Abstract
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 e 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 proneness to slump-type settlement and slump-type settlements should be resolved in a threedimensional 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
