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.
D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
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
0013-7952/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
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: [email protected] (I.F. Jefferson),
[email protected] (D. Karastanev), [email protected],
[email protected] (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.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351336
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
net
al./Engineerin
gGeology68(2003)333–351
337
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
year.
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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351338
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-
sion.
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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 339
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
net
al./Engineerin
gGeology68(2003)333–351
340
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.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 341
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.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351342
(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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 343
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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351344
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,
1976)
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.,
1982)
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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 345
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.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351346
(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
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 347
(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
related loess ground problems.
Krutov (1987) suggested that the first solutions to
the foundation problems were proposed by Yu.M.
Abelev and he listed the subsequent workers who
had made contributions to the problem: M.Yu. Abelev,
V.P. Anan’ev, Kh.A. Askarov, L.G. Balaev, Ya.D.
Gil’man, V.N. Golubkov, M.N. Gold’stein, A.A. Gri-
goryan, N.Ya. Denisov, S.N. Klepikov, A.A. Kirilov,
N.I. Kriger, A.K. Larionov, I.M. Litvinov, G.M.
Lomize, G.A. Mavlyanov, A.A. Musaelyan, A.A.
Mustafaev, N.A. Ostashev, A.L. Rubinshtein, E.M.
Sergeev, V.E. Sokolovich, R.A. Tokar’ and N.A.
Tsytovich. It is an impressive list; we propose that
the key workers—those who have had most influence
and who have shaped thinking and practice with
respect to loess ground problems are the two Abelevs,
Denisov, Kriger, Mavlyanov and Sergeev—their work
is found in the marker volumes—which deserve to be
studied and appreciated. There has been activity since
1987 and major new figures are visible, e.g. Krutov,
Osipov, Minervin and Trofimov. Trofimov (2001) lists
more recent activity and suggests Trofimov as an
important loess investigator for 2005. Trofimov
(2001) is a very important volume; it is based on a
Soviet structure and depends on data from Trofimov
et al. (1989) but it is the first large post-Soviet loess
volume and it demonstrates a high (welcome) level of
activity in the Russian language world.
Politics has had an effect on loess investigation.
The years of the ‘Cold War’ (1946–1986?) separated
loess investigators into two camps. In the years of
isolation, separate practices and terminologies devel-
oped; there was anyway a defining linguistic differ-
ence which made communication difficult. Also, there
were some interesting geographical factors which
emphasized the separation; within the Soviet Union
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351348
and its region of influence were found those regions
where construction on loess provided major geotech-
nical problems—these regions, by and large, did not
exist outside the USSR and subsidence and collapse
problems had little impact. And the USSR had L.S.
Berg and the in situ theory of loess formation.
We have to tackle the concepts of ‘loess and loess-
like deposits’ and the idea of ‘polygenetic’ formation
processes. We tentatively advance the idea that the
‘polygenetic’ process is now cited as a convenient
way to escape the fact that loess is essentially an
aeolian deposit and that it owes it properties, and in
particular its collapse properties, to the airfall mode of
deposit formation. In the Russian literature, it is
common practice to divide collapsing soils into two
types:
Type 1: collapse of soil from its own weight is
absent or does not exceed 5 cm, and collapse is
possible only from the load of the foundations.
Type 2: collapse is possible from its own weight,
and exceeds 5 cm.
These definitions are from Krutov (1987). It seems
very likely, taking a worldwide view, and ignoring the
distortions introduced by L.S. Berg that type 2 ground
is probably prone to collapse because it consists of
aeolian loess.
The purpose of this paper, however, is not to
debate theories of loess formation but to make a
contribution to the process of uniting two very diverse
streams of loess research. As the loess-rich regions of
the old USSR become more accessible to trade and
development, we will need to know about the related
geological hazards which have been relatively
obscured for many years. Also as large efforts are
made to understand all aspects of loess collapsi-
bility (Trofimov, 1990, 1999b) continuing contacts
will be essential.
Acknowledgements
We thank Alexander Alexiev of the Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences for the supply of documents
and literature—in particular, he provided a copy of
Kriger (1965)—absolutely the key document of this
bibliographic endeavour. We thank the Paul Galvin
Library of the Illinois Institute of Technology in
Chicago for allowing access to their collection of
translated Russian material and the Larkin Library of
Leicester University for continued support. Andrei
Dodonov, Vice-President of the INQUA Loess
Commission, provided a copy of Trofimov (2001).
Natalia Gerasimenko of the Ukrainian Academy of
Sciences provided bibliographic assistance. Generous
financial support from NATO, the British Council and
the Royal Society is acknowledged. This is part of the
LAMBERT project of the INQUA Loess Commission
(Loess And Modern Bibliography: Engineering
Research Topics) and the C18 programme of the
IAEG.
References
Abelev, M.Yu., 1989. Loess and its engineering problems in the
USSR. In: Chinese Inst. Soil Mech., Foundation Eng. (Eds.),
Engineering Problems of Regional Soils (Proc. Int. Conf. Bei-
jing 1988). Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 3–6.
Abelev, Yu.M., Abelev, M.Yu., 1968. Fundamentals of Design and
Construction on Collapsible Macroporous Soils, 2nd ed. Stroiiz-
dat, Moscow. 431 pp., in Russian.
Abelev, Yu.M., Abelev, M.Yu., 1979. Fundamentals of Design and
Construction on Collapsible Macroporous Soils, 3rd ed. Stroiiz-
dat, Moscow. 271 pp., in Russian.
Abelev, M.Yu., Abeleva, A.M., 1982. Study Methods for Loess
Ground. Stroiizdat, Moscow. 124 pp., in Russian.
Anan’ev, V.P., 1964. Mineralogical Composition and Properties of
Loess Rocks. RGU, Rostov-on-Don. 144 pp., in Russian.
Anan’ev, V.P., Gil’man, Ya.D., 1974. Interinstitute conference on
construction on loess. Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 11, 81–82.
Anan’ev, V.P., Balaev, L.G., Bogdanov, I.Ya., Mozgovoy, O.I.,
1989. Engineering geological characteristics of loess deposits
of the Northern Hemisphere. In: Dearman, W.R., Sergeev,
E.M., Shibakova, V.S. (Eds.), Engineering Geology of the Earth.
Nauka, Moscow, pp. 116–127.
Balaev, L.G., Tsarev, P.V., 1964. Loess rocks in Central and Eastern
Cis-Caucasia. Nauka, Moscow. 246 pp., in Russian.
Berg, L.S., 1964. Loess as a product of weathering and soil
formation. Israel Prog. for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
207 pp. A translation from part of ‘Climate and Life’ 1947.
Dearman, W.R., Sergeev, E.M., Shibakova, V.S. (Eds.), 1989.
Engineering Geology of the Earth. Nauka, Moscow. 247 pp.
Denisov, N.Ya., 1940. Genesis of subsiding loess-like loams. Dokl.
Akad. Nauk SSSR 28 (6), 16–22 (in Russian).
Denisov, N.Ya., 1944. Some theoretical premises and experimental
proofs of the soil—hypothesis of loess formation. Izv. Akad.
Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geol. 2, 15–31 (in Russian).
Denisov, N.Ya., 1953. Construction Properties of Loesses and Lo-
ess-like Loams, 2nd ed. Gosstroiizdat, Moscow. 154 pp., in
Russian.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 349
Denisov, N.Ya., 1972. Nature of the Strength and Deformation of
Ground-collected Works. Gosstroiizdat, Moscow. 280 pp., in
Russian.
Fookes, P.G., Best, R., 1969. Consolidation characteristics of some
late Pleistocene periglacial metastable soils of east Kent. Q. J.
Eng. Geol. 2, 103–128.
Jefferson, I.F., Smalley, I.J., Richardson, P.J., 1998. Everything to
loess (the Atommash story). Ground Eng. 31 (2), 28–29.
Kadyrov, E.V., 1987. Subsidence of loess in the lower and middle
course of the Syr Darya river basin. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1987 (1),
65–68 (in Russian).
Kadyrov, E.V., 1990. The genesis of subsidence of loess soil in
desert zones and its forming factors. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1990 (1),
84–87 (in Russian).
Klepikov, S.N., Tregub, A.S., Mateev, I.V., 1987. Calculations for
buildings and structures on collapsible ground. Budivel’nik
Kyiv (242 pp., in Russian).
Kriger, N.I., 1965. Loess, its Characteristics and Relation to the
Geographical Environment. Izd-vo Nauka, Moscow. 296 pp.,
in Russian.
Kriger, N.I., 1984. What is this loess? Questions of definition and
classification. In: Ziangirov, R.S., Bykova, V.S. (Eds.), Classi-
fication Criteria for the Division of Loess Rocks. Nauka, Mos-
cow, pp. 6–14. In Russian.
Kriger, N.I., 1986. Loess—Origin of Hydrocompaction Properties
Nauka, Moscow. 132 pp., in Russian.
Kriger, N.I., 1987. Collapse properties. In: Kriger, Pecsi (Eds.),
Engineering Geological Research of Loess and Loess-like Sedi-
ments in the USSR—Review and Bibliography (Loess Inform
no. 1). Geog. Res. Inst. Hungarian Acad. Sci., Budapest,
pp. 43–44.
Kriger, N.I., 1989. Origin of collapse properties of loess and loess-
like rocks. In: Trofimov, V.T. (Ed.), Engineering Geology of
Loess Rocks. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 9–10. In Russian.
Kriger, N.I., Kriger, K.P., 1960. On the origin of loess in North
America: a literature survey. Biul. Komiss. Po Izuch. Chetvert.
Perioda 25, 71–91 (in Russian).
Kriger, N.I., Pecsi, M. (Eds.), 1987. Engineering Geological Re-
search of Loess and Loess-like Sediments in the USSR—Re-
view and Bibliography (Loess Inform no. 1). Geog. Res. Inst.
Hungarian Acad. Sci., Budapest. 144 pp., text in English, refer-
ences in Russian.
Kriger, N.I., Bolikhovskaya, N.S., Kotel’nikova, N.E., Lavrusevich,
S.I., Sevost’yanov, V.V., 1980. Palaeogeographical cycles and
stratigraphy of loess in Central Asia and southern Kazakhstan.
In: Volkov, I.A. (Ed.), Cyclic Formation of Sub-aerial Rocks. Inst.
Geol. Geofiz. Tr., vol. 457. Nauka, Novosibirsk, pp. 99–114.
In Russian.
Kriger, N.I., Kotel’nikova, N.E., Lavrusevich, S.I., Sevost’yanov,
V.V., 1981. Principles of Formation of Subsidence Properties of
Loess Rocks of Central Asia and southern Kazakhstan. Nauka,
Moscow. 132 pp., in Russian.
Kriger, N.I., Umarova, G.Kh., Khamrayev, B., 1992. Loess prov-
inces of China and Central Asia. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1992 (4), 87–93
(in Russian).
Krutov, V.I., 1982. Foundations and bases on collapsible ground.
Budivel’nik Kyiv (222 pp., in Russian).
Krutov, V.I., 1987. Foundation construction on collapsible soils.
Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 24, 219–223.
Krutov, V.I., Bagdasarov, Yu.A., Rabinowich, I.G., 1985. Foun-
dations in Excavated Ground Systems. Stroiizdat, Moscow.
145 pp., in Russian.
Larionov, A.K., 1971. Research Methods of Soil Structures. Nedra,
Moscow, 168 pp., in Russian.
Lysenko, M.P., 1971. Loessial Rocks of the European USSR Israel
Prog. Sci. Translations, Jerusalem. 168 pp.
Lysenko, M.P., 1978. Loess Rocks (Composition and Engineering–
Geological Properties). Nedra, Leningrad. 208 pp., in Russian.
Mavlyanov, G.A., 1958. Genetical types of loesses and loess-like
rocks in the central and southern parts of Central Asia and their
engineering–geological properties. Izd-vo. Akad. Nauk Uzbek
SSSR. Inst. Geol., Tashkent. 609 pp., in Russian.
Mavlyanov, N.G., 1987. Influence of the morphology of relief on
the subsidence of loess; for example, on the interfluve of the
Chirchik and Keles rivers. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1987 (1), 62–65
(in Russian).
Mavlyanov, N.G., 1989. The occurrence of loess soil subsidence in
the mountain belt in Central Asia. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1989 (3), 86–90
(in Russian).
Mavlyanova, N.G., Mavlyanov, N.G., 1989. Subsidence and vibro-
subsidence of loess soils. Uzb. Geol. Z. 1989 (6), 62–65
(in Russian).
Mavlyanov, G.A., Kasymov, S.M., Smolina, L.B., Vaiman, Z.N.,
Stupakova, L.F., Yunuskhodzhieva, M.T., 1978. Physical –
Chemical, Engineering–Geological and Seismic Studies of Lo-
ess Ground in Uzbekistan. FAN, Tashkent. 256 pp., in Russian.
Mavlyanov, G.A., Kasymov, S.M., Shermatov, M.Sh., 1987. The
Uzbekistan loess, genesis and distribution. GeoJournal 15 (2),
145–150.
Minervin, A.V., 1993. Genesis of collapsibility in loess. Geoekolo-
giya 1993 (3), 18–36 (in Russian).
Murzaev, E.M., Obruchev, V.V., Ryabukhin, G.E., 1986. Vladimir
Afanas’evich Obruchev 1863–1956. Nauka, Moscow. 209 pp.,
in Russian.
Mustafaev, A.A., 1978. Fundamentals of Collapsible Soil Mechan-
ics. Stroiizdat, Moscow. 263 pp., in Russian.
Obruchev, V.A., 1911. The question of the origin of loess—in
defence of the aeolian hypothesis. Izv. Tomsk. Tekhnol. Inst.
23 (3) (45 pp., in Russian).
Obruchev, V.A., 1914. The question of North African loess. Zem-
levedenie 4, 26–31 (in Russian).
Obruchev, V.A., 1945. Loess types and their origin. Am. J. Sci. 243,
256–262.
Obruchev, V.A., 1952. Loess and its significance. Novyi Mir 3,
212–233 (in Russian; English translation published as Loess
Letter Suppl. 11).
Osipov, V.I., Sokolov, V.N., 1995. Factors and mechanisms of
loess collapsibility. In: Derbyshire, E., Dijkstra, T., Smalley,
I.J. (Eds.), Genesis and Properties of Collapsible Soils.
Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, pp. 49–63. NATO
ASI C468.
Postupal’skaya, M., Ardashnikova, S., 1963. Obruchev. Molodaya
Gvardiya, Moscow. 431 pp., in Russian.
Pyaskovskii, B.V., 1946. Loess as a deep soil formation. Pochvo-
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351350
vedenie 1946 (11), 686–696 (in Russian; English translation in
Loess Letter Supplement 3).
Pyaskovskii, B.V., 1953. What is this loess? Mater. Po Inzh. Geol.
3, 14–22 (in Russian).
Rogers, C.D.F., Dijkstra, T.A., Smalley, I.J., 1994. Hydroconsoli-
dation and subsidence of loess; Studies from China, Russia,
North America and Europe. Eng. Geol. 37, 83–113.
Rzhanitsyn, B.A., 1986. Chemical Soil Stabilization in the Con-
struction Field. Stroiizdat, Moscow. 202 pp., in Russian.
Sergeev, E.M., 1976. Genesis of loess in connection with its engi-
neering–geological peculiarities. Moscow State Univ. Geol.
Bull. 1976, part 5, 1–10.
Sergeev, E.M., Minervin, A.V., Komissarova, N.N., 1982. Genesis
of collapsibility of loess rocks. Abstracts 11th INQUA Con-
gress, vol. 3. 227 only, reprinted in Loess Letter 11.
Sergeev, E.M., Larionov, A.K., Komissarova, N.N. (Eds.), 1986.
Loess Rocks of the USSR. Nedra, Moscow V1. 231 pp., in
Russian.
Smalley, I.J., 1971. ‘In-situ’ theories of loess formation and the
significance of the calcium carbonate content of loess. Earth-
Sci. Rev. 7, 67–85.
Smalley, I.J., 1980. Loess—A Partial Bibliography. Geo Books,
Norwich. Geo Abstracts Biblio. 7, 103 pp.
Smalley, I.J., Rogers, C.D.F., 1996. Loess—the yellow earth. Geol.
Today 12, 183–191.
Smalley, I.J., Rogers, C.D.F., 1997. L.S. Berg and the soil theory of
loess formation. In: Yaalon, D.H., Berkowicz, S. (Eds.), History
of Soil Science—International Perspectives. Adv. GeoEcology
29, Catena Reiskirchen, pp. 377–391.
Smalley, I.J., Jefferson, I.F., Dijkstra, T.A., Derbyshire, E., 2001.
Some major events in the development of the scientific study of
loess. Earth-Sci. Rev. 54, 5–18.
Trofimov, V.T., 1990. Loess subsidence models. Moscow State
Univ. Geol. Bull. 45 (2), 5–18.
Trofimov, V.T., 1992. Engineering geological significance of the
term ‘loess’ and its derivatives. Inz. Geol. 1992 (6), 14–24
(in Russian).
Trofimov, V.T., 1999a. The maximum thickness of collapsible loess
rocks. Environ. Geosci. 2, 92–100.
Trofimov, V.T., 1999b. The Genesis of Collapsibility in Loess
Rocks. Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow. 271 pp., in Russian.
Trofimov, V.T. (Ed.), 2001. Loess Mantle of the Earth and its Prop-
erties. Moscow Univ. Press, Moscow. 464 pp., in Russian.
Trofimov, V.T., Velichko, A.A., Shaevich, Ya.E., 1989. Key engi-
neering geological profiles of collapsible loess rocks in the
USSR. In: Trofimov, V.T. (Ed.), Current Problems in the Engi-
neering Geology of Loesses. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 86–99. In
Russian.
Zimina, R.P., Mashbits, Ya.G., 1988. Innokenti Petrovich Gerasi-
mov 1905–1985. Geogr. Bibliogr. Stud. 12, 83–93.
I.F. Jefferson et al. / Engineering Geology 68 (2003) 333–351 351