Cartagena, Colombia; and Toronto Metropolitan Uni-
versity Faculty of Engineering and Architectural Science is greatly appreciated. The authors would
like to thank Claudia Castro-Faccetti of the University of Cartagena for the insights to this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the
design, execution, interpretation, or writing of this manuscript.

References
1. Herrera-García, G.; Ezquerro, P.; Tomas, R.; Béjar-Pizarro, M.; López-Vinielles, J.; Rossi, M.; Mateos, R.M.; Carreón-Freyre, D.;
Lambert, J.; Teatini, P.; et al. Mapping the Global Threat of Land Subsidence. Science 2021, 371, 34–36. [CrossRef]
2. Poland, J.F.; Davis, G.H. Land Subsidence Due to Withdrawal of Fluids. GSA Rev. Eng. Geol. 1969, 2, 187–269. [CrossRef]
3. Pratt, W.E.; Johnson, D.W. Local Subsidence of the Goose Creek Oil Field. J. Geol. 1926, 34, 577–590. [CrossRef]
4. Holzer, T.L.; Johnson, M.; Burnham, C.; Allen, C.; Muehlberger, W. State and Local Response to Damaging Land Subsidence in
United States Urban Areas. Eng. Geol. 1989, 27, 449–466. [CrossRef]
5. Nagel, N.B. Compaction and Subsidence Issues within the Petroleum Industry: From Wilmington to Ekofisk and Beyond. Phys.
Chem. Earth Part A Solid Earth Geod. 2001, 26, 3–14. [CrossRef]
6. Sato, H.P.; Abe, K.; Ootaki, O. GPS-Measured Land Subsidence in Ojiya City, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Eng. Geol. 2003, 67,
379–390. [CrossRef]
7. Corbau, C.; Simeoni, U.; Zoccarato, C.; Mantovani, G.; Teatini, P. Coupling Land Use Evolution and Subsidence in the Po Delta,
Italy: Revising the Past Occurrence and Prospecting the Future Management Challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 1196–1208.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Steckler, M.S.; Oryan, B.; Wilson, C.A.; Grall, C.; Nooner, S.L.; Mondal, D.R.; Akhter, S.H.; DeWolf, S.; Goodbred, S.L. Synthesis of
the Distribution of Subsidence of the Lower Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta, Bangladesh. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2022, 224, 103887. [CrossRef]
9. Nguyen, C.D.; Araki, H.; Yamanishi, H.; Koga, K. Simulation of Groundwater Flow and Environmental Effects Resulting from
Pumping. Environ. Geol. 2005, 47, 361–374. [CrossRef]
10. Cigna, F.; Tapete, D. Satellite InSAR Survey of Structurally-Controlled Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater Exploitation in the
Aguascalientes Valley, Mexico. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 254, 112254. [CrossRef]
11. Peng, M.; Lu, Z.; Zhao, C.; Motagh, M.; Bai, L.; Conway, B.D.; Chen, H. Mapping Land Subsidence and Aquifer System Properties
of the Willcox Basin, Arizona, from InSAR Observations and Independent Component Analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 2022,
271, 112894. [CrossRef]
12. Isaac, D. A Ground-Water Flow and Land Subsidence Model of Las Vegas Valley, Nevada—A Converted MOD FLOW Model; University
of Nevada: Reno, NV, USA, 1998.
13. Ke, J.; Blum, H. A Panel Analysis of Groundwater Use in California. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 12. [CrossRef]
14. Lees, M.; Knight, R.; Smith, R. Development and Application of a 1D Compaction Model to Understand 65 Years of Subsidence in
the San Joaquin Valley. Water Resour. Res. 2022, 58, e2021WR031390. [CrossRef]
15. Guzy, A.; Malinowska, A.A. State of the Art and Recent Advancements in the Modelling of Land Subsidence Induced by
Groundwater Withdrawal. Water 2020, 12, 2051. [CrossRef]
Water 2024, 16, 467 24 of 25

16. Mahmoudpour, M.; Khamehchiyan, M.; Nikudel, M.R.; Ghassemi, M.R. Numerical Simulation and Prediction of Regional Land
Subsidence Caused by Groundwater Exploitation in the Southwest Plain of Tehran, Iran. Eng. Geol. 2016, 201, 6–28. [CrossRef]
17. Leake, S.A.; Galloway, D.L. MODFLOW Ground-Water Model-User Guide to the Subsidence and Aquifer-System Compaction
Package (SUB-WT) for Water-Table Aquifers. In U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A23; US Geological Survey:
Reston, VA, USA, 2007; p. 42.
18. Helm, D.C. One-Dimensional Simulation of Aquifer System Compaction near Pixley, California: 1. Constant Parameters. Water
Resour. Res. 1975, 11, 465–478. [CrossRef]
19. Eggleston, J.; Pope, J. Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region; No. 1392; US Geological
Survey Circular: Richmond, VA, USA, 2013; 30p.
20. Restrepo-Ángel, J.D.; Mora-Páez, H.; Díaz, F.; Govorcin, M.; Wdowinski, S.; Giraldo-Londoño, L.; Tosic, M.; Fernández, I.;
Paniagua-Arroyave, J.F.; Duque-Trujillo, J.F. Coastal Subsidence Increases Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise over Twenty First
Century in Cartagena, Caribbean Colombia. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 18873. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Essink, G.O.; Kooi, H. Land Subsidence and Sea-Level Rise Threaten Fresh Water Resources in the Coastal Groundwater System
of the Rijnland Water Board, The Netherlands. In Climate Change Effects on Groundwater Resources: A Global Synthesis of Findings
and Recommendations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 227–248. ISBN 9780203120767.
22. Yan, X.; Yang, T.; Yan, X.U.; Tosi, L.; Stouthamer, E.; Andreas, H.; Minderhoud, P.; Ladawadee, A.; Hanssen, R.; Erkens, G.; et al.
Advances and Practices on the Research, Prevention and Control of Land Subsidence in Coastal Cities. Acta Geol. Sin. 2020, 94,
162–175. [CrossRef]
23. Lu, C.; Zhu, L.; Li, X.; Gong, H.; Du, D.; Wang, H.; Teatini, P. Land Subsidence Evolution and Simulation in the Western Coastal
Area of Bohai Bay, China. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1549. [CrossRef]
24. Antonellini, M.; Giambastiani, B.M.S.; Greggio, N.; Bonzi, L.; Calabrese, L.; Luciani, P.; Perini, L.; Severi, P. Hydrologic Control
on Natural Land Subsidence in the Shallow Coastal Aquifer of the Ravenna Coast, Italy Marco. In Proceedings of the Tenth
International Symposium on Land Subsidence, Delft, The Netherlands, 17–21 May 2021; Copernicus Publications on Behalf of the
International Association of Hydrological Sciences: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; Volume 382, pp. 263–268.
25. Yang, Y.; Song, X.F.; Zheng, F.D.; Liu, L.C.; Qiao, X.J. Simulation of Fully Coupled Finite Element Analysis of Nonlinear Hydraulic
Properties in Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater Pumping. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 4191–4199. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, K.H.; Hwang, C.; Tanaka, Y.; Chang, P.Y. Gravity Estimation of Groundwater Mass Balance of Sandy Aquifers in the Land
Subsidence-Hit Region of Yunlin County, Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 2023, 315, 107021. [CrossRef]
27. Lv, W.; Miao, L.; Li, C. Physical Model Test of Land Subsidence Caused by Groundwater Withdrawal. In Geo-Frontiers 2011:
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 1081–1090. [CrossRef]
28. Li, Y.; Hu, Z.; Weng, T.; Fonseca, J.; Zhang, X. Experimental Study on the Vertical Deformation of Sand Caused by Cyclic
Withdrawal and Recharging of Groundwater. Eng. Geol. 2014, 183, 247–253. [CrossRef]
29. Chala, D.C.; Quiñones-Bolaños, E.; Mehrvar, M. An Integrated Framework to Model Salinity Intrusion in Coastal Unconfined
Aquifers Considering Intrinsic Vulnerability Factors, Driving Forces, and Land Subsidence. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 106873.
