Advertisement

Application of geochemical and groundwater data to predict sinkhole formation in a gypsum formation in Manitoba, Canada

  • Kayla R. MooreEmail author
  • H. M. Holländer
  • M. Basri
  • M. Roemer
Original Article
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Numerical modelling approaches were used to investigate coupled groundwater flow and reactive transport processes in gypsum karst sub-terrain. A regional equipotential map and steady-state flow model were created using scarce data to gain insights into flow patterns and identify potential areas at risk for cavity and sinkhole development in a shallow gypsum formation. Coupled flow and reactive transport modelling was used to simulate the dissolution of gypsum between a sinkhole in a man-made drainage ditch and a quarry, where freshwater enters the drainage ditch and flows toward the quarry. Field data from a tracer test were used to characterize flow in the study area. The resulting regional equipotential map was valuable in identifying potential areas of sinkhole development; sinkholes occurred in areas underlain by thick gypsum formations with high flow gradients and radial flow. The reactive transport model was valuable in identifying the growth of the cavity and the timeline for the potential risk to road infrastructure. The reactive transport model indicated that cavity growth could be slowed by removing the inflow of freshwater into the drainage ditch. Groundwater equipotential maps, flow models and reactive transport models are valuable tools for the investigation of sub-terrain karst development including cavity development and sinkhole formation in evaporite minerals.

Keywords

Numerical model Sinkhole Reactive transport model Gypsum Dissolution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Engage for funding, Shawn Gurke and the Alonsa Conservation District, along with the RM of Alonsa for their assistance with the project, and Gebeyehu Ayele and Kerry Lynch for their contribution to the field work.

Funding

The funding was received by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Engage Grant Program (Grant no. 514066-17).

Supplementary material

12665_2019_8188_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (367 kb)
The results and qualitative calculations from the tracer test, including calculations from the first injection, calculation from the second injection, comparison to modelled data and ion measurement data. (XLSX 367 KB)

