Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 doi:10.1093/jge/gxab003

Geophysical investigations for stability and safety

mitigation of regional crude-oil pipeline near
abandoned coal mines
B. Butchibabu1 , Prosanta Kumar Khan2,* and P.C. Jha1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

1
National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 070, India
2
Department of Applied Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad
826 004, India
*
Corresponding author: Prosanta Kumar Khan. E-mail: khanprosanta1966@iitism.ac.in

Received 20 August 2019, revised 18 October 2020

Accepted for publication 9 January 2021

Abstract
This study aims for the protection of a crude-oil pipeline, buried at a shallow depth, against a
probable environmental hazard and pilferage. Both surface and borehole geophysical techniques
such as electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), ground penetrating radar (GPR), surface seismic
refraction tomography (SRT), cross-hole seismic tomography (CST) and cross-hole seismic
profiling (CSP) were used to map the vulnerable zones. Data were acquired using ERT, GPR
and SRT along the pipeline for a length of 750 m, and across the pipeline for a length of 4096
m (over 16 profiles of ERT and SRT with a separation of 50 m) for high-resolution imaging of the
near-surface features. Borehole techniques, based on six CSP and three CST, were carried out at
potentially vulnerable locations up to a depth of 30 m to complement the surface mapping with
high-resolution imaging of deeper features. The ERT results revealed the presence of voids or
cavities below the pipeline. A major weak zone was identified at the central part of the study area
extending significantly deep into the subsurface. CSP and CST results also confirmed the presence
of weak zones below the pipeline. The integrated geophysical investigations helped to detect
the old workings and a deformation zone in the overburden. These features near the pipeline
produced instability leading to deformation in the overburden, and led to subsidence in close
vicinity of the concerned area. The area for imminent subsidence, proposed based on the results
of the present comprehensive geophysical investigations, was found critical for the pipeline.
Keywords: subsidence, cavity and sinkhole, electrical resistivity tomography, seismic refraction
tomography, cross-hole seismic tomography

1. Introduction subsidence under the mining environment. In one such case,

a segment (∼42 km) of 300-km long crude-oil pipeline in the
Shallow buried pipeline networks, deployed for transmission
eastern part of India, running over old abandoned coal mines,
and distribution of economically vital products such as crude
came under thorough investigation because of such associ-
oil, gas and so on are occasionally subjected to instability
ated subsurface problems. Poorly planned and unauthorised
because of volumetric changes in the near-surface soils due
mining activities close to this segment led to ground subsi-
to failures in the form of cracking, sagging and buckling be-
dence (figure 1), and the formation of minor and major weak
cause of surface deformations. Probable causes could be nat-
zones such as voids and sinkholes (figure 2), with significant
ural forces, high groundwater fluctuations or any impending

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sinopec Geophysical Research Institute. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of 145
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
Figure 1. Photographs showing numerous types of subsidence occurred in the study area. (1) Pipeline passing over the area of large subsidence, (2)
series of subsidence occurred along the pipeline, (3) subsidence occurred close to the pipeline, and (4) surface runoff recharging water into the subsidence
area through feeder channel.
risk to the stability of the pipeline. Failure of remnant pil-
lars in the shallow old workings (<50 m depth) is a poten-
tial cause of ground subsidence and sinkholes. Such ground
subsidence led to an abnormal sag in the pipe line leading
to opening of a joint in its structure. Subsequent leakage of
crude oil caused concerns of an environmental hazard in the
surroundings.
It is plausible to address such problems by comprehen-
sive geo-investigations. Geological and geotechnical studies
yield information based on direct observations and point
tests, but they may not be adequate for comprehensively
designing a solution. Thus, geophysical investigations that
are capable of bringing out the hidden causes by mapping
the subsurface in detail are of economic choice and are
146
Butchibabu et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
normally preferred for such near-surface high-resolution
imaging (Wang 2021). Geologically, the subsurface around
the troubled segment of pipeline is composed of soil with
clay and sand, followed by alternating sandstone and coal.
Presence of weak zones in the form of cavities and sinkholes
brings out a contrast in the electrical properties of the soil
(Maillol et al. 1999; Van-Schoor 2002; Cardarelli et al.
2006; Kim et al. 2007; Martínez-Pagán et al. 2013; Metwaly
& Al Fouzan 2013; Bharti et al. 2016b; Das & Mohanty
2016). Several authors followed an integrated approach to
delineate the subsurface weak zones (Drahor et al. 2015;
Bernatek-Jakiel & Kondracka 2016; Drahor & Berge 2017;
Cueto et al. 2018; Vargemezis et al. 2019). Electrical re-
sistivity tomography (ERT) and ground penetrating radar
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
Figure 2. Photographs show the locations of sinkholes and cavities near the pipeline. (a) A 10 m diameter and 30 m deep sinkhole, filled with fly ash
below the pipeline, (b) tree roots exposed through the sinkholes, (c) sinkhole located close to the alignment of pipeline and (d) sinkhole with shallow
cavity.
(GPR) are potential tools for locating such weak zones
(Ballard 1983; Yelf & Turner 1990; Fenner 1995; Carpenter
et al. 1998; Dobecki & Upchurch 2006; Gómez-Ortiz &
Martín-Crespo 2012; Carbonel et al. 2014; Simyrdanis et al.
2018; Mogren 2020). In addition, it would be useful to derive
the engineering properties of the zones for planning suitable
reinforcement measures (Singh et al. 2017a, 2017b). This is
better achieved by seismic techniques from surface and bore-
hole. While surface techniques could yield information on
the weak zones closer to the surface (Lankston 1989; Cohen
& Donahue 1994; Sheehan et al. 2003; Cardarelli et al. 2010;
Butchibabu et al. 2019b), borehole imaging is used to better
resolve the deep-seated features (Miller & Steeples 1991;
McDowell & Hope 1993; Mufti 1995; Rechtien et al. 1995;
Flecha et al. 2004; Grandjean & Leparoux 2004; Inazaki et al.
2004; Cha et al. 2006; Debeglia et al. 2006; Xu & Butt 2006;
Park et al. 2008; Balasubramaniam et al. 2013; Butchibabu
et al. 2017, 2019a). Similar studies have been carried out to
successfully detect underground cavities, ground deforma-
tions, mine shafts, mine and sinkholes subsidence in several
coal mines elsewhere (Fisher 1972; McCann et al. 1987;
Marino 2000; Johnson 2003; Prakash et al. 2009; Gómez-
147
Butchibabu et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
Ortiz & Martín-Crespo 2012; Chatterjee et al. 2015; Sahu &
Lokhande 2015).
The present study aims to map the subsurface voids and
cavities in the vicinity of the pipeline by deploying surface
geophysical investigative techniques, such as ERT, GPR and
SRT, to assess the shallow subsurface conditions and bore-
hole techniques, such as CSP and CST, were used for map-
ping the deep-seated anomalies. Integration of both surface
and borehole results leads us to infer the possible hazards
zones below the pipeline, and motivates us to adopt the re-
medial measures to enhance its stability.
2. Study area
Coal mining activities began in this area about 300 years
back in a random manner and standard coal mining prac-
tices such as board and pillar were adopted during the late
19th century (Srivastava & Mitra 1995; Lahiri-Dutt 2003).
The sizes of the panel and coal pillar vary around 200 m,
and between 20 and 24 m, respectively. The average thick-
ness of the coal seam varies between 4 and 6 m and the
overburden thickness ranges from ∼15 to 50 m (Singh &
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Yadav 1995). The occurrence of high-grade coal at a shallow
level led to illegal extraction, and caused serious concern
to society (Lahiri-Dutt 1999). Combustion of coal due to
assimilation of oxygen into the underground methane in the
coal seams was documented in the area (Martha et al. 2005;
Guha & Kumar 2012). These unauthorised mining activities
associated with coal fires resulted in the development of mine
voids, land subsidence, sinkholes, cavities, potholes, etc., and
posed threats to the environment with respect to health and
safety issues (Kuenzer & Stracher 2012; Saini et al. 2016;
Butchibabu et al. 2019b). These illegal coal mining oper-
ations caused severe horizontal and vertical deformations
in the ground and created foundation problems in nearby
borehole casing was repeatedly going down or sinking. To
stop the sinking, we tied two sticks to the borehole casing
(figure 3) during the present study. Groundwater level was
identified at a depth of 10 m from the ground surface in an
open well (figure 3) close (∼5 m) to the pipeline alignment.
3. Geology of the study area
Geologically, the Raniganj coal fields comprise rocks mainly
from the Gondwana group of the Early Permian to Lower
Cretaceous (Guha & Kumar 2012). The Gondwana group
was stratigraphically subdivided into the upper and lower
Gondwana series. The lower Gondwana was again divided

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

structures such as buildings, road/rail links, pipelines, etc.
into three sub-series; these were the Panchet, Domodar
(Can et al. 2012).
and Talchir Formations, respectively. The lower Gondwana
A number of cases of premature collapse of small pillars
group (permo-carboniferous age) of rocks contains valuable
during the early part of mining in this coal belt were re-
resources of coal and is covered by a thick blanket of alluvium
ported, and consequently extensive roof-falls, collapses of en-
near to the Durgapur area (Das 1970). The study area marked
trances and water logging forced government agencies to de-
on the geological map of the Raniganj coal fields (figure 4) is
clare the areas unsafe for human habitation (CMPDIL Tech.
known for several environmental hazards such as subsidence,
Report 1988; Areeparampil 1996; DGMS Interim Report
coal fires, sinkholes, cavities, etc. related to shallow coal work-
1997). The Government of India rehabilitated 60000 people
ings. Recent studies have established the extension of the
affected by mining induced subsidence and designated 60.55
Raniganj Gondwana basin around Durgapur to form a new
km2 of land as severely damaged due to subsidence, aban-
sub-basin known as the Durgapur sub-basin, and is separated
doned quarries and spoil dump (Chari 1989; Areeparampil
by a subsurface ridge around Andal and Muchipara (Ghosh
1996). The study region is the second highest urbanisation
et al. 1993). The Raniganj coal belt comprises sedimentary
area in the state of West Bengal. It attracted human settlement
rock formations with recent alluvial and lateritic deposits. La-
due to its long history of mining, and equivocally faced seri-
teritic soils in the area appear to be a sheet rock on the surface
ous threats of subsidence, loss of human lives and property,
and borehole drilling indicates red lateritic soil up to 4 m, fol-
etc. (Lahiri-Dutt 1999).
lowed by anthropogenic stowing sand up to 17 m and broken
The study area has lateral dimensions of 750 × 150 m,
pieces of sandstone up to a depth of 30 m (figure 3). The lat-
lies close to the Kajora coalfield of West Bengal, India and is
erite deposition is composed of numerous quartz grains and
characterised by an undulating ground surface, sloping gen-
these quartzose laterites pass into lateritic conglomerates, la-
tly toward the SW direction. In the area of concern, signifi-
teritic gravels, etc. The principal lithological units of lateritic
cant ground subsidence (∼8–10 m, figure 1) and large num-
types and sandy gravel beds are laterites, quartzose laterite, la-
bers of sinkholes with diameters ranging from ∼2 to 10 m and
teritic gravels and conglomerates. Figure 5 shows the location
up to 30 m deep were found in the vicinity of pipeline (fig-
of the study area including the layout of surface geophysical
ure 2). The probable causes of the formation of sinkholes and
lines and borehole sites.
ground subsidence were shallow depth cover, weak overbur-
den, geological discontinuities and dislocation of rocks. Low-
ering of groundwater and rainfall further aggravated their oc-
4. Data acquisition and processing
currences. Two types of subsidence, such as sinkholes repre-
senting collapse of cover as well as trough formation, were ob- The area of present concern comprises abandoned coal
served in the area. The land is still not stable and events are mines. Drill data for the vertical section show three main
active either in the form of troughs or sinkhole subsidence, layers: the top one is predominantly characterised by lat-
which might have been caused by subsurface cavities formed eritic soil, the second one is made up from loose sand and
in the area. Earlier incidences of sag in pipes and breakout there is a bottom third layer of sandstone layer. GPR and
at joints were reported. A sinkhole with the dimensions of ERT techniques were used for mapping the subsurface cav-
10 m diameter and 30 m deep occurred very close to the ities and weak zones. The weak zones in the strata of coal
pipeline in 2015 and was subsequently filled with fly ash (fig- were later confirmed by the SRT technique. Borehole inves-
ure 2a). During the borehole drilling for cross-hole tests, one tigations were carried out to resolve the deeper information,
full-length (∼3 m) drill bit was suddenly dropped at a 13 m and simultaneously provided the detailed information of the
depth, possibly in a void or abandoned mine gallery. This strata as well as associated weak zones.

148
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
Figure 3. Site conditions of the study area. (a) Lateritic soil is exposed close to the pipeline, (b) open well close to the pipeline illustrates the ground
water level at a 10 m depth from surface, (c) borehole drilling has exposed anthropogenic stowed sand and (d) sinking of borehole casing under its own
weight and sticks tied to the borehole collar to arrest sinking.
4.1. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)
ERT data were acquired using a dipole–dipole array laid out
at a 2-m distance from the pipeline that was buried at a depth
of 2–3 m in the ground. The array measured 744 m in the
NW-SE direction along the pipeline (AL-1) with electrode
spacings of 8 m, in roll-along mode with an overlap of 24
electrodes (see Table 1 and figure 5). In addition, 16 ERT
profiles were also gathered with a 3-m-spaced 48-eletrode ar-
ray orthogonal to the AL-1, each of 141 m in length (R1-
R16) in the NE-SW direction. These lines were laid at 50-
m intervals. The ERT line along the pipeline was profiled to
map the deeper horizons (up to 50 m), while the across ones
aimed to decipher shallower features close to the pipeline, as
the subsurface was expected to be criss-crossed with irreg-
ularly formed tunnels and the size of the troublesome weak
zones was expected to be ≥2 m. The assumption of aban-
doned mine workings is that they are more or less internally
homogeneous with sharp boundaries. We used the blocky
inversion method (l1 -norm) in RES2DINV processing soft-
ware (Claerbout & Muir 1973) as the resistivity contrasts
149
Butchibabu et al.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
were expected to be significant in subsurface features. As the
data were relatively free of noise, a damping factor of 0.05
was used for ERT inversion. Vertical to horizontal flatness,
the filter was set to 1.0 to reduce the elongation of features
that were neither along the horizontal nor vertical directions.
Nodes between adjacent electrodes were set at four to opti-
mise apparent resistivity values for the chosen electrode spac-
ing. A Jacobian matrix calculation was applied using a quasi-
Newton approximation, and the width of the model blocks
was set equivalent to the electrode spacing. This inversion
parameter file was read several times and minor values were
changed for achieving the minimum ABS error. Thus, the
ABS errors were reduced to 5–10% during the processing for
the along (AL-1) and 16 across (R1-R16) profiles.
4.2. Ground penetrating radar (GPR)
Step frequency GPR (SFGPR, Kong & By 1995) was used
for subsurface profiling along the pipeline over a length of
700 m (AL-1, figure 5) covering the span by ERT spread.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 4. Geological map of the Raniganj coalfield area (after Murthy et al. 2010). The study area is demarcated by a rectangular box.

Figure 5. Study area is shown by a dashed rectangle, located only 2 km away from the National Highway (NH2), passing through two important indus-
trial belts, Asansol and Durgapur. Andal Railway Station, along the main track between Howrah and New Delhi, is just ∼700 m away from the study area.
The solid black line passing through the study area represents the pipeline (A). Surface geophysical investigations (ERT, GPR, and SRT) were carried
along profiles in-line with (AL-1) and orthogonal (R-1/S-1 to R-16/S-16; R: Resistivity, S: Seismic) to the pipeline. Six CSP (O) and three CST (⊕)
investigations were done in the boreholes B1-B18 (B).

150
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.
Table 1. Parameters used for data acquisition in the field and software for data processing in the laboratory

ERT SRT GPR CSP for S-wave CSP and CST for P-wave

Syscal Pro (10 channels)
Dipole–dipole array
No. of electrodes: 48
Spacing: 8 and 3 m
Source: 12 V battery
Software: RES2DINV
ABEM Terraloc
Geophones: 24 (10 Hz)
Geophone spacing: 5m
Source: sledge hammer
Sampling interval: 50µs
Software: RAYFRACT
SFGPR
Survey mode: reflection
Source: network analyser
Antenna type: dipole (2 m)
Frequency band:10–200
MHz
Software: ASYST
Source: Sparker Source: Sparker
Impulse generator: IPG500 Discharging energy:
100–300 Joules
Generated waves: SH and P Source frequency: 1.5 kHz
Receiver: borehole Receiver: 12 hydrophones
geophone
Natural frequency: 30 Hz Recording frequency:
10–400 Hz
Signal frequency: up to 4 Software: SIRT based
kHz

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Measurements were made in static mode using a 2-m long
dipole antenna at every 0.5-m step, in the frequency range of
10–200 MHz (Table 1). This bandwidth was chosen on the
basis of resonant ground response and signal power. Com-
mon move-out profiling was done to obtain velocity of the
subsurface. The radar wave velocity arrived from the move-
out in the study area was 0.11 m/ns. With the selected reso-
nant frequency range and the medium velocity, it would be
feasible to resolve weak zones as small as 1 m in the top 10
m. The computed velocity values were used in ASYST data
processing software to convert the time section into a depth-
section (RADARGRAM, figure 6b). A radargram is color-
coded imagery depending on the amplitude of the reflected
signals.
4.3. Seismic refraction tomography (SRT)
The SRT data were acquired for a length of 700 m along
the AL-1. In addition, 16 lines (S1–S16) were laid out (or-
thogonal to AL-1) as was done for R1–R16, with a spacing
of 50 m. These 16 lines, each 115-m long, were added to a
24-channel seismic array with 5-m geophone (fn = 10 Hz),
the spacing was adopted for profiling using a 16-lb sledge-
hammer (Table 1). Each profile was gathered with nine shot
points (forward, middle and reverse) for a good data coverage
along the profile and multiple stacking at every shot location
was done to enhance the signal to noise ratio. With this ac-
quisition setup and the signal acquired, data were analysed
to resolve features of at least 2–3 m dimensions in the top
10 m, based on the combined manual and automated pro-
cessing techniques. First arrival times were manually picked
up for all the 24 channels for each shot position and used
in manual and automatic processing based on conventional
techniques (intercept-time and cross-over distance) as well
as an automated Δt-V technique (Gibson et al. 1979; Ge-
brande & Miller 1985). The initial model for inversion was
generated based on velocity inputs of the weathering layers
and inverted using wave path eikonal tomography (WET) al-
gorithm (Schuster & Quintus-Bosz 1993) based on tracing
the curved ray path of seismic wave propagation. The final 2D
velocity tomogram for a P-wave was reconstructed by gener-
ating velocity contours against depth based on the WET out-
put with an average RMS error of 2.5%.
4.4. Cross-hole seismic profiling (CSP)
The CSP survey was carried out in 12 boreholes (figure 5):
six each located on either side of the pipeline. The locations
of the boreholes were chosen based on the surface geophys-
ical test results, wherein the potential weak zones were in-
dicated. The 12 holes were drilled 30-m deep for profiling,
juxtaposed on either side of the pipeline to measure the vari-
ation in VP and VS until the 30 m depth. Seismic data were
acquired at every 0.5-m depth interval from bottom to top
(surface) of the borehole. The P-wave borehole sparker and
S-wave borehole source were used for generation of P- and S-
waves. A pneumatically clamped system was deployed as the
source for the generation of P and horizontally polarised SH-
waves. A hydrophone (fn = 10 Hz) was used as a P-wave re-
ceiver and a borehole clamped tri-axial geophone was used as
an S-wave receiver. Boreholes were prepared as per the stan-
dard of ASTM D 4428/D 4428M 2000. P-wave profiling was
carried out between all the six pairs (figure 5) lying on ei-
ther side of the pipe, while S-wave profiling was done across
three pairs (B5-B6, B7-B8 and B15-B16) due to limited sig-
nal strength and adherence to the ASTM standards, restrict-
ing the borehole separation to 5 m only. P- and S-wave veloc-
ity profiles were generated from travel times across the corre-
sponding pair of boreholes.
4.5. Cross-hole seismic tomography (CST)
The locations for CST borehole pairs B3-B4, B11-B12 and
B17-B18 (Table 2, figure 5) were chosen to optimise the ap-
plication of borehole techniques to complement and supple-
ment surface techniques and CSP data, respectively, to gain
insight into the subsurface for most vulnerable zone. The
sparker was used as the source for generating P-waves and a

151
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 6. Images illustrating the results of surface investigations along the pipeline (AL-1) alignment. (a) ERT showing the resistivity distribution
of water filled rooms marked as rectangular boxes (see 1 to 9) and four depressions marked as inverted triangles, (b) radargram showing hyperbolic
reflections (1–9) of the caves and (c) SRT showing the distribution of velocity in different layers along the profile (AL-1). The weak zone is marked by
two vertical red colored dashed lines; the sinkhole and large cavity are shown by white elliptical circles. Note the very high resistive zones marked are
separated by a vertically aligned low resistive zone (a).

Table 2. Details of borehole pairs and borehole separations selected in for the three locations were analysed independently, and cor-
the survey related with the results of other techniques adopted for this
Site no. Pair of boreholes Separation (m) site. A comparative analysis of the results, evaluation of the
subsurface conditions along the pipeline and interpretation
1. B1-B2 8.3
along with combined visualisation is discussed in section 5.
2. B3-B4 23.5
3 B5-B6 4.5
4. B7-B8 4.5
5. B9-B10 8.5
6. B11-B12 14.7
5. Results and discussion
7. B13-B14 9.0 5.1. Surface techniques
8. B15-B16 4.5
9. B17-B18 15.0 The top soil layer along the pipeline is characterised by highly
weathered laterite along with sand and clay. Such a medium
is known to exhibit significantly low range of resistivity under
12-channel hydrophone chain was used to receive them. Data saturated conditions. However, the geophysical surveys were
were acquired from bottom to surface at 1-m spacing using carried out in the month of January 2016, when there was
a digital signal enhancement seismograph (Terraloc MK6) no seasonal rain nor any large water bodies to influence the
with a sampling interval of 25 µs and 4096 samples. The presence of shallow water table. Thus, the near-surface con-
borehole seismic survey was carried out to evaluate the likely ditions were reasonably dry and therefore of higher resistiv-
engineering properties of the weak zones based on VP and VS ity. Several low resistivity (<20 Ωm) pockets, numbered 1 to
to derive as much information as possible in correlation with 9, were mapped within the top 20 m depth (ERT2D section,
the surface geophysical test results. All the tomogram results figure 6a). There were no other pronounced low resistivity

152
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
zones elsewhere along the AL-1 in the top 20 m; more specif-
ically, in the 9–17 m depth range. These low resistivity pock-
ets could be the manifestation of water-saturated or clay-filled
cavities left over due to unauthorised mining. These pockets
are located almost equidistant within the surrounding high-
resistivity strata, which is represented by sandstone and coal.
Moderate resistive (∼330 Ωm) pockets in-between low resis-
tive areas are presumably the locations of pillars used during
excavation.
The up-arching ‘gaps’ in the GPR radargram (1–9) are
in close agreement with the locations of those low resistiv-
ity pockets. The clear absence of any high-amplitude reflec-
tion is an indicator of a medium that is capable of attenuating
electrical and electromagnetic signals. That is probably the
impact of saturated soil with higher conductivity trapped in
the abandoned void. The high-resistivity values below 15 m
and lack of high-amplitude reflections below this depth are
indicative of no significant contrast in the resistivity or di-
electric permittivity caused by gradual change in rock char-
acter from weathered to hard rock mass. The amplitudes of
radargram reflections decreased below a 12 m depth, whereas
the resistivity values and P-wave velocities increased at this
depth, which is inversely related to GPR. Thus, the intermit-
tent presence of water or water-saturated rock mass, like ex-
cavated rooms, probably filled with acidic water and was sur-
rounded by more compact and relatively dry rock mass. A
drop in resistivity in the ERT at a 310–360 m distance and
the coinciding multiple up-arching reflections in the same
stretch of radargram are probably caused by the effect of
filled well or shaft-like feature. The SRT shows the presence
of a three-layered rock mass scenario with the layer appar-
ently dipping at the end. Beyond 550 m along the profile,
three prominent low velocity zones are identified. One of
them is a dump zone, while the other two (VP = 400–600
m s-1 ) indicate the presence of a sinkhole (figure 2a) and
cavities.
The overall resistivity distribution is in the range of 2–
3900 Ωm along the 16 ERT profiles (R1 to R16) across AL-
1 (figure 7a and b). The overall scenario can be simplified
by a three-layered subsurface with highly resistive (∼1350
Ωm) lateritic soil at the top (0–3 m) followed by low resis-
tive (∼350 Ωm) anthropogenic stowing sand (3–11 m) and
high-resistivity (≥1500 Ωm) sandstone at the bottom (11–
25 m). Conspicuous low resistivity pockets (see the rectan-
gular boxes in figure 7a and b) indicate the presence of a shal-
low level features (∼6–15 Ωm) of lateral dimensions of 6–
9 m mapped in the depth range of 9 to 17 m. SRT across
AL-1 lines also accounts for similar subsurface character as
identified by ERT profiles with three-layered strata condi-
tions (figure 8a and b). They can be classified into three
major velocity zones representing lateritic soils (400–1100
m s-1 ), moderate compacted and/or saturated sand (1100–
2000 m s-1 ; Telford et al. 1990) and sandstone (≥2000 m s-1 )
153
Butchibabu et al.
generally in the depth ranges of 0–10, 10–20 and 20–30m, re-
spectively.
Combined visualisation of all the 2D resistivity sections
reveals a series of low resistivity pockets and is suggestive of
an elongated subsurface feature, probably cavities that might
be extending like a tunnel type feature. The abandoned mines
have possibly undergone marked changes due to failures or
deformation of pillars and collapse of the roof whose ef-
fects might have been extended up to the surface by way of
stressed arching. This phenomenon subsequently affects the
surface topography and occasionally leads to surface subsi-
dence. SRT sections are not indicative of any significant con-
trast in the subsurface velocity coinciding with ERT features.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
Hence, the discrete but significant features of ERT cannot
be directly correlated to any inferred subsurface feature from
SRT. This is most likely the effect of size of the subsurface fea-
ture vis-à-vis the velocity variation with depth. Scattered low
velocity zones observed in the SRT sections could be due to
uncompacted zones in the sand or voids in the background
of highly weathered rock. However, distinct low resistivity
pockets lie in the relatively low velocity zones. Thus, it can
be construed that low resistivity features at less than 7 m in
depth could be influencing the velocity distribution in their
surroundings, however, distinct contrast in velocities is not
prominent. Therefore, such low resistivity features might ap-
pear as single shallow low velocity anomalies in SRT tomo-
grams.
5.2. Borehole techniques
The CSP results (figure 9) show an increase in P-wave veloc-
ity, which is comparable with that of SRT lines S5-S6, S9-S10
and S15-S16 (figure 8a and b). However, the S-wave veloc-
ity shows a reversal in trend beyond 9 m in depth (figure 9).
Decrease in the S-wave velocity is attributed to the effect of
ground water, which leads to dilation of the subsurface hori-
zon mixed with the collapsed fragile roof of the underground
galleries and uncompacted saturated sand that might have
been stowed. Thus, such intriguing velocity variation at 9–
17-m depths is identified as the dilatant zone (Kwasniewski
& Rodríguez-Oitabén 2012; figure 9). Such velocity reversals
indicate impending deformation of strata around the mined-
out zone. P-wave velocity varies from 1500 to 3000 m s-1 up
to a depth of 30 m. The highest velocity of 3000 m s-1 was
measured at a depth of ∼16 m and might be associated with a
boundary between the second layer and bottom (sandstone)
layer. However, the presence of a low velocity (∼1000–1500
m s-1 ) zone in the 5–10 m depth range (figure 10) probably
causes voids in top lateritic soil. They are isolated anomalies
and, unlike with other weak zones, are found elsewhere due
to abandoned mine galleries. Presence of low resistivity pock-
ets in ERT profiles (figure 7a and b) might be the resultant
effect of such isolated pockets.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 7. ERT sections along R1-R8 (a) and R9-R16 (b), orthogonal to the alignment of the pipeline (vertical red colored solid arrow line), illustrate
the variation of resistivity up to a depth of 25 m in the subsurface medium. Resistivity all along the profiles (R1-R16) shows the presence of abandoned
mine gallery marked by a dashed rectangular box (black). The identified shallow level low resistivity pockets were marked by rectangular boxes. The star
symbol (R) on R4 ERT and S4 SRT sections confirms the presence of an abandoned mining gallery exactly below the pipeline.

154
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
Butchibabu et al.

155
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162

Figure 7. Continued.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 8. SRT sections along S1-S8 (a) and S9-S16 (b), orthogonal to the alignment of the pipeline (vertical red colored solid arrow line), illustrate the
variation of P-wave velocity up to a depth of 30 m in the subsurface medium. Identified shallow level low velocity pockets were marked by rectangular
boxes (red) and circles (red) along each line. CSP results were superposed on the corresponding SRT sections (S2, S10 and S14) and corroborate the
presence of shallow cavities. The triangle symbol (࢞) on S4 and S16 SRT sections represents the shallow cavity confirmed with CST results (tomograms
B3-B4 and B17-B18).

156
 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
Butchibabu et al.

157
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162

Figure 8. Continued.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 9. Plots illustrate the variation of P- and S-wave velocities up to a depth of 30 m obtained through cross-hole seismic profiling (CSP). Note the
zone marked by the light-yellow color, where the velocity of P- and S-waves vary inversely at depths between 9 and 16 m.

Figure 10. Plots illustrate the variation of P-wave velocity up to a depth of 30 m obtained through cross-hole seismic profiling (CSP). Note the zone
marked by dashed elliptical red colored circle, where the velocity of P-wave sharply decreases and this is probably associated with a cavity.

CST was conducted between a pair of holes at three lo-
cations (figure 5) affirming the trend of velocity profiles ob-
tained by other techniques. The overall distribution of the
seismic P-wave velocity (400–3400 m s–1 ) up to a depth of
30 m in the three tomograms (figure 11) has an embedded
low velocity (∼1200 m s–1 ) pocket between 5 and 10 m in
depth. This once again reaffirms the low velocity found in
SRT and CSP (figures 8 and 9), which were identified as
voids in the top lateritic soil. The effect of dilatant zone is
not prominently visible in the P-wave tomograms as the con-
tours demonstrate increasing velocity, so it is unlikely to be
the S-wave, which would have shown a velocity reversal at
the same depth range. The estimated poison’s ratio between
9 and 17 m depths in the dilatation zone is computed as
0.4–0.5 (Table 3), indicative of soils deformed elastically at
small strains and no significant volumetric change occurred
in the medium (Suwal & Kuwano 2012). Such deformation
is related to the dilatancy of the rock mass (Kwasniewski &
Rodríguez-Oitabén 2012) observed in the respective depth
range. Most likely, this dilatancy phase of the rock might have
facilitated subsidence of the overburden through deforma-
tion.
Thus, the integrated geophysical investigations compris-
ing ERT, GPR, SRT, CSP and CST exposed an intrinsic mate-
rial property of the subsurface along and across the pipelines,
ascertaining the locations of the weak zones. The features
were mainly confined to the top 20 m of the subsurface, con-
firmed by both the surface and borehole geophysical tech-
niques. The ERT section along the pipeline (figure 6a) de-
marcates a series of low resistivity (∼6 Ωm) anomalies in the
background of higher resistivity (∼160 Ωm). This was de-
tected because of a higher contrast in resistivity between the

158
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162 Butchibabu et al.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023

Figure 11. Travel-time tomograms, obtained through cross-hole seismic tomography investigations, illustrate the variation of P-wave velocity up to a
depth of 30 m. Note the zone of abandoned mine gallery marked by solid-line box identified in B3-B4. Low velocity cavities and feeder channels at
shallow depths, extending from the surface to 10 m depth. Δ indicates a shallow level low velocity pocket also mapped in corresponding SRT sections
S4 and S16. R indicates a corresponding low velocity depression on S4 and low resistivity zone on R4.

