See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263506005

Use of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) method as an Alternative to Standard

Penetration Test (SPT)

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

9 13,096

2 authors, including:

Fahad Irfan
Mehran University of Engineering and Technology
22 PUBLICATIONS   188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MANUFACTURING OF NANO-CERIA Al-Zn BASED SACRIFICIAL ANODE FOR CATHODIC PROTECTION View project

Multi-input and Multi-output Fuzzy Logic Controller for a Submarine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fahad Irfan on 03 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Twenty-second (2012) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.org
Rhodes, Greece, June 17–22, 2012
Copyright © 2012 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-94–4 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Use of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) method as an Alternative to Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Baharom Azahar Syed
Fahad Irfan Siddiqui
Civil Engineering Department, University Technology PETRONAS
Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

ABSTRACT (Conrad Schlumberger and Marcel Schlumberger). In 1916, Wenner

Standard penetration test (SPT) is a popular method of sub-surface soil
investigation for foundation design or other engineering applications.
The main drawbacks of this method are that it requires mobilization of
heavy equipments to the site, time consuming and expensive.
Geophysical methods have been used for many years in soils
characterizations as they are rapid, non-destructive and cost-effective.
The aim of this research work is to use simple multimeter and few
electrodes to acquire apparent resistivity values of subsurface soil and
subsequently correlate it with SPT N-values of subsurface soil. This
paper presents the preliminary results of an ongoing research on
correlations of electrical resistivity with some physical properties of
soil. In this part of the study, correlations of SPT values with electrical
resistivity of soil were assessed. The obtained results demonstrate the
possibility to use electrical resistivity survey as an alternative to
standard penetration test SPT.
suggested the linear array of four equally spaced electrodes, still been
widely used in all resistivity surveys. Resistivity methods were
originally applied in petroleum and mining industries and afterward
found use in archeological, hydrological, environmental, agricultural
and geotechnical investigations (Samouëlian et al. 2005).
An electrical resistivity of soil is the measure of its resistance to the
passage of current through it where typical values are given in Fig. 1.
The soil is a three phase heterogonous material consisting solid, liquid
and gases. The solid and liquid plays a significant role in soil
spontaneous electrical phenomena and in behavior of electrical fields,
artificially generated in soil (Ozcep et al. 2009). The electrical current
flows in soil through electrolytic conduction; i.e. as a result of
movement of ions in pore fluids (Yoon and Park 2001).

KEY WORDS: Correlations, electrical resistivity, geotechnical

properties, SPT, VES

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical parameters of earth material are fundamental for the

designing of building, roads, tunnels and other engineering structures.
Standard penetration test (SPT) was developed around 1925, is a well-
established and popular method used for sub-surface soil investigation
for foundation design or other engineering applications. The SPT (N-
Fig. 1. Typical ranges of electrical resistivity and conductivity of earth
values) provides information about the resistance of soils to
material (Samouëlian et al. 2005)
penetration, which can be used to assess various soil parameters (i.e.
unit weights, internal angle of friction, cohesion, compaction etc). The
The electrical resistivity of the soil is determined by measuring the
major disadvantages of this method are that it requires mobilization of
resistance between two points in the soil and this is done by measuring
heavy equipments to the site and also very time consuming and
voltage across one pair of electrodes by transmitting a controlled DC or
expensive.
AC current to another pair of electrodes (Syed and Zuhar 2010). There
are different types of electrode arrays that can be used in actual field
Geophysical methods have been used for many years in soils
measurement of electrical resistivity such as Wenner, Schulumberger,
characterizations. Electrical geophysical methods allow non-
Wenner- Schulumberger, Dipole-dipole, Pole-pole, Pole-dipole and
destructive, cost-effective and rapid measurement of soil electrical
square array.
properties. Based on proper correlation between SPT (N-value) and
electrical resistivity of soil, the electrical resistivity method can be used
as an alternative to SPT method. The basic concept of field electrical
resistivity was first put forwarded in 1912 by Schlumberger brothers

