## 4 Engineering Example Verification
### Comparison of Engineering Measured Data and Calculation Results  
Substituting the parameters shown in Table 2 into Equation (13), the water inflow per unit width of the foundation pit is 90.55 m\({}^{3}\)/m\(\cdot\)d.  
Taking \(x=0\) m and \(z=9.62\) m, according to Equation (11), the hydraulic head value at the bottom of the curtain can be obtained as \(h_{0}=83.19\) m. Substituting \(h_{0}=83.19\) m and the parameters shown in Table 2 into Formula (17), the resistance coefficient \(\zeta_{3}=1.0403\) can be obtained. Then, \(\zeta_{3}=1.0403\) and the parameters shown in Table 2 are substituted into Equation (19), and the program iteration method is used to obtain the hydraulic head value of \(h_{w}=83.98\) m outside the curtain. In order to enhance the reliability of the conclusions of this study, the research results of [PERSON] [27] were utilized to calculate the water inflow of the foundation pit, and the results were compared with the calculation results of this paper. The calculation formula used for water inflow requires the influence radius of foundation pit dewatering. According to the current criterion [32], the influence radius of foundation pit dewatering can be calculated to be 1232 m. The parameters shown in Table 2 are substituted into the calculation formula of water inflow, and the calculation result of water inflow is 34.70 m\({}^{3}\)/m\(\cdot\)d. Based on the calculation method of the water level outside the curtain in this paper, the value of the water level outside the curtain under water inflow is 82.99 m. The calculation results of this paper, the calculation results of [PERSON]'s formula, and the measured results are compared and analyzed, as shown in Table 3:  
The calculated value of the water inflow per unit width of the foundation pit is 90.55 m\({}^{3}\)/m\(\cdot\)d, which is 15.44% larger than the measured value of 78.44 m\({}^{3}\)/m\(\cdot\)d, which is on the safe side for the design of this project, while the calculated value of the water level outside the curtain is 83.98 m, which is 2.26% smaller than the measured value of 85.92 m. [PERSON] assumes that the hydraulic head in the vertical direction from the bottom of the waterproof curtain to the top of the aquiclude is regarded as a fixed value, which is different from the assumption of this paper; thus, the calculation results are also different. In the calculation results of [PERSON]'s formula, the final calculation result of water inflow is 55.76% smaller than the measured value, while the calculated value of the water level drawdown outside the curtain is 82.99 m, which is 3.41% smaller than the measured value of 85.92 m. Relatively, the calculation results in this paper are more accurate. Currently, the seepage theory of a foundation pit with a suspended waterproof curtain is still not sufficiently developed. The calculation method used for foundation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline Aquifer thickness \(H_{0}\)/m & 90 \\ Water level in foundation pit \(h_{n}\)/m & 81.62 \\ Stratum permeability coefficient \(K\)/m/d & 60 \\ Foundation pit width \(2b\)/m & 20.7 \\ Water entry depth of a waterproof curtain in the pit \(L\)/m & 9.62 \\ Flow cross-section thickness \(M\)/m & 72 \\ Waterproof curtain width \(D\)/m & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Value of foundation pit parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Calculated** & **Measure Value** & **Calculated Value of** & **Calculated Value of** \\
**Parameters** & & **This Study** & **[PERSON]’s Formula** \\ \hline Water inflow per unit width \(\Omega\)/m\({}^{3}\)/m\(\cdot\)d & 78.44 & 90.55 & 34.70 \\ water level outside the curtain \(h_{w}\)/m & 85.92 & 83.98 & 82.99 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Measure value and calculating value. pit water inflow under a suspended waterproof curtain is not specified in the current criterion [32]. Consequently, in the actual project, the water inflow used during the design phase often has a high degree of error.