GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 681

Development Mechanism and Remediation of Multiple Spontaneous Sinkholes:

A Case History

S.E. Jammal1, M. ASCE, P.E., J.W. Casper2, M. ASCE, P.E. and A. M.

Sallam3, M. ASCE, Ph.D., P.E
1
Nodarse & Associates, Inc., 1675 Lee Road, Winter Park, Florida, USA; PH
(407)740-6110; FAX (407)740-6112; e-mail: jimj@nodarse.com
2
Nodarse & Associates, Inc., 1675 Lee Road, Winter Park, Florida, USA; PH
(407)740-6110; FAX (407)740-6112; e-mail: jayc@nodarse.com
3
Nodarse & Associates, Inc., 1675 Lee Road, Winter Park, Florida, USA; PH
(407)740-6110; FAX (407)740-6112; e-mail: amrs@nodarse.com

ABSTRACT
In September 1999 a Regional Distribution Center in North Florida that
included a 10 hectare single cell storm water retention basin was nearing completion.
Runoff to the basin from a three inch rainfall event resulted in the occurrence of a
cluster of multiple and spontaneous sinkholes within the basin. Compaction grouting
was used to stabilize the sinkholes. In early 2000, as the basin partially filled from
relatively small rain events and more sinkholes were experienced, which were
repaired by sand filling. In late June 2000, a heavy storm filled 40% of design storage
and resulted in about two dozen spontaneous sinkholes that emptied the basin rapidly.
Upon review, evaluation and consultations, future multiple spontaneous sinkhole
events were forecasted within other parts of the basin, and a Remedial Response
Protocol was provided. In July of 2001, a heavy rain event filling about 60% of
design capacity resulted in thirty sinkholes within forecasted areas, which were
remediated in accordance with the response protocol. The magnitude and frequency
and repeated occurrence of the sinkholes became a media event with considerable
public concerns. The concerns were addressed to the satisfaction of the regulatory
agencies and reasonable assurances were given that the sinkhole events have matured
and did not result in environmental degradation of the ground water. Since then, even
though the basin has experienced about 60% filling, no new multiple sinkholes of
consequence have taken place. While multiple sinkholes in retention basins are
frequently experienced, to our knowledge, no prior explanation has been made as to
the reasons for Multiple Spontaneous Sinkholes. This paper provides a brief history
of the project, the area hydrogeologic setting, and an explanation of the mechanism of
Multiple Spontaneous Sinkholes. Remedial measures are presented to reduce or
mitigate sinkhole events and the potential for contamination of groundwater.
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 682

INTRODUCTION
Beginning in the fall of 1999 when a regional distribution facility in North
Florida was nearing completion, several sinkhole events were experienced within the
project stormwater retention basin and its immediate vicinity. These were relatively
small, were readily mitigated and generally did not re-open. In June 2000 and July
2001 several additional spontaneous sinkholes opened in and near the stormwater
retention pond after moderate storm events. Appropriate response guidelines were
developed in concert with the owner and contractors to mitigate water regulators’
concerns for potential groundwater contamination. To make these guidelines
acceptable for the regulators and interested public, it was first necessary to explain
the cause and mechanism of the multiple sinkhole events.

Project Background
Sinkholes are a common occurrence and part of the landscape in most of
Florida, including the region of North Florida where the distribution center is located.
Prior to design and construction, the geotechnical conditions within the project site
were explored and evaluated by others. Within building and paved areas, 90 borings
were performed, while five only borings were made within the 10 hectare retention
pond. The study also included a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey with
transects taken mainly within building and paved areas. The original geotechnical
report concluded that the site was well-suited for the proposed construction, and
recommended use of shallow foundations after compaction of the building area with
deep dynamic compaction to densify the soils in and above the vertical solution
features in the limestone to further reduce the likelihood of soil erosion and sinkhole
development. The building area was mostly filled. Most of the paved areas were also
filled. The retention pond was cut 1 to 5 meters. At its highest level, the basin could
hold as much as 3 meters of water.

