Diyala Journal ISSN 1999-8716

of Engineering Printed in Iraq

Sciences
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 75-85, June 2017

DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF

GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS

Mohammed Y. Fattah1, Mudhafar K. Hameedi2, Mohammed F. Aswad3

1
Professor, 2Assistant lecturer, 3Lecturer,
Building and Construction Engineering Department, University of Technology,
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], mohammad [email protected]
(Received: 22/5/2016; Accepted: 10/8/2016)

ABSTRACT: - Collapsible soils are known as problematic soils, which possess considerable
strength when dry and lose their strength when inundated experiencing excessive settlements.
The soil response to inundation (i.e. landslides or significant soil settlements) could not be
predicted beforehand. The irrecoverable volume reduction of collapsible soils takes place fast
and sudden and no measurements can be taken to stop the problem once it initiates. The
collapse potential increases with time due to soaking and leaching which is attributed to the
dissolution and washing out of gypsum.
In this paper, a comparison is made between the collapse potential predicted form
laboratory standard collapse test with filed collapse (coefficient of resolving slump) estimated
from plate loading test. The soil site for investigation was in Rumaila, Basrah Governorate.
Results of collapse test carried out on two samples showed that the collapse potential, Ic of
the two samples is 5.091% and 3.502%, the soil is considered of moderate degree of collapse.
The coefficient of average resolving slump for saline soil was calculated from field plate load
test to be 0.94% to 1.2%. The difference in boundary conditions between the two approaches
was found clear in the evaluation of collapse potential.
Keywords: Gypseous soil; collapse; field test; plate load test; collapse test.

INTRODUCTION
Collapsible soils are soils susceptible to large volumetric strains when they become
saturated. Numerous soil types fall in the general category of collapsible soils, including
loess, a well-known aeolian deposit. Loess is characterized by relatively low density and
cohesion, appreciable strength and stiffness in the dry state, but is susceptible to significant
deformations as a result of wetting. Gypseous soils are another type of collapsible soils
(Lawton et al., 1992).
Deformation behavior of unsaturated collapsible soil under field conditions depends
mainly on existing (initial) conditions, wetting and loading history of the soil. The soil can
experience a complex volume change reaction depending on the intensity of the applied
external load. Thus, compacted soils wetted and subjected to load can swell or collapse
depending on their conditions and the value of vertical stress. The clayey soils swell when
wetted under low applied stresses and compress when wetted under high stresses. Volume
decreases due to surplus of water under the same stresses in loose, partially saturated natural
soil layers are termed collapse (Dudley, 1970).
Swelling and collapsing cause damage to many civil engineering structures such as:
spread footing, buildings, roads, highways, and earth dams leading to high economic losses.
There are many factors affecting collapse behavior of compacted and cohesive soils which
are: initial dry unit weight, initial water content, percentage of fines, and the method used in
compaction (Lawton et al., 1992).

75
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS
Collapsible soils settle when saturated under loading. The rapid collapse of soils leads to
damages in the structures built on soil. Problematic soils are formed in especial geological
conditions. For example, collapsible soils are often found in semi-arid area. Field
investigation and laboratory test can be useful to recognize problematic soils. Some
properties of soils such as dry unit weight and liquid limit are helpful to estimate collapse
potential of soils (Rezaei et al., 2012).
Experiments performed by El Howayek et al. (2011) on two soils included index
tests(particle size analysis, specific gravity and Atterberg limits determination), standard
compaction (Proctor) tests, and a wide testing program included double odeometer tests to
determine the collapse strains upon wetting as a function of level of stress (12.5kPa to 2760
kPa). Soil specimens A and B were compacted maintaining an extensive range of relative
compaction values, RC (between 75% and close to optimum) and for moisture contents
(between 5–6% points lying in the dry of optimum zone to optimum). The collapse potential
was determined following the criterion of the ASTMD5333, which uses the collapse index Ie,
the collapse strain measured under a stress of 200 kPa. The collapse was found to increase
with decreasing relative compaction, compaction water content and degree of saturation.
Significant wetting induced strains were observed even for specimens compacted around
90% RC, in the case of water contents significantly on the dry side of optimum. On the other
hand, the collapse strains were noticed to decrease with stress level, in some cases,
considerable collapse strains were measured at relatively low stress levels (25–100 kPa),
indicating that collapse induced by wetting may be taken into consideration even in case of
small thicknesses of soil fill.
It is well recognized that the soil collapsible layers show a high potential for strains
collapse strains caused by external loading. Inspection of the collapse potential is, therefore,
necessary for calculations of settlement related to the embankment foundations resting on a
layer of collapsible soil. The evaluation made by Livneh and Livneh (2012) recommended
that the collapse potential depends on the following controlling parameters: (a) plasticy limit,
(b) liquid limit, (c) field dry unit weight, (d) in-situ water content, and (e) pressure applied
upon saturation in the collapse (single-oedometer) test. Measurement of these parameters, in
addition to the water-penetration depth into the underlying soil stratum and the effect of soil
partial saturation on the reduction of the collapse potential, was found to enable in the
calculation of the magnitude of collapse strain or settlement in a non-homogeneous soil
stratum.
Difrent methods have been adopted to decrease collapse effect, such as replacing of the
gypseous soil or leveling of the soil (soil grouting or soil improvement). Fattah et al. (2013)
carried out tests on four different types of gypseous soils including various properties and
different gypsum contents. Tests were implemented on remoulded soil examples to
investigate the compressibility of gypseous soil under the effect of varying conditions. The
samples were grouted by using acrylate chemical. The treated gypseous soils showed low
degrees of collapse potential, where acrylate liquid led to decrease the collapsibility of the
gypseous soil by more than 50-60%. The acrylate liquid had affected the shear strength
parameters of the gypseous soil through increasing the cohesion and decreasing the angle of
internal friction.
Fattah et al. (2014) concluded that the gypseous soil samples revealed a low collapse
probable in which the acrylate liquid caused a decrease in the collapsibility of the gypseous
soil by more than 50-60%. The grouting with acrylate liquid resulted in the parameters of
shear strength of the gypseous soil to be changed; the cohesion increased and the angle of
internal friction decreased. For samples uncovered to soaking, it was found that the
combination increased and the viewpoint of internal friction relatively decreased. This
behavior can be attributed to the soil combination effect, caused by the action of the acrylate
solution, and because that the acrylate liquid prevents the contact between soil particles
which induced a reduction in interaction.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
76
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS
The objective of the present work is to make a comparison between the collapse potential
determined from collapse test and the coefficient of average resolving slump as determined
from field plate loading test.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
A sub-soil investigation was carried in the site of EPP, Rumaila, Basrah Governorate
south of Iraq. In general, the site is a wide flat area. The site investigation included drilling of
6 boreholes. Drilling was done using flight auger and rotary drilling. The soil disturbed
samples (DS) were gathered from the cutting of auger at different depths. Shelby tubes were
used for obtaining undisturbed samples (US). The split spoon samples (SS) were obtained
from standard split spoon used in standard penetration test which was performed at different
depth intervals depending on the stratifications of the soil.
The underground water table was found in the range of 3.00 -3.41 m below
the natural ground surface after 24 hours from t he drilling terminat ion at time of
boring in March 2014.
In general, a series of laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples included
natural water content, density, liquid and plastic limits, sieve analysis and hydrometer, and
direct shear test. Atterberg limits tests were carried out on fractions of soil samples passing
sieve No. 40 according to ASTM D-4318. Plasticity index indicates the upper soil is non-
plastic. Table 1 presents results of physical tests. The results of direct shear test and
unconfined compression test are summarized in Table 2.

COLLAPSE TEST
The one-dimensional response-to-wetting test, which is carried out using standard
consolidation equipment represents the frequently used laboratory collapse test for
determining the collapse potential of the soil (Houston et al., 2001). In oedometer-collapse
test, two procedures are commonly followed; single oedometer test (SOT) and double
oedometer test (DOT) methods.
The actual collapse potential is determined using the double oedometer test (DOT)
method suggested by Jennings and Knight (1975). In this method, two identical samples are
prepared and tested individually in oedometer device. One sample is tested at its natural
moisture content, while the other is tested under saturated conditions. The same load
sequence is used in both cases. The difference between the two stress-strain curves represents
the amount of collapse deformation that occurs depending on the stress level.
Jennings and Knight (1975) proposed a procedure to describe the collapse potential of a
soil which is mostly a qualitative evaluation. This procedure was subsequently modified by
Houston et al. (1998) and standardized by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) under code number ASTM D-5333 (2003).
Figure 1 illustrates a typical response in which a seating stress of 5 kPa was used to
establish an initial state. Any compression under this stress was attributed to sample
disturbance. The initial compression curve (points A-B) represents the response of the soil at
its in situ water content. Pressure was applied until the stress on the sample was equal to (or
greater than) that expected in the field or up to 200 kPa as suggested by Jennings and Knight
(1975) and as standardized by ASTM D-5333 (2003).
At point B, the specimen was loaded to reach saturation and left for 24 hours (ASTM
D5333,2003). The duration of the load increment following inundation lasted overnight or
until primary consolidation was completed (ASTM D2435, 1996). The difference between
the strains before and after inundation with water (points B-I) represents the amount of
collapse deformation at the specified stress level, after which further loading is undertaken
corresponding to points (I-J). The path (J-K) represents the unloading stage of the soil
specimen.
According to ASTM D5333 (2003), the following definitions are outlined:

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
77
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS
-Collapse: indicates a decrease in the height of confined soil following saturation at a
constant applied vertical pressure.
-Collapse index (Ie): refers to the percent-relative value of collapse measured and
calculated at 200 kPa.
-Collapse potential (Ic) denotes the percent-relative value of collapse measured at any
stress level as follows:
h
Ic  x 100 …………………………………………………………….….. (1)
ho
Where: h = the change in specimen height resulting from wetting, mm, and
ho = the initial specimen height, mm.
Equation (1) may be rewritten in terms of void ratio as follows:
eB  eI
Ic  x 100 ……..………………………………………………………...(2)
1  eo
where: eB, eI = the void ratio at the appropriate stress level before wetting, and
eo= the initial void ratio.
Based on the oedometer collapse test, the collapse potential can be assessed and used to
indicate the problem severity of collapse. Table 3 provides details presented by Jennings and
Knight (1975) and ASTM D5333 (2003), showing a slight difference between the two
references in the collapse potential range corresponding to problem severity.
Figures 2 and 3 present the results of collapse test carried out on two samples. Based on
the collapse potential, Ic of the two samples; 5.091% and 3.502%, the soil is considered of
moderate degree of collapse.

PLATE LOADING TEST

The plate loading test is a semi-direct method to evaluate the allowable bearing
pressure of soil to exhibit a given amount of settlement. Plates, are almost round, varying in
diameter, from 25 to 46 cm and thickness of about 2.5 cm are used for the test. The load on
the plate is applied by a hydraulic jack. The reaction of the jack load is taken by a truck. The
settlement of the plate is measured by two dial gauges of sensitivity 0.01 mm placed 180°
apart. The dial gauges are fixed to an independent support which remains undisturbed during
the test. The test is employed essentially according to (ASTM D 1196-93).
The test is basically carried out by applying loads on small steel plates with diameters
ranging from 0.3 to 0.75 m or square plates having sides of 0.3 X 0.3 m or sometimes 0.6 X
0.6 m. These plate sizes are generally considered to be so small to extrapolate the results to
footings of full size, the size may be 1.5 to 4 or 5 m2. A number of reasons cause unreliable
extrapolations:
1. The soil at larger depths are subjected to large values of overburden pressure which lead to
confine the soil so, it is basically "stiffer" than the soil close to the ground surface. This
has considerable effects on the load - settlement relationship used to calculate qu/t.
2. Previous studies have proved that as the width B increases, there is a tendency to a
nonlinear increase in qu/t. It is thought that for small size footings of about, 0.3, 0.45, and
0.6 m, the drawing of B against qu/t is approximately linear (as it is the case of using two
footing sizes such as, 2 m and 2.5 m). This requires a wider range of sizes of footings to
develop the nonlinear relationship for the soil layer.
Despite these shortcomings, loading tests using the plate loading are sometimes used.
The procedure has been considered a standard as ASTM D 1196, which basically requires
that a load is positioned on the testing plate, and corresponding settlements are recorded
using a dial gauge with an accuracy of 0.25 mm. Observations on a increments of load must
be recorded until the settlement rate exceeds the dial gauge capacity. Load increments have to
be approximately one-fifth of the predicted bearing capacity of the full footing. The intervals
of time of each loading must not be smaller than 1 hour and must be applied approximately at
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
78
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS
the same duration for all the increments of load. The test must continue until a total
settlement of 25 mm is obtained, or until reaching the load capacity of the testing apparatus.
After the load removal, the elastic soil rebound must be recorded for a period of time which
must be at least equal to the duration time of the load increment (Bowles, 1997).

COEFFICIENT OF RESOLVING SLUMP FROM PLATE LOADING

TEST
To test the value of resolving slump and coefficient of average resolving slump for
saline soil foundation (Dongxing et al., 2013). The test equipment is Just like plate load test,
but the area of plate is preferred to be 5000 cm2.
Test steps:
1. Excavating the pit to the depth of test requirement (usually excavating to the depth of
foundation buried). The width of pit should be no less than 5 times diameter of plate used
in test (W≥5D).
2. 5~10 cm thick gravel sand layer is needed to be paved to dense at the central of test pit.
Then the plate is placed on the gravel sand layer.
3. According to the plate load test, incremental loading is applied to the preordain pressure
P0, after every grade of loading, and settlement is recorded at time intervals 10, 10, 10,
15, 15 minutes, and every half hour and once after that, when settlement is less than 0.1
mm after two hours, it is considered to be stable. After stability of settlement, the value
of settlement for the plate is recorded.
4. Keeping the pressure P0 , water is injected (must be fresh water) to the pit, keeping the
water head to be 0.3 m, the soaking time is determined by the permeability of soil, which
is preferred to be 5~12 days. The settlement of plate is recorded until the settlement
becomes stable (standard for stability is that difference value of settlement is less than
1mm after the fifth day). Then the value of resolving slump S is recorded.
5. The stable resolving basement is considered as a new one and the load is increased until
it is broken or the settlement reaches 0.01B (for sand)  0.015B (for clayey soil) where B
is the width or diameter of plate.

The coefficient of average resolving slump for saline soil S is calculated:

S
  ……………………………………………………………………………... (3)
Hs
where:
 is coefficient of average resolving slump,
S is resolving slump value of saline soil layer when it is injected with water as the pressure P
on the plate, and
Hs is wetness depth of saline soil under plate.
Two tests were carried out in the field. Test depths are 1.0m and 1.5 m. The test
pressure is 200 kPa for P0 and 400 kPa for the ultimate load. So a total load for more than 20
tones was prepared for this test. Figure 4 shows the results of resolving slump test on
sample 1 while Figure 5 traces the variation of settlement with time. Figures 6 and 7 present
the results of resolving slump test on sample 2.
The coefficient of average resolving slump for saline soil was calculated from field
plate load test to be 0.94% to 1.2%. The difference in boundary conditions between the two
approaches was found clear in the evaluation of collapse potential. The collapse potential that
results from the complete wetting of the soil layer may not occur in the field, due to the
difficulty to maintain full soil saturation state through wetting in a single step. Therefore, the
wetting in multi steps procedure is more convenient because of the slow rate of rising of the
ground water by the action of capillary forces, especially in regions of low rainfall (Al-
Obaidi, 2014).

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
79
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS
The dissolution of gypsum in the field is made by brine water rather than by distiiled
water which is used in the laboratory. Brine water has an effect on the properties of gypseous
soil which was studied by Azam (2000). It was found that the collapse potential increases
when the gypseous soil soaking in brine water is twice that when the soaking is by distilled
water. In contrast, Al-Farok et al. (2009) found that gypsum dissolution decreases with
soaking in brine.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. The coefficient of average resolving slump for saline soil was calculated from field plate
load test to be 0.94% to 1.2%, while the results of collapse test carried out on two samples
showed that the collapse potential, Ic of the two samples; 5.091% and 3.502%, the soil is
considered of moderate degree of collapse.
2. The difference in boundary conditions between the two approaches was found clear in the
evaluation of collapse potential.
3. The collapse potential resulted from complete wetting of soil layer may not be achieved
in the field, due to the inability to reach full saturation state through a single step wetting.
Therefore, the multi-step wetting procedure is more convenient due to the slowly rising of
ground water by capillary forces, especially in the low rainfall regions.

REFERENCES:
 ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 2004), "Standard Test Method for Non repetitive Static
Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, for Use in Evaluation and
Design of Airport and Highway Pavements1", Annual book of ASTM Standards: Volume
04.08, 2004, Soil and Rock.
 Bowles, J.E. (1997), "Foundation Design and Analysis", 5th edition, