Alexandria Engineering Journal (2018) 57, 3737–3745

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Treatment of collapsible soils by mixing with iron

powder
A.A. AlShaba, T.M. Abdelaziz *, A.M. Ragheb

Department of Construction and Building Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology,

Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Egypt

Received 12 August 2017; accepted 24 July 2018

Available online 6 December 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract Collapsible soils are meta-stable soils which present a potential for a large deformation
Treatment of collapsible and a complete change to the whole particle structure after wetting, with or without loading. Such
soils; soils can show high apparent strength in its natural state but collapse takes place as the bonds
Experimental study; between grains break down when the soil is wetted or loaded. There are several techniques for treat-
Iron powder; ment of collapsible soils such as chemical stabilization and dry mixing the soil with other material/-
Reduction ratio; materials which improve the soil’s mechanical properties. This paper discusses a new proposed
Soils suction technique for treating the collapsible soils by dry mixing with iron powder in a specified percentage
proportional to the weight (Ad). Experimental tests program was performed on collapsible soils
with/without the addition of iron powder. The analysis of results showed the effect of the initial unit
weight of soil cd, and the percentage of the weight-related additives on collapse potential (CP). The
testing program also presents the effects of the amount of induced rainfall water (Qw), the applied
stress on footing model (q), the ratio between depth of improved soils and the footing width (di/B),
as well as the degree of compaction (Rc) of the improved portion of collapsible soils. This study
presents the obtained results and shows in detail the positive effect of using iron powder for treating
the collapsible soils and subsequently reducing the expected collapse settlement.
Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction void-ratio, which is stiff and strong in its dry natural state,
but loses strength and undergoes significant settlement when
Collapsible soils are widely distributed in most parts of the it becomes wet.
world (e.g. United States of America, Brazil, Egypt, Ku- Collapse of the soil structure occurs upon wetting because
wait, South Africa and China). Collapsible soil is a common the suction of soil is reduced and the bonding between particles
geotechnical concern in arid regions with relatively high can be softened and weakened [1].
Generally, collapsible soil is usually associated with any
change that might take place in the groundwater or surface
* Corresponding author.
water. However, the greatest problem with collapsible soil
E-mail address: tareqmaziz@aast.edu (T.M. Abdelaziz).
arises when the existence and extent of the collapse potential
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
are not well recognized before the construction. A laboratory
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.07.019
1110-0168 Ó 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3738 A.A. AlShaba et al.

or field test is commonly used for the identification of collapsi- Iron powder is a waste material so this technique of soil
ble soils, and obtaining a quantitative estimate of collapse improvement is widely applicable and economic. In addition,
settlement. the achieved reduction ratio as a result is better than any other
Several trials have been conducted to predict the collapse existing technique of improving collapsible soil (e.g. marble
settlement under a specified stress including the overburden powder, compaction. . ..).
pressure and the increased stress caused by foundations. Some
of these trials suggest a value of collapse potential correspond- 2. Experimental work
ing to an applied stress of 200 KPa and it is used only as an
index to provide the engineer with a guide to collapse situation 2.1. Experimental device
which he/she may encounter. The other trials introduce a pro-
cedure to calculate the predicted collapse settlement with the
The used testing set up shown in Fig. 1 consists of soil bin,
use of a known soil depth affected by wetting [2].
water tank, and footing model. The soil bin was made of trans-
Hall et al. [2] and Azzam [4] have reported that different
parent walls machined from Perspex of 6 mm thickness and
studies have been performed to improve the engineering prop-
stiffened by steel angles. The bin base was machined from Per-
erties of earth materials; some of which used additives (admix-
spex of 12 mm thickness. The water tank was machined from
tures) such as lime, cement, fly ash, calcium chloride, olive
Perspex box of 3 mm thickness and a height of 100 mm. The
waste, asphalt, while others used geosynthetic materials and
tank’s base was adjusted perfectly in a horizontal position
compaction to improve soil properties.
and resting on the upper edges of the soil bin. In order to sim-
Despite the availability of several processes of stabilization
ulate rainfall water, the water tank base has thirty six holes of
(mechanical and thermal stabilizations, or by material addi-
1 mm internal diameter. A square steel plate, of dimensions
tion), the chemical technique of stabilization by salts has been
80 * 80 mm and 10 mm thickness used as a footing model,
recently adopted. Kaufhold et al. [5] and Shao-Chi et al. [6].
was placed accurately at the center of soil bin.
Researchers have considered different methods including
pre-wetting, partial replacement with compacted fill, dynamic
2.2. Used material properties
compaction of soils at natural moisture content, dynamic com-
paction after pre-wetting the soil, stone columns and chemical
2.2.1. Basic soil properties
stabilization.
Pre-wetting and compaction was used as an improvement The properties of the soil sample were determined experimen-
technique for the collapsible soil by [7,8] who carried out field tally and shown in Table 2.
load tests in Sao Paulo - Brazil to study the effects of soil com- The collapsible soil had a natural water content of 2.1%
paction on reducing collapse settlement. Other researchers and was classified as CL based on the unified soil classification
such as [9–12] have investigated the use of geosynthetic mate- system and as A-6 according to AASHTO soil classification
rial (geotextile and geogrid) as a reinforcement to increase system. The soil, which is collapsible in nature according to
bearing capacity and to decrease settlement for foundations value of collapse potential, was imported from Borg-Elarab
on layered soils. In addition, Jefferson et al. [13] have described city, 60Kms. south west Alexandria, Egypt. The grain size dis-
a case of using loess-cement cushions to treat loess collapsible
soils in building a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria.
The purpose of this study is to illustrate the possibility of
decreasing the collapse potential to an acceptable level as listed
in Table 1.
The paper presents the findings of a testing program per-
formed to investigate the effects of mixing iron powder in
order to stabilize the collapsible soil. The achieved test results
were used to study the effects of soil properties, such as the ini-
tial unit weight of soil ɣd; the percentage of additives by weight
(Ad), on the collapse potential and collapse settlement of the
