English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The use of the electrical resistivity method provides cost-effective subsurface information faster and allows reliable interpolation to be made between the tested points. It is therefore desirable to generate consistent data from resistivity measurements by using empirical relationships while only few zones of interest will require testing. This study, therefore, developed empirical relationships between electrical resistivity sounding and cone penetrometer test data for engineering site investigation using a case study from the Basement Complex Terrain of Southwestern Nigeria. Regression analysis was used to assess the correlation between the soil resistivity and cone resistance and the validity of the empirical relation was evaluated by comparing values estimated from the soil resistivity vs. cone resistance cross plot with field values obtained from cone penetration tests. The values of allowable bearing pressure computed by using both values in Meyerhof’s equation were also compared with the allowable bearing capacity deduced with laboratory values of soil strength parameters (cohesion, angle of internal friction, soil unit weight) in Terzaghi’s general formula. The results show close agreement between the measured and estimated values with the differences typically less than 10%. The standard errors of the estimates for the cone resistance and allowable bearing capacity are 2.70 and 4.16 respectively, implying reliability of the estimates. The proposed empirical relationships, therefore, appear to provide reasonable estimation of soil cone resistance and allowable bearing capacity from soil resistivity. Few complimentary cone penetrometer and laboratory tests will thus be required while the cost and duration of site investigation for engineering structures are expected to reduce.

Correlation between Electrical Resistivity and Cone Penetrometer Test Data for Geotechnical Site Investigation