Evaluation of Collapsibility Potential at

Talesh, Iran
N. Esmaeili-choobar*
Department of Civil engineering, East Azarbaijan science and research
branch, Islamic Azad university, Tabriz, Iran
* Corresponding author; e-mail: navidesmaeilichoobar@gmail.com

M. Esmaeili-falak
Department of Civil engineering, East Azarbaijan science and research
branch, Islamic Azad university, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: mahzad.ef@tabrizu.ac.ir

M. Roohi-hir
Department of Civil engineering, East Azarbaijan science and research
branch,Islamic Azad university, Tabriz, Iran
e-mail: mahnam.roohi @gmail.com

S. Keshtzad
University of science & culture, Rasht, Iran
e-mail: sepideh.keshtzad @gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Collapsible soils are one class of problematic soils that, due to their complex collapse
mechanisms, identified as soils of great importance. In contrast to the previous imaginations,
presence of collapsible soils is not limited to dry climates, but they are likely present all over the
earth. Because of increase in water content and due to engineering constructions under a
constant stress, these soils can experience considerable settlements.
In this research collapsibility potential of soils in Talesh (a county in northern Iran) has been
evaluated. Assessment of collapsibility potential of under consideration soils has been done
using experimental criteria and the standard based on double consolidation test (ASTM D 5333-
03). Results from these investigations show that soils in some areas have average to high
collapsibility potentials. Also the importance of various parameters on collapsible potential has
been investigated.
KEYWORDS: Collapsibility potential, Problematic soils, City of Talesh.

INTRODUCTION
In the field of geotechnical engineering increase in water content of the soil has caused some
difficulties in problematic soils (Jefferson et al. 2001; Hormdee 2008; Rafie et al. 2008) and this
geotechnical problem may lead to reduction in shear strength or excessive deformations, and

- 2561 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2562

consequently increase or decrease in soil thickness or volume (Basma 1992). All soil types
experience settlement under loading process and the amount of this settlement depends on load-
induced stresses but these settlements stop after a period of time, however, under certain
circumstances and in case of a special kind of soils increase in the amount of moisture may cause
additional settlements in soil, and such settlements are called collapsibility (Basma 1992).
Collapsible soils have high porosity rates (Medero et al. 2009) and they are subset of unsaturated
soils (Zhou and Sheng 2009) .in general, collapsibility in soils occurs when fabric of soils with
partial saturation and metastable cause the formation of metastable structure under constant
stress, and together with increase in water content high inter-aggregate suction or cementing
agent becomes weaker or disappears and consequently causes soil structure to be collapsed
(Basma 1992). And this will cause reduction in volume and sudden collapse of the soil, which is
possible with or without applying additional load (Celemence and Finbarr1981). Therefore,
collapsibility is possible either by solely in the form of increase in water content or
simultaneously together with applying the load. Disappearance of suction due to the soil
capillarity and weakening the cementing agent of soil particles cause shear failure of aggregate or
none-cohesive materials and finally collapsibility occurs in the soil (Basma 1992). Collapsibility
rate is usually increased together with initial applied pressure and decreased together with
increase in initial water content and dry unit weight ( )( Basma 1992; Celemence and
Finbarr1981). There is some amount of water content or degree of critical saturation in case of
some given soil under applied pressure and dry unit weight above which collapsibility doesn’t
take place (Basma 1992). Soils susceptible for collapsibility in natural dry unit weight can bear
considerable load (Dibben et al. 1998) and if water content of these soils is increased, then by
applying a constant stress soil structure is collapsed and unsymmetrical and extra settlements in
soil are created (Basma 1992; Lawton et al. 1992). In this investigation after evaluating
collapsibility potential in the talesh, we studied importance of various parameters on collapsible
potential.

Experimental and Standard Criteria and

Regulations for Determining the Collapsibility
Potential
Experimental criteria
Some samples about different experimental criteria to distinguish the soil collapsibility are as
follows:

Priklonski Criterion (1952)

In this criterion, if 0, K 0.5 or 1 ,then the soil will be extremely collapsible,
non-collapsible, or dilative, respectively (Darwell and Conway 1976).
‐
K (1)

where w is natural water content, PL is plastic limit; PI is plasticity index and K is Priklonski
Criterion coefficient.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2563

Clevenger Criterion (1959)

This criterion has been defined according to the dry unit weight of the soil on basis of which,
if dry unit weight of the soil is less than 1.28g/cm3, then the soil will considerably be susceptible
for settlement. If dry unit weight of the soil is greater than 1.44g/cm3, then soil collapsibility will
be low, and when average dry unit weight is between the above mentioned amounts, then
settlements will have low to high amounts.

Denisov Criterion (1964)

In this criterion has been used and if this amount is greater than one, the soil will be

collapsible, where e is the void ratio of the soil in natural state and is void ration of the soil at
liquid limit.

Feda Criterion (1964, 1966)

Feda offered coefficient according to the following formula and if this coefficient is more
than 0.85, the soil will be collapsible. Feda also suggested that the soil should bear critical
porosity greater than 40% and also the applied load should be enough to cause the structural
collapsibility of the soil at the time of being saturated.

‐
i (2)

where i is Feda criterion coefficient, m is natural water content of the soil, Sr is saturation
degree, PL is plastic limit, and PI is plasticity index.

Gibbs and Bara Criterion (1962, 1967)

This criterion is based on dry unit weight and liquid limit of the soil and it has been shown in
figure 1 which can be used to differentiate between collapsible and non-collapsible soils. In this
criterion it is assumed that the soil enjoying the capacity of water content of soil liquid limit is
susceptible to collapsibility due to saturation, provided that the soil is not cemented and has liquid
limit greater than 20%.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2564

Figure 1: Classification of collapsible soils based on Gibbs and Bara Criterion

ASTM Standard
This criterion has been defined based on the double consolidation test according to ASTM D
5333-03. For this purpose, some prepared specimens are transferred to laboratory almost in their
intact states. We prepare the specimens corresponding to one dimension consolidation ring or
oedometer and after calculations and the first steps we put them into apparatus. At first, a primary
stress amounting 5 kPa is applied to the specimen for 5 minutes and then, in order for applying
appropriate vertical stress on the soil, every one hour a specified load increase is applied to the
specimen in natural water content. This load increment is put in step by step form according to
ASTM D 2435 standard under 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, …kPa loads. It should be mentioned that
previous to any loading and one hour after the specimens were loaded under appropriate vertical
stress, deformation should be recorded. And finally, specimens are saturated. When the
specimens were immerged, deformations are recorded within the defined time intervals according
to ASTM D 2435 consolidation test. Also, the time duration for additional load will be a day (24
hours) and according to ASTM D 2435 test. Immersing the specimens should also take place
down to upward to let the air not to be trapped into the specimen. Collapsibility amount is defined
as the following equation:
∆
= 100 (3)
where e0 is initial void ratio and ∆e is changes in void ratio after saturation of specimen.
Because of performing the test in one dimensional form, the above equation can be defined as
follows:
∆
(4)
where h0 is initial elevation of the specimen and ∆h is changes in the elevation of the specimen
after saturation.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2565

Test procedure
In order to evaluate the collapsibility potential of the soil in under consideration area 9 soil
specimens from different locations in the west of Guilan province have been prepared. In areas
where these soils have been prepared, some damages due to the collapsibility of the soil have
been reported. Soil specimens have been named by symbols from S1 to S9. Qualitative evaluation
of collapsibility potential will be done using experimental criteria such as Priklonski, Clevenger,
Gibbs and Bara, Denisov and Feda. Also, for the purpose of evaluating the quantitative estimation
of under consideration soil collapsibility, criterion based on double consolidation test in
accordance with ASTM D 5333-03 standard will be used. To do so, on the basis of experimental
criteria we prepare some specimens almost in their intact manners from areas susceptible to
collapsibility, then we transfer them to laboratory. After applying the initial seating stress, we
apply the increase in load in a progressive manner and according to ASTM D 2435 standard up to
the extent that specimens to be loaded under appropriate vertical stress and finally be saturated.
Previous to any loading and one hour after applying the appropriate vertical stress, deformations
should be recorded and finally the specimens should be saturated. When the specimens were
immerged, deformations are recorded within the defined time intervals according to ASTM D
2435 consolidation test. Also, the time duration for additional load will be a day (24 hours) and
according to ASTM D 2435 test.

Table 1: Index of defining the intensity of collapsibility according to ASTM D 5333-03

Collapsibility degree Percentage of soil collapsibility

Non-collapsible 0

Low collapsible 0.1- 2

Average collapsible 2.1- 6

Almost intensive 6.1- 10

collapsibility
High collapsible > 10

Evaluating the Collapsibility Potential of the Area of

Talesh
In order to evaluate the collapsibility amount, some soil specimens that according to
experimental criteria are susceptible to collapsibility are tested through double consolidation test
(ASTM D 5333-03).To do so, under consideration specimens were tested through double
consolidation test in two stages. In the first stage the tests of determining physical and mechanical
specifications of the soil including grading and hydrometry, specific gravity were done. Then on
the basis of results from these tests including natural water content, dry unit weight, and
Atterberg limits, collapsibility potential of specimens were qualitatively determined using
experimental criteria. In the second stage, 5 specimens susceptible to collapsibility went through
double consolidation test (ASTM D 5333-03). Results from these tests have been shown in tables
2-4. Table 4 and figure 3 shows results from double consolidation test on specimen S3, and results
concerning other specimens have complementally been given in Table 5.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2566

Table 2a: Results from first stage Tests

Gravel Sand Silt Clay

specimens percentage Percentage percentage Percentage LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)
(%) (%) (%) (%)

0 13 62 25 49 30 19

0 32 65 13 32 24 8
5 28 56 11 41 29 12
0 13 57 30 50 29 21
5 20 51 24 39 27 12
0 100 0 0 Non-calculable Non-calculable NP
0 100 0 0 Non-calculable Non-calculable NP
67 30 3 0 Non-calculable Non-calculable NP

59 37 4 0 Non-calculable Non-calculable NP

Table 2b: Results from first stage Tests

Unified
specimens (%) ( ) GS (%)
classification
34 1.32 2.545 0.935 1.355 94 ML

12.48 1.565 2.622 0.675 0.839 25.75 ML

25.30 1.34 2.561 0.914 1.48 90.50 ML

33.90 1.267 2.606 1.057 1.303 40.56 ML

30.10 1.29 2.647 1.054 1.36 78.43 ML

35.44 1.02 2.943 1.885 - 64.05 SP

27.43 0.975 2.994 2.07 - 69.13 SP

11.42 1.345 2.644 0.965 - 36.50 SW

15.25 1.49 2.622 0.76 - 29 SP

Where W0 is natural water content, LL is liquid limit, PL is plastic limit, PI is plasticity index, GS
is specific gravity, e0 is initial void ration, ell is liquid limit void ratio, and W(sr=1) is water
content at saturation state.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2567

Table 3a: Qualitative evaluation of collapsible potential based on experimental criteria

Priklonski, Clevenger, Gibbs and Bara, Denisov and Feda

0.21 1.44 0.3 0.233 0.259

Priklonski Average High High Average Average
criterion collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility

1.32 1.565 1.34 1.267 1.29

Clevenger
criterion Average Low Average High Average
collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility

0.75 0.81 0.88 0.815 1.03

Denisov
criterion Non- Non- Non-
Non-collapsible collapsible
collapsible collapsible collapsible
0.366 3.61 0.553 0.552 1.05
Feda Non- Non-
criterion collapsible Non-collapsible collapsible
collapsible collapsible
Gibbs and
Non- Non-
Bara collapsible Non-collapsible collapsible
collapsible collapsible
criterion

Table 3b: Qualitative evaluation of collapsible potential based on experimental criteria

Priklonski, Clevenger, Gibbs and Bara, Denisov and Feda

- - - -
Priklonski
criterion - - - -

1.02 0.975 1.345 1.49

Clevenger
criterion High High Average Low
collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility
- - - -
Denisov
criterion - - - -

- - - -
Feda
criterion - - - -

Gibbs and - - - -
Bara
criterion
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2568

Figure 2: Evaluating the collapsibility with the aid of Gibbs and Bara experimental criterion

Table 4: Result from double consolidation test on specimen S3

Required W0 e0 e1 e2 H0 D0 GS
parameters (ring elevation)
(ring
diameter)
Numerical 25.3% 0.914 0.793 0.751 1.81 cm 7.5 cm 2.561
amount
Vertical Final Void
pressure elevation ratio(e)
e (kg/cm2) (mm)
CP = = 2.2%
1  e0 0 1.81 0.914
0.25 1.776 0.878
0.5 1.765 0.866
ASTM: 2.1 <CP =2.2 < 6 average 1 1.742 0.842
2 1.696 0.793
collapsibility
2 1.658 0.751
4 1.563 0.651
8 1.468 0.55
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2569

Figure 3: Result from double consolidation test on specimen S3

Table 4: Results from double consolidation tests on specimens of S1 – S5

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

ASTM Standard 0.36% 0.34% 2.2% 2.18% 2.1%

Collapsibility Low Low average average average

degree collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility collapsibility

Taking the presented results into account in table (5), specimens S1 and S2 are non-collapsible
and specimens S3, S4 and S5 are collapsible. A brief comparison of the results from ASTM
standard with results from experimental criteria shows that Priklonski and Clevenger criterions
have the maximum accordance with real amounts of collapsibility potential (results of double
consolidation tests in accordance with ASTM D 5333-03 standard).

Effective parameters in collapsibility potential of

under consideration soil
Some of the effective parameters in collapsibility potential include uniformity coefficient (Cu),
Clay content and initial water content of the soil (W0) (Basma 1992). As it was mentioned before,
increase in initial water content and clay content of the soil decrease its collapsibility potential
and increase in uniformity coefficient of the soil increases its collapsibility potential (Basma
1992). According to the previous studies, above said cases about under consideration soil are
considered as true. Figures 4 and 5 are indicatives of the inverse relation between initial water
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2570

content and clay content of the soil with collapsibility potential, respectively. Also, figure 6
shows direct relation between uniformity coefficients of the soil and collapsibility potential. It
should be mentioned that this direct relation between the uniformity coefficient and collapsibility
potential of the soil is considered as true in case of low uniformity coefficients (Basma 1992).

Figure 4: Relationship between initial water content and collapsibility potential of under
consideration soil

Figure 5: Relationship between clay content and collapsibility potential of under consideration soil
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2571

Figure 6: Relation between uniformity coefficient and the collapsibility potential of under
consideration soil

CONCLUSION
Results from the present research can be classified as follows:

 On the basis of double consolidation tests, some specimens in the area of talesh are reported
with average to high collapsibility potential.

 On the basis of double consolidation tests, intact prepared specimens according to ASTM D
5333-03 standard in different areas in the area of talesh, areas with high collapsibility
potential have mostly been situated in the middle section of the mountain and the sea.

 According to the results achieved from double consolidation tests (ASTM D 5333-03) and
results concerning other experimental criteria that have been used in the present research, it
can be concluded that Gibbs and Bara, Clevenger and Priklonski criteria are more consistent
with criterion based on double consolidation test (ASTM D 5333-03).

 in the specimens in this case study, reduction in natural water content, clay content of the soil,
and increase in uniformity coefficient of the soil (at low range) collapsibility potential of the
soil is increased.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2572

REFERENCES
1. ASTM. 2003. Standard test method for measurement of collapse potential of soils.
ASTM standard D5333-03. Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM International,
West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
2. ASTM. 2006. Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.
ASTM standard C136-06, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, ASTM International,
West Conshohoken, Pa.Vol.04.02.
3. ASTM. 2007. Standard test method for density and unit weight of soil in place by the
sand-cone method. ASTM standard D1556-07, Annual Book Of ASTM Standard,
ASTM International, West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
4. ASTM. 2007. Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. ASTM standard
D422-63(2007), Annual Book Of ASTM Standard, ASTM International, West
Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
5. ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index
of soils. ASTM standard D4318-10, Annual Book Of ASTM Standard, ASTM
International, West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
6. ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for Laboratory determination of water(moisture)
content of soil and rock by mass. ASTM standard D2216-10 Annual Book Of ASTM
Standard, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
7. ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by water
pycnometer. ASTM standard D854-10, Annual Book Of ASTM Standard, ASTM
International, West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
8. ASTM. 2011. Standard test method for On-Dimensional consolidation properties of
soils using increment loading. ASTM standard D2435-11, Annual Book Of ASTM
Standard, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, Pa. Vol.04.08.
9. Basama, A.A., 1992. Evaluation and control of collapse soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 118(10): 1491-104.
10. Celemence, S., and Finbarr, A., 1981. Design consideration for collapsible soils.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 107(7): 305-317.
11. Clevenger, W.A., 1959. Experience with loess as a foundation material. Transaction,
ASCE, 123: 151-170.
12. Dibben, S.C., Jefferson, I.F., and Smally, J.J., 1998. The loughborough loess Monte
Carlo model of soil structure. Computers & Geosciences, Great Britain, 24(4): 345-
352.
13. Darwell, J.L., and Conway, B.W., 1976. Prediction of metastable soil collapse.
Proceeding of The Anaheim Symposium, Publication n°121 of The International
Association of Hydrological Sciences.
14. Denisov, N.Y., 1951. The engineering properties of loess and loess loam.
Geosstroiizdat, Moscow, U.S.S.R.
15. Feda, J., 1964. Colloidal activity, shrinking and swelling of some clays. Proceedings
of Soil Mechanic Seminar, Loda, Illinois, PP: 531-546.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. M 2573

16. Feda, J., 1966. Structure stability of subsidence loess from praha dejvice.
Engineering Geology, 1(3): 201-219.
17. Gibbs, H.J., and Bara, J.P., 1962. Predicting surface subsidence from basic soil tests.
Special Technical Publication, American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM),
1(322): 231-247.
18. Gibbs, H.J., and Bara, J.P., 1967. Stability problems of collapsing soil, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Division, ASCE, 93(1): 572-594.
19. Hormdee, D., 2008, Investigation on collapse potential of loess soil. Proceeding of
the Eighteenth international Offshore and Engineering Conference, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, PP. 579-581.
20. Jefferson, I., Murray, E.J., Faragher, E., and Fleming, P.R., 2001. Problematic soils.
The East Midlands Geotechnical Group of the Institution of Civil Engineering,
Bodmin, Cornwall, Great Britain.
21. Lawton, E.C., Fragasy, R.J. and Hetherington, M.D., 1992. Review of wetting-
induced collapse in compacted soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
118(9):1376-1394.
22. Medero, G.M., Schnaid, F., and Gehling, W.Y.Y., 2009. Oedometer behavior of an
artificial cemented highly collapsible soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 135(6): 840-843.
23. Priklonski, V.A., 1952. Gruntoredenia-Vtoraid chest. Gosgeolzdat, Moscow,
U.S.S.R.
24. Rafie, B. M. A., Ziaie Moayed, R., Esmaeli. M., 2008. Evaluation of Soil
Collapsibility Potential: A Case Study of Semnan Railway Station. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 13(G), 1-7.
25. Zhou, A. and Sheng, D., 2009. Yield stress, volume change, and shear strength
behavior of unsaturated soils: validation of the SFG model, 46(9): 1034-1045.

© 2013 ejge