Engineering geology of loess and loess-like deposits: a commentary on the Russian literature

transcript

Engineering geology of loess and loess-like deposits:

a commentary on the Russian literature

I.F. Jefferson*, D. Evstatiev, D. Karastanev*, N.G. Mavlyanova, I.J. Smalley*

GeoHazards Research Group, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, School of Property and Construction,

Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK

Geotechnical Division, Geological Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria

G.A. Mavlyanov Institute of Seismology, Uzbek Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Received 6 March 2002; accepted 2 October 2002

Abstract

Loess and loess-like deposits were much studied in the Soviet Union, and are currently under investigation in Russia and

surrounding countries. There is a vast literature in Russian, which touches on all aspects of loess science and technology. In

particular, the studies of the origin of collapsibility are almost totally in Russian, and of course studies on the various regions of

Russia and the countries of the Former Soviet Union FSU appear in Russian. This review looks at the literature in Russian and

attempts to pick out key contributors, major topics and works and to identify the critical regions and zones of investigation.

Because so many regions of the FSU had people living on loess ground, there is a vast literature on engineering geology and

ground engineering topics, and this tends to dominate all the literature on loess in Russian. Following Russian practice, the fine-

grained deposits under consideration are divided into loess and loess-like deposits. Three main topics are recognised across the

whole spectrum of loess research: formation and distribution of loess deposits; stratigraphy, cyclicity and palaeoclimatology;

and engineering topics, in particular hydrocollapse and subsidence, and we concentrate on the engineering geology topics. An

attempt is made, based on the map of Abelev and Abelev [Abelev, Yu.M., Abelev, M.Yu., 1968. Fundamentals of design and

construction on collapsible macroporous soils, 2nd ed. Stroiizdat, Moscow, 431 pp. (in Russian)] of collapsing loess deposits, to

define seven loess regions within the geographical limits of the old USSR. The seven regions are those where geotechnical

problems might be expected.

Keywords: Loess; Loess-like deposits; Russian language loess studies; Loess in Former Soviet Union; Loess engineering problems; Loess

collapsibility; Loess distribution

1. Introduction

This paper is an attempt to review literature on

loess written in the Russian language; so it covers not

only loess in Russia, but also in those countries that

were part of the Soviet Union. It focuses on topics

which would normally be classified as ‘engineering

PII: S0013 -7952 (02 )00236 -3

* Corresponding authors. I.J. Smalley is to be contacted at

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Nottingham Trent

University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK. Tel.: +44-

115-9418418; fax: +44-115-9486450.

E-mail addresses: Ian.Jefferson@ntu.ac.uk (I.F. Jefferson),

doncho@geology.bas.bg (D. Karastanev), Ian.Smalley@ntu.ac.uk,

Smalley@Loessletter.com (I.J. Smalley).

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351

geology’ and because of the nature of loess this means

a concentration on topics related to hydrocollapse and

subsidence. Geographical, historical and terminolog-

ical precision is sought but use of the adjectives

‘Russian’ and ‘Soviet’ may not always be quite

precise, although an attempt at linguistic responsibil-

ity has been made. This paper, to a certain extent,

follows on from Smalley (1980) where an attempt was

made to include Russian material in a world-over

bibliography; and from Rogers et al. (1994), a review

of loess subsidence and hydrocollapse with some

emphasis on Russian material. The simple tri-partite

division used by Smalley (1980) is carried on; loess

research is essentially divided into (1) studies on

nature, formation and distribution, (2) studies on

stratigraphy, cyclicity, palaeoclimatology, etc., and

(3) engineering geology, soil mechanics, ground engi-

neering etc. In the Russian literature, the engineering

category is dominant; in Soviet times, large resources

were devoted to foundation and construction problems

in loess and this is reflected in the vast archive. A new

survey of loess in Russian has just appeared (Trofi-

mov, 2001) and this will serve as our up-to-date

reference point—it also served to stimulate the assem-

blage and preparation of this review.

This paper is written from an English speaking,

European point of view; a Russian or Chinese author

covering the same ground would doubtless provide

different emphases. The INQUA Loess Commission

has identified the great linguistic gap between the

Russian literature and what might loosely be described

as world literature as a major problem to be tackled in

the next inter-congress periods. This review is a con-

tribution to that endeavour. Fig. 1 maps out the areas of

interest. The regions of special Russian relevance are

marked R. ‘Markers’ are the visible works which are

important or visible or both; and of course visible

means visible from the standpoint of the authors of this

review—there has to be some degree of subjectivity in

this operation; perhaps most obvious in the Markers

section. Twenty-year snapshots try to indicate devel-

opments in a historical setting, the years 1945, 1965,

1985 and 2005 have been chosen—there are good

reasons for choosing 1945 and 1965 as critical years.

The regions discussed are the regions proposed by the

INQUA Loess Commission in their Russian loess

report (at http://www.loessletter.com) and those used

by Kriger and Pecsi (1987) in their bibliography.

Abelev (1989) discussed the history of loess and its

engineering problems in the USSR at the international

conference on ‘Engineering Problems of Regional

Soils’ held in Beijing in 1988. This keynote address

provides a snapshot of the situation in loess research

and practice in engineering fields at the end of Soviet

times; possibly a time at which loess research in

Russian language regions was at its highest level.

Abelev claimed that more than 30000 people in the

USSR were concerned with the problems of research

into properties of loess and development of methods of

construction on loess soils. In 1988, we estimate that

over 90% of loess investigation in the USSR was in the

fields of engineering geology and ground engineering,

withminority interests in the fields of deposit formation

and loess distribution and stratigraphy and palaeocli-

matology. Most of the literature in Russian on loess

concerns engineering aspects, but it touches on some

surprisingly theoretical and speculative topics such as

the mechanisms for the development of collapsibility in

loess ground. This 1989 paper by Abelev (jnr) gives a

useful view of research practice, and it was published in

English. The translators had problems with the most

important words in the text—those relating to collap-

sibility: so sedimentarity = collapsibility; sedimenta-

ry = collapsible; sediment = settlement. In fact, it is

worth noting that in much translated literature prob-

lems arise with the collapsibility terms; in some papers,

collapsibility appears as subsidence and although this is

not a desperately serious problem shades of meaning

can be lost. Given the whole span of loess engineering

in the Russian literature to choose from, Abelev

selected seven works; all books, by Abelev and Abelev

(1979), Abelev and Abeleva (1982), Klepikov et al.

(1987), Krutov (1982), Krutov et al. (1985), Mustafaev

(1978) and Rzhanitsyn (1986) to illustrate the collec-

tive endeavours of the 30000.

Loess soils constituted more than 14% of the total

territory of the USSR. Such soils are widely spread

over the territory of the FSU—south of the 60N

latitude. They occupy more than 80% of the land area

of many of the former republics such as Uzbekistan,

Tadjikistan, Kyrgystan, Ukraine, Moldova and Azer-

baijan. Loess soils are also found in Geogia, Kazakh-

stan and in Russia itself. Great many residential

buildings in cities and towns and large industrial

enterprises were erected on loess. The most famous

factory built on loess was the ill-fated Atommash

I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351334

plant at Volgodonsk, near Rostov-on-Don, which

suffered a catastrophic foundation failure in 1983

(Jefferson et al., 1998).

In many buildings and structures erected in the

1920s and 1930s, deformations developed and fail-

ures sometimes occurred. From 1930, under the

supervision of Professor Yu.M. Abelev (1897–

1971), special research laboratories and production

organisations were founded which were concerned

with research and development of reliable methods of

construction of industrial and civil structures on loess

ground. In 1939, for the first time, construction codes

were developed, for research into loess properties,

and for design methods related to settlements on

loess soils which were loaded and wetted. Methods

of compacting loess soils by earth piles and methods

of chemical reinforcement of loess soils were devel-

oped (Abelev, 1989, see also Krutov, 1987). At the

Central Research Institute for Foundation Develop-

ment, a special large laboratory was set up with

Yu.M. Abelev as head. The laboratory was concerned

with research work and consulted systematically on

problems of construction on loess soils. Thanks to

such an arrangement of research and consultative

work, the number of structural failures became con-

siderably fewer. New laboratories with similar tasks

were set up in Kyiv, Tashkent, Baku and Dneprope-

trovsk where loess research was carried out and

Fig. 1. Loess topics and the Russian literature. R indicates topics of special interest considered in this paper. The seven-fold division of loess

regions is proposed based on an INQUA Loess Commission suggestion.

I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 335

young researchers and design engineers obtained

their qualifications.

Special commissions were established to investi-

gate specific features of loess geotechnology: one

looking at the properties of loess soils, headed by

E.M. Sergeev, and one looking at methods of design

and construction on loess soils, headed by M.Yu.

Abelev. This meant that Sergeev, and the two Abe-

levs, played a critical role in practical loess research in

the years 1939–1989. The Abelevs’ monograph on

construction on collapsing macroporous ground is

certainly a definitive text for the times and the topics

(Abelev and Abelev, 1968, 1979). Another major

influence was N.I. Kriger of PNIIIS, the Production

and Research Institute for Engineering Survey in

Construction. He is probably the most prolific writer

on loess, at any time and on any topic. His book for

the 1965 INQUA Congress (Kriger, 1965) is possibly

the most important and influential book on loess in

Russian—a true Marker volume.

Between 1986 and 1990, the PNIIIS, the USSR

State Construction Committee, the Geology Depart-

ment of Moscow State University, institutes of Aca-

demies of Sciences of the Soviet Union and several

republics, many higher institutes of learning, and

regional survey organisations in seven republics of

the Soviet Union, worked on ‘Rational economic

development of areas covered by collapsible sedi-

ments’. The engineering geological investigation of

the key sections of collapsible loesses in the Soviet

Union appeared to be the most significant part of this

enterprise (Trofimov et al., 1989; Trofimov, 1999a).

This seems to us to be the most significant, recent

large-scale study of collapsing loess ground. The

importance of collapsing ground and the development

of collapsibility in the study of loess in Russian are

well illustrated in Trofimov (2001).

2. Markers

The aim of this section is easily stated: it is to

identify a few works which are landmarks in the study

of Russian loess, and which can characterise the

achievements in Russian language research.

The key work has to be Kriger’s (1965) ‘Loess, its

characteristics and relation to the geographical envi-

ronment’. This was published for the 7th INQUA

Congress in Boulder, Colorado in 1965 and contains

an invaluable bibliography of works up to the mid-

1960s. This is why 1965 was chosen as a key date.

Only 1350 copies were printed and it was never

reprinted; very well known and much cited in the

Russian speaking world, but not appreciated outside.

The excellent bibliography was republished by Loess

Letter for the 12th INQUA Congress in Ottawa in

1987. Not listed by M.Yu. Abelev in his list of seven

influential works (in 1989) but included by Osipov

and Sokolov (1995) in their list (in 1994). Osipov and

Sokolov included six books in their list of volumes

important for the study of collapsing loess; they were

Anan’ev (1964), Balaev and Tsarev (1964), Kriger

(1965), Krutov (1982), Larionov (1971) and Sergeev

et al. (1986). In simple bibliographical terms, Kriger is

the key person in the Russian language literature, not

only does he understand the need for careful, accurate

bibliographical endeavour (see Kriger, 1965, 1986;

Kriger and Pecsi, 1987) but he is a prolific publisher

of important papers. Smalley (1980) listed eight

Kriger items with a time span 1936 to 1970; the

cumulative list of Kriger loess publications must

include more than 500 items: Kriger (1965) is an

unappreciated masterpiece, i.e. unappreciated in the

world outside the Russian-speaking regions. It is

important to ensure that Trofimov (2001) does not

suffer the same fate. Trofimov cites six Kriger items,

including of course Kriger (1965)—it still has rele-

vance in 2002—and will have in 2005.

The major work from Central Asia is Mavlyanov

(1958) (a substantial volume with some fantastic and

detailed maps). Mavlyanov was based in Tashkent—a

city built on loess, and located in a very seismically

active region. The combination of loess ground and

the great 1966 earthquake meant that most of Tash-

kent was destroyed. This is a region where construc-

tion on loess ground has to be taken very seriously.

Mavlyanov ranked high on Kriger’s list and the 1958

volume is his masterpiece. He appears to have

avoided the main loess controversies (which echoed

around Moscow and Leningrad) and developed his

own views of loess formation.

Berg (1964) deserves a mention, and a fairly elab-

orate explanation. Berg has an important R position in

Fig. 1 because he had a huge effect on loess studies in

Russia; the existence of his in situ theory caused many

interesting events in Soviet science and scholarship.

Fig. 2. Distribution of collapsing loess ground within the boundaries of the USSR; based on Abelev and Abelev (1968). The seven regions are indicated; in a very general sense: (1)

West, (2) Caucasus, (3) Central Asia, (4) Orsk–Omsk, (5) Tomsk-Barnaul, (6) Kansk-Krasnoyarsk, (7) Irkutsk.

I.F.Jefferso

al./Engineerin

gGeology68(2003)333–351

Berg (1964) is the translation (by A. Gourevich) of a

work that was finished by 1947. In fact, it was more or

less finished by 1940 but the Great Patriotic War

intervened and it was not published until 1947, and

included in the collected works in 1960. Berg was a

vigorous proponent of his theory and an effective citer

of deviants so this book gives a comprehensive view of

activity up to 1940. Berg, although nominally a geog-

rapher, includes a spirited discussion of hydroconsoli-

dation and subsidence and canal collapse; he

denounces Denisov (1940, 1944) for his aeolian ten-

dencies. Berg (1964) is visible because it exists as an

English language translation; this gave Berg a world-

wide presence that no other Russian/Soviet writer has

enjoyed. For some commentary on Berg, see Smalley

(1971) and Smalley and Rogers (1997).

Abelev and Abelev (1968, 1979) had the classic

work on design and construction on collapsing macro-

porous ground, i.e. loess (second edition in 1968, third

in 1979). Had the problem existed in a major way

outside of the Soviet Union, this standard text would

doubtless have been translated and used but by an

accident of geography (physical and human) the large

coincidence of widespread collapsing loess and a large

concentration of people and construction only occurs to

a significant extent within the bounds of the USSR.

Abelev and Abelev supplied the map for Fig. 2,

showing the extent of collapsing loess in the USSR.

A recent (1989) map of collapse zones is now available:

‘Prediction map of collapsibility in the areas of the

USSR covered with loesses’ Scale 1:2500000 Mos-

cow 1989. Denisov (1953)—the second edition of

‘Construction properties of loesses and loess-like clay

soils’ published by Gosstroiizdat in Moscow; probably

the most cited of Denisov’s works. Denisov was an

important pioneer of engineering studies on loess

ground. Rogers et al. (1994) actually cited 12 Denisov

items in their study of loess subsidence. Denisov had

some visibility outside the USSR: Denisov (1953)

states that ‘‘the potential subsidence of a given loess

deposit is determined not by the quantity of macropores

but by its total porosity. . .’’ (Fookes and Best, 1969).

Denisov’s collected works should perhaps be listed as a

marker volume (Denisov, 1972); his influence will be

remembered thanks, in part, to the continuing discus-

sion of ‘Denisov’s principle’ relating to the develop-

ment of collapsibility in loess ground (Trofimov,

1999b, 2001). Denisov (1953) is a true and genuine

marker volume. In it, Denisov expresses his apprecia-

tion of the works and ideas of Obruchev—it is a true

loess based study, unlike perhaps the Abelevs’ great

work which was more engineering and practice based.

3. Some historical developments

3.1. 1945

In the Soviet Union at this time, Denisov was

working and publishing on loess collapse, and Berg

and Obruchev were considering problems of loess

formation. Despite the disruption caused by the Great

Patriotic War, there was considerable discussion of

loess matters in the USSR in the mid-1940s. The Berg

in situ theory was favoured by the Soviet establishment

and therefore had to be adhered to by all career

scientists, but there was still discussion on loess-form-

ing mechanisms, and Obruchev still proclaimed his

support for aeolian deposition—having played a large

part in the development of this approach to loess

deposit formation. Obruchev was a senior and influen-

tial figure and was allowed (encouraged?) to participate

in the ‘Symposium on Loess’ organised by the Amer-

ican Journal of Science. A short paper by Obruchev

(1945) appeared in the symposium—and could be his

only paper in English; it marks 1945 out as a special

3.2. 1965

For the 1965 INQUA meeting in Boulder, CO,

Kriger prepared a book-length study of loess. Although

Kriger is seen to work within the engineering world of

loess, the 1965 book had a wide spread of interest, and

it contained a substantial bibliography of 1760 refer-

ences to the Cyrillic literature. This literature was

analysed by Smalley (1980) and the more productive

authors identified; the leading 20 (with numbers of

references) were: Obruchev (1911, 1914;(42), Kriger

(1984;34), Moskvitin (20), Sedletskii (18), Gerasimov

(17), Mavlyanov (17), M.P. Lysenko (15), Lomonovich

(13), Berg (12), Lukashev (12), Anan’ev (11), Bon-

darchuk (9), Veklich (9), Zamoryi (9), Karlov (9),

Morozov (9), Sokolovskii (8), Denisov (7), Krokos

(7) and Pyaskovskii (1953;7). The 1760 references

were supplied by 374 first authors, mostly as sole

authors, not many multi-authored papers pre-1965.

These were 20 influential loess investigators; their

contributions can be briefly analysed. In 1965, these

were all Soviet authors; in 2002, we might attempt to

re-assign them to their basic nationalities; it seems

important, for example, that Ukrainians be seen as

Ukrainians and not lumped into the general group of

‘Russians’.

3.2.1. Obruchev, V.A. (42)

Obruchev was a major loess investigator. He headed

the list in the Kriger (1965) bibliography with 42

entries. He was a great supporter of the aeolian view

of loess deposition—at a time when loess deposit

formation was being vigorously discussed, and his

paper from Tomsk (1911) might be regarded as initiat-

ing the discussion on ‘‘desert’’ loess. His 1914 paper on

loess in North Africa was possibly the first reference to

loess in that continent. He lived a long and productive

life, was honoured by the publication of a postage

stamp in 1963 (the centenary of his birth: see Smalley

and Rogers, 1996) but has not had much exposure in

English.

In 1945, he participated in the American Journal of

Science special loess issue and thus a short version of

his views appeared in English. In 1952, he published a

popular version of his ideas on loess in the literary

journal ‘Novyi Mir’, which was subsequently trans-

lated into English by Loess Letter as a tribute to his

loess interests and investigations (Obruchev, 1952).

There are useful biographies (Murzaev et al., 1986;

Postupal’skaya and Ardashnikova, 1963; 65,000 cop-

ies printed) and hewas listed by Smalley et al. (2001) as

one of the most important influences in the early

development of the study of loess. His field was

essentially loess formation, and the types and distribu-

tion of loess, with some focus on arid regions. He can

stand in the canon of Russian literature as the champion

of aeolian deposition as a mode of loess deposit

formation.

3.2.2. Kriger, N.I. (34)

With respect to loess studies in Russian, Kriger is

the bibliographic star; this review would not be pos-

sible without the work of Kriger. Trofimov (2001) cites

six Kriger works. Trofimov and his co-writers are not

bibliographers on the Kriger scale so their book does

not have the bibliographic impact of Kriger (1965) but

the six Kriger references show continuing influence;

they are Kriger (1965, 1986, 1989), Kriger and Kriger

(1960) and Kriger et al. (1980, 1981). Kriger (1986) is

a short book on the formation of collapsibility in loess

ground—a topic which is explored at equal length in

Trofimov (1999b, 2001).

3.2.3. Moskvitin, A.I. (20)

Moskvitin was singled out by Berg (1964, p. 47) for

some vigorous criticism. ‘‘This criticism of the errors in

logic committed by Moskvitin has a more than theo-

retical significance. In his writings and public

speeches, this aggressive partisan of the aeolian dogma

uses, instead of arguments, insults against those per-

sons whose scientific theories he dislikes. The pupils of

Moskvitin still try to write in the same vein.’’ This is

interesting, coming from Berg, since it illustrates fairly

accurately his own approach to the continuing discus-

3.2.4. Sedletskii, I.D. (18)

Sedletskii worked with (influenced?) Anan’ev. He

was interested in loess mineralogy, and supported the

aeolian view of loess deposit origin. Trofimov (2001)

has one reference.

3.2.5. Gerasimov, I.P. (17)

Gerasimov is a geographer, firmly in the in situ

camp, long-time (1951–1988) director of the Geo-

graphical Institute of the Soviet Academy of Scien-

ces, a person of influence, an opinion shaper and an

establishment man (there is an accessible biobibliog-

raphy by Zimina and Mashbits, 1988). From 1922

to 1930, he was closely associated with the Geo-

graphical Department of Leningrad State University.

From his position of power, he ensured that the in

situ idea remained prominent; and with Sergeev

pursuing the same policy as the person in charge

of engineering geology, it is no surprise that the in

situ concept played an important role in Soviet loess

discussions.

3.2.6. Mavlyanov, G.A. (17)

Mavlyanov is the dominating voice from Middle

Asia; the only Middle Asian specialist in the top 20,

as versus many from Ukraine. Author of a major

standard work on the engineering geology of loess

(Mavlyanov, 1958) but still publishing into the

Fig. 3. Loess in Uzbekistan. A sketch map based on Mavlyanov et al. (1978). The key shows: (1) Eluvial –deluvial loess-like rocks; thickness up to 2–5 m. (2) Deluvial–proluvial

loess; thickness up to 5–30 m. (3) Proluvial loess; thickness up to 10–100 m. (4) Alluvial –proluvial loess; thickness up to 0.5–30 m. (5) Alluvial –delta loess-like deposits with

sand and clay intercalations; thickness up to 20 m. (6) Alluvial gravels, sands, boulder-gravel deposits, covered by loams and sandy loams; thickness up to 5 m. (7) Deluvial –

proluvial crushed rocks, gravel with fine rocks, occasionally covered by sandy-loams and loams; thickness up to 1 m. (8) Saline deposits and small bog regions. (9) Aeolian sands.

(10) Eluvial–deluvial formations; thickness up to 1 m. (11) Parent rocks outcrop (pre-Quaternary). Ground descriptions by Mavlyanov et al. (1987). The terminology is essentially

the old Pavlov terminology where proluvial loess is plain loess, and deluvial loess is slope loess. Eluvial loess is soil/in situ loess.

I.F.Jefferso

al./Engineerin

gGeology68(2003)333–351

1980s. His sketch map of Uzbekistan forms Fig. 3.

This region is perhaps the last in the world where

serious discussion of the formation of loess deposits

is still carried on. He supplied data on loess publica-

tions in Russian for Smalley (1980)—via Prof. D.H.

Yaalon. We put Mavlyanov as the major Uzbek loess

scholar.

3.2.7. Lysenko, M.P. (15)

‘‘Loess constitutes a specific ground. The silty

composition, the propensity to water erosion, the loss

of solidity when moistened, and the subsidence prop-

erties of loess create certain difficulties when the

ground is used as a foundation for constructions or

as a building material for levees, dams and embank-

ments’’ (Lysenko, 1971, into English by A. Goure-

vich). Not, under any circumstances, to be confused

with the notorious charlatan T.D. Lysenko.

3.2.8. Lomonovich, M.I. (13)

The high position of Lomonovich on the Kriger list

may be more of a reflection of Kriger’s interest in

loess deposits in arid desert regions than from partic-

ular virtues of Lomonovich. He wrote on loess in

Kazakhstan.

3.2.9. Berg, L.S. (12)

In many ways a real hero of Soviet science;

damaged by the T.D. Lysenko affair and attacked for

his views relating to evolution, he plays a major role

in the world of loess scholarship—but it is a peculiar

and isolated role. Because ‘Soviet’ science did not

acknowledge the rules of world science, his views

could never be properly tested. His influence became

a dubious influence when many careers required that

his theories be true. Also, of course, his idea of

ordinary ground ‘becoming’ loess ground fitted in

rather well with the idea of ordinary man becoming

Soviet man—it was in tune with the times.

3.2.10. Lukashev, K.I. (12)

Lukashev worked in Belorussia (Belarus) and most

of his publications were via the Belorussian Academy

of Sciences in Minsk. A book in 1961, and a con-

tribution to the 6th INQUA Congress in 1965. An

emphasis on geochemistry; conclusions are drawn

from a mineralogical, petrographic, and chemical

study of the Belorussian loesses regarding differences

in the morphogenetic characteristics of the carbonates

that they contain.

3.2.11. Anan’ev, V.P. (11)

The associations are mineralogy, and the Rostov-

on-Don region. Anan’ev et al. (1989) provided a key

section for Dearman et al. (1989) on worldwide

engineering geology—in fact the section on engineer-

ing–geological characteristics of loess deposits of the

northern hemisphere.

3.2.12. Bondarchuk, V.G. (9)

Bondarchuk is a specialist on the Ukrainian regions.

His publication time span in Smalley (1980, p. 9) is

1933 to 1977–1944 years—a long and productive

loess life. Berg (1964, p. 149) lists six Bondarchuk

items; he worked on Quaternary molluscs in Ukraine,

his early works were published in Ukrainian. Lysenko

(1971) gives two references, one of which is a general

geology of Ukraine.

3.2.13. Veklich, M.F. (9)

Palaeogeography and Ukraine—Veklich summar-

ised in two words. Veklich took up the ideas of

Krokos on loess in Ukraine and developed a complex

system of Ukrainian loess stratigraphy. He was

involved with the early critical development of the

Loess Commission and published a definitive view of

Ukrainian loess in the 1969 AFEQ book which

established the basis for loess stratigraphic investiga-

tions across Europe.