Geologic Setting
The site lies along the foothills of the Northern Highlands Marginal Zone and
within the Western Valley. The Western Valley is a subdued limestone plane
composed of the Ocala Group Crystal River Formation overlain by a thin and
variable soil cover and occasional residual fills composed of sediment of the
Hawthorn Group. Sinkholes and low hills composed of erosional remnants of the
Northern Highlands provide much of the topographic relief. Overlying the limestone
is a relatively thin layer of sand and soil cover including common residual chert
boulders. Residual sediments frequently fill sinkholes and tend to mask the degree of
irregularity of the limestone surface. Innumerable sinkholes divert all runoff
underground and are the cause of the lack of surface streams.
As a result of the geology described above, the limestone can be expected to
have karst features including solution pipes in the limestone. Exposed limestone
surfaces may be riddled with solution pipes. Figure 1 illustrates an example of the
irregular limestone surface, from an exposed excavation not far from the subject site.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate solution pipes that are still filled with a soil plug (Figure 2)
and where the plug has been washed out (Figure 3).
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 683

Figure 1. Illustration of irregular limestone surface.

Figure 2. Figure 3.
Solution pipe with soil plug still in place Solution pipes with soil plugs washed out
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 684

Retention Basin Subsoil Conditions

Figure 4 shows the locations of borings made within the retention basin and
corresponding results. Based on the review of the geologic literature of the area and
the results of the deeper borings made within the building area, Figure 4 was
“enhanced” to characterize the hydrogeologic conditions below the basin. Figure 4
provides a reasonable characterization of the subsoil and hydrogeologic stratigraphy
within and below the retention basin. The pond bottom was expected to be
approximately 3 to 6 meters above the general limestone surface, and about 8 meters
above the piezometric level within the limestone. Figure 4 also depicts the “Solution
Pipes” that can be expected to dot the limestone below the site. The solution pipes
may be filled or partially filled and are typically connected to a network of
interconnected voids and fissures in the limestone. Due to changes in piezometric
levels over the millennia, the surface of the limestone and the interconnected voids
may extend above the piezometric surface, as is the case for the subject site.
Prior to pond excavation, the average cover of sands, clayey sands and clays
above the limestone was approximately 10 meters. Recharge to the limestone aquifer
occurred mainly as a diffuse flow, concentrate to some degree in topographic lows
which are typically influenced by long-term solution activity and slow raveling of
soils through the solution pipes. Under natural conditions of diffuse flow, surface
collapses would be a rare event as soils were slowly transported downward into
solution pipes and the underlying system of cavities. In the higher topographic areas,
the solution activity would be somewhat less due to the natural subsurface
groundwater flow toward low areas. In the course of construction of the 10 hectare
excavation, previous topographic highs and lows were masked, the soil cover over the
limestone and its solution pipes was reduced, and the pond would allow concentration
of water to a depth that would not have been experienced by the subsoils under a
diffuse infiltration scenario.

Sinkhole Events
Construction of the 25 acre single cell storm water retention basin was nearing
completion in September 1999, when an 8 to 10 cm rainfall depth storm event
resulted in the occurrence of a cluster of few multiple and spontaneous sinkholes. The
sinkholes which occurred would generally be considered “cover-collapse type
sinkholes, as the actual solution pipes or “avens” were not visible. Initially and
before the authors were involved, compaction grouting was used to stabilize the
sinkholes. This is not an unusual approach, but if compaction grouting were used to
repair every sinkhole in a normally dry pond, eventually the ability of the pond to
drain and recover would be diminished. Early in 2000, as the basin partially filled
from relatively small rain events, more sinkholes were experienced, which were
repaired by sand filling. Late June 2000, a heavy storm filled 40 percent of design
storage resulted in about two dozen spontaneous sinkholes that emptied the basin
rapidly. Upon our review, evaluation and consultations, future multiple spontaneous
sinkhole events were forecasted within other parts of the basin and a remedial
response protocol for repairs was provided.
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 685
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 686

In July of 2001, a heavy rain event filled 60 percent of design capacity

resulted in thirty sinkholes within forecasted areas, which were remediated in
accordance with the response protocol. As reported in 1999 to 2001, when most of
the sinkholes occurred, the pond had held just over 1 meter of water depth. However,
considering that the pond can hold almost 3 meters of water depth, there remains
some risk that more sinkholes can develop at greater depths of water not yet
experienced.
Of interest and as would be expected, the sinkholes are generally concentrated
within or near closed topographic lows.

Sinkhole Mechanisms
Figure 5 illustrates sinkhole mechanisms interpreted for the site. In upland
areas, the cover collapse sinkhole over a solution pipe would tend to be fairly small in
diameter with roughly vertical sides, as there is no water to erode the sides to a flatter
condition. This is illustrated on panel (a) of Figure 5. The collapse of the overlying
sands into the pipe is typically “self-healing”, and the steep sides would eventually
flatten over time if not filled. Also shown on panel (b) of Figure 5 is a typical
scenario for sinkhole occurrence within a pond with conditions similar to the site. If
sufficient sand cover remains above the limestone, the sinkhole can be- self-healing,
with the water action washing sand in to fill the solution pipe.
When several spontaneous or simultaneous sinkholes were experienced in the
proximity of each other in July 2001 the basin was holding about 1.8 meters of water
or a volume of about 75,000 cubic meters. We believe that the sinkhole events are
related to the size of the basins and the volume of water being held just preceding the
development of the first sinkhole. Over the years we have observed that small basins
of say 0.5 hectare, develop one or two sinks and the number increases with the size of
the basin as well as the corresponding water volume from the basin.
We believe that when one sink develops, the “rush” of the large water volume
spreads through the unsaturated interstices within the limestone. If the interstices
interconnect with several solution pipes as illustrated on panel (c) of Figure 5, the
rush or force of the water would have a tendency to erode or collapse the cover,
filling the other pipes from the bottom-up, thus creating clusters of small sinks in the
proximity of the original or initial sink. This explanation for the mechanism of
spontaneous sinkholes is significant. It suggests that the draining water from the
basin does not initially go directly into the saturated zone of the Floridan aquifer, but
is mostly dissipated or lost within the unsaturated interstices or “voids” within the
upper surface of the limestone. Hence, the movement of the water is not straight
down but travels along a “tortuous” path in just about all directions and is initially
very turbulent.
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 687
GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design
(GSP 199) © 2010 ASCE 688

Repair Protocols
For the actual events or conditions experienced at the project site, the most
effective and most applicable repair method was to fill the sinks with native nearby
sands. Filling the sinks with native sands as was recommended and practiced to date,
is effective because it improves the quality of stormwater by filtration before it
reaches the groundwater of the Floridan aquifer, being about 6 to 8 meters below the
bottom of the retention basin. A sand fill also allows infiltration to continue to occur,
which is important for recovery of storage volumes in a dry pond. The filling of the
actual sinkholes with relatively clean native sands from the site also allows further
infiltration to carry more sand into the various interstices and pore spaces in the
limestone. This also diminishes the chance of sinkhole recurrence. Of significance for
the project site is the fact that previously filled sinks have generally not reopened.
This is consistent with what we have observed and learned over the years.
A gravel plug is not appropriate because it would not provide sufficient
filtration for groundwater quality protection. On the other hand, a clayey sand
material may be appropriate as a final plug in instances where the pond is intended to
remain wet and infiltration of stormwater is not necessary.

CONCLUSIONS
The phenomenon of spontaneous sinkholes is due in large part to the
availability of large volumes of water which may drain into interconnected interstices
in primarily unsaturated zones in the limestone. Consideration should be given to
dividing large stormwater ponds in karst areas into multiple compartments, to
possibly minimize the amount of available water to flow into any sinkhole and reduce
the “spread” of simultaneous sinkholes.
The repair method practiced to date, where sinks are filled with native sands,
is currently the most effective and most technically sound. Suggestions that such
filling has caused or might cause contamination of the Floridan aquifer are unfounded
if the sand backfill has a gradation appropriate for effective filtration. Because the
native sands on site did not appear excessively coarse and permeable, we believe that
past and near future sinkhole events did not and would not pose a pollution threat,
and have not recommended further modifications of the protocol.
Based on history of events, the current repair practices are proving to be
successful, in that, while new sinkholes have developed since June, 2000, the new
sinkholes are happening in other parts of the basin. To date we have not observed
reoccurrence of previously filled sinkholes. The facility owner has also reported to us
a diminishing frequency of sinkhole occurrence over time.

REFERENCES
Williams, K. E., Nicol, D. and Randazzo, A. F. (1977). “Report of Investigations No.
85 - The Geology of the Western Part of Alachua County, Florida.” Bureau,
of Geology, Department of Natural Resources, State of Florida, Tallahassee,
Florida USA 98p.
Randazzo, A. F. and Jones, D. S., ed. (1997). “The Geology of Florida.” University
Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida USA 327p.