Export file:


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


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

A geochemical, mineralogical and geotechnical characterization of the low plastic, highly sensitive glaciomarine clay at Dragvoll, Norway

1 Directorate of Public Roads, Abels gate 5, 7030 Trondheim, Norway(now Multiconsult AS);
2 University of Oslo(UiO), Department of Geosciences, P. O. Box 1047 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway;
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway;
4 School of Civil Engineering, University College Dublin(UCD), Newstead Building Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;
5 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute(NGI), Postboks 3930 Ullevål Stadion, 0806 Oslo, Norway

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

The sediments at the NTNU research site Dragvoll, Trondheim, Norway accumulated in seawater close to the glacier front during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. A comprehensive site investigation and laboratory test program was carried out to characterize the quick clay at Dragvoll. Downsized block samples, mini-blocks, were extracted and tested in the laboratory. Index testing, constant rate of strain oedometer tests and anisotropically consolidated undrained compression tests were carried out on all quick-clay samples. Pore-water chemistry, bulk and clay mineralogy, cation exchange capacity and specific surface area were determined. Resistivity cone-penetration tests and electrical resistivity tomography surveys were carried out and correlated to the laboratory results. With a clay mineralogy dominated by illite and chlorite, the Dragvoll clay is electro-chemically very active. Leaching has diluted the salt content in the pore water to~0.7 g/L, corresponding to a very low soil conductivity of only 20 mS/m. Due to the low salt content and a composition of cations in the pore-water dominated by sodium (85-92%), the repulsive forces between the clay particles are large. Therefore, the clay liquefies when remolded and has a very brittle behavior. The clay is slightly overconsolidated in top, with an overconsolidation ratio decreasing towards 1 at around 6 m depth. Developing new cost-effective ground improvement methods that may also serve as landslide mitigation measures in quick-clay areas is needed. Detailed knowledge on mineralogy and geochemistry is necessary to fully understand the behavior of clays, and in developing effective ground improvement methods by chemical additives. This paper present geochemical, mineralogical and geotechnical data from the quick clay at Dragvoll. A field experiment at Dragvoll showed that potassium chloride can be used as landslide mitigation in quick-clay areas, inhibiting retrogressive landslides and reducing the risk for progressive landslides.
  Article Metrics


1. Norwegian Geotechnical Society (2011) Veiledning for symboler og definisjoner i geoteknikk:Identifisering og klassifisering av jord. Norwegian Geotechnical Society, Oslo, Norway. NGF notification No. 22nd revision, first published in 1982.

2. Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (2017) Oversikt over behov for flom-og skredsikringstiltak, sortert på fylker og kommuner. Available from:https://www.nve.no/flaum-og-skred/sikrings-og-miljotiltak/oversikt-over-behov-for-flom-og-skredsikringstiltak-sortert-pa-fylker-og-kommuner/.

3. Kjemperud A (1981) A shoreline displacement investigation from Frosta in Trondheimsfjorden, Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Nor Geol Tidsskr 61:1-15.

4. Hafsten ULF (1983) Shore-level changes in South Norway during the last 13,000 years, traced by biostratigraphical methods and radiometric datings. Nor J Geogr 37:63-79.

5. 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.

6. Norwgian Geological Survey (2019) Available from:www.ngu.no.

7. Hafsten U, Mack G (1990) Den postglaciale landskapsutviklingen på Dragvoll universitetsområde, Trondheim. Nor J Geogr 44:131-148.

8. Torrance JK (1983) Towards a general model of quick clay development. Sedimentology 30:547-555.    

9. Rosenqvist IT (1955) Investigations in the clay-electrolyte-water system. NGI Publication no. 9, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, Norway.

10. Mitchell JK, Soga K (2005) Fundamentals of soil behaviour. 3rd edn, New Jersey, USA. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

11. Løken T (1968) Kvikkleiredannelse og kjemisk forvitring i norske leirer. NGI Publication no. 75, Oslo, Norway:Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 1-9.

12. Rosenqvist IT (1975) Origin and mineralogy glacial and interglacial clays of Southern Norway. Clays Clay Miner 23:153-159.    

13. Moore DM, Reynolds RC (1997) X-ray diffraction and the identification and analysis of clay minerals. 2nd edition. New York, USA:Oxford University Press, Inc.

14. Moum J, Løken T, Torrance JK (1971) A geochemical investigation of the sensitivity of a normally consolidated clay from Drammen, Norway. Géotechnique 21:329-340.    

15. Appelo CAJ, Postma D (2005) Geochemistry, groundwater and pollution. 2nd edn. Balkema, Leiden, Netherlands.

16. Rosenqvist IT (1946) Om leirers kvikkaktighet. Available from the Norwegian Public Road Administrations, Oslo, Norway. Meddelelsen fra Vegdirektøren No. 3, 29-36.

17. van Olphen H (1963) An introduction to clay colloid chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, USA.

18. Bjerrum L, Løken T, Heiberg S, et al. (1969) A field study of factors responsible for quick clay slides. Proceedings of 7th ICSMFE, 2, Mexico, 531-540.

19. Rosenqvist IT (1977) A general theory for quick clay properties. In Proceedings for the 3rd European Clay Conference, Nordic Society for Clay Research, Oslo, Norway, 215-228.

20. Torrance JK (1979) Post-depositional changes in the pore water chemistry of the sensitive marine clays of the Ottawa area, eastern Canada. Eng Geol 114:135-147.

21. Penner E (1965) A study of sensitivity in Leda clay. Can J Earth Sci 2:425-441.    

22. Talme OA, Wenner CG, Pajuste M (1966) Secondary changes in the strength of clay layers and the origin of sensitivity clay. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm, Sweden, report nr. 46.

23. Andersson-Sköld Y, Torrance JK, Lind B et al. (2005) Quick clay-A case study of chemical perspective in Southwest Sweden. Eng Geol 82:107-118.    

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

25. Pfaffhuber AA, Bazin S, Helle TE (2014) An integrated approach to quick-clay mapping based on resistivity measurements and geotechnical investigations. In Landslides in sensitive clays. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, 193-204.

26. Bazin S, Pfaffhuber AA (2013) Mapping of quick clay by electrical resistivity tomography under structural constraint. J Appl Geophys 98:280-287.    

27. Solberg IL, Hansen L, Rønning JS, et al. (2012). Combined geophysical and geotech-nical approach to ground investigations and hazard zonation of a quick clay area, Mid Norway. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71:119-133.    

28. Bazin S, Anschütz H, Sauvin G, et al. (2015) Geophysical characterisation of marine and quick clay sites:field and laboratory tests. In:Proceedings of the International Conference on Site Characterization 5(ISC5).

29. ABEM 2010. Terrameter LS Instruction Manual, 63. Available from:http://abem.se.

30. Dahlin T, Zhou B (2006) Multiple-gradient array measurements for multi-channel 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surf Geophys 4:113-123.    

31. Loke MH (2016) RES2DINV version 6.1. Geoelectrical Imaging 2D and 3D. Instruction Manual. Geotomo Software. Available from:http://www.geotomosoft.com.

32. Rømoen M, Pfaffhuber AA, Karlsrud K, et al. (2010) Resistivity on marine sediments retrieved from RCPTU-soundings:a Norwegian case study. International symposium on cone penetration testing, 2, CPT'10, Huntington Beach, CA, Proceedings 2:289-296.

33. Bryntesen RN (2014) Laboratory investigation on salt migration and its effect on the geotechnical strength parameters in quick clay mini-block samples from Dragvoll. Master's thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1-105.

34. Grim RE (1968) Clay mineralogy. New York, NY, USA:McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

35. Quigley RM (1980) Geology, mineralogy, and geochemistry of Canadian soft soils:a geotechnical perspective. Can Geotech J 17:261-285.    

36. Kenney TC (1967) The influence of mineral composition on the residual strength of natural soils. In Geotechnical Conference on Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils and Rocks editors. Proceedings of the Geotechnical Conference Oslo 1967 on Shear Strength Properties of Natural Soils and Rocks; Oslo, Norway:Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, 123-129.

37. Locat J, St-Gelais D (2014) Nature of sensitive clays from Quebec. In:L'Heureux JS, Locat A, Leroueil S, et al. editors. Landslides in sensitive clays:From geoscience to risk management. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Springer, 25-37.

38. Polemio M, Rhoades JD (1977) Determining cation exchange capacity:A new procedure for calcareous and gypsiferous soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:524-527.    

39. Wang Q, Li Y, Klassen W (2005) Determination of Cation Exchange Capacity on Low to Highly Calcareous Soils. Commun Soil Sci Plan 36:1479-1498.    

40. Torrance JK (2012) Landslides in quick clay. In Clague JJ, Stead D, Landslides:Types, Mechanisms and Modeling. Cambridge University Press, 83-94.

41. Huysmans M, Dassargues A (2004) Review of the use of Péclet numbers to determine the relative importance of advection and diffusion in low permeability environments. Hydrogeol J 13:895-904.

42. Hendry MJ, Barbour SL, Boldt-Leppin BEJ, et al. (2009) A comparison of laboratory and field based determinations of molecular diffusion coefficients in a low permeability geologic medium. Environ Sci Technol 43:6730-6736.    

43. Shackelford CD, Moore SM (2013) Fickian diffusion of radionuclides for engineered containment barriers:Diffusion coefficients, porosities, and complicating issues. Eng Geol 152:133-147.    

44. Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans AIME 146:54-62.    

45. Atlan Y, Bardon C, Minssieux L, et al. (1968) Conductivité en milieu poreux argileux. Interpretation des diagraphies. Troisieme colloque de Fassociation de recherche sur les techniques de forage et de production, 10-14 June, 1968, Pau. Comm. No. 31, 12-15.

46. Jackson PD, Smith DT, Stanford PN (1978) Resistivity-porosity-shape relationships for marine sands. Geophysics 43:1250-1268.    

47. Campanella RG, Weemees I (1990) Development and use of an electrical resistivity cone for groundwater contaminant studies. Can Geotech J 27:557-567.    

48. Kelly R, Pineda JA, Suwal L (2016) A comparison of in-situ and laboratory resistivity measurements in soft clay. In:Lehane BM, Acosta-Martinez HE, Kelly R, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization (ISC'5), Gold Coast, Australia. Australian Geomechanics Society, Sydney, Australia, 2:883-886.

49. U.S. Geological Survey, PHREEQC version 3(computer software)

50. Helle TE, Aagaard P (2018) Predicting required time for stabilising Norwegian quick clays by potassium chloride. Environ Geotech, 1-14

51. Emdal A, Gylland A, Amundsen HA, et al. (2016) Mini-block sampler. Can Geotech J 53:1235-1245.    

52. NS 8015(1988) Geoteknisk prøving. Laboratoriemetoder. Bestemmelse av udrenert skjærfasthet ved konusprøving. Standard Norge, Oslo.

53. Lunne T, Berre T, Strandvik S (1997) Sample disturbance effects in soft low plastic Norwegian clay. In:Proceedings of Recent Developments in Soil and Pavement Mechanics. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 25-27 June 1997. Amsterdam:A.A. Balkema.

54. BAT Geosystems AB (2012) In situ permeability measurement with the BAT Permeameter-Quick manual inflow test.

55. Casagrande A (1936) The determination of the preconsolidation load and its practical significance. Proceedings of the first International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 60-64.

56. Helle TE, Long M, Nordal S, et al. (2017) Effectiveness of resistivity cone penetration tests in salt-treated highly sensitive clay. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground Improvement 170:173-184.    

57. Karlsrud K, Lunne T, Kort DA, et al. (2005) CPTU correlations for clays. In:Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Osaka, Japan. Amsterdam:IOS Press BV.

58. Sandven R, Montafia A, Gylland AS, et al. (2015) Detection of Brittle Materials. Summary Report with Recommendations. Naturfare:infrastruktur, flom og skred (NIFS), Oslo, Norway, final report, report no. 126/2015, 1-149.

59. Helle TE, Long M, Nordal S (2018) Interpreting improved geotechnical properties in KCl-treated highly sensitive quick clays. In:Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Cone Penetrating Testing (CPT'18), Delft, The Netherlands.

60. Pasquet S, Sauvin G, Andriamboavonjy MR, et al. (2014) Surface-wave dispersion inversion versus SH wave refraction tomography in saturated and poorly dispersive quick clays. In Proceedings for the 20th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics (EAGE), Athens, Greece.

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

62. Marchetti S, Monaco P, Totani G, et al. (2008) In situ tests by seismic dilatometer (SDMT), From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering, A Geotechnical Special Publication Honoring John H. Schmertmann. ASCE GeoInstitute, 292-311.

© 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