SUBSURFACE CAVITY EXPLORATIONS USING NON-DESTRUCTIVE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Dennis M. Filler, E.I., Graduate Assistant Shiou-San Kuo, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering College of Engineering University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida 32816 ABSTRACT Two subsurface cavity explorations were conducted to rate the non-destructive electrical resistivity (ER), seismograph, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) methods in the detection of subsurface cavities. The University of Central Florida's (UCF) model test site and an Apopka, Florida pastureland site were chosen for exploration. At the model test site, DC resistivity equipment with predominant use of the Wenner configuration successfully delineated all the shallow artificial cavities buried in the sandy soils at or above the water table. Resistivity highs and lows distinguished between air-filled and water-filled cavities. The 12-channel refraction seismograph was able to detect only the two largest cavities, unable to delineate accurately their position or physical dimensions. A 300 MHZ GPR antenna successfully detected and clearly delineated all the air-filled cavities. A fourth water-filled cavity, buried at the water table was detected but difficult to delineate due to its proximity with the water table. Five suspected cavity locations were investigated at the Apopka site. ER successfully located all ,the limestone cavities. Limited cavity delineations were possible and characteristic low resistivity readings reflected water-filled cavities. GPR, making use of an 80 MHZ antenna, clearly profiled all five subsurface cavity features, defining the vertical depth to and lateral dimensions of the cavities. The seismic refraction surveys detected limestone pinnacle formations often shielding the valleys between. Cavity 827formations are often found below the base of such "limestone valleys." ‘Two cavities were detected, however, seismic traces had difficulty discerning initial wave arrival times due to the inherent complexity of materials surrounding a typical cavity. Both ER and GPR exhibit excellent cavity detection capabilities in sandy soils above limestones. GPR surveys are quick and detailed in the delineations of cavities to 100 feet in depth. ER exhibits deeper penetration capabilities but surveys are cumbersome. Seismic refraction surveys were limited in cavity detection capabilities yet provided detailed subsurface stratification information. INTRODUCTION The history of sinkhole formations and related activity is well documented within the karst regions of north and central Florida. ‘The potential for problems concerning land development, property damage, and subterranean aquifer contamination is ever increasing as Florida continues to grow and develop at an alarming rate. This paper emphasizes the results of two subsurface explorations where several geophysical methods were evaluated for their ability to detect and delineate subsurface cavity formations and related characteristics in the surrounding medium. Hydrogeologically, the UCF model test site exhibits a permeable unconfined sand aquifer with a shallow water table and poor recharge to the subterranean artesian aquifer (Floridan). The Apopka site has a thick permeable sand aquifer, a deep existing water table, and a good recharge rate to the Floridan aquifer. A roof collapse cavity formation and two other areas where sinkhole related surface depressions are evident are present at the site. GPR demonstrates a state-of-the-art geotechnical tool that is efficient and cost-effective in the selection/preparation phase of site development. The older resistivity and seismic methods are also viable engineering alternatives, however, they are time consuming both in field application and data interpretation. They often may not produce quantitative results under complex karst conditions. GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Electrical Resistivity The Soiltest R-50 stratameter was used for resistivity surveys at both sites. A current meter and power source are housed together in a separate unit from the voltmeter. The current electrodes were positioned at various spacing intervals utilizing the Wenner, Schlumberger, and Logn survey 828configurations, depending upon the sensitivity required at each site. As well, physical site conditions regulated the electrode configuration. Current is passed through the current electrodes via electrical wiring; one electrode transmits current through the earth below and the other receives it for transfer back to the stratameter, thus completing the circuit. The voltmeter, usually positioned on the opposite side of the configuration and at least five feet from the current meter, is also connected with wiring to a pair of voltage potential electrodes. Depending upon electrode configuration, voltage potential or voltage gradient is then measured for the earth immediately below these electrodes. Relating current and voltage readings by Ohm's Law, the apparent resistivity can be measured as: & = 27aR (Wenner Configuration) aR (Schlumberger Configuration) ard’R dae (Logn Configuration) a where a and d are distances related to electrode spacing. An example of the resistivity plot (Kuo, 1970) of apparent resistivity versus electrode spacing is shown in Figure 1, From the plot, the upper relatively dry sandy soils exhibit resistivity "highs." As the moisture content increases, resistivity decreases, indicated by the "low" at the water table. Subsequent variations in the apparent resistivity curves reflect the different medium encountered throughout the depth of penetration. 4 Stations Figure 1. Multiple Electrode Interval Traverse Survey Results (Kuo, 1970) 829Water-filled and air-filled cavities (or dry porous sands) exhibits low and high resistivity values, respectively. From a plot of resistivities for various electrode positions, a general resistivity trend or pattern can be established. A deviation fron this trend at a particular location in the survey grid reflects an anomalous condition at that location. The R-50 stratameter is designed for a maximum penetration depth of 600 feet. In general, the depth of penetration is directly related to current electrode spacing. however, subsurface stratification and inhomogeneities can adversely effect this depth. If material at depth is more conductive, a downward deflection of current lines and an increase in near surface current density limits the penetration depth. The converse is true for deeper material of low conductivity. Refraction Seismograph The equipment used in the seismic surveys was the EG&G Geometrics ES-1225 multi-channel refraction seismograph. The ES-1225 seismograph is a microprocessor unit capable of signal enhancement, signal stacking, and direct data printout. It carries a CRT-display (oscilloscope) capable of displaying the seismic waves recorded from 12 geophones simultaneously. The system utilizes a software package (SeisView) to facilitate data interpretations. Geophones, or seismic detectors, are embedded in a straight line along the ground surface, usually spaced at regular intervals dependent upon individual site sensitivity and desired penetration depth. ‘The geophones measure the seismic waves (created by a large hammer-impulse energy source dealt a distance beyond the ends of the seismic line) and record their arrival times, converting this information to electrical signals to be sent via a connector cable to the microprocessor unit. Refraction surveying analyzes the compressional primary waves (P-waves) associated with seismic pulse energy. Snell's Fundamental Law and a principle known as "critical incidence" govern refraction theory. P-waves travel from the "shot point" (Redpath, 1973) down through the subsurface strata, striking the interface of subsequent layers. Most of the compressional energy is refracted into the higher velocity layer, at least until the angle of incidence reaches the “critical incidence" angle as: Propagation Velocity of Upper Layer sina, = Propagation Velocity of Lower Layer at which time nearly all the energy is reflected back to the surface. Energy that traveled down to deeper layers eventually propagates along some interface (at the greater velocity) and reflects back to the surface at some later time and distance B20away from its inception. Geophones farther down the line pick up this energy, recording the time of reception. A time- distance plot can be generated from this data, from which a subsurface profile can be produced and strata can be characterized (via calculated propagation velocities). Figure 4 shows the ES-1225 seismic traces as displayed by the units oscilloscope. Figures 6 and 7 displays the corresponding time- distance and subsurface profiles generated by SeisvView. The intersection of two lines on the time-distance plot indicates the approximate depth at which the interface of two different medium exists. The symmetry of the lines reflects seismic trace verification; seismic record reliability should incorporate data taken from traces conducted at both ends of the seismic line. The penetration depths explored by the ES-1225 unit are the upper two hundred to three hundred feet. This unit is designed for shallow exploration, thus more sensitive to inhomogeneities within the upper strata. Nonuniformity of soil layers, dipping interfaces, and the overall complexity of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of cavity formations restricts detailed interpretation of anomalous conditions. Penetratin ar The GPR surveys were conducted with an SIR SYSTEM 8 manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. A 300 MHZ and 80 MHZ antenna were used at the UCF model test site and Apopka site, respectively. GPR operation is based on the transmission of short-pulsed electromagnetic waves from the antenna into the earth. The antenna radiates the radar signals into the earth as it is hand pulled or vehicle towed along the ground surface. When the transmitted waves strike an interface between two layers with different electrical properties, part of the waves reflect back to the surface; the remaining waves continue to transmit to the next interface. As the antenna is traversing the ground, a continuous stream of reflected signals is processed by the control unit and graphically recorded on a strip chart. The graphic printout displays a profile of the subsurface stratification from which features such as individual soil layer changes, buried pipes, chemical contamination plumes, cavity (sinkhole) formations, and other anomalous features can be identified. An example of the GPR hard-copy printout is provided in Figure 2 (Ardaman & Associates, Inc., 1988). The profile displays a variety of subsurface features related to sinkhole formation. A shallow water table with low mineralization of the soil-water chemistry allows for high resolution of features down to ‘the limestones. The limestones can be seen as a nonuniform layer of pinnacles and plateaus often separated by steep "valleys" (between 600 and 660 feet along the horizontal scale). A subterranean cavity formation is suspected below the limestone depression (valley). A circular depression at the ground surface, underlain by a loose subsidence zone, subsequently 831Figure 2. Paleo Sink Activity, GPR Printout (Ardaman & Associates, 1988) followed by a zone of “bridging material" (typically finer soils in a more dense state), are all tell-tale signs of subsurface raveling activity. The penetration capabilities of GPR are dependent upon the electrical properties of the investigated earth materials and the antenna frequency: twt 215 where the wave travel time (twt) is controlled by the processor units range adjustments and the dielectric constant (E,) can be approximated from published tables and ground truthing data. Materials with a higher conductivity, such as cohesive clayey sands to clays, drastically reduces the penetration depth. An increase in mineralization of the soil-water chemistry at or near the water table, significant chemical contaminants within the soils, or an increase in moisture content combined with a decrease in soil density may greatly increase conductivity and the dielectric constant, thus limiting penetration depth. FIELD SURVEYS At the UCF model test site, electrical sounding (vertical profiling) and traversing (horizontal profiling) was accomplished using the Wenner and Schlumberger electrode configurations. Electrode spacing was kept small due to the shallow burial depths and size of the artificial cavities. The three artificial cavities were buried at or immediately above the water table along a straight line. The resistivity survey encompassed the entire burial field concentrating survey lines over the immediate vicinity of the buried cavities. 832Stations (at 10 ft. tntervads) i 2 4 Depth, ft (wo) su ‘ou posdel3, Figure 3. UCF Test Site Traverse W-E, GPR Printout Seismic refraction surveying was accomplished using a relatively closely spaced geophone line lying directly over the artificial cavities. Seismic traces were performed in both directions along the line for interpretive purposes. The GPR Survey consisted of 300 MHZ antenna traverses along the line of burial, with maximum penetration depth set at approximately 20 feet. Stakes were positioned along the line at 10 foot intervals, in order to accurately locate the cavity positions on the hard-copy printout. At the Apopka site, five locations were chosen for investigation where known sinkhole related conditions existed. The Wenner configuration was predominately used during the resistivity surveys for its relative ease of operation. Based on review of field data collected at the UCF site, it was also determined that more qualitative interpretations could be obtained from Wenner configuration data. Schlumberger and Logn resistivity surveys were performed at some locations for comparison analysis. Seismic refraction traces were recovered from the five locations. Various geophone spacings were used, dependent upon estimated lateral dimensions of the individual anomaly being investigated. Line surveys were conducted in both forward and reverse directions and perpendicular lines were also surveyed at some locations for more quantitative data collection. The GPR survey performed at the Apopka site traversed each location at various range adjustments in order to optimize 833penetration depth without losing profile resolution. All five locations were staked with regularly spaced intervals along two lines at right angles to each other. This provided quantitative results in four directions. The 80 MHZ antenna was utilized for maximum penetration. SURVEY RESULTS UCF Model Test Site At the UCF test site, subsurface conditions consist of very dry, sandy, overburden soil underlain by a thin hardpan layer of slightly organic soil at about four feet in depth. The water table was consistently found between four and five feet deep throughout the site. Darker fine sand with traces of organics lies below the water table. The results from the GPR survey produced the most conclusive evidence as to the location of the buried cavities. Based on the dry conditions present, an average dielectric constant of 5 was chosen for interpretations. With the range set for 70 ns two-way travel time (twt), the maximum penetration depth was approximately 16 feet. ‘The GPR profile in Figure 3 clearly delineates the shape of the buried cavities as well as their burial depth and position along the traverse line. Sharp and flattened hyperbolic signatures indicate the position of the spherical and box shaped cavities, respectively. Identification of the water-filled cavity (station 7) was not clear, possibly due to the fact that the cavity is buried below the water table and is itself water-filled. The cavity bottom signature is seen at approximately 10 feet in depth which may indicate settlement has occurred. Electrical resistivity surveys, using the Wenner and Schlumberger configurations, produced similar conclusions. Referring to the same base line as illustrated in Figure 3, vertical soundings in conjunction with the Moore Cumulative Resistivity and standard resistivity plot interpretation techniques (curve matching was not possible for electrode separations less than 10 feet) produced the characteristic "highs" and "lows" associated with air-filled and water-filled cavities at the appropriate depths and locations along the base line. However, the air-filled box cavity was not clearly identified as only a mild high resistivity reading was recorded at a slightly deeper level than the actual burial depth. An anomalous condition is experienced in the vicinity of station 3 (Figure 3) as general resistivity trends, established from horizontal profiling, indicate lower readings at this depth for other stations. Equipment sensitivity becomes very evident with respect to the seismic refraction survey. For this shallow depth exploration, signal resolution in the seismic traces did not sufficiently detect any cavity or determine its size or burial B34a la} M4 a Se me 4 rT Eat a fe NA Eger a, te 10 : Me : T rm SS ES Figure 4. Reverse Seismic Figure 5. Paleo Sink Record Over Paleo Sink Formation, GPR Printout depth. The obtained information only stratifies the near surface soils and alludes to the probable locations of the two larger cavities. Apopka Site The general subsurface conditions at the Apopka site consist of a thick deposit of relatively dry sandy soil underlain by silty fine sands to the limestones. Intermittent clay seams are encountered at various locations throughout the 400 acre site. The water table is consistently found below 25 feet in depth and the limestones are encountered below 40 to 50 feet, in general. Within the limestones, subterranean stream channels exist, connecting on site sinks with nearby Rock Springs. Results from the seismic surveys produced significant information at only 3 of the 5 investigated locations. Where the conditions surrounding the anomalies were uniform and homogeneous with respect to individual subsurface layers, wave arrivals from the seismic traces were clearly discernable. Subsequent time-distance plots and strata profiles produced qualitative information regarding subsurface stratifications, material characteristics, and cavity delineations. For example, the presence of the subsurface sink formation can be seen in the seismic record shown in Figure 4 (see Figure 5 for GPR profile comparison). Typically, a limestone cavity is indicated by a wider bell-shaped sinuous signature with lower seismic velocities on either side. Geophones at stations 20 through 40 display this characteristic signature between 170 and 210 msec on the horizontal time scale. 835Figure 6a. Time-Distance Plot Figure 7a. Time-Distance Plot for Site D (West) Seismic for Site D (East) Seismic Line, Apopka Line, Apopka Figure 6b. Subsurface Profile Figure 7b. Subsurface Profile for Site D (West) Seismic for Site D (East) Seismic Line, Apopka Line, Apopka The largest paleo sink feature exhibits very uniform stratifications in the surrounding soils. Consequently, detailed seismic plots, as shown in Figures 6 and 7, produced detailed information of subsurface conditions including physical characteristics analogous to a paleo sink related subsidence zone (dipping layers approaching and leaving the realm of the sink). Figure 7 places the cavity roof at approximately 52 feet in depth. Intermittent interfaces are identified at 10 and 17.6 feet. A depressed clay layer is suspected at the 17.6 foot interface. A strata change at 90 feet in depth reflects some inhomogeneity deep within the limestone; possibly a subterranean stream channel interface. Figures 6 through 10 relate to the same paleo sink formation. No discernable wave arrivals were obtained for numerous geophones at the remaining two survey locations, even after Several "shots" failed to produce interpretable seismic trace stacking. The lack of data reflects very complex geologic conditions at these locations.accom, nesitivity 2 2200) 5 areca) Figure 8. Vertical Sounding for Figure 9. Resistivity Plot Site D, Survey $9. (Top) and Moore Cumulative Resistivity Curve (Bottom), Survey 59. Resistivity surveys were able to detect the subsurface anomaly at all 5 locations. However, the paleo sink formation details were discernable at only 3 locations. Figures 8 and 9 show the results of the Wenner field data and generated curve matching and Moore Cumulative Resistivity plots for the paleo sink referenced in Figures 6 and 7. From the field data (Figure 8), the high resistivity reading at 20 feet in depth reflects the subsided clay layer over the cavity. A differentiation in the resistivity curve at about 65 feet reflects the cavity roof. The resistivity "low" at 100 feet indicates a water-filled zone in the limestones. From Figure 9 (bottom), interface depths at 30, 50, and 80 feet approximate the depths of the subsided clay layer,’ calcareous clay layer lying atop the limestones, and Subsurface cavity roof (see Figure 10 for GPR profile comparison) . At the same two locations where seismic data were irretrievable, resistivity data was able to detect anomalous conditions, however, cavity delineations were not possible. General information regarding inhomogeneities within the stratifications was inconclusive and sometimes gave false interface reflections. 837Figure 10. Large Paleo Sink Formation, GPR Printout The GPR investigation of the Apopka site provided comprehensive information regarding the subsurface cavity formations and surrounding strata. Traverses were conducted along a staked baseline over the anomaly and in perpendicular directions. In some cases a square grid was traversed for a more refined exploration. The range of the control unit was set for various two-way travel times, depending upon vertical and lateral dimensions of each sink feature. Penetration depths ranged from 35 to 60 feet using an average dielectric constant of 6 for calibrations. The surveys identified several different types of paleo sink and related formations. As Figure 4 shows, relatively small paleo sinks were encountered as shallow as 40 feet in depth with very steep conical shaped subsidence zones. Where one locations exhibited depressed surface contours, another showed no signs of surface activity. other sink features were discerned at deeper depths (Figure 10) with classic subsidence of overlying materials, often in the form of depressed layers. At one location, what was thought to be a subsurface cavity, based predominately on resistivity data and preliminary GPR data, was eventually disclosed as a near surface void or raveled zone, possibly a solution pipe type feature. Original hyperbolic signatures representing the top and bottom of the anomaly were recorded at depths above the limestones, within the thick upper sand strata. Detection and delineation of all 5 paleo-sink or related formations was possible with the GPR SYSTEM 8. Characteristic bridging material zones, and cavity roofs were clearly discernable at four locations. 838CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study and others within the north and central portions of Florida, the following conclusions are made: Ground Penetrating Radar GPR can identify paleo sink and other karst related features in detail within sandy soils overlying limestones. These areas may have high potential for future sinkhole related activity and are not recommended for use for commercial/industrial development. 2. GPR surveys are relatively quick, require little manpower, and therefore are a relatively inexpensive method for surveying entire sites without extensive field boring programs. However, it is recommended that a few borings be performed for follow-up "ground truthing." 3. GPR surveys can produce in situ, informative, preliminary data interpretations should they be required. Electrical Resistivity Surveying 1. Resistivity surveys can locate paleo sink formations with reasonable accuracy and at shallow depths. Quantitative information regarding subsurface conditions surrounding cavities is limited. Definition of subsurface stratification is good. 2. Resistivity surveys are time consuming, costly, and are not recommended for large site surveys. Where paleo sink formations are surmised, verification by field boring program is recommended. 3. In situ interpretations would be inconclusive. Data reduction and interpretations are generally lengthy and less qualitative than GPR results. Seismic Refraction Surveying 1, Seismic refraction surveys are generally inconclusive for relatively shallow paleo sink formation detection in loose sandy soils overlying limestones. Larger, deeper cavities are detectable. Delineations of anomalous features within complex geologic conditions are unlikely (masking effect can occur). Definition of general subsurface stratification is good. 2. Seismic surveys are timely and usually require a three man crew. They are expensive and would require a field boring program for "ground truthing." 8393. In situ interpretations are not possible. In house interpretations are now less cumbersome with the advent of computer software analysis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was performed with expert assistance from Dr. S.S. Kuo and through funding from the University of Central Florida, College of Engineering. In addition, data was obtained through the writer's association with Ardaman & Associates, Inc. REFERENCES Ardaman & Associates, Inc., 1988. “Preliminary Hydrogeological Survey for Pinellas County Site,” Northeast Pinellas County, Florida. Filler, D.M., 1988. "Comparison of Subsurface Cavity Investigations Using Earth Resistivity, Seismograph, and Ground Penetrating Radar." Master's Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Kuo, S.S., 1970. Resistivity Profile, Experiment No. 6. Orlando, Florida. Redpath, Bruce B., 1973. “seismic Refraction Exploration for Engineering Site Investigations." Publication No. AD-768- 710, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Explosive Excavation Research Laboratory, Livermore, California. U.S. Geological Survey, 1965. "Principle Aquifers in Florida.” U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Map Series No. 16. R40