natural collapsible soil. The collapse settlement of a square iso-
lated footing model is studied experimentally taking into con-
sideration the main parameters that affect the different aspects
of collapse behavior. The final target of the paper is to check
the validity of stabilizing the collapsible soil using iron powder.

Table 1 Classification of collapsible soil according to the

Egyptian Code of Practice [14].
CP (%) Severity of foundation problems
0–1 No problem
1–5 Moderate trouble
5–10 Trouble
10–20 Severe trouble
>20 Very severe Trouble Fig. 1 Complete Experimental set-up for Infiltration and
Loading.
Treatment of collapsible soils 3739

2.3. Testing program and testing procedure

Table 2 Properties of collapsible soil.
% fines (passing sieve No. 200) 55%
Liquid limit 30%
Plastic limit 17%
Plasticity index 13%
Specific Gravity 2.7
Maximum dry unit weight (standard proctor test) 19.2 kN/m3
Optimum moisture content 16%
Minimum dry unit weight 11 kN/m3
tribution curve of the soil was constructed and from which;
D10% = 0.0026 mm, percentage of fines (passing sieve No.
200) = 55%, uniformity coefficient (Cu) = 40, and coefficient
of curvature (Cc) = 6.81. Atterberg’s limits were also deter-
mined as: liquid limit (wL) = 30%, plastic limit (wP)
= 17%, and plasticity index (P.I) = 13%. These tests were
carried out following ASTM standard D422 and D4318.
Formed in the soil bin, the soil was placed in six layers each
of 50 mm thickness and compacted using a steel tamper weigh-
ing 20 N in order to achieve the desired relative density. The
upper surface of soil was adjusted in an accurately horizontal
level using a spirit level. The leveling of soil surface is very
important to get a uniform distribution of water when the
water is allowed to seep.
2.2.2. Chemical analysis of iron powder
Iron powder, sized between sieves No.8 to No.200, has been
used in this study as a stabilizing material to improve the engi-
neering properties of the collapsible soil through the homoge-
neous mixing of the natural soil with a specific weight-
proportional ratio of iron powder. Iron powder is a waste pro-
duct of iron workshop; the chemical analysis of such a powder
was performed on two random samples in COMIBASSAL
International controller lab. The main chemical components
of the powder are given in Table 4.
Two series of experimental tests were conducted on collapsible
soil samples with/without the addition of iron powder. The
first series of tests was conducted to obtain the collapse poten-
tial (C.P.) of collapsible soils using the single Oedometer tests.
The second series of tests was performed to measure the col-
lapse settlement caused by wetting the soil with rainfall water
beneath a loaded square footing model. The achieved results
were used to study the different effects of soil properties, such
as the initial unit weight of soil (cd) by means of relative den-
sity (Dr), the intensity of induced water (Qw), the applied
stress on footing model (q), the ratio between depth of the
improved soil to the footing width (di/B), and the percentage
of the weight-related additives (Ad), on the value of collapse
potential. The first part of series (1) simulated the collapse
potential of natural soil without additives.
2.3.1. Testing series 1
Table 5 represents the obtained values of collapse potential
(C.P.) for the eighteen tests of series (1). Three single Oedome-
ter tests, according to ECP standards [14], were conducted to
investigate the effect of the initial dry unit weight of soil on
the value of collapse potential as listed in Table 5 correspond-
ing to tests (No. 1, 7, and 13). The Other fifteen tests were car-
ried out to investigate the effects of adding iron powder to the
soil, as an improving material, on the value of collapse poten-
tial. Different percentages of iron powder (4%, 5%, 6%, 8%
and 10) were mixed with the natural soil and single Oedometer
tests were conducted.
2.3.2. Testing series 2
Tests of the second series were conducted using the experimen-
tal testing setup illustrated in Fig. 1. Eighteen tests in the first
part of series (2), in addition to twenty three tests in the second
part of series (2) were performed as shown in Tables 6 and 7 in

Table 5 Testing results of series (1).

Test no. cd (kN/m3) Dr (%) Ad (%) C.P (%)
Table 3 Results of Constant Head Permeability Tests.
1 14 50 0 12.1
cd (kN/m3) Kav. (cm/sec) 2 14 50 3 11.1
Natural (no 6% 10% 3 14 50 4 10.8
additives) Additives additives 4 14 50 5 8.8
5 14 50 6 8.7
14 1.0E
04 9.9E
05 1.7E
04 6 14 50 8 10.5
15 5.2E
05 7.2E
05 7.8E
05 7 15 62 0 9.3
15.5 1.1E
05 2.6E
05 4.6E
05 8 15 62 4 7.9
Where: cd: Initial dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3), Kav.: Average 9 15 62 5 6.9
value of soil coefficient of permeability (cm/sec). 10 15 62 6 7.1
11 15 62 8 8.5
12 15 62 10 10.8
13 16 73 0 6.7
14 16 73 4 5.8
15 16 73 5 5.7
Table 4 Chemical components of iron powder. 16 16 73 6 5.5
17 16 73 8 6.3
Fe % C% Si % Mn % p% S%
18 16 73 10 6.4
98.83 0.1207 0.084 0.5063 0.010 0.011
Where: cd = initial dry unit weight of soil,
soilþweight of Additive  100;
=weight ofweightof
Where: Fe – Iron, C – Carbon, Si – Silicone, Mn – Manganese, P – Additive
Ad Dr = relative density
Phosphorus, S – Sulfur. C.P = collapse potential.
3740 A.A. AlShaba et al.

Table 6 Testing results of the first part of series (2).

Test No. cd (kN/m3) Dr % Qw (cm) q (kN/m) di/B Ad (% by weight of additives) (Sc)natural (mm) (Sc)improved (mm) Rs (%)
1 14 50 2 100 0 0 42.25 0 0
2 14 50 2 100 1.25 4 42.25 33.19 21.44
3 14 50 2 100 1.25 5 42.25 32.23 23.72
4 14 50 2 100 1.25 6 42.25 31.86 24.59
5 14 50 2 100 1.25 8 42.25 32.25 23.67
6 14 50 2 100 1.25 10 42.25 32.57 22.91
7 15 62 2 100 0 0 10.8 0 0.00
8 15 62 2 100 1.25 4 10.82 8.5 21.44
9 15 62 2 100 1.25 5 10.82 8.35 22.83
10 15 62 2 100 1.25 6 10.82 8.06 25.51
11 15 62 2 100 1.25 8 10.82 8.11 25.05
12 15 62 2 100 1.25 10 10.82 8.45 21.90
13 16 73 2 100 0 0 7.6 0 0.00
14 16 73 2 100 1.25 4 7.6 6.02 20.79
15 16 73 2 100 1.25 5 7.6 5.33 29.87
16 16 73 2 100 1.25 6 7.6 4.95 34.87
17 16 73 2 100 1.25 8 7.6 5.77 24.08
18 16 73 2 100 1.25 10 7.6 5.79 23.82
Where: Rs% ¼ ðScÞnatural
ðScÞimproved
ðScÞnatural  100, cd – Initial dry unit weight soil, Dr – Relative density of soil; Qw – Intensity of induced water
(cm3/cm2), q – Applied stress on footing model, di – depth of improved soil, B – Footing width, Sc – Collapse settlement after 7 days of water
infiltration through the soil, Rs – Reduction ratio of collapse settlement, Rc – Degree of compaction.

Table 7 Testing results of the second part of series (2).

Studied Test Rc cd Dr Qw q di/B Ad (% by weight (Sc)natural (Sc)improved Rs
parameter No. (%) (kN/m3) (%) (cm) (kN/m2) of additives) (mm) (mm) (%)
di/B 1 – 14 50 2 100 0.5 6 42.25 41.44 1.92
2 – 14 50 2 100 1 6 42.25 37.6 11.01
3 – 14 50 2 100 1.25 6 42.25 31.86 24.59
4 – 14 50 2 100 1.5 6 42.25 24.8 41.30
Qw 5 – 14 50 1 100 1.25 6 28.79 25.9 10.04
6 – 14 50 1 100 1.25 0 28.79 0 0.00
7 – 14 50 1.5 100 1.25 6 33.78 27.95 17.26
8 – 14 50 1.5 100 1.25 0 33.78 0 0.00
3 – 14 50 2 100 1.25 6 42.25 31.86 24.59
9 – 14 50 2 100 1.25 0 42.25 0 0.00
10 – 14 50 2.5 100 1.25 6 46.54 40.78 12.38
11 – 14 50 2.5 100 1.25 0 46.54 0 0.00
12 – 14 50 3 100 1.25 6 50.45 41.24 18.26
13 – 14 50 3 100 1.25 0 50.45 0 0.00
q 14 – 14 50 2 50 1.25 6 32.11 27.49 14.39
15 – 14 50 2 50 1.25 0 32.11 0 0.00
3 – 14 50 2 100 1.25 6 42.25 31.86 24.59
16 – 14 50 2 100 1.25 0 42.25 0 0.00
17 – 14 50 2 150 1.25 6 51.21 37.4 26.97
18 – 14 50 2 150 1.25 0 51.21 0 0.00
19 – 14 50 2 200 1.25 6 56.27 43.11 23.39
20 – 14 50 2 200 1.25 0 56.27 0 0.00
Rc 4 73 14 50 2 100 1.5 6 42.25 24.8 41.30
21 75 14 50 2 100 1.5 6 42.25 9.26 78.08
22 80 14 50 2 100 1.5 6 42.25 7.54 82.15
23 83 14 50 2 100 1.5 6 42.25 5.55 86.86

