PRONENESS TO SLUMP-TYPE SETTLEMENT AND SLUMP-TYPE SETTLEMENTS OF CLAYEY SOILS

摘要

In Dzagov's study under discussion [1], he views one of the causes of noncorrespondence between computed and actual slump-type settlements to be overestimation of the limiting value adopted in standards for the relative slump-type settlement ε_(sl) = 0.01, which when equaled or exceeded, the soils are referred to as prone to slump-type settlement. In our opinion, the basic cause lies in the overly simplified model constructed for slump-type settlement, which has been adopted in regulatory documents. The problem of the prone-ness to slump-type settlement and slump-type settlements should be resolved in a three-dimensional statement as a consequence of failures due to loss of soil strength. Mr. Dzagov's suggestion to exclude the initial slump-settlement pressure psl as conditional and of no physical significance is put forth for support. The need to account for the effect of a temperature increase of the water wetting the soil, which contributes to an increase in slump-type settlement, is also correctly stated in [1]. In our view, the remaining suggestions are debatable.