871

Fig. 2. Arrangement of four electrodes to measure field electrical
resistivity (Wenner configuration); modified after (Kalinski and Kelly
1994)
Several attempts have been made by many researchers to explore the
phenomenon of electrical resistivity in soils and its relationship with
other soil properties; such as water content, thermal resistivity, salinity,
cation exchange capacity (CEC), hydraulic conductivity, ground water
distributions etc (Abu-Hassanein et al. 1996; Erzin et al. 2010; Kalinski
and Kelly 1993; Kalinski and Kelly 1994; McCarter 1984; Ozcep et al.
2009; Ozcep et al. 2010; Pozdnyakova and Pozdnyakova 2002;
Pozdnyakova et al. 2001; Schwartz et al. 2008; Son et al. 2009;
Sreedeep et al. 2005; Yoon and Park 2001).
Few studies have been carried out to correlate electrical resistivity and
geotechnical parameters of soil. Cosenza et al. (2006) conducted 2D
electrical resistivity survey with Wenner electrode configuration to
establish qualitative and quantitative correlations between resistivity
and CPT values. No clear relationship between cone resistance and
resistivity was observed and authors suggested an extensive study to be
conducted for more precise correlations. Sudha et al. (2009)
investigated relationship of electrical resistivity and SPT value using
2D electrical resistivity tomography at two different sites in India. The
obtained correlations indicated a site-specific relationship between
electrical resistivity and N values. Braga et al. (1999) performed
resistivity survey in sandy-clay formation and obtained a weak
correlation of SPT and electrical resistivity.
Liu et al. (2008) investigated the electrical resistivity of soil-cement
admixture, at varying cement-mixing ratio, water content and curing
time. The results show a good correlation of SPT and compressive
strength with electrical resistivity of soil-cement admixture. Oh and
Sun (2008) used combined analysis of electrical resistivity and SPT for
the assessment of earth filled dam and concluded that electrical
resistivity of soil has a good correlation with SPT values. It is also
suggested that electrical resistivity survey can be used as preliminary
tool to assess any troubled subsurface zone and could be later
confirmed by geotechnical investigations.
All research studies focuses on relating geotechnical and electrical
resisitivity discussed above have been carried out using sophisticated
electrical resistivity measurement systems, electrode switching devices
and expensive data inversion softwares which involves higher cost and
skilled manpower (Cosenza et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2008; Oh and Sun
2008; Sudha et al. 2009). However, none of these studies investigated
the correlations of SPT and electrical resistivity of soil obtained by a
simple and low-cost vertical electrical sounding method (VES).
The aim of this research work is to use simple multimeter and few
electrodes to get apparent resistivity values of subsurface soil and
subsequently correlate it with SPT values. This paper presents the
872
preliminary results of an ongoing research on correlations of electrical
resistivity with some physical properties of soil. In this part of the
study, correlations of SPT values with electrical resistivity of soil were
assessed. The obtained results demonstrate the possibility to use
electrical resistivity survey as an alternative to standard penetration test
SPT.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
The field investigations comprises of Vertical Electrical Sounding
(VES) technique and Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Laboratory soil
investigations were also performed on soil samples collected from
boreholes. The details of field investigations are discussed below:
SPT and Borehole Sampling
Standard penetration test were conducted on two locations (BH-01 &
BH-02) at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia. The horizontal
distance between BH-01 and BH-02 is about 50 meters. The standard
penetration tests at BH-01 and BH-02 were conducted as per method
suggested by ASTM D1586 (ASTM 2002).
Electrical Resistivity Survey
This research uses basic equipments and accessories as shown in Fig. 3
in acquiring the electrical resistivity value and comprises of the
following:
Handheld multimeter
D.C. power source
Insulated wires
Measuring tapes
Stainless steel electrodes
Fig. 3. Equipments and accessories used in electrical resistivity survey
The equipments and accessories were brought to the location of BH-01
and BH-02 for field electrical resistivity measurements. The method of
measurement or array adopted for this research is Four-electrode
Wenner configuration as shown in Fig. 2 where four electrodes were
implanted at equal-distance into the ground along a straight line.
Spacing of the electrode were set at 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12 meters apart in
order to get electrical resistivity of subsurface soil at the particular
depth. For instance, electrode spacing of 2 meters will provide
resistivity value at 2 meter depth below surface. By using Wenner
configuration, the apparent electrical resistivity of soil (ρa) in Ω.m is
determined by formula given in Eq. 1.
ρa = 2πRL (1)
ρa is the apparent electrical resistivity in ohm.m, L is the spacing
between electrodes in meters and R is the measured resistance in Ohm.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Moisture Content (%)
0 10 20 30 40
SPT and Laboratory Results 0
The samples obtained from BH-1 and BH-2 were brought to The
standard penetration test was carried out from 2 meters to 12 meters in 2
two boreholes namely; BH-01 and BH-02. The samples obtained from
BH-01 and BH-02 were brought to the laboratory for various soil 4
classification tests and it could be concluded that the soil samples from
both boreholes falls within the range of following descriptions: 6
BH-01

Depth (m)
 Type of soil ranged between sandy silt, clayey silt and silty BH-02

sand
8
 Natural moisture content ranged between 15% - 32%
 No organic content
10
 Plasticity index (PI) ranged between 7% - 19%

Moisture content and N-values from field standard penetration test SPT 12

obtained at various depths at BH-01 and BH-02 are summarized in

Table 1. 14
Fig. 5. Variation of Moisture content with depth in BH-01 and BH-02
Table 1. Geotechnical parameters obtained from BH-01 and BH-02
Electrical Resistivity Results
Borehole Moisture
Depth (m) N-Value Results obtained from the field electrical resistivity survey conducted at
ID Content %
2 10 32 the location of BH-1 and BH-2 is tabulated in Table 2. Apparent
4 9 24 electrical resistivity values of borehole BH-01 varies from 1247.80 to
01 8 9 24 6861.04 Ωm and in BH-2, electrical resistivity ranges from 103.67 to
10 25 17 3836.90 Ωm. Resistivity distribution in subsurface soil around the
boreholes ranges from 103.67 to 6861.04 Ωm indicates a wide variation
12 50 16
in soil type, generally falls within clayey to coarse grain sandy soils, as
2 2 30
it is confirmed by laboratory investigation earlier.
4 9 25
02 8 16 22
Table 2. Resistivity survey results at location BH-01 & BH-02
10 36 17
12 50 15
Apparent
Bore Current Voltage Resistance
Depth resistivity
Fig. 4 shows the trend of SPT N-values and depth in Boreholes BH-01 hole I V R
(m) ρa
and BH-02. It is clearly indicated that the SPT N-value is increasing ID (Amps) (Volts) (Ohms)
(Ohm.m)
with depth in both boreholes. In borehole BH-01 from 2 to 8 meters,
2 0.01 0.993 99.30 1247.80
the N-values are constant indicating a single geological unit. It is
4 0.01 0.574 57.40 1442.58
noticeble that electrical resistivity values in this zone are also relatively BH-
same (1247.8 – 1558.18 Ωm). Rate of increase of N-values with depth 8 0.01 0.310 31.00 1558.18
01
is approximately same in both situations. Conversely the moisture 10 0.01 0.357 35.70 2243.03
content of soil is decreasing with increasing depth as shown in fig. 5. 12 0.01 0.910 91.00 6861.04
2 0.01 0.082 8.25 103.67
SPT N-Value 4 0.01 0.662 66.22 1664.24
BH-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 8 0.01 0.264 26.49 1331.49
02
0 10 0.01 0.231 23.13 1453.26
12 0.01 0.508 50.89 3836.90
2

Resistivity values obtained at BH-01 and BH-02 at various depths are

4 shown in Fig. 6. The electrical resistivity values, in general increase
BH-01 with depth. Increase in resistivity values is probably due to the decrease
6 in moisture content and increase in SPT values with depth.
Depth (m)

BH-02

10

12

14
Fig. 4. Variation of N-values with depth in BH-01 and BH-02

873
 Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m) The combined data of electrical resisitivity and N-values from two
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 boreholes are shown in Fig. 9. In combined analysis, the obtained
correlation co-efficient (R2=0.67) is lower than individual correlation
0

co-efficient of two boreholes. This is probably due to some unexpected

2 data points, for instance at 12 meter depth in both boreholes, the N-
value is 50 and moisture content is also almost same (15% and 16%)
4 but the difference in electrical resistivity is very high.
8000.0
BH-01
6
Depth (m)

BH-02 7000.0

Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m)

8
6000.0

5000.0
10
4000.0

3000.0
12

2000.0
14
y = 87.29x + 287.5
1000.0 R² = 0.675
Fig 6. Variation of electrical resistivity with depth in BH-01 and BH-02
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Correlations of geotechnical data with electrical resistivity
SPT N-value
Electrical Resistivity V/S SPT Fig. 9. Combined correlation of electrical resistivity and N-values for
The relationship of electrical resistivity of soil and N-values from BH- BH-01 and BH-02
01 & BH-02 are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. For BH-01, the obtained
correlations shows good linear relationship between electrical Electrical Resistivity V/S Moisture Content
resistivity and N-value (R2=0.94) where as for BH-02, the correlation The relationship between moisture content and electrical resistivity
co-efficient is R2=0.71 which is comparatively lower than BH-01. values from two boreholes are presented in Fig. 10. The obtained
results indicate a curvi-linear relation between resistivity and moisture
8000.0
content. At lower moisture content, high variation in electrical
7000.0 resistivity values is observed. This deviation is probably due to the
different grain-size distribution as the increase in grain size offers more
Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m)

6000.0
resistance to the ionic current flows through the soil matrix.
5000.0
35
4000.0 y = 7E-07x 2 - 0.007x + 32.22
R² = 0.618
30
3000.0

2000.0 25
Moisture Content %

y = 0.007x + 1.199
R² = 0.939
1000.0 20

0.0 15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SPT N-value 10

Fig. 7. Correlation of electrical resistivity and N-values for BH-01

5

4500.0 0
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0
4000.0
Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m)
Fig. 10. Combined correlation of electrical resistivity and moisture
Electrical Resistivity (ohm.m)

3500.0

3000.0 content for BH-01 and BH-02

2500.0
SPT V/S Moisture Content
2000.0
y = 0.012x + 1.705
By data analysis, a good correlation of SPT and moisture content of soil
1500.0 R² = 0.716 has been observed as shown in Fig. 11. It is evident from the Fig. 11
that N-value increases as the moisture content decreased. The
1000.0
correlation is limited to the soils whose moisture content ranges from
500.0 32% to 15% and could not be valid for higher moisture content.
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SPT N-value
Fig. 8. Correlation of electrical resistivity and N-values for BH-02

