ANALYSIS OF THE PHYSIOCHEMICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES

OF THE SOIL STRUCTURE THAT WILL SUPPORT WATER PIPELINE

INFRASTRUCTURE FROM OWA COMMUNITY RUNNING THROUGH 9TH
MILE TO AKAMA NGWO.

C CHIOKE1, C.C ODENIGBO2, C.J ANUKWU3

1. Post-Graduate Research, Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze,

Anambra State. Email: [email protected]. Phone:?
2. Lecturer ?, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu State University of
Science and Technology, ESUT. Email: [email protected].
Phone: 07033735542.
3. Post Graduate Research Assist, Department of Civil Engineering, Enugu
State University of Science and Technology, ESUT. Email:
[email protected]. Phone: 09023809757.

ABSTRACT

This research was carried out to analyse the geotechnical and physiochemical properties of a
soil structure, that will support water pipeline infrastructure from Owa community, running
through 9th Mile Corners to Akama Ngwo. Our objectives were to determine the Engineering
properties of the soil on which the water pipelines will be laid, explore the subsurface
complexity, lithology and thickness, as well as ascertain its composition, structure and
strength. All analyses were carried out in accordance with (BS-1377, 1975). The ESUT Civil
Engineering laboratory was used. The soil sample was obtained from seven different stations,
with an average depth range of 0.15m to 5.2m. During the research, we recorded that the
geotechnical properties of zone one, runs from station 0 + 000 to station 4 + 000, while zone
two, runs from station 4+000 to station 7+000. The average range of geotechnical properties
result obtained for zone one is; Liquid Limit (LL); 20% – 29%, Plasticity Index (PI); 4%–
14%, Percentage passing Sieve no. 200; 10% – 43%, the Optimum Moisture Content
(O.M.C); 8% – 12%, Maximum Dry Density (M.D.D); 1.92 g/cm3 – 1.95g/cm3, and the
Coefficient of Compressibility (Cc) as 0.066. While the average range of geotechnical
properties of zone two is; Liquid Limit (LL); 21% – 34%, Plasticity Index (PI); 8% – 16%,
Percentage passing sieve no. 200, 7%– 45%, the Optimum Moisture Content (O.M.C); 9% –
12%, Maximum Dry Density (M.D.D) as 1.77g/cm3 – 1.96g/cm3, and the Coefficient of
Compressibility (Cc) as 0.066. The safe bearing capacity was calculated from the Dutch Cone
parameters, for both zones. The soil samples were classified, using the AASHTO and USCS
simultaneously. At the end, it was ascertained that the proposed structures would be
adequately and economically supported on shallow foundation with a strip footing, in other to
prevent unequal loading and displacement of the pipes. Hence, it is recommended that the
backfill, and bedding should be compacted in different layers with the adequate soil
materials. To prevent the pipes from harmful chemicals, it is essential to use dense
impermeable concrete with sulphate – resisting cement. The cement content should not be
less than 350kg/m3.
Keywords: Physiochemical Properties, Geotechnical properties, Soil.
1.0 INTRODUCTION.

Physio-chemical interactions between a metallic material and its environment can lead to
corrosion. The extent to which a corrosion process will proceed is determined by a number of
factors (biotic or abiotic). (Costerton and Boivin, 1991). In corrosion failure analysis (CFA),
Videla (1996) and Stein (1995) suggested laboratory examination of the environment where
the affected metal is located and the inorganic deposits on the corroded material. The
petroleum industry in Nigeria has over the years experienced a number of corrosion
problems. For example, between 1990 and 1999, the Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC)
reported 48 cases of petroleum production system failure due to corrosion (NAOC, 2004).
Underground corrosion is of major importance and results in a significant portion of pipeline
failures. Because of corrosion, these pipelines must be regularly inspected, maintained, and
sometimes replaced (Ricker, 2010). Soil corrosivity, when contrasted with that of the air or
seawater corrosivity is regularly harder to classify with respect to both pipe particular
parameters and encompassing soil properties (Ferreira, 2006).

On the other hand, Geotechnical investigation is undertaken to obtain information on the

physical properties of soil and rock underlying a site to design a proposed structure and for
repair of distress caused by subsurface condition. A geotechnical investigation will include
surface and subsurface exploration in a site (Amadi et al., 2010). The need for adequate and
reliable geotechnical characterization of sub-soils is very important. This is because, the
impact of the imposed load is exacerbated by the thickness and consistency of the
compressible layer (Oke and Amadi, 2008).

1.1 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION

Soil characterization includes the following:

i. Geotechnical Setting, Geohazards and Sediment Mobility: Reliable pipeline design also
involves the issues of route selection and the mitigations of geohazards including slope
stability and sediment mobility. Wide-scale geophysical and bathymetric data are the key
inputs to the characterization of a project region, supported by geological and geohazards
studies to allow reliable selection of the optimum pipeline route (Haneberg et al, 2013).
ii. Soil Modeling and Parameterization: The soil parameters required for pipe-soil
interactions (PSI) assessment include both undrained and drained soil strength parameters as
well as the consolidation characteristics for each soil unit which the pipeline crosses. The
determination of whether an undrained or drained property is relevant to a particular aspect of
the pipe-soil interaction assessment depends on the soil, the pipeline dimensions and time
periods associated with the design condition being considered (Low et al., 2008).

1.2 PHYSIOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF PIPELINE STRUCTURES

Pipeline construction is a complicated process and has tremendous negative impact on the
soil and also on the marine life if the length of the pipelines is installed underwater
(Assessment of Impacts, 2009). The risk of corrosion increases hazards of the pipeline
rupture. The chemical composition of water might lead to a corrosion of the pipes. For
example, the waters of the Black Sea, deeper than 100 to 200 meters contains dissolved
hydrogen sulfide which could corrode steal pipelines (Tricarico, 2001).

1.3 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS AND PIPELINE CORROSION

The soil parameters such as moisture content, pH, resistivity, oxidation-reduction potential,
chloride and sulphate content were investigated by Bhattarai, (2013). The aforementioned
parameters have influence on the corrosive nature of soils toward the buried galvanized steel
and cast-iron pipelines used to supply the drinking water in Kathmandu Valley. He
discovered that the twenty-three soil samples taken from the study area were mildly corrosive
to non-corrosive nature toward the buried pipeline.

1.4 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The geotechnical analysis, involves the conversion of the input soil properties into
geotechnical forces (or force-displacement responses), via a calculation method that is
usually based on an assumed failure mechanism or by using yield envelopes, as for standard
offshore foundation designs.
1.5 CEMENTATION
Cementation is part of the process of lithification that soils require, during the rock forming
process and is therefore not usually associated with deposits in the uppermost tens of meters
below the seafloor. However certain settings can produce important cementation effects.
1.6 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The corrosion of underground pipeline cause degradation of the pipe, with time the
degradation will cause a failure to the pipes and means loss of economy. Pipe can be
completely destroyed by the corrosive component of the soil thereby leading to waste of
useful substances such as gas, oil or water. The damage might come as a result of poor or no
geotechnical analysis on the land on which the pipe is to be laid.

1.7 JUSTIFICATION

Geotechnical and physiochemical properties analysis of all such sub-soils to generate the
required data relevant to the foundation design and construction of pipeline structures is
highly important. This is because, the impact of the imposed load is exacerbated by the
thickness and consistency of the compressible layer (Oke and Amadi, 2008). Therefore, it is
imperative that sites be geotechnically and physiochemically characterized through sub-soil
investigation (Ngah & Nwankwoala, 2013; Nwankwoala & Warnate, 2014).

1.8 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

General Objectives

The main objective of this study is to analyze the geotechnical and physiochemical Properties
of the soil structure that will support water pipeline infrastructure from Owa community
running through 9th mile to Akama Ngwo.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this analysis are to:

a) Determine the Engineering properties of the soil on which the water pipes will be laid.
b) Explore the subsurface complexity, lithology and thickness in other to ascertain its
composition, structure and strength.
2.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The soil sample was collected from station 0+000 to station 7+000, along Owa community,
running through 9th Mile Corners to Akama Ngwo, in Udi LGA of Enugu State, Nigeria. In
zone one and zone two, excavation shall not be a problem because of the nature of soil. The
method of site exploration used was the boring type (Hand Auger and Dutch Cone). This was
because of the nature of the soil deposits, available equipment, and depth of investigation.
The type of sample collected during the soil exploration was disturbed soil sample, from
three boreholes, for each station. Laboratory tests carried out were; mechanical sieve
analysis, bulk density/specific gravity, atterberg limits, compaction, consolidation, pH,
chlorine, and sulphate content test. However, for consolidation test that requires undisturbed
soil sample, the soil samples were remolded at optimum moisture content (OMC) at the
laboratory, while the safe bearing capacity was calculated from the Dutch Cone parameters.
2.1 TESTS CARRIED OUT
The tests carried out are as follows;

 pH Test
 Chlorine Test
 Sulphate Content Test.
 Mechanical Sieve Analysis
 Specific Gravity/ Bulk Density Test
 Atterberg Limits
 Compaction Test
 Consolidation test
3.0 PHYSIOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISATION OF SOIL

S/NO SAMPLES CHLORIDE pH SULPHATE

Mg/l Mg/l
STA 3+000E (1) 284 5.8 36.837
HA 4 SAMPLE (2)
DEPTH 2.1-4.1
STA 2+000E (2) 248.5 6.0 121.33
HA 3 SAMPLE (3)
DEPTH 2.5-5.3
STA 0+000E (2) 262.7 6.0 95.6313
HA 1 SAMPLE (3)
DEPTH 4.0-5.3
STA 1+000E 497 5.0 13.816
HA 2 SAMPLE 2
DEPTH 1.5-3.5
STA 2+000E 511.2 6.0 47.914
HA 3 SAMPLE (2)
DEPTH 1.5-2.5
STA 5+000E 426 6.0 13.416
HA 5 SAMPLE (2)
DEPTH 3.3-5.2
STA 4+000E 440.2 5.8 50.524
HA 5 SAMPLE (2)
DEPTH 1.2-4.2
STA 1+000E 220.1 5.8 50.524
HA 2 SAMPLE (3)
DEPTH 3.6-5.5
STA 6+000E 284 5.8 12.525
HA 7 SAMPLE (2)
DEPTH 1.5-3.5

Table 3.1: Physiochemical test result.

3.1 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOIL

M.S.A STA; 0+0000 HA 1

PERCENTAGE FILTER (%)

SAMPLE SAMPLE 4. 76 MM 7 14 25 36 52 10 200

DEPTH 0
M

18 0.15 – 1.5 98 96 87 71 56 53 45

19 1.5 – 5.3 100 98 96 86 74 62 34 26

Table 3.2: Mechanical sieve analysis test result.

Figure 3.1: Mechanical sieve analysis graph for station 0+000 only.
Locatio Dept Press t50 Rate of Coeffici Coefficie Coeffic Initial Final
n h ure seco compres ent of nt of ient of & settlem
(m) (KN/ nds) sibility volume volume compr final ent
m2) index change compress essibilit Void using
(CV) (MV) ibility (av) y Index ratio Laborat
(M2/kN) (M2/kN) (M2/kN) (Cc) (e0  ory
e1) Loads
(M)
STA;
0+000 3.5 163 – 90 1.9831 x 1.7282 2.4540 x 0.13 0.42
to – 326 10—5 x 10-4 10-4 0.38
STA; 5.5
4+000
STA;
4+000 3.5 163 – 144 1.2696 x 8.9562 1.2270 x 0.066 0.37
to – 326 10—5 x 10-5 10-4 0.35
STA; 5.5
6+000

Table 3.3: Consolidation Test Result.

SOIL TEST SUMMARY TABLE

LOCATION SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENTAGE PASSING B.S. SIEVES
NO NO. M
LL PL PI 4.76 7 14 25 36 52 10 20 O.M.C M
MM 0 0 % g

1. STA; 0 + 000 0.15 – 2.1 20 16 4 100 99 97 86 68 50 19 13 82 1

1 2. HA 1 2.1 – 4.0 22 16 6 100 99 90 73 56 26 19
3. HA 1 4.0 – 5.3 23 17 6 100 98 94 83 71 56 28 10
4. STA; 1 + 000 0.15 – 1.5 27 17 10 100 90 72 54 21 15 10.8 1
2 5. HA 2 1.5 – 3.5 26 16 10 100 99 90 73 56 24 17
6. HA 2 3.5 – 5.5 25 17 8 100 99 90 72 55 23 16
7. STA; 2 + 000 0.15 – 1.5 31 17 14 100 96 84 70 47 43 11.3 1
3 8. HA 3 1.5 – 2.5 33 19 14 100 94 83 68 43 38
9. HA 3 2.5 – 5.2 26 14 12 100 99 91 74 56 27 22
10. STA; 3 + 000 0.15 – 2.1 26 15 11 100 93 85 59 51 19 10 11.6 1
4 11. HA 4 2.1 – 4.1 25 16 9 98 95 83 68 52 22 16
12. HA 4 4.1 – 5.5 29 19 10 100 99 89 74 57 27 19
13. STA; 4 + 000 0.15 – 2.1 27 18 9 96 93 92 83 65 45 13 7 11.8 1
5 14. HA 5 2.1 – 4.1 33 17 16 98 97 96 86 71 56 27 21
15. HA 5 4.1 – 5.5 34 18 15 100 99 97 86 72 57 28 22
6 16. STA; 5 + 000 0.15 – 3.3 23 13 10 100 99 91 73 57 21 14 10.6 1
17. HA 6 3.3 –5.2 25 13 12 100 99 90 74 59 26 20
7 18. STA; 6 + 000 0.15 – 1.5 24 14 10 98 96 87 71 56 53 45 8.4 1
19. HA 7 1.5 – 5.3 25 13 12 100 98 96 86 74 62 34 26

Key: SM = Poorly graded sand-silt mixtures; CL = Sandy clays; ML = Silty

or clayey fine sand; SC = Clayey sand

Table 3.4: Soil Test Summary Sheet

4.0 FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.

In zone one and zone two, excavation shall not be a problem because of the nature of soil.
The pH, sulphate and chloride test were performed on the sample to determine the values of
each element. Because of high value of the elements, the pipe should be coated with the
chemical preventive paints before laying. Alignment of about 13 kilometers, should be split
into two zones because of the nature of the soil strata. The first zone started from Twin tanks
Nsude; Station 0 + 000 to Station 4 + 000. The second one starts from Station 4 + 000 +
Station 6 + 000.

The Engineering properties of zone one is; 0 + 000 to Station 4 + 000

The Liquid Limit (LL), was measured to be 20 – 29%, Plasticity Index (PI), 4 – 14%,
Percentage passing Sieve 200, 10 – 43%, the Moisture content (O.M.C) as 8 – 12%, M.D.D
as 1.92 – 1.95g/cm3 and the coefficient of compressibility (Cc) as 0.066.

The engineering properties of zone two are; Station 4 + 000 to Station 6 + 000

The Liquid limit LL, was measured to be 21 – 34%, Plasticity Index (PI) 8 – 16%, Percentage
Passing Sieve 200, 7 – 45%, the moisture content (O.M.C) as 9 – 12%, M.D.D as 1.77 –
1.96g/cm3 and the coefficient of compressibility (Cc) as 0.066.

The value of liquid limits, plasticity indexes and percentage passing sieve No 200 micron of
the samples are shown in soil summary table 3.4 above.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION
After a thorough study of Hand Auger Logs and soil summary sheets, it was observed that the
proposed structures would be adequately and economically supported on shallow foundation.
This should be precisely on strip footing.
To prevent unequal loading and displacement of the pipes, it is normally required that the
backfill and bedding be placed and compacted in layers with specified soil materials such as
gravels, sand silt or lean clay soils or mixtures of those soils having a plasticity index of less
than 22%.
The compaction should be done by jetting and vibrating or any suitable method of
compaction.
The pipes should be coated with correct additive that protect the pipe from harmful
chemicals.
In order to prepare the sub-grade for the strip, compaction should be done by rolling, roaming
or vibrating and the depth of compaction with any of the above method should exceed about
300mm.
To prevent the pipes from harmful chemical, it is essential to use dense impermeable concrete
with sulphate – resisting cement. The cement content should not be less than 350kg/m3.
Note: Chloride; Below 70 – 140 is partially ok, above 360 is harmful sulphate, 200 – 400 is
normal, below is harmful pH; 6.5 – 8.5 is good, below these values is acidic, and above those
values are harmful

5.1 REFERENCES
Amadi, A. N., Olasehiade P. I., Okunlola, I. A., Okoye, N. O. and Waziri, S. (2010). A
Multidisciplinary approach to Subsurface Characterization in North east of Minna,
Niger State, Nigeria, Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences, 3(1),
74-83.
Assessment of impacts of offshore oil and gas activities in the North-East Atlantic (2009).
OSPAR Commission.
Bhattarai, J. (2013). Study on the corrosive nature of soil towards the buried-structures.
Scientific World, 11(11) 43-47.
Costerton, J. W. and Boivin, J. (1991). Economics of microbial corrosion in water systems,
International Congress on Microbially Influenced Corrosion, Knoxville.
Ferreira, C., and Ponciano, J. (2006). Determination of the soil corrosivity of samples from
southeastern Brazilian region. Eurocorr, 5(1), 38-70.
Haneberg, W. C., Bruce, B. and Drazba, M. C. (2013). Using qualitative slope hazard maps
and quantitative probabilistic slope stability models to constrain least-cost Pipeline
route optimization. Proc., 2013 Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC-23980.
Low, H. E., Randolph, M. F., Rutherford, C. J., Bernard, B. B. and Brooks, J. M. (2008).
Characterization of near seabed surface sediment, Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Paper OTC-19149.
NAOC (2004). Nigerian Agip Oil Company: Oil Spill Statistics from 1990-2004.

Ngah, S. A. and Nwakwoala, H. O. (2013). Evaluation of Geotechnical Properties of the Sub-

soil for Shallow Foundation Design in Onne, Rivers State, Nigeria. The Journal of
Engineering and Science, Vol. 2(11): 08-16.

Nwankwoala, H. O. and Warnate, T. (2014). Geotechnical Assessment of Foundation

Conditions of site in Ubima, Ikwerre Local Government Area, Rivers State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD), 9(8): 50-
63.

Oke, S. A. and Amadi, A. N. (2008). An Assessment of the Geotechnical Properties of the

Subsoil of parts of federal University of Technology, Minna, Gidan Kwano Campus,
for Foundation Design and Construction. Jounral of Science , Education and
Technology, 1(2), 87-102.
Ricker, R. E. (2010). Analysis of pipeline steel corrosion data from NBS (NIST) studies
conducted between 1922-1940 and relevance to pipeline management. Journal of
Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 115(10), 373-392.
Stein, A. A. (1995). MIC treatment and prevention: In A Practical Manual on MIC, edited by
Kobrin, G., NACE International, Houston, Texas.
Tricarico, A. (2001). The Blue Stream – Black sea gas pipeline Project. ECA Watch.
International NGO Campaign on Export Credit Agencies.

Videla, H. A. (1996). Manual of Biocorrosion, Florida: CRC Lewis Publishers.

5.2 NOTATIONS.
LL = Liquid limit
PL = Plastic limit
PI = Plasticity index
Cv = Coefficient of consolidation
Mv = Coefficient of volume change
av = Coefficient of compressibility
CC = Compression index
e0 = Void ratio
OMC = Optimum Moisture Content
MDD = Maximum Dry Density