Collapsible Soil - Part II

30/05/1438
Collapsible Criteria based on Simple

Soil Properties
In order to classify the collapsibility of soils, a variety of
criteria for collapse potential.
Most of these criteria determine the critical condition of

collapse based on void ratio, dry unit weight, degree of
saturation, Atterberg limits, natural water content,
and percentage of fine grained soil.
These correlations are not universal. Each

equation/chart applies for the soil under study. (Particle
pattern, contact relation, pore form, bonding
material). Dr. Asmaa Moddather
Dr. Asmaa – Soil –Improvement
Moddather – Spring
Problematic Soil 2017 2017
– Spring
Collapsible Criteria based on

Simple Soil Properties
Typical collapsible soils are:
Lightly colored.
Low in plasticity with liquid limits below 45%, plasticity
indices below 25%.
Relatively low dry densities between 10.0 and 16.5 kN/m3.
Porosity of 40% to 60%.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
1
30/05/1438

Clevengar (1958):
γd ≤ 12.6 kN/m3 : soil is likely to be highly collapsible
12.6 ≤ γd ≤ 14.0 kN/m3 : soil may be collapsible
γd ≥ 14.0 kN/m3 : soil is not likely to be collapsible
Elmamlouk (1985)
γd < 90% γd max (Standard Proctor Test)
: soil is likely to be highly collapsible

Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Jenning and Knight (1975):
Introduced the concept of critical degree of saturation (Sc)
above which collapse would not occur, suggested values:
Fine gravel : 6 – 10%
Fine silty sand : 50 – 60%
Clayey silt : 90 – 95%
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
2
30/05/1438

Handy (1973): for Iowa loess by Clay content
: < 16% : high probability of collapse
: 16 – 24% : probability of collapse
: 24 – 32% : less than 50% probability of collapse
: > 32% : usually safe from collapse
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Czechslovak Standard
Collapse may occur when:
Silt > 60%
Clay < 15%
S < 60% and LL < 32%
N > 40%
W < 13%
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
3
30/05/1438

Denisov (1953)
Coefficient of subsidence (K)
K = eL/eo
eL = void ratio at liquid limit
eo = natural void ratio
K = 0.50 – 0.75 : Highly collapsible soil
K = 0.75 – 1.00 : Collapsible is likely
K > 1.0 : Non-collapsible loam
K = 1.5 – 2.0 : Non-collapsible soil
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Priklonski (1952)
KD = (w – PL)/ PI
KD < 0 : Highly collapsible soil
KD > 0.5 : Non-collapsible
Soviet Building Code

L = (eo – eL)/(1 + eo)
For S < 60%, if L > -0.1; a soil is susceptible to collapse.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
4
30/05/1438

Gibbs (1961)
Case I: w at S = 100% > wL
Case II: w at S = 100% = wL
Case III: w at S = 100% < wL
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Feda (1964)
KL = (w/S – PL)/ PI
For S < 100%, n > 40%: if KL > 0.85; a soil is susceptible to

collapse.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
5
30/05/1438

Feda (1966)
Proposed a critical void ratio (ec) as follows:
ec = 0.85 eL + 0.15 eP
A soil is susceptible to collapse if eo > ec
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Gibbs and Bara (1962)
A soil is susceptible to collapse if:
γd (kN/m3) ≤ 25.5/(1 + 0.026 wL)
Austerlitz et al. (1983)

A soil is susceptible to collapse if:
γd / γdL > 1.1
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
6
30/05/1438
Definition
“A metastable material, traditionally defined as an
unsaturated soil that experiences a radical
rearrangement of particles and significant reduction
of volume upon wetting with or without additional
loading.”
“A soil that undergoes an appreciable amount of

volume changes upon wetting, load application, or
combination of both.”
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Definition
‘‘…..additional settlement…. due to the wetting of a
partially saturated soil, normally without any
increase in applied pressure.’’
‘‘…..a state of underconsolidation related to apparent

cohesive strength of unsaturated soils.’’
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
7
30/05/1438
Definition
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Laboratory Tests
Laboratory tests are commonly used to identify collapsible
soils and to obtain a quantitative estimate of collapse
potential for use in assessing potential settlements of
structure.
A one dimensional response-to-wetting test performed

using conventional consolidation test equipment,
represents the most common laboratory collapse test.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
8
30/05/1438

Laboratory Tests
A specimen at its natural moisture content is first
subjected to a total stress corresponding to that in the
field. Then, with this total load, the specimen is inundated
with water, and the collapse settlement is observed.
The advantage of this simple laboratory test is that the test

interpretation is simplified due to the relatively uniform
stress state within the specimen. Thus, a reasonable stress-
strain relationship can be developed to estimate collapse
settlements.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Laboratory Tests
Collapse Potential Test
This test method is in accordance with ASTM D 5333-92
(2000). It covers the determination of the magnitude of
one dimensional collapse that occurs when unsaturated
soil is inundated.
Sample Preparation
Soil specimen is fitted inside the oedometer ring by trimming. Any
gaps between the specimen and the oedometer ring are filled with
loose soil to the extent possible.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
9
30/05/1438

Laboratory Tests
Test Procedure
1. Specimen shall be placed in the loading device immediately
after determining the initial wet mass and height of the
specimen following trimming.
2. Specimen ring, filter paper, if any, and porous stones shall be

enclosed as soon as possible with a loose fitting plastic
membrane, moist paper towel, or aluminum foil to minimize
change in specimen water content and volume due to
evaporation.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Laboratory Tests
Test Procedure
3. A seating stress of 5 kPa is applied. Then, within 5 min, stress
increments (12, 25, 50, 100, 200) are applied each hour at
natural water content until the specified vertical stress of
inundation is applied to the soil. The deformation is recorded
before applying each stress increment. It should be noted that
the duration between stress increments prior to wetting is
limited to 1 h to prevent excessive evaporation of moisture
from the specimen that would lead to erratic results.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
10
30/05/1438

Laboratory Tests
Test Procedure
4. At the specified vertical stress (200 kPa), specimen is
loaded for 1 h. After deformation is recorded, specimen is
inundated with fluid from the bottom only so that air
would not be trapped in the specimen. Then, deformation
is recorded versus time at approximately 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2,
4, 8, 15, 30 min and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 h. The duration of the
stress increment following inundation shall be overnight or
until primary consolidation has been completed.
5. Additional vertical stress may be placed on the specimens

in increments as needed or until the slope of the
deformation versus stress level curve is obtained.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Laboratory Tests
Test Procedure
6. Plot e-log P curve.
7. Calculate the Collapse Potential (CP)
Applied
Vertical
200 kPa Stress, P
CP = ∆ec/(1+eo) (%)
eo
eo = void ratio at natural water content
∆ec = change in void ratio due to wetting
∆ec
CP (%) Severity of Collapse
0–1 Negligible
1–5 Moderate trouble
5 – 10 Trouble Void ratio, e
10 – 20 Severe trouble
> 20 Very severe trouble Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
11
30/05/1438

Laboratory Tests
Double Oedometer Test
Jennings and Knight (1975) proposed the following laboratory
procedure to estimate the collapse settlement of structures
upon saturation of soil:
1. Obtain two undisturbed soil specimens for tests in a
standard consolidation test apparatus (oedometer).
2. Place the two specimens under 1 kPa pressure for 24 hours.
3. After 24 hours, saturate one specimen by flooding. Keep the
other specimen at natural water content.
4. After 24 hours of flooding, resume the consolidation test for
both specimens by doubling the load (same procedure as
the standard consolidation test) to the desired pressure
level. Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Laboratory Tests
Applied
Vertical
po pc Po + ∆p Stress, P
e'o
∆e1 Sample at natural
moisture content
∆e2
Void ratio, e
Soaked specimen
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
12
30/05/1438

Laboratory Tests
5. Plot the e-log p graphs for both specimens.
6. Calculate the in situ effective pressure po. Draw a vertical
line corresponding to the pressure po.
7. From the e-log p curve of the soaked specimen, determine
the preconsolidation pressure pc.
8. Determine e’o, corresponding to po from the e-log p curve of
the soaked specimen.
9. Through point (po, e’o ) draw a curve that is similar to the e-
log p curve obtained from the specimen tested at natural
water content.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Laboratory Tests
10. Determine the incremental pressure ∆p on the soil caused
by the construction of the foundation. Draw a vertical line
corresponding to the pressure po + ∆p in the e-log p curve.
11. Determine ∆e1 and ∆e2. The settlement of soil without
change in the natural water content is:
Also, the settlement caused by collapse in the soil structure due

to wetting is:
H = thickness of soil susceptible to collapse

Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
13
30/05/1438
Field Tests
Plate Load Tests
SPT & CPT Tests
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Plate Load Test

Shallow foundations and embankments:
Bearing capacity.
Settlement magnitude and rate.
Subgrade modulus of founding soil.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
14
30/05/1438
Assessment of Collapsible Soil
Vertical Stress and Strain Vertical Stress and Strain for

for In situ Collapse Test Conventional Plate Load Test
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

A modeling law developed for noncollapsible, constant
water content soils would be expected to under predict
settlement.
The reason for the differences is that it is the strains

upon wetting that are of importance for collapsible soil
deposits.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
15
30/05/1438

The zone of influence for collapsible soils is the zone
of wetting, as depicted by the shaded zone.
The zone of influence for the conventional plate load

tests on constant water content soils is related to stress
rather than wetting.
A procedure is proposed by: Mahmoud, H., Houston, W., and Houston,

S.L. (1995). “Apparatus and procedure for an in-situ collapse test.”
ASTM Geot. Testing Journ., 121(4),341-349.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Procedure
1. Excavate a trench or test pit to the desired depth of
testing and provide a smooth flat surface for testing.
2. At a distance no less than (3D) from the intended test

location, excavate a shallow pit to a depth of 60.0 to
100.0 mm and a diameter of 1.5D for the preliminary
rate-of-infiltration test.
3. Measure the depth of the dry pit at the center by

placing a straight edge across the pit and measuring
down. Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
16
30/05/1438

Procedure
4. Fill the infiltration pit with water and note the time at
which wetting was commenced. Add water during
infiltration as needed to keep the bottom of the pit
covered.
5. After about 10 to 20 min of infiltration, remove most of

the excess water from the pit and quickly excavate at
the center of the pit to determine the depth of wetting.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Procedure
6. When the wetting front is located, use a straight edge
across the pit to measure down to the wetting front.
Subtract from this the original depth of the dry pit to
obtain the depth of wetting for the preliminary
infiltration test.
7. Cp (infiltration coefficient)is calculated.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
17
30/05/1438

Procedure
First, Cp is calculated:
0.5
C p = Z wy / T p
Zwy = depth of infiltration for the preliminary infiltration test

Cp = infiltration coefficient for the preliminary infiltration test
(mm/min0.5)
Tp = time duration of infiltration for the preliminary infiltration test (min)
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Procedure
Then, Zw is calculated:
0.5
Z i = C p .t
Zi = depth of infiltration (mm)

t = time duration of infiltration (min)
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
18
30/05/1438

Procedure
8. For the upcoming plate load test, choose the target
depth of infiltration Ztar equal to one half of the plate
diameter.
Z tar = 0.5D
9. Compute the target time of infiltration
ttar = ( Z tar .C p ) 2
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Procedure
10. Place the loading plate on a smooth flat surface and
twist and tap it lightly to seat it.
11. The plate is seated so that water can pass through the
infiltration holes in the plate to the soil below.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
19
30/05/1438

Procedure
12. Construct a berm that will hold water in preparation
for ponding. The outside diameter of the ponded water
should be about 1.5D.
13. Install the reference beam, displacement gauges,
loading jack, and reaction column.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Procedure
14. Apply a seating load of 3.0 to 8.0 kPa and zero the
displacement gauges.
15. Increase the load to 15.0 kPa. Wait 1 min and take
displacement readings.
16. Commence the wetting and note the time when

wetting was started. Attempt to maintain the water
level at 10.0 to 20.0 mm above the top of the plate.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
20
30/05/1438

Procedure
17. Continue wetting until ttar from Step 9 has elapsed.
18. Read the displacement gauges, note the time, increase

the load up to 40.0 kPa.
19. Wait ∆t minutes, read the displacement gauges, note

the time, increase the load to 100.0 kPa.
20. The time increment ∆t may be chosen as the larger of 2

min or 0.1 ttar.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Procedure
21. Repeat steps 18 and 19 for load of 200 kPa and 400 kPa.
22. Remove the load on the plate (and the plate), and
quickly excavate to determine the final depth Zwfinal.
23. Note the time tfinal when Zwfinal was measured.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
21
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
The raw data to be collected in the field are load on the
plate, settlement of the plate, time of readings, and final
depth of wetting.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Data Reduction
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
22
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
1. Column (1) describes what is being done and gives
meaning to the time column.
2. Column (2) indicates the time so that Zw can be

measured at the end of the test (Zwfinal) and then used to
estimate all intermediate values of Zw.
3. Column (3) is the elapsed time, which is set equal to

zero when ponding is commenced.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Data Reduction
4. Column (4) is the pressure reading on the jack.
5. Column (5) is the added load on the plate, which is

obtained from a calibration factor or calibration curve.
6. Column (6) is the total load on the plate and is

obtained by adding Column (5) to the weight (in kN)
of the jack and the loading plate.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
23
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
7. Column (7) is for the left and right displacement dial
gage readings.
8. Column (8) is for displacement ∆H for the left and

right gauges. They are obtained by subtracting the
initial gauge readings at seating load from each
subsequent reading.
9. Column (9) is the average ∆H value obtained by
averaging the ∆H values from the left and right
readings in Column (8).
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Data Reduction
10. Column (10) is computed as follows:
First, Citest is computed:
Z wfinal = Citest (ttar ) 0.5

Citest = Z wfinal /(ttar ) 0.5 = 300 /(75) 0.5 = 34.6 mm / min 0.5
Then, Citest is used to compute Zw at all intermediate times. For

example, when the time is 1410 and t = 60 min
Z wfinal = Citest (ttar ) 0.5 = 34.6.(60) 0.5 = 268.0 mm

Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
24
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
11. Column (11) is computed by dividing Column (10) by
the plate diameter D, which is 450.0 mm in the
example.
12. Column (12) is obtained by entering the following
chart with Zw/D from Column (11).
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Data Reduction
This chart is used to get influence factors IF and IS which are
F S
multiplied times the plate contact stress q to obtain the average

con
stress within the wetting zone q . Due to the stress

ave
redistributions that occur during wetting, the influence factor for

the first load increment IF is higher than the influence factor for
F
all subsequent load increments IS.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
25
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
The first load increment is distinguished by the fact that the
applied load remains constant while the wetting front advances.
The vertical stress at each point experiences its maximum stress
(while wet) just as the wetting front passes the point, then the
stress falls off. The influence factor IF reflects the weighted
average value of all these maxima within the wetted zone. By
contrast, for subsequent loadings, the position of the wetted front
changes only slightly and the applied load changes dramatically,
typically being doubled or tripled for each increment. The IS curve
is appropriate for this case.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring

Data Reduction
13. Column (13) is obtained by dividing the total load on
the plate, Column (6), by the plate area, which is 0.159
m2 for this example.
14. Column (14), qave is obtained by multiplying the
influence factor IF or IS from Column (12) by qcon,
Column (13).
15. Column (15), is calculated by dividing ∆Have, Column
αve
(9), by Zw, Column (10), and multiplying by 100 to

obtain percentage.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
26
30/05/1438

Data Reduction
16. Plot Columns (14) and (15) as in Figure below, where
data from the example are labeled Test 1. Either
arithmetic or semi log plots can be used. However,
neither is a consistently straight line and both are
acceptable and usable.
17. Plot the results for all other tests on the same diagram.
A second test, Test 2, is shown as another example.
Obtain the average of all tests and then sketch a
“design curve”.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring

Data Reduction
18. The design curve is a curve about halfway between the
average and the most compressive curve (Test 1) as
shown.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
27
30/05/1438
Collapse Trigger
There are four types of wetting that can trigger the collapse
of soil:
1. Local (Shallow) wetting: wetting of a random nature
caused by water source from pipelines or uncontrolled
drainage of surface water; no rise in groundwater level;
settlement occurs in upper soil layer within wetted area.
2. Intense local wetting: intense deep, local wetting caused
by discharge of deep industrial effluent, leaking
underground utility lines, or irrigation. Flow rates are
sufficient to cause a continuous rise in groundwater level
may saturate the entire zone of collapsible soil within short
time and cause uneven and damaging settlement under
existing structural loads or only the soil weight.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
Collapse Trigger
There are four types of wetting that can trigger the collapse
of soil.
3. Slow uniform rise in ground water: from sources outside
of the collapsible soil area will cause uniform and gradual
settlement.
4. Slow increase in water content: from steam condensation

or reduction in evaporation from the ground surface
following placement of concrete or asphalt will cause
incomplete settlement.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
28
30/05/1438
SPT & CPT Tests

The standard penetration test (SPT) N values and cone
penetration test (CPT) results have been used extensively
to estimate relative density, bearing capacity, permissible
soil pressures for a specified settlement, angle of shearing
resistance, modulus of compressibility, and many other soil
parameters.
Due to the relative simplicity of these tests and the

availability of such correlations, the SPT and CPT are
widely used, and in many cases are the only tests used to
determine soil properties.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
SPT & CPT Tests

They are not adequate to determine the susceptibility to
collapse of soils. For example, the N-SPT values are directly
related to the moisture content of collapsible loess soils,
and can be correlated to the shear strength values
corresponding to the moisture content at the time the SPT
is conducted.
The use of these tests to determine bearing capacities for

collapsible soils is of very limited significance, and in most
cases may give values much higher than the safe ones for
wetting conditions, since normally these soils have a low
natural moisture content.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
29
30/05/1438
Site Exploration
1. Open Pits
2. Borings
3. Sampling
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Open Pits
It is advantageous to inspect the collapsible formations in
their natural state. This may be done by excavating open
pits and large diameter shafts. (up to 15 m)
In general, it is not economical to conduct a full
exploration program by such means, but direct inspection
of an extremely variable deposit, as in most collapsible
formations, may furnish a more valid impression of its
nature than can be obtained from many borings.
Such openings provide a means for obtaining hand carved
undisturbed samples and are essential for performing load
tests.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
30
30/05/1438
Borings
The method most suitable under a wide variety of
conditions consists of drilling holes into the ground and
extracting samples for identification and for testing.
Conventional methods, preferably rotary drilling or core
drilling, are commonly employed.
However, drilling fluid is not allowed since it alters the
character of the collapsing soil.
Air jet instead is used to remove the cuttings from the drill
hole and to cool the rotary bits.
Double tube core barrel or even triple tube core barrel is
highly recommended.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
Sampling
Undisturbed samples should be taken to accurately
determine the in situ density.
The main goal of any sampling technique is to obtain

samples with minimum disturbance. The degree of
disturbance depends on the manner in which the sampler
is forced into the soil and on the dimensions of the
sampler.
The greatest disturbance is caused by driving the sampler

into the soil by successive blows of a hammer.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
31
30/05/1438
Sampling
The best results can be obtained if the sampler is pushed
into the ground at a high and constant speed. The degree of
disturbance depends on the area ratio, which should not
exceed about 20% if disturbance is to be nominal.
Disturbance may occur not only during the actual
sampling, but also before and after, such as during
trimming.
Block sampling and thin-walled tube sampling are
considered the most common types of undisturbed
sampling for collapsing soils.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Sampling
1. Block Sampling
A block or chunk of partially cemented soil can be obtained

by isolating a column of soil.
This is achieved by trimming the outside of the walls of a sure
open box, and pushing the box slightly downward as
trimming proceeds to contain a soil column.
The box, with undisturbed soil inside, is removed by first
trimming the bottom of the soil block.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
32
30/05/1438
Sampling
1. Block Sampling
The voids, if any, between the sample and the box walls are
typically filled with paraffin or sand. Then the box is covered
and sealed in a plastic bag.
Block sampling is considered to be the best method for
obtaining large undisturbed samples of very stiff and brittle
soils, partially cemented soils, and soils containing coarse
gravel and stones.
In general, this method can be used in all soils except when
cohesion is so small that a soil column cannot be obtained.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Sampling
2. Thin walled Tube Sampling by
Hammering
A drive tube sampler is forced into the
soil by repeated blows of a drop
hammer.
Thin-walled tubes have area ratios of

about 10 to 14%. The motion of the
sampler is intermittent and fast in a
downward direction.
Vibrations due to hammering may

disturb cohesionless soil and slightly
cemented soil. Dr. Asmaa Moddather
– Spring
33
30/05/1438
Sampling
2. Thin walled Tube Sampling by Hammering
As the sampler is driven, the soil under the sampler lower
edge is compressed and displaced due to bearing capacity
failure. Accordingly, thinner walls result in
lesser disturbance due to soil replacement.
The effect of this disturbance

decreases for cemented collapsible soils
as a result of their highly compressive
nature.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
Sampling
3. Thin walled Tube Sampling by Pushing
The tube sampler is pushed into the soil by a steady force so
that the tube motion is continuous and uniform.
As with hammered tube sampling, the pushed sampling tube
is forced into the soil without rotation, chopping action, or
removing the soil displaced by the walls of the sampler. The
soil is pushed aside, with sequential stress changes and plastic
deformations in the surrounding soil.
The extent of such deformations is variable, depending on
soil type, and may be least severe for compressive collapsible
soils.
Dr. Asmaa Moddather

– Spring
34

Collapsible Soil - Part II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collapsible Soil - Part II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

30/05/1438

Collapsible Criteria based on Simple

Most of these criteria determine the critical condition of

These correlations are not universal. Each

Collapsible Criteria based on

Low in plasticity with liquid limits below 45%, plasticity

indices below 25%.

Relatively low dry densities between 10.0 and 16.5 kN/m3.

Porosity of 40% to 60%.

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

12.6 ≤ γd ≤ 14.0 kN/m3 : soil may be collapsible

γd ≥ 14.0 kN/m3 : soil is not likely to be collapsible

: soil is likely to be highly collapsible

Collapsible Criteria based on

Fine gravel : 6 – 10%

Fine silty sand : 50 – 60%

Clayey silt : 90 – 95%

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

: 16 – 24% : probability of collapse

: 24 – 32% : less than 50% probability of collapse

: > 32% : usually safe from collapse

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Soviet Building Code

For S < 60%, if L > -0.1; a soil is susceptible to collapse.

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Case I: w at S = 100% > wL

Case II: w at S = 100% = wL

Case III: w at S = 100% < wL

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

For S < 100%, n > 40%: if KL > 0.85; a soil is susceptible to

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Proposed a critical void ratio (ec) as follows:

A soil is susceptible to collapse if eo > ec

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

γd (kN/m3) ≤ 25.5/(1 + 0.026 wL)

Austerlitz et al. (1983)

γd / γdL > 1.1

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

“A soil that undergoes an appreciable amount of

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

‘‘…..a state of underconsolidation related to apparent

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

A one dimensional response-to-wetting test performed

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

The advantage of this simple laboratory test is that the test

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

Dr. Asmaa Moddather

Collapsible Criteria based on

2. Specimen ring, filter paper, if any, and porous stones shall be