# Geophysical Assessment of Subsurface Conditions and Their Impact on Building Foundations at Alamo community, Gbongan, Osun State, Nigeria

Rasheed Adekunle Yaqub, Sodiq Idowu Odemakin, Moshood Akorede Jimoh, Emmanuel Olatunde Ogunnubi, Musediq Oyindamola Aluko, Ifeanyi Moses Oyudo

► To cite this version:

Rasheed Adekunle Yaqub, Sodiq Idowu Odemakin, Moshood Akorede Jimoh, Emmanuel Olatunde Ogunnubi, Musediq Oyindamola Aluko, et al.. Geophysical Assessment of Subsurface Conditions and Their Impact on Building Foundations at Alamo community, Gbongan, Osun State, Nigeria. Asian Research Journal of Current Science, 2025, 7, pp.220 - 231. 10.56557/arjocs/2025/v7i1145. hal-05208332

HAL Id: hal-05208332

https://hal.science/hal-05208332v1

Submitted on 13 Aug 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Geophysical Assessment of Subsurface Conditions and Their Impact on Building Foundations at Alamo community, Gbongan, Osun State, Nigeria

Rasheed Adekunle YAQUB a*, Sodiq Idowu ODEMAKIN a, Moshood Akorede JIMOH a, Emmanuel Olatunde OGUNNUBI a, Musediq Oyindamola ALUKO a and Ifeanyi Moses OYUDO a

## Authors' contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Article Information

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56557/arjocs/2025/v7i1145

**Open Peer Review History:**
This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here: https://prh.globalpresshub.com/review-history/2032

## Original Research Article

Received: 08/05/2025

Published: 21/07/2025

## ABSTRACT

This study assesses subsurface conditions for building foundation suitability in Alamo, Gbongan, Osun State, Nigeria, using an integrated geophysical approach. Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) were conducted with ABEM SAS 300C Terrameter

<footnote>a Department of Applied Geology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, P. M. B. 405, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Email: rasheedadelere112@gmail.com;</footnote>
along three traverses. Data were processed using DIPROfWIN and WinRESIST software to generate 1D and 2D resistivity profiles.

The results delineated four subsurface layers: topsoil, weathered layer, fractured basement, and fresh basement. Low-resistivity zones (6–60 Ωm), associated with clay-rich and saturated materials, were deemed geotechnically weak. In contrast, zones with resistivity values above 200 Ωm indicated competent basement rock suitable for structural foundations.

The alignment between VES and ERT findings validates the interpretations and emphasizes the effectiveness of combining these methods. The study underscores the value of detailed geophysical surveys in foundation planning, particularly in geologically complex terrains, to reduce structural failure risks.

Keywords: Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT); foundation suitability; precambrian basement complex; subsoil competence; Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES).

# 1. INTRODUCTION

The safety and durability of building foundations heavily rely on the nature of the subsurface materials, especially in regions where geological formations exhibit considerable variability. In Alamo community, Oke-Ola, Gbongan, Osun State situated in Southwestern Nigeria, there has been a noticeable rise in cases of structural damage and building collapse. These failures are often linked to insufficient assessment of subsurface conditions prior to construction (Jegede, 1994; Bremmer, 1999; Fajana, 2021; Fakere et al., 2012). A major contributing factor is the complex interaction between the area's diverse geology and inadequate site investigation techniques, leading to the construction of structures on clay-dominated or extensively weathered soils with poor load-bearing capacity. Consequently, there is an urgent need for the adoption of more dependable methods for subsurface assessment.

Many studies have emphasized the efficiency of geophysical techniques, especially electrical resistivity methods, in mapping subsurface characteristics and detecting areas unsuitable for construction. (Samouëlian et al., 2005; Adepelumi & Olorunfemi, 2000; Akintorinwa & Adeusi, 2009, Ojo et al., 2024). Techniques such as Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) have been recognized for their non-destructive, cost-effective nature, and ability to provide detailed insights into subsurface stratigraphy, heterogeneities, and moisture variations over large areas. Despite their proven utility in engineering and environmental studies, these geophysical tools remain underutilized in foundation site assessments across Nigeria, where reliance on limited borehole data persists (Folahan et al., 2013).

A key challenge in Gbongan and surrounding areas is the geological intricacy of the Precambrian Basement Complex. This includes weathered rock profiles, fractured zones, and soil layers that may contain expansive clay. Such conditions contribute to foundation failure but are not always adequately identified through conventional geotechnical approaches (Oyelami & Van Rooy, 2016; Oyelami et al., 2023). Even though integrated geophysical investigations have shown success in comparable geological settings, there remains a notable gap in detailed, location-specific geophysical studies for this region hindering effective construction planning.

Alamo community, Oke-Ola in Gbongan, forms part of the Precambrian Basement Complex that characterizes much of southwestern Nigeria. Geologically, this region lies within the Pan-African mobile belt, bounded by the West African Craton to the west and the Congo Craton to the east (Tanko & Chime, 2021). The basement rocks in this terrain are diverse and are broadly categorized into four major units: the Archean to Early Proterozoic gneiss–migmatite–quartzite complex, the Proterozoic supracrustal schist belts, the Neoproterozoic Pan-African granites and related granitoids, and the younger felsic and mafic intrusive rocks from the late Neoproterozoic to Early Paleozoic periods (Rahaman, 2006).

The gneiss–migmatite–quartzite complex dominates the bedrock geology, with schist belts preserved as elongated strips within this framework (Whiteman). These older rock units are intruded by Pan-African granitic bodies, including biotite and muscovite granites as well as granodiorites (Rahaman, 2006). In addition, minor intrusive bodies such as pegmatites, aplites, dolerites, and lamprophyres occur as dykes and sills, cross-cutting all pre-existing rock
types (Fakere et al., 2012; Oyelami & Van Rooy, 2016).

In Gbongan specifically, these geological divisions are well represented. The western section of the district is predominantly composed of the gneiss-migmatite complex, which appears in two north-south trending zones divided by a linear schist belt (Adepelumi & Olorunfemi, 2000). The schist units include talc-tremolite-actinolite schists and amphibolites, while Pan-African intrusives such as biotite granite and granodiorite are widespread throughout the region (Rahaman, 2006). Moreover, dolerite dykes intrude various parts of the bedrock, further emphasizing the structural complexity of the area (Burke et al., 1971).

This intricate geologic framework underscores the importance of detailed geophysical investigations, particularly for foundation studies. Diverse subsurface materials and structural discontinuities in the area may significantly influence foundation behavior and, if not properly assessed, pose serious risks to structural stability (Oyelami et al., 2023; Idornigie et al., 2006).

To bridge this knowledge gap, the present study combines VES and 2D ERT methods to evaluate the subsurface integrity of Alamo, Gbongan. By distinguishing between soil layers such as the topsoil, weathered zones, fractured bedrock, and fresh basement, this research aims to provide detailed spatial information on subsoil variability. The findings are intended to guide foundation design, mitigate structural risks, and support safer infrastructure development in geologically complex basement terrains (Osotuyi et al., 2021; Oyelami et al., 2023; Cosenza et al., 2006). The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the subsurface geoelectric characteristics of Alamo, Gbongan, using integrated Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) techniques. The goal is to delineate weak and competent zones within the subsurface that affect foundation stability, and to provide geophysical data that can guide safe and effective foundation design in the geologically complex terrain of the Precambrian Basement Complex.

# 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

## 2.1 Site location of the Investigation

Alamo community is located in Gbongan, the primary administrative center of Aiyedade local

government area of Osun State, southwestern Nigeria. Geographically, Gbongan is positioned at approximately latitude 7° 28' 38" N and longitude 4° 21' 12" E (Fig. 1).

This geophysical investigation employed essential tools and equipment for conducting electrical resistivity surveys. The primary instrument used was the ABEM SAS 300C Terrameter, a well-regarded resistivity meter suitable for both Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT). Additional field accessories included electrodes, connecting cables, measuring tapes, and hammers for electrode installation. A handheld GPS device was also utilized to accurately record and geo-reference the coordinates of all survey locations across the study traverses.

## 2.2 Site Reconnaissance

An initial site visit to Alamo community, was carried out to understand the general geological conditions, soil types, and existing infrastructure. GPS technology was used to plan and demarcate the survey layout. Three traverses each spaced 30 meters apart and approximately 150 meters long were established in the study area. Along each traverse, survey stations were set at 10-meter intervals.

## 2.3 Geophysical Data Collection

To improve the accuracy and reliability of subsurface characterization, data were collected over a 3-month period, encompassing both dry and early rainy season conditions. Geophysical measurements were conducted three times, in late dry season (March), the onset of rains (April), and during early wet conditions (May) to capture short-term hydrological influences on subsurface resistivity.

This approach allowed the identification of resistivity variations due to moisture content changes, particularly in clayey and weathered zones, which are sensitive to seasonal water infiltration. Apparent outliers resulting from environmental or instrument-induced noise were identified using statistical filtering, and final interpretations were based on averaged resistivity values across the three measurement sessions. Emphasis was placed on the lowest resistivity values, typically occurring in the early wet period, to ensure foundation recommendations were based on the most critical conditions.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Location and data acquisition map of the study area</figcaption></figure>

## 2.3.1 Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)

A 2D electrical resistivity survey was conducted along the selected traverses to investigate the stratification and physical properties of the subsurface and to locate potentially weak zones. Data acquisition was performed using the ABEM SAS 300C TERRAMETER in a Dipole-Dipole array configuration. Electrodes were systematically deployed along the profiles. The Schlumberger configuration was also employed for specific measurements. Data were processed and inverted using DIPROfWIN and WinRESIST software, which generated subsurface resistivity models indicating zones of high and low resistivity corresponding to solid and weak ground materials, respectively.

## 2.3.2 Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES)

One (1) VES survey was conducted along Traverse 2 using the Schlumberger array configuration. The current electrode spacing (AB/2) ranged from 1 meter to a maximum of 40 meters. In addition to the VES, a combination of Horizontal Profiling and Vertical Sounding using the Dipole-Dipole array was applied across Traverses 1, 2, and 3. This dual approach helped identify subsurface structures and provided both vertical and lateral resistivity variations. An inter-electrode spacing (a) of 10 meters was used,

while the inter-dipole separation factor (n) varied from 1 to 5. Apparent resistivity values were plotted at intersection points defined by 45° projections from the midpoints of the current and potential electrodes. These values were used to produce 2D resistivity sections, which guided the selection of the VES point on Traverse 2 for more focused correlation.

# 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## 3.1 Electrical Resistivity Method

### 3.1.1 Depth sounding curves

A single Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) was carried out along Traverse 2 within the study location. The interpreted result of the VES is summarized in Table 1, and the curve obtained corresponds to the A-type resistivity curve. As shown in Fig. 2, this curve type is characterized by increasing resistivity with depth.

This configuration suggests that the topsoil, typically ranging from 0 to 0.4 meters—the zone where shallow foundations are often placed—exhibits lower resistivity values compared to the layers beneath. Such low near-surface resistivity values indicate that the topsoil has poor geotechnical strength and may not be ideal for supporting engineering structures.
<table><caption>Table 1. Summary of findings from VES interpretation</caption><thead><tr><th>VES S/No</th><th>Layers</th><th>Resistivity (Ωm)</th><th>Value</th><th>Thickness(m)</th><th>Lithological Characteristics</th><th>Curve Type</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td rowspan="3">3</td><td>13.0</td><td></td><td>1.0</td><td rowspan="3">Topsoil<br>Weathered Layer<br>Fresh Basement</td><td rowspan="3">A</td></tr><tr><td>53.2</td><td></td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>552.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. VES graphic interpretation (This study)</figcaption></figure>

## 3.2 Two-Dimensional (2D) Resistivity Structure

The 2-D resistivity profiles derived from traverses 1, 2, and 3 in the study area are presented in Figs 3, 4, and 5. These profiles delineate four distinct subsurface layers: the topsoil, a weathered layer, a partially weathered or fractured basement, and the fresh basement rock. The topsoil is overlain by or merges with the low-resistivity weathered layer and exhibits very low resistivity values ranging between 6 and 60 ohm-m. This layer is represented by deep blue to green colour bands and occurs at depths and stations such as 2-7 (0-5 m), 7-9 (0-16 m), and 9-13 (0-6 m) along traverse 1 (Fig. 3); 2-6 (0-5 m), and 6-10 (0-5 m) along traverse 2 (Fig. 4); and 2-3 (0-5 m), 3-4 (0-5 m), 4-6 (0-9 m), 6-8 (0-5 m), and 8-11 (0-5 m) along traverse 3 (Fig. 5). These zones, dominated by clayey materials with high conductivity, are regarded as structurally weak and unsuitable for engineering foundations.

The second layer is the weathered zone, also marked by deep blue to green bands with resistivity values ranging from 6 to 54 ohm-m. The thickness of this layer varies across the profiles, ranging from 5 to 10 m at stations 7-8 on traverse 1; 1-3 m at stations 2-3, 4-6, and 6-10 on traverse 2; and 1-5 m at stations 2-3, 4-6, and 9-11 on traverse 3. Within this weathered layer, certain segments exhibit extremely low resistivity (8-27 ohm-m), indicating the presence of conductive clay-rich zones. These conductive features extend to depths between 1 and approximately 15 m at locations such as stations 7-9 (1-16 m) and 9-13 (1-6 m) along traverse 1; 2-6 (1-5 m) and 6-10 (1-5 m) on traverse 2; and 4-6 (1-9 m) on traverse 3. These highly conductive zones are also deemed geotechnically unstable for construction purposes.

The third subsurface unit is the fractured basement, identified by low resistivity values situated between solid basement rocks,
particularly visible in Figs 3(iii) and 5(iii). These zones appear as bluish to greenish bands and have resistivity values ranging from 4 to 9 ohm-m. They occur within stations 7–8 (5–10 m depth) on traverse 1, 2–6 (1–5 m) on traverse 2, and 4–6 (1–9 m) on traverse 3. The fractured basement layer has a variable thickness of approximately 1 to 10 m and occurs at shallow depths (5–10 m), posing minimal risk to foundation integrity.

The fourth and deepest layer is the fresh basement bedrock, characterized by moderately high to very high resistivity values ranging from 66 to 252 ohm-m, indicated by yellow to red colouration. The depth to this competent

basement rock ranges from less than 1 m to about 5 m across the traverses.

## 3.3 Comparison of Geophysical Findings

The outcomes from the Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and the 2D dipole-dipole resistivity imaging were compared to validate the subsurface interpretation. The correlation is supported by data presented in Tables 2 and 3 of the study. The VES results successfully outlined partly weathered and fractured basement zones beneath Traverses 1, 2, and 3, consistent with the anomalies identified in the 2D resistivity profiles.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Traverse 1 2-D Dipole Dipole Interpretation</figcaption></figure>
TEST LINE (Field Data Pseudosection)

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

TEST LINE (Theoretical Data Pseudosection)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

TEST LINE (2-D Resistivity Structure)

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. Traverse 2 2-D dipole dipole Interpretation</figcaption></figure>
TEST LINE (Field Data Pseudosection)

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

TEST LINE (Theoretical Data Pseudosection)

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

TEST LINE (2-D Resistivity Structure)

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. Traverse 3 2-D dipole dipole Interpretation</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>Table 2. VES resistivity interpretation</caption><thead><tr><td>VES S/No</td><td>Layering</td><td>Resistivity Value (Ωm)</td><td>Thickness (m)</td><td>Lithologic Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">1</td><td>Topsoil</td><td>13.0</td><td>0.4</td><td>Sand and gravel, Clayey sand and Lateritic</td></tr><tr><td>Weathered layer</td><td>53.2</td><td></td><td>Clay/Sandy Clay, Clayey sand and Lateritic</td></tr><tr><td>Basement rock</td><td>552.1</td><td>1 - 5</td><td>Fresh basement</td></tr><tr><td>Fractured basement</td><td>6 - 72</td><td></td><td>Partly weathered and Fractured basement rock.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Basement Bedrock</td><td>840</td><td>5 - 10</td><td>Fresh basement</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3. Assessment of topsoil strength in the study area based on resistivity values</caption><thead><tr><td>Layering</td><td>RESISTIVITY RANGE (ohm-m)</td><td>THICKNESS(M)</td><td>LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION</td><td>COMPETENCE RATING</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Topsoil</td><td>20 - 66</td><td>0.4 - 3</td><td>Clay</td><td>Incompetent</td></tr><tr><td>27 - 106</td><td>3 - 4</td><td>Silty sandy gravel</td><td>Moderately competent</td></tr><tr><td>6 - 75</td><td>4.5 - 5</td><td>Basement</td><td>Competent</td></tr></tbody></table>
The 2D resistivity sections provided broader lateral and vertical coverage, mapping distinct subsurface layers across the three traverses. These layers include topsoil, weathered zones, fractured basement, and the underlying fresh basement rock. Within the weathered and fractured layers, several low-resistivity anomalies were detected typically associated with conductive soils such as clay or moisture-rich materials. These conductive zones, found at relatively shallow depths, are considered geotechnically weak and unsuitable for direct foundation siting.

### 3.4 Subsoil Characterization of the Study Area

Both the VES and 2D dipole-dipole resistivity imaging techniques delineated four key subsurface layers beneath the study location: the topsoil, weathered layer, partly weathered/fractured basement, and the fresh basement rock. The topsoil, typically found within a depth range of 1-4 meters, is the most common foundation zone for civil engineering projects. This layer primarily consists of clay, sandy clay, and clayey sand materials.

Across the study area, resistivity values range from as low as 6 ohm-m to as high as 840 ohm-m, reflecting significant variability in the subsoil's physical and geotechnical properties. The resistivity values in the topsoil were used to assess subsoil competence, following the classification system developed by Idornigie (2006).

Based on the data summarized in Table 3, much of the central portion of the study area displays moderately low to moderately high resistivity values, particularly in the range of 66-252 ohm-m at depths of up to 5 meters, indicating the presence of fresh basement rock. This section of the subsurface is considered moderately competent to competent and is therefore suitable for foundation support.

However, in areas where lower resistivity values dominate, caution is strongly advised for civil engineers involved in foundation design and structural planning. These weak zones, often saturated or clay-rich, present a higher risk of instability. Therefore, it is essential to exercise increased care and precision in foundation siting to prevent future structural problems.

### 4. CONCLUSION

The integrated use of Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) and 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) revealed four distinct geoelectric layers: topsoil, weathered layer, fractured basement, and fresh basement. The topsoil and weathered zones exhibited low resistivity values (6-60 Ωm), indicating clay-rich, moisture-laden materials with poor geotechnical properties, aligning with findings by Oyelami et al. (2023). These layers pose high risks for shallow foundations due to their susceptibility to seasonal moisture variation and associated volume changes.

In contrast, higher resistivity values (>200 Ωm) identified in the fresh basement signify stable, competent zones suitable for structural loads, consistent with Akintorinwa & Adeusi (2009). The A-type VES curve indicates increasing resistivity with depth, reflecting the transition from weak near-surface materials to stable subsurface formations.

The 2D ERT profiles provided enhanced resolution, revealing discontinuous low-resistivity features within the weathered and fractured basement often linked to clay seams or saturation zones highlighted by Samouëlian et al. (2005).

Overall, the study confirms the effectiveness of combining VES and ERT for subsurface evaluation in basement terrains and reinforces the need for detailed geophysical surveys in engineering site investigations (Adepelumi & Olorunfemi, 2000; Akintorinwa & Adeusi, 2009).

### DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Author(s) hereby declares that no generative AI technologies such as Large Language Models (ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc.) and text-to-image generators have been used during the writing or editing of this manuscript.

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank the students who participated in the field work exercise

### COMPETING INTERESTS

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
REFERENCES

Adepelumi, A. A. & Olorunfemi, M. O. (2000).
Engineering geological and geophysical
investigation of the reclaimed Lekki
Peninsula, Lagos, South-West Nigeria.
*Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment*, **58**, 125–132.
10.1007/s100640050006

Akintorinwa O.J & Adeusi F.A, (2009). Integration of Geophysical and Geotechnical Investigations for a Proposed Lecture Room Complex at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, SW, Nigeria, *Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences* 2(3), pp. 241-254.

Bremmer, C. N. (1999). Developments in
geomechanical research for infrastructural
projects. In Geotechniek (Special Issue),
Proceedings of the 12th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering pp. 52–55

Burke, K., Dessauvagie, T. & Whiteman, A
(1971). Opening of the Gulf of Guinea and
Geological History of the Benue
Depression and Niger Delta. *Nature
Physical Science* **233**, 51–55).
https://doi.org/10.1038/physci233051a0

Cosenza, P., Marmet, E., Rejiba, F., Cui, Y. J., Tabbagh, A., & Charlery, Y. (2006). *Correlations between geotechnical and electrical data: A case study at Garchy in France. Journal of Applied Geophysics*, **60**, 165–178.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2006.02.003

Fajana, A. O. (2021). Geohazard
characterization of subsurface materials
using integrated geophysical methods for
post foundation studies: a case study.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment,
7, 403-415.

Fakere, A. A., Fadairo, G. & Fakere, R. A. (2012). Assessment of Building Collapse in Nigeria: A Case of Naval Building, Abuja, Nigeria. *International Journal of Engineering and Technology*, 2(4), 584–591.

Folahan, P. I., Ipinmoroti, F. V., Salami, M., Akinwale, K. J., Taiwo, A. T. & Adetunji, A. R. 2013: Application of geophysical methods to building foundation studies. *International Journal of Geosciences*. Vol. 4, pp. 1256 – 1266.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2013.49120

Idornigie, A. I., Olorunfemi, M. O. & Omitogun, A. A. (2006). Electrical resistivity

determination of subsurface layers, subsoil
competence and soil corrosivity at an
engineering site location in Akungba-
Akoko, southwestern Nigeria. *Ife Journal of
Science*, **8**(2), 159–177
10.4314/ijs.v8i2.32216

Jegede, G., 1994. Engineering Geotechnical
significance of Superficial Deposits in
Carrington Hill Area, Country Conc,
Ireland. *Nig. Journal Sciences, Vol. 28*, pp.
153 – 158.

Ojo, O. T., Chiaka, I. J., & Mark, A. I. (2024).
Geophysical subsurface mapping using
the electrical resistivity technique: A
comprehensive study of the Petroleum
Training Institute main campus in Effurun.
*Indonesian Journal of Earth Sciences*,
**4**(1), A846.
https://doi.org/10.52562/injoes.2024.846

Oyelami, C. A., Obaromi, O., Omoyajowo, B. T., Oluyemi, T. M., & Komolafe, O. A. (2023). *Engineering subsoil characterization for shallow foundation using DCPT at the permanent site of the University of Medical Sciences, Ondo-Town. Nigeria Journal of Mining and Geology*, **59**(2), 103–116. DOI: 10.55518/fjpas.BJZK9266

Oyelami, C. A. & Van Rooy, J. L. (2016). Geotechnical characterisation of lateritic soils from south-western Nigeria as materials for cost-effective and energy-efficient building bricks, *Environmental Earth Sciences, Volume 75*, Article 1475. 10.1007/s12665-016-6274-1

Osotuyi, A.G., Muraina Z.M., Isaac, R.A.&
Adebayo, O.S. (2021). Assessment of
goelectric properties and localized
geology as indicators on cocoa
(Theobroma cacao) yield in a part of
southwestern Nigeria. *Heliyon*, 7(12), DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e085
16

Rahaman, M. A. (2006). Nigeria's solid minerals endowment and sustainable development. *In O. Oshin (Ed.)*, The Basement Complex of Nigeria and its Mineral Resources: A tribute to Prof. M. A. O. Rahaman (pp. 1–190). *Ibadan: Akin Jinad & Co.*

Samouëlian, A., Cousin, I., Tabbagh, A., Bruand, A., & Richard, G. (2005). *Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review*. *Soil and Tillage Research*, **83**(2), 173–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2004.10.004.

Tanko, I. Y., & Chime, P. (2021). Geochemistry and mineralization of some selected pegmatite deposits in Panda, north-central
Nigeria. *European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research*, 6(2), 58–66.
https://doi.org/10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.2.81
0

Whiteman, A. Nigeria: its petroleum geology, resources and potential. Volume 1. London, England: Graham & Trotman Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7361-9

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© Copyright (2025): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://prh.globalpresshub.com/review-history/2032