Adatta Dolomite Stability Sinkhole Investigation PDF

MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY:
ADATTA PIPELINE, CARLETONVILLE: DOLOMITE

STABILITY SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION
VGI3737 S21
Compiled by: Client:

VGIconsult Projects Merafong City Local Municipality
P.O. BOX 604 No 3 Halite Street
FOURWAYS Carletonville
2055 2500
TEL : (011) 469 0854

FAX : (011) 469 0961
FAX : 0866892847
e-mail: jhb@vgiconsult.co.za
Consulting Engineering Geologists & Engineers VGIconsult
VGIconsult Projects (Pty.) Ltd.
Registration number 2003/015042/07
MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY P.O. Box 604

No 3 Halite Street Fourways
CARLETONVILLE 2055
2500 Gauteng
Telephone
Direct : (011) 469 0854
Fax : (011) 469 0961
ATTENTION: L. MAJA Fax : 0866892847
E-mail jhb@vgiconsult.co.za
Your reference Our reference Date

VGI3737 S21 26 SEPTEMBER 2016
MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY: ADATTA PIPELINE: DOLOMITE STABILITY
SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of dolomite stability investigations and recommendations on
improvements to the subsurface and the affected wet services infrastructure on the Adatta Pipeline
where the water supply line from the Ada Reservoirs to Welverdiend and Khutsong South
Extensions collapsed into two sinkholes, within the Merafong City Local Municipality.
A 20m diameter size sinkhole extending to a depth of approximately 4m and a second sinkhole
(6m in diameter extending to a depth of approximately 6m) occurred within a radius of 30m on the
90 degree bend of a 1m diameter water supply steel pipe, located above ground and approximately
170m west of the Ada Reservoirs, on 31 July 2016. It is presumed that subsurface erosion of highly
erodible dolomite residuum (wad) material was initially triggered by a leak on the water supply line
over an extended period of time. As a result of the initial leak, the water supply lines settled and
failure of the wet services occurred, leading to the formation of two sinkholes.
The investigation area covers approximately 4 ha (200m by 200m). The regional topography of the
area falls from 1475m AMSL in the east to 1465m AMSL in the west. Locally surface water runoff
takes place as sheetwash down the gradient in a westerly direction. Existing subsurface services
located in the affected area including two damaged 300mm diameter north to south aligned HDPE
water pipes and an unknown 100mm diameter size pipe. The site is underlain by dolomite and
chert of the Eccles Formation, Malmani Subgroup of the Chuniespoort Group of the Transvaal
Supergroup. The dolomite bedrock over most of the site is blanketed by weathered soil derivatives.
Dolomite and chert outcrop is however observed towards the west, north and north-east of the
sinkholes.
The investigated area can be divided into two dolomite Hazard Zones:
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The geotechnical data gathered during this investigation permits the
dolomite hazard of the area of the sinkholes and the directly surrounding area as largely reflecting
a high susceptibility of large to very large size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to
ingress of water and a low susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect
to groundwater drawdown. Composite Inherent Hazard Class 7/8//1. In the event of groundwater
level drawdown the Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged.
Directors: D.B. Buttrick Ph. D. (Eng. Geol.), MSAIEG, Pr. Sci. Nat. ; A.A. Gerber B. Eng., Pr. Eng.
ASB: N.Y.G. Trollip M. Sc. (Eng. &Env.), Pr. Sci. Nat., AMSAIEG ; I. Kleinhans M. Sc. (Eng. &Env.), Pr. Sci. Nat.
2
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The area is characterised as largely reflecting a medium susceptibility
of medium to large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water, and a
low susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to groundwater
drawdown. Composite Inherent Hazard Class 3/4//1. In the event of groundwater level drawdown
the Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged.
This report documents recommendations and procedures on the improvement of subsurface

conditions, improvements and stabilisation, replacement of wet services, improvement of surface
water run-off, minimum standards of precautionary measures and monitoring actions.
The following option dealing with the affected area is outlined in this report, namely:
 The use of the Inverted Filter Method and a Compaction Grouting (i.e. backfilling)
programme to rehabilitate the affected area.
MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY: ADATTA PIPELINE, CARLETONVILLE:
DOLOMITE STABILITY SINKHOLE INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY Preface
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................... 1
3. AVAILABLE INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 1
3.1. Topographic Data................................................................................................... 1
3.2. Geological Information ........................................................................................... 1
3.3. Industry Standards ................................................................................................. 1
3.4. Geotechnical Reports ............................................................................................. 2
3.5. Geohydrological Information .................................................................................. 2
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA .......................................................................... 3
5. PROCEDURES USED IN THIS STUDY .......................................................................... 3
5.1. Site Inspection by VGIconsult................................................................................. 3
5.2. Assimilation of Available Data -Information sources ............................................... 4
5.3. Gravity Surveys ...................................................................................................... 4
5.4. Rotary Percussion Boreholes ................................................................................. 4
5.5. Thickness and depth concepts ............................................................................... 6
5.6. Coordinate System................................................................................................. 6
5.7. Map production (projection, co-ordinate system and datum) .................................. 6
5.8. Hazard Characterisation Procedure ....................................................................... 7
5.9. Dolomite Area Designation ................................................................................... 12
5.10. Monitoring Designations ....................................................................................... 12
5.11. SANS 1936-1: Table 1, SANS 1936 Part 1 (2012) ............................................... 15
6. GEOLOGY AND GEOHYDROLOGY ............................................................................ 17
6.1. General Geology .................................................................................................. 17
6.2. Local Geology ...................................................................................................... 17
6.3. Geohydrology....................................................................................................... 19
6.4. Past Sinkholes and Subsidences ......................................................................... 19
7. DOLOMITE HAZARD CHARACTERISATION .............................................................. 20
7.1. Site investigation and Dolomite Hazard Assessment Procedures ......................... 20
7.2. Hazard Characterisation of the site ...................................................................... 20
8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 24
8.1. Results of the borehole drilling programme .......................................................... 24
8.2. Dolomite Hazard Characterisation and Suitability of the site for the current land
use ....................................................................................................................... 25
9. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 26
9.1. Rehabilitation of Sinkhole Areas and related wet services.................................... 26
9.2. Precautionary measures ...................................................................................... 29
9.3. Stormwater Management ..................................................................................... 29
9.4. Monitoring Actions................................................................................................ 29
9.5. Database of ground movement and stability conditions ........................................ 30
10. GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 31
TABLES
SUMMARISED BOREHOLE INFORMATION AND INHERENT HAZARD

TABLE 1
CHARACTERISATION
FIGURES
LOCALITY PLAN FIGURE 1

TOPOGRAPHICAL SHEET LEGEND FIGURE 1A
SITE LAYOUT WITH GROUND ELEVATION CONTOURS FIGURE 2
REGIONAL GEOLOGY FIGURE 3
GEOLOGY LEGEND FIGURE 3A
REGIONAL GEOHYDROLOGY FIGURE 4
DRAWINGS
RESIDUAL GRAVITY, BOREHOLE POSITIONS AND DOLOMITE HAZARD VGI3737

ZONATION S21/1
VGI3737
PROPOSED REHABILITATION AREA
S21/2
APPENDICES
GRAVITY SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX 1

BOREHOLE PROFILES APPENDIX 2
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a dolomite stability investigation carried out in the area where
the water supply line from the Ada Reservoirs to Welverdien and Khutsong South Extensions
collapsed into two sinkholes, within the Merafong City Local Municipality. A 20m diameter size
sinkhole extending to a depth of approximately 4m and a second sinkhole (6m in diameter
extending to a depth of approximately 6m) occurred within a radius of 30m on the 90 degree bend
of a 1m diameter water supply steel pipe, located above ground and approximately 170m west of
the Ada Reservoirs, on 31 July 2016.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine the extent of poor subsoil conditions or erosion
and to provide recommendations and procedures on subsurface, wet service and structural
improvements. It is presumed that subsurface erosion of highly erodible dolomite residuum (wad)
material was initially triggered by a leak on the water supply line over an extended period of time.
As a result of the initial leak, the water supply lines settled and failure of the wet services occurred,
leading to the formation of two sinkholes.
These investigations involved field inspections, gravity survey, borehole drilling programme,
analysis, reporting and recommendations on subsurface soil improvements, wet services and
structural improvements and stabilisation procedures to be followed.
2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF WORK
VGIconsult was appointed by the Merafong City Local Municipality to conduct a dolomite stability
investigation for the sinkhole on the Adatta Pipeline, as part of an Emergency investigation
programme of five sinkhole areas in the Merafong City Local Municipality, under Reference Letter
ID (WS), dated August 2016. VGIconsult presented technical and budget cost proposals on the
investigation of the sinkholes on the Adatta Pipeline in letter reference VGI3737 S21, dated 4
August 2016.
3. AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Information sources include:
3.1. Topographic Data
Topographic Map, 1: 50 000 Scale Series: issued by the Chief Directorate: Surveys and
Mapping, Department of Land Affairs:
Sheet Name Reference

Carletonville 2627 AD
3.2. Geological Information
Geological Map, 1: 250 000 Scale Series: issued by the Geological Survey of South Africa
(Council for Geoscience):
Sheet Name Reference

West Rand 2626
3.3. Industry Standards
o South African National Standard SANS 1936 Parts 1 – 4 (2012).
o South African National Standard SANS 2001-BE3: 2012 (DSS), Construction works
2
Part BE3: Repair of sinkholes and subsidences in dolomite land.
o South African National Standard SANS 633: 2012 (DSS), Soil profiling and rotary
percussion borehole logging on dolomite land in Southern Africa for engineering
purposes.
o Environmental Earth Sciences, Springer-Report: “A Performance Based Approach

to Dolomite Risk Management” by D Buttrick, N Trollip, R Watermeyer, N Pieterse,
A Gerber, Volume 64, Issue 4, p1127 – p1138, dated 2011.
o South African National Standards: The Application of the National Building Code:
SANS 10400, Part A: General principles and requirements and Part B: Structural
Design, (2004).
o Council for Geoscience/South African Institute of Engineering and

Environmental Geologists (2003): Guideline for engineering-geological
characterisation and development of dolomitic land.
o Council for Geoscience (2007): Consultants Guide: Approach to Site on Dolomite

Land.
o Department of Public Works (PW344), September 2010: Appropriate Development

of Infrastructure on Dolomite. Manual for Consultants.
o Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa: “Subsurface subsidences and

sinkholes caused by lowering of the dolomitic water-table on the Far West Rand Gold
Field of South Africa” by RJ Kleywegt and DR Pike, Volume 16, p77 – p105, dated
1982.
3.4. Geotechnical Reports
Geotechnical data pertaining to the Merafong City Local Municipality area of jurisdiction is
housed at the West Rand District Municipality (WRDM) offices and/or the Council for
Geoscience (CGS).
o Intraconsult report, referenced IR 111 BW, dated September 1995: “A Report to the
Western Services Council on the dolomite stability risk characterization of the
proposed bulk water supply alignment and reservoir site: Greater Carletonville”.
3.5. Geohydrological Information
Groundwater information is made available by the Department of Water Affairs through the
National Groundwater Information System (NGIS) which offers read-only access to data from:
o National Groundwater Archive (NGA);

o Water Management System (WMS); and
o Hydstra [http://www.dwa.gov.za/chart/]).
In addition, the report “Geohydrology Guideline Development: Implementation of Dolomite

Guideline – Phase 1, Activities 19 & 28: Desktop development of a Dolomite
Hydrogeological Compartment Map and explanation booklet (Report), dated November
2009, Project Number: 14/14/5/2, Authors: Martin Holland: Water Geosciences Consulting,
Frans Wiegmans: Golder Associates”, was consulted.
3
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The two sinkholes under investigation is located on the 90 degree bend (approximately 170m
west of the Ada Reservoirs) of the above ground 1m diameter (steel pipe) Adatta water supply
line to Welverdiend and Khutsong South Extensions. The area under investigation is located
approximately 700m north of the R501 Provincial Road and 2km to the south-west of the town
Carletonville, within the Merafong City Local Municipality. The location of the site is displayed on
Figure 1, superimposed on the topographic map. The site layout and ground elevation contours
and known wet services are displayed on Figure 2.
The investigation area covers approximately 4ha (200m by 200m). The regional topography of the
area falls from 1475m AMSL in the east to 1465m AMSL in the west. Locally surface water runoff
takes place as sheetwash down the gradient towards a south to north aligned canal located
approximately 130m west of the affected area. The canal is bordered to the west by tailings dams.
Existing subsurface services located in the affected area including two north to south aligned
damaged 300mm diameter size HDPE water pipes and an unknown 100mm diameter size pipe.
Electrical cables connected to the pump of the Ada Reservoirs may possibly also run in close-
proximity to the affected area. Existing wet service and electrical site layout plans was not made
available from the Merafong City Local Municipality for the area under investigation.
A 20m diameter size sinkhole extending to a depth of approximately 4m and a second sinkhole
(6m in diameter extending to a depth of approximately 6m) occurred within a radius of 30m on
the 90 degree bend of a 1m diameter water supply steel pipe, located above ground and
approximately 170m west of the Ada Reservoirs, on 31 July 2016. It is presumed that subsurface
erosion of highly erodible dolomite residuum (wad) material was initially triggered by a leak on the
water supply line over an extended period of time. As a result of the initial leak, the water supply
lines settled and failure of the wet services occurred, leading to the formation of two sinkholes.
The area in a radius of 750m of the current two sinkholes is earmarked by the occurrence of a
number of sinkholes in the past. The various sinkholes and subsidences recorded will be
discussed in Section 6.4 of the report.
5. PROCEDURES USED IN THIS STUDY
5.1. Site Inspection by VGIconsult
VGIconsult (Mr Jacques Meintjes) inspected the above mentioned two new sinkholes on 1
August 2016. The following was observed:
 Affected area of 30m diameter, with two sinkholes approximately 170m west of the
Ada Reservoirs, on the 90 degree bend of a 1m diameter size steel water pipe.
 A 20m diameter size sinkhole extending to an approximate depth of 4m and a second

sinkhole of 6m diameter extending to an approximate depth of 6m.
 Numerous damaged water pipes: 1m diameter steel water line, 2 x 300mm diameter
HDPE pipes and an unknown 100mm diameter size wet service.
It is presumed that subsurface erosion of highly erodible dolomite residuum (wad) material
was initially triggered by a leak on the water supply line over an extended period of time. As
a result of the initial leak, the water supply lines settled and failure of the wet services
occurred, leading to the formation of two sinkholes.
The following recommendations were given in the Interim Report VGI 3737 S21, dated 4
August 2016, documenting the site inspection:
4
 The affected area should be fenced off immediately and a soil berm placed around
the affected area to prevent any run-off surface water entering the affected area
causing additional subsurface soil erosion.
 As the Welverdiend, Khutsong South Extensions 4 and 5 areas are currently without
any water, it is recommended that a water line is constructed at ground surface
approximately 40m to the north of the affected area to provide emergency water to
these affected townships in the period before and during sinkhole investigation and
rehabilitation.
 A detailed dolomite stability investigation including a gravity survey and the drilling of
approximately 16 percussion boreholes is urgently required to evaluate subsurface
conditions, determine the extent of the affected area and to provide recommendations
in terms of appropriate rehabilitation.
5.2. Assimilation of Available Data -Information sources
This investigation is initiated by gathering, assimilating and reviewing existing, available

geological, geotechnical, geophysical and geohydrological data pertaining to the site.
5.3. Gravity Surveys
The gravity method is the most widely used remote sensing technique applied on dolomite
land. Variations in the earth’s structure and composition give rise to variations in density.
Indirectly the density variations are determined by measuring the gravity field which allows
the determination of location, form and distribution of causative geological factors.
The gravity survey of a dolomitic terrain can be used to help determine dolomite bedrock
configuration (bedrock topography). The gravity survey of the area under investigation was
conducted on a 10m grid spacing by Geo Focus Geophysical Services on 13 and 14
September 2016. The gravity survey report is presented in Appendix 1.
A relative Bouguer gravity anomaly contour map is produced from field surveys presenting
anomalies of gravity high and low fields and gradient. Once depth of dolomite bedrock on
the Bouguer gravity high, low and gradients are confirmed by drilling, the relative Bouguer
field is adjusted by subtracting a regional field so that the map becomes a better
representation of depth to dolomite bedrock. Removal of the estimated regional field results
in the creation of a residual data set. The residual gravity is displayed on Drawing VGI3737
S21/1.
The gravity survey revealed a prominent west to east trending gravity high field (shallow
dolomite bedrock) directly north of the two sinkholes. The gravity high field is bordered by
a steep gravity gradient, with a gravity low field (deep dolomite bedrock) located in the
southern portion of the investigated area and a second gravity low field in the north-eastern
portion of the investigated area. All of the recorded sinkholes and subsidences appears to
have formed on the steep gravity gradient areas.
5.4. Rotary Percussion Boreholes
A total of nine percussion boreholes (3737 S21-01 to 3737 S21-09) were drilled in the area
surrounding the sinkholes and on gravity anomalies. Two existing boreholes (BH7 and
BH7A) from the Intraconsult Report No. IR 111 BW (dated September 1995) is incorporated
into the current study. The nine boreholes were drilled on 13 and 21 September 2016 by JK
Developments Drilling Contractor.
The positions of the boreholes are displayed on Drawing VGI3737 S21/1. The borehole logs
5
are presented in Appendix 2 and summarised in Table 1.
5.4.1. Borehole Information
JK Developments Drilling Contractor was instructed by VGIconsult to undertake the

drilling programme. Current practice requires that a number of rotary percussion
boreholes should be drilled according to set specifications as outlined below:
5.4.2. Drilling equipment should comprise of the following mobile unit:
a) compressor unit with measured and calibrated constant air delivery rating at
(21,2m³/s (750 cfm) and 1600KPa (16 Bar) minimum or 26,9m³/s (950 cfm) with
2100KPa (21 Bar) maximum; and
b) pneumatic percussion drilling rig with 165mm nominal diameter button bit
capable of drilling in all soil and rock types.
5.4.3. Drilling
a) Representative samples shall be retrieved for every 1m drilled.

b) Boreholes shall be drilled to 60m or 6 m into dolomite bedrock, whichever occurs
first.
c) The depth of groundwater strikes shall be recorded.
d) Hammer rate, sample and air recovery must be recorded, as well as hardness
of the formations drilled.
5.4.4. Sampling
a) Samples should be taken representatively and sufficiently to allow appropriate

visual and tactile analysis.
b) Tags should be included in every bag, recording depth of sample, penetration
time and borehole number. Metres drilled where no sample return is recorded
should also be tagged and bagged.
c) Samples should be filed sequentially in plastic sleeves, with the borehole
number clearly marked on the sleeve.
5.4.5. Drilling depths
Current practice requires that:
a) Boreholes be drilled at least 6 meters into hard rock dolomite;

b) Boreholes be drilled to at least 60 m if dolomite bedrock is not confirmed at
shallower depth;
c) A selection of boreholes are to be drilled into dolomite bedrock on gravity high
anomalies to determine the shallowest bedrock depth (in instances where
dolomite bedrock is anticipated to be very deep (deeper than 60 m),
d) In de-watered areas, a representative selection of boreholes shall be drilled to
100 m or into dolomite bedrock to obtain a perspective of subsurface conditions
below the OWL.
5.4.6. Drill contract details
Drilling work is undertaken using a down-the-hole rotary percussion rig. The drilling
machine is a Thor 5000. The compressor used is an Atlas COPCO (XRVS 476 CD)
and delivers 27,7 m³/min at a pressure of 1900 kPa to a 165 mm diameter hammer
(button bit). The drill operator was J.G. Maluleke. The boreholes drilled during this
investigation were terminated 6m into dolomite bedrock, with the exception of one
borehole (3737 S21-02) where drilling was terminated before that due to difficult
6
drilling conditions. The boreholes were backfilled according to industry guidelines.
5.5. Thickness and depth concepts
In the context of this report the concepts of thickness and depths are used as follows:
Depths
Range in m Appellation
0-2/4 Near-surface
2/4-8/12 Shallow
8/12-16/24 Intermediate
16/24-36/44 Great Depth
More than 40 Very Great Depth
Thicknesses
Range in m Appellation
0-8/12 Thin
8/12-16/24 Intermediate
16/24-36/44 Thick
36/44 and greater Very Thick
5.6. Coordinate System
The X-and Y-coordinates (values) for the boreholes, as reflected in Appendix 2, conform to
the South African Coordinate System as set in the national control survey network
maintained by the Chief Directorate: Surveys and Mapping of the Department of Land
Affairs.
The X-and Y-values are given in metres latitude (7 digit value) and longitude (5 or 6 digit
value). These coordinates are projected using the Gauss Conform Projection which is the
Transverse aspect of the Mercator projection. The reference ellipsoid is the WGS84
(Hartebeeshoek 1994) ellipsoid.
The Central Meridian (longitude of origin or Lo) for this site is 27ºE, with the site as a whole
located west of the Central Meridian. In the South African coordinate system the X
coordinates are measured southwards from the equator (where x = 0) towards the South
Pole which is positive.
Y coordinates are measured from the Central Meridian (CM), increasing from the CM in a
westerly direction so that Y is positive west of the CM and negative east of the CM.
5.7. Map production (projection, co-ordinate system and datum)
The projection information of the figures and drawings in this report are reflected on each
individual figure and drawing and listed below:
Projection surface: Mercator (cylinder)
Projection orientation: Transverse aspect
Datum or reference ellipsoid World Geodetic System 84

