RUS:
Крашенинников В.С., Хоменко В.П. Изменение гранулометрического состава несвязных грунтов, предшествующее карстово-суффозионному провалообразованию // Инженерная геология. 2017. №2. С. 52-62.

ENG:
Krasheninnikov V.S., Khomenko V.P. Changing noncohesive soil granulometric composition that precedes karst-piping sinkhole formation // Engineering geology. 2017. №2. Pp. 52-62.

Krasheninnikov Vadim

Head of the Survey Department,
“Special surveys for high-rise construction” LLC RPC,
Moscow, geolog.doc@gmail.com

Khomenko Victor P.
Professor of the Engineering Surveys and Geoecology Department

of the Hydraulic Engineering and Power Plant Construction Institute

of the National Research University

“Moscow State University of Civil Engineering” (NRU MGSU),

DSc (Doctor of Science in Geology and Mineralogy)
Moscow, khomenko_geol@mail.ru

Changing noncohesive soil granulometric composition that precedes karst-piping sinkhole formation

Key words:

karst; suffosion (piping); noncohesive soils; karst-piping sinkhole; prediction.

Abstract

In covered karst areas, there are precursory signs of a preparing sinkhole formation. These signs are features of the overburden structure. In particular, they include suffosion decompaction zones of noncohesive soils over fissures and cavities in soluble rocks. The existence of such zones in a geological cross-section can be considered as a precursor of a karst-piping sinkhole formation. This paper presents a detailed description of this phenomenon studied using a laboratory physical modeling and in the natural conditions. The authors consider the principles of search and identification of suffosion decompaction zones on the basis of analyzing the spatial distribution of granulometric composition parameters of noncohesive soils in the lower part of the overburden.

Intro

In the Russian Federation, most intensively developed karst-prone areas are located in regions of covered karst, where soluble rocks are overlain by unconsolidated sedimentary deposits with a thickness exceeding 2 meters [7]. These deposits are most commonly referred to as the overlying strata. As early as in his fundamental work [22], D.S. Sokolov noted that the presence of certain structural elements in the overlying strata may indicate the preparation of karst collapse formation.

In our country, this issue has been studied by N.M. Kukharev [16], V.P. Khomenko [28], V.V. Tolmachev [24], V.M. Kutepov and V.N. Kozhevnikova [15], G.V. Zemskoy and L.A. Aleshina [8], A.V. Anikeev and M.V. Leonenko [4]. It should be noted that A.V. Anikeev, in a series of his works, provided substantial experimental and theoretical justification for the necessity of studying the overlying strata to predict the formation of karst collapses.

Abroad, similar views are held by G. Aderhold [1], W. Zhou and B. Beck [34], F. Gutierrez, E. Cooper, and K. Johnson [32]. A comprehensive perspective on the problem of identifying signs of karst collapse preparation based on the results of engineering-geological surveys conducted in covered karst regions was presented in the publications of V.S. Krasheninnikov and V.P. Khomenko [13, 14].

Karst-Suffosion Sinkholes

According to traditional concepts [21], in covered karst conditions, three genetic types of karst sinkholes can form—karst-collapse, karst-suffosion, and mixed (karst-suffosion-collapse) sinkholes.

Karst-suffosion sinkholes (Fig. 1) develop when unconsolidated soils are present in the overlying strata and a downward filtration flow emerges, discharging into unsealed fractures or cavities within the soluble rocks. At one time, M.S. Kaveev [10] and G.V. Korotkevich [12] provided a detailed description of two types of karst-suffosion sinkholes, distinguished by their formation conditions and mechanisms. One of the authors of this article proposed referring to them as phreatic and vadose karst-suffosion sinkholes [27].

Fig. 1. Karst-suffosion sinkhole formed in December 1996 in the industrial zone of Dzerzhinsk, Nizhny Novgorod Region, as a result of water discharge into sandy soils.

For the formation of phreatic-type karst-suffosion sinkholes (Fig. 2), unconsolidated soils must be water-saturated. These soils may either be in direct contact with soluble rocks or be separated from them by an impermeable layer composed of clayey soils. In the latter case, the impermeable layer must have continuous breaches, which may arise due to various factors, including purely anthropogenic causes [26]. The processes of through-destruction of the protective impermeable layer were most thoroughly studied by A.V. Anikeev [2].

When water drains from the soluble rocks and/or infiltrates the overlying unconsolidated soils, a filtration flow directed toward a fracture or cavity will develop. Once this flow reaches a sufficient velocity, a suffosion process will initiate within a clearly defined zone (Fig. 2a). As the flow velocity continues to increase, this zone will expand, reaching the upper boundary of the saturation zone, leading to the collapse of the overlying soils (Fig. 2b), which may ultimately result in the formation of a sinkhole [10, 27] (Fig. 2c).

Fig. 2. Diagram illustrating the mechanism of phreatic-type karst-suffosion sinkhole formation caused by water drainage from soluble rocks:

1 – soluble rocks; 2 – clayey soils; 3 – unconsolidated soils;

4 – unconsolidated and/or cohesive dispersed soils; 5 – epikarst water level;

6 – piezometric level of karst waters; 7 – water-filled cavity;

8 – suffosion destruction zone; 9 – soils destroyed by suffosion and subjected to downward displacement; 10 – collapsed soils;

11 – cavity not filled with water; 12 – sinkhole.

Vadose-type karst-suffosion sinkholes occur where soluble rocks are overlain by unconsolidated dispersed soils extending to the ground surface, with the groundwater level located below the base of these soils (Fig. 3). Under such conditions, water infiltration into the overlying strata will generate a concentrated filtration flow at the contact zone between the unconsolidated deposits and a fracture or cavity.

If the hydrodynamic force of this flow is sufficient, it will induce suffosion-driven destruction of the unconsolidated soils, leading to their removal into the fracture or cavity (Fig. 3a). Under unfavorable conditions, this process can result in the cyclic formation and disappearance of increasingly larger unstable cavities not filled with water, which are bounded above and below by dome-shaped vaults. Each successive cavity forms at a higher level than the previous one, thereby enabling the progressive development of a sinkhole [12, 27] (Fig. 3b).

Fig. 3. Diagram illustrating the mechanism of vadose-type karst-suffosion sinkhole formation caused by the infiltration of atmospheric precipitation:

1 – soluble rocks; 2 – unconsolidated soils; 3 – groundwater level;

4 – water-filled cavity; 5 – soils destroyed by suffosion and subjected to downward displacement; 6 – sinkhole.

Suffosion as a Component of Karst-Suffosion Sinkhole Formation

Suffosion plays a crucial role in the formation of karst-suffosion sinkholes, as implied by their very name. However, this topic is complicated by significant terminological uncertainty. The term suffosion itself is interpreted in various ways, sometimes even contradictorily [17, 19]. The broadest definition of this term is provided in SP 116.13330.2012 [23], and based on this, one of the authors of this article [26] classifies suffosion according to two criteria (Fig. 4).

Within this conceptual framework, it can be stated that karst-suffosion sinkholes form as a result of mechanical closed (internal) suffosion, specifically the complete filtration-induced destruction of unconsolidated deposits in the overlying strata by a downward flow, leading to their removal into unsealed fractures and cavities within the soluble rocks.

Fig. 4. Classifications of suffosion proposed by V.P. Khomenko [26], based on the nature of rock destruction (top) and the conditions of removal and transport of the displaced material (bottom). The suffosion types contributing to the formation of karst-suffosion sinkholes are highlighted in brown, while those indicating early signs of their development are highlighted in yellow.

Complete filtration-induced destruction of unconsolidated soil refers to the breakdown of its structural bonds, causing the soil to transition into a state of pseudo-liquefaction. However, under certain conditions, this process may be preceded by partial filtration-induced destruction, wherein a filtration flow removes insoluble particles through the pores of unconsolidated dispersed soils. Various terms are used to describe this process, and in some cases, it is exclusively referred to as suffosion, with no recognition of any other type of suffosion [9]. This understanding is widely accepted internationally. For example, what the authors of this article refer to as partial filtration-induced destruction is known as suffosion by English- and German-speaking specialists [31, 35]. Finding an exact English equivalent for the term complete filtration-induced destruction is far more challenging, as publications on this topic use terms such as piping [33], boiling [30], internal erosion [33], and similar or derivative terms.

Conditions necessary for suffosion-induced loosening of unconsolidated soils

Both partial and complete filtration-induced destruction of unconsolidated soils can lead to their loosening. Loosening (or more precisely, disaggregation) caused by complete filtration-induced destruction can occur in any unconsolidated soil. However, loosening due to partial filtration-induced destruction is characteristic only of so-called suffosion-prone soils, whose structural and textural properties allow fine particles to move between stationary coarse particles under the influence of filtration flows. For this to occur, the unconsolidated soil must consist of closely packed skeletal particles, with finer particles freely distributed among them as a filler.

Currently, both in Russia [25] and abroad [31], various methods are used to assess the suffosion potential of unconsolidated soils based on mathematical processing of grain-size distribution parameters and physical property indicators. In Russia, well-known methods include the approaches developed by the B.E. Vedeneev VNIIG Research Institute and the methodology recommended by the guidelines for SNiP 2.04.02-84 [20], which are based on the studies of A.N. Patrashev [18].

A particularly well-developed and thorough methodology was proposed by V.N. Kondratyev [11] and later refined by P.I. Fadeev [25]. This method is notable for its step-by-step graph-analytical processing of soil parameters and evaluation based on criteria that allow the identification of not just one or two, but three types of non-suffosion soils (Fig. 5).

The sequence of actions in this methodology is as follows:

1. Analyze the differential grain-size distribution curve (Fig. 6). If the curve has a single peak, the soil is considered non-suffosion-prone, as it lacks the necessary heterogeneity and cannot be divided into skeletal and filler fractions (see Fig. 5a).

2. Identify the saddle point between two peaks on the differential grain-size distribution curve and consider the nearest boundary between fractions as the boundary between the skeletal and filler fractions. Based on the percentage content of individual grain-size fractions, calculate the percentage of filler in the soil.

3. Verify compliance with the established conditions:

ns = (e+a) / (e+1) > 0.5,

where " ns " is the porosity of the skeletal structure (dimensionless), " e " is the soil porosity coefficient, and " a " is the filler content in the soil (dimensionless).

If this condition is met, the soil is considered non-suffosion-prone (see Fig. 5b). V.N. Kondratyev [11] referred to it as "soil with pseudo-porphyritic texture", while soil that does not meet this criterion was termed "soil with rubble texture."

4. Draw two integral grain-size distribution curves—one for the filler and one for the skeletal fraction of the soil (Fig. 6). Then, determine one characteristic particle diameter for the filler (d₇₀) and three characteristic particle diameters for the skeletal fraction (D₆₀, D₅₀, D₁₀).

Fig. 5. Main types of non-suffosion-prone unconsolidated soils:

a – homogeneous; b – with a "pseudo-porphyritic texture" according to V.N. Kondratyev [11]; c – where the filler particles cannot move freely between the skeletal particles under the influence of hydrodynamic forces.
Skeletal particles are shown in yellow, and filler particles in orange.

Fig. 6. Example of a soil profile used as model material in the experimental study of the suffosion process.

5. Verify compliance with the condition:

0.214 D60 D50 / D10 = 4.353 > d70

where " D₆₀, D₅₀, D₁₀ " are the diameters not exceeded by 60%, 50%, and 10% of the filler particles, respectively (mm);

and " d₇₀ " is the diameter not exceeded by 70% of the skeletal particles (mm).

If this condition is met, the filler particles cannot move freely between the skeletal particles under the influence of hydrodynamic forces, and therefore, the soil is considered non-suffosion-prone (see Fig. 5c).

Based on the assessment results, a soil profile is compiled, containing all necessary initial data, calculation results according to formulas (1) and (2), and the final conclusion on its suffosion potential. An example of such a profile is shown in Fig. 6.

When water filters through a suffosion-prone soil, filler particle movement between skeletal particles may begin, but only when the filtration gradient reaches a certain critical value. The filler starts moving at gradient values measured in tenths of a unit, leading to an increase in soil permeability as a result of the progressive removal of filler particles (Fig. 7).

At gradient values close to one, complete filtration-induced destruction of the suffosion-prone soil begins. In the case of non-suffosion-prone unconsolidated soils (see Fig. 5), an increase in the filtration gradient results only in their complete filtration-induced destruction, and until that point, their permeability remains unchanged.

Fig. 7. Dynamics of suffosion-induced filler removal during water filtration:

a – suffosion-prone soil; b – suffosion-prone soil partially depleted of filler;

c – unconsolidated soil completely depleted of filler, no longer suffosion-prone (see Fig. 5a).

Skeletal particles are shown in yellow, and filler particles in orange.

Conceptual Model of Unconsolidated Soil Loosening Above a Single Receiving Cavity Preceding the Formation of a Karst-Suffosion Sinkhole

Fine particles of unconsolidated suffosion-prone soil, transported by an underground flow, must ultimately enter a void space—a receiving cavity. Their movement depends on the velocity of the underground flow, which increases as it approaches the entrance to this cavity. In a mass of suffosion-prone soil where the process of partial filtration-induced destruction has begun above a single receiving cavity, the formation of three distinct zones can be expected (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Diagram of the conditional zoning of a water-saturated mass of unconsolidated soils that have undergone changes in grain-size composition under the influence of the karst-suffosion process.

Legend:

1–3 – Zones 1–3, as described in the text; a – Soluble rocks;

b – Unconsolidated soils; c – Karst cavity; d – Epikarst water level;

e – Piezometric level of karst waters; f – Direction of filtration flow;

ΔH = H – H₀ (where H is the epikarst water level, and H₀ is the piezometric level of karst waters).

• Zone 1 corresponds to the initial, unaffected state of the soil mass. The grain-size distribution of the soil remains unchanged (see Fig. 7a). This zone is located at a significant distance from the entrance to the receiving cavity.

• Zone 2 is situated relatively close to the receiving cavity and consists of soils whose grain-size composition has been noticeably altered by the suffosion process. A significant portion of the filler has been removed by the filtration flow, making the soil more homogeneous (see Fig. 7b).

• Zone 3 is located directly at the entrance to the receiving cavity. Here, the grain-size composition has been radically altered by suffosion, characterized by the near-total absence of filler and a high degree of homogeneity. In fact, the soils in this zone cease to be suffosion-prone (see Fig. 7c).

Naturally, sharp boundaries between Zones 1–3 do not exist. The zone contours shown in Fig. 8 are schematic, as the filler content decreases gradually toward the receiving cavity. However, it is possible to establish criteria for defining these zones. A transition from Zone 3 to Zone 2 can be assumed when the filler content decreases by 30–40% from its initial (background) value. A remaining filler content of 10–20% of the background level can indicate a transition to Zone 1.

It can be hypothesized that in the absence of an impermeable caprock (or if its integrity is compromised), the concentric reduction in filler content in suffosion-prone soils forming the lower part of the overlying strata could serve as a predictive indicator for the formation of a karst-suffosion sinkhole. If the soils are non-suffosion-prone, such a prediction is not possible.

Experimental Study of Suffosion-Induced Changes in the Grain-Size Composition of Unconsolidated Dispersed Soils Above a Receiving Cavity

Modeling of suffosion-driven removal of fine particles from unconsolidated soil by a downward filtration flow into a receiving cavity was conducted using a simplified and scaled-down test sample within an experimental setup designed by V.P. Khomenko, E.P. Makhan’ko, E.I. Isaeva, et al. [29]. The general view of the setup is shown in Fig. 9. The objective of this experiment was to validate the proposed conceptual model (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 9. Experimental equipment designed for modeling suffosion processes:

1 – working chamber, partially filled with model material; 2 – side chambers filled with water; 3 – lower chamber simulating a karst receiving cavity;

4 – permeable partitions separating the side chambers from the working chamber; 5 – bottom of the working chamber; 6 – slit simulating a karst conduit; 7 – overflow tube; 8 – tubes connecting the side chambers;

9 – drainage tubes of the lower chamber.

The working chamber of the setup, measuring 32×20×17 cm, was filled layer by layer with model material, lightly compacted to a height of 16 cm. This material was an artificial two-component mixture, consisting of approximately 85% crushed gravel soil (skeletal fraction) and 15% medium-grained sand (filler fraction). The density of the model material was determined using the cutting ring method with a volume of 140 cm³, while the remaining parameters were obtained through calculations. The grain-size distribution was determined using laboratory methods in accordance with Russian state standards [5, 6]. The heterogeneity index of the material was 16.3.

Prior to the experiment, the suffosion potential of the model material was assessed—if it had turned out to be non-suffosion-prone, the experiment would have been meaningless. The soil profile of the original soil used as the model material is shown in Fig. 6. The original soil exhibited a three-peaked differential grain-size distribution curve, with two right-side peaks being the most prominent. This indicated that the filler fraction consisted of particles smaller than 1 mm. Calculations showed that the original soil had a rubble-like texture, and the filler particles were free to move between the skeletal particles under hydrodynamic forces, confirming that the model material was suffosion-prone.

The experiment began with filling the side chambers with water, which then filtered through mesh partitions into the working chamber, saturating the model material. Water filling took 5 minutes, reaching a level of 15 cm. Then, over 3 minutes, the water level was maintained at a set mark using an overflow tube. The filtration flow discharged into the lower chamber through the slit, carrying away soil particles. Drainage tubes in the lower chamber allowed water outflow, preventing it from filling completely. After 3 minutes, the water supply was stopped, and free drainage through the slit continued until all chambers were fully drained. After completing three cycles of “filling – level maintenance – draining”, samples were taken from the model material to analyze their grain-size distribution (Fig. 10). For each sample, two parameters were determined: percentage of filler content and heterogeneity index.

Fig. 10. Scheme of sample collection from the model material in the working chamber of the experimental setup after the experiment (a) and the tools used for this process (b).

The first step in data analysis was to examine the distribution of filler content in the vertical plane. The results, shown in Fig. 11, indicate a high concentration of filler in the central part of the working chamber and lower amounts in the upper layers and near the slit at the bottom. The accumulation of filler in the central part is explained by the filtration flow pattern during water saturation of the model material. At this stage, the flow moves almost horizontally from the side partitions toward the middle of the working chamber. When water flows into the lower chamber, the filler particles move downward, but not in a strictly vertical direction—instead, they shift toward the center above the slit. The low amount of filler in the center of the lower layer is due to the highest filtration gradient values in this area, which leads to the most intense removal of filler into the lower chamber.

In real-world conditions, the filler distribution pattern—visualized using isolines—would likely be different. If the vertical component of the filtration flow were dominant over the horizontal component, the pattern would resemble a series of semi-elliptical lines, concentrically expanding from the entrance to the receiving cavity. The filler content would decrease as it approached the receiving cavity, ultimately leading to complete removal, closely matching the theoretical model (see Fig. 8).

The spatial distribution of soil heterogeneity (Cᵤ) shows an almost linear relationship between this parameter and the distance from the measurement point to the entrance of the receiving cavity (Fig. 12). The closer the soil is to the slit, the lower the Cᵤ value, meaning the soil becomes more homogeneous due to the suffosion-driven removal of filler.

Fig. 11. Spatial distribution of filler content in the model material after the experiment.

Fig. 12. Spatial distribution of the degree of heterogeneity (Cu) of the model material after the experiment.

Changes in the Granulometric Composition of Non-Cohesive Dispersed Soils Identified in the Area of Karst-Suffosion Sinkhole Formation in Moscow

Partial filtration-induced destruction of suffosion-prone soil in the form of particle washout represents only the initial stage of the suffosion process. Subsequently, the process follows the pattern described in the studies of V.P. Khomenko [26] and A.V. Anikeeva [3]. From a theoretical standpoint, it can be assumed that the structure of loosening in the suffosion-prone soil forming the lower part of the overlying strata, which corresponds to the scheme presented in Fig. 8, should persist even after the formation of a karst-suffosion sinkhole.

The validity of this assumption is confirmed by the results of the analysis of the spatial distribution of granulometric composition parameters of water-saturated Quaternary sands in the area of two karst-suffosion sinkholes that formed in 1969 in the northwest of Moscow (Fig. 13). In 1975, a decrease in the content of silt and clay particles in the sands, as well as a reduction in the degree of heterogeneity of their granulometric composition, was observed as one approached the sinkhole zone [28]. Additionally, a zone of similar changes was identified in the eastern part of the study area.

The thickness of the water-saturated sands in the investigated area consisted of two layers: fine, occasionally silty sands in the upper part and medium-grained, occasionally coarse and gravelly sands in the lower part. The analysis of the horizontal distribution of granulometric composition parameters of these water-saturated sands was carried out with reference to specific depth ranges—22.0–23.5 m for the upper layer and 24.0–25.5 m for the lower layer. In the sands of both layers, the fraction smaller than 0.01 mm acted as the suffosion-susceptible filler material.

Four schematic maps were created, illustrating the spatial distribution of the percentage content of the filler material in the water-saturated sands and the heterogeneity coefficient of their granulometric composition separately for each layer. One of these maps is shown in Fig. 14. The analysis of these maps allowed the identification of two zones within the study area exhibiting signs of suffosion-related changes. These are the areas surrounding boreholes No. 1, 14, and 16 (first zone) and boreholes No. 7 and 12 (second zone). The first zone includes existing karst-suffosion sinkholes, where suffosion-induced removal of filler material from the sands has already occurred. The presence of the second zone most likely indicates ongoing suffosion changes preceding a future sinkhole formation.

Fig. 13. Map based on the results of engineering and geological surveys conducted in the studied area (a), and a schematic geological-lithological cross-section along line 1-1 (b). X, Y – reference coordinate axes, m.

Fig. 14. Schematic map of the spatial distribution of the filler content percentage in water-saturated sands of the first layer within the study area (see text for explanations).

Conclusions

Karst-suffosion sinkholes belong to the category of hazardous surface manifestations of covered karst, posing significant risks for construction. The primary driving force behind their formation is the process known as suffosion. Under certain conditions, this process can leave a distinct imprint within the overlying strata in the form of suffosional loosening zones of cohesionless dispersed soils. These zones result from the systematic alteration of the granulometric composition of cohesionless soils due to the suffosional removal of fine particles into karst fractures and cavities. Such structural elements within the overlying strata form exclusively in so-called suffosional soils, which consist of immobile skeletal particles and mobile removable particles (filler), along with other characteristics assessed by specific criteria.

The identification and delineation of suffosional loosening zones are carried out through the analysis of the spatial distribution of the filler content percentage in cohesionless soils or the degree of heterogeneity in their granulometric composition (based on soil samples collected from boreholes). The selection of these two parameters as key identifying indicators is based on the results of laboratory physical modeling, which simulates the removal of filler material from cohesionless soil through the pores of its skeleton by a downward filtration flow into an underlying cavity-receptor covered by this soil. The presence of suffosional loosening zones within the overlying strata, characterized by specific internal structures and configurations, serves as an indicator of the potential formation of karst-suffosion sinkholes over time.

References

Aderkhold G. Klassifikatsiya provalov i mul'd osedaniy v karstoopasnykh rayonakh Gessena [A classification of collapse sinkholes and subsidence troughs in karst areas in Hessen] / per. s nem. V.V. Tolmacheva [translated from German by V.V. Tolmachev] Nizhniy Novgorod: Izd-vo NNGASU, 2010. 112 s. (Rus.).
Anikeev A.V. O dvukh formakh razrusheniya svyaznykh gruntov nad polost'yu [On two forms of destruction of cohesive soils over a cavity] // Geoekologiya [Geoecology]. 1993. № 2. S. 115---123 (Rus.).
Anikeev A.V. Suffoziya. Mekhanizm i kinematika svobodnoy suffozii [Suffosion. The mechanism and kinematics of free suffosion] // Geoekologiya [Geoecology]. 2006. № 6. S. 544---553 (Rus.).
Anikeev A.V., Leonenko M.V. Prognoz provaloobrazovaniya pri izmenenii gidrodinamicheskogo rezhima na primere Dzerzhinskogo karstovogo rayona [Forecasting the sinkhole development due to change in a hydrodynamic regime (a case study of the Dzerzhinsk karst area, Russia] // Geoekologiya [Geoecology]. 2013. № 2. S. 130---146 (Rus.).
GOST 12536-79. Grunty. Metody laboratornogo opredeleniya granulometricheskogo (zernovogo) i mikroagregatnogo sostava [Soils. Methods of laboratory determination of their granulometric (grain-size) and microaggregate distribution]. M.: Gosstroy SSSR, 1979 (Rus.).
GOST 25100-95. Grunty. Klassifikatsiya [Soils. Classification]. M.: MNTKS, 1995 (Rus.).
Dublyanskiy V.N., Dublyanskaya G.N. Karst mira [Karst in the world]. Perm': Izd-vo PGNIU, 2007. 331 s. (Rus.).
Zemskoy G.V., Aleshina L.A. Strukturnye priznaki obrazovaniya karstovoy formy rel'efa [Structural signs of the formation of the karst form of relief] // Materialy Nauchno-proizvodstvennoy konferentsii «Inzhenernye izyskaniya v XXI veke» [Proceedings of the Scientific and industrial conference “Engineering surveys in the 21-t century”]. M.: Izd-vo PNIIIS, 2003. S. 11---13 (Rus.).
Istomina V.S. Fil'tratsionnaya ustoychivost' gruntov [Seepage stability of soils]. M.: Gosstroyizdat, 1957. 295 s. (Rus.).
Kaveev M.S. Karstovo-suffozionnye yavleniya v levoberezhnoy chasti doliny Volgi v predelakh Tatarskoy ASSR [Karst-piping phenomena in the left-bank part of the Volga river valley in the Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic] // Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo geograficheskogo obshchestva [Proceedings of the All-Union Geographical Society]. 1956. T. 88. Vyp. 5. S. 460---466 (Rus.).
Kondrat'ev V.N. Fil'tratsiya i mekhanicheskaya suffoziya v nesvyaznykh gruntakh [Seepage and mechanical suffosion in noncohesive soils]. Simferopol': Krymizdat, 1958. 76 s. (Rus.).
Korotkevich G.V. O karstovo-suffozionnykh formakh i merakh preduprezhdeniya ikh razvitiya pri stroitel'stve [On karst-piping forms and measures to prevent their development during construction] // Gruntovedenie i inzhenernaya geologiya [Soil Science and Engineering Geology]. L.: Izd-vo LGU, 1964. S. 155---160 (Rus.).
Krasheninnikov V.S., Khomenko V.P. Izuchenie pokryvayushchey tolshchi kak odin iz vazhneyshikh komponentov inzhenernykh izyskaniy v rayonakh pokrytogo karsta [Studying overburdens as one of the most important components of engineering surveys in covered karst areas] // Vestnik MGSU [Bulletin of the Moscow State University of Civil Engineering]. 2011. № 5. S. 113---119 (Rus.).
Krasheninnikov V.S., Khomenko V.P. Pokrytyy karst: neobkhodimye usloviya, prichiny i priznaki podgotovki provaloobrazovaniya [Covered karst: the necessary conditions, causes and signs of sinkhole formation] / Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel'stvo [Industrial and Civil Engineering]. 2013. № 11. S. 6---8 (Rus.).
Kutepov V.M., Kozhevnikova V.N. Ustoychivost' zakarstovannykh territoriy [Stability of karst areas]. M.: Nauka, 1989. 151 s. (Rus.).
Kukharev N.M. Inzhenerno-geologicheskie izyskaniya v oblastyakh razvitiya karsta v tselyakh stroitel'stva [Engineering-geological surveys in karst areas for construction]. M.: Stroyizdat, 1975. 168 s. (Rus.).
Lomtadze V.D. Inzhenernaya geologiya. Inzhenernaya geodinamika [Engineering geology. Engineering geodynamics]. L.: Nedra, 1977. 479 s. (Rus.).
Patrashev A.N. Metodika podbora granulometricheskogo sostava obratnykh fil'trov [A method of the selection of the particle-size distribution of inverse filters] // Sbornik trudov Gosudarstvennogo instituta proektirovaniya na rechnom transporte [Collected papers of the State River Transport Design Institute]. L.: Izd-vo Giprorechtransa, 1957. S. 33---47 (Rus.).
Posobie po proektirovaniyu osnovaniy zdaniy i sooruzheniy (k SNiP 2.02.01-83) [Manual for the design of bases of buildings and structures (to SNiP 2.02.01-83)]. M.: Stroyizdat, 1986. 415 s. (Rus.).
Posobie po proektirovaniyu sooruzheniy dlya zabora podzemnykh vod (k SNiP 2.04.02-84) [Manual for the design of underground water intake structures (to SNiP 2.04.02-84)]. M.: Stroyizdat, 1989. 272 s. (Rus.).
Savarenskiy I.A., Mironov N.A. Rukovodstvo po inzhenerno-geologicheskim izyskaniyam v rayonakh razvitiya karsta [Handbook on engineering-geological surveys in karst areas]. M.: Izd-vo PNIIIS, 1995. 167 s. (Rus.).
Sokolov D.S. Osnovnye usloviya razvitiya karsta [The main conditions of karst development]. M.: Gosgeoltekhizdat, 1962. 320 s. (Rus.).
SP 116.13330.2012 (aktualizirovannaya redaktsiya SNiP 22-02-2003 [updated version of SNiP 22-02-2003]). Inzhenernaya zashchita territoriy, zdaniy i sooruzheniy ot opasnykh geologicheskikh protsessov. Osnovnye polozheniya [Engineering protection of territories, buildings and structures against dangerous geological processes. Basic principles]. M.: Minregion Rossii, 2012 (Rus.).
Tolmachev V.V., Troitskiy G.M., Khomenko V.P. Inzhenerno-stroitel'noe osvoenie zakarstovannykh territoriy [Construction-engineering development of karst territories]. M.: Stroyizdat, 1986. 176 s. (Rus.).
Fadeev P.I. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po izucheniyu i ispol'zovaniyu granulometrii peschanykh porod v inzhenerno-geologicheskikh tselyakh [Methodological recommendations on studying and using the granulometry of sand soils for engineering-geological purposes]. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1974. 112 s. (Rus.).
Khomenko V.P. Zakonomernosti i prognoz suffozionnykh protsessov [Regularities and prediction of suffosion processes]. M.: GEOS, 2003. 216 s. (Rus.).
Khomenko V.P. Karstovoe provaloobrazovanie: mekhanizm i otsenka opasnosti // Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma «Ekologicheskaya bezopasnost' stroitel'stva v karstovykh rayonakh» [Karst sinkhole formation: its mechanisms and hazard assessment] / pod red. V.N. Kataeva, D.R. Zolotareva, S.V. Shcherbakova, A.V. Shilovoy [edited by V.N. Kataev, D.R. Zolotarev, S.V. Shcherbakov, A.V. Shilova]. Perm': Izd-vo PGNIU, 2015. S. 50---60 (Rus.).
Khomenko V.P. Suffozionnye svoystva vodonasyshchennykh peskov vblizi zony karstovo-suffozionnykh provalov [The suffosion properties of water saturated sands near a zone of karst-suffosion sinkholes] // Inzhenernye izyskaniya v stroitel'stve [Engineering Surveys for Construction]. 1976. Seriya 2. Vypusk 11 (52). S. 15---22 (Rus.). 29. Khomenko V.P., Makhan'ko E.P., Isaev E.I. i dr. Ustanovka dlya issledovaniya suffozionnoy ustoychivosti gruntov: patent RF № 1823923 A3 [An apparatus for soil suffosion stability research] // Ofitsial'nyy byulleten' Gospatenta SSSR № 23 [Official Bulletin № 23 of the USSR Gospatent]. M.: Gospatent SSSR, 1993 (Rus.).
Dunn I.S., Anderson L.R., Kiefer F.W. Fundamentals of geotechnical analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980. 414 p.
Fell R., MacGregor P., Stapledon D., Bel G., Foster M. Geotechnical engineering of dams. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2015. 1382 p.
Gutiérrez F., Cooper A.H., Johnson K.S. Identification, prediction, and mitigation of sinkhole hazard in evaporite karst areas // Environmental Geology. 2008. V. 53. № 5. P. 1007---1022.
Terzaghi K., Peck R.B. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1948. 566 p.
Zhou W., Beck B.F. Management and mitigation of sinkholes on karst lands: an overview of practical applications // Environmental Geology. 2008. V. 55. № 4. P. 837---851.
Ziems J. Neue erkenntnisse hinsichtlich der verformungsbeständigkeit der lockergesteine gegenüber wirkungen des sickerwassers. 1. Zur klassifizierung der mechanischen erdstoffverformungen durch wirkungen sickerwasser // Wasserwirt-Wassertechn. 1967. Bd. 17. Р. 50---55.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse