Lehigh University
Lehigh Preserve
Theses and Dissertations
1993
Geotechnical aspects of sinkholes
Mark J. Morrison
Lehigh University
Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Morrison, Mark J., "Geotechnical aspects of sinkholes" (1993). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 211.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected].
AUTHOR~
MOli'rison~
Mark J.
T~TlE:
Geotechnica~
Sinkho~es
Aspects of
Geotechnical Aspects of Sinkholes
by
Mark J. Morrison
A Thesis
Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee
of Lehigh University .
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Science
In
Civil Engineering
I
~. __
I
i
I
.
Leliigh University
-September 1,1993-
Table of Contents
[
Page
Abstract
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
1
Introduction
1.1 General Discussion
1.2 Lehigh Valley Sinkholes
1
2
History of Lehigh Valley Sinkholes
2.1
Sinkhole Formation
2.2 Prerequisites for Limestone Solution
2.3 Recent Increase in Activity of Sinkholes
5
5
11
3.1'
3.2
3.3
3.4
Geology of Lehigh County Pennsylvania
Background
Origin
Limestone Formations in the Lehigh Valley
Karstic Features in the Lehigh Valley
16
16
18
20
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Pollution and its' Effects on Sinkholes
Solid Waste
Classification of Hazardous Wastes
Landfills
Waste Disposal Sites in Lehigh County
Pollution in Carbonate
Waste Decomposition
Acid Rain
24
24
25
26
26
27
30
Landfills and Leachate
5.1
Landfill Liners
5.2 Landfill Testing and Design
5.3 Chemical Effects on Clay Liners
5.4 Movement Through a Clay Liner
5.5 Flexible Membrane Liner
33
33
35
35
36
Testing and Correcting Sinkholes
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Soils Investigation
- 6:3- Foundation Design------ - -6.4 Recommendation~ to Prevent Accelerating
Sinkhole Formation
iii
39
39
41
44
·0
Chapter 7
Use of Soil-Cement-Tire Aggregate as a Construction Fill
Introduction
46
Laboratory Study
49
51
Materials
,
52
Results
Conclusion
53
Discussion of Test Results
54
Summary
55
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
References
64
Appendix
67
Vita
102
~~-._--
iv
---
:J:~
TABLES
Page
Table 2.1
Chemical Reactions for Solution of Limestone
7
Table 2.2
Solubility of C02 vs. Temperature
9
Table 2.3
Typical Wastes Generated in Pennsylvania
15
Table 3.1
Chemical Percentages of Lehigh Valley Limestones
17
Table 3.2
Limestone Formations of the Lehigh Valley
18
Table 4.1
Sources of Groundwater Pollution
29
Table 5.1
Parameters of Various Organic Compounds
34
Table 5.2
Chemical Compatibility of F.M.L.
38
v
Page
FIGURES
Figure 2.1
Solubility of CaC03 vs. Partial Pressure of CO2
9
Figure 3.1
Geological map of the Lehigh Valley
22
Figure 3.2
Columnar section of the Lehigh Valley
23
Figure 4.1
Second Phase of Decomposition
29
Figure 7.1
Testing Apparatus Layout
49
Figure 7.2
Ultimate Load vs. Curing Period
58
Figure 7.3
Ultimate'Load vs. Modulus of Rupture
58
Figure 7.4
Ultimate Load vs. Slump
59
Figures A-1
Load / Stress vs. Deflection
67 -101
thru A-35
----
----
vi
PHOTOS
;"
Page
Photo 7-1
Sinkhole in Lehigh Valley
60
Photo 7-2
Sinkhole in Lehigh Valley
60
Photo 7-3
Sinkhole in Lehigh Valley
61
Photo 7-4
Testing Apparatus
61
Photo 7-5
Typical cracking pattern
62
Photo 7-6
Typical failure surface
62
Photo 7-7
Cross section of soil-cement-tire sample
63
Photo 7-8
Soil-cement-tire interaction
63
---
vii
- -----I
I
ABSTRACT
The Lehigh Valley has been subjected to the formation of sinkholes in the
regional limestone formations throughout it's history. In recent years sinkholes are
more common due to the changes and increased demands on the local
envirnoment. Some of the demands discussed include construction, dewatering
and different types of pollution such as landfill leachate, air pollution, and acid rain.
The formation of sinkholes is very dependent on the chemistry and dynamics of the
groundwater.
Correction of the sinkholes il]volves more than just filling in the void with a
construction fill. Before any sinkhole is filled there needs to be an investigation
into the magnitude of the problem as well as how to prevent it from reoccuring.
A fill material composed of soil-cement and a tire aggregate was
subjected to a third point loading tests to find the ultimate load and determine if
the material possessed the strength required to be used as a fill for sinkholes.
The testing was performed on test beams that had various initial moisture
contents. The method used to determine the moisture content was through the
use of a standard concrete slump cone. The slumps used were 0", 3", 5", 7" and
8".
The purpose behind using the rubber tire as an aggregate was to find a way
to fill a sinkhole with an aggregate to increase the volume of the soil-cement and at
the same time find a way to relieve the increasing waste disposal stream of
automobile tires.
: - - - - - -
--
IheJesults~howed ~hat the materiQldoes possess the properties required to
u
properly support the loads above the materialand on the surface. The highest
strengths were obtained in the area of 7 to 8" slumps.
I
/
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
?
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The Lehigh Valley is an area subjected to unusual localized
subsidence and settling of the ground surface called sinkholes.
Sinkholes
are depressions that have formed in the surface of the earth over a period of
time in an area which is underlain by soluble carbonate formations.
The
frequently used geological phrase for a layer of soluble rock undergoing a
_/
process of solution is called a "karst formation". The term karst refers to a
/
terrain which is underlain by limestone, dolomite, or gypsum that has
sinkholes, closed surface depressions, cavities, and subsurface drainage.
Within this formation are a series of faults, fractures and openings which
permit water to freely move along the geological formation. Underlying the
Lehigh Valley are layers of limestone approximately 800 to 1000 feet thick
which are considered karstic in nature.
The solution process occurs typically when the groundwater comes in
contact with a soluble limestone allowing a chemical reaction to take place.
The calcium carbonate (CaC0 3) present in the limestones is dissolved by the
slightly acidic groundwater. The groundwater dissolves only the CaC0 3 and
leaves the nonsoluble limestone and miscellaneous impurities found in the
formation. The simplified chemica/reaction for the this process can be written
as:
CaC0 3 (solid) + H20 + CO2(dissolved) <-> Ca 2+ + 2HC0 3- (Eq 1-1)
t
CO 2 (air)
2
With the movement of water, the soluble carbonate rock slowly but
continuously goes into solution via the chemical reaction. The reaction will
continue to occur until the groundwater is completely saturated with the
bicarbonate (HC0 3) and equilibrium is reached. This reaction involves more
than just following the simplified chemical equation shown above. All of the
reactions from dissolving the CO2
to the CaC0 3 going into solution are
subject to many variables such as temperature, pressure, reactants available,
reversible reactions and ionic dissolutions. The period over which the ground
subsidence occurs is on a timetable of seconds to hundreds of years
depending on how the solution has eroded the formation which is present
below.
1.2
LEHIGH VALLEY SINKHOLES
Sinkholes are occurring with greater frequency in recent years due to
changes in the local environment of the Lehigh ValleY. The relatively recent
growth of the Lehigh Valley has brought with it many changes.
changes include,
local construction activity,
These
changing the natural flow
pattern of surface water, changes in the elevation of the water table, air
pollution through incineration and water pollution through disposal of
municipal and industrial wastes in landfills.
New construction impacts the local environment in a number of
significant ways. The first is that it applies new surface loads.
The new
loads include the addition of soil or the compaction of unconsolidated soil
--deposits-to-aeh1eve-GHaAges-iA~the-gradaBlevatjon~QLto
__cceJ:3JE:l. a stable
foundation system upon which to build. Other loads include the weight of
construction equipment such as cranes and bulldozers, or the weight of the
3
new structure being erected. Other considerable impacts that construction
has on the environment include the 10.YJering of the water table while installing
foundation work, changing the flow paths of s.urface and groundwater due to
the increase in the runoff and grade changes, and shock loads from blasting
operations.
The increase in development in the area has brought with it an
-.
increase in the regions' population.
As of 1986 the current population of
Lehigh County stood at 282,000 with the growth rate increasing at
approximately 4% per year. With the areas' increase in population follows an
increase in of households. The rate of increase in the number of homes is
running at 7%.
During the 1970's alone there was a 24% increase in the
number of houses in the County[1].
Disposal of the domestic and industrial wastes generated in the area
also impacts sinkhole activity.
Each additional person, on the average,
generates 3.4 pounds of garbage each day and over 90% of that waste is
I
disposed of in landfills. This growing waste stream has a strong impact on
the local environment depending on how the wastes are disposed of[2].
In the past sinkholes were filled with garbage ser:ving a double
purpose. This filled the hole while at the same time it eliminated the wastes.
The use of sinkholes and a sinkhole prone areas for disposing of solid and
liquid wastes is no longer considered a viable option and is now strongly
discouraged by most regulatory agencies. The problem is that the limestone
--------fmoFFRatigR--PW\lides--surface~wateLalIlo[8_d.iLect
path from the surface to the
aquifers below. Normally surface water must move through the surface soil
layers to get to the aquifers below which provides a filtration effect on the
4
water attenuating the water-borne pollutants.
Rather than moving through
the layers of soil the water flows to the aquifer with a minimum of
soil
interaction through the openings in the limestone formation. This presents
the problem of easily contaminating the groundwater resources.
If landfills must be placed in an area that is prone to sinkholes than the
design of that landfill must take into account how the leachate affects both
the containment liner and the limestone found below.
Approximately 30 % of the drinking water for the Valley is drawn from
the groundwater aquifers resources and is growing along with the population.
Once again this increased water demand creates changes in the movement,
or flow pattern, of the groundwater affecting the fragile subsurface
equilibrium.
Limestone regions in general are very susceptible to changes in the
environment. Anyone of the changes that were listed above could hasten
the formation of the sinks or any other karstic features. The following
chapters look at the geology of the area, how the different problems impact
the sinkhole formation process and, the correction of the sinkhole problems.
--------
5
CHAPTER 2 HISTORY OF LEHIGH VALLEY SINKHOLES
2.1
SINKHOLE FORMATION
The term karst has long been used to define the sum of the
phenomena
limestones,
characterizing
regions
where
carbonate
rocks,
mainly
are subject to the chemical reactions causing erosion of the
formation. The process results in the development of surface and subsurface
'"
features that are distinctive to carbonate terrain. The most common karstic
feature found in the Lehigh Valley is the sinkhole. Photos 7-1, 7-2,and 7-3
found in chapter 7 show sinkholes measuring 6' in diameter and
approximately 6' in depth found in the Lehigh Valley. There are basically two
different types of sinkholes; the collapse sinkhole and the solution sinkhole.
The collapse sinkhole is formed by the collapse of the roof structure
support over a solution opening. With the collapse of the roof the overburden
soils will drop rather suddenly causing the surface to subside. This occurs
normally over a period of seconds to months.
The solution sinkhole occurs as the soil moves through the solution
opening by means of the water movement through the region. This type of
sinkhole has a much longer formation period in comparison to the collapse
sinkhole and usually ranges from weeks to years.
2.2
PREREQUISITES FOR LIMESTONE SOLUTION
The following prerequisites must be met in order for the sinkhole
6
\
o
formation process to become active.
2.2-1 OPENINGS IN THE ROCK (POROSITY)
There are two different types of porosity found in limestone formations,
primary and secondary. Primary. porosity is a function of the pores or voids
between the solid particles present within the rocks. The pores vary in size
from microscopic to a few inches.
Primary porosity is related to the
sedimentary origins and diagenisis of the limestone. These initial pores are
usually filled by lime, mud or calcite cement which decreases the primary
porosity.
Secondary porosity is a function of the cracking that occurs within the
bedding planes of the formation. The cracks or fractures are theorized to
occur from crustal warping, changes in stress, and desiccation. The cracks
cause the bedding planes to form cubes of limestone ranging in size from
one foot up to tens of feet.
Groundwater will move through the entire volume of the rock by
means of the primary porosity but the majority of groundwater flow will be
through the formations secondary porosity. The water moves much quicker
from the surface to the underlying aquifers when traveling along the
fractures.
The water movement through the limestone gradually increases both
the primary and secondary porosity of the formation as the solution reaction
occurs. Increasing porosity allows the water table to move down to greater
---
------
~ -----
- - - - - - - - - - ------
depths below the surface. This causes the more common problems found in
karst regions such as: scarcity and poor predictably of groundwater supplies,
\
7
./
scarcity of surface streams, instability of cavernous ground, leakage of
surface reservoirs, and-unreliable waste disposal environments.
2.2-2 THE PRESENCE OF CO2 IN SOLUTION FORMING CARBONIC
ACID
Groundwater is a slightly acidic solution within a pH range of 6 to 7
under normal conditions; The acidity is mainly a function of the dissolved
c~
CO2 from the atmosphere and to a smaller degree of the biologic activity with
which the water interacts. The acidic groundwater causes the carbonate rock
to go into solution until the pH of the environment reaches equilibrium in the
~.
range of 7 - 9. It is felt by most geochemists that the acidity from the CO 2 in
the ground water, rather than other naturally occurring acids, is responsible
for a large majority of solution of minerals in the soil environment.
