×
The submission system is temporarily under maintenance. Please send your manuscripts to
Go to Editorial ManagerAn overview of electro-osmosis (EO) and electrokinetic (EK) soil treatment methods is provided in this paper, along with their impact on pile capacity, installation, and foundation shear strength after improving the geotechnical properties of weak soils, particularly soft clays. As a result of their low shear strength, high compressibility, and poor drainage characteristics, soft clayey soils pose significant challenges in civil engineering. With EO and EK, pore water and ions are moved through the soil matrix under an applied electric field, resulting in consolidation, increased shear strength, and reduced plasticity. This review explores the fundamental principles of EO and EK, including the mechanisms of water transport, ion migration, and electrochemical reactions. It examines various electrode configurations, treatment parameters, and their influence on soil improvement. Furthermore, the paper analyzes the effects of EO treatment on pile capacity, considering both the increase in soil strength and the reduction in pore water pressure during installation. The impact on pile installation methods, such as reducing driving resistance and improving grout penetration, is also discussed. Finally, the review investigates the enhancement of foundation shear strength through improved soil properties achieved by EO/EK treatment. By synthesizing existing research, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits and limitations of EO and EK methods for ground improvement in soft clayey soils, offering valuable insights for future research and practical applications in geotechnical engineering.
Unconfined compressive strength represents an important parameter for soil investigation report test results because the values of cohesion and allowable bearing capacity can directly obtained from the relevant test especially if the clayey soil layers are found at sufficient enough depth above water table level._x000D_ This paper deals with simple comparison (based on (31) soil samples) between unconfined compressive strength (qu) obtained by using the pocket soil penetrometer tool and the unconfined compressive strength using the conventional test for the same sample penetrated by the pocket penetrometer with different soil moisture contents. Two triaxial specimens, sample type-1- with dimensions 38 X 79mm and type-2- with dimensions 33 X 79mm(diam. X height)) prepared in the libratory._x000D_ It was found that the results refers that soil pocket penetrometer readings are closed enough to the results that obtained from the unconfined compression test result with certain conditions._x000D_ The average percentage of difference between penetrometer readings and unconfined compression test result values was (1.103%) for sample type-1- and (1.53%) for sample type -2-._x000D_ The maximum moisture content for all tests samples was (27.3%) and the minimum was (14.7%) while the average moisture content was(20.9%).