research article application of geophysical...

Hindawi Publishing CorporationThe Scientific World JournalVolume 2013 Article ID 629476 11 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013629476

Research ArticleApplication of Geophysical Techniques for 3D GeohazardMapping to Delineate Cavities and Potential Sinkholes inthe Northern Part of Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Zeinab Bakhshipour1 Bujang B K Huat1 Shaharin Ibrahim2

Afshin Asadi3 and Nura Umar Kura2

1 Civil Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering University Putra Malaysia 43400 Serdang Selangor Malaysia2 Faculty of Environmental Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 43400 Serdang Selangor Malaysia3Housing Research Center Civil Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering University Putra Malaysia43400 Serdang Selangor Malaysia

Correspondence should be addressed to Bujang B K Huat bujangkh2001upmedumy

Received 2 November 2013 Accepted 27 November 2013

Academic Editors A Billi B V Kozelov and A Singh

Copyright copy 2013 Zeinab Bakhshipour et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

This work describes the application of the electrical resistivity (ER) method to delineating subsurface structures and cavities inKuala Lumpur Limestone within the Batu Cave area of Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia In all 17 ER profiles were measured byusing a Wenner electrode configuration with 2m spacing The field survey was accompanied by laboratory work which involvestaking resistivity measurements of rock soil and water samples taken from the field to obtain the formation factorThe relationshipbetween resistivity and the formation factor and porosity for all the samples was established The porosity values were plotted andcontoured A 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional representation of the subsurface topography of the area was prepared through useof commercial computer softwareThe results show the presence of cavities and sinkholes in some parts of the study areaThis workcould help engineers and environmental managers by providing the information necessary to produce a sustainable managementplan in order to prevent catastrophic collapses of structures and other related geohazard problems

1 Introduction

Karst areas are known to have a unique set of geotechnical andenvironmental difficulties that affects land use [1] Irrespec-tive of whether karst structures are exposed or not they poseserious threats to properties such as buildings agriculturalfarmland roads and railways An example of karst-relateddestruction is the collapse of a highway bridge over the SetiRiver [2 3] Numerous engineering problems are believed tobe connected with construction in karst environments suchas the disastrous collapse of the ground surface or a slowunnoticeable subsidence which among other things couldlead eventually to the collapse of buildings the destructionof railways and roads due to subsidence and dam failuresThe formation of large voids in areas underlain by carbonaterocks may lead to either a gradual ground subsidence due to

the slow migration of fine particles from the subbase or to asudden and catastrophic pavement failure such as a sinkhole[1 4]

Damage related to sinkholes is not limited to propertiesand structures such as buildings and roads but it also affectswater and environmental resources creating pathways fordraining surface water such as streams and lakes directlyinto the underlying aquifers Furthermore this leads to thecontamination of groundwater through the transportation ofpollutants into the aquifer [5]

The process of karst formation commences as rainfall(H2O) passes from the atmosphere onto the top soil where

it then infiltrates the ground Mixed with (CO2) gas from the

air and soil this water produces weak carbonic acid (H2CO3)

which seeps further into the ground and makes contact withthe limestone (CaCO

3) andor dolomite (CaMg (CO

3)3) [5]

2 The Scientific World Journal

This leads to the dissolution of these rocks and the develop-ment of the karst which is characterised by voids and cavitiessinkholes sinking streams and the presence of irregular rocksurfaces with soil-filled lots and pinnacles [6] Thereforeprior to any activity of development in an area with sinkholesand karst formations there is the need for a comprehensivemanagement plan to prevent sinkhole-related disasters Oneof the most important measures mitigating the developmentof sinkholes is to understand and control the surface andgroundwater systems of areas underlain by carbonate rocksThese problems are usually addressed through different typesof engineering technique for example grouting however theeffects of such techniques on groundwater flow are usuallynot considered [1]

A major challenge facing researchers and engineers inassessing karsts is the identification and delineation of under-ground cavities These structures are usually unpredictableand their effects can either lead to a slow and gradualsubsidence or to a catastrophic collapse feature [1] Geologicaland geomorphological methods are some of the techniquesused in tackling these problems but a major limitationregarding these techniques is that they are not applicablein urban areas particularly those areas experiencing rapiddevelopment owing to the concealment of surface features bybuilding structures and other development activities More-over karst systems and structures represent disturbancesof the close subsurface layered system within these areasand thus hazard mapping especially for civil engineeringpurposes is impossible with limited sources of information[4] Therefore the need to understand how karstic systemsfunction involves the use of a number of indirect techniquesthat rely on the interpretation of hydrodynamic and otherrelated methods combined with geophysics This allowsengineers and researchers to assess the extent of karstificationand the quantity of groundwater resources within the areawhich enables them to have a clearer understanding of thegeometry and structure of the karst system [7]

Geophysical methods such as seismic microgravity self-potential electrical resistivity electromagnetic and ground-penetrating radar are more advantageous for geohazardinvestigations because of their nonintrusive nature and costeffectiveness [4 8 9]This is particularly the case in urbanisedareas in which the use of direct methods is virtuallyimpossible [10] Therefore the application of geophysicaltechniques for the assessment of karst features has gainedwide recognition during the past few decades [4 8]

The detection of the precise locations of voids is a majorchallenge but at the same time it is a matter of necessity forrisk assessment of collapse and for avoiding any destructionassociated with soil degradation This problem becomesincreasingly complex in areas where the presence of naturalcavities is not known [11] In such areas geophysical methodscan provide a cost-effective solution for investigating thesubsurface and for detecting cavity formation and voids[4 11 12] In this context the principal task of geophysicalsurveys is to identify precisely the presence of cavities[9]

However it is not always easy to choose the correct toolfor geophysical detection of subsurface cavities and sinkholes

because of the uncertainty related to the characteristics ofthe target [4] Many studies have demonstrated strong corre-lation between geophysical signals and known karstic voidshowever investigating for unknown karst features is still oneof the most difficult tasks facing geophysicists [4 8 13 14]Therefore further analysis such as the determination of theformation factor and porosity would not only increase thevalidity of the results but would also decrease the uncertaintyin data interpretation

This work attempts to establish a relationship betweenporosity and the resistivity of soil and rock samples to developa better understanding of subsurface resistivity distributionvia 2D electrical resistivity profiles In order to convert theresistivity image into a geological image and subsurfaceporosity knowledge both of the typical resistivity values forvarious types of subsurface materials and of the geology ofthe area in question is necessary The resistivity of rocksand soils varies widely This paper characterises the relation-ship between resistivity and soil and rock samples derivedthrough laboratory methods for developing the geometry ofcavities and sinkholes using 2D and 3D electrical resistivity(ER) techniques

11 Study Area The relatively flat study area (Figures 1 and2) is located at latitude 3∘1441015840N and longitude 101∘4121015840Ewhich is approximately 300m south of the Batu Cave lime-stone hill in Kuala Lumpur A survey by the Departmentof Minerals and Geoscience Malaysia (previously calledMalaysian Department of geological survey) revealed threegeological layers in the area The first is thin humid soil(approximately 037m thick) followed by an alluvial stratumThe final layer portrays light grey limestone bedrock whichconsists of many cavities [15] It has been estimated thatnearly 40 of Kuala Lumpur (236827Km2) is dominatedby limestone [16] thus the limestone of this area is part ofthe Kuala Lumpur limestone formation [15] The limestoneunderwent a dolomitisation process through chemical sub-stitution thermal metamorphism and recrystallisation bythermal solutions of silica (SiO

2) leading to the formation of

coarse and fine crystal marble [16]

12 Materials and Method

121 Field and Laboratory Studies An ABEM TerrameterSAS 10004000 was used to perform the electrical resistivitymeasurements in the field utilising the Wenner config-uration because of its ability to detect vertical changeshorizontal structures and strong signal strengths [17] Inall 17 profile lines each 80m long were measured withan electrode spacing of 2m intervals designed to coincidewith the dimensions of the studied field The resistivity dataobtained from the field were then inverted using RES2DINVsoftware via apparent resistivity to obtain the true resistivityand true depth of the resistivity image The lines werearranged to create a grid (Figure 3) of the entire area toacquire as much detailed information as possible Nine ofthese lines (1ndash9) were oriented East-West and seven lines (11ndash17) were aligned North-South One profile (line 10) was run

The Scientific World Journal 3

Batu Caves

Jinjang

Sentul

Kuala Lumpur

Salak Selatan

Setapak

Ampang

Ulu Kelang

Gombak

Reservoir Klang Gate N

RoadGraniteHawthorndenKenny Hill

LakeLimestoneSchist

Figure 1 Geological map of the study area [15]

797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358900

358100

358200

358300

358400 797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358100

358200

358300

358400

Study area

358000

Figure 2 Study area of Batu Cave (Google Map 2011)

diagonally (Figure 3)The length of each line is 80m with theexception of the diagonal line which is 160m

Soil and core rock samples were collected along theresistivity profile lines The soil samples were collected from

Kampung Melayu WiraDamai

Football field

Jalan Ipoh Jalan Seven

Batu Cave

Figure 3 Map from Google Earth showing alignment of resistivitylines on the study area and two additional lines one near the riverand the other near Batu Cave Mountain

top soil to the depth of one (m) Each sample underwentlaboratory measurements of physical properties such as theeffective porosity particle size distribution bulk densitymoisture content and resistivityThe apparatus used for bothfield and laboratory analyses are shown in Figures 4(a) 4(b)and 4(c)


(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4 Field and laboratory measurement of electrical resistivity (a) ABEM Terrameter (OhmΩ) resistivity meter in the field (Model-2115) (b) a precision inductance conductance and resistance (LCR) meter for conductance and resistance of rock (LCR) and (c) ABEMTerrameter (OhmΩ) resistivity meter of soil and water in laboratory

122 Estimation of Effective Porosity and Formation FactorThe study of porosity and its distribution is very importantbecause of its relationship with other geophysical parameterssuch as resistivity and the associated formation factor Effec-tive porosity as defined by [18] as a segment of the soil orrock that contributes to flow Mathematically it is the ratioof the interconnectivity of pore volume to the total volumeof the medium Based on these definitions effective porositymaintains the water in the formation and accounts for thespace they occupy thus it better represents the formation

For a rock saturated with water Archie [19] established anexperimental relationship linking the resistivity of the rockthe porosity the nature of the distribution and the resistivityof the electrolyte as follows

119877rock = 119877119908120572120593minus119898 (1)

where 119877rock is the bulk resistivity of the rock in (Ωsdotm) 119877119908

is the resistivity of the formation water in (Ωsdotm) 120593 is theporosity ()119898 is the cementation factor and 120572 is associatedwith the porous medium


Table 1 Porosity of earth materials from the study area

Sample material Location Porosity Soil Football field 4362ndash50Un weathered limestone Batu Cave Mountain 033ndash466Weathered limestone Batu Cave Mountain 107ndash2404

The purpose of determining the effective porosity and theformation factor is to establish a relationship between theequations established in the laboratory from integrated soiland rock samples and 2D ER obtained from the field to derivethe subsurface distribution of porosity and other associatedfeatures of the area under investigation

In this work the ER images were used to delineate andlocate the various karst features such as fractures and cavitiesIn order to understand the significance of the resistivityvalues measured in the field it is important to establish arelationship between ER andor the formation factor andits potential use in the interpretation of subsurface featuresAs such laboratory analyses for physical parameters of soiland rock samples such as the effective porosity ER (andassociated formation factor) were measured These valuestogether with the field ER images were then used to assessthe subsurface distribution of porosity and other associatedfeatures such as fractures and cavities The depth to thebedrock was determined by subsurface ER and porositydistribution along each line

To identify subsurface zones and the depth of each zonesubsurface ER distribution porosity and void ratio distribu-tions were determined The coordinates of each of the datapoints of the ER images from North-South East-West andalong the diagonal line were determined The spatial distri-bution of limestone and some structures associated with thegeotechnical problems in the subsurface were evaluated byusing the SURFER (ver82) software to generate the 2D and3D representations of the subsurface topography of the area

2 Results and Discussion

Porosity measurements on subsurface rock and soil samplesobtained from the laboratory work are shown in Table 1 Theresults show that rock formations that consist of unweatheredand weathered limestone have porosities ranging between033 to 2404 while the soils porosity is between 4362 to50

Table 2 presents the laboratory measurements of ER forthe rock soil and water samples from the study area Theessence of this is to obtain the resistivity formation factor Arelationship between the formation factor and porosity of theintegrated soil and rock samples has been established by usingthe power fitted equation (1)

To relate the formation factor and the fractional porosityof the earth materials (Table 3) found in the study area theresults from the rock and soil measurements were integratedThepurpose of this integrationwas to obtain a single equationthat describes how the formation factor will vary as thefractional porosity of the earth material varies within thestudy area (Figure 5)This equationwas then used to calculate

Table 2 Electrical resistivity of earth materials from the study area

Sampled material Location Resistivity (Ωsdotm)Rainwatersurface water Football field 744ndash26199Spring water Kg Batu 6566ndash15172Soil Football field 2656ndash20454Un weathered limestone Batu Cave Mountain 7840ndash34897Weathered limestone Batu Cave Mountain 1431ndash7504

35

3

25

2

15

1

05

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Fractional porosity 120593

Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Rock R2 = 06

Soil

F = 004120593minus14

Figure 5 Variation of formation factor against porosity of rock andsoil samples

the subsurface porosities indicated by the results of the 2DERimaging survey performed in the area

The power fitted regression of data points obtained in thepresent investigation yields

119865 = 004120593minus014 with1198772 = 06 (2)

This equation is then applied to calculate the porosity of thesubsurface from 2D resistivity imaging using the resistivitymodelling software RES2DINV

21 Interpretation of 2D ER Imaging The first ER profileline (Figure 6) was oriented East-West The inverse modelresistivity section shows a pronounced anomaly at the topof approximately 05 to 45m Stations 0 and 80m (electrodepositions) have resistivity of 25Ωsdotm which falls within thetypical resistivity range of a humid soil in the study areaHowever at a depth of 45 to 54m the resistivity value was50Ωsdotm which falls within the alluvium resistivity values Ata depth of 54 to 6m the resistivity value was found to be80Ωsdotm indicating a highly weathered limestone layer Thenat the depth of 6 to 14m between the horizontal distancesof 10 to 68m lies a moderately weathered limestone whichis the dominant layer with a resistivity value of 180 (Ωsdotm) Anincrease in resistivity of 300Ωsdotmcanbe observed at the centreand the right-hand side of the image at a depth of 69mwhich indicates slightly weathered limestone A fault planecan be seen at the right-hand side of the image towards thecentre facing the slightly weathered limestone At the bottomof the image on the left-hand side is a small portion that showsa decrease in resistivity of 50Ωsdotm this decrease in resistivitysuggests the presence of a cavity [20]

The porosity along the first line ranges from 10 to42 Figure 7 shows the subsurface porosity distribution of


Table 3 Classification use for the description of rock massmaterial in the study area

Porosity ResistivityΩsdotm Explanation Description ofsamples for Batu Cave Description Pictures of samples

26ndash50 25ndash50 Residual (RS) Humid soil Soil

16ndash26 50ndash80 Completelyweathered (CW) Alluvium Soil and rock

14ndash16 80ndash180 Highly weathered(HW)

Highly weatheredlimestone Red colour

10ndash14 180ndash300 Moderatelyweathered (MW)

Moderatel weatheredlimestone Cream colour

6ndash10 300ndash380 Slightlyweathered (SW)

Slightly weatheredlimestone White and grey

4ndash6 380ndash500 Unweathered Fresh limestone White colour


05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane

Unit electrode spacing 200m

01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900Inverse model resistivity section

(Ωmiddotm

)

Figure 6 2D resistivity image of first line showing cavity and fault plane

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity

Figure 7 A 2D porosity image of the first profile line indicating cavity affected area

01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)

Inverse model resistivity section Unit electrode spacing 400m

(Ωmiddotm

)

Figure 8 Investigation of 2D resistivity image of second line

the area By comparing this with the ER distribution along thesame line slightly weathered limestone with porosity of 10is found to be in the lower part of the traverseThe humid soilwhich has porosity of around 34 to 42 is situated at theupper part of the image and the alluvium having a porosityranging from 16 to 34 is found beneath the humid soilHighly weathered limestone with porosity between 14 and16 is located below the alluviumThemoderately weatheredlimestone with porosity between 10 and 14 can be seenin between the slightly weathered limestone and the highlyweathered limestone In the lower part of the image lies asmall portion that shows higher porosity than the upper layerThis is believed to be a cavity formed by the pressure of thetop layer

The second ER profile is the diagonal line (Figure 8)with a length of 160m This line runs from the northwest tosoutheast across the survey area A resistivity value of 25Ωsdotmcan be found along the profile line between the horizontaldistances of 48 to 148m at a depth of 5m This zone isidentified as the humid soilThe alluviumzonewith resistivityof 50 Ωsdotm is found to be underlying the humid soil layerHighly weathered limestone with resistivity of 80 Ωsdotm formsa very thin layer along the profile line between 40 and 144mat a depth of 9m Below this layer lies amoderately weatheredlimestone (180Ωsdotm)The slightly weathered limestone with aresistivity value of 300Ωsdotm can be found at the bottom of theimage at a depth of 20m between distances of 40 and 140malong the profile line (Figure 8)


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818

Figure 9 Investigation of 2D porosity image of second line

01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity

Unit electrode spacing 200mInverse model resistivity section

(Ωmiddotm

)

Figure 10 Investigation of 2D resistivity image of third line

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18

Zone of potential collapse

46

Figure 11 Investigation of 2D porosity image of third line

Figure 9 shows the subsurface porosity distribution ofthe diagonal line By comparing this with the resistivitydistribution image of the same line the porosity can beseen to range from 6 to 46 The top of the image ishumid soil which has porosity of 34 to 46 The alluviumhas porosity ranging between 20 and 34 The highlyweathered limestone has porosity ranging from 16 to 20whereas the moderately weathered limestone has porosityranging from 10 to 16and the slightlyweathered limestonehas porosity of 6 to 10 In this line the moderatelyweathered limestone covers the slightly weathered lime-stone

