A case record of electroosmotic consolidation of soft clay with improved soilelectrode contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroosmotic (e.o.) consolidation of clays has been known in geotechnical engineering for many decades but is in fact seldom used. The analysis of published data from case records indicates that the power losses at the soilelectrode contact constitute a major problem for the field application of e.o. consolidation. A laboratory study, where field conditions were reproduced, has demonstrated the efficiency of a chemical treatment at the electrodes to enhance potential transfer to soil. The chemical treatment was evaluated in a large field demonstration test where over 700 m 3 of clay was consolidated by electroosmosis. The paper describes the site, the field setup, and the results and analysis of the monitoring during the 48 days of the e.o. treatment. The results of the post-treatment geotechnical investigation after 12% of clay compression due to electroosmotic consolidation are also presented and discussed. These results confirm that soft clay deposits can be successfully treated by e.o. consolidation, at a competitive cost compared with other alternatives, when power losses at the soilelectrode contact are controlled.Key words: case record, electroosmosis, soft clays, consolidation, soil improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".