[CrossRef]
30. Miller, M.M.; Shirzaei, M. Land Subsidence in Houston Correlated with Flooding from Hurricane Harvey. Remote Sens. Environ.
2019, 225, 368–378. [CrossRef]
31. Yu, X.; Michael, H.A. Offshore Pumping Impacts Onshore Groundwater Resources and Land Subsidence. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019,
46, 2553–2562. [CrossRef]
32. Cigna, F.; Tapete, D. Urban Growth and Land Subsidence: Multi-Decadal Investigation Using Human Settlement Data and
Satellite InSAR in Morelia, Mexico. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 811, 152211. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Wang, G.Y.; Zhu, J.Q.; Zhang, D.; Wu, J.Q.; Yu, J.; Gong, X.L.; Gou, F.G. Land Subsidence and Uplift Related to Groundwater
Extraction in Wuxi, China. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2020, 53, 609–619. [CrossRef]
34. Nardean, S.; Ferronato, M.; Zhang, Y.; Ye, S.; Gong, X.; Teatini, P. Understanding Ground Rupture Due to Groundwater
Overpumping by a Large Lab Experiment and Advanced Numerical Modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2021, 57, e2020WR027553.
[CrossRef]
35. Cigna, F.; Tapete, D. Sentinel-1 Big Data Processing with P-SBAS InSAR in the Geohazards Exploitation Platform: An Experiment
on Coastal Land Subsidence and Landslides in Italy. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 885. [CrossRef]
36. Di, S.; Jia, C.; Ding, P.; Zhang, S.; Yang, X. Experimental Research on Macroscopic and Mesoscopic Evolution Mechanism of Land
Subsidence Induced by Groundwater Exploitation. Nat. Hazards 2022, 113, 453–474. [CrossRef]
37. Reshi, A.R.; Sandhu, H.A.S.; Cherubini, C.; Tripathi, A. Estimating Land Subsidence and Gravimetric Anomaly Induced by
Aquifer Overexploitation in the Chandigarh Tri-City Region, India by Coupling Remote Sensing with a Deep Learning Neural
Network Model. Water 2023, 15, 1206. [CrossRef]
38. Zhang, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, H.; Feng, C.; Shi, H.; Wu, S. Investigating Impacts of Deep Foundation Pit Dewatering on Land
Subsidence Based on CFD-DEM Method. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 6424–6443. [CrossRef]
39. Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Yang, T.; Wang, L.; Xu, N.; Long, Y.; Huang, X. Dewatering-Induced Stratified Settlement around Deep
Excavation: Physical Model Study. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8929. [CrossRef]
Water 2024, 16, 467 25 of 25

40. Liu, J.; Song, Z.; Lu, Y.; Bai, Y.; Qian, W.; Kanungo, D.P.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Y. Monitoring of Vertical Deformation Response to
Water Draining–Recharging Conditions Using BOFDA-Based Distributed Optical Fiber Sensors. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 406.
[CrossRef]
41. de Luna, R.M.R.; Garnés, S.J.d.A.; Cabral, J.J.d.S.P.; dos Santos, S.M. Groundwater Overexploitation and Soil Subsidence
Monitoring on Recife Plain (Brazil). Nat. Hazards 2017, 86, 1363–1376. [CrossRef]
42. Ortiz, J.; Quiñones-Bolaños, E.; Chala, D.C. Buenas Practicas Para El Manejo de Acuiferos a Nivel Latinoamericano. Conf. Int.
Agua 2022, 1, 175–183.
43. Ke, L.; Takahashi, A. Experimental Investigations on Suffusion Characteristics and Its Mechanical Consequences on Saturated
Cohesionless Soil. Soils Found. 2014, 54, 713–730. [CrossRef]
44. Khaksar Najafi, E.; Faghihmaleki, H. The Effect of Suffusion Phenomenon in the Increasing of Land Subsidence Rate. Civ. Eng. J.
2016, 2, 316–323. [CrossRef]
45. Li, Q.; Ito, K.; Wu, Z.; Lowry, C.S.; Loheide, S.P. COMSOL Multiphysics: A Novel Approach to Ground Water Modeling. Ground
Water 2009, 47, 480–487. [CrossRef]
46. Kumar, S.S.; Deb Barma, S.; Amai, M. Simulation of Coastal Aquifer Using MSim Toolbox and COMSOL Multiphysics. J. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2020, 129, 66. [CrossRef]
47. Biot, M.A. General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation. J. Appl. Phys. 1941, 12, 155–164. [CrossRef]
48. Cryer, C.W. A Comparison of the Three-Dimensional Consolidation Theories of Biot and Terzaghi. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 1963,
16, 401–412. [CrossRef]
49. Bear, J.; Corapcioglu, M.Y. Mathematical Model for Regional Land Subsidence Due to Pumping 1. Integrated Aquifer Subsidence
Equations Based on Vertical Displacement Only. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17, 937–946. [CrossRef]
50. Bear, J.; Corapcioglu, M.Y. Mathematical Model for Regional Land Subsidence Due to Pumping 2. Integrated Aquifer Subsidence
Equations for Vertical and Horizontal Displacements. Water Resour. Res. 1981, 17, 947–958. [CrossRef]
51. Corapcioglu, M.Y.; Bear, J. A Mathematical Model for Regional Land Subsidence Due to Pumping: 3. Integrated Equations for a
Phreatic Aquifer. Water Resour. Res. 1983, 19, 895–908. [CrossRef]
52. Leake, S.A.; Galloway, D.L. Use of the SUB-WT Package for MODFLOW to Simulate Aquifer-System Compaction in Ante-
lope Valley, California, USA. In Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium of Land Subsidence, Queretaro, Mexico,
17–22 October 2010; Land Subsidence, Associated Hazards and the Role of Natural Resources Development. International
Association of Hydrological Sciences: Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; Volume 339, pp. 61–67.
53. Gambolati, G.; Teatini, P. Land Subsidence and Its Mitigation; The Groundwater Project: Guelph, ON, Canada, 2021; Volume 78,
ISBN 9781774700013.
54. Terzaghi, K. Theoretical Soil Mechanics; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1943.
55. De Boer, R. Development of Porous Media Theories: A Brief Historical Review. Transp. Porous Media 1992, 9, 155–164. [CrossRef]
56. Zhang, Y.; Wu, J.; Xue, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Yan, X.; Wang, H. Land Subsidence and Uplift Due to Long-Term Groundwater
Extraction and Artificial Recharge in Shanghai, China. Hydrogeol. J. 2015, 23, 1851–1866. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, Y.; He, G.; Wu, J.; Zhu, Z.; Yan, X.; Yang, T. Experimental Study on Mechanism for Pumping-Induced Land Subsidence.
Proc. Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci. 2020, 382, 387–390. [CrossRef]
58. Antonellini, M.; Giambastiani, B.M.S.; Greggio, N.; Bonzi, L.; Calabrese, L.; Luciani, P.; Perini, L.; Severi, P. Processes Governing
Natural Land Subsidence in the Shallow Coastal Aquifer of the Ravenna Coast, Italy. Catena 2019, 172, 76–86. [CrossRef]
59. Zhou, X.L.; Huang, K.Y.; Wang, J.H. Numerical Simulation of Groundwater Flow and Land Deformation Due to Groundwater
Pumping in Cross-Anisotropic Layered Aquifer System. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2017, 14, 19–33. [CrossRef]
60. Comsol Multiphysics. Biot Poroelasticity. Ref. Man. 2011, pp. 1–20. Available online: https://www.comsol.com/model/biot-
poroelasticity-483#:~:text=The%20Poroelasticity%20interface%20couples%20Darcy’s,of%20the%20Terzaghi%20Compaction%
20example (accessed on 28 December 2023).
61. Kuang, X.; Jiao, J.J.; Zheng, C.; Cherry, J.A.; Li, H. A Review of Specific Storage in Aquifers. J. Hydrol. 2020, 581, 124383. [CrossRef]
62. Wu, J.H.; Shi, B.; Cao, D.F.; Jiang, H.T.; Wang, X.F.; Gu, K. Model Test of Soil Deformation Response to Draining-Recharging
Conditions Based on DFOS. Eng. Geol. 2017, 226, 107–121. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.