order to study the effects of the intensity of induced rainfall and the degree of compaction of the improved of soil (Rc),
water (Qw), the applied stress on footing model (q), the ratio on the value of collapse settlement (Scol) of the collapsible soils.
between depth of improved soil and footing width (di/B), The results of such tests have been recorded and analyzed in
Treatment of collapsible soils
order to highlight the different effects of the prescribed param-
eters. Throughout the tests of the second part, the ratio of iron
powder (Ad) was maintained at the optimal value (6%) for
tests which were conducted on improved soil.
2.3.3. Testing procedure
During tests, the soil was formed of the required properties
and the footing model was placed accurately at the center of
soil bin and was loaded with a specified stress, then the
required amount of water was placed in the water tank and
allowed to seep on soil surface to be induced through the soil
completely. The collapse settlement was observed with time.
2.4. Results analysis of testing series (1)
2.4.1. Introduction
The results reveal that mixing the collapsible soil with iron
powder reduces the collapse potential (C.P). Adding the iron
powder reduces the (C.P.) from 12.1% to 8.7%, from 9.3%
to 6.9%, and from 6.7% to 5.5% and the reduction ratio
depends on the relative density (Dr), Table 5. Subsequently
the severity of the scrutinized problem has changed from one
category to a less severe category, as reported in Egyptian
Code of Practice (ECP) Table 1.
Fig. 2 Relationship between Relative Density (Dr) and Collapse
Potential (C.P).
Fig. 3 Relationship between Percentage of Additives and
Collapse Potential (C.P).
3741
2.4.2. The Effect of Soil Relative Density (Dr) and Percentage
of Additives (Ad) on the Collapse Potential (C.P)
Figs. 2 and 3 show the relationships of collapse potential (C.P)
versus percentage of additives (Ad) and relative density of soil
results from eighteen single Oedometer tests. The relationships
indicated that as the relative density (Dr) increases, the col-
lapse potential decreases. So, it is expected that the compaction
of collapsible soil affects its behavior and reduces the problem
of collapsibility. The results also confirmed that mixing the
iron powder with the collapsible soil improves its behavior
and reduces the collapse settlement. It is interesting to observe
that the optimal ratio of additives (Ad) is ranging between 5%
and 6% of the weight.
2.5. Results analysis of testing series (2) (First Part)
Series (2) of tests were performed to measure the collapse set-
tlement (Scol) caused by wetting the soil with rainfall water
beneath a loaded square footing model after 7 days of water
infiltration through soil. The first part of series (2) of experi-
mental tests was also used to confirm the results obtained from
the single Oedometer tests regarding the effects of the soil rel-
ative density (Dr) and the percentage of additives (Ad).
Figs. 4 and 5 show that the collapse settlement (Scol) is
inversely proportional to the relative density (Dr) of collapse
Fig. 4 Relationship between Relative Density (Dr) and Collapse
Settlement (Scol) for Natural Collapsible Soil and different
percentage of Additives (Ad).
Fig. 5 Relationship between Relative Density (Dr) and Collapse
Settlement (Scol) with Additive (6%).
3742
soil, (for both the natural collapsible soil and the improved col-
lapsible soil). Also, it can be easily observed that the collapse
settlement (Scol) for improved soil is considerably less than that
for natural soil. To understand the relationship between the
initial dry unit weight of soil (cd), in terms of the relative den-
sity (Dr), and the resulted collapse settlement (Scol), it is well
known that the collapse settlement increases as the depth of
wetting through the collapsible soil increases and in general
there are many factors that affect the water infiltration through
the soil. These factors include the soil coefficient of permeabil-
ity (k), the soil suction and the elevation head of the infiltration
water. Abdelaziz T.M. (2007) reported that as the soil relative
density increases, the coefficient of permeability and depth of
wetting decrease but while, the matric suction gradient along
the wetting zone front increases. That means that the effect
(k) is opposite to the effect of matric suction, and the obtained
results of the relationship between (Scol) and (Dr) showed that
the effect of coefficient of permeability (k) was greater than the
effect of matric suction gradient for the studied cases. So, as a
result the value of collapse settlement (Scol) is inversely propor-
tional to the relative density (Dr).
Fig. 6 and Table 6 show that the relationship between (Scol)
and percentage of additive (Ad) is consisted of two parts, the
first part for low values of the improving material where the
(Scol) decreases as the ratio of (Ad) increases. But the second
part, larger values of additives, shows an opposite trend where
the (Scol) increases with the increase of ratio (Ad). There are
two factors controlling the value of collapse settlement of the
improved collapsible soil, the first one is the coefficient of per-
meability (k) and the second factor is the bonding effect of
additives ratio (Ad). Table 3 shows that (k) is directly propor-
tional to (Ad), which means that as the ratio (Ad) increases, the
depth of wetting through the soil increases and subsequently
the collapse settlement is expected to be larger. On the other
hand, adding the additives with ratio (Ad) leads to an improve-
ment in the collapsibility characteristics of soil, so it is expected
that the collapse settlement decreases. The obtained results
illustrated in Fig. 6 and Table 6 may be attributed through
the first portion of (Scol-Ad) relationship, the effect of improv-
ing the soil characteristics was more than the effect of increas-
ing (k). So, the final result was an inverse proportionality
between (Scol) and (Ad). Whereas, in the second part of the
same relationship, the effect of increasing (k) was greater than
the effect of increasing the ratio of additive (Ad), on the col-
Fig. 6 Relationship between different percentage of Additives
(Ad) and collapse Settlement (Scol).
A.A. AlShaba et al.
lapsibility characteristics of soil. So, as a result, the final con-
clusion was a direct proportionality between (Scol) and (Ad).
To represent the improvement occurred in soil as a result of
mixing with iron powder, the following formula can be derived
for the reduction ratio (Rs).
ðScolÞnatural
ðScolÞimproved
Rs% ¼  100 ð1Þ
ðScolÞnatural
The ratio (Rs) can be considered an indicator for the soil
improvement. As the ratio (Rs) increases, the soil is more
improved and more reduction in collapse settlement (Scol)
takes place. The relationship between the reduction ratio
(Rs) and soil relative density (Dr) for different studied percent-
ages of additives (Ad) was observed. Generally the ratio (Rs)
increases with the increase of (Dr), as a result of the positive
effect of additives is achieved (i.e. improving soil behavior).
The relationship between the percentage of additive (Ad) of
iron powder and the reduction ratio (Rs) was also investigated.
It is clear from the results listed in Table 6 that the optimal
additive ratio (Ad) is ranging from 5% to 6% for the different
studied cases. The maximum value of the reduction ratio (Rs)
was 34.87% and it was corresponding to (cd = 16 kN/m3) and
(Ad = 6%). But it is expected, on the long run, that soil wet-
ting may cause iron rust. In other words, the chemical compo-
sition, bonding efficiency and mechanical properties of the iron
powder may change. So, it is strongly recommended to do
extra research about the long term effect of soil wetting on
the iron powder and subsequently on the reduction ratio (Rs)
2.6. Results analysis of testing series (2) (Second Part)
2.6.1. The effect of the ratio between depth of improved soil (di)
and the footing width (B)
Fig. 7 illustrates the relationship between the ratio (di/B) and
collapse settlement of soil (Scol). It is well known that the upper
zone of bearing soil beneath the footing is the most portion
subjected to wetting and applied stress. That means that the
majority of (Scol) is related to this portion of soil. So, when
improving that portion, the effect of reducing (Scol) would be
clear. The results showed that as the ratio (di/B) increases
the (Scol) decreases.
Results of the experimental tests showed that the collapse
settlement (Scol) for the studied cases got reduced from
(42.25 mm) in case of natural soil to (24.8 mm) in case of
Fig. 7 Relationship between the ratio (di/B) and collapse
settlement (Scol).
Treatment of collapsible soils
Fig. 8 Relationship between the intensity of induced water (Qw)
and collapse settlement (Scol).
improving the upper part of collapsible soil with ratio
(di/B = 1.5).
As listed in Table 7 the reduction ratio of collapse settle-
ment (Rs) is directly proportional to the ratio (di/B). The
reduction ratio (Rs), corresponding to (di/B = 1.5), is 41.3%
which reflects a good improvement of collapse behavior.
2.6.2. Effect of the intensity of induced water (Qw)
Fig. 8 illustrates the relationship of intensity of induced water
(Qw) with collapse settlement (Scol) and the reduction ratio
(Rs), respectively. For both natural and improved collapsible
soil, the value of (Scol) is directly proportional to the value
of (Qw), but for any specific value of (Qw) the collapse settle-
ment (Scol) of the improved soil is less than that of natural soil.
The effect of mixing the soil with iron powder is presented by
means of the ratio (Rs) which ranged from (10.04%) to
(24.59%) for all studied cases.
Regarding the relationship between (Scol) and the amount
of induced water (Qw), for natural soil, it is logically expected
that (Scol) is directly proportional to (Qw) because the degree
of saturation of the wetted portion of soil increases upon wet-
ting and subsequently the coefficient of permeability (k)
increases and therefore the wetted depth increases. In addition,
Abdelaziz [2] reported that matric suction gradient across the
wetting zone front increases as (Qw) increases. So, it is
Fig. 9 Relationship between applied stress on footing model (q)
and collapse settlement (Scol).
3743
expected that the infiltration velocity at wetting front also
increases and consequently (Scol) increases.
It is interesting to observe that although the improving pro-
cess resulted in additional increase in both the value of (k) and
the depth of wetted zone due to the increase of (Qw), but it is
still useful to use additives to improve the collapsibility charac-
teristics of soil which finally resulted in a decrease of (Scol) after
improving.
2.6.3. Effect of the applied stress on footing model (q)
Observing the tests results listed in Table 7 and Fig. 9, it is
clear that the value of collapse settlement (Scol) is directly pro-
portional to the value of the applied stress (q). It seems to be
logical because the value of (Scol) is mainly affected by wetting
and stress increase. Also, Abdelaziz [2] stated that the matric
suction gradient is directly proportional to the value of the
applied stress (q).
It is also observed that as the value of (q) increases, the
reduction ratio (Rs) increases; which might be due to the effect
of the improving process on the collapsibility characteristics of
soil, in addition to the effect of decreasing (k) which was
caused by the increase of (q).
2.6.4. Effect of degree of compaction (Rc) of improved portion
of Soil:
Fig. 10 presents that the compaction of improved soil within
the depth (di) with a degree of compaction (Rc), has a strong
effect on reducing the value of (Scol). The relationship between
(Scol) and (Rc) shows that they are inversely proportional. It is
logical to achieve this conclusion because the compaction of
improving soil (i.e. increasing the unit weight) and decreases
the collapse potential as resulted previously from the single
Oedometer test. Moreover, the compaction process decreases
the soil coefficient of permeability (k) which improves the soil
performance. Such results agree with those obtained by [15].
Table 7 shows that the largest reduction ratio (Rs) was
86.86% and the value (Scol) decreased from (42.25 mm) to
(5.55 mm) and this situation was corresponding to adding
the optimal ratio of additive (Ad = 6%) in addition to com-
pacting the improved soil (Rc = 83%). So, it is expected that
the ratio Rs may exceed more than 86.86% in case of reaching
a degree of compaction Rc greater than 83%.
Fig. 10 Relationship between degree of compaction of improved
portion of soil (Rc) and collapse settlement (Scol).
3744 A.A. AlShaba et al.

