See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285940352

Foundations on collapsible soils: A review

Article · May 2013

DOI: 10.1680/feng.12.00016

CITATIONS READS

7 3,520

1 author:

Behzad Kalantari
University of Hormozgan
47 PUBLICATIONS   209 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Embankment Dams View project

Undrained behavior of clay-sand mixture with a large number of cycles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Behzad Kalantari on 03 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Forensic Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Forensic Engineering 166 May 2013 Issue FE2
Volume 166 Issue FE2 Pages 57–63 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/feng.12.00016
Foundations on collapsible soils: a review Paper 1200016
Received 04/07/2012 Accepted 09/11/2012
Kalantari Keywords: geotechnical engineering/reviews

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Foundations on collapsible soils:

a review
Behzad Kalantari PhD
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Hormozgan,
Bandar Abbas, Hormozgan, Iran

This paper describes studies done by various researchers on one form of problematic soils that are not suitable to be
used as foundation subsoil. Methods to identify these soils are provided, and various methods suggested for the
design of proper foundations to combat their detrimental effects. These types of soils are commonly termed
‘collapsible’. Collapsible soils are moisture sensitive in that an increase in moisture content is the primary triggering
mechanism for their volume reduction (compression). These weak soils usually have low dry densities and can be
identified with various types of laboratory and field tests. Because of their very low bearing capacity (when wetted)
they are not considered for any types of foundations or pavements in their original or natural conditions. Their load-
bearing capacity can be improved by various measures, such as the use of sufficiently strong footings that will remain
undamaged in spite of possible differential settlements, or by transmitting the structural loads to a deeper and
stronger soil layer by means of various types of piles. Also, whenever feasible, the weak soil should be treated with
cementing agents such as Portland cement, or preloading techniques should be used to strengthen the collapsing soils
and carry the actual loads further.

1. Introduction 2001). The amount of collapse or settlement is usually a

Collapsible soils are considered to be one of the problematic
soils, alongside other problematic foundation materials such as
expansive soils or peat. There are several types of soils that can
experience collapse under moisture intrusions. Wind-blown
sand, loess or alluvial deposits are examples of collapsible soils,
which are usually deposited in arid or semi-arid environments,
where evaporation of soil moisture takes place at such a rapid
rate that the deposits do not have time to consolidate under
their self-weight, or where the deposits are cemented by
precipitated salts (Pye and Tsoar, 1990). Typically, the
structure of collapsible soils is flocculated and the soil particles
are held together by ‘clay bridges’ or some other cementing
agent such as calcium carbonate (US Department of
Transportation, 2006).
In general, collapsible soils undergo sudden changes in volume
and collapse when their moisture contents increase with or
without loading; this occurs as soon as their saturation degree
reaches above 50% and full saturation may not be required for
them to collapse (Abbeche et al., 2010). Almost all naturally
occurring collapsible soil deposits are either debris flow
deposits or wind deposits (loess). Debris flows are at low
density, but are relatively stiff and strong in their natural dry
state. Cementation consists of dried clay and other chemical
precipitates that may have been added after deposition.
Wetting under load weakens the cementation, reduces the soil
suction and causes desiccation or collapse (Houston et al.,
function of different parameters, including soil particles,
permeability, degree of saturation, initial void ratio, over-
consolidation ratio (OCR) and thickness of the collapsible
layer.
Collapsing soils of the loessial type are reported to exist in
several parts of the world, such as the USA, Central and South
America, China, Africa, Russia, India and the Middle East
(Murthy, 2010).
In practice, when working with collapsible soils geotechnical
engineers are faced with several considerable challenges. These
include (Houston et al., 2001)
(a) identification and characterisation of collapsible soil sites
(b) estimation of the extent and degree of wetting
(c) estimation of collapse strains and collapse settlements
(d) selection of design and mitigation alternatives.
The following sections describe and discuss these challenges in
more detail.
2. Causes of collapse
Collapsible soils such as loess sands consist primarily of silt-
sized particles loosely arranged in a cemented honeycombed
structure (Figure 1). The loose structure is held together by
small amounts of water-softening or water-soluble cementing

57
Forensic Engineering Foundations on collapsible
Volume 166 Issue FE2 soils: a review
Kalantari

the water wets the contacts between soil particles and allows
them to slip past each other to become more tightly packed.
Other terms for collapsible soils are ‘hydro-compactive soils’,
‘hydro-collapse soils’, or ‘hydro-consolidation soils’ because
their volumes are reduced after water is added (Lawton et al.,
1992; Love, 2008).

3. Prediction of collapse and settlement

(a) Dry soil with honeycombed (b) Soil structure after inundation In general, collapsible soils are loose but stable, with contact
structure before inundation
points well cemented, but with a water-soluble bonding agent,
so that certain conditions of load plus wetting produce a
Figure 1. Loaded hydro-collapsible soil before (a) and after (b)
collapse of the soil structure with a resulting large settlement.
inundation with water

Houston et al. (2001) define collapsible soils as moisture

agents such as clay minerals and calcium carbonate. The
introduction of water dissolves or softens the bonds between
the silt particles and allows them to take a denser packing
under any type of compressive loading (Lawton et al., 1992).
Noutash et al. (2010) presents some of the most common
features that collapsible soils share. These features are helpful
to understand the causes of collapsing soils and include the
following characteristics
& loose, cemented deposits
& naturally quite dry
& open structure
& high void ratio
& low dry density
& high porosity
& geologically younger, recently altered deposit
& high sensitivity
& low inter-particle bond strength
Based on research done by Barden et al. (1973), four factors
are needed to produce collapse in a soil structure
sensitive. Based on their reported research, as moisture content
of collapsible soils is increased, their deformations or settle-
ments increase. Also, because these types of soils have free
access water sources they undergo collapse settlements.
Houston et al. (2001) investigated settlement amounts for
partial to full wettings of three types of collapsible soils (1, 2
and 3) by measuring their collapse strains. Their findings are
shown in Figure 2 and indicate that vertical deformations for
all three samples depend directly on the saturation degree for
each sample (more moisture content causes greater settlement).
Also, Figure 2 shows that when all three collapsible soil
samples are close to their full saturation degree (100%), their
maximum collapse strain (partial wetting collapse/full collapse)
or failure conditions are reached.
Murthy (2010) indicates that the amount of collapse for
collapsible soils is a function of the relative proportions of each
component, including degree of saturation, initial void ratio,
stress history of the materials, thickness of the collapsible
strata and the amount of added load.
100
90
:%

(a) an open, partially unstable, unsaturated fabric 80

Partial wetting collapse

(b) a sufficiently high net total stress that stabilises the soil in 70
Sample 1
the unsaturated condition 60
Full collapse

Sample 2
50
(c) a bonding or cementing agent that stabilises the soil in the Sample 3
40
unsaturated condition
30
(d) the addition of water to the soil, which causes the
20
bounding or cementing agent to be reduced and the 10
intergranular contacts to fail in shear, resulting in a 0
reduction in total volume of the soil mass. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Degree of saturation: %
Collapsible soils are soils that compact and collapse after they
get wet. The soil particles are originally loosely packed and Figure 2. Partial collapse owing to partial wetting – curves for
barely touch each other before moisture soaks into the ground. three types of collapsible soils (Houston et al., 2001)
As water is added to the soil in quantity and moves downward,

58
Forensic Engineering Foundations on collapsible
Volume 166 Issue FE2 soils: a review
Kalantari

Holtz and Hilf (1961) suggest that the density of collapsible

soils together with their liquid limits (LL) may be used to
estimate collapse potential. They provide a chart to evaluate
collapsibility of various types of soils (Figure 3). The chart
indicates that soils which plot above the line shown in the
figure are susceptible to collapse upon wetting, and as their dry

Void ratio, e
densities decrease, the severity of collapsibility increases. This
is also confirmed by Basma and Kallas (2004). ∆ec

Another procedure consisting of a laboratory method to

estimate the magnitude of collapse potential of a soil was
suggested by Jennings and Knight (1975). In this method, a
sample of an undisturbed soil is cut and fit into a consolidometer
ring and loads are applied progressively until about 200 kPa is
reached. At this pressure the specimen is flooded with water for
Pressure p log p
complete saturation and left for 24 h. The consolidation test is
carried on to its maximum loading. The resulting e–log p curve
plotted from the data obtained is shown in Figure 4. The
Figure 4. Typical collapse potential test result (Murthy, 2010)
collapse potential or Cp is then expressed as

1. Cp ~Dec =ð1ze0 Þ
in void ratio or Dec in Equation 1 is not only caused by collapse
where Dec is the change in void ratio upon wetting and e0 is the but also by creep effect. Basically, it is somehow complicated to
initial or natural void ratio of the soil. The amount of change separate collapse effect from creep since both could occur
almost simultaneously, with soil collapsing under the imposed
7.9 load causing the creep effect to occur at the same time. Table 1
provides a relative indication of the degree of severity for
various values of collapse potential.
Soils have been
observed to collapse
Moghadam et al. (2006) present a chart showing relations
between dry unit weight and percentage finer than 0?075 mm
(sieve no. 200) to evaluate the collapse potential of various
types of soils, as shown in Figure 5.
Dry unit weight: kN/m3

Also, Yuanqing and Zhenghan (2009) used a laboratory

12.3 triaxial collapsible testing procedure on various undisturbed,
collapsible soil (loess) samples using a newly developed triaxial
Gs = 2.7
19
Dry unit weight: kN/m3

18 Low to
no collapse potential
17
Gs = 2.6 Soils have not 16
generally been Moderate to
observed to 15 high collapse potential
collapse 14
13
17.3 12
0 20 40 60 80 100
10 20 30 40 50
Passing sieve no. 200: %
Liquid limit: %

Figure 5. Dry unit weight plotted against percentage passing sieve

Figure 3. Identifying collapsible and non-collapsible soils (Holts and no. 200 to characterise collapse potential of soils (Moghadam
Hilf, 1961), Gs, specific gravity of soil material et al., 2006)

59
Forensic Engineering
Volume 166 Issue FE2
Cp Severity of problem
0 None
0?1–2% Slight
2?1–6% Moderate
6?1–10% Moderately severe
. 10% Severe
Table 1. Qualitative assessment of soil collapse potential or Cp
(US Department of Transportation, 2006)
apparatus with controlled suction. They successfully used this
test to measure and analyse the collapse behaviour (deviations
in axial and volumetric strain) of loess sand.
Field testing may frequently also be used to characterise and
identify soil collapse potential, in addition to those laboratory
tests already mentioned. Field tests normally consist of some
type of plate load test, wherein water is introduced to load the
soil. Typically, the load and displacement relationship is
obtained for analysis in these types of test (Houston et al.,
2001; Noutash et al., 2010).
A report by Rezaei et al. (2012) states that identification of
collapsible soil is best accomplished by testing soil specimens.
However, geological and geomorphological information can be
useful in anticipating collapsible soil deposits, and it is
suggested that a soil’s dry density as well as liquid limit should
be checked to indicate collapse potential. They also believe that
geotechnical and geological engineers know from experience
that alluvial and wind-blown deposits in arid regions are likely
to exhibit some collapse potential.
4. Problems associated with collapsible soils
Foundations for different structures or pavements constructed
on collapsible soils may experience sudden and large amounts
of settlement. These deformations are caused when the
foundation subsoil is saturated from various types of water
intrusions, such as leakage from broken pipe lines, sewer lines,
pools and basins, as well as water from runoff or irrigations.
Settlements of foundations cause varying degrees of damage to
structures founded on collapsing soils – from negligible to very
severe. Table 2 classifies these damages based in part on the
ease of repair of the damage, and also provides a refined
framework for the evaluation of damage.
Collapsible soils do not only cause buildings founded on them to
be damaged through settlement, but in many cases these types of
problematic soil cause pavements constructed on them to be
damaged because of unexpected settlements as well. Related
research studies carried out by Aiban (1994), Aiban et al. (1995),
Al-abdul wahhab and Rahmadhan (1990), Al-amoudi (1994),
60
Foundations on collapsible
soils: a review
Kalantari
Al-amoudi et al. (1991), Farawan and Majidzadeh (1988) and
Moosavi and Kalantari (2011) provide a list of associated
problems with pavements where collapsing soils exist; these
include
& the formation of depressions and settlements
& the higher collapse potential of collapsible soils owing to
the high salt content
& variability in strength and compressibility leading to
differential settlement
& sand movement causing abrasion to existing structures
and blockage of some streets and highways.
The mechanism of wetting from downward infiltration is more
likely to result in a shallow depth of wetting than wetting to
great depth. The probability of relatively shallow partial
wetting from sources such as landscape irrigation and broken
pipelines is very high. Also, increased infiltration due to
urbanisation can effectively change an arid or semi-arid climate
into a humid climate.
In an actual field example and in connection with a forensic
investigation in San Diego, California, the annual precipitation
was about 30 cm before a residential subdivision was built, but
about 170 cm (counting landscape irrigation) after it was built.
This change in the effective precipitation level resulted in
substantial settlements of the underlying compacted fill.
Although this subdivision was set in a generally semi-arid
region, the lawns were spongy to walk on and the street side
curbs had moss growing on them as a result of heavy landscape
watering. In another example, in semi-arid New Mexico, a
commercial building won an award from the city for the year’s
most beautiful lawn and landscaping. However, they also
suffered about US$0?5 million dollars in foundation damage
owing to differential settlement, having wetted the collapsible
foundation soils to a depth of 15 m in some locations (Houston
et al., 2001).
Also, a report from Noutash et al. (2010), with respect to the
impounding of Khoda Afarin canal located in northern Iran to
mitigate existing collapse potential in the area, indicates that
large cracks occurred on both sides of the canal’s berms after
the mentioned pretreatment technique was completed
(Figure 6).
5. Types of foundations on collapsible soils
In general, with regard to collapse potential and type of
structural loading, the design engineer may consider various
types of foundations in order to carry loads safely. Carrying
loads safely for a foundation means that no shear failure or
excessive settlement (more than permissible) occurs during and
after construction, or during the service life of the project.
Sometimes, to design a proper foundation on collapsible soils
Forensic Engineering Foundations on collapsible
Volume 166 Issue FE2 soils: a review
Kalantari

Class of
damage Description of damage Approximate width of cracks: mm

Negligible Hairline cracks , 0?1

Very slight Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps isolated ,1
slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior brickwork visible upon close
inspection
Slight Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight ,5
fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repainting may
be required for weather tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly
Moderate Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be 5–15 or several cracks . 3 mm
masked by suitable lining. Tuck pointing and possible replacement of a
small amount of exterior brick work may be required. Doors and windows
sticking. Weather tightness often impaired
Severe Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of sections of wall, 15–25
especially over doors and windows. Windows and door frames distorted,
floor slopes noticeably, some loss of bearing in beams. Utilities service
disrupted
Very severe Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Beams . 25
lose bearing, walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows broken by
distortion. Danger of instability

Table 2. Classification of visible structural damages on foundations

(Boscardin and Cording, 1989)

may be a difficult task. This is because the foundation subsoil
is subjected to sudden settlement without any prior indication
of failure. In many cases, when the subsoil foundation is found
to be collapsible, deep foundations such as piles or piers may
be used to transmit foundation loads to deeper bearing strata
below the collapsible soil deposit (Figure 7). Also, in cases
where it is feasible to support the structure’s shallow
foundation in or above the collapsible soils, a continuous strip
footing may provide a more economical and safer foundation
than isolated footings. Differential settlement between columns
can be minimised and a more equitable distribution of stresses
may be achieved with the use of strip footing design as shown
in Figure 8 (Clemence and Finbarr, 1981).
On some sites, it may be feasible to apply a pretreatment
technique either to stabilise the collapsible soil or cause collapse
of the soil deposit prior to construction of a specific structure. A
great variety of treatment methods have been used in the past.
Moistening and compaction techniques, with either conven-
tional impact or vibratory rollers, may be used for shallow
depths up to about 1?5 m. For greater depths, vibroflotation,
stone columns may be tried. Chemical stabilisation using
sodium silicate and injection of carbon dioxide is also considered
to be an alternative to treat collapsible soil (Murthy, 2010).
one of the most effective means to reduce deformations of
collapsing soils. Saturation of the soil, in combination with
dynamic compaction, offers the potential to increase compac-
tion efficiency and uniformity. Also, preloading the collapsible
soil while saturating it prior to project construction causes the
weak soil to experience its maximum settlements under
preloading conditions, and thus it is capable of carrying the
imposed loads safely according to designed loads after removal
of the preloads.
Bowles (1988) provides three general and practical methods to
combat the collapsing potential of soil. These are
(a) compaction (excavation and replacement) of the soil to
cdry > about 15?5 kN/m3
(b) use of different types of admixture such as Portland
cement during compaction
(c) use of piles through the collapsible soils to a more
competent underlying stratum.
The first and second methods are usually considered when
construction of pavements is the main concern, whereas the
third method is recommended for various types of civil
engineering structural construction projects.

Based on studies reported by Murthy (2010), deep dynamic Partoo and Kalantari (2011) used Portland cement (method 2)
compaction (DDC) of the collapsible soil in the field provides along with polypropylene fibres to stabilise collapsible soil

61
Forensic Engineering
Volume 166 Issue FE2
Figure 6. Examples of cracks attributable to pretreatment
(impounding) of the Khoda Afarin canal to mitigate existing
collapse potential (Noutash et al., 2001)
(windblown sand) and improved the original strength of this
collapsible soil significantly. Their research showed that the use
of polypropylene fibres in the mixture enabled a considerable
amount of cementing agent to be saved in the process. The
treatment of weak soil in the field with various types of
admixtures should always be examined in the laboratory first.
6. Conclusion
Collapsible soils are those that appear to be strong and stable
in their natural (dry) state, but which rapidly consolidate under
wetting, generating large and often unexpected settlements.
Collapsible soils exist worldwide, and particularly in arid and
Collapsible soil
Stable strata
Figure 7. Deep foundations used to pass loads through collapsible
soils and into strong soil layers or rock
62
Foundations on collapsible
soils: a review
Kalantari
Load-bearing
beams
Figure 8. Continuous footing design with load-bearing beams for
collapsible soil (Clemence and Finbarr, 1981)
semi-arid regions. Foundations as well as pavements con-
structed on collapsing soils may cause any structures founded
on them to incur severe damage, and as a result their safety
becomes uncertain. These types of soils are easily identifiable
from non-collapsible soils using simple field and laboratory
tests, such as natural dry density, oedometer, sieve analysis,
and liquid limit.
After a subsoil foundation has been identified as having
collapse potential, a proper foundation must be designed that
can either withstand (using sufficiently strong strip footings),
or not be effected by (using deep foundations), soil collapse or
excessive settlement. Also, where road construction involves
subgrade soil that may be collapsible, weak soil can be
improved by various types of admixtures such as Portland
cements or it can be replaced or mixed with a better quality
soil. Another method to improve load-bearing capacity of
collapsible soils is to preload them with a total load of more
than the expected actual imposed loads, while saturating the
weak soil during the preloading process. Overall, to achieve
safe and economically feasible foundation types on collapsible
soils, the most influential factors to be considered include field
observation and laboratory tests to determine the soil’s actual
collapse potential, the load intensity of the civil engineering
project – which determines whether shallow or deep founda-
tions (or a combination of both) should be used – and also the
cost–benefit ratio (C/B) of the alternative design.
REFERENCES
Abbeche K, Bahloul O, Ayadat T and Bahloul A (2010) Treatment
of collapsible soils by salts using the double consolidation
method. Proceedings of International Conference
GeoShanghai, Shanghai, China. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA.
Aiban SA (1994) A study of sand stabilization in eastern Saudi
Arabia. Engineering Geology 38(1–2): 65–79.
Aiban SA, Al-abdul wahhab HI and Al-amoudi OSB (1995)
Identification, Evaluation and Improvement of Eastern Saudi
 Forensic Engineering
Volume 166 Issue FE2
Soils for Constructional Purposes. King Abdulaziz City for
Science and Technology (KACST AR-14-16), Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, progress report no. 2.
Al-abdul wahhab HI and Ramadhan R (1990) Prediction of
pavement rutting in the eastern Saudi Arabia. Arabian
Journal of Science and Engineering 15(3): 385–402.
Al-amoudi OSB (1994) Chemical stabilization of soils at high
moisture content. Engineering Geology 36(3–4): 279–291.
Al-amoudi OSB, Abduljauwad SN, El-Naggar ZR and Safar MM
(1991) Geotechnical considerations on field and laboratory
testing of Sabkha. Proceedings of the Symposium on Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering III, Singapore, vol. 1.
Barden L, McGown A and Collins K (1973) The collapse mechanism
in partly saturated soil. Engineering Geology 7: 49–60.
Basma AA and Kallas A (2004) Modeling soil collapse by
artificial neural networks. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 22(3): 491–504.
Boscardin DM and Cording JE (1989) Building response to
excavation – induced settlement. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 115(1): 1–21.
Bowles JE (1988) Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th edn.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Clemence SP and Finbarr AO (1981) Design considerations for
collapsible soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
107(3): 301–305.
Farawan TA and Majidzadeh K (1988) An investigation into the
use of emulsified asphalt in the stabilization of sandy
Sabkha. Proceedings of the 3rd IRF Middle East Regional
Meeting, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, vol. 1.3.
Holtz WG and Hilf JW (1961) Settlement of soil foundation due
to saturation. Proceedings of the 5th International SMFE,
Paris, France, vol. 1.
Houston SL, Houston WN, Zapata CE and Lawrence C (2001)
Geotechnical engineering practice for collapsible soils.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 19: 333–355.
Jennings JE and Knight K (1975) A guide to construction on or
with materials exhibiting additional settlement due to
collapse of grain structure. Proceedings of the 6th Regional
View publication stats
Foundations on collapsible
soils: a review
Kalantari
Conference for Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Durban, South Africa.
Lawton EC, Fragaszy RJ and Hetherington MD (1992) Review of
wetting-induced collapse in compacted soil. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 118(9): 1376–1394.
Love WD (2008) What Decision Makers Should Know About
Soils in New Mexico. Bureau of Geology and Mineral
Researches (NMBGMR), Socorro, NM, USA.
Moghadam MJ, Moghadam HA and Rahmannejad R (2006)
Urban tunneling in collapsible soil (case study: the Kerman
Metro). Proceedings of the National Conference on
Retrofitting of Iran, Tabriz, Iran.
Moosavi K and Kalantari B (2011) A study on wind-blown sand
stabilization in Hormozgan. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 16: 1253–1265.
Murthy VNS (2010) Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, India.
Noutash MK, Hajialilue BM and Cheshmdoost M (2010)
Prepounding of canals as a remediation method for
collapsible soils. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Geotechnical Engineering and Soil
Mechanics, Tehran, Iran.
Partoo P and Kalantari B (2011) Laboratory investigation on the
effect of polypropylene fibres on the California bearing
ratio of stabilized windblown sand. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 16: 1369–1380.
Pye K and Tsoar H (1990) Aeolian Sand and Sand Dunes. Unwin
Hyman, London, UK.
Rezaei M, Ajalloeian R and Ghafoori M (2012) Geotechnical
properties of problematic soils: emphasis on collapsible
cases. International Journal of Geosciences 3: 105–110.
US Department of Transportation (2006) Soil and Foundation,
Reference Manual. US Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, USA, vol. I, publication no. FHWA
NHI-06-088, section 5-21.
Yuanqing Z and Zhenghan C (2009) A new method of studying
collapsibility of loess. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil
Engineering 3(3): 305–311.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
63