See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261363225

The Design of Foundation Treatment Measures for Dams on Karst Foundations

Conference Paper · August 2000

CITATIONS READS
7 6,110

3 authors, including:

C. Richard Donnelly Sean D. Hinchberger

Independent Consultant Tulloch Engineering
119 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   748 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a new dam safety risk screening tool View project

Rehabilitation of the Shikwamkwa Dam View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C. Richard Donnelly on 15 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Design of Foundation Treatment Measures for
Dams on Karst Foundations
C. R. Donnelly1, S. Hinchberger 1, E. Mohammadian2

ABSTRACT

Well planned foundation treatment measures for dams constructed on karst foundations are
essential. To be effective, these measures must be tailored to the specific problems of the
individual dam site. At the Kavar Dam, an unusual combination of a surface membrane,
coupled with a gypsum surcharge and other seepage control measures are planned to seal a
highly karstic foundation.

Introduction

Karsticity occurs as a result of a progressive disolutioning of carbonate rocks exposed

to water and carbon dioxide. In pure water, at 25oC, the maximum possible
concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate is in the range of 14 mg/L (Fookes and
Hawkins, 1988). However, in the presence of dissolved carbon dioxide, maximum
concentrations increase dramatically, accounting for the fact that seepage flowing from
karst formations often contains up to 400 mg/L of calcium carbonate (James and
Fitzpatrick, 1988). Therefore, a karstic formation implies the presence of a network of
solutioned, often highly permeable, discontinuities which are, by definition, connected to
the surface so that the free carbon dioxide necessary to allow the solutioning process to
continue is available. This fact means that Karst foundations are usually associated
with highly deformed, complex, rock masses that have pervious windows extending
directly to the foundation surface.

The difficulties involved in constructing a dam on a karstic foundation were first

documented at Hales Bar dam that was built by private interests on the Tennessee
River between 1905 and 1913. Although the existence of cavernous rock in the
limestone foundation was postulated, geological theory at the time suggested that cave
formation occurred only above the water table (T.V.A. Technical Report NO. 22, 1949).
Therefore, very little foundation treatment was performed and, following construction,
leakage under the dam of up to 48 m3/s was measured. Various remedial works
projects were carried out at the site over the 60 years that it was in operation until, in
1968, the dam was demolished.

1
Acres International Limited. 4342 Queen St., Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6W1 (Rdonnelly@acres.com)
2
Dezab Consulting Engineers, Farvardin Avenue, Golestan Road, Ahwaz, Iran
In the years following the construction of the Hales bar dam the effects of solutioning
have had adverse impacts on both reservoir water tightness and the structural integrity
of many dams. Although there are few documented structural failures attributed to
sinkhole collapse in karst terrain, there are numerous examples of problems associated
with reservoir filling. For example, at the Lar dam in Iran (Uromeihy, 2000) it was not
possible to impound to full supply level due to foundation leakage that reached two-
thirds of the total river flow. A remedial grouting program, performed between 1985 and
1990, was only partially successful in reducing seepage and, to date, the reservoir
remains partially filled. In the case of the Anchor Dam constructed in 1960, (Fig. 1), an
extensive system of sinkholes and faults have prevented any permanent storage of
water, despite numerous remedial sealing attempts. (www.usbr.gov/cdams/dams)

Figure 1 The Anchor Dam – Wyoming USA

As a result of experience gained from such dams, techniques have been developed to
successfully treat even seriously karstic foundations. This paper describes current
practice for the design of dams on karst terrain as well as some unique seepage control
measures that are planned to mitigate risks associated with a highly karstic limestone
foundation in Iran. These measures include the use of an engineered soluble fill and a
surficial shotcrete membrane to seal the foundation surface.