3. Conclusions

The main conclusions drawn from the reported study are given
below:

 Mixing the collapsible soil with a specific ratio of iron pow-

der results in an improvement of the collapsibility charac-
teristics, and reduction of the collapse settlement upon
wetting.
 Series of single Oedometer tests showed that the collapse
potential (C.P.) decreases with either increasing the soil unit
weight or adding iron powder with a specific ratio.
 Experimental tests using both Oedometer and laboratory
experimental set-up show that the optimal ratio of iron
powder that may be mixed with collapsible soil ranges from
5% to 6% of the soil weight.
Fig. 11 Relationship between Z (Rs/X) and reduction ratio Rs
 The reduction ratio (Rs = ðScolÞnatural
ðScolÞimproved
ðScolÞnatural
 100 %)
(%).
resulted from the experimental tests ranges from 11% to
41.3% in case of adding 6% iron powder and the unit
2.7. Empirical equation of reduction ratio (Rs) weight of the improved portion of soil was the same as nat-
ural soil. Whereas the same ratio (Rs) ranges from 78% to
86.86% when adding 6% iron powder with compacting the
According to the recorded results, relationship between the
improved portion of soil.
Reduction Ratio Rs (%) and the different Studied Parameters
 The collapse settlement (Scol) of the natural collapsible soil
could be obtained from the derived formulae:
is directly proportional to the intensity of induced water
Y (Qw) and the applied stress on footing model (q) and inver-
x¼ ð2Þ
a þ b:Y sely proportional to the soil relative density (Dr).
where  The collapse settlement (Scol) of the improved soil, by mix-
ing 6% iron powder of the soil weight, is directly propor-
Y = Rs tional to the intensity of induced water (Qw) and the
x=X applied stress on footing model (q), and inversely propor-
a & b is constants tional to the soil relative density (Dr), the ratio between
depth of improved soil and the footing width (di/B), and
Consider (X) as a factor that represents all the studied the degree of compaction (Rc) of the improved portion of
parameters soil.
 The reduction ratio (Rs), which is an indicator of soil
Rc  Ad  Dr  ðdiBÞ improvement, is directly proportional to the ratio of
X¼
q  Qw (di/B), the soil relative density (Dr), and the degree of
compaction (Rc) of the improved portion of soil.
And subsequently, the relationship between (Z = Rs/X)
 The relationship between the reduction ratio (Rs) and the
and (Rs) is linear as illustrated in Fig. 11.
percentage of additives (Ad) has experienced two different
Rs behaviors, during the first portion of the curve – where
X¼ ð3Þ
0:0568 þ ð0:0051  RsÞ value of (Ad) ranges from (4% to 6%)- the relationship is
directly proportional, but through the second portion –
Then : Rs=X:0568 þ :0051Rs ð4Þ where value of (Ad) ranges from (6% to 10%)- the relation-
ship is inversely proportional.
 Relationship between the Reduction Ratio (Rs %) and the
Rc Degree of compaction of improved portion (%) different studied parameters may be expressed as:
Dr Relative density (%)
Ad Percentage of Additive (%)
di/B The ratio between depth of improved soil and the foot-
Rs
ing width x¼
q Applied stress on footing kN/m2 0:0568 þ ð0:0051  RsÞ
Qw The intensity of induced water (cm3/cm2)
where
This empirical equation may be useful to achieve a desired
reduction ratio (Rs) by controlling some of the parameters sta- Rc  Ad  Dr  ðdiBÞ
ted in Eq. (3), such as relative density (Dr) and the ratio (di/B) X¼
q  Qw
Treatment of collapsible soils
References
[1] S.L. Houston, W.N. Houston, C.A. Lawrence, Collapsible, soil [9]
engineering in highway infrastructure development, J.
Transport. Eng. 128 (3) (2002) 295–300.
[2] T.M. Abdelaziz, Response of Shallow Foundations resting on [10]
Collaps-ible Soil” Ph.D. dissertation, Alexandria University,
2007.
[3] M.R. Hall, K.B. Najim, P.K. Dehdezi, Soil stabilization and [11]
earth construction: materials, properties and techniques,
Modern Earth Build. 41 (2012) 222–255.
[4] W.R. Azzam, Utilization of polymer stabilization for improve-
ment of clay microstructures, Appl. Clay Sci. 93–94 (2014) 94– [12]
101.
[5] S. Kaufhold, R. Dohrman, Stability of bentonites in saltso-
lutions/sodium chloride, Appl. Clay Sci. 45 (2009) 171–177. [13]
[6] C. Shao-Chi, O. Chang-Yu, W. Ming-Kuang, Injection of sa-
line solution to improve the electro-osmotic pressure and
consolida-tion of foundation soil, Appl. Clay Sci. 44 (2009)
218–224.
[7] W.N. Houston, S.L. Houston, State of the practice: Miti-gation
measures for collapsible soil sites, Foundation Engineering: [14]
Current Principles and Practices, Evanston, IL, USA, 1989, 161–
175. [15]
[8] A. Souza, J.C.A. Cintra, O.M. Vilar, Shallow founda-tions on
collapsible soil improved by compaction, in: Proceedings of the
3745
1st International Conference on Unsaturated Soils, UNSAT’95,
Paris, France, 1995, pp. 1017–1021.
B.M. Das, Shallow foundation on sand underlain by soft clay
with geotextile interface, Geotech. Spec. Publ. 18 (1988) 112–
126.
G.P. Raymond, Reinforced sand behavior overlying com-
pressible subgrades, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE 118 (11) (1992)
1663–1680.
K.M. Lee, v.R. Manjunath, d.M. Dewaikar, Numerical and
model studies of strip footing supported by a reinforced
granular fill-soft soil system, Can. Geotech. J. 36 (1999) 793–
806.
A. Kumar, M.L. Ohri, R.K. Bansal, Bearing capacity tests of
strip footings on reinforced layered soil, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 25
(2007) 139.
I. Jefferson, D. Evstatiev, D. Karastanev, The treatment
ofcollapsibleloess soils using cement materials, in:
Geotechnical Special Publication 178: 662-669, 2008,
Proceedings of session of GeoCongress 2008 -GeoCongress
2008 Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitiga-tion, GSP 178,
2008.
Egyptian Code of Practice of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering 2001 Part 5.
Hisham H. Abdelmohsen1, Naema A. Ali, Performance of
Partially Replaced Collapsible Soil, 2 (2015).