Carbonates and Evaporites

, Volume 27, Issue 3–4, pp 321–329 | Cite as

An investigation for potential extensions of the Karaca Cavern using geophysical methods

  • Aysel ŞerenEmail author
  • Ali Erden Babacan
  • Kenan Gelişli
  • Zeynep Öğretmen
  • Raif Kandemir
Original Article


It is extremely important for regional tourism to determine the possible extensions of Karaca Cavern, one of the most important tourism destinations of the Gümüşhane province in Northeast Turkey. Cavities in karstic areas have been frequently revealed using geophysical surveys. This study tried to ascertain the spatial distribution and extension of the limestone cavern system using these techniques. In pursuit of this goal, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), electrical resistivity tomography and seismic tomography methods were performed close to the Karaca Cavern. Appropriate sites for geophysical measurement were selected within the investigation area. The GPR measurements were collected with 100 MHz centre frequency unshielded antennas on 15 profiles over the investigation area of 5,000 m2. Furthermore, both electrical resistivity and seismic tomography data were acquired along with one profile on the site. All data sets were processed and interpreted to visualize the cave as well as the shallow subsurface structure of the site. As a result, it was found that a variety of hyperbolic reflections of different depths and sizes on the radargrams as well as low velocity and high resistivity areas with respect host rock observed in the seismic and resistivity tomography sections may indicate possible extensions of the Karaca Cavern. It has been suggested that locations of anomalies pinpointed using these methods could be opened at the sites. If these places are drilled, the cavern may be enlarged and its importance may increase in terms of tourism.


Karaca Cavern Geophysical surveys GPR ERT Seismic 



We are indebted to the Karadeniz Technical University Research Fund (No. 2006.112.007.3) and would like to address our thanks to our students due to their contribution on data acquisition. Many thanks Melek Demir for her invaluable contributions to correction of the English of this paper. We also thank the referees.


  1. Annan AP (2003) Ground penetrating radar principles, procedures, and applications. Sensors and Software, Inc., Mississauga, p 286Google Scholar
  2. Cardarelli E, Cercato M, Cerreto A, Filippo GD (2010) Electrical resistivity and seismic refraction tomography to detect buried cavities. Geophys Prospect 58:685–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chamberlain AT, Sellers W, Proctor C, Coard R (2000) Cave detection in limestone using ground penetrating radar. J Archaeol Sci 27:957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis JL, Annan AP (1989) Ground penetrating radar for high resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophys Prospect 37:531–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dilek R, Van A, Boynukalın S, Yalçınalp B, Özer E (1992) Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Karstlaşma sonucu oluşan mağaralara bir örnek. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurultayı Bildiri Özleri 45:71Google Scholar
  6. El-Qady G, Hafez M, Abdalla MA, Ushıjıma K (2005) Imaging subsurface cavities using geoelectric tomography and ground-penetrating radar. J Cave Karst Stud 67:174–181Google Scholar
  7. Gibson PJ, Lyle P, George DM (2004) Application of resistivity and magnetometry geophysical techniques for near-surface investigations in karstic terranes in Ireland. J Cave Karst Stud 66:35–38Google Scholar
  8. Goodman D (1994) Ground-penetrating radar simulation in engineering and archaeology. Geophysics 59:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kampke A (1999) Focused imaging of electrical resistivity data in archaeological prospecting. J Appl Geophys 41:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaygusuz A, Wolfgang S, Şen C, Satir M (2008) Petrochemistry and petrology of I-type granitoids in an arc setting: the composite Torul pluton, Eastern Pontides, NE Turkey. Int J Earth Sci 97:739–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koch R, Bucur II, Kırmacı MZ, Eren M, Taslı K (2008) Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous carbonate rocks of the Berdiga Limestone—Sedimentation on an onbound platform with volcanic and episodic siliciclastic influx. Biostratigraphy, facies and diagenesis (Kircaova, Kale-Gümüşhane; NE Turkey). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 247:23–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leucci G, De Giorgi L (2005) Integrated geophysical surveys to assess the structural conditions of a karstic cave of archaeological importance. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loke MH (1997) Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies, 2D Notes, 5, Cangkat Minden Lorong 6, Minden Heights, 11700 Penang, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Loke MH (1998) RES2DINV, Rapid 2D resistivity and IP inversion using least-squares methods, User manual. Advanced Geosciences, Inc, Austin 66 pGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorenzo H, Hernandez M, Cuellar V (2002) Selected radar images of man-made underground galleries. Archaeol Prospect 9:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pelin S (1977) Alucra (Giresun) Güneydogu Yöresinin Petrol Olanakları Bakımından Jeolojik incelemesi. KTÜ yayını 87:103Google Scholar
  17. Pullammanappallil SK, Louie JN (1994) A generalized simulated-annealing optimization for inversion of first-arrival times. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1397–1409Google Scholar
  18. Sandmeier Software (2002) Reflex-Win software manual. Cambridge University Press, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  19. Şeren A, Gelişli K, Çataklı A (2008) A geophysical investigation of the late roman underground settlement at Aydintepe, Northeast Turkey. Geoarchaeol Int J 23:842–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, p 283Google Scholar
  21. Tokel S (1972) Stratigraphical and volcanic history of the Gümüshane region (NE Turkey), Doktora Tezi. University of College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. van Nostrand RG, Cook KL (1966) Interpretation of resistivity data, US Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper 499Google Scholar
  23. Vaughan CJ (1986) Ground-penetrating radar surveys used in archaeological investigations. Geophysics 51:595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yılmaz C, Kandemir R (2003) Senköy Formasyonu: Yeni Bir Formasyon Adlaması, 3. Stratigrafi Çalıstayı Bildiri Özleri, Ankara 14Google Scholar
  25. Yılmaz C, Kandemir R (2006) Sedimentary records of the extensional tectonic regime with temporal cessation: Gümüs_hane Mesozoic Basin (NE Turkey). Geologica Carpathica v. 57(1):3–13Google Scholar
  26. Yılmaz C, Carranante G, Kandemir R (2008) The drowning of a carbonate platform: an example from the mid-late Cretaceous of the Gümüşhane-Eastern Pontides, NE Turkey. Bolletino della Societa Geologica Italiana, v. 127(1):37–50Google Scholar
  27. Young CT, Droege DR (1986) Archaeological applications of resistivity and magnetic methods at Fort Wilkins State Park, Michigan. Geophysics 51:568–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aysel Şeren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ali Erden Babacan
    • 1
  • Kenan Gelişli
    • 1
  • Zeynep Öğretmen
    • 1
  • Raif Kandemir
    • 2
  1. 1.Geophysics DepartmentKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Geology DepartmentRecep Tayyip Erdoğan UniversityFener/RizeTurkey

Personalised recommendations