The sequence of chemical reactions for solution of limestone is as
shown in table 2.1 below
TABLE 2.1 CHEMICAL REACTIONS FOR SOLUTION OF LIMESTONE
CO2 < H20> C020
Description
Diffusion of CO into water (Eq 2-1)
2
C020 + H20 <->H 2C0 3
Formation of carbonic acid (Eq 2-2)
H2C0 3 <-> H+ + HC03-
Dissociation of carbonic acid (Eq 2-3)
CaC0 3 <-> Ca 2+ + C0 32-
Dissociation of calcite (Eq 2-4)
Chemical Reaction
H+ +
col- <-> HC03-
Association of C0 3 with H (Eq 2-5)
The above system of reactions will go back and forth until equilibrium
is reached. Once that point is reached no more calcite will go into solution.
The chemical makeup of groundwater changes as it moves through
8
the sedimentary soil environment.
The soil environment is separated into
three zones. The highest zone, nearest the surface, is made up of water that
is low in dissolved solids but high in bicarbonates with water movement
causing solution of mineral salts from the rocks. The middle zone has the
groundwater moving slower and picking up more minerals by solution. The
deep zone has water moving very slowly and therefore leaching a great deal
of dissolved solids.
Limestone formations prone to sinkhole formation are generally found
in the two upper zones. The concentration of CO 2 in the top zone and the
solubility of the calcium carbonate are typically the constraining factors in the
quantity of total dissolved solids present in the groundwater [3].
The
concentration of CO 2 will vary with -changes in both the temperature and the
pressure of the atmosphere.
An upswing in the temperature increases the rate at which the
limestone solution reaction occurs.
The solution of limestone will increase
from 0.015 gil at 25°C to 0.03-0.04 gil at approximately 100°C in a closed
system. If the reaction is occurring in an open system, as is normally the
case, the temperature rise will also cause a decrease in the partial pressure
of CO 2 which slows down the reaction.
Table 2-2 shows how 'the solubility of CO2 varies over different
tem peratures using 10°C as the baseline solubility
TABLE 2.2 - SOLUBILITY of COZ VS. TEMPERATURE[4]
10
20
30
40
TEMPERATURE(oC ) 0
FACTOR
1.28 1.00 0.78 0.64 0.43
(After Fookes, P.G. and Vaughn,P.R)
Figure 2.1 shown below indicates solubility of CaC0 3 will vary with the
9
change in the partial pressure of CO2 , Normally the partial pressure of CO2
found in the soil is approximately
0.01 to 0.03 bar. From the chart it is
apparent that if there is an increase in the pressure of CO 2 there will be an
increase in the rate of solution of the limestone. For example, if the
groundwater doubles the partial pressure from 0.01 to 0.02 bars there will be
an twofold increase in solution of CaC0 3.
600
500
400
~ 300
0'
E
r-r-,
o
'-6
200
u
100
o
o
2
4
6
8
10
Partial Press. C02 (bar x 10·2)
FIGURE 2.1 Solubility of CaC03
VS.
Partial Pressure of C02[4]
(After Fookes, P.G. and Vaughn,P.R)
The degree of contact between CO 2 and the.rock material also effects
the degree of solubility of the rock. The extent of contact ranges from an
open system which is in contact with the atmosphere or some source of CO 2
to a closed system which is not in contact with a source of C02. The closed
10
-
---------------------------
---
~
- - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - -- - - ~ -
system is normally found below the water table. As can be seen in the graph
there is a much greater eroding effect near the surface with the open system
than with the closed system.
The temperature and pressure have opposite effects on the solution of
the limestone. Since the reaction rate will increase with an increase in the
temperature and decrease with the associated drop in the partial pressure
the solubility of the rock will mainly be a function of the groundwater
chemistry.
2.2-3 FAVORABLE TOPOGRAPHIC AND STRUCTURAL SETIINGS
Topographic and structural setting that influence the development of
sinkholes and other karst features include some of the following items: the
permiability of the overlying soils which governs the supply of water
interacting with the limestone formation, the thickness of the formations may
not possess an adequate amount of soluble limestone to create a cavity,
joints or fissures allowing water movement within the formation, presence of
clay or shale beds which separate the limestone layers, and the strength of
the rock,
2.2-4 ADEQUATE PRECIPITATION AND AN ABILITY FOR THE WATER
TO KEEP MOVING THROUGH THE ROCK FORMATION
The Lehigh Valley receives on the average 43" of precipitation a year
and ranges from 29" to 58".
The distribution of the precipitation is fairly
uniform throughout the year. This provides an adequate amount of runoff to
subject the limestone in the area to the solution process.
11
---
.-_._--
---------
--~----
2.2-5 THE PRESENCE OF SOLUBLE ROCK WITH AN APPROXIMATE
CALCIUM CARBONATE PERCENTAGE OF AT LEAST 50%
The limestone found in the Lehigh Valley has approximately 51 to 52%
calcium carbonate percentage.
See Chapter 5 for a complete chemical
makeup of limestone in this area.
2.3 RECENT INCREASE IN ACTIVITY OF SINKHOLES
2.3-1 POPULATION GROWTH
The relative increase in the formation of sinkholes is due to a number
of factors being imposed on the environment by society. In recent years the
Lehigh Valley has been subjected to a growth
industry bases.
environment.
in
both the population and
These two factors play very heavily on the Valley's
The increase required that more homes and industrial
buildings be constructed to support the new growth. This changed the land
usage from what was once a rural farm area into a suburban community with
homes, business and supporting infrastructure.
These changes have an
impact on the special limestone environment of the Lehigh Valley. The karst
environment is created largely by the movement of water through the local
limestone formations over millions of years. The structure of the formations
and karstic features are slow in forming and changing under natural
undisturbed conditions.
With the increase in development of the area the
balance of nature has been changgd.
There is an increase in water consumption, for household use, waste
disposal, and industrial needs.
Many of these requirements are filled by
obtaining water from the local aquifers.
ground and directed as required.
The water is pumped out of the
This draw on the aquifer changes the
12
------~.
__
.-._._--~-~--"--~----._----_._------------------"-------_.
-~-~-_.
__ ._---
dynamics of the water table and the geology with which it interacts.
'. Sinkholes develop in residual or alluvial deposits overlying openings in
the subsurface limestone. The downward migration of the soil deposits into
the openings of the underlying limestone formation and the collapse ofthe
roofs of the cavities are accelerated by a decline in the water table.
For
example, the soils which were once supported by the buoyant forces of the
water are now bearing their full weight on the underlying structures.
The
additional weight may put the underground structures under greater stresses
causing a collapse of the structure. The change in the water table dynamics
also involves increasing the drawn down which accordingly increases the
hydraulic gradient.
It should be noted that if the water table is allowed to
return to its level than there is a drastic decrease or cessation in sinkhole
development.
The increase in development in the area changed not only the
subsurface water flow but also the surface water flow. The increased runoff
due to the reduced permiability of the surface from pavement, and houses
increases the amount of water being disposed of.
The rerouting of storm
water runoff is probably the most common cause of. increased sinkhole
formation due to the leakage of water from the underground piping.
One
example of a sinkhole forming due to improperly drained surface runoff
occurred in the borough of Macungie in 1986.
Macungie was growing and new homes and apartment complexes
were being built.
The new residences caused an increase in the surface
water runoff due to reduced permiability of the ground surface.
The
additional runoff was directed into the storm sewer system was to be directed
13
-~-----------------------~----------
out oi the area but due to poor sewer construction the water entered the local
subsurface environment.
The problems of the storm water runoff was
compounded by the newly installed septic systems for each of the homes.
These factors increased the amount of water moving through the sinkhole
prone formation and sped up the rate of sinkhole formation. The sinkhole
that formed due to these changes was 125 ft. wide and 45 ft. deep.[3]
14
FIGURE 2.3 - TYPICAL WASTES GENERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA.[6]
Sources
Types of Waste
Approximate Composition
Food and Food Products
Food Additives
Sludges
Organics & Acids
Meat
Residues
Grain Mills
Trimming Wastes
Textile Products
Cotton, Wool,
Synthetics
Sludges
Acids, Alkalis, Metal Salts
and Solvents
Paper and Paper
products
Sludges, Pulping
Sulfates, Organics, Soaps
Mercaptans
Soaps, Detergents
SlUdges
Surfactants, Polyphosphates
Aluminum-capper-oxides
Chemicals, Fertilizers
Sludges
Sulfuric acids, Organic
Phosphorus, Copper Sulfate
Mercury Arsenates
Paints, Varnish
Sludges
Metal Salts, Liquid Toxics
Petrole.um Refining
Sludges, Fly Ash
Acids, Hydrocarbons,
ME:tallic salts
Leather and Products
Sludges
Chrome Salts, Oils, Dyes,
Organic Acids
Metals and
Fabricated Metals
Sludges
Sulfur, Ammonia Chlorides
Phenols, Oils, Chrome, Alkalis
Acids, Metallic Salts
(After Fang, H.Y.)
15
CHAPTER 3 GEOLOGY OF LEHIGH COUNTY
3.1 BACKROUND
The geology of Lehigh County Pennsylvania according to the US
geological survey is made up of a small part of the Appalachian Highlands
which covers an area from Canada to central Alabama and from the coastal
plain on the east to the interior plains on the west. This area is then divided
into provinces and then the provinces into sections.
The sections in the
Lehigh area are the Triassic Lowlands, the Reading Prong, the Appalachian
Valley, and the Lehigh Valley.
The overburden above these formations is
made up of residual soils, alluvial granular and colluvial soil types deposited
by water flow as well as gravity during the movements of the geologic
structures.
3.2 ORIGIN
Most of the surface rocks in the Lehigh Valley are sedimentary in
origin. They were originally placed as loose sediments composed of sand
-
--_.~----_.~-----~_._
..
_----_..
_- - - - -
---~._~
- - - - - - ---- -----
pebbles, mud and calcareous ooze.
The sedimentswere orougflCtcQfjeif
final resting place by the streams and rivers flowing from an adjacent land
mass locc:ited to the southeast. The sediments were compacted by great
pressures and eventually formed the sandstones, shales, conglomerates and
limestones which are currently found in the Valley.
Limestone found in this area varies greatly in terms of its purity, color,
and texture. The variations are due to the manner in which the sediments
16
----------------
------~----
were deposited as well as what other materials were physically present
during deposition.
Limestone is organically and chemically derived and is
composed mainly of calcium carbonate wLtP lesser amounts of impurities.
The most common impurities found in limestone are magnesia, silica, clay,
iron, and bituminous of organic matter.
The color of the limestone changes according to what impurities are
present in the rock. Pure limestone is composed of only calcium carbonate
and is white. As the percentage of impurities increases the color will vary
from many shades of gray to black. The composition of some samples of
limestone are shown in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1 - CHEMICAL PERCENTAGES OF LEHIGH L1MESTONES[7]
~
Sample
CaCo 3
CaO
MgCo 3
MgO
Si0 2
AI20 3
Fe 20 3
1_ _2_ _3_ _4_ _5_ _6_
52.08 51.60 51.73
27.8
18.23 28.33
41.29 42.60 45.35
18.01
19.20 19.79
8.97 3.80 3.30 1.20 6.40
3.89
1.12 1.75 0.65 1.39
1.40
0.79 0.52 0.66
(After Miller, Benjamin L)
---1) Tomstown L:imestone ~-Center Valley2) Tomstown Limestone - East Allentown
3) Tomstown Limestone - Lehigh River
4) Allentown Limestone - Allentown
5) Beekmantown Limestone - Friedensville
6) Beekmantown Limestone - Freidensville
The variations in limestone is also reflected in the texture, and
strength.
The texture varies from fine grained compact rocks to course
pieces of shells and coral. The bearing strength of the limestone ranges from
3,500 to 12,000 pounds per square inch and occasionally higher. The weight
17
of limestone runs between 120 to 170 pounds per cubic foot.
3.3 LIMESTONE FORMATIONS IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY
Within the Lehigh· Valley there is a series of limestone layers
approximately 4000 feet thick which belongs to the Cambrian and the
Ordovician periods.
The layers are distributed throughout the various
townships in Lehigh county located within the Great Valley. The Great Valley
cuts across the towns of Allentown, Bethlehem, Fogelsville, Macungie and
Emmaus.
The limestones found in the Lehigh area and their
thic~nesses
are
shown in the table below.
TABLE 3.2 - LIMESTONE FORMATIONS OF LEHIGH COUNTY[7]
Ordovician Period
Thickness
Martinsburg shales and slates overlying the limestones
Jacksonburg low-magnesium argillaceous limestone.
600 ft
Beekmantown limestone composed of alternating high and
low-magnesium beds
1000 ft
Cambrian Period
.. ~.ConocQc;heaRuE3{I\I~!l!g~Q}SlgJolTljtic limestone
Tomstown dolomitic limestone
Hardyston sandstone and quartite under the limestone.
1500 ft
1Do-dfC-·~···_·····
(After Miller, Benjamin L)
See Map-3.1 (21) and Figure 3.2 for illustrations of the geology of the
Lehigh Valley, and a columnar section of rocks of this area respectively.
In the Lehigh Valley the Pre Cambrian formations are the oldest.
These formations are very highly metamorphosed igneous rocks and are
usually overlain unconformably by Cambrian rocks of the Hardyston,
18
Leithsville, and Allentown, formations.
Some of the characteristics of the
different formations listed in the table above are detailed in the following
sections.
3.3-1 ALLENTOWN FORMATION
The Allentown Formation overlies the Leithsville Formation.
It is
composed of heterogeneous dolomites. The coloring is medium light gray to
dark gray and will usually be found as a weatliered light gray. The formation
is interspersed with beds of bedded chert, quartz and sandstone. This is the
most widespread limestone formation found in the Lehigh Valley and it is
most predominate in the southern half of the limestone valley
3.3-2 BEEKMANTOWN FORMATION
The Beekmantown Formation is the beginning of the Lower Ordovician
rocks an,d overlies the Conocochague Formation.The formation is composed
of two layers of limestone. The first is Rickenbach dolomite which is made up
of thinly laminated to thickly laminated crystalline dolomite, nodular chert with
\lE;ry_~hi~ __layers of quartz and sand.
The second layer is made up of
---- --~?_-----
interbedded limestone, argillaceous limestone and dolomite with nodularchert. These limestone are generally laminated gray to medium dark gray.
This formation is generally found in the northern part of the valley.
3.3-3 JACKSONBURG FORMATION
The formation is made up of cement limestone and cement rock
facies. The cement limestone is medium to dark gray and if properly treated
19
---~---_._-
it can be used as a hydraulic cement.
The cement rock facies are high
calcium argillaceuos limestone which comes to a mediulTIlight gray to pale
yellow brown. The Jacksonburg rocks contain up to 30% clay. This layer is
the most impure of the limestones in the Lehigh Valley.
3.3-4 MARTINSBURG FORMATION
This formation is made up of three different units.
Ramseyburg, the Bushkill, and the Pen Argyl.
They are the
The formation is a medium
dark to dark thin bedded claystone slate which contains small beds of
quartzose, graywacke sandstone and siltstone.
3.3-5 LEITHSVILLE FORMATION
The formation consists of a series of interbedded series of light to dark
gray dolomite, and tan phyllite with small stringers of quartz sand.
3.4 KARSTIC FEATURES IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY
The
Allentown,
Beekmantown,
and
../
Leithsville
formations
are
considered very prone to solution enlargement of their joints and cavernous
rock zones. The primary porosity of these formations is very small but the
solution enlargements, or secondary porosity, creat~ a condition that greatly
influences the movement of the groundwater.
The Jacksonburg and
Martinsburg formations are generally considered to impede the flow of the
groundwater.
The Lehigh Valley limestones started undergoing the sinkhole causing
solution process at the end of the Mesozoic period.
20
The results of the
solution has left a series of sinkholes, solution cavities, and other karst type
features through out the Valley.
solution process.
These features are still undergoing the
Most of the surface features that are associated with
"-
sinkholes have been filled or covered up by the thick residual soil present in
the county.
<'
21
iP,.t.p.~
-
'_J
.
-~.,~.:
't,.
"jV
"~,
1-,",-_,~
\ ...~,
.11
GJ
)I
~~+-:c~"
_____ :;..1..-
c
JJ
m
t'-'
\....J
w
~
-.
ONTELAUNEE fORMATION
Medium:dark-oray. finely crystalline dolomite, massive 10 finely
lamlnaj,d: weather, grayish y,llow: thick-bedded. dar1<-gray chen
----I
_J...E.HIGJ::i y"t'--b.!:::_~,~_.. _~.,:::._~~~_~~.
0 .... Qs
1
-.- -
.~
Om
MARTINSBURG FORMATION ,:·n ,
Gray to dar\(-gray shale and slate 0rnys-snale containing conspicuous graywacke: includes autochthonous sandstone and shale
01 Shochary Ridge, Of'T1I-locallimestone masses '(wildflysch).
JACKSONBURG FORMATION
Dark-gray stlaly limestOne (cement rock} having slaty cleavage
basal medium- 10 thick-bedded limestone (cement limestone) in·
creases in thickness eastward
'."",",,",,""==~
--~---'"'-
/--'::Qe:--C"
'I
~
•
Os
.
EPLER FORMATION
Thick·bedded, medium- 10 medium-dark-gray. Iinety crystalline
limestone, waalheringlighl gray; yellow dolomitic laminae; jnt.ar.
--.Ilbllleddl4llledl.JDm~~Iy_~ryS~lIlnedOIOmite.
h~~DI:~~~s~ray:
wealhenng
edlJBWise cono omara : "fOSSII-mmmtml dlld 00-
RICKENBACH fORMATION
Medium-to dark-Qr~. coarsely crystalline (Jolomiteln lower pan.
medlum-Io medlum-lIghli1ray.lin,lycrystanlnodolom~oln upper '
part: cJtort lonses. bods. and nodules
--~
,
I
i
______ J
STONEHENGE fORMATION
Medium~1ioht·gray to medium-gray, finely crystalline. IhiCkbedded limestone. conlaining dal1o; sillc80US laminae, edgewise'
cOflglomerat, beds. and los.il-fragmont I,n...: dolomil' beds
Incmse in number lIi1stward.
,
.....,
---"------
~nozol
J
Glacial
unconform;.y
Plclstocene
Brunswick
TriassIc
unconform'"
Tuscarom
Silurian
unconformltu
~100'
_-
1500'
Upper
Martinsburg
900'
f-
c
Lower
Martinsburg
III
u
~
Cll
iii
0-
13
;;
0
5
"
unconform'"
Jacksonburg
unconform lh '
--- ---------------------------------------- ----.
-- -- -- --- ---- --- - --
3100'
I
700'
II I
I
N\
N
I-l
Beelanantown
I-
\t- N \ t
I-l
N 1200'
I-
1600'
Allentown
i
"I:
.Q
E
a
--
Tomstown
1000-
Hardyston
unconformity
200-
~--
,
.
Byram and Pegmatite
J
.
Pochuck
Moravian Helght8
.,
Columnar Section of Rocks
in lehigh County
FIGURE 3.2
23
\.;-.
.
~
-
.
----------_._---------~---------------~._----------_.-_._--~._-_._----~~
CHAPTER 4 POLLUTION AND ITS' EFFECT ON SINKHOLES
4.1 SOLID WASTE
Tremendous amounts of pollution are generated each year which will
eventually interact with the environment.
Today there are approximately
6500 solid waste landfills that are operating in this country most of which are
not environmentally acceptable by EPA standards.The E.P.A. predicts that
half of them will be closed in the next 5 years and 70 percent will be filled up
within the next 15 years.
The rate at which we generate solid waste is
expected to increase by 20% by the year 2000. Approximately eleven and a
half billion tons .of solid waste is generated in the United States each year.
This includes all municipal waste, assorted industrial wastes, oil and gas
wastes, mining wastes, and all hazardous wastes. The waste is disposed of
by incineration, ocean dumping, waste ponds, waste piles and landfilling.
Landfills currently receive 92 percent of all the solid wastes that are
generated[2]. Once the waste is free to interact with the environment it is
considered pollution.
4.2 CLASSIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous waste can be classified into six different categories by the
strength of the hazard[8]. The categories are:
1) Inert or relatively inert substances which could include municipal
waste, gardening wastes, street cleaning, various construction trash,
24
'._"'-'~_.
.J
•• ,. _ _
~ ~
• __._.r
.
.,,
...._
abandoned vehicles and excavated fill.
2) Nonpoisonous chemicals and strong, unstable organic wastes such
as digested sewage sludge, some municipal refuse and nontoxic industrial
wastes.
3) More hazardous organic wastes composed of raw sewage sludge,
cesspool waste, dead animals, hospital wastes, and the more caustic
industrial wastes.
4) Oils, solvents and volatile sludges that can be burned if properly
regulated.
5) Pesticides, herbicides, and other poisons, solid chemical wastes,
and low grade radioactive wastes.
I..
6) Moderate to strong radioactive wastes
Out of the six groups of hazardous waste the first three are usually
disposed of in sanitary landfills.
4.3 LANDFILLS
The generally accepted definition of a landfill that is used comes from
ASCE's__ ."-text
Landfill
M'!nuaL9f pr~:Lctlc~e_."~Jtstates~'Sanjtar:yJandfill
-----_ "Sanitary---_
_
.
_.~_.
...
.-_~._---~
..
~~--
..
... _.--.,---~---_.-
--._-
..
------. -
is a method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances of
hazards to public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to~.
confine the refuse to the smallest practical area, to reduce it to the smallest
practical volume , and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of
each day's operation or at such intervals as may be necessary. "[8] The
landfill should also be constructed in an area such that it does not intercept
the ground water table or have a means through which the leachate will affect
25
th,e quality of the groundwater.
constituents of wastes.
Leachates are the liquid or flowable
as aqueous organic and
They are classified
inorganic, organic and sludges.
A survey of over 700 cities showed that only 5 % of those cities were
aware that their landfills were in some way responsible for part of the ground
water pollution they were experiencing.[9]
Other surveys conducted
indicated that 9% of the landfills had serious pollution problems. Most of this
can be attributed to placing the landfill anywhere from
a to
5 feet above the
water table.
4.4 WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IN LEHIGH COUNTY
In January of 1980 Lehigh County officials along with the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources inventorized the land disposal sites,
auto salvage yards, and other waste impoundment facilities in the county.
They found approximately 70 land disposal sites, 56 auto junkyards, and over
100 waste impoundment yards in the county. There were also additional
uncontrolled dumping locations, discontinued landfills, over 5d~ active and
.. - inactive quarries-and over 200.0 __do_G.wme.nted sinkholes.
All of these items
-------------------------._.
----.---~---
represent openings through which the pollution can migrate through to the
groundwater and to the subsurface limestone formations.
4.5 POLLUTION AND CARBONATE REGIONS
In general carbonate regions are not considered to be good waste
dis~sal
sites. If the permeability of the rock is low then they do not accept
an adequate rate of waste and if the permiability is to high then the waste
26
does not have adequate time to decompose, oxidize or otherwise be purified.
The karst regions are also worsened because of the thin layers of soil that
are inadequate at filtering the pollutants.
Once the leachate gets into the
ground waterit can be get into the drinking water in surrounding areas.
4.6 WASTE DECOMPOSITION
Landfills are filled with organics, chemicals metals, paper and many
other items that are hazardous to the environment. These materials are not
the only wastes that must be accounted for when investigating the leachate.
The hazardous wastes go through chemical and biological changes after
being deposited in the landfill. This decomposition occurs in two different
phases, the aerobic phase, and the anaerobic phase.
The first phase covers the period when the oxygen present within the
solid wastes reacts with the wastes and forms carbon dioxide and water.
This reaction causes an increase in the temperature of the landfill by
approximately 30° Fahrenheit as well as the growth of the biological
organisms responsible for the decomposition. Part of the carbon dioxide
formed in this stage dissolves in the water and forms a weakly acidic solution.
6( CH 20 )x + 502 -----> (CH20)x + 5COi + 5H2 + Energy (Eq 4-1)
The aerobic phase is complete once all the oxygen is expended.
The second phase of decomposition of the waste is made up of two
parts, an acid producing phase as well as a , carbon dioxide and methane
gas producing phase.
The reactions for the two parts of phase two
27
respectfully are:
.
5( CH 20 )x -----> (GH2~x + 2CH3COOH + Energy (Eq 4-2)
(organics)
(organic acids)
2.5CH3COOH -----> (CH20 )x + 2CH4 + 2C02 + Energy (Eq 4-3)
(organic acids)
(bacterial acids)
Figure 4-1 indicates the change in levels of C02, pH and methane as
the breakdown moves through the two phases.
In the. first part of the anaerobic stage the anaerobic organisms are
maturing and breaking down various solids such as food and paper from
rather cOmPlex molecules into small and simpler ones such as hydrogen gas,
ammonia, inorganic acids, and carbon dioxide. During this period the carbon
dioxide that is released represents up to 90% of the gases that are generated
in the landfill. The acids generated are basically water soluble and formed by
hydrolysis of the complex organic solLds.
In the second part the methane producing microorganisms expfoit the
ca-rbOnaioxitle,hydrogen~-and--acidsio-form methanegas;..-Although-this __
phase is the slowest it is very efficient in decomposing th~ available wastes.
The by-products of the chemical reactions that are formed need to be
contained in the landfills to prevent interaction with the subsurface
environment.
If interaction did occur the increase in pollutants could
seriously pollute the aquifer and increase the solution rate of the limestone
that it comes in contact with.
28
~
_
GAS
COMPo
pH
I-----~ _ _
TIME
~----_+_--------
L..-
AEROBIC
PHASE
FIRST STAGE
SECOND STAGE
ANAEROBIC PHASE
FIGURE 4.1 - Second Phase of Decomposition [10]
(After Robinson, William D.)
Landfills are not the only pollution source responsible for groundwater
pollution. The other major sources are listed below in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4-1 - SOURCES OF GROUNDWATER PDLLUTION [3]
Waste Disposal Sources
Landfills, dumps, and surface impoundments
Mining wastes
On-lot wastewater disposal systems
Radioactive wastes
-----~- _5Iudge_mal"LCW!=llIH~nlYLa ICin_<:l?RreaQ.illg__ .
_
Injection wells
Abandoned sites
/
Nondisposal Sources
Abandoned wells
Accidental spills
Agricultural chemical practices
Artificial recharge
Highway deicing compounds
~,
29
Petroleum exploration
Underground storc;lge tanks and pipelines
Depletion
Increased salinity
Saltwater encroachment
(After Driscoll, Fletcher G;)
4.7 ACID RAIN
One form of pollution greatly affecting the environment is acid rain.
Acid rain is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels by the power
industry in generating electricity. The by-products of the spent fossil fuels
causing the acid rain to form are sulfuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acids. These
pollutants once released into the atmosphere can be carried thousands of
miles from the source by prevailing winds. The widespread transport of the
acids causes acid rain to be a regional problem rather' than a local
phenomenon.
4.7-1 CHEMISTRY OF ACID RAIN
Sulfur, naturally occurring in coal, is released into the environment
when the coal is burned. The sulfur reacts with atmospheric oxygen and
forms sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide is further transformed into sulfLJricacid as a result of the reaction between sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
which are also released into the atmosphere by the power industry. The
acids once formed are then tra'nstrorted to the surface by falling rain.
In the Lehigh Valley the pH of the rain is approximately 4.3 versus a
"pure rain" which being slightly acidic measures approximately 5.6 . Since the
pH scale is logarithmic this represents an increase in acidity over t~n fold.
30
~
The value of 5.6 was set based on the pH of distilled water which is in
equilibrium with atmospheric C02.
4.7-2 EFFECTS OF ACID RAIN
The disintegrating effect of acid rain on limestone is readily apparent
on the limestone building facades,and statues exposed to the weather.
Although these are the most obvious examples of limestone affected by acid
rain an unseen but potentially serious problem is the increased rate of
,.
sinkhole formation due to the greater acidity. The normal solution rate for
limestone is very slow but with an increase in the acidity of the groundwater
the rate of solution.grows.
Testing was performed to determine the weathering rate of soils due to
the acid rain in Norway[11]. The results obtained from these experiments
indicated that there is a increased rate of weathering of the cations present in
the soil. The test "rained" 4 different pH levels(2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.3) of sulfuric
acid on to soil column
sampT~s. The inflow and outflow of the base cations
was measured to determine what cations which originally present in the soil
had leached out due to the addition of the acid.
The results show&l that
there was a slight increase of movement of cations in the pH solutions in the
range of 3.0 - 5.3 but at the 2.5 level there was a significantly higher rate of
--
- ---------- -_.
"-caiiOns"m6vingOuCofthe' soil'e'rlvironmenC'Tnese-results indicate that-the' .. '.,-,..._-- .....acid rain is capable of eroding limestone by chemical decomposition. The
entire pH range used in the experiment has been found to be occurring in
various parts of the world. Values even lower than 2.5 were recorded in the
mid 1970's in Europe. During that period some rainstorms had pH levels as
low as 2.4.
31
The system of reactions for the limestone/groundwater solution
process will normally move back and forth until an equilibrium point is
reached. Once that point is reached no m~re calcite will go into solution.
Under natural conditions this is a very slow process, however, once another
acid such as sulfuric acid is added to the groundwater additional hydrogen
ions (H+) will be added to the process. This forces the reaction process to
bring more calcite into solution in attempting to reach its' equilibrium position
once more. Therefore the solution rate of limestone should increase as the
acid rain drops the pH level of the groundwater to stronger acidic values.
The pollution that is now being generated has the ability to seriously
impact the limestone environment of the Lehigh Valley.
The limestone is
being subjected to an increased level of attack by acidic solutions that are
stronger than the naturally occurring acidic groundwater. This is creating
"
conditions that will hasten the formation of sinkholes.
32
CHAPTER 5 LANDFILLS AND LEACHATE
5.1 LANDFILL LINERS
Landfills are currently designed using liner systems as barriers to
contain the I,eachate that forms for a design life of normally 20 to 30 years.
The different liner systems use clay, geomembrane fabrics, concrete,
asphalt, and soil-cement as barriers. The most common system being used
presently is one that uses Clay and geomembrane fabrics liners. The system
is good but there are problems that must be accounted for in determining
what materials will perform the best. Although landfills are tightly regulated
there are still problems that occur due to design shortfalls and poor
maintenance.
5.2 LANDFILL TESTING AND DESIGN
Landfill design is based on the performance of a liner in containing a
standard permeant when tested under laboratory conditions. The chemical
p!operties of the standard permeant versus the wastes to be. contained may
~---
------ - - -- - -- -
-
-~
---
be very different in how they react with the liner system.
The standard
permeant may be nonreactive giving positive results while the wastes may
react with the liner causing a breach in the liner. Laboratory testing may also
not adequately model the field conditions that the liner is installed under
which again may give inaccurate results.
The parameters the design is based on effect what happens in situ
once the landfill is in operation. The wastes to be stored in the landfill must
-
\ 33
be identified as closely as possible since different liner systems are
compromised by different chemical wastes.
Table 5.1 below shows five
different properties of various organic compounds that may be stored in a
landfill. The parameters include: hydraulic conductivity, dielectric constant,
viscosity, unit weight, and dipole moment The compounds listed include
acids, bases, neutral polar, and neutral nonpolar concentrated organic
compounds.
TABLE 5.1 PARAMETERS OF VARIOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS[12]
/-~
Hydraulic
Organic
Compound Conductivity
Viscosity
Dielectric
Constant
Unit
Weight
Dipole
Moment
Water
1.00E-8
80.4
0.98
1.00
1.83
Methanol
1.05E-6
33.62
0.79
0.54
1.66
Ethanol
1.07E-6
24.2
0.79
0.20
1.69
Acetone
5.00E-6
20.7
0.79
0.33
2.90
Aniline
1.00E-5
6.90
1.02
4.40
1.55
Benzene
4.00E-4
2.28
0.88
0.65
Xylene
9.00E-4
2.50
0.87
0.81
Cyclohexane 3.00E-3
2.02
0.78
1.02
0.40
(After Fang H.Y)
Dielectric constant at 20° Celsius, Viscosity centipoises at 20° C
Unit weightgms/cc, Dipole moment debyes
The first parameter, hydraulic conductivity, is a measure of the rate of
flow with which a fluid moves through a material and is the most important
indictor of how well a liner will contain the leachate. In regards to landfills this
refers to the quantity of flow of leachate passing through the liner.
The
hydraulic conductivities listed for the different compounds in Table 5.1 are
based on a typical clay liner.
34
\
5.3 CHEMICAL EFFECTS ON CLAY LINERS
Comparing the hydraulic conductivity of the compounds to the other
four parameters listed indicates that the value of the dielectric constant of the
fluid follows the same general pattern as the hydraulic conauctivity of t~e
liner while the others show no discernible pattern. The hydraulic conductivity
increases as the dielectric constant decreases. For example, the compound
xylene has a "hydraulic conductivity of 10-3 cm/s with a dielectric constant of
2.50. Water with
'(3
much higher dielectric constant, of 80.4 should have a
hydraulic conductivity significantly lower than xylene. Water's hydraulic
conductivity is 10- 8 cm/s which is 5 orders of magnitude less than xylene's.
~
The E.P.A. standard hydraulic conductivity value of 10-7 cm/s for a
liner is verified by using standard permeants such as calcium chloride
(CaCI 2) or calcium sulfate (CaS04) at set temperatures.
The above
information suggests that the clay liner should not be tested using standard
permeants to determine the hydraulic conductivity but rather should take into
account all of the physical properties of the compounds that will actually
interact with the liner.
The dielectric constant could also be used as an
indicator as to how the hydraulic conductivity would vary for different
'. _chemicals.
5.4 MOVEMENT THROUGH A CLAY LINER
The chan'ge in hydraulic conductivity due to the dielectric constant is
attributed to the negative electrical charge on the surface of the clay and is
'consistent with results predicted by the Gouy-ChagJ]Jan model. The GouyChapm<:ln model ,basically states that a diffuse ion layer of negatively charged
particles will form in the presence of ions on the surface of the clay layer.
35
This layer forms a boundary through which a charged compound must pass.
>
Since the dielectric constant is an indirect measure of the strength of the
electric charge of a material it will indicate how easily that material can move
through the 'charged field.
The electrical properties can also cause an
interaction to occur between the clay and the chemical compounds.
The
interaction can cause the clay to swell or shrin~ creating cracks in the liner.
Recent research (Madsen and Mitchell, 1987[lil} has also shown that
organic compounds in a concentrated solution' may adversely affected the
clay liners being tested, while a diluted acid (high water content) showed no
adverse effects.
The concentrated acids caused shrinkage cracks which
dissolved the components of the clay causing the fabric of the liner to
breakdown and move out of the landfill with the flowing leachate.
5.5 FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER
\.-
(
The "flexible membrane liner" (FML) is another type of liner that is
currently used in landfills. The liner has to be carefully designed if it is to be
effective in containing the leachate. Different types of FML's commonly used
include the following: polyvinyl chloride (PVC), hi.gh-density polyethylene
(HPDE), chlorinated polyethylene (CPE), chlorosulfonated polyethylene
- --.---_._----_.-
-_ ....
--- -_.- ---.
--
.
- --_ :_---- -..
_.-
(CSPE)" and ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM). Characteristics
that must be accounted for in selecting a FML include: flexibility, intended
---/
usage,
chemical
~
compatibility
with
the
leachate,
impermeability,
nondecaying, durability, easily constructed, and cost effectiveness. Table 5.2
lists five different manufacturers' recommendations on what their products
can be used for.
The capabilities of each material is good at containing many of the
36
chemical wastes but not the entire scope of wastes being generated today.
This is important for the designers to realize since it will require that there is a
system set up to protect the liner from the destructive chemicals. FML's are
also subject to leaking from other hazards just as the clay liners are.
Landfill
liners are subjected to problems which occur during
.
construction and in the maintenance of the landfill. The installing contractors
[--.
may not follow proper installation techniques causing openings and leaks to
form in the liner during construction. Poor maintenance of the landfill causes
problems due to items such as storing waste products that the liner was not
meant to contain, careless filling operations, and not providing protection for
the liner from the elements. All of these problems create conditions that limit
the effectiveness of the liner at containing the leachate. Generally the liners
are protected from these types of damage by using an earth cover, soiL
cement, or rip rap.
The USEPA and state governments are in a constant state of trying to
keep up with the latest information on how to best contain all of the leachate
which is generated in landfills.There is a goal of "no migration" that is set but
this is not praCtical.- 'Currently:--the~EPA-wiIra"bv\r' an--infiltration -rate of
approximately 20 gallons/day/acre. Depending on the chemical compounds
present this amount of leachate could be detrimental. to a sensitive local
environment such as the Lehigh Valley's limestone formations.
37
.'
.-----
TABLE 5.2 CHEMICAL COMPATABILITY OF FML
Chemical
Compatible Plausible
Inorganic Acids
1,2,3
2,5
Organic Acids
1,2,5
3,4
Inorganic Bases
1-5
Inorganic Salts
1-5
Alcohols
1,2,3,5
Incom patible
4
3
Hydrocarbons
[13]
1,2,4,5
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
1-5
Ketones
3
Detergents
3,4
Oils and Food
3,4
2,5
1
Hydraulic Foods
4
2,3,5
1
1,2,4,5
1,2,5
(After Fang, H.Y.)
Materials legend
1 - PVC 2 - Hypalon 3 - HOPE 4 - XR-5 5 - Neoprene
i
38
,/
CHAPTER 6 TESTING AND CORRECTING SINKHOLES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Sinkhole prone areas create many serious problems for the Civil
Engineer when designing a project. The problems are usually encountered
when designing a foundation or sewage system. In the process of designing
the ,. engineer needs to be aware of all the inherent problems of a karstic
formation to intelligently resolve all of its shortcomings.
The information
required should be obtained by performing an extensive soils investigation to
pin-point the problem areas.
6.2 SOILS INVESTIGATION
A complete soils investigation includes many different studies. Some
examples are: reviewing the area topography, taking soil borings, or using
. aerial phototones. All of the information obtained in the investigation is used
to adequately locate any subsurface features.
6.2-1 SURFACE FEATURES
The soils investigation should begin by first analyzing the topography
in the
area.
This would include reviewing the surface drainage
characteristics, the landform which includes the sinks, depressions and hills
in the area, and finally a photo tone. Photo tone uses photography to reveal
the nature of the geology below the ground surface. The photographs use
the moisture content present to reveal the existence of subterranean'\...·
39
/irr-egularities such as karstic features. Once the subgrade topogra~hy is
mapped out a more intensive exploration can be started.
6.2-2 EXPLORATION TESTS
The exploration tests may include using seismic refraction, cross hole
surveys, electrical resistivity tests, gravimeter surveys, and ground probing
radar. These methods are fairly good at showing the depths and magnitudes
of the karstic formations but are not specific enough to adequately design a
foundation system. This leads to the final phase in the testing exploration
stage of drilling test borings.
6.2-3 TEST BORINGS
Test borings are located based on the information obtained in the
previous two stages. The borings are the most expensive part of the testing
procedure which is why it is necessary to pin down as closely as possible the
actual dimensions of the karst features. The boring are used to show the
usual information required for design but they are also useful in showing the
__detected_since _
location of any
voids.. that
are present. Thevoids9re_.~_asity
--- . "---_ .. "-_._- ... _--_. -- ---------_ __ ..
------ -- --- ---------
------_.~
-.-
..•. _ ~ - - -
.....
-
there is a sudden drop of the drilling equipment or the loss of the drilling fluid.
If a significant number of voids are detected in the first two stages it may be
necessary for the engineer to require test boring at all locations of important
footings and possibly at all of the footings if warranted by the projects'
intended usage. Once the investigation phase is complete the information is
interpreted and the information is used to start designing the foundations.
/
40
----6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN
During the preliminary phase of design the following items need to be
considered. What is the thickness of the overburden soil on top of the cavity
and what properties does it possess? If rock is encountered in the borings;
is it a sound rock, a weathered rock, or if cracks are detected; will they have
an impact on the design? If a cavity was found will the roof arch continue to
support the overburden with the change in conditions? And finally, will the
groundwater elevation change in any way either once construction is started
or at any time in the future? The design in an area of sinktJoles should allow
for a greater factor of safety due to the larger amount of unknowns. If any of
the above items present a problem that can not be easilylsolved it may be
wiser to move to a new location.
