Geoengineering Soil Characterization and Modeling of Highway Route along Owo – Ikare (F-215) Pavement,

Southwestern Nigeria: Towards Reconstruction/Rehabilitation

Abstract

The understanding of geological, groundwater condition, and engineering properties of the soil/rock on which
highway is constructed will definitely aid the accurate design and construction of the highway. In this study, soil
domain within highway alignment of Owo-Ikare which represents a segment of F-215 was investigated due to
incessant failures being experienced along the pavement. The study utilized integrated approach, involving
geophysical (electrical resistivity), hydrogeological (static water level and hydraulic head measurements),
geochemical analysis (SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3), and geotechnical methods (in-situ trial pit, dynamic cone penetration
and laboratory tests). Results showed that the topsoil/subsoil on which the soil is constructed is composed of
incompetent/fairly competent clay, sandy-clay, and laterite. The depth to basement rock ranged between 15.9 – 34.1
m. The basement relief is rugged, and dips towards the north east. The geochemical analysis showed the upper 1 m
to be non-lateritic with S-S ratio of 2.06, while the clay mineralogy are within the illite – montmorillonite group.
Geotechnical, the soil is SC-SM of low plasticity and compressibility, and avg. plasticity index of 19.5 %. The
calculated GI was 6 indicating fair subgrade material. The in-situ CBR (avg. 28 %) and soaked CBR (avg. 19%)
satisfied the 10 % minimum specification for subgrade. The DCPT indicated the soil to be generally of
medium/dense consistency with penetrative index of 2.4 – 66.4 mm/blow. It also showed that 536 – 944 mm depth
range is the suitable depth to host the road structure based on the CBR and SNG with relative densities of 0.320 –
0.487. The SNG, SN, and SNP contributions of the soil are good for subgrade and subbase, but low for base
material. Consequently, the expected average thickness of the highway should range from 124 mm (good zone) to
445 mm (for weak zone) (avg. 246 mm), as against 158 mm measured, this may be the reason for the incessant
failure of the highway, in conjunction with lack of drainage facility at the shoulders of the highway. The regression
models of all parameters gave strong positive correlations for most of the parameters measured

Keywords: pavement, engineering structure, resilient modulus, geoelectric section, DCPT, plasticity and
compressibility

Introduction

Highways are linear constructions that traverse a wide range of ground conditions over their length. Excavation of
soils and rocks, as well as a secure foundation for the roadway and building materials, are required for highway
construction (Bell 2007). Topography influences highway site, therefore embankments, cuts, tunnels, and bridges
can be built to transport roads and trains with appropriate grades across more challenging terrain. The land beneath
the highway, notably embankments, must have sufficient bearing capacity to prevent foundation failure and excess
settlements caused by imposed loads (Bell 2007; Bell 1993). A poor and collapsible ground may need to be
completely removed before construction can begin, depending on the amount of soil material involved. A road is
often made up of several layers, each of which serves a unique purpose. Furthermore, the kind of pavement structure
varies depending on the type and quantity of vehicles it must carry, their wheel pressures, and the length of time it
must last (Bell 2004). The wearing course is made of bituminous bonded or concrete. Although a bituminous
covering may cover a concrete foundation. A concrete slab distributes the load that the road must carry, whereas a
bituminous road spreads the load mostly through the base course. The base and subbase beneath the wearing course
are typically made of granular material, however in heavy traffic areas, the base may be coated with cement. The
subgrade is the soil underlying the subbase that bears the load of the road and vehicles. As a result, the top of the
subgrade must be reinforced by compaction or stabilization (Bell 2007; Bell 1993).

Road transport is increasingly becoming unsafe in Nigeria due to dilapidating nature of most of the
highways/expressways in Nigeria. Because most of Nigeria's highways/expressways are dilapidated, road
transportation is becoming increasingly dangerous. These highway failures are attributable to functional (due to
surface pressure or usage) and structural (due to traffic movement resulting in elemental deterioration of road
materials in reaction to climatic/environmental changes) factors. The majority of these failures are visible as
depressions, potholes, cracking, raveling, corrugation, and so on. As a result of the appalling status of the roadways,
it has hampered national socioeconomic growth. It's unusual not to notice failing sections or segments every 20
kilometers, or, even better, to discover a segment that doesn't cause any form of difficulty. Apart from degrading the
socioeconomic development of many villages, towns, and cities connected to those highways, such roads increase
commuter travel time, fuel consumption, damage to tyres (due to increased wear and tear), damage to vehicular parts
(such as suspension systems, body and chassis, shock absorber and springs), and discomfort to humans (as a result
of jerky motion and poor riding comfort). Because many hoodlums and unscrupulous persons exploited such failing
roadways to carry out their nefarious acts of abduction and robbery, the main negative impact of those failed
motorways is insecurity. However, the Nigerian government is hurriedly repairing many of the failing roads by
engaging the federal road maintenance agency of Nigeria, and as a result, the Owo - Ikare was considered for
rehabilitation/reconstruction to enhance its serviceability.

Based on the aforementioned, this study effort focuses on determining the competence (strength and mechanical
attributes) of the subsoil beneath the roadway for reconstruction/rehabilitation activities. The study's objectives
included identifying and classifying the subsoil (sequence) within the road alignment; evaluating the subsoil
geological, geochemical, and geotechnical properties in relation to soil domain competence; conducting destructive
and non-destructive in-situ tests/survey and laboratory studies to determine the index properties of the soil;
investigating any geological structure that could be inimical to the stability of the highway structure; and and
develop important geotechnical correlations and parameters modeling for the highway.

The research included both field and laboratory investigations. The field survey includes an in-situ dynamic cone
penetration test, groundwater table computation, trench and pit excavation, and an electrical resistivity study.
Geotechnical and geochemical tests were performed in the laboratory. Many studies in highway geotechnics have
proved the use of dynamic cone penetration tests, laboratory geotechnical analyses, geochemical tests, and coring
utilizing pits and trenches (Aderemi and Adeola 2021; Adetoro and Abe 2018; Akintayo and Osasona 2022; Amer et
al. 2014; Ilori 2015). However, the integration of these approaches with the development of a geoelectric section of
highway geology and the collection of well inventory along the highway for the measurement of groundwater level
and spring/artesian aquifers, which might jeopardize highway stability, is rare. The geoelectric section information
will aid in determining the depth to basement or overburden thickness and its geology; basement relief and its
structural features; highway subsoil competence and corrosivity. The information emanating from this study will
assist the contractor handling the repair/reconstruction of the highway.

Site Description and Geology

The Owo – Ikare highway is located within Ondo State north senatorial district southwestern Nigeria, connecting the
central and southern parts of the State, to northern part of Nigeria. The road is about 50 km stretch of F-209 starting
from Ikare junction in Owo axis (coordinates: 787895 mE, 797926 mN) to Ugbe-Arigidi junction in Ikare axis
(805554 mE, 832676 mN) of the highway. The highway is generally undulating since it was made to cut through
rugged geological terrain of Akoko land. The Owo - ipenme axis is relatively flat with elevation less than 370 m,
while the Akoko segment are above 400 m with respect to sea level. The highway falls within the tropical rainforest
climate characterized by rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season starts in April to October, while the dry season
commences in November and ends in February. The average annual rainfall and temperature are 1500 mm and 24
°C (Iloeje 1981). The months of June and Septembers usually experience heavy rainfall with relative humidity of
about 80 %, although could be less than 50 % during the dry season (Federal Meteorological Survey 1982).

Geologically, the highway is underlain by Precambrian southwestern Basement Complex (Figures 2 and 3), with
quartz schist, migmatites, gneiss, granite gneiss being the major rocks observed within the highway alignment, as
they occur as inselbergs and range of hills of high altitude. The gneiss is banded with parallel alternation of light and
coloured minerals. All the rocks outcrop very well and in most cases the road-cut exposed the rock units especially
at Akoko axis of the road alignment.
The migmatite gneiss is strongly foliated, composing of biotite, hornblende, quartz and feldspar. The highway fall
within the Okemesi soil type, which are weathered products of gneisses and quart schist. The soil are coarse grained,
gravelly, pale greyish brown to brown, usually sandy. In geotechnical term, the soil/rock is moderate – strong
anisotropic. Along the highway, no noticeable side drainage was observed, but the area from Owo – Oba – Akungba
– Ikare is characterized by dendritic and trellised drainage systems.

Materials and Methods

The traditional approach of pavement inquiry involves visual inspection of structural layers, as well as the extraction
and evaluation of core samples for laboratory analysis (Brink et al. 1992; FHWA 2006). Prior to beginning field
work, a desk study was undertaken, which included reviewing current literature on highway geotechnics and
associated studies, as well as maps pertinent to the highway site. This aids in determining or having a basic overview
of the current geological and ground conditions prior to conducting field investigations. This really aids in the
planning of the data acquisition phase and helps to avoid duplication of effort. Following this, a preliminary
examination was conducted by visual inspection of the highway alignment, nature of the highway site, distribution
of rocks and soils present, topography/relief, surface drainage and related features, ground cover, and any obstacles.
The examination did not stop with the highway alignment. The inspection included not just the highway alignment
but also the surrounding surroundings. For seven days, a traffic survey (classified volume counts) was undertaken,
recording all cars on the motorway every day. It was carried out by counting the number of different types of
vehicles that passed through the count point in each direction, and the average of daily traffic was used to estimate
the design thickness of highway pavement (Kadyali and Lal 2008). As shown in Figure 4, the field work included
geophysical, hydrogeological, and geotechnical (in-situ test) surveys, while the laboratory work included analysis of
twenty soil samples for engineering/index properties and geochemical analysis for mineral oxides including SiO 2,
Fe2O3, and Al2O3 using the X-Ray diffraction technique. In-situ dynamic cone penetration testing (DCPT) and
electrical resistivity (ER) employing vertical electrical sounding have been employed to provide information on
highway structures that are non/semi-destructive, time and cost effective. DCPT is a simple yet mechanical
instrument used to measure the strength of subgrade, subbase, and base structural layers in real time (Attewell and
Farmer 1988; Brown 1996; Chen 2000).
It measures the penetration of a standard cone propelled by a standard force, while also recording the penetrative
index, number of strikes, and penetration Pige-green and Zyl 2019; Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRL)
1990; De Beer and van der Merwe 1991). For this investigation, ten DCPT (Figure 5) were performed along the
highway at an offset of 1 to 3 m from the highway's edge on both lanes (left hand side (LHS) and right hand side
(RHS). Geology, topography, failure, and security or safety all played role in the location of the test. The
conventional steel cone with an angle of 60° and a diameter of 20 mm was employed in this investigation (Done and
Samuel 2006). The conventional 8 kg hammer, which glides along a 16 mm diameter steel rod with a fall height of
575 mm and impacts the anvil to produce penetration, was also used. The data gathered was analyzed and
interpreted using the UK DCP 3.1 program (Done and Samuel 2006). The data acquired at each location was
adjusted for moisture content before being used to calculate the CBR using the Transport and Road Research
Laboratory (TRL) relationship (TRL 1990), as shown in Table 1. From Test No. 1 to Test No. 10, each test site was
serially numbered. The UK DCP 3.1 determined the strength coefficient of the test sites by converting the
penetration rate to CBR value, then to strength coefficient, and lastly to structural number. As indicated in equation
1, the TRL equation was utilized to calculate CBR. The subsoil strength coefficient for use as the base and subbase
layers is derived using equations 2 (for base) and 3 (for subbase).

(CBR) (pen rate)

log 10 =2.48−1.057 log 10 (1)

a=0.0001 ¿ (2)

a=0.184 log 10 −0.0444 ( log 10CBR )−0.075

2
(CBR ) ( )
(3)

The SNG which is referred to as subgrade structural number i.e. the contribution of the subsoil has subgrade
material to structural number of a pavement. It is usually derived from CBR just like the base and the subbase
layers. The relationship between SNG and CBR is presented shown in equation 4.

Table 1. CBR Adjustment Factor (Done and Samuel 2006)

Surface moisture Ratio of in-situ moisture to OMC Default CBR Adjustment
(modified AASHTO) Factor
Wet 1 1
Moderate 0.75 0.71
 Dry 0.5 0.51
Very dry 0.25 0.37
Unknown (not - 0.5
assessed or difficult
to assess

SNG=3.51 log(CBR
10
)
−0.85 log (10CBR ) −1.43 (4)

The relative densities of the each subsoil layering was derived using DIN 4094 model DIN 4094 Part 2 1980)
(equation 5, where n10 is the number of blows for every 10 cm). The resilient modulus (using Lockwood et al. 1992;
George and Uddin 2000; Jianzhou et al. 1999) models, as shown in equations 6 – 8 respectively) and Young
modulus were obtained from each site along the highway alignment using equation 9.

I D =0.21+0.230 log n10 (5)

3.04758−1.06166 log¿
M R =10 (6)
−0.475
M R =235.3 × DCPI (7)
−0.39
M R =338 × DCPI (8)

M R −12.69
E R= (9)
1.065
From the results of models, important correlations and parameters modeling were obtained between M R and E R,
M R and CBR, DCPI and relative density, and CBR and relative density Aneke et al. 2018; Aneke et al. 2019;
Gudishala 2004; Herath et al. 2005).
Geophysical investigations aid in the detection of anomalous zones by measuring variations in subsurface
conditions. They measure specific physical parameters to identify the geological succession and structure of
underlying rocks/soils (Kearey et al. 2002; Williams 1997). Density, elasticity, electrical conductivity, magnetic
susceptibility, and gravitational attraction are the most widely utilized properties in geophysical investigation
(Williams 1997). Electrical resistivity (vertical electrical sounding) was used in this investigation at 10 points along
the route. An electric current is delivered into the ground via two current electrodes in this approach, and the
potential difference between two potential electrodes is measured. The resist-meter utilized in this investigation was
capable of directly measuring apparent resistance in ohms rather than detecting both current and voltage. The
Schlumberger array was employed at 65 m half current spacing. The collected data (in terms of resistivity and
thickness) was presented as an apparent resistivity graph versus half the current electrode separation. As a result, the
electrode spacing at which inflection points appear in the graph indicates the depth/thickness of the layers'
interphases and their resistivity. For data analysis requiring curve fitting and modeling, the WinResist program was
employed. The modeling results were utilized to create the geoelectric segment of the route (Zhdanov and Keller
1985). Five trial pits were sunk along the route to evaluate the ground conditions, as this allows for direct
assessment of weathered rocks. The holes were dug with a digger, which was repeatedly dropped into the ground
(Figure 6). The trial pit depths are in the top 1.0 m, and no groundwater table was discovered. In addition, twenty
soil samples were collected at various points along the study roadway, as indicated in Figure 4.
They were subjected to geotechnical and geochemical tests. The geotechnical tests were conducted using ASTM
methods/procedures, and these included California Bearing Ratio (D-1883), compaction test (D-1557), particle size
analysis (D-422), Atterberg limits (D-4318), moisture content (D-2216) and specific gravity (D-854; D-5550). The
geochemical test was only analyzed for mineral oxides of SiO 2, Fe2O3, and Al2O3 using X-ray diffraction technique.
Subsequently, the silica/sesquioxides (se) ratio was calculated to know the type of the soil and classified if laterite
(se < 1.33), lateritic (1.33<se>2.0) and non-laterite (se>2.0) (Charman 1988; Daramola et al. 2015). The
hydrogeological measurement involved taking well inventory along the highway and measure the static water level,
depth of well, thickness of water column, and hydraulic head.
Results and Discussion

Electrical resistivity geophysical survey

The summary of the VES is presented in Table 2, while the geoelectric along the highway is shown in Fig. 7. The
curve types obtained from the highway alignment varied from three layer curves (H, and A) and four layer curves
(HA, and HK). The H curve type is the most preponderant (40 %) followed by HA (30 %), A (20 %) and HK (10
%). Geologically, it is made of topsoil, subsoil, weathered layer, fresh basement rock. The H curve is composed of
relatively high resistivity topsoil, underlain by very low subsoil/weathered layer, and bedrock. The topsoil has
resistivity ranging from 121 – 588 ohm-m and thickness varying from 0.3 (VES 10) – 3.9 m (VES 4) and composed
of sandy clay and clay sand (using interpretation Table 3). The resistivity range of 100 to 350 ohm-m is the
predominant. The subsoil delineated under VES 1, 3, 8, and 10 is characterized with resistivity ranging from 85 –
125 ohm-m composing clay and sandy clay. The thickness and depth to this layer ranged from 1.5 to 6.3 m and 2.9
to 6.6 m respectively. The weathered layer has resistivity ranging between 33 ohm-m and 2183 ohm-m, while
resistivity range of 100 – 350 ohm-m is the most occurring, indicating clayey weathered layer; the thickness ranged
from 10.4 m (VES 8) and 33.6 m (VES 2). The depths to basement rock varied from 15.9 – 34.1 m, indicating
moderate/thick weathering profile. Consequently, the topsoil, and subsoil are generally composed of clay/sandy clay
soil material, which can be regarded as incompetent/fairly competent soil material to support the pavement structure.
It is observed that the basement relief dips towards the NE which is Owo axis segment of the highway.

Table 2. Summary of VES results

East North Elevation VES Resistivity (Ohmns-meter) Thickness (m) Depth (m) Curve
(m) Type
NO.
ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 ρ4 ρ 5 h1 h2 h3 h4 d1 d2 d3 d4
79946 18 146 0. 0.
27.4
788462 5 312 1 0 35 258 0 7 1.6 25.1 7 2.3 HA
80489 36 0. 0.
790568 2 284 2 0 98 918 5 33.6 5 34.1 H
80545 31 110 1. 1.
15.0
791054 9 289 3 6 125 2133 5 4 1.5 12.1 4 2.9 HK
81655 16 3. 3.
18.1
801098 7 301 4 8 33 4868 9 14.2 9 H
82028 18 1. 1.
16.9
800855 3 309 5 8 340 2389 6 15.3 6 A
82490 58 1. 1.
801503 1 359 6 8 62 1768 0 23.5 0 24.5 H
82733 12 1. 1.
14.5
801503 0 357 7 1 178 1679 8 12.7 8 A
82830 26 240 1. 1.
5.5 15.9
803448 2 395 8 3 75 203 6 2 4.3 10.4 2 HA
83121 16 0. 0.
16.1
803205 8 402 9 8 33 8359 9 15.2 9 H
83219 12 146 0. 0.
6.6 29.2
802718 0 399 10 3 95 489 6 3 6.3 22.6 3 HA

Table 3. Rating of subsoil competence using Resistivity values

App. resistivity range (ohm-m) Lithology Competence rating
< 100 Clay Incompetent
100 – 350 Sandy clay Moderately competent
350 – 750 Clayey sand Competent
> 750 Sand/Laterite/Crystalline Rock Highly competent

Trial Pits/Trenches Section

Trial pits can be used for all soil types. It is the cheapest way of site exploration, and do not require any specialized
equipment. In this method a pit is manually excavated and soil is inspected in the natural condition. Four geologic
units were observed from the three sites investigated (Figure 8) comprising loose clay-sand mixture, clayey sand
hardpan, sandy clay, and laterite. The geologic sequence for site and 2 are the same with clay sand hardpan
underlying loose clay-sand mixture. However towards Oba and Akungba Akoko, a sandy clay material becomes the
topmost layer and thicker towards Ikare (0.75 m). Laterite was only observed under trial pit 03 in Akungba at depth
of 0.90 m. Consequently this result compliment the ER which delineated clay/sandy clay topsoil and subsoil along
the highway alignment. Hence the topmost soil (upper 1.0 m) within the roadway structure could had facilitated the
failure observed at many segments of the highway, especially at Owo – Oba axis of the highway alignment.
Geochemical Analysis

The stability and serviceability performance depends on the mineralogical make-up of the soil. The result of
chemical analysis (oxides) of the major elements (SiO 2, Fe2O3, and Al2O3) contained in the soil samples, and silica-
sesquioxide (S-S) ratio is presented in Table 4. The samples are well dominated (in ascending order) by SiO 2 - Al2O3
- Fe2O3, ranging from 60.1 – 65.8 % (avg. 62.4 %), 14.2 – 16.7 % (avg. 15.26 %), and 14.3 – 15.8 % (avg. 15.04 %)
respectively. S-S ratio of the samples ranged from 1.96 to 2.22 (avg. of 2.06). Accordingly, soils with S-S ratio
greater than 2.0 as categorized as non-lateritic soil type.

Geotechnical Analysis
Table 5 presents the summary of the geotechnical results. The natural moisture content varied from 8.5 to 20.9 %
(avg. 13.99 %), this range is within the 5 – 15 % acceptable range favourable for civil engineering uses. Grain size
analysis can be used to characterize the subsoil material for engineering foundation, which can serve as a guide to
the engineering performance of the soil type and also provides a means by which soils can be identified quickly. The
gravel and sand contents vary from 0 – 1.2 % (avg. 0.8 %) and 48.5 – 54.5 % (avg. 51.22 %) respectively. The % silt
and clay contents ranged from 17.9 to 28.8 % (avg. 23.4 %) and 20.3 to 28.5 % (avg. 24.6 %). The %fines ranged
from 44.3 to 50.8 (avg. 47.98). The composition of the soil is dominated (in order of magnitude) by sand, clay, and
silt (SC-SM). The amount of %fines recorded is more than 35 % specification of federal ministry of Works and
Housing (FMWH 1997). The plasticity chart (Fig. 7) shows that the fines in the samples is dominated by clay of low
plasticity/compressibility. All the soil samples plotted above the A-line. In terms of clay mineralogy, the soil
samples are plotted within the range of llite and montmorillonite clay mineralogy group. Montmorillonite is made up
of two silica sheets and one gibbsite sheet and bonded by Vander wall forces between the tops of silica sheets is
weak and there’s negative charge deficiency, water and exchangeable ions can enter and separate the layers. Hence
montmorillonite has a very strong attraction for water and swells on absorption of water. Illite has a similar structure
similar to montmorillonite, however in illite the interlayers are bonded together with a potassium ion linkage,
making it to have relatively less attraction for water. The activity ranged from 0.64 to 1.02 (avg. 0.80) signifying
normal clay type.

The specific gravity (SG) is closely related with soil’s mineralogy and/or chemical contents; the higher SG, the
higher the degree of laterization (Ademeso and Ogunjobi 2021). In addition, the larger the clay fraction and alumina
contents, the lower is the SG. The values of specific gravity of the samples ranged between 2.669 – 2.725 (avg.
2.706). The standard range of value of specific gravity of soils lies between 2.60 and 2.80 (Daramola et al. 2015;
Ademeso and Ogunjobi 2021); these values are considered normal. Specific gravity is known to correlate with
mechanical strength of soil and may be used as a basis for selecting suitable highway pavement construction
materials particularly when used with other pavement construction materials [38]. The liquid limit (LL) values
ranged between 30.6 to 43.6 % (avg. 38.2 %), plastic limits (PL) ranged between 10.7 to 24.6 % (avg. 18.7 %) and
plasticity index (PI) is between to 17.5 to 21.5 % (avg. 19.5 %). The Federal Ministry of Works and Housing
recommends LL of 50% (max.), PI of 20% as (max.), plastic limit of 30 % (max.) and % Fines of 35 maximum for
highway subgrade soil. Soil with high LL, PL, and PI are usually characterized with low bearing pressure. Hence the
soils satisfied this requirements as subgrade material. The linear shrinkage ranged between 7.6 to 12.6 % (avg. 9.6
%), signifying a poor swelling potential, as SL greater than 8.0 tends to be active, of critical swelling potential.

Compaction is concerned with relationships between moisture content, applied effort and density. Compaction is
undertaken on the road to enhance the mass density and hence the strength, rigidity and durability of placed
materials. In the laboratory compaction testing is undertaken to predict moisture density responses of a material to
applied effort and to provide a reference with which to control on-site compaction during construction (Holtz and
Kovacs 1981). The maximum dry density (MDD) for the soil samples varied between 1806 and 2150 kg/m 3 (1947
kg/m3) at standard proctor compaction energy while the optimum moisture content (OMC) ranged between 14.8 and
24.1 % (18.5 %). An important part of the grading of the site often includes the compaction of fill. All the soil
samples have moderately high MDD at moderate OMC.
 Table 4. Result of the Chemical analysis of three major mineral oxide
Mineral S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20
oxide
SiO2 62.4 60.8 63.5 60.3 63.3 61.4 63.2 60.7 62.3 62.4 61.8 60.9 64.2 65.8 62.4 62.7 60.1 62.9 62.7 63.9
Al2O3 14.2 15.8 15.5 15.3 14.6 15.2 14.3 14.2 15.4 14.6 14.8 15.5 15.9 14.9 15.3 15.2 15.9 16.7 16.6 15.3
Fe2O3 14.4 14.8 15.5 14.3 15.5 15.8 15.2 14.8 15.6 15.3 14.9 15.2 15.2 14.8 14.9 15.1 14.8 14.6 15 15.1
Sesquioxide
ratio 2.18 1.99 2.05 2.04 2.10 1.98 2.14 2.09 2.01 2.09 2.08 1.98 2.06 2.22 2.07 2.07 1.96 2.01 1.98 2.10
Soil Type Non Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Non-
Lateritic Lateritic laterite Lateritic Lateritic Lateritic laterite laterite laterite laterite laterite Lateritic laterite laterite laterite laterite Lateritic laterite Lateritic laterite

Table 5. Summary of the geotechnical Properties of the Investigated Soil

Parameters S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20
East 787995 788948 790325 790730 801179 801098 800693 800936 800612 801098 800936 800693 801503 802151 801827 802394 803123 803772 803367 805554
North 797926 801976 804325 804973 814937 815423 816233 819149 819554 819797 821255 821660 824171 825710 827735 828059 828221 829760 831704 832676
NMC 12.6 8.5 15.4 10.2 8.9 14.5 17.3 19.5 13.3 18.2 16.4 10.1 10.5 12.6 12.8 10.4 16.2 20.9 16.3 15.1
%Gravel 1.2 1.2 1 1.2 1 1 1 1 1.2 1 1.2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
%Sand 52.3 54.5 50.8 53.2 51.7 50.3 49.9 48.5 52.4 48.6 52.9 51.2 50.8 49.2 52.4 51.3 53.5 49.2 51.1 50.6
%Silt 21.3 20.7 22.7 22.7 20.2 23.3 28.8 25.9 17.9 24 23 24.1 22.1 24.5 21.8 25.1 24.4 24 22.4 28
%Clay 25.2 23.6 25.5 22.9 27.1 25.4 20.3 24.6 28.5 26.4 22.9 24.7 26.1 25.3 25.8 23.6 22.1 26.8 25.5 20.4
%Fines 46.5 44.3 48.2 45.6 47.3 48.7 49.1 50.5 46.4 50.4 45.9 48.8 48.2 49.8 47.6 48.7 46.5 50.8 47.9 48.4
SG 2.708 2.722 2.697 2.723 2.699 2.715 2.72 2.72 2.725 2.705 2.699 2.699 2.706 2.7 2.698 2.685 2.669 2.721 2.708 2.697
LL (%) 43.6 38.5 38.8 40.2 42.7 38.3 31.4 30.6 37.4 38.2 38.2 39.5 42.1 38.9 30.6 35.5 39.3 38.4 39.8 41.8
PL (%) 24.1 18.7 18.4 21.6 23 17 10.7 12 19.2 18.7 18.3 20.8 24.6 17.4 12.4 16.7 20.2 17.9 20 22.6
PI (%) 19.5 19.8 20.4 18.6 19.7 21.3 20.7 18.6 18.2 19.5 19.9 18.7 17.5 21.5 18.2 18.8 19.1 20.5 19.8 19.2
SL 8.2 8.5 9.2 8.8 10.4 7.6 10.1 9.9 8.3 11.5 8.5 9.3 9.5 8.2 10.1 12.6 10.8 12.4 8.7 8.5
CBR soaked 9 5 10 18 17 28 9 12 30 5 9 8 8 41 22 15 39 42 28 33
In-situ CBR 6 16 25 22 41 50 15 32 35 41
MDD 1987 2050 2009 1997 1956 1985 1895 1806 1992 1844 2150 1983 1978 1888 1867 1856 1926 1924 1902 1948
OMC 16.5 17.5 18.2 14.8 18.6 20.2 20.8 19.4 18.5 18.5 20.3 15.8 18.4 17.9 15.6 15.5 18.9 24.1 21.6 19.4
AASHTO
5 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 7 5 5 5 6 6
GI 7
GI Class Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair
Rec.
Thickness
(mm) 318 445 279 203 208 165 318 229 152 445 318 348 348 127 175 226 130 124 229 128
USCS SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC- SC-
SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM SM
Subgrade Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair
Rating
Activity 0.77 0.84 0.80 0.81 0.73 0.84 1.02 0.76 0.64 0.74 0.87 0.76 0.67 0.85 0.71 0.80 0.86 0.76 0.78 0.94
Clay
Type Normal Normal Normal Normal Inactive Normal Normal Normal Inactive Inactive Normal Normal Inactive Normal Inactive Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Clay I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M M M M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M I-M
mineralogy
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is an empirical test employed in road engineering as an index of compacted
material strength and rigidity, corresponding to a defined level of compaction (Aneke et al. 2019). All compacted
samples show unsoaked CBR values ranging between 5 and 42 % (avg. 19 %), with corresponding in-situ values
obtained from DCPT ranging from 6 to 50 (avg. 28). The Federal Ministry of Works and Housing recommends a
California Bearing Ratio of greater than 10% for subgrade materials. Therefore using Table, the soils are rated as
high (based on average value) as pavement subgrade material. The GI values obtained ranged from 5 to 7 (avg. 6)
corresponding to fair subgrade soil. The result shows that the California Bearing Ratio values of the soils both in-
situ and laboratory satisfied the 10% minimum specification. Using Table 6, the soil can be regarded as subgrade
soil with medium strength classification. Based on the GI and CBR values, and the traffic count carried out which
placed the highway as Class-E, the recommended thickness of the basement should range from 124 mm (good
segment) to 445 mm (for weak segment) (avg. 246 mm) as shown in Fig. 8, which is far higher than 228 mm
measured along the highway alignment during reconnaissance survey (Figure 11).

Table 6. Subgrade strength classification for the studied highway (adapted from Done and Samuel 2006)

Soaked CBR Strength classification Comments

< 1% Extremely weak Geotextile reinforcement and separation layer with a working
platform typically required
1%-2% Very weak Geotextile reinforcement and/or separation layer and/or a
working platform typically required
2%-3% Weak Geotextile separation layer and/or a working platform typically
required
3 % - 10 % Medium
10 % - 30 % Strong Good subgrades to sub-base quality material
>30% Extremely strong Sub-base to base quality material

DCPT Analysis

The result summary of the DCPT is presented in Table 7, while subsoil layering in relation to its depth and in-situ
CBR is shown Figures 12 and 13. In Table 7, the level of penetration ranged from 941 (Test 1) – 966 (Test 2) mm,
with cumulative number of blows ranging from 41 (Test 1) to 93 (Test 9). The penetrative index or rate ranged
between 2.4 mm/blow (Test 6) – 66.4 mm/blow (Test 1). All the sites are characterized moderate - high cumulative
number of blows in the upper 1 m investigated, signifying a medium/dense soil material (Table 8). Along the road
alignment, one layer (Test 7), to two layers (Tests 1 and 4), and three layers (Tests 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10) were
defined. The obtained CBR ranged from 6 – 50 %. The most competent layers in terms of the obtained CBR are
generally between 536 mm to 944 mm. Table 8 showed that the soil are generally of medium consistency (with
relative density of 0.320 – 0.487). The estimated relative densities (RD) gives consistencies of the soil either very
dense, dense, medium, loose or very loose, however showed layering not totally consistent with those observed from
DCPI (Ilori 2015). The SNG contribution of the soil as subgrade material ranged from -0.02 at depth of 291 mm
(Test 2) to 1.65 at depth of 784 mm (Test 6). This range of values is fairly above 0.5 SNG strength coefficient for
subgrade pavement layer. Sites 1 and 2 are characterized with very poor subgrade material as shown in their SNG
notably at depths 319 mm and 291 mm respectively (Table 9). Consequently, relating the CBR and SNG, the depths
of 921 and 944 mm will be appropriate for sites 1 and 2 respectively, 930 mm (site 3) , 890 mm (site 4), 902 mm
(site 5), 839 mm (site 6), 877 (site 7), 892 mm (site 8), 893 mm (site 9) and 920 (site 10).

The strength coefficient of the soil as subbase and base is less than 0.5 and ranged from 0.04 – 0.11, and 0.02 – 0.10,
with SN/SNC and SNP ranging from 2.14 to 3.42 and 1.6 to 3.42; and 1.08 to 2.32 and 1.08 to 2.32 respectively.
From the values, the strength coefficient is generally low for subbase and base material. The Young modulus (E R)
and resilient modulus (MR) was estimated from Lockwood et al. 1992, Jianzhou et al. 1999, and George and Uddin
2000; and the ER varied between 18.55 – 401.68 (avg. 122.339), 74.62 – 213.66 (avg. 128.366), and 33.47 – 133.86
(avg. 70.615); the MR ranged from 32.45 to 440.48 (avg. 142.982), 92.16 to 240.48 (avg. 149.397), and 48.33 to
155.25 (avg. 87.893) respectively. The Lockwood et al. (1992) and George and Uddin (2000) showed closely
overlapping values, while Jianzhou et al. (1999) showed a wide variation (Table 10).
Table 7. Summary of the DCPT showing the penetrative rate, depth of penetration, and number of blows for all the ten locations along the highway
Poin Blow Penetration Cum. Depth Penetration Blow Penetration Cum. Depth Penetration Blow Penetration Cum. Dept Penetration
t (mm) blows (mm) rate (mm) blows (mm) rate (mm) blows h rate
(mm/blow) (mm/blow) (mm) (mm/blow)
Test 1: 788138mE; 798007mN; CH 0 + 0.005 km RHS Test 2: 790487mE; 805054mN; CH 0 + 8.05 km LHS Test 3: 801098mE; 815423mN; CH 0 + 22.10 km RHS
1 0 30 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0
2 3 75 3 55 18.33 3 82 3 60 20.0 3 71 3 51 17.0
3 3 114 6 94 13.0 3 123 6 101 13.67 3 106 6 86 11.67
4 5 153 11 133 7.80 5 168 11 146 9.0 5 148 11 128 8.40
5 5 199 16 179 9.20 5 209 16 187 8.20 5 182 16 162 6.80
6 5 241 21 221 8.40 5 252 21 230 8.60 5 222 21 202 8.0
7 5 339 26 319 19.60 5 313 26 291 12.20 5 308 26 288 17.20
8 5 454 31 434 23.0 5 466 31 444 30.60 5 424 31 404 23.20
9 5 786 36 766 66.40 5 724 36 702 51.60 5 683 36 663 51.80
10 5 941 41 921 31.0 5 883 41 861 31.80 5 794 41 774 22.20
11 - - - - - 5 966 46 944 16.60 5 882 46 862 17.60
12 - - - - - - - - - - 5 905 51 885 4.60
13 - - - - - - - - - - 5 950 56 930 9.0
Test 4: 800855mE; 815828mN; CH 0 + 25.20 km LHS Test 5: 800774mE; 819635mN; CH 0 + 31.20 km LHS Test 6: 802556mE; 825872mN; CH 0 + 41.80 km RHS
1 0 65 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0
2 3 172 3 107 35.67 3 183 3 120 40.0 3 189 3 123 41.0
3 3 234 6 169 20.67 3 240 6 177 19.0 3 219 6 153 10.0
4 5 274 9 209 13.33 5 291 9 228 17.0 5 305 9 239 28.67
5 5 318 12 253 14.67 5 336 12 273 15.0 5 349 12 283 14.67
6 5 402 17 337 16.80 5 429 17 366 18.60 5 395 17 329 9.20
7 5 526 22 461 24.80 5 551 22 488 24.40 5 442 22 376 9.40
8 5 615 27 550 17.80 5 638 27 575 17.40 5 485 27 419 8.60
9 5 654 32 589 7.80 5 690 32 627 10.40 5 511 32 445 5.20
10 5 706 37 641 10.40 5 742 37 679 10.40 5 555 37 489 8.80
11 5 771 42 706 13.0 5 801 42 738 11.80 5 590 42 524 7.0
12 5 867 47 802 19.20 5 899 47 836 19.60 5 622 47 556 6.40
13 5 919 52 854 10.40 5 932 52 869 6.60 5 695 52 629 14.60
14 3 955 55 890 12.0 3 965 57 902 6.60 3 742 57 676 9.40
15 - - - - - - - - - - 5 775 62 709 6.60
16 - - - - - - - - - - 5 850 67 784 15.0
17 - - - - - - - - - - 5 893 72 827 8.60
18 - - - - - - - - - - 5 905 77 839 2.40
Test 7: 802394mE; 827897mN; CH 0 + 42.50 km LHS Test 8: 803286mE; 828302mN; CH 0 + 43.70 km LHS Test 9: 803529mE; 831461mN; CH 0 + 46.80 km RHS
1 0 66 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0
2 3 168 3 102 34.0 3 124 3 84 28.0 3 121 3 81 27.0
3 3 248 6 182 26.67 3 162 6 122 12.67 3 159 6 119 12.67
4 5 291 9 225 14.33 3 186 9 146 8.0 3 172 9 132 4.33
5 5 333 12 267 14.0 3 204 12 164 6.0 3 199 12 159 9.0
6 5 395 17 329 12.40 5 231 17 191 5.40 5 222 17 182 4.60
7 5 460 22 394 13.0 5 257 22 217 5.20 5 248 22 208 5.20
8 5 503 27 437 8.60 5 285 27 245 5.60 5 272 27 232 4.80
9 5 621 32 555 23.60 5 339 32 299 10.80 5 316 32 276 8.80
10 5 736 37 670 23.0 5 409 37 369 14.0 5 385 37 345 13.80
11 5 799 42 733 12.60 5 495 42 455 17.20 5 466 42 426 16.20
12 5 859 47 793 12.0 5 576 47 536 16.20 5 550 47 510 16.80
13 5 943 50 877 28.0 5 614 52 574 7.60 5 583 52 543 6.60
14 - - - - - 5 652 57 612 7.60 5 624 57 584 8.20
15 - - - - - 5 712 62 672 12.0 5 693 62 653 13.80
16 - - - - - 5 758 67 718 9.20 5 737 67 697 8.80
17 - - - - - 5 795 72 755 7.40 0 778 72 738 8.20
18 - - - - - 5 830 77 790 7.0 3 801 77 761 4.60
19 - - - - - 5 871 82 831 8.20 3 848 82 808 9.40
20 - - - - - 5 912 87 872 8.20 3 895 87 855 9.40
21 - - - - - 3 932 90 892 6.67 3 916 90 876 7.0
22 - - - - - 3 933 93 893 5.67
Test 10: 805392mE; 832838mN; CH 0 + 47.20 km RHS
1 0 42 0 0 0
2 3 135 3 93 31.0
3 3 177 6 135 14.0
4 3 203 9 161 8.67
5 3 221 12 179 6.0
6 5 252 17 210 6.20
7 5 270 22 228 3.60
8 5 301 27 259 6.20
9 5 355 32 313 10.80
10 5 436 37 394 16.20
11 5 522 42 480 17.20
12 5 608 47 566 17.20
13 5 669 52 627 12.20
14 5 706 57 664 7.40
15 5 776 62 734 14.0
16 5 822 67 780 9.20
17 5 867 72 825 9.0
18 5 905 77 863 7.60
19 5 923 82 881 3.60
20 5 946 87 904 4.60
21 3 962 90 920 5.33
Table 8. DCPT results showing relative densities per every 10 cm, their penetrative rate, and the consistencies of the
soil
Test 1
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Relative Density 0.429 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 13.0 8.40 - - - - - - 31.0
Test 2
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 8 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Relative Density 0.418 0.440 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 13.67 8.6 12.2 - - - 51.60 - -
Test 3
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 13 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10
Relative Density 0.466 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.440
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) - 8.0 - 23.20 - - - - 6.0
Test 4
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 3 8 5 5 5 10 5 5 10
Relative Density 0.320 0.418 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.440 0.371 0.371 0.440
Soil Consistency Loose Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 35.67 13.33 - - - 13.0 19.20 - 12.0
Test 5
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 3 8 5 5 5 10 5 10 8
Relative Density 0.320 0.418 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.440 0.371 0.440 0.418
Soil Consistency Loose Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 40.0 17.0 - - - - - - 6.6
Test 6
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 3 3 15 10 15 10 10 10 10
Relative Density 0.320 0.320 0.481 0.440 0.481 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.440
Soil Consistency Loose Loose Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 41.0 - 14.67 8.6 8.8 - 6.6 - -
Test 7
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 6 5 10 5 5 5 10 5 10
Relative Density 0.389 0.371 0.440 0.371 0.371 0.371 0.440 0.371 0.440
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 34.0 - - 13.0 - - - 12.0 -
Test 8
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 9 18 5 10 5 10 15 10 10
Relative Density 0.429 0.499 0.371 0.440 0.371 0.440 0.481 0.440 0.440
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) 12.67 5.4 10.8 - - - - 7.0 6.67
Test 9
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 12 15 10 5 10 10 10 15 15
Relative Density 0.458 0.481 0.440 0.371 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.481 0.481
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) - 5.2 - - 16.8 - 8.80 9.40 -
Test 10
Depth (cm) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blows per 10cm 6 16 10 5 5 10 10 10 21
Relative Density 0.389 0.487 0.440 0.371 0.371 0.440 0.440 0.440 0.514
Soil Consistency Medium Mediu Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Stiff
m
Penetration rate (mm/blow) - 6.2 - 16.2 - - - 3.60 4.60
 Table 9. Summary of the CBR results in relation to strength coefficient of the soils as subgrade, subbase, and base material
Test Test CBR Thickness Depth Subgrade Position Strength Pavement Strength/Layer Position Strength Pavement Strength/Layer
No. layer (%) (mm) (mm) coefficient contribution coefficient contribution
No. SNG SN SNC SNP SN SNC SNP
1 1 21 319 319 0.96 Sub-Base 0.09 2.14 2.14 1.60 Base 0.05 1.08 1.08 1.08
2 6 602 921 -0.02 Sub-Base 0.04 Base 0.02

2 1 24 291 291 1.07 Sub-Base 0.09 2..35 2.35 1.66 Base 0.06 1.20 1.20 1.20
2 6 570 861 -0.02 Sub-Base 0.04 Base 0.02
3 16 83 944 0.75 Sub-Base 0.08 Base 0.04

3 1 28 202 202 1.19 Sub-Base 0.10 2.69 2.69 1.78 Base 0.07 1.45 1.45 1.45
2 9 572 774 0.30 Sub-Base 0.06 Base 0.02
3 25 156 930 1.10 Sub-Base 0.10 Base 0.06

4 1 12 550 550 0.52 Sub-Base 0.07 2.81 2.81 1.80 Base 0.03 1.45 1.45 1.45
2 22 340 890 1.00 Sub-Base 0.09 Base 0.05

5 1 12 575 575 0.52 Sub-Base 0.07 2.81 2.81 1.77 Base 0.03 1.48 1.48 1.48
2 20 261 836 0.92 Sub-Base 0.09 Base 0.05
3 41 66 902 1.49 Sub-Base 0.11 0.09

6 1 11 283 283 0.45 Sub-Base 0.07 2.95 2.95 1.90 Base 0.03 1.91 1.91 1.91
2 29 501 784 1.22 Sub-Base 0.10 Base 0.07
3 50 55 839 1.65 Sub-Base 0.11 Base 0.10

7 1 15 877 877 0.70 Sub-Base 0.08 2.73 2.73 1.83 Base 0.04 1.33 1.33 1.33

8 1 29 245 245 1.22 Sub-Base 0.10 3.36 3.36 2.21 Base 0.07 2.25 2.25 2.25
2 18 291 536 0.84 Sub-Base 0.09 Base 0.05
3 32 356 892 1.29 Sub-Base 0.10 0.08

9 1 31 276 276 1.27 Sub-Base 0.10 3.41 3.41 2.26 Base 0.07 2.32 2.32 2.32
2 24 377 653 1.07 Sub-Base 0.09 Base 0.05
3 35 240 893 1.36 Sub-Base 0.10 Base 0.08

10 1 27 313 313 1.16 Sub-Base 0.10 3.42 3.42 3.42 Base 0.07 2.24 2.24 2.24
2 19 421 734 0.88 Sub-Base 0.09 Base 0.05
3 41 186 920 1.49 Sub-Base 0.11 0.09
 Table 10. Summary of the Modulus of Elasticity and Resilient Modulus at every Chainage where samples were taken
Test No. Chainage along In situ CBR Subgrade SNG Young Young Young Resilient modulus Resilient Resilient
Highway modulus using modulus using modulus using ER using modulus ER using modulus ER using
Lockwood et Jianzhou et al. George and Lockwood et al. Jianzhou et al. George and
al. (1992) MR (1999) MR Uddin (2000) (1992) (1999) Uddin (2000)
values values MR values
Test No. 1 CH 0 + 0.005 km RHS 21 0.96 32.58 87.53 41.84 47.39 105.91 57.25
Test No. 2 CH 0 + 8.05 km LHS 16 0.75 41.16 94.19 46.26 56.52 113.00 61.95
Test No. 3 CH 0 + 22.10 km RHS 25 1.10 89.74 122.80 65.89 108.27 143.47 82.86
Test No. 4 CH 0 + 25.20 km LHS 22 1.00 62.99 108.50 55.95 79.77 128.24 72.28
Test No. 5 CH 0 + 31.20 km LHS 41 1.49 129.39 140.12 78.24 150.49 161.92 96.01
Test No. 6 CH 0 + 41.80 km RHS 50 1.65 401.68 213.66 133.86 440.48 240.23 155.25
Test No. 7 CH 0 + 42.50 km LHS 15 0.70 18.55 74.62 33.47 32.45 92.16 48.33
Test No. 8 CH 0 + 43.70 km LHS 32 1.29 127.81 139.50 77.79 148.81 161.25 95.53
Test No. 9 CH 0 + 46.80 km RHS 35 1.36 154.11 149.40 84.98 176.82 171.80 103.20
Test No. 10 CH. 0 + 42.0 km RHS 41 1.49 165.38 153.34 87.87 188.82 175.99 106.27
Parameters modeling and correlations

The obtained soaked CBR from the laboratory was correlated with in-situ CBR obtained from processing of DCPT
data, the plot gives strong positive correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.731 (Figure 14a), and linear regression model
(equation 10):

CBR (in-situ) = 1.0014x + 1.0611 (10)

In this relationship, x = CBR (soaked)

The relative density values obtained from “DIN 4094” equation was plotted against in-situ CBR and DCPI. This
gives a regression model of equation 11 and 12, with weakly positive correlations (R 2) of 0.3173 (Figure 14b) and
0.5768 (Figure 14c) respectively.

CBR (in-situ) = 8.4746e0.397x (11)

DCPI = -60.28ln(x) – 39.194 (12)

In these relationships, x = relative density

The relationship between ER derived from “DIN 4094” and average MR calculated from expressions proposed by
Lockwood et al. (1992), Jianzhou et al. (1999), and George and Uddin (2000) is shown by the regression model in
equation 13, with R2 of 0.9612 (Figure 14d).

MR = 116.34 ln (x) – 402.42 (13)

Where x is modulus of elasticity.

The correlation between in-situ CBR and average M R derived from the expressions of Lockwood et al. (1992,
Jianzhou et al. (1999), and George and Uddin (2000), to give equation 14, with correlation coefficient of 0.833
(Figure 14e); while the plots of the in-situ CBR against each of this authors give R 2 of 0.7795, 0.8927, and 0.885
(Figure 14f). All the models follow the same trend. The variation in the coefficients is marginally as all showed
strong positive correlations. The model expressions for these relationships are presented in equations 15 – 17.
MR = 4.909x - 19.53 (14)
MR = 8.8186x – 119.81 (15)
MR= 3.441x + 46.856 (16)
MR= 2.4674x + 14.368 (17)

Hydrogeological Measurement

Static water level (SWL) measured from open wells along the highway varies from 1.8 m to 10.1 m with an average
of 4.2 m. The hydraulic head measured with respect to sea level ranges between 322.2 m to 367.7 m (avg. 345.5 m)
(Table 11). Consequently, the SWL in the area is moderately low, therefore it may not seriously affect the subgrade.
However excessive cut into the subsoil during reconstruction would lead to high water level situation which could
compromise the integrity of the pavement structures.
Table 11. Hydrogeological measurement of wells in close proximity to the pavement

East (m) North (m) Elevation (m) Total Depth SWL (m) Water column Hydraulic head
(m) (m) (m)
788867 798736 342 12.5 5.7 6.8 336.3
799073 815909 370 8.9 2.3 6.6 367.7
801908 824009 369 14.5 10.1 4.4 358.9
800045 824657 341 5.8 1.8 4.0 339.2
802637 826925 352 8.5 4.1 4.4 347.9
804015 828950 350 9.0 3.4 5.6 346.6
803610 832352 324 9.5 1.8 7.7 322.2

Conclusions

Engineering geological studies had been conducted along a segment of F-215 highway structure between Owo and
Ikare in northern senatorial district of Ondo State. The study involved integrated geophysical, geochemical,
geotechnical, and hydrogeological measurement. Findings showed the topsoil/subsoil on which the soil is
constructed is composed of incompetent/fairly competent clay, sandy clay, and laterite. The depth to basement rock
ranged between 15.9 – 34.1 m. The basement relief is rugged, however dips towards the NE. The geological
sequence within the highway alignment is characterized by topsoil, subsoil, weathered layer, and basement rock.
The geochemical analysis showed the upper 1 m to be non-lateritic with S-S ratio of 2.06. The abundance of mineral
element are in the order SiO 2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3. The clay mineralogy are within the illite – montmorillonite group.
The geotechnical correlated well with the geophysical/trial pit results, and showed the soil to be SC-SM of low
plasticity and compressibility with avg. PI of 19.5 % of moderate specific gravity. However the % fines in the
sample (47.98) is greater than 35 % specification, but with GI of 6, it can be regarded as fair subgrade soil material..
Subsequently, the in-situ CBR (avg. 28 %) and soaked CBR (avg. 19%) satisfied the 10 % minimum specification
for subgrade. The DCPT indicated the soil to be generally of medium/dense consistency with penetrative index of
2.4 – 66.4 mm/blow. It also showed that 536 – 944 mm depth is the suitable layer to host the road structure based on
the CBR and SNG with relative densities of 0.320 – 0.487. The SNG, SN, and SNP contributions of the soil are
good for subgrade and subbase, but low for base material. The regression models of all parameters gave strong
positive correlations for RD and DCPI, in-situ CBR and M R, soaked CBR and in-situ CBR, ER and MR, but weak
positive for RD and in-situ CBR. The avg. SWL is 4.2 m which may not threaten the highway foundation structure.
Consequently based on PI, GSA, GI and CBR values, the expected average thickness of the highway should range
from 124 mm (good segment) to 445 mm (for weak segment) (avg. 246 mm). But this was not the case when the
highway thickness was measured from a cut section of the highway, as the measurement gave 228 mm, which is far
lower than the design thickness. Consequently this may be the reason for the incessant failure of the highway, in
conjunction with lack of drainage facility at the shoulders of the highway.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to TETFund, Nigeria (under the Institution Based Research) Nigeria. Special appreciation to
all students of Civil Engineering Technology Department for the assistance rendered during data acquisition.
Funding
No funding was received by the author for conducting the study.
Conflict of interest: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest with anyone on the writing and
publication of this study.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary
information files].

References

Ademeso OA, Ogunjobi OS (2021) Hydraulic Conductivity of Subsoils vis-à-vis Foundation Applications in Akure,
Southwestern Nigeria Journal of Mining and Geology 57(1), pp 217-224

Aderemi FL, Adeola RO (2021) Geophysical Investigation of Causes of Road Failure along Abadina Community
Road, University Of Ibadan, Nigeria. Quest Journals Journal of Research in Environmental and Earth Sciences,
Volume 7 Issue 1, pp: 01-05

Adetoro AE, Abe OE (2018) Assessment of Engineering Properties of Ado-Ekiti to Ikere-Ekiti Road Soil,
Southwestern Nigeria World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4(6): 191-195

Akintayo FO, Osasona TD (2022) Design of Rigid Pavement for Oke- Omi Road, Ibadan, Nigeria. FUOYE Journal
of Engineering and Technology, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 382-386 ISSN: 2579-0617 (Paper), 2579-0625 (Online)
https://doiorg/1046792/fuoyejetv7i3837

Amer R, Saad A, Elhafeez TA, Kady HE, Madi M (2014) Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigation of Pavement
Structures and Bridge Foundations Austin J Earth Sci;1(1): 6

Aneke FI, Ojiogu E, Mostafa MH (2018) Resilient Modulus Prediction of Subgrade Soil Using Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer, pp22. https://wwwresearchgatenet/publication/329059296

Aneke FI, Mostafa MH, Moubarak A (2019) Evaluation of Subgrade Resilient Modulus from Unsaturated CBR Test
https://wwwresearchgatenet/publication/329059565

Attewell PB, Farmer IW (1988) Principles of engineering geology Principles of Engineering Geology John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York, 1045pp. ISBN-13: 978-94-009-5709-1 DOl: 101007/978-94-009-5707-7

Bell FG (2007) Engineering Geology Second Edition, Elsevier Limited

Bell FG (1993) Engineering Treatment of Soils, Spon Press, London

Bell FG (2004) Engineering Geology and Construction Spon Press, London

Brink ABA, Parridge JC, Williams AAB (1992) Soil Survey for Engineering, Claredon, Oxford.

Brown, SF (1996) Soil mechanics in pavement engineering Geotechnique, 46, 383–426

Charman 1M (1988) Laterite in Road Pavements Special Publication 47, Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA), London

Chen FH (2000) Soil Engineering: Testing, Design, and Remediation, Edited by Morris, PE, CRC Press LLC,
Corporate Blvd, NW, Boca Raton, Florida 33431, 288pp. ISBN 0-8493-2294-4 (alk paper)

Daramola S, Malomo O, Siyan A, Asiwaju-Bello (2015) Engineering Geology of Failed Sections of Isua – Idoani
Road Southwestern Engineering Geology of Failed Sections of Isua – Idoani Road Southwestern Nigeria Journal of
Environment and Earth Science, Vol 5, No 19, 9pp

De Beer M, van der Merwe CJ (1991) Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) in the design of road
structures, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St Paul
DIN 4094 Part 2 (1980) Dynamic and Static Penetrometer

Done S, Samuel P (2006) Department for International Development (DFID) Measuring road pavement strength and
designing low volume sealed roads using the dynamic cone penetrometer Unpublished Project Report,
UPR/IE/76/06 Project Record No R7783. wwwtransport-linksorg/ukdcp/docs/Manual/manualhtml

Federal Meteorological Survey (1982) Atlas of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2nd Edition, Federal Surveys,
160pp.

FHWA NHI-05-037 (2006) Geotechnical aspects of pavement US Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration Pp4-17

George KP, Uddin W (2000) Subgrade characterization for highway pavement design, final report Jackson, MS:
Mississippi Department of Transportation

Gudishala R (2004) Development of resilient modulus prediction models for base and subgrade pavement layers
from in situ devices test results PhD thesis, Sri Krishnadevaraya, University, Anantapur, India

Herath A et al (2005) The use of dynamic cone penetrometer to predict resilient modulus of subgrade soils,” Geo-
Frontiers 2005, Geotechnical Special Publication ASCE, Reston

Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (1975) Highway Manual Part 1, Road and Bridge Design, Lagos, 2: 145-
284.

Iloeje PN (1981) A new geography of Nigeria. Longman Nigeria Limited, Lagos.

Ilori, AO (2015) Geotechnical characterization of a highway route alignment with light weight penetrometer (LRS
10 ), in southeastern Nigeria International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 6(7), 28pp http://dxdoiorg/101186/s40703-
015-0007-2

Jianzhou C et al (1999) Use of Falling Weight Deflectometer and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Pavement
Evaluation, Paper Presented in the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

Holtz WG, Kovacs WD (1981) An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall Publishers, 733pp.

Kadyali LR, Lal NB (2008) Principles and Practices of Highway Engineering (Including Expressways and Airport
Engineering) Fifth Edition, Romesh Chander Khanna, New Delhi, India, 858pp

Kearey P, Brooks M, Hill I (2002) An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Blackwell Science Limited, 262pp.

Lockwood D, de Franca VMP, Ringwood B, de Beer M (1992) Analysis and classification of DCP survey data
Technology and information management programme Pretoria, South Africa: CSIR Transportek

Nigerian Geological Survey Agency (2006) Geological and Mineral Map of Ondo State State, Nigeria

Nigeria Geological Survey (1984) Geological Map of Southwestern Nigeria, Geological Survey Department,
Ministry of Mines, Power and Steel, Nigeria.

Paige-green P, Zyl GDV (2019) A Review of the DCP-DN Pavement Design Method for Low Volume Sealed
Roads. Development and Applications Journal of Transportation Technologies, 9, pp 397-422
https://wwwscirporg/journal/jtts ISSN Online: 2160-0481 ISSN Print: 2160-0473

Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1990) A user’s manual for a program to analyse dynamic cone
penetrometer data (Overseas Road Note 8) Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory
Williams L (1997) Fundamental of Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, 206-217pp.

Zhdanov MS, Keller GV (1994) The geoelectrical method in geophysics exploration. Elsevier, Amsterdam
 Figure 1. Location map of Owo – Ikare Highway (investigated highway pavement) on the Map of Nigeria

Figure 2. Geological map of Nigeria showing the highway under investigation (modified after Nigerian Geological
Survey Agency 1984)
Figure 3. Geological Map of Ondo State showing the road under investigation straddling migmatite rock units
(modified after Nigerian Geological Survey Agency 2006)
Figure 4. Data acquisition map for the study showing the geotechnical/geochemical sampling points, geophysical locations, and trial pit points
Figure 5. Picture showing DCPT carried out in Akungba (DCPT 08)
Figure 6. Pictures showing some of the trial pits (04 and 05) sections
 Highway Length
(Distance (m)
NE SW
Ikare Akoko Area
Akungba Akoko VES 9
Ikare Junction - Ipeme Area VES 10
Area VES 8 168 123
Oba Akoko Area
0 VES 775263
VES 5 VES 6
VES 3 33 95
VES 2
125
VES 4 121 203
20 168 588 489
VES 1
360 188
35 316 178

Above the sea level

180

40 340 62

Elevation (m)
2133 33 2406
98

60 258 1105 1679 1466

918 4868 2389

80

8359
100 1460 1768

120

LEGEND
Topsoil Weathered Layer Fresh Basement

Subsoil (Clay/Sandy clay) 258 Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 7. Geoelectric Section along the Highway Alignment

Trial pit Trial pit Trial pit Trial pit Trial pit
01 02 03 04 05
(Ikare Junction) (Oba Akoko) (Akungba) (Ikare) (Ikare)
Trial Pit 0787922mE 800930mE 802139mE 804744mE 804461mE
(Depth (m) 0799188mN 815663mN 827754mN 833264mN 833466mN

0.25

0.5

0.75

1.0

Lateritic soil Loose Clay-Sand mixture

Clay-Sand Hardpan Sandy clay

Figure 8. Trial pit of the three sites investigated along the Highway showing the geologic section
 60

H igh
plasticity
clay
40
P lasticity In dex (% )

Interm ediate H igh plasticity silt

P lasticity or
clay H igh plasticity O rganic soil
20
Low
plasticity
clay Low plasticity silt
or
Low plasticity clay Low plasticity organic soil
Interm ediate plasticity silt
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Lim it (% )

(a)

A = 1.5 (Calcium)
A = 4 to 7 (Sodium)

Montmorillonites
60
Plasticity Index (%)

50
Illites A = 0.5 to 1.3
40

30
Kaolinites A = 0.3 to 0.5
20

10 Halloysites A = 0.1 (hydrated)

A = 0.5 (dehydrated)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Chlorites
Liquid Limit (%)

Activity Index (A) of other minerals

Attapulgite 0.5 - 1.2 Mica (muscovite) 0.2
Allophane 0.5 - 1.2 Quartz 0
Calcite 0.2

(b)

Figure 9. (a) Plasticity Chart for Fine Contents of the soil samples (b) Clay mineralogy group of the soil samples
with most within/or near the illite
 CBR (%)
2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 8090 100 150

Inches
12
A

16

20
D
24 Traffic classification
E Nos of commercial vehicles per day
exceeding 3 tonnes laden weight
28 A 0 - 15
B 15 - 45
32 C 45 - 150
D 150 - 450
E 450 - 1500
36
F 1500 - 4500
40 - Above 4500

Figure 10. The CBR Chart adopted for determine the recommended thickness across the highway alignment

228 mm

Figure 11. Picture showing the structural layers along a segment of the highway at Oba Akoko wherein existing
design thickness of 228 mm was measured
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

Test 7 Test 8 Test 9

Test 10
Figure 12. The plot of Cumulative Blows against Depth at Test points 1 – 10 showing the layering within the upper 1.0 m
Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6

Test 7 Test 8 Test 9

Test 10
Figure 13. The plot of CBR against Depth at Test points 1 – 10, showing the CBR of the layers
f(x) = NaN
12 x + NaN
R² = 0 60
10
50
8
40f(x) = 2.64988026950303 exp( 5.38465813222496 x )
In-situ CBR

R² = 0.317349334659233
6 30

CBR
4 20

2 10

0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
CBR Soaked Relative Density

(a) (b)

30 300

25 250

Resilient Modulus (MPA)

f(x) = 116.342055981578 ln(x) − 402.420965068382
20 200 R² = 0.913930344489636
f(x) = − 60.2804140819893 ln(x) − 39.1935801349215
DCPI Values

15 R² = 0.576818805668289 150

10 100

5 50

0 0
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Relative Density Young Modulus (MPA)

(c) (d)
 300
500
Resilient Modulus (MPA) 450

Resilient Modulus (MPA)

250
400 Lockwood et al.
200 f(x) = 4.90898838383106 x − 19.5299414393588 350 Linear (Lockwood et al.)
R² = 0.833026100311619 300 f(x) = 8.81861631614953 x − 119.81315904708
Jianzhou et al.
150 250 R² = 0.779457531294159
Linear (Jianzhou et al.)
200 f(x) = 3.44099433817403 x + 46.8558157076668
100 George and Uddin
150 R² = 0.892730468847883
50 100 f(x) = 2.46735449716961 x + 14.3675190213372
Linear (George and Uddin)
50 R² = 0.884957781572291
0 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
In situ CBR (%) In situ CBR (%)

(e) (f)

Figure 14. Regression models for (a) CBR lab and in-situ CBR (b) RD and in-situ CBR (c) RD and DCPI (d) E R and MR (e) in-situ CBR and MR (f) in-situ and
MR for Lockwood et al. (1992), Jianzhou et al. (1999), and George and Uddin (2000)