(model for the shape of the earth): (as updated in 2004 and valid to 2010)
7
Central Meridian: In degrees (29 for this study)
False easting and northing: Zero degrees
Scale factor: 1
A geographic coordinate system (GCS) uses a three-dimensional spherical surface to

define locations on the earth. A GCS includes an angular unit of measure, a prime meridian,
and a datum (based on a spheroid). Latitude and longitude values are traditionally
measured either in decimal degrees or in degrees, minutes, and seconds (DMS). Latitude
values are measured relative to the equator. Longitude values are measured relative to the
prime meridian. Data defined on a geographic coordinate system is displayed as if a degree
is a linear unit of measure.
Although longitude and latitude can locate exact positions on the surface of the globe, it is
not a uniform unit of measure. The drawings and figures are therefore presented
(coordinated) in metres latitude (7 digit value) and longitude (5 or 6 digit value).
5.8. Hazard Characterisation Procedure
New national standards (Draft SANS 1936) require use of internationally accepted
terminology. The applicable terminology and its definition (with previous term used) are
given below:
1. Hazard
Source of potential harm. Hazard is the function of magnitude (of the events), area,
and frequency.
2. Inherent hazard (Inherent Risk)
A reflection of the geological susceptibility of a karst area to an event (sinkhole or

subsidence). Inherent Hazard is expressed in terms of three broad categories, namely
low, medium and high, typically, but not exclusively, denoting anticipated number of
events per area over time.
3. Inherent hazard class (Inherent Risk Class)
A site is characterised in terms of eight standard inherent hazard classes, denoting

the likelihood of an event (sinkhole or subsidence) occurring as well as its likely size
(diameter). The larger the Inherent Hazard Class (IHC) number, the greater the
likelihood of the event occurring and the larger its potential size should it occur.
4. Hazard rating
The number of events that have occurred over a 20 year period due to human impact.
5. Tolerable hazard rating
The hazard rating is expressed as tolerable where the number of events experienced
is less than and including 0.1 events per hectare per 20 years (preferably tending to
0 per hectare) that is exceeding the return period of 200 years and intolerable where
the number of events experienced exceeds 0.1 events per hectare per 20 years
(return period less than 200 years).
6. Return period
Known as a recurrence interval and is an estimate of the interval of time between

8
events of a certain size.
7. Subsidence
Shallow, enclosed depression. In past South African literature subsidence, as defined

above, is synonymous with doline. The term subsidence is substituted to prevent
contradiction with international literature.
8. Sinkhole
A feature that occurs suddenly and manifests itself as a hole in the ground. In
international literature the term sinkhole is often synonymous with doline.
9. Dolomite land
Land underlain by dolomite or limestone rock directly or at a shallow depth, typically

no more than:
a) 60 m in areas where no de-watering has taken place and the local authority has
jurisdiction, is monitoring and has control over the groundwater levels over the
areas under consideration; or
b) 100 m in areas where de-watering has taken place or where the local authority
has no jurisdiction or control over groundwater levels
10. Event
Occurrence [or change of a particular set of circumstances], in the context of this

standard referring to a sinkhole or subsidence. An event can be one or more
occurrences, and can have several causes. An event can consist of something not
happening. An event can sometimes be referred to as an “incident” or “accident”.
11. Potential loss of support
Refers to the removal of support below the foundation due to a nominal sinkhole or
subsidence event. In proposing suitable foundation types in D3 areas, consideration
should be given to the potential loss of support which could be anticipated for the
designated Inherent Hazard Class based on the nascent1sinkhole size.
The philosophy to be applied to the design of the foundations is that in the event of
catastrophic loss of support, there is sufficient time for occupants to safely escape
after the occurrence of the sinkhole, and the level of expected damage associated
with soil movements unrelated to sinkhole formation in near surface horizons is kept
within reasonable limits.
The hazard characterisation procedure (previously referred to as “risk

characterisation procedure in South African literature) is in accordance with the peer
reviewed paper referenced in Section 3.3 of this report:
The available information, geophysical data, borehole data and geohydrological information
gathered during the investigation has been pooled and reviewed permitting the formulation
of a perspective concerning the characterisation of the stability of the site.
The predominant mobilising agencies considered in this investigation are major

groundwater level fluctuations (>6m), ingress water, ground vibrations and gravity. Use is
1
Adj. beginning to develop
9
made of a generalised list of evaluation factors to evaluate the hazard. These factors are
as follows:
- Receptacle development;
- Mobilising agencies, particularly ingress water from leaking services;
- Potential sinkhole development space;
- Nature of the blanketing layer;
- Mobilisation potential of the blanketing layer;
- Bedrock morphology.
Receptacles or disseminated receptacles refer to any voids or cavities in the dolomite

bedrock or in the overburden capable of receiving mobilised materials. Receptacles are
assumed to be present as no reliable geophysical tool exists to determine the location of
these features. Consequently the information gathered from boreholes, including
penetration times, air loss, hammer action, etc., combined with geophysical and geological
information are used to formulate an impression of the degree of voids.
The potential sinkhole development space, where used, refers to the expected maximum
size sinkhole that conservatively may be anticipated to be generated if sustained ingress of
water were to occur. This factor is related to the depth of the receptacles or disseminated
receptacles. The gravity survey combined with borehole information strongly guides the
appraisal of this factor.
The nature of the material covering the receptacles, be they above or in the bedrock,
determines the susceptibility of the subsurface material to erosion by ingress water. The
presence of materials such as shales or intrusives, which can act as aquitards, serve to
reduce the mobilisation potential and enhance the stability.
In the case of dramatic groundwater level fluctuations the susceptibility of the soil material
to mobilisation (i.e. consolidation settlement -subsidence formation, or ravelling and arch
failure -sinkhole formation, due to pore pressure changes in soils), is strongly influenced by
the position of the original groundwater level in the subsurface profile.
In assessing the susceptibility of a subsurface profile to sinkholes and subsidences due to
groundwater level drawdown, attention is given to the nature and extent of the material
below the groundwater level. For example in the case of compressible dolomite residuum,
as the groundwater recedes, pore pressures in the residual dolomite soils, typically
characterised by high void ratios, gradually dissipate and the effective stress on the soil
increases causing consolidation of the compressible material.
A surface depression may occur gradually due to the load of the near-surface materials on
the deeper lower density materials that settle into a denser state.
The general maximum magnitude of natural groundwater fluctuation in the Gauteng

dolomites is in the order of 5m (Hobbs, 2004; Holland, 2007). Hence artificial groundwater
level drawdown is generally defined as drawdown exceeding 6m.
Experience shows that groundwater level drawdown (beyond seasonal variations) has the
greatest negative impact on dolomite stability in areas of shallow groundwater levels (30m
or shallower) i.e. deeper (>30m) groundwater levels, pose less of a negative impact on
stability, in the event of groundwater level drawdown or dewatering. However, where
groundwater drawdown occurs in areas of deeper groundwater, the size of instability is
typically anticipated to be large to very large.
In view of the factors discussed above the following characteristics have been extracted
from the gathered information during the assessment process:
- borehole position relative to the gravity data.

10
- collar elevation.
- depth to dolomite bedrock.
- depth to potential receptacles.
- depth to present groundwater level.
- nature and thickness of blanketing layer i.e. material type, penetration times, etc.
- position of the bedrock with respect to the present and original groundwater level.
- thickness and nature of the soil materials above and below the present and original
groundwater level.
Inherent hazard is a reflection of the geological susceptibility of karst area to an event

(sinkhole or subsidence formation) and is expressed in three broad categories, namely low,
medium and high. The following reference to incidences, gives a perspective of the
magnitude of problems encountered in each of the of hazard zones in research areas. It is
important to note that these figures are largely derived from developments not effectively
and appropriately designed or maintained.
Inherent
Anticipated events per hectare over time (magnitude of problem)*
Hazard
0 up to and including 0.1 events per hectare anticipated but occurrence of events
LOW
cannot be excluded. Return Period is greater than 200 years.
Greater than 0.1 and less than and equal to 1.0 events per hectare. Return period is
MEDIUM
between 200 and 20 years.
HIGH Greater than 1.0 events anticipated per hectare. Return period is less than 20 years.
* that have occurred per hectare in a 20 year period in the "type" areas (statistics based on poor service
design and maintenance)
The study area is characterised in terms of eight standard Inherent Hazard Classes. These
classes denote the chance of a sinkhole or subsidence occurring as well as its likely size
(diameter).
The terminology used in terms of likely size of an event (sinkhole or subsidence) is defined
as follows:
Maximum diameter of surface

Terminology
manifestation (in metres)
<2 Small-size
2-5 Medium-size
5-15 Large-size
> 15 Very large-size
The larger the Inherent Hazard Class number, the greater the chance of a sinkhole or
subsidence occurring and the larger its potential size should it occur. The meaning/definition
of each Inherent Hazard Class is as follows:
Inherent Hazard
Characterisation of Area
Class
Areas characterised as reflecting a low inherent susceptibility of all
Class 1 Areas
sizes of events occurring.
Areas characterised as reflecting a medium inherent susceptibility of
Class 2 Areas
small-size events occurring.
Class 3 Areas
medium-size events occurring.
Class 4 Areas
large-size events occurring.
11
Inherent Hazard
Characterisation of Area
Class
Areas characterised as reflecting a high inherent susceptibility of small-
Class 5 Areas
size events occurring.
Areas characterised as reflecting a high inherent susceptibility of
Class 6 Areas
medium-size events.
Areas characterised as reflecting a high inherent susceptibility of large-
Class 7 Areas
size events occurring.
Areas characterised as reflecting a high inherent susceptibility of very
Class 8 Areas
large-size events occurring.
NOTE: The event size reflects the predominant anticipated nascent event size.
The definitions above are summaries of the Inherent Hazard Class table presented in the
2001 paper referenced in Section 3.
Inherent Hazard is defined in terms of ingress water and groundwater level drawdown
reflected by two Inherent Hazard Class designations separated by a double forward slash,
i.e.-
Inherent Hazard Class (Ingress water) // Inherent Hazard Class (groundwater level
drawdown)
As an example, a designation of 1//8 indicates that the zone displays a low Inherent Hazard
with respect to water ingress but a high Inherent Hazard with respect to groundwater level
drawdown.
Further combinations may be appropriate:
As an example, a designation of Inherent Hazard Class 1//1/4/8 indicates that the zone
displays a low Inherent Hazard with respect to water ingress but a low to high Inherent
Hazard with respect to groundwater level drawdown.
This definition may, for example, be necessary in cases where groundwater was not
encountered or the original groundwater level is not known and dolomite bedrock could not
be confirmed.
Zones delineated on a site may be combinations of the above. In some instances, the
Inherent Hazard Classes are indicated with the primary zone description given first followed
by a suffix in brackets.
The primary Inherent Hazard Class describes the predominant characterisation of the zone
and the suffix describes the characterisation of anticipated pockets or small subareas within
the zone:
As an example, a designation of Inherent Hazard Class 8(4) indicates that the zone
predominantly displays a high Inherent Hazard for up to very large-size sinkhole and
subsidence formation with anticipated pockets or small sub-areas of Class 4 i.e. displaying
a medium hazard for up to large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation.
Specific commentary should be provided on the impact that the action of ingress water may
have on the soil profile upon lowering of the ground water level or base level of erosion. Does
the susceptibility of the subsurface profile remain unchanged from an ingress of water
perspective or not, as the the groundwater level is lowered and the previously “protected”
profile is exposed? . Example: The lowering of the groundwater level and exposure of a
poor subsurface profile in an area of previously shallow groundwater level designated as
Inherent Hazard Class 3//7, results in a change in susceptibility from medium to high and
the Inherent Hazard Class from 3 to 6 i.e. the Inherent Hazard Class 3//7 will change to
12
Inherent Hazard Class 6//7 once groundwater level drawdown has occurred.
5.9. Dolomite Area Designation
Dolomite Area Designations must be identified on sites located on or near dolomite land
(land where dolomite is located at or near [less than 100 m] ground surface). The definitions
of the Dolomite Area Designations as defined in SANS 1936 Part 1 (2012) are as follows:
Dolomite area
Description
designation
D1 No precautionary measures are required.
General precautionary measures, in accordance with the requirements of SANS
D2 1936-3, that are intended to prevent the concentrated ingress of water into the
ground, are required.
Precautionary measures in addition to those pertaining to the prevention of
D3 concentrated ingress of water into the ground, in accordance with the relevant
requirements of SANS 1936-3, are required.
Development may only be considered provided the following requirements are
met:
 Involvement of Competence Level 4 geo-practitioner in all the categories
of the geotechnical engineering work, i.e. site characterization, analysis
and design, supervision and review, supervision of execution and
management (primary geo-practitioner).
 Review and acceptance of all the categories of the geotechnical
D4 engineering work by a Competence Level 4 peer. This peer reviewer may
not be a business associate of the primary geo-practitioner(s) and may
not have a vested interest in the project.
 All the categories of the geotechnical engineering work to be reviewed
and accepted by the Authority who may request a further review by an
Authority designated Competence Level 4 peer, if required.
 The responsible Local Authority must indicate its commitment to maintain
dolomite risk management principles in accordance with SANS 1936-4.
5.10. Monitoring Designations
According to SANS 1936 Part 4 (2012) Monitoring Designations must be identified and
delineated according to the Inherent Hazard characterisation of the site and knowledge of
problems which could impact on the infrastructure on site. The generic Monitoring Activities
considered appropriate for dolomite site are as follows:
Annotation Activity* Reaction Purpose

Visual inspections of ground,
structures and above ground
infrastructure(e.g. buildings, taps, Any evidence of
gardens, private and public open space cracking or
etc.): ground settlement
 Examine buildings for cracks. should
immediately be Monitor, control
 Visual checks for outside dripping taps
reported and and prevention of
A and pressure valves.
investigated. Any concentrated
 Visual checks for damp or moss grown
evidence of ingress of water
areas.
blockages should
 Visual check for over-wetting of
be reported and
gardens.
cleared
 Visual check for blocked drainage ports immediately.
in garden walls.
 Visual check for cracks in the ground.
13
Annotation Activity* Reaction Purpose

Visual inspection of stormwater
systems:
 Visual checks for debris in open storm
water channels at, for example, the start
of the rainy season and after heavy
B storms.
 Visual checks for water flowing out of
stormwater manholes at the start of the
rainy season and after heavy storms.
 Search for ground cracks and cracks in
lined and unlined channels.
Testing of wet-services for leaks:
 Regular air and water tests on wet- Any leaks to be
services. reported and
C
 In waste water and stormwater pipes repaired
with a diameter greater than 100 mm immediately.
wet-services to be inspected by camera.
Monitoring of structures and ground
levels:
In many instances visual inspections may
not be sufficient: It may be necessary to
Monitor the effects
undertake precision ground-surface Any evidence of
of concentrated
levelling, particularly in areas that have movement must
D ingress of water or
been rehabilitated after a sinkhole or be reported and
groundwater level
subsidence event. Such levelling must be investigated.
drawdown
undertaken by a surveyor, recorded and
stored in the databank and appropriate
actions taken when excessive settlement
continues.
Monitoring of the groundwater level:
This activity not only entails the measuring
and recording of the groundwater level, but
also the analysis and understanding of
groundwater level trends over time and the
control of excessive [beyond seasonal
fluctuations] groundwater level drawdown:
 Drill and equip strategic boreholes with
the necessary equipment to measure
the groundwater level. Evidence of
lowering must be Monitor, control
 Recorded groundwater level, monitoring
reported to and prevention of
E well number, date and other relevant
Council and the groundwater level
observations.
Department of drawdown
Water Affairs.
 Analyse groundwater level trend over
time on a regular basis.
 Report artificial/excessive groundwater
level drawdown to Council and the
Department of Water Affairs.
 Investigate cause of artificial/excessive
groundwater level drawdown.
 Arrest artificial/excessive groundwater
level drawdown.
*If there is no evidence of a particular problem, this result should be recorded.
The Frequency with which each Activity is to be performed is selected from the following
categories:
14
Annotation Frequency
()DAILY Activities to be undertaken daily.
()WEEKLY Activities to be undertaken weekly.
()¹ Activities to be undertaken once a month.
()³ Activities to be undertaken quarterly.
()6 Activities to be undertaken bi-annually.
()¹² Activities to be undertaken annually.
()24 Activities to be undertaken once every two years.
()NA NO ACTION REQUIRED
()tbd TO BE DETERMINED
Areas of ‘no dolomite hazard’ require no monitoring from a dolomite risk management
perspective. No action is required to lower the risk of dolomite-related instability, as these
areas are not located on dolomite land. For example, portions of sites located on granite
rock or Witwatersrand Supergroup rocks. Such areas may be designated as (ABCDE)0.
Areas of ‘low hazard’, for example Inherent Hazard Class 1 areas, are assigned a low
priority and require basic monitoring and maintenance activities at long intervals, for
example, where a site straddles very thick Karoo Supergroup rocks (in excess of 40 metres).
The site or portion thereof may, for example, be designated as (ABC)24D0E12 indicating that
all identified activities which control ingress water need only be undertaken once every two
years, precision structure-and ground levelling not being required and groundwater level
monitoring being required at long intervals.
However, where such rocks overlie dolomite residuum below the original groundwater level
a designation of (ABC)24D0E3 may apply, indicating that activities which control the ingress
of concentrated water remain necessary once every two years but groundwater level
monitoring is critical and should be undertaken quarterly.
Areas of ‘high hazard’, for example Inherent Hazard Class 5, 3(5), 3/6 and therefore high
priority in terms of monitoring and maintenance, should receive attention more frequently.
These areas require stringent monitoring and maintenance activities at short intervals.
Such areas are typically characterised by:
o Metastable subsurface conditions or latent sinkhole formation.

o High Inherent Hazard conditions.
o Poor subsurface conditions e.g. cavities, cavernous conditions, sample or air loss.
o Previous sinkhole or subsidence formation.
o Palaeo-sinkhole or palaeo-subsidence structures.
o Geological contact areas.
o Fault zones.
o Shallow dolomite groundwater above dolomite bedrock.
o Anticipated ground settlement or
o Ponding of water, etc.
For example, an area in which various sinkholes have already been reported and where the
area is designated as high hazard or even medium to high hazard from an ingress of water
perspective a ABC3 or even (AB)daily (D)3 designation may apply, indicating the need to
undertake activities controlling ingress of water quarterly, or even daily. A further example
may be, an area in which various sinkholes have already been reported and where the area
is designated as high hazard from a groundwater level drawdown perspective. In such a
case a (ABC)12D0E3 designation may apply, indicating the need to undertake activities to
monitor groundwater fluctuations and drawdown quarterly.
15
5.11. SANS 1936-1: Table 1, SANS 1936 Part 1 (2012)
According to SANS 1936 Part 1 (2012) the development types suitable for the eight
standard Inherent Hazard Classes are summarised as follows:
Inherent Land Usage Permitted with Dolomite Area

Hazard Land Usage Type Designation and footprint investigation
Class requirement in terms of Deemed-To-Satisfy
C1 (D3 + FPI), C2 (D3 + FPI), C3 (D2 + FPI), C4
Commercial and miscellaneous
(D2 + FPI), C5 (D2 + DLI), C6 (D2 + DLI), C7 (D2),
non-residential usage
C8 (D2)
1 High rise dwelling units RH2 (D2 + FPI), RH3 (D2 + FPI)
Low rise dwelling units RL1 (D2 + FPI), RL2 (D2 + FPI)
Dwelling houses RN1 (D2), RN2 (D2), RN3 (D2)
C1 (D3 + FPI), C2 (D3 + FPI), C3 (D3 + FPI),
C4(D3 + FPI), C5 (D3 + DLI), C6 (D3 + DLI), C7
(D3+ FPI), C8 (D3)
2 High rise dwelling units RH3 (D3 + FPI)
Low rise dwelling units RL1 (D2 + FPI), RL2 (D2 + FPI)
Dwelling houses RN1 (D3), RN2 (D3), RN3 (D3)
Commercial and miscellaneous C1 (D3 + FPI), C2 (D3 + FPI), C3 (D3 + FPI), C5
non-residential usage (D3 + DLI), C6 (D3 + DLI), C7 (D3 + FPI), C8 (D3)
Low rise dwelling units RL2 (D3 + FPI)
Dwelling houses RN2 (D3), RN3 (D3)
Dwelling houses RN2 (D3), RN3 (D3)
Dwelling houses RN3 (D3 + FPI)
Commercial and miscellaneous C2 (D3 + FPI), C3 (D3 + FPI), C6 (D3 + DLI) , C7
non-residential usage (D3 + FPI), C8 (D3)
6 High rise dwelling units NA
Low rise dwelling units NA
Dwelling houses NA
C6 (D3 + DLI)
Dwelling houses NA
NA
Dwelling houses NA
16
Land
Use Definitions
Class
Commercial and miscellaneous non-residential usage
C1 Places of detention, police stations, and institutional homes for the handicapped or aged
C2 Hospitals, hostels, hotels
Commercial developments ≤ 3 storeys, including railway stations, shops, wholesale
stores, offices, places of worship, theatrical, indoor sports or public assembly venues,
C3 other institutional land uses, such as universities, schools, colleges, libraries, exhibition
halls and museums, light (dry) industrial developments, dry manufacturing, commercial
uses such as warehousing, packaging, electrical sub-stations, filling stations
Commercial developments > 3 storeys, including railway stations, shops, wholesale
stores, offices, places of worship, theatrical, indoor sports or public assembly venues,
C4 other institutional land uses, such as universities, schools, colleges, libraries, exhibition
halls and museums, light (dry) industrial developments, dry manufacturing, commercial
uses such as warehousing, packaging, electrical sub-stations
C5 Fuel depots, processing plants or any other areas for the storage of liquids, waste sites
C6 Outdoor storage facilities, stock yards, container depots
C7 Parking garages
C8 Parking areas
High rise dwelling units
RH1 > 10 storeys
RH2 > 3 storeys with a population of ≤ 1 500 people per hectare
> 3 storeys with a residential coverage ratio of ≤ 0,4, no higher than 10 storeys, and a
RH3
population of ≤ 800 people per hectare
Low rise dwelling units
≤ 3 storeys with 80 to 120 units per hectare and a population not exceeding 600 people
RL1
per hectare
≤ 3 storeys with up to 80 units per hectare and a population not exceeding 400 people per
RL2
hectare
Dwelling houses
Up to 60 dwelling houses per hectare with stands larger than 150 m2, and a population of
RN1
≤ 300 people per hectare
Up to 25 dwelling houses per hectare with stands no smaller than 300 m 2, and a
RN2
population of ≤ 200 people per hectare
Up to 10 dwelling houses per hectare with 1 000 to 4 000 m 2 stands, and a population of
RN3
≤ 60 people per hectare
Infrastructure and social facilities Inherent hazard class determined in accordance

with the requirements of SANS 1936-2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Designation Description
Dolomite area designation
IN1 Trunk roads (national and
regional roads which
facilitate intercity travel) and
primary distributor roads
(major arterial roads forming
the primary network for an D2 D3 D4
urban area as a whole),
railway lines, power lines,
runways, bulk pipelines,
including water, sewer, fuel
and gas lines, pump stations
17
IN2 Reservoirs and public

swimming pools, water care
works, attenuation and
D2 D3 D4
retention ponds for
stormwater management
and artificial lakes
IN3 Cemeteries D3 D4
IN4 Dams, slimes dams D3 D4
IN5 Solid waste disposal
D3 D4
facilities
6. GEOLOGY AND GEOHYDROLOGY
6.1. General Geology
The site is underlain by chert and dolomite of the Eccles Formation, Malmani Subgroup of
the Chuniespoort Group, Transvaal Supergroup with the possibility of intrusive materials in
the form of dykes.
The various lithological units and their weathered derivatives, recorded on the site are as
follows:
Lithostratigraphic Unit Lithology

Intrusive Syenite and associated soil derivatives.
Eccles Formation, Malmani Subgroup,
Dolomite, chert and associated soil derivatives.
Chuniespoort Group, Transvaal Supergroup
Unconsolidated materials deemed to be various recent deposits (most likely 24 Ma

[Miocene Epoch] and younger) are anticipated to mantle the hard rock geology (and residual
product thereof). The material varies in thickness, sedimentological- and geotechnical
properties:
Post-Gondwana Deposits
Colluvium Soils of sandy, silty or clayey composition or gravels
6.2. Local Geology
A summary of the material intercepted in boreholes drilled on the site is reported here for
ease of reference (explanations of letters, symbols and abbreviations are given in Table 1):
Blanketing Layer
(m) – (m)
Chert Residual
Dolomite Residuum
Residuum Syenite
BH No. (Collar Elev. Dolomite
Highly
Ferroan Soils
Colluvium
m AMSL) Bedrock
weathered
Manganiferous
dolomite
Fines
Soils
subordinate (m) – (m)

(m) – (m)
(m AMSL)
3737 S21/1 25-30

- 0-1 1-6 6-15 - 15-25
(1570) (1545)
3737 S21/2 >46
- 0-30 - 30-46 - -
(1569) (<1523)
3737 S21/3 4-13 24-30
- 0-4 13-15 -
(1568) - 15-24 (1544)
3737 S21/4 24-30
- 0-1 - - - 1-24
(1568) (1544)
18
Blanketing Layer
(m) – (m)
Chert Residual
Dolomite Residuum
Residuum Syenite
Highly
Ferroan Soils
Colluvium
m AMSL) Bedrock
weathered
Manganiferous
dolomite
Fines
Soils
subordinate (m) – (m)
(m) – (m)
(m AMSL)
3737 S21/5 14-20

- - - - - 0-14
(1568) (1554)
3737 S21/6 9-15
- 0-1 1-3 - - 3-9
(1570) (1561)
3737 S21/7 - 29-35
- 0-8 - 8-21 21-29
(1568) (1539)
3737 S21/8 5-7 - 34-40
- 0-5 7-18 23-34
(1568) 18-23 (1534)
3737 S21/9 14-20
- 0-2 - - 2-14
(1570) - (1556)
BH 7 >30
0-3 - - 3->30 -
(1565) - (<1535)
BH 7A 2-16 >30
0-2 - - -
(1568) 17->30 16-17 (<1538)
o Colluvium
Colluvium is intercepted from near surface, only in Boreholes BH7 and BH7A. The
horizon is thin (2m to 3m) or absent.
o Residual syenite
Residual syenite is intercepted from an intermediate depth, only in Borehole BH 7A.

The horizon is thin (1m) or absent.
o Chert residuum
Chert residuum (fines subordinate) is typically intercepted from near surface. The
horizons are thin (1m to 8m), the exception is Borehole 3737 S21-02 comprising of a
thick (30m) horizon.
o Dolomite residuum (ferroan and manganiferous material)
Dolomite residuum (ferroan material) is intercepted from near surface to intermediate

depth. The horizons are thin to intermediate thick (2m to 14m).
Dolomite residuum (manganiferous material /wad) is intercepted from near surface to

a great depth. The horizons are thin to very thick (9m to >27m).
o Problematic conditions in the overburden above the groundwater level:
The OWL of 145m (or 1424m AMSL) is located within dolomite bedrock. Problematic
conditions (sample and/or air loss) were encountered during the drilling programme
within the chert residuum, dolomite residuum, highly weathered dolomite and dolomite
bedrock.
Cavernous conditions including disseminated voids are intercepted in four of the

boreholes drilled, i.e. 3737 S21/01 (6m to 12m), 3737 S21/02 (>46m), 3737 S21/07
(9m to 18m) and 3737 S21/08 (12m to 18m) all within dolomite residuum
(manganiferous soils).
o Dolomite bedrock conditions:

19
Dolomite bedrock is considered to be the depth at which hard, unweathered dolomite

rock is confirmed (i.e. no less than 6 m of unweathered rock). Dolomite bedrock is
confirmed at shallow to very great depths (9m to >46m).
Highly weathered soft rock dolomite is intercepted from near surface to intermediate
depths (from ground surface to 34m) typically above hard rock dolomite. The horizons
are thin to intermediate thick (6m to 23m).
6.3. Geohydrology
A desktop hydrogeological investigation and situation assessment was undertaken by

Water Geoscience Consulting (WGC) on a number of dolomitic areas in 2009. According to
the WGC Dolomite Hydrogeological Compartment Map (2009) the site is located in the
Boskop-Turffontein Dolomite Groundwater Management Area.
The regional groundwater level (OWL), as recorded in the SCTC archives, is anticipated at
a depth of 1424m AMSL to 1425m AMSL (or 145m) within this portion of the Boskop-
Turffontein Dolomite Groundwater Compartment, taking the average ground elevation on
the site as 1570m AMSL. The regional dolomite groundwater information is presented in
Figure 4.
A groundwater level of 1424m AMSL (or 145m) is considered for the dolomite hazard
assessment of the site. All the boreholes were recorded as “dry” 24 hours after drilling and
the groundwater level is located within dolomite bedrock (<1523m ASML to 1561m AMSL).
6.4. Past Sinkholes and Subsidences
The area in a radius of 750m of the current two sinkholes is earmarked by the occurrence
of a number of sinkholes in the past. The following sinkholes had been reported:
 Sinkhole located 200m north of the two current sinkholes, reported in 1989. The size
and depth of the sinkhole is unknown.
 Two sinkholes (dimensions unknown) reported in 1993, located approximately 700m

south of the current sinkholes.
 Sinkhole of 11m diameter size extending to a depth of 8m directly west of the Eastern
Ada Reservoir, reported on 3 July 2008.
 Small sinkhole (< 2m diameter) extending to an unknown depth, located 30m north of
the Western Ada Reservoir on the supply line to Carletonville, reported on 3 July 2008.
 Sinkhole of 14m diameter size extending to a depth of 6m, located approximately 80m
north of the Ada Reservoirs, reported on 3 July 2008.
 Two sinkholes, each measuring approximately 14m in diameter (unknown depth) and
two subsidences, measuring between 12m to 18m in diameter is observed on Google
Map. The four instability features is located approximately 100m west of the current
two sinkholes within the area of the canal along the tailings dam.
The location of previous sinkholes and subsidences in relation to the current sinkholes are
presented in Figure 2.
20
7. DOLOMITE HAZARD CHARACTERISATION
7.1. Site investigation and Dolomite Hazard Assessment Procedures
The site investigation procedures are presented in Sections 5.1 to 5.4 of this report. The
dolomite hazard assessment procedures are presented in Section 5.8.
Summarised information concerning the hazard characterisation of the site is provided in

Table 1 of this report and the dolomite hazard zonation is displayed on Drawing VGI3737
S21/1.
7.2. Hazard Characterisation of the site
Based on the current data gathered, the site is characterised in terms of two primary
Inherent Hazard Class area, namely:
 Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: Dolomite Inherent Hazard Class 7/8//1 defined as an area
characterised as largely reflecting a high susceptibility of large to very large-size
sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water and a low
susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to
groundwater drawdown. In the event of groundwater level drawdown the Inherent
Hazard Class remains unchanged.
 Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: Dolomite Inherent Hazard Class 3/4//1 defined as an area
characterised as largely reflecting a medium susceptibility of medium to large-size
sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water and a low
susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to
groundwater drawdown. In the event of groundwater level drawdown the Inherent
Hazard Class remains unchanged.
a) Blanketing layer
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1

Blanketing Layer
(m) – (m)
Chert Residuum Dolomite Residuum Residual
Syenite
Ferroan Soils
Highly
Colluvium
m AMSL) Bedrock
Manganiferous
weathered
dolomite
Fines subordinate
Soils
(m) – (m)
(m) – (m)
(m AMSL)
3737 S21/1 25-30

- 0-1 1-6 6-15 - 15-25
(1570) (1545)
3737 S21/2 >46
- 0-30 - 30-46 - -
(1569) (<1523)
3737 S21/7 - 29-35
- 0-8 - 8-21 21-29
(1568) (1539)
3737 S21/8 5-7 - 34-40
- 0-5 7-18 23-34
(1568) 18-23 (1534)
BH 7 >30
0-3 - - 3->30 -
(1565) - (<1535)
o Colluvium: Intercepted from near surface, only in Borehole BH7. The horizon is thin
(3m) or absent.
o Chert residuum: Is typically intercepted from near surface. The horizons are thin (1m
to 8m), the exception is Borehole 3737 S21-02 comprising of a thick (30m) horizon.

21

depth. The horizons are thin (2m to 5m).
Dolomite residuum (manganiferous material /wad) is intercepted from shallow to great

depths. The horizons are thin to very thick (9m to >27m).
conditions (sample and/or air loss) were encountered during the drilling programme
within the chert residuum, dolomite residuum, highly weathered dolomite and dolomite
bedrock.
Cavernous conditions including disseminated voids are intercepted in four of the

boreholes drilled, i.e. 3737 S21/01 (6m to 12m), 3737 S21/02 (>46m), 3737 S21/07
(9m to 18m) and 3737 S21/08 (12m to 18m) all within dolomite residuum
(manganiferous soils).
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2

Blanketing Layer
(m) – (m)
Chert Residual
Dolomite Residuum
Residuum Syenite
Ferroan Soils
Colluvium
m AMSL) Highly weathered Bedrock
Manganiferous
dolomite
Fines
Soils
subordinate (m) – (m) (m) – (m)
(m AMSL)
3737 S21/3 4-13 24-30

- 0-4 13-15 -
(1568) - 15-24 (1544)
3737 S21/4 24-30
- 0-1 - - - 1-24
(1568) (1544)
3737 S21/5 14-20
- - - - - 0-14
(1568) (1554)
3737 S21/6 9-15
- 0-1 1-3 - - 3-9
(1570) (1561)
3737 S21/9 14-20
- 0-2 - - 2-14
(1570) - (1556)
BH 7A 2-16 >30
0-2 - - -
(1568) 17->30 16-17 (<1538)
o Colluvium: Intercepted from near surface, only in Borehole BH7A. The horizon is thin
(2m) or absent.
o Residual syenite: Intercepted from an intermediate depth, only in Borehole BH 7A.

The horizon is thin (1m).
o Chert residuum: Is typically intercepted from near surface. The horizons are thin (1m
to 4m).

depth. The horizons are thin to intermediate thick (2m to 14m).
Dolomite residuum (manganiferous material /wad) is not encountered in any of the

boreholes drilled in this zone.

22
conditions (sample and/or air loss) were only encountered in Borehole 3737 S21/09
within the chert residuum (0m to 2m). No cavernous conditions or disseminated voids
are intercepted in any of the boreholes drilling in this zone.
b) Dolomite Bedrock
Dolomite bedrock is considered to be the depth at which hard, unweathered dolomite

rock is confirmed (i.e. no less than 6 m of unweathered rock).
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: Dolomite bedrock is confirmed at intermediate to very great

depths at <1523m AMSL to 1545m AMSL (or 25m to >46m below ground surface). It
should be noted that dolomite bedrock was not encountered in Boreholes 3737
S21/02 at 46m (or 1523m AMSL) and BH7 at 30m (or 1535m AMSL) below ground
surface. Thin horizons (8m to 11m) highly weathered soft rock dolomite is
encountered from an intermediate depth of 15m to 23m.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: Dolomite bedrock is encountered at 1544m AMSL to

1561m AMSL (or 9m to 24m below ground surface). It should be noted that dolomite
bedrock was not encountered in Borehole BH7A at 30m (or 1538m AMSL). Thin to
intermediate thick horizons (6m to 23m) highly weathered soft rock dolomite is
encountered from ground surface to an intermediate depth of 15m.
c) Hazard Characterisation
The site is characterized by the following conditions:
i. Blanketing layer
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The blanketing layer consists typically of chert

residuum underlain by dolomite residuum (ferroan and manganiferous soils)
and highly weathered soft rock dolomite. It should be noted that colluvium was
encountered above the chert residuum in Borehole BH7 to the west of the
sinkhole. The chert residuum and dolomite residuum horizons exhibit rapid
penetration times during drilling and a high manganese content (wad) within the
dolomite residuum horizon with sample and air loss. Disseminated receptacles
are recorded above the OWL within dolomite residuum in Boreholes 3737
S21/01 (between 6m to 12m), 3737S21/02 (>46m), 3737 S21/07 (between 9m
to 18m) and 3737 S21/08 (between 12m and 18m). Prolonged ingress of water
(leaking wet services) did lead to subsurface erosion and the formation of a 20m
diameter size sinkhole extending to a depth of 4m and a second sinkhole of 6m
diameter size extending to a depth of 6m.
Groundwater drawdown will occur at a great depth (145m below ground surface
or 1424m AMSL) within dolomite bedrock (25m to >46m depth).
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The blanketing layer consists typically of chert

residuum underlain by dolomite residuum (ferroan soils) and highly weathered
soft rock dolomite. It should be noted that colluvium was encountered above the
chert residuum in Borehole BH7A to the east of the sinkhole and residual syenite
was encountered within the dolomite residuum layer in Borehole BH7A. The
chert residuum and dolomite residuum horizons exhibit moderate to rapid
penetration times during drilling with an absence of high manganese content
(wad) within the dolomite residuum horizon. Air loss was only encountered in
Borehole 3737 S21/09 within the chert residuum (0m to 2m). No cavities or
disseminated receptacles are recorded in any of the boreholes drilled in this
zone. Prolonged ingress of water (leaking wet services) may however lead to
23
subsurface erosion and the formation of sinkholes and subsidences.
Groundwater drawdown will occur at a great depth (145m below ground surface
or 1424m AMSL) within dolomite bedrock (9m to >30m depth).
ii. Potential Development Space
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The depth to the groundwater level (145m) and
potential receptacles characterises the Potential Development Space (PDS) as
mainly large to very large.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The depth to the groundwater level (145m) and
potential receptacles characterises the Potential Development Space (PDS) as
mainly medium to large.
iii. Hazard Classification (with Ingress of Water as a Triggering Mechanism)
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The typical subsurface profile consists of a thin to

thick (1m to 30m) horizon of chert residuum (fines subordinate), typically
characterised by moderate to good internal drainage characteristics. The thin
(2m to 5m) dolomite residuum (ferroan soils) horizon intercepted from near
surface to intermediate depth and the underlying thin to very thick (9m to >27m)
dolomite residuum (manganiferous soils) horizon intercepted from shallow to
great depths is anticipated to have a high mobilization potential. Cavernous
conditions including disseminated voids are intercepted within the blanketing
layer dolomite residuum (manganiferous soils) in four of the five boreholes
drilled, sample and air losses were recorded. The thin colluvium horizon
intercepted from near surface, only in Borehole BH7, is typically characterized
by moderate internal drainage characteristics. The subsurface conditions are
characterised as largely reflecting a high susceptibility of large to very large-size
sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water, i.e. Inherent
Hazard Class 7/8.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The typical subsurface profile consists of a thin (1m
to 4m) horizon of chert residuum (fines subordinate), typically characterised by
moderate to good internal drainage characteristics. The thin to intermediate
thick (2m to 14m) dolomite residuum (ferroan soils) horizon intercepted from
near surface to intermediate depth is anticipated to have a moderate to high
mobilization potential. Dolomite residuum (manganiferous soils), cavernous
conditions including disseminated voids or sample losses were not recorded in
any of the boreholes drilled. The thin colluvium horizon intercepted from near
surface, only in Borehole BH7A, is typically characterized by moderate internal
drainage characteristics. The thin (1m) residual syenite horizon with a low
mobilization potential and poor internal drainage characteristics, encountered
from an intermediate depth in Borehole BH7A, does not act as a barrier layer
due to its general absence in other boreholes and the thickness of the horizon.
The subsurface conditions are characterised as largely reflecting a medium
susceptibility of medium to large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with
respect to ingress water, i.e. Inherent Hazard Class 3/4.
iv. Hazard Classification (with Groundwater Drawdown as a Triggering

Mechanism)
Groundwater is anticipated at a depth of 145m or an elevation of 1424m AMSL.

The groundwater level is therefore confirmed within dolomite bedrock within all
the boreholes drilled.
24
The susceptibility to sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to

groundwater level drawdown is therefore considered to be low as the
groundwater level is within dolomite bedrock. Consequently the study area is
designated as an Inherent Hazard Class 1 with respect groundwater level
drawdown.
v. Impact of Lowering of the Groundwater Level/Base of Erosion on the

Action of Water Ingress
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: In the event of groundwater level drawdown the

Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged i.e. IHC 7/8.
Dolomite Hazard Class 2: In the event of groundwater level drawdown the

Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged i.e. IHC 3/4.
vi. Composite Hazard Classification
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The composite hazard classification is Inherent

Hazard Class 7/8//1, defined as an area characterised as largely reflecting a
high susceptibility of large to very large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation
with respect to ingress water and a low susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and
subsidence formation with respect to groundwater drawdown.
In the event that the groundwater level is drawdown significantly (6m or more),
the hazard classification with respect to ingress of water remains the same i.e.
Inherent Hazard Class 7/8.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The composite hazard classification is Inherent

Hazard Class 3/4//1, defined as an area characterised as largely reflecting a
medium susceptibility of medium to large-size sinkhole and subsidence
formation with respect to ingress water and a low susceptibility of all-size
sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to groundwater drawdown.
In the event that the groundwater level is drawdown significantly (6m or more),
the hazard classification with respect to ingress of water remains the same i.e.
Inherent Hazard Class 3/4.
d) Design Hazard Class for rehabilitation works
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: The provisional Design Hazard Class is 7.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: The provisional Design Hazard Class is 3.
8. CONCLUSIONS
8.1. Results of the borehole drilling programme
The boreholes drilled on site intercept a thin (2m to 3m) horizon of colluvium in Boreholes
BH7 and BH7A, whilst this horizon is absent in all other boreholes. A thin (1m to 8m) horizon
of chert residuum (fines subordinate) with the exception of Borehole 3737 S21/02 located
to the south of the sinkhole area where a thick (30m) horizon of chert residuum is
encountered. A thin (1m) horizon of residual syenite is encountered in Borehole BH7A to
the east of the sinkhole. A thin to intermediate thick horizon of dolomite residuum-ferroan
soils (2m to 14m) occurs from near surface to intermediate depth. This is underlain by thin
to very thick horizons of dolomite residuum-manganiferous soils/wad (9m to >27m) from
near surface to great depth in boreholes located to the south of the sinkhole area.
25
Disseminated voids are intercepted within the blanketing layer dolomite residuum
(manganiferous soils) in four of the eleven boreholes drilled, all located to the south of the
sinkhole. Sample and air losses are recorded in the chert residuum, dolomite residuum,
highly weathered dolomite rock and in dolomite bedrock.
Disseminated receptacles and cavernous conditions are recorded above the OWL within
dolomite residuum (wad) in Boreholes 3737 S21/01 (between 6m to 12m), 3737S21/02
(>46m), 3737 S21/07 (between 9m to 18m) and 3737 S21/08 (between 12m and 18m). All
these boreholes are located to the south of the sinkhole area.
Dolomite bedrock is intercepted at 24m (3737 S21/03 and 04) to the west of the sinkholes;
at 9m to 14m (3737 S21/05 and 06) to the north of the sinkholes; at 14m to 25m (3737
S21/01 and 09) to the east of the sinkholes; at 29m to >46m (3737 S21/02, /07 and /08) to
the south of the sinkholes.
The dolomite groundwater level at 145m (or 1424m AMSL) is within dolomite bedrock.
A 20m diameter size sinkhole extending to a depth of approximately 4m and a second

sinkhole (6m in diameter extending to a depth of approximately 6m) occurred within a radius
of 30m on the 90 degree bend of a 1m diameter water supply steel pipe, located above
ground and approximately 170m west of the Ada Reservoirs, on 31 July 2016. It is
anticipated that subsurface erosion of highly erodible dolomite residuum (wad) material was
initially triggered by a leak on the water supply line over an extended period of time. As a
result of the initial leak, the water supply lines settled and failure of the wet services
occurred, leading to the formation of a very large and large sinkhole.
Water expelled under high pressure from a leaking water line will typically cause the erosion
of highly erodible and compressible dolomite residuum (wad) and the formation of a cavity
or erosion tunnel. Disseminated voids were intercepted in four of the nine boreholes during
the drilling programme. An additional contributing factor is run-off surface water originating
during heavy rains entering the sinkhole area further eroding subsurface materials.
It should be noted that continuous and prolonged leaking wet services and surface water
run-off water into the highly susceptible sinkhole areas will aggravate the situation, including
the enlargement of the sinkhole laterally and vertically potentially affecting a larger portion
of the water supply line.
8.2. Dolomite Hazard Characterisation and Suitability of the site for the current land use
The geotechnical data gathered during this investigation permits the dolomite hazard
characterisation of the site in accordance with SANS 1936 (2012). Accordingly, the following
Inherent Hazard Class areas had been identified on the site:
Dolomite Hazard Zone 1: Area characterised as largely reflecting a high susceptibility of

large to very large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water,
and a low susceptibility of all-large size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to
groundwater drawdown. Composite Inherent Hazard Class 7/8//1. In the event of
groundwater level drawdown the Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged.
Dolomite Hazard Zone 2: Area characterised as largely reflecting a medium susceptibility

of medium to large-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to ingress water,
and a low susceptibility of all-size sinkhole and subsidence formation with respect to
groundwater drawdown. Composite Inherent Hazard Class 3/4//1. In the event of
groundwater level drawdown the Inherent Hazard Class remains unchanged.
26
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
The measures and recommendations outlined below are aimed at reducing the likelihood of a re-
occurrence of a sinkhole or a subsidence in the affected area. Recommendations are based on
experience gained during the investigation and rehabilitation of more than 100 instability features
(sinkholes and subsidences) in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM), City of Tshwane
and West Rand District Area.
9.1. Rehabilitation of Sinkhole Areas and related wet services
Based on the problematic profile intercepted during these investigations, improvement of

the subsurface conditions will require the use of the Inverted Filter Method and a
Compaction Grouting (i.e. backfilling) programme to rehabilitate the affected area, including
two sinkholes, a larger subsidence area and erosion voids at depth. The proposed
rehabilitation area is displayed on Drawing VGI3737 S21/2.
All services, including wet services (water) and electrical will need to be located prior to
commencement of works. These services will need to be relocated beyond the area of
works.
9.1.1. Safety precautions and site establishment
The following procedures are recommended:
 Construct a temporary 1,8m high diamond fence around the proposed

rehabilitation site and construction camp. Provide lockable access gates for
each. The site shall be safeguarded by a 24-hour security service.
 Establish base camp and security services.
 Provide temporary chemical toilets for workers.
 Determine the locality, depth, diameter and material type of all affected services
(i.e. water and possibly electrical). Relocate affected services to outside the area
of works if practically feasible.
 Obtain wet services layout plans from Merafong Local Municipality for the
proposed rehabilitation areas. Obtain way leaves from the various service
providers for the affected area, before any work commence.
 Ensure that the safety file is in order before any work commences. The Safety
Officer will be permanently on site during the period of rehabilitation. Personnel
and construction crews are to be informed of the hazardous conditions pertaining
to working in and around the sinkhole areas.
 The personnel and construction crews are to be made aware of the need to report
new surface cracks, voids, any ground movement or sudden changes in soil
conditions. If such features are reported, the Resident Engineer should
immediately clear the site and inspect the conditions. If uncertain of the
implications of the reported conditions the Engineer should request inspection by
a dolomite specialist.
 Personnel and construction workers executing work in and around the sinkhole
are to be strapped in harnesses and safety ropes secured away from the sinkhole
and excavation area or suspended from a crane or excavator parked in a safe
position away from the feature.
27
 All mandatory safety procedures and requirements pertaining to working in

excavations are to be applied. Use of independently attached harnesses is
mandatory when workers are in the excavation. The Engineer is to ascertain the
need for shoring and identify those areas of the Works where shoring is to be
provided to ensure the safety of workers and equipment. An inspection of the bulk
excavated area shall be conducted by the Engineer each day before workers
enters the excavated area as part of the safety precautionary measures.
 Place a soil berm around proposed area of rehabilitation to the north and east
to prevent any surface runoff water entering the sinkhole area.
9.1.2. Soil improvements
Improvement of subsoil conditions by means of the Inverted Filter Method and

replacement of sub-surface services (water and possibly electrical)
Improvement of the affected area (sinkholes and subsidence area) will require the use
of the Inverted Filter Method.
The recommended rehabilitation procedure will be to remove all material to a

maximum depth of 6m below ground surface, covering a surface area of 40m by 40m.
Over-excavate a 20m by 20m and 5m by 5m area, with the two sinkholes central to
the over-excavated areas down to a depth of 12m. Benching may be required at a
depth of 6m creating a 2m wide terrace. Create a lip or bench 1m wide and 1m deep
around the margin of the final excavation to create a protective umbrella over the
contact zone between made earth and the virgin soil during backfilling. Excavation
should start from the north-east of the sinkhole area extending towards the south.
Excavation slopes from ground surface to 8m depth should be 1:1 (V:H) and from 8m
to 12m vertical. An access ramp should be provided from the north-east.
All mandatory safety procedures and requirements pertaining to working in

excavations are to be applied as outlined in Section 9.1.1. The Contractor’s Engineer
must be satisfied with safety at all times.
Backfilling of the excavation should involve blocking of the throats (if intercepted) with
large boulders and stones filled with soilcrete compacted with an impact roller in 1m
lifts up to 6m from ground surface. This should be followed by backfilling with low
plasticity material: Cobbles/sandy gravels in 300mm thick layers up to a depth of 1,5m
below ground surface (the first three layers should be stabilized with 3% cement),
followed with silty/gravely sand (G5-quality material) in 150mm thick layers up to
ground level. Compaction should at least be 95% of Modified AASHTO maximum dry
density at optimum moisture. The upper two 150mm layers should be compacted at
least to 98% of Modified AASHTO maximum dry density at optimum moisture content
and extending 1m beyond the excavated area. Provision should be made in the bill of
quantities for testing of layer works to determine if the required compaction has been
reached.
Stabilisation of side walls closest to structures must be provided to prevent damage.
All subsurface services (HDPE pipes, butt welded) can be placed during the backfilling
of the excavation.
Reconnect all new wet services.
Landscape the area to promote surface water run-off.

28
Improvement of subsoil conditions by means of a backfill grouting programme
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the drilling programme

around the sinkholes, the dolomite bedrock is dipping at a steep gradient towards the
south. Dolomite bedrock is encountered at a depth of 25m to >46m to the south of the
sinkholes.
Disseminated receptacles and cavernous conditions are recorded above the OWL
within dolomite residuum (wad) in Boreholes 3737 S21/01 (between 6m to 12m),
3737S21/02 (>46m), 3737 S21/07 (between 9m to 18m) and 3737 S21/08 (between
12m and 18m). All these boreholes are located to the south of the sinkhole area.
Based on the above findings, improvement of the subsurface conditions will require a
backfill grouting programme to fill erosion voids or zones of wet, very soft dolomite
residuum (wad), intercepted in boreholes to the south of the sinkhole area.
Multi stage grouting should be planned at a series of primary and secondary points,
with the possibility of a tertiary stage if found necessary. All the primary points will be
drilled first on a 3m grid spacing, followed by the secondary points some days later.
The secondary points will be positioned midway between the primary points.
The grouting of each point will be carried out from the bottom up, which is referred to
as upstage grouting, or a combination of methods may be required also including
downstage grouting. The pumping rates and pressure induced to inject the grout
should be selected carefully and monitored throughout the grouting process as
excessive pressure will cause fracturing of the overburden resulting in ground heave
and potentially more damage. The grouting mixture generally used with a slump of
between 25mm and 75mm, does not need to meet any strength requirements as the
objective is not to form a structural element in the ground but to backfill voids and
compact problematic zones.
As a point of departure provision should be made for the following grouting points in
the bill of quantities: 26 primary and 20 secondary grouting points extending to a depth
of 29m to 50m below ground surface.
It should be noted that the above recommended grouting depths are an estimate
based on existing borehole information.
All the grouting boreholes should be drilled into at least 4m of solid dolomite bedrock.
The injection of grout should not exceed 0,1 MPa (or 10 Bar). Provision should be
made in the bill of quantities for 1m3 per meter drilling 2MPa strength grout. Clear and
landscape (contouring) of the site will be required after completion of the grouting
programme. Provision should be made in the bill of quantities for 1 concrete cube test
per day.
The field report on the grouting programme, should include the applied pressure per
meter (bar) and volume of grout (litre/metre) pumped at each grouting point. Also
record any voids and their height. Care should be taken during the grouting
programme to ensure that no damage is caused to surrounding structures. A crack
survey is recommended before grouting work commences (both of the structures and
the ground).
9.1.3. Monitoring of rehabilitated area
Monitoring of the rehabilitated area is required on a daily basis the first three months
after completion of works and thereafter on a monthly basis for the period three to six
months after rehabilitation; and after six months on a three month interval to record
29
any stability problems. These visual inspections and observations should be recorded
in a log book and signed by the inspecting official. Any deterioration must immediately
be reported to the City Engineer for appropriate action.
9.2. Precautionary measures
Water is a triggering mechanism, in the majority of cases, of distress in dolomitic/limestone

areas. It is therefore imperative that the concentrated ingress of water into the ground be
avoided at all times.
SANS 1936, Part 3 (2012): “Design and construction of buildings, structures and
infrastructure” is in the public domain. The contents of SANS 1936 should be applied except
where more stringent requirements are specifically required by the local authority.
In accordance with SANS 1936, Part 3 (2012) all subsurface wet services should comprise
of HDPE butt-welded pipes.
It is recommended that all subsurface water lines (including manholes) around the affected
sinkhole area be replaced with HDPE butt-welded pipes as specified by SANS 1936 Part 3
for areas underlain by dolomite. All subsurface stormwater pipes should also be HDPE butt-
welded pipes.
9.3. Stormwater Management
Absolutely no ponding of water should be permitted on the site. An essential component of

risk management is ensuring that stormwater is efficiently and effectively removed from the
proximity of infrastructure and safely distributed or deposited into either the municipal
stormwater system or natural river courses.
Where stormwater canals are proposed on the site and carry large quantities of water, the
canal should be lined.
9.4. Monitoring Actions
Immediate Monitoring Actions before rehabilitation takes place
The procedure in the designation of monitoring activities and frequencies on site is described
in Section 5. During the period before rehabilitation the designation for the site is as follows:
Inherent HazardClass Area Monitoring Designation