I·
I
6.3-1 SINKHOLE CORRECTIONS
If the karst formation is not to severe there are a number of remedies
that can be used to alleviate therproblem. The first, a procedure called
_._~---------
"dental concretfng" In\;olvescleaningout~thecavity as-mucllas~~possibleof __ ~
the loose soil and rock p·articles. Then pour or pump a lean concrete mixture
into the cavity to fill the voids. This will usually provide an adequate bearing
surface for shallow foundations.
concrete grouting.
Another procedure commonly used is
This is used for cavities that are to deep to get to by
excavation. The voids are filled by injecting a grout mixture. The problem
with this procedure is that there is a degree of uncertainty as to how
effectively the voids have actually been filled by the grout since it is all done
41
from the surface above the void. Test borings are used to check the grouting
procedure but there is still the possibility of having not completely filled the
voids. One of the added benefits of grouting is that the movement of water
through that sinkhole area is greatly reduced and this will slow or stop the
reformation of the sinkhole.
One other material which could be used in filling or grouting the karstic
features as a fill or grout material is a soil/cement / rubber tire mixture.-The
mixture is basically a soil cement mix with rubber tire pieces used as an
aggregate. The mix and its strength are shown in more detail in chapter 7.
6.3-2 DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Another popular method used to solve the karstic problems is to use a
deep foundation system such as piles or caissons.
This would provide
support from a more sound bedrock below the problem area. The deep
foundation structures should be proof tested once in place to assure the
capacity of the underlying bedrock.
6.3-3 SINKHOLE PLUG ..
.
_-~.-
--
~~~-
-
-
In some cases a sinkhole is first fille-a
Wlfh verylafgeaggreate such as
broken up concrete or large boulder and then a very lean high slump
concrete is poured into the aggregate to bind it together. Then a concrete
plug is poured on top of the large aggregate to prevent further settling of the
surface above.
On top of the plug is finally placed a fill with a very low
permiability. This method has been used with great success in the Lehigh
Valley during the last 20 years.
Some examples of this was for the Vera
42
·Cruz sinkhole which formed in 1983 and the Macungie sinkhole that formed
in 1986.
Sinkholes that need to be fixed quickly such as in a busy parking lot,
a roadway, or foundation of an building that needs to keep functioning are
usually repaired by filling the hole with some inexpensive fill material.
In
these cases the sinkhole is excavated down to a sound material, bedrock if
possible. Then the depression is filled with alternating layers of well-graded
gravel and an impervious material to choke off the flow The final layer of
material should always be impervious so that there is no flow of surface
water into the subsoils.
.J
6.3-4 SOIL REINFORCING
One other method successfully being used
is a heavily reinforced
foundation. The foundation is designed to bridge over the weak zones in the
subsurface so that no parts of the foundation are subjected to
large
differential settlements. One case of using a mat foundation to alleviate a
problem area was along Route 202 in Norristown, Pennsylvania.
In May of 1970 asinkhole started forming along Route 202 and in a
period of one hour grew from a
crack-]n-tne pavelifEfriCto--aAO foot diameter
hole. Over the next 6 months the sinkhole grew to 75 feet in diameter and to
a depth that the bottom eQuid not be seen from the surface. The de~igners
came up with two solutions to the problem.
The first solution was installing a 3 foot thick heavily reinforced slab
with concrete beams supporting all adjacent slab sections and tbe slab
----
edges. This slab had the capacity to span a 50 foot sink if it were to develop
>(
43
and still be capable of handling the traffic on the roadway.
The second solution and the one that was ultimately used was
reinforced earth. The reinforced earth uses sections of a metal as reinforcing
to act as tensile restraint. The friction of the soil provides the restraining
force which provides the capacity to support the loads from the roadway and
soils above the reinforced section. These were the only two suggestions
deemed acceptable since it was felt that trying to fill a void as large as the
one that developed could be a very timely and expensive operation.
There are other solutions to filling up or preventing the formation of the
sinkholes that are not as common as the ones detailed above. They include
use of gabions, geotextile reinforcing and filling with a very large aggregate
material such as broken up concrete or boulders.
All have been
economically successful but may not be the best solutions to the problems.
When filling sinkholes with soil or some non-concreted material you
must be aware of the underground water movement,
If there is water
movement then the material placed in the sinkhole must have the ability to
stay in place and not be washed away.
.
I
- -~6,4- REGOMMENDATIONSrClALLIEVATE_SINKHOLEEORMAIIQN . .
Some recommendations which help alleviate future problems from
occurring when building in a sinkhole prone area are as follows:
1 - Provide positive drainage systems away from disturbed land
surfaces in known limestone areas or suspected sinkhole terrain.
2 - Do not allow storm water to pond in suspicious depressions or
swales for extended periods of time.
44
3 - Maintain paved areas by sealing all openings, seams, and cracks
4 - Do not use old sinkholes or abandoned limestone excavations as
repositories for rubbish, debris, garbage, or storm water.
5 - Minimize blasting as a means of removing limestone pinnacles in
excavating operations; use air hammers or rock splitters instead.
6- Be alert for broken water pipes or leaky drains in the
subsurface.[14]
(
45
CHAPTER 7 USE OF SOIL-CEMENT-TIRE AGGREGATE AS A
CONSTRUCTION FILL
7~~j INTRODUCTION
/
Sinkholes and other karst features are responsible for many
foundation problems that occur in the Lehigh Area. Photos 7-1 r 2 and 3 show
a problem area where two sinkholes were found during April of 1993 in the
Lehigh Valley. These sinkholes are typical of the area and can be corrected
using any of the different methods previously outlined in chapter 6. The most
common method of correcting a sinkhole is to remove all the loose material
from the cavity and the replace it with a lean concrete mixture. This provides
a fill material that has the ability to span over soft spots due to it ability to act
like a slab and provide support to the loading above. Another benefit of the
material is that it has a lower hydraulic conductivity which reduces the
amount of water that can move through the area. Another common
construction material that has been used successfully as a structural fill for
sinkholes with properties similar to lean concrete is soil cement.
Cement added to soil, commonly referred to as soil-cement, changes
the soil properties through the hydration of the cement. This increases the
~-
bearing
------ -
capacity
----
and
-~
- - - - - ---
decreases
--- --
-
the
-~
-------- - - - - - - - - .
permiability.
------
Soil-cement
can
successfully be used with soils that are made up of many different
components including clays, silts, gn3Vel, sand and many other granular
r" -,
le,_
materials. Generally the material is placed with a consistency of plastering
mortar which is approximately a 4 inch slump.
46
Since filling a sinkhole and the other karstic features generally require
a large volume of material it is cost efficient to use locally available materials
that can be easily handled by the local contractors.
Soil cement is a
commonly used low cost material that can be designed to serve its function
with various local soils.
The material that is capable of generating the
strength required to adequately fill the voids and provide the support required
to prevent further subsidence from occurring.
The soil/cement mixture is usually designed to perform as a base
course for roadways and parking lot. Other successful uses of soil-cement
include stabilizing subgrades and linings for reservoirs and drainage ditches.
Soil cement normally consists of water, soil, and cement.
In this
research small pieces of rubber tires were added to the soil-cement as an
aggregate. The rational behind the addition of tires to the soil cement is to
find a way to remove scrap tires from the waste stream while at the same
time developing a structural fill using the lightweight aggregate.
There are literally millions of tires that need to ,be disposed of each
year. Based on a United States Environmental Protection Agency survey the
production of automobile tires increased by 42% between 1960 and 1988.
_.~-~_.
__.- _.-
~-
..
There are 280 million tires disposed of each year in
~-
~
-
_.
~_._~-
~
- ---- -------_.
--
the,UI1It~d
._.
,_ ..
--.--
States alone
and of this only a small pe'rcentage is being recycled. 5.6% of the tire waste
, stream was recycled in 1988. It is also becoming harder to actually dispose
of the tires. The regulations governing disposal of the tires is growing more
strict and 'in some states such as Ohio, they will only be allowed in single use
landfills after 1995[15].
Additionally, landfills are not being opened at the
same rate as they are being closed so space in landfills is getting smaller.
47
Therefore the tires need to be recycled for other u~es to keep them out of the
waste stream.
Current methods for reuse of scrap/waste tires can be grouped into
three general categories: (1) fuel source as a raw material in the production
of other polymeric material; (2) additive as a part of asphalt-rubber mixtures
for use as a sl,Jbstitute in asphalt pavement material mixtures;
and (3)
lightweight aggregate for concrete mixtures or as a soil reinforcement
element, either cut into small pieces, shredded, or as whole tires.
If the waste tires are used as described in categories (1) and (2),
additional refining processed are needed, consequently requiring additional
investment and creating additional environmental problems. To utilize large
amounts of waste scrap tires within a short duration , category (3) has
obvious economic and environmental benefits.
The use of scrap rubber tires as an aggregate provides a low cost
alternative t6 other more commonly used aggregates-such as-stone. In manycases there is no need to obtain high strengths from a soil-cement mixture so
the tires can successfully be used as.an aggregate to increase the volume of
the mixture. The purpose of this research was to determine if the addition of
the tires to the soil-cement will create a fill material that possesses an
adequate level of strength to perform as a structural fill for sinkholes.
48
,.
7.2 LASORATORY STUDY
The laboratory study was performed in Fritz Engineering Lab and the
following sections outline the testing and results.
7.2-1 TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE
Based "ali previous study [16,17,18], the flexural strength test is
suitable for the performance- evaluation of fill materials. The test equipment
and test procedure used in this study followed American Society of Testing
and Materials Standard (ASTM 01635-87) entitled "Flexible Strength of SoilCement Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading". This test requires
slowly loading a simple beam specimen at it's third points to determine the
flexural strength of the beam. Figure 7-1 shown below illustrates the layout
of the testing apparatus used in testing the samples.
LOADING
U3
U3
W3
So jJ-Cement-Tire
Briele Sample
Figure 7-1 Testing Apparatus Layout
49
7.2-2 PREPARATION OF TEST SPECIMENS
The size of the specimen is 8.25" long by 4" high by 2.25" wide. The
specimen is composed of soil, cement, scrap tire and water. The test used
one set of percentages by weight of the solid components, (80% soil, 12%
tire and 8% cement) and varied the amount of water used to obtain the
desired slump. The slump of mixture was used since it is a common
construction control method to determine the amount of water used.
The percentage of cement recommended by the Portland Cement
Association [19] is based on a percentage of the dry unit weight of soil. For
silty soils the range of cement recommended is between 7 to 12%. The
amount of cement used in the specimens was 10% of the dry weight of soil
alone and 9% of the total soil and scrap rubber weight. The percentage of
rubber tire aggregate used in the test was based on the results obtained
previously [16]. The amount of water added was determined based on the
slump of the mixture desired. In this experiment, the slumps used were 0", 3",
5" 7" and 8" determined by a standard concrete slump cone.
The soil-cement was mixed together with scrap tire~(0.5" diameter)
then set into beam molds. The molds were then covered with moist burlap
and placed in large plastic container to prevent evaporation. The samples
were allowed to stand for three days in the mold and then removed and again
placed back in the moisture controlled environment with the burlap covers.
Each test beam was then tested at 7-day intervals to determine the ultimate
flexural strength.
50
-
----------
7.3 MATERIALS
7.3-1 SOIL
The soil used in this procedure was obtained in the Lehigh Valley
area. It is classified by the Unified Soil Classification (ASTM 02488-84) as
"ML" and is a silty clay with a liquid limit of 38.
The optimum moisture
content was determined to be 15. This soil was selected since it is a soil
commonly found in the Lehigh Valley area and therefore the results could be
applied to a site in this area.
7.3-2 TIRES
The tires used were obtained from various gas stations and tire stores in
the vicinity of Lehigh University. All of the tires had been worn beyond the
wear indicators on the tire tread. Only the sidewalls of the tires were used to
obtain the tire. material added to the mixture. The tread was not used since
the punch used to obtain the tire pieces could not penetrate the steel belts.
The diameter of the rubber pieces was 1/2:' in size. The size was determined
to be as large as was practical based previous investigation [16], indications
are that the 0.5" diameter of scrap tire is most effective in determining the
ultimate strength of the test samples
51
7.3-3 CEMENT
The cement used was type I portland cement. Type I was chosen
since it is recommended by the peA and is used in soil-cementing
operations[19].
Type I was also chosen since it is the cheapest cement
available.
7.3-4 WATER
The water use was obtained from the tap in Fritz Laboratory and
should therefore be free from any deleterious matter.
7.4 RESULTS
The summary of test results are shown in graphical form in figures 7-2,
7-3 and 7-4. The results are shown as ultimate load versus time, modulus of
rupture versus time and ultimate load versus slump. Individual test results of
samples with tire aggregate were obtained for 0" slump (25% water content)
at 7,14, and 21 days (figures A1-A4); 3" slump at 7,17 and 24 days (figures
A5-A9)); 5" slump at 7,14,24 and 31 days (figures A10-A14); 7" slump at
10 and 17 days (figures A15-A17),initial run of 7" slumps (figures A18, A19)
The initial run of 7" slump tests were questionable so a second run was
,
performed, 8" slump at 7, 14,28 and 35 days (figures A20-A27) .. Results for
the 8" slump without tire aggregate were obtained at 7, 14, 28, and 35 days
. (figures A28-A35). All of the figures are in the appendix.
52
7.5 CONCLUSION
The results of the testing show that the soil-cement/tire mixture can be
used for many of the same uses as regular soil-cement.
These include
performing as a subbase for low volume roadways, parking lots, linings of
ditches and reservoirs as well as a fill material for sinkhole problems that are
found in the Lehigh Valley. The strength of the soil-cement/tire mix has the
flexural strength capacity to(act as a slab once it has cured. This strength is
'..
necessary to provide an adequate subbase for roadways and parking lots
and sinkholes.
The modulus of rupture, (shown in figure 7-3) has been shown by the
P.C.A. to be approximately 20% of the compressive strength.[19]. Therefore
the estimated compressive strength for the soil-cement/tire mixture reached
250-300 psi at the end of the 35 day testing period. Prior research done by
the P.C.A. indicates a significant increase in the strength of soil-cement over
a period of years can be expected and will provide an additional factor of
safety for any additional loads that may 'come about in the future. [18].
In sinkhole grout filling operations the strength of the material is not as
important as in normal grouting operations since the material functions mainly
as a fill. Strengths in the range of 200 to 500 psi are normally required to
provide the ability to adequately support the surrounding materials. It is not
normally advisable to introduce a material with strengths higher than the
surrounding soil and rock as it only increases the cost without giving any
significant additional benefits[20].
53
7.6 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
Figure 7-2 shows the ultimate load determined from beam test versus
curing period, and figure 7-4 shows the ultimate load versus slump. Some
important points of test results are
presen~ed
as follows:
(1) The 0" slump had the lowest strength (failure load) of all the test
specimens. The strengths were on the order of 40 to 50% less than the three
other slumps tested after the first week (7-day) of curing. The deficiency in
strength continued throughout the entire testing period. The strength of all the
samples should continue to increase as the cement continues to hydrate.
(2) The test results showed an increase in strength to approximately a
6" to 8" slump which is the range considered ideal to obtain the highest
strength for the fill.
(3) The test beams all broke within the middle third of the beam (see
photos 5 and 6) .. The fracture plane was basically straight through the beam
perpendicular to the top of the beam. One of the main factors responsible for
the bonding between the soil-cement and tire particles is the absorption of
the soil-cement by the tire particles. The bonding strength increases with the
increase in absorption.
54
(4) The failure surface of the samples was inspected to determine if
any bonding did take place between the tire and the soil cement. The surface
did show some bonding between the two materials. The sample beams were
photographed by a magnifying lens (8 times actual size) to view the interface
of the two materials (see photos 7-3, 7-4, 7-5). The photos show there is
good contact between the materials which would allow maximum bonding to
occur.
Failure of the sample was along the surface of the exposed tire
surfaces as would be expected indicating that the absorption bond between
the tire and soil-cement (see photos 7-6, 7-7, and 7-8) is smaller than the
cernent bond between adjacent soil particles.
7.7 SUMMARY
(1) The results of the testing show that the soil-cement-tire mixture can
be used for a variety of uses similar to regular soil-cement including
performing as a subbase for low volume roadways [8], parking lots, linings of.
ditches and reservoirs.
(2) This Ipw strength mixture can be used to fill empty spaces such as
I
sinkholes or around bridge abutments, retaining walls, and building
foundations.
(3) In using the mix for sUbbasing a parking lot or roadways a low
slump of 3" to 4" would be used so that the mix placed could be graded as
the design required. The higher sluITJPs could be used in grouting sinkholes
since the material must be ftowable enough to move through the sinkhole and
plug up the subterranean cavities that may be associated with the sinkh.0le.
55
Normal pumps used in concreting operations use slumps in the range of 7" to
9".
(4) Future study into the use of tires in soil-cement should determine
,how the hydraulic conductivity varies with addition of the tire particles. The
tire aggregate should also be changed physically to determine the effects that
size and shape of the aggregate may have on the flexural strength.
(5) If the mix is to be used to fill sinkholes additional studies need to be
undertaken to determine the ability of the mixture to resist breaking down or
. washing out due to groundwater movement. The results of testing also
indicate that higher slumps should be investigated to determine at what point
the soil-cement-tire mix still achieves acceptable strength and still be easily
pumped or injected.
There were some problems that were encountered during the running
of the tests. The first involved setting the head of the test apparatus on the
sample. While attempting to seat it correctly a load was applied to some of
the sample beams before deflection readings could be recorded. The beams
that were subjected to this pretest loading did not record any additional
deflection until the pretest load was exceeded during the recorded testing
period.
SeeJraphs A5, A7 and A9 for illustration of the problem and the
associated results.
The second problem was observed during the testing of the initial 7"
slump specimens. It appears that the initial 7" samples never developed any
strength from hydration of the cement. The samples remained plastic up to
31 days and developed a minimal strength of approximately 5 pounds. It was
determined that the soil/cement mixture was improperly prepared.
56
-_._--------------
Future study into the use of tires in soil-cement should determine how
the hydraulic conductivity varies with addition of the tire particles. If the mix
was to be used to fill sinkholes additional studies need to be undertaken to
determine the ability of the mixture to resist breaking down or washing out
due to groundwater movement.
The results of testing also indicate that higher slumps should be
investigated to determine at what point the soil-cement-tire mix still achieves
acceptable strengths and at the same time can easily be pumped or injected.
The mixture must be fluid enough to allow filling of all of the voids of the
sinkhole prone area and also to allow a pump to be used to place the
mixture.
57
250-.----------3" SLUMP
7" SLUMP
en
---------.
8" SLUMP
OJ
"::! 200
----
--
----------
------------------
o
: 150~------ __ ~:::~::UMPd _
~
100
- ---- -----------------
_
::>
30
35
CURING PERIOD (DAYS)
ULTIMATE LOAD VS. TIME
FIGURE 7-2
_ 50 - . - - - - - - - - - - - ~
. 7" SLUMP
3" SLUMP
w
a: 40
-----
::>
----------
-,
Ii:
::>
a:
u.
--,
8" SLUMP
------------------
5" SLUMP
30
o
Cf)
3::>
20
o
o
:2
10
---+--~-.-----.-----.-----,---,----------1
5
10
. 15
20
25
30
CURING PERIOD (DAYS)
RUPTURE MODULUS VS. TIME
FIGURE 7-3
58
35
300
275
-
250
-'
225
0
200
------------ --------
0
-'
175
CD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -d2:-
(J)
OJ
<X:
w
--------- - -
----------------
X
150
- - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
- - -
.-
125
-
- - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
:J
100
~
~
..J
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
- - - - -
- - 1LtJ- -
~
-
-
-
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
~...J
-~-
-
-
W - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0.~
75
6
012345
SLUMP (IN)
789
ULTIMATE LOAD VS. SLUMP
FIGURE 7-4
59
SINKHOLE IN LEHIGH VALLEY
'~
.j.~-
.. ..,
\,.:',L-
If(T ,-.
a1
,~
PHOTO 7- '1
SINKHOLE IN LEHIGH VALLEY
~';i,
,\t."
,
It
'.;~ ,·-t~··;·
.. PHOTO 7-2
SINKHOLE IN LEHIGH VALLEY
60
-------~---------
PHOTO 7-4
TESTING APPARTUS
6\
-
-
· ,"..;,
~.
~,
.:;..
..
~r~'"
PHOTO 7-3
SINKHOLE IN LEHIGH VALLEY
PHOTO 7-4
TESTING APPARTUS
6\
:--#
PHOTO 7-5 ~,
TYPICAL CRACKING PATTERN
.'
PHOTO 7-6
TYPICAL FAILURE SURFACE
62
PHOTO 7-5
TYPICAL CRACKING PATTERN
.
- \
TYPICAL FAILURE SURFACE
62
PHOTO 7-7
CROSS SECTION OF SOIL-CEMENT-TIRE SAMPLE
SOIL-CEMENT-TIRE INTERACTION
63
PHOTO 7-7
CROSS SECTION OF SOIL-CEMENT-TIRE SAMPLE
~.;:.:.~Il. ::
".' HI'
.
' .•
!
•
J
~
,Ill
SOIL-CEMENT-TIRE INTERACTION
63
L
REFERENCES
1. County and City Data Book (1988) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census, Data User Services Division, Washington D.C.
2. Forester, W.S, (1988) Solid Waste: There's A/ot More Coming" E.P.A
Journal May 1988 pages 11,12
3. Driscoll, F.G.,(1987) "Groundwater and Wells" Johnson DivisionSt. Paul MN
4. Fookes, P.G. and Vaughn,P.R.,(1986) "A Handbok of Engineering
Geomorphology" Chapman and Hall NY 1986
5. Beck, B. F. Wilson, W., (1987) "Karst Hydrogeology Engineering and
Environmental Applications" The Macungie Sinkhole, Lehigh Valley, PA Cause
and Repair. AA Balkema, Boston, MA
6. Fang, H.Y.,(1993) personal notes
7. Miller, Benjamin L.,(1941) ,"Lehigh County Pennsylvania Geology and
Geography" Dept. of Internal Affairs Harrisburg, Pa
8. Perlovy, M., Schadl,S.M., Kugelman, !.J., Fang, H.Y. , (f983) "Waste Disposal
Considerations in Lehigh Valley Carbonate Formations" Conference on the
Disposal of Solid, Liquid and Hazardous Wastes AS.C.E. Lehigh University
1983
9. Liptak, B G.,(1974) "Environmental Engineer's Handbook" Vol. 1, Water
Pollution Chilton Book Company, Radnor, PA
10. Robinson, WD.,(1986) "The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide" John
Wiley and Sons NY
11. Lerman, A , Maybeck~ M.,(1988) "Physical and Chemical Weathering in
Geochemical Cycles" Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA
12. Fang H.Y.,(1991) "Foundation Engineering Handbook" Van Nostrand
Reinhold NY
13. Fang, H.Y.,(1986)lnternational Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology
Envo Publishing, Bethlehem PA
64
14. American Society of Civil Engineers,(1976) "Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance Problems in Limestone Regions", The Geotechnical Group, Lehigh
Valley Section PA
15. Phillips,Mark,(1993) "The State of Scrap Tires" Tire Review,March 1993
pp.28-40
16. Fang, H, Y., Hitchens, D. and Hontz, D. (1992). "Use of Scrap Rubber Tires
for Construction Materials, Proceedings, 24th Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste
Conference, West Virginia University, July, pp. 263-275.
17. Hausmann, M. (1990). Engineering Principles of Ground Modification,
McGraw Hill Book Co., NY
18. ASCE, (1978). Soil Improvement History, Capabilities and Outlook, The
Committee on Placement and Improvement of Soils, American Society of Civil
Engineers, NY
19. Portland Cement Association, (1979). Soil-Cement Construction Handbook,
Portland Cement Association, IL
20. Beck, B F. (1984) "Sinkholes: Their Geology, Engineering & Environmental
Impact" A.A.Balkema Boston MA
21.Geological Map of Pennsylvania, Map 1 (1980)
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Commonwealth
of
22. Highway Review Board, (1979). Low-Volume Road, Transportation Research
Record 702.
23. Mathewson, C. C. (1981) "Engineering Geology" Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Company, Columbus OH
24. Jennings, J. N.,(1971) "Karst" M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA
25. Trudgill, S,T., (1986) "Solute Processes", Chapter 9 John Gunn "Solute
Processes and Karst Landforms" John Wiley & Sons NY
26. Portland Cement Association, (1988) "Soil-cement, Inspectors
Manual",Portland Cement Association IL
65
27. Hunt, R. E. 1984 "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual" McGraw
Hill Book Company, NY
28. Yong, R. N. and Warith, M. A. (1989) "Leaching Effects of Organic Solutions
on Geotechnical Properties of Three Clay Soils", Second ~nternational
Symposium on Environmental Geotechnology Envo Publishing Company, Inc. ;
Bethlehem, PA
29. Richardson, M., Acar, Y., B. and Edil, T. B. (1989) "Geotechnical Aspects of
Landfill Lining Regulations and Hazardous Waste Regulations in USA",
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Environmental
Geotechnology, Envo Publishing Company, Inc Bethlehem, PA
30. Freeman, H., M.,(1988) "Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment
& Disposal, McGraw Hill Book Co. NY
31. United States Environmental Protection Agency,(1~89) "Remedial Action,
Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Waste" Proceedings of the Fifteenth
Annual Research Symposium U.S.E.P.A., Cincinnatti OH
32. United States Environmental Protection Agency,(1981) "Land Disposal:
Hazardous Waste", Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Research Symposium
U.S.E.P.A., Cincinnatti OH
33. Todd, D. K., (1980), "Groundwater Hydrology" John Wiley & Sons,
34. Freeze, R. A., Cherry, J. A., (1979) "Groundwater, Prentice Hall, Inc.,NJ
35. Kirk-Othmer, (1967) "Encylopedia of Chemical Technology" 2nd Edition,
Volume 12 Lime and Limestone John Wiley &Sons NY
36. Legget, R. F.,(1973) "Cities and Geology"McGraw Hill Book Company NY
37. American Society of Civil Engineers, (1979) "Preceedings of the National
Convention" Boston April 2-6,"Acid Rain" ASCE NY
38. Howard, R, Perley, M.,(1980) "Acid Rain The North American Forecast"
House of Anansi Press Limited Toronto, Ontario
L
66
LO
. C\I
1
~
o
0
C.
E
-o
C\I
::J
0
0
(J)
,..
Z
I
Q <C
LO~ W
--0
""'--""'"
~
··:
····:
·
····
··
·
···:
en
w
r-
~
<t:
ClI
en
S
~
w
0:
ti3
q
0
LO
8
0
·
·
:
I-----t----+---+----+------.O
o
00000
o
LO
V
LL
--
··:
·
:··:
c.o
W"
0_
t
·:•
·:
I'-
a:
qw
o r:C ::J
t:::"-
C")
C\I
--
(lsd)SS3CJ1S ~ (sql)aVOl
67
7-DAY TEST(O" slump)
~,
..........
·en
a.
.........
Cf)
Cf)
~
40
35
w 30
a:
~ 25
~~
~
.0
::::::...
o
i
---- LOAD(lbs)
20
15
« 10
9
512:'
--":"""""
~
o
---
---
o
0.002
•
:
--- - -
•
.:
S~'§~(~~"""""'''''''''''''''''''''''''I
~...........
i
0.008
0.004
0.006
DEFORMATION
FIGURE A-2
0.012
0.01
14-DAY TEST(O"slum-PJ
140
~
i
i
120
Cf)
S
(J)
(J)
w
a:
b5
mod
'Ci)
.0
100
80 ......-..-
-.-
-
_
_
---_ -.- _._ . - .
60
~
o
«
9
40
- + - STRESS{ps~
20
o~
~ . .,. •
o
1
~
..
~
til
0.004
0.002
:11.:
7 •..
0.008
0.006
0
,
0.01
DEFLECTION
t
~
FIGURE A·3
.:.
0.012 .
.
0.014
I
0.016
21-DAY TEST(O"slump}
120T'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,
'Ie
C'-
B
en
en
w
a:
len
1oat···················································...............•.......••...............................---r:-.•••••.••••.
-- -------- ,
801········~···································~····=:=··LOAD(;b~)······································
~JIlT
601
CJ~
.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
'(j)'
.0
::::::...
0
40
J
«
9
--+-
STRESS{psij
20
0
a
0.004
0.002
0.012
0.008
0.006
DEFLECTION
FIGURE A-4
0.01
0.01~
7-DAY TEST(3"slump)
1~1
~
c~
~
120 ··················································
i
.
CJ)
S
C/)
C/)
100 J
.;.
.
W
0:
80-··
~~
601-.
~
'Cii'
.
._-
.
.
-
~... ..............................
--- LOADObs)
-_
.
-_ .
.0
;::::...
o
~
...J .
401·····
.:.::;;;-
·····=:smE~;,;·············-
2O J ..........................•.................................................................................................
oJ ..~.
,.,
0.4
.
~. ~. ~.:
0.402
0.401
0.404
0.403
=· : · I
0.406
0.405
DEFLECTION
FIGURE A·5
0.408
0.407
0.409
1-7--DAY TEST(3"SLUMP)
180
-·00
0.........
140
(j)
(j)
120
J-
100
w
a:
(j)
;j
160
c?S
-
-R-:............ - .. -
_ - .. _ .. - - _
..........,
- _ .. - - - - - _
- - - - .. -
- - - _ .. - -
;'.,.:-~~- ;.-.; --.;.. ,;,;
LOAD(lbs)
-.-;; .. -
--
--_
__
- .. _ .. - - - - - - - - -
- .. -'!'_
--
_ .. '!-
80
( /)
..0
.........
0
60
0
40
«
-I
20
-
~
O:r
o
un
u
-
-
-
__ -
-
-
__ -
-
-
II
I
I
I I
-
-
-
n
-
I
I
-
__ u
-
u
I
-
-
'-f-STRESS(psi)r ---_.-__--.....- .
- - - - - __ -
- - - - - - - - - __ n
I
I
__ n
I..
I
__ - - __ n _
_
I
I
I
I
I
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-6 .
,j'
C\I
~
··
·:
·::
:
·
·
·· .c· 0
· «0
..J
·· I
···
·
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
O
C-
0
0
!
!
:E
b
0
0
:
····
w
0
0
0
0
0
0
en
--en
:
··
··
·
0
0
~
0
r(J)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
0
···
·,,
·,,
0
r-
0
0
0
0
~
0
,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tJ)
0
!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
,
CO
0
0
0
-
"(j)
0-
-enen
(0
a::
···
·
····
·,
·:
··
0
0
0
I-
t
0
0
~
0
0
0
i\
,
,
0
0
0
·,,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
,
~
··
·,
··,
·,,
0
,
0
C\I
0
0
0
0
0
to
C\I
0
C\I
0
0
0
0
0
0
···,
·:
,,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lO
0
0
C\I
~
~
0
lO
(!sd)SS381S '1» (Sql)OVOl
73
- <Cr-Z
0
I
0
...J
LL
0
0
Q)
0 i=
0
w
en
0
tJ)
.r:.
u
c:
w
0
-
W
0
w
a:
:::>
-
Cl
LL
24-DAV~TEST(3I1SLOI\llP)
250
i
i
....... 200-J..·..·.·--.--.--.-.- --..,e;
--.----.._.--..-._._
'(j)
- _..-
(f)
(f)
-R-
LOAD(lbs)
w
a: 150
t-
(f)
~~
W
--«
.0
100
o
o-1
501".---....._._---..__._---._..-.__._-._-------.----._- .. -_
OT
o
I
0.001
I
I
--
I
-_ .. ------- -- --_
I
-
I
~
- -
SIRESS(psi)
-- .. -.. _ --_ .. ----- ---- ---
I
I
I
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-a·
24-DAY TEST(3 SLUMP)
I1
300.
c-
,
250
(fJ
---0000a.
w
----
'"
200 . . . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------.------
a:
-III-
t-
oo
U\
~
LOAD(lbs)
150 -t -. -"-- -- - -- --- -- -- - ---- -- - - - -- - --. - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- -, - ----- -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - .---- --------._._----- •••••-- ---.--.-•• -.-----
........
(fJ
:: 100
o
«
o
...J
50 ~
OT
o
.________
I
0.001
..... --- -- _
I
I
I
-_
--.- .. -- -- --
I
--
-_
_
I
STRESS- (psi)
--+.. _-_ _------- .. _ ----- _.. -_ .. _-
I
I
I
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-9
V
T"""
o
d
C\I
T"""
o
d
""....,.....
c..
,.-
o
E
::J.
d
-....Wi
~
LU
o
z .....
co
o
8
LO
d
'-""'"
I
~«
Ow
co ~ a:
Ow ~
°qo L"-L
I-
~
o
8d
I
I'-
8
d
o
o
T"""
Qsd)SS31:J1S ~ (sq\)OV01'
76
14-DAY TEST(5 SLUMP)
I1
160,
I
14 a-+----- --- -- ----- ---.--.------------------------------.-- ---.----- --.--------------..---.-----------...,-::------ --.~ --.-.---- --------~~~
Cf)
0.. 120 -+- .--.- -- -- -------- --------.--- ----- --- ----- -- ----- --- ------------ -- ------- --- ---.-.... ---.--------------------.--.----- •• -._----.---- •
.........
(j)
(j)
)
J
•
•• _.
._._.
•
_
100 i-----------.-.--.------------------------------.-- --·------------~-··-~·-LO-A-D-(ibs
a:
.....
(j)
80 1__---- -~- ---..----.--.-------------------------- ~---- .----.------------------------------------.---.-.----------.----------
ill
:j06
.........
~.
60 -t -- ----------------------------- - - - - -- -- --- - - -- -- --------- ---- ---. -- - - - -- -- --- --- -.---.---.-- •••-.---------------- -------- .----~--.--
.........
o
<t:
g
4 a.~---- -------------------------------------------------------------------.-..--....-.-------------.-----.-------.-...
-+- STRESS(psi)
:
'
2 a III ------- -- -.- --.-- -- -- ----- ---------- --------------.-.--- ---------- -- ------------- ------.•--.-.•--.------------ --------------.-------
0=
a
.t
0.001
~
0.002
I
:
I
:
.':
0.003 0.004 0.005
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A·11
:
0.006
~
:
0.007
0.008
24.. DAY TEST(5 SLUM-P)
U
160
-a.
... -
140
-_
-_
--_ .. -_ -_ .. -_ .. -- ------_
--_ - -- -_
_
--_ ---
.
~;.-.;"
.;;;._--..,:.;;;
..
-- _ _...
(f)
.....Cf)
Cf)
w
ex:
120
100 -------------_ .. _--_ -.. -- -_
-- _ --- -_ - - ------ - .. -- --------
-_
_ _--_ .. -.. -.---_ .. _ -_
_--_
__
-_ .. __ - _-
t-
Cf)
~ o?:S
(f)
80
-0
60
«
40 ----------- --- ---- .-- ------_ ... _. ---- _..
.....0
0
---
----- --- -------------- --- -- --------- -.-------.-
-----~---
-- -+=--sTRESS(psir-
....J
20
J ----+ , .,
o
0.018
0.02
.:
----- ----------------- -----
:
·
I : , mI
0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028- --O~oS
DEFLECTION (inches)
FIGURE A-12
I
~;
:::::
r
0.032 0.034 0.036
31-DAY TEST(5 I1 SLUMP)
180
-(a./)
160
140
..........
~120_
w
"0:
t(/)
~
~
-
100
80
( /)
..a
..........
Q
60 -----"- --------------- --------- ---- ---- ---.- -------------- ----- ------- ----- -----------------------_._-"---_:-------------------
0
40
«
..J
........ 00-
.. _
_
..-_
_ _ ..
__ .. __ - - .. - - -
--- --
:
__ -
.. _;,;;
-; __ -
.. - _ ..
__ .. _ _ .. _
..
~
.. _
_
_
-+- STRESS(psi)
20
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-13 .
0.01
0.012
31-DAY TEST(5 I1 SLUMP)
140
::=-
120
(/)
Q..
Cii
100
(f)
-,
--- LOAD(fbs)
w
~CE
8U
I-
................... _ _ ..
-
-
--- --
-- -- -;.,..,;.
--_
--..-- - --
-
-.. ""iIII'JllIllIl-.-"
.__.•._
_~
_.•''''.__
_.~
(f)
~~
-
60
0
40
fI)
--«
..Q
~
0
-J
STRESS(psi)
20
J~o
~
I
I
I
0.002 0.004
:
I
:
:
:
:
I
0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-14
1O-DAY TEST(7 SLU'MP)
I1
180
160
::=-
en
140
(J)
(J)
120
t-
100
0..
--w
a:
(/)
~~
-
"'
--- LOAD(lbs)
80
(1)
..0
---
60
0
40
0
«
--J
-+- STRESS(psi)
20
OTl
o
0.001
I
0.002
I
I
I
0.003 0.004 0.005
DEFLECTION (inches)
I
I
I
0.006
0.007
0.008
FrGURE A·15
~
17-DAY TEST(7"SLUMP)
300.
e-
250
-
200 L-
rn
Q.
( J)
(J)
i
..
.-:::::
-
- .. -- --
---_ .. - .. _ - -_
----LOAD(Ibs)
--_ .. --- _.. __-- .. _.. -.. _---.. .. --..
- --_
-
---
-
w
a:
t-
(J)
~
150 .... ---------- ----- ---------~----- ------- ----- --------------------------- ------- ----- ------- ----------------------------------------
ci!S
-«
rn
..Q
0
0
.-J
1001------
---1-----------------------------------------------------------------=--;;;~ii~;.;;_:_:-:_:_:-::
5 a-t---------- -T-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
at-
o
r
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-16
,
17-DAY TEST(7 SLUMP)
I1
25 0 T'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,
-'w
-
n..
200
~lOAD(lbs)
( j)
(Jj
ill
a: 150
r(j)
..
~~
(i)
.0
-«o
o
~
100.....--------------------------------------------------------..... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------L
-+- STRESS(psi)
.. -- _.... -- ----_ ........ _......... --_ .. ---- -_ .... ---------------_ .. -_ ....... _.... -.... -_ .. ------ -... ------ .. _.... ---- ... --_ ..
"
50
or.,
o
I,
I
:
I
"
:
':
:
:
I
0.002 0.004 0.0'06 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
DEFLECTION(inches}
FIGURE A·17
-
7-DAY TEST(7"slump)
4.
C'"
•
i
3.5
rJ)
..e,
en
en
w
3
a: 2.5
~ 2
~~
"ii)
.c 1.5
~
o
«
9
1
--.- STRESS(psij
O~I
Q5
o
0.005
:
I
0.01
I
I
•
0.02"
0.015
0.025
DEFLECTION
FIGURE A-18
+.
0.03
I
0.04
0.035
··t
14-DAY TEST(7"slump)
5.
•
. -
4.5-+··················································
t:="
en
4
CJ)
CJ)
3.5
a:
3
.B
w
t;)
......................................~
I11III
•
_._
••
-
~
---- LOAD(lbs)
2.5
'ii)
2
.0
;:::,
o 1.5
i
.
.
~~
«
9
-e-
1
0.5
0"-
o
,
0.005
,
0.01
i
i
0.02
0.015
i
i
0~03
0.025
DEFLECTION
FIGURE A-19
STRESS(psO
i
i
Q.Q~I
I
0.04
0.045
7 -DAY TEST(8"SLUMP)
SAMPLE 1
140,
t::"
(I)
~
0>
-!l;
~~
-6
~
~
120-----··.. ·· ··········· ·..· ·..··············..····
- -..- - - - -..- ..--..
1OOJ-----·-·· --········..··..······..···· ··········-··
_ --._-.-:':.:_ _ -- .
-----7--·LOAD(lbs)
~,.
80j-----------------------------------L
60 - - __
_ __
-
_............................ . -
-.--
.__._ - .
( I)
«0
-I
40 -._-_ -._ -
_
_
_._ -._.._
]
20 -------------- I-----~-
o
:
_
_
:
I
---.~
STRESS(psi)
.._.
:
I
._.._._ _ _.._ .
:
I
:
_
i i i
0.014 0.016 0.018
0.02 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028
:J<,DEFLECTION(in)
FIGURE A-20
0.03
0.032
7-DAY TEST(8 11 SLUMP)
SAMPLE 2
200
~
.9:
Ql
-..j
180J..-.~~~
~_
m
· m . .
·: ·
..
. .
·.· ·
160 _·--·..··..·..· ·..·..- · ·..·· · ·
~ 140]--.-~
··· ·
~
.
..._--__,11
_ __ _._. L..
J--_.
- -_ -.. _ _ - _ _.
·-2··-=-.- LO""A-D{lbs)
·..· . · · · · · ·. ·. · · . · · · · ·. · · ·..
! ~EJ-=---:~==--=~:=--:==:==:-=-=-:~::=-~-=-=Z=-=~=~~~ -=
..0
.
:..
----
-- -
- - .
~ :1-_-._.~~~:~~~~::~:::~::~:~:~~~~~~:~:~::::::::~::. · . : : :~: : : : : ._ __ __ ~ _
. ~ ~_T~.~~~Jp..~.~L_.
9 2~t----------: :-----~-,---;-----~-~-!:-;-+I-,-:
0.005
0.01
0.015 .
0.02
DEFLECTION(inches)
FIGURE A-21
0.025
0.03
14-DAY TEST(SII SLUMP)
SAMPLE 1
.140
:'="
(/)
~
~
~
CJ)
CD
CD
~
..
i
I
120
1OO-l----· ·· ·..- ·
80
· ·· · ··
- _ -- -
~---
J-,--_ _-_._-
-
__ _.. . . . . . . . . . . .L.
-
-..- - - - - - - - - - - - .
-.--------
-LOA~_
_.__._---
-.2
_
__.
._. . _._ . _ .
~ ::]--===----~-----==~~----C-------- . -. -_~----. -.-. :_-~-~- ~-~-~ _.-~. ,. .!.~ -..
60
S...-+
o
o
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
0.01
0.012 0:014 0.016 0.018 ,.
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE A-22
14-DAY TEST(8 11 SLUMP)
SAMPLE 2
-------------------:=;-1'
200""'-,
1 80 -.-----..-cfI)
0-
1 60 ------.-- -
-
-..-
-
-
- - -..--.-.-- -..
- ---
'-"
(J)
(J)
00
CO
w
a:
1401·--·-·-·-··········-···············_··············
-.....
-.--
-----..-
····-·-=;=··-L:.OAD(lbs)--·---
- ~:~j~~~~-~~-~~::~=~-~==-~~-=~~~:~~~=_:-:==-==~~~ ~=
f-
(J)
~
f I)
.a
::::::0
«
0
-J
:~j=~::_::;;::=:_==:::::::::;::_===:=-~~!~~~~I
2~~-;----:-----~----:--i----~--r:
,,.
o
0.002
0.004
0.006
·0.008
0.01
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE A-23
0.012
0.014
0.016
28..DAY TEST(8 I1 SLUMP)
SAMPLE 1
180.
c:-
I
160 ·---··-··-···················.. ·················-··
- --..-.-..-
-- - - .
fI)
.8:' 140...·
rn
<0
o
~ 120
a:
~ 1OOl·---··_··.._·_·······-··_..·························· -
~
80~---·_-····-- . ··········-···························
~
:::::..
60 -·---·..· ·-·················-············_········· _
«
o
40,.-
o
-'
._ -
_-
.....__.
-.················-7-=t.- LOAD(lbs)
-
.
- _ ~..- _------ --.._.-.-.._-------..
-
-
_-._.-.~····-···_·_····-···············
-.-..----.-.---..-
-.---.
..···---······=+--·siRES-S'Cpsi)
o .-._.-.. . . . . . . ! .
:
:
20!~---------~-------------~------~~
o
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
DEFLECTION(in)
FIGURE A·24
J
'28-DAY TEST(8"S LUMP)
SAMPLE 2
,
~Oi
:=-
-
II)
a.
200-1-------··-··-··-····-···--·-···-·-····-··--·····---
I
~
....
CD
~
-.-..-- - ----.-.------.
:--- LOAD(lbs)
150
CJ)
~
(j)
100 4------······-··········---····-··-·-··-···-··········
, - _-..-.-.-.-....•-..-_..-.-----'.-
.a
~
o
I
50~---·_··-··-··_·············-··-----~·-·_·····-·····-..- -
..J
~~
O
~
o
0.002 0.004 0.006
I
L
-+- STRES~(psi)
,..-.-- - ..-.- --.-.--------.--.---..-..
I : I : I: +-:Ir\
"
0.008
0.01
DEFLECTION(in)
FIGURE
A~25
0.012 -- 0.014
0.016
35.. DAY TEST(8 SLUMP)
I1
SAMPLE 1
250
I
I
r.=-
[
........
200+--'
en
en
w 150 4·_·---,·_
~
(J:)
I\)
---- LOAD(lbs)
· _.._..· · · ·_·
·· ··· ··..···
_
__
~
.
en
~
(j)
.a
1 OO~·.._·_.._..· _..· _ ..·_..·..·..·..· ·· :..· - _·_
O
J ' ,_
50 .-.__.__
~
-oJ
~'
0
a
0.002
0.004
~
~
~
~...:
:
0.006
_ _ __..:......_--_._
.
...
-+- STRESS(psi)
-..-- .--._ --._._._- .
+:11
I:
.
1 :
0.008
0.01
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE
_ _-
A~26
0.012
j
..
0.014
'I
0.016
35.. DAY TEST(8 SLU_MP)
I1
SAMPLE 2
250
i
i
~
[ 200 j ·-·----··--..- · · ..-···-·····
C!)
(,J
····.. · ..·· ..·······
__ -
.-",.-...
( f)
(f)
w
a: 150-1
-II-
_..-
-
-
-
- -...
-
-......
-
. - .- _ -
_.
LOAD(lbs)
l(f)
~
(i)
100-\.---- - -
-
-
-
.0
-=::;.
-+- STRESS(psi)
o
o«
._-_ -._.._.--.
50-1-
..J
o~
o
I'
0.005
I
:
+
0.01
I
I
I
:'
0.015
DEFLECTION{in)
FIGURE A-27
I
0.02 .
~
I
0.025
<"'-
7-DAY TEST(8" SLUMP) NO TIRES
SAMPLE 1
0-
~
180j
160-
~ I
------.---.-------------.---------.-.-------~
[
140 _ . _
~
12" o·
w
-4
__
-........................................................................................................... .
__
-
_-.-
..- -
-
..-
-.__._ -.
-.-.----.-
.
~.-. ~~-~_---~~~~~~:~~~=~=~~~:~~::~-~:~~~~::==--===,)
]
Z
1
~
~
o
«
o-I
60·..
.:.;:~~ _ - - -.._.--.-..-.-_ _-_ ,
..-................................................. .
401--·-- ·..·..···..·· ·····..·
~
·· · . ·..·
·..· · ·
=;=.-STRE·SS(p;·i)·_·-.._.·-..
· ·..···..
-
2 0t::==:::---------------------------.-----~---:-l-I
o
I
o
0.01
0.02
I ~
I
I
I
I
0.03
0.04
0.05
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE A-28
I
0.06
0.07
0.08
7-DAY TEST(8 11 SLUMP) NO TlRES
SAMPLE 2
250 I
~
200
w
(/)
150-1
!
1 O~-J·_ _·-_··-·_·····-··..·······-·-·················-··· -.- , .-
~
co
0'1
_ .
~
~
J_
._._.
-.-.--
L ---
. _._
...J
o
0.005
__
_.........................._.....•..........••.•.....•.__.. ._...._-----_
LOAD(Ibs)
.. ._._._--_..
_.._
_.. _
O
J'
(§ 50-----------------L---0 ........---
I
0.01
~
--
.........•.....•
_._-_.__._--_
- -.-------..-
_--_._ _------ - .
-+-
STRESS(psij
- -..- -..- . -..----.---.-.--.,...---.---..
-0.015
0.02
. 0.025
DEFLECTION(in)
FIGURE A-29
'0.03
0.035
14-DAY TEST(811 SLUMP) NO TIRES
SAMPLE 1
250Ti--------------------~i
:=~
......
CD
(j)
200 ~_.--..--.-
- -- -..-- --
-
_ _.
Cf)
Cf)
w 150-1
a:
.- ---..-
....
- -
_-._ _
_.._
-_ _-_..
~
Cf)
~
(j)
.c
--_._---_._-
100+---'
:::::;..
~
..J ~'
50J-.__ __ _
ok::::;::::,
o
0.002
L
_._._ _
0.004
I
:
_. .
I:
_
.
-+STRESS(psO
- _.__.
_.._._.._-..-._.
-
~._
:
0.006 0.008
0.01
DEFLECTION(in)
FIGURE A-30
I
:
0.012
I
:
0.014
I
T
0.016
14-DAY TEST(8 SLUMP) NO TIRES
11
- SAMPLE2
250
r.:::rJ)
"'.l
I
_- _-_ _.._ _ __.._ - -
I
~
200~----'--"-'-""-'--"-"""-"'-""-""""'-'
~
150-
Cf)
co
I
--------
~
-II-
LOAD(lbs)
Cf)
«S
(j)
100+
.0
:::::..
-+- STRESS{psi)
o
«
o....J
0%
o
:
0.002
I
:
0.004
I
:
I
:
0.006
0.008
.DEFLECTION{in)
FIGURE-A-31
I
r
I
0.01
0.012
'C
~8-DAYTEST(8nSLUMP)NO
TIRES
SAMPLE 1
300
!
~
co
00
I
i
----
-------T:---------~-"~Z LOA~(lbS)
250]
200
.-.-._
_
-
_................ .,_.
a:
.-en
1501..-
-~
1
......-............................................ _
.
_--_._.._-_.._--_ .
_
~
~
-.oJ
OOl-.._·--· · . · -· · -..· . · - · · · · · · . ·.. ·.· · 7····-· ·.· -_·_ ~_._-_._-----STRESS(psi)
50
-o
..c.
__
O~~I
o
0.005
0.01
_
_
---.-.- - - - - . -
.1 , : +1 :1- 1 I::
0.015
0.02
0.025
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE
A~32
0.03
.'
0.035
--
I
0~04
28-DAY TEST(8 SLUMP)NO TIRES
11
SAMPLE 2
300
:g
i
_
i
~ 250t---·-·······-··········_···············-·200i----·----------~-----------:::~~~;;(~b~-)--~~·---·---_ ..
.: _ _
_ __
_-_..-,------.. .
en
[
•....
~
~
Iii'
150 - _.-
~
--.-
_
-
:9 100 . - - - -.. ---------------
«o...J
'"-"
50. _ _ _
__
..
_
-..--- -.-----.-.--.--..
_
:_ _ ..
.
.
-+- STRESS(psij
~
. .:...... .. . .
_._..__
-.....................------------_.. _
. .__.:.
. .__..__._+ .
o.. ..=:::;:::::
o 0.005
I
I
0.01
i
0.015
i
I
i
I
0.02
: ..,..,.- .
0.025 0.03
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE. A~33
i
I
i
0.035 . 0.04
0.045
-
35-DAY TEST(SUSLUMP) NO TIRES
SAMPLE 1
300T'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "
....
8
i
_--_...
250r---------------------------.::;::::- ....................................
LOAD(lbs)
~
200 1--------··-······-··-···················-·..··········
~
150
w
~
I I)
(5
.0
9
J--·--_·-········ -·-· · · · · · · · · · -· · · · ·
100 ------.- --
-
-
_
_
o
i
0.005
.
_._-..- --.._-
_
- -._ _--_ , __._-------_..- __ -_.,
-
i::
0.01
_
__
-
- -.- _ - - ...
-~ES;;~~I~: ..
I
501----------------0------------------£-------_
I -.._-o~
~
-
.
--_._-_
",
I
0.015
0.02
DEFLECTION (in)
FIGURE A-34
_ _ _ _
~.
i
0.025
0.03
0.035'
I1
35-DAY TE$T(8 SLUMP) NO TIRES
.
-
,
SAMPLE 2
250 '
:=en
a.
.....
o
.....
'\
en
2001-----
-
w
....a:
:....
~
---- lOAD(rbs)
~
(f)
150-----..·-·..··..·-· -··..···..··-·..-·..···..-·..····..···
. --..
-.----- .
(f)
~
(i)
.a
o
(§
~
i
1 00 -- -
- -.----..--
V-'
50 !.-
--.- -
-..--- .
-+- STRESS(psi)
_
_- _ --_._- _ _-
..J
Oliilil
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
DEFlECTION(in)
FIGURE· A-3S
VITA
Mark Morrison
Personal Information
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
Parents
February 26, 1961
Montclair , NJ
William James Morrison
Patricia Helen Morrison
Institutions Attended
High School
Parsippany Hills High School
Parsippany, NJ
Graduated June 1979
Undergraduate
Manhattan College
Bronx, NY
Bachelors of Engineering
Graduated May 1983
cum laude
Professional Experience
William L. Crow Construction Company
1983-1986 Field Engineer
American Telephone and Telegraph
1986-present Structural Engineer
Licences
State of New Jersey, Professional Engineer
102