Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Site characterisation and some examples from large scale testing at the Klett quick clay research site

1 School of Civil Engineering, University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin, Ireland
2 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Trondheim, Norway
3 Norwegian Public Roads Administration (Statens vegvesen), Norway
4 SWECO, Trondheim, Norway, formerly Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway
5 Norwegian University for Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
6 Multiconsult, Trondheim, Norway

Special Issues: Characterization and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils used for geotesting

The Klett research site was developed in conjunction with the new E6 developments south of Trondheim, Norway. The site comprises non-sensitive clay to about 6 m to 8 m and quick clay with significant silt lenses below this down to at least 30 m. The materials encountered are typical of the marine clays found in Scandinavia and North America. Classical geophysical and geotechnical techniques such as total soundings, rotary pressure soundings and ERT proved very useful in characterising the quick clay. The material is particularly susceptible to sample disturbance effects and the work showed that it is important to test any samples as soon as possible after sampling. CPTU data proved particularly useful for the determination of some soil properties as well as general soil classification. Several full-scale experiments have been performed at the site. Pile capacity tests showed that significant ageing effects occurred. Lime-cement column tests, as well as laboratory trials, allowed considerable savings to be made in the amount of binder required for foundations and slope improvement. A full-scale embankment test provided very useful data for the calibration of soil constitutive models.
  Article Metrics


1. Solberg IL, Rønning JS, Dalsegg E, et al. (2008) Resistivity measurements as a tool for outlining quick clay extent and valley-fill stratigraphy: a feasibility study from Buvika, central Norway. Can Geotech J 45: 210–225.    

2. Emdal A, Long M, Bihs A, et al. (2012) Characterisation of Quick Clay at Dragvoll, Trondheim, Norway. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 43: 11–23.

3. Gylland A, Long M, Emdal A, et al. (2013) Characterisation and engineering properties of Tiller clay. Eng Geol 164: 86–100.    

4. Solberg IL, Long M, Baranwal VC, et al. (2016) Geophysical and geotechnical studies of geology and sediment properties at a quick-clay landslide site at Esp, Trondheim, Norway. Eng Geol 208: 214–230.    

5. Helle TE, Aagaard P, Nordal S, et al. (2019) Research site Dragvoll, Trondheim, Norway-a low plasticity highly sensitive glaciomarine clay. AIMS Geosci.

6. L'Heureux JS, Lindgård A, Emdal A (2019) The Tiller-Flotten research site: Geotechnical characterisation of a sensitive clay deposit. AIMS Geosci.

7. Amundsen HA (2018) Storage duration effects on Norwegian low-plasticity sensitive clay samples, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Scoence and Technology (NTNU), June.

8. Tønnesen JF (1991) Gravimetri for kartlegging av løsmassemektighet i Gaulåsen (In Norwegian), 21 (211). Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Geological Survey (NGU).

9. Quinteros S, Gundersen A, L'Heureux JS, et al. (2019) Øysand research site: Geotechnical characterisation of deltaic sandy-silty soils. AIMS Geosci.

10. Hafsten U (1983) Shore-level changes in South Norway during the last 13,000 years, traced by biostratigraphical methods and radiometric datings. Nor J Geogr 37: 63–97.

11. Reite AJ, Selnes H, Sveian H (1982) A proposed deglaciation chronology for the Trondheimsfjord area, Central Norway. Geol Sur Nor Bull 375: 75–84.

12. Rosenqvist IT (1953) Considerations on the sensitivity of Norwegian quick clays. Géotechnique 3: 195–200.    

13. Rosenqvist IT (1966) Norwegian research into the properties of quick clay: a review. Eng Geol 1: 445–450.    

14. van Olphen H (1977) Clay collodial chemistry: John Wiley and Sons.

15. Torrance JK (1979) Post-depositional changes in the pore water chemistry of the sensitive marine clays of the Ottawa area, eastern Canada. Eng Geol 14: 135–147.    

16. Bjerrum L, Løken T, Heiberg S (1969) A field study of factors responsible for quick clay slides. 7th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE). Mexico, 531–540.

17. Reite AJ (1995) Deglaciation of the Trondheimsfjord area, Central Norway. Geol Sur Nor Bull 427: 19–21.

18. Reite AJ, Sveian H, Erichsen E (1999) Trohdheim fra istid til nåtid-landskaphistorie og løsmasser. Geological Survey of Norway. Gråsteinen 5, 40.

19. Wolff FC (1979) Beskrivelse til de berggrunnsgeologiske kart Trondheim og Østersund. Geol Sur Nor 353: 1–76.

20. Amundsen HA, Thakur V, Emdal A (2015) Comparison of two sample quality assessment methods applied to oedometer test results. In: Rinaldi VA, editor. 6th International Symposium on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials. Argentina: IOS Press, Argentina, 923–930.

21. Emdal A, Gylland A, Amundsen HA, et al. (2016) The mini-block sampler. Can Geotech J 53: 1235–1245.    

22. Janbu N (1970) Grunnlag i geoteknikk. Trondheim: Tapir Forlag (In Norwegian).

23. Bjerrum L (1973) Problems of soil mechanics and construction on soft clays, Moscow, 111–159.

24. Amundsen HA, Thakur V, Emdal A (2016) Sample disturbances in block samples of low plasticity soft clays. 17th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting, NGM 2016, Reykjavik. Reykjavik, Iceland, 159–168.

25. Syversen FSG (2013) Et studie av den mineralogiske sammensetningen i norske sensitive leirer, Masteroppgave i Geofag Studieretning: Miljøgeologi og Geofarer, Institutt for Geofag Matematisk-naturvitenskaplig fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo.

26. NGF (2011) Veilding for symboler og definisjoner i geoteknikk-identifisering og klassifisering av jord-Melding Nr. 2, Revidert 2011. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Society (Norsk Geoteknisk Forening) (In Norwegian).

27. Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

28. Leroueil S, Tavenas F, Le Bihan JP (1983) Propriétés caractéristiques des argiles d'est du Canada. Can Geotech J 20: 681–705.    

29. Burland JB (1990) On the compressibility and shear strength of natural clays. Géotechnique 40: 329–378.    

30. Multiconsult (2015) NIFS Natural hazards-infrastructure, floodings and slides-Detection of brittle materials. Summary report with recommendations. Multiconsult report 415559-2-RIG-RAP-004. Also published as NIFS report 27-2016.

31. NGF (1989) Guideline 7. Rotary pressure soundings. Oslo: Norwegian Geotechnical Society (Norsk Geoteknisk Forening) (In Norwegian).

32. NGF (1994) Guideline 9. Total soundings (under revision). Oslo: Norwegian Geotechnical Society (Norsk Geoteknisk Forening) (In Norwegian).

33. Robertson PK, Campanella RG, Gillespie D, et al. (1986) Use of piezometer cone data, Blacksburg. American Society of Engineers (ASCE), 1263–1280.

34. ENISO (2012) EN ISO 22476-1: Geotechnical investigation and testing-Field testing-Part 1: Electrical cone and piezocone penetration tests. Geneva: ISO/CEN.

35. Lunne T, Eidsmoen T, Gillespie D, et al. (1986) Laboratory and field evaluation of cone penetrometers, Blacksburg, 714–729.

36. Lunne T, Robertson PK, Powell JJM (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice: Blackie Academic and Professional, London.

37. Lunne T, Strandvik S, Kåsin K, et al. (2018) Effect of cone penetrometer type on CPTU results at a soft clay test site in Norway. CPT18. Delft, The Netherlands.

38. Lindgård A, Gundersen A, Lunne T, et al. (2018) Effect of cone type on measured CPTU results from the Tiller-Flotten quick clay test site. Geoteknikkdagen 2018.

39. Sandven R, Watn A (1995) Soil classification and parameter evaluation from piezocone tests. Results from the major site investigations at Oslo Airport, Gardermoen. Theme lecture, Session 2, Interpretation of test results CPT'95. Linköping, Sweden: Swedish Geotechnical Society Report 3.95.

40. Gylland AS, Sandven R, Montafia A, et al. (2017) CPTU classification diagrams for identification of sensitive clays. In: Thakur V, L'Heureux JS, Locat A, editors. 2nd International Workshop on Landslides in Sensitive Clays (IWLSC), Chapter 5 in Landslides in Sensitive Clays, Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research 46. Trondheim, Norway: Springer International Publishing AG, 57–66.

41. Sandven R (1990) Strength and deformation properties of fine grained soils obtained from piezocone tests. Trondheim: Norges Tekniske Høgskole (now NTNU).

42. Karlsrud K, Hernandez-Martinez FG (2013) Strength and deformation properties of Norwegian clays from laboratory tests on high-quality block samples. Can Geotech J 50: 1273–1293.    

43. Long M, Pfaffhuber AA, Bazin S, et al. (2017) Glacio-marine clay resistivity as a proxy for remoulded shear strength: correlations and limitations. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 51: 63–78.

44. Helle TE, Nordal S, Aagaard P, et al. (2016) Long term effect of potassium chloride treatment on improving the soil behaviour of highly sensitive clay Ulvensplitten, Norway. Can Geotech J 53: 410–422.    

45. Helle TE, Aagaard P, Nordal S (2017) In situ improvement of highly sensitive clays by potassium chloride migration. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 143: 04017074.    

46. Amundsen HA, Emdal A, Sandven R, et al. (2015) On engineering characterisation of a low plasticity sensitive clay. GEOQuébec 2015-Challenges from North to South, Québec, Canada.

47. Lacasse S, Berre T (1988) State-of-the-art: Triaxial testing methods for soils. In: Donaghe RT, Chaney RC, Silver ML, editors. Advanced triaxial testing of soil and rock, ASTM Special Testing Publication No 977: ASTM, 264–289.

48. ASTM (2011) ASTM standard D4767-11, standard test method for consolidated undrained triaxial compression test for cohesive soils. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society of Testing Materials, 520–533.

49. Andresen A, Kolstad P (1979) The NGI 54 mm samplers for undisturbed sampling of clays and representative sampling of coarser materials, Singapore, 13–21.

50. Sandbaekken G, Berre T, Lacasse S (1986) Oedometer testing at the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute. In: Yong RN, Townsend FC, editors. Consolidation of Soils: Testing and Evaluation, ASTM STP 892. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 329–353.

51. ASTM (2006) ASTM standard D4186-06, standard test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils using controlled-strain loading. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society of Testing Materials, 520–533.

52. Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1997) Sample disturbance in soft low plasticity Norwegian clay. In: Almeida A, editor. Symposium on Recent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics. Rio de Janeiro: Balkema, Rotterdam, 81–92.

53. Helle TE, Bryntesen RN, Amundsen HA, et al. (2015) Laboratory setup to evaluate the improvement of geotechnical properties from potassium chloride saturation of a quick clay from Dragvoll, Norway. GEOQuébec 2015-Challenges from North to South, Québec, Canada: Prentice-Hall Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Series, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

54. Ladd CC, Lambe TW (1963) The strength of undisturbed clay determined from undrained tests. Symposium on laboratory shear testing of soil, ASTM Special Technical Publication (STP) No 361, 342–371.

55. Amundsen HA, Jønland J, Emdal A, et al. (2017) An attempt to monitor pore pressure changes in a block sample during and after sampling. Géotech Lett 7.

56. Amundsen HA, Thakur V (2019) Storage duration effects on soft clay samples. ASTM Geotech Test J, Submitted December 2017.

57. Long M, Donohue S (2007) In situ shear wave velocity from multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW) tests at eight Norwegian research sites. Can Geotech J 44: 533–544.    

58. Long M, Donohue S (2010) Characterisation of Norwegian marine clays with combined shear wave velocity and CPTU data. Can Geotech J 47: 709–718.    

59. L'Heureux JS, Long M (2017) Relationship between shear wave velocity and geotechnical parameters for Norwegian clays. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 143: 04017013.    

60. Janbu N (1985) Soil models in offshore engineering: The 25th Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 35: 241–281.    

61. Ladd CC, Foott R (1974) New design procedures for the stability of soft clays. J Geotech Eng 100: 763–786.

62. Ladd CC, Foott R, Ishihara K, et al. (1977) Stress-deformation and strength characteristics: State of the art report. 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE). Tokyo, 421–494.

63. Karlsrud K, Lunne T, Kort DA, et al. (2005) CPTU correlations for clays. Proceedings of the international conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Osaka, 16: 693–702.

64. Karlsrud K (2012) Prediction of load-displacement behavior and capacity of axially-loaded piles in clay based on analyses and interpretation of pile load test results, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, NTNU, Trondheim.

65. L'Heureux JS, Lunne T, Lacasse S, et al. (2016) The Norwegian Geo-Test Sites (NGTS) project-A preliminary overview. Canadian Geotechnical Conference-GeoVancouver. Vancouver, Canada.

66. NGF (2012) Veiledning for grunnforsterkning med kalksementpeler. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Geotechnical Society (Norsk Geoteknisk Forening) (In Norwegian).

67. Vegvesen S (2012) Håndbok V221. Grunnforsterkning, fyllinger og skråninger, April.

68. Fisvik Bache B, Lund AK (2018) Sampling of stabilised clay by use of the Kiso-Jiban GP-Tr sampler. DFI-EFFC International Conference on Deep Foundations and Ground Improvement. Rome, Italy, 100–105.

69. Mori K, Sakai K (2016) The GP sampler: a new innovation in core sampling. Aust Geomech J 51: 131–166.

70. Mori K, Sakai K (2016) The GP-sampler: a new innovation in core sampling. In: Lehane BM, Acosta-Martínez HE, Kelly RB, editors. 5th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterisation (ISC'5). Gold Coast, Australia: Australian Geomechanics Society, 99–124.

71. Juvik ES, Solås LA, Koa IK, et al. (2019) Results from ground improvement with lime-cement columns in quick and sensitive clay on the E6 Trondheim-Melhus. XVII European Connference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ESSMGE). Reykjavik, Iceland.

72. Gunther J, Holm G, Westberg G, et al. (2004) Modified dry mixing (MDM)-a new possibility in deep mixing. GeoTrans 2004: American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA, 1375–1384.

73. Berre S (2017) Back calculation of the measured settlements for an instrumented fill on soft clay, Masters Thesis Geotechnical Division, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

74. Stolle DFE, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG (1999) A consolidation model for a creeping clay. Can Geotech J 36: 754–759.    

75. Grimstad G, Karstunen M, Jostad HP, et al. (2017) Creep of geomaterials-some finding from the EU project CREEP. Eur J Environ Civil Eng, 16.

76. Grimstad G (2016) Unified enhanced soft clay creep model-user manual and documentation. EU Creep Project, PIAG-GA-2011-286397-R4.

77. Solberg IL, Hansen L (2017) Befaring av skjæringer for ny E6 ved Klett, Trondheim. Norwegian Geological Survey (NGU) Report 2017.1.

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved