DEGREE PROJECT, IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING , SECOND LEVEL

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2014

Electro-Osmotic Treatment of Soil

A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THREE
SWEDISH CLAYS
FREDRIK ERIKSSON & LINA GEMVIK

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

!

KTH Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan

Stockholm 2014

Electro-Osmotic Treatment of Soil –

A Laboratory Investigation of Three Swedish Clays
Fredrik Eriksson
Lina Gemvik!
!

Master of Science Thesis

Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm 2014
!

©Fredrik!Eriksson!and!Lina!Gemvik!2014!
Master!of!Science!Thesis!14/04!
Division!of!Soil!and!Rock!Mechanics!
Royal!Institute!of!Technology!
ISSN!1652G599X!
! i!
!
! !
Förord
Det! här! examensarbetet! utfördes! på! Institutionen! för! jordG! och! bergmekanik,! Kungliga!
Tekniska!Högskolan,!i!samarbete!med!Atkins!Sverige!AB!och!Sweco!Geolab.!

Vi! är! oerhört! tacksamma! för! alla! som! har! hjälpt! oss! på! vägen! till! att! färdigställa! detta!
arbete.!

Vi! vill! rikta! ett! extra! stort! tack! till! vår! handledare! Sölve Hov på! Atkins! för! att! du! har!
hjälpt! och! stöttat! oss! genom! hela! arbetet,! svarat! på! alla! våra! frågor! och! för! att! du!
introducerade! oss! till! ämnet;! Per Carlsson och ni andra på! Sweco! Geolab! för! att! vi! fick!
vara!hos!er!tre!gånger!längre!än!planerat,!för!all!hjälp!med!analyserna!och!för!allt!vi!har!
lärt! oss! för! livet;! Mikael Bergström på! Svevia! som! gav! oss! möjligheten! att! ta! prover! till!
vårt! arbete! och! tog! sig! tid! för! oss;! Stefan Larsson,! vår! handledare! och! examinator,! på!
Kungliga! Tekniska! Högskolan! för! att! du! introducerade! och! inspirerade! oss! till!
geotekniken!och!trodde!på!oss!när!vi!kom!och!berättade!vad!vi!ville!skriva!om.!

Tack! till! Bjerking AB! för! att! ni! gjorde! det! möjligt! för! oss! att! genomföra! vårt! arbete,!
genom! att! ställa! upp! med! en! fältdag! för! att! ta! upp! lerprover;! Anna Gran! på! Structor!
Mark! Stockholm! AB! för! att! vi! fick! ta! del! av! era! undersökningar! och! lerprover;! Ingrid
Gårlin!och!Anders Salomonson!på!SGI!Bibliotek!som!tagit!fram!alla!artiklar!till!oss;!NGI!
och! Kristoffer Kåsin! för! att! vi! fick! vara! med! ute! i! fält! och! besöka! ert! geotekniska!
laboratorium.!!

Vi! vill! även! tacka! alla! som! har! svarat! på! våra! frågor! genom! arbetets! gång.! Tack! till!
Martin Holmén,! SGI,! Gunnar Jacks,! KTH,! Jon-Petter Gustafsson,! KTH,! Tor-Gunnar Vinka,!
Swerea!Kimab!och!Rolf!Larsson.!

Vi! vill! också! tacka! Sven Hansbo! som! delade! med! sig! av! sina! erfarenheter,! både! inom!
elektroosmos!och!inom!geotekniken!i!stort,!samt!Anders Fredriksson!som!tog!sig!tiden!att!
berätta!om!sina!erfarenheter!kring!elektroosmos.!

Slutligen!vill!vi!tacka!våra!kära!pappor, Hans Eriksson och Bengt Gemvik!som!hjälpt!oss!

med!designen!och!utformningen!av!de!apparater!som!användes!i!arbetet,!Jenny Eriksson
och Margot Eriksson!som!tagit!sig!tiden!att!läsa!vårt!arbete!och!slutligen!alla!de!andra!i!
våra familjer!som!ständigt!fått!höra!oss!berätta!om!arbetet.!!

Tack!alla!!

Fredrik Eriksson Lina Gemvik

! !

! ii!
!
! !
Sammanfattning
Elektroosmos!är!ett!elektrokinetiskt!fenomen!som!uppstår!när!en!likström!drivs!genom!
en! finkornig! och! vattenmättad! jord.! Elektroosmos! kan! användas! för! att! dränera,!
konsolidera!och!öka!hållfastheten!i!finkorniga!jordar.!Metodens!effektivitet!har!bevisats!
i! åtskilliga! forskningsprojekt! och! i! kommersiella! sammanhang,! både! i! laboratoriemiljö!
och!i!fält.!Metoden!har!emellertid!relativt!sällan!använts!i!geotekniska!projekt.!

En!apparatur!byggdes!för!att!undersöka!effektiviteten!av!elektroosmos!på!svenska!leror!
då! den! allmänna! uppfattningen! inom! branschen! är! att! metoden! inte! fungerar! effektivt!
på! svensk! lera.! Apparaturen! som! byggdes! var! relativt! simpel! och! leran! testades! i! de!
kolvtuber! som! de! blev! upptagna! i.! Detta! gjordes! istället! för! att! utföra! testerna! på!
blockprover! eller! på! tillverkade! prover.! Denna! testprocedur! möjliggjorde! att! lera! med!
olika! egenskaper! från! olika! platser! och! djup! kunde! testas! med! minimala! störningar,!
vilket! betydde! att! mycket! data! kunde! samlas! in.! Alla! prover! testades! med! samma!
procedur! för! att! kunna! analysera! hur! de! olika! proverna! svarade! på! behandlingen.!
Lerprover!togs!från!tre!olika!områden!i!Sverige.!Proverna!återkonsoliderades!till!deras!
inGsitu!spänning!och!behandlades!sedan!med!en!spänning!på!6!V!under!fyra!dygn.!Under!
behandlingen!mättes!sättningsutvecklingen,!volt!och!ström.!

För! att! utvärdera! effekten! av! elektroosmosen!undersöktes! jordproverna! före! och! efter!
den! elektroGosmotiska! behandlingen.! Innan! behandlingen! testades! vattenkvot,!
konflytgräns,! odränerad! skjuvhållfasthet,! sensitivitet,! resistivitet,! pH,! aktivitetstal! och!
zetaGpotential.! Efter! behandlingen! testades! vattenkvot,! konflytgräns,! odränerad!
skjuvhållfasthet! och! sensitivitet! genom! hela! provets! längd.! CRSGförsök! utfördes! både!
innan!och!efter!behandlingen.!

Alla! proverna! konsoliderade! på! grund! av! den! elektroosmotiska! behandlingen.! Den!
vertikala! deformationen! varierade! mellan! 0,7! %! and! 9,4! %.! Vattenkvoten! och!
sensitiviteten! minskade! och! den! odränerade! skjuvhållfastheten! ökade! i! alla! prover.!
Ökningen!i!odränerad!skjuvhållfasthet,!närmast!anoden,!varierade!från!109!%!till!650!%!
och!sensitiviteten!reducerades!med!upp!till!97!%.!Förkonsolideringstrycket!ökade!i!alla!
prover.! Undersökningen! visade! att! lera! som! är! mest! lämpad! för! behandling! med!
elektroosmos! har! relativt! hög! sensitivitet,! och! relativt! högt! !!!!!!"# G! och! pHGvärde.!
Resultaten!visar!också!att!elektroosmos!kan!användas!effektivt!på!svensk!lera.!

Nyckelord:! Elektroosmos,! lera,! laboratorieundersökning,! elektroosmotisk! stabilisering,!

jordförstärkning,!kontrollerande!parametrar!

! !

! iii!
!
! !
Abstract
The!electrokinetic!phenomenon!electroGosmosis!occurs!when!a!direct!current!is!applied!
to! a! fineGgrained! saturated! soil.! ElectroGosmosis! can! drain,! consolidate! and! strengthen!
fineGgrained!soils.!The!efficiency!of!the!method!has!been!proven!in!numerous!laboratory!
and!field!investigations.!However,!it!has!seldom!been!used!in!geotechnical!engineering.!

A!testing!apparatus!was!built!to!investigate!the!efficiency!of!electroGosmosis!on!Swedish!
clay,! since! the! general! opinion! in! the! Swedish! geotechnical! industry! is! that! electroG
osmosis!is!not!effective!on!Swedish!clay.!The!apparatus!built!was!relatively!simple!and!
the!clay!was!tested!in!the!sampling!tubes!it!was!retrieved!in.!This!was!done!instead!of!
performing!the!tests!on!block!samples!or!manufactured!samples.!The!simplified!testing!
apparatus! made! it! possible! to! test! clays! from! different! locations! and! depths! with!
different!characteristics,!and!this!meant!that!a!lot!of!data!could!be!collected.!Clay!from!
three! different! sites! was! collected! and! tested! with! the! same! procedure.! The! samples!
were!reconsolidated!to!their!effective!inGsitu!stress!and!a!voltage!of!6!V!was!applied!to!
the! samples! for! four! days.! During! the! treatment,! settlement,! voltage! and! current! were!
monitored.!!

To!evaluate!the!effect!of!the!electroGosmotic!treatment,!the!soil!was!analysed!before!and!
after! the! treatment.! Before! the! treatment! the! water! content,! liquid! limit,! undrained!
shear! strength,! sensitivity,! resistivity,! pH,! activity! and! zeta! potential! were! evaluated.!
After! the! treatment! the! water! content,! liquid! limit,! undrained! shear! strength! and!
sensitivity! was! evaluated! throughout! the! length! of! the! sample.! CRSGoedometer! tests!
were!carried!out!before!and!after!the!treatment.!!

All!of!the!samples,!treated!with!electroGosmosis,!consolidated.!The!vertical!deformation!
varied! from! 0.7! %! to! 9.4! %.! The! water! content! and! sensitivity! decreased! and!!! !
increased!in!all!samples.!The!increase!in!!! !near!the!anode!varied!from!109!%!to!650!%!
and! the! sensitivity! was! reduced! by! up! to! 97! %.! The! preGconsolidation! pressure!
increased!in!all!samples.!The!laboratory!investigation!indicates!that!clay!best!suited!for!
electroGosmotic! treatment! is! normally! consolidated! and! has! relatively! high! sensitivity,!
!!!!!"# !and! pH.! The! results! also! show! that! electroGosmosis! can! be! used! effectively! on!
Swedish!clays.!

Key!words:!ElectroGosmosis,!clay,!laboratory!investigation,!electroGosmotic!stabilization,!
soil!improvement,!controlling!parameters!!

! iv!
!
! !
Table of Contents
FÖRORD&..............................................................................................................................................&II!
SAMMANFATTNING&......................................................................................................................&III!
ABSTRACT&.......................................................................................................................................&IV!
SYMBOLS&AND&ABBREVIATIONS&.............................................................................................&VII!
1&INTRODUCTION&............................................................................................................................&1!
2&LITERATURE&REVIEW&................................................................................................................&3!
2.1!ELECTROKINETIC!PHENOMENA!IN!SOIL!..................................................................................................!3!
2.2!ELECTROGOSMOSIS!IN!SOIL!.......................................................................................................................!4!
2.3!ELECTROGOSMOTIC!FLOW!IN!SOIL!...........................................................................................................!4!
2.4!THEORIES!.....................................................................................................................................................!6!
2.5!CONSOLIDATION!AND!STRESS!THEORY!...................................................................................................!9!
2.6!SECONDARY!EFFECTS!OF!ELECTROGOSMOSIS!.......................................................................................!10!
2.7!CONTROLLING!PARAMETERS!..................................................................................................................!12!
2.8!PREVIOUS!LABORATORY!INVESTIGATIONS!...........................................................................................!15!
SUMMARY!..........................................................................................................................................................!19!
3&ELECTRO:OSMOSIS&IN&GEOTECHNICAL&ENGINEERING&PRACTICE&............................&19!
3.1!BACKGROUND!............................................................................................................................................!19!
3.2!ELECTRODES!..............................................................................................................................................!19!
3.3!ELECTRICITY!..............................................................................................................................................!21!
3.4!PUMPING!....................................................................................................................................................!23!
3.5!CHEMICAL!TREATMENT!IN!COMBINATION!WITH!ELECTROGOSMOSIS!.............................................!24!
3.6!COST!............................................................................................................................................................!24!
3.7!ENVIRONMENTAL!IMPACT!OF!THE!METHOD!........................................................................................!24!
3.8!FIELD!APPLICATIONS!...............................................................................................................................!25!
SUMMARY!..........................................................................................................................................................!29!
4&EXPERIMENTAL&INVESTIGATION&.........................................................................................&29!
4.1!INTRODUCTION!.........................................................................................................................................!29!
4.2!ELECTROGOSMOTIC!CELL!AND!TESTING!APPARATUS!..........................................................................!30!
4.3!TESTING!PROCEDURE!...............................................................................................................................!31!
4.4!LABORATORY!ANALYSIS!..........................................................................................................................!33!
4.5!LIMITATIONS!OF!THE!APPARATUS!AND!IN!THE!TESTING!PROCEDURE!............................................!35!
4.6!INVESTIGATED!SOILS!................................................................................................................................!36!
5&RESULTS&AND&DISCUSSION&.....................................................................................................&42!
5.1!CONSOLIDATION!.......................................................................................................................................!43!
5.2!CHANGES!IN!UNDRAINED!SHEAR!STRENGTH,!CU!..................................................................................!44!
5.3!CHANGES!IN!WATER!CONTENT,!W!.........................................................................................................!48!
5.4!CHANGES!IN!LIQUID!LIMIT,WL!................................................................................................................!50!
5.6!CHANGES!IN!COMPRESSION!PARAMETERS!...........................................................................................!52!
5.7!CURRENT!AND!POWER!CONSUMPTION!.................................................................................................!56!
5.8!OTHER!DISCUSSION!SUBJECTS!................................................................................................................!58!
5.9!PARAMETERS!AFFECTING!THE!EFFICIENCY!OF!THE!TREATMENT!....................................................!59!

! v!
!
! !
6&CONCLUSIONS&AND&GENERAL&DISCUSSION&ABOUT&AREAS&OF&APPLICATION&.......&64!
7&FURTHER&STUDIES&....................................................................................................................&68!
REFERENCE&LIST&............................................................................................................................&69!
APPENDICES&.........................................................................................................................................&&
APPENDIX!A!–!INDIVIDUAL!RESULTS!OF!THE!SAMPLES!................................................................!11!PAGES!
APPENDIX!B!–!CORRELATION!ANALYSIS!!...........................................................................................!3!PAGES!
APPENDIX!C!–!OCR!AND!DEAD!WEIGHT!CALCULATION!.....................................................................!1!PAGE!
APPENDIX!D!–!FICTIVE!STABILITY!EXAMPLE!....................................................................................!2!PAGES!
APPENDIX!E!–!CRS!TESTS!...................................................................................................................!15!PAGES!

! !

! vi!
!
! !
Symbols and abbreviations
!! Stress! ! ! ! ! ! [kPa]! !

!! ! Major!principal!stress! ! ! ! [kPa]!

!! ! Minor!principal!stress! ! ! ! [kPa]!

! ′! Effective!stress!! ! ! ! [kPa]!

! ′! ! PreGconsolidation!pressure! ! ! [kPa]!

! ′! ! Horizontal!effective!stress! ! ! [kPa]!

! ′! ! Vertical!effective!stress! ! ! [kPa]!

!! ! Unit!weight!of!water! ! ! ! [t/m3]!

!! Zeta!potential! ! ! ! ! [mV]!

!! Soil!electrical!permittivity! ! ! [F/m]!

!! CrossGsectional!area!! ! ! ! [m2]!

!! ! Activity! ! ! ! ! [G]!

!! !! Undrained!shear!strength! ! ! [kPa]!

!! ! Consolidation!coefficient! ! ! [m2/s]!

!! Electric!potential! ! ! ! [V]!

! !! Electron! ! ! ! ! [G]!

ℎ! ! Piezometric!head! ! ! ! [m]!

!! Current! ! ! ! ! [A]!

!! ! Applied!electrical!gradient! ! ! [V/m]!

!! ! Plasticity!index!! ! ! ! [G]!

!! Permeability! ! ! ! ! [m/s]!

!! ! Coefficient!of!electroGosmotic!permeability! [m2/sV!or!m/s!per!V/m]!

!! ! Horizontal!permeability!! ! ! [m/s]!

!! ! Coefficent!of!earth!pressure!at!rest! ! [G]!

!! ! Vertical!permeability! ! ! ! [m/s]!

!! Length!! ! ! ! ! [m]!

!! ! Dissolved!metal!cation!specie! ! ! [G]!

! vii!
!
! !
!! ! Metal!electrode! ! ! ! [G]!!

!! ! OneGdimensional!compression!modulus! [kPa]!!

!! Soil!porosity! ! ! ! ! [G]!

!! Electrical!power! ! ! ! [W]!

!! Flow!rate! ! ! ! ! [m3/s]!

!! Electrical!resistance! ! ! ! [Ohm]!

!! Pore!pressure! ! ! ! ! [kPa]!

!!! Voltage!! ! ! ! ! [V]!

!! ! Viscosity!of!the!pore!fluid! ! ! [Pas]!

!! Water!content! ! ! ! ! [%]!

!! ! Liquid!limit! ! ! ! ! [%]!

!! ! Plastic!limit! ! ! ! ! [%]!

!! Distance! ! ! ! ! [m]!

!! Valence!! ! ! ! ! [G]!

Abbreviations

OCR!G!Over!consolidation!ratio!! ! !

! ! !

!
!

! viii!
!
! !
1
Introduction
Ground! improvement! methods! used! in! the! geotechnical! industry! today,! such! as! limeGcement!
columns,! are! well! established.! However,! as! the! circumstances! in! geotechnical! projects! become!
more! difficult! and! environmental! aspects! become! more! important,! complementary!
improvement!methods!are!needed.!One!method!to!improve!soft!and!unstable!fineGgrained!soils!
is! with! electroGosmosis.! ElectroGosmosis! improves! the! soil! by! draining! the! pore! water! and!
creating! a! negative! pore! pressure! (Mitchell! &! Soga,! 2005).! ! Because! of! the! negative! pore!
pressure!a!consolidation!process!is!induced!in!the!soil,!which!can!be!up!to!100!times!faster!than!
mechanical! consolidation,! so! a! significant! increase! in! shear! strength! can! be! achieved! quickly!
(Lefebvre!&!Burnotte,!2002).!

ElectroGosmosis! can! be! an! effective! and! economically! viable! method! to! drain,! consolidate! and!
strengthen! fineGgrained! soils.! The! environmental! impact! of! the! method! can! be! relatively! low!
compared! to! other! conventional! stabilization! methods.! LamontGBlack! and! Weltman! (2010)!
showed!that!using!electroGosmosis!in!a!slope!stabilization!project!lowered!the!carbon!footprint!
of! the! stabilization! with! 47%,! compared! to! other! methods,! e.g.! soil! nailing.! The! cost! was! 26%!
lower!than!comparable!methods.!

Researchers! around! the! world! have! investigated! electroGosmosis! and! its! efficiency! has! been!
proven! in! numerous! laboratory! studies,! field! tests! and! commercial! projects! since! the!
phenomenon!was!discovered!in!1807.!The!most!recent!laboratory!studies!have!been!focused!on!
the!material!and!setup!of!the!electrodes!used!in!the!method!(Lo!et!al,!1991Ga;!Mohamedelhassan!
&!Shang,!2001;!Lefebvre!&!Burnotte,!2002),!the!chemical!effects!of!the!method!(Micic!et!al,!2002;!
Jeyakanthan! et! al,! 2011)! and! how! to! apply! electroGosmosis! to! marine! clay! with! high! salitinty!
(Micic!et!al,!2001;!Mohamedelhassan,!2011).!

Commercial!and!research!projects!using!electroGosmosis!have!been!performed!in!Sweden!since!
the! 1940’s! (Casagrande,! 1953),! but! no! extensive! research! has! been! carried! out! since! Larsson!
(1975)!published!the!research!report!Electro:osmotic!consolidation!of!clay!in!1975!(Orginal!title:!
Konsolidering! av! lera! med! hjälp! av! elektroosmos).! The! most! recent! geotechnical! project! using!

! 1!
!
! !
electroGosmosis! in! Sweden! was,! to! our! knowledge,! performed! in! 1985! when! electroGosmosis!
was!used!to!stabilize!an!excavation!in!central!Stockholm!(Fredriksson,!2013).!!

The!general!understanding!of!why!electroGosmosis!is!used!and!how!it!actually!works!has!been!
poor!and!the!method!has!been!more!or!less!forgotten!in!Sweden.!In!the!1970’s!the!limeGcement!
column! started! being! used! to! improve! soft! and! sensitive! soils! and! became! more! or! less! the!
dominant! ground! improvement! method.! The! lime! cement! columns! are! both! time! effective! and!
give!results!that!are!easier!to!predict!in!advance,!which!can!be!one!reason!why!electroGosmosis!
is!only!rarely!used.!Also,!the!general!opinion!in!the!Swedish!geotechnical!industry!is!that!electroG
osmosis!is!not!an!effective!ground!improvement!method.!!

Research!on!electroGosmosis!has!continued!and!with!this!increased!knowledge!electroGosmosis!
has!the!potential!to!be!a!useful!and!environmentally!friendly!ground!improvement!method!that!
can! be! used! as! a! complement! to! other! ground! improvement! methods.! The! possibilities! for!
electroGosmosis! as! a! method! in! geotechnical! engineering! are! vast! and! the! method! can! be! a!
solution!for!complicated,!geotechnical!problems!related!to!fineGgrained!soils.!

The!aim!of!this!thesis!was!to!investigate!the!efficiency!of!electroGosmosis!on!Swedish!clays!and!
to! find! soil! parameters! that! affected! the! efficiency! of! the! electroGosmotic! treatment.! Previous!
researchers! have! found! some! soil! parameters! that! can! be! used! to! get! an! indication! of! how!
effective!electroGosmosis!can!be!in!a!specific!soil.!However,!this!has!not!been!the!focus!of!recent!
research,!instead!parameters!that!are!easier!to!evaluate!are!required!so!that!it!is!easy!to!know!if!
electroGosmosis! is! a! viable! method! to! use! to! improve! a! specific! soil.! To! do! this,! clays! with!
different!characteristics,!from!three!different!sites!in!Sweden!were!treated!with!electroGosmosis.!
The!results!of!the!treatment!were!then!analysed!to!investigate!in!which!type!of!clay!the!method!
can!be!used!effectively!and!which!soil!parameters!that!affect!the!outcome!of!the!treatment.!

! !

! 2!
!
! !
!

2
Summary
The!electrokinetic!phenomenon!electroGosmosis!has!been!known!since!1807!and!
occurs! when! a! direct! current! is! applied! to! a! fineGgrained! saturated! soil.! During!
electroGosmotic!treatment,!the!water!in!the!soil!will!be!drawn!from!an!anode!to!a!
cathode,!which!induces!a!negative!pore!pressure!and!results!in!consolidation!of!
the!soil!and!an!increase!in!shear!strength.!The!flow!occurs!in!the!soGcalled!diffuse!
double! layer,! located! near! the! negatively! charged! surface! of! the! soil! particle.!
There! are! several! theories! explaining! electroGosmosis.! Some! of! the! most! wellG
known!and!used!theories!are!the!HelmholtzGSmoluchowski!theory,!Casagrande’s!
equation!and!Esrig’s!oneGdimensional!flow!theory.!These!theories!are!described!
in!this!chapter.!

There!are!several!parameters!that!affect!the!electroGosmotic!treatment.!Some!of!
the! most! important! parameters! are! the! coefficient! of! electroGosmotic!
permeability,!which!controls!the!electroGosmotic!flow!and!can!be!seen!as!the!key!
parameter!for!the!effectiveness!of!the!treatment,!the!zeta!potential!which!is!the!
electric! potential! at! the! diffuse! double! layer,! and! the! salinity! which! is! the!
concentration!of!ions!in!the!pore!water.!The!salinity!influences!the!spread!of!the!
diffuse!double!layer!where!the!electroGosmotic!flow!takes!place.!If!the!salinity!is!
high!the!double!layer!becomes!smaller,!decreasing!the!efficiency!of!the!treatment.!
ElectroGosmosis! has! been! shown! to! be! most! effective! in! fineGgrained! soils! with!
low!salinity,!less!than!2!g!NaCl/l.!

Previous!laboratory!investigations!are!also!presented!in!this!chapter.!

!
Literature review

2.1 Electrokinetic phenomena in soil

When! a! direct! current,! DC,! is! applied! between! electrodes! in! a! fineGgrained! saturated! soil!
different! electrokinetic! phenomena! occur! (Micic! et! al,! 2002).! The! three! main! phenomena!
induced!by!electrokinetics!are:!!

⋅ ElectroGosmosis!–!motion!of!pore!fluid!due!to!the!applied!current!
⋅ ElectroGphoresis!–!motion!of!charged!particles!due!to!the!applied!current!
⋅ ElectroGmigration!–!motion!of!ions!in!the!pore!fluid!due!to!the!applied!current!

These! phenomena! have! been! used! in! geotechnical! engineering! to! improve! the! soil! properties.!
When!it!comes!to!improving!the!geotechnical!properties!of!soil,!by!draining!the!pore!water!and!
consolidating!the!soil,!electroGosmosis!is!the!most!efficient!phenomenon!(Micic!et!al,!2002).!!

The! phenomenon! of! electroGosmosis! was! first! discovered! by! the! German! scientist! Ferdinand!
Fredrich!Reuss!and!presented!at!a!conference!in!Moscow!1807!(Pertsov!&!Zaitseva,!2008).!In!the!
1850’s! G.H! Wiederman! and! G.! Quincke! investigated! the! phenomenon! in! more! detail.! In! the!
1870’s! Nerman! and! Helmholzt! presented! a! theory! focusing! on! the! important! influence! of! the!
chemical!double!layer!surrounding!the!negatively!charged!soil!particles.!

! 3!
!
! !
2.2 Electro-osmosis in soil
When!a!direct!current!is!applied!to!the!soil,!the!pore!water!in!the!material!starts!to!move!from!
one!electrode,!the!anode,!to!the!electrode!with!opposite!charge,!the!cathode,!see!figure!2.1.!!

In! geotechnical! engineering,! electroGosmosis! was! first! used! by! Leo! Casagrande! in! the! 1930’s,!
who!also!used!electroGosmosis!in!several!projects!after!that.!ElectroGosmosis!has!generally!been!
used! to! improve! loose! clay! and! silty! soils! by! draining! pore! water.! A! negative! pore! pressure! is!
induced! in! the! soil,! resulting! in! consolidation! and! an! increase! of! the! strength! parameters.! The!
increase!has!shown!to!be!permanent!in!clay!soils.!Milligan!(1995)!reported!from!a!project!where!
steel! piles! were! installed! in! varved! clay! that! they! still! had! the! same! bearing! capacity! 33! years!
after!the!treatment.!Permanency!has!also!been!shown!by!Lo!et!al!(1991Gb)!in!a!field!test!on!soft!
sensitive!clay,!where!the!undrained!shear!strength,!!! ,!increased!with!50%.!Vane!test!performed!
10!months!after!the!treatment!showed!that!the!increase!in!!! !was!permanent.!!

2.3 Electro-osmotic flow in soil

Clay! and! silt! consist! of! particles! that! exhibit! a! negative! surface! charge! (Mitchell! &! Soga,! 2005;!
Pusch,! 1976).! The! pore! water! contains! free! ions,! i.e.! dissolved! salts,! which! can! have! a! positive!
charge,!cations,!or!a!negative!charge,!anions.!The!ions!are!surrounded!by!water!molecules,!see!
figure! 2.1,! that! are! weakly! bound! to! the! ions.! Due! to! the! negative! surface! charge! of! the! soil!
particles,! the! positive! cations! are! attracted! to! the! surface! to! balance! the! charge! difference,!
resulting! in! a! high! concentration! of! cations! close! to! the! surface,! see! figure! 2.2.! The! layer! of!
cations!closest!to!the!surface!of!the!particle!is!called!the!diffuse!double!layer,!which!varies!in!size!
depending!on!the!total!ion!concentration!in!the!pore!water!and!the!surface!charge!(Fällman!et!al,!
2001).!When!the!concentration!of!ions!is!high,!the!spread!of!the!diffuse!double!layer!is!smaller!
because! the! ions! are! closer! to! each! other,! and! vice! versa,! see! figure! 2.3.! Outside! the! diffuse!
double!layer,!in!the!bulk!liquid,!see!figure!2.3,!the!concentrations!of!the!anions!and!cations!are!in!
balance.!!

Figure 2.1: Electro-osmotic flow (Asadi et al, 2013).

! Figure 2.2: Concentration of ions with the

distance from the particle surface (Yeung,
1994).!

! 4!
!
! !
One! model! to! describe! the! diffuse! double! layer! is! the! SternGGouy! double! layer! model.! In! this!
model!the!double!layer!consists!of!an!inner!layer,!the!Stern!layer,!adjacent!to!the!particle!surface!
that!is!fixed!and!an!outer!diffuse!mobile!layer,!the!Gouy!layer,!see!figure!2.4!(Shang,!1997).!!The!
zeta!potential,!ζ,!which!is!the!electrical!potential!between!the!fixed!and!mobile!part!of!the!double!
layer!can!be!seen!in!figure!2.4.!The!ζ!will!be!discussed!further!in!section!2.7.2.!

When! a! direct! current! is! applied! to! a! soil,! the! cations! move! towards! the! negatively! charged!
electrode,!the!cathode,!and!the!anions!move!towards!the!positively!charged!electrode,!the!anode.!
Due!to!the!high!concentration!of!cations!in!the!diffuse!double!layer,!the!movement!is!primarily!
generated!in!this!layer,!and!directed!towards!the!cathode!(Asadi!et!al,!2013).!As!water!molecules!
surround!the!cations,!a!water!flow!occurs!in!the!double!layer!in!the!same!direction!as!the!cations!
are!moving,!i.e.!towards!the!cathode.!!

!
Figure 2.3: The spread of the diffuse double layer (Rankka, 2003).

! 5!
!
! !
Figure 2.4: Schematic of the Stern-Gouy double layer model (Shang, 1997).

The! concentrations! of! cations! and! anions! in! the! bulk! liquid,! see! figure! 2.3,! are! equal! and!
therefore! the! movements! in! the! bulk! liquid,! induced! by! electroGosmosis,! cancel! each! other! out!
(Larsson,! 1975).! But! the! bulk! liquid! can! still! be! drained! by! electroGosmosis.! The! movement! in!
the! diffuse! double! layer! interacts! with! the! bulk! liquid,! which! is! dragged! along! towards! the!
cathode.!The!total!electroGosmotic!flow!is!attributed!to!the!motion!of!both!these!phases!(Eykholt!
&!Daniel,!1994).!!!!

2.4 Theories
Several! theories! have! been! developed! to! explain! electroGosmosis.! The! most! common! theories!
are! the! HelmholtzGSmoluchowski! theory,! Casagrande’s! equation! for! electroGosmotic! flow! and!
Esrig’s!oneGdimensional!flow!theory!(Asadi!et!al,!2013;!Mitchell!&!Soga,!2005;!Esrig,!1968).!!

2.4.1 Helmholtz-Smoluchowski theory

One! of! the! most! used! and! wellGknown! theories! is! the! HelmholtzGSmoluchowski! theory.! It!
assumes! that! the! radii! of! the! pores! are! large! in! comparison! with! the! thickness! of! the! diffuse!
double!layer!and!that!!!is!an!important!parameter!to!determine!the!electroGosmotic!flow!(Asadi!
et! al,! 2013;! Mitchell! &! Soga,! 2005).! The!!!has! mainly! been! used! in! this! theory.! ElectroGosmotic!
flow,!according!to!the!HelmholtzGSmoluchowski!theory,!is!calculated!as:!

! !" !
!= ! !! (2.1)!
!! !

!!=!flow!rate![m3/s]! !
!!=!zeta!potential![V]!
!! !=!viscosity!of!the!pore!fluid![Pas]!
!!=!soil!porosity![G]!
!!=!soil!electrical!permittivity![F/m]!
!!=!gross!crossGsectional!area!perpendicular!to!water!flow![m2]!
!!=!electric!potential![V]!
!!=!length![m]!

! 6!
!
! !
The! coefficient! of! electroGosmotic! permeability,!!! ,! is! one! of! the! most! important! parameters!
when! it! comes! to! the! efficiency! of! electroGosmosis! in! different! soils.! The! coefficient! can! be!
calculated!according!to!equation!2.2.!According!to!the!HelmholtzGSmoluchowski!theory!the!value!
of!!! !is!independent!of!the!pore!size!in!the!soil.!This!is!different!from!the!permeability,!!,!which!
varies! with! the! square! of! the! effective! pore! size.! In! a! fineGgrained! soil! the! size! of! the! pores! is!
small!which!means!that!the!hydraulic!gradient!is!small.!But!since!!! !is!independent!of!the!pore!
size,! electroGosmosis! is! still! effective! in! fineGgrained! soils.! From! this! it! can! be! concluded! that!
electroGosmosis! should! be! more! efficient! in! transporting! water! in! fineGgrained! soils! than! a!
hydraulic! gradient! (Mitchell! &! Soga,! 2005).! Shang! (1997)! showed! that! the! HelmholtzG
Smoluchowski! theory! could! be! used! to! predict! electroGosmotic! flow! in! clay.!!! !is! calculated! as:!
!

! !"
!! = !! (2.2)!
!!

!! !=!coefficient!of!electroGosmotic!permeability![m2/sV!or!m/s!per!V/m]!

2.4.2 Casagrande’s flow equation

Casagrande! proposed! a! simple! equation! for! electroGosmotic! flow,! which! has! been! used!
frequently!in!geotechnical!engineering!(Casagrande,!1953).!This!relationship!is!valid!when!there!
is!free!access!to!water!at!both!the!anode!and!the!cathode,!i.e.!open!boundaries!at!both!electrodes.!
The!flow!of!water!is!calculated!as:!

!
! = !! ∗ !! ∗ !! (2.3)!

!!=!flow!rate![m3/s]!
!!=!gross!crossGsectional!area!perpendicular!to!water!flow![m2]!
!! !=!applied!electrical!gradient![V/m]!
!! !=!coefficient!of!electroGosmotic!permeability [m2/sV!or!m/s!per!V/m]!!

2.4.3 Esrig’s one-dimensional flow theory

Esrig! (1968)! developed! a! theory! used! to! predict! the! oneGdimensional! electroGosmotic! flow,!
where! the! flow! and! the! consolidation! occur! in! the! same! direction.! The! theory! assumes! the!
following!simplified!conditions:!!

1. The!soil!is!homogeneous!and!fully!saturated.!
2. The!physicalGchemical!properties!of!the!treated!soil!mass!are!uniform!and!constant!over!
time.!
3. Electrophoresis!does!not!occur.!
4. The!electrically!induced!velocity!of!the!pore!water!is!proportional!to!the!voltage!
gradient,!and!the!proportionality!factor!is!!! !and!is!assumed!to!be!constant!over!time.!
5. All!the!applied!voltage!is!useful!in!transporting!water.!
6. The!electric!field!throughout!the!soil!mass!is!not!altered!over!time.!
7. No!chemical!reactions!occur!at!the!electrodes.!
8. Fluid!flows!due!to!an!electrical!field!and!the!hydraulic!gradient!may!be!superimposed!to!
find!the!total!flow.!

The! pore! water! pressure! generated! by! the! electroGosmotic! flow! can! be! both! positive! and!
negative! depending! on! the! boundary! conditions! of! the! treated! soil! volume.! Considering! a!

! 7!
!
! !
situation!where!the!voltage!gradient!is!uniform!and!the!flow!occurs!from!the!anode!towards!the!
cathode,!there!are!the!following!three!cases:!!

a)!When!the!boundaries!at!both!anode!and!cathode!are!opened!and!have!free!access!to!water,!
water!can!flow!in!and!out!through!the!treated!soil!and!the!pore!water!pressure!is!not!affected,!
see!figure!2.5.!!

b)! If! the! boundary! at! the! cathode! is! closed,! i.e! impermeable,! and! the! boundary! at! the! anode! is!
opened! with! free! access! to! water,! a! positive! pore! water! pressure! is! created! with! the! highest!
pressure!generated!close!to!the!cathode,!see!figure!2.6.!!!

c)!If!instead!the!anode!is!closed!and!the!cathode!is!opened!a!negative!pore!pressure!is!created,!
which! is! most! negative! close! to! the! anode! and! gradually! becomes! less! negative! closer! to! the!
cathode,!where!the!pore!pressure!is!zero,!see!figure!2.7.!

Figure 2.5: Open boundaries, no change in pore water

Figure 2.6: Open at the anode with free access to water
pressure (Esrig, 1968).!
and closed at the cathode (Esrig, 1968).!

!
!

Figure 2.7: Closed at the anode and open at the cathode

(Esrig, 1968).

! !

! 8!
!
! !
In!geotechnical!engineering,!case!c,!creating!a!negative!pore!pressure,!is!desirable.!The!negative!
pore!pressure!builds!up!over!time.!If!the!pore!pressure!is!allowed!to!reach!its!maximum,!! → !∞,!
the! pore! pressure! at! a! certain! distance! (x)! from! the! cathode! can! then! be! calculated! as:!
!

! !! ∗ !!
! !, ∞ = − ∗ ! ∗ !! (2.4)!
!!

!!=!pore!water!pressure![kPa]!
!! =!horizontal!permeability![m/s]!!
!! !=!unit!weight!of!water![kN/m3]!

Other!models!have!been!developed!after!Esrig’s!flow!theory.!Those!worth!mentioning!are!Wan!&!
Mitchell!(1976),!Shang!(1998),!Yuan!&!Hicks!(2013),!Jeyakanthan!&!Gnanendran!(2013)!and!Hu!
&!Wu!(2014).!

2.5 Consolidation and stress theory

The! total! stress,!!,! at! any! point! in! a! saturated! soil! is! divided! into! two! parts;! the! pore! water!
pressure,!!,!and!the!effective!stress,!!′:!

! ! = !′ + !![kPa]! (2.5)!

The! pore! water! pressure,!!,! is! equal! in! all! directions! in! the! soil! and! is! calculated! as! the! unit!
weight!of!the!water,!!! ,!times!the!piezometric!head,!ℎ! :!

! ! = !! ∗ ℎ! ![kPa]! (2.6)!

! ′ !acts!exclusively!in!the!solid!phase,!i.e!between!the!soil!particles:!!

! ! ! = ! − !![kPa]! (2.7)!

Neglecting! creep,! all! measurable! effects,! such! as! compression,! changes! in! shearing! resistance!
and!distortion,!are!entirely!caused!by!changes!in!! ′ .!

When! treating! a! soil! with! electroGosmosis,! a! negative! pore! pressure! is! induced! and! as! can! be!
seen!from!the!effective!stress!theory,!equation!2.8,!a!larger!negative!pore!pressure!generates!a!
higher!! ′ .!!

! ! ! = ! − −! = ! + !![kPa]! (2.8)!

In! other! words,! the! negative! pore! pressure,! created! by! electroGosmosis,! increases!! ′ ,! which! in!
turn!results!in!consolidation!of!the!soil!and!increased!!! .!!

If!no!water!is!allowed!to!enter!the!soil!at!the!anode!and!there!is!free!drainage!at!the!cathode,!a!
hydraulic! gradient! is! developed! between! the! electrodes.! This! occurs! when! the! pore! water! is!
drawn! from! the! anode! towards! the! cathode! during! the! electroGosmotic! treatment! (Mitchell! &!
Soga,! 2005).! Because! of! the! hydraulic! gradient,! water! wants! to! flow! back! towards! the! anode,!
counteracting! the! water! flow! caused! by! electroGosmosis.! The! consolidation! of! the! soil! will!
continue! until! the! net! flow! from! these! two! is! zero.! This! is! valid! under! ideal! conditions,! but! in!
reality!there!are!several!other!factors!that!influence!the!consolidation!process.!

! 9!
!
! !
From!equation!2.9!it!can!be!seen!that!!! !is!correlated!to!the!over!consolidation!ratio,!!"#.!The!
!! !can!be!calculated!with!the!following!equation!(Schofield!&!Wroth,!1968;!Ladd,!1974;!Larsson!
et!al,!2007Ga):!!

! !! = ! ∗ ! ! ! ∗ !"# ! ![kPa]!
(2.9)!

!!=!constant,!varies!between!0.22!–!0.5![G]!
!!=!constant,!varies!between!0.75!–!0.85![G]!
! ′ ! !!=!vertical!effective!stress![kPa]!!

The!OCR!is!defined!as:!!

! ! !!
!"# = ! ![−]! (2.10)!
! !!

! ′ ! !=!preGconsolidation!pressure![kPa]!

When!a!soil!has!been!consolidated!the!preGconsolidation!pressure,!! ′ ! ,!is!increased!resulting!in!
higher!!"#.! The! increased!!"#!means!!! !has! increased! according! to! equation! 2.9.! Secondary!
effects! related! to! electroGosmosis! also! contribute! to! the! increased!!! !(Mohamedelhassan! &!
Shang,!2001).!

2.6 Secondary effects of electro-osmosis

When!a!current!is!applied!to!a!saturated!soil,!other!phenomena!besides!electroGosmosis!occur.!
These!phenomena!affect!the!electroGosmotic!flow,!the!efficiency!and!the!result!of!the!treatment.!
It! is! therefore! important! to! evaluate! and! understand! these! secondary! effects,! and! how! they!
influence!the!treatment,!to!be!able!to!design!and!use!the!method!in!the!best!possible!way.!

2.6.1 Electrolysis of water

The! current! flow! in! the! electrodes! and! in! the! soil! causes! electrolysis! of! the! water! at! the!
electrodes.!At!the!anode,!oxidation!occurs!and!oxygen!gas!(O2)!is!generated!while!at!the!cathode,!
reduction!occurs!and!hydrogen!gas!(H2)!is!generated.!!

Oxidation!at!anode!
!
2H2O–4e: →O2!(gas)!+!4H+&

!
Reduction!at!cathode!
4H2O!+!4e:→!2H2!(gas)!+!4OH:!

These! reactions! produce! a! base! front! at! the! cathode,! moving! towards! the! anode,! and! an! acid!
front!at!the!anode,!moving!towards!the!cathode!(Mitchell!&!Soga,!2005;!Hamed!&!Bhadra,!1997).!
Researchers! have! seen! that! the! pHGlevel! at! the! anode! can! decrease! down! to! values! of!
approximately! 2! and! that! the! pHGlevel! at! the! cathode! can! increase! to! a! value! of! up! to!
approximately! 14! (Beddiar! et! al,! 2005;! Eykholt! &! Daniel,! 1994).! Therefore,! there! will! be! a!
difference! in! pH! through! a! sample! treated! with! electroGosmosis.! The! pH! affects! the! surface!
charge!of!the!particles,!which!in!turn!affects!!.!!!becomes!less!negative!if!the!pH!is!low!and!vice!
versa.!!!is! an! important! parameter! when! it! comes! to! how! efficient! electroGosmosis! is,! and!
therefore! pH! affects! the! efficiency! indirectly! (Hamed! &! Bhadra,! 1997).! The! generation! of! gas!

! 10!
!
! !
from!the!reductionGoxidation!reactions!can!cause!the!soil!to!heave!if!it!is!not!ventilated.!This!will!
counteract!the!consolidation!and!i.e.!reduce!the!efficiency!of!the!treatment.!!

2.6.2 Oxidation and reduction at electrodes

Another! effect! that! occurs! is! the! oxidation! and! reduction! of! the! electrodes.! This! occurs! if! the!
electrodes!are!made!out!of!metal!(Jeyakanthan!et!al,!2011).!The!reactions!can!be!seen!below.!Me!
is!the!metal!electrode,!Mj!is!the!dissolved!metal!cation!specie!in!the!pore!water!solution,!! ! !is!the!
electron!and!z!is!the!valence!of!the!metal!ion!and!associated!electrons.!

!
Oxidation!at!the!anode!
z+
Me!##→Me +z! !

Reduction!at!the!cathode!
z+
Mj +z! ! #→Mj ↓

Oxidation!of!the!anode,!combined!with!the!acidic!environment!generated!by!the!treatment,!can!
cause!a!deterioration!of!the!anode!(Micic!et!al,!2002).! This!will!cause!metal!ions!to!precipitate!
into!the!soil!and!react!with!soil!particles!and!other!species!in!the!soil.!!

2.6.3 Cementation
Using! steel! electrodes! the! oxidation! will! cause! ferrous! ions,! Fe2+,! to! precipitate! into! the! soil!
where!further!oxidation!changes!the!ferrous!ions!to!ferric!ions,!Fe3+!(Rittirong!et!al,!2008;!Micic!
et!al,!2002).!These!ions!can!react!with!oxygen!and!form!iron!oxides;!Fe2O3!and!Fe3O4,!which!act!
as!a!natural!cementing!agent!and!bond!soil!particles!together!through!cementation.!During!the!
treatment!carbonates!can!also!be!released!to!the!soil,!which!can!have!the!same!cementing!effect!
(Micic! et! al,! 2002).! Jeyakanthan! et! al! (2011)! showed! that! approximately! 10%! to! 20%! of! the!
increase!in!! ′ ! !from!electroGosmotic!treatment!came!from!electrochemical!effects.!

2.6.4 Transport of ions

Larsson! (1975)! observed! that! the! concentration! of! dissolved! ions! in! the! pore! water! changed!
during! electroGosmotic! treatment.! The! concentrations! of! dissolved! ions! or! salinity! of! the! pore!
water!increased!near!the!anode!and!was!decreased!near!the!cathode.!A!decrease!in!salinity!can!
cause!the!sensitivity!of!the!clay!to!increase.!This!is!what!happens!when!clay!is!leached!and!quick!
clay!is!formed!(Torrance,!1999;!AnderssonGSköld!et!al,!2005).!

2.6.5 Temperature rise

Ohm’s!law!states!that!voltage,!!,!is!related!to!the!electrical!resistance,!!![Ohm],!and!the!current,!
!![A],!according!to!following!equation:!!

! ! = ! ∗ !![V]! (2.11)!

According! to! the! joule! effect,! heat! is! generated! when! current! flows! through! a! resistor!
(Nationalencyklopedin,! 2014).! The! heat! generated! is! proportional! to! the! power! applied.! The!
electrical!power,!!,!is!defined!according!to!this!equation:!

! 11!
!
! !
 ! ! = ! ∗ !![W]! (2.12)!

Combining!equations!2.11!and!2.12!the!electrical!power!can!be!calculated!as:!

!!
! != ![!]! (2.13)!
!
From! this! it! can! be! seen! that! the! voltage! affects! the! power! level! and,! indirectly,! the! heat!
generation!the!most.!In!previous!research,!temperature!rise!has!been!observed!in!the!soil!when!
it! has! been! treated! with! electroGosmosis.! Burnotte! et! al! (2004)! observed! an! increase! in!
temperature! from! 8°C! to! a! peak! value! of! 100°C! close! to! the! anodes! at! the! end! of! the! electroG
osmotic!treatment!during!a!field!test!in!Canada.!The!increase!in!temperature!was!observed!to!be!
larger!at!the!anodes!than!at!the!cathode.!Ou!et!al!(2009)!saw!an!increase!in!temperature!during!a!
field! test! where! the! temperature! rose! from! 24°C! to! a! peak! value! of! 33°C! at! the! end! of! the!
treatment.!This!phenomenon!was!also!observed!by!Hansbo!(2008)!during!a!field!application!in!
Södertälje,!where!the!anodes!were!steaming!hot!when!they!were!pulled!up!from!the!ground!at!
the!end!of!the!treatment.!!!

The!heat!generated!affects!the!electroGosmotic!treatment.!If!the!temperature!in!the!soil!is!high,!
there!is!a!risk!of!dissociation!that!could!reduce!the!electrode!to!soil!contact!(Hansbo,!2008).!This!
will!affect!the!efficiency!of!the!treatment!by!lowering!the!voltage!transferred!from!the!electrode!
to!the!soil.!The!heat!can!also!have!a!positive!effect!on!the!treatment.!Sällfors!and!Tidfors!(1989)!
showed!that!! ′ ! !of!clay,!evaluated!in!a!CRSGoedometer,!is!lower!at!higher!temperature.!However,!
this!is!not!investigated!further!in!this!thesis.!

2.7 Controlling parameters

There! are! a! number! of! soil! parameters! that! affect! the! electroGosmotic! flow! in! a! soil.! When!
evaluating! in! which! soils! electroGosmosis! can! be! a! suitable! method,! these! parameters! are!
important! to! investigate.! In! this! section! soil! parameters! related! to! electroGosmosis! are!
presented.!!

2.7.1 Coefficient of electro-osmotic permeability, !!

The!voltage!gradient!and!the,!electrically!induced,!water!flow!velocity!is!proportional.!!! !is!the!
factor!describing!this!proportionality!(Esrig,!1968).!!! !is!an!important!parameter!and!a!measure!
of! the! electroGosmotic! efficiency! in! different! types! of! soils.! The! pore! water! flow! induced! by!
electroGosmosis! is! controlled! by! !! !(Mohamedelhassan! &! Shang,! 2001).! There! are! two!
commonly! used! relationships! illustrating! the! importance! of! !! .! One! is! presented! by!
Casagrande’s! flow! equation,! see! equation! 2.3,! and! the! other! is! presented! in! Esrig’s! oneG
dimensional! flow! theory,! equation!2.4.!Both!these!relationships!show!that!!! !controls! the! pore!
water!transport!through!the!soil!when!it!is!treated!with!electroGosmosis.!According!to!Mitchell!
and!Soga!(2005),!!! !should!vary!from!1x10G9!to!1x10G8![m2/s!V]!in!soils!appropriate!for!electroG
osmotic!treatment.!!

2.7.2 Zeta potential, !

The!zeta!potential,!!,!is!the!electric!potential!at!the!soGcalled!slipping!plane,!see!figure!2.8,!which!
describe! the! potential! between! the! fixed! and! mobile! part! of! the! diffuse! double! layer! (Shang,!
1997).!It!is!a!measure!of!the!electrostatic!attraction!or!repulsion!between!the!particles.!!The!size!
of!!!depends!on!the!specific!surface,!the!cation!exchange!capacity!and!the!salinity!(concentration!

! 12!
!
! !
of!ions).!A!low!salinity!generates!a!more!negative!!!(Shang,!1997).!!The!pH!is!also!an!important!
factor! affecting!!!and! it! has! been! shown! that!!!of! clay! and! quartz! minerals! becomes! more!
negative!as!pH!increases!(Kaya!&!Yukselen,!2005).!The!value!of!!!normally!varies!from!0!mV!t!o!
–50! mV! in! natural! clays.! Due! to! the! negative! surface! charge! of! the! soil! particle!!!will! have! a!
negative!value!(Mitchell!&!Soga,!2005).!

According!to!the!HelmholtzGSmoluchowski!theory,!the!!!is!proportional!to!!! .!The!more!negative!
the!!!is,! the! higher!!! !becomes.! Furthermore! Shang! (1997)! showed! that!!!is! directly! correlated!
to!!! .! That! means! that! by! measuring!!!in! a! soil,! one! can! estimate! the! efficiency! of! electroG
osmosis!in!this!specific!soil.!!!

2.7.3 Salinity and resistivity

According!to!Micic!et!al!(2001),!previously!successful!applications!have!been!on!soils!with!low!
salinity!with!a!salt!concentration!less!than!2g!NaCl/l.!This!is!because!a!low!salinity!generates!a!
larger!diffuse!double!layer,!which!in!turn!increases!the!electroGosmotic!flow.!!

For!soils!with!salinity!higher!than!2!‰!the!resistivity!of!a!soil!is!dependent!on!the!salinity!of!the!
pore!water!and!the!porosity!in!the!soil!(Larsson,!1975).!For!soil!with!lower!salinity!it!can!only!be!
said! that! the! resistivity! is! high.! The! resistivity! of! the! soil! can! be! seen! as! a! measure! of! the!
conductivity!of!the!soil!which!makes!it!an!important!factor!to!know!when!designing!and!using!
electroGosmosis.! A! high! salinity! decreases! the! resistivity,! which! means! that! the! current! will! be!
higher,! without! increasing! the! efficiency! of! the! treatment.! Soils! with! high! salinity! are! usually!
found!in!marine!environments.!However,!electroGosmosis!can!be!effective!on!clays!deposited!in!

!
Figure 2.8: Particle with slipping plane and zeta-potential (Malvern Instruments, 2014).

! 13!
!
! !
marine! environments! if! it! has! been! leached! and! therefore! has! a! low! salinity.! A! low! resistivity!
increases!the!power!consumption!and!more!electrodes!might!have!to!be!used!to!make!sure!that!
the! current! density! does! not! exceed! a! recommended! value! of! approximately! 30! mA/m2!
(Mohamedelhassan!&!Shang,!2001).!The!current!density!is!discussed!further!in!section!3.3.!The!
resistivity!of!clay!varies!between!1!G!100!Ωm.!

2.7.4 Permeability, !
According! to! Esrig! (1968),! the! permeability,!!,!affects! the! consolidation! and! the! maximum!
negative! pore! pressure! generated! by! the! electroGosmotic! treatment,! see! equation! 2.4.! A! low!!!!
increases!the!negative!pore!pressure!generated!by!the!treatment!and!vice!versa.!However,!at!the!
same!time!the!consolidation!of!the!soil!will!take!longer!if!!is!low,!decreasing!the!efficiency!of!the!
method.! The! most! suitable! soil! for! electroGosmosis,! considering!!,!is! according! to! theory! silt,!
clayey!silt!and!silty!clays!(Mitchell!&!Soga,!2005).!However,!soils!containing!more!than!80!%!of!
clay,! and! with! a! low!!,!have! been! treated! with! electroGosmosis! successfully! (Burnotte! et! al,!
2004).! Adamson! et! al! (1967)! showed! that! electroGosmosis! can! be! used! on! sand,! with! only! as!
little! as! 1.5%! of! clay! and! a! high!!,!and! Rittirong! et! al! (2008)! used! electroGosmosis! in! a! highG
plasticity!silt!soil.!This!shows!that!electroGosmosis!can!be!effective!in!different!soils.!

2.7.5 Activity
The! activity! of! a! soil,!!! ,! describes! the! relation! between! the! plasticity! index! and! clay! content!
(Larsson,!2008).!The!activity!is!defined!as:!

! !!
!! = ![−]! (2.14)!
!"#$!!"#$%#$

!! !=!plasticity!index![G]!

The!activity!gives!an!indication!of!the!cation!exchange!capacity,!CEC,!in!a!soil,!which!is!the!ability!
for! the! soil! particles! to! interchange! its! attracting! ions.! CEC! has! a! significant! influence! on! the!
diffuse! double! layer! and! thus! on! the! water! available! for! electroGosmotic! flow! (Barker! et! al,!
2004).!!

Particles! with! a! high! surface! charge! attract! and! bind! the! surrounding! ions,! with! the! opposite!
charge!and!do!not!interchange!ions!to!the!same!extent!as!soil!particles!with!a!low!surface!charge,!
where!the!ions!shift!between!being!in!the!pore!water!solution!and!bound!to!the!particle!surface.!
These! two! soil! types! are! inactive! and! active! respectively! and,! according! to! Gray! and! Mitchell!
(1967),! inactive! soils! show! more! potential! to! be! treated! with! electroGosmosis,! see! figure! 2.9.!
Inactive!soils!can!transport!more!water!per!cation!during!electroGosmotic!treatment!compared!
with!an!active!soil!with!the!same!electrolyte!concentration!(Mitchell!&!Soga,!2005).!!

!For!a!soil!to!be!inactive!!! !should!be!less!than!0.75,!and!for!it!to!be!highly!active,!!! !should!be!

more! than! 1.25! (Larsson,! 2008).! A! soil! is! classified! as! normal! when!!!! is! between! 0.75! G! 1.25.!
Quick!clay!is!often!inactive!and!swelling!clay!mineral,!such!as!montmorillonite,!is!highly!active.!
In!Sweden!the!most!common!clay!mineral!is!illite,!which!has!normal!activity.!!

! 14!
!
! !
Figure 2.9: Electro-osmotic water transport in various Figure 2.10: Electro-osmotic permeability as a function of water
clays (Gray & Mitchell, 1967).! content (Larsson, 1975).

!
!2.7.6 Over consolidation ratio, !"#
!"#!is!defined!according!to!equation!2.10.!The!negative!pore!pressure!induced!by!the!electroG
osmotic! treatment! increases! the!!! ′ ,!and! when!!! ′ !excceds! the!!′! !the! soil! starts! to! consolidate!
faster.!For!normally!consolidated!soils!(N.C)!this!scenario!is!reached!faster!and!electroGosmosis!
has!shown!to!consolidate!N.C.!soil!more!effectively!than!over!consolidated!soil!(O.C.)!(Lefebvre!&!
Burnotte,!2002).!N.C.!clays!have!an!!"#!<!1.5!and!for!O.C.!clays!!"#!>!1.5!(Larsson,!2008).!!

2.7.7 Water content

Gray!&!Mitchell!(1967)!and!Larsson!(1975)!have!seen!a!correlation!between!the!water!content,!
!,!of!the!soil!and!!! ,!see!figure!2.10.!Observing!figure!2.9!and!figure!2.10,!it!can!be!seen!that!a!
high!!!increases! the! potential! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! for! both! inactive! and! active! soils.!
Successful! applications! of! electroGosmosis! in! soil! with!!!varying! from! 30%! to! 80%! have! also!
been!reported!(Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Bjerrum!et!al,!1967).!

2.8 Previous laboratory investigations

ElectroGosmosis! has! been! investigated! in! numerous! laboratory! investigations.! Typical! setups!
used!in!the!investigations!can!be!seen!in!figure!2.11!and!figure!2.12.!!The!soil!sample!is!usually!
trimmed! from! block! samples! or! manufactured! from! remoulded! clay.! A! setup! like! the! ones! in!
figure! 2.11! and! figure! 2.12! require! large! soil! samples,! which! can! be! difficult! and! expensive! to!
retrieve.! Other! setups! have! also! been! used,! for! example! performing! the! tests! in! a! modified!
triaxial! apparatus.! Examples! of! different! setups! used! in! previous! laboratory! investigations! are!
presented!below.!

! 15!
!
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Figure 2.11: Setup with electrodes inserted in the soil sample (Asadi et al, 2013).

!
Figure 2.12: Setup with the electrodes in an electrolyte (Asadi et al, 2013).

2.8.1 Lo et al, 1990

Lo!et!al!(1990Ga)!investigated!the!efficiency!of!electroGosmosis!and!a!new!design!of!electrodes,!
which!prevented!gas!accumulation!at!the!electrodes!and!improved!the!electrode!to!soil!contact.!
The! setup! used! can! be! seen! in! figure! 2.13.! Pore! pressure! and! voltage! measurements! were!
carried! out! during! the! treatment,! through! out! the! length! of! the! sample.! The! cell! used! in! the!
investigation!could!accommodate!a!trimmed!cylindrical!soil!sample!with!a!diameter!of!102!mm!
and!height!of!229!mm.!The!soil!was!reconsolidated!using!a!load!of!100!kPa,!and!a!voltage!of!up!
to! 6! V,! equivalent! of! a! voltage! gradient! of! 26.2! V/m,! was! applied! to! the! samples! during!
treatment.!

2.8.2 Micic et al, 2001

Micic!et!al!(2001)!investigated!the!use!of!current!intermittence!when!treating!marine!sediment!
with! electroGosmosis.! The! setup! used! can! be! seen! in! figure! 2.14.! The! sample! had! a! base! of!
255x100!mm!and!a!height!of!200!mm.!The!investigation!was!carried!out!on!remoulded!clay!that!
was! reconsolidated! using! a! consolidation! pressure! of! 15! kPa! and! then! treated! with! electroG
osmosis!for!6!days!with!a!voltage!gradient!of!12.8!or!25.6!V/m.!!

2.8.3 Jeyakanthan et al, 2011

Jeyakanthan! et! al! (2011)! investigated! the! electroGchemical! effects! that! occur! during! electroG
osmotic!treatment.!To!do!this!a!modified!triaxial!testing!apparatus!was!used,!see!figure!2.15.!Soil!
samples!were!manufactured!from!clay!slurry!and!the!finished!samples!had!a!diameter!of!60!mm!
and!a!height!of!120!mm.!Before!the!treatment!the!samples!were!reconsolidated!using!a!load!of!
35!kPa!over!7!days.!When!the!samples!had!been!installed!in!the!testing!apparatus,!cell!pressure!
and!backpressure!were!applied!and!the!sample!was!left!to!consolidate!for!5!days.!The!electroG
osmotic!treatment!was!then!active!for!up!to!12!days.!The!applied!voltage!varied!from!4.48!to!4.8!
V,!equivalent!of!a!voltage!gradient!of!37.3!V/m!to!40!V/m.!

! 16!
!
! !
 !
Figure 2.13: Setup used by Lo et al, 1990-a.

!
Figure 2.14: Setup used by Micic et al, 2001.

! 17!
!
! !
 !
Figure 2.15: Setup used by Jeyakanthan et al, 2011.

! !

! 18!
!
! !
!

3
Summary
In! this! chapter,! the! use! of! electroGosmosis! in! geotechnical! engineering! practise! is!
presented.! Casagrande! was! first! to! use! electroGosmosis! in! engineering! practise! in!
1930’s,!and!the!method!has!been!used!to!solve!problems!with!soft!soils!around!the!
world! since! then.! In! a! typical! application! of! electroGosmosis,! metal! electrodes! are!
installed!in!rows!of!anodes!and!cathodes.!The!thickness!of!the!treated!soil!layer!has!
usually!been!between!4!to!10!m.!!

A!direct!current!power!supply!is!needed!for!electroGosmotic!treatment.!By!reversing!
the!polarity!during!treatment!it!has!been!shown!to!give!a!more!even!distribution!of!
the! settlements! and! increase! in! shear! strength.! The! power! consumption! varies!
depending! on! electrode! material,! installation! pattern,! treatment! time! and! soil!
characteristics.!In!previous!field!applications!it!has!varied!from!0.5!kWh/m3!to!230!
kWh/m3.!!

ElectroGosmosis! has! the! potential! to! be! both! economical! and! environmentally!
friendly.!For!two!projects,!where!electroGosmosis!was!used!in!the!UK,!the!cost!was!
approximately! 30%! lower! than! comparable! methods,! e.g.! soil! nailing! or! slope!
slackening,!and!the!carbon!footprint!was!40%!to!76%!lower.!

This!chapter!also!describes!several!successful!field!applications!of!electroGosmosis.!

Electro-osmosis in geotechnical engineering practice

3.1 Background
Leo! Casagrande! performed! the! first! fieldGapplication! of! electroGosmosis! in! geotechnical!
engineering!in!the!1930’s!in!Germany!in!connection!with!a!deep!excavation!at!a!site!with!clayey!
silt!(Casagrande,!1953).!After!an!initial!excavation!of!1.8!meter,!the!walls!of!the!excavation!failed!
and!forced!the!work!to!stop.!After!a!failed!attempt!of!stabilizing!the!excavation!using!well!points,!
it! was! decided! to! use! electroGosmosis.! Electrodes! were! installed,! alternately! with! anodes! and!
cathodes,! behind! the! crest! of! the! excavation.! ∅13! mm! steel! pipes! were! used! as! anodes! and! as!
cathodes!perforated!steel!pipes,!∅102!mm,!were!used!to!enable!dewatering!at!the!cathodes.!An!
electric! field! was! induced! between! the! electrodes,! and! during! treatment! the! excavation! could!
continue,! now! with! nearly! vertical! walls! to! a! depth! of! 7! meters! without! any! other! support!
(Casagrande,! 1953).! After! this! successful! application! Casagrande! used! electroGosmosis! in! a!
number!of!other!geotechnical!projects.!!!

In!geotechnical!engineering!electroGosmosis!has!also!been!used!to!improve!the!bearing!capacity!
of! piles,! to! reduce! the! resistance! when! retracting! sheet! piles! and! to! lower! the! pore! water!
pressure! in! dams,! to! stabilize! slopes,! for! consolidation! of! soils! among! others! (LamontGBlack! &!
Weltman,!2010;!Rittirong!&!Shang,!2005;!Milligan,!1995;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Larsson,!1975).!

3.2 Electrodes
To! transfer! the! electricity! to! the! soil,! when! using! electroGosmosis,! electrodes! are! needed.! The!
material,! shape! and! installation! of! the! electrode! influence! the! result! of! the! electroGosmotic!

! 19!
!
! !
treatment.! When! the! electric! potential! is! transferred! from! the! electrode! to! the! soil,! there! are!
potential! losses! (Jeyakanthan! et! al,! 2011;! Lefebvre! &! Burnotte,! 2002;! Micic! et! al,! 2001).!
Therefore,!the!actual!transferred!potential!is!often!referred!to!as!the!effective!potential.!For!the!
electroGosmotic!treatment!to!be!effective!the!transferred!potential!should!be!high.!These!losses!
increase! with! time! and!can! be! attributed! to! heat!generation,! gas! generation! and! desiccation! of!
the!soil!(Lefebvre!&!Burnotte,!2002).!!

3.2.1 Electrode material and shape

The! shape! and! materials! used! as! electrodes! have! varied! in! previous! field! applications.! The!
electrodes! can! be! made! of! metal,! such! as! steel,! copper! and! aluminum! or! nonGmetallic!
conductors,! such! as! graphite! or! steel! with! carbon! coating.! ! Precious! metals,! e.g.! gold! or! silver,!
could!also!be!used!as!electrodes!but!are!too!expensive!to!be!a!viable!option!(Mohamedelhassan!
&!Shang,!2001).!Studies!have!shown!that!metal!electrodes!are!more!effective!than!nonGmetallic!
electrodes! for! use! in! electroGosmosis.! Segall! &! Burell! (1992)! showed! that! the! flow! generated!
with!iron!electrodes!was!double!the!flow!generated!with!graphite!electrodes!at!the!same!power!
level.! In! a! study! by! Mohamedelhassan! &! Shang! (2001),! it! was! shown! that! metal! electrodes!
transferred!more!electric!potential!to!the!soil!than!carbon!electrodes.!

The!most!common!materials!used!as!electrodes!in!field!tests!and!in!projects!have!been!copper!
and!steel!because!of!their!strength,!relatively!low!cost!and!easy!availability!(Fredriksson,!2013;!
LamontGBlack!&!Weltman,!2010;!Hansbo,!2008;!Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Bjerrum!et!
al,!1967).!The!electrodes!are!usually!made!from!pipes,!but!rebars,!electric!vertical!drains!EVD,!
sheet! pile! walls! and! railway! rails! have! also! been! used! (Fredriksson,! 2013;! Hansbo,! 2008;!
Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Bjerrum!et!al,!1967).!Perforated!pipes!have!been!used!in!
many!projects.!They!allow!drainage!and!pumping!of!the!water!drawn!to!the!cathodes!and!also!
expulsions! of! gases! that! can! be! generated! from! the! treatment.! According! to! Lo! et! al,! (1991Ga)!
copper! electrodes! are! preferable! over! steel! electrodes;! by! using! copper! electrodes! conductive!
copper! oxides! and! hydroxides! are! formed! instead! of! other! highGresistance! metal! oxides! and!
hydroxides.! However,! Mohamedelhassan! &! Shang! (2001)! observed! no! difference! in! efficiency!
when!copper!and!steel!electrodes!were!compared!for!use!in!electroGosmosis.!

3.2.2 Electrode spacing, pattern and depth

The!electrodes!are!usually!installed!in!rows!with!electrodes!of!the!same!polarity!in!each!row,!as!
can!be!seen!in!figure!3.1.!However,!there!are!cases!where!the!electrodes!have!been!installed!with!
a!single!or!multiple!cathodes!in!the!centre!of!a!cell!to!simplify!the!extraction!of!water!(LamontG
Black!&!Weltman,!2010;!Chappell!&!Burton,!1975;!Fredén,!1961).!

The! spacing! between! the! electrodes! and! the! pattern! in! which! they! are! installed! affect! the!
electroGosmotic! treatment.! In! previous! field! trials,! the! distance! between! rows! of! anodes! and!
cathodes,! distance! A! in! figure! 3.1,! has! mostly! varied! between! 1! m! and! 6! m! and! the! distance!
between!the!electrodes!with!the!same!polarity,!distance!B!in!figure!3.1,!has!varied!between!0.5!
m!and!5!m!(Fredriksson,!2013;!Hansbo,!2008;!Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Bjerrum!et!
al,!1967).!Lo!et!al!(1991Gb)!investigated!the!effect!of!the!spacing!between!electrodes.!A!field!trial!
was!performed!with!spacing!between!anodes!and!cathodes!of!both!3!m!and!6!m.!It!was!shown!
that!electroGosmosis!was!effective!in!both!cases!but!that!the!increase!in!!! !was!somewhat!larger!
for!the!3!m!spacing!than!with!the!6!m!spacing;!60%!increase!versus!40%!increase!respectively.!
This! is! also! the! case! in! theory! where! a! shorter! distance! between! the! electrodes! increases! the!
effect!of!the!treatment!(Esrig,!1968).!

! 20!
!
! !
! !
Figure 3.1: Electrode pattern.

ElectroGosmosis!has!been!effectively!used!on!soft!soil!layers!with!a!thickness!of!up!to!10!meters.!
The! thickness! of! the! treated! layer! in! previous! projects! has! been! approximately! 4! m! to! 10! m!
(Hansbo,!2008;!Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Bjerrum!et!al,!1967)!In!some!cases,!a!layer!
of! other! soil! material,! such! as! fill! with! substantial! thickness! of! up! to! 8! m,! has! covered! the! soil!
that!has!been!treated!with!electroGosmosis.!In!some!of!these!cases!the!electrodes!have!then!been!
insulated!so!that!electricity!only!is!applied!to!the!soil!layer!that!is!supposed!to!be!consolidated.!

3.2.3 Installation of electrodes

Depending! on! the! ground! conditions,! shape! and! size! of! the! electrodes,! the! effort! required! to!
install! the! electrodes! varies.! When! Hansbo! (2008)! used! electroGosmosis! in! Södertälje,! Sweden,!
the! layer! of! clay! that! was! to! be! treated! was! covered! by! a! 6! m! to! 7! m! layer! of! sand! and! gravel!
material,!and!the!electrodes!had!to!be!driven!through!the!fill!to!reach!the!clay!layer.!In!this!type!
of! situation,! installation! of! the! electrodes! can! be! performed! by! using! some! sort! of! drilling!
equipment! (Burnotte! et! al,! 2004).! If! only! a! dry! crust! of! clay! has! to! be! penetrated! to! reach! the!
clay!layer,!the!installation!of!the!electrodes!can!be!simplified.!The!bestGcase!scenario!is!if!there!is!
only! soft! soil! at! the! site! and! the! electrodes! have! a! small! diameter.! The! electrodes! could! then!
potentially! be! installed! by! hand,! which! was! the! case! in! the! application! of! electroGosmosis! at! a!
sewage!treatment!plant!in!Ås,!Norway,!where!19!mm!rebar!was!used!(Bjerrum!et!al,!1967).!

3.3 Electricity
ElectroGosmosis! is! achieved! by! applying! a! direct! current,! DC,! to! the! soil.! With! a! direct! current,!
the!electric!charge!flows!in!the!same!direction!continuously!and!it!is!not!periodically!reversed!as!
in!alternating!current,!AC.!Since!direct!current!usually!is!not!readily!available,!and!regulation!of!
the!power!level!needs!to!be!possible,!the!direct!current!must!be!applied!to!the!system!through!a!
variable!power!rectifier.!

Up! to! a! certain! level,! the! efficiency! of! the! electroGosmotic! treatment! is! increased! with! higher!
voltage!levels!(Mohamedelhassan!&!Shang,!2001;!Hamed!&!Badra,!1997).!But!Mohamedelhassan!
&!Shang!(2001)!saw!that!this!effect!reached!a!plateau!at!high!voltage!levels!near!50!V/m.!At!high!
voltage!levels,!the!current!density!in!the!electrodes!can!become!very!high!and!have!a!negative!
effect!on!the!treatment.!The!current!density!J!is!defined!as!

! 21!
!
! !
 ! !
! != ! ! (3.1)!
! !!

where!!!is!the!current![A]!and!!!is!the!area![m2]!of!the!electrode!that!is!in!contact!with!the!soil.!If!
the! current! density! is! high,! heat! will! be! generated! at! the! electrodes! and! there! is! a! risk! of!
dissociation! of! the! soil! and! therefore! a! loss! of! current! flow.! The! recommendation! in! the!
literature!is!that!the!current!density!should!be!less!than!30!A/m2!(Hansbo,!2008;!Fredén,!1961).!!

3.3.1 Reversed polarity

When!treating!a!soil!with!electroGosmosis!the!change!of!the!soil!parameters!and!properties!will!
vary!between!the!anodes!and!cathodes.!The!best!effect!of!the!treatment!occurs!near!the!anode!
and!decreases!gradually!towards!the!cathode.!To!prevent!this!uneven!distribution,!the!direction!
of!the!current!can!be!reversed!during!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!so!that!the!anodes!become!
cathodes,! and! vice! versa.! By! reversing! the! direction! of! the! current! a! more! even! distribution! of!
the!settlements!and!improved!parameters!are!achieved!through!the!entire!treated!soil.!This!was!
shown! in! a! field! trial! in! Canada! by! Lo! et! al! (1991Gb)! where! the! current! was! reversed! after! 17!
days! of! treatment! and! continued! with! reversed! polarity! for! 15! days! where! an! even! settlement!
and!!! !increase!was!achieved.!!

3.3.2 Current intermittence

Researchers! have! investigated! the! use! of! current! intermittence! to! reduce! the! power!
consumption! and! improve! the! efficiency! of! the! electroGosmotic! treatment! (Micic! et! al,! 2001;!
Mohamedelhassan! &! Shang,! 2001).! Current! intermittence! is! a! method! where! the! power! is!
turned! on! and! off! at! predetermined! intervals! during! the! treatment.! For! example;! having! the!
current!on!for!2!minutes!and!then!off!for!1!minute!and!repeating!this!process!through!the!whole!
treatment.! This! can! reduce! power! consumption,! corrosion! of! the! electrodes,! and! increase! the!
effectiveness!of!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!(Mohamedelhassan!&!Shang,!2001).!This!method!
can!be!useful!when!treating!marine!clay!with!high!salinity,!i.e.!low!resistivity.!In!such!soils,!the!
current!levels!in!the!system!will!be!high!and!electrode!corrosion!and!power!consumption!will!be!
too!large!if!current!intermittence!is!not!used.!

3.3.3 Risk of shock

In! previous! field! applications! of! electroGosmosis! the! applied! potential! varies! from! a! couple! of!
volt!up!to!more!than!100!V.!With!voltages!up!to!50!V!the!risk!of!a!dangerous!shock!is!small,!but!
with!higher!voltages!there!is!a!risk!that!shock!can!be!dangerous!to!humans!(Elsäkerhetsverket,!
2014).! Since! the! electrodes! in! field! application! stand! partly! above! the! ground! surface! it! is!
important!to!make!sure!that!the!public!cannot!enter!the!area.!To!avoid!this!previous!field!tests!
have!been!performed!within!a!fenced!area.!

3.3.4 Power consumption

The! power! consumption! when! using! electroGosmosis! varies! depending! on,! for! example! soil!
properties,! electrode! arrangement,! applied! voltage! and! treatment! time.! In! table! 3.1,! field!
applications!of!electroGosmosis!where!the!power!consumption!has!been!reported!are!presented.!
It!can!be!seen!that!the!power!consumption!per!m3!of!soil!varies!from!values!0.5!kWh/m3!up!to!
values!of!230!kWh/m3.!

! 22!
!
! !
 Table 3.1: Data from various field applications.

Treatment Thickness of Total Power Power consumption

time Soil Resitivity Treated treated layer Consumption per m3 of soil
Location (days) (Ωm) area (m2) (m) (kWh) (kWh/m3)

Canada
(Burnotte et al, 55 20 - 5 78 600 112
2004)

Södertälje, Sweden !
125 5-6 800 4,5 830 000 230
(Hansbo, 2008)

Ås, Norway !
(Bjerrum et al, 120 47 200 10 30 000 17
1967)

London, England
(Lamont-Black & 42 - 600 2.5 - 7 - 11.5
Weltman, 2010)

Bekkelaget, Norway !
56-101* 36 2500 6 104 000 7
(Foyn, 1977)

Sembawang,
Singapore !
- - - 5 - 0.5
(Chappell &
Burton, 1975)

Gloucester, Canada !
32 - 80 4 2136 6.7
(Lo et al, 1991-b)

Kuching, Malaysia!
(Rittirong et al, 5 4 2240 5 - 0.7
2008)

*multiple areas

3.4 Pumping
To! ensure! that! no! positive! pore! pressure! builds! up! at! the! cathode,! pumping! can! be! used!
(Burnotte!et!al,!2004).!This!will!also!minimize!the!risk!that!the!water!drawn!to!the!cathode!flows!
back! towards! the! anode! through! permeable! layers! located! in! soil! strata,! counteracting! the!
electroGosmotic!flow.!A!flow!towards!the!anodes,!in!these!layers,!could!result!in!circulation!of!the!
pore! water! instead! of! drainage.! According! to! Lo! et! al! (1991Gb),! however! there! is! no! need! for!
pumping! if! the! electrodes! are! designed! in! the! right! way.! In! a! field! test! performed! by! Lo! et! al!
(1991Gb),! perforated! copper! pipes! were! used! as! electrodes! and! with! this! design;! water! flowed!

! 23!
!
! !
up!through!the!electrodes!(cathodes)!without!pumping.!This!phenomenon!was!also!observed!by!
Foyn! (1977)! when! electroGosmosis! was! used! to! improve! soft! quick! clay! in! a! project! in!
Bekkelaget,!Norway.!!

However,!in!the!field!test!performed!by!Lo!et!al!(1991Gb),!heave!was!observed!near!the!cathodes!
when!no!pumping!was!done.!By!pumping!at!the!cathode,!this!effect!can!be!reduced!and!Burnotte!
et!al!(2004)!and!Ou!et!al!(2009)!did!not!observe!any!heave!at!the!cathodes!in!field!tests!where!
pumping!was!performed.!

3.5 Chemical treatment in combination with electro-osmosis

The! combination! of! electroGosmosis! and! injection! of! different! chemical! solutions! or! stabilizers!
has! been! tested! both! in! the! laboratory! and! in! field! tests! (Chien! et! al,! 2014;! Chien! et! al,! 2011;!
Baker!et!al,!2004;!Burnotte!et!al,!2004;!Lefebvre!&!Burnotte,!2002).!Injecting!a!solution!can!be!
used!to!reduce!the!electrode!to!soil!resistance,!and!act!as!a!cementing!agent.!Previous!solutions!
that!have!been!used!are!calcium!chloride,!sodium!silicate!and!other!saline!solutions!(Baker!et!al,!
2004).!

Lefebvre! and! Burnotte! (2002)! used! injection! of! a! saline! solution! to! increase! the! effective!
potential.!With!injection!the!potential!transferred!to!the!soil!was!70%!compared!to!35%!without!
injection.!This!resulted!in!that!the!consolidation!of!the!samples!that!were!chemically!treated!was!
2G3!times!larger!than!the!samples!that!were!not!chemically!treated.!!

3.6 Cost
Basically!all!that!is!needed!for!electroGosmotic!treatment!are!electrodes!and!a!power!supply.!The!
cost!of!the!treatment!depends!on!the!size!of!the!treated!area,!the!soil!at!the!site,!shape!and!type!
of! electrodes! that! are! used,! the! treatment! time! and! in! which! way! electroGosmosis! is! used.!
Depending! on! soil! conditions! at! the! site,! some! sort! of! machine,! drilling! rig! or! excavator,! is!
needed!for!the! installation! of! the! electrodes.! For!two! well!described!field!tests! (Burnotte!et! al,!
2004;!Bjerrum!et!al,!1967),!one!of!the!major!costs!for!the!treatment!was!the!installation!cost.!If!
pumping!is!used!at!the!cathodes!there!will!be!an!additional!cost!for!the!pumping!device.!!

The!cost!of!the!electricity,!needed!for!the!treatment,!has!varied!and!can!be!a!major!cost.!In!the!
field! test! in! Gloucester,! Canada! (Lo! et! al,! 1991Gb),! the! power! cost! was! 1%! of! the! total! cost,! in!
Mont! StGHilaire,! Canada! (Burnotte! et! al,! 2004),! it! was! 7%,! and! in! Ås,! Norway! (Bjerrum! et! al,!
1967),! the! power! cost! was! 25%.! The! cost! of! the! electrodes! varies! depending! on! the! material,!
shape!and!size!of!the!electrode.!In!previous!field!applications!the!cost!for!the!electrodes!has!been!
16%!to!40%!of!the!total!cost!of!the!treatment.!!

Looking! at! the! total! cost! of! electroGosmosis! it! can! be! seen! that!it! varies.! When! electroGosmosis!
was!used!to!stabilize!embankments!in!two!projects!in!the!UK!the!cost!of!the!treatment!was!26%!
to!30%!lower!compared!to!other!methods,!e.g.!using!slope!slackening!or!soil!nailing!(The!Green!
Construction!Board,!2013;!LamontGBlack!&!Weltman,!2010).!!

3.7 Environmental impact of the method

ElectroGosmosis!can!have!a!relatively!low!environmental!impact!compared!to!other!soil!ground!
improvement! methods.! In! two! projects! where! electroGosmosis! has! been! used! to! stabilize!
embankments!in!the!UK,!the!carbon!footprint!was!40%!to!76%!lower!compared!to!soil!nailing!
and!excavating!and!replacing!the!material!(The!Green!Construction!Board,!2013;!LamontGBlack!

! 24!
!
! !
&! Weltman,! 2010;).! If! the! electricity,! used! to! power! the! electroGosmosis,! comes! from! a!
renewable! source! the! emissions! from! the! treatment! can! be! minimized.! No! excavation! and!
transport!of!masses!is!necessary!with!this!method!and!the!size!of!machinery,!used!to!install!the!
electrodes,! is! usually! small! so! there! is! a! potential! to! keep! the! emissions! of! carbon! dioxide! at! a!
low!level.!!

One! advantage! of! electroGosmosis! compared! to! the! limeGcement! columns! is! that! no! cement! is!
used!in!the!treatment.!Manufacturing!cement!requires!a!lot!of!energy!and!cement!manufacturing!
is! responsible! for! 3%! to! 4%! of! the! total! emissions! of! carbon! dioxide! in! the! world! every! year!
(Svensk! Betong,! 2014).! So! there! is! a! large! potential! to! reduce! the! carbon! footprint! of!
construction!projects!if!the!use!of!limeGcement!columns!can!be!reduced.!!

During! the! treatment! the! anodes! are! oxidized.! If! metal! electrodes! are! used! metal! ions! are!
precipitated!to!the!soil!and!pore!water,!and!depending!on!which!metal!is!used!for!the!electrodes!
the! impact! on! the! environment! varies.! Copper! and! steel! are! the! metals! mostly! used! as!
electrodes.!One!advantage!of!using!steel!electrodes!over!copper!electrodes!is!that!the!iron!ions!
are!not!dangerous!for!the!environment.!Using!copper,!or!aluminum,!electrodes!leads!to!copper!
or! aluminum! ions! being! precipitated! to! the! soil.! These! ions! can! be! dangerous! for! the!
environment!when!the!concentration!becomes!too!high!(Gustafsson!et!al,!2010).!

3.8 Field applications

ElectroGosmosis! has! been! used! in! numerous! geotechnical! projects! around! the! world.! The!
method!has!been!applied!to!various!problems!in!different!soils.!In!this!section!some!examples!of!
field!application!are!presented.!

3.8.1 Improving soft quick clay in Ås, Norway

One! of! the! most! famous! field! applications! of! electroGosmosis! is! the! case! from! Ås! in! Norway.! A!
sewage! plant! was! being! constructed! at! Ås,! approximately! 30! km! south! of! Oslo! (Bjerrum! et! al,!
1967).!The!soil!at!the!site!was!quick!clay!with!!! of!less!than!10!kPa.!A!4.5!m!deep!excavation!was!
to! be! performed! for! the! foundation! of! the! basement! of! a! pumping! house.! The! safety! factor!
against! bottom! heave! failure! was! lower! than! the! required! 1.3,! and! to! be! able! to! excavate! to! a!
depth!of!4.5!m,!!! !of!the!soil!had!to!be!increased!to!at!least!20!kPa,!corresponding!to!a!settlement!
of!50!cm.!To!solve!this!problem!an!area!of!200!m2!was!treated!with!electroGosmosis!using!10!m!
long!∅19mm!reinforcing!bars!as!electrodes.!The!treatment!had!been!active!for!120!days!when!
the!goal!was!achieved.!!In!average!!! !had!increased!to!38!kPa!and!near!the!anodes!!! !was!110!
kPa.!After!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!the!excavation!could!be!performed.!

3.8.2 Consolidating clay in Mont St-Hilaire, Canada

A!field!test!performed!by!Burnotte!et!al!(2004)!using!electroGosmosis!combined!with!a!chemical!
electroGinjection!at!the!anodes!was!performed!at!a!road!embankment!founded!on!clay,!see!figure!
3.2.!An!area!of!10!m!by!9!m!was!treated!for!48!days.!∅170!mm!perforated!steel!pipes!were!used!
as! electrodes! and! pumping! was! used! at! the! cathodes! to! make! sure! the! water! was! not! reG
circulated.! The! clay! was! normally! consolidated! and! had!!! !of! 30! –! 35! kPa.! The! aim! of! the!
treatment!was!to!increase!the!!"#,!of!a!5!m!clay!layer,!to!1.5!corresponding!to!a!compression!of!
9%!in!the!clay!layer.!!

The!surface!settlement!produced!by!the!treatment!was!0.48!m!and!was!evenly!distributed!over!
the!treated!area.!!! !of!the!clay,!after!the!treatment,!varied!from!46!kPa!near!the!cathodes!and!up!

! 25!
!
! !
Figure 3.2: Field test (Burnotte et al, 2004).

to! 190! kPa! near! the! anodes.! The! goal,! a! compression! of! 9%,! was! reached! after! 28! days! of!
treatment,! and! when! the! treatment! was! terminated,! 48! days! after! it! started,! the! compression!
was!12%.!

3.8.3 Unstable embankment in London, England

In! this! field! test! electroGosmosis! was! used! to! stabilize! a! 9! m! high! embankment! where!
inclinometer!measurements!showed!more!than!6!mm!of!horizontal!movement!a!month!and!two!
possible! slip! surfaces! (LamontGBlack! &! Weltman,! 2010).! The! general! geology! and! the! slip!
surfaces!can!be!seen!in!figure!3.3.!The!factor!of!safety!of!the!slope!was!calculated!to!be!1.0.!!

Electrodes! were! installed! in! the! slope! with! a! central! cathode,! from! which! the! water! could! be!
drained.! The! treatment! was! active! for! six! weeks.! After! the! treatment,! inclinometer! readings!
showed!no!horizontal!movement.!The!shear!strength!increased!by!a!factor!of!2.3,!resulting!in!a!
factor! of! safety! of! 1.7! after! the! treatment,! well! above! the! required! 1.3.! After! treatment! the!
electrodes! were! left! in! the! soil! to! act! as! soil! nails! to! further! stabilize! the! slope.! These! results!
were! achieved! at! 26%! lower! cost! and! with! a! carbon! footprint! 47%! lower! than! comparable!
methods!using!gabions!and!slope!slackening.!!

!!
Figure 3.3: Slip surfaces in a slope in UK (Lamont-Black & Weltman, 2010).

! 26!
!
! !
3.8.4 Soft sensitive clay in Gloucester, Canada
In!this!field!test,!performed!by!Lo!et!al!(1991Gb),!electroGosmosis!was!used!on!soft!sensitive!clay!
in! Gloucester,! Canada.! ∅60.3! mm! perforated! copper! pipes! were! used! as! electrodes! to! allow!
water!to!be!drained.!No!pumping!was!used!at!the!cathodes.!!

The! influence! of! the! spacing! between! the! electrodes! was! investigated! as! well! as! the! effect! of!
polarity! reversal.! Two! different! electrode! spacing! were! used,! 3! m! and! 6! m,! see! figure! 3.4.! To!
investigate!polarity! reversal,!row! A! and! row! C! were! connected! to! the! positive! terminal! for! the!
first!17!days!of!treatment!and!then!to!the!negative!terminal!for!the!remaining!15!days!before!the!
test!were!completed.!Row!B!was!first!connected!to!the!negative!terminal!and!then!to!the!positive!
terminal.!The!result!showed!a!50%!increase!in!!! !and!the!settlement!was!approximately!50!mm,!
both! results! were! uniform! over! the! treated! area.! This! field! test! showed! that! by! reversing! the!
polarity,!a!uniform!settlement!and!increase!in!!! !could!be!achieved.!By!using!perforated!pipes!as!
both! anode! and! cathode,! reversed! polarity! with! drainage! in! both! directions! is! possible.! The!
spacing!between!the!electrodes!had!some!influence!on!the!results!where!the!increase!in!!! !was!
60%! and! 40%! between! electrodes! of! 3! m! and! 6! m! spacing! respectively.! Vane! tests! 10! months!
after! the! treatment! was! completed! showed! that!!! !remained! constant! indicating,! that! the!
increase!in!shear!strength!was!permanent.!!

Figure 3.4: Electrode pattern (Lo et al, 1991-b).

! 27!
!
! !
3.8.5 Improving geotechnical properties of silt in Luleå, Sweden
To! investigate! the! efficiency! of! electroGosmosis,! as! a! method! to! improve! the! geotechnical!
properties!of!silt,!a!field!test!was!carried!out!in!Luleå!by!Pusch!(1976).!The!arrangement!of!the!
electrodes! was! designed! so! that! the! groundwater! was! drawn! away! from! the! excavation! pit,!
which!can!be!seen!in!figure!3.5.!After!the!pit!had!been!excavated,!the!power!was!turned!on.!Since!
the!electrodes!only!reached!to!the!depth!corresponding!to!the!bottom!of!the!excavation!pit,!they!
could!not!prevent!a!hydraulic!bottom!failure!from!occurring,!but!the!walls!of!the!excavation!pit!
were! stable! as! long! as! the! power! was! on.! When! the! power! was! turned! off,! the! walls! of! the!
excavation! pit! started! failing.! In! a! control! pit! where! no! electroGosmosis! was! used,! failure!
happened!directly!after!excavation,!showing!that!the!electroGosmosis!could!be!used!to!effectively!
stabilize!excavations!in!silt.!

!
Figure 3.5: Electrode setup (Pusch, 1970).

! 28!
!
! !
!

4
Summary
In! this! chapter,! the! testing! procedure! and! the! apparatus! used! in! this! experimental!
investigation! are! presented.! Limitations! regarding! the! apparatus! and! testing!
procedure!are!also!discussed.!

A! testing! apparatus! was! built! to! investigate! the! efficiency! of! electroGosmosis! on!
Swedish! clays.! Samples! from! three! different! sites,! Gamla! Uppsala,! Opaltorget! and!
Vega,!were!collected!and!tested!with!the!same!procedure.!The!clay!was!tested!in!its!
sampling! tubes,! which! were! 50! mm! in! diameter! and! 170! mm! high.! The! samples!
were! reconsolidated! to! their! effective! inGsitu! stress! and! were! treated! with! electroG
osmosis!for!four!days!using!a!voltage!gradient!of!40!V/m,!equivalent!of!6!V.!For!two!
of!the!samples!the!polarity!was!reversed.!During!the!treatment,!settlement,!voltage!
and!current!were!monitored.!!

The! characteristic! parameters! of! the! soil! were! analysed! to! evaluate! the! effect! of!
electroGosmosis.! Before! treatment! the! water! content,! liquid! limit,! undrained! shear!
strength,!sensitivity,!resistivity,!pH,!activity!and!zeta!potential!were!tested.!After!the!
treatment! the! water! content,! liquid! limit,! undrained! shear! strength! and! sensitivity!
wer! evaluated! throughout! the! length! of! the! sample.! CRSGoedometer! tests! were!
carried!out!before!and!after!the!treatment.!

Experimental investigation

4.1 Introduction
Clay! from! three! different! areas! has! been! tested! with! the! same! procedure! to! investigate! the!
effectiveness! of! electroGosmosis! on! these! soils! and! to! identify! which! soil! parameters! that!
influence!the!treatment.!The!tests!have!been!performed!on!piston!samples!50!mm!in!diameter,!
retrieved! from! different! depths! at! locations! near! Uppsala,! Göteborg! and! Stockholm.! Using! a!
Swedish!standard!piston!sampler,!three!sample!tubes!are!retrieved!at!each!sampled!depth.!The!
top! and! bottom! tubes! were! used! to! determine! the! parameters! of! the! soil! before! treatment,!
whilst! the! middle! tube! was! treated! with! electroGosmosis.! The! testing! procedure! for! the!
investigation!can!be!seen!in!figure!4.1.!

ElectroGOsmotic!
Laboratory!Analysis! Sample! Treatment!and! Laboratory!Analysis!
(Before!treatment)! Preparation! Reconsolidation! (After!treatment)!
Monitoring!

!
Figure 4.1: Testing procedure.

! 29!
!
! !
4.2 Electro-osmotic cell and testing apparatus
The! apparatus,! in! which! the! sample! tubes! were! placed,! can! be! seen! in! the! figure! 4.2.!The!
apparatus!was!built!using!12!mm!form!plywood!and!45x45!mm!wooden!joists.!The!sample!tube!
itself! was! used! as! the! electroGosmotic! cell! since! it! was! hydraulically! impermeable! and! not!
electrically!conductive.!Another!advantage!of!using!the!sample!tubes!as!the!electroGosmotic!cell!
was! that! the! samples! did! not! need! to! be! transferred! to! another! cylinder,! which! would! have!
increased!the!risk!of!disturbing!the!samples!before!treatment.!!

The! apparatus! consisted! of! two! main! parts;! a! wooden! support! structure! that! held! the! sample!
tube!in!place,!and!a!loading!mechanism!made!from!a!∅48!mm!plastic!cylinder,!which!worked!as!
a!loading!piston.!The!loading!piston!was!connected!to!a!wooden!plate!on!which!dead!weight!was!
placed.!A!vertical!measuring!scale!was!attached!along!the!loading!piston!so!the!settlement!of!the!
sample!could!be!controlled.!!

To!be!able!to!reverse!the!polarity,!the!apparatus!had!to!allow!water!to!be!drained!at!both!the!top!
and!the!bottom!of!the!sample!tube.!Therefore!filter!stones!were!placed!at!the!top,!∅48!mm,!and!
the!bottom,!∅75!mm,!see!figure!4.3!and!4.4.!!!

Before!the!sample!was!placed!into!the!apparatus,!approximately!2!cm!clay!was!pressed!out!from!
the!bottom!of!the!tube.!This!was!done!to!make!room!for!the!electrode!and!the!filter!stone!at!the!
top! of! the! sample! tube.! The! electrodes! were! made! of! perforated! stainless! steel! plates! with! a!
diameter! of! 48.5! mm.! The! electrodes! were! perforated! allowing! water! and! gas! to! pass! through!
them!to!ensure!that!buildGup!of!gas!or!pore!pressure!do!not!affect!the!treatment,!see!figure!4.5.!A!
variable!direct!current!power!supply!is!used!to!provide!the!samples!with!a!direct!current.!

!
Figure 4.2: Testing apparatus. All measurements are in mm.

! 30!
!
! !
!

!
Figure 4.3: Bottom part of the apparatus in detail.

!
Figure 4.4: Upper part of testing apparatus.

!
Figure 4.5: Electrode and top filter stone.

4.3 Testing procedure

Before! the! electroGosmotic! treatment! was! started! the! samples! and! the! apparatus! needed!
preparation.!As!mentioned!earlier,!2!cm!of!clay!was!pressed!out!from!the!bottom!of!the!sample!
tube! to! make! room! for! the! top! electrode! and! filter! stone.! The! sample! was! then! weighed.! The!

! 31!
!
! !
same!procedure!was!used!for!all!samples,!so!the!effect!of!the!treatment!could!be!evaluated!and!
compared.!!

4.3.1 Reconsolidation
The!samples!were!reconsolidated!to!their!inGsitu!effective!vertical!stress,!!′! ,!which!was!done!by!
using!dead!weight.!A!dead!weight!representing!10!kPa!was!first!placed!on!the!loading!plate.!The!
weight!was!then!increased!by!50%!to!100%!every!hour!until!the!desired!load!was!reached.!This!
was! more! time! than! what! is! required! when! reconsolidating! samples! for! direct! shear! tests!
according!to!Swedish!Standard!G!SS27127.!When!the!desired!load!had!been!reached,!the!sample!
was! left! to! consolidate! for! 2.5! days.!!′! !and! corresponding! dead! weight! for! all! the! samples! are!
presented!in!Appendix!C.!

4.3.2 Electro-osmotic treatment

The! electroGosmotic! treatment! was! carried! out! in! a! temperatureGcontrolled! room! where! the!
temperature! was! 6! °C! to! 7°C.! The! cables! from! the! electrodes! were! connected! to! a! DC! power!
supply!and!a!voltage,!equivalent!to!40!V/m,!was!applied.!This!gives!a!voltage!of!6!V!for!a!sample!
with!a!length!of!0.15m.!40!V/m!was!chosen!since!it!is!a!voltageGgradient!that!has!been!used!in!
previous!laboratory!investigations!(Morris!et!al,!1984;!Mohamedelhassan,!2011;!Jeyakanthan!et!
al,!2011)!and!in!field!applications!(Burnotte!et!al,!2004).!The!treatment!was!active!for!four!days,!
which!according!to!Esrig’s!oneGdimensional!flow!theory,!should!consolidate!a!sample!of!this!size!
and! a!!! Gvalue! of! 10G8! to! 10G7! m2/s! to! approximately! 30%! to! 90%! of! the! maximum! theoretical!
consolidation.!!

During!treatment,!the!top!electrode!was!connected!to!the!positive!terminal!of!the!power!supply!
and!the!bottom!electrode!was!connected!to!the!negative!terminal.!This!made!the!top!electrode!
the!anode!and!the!bottom!electrode!the!cathode,!see!figure!4.6!a.!!

For! two! samples! the! polarity! was! revered! after! two! days! to! evaluate! how! this! affected! the!
treatment.!The!treatment!was!started!in!the!same!way!as!for!the!other!samples,!but!after!2!days!
the!polarity!was!reversed,!see!figure!4.6!b.!

!
Figure 4.6: Flow direction depending on connection of electrodes. The left tube (a) shows the flow direction during normal
treatment. The right tube (b) shows the flow direction after the polarity has been reversed.

! 32!
!
! !
4.3.3 Monitoring during treatment
During!the!treatment,!the!vertical!deformation!of!the!sample!was!monitored!with!a!measuring!
scale! on! the! loading! piston.! To! ensure! that! the! correct! voltage! was! applied! to! the! sample,! the!
voltage! was! measured! with! a! Caltek! Industrial! BS1901W! digital! multimeter.! The! same!
instrument! was! used! to! measure! the! current! at! multiple! occasions! during! the! treatment.! The!
data! collected! was! used! to! estimate! the! power! consumption! for! the! samples.! When! the!
treatment!was!finished,!the!samples!were!weighed!so!that!the!amount!of!water!drained!from!the!
sample! could! be! evaluated.! From! the! current! and! voltage! measurements,! the! power!
consumption! could! be! calculated.! Since! the! current! only! was! measured! a! couple! of! times!
through!out!the!treatment!time!the!calculated!power!consumption!is!an!approximation.!

4.3.4 Control sample

To!isolate!the!effect!of!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!a!control!test!was!performed.!In!the!control!
test! the! soil! sample! was! prepared! and! reconsolidated! with! the! same! procedure! as! for! the!
samples! treated! with! electroGosmosis.! When! the! reconsolidation! stage! of! 2.5! days! was!
completed!no!current!was!applied!to!the!control!sample!and!it!was!left!in!the!apparatus!for!four!
days,!the!same!time!that!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!was!active.!!

4.4 Laboratory analysis

Laboratory! investigations! were! performed! on! the! samples! before! and! after! the! treatment! to!
evaluate! the! effect! of! electroGosmosis.! ! The! characteristic! soil! parameters! of! the! clays! before!
treatment!were!evaluated!from!the!top!and!bottom!tubes!from!the!samples!collected!in!Uppsala!
and! Göteborg,! whilst! taken! from! previous! laboratory! tests! for! the! ongoing! project! at! Vega,!
Haninge.!!

4.4.1 Analysis before treatment

Routine analysis
Both!the!undisturbed!and!remoulded!!! were!evaluated!using!the!Swedish!fall!cone!penetration!
test!according!to!Swedish!Standard!G!SS027125,!with!a!modification!where!the!cone!indentation!
boundaries,!for!the!100!g!cone,!are!between!7!mm!to!20!mm.!The!sensitivity!was!then!calculated!
from! these! values.! The! fall! cone! test! should! only! be! seen! as! an! index! test,! not! a! method! to!
evaluate! an! exact! value! of!!! .! To! evaluate!!,! Swedish! Standard! G! SS027116! was! used,! and! to!
evaluate! the! liquid! limit,!!! ,! a! fall! cone! test! was! performed! according! to! Swedish! Standard! G!
SS027120.!

Oedometer tests – CRS method

Oedometer!tests!with!constant!rate!of!strain,!CRSGtests,!were!performed!on!the!clay!samples!to!
evaluate!compression!parameters!and!!! .!The!tests!were!performed!on!a!20!mm!high!and!∅50!
mm!sample!according!to!Swedish!Standard!G!SS027126.!

Particle size distribution

To! determine! the! particle! size! distribution,! a! sedimentation! analysis! with! the! hydrometer!
method!was!performed!according!to!Swedish!Standard!G!SS027124!with!modification!to!the!time!
intervals!for!measurements.!!

! 33!
!
! !
Figure 4.7: Resistivity measurement using the soil box method.

Resistivity
The! resistivity! of! the! soil! was! measured! using! the! soilGbox! method! and! a! Gossen! Geohm! 3!
Resistivity!Meter,!see!figure!4.7.!The!resistivity!was!corrected!with!respect!to!the!temperature!in!
the!soil,!which!was!measured!using!a!digital!thermometer.!!!

Plastic limit
The!plastic!limit!of!the!samples!was!evaluated!according!to!Swedish!Standard!G!SS27121,!which!
was!used!to!determine!the!plasticity!index!and!the!activity!of!the!soils!tested.!

pH
To!determine!the!pH!in!the!clays,!pH!analysis!according!to!ISO!10390!was!performed.!!

Zeta potential, !
The !,!of!the!samples,!was!tested!at!Statens!Provningsanstalt,!SP,!using!a!Zetasizer.!

4.4.2 Analysis after treatment

After! the! treatment,! the! samples! were! analysed! to! evaluate! the! electroGosmotic! effect.! The!
sample!was!weighed!so!that!the!amount!of!drained!water!by!the!treatment!could!be!evaluated.!
The! amount! of! drained! water! was! used! to! calculate! the! average! decrease! in!! !after! the!
treatment.!The!effect!of!the!treatment!varies!through!the!length!of!the!sample!and!therefore!the!
samples! were! gradually! pushed! out! of! the! tube! and! tested.! The! anode! side! of! the! tube,! for! the!
samples! where! the! current! was! not! reversed,! was! tested! first! and! the! samples! were! then!
gradually! analysed! towards! the! cathode.! Before! the! first! fall! cone! test! was! carried! out,!
approximately!1!cm!of!the!sample!was!trimmed!off!to!get!an!even!surface!to!test.!

!! was!evaluated!using!the!Swedish!fall!cone!test,!with!the!procedure!as!the!beforeGsamples!were!
tested!with.!!! !was!calculated!from!the!average!cone!indentation!value!from!one!surface!at!the!
time! through! the! length! of! the! sample,! with! exception! of! 20! mm! in! the! middle! of! the! sample!
where!the!soil!was!used!for!the!CRSGtest.!!!and!!! !were!tested!through!the!whole!length!of!the!
sample.!

To!test!the!compression!parameters,!after!the!treatment,!a!20!mm!part!of!the!sample!was!used!
for!a!CRSGtest.!The!20!mm!was!taken!from!the!middle!part!of!the!sample!so!an!average!value!of!
the!compression!parameters,!midway!between!the!anode!and!the!cathode,!could!be!evaluated.!

! 34!
!
! !
4.5 Limitations of the apparatus and in the testing procedure
To!get!realistic!results,!the!testing!apparatus!should!mimic!the!inGsitu!condition!of!the!soil.!The!
apparatus!used!in!the!investigation!was!an!obvious!simplification!of!reality.!The!apparatus!had!
some! limitations! that! made! the! monitoring! of! the! treatment,! and! analysis! of! the! samples! after!
the!treatment,!more!difficult.!These!limitations!as!well!as!limitations!in!the!testing!procedure!are!
presented!in!this!section.!

4.5.1 Electro-osmotic cell

The!cylindrical!shape!and!height!of!the!sample!meant!that!the!skin!friction!between!the!soil!and!
the!wall!of!the!tube!was!large.!In!a!CRSGoedometer,!where!the!sample!is!only!20!mm!high,!up!to!
20%!of!the!load!applied!to!the!soil!sample!is!lost!to!skin!friction!(Holmén,!2014).!The!loss!occurs!
even!though!lubrication!is!used!to!reduce!this!effect!in!the!oedometer.!No!lubrication!could!be!
used!in!the!tests!performed!in!this!investigation!and!the!samples!are!much!higher,!meaning!that!
load!lost!to!skin!friction!could!be!much!larger!than!20%.!This!loss!will!affect!the!reconsolidation!
of! the! sample! since! the! dead! weight! used! to! reconsolidate! the! samples! correspond! to! their! inG
situ! stress.! Since! some! of! the! force! applied! by! the! dead! weight,! will! be! lost! to! skin! friction! the!
samples!will!not!be!completely!reconsolidated!to!their!inGsitu!stress.!A!larger!sample!size!and!a!
lower!height!to!width!ratio!could!minimize!this!loss.!In!some!previous!laboratory!investigations!
the!tests!have!been!carried!out!on!block!samples.!The!samples!were!not!as!high!and!wider!than!
the!samples!used!in!this!investigation,!thereby!lowering!the!skin!friction!(Mohamedelhassan!&!
Shang,! 2001;! Lefebvre! &! Burnotte,! 2002;! Micic! et! al,! 2001;! Micic! et! al;! 2002).! Another! way! to!
avoid! this! effect! is! to! perform! the! tests! in! a! triaxial! testing! apparatus,! which! was! done! by!
Jeyakanthan! et! al! (2011).! However,! a! setup,! similar! to! the! one! used! in! this! investigation,! was!
used!by!Morris!et!al!(1984)!and!Lo!et!al!(1991Ga),!but!samples!of!larger!size!were!used!in!these!
investigations.

The! sampling! and! testing! procedure! is! set! up! so! that! the! electroGosmotic! flow! occurs! in! the!
vertical!direction!of!the!soil.!Field!applications!are!usually!setup!so!that!the!electroGosmosis!flow!
will! occur! in! the! horizontal! direction.!!!of! clay! is! normally! anisotropic,! which! could! affect! the!
results!of!the!treatment.!However,!since!all!the!samples!are!tested!in!the!same!way!this!should!
not! affect! the! comparison! between! the! samples.! ! Some! previous! investigations! (Morris! et! al,!
1984;!Lo!et!al!1991Ga;!Jeyakanthan!et!al,!2011)!have!been!setup!so!that!flow!direction!is!similar!
to!this!investigation!and!some!(Mohamedelhassan!&!Shang,!2001;!Micic!et!al,!2001!Lefebvre!&!
Burnotte,! 2002;! Micic! et! al,! 2002)! have! been! setup! so! that! the! flow! direction! is! the! same! as! in!
field!applications.!

In! setups! used! in! previous! investigations! (Lo! et! al! 1991Ga;! Jeyakanthan! et! al,! 2011)! it! was!
possible! to! measure! the! pore! pressure! in! the! soil,! while! it! was! being! treated.! This! would! have!
given! valuable! information! about! the! treatment.! However,! it! was! not! possible! to! install! pore!
pressure!sensors!in!the!apparatus!used!in!this!investigation.!

4.5.2 Freshness of samples

Another! factor! that! could! affect! the! results! is! the! freshness! of! the! samples.! It! has! been! shown!
that! storing! quick! clay! decreases! its! pH,! sensitivity! and!!! !(Lessard! &! Mitchell,! 1985).! Storage!
also!affects!normal!clay!in!a!similar!fashion!(Clayton!et!al,!1995).!If!the!clay!is!sulphide!bearing,!
oxidation!could!cause!lowering!of!the!pH!and!thereby!affect!the!sample!(Larsson!et!al,!2007Gb).!!
Due! to! logistical! reasons,! all! the! samples! could! not! be! tested! directly! after! they! were! sampled.!
The! routine! analysis,! before! treatment,! was! carried! out! in! connection! with! the! start! of! the!

! 35!
!
! !
electroGosmotic!treatment,!with!exception!for!the!samples!from!Vega.!For!these!two!samples!the!
routine!analysis!was!carried!out!one!month!before!the!treatment.!

4.5.3 Testing samples after treatment

To!be!able!to!analyse!the!samples!after!treatment!they!were!gradually!pushed!out!of!the!sample!
tubes!using!a!jack.!The!part!of!the!sample!that!was!tested!last!had!then!been!pushed!through!the!
whole! length! of! the! sample! tube.! This! increases! the! risk! of! disturbing! the! outer! part! of! the!
sample.! ! A! larger! sample,! which! was! used! in! most! other! investigation,! see! section! 4.51,! could!
have!reduced!this!effect.&

To! test!!,! only! a! small! sample,! of! at! least! 10! g,! was! needed! meaning! that!!!could! be! tested! at!
multiple!points!through!the!length!of!the!sample!and!a!lot!of!data!could!be!collected.!The!small!
sample! size! increases! the! risk! of! layers! or! other! inhomogeneity! in! the! sample! affecting! the!
results.! To! test!!! !a! larger! sample! was! required.! This! meant! that!!! !evaluated! was! an! average!
value!for!a!larger!section!of!the!sample.!However,!the!!! !data!can!still!give!an!indication!of!how!
!! !has!been!affected!by!the!treatment.!A!sample!of!the!same!size,!that!is!required!to!test!the!!! ,!
is! needed! to! test! the! remoulded! shear! strength,! which! is! used! to! evaluate! the! sensitivity.!
Therefore!the!same!limitation,!which!was!discussed!for!the!!! !above,!applies!to!the!remoulded!
shear!strength!and!thereby!the!sensitivity.!!

4.5.4 Fall cone test

The!fall!cone!test!should!only!be!used!as!index!test!for!!! !of!a!soil!(Larsson!et!al,!2007Ga).!Thin!
layers! of! silt! or! sand! in! the! clay! could! also! have! affected! to! evaluation! of!!!! !when! using! this!
method.!

4.6 Investigated soils

Clay! samples! were! collected! from! Gamla! Uppsala,! Opaltorget! in! Göteborg! and! at! Vega! in!
Haninge,!see!figure!4.8.!

!
Figure 4.8: Locations where the samples were collected.

! 36!
!
! !
4.6.1 Clay from Gamla Uppsala
Gamla!Uppsala!is!situated!approximately!70!kilometers!north!of!Stockholm.!The!site!where!the!
samples! were! taken! is! located! in! connection! to! the! construction! site! of! the! new! doubleGtrack!
railway! that! is! being! built! in! Gamla! Uppsala.! The! area! consists! of! cropland! with! nearby!
residential!areas.!According!to!the!geological!map!the!soil!at!the!site!consists!of!postglacial!clay.!
East! of! the! site! there! are! areas! of! glacial! clay! and! in! the! west! there! is! an! esker! in! northGsouth!
direction.!!

!A!CPTGtest!was!performed!at!the!site!to!investigate!the!soil!profile!and!the!variation!of!!! !with!
depth.!Weight!sounding,!vane!test!and!undisturbed!sampling!have!been!performed!at!the!site!in!
an!earlier!investigation.!The!soil!profile!consists!of!1!m!dry!crust!clay!on!approximately!20!m!of!
clay!on!sand!and!gravel!on!bedrock.!The!clay!is!overGconsolidated,!with!OCR!of!1.5!to!5,!down!to!
approximately! 4! meters! depth! and! normally! consolidated! further! down.! The! sensitivity! of! the!
clay!varies!from!9!to!19.!!! of!the!clay,!in!the!upper!8!m!of!the!profile,!varies!from!12!kPa!to!39!
kPa.! Pore! pressure! measurements! correspond! to! a! ground! water! table! located! 1! m! below! the!
ground!surface.!!

Samples! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! were! taken! at! depths! of! 2.5! m,! 3.5! m! and! 4.5! m.! The!
sampling!was!done!in!two!boreholes!1.5!m!apart!and!two!piston!samplings!were!carried!out!at!
2.5!m!and!3.5!m.!The!soil!was!classified!as!grey!clay!at!2.5!m,!as!brownGgrey!varved!clay!at!3.5!m!
and! as! greyGbrown! varved! clay! with! thin! layers! of! silt! at! 4.5! m.! The! soil! parameters! for! the!
different! depths! can! be! seen! in! table! 4.1! and! figure! 4.9.! The! location! where! the! samples! were!
retrieved!can!be!seen!in!figure!4.10.!

Depth ρ w wL cu St kv cv OCR Resistivity pH Clay !!

[m] [t/m3] [%] [%] [kPa] [-] [m/s] [m2/s] [-] [Ωm] [-] [%] [mV]

2.5 1.62 69 73 16 12 4.2E-10 1.3E-8 3.2 22.3 7.6 86 -33.8

3.5 1.60 74 70 15 16 8.0E-10 - 1.5 17.4 8.1 - -27.1

4.5 1.75 55 54 14 14 - - 1.3* 24.5 8.5 56 -

Table 4.1: Soil parameters of the samples from Gamla Uppsala.

*Value evaluated from CPT

! 37!
!
! !
 0 20 40 60 80
0

3
Depth [m]

9 Water content [%]

Liquid limit [%]
Undrained shear strength [kPa]
Sensitivty [-]

Figure 4.9: Soil profile, with w, wL, cu and sensivity.

!
Figure 4.10: The samples were taken near borehole G68.
!

! 38!
!
! !
4.6.2 Clay and quick clay from Opaltorget, Göteborg
Opaltorget!is!located!in!southern!Göteborg!in!a!residential!area.!According!to!the!geological!map,!
the! area! where! the! samples! were! collected! consists! of! glacial! clay.! The! area! of! glacial! clay! is!
surrounded! by! rock! outcrops.! Samples! were! taken! from! two! different! boreholes,! 14AT11! and!
14AT05,!approximately!100!m!apart.!!

A!CPTGtest,!disturbed!and!undisturbed!samplings!were!performed!in!each!borehole!as!a!part!of!a!
geotechnical!investigation!at!the!site.!Ground!water!measurements!in!the!area!showed!a!ground!
water! level! varying! from! 1! m! below! ground! surface! up! to! 0.5! m! above! ground! surface.! The!
ground!water!table!was!assumed!to!be!located!at!1!m!below!the!ground!surface!in!the!boreholes!
where!the!samples!were!taken.!!

The!soil!profile!of!borehole!14AT11!consists!of!1!m!of!fill!on!1!m!dry!crust!and!6!m!of!grey!clay!
on!bedrock.!The!clay!is!over!consolidated,!with!a!OCR!of!2!to!3.!!! !varies!from!15!kPa!to!29!kPa!
and!the!sensitivity!varies!from!8!to!85.!!

The!soil!profile!of!borehole!14AT05!consists!of!2.5!m!of!fill!on!6!m!of!greyGbrown!clay!with!some!
sand,!gravel!and!elements!of!shells,!on!3!m!of!grey!clay.!The!clay!is!over!consolidated,!with!OCR!
of! 1.5! to! 5,! down! to! 8! m! of! depth,! and! furher! down! the! clay! is! normally! consolidated.!!! varies!
from!35!kPa!to!67!kPa!down!to!8!meters!of!depth,!below!this!level!!! !varies!from!18!kPa!to!24!
kPa.!!The!sensitivity!of!the!clay!!varies!from!3!to!5,!down!to!a!depth!of!approximately!8!meters!
and!further!down!it!varies!from!28!to!105.!The!soil!parameters!for!the!different!depths!can!be!
seen! in! table! 4.2! and! 4.3! and! in! figure! 4.11! and! 4.12.! In! borehole! 14AT05,! the! samples! were!
taken!at!10!and!11!m!and!they!were!classified!as!dark!grey!quick!clay.!In!borehole!14AT11,!the!
samples!for!electroGosmotic!treatment!were!taken!at!3!and!4!m!depth!and!consisted!of!grey!clay.!!

Table 4.2: Soil parameters for samples from 14AT05.

Depth ρ w wL cu St kv cv OCR Resistivity pH Clay !!

[m] [t/m3] [%] [%] [kPa] [-] [m/s] [m2/s] [-] [Ωm] [-] [%] [mV]
10 1.66 65 58 20 59 4.5E-10 3.0E-8 1.3 10.2 8.8 61 -36.5

11 1.66 66 62 18 105 - - 1.1* 11.6 9.1 68 -34.9

*Value evaluated from CPT

Table 4.3: Soil parameters for samples from 14AT11.

Depth ρ w wL cu St kv cv OCR Resistivity pH Clay !!

[m] [t/m3] [%] [%] [kPa] [-] [m/s] [m2/s] [-] [Ωm] [-] [%] [mV]
3 1.70 59 66 29 8 7.2E-11 9.9E-9 4.5 9.5 8.1 64 -34.8

4 1.57 77 68 16 30 1.5E-9 2.5E-8 2.0 12.1 8.4 64 -35.2

! 39!
!
! !
 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80
0 0
Water content [%]
Water content [%] Liquid limit [%]
1
Liquid limit [%] Undrained shear strength [kPa]
Sensitivity [-]
2 Undrained shear strength [kPa]
2

Sensitivty [-] 3

Depth [m]
4 4

5
Depth [m]

6 6

8 8
!

10 Figure 4.12: Soil profile for 14AT11 with w, wL, cu and sensitivity.

!
12
!
Figure 4.11: Soil profile for 14AT05 with w, wL, cu and
sensitivity.

4.6.3 Silty clay from Vega, Haninge

Vega!is!located!in!Haninge,!15!km!south!of!Stockholm.!The!area!is!characterized!by!meadowland!
and! forest! with! nearby! residential! areas.! According! to! the! geological! map,! the! area! where! the!
samples!were!retrieved,!consists!of!postglacial!clay!surrounded!by!glacial!clay,!gravel!and!rock!
outcrops.!!

A! weight! sounding! and! undisturbed! sampling! have! been! performed! at! the! site! in! connection!
with!the!geotechnical!investigation!of!the!project.!The!soil!profile!at!the!site!consists!of!1.5!m!of!
dry!crust!on!9!m!of!silty!clay,!on!sand!and!gravel,!on!bedrock.!!The!clay!is!over!consolidated!in!
part!of!the!soil!profile!and!normally!consolidated!further!down.!!! !of!the!clay!varies!from!15!kPa!
to!23!kPa!and!the!sensitivity!varies!from!13!to!28.!Ground!water!measurements!in!the!area!show!
a!ground!water!level!that!varies!from!approximately!3!m!below!ground!surface!up!to!the!ground!
surface.!The!ground!water!level!was!assumed!to!be!located!1!m!below!the!ground!surface!in!the!
borehole! where! the! samples! were! taken.! Samples! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! were! taken!
from!one!borehole!at!depths!of!5!m!and!7!m.!The!samples!were!classified!as!grey!silty!clay.!!The!
soil!parameters!for!the!different!depths!can!be!seen!in!table!4.4!and!figure!4.13.!Locations!where!
the!samples!are!collected!can!be!seen!in!figure!4.14.!

Table 4.4: Parameters for the samples.

Depth ρ w wL cu St kv cv OCR Resistivity pH Clay !!

[m] [t/m3] [%] [%] [kPa] [-] [m/s] [m2/s] [-] [Ωm] [-] [%] [mV]
5 1.85 37 37 19 15 1.8E-10 1.6E-8 1.0 37.9 8.6 43
7 1.90 33 32 19 15 9.3E-10 7.8E-8 1.0 41.7 8.6 34

! 40!
!
! !
 0 10 20 30 40 50
0

4
Depth [m]

10

12
Water content [%]
Liquid limit [%]
Undrained shear strength [kPa]
Sensitivty [-]

!
Figure 4.13: Soil profile for borehole 14SMS528 with w, wL, cu and sensitivity.

!
Figure 4.14: Samples were taken from borehole 14SMS528.

! !

! 41!
!
! !
!

5
!
Summary
In!this!chapter!an!overview!of!the!results!are!presented!and!discussed.!It!should!be!
noted! that! the! treatment! was! still! active! and! the! soil! was! still! consolidating! when!
the!power!was!turned!off!after!the!four!days!of!treatment.!!

Some!of!the!most!important!results!were:!

⋅ The!vertical!deformation!varied!from!0.7%!to!9.4%.!
⋅ The!increase!in!undrained!shear!strength!varied!from!109%!to!650%!near!
the!anode.!In!two!samples,!the!uncorrected!undrained!shear!strength!was!
increased!from!21!kPa!to!more!than!156!kPa!in!this!area.!
⋅ The!sensitivity!was!reduced!in!all!samples!near!the!anode.!The!largest!
increase!in!remoulded!shear!strength!was!from!0.2!kPa!to!61!kPa!and!the!
sensitivity!was!reduced!from!105!to!2.6!in!the!anode!area!of!this!sample.!
⋅ The!water!content!in!the!samples!was!decreased!by!11%!to!40%!near!the!
anode.!
!
The!results!of!the!treatment!were!very!well!correlated!to!sensitivity!and!the!!!!!"# !
value! of! the! soil.! This! investigation! shows! that! clays! suitable! for! electroGosmotic!
treatment! should! be! normally! consolidated! and! have! relatively! high! sensitivity,!
!!!!!"# !value!and!pH.!

Results and discussion

The!samples!will,!in!the!following!chapters,!be!referred!to!as!the!abbreviations!in!table!5.1.!!

Table 5.1: The name of the samples treated.

Sample Abbreviation
Gamla Uppsala 2.5 m GU2.5
Gamla Uppsala 2.5 m - Polarity reversed GU2.5R

Gamla Uppsala 3.5 m GU3.5

Gamla Uppsala 3.5 m – 3 days of treatment GU3.5-3D

Gamla Uppsala 4.5 m – 3 days of treatment GU4.5-3D

Opaltorget 3 m OPAL3
Opaltorget 4 m – Polarity reversed OPAL4R

Opaltorget 10 m OPAL10

Opaltorget 11 m OPAL11

Vega 5 m VEGA5
Vega 7 m VEGA7

! 42!
!
! !
5.1 Consolidation

Results
The! vertical! deformation! during! the! electroGosmotic! treatment! can! be! seen! in! figure! 5.1.! The!
vertical!deformation!of!the!samples,!at!the!end!of!the!treatment,!varied!from!0.7%!to!more!than!
9%.! The! control! sample,! which! was! not! treated! with! electroGosmosis,! did! not! exhibit! any!
deformation.! The! vertical! deformation! is! very! well! correlated! with! the! amount! water! drained!
from!the!samples,!which!can!be!seen!in!figure!5.2.!!

Eight!of!the!eleven!samples,!VEGA5,!VEGA7,!GU2.5,!GU3.5,!OPAL3,!OPAL4R,!OPAL10!and!OPAL11,!
showed! signs! of! horizontal! deformation.! The! horizontal! deformation! took! place! in! the! upper!
part! of! the! tube! near! the! anode,! an! example! of! this! can! be! seen! in! figure! 5.3.! The! largest!
deformations!were!seen!on!OPAL10!and!OPAL11,!both!in!the!vertical!and!horizontal!direction.!!

Time [h]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
OPAL3

1 OPAL4R

2 OPAL10

OPAL11
3
Vertical deformation [%]

GU2.5

4 GU2.5R

GU3.5
5
GU3.5-3D
6
GU4.5-3D

7 VEGA5

VEGA7
8
Control sample
9

!
Figure 5.1: Vertical deformation of the samples during the four days of electro-osmotic treatment.

! 43!
!
! !
 !
Water drained [ml]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 !
0
1
2
Vertical deformation[%]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9 R² = 0,981
10
!
Figure 5.2: Vertical deformation and water drained.
Figure 5.3: Horizontal deformation clearly visible
in sample OPAL11.
!

Discussion
The! vertical! deformation! varied! between! 0.7%! and! 3%! for! all! samples! except! OPAL10! and!
OPAL11!where!the!vertical!deformation!was!larger,!around!8%!to!9%.!OPAL10!and!OPAL11!also!
showed!an!increase!in!!! !that!was!much!larger!than!for!the!other!samples.!!

Horizontal! deformation! was! observed! in! some! of! the! samples.! This! was! also! observed! in! a!
laboratory! investigation! by! Lefebvre! and! Burnotte! (2002).! The! samples! that! deformed!
horizontally! in! that! investigation! were! all! overGconsolidated.! If! electroGosmosis! is! used! in! the!
field,! on! normally! consolidated! soils,!!′! !is! larger! than! the! horizontal! effective! stress,!!′! .!
According! to! the! normality! rule,! the! plastic! deformations! occur! in! the! direction! of! the! major!
principal!stress!and!since!the!vertical!stress!is!larger!than!the!horizontal!stress!the!deformations!
will!occur!in!the!vertical!direction!in!a!field!application.!!

When! using! the! apparatus! built! for! this! investigation,! some! of! the! applied! load! from! the! dead!
weight! is! lost! to! skin! friction,! see! section! 4.5.1.! The! samples! will! act! as! if! they! are! overG
consolidated! and! this! means! that! the! stress! in! the! sample! could! be! nearly! isotropic! in! the!
beginning! of! the! treatment.! Westerberg! (1995)! showed! that! at! isotropic! stress! conditions! the!
horizontal!deformation!can!be!larger!than!the!vertical!deformation,!when!the!isotropic!stress!is!
lower! than! the! vertical!!′! .! This! could! be! an! explanation! why! the! horizontal! deformation!
occurred!in!some!of!the!samples!in!this!laboratory!investigation.!!

5.2 Changes in undrained shear strength, !!

Results
!! ,!of!all!the!samples!increased,!both!near!the!anode!(Maximum!!! !:!After!Treatment!in!table!5.2)!
and! midway! between! the! anode! and! cathode! (!! !midway! :! After! Treatment! in! table! 5.2),! see!
figure! 5.4! and! 5.5.! The! samples! GU3.5–3D! and! GU4.5–3D! were! clearly! disturbed! during!
extraction!and!are!therefore!not!included!in!figure!5.5.!There!is!a!clear!trend!where!the!increase!
in! !! !is! larger! closer! to! the! anode.! The! !! !evaluated! near! the! cathode! has! not! changed!
significantly! for! any! of! the! samples.!!! ,!for! the! samples! where! the! polarity! was! reversed,! also!

! 44!
!
! !
increased! but! not! in! the! same! extent! as! the! samples! where! the! polarity! was! not! reversed,! see!
table! 5.2.! ! No! increase! in!!! !was! observed! at! the! top! of! the! tube! for! OPAL4R,! which! was! the!
anodeGside!during!the!first!two!days!of!treatment.!For!GU2.5R,!there!was!only!a!small!increase!at!
the!top!of!the!tube.!

The!increase!in!!! !for!OPAL10!and!OPAL11!was!very!large!compared!to!the!other!samples.!The!
two!data!points!closest!to!the!anode,!for!these!two!samples,!had!cone!indentions!that!were!less!
than!5!mm!with!the!400!g!cone,!which!means!that!the!!! !was!higher!than!what!can!be!evaluated!
using!this!method,!i.e.!the!value!of!the!uncorrected!!! !was!higher!than!156!kPa.!This!is!why!the!
increase!in!!! !does!not!continue!to!grow!near!the!anode,!for!these!two!samples!in!figure!5.5.!In!
reality!the!increase!was!larger!near!the!anode.!

300 700
650
250 600
OPAL3 OPAL10
550
GU2.5 500
200 OPAL11
GU3.5 450
Increase in cu [%]
Increase in cu [%]

VEGA5 400
150
VEGA7 350
300
100
250
200
50 150
100
0 50
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
-50
Normailzed distance from anode [-] Normailzed distance from anode [-]
! !
Figure 5.4: Increase in cu in percentage after 4 days of Figure 5.5: Increase in cu in percentage after 4 days of
treatment. treatment.

! 45!
!
! !
Table 5.2: !! before and after the electro-osmotic treatment.

!! Maximum !! !! midway
Sample Pre Treatment [kPa] After Treatment [kPa] After Treatment [kPa]

28.5 64.2 41
OPAL3
16 22.8 17
OPAL4R
19.6 >134.2 88
OPAL10
18 >134.6 82.7
OPAL11
16.3 40.1 24.2
GU2.5
16.3 30.9 21.5
GU2.5R
15 29.2 16
GU3.5
20.3 79.5 28.1
VEGA5
19.4 46.3 23.7
VEGA7

Discussion
According! to! theory! the! largest! negative! pore! pressure! is! induced! at! the! anode! and! decreases!
towards!the!cathode!where!there!is!no!change!in!the!pore!pressure.!The!increase!in!!! !observed!
in! the! treated! samples! has! its! maximum! near! the! anode! and! gradually! decreases! towards! the!
cathode.!This!result!is!consistent!with!Esrig’s!oneGdimensional!theory.!!!

How! the! electroGchemical! effects! affected! the! treatment! has! not! been! evaluated! in! this!
investigation.! However,! for! some! of! the! samples! it! could! be! seen! that! the! electrode,! which!
worked!as!anodes!during!treatment,!had!been!corroded!and!that!iron!had!been!precipitated!into!
the!sample,!see!figure!5.6.!The!precipitation!was!only!visible!in!the!most!superficial!layer!of!the!
soil,! but! the! chemical! effects! can! still! have! caused! cementation! to! take! place! further! into! the!
sample.!This!can!have!affected!the!increase!of!!! !not!just!at!the!top!of!the!sample!but!also!further!
down!in!the!sample.!

Disturbances,! caused! during! extraction! of! the! samples,! can! have! affected! the! evaluation! of!!! .!
For! two! samples! GU3.5:3D! and! GU4.5–3D,! clay! was! stuck! to! the! walls! of! the! tube! during!
extraction,! which! disturbed! the! samples.! Disturbances! caused! during! the! extraction! probably!
affected! the!!! !for! the! other! samples! as! well,! especially! near! the! cathode! since! this! part! of! the!
sample!had!been!pushed!out!through!the!whole!length!of!the!tube.!!

In!some!of!the!samples,!!! !had!decreased!in!the!vicinity!of!the!cathode,!which!could!be!because!
of!natural!variations!in!the!soil!or!because!of!the!disturbances!discussed!here.!For!OPAL4R!and!
GU3.5,! another! factor! probably! affecting! the! evaluation! of!!! !was! cracks! that! developed! during!
treatment.! The! cracks! did! not! extend! throughout! the! length! of! the! sample,! but! in! those! parts!
where!the!cracks!were!located,!it!was!more!difficult!to!evaluate!!! .!These!disturbances!and!their!
causes!are!discussed!further!in!section!5.8.1.!!

The!!! !of! the! samples,! where! the! current! was! reversed,! did! not! increased! as! much! as! for! the!
other! samples.! This! can! be! because! the! negative! pore! pressure! at! the! anode,! induced! by! the!

! 46!
!
! !
treatment,!only!has!two!days!to!build!up!before!the!polarity!was!reversed.!This!means!that!the!
negative! pore! pressure! generated! in! these! samples! was! not! as! large! as! in! the! samples! treated!
without!reversed!polarity.!A!reason!why!no!increase!in!!! !was!observed!at!the!bottom!of!sample!
could!be!because!of!disturbances!during!the!extraction!of!the!sample.!

!
Figure 5.6: OPAL11, iron precipitated.

! 47!
!
! !
5.3 Changes in water content, !

Results
The!water!content,!!,!decreased!through!out!the!whole!length!in!all!samples!with!exception!for!
VEGA5! and! GU3.5–3D,! see! figure! 5.7.! The! increase! in!!!for! GU3.5–3D! is! minimal,! but! VEGA5!
shows! a! large! increase.! For! all! the! samples! the! average!!,! after! treatment,! calculated! from! the!
amount! of! water! drained! from! the! sample,! has! decreased! compared! to! the!! !before! the!
treatment,! see! table! 5.3.! The! general! trend! is! that!!!decreased! more,! closer! to! the! anode.! ! For!
the!two!samples!where!the!polarity!was!reversed,!the!decrease!in!!!was!largest!at!the!bottom!of!
the!sample,!which!was!the!anode!side!after!the!reversal!of!polarity.!!!

The! amount! of! water! drained! by! the! treatment! varies! from! 8.0! ml! for! VEGA7! to! 66.2! ml! for!
OPAL11.!For!the!control!sample,!where!no!electroGosmosis!was!used,!2!ml!of!water!was!drained!
from!the!sample,!during!the!reconsolidation!stage.!!!

30

20 OPAL3

OPAL10
10
OPAL11
Normalized distance from anode [-]
0 GU2.5
Change in w [%]

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

GU3.5
-10
GU3.5-3D
-20
GU4.5-3D

VEGA5
-30
VEGA7
-40

-50

!
Figure 5.7: Change in ! in percentage after 4 days of treatment.

! 48!
!
! !
Table 5.3: ! before and after electro-osmotic treatment. The average change in w in percentage after the treatment and the
amount of water drained is also presented.

w–
Average w - Average change
Before treatment
After treatment after treatment Water drained
Sample [%]
[%] [%] [ml]

[%]
OPAL3 59 54 -8.5% 14.8

OPAL4R 77 66 -14.3% 28.2

OPAL10 65 45 -30.8% 59.7

OPAL11 66 44 -33.3% 66.2

GU2.5 69 62 -10.1% 20.3

GU2.5R 69 63 -8.7% 17.7

GU3.5 74 64 -13.5% 26.6

GU3.5-3D 74 65 -12.2% 22.4

GU4.5-3D 55 49 -10.9% 18.8

VEGA5 37 31 -16.2% 21.8

VEGA7 33 31 -6.1% 8.0

Control sample - - - 2.0

Discussion
The!pore!water!is!drawn!from!the!anode!to!the!cathode,!during!the!treatment,!which!is!why!a!
decrease! in!!!closer! to! the! anode! was! expected! for! the! samples! where! the! polarity! was! not!
reversed.!!!

For!the!samples!from!VEGA5!m!and!GU3.5–3D,!!!increased!in!some!of!the!data!points!between!
the!middle!of!the!sample!and!the!cathode.!For!VEGA5!there!was!a!significant!increase!in!!!in!this!
area.!This!can!be!due!to!natural!variations!in!the!samples!where!layers!in!the!soil!contain!more!
water,!or!because!of!a!measuring!error!during!the!evaluation!of!the!!.!Another!reason!could!be!
that! the! evaluated!!!before! the! treatment! is! incorrect.! Since! the!!!was! measured! once! before!
the!treatment!for!the!samples!from!Vega,!there!is!a!risk!that!this!value!was!inaccurate.!For!the!
samples!from!the!Gamla!Uppsala!and!Opaltorget!!!was!tested!from!at!least!three!samples!from!
the!same!depth,!which!gives!a!more!accurate!!.!For!the!sample!GU3.5–3D,!where!there!only!was!
a!small!increase!in!!,!potential!reasons!can!be!errors!in!the!evaluation!of!!!or!natural!variation!
in!the!sample.!!!!

In!the!control!sample,!which!was!not!treated!with!electroGosmosis,!2!ml!of!water!was!drained.!
The!water!was!drained!during!the!reconsolidation!stage,!where!some!vertical!deformation!was!
observed.!This!means!that!almost!all!the!water!drained!from!the!samples,!treated!with!electroG
osmosis,!was!drained!as!an!effect!of!the!treatment.!!

One!advantage!of!the!treatment,!which!is!a!result!of!the!decreased!!,!is!a!potential!decrease!in!
creep! settlements! in! the! treated! soil.! The! creep! settlements! are! correlated! to!!.! The! results!

! 49!
!
! !
show!that!electroGosmosis!lowers!the!!!in!the!treated!soil,!which!then!should!decrease!the!creep!
settlements.

5.4 Changes in liquid limit, !!

Results
The! changes! in! liquid! limit,!!! ,! of! the! samples! after! the! treatment! vary.!!! !has! increased! near!
the!anode!for!four!of!the!samples!and!decreased!in!the!same!area!for!the!five!other!samples,!see!
figure!5.8.!Near!the!cathode!!! !has!decreased!for!all!samples!except!VEGA5!and!GU3.5.!There!is!a!
trend!where!!! !is!higher!closer!the!anode!and!then!decreases!closer!to!the!cathode.!

Discussion
The!trend!that!!! !is!higher!at!the!anode!than!at!the!cathode!was!also!observed!by!Bjerrum!et!al!
(1967),! where! data! from! the! field! test! show! that!!! !had! increased! at! the! anode! and! remained!
unchanged!at!the!cathode.!This!trend!was!also!observed!by!Larsson!(1975).!The!sample!VEGA5!
did!not!follow!the!trend.!This!probably!has!the!same!explanation!as!the!irregular!!!observed!in!
the!same!sample,!which!is!discussed!in!section!5.3.!

35

OPAL3
25
OPAL10

OPAL11
15
Change in wL [%]

GU2.5

5 GU3.5

GU3.5-3D
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
-5
GU4.5-3D

VEGA5
-15

VEGA7

-25
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Figure 5.8: Change in !!! in percentage.

! 50!
!
! !
5.5 Changes in sensitivity

Results
The! sensitivity! of! the! clay! was! reduced! in! every! point! through! the! samples! where! it! was!
evaluated,!except!in!four!of!the!samples,!OPAL10,!OPAL11,!OPAL3!and!GU2.5,!where!it!increased!
near!the!cathode,!see!figure!5.9.!The!sensitivity!of!the!samples!GU3.5:3D!and!GU4.5–3D!are!not!
presented! here! since! the!!! in! these! samples! after! the! treatment! could! not! be! evaluated!
accurately! enough.! The! two! data! points! closest! to! the! anode! for! OPAL10! and! OPAL11! are!
somewhat! uncertain,! this! is! because! the! value!!! !at! these! points! were! larger! than! what! was!
measureable! with! the! method! used.! This! means! that! the! change! sensitivity! should! be! smaller!
than!G89%!for!OPAL10!and!G97%!for!OPAL11.!!!

The! increase! in! remoulded! shear! strength! can! be! seen! in! figure! 5.10.! A! large! increase! in! the!
remoulded!shear!strength,!near!the!anode,!was!observed!for!OPAL10!and!OPAL11.!For!OPAL10!
the!remoulded!shear!strength!increased!from!0.39!kPa!to!25!kPa!and!for!OPAL11!the!remoulded!
shear!strength!increased!from!0.2!kPa!to!61!kPa.!

For! the! samples! where! reversed! polarity! was! used,! GU2.5R! and! OPAL4R,! the! sensitivity! was!
decreased!through!out!the!whole!length!of!the!sample.!This!indicated!that!reversing!the!polarity!
could!be!used!to!ensure!that!the!sensitivity!is!not!increased!near!the!cathodes.!

100

OPAL3

50 OPAL10
Change in sensitivity [%]

OPAL11

GU2.5
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
GU3.5

VEGA5
-50
VEGA7

-100
Normalized distance from anode [-]
!
Figure 5.9: Changes in sensitivity in percentage.

! 51!
!
! !
 550
OPAL3

GU2.5
Increase in remoulded shear strength [%]

450
GU3.5

GU3.5-3D
350
GU4.5-3D

250 VEGA5

VEGA7

150

50

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

-50
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Figure 5.10: Change in remoulded shear strength in percentage. The remoulded shear strength of OPAL10 and OPAL11, near the
anode, increased by 6 000 and 30 000% respectively and could not be presented in this graph.

Discussion
One! potential! reason! for! the! increase! in! sensitivity! near! the! cathode! for! four! of! the! samples!
could! be! that! the! electroGosmotic! flow! was! relatively! large! in! 3! out! of! the! 4! samples,! see! table!
5.3.!All!the!water!drained!from!the!sample!passed!the!cathode!area!and!could!have!leached!the!
soil,!i.e.!decreased!the!salinity,!in!the!process.!A!decrease!in!salinity!can!increase!the!sensitivity!
of!the!soil!(Torrance,!1999;!AnderssonGSköld!et!al,!2005).!!

This! was! also! observed! by! Larsson! (1975).! As! mentioned! in! section! 2.6.4,! Larsson! (1975)!
noticed!that!the!salinity!increased!near!to!the!anode!and!decreased!near!the!cathode,!due!to!ion!
transport.! This! would! give! the! same! effect! as! if! the! clay! was! leached! and! could! also! be! an!
explanation!to!why!the!sensitivity!increased!for!the!four!samples,!OPAL10,!OPAL11,!OPAL3!and!
GU2.5.!

5.6 Changes in compression parameters

In! this! section! changes! in! compression! parameters! of! the! samples! are! presented.! It! was! not!
possible!to!perform!CRS!tests!on!some!of!the!samples!after!treatment!because!the!samples!were!
too!disturbed!to!get!any!results.!The!data!presented!below!are!from!the!samples!where!CRS!tests!
could!be!performed!both!before!and!after!the!electroGosmotic!treatment.!!All!of!the!CRS!tests!are!
presented!in!Appendix!E.!The!soil!used!for!the!CRS!tests,!after!the!treatment,!was!taken!from!the!
middle!section!of!the!sample.!!!

! 52!
!
! !
5.6.1 Gamla Uppsala 2.5 m
The!results!from!the!CRS!tests!performed!on!the!samples!from!Gamla!Uppsala!and!a!depth!of!2.5!
m! are! presented! below;! see! table! 5.4! and! figure! 5.11.! Two! samples! were! treated! with! electroG
osmosis! from! this! depth,! one! with! reversed! polarity.! There! is! a! clear! difference! in! the!
compression! parameters! between! the! samples! before! and! after! the! treatment.!!′! !for! GU2.5,!
increased! by! approximately! 30%! to! 70%! in! comparison! with! the! before! value! from! 2014! and!
1996,! respectively.! For! GU2.5R,!!′! !increased! by! approximately! 30%! in! comparison! with! the!
before!value!from!1996!but!remained!unchanged!in!comparison!to!the!before!value!from!2014!
from!this!depth.!The!oneGdimensional!compression!modulus,!!!, !increased!by!110%!and!120%!
compared! to! the! before! value! from! 1996! and! 2014,! respectively.! ! The! increase! was! 70%! and!
85%!for!the!sample!with!reversed!polarity!in!comparison!with!the!before!value!from!1996!and!
2014!respectively.!

Table 5.4: Compression parameters before and after treatment.

Before treatment Before treatment

(1996) (2014) GU2.5 GU2.5R

σ’C [kPa] 76 96 (129) (98)

σ’L [kPa] 133 131 201 195

M' [-] 13.4 12.2 10.2 12

ML [kPa] 730 690 1517 1265

!!

Effective Vertical Pressure σ’v [kPa]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

GU2.5
10
Deformation [%]

Before treatment (1996)

15
GU2.5R

20

25 Beofre treatment (2014)

!
Figure 5.11: CRS curves before and after treatment. The scale of the axis in this figure is different from the scale recommended by
the Swedish Geotechnical Society.

! !

! 53!
!
! !
5.6.2 Vega 5 m
The! results! from! the! CRS! tests! performed! on! samples! from! Vega! and! a! depth! of! 5! m! are!
presented! in! table! 5.5! and! figure! 5.12.! ! ′ ! ! increased! with! approximately! 40%! while! !! !
decreased! with! approximately! 30%! after! treatment.! This! was! the! only! sample,! analysed! with!
CRS,!where!!! !decreased.!

Table 5.5: Compression parameters before and after treatment.

Before treatment VEGA5

σ’C [kPa] 57 81
σ’L [kPa] 105 131
M' [-] 13.6 11.6
ML [kPa] 1484 1037

Effective Vertical Pressure σ ’v [kPa]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0

6
Deformation [%]

8 Before treatment

10

12 VEGA5

14

16

18
!
Figure 5.12: CRS curves before and after treatment. The scale of the axis in this figure is different from the scale recommended by
the Swedish Geotechnical Society.&

! !

! 54!
!
! !
5.6.3 Opaltorget 3 m
The!results!from!the!CRS!tests!performed!on!the!samples!from!Opaltorget!and!a!depth!of!3!m!are!
presented! in! table! 5.6! and! figure! 5.13.!! ′ ! !increased! with! approximately! 20%! and!!! !was!
approximately!doubled.!

Table 5.6: Compression parameters before and after treatment.

Before OPAL3 !
treatment

σ’C [kPa] 159 (196)

σ’L [kPa] 202 404
M' [-] 9.6 9.1
ML [kPa] 1655 3309

Effective Vertical Pressure σ’v [kPa]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0

6
OPAL3
Deformation [%]

10
Before treatment
12

14

16

18

20
!
Figure 5.13: CRS curves before and after treatment. The scale of the axis in this figure is different from the scale recommended by
the Swedish Geotechnical Society.

! 55!
!
! !
5.6.4 Discussion
It! was! difficult! to! evaluate!! ′ ! !for! several! of! the! CRS! tests! performed! on! treated! samples.! This!
might!be!caused!by!disturbances!or!changed!soil!behaviour.!However,!there!was!a!clear!general!
trend! where!!′! !and!!! had! been! increased! in! the! treated! samples.!!! was! approximately!
doubled! for! all! samples,! except! for! VEGA5! where! !!! !decreased.! The! increase! in!!′! ,! and!
!! !means!that!any!settlement!caused!by!a!specific!load!will!decrease.!!

Comparing! GU2.5! and! GU2.5R,! better! results! were! achieved! for! GU2.5.! The! reason! for! this! is!
probably!that!the!time!the!negative!pore!pressure!has!to!the!build!up,!is!shorter!for!the!samples!
where!the!polarity!is!reversed!than!for!the!samples!treated!normally,!which!is!also!discussed!in!
section!5.2.!However,!the!difference!could!also!have!been!observed!because!of!natural!variations!
in!the!samples.!

Variation! in! the! results! could! also! have! occurred! since! it! was! not! possible! to! perform! the! CRS!
tests!exactly!in!the!middle!of!the!sample,!for!all!the!samples.!This!may!have!affected!the!results!
from! the! CRS! tests! since! the! improvements! through! the! samples! vary! between! the! electrodes.!
The!samples,!GU2.5,!OPAL3!and!VEGA5,!had!been!consolidated!horizontally!during!the!treatment.!
They!had!to!be!filled!out,!with!clay!to!fit!the!oedometerGcell,!which!also!may!have!affected!the!
results.!!However,!this!should!yield!more!conservative!results.!

5.7 Current and power consumption

Results
As!can!be!seen!in!figure!5.14,!the!current!flowing!through!the!system!decreases!with!time,!which!
also!has!been!seen!by!previous!researchers!(Lo!et!al,!1990Ga,!Micic!et!al,!2001;!Jeyakanthan!et!al,!
2011).!In!the!two!samples!where!the!polarity!was!reversed!after!two!days,!GU2.5R!and!OPAL4R,!
there!was!a!spike!in!the!current!level!when!the!polarity!was!reversed.!!

The!resistivity!and!the!current!are!well!correlated.!The!samples!from!Opaltorget!had!the!lowest!
resistivity!and!the!current!is!higher!in!these!samples!than!in!the!other!samples,!see!figure!5.15!
and! table! 5.7.! As! can! be! seen! in! figure! 5.15,! the! power! consumption! and! the! resistivity! of! the!
samples!are!very!well!correlated.!

! 56!
!
! !
 6

OPAL3
5
OPAL4R

OPAL10
4
OPAL11
Current [mA]

GU2.5
3
GU2.5R

Polarity reversed GU3.5

2
GU3.5-3D

GU4.5-3D
1
Electrical cable broke VEGA5
at anode
VEGA7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time [h]
!
Figure 5.14: Variation in current during treatment.

Table 5.7: Power consumption and resistivity of the samples.

Power Power Consumption ! !

Consumption per m3 of treated soil
Sample Resistivity [Ωm] [kWh] [kWh/m3]

OPAL3 9.5 0.011 36.7

OPAL4R 12.1 0.010 31.6

OPAL10 10.2 0.011 36.3

OPAL11 11.6 0.010 34.0

GU2.5 22.3 0.004 14.6

GU2.5R 22.3 0.005 17.3

GU3.5 17.4 0.006 19.7

GU3.5-3D 17.4 0.003 10.5

GU4.5-3D 24.5 0.004 12.2

VEGA5 37.9 0.004 13.1

VEGA7 41.7 0.003 11.6

! 57!
!
! !
!

0,012
Power consumption [kWh]

0,01

0,008

0,006

0,004

0,002

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Resistivity [Ωm]

Figure 5.15: Power consumption and resistivity.

Discussion
The! most! probable! reason! why! the! current! decreased! over! time! was! the! decrease! in!!,! that!
occurred!during!treatment.!A!decreased!!,!near!the!electrodes,!will!have!increased!the!electrical!
resistance!between!the!soil!and!electrode,!which!in!turn!decreased!the!current.!

Since!power!consumption!and!resistivity!are!very!well!correlated,!the!resistivity!can!be!used!to!
give!an!indication!of!the!power!consumption.!Hansbo!(2008)!showed!that!the!resistivity!of!the!
soil!and!the!installation!pattern!of!the!electrodes!could!be!used!to!calculate!power!consumption!
of!an!electroGosmotic!installation.!

5.8 Other discussion subjects

5.8.1 Disturbances
Disturbances! may! have! affected! the! analysed! results.! Adhesion! between! the! soil! and! the! tube!
wall! may! have! caused! disturbances! in! the! samples! during! extraction.! The! cathode! side,! which!
has!been!pushed!out!through!the!whole!length!of!the!tube,!is!probably!mostly!affected.!In!those!
cases!where!the!adhesion!was!large,!minor!cracks!developed!and!therefore!the!changes!in!!! !of!
these!samples!were!difficult!to!evaluate.!For!the!samples!GU3.5–3D!and!GU4.5–3D!the!adhesion!
to!the!tube!wall!was!so!severe!during!extraction,!that!evaluation!of!!! !was!not!possible.!!

In! two! of! the! samples,! GU3.5! and! OPAL4R,! large! cracks! were! found,! one! in! each! sample.! This!
phenomenon!was!also!observed!in!one!of!the!test!samples,!performed!before!the!real!tests!were!
carried! out,! see! figure! 5.16.! The! cracks! started! at! the! top! of! the! sample! and! reached!
approximately!5!cm!into!the!sample!from!the!top.!!

In!the!test!sample!the!crack!was!vertical!at!first!and!then!seemed!to!become!diagonal,!see!figure!
5.16.!The!direction!of!the!cracks!in!GU3.5!and!OPAL4R!were!more!difficult!to!identify!since!the!
sample!were!extracted!from!the!tube!approximately!2!cm!at!a!time.!We!will!discuss!two!possible!
explanations!why!the!cracks!occurred,!but!there!can!be!other!or!an!interaction!of!many!reasons.!!!

Vertical! cracks! through! the! sample! could! have! occured! because! the! clay! deforms! and! shrinks!
during!the!treatment.!The!negative!pore!pressure!acts!in!all!directions!and!as!the!negative!pore!
pressure! become! larger! during! the! treatment! the! clay! shrinks! and! this! type! of! cracks! could!
occur.!

! 58!
!
! !
 Possible!failure!plane!

!
Figure 5:16: Shear failure plane visible in test sample that was tested before the laboratory investigation was started.

Another!explanation!could!be!that!the!cracks!occur!due!to!failure.!This!may!happen!if!the!sample!
first!shrinks!horizontally!which!leads!to!a!loss!of!horizontal!support!from!the!tube!walls.!During!
the!treatment!!! !increases,!mostly!close!to!the!anode.!If!!! !have!not!increase!enough!to!carry!the!
load! from! the! dead! weight! when! the! sample! looses! the! support! from! the! tube! walls,! failure!
occur.!!

5.9 Parameters affecting the efficiency of the treatment

Since!all!the!samples!were!treated!with!the!same!procedure,!the!results!of!the!treatment!can!be!
used!to!find!the!parameters!that!have!the!largest!affect!on!the!efficiency!of!the!treatment.!To!do!
this,!a!result!that!can!be!used!as!a!reference!is!needed.!Consolidation!and!increased!!! !was!the!
primary!aim!of!the!treatment.!The!vertical!deformation!and!the!drained!water!are,!as!expected,!
well! correlated,! see! figure! 5.2,! as! well! as! the! maximum! increase! in!!! !for! the! samples! treated!
without!reversed!polarity,!see!figure!5.18.!The!amount!of!water!drained!by!the!treatment!could!
also!be!used!as!an!indication!of!!! ,!which!is!the!key!factor!when!determining!if!a!soil!is!suitable!
for! electroGosmotic! treatment.! Both! the! amount! of! water! drained! by! the! treatment! and! the!
maximum! increase! in!!! !will! be! used! as! reference! points! to! be! able! to! identify! the! parameters!
that!affect!the!treatment!the!most.!

The!correlation!between!the!parameters,!discussed!in!section!2.7,!and!the!water!drained!as!well!
as! the! maximum! increase! in!!! ,! was! analysed.! The! correlation! between! the! results! and! the!
sensitivity,!remoulded!!! !and!!!!!"# before!treatment!was!also!analysed.!Since!the!sample!VEGA7!
behaved! differently,! compared! to! the! other! samples,! it! was! excluded! from! the! analysis.! The!
analysis! of! the! correlation! between! the! factors! and! the! amount! of! drained! water! and! the!
maximum!increase!in!!! !is!presented!in!Appendix!B.!Following!correlations!were!found:!

⋅ The!activity,!!!and!!! !showed!no!clear!correlation!to!the!result!of!the!treatment.!!
⋅ Some! correlation! could! be! seen! for! the! OCR,! where! soils! with! low! OCR! drained! more!
water!and!!! !increased!more.!!!
⋅ The!resistivity!showed!some!correlation!to!the!result,!where!a!low!resistivity!increased!
the!amount!of!water!drained,!however!there!was!no!correlation!between!the!increase!in!
!! !and!the!resistivity.!!

! 59!
!
! !
 ⋅ The!!!showed!some!correlations!to!the!result!of!the!treatment.!There!was!a!slight!trend!
where!more!water!was!drained!and!the!increase!in!!! !was!larger!for!the!samples!with!a!
more!negative!value!of!!.!
⋅ The! pH! showed! a! good! correlation! to! both! the! amount! of! water! drained! as! well! as! the!
increase!in!!! .!A!higher!pH!increased!!! !and!the!amount!of!water!drained.!!
⋅ The!remoulded!!! !before!treatment!and!the!result!of!the!treatment!were!well!correlated,!
where!a!low!remoulded!!! !before!the!treatment!meant!that!more!water!was!drained!and!
!! !increased!more.!!
⋅ The! best! correlation! was! seen! for! the!!!!!!"# !value! and! the! sensitivity! of! the! soil! before!
treatment,!see!figure!5.19,!5.20,!5.21!and!5.22.!!A!high!!!!!!"# !value!increased!the!amount!
of!water!drained!and!meant!that!the!increase!in!!! !was!larger.!A!higher!sensitivity!also!
increased!the!amount!of!water!drained!and!the!increase!in!!! !was!larger!for!the!samples!
with!high!sensitivity.!

!
Figure 5.18: Correlation between the amount of water drained
and the maximum increase in !! .!

! 60!
!
! !
 700
70
600

Maximum increase in cu [%]

60
500
Water drained [ml]

50 R² = 0,888 R² = 0,993

40 400

30 300

20 200
10 100
0
0 1E-08 2E-08 3E-08 0
0 1E-08 2E-08 3E-08 4E-08
cv [m2/s]
! cv min [m2/s] !
Figure 5.19: Correlation between water drained and cv min before Figure 5.20: Correlation between the increase in cu min and cv
the treatment.. before the treatment...
70 700

60 600

Maximum increase in cu [%]

R² = 0,929 R² = 0,900
Water drained [ml]

50 500

40 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sensitivity [-] Sensitivty [-]
! !
Figure 3.21: Correlation between water drained and the Figure 5.22: Correlation between the increase in cu and the
sensitivity before the treatment. sensitivity before the treatment.

5.9.1 Discussion
It!should!be!noted!that!the!correlations!observed!in!this!analysis!are!based!on!few!observations.!
All! the! parameters! investigated! could! not! be! analysed! for! all! the! samples,! which! affects! the!
analysis.! However,! these! observations! can! give! an! indication! of! what! parameter! that! had! the!
highest! effect! on! the! treatment.! The! correlations! are! presented! in! figure! 1! to! figure! 18! in!
Appendix!B.!

All! the! samples! treated! had! low! activity,! which! varied! from! 0.47! to! 0.60.! No! clear! correlation!
between!the!activity!and!the!results!was!observed,!which!was!probably!because!the!samples!had!
similar!activity.!!!

!!of!the!samples!varied!from!37%!to!78%.!Even!though!the!samples!had!very!different!!,!before!
the!treatment,!it!did!not!seem!like!this!had!a!large!effect!on!the!treatment.!!

No!correlation!could!be!seen!between!!! !and!the!result.!This!was!somewhat!surprising!since!the!
ratio!!! /!! !is! seen! as! a! controlling! factor! in! theory! (Mitchell! &! Soga,! 2005).! As! mentioned! in!
section!4.5.1,!the!setup!used!in!this!investigation!induces!flow!in!vertical!direction!instead!of!the!
horizontal!direction,!which!is!the!case!in!field!applications.!This!can!have!affected!the!correlation!
between!!! !and!the!results.!

! 61!
!
! !
The! correlation! between! the!!of! the! sample! before! treatment! and! the! result! of! the! treatment!
showed! some! correlation.! However,! the! correlation! was! not! as! clear! as! expected! from! the!
literature!review.!!

There! was! some! correlation! between! the! results! and! OCR.! According! to! theory,! mentioned! in!
section! 2.7.6,! normally! consolidated! clay! is! preferable! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! and! there!
was!a!trend!where!a!lower!OCR!increases!the!result!of!the!treatment.!However,!GU2.5!and!OPAL3!
responded! well! to! the! treatment,! which! both! were! over! consolidated,! with! OCR! of! 3.2! and! 4.5!
respectively.!!

The!resistivity!also!shows!some!correlation!with!the!amount!of!water!drained!by!the!treatment,!
where! samples! with! lower! resistivity! drained! more! water.! This! was! not! expected! since! the!
resistivity! is! somewhat! dependent! on! the! salinity! (Larsson,! 1975).! A! high! salinity! generates! a!
low!resistivity!and!a!smaller!diffuse!double!layer,!which!decrease!the!efficiency!of!the!treatment.!
However,! it! is! possible! that! the! efficiency! of! electroGosmosis! is! increased! as! the! resistivity! is!
decreased! to! a! certain! level! and! if! the! resistivity! is! lower! than! this! level! the! efficiency! is!
decreased.!A!similar!trend!was!observed!by!Mohamedelhassan!(2011),!when!four!clay!mixtures!
with! different! salinity! and! resistivity! were! treated! with! electroGosmosis.! The! amount! of! water!
drained!by!the!treatment!was!higher!for!the!samples!with!lower!resistivity!before!treatment,!for!
three! out! of! four! clay! mixtures.! However,! for! the! forth! clay! mixture,! which! had! the! highest!
salinity! and! very! low! resistivity! compared! to! the! other! samples,! the! amount! of! water! drained!
was!less!than!for!the!other!samples.!

A!correlation,!where!a!high!pHGlevel!increased!the!amount!of!water!drained!and!the!increase!of!
!! ,! was! also! observed.! According! to! theory,! see! section! 2.7.2,!!!becomes! less! negative! if! pH! is!
lowered,! which! decreases! the! efficiency! of! the! method.! This! could! be! an! explanation! to! the!
correlation!observed.!!

The!sensitivity!and!the!result!are!well!correlated.!A!higher!sensitivity!in!the!soil!tested,!resulted!
in!a!larger!amount!of!water!being!drained!and!a!larger!increase!in!!! .!OPAL10!and!OPAL11!were!
highly! sensitive! and! increased! most! in!!! !and! drained! the! largest! amount! of! water! of! all! the!
samples.!These!samples!are!deposited!in!marine!environment!and!when!marine!clay!is!leached,!
the!salinity!of!the!soil!is!decreased.!This!causes!the!diffuse!double!layer!to!increase!in!size,!which!
is!beneficial!for!electroGosmotic!treatment.!Another!effect!of!the!leaching!is!that!the!sensitivity!of!
the!clay!is!increased.!This!means!that!there!could!be!a!connection!between!the!size!of!the!diffuse!
double! layer! and! sensitivity,! which! can! explain! why! the! sensitivity! is! so! well! correlated! to! the!
results.!Multiple!field!applications,!where!electroGosmosis!has!been!applied!successfully!to!quick!
clays,!have!been!reported!(Lo!et!al,!1991Gb;!Foyn,!1977;!Bjerrum!et!al,!1967).!!

The!!!!!!"# !value!is!very!well!correlated!to!the!result!of!the!treatment.!In!Esrig’s!oneGdimensional!
theory,! the! average! degree! of! consolidation! of! a! soil! sample,! treated! with! electroGosmosis,! is!
dependent! on!!!!!!"# !and! the! distance! between! the! electrodes.! Since! the! distance! between! the!
electrodes! were! the! same! for! all! the! samples,!!!!!!"# !will! be! a! controlling! parameter! for! the!
average!degree!of!consolidation.!This!explains!why!!!!!!"# !is!so!well!correlated!to!the!results.!

To! summarize,! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! to! be! most! efficient! the! clay! treated! should! be!
normally!consolidated!and!have!relatively!high!sensitivity,!!!!!!"# !and!pH,!and!the!salinity!should!
not! be! lower! than! 2g! NaCl/l.! These! characteristics,! except! for! the! salinity! that! was! not!
investigated,!were!all!found!in!the!samples!OPAL10!and!OPAL11,!in!which!the!best!results!were!

! 62!
!
! !
observed.! However,! all! the! soil! samples! tested! responded! to! the! treatment,! which! shows! that!
electroGosmosis!can!be!applied!to!soils!with!very!different!characteristics.!! !

! 63!
!
! !
!

6 !

Conclusions and general discussion about areas of application !

6.1 Conclusions
The! results! from! this! investigation! show! that! electroGosmosis! can! drain,! consolidate! and!
strengthen!clays,!in!line!with!numerous!other!studies!and!field!applications.!All!of!the!samples!
treated! with! electroGosmosis! have! consolidated.! The! vertical! deformation! varied! from! 0.7%! to!
9.4%.!!!and! sensitivity! has! decreased! and!!! !has! increased! in! all! samples.! The! increase! in!!! !
near!the!anode!varied!from!109%!to!650%!and!the!sensitivity!was!reduced!by!up!to!97%!near!
the!anode.!! ′ ! !increased!in!all!samples.!

The! laboratory! investigation! indicates! that! clay! best! suited! for! electroGosmotic! treatment! is!
normally!consolidated!and!has!relatively!high!sensitivity,!!!!!!"# !and!pH.!The!salinity!should!not!
be! lower! than! 2g! NaCl/l.! These! characteristics,! except! for! the! salinity! that! was! not! evaluated,!
were! all! found! in! the! samples! OPAL10! and! OPAL11! in! which! the! best! results! were! observed.!
However,! all! the! soil! samples! tested! responded! to! the! treatment,! which! shows! that! electroG
osmosis!can!be!applied!to!soils!with!very!different!characteristics.!

ElectroGosmosis!has!the!potential!to!be!an!economical!and!environmentally!friendly!stabilization!
method,!which!has,!for!example,!been!shown!in!slope!stability!projects!in!the!UK!where!electroG
osmosis! has! been! used.! In! these! projects,! the! cost! and! the! carbon! footprint! were! lower! than! if!
slope! slackening! with! gabions! or! soil! nailing,! would! have! been! used! (The! Green! Construction!
Board,!2013;!LamontGBlack!&!Weltman,!2010).!ElectroGosmosis!can!be!used!as!a!complementary!
method!to!other!stabilization!methods!or!on!its!own!at!locations!where!these!cannot!be!used,!for!
example!under!existing!embankments!or!when!space!is!limited.!!!

6.2 Areas of application for electro-osmosis

The!possible!areas!for!application!of!electroGosmosis!in!geotechnical!engineering!are!vast.!Some!
examples!are!presented!below.!!

Consolidation of soils
Since! electroGosmosis! can! consolidate! fineGgrained! soil! faster! than! mechanical! consolidation! it!
can!be!useful!in!cases!where!settlements!are!problematic.!The!method!can!be!used!both!during!

! 64!
!
! !
construction! and! under! existing! structures,! such! as! road! or! railway! embankments,! that! have!
problems! with! onGgoing! settlements.! One! advantage! of! electroGosmosis! is! that! it! can! be! used!
where!space!is!limited!since!no!large!machinery!is!needed!and!the!size!of!the!installation!itself!is!
small.!!

If!the!average!results!achieved!in!the!laboratory,!i.e.!increased!!′! !and!!! ,!can!be!reproduced!in!

the!field,!electroGosmosis!could!be!used!to!reduce!settlements.!The!reduction!of!the!settlement,!
caused!by!an!increase!of!!′! !to!a!level!between!!′! !and!!′! ,!could!be!more!than!50%!if!the!clay!is!
treated! with! electroGosmosis! before! the! load! is! applied.! Combining! electroGosmosis! and! preG
loading!the!consolidation!caused!by!the!preGloading!can!be!accelerated!and!increased.!Another!
advantage!of!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!is!that!the!water!content!in!the!soil!is!lowered.!This!
can!reduce!the!creep!settlements!that!occur!in!the!soil.!!

Stability of existing slopes

ElectroGosmosis! can! be! used! to! solve! stability! problems,! in! existing! slopes,! by! installing!
electrodes! into! the! slope,! see! figure! 6.1.! By! strengthening! the! soil! the! factor! of! safety! can! be!
increased.!The!electrodes!can!also!be!left!in!the!slope!to!act!as!soil!nails!to!further!increase!the!
factor!of!safety!of!the!slope!after!the!treatment!is!finished.!In!the!UK,!electroGosmosis!has!been!
successfully!used!in!this!way!(LamontGBlack!&!Weltman,!2010;!The!Green!Construction!Board,!
2013).!!!

Excavations in soft soils

ElectroGosmosis! can! be! used! to! strengthen! soft! soil,! which! can! be! useful! in! excavations.! The!
excavation!could!then!be!deeper!and!a!steeper!slope!could!be!excavated!than!if!no!stabilization!
is!used.!A!steeper!gradient!of!the!slope!can!be!useful!in!situations!where!there!is!limited!space!
instead!of!using!a!sheet!pile!wall!or!other!stabilizing!methods.!In!a!fictive!calculation!example,!
see!Appendix!D!and!figure!6.2,!electroGosmosis!has!been!applied!to!a!7!m!layer!of!soft!clay.!The!
factor! of! safety,! for! a! 4! m! deep! excavation! with! 2:1! slope! gradient,! is! 1.07! without! electroG
osmotic! treatment.! If! electroGosmosis! is! applied! with! 4! m! between! the! electrodes! and!!! !
increased!from!15!kPa!to!50!kPa!at!the!anodes,!the!factor!of!safety!could!be!increased!to!1.67,!
see!figure!6.2.!!!

!
Figure 6.1: Example of electrode setup when using electro-osmosis to stabilize a slope (Electrokinetic, 2014).

! 65!
!
! !
 !
Figure 6.2: Stabilisation analysis of a 4 m deep excavation in soft clay with 2:1 slope after electro-osmotic treatment.

Stability of silty soils

Problems!with!silt!soil!are!often!related!to!water.!ElectroGosmosis!has!been!shown!to!effectively!
drain!water!from!silt!soils!(Pusch,!1970;!Casagrande,!1953).!This!means!that!electroGosmosis!can!
be!used!to!lower!the!ground!water!level!and!stabilize!excavations!in!silt!soils.!!ElectroGosmosis!
can!be!used!instead!of!using!vacuum!well!points!or!well!points.!According!to!theory,!the!method!
works!very!well!in!silt!soil!with!low!!.!!

Chemical injection
During! electroGosmosis,! a! water! flow! is! created! from! the! anode! to! the! cathode.! If! a! chemicalG
solution! is! added! at! the! anodes,! this! solution! will! be! transported! by! the! electroGosmotic! flow!
towards!the!cathode.!No!change!in!pore!pressure!is!produced,!i.e.!no!consolidation!should!occur,!
since! the! solution! is! added! at! the! anode.! This! means! that! a! solution! can! be! effectively! injected!
into!the!soil.!If!the!solution!contains!a!cementing!agent!it!will!be!possible!to!strengthen!soil!in!
areas,! i.e.! under! existing! structures,! which! would! otherwise! be! difficult! to! reach.! This! can! be!
achieved!without!causing!settlements,!which!could!damage!the!existing!structure.!!

Improving soil after landslides

LimeGcement! columns! are! often! used! when! improving! soil! after! landslides.! This! can! be!
problematic! since! the! strength! of! the! soil! will! be! very! low! and! machines! used! to! install! limeG
cement! columns! are! relatively! heavy.! ElectroGosmosis! can! be! a! suitable! alternative! in! these!
cases,!since!smaller!machines!can!be!used!for!the!installation.!

Increasing the bearing capacity of piles

ElectroGosmosis! can! be! used! to! improve! the! bearing! capacity! of! piles.! By! using! the! pile! as! the!
anode,! soil! in! the! vicinity! of! the! pile! can! be! strengthened! and! the! bearing! capacity! can! be!
increased.!!

! 66!
!
! !
Other engineering areas
ElectroGosmosis! has! also! been! used! in! other! engineering! areas,! for! example! to! remediate!
contaminated! soils.! By! providing! water! at! the! anodes,! a! water! flow! is! created.! During! the!
process,!contaminants!can!be!leached!and!transported!to!the!cathode.!By!using!pumps!the!water!
with!the!contaminants!can!be!removed!and!the!result!is!a!cleaner!soil.!

! 67!
!
! !
!

7
Further Studies
To!establish!electroGosmosis!as!a!useful!ground!stabilization!method!more!knowledge!about!the!
application! of! the! phenomenon! electroGosmosis! in! geotechnical! engineering! is! needed.! Better!
tools!to!predict!the!results!are!also!necessary.!

The! design! of! the! installation! and! the! electrodes! has! to! be! investigated! in! more! detail! and! in!
different!situations!so!that!the!possibilities!of!the!method!can!be!documented.!ElectroGosmosis!is!
a! complicated! phenomenon,! and! simplifications! are! needed! to! be! able! to! model! it.! This! affects!
the!accuracy!of!the!models.!Models!to!predict!the!result!of!electroGosmotic!treatment!have!been!
developed!and!this!is!an!important!area!for!further!research.!If!a!model,!that!could!predict!the!
results!accurately,!existed!the!application!of!the!method!would!be!easier!and!the!risks!regarding!
the!outcome!of!the!treatment!could!be!reduced.!

Soil!parameters!have!a!large!influence!on!the!result!of!the!electroGosmotic!treatment!and!this!is!
therefore!another!important!research!area.!The!most!important!soil!parameter,!controlling!the!
electroGosmotic!flow!is!!! .!In!this!investigation!parameters!affecting!!! !and!the!treatment!have!
been! investigated.! However,! a! simple! apparatus! could! be! built! that! can! test!!! directly,! using!
Casagrande’s!flow!equation!mentioned!in!section!2.4.2.!It!could!be!similar!to!the!apparatus!built!
in! this! investigation! but! it! must! be! able! to! monitor! the! amount! of! water! drained! during! the!
treatment! so! that! a! flow! can! be! estimated.! If! this! apparatus! was! built,! it! would! simplify! the!
evaluation!of!a!soil’s!suitability!for!electroGosmotic!treatment.!

! !

! 68!
!
! !
Reference list

Literature
Adamson,! L.! G.,! Quigley,! D.! W.,! Ainsworth,! H.! R.! and! Chilingar,! G.! V.! (1967).! Electrochemical!
strengthening! of! clayey! sandy! soils.! Engineering! geology! –! Elsevier! publishing! company,!
Amsterdam!1(6),!pp.!451G459.!

Andersson,! Y.,! Torrance,! J.K.,! Lind,! B.,! Odén,! K.,! Stevens,! R.L.,! Rankka,! K.! (2005)! Quick! clay! –! a!
case! study! of! chemical! perspective! in! Southwest! Sweden.! Engineering!Geology,! 82(2),! pp.! 107G
118.!

Asadi,! A.,! Huat,! B.! B.! K.,! Nahazanan,! H.! and! Keykhah,! H.! A.! (2013).! Theory! of! electroosmosis! in!
soil.!International!Journal!of!electrochemical!science,!8,!pp.!1016G1025.!!

Barker,!J.!E.,!Rogers,!C.!D.!F.,!Boardman,!D.!I.!and!Peterson,!J.!(2004).!Electrokinetic!stabilisation:!
an!overview!and!case!study.!Ground!Improvement,!8(2),!pp.!47G58.!

Beddiar,!K.,!FenGChong,!T.,!Dupas,!A.,!Berthaud,!Y.!and!Dangla,!P.!(2005).!Role!of!pH!in!ElectroG
Osmosis:! Experimental! Study! on! NaCl–Water! Saturated! Kaolinite.! ! Transport! in! Porous! Media,!
61(1),!pp.!93G107.!

Bjerrum,! L.,! Moum,! J.! and! Eide,! O.! (1967).! Application! of! electroGosmosis! to! a! foundation!
problem!in!a!norwegian!quick!clay.!Géotechnique,!17,!pp.!214G235.!

Burnotte,!F.,!Lefebvre,!G.!and!Grondin,!G.!(2004).!A!case!record!of!electroosmotic!consolidation!
of!soft!clay!with!improved!soilGelectrode!contact.!Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!41(6),!pp.!1038G
1053.!

Casagrande,!L.!(1953).!Review!of!past!and!current!work!on!electroGosmotic!stabilization!of!soils,!
Harvard!soil!mechanics!series,!no.!45,!Cambridge,!Massachusetts!1953.!

Chappel,! B.! A.! and! Burton,! P.! L.! (1975)! ElectroGosmosis! applied! to! unstable! embankments.!
Journal!of!geotechnical!engineering!division,!101(8),!pp.!733:740.!

Chien,! SGC.,! Ou,! CGY.! and! Lo,! WGW.! (2014).! ElectroGosmotic! chemical! treatment! of! clay! with!
interbedded!sand.!Géotechnical!engineering,!167,!pp.!62G71.!

Chien,! SGC.,! Ou,! CGY.! and! Wang,! YGH.! (2011).! Soil! improvement! using! electroosmosis! with! the!
injection! of! chemical! solutions:! laboratory! tests.! Journal! of! the! Chinese! institute! of! engineers,!
34(7),!pp.!863G875.!

Clayton,! C.! R.! I.,! Matthews,! M.! C.! and! Simons,! N.! E.! (1995).! Site! investigation.! ! 2nd! edition,!
Blackwell,!London.!!

Esrig,! M.! I.! (1968).! Pore! Pressure,! Consolidation! and! Electrokinetics.! Journal! of! Soil! Mechanics!
and!Foundations!Division,!ASCE,!94(4),!pp.!899G921.!

Eykholt,! G.! R.! and! Daniel,! D.! E.! (1994).! Impact! of! system! chemistry! on! electroosmosis! in!
contaminated!soil.!!Journal!of!geotechnical!engineering,!120(5),!pp.!797G815.!

Foyn,!T.!(1977).!Stabilisering!av!byggegrunn.!Norske!sivilingeniörers!förening,!Norge.!

! 69!
!
! !
Fredén,! S.! (1961).! Fältförsök! med! elektroosmotisk! avvatning! av! lera.! Specialrapport,! Statens!
väginstitut,!Sverige.!

Fällman,! AGM.,! Holby,! O.! and! Lundberg,! K.! (2001).! Kolloiders! betydelse! för! hållfasthet! och!
föroreningstransport!i!jord.!Statens!geotekniska!institut,!Rapport!60,!Linköpning,!Sverige!2003.!

Gray,! D.H.! and! Mitchell,! J.K.! (1967).! Fundamental! aspects! of! electroGosmisis! in! soils.!Journal!of!
the!soil!mechanics!and!foundation!division,!93(6),!pp.!209G236.!

Gustafsson,!J.,!Jacks,!G.,!Simonsson,!M.!and!Nilsson,!I.!(2010).!Soil!and!water!chemistry!–!Theory.!
Title!in!Swedish:!MarkG!och!vattenkemi!–!Teori.!Royal!Institute!of!Technology,!Stockholm.!

Hamed,! J.! T.! and! Bhadra,! A.! (1997).! Infuence! of! current! density! and! pH! on! electrokinetics.!
Journal!of!hazardous!materials,!55,!pp.!279G294.!

Hansbo,!S.!(2008).!Soil!improvements!by!means!of!electroGosmosis.!6th!international!conference!
on!case!histories!in!geotechnical!engineering,!Arlington,!2008.!

Holmén,!M.!(2014).!Mätning!av!friktion!i!SGI:s!CRSGutrutsning!–!En!begränsad!undersökning!av!
ringfriktion.!Svenska!geotekniksa!förbundets!branschdag,!2014.!

Hu,!L.!and!Wu,!H.!(2014).!Mathematical!model!of!electroGosmotic!consolidation!for!soft!ground!
improvement.!Géotechnique,!64(2),!pp.!155G164.!!
!
Jeyakanthan,! V.! and! Gnanendran,! C.! T.! (2013).! Elastoplastic! numerical! approach! for! prediction!
the! electroGosmotic! consolidation! behavior! of! soft! clays.! Canadian!geotechnical!journal,!50(12),!
pp.!1219G1235.!

Jeyakanthan,! V.,! Gnanendran,! C.! T.! and! Lo,! S.GC.! R.! (2011).! Laboratory! assessment! of! electroG
osmotic!stabilization!of!soft!clay.!Canadian!geotechnical!journal,!48(12),!pp.!1788G1802.!

Kaya,! A.! and! Yukselen,! Y.! (2005).! Zeta! potential! of! clay! minerals! and! quartz! contaminated! by!
heavy!metals.!Canadian!geotechnical!journal,!42(5),!pp.!1280G1289.!

Ladd,! C.C.! and! Foott,! R.! (1974)! New! Design! Procedure! for! Stability! of! Soft! Clays.! Journal!of!the!
Geotechnical!Engineering!Division,!100(7),!pp.!763G786.!

LamontGBlack,! J.! and! Weltman,! A.! (2010).! Electrokinetic! strengthening! and! repair! of! slopes.!
Technical!note,!ground!engineering,!United!Kingdom!2010.!

Larsson,! R.! (2008).! Jords! egenskaper,! Statens! Geotekniska! institut,! Information! 1,! Linköping,!
Sverige!2008.!!

Larsson,!R.!(1975).!Konsolidering!av!lera!med!elektroosmos.!Satens!råd!för!byggforskningen!till!
institutionen!för! geoteknik!med!grundläggning,!rapport! R45:1975,! Chalmers! tekniska! högskola,!
Göteborg.!

Larsson,! R.,! Sällfors,! G.,! Bengtsson,! PGE.,! Alén,! C.,! Bergdahl,! U.! and! Eriksson,! L.! (2007Ga).!
Skjuvhållfasthet! –! utvärdering! i! kohesionsjord.! Statens! Geotekniska! institut,! Information! 3,!
Linköping,!Sverige!2007.!

! 70!
!
! !
Larsson,! R.,! Westerberg,! B.,! Albing,! D.,! Knutsson,! S.! and! Carlsson,! E.! (2007Gb).! Sulfidjord* –!
geoteknisk) klassificering) och) odränerad) skjuvhållfasthet.) Sveriges! geotekniska! institut,! Rapport!
69,!Linköping!2007.!

Lefebvre,!G.,!and!Burnotte,!F.!(2002).!Improvements!of!electroosmotic!consolidation!of!soft!clays!
by!minimizing!power!loss!at!electrodes.!Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!39(2),!pp.!399G408.!

Lessard,! G.! and! Mitchell,! J.! (1985)! The! causes! and! effects! of! aging! in! quick! clays.!
Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal!,!22(3),!pp.!335G346.!!

Lo,! K.! Y.,! Ho,! K.! S.,! and! Inculet,! I.! I.! (1991Gb).! Field! test! of! electroosmotic! strengthening! of! soft!
sensitive!clay.!Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!28(1),!pp.!74G83.!

Lo,!K.!Y.,!Inculet,!I.!I.,!&!Ho,!K.!S.!(1991Ga).!Electroosmotic!Strengthening!of!Soft!Sensitive!Clays.!
Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!28(1),!pp.!62G73.!

Micic,! S.,! Shang,! J.! Q.,! and! Lo,! K.! Y.! (2002).! ElectroGCementation! of! a! Marine! Clay! Induced! by!
Electrokinetics.! Proceedings!of!The!Twelfth!(2002)!International!Offshore!and!Polar!Engineering!
Conference,!Japan!2002.!!

Micic,!S.,!Shang,!J.!Q.,!Lo,!K.!Y.,!Lee,!Y.!N.!and!Lee,!S.!W.!(2001).!Electrokinetic!strengthening!of!a!
marine!sediment!using!intermittent!current.!Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!38(2),!pp.!287G302.!

Milligan,!V.!(1995).!First!application!of!electroGosmosis!to!improve!friction!pile!capacity!–!three!
decades! later.! Proceedings! of! the! institution! of! civil! engineers,! Geotechnical! engineering,! 113(2),!
pp.!112G116.!

Mitchell,! J.! K.! and! Soga,! K.! (2005).! Fundamentals! of! Soil! Behavior,! Third! edition.! John! Wiley! &!
Sons!Inc.,!New!York.!

Mohamedelhassan,!E.!(2011).!Laboratory!model!test!on!improving!the!properties!of!soft!clay!by!
electrokinetics.!Intertational!scholarly!research!network,!ISRN!civil!engineering,!2011.!

Mohamedelhassan,! E.,! and! Shang,! J.! Q.! (2001).! Effects! of! electrode! materials! and! current!
intermittence!in!electroGosmosis.!Ground!Improvement,!5(1),!pp.!3G11.!

Morris,! D.! V.,! Hillis,! S.! F.! and! Caldwell,! J.! A.! (1984).! Improvement! of! sensitive! silty! clay! by!
electroosmosis.!Canadian!geotechnical!journal,!22(1),!pp.!17G24.!

Ou,! CGY.,! Chien,! SGC.! and! Chang,! HGH.! (2009).! Soil! improvements! using! electroosmosis! with! the!
injection!of!chemical!solutions:!field!tests.!Canadian!geotechnical!journal,!46(6),!pp.!727G733.!

Pertsov,! A.! V.! and! Zaitseva,! E.! A.! (2008).! Discovery! of! electrokinetic! phenomena! in! Moscow!
university.! Third! International! Conference! on! Colloid! Chemistry! and! Physicochemical! Mechanics,!
Moscow,!2008.!!

Pusch,! R.! (1976).! Stabilisering! av! schakter! i! silt! med! hjälp! av! elektroosmos.! Byggdokument!76:
1601,!!Sverige.!

Rankka,! K.! (2003).! Kvicklera! –! bildning! och! egenskaper,! litteraturstudie.! Statens! Geotekniska!
institut,!Varia!65,!Linköping,!Sverige,!2003.!

! 71!
!
! !
Rittirong,! A.! and! Shang,! J.! (2005).! ElectroGosmotic! stabilization.! Geotechnical! engineering! book!
series!(1571:9960),!vol.!3,!pp.!967G996,!department!of!civil!and!environmental!engineering,!the!
university!of!western!Ontario,!Canada.!!

Rittirong,!A.,!Douglas,!R.!S.,!Shang,!J.!Q.,!and!Lee,!E.!C.!(2008).!Electrokinetic!improvement!of!soft!
clay!using!electrical!vertical!drains.!Geosynthetics!International,!15(5),!pp.!369G381.!

Rittirong,!A.,!Chang,!J.!Q.,!Mohamedelhassan!,!E.,!Ismail,!M.!A.!and!Randolph,!W.!F.!(2008).!Effects!
of!electrode!configuration!on!electrokinetic!stabilization!for!casisson!anchors!in!calcareous!sand.!
Journal!of!geotechnical!and!geoenvironmental!engineering,!134(3),!pp.!352!–!365.!!

Schofield,!A.N.!and!Wroth,!C.P.!(1968)!Critical!state!soil!mechanics.!McGraw!Hill,!London,!UK.!

Shang,! J.! Q.! (1998).! ElectroosmosisGenhanced! preloading! consolidation! via! vertical! drains.!
Canadian!Geotechnical!Journal,!35(3),!pp.!491G499.!

Shang,! J.! Q.! (1997).! Zeta! potential! and! electroosmotic! permeability! of! clay! soils.! Canadian!
Geotechnical!Journal,!34(4),!pp.!627!–!631.!

Segall,! B.! A.! and! Bruell,! C.! J.! (1992).! Electroosmotic! contaminantGremoval! process.! Journal!
environmental!engineering,!118(1),!pp.!84G100.!

The! green! construction! board.! (2013).! Case! study:! Highways! Agency! –! Stabilisation! of! A21!
embankment.!The!green!construction!board,!United!Kingdom,!2013.!

Tidfors,! M.! and! Sällfors,! G.! (1989).! Temperature! effect! on! preconsolidation! pressure.!
Geotechnical!testing!journal,!12(1),!pp.!93G97.!

Torrance,! J.K.! (1999).! Physical,! chemical! and! mineralogical! influences! on! the! rheology! of!
remoulded!lowGactivity!sensitive!marine!clay.!Applied!Clay!Science,!14(4),!pp.!199G223.!

Yeung,! A.! T.! (1994).! Electrokinetic! flow! processes! in! porous! media! and! their! applications.!
Advances!in!Porous!Media,!vol.!2,!pp.!309G395.!

Yuan,!J.!and!Hicks,!M.!A.!(2013).!Large!deformation!elastic!electroGosmosis!consolidation!of!clays.!
Computers!and!geotechnics.!vol.!54,!pp!60!G68.!

Wan,!T.!Y.,!and!Mitchell,!J.!K!(1976).!ElectroGosmotic!consolidation!of!soils.!Journal!geotechnical!
engineering!division,!102(5),!pp.!473G491.!

Westerberg,!B.!(1995).!Lerors!mekaniska!egenskaper!:!experimentell!bestämning!och!kvalitativ!
modellering!med!tillämpning!på!lera!från!Norrköping.!Luleå!Tekniska!Universitet.!

Electronic&references&
Elsäkerhetsverket,!(2014).!Presentation!om!el!och!elsäkerhet.!!
http://www.elsakerhetsverket.se/sv/DinGelsakerhet/.!Accessed!2014G06G25!

Nationalencyklopedin,!(2014).!Ohms!lag.!http://www.ne.se.!Accessed!2014G05G12.!!

Malvern! instruments,! (2014).! Zeta! potential,! an! introduction! in! 30! minutes.! Technical! note,!
http://www.malvern.com.!Accessed!2014G05G15.!

! 72!
!
! !
Svensk! betong,! (2014).! Utsläppen! minskar,! betong! och! koldioxid.! Faktablad! om! betong,!
http://www.svenskbetong.se.!Accessed!2014G06G16.!

Electrokinetic,!(2014).!http://www.electrokinetic.co.uk.!Accessed!2014G06G16.!

Interviews&
Fredriksson,!A.!(2013).!Interview,!2013G12G18.

! 73!
!
! !
Appendix A

Gamla Uppsala 2.5 m

Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

40
40
31

30
22
cu [kPa]

19
17
20

cu – Pre Treatment
10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

75 wL – Pre Treatment

70
w – Pre Treatment
w [%]

65

60

55

50
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

20

15
Sensitivity [-]

10 Sensitivity – Pre Treatment

!
5

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Gamla Uppsala 2.5 m –
Polarity Reversed After 2 Days
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

35
31

30

25 22
21
19
20
cu [kPa]

15 cu – Pre Treatment

10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from top of sample[-]

! !
Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

75 w – Pre Treatment

70
wL – Pre Treatment
w [%]

65

60

55
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Normalized distance from top of sample [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

14
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
12

10 !
Sensitivity [-]

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from top of sample [-]

! !

!
Gamla Uppsala 3.5 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

40

35
29
30

25
cu#[%]#

18
20 16 16
14
12 12
15
cu – Pre Treatment
10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

80

75 w – Pre Treatment

70
wL – Pre Treatment
w#[%]#

65

60

55

50
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

18
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
16

14
!
12
Sensi-bvity#[%]#

10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Gamla Uppsala 3.5 m –
Only 3 Days of Treatment
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

25

(19)
20
(15) (16)
(14) (14) cu – Pre Treatment
(13)
15
(11)
cu [-]

(13) (13)
10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

80

75 w – Pre Treatment

70
wL – Pre Treatment
w [%]

65

60

55
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

20
18
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
16
14 !
Sensitivity [-]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Gamla Uppsala 4.5 m –
Only 3 days of treatment
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

20
18 (16) (16)
16 (14)
(14)
14
12
cu [kPa]

(12) (13)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [kPa]

!
Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

58

56 w – Pre Treatment
54
wL – Pre Treatment
52

50
w [%]

48

46

44

42

40
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

20
18
16
14
Sensitivity [kPa]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [kPa]

!
Opaltorget 3 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

70! 64

56
60!

50!
40 41
Cu [kPa]

40! 32 34

30!
cu – Pre Treatment
20!

10!

0!
0,0! 0,2! 0,4! 0,6! 0,8! 1,0!
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

70
w – Pre Treatment
65

60
w [%]

wL – Pre Treatment

55

50

45
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

12

10
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
8
Sensitivity [-]

!
6

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Opaltorget 4 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

25
20
23
20 17
16 16 16
15
15
cu [kPa]

cu – Pre Treatment

10

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Normalized distance from top of sample[-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

85,0

80,0 w – Pre Treatment

75,0
w [%]

70,0 wL – Pre Treatment

65,0

60,0

55,0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Normalized distance from top of sample [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

35
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
30

25
!
Sensitivity [-]

20

15

10

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Normalized distance from top of sample [-]

! !

!
Opaltorget 10 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

160
>134 >134 134
140

120 101
Cu [kPa]

100

80

60 45
36
40
cu – Pre Treatment
20

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

70
w – Pre Treatment
65

60 wL – Pre Treatment

55
w [%]

50

45

40

35
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

120

100

80
Sensitivity [-]

60
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
40
!
20

0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Opaltorget 11 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

>135 >135 135

140
110
120

100
Cu [kPa]

80 69

60
41

40 23
cu – Pre Treatment
20

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

70
w – Pre Treatment
65
wL – Pre Treatment
60

55
w [%]

50

45

40

35
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

120

100 Sensitivity – Pre Treatment

Sensitivity [-]

80
!
60

40

20

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Vega 5 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

90 79
80

70
56
60
cu [kPa]

50 40

40
24 23
30
18
20
cu – Pre Treatment
10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

50

45

40
w – Pre Treatment
w [%]

wL – Pre Treatment
35

30

25

20
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

20
18
Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
16
14
!
Sensitivity [-]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Vega 7 m
Shear Strength, !! , corrected with respect to!!!

46
50

40
31
cu [kPa]

30
22
19
17
20
cu – Pre Treatment

10

0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

Changes in water content, !, and liquid limit, !!

35
34 w – Pre Treatment
33
32 wL – Pre Treatment
31
w [%]

30
29
28
27
26
25
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Change in sensitivity

20
18
16 Sensitivity – Pre Treatment
14
!
Sensitivity [-]

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
Normalized distance from anode [-]

!
Appendix B

Correlations between parameters evaluated before the treatment and the

result of the treatment

70 700

60 600

Maximum increase in cu [%]

Water drained [ml]

50 500
R² = 0,88754 R² = 0,99275
40 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
0 1E-08 2E-08 3E-08 4E-08 0 1E-08 2E-08 3E-08 4E-08
cv min [m2/s] ! cv min [m2/s] !
Figure 1: Correlation between water drained and cv before the Figure 2: Correlation between the increase in cu and cv before the
treatment.. treatment...

! !
70 700

60 600
Maximum increase in cu [%]

R² = 0,92823 R² = 0,89981
500
Water drained [ml]

50

40 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sensitivity [-] Sensitivty [-]
! !
Figure 3: Correlation between water drained and the sensitivity before Figure 4: Correlation between the increase in cu and the
the treatment... sensitivity before the treatment...

! !
70 700

60 600
Maximum increase in cu [%]

R² = 0,7614
Water drained [ml]

50 500

40 R² = 0,87718 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3
Remoulded cu before treatment [kPa] Remoulded cu before treatment [kPa]
! !
Figure 5: Correlation between water drained and the Figure 6: Correlation between the increase in cu and the
remoulded shear strength before the treatment... remoulded shear strength before the treatment...

! !
70 700

Maximum increase in cu [%]

60 600

500 R² = 0,76028
Water drained [ml]

50
R² = 0,56748
400
40
300
30
200
20
100
10
0
0 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5
7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5
pH [-]
pH [-]
! !
Figure 7: Correlation between water drained and pH before the Figure 8: Correlation between the increase in cu and pH before
treatment... the treatment...

70 700

60 600
Maximum increase in cu [%]
Water drained [ml]

50 500

40 400
R² = 0,33164
30 300
R² = 0,39428
20 200
10 100
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
OCR [-]
! OCR [-]
!
Figure 9: Correlation between water drained and OCR before Figure 10: Correlation between the increase in cu and OCR
the treatment.... before the treatment....

70 700

60 600
Maximum increase in cu [%]
Water drained [ml]

50 500

40 400

30 300

20 200 R² = 0,12512
R² = 0,26378
10 100

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Resistivity [Ωm] Resistivity [Ωm]
! !
Figure 11: Correlation between water drained and resistivity Figure 12: Correlation between the increase in cu and resistivity
before the treatment... before the treatment...

!
! !
 70 700

60 600

Maximim increase in cu [%]

Water drained [ml]
50 500
R² = 0,15217 R² = 0,2787
40 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Zeta Potential [mV] Zeta Potential [mV]
! !
Figure 13: Correlation between water drained and the Figure 14: Correlation between the increase in cu and the
zeta potential before the treatment... zeta potential before the treatment...

70 700

60 600

Maximum increase in cu [%]

Water drained [ml]

50 500
40 R² = 0,01982 400 R² = 0,00013
30
300
20
200
10
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water content [%]
! Water content [%] !
Figure 15: Correlation between water drained and the Figure 16: Correlation between the increase in cu and the
water content before the treatment... water content before the treatment...

70 700

60 600
Maximum increase in cu [%]
Water drained [ml]

50 500

40 400 R² = 0,40624
R² = 0,17823
30 300

20 200

10 100
0 0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0 0,2 0,4 0,6
Activity [-]
! Activity [-]
!
Figure 17: Correlation between water drained and activity before Figure 18: Correlation between the increase in cu and activity
the treatment... before the treatment...

!
 70 700

600

Maximum increase in cu [%]

60
500
Water drained [ml]
50 R² = 0,01914

40 400 R² = 0,00385

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
0 5E-10 1E-09 1,5E-09 2E-09 0 5E-10 1E-09 1,5E-09 2E-09
kv [m/s] kv [m/s]
! !
Figure 19: Correlation between water drained and kv. before the Figure 20: Correlation between the increase in kv and activity
treatment.. before the treatment...

!
In this appendix the in-situ effective vertical stress, and corresponding dead weight is
presented. The pre-consolidation pressure and the OCR can also be seen below.
Appendix D
Fictive Stability Example
!

Figure 1: Stability analysis before electro-osmotic treatment.

! 1!
Figure 2: Stability analysis after electro-osmotic treatment.

! 2!
Appendix E - CRS tests
is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Gamla Uppsala
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-04
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Före Djup: 2,5 m Ödometer nr: 5
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,74 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 11

1,0E- 10

20

1,0E- 9

'v

[%] c [m2/s]
v
Text 1,0E- 8

40

cv

1,0E- 7

60 1,0E- 6
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

96 690 131 12,2 1,3E-8 4,2E-10 3,1

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\a14_344.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Gamla Uppsala
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-15
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 2,5 m Ödometer nr: 4
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,73 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

20

'v
1,0E- 8

cv
[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

40

1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

129 1517 201 10,2 2,5E-8 3,2E-10 2,9

Anm. Provet krympt i horisontalled. Uttfyllt med lös lera för att hållas på plat
s
SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_407.txt 2014-06-10
100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Gamla Uppsala
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-15
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter, omvänd polaritet Djup: 2,5 m Ödometer nr: 5
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,72 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

20

1,0E- 8
'v

cv

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

40

1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

98 1265 195 12,0 7,3E-9 7,5E-11 1,3

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_408.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 MUR – GAMLA
Gamla Uppsala 3.5 m - Before treatment UPPSALA
BILAGA 1
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Gamla Uppsala
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-23
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 4,5 m Ödometer nr: 4
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Brungrå varvig lera med tunna siltskikt Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,73 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 11

1,0E- 10

20
'v
1,0E- 9

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 8

40 cv

1,0E- 7

60 1,0E- 6
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

103 1137 127 13,4 4,8E-9 4,5E-11 1,1

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_440.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Opaltorget
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-02
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Före Djup: 3,0 m Ödometer nr: 4
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,73 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

20
'v

1,0E- 8

cv

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

40

1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

159 1655 202 9,6 9,9E-9 7,8E-11 1,8

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_342.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Opaltorget
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-10
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 3,0 m Ödometer nr: 5
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,72 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 300 600 900
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9
'v

30

1,0E- 8

cv
[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

60

1,0E- 6

90 1,0E- 5
0 300 600 900
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

196 3309 404 9,1 2,4E-8 9,2E-11 1,3

Anm. Provet krympt i horisentalled. Utfyllt med lös lera för att hållas på plats
Skalan i .diagrammet avviker från den av SGF:s Laboratoriekommité satta rekommendation.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_388.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 CRS TEST 2014 Chalmers tekniska högskola Avd.Geo
Datum: 2014-02-26 Borrhål: 14AT11-1 W N före test = 79%
Utfört av: Peter Hedborg Djup: 4m
före test = 1,54t/m3
Beställare Aktins Tub: 5402
Projekt Opaltorget Jordart enligt okulärbesiktning: Grå LERA
EFFECTIVE VERTICAL STRESS (kPa)
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
0 7200

4 6000

8 4800
PORE PRESSURE (-) (kPa)

MODULUS (O)[kPa]
STRAIN %

12 3600

16 2400

20 1200

1E-006 24 0
PERMEABILITY (+) m/s KONS. KOEFF (X) m*m/s

1E-007

1E-008

1E-009

1E-010

1E-011
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Opaltorget
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-08
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 4,0 m Ödometer nr: 1
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Grå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,75 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

20

1,0E- 8

'v

[%] cvc [m2/s]

v
1,0E- 7

40

1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

77 1322 158 9,5 2,5E-8 3,7E-10 2,3

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\a14_354.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Opaltorget
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-28
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Före Djup: 10,0 m Ödometer nr: 3
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Mörkgrå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,73 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 11

1,0E- 10

20

1,0E- 9
'v

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 8

40

cv

1,0E- 7

60 1,0E- 6
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

105 1380 204 11,2 3,0E-8 4,5E-10 2,9

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\b14_453.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Opaltorget
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-05-06
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 10,0 m Ödometer nr: 5
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Mörkgrå lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,73 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 300 600 900
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

'v

30

1,0E- 8

cv

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

60

1,0E- 6

90 1,0E- 5
0 300 600 900
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

2,6E-8 1,7E-10 3,1

Anm. Provet krymp i horisontalled. Utfyllt med lös lera för att hållas på plats
Skalan i .diagrammet avviker från den av SGF:s Laboratoriekommité satta rekommendation.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\a14_464.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Trafikplats Vega
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-22
2803 Structor Mark Stockholm AB, Stockholm Löp-nr/Gransk.: 26900
Sektion/borrhål: 14SMS528 Djup: 5,0 m Ödometer nr: 1
3 o
Densitet: 1,85 t/m Vattenkvot: 37 % Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Siltig lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,72 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 11

1,0E- 10

'v

20

1,0E- 9

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 8

40
cv

1,0E- 7

60 1,0E- 6
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

57 1484 105 13,6 1,6E-8 1,8E-10 3,9

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\26900\b14_429.txt 2014-04-25

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-695 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Vega
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-05-19
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 5,0 m Ödometer nr: 5
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Siltig lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,72 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 100 200 300
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

10

1,0E- 8

cv

[%] 'v c [m2/s]

v
1,0E- 7

20

1,0E- 6

30 1,0E- 5
0 100 200 300
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

81 1037 131 11,6 1,6E-8 2,7E-10 3,2

Anm. Provet krympt i horisontalled. Utfyllt med lös lera för att hållas på plat
Skalan i s.
diagrammet avviker från den av SGF:s Laboratoriekommité satta rekommendation.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\a14_514.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Trafikplats Vega
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-04-22
2803 Structor Mark Stockholm AB, Stockholm Löp-nr/Gransk.: 26900
Sektion/borrhål: 14SMS528 Djup: 7,0 m Ödometer nr: 2
3 o
Densitet: 1,9 t/m Vattenkvot: 33 % Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Siltig lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,7 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9

'v

20

1,0E- 8

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

40
cv

Text 1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

76 1435 153 21,5 7,8E-8 9,3E-10 4,0

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\26900\b14_431.txt 2014-04-25

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-695 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)
 is
Redovisning av ödometerförsök, CRS-försök
Projekt: Vega
Uppdragsnummer: Uppdragsgivare: Datum/Sign: 2014-05-19
Exjobb Löp-nr/Gransk.: Exjobb
Sektion/borrhål: Efter Djup: 7,0 m Ödometer nr: 6
o
Densitet: Vattenkvot: Provningstemp.: 20 C Provdiameter: 50 mm
Benämning: Siltig lera Provhöjd: 20 mm
Def.hastighet: 0,74 %/h

Effektivt vertikaltryck, 'v, [kPa]

0 200 400 600
0 1,0E- 10

1,0E- 9
'v

20

1,0E- 8

cv

[%] c [m2/s]
v
1,0E- 7

40

1,0E- 6

60 1,0E- 5
0 200 400 600
Försöket är utfört och utvärderat enligt Svensk Standard SS 027126. Vid utvärdering av cv och k har korrektion utförts
så att värdena motsvarar en temperatur av 7 oC. Utrustningens egendeformation är beaktad. För utvärdering se bilagda diagram sid 2 - 4.

'c, kPa ML, kPa 'L, kPa M' cv, min, m2/s ki , m/s k

1,6E-8 2,9E-10 9,3

Anm.

SWECO GEOLAB, Gjörwellsgatan 22, Box 34044 P:\2172\Uppdrag 2014\Ex_jobb\a14_515.txt 2014-06-10

100 26 Stockholm, Tel 08-965 60 00, Fax 08-695 63 60
geolab@sweco.se, www.sweco.se/geolab, Ingår i SWECO Civil AB 1 (4)