Loessification and hydroconsolidation: there is a connection

i.m. Vaclav Ambroz

Ian J. Smalley Giotto Loess Research Group, Geography Department, Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK (ijs4@le.ac.uk) Slobodan B.Markovic Department of Geography, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, RS-21000 Novi Sad, Serbia (slobodan.markovic@dgt.uns.as.rs)

Abstract Loessification can be defined as the acquisition of loessic characteristics by ground systems. Hydroconsolidation, in this context, is the collapse of the loess ground structure under the influence of loading and wetting. Loess, on aeolian deposition, is metastable- a pre-requisite for eventual collapse. The actual collapse mechanism is dependent on the presence of a critical amount of clay mineral material at

major particle contacts. This clay accumulates via postdepositional processes; processes which can be described as part of loessification and as a contribution to collapsibility. Studies at Ospringe in Kent, England support observations made in the Bohemian Massif in the Czech Republic about the nature of the loess ground system and the role of clay minerals and calcite crystals. Fragipan formation, another important post-deposition event, could depend on hydroconsolidation in loess ground. Keywords: Loess, loessification, hydroconsolidation, postdepositional events in loess, fragipans

Introduction Loess is a widespread continental sediment which had its origin during the glacial phases of the Pleistocene Epoch. Within the loess deposits multiple loess-palaeosol sequences are recognised as key continental archives of Quaternary climate and environmental dynamics(e.g. Ding et al 2002, Markovic et al 2009, Roberts et al 2007). In spite of current developments of different aspects of loess research our understanding of the nature of loess material and the processes of loess formation is still relatively poor. This study aims to incorporate results of loess hydroconsolidation studies by geotechnical investigators into

a discussion of the fundamental nature of the loessification process. Loessification: Bergs idea (Berg 1916), and his term; the conversion of non-loess ground into loess ground by processes of weathering and soil formation. Loessification: a term much derided by sedimentologists who know that the critical moment in the formation of a loess deposit, the moment that confers the classic loessic properties, is the aeolian deposition of the silty material to form that wellsorted open structure. Incompatibility: it appeared that the two approaches to loess deposit formation, loessification or aeolian deposition, were completely and totally incompatible, and at one fundamental level they are. Berg wildly overstated his position and his well-known denial of any contribution to loess formation by aeolian action is well known (Berg 1964, p.22 ). But there is more to loess formation, and to the nature of loess, than this simple confrontation allows. Our position in this paper is that the key event in loess deposit formation is the aeolian deposition of the silty material and we have expounded on this elsewhere (Smalley et al 2010b); but it should be acknowledged that loessic properties and aspects continue to develop after that key moment of deposition. There were key events in loess history before the aeolian events; material had to be formed and long river transportation

moved it across the landscape(Smalley et al 2009). In the same way that important events prefigure the aeolian apotheosis, there are post-depositional events worthy of study and discussion. We focus in particular on to the development of collapsibility in loess ground. The aeolian deposition event yields a metastable deposit, but collapsibility develops via post depositional activity. This is what might be called the dynamic defining aspect of loess. The mechanical property of loess which has a defining role is the capacity for structural collapse when loaded and wetted. This has been studied for many years in a geotechnical context (see Rogers et al 1995); a critical moment was the observation by Denisov (1953) of the failure of irrigation canals in the loess of Uzbekistan. These canals, dug in classic Central Asian loess, showed the phenomenon of self-weight collapse. The load provided by the wetted ground was sufficient to cause the loess ground structure to collapse. There has been much discussion of the mechanism of loess collapse, of hydroconsolidation, and it can now be seen that much of the hydroconsolidation capacity is delivered in post-depositional times. In fact a loessification process enables hydroconsolidation, and this is a loessification process already described by Cilek (2001).