874
 35
y = -0.286x + 28.39
30
25
Moisture Content %
20
15
10
5 Liu, SY, Du, YJ, Han, LH, and Gu, MF (2008). "Experimental study on
0 Geology, Vol 54, No 6, pp 1227-1233.
0 10 20 30 40
SPT N-Value
Fig. 11. Combined correlation of SPT N-values and moisture content
for BH-01 and BH-02
CONCLUSIONS
The results from field standard penetration test (SPT), electrical
resistivity survey using simple multimeter and laboratory tests were
analyzed together to understand the interrelation among N-value,
electrical resistivity and moisture content of soil. The linear relationship
between SPT and resistivity indicates that low resistivity values usually
have low N-values and vice versa. Relationship between moisture
content and resistivity values also demonstrate a satisfactory correlation
as reported in various published research literature. Within the
limitation of this research work, it can be concluded that preliminary
correlations were established and obtained results showing the
possibility to use electrical resistivity survey as an alternative to
standard penetration test SPT. More field tests needs to be conducted in
different geological environments in order to establish more precise and
general correlation between SPT N-values and electrical resistivity of
soil.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by University Technology
PETRONAS (UTP), Malaysia.
REFERENCES
Abu-Hassanein, ZS, Benson, CH, and Blotz, LR (1996). "Electrical
resistivity of compacted clays." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering -
ASCE, Vol 122, No 5, pp 397-406.
ASTM. (2002). "Standard test method for penetration test and split-barrel
sampling of soils (D 1586-1999)." Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
pp 146-150.
Braga, A, Malagutti, W, Dourado, J, and Chang, H (1999). "Correlation
of electrical resistivity and induced polarization data with geotechnical
survey standard penetration test measurements." Journal of
Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Vol 4, pp 123-130.
Cosenza, P, Marmet, E, Rejiba, F, Jun Cui, Y, Tabbagh, A, and Charlery,
Y (2006). "Correlations between geotechnical and electrical data: A
case study at Garchy in France." Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol
60 No 3-4, pp 165-178.
View publication stats
Erzin, Y, Rao, BH, Patel, A, Gumaste, SD, and Singh, DN (2010).
R² = 0.743
"Artificial neural network models for predicting electrical resistivity of
soils from their thermal resistivity." International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, Vol 49, No 1, pp 118-130.
Kalinski, RJ, and Kelly, WE (1993). "Estimating water content of soils
from electrical resistivity." Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol 16, No
3, pp 323-329.
Kalinski, RJ, and Kelly, WE (1994). "Electrical-resistivity measurements
for evaluating compacted-soil liners." Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering - ASCE, Vol 120, No 2, pp 451-457.
the electrical resistivity of soil-cement admixtures." Environmental
50 60
McCarter, WJ (1984). "Electrical Resistivity Characteristics Of
Compacted Clays." Geotechnique, Vol 34, No 2, pp 263-267.
Oh, S, and Sun, CG (2008). "Combined analysis of electrical resistivity
and geotechnical SPT blow counts for the safety assessment of fill
dam." Environmental Geology, Vol 54, No 1, pp 31-42.
Ozcep, F, Tezel, O, and Asci, M (2009). "Correlation between electrical
resistivity and soil-water content: Istanbul and Golcuk." International
Journal of Physical Sciences, Vol 4, No 6, pp 362-365.
Ozcep, F, Yildirim, E, Tezel, O, Asci, M, and Karabulut, S (2010).
"Correlation between electrical resistivity and soil-water content based
artificial intelligent techniques." International Journal of Physical
Sciences, Vol 5, No 1, pp 47-56.
Pozdnyakova, A, and Pozdnyakova, L (2002). "Electrical fields and soil
properties." Proceedings of 17th World Congress of Soil Science,
Thailand, 14-21 August, paper 1558.
Pozdnyakova, L, Pozdnyakov, A, and Zhang, R (2001). "Application of
geophysical methods to evaluate hydrology and soil properties in urban
areas." Urban Water, Vol 3, No 3, pp 205-216.
Samouëlian, A, Cousin, I, Tabbagh, A, Bruand, A, and Richard, G
(2005). "Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review." Soil and
Tillage Research, Vol 83, No 2, pp 173-193.
Schwartz, BF, Schreiber, ME, and Yan, T (2008). "Quantifying field-
scale soil moisture using electrical resistivity imaging." Journal of
Hydrology, Vol 362, No 3-4, pp 234-246.
Son, Y, Oh, M, and Lee, S (2009). "Estimation of soil weathering degree
using electrical resistivity." Environmental Earth Sciences, Vol 59, No
6, pp 1319-1326.
Sreedeep, S, Reshma, AC, and Singh, DN (2005). "Generalized
relationship for determining soil electrical resistivity from its thermal
resistivity." Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol 29, No 2, pp
217-226.
Sudha, K, Israil, M, Mittal, S, and Rai, J (2009). "Soil characterization
using electrical resistivity tomography and geotechnical
investigations." Journal of Applied Geophysics, Vol 67, No 1, pp 74-
79.
Syed, BA, and Zuhar, ZTH (2010). "Correlation of electrical resistivity
with some soil properties in predicating factor of safety in slopes using
simple multimeter"Conference on Sustainable Building and
Infrastructure, 15th-17th June, Kaula lumpur, Malaysia.
Yoon, GL, and Park, JB (2001). "Sensitivity of leachate and fine contents
on electrical resistivity variations of sandy soils." Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Vol 84, No 2-3, pp 147-161.
875