248 Chapter 6 · ·.· Hydrostatic Water in Soils .

and Rocks

investigated further for their collapse potential. The lower curve is for soils with a specific gravity Gs of
2.60 and the upper curve is for Gs =. 2.70.
Collapse potential of a natural soil can be determined by aASTM (2010) sta!Jdard D 5333, which
is fundamentally the same as the one-dimensional swell test D4829 described in Sec..6.5.2. However, in
the case of the collapse potential test, an undisturbed soil sample at its natural water content is placed in
the consolidometer ring (Chapter 8), and vertical stress increments are applied' each hour until the .
design stress is achieved. Then the specimen is flooded with water, and the reduction in specimen height
is measured (versus the increase in height that occurs in the swelling test). The collapse potential, Ic(%),
is simply the percent strain at the stress level tested, or sometimes the collapse index is used, which is
defined. as the relative magnitude of strain at 200 kPa. The collapse index can be ·correlated to the
·· degree of specimen collapse, as given in Table 6.4. Another way to identify collapsible soils is by the fall
cone test (Ayadat and Hanna, 2007). ·
An extensive review of the identification and treatment of collapsible·soils is given by Dudley
(1970) and by Houston and Houston (1989). El-Ehwany and Houston (1990) provide recommendations
. •for site investigations for collapsible soil deposits. Bara (1978) also summarizes some of the methods for
predicting the decrease in void ratio upon wetting, as do Clemence an·d Finbarr (1981) and Houston
et aL (1988). A useful case history involving the prediction of a collapsible compacted fill is given by
Kropp et al. (1994) and by Noorany and Stanley (1994). ··. · ·, · • . ·•
If a site is id~ntified that has significant collapse potential, what can engineers do to improve the
soils at the site and reduce the impact of potential collapse? Choice of method depends on depth of
treatment required and the nature of the cementation or bonding between soils grains. For modest
depths, compacting·with rollers, inundation, or overexcavation and recompaction, sometimes with
chemical stabilization, are often used; Dynamic compaction (Sec. 5.5.2) would also be feasible. For
deeper deposits, ponding or flooding is effective arid often the most economical treatment method
(Bara, 1978). Depending on the nature of the bonding between soil grains, inundation can result in a
compression of up to 8% or 10% of the thickness of the collapsible soil layer. Dynamic compaction,
blasting, vibro compaction~replacement, and grouting are potentially feasible improvement tech-
niques. Much of this work is summarized by Holtz (1989) and Holtz et al. (2001); · · ! ·

Another geohazard is subsidence, which can result in major damage to structures and other infra-
structure at or near the ground surface. One important type of subsidence occurs on karst terrain, and
·you may recall from Sec. 3.3.2 that karstic features are associated with limestone bedrock. Underground
solution cavities can collapse and cause large sinkholes in built-up areas that can be very destructive to
surface structures. Karst terrain presents complex and challenging problems in site exploration, founda-
tion design and construction, and for the remediation of damaged existing 'structures (Sitar, 1988; Sowers,
·1996). Another source of subsidence is the collapse of abandoned underground mines.
Regional subsidence due to compaction of unconsolidated sediments caused by withdrawal of
underground fluids (water, oil, and gas) can be very detrimental to structures and other infrastructure
at the surface. Mexico City is the classic case in geotechnical engineering because large areas of the city
have settled more than 10 m due to pumping of groundwater from an aquifer found conveniently

TABLE 6.4 Classification of Collap.se Index (ASTM, 2010)

· Collapse Index Degree of Specimen Collapse

0 None
· 0.1 to2.0 · Slight
2.1 to 6.0 ·Moderate
6.1 to 10.0 Moderately severe
' ' '>10 Severe