Loessification A recent study on L.S.Berg (Smalley et al 2010a) has attempted to assess his contribution as a great geographer, and to place his studies on loess into context. In the world of loess scholarship Berg is famous for his theory of loess formation, variously called the soil theory, the eluvial theory, the in-situ theory, the pedological theory, and the loessification theory. This Berg idea, first published in 1916, proposed that loess deposits were essentially formed by processes of weathering and soil formation. Non-loess ground was turned into loess ground by a process of loessification. Berg was very forthright in support of his theory, and equally forthright in condemning alternative ideas of loess deposit formation. In particular he was very dismissive of the aeolian theories of Richthofen and Obruchev. This set up an unfortunate dichotomy with each side claiming and neither side listening (see Rozycki 1990 ). There were also echoes of a political dimension (see Smalley 1980, Blackburn 1980), there were certainly impediments in place which prevented sensible comparative discussions and reconciliations. It is only recently that the parts of the aeolian aspect and the loessification idea that actually fit together have been brought together (Smalley et al 2010b).

It has been proposed that the best way to study loessification is to divide it into two parts (Smalley et al 2006c). There shall be grand loessification(gL) and petit loessification(pL); the gL concept is the old Berg 1916 idea in which all loess is formed by weathering and soil formation, and this appears to be defunct- it denied any role for aeolian deposition, now seen as a key event in loess deposit formation. So gL is essentially abandoned, but pL has continued relevance. It was the pL concept which Pecsi (1990) was heading for when he claimed that Loess is not just the accumulation of dust. This was the concept that Ambroz (1947) was proclaiming in his studies of the loesses of the hill countries (as Cilek 2001 pointed out). After aeolian deposition the basic structure of the loess deposit is in place and the open structure is established and the material is draped over the landscape, but the story continues. Soil forming processes begin, clay starts to migrate towards particle contacts. Lozek (1965) proposed that the aeolian deposition and the onset of pL loessification were almost contemporaneous (Die Windaufschuttung und Verlossung erfolgen etwa gleichzeitig.) suggesting that Obruchevs approach to the problem of loess formation was essentially correct. In fact the Lozek observations are very similar to those of Cilek(2001). Here we might highlight the

influence of sharp glacial climates characterised by cold winters with long frosty periods, a humid transitional season, and short and relatively warm, dry summers on ground processes at the surface of silty(proto-loess) deposits. Simultaneously to these seasonal environmental changes the atmosphere was permanently gusty (McGee et al 2010). Possibly processes of gL weathering for soil formation could be simultaneous with intensive aeolian deposition. An example might be the Surduk section in northern Serbia Antoine et al 2009). Grain size variations reflect cyclic periods of weak to moderate pedogenesis and intensive loess formation. Hydroconsolidation Hydroconsolidation in loess has been reviewed by Rogers et al (1995). In the geotechnical world loess is classified as a collapsing soil; the whole range of collapsing soils has been reviewed by Derbyshire et al(1995). Loess, when tested in an oedometer (the classic consolidation testing machine), displays typical collapse behaviour. The loess sample resists the initial applications of stress, but collapses when wetted (see e.g.Feda 1995). Loess can appear to be a strong and brittle material but can lose most of its strength when wetted. This has led to some large scale construction

failures, in particular the collapse of part of the Atommash factory in Volgodonsk in 1989. Even remoulded loess, which will have lost its intial structural status can fail catastrophically as was demonstrated in the Teton Dam failure in Idaho in 1960 (Smalley & Dijkstra 1991, Smalley 1992). There has been considerable discussion on the nature of loess collapse; much of this is in the Russian literature because it was in the Soviet Union that there was a coincidence of reasonably high population densities and the need for construction on loess ground (see Kriger 1986, Trofimov 2001, Jefferson et al.2003) There are two main aspects to the study of loess collapse; an assessment of the packing structure and status in the original loess deposit, and the nature of the collapse dynamics. The problems have been tackled via model studies (Assallay et al 1997, Dijkstra et al 1999). Two types of model study have been undertaken (i) making loess samples in oedometer sample rings by a simulated aeolian deposition (Assallay et al. 1997), and (ii) generating two-dimensional representations of loess deposits by simple Monte Carlo methods (Dibben et al 1998). The direct deposition model allowed one very critical set of observations to be made. Once it had been established that the system produced was a reasonable representation of a

real loess deposit it became possible to make samples with a carefully controlled range of clay mineral contents. This allowed a clear demonstration of the dependence of collapsibility on clay content. Samples with very low (~0%) and high (~30%) clay contents tended not to collapse. An intermediate clay content was required, which, concentrated at main particle contects could soften and weaken on wetting allowing collapse to occur. The variation of collapse with clay mineral content is shown in Assallay et al (1998). Observations from Ospringe A recent comprehensive study of loess collapsibility has been carried out at Ospringe in Kent, England (see Milodowski et al 2010). Testing of the loess(brickearth) has revealed some insights into the collapse mechanism. The metastable, collapsible calcareous loess/brickearth is characterised by an open packing arrangement of pelletised aggregate grains of compacted silt/clay, supported by an inter-ped matrix of loose-packed silt grains, in which the grains are held in place by a skeletal framework of illuviated clay. This clay forms meniscus clay bridges and pillars separating and binding the dispersed component silt grains. There is little direct graingrain contact, and the resultant fabric has a very high void ratio.

Any applied load is largely supported by these delicate meniscus clay bridge and pillar microfabrics. Hydroconsolidation and collapse of this brickearth fabric can be explained by a sequence of processes involving: (i) dispersion and disruption of the grain-bridging clay on saturation, leading to an initial rapid collapse of the loosepacked inter-ped silt; (ii) rearrangement and closer stacking of the compact aggregate silt/clay peds; (iii) with increasing stress further consolidation may result from the deformation and break up of the peds as they collapse into the inter-ped regions. Smectite is a significant part of the clay component at Ospringe and will swell on wetting, which will further encourage the disruption and breaking of the clay bonds. Minor calcite and dolomite mineralisation may also form meniscus cements between silt grains. These have either acted as scaffolds on which illuviated clay has subsequently been deposited, or have encrusted earlier-formed grainbridging clay. In either case the carbonates may help to reinforce the clay bridge fabrics. It appears that fine needlelike carbonate crystals can form meshes which help to trap clay mineral particles at particle contacts, and thus enhance collapsibility. The development of collapsibility depends on an initial formation of a network of fine calcite crystals; these trap the clay mineral particles and build up the clay

10

mineral concentration at the structural contact points. Thus a collapsing loess will contain critical amounts of calcite and clay mineral material. At Ospringe two types of brickearth/loess are observed, the upper loess is not calcareous, and it is not collapsible. The lower loess is calcareous, and it is collapsible. The Bohemian Massif Cilek (2001), in his study of loess in hilly regions, has investigated loess on the Bohemian Massif and discussed the nature of loessification. He pointed out that loessification must be a very rapid process, particularly if the very open structure (voids ratio around 1.0) of the loess deposit is to be preserved. He noted that clay bridges among the quartz grains were often impregnated with calcium carbonate and Al-Si hydroxides. He proposed that three important types of cementation might be recognised: (i) calcitic bonds, (ii) allophane bonds, and (iii) siderogel bond. He also suggested that the rapid impregnation of clay particles between quartz grains and the general consolidation of porous dust accumulations by the three types of cement probably constitute the key factor in loess formation. He noted that the most common authigenic mineral was calcite in the form of needle like crystals (very like the situation at Ospringe). He reported some experiments by

11

Ambroz (1947) which showed that the calcite can be supplied by bicarbonate ground waters. He performed a simple experiment in which de-calcified soil was moistened from below and, after two weeks, the fine-grained calcite could be found within the soil and a carbonate crust formed at the surface. Relative to this Cilek proposed that the evaporation transport of the capillary soil solutions during hot and short continental glacial summers seems to be the most likely mechanism involved in the sudden internal hardening of the loess structure by way of impregnation of clay bridges between silt grains. Commentary In a loess deposit, after the aeolian deposition event, an open-structured system exists, which has several of the most important characteristics of loess. The high voids ratio means that it is a metastable deposit, an open packing capable compacting down into a less-dense, more stable deposit. The aeolian deposition disperses the material across the landscape, the draping across the landscape property is observed. But, immediately post-deposition, the deposit appears to lack collapsibility; it has metastability but it lacks collapsibility. This will develop via a post-depositional process, a pL loessification process.

12

The collapsible nature of the loess deposit has implications for further processes. It appears that structure collapse may be a key to fragipan formation in loess ground. The hard fragipan horizon appears to favour loess ground and Bryant (1989) proposed that a hydroconsolidation process led to fragipan formation. The fragipan is a dense horizon which, by and large, forms at a constant depth below the surface. Assallay et al (1998) produced some experimental support for the Bryant hypothesis and it does appear that fragipan formation could fit into the sequence of post-depositional events involving clay movement and structural collapse. There is even a stratigraphical implication. Zhou & Shackleton(1999) have proposed that certain dating anomalies in some loess stratigraphic sections could be due to ground collapse causing positional measurement difficulties. Conclusions and proposals Loessification and hydroconsolidation are connected. The collapsibility of loess is one of the key defining factors, and while other defining factors stem directly from the action of aeolian deposition, collapsibility accrues in a postdepositional manner. The acquisition of collapsibility is an event of pL loessification; the ground takes on a more

13

loessic character. Not quite the dramatic event that Berg envisaged but definitely falling within the purview of loessification. The collapsibility of loess appears to depend on the presence of clay minerals and calcite. Meshes of fine needle-like calcite crystals grow quickly, soon after the aeolian deposition event. These serve to trap clay minerals in the regions of particle contact and these clay minerals control the deformation properties of the contact zones. An excess of clay mineral material (perhaps as observed in the New Zealand loess) prevents structural collapse by filling the pore spaces and not allowing the initial loess packing to collapse. The correct amount of clay allows the contact to be mobile; the clay softens on wetting and collapse (hydroconsolidation) can occur. The operating model for loess hydroconsolidation is essentially the small clay model as described by Rogers et al (1994). Finally, this study carries the loessification term across into the geotechnical world. The Berg idea requires large modification but the observation of the development of collapsibility clearly indicates a post-depositional change in loess ground. There is a space for the idea of loessification. References

14

Ambroz, V. 1947. The loess of the hill country. Sbornik Statniho Geologickeho Ustava CSR, Prague 14, 225-280 (in Czech). Assallay, A.M., Rogers, C.D.F., Smalley, I.J. 1997. Formation and collapse of metastable particle packings and open structures in loess deposits. Engineering Geology 48, 101-115. Assallay, A.M., Jefferson, I.F., Rogers, C.D.F., Smalley, I.J. 1998. Fragipan formation in loess soils: development of the Bryant hydroconsolidation hypothesis. Geoderma 83, 1-16. Berg, L.S. 1916. The origin of loess. Communications Russian Geographical Foundation 11, 579-546 (in Russian). Berg, L.S. 1964. Loess as a Product of Weathering and Soil Formation. Israel Program for Scientific Translations Jerusalem 207p. Bryant, R.B. 1989. Physical processes of fragipan formation. In Smeck, N.E., Ciolkosz, E.J. (Eds.) Fragipans: Their Occurrence, Classification and Genesis. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 24, 141-150.

15

Blackburn, G. 1980. The loess controversy and Soviet science. New Zealand Soil News 28, 106-107, & 28, 222 only Cilek, V. 2001. The loess deposits of the Bohemian Massif: silt provenance, palaeometeorology, and loessification processes. Quaternary International 76/77, 123-128. Denisov, N.Ya. 1953. Construction Properties of Loess and Loess-like Clay Soils. 2nd.ed. Gostudarstvennoe Izd. Moscow 154p. (first ed. 1951, 136p. in Russian). Derbyshire, E., Dijkstra, T.A., Smalley, I.J. (eds) 1995. Genesis and Properties of Collapsible Soils (NATO ASI series C 468) Kluwer Dordrecht 413p. Dibben, S.C., Jefferson, I.F., Smalley, I.J. 1998. The Loughborough Loess Monte Carlo model of soil structure. Computers and Geosciences 24, 345-352. Dijkstra, T.A., Smalley, I.J., Rogers, C.D.F. 1995. Particle packing in loess deposits and the problem of structure collapse and hydroconsolidation. Engineering Geology 40, 49-64.

16

Ding, Z.L., Ranov, V., Yang, S.L., Finaev, A., Han, J.M., Wang, J.A. 2002. The loess record in southern Tajikistan and correlation with Chinese loess. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 200, 387-400. Feda, J. 1995. Mechanisms of collapse of soil structure. In Derbyshire et al 1995, 149-172. Jefferson, I.F., Evstatiev, D., Karastenev, D., Mavlyanova, N.G., Smalley, I.J. 2003. The engineering geology of loess and loess-like deposits: a commentary on the Russian literature. Engineering Geology 68, 333-351. Kriger, N.I. 1986. Loess: Formation of Hydrocompaction Properties. Nauka Moscow 132p, (in Russian). Lozek, V. 1965. Das Problem der Lossbildung und die Lossmollusken. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 16, 61-75. Markovic, S.B., Hambach, U., Catto, N., Jovanovic, M., Buggle,B., Machalett, B., Zoeller, L., Glaser, B., Frechen, M. 2009. Middle and Late Pleistocene loess sequences at Batajnica, Voyvodina, Serbia. Quaternary International 198, 255-266.

17

McGee, D., Broecker, W.S., Winkler, G. 2010. Gustiness: the driver of dustiness? Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 2340-2350. Milodowski, A.E., Northmore, K.J., Kemp, S.J., McKervey, J.A., Entwistle, D.C., Bouch, J.E.E., Gunn, D.A., Jackson, P.D., Boardman, D.I., Zoumpakis, A., Rogers, C.D.F., Dixon, N., Jefferson, I., Smalley, I.J., Clarke, M. 2010. The mineralogy and fabric of Brickearths and their relationship to engineering properties. Engineering Geology, in press Pecsi, M. 1990. Loess is not just the accumulation of dust. Quaternary International 7/8, 1-21. Roberts, H.M., Muhs, D.R., Bettis III, E.A. 2007. Loess records- North America. In: Elias, S.A.(ed.) Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science 1456-1466. Rogers, C.D.F., Dijkstra, T.A., Smalley, I.J. 1994. Hydroconsolidation and subsisidence of loess: studies from China, Russia, North America and Europe. Engineering Geology 37, 83-113. Rozycki, S.Z. 1991. Loess and Loess-like Deposits. Ossolineum, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw 187p.

18

Smalley, I.J. 1980.

The loess controversy and Soviet

Science. New Zealand Soil News 28, 27-29, & 28, 221 only. Smalley, I.J. 1992. The Teton Dam: rhyolite foundation +

loess core = disaster. Geology Today 8(1), 19-22. Smalley, I.J., Dijkstra, T.A. 1991. The Teton Dam (Idaho, USA) failure: problems with the use of loess material in earth dam structures. Engineering Geology 31, 197-303. Smalley, I.J., Mavlyanova, N.G., Rahkmatullaev, Kh.L., Shermatov, M.Sh., Machalett, B., OHara-Dhand, K., Jefferson, I.F. 2006a. The formation of loess deposits in the Tashkent region and parts of Central Asia; and problems with irrigation, hydrocollapse and soil erosion. Quaternary International 152/153, 59-69. Smalley, I.J., Jefferson, I.F., OHara-Dhand, K., Evans, R.D. 2006b. An approach to the problem of loess deposit formation: some comments on the in-situ or soil-eluvial hypothesis. Quaternary International 152/153, 120-128. Smalley, I.J., Jary, Z., OHara-Dhand, K. 2006c. Loessification- On the 130th anniversary of the birth of

19

L.S.Berg. New Zealand Soil News 54, 71-74, reprinted in IUSS-HPSSS Newsletter 13, June 2006, and Loess Letter 56. Smalley, I.J., OHara-Dhand, K., Wint, J., Machalett, B., Jary, Z., Jefferson, I.F. 2009. Rivers and loess; the significance of long river transportation in the complex event-sequence approach to loess deposit formation. Quaternary International 198, 7-18. Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S.B., OHara-Dhand, K., Wynn, P. 2010a. A man from Bendery: L.S.Berg as geographer and loess scholar. Geologos 16, 109-117, reprinted in Loess Letter 64. Smalley, I.J., Markovic, S.B., Svircev, Z. 2010b. Loess is [almost totally formed by] the accumulation of dust. Quaternary International in press. Trofimov, V.T.,(ed.) 2002. Loess Mantle of the Earth and its Properties. Moscow University Press 464p (in Russian; review by I.J.Smalley in Engineering Geology 66, 319-320, 2002). Zhou, L.P., Shackleton, N.J. 1999. Misleading positions of geomagnetic reversal boundaries in Eurasian loess and

20

implications for correlation between continental and marine sedimentary sequences. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 168, 117-130.

21