The third ER line is aligned North-South in the fieldwith a length of 80m The subsurface resistivity distributionof the area is shown in Figure 10 The resistivity value of25Ωsdotm can be found along the profile line between 0 and

80m horizontal distance at vertical depths of between 05and 4m This layer is the humid soil and below this zoneis the alluvium layer with resistivity of 50Ωsdotm A highlyweathered limestone can be found at a vertical depth of 15mbelow the ground This layer has resistivity of 80Ωsdotm and iscontinuous throughout the section A moderately weatheredlimestone with resistivity of 180Ωsdotmcan be found between 14and 58m horizontal distance at a depth of 54m This layeris the uppermost part of the slightly weathered limestonewith a resistivity value of 300Ωsdotm An anomaly is found atthe bottom of the image on the left-hand side This anomalyis interpreted as a possible cavity within the limestone Thedecrease in resistivity can be associated with the presence ofa cavity

Figure 11 shows the subsurface porosity distribution of thethird line By comparing this with the resistivity distribution


0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)

Weathering soil (humid soil)

Brownish whitey silty clay with traces of muscovite(alluvium deposits)

Whitish gray limestone with fair pink lines

Light gray limestone with fair pink lines

CavityWhitish gray limestone

Cavity filled up with sediment

1930

(a)

(b)

Cavity filled up with water

Figure 12 Borehole information in Batu Cave adopted from [20]

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35

Figure 13 2D representation of the topography of the study area (red circles show the location of the cavities)

image of the same line the porosity can be seen to range from6 to 46The top part of the image is believed to be humidsoil which has porosity from 34 to 46 This is followedby an alluvium layer with porosity ranging between 20

and 34 A highly weathered limestone zone with porositybetween 16 and 20 can be seen under the alluvium layerA moderately weathered limestone with porosity rangingfrom 10 to 16 was found beneath the highly weathered


51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole

Cavity and sinkholeX YZ

N

Figure 14 3D representation of subsurface limestone in study area

limestone followed by slightly weathered limestone (porosity6 to 10) At the bottommost left-hand side of the image liesa cavity

22 Subsurface Topographic Features of the Limestone Ob-tained in the Study Area This section focuses on the detec-tion of subsurface anomalies within the area such as sink-holes cavities soil pipes and fractures and then convertingthem through the use of ER survey techniques into 2D and3D representations to provide a clear understanding of theentire system and of the geotechnical problems that couldbe associated with these geologic structures This was basedboth on the integration of information from the laboratoryresistivity measurement of the soil and rock samples andon the information extracted from the contour lines in theresistivity imagesThis information is then comparedwith theborehole information (Figure 12) of the area for validation

Based on the information extracted from all the resistivityand porosity lines of the study area the distribution of thegeohazard-related structures and the topography of the areaare shown in Figure 13 The 2D image shows the topographyof the study area This figure in comparison with all the ERlines in the field shows that there are some cavities in thesubsurface below a depth of 105mThese findings agree withthe results of the borehole records and gravity results shownin Figures 12 and 13 The regions enclosed by the red circlesin Figures 12 and 13 shows the presence of cavities

Geohazard structures and other related features withinthe subsurface of the study area are presented in 3D viewin Figure 14 This illustrates evidence that clearly showsthe presence of cavities andor sinkholes within the studyarea The 3D representation also indicates the magnitudeand structural distribution of the cavities and how somecavities or sinkholes (as represented by the deep andor sharpdepressions within the limestone) are presented at a depth ofaround 95 to 145m in some parts of the area

3 Conclusions

The intention of this paper was to develop a geometrical rep-resentation of cavities and sinkholes based on 2D and 3D ERtechniques by establishing a relationship between soils androck samples obtained from laboratory measurements and

field ER measurements The resistivity data obtained fromthe field surveys were analysed to determine the subsurfaceboundaries and layers of limestone and other structures Theformation factor 119865 = 00406120593minus01402 and fractional porosity120593 relationship were then used to calculate the subsurfaceporosities of the earth materials

These results were then integrated with the field ER mea-surements to produce 2D and 3D images of the surface andsubsurface structures respectively The presence of cavitiesand sinkholes was determined in the northeast northwestsouthwest and southern parts of the study area