References

  1. Bamburak J (2015) Harcus sinkholes in the Amaranth area (NTS area: 62J 10 NW, 15 SW). Alonsa Conservation District, Winnipeg, MB, p 20Google Scholar
  2. Bannatyne BB (1959) Gypsum-anhydrite deposits of Manitoba. Manitoba Mines and Natural Resources, Mines Branch, Winnipeg, Manitoba, p 46Google Scholar
  3. Bauer S, Liedl R, Sauter M (2002) Modelling of karst genesis at the catchment scale—influence of spatially variable hydraulic conductivity. Acta Geol Pol 52(1):13Google Scholar
  4. Benson RC, Kaufmann RD (2001) Characterization of a highway sinkhole within the gypsum karst of Michigan. In: Beck BF, Herring JG (eds) Geotechnical and environmental applications of karst geology and hydrology. Balkema Publishers, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  5. Betcher RN (1997) Rural groundwater quality surveys in Southern and Central Manitoba. Rural Water Quality Symposium, Winnipeg, pp 19–38Google Scholar
  6. Betcher RN, Pupp C, Grove G (1995) Groundwater in Manitoba: hydrogeology, quality concerns, management. National Hydrology Research Institute, SaskatoonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bezys RK, McCabe HR (1996) Lower to middle Paleozoic stratigraphy of southwestern Manitoba. Geological Association of Canada, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  8. Carbonel D et al (2015) Investigating a damaging buried sinkhole cluster in an urban area (Zaragoza city, NE Spain) integrating multiple techniques: geomorphological surveys, DInSAR, DEMs, GPR, ERT, and trenching. Geomorphology 229:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carleton GB, Welty C, Buston HT (1999) Design and analysis of tracer tests to determine effective porosity and dispersivity in fractured sedimentary rocks. Newark Basin, New Jersey. Water-Resources Investigations Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, West Trenton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemens T, Huckinghaus D, Sauter M, Liedl R, Teutsch G (1996) A combined continuum and discrete network reactive transport model for simulation of karst development. Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Modelling, ModelCARE 96. IAHS Golden, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper AH, Saunders JM (2002) Road and bridge construction across gypsum karst in England. Eng Geol 65(2):217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diersch H (2014) FEFLOW finite element modeling of flow, mass and heat transport in porous and fractured media. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dobecki TL, Upchurch SB (2006) Geophysical applications to detect sinkholes and ground subsidence. Lead Edge 25(3):336–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fidelibus MD, Gutiérrez F, Spilotro G (2011) Human-induced hydrogeological changes and sinkholes in the coastal gypsum karst of Lesina Marina area (Foggia Province, Italy). Eng Geol 118(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field MS (1999) The QTRACER program for tracer-breakthrough curve analysis for karst and fractured-rock aquifers, 98. National Center for Environmental Assessment–Washington Office, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghasemizadeh R et al (2012) Review: groundwater flow and transport modeling of karst aquifers, with particular reference to the North Coast Limestone aquifer system of Puerto Rico. Hydrogeol J 20(8):1441–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guerrero J, Gutiérrez F, Bonachea J, Lucha P (2008) A sinkhole susceptibility zonation based on paleokarst analysis along a stretch of the Madrid–Barcelona high-speed railway built over gypsum- and salt-bearing evaporites (NE Spain). Eng Geol 102(1):62–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo J, Laouafa F, Quintard M (2016) A theoretical and numerical framework for modeling gypsum cavity dissolution. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 40(12):1662–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurke S (2015) Harcus drain sinkhole report, Alonsa, ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  20. Hornberger GM, Wiberg PL, Raffensperger JP, D’Odorico P (1998) Elements of physical hydrology. JHU Press, Baltimore, p 302Google Scholar
  21. Hydata (2018) Water level data. In: Province of ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuechler R, Noack K, Zorn T (2004) Investigation of gypsum dissolution under saturated and unsaturated water conditions. Ecol Model 176(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lapenskie K, Bamburak J (2015) Preliminary results from geological investigation into gypsum, Harcus area, southwestern Manitoba (NTS 62J10). Report of Activities. Manitoba Mineral Resources, Manitoba Geological Survey, Winnipeg, Manitoba, pp 106–114Google Scholar
  24. Lapenskie K, Bamburak J (2016) Gypsum investigations in the Harcus area, southwestern Manitoba (NTS 62J10): 2016 update, Manitoba Growth, Enterprise and Trade, Manitoba Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  25. Li W, Einstein HH (2017) Theoretical and numerical investigation of the cavity evolution in gypsum rock. Water Resour Res 53(11):9988–10001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindquist E (1933) On the flow of water through porous soil. Premier Congres des grands barrages, Stockholm, pp 81–101Google Scholar
  27. Manitoba Water Stewardship (2010) Groundwater resources of the Westlake integrated conservation district. Manitoba Water Stewardship Groundwater Management Section, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  28. Martinez JD, Boehner R (1997) Sinkholes in glacial drift underlain by gypsum in Nova Scotia. Can Carbonates Evaporites 12(1):84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore KR et al (2018) A field and numerical study of a tracer test in a gypsum formation beneath a road. GeoEdmonton In-Press, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer CD, Cherry JA (1984) Geochemical reactions associated with low-temperature thermal energy storage in aquifers. Can Geotech J 21(3):475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parkhurst DL, Appelo C (2013) Description of input and examples for PHREEQC version 3—a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. In: Survey, U.S.G. (ed) U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and methods section A, groundwater book 6, modeling techniques. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, p 497Google Scholar
  32. Poulton T, Christopher J, Hayes B, Losert J, Tittemore J, Gilchrist R, Mossop G, Shetsen I (1994) Jurassic and lowermost cretaceous strata of the western Canada sedimentary basin. In: Mossop G, Shetsen I (eds) Geological atlas of the western Canada sedimentary basin. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council, Calgary, Alberta, pp 297–316Google Scholar
  33. Rutulis M (1980) Groundwater resources in the Alonsa Conservation District. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Branch, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  34. Shuster ET, White WB (1971) Seasonal fluctuations in the chemistry of lime-stone springs: a possible means for characterizing carbonate aquifers. J Hydrol 14(2):93–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singurindy O, Berkowitz B (2003) Evolution of hydraulic conductivity by precipitation and dissolution in carbonate rock. Water Resour Res 39(1):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vigna B, Fiorucci A, Banzato C, Forti P, De Waele J (2010) Hypogene gypsum karst and sinkhole formation at Moncalvo (Asti, Italy). Zeitschrift für Geomorphol Suppl Issues 54(2):285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wissmeier L (2015) piChem—A FEFELOW plugin for advanced geochemical reactions. In: Institute DH (ed) MIKE powered by DHI, 1 edn, Hørsholm, Denmark, p 28Google Scholar
  38. Youssef AM et al (2016) Natural and human-induced sinkhole hazards in Saudi Arabia: distribution, investigation, causes and impacts. Hydrogeol J 24(3):625–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Stantec Consulting Ltd.WinnipegCanada
  3. 3.TREK Geotechnical Inc.WinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations