Case Reviews of the Cone Penetration Tests as a Geotechnical Decision Support Tool in the Niger Delta

Abstract: This paper highlights the extended applications of the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) for geotechnical decision support in the determination of depth of foundation embedment, optimum depth of excavation, vertical settlement distribution, determination of total consolidation settlement and the assessment of deep shear failure risk with the use of case studies in the Niger delta. These applications are more critical in site conditions where retrieval of soil sample is difficult due to extremely weak or where soil layers are very thin such that are missed during regular boring programmes. In these instances, the (CPT) serves as a vital geotechnical analysis for better and informed decisions, offering economical, high-resolution, nearly continuous data for accurate identification of soil layers and boundaries, efficient and reliable data for various applications, including pavement, swamp rig and offshore foundation design. The CPT data can often be integrated with data from other sources, processed through various analytical and modelling techniques to unravel findings that facilitate strategic and operational choices. Its advantages of rapid data acquisition, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to characterize soil conditions over large areas, which aids in foundation design and risk assessments, provide the enablement for geotechnical analysis and decision support.

Geology and Environmental Studies

1. Abam, T.K.S. and OKAGBUE, C.O. (1997) The Cone Penetrometer and Soil Exploration in the Deltas. Journal of Mining and Geology, Vo1. 33, No 1, pp 15-24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abam T.K.S and A.C. Tse (2008) Incremental Settlement Evaluation Using Cone Penetration (CPT) Data: Scientia Africana; An International Journal of Science and Engineering. Vol. 7, (No.1), pp123-127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. T.K.S. Abam (2016) Tank Pad foundation Construction in the Lateritic soils of the Niger delta, Nigeria. Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 6, no.2, 2016, 89-100. ISSN: 1792-9040 (print), 1792-9660 (online) Scienpress Ltd, 2016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. ASTM D-5778 Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K. and Gillespie, D. (1986). Seismic cone penetration test. Use of In-Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 6), ASCE, Reston, VA: 116-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eslami, A., Alimirzaei, M., Aflaki, E., & Molaabasi, H. (2017). Deltaic soil behavior classification using CPTu records—Proposed approach and applied to fifty-four case histories. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 35, 62 - 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2015.1102185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Farahbakhsh, K., & Ching, J. (2023). Inferring Spatial Variation of Soil Classification by Both CPT and Borehole Data. Geo-Risk 2023. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784484975.016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gumilar, M., Putra, P., Nazida, S., & Anggraini, N. (2024). Correlation of CPT, SPT, and ERT data for a better understanding of soils condition: A case study in SPG Merbau, South Sumatra. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1416. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1416/1/012008. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Karlsrud, K., Lunne, T., Kort, D.A. and Strandvik, S. (2005). CPTU correlations for clays. Proc. 16 th ICSMGE, Vol. 2 (Osaka), Millpress, Rotterdam: 693-702. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. (1990). Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design. EPRI Report EL-6800, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto: 306 p. www.epri.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lehane, B.M. (2011). Shallow foundation performance in a calcareous sand. Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics II (Proc. ISFOG, Perth), Taylor & Francis Group, London: 427-432. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M. (1997). Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Blackie Academic/London, Routledge, New York: 312 p. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Macedo, J., Mayne, P., Dai, S., Torres, P., Arnold, C., Vergaray, L., & Zhao, Y. (2024). Cone Penetration Testing for Illinois Subsurface Characterization and Geotechnical Design. https://doi.org/10.36501/0197-9191/24-013. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Marzouk, I., Granitzer, A., Rauter, S., & Tschuchnigg, F. (2024). A Case Study on Advanced CPT Data Interpretation: From Stratification to Soil Parameters. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02774-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mayne, P.W. (2007). NCHRP Synthesis 368: Cone Penetration Test. Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, Washington DC: 118 p. www.trb.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mayne, P.W. (2014). KN2: Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests. Proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT'14, Las Vegas), ISSMGE Technical Committee TC 102, Edited by P.K. Robertson and K.I. Cabal: p 47-73. www.cpt14.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J. (2012). Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays. Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London: 903-910. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ramsey N (2010) Some issues related to applications of the CPT. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, May 2010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Robertson, P. (1990). Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27, 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1139/T90-014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Robertson, P. (2009). Interpretation of cone penetration tests a unified approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46, 1337-1355. https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-065. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Robertson, P. (2016). Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — an update. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 53, 1910-1927. https://doi.org/10.1139/CGJ-2016-0044. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sandven, R. and Watn, A. (1995). Theme lecture: interpretation of test results. Soil classification and parameter evaluation from piezocone tests. Results from Oslo airport. Proc. Intl. Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol. 3, Swedish Geotechnical Society Report SGF 3:95, Linköping: 35-55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Schneider, J.A., Randolph, M.F., Mayne, P.W., and Ramsey, N.R. (2008). Analysis of factors influencing soil classification using normalized piezocone tip resistance and pore pressure parameters. Journal of Geotechnical & GeoEnvironmental Engineering 134 (11): 1569-1586. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Senneset, K., Sandven, R. and Janbu, N. (1989). Evaluation of soil parameters from piezocone tests. Transportation Research Record 1235, National Academies Press, Washington, DC: 24-37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Smith G.N and Pole E.L (1980) Elements of Foundation Design [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, Y., Taya, Y. and Kubota, Y. 1995. Correlation of CPT data with static and dynamic properties of in-situ frozen sands. Proc. CPT’95, Vol. 2, Swedish Geotechnical Society: 323-328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tumay, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., and Zhang, Z. (2008). From theory to implementation of a CPT-based probabilistic and fuzzy soil classification. From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP 180), ASCE, Reston, VA: 259-276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Uzielli, M., Mayne, P.W. and Cassidy, M.J. (2013). Probabilistic assessment of design strengths for sands from in-situ testing data. Modern Geotechnical Design Codes of Practice, Advances in Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering (series), Vol. 1, IOS-Millpress, Amsterdam: 214-227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Vardon, P., & Peuchen, J. (2021). CPT correlations for thermal properties of soils. Acta Geotechnica, 16, 635-646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01027-2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wang, X., Wang, H., Liang, R., Zhu, H., & Di, H. (2018). A hidden Markov random field model based approach for probabilistic site characterization using multiple cone penetration test data. Structural Safety, 70, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STRUSAFE.2017.10.011. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Yu, H-S. and Mitchell, J.K. (1998). Analysis of cone resistance: review of methods. Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (2): 140-149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Competency and Challenges of BTLED-ICT Students in 2D Animation: An Analytical Study
• Slope Stability Assessment: A Case Study of Embankments Along OMU-Aran-Ilorin Road, Nigeria
• Advancements in Precursors, Materials, Deposition Techniques for Thin Film Research in Electronic Devices: A Mini Review
• “Empowering Indian Women through Entrepreneurship: A Study on Kolkata”
• Impact of Mental Mathematics Proficiency on Job Performance Among Seconadry Schools Teachers in Emohua and Port Hacourt City