Dolomite Stability Zone 1: 7/8//1 (ABC)Daily DDaily E0
Dolomite Stability Zone 2: 3/4//1 (ABC)Daily DDaily E0
Explanation
Visual inspections of ground, structures and above ground infrastructure
A
(e.g. roads, storm water canals, ditches) daily.
Visual inspection of stormwater systems crossing the site for blockages
B
daily.
C Testing of wet-services for leaks daily.
D Monitoring of structures and ground levels required daily.
30
* Although not applicable to the site, any substantial lowering of the

groundwater level may induce ground subsidence events in the general
area. The groundwater level should be maintained within natural seasonal
fluctuation limits i.e. dewatering resulting from the artificial drawdown of the
groundwater level cannot be permitted.
E
The Department of Water Affairs should be notified if monitoring detects
groundwater level drawdown beyond that which represents natural seasonal
fluctuations. In such an instance the Department of Water Affairs should
immediately be requested to investigate the cause and every effort made to
cease further lowering of the groundwater level.
Long Term Monitoring Actions
The long term designation for the site is presented as follows:
Inherent HazardClass Area Monitoring Designation

Dolomite Stability Zone 1: 7/8//1 (ABC)3 D3 E0
Dolomite Stability Zone 2: 3/4//1 (ABC)3 D3 E0
Explanation
Visual inspections of ground, structures and above ground infrastructure
A
(e.g. roads, water supply lines, storm water canals, ditches) monthly.
Visual inspection of stormwater systems crossing the site for blockages
B
monthly.
C Testing of wet-services for leaks quarterly.
D Monitoring of structures and ground levels required quarterly.
* Although not applicable to the site, any substantial lowering of the
groundwater level may induce ground subsidence events in the general
area. The groundwater level should be maintained within natural seasonal
fluctuation limits i.e. dewatering resulting from the artificial drawdown of the
groundwater level cannot be permitted.
E
The Department of Water Affairs should be notified if monitoring detects
groundwater level drawdown beyond that which represents natural seasonal
fluctuations. In such an instance the Department of Water Affairs should
immediately be requested to investigate the cause and every effort made to
cease further lowering of the groundwater level.
The rehabilitation works proposed are only an element of the mitigation and risk management
measures required on the site. Ongoing risk management (SANS 1936 (2012) Part 4) is
essential.
9.5. Database of ground movement and stability conditions
It is recommended that the sinkholes that occurred on the Adatta Pipeline at the Ada
Reservoirs and all repair, upgrade and soil improvement work conducted is added to the
Municipal’s database of ground movement events. Detailed historical records of this nature
are most useful in developing a clearer perspective on the stability situation on site and
management of a pro-active maintenance strategy.
31
10. GENERAL
These findings are based upon our interpretation of the data recovered during these
investigations. While every effort has been made, within the limits of the project budget, time and
present-day insight, to determine overall ground conditions on this site, poorer sub-areas may
have been missed.
VGIconsult Projects (Pty.) Ltd.

P.O. BOX 604
FOURWAYS
2055
TEL : (011) 469 0854

FAX : (011) 469 0961
FAX : 0866892847
e-mail: jhb@vgiconsult.co.za
TABLES
SUMMARISED BOREHOLE INFORMATION AND INHERENT HAZARD
TABLE 1
CHARACTERISATION
TABLE 1: BOREHOLE DATA AND DOLOMITE INHERENT HAZARD CHARACTERISATION
Blanketing Layer
Hazard Characterisation
(m) – (m)
Chert Residual Ground-
Dolomite
BH No. (Collar Residuu Syenite water Rest Ingress Water Groundwater Drawdown
Residuum Dolomite
Elev. m Highly Level Air & Cavity
Colluvium
Bedrock
Ferroan Soils
m AMSL) weathered Sample
ferrous Soils
dolomite (m) Losses
Fines
Mangani-
(m AMSL) Subsidence Sinkhole Subsidence Sinkhole
sub- (m) – (m)
(m) – (m) (m)–(m) (m)–(m) Formation Formation Formation Formation
ordinate (m AMSL)
OWL
(m AMSL)
Dry
3737 S21/1 25-30
- 0-1 1-6 6-15 - 15-25 146 6-30 6-12 High High Low Low
(1570) (1545)
1424
Dry 6-9
3737 S21/2 >46
- 0-30 - 30-46 - - 145 18-20 >46 High High Low Low
(1569) (<1523)
1424 30-46
Dry
3737 S21/3 4-13 24-30
- 0-4 13-15 - - 144 - - Medium Medium Low Low
(1568) 15-24 (1544)
1424
Dry
3737 S21/4 24-30
- 0-1 - - - 1-24 144 - - Medium Medium Low Low
(1568) (1544)
1424
Dry
3737 S21/5 14-20
- - - - - 0-14 144 - - Medium Medium Low Low
(1568) (1554)
1424
Dry
3737 S21/6 9-15
- 0-1 1-3 - - 3-9 146 - - Medium Medium Low Low
(1570) (1561)
1424
- Dry
3737 S21/7 29-35 2-4
- 0-8 - 8-21 21-29 144 9-18 High High Low Low
(1568) (1539) 5-22
1424
- Dry
3737 S21/8 5-7 34-40
- 0-5 7-18 23-34 144 3-19 12-18 High High Low Low
(1568) 18-23 (1534)
1424
Dry
3737 S21/9 14-20
- 0-2 - - - 2-14 146 0-2 - Medium Medium Low Low
(1570) (1556)
1424
Dry
BH 7 >30
0-3 - - 3->30 - - 141 15-30 - High High Low Low
(1565) (<1535)
1424
Dry
BH 7A 2-16 >30
0-2 - - 16-17 - 144 - - Medium Medium Low Low
(1568) 17->30 (<1538)
1424
FIGURES
LOCALITY PLAN FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHICAL SHEET LEGEND FIGURE 1A
SITE LAYOUT WITH GROUND ELEVATION CONTOURS FIGURE 2
REGIONAL GEOLOGY FIGURE 3
GEOLOGY LEGEND FIGURE 3A
REGIONAL GEOHYDROLOGY FIGURE 4
DRAWINGS
RESIDUAL GRAVITY, BOREHOLE POSITIONS AND DOLOMITE HAZARD VGI3737
ZONATION S21/1
VGI3737
PROPOSED REHABILITATION AREA
S21/2
APPENDICES
GRAVITY SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX 1
BOREHOLE PROFILES APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 1
GRAVITY SURVEY REPORT
APPENDIX 2
BOREHOLE PROFILES

Adatta Dolomite Stability Sinkhole Investigation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adatta Dolomite Stability Sinkhole Investigation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY:

ADATTA PIPELINE, CARLETONVILLE: DOLOMITE

Compiled by: Client:

TEL : (011) 469 0854

MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY P.O. Box 604

Your reference Our reference Date

This report documents recommendations and procedures on the improvement of subsurface

SUMMARISED BOREHOLE INFORMATION AND INHERENT HAZARD

LOCALITY PLAN FIGURE 1

RESIDUAL GRAVITY, BOREHOLE POSITIONS AND DOLOMITE HAZARD VGI3737

GRAVITY SURVEY REPORT APPENDIX 1

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND SCOPE OF WORK

Information sources include:

3.1. Topographic Data

Sheet Name Reference

3.2. Geological Information

Sheet Name Reference

3.3. Industry Standards

o South African National Standard SANS 1936 Parts 1 – 4 (2012).

Part BE3: Repair of sinkholes and subsidences in dolomite land.

o Environmental Earth Sciences, Springer-Report: “A Performance Based Approach

o Council for Geoscience/South African Institute of Engineering and

o Council for Geoscience (2007): Consultants Guide: Approach to Site on Dolomite

o Department of Public Works (PW344), September 2010: Appropriate Development

o Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa: “Subsurface subsidences and

3.4. Geotechnical Reports

3.5. Geohydrological Information

o National Groundwater Archive (NGA);

In addition, the report “Geohydrology Guideline Development: Implementation of Dolomite

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

5. PROCEDURES USED IN THIS STUDY

5.1. Site Inspection by VGIconsult

 A 20m diameter size sinkhole extending to an approximate depth of 4m and a second

5.2. Assimilation of Available Data -Information sources

This investigation is initiated by gathering, assimilating and reviewing existing, available

5.3. Gravity Surveys

5.4. Rotary Percussion Boreholes

are presented in Appendix 2 and summarised in Table 1.

5.4.1. Borehole Information

JK Developments Drilling Contractor was instructed by VGIconsult to undertake the

5.4.2. Drilling equipment should comprise of the following mobile unit:

a) Representative samples shall be retrieved for every 1m drilled.

a) Samples should be taken representatively and sufficiently to allow appropriate

5.4.5. Drilling depths

Current practice requires that:

a) Boreholes be drilled at least 6 meters into hard rock dolomite;

5.4.6. Drill contract details

drilling conditions. The boreholes were backfilled according to industry guidelines.

5.5. Thickness and depth concepts

5.6. Coordinate System

5.7. Map production (projection, co-ordinate system and datum)

Projection surface: Mercator (cylinder)

Projection orientation: Transverse aspect

Datum or reference ellipsoid World Geodetic System 84

Central Meridian: In degrees (29 for this study)

False easting and northing: Zero degrees

A geographic coordinate system (GCS) uses a three-dimensional spherical surface to

5.8. Hazard Characterisation Procedure

2. Inherent hazard (Inherent Risk)

A reflection of the geological susceptibility of a karst area to an event (sinkhole or

3. Inherent hazard class (Inherent Risk Class)

A site is characterised in terms of eight standard inherent hazard classes, denoting

5. Tolerable hazard rating