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

net/publication/270846832

KARST RISK ASSESSMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING:

EXPERIENCES WITH THE KarstALEA METHOD

Conference Paper · December 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 235

1 author:

Marco Filipponi
Bauen im Karst
43 PUBLICATIONS   340 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Measurement While Drilling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Filipponi on 14 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference
December 13-15,2012, Delhi (Paper No. I913.)

KARST RISK ASSESSMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING: EXPERIENCES WITH

THE KarstALEA METHOD

Marco Filipponi, Dr. ès. sc,, Bauen im Karst, Switzerland, marco.filipponi@bauen-im-karst.info

ABSTRACT: Many recent tunnel constructions have shown that uncertainties related to karst processes are a
major issue, since they may lead to economic, social, security-related and environmental problems. In most cases
problems are related to an inappropriate or a complete missing of karst risk assessment.
The KarstALEA method aims at assessing karst-related risk. It has been developed for underground engineering.
From the assessment of karst related hazards, it suggests adequate investigation methods and mitigation plans for
each construction phase.
Recent studies on the geometry of large cave systems show that the development of karst conduits is not random
but predictable. Essentially, it is now possible to quantify the probability of karst occurrences inside a karstic rock
mass and to delineate zones of different risk levels and therefore assess karst risk for underground engineering.

INTRODUCTION project. The method was developed in strong collaboration

“alea” is the French word for the probability of a (natural)
event occurrence.
Many specific hazards occur in karst areas, which do not
occur in other geological formations. Hazards are related to
voids, massive water inrush and sediment fillings. One way
could be to declare karst as not suitable for operating
engineered works, considering such areas as highly
vulnerable and not predictable. Such a restrictive statement
cannot be applied, because around 20 % of the dry and ice-
free land surface consists of karstic rock formations [1], and
it covers large areas especially in Europe, China and USA.
In the last years, different techniques were developed for the
local detection of voids during the excavation and operating
phases and control of encountered karst structures (e.g. [2]).
However, the karst prediction was still inadequate and
insufficient. Most ground investigation methods and
classifications that are presently available do not include
speleogenetic considerations and consider the karst
occurrence as randomly distributed in space. This makes any
inter/extrapolation of observed/detected karst feature almost
impossible.
The lack of an adequate karst risk assessment method for
underground constructions is due to gaps in understanding
speleogenesis but also to a missing transfer of knowledge
from karst research to the applied domains.
The main question is to know whether there is a developed
network of conduits and if there is, where it is and in some
cases what their characteristics are (e.g. size of the karst
conduits; their filling: water/air/sediment; hydrogeological
condition: phreatic/vadose).
The KarstALEA method [1] aims to fill this lack. It is a
scientific based karst risk assessment for underground
engineering. It treats the karst related hazards, investigations
and remediation in an appropriate manner for each planning
and construction phase of an underground engineering
with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology together with
the Swiss Institute of Speleology and Karstology and the
Swiss Federal Roads Office.
This paper outlines the concept and applicability of the
KarstALEA method. For a complied overview and
description of the method please refer to the Swiss Federal
Roads Office guideline [1].
THE SPELEOGENETIC BACKGROUND OF THE
KarstALEA METHOD
The understanding of the spatial distribution of karstic voids
significantly progressed along the last two decades. This
chapter presents a short state of the art of the principles of
karst development which is relevant for the karst risk
assessment. For a complied overview in cave development
and concepts presented here be referred to the literature (e.g.
[2], [3], [4]).
The KarstALEA method is mainly based on the concepts of
the inception features and the concept of the speleogenetic
zones.
Authors investigating in cave networks generally agree to say
that karst conduits do not develop randomly but are related to
discontinuities within the rock mass. Karstic rock mass are
pervaded by a network of discontinuities (joints, faults,
bedding planes and beds). These are the primary flow paths
for groundwater and guide the cave development.
Furthermore, karstification along this discontinuities is again
not random but selective. Recent research results showed that
at regional scale only a few discrete lithostratigraphical and
tectonical features (typically between 3 and 10) guide more
than 70 % of the phreatic karst conduits (e.g. [5]). Detailed
investigation of these particular horizons (also named
“inception horizons”; [6]) showed that they have most of the
time a thickness of some centimetres to decimetres and that
Marco Filipponi
they are favourable to karstification because of lithological
and mechanical deviation from the surrounding rock mass.
They are therefore identifiable. The identification of the
position of such inception features in a rock mass provides a
substantial increase of information for delineating zones of
increased probability of karst occurrences.
From a speleogenetic point of view, a karstic rock mass is
subdivided into five speleogenetic zones with distinct
speleogenetic processes as well as a specific karst conduit
density and voids characteristics (e.g. [7]).
The epikarst zone is the near surface zone of a karstic rock
mass and is characterized by a zone with enlarged
discontinuities, karst conduits in the proper sense are widely
missing.
Below the epikarst zone follows the epikarst-shaft zone. This
zone is characterised by narrow shafts usually with a depth of
some tens of metres. From a hydrogeological point of view
these karst conduits are responsible for the drainage of the
epikarst.
In the shaft zone the karst conduit are mainly vertical shafts
and meandering canyons. The karst conduit density within
this zone is significantly lower than in the epikarst-shaft zone
and can be considered as almost homogeneous in altitude;
however, the development of meandering passages between
shafts is often related to inception features.
The horizontal cave zone develops under shallow- and epi-
phreatic conditions and is characterized by subhorizontal
karst conduits. The conduit density is 5 to 20 times higher
then within the shaft zone.
In the inception zone (“deep phreatic conditions”), the flow
and dissolution rates are very low and therefore the size and
density of the karst conduits too (i.e. a low degree of
karstification). Karst conduits in the sense of caves are
widely missing.
It is to notice the respective speleogenetic zones move along
time according to changes in hydrogeological boundary
conditions i.e. to valley incision (or infilling), and this
induces a superposition of actual and paleo-speleogenetic
zones (e.g. a past horizontal cave zone within an actual shaft
zone).
The delimitation of the speleogenetic zones in a rock mass
provides the basic data for the characterisation of the karst
conduit network of a project area.

Fig. 1 The frequency map shows that an increased number of conduits developed at the intersection of the inception
horizons with the paleo-water tables. Top left: Frequency map of the cave segments (%) relative to the altitude (x-axis)
and the distance to the lithological reference surface (y-axis), contour lines interval 0.5 % of conduits. Top right:
Histogram of the conduit distribution relative to the stratigraphic reference horizon. Bottom left: Histogram of the conduit
distribution relative to their elevation. Bottom right: Cave map of the Siebenhengste Cave System with the analysed zone
(rectangle).
 Karst risk assessment for underground engineering: Experiences with the KarstALEA method
karst occurrence will be indicated qualitatively or
The two principles described above (inception horizons and quantitatively.
speleogenetic zones) make it possible to delineate zones of 7 Risk assessment: The combination of the delineated
higher probability of karst occurrence located along inception probabilities for karst occurrence (step 6) with the expected
features, along (paleo-) phreatic cave development zone and hazards (step 5) leads to a risk assessment. The risk
especially at their intersections. Using a 3D description of assessment includes not only a risk description but also some
their distribution, it is possible to subdivide a karstic rock links how to managing the risk (e.g. reconnaissance during
mass into areas of different dissolution void probability and the excavation).
characteristics. Although the reconstruction of the “true”
geometry (i.e. the exact position of karst conduits and their The investigation details of the KarstALEA investigation
characteristics) is not possible, this approach provides a steps are usually adapted to the project planning phases (i.e. a
substantial increase of information for assessing karst low degree of details in early project phase and higher degree
occurrences in underground engineering projects, at least in a later). However, the study area degreases with the increasing
probabilistic way (Fig. 1). of details; whereas in an early project phase the complied
rock mass will be overviewed, is the focus in the latest
investigation cycle on selected areas along the tunnel trace.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE KarstALEA METHOD
Therefore, the KarstALEA method can be considered as an
The risk assessment is based on the assumption that a
iterative field investigation method.
significant amount of karst conduits occur along the inception
features and that the delimitation of the speleogenetic zones
will characterise the probability of conduit size distribution
along them. In other words, the concept of the speleogenetic
zones can be reformulated into different probability of karst
occurrence and characteristics zones and assign them hazard
levels. Thereby, it is possible to subdivide a karstic rock mass
into areas of different hazards and risk levels.

Basically the KarstALEA method consists of seven steps

(Fig. 2), the detailed description of the method is presented in
[1]:
1 Building of a geological 3D model of the investigation
site. This model is the basis of the following analysis.
2 Characterisation of the actual hydrogeological system.
The hydrogeological characterisation of the project aims to
describe the vadose as well as the phreatic zone.
3 Characterisation of the current and paleo-speleogenetic
zones. The characterisation can be done by direct field
observations or by the reconstruction of the landscape history
can be reconstructed by interpretation of speleological data or
the interpretation of geomorphological data.
4 Identification of potential inception features: Inception
features can be identified by field observations, by the
analysis of known caves (even small ones) (e.g. [5]) or the Fig. 2 The seven steps of the KarstALEA method.
interpretation of borehole logs and tests (e.g. [8]).
5 Characterization of KarstALEA-zones (hazard zones):
The rock mass will be subdivided in areas of different ADVANTAGES OF THE KarstALEA METHOD
expected hazards, considering the current prevailing The investigations and the workflow of the KarstALEA
hydrological boundary conditions (step 2) as well as the method were designed to be straightforward, reproducible
different speleogenetic zones (step 3). The characterization and economic. The KarstALEA method offers different
includes hazards for the construction and for the advantages compared to a conservative approach (where karst
environment. is considered to be unpredictable and randomly distributed).
6 Delimitation of areas of different karst occurrence • Investigation program that considers the complexity
probabilities by combining steps 3 to 4. The speleogenetic of karst: Although the understanding of the
zones describe the contents of karst conduits within the structure of karstic rock mass progressed
zones, whereas the inception features describes the karst significantly with the concepts of the speleogenetic
conduit distribution within the zones. Depending on the zones and the inception features (see chapter 2) the
available data and project characteristics the probability of karst prediction remains a challenge. However, the
KarstALEA method gives a guideline how to
Marco Filipponi
approach and design the investigation program. For
projects with already an intensive geol-
/hydrogeological investigation program the
proposed method is only a reinterpretation of the
collected date within a karst perspective.
• Construction time and cost control: Karst related
accidents lead to economic, social, security-related
and environmental problems, which causes delays
in the construction schedule and substantial cost
overruns. Therefore, the KarstALEA risk
assessment allows considering the karst
uncertainties in an appropriate way within the
construction schedule as well as during cost
calculation.
• Design of the underground construction that
considers karst characteristics: The characterisation
of the probable karst conduits as well as the
delimitation of zones with increased karst conduit
probability allows adapting the design of the
underground structure (e.g. position and alignment
of the tunnel).
• Adapt the reconnaissance program: Because the
KarstALEA method does not allow predicting
exactly the position and characteristics of karst
conduits, a reconnaissance program is still needed
during excavation. However, the results of the
KarstALEA method help to choose the adequate
technique and application design for each risk zone
(e.g. in zone with high risk reconnaissance drilling
and the application of borehole georadar, whereas
in zones with low risk only simple reconnaissance
drilling are planed).
• Design appropriate action plan: Nothing worse than
encounter a karst conduit during the excavation
without an appropriate action plan. The KarstALEA
method describes the karst conduits in a decree of
detail (characteristics of the voids, sediment filling
and water conditions) so that it is possible to design
appropriate action plans.
CONCLUSIONS
The KarstALEA method provides subdivisions of a karst
mass into areas (volumes) of different risk levels. It is based
on the assumption that a significant amount of karst conduits
develop along inception features and within some specific
speleogenetic zones. The identification and characterization
of those two parameters makes it possible to assess the
probability of karst occurrence and their characteristics.
Although the method does not reconstruct the “true”
geometry of karst conduit networks (i.e. the exact position of
karst conduits and their characteristics), it provides a
substantial increase of information for assessing karst
occurrences in underground engineering projects, at least in a
probabilistic way.
View publication stats
The method was applied on several case studies showing that
the method is applicable and provides good predictions and
of risk zones within a karst mass and reproducibility of the
results.
REFERENCES
1. Filipponi, M.; Schmassmann, S.; Jeannin, P.-Y.;
Parriaux, A. (2012 - in print), “KarstALEA: Wegleitung
zur Prognose von karstspezifischen Gefahren im
Untertagbau“, Forschungsprojekt FGU 2009/003 des
Bundesamt für Strassen ASTRA, Schweizerischer
Verband der Strassen- und Verkehrsfachleute VSS,
Zürich, 2012, http://partnershop.vss.ch
2. Klimchouk A., Ford D.C., Palmer D.C., Dreybrodt W.
(2000) “Speleogenesis, evolution of karst aquifers“,
National Speleological Society, 2000, pp 527.
3. Palmer A.N. (2007) “Cave Geology”, Cave Books, 2007,
pp. 454.
4. Goldscheider, N., Drew, D.P. (2007) “Methods in Karst
Hydrogeology”, Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2007,
pp. 264.
5. Filipponi M., Jeannin P.-Y., Tacher L. (2009) “Evidence
of inception horizons in karst conduit networks“,
Geomorphology 106, 2009, pp. 86-99.
6. Lowe D.J. (1992) “The origin of limestone caverns: in
inception horizon hypothesis”, PhD Thesis, Manchester
Polytechnic, United Kingdom, 1992, pp. 512.
7. Filipponi M. (2009) “Spatial analysis of karst conduit
networks and determination of parameters controlling the
speleogenesis along preferential lithostratigraphic
horizons” PhD Thesis, Ecole polytechnique fédérale
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2009, pp. 166.
8. Filipponi M., Jeannin P.-Y. (2008) “Prediction of karst
occurrences by interpreting borehole data within the
Inception Horizon Hypothesis”, Sinkholes and the
Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst 2008,
Proceedings of the 11th Multidisciplinary Conference,
Geotechnical Special Publication 183, 2008, pp. 120-
130.