Eighth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference/11-15 March 1985/Kua/a Lumpur
FOUNDATION IN LIMESTONE AREAS OF MALAYSIA
TING WEN HUI Zaidun-Leeng Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The foundation problems encountered in areas
underlain by limestone formation in Malaysia
is briefly described. Some reference is made
to comparable problems in other countries.
Some methods of characterising and then deal-
ing with the problems are also indicated.
2.0 OCCURRENCE
Limestone formations occur in Malaysia, in the
regions shown in Figure 1. They were believed
to be deposited from the Silurian to the
Triassic Periods. Although they occur in
several regions, they have so far given rise
to important geotechnical problems only in the
built-up areas of Kuala Lumpur, Kinta Valley
and Kedah/Perlis.
Some differences have been noted in
the characteristics of limestone formations in
the various regions of Malaysia. For example,
irregular karst topography with pinnacles are
more marked in the Kinta Valley areas and
occurrence of sink holes is more frequent.
The limestone formation surface is smoother in
the Langkawi area and the incidence of cavi-
ties appears to be less. Typical boreholes
from Langkawi and Ipoh are shown in Figure 2,
while Kuala Lumpur limestone is illustrated in
Figures 7 and 8.
In the same way on the global scale,
the nature and occurrence of limestone forma-
tion for example in France (Bustamente et al.,
1985) and Florida (Kaderabek & Reynolds, 1981)
!n USA are different. What is more important
is that as a result they give rise to dif-
ferent types of geotechnical problems and the
temptation to extrapolate solution to problems
unreservely from one country to the next have
to be resisted.
3.0 GEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND THEIR
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
The geological features of limestone forma-
tions which lead to a variety of geotechnical
problems are shown in Table 1. They are also
typically shown in Figure 3.
3.1 Young and Old Alluvium and Other
Formations
The overburden to the limestone formation
generally comprise Young and Old Alluvium
(Gobbett & Hutchison, 1973). The Young
Alluvium is a fluvial deposit of sand and
gravel with some peat and clay. The Old
Alluvium is thought to be of Pleistocene age
from fluvial deposits and generally show high
degree of weathering. The Young Alluvium is a
more compressible material and geologically
classified as unconsolidated while the Old
Alluvium is more compact being classified
geologically as semi-consolidated. The Old
Alluvium being more weathered will have a
higher fines content.
As geotechnical soil deposits the
Young and Old Alluvium may be treated as
ordinary soil deposits. Both the Alluviums
are loose when granular and normally consoli-
dated when clayey. However, as composite soils
of gravel, sand, silt and clay, the variation
in their characteristic properties have to be
properly accounted for (Toh & Ting, 1983). In
particular, silty and clayey sands are often
regarded as granular material and this may
cause difficulty as such material cannot be
easily densified, or the range between maximum
and minimum relative density is small.
Tin mining activities have frequently
taken place within the Alluvium and the depo-
sits have thus been disturbed and modified.
Such problems are of particular importance by
themselves and will not be treated in detail
here.
Other formations such as the Kenny
Hill formation of sedimentary deposits overlie
the limestone. They are treated as normal
soil and rock deposits as the case may be.
GEo-
3.1.1 Slumped Ground
Zones of weakness sometimes occur in the
125
overburden just above the limestone forma-
tion. They may be either due to subsurface
erosion as a result of overburden material
slumping into the cavities in the limestone or
they may be residuals of the weathering of
ancient karst features with their dissolution
channels. They may be distinguished by
testing the sampled material with acid as the
remnants of ancient karst feature should res-
pond to acid test. It is of interest to dis-
tinguish between the two types of slumped
ground as slumping due to subsurface erosion
may be an ongoing process that can eventually
lead to a sinkhole condition.
The sometimes unexpected presence of
slumped ground below better material in the
overburden can lead to unsafe foundations
founded on the better material above it. One
worthwhile precaution is that in subsurface
exploration for heavier structures in lime-
stone areas, boring should reach the limestone
formation even though it may exceed 60m below
the natural ground level and is going through
sound material.
3.1.2 Sinkholes
Sinkholes are formed when subsurface erosion
into cavities and dissolution channels has
created voids in the overburden. Besides
posing problems to foundations, they also
create problems when they are sometimes ac-
tivated by the construction process.
3.1.3 Hardpans, Boulders
In the overburden, organic and lateritic
hardpans and lateritic boulders have been
found. Their presence are established by
boring as they may be mistaken as the lime-
stone formation if only penetration tests are
carried out without sample recovery.
3.1.4 Water Table
Subsurface water flow conditions have indi-
cated that a slight artesian condition exists
within the limestone formation possibly
arising from the interconnected dissolution
channels and joints. Any excavation and
dewatering procedures will have to account for
artesian water pressures.
3.2 The Limestone Formation
Within each limestone region due to the joint-
ing system and mode and degree of weathering,
distinctive weathered features may be re-
vealed. An attempt is made here to identify
the features peculiar to the Malaysian region.
3.2.1 Weathering Profile
Arising from the orientation of joints, the
weathering and dissolution profile developed
may be one of the two types shown in Figure
4. In Figure 5 and 6 showing limestone forma•
tion exposed after mining operation, the
formations typical of horizontal and inclined
joint systems are shown. Figure 7 is a typi-
cal borehole profile from a site where lime-
126
stone with horizontal/vertical joints have
possibly weathered into slabs. Table 2 from
the same site shows that indeed the joint
orientations measured from cores are near ver-
tical. Figure 8 shows a borehole profile pro-
bably with inclined joints and indications
that cavities are more likely near valley
areas.
3.2.2 Pinnacles and Sloping Rock
The surface of the limestone formations are
weathered into pinnacles. Each pinnacle may
be only about lm in girth and channels ex-
ceeding 60m depth from the pinnacle top may be
found between pinnacles.
Driven piles in such formations may
result in widely varying lengths. The piles
are easily deviated and there is problem in
keying the piles into the sloping parts when
the overburden is inadequate to support the
piles. It has been shown however that with
proper driving procedures, the quantum of
deviations can be limited to about 25 percent
of the number of piles. The socketing of
bored piles into such formation will also re-
quire special technique.
3.2.3 Limestone Slabs
When the limestone weathers into slabs, the
strength, thickness and width of the slabs and
the quality of material below the slabs have
to be investigated if foundations are to rest
on top of the slabs. Typical unconfined com-
pressive strengths of intact fresh Kuala
Lumpur limestone range from about 15MPa to
70MPa.
3.2.4 Cavities
Cavities in the limestone will pose a problem
if the roof of the cavities are not of suf-
ficient strength to support foundations
resting on them. The cavities may be voided
or material filled and are less of a concern
i f they are filled by compact material. The
cavities explored do not seem to be large and
Table 3 shows the sizes measured in the ver-
tical extent in a survey of seven sites in
Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere. It can be seen
from the survey that cavities smaller than
lm dominate and those greater than 3m are not
of frequent occurrence.
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION METHOD
On the whole, normal subsurface exploration
methods may be employed. Closely spaced
boreholes (about 20m apart) are required to
revealed the karst features. For heavily
loaded structures, at least one borehole per
column will be required. Boreholes should
penetrate at least 5m into rock and further if
cavities are encountered until a thickness of
limestone of at least 5m is encountered.
Because of the closely spaced irregu-
lar surface and the small size of the cavities
geophysical methods have not been successful
in defining the details of these features.
However, cross-hole seismic methods are worth
trying out for establishing the cavities in
respect of the horizontal extent.
5.0 FOUNDATION CONCEPTS
With a knowledge of the geological features in
the limestone areas as described earlier, it
is then possible to consider suitable founda-
tion systems in the areas.
Assuming that all the adverse features
are present together, there are initially
three possible approaches. The first is for
the foundation to penetrate the limestone
formation to such an extent that all weathered
zones are passed through and the structure
founded within fresh rock free from signifi-
cant cavities and other dissolution fea-
tures. The second approach is to rest the
foundation on top of the limestone formation
surface and the third is to support the struc-
ture within the overburden soil. It is also
possible to adopt measures which are com-
bination of the three approaches. The ap-
proaches are illustrated schematically in
Figure 9.
In the following sections, the pro-
blems associated with each of the approaches
will be discussed.
5.1 Foundation in Limestone Formation
Below Weathered Zone
This is apparently the safest method. A sur-
vey will first have to be made to determine
the bottom limit of the weathered zone. It
has been found that reverse circulation
drilling techniques may be employed to pene-
trate the dissolution channels and cavities
combined with a proper control of the water
condition. The obvious problem with this
approach is the high foundation cost that will
be incurred.
5.2 Foundation on Surface of Limestone
Formation
In this approach, slumped ground will not pose
a problem as the foundation will pass through
it. A major problem is the deviation of
driven piles on the irregular surface and the
keying in and socketing of driven and bored
piles when piles are used. Where the lime-
stone has weathered into slabs, they may be
too thin to support the foundation loads. Of
great concern too is the presence of cavities
below the pile toe level.
It has been established (Omar & Ron,
1985) that by suitable driving techniques, the
quantum of deviation can be controlled to not
more than about 25% of the piles installed.
As a precaution against pile damage during
driving it is common practice to adopt a
higher factor of safety for the piles. This
has the additional effect of increasing t:he
number of piles required thus distributing the
load on the limestone surface to a greater
extent.
1271
The effect of the presence of cavities
below toe levels however has to be assessed.
In the first place from borehole test results,
the magnitude of the cavity problem has to be
ascertained. If necessary, a treatment of the
founding material below toe level for certain
pile groups has to be considered. From past
experience, buildings up to 17-storey high
(Ting & Ladchumanan, 197 4) has been success-
fully founded on top of the limestone forma-
tion. It is recommended however that with
sufficient precautions, buildings up to about
10-storey high may use this approach. It has
to be noted that the limestone formation as a
whole has a certain supporting strength, even
with the existence of cavities and dissolution
channels within it and the fact that buildings
up to a certain height have been successfully
founded on it indicates to some extent the
bearing capacity of the formation as a
whole. Localised failure within the limestone
formation due to cavities and dissolution
channels however has still to be considered.
One of the critical aspects of the
support capacity of the formation when cavi-
ties are present is the thickness of the roof
of the cavities relative to its size. Numeri-
cal solutions (Toh, 1985) are available.
Figure 10 shows some of the findings of the
studies. The cavities are modelled
axisymmetrically as ellipses with two cases of
the minor axes expressed non-dimensionally as
a function of the width of the applied load.
5.3 Foundation Supported By the Overburden
If the superstructure loads are small and the
overburden is of adequate quality and
thickness, the loads may be supported by the
overburden soil and adverse features such as
slumped ground and cavities may not be of
concern.
For larger loads, if the loads are
distributed bv a raft foundation either as a
plain raft, a piled raft or a basement-type
raft foundation, then additional loads over
cavities will be small but loading over
slumped ground may still be a concern. The
bearing capacity of the overburden must be
adequate. The settlement must be within
acceptable limits otherwise this technique may
be combined with those described earlier so
that an acceptable amount of load is trans-
ferred to the limestone formation.
If the limestone formation is far
below the raft, and if long piles reaching the
limestone formation supports the raft, the
effect may still be to share the load between
the overburden and the l:l,mestone formation as
with long piles much of the load is shed on to
the overburden before the limestone is
reached.
lf the overburden soil is especially
poor, it is possible to improve it by jet
grouting, for example, before proceeding with
the foundation design as before.
For large foundation loads, it is felt
that the most suitable foundation system is
one that supports the loads as much as
possible by the overburden soil in order to
avoid overloading the roof of cavities by the
use of one of the rafting techniques. If
slumping ground over limestone is significant,
then the slumped ground zone may be improved
or part of the raft load may be spread over
the limestone formation by piles to avoid
overloading the roof of cavities.
REFERENCE
Bustamente M, Gianeselli L & Pilot G (1985)
"Design of Bored Piles in Limestone in
France." Proceedings 8th SEAGC Kuala Lumpur,
March 1985.
Gobett D.J. & Hutchison c.s. (1973) "Geology
of the Malay Peninsula." Wiley- Interscience.
Kaderabek H.M. & Reynolds R.T. (1981) "Miami
Limestone Foundation Design and Construc-
tion." of Geotechnical Engineering Division
Proceedings ASCE, Volume 107 No. GTT, July
1981.
Omar I & Hon T.F. (1985) "Piled Foundation in
Limestone Foundation". Proceedings 8th SEAGC,
Kuala Lumpur, March 1985.
Ting W.H. & Ladchumanan K (1984) "Foundation
of a 17-Storey Building on a Pinnacles Lime-
stone Formation in Kuala Lumpur." Conference
on Tall Buildings, December 1984, Kuala
Lumpur.
Toh C.T. (1985) "F.E. Analysis of Load over
Cavities." Private Communication.
Toh C.T. & Ting W.H. (1983). "Characteristics
of a Composite Residual Granite Soil"
Symposium on Recent Development in Laboratory
and Field Test and Analysis of Geotechnical
Problems, A.I.T. Bangkok.

PRAI

PORT KLANG

LEGEND
Q RESIDUAL GRANITE SOIL
~ RESIDUAL SEDIMENTARY
ROCK SOIL
D COASTAL/RIVER ALLUVIUM
LST LIMESTONE FACIES

FIG. 1 GEOLOGICAL MAP OF PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

128
 • ..
i•
I I
:1
SEA_.P LEVEL i
2
<.:
.(-·, '
4
6 y
,
'
8
10-
,,
'
'
I
12
14 y "
16 ,. ·.
18 ' (

20 '
22
. '

~
24
26
' ·'
.r
28
;; 30 '·
Ill
a: 32 ~ '
1- 34 ~ ~ ') .
Ill
:IE r- ~
~
36
~
:.':C
38
~ 40 ~ ~
:I: 42
~
~
1- 44
D..
~
-
46
~
R
li
~
50
52
54
~
':::J::

561'
58
60

FIG. 2a LIMESTONE, LANGKAWI

-
I
N
:ID
.: ..
:
Ill

... SEA BED LEVEL

r-:l
ID
•
t
2 ' ·'

4 ·>
'
. .,
. ., ,
6
.>
8
'
~ ~ .
10 ~ ~
I
~
>-
12
fci
,...
If) 14 '
.. ~
Ill
a:
1- 16
~
1!.1
:IE '
18 ,'·'1

~ •
20 ~
:I:
1- ~
D..
Ill
22-
~
c
- 24-

26

28-

30-

FIG. 2b LIMESTONE, IPOH

129
 0 2!5 50 0 2!5 50 0 25 50 0 25 50 0 25 50

+I

·,·I

:: I
\
"
p I
\
I
I ~. (
I . I
I . I
) ·..• I
I I
o I
{ I
I
j
I
)

-
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
u.
-
...J
IJJ
>
IJJ
...J

0 SLUMPED
IJJ
0 GROUND
::>
0
liJ
0: LIMESTONE
\
)
.. (
I
'\,
CAVITY
178
1 ' ";
1
;f 175
~

~ 190'
195'

(1200)

FIG. 3 PROBLEM · AREAS

130
 '
. ,.----.. -
j D C) C>

~ c:::> c:::J

DDCJ
\~

FIG. 4a. HORIZONTAL I VERTICAL JOINTS

a b c
WEATHERING GRADES

Proposed Grade I
base of cut

~ Solution cavity, open

FIG. 4b. Weathering features Influencing the stability of rood cuttings in limestones (after Deere and
(a) Sinkhole with sagging residuum Patton, 1971 fig 10)
(b) Collapse sinkhole
(c) Incipient sinkhole with soft cloy
- Inclined JOints

131
Fig. 5 HorizontaiNertical Joints

Fig. 6 Inclined Joints

132
 0 .... C!)

' '
N.G.L.
%
Ill "
J:
Ill
%
Ill
%
.Ill
-""
N.G.L.

,. liaS .,
.;

;!
2 :r
'· 11•4 ·.!
, ...
4 •. llc4
~ N•7
..
e ...·' 1.: N•7
<

.,: N•3
• j· ~-
·'

E 10 ;'1.: N-13
2
-~· ~~.: N=6
_j 12 ~ :... '/· N=O

C!)
14
~
:'[
~ ,_•.>111•3

i< NoO
z .,
N•O
18
'
~
N•O
..J Ill
1&1 ·.' N•IO
Ill
N•IO
20
N•!IO
J:
1- 22
,., N•l
....D.0
24
N•!IO

26
N=!IO
2B

FIG. 7 WEATHERING INTO SLABS

BH.3 E!S F!S E9 E8E7 F58 E20 EIO E19 E8A E6

R.L 108·05 R.L 108·10 R.L 108·31 R.L 109·85 R.L 110·32 R.L 108·70

~ =~
__:::
- ~ ~ ~ ~
-
=
;=It; F= = ~
~
= § - ,.....,
b. ITY

---:--
- - TY

VI TY
-
VITY
- ·-- - - f---
--
. -
--

v ITY
-
---
'C AVITY
--- -- -
-.

..
..

FIG. 8 INCLINED JOINTS - SCHEMATIC

133.
 FOUNDATION •-

I II m
WITHIN ON LIMESTONE SUPPORTED BY
LIMESTONE FORMATION OVERBURDEN
FORMATION

--------
,...----SLUMPED
GROUND

PINNACLE

CAVITIES

FIG. 9 FOUNDATION SYSTEMS IN LIMESTONE

AREAS- SCHEMATIC

(%)

lOOt-----------------~==~~~~~--------------------------------

m-J, .
w

0 ~~~~~~~~~~6-0~·7~0~·8~~~9-1~·0~1·~1~1·2~1·~3~1·4~1·~~~1·6~1~·7~1·8~1~·9~2·7
0~2~·1~2·~2~2~·3~2~·4~2·~
Z/8

FIG. lOa SUPPORT CAPACITY OF CAVITIES ( AFTER TOH.. 1985 )

134
0 ~~--~~~~3~o~-~4~o~-5~o~-~s~o~-7~o~-~a~o~-9~~,.7
o~,~.,--~,.2~~,~-3~~~-4~~,~-5~~,.7
6~1~7--~fe~-,.~9--2~-~0~2~-I--2~-2~~2-~3--2~-4--~2·5
Z/8

FIG. lOb SUPPORT CAPACITY OF CAVITIES I AFTER TOH, 1985 l

eological Features Geotechnical Problems Descriptive Parameters

Young Alluvium Foundation stability Nature of occurence

(peat, etc.) Settlement Thickness
Particle size
Consolidation
characteristics
(cv, ~· eo0
Strength

. Other
Old Alluvium Foundation stability Nature of occurence
Thickrtess
. formation
Slumped Ground
Settlement
Particle size

I
(weathered karst/ Consolidation
subsurface erosion) characteristics
(cv, "V• Co<)
. Strength
Dimension

• Sinkhole Foundation stability Location

Subsidence during Dimension
construction Roof thickness

Hardpan (ferrous, Pile deviation & damage Thickness

organic) Foundation stability Size of builders
and settlement Underlying material

• Water table Seepage Level

Slight artesian condition

Weathered Limestone Acid test

Karst Pile deviation & damage Pile head movement

during driving • Displacement
• Rotation
• Pile verticality
Pile set
Socketing of drilled piles

• Rock slabs Stability and settlement . Thickness

of pile toes Strength
Underlying material

Cavities Foundation stability Dimension

Roof thickness
Voided/Material
filled
Strength of fill

135.
 Inclination to Horizontal

Borehole Designation Joint/Plane Inclination R.Q.D.

l&)

Aa 70° 0%
Bb 80° 0%
c 45° 0%
Cc 70-80° 30%
Dd 80-90° 45%
E 70-80° 45%
Ee 70° 10%
F 45° 10%
Ff 900 90%
G 80-90° 70%
Gg 80-90° 0%
H 80-90° 50%
Hh 80° 40%
J 8Q-90° 70%
Jj 80-90° 0%
K 7D-80° 0%
Kk 80° 12%
L 8Q-90° 0%
LL goo 10%
M 8Q-90° 12%
N 60-70° 45%
p 60° 68%
Q 45° 0%
R 60° 70%
s 8Q-90° 80%
T 60° 0%
u 6Q-90° 70%
v 8Q-90° 40%
X 8Q-90° 0%
y 80° 10%
z 80-90° 40%

Table 3

* Some BHs have more than 1 cavity

No. of BHs - Coring Length"':> 3m

Site Location Total With Cavities (Vertical Height)

Sampled
~1m
=.Im :!'::.3m ?3m Total *

1. L. Hj. Hussein 21 12 2 Nil 5

2. p, Langkawi 12 1 3 Nil 3

3, J.P. Ramlee 21 21 4 1 15
K.L.

4. J. Kuching 5 Nil 1 Nil 1

5. J. Wangi, K,L, 19 14 5 3 11

6. J. Pekeliling 41 1 6 Nil 5
K.L.

7. J, R,M, Aziz 5 Nil Nil Nil Nil

Ipoh

Total 124 49 21 4 40

136