Table 3. Computed Poisson’s ratio based on measured P- and S-wave velocities between 9 and 17 m depths for three pairs of boreholes

B5-B6 B7-B8 B15-B16

Depth Poisson’s Poisson’s Poisson’s

(m) Vp (m s–1 ) Vs (m s–1 ) Vp /Vs ratio Vp (m s–1 ) Vs (m s–1 ) Vp /Vs ratio Vp (m s–1 ) Vs (m s–1 ) Vp /Vs ratio

9 1307 626 2.38 0.4 1800 1030 1.75 0.3 1500 780 1.92 0.3
10 1433 601 2.38 0.4 1826 1041 1.75 0.3 1531 793 1.93 0.3
11 1536 631 2.43 0.4 1853 984 1.88 0.3 1598 774 2.06 0.3
12 1620 677 2.39 0.4 2230 906 2.46 0.4 1909 767 2.49 0.4
13 1795 710 2.53 0.4 2710 818 3.31 0.4 2194 695 3.16 0.4
14 2099 760 2.76 0.4 2897 696 4.16 0.5 2774 657 4.22 0.5
15 2483 847 2.93 0.4 3073 754 4.07 0.5 3267 637 5.13 0.5
16 2483 805 3.08 0.4 3111 716 4.35 0.5 3267 785 4.16 0.5
17 2811 1192 2.36 0.4 3000 992 3.02 0.4 3196 1246 2.57 0.4

water filled, saturated sand filled gallery and the surrounding
high resistive sandstones. A radargram also produced hyper-
bolic reflections around the same locations (1–9, figure 6b),
although similar congruence could not be seen prominently
in the seismic sections due to the nature of moderate velocity
changes.
Results from borehole techniques were in reasonably
good agreement with that of the surface techniques mutually
validating the overall geophysical findings. An interesting fea-
ture noted among them is the extension of a possible feeder
channel up to ∼12 m in depth. The computed Poisson’s ra-
tio clearly points toward the state of the soil/rock in the early
stages of deformation (Kwasniewski & Rodríguez-Oitabén
2012; Yu et al. 2020). The prolonged effect of the deforma-
tion facilitated subsidence below the pipeline and nearby sur-
rounding regions, straining the pipe at locations where the
ground subsides beyond normal because of developed local
weak zones in the vicinity. Based on the results of comprehen-
sive geophysical investigations, we recommended the area for
future subsidence in close vicinity to the pipeline. Sinkhole
subsidence was found later on in an area with diameter of
8 m and depth of 10 m near the CSP borehole B13-B14. It
was further filled with gravel and compacted subsequently
by running over it with a roller. Thus, the pipe comes under
greater risk of damage due to the ground instability, and this
has raised concern about its safety.

159
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
6. Conclusions
The integrated geophysical approach involving surface and
borehole techniques clearly brought out the near surface
and moderately deep-seated weak zones in a less ambiguous
manner. The surface investigations were planned in strate-
gic coordination with the borehole investigations to probe
the maximum subsurface information concerning the weak
zones below the pipeline, including identification of un-
known mined-out regimes. Comprehensive geophysical in-
vestigations identified the possible subsidence areas in the
study area and this later was confirmed by visual observa-
tion. Testing of soil samples at different depths could have
enabled better quantification of the soil modulus, along-
side borehole velocity values and Poisson’s ratio, and em-
pirical relationships between these parameters could be es-
tablished for this site. Nevertheless, the complementing re-
sults ascertained the status of the subsurface below the
pipeline allowing the authorities to prepare a systematic
ground restoration design for the safety and stability of the
pipeline.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Indian Oil Corporation authori-
ties for sponsoring the investigation. The first and third authors
extend their gratitude to the Director, National Institute of Rock
Mechanics (NIRM) for taking up this investigation and granting
permission to publish the work. The first author thanks V.R. Bala-
subramaniam for his timely guidance, and also Sandeep Nelliat and
Y.V. Sivaram for their continuous support during data acquisition
as well as in the department.
Conflict of interest statement: None declared.
References
Areeparampil, M., 1996. Displacement due to mining in Jharkhand, Eco-
nomic and Political Weekly, 31, 1524–1528.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 2000. Standard testing methods
for Cross-hole Seismic Testing, ASTM D4428-D4428M-00.
Balasubramaniam, V.R., Jha, P.C., Chandrasekhar, E., Babu, B.B., Sivaram,
Y.V. & Sandeep, N., 2013. Imaging weak zones in the foundation us-
ing frequency domain attenuation tomography, Journal of Applied Geo-
physics, 97, 97–106.
Ballard, R.F., Jr, 1983. Cavity Detection and Delineation Research. Report
5. Electromagnetic (Radar) Techniques Applied to Cavity Detection.
(No. WES/TR/GL-83-1), Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion, Vicksburg, MS, Geotechnical Laboratory.
Bernatek-Jakiel, A. & Kondracka, M., 2016. Combining geomorphological
mapping and near surface geophysics (GPR and ERT) to study piping
systems, Geomorphology, 274, 193–209.
Bharti, A.K., Pal, S.K., Priyam, P., Pathak, V.K., Kumar, R. & Ranjan, S.K.,
2016. Detection of illegal mine voids using electrical resistivity tomog-
raphy: the case-study of Raniganj coalfield (India), Engineering Geology,
213, 120–132.
Butchibabu, B., Khan, P.K. & Jha, P.C., 2019a. Foundation evaluation of
underground metro rail station using geophysical and geotechnical in-
160
Butchibabu et al.
vestigations, Engineering Geology, 248, 140–154.
Butchibabu, B., Khan, P.K. & Jha, P.C., 2019b. Foundation evaluation of a
repeater installation building using electrical resistivity tomography and
seismic refraction tomography, Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics, 24, 27–38.
Butchibabu, B., Sandeep, N., Sivaram, Y.V., Jha, P.C. & Khan, P.K.,
2017. Bridge pier foundation evaluation using cross-hole seis-
mic tomographic imaging, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 144,
104–114.
Can, E., Kuşcu, Ş. & Kartal, M.E., 2012. Effects of mining subsidence on
masonry buildings in Zonguldak hard coal region in Turkey, Environ-
mental Earth Sciences, 66, 2503–2518.
Carbonel, D., Rodríguez, V., Gutiérrez, F., McCalpin, J.P., Linares, R.,
Roqué, C., Zarroca, M., Guerrero, J. & Sasowsky, I., 2014. Evaluation of
trenching, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity to-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
mography (ERT) for sinkhole characterization, Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms, 39, 214–227.
Cardarelli, E., Cercato, M., Cerreto, A. & Di Filippo, G., 2010. Electrical
resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities,
Geophysical Prospecting, 58, 685–695.
Cardarelli, E., Di Filippo, G. & Tuccinardi, E., 2006. Electrical resistivity
tomography to detect buried cavities in Rome: a case study, Near Surface
Geophysics, 4, 387–392.
Carpenter, P.J., Doll, W.E. & Kaufmann, R.D., 1998. Geophysical charac-
ter of buried sinkholes on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Tennessee (Pre-
sented at SAGEEP95 in Orlando, FL), Journal of Environmental and En-
gineering Geophysics, 3, 133–145.
Cha, Y.H., Kang, J.S. & Jo, C.H., 2006. Application of linear-array mi-
crotremor surveys for rock mass classification in urban tunnel design,
Exploration Geophysics, 37, 108–113.
Chari, K.S.R., 1989. Report of the expert committee on restoration of aban-
doned coal mines. A project proposal submitted by CMPDI.
Chatterjee, R.S., Thapa, S., Singh, K.B., Varuna kumar, G. & Raju, E.V.R.,
2015. Detecting, mapping and monitoring of land subsidence in Jharia
Coalfield, Jharkhand, India by space-borne differential interferometric
SAR, GPS and precision levelling techniques, Journal of Earth System
Science, 124, 1359–1376.
Claerbout, J.F. & Muir, F., 1973. Robust modeling with erratic data, Geo-
physics, 38, 826–844.
CMPDIL Tech. Report. 1988. Study report on advanced environmental plan-
ning for Raniganj coalfield, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute
Ltd, Asansol, 33–34.
Cohen, K.K. & Donahue, J.G., 1994. The use of shallow seismic techniques
to target subsurface mine voids for installation of monitoring wells. In
proceedings of the symposium on the application of geophysics to engineering
and environmental problems, 1, 91.
Cueto, M., Olona, J., Fernández-Viejo, G., Pando, L. & López-Fernández,
C., 2018. Karst-induced sinkhole detection using an integrated geophys-
ical survey: a case study along the Riyadh Metro Line 3 (Saudi Arabia),
Near Surface Geophysics, 16, 270–281.
Das, P. & Mohanty, P.R., 2016. Resistivity imaging technique to delineate
shallow subsurface cavities associated with old coal working: a numeri-
cal study, Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 661.
Das, S., 1970. Report on the groundwater investigations in parts of Bur-
dwan and Birbhum district, West Bengal, Cyclostyled G.S.I report
(1968–69 & 69–70).
Debeglia, N., Bitri, A. & Thierry, P., 2006. Karst investigations using micro-
gravity and MASW; application to Orléans, France, Near Surface Geo-
physics, 4, 215–225.
DGMS Interim Report, 1997. Interim report of the sub-committee on un-
stable and fine areas in Raniganj coalfield, Govt. of India, 1–8.
Dobecki, T.L. & Upchurch, S.B., 2006. Geophysical applications to detect
sinkholes and ground subsidence, The Leading Edge, 25, 336–341.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
Drahor, M.G. & Berge, M.A., 2017. Integrated geophysical investigations
in a fault zone located on southwestern part of İzmir city, Western Ana-
tolia, Turkey, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 136, 114–133.
Drahor, M.G., Berge, M.A., Öztürk, C. & Ortan, B., 2015. Integrated
geophysical investigations at a sacred Hittite Area in Central Anatolia,
Turkey, Near Surface Geophysics, 13, 523–543.
Fenner, T., 1995. Ground penetrating radar for identification of mine tun-
nels and abandoned mine stopes, Mining Engineering, 47, 280–284.
Fisher, W., 1972. Detection of abandoned underground coal mines by geophys-
ical methods, US Environmental Protection Agency.
Flecha, I., Marti, D., Carbonell, R., Escuder-Viruete, J. & Perez-Estaun, A.,
2004. Imaging low-velocity anomalies with the aid of seismic tomogra-
phy, Tectonophysics, 388, 225–238.
Gebrande, H. & Miller, H., 1985. Refraktionseismik (in German), in Ange-
wandte Geowissenschaften II, pp. 226–260, ed. Bender F., Ferdinand
Enke, Stuttgart.
Ghosh, D., Das, L.K., Ghatak, T.K., Saha, D.K. & Bose, R.N., 1993. Mor-
photectonic configuration of cratonic Gondwana depocentres of east-
ern India, Tectonophysics, 223, 423–438.
Gibson, B.S., Odegard, M.E. & Sutton, G.H., 1979. Nonlinear least-squares
inversion of traveltime data for a linear velocity-depth relationship, Geo-
physics, 44, 185–194.
Gómez-Ortiz, D. & Martín-Crespo, T., 2012. Assessing the risk of subsi-
dence of a sinkhole collapse using ground penetrating radar and electri-
cal resistivity tomography, Engineering Geology, 149, 1–12.
Grandjean, G. & Leparoux, D., 2004. The potential of seismic methods for
detecting cavities and buried objects: experimentation at a test site, Jour-
nal of Applied Geophysics, 56, 93–106.
Guha, A. & Kumar, K.V., 2012. Structural controls on coal fire
distributions—remote sensing based investigation in the Rani-
ganj coalfield, West Bengal, Journal of the Geological Society of India, 79,
467–475.
Inazaki, T., Yamanaka, Y., Kawamura, S. & Tazawa, O., 2004. High resolu-
tion seismic reflection survey using land streamers for near-surface cav-
ity detection, Proceedings of the 7th SEGJ International Symposium, 475–
480.
Johnson, W.J., 2003. Case histories of DC resistivity measurements to map
shallow coal mine workings, The Leading Edge, 22, 571–573.
Kim, J.H., Yi, M.J., Hwang, S.H., Song, Y., Cho, S.J. & Synn, J.H., 2007. In-
tegrated geophysical surveys for the safety evaluation of a ground subsi-
dence zone in a small city, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 4, 332–
347.
Kong, F.N. & By, T.L., 1995. Performance of a GPR system which uses step
frequency signals, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 33, 15–26.
Kwasniewski, M. & Rodríguez-Oitabén, P., 2012. Study on the dilatancy
angle of rocks in the pre-failure domain. Harmonising rock engineer-
ing and the environment-Qian & Zhou (eds), Taylor & Francis Group,
London, ISBN 978-0-415-8044-8.
Kuenzer, C. & Stracher, G.B., 2012. Geomorphology of coal seam fires. Ge-
omorphology, 138, 209–222.
Lahiri-Dutt, K., 1999. State, market and the crisis in Raniganj coal belt. Eco-
nomic and Political Weekly, 34, 2952–2956.
Lahiri-Dutt, K., 2003. February. Informal coal mining in Eastern India: ev-
idence from the Raniganjcoalbelt. In Natural Resources Forum, 27, 68–
77. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Lankston, R.W., 1989. The seismic refraction method: A viable tool for
mapping shallow targets into the 1990s, Geophysics, 54, 1535–1542.
Maillol, J.M., Seguin, M.K., Gupta, O.P., Akhauri, H.M. & Sen, N., 1999.
Electrical resistivity tomography survey for delineating uncharted mine
galleries in West Bengal, India, Geophysical Prospecting, 47, 103–116.
Marino, G.G., 2000. Pipelines exposed to coal mine subsidence face risk of
serious damage, Pipeline & Gas Journal, 227, 37–40.
161
Butchibabu et al.
Martha, T.R., Bhattacharya, A. & Kumar, V.K., 2005. Coal fire detection
and monitoring in Raniganj coalfield India - a remote sensing approch,
Current Science, 88, 21–24.
Martínez-Pagán, P., Gómez-Ortiz, D., Martín-Crespo, T., Manteca, J.I. &
Rosique, M., 2013. The electrical resistivity tomography method in the
detection of shallow mining cavities. A case study on the Victoria Cave,
Cartagena (SE Spain), Engineering geology, 156, 1–10.
McCann, D.M., Jackson, P.D. & Culshaw, M.G., 1987. The use of geophys-
ical surveying methods in the detection of natural cavities and mine-
shafts, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 20,
59–73.
McDowell, P.W. & Hope, V., 1993. The location and delineation of karst
and solution collapse features by acoustic tomography. Applied Karst Ge-
ology, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 123–129.
Metwaly, M. & Al Fouzan, F., 2013. Application of 2-D geoelectrical resis-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023
tivity tomography for subsurface cavity detection in the eastern part of
Saudi Arabia. Geoscience Frontiers, 4, 469–476.
Miller, R.D. & Steeples, D.W., 1991. Detecting voids in a 0.6 m coal
seam, 7 m deep, using seismic reflection, Geoexploration, 28, 109–
119.
Mogren, S., 2020. Integrated use of electrical resistivity tomography
and ground penetration radar for identifying subsurface sinkholes
in Rufa Graben, Central Riyadh, Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13,
1–16.
Mufti, I.R., 1995. Pitfalls in crosshole seismic interpretation as a result of
3-D effects, Geophysics, 60, 821–833.
Murthy, S., Chakraborti, B. & Roy, M.D., 2010. Palynodating of subsurface
sediments, Raniganj Coalfield, Damodar Basin, West Bengal, Journal of
Earth System Science, 119, 701–710.
Park, C.S., Lim, J.Y., Choi, C.L., Kong, B.C. & Mok, Y.J., 2008. October. Re-
cent development of borehole seismic tests. In The 14th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, Chaina.
Prakash, A., Lokhande, R.D. & Singh, K.B., 2009. Surface ground defor-
mation in Jharia and Raniganj coalfields over old mine workings, Indian
Journal of Environmental Protection, 29, 289–293.
Rechtien, R.D., Greenfield, R.J. & Ballard, R.F., Jr, 1995. Tunnel sig-
nature prediction for a cross-borehole seismic survey, Geophysics, 60,
76–86.
Sahu, P. & Lokhande, R.D., 2015. An investigation of sinkhole subsidence
and its preventive measures in underground coal mining, Procedia Earth
and Planetary Science, 11, 63–75.
Saini, V., Gupta, R.P. & Arora, M.K., 2016. Environmental impact studies
in coalfields in India: A case study from Jharia coal-field, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1222–1239.
Schuster, G.T. & Quintus-Bosz, A., 1993. Wavepath-eikonal traveltime in-
version: theory, Geophysics, 58, 1314–1323.
Sheehan, J., Doll, W. & Mandell, W., 2003. Evaluation of refraction tomog-
raphy codes for near-surface applications, In SEG Annual Meeting, Soci-
ety of Exploration Geophysicists.
Simyrdanis, K., Papadopoulos, N., Soupios, P., Kirkou, S. & Tsourlos, P.,
2018. Characterization and monitoring of subsurface contamination
from olive oil mills’ waste waters using electrical resistivity tomography,
Science of The Total Environment, 637, 991–1003.
Singh, A.P., Parmar, A. & Chopra, S., 2017b. Microtremor study for evalu-
ating the site response characteristics in the Surat City of western India,
Natural Hazards, 89, 1145–1166.
Singh, A.P., Shukla, A., Kumar, M.R. & Thakkar, M.G., 2017a. Character-
izing surface geology, liquefaction potential, and maximum intensity in
the Kachchh Seismic Zone, Western India, through microtremor analy-
sis characterizing surface geology, liquefaction potential, and maximum
intensity in the Kachchh Seismic Zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Soci-
ety of America, 107, 1277–1292.
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering (2021) 18, 145–162
Singh, R.P. & Yadav, R.N., 1995. Prediction of subsidence due to coal min-
ing in Raniganj coalfield, West Bengal, India, Engineering Geology, 39,
103–111.
Srivastava, V.K. & Mitra, D., 1995. Study of drainage pattern of Raniganj
Coalfield (Burdwan District) as observed on Landsat-TM/IRS LISS II
imagery, Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 23, 225–235.
Suwal, L.P. & Kuwano, R., 2012. Poisson’s ratio evaluation on silty and
clayey sands on laboratory specimens by flat disk shaped piezo-ceramic
transducer, Bulletin of ERS, 45, 141–158.
Telford, W.M., Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E. & Sheriff, R.E.,
1990, Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press.
Van-Schoor, M., 2002. Detection of sinkholes using 2D electrical resistiv-
ity imaging, Journal of Applied Geophysics, 50, 393–399.
Vargemezis, G., Tsourlos, P., Fikos, I., Diamanti, N., Angelis, D. & Amanati-
dou, E., 2019. Void detection and consolidation filling verification by
162
Butchibabu et al.
ERT, GPR and seismic refraction methods. In 1st Conference on Geo-
physics for Infrastructure Planning Monitoring and BIM (1, 1–5), Eu-
ropean Association of Geoscientists & Engineers.
Wang, Y., 2021. The W transform, Geophysics, 86, V31–V39.
Xu, C. & Butt, S.D., 2006. Evaluation of MASW techniques to image
steeply dipping cavities in laterally inhomogeneous terrain, Journal of
Applied Geophysics, 59, 106–116.
Yelf, R.J. & Turner, G., 1990. Applications of GPR to coal mining. Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd International Conference on GPR, Lakewood, CO,
USA.
Yu, J., Liu, G., Cai, Y., Zhou, J., Liu, S. & Tu, B., 2020. Time-dependent de-
formation mechanism for swelling soft-rock tunnels in coal mines and
its mathematical deduction, International Journal of Geomechanics, 20,
04019186.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article/18/1/145/6137307 by guest on 19 September 2023