Author
Listed:
- Ye-Shuang Xu
- Shui-Long Shen
- Zheng-Yin Cai
- Guo-Yun Zhou
Abstract
This article gives a general introduction to land subsidence with the prediction approaches due to withdrawal of groundwater in three subsided/subsiding regions in China: the deltaic plain of Yangtse River (YRDP), North China Plain (NCP), and Fenwei Plain (FP). On YRDP, Shanghai is the typical subsided/subsiding city; on NCP Tianjin is the typical subsided/subsiding city, and on FP Taiyuan is the typical subsided/subsiding city. The subsided area with subsidence over 200 mm on YRDP is about 10,000 km 2 and the maximum subsided value reached 2.9 m at Shanghai; on NCP the subsided area reached 60,000 km 2 with the maximum subsidence of 3.9 m at Tianjing; on FP the subsided area is relatively smaller than that on the other two plains and is about 1,135 km 2 with maximum subsidence of 3.7 m at Taiyuan city. In order to protect the civil and industrial facilities, it is necessary to predict the future development of land subsidence based on present state. Many researchers proposed several approaches to predict the land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal according to different geological conditions and groundwater withdrawal practice. This article classifies these approaches into five categories: (i) statistical methods; (ii) 1D numerical method; (iii) quasi-3D seepage model; (iv) 3D seepage model; (v) fully coupled 3D model. In China, the former four categories are presently employed in the prediction practice and their merits and demerits are discussed. According to the prediction practice, 3D seepage model is the best method presently. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Suggested Citation
Ye-Shuang Xu & Shui-Long Shen & Zheng-Yin Cai & Guo-Yun Zhou, 2008.
"The state of land subsidence and prediction approaches due to groundwater withdrawal in China,"
Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 45(1), pages 123-135, April.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:45:y:2008:i:1:p:123-135
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-007-9168-4
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:45:y:2008:i:1:p:123-135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.