This work illustrates how the integration of laboratoryand field analysis can assist in creating geohazard maps Theresults also give better information of subsurface structuralsystems based on 3D features This work would facilitate theability of engineers and environmental managers to developreliable sustainable management plans for the prevention ofthe catastrophic collapse of building structures and otherrelated geohazard disasters

Conflicts of Interests

There is no any conflict of interest

References

[1] W Zhou and B F Beck ldquoEngineering issues on karstrdquo in KarstManagement pp 9ndash45 Springer Tampa Fla USA 2011

[2] M Dhital and S Giri ldquoEngineering-geological investigationsat the collapsed Seti Bridge site Pokharardquo Bulletin of theDepartment of Geology of Tribhuvan University vol 3 no 1 pp119ndash1141 1993

[3] P Gautam S Raj Pant and H Ando ldquoMapping of subsurfacekarst structurewith gamma ray and electrical resistivity profilesa case study from Pokhara valley central Nepalrdquo Journal ofApplied Geophysics vol 45 no 2 pp 97ndash110 2000

[4] M Farooq S Park Y S Song J H Kim M Tariq and A AAbraham ldquoSubsurface cavity detection in a karst environmentusing electrical resistivity (er) a case study from yongweol-riSouth Koreardquo Earth Sciences Research Journal vol 16 no 1 pp75ndash82 2012

[5] A Tihansky ldquoSinkholes West-Central Floridardquo in Land Subsi-dence in the United States USGS Circular 1182 pp 121ndash140 USGeological Survey Tampa Fla USA 1999

[6] P CarpenterWDoll andRKaufmann ldquoGeophysical characterof buried sinkholes on the Oak Ridge Reservation TennesseerdquoJournal of Environmental amp Engineering Geophysics vol 3 pp133ndash145 1998

[7] R Guerin J-M Baltassat M Boucher et al ldquoGeophysicalcharacterisation of karstic networksmdashapplication to the Ouyssesystem (Poumeyssen France)rdquoComptes Rendus vol 341 no 10-11 pp 810ndash817 2009

[8] J Zhu J C Currens and J S Dinger ldquoChallenges of usingelectrical resistivity method to locate karst conduitsmdasha fieldcase in the Inner Bluegrass Region Kentuckyrdquo Journal ofApplied Geophysics vol 75 no 3 pp 523ndash530 2011

[9] J-H Kim M-J Yi S-H Hwang Y Song S-J Cho and J-HSynn ldquoIntegrated geophysical surveys for the safety evaluationof a ground subsidence zone in a small cityrdquo Journal of


Geophysics and Engineering vol 4 no 3 article S12 pp 332ndash347 2007

[10] G B Fasani F Bozzano E Cardarelli and M CercatoldquoUnderground cavity investigation within the city of Rome(Italy) a multi-disciplinary approach combining geological andgeophysical datardquo Engineering Geology vol 152 pp 109ndash1212013

[11] G Grandjean and D Leparoux ldquoThe potential of seismic meth-ods for detecting cavities and buried objects experimentationat a test siterdquo Journal of Applied Geophysics vol 56 no 2 pp93ndash106 2004

[12] T L Dobecki and S B Upchurch ldquoGeophysical applications todetect sinkholes and ground subsidencerdquo Leading Edge vol 25no 3 pp 336ndash341 2006

[13] P J Gibson P Lyle andDM George ldquoApplication of resistivityand magnetometry geophysical techniques for near-surfaceinvestigations in karstic terranes in Irelandrdquo Journal of Cave andKarst Studies vol 66 no 2 pp 35ndash38 2004


[15] M I I Abu-Shariah ldquoDetermination of cave geometry by usinga geoelectrical resistivity inverse modelrdquo Engineering Geologyvol 105 no 3-4 pp 239ndash244 2009

[16] Z Bakhshipouri H Omar Z B M Yousof and V Ghiasi ldquoAnoverview of subsurface karst features associated with geologicalstudies inMalaysiardquo Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineer-ing vol 14 pp 1ndash15 2009

[17] M H Loke ldquoTutorial 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveysrdquo2011 httpwwwgeotomosoftcom

[18] L E Flint and J S Selker ldquoUse of porosity to estimate hydraulicproperties of volcanic tuffsrdquo Advances in Water Resources vol26 no 5 pp 561ndash571 2003

[19] G Archie ldquoThe electrical resistivity logs as an aid in determin-ing some reservoir characteristicerdquo in Transactions of the Amer-ican Institute of Mining Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineerspp 54ndash62 Harvard University Cambridge Mass USA 1942

[20] A R Samsudin M I Shariah and U Hamzah ldquoThe use ofelectrical and seismic methods for imaging shallow subsurfacestructure of limestone at Batu Cave Kuala Lumpurrdquo BulletinGeological Society of Malaysia vol 43 pp 215ndash2225 1999

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ClimatologyJournal of

EcologyInternational Journal of


EarthquakesJournal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics

OceanographyInternational Journal of


Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal ofPetroleum Engineering


GeochemistryHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of


OceanographyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in


MineralogyInternational Journal of


MeteorologyAdvances in

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Paleontology JournalHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Geological ResearchJournal of


Geology Advances in


This leads to the dissolution of these rocks and the develop-ment of the karst which is characterised by voids and cavitiessinkholes sinking streams and the presence of irregular rocksurfaces with soil-filled lots and pinnacles [6] Thereforeprior to any activity of development in an area with sinkholesand karst formations there is the need for a comprehensivemanagement plan to prevent sinkhole-related disasters Oneof the most important measures mitigating the developmentof sinkholes is to understand and control the surface andgroundwater systems of areas underlain by carbonate rocksThese problems are usually addressed through different typesof engineering technique for example grouting however theeffects of such techniques on groundwater flow are usuallynot considered [1]

A major challenge facing researchers and engineers inassessing karsts is the identification and delineation of under-ground cavities These structures are usually unpredictableand their effects can either lead to a slow and gradualsubsidence or to a catastrophic collapse feature [1] Geologicaland geomorphological methods are some of the techniquesused in tackling these problems but a major limitationregarding these techniques is that they are not applicablein urban areas particularly those areas experiencing rapiddevelopment owing to the concealment of surface features bybuilding structures and other development activities More-over karst systems and structures represent disturbancesof the close subsurface layered system within these areasand thus hazard mapping especially for civil engineeringpurposes is impossible with limited sources of information[4] Therefore the need to understand how karstic systemsfunction involves the use of a number of indirect techniquesthat rely on the interpretation of hydrodynamic and otherrelated methods combined with geophysics This allowsengineers and researchers to assess the extent of karstificationand the quantity of groundwater resources within the areawhich enables them to have a clearer understanding of thegeometry and structure of the karst system [7]

Geophysical methods such as seismic microgravity self-potential electrical resistivity electromagnetic and ground-penetrating radar are more advantageous for geohazardinvestigations because of their nonintrusive nature and costeffectiveness [4 8 9]This is particularly the case in urbanisedareas in which the use of direct methods is virtuallyimpossible [10] Therefore the application of geophysicaltechniques for the assessment of karst features has gainedwide recognition during the past few decades [4 8]

The detection of the precise locations of voids is a majorchallenge but at the same time it is a matter of necessity forrisk assessment of collapse and for avoiding any destructionassociated with soil degradation This problem becomesincreasingly complex in areas where the presence of naturalcavities is not known [11] In such areas geophysical methodscan provide a cost-effective solution for investigating thesubsurface and for detecting cavity formation and voids[4 11 12] In this context the principal task of geophysicalsurveys is to identify precisely the presence of cavities[9]

However it is not always easy to choose the correct toolfor geophysical detection of subsurface cavities and sinkholes

because of the uncertainty related to the characteristics ofthe target [4] Many studies have demonstrated strong corre-lation between geophysical signals and known karstic voidshowever investigating for unknown karst features is still oneof the most difficult tasks facing geophysicists [4 8 13 14]Therefore further analysis such as the determination of theformation factor and porosity would not only increase thevalidity of the results but would also decrease the uncertaintyin data interpretation

This work attempts to establish a relationship betweenporosity and the resistivity of soil and rock samples to developa better understanding of subsurface resistivity distributionvia 2D electrical resistivity profiles In order to convert theresistivity image into a geological image and subsurfaceporosity knowledge both of the typical resistivity values forvarious types of subsurface materials and of the geology ofthe area in question is necessary The resistivity of rocksand soils varies widely This paper characterises the relation-ship between resistivity and soil and rock samples derivedthrough laboratory methods for developing the geometry ofcavities and sinkholes using 2D and 3D electrical resistivity(ER) techniques

11 Study Area The relatively flat study area (Figures 1 and2) is located at latitude 3∘1441015840N and longitude 101∘4121015840Ewhich is approximately 300m south of the Batu Cave lime-stone hill in Kuala Lumpur A survey by the Departmentof Minerals and Geoscience Malaysia (previously calledMalaysian Department of geological survey) revealed threegeological layers in the area The first is thin humid soil(approximately 037m thick) followed by an alluvial stratumThe final layer portrays light grey limestone bedrock whichconsists of many cavities [15] It has been estimated thatnearly 40 of Kuala Lumpur (236827Km2) is dominatedby limestone [16] thus the limestone of this area is part ofthe Kuala Lumpur limestone formation [15] The limestoneunderwent a dolomitisation process through chemical sub-stitution thermal metamorphism and recrystallisation bythermal solutions of silica (SiO

2) leading to the formation of

coarse and fine crystal marble [16]

12 Materials and Method

121 Field and Laboratory Studies An ABEM TerrameterSAS 10004000 was used to perform the electrical resistivitymeasurements in the field utilising the Wenner config-uration because of its ability to detect vertical changeshorizontal structures and strong signal strengths [17] Inall 17 profile lines each 80m long were measured withan electrode spacing of 2m intervals designed to coincidewith the dimensions of the studied field The resistivity dataobtained from the field were then inverted using RES2DINVsoftware via apparent resistivity to obtain the true resistivityand true depth of the resistivity image The lines werearranged to create a grid (Figure 3) of the entire area toacquire as much detailed information as possible Nine ofthese lines (1ndash9) were oriented East-West and seven lines (11ndash17) were aligned North-South One profile (line 10) was run


Batu Caves

Jinjang

Sentul

Kuala Lumpur

Salak Selatan

Setapak

Ampang

Ulu Kelang

Gombak



LakeLimestoneSchist


797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358900

358100

358200

358300

358400 797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358100

358200

358300

358400

Study area

358000





Football field


Batu Cave




(a)

(b)

(c)




119877rock = 119877119908120572120593minus119898 (1)















35

3

25

2

15

1

05

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07


Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Rock R2 = 06

Soil

F = 004120593minus14




119865 = 004120593minus014 with1198772 = 06 (2)

















05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane



(Ωmiddotm

)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)


(Ωmiddotm

)





0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in


Batu Caves

Jinjang

Sentul

Kuala Lumpur

Salak Selatan

Setapak

Ampang

Ulu Kelang

Gombak



LakeLimestoneSchist


797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358900

358100

358200

358300

358400 797340 797440 797540 797640 797740 797840 797940

357900

358100

358200

358300

358400

Study area

358000





Football field


Batu Cave




(a)

(b)

(c)




119877rock = 119877119908120572120593minus119898 (1)















35

3

25

2

15

1

05

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07


Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Rock R2 = 06

Soil

F = 004120593minus14




119865 = 004120593minus014 with1198772 = 06 (2)

















05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane



(Ωmiddotm

)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)


(Ωmiddotm

)





0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in


(a)

(b)

(c)




119877rock = 119877119908120572120593minus119898 (1)















35

3

25

2

15

1

05

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07


Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Rock R2 = 06

Soil

F = 004120593minus14




119865 = 004120593minus014 with1198772 = 06 (2)

















05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane



(Ωmiddotm

)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)


(Ωmiddotm

)





0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in













35

3

25

2

15

1

05

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07


Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Rock R2 = 06

Soil

F = 004120593minus14




119865 = 004120593minus014 with1198772 = 06 (2)

















05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane



(Ωmiddotm

)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)


(Ωmiddotm

)





0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in














05

27

54

69

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

CavityFault plane



(Ωmiddotm

)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

38

38

42

2618

3030

30142234

10

38 4226

18 18 1414

14

2222

34

10

26 34

Cavity


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)


(Ωmiddotm

)





0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

(m)

05

50

92

134

177

220

265

300

Dep

th (m

)22

38 34

18

3038

14 10

2622

42 38 38

18

6

10

10

34

3430 3042

1414

26 26

38 38

22

10

14

1818


01003507103550801325508018030038050010001900

05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Dep

th (m

)

Cavity


(Ωmiddotm

)


05

27

5469

86

105

125

148

Dep

th (m

)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(m)

Cavity

34

34 34

34

18

30

3030

3026

22

42

38

38 38

18

66

34 3434

30

30

4242

14 26 26

26

22 22

10

14

14

18


46







0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in


0000

880910

1480

1720

18101840

2570

0003

63

Dep

th (m

)

Dep

th (m

)







1930

(a)

(b)



90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

010 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cavity Cavity

75

75

135

115

115

115

115

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

95

95

95

95

75

75

75

75

75

95 35





51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in


51015

Cavity andsinkhole

Cavity and sinkhole


N






3 Conclusions







References
































Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in























Volume 2014

Mining


Journal of



Geophysics







Journal of




Advances in











Geology Advances in

research article application of geophysical...

Documents