Engineering in Chalk

Lawrence, Preene, Lawrence and Buckley

ISBN 978-0-7277-6407-2
https://doi.org/10.1680/eiccf.64072.053
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Review of collapse events on chalk since 2000 and the

opportunities for improved engineering practice
C.N. Edmonds*1
1
Peter Brett Associates LLP, Reading, UK
*Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT Since 2000 there has been a notable increase in major collapse events across the Chalk outcrop, many of which have resulted
in damage to buildings, infrastructure and risks to people, followed by expensive remedial works. The collapse events include both natural-
ly formed sinkholes as well as man-made crown holes. The majority of collapses have been triggered by water inundation, either as a result
of particularly heavy rainfall or leaking utility services. Compilation of natural cavity and mining cavity databases for the Chalk outcrop
over 30+ years has provided a useful archive for spatial analysis concerning the nature of cavity occurrence patterns and causal factors. Re-
viewing the geo-spatial setting of collapse events shows that there are a number of common characteristics. They can be used to identify ar-
eas of higher geo-hazard potential. Learning from review of spatial patterns of collapse events provides opportunities to de-risk all forms of
new development by incorporating improved resilience into design and construction for both new, and renewal of, existing development
and infrastructure. The role of planners, developers and water utility owners is crucial to reduce the risks and impacts upon urban develop-
ment and communities.

1 INTRODUCTION lished in a series of regional and technical reports

Across southern and eastern England there are many
significant sized towns and cities, together with ma-
jor infrastructure (road, rail & utilities) that are con-
structed directly upon the Chalk outcrop or upon Pal-
aeogene and Quaternary deposits overlying the
Chalk. The interaction of surface development with
the karstic character of chalk and its long history of
past extraction by underground mining, mostly for
agricultural and industrial purposes, has resulted in
an ever-increasing number of “sinkholes”.
Since the early 1980s onwards the author has ex-
tensively
itfr.63938.001.3d researched
3 and collected data relating
itfr.63938.001.3d 3 to
supported by maps and overlays (Applied Geology
Ltd, 1993) as part of a research project funded by the
Department of the Environment at the time. A more
detailed account is provided by Edmonds et al.
(1989). The Department also funded a second project
entitled “Review of mining instability in Great Brit-
ain”, again published as a series of regional, technical
and case study reports supported by maps and over-
lays (Arup Geotechnics,1990, 1991). A research da-
tabase of chalk and flint mining records was contrib-
uted by the author to this study. An extensive review
of the chalk and flint mines research database, their
nature,04/02/2018
type and extent, is contained in 04/02/2018
05:14:20pm Edmonds et
05:14:20pm

karst features and mining locations on Chalk. This in-
formation formed the starting point for the creation
of the national database of natural cavities, compiled
for the “Review of instability due to natural cavities
in Great Britain”. The results of the review were pub-
al. (1990).
The national review studies were aimed at collect-
ing representative spatial samples of cavity data (both
geographically and geologically) from across the
country to highlight the instability hazards. It was not

53
Engineering in Chalk
the aim to collect all possible data. Consequently, it
was evident that there was significantly more cavity
data that could be collected. Faced with this chal-
lenge the author has continued to collect cavity data
to build a significant national archive currently re-
ferred to as the Natural Cavity and Mining Cavity
Databases held by Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA).
The number of cavity locations in the two databases
continues to expand year on year.
One of the notable outcomes of data collection has
been the steady increase in numbers of “sinkholes”
recorded upon the Chalk outcrop, both true sinkholes
occurring above naturally formed karstic features and
crown holes over abandoned old chalk mine work-
ings.
2 DETERMINATION OF ORIGIN OF
SUBSIDENCE EVENTS
For this paper the PBA databases have been consult-
ed to extract the information relating to collapse
events across the Chalk outcrop and sub-crop since
2000. This exercise has revealed a total of 159 “sink-
holes” to March 2018 which are referred to as the re-
cent collapse events dataset in this paper. The dataset
provides the opportunity for further analysis.
Most of the collapse events have been investigated
by geotechnical teams led by the author and hence
the causal origin has been established using a combi-
nation of intrusive and non-intrusive ground investi-
gation techniques as appropriate.
Geophysical survey techniques used have included
ground probing radar, electrical resistivity tomogra-
phy, electro-magnetic conductivity and microgravity
– the choices varying according to the particular
ground and ground water conditions, the cavity type
being detected, the cavity depth and size. For deeper
level cavity targets it is often the “halo effect” that is
detected rather than the cavity itself. Ground overly-
ing cavities is often in a state of collapse and there-
fore is disturbed, or else even where the cavity is in-
tact the overlying ground is undergoing stress
softening with time, and these effects are often de-
tectable by geophysics. Ultimately, though, there is
no substitute for validating the survey results using
intrusive methods.
Open voids in the ground have been investigated
to establish their type and condition often using
54
downhole CCTV cameras, sometimes aided with re-
mote lighting. Since about 2005 onwards increasing
use has been made of downhole laser surveying
methods to map out open voids, their size and direc-
tion of orientation. In recent years, this has been fur-
ther supplemented with surface LIDAR data and aer-
ial drone imagery to be able to provide georeferenced
below and above ground 3D models. This approach
has been particularly useful to understand the style
and layout of collapsing old chalk mines prior to their
remedial stabilisation. The informative visual nature
of the data presentation also forms a powerful tool
for communication of the hazards to lay audiences so
that they can better understand the challenges of in-
vestigating and solving ground instability problems.
Intrusive investigation techniques have included
the use of dynamic probing (both heavyweight and
super heavyweight), window sampler boreholes, ca-
ble percussion boreholes and rotary drilled boreholes
(cored and non-cored). Rotary probe drilling (non-
cored) can often be cost-effective provided the drill-
ing operations are carefully monitored and the drill-
ing parameters recorded to permit lateral compari-
sons of profiles, particularly when undertaking 3D
ground modelling using suitable software packages
such as Leapfrog.
In addition to direct and indirect methods of inves-
tigation it is extremely important to understand the
site characteristics in terms of the local regional set-
ting. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to
the site geology, hydrogeology, geomorphology and
history to understand the site context and its potential
for the presence of karst and mining hazards. Further
detailed accounts are presented by Edmonds
(2001a,2001b), Lord et al. (2002) and McDowell et
al. (2008).
The main reason for investigation has been in
connection with insurance subsidence claims. Also,
there have been a number of occasions involving a
risk of personal injury following ground collapse. In
the latter case, there have been many examples where
emergency works have taken place to secure the situ-
ation. These occurrences have often required rapid
infilling of collapses with granular backfill and/or
foamed concrete to prevent the sides of the collapse
ravelling back and worsening the surface damage to
property and infrastructure. Clients have included in-