Current Practice

The key to any successful construction on a karst foundation is a thorough

understanding of the nature of the problems that must be treated. In the first half of the
20th century, dams such as the Hales Bar, Wolf Creek and Great Falls were constructed
on karstic foundations without adequate foundation explorations. All experienced either
foundation leakage or piping problems. More recently, the problems at the Lar dam are
likely related, at least in part, to an inadequate understanding of the depth of karst prior
to the commencement of construction. On the other hand, if exploration and foundation
treatment measures are carried out thoroughly, even a highly karstic foundation can be
successfully treated. For example, advanced karst foundations beneath the 90 to
100 m high Pueblo Viejo and Punt Dal Gall dams were successully treated such that
post-impoundment seepage has only been 25 and 50 l/sec respectively.
In broad terms, modern practice for the successful treatment of karstic foundations
requires a means of reducing the amount of seepage, techniques to prevent dissolution
of soluble minerals that may be present in the foundation and methods to ensure that
the foundation has adequate capacity to resist the post impoundment loadings without
excessive settlement.

Improving Deformability
Commonly applied techniques for improving the deformability and stability of karst
foundation rocks include excavation/mucking of solution cavities followed by filling with
a sand and gravel slurry, concrete and/or compaction grouting. For example, at the 21
dams that the Tenessee Valley Authority (TVA) has constructed on carbonate
foundations, Soderberg (1988) notes that foundation treatment typically includes
consolidation grouting to ensure adequate bearing strength and to minimize
settlements. Solutioned areas, in otherwise sound rock, are then mucked or excavated
and filled with concrete.

More recenty, compaction grouting has been used to treat karst features. This
technique involves the injection of low-slump soil/cement grout to displace and/or
compress the surrounding soils for greater strength (Fischer and Fischer, 1995). This
typically results in hydraulic fracturing, extrusion and consolidation of clayey fillings
within the sinkholes increasing strength, and resistance to seepage stresses. Welsh
(1988) and Zuomei and Pinshou (1988) describe the use of compaction grouting to
rectify sinkholes and caves filled with clay fillings and to build a seepage resistant
barrier in Karst terrain for the Wujiangdu Hydroelectric Project in China.

Reducing the Potential for Dissolution of Soluble Minerals

The most commonly occurring soluble rock minerals are calcium carbonate (limestone)
gypsum, anhydrite and halite. In general, mitigation of the risk of solutioning in a
foundation containing such minerals requires reducing the volume of seepage and
seepage gradients. This, traditionally, had been accomplished on the basis of
precedent practice. An analytical framework for assessing the solutioning potential of
various forms of soluble rock minerals was first presented by James and Lupton (1978).
James and Kilpatrick (1980) used these solutions to study seepage control measures
for dam constructed on foundations containing the soluble rocks. They concluded that
grouting, or the provision of an upstream impervious blanket, can control the solutioning
of calcium carbonate rock. For foundations containing gypsum, conventional (sulphate
resistant) cement curtain grouting was recommended. Mineral deposits such as
anhydrite were found to require a more efficient cutoff, such as plastic concrete wall in
combination with measures such as upstream blankets or other techniques designed to
reduce seepage velocities. They recommended that halite, in its massive form, be
avoided. However, it is of note that an active brine injection system has been used to
treat foundations containing halite mineral deposits (Pokrovskii, 1994).
Grouting
For well developed karst foundations, a sulphate resistant multiple line grout curtain,
with provisions to allow future grouting, is typically used to reduce seepage losses. For
lower head dams, or for dams on less well developed karst, single or double line
curtains are often used. However, all karstic foundations should be treated with
caution. As shown on Table 1, very high seepages can be experienced for even low
head dams if karstic conditions are advanced. On the basis of median grout takes
reported at a number of precedent dams reported in the literature, triple line grouting
can be seen to reduce post impoundment risks (Figure 2)

600
Median post Impoundment

500
Seepage (l/sec)

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4
N u m b e r o f G ro u t L in e s

Figure 2 Effect of Multiple Line Grouting on the Median

Post Impoundment Seepage Reported for Some
Selected Precedent Dams (ref. Table 1)

It is also clear from Table 1 that a significant factor governing the performance of grout
curtains in karst foundations is whether or not the curtain is “anchored” into an
impervious base. For example, at the 11.5m high Hales Bar dam, post construction
seepage reached 48 m3 per second through the hanging curtain. Similarly, at the
Francisco Zaro Dam, seepage flows in the order of 1000 L/sec through the hanging
curtain were measured, despite the fact that a triple line grout curtain had been used.

It is usually necessary to extend the grout curtain some distance along the dam axis
into the abutments to reduce risks associated with end run seepage. The amount of
extension required can be somewhat subjective, and is dependent on geological
conditions such as the existence of an impervious boundary. However, for dams
founded on a moderately permeable karstic foundation, a review of precedent would
suggest that the amount of extension required to minimize risk varies logarithmically as
a function of the hydraulic head (Figure 3).

Asphalt Grouting
When remedial grouting is required after impounding, the TVA and others have
reported good results using hot asphalt grouting. In this technique, asphalt is melted
Table 1 Precedent Examples of Some Dams Built on Karstic Foundations
Project Dam Type Head Geology No. of Seepage Remedial
and Date (m) Grout Work
Lines

J. Percy Priest Dam Earthfill/Concrete 35.4 Thin-bedded limestone, 2-4 N. R. N. R.

U.S.A 1963-68 solutioned jts, sinkholes

Sainte Croix Dam Arch 72 Cavernous limestone 1 Negligible N.R.

France 1971-74

Quinson Dam Arch 45 Cavernous limestone 1 Negligible N. R.

France 1971-74

Grand Rapids G. S. Earthfill/Concrete 36.5 Dolomitc limestone, 1 Minimal None

Canada 1962-64 sinkholes, solution
channels

Arnprior G. S. Earth/Rockfill/ 21 Limestone, solutioned jts, 3-4 ½ l/s N. R.

Canada Concrete gravity voids 1 cm - 1 m wide
1972-76

Lar Dam Earthfill 98 Limestone, advanced karst, 1 Extreme Yes

Iran 1972-81 caverns, voids 9 m3/s (see text)

Stewartville Dam Concrete gravity/ 41 Crystalline limestone open 1 370 l/s Yes. 3
Canada Earthfill seams at depth
Completed 1948

Francisco Zarco Dam Earthfill/Concrete 23 Limestone, solution 3 1000 l/s None

Mexico Completed 1968 channels, mode karst

La Amistad Rockfill/Concrete 30 Limestone, caverns, 1 Minimal None

Mexico/U.S.A. Completed 1968 sinkholes

Sklope Dam Rockfill 80 Limestone, advanced karst, 1-2 500 l/s None
Yugoslavia caverns

Globocica Dam Rockfill 80 Limestone, med. to adv. 3 4 l/s Yes. 4

Yugoslavia Completed 1965 karst, solution channels

Hales Bar Dam Earthfill/Concrete 11.5 Limestone, solution jts., 1 Max. 48 Yes. 6
U.S.A. 1905-1913 5 cavities, caverns m3/s

Great Falls Concrete gravity 45.7 Limestone, solution 1 12 m3/s Yes. 7

U.S.A. Completed 1916 channels, cavities

Normandy Dam Concrete gravity/ 17 Limestone with shale, clay 1 -2 Negligible None
U.S.A. Earthfill solution cavities
1972-76

3
Asphalt grouting in 1985 reduced leakage by up to 33 l/s
4
Grout curtain extended in left abutment in 1974
5
Demolished 1960
6
Extensive in 1944
7
Cement and asphalt grouting performed
 Project Dam Type Head Geology No. of Seepage Remedial
and Date (m) Grout Work
Lines

Pueblo Viejo Dam Rockfill 92 Limestone & dolomite, 1-2 25 l/s None
Guatemala 1977-83 advanced artesian karst

Punt Dal Gall Arch 100 Dolomite limestone, 1 50 l/s None

Switzerland Completed 1969 calcareous sandstone, deep
karst, solutioned jts

La Bolera Dam Arch 45 Limestone, advanced 1 600 l/s None

Spain 1961-68 caverns

Sprinagarind Dam Rockfill/Concrete 113 Calcareous sandstone, 3 25 l/s N.R.

Thailand 1974-80 limestone, solution cavities

King Talal Dam Rockfill/ 100 Karstic limestone to 30 m 1 63 l/s None

Jordan Concrete gravity below calcareous sandstone
Completed 1977

La Angostura Dam Rockfill/Concrete 89 Limestone, clay seams and 2 100 l/s None
Mexico 1971-75 solutioned jts

and pumped through heated pipes into open cavities. On contact with the water, the
asphalt cools and assumes a globular form that progressively blocks the solution
channels. On various projects, the TVA has adopted a "wait and see" approach to the
issue of reservoir watertightness using asphalt grouting for spot treatment after
impoundment often followed by a program of cement grouting to ensure the long term
stability of the seal.

16
Ratio of Grout Curtain Extention into

14

12
Abutments to Hydraulic Head

10
Open symbol indicates that
8 remedial work or excessive
seepage (>300 L/s) was reported.
6

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Maximum Normal Hydraulic Head (m)

Slightly Karstic (grout take 0 to 50 kh/m) Karstic (grout take 50 to 400 kg/m)
Highly Karstid (grout take > 400 kg/m) Grout take not reported

Figure 3 Precedent Examples of Grout Curtain Extension into Abutments

The Kavar Reservoir

The Kavar site is situated in a mountainous region about 70 km south of Shiraz, Iran, in
the Kavar valley. To provide irrigation water, a 60m high concrete faced rockfill dam is
planned to impound the Qareh Aghaj River.

Site Conditions
As indicated on Figure 4, the project site can be characterized by two distinct regions, a
broad upper reservoir and a lower reservoir. The lower reservoir is contained within a
relativelly steep sided canyon where the dam is located. The elevated margins in the
upper reservoir, and the steeply dipping right abutment of the lower reservoir at the dam
site are composed of a strong, moderately to highly karstic limestone known as the Asmari
formation. Weaker Razak marls are present, locally, within the base of both the upper and
lower reservoirs and form the relatively shallow dipping left bank of the lower reservoir.

Bedrock Geology
The Asmari Limestone is highly permeable to great depths throughout the site area due
to the existence of solutioned channels that formed along and across bedding planes. This
has created an unpredictable system of interconnected flow channels and a rock mass
permeability in the order of 100 Lugeons and higher. The characteristics of the Razak
formation vary across the site. At the dam site, the Razak formation is highly deformed
as a result of the intense folding that was responsible for the creation of the canyon itself.
The geologic environment has produced gypsum formations along bedding planes as well
increased hydraulic conductivities in the range of 10 to 50 Lugeons. In the upper reservoir,
the Razak is generally undeformed and was found to be essentially impervious.

Overburden Conditions
In the upper reservoir, overburden consists of a broad, deep deposit of lacustrine materials
flanked on the margins by slopewash. Both the slopewash and lacustrine materials were
found to be of relatively low permeability. In the immediate area of the river channel,
coarse grained, pervious, river alluvium is present. However, it is completely surrounded
by the relatively impervious slopewash or lacustrine materials. This distribution of
overburden materials forms a natural impervious blanket, effectively isolating the pervious
Asmari limestone formation from the future reservoir. At the dam site, there are no
lacustrine deposits and the river alluvium can come in contact with, or be very close to,
highly pervious bedrock. In addition, slopewash materials were found to be significantly
more permeable than in the upper reservoir area due to the fact that these materials
originated as a result of the mass movement of considerably steeper rock slopes, thereby
producing a coarser material.

Groundwater Conditions
In the lower reservoir valley, groundwater levels were found to be about 10m below the
river level, confirming the pervious nature of the bedrock and the need to seal the reservoir.
Figure 4 Kavar Reservoir and Dam Site.

Reservoir Treatment

On the basis of the explorations undertaken at the site, a clear picture of the nature of the
foundation conditions, and the problems that they presented, was developed. In the upper
reservoir area most of the leakage would be forced, under a moderate head, through the
impervious lacustrine materials and/or the low permeability slopewash that blanket the
bedrock side slopes before reaching the pervious Asmari bedrock. Therefore, provided
that local treatment of exposed Asmari outcrops in the upper reservoir was undertaken,
losses would generally be minimal. On the other hand, in the lower reservoir area, leakage
will occur under relatively high head through relatively pervious slopewash into the
immediately adjacent pervious Razak bedrock and/or directly into the right abutment highly
pervious Asmari formation. Limiting seepage losses to manageable levels in this area,
therefore, required a comprehensive treatment plan to sealed the entire flooded canyon.

Originally, it had been planned to use of a complex grouting scheme to tie the highly
pervious Asmari into, what was assumed to be, impervious Razak bedrock using a
technique similar to one that had been successfully employed at the El Cajun project.
However, as the exploration program evolved, it became apparent that both the upper
portion of the Razak, and the overlying slopewash materials, were significantly more
permeable than had been previously assumed. To reduce concerns regarding subsurface
unknowns, and the reliance on grouting to great depths to adequately seal the foundation,
an alternative watertightness treatment using a surficial impervious surface membrane was
developed as shown conceptually in Figure 5. On the relatively steep right bank where the
Asmari outcrops, the membrane consists of a 120 mm thick, silica fume reinforced
shotcrete membrane anchored into the slope. In the valley bottom, and over the left bank
where relatively flat slopes exist due to the presence of the Razak formation, an
overburden blanket, consisting of compacted impervious and erosion protection fills is
planned. This treatment will cover the entire lower reservoir area, extending approximately
700-800 m upstream of the dam site to the upper reservoir where it will be connected into
the natural impervious materials that exist there. Although unusual, as shown on Table 2,
the use of shotcrete for sealing a dam or reservoir is not unprecedented.
Table 2 Summary of Examples of Shotcrete Used as for Water Tightness Treatment
Project Country Date Structure Description Length Height
(m) (m)
La Joie Canada 1955 Timber faced Gunite used to seal deteriorated 440 60.0
rockfill dam. timber faced dam.

Leichhardt Australia 1957 Rockfill dam Reinforced gunite used as sole 260 26.5
River impervious element for rockfill dam

Corella Australia 1957 Rockfill dam Reinforced gunite used as the sole 146 23
impervious element

Hammam Austria 1987 Concrete Shotcrete and clay blanket used to 50 36.0
Grouz gravity dam seal karstic limestone reservoir slopes

Tranavka Czech 1988 Earth dam Shotcrete and plastic membrame used ------ 20.0
for sealing

Jordan Canada 1989 Amberson Shotcrete used for sealing ------- 29.0
River buttres dam

Eastside USA 1998 Blasted rock Shotcrete used for sealing the 250 50.0
Reservoir Slopes reservoir

To further reduce the likelihood of any future problems associated with progressive
dissolution of the gypsum beds known to exist above a depth of 50 m in the Razak
formation at the dam site, a plastic concrete cut-off wall is planned. This will be
supplemented by a double line grout curtain to reduce seepage gradients across the
cutoff, and to further reduce the bedrock permeability. Details of the treatment measures
planned at the dam site are shown on Figure 6.

CONCRETE
FACING
EL. 1671 m
EL. 1665 m (RESERVOIR LEVEL)

IMPERVIOUS FILL
5
4A
UPSTREAM SEMI-PERVIOUS FILL EL. 1640 m DOWNSTREAM
COFFERDAM COFFERDAM

EL. 1626 m
ROCK FILL
MIN. 5 METERS

1
1 EL. 1605 m

EL. 1595 m (ASSUMED

GYPSUM DOWNSTREAM GROUNDWATER
SURCHARGE LEVEL)

PLASTIC CONCRETE
CUTOFF WALL

CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF
GYPSUM BED
EL. 1535 m

GROUT CURTAIN

Figure 6 Seepage Control Measures at the Kavar Dam

The Gypsum Surcharge

Another unique feature of the treatment measures used at the Kavar site is a gypsum
surcharge that is to be installed immediately upstream of the dam. The purpose of the
surcharge fill is to cause water seeping through the fill to become saturated with dissolved
gypsum at a concentration as close as possible to the solubility limit, similar to a concept
reported by Pokrovskii, 1994 in which salt solutions are injected into the foundation of
dams constructed on rocks containing water-soluble salts (halite).

To assess the gypsum requirements for the dam, the approach of James and Lupton for
particulate forms of gypsum and anhydrite was used. Key parameters in the analysis
included the density, D, of gypsum 2300 kg/m3, the initial linear particle size lo, the particle
volume coefficient b (vol. =bl3), the particle area coefficient a (area= al2), the solubility
rate constant K, and the solubility limit cs of gypsum. As a first step, flow nets were
constructed to estimate the hydraulic flux through the gypsum surcharge. The thickness
of the gypsum bed could then be designed by assuming advective transport only (i.e.,
neglecting diffusion). In this way, the dissolved mass of gypsum leaving the surcharge per
unit area could be approximated by the product of the gypsum concentration and seepage
flux per unit area of surcharge. The calculated flow rate through the gypsum surcharge
was found to vary from 2.0x10-6 to 9.5x10-5cm/sec. Based on an assumed porosity of 0.3,
seepage velocities through the gypsum bed were estimated to vary between 6.7x10-
6
cm/sec and 3x10-4 cm/sec.

The size of surcharge required is based on the design life of the project and the amount
of time required to ensure that the seepage water flowing through the gypsum surcharge
area is fully saturated with gypsum. To achieve the required contact time with a
reasonable sized surcharge fill, a number of alternatives were considered, including:
increasing the surcharge thickness, reducing the hydraulic conductivity of the impervious
blanket within 100 meters of the upstream plinth and reducing the particle size of the
gypsum. The most effective means of enhancing contact time was found to be reducing
the particle size. For example, as shown on Figure 7, as gypsum particle size is reduced
from 0.5 mm to 0.1 mm, minimum contact times reduced from 200 to 40 days.

On this basis, the Kavar surcharge was designed as a 5 m thick mixture of 40% (by
weight) ground gypsum, with a maximum particle size in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 mm,
thoroughly mixed with fine a grained soil. This produces an engineered fill with a dry unit
mass of 1900 kg/m3 and a permeability in the desired range of 10-4 to 10-5 cm/sec.
As indicated in Figure 8, for this design, the annual mass removal rate is expected to vary
between 2 kg to 70 kg per square meter of surcharge. For the 3,800 kg Kavar surcharge,
this will result in a service life of at least 50 years.
 1.0

Saturation
0.1m m PARTICLE
0.8 SIZE

C oncentration R atio (c/c

s
)
0.6

0.5m m PARTICLE
SIZE

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

C ontact Tim e (D ays)

Figure 7 The Effect of Gypsum Particle size on the Contact Time Required for Saturartion

800

720
Mass of Gypsum Removed per Unit

640

560
Surcharge Area (kg/sq. m)

480

400

320

240

160

80

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time after Reservoir Impoundment (Years)

Figure 8 Estimated Mass Removal Rates for the Gypsum Surcharge at the Kavar Dam
 Conclusions

Techniques exist to treat even highly karstic foundations. However, for treatment
measures to be effective, a thorough understanding of the site conditions is essential.
At the Kavar Dam, an unusual combination of a surface membrane, in combination
with a gupsum surcharge and other seepage control measures, is planned to deal with
the complex foundation problems that had been identified.

References

Fischer, J.A. and Fischer, J.J., 1995. Karst site remediation grouting. Karst GeoHazards:
Proc. 5th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental
Impacts of Karst.Balkema, Roterdam, pp. 363-369.

Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. , 1979. Groundwater, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey., pp. 383-462.

James, A.N. and Kirkpatrick, I.M., 1988. Design of foundations of dams containing soluble
rocks and soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 13, pp. 189-198.

James A.N., and Lupton, A.R. 1978, Gypsum and anhydrite in foundations of hydraulic
structures. Geotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 249-272.

Pokrovskii, G.I., 1994. Combined methods of protecting saliferous foundation soils of

hydraulic structures from dissolution. Hydrotechnical Construction Vol. 28, No. 10, pp 10-
14.

Soderberg, A.D., 1988. Foundation treatment of karstic features under TVA dams.
Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrain, ASTM Geotechnical Special Publication No. 14, pp.
149-165.

Uromeihy, A. 2000. The Lar Dam; an example of infrastructure development in a

geologically active karstic region. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, Elsevier Science , vol.
18, no. 1, pp. 25-31(7).

Welsh, J.P., 1988. Sinkhole rectification by compaction grouting. Geotechnical Aspects of

Karst Terrain, ASTM Geotechnical Special Publication No. 14, pp. 115-132.

Zuomei, Z. and Pinshou, H., 1988. Grouting of the karstic caves with clay fillings.
Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrain, ASTM Geotechnical Special Publication No. 14, pp.
92-104.

Fookes, P. G., and Hawkings, A. B., 1988. Limestone weathering: its engineering
significance and a proposed classification system. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, London, Vol. 21, pp. 7-31.

View publication stats