THREE SPECTACULAR EXAMPLES OF

FOUNDATION FAILURES
Though foundation damage is fairly common in homes and buildings in North Texas, rarely does
it ever gain national or international attention. However, there are many cases of extreme
foundation failures that warrant some wonder and awe. Here are three spectacular examples of
foundation failures in recent and not-so-recent history.

OCEAN TOWER
One example of a famous foundation failure right here in Texas is South Padre Island’s Ocean
Tower. Ocean Tower was originally designed to be a 31-story building which housed high-end
condominiums. However, construction of the tower couldn’t be completed because of foundation
problems discovered in early 2008. The expansive soil beneath the tower began to compact,
causing the building to sink and lean. Construction ceased and the building had to be demolished
in 2009.

Ocean Tower Failure Analysis

South Padre Island
Texas

Ocean Tower condominium was expected to be the highest structure of luxury living in the Rio
Grande but instead dubbed the ‘leaning tower of South Padre’ because parts of it have sunk
almost 16 inches, cracking beams and columns. This caused increasing levels of damage to the
structural system due to load redistribution and overload of structural elements. Construction
activity ceased immediately because of the public safety risk and potential for partial collapse.
During the forensic investigation, Walter P Moore performed a detailed evaluation and used
computer modeling to analyze causation of failure, as well as predict future failure of structural
elements. Based on the investigation findings, the tower was imploded before construction
completion. 

We see this as a great opportunity to get a bargain right now on what will become the finest quality

built tower – in the best location – on South Padre Island. The views and amenities are unmatched, and

the units are the some of the largest on the Island.

So began the wonderful pitch for the doomed Ocean Tower on South Padre Island in Texas.

The 134-unit skyscraper on a narrow strip of sand just close to the Mexican border began as ambitious

project to create 31-stories of unprecedented views over the ocean. It was touted as the “highest

structure in the Rio Grande Valley”. Amenities included with each condo were “Italian marble floors,

granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, custom cabinets, stainless steel fixtures, over-sized

Jacuzzi tub and stand-up showers.”

In May of 2008, however, developers noticed cracks in the columns supporting the parking garage. The

official explanation is that the parking garage and the tower were mistakenly built connected, forcing

the weight down upon the garage instead of on more solid “expansion joints”. The use of expandable

clay, which compresses when weight is applied to it, compounded the issue and allowed the parking

garage to remain relatively unsettled compared to the tower itself. Preliminary evaluation showed that

the tower’s core had sunk 14 to 16 inches, while the attached parking lot had shifted less than half

that distance. By July, Ocean Tower was reassuring investors that while the project will be delayed,

the skyscraper would reemerge “stronger and safer than ever”. The news broke on November 4, 2008,

with a letter to investors:

We are deeply disappointed to report that the construction of Ocean Tower, which was suspended in

May, has been terminated with no immediate prospects for completion.

It sat abandoned until September of 2009 when plans were unveiled for its demolition. The 376-foot

unfinished skyscraper was brought down with a controlled implosion on December 13, 2009. At 55,000

tons, it is claimed that it was the largest implosion of a reinforced concrete structure in the world.

With nearly 98 percent of the above-grade materials used to build the tower scheduled for recycling or

reuse, the developers hope to recuperate at least some of the losses.

Of the $75 million loan the developers obtained for building the skyscraper, it is estimated that $65

million evaporated in the rubble. They are currently seeking a $125 million settlement with the

geotechnical engineering firm Raba-Kistner Engineering and Consulting of San Antonio and structural

engineers Datum Engineers of Austin and Dallas.

Owner and developer Antun Domit of Domit Development was quoted as saying:

We did the right thing that we needed to do. You do what you need to do and it was a great project, I

wish this would not happen but it did happen.

Sources:

Leaning condos on South Padre Island to be demolished

Faulty Tower’s Implosion Will Set New Height Record

Promotional video for Ocean Towers, SPI

Zachry company building luxury high-rise on South Padre Island (pdf)

Alice Donahue Real Estate, South Padre Island Texas

Ocean Tower Building Crashes Down

South Padre Island’s Ocean Tower to be demolished and recycled (pdf)

TRANSCONA GRAIN ELEVATOR

The Transcona Grain Elevator was a grain storage facility used by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
The Transcona Grain Elevator didn’t even last a day before foundation problems surfaced. On
October 18, 1913, the building began to settle as grain was moved indoors. In the first hour after
unloading, the building sank one foot into the ground. By the next day, the building was tilted an
entire 27 degrees to the west. Researchers found that the foundation was extremely unstable
because it was constructed on stratified clay, which contained layers of silt salt throughout the
layers of clay.

Case History of Failure of the Transcona Grain Elevator

One of the best known foundation failures occurred in October 1913 at North
Transcona, Manitoba, Canada. It was ascertained later on that the failure occurred when the
foundation pressure at the base was about equal to the calculated ultimate bearing capacity of
an underlaying layer of plastic clay (Peck and Byrant,1953), and was essentially a shearing
failure.
The construction of the silo started in 1911 and was completed in the autumn of 1913. The silo
is 77 ft by 195 ft in plan and has a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels. It comprises 65 circular bins
and 48 inter-bins. The foundation was a reinforced concrete raft 2 ft thick and founded at a
depth of 12 ft below the ground surface. The weight of the silo was 20,000 tons, which was 42.5
percent of the total weight, when it was filled. Filling the silo with grain started in September
1913, and in October when the silo contained 875,000 bushels, and the pressure on the ground
was 94 percent of the design pressure, a vertical settlement of 1 ft was noticed. The structure
began to tilt to the west and within twenty four hours was at an angle of 26.9° from the vertical,
the west side being 24 ft below and the east side 5 ft above the original level (Szechy, 1961).
The structure tilted as a monolith and there was no damage to the structure except for a few
superficial cracks. Figure 12.22 shows a view of the tilted structure. The excellent quality of the
reinforced concrete structure is shown by the fact that later it was underpinned and jacked up
on new piers founded on rock. The level of the new foundation is 34 ft below the ground
surface. Figure 12.23 shows the view of the silo after it was straightened in 1916. During the
period when the silo was designed and constructed, soil mechanics as a science had hardly
begun. The behavior of the foundation under imposed loads was not clearly understood. It was
only during the year 1952 that soil investigation was carried out close to the silo and the soil
properties were analyzed (Peck and Byrant, 1953). Figure 12.24 gives the soil classification and
unconfmed compressive strength of the soil with respect to depth. From the examination of
undisturbed samples of the clay, it was determined that the average water content of
successive layers of varved clay increased with their depth from 40 percent to about 60 percent.
The average unconfmed compressive strength of the upper stratum beneath the foundation
was 1.13 tsf, that of the lower stratum was 0.65 tsf, and the weighted average was 0.93 tsf. The
average liquid limit was found to be 105 percent; therefore the plasticity index was 70 percent,
which indicates that the clay was highly colloidal and plastic. The average unit weight of the soil
was 120 lb/ft3. The contact pressure due to the load from the silo at the time of failure was
estimated as equal to 3.06 tsf. The theoretical values of the ultimate bearing capacity by various
methods are as follows.

 
 
  

This entry was posted in Foundation and tagged Case History, Elevator, Grain Elevator on February 5,

2014 by Civil Foundation.

LEANING TOWER OF PISA

In at least one case, foundation failure didn’t completely ruin a building. When construction
began on the Tower of Pisa 840 years ago, workers immediately ran into soil-related foundation
issues. Work stopped for nearly a century due to political unrest in Italy, but construction
continued in 1272 despite the tower’s famous stature. Attempts to compensate for poor soil
quality failed numerous times. Today, the tower continues to its downward descent but at a much
slower pace due to foundation repair.

……………………

……………………..

Introduction

 Located in PISA, Itlay at the ‘Piazza dei Miracoli’s square.

 Bell tower for the Cathedral.
 Renowned all over the world for its peculiar inclination.
 Popular tourist hotspot. Building was shut down tourists in 1990, but has open up because of
extensive restoration efforts by government agencies.
 Building reopened in April, 2001.
Construction History

 The construction of the Tower began in 1173 and due to two long breaks it went on for 176
years. These breaks were most likely caused by war.
 The first break came in 1178, and by that time construction work had only reached the
4th order of the final tower.
 The second break was in 1178, and by that time construction work had only reached the
4th order of the final tower.
 The second break was in 1278 after having reached the 7th order of  the finished tower.
Completion with the rise of the bell tower was first achieved in 1360 and although completion
would have taken almost of the time has it not been for the two shutdowns, these have
actually proven to have been crucial for the tower existence.
Details of Tower

 Weight = 14,700 metric tones

 Ring shaped diameter = 19.6 m
 Thickness of  wall = 4.1 m, and 2.7 m for all other levels.
 Inclination = 5.5 degree’s to the south.
 32,240 blocks for facing the exterior and interior of the cylindrical wall structure.
 15 half columns at the base.
 180 columns for base.
Initial Mistakes of the Tower

 Location of tower- ground comprised of layers of sand & clay.

 Layers ran parallel except under the foundation of the tower, where it formed a bow shape.
 The unstable mixture of soil material caused the soil to compact at a different rate, causing
the tower to sink 30-40 cm.
Causes to the lean of tower
  The unstable mixture of soil- caused the tower to sink to the south side.
 Soil at south side compressed faster than the north side- weight of the tower was the main
factor of tilt.
 Tilting was also due to the fluctuations of the water levels.
 This caused the tower to keep shifting, as well as rotate. Later discovered by scientists that
the tower’s position shifted in relation to the ground water level.
Stress due to the lean

 It was thought that the tower would tip over due to the angle of tilt.
 However, it would collapse due to enormous stress.
 Stones on first few floors has most stress- they has to support the weight= 14,700 tones.
 Stones  on south side had stress because of incline.
 The stress kept increasing as the inclination, therefore there was danger of the tower
collapsing.
 The outside of the tower is made of strong marble, but the inside is made up of rubble,
hence the walls cannot support the resulting stress.
Efforts for Saving the Tower

 The first modern attempt at stabilization of  the tower occurred in 1935, when engineers
attempted to seal the base of the tower by drilling a network of holes into the foundation and
then filling them with a cement grout mixture.
 However, this only worsened the problem by slightly increasing the lean. The failed
stabilization did result in more cautions approaches by future preservation teams.
 In 1990, the tower was closed to the public and apartments and houses in the path of the
tower were vacated for safety. This was partially spurred by the abrupt collapse of another
Italian tower due to masonry degradation. City officials were concerned that if the tower of
Pavia could collapse simply due to masonry degradation, then collapse of the tower of Pisa,
with its more than 5 degree tilt, must have been eminent.
 The preservation team finally took action in 1992 when the first story was braced with steel
tendons, to relieve the strain on the vulnerable masonry; and in 1993 when 600 tons of lead
ingots were stacked around the base of the north side of the tower to counterweight the lean.
 In response , in 1995, the team opted for 10 underground steel anchors, to invisibly yank the
tower northwards. However, this only served to bring the tower closer to collapse than ever
before.
 The anchors were to be installed, 40 meters deep, from tensioned cables connected to the
tower’s base.
 In view of Pisa’s high water-table, the team froze the underlying ground with liquid nitrogen
before any anchors were installed, to protect their excavations from flooding.
 However, it was not taken into account that water expands when it freezes. The groundwater
pushed up beneath the tower and, once the freezing had ceased, created gaps for further
settlement southwards by more than it had done in the entire previous year.
 The team was summoned for an emergency meeting and the anchor plan was immediately
abandoned.
Soil Extraction

 Contractors removed soil from the north side with drilling equipment.
  The tower started to sink on the north side, therefore reducing some of the stress that was
building up on the south side.
 Suspension cables were loosely fitted to the tower so it could pull back the tower incase it
started leaning.
 While more soil could have been removed, the soil extraction program reduced the stress on
the vulnerable first story enough to be safe, yet also maintained the distinctive lean of the
landmark.
Conclusion

 The construction failure is only due to the unsettlement of soil underneath the structure.
 The amount of  water content in the soil is more.
 Soil extraction helps the structure to stabilize for a long time without any tilt.
 A minimum amount tilt is provided to attract the tourist.

Foundation Engineering Problems and

Hazards in Karst Terranes
Please note: While the Maryland Geological Survey can help identify whether your home is located on rocks that
are likely to develop sinkholes, we cannot offer site-specific advice. Local resources for problems related to
sinkholes may be found on the Sinkhole Resources page.
Introduction
Just about any place where the land is underlain by relatively soluble bedrock, natural waters on and below the
land surface slowly dissolve that bedrock. Dissolving is enhanced by these waters' tendency to be acidic. For
example, rain is usually acidic because it contains dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. It
often becomes more acidic as it soaks into the ground and picks up more CO2 from the soil. Such a landscape
in which the bedrock is shaped, or sculpted, by dissolution is referred to as karst. The most common type of
bedrock in karst terranes is carbonate rock, which includes limestone (calcium carbonate), dolostone (calcium-
magnesium carbonate), and marble (calcium carbonate). There are a few other kinds of rock (e.g., gypsum,
which is composed of calcium sulfate) that can be involved in karst, but in Maryland karst terranes are limited to
areas underlain by carbonate rocks.
Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of carbonate rocks in Maryland. Those most associated with
collapse sinkholes are the Hagerstown Valley (HV), the Frederick Valley (FV), and the Wakefield Valley
(WV). To a lesser degree, collapse sinkholes are found in Green Spring Valley (gs), Worthington Valley
(wo), and Long Green Valley (lg).
No single landform is common to all karst areas, but one characteristic of all karst landscapes is disrupted
surface drainage due to loss of surface water to the subsurface. Two examples of karst landforms are caves
and closed depressions, known as sinkholes. Maryland has approximately 100 known caves, and many more
sinkholes. The carbonate rock areas of Maryland that exhibit some degree of karst development are shown in
Figure 1.

Potential environmental problems in karst terranes fall into two broad categories: (1) groundwater pollution and
(2) foundation engineering problems. This fact sheet discusses three main categories of interrelated foundation
engineering problems: (a) differential compaction and settling due to the irregular surface between soil and
bedrock; (b) soil piping, which is a type of subsurface erosion; and (c) collapse of the land surface into an
underground cavity--that is, collapse sinkholes.

Differential Compaction and Settling

Building the foundation for a house or other structure involves laying a footer, usually pouring concrete into a
level trench that outlines the dimensions of the house, then erecting walls on that footer. Where there is a
basement, a concrete floor is generally placed on the bottom of the excavation within the confines of the footer
and basement walls. As the house is built, all of the weight, or load, is carried by the outside walls and footer. In
some karst terranes, that can lead to problems.

In a type of karst known as cutter-and-pinnacle karst, the contact between bedrock and soil overburden is very
irregular (see Fig. 2 and 3 for example). Water preferentially dissolves bedrock along some planar feature,
such as bedding, joints, or fractures, whichever is the easier path. Roughly vertical, solutionally widened joints
are called cutters, or grikes. Cutters are generally filled with soil. The bedrock that remains between cutters
may be reduced to relatively narrow "ridges" of rock, called pinnacles, particularly where cutters are closely
spaced. Cutter-and-pinnacle karst (or simply "pinnacle karst" for short) is common in many of the carbonate
valleys in Maryland (Fig. 1).

The problem develops when a building foundation lies on cutters and pinnacles. The weight of the building will
compact the soil to some extent, and the building will settle. That is normal, and does not pose a problem as
long as the building settles uniformly. However, in pinnacle karst, part of the foundation may be supported by a
bedrock pinnacle and part may be supported by a cutter (soil-filled). The result can be differential settling of the
building, which may produce cracks in the walls, foundation, and floor (Fig. 2). This may compromise the
structural soundness of the bearing walls and, therefore, place the safety of the whole structure in doubt.
Large buildings (schools, shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) commonly have a detailed engineering design
to avoid such potential problems, but private homes are often built with little regard to such problems. Adequate
site evaluation prior to building is important; done properly, it can do much to prevent damage to a home from
differential settling.

Subsurface Erosion (Piping)

Piping is subsurface erosion of soil by percolating waters to produce pipe-like conduits underground. Piping
can affect materials ranging from clay-size particles (less than 0.002 mm) to gravels (several centimeters), but
is most common in fine-grained soils such as fine sand, silt, and coarse clay. The resulting "pipes" are
commonly a few millimeters to a few centimeters in size, but can grow to a meter or more in diameter. They
may lie very close to the ground surface or extend several meters below ground.

Figure 2.-- Cross-section sketch illustrating structural damage

Piping can become a problem in areas of cutter-and-pinnacle karst, as well as in some non-karst areas. As
shown in Figure 3, what begins as piping can develop into cavities in the soil overburden. Piping tends to
become accelerated when the water table is lowered by over-pumping ground water, when the amount of
infiltrating water increases, or both. (The "water table" marks the top of the zone of saturation, in which all
pores and voids in bedrock and soil are filled with water.)

What can cause increased volume of water that infiltrates the soil overburden? Long periods of rainfall can be a
factor, but man's activities also are significant. Buildings with large roof areas, parking lots, streets and
highways change the runoff and infiltration characteristics of soil by decreasing widespread, diffuse infiltration
and channeling surface runoff to areas where more concentrated infiltration can occur. Figure 3 shows how
runoff can be concentrated in the subsurface to create subsurface cavities. This is especially common in soil-
filled cutters.

One consequence of modification in runoff and infiltration can be foundation problems similar to those
mentioned in the previous section. Figure 3 shows how a leaking storm drain or water main may lead to the
pipe breaking and how runoff from streets and houses may create subsurface cavities near building
foundations. This, it should be added, can occur in non-karst areas too. Because the pavements and buildings
act as supporting structures, the loss of soil may not be apparent until a sizable cavity has developed. At some
point, structural support is lost. The result may be a relatively slow subsidence of the street or the building,
during which cracks will develop in basement walls and floors, or the result may be a sudden collapse of the
building or pavement. It should be noted, also, that rerouting of storm runoff from rooftops, parking lots, and
streets can cause soil piping under adjacent properties.

Collapse Sinkholes
As used here, the term sinkhole refers exclusively to one type of closed depressions in karst landscapes. One
type of sinkhole is the collapse sinkhole, so named because it forms suddenly when the land surface collapses
into underground voids, or cavities. Collapse sinkholes are often fairly circular with steeply sloping sides. They
can be so small as to be barely noticeable to 50 meters or more in width and depth. Once formed, they can
also grow larger.

Figure 3.-- Cross-section sketch illustrating soil piping and

possible structural damage initiated by modification of natural runoff and infiltration of water (after
White, 1988).
In some karst terranes, collapse sinkholes form when the roof of a cave or cavern collapses. Such is the case
in some collapses in Florida (Sinclair, 1982). However, most collapse sinkholes seem associated with cavities
in the soil overlying the carbonate rock. Some prefer the term cover collapse sinkhole to denote that collapse
occurs in cavities in the soil overburden, or cover, rather than in the carbonate bedrock below. This is the
general case for collapse sinkholes in areas of pinnacle karst in Maryland.

Other types of sinkholes form slowly by the dissolving of carbonate rock at or very near the surface. They tend
to have gently sloping sides, and they seldom pose a hazard by collapsing. Like collapse sinkholes, however,
they can pose environmental problems related to pollution, because they provide a point where polluted
surface runoff can directly flow into the ground water.

In the United States, according to one study, the states most impacted by collapse sinkholes are Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee (Newton, 1987).

In Maryland, collapse sinkholes occur mainly in four areas: the limestones of the Hagerstown Valley in
Washington County and the Frederick Valley in Frederick County, marble in the Wakefield Valley in Carroll
County and, to a lesser degree, in marble valleys of Baltimore County (Fig. 1). Collapse sinkholes seem to be
most prevalent in the Frederick Valley and the Wakefield Valley.

Cavities of various sizes tend to develop in the soil overburden where infiltrating surface waters erode the soil
by piping and transport it downward through bedrock cracks, or joints, that are themselves widened and
enlarged by the dissolving of the rock by the infiltrating water. This creates something like a plumbing system
through which the eroded soil overburden is carried.

Infiltrating CO2-charged water dissolves more and more carbonate rock over long periods, sometimes
enlarging the cracks to a meter or more in width. These solutionally enlarged joints are most effective in
transporting soil when they are above the water table. A lowering of the water table, therefore, tends to
increase that effectiveness. In time, this process can produce a large cavity in the soil overburden (Fig. 4).
 Figure 4. Cross-section sketch showing the progressive development
of a cavity in the soil overburden and eventual creation of a collapse sinkhole. Once the soil "bridge"
over the cavity cannot support itself, collapse occurs (after Newton, 1987).
Moisture conditions in the soil overburden are important in that moisture affects soil strength. Many factors can
affect soil moisture--climate, soil texture, soil mineralogy, evaporation, transpiration (the uptake of moisture by
vegetation), and sometimes depth to water table, to name a few. The interplay among the factors is complex,
but the net result is that "some" moisture enhances soil strength; too much or too little diminish it.

For example, imagine a soil cavity exists a few meters below the surface. Following a period of much rain, soil
moisture content may become high enough that it effectively reduces the strength of the soil, allowing collapse
to occur. In a few cases, the weight of the extra water from infiltrated rain may even be enough to trigger a
collapse. On the other hand, in a period of drought, drying can reduce soil strength. Drying tends to cause
shrinking, which causes cracking, which in turn can lead to spalling of soil from the roof of the cavity, eventually
resulting in collapse. Thus, some soil moisture is good because it increases the strength and reduces erodibility
of the soil, but too much or too little moisture generally reduces the strength of the soil and makes collapse
more likely.

The water table and soil moisture fluctuate naturally during the year in response to patterns of precipitation,
evaporation, and transpiration. Ground water is not static, or stationary; it moves through pores and cracks in
the bedrock along a gradient, or "slope," from higher elevations to lower, eventually discharging into streams.
However, pumping a well or group of wells (residential, commercial, municipal, or industrial wells) forms a
cone-shaped depression in the water table around the well(s). If a cone of depression becomes large enough
due to prolonged pumping, possible consequences include occurrence of a collapse sinkhole, an increase in
soil piping, loss of water in nearby wells, dried up springs or streams, ground subsidence, or even reduction of
support beneath foundations of buildings. In cases such as these, one often hears the terms, dewatering and
overpumping.

Dewatering due to overpumping is not the only manmade cause of collapse sinkholes. The same kinds of
alterations to drainage discussed previously are often involved too. A study of collapse sinkholes occurring over
a nearly fifty-year period in Missouri (Williams and Vineyard, 1976) showed that about half of collapse sinkholes
were natural and about half were man-induced. Altering drainage conditions was found to be the chief
manmade "cause" (Table 1). These observations apply to Missouri only, but they do show that there are
several possible triggering mechanisms.

A natural collapse is the product of a process that can span many thousands of years. Human activities (such
as those listed in Table 1) or unusually wet or dry weather can trigger collapse where the natural process has
set the stage for transport of soil from a growing void. However, correctly determining the immediate cause, or
trigger, of a collapse sinkhole is often very difficult.
 Table 1.-- Frequency of collapse sinkholes in Missouri on the basis
of "immediate" cause, as derived from records kept from 1930
through
the mid-1970s (after Williams and Vineyard, 1976).

Collapse Sinkholes in Missouri

Accurately predicting collapse
sinkholes is also very difficult.
Number by natural causes 51
Conditions must be such that
collapse is imminent. In other words,
any of a number of contributing Number man-induced 46
processes must have operated for
some time. Often, there is no Altered drainage 24
warning that a cavity in the soil has
developed until a collapse occurs. Water impoundments 10

In areas of known collapse Dewatering 7

sinkholes, frequent observations
have sometimes proven useful. Highway construction 3
Sinclair (1982) lists the following
possible precursors of sinkhole
collapse: Blasting 2

 Slumping or sagging.
Tilting of fenceposts or
other objects from the vertical. Doors and windows that fail to open and close properly may
be early warnings.
 Structural failure. Cracks, however small, along mortar joints in walls and in pavements
may indicate subsidence.
 Ponding. The ponding of rainfall may be the first indication of actual land subsidence.
 Vegetative stress. One of the earliest effects at an incipient sinkhole is lowering of the
water table. The lowered water table may result in visible stress (e.g., wilting) to a small
area of vegetation.
 Turbidity in well water. Water sometimes becomes turbid during the early stages of
development of a nearby sinkhole.
It is important to realize that each of these things can occur for other reasons--and in non-karst areas.
However, if any of these observations are made in an area of known sinkholes and if roads or buildings are
potentially at risk, the property owner should consider acquiring the services of an engineering geologist or a
foundations engineer. If you find a newly formed or forming collapse sinkhole, please report it at once. • If on
State highway right-of-way, call the State Highway Administration at 410-321-3107 (or call the district office
listed in the blue pages of your telephone book).

 If near an active quarry, call the Mining Program of the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 410-631-8055.
 In other cases, contact the nearest office of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (also listed in the blue pages).
 Direct general inquiries to the Maryland Geological Survey.
A final word of caution: Never climb into a collapse sinkhole, and never go into any visible opening at the
bottom of a sinkhole--especially if you are alone. Always exercise caution when walking around sinkholes.

http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/geohazards/engineering_problems_in_karst.html

http://riszkynurseno.blogspot.com/2011/06/history-of-tower-of-pisa.html