surance companies, loss adjusters, developers, coun-
cils and private land owners.
For the analysis presented in this paper, where col-
lapse events have not been investigated by the author,
other information (geology, hydrogeology, geomor-
phology, history and published or online sources) has
been used to make a judgement on the most likely
cause for this review.
Based on the many ground investigations and site
inspections carried out, together with careful evalua-
tion of those cases not investigated by the author
(though sometimes investigated by others), the data
characteristics of the information analysed is shown
below.
Table 1. Data characteristics
Method of determination of Percentage of recent collapse
origin of recent collapse events events dataset determined by
dataset each method
Ground investigation 81.8
Site inspection 11.3
Research 5.0
Undetermined 1.9
As Table 1 indicates, more than 90% of the recent
collapses have been assessed by ground investigation
and site inspection. As a result of the above it has
been determined that the dataset comprises 97 sink-
holes (collapses formed over naturally formed cavi-
ties), 59 crown holes (collapses formed over man-
made underground mining cavities) and 3 unknowns.
3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
DIMENSIONS OF COLLAPSE EVENTS
Further to the assessment of causal origin the dataset
has been evaluated in terms of the known depth and
diameter dimensions of the various ground collapses.
The aim of this has been to determine whether they
offer any insight related to their origin.
In a previous paper (Edmonds, 2008) a review of
sinkhole sizes on Chalk was carried out, comparing
the diametric sizes of recently formed sinkholes
(which this paper concentrates upon), ancient sink-
holes and collapse sinkholes. The 2008 review re-
vealed that about two-thirds of recently formed sink-
holes over naturally formed cavities had a diameter
Edmonds
of ≤3m. As the diameter increased it was found that
about 85% had a diameter of ≤5m. The information
presented and discussed relates to field inspection
and investigation works by the author from 1980 on-
wards. In addition, reference is made to published da-
ta on sinkholes from other sources dating further
back in time.
For this present review, the dimensions of the rec-
orded collapse events referred to above (97 sink-
holes, 59 crown holes and 3 unknowns) have been
plotted onto a depth vs diameter diagram (Figure 1)
for comparative purposes.
The plotted data shows that there is a wide varia-
tion in sizes – depths are <1m to 10m and diameters
are <1m to about 20m. Broadly it is evident that
within the range of smaller depths/diameters that
sinkholes dominate over crown holes, but with in-
creasing depths/diameters the crown holes dominate.
In order to understand this more clearly a second
plot (Figure 2) refers to collapse events in terms of
size categories starting with up to 1m depth vs 1m di-
ameter progressing up to 8m depth vs 8m diameter
and then anything larger.
The recent collapse events dataset has, in turn,
been classified according to the size categories
shown. On this basis, the number of sinkholes and
crown holes, also unknowns, that coincide with each
category has been plotted as three lines onto Figure 2
as shown. Comparison of the two subsets (i.e. sink-
holes and crown holes) shows that for recent collapse
events within the size category 3m depth vs 3m diam-
eter accounts for 78.4% of sinkholes, but only 28.8%
of crown holes. The increased size category of 5m
depth vs 5m diameter accounts for 93.8% of sink-
holes, with only 6% being larger. For crown holes the
same size category covers just 59.3% of the mining
related events, meaning that 40% are even larger.
The number of unknown origin collapses is small and
therefore, other than confirming they fall within the
two smaller size categories referred to above, consid-
eration of sizes alone does not help to imply their
possible origin.
55
Engineering in Chalk

Figure 1. Recent collapse events dataset expressed as depth vs
diameter.
Using the above analysis, it is concluded that:
 For smaller collapse event sizes, it is not-
possible to infer the causal origin with con-
fidence;
 For smaller collapse event sizes, up to 3m
depth and diameter there is a much greater
chance that the event is a sinkhole;
 For larger collapse event sizes, up to 5m
depth and diameter there is an increased
likelihood that the event is a sinkhole;
 For collapse event sizes >5m depth and di-
ameter there is a higher likelihood that the
event is a crown hole;
 For greater certainty of causal origin, it is
essential that a suitable ground investigation
is carried out to define the extent of dis-
turbed ground both in plan and depth.

4 ANALYSIS OF FREQUENCY OF COLLAPSE

EVENTS AND CLIMATIC IMPACTS

In this next section of the paper consideration is giv-

en to the occurrence of collapse events recorded over
time and whether there is any relationship with the
pattern of rainfall.
Figure 2. Graphical plot showing size categories of collapse
events and relationship with causal origin.

56

4.1 Temporal variation of collapse events
With reference to the recent collapse events dataset it
is apparent that the number of collapse events has
varied considerably over time (see Figure 3).
It is often perceived and presented by the media
that the number of “sinkhole” events are increasing
year on year. For certain consecutive years, the rec-
orded data does support this, for example 2010 going
forward to 2014, but as the years since show (see
Figure 3) there has been a reducing trend. This is par-
ticularly demonstrated by the low recorded numbers
of “sinkholes” in 2017. At the time of writing the au-
thor is aware of just two collapse events by March
2018 so it is too early to judge what activity level
might be achieved this year.
Consequently, it is concluded that although certain
consecutive years show an increase in the occurrence
of collapse events, the numbers can increase or de-
crease in different years. There is no consistent in-
cremental increase in the number of events year on
year over the period of this review.
Figure 3. Recent collapse events dataset expressed as number of
events versus time for the period of the review.
Edmonds
4.2 Climatic variation of collapse events
It has been widely reported that water inundation of
the ground in areas prone to subsidence will often
trigger ground movement (Banks et al., 1995; Cul-
shaw & Waltham, 1987; Edmonds, 2008; Newton,
1984; Waltham et al., 2005; Waltham, 2016).
To study the possible impact of rainfall, further
analysis is presented in Figure 4 where the numbers
of collapse events are compared with mean annual
rainfall data for 2000 to 2017 (taken from
www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/data). The website
utilises a useful method of displaying annual rainfall,
shown as pixels across the outline of Great Britain,
expressed as the rainfall amount (percentage) com-
pared with the long-term average rainfall (1961-
1990). The recorded rainfall amount percentage
ranges have been combined to illustrate the typical
variation occurring in any year across two regions:
South East England (covering Herts., Beds., Bucks.,
Oxon., Berks., NE Hants., Surrey, Kent and London)
and East Anglia (covering Cambs., Essex, Suffolk
and Norfolk). These are the main geographical re-
gions where ground collapse events have been rec-
orded during the review period.
The reason for separating out the rainfall infor-
mation and number of collapse events for two differ-
ent regions is to see whether changes in relative rain-
fall between the two regions has had any notable
impact on collapse event activity rates.
Taking the data for 2000, rainfall in SE England
was higher than in East Anglia. The result was 8 col-
lapse events in SE England compared with zero in
East Anglia. During 2001 the relative rainfall levels
reversed (Figure 4), yet still only two collapse events
were recorded in East Anglia compared with 11
events in SE England. The dominance of the numbers
of collapse events occurring in South East England
over that of East Anglia is a theme that continues
throughout the period of the review. On this basis, it
seems that other influences are present. Since the
events are occurring in urban to semi-rural areas it
may be that the higher density of development in SE
England is dominating the activity levels despite the
rainfall patterns.
Comparison of the total numbers of collapse
events against each of the years does not show a con-
sistent relationship between the number of collapses
and the relative magnitude of precipitation – the ex-
57
Engineering in Chalk
pectation being that the wetter the year the greater the
number of recorded events. However, despite this,
there are some tentative relationships in certain years.
Figure 4. Recent collapse events dataset expressed in terms of re-
gional rainfall and number of events for the period of the review.
It is notable that 2003 (up to 25% less rainfall than
average) and 2005 (up to 35% less rainfall than aver-
age) were generally drier years and the corresponding
number of collapse events recorded was just 3 and 5
respectively. Other years with similarly low numbers
include 2009 (3), 2010 (2) and 2017 (3), though in
these years, rainfall varied from slightly below (-
15%) to slightly above (+15%) the average long term
rainfall and therefore the number of events might
have been expected to be higher.
In the time series under study the years of 2000
and 2002 are generally wetter (>35% more rainfall
than long term average) and both are slightly wetter
than 2001. Yet despite the rainfall trend the number
of collapse events in 2001 (13) is notably higher than
in both 2000 (8) and 2002 (6).
The next wettest years are 2007 and 2008. A more
detailed look at the rainfall pattern during the year of
2007 shows that most of the rainfall was associated
with the May, June and July period in SE England
(up to twice the long-term average rainfall) which is
when the majority of the collapse events occurred
that year. Consequently, although the overall number
58
of events (5) was lower than might have been ex-
pected, the events did coincide with the wettest
months of the year. During 2008, which the Met Of-
fice data shows had less extremes of rainfall than
2007, the collapse events are spread throughout the
year, though the total number increases to 13. There-
fore, despite being overall less wet, 2008 had more
than twice the number of collapse events recorded in
2007.
In more recent times the years of 2012 and 2014
were wetter than average, with the intervening 2013
being drier. As previous, the anticipated link between
higher rainfall and increased numbers of collapses
does not entirely match for these years, though activi-
ty levels within certain months does show a tentative
relationship. Seven collapse events were recorded in
2012, somewhat less than the 18 events in the drier
2013 that followed. However, the 2012 events were
all recorded within the latter half of the year which
broadly overlapped the wetter portion of the year. By
comparison, the wetter months during 2013 in SE
England were October and December, the rest of the
year was drier or similar to the long-term average
rainfall. The 18 collapse events were mostly well
spread throughout the year with 5 events coinciding
with the October to December period when it was
wettest. Both months had between 125% and 200%
of the normal average long term rainfall.
Going forward into 2014 the very wet weather
continued in SE England with January recording over
twice the long-term average rainfall, peaking in Feb-
ruary when a record breaking 225% more rainfall
than average was recorded. The cumulative effect of
the exceptionally wet weather was widespread inun-
dation of the ground. There followed a sudden spate
of collapses resulting in 11 events occurring in Feb-
ruary alone. There was also one collapse event in
January and two more occurred in March while oth-
ers were spread through late summer and autumn,
producing a record of 22 collapse events in the year.
The unusual activity level in February was undoubt-
edly a response to the cumulative period of excep-
tionally wet weather, starting in late 2013 and con-
tinuing into early 2014. During this period the event
that occurred on 15th February 2014 at Oatridge Gar-
dens, Hemel Hempstead (Figure 5) produced the
largest newly formed “sinkhole” that had been rec-

orded at the time being about 10m in diameter and
about 5m deep.
Figure 5. The “sinkhole” formed below houses at Oatridge Gar-
dens, Hemel Hempstead.
The successive years of 2015 and 2016 were
largely drier than the average long term rainfall but
despite this produced 9 and 10 collapse events re-
spectively. Looking in detail at the monthly rainfall
records produced by the Met Office there were no
particularly wet months across SE England and it is
notable that the recorded events are spread through-
out the year with no weather-related trends evident.
The year of 2015 was best known for a particularly
large “sinkhole” which occurred on 1st October 2015
at Fontmell Close in St Albans, measuring about 13m
in diameter and up to 7m deep (Figure 6) which
eclipsed the previous Hemel Hempstead collapse
record. Viewing the records for 2016 also does not
identify any especially wet months, though certain
collapse events are concentrated in May and Decem-
ber.
Assessment of the various collapse events of 2015
and 2016 suggests that they were triggered by man-
made causes such as leaking surface drains or water
main bursts, rather than rainfall.
Therefore, in conclusion, it appears that while
there are some limited tentative links between rainfall
patterns and collapse event activity rates in certain
years, for the most part ground movement probably
tends to relate to man-made causes usually involving
escapes of water. The quality of design and installa-
tion of drainage systems, the materials used, the
Edmonds
monitoring and maintenance by responsible parties
like developers, local councils and water companies
are clearly influential upon the occurrence of sink-
holes in chalkland areas.
Figure 6. The “sinkhole” formed below a road beside residential
property at Fontmell Close, St Albans after backfilling with
foamed concrete.
5 ANALYSIS OF THE GEOLOGICAL
SETTING OF GROUND COLLAPSES IN
REGIONAL CHALKLAND AREAS
Using available online digital geology information
obtained from the Geology of Britain viewer
(www.bgs.ac.uk) the geological sequence present at
each of the recent collapse event dataset locations has
been established. In addition, reference is made to the
patterns of occurrence and their regional chalkland
area. The aim has been to establish whether there are
any trends in the dataset that might provide future
useful guidance.
5.1 Assessment of sinkhole events over karstic
features
5.2.1 Introduction
The dataset contains records of 97 sinkholes and a
summary of the geological settings and locations of
the sinkholes is presented in Table 2 below.
59
Engineering in Chalk

Table 2. Geological and spatial setting of the sinkholes recorded in the recent collapse events dataset.
Geological Setting No. of Spatial Set- Notes
Sink ting
Superficial Bedrock Holes Chalkland Locations
Deposits Geology Area
None present London Clay 1 Chilterns Reading London Clay is thinner and sandy at loca-
Formation tion
Lambeth
Group
Chalk Group
None present Lambeth 11 Chilterns Hermitage, nr Newburya aSinkholes occurred very close to London
Group Reading Clay margin over Lambeth Group depos-
Chalk Group Watford its
Rickmansworth
None present Chalk Group 2 Chilterns Maidenheadb b150m distant from margin of Boyn Hill
Sonning Common c Gravel and at a similar elevation
c75m distant from margin of Winter Hill
Gravel and just 3m lower in elevation
Head Chalk Group 4 Chilterns Pangbourne Periglacial deposits over Chalk or Lam-
1 North Downs Gillingham beth Group over Chalk
Lambeth 2 Chilterns Tilehurst
Group Reading
Chalk Group
None present Thanet For- 1 North Downs Gillingham
mation
Chalk Group
Winter Hill Gravel Lambeth 9 Chilterns Chalfont St Peter Terrace deposit of the pre-diversionary
Gerrards Cross Grav- Group Beaconsfield ancestral River Thames (pre-Anglian to
el Chalk Group Anglian)
Beaconsfield Graveld Chalk Group 28 Chilterns Croxley Green dMost notable occurrence of sinkholes (28
Radlett no.) associated with Beaconsfield Gravel
Chalfont St Peter terrace deposit over Chalk or Lambeth
Beaconsfield Group/Chalk
Seer Green
Marlow
Sonning Common
Kesgrave Catchment Lambeth 1 Chilterns Ware
Subgroup Group
Chalk Group
Chalk Group 2 Chilterns St Albans
Hertford
Taplow Gravel Chalk Group 22 Chilterns Reading Terrace deposits of the post-diversionary
Lynch Hill Gravel Maidenhead ancestral River Thames (post-Anglian)
Boyn Hill Gravele Henley-on-Thames efMost notable occurrences of sinkholes
Black Park Gavelf 1 Essex Grays (11 no.) associated with Black Park Grav-
el and (9 no.) with Boyn Hill Gravel over
Chalk
Clay-with-Flints Chalk Group 1 North Downs Bodsham Periglacial deposits over Chalk
Sherringham Cliffs Crag Group 5 East Anglia Norwich Glacial deposits over Crag and/or Chalk
Formation Chalk Group
Chalk Group 2
Briton’s Lane Sand & Chalk Group 1 East Anglia Rougham Glacial deposits over Chalk
Gravel Norfolk
Member
Lowestoft Formation
Happisburgh Glacio- Chalk Group 1 East Anglia Taverham Glacial deposits over Chalk
genic Formation Norfolk
Lowestoft Formation
Lowestoft Formation Chalk Group 1 Chilterns Walkern Glacial deposits over Chalk
Stevenage
Glaciofluvial deposits Chalk Group 1 Chilterns Stevenage Glacial deposits over Chalk
Mid Pleistocene

60
 Edmonds

Figure 7. Extract of SW Chilterns showing the relationship between the sinkhole locations and the geology.

61
Engineering in Chalk
5.2.2 Geological assessment
The recorded data shows that there is a wide variety
of geological settings for the sinkholes, however, by
grouping broadly similar geology together it is possi-
ble to determine trends.
It is relatively uncommon for sinkholes to form
where either London Clay Formation (1 event: Read-
ing, Berkshire) or bare Chalk at outcrop (2 events:
Maidenhead, Berkshire and Sonning Common, south
Oxon) occurs. It is relatively common for sinkholes
to form where Lambeth Group deposits overlie and
under-drain down into the Chalk below (23 events).
It is notably common for sinkholes to occur where
river terrace deposits of the former ancestral River
Thames are present above Chalk – pre-diversionary
terraces (pre-Anglian to Anglian) total 40 events and
post-diversionary terraces (post-Anglian) constitute
23 events. These sinkholes are all concentrated with-
in the Chilterns where there is an extensive cover of
Palaeogene and Quaternary deposits above chalk (see
Figure 7).
Looking at the geological distribution of sinkholes
it is evident that there is a relationship between the
pre-diversionary terraces and the Palaeogene/Chalk
interface level. This is illustrated in Figure 8.
During Stage 1 (Figure 8) Palaeogene Lambeth
Group deposits (LG) overlie Chalk Group strata (CG)
where they under-drain down into chalk over a long
period of geological time. This allows a karstic
weathering profile at the Palaeogene/Chalk interface
(P/C) to develop with a series of solution pipes pene-
trating down into the chalk surface as shown. During
Stage 2 the water table rises and deposition of an An-
cestral Thames Terrace Deposit (ATTD) occurs. As
the deposition takes place it is accompanied by ero-
sion of the LG cover deposits and the erosion also
etches into the chalk (CG) surface locally removing
the P/C interface. However, because the depth of ero-
sion is relatively shallow, not all of the previously
developed karstic weathering profile is removed.
Therefore, some basal remnants of the previously
formed solution pipes remain below the younger ter-
race deposits. In time, land levels rise and water table
levels decline again to create under-drainage from the
terrace deposits down into the chalk once more. The-
se conditions promote a new phase of karstic weath-
ering with the formation of more solution pipes. As
62
Stage 3 (Figure 8) shows, the karst re-activation oc-
curs rapidly since it is taking place within an older
pre-existing karst zone relating to the previously de-
veloped P/C interface. Hence it is not unusual for in-
vestigation boreholes to recover LG deposits from
within the basal portions of solution pipes that oth-
erwise contain terrace deposits. The schematic illus-
tration of Figure 8 provides an explanation of the re-
lationship between the pre-diversionary ancestral
River Thames terrace deposits (e.g. Beaconsfield
Gravel), the Lambeth Group deposits and the Chalk.
As Table 2 shows, large numbers of sinkholes have
occurred as a result of this process in the Berkshire,
south Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire areas of
the Chilterns.
Small numbers of sinkholes form where perigla-
cial Head deposits overlie Chalk (7 events) particu-
larly where they are directly or indirectly associated
with Lambeth Group and proto-Thames terrace de-
posits. Again, their position relative to the Palaeo-
gene/Chalk interface level is influential. It is slightly
surprising that sinkholes rarely occur where perigla-
cial Clay-with-Flints deposits overlie Chalk (1
event). Numerous field observations over the years
have revealed evidence of extensive karst weathering
below these cover deposits, so more sinkholes might
have been expected. The available data suggests that
these deposits are more likely to produce differential
settlement effects rather than larger scale ground
movement.
Finally, it is noted that glacial deposits over Chalk
can produce smaller numbers of sinkholes (11
events) as well. A couple of sinkholes have occurred
in the north east of the Chilterns (Stevenage area) but
most have formed in parts of East Anglia. The most
common geological setting is where the glacial de-
posits occur above Crag Group deposits over Chalk
(Norwich area). There have been several occasions
where the scale of the karstic solution pipe underly-
ing the sinkholes has made it uneconomic to carry
out ground stabilisation works resulting in insurance
write-offs for damaged properties.
 Edmonds

Figure 8. Schematic diagram to illustrate the relationship between ancestral Thames terrace deposits and the
Palaeogene/Chalk interface.

63
Engineering in Chalk
5.1.3 Spatial assessment
From a spatial perspective, it is clear that since 2000,
more sinkholes have occurred within the Chilterns
region (86.6%) than elsewhere – Essex (1%); North
Downs (3.1%) and East Anglia (9.3%). Within the
Chilterns chalkland area particular “hotspots” in-
clude: Berkshire (Reading, north of Newbury,
Pangbourne and Maidenhead); south Oxfordshire
(Sonning Common, Henley-on-Thames); south
Buckinghamshire (Marlow, Beaconsfield, Chalfonts,
Gerrards Cross); south Hertfordshire (Rickmans-
worth, Watford, St Albans, Hertford, Ware). In other
chalkland areas, places prone to sinkholes include
Grays (Essex) and Norwich (Norfolk). Typical ex-
amples of sinkholes are reproduced below.
Figure 9. A sinkhole that appeared on a residential development at
Hermitage, north of Newbury, Berkshire triggered by loading and
vibration.
Figure 10. A sinkhole that appeared below the corner of a proper-
ty in Hertford, Hertfordshire triggered by leaking drains.
64
5.2 Assessment of crown hole events over man-
made underground mining cavities
5.2.1 Introduction
The dataset contains 59 crown holes from a variety of
geological settings and locations as Table 3 illus-
trates.
5.2.2 Geological assessment
An evaluation of the geological settings shows that
most chalk mining sites with associated ground col-
lapses coincide with chalkland areas where Lambeth
Group deposits overlie Chalk – this accounts for 49%
of the collapse events (29no.). Only at Pinner, NW
London, are the Lambeth Group clays and sands also
overlain by London Clay. Elsewhere, the most com-
mon cover deposits are the post-diversionary terraces
of the ancestral River Thames (12 examples, mostly
in Reading) and River Kennet (1 example near New-
bury). In another example (Plumstead, SE London)
Thanet Formation sand underlies the Lambeth Group
deposits.
About 17% of the collapse events are linked to the
presence of Thanet Formation sands overlying Chalk.
These cases tend to be located in SE London, Essex
and NW Kent. At Plumstead, SE London, the Thanet
Formation underlies the Lambeth Group deposits. In
addition, at half of the collapse locations, the Thanet
Formation is also overlain by post-diversionary ter-
race deposits relating to the ancestral Thames.
There are only a limited number of cases (4 No.)
where the man-made excavations at depth in the
Chalk occur with no cover deposits above. Addition-
ally, smaller numbers of crown hole collapses are as-
sociated with periglacial and glacial cover deposits.
The periglacial cover deposits include Clay-with-
Flints deposits over Chalk (5no.cases) and Head ei-
ther directly over Chalk or indirectly over Thanet
Formation and Chalk (6no. cases).
 Edmonds

Table 3. Geological and spatial setting of the crown holes recorded in the recent collapse events dataset.
Geological Setting No. of Spatial Setting Notes
Superficial Bedrock Crown Chalkland Locations
Deposits Geology Holes Area
None present London Clay 1 NW Lon- Pinner Date: Probably 1700s, ceased by 1806
Formation don Style: Pillar-and-stall, chalkwell, bellpit
Lambeth Group Purpose: Lime burning & brickmaking
Chalk Group
None present Lambeth Group 14 Chilterns Hemel Hempstead Date: Mainly early to late 1800s
Chalk Group Hermitage, Newbury Style: Pillar-and-stall, chalkwell, bellpit
Nettlebed Purpose: Lime burning & brickmaking
Caversham & Coley,
Reading
Upper Basildon
None present Chalk Group 1 Chilterns Hemel Hempstead Date: mid to late 1800s
Style: Pillar-and-stall
Purpose: Coating/stiffening paper
2 North Westerham Date: 1900-1940s
Downs Margate Style: Rooms/tunnels
Purpose: Air raid shelters & storage &
lime burning
1 East Anglia Linton Date: 1800s
Style: Adits from quarry
Purpose: Chalk grinding – agricultural
Head Chalk Group 1 Chilterns Reading Date: Probably 1800s
Style: Chamber
Purpose: Presumed agricultural
1 North Andover Date: Probably 1800s
Hampshire Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
2 North Broadstairs Date: circa 1100s-1200s
Downs Westgate-on-Sea Style: Denehole
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Thanet Formation 2 SE London Blackheath Date: 1600s – 1800s
Chalk Group Style: Adits from quarry
Purpose: Lime burning
North Faversham Date: 1800s
Downs Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
None Present Lambeth Group 1 SE London Plumstead Date: 1800s
Thanet Formation Style: Pillar-and-stall, chalkwell
Chalk Group Purpose: Lime burning & brickmaking
Thanet Formation 1 North Northfleet Date: circa 1100s-1200s

65
Engineering in Chalk

Geological Setting No. of Spatial Setting Notes

Superficial Bedrock Crown Chalkland Locations
Deposits Geology Holes Area
Chalk Group Downs Style: Denehole
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Gerrards Cross Chalk Group 1 Chilterns Radlett Date: 1800s
Gravel Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Kesgrave Catch- Lambeth Group 1 Chilterns St Albans Date: 1800s
ment Subgroup Chalk Group Style: Bellpit
Purpose: Lime burning & brickmaking
Chalk Group 2 Chilterns Welwyn Garden City, Date: 1800s
Hatfield Style: Pillar-and-stall, chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Kempton Park Lambeth Group 11 Chilterns Reading Date: Medieval to 1800s
Gravel Chalk Group Taplow Style: Bellpit & chalkwell
Taplow Gravel Purpose: Lime burning & brickmaking
Lynch Hill Grav- Thanet Formation 6 SE London, Barnehurst, Grays Date: circa 1100s-1200s
el Chalk Group Essex Dartford Style: Denehole
Boyn Hill Gravel North Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Black Park Downs
Gravel Chalk Group 3 Chilterns Maidenhead Date: 1800s
Chalkhouse Green Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Hamstead Mar- Lambeth Group 1 Chilterns Stockcross Date: 1800s
shall Gravel Chalk Group Newbury Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Clay-with-Flints Chalk Group 3 Chilterns Walters Ash Date: 1800s
Bovingdon Style: Chalkwell
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural &
brickmaking
2 North Dev- Gillingham Date; Circa 1100s-1200s
ons Lynsted Style: Denehole
Purpose: Lime burning - agricultural
Lowestoft For- Crag Group 1 East Anglia Bury St Edmunds Date: 1800s
mation Chalk Group Style: Adits from quarry
Purpose: Lime burning – agricultural
Leet Hill Sand & Crag Group 1 East Anglia Norwich Date: 1700s-1800s
Gravel Chalk Group Style: Pillar-and-stall
Purpose: Lime burning

66
 Edmonds

of utilities and partial loss of the road in front follow-

5.2.3 Spatial assessment ing a water leak.

Assessing the spatial distribution of the crown hole

records in the dataset shows that the majority of col-
lapses over old mines has taken place within the
Chilterns region, accounting for 64.4% of cases. The
most active place has been Reading, Berkshire (6
crown holes) accompanied by significant property
damage requiring widespread ground stabilization
and re-construction of housing. This is followed by
Nettlebed, Oxon (3 crown holes) affecting residential
property and woodland. Next there is Hermitage,
Berkshire (2 crown holes) affecting an access road
and infrastructure, and Upper Basildon, Berkshire (2
crown holes) impacting a residential property. Final-
ly, there was the large collapse in Hemel Hempstead
(see Figure 5 above) that caused extensive damage to Figure 11. The crown hole formed in front of a residential proper-
property, requiring demolition and re-build. ty at Blackshots Lane, Grays.
The next most active region is the North Downs
(20.3% of cases) followed by the London area (7%)
and East Anglia (5%). Three of the crown holes that 5.2.4 Stability of mine entries
appeared in the North Downs are further described in
the next section below. The remainder of the regional A review of the recent collapse events dataset has
collapses were largely related to deneholes, the most been carried out to determine whether it is possible to
spectacular of which occurred in 2014, by “daylight- confirm that the crown hole was the result of shaft
ing” within the central reservation of the M2 Motor- instability or not. The analysis suggests that shaft in-
way near Lynsted, Kent. At Faversham, a collapse stability is responsible for at least 52.5% of the
event also occurred over an enlarged chalkwell caus- crown holes. The remainder appear to be due to mine
ing building damage. As mentioned above, crown roof collapses ravelling up to the surface.
holes in the London area (inside M25) include events
at Barnehurst, Blackheath, Pinner and Plumstead. 5.2.5 Historical site usage
The effects have been: a hole in a garden; closure of
the A2 and major stabilisation works; closure of a
Having analysed the historical site usage at each of
school and major stabilisation works; and evacuation
the crown hole locations, the general usage for the
of a housing development to carry out extensive in-
vestigations and stabilisation works respectively. The extracted chalk can be summarized into three main
East Anglia collapses are centred on Linton, (Cam- categories. These include: (a) lime burning and brick
making; (b) lime burning for agricultural purposes
bridgeshire), Bury St Edmunds and Norwich. In the
and making lime mortar; and (c) other purposes.
latter case, major excavations to around 15m depth or
The results are that 30 of the crown hole locations
so were undertaken to gain access into old chalk
coincide with old brick works where lime burning
mine workings in order to infill an upward migrating
collapse below terraced housing. may also have taken place, probably to produce lime
mortar. Some sites also make tiles and pottery prod-
The residual collapse events occurred in North
ucts. Surface clay pits are evident at such sites. The
Hampshire (Andover) in farm land and at Essex
sites often show an array of structures relating to the
(Grays). As Figure 11 shows, the resulting collapse
industrial activities of the time. Typically, the posi-
crater at Grays was of significant size, threatening
tions of the kiln(s), pug mill(s), water well and/or
damage to a residential property, together with loss

67
Engineering in Chalk

pond, hacks, storage buildings and stable are shown. were not fully backfilled. Re-development for hous-
From the late 1800s onwards some brick yards be- ing took place. Following a water main burst signifi-
came more mechanised using steam engines. Where cant subsidence damage was caused to residential
large scale clay extraction took place over long peri- properties triggered by the water inundation of the
ods of time it was not unusual for narrow gauge rail backfill and its slump and flow into the open tunnels.
tramways to be set up to transport the clay back to In the fourth case a serious collapse occurred, un-
the kiln and pug mill location. Chalk mine entries, dermining the foundations to a house (see Figure 12)
such as shafts, are rarely marked on old OS maps, but in Hemel Hempstead, triggered again by a combina-
their positions can sometimes be estimated as being tion of rainfall and surface water drainage. Research
proximal to the kiln position and often revealed by found that the mine workings were excavated to ex-
ground collapse (crown hole). tract chalk for the use of coating and stiffening paper
A further 26 of the crown holes seem to have oc- for a former local paper mill.
curred over chalk mining sites used to carry out lime
burning, mostly in connection with the liming of clay
soils for agricultural purposes. Some may also have
produced lime mortar. No surface clay pits are appar-
ent. Sometimes chalk mining can be implied where a
lime kiln is marked upon a geological deposit that is
not itself calcareous. For example, at Briars Lane,
Hatfield, where a lime kiln is shown in a field situat-
ed upon Kesgrave Catchment Subgroup deposits that
overlie Chalk at depth. Ground movement and dam-
age to buildings later revealed the mine location.
The final three sites fall into the “other purposes”
category having different historical uses. A lime
burning site at Margate, included in the above count
of crown holes, also has an unusual history and so is
included below as well.
Firstly, a crown hole at Westerham, Kent, trig- Figure 12. The crown hole formed below a residential property at
gered by leaking surface water drainage disposal be- Highbarns, Hemel Hempstead.
side a residential property, occurred above a WW2
air raid shelter and underground records storage facil- It is not the intention to fully detail the historical
ity. Two further cases involved the suspected destabi- practices for chalk usage referred to above in this pa-
lisation of quarry backfill causing it to be washed in- per, instead the reader is directed to other sources of
to adit entrances for mine tunnels excavated through information. These include web sites and publica-
old chalk quarry faces at Linton, Cambridgeshire and tions by the Chelsea Speleological Society, Kent Un-
at Margate, Kent. derground Research Group, Subterranea Brittanica
At Linton, it appears that the mined chalk was and others, for example Edmonds et al. (1990), Lord
ground and powdered using a windmill. Later, the et al. (2002) and contemporary accounts like Young
site was backfilled and re-developed with residential (1804).
properties. Following rainfall, it appears that surface
water infiltration from a soakaway caused destabili- 6 IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVED
zation of the old quarry backfill within a garden. ENGINEERING PRACTICE
At Margate, mine tunnels were used to extend the
life of the quarry for the purposes of lime burning.
The quarry was then abandoned, but later re-used 6.1 Natural cavities
during WW1 as air raid shelters. At a later date the It appears to be widely considered by councils (build-
quarry was backfilled, but it appears that the tunnels ing control & planners), developers, infrastructure

68

asset managers and professional advisors that the oc-
currence of sinkholes is an entirely random process.
However, for chalkland areas at least, based on the
analysis set out above, there are clearly some com-
mon trends that show particular geological and geo-
graphical settings are more prone to sinkhole occur-
rence than others.
The resilience of urban development and infra-
structure to withstand sinkhole occurrence could be
improved. By taking suitable design precautions, the
hazard posed by sinkholes can be mostly dealt with
during the normal cycle of construction and devel-
opment rather than transferring the future risk and as-
sociated costs when things go wrong to the insurance
sector. The design approach to development within
more hazardous chalkland areas, particularly to the
north and west of London, could be improved by us-
ing the information presented. While it is not cost-
effective or feasible to entirely remove a subsidence
hazard, a significant proportion of the hazard can be
reduced by adopting certain design strategies.
For example, if the development footprint is un-
derlain by an ancestral River Thames terrace deposit
and/or Lambeth Group deposits then there is an en-
hanced risk of a sinkhole occurring (see Table 2). To
combat the risk, the foundation design approach
should incorporate suitable measures to span over
voids that might ravel upwards to “daylight” at the
surface. Based on Figure 2 the presented information
suggests that if the design span is to cater for 75% of
the recorded sinkhole sizes then the foundation
should be capable of spanning across at least a 3m
diameter void. If a higher level of safety is wanted
(e.g. 90% confidence level) then the span capability
should be increased to 5m.
The corners of foundations present a challenge
since the cantilever will be half of the linear span dis-
tance. Subsidence damage to the corners of buildings
is reasonably common. A way to test whether the
cantilever is sufficient is to check the nature and
strength of the ground profile below this position.
This can be done using a dynamic probe, performing
cone penetrometer testing or rotary/percussive probe
drilling for example. If no solution feature is present
below the corner, then the cantilever will normally be
sufficient. However, if a solution feature is present
then the corners should be extended outwards as a
cruciform to bear onto stable ground beyond the so-
Edmonds
lution feature outline. The stable ground support
points also need to be proven by investigation.
It is stressed that the design approach must be in-
formed by carrying out a suitable ground investiga-
tion to first characterize the site ground conditions
and to understand the nature of the karstic weathering
profile that is present.
In the author’s experience, where difficult ground
conditions exist, including karstic ground conditions,
substructure designers are less confident in the per-
formance of shallow level foundations. Sometimes
this results from the engineering behaviour of the
ground being insufficiently understood. The situation
often leads to developers opting to install piled foun-
dations. However, even more robust foundation solu-
tions, like piles, can still suffer longer term perfor-
mance problems, including failure, unless the design
approach is appropriate.
To illustrate the design challenges, reference is
made to a new development site to the north-west
side of London where ancestral River Thames terrace
deposits overlie Chalk. The terrace deposits (circa
5m thickness) under-drain down into the chalk aqui-
fer, the water table being at about 50m depth below
the ground surface. A series of boreholes and dynam-
ic probes revealed a deeply weathered karstic surface
underlying the site. The ground profile recorded in-
filled solution pipes extending to 20m or so depth,
plus evidence of horizontal infilled karstic horizons,
probably developed along bedding planes (sheet
pipes). The chalk was highly weathered and weak,
extending to depth in proximity to the pipe features
and the infillings to the features were weak as well.
Away from the solution features some profiles
showed less weathered, structured chalk probably
within intervening chalk pinnacles.
The proposed CFA piles were 10m to 15m length,
the design being based on a structured chalk profile
(using the stronger chalk pinnacle profiles encoun-
tered) assuming that the building loads were to be
supported by shaft friction and end-bearing. This
does not follow the guidance given by Lord et al.
(2002) which recommends that no reliance is placed
on the end-bearing in case the pile is underlain by a
loosely infilled solution feature. Twine & Wright
(1991) dealt with the problem by permanently casing
the piles through the karstic zone and below the cas-
69
Engineering in Chalk
ing the piles penetrated into the chalk for the required
length to support the applied loads.
Consequently, the design approach could not be
supported as it took no account of the real variability
of the ground due to its karstic nature. Karstic ground
conditions tend to deteriorate with time, their load
carrying ability decreasing as the ground continues to
deform, move and breakdown. Such conditions can-
not therefore be relied upon to provide satisfactory
end-bearing for piles – an arising void could under-
mine the pile for example. Ground deformation with
time can also induce oblique loading and negative
skin friction loading on the pile shaft.
Following a review and discussions about the na-
ture of the ground conditions and the unsuitability of
the design approach, the designer reverted to an al-
ternative and more appropriate approach. It was
agreed to carry out ground stabilisation of the karstic
zone by grouting and to then install shorter length
piles into the top of the grouted zone. The hybrid ap-
proach addressed the concerns relating to the karstic
nature of the ground conditions and greatly improved
confidence in the longer-term performance of the
foundation design.
6.2 Mining cavities
Developers and their professional advisors should be
especially vigilant when carrying out construction
upon certain geological horizons (see Table 3) where
there is potential for past chalk mining. It is essential
to carry out a detailed check of the site history,
though it should be noted that in most cases, given
the age of past chalk mining, the desk study needs to
go back further in time than just the First Edition OS
maps (circa 1870s). Older Tithe Maps, Field Enclo-
sure Maps and even Estate Maps need to be consult-
ed. Chalk mine entries are rarely marked on maps,
often the indications for past mining may be oblique.
Examples of such indications include old brick, tile
and pottery works, lime works, whiting works, kilns
situated in places without surrounding surface
pits/quarries and old names for land plots (e.g. Chalk
Pits Field), old road names (e.g. Chambers Lane) and
old farm names (e.g. Four Chambers Farm) marked
on maps.
The challenge of designing suitable foundations in
locations where old chalk mine workings may be
present might, at first, appear to require a similar ap-
70
proach as suggested for karstic chalk. However, with
reference to Figure 2, it can be appreciated that the
size of crown hole collapses can sometimes be much
larger than for sinkholes over natural cavities. This
particularly applies to situations where open mine
tunnels exist. The collapsed ground not only falls
vertically but also can move laterally into the open
tunnel space, especially where there is a significant
escape of water (e.g. water main burst) causing inun-
dation of the ground.
Rigid shallow level foundations (e.g. fully rein-
forced rafts or a grillage of ground beams capable of
spanning a 5m void) might protect the structure
against significant structural damage, but could still
suffer differential settlement and tilt. This scenario
would likely cause serviceability damage to connect-
ing services and make the property uninhabitable un-
less it can be jacked back into a level position and the
utility connections repaired. Apart from the impact
upon the structure being difficult to deal with, there
are also potential life threatening problems associated
with the collapse void daylighting at the surface im-
pacting residents.
Piled foundations are also not a realistic way for-
ward unless the piles are fully sleeved to below the
mine floor level. Such an approach allows the ground
to move, settle and deform over time around the pile
columns. However, there are likely to be problems
for connecting utility services and again, there is still
a health and safety hazard to residents even if the
structures are protected, so such a scenario is unlikely
to be acceptable.
Past experience shows that chalk mine workings
up to 30m depth or so can collapse to produce sur-
face subsidence problems and damage to buildings.
In the circumstances, it is considered that only
ground stabilisation by grouting forms a suitable so-
lution to address the hazardous impacts to both build-
ings and people. Often the beneficial effects of grout-
ing can only be extended to within 3m of the surface.
Hence for new-build it is necessary to excavate down
to the top of the grouted zone and replace with engi-
neered fill (can be economic if re-using the in-situ
ground) or to use short length piles penetrating into
the top of the grouted zone to support shallow foun-
dations.
 Edmonds

6.3 Utility services present. Following this guidance is a good way to

minimise the unwanted impacts of subsidence. How-
It is typically the situation that the utility services,
ever, it is acknowledged that often the stand-off dis-
beyond the building footprint, pass through untreated
tance is difficult to achieve given the garden sizes
or weaker ground than that present below the build-
and density of new residential developments.
ing. This leads to differential movement around the
In the above circumstances, it may be necessary to
building margins which can impact the connecting
site the soakaway at a closer distance to foundations.
services putting them under tension. In order to pro-
Should this be required then it is recommended to
tect services against possible rupture or reduced life
check the stability of the ground at the chosen soak-
time performance, in areas prone to ground subsid-
away location by intrusive investigation. Provided
ence, it would be useful to incorporate a few precau-
the absence of a solution feature can be proven then
tions during connection.
the soakaway should operate safely without trigger-
Service layouts should avoid crossing known areas
ing ground movement provided it is lined down to
of unstable ground. In areas where mature surface
the chalk surface before discharging into the ground.
sinkholes are present then a surrounding buffer zone
If a feature is revealed by the investigation, then the
of at least 10m should be allowed where no utilities
choice is either to extend the soakaway as a deep
or surface infrastructure should be constructed. Adja-
bored soakaway, lined to below the lowest level of
cent to buildings an extra loop of a cable would per-
the developed karstic chalk rockhead zone before al-
mit an allowance for movement and reduce the ten-
lowing discharge, or to select a new position and
sion build-up along a linear corridor. Whereever
begin the investigation process again.
possible flexible long length pipes with as few joints
For sites where there is high potential for past
as possible are desirable. Extruded pipes with mini-
chalk mining to have taken place then shallow soak-
mum joints designed to minimise leakage can reduce
aways are not recommended for use. There will al-
the impacts of water leaks.
ways be a chance that they might trigger collapse of
Within the existing urban environment water utili-
the ground as old workings break down, even if they
ty companies could also help to minimise the chances
have been located and appear stable. Deep bored
of triggering subsidence events. It appears that the
soakaways might be feasible, but only if they are ex-
water companies do not differentiate between the po-
tended to depth and lined to discharge into the chalk
tential ground hazards present in different areas when
below the mine floor level. For sites that are under-
laying or renewing their mains pipes. By giving this
lain by old chalk mine workings that have been stabi-
some thought they could improve matters if they also
lised by grouting then it is likely that the ground
preferentially laid extruded long length pipes with
permeability will have been reduced by the treat-
minimum numbers of joints in subsidence prone are-
ment. In these circumstances, it would be best to re-
as. This would protect the longevity of their assets
direct surface water drainage off site or towards an
and greatly reduce the number of damaging water
area of the site beyond the mine workings that have
main bursts which otherwise can result in building
been treated. If soakaways have to be sited over
damage, leading to expensive loss claims, and reduce
treated mine workings, then there is little choice but
the inconvenient impacts upon traffic and pedestrian
to drill to depths below the treated zone and mine
access caused by roadworks.
floor level in order to discharge the water.
In all cases the use and design of soakaways
6.4 Surface water drainage
should follow Environment Agency guidelines. As
It is right to apply sustainable drainage systems usual attention needs to be given to infiltration depths
(SUDS) to new development sites but in subsidence above the water table level and ground water protec-
prone chalkland areas a cautionary approach needs to tion.
be adopted to mitigate the risk of triggering ground
subsidence. Lord et al. (2002) suggest that soakaways
should not be positioned closer than 20m from a
foundation in places where karstic features may be

71
Engineering in Chalk
7 CONCLUSIONS
A review of a dataset of recent collapse events dating
from January 2000 up to March 2018 has revealed
159 collapses due to two main causes. The majority
of the events (61%) are true sinkholes developed
over solution features caused by karstic weathering
of Chalk. Collapses over old chalk mine workings,
crown holes, account for 37% of the records, while
just 3% of the records are of unknown origin.
The range of collapse event sizes is widely varia-
ble, however, subdivided into their respective origins
certain observations can be made. For sinkholes, the
majority (78.4%) do not exceed 3m in depth and di-
ameter, while 93.8% do not exceed 5m in the same
dimensions. The size distribution for crown holes is
different – 28.8% fall within the 3m depth/diameter
category and 59.3% within the equivalent 5m size
category. Therefore, over 40% are larger again in size
than most sinkholes.
Media accounts focus on the number of “sink-
holes” increasing over time, suggesting that they are
becoming more common. Consideration of the num-
ber of collapse events per year shows that the num-
bers vary from year to year and that there is no linear
increase. Increasing numbers can only be demon-
strated in certain sequences of years, such as 2010 to
2014.
The relationship between the numbers of collapse
events and the climate in terms of rainfall is also
quite variable. No clear relationship between higher
and lower rainfall producing more or less collapse
events in the regions of East Anglia versus South
East England could be discerned over the period of
the review. There were always more collapse events
in South East England whether or not the rainfall in
East Anglia was higher or lower. This may reflect the
higher density of urban areas in South East England
with an increased opportunity for triggering ground
movement.
While selected years or months of higher rainfall
are associated with higher rates of collapse events,
for much of the time the relationship with weather is
not particularly evident. The only notable exception
to this was 2014, when following exceptional rainfall
for some months 12 collapse events occurred in Jan-
uary and February alone.
72
The Chilterns have the highest sinkhole activity
rates (86.6% of the dataset) and their occurrence is
strongly linked to the presence of Palaeogene Lam-
beth Group deposits and the ancestral River Thames
terrace gravel deposits. The region also has the most
crown holes (64.4%) and it appears there are similar
geological controls.
Using the dimensional data for the collapses, to-
gether with their spatial and geological controls of-
fers the opportunity to improve engineering practice.
The available information provides foundation and
drainage engineers, infrastructure asset managers,
regulators and developers, a way forward to reduce
the impacts of ground collapse and de-risk develop-
ment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The views expressed by the author are personal and
may not necessarily reflect those of Peter Brett Asso-
ciates LLP. Special thanks are also due to colleagues
for assistance with figures by David Cotton and
compilation of the paper by Asmi Desai.
REFERENCES
Applied Geology Limited 1993. Review of instability due to natu-
ral cavities in Great Britain – Regional Reports (Volume 1), Tech-
nical Reports (Volume 2) & Summary Report, Applied Geology
Limited, Leamington Spa.
Arup Geotechnics 1990/91. Review of mining instability in Great
Britain – Regional Reports (Volume 1), Technical Reports (Vol-
ume 2) & Case Study Reports (Volume 3), Arup Geotechnics,
Newcastle upon Tyne.
Banks, D., Davies, C. & Davies, W. 1995. The Chalk as a karstic
aquifer: evidence from a tracer test at Stanford Dingley, Berkshire,
UK, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 28, S31-S38.
Culshaw, M. G. & Waltham, A. C. 1987. Natural and artificial
cavities as ground engineering hazards, Quarterly Journal of En-
gineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 20, 139-150.
Edmonds, C. N., Marker, B. R. & Martin, G. 1989.A national
study of natural underground cavities in Great Britain – data col-
lection, spatial analysis, planning and engineering significance. In:
Beck, B. F. (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Multidisciplinary Con-
ference on Sinkholes and Engineering and Environmental Impacts
of Karst, Balkema, Rotterdam, 349-355.
Edmonds, C. N., Green, C. P. & Higginbottom, I. E. 1990. A re-
view of underground mines in the English Chalk: form, origin, dis-
tribution and engineering significance, Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Chalk Symposium, Brighton Polytechnic 4-7 September
1989, 511-519.

Edmonds, C. N. 2001a. Predicting natural cavities in chalk. In:
Griffiths, J. S. (ed.) Land Surface Evaluation for Engineering
Practice. Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publi-
cations, 18, 29-38.
Edmonds, C. N. 2001b. Subsidence hazard in Berkshire in areas
underlain by chalk karst. In: Griffiths, J. S. (ed.) Land Surface
Evaluation for Engineering Practice. Geological Society, Engi-
neering Geology Special Publications, 18, 97-106.
Edmonds, C. N. 2008. Karst and mining geohazards with particu-
lar reference to the Chalk outcrop, England, Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 41, 261-278.
Lord, J.A., Clayton, C.R.I. & Mortimore, R.N. 2002. Engineering
in chalk, CIRIA C574, London.
McDowell, P., Coulton, J., Edmonds, C. N. & Poulsam, A. J.
2008. The nature, formation and engineering significance of sink-
holes related to distribution of chalk in S. E. Hampshire, England,
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 41,
279-290.
Edmonds
Newton, J. G. 1984. Review of induced sinkhole development. In:
Beck, B. F. (ed.) Sinkholes: their Geology, Engineering and Envi-
ronmental Impact, Proceedings of the First Multidisciplinary Con-
ference on Sinkholes, Balkema, Rotterdam, 3-9.
Twine, D. & Wright, R. H. 1991. Farmers Avenue Road Crossing,
Castle Mall development, Norwich. In: Proceedings of the Fourth
International Deep Foundations Conference, Stresa. A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 147-155.
Waltham, A. C. 2016. Control the drainage: the gospel accorded to
sinkholes, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydro-
geology, 49, 5-20.
Waltham, A. C. Bell, F. G. & Culshaw, M. G. 2005. Sinkholes and
Subsidence – Karst and cavernous rocks in engineering and con-
struction, Springer/Praxis Publishing, Chichester.
Young, A. 1804. Agriculture of Hertfordshire, Macmillan, Lon-
don.
73