Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1.0 INTRODUCTION
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.
(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)
CHAPTER TWO
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.
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).
r=a
Sn w
(Archie, 1942)
(2.1)
where
is the porosity,
6
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
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.
(Reynold, 1997)
(2.2)
( )
(2.3)
For an area,
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=
(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
n (n+1)(n+2)
2 a.
That of the
S
a
a
2 and the dipole is given a s
10
Fig 2.2 The generalised form of the electrode configuration used in resistivity
measurements (Herman, 2001)
V 1 1
1 1
{
( )}
I a 2a
2a a
=2 a
(2.8)
V
I
(2.9)
11
( La
2 )
A= RB=
r
and RA =
B=
La
2
V
I
{(
2
2
2
2
+
La L+a
L+ a La
)(
V L2a2
=
4 I
a
)}
(2.10)
(2.11)
V
I
{(
1
1
1
1
(
)
L La
L+a L
(2.12)
12
( L2a 2)
V
L
I
a2
(2.13)
13
(ii)
(iii)
(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.
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).
15
c=
Qc
Ac
AC
QC
(2.14)
(Begmann, 1953)
Qf
Af
(2.15)
16
Where Qf =Q Q
t
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
Rf
Rf
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.
17
Rf
(Sangglerate, 1972)
Type of soil
0 0.5
0.5 2.0
2.0 5.0
>5
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)
(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
(i)
(ii)
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.
2.40
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
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
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).
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
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
24
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
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.
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
3.1.3
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.
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
30
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
33
34
35
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
36
Peat
Clay
37
38
Figure 4.3 (a): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) for CPT 1.
39
Coordinate:
06 34' 305" N
Elevation: 124ft
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
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
Figure 4.3 (d): A Graph of Depth (m) against Cone Resistance (kg/cm2) for CPT 4
42
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
5.1 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
VES NO
VES 1
VES 2
VES 3
VES 4
VES 5
VES 6
VES 7
VES 8
VES 9
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
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