Estimation of ground cavity configurations using ground penetrating radar and time domain reflectometry

Original Paper
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Ground cavity configurations, including depth, roof shape, and length, are the main factors affecting the risk of ground sinkholes. In this study, ground penetrating radar and time domain reflectometry are applied to estimate the ground cavity configurations. To accurately estimate ground relative permittivity with depth, a penetrometer incorporated with a time domain reflectometry (PTDR) system is developed. In addition, a new method is established to calculate the coordinates of the reflection points. Experimental studies are conducted on ground models prepared in different soil types with buried objects of various shapes to simulate ground cavities by using circular rubber tubes and rectangular and trapezoidal polystyrene objects. The experimental studies show that the estimated depths of the buried objects are identical to the experimental setup. The estimated roof shapes clearly represent the roof shapes of the buried objects. In addition, the estimated diameters of the rubber tubes and the estimated lengths of the polystyrene objects show good agreement with those of the buried objects. This study shows that the ground penetrating radar survey, PTDR test, and the new method for estimating ground cavity configurations may be effectively used to assess the risk of ground sinkholes.

Keywords

Ground cavity Ground penetrating radar Relative permittivity Sinkhole Time domain reflectometry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning(NRF-2017R1A2B3008466).

References

  1. ASTM D5777-00 (2011) Standard guide for using the seismic refraction method for subsurface investigation. Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D6431-99 (2010) Standard guide for using the direct current resistivity method for subsurface investigation. Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM D6432-11 (2011) Standard guide for using the surface ground penetrating radar method for subsurface investigation. Annual Book of ASTM Standard 04.09, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM D6565-00 (2005) Standard test method for determination of water (moisture) content of soil by the time-domain reflectometry (TDR) method (withdrawn 2014). Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedetto A, Pensa S (2007) Indirect diagnosis of pavement structural damages using surface GPR reflection techniques. J Appl Geophys 62:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtsson TO (1987) The hydrologic effects from intense ground-water pumpagein east-central Hillsborough County, Florida. In: Proceedings 2nd multidisciplinary conference on sinkholes and the environmental impacts of karst, Balkema, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  7. Bradford JH (2007) Frequency-dependent attenuation analysis of ground penetrating radar data. Geophysics 72(3):J7–J16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkmann R, Parise M, Dye D (2008) Sinkhole distribution in a rapidly developing urban environment: Hillsborough County, Tampa Bay area, Florida. Eng Geol 99(3):169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carbonel D, Rodríguez-Tribaldos V, Gutiérrez F, Galve JP, Guerrero J, Zarroca M, Roque C, Linares R, McCalpin JP, Acosta E (2015) Investigating a damaging buried sinkhole cluster in an urban area (Zaragoza city, NE Spain) integrating multiple techniques: geomorphological surveys, DInSAR, DEMs, GPR, ERT, and trenching. Geomorphology 229:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chung CC, Lin CP (2009) Apparent dielectric constant and effective frequency of TDR measurements: influencing factors and comparison. Vadose Zone J 8(3):548–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraldi M, Guarracino F (2009) Limit analysis of collapse mechanisms in cavities and tunnels according to the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:665–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (2006) GSSI handbook for RADAR inspection of concrete. GSSI, 38Google Scholar
  13. Gutiérrez F, Galve JP, Lucha P, Castañeda C (2011) Integrating geomorphological mapping, trenching, InSAR and GPR for the identification and characterization of sinkholes: a review and application in the mantled evaporite karst of the Ebro Valley (NE Spain). Geomorphology 134:144–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hong WT, Jung YS, Kang S, Lee JS (2016) Estimation of soil–water characteristic curves in multiple-cycles using membrane and TDR system. Materials 9(12):1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang F, Yang XL (2011) Upper bound limit analysis of collapse shape for circular tunnel subjected to pore pressure based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26:614–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufmann O, Quinif Y (2001) An application of cone penetration tests and combined array 2D electrical resistivity tomography to delineate cover-collapse sinkhole prone areas, geotechnical and environmental applications of karst geology and hydrology. Proceedings 8th multidisciplinary conference on sinkholes and the engineering and environmental Impacts of karst (Louisville, Kentucky, 1–4 April) pp 359–364Google Scholar
  17. Kim J, Salgado R, Yu HS (1999) Limit analysis of soil slopes subjected to pore-water pressures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loizos A, Boukovalas G, Karlaftis A (2003) Dynamic stiffness modulus for pavement subgrade evaluation. J Transp Eng 129(4):434–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehta Y, Roque R (2003) Evaluation of FWD data for determination of layer moduli of pavements. J Mater Civ Eng 15(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noborio K (2001) Measurement of soil water content and electrical conductivity by time domain reflectometry: a review. Comput Electron Agric 31(3):213–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodríguez V, Gutiérrez F, Green AG, Carbonel D, Horstmeyer H, Schmelzbach C (2014) Characterizing sagging and collapse sinkholes in a mantled karst by means of ground penetrating radar (GPR). Environ Eng Geosci 20(2):109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saarenketo T (1998) Minnesota GPR project, report: TH28, Burtrum, District 3. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Minnesota Road Research, Saint PaulGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoor M (2002) Detection of sinkholes using 2D electrical resistivity imaging. J Appl Geophys 50:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scullion T, Saarenketo T (1999) Integrating ground penetrating radar and falling weight deflectometer technologies in pavement evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ASTM symposium of nondestructive testing of pavements and back calculation of moduli, June 30th–July 1st 1999, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaw MR, Millard SG, Molyneaux TCK, Taylor MJ, Bungey JH (2005) Location of steel reinforcement in concrete using ground penetrating radar and neural networks. NDT&E Int 38(3):203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinclair WC (1982) Sinkhole development resulting from ground-water, development in the Tampa area, Florida. US Geol Surv Water Resour Investig Rep 81–50:19Google Scholar
  27. Tomita H, Tada H, Nanbu T, Chou K, Nakamura T, McGregor T (1995) Nature and detection of void-induced pavement failures. Transp Res Rec 1505:9–16Google Scholar
  28. Topp GC, Davis JL, Annan AP (1980) Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resour Res 16(3):574–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van der Meer WPJ, Inoue Y (2004) Using interference to determine the phase change of a reflected GPR pulse. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on ground penetrating radar, 2004. GPR 2004, vol 1, pp 299–302Google Scholar
  30. Viratjandr C, Michalowski RL (2006) Limit analysis of submerged slopes subjected to water drawdown. Can Geotech J 43(8):802–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang XL, Huang F (2011) Collapse mechanism of shallow tunnel based on nonlinear Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26:686–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil, Environmental and Architectural EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations