CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The stability of the foundation of a building, a bridge, an embankment or any other structure
built on soil depends on the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsoil. The
field and laboratory investigations required to obtain the essential information on the subsoil
is called Soil Exploration or Soil Investigation. The purpose of proposed subsoil investigation
is to provide adequate information on subsurface and surface conditions for the foundations
and other structure for the proposed project leading to their economical safe designs
(Terzaghi, 1951; Bjerrum et al., 1960).
The success or failure of a foundation depends essentially on the reliability of the various soil
parameters obtained from the investigation and laboratory testing and used as in input into the
design of foundations. Information related to the local soil conditions is vital for risk
assessment and mitigation (Bjerrum et al., 1960).
The procedure for obtaining subsurface information is divided into two broad categories:
indirect and direct methods which include aerial photograph, topographic map interpretation
and study of existing geological reports, maps and soil survey. Direct methods consist of the
following: (a) geologic field reconnaissance, including the examination of insitu materials,
man- made structures, groundwater level and exploration of shafts, (b) application of modern
geophysical techniques for mapping subsurface structures, (c) boring, test pits, trenches and
shafts from which representative disturbed and/ or undisturbed samples of the insitu materials
may be obtained and analysed, (d) simple geotechnical field tests, such as the standard
penetration test (SPT), which can be correlated with other engineering parameters (Yangfang,
1991).
In recent years, several organizations and private individuals have been engaging in
infrastructural development but recent studies showed that many of them do not engage the
services of professionals in order to maximize profits; the effect being poor building
constructions which may ultimately lead to gradual or sudden collapse of such structures
(Oyedele and Olorode, 2010).

Geophysical and geotechnical methods are mostly integrated to complement each other.
While geotechnical investigation of the soil is discrete, invasive and expensive; geophysical
investigation is continuous, non-invasive and cost-effective. Engineering geophysics can be
used to select borehole locations and can provide reliable information about the nature and
variability of the subsurface between existing boreholes. An isolated geologic structure such
as a limestone pinnacle might not be detected by a routine drilling program. An effective
geophysical survey, however, could detect the presence of the pinnacle and map the height
and aerial extent of the surveyed area (Sirles, 2006).
Some advantages of engineering geophysics are related to site accessibility, portability, and
operator safety. Geophysical equipment can often be deployed beneath bridges and power
lines, in heavily forested areas, at contaminated sites, in urban areas, on steeply dipping
slopes, marshy terrain, on pavement or rock, and in other areas that might not be easily
accessible to drill rigs or cone penetration test (CPT) rigs. Also, most surface based or
airborne geophysical tools are non-invasive and, unlike boring or trenching, leave little brunt
if any environmentally sensitive areas, on contaminated ground, or on private property
(Sirles, 2006).
In addition, geophysical surveys are generally considered less dangerous than drilling since
there are fewer risks associated with utility encounters and operations. Besides, geophysical
surveys can enable engineers to reduce the number of required boreholes. Engineering
geophysics is not intended to act as a substitute for boring and direct physical testing rather it
should complement a well-planned, cost-effective drilling and testing program, and provide a
volumetric image to the subsurface rather than a point measurement. Geophysicist are
encouraged to refer to borehole information and field geologic maps to constrain and verify
some geophysical interpretation (Sirles, 2006).
The goals of geotechnical and geophysical site characterization are to provide the
geotechnical engineer with sufficiently detailed information in order to plan, design, construct
and operate structures on or below the surface. Geophysical methods have several important
advantages compared with conventional geotechnical field investigation methods. They can
explore relatively large soil volumes, of which they can identify material properties, material
boundaries as well as variations in space and time. Many of the methods have additional
advantage of being non- destructive. However, a major limitation is that in most cases, the

measured parameters need to be correlated with engineering properties, which is not always
straightforward and requires experience and judgement (Anderson, 2006)
In order to improve the reliability of geophysical investigations, it is advisable to combine
several methods and verify these by sampling and correlation with conventional geotechnical
field and laboratory methods. The application of the cone penetration test (CPT) for
geophysical

site

characterization

opened

new

possibilities

for

geophysical

site

characterization. The CPT has gained rapid acceptance and recognized as valuable in-situ
testing technique because of its speed, reliability, cost-effectiveness and excellent soil
profiling capability (Massarch, 1986).
In this study, electrical resistivity and geotechnical method were employed to delineate
competent layer to locate suitable foundation at proposed site in West Africa ENRG, KM3
Isheri- Igando road, Lagos.

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The site of investigation is an abandoned dumpsite at Isheri-Igando Road, Alimosho Local
Government Area of Lagos State. There is currently a proposal of erecting a building on the
land; and this calls for a thorough geophysical and geotechnical investigation in order to
unravel subsurface information for engineering purposes.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the investigation was to apply 1-D and 2-D electrical resistivity and geotechnical
methods in order to delineate the depth to competent layers for foundation of engineering
structures.
The objectives of the study are to:
(i)
(ii)

generate geoelectric layers of the subsurface in the area under investigation.

determine the lateral and vertical extent of the subsurface geologic materials in the

(iii)

study area.
deduce the lithology of the subsurface from the cone penetration test data in the

(iv)

study area.
correct the results of the VES, 2D imaging, CPT data and borehole log to obtain

(v)

the subsurface information within the study area.

recommend suitable foundation for the site under investigation

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Akintorinwa and Adesoji (2009) carried out an integrated geophysical and geotechnical
investigations in evaluating an engineering site in the south eastern part of Nigeria. The
geophysical and geotechnical studies were conducted at a proposed station facility for
telecommunication at the site. The aim was to evaluate the subsoil conditions and electrical
properties of the soil which may have effect on the proposed mast switch system. The
geophysical investigation involved borehole drilling as well as cone penetration test which
carried out to provide controls on the geophysical interpretation. Four subsurface layers were
delineated within the study area, the top soil (mixture of sand, silt and clay), coarse sand,
clayey sand and sand. The findings correlate with the obtained geophysical soil layers. Based
on this study, it was recommended that the choice of foundation for the proposed structure
should be related to the consolidation settlement characteristics of the clayey material.
Kumari et al. (2009) carried out soil characterization using electrical resistivity tomography
and geotechnical investigations of two different sites in India. The site was proposed for
thermal power plants in Uttar Pradesh, India. Standard penetration test and dynamic
penetration tests were conducted at 28 points and two ERT profile. Resistivity values are
correlated with the soil matrix and grain size distribution. Linear relationship was presented
between transverse resistance derived from the ERT data and N-values obtained from
geotechnical tests at these sites. The determination of soil strength was found to be
economical using ERT, fast and efficient in comparison to the direct in-situ methods to
determine the soil strength for civil engineering purposes.
Fatoba et al. (2010) investigated the causes of the foundation failure of the PDS building in
the Mini-Campus of Iwoye Nigeria. It was carried out using the electrical resistivity imaging
method. The aim was to delineate the subsurface as a means of determining the cause (s) of
the foundation failure. Measurement involving Dipole-Dipole configuration and vertical
electrical sounding (VES were taken along four (4) traverses, using the Pasi Earth (16GL)
Resistivity meter. The result was presented as a pseudo-section, 2-D resistivity map and
geoelectric sections and interpreted with DIPRO software to provide both lateral and vertical
information of the study area. Three geoelectric layers were delineated from the results; these
4

are the top soil (sandy clay), weathered layer (clayey sand) and fresh basement. The pseudosection and resistivity map suggest that clayey material constitute some part of the subsoil
materials. The building failure is manifested in form of cracks.
Oyedele and Olorede (2010) integrated resistivity method and cone penetration test to unravel
subsurface geological condition at Medina Estate, Gbagada, Lagos. It was observed that
several buildings had undergone differential settlement of various degree at the site. The
integration of the two methods in the study area revealed four geoelectric layers: cum
brownish clay, silty clay, hard clay, and sand respectively. A good correlation was found
between the thickness of clay layers delineated from the VES data and that of CPT data. It
was concluded that shallow foundation may not be possible except some form of soil
improvement is done.
Fathy et al. (2012) presented geotechnical assessment of groundwater conditions around a
tilted building in Cairo, Egypt using geophysical approaches. This study is attempting to
characterize the variations in the soil properties around the city Star shopping mall, in eastern
Cairo, where a large building has tilted over the past few years. This tilting may lead to
collapse of the whole building if it continues at the same rate. An integrated geophysical
investigation including 2D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was used to around the
affected building to help detect possible causes of deterioration. Integrating the
interpretations of the geophysical methods, provides a combined model that reflects lateral
and vertical variation in the soil properties. This variation becomes dramatic near the tilted
corner of the building.
Coker (2015) integrated geophysical and geotechnical techniques for site characterization at
School of Management Area, Lagos State Polytechnic, Ikorodu. Both techniques were used
to delineate the subsurface geology at the School of Management Area, Ikorodu, Lagos.
Based on the results of investigations, the main lithological unit consists of sandy clay and
sandy materials. It is concluded that the northern part of the study area consist of sandy clay,
a mechanically unstable soil formations which is capable of being inimical to building
structures and the southern part consist of the sand layer which is viewed as the only
competent geo-material for the foundation of engineering structures within the study area.

2.1 CONCEPT OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

Electrical resistivity of the soil can be considered as a proxy for spatial and temporal
variability of many other soil physical properties (structure, water content or fluid
composition). Because the method is non-destructive and very sensitive, it offers a very
attractive tool for describing the sub-surface properties without digging. It has been already
applied in various contexts like groundwater exploration, landfill and solute transfer
delineation, agronomical management by identifying areas of excessive compaction or soil
horizon thickness and bedrock depth, and at least assessing soil hydrological properties. The
surveys, depending on the area heterogeneities can be performed in one-, two- or threedimensions and also at different scales resolution from the centimetric scale to the regional
scale (Anatja et al., 2005). The integration of electrical resistivity with geotechnical
techniques have achieved a lot of advances due to the numerous studies that have been done
to access its methodology, advantages and limitations. Notable among the numerous works
on electrical resistivity which were used to delineate the various lithological units that
constitute the overburden (Onu et al., 2006). Electrical resistivity mapping is used for
detecting local relatively shallow inhomogeneities, geological mapping of fractures and
cavities (Olorunfemi and Meshida, 1987). For any engineering and geotechnical site
investigation in both sedimentary and areas underlain by crystalline basement complex rocks
drilling of exploratory boreholes are often embarked upon by most of construction and
consulting engineering firms to determine the depth to bedrock and the type of overburden
materials (Olayinka and Oyedele, 2001).

2.1.1 ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITIES OF GEOLOGICAL MATERIALS

The ground resistivity is related to various geological parameters such as the mineral and
fluid content, porosity and degree of water saturation in the rock (Loke, 1999). Generally,
most rock resistivities are roughly equal to that of pore fluids divided by the fractional
porosity. Archies law provides a closer approximation in most cases which is given by
equation 2.1:

r=a

Sn w

(Archie, 1942)

(2.1)
where
is the porosity,
6

S is the fraction of pores containing water

w

is the resistivity of water

a, m, and n are empirically determined constants i.e. (0.5 < a < 2.5, 1.3 < m < 2.5 and n ~ 2).
Resistivity values of common geological materials are given in Table 2.1 (Telford et al.,
1990)

Table 2.1 Resistivity Values for Some Common Geological Formations (Telford et al.,
1990).
Material
Quartz
Granite
Granite (weather)
Consolidated shale
Sandstones
Clays
Boulder clay
Clay ( very dry)
Gravel ( saturated)
Lateritic soil
Dry sand soil
Sand clay/ clayed sand
Sand and gravel (saturated)
Mudstone
Siltone
Consolidated shale
Sandstones

Nominal resistivity (m)

3 10 - 106
3 102 - 106
30 - 500
20 2 103
200 - 5000
50 - 200
1 - 102
15 - 35
50 - 150
1400
100
120 - 750
80 - 1050
30 215
30 - 225
20 - 120
20 - 150
2

2.1.2 PRINCIPLES OF ELECTRICAL METHOD

The electrical resistivity survey is based on the principle that the earth material being tested
acts as a resistor in a circuit. After inducing an electrical current into the ground, we measure
the ability of that material to resist the current. Since various earth materials exhibit
characteristic resistivity values, they can be distinguished using this method. Ground
resistivity is measured by passing an electric current through the ground using two electrodes
(C1 and C2) and measuring the resultant potential using two or more potential electrodes (P1
and P2). Figure 2.1 illustrates this principle of operation. The depth of investigation is often
given as a function of the electrode spacing. That is to say that the greater the spacing
between the outer current electrodes, the deeper the electrical currents will flow in the Earth,
thus the greater the depth of exploration. Therefore, the depth of investigation is normally
7

20% to 40% of the current electrode spacing depending on the structure of the Earth
resistivity. (Reynold, 1997)
Ohms law is generally used to calculate the resistance which is then multiplied by a
geometric factor (usually called a K factor) to calculate resistivity (MacDonald et al., 2002)
as shown in equations 2.2 - 2.4.

Fig. 2.1: Schematic diagram illustrating basic concept of

electrical resistivity measurement (Walton, 2010).
Assuming an electrically conductive body lends itself to the description of a one-dimensional
body (like a wire), the relationship between the current and potential distribution could be
described by Ohms law as expressed in equation 2.2:
V = IR

(Reynold, 1997)

(2.2)

Where; V = the potential difference (in volts),

I = current (in Amperes)
R = resistance (in ohms).
The resistance is therefore expressed in equation (2.3)
V
L
=
R =
I
A

( )

(2.3)

For an area,

A (2 r ) equation 2.1 could be rewritten in terms of Voltage, V as:

V=

I
2 r

(2.4)

Considering an electrode pair with current I at electrode C1, and I at electrode C2 as shown
in Figure 2.1 above, the potential at any point is given by the algebraic sum of the individual
contributions. Hence,
V =V C 1 +V C 2=l

1
1

2 r C 1 2 r c 2

(2.5)

Where; rC1 and rC2 = distances from the point between electrodes C1 and C2 respectively.
For the potential electrodes, P1 and P2 in Figure 2.1, the potential at any point is given as:
P1 V p2 =l

V=

( C 11P 1 C 21P 1 + C 21P 2 C 11P 2 )

V

(2.6)
Where; Vp1 and Vp2 = potential at P1 and P2
C1 P1 = distance between C1 and P1
C1 P2 = distance between C1 and P2
When

where;

1
1
1
1
1
1

=
2 AM BM BN AN
K

, Equation becomes

KV
=Rapp K
I
=resistivity ( ohmmetre ) ,

(2.7)
Rapp =apparent resistance ( ohm)

geometric factor

and K =

The

geometric factor, K varies for different electrode configurations. According to

Vogelslang. (1994), the geometric factor, K for the Wenner array is

Slumberger array is given as

n (n+1)(n+2)

2 a.

That of the

S
a

a
2 and the dipole is given a s

where a = electrode spacing, s = distance, n = dipole length factor

10

2.1.3 MODE OF DEPLOYMENT OF ELECTRODES ARRAYS

The most commonly used configurations are the Wenner, Schlumberger and double-dipole
arrangements (Lowrie, 1997). In each configuration, the four electrodes are collinear but their
geometries and spacings are different. The generalized form is shown in Figure 2.2

Fig 2.2 The generalised form of the electrode configuration used in resistivity
measurements (Herman, 2001)

WENNER ARRAY CONFIGURATION

Figure 2.3: Wenner array configuration ( Reynold, 1997)

In the Wenner configuration (Fig. 2.3), the current and potential electrode pairs have a
common mid-point and the distances between adjacent electrodes are equal, so that rA = RB
= a, and rB = RA = 2a. Inserting these values in equation 2.6 gives
=2

V 1 1
1 1
{
( )}
I a 2a
2a a

=2 a

(2.8)

V
I

(2.9)

11

SCHLUMBERGER ARRAY CONFIGURATION

FIGURE 2.4: Schlumberger Array Configuration (Reynold, 1997)

In the Schlumberger configuration (Fig. 2.4) the current and potential pairs of electrodes
have a common mid-point, but the distances between adjacent electrodes differ. Let the
separations of the current and potential electrodes be L and a, respectively.Then

( La
2 )

A= RB=
r

and RA =

B=

La
2

. Substituting in the general formula, we get

the resistivity as expressed in the equation 2.10:

=2

V
I

{(

2
2
2
2
+

La L+a
L+ a La

)(

V L2a2
=
4 I
a

)}

(2.10)

(2.11)

DIPOLE-DIPOLE ARRAY CONFIGURATION

In the double-dipole configuration (Fig. 2.5) the spacing of the electrodes in each pair is a,
while the distance between their mid-points is L, which is generally much larger than a. Note
that detection electrode D is defined as the potential electrode closer to current sink B. In this
case RA = rB = L, rA = L+a, and RB = L a. The measured resistivity is expressed in
equations 2.12 and 2.13:
=2

V
I

{(

1
1
1
1

(
)
L La
L+a L

(2.12)

12

( L2a 2)
V
L
I
a2

(2.13)

Fig 2.5. Dipole dipole Array Configuration (Reynold, 1997)

2.1.4 APPLICATION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEYING

Electrical resistivity surveys have been used for many decades in hydrogeological, mining
and geotechnical investigations. More recently, it has been used for environmental surveys
(Loke, 1999). Electrical resistivity techniques are either used in the profile mode (usually in
dipole-dipole surveys) to map lateral changes and detect near-vertical features (eg. fracture
zones) or in the sounding mode (usually in Schlumberger soundings) for determining depths
to geoelectric horizons (eg. depth to saline groundwater). Other common applications
include: estimating the depths to bedrock, to the water table or to other geoelectric
boundaries, delineation of aggregate deposits for quarry operations, measuring resistance for
electric grounding circuits or for cathodic protection and mapping of other geologic features.

2.1.5 LIMITATION OF ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

Resistivity surveying is an efficient method for delineating shallow layered sequence or
vertical discontinuties involving changes of resistivity. It does

however, suffer from a

number of limitation (Anatja et al., 2005)

(i)

interpretation are ambigious. Consequently, independent geophysical and geological

controls are necessary to determinaste between valid alternatives interpretations of the
resistivity data.

13

(ii)

Interpretation is limited to simple structural configuration. Any deviation from these

(iii)

simple situation may be impossible to interprete.

Topography and the effect of new surface resistivity variation can mask the effect

(iv)

deeper variations.
The depth of penetration of the method is limited by maximum eletrical power that
can be introduced into the ground and by the physical difficulties of laying out long
length of cable. The pratical depth limit for most survey is about 1km

The susceptibility to interferance from nearby metal fences buried pipes and cable and other
metalliferous materials and the decrease in its effectiveness at a very low resistivity values
are some of its draw backs.

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Geotechnical investigations are performed by geotechnical engineers or engineering
geologists to obtain information on the physical properties of soil and rock around a site to
design earthworks and foundations for proposed structures and for repair of distress to
earthworks and structures caused by subsurface conditions. A geotechnical investigation will
include surface and subsurface exploration of a site. Sometimes, geophysical methods are
used to obtain data about sites. Subsurface exploration usually involves soil sampling and
laboratory tests of the soil samples retrieved.
To obtain information about the soil conditions below the surface, some form of subsurface
exploration is required. Methods of observing the soils below the surface, obtaining samples
and determining physical properties of the soils and rocks include test pits, trenching
(particularly for locating faults and slides planes), boring and insitu tests (Winterkorn et al.,
2006)

2.2.1 BASIC PRINCIPLE OF STATIC DUTCH CONE PENETRATION TEST

The cone penetration is a method used to determine the geotechnical engineering properties
of soils and delineating soil stratigraphy. It was initially developed in 1950s at the Dutch
Laboratory for Soil Mechanics in Delft to investigate soft soils. Based on this history, it has
also being called Dutch cone test. The early application of CPT mainly determined the soil
geotechnical property of bearing capacity. The original cone penetrometers involved sample
mechanical measurements of the total penetration resistance to pushing a tool with a conical
14

tip into the soil. Different methods were employed to separate the total measured resistance
into components generated by the conical tip (the tip friction) and friction generated by the
rod string. A friction sleeve was added to quantify this component of friction and aid in
determining soil cohesive strength in the 1960s ( Begemann et al., 1965).

2.2.2 Mode of Operation of Cone Penetrometer Machine

The equipment is operated manually and has a base area of 1000 mm 2 and an apex angle of
60. With this arrangement, it was possible to measure the point resistance of the soil
encountered as the cone and the rods were driven through the soil. Measurements are read on
the attached gauge meter. The penetrometer readings were taken at interval of 250 mm and it
is presented in a graphical form. The tests were terminated when the machine had achieved
its maximum capacity and could no longer penetrate or when the anchorage were lifted. The
use and application of the static cone penetration test, CPT is being more and more frequently
considered for the insitu investigation of soils for engineering purposes. In this `test, a cone
on the end of a series of rods is pushed into the ground at a constant rate and continuous
measurements are made of the resistance to penetration of the cone defined in terms of cone
resistance, qc, and of a surface sleeve defined as local side sleeve friction, fs. (Murthy, 2002)
There are a variety of shapes and sizes of penetrometers being used for site investigation.
However, the one that is standard in most countries is the cone with an apex angle of 60 and
a base area of 10 cm2 with a friction sleeve having an area of 150 cm2. To obtain cone
resistance, qc and sleeve friction, fs a mechanical friction jacket cone developed in1953
(Begemann, 1969) shown in Fig. 2.7(a) can be advanced separately by means of sounding
rods pushed vertically into the soil at a constant rate of 2 cm/sec. Initially, the cone is pushed
through a distance of 5cm to measure qc and with further advancement of the cone, a flange
engages the friction jacket to measure both qc and fs. Subtracting qc from the latter reading
gives fs value at the corresponding depth. A further development is the electric cone in
which qc and fs can be measured independently and continuously with penetration by means
of load cells installed the body of the probe. Cone penetrometers that could also measure pore
water pressure (piezocone) were introduced in 1974. (Holden, 1974) with the filter element
placed close behind the cone as shown in Fig. 2.6(b).

15

(a) Mechanical Cone

(b) Electrical Cone tip

Figure 2.6: Different cone rod types (a) Mechanical Cone

(b)Electrical Cone Tip by (Begemann, 1969)

Cone penetration resistance is obtained by diving the total force

the sbase area

c=

Qc
Ac

AC

QC

acting on the cone by

of the cone as shown in equation 2.13 (Begmann, 1953).

(2.14)

(Begmann, 1953)

Fig.2.7: Detail of 60/10cm2 piezocone (Begmann, 1953)

Local side friction is presented in equation 2.14 (Begmann, 1953)

Local side friction (f c )

Qf
Af

(2.15)

16

Where Qf =Q Q
t

= force required to push the friction jacket

t=
Q the total force required to push the cone and friction jacket together in the case of a
mechanically penetrometer.
f =
A surface area of friction jackect

Friction Ration,

Rf

Fc
qc

(2.16)
Fc

and q c are measured at the same depth and

Rf

is expressed as a percentage. The

friction ratio is an important parameter for classifying soil.

2.2.3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND PROFILING

The major application of the CPT is for soil classification and description of soil strata
penetrated i.e. soil profiling as shown in Table 2.2. Typically, the cone resistance qc is high in
sandy soils and low in clayey soils and the friction ratio Rf is low in sandy soils and high in
clayey soils. It has been reported by many authors that the basic CPT parameters of cone
resistance qc, skin friction fs and friction ratio,

Rf

may be used for soil classification. The

most popular and commonly used soil classification methods based on CPT data are probably
those proposed by Begemann (1969), Schmertmann (1977), Robertson (1990) and Fellenius
and Eslami (2000). The CPT soil classification charts or methods cannot be expected to
provide accurate predictions of soil type based on grain size distribution but provide a guide
to the mechanical characteristics of the soil, or the soil behavior. These CPT classification
methods may prove to be quite useful when applied in some soils different from those for
which they have been developed but differences may well be indicated in other locations
because of their empirical nature.

Table 2.2. Soil Classification based on friction ratio

17

Rf

(Sangglerate, 1972)

Rf ( Cone resistance friction)

Type of soil

0 0.5
0.5 2.0
2.0 5.0
>5

Loose gravel fill

Sands or gravels
Clay sand mixture and silts
Clays, peat

2.2.4 ADVANTAGES OF CPT METHOD

The advantages of the CPT method as a soil investigation tool which makes it in many
casessuperior to other techniques include the following (Zein and Ismail, 1981):
(i)
(ii)

The test equipment can be easily and quickly mobilized to the site
The test is relatively quick, simple and economical The test results provide

(iii)

information on soils in their undisturbed or natural conditions

The test provides a continuous record of data measurement for the whole investigate

(iv)
(v)

soil depth.
The test provides repeatable and reliable data i.e. not operator dependent, and
There are strong theoretical basis for CPT data interpretation

2.25

DISADVANTAGES OF CPT METHOD

(i)
(ii)

No soil samples could be retrieved during testing and

The penetration can be restricted in gravelly and highly cemented soil layers.

2.30 STANDARD PENETTRATION TEST

2.3.1 SHELL AND AUGER BORING

Detailed explanatory notes have been offered by several authors on the procedures of the
shell and auger drilling (Tomlinson, 1997; Murthy, 2002 and Das, 2010). The borehole was
executed using the light wire rope percussion rope shell and auger drilling technique with
Tripod rig equipped with the in-situ standard penetration test (SPT) accessories. Sampling
and in-situ testing were carried out progressively with the advancement of the borehole
through the over burden as follows:

18

1. Disturbed samples were taken within the sediments at regular intervals and at change
of strata as deemed necessary were selected so that they were as far as possible
representative of the materials encountered in the course of drilling the borehole.
Materials from the split spoon sampler used in the standard penetration test (SPT) and
cutting shoe of the 100mm sampler were also taken as disturbed samples.
2. In the cohesive material, undisturbed samples were taken by driving a 100 mm
diameter sampler through a total distance of 450 mm. these samples were taken at
relevant depths.

3. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out at 1.5m intervals to determine
penetration resistance in cohesionless strata. The tests involve obtaining the number
of blows (N values) producing the last 300 mm of penetration in connection with
overall 450 mm penetration test, by a 63.4 kg hammer having a free fall through 760
mm.

2.3.2 LABORATORY TESTING

A wide variety of laboratory test can be performed on soils to measure a wide variety of
properties. Some soil properties are intrinsic to the composition of the matrix and are not
affected by the sample disturbance, while other properties depend on the structure of the soil
as well as its composition, and can be effectively tested on relatively undisturbed samples.
Some soil tests measure direct properties of the soil, while others measured Index
properties which provide useful information about the soil without directly measuring the
property desired. Soil samples description was carried out in the laboratory using Atterbeg
Test and Grain size analysis.

ATTERBEG LIMITS TEST

This is carried out to determine the consistency of a soil. The test indicates the range of
plastic state (plasticity) is defined as the property of cohesive soils which possess the ability
to undergo changes of shape without rupture and other states. The different states through
which the soil sample passes through with decrease in the moisture content are predicted. The
water content corresponding to the transition from one state to another is termed as Atterbeg
Limits and the tests required determining the limits are the Atterbeg Limits Test.
19

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

It involves classification of soil as Gravel, Sand, Silt and Clay. Soil particles which are
coarser than 0.075 mm are generally termed as cohesionless and the finer ones as Silt, Clay &
Peat (Organic soil) are considered fine grained. In cohesionless soils, gravitational forces
determine the engineering characteristics. Whereas interparticle forces are predominant in the
case of fine grained soils. The dependence of the behavior of a soil mass on the size of
particles leads to soil classification according to their sizes. The physical separation of a
sample of soil by any method into two or more fractions, each containing only particles of
certain sizes, is termed Fractionation. The determination of the mass of material in fractions
containing only particles of certain sizes is termed Mechanical Analysis.

2.40

GEOLOGY OF SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

The geology of Nigeria (Fig. 2.8) is predominantly of both basement complex and
sedimentary environment. The basement complex is basically the crystalline igneous and
metamorphic rocks. The sedimentary rocks are composed of sediments of various earth
materials (Kogbe, 1976). Roughly 50 percent of the surface area of Nigeria is covered by
sedimentary rocks.

20

Fig. 2.8: Geological sketch map of Nigeria showing the major

geological components; Basement, Younger Granites, and
Sedimentary Basins (Adegoke, 1977)
2.4.1

DAHOMEY BASIN

The Dahomey Basin, also called the Dahomey Embayment or West Nigerian Basin in older
literature, extends from south-eastern Ghana in the West, through Southern Togo and
southern Benin Republic (formerly Dahomey) to Southwest Nigeria (the axis of the basin and
the thickest sediments occur slightly west of the border between Nigeria and Benin Republic.
The basin is bounded on the west by faults and other tectonic structures. The Benin Hinge
line, a major fault structure marking the western limit of the Niger delta basin, marks its
eastern limit. To the west of the Benin Hinge line is the Okitipupa Ridge (Adegoke, 1969).
The Tertiary sediments of the Dahomey basin thin out and are partially cut off from the
sediments of the Niger delta basin against this ridge of basement rocks. The basins offshore
limit is not well defined.

2.42

STRATIGRAPHY OF DAHOMEY BASIN

The oldest part of the sedimentary sequence is Maastrichtian onshore. Offshore, however,
considerably older sediments have been penetrated by boreholes (Billman, 1976). The oldest
sediments in the basin are non-fossiliferous, folded rocks of unknown thickness but preAlbian in age. The youngest strata are Pleistocene to Recent in age. The Cretaceous strata
have been assigned to the Abeokuta Group by Omatsola and Adegoke (1981) and subdivided
into three formations: Ise Formation (oldest), Afowo Formation, and Araromi Formation
(youngest). The stratigraphy is expressed in Figure. 2.10
Ise Formation: This is a sequence of continental sands, grits and siltstones with a basal
conglomerate overlying the Basement Complex. Interbedded kaolinitic clays occur in places.
Ise Formation attains a known maximum thickness of about 1860 metres.
Afowo Formation: This formation, according to Omatsola and Adegoke (1981) is equivalent
to the outcropping unit referred to in literature as the Abeokuta Formation. It is mainly
composed of coarse to medium-grained sandstones with variable, but thick, interbedded
shales, siltstones and clays, the shale component progressively increasing towards the top.
Its lower part is constituted by an alternation of brackish to marginal marine strata with well-

21

sorted, sub rounded clean, loose fluviatile sands. Intense pyritisation of some horizons is
common.
Araromi Formation: This formation is composed of fine to medium-grained sands at the
base, overlain by shale and siltstones with thin interbedded limestones and marls. Thin
lignitic bands are also common. The shales are light grey to black, mostly marine and with
very high organic content.
Ewekoro Formation: The Afowo Formation (old Abeokuta Formation) is, in parts of the
basin, conformably overlain by the Ewekoro Formation. In coastal boreholes and offshore, it
is not encountered (Reyment, 1965; Billman, 1976).

There, it is replaced by the

predominantly shaley Imo Formation, which unconformably overlies the Afowo Formation.
Borehole studies indicate that the formation is lens-shaped, thinning out in all directions (and
eventually disappearing) from its maximum thickness of 34 metres at Ibeshe.
At its type locality (Ewekoro Limestone Quarry), the formation consists of 10 to 12.5 metres
of thinly bedded glauconitic and sandy limestone at the base, which then becomes massive,
grey and fossiliferous in the middle and fine-grained, marly and algal in the upper part. The
top, highly scoured layer consists of red, dense glauconitic, phosphatic and fossiliferous
limestone. Most authors date the formation Upper Paleocene. The faunal/floral assemblage
indicates that the formation was deposited in a shallow, nearshore (littoral to sublittoral) fairly
warm marine environment during a regressive phase (Adegoke, 1997).
Imo Formation: The Ewekoro Formation is unconformably overlain by the predominantly
shaly Imo Formation. Where the latter is missing, the Imo Shale lies directly, unconformable,
on the Afowo (old Abeokuta) Formation. Imo Formation consists of fine-textured dark
micromicaceous shale, locally silty with glauconitic marl and conglomerate at the base. The
greenish-grey variety of the shale encountered in the subsurface of most inland areas of
Western Nigeria and which in the Ewekoro quarry disconformably overlies the Ewekoro
Formation was named Akinbo Formation by Ogbe (1972).
Oshosun Formation: The shales of the Imo Formation grade into the overlying mudstones
and claystones of the Oshosun Formation. In its lower part, the formation is composed of
dull brown and brick red sandy mudstone and claystone with light grey and purplish mottling.
Thin pebble beds and coarse pebbly sandstones are locally interbedded. Rare inclusions of
phosphatic and glauconitic material occur, becoming more abundant and characteristic in the
middle part. Light grey arenaceous sediments are locally present near its top, constituting an
22

unevenly developed sequence to which Jones and Hockey (1964) applied the name Ilaro
Formation (Adegoke, 1977).

Fig. 2.9: Geological Map of Eastern Dahomey Basin (Modify after Billman, 1992

2.4.3 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY

Lagos belongs to the coastal plain sand formation which is made up of loose sediment
ranging from silt, clay and fine to coarse grained sand. The lithoral lagoonal deposits are
made up of clay, silt, and sands of coastal plains. The coastal belt varies in width from about
8 kilometres near the Republic of Benin border to 24 kilometres towards the eastern end of
the Lagos Lagoon (Jones and Hockey, 1964). The exposed rock unit in the area consists of
poorly sorted sands with lenses of clays. The sands are in part cross bedded and show
transitional to continental characteristics according to Jones and Hockey (1964), Omatshola
and Adegoke (1981), Agagu (1985), Enu (1990) and Nton (2001). The age Oligocene to
Recent was assigned to this formation on the basis of fauna contents.
The study area has a flat topographic surface typical of alluvial sediment and coastal ground,
Soft and very soft sediments which are usually formed when fine grained materials (fine
sands and silts) are deposited in a low energy environment (e.g. settle out of suspension in a
standing water body such as a lake or swamp). The area is well vegetated with grasses, reeds
and other plants that are peculiar to swamp or waterlogged regions.

2.4.4 ACCESSIBILITY OF THE STUDY AREA

23

The geographic location of the site is between 6.5N and 3.25E (Fig. 2.10). The study area is
accessible through Isheri Igando express way beside solus waste management company.
The dumpsite has witnessed rehabilitation which consisted of reclamation of land,
construction of accessible road for ease of tipping, spreading and compaction of waste since
inception. report, Lagos State Waste Management Authority reported that a total of 469,
202.50 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) was land filled in 2007 alone (Longe and
Balogun, 2010). It is accessible by tarred roads

2.4.5 GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY OF THE STUDY AREA

Lagos is basically a sedimentary area located within the Western Nigeria coastal zone, a zone
of coastal creeks and lagoons developed by barrier beaches associated with sand deposition.
The subsurface geology reveals two basic lithologies; clay and sand deposits. These deposits
may be interbedded in places with sandy clay or clayey sand and occasionally with vegetable
remains and peat (Ayolabi and Peters, 2005). It is identified that the geology is made up of
sedimentary rock mostly of alluvial deposits. These consist of loose and light grey sand
mixed variously with varying proportion of vegetation matter on the lowland; while the
reddish and brown loamy soil exists in the upland. The geology is underlain by interbedded
sands, gravelly sands, silts, and clays (Akoteyon, et al., 2011). The sub-surface is made up of
semi-permeable to impermeable material (Akoteyon et al., 2011).

24

Fig. 2.10: BASE MAP OF THE SURVEY AREA

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 DATA ACQUISITION

The electrical resistivity survey using vertical electrical sounding (VES) through
Schlumberger array and 2D resistivity data via wenner array was carried out along three
traverses within the study area. A total of thirteen vertical electrical soundings were acquired
at predetermined distances along three 2D resistivity data. VES resistivity data are presented
in Appendix A
The data were acquired using the following equipment and accessories:

PASI Terameter (16 - GL model)

Four metal electrodes
Four hammers driving the electrodes into the ground
Four measuring tapes for measuring distances for the different electrode spacing

25

Global Positioning System (GPS) for finding the position and elevation of the survey

point
Four reels of electric cables
Power supply- 12V 60Ah battery
Field note to record the field data

The field data set up for the acquisition of electrical resistivity data using PASI Terameter is
shown in Plate 1.

Plate 1: The field set up for the acquisition of electrical resistivity data using PASI
resistivity meter
3.1.1 VERTICAL ELECTRICAL SOUNDING
Four (4) electrodes were utilised in the survey, each is about 0.4 to 0.5 m long with springs to
fasten the current take out points on the cables to the electrodes and ensure firm or good
contact. The Hammers are used in driving the electrodes about half way into the subsurface.
The measuring tapes are each 200 m long and are used to measure and ensure equal distance
within the electrodes and inter profile spacing. The GPS (Geographic Information System)
used in the survey is a 12 channel handheld Garmin GPS. It is used to take the coordinates of
the investigated points and other noteworthy positions important to this study. The power
source used in this study is two 12V batteries of which one serves as a back- up battery. 1-D
resistivity data are shown in Appendix A.

3.1.2 2D ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

Three (3) traverses were occupied in the study area and Wenner array was employed on each
traverse. An inter traverse spacing of 5m was maintained within each traverse at first, after
which we took readings for 10,15, 20 and 30 m spacing for CST. The traverse runs from
North to South of the study area while some run perpendicularly (East-West of the study
26

area). This traverse was set out to delineate relevant deeper subsurface structures which might
peradventure exists and also to provide engineering properties of the study area.

2D

resistivity data are shown in Appendix B.

3.1.3

DATA PROCESSING AND INTERPRETATION

After converting resistance to resistivity by multiplying with appropriate geometrical factors

for the Schlumberger array, the VES data were plotted on log-log graphs with apparent
resistivity ( a ) and half electrode separation (AB/2) values on the ordinate and abscissa
respectively. The resultant curves were interpreted qualitatively through visual inspection and
quantitatively through partial curve matching technique to generate the layered apparent
resistivities and thickness. The results were further iterated using WINRESIST computer
software. The 2D Wenner resistance data was converted to resistivity by multiplying it with
the appropriate geometrical factors of 2 a , where a is the spacing. The appropriate
resistivity values for the 2D data set were inverted for true subsurface resistivity using
DIPROWIN version 4.0 inversion software and the resulting estimated models presented and
interpreted accordingly. The electrical resistivity structure was presented in a colour coded
format or contour map of which the electrical resistivity of each colour was provided in a
colour scale bar. The horizontal scale bar on the 2D Electrical Resistivity structure is the
horizontal or lateral distance on the ground. The vertical scale bar provides the depth into the
surface. Both the vertical scale and horizontal scales are linear while the colour scale bar is
logarithmic.
The electrical resistivity variation along each profile was observed and relatively low
electrical resistivity was associated to the clay content of the subsurface. Since the electrical
resistivity of rocks are related to the size of the rock matrix, clayey sand is also associated to
low resistivity while sand are associated to relatively high resistivity value in the study area.
3.2 CONE PENETRATION TEST
Four Dutch Cone Penetrometer Test (Plate 2) was carried out each to the refusal of cone rod
penetration and anchor pulls. The equipment is operated manually and has a base area of
1000 mm2 and an apex angle of 60. With this arrangement, it was possible to measure the
point resistance of the soil encountered as the cone and the rods were driven through the soil.
Measurements are read on the attached gauge meter. The penetrometer readings were taken at
27

interval of 250 mm and presented in a graphical form. The tests were terminated when the
machine had achieved its maximum capacity and could no longer penetrate or when the
anchorage were lifted. CPT data are presented in Appendix C.

Plate 2: CPT data acquisition process

3.3 BOREHOLE DATA
Borehole data within the study area was collected to correlate VES data, 2D data and CPT
data and also used to delineate competent layer within the subsurface for foundation type
recommendation.
CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULTS
VES curves and summary of interpreted VES results are presented in Appendix C. Borehole
log is presented in Figure 4.1. The geoelectric sections along the three traverses are presented
in Figures 4.2(a-c). The 2D resistivity structures are shown in Figures 4.3 (a-c). The CPT
plots are presented in Figures 4.3(a-d).

4.2 DISCUSSION
4.2.1 Geoelectric Sections
4.2.1.1 Geoelectric section along AA'

28

Figure 4.2 (a) shows the geoelectric section which comprises VES 1, 2, 3 and 4 along
traverse one. It has four geoelectric layers including; topsoil, clay/peat, sandy clay, clayey
sand and sand. The topsoil is characterized by resistivity values ranging from 75.2 155.3
with layer thickness of 0.5 0.8 m. The second horizon depicts clay in VES 1 and VES 3
with resistivity value ranging from 22.3 28.7 m and layer thickness of 1.2 1.4 m while
in VES 2 and VES 4, the geoelectric units is indicative of sandy clay having resistivity value
ranging between 53.6 63.7 m and layer thickness of 1.0 m. The third geoelectric layer
VES 1, 3 and 4 connotes clay/peat having resistivity values and layer thickness ranging from
2.9 7.5 m and 0.5 17.8 m respectively while in VES 2, the geoelectric unit indicates clay
with resistivity value of 13.9 m and thickness of 11.9 m. The fourth stratum in VES 1 and
VES 3 denotes sand with resistivity values ranging from 110.3 461.3 m, but the
thicknesses cannot be determined due to current termination within the region. The fourth
geoelectric layer in VES 2 and VES 4 represents clayey sand having resistivity value between
58.1 66.6 m but the thicknesses cannot be determined due current termination.
Figure 4.1 presents borehole log generated from the borehole information of the study site.
The borehole information correlated well with the geologic formation delineated by the
resistivity survey. The competent layer was encountered at a depth of 18 m, this corresponds
with the depth at which a geoelectric layer symptomatic of sand was delineated in the
geoelectric section.

29

Figure 4.2 (a): Geoelectric Section along profile AA'

30

Figure 4.1: Borehole Log

4.2.1.2 Geoelectric section along BB'

31

Fig. 4.2(b) shows the geoelectric section generated from VES 1, 2, 3 and 4 along traverse
two. The first geoelectric layer is the topsoil with resistivity value ranges from 76 307.4 m
and thickness value between 0.5 0.7 m. The second layer depicts clay in VES 1, 2 and 3
with resistivity value ranging from 14.2 26.8 m and thickness ranging from 1.4 1.7 m
while at VES 4, it depicts sandy clay with resistivity value of 57.4 m and thickness of 1.5
m. The third horizon connote clay/peat in VES 1,2 and 3 with resistivity value ranging from
4.2 9.5 m and thickness of 6.0 23.9 m while in VES 4, it depicts clay with resistivity
value of 10.1 m and thickness of 3.8 m. The fourth layer is indicate of clayey sand with
resistivity value ranging from 34 83.9 m in VES 1, 2 and 3. Their thicknesses could not
be determined due to current termination. VES 4 extend to fifth layer with the fourth layer
indicating clay/peat with resistivity value of 6.1 m and thickness of 17.5 m.
The borehole information shows that a competent layer was encountered at a depth of 18 m in
the borehole. At this depth on the geoelectric section along traverse two, a horizon
corresponding to peat and sandy clay was indicated. This represents an incompetent layer.

32

Figure 4.1 (b): Geoelectric section along BB'

33

4.2.1.3 Geoelectric section along CC'

Fig. 4.2 (c) shows the geoelectric section generated from VES 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 along traverse
3 with geoelectric layers including; topsoil, clay/peat, peat and clayey sand or sandy clay. The
first geoelectric layer has resistivity value ranging from 63.5 224.3 m with thickness
between 0.5 0.8 m. This corresponds to topsoil. The second layer depicts clay in VES 1, 2,
3 and 4 with resistivity value ranging from 13.5 32.4 m and thickness 2.2 2.9 m while in
VES 5, it depicts clay/peat with resistivity value of 4.1 m and thickness of 17.1 m. The third
layer depicts clay/peat with resistivity value ranging from 4.1 9.2 m and thickness
between 4.9 17.1 m. The fourth layer connote clayey sand in VES 3, 4 and 5 while the
thickness cannot be determined due to current termination. VES 1 and VES 2 extend to fifth
layer with fourth layer of VES 1 depicting clay/peat with resistivity value of 4.5 m and
thickness of 16.5 m and fourth layer of VES 2 depicts peat with resistivity value of 1.6 m
and thickness of 9.3 m. The fifth layer of VES 1 and VES 2 is indicative of clayey sand with
resistivity value ranging from 49.9 79.2 m but the thicknesses could not be determined
due to current termination.
The borehole information shows that a competent layer was encountered at a depth of 18 m in
the borehole. At this depth on the geoelectric section along this traverse, a horizon
corresponding to peat and sandy clay was indicated. This represents an incompetent layer.

34

Figure 4.1 (c): Geoelectric section along CC'

35

4.2.2 Electric Resistivity Imaging

4.2.2.1 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 1

A total spread of 100m was surveyed and a depth of 25 m was probed with resistivity values
ranging from 6 -108 m as shown in Figure 4.2 (a).At depth between 0-2 m, the subsurface
stratum is diagnostic of sandy material with resistivity value ranging from 53-108 m with
the exception of lateral distance between Clayey
55-70 m where the geoelectric material connotes
Sand

clayey material. This is expected as this layer represent landfill materials. This layer is
underlain by a horizon of clayey/peaty material with resistivity value ranging from 6-13 m
at depth of between 2- 12 m. This layer represent an incompetent layer which cannot support
building foundation. At depth 12 m and below, the geoelectric layer is predominantly sandy
clay with resistivity value ranging from 26-58 m, this is a relatively competent layer as
indicated by the borehole information of the area. But at lateral distance between 70 m and
beyond, the subsurface material is indicative of clay/peat.

Peat
Clay
Sand

Fig. 4.2 (a): 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 1

36

4.2.2.2 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 2

A total spread of 100m was surveyed and a depth of 25 m was probed with resistivity values
ranging from 1 -54 m as shown in Figure 4.2 (b). At depth between 0 2 m, the subsurface
stratum is a diagnostic of sandy clay material with resistivity value ranging from 45 55 m
with exception of lateral distance between 45 60 m where the geoelectric material with
resistivity ranging from 10-23 m. This is indicative of clayey material. This layer overlays a
horizon with resistivity value ranging from 1.2 8.0 m at depth between 2- 10 m. This layer
is indicative clay/peat. At lateral distance between 15-32 m within the horizon, a pot of highly
conductive material with resistivity value between 1.2-2.8 m which is indicative of peat was
mapped. At depth 15 m and below, a geoelectric layer with resistivity value ranging from 354 m is mapped. This is dominantly clayey sand except at lateral distance of between 15-35
m and 70-80 m with lower resistivity. This suggests sandy clay.

Peat

Clay

Figure 4.2 (b): 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 2

37

4.2.2.3 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 3

A total spread of 100m was surveyed and a depth of 25 m was probed with resistivity values
ranging from 4 -28 m as shown in Figure 4.2 (c). At depth between 0-2 m, the subsurface
stratum is diagnostic of clayey material with resistivity value ranging from 9-29 m. This
layer is underlain by a horizon of clayey/peaty material with resistivity value ranging from 619 m at lateral distance between 15 90 m. This layer represent an incompetent layer
which cannot support building foundation. At depth 5 m and below, the geoelectric layer is
predominantly peat with resistivity value ranging from 4.1 5.1 m at lateral distance
between 15 43 m and vertically distinctive between 5 25 m. Below this stratum is
basically clay with resistivity value ranging from 12 15 m at lateral distance between 50
90 m and vertical distance 15 25 m.

