International Conference And Exhibition on Trenchless Technology and Tunnelling,

7 – 9 March 2006, Hotel Sheraton Subang, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE SMART TUNNEL

Siow Meng Tan

SSP Geotechnics Sdn Bhd
(sspg@sspsb.com.my)

ABSTRACT: The SMART tunnel spans across the eastern side of Kuala Lumpur. It is
9.7km long and is located in Kuala Lumpur Limestone well known for its highly erratic
karstic features. Both ends of the tunnel alignment, adding up to more than half of the total
tunnel length, are in ex-tin mining lands. This paper presents the various underground
features encountered along the tunnel alignment particularly the limestone karstic features
and the engineering properties of the limestone.

1. INTRODUCTION
The SMART tunnel spans across the eastern side of Kuala Lumpur in a north east-south
west direction, starting near the confluence point of Sg. Ampang river and Sg. Klang river
in the north and ends at the lake at Desa Water Theme Park. The total tunnel length is
9.7km with a bore diameter of 13.26m. The cover thickness above the tunnel is about 1 to
1.5 tunnel diameter. There are six shafts: One at each end of the tunnel for TBM retrieval;
the TBM launch shaft in the mid-alignment is the largest, measuring 140m long, 20m wide
and 30m deep; two junction boxes and a stand alone ventilation shaft. The tunnel is located
in Kuala Lumpur Limestone which is well known for its highly erratic karstic features.
The areas at both ends of the tunnel alignment, adding up to more than half of the total
alignment length, have been subjected to tin mining in the past.
This paper presents the various subsurface features encountered along the tunnel align-
ment particularly the limestone karsts and some of the engineering properties of the Kuala
Lumpur Limestone, mainly based on the information collected from the site investigation
during the design stage.

2. GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The alignment of the SMART Tunnel is superimposed on the map extracted from GSM
1995 as shown in Figure 1. The tunnel is located in Kuala Lumpur Limestone. The areas at
both ends of the tunnel alignment, , have been subjected to tin mining in the past as shown
in Figure1 and Figure 2.
Kuala Lumpur Limestone belongs to Upper Silurian marble. It is “finely crystalline grey
to cream, thickly bedded, variably dolomitic rock. Banded marble, saccharoidal dolomite,
and pure calcitic limestone also occur” as described by Gobbett & Hutchison 1973. The
properties of the limestone are given in Section 5. Kuala Lumpur Limestone is well known

1
for its highly erratic karstic
features (Tan 2005, Ch’ng
1984, Chan & Hong 1986,
Ting 1986, Yeap 1986)

3. TIN MINING
Tin mining activities in Kuala
Lumpur started in 1857 when
the first mine was operated in
Ampang. Tin mining was
rampant in the past and
concentrated in the limestone
area of Kuala Lumpur as
shown in Figure 2. Note that
most information concerning
the tin mining industry of
Selangor before the Second
World War was lost or
destroyed during the war (Yin
1986), and as a result, it is not
possible to have a complete Figure 1 Geological map: Ex-mining area is dotted; Solid lines are
and accurate record of all the fault lines, dashed lines are inferred fault lines (GSM, 1995)
mining areas.
Most tin mine tenures expired in the early 1980s. The common mining method was
open cast and gravel pump. This method involved excavation by big machines such as
bucket wheels and ‘navies’. At confined places, such as potholes and pinnacles, the
sediments were first broken by water jet and washed down to a pool which was then
pumped to flow down along a sluice built on a tall wooden framework called ‘palong’
(Figure 3), thus concentrating the heavy minerals including the tin ore cassiterite (Ayob
1965).
The mining activities left behind numerous ponds and remnants mainly consisting of
sand and clay slime, forming a highly heterogeneous sequence of overburden materials
over the limestone as illustrated in Figure 4.

4. KARSTS OF KUALA LUMPUR LIMESTONE

4.1 Development of Karsts
Karst topography in limestone is formed by a chemical dissolution process when ground-
water circulates through the limestone as illustrated in Figure 5. Carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere is fixed or converted in the soil in an aqueous state and combined with rain-
water to form carbonic acid, which readily dissolves carbonate rocks. Karstic features
develop from a self-accelerating process of water flow along well-defined pathways such
as bedding planes, joints and faults. As the water percolates downward under the force of
gravity, it dissolves and enlarges the pathways. Enlargement of a pathway allows more
water flow which increases the dissolution rate. As the enlarged pathway transmits more
water, it pirates drainage from the surrounding rock mass. Over time, this process results in
very jagged appearance, sometimes dissecting vertically and deeply into the rock terrain.

2
 Water will continue to
percolate downward until it
reaches the water table,
below which all pore space
is occupied by water. The
water table fluctuates as a
result of seasonal change
and creates a zone of
preferential dissolution
along the zone of fluctua-
tion. Over time, this
process creates solution
channels.
The dissolution of lime-
stone is a very slow process
compared to the human life
span. The dissolution rate SMART
is expressed in ka, 1000 TUNNEL
years (Kaufmann 2004). L

4.2 Limestone Profile

The limestone profile along
the tunnel alignment
obtained from some 40
boreholes are depicted in
Figure 6(c). The limestone
profile varies with depth
varying from a few metres
to more than 30m at both
ends of the tunnel, with Figure 2 Ex-tin mining areas in Kuala Lumpur (Mining Dept.,
isolated depressions in unpublished)
between. The drop in
limestone profile at the northern end could be attributed to the fault line (see Figure 1).
The bedrock profile is expected to be a lot more erratic if more boreholes had been sunk.
Such erratic features are exposed in the excavation of some shafts. Some extreme cases are
shown in Figure 6. Steep and deep depressions on a limestone plateau are shown in
Figure 6(d). The maximum depth of a depression is 34m as determined by construction of
the contiguous bored pile wall. In another shaft, ‘potholes’ as shown in Figure 3(b1&b2)
were encountered. The largest measured 11m in diameter and 8m deep. Bigger potholes
have been observed by Ayob (1965) and Yeap (1986).
Deep depressions and potholes were suspected during the site investigation stage but it
was very difficult if not impossible to delineate the shape of such features with reasonable
accuracy without a huge number of boreholes. This was not practical and feasible.

3
 Figure 3 Palong in an opencast tin mine in
Segambut (Gobbett, 1973)

Figure 4 Formation of tin mine tailings using gravel pump method (Chan & Hong 1986), Above:
Mining remnants are being deposed from the palong after tin ore extraction. The fine sliming and clayey
materials settle much slower than the course sandy materials, thus is floating on top and separated from
the sand. Below: As a result of the deposit mechanism above, the mining remnants form lenses of
material of heterogeneous properties.

Figure 5 Process of limestone

dissolution (UCGS 2000)

4
 (a)
TUNNEL CROWN
(b1) (b2)

(c)

(d)

RC WALL BENDED

RC RETAINING WALL
LIMESTONE PLATEAU

CONTIGUOUS
BORED PILE
WALLS &
ANCHOR TIE TUNNEL, 13.2M O.D.
BACK
DEPRESSION
SHOWN IN (a)

Figure 6 Limestone exposures from the shaft excavations for the SMART tunnel: (a) A depression of 20m deep
maximum as measured by a bored pile. (b1 & b2) A huge pothole and layout of the potholes at the North Junction
Box near the Kg Pandan roundabout. (c) Limestone profile along the SMART Tunnel. (d) A 3-D image of the
limestone topography at the North Ventilation Shaft and the TBM launch shaft near Jalan Cheras.

5
 Geophysical methods that are common locally include seismic refraction survey,
seismic reflection survey, resistivity and ground penetration radar. These methods have
achieved limited success in the past in detecting erratic limestone profile and existence of
cavities. The applications of these methods would also be hindered by encumbrances at the
site and interference of ambient noise particularly traffic noise, underground utilities such
as metal pipes, electrical and telecommunication cables. Micro-gravity method was used
for a stretch of 2.7km during the design stage and was relatively successful in identifying
the locations of large karstic features in the limestone but the results are indicative.
Further trials during the construction stage shows that 2D-resistivity tomography was
promising and was carried out extensively along the alignment in advance of tunnel boring
to forewarn the existences of unfavourable karstic features and allowed time for imple-
mentation of mitigation measures.
The design of the retaining walls for the shaft excavations had to cater for various
bedrock depths. Reinforce concrete and gabion walls were adopted for shallow bedrock of
a few metres. Contiguous bored pile (CBP) and secant bored pile walls were used where
bedrock is deeper. Diaphragm walls were not considered suitable due to highly erratic
bedrock profile.
The retaining wall design for the shafts was designed to be fully flexible to cope with
the expected highly erratic rockhead.
As a first stage, the soil at the retaining wall location was excavated down to bedrock
and the excavation inspected by a geologist. Where competent rock at depths less than 6m
was encountered a RC cantilevered retaining
wall was constructed. In areas of deeper
rockhead bored piles were constructed. Once
the depth of the bored piles was known, the
numbers, spacing and loads for the ground
anchors could be determined based on
predetermined designs for various heights of
wall. In some circumstances alternative
designs were adopted by the Contractor for
cost, programme and practicality reasons.
These alternative designs included the
introduction of cornere struts (Figure 6a), as
opposed to anchor tie backs, jet grouting at
the rear of the CBP walls or realigning the rc
wall, to minimise the number of bored piles
required.
In one case the CBP wall needed to be Figure 7 A cavity underneath a bored pile wall.
realigned to prevent intrusion of the
reinforced piles into the tunnel eye in poor ground. Where exceptionally deep or erratic
rockhead was encountered a double row of bored piles was required in order to provide
additional support and to ensure that pile toes were adequately socketed into the limestone
In another case, the RC retaining wall was realigned to get around the pothole as shown
in Figure 6(b2); Strengthening of pile toes or filling up cavities underneath the wall, such
as the one in Figure 7.

6
4.3 Sinkholes
A sinkhole refers to a depression on the ground surface caused by dissolution of the
limestone near the surface or the collapse of an underground cave. There were a number of
sinkhole incidents in Kuala Lumpur and the surrounding areas in the past as summarised
by Tan (2005). Almost all sinkholes are triggered by construction activities. The main
triggering factors are lowering of groundwater table thus loss of fines through groundwater
seepage.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8 (a) A solution channel which is originally covered and stable. (b) Water drains into the solution
channel when there is a dewatering activity. There will be extra groundwater flow after rains, expediting
migration of fines into the channel and causes upward erosion. (c) As the upward erosion eventually reaches
the ground surface, the soils collapse, creating a sinkhole. Sinkholes can also be pre-existent and filled up
until construction activities come along to trigger off new collapses (after Zhou et al 2002).

An obvious case of ground subsidence in limestone area related to groundwater extrac-

tion was reported at an industrial park near Subang Jaya, about 13km from Kuala Lumpur
(SSPG 1998). The ground subsided significantly within a period of two months during the
illegal pumping of groundwater at an adjacent vacant land. When the pumping was
stopped, the rate of subsidence reduced significantly.
Other sinkhole triggering factors include imposing of additional loads and vibrations. In
a few occasions, it is due to direct punching of cavity cover by borehole or piling activities.
The mechanism of sinkhole formation is illustrated in Figure 8. Locations where over-
burden are thin are more susceptible to occurrences of sinkholes due to lack of ‘buffer’ and
‘bridging effect’.
The construction of the 150m long TBM launch shaft at Jalan Cheras road demon-
strated the wide spread effects of groundwater table drawdown due to the extensive and
interconnected solution system within the limestone. Figure 9 shows the existence of

Figure 9 A solution channel in sound rock Figure 10 A sinkhole being filled up by

masses concrete

7
solution channels in sound rock masses. Not until extensive grouting work was undertaken
to seal the shaft were the incidences of surface subsidence and sinkholes stabilised.
The fissured limestone and overburden soils harbour a high groundwater table. Slurry
Mixshield TBMs were used to prevent groundwater drawdown to avoid ground subsidence
and triggering of surface sinkholes.
There were a few sinkholes incidents related to the shaft excavations for the SMART
tunnel. The sinkholes occurred at places surrounding the shafts where the overburden soils
are a few metres thick. Where overburden thickness was about 10m as observed in one
incident, there were ground depressions but open sinkholes as the one shown in Figure 10
did not form.
It has been observed that the ground water flow via solution channel was not constant,
sometimes it was almost dry but the flow increased during raining period. After a certain
time interval, a big flow would occur. The big flow normally was accompanied by sand
particles and muddy water. It is believed that as the groundwater was substantially
discharged, the flow reduced and the soil in-fills in the solution channel started to build up
and blocked the flow further. Groundwater accumulated after the blockage. As the
groundwater reached a certain weight, a sudden flush was triggered. This process was
repeated until a sinkhole finally appears on the surface unless mitigation measures are
carried out on time.
The mechanism of sinkholes occurrence along the tunnel alignment during tunneling is
different from the above mechanism in Figure 8. They occurred due to soil feature
penetrates below the tunnel crown level in general.

5. SOME ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF THE LIMESTONE

5.1 Mineral Contents
The mineral contents of the limestone as determined by X-ray diffraction analysis are
summarised in Table 1. The main mineral is calcite. Eight out of the ten specimens
analysed consisted of more than 77% calcite, some as high as 100%.

TABLE 1 MINERAL CONTENT BY THIN SECTION AND X-RAY

DEFFRACTION ANALYSIS
No of Sample Calcite Other Major Accessory*
8 77%-100% - 0-23%
1 50% Dolomite 30% 20%
1 34% Fine grained -
ground mass 67%
*consists of microline, iron oxide, grossularite

5.2 Physical Properties

Majority of the core samples tested has density of 26.5 kN/m3 to 27 kN/m3 as shown in
Figure 11(a). Poisson’s ratio is determined by attaching strain gauges on the rock core
specimens in uniaxial compression tests. The Poisson’s ratio ranges from 0.16 to 0.35 for
majority of the samples as presented in Figure 11(b), with an average value of 0.27.

5.3 Strength Properties

The results of the uniaxial compression tests are presented in Figure 11(c). The average
uniaxial compression strength, UCS, is 54MPa. This value falls within the range of values
obtained from other sites in Kuala Lumpur as tabulated in Table 2.

8
 300 120.% 30 120.%

26
99.% 100.% 100.% 25 100.%
240 95.% 25 96.% 100.%
250 100.% 92.%
22
89.%
200 80.% 20 80.%
70.%
FREQUENCY

FREQUENCY
150 60.% 15 14 60.%

43.%

100 40.% 10 40.%

5728.%
14.% 18.%
50 9.% 20.% 5 4 4 20.%
25
6.% 7.% 24
18 19 2 2
4.%
8 2.%
3 1 1
0 .% 0 .%
<2501

2501-2550

2551-2600

2601-2650

2651-2700

2701-2750

2751-2800

2801-2850

2851-2900

>2900
<0.11 0.11-0.15 0.16-0.20 0.21-0.25 0.26-0.30 0.31-0.35 0.36-0.40 >0.40

POISSON'S RATIO, v

DENSITY, (Kg/m3)

(a) Density (b) Poisson’s Ratio

30 120.00%
20 19 120.%
18
26 18
25 100.00% 17 100.%
99.%
25 95.96% 100.00% 97.%
91.92%
95.% 100.%
16
22
14
14 77.%
20 80.00% 80.%
69.70%
12
FREQUENCY

FREQUENCY

Frequency 63.%
10
Cumulative %
15 14 60.00% 10 60.%

43.43% 8 44.%
7
10 40.00% 40.%
6 5
27.%
4
18.18% 4 17.%
5 4 4 20.00% 20.%
10.% 2 2
2
2.02%
2
4.04% 2 1 5.% 1
1.%

0 .00% 0 .%
<0.11 0.11-0.15 0.16-0.20 0.21-0.25 0.26-0.30 0.31-0.35 0.36-0.40 >0.40 <11 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101- >110
110
POISSON'S RATIO, v
YOUNG MODULUS, E(GPa)

(c) UCS (d) Young’s Modulus

30 120.% 20 19 120.%

99.% 100.% 18 100.%

25 24 100.%
23 92.% 94.% 93.% 100.%
16 15 15 89.%
85.% 85.% 95.%
77.% 14 80.%
20 80.% 13
80.%
70.%
FREQUENCY

FREQUENCY

64.% 16 12
10 61.%
15 60.% 10 60.%
12 51.%
45.% 45.% 8 8
10 8 7
10 9 9 40.% 6 6 6 6 6
32.% 40.%
27.% 7 6 5 5
6 26.%
4 22.% 4
17.% 4 18.%
5 20.% 3
3 10.% 14.% 20.%
2 2
6.% 2 9.%
2.% 4.% 1 2 1 3.% 1 6.%
4.%
1.%
0 .%
0 .%
<0.51

>6.50
0.51-1.00

1.01-1.50

1.51-2.00

2.01-2.50

2.51-3.00

3.01-3.50

3.51-4.00

4.01-4.50

4.51-5.00

5.01-5.50

5.51-6.00

6.01-6.50

9.51-10.00
10.01-10.50
10.51-11.00
11.01-11.50
2.60-3.00
3.01-3.50
3.51-4.00
4.01-4.50
4.51-5.50
5.01-5.50
5.51-6.00
6.01-6.50
6.51-7.00
7.01-7.51
7.51-8.00
8.01-8.50
8.51-9.00
9.01-9.50

>11.50
<2.60

POINT LOAD STRENGTH (MPa)

BRAZILIAN TENSILE STRENGTH (MPa)

(e) Point Load Strength (f) Brazilian Tensile Strength

FIGURE 11 STATISTICS PLOTS OF THE TEST RESULT

9
 TABLE 2 LIMESTONE STRENGTHS OF VARIOUS SITES IN KUALA
LUMPUR
Locations Bore-hole Data no. UCS, MPa
No. Range Avg.
SMART Tunnel 47 223 10 – 115 54
Sentul, Site 1 29 46 25 – 85 48
Sentul, Site 2 62 113 8 – 117 46
Ampang 15 19 12 – 92 40
Komoo (1989) - - 28 – 120 -
Tan & Ch’ng (1987) - 108 10 – 120 -

The Young’s modulus, E calculated from the stress-strain curves of the uniaxial com-
pression tests are presented in Figure 11(d). The average E of the rock core is 61GPa.
The results of point load tests and Brazilian tensile tests are presented in Figure 11(e)
and Figure 11(f). The above test results are summarised in Table 3.
The relationships between Young’s modulus, point load strength, Brazilian tensile
strength and UCS are illustrated in Figure 12. Point load strength, Is, has been widely used
to estimate UCS of rocks. The correlation is found to be:
UCS = 16 Is loaded diametrically on rock cores (1a)
UCS = 22.5 Is loaded axially on rock cores (1b)
The point load indexes established above are lower than the value of 24 recommended
by IAEG (1981).
There is hardly any relationship between Brazilian tensile strength and UCS.
The correlation between the Young’s modulus and UCS is:
E = 1250 UCS (2)
The ratio of 1250 is rated as high modulus ratio according to Deere & Miller’s chart in
Figure 13. The strength of the limestone ranges from Medium Strong (MS) to Strong (S).

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Property Range Mean Value Sample No.
Density, kN/m3 26.3-29.5 26.7 396
Poisson’s Ratio 0.08-0.61 0.271 99
Young’s Modulus, GPa 9-117 61 100
Uniaxial Compression Strength, MPa 10-115 54 223
Brazilian Tensile Strength, MPa 1.1-13.4 7.8 148

5.3 Aggregate Properties

The aggregate properties are summarised in Table 4 and plotted against the UCS in Figure
14. No obvious relationship can be observed between UCS and the flakiness index,
aggregate crushing value and Los Angelas abrasion value. Nevertheless the reduction in
water absorption value is obvious as the limestone is getting stronger.

TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF AGGREGATE PROPERTIES

Test Standard Min Max Average

Flakiness Index 13 42 25
Aggregate Crushing Value(%) 22 38 31
BS812:1988 & ASTM C131-98
Water Absorption(%) 0.1 1.1 0.5
Chloride Content(%) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Los Angelas Abrasion (%) ASTM-C535 & C131 25 57 41
10
 P o in t L o a d Te st, P L S (M P a ) Y o u n g M o d u lu s, E (G P a ) B ra zilia n Te n s ile S tre n g th , TS (M P a )
12 0 12 0 12 0

11 0 11 0 11 0

10 0 10 0 10 0

U C S = 2 2 .5 Is E =1250UC S
U n co n fin e d C o m p re ssive Stre n g th , U C S (M Pa )

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70
U C S = 1 6 Is

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10
L E G E ND
P oint Load S t reng th ( Diam et ral)
P oint L oad S tr eng th ( A xial)
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 10 0 12 0 0.0 0 4.0 0 8.0 0 1 2.0 0 1 6.0 0

R e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n U C S w ith P L S (D ia ) a n d P L S (A xia l) R e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n U C S w ith E R e la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n U C S w ith T S

(A) (B) (C)

Figure 12 UCS versus (a) point load strength, (b) Young’s modulus and (c) Brazilian Tensile strength

Figure 13 UCS versus Young’s modulus plotted on Deere & Miller’s Chart, superimposed on data of
Hong Kong limestone from GCO 1990.

11
 F la k i n e s s In d e x (% ) A g g re g a te C r u s h i n g V a l u e (% ) W a te r A b s o r p tio n ( % ) L o s A n g e la s A b ra s io n V a lu e (% )
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 0 0 0

10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20
Average Unconfined Compressive Strength, Average UCS (MPa)

30 30 30 30

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50

60 60 60 60

70 70 70 70

80 80 80 80

90 90 90 90

100 100 100 100

110

(a)
110

(b)
110

(c)
110

(d)
Figure 14 UCS versus (a) flakiness index, (b) aggregate crushing value, (c) water absorption, and
(d) Los Angelas abrasion value.

Figure 15 Pressumeter modulus versus RQD.

12

10

8
LUGEON

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RQD, %
Figure 16 Lugeon versus RQD

12
5.4 Rock Mass Properties
Pressuremeter Modulus
Pressuremeter tests were conducted within the rock mass. Menard type pressuremeter was
used and the maximum test pressure was 60bar, apparently not adequate for stronger rock
mass. The pressuremeter modulus data are shown in Figure 15. The values vary from
0.5GPa to 3GPa. The average value is 1.5GPa, about 40 times lower than E obtained from
intact rock cores. Although there is a trend of higher pressuremeter modulus sound rock
mass as reflected in the higher RQD value, the data is scattered widely.

Permeability
The permeability of the rock masses was determined by means of the water pressure test
known as packer or Lugeon test conducted in the boreholes. Permeability was measured by
the flow of water pressed into isolated sections of a borehole. The permeability is ex-
pressed in Lugeon. According to BS5930, 1 Lugeon unit (LU) is defined as under a head
above groundwater level of 100m (10 bar), a 1m length of borehore section accepts 1 litre
per minute of water. The test results are presented in Figure 16. Most of the Lugeon values
fall below 3 while a few tests give higher values of 8 to 10. No meaningful relationship can
be established between Lugeon and RQD. The permeability of the rock masses is consid-
ered manageable. The main concern is drainage of groundwater table through limestone
solution features.

Rock Mass Quality Rating, Q

The Q rating system was developed by Barton et al of NGI in 1974 (Bieniawski 1989). It is
widely used in tunnel engineering. It is defined as:
Q=(RQD/Jn)(Jr/Ja)(Jw/SRF) (3)
Where RQD is the rock quality designation (0-100), Jn is the joint set number coeffi-
cient (0.5-20), Jr is joint roughness number (0.5-4), Ja is joint alteration number (0.75-20),
Jw is joint water reduction number (0.05-1) and SRF is stress reduction factor (0.5-20).
Q values were calculated based on rock cores obtained from the boreholes. The last
component (Jw/SRF) in Eq. (3) is assumed unity for convenience. The distributions of the
Q values are tabulate in Table 5.

TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTIONS OF Q VALUES MEASURED FROM ROCK CORES BY ASSUMING

JW/SRF=1
Q 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-50 50-75 75-100 >100
Worst Case, % 84.3 9.0 1.1 3.4 2.2 0 0 0
Best Estimate,% 5.6 5.6 31.5 5.6 21.7 5.3 12.4 12.3
Average Frequency, % 45.0 7.3 16.3 4.5 12.0 2.7 6.2 6.1

As the rocks were exposed during construction, most of the exposed was dry. There-
fore Jw is 1. It was observed that sheared zone, weak zone with clay band were common
and SRF of 2.5 was adopted in most cases. This gives Jw/SRF of 0.4. The Q values
expected from rock excavation is summarised in Table 6.

13
 TABLE 6 EXPECTED QUALITY OF ROCK IN EXCAVATION BASED ON AVERAGE
Q DISTRIBUTION FROM TABLE 5
V. Poor Poor Fair Good V. Good
Rating to worst to Best
Q 0<1 1-4 4-10 10-40 >40
Frequency, % 22 30 21 21 6

6. CONCLUSIONS
The SMART tunnel is a good showcase of the highly erratic karstic features of the Kuala
Lumpur Limestone. Such features posed challenges in the excavation of the deep shafts.
It is impractical to rely on boreholes to delineate the limestone rock profile and solution
features as a great number of boreholes will be needed. Probing of rock profile prior to
construction was cost effective but is limited to probing depth of around 10m and cannot
detect any feature below the rock head. Through experience learnt from the SMART, it is
hoped that the accuracy of the geophysical survey using resistivity survey in detecting
limestone features has been improved to be more reliable for future projects.
The solution system in the Kuala Lumpur Limestone is well connected and spreads far.
Sealing by means of grouting in a strategic manner should be undertaken before a deep
excavation is carried out to minimise ground subsidence or sinkholes due to excessive loss
of groundwater via the solution system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Mr. C. L. Lee of Sepakat Setia Perunding
Sdn Bhd for providing impressive photographs and valuable information on sinkhole and
rock mass quality, to Mr David Parks of Mott Macdonald on information related to the
construction. Appreciation is also extended to the author’s colleagues, Mr C. S. Lim, Mr.
Soh L P and Mr T. W. Chang for their kind assistance, Ms Hazel Hooi and Mr. F. K. Sek
for proof reading the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Ayob, M., 1965, Study in bedrock geology and sedimentology of Quaternary sediments
at sungai besi tin mines, Selangor, BSc.(Hons.) Thesis, Geology Department, Univ.
Malaya
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1989, Engineering rock mass classifications, John Wiley & Sons, pp.
73-82.
Chan S. F. & Hong, L. E., 1986, Pile foundation in limestone areas of Malaysia, Foun-
dation Problems in Limestone Areas of Peninsular Malaysia, Geot. Tech. Div., IEM
China Press, 29-04-2004
Ch’ng S. C., 1984, Geologi Kejuruteraan Batukapur Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
BSc.(Hons) Thesis, Geology Department, UKM, Bangi, Selangor, Year 1983/84
Geological Survey Malaysia, 1995, Geological map of Kuala Lumpur and surrounding
areas, Wilayah Persekutuan Series L8010, Part of Sheet 94a, 94b, 94d, 94e & 94f, Digital
process 1995
Gobbett, D.J. & Hutchison, C.S. 1973, Geology of the Malay Peninsula, New York:
Wiley-Interscience.

14
 GCO 1990, Foundation properties of marble and other rocks in the Yuen Long-Tuen
Mun area, Geotechnical Control Office Pub. No. 2/90, Civil Engineering Services
Department, Hong Kong
Kaufmann G., 2004, Karst system modelling, Course lecture, Inst. of Geophysics, Univ.
of Goettingen, Gemany, http://www.uni-geophys.gwdg.de/~gkaufman/work/karst/
index.html, 16-09-2004
Mining Department, 1980-1982, Ex-mining Land Map in Kuala Lumpur and Adjacent
Area, unpublished.
Sin Chew Daily 3-04-2004
SSP Geotechnics Sdn Bhd (SSPG), 1998, Geotechnical Investigation Report on Cracks
and Settlement of Factory Lots at Subang Hi-tech Park (Subang Square), Selangor, Nov.
1998, Job 31259.
Tan, S. M., 2005, Karstic Features of Kuala Lumpur, Cover story, Jurutera, IEM Bulle-
tin, Jun 2005, pp. 6 –11.
Ting, W. H., 1986, Foundation problems in limestone areas, Foundation Problems in
Limestone Areas of Peninsular Malaysia, Geot. Tech. Div., IEM.
U.S.Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, Coastal and Marine Geology Program web site,
Jan 18 2002, http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/ 00180/intro/karst.html
Yeap E.B., 1986, Irregular Topography of The Subsurface Carbonate Bedrock in The
Kuala Lumpur Area, Foundation Problems in Limestone Areas of Peninsular Malaysia,
Geot. Tech. Div., IEM.
Yin E.H., 1986, Geology and Mineral Resources of Kuala Lumpur-Klang Valley (Draft),
Geological Survey Malaysia District Memoir.

15