CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT, MACKINTOSH

PROBE AND 2-D RESISTIVITY VALUES FOR

SOILS STIFFNESS

TARMIZI

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

2017
CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT, MACKINTOSH
PROBE AND 2-D RESISTIVITY VALUES FOR
SOILS STIFFNESS

by

TARMIZI

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of
Master of Science

April2017
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praise to Allah for giving me the strength and patience to

complete my thesis. I would like to thank my main supervisor Prof. Madya Dr. Rosli

Saad for his excellent guidance, support and continuous encouragement for this

research and thesis. This thesis has been strengthening by his comments and advice.

His invaluable suggestions and discussions had also helped me a lot. Similarly, to

extent my sincere gratitude to my co-supervisor Dr. Nordiana Mohd Muztaza for her

suggestion and continuous support. I also want to thank Prof. Dr. Mokhtar Saidin

from Centre of Archaeological Research (CGAR) for his financial support. My full

thanks to Dr. Nur Azwin Ismail for her useful discussions and suggestions. I also

want to thank Dr. Muhammad Syukri Usman for his suggestion and help me

whenever possible.

I am very gratefuls to Geophysics lab assistants, Mr. Yaakub Othman, Mr.

Shahil Ahmad Khosaini, Mr. Azmi Abdullah and Mr. Abdul Jamil Yusuf who helped

me in the field for data acquisition. Special thanks to all geophysics team who have

helped me in data collection and processing, Dr. Andy Anderson Berry, Mr. Zul

fadhli, Mr. Fauzi Andika, Mr. Muhammad Taqiuddin, Mr. Kiu Yap Chong, Mr.

Muhamad Afiq Saharudin, Mr. Hazrul Hisham Badrul Hisham, Mr. Amsir, Mr.

Sabrian Tri Anda , Mr. Azim Hilmy, Mr. Muhamad Iqbal Mubarak, Mr. Yakubu

Samuel Mingyi, Mr. Muhammad Sabiu Bala, Ms. Rose Nadia Abu Samah, Ms. Umi

Maslinda Anuar, Ms. Nur Amalina Mohd Khoirul Anuar, Ms. Nabila Sulaiman, Ms.

Nordiana Ahmad Nawawi, Ms. Nur Asmidah Aziz, Ms. Nur Khairunnisa Aqilah

Yunos and Ms. Noor Farah Izzati Ismail.

ii
 Finally, I want to thank my parents Hasyim Anzib and Sakdiah, my sibling

Ms. Nurlaili, Mr. Husaini, Mr. Nazaruddin, Mr. Arif Maulana and friends for their

prayer, love, encouragement, and support throughout my study.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement ii

Table of content iv

List of tables vii

List of figures ix

List of symbols xi

List of abbreviations xii

Abstrak xiii

Abstract xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Background 1
1.1 Problem statement 3
1.2 Research objective 4
1.3 Scope of the study 5
1.4 Layout of thesis 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.0 Introduction 6
2.1 Borehole method 6
2.2 2-D resistivity method 8
2.2.1 2-D resistivity imaging 10
2.2.2 Array 11
2.2.3 Resistivity of rock and mineral 13
2.3 Mackintosh probe 14
2.4 Previous study 15
2.5 Chapter summary 35

iv
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS 36

3.0 Introduction 36
3.1 Study flow 36
3.2 Study area 37
3.2.1 USM, Pulau Pinang 38
3.2.2 Sungai Batu, Kedah 40
3.3 Data acquisition 42
3.3.1 Borehole 43
3.3.2 2-D resistivity method 44
3.3.3 Mackintosh probe 45
3.4 Survey lines 47
3.4.1 Study area USM, Pulau Pinang 47
3.4.2 Study area Sungai Batu, Kedah 48
3.5 Data processing 50
3.6 Chapter summary 51

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 52

4.0 Introduction 52
4.1 Results and discussion 52
4.1.1 Study area USM, Pulau Pinang 52
4.1.1.(a) Borehol result 53
4.1.1.(b) 2-D resistivity result 53
4.1.1.(c) Mackintosh probe result 54
4.1.1.(d) Correlation borehole 2-D resistivity and 55
mackintosh probe
4.1.2 Study area Sungai Batu, Kedah 58
4.1.2.(a) Borehole result 58
4.1.2.(b) 2-D resistivity result 62
4.1.2.(c) Mackintosh probe result 63
4.1.2.(d) Correlation borehole, 2-D resistivity and 66
mackintosh probe
4.2 Chapter summary 79

v
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 80

5.0 Conclusion 80
5.1 Recommendations 81

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1: Photos of survey lines

APPENDIX 2: Borehole records data
LIST OF PUBLICATION

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1 Resistivity value of some common materials and rocks 14

Table 3.1 List of equipments for 2-D resistivity imaging method 45

Table 3.2 List of equipments for mackintosh probe method 46

Table 4.1 Borehole (BH1) record at line 1 USM 53

Table 4.2 Mackintosh probe (MP1) record at line 1 USM 55

Table 4.3 The relation between resistivity, N-value and M-value for 57
USM soft soil

Table 4.4 Position of borehole and mackintosh probe at Sungai Batu 58

Kedah

Table 4.5 Borehole record (BH2) at survey line LB1 59

Table 4.6 Borehole record (BH3) at survey line LB2 60

Table 4.7 Borehole record (BH4) at survey line LB3 61

Table 4.8 Borehole record (BH5) at survey line LB4 61

Table 4.9 Mackintosh probe record (MP2) at survey line LB1 64

Table 4.10 Mackintosh probe record (MP3) at survey line LB2 65

Table 4.11 Mackintosh probe record (MP4) at survey line LB3 65

Table 4.12 Mackintosh probe record (MP5) at survey line LB4 66

Table 4.13 The relation between resistivity, mackintosh probe and 69

borehole for line LB1

Table 4.14 The relation between resistivity, mackintosh probe and 71

borehole for line LB2

Table 4.15 The relation between resistivity, mackintosh probe and 73

borehole for line LB3

Table 4.16 The relation between resistivity, mackintosh probe and 75

borehole for line LB4

vii
Table 4.17 Intergation of resistivity value, mackintosh probe 75
and borehole at line LB1-LB4

Table 4.18 Resistivity value, N-value and M-value of Sungai Batu 77

soil

Table 4.19 Resistivity values comparison with previous study 78

Table 5.1 Classification and summary the soil classification 81

according to geology setting

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Types of the boreholes (Hvorsles, 1948) 7

Figure 2.2 Four electrode array for subsurface resistivity measurement 9

Figure 2.3 The arrangement of electrode for 2-D resistivity imaging 11

survey and the sequence of measurements used to build up
the resistivity section (Loke, 1999)

Figure 2.4 Common resistivity arrays and their geometric factor 12

(Loke and Barker, 1996)

Figure 2.5 Forward and reverse Pole-dipole array (Loke, 1999) 13

Figure 2.6 The illustration of mackintosh probe equipment 15

(Fakhrel et al., 2006)

Figure 2.7 Soil strength based on mackintosh probe test (Ayob et al.,2005) 16

Figure 2.8 Resistivity imaging of (a) Aligarh and (b) Jhansi 17

(Sudha et al., 2008)

Figure 2.9 SPT value vs resistivity plot (Sudha et al., 2008) 18

Figure 2.10 SPT vs transverse resistivity of two locations Aligarh 18

and Jhansi (Sudha et al., 2008)

Figure 2.11 2-D resistivity subsurface profile image obtained from 20

geoeletrical survey (Abidin et al., 2012)

Figure 2.12 SPT N-value versus resistivity (Ωm) at Kuala Upis 21

(Abidin et al., 2012)

Figure 2.13 SPT N-value versus resistivity (Ωm) at Tanjung Maung 21

(Abidin et al., 2012)

Figure 2.14 Correlations of electrical resistivity with (a) moisture content 23

(b) unit weight (siddiqui, 2012)

ix
Figure 2.15 Correlations of electrical resistivity with (c) Angle of internal 24
friction and (d) Cohesion of soil (siddiqui, 2012)

Figure 2.16 2D resistivity iversion of survey line Rawang, Slangor 25

(Saad et al., 2011)

Figure 2.17 2D resistivity inversion of Lembah Bujang (Muztaza et al., 2013) 26

Figure 2.18 2-D resistivity tomography section beneath profiles 30

(Elijah et al., 2012)

Figure 2.19 IP tomography section beneath profiles (Elijah et al., 2012) 30

Figure 2.20 3-D resistivity tomography beneath the study area 31

(Elijah et al., 2012)

Figure 3.1 Research flow chart 37

Figure 3.2 The location of the study area (Google Earth, 2016) 38

Figure 3.3 Location of study area and resistivity survey line at USM 39
Pulau Pinang (Google Earth, 2016)

Figure 3.4 Geological map of Pulau Pinang (Ong, 1993) 40

Figure 3.5 Study area at Sungai Batu Kedah (Google Earth, 2016) 41

Figure 3.6 Geological map of Sungai Batu Kedah (JMG, 1985) 42

Figure 3.7 Geometry illustration of 2-D resistivity data acquisition 44

(Dahlin, 1996)

Figure 3.8 Equipment of 2-D resistivity method 45

Figure 3.9 Equipment of mackintosh probe method 46

Figure 3.10 Resistivity and mackintosh probe data acquisition 47

Figure 3.11 2-D resistivity survey lines at Sungai Batu Kedah 48

Figure 3.12 Borehole and mackintosh probe location at Sungai Batu 49

(Kedah) relatif to resistivity lines

x
Figure 3.13 Resistivity and mackintosh probe data acquisition at 49
Sungai Batu

Figure 3.14 Resistivity section produce by RES2DINV software 50

Figure 4.1 2-D resistiviy inversion model of line 1 USM 54

Figure 4.2 Correlation between resistivity value, N-value and M-value 56

of line 1 2-D resistivity at USM

Figure 4.3 2-D resistivity inversion of line LB1-LB3 Sungai Batu Kedah 62

Figure 4.4 2-D resistivity inversion of line LB4-LB7 Sungai Batu Kedah 63

Figure 4.5 Location of map 2-D resistivity, mackintosh probe and 67

Borehole at Sungai Batu

Figure 4.6 The correlation between 2-D resistivity inversion of LB1, MP2 68
and BH2 at distance 21.25 m

Figure 4.7 The correlation between 2-D resistivity inversion of LB2, MP3 70
and BH3 at distance 51.25 m

Figure 4.8 The correlation between 2-D resistivity inversion of LB3, MP4 72
and BH4 at distance 151.25 m

Figure 4.9 The correlation between 2-D resistivity inversion of LB4, MP5 74
and BH5 at distance 101.25 m

Figure 4.10 2-D resistivity inversions of survey line L5-LB7 Sungai Batu 76
Kedah

xi
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

A Area

I Current

k Geometric factor

km Kilometer

ℓ Length

m Meter

R Resistance

V Voltage

x Distance

Ωm Ohm-meter

ρ Resistivity

ρa Apparent resistivity

∆V Potential difference

> More than

< Less than

xii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BH Borehole

C Current electrode

CPT Cone Penetration Test

ERT Electrical Resistivity Tomography

ES Electrode Selector

LB Lembah Bujang

M M-value

MP Mackintosh Probe

N N-value

P Potential electrode

RMS Root Mean Square

SAS Signal Averaging System

SB Sungai Batu

SPT Standard penetration test

USM University Sains Malaysia

Z Depth

2-D Two Dimension

3-D Three Dimension

xiii
 KORELASI ANTARA NILAI SPT, MACKINTOSH PROBE DAN

KEBERINTANGAN 2-D UNTUK KETEKALAN TANIH

ABSTRAK

Kajian menggunakan kaedah geofizik dan geoteknik telah dijalankan untuk

mengkaji ketekalan tanih di USM, Pulau Pinang dengan kawasan granit terluluhawa

dan Sungai Batu, Kedah (Malaysia) dengan kawasan sedimen. Kaedah geofizik yang

digunakan adalah kaedah pengimejal keberintangan 2-D, sementara kaedah

geoteknik digunakan adalah kaedah mackintosh probe dan lubang bor. Terdapat 8

garisan tinjauan keberintangan 2-D, 5 titik mackintosh probe dan 5 lubang bor telah

dijalankan pada dua kawasan tersebut. Data keberintangan 2-D diproses

menggunakan perisian RES2DINV dan Surfer8. Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk

mengetahui ciri-ciri tanih, untuk perbandingan nilai-M dengan nilai keberintangan 2-

D dan untuk mengembangkan jadual nilai-N, nilai-M dan nilai keberintangan 2-D

yang mempunyai hubungan untuk parameter tanih pada kawasan granit terluluhawa

dan sedimen. Model penyongsangan keberintangan 2-D menunjukkan USM, Pulau

Pinang memiliki nilai keberintangan 0-1600 Ωm dengan kedalaman 10 m dan Sungai

Batu, Kedah memiliki nilai keberintangan 0-2000 Ωm dengan kedalaman 40 m.

Hubungkait antara data kerintangan 2-D dengan data mackintosh probe dan lubang bor

menyediakan jenis dan kekuatan tanih untuk kawasan USM, Pulau Pinang dengan kawasan

granit terluluhawa menunjukkan dua jenis tanah lembut; pertama tanih berpasir longgar

dengan nilai-N adalah 8 dan nilai-M adalah 170 yang mempunyai nilai keberintangan adalah

790 Ωm dan yang kedua kelodak berpasir keras dengan nilai-N adalah 9-11 dan nilai-M

adalah 135-270 yang mempunyai nilai keberintangan adalah 415-785 Ωm. Sementara untuk

Sungai Batu dengan kawasan pemendapan menunjukkan jenis tanih lempung

berpasir/lempung yang bersifat setengah keras, keras dan sangat keras. Sifat setengah keras

xiv
dengan nilai-N adalah 6-7 dan nilai-M adalah 7-117 dengan nilai keberintangan adalah 4.5-

12.9 Ωm, sementara sifat keras dengan nilai-N adalah 8-13 dan nilai-M adalah 73-

130 dengan nilai keberintangan adalah 4.7-51 Ωm dan sifat sangat keras dengan

nilai-N adalah 14-20 dan nilai-M adalah 224-360 dengan nilai keberintangan 20-205

Ωm.

xv
 CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT, MACKINTOSH PROBE AND 2-D

RESISTIVITY VALUES FOR SOILS STIFFNESS

ABSTRACT

Study using geophysical and geotechnical methods were conducted to study

soils stiffness at USM, Pulau Pinang with weathered granite and Sungai Batu, Kedah

(Malaysia) with sedimentary areas. Geophysical method applied was 2-D resistivity

imaging while geotechnical methods applied were mackintosh probe and borehole. A

total of 8 2-D resistivity survey lines, 5 points of mackintosh probe and 5 boreholes

were established. The 2-D resistivity data were processed using RES2DINV and

Surfer 8 softwares. The objectives of this study are to characterize soils, to compare

M-value and resistivity values and to develop N-value, M-value and resistivity

values related to soil parameter for weathered granite and sedimentary area. The 2-D

resistivity inversion model shows that the resistivity value of the USM, Pulau Pinang

area is 0-1600 Ωm with penetration depth of 10 m. Sungai Batu area shows

resistivity value of 0-2000 Ωm with penetration depth of 40 m. The integration of 2-

D resistivity data with mackintosh probe and borehole data provide two soil types

and stiffness of weathered granite at USM, Pulau Pinang area; first soil type is loose

sand with N-value of 8 and M-value of 170 with resistivity value of 790 Ωm and the

second type is stiff sandy silt with N-value of 9-11 and M-value of 135-270 and

resistivity value of 415-785 Ωm. While at Sungai Batu with sedimentary area shows

that soil of this survey area is classified as sandy clay/clay with medium stiff, stiff

and very stiff condition. The medium stiff soil shows N-value of 6-7, M-value of 7-

117 and resistivity value of 4.5-12.9 Ωm, while stiff soil gives the N-value of 8-13,

xvi
M-value of 73-130 and resistivity value of 4.7-51 Ωm. Lastly, the very stiff soil has

the N-value of 14-20, M-value of 224-360 and resistivity value of 20-205 Ωm.

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

INRODUCTION

1.0 Background

Malaysia is a developing country with rapid developments in infrastructures

such as houses, buildings, roads, bridges, highways, rail tracks, waste water system

and many other types of public facilities. Infrastructures become a part of our lives

and the investigation of the surrounding environment and economic value are crucial.

Development techniques for infrastructures must be kept at sustainable and

affordable rates. Engineering design plays an important role since most building

structures lie on ground and the load has to be supported by the ground safely upon

construction. Subsurface information is very important for engineering design to

provide knowledge about soil profile such as slopes stability, material

inhomogeneities, subsurface boundaries and other properties of materials (Robert,

2000).

Soil is made up of many compositions such as weathered rock particles,

decayed plant and animal matters. Soil was formed slowly from rocks (the parent

material) which eroded into tiny pieces near the Earth's surface. Soil formation takes

thousands of years to make a thin layer of soil. Every type of soil has different

characteristics like colour, texture, structure, mineral content and the depth variation

(Grim, 1953). Sand is a naturally occurring granular material composed of finely

divided rock and mineral particles. It is defined by size, being finer than gravel and

coarser than silt (Ottawa, 1976). Clay is a fine-grained natural rock or soil material

that is a combination of one or more clay minerals with traces of metal oxides and

1
organic matter. Clays are plastic due to their water content and harden, but brittle and

non–plastic upon drying or firing (Guggenheim and Martin, 1995).

In engineering construction, soil problems often occur during or after

construction. These problems happen as the soil cannot reach a required specification

such as bearing capacity to support super structure above it. The existing soils at a

construction site are not always totally suitable to support structures such as

buildings, bridges, highways, and dams. Hence, if the building is constructed on poor

soil, many problems will occur during and after the construction. The building will

crack because of the settlement of the soil. Therefore, before such contraction are

developed there is the need to understand the subsurface. Various technique can be

used for detailed study of the subsurface such as drilling, pit test, geophysical

methods and more. Nowadays, geophysical methods are well known and applied

worldwide to provide useful and cost-effective information about subsurface features

of interest at required level of spatial resolution and target definition. The methods

are designed to measure specific parameters, with spatial variation within the study

area of interest.

Geophysical methods have been used since nearly 70 years ago and they were

predominantly applied in exploration for natural resources (Sirles, 2006). The

application in near surface studies for engineering purposes such as groundwater

exploration, environmental, geotechnical, and archaeological studies is progressively

increasing. The information obtained from geophysical investigation is used to

determine the important information such as hydrostatigraphic framework, depth to

bedrock, extent of concentrated groundwater contaminant plumes, location of voids,

faults or fractures, and the presence of buried materials, such as steels, drums or

2
tanks (Julian et al., 2012). The common methods employed for engineering and

environmental studies include seismic refraction, seismic reflection, multichannel

analysis of surface waves (MASW), Refraction Micro-Tremor (ReMi), cross-hole

seismic tomography, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic (EM),

electrical resistivity, Induced Polarization (IP), Self Potential (SP), gravity and

magnetic surveys (Anderson, 2006; Wightman et al., 2004).

This study is focusing on 2-D resistivity method for investigating subsurface

geological structure of soft soil. The 2-D resistivity is yet another powerful

geophysical method which uses electrical current that is sent through the ground by a

pair of current electrodes (C 1 and C 2 ) and measures the potential difference (∆V)

between potential electrodes (P 1 and P 2 ) which is used to calculate apparent

resistivity (ρ a ) (Loke, 1999). This method is frequently used in evaluation of

aquifers, wells and plumes, environmental aspects of landfills, detection of voids and

boulders, locating fractures/weak zones and determination of depth to bedrock

(Azwin, 2011).

1.1 Problem statements

The use of geophysical method by geotechnical engineers have been

increasing all over the world suitability to study soils properties. 2-D resistivity

method offers a non-destructive and a cost effective way of performing

measurements of geotechnical properties. The principle of 2-D resistivity method

was based on current flow in the subsurface profile by representing the resistivity of

soil material. Howevwe, it is impossible to extract the soil parameters by judging

from soil resistivity alone. The resistivity of soil differs depending on the soil type,

mineralogy of the soil, particle size distribution, index properties, unit weight,

3
porosity, degree of saturation and other parameters. Proper understanding on how

resistivity causes variation of these parameters can be helpful for development of the

correlations.

However, 2-D resistivity provides information of subsurface and the resulting

model of 2-D resistivity can provide accurate estimation of depth, thickness and

electrical resistivity of subsurface layers. Limited studies have been conducted to

obtain geotechnical parameters using 2-D resistivity method. Quantification of

geotechnical properties has become an important issue for rigorous use of resistivity

values in engineering applications.

The correlation of different geotechnical properties (SPT and Mackintosh

probe) with 2-D resistivity method will close the gap that currently exists between

geophysical and geotechnical engineering methods. The geotechnical engineers will

be able to interpret the 2-D resistivity data and utilize the information for their

design. Therefore, the development of geotechnical parameters from 2-D resistivity

method make the method more effective for subsurface investigation.

1.2 Research objective

The objectives of this study are:

i. To characterize soil of weathered granite at USM and sedimentary

areas at Sungai Batu.

ii. To compare M-value and resistivity value of the soil types.

iii. To develop N-value, M-value and resistivity values related to soil

parameters.

4
1.3 Scope of study

2-D resistivity imaging survey was carried out at Universiti Saints Malaysia

(USM), Pulau Pinang, which is a weathered granite area and Sungai Batu, Kedah

(Malaysia), which is a sedimentary area. The method used for this study were 2-D

resistivity imaging measurement, mackintosh probe and borehole. All the data were

integrated using RES2DINV, Excel and Surfer 8 software to identify the relationship

between resistivity value, SPT (N-value) and number of blow (M-value) for soils at

the study areas.

1.4 Thesis layout

The thesis chapters are organized as followed; Chapter Two discusses

previous studies of geophysical methods using 2-D resistivity and geotechnical

methods to understand soils.

Chapter Three contains a detailed description of the study area, research

materials and methodology developed in this study. This chapter also describes

briefly on data acquisition process in all the study areas involved in this research.

Chapter Four discusses all results obtained from borehole data, 2-D resistivity

imaging and mackintosh probe. The chapter also discusses the correlation between

geotechnical and geophysical methods.

Finally, Chapter Five includes the summary regarding the accomplishement

of the work and the conclusion. Recommendations for future research are also

presented in this chapter. Lastly, the list of references, appendices and publications

are attached.

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

Basic soil engineering study is defined as the uncemented aggregate of

mineral grains and decayed organic matter (solid particles) with liquid and gas in the

empty spaces between the solid particles. Soil is used as construction material in

various civil engineering projects and it supports structural foundations. Thus, the

study of soil properties, such as its origin, grain-size distribution, water draining

ablility, compressibility, shear strength and load-bearing capacity is vital (Das,

2005).

Soil mechanics is a branch of engineering mechanics that describes the

behaviour of soils. Soil mechanics provide the theoretical basis for analysis in

geotechnical engineering (Osano, 2012). In-situ behaviour of soils is complex

because it is highly dependent upon numerous factors. To acquire appropriate

understanding, it is necessary to analyze them not only through geophysics and

geotechnical engineering skills, but also through other associated disciplines such as

geology, geomorphology, climatology and other earth and atmosphere related to

sciences (Bery and Saad, 2012).

2.1. Borehole method

Borehole is used to identify detailed changes of soil/rock types. The local

variations indicated that borehole data alone could not define the problem

6
sufficiently. The characteristic of the area between holes could only be determined

by ground geophysical profiles. This combination proves to be an important and

effective approach for detecting and verifying new impact structures, and it is

essential for detecting and exploring buried ones (Jeffrey, 1999). Figure 2.1 shows

two types of boring method that were used for this study which is wash boring and

rotary drilling. Well bores are generally drilled by circulating a fresh-water

suspension down through the drill pipe and back to the surface through the annular

region between the drill pipe and the rock (Telford, 1990).

Wash boring Rotary drilling

Rope
Rotary hose
Swivel
Derrick
Pressure Standpip
water Kelly
Mud pump
Mud return
line
Casing
Drill rod
Shale Mud pid
Drill pipe shaker
Annulus
Chopping bit Drill
Driving shoe
Water jet at
high velocity

Figure 2.1: Types of the boreholes (Hvorsles, 1948).

Standard penetration test (SPT) is carried out in the boreholes and widely

used throughout the world which serves as an indicator for the compressibility and

density of granular soils. It is also commonly used to check the consistency of stiff or

stony cohesive soil and weak rocks. The SPT is carried out at every 0.75 m vertical

7
intervals in a borehole and it can be increased to 1.5 m. Furthermore, N-value is a

number of blows required to achieve a penetration for each 0.75 m that measure the

firmness or density of foundation material.

2.2 2-D resistivity method

2-D resistivity surveys have been used for many decades in hydrogeological,

mining and geotechnical investigations. More recently, it has been used for

environmental surveys. The purpose of 2-D resistivity survey is to determine the

subsurface resistivity distribution by making measurements on the ground surface.

From these measurements, true resistivity (ρ) of subsurface can be estimated. True

resistivity (ρ) is related to various geological parameters such as mineral and fluid

content, porosity and degree of water saturation in the soil/rock (Loke, 1999).

The basic principle of electrical resistivity method is the measurement of a

materials behaviour to retard the flow of electrical current (I) or resistance (R) to the

movement of charge (Awang et al., 2008). The resistivity measurements are

normally made by injecting current (I) into the ground and meansuring the value of

potential difference (V) (Loke, 1999). Electrical resistance measurement according to

Ohm’s Law is given by (Equation 2.1);

V (2.1)
R=
I

Where;

R: Resistance of the conductor.

The SI unit for resistance is volts per ampere or Ohm (Ω). The resistivity can

be calculated as (Equation 2.2);

8
 L (2.2)
R=ρ
A
Where;

ρ: Resistivity of the conductor material (Ωm)

L: Length of the conductor (m)
A: Cross-sectional area (m2)

For a homogeneous medium (Figure 2.2), the resistivity measurements are

normally made by injecting current into the ground through two current electrodes

(C 1 and C 2 ), and measuring the resulting voltage difference at two potential

electrodes (P 1 and P 2 ). From the current (I) and voltage (V) values, an apparent

resistivity (ρ a ) value is calculated (Equation 2.3).

C1 P1 P2 C2

Ground

Figure 2.2: Four electrodes array for subsurface resistivity measurement.

V (2.3)
ρa = k
I
Where;

k : geometric factor which depends on the arrangement of the

four electrodes.

Resistivity meter normally provides a resistance value (R), so in practice the

apparent resistivity value is calculated by (Equation 2.4);

ρ a = kR (2.4)

9
 The calculated resistivity value is not the true resistivity of the subsurface, but

an apparent value which is the resistivity of a homogeneous ground which will give

the same resistance value for the same electrode arrangement. The relationship

between apparent resistivity and true resistivity is a complex relationship. To

determine the true subsurface resistivity, an inversion of the measured apparent

resistivity values using a computer program must be carried out (Loke, 1999; 2004).

2.2.1 2-D resistivity imaging

2-D resistivity imaging is a model of resistivity changes in vertical and

horizontal direction. The technique assumed that resistivity does not change in the

direction that is perpendicular to the survey line. It provides useful result besides

being the most practical and economic compromise between providing an accurate

result in many geological situations (Loke, 1999). However, typical 1-D resistivity

sounding surveys is usually involve about 10-20 readings, while 2-D resistivity

imaging surveys involve about 100-1000 measurements. For wider study area, the

survey usually carried out in larger number of electrodes, 25 or more and connected

to multi-core cable. The multi-core cable is then connected to an automated computer

operated switch box known as electronic switching (Figure 2.3) to select the four

electrodes to be used (C 1 , C 2, P 1, P 2 ).

10
 Station 32

C1 P1 P2 C2
3a 3a 3a
Station 18
Laptop computer
Resistivity meter

C1 P1 P2 C
2a 2 2a
Station

C1 P P C2
Electrode number
Dat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 16 17 18 19 20
a a a a
n=1 1
n=2 18
n=3 32
n=4 43
n=5 51
n=6 56

Figure 2.3: The arrangement of electrode for 2-D resistivity imaging survey and the
sequence of measurements used to build up the resistivity section (Loke, 1999).

2.2.2 Arrays

Choosing the best array for a field survey depends on the type of structure to

be mapped, sensitivity of the resistivity meter and background noise level. In

practice, the arrays that are most commonly used for 2-D resistivity imaging surveys

are Wenner, Dipole-dipole, Wenner-Schlumberger, Pole-pole and Pole-dipole.

Among the characteristics of an array that should be considered are sensitivity of the

array to vertical and horizontal changes towards subsurface resistivity, depth of

investigation, horizontal data coverage and signal strength (ABEM, 2006). Figure 2.4

shows the common arrays used for 2-D resistivity survey with their geometric factor,

k.

11
 Wenner Alpha Wenner Beta
C1 P1 P2 C2 C2 C1 P1 P2
a a a a a a

k = 2πa k = 6πa

Wenner Gamma Pole - pole

C1 P1 C2 P2 C1 P1
a a a a
k = 3πa k = 2πa

Dipole - dipole Pole - dipole

C2 C1 P1 P2 C1 P1 P2
a na a na a
k = πn (n + 1) (n + 2) a k = 2πn (n + 1) a

Wenner Schlumberger Equatorial Dipole - dipole

C2 P2
C1 P1 P2 C2 b
na a na a na a

k = πn (n + 1) a
C1 P1
b = na
k = 2π bL / (L - b)
k = geometric factor L = [(a*a) + (b*b)] 0.5

Figure 2.4: Common resistivity array and their geometric factors ( Loke and Barker,
1996).

Pole-dipole array uses four electrodes, two potential electrodes (P 1 & P 2 ) and

two current electrodes (C 1 & C 2 ), “a” is the spacing between P 1 and P 2 which move

along the survey line for “n” spacing from current electrode C 1 . The C 2 electrode

acts as a remote electrode which must be placed sufficiently far from the survey line.

The sufficient electrode effect can be stated as approximately proportional to square

of ratio distance between C 1 -P 1 and C 2 -P 1 . Pole-dipole array is not as sensitive to

telluric noise as the Pole-pole array. This array also has relatively good horizontal

coverage, but it has a significantly higher signal strength compared to Dipole-dipole

array. Pole-dipole array is an asymmetrical array which produces asymmetrical

apparent resistivity anomaly in resistivity section. To eliminate the effect of

12
asymmetry resistivity section, measurements were repeated with the electrodes

arranged in reverse manner and combining the forward and reverse measurements to

produce a final section (Figure 2.5).

C1 P1 P2
na a Forward

Pole-dipole

P2 P1 C1 Reverse
a na
Pole-dipole

Figure 2.5: Forward and reverse Pole-dipole array (Loke, 1999).

2.2.3 Resistivity of rock and minerals

Rock and minerals have their own electrical conductivity and resistivity

values. The same rock and minerals do not necessarily have the same resistivity

values because different rocks may have the same resistivity value. This occurs

because the value of the resistivity of rock and minerals has a range of values that

can overlap. The electrical properties of the rocks are characteristics of rocks when

electric current flows into it. This electric current can be derived from nature itself or

due to an imbalance of electrical current that deliberately put into it.

Generally resistivity values of soil/rock depend on various numbers of

physical parameters such as porosity, salinity, temperature, rock conductivity and

thermal changes. In other words, porosity and saturation of the fluid tend to be

dominant in resistivity measurements (Reynolds, 1997). Table 2.1 shows the

resistivity values of some common minerals and rocks.

13
 Table 2.1: Resistivity value of some common materials and rocks (Reynolds, 1997)

Rock /soils type Resistivity (Ωm)

Granite 3 x 102 - 106

Granite (weathered) 3 x 10 – 5 x 102

Schist (calcareous and mica) 20 - 104

Schist (graphite) 10 x 102

Sandstones 1 – 7.4 x 108

Limestone 50 - 107

Clays 1 x 102

Alluvium and sand 10 – 8 x 102

Consolidated shale 20 – 2 x 103

Sand and gravel 30 – 225

2.3 Mackintosh probe

Dynamic probing test using mackintosh probe (MP) is a continuous soil

investigation technique, which is one of the simplest soil penetration tests. It

basically consists of a metal tipped probe which is repeatedly driven into the ground

using a drop weight of fixed mass. Testing is carried out continuously from ground

level to the final penetration depth. The continuous sounding profiles enable easy

recognition of dissimilar layers and thin strata by the observed variation in the

penetration resistance. Figure 2.6 illustrate the mackintosh probe equipment. The

mackintosh probe (MP) is a light weight dynamic penetrometer and a considerably

faster and cheaper tool than boring, particularly when the depth of exploration is

moderate and the soils being investigated are soft or loose (Sabtan and Shehata,

1994). The method can be used in difficult terrain such as swampy ground (Kong,

1983). Mackintosh probe test is most widely used in in-situ tests to measure the soil

14
bearing capacity of different layers in terms of M-value. This test is very useful to

find out the bearing capacity of soil up to 15 m depth.

4.5 Kg
Drop hammer

Coupling

Boring rods

Cone

Figure 2.6: The illustration of mackintosh equipment (Fakhrer et al., 2006).

2.4 Previous study

Previously, there are many researchers discussing soils in engineering

perspective. Ayob et al. (2015) studied the effects of penetration rate on the

penetration resistance using Cone Penetration Test (CPT). The research was

conducted at RECESS UTHM and CPT was used in three selected ranges; 0.5 cm/s,

1 cm/s and 5 cm/s. In addition, Mackintosh probe (MP) test has been considered as a

comparison with CPT test for the unconfined compressive strength. The results show

that the different penetration rate was influenced by the soil shear strength. It was

found that the cone resistance increased when higher speed of soundings performed

for the CPT. For the slowest rate (0.5 cm/s), the shear strength is approximately

0.15% less compared to the standard rate (2 cm/s). However, the highest rate (5

cm/s), the shear strength was 0.22% more than the reference rate (0.5 cm/s). In

15
comparison, the soil strength from Mackintosh probe was lower than the CPT data.

The mackintosh probe record show M-value increases with increasing depth (Figure

2.7).

a) Strength (MPa) b) Strength (MPa) c) Strength (MPa)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Figure 2.7: Soil strength based on mackintosh probe test (Ayob et al.,2005).

Tarawneh (2014) studied about the correlation between Standard Penetration

Test (SPT) and Cone Penetration Test (CPT) for sand, silty sand and sandy silt soil.

The study was conducted in Dubai, UAE. In this study, multiple linear regression

(MLR) and symbolic regression (SR) were used to develop formulae that can predict

N-value using CPT data for sand, sandy silt and silty sand soils samples. Data used in

this study consist of 66 CPT-SPT pairs of sand, sandy silt and silty sand soils.

Distance between each CPT-SPT pairs ranged from 3-40 m. The depth of the SPT-

CPT pairs ranged from 3-9 m. It was concluded that SR showed some improvement

to the developed MLR model and those developed models can be used to predict N-

value from CPT data with acceptable accuracy.

Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT), Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

and Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) investigations have been carried out for

thermal power plants at Aligarh and Jhansi sites (India). Two ERT profiles with 355

m long, 72 electrodes planted with 5 m interval. ERT of the two sites are presented in

Figure 2.8.

16
 (a) Aligarh

(b) Jhansi

Figure 2.8: Resistivity imaging of (a) Aligarh and (b) Jhansi (Sudha et al., 2008).

Resistivity image of Aligarh and Jhansi showed high resistivity near the

surface. High resistivity was characterized by the presence of boulder close to the

surface. The low resistivity zone was reported due to the existence of fine soils in

Jhansi. Obtained SPT values were plotted with resistivity at the borehole location as

shown in Figure 2.9.

17
 Resistivity (Ωm)

Average N-value

Figure 2.9: SPT value vs resistivity plot (Sudha et al., 2008).

Figure 2.9 showed no specific correlations between SPT and resistivity.

However, linear correlation was observed when SPT values were plotted with

transverse resistance as presented in Figure 2.10.

Jhansi
Aligarh

Figure 2.10: SPT vs transverse resistivity of two locations Aligarh and Jhansi (Sudha
et al., 2008).

The authors concluded that the correlation of SPT with transverse resistivity

was site specific and solely dependent on the geologic environment of the study

period. The study illustrate the effectiveness of correlating geophysical method in

18
geotechnical perspective which will lead to time and cost effective compared to only

geotechnical method conducted at the area (Sudha et al., 2008).

A research was conducted at Magodo Phase II Lagos in Nigeria to study

subsoil investigations using 2-D resistivity for geophysical method and Cone

Penetration Test (CPT) for geotechnical method. The results show that this research

consists of four soils types; Top soil with the resistivity value of 86-386 Ωm and

depth 0.53-1.07 m, sandy clay and sand with resistivity value of 227-602 Ωm and 95-

262 Ωm with a depth of 5.49 m and 14.33-37.3 m for sand respectively. While the

clay was identified with thickness of 27.6-55.9 m and resistivity value of 110-342

Ωm. CPT shows competent values for penetrative resistance at 14-18 m. The study

shows that shallow foundation was feasible in some part of the study area and the

two methods correlate well with each other (Oyedele and Okoh, 2011).

Abidin et al. (2012) conducted a study at Kuala Lipis (Pahang) and Tanjung

Malim (Perak) Malaysia to evaluate some relation between near surface ground

stiffness status with integrated of geophysical and geotechnical method. This study

also investigates the stability of slope with effect of heterogeneous subsurface in

tropical region with 2-D resistivity and geotechnical SPT (N-value). Figure 2.11 (a)

and (b) showed result of Kuala Lipis and Tanjung Malim respectively.

19
 (a) Kuala Lipis

Ωm

(a) Tanjung Malim

Ωm

Figure 2.11: 2-D resistivity subsurface profile image obtained from geoeletrical
survey (Abidin et al., 2012).

The results induced that a linear relationship between the parameters of high

resistivity values will generate high stiffness for higher N-value. In contrast, the

decrease in observed low resistivity did not decrease the N-value (Figure 2.12 and

Figure 2.13).

20