3.2.14. Morozov, S.S. (9)

Anan’ev and Gil’man (1974) reported on the ‘Inter-

national conference on construction on loess’ which

was held in Rostov-on-Don in September 1973. The

participants paid homage to the memory of Yu.M.

Abelev, N.Ya. Denisov, A.M. Drannikov, S.S. Moro-

zov and V.E. Volyanik who each made major contri-

butions to the study of loess and the practice of

foundation engineering. Morozov is slightly elusive;

Lysenko (1971) gave him eight citations which sug-

gests a possible Leningrad connection; for some good

quality (i.e. page numbers included) citations, see

Lysenko (1978) (12 references). Morozov was cited

by Trofimov (1992) and by Minervin (1993). He was a

Ukrainian and focussed on deposits in the western part

of the USSR.

3.2.15. Karlov, N.N. (9)

Karlov’s contributions to the great Kriger list fall

into the 1950s and the early 1960s. Karlov touched on

a range of topics: vulcanism in Moldova, loess mol-

luscs, nomenclature and classification of loess, Dne-

propetrovk, the works of V.A. Obruchev, the presence

of pyroclastic material in loess deposits. He wrote

some papers with A.I. Kravchenko. His range of

publications suggests a concentration on Ukraine

and on Quaternary vulcanism.

3.2.16. Zamoryi, P.K. (9)

Zamoryi published a standard work on the Quater-

nary deposits of Ukraine; he was definitely a Ukraine

specialist, one of the many Ukrainians who made such

a significant contribution to the literature in Russian.

3.2.17. Sokolovskii, I.L. (8)

Sokolovskii is a significant Ukrainian investigator,

and published an influential short book on the loess

rocks of the western part of Ukraine. He worked

mainly on loess origin and properties and engineer-

ing–geological problems.

3.2.18. Denisov, N.Ya. (7)

Seven references in Kriger (1965) but twelve

references in Rogers et al. (1994). A key worker at

a time when the systematic examination of subsidence

was beginning (say 1940–1950); his 1953 book is a

classic work, his rule for subsidence is still widely

quoted, and the Denisov principle is being developed

(Trofimov, 2001). Denounced by Berg (1964, p.

141)—‘‘Therefore Denisov (1940) is wrong when he

claims that the subsidence of loess-like loam in the

eastern parts of Ciscaucasia attests to its aeolian

origin’’. From far away, in time and space, Denisov’s

view looks entirely reasonable. In engineering–geo-

logical terms, he ranks as a great loess pioneer.

3.2.19. Krokos, V.I. (7)

Krokos presented some interesting ideas on the

nature of loess at the 1st INQUA Congress in 1932.

He observed the interesting stratigraphy of the loess in

his native Ukraine. His views ran counter to the

official ‘fluvial’ view of loess and because of this he

was forced to commit suicide in 1937. Krokos has 13

references listed in Berg (1964), possibly because of

his perceptive views on loess nature and origin.

3.2.20. Pyaskovski, B.V. (7)

In 1953, Pyaskovskii published a paper entitled

‘Chto takoe less? (What is this loess?); in 1984,

Kriger published a paper with the same title. Some

fundamental questions were being raised (although

Kriger did not cite Pyaskovskii). In Kriger (1965), the

Pyaskovskii time span is 1927 to 1957—a long work-

ing life; Kriger lists seven papers. The best known is

perhaps Pyaskovskii (1946) because an English trans-

lation is available. Pyaskovskii made some good

points with respect to the Berg theory, particularly

to the effect that with vast depths of loess being

observed the top down weathering process of forma-

tion seemed inadequate.

3.3. 1985

Another 20 years on; 1945 was marked by the

Obruchev paper in American Journal of Science; 1965

was marked by Kriger’s book for the 7th INQUA

Congress; 1985 is less specific but we see consider-

able activity coming to fruition in the mid-1980s.

Kriger was active in the INQUA Loess Commission

and working with Commission President M. Pecsi to

produce a comprehensive survey of loess in the Soviet

Union from an engineering–geological point of view

(Kriger and Pecsi, 1987). Sergeev was co-operating

with a group of associates to produce a book on

‘Loess Soils in the USSR’ (Sergeev et al., 1986). This

is an interesting and useful book; it gives the views of

Sergeev and his associates, and it is notable that the

reference list (in volume 1) does not include Kriger

(1965) or Denisov (1953). This could be a demon-

stration of the rivalry between the ‘University’ group

(Sergeev et al.) and the ‘Institute’ group (Kriger et al.)

or it could reflect the reluctance of the ‘establishment’

(represented by Sergeev) to recognise any slightly

maverick views. The role of Sergeev appears to be

critical in loess developments at this time and will be

considered in more detail. Fundamental disagreements

still existed in 1985 about the ways in which collap-

sibility arose in loess, and therefore about the funda-

mental question of the mode of origin of loess

deposits.

Kriger (1987) discussed the problem of the genesis

of loess collapsibility, and suggested that there were

three main approaches which were being actively

followed during the 1980s.

(1) There are problems of terminology and trans-

lation which may cause problems of interpretation—

which may cause further problems; difficult sections

will be indicated. In the first Kriger group, collapse

properties are explained by the uncompacted nature of

loess formed as a result of the cementation of loosely

deposited sediments (aeolian?) combined with the

formation of water-soluble (in an arid climate) struc-

tural bonds and the emergence of internal stresses

caused by overburden pressure (N.Ya. Denisov’s

principle). The collapse properties of loess in semi-

arid climatic conditions appear after the loading of the

ground by superimposed deposits. This point of view

Kriger ascribes to himself and Botnikov, Guneshian,

Kozhevnikov, Kotelnikova, Lavrushevich, Sevostya-

nov, Tubalev, M.P. Lysenko, Mustafaev, Chokhona-

lidze and others.

He appears to be describing a classic aeolian self-

weight collapsing loess. A ‘western’ description would

suggest that the collapse properties were inherent—the

loess factors were the collapse factors—but if the

attaining of a collapsible state has to be described, then

the above description seems adequate. Denisov’s

requirement of overburden stress is possibly also

implicit in a simple description of thick loess. When

wetted, the overburden pressure, allied to bond mod-

ification by the water, causes collapse. Kriger tends to

insist on arid climate requirements, but these may not

be strictly necessary. Kriger has an arid climate model

of loess formation to promulgate.

(2) Collapse properties are to be explained by the

reduction of density ( = increase of voids ratio) accord-

ing to hypergenetic ( = very powerful) processes. The

denser ground becomes less dense; the collapsible

state develops. Kriger identifies this approach with

Sergeev and suggests that the authority of Sergeev

sustained it. Other workers involved were Bolikhov-

sky, Rakhmatullev, Sinyakov, Trofimov, Minervin,

Borodullina, Komissarova, Korobkin, Usapaev and

others. Kriger suggested that, due to the authority of

Sergeev, a variant of the hypergenetic hypothesis of

declining compaction brought about by frost phenom-

ena was developed. Here, constant or seasonal frost

causes the required increase in voids ratio and collap-

sibility ensues. Attempts have been made to apply this

model to conditions in the Tashkent region (where the

most contentious loess is located) and the Chu river

valley in Kyrgystan—where in the loess sequences,

no traces of permafrost can be found. A classic study

of the origins of collapsibility, written from this point

of view, is the paper by Minervin (1993). Minervin

cites 50 references, all in Russian, with a date range

1943–1990. The ‘marker’ volumes are well repre-

sented, e.g. Denisov (1953), Kriger (1965, 1986),

Sergeev et al. (1986), Lysenko (1978) and Mavlyanov

(1958).

(3) Sedimentology is an explanation of collapse via

the nature of the deposits. This is not well explained

by Kriger (1987). This is a point of view from Middle

Asia, from Tashkent in particular, and the major

proponents are Mavlyanov (1958) and Mavlyanov et

al. (1978, 1987). The silty composition of loess

promotes the formation of collapse properties. Sil-

t + aeolian deposition is widely believed to provide

loess which is inherently collapsible, but Mavlyanov

was not a supporter of the aeolian loess idea. His long

tenure with the Uzbek Academy of Sciences in

Tashkent started when the idea of aeolian loess was

not popular in the USSR, and he continued with non-

aeolian explanations. Fig. 3 is a sketch map of

Uzbekistan loess (Mavlyanov et al., 1987) and the

caption indicates the presence of eluvial–deluvial

loess, deluvial–proluvial loess, proluvial loess, allu-

vial–proluvial loess, alluvial–delta loess—in the

entire country, no aeolian loess is indicated. Deluvial

and proluvial are very ancient terms, introduced by

Pavlov over a hundred years ago (see Berg, 1964, p.

18). Deluvial loess is essentially loess on slopes (from

deluo-washing down), and proluvial loess is loess on

plains, deposited by water. Pavlov thought that the

Turkestan (possibly implying all of Central Asia)

loess was proluvial, and the terms are still used by

Central Asian loess investigators. Eluvial loess is

loess produced by soil processes, as in the Berg theory

of loess formation.

Mavlyanov had a vast knowledge of the loess of

Middle Asia and southern Kazakhstan and produced

some very detailed maps (Mavlyanov, 1958). There is

no doubt that collapsing loess is widespread in this

area, but it is difficult to reconcile this with the

Mavlyanov view of loess nature (Mavlyanov et al.,

1978). The Middle Asian loess deposits can be

compared, in some ways, to the deposits in North

China. In each situation, there are very high moun-

tains to provide silt sources, there are large rivers for

transportation, there are large deserts for particle

storage purposes, and there is a dry windy climate to

promote particle pick-up and aeolian deposition. Is it

necessary to have totally separate explanations of

loess phenomena to the east and to the west of High

Asia? Comparative studies have been carried out

(Kriger et al., 1992) and it is likely that the Central

Asian region will be an increasingly significant loess

region. Studies on the mountain regions and river

basins and seismic zones are certainly underway

(Kadyrov, 1987, 1990; Mavlyanov, 1987, 1989; Mav-

lyanova and Mavlyanov, 1989).

3.4. E.M. Sergeev; a consideration

Because of the very hierarchical nature of the

Soviet system, those at the top had a huge influence

on opinion and practice. Sergeev was in charge of

engineering geology in the Soviet Union and as a

result his views on loess more or less defined the

intellectual climate, and he was in post for a remark-

ably long time. Sergeev was involved in the ‘develop-

ment’ problem. He is seen as a supporter of the Berg

approach to loess formation, which allowed other

routes to the development of loess, other that is, than

the widely accepted aeolian deposition model. The

classic Berg approach provides the basic ‘develop-

mental’ model and allows research problems to be

defined whereby the development of collapsibility in

hitherto non-collapsing ground is studied. This

approach has informed the work of Sergeev (see, in

particular Sergeev, 1976) and the loess research group

at Moscow State University, including, notably, Min-

ervin and Trofimov.

Within the studies on ‘development’, the approach

by Sergeev et al. is closest to the Berg approach. The

in situ theories of Berg were very influential in the

Soviet Union, possibly over a long period, from say

1940 to 1970. In fact, it is probably in the studies of

the development of collapsibility that the remnants of

the Berg approach are seen. Many institutions were

influenced by Bergist thinking, in addition to Sergeev

at MGU, I.P. Gerasimov, the director of the Geo-

graphical Institute of the Soviet Academy of Sciences,

was a firm Bergist and this caused a wide dissem-

ination of Bergist ideas. Berg was one of the few

Russian investigators to receive adequate translation

into English (Berg, 1964) so it is possible that his

influence has been overestimated in investigations

outside the Soviet Union. His theory flourished at a

time in the Soviet Union when great emphasis was

being placed on ‘Russian’ (as opposed to foreign)

approaches to various scientific problems.

Sergeev, along with M.Yu. Abelev, was a leader of

investigations into foundation problems related to

loess. Abelev was concerned with foundation design,

and Sergeev with engineering geology and soil

mechanics (see Abelev, 1989).

Sergeev (1976) is a detailed discussion of the loess

problem related to engineering geology; three quota-

tions indicate the style and substance of the argument:

It is understood that the science of loess collapse

and compaction can only be studied via a

knowledge of how loesses were formed. Since

previously many contradictory points of view

have been expressed on this question, and

mutually exclusive hypotheses have been ad-

vanced, the ‘loess problem’ continues to concern

a broad circle of geologists, soil scientists,

geographers, construction engineers, land re-

claimers, water technologists and other specialists

connected with this problem. The question of the

origin of loesses is not moving ‘into the region of

the history of science’ but is continuing to remain

urgent and keenly discussed.

From our point of view, in order to resolve this

question it is necessary to simultaneously explain:

the distribution and conditions of emplacement of

the loess rocks among Quaternary deposits (first

requirement); the engineering–geological fea-

tures of loess rocks, in particular the extreme

response to water of some of the varieties; how

the compaction/collapse capacity of loess rocks

arose (second requirement); the ideas relating to

these problems are to be investigated by means of

modelling under natural and laboratory condi-

tions (third requirement). Only with the satisfac-

tion of these three requirements is it possible to

seriously consider any hypothesis on the origin of

loess rocks—and more precisely, loesses.

We have presented the data at our disposal on

engineering–geological features of loess rocks

which indicate an eluvial (in situ) origin of the

compactable loesses which we have studied. The

quantity of such data becomes greater and greater

for various regions of the Soviet Union and for

other countries. Therefore, it is now possible to

speak of the fact that the hypothesis of eluvial

origin of compactable loesses has a global

character. It answers the three requirements that

we advanced: it explains the distribution and

conditions and situation of loesses in space and in

the stratigraphic section, and it explains how the

compactibility of loess rocks developed and this

explanation is corroborated by modelling under

laboratory and natural conditions. (Sergeev,

In 1982, the 11th INQUA Congress was held in

Moscow and this allowed Sergeev et al. (1982) to

publish a compact version of their ideas on the genesis

of loess collapsibility:

Cryogenic processes create a main structural

element of loess rocks, globular aggregates 10–

100 um in diameter. Their cores are represented

by quartz, less frequently by feldspar blocks of a

crystallographically regular shape; the blocks

have perforated calcitic shells with a polymineral

coating (clay minerals, iron oxides, amorphous

silica, finely dispersed quartz and carbonates). An

interaction of globular aggregates in the structure

of collapsible loess rocks occurs through clay

minerals of surficial coatings by means of ionic–

electrostatic bonds. According to the modern

concepts of physicochemical mechanics, the

structure of loess rocks completely corresponds

to a globular model of a porous body. Loess rocks

correspond to the main postulates of the strength

theory, reflecting peculiarities of finely dispersed

porous bodies. A theoretically possible porosity

of a dispersed loess system may vary from 26%

to 47.6%. The porosity of collapsible loess rocks

amounts to 46–50%, suggesting their extremely

loose state. Non-collapsible varieties of loess

rocks have a porosity of 35–40%, corresponding

to the packing of ideal spherulites, close to the

most compact one. Collapsibility of loess rocks

may be formed in two ways: (1) with sublimation

of ice from highly porous, heaved dusty sedi-

ments of various genesis and (2) as a result of a

geologically fast degradation of permafrost and

dehydration of a system under conditions of

specific phase transition of water. (Sergeev et al.,

Sergeev wanted to link loess formation to cold

climates and frost action, as Fig. 4 suggests. He did

not appear to separate formation of loess material and

formation of loess deposits, but he did separate loess

formation and the development of collapsibility.

3.5. 2005

We look slightly ahead. The current reference is

actually Trofimov (2001), this provides the counter-

point to Kriger (1965). This multi-authored work

provides an excellent view of loess studies in Russian

at the start of the 21st Century and represents the

historical present in this review, and we expect it to be

still valued and valid in 2005. An important current

task is to delineate the regions of interest; regions

where loess is found and where it causes geotechnical

problems. Much of this loess, which was for many

years virtually inaccessible within the USSR, is now

contained within the newly independent states around

the Russian border. It is possible that more of the

collapsing loess shown on the Abelev and Abelev

map (Fig. 2) is now outside Russia than inside Russia.

The main loess regions might be defined as Ukraine,

Russia and Central Asia.

3.6. Places/regions defined

These are the regions of the former Soviet Union;

these are regions where loess was investigated and the

results were published in Russian language journals.

But this is very much a view from the outside; an

outsider’s view of loess distribution in the USSR; an

attempt to define the key regions for purposes of

definition and communication. We are not aware of

any ‘internal’ classification of Soviet loess terrains so

we diffidently offer an ‘external’ classification and

commentary. On the INQUA Loess Commission

website at www.loessletter.com, in the Russian loess

section there is an outline classification of Soviet loess

regions; this approach is followed here; there are

seven identified loess regions. They are based on the

outline map in Abelev and Abelev (1968) which is

shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 4 is a simple outline map from

Sergeev et al. (1986) which shows some possibly

related features. We have superimposed, very roughly,

the loess regions 1–5. There is only modest agree-

ment for the designated loess zones; we strive for

better agreement and more clearly demarcated geog-

raphies.

4. The seven loess regions (proposed)

(1) The Western regions. By far the largest and

most important region; now comprising Ukraine,

Belarus, Moldova and parts of southern Russia; con-

taining major towns and cities like Kyiv, Rostov-on-

Don, Orel, Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk, etc. The major

river is the Dnepr and this has carried large amounts

of glacial loess material into the region. It is no

surprise to find that so many of the writers in Russian

were Ukrainian investigators—in the new geography,

Ukraine is a major loess country. Trofimov (2001)

lists 15 sites in the Western region; 1–9 form the

‘Ukrainian’ group, 10–15 are the Russian group. The

site names are (1) Budeshty, (2) Tiraspol’ (which is

actually in Moldova), (3) Boyanichi, (4) Sharovechka,

Fig. 4. Loess regions of the USSR-related to the Sergeev et al. (1986) scheme of the distribution of ancient cryogenic phenomena in loess soils

of Pleistocene age in steppe, semi-desert and desert zones. The key shows (1) ice vein pseodomorphs, (2) traces of seasonal deep freezing, (3)

initial soil vein, (4) polygonal micro-relief, (5) polygonal sub-surface voids, (6) frozen soils of Bryansk interglacial, (7) tundra soils, (8) traces of

solifluction and hydrolaccoliths, (9) regions of renewal of loess soils recharge (source areas). The five westernmost loess regions are indicated

very approximately.

(5) Lysogora, (6) Sarata-Khal’zhider, (7) Baburka, (8)

Parkovyi, (9) Dnepropetrovsk; then the Russian sites,

(10) Voldgodonsk, (11) Budennovsk, (12) Otkaznoe,

(13) Novopokrovskaya, (14) Ust’-Labinsk, (15) Afo-

nino. Section 15 is near Nizhnii Novgorod (once

Gor’kii) and this is the only inland site on the

Trofimov list; all(!) of the other locations are on the

fringes. Zone 4 is an inland region (Orsk–Omsk) and

is shown on the Abelev and Abelev map but is not

listed or considered by Trofimov. Region 1 is over-

whelmingly the most important of the FSU loess

regions. It might be defined as lying within latitude

44–56j north, and longitude 24–48j.(2) The Caucasus. A small region; local loess

deposits made of material derived from the Caucasus

mountains. But looking much more important on the

Sergeev et al. (1986) (Fig. 4 map).

(3) Middle Asia and southern Kazakhstan. If the

section at Ashkhabad associated with the Kopet Dagh

is included zone 3 involves Trofimov Sections 16–22

and represents a major region of FSU loess. Of course

now these sections are in several different countries,

e.g. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kryrgy-

stan; and there is loess in southern Kazakhstan. The

Trofimov sites for zone 3 are (16) Ashkhabad, (17)

Adyrnyi, (18) Almazar, (19) Chirchik, (20) Orlovka,

(21) Kar’ernyi and (22) Kok-Tyube. Abelev and

Abelev show a collection of medium-sized dispersed

loess patches; the loess area is large and this is a very

important loess area given the close association with

major cities such as Tashkent and Alma-Ata and

Dushanbe. The Tashkent earthquake of 1966 caused

a vast amount of damage demonstrating the problems

inherent in having a large city (4th largest in the

USSR) built on loess in an active seismic region. Two

main rivers, the Syr-Darya and the Amu-Darya, not

giant rivers like the Ob and Yenisei but they were

substantial movers of loess material, out from the Tien

Shan and towards the Kyzyl Kum desert and the Aral

Sea. Abelev and Abelev show deposits on the north-

ern shore of Lake Balkash and a substantial deposit

just to the east of Bukhara.

(4) Western Siberia: Orsk–Omsk. A region ne-

glected by Trofimov, 2001 but shown by Abelev and

Abelev to contain extensive deposits of collapsing

loess. This is a rather complex area and our suggested

namings and dispositions are tentative. The western

part of region 4 is associated with the Ural river which

flows from the Ural Mountains to the Caspian Sea.

Abelev and Abelev show deposits all down the Ural

river from Orsk. North and east of Orsk a large deposit

is indicated but this belongs to the north-flowing river

Tobol; the northern limit represented approximately by

the town of Kurgan. The east of region 4 stretches

towards Omsk and the Irtysh river. Abelev and Abelev

show an extensive deposit all along the Irtysh south of

Omsk—a striking illustration of a loess deposit asso-

ciated with a river. The Irtysh delivers material directly

from High Asia to the eastern part of zone 4. The river

Ischik supplies the middle part of zone 4; it flows on to

join the Irtysh, as does the Tobol. No Trofimov sites in

this extensive loess region.

(5) Tomsk-Barnaul. Associated with river channels

flowing to consolidate into the River Ob; deposits

stretching south from Tomsk. Trofimov deposits 23 to

28 are all directly associated with the rivers. The

section names are 23 Berdsk, 24 Lozhok, 25 Novo-

sibirsk, 26 Zatulinskii, 27 Elunino and 28 Volodarka.

Barnaul is a useful locator. Loess material from the

south; rivers flowing north.

(6) Kansk-Krasnoyarsk. This region contains the

furthest east of the Trofimov sections, no.29 called

Bol’shaya Salba, not too far from Krasnoyarsk. In this

locality, Abelev and Abelev show an interesting loess

region, associated with the Yenisei river. The town of

Kansk also serves as a locator; Yenisiesk represents

the northern limit. Loess material from the mountains

to the south; mostly carried by the large north-flowing

rivers.

(7) Irkutsk. The deposits near Irkutsk lie along the

Angara river; they are the furthest east of the deposits

shown by Abelev and Abelev (1968)—they appear as

a relatively small outlier of collapsing ground to the

north of Lake Baikal. Trofimov (2001) does not give

detailed consideration to deposits this far to the east.

Irkutsk is the only adjacent town shown by Abelev

and Abelev so we refer to this loess region as the

Irkutsk loess. Its geographical position suggests a

particle origin in the mountains to the south, with

major transportation by the Angara river. Lake Baikal

possibly has an important role to play; there are 300

streams feeding into Baikal, but only one outlet—the

Angara river. Baikal may be an intermediate source of

loess material.

These seven regions are based on the loess distri-

bution shown in the map of Abelev and Abelev

(1968). This map was chosen because it shows

relatively little detail; the map in the 3rd edition

(Abelev and Abelev, 1979) was very complex and

quite difficult to interpret, as was the equivalent map

in Sergeev et al. (1986). The map of Abelev and

Abelev (1968) shows the location of collapsing loess

deposits within the boundaries of the USSR—many of

them, of course, now fall outside the boundaries of

Russia. The map shows collapsing loess, which sug-

gests that the deposits illustrated are the more recent

deposits, the open-structured, metastable, very loessic

deposits. It seems reasonable to concentrate on these

deposits since these are the ones of most interest in a

ground engineering/construction technology/engineer-

ing geology context. There are perhaps more distinc-

tions than are immediately apparent. We can distin-

guish two main sources of particles for the loess

deposits; a northern glacial source which supplies

the major deposits of the ‘west’ group, and a mountain

source, High Asia, which supplies most of the rest.

Large rivers are the efficient transporters of loess

material through the landscape and it is possible to

identify deposits with the great north-flowing rivers

such as the Irtysh, Ob and Yenesei. In the ‘west’

region, the Dnepr dominates loess distribution. In

Central Asia, the material is made in the Tien Shan

and the great rivers are the Amu Darya and Syr Darya.

Smaller rivers like the Chirchik have had a major role

to play and the complexity of the landforms and the

proximity of the desert region to the mountain region

has made deciphering the Central Asian loess story a

complex task.

5. Discussion/commentary

A short time before Abelev (1989) produced his

overview of the development of the engineering–

geological view of loess in the Soviet Union a similar

task had been attempted by Krutov (1987). His

account provides some counterpoint for that of Abe-

lev. Krutov indicates 10% of the territory of the Soviet

Union as being covered with loess and suggested that

in more recent construction about 30% of the ground

involved was of a collapsing nature. The problems

first arose in the 1920s with irrigation systems in

Central Asia and the north Caucasus and oil industry

construction at Grozny. Then came the first of the five

year plans which required large metallurgical and

machine manufacturing plants at Zaporozhe (Zapor-

izhzhya), Nikopol, Dnepropetrovsk, Zhdanov (now

Mariupol), Kherson and Kuznetsk, and also irrigation

systems and hydraulic structures in Central Asia, the

north Caucasus and Transcaucasia—all of which

encountered problems with collapsing loess ground.

After the Great Patriotic War, some very large indus-

trial structures were erected, e.g. VAZ, KamAZ,

Atommash, KZTE, etc., and there was widespread

residential and industrial construction in Ukraine, the

Rostov region, Siberia and Central Asia; all with

Engineering geology of loess and loess-like deposits: a commentary on the Russian literature

Documents