1 INTRODUCTION

Many regions in Brazil have very deep water table, and seasons involving rainy summers and dry winters. These
characteristics make it difficult in the interpretation of piezocone tests (CPTU) so it was assumed the measured
cone tip resistance (q
c
) was equal to correct cone tip resistance (q
t
), since pore pressure was not measured and
friction ratio (R
f
) is assumed to be fs/qc (in %).
The resistivity piezocone (RCPTU) has become a very useful tool in the geoenvironmental investiga-
tion of contamination plumes. Using this device, bulk resistivity of soil can be measured in a series of
tests, allowing for the detection of the probable presence of certain substances by comparing them to
reference values. The electrical resistivity technique, including RCPTU, has been widely applied in geotechnical
and geoenvironmental investigations in situ (e.g. Daniel et al. 2003; Mondelli et al. 2006; Bang, et al. 2008;
Campanella 2008; Mondelli et al. 2010;) and in the laboratory (Kalinsky & Kelly 1993; Adli et al, 2010).
This paper shows the potential applicability of the RCPTU to provide information for identifying the capillary
fringe in geoenvironmenal investigations. The moisture content in surface layers can vary significantly hence the
analysis of soil resistivity must involve matric suction. This study evaluated the relationship between electrical re-
sistivity and soil suction for three typical tropical soils: sedimentary clayey sand; residual diabase sandy clay; and
silty sand from fluvial erosion.
For both the clayey sand and the sandy clay, the soil water retention curve (SWRC) was determined using
compacted samples from the standard compaction test procedure. Suction was measured by the filter paper tech-
nique, using Whatman No. 42 filter paper on a drying path. The compacted samples provide controlling moisture
content, void ratio, degree of saturation, and salinity of the percolation fluid. The tests of the third soil (erosion)
Applicability of the resistivity cone to identify capillary fringe
L. G. Campos & A. S. P. Peixoto
Civil and Environmental Engineering. So Paulo State University UNESP, Brazil
ABSTRACT: The rainy and dry seasons in tropical climate can lead to leaching of the soil surface, creating deep
layers of unsaturated, porous and permeable soils. The piezocone (CPTU) is an excellent tool for soil profiling.
Nevertheless, in tropical soils there can be loss of saturation of the pore pressure sensor. This paper intends to en-
courage use of the resistivity piezocone by presenting laboratory test results. The moisture content in surface layers
can vary significantly hence the analysis of soil resistivity must involve matric suction. Three typical tropical soils
are analyzed comparing resistivity with soil suction, moisture content and degree of saturation, when controlling
both void index and temperature. The resistivity was closely related to the increase in suction and therefore this is a
possible route for evaluating the first inlet air in the results of in situ tests, which provide important information for
identifying the capillary fringe in geoenvironmental investigations.




3
rd
International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA - 2014

591
were carried out on undisturbed samples in order to study a correlation with the RCPTU of the erosion studied by
Fagundes et al. (2011).
2 THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
2.1 Bulk resistivity
Electrical resistivity is a physical property every material possesses, which indicates the degree of difficulty of an
electric current to pass through it. Resistivity is expressed in units of electrical resistance multiplied by unit length
(.m) (Koefoed, 1979).
Most soils and rock are essentially nonconductive. However, soils as clays or minerals such as magnetite,
hematite, carbon, pyrite and other metallic sulfides, may be present in sufficient concentrations to contribute
measurably to bulk electrical conductivity. Bryson & Bathe (2009) noted that the electrical conduction in clean
sands occurs almost exclusively in the pore fluid, which is called electrolytic conduction, while in clays it occurs
in the pores and at the interface between the soil particles and the pore water, and is called surface conductivity.
Surface conduction also occurs through the grain-to-grain contacts of contiguous soil particles in soils containing
sizable percentages of fines.
Measuring the resistivity of soil requires taking into consideration several intervening variables, including the
geometry of the electrodes, the frequency in which resistivity is measured, and the properties of the soil to be ana-
lyzed. In the interpretation of results, soil is considered to consist of solids, liquid and air. Current is conducted
mostly through interstitial fluid, since this medium facilitates charge transport, generating electrolytic current. Air
always works as an insulating body (Campanella et al. 1998; Lunne et al. 1997). Table 1 summarizes the influ-
ence of some soil parameters on electrical resistivity, according to Razali & Osman (2011). Other soil properties,
such as, porosity, clay mineral composition, metal content, grains size distribution also affects the current flow.

Table1.Trend of resistivity result with different soil parameters.(Razali & Osman, 2011)
Parameters Electrical Resistivity,
Moisture Content, ,
Compaction Energy, ,
Bulk Density, ,
Dry Density, ,
Friction Angle, ,
Cohesion, ,

2.2 Suction
According to Oh et al. (2008) and Boszczowski (2008), the electrical resistivity is too high (low conduc-tivity) in
dry soil and decreases rapidly with increasing water content until a moisture content is reached in which the resis-
tivity becomes constant. In tropical soils, the moisture in the surface layers varies significantly and suction analy-
sis is necessary to understand the soil behavior. Hence, electrical resistivity is a parameter which can assist in the
analysis of the variation of suction within the soil layer.
592
The capillary fringe of an aquifer is defined as the part of the interface region between the water table and the
unsaturated zone above it. It separates between saturated regions, under positive pressure head and unsaturated
regions containing mostly air, at atmospheric pressure (Ronen et al, 2000). Note that the soil above a water table
can also have all its pores filled with water for some distance. This water was drawn up into the soil by suction
forces. The water is held by suction, and has a pressure that is less than atmospheric pressure.
According to studies by Pozdnyakov et al (2006), an exponential model is appropriate to describe the relation-
ship between electrical resistivity and soil water content at all possible water contents. However, Pozdnykov et al
(2006) point out that different model parameters should be used in the different ranges of water content (such as
the adsorption, film, film-capillary, capillary, and gravitational water ranges) with different mechanisms of water
retention. Theoretically, the relationship between electrical resistivity and the logarithm of the water content
should represent a series of linear segments with consequently decreasing slopes corresponding to different ranges
of the water content, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Muoz-Castelblanco et al. (2011) studied a loess soil from France and considered that the electrical conduc-
tion behavior can be divided into at least two regimes: the first one related to the inter-aggregate pores in which
the water phase is continuous and the second one corresponding to the intra-aggregate pores where the water
phase is disconnected due to the air-filled pore space between the aggregates. In the same way, Aquino et al.
(2011) concluded that soil suction has the tendency to maintain constant or low increase with the decrease of satu-
ration and sharp increase of resistivity.


Figure 1. A piecewise-linear relationship between the natural logarithm of water content and electrical resistivity.
(Pozdnyakov et al., 2006)
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sampling
The soil water retention curves (SWRC) for the clayey sand and sandy clay soils were obtained from compacted
samples using the standard compaction test procedure compacted at the optimum water ratio, as illustrated in Fig-
ure 2(a).
In addition, the SWRC was obtained on an undisturbed sample of silty sand from fluvial erosion, as shown on
Figure 2(b), in order to study some correlation with RCPTU data from the same location. Also, samples were col-
lected by direct push technique in order to measure the electrical resistivity in the laboratory and correlate with the
field results.
593
3.2 Suction
The soil-water retention curve (SWRC) was obtained with compacted samplers of standard compaction test pro-
cedure using the filter paper technique for suction measurement, Figure 2(c), using Whatman No. 42 filter paper
and drying path, as described by Marinho & Oliveira (2006). As Muoz-Castelblanco et al. (2011) showed that
there is no change in the resistivity value with the drying-wetting circle in the SWRC.

Figure 2. Soil samplers obtained from (a) compaction mold and (b) undisturbed sample; (c) drying procedure (d)
sample weighting

The method consists of placing the soil sample in contact with a porous material (filter paper) that has a known
retention calibration curve (suction versus filter paper water content). The suction is obtained from a calibration
curve, once given the contact between the paper and the soil water migration occurs until there is equilibrium po-
tential. The same procedure was done in the undisturbed sample from erosion.
The suction values were calculated by Chandler et al.(1992) with the filter paper water content, Equations 1
and 2:

s = 1u
6,05-2,48Iog w
]
w
]
47% (1)
s = 1u
4,84-0,0622Iog w
]
w
]
< 47% (2)
where s =suction (kPa); w
f
=water content of filter-paper, (%).
3.3 Bulk resistivity
Electrical resistivity tests were carried out with two copper plates, 40.42mm in diameter, pressed against the spec-
imen (Fig. 3). The compaction mold was built with an electrical insulator. A power supply was used to apply al-
ternating current (AC) with an electrical potential of 5V and frequency of 1000Hz. The temperature was also
measured. The procedure is showed at Figure 3.
Cooper plates were placed on the specimen immediately after accurately weighing the sample. The voltage and
current were obtained and bulk resistivity was calculated by Equation 3.

p = (
I
I
, ). [
A
l
, (3)
where =bulk resistivity (ohm.m); V =voltage, (mV); I =current (mA); A =cross area; l =sample length.

594

Figure 3. Bulk resistivity measurements
4 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
The characterization and compaction test results are summarized in Table 2. The site characterization of the ero-
sion soil is showed in Figure 4 based on RCPTU results. Soil samples were taken by direct push technology at dif-
ferent depths and some portions of the least disturbed samples were used to carried out laboratory tests to obtain
electrical resistivity using the copper plate methodology. The laboratory results are shown in Figure 4 by circle
points. The similarity of the in situ and laboratory results attests the quality of the specimens. The undisturbed
sample at 0.5m depth was used for the SWRC tests.

Table 2.Results of characterization and compaction tests.
Test Sample Clayey Sand Sandy Clay Silty Sand

s
(kN/m) 26.43 28.63 25.87
Natural water content, w (%) 6.9 16.6 10.0
Clay, <0,002 (%) 18.7 60 13.5
Silt, 0,002<<0,060 (%) 10.3 16 7.9
Fine sand, 0,060<<0,20 (%) 70 22 39.7
Medium sand, 0,20<<0,60 (%) 1 2 38.6
Coarse sand, 0,60<<2,00 (%) 0 0 0.3
Limits of
consistency
Liquid Limit, w
l
(%) 23.2 41.9 NP
Plastic Limit, wp(%) 0 28.4 NP
I
p
(%) NP 13.6 NP
Proctor
Optimum Water Content, OMC (%) 12.8 23.9 -
Maximum dry density,
dmax
(kN/m) 18.9 16.05 -
Unified classification SC CL SM
595

C (mS/cm)
0 200 400
Interpreted
Profile
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
R
f
(%)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
q
t
(MPa)
0 5 10 15 20
U (kPa)
0 400 8001200

b
(ohm.m)
0 400 800 1200
Nsbt
7 Silty sand
3 Clay
6 Sandy silt
4
Silty clay
3 Clay
7 Silty sand
9
and
6
Sand
and
Sany silt
electrical resistivity laboratory test results

Figure 4. RCPTU test results at Fluvial erosion site
5 RESULTS AND ANALYSES
5.1 Soil-water retention curve (SWRC)

The SWRC for the clayey sand and for the sandy clay is showed in Figure 5(a) and 6(a). Curve fitting to the
clayey sand is performed using the model of Van Genuchten (1980), Equation 4. The curve for the sandy clay did
not have a good fit by that model, but it is possible to identify the first and second inlet air.
w = w

+ (w
s
- w

). ]
1
|1+(u.s)
n
]
m
(4)
Where w =water content;w
r
=residual soil-water content; w
s
=saturated soil-water content; s =suction; , m and
n =fitting parameters.

Analyzing Figures 5(a) and 6(a) (compacted samples) and Figure 7(a) (undisturbed sample of erosion), it can
be inferred about suctions of the inlet air. Applying the inlet air suction values in the equations adjusted by Fig-
ures 5(b), 6(b) and 7(b), it is possible to estimate the approximate resistivity for the interval between the entry of
air into the macropores and micropores, and shown in Table 3.
596
The SWRC of silty sand (erosion) soil was carried out in an undisturbed sample taken at 0.5m depth. The bulk
resistivity results of Figure 7(b) show high values in that layer according with second inlet air interval. In that
way, the resistivity values could help the interpretation of pore pressure and associated SBT by Robertson et al
(1986), and would also improve the analysis of soil profile in piezocone results.
Table3. Estimated values of resistivity in the first and second inlet air.
Soil Equation
Interval of
First
Inlet Air
(kPa)
Interval of
Second
Inlet Air
(kPa)
Estimated

b
First
Inlet Air
(ohm.m)
Estimated
b

Second
Inlet Air
(ohm.m)
Clayey sand (compacted)
b
=-0.00004s
2
+4.88s+8065 6 to10 2000 557 to 576 9250
Sandy clay (compacted)
b
=0.0002s
2
-0.63s +890.79 20 to 35 9000 868 to 878 11439
Medium sand (undisturbed)
b
=-0.00004s
2
+4.44s+532.06 5 to 8 900 to 4000 554 to 568 4495 to 17650

Figure 5. Compacted samples of clayey sand: (a) Soil water retention curve (SWRC); (b) Bulk resistivity versus
suction.


Figure 6. Compacted samples of sandy clay: (a) Soil water retention curve (SWRC); (b) Bulk resistivity versus
suction.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Suction (kPa)
Filter paper
Second Inlet air
Micropores
First Inlet air
Macropores
(a)
rb =-4E-05s2 +4.8838s +8065
R =0.9679
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
B
u
l
k

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

(

.
m
)
Suction(kPa)
Distilled
(b)
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Suction (kPa)
Filter
Paper
Second Inlet air
Micropores
First Inlet air
Macropores
(a)
b =0.0002s
2
- 0.6282s +890.79
R =0.9662
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
0.1 10 1000
B
u
l
k

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

(

.
m
)
Suction (kPa)
Distilled
(b)
597

Figure 7. Undisturbed sample of erosion soil: (a) Soil water retention curve (SWRC); (b) Bulk resistivity versus
suction.
6 FINAL REMARKS
The analyzes of resistivity tests on compacted samples with the controlling of physical index showed the
possibility of using electrical resistivity to aid in the interpretation of the changes in soil saturation to
identify the capillary fringe. The identification of the second inlet air in the SWRC can be aided by the
sudden increase in resistivity, as shown in Figures 6 and 7.
The similarity of the in situ and of the laboratory resistivity values attests the quality of the methodol-
ogy of measurements of resistivity in laboratory.
Finally, the resistivity values obtained for the suction in the second inlet air showed that the RCPTU
as an interesting tool in the geo-environmental site characterization, not only to identify chemical anom-
alies (contaminant plume delineation), but also changes in moisture content and possible identification
of the capillary fringe.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank FAPESP for granting this project and the students L.G.Campos.
REFERENCES
Adli, Z. H., Musa, M. H. & Arifin, M. N. K., 2010. Electrical Resistivity of Subsurface: Field and Laboratory
Assessment. World Academy of Science, pp. 805-808.
Aquino, F. R., Souza, N. M., Farias, M. M. & Aguiar, L. A., 2011. Estudo Comparativo entre a Resistividade
Eltrica e Caractersticas Geotcnicas de um Solo Argiloso Compactado. V Simpsio sobre Solos Tropicais
e Processos Erosivos no Centro-Oeste e o II Geocentro. Braslia, Brazil.
Bang, E. S., Sung, N. H., Park, S. G., Kim, H. J ., Kim, Y. S. & Seo, D. N., 2008. Development and Verification of
a Resistivity Seismic Flat Dilatometer Testing System for Efficient Soft Soil Site Characterization.. Taipei,
Taiwan, Taylor & Francis Group Ed, pp. 1247 - 1253.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

C
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Suction (kPa)
Filter Paper
Second Inlet air
Micropores
First Inlet air
Macropores
(a)
b =-0.00004s2 +4.4392s +532.06
R =0.9925
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
0.1 1 10 100 100010000
B
u
l
k

R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y

(

.
m
)
Suction (kPa)
Distilled
(b)
598
Boszczowski, R. R. & Silva, J . M., 2008. Avaliao da Resistividade Eltrica de um Perfil de solo residual em
funo do intemperismo e teor de umidade., Buzios(RJ ): s.n.
Bryson, L. S. & Bathe, A., 2009. Determination of Selected Geotechnical Properties of Soil Using Electrical
Conductivity Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Volume 32, pp. 1-10.
Campanella, D. R. G., Kristiansen, H., Daniel, C. & Davies, M. P., 1998. Site Characterization of Soils Deposits
Using Advances in Piezocone Technology. Georgia/USA, s.n., pp. 995-1000.
Campanella, R. G., 2008. Geo-environmental site characterization. Taipei, Taiwan, Geothecnical and
Goephysical SIte Characterization. Londres. Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 3-15.
Chandler, R. J ., Harwood, A. H. & Skinner, P. J ., 1992. Sample Disturbance in London Clay.. Gotechnie, pp.
577-585.
Daniel, C. R., Campanella, R. G., Howie, J . A. & Giacheti, H. L., 2003. Specific depth cone resistivity
measurements to determine soil engineering properties. Jounal of Environmental and Engineering
Goephysics, 8(1).
Kalinsky, R. J . & Kelly, W. E., 1994. Estimating Water Content of Soils from Electrical Resistivity..
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 16(n 3), pp. pp. 323-329.
Koefoed, O., 1979. Resistivity Sounding Measurements. In: Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 276.
Lunne, T., Robertson, P. K. & Powell, J ., 1997. Cone Penetration Test in Geotechnical Practice. London: Blackie
Academic & Professional.
Marinho, F. & Oliveira, O., 2006. The Filter Paper Method Revisited. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 29(3), pp.
250-258.
Mondelli, G., Giacheti, H. L. & Howie, J . A., 2010. Interpretation of Resistivity Piezocone Tests in a
Contaminated Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Site. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Volume 33, p. 102561.
Mondelli, G. et al., 2006. Consideraes sobre a Implantao de Sistemas de Monitoramento de guas
Subterrneas em Aterros de Resduos Slidos Urbanos: Um Estudo de Caso. Curitiba/PR, s.n.
Munz-Castelblanco, J . A., Pereira, J . M., Delage, P. & Cui, Y. J ., 2011. Measurement of the Water Content of a
Natural Unsaturated Loess by a New Resistivity Probe. Geotechnical Testing Journal, Set.Volume 35.
Oh, M. H., Kim, Y. S., Park, J . B. & Kwon, O. S., 2008. Laboratory Study on Applicability of Resistivity cone for
investigation of subsurface contamination.. Taipei, Taiwan., Taylor & Francis Group Ed., pp. 737-743.
Pozdnyakov, A. I., Pozdnyakova, L. A. & Karpachevskii, L. O., 2006. Relationship between Water Tension and
Electrical Resistivity in Soils. Eurasian Soil Science, p. S78S83.
Razali, F. B. M. N. & Osman, A. B. S. S., 2011. Non-quantitative correlation of soil resistivity whit some soil
parameters. National Posgraduate Conference (NPC), Setembro.pp. 1-4.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. & Greig, J ., 1986. Use of piezometer cone data. Proceedings of
the ASCE Specialty Conference In Situ 86: Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering, Blacksburg,
ASCE, 1263-80.
Ronen, D., Scher, H. & Blunt, M., 2000. Field observations of a capillary fringe before and. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, Volume 44, pp. 103-118.
Van Genuchten, M. T., 1980. A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated
Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. A., Volume 44, pp. 892-898.
599
600