Modelling Soil Resistivity and Soil Bearing Strength For Foundation Studies

References

[1] Akintorinwa, O. J. and Adeusi F. A. 2009. Integration of Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigations for a Proposed Lecture Room Complex at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, SW, Nigeria. Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences, 2(3): 241-254.

[2] Akinlabi, I. A. and Adeyemi, G. O. 2021. Correlation between Electrical Resistivity and Cone

[3] Penetrometer Test Data for Geotechnical Site Investigation, LAUTECH Journal of Civil and Environmental Studies, 7(1):158.

[4] Ako, B.D. 1996. Integration of geophysical and geological data in dam site investigation- The case of Opa Dam. Journal of Mining and Geology, 13(1): 1 – 6.

[5] Eid, H. T., 2006. Factors Influencing the Determination of Shale Classification Indices and Their Correlation to Mechanical Properties. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 4(6): 1695-1713.

[6] Hisyam, J. and Syed, B O. 2017. The Correlation between Resistivity and Soil Properties as an Alternative to Soil Investigation. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 10(6)

[7] Klimis, N. S., Papazachos, C. B. and Efremidis, C. F., 1999. Determination of the behavior of a Sedimentary rock mass: comparison of measured static and dynamic properties Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Rock Mechanics (Paris, France)

[8] Lateef, T.A. and Adegoke. J.A. 2011. Geophysical Investigation of Foundation Condition of a Site in Ikere-Ekiti, Ekiti State, South-Western Nigeria, Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 5 (9).

[9] Luna, R. and Jadi, H. 2000. Determination of dynamic soil properties using geophysical methods Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on the Application of Geophysical and NDT Methodologies to Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure Geophysics (Federal Highway Administration Saint Louis, MO), 3. 1–15

[10] Nigeria Geological Survey Agency (NGSA), 2020: The Geological map of Oyo State. A publication of Nigeria Geological Survey Agency, Abuja, Nigeria.

[11] Othman A. A. 2005. Construed geotechnical characteristics of foundation beds by seismic measurements J. Geophys. Eng. 2: 126-138

[12] Ofomola, M.O., Adiat, K.A.N, Olayanju, G.M., and Ako, B.D. 2009. Integrated geophysical methods for post-foundation studies, Obanla Staff Quarters of the Federal University of Technology, Akure Nigeria. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 1(2): 93 – 110.

[13] Olorunfemi, M. O., Ojo, J. S., Sonuga, F. A., Ajayi, O. and Oladapo M. I. 2000. Geoelectric and electromagnetic Investigations of faileD Koza and Nassarawa Earth dams around Katsina, Northern Nigeria. Journal of Mining and Geology, 36(1): 51 – 65.

[14] Oyedele, K.F and Bankole, O.O. 2009. Subsurface stratigraphic mapping using geophysics and its impact on urbanization in the Arepo area. Ogun State, Nigeria. New York Science Journal, 5(2): 31 – 45.

[15] Oyedele, K.F, Oladele, S. and Adedoyin, O 2012. Application of geophysical and geotechnical Methods to site characterization for construction purposes at Ikoyi, Lagos Nigeria. Journal of Earth sciences and geotechnical engineering, 1(1): 87-100.

[16] Muhammad, N. H., Deprizon, S., Norinah, A. R., Emmanuel, O., Abdur R. and Nur I. M, 2022.Soil Parameters Model Prediction via Resistivity Value Limit to Shallow Subsurface Areas, Hindawi, Shock and Vibration,10.

[17] Rahaman, M. A. 1988. Recent advances in the study of the basement complex of Nigeria. In Precambrian Geology of Nigeria, Geological Survey of Nigeria, Kaduna South, 11-43

[18] Savvaidis, A. Tsokas, G., Soupios, P., Vargemezis, G., Manakou, M., Tsourlos, P. and Fikos, I. 1999. Geophysical prospecting in the Krousovitis dam (N Greece) by seismic and resistivity geophysical methods J. Balkan Geophys, 2: 128–139

[19] Soupios, P. Papazachos, C. B., Vargemezis, G. and Fikos, I. 2005. Application of modern seismic methods for geotechnical site characterization Proc. Int. Workshop in Geoenvironment and Geotechnics (Milos Island, Greece, 12–14 September). 163.

[20] Soupios, P., Georgeakopoulos, P., Papadopoulos, N., Saltas, V., Vallianatos, F., Sarris, A., and Makris, J. 2007. Use of Engineering Geophysics to Investigate a Site for a Building Foundation. J. Geophys. Eng, 4. 94-103.

[21] Venkateswara, V. R., Srinivasa. R., Prakasa. R. B. and Koteswara, R. P. 2004. Bedrock Investigation by seismic refraction method. J. Ind. Geophys. Union, 8: 223

@article{1711472,
      author = {Ajibero K. O., Aleke C. U., Oyediran I, Aweda K. A},
      title = {Modelling Soil Resistivity and Soil Bearing Strength  For Foundation Studies},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2025},
      volume = {9},
      number = {4},
      pages = {1961-1974},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1711472.pdf},
      abstract = {Building failure and its resultant loss of lives and properties has brought to light the need to establish relationship between soil layer resistivity and soil bearing strength which can be integrated for more robust foundation studies. The research is designed to study the relationship between the soil bearing capacity and soil layer resistivity to enhance planning and design in the building industry.  Soil resistivity and soil bearing capacity were obtained on a land area of 160m by 50m. Vertical Electrical Soundings (VES) using the Werner Array were deployed to acquire resistivity values at three different current electrodes spacing (0.5m, 1.0m and 1.5m) within the study area. The bearing strength of the soil was derived from the tip resistance of the Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) around the points where the VES data were collected. Data for the study were processed and analysed with the aid of JASP and ArcGIS software. The probability value set at 0.005 for the regression statistics conducted was not significant at 0.5 m (0.051) which is the top soil. Significant probability values were obtained at 1.0 (0.001) and 1.5 m (0.001), though with a very low coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.260 and 0.267 respectively. Coefficient of correlation (R) values of 0.328, 0.510 and 0.516 were obtained at 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m depths respectively, indicating weak relationship at 0.5 m and moderate relationship at 1.0 and 1.5 m. This explains that higher resistivity equates to higher bearing capacity, especially for 1.0 and 1.5 m where the results were significant. The regression model shows that 10.7%, 26.0% and 26.7% of the variation in the soil-bearing capacity was explained by the soil resistivity at depths 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m respectively. This error of estimate is large. The spatial model gives a good lateral explanation and prediction of the relationship between the soil-bearing capacity and the soil layer resistivity. The statistical model is advised to be used in combination with the spatial model due to the large errors involved. These models can be applied in foundation studies for the proper interpretation of soil bearing capacity to enhance planning and design in foundation studies.},
      keywords = {Array, Building Foundation, Cone Penetrometer, Soil Bearing Capacity, Soil Layer Resistivity, Test, Werner.},
      month = {October},
  }