Figure 4.2 (c): 2D Resistivity Structure along Traverse 3

38

4.3 CONE PENETRATION PLOT

4.3.1 CPT PLOT 1

Fig 4.3(a) shows the plot of cone resistance value of CPT 1 recorded to a maximum depth of
3.75 m. At depth between 0 0.5 m, the cone resistance reading was uniform with cone
resistance value of 0 kg/cm2. This signifies an incompetent layer i.e. peat. At depth between
0.5 3.75 m, the cone resistance reading increases almost continuously with cone resistance
value ranging from 0 60 kg/ cm2. This is indicative of dump refuse and decomposed organic
materials as observed from the geotechnical borehole.
Coordinate:
06 34' 312" N
Elevation: 121ft

003 15' 229" E

Figure 4.3 (a): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) for CPT 1.

39

4.3.2 CPT PLOT 2

The cone resistance reading for CPT 2, 3 and 4 was recorded to a maximum depth of 4.25 m
as shown in Fig 4.3 (b, c and d), and all show similar pattern. At depth between 0 0.5 m,
the cone resistance reading was uniform with cone resistance value of 0 kg/cm 2. This shows
that the cone end penetrates soft organic/dump refuse material. At depth between 0.5 4.25
m, the cone resistance reading increases with depth with cone resistance value ranging from 5
70 kg/ cm2. This signifies that the competency of the subsoil material increase with depth.
But from the information obtained from the borehole log, the subsoil material at this depth
shows dump refuse and decomposed organic materials. This increase in cone resistance value
with depth observed on the cone resistance readings might be due to compaction of the refuse
dump in the area.

Coordinate:
06 34' 305" N
Elevation: 124ft

003 15' 219" E

Figure 4.3 (b): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) for CPT 1.
40

CPT PLOT 3

Coordinate:
06 34' 299" N
Elevation: 129ft

003 15' 210" E

Figure 4.3 (c): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm 2) for CPT 3

41

CPT PLOT 4

Coordinate:
06 34' 297" N
Elevation: 126ft

003 15' 227" E

Figure 4.3 (d): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) for CPT 4

42

4.4 CORRELATION OF VES, 2D RESISTIVITY IMAGING, CPT DATA AND

BOREHOLE LOG

The integration of the methods revealed similar soil layering consisting of topsoil, clay/peat,
sandy clay and sand.
The topsoil has resistivity value ranging from 63.5 - 307.4 m and thickness between 0.5
-0.8 m. The borehole reveal topsoil from the surface to about 0.75 m consisting of dump
refuse materials while the cone resistance reading ranges from 0 kg/cm 2 to 10 kg/cm2 which
is mainly dump refuse materials.
The second layer consists of clay materials with resistivity value varying from 13.5 32.4
m and the thicknesses ranging from 1.2 - 11.9 m. The borehole reveal landfill
materials/decomposed organic materials from 0.75 - 11.25 m with cone resistance reading
ranges from 5 - 70 kg/cm2. The cone penetration could not go beyond 4.25m before the
anchor pulls due to the buried dump refuse materials.
The third layer reflects clay/peat with resistivity value ranges from 2.6 9.2 m and
thickness between 0.5 17.8 m. The borehole reveal at depth of 11.25 - 17.25 m is made of
firm to stiff brown lateritic clay across with NSPT value ranges from 7 13m.
The fourth layer ranges from medium fine to coarse sand in the borehole log at depth between
18 24 m but it is indicative of clayey sand in some of the VES points with resistivity value
ranging from 34.0 83.9 m while others, connotes sand with resistivity value ranging from
110.3 461.3 m and their thickness could not be determined due current termination within
zone.

CHAPTER FIVE
43

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION
An integrated geophysical and geotechnical survey was carried out at West Africa ENRG KM
3, Isheri Igando Road, Alimosho LGA of Lagos State, South Western -Nigeria in order to
characterise the engineering competency of the subsurface.
The geoelectric sections reveal four to five subsurface layers which correspond to topsoil,
clay, peat/clay, clayey sand and sand. The resistivity value of the topsoil varies from 63.5 307.4 m while the thickness ranges from 0.5 0.8 m. The resistivity value of clay varies
from 13.5 - 32.4 m with thickness varying from 1.2 11.9 m. The third layer is indicative
of clay/peat with resistivity value ranging from 2.6 9.2 m and thickness varying from 0.5
17.8 m. The fourth layer is indicative of sand in VES 1 and VES 3 with resistivity value
ranging from 110.3 461.3 m while in other VES data, the fourth layer is indicative of
clayey sand with resistivity value ranging from 34.0 83.9 m but their thickness cannot not
be determined due to current termination within the zone. The results from the 2D resistivity
structures also reveal that the subsurface is composed of topsoil, clay, peat/clay, clayey sand
and sand. These correlate with the result of VES data acquired on the various traverses along
the study area.
The cone resistance reading for CPT data was recorded to a maximum depth of 4.25 m before
the 2.5 tons Dutch Cone Penetrometer anchor pulled out. At depth between 0 1.25 m, the
cone resistance reading was 5 kg/cm2 which passes through soft dark sandy clay with dump
refuse material. At depth between 1.25 4.25 m, the cone resistance reading ranged from 5
75 kg/ cm2 which is indicative of dump refuse and decomposed organic materials as observed
from in the geotechnical borehole.
From borehole data, the subsoil condition can be describe as strata of refuse dumps, clay and
sand. The depth from surface to 0.75m below is regarded as topsoil, 0.75 11.25 m is landfill
materials, 11.25 18.00 m is medium fine to coarse sand, 18 24 m is medium fine to coarse
sand and the depth from 24 m to the termination of the borehole at 30 m is dense fine to
coarse sand with occasional gravel.

44

5.2 RECOMMENDATION
As at the time of this survey, information about proposed load and shaft resistance was not
provided hence, settlement and safe working load cannot be determined. However, deep
foundation inform of piling is recommended to be placed at the depth 22 m beneath the
surface since both resistivity structure and boring data reflect competent layer at 18 m below.

REFERENCES
45

Adegoke, O. S. (1969). Eocene Stratigraphy of Southern Nigeria. Bulleting Bureau de

Research Geologic ET Miners Memoirs, 69: 22-43.
Adegoke, O.S. (1977). Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Ewekoro Formation (Paleocene)
of South-Western Nigeria, Bull. America Paleontol., 71(295):1-375.
Agagu, O.A. (1985). A Geology Guild to Bituminous Sediment in South western Nigeria.
Publication of Geology Department, University of Ibadan. 22 25.
Akintorinwa, O.J. and Adesoji, J.I. (2009). Application of Geophysical and Geotechnical
Investigations in Engineering Site Evaluation, International Journal of Physical
Science, 4(8): 443-454.
Akoteyon, I.S, Mbata, U.A and Olalude, G.A. (2011). Investigation of Heavy Metal
Contamination in Groundwater Landfill Site in a Typical Sub-urban Settlement,
Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 6(2): 155-163.
Ayolabi E. A and Peters, D. Y. (2005). Hydrochemical and Electrical Resistivity
Assessment of the Impact of Solid Waste on the Groundwater, Journal Science Eng.
12 (1): 5936 5946.
Anatja, S., Isabelle, C., Alain, T., Ary, B. and Guy, R. (2005). Electrical resistivity in Soil
science, Soil and Tillage Researcher, 83(2): 173-193.
Anderson, N. L. (2006). Selection of Appropriate Geophysical Techniques: A Generalized
Protocol Based on Engineering Objectives and Site Characteristics. Proceeding
Highway Geophysics- NDE Conference, Washington DC, United State, July 26
October 10. 2947.
Archie, G.E (1942). The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid to Determining Some Reservoir
Characteristics, Trans. A.I.M.E., 146(1): 389-409.
Begmann, H.K.S. (1953). Improved Method of Determining Resistance to Adhesion by
Sounding through a loose sleeve place behind Cone. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Netherland.777.
Begemann, (H.K.S). (1965). The Friction Jacket Cone as an Aid in Determining the Soil
Profile. Proceeding 3rd International Conference of Soil Mechanics, Montreal,
Canada, June 26 29. 17-20.
46

Begemann, H.K.S. (1969). The Dutch Static Penetration Test with the Adhesion Jacket
Cone. Laboratory Ground Mechanics, 13(10): 81-86.
Billman, H.G. (1992). Offshore Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Dahomey Embayment,
West Africa, N.A.P.E Bulletin, 7(2):121130..
Bjerrum, L., Casagrande, A., Peck, R.B. and Skempton, A.W. (1960). From Theory to
Practice in Soil Mechanics. Asoke PHI Publishing, India.267.
Coker, J.O. (2015). Geophysical and Geotechnical Assessment of Foundation Failure,
Research Journal in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(7): 40-48.
Enu, E.I. and Agumanu, A.E. (1990). Late Cretaceous clay Distribution in the Lower
Benue Trough, Journal of African Earth Science, 10(3): 465-470.
Fatoba, J.O., Alo J.O., and Fakeye, A.A. (2010). Geoelectric Imaging for Foundation
Failure, Journal of Geological Science. 6(12): 2192 2198.
Fellenius, B. H. and Eslami, A. (2000). Soil Profile Interpreted from CPTu data, Proceeding
Geotechnical Engineering Conference, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand, November 27-30. 1 18.
Fathy, S., Ahmed, I. and Ismail, M. (2013). Geotechnical Assessment of Ground Condition
around Tilted Bulding in Cairo Egypt, University of Basic and Applied Science,
13(1): 63-72.
Herman, R. (2001). An Introduction to Electrical Resistivity in Geophysics. American
Journal of Physics, 69(9): 943-952.
Holden, J. (1974). Penetration Testing in Australia, Proceeding European Symposium. On
Penetration Testing, Stockholm, Australia, June 5 7. 155-162
Jones, H.A. and Hockey, R.D. (1964). The Geology of South western Nigeria, Geology
Survey of Bulletin, 31: 1-101.
Kogbe, C.A. (1976). Geology of Nigeria. Elizabeth Publishers, Ibadan, Nigeria.436.
Kumari, S., Ismail, M., Mittal, S. and Rai, J. (2009). Soil Characterization using Electrical
resistivity Tomography and Geotechnical Investigation. Journal of Applied
Geophysics, 2(67): 74-79.

47

Loke, M.H. (1999). Electrical imaging Surveys for Environment and Engineering studies,
Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical
Society European Section, Budapest, Hungary, September 6-9. 19 - 26
Lowrie, W. (1997). Fundamentals of Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, United
Kingdom.375.
Longe E.O. and Balogun M.R. (2010). Groundwater Quality Assessment near a Municipal
Landfill, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 2(1):
39-44.
MacDonald, A., Davies, J., Calow, R. and Chilton, J. and Chilton, J. (2005). A Guild
For Rural Water Supply. Practical Publishing Ltd, United Kingdom.106.
Massarch, R. (1986). Acoustic Penetration Testing, 4th International Geotechnical Seminar
and In Situ Measurements, Singapore, November 11 13. 71 76.
Murthy. V. N. S. (2002). Soil Mechanics and foundations, Foundation Engineering Hand
Book, Van Engineering, CRC Press and Distributors, Nostrand Reinhold Book Co.,
New York. 1056.
Nton, M.E. (2001). Aspect of Rock Evaluation Studies of the Maastrichtian Eocene
Sediments, Journal of Mining and Geology and Metallurgical Society, 13(2): 33-39.
Ogbe, F.G.A. (1972). Stratigraphy of Strata Exposed in the Ewekoro Quarry, Southwestern
Nigeria. In: T.F.J. Dessauvagie and Whiteman (Eds) African Geology, University
Press, Nigeria.305.
Okosun, E.A. (1990). A Review of the Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the Dahomey Embayment,
West Africa, Cretaceous Research, 11:17-27.
Olayinka, A.I. and Oyedele, A.A. (2001). Geoelectrical Investigation of Sites along the
Proposed Ibadan-Ilorin Dual Carriageway, Journal Min. and Geol. 37(2): 163-175.
Olorunfemi, M.O., and Meshida, E.A. (1987). Engineering Geophysics and its Application
in Engineering Site Investigation, Nigerian Engineer, 22(2): 57-66.
Omatsola, M.E. and Adegoke, O.S. (1981). Tectonic Evolution and Cretaceous Stratigraphy
of the Dahomey Basin, Journal of Mining Geology, 18(1): 130 -137.
48

Omatsola, M.E., and Adegoke O.S. (1981). Tectonic and Cretaceous Stratigraphy of the
Dahomey Basin. Journal of Min. Geol, 5(2): 78-83.
Oyedele, K.F. and Olorode, D.O. (2010). On Site Investigation of Subsurface Conditions
using Electrical Resistivity Method and Cone Penetration Test, World Applied Science
Journal, 11(9): 1097-1104.
Onu, K.M., and Ewke, N.N. (2006). Estimation of Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity
Characteristics from Electrical sounding data. Journal of Spatial Hydrology,
6: 121-131.
Reyment, R.A. (1965). Stratigraphy of some Borehole in the Western Region of Nigeria,
Journal of the Nigeria Mining, Geology and Metallurgical Society, 2: 1 11.
Reynold, J.M. (1997). An Introduction to Applied and Environment Geophysics. Wiley and
Sons Limited, West Sussex, England.778.
Robertson, P.K. (1990). Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 3(1): 151-158.
Sanglerat, G.G.J. (1972). The penetrometer and soil exploration. Development in
Geotechnical Engineering. Elsevier Publishing Co., Amsterdam.464.
Schmertmann, J.H. (1977). Guidelines for CPT Performance and Design. Report prepared
for Fedral Highway Administration, Washington D.C, United State of America.
Sirles, P. (2006). Applications of Geophysics for Geotechnical Projects, Workshop at the
Mid-Year TRB Meeting, Breckenridge, CO, September, 2006.
Telford, W. M., Gerdart, L. P and Sheriff, R. E. (1990). Applied Geophysics. Cambridge
University Press, United Kingdom.760.
Terzaghi, K. (1951). The Influence of Modern Soil Studies on the Design and Construction
of Foundations. Building Research Congress, London.1307.
Tomlison, M.J. (2010). Pile and Construction Practice. E & FN Spoon Publisher, London,
587.
Vogelsang, D. (1994). A Practical Guild to Environment Geophysics. Springer Verlag
Publisher, Berlin.173.

49

Walton, J. (2010). Surface Investigations of Groundwater. Reinhold Publishing, New York,

USA.1043.
Winterkorn, H.F., Fang, H.Y., John, L. and Philiph, F. (1975). Foundation
Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing, New York, 1-66
Yangfang, H.S. (1991). Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Publishing, Lehigh University, 109.
Zein, A.K.M., and Ismail, H.A.E. (1981). Use of Static Cone Penetration Test for Soil
Classification. BRRI Current Paper Publication CP1/81.

50

APPENDIX A:
VES RESISTIVITY DATA

TABLE A.1:

VES 1 VES 6

51

Electrode
Separatio
n
AB/2
1
2
3
4
6
6
9
12
15
15
20
25
32
40
40
50
65

Kfactor

VES 1

6.28
25.12
56.54
100.54
226.2
113.1
254.47
452.4
706.86
353.45
628.32
981.75
1608.5
2513.28
1005.31
1570.8
2654.65

VES 2

9.3
1.4
0.391
0.17
0.047
0.086
0.033
0.029
0.026
0.025
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.005
0.015
0.014
0.008

VES 3

11.2
1.9
0.487
0.112
0.043
0.079
0.026
0.013
0.01
0.02
0.018
0.013
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.004

VES 4

13
2.1
0.573
0.234
0.114
0.353
0.138
0.037
0.04
0.08
0.023
0.015
0.005
0.004
0.012
0.007
0.005

VES 5

19.8
3.3
0.821
0.291
0.086
0.16
0.043
0.025
0.029
0.076
0.039
0.014
0.008
0.012
0.03
0.012
0.006

8.5
1.2
0.467
0.162
0.038
0.079
0.053
0.036
0.077
0.025
0.011
0.091
0.005
0.004
0.018
0.015
0.021

VES
11

VES
12

VES 6

20.1
1.3
0.288
0.095
0.026
0.054
0.018
0.01
0.007
0.02
0.013
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008

TABLE A.2: VES 7 - 13

Electrode
Separatio
n
AB/2

Kfacto
r

1
6.28
2
25.12
3
56.54
4 100.54
6
226.2
6
113.1
9 254.47
12
452.4
15 706.86
15 353.45
20 628.32
25 981.75
32 1608.5
40 2513.28
40 1005.31
50 1570.8
65 2654.65

VES
7

15.2
1.5
0.31
0.112
0.035
0.065
0.044
0.012
0.007
0.01
0.012
0.007
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.009

VES
8

37
3.1
0.884
0.279
0.074
0.095
0.028
0.019
0.013
0.027
0.009
0.008
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.012
0.005

VES
9

11
1.4
0.35
0.122
0.031
0.055
0.015
0.01
0.007
0.019
0.012
0.009
0.008
0.009
0.021
0.01
0.005

52

VES
10

20.1
1.3
0.288
0.095
0.026
0.054
0.018
0.01
0.007
0.02
0.013
0.009
0.007
0.005
0.006
0.003
0.008

8.4
0.889
0.251
0.082
0.023
0.05
0.019
0.011
0.009
0.013
0.007
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.008
0.004
0.005

7.2
0.936
0.272
0.103
0.035
0.08
0.024
0.009
0.006
0.01
0.004
0.003
0.0025
0.0023
0.0064
0.004
0.001
0.0034

VES
13

10.3
2
0.561
0.254
0.073
0.158
0.064
0.042
0.044
0.027
0.017
0.013
0.005
0.004
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.003

APPENDIX B:
2D RESISTIVITY DATA

53

TABLE C. 1: 2D data along traverse 1

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m
C1

Traverse 1: a = 5
P1
P2

C2

R()

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90

15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

0.747931
0.751114
0.728835
0.588797
0.684278
0.716104
0.681095
0.833864
0.601528
0.598345
0.480586
0.480586
0.432845
0.531509
0.970719
1.101209
2.399745
0.922979

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

m)
23.5
23.6
22.9
18.5
21.5
22.5
21.4
26.2
18.9
18.8
15.1
15.1
13.6
16.7
30.5
34.6
75.4
29

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m
C1

P1

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

Traverse 1: a = 10
P2
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160

54

C2

R()

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170

0.177896
0.170326
0.174111
0.145723
0.181681
0.196821
0.183573
0.172218
0.164648
0.168433
0.123013
0.177896
0.244133
0.283876
0.230886

m)
9.4
9
9.2
7.7
9.6
10.4
9.7
9.1
8.7
8.9
6.5
9.4
12.9
15
12.2

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m

C1

Traverse 1: a = 15
P1
P2

C2

R()

0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165

15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180

45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210

0.601528
0.263102
0.200509
0.131551
0.159134
0.098663
0.134734
0.342669
0.199448
0.100785
0.086993
0.089115

30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195

m)
56.7
24.8
18.9
12.4
15
9.3
12.7
32.3
18.8
9.5
8.2
8.4

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m

C1

P1

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180

Traverse 1: a = 20
P2
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200

55

C2

R()

60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

0.07638
0.08832
0.094685
0.086728
0.123329
0.115372
0.10105
0.08832
0.094685

m)
9.6
11.1
11.9
10.9
15.5
14.5
12.7
35.4
108.1

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m

C1

P1

Traverse 1: a = 25
P2
C2

0
25
50
75
100
125

25
50
75
100
125
150

50
75
100
125
150
175

75
100
125
150
175
200

R()
0.077021
0.1623170
0.085933
0.085296
0.122852
0.276527

Wenner traverse 1 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m
Traverse 1: a = 30
C1
P1
P2
C2
R()
0
30
60

30
60
90

60
90
120

90
120
150

0.046149
0.131021
0.1611787

TABLE C. 2: 2D along traverse 2

Wenner traverse 2 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m
56

m)
12.1
25.5
13.5
13.4
19.3
43.4

m)
8.7
24.7
30.5

C1

Traverse 1: a = 5
P1
P2

C2

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90

15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

R()
0.671547
0.318269
0.29599
0.257798
0.270528
0.337365
0.273711
0.611076
0.232336
0.690643
0.413749
0.865691
0.862508
1.101209
2.399745
0.789306
1.600891
1.600891

m)
21.1
10
9.3
8.1
8.5
10.6
8.6
19.2
7.3
21.7
13
27.2
27.1
34.6
75.4
24.8
50.3
50.3

Wenner traverse 2 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m
C1

Traverse 2: a = 10
P1
P2

C2

R()

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170

0.401211
0.124905
0.02271
0.062453
0.09841
0.141938
0.102195
0.117335
0.130583
0.14383
0.107873
0.228993
1.038986
0.283876
0.230886

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160

m)
21.2
6.6
1.2
3.3
5.2
7.5
5.4
6.2
6.9
7.6
5.7
12.1
54.9
15
12.2

Wenner traverse 2 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m

C1
0

Traverse 2: a = 15
P1
P2
15

30
57

C2

R()

45

0.05941

m)
5.6

15
30
45
60
75
90
105
Wenner
120 traverse 2
135
150
C
1
165
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

30
45
60
45
60
75
60
75
90
75
90
105
90
105
120
105
120
135
120
135
150
Long 003 15' 150
12.6" Lati 06165
34'17.6"
135
150
165
180
Traverse
2:
a
=
20
165
180
195
P1
P2
C2
180
195
210

0.062593
0.068958
0.131551
0.076384
0.088054
0.381922
0.08275
Elev
35.7m
0.09442
0.182474
0.322512
R()
0.117759

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180

0.066041
0.080363
0.066041
0.061267
0.105824
0.057288
0.077976
0.133673
0.111394

40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200

60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

58

5.9
6.5
12.4
7.2
8.3
36
7.8
8.9
17.2
30.4
11.1
m)

8.3
10.1
8.3
7.7
13.3
7.2
9.8
16.8
14

Wenner traverse 2 Long 003 15' 12.6" Lati 06 34'17.6" Elev 35.7m

C1

P1

Traverse 2: a = 25
P2
C2

0
25
50
75
100
125

25
50
75
100
125
150

50
75
100
125
150
175

75
100
125
150
175
200

R()
0.054742
0.075111
0.06429
0.078931
0.070019
0.085296

Wenner traverse 2 Long 003 15' 13.8" Lati 06 34'16.7" Elev 33.7m
Traverse 2: a = 30
C1
P1
P2
C2
R()
0
30
60

30
60
90

60
90
120

90
120
150

0.108211
0.074263
0.073202

m)
8.6
11.8
10.1
12.4
11
13.4

m)
20.4
14
13.8

TABLE C. 3: 2D along traverse 3

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m
C1

Traverse 3: a = 5
P1
P2

C2

R()

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

0.908
0.494
0.611
0.501
0.385
0.243
0.291
0.297

10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

59

m)
28.5
15.5
19.2
15.7
12.1
7.6
9.1
9.3

40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85

45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90

50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

0.317
0.364
0.314
0.398
0.383
0.456
0.452
0.529
0.619
0.6

10.0
11.4
9.9
12.5
12.0
14.3
14.2
16.6
19.4
18.9

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m
C1

P1

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150

Traverse 3: a = 10
P2
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160

C2

R()

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170

0.097
0.078
0.12
0.132
0.086
0.088
0.08
0.09
0.097
0.11
0.117
0.117
0.118
0.131
0.192

m)
6.1
4.9
7.5
8.3
5.4
5.5
5.0
5.7
6.1
6.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
8.2
12.1

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m

C1

Traverse3: a = 15
P1
P2

C2

R()

0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105

15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120

45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150

0.056
0.057
0.069
0.048
0.117
0.074
0.076
0.087

30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
60

m)
5.3
5.4
6.5
4.5
11.0
7.0
7.2
8.2

120
135
150
165

135
150
165
180

150
165
180
195

165
180
195
210

0.088
0.083
0.073
0.095

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m
Traverse 3: a = 20
C1
P1
P2
C2
R()
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160

20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180

40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200

60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220

0.033
0.054
0.058
0.056
0.062
0.067
0.079
0.062
0.071

8.3
7.8
6.9
9.0

m)
4.1
6.8
7.3
7.0
7.8
8.4
9.9
7.8
8.9

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m

C1

P1

Traverse 3: a = 25
P2
C2

0
25
50
75
100
125

25
50
75
100
125
150

50
75
100
125
150
175

75
100
125
150
175
200

61

R()
0.049
0.051
0.061
0.062
0.058
0.062

m)
7.7
8.0
9.6
9.7
9.1
9.7

Wenner traverse 3 Long 003 15' 13.7" Lati 06 34'19.5" Elev 33.5m
Traverse 3: a = 30
C1
P1
P2
C2
R()
0
30
60

30
60
90

60
90
120

90
120
150

0.047
0.05
0.089

m)
8.9
9.4
16.8

APPENDIX C: VES CURVES AND SUMMARY OF

INTERPRETED VES DATA

62

Figure B. 1: Resistivity curve for VES 1

63

Figure B. 2: Resistivity curve for VES 2

Figure B. 3: Resistivity curve for VES 3

64

Figure B.4: Resistivity curve for VES 4

Figure B. 5: Resistivity Curve for VES 5

65

Figure B. 6: Resistivity Curve for VES 6

Figure B. 7: Resistivity Curve for VES 7

66

Figure B. 8: Resistivity Curve for VES 8

Figure B. 9: Resistivity Curve for VES 9

67

Figure B. 10: Resistivity Curve for VES 10

Figure B. 11: Resistivity Curve for VES 11

68

Figure B. 12: Resistivity Curve for VES 12

Figure B. 13: Resistivity Curve for VES 13

69

VES NO

VES 1

VES 2

VES 3

VES 4

VES 5

VES 6

VES 7

VES 8

VES 9

RESISTIVITY THICKNESS DEPTH

(ohm-m)
(m)
(m)

LITHOLOGY CURVE
TYPE

75.2

0.7

0.7

Topsoil

22.3
7.5
110.3
155.3
63.7
13.9
66.6
99.8
28.7
2.9
461.3
107.4
53.6
6.4
58.1
76.0
26.8
9.5
83.9
252.7
14.2
4.2
34.0
124.0
19.4
4.6
89.0
307.4
57.4
10.1
6.1
63.7
91.2
32.4
9.2
4.5
49.9

1.4
17.8
-------0.7
1.0
11.9
------0.8
1.2
0.5
--------0.5
1.0
17.0
------0.5
1.7
6.0
--------0.5
1.7
8.8
--------0.7
1.4
23.9
-------0.6
1.5
3.8
17.5
--------0.5
2.9
12.2
16.5
------------

2.1
19.9
--------0.7
1.7
13.6
------0.8
2.0
2.5
-------0.5
1.5
18.5
-------0.5
2.2
8.2
--------0.5
2.3
11.1
-------0.7
2.1
26.0
--------0.6
2.1
5.9
23.4
-------0.5
3.4
15.6
32.1
-----------

Clay
Clay/Peat
Sand
Topsoil
Sandy Clay
Clay
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Sand
Topsoil
Clayey Sand
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Sandy Clay
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand

70

QH

QH

QH

QH

QH

QH

QH

QH

QH

VES 10

VES 11

VES 12

VES 13

63.5
13.8
4.1
1.6
79.2
96.1
13.5
4.2
42.3
85.1
13.5
2.6
55.4
224.3
13.6
4.1
41.7

0.6
2.2
4.9
9.3
-------0.6
1.6
13.3
-------0.8
2.2
5.5
-------0.6
1.7
17.1
--------

0.6
2.8
7.8
17.0
-------0.6
2.1
15.4
-------0.8
3.0
8.5
-------0.6
2.2
19.4
--------

71

Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand
Topsoil
Clay
Clay/Peat
Clayey Sand

QH

QH

QH
QH

APPENDIX D: CPT DATA

72

CPT DATA

CPT 1
1
2
3

0.25
0
5
15

0.5
0
10
25
73

0.75
0
13
40

FULL
5
15
45

40

50

60

CPT 2
1
2
3
4
5

0.25
0
5
20
32
70

0.5
2
10
18
40

0.75
2
15
25
45

FULL
5
15
30
45

CPT 3
1
2
3
4
5

0.25
0
5
25
50
72

0.5
3
10
40
60

0.75
2
13
40
60

FULL
5
14
50
65

CPT 4
1
2
3
4

0.25
0
5
45
71

0.5
0
10
40

0.75
2
10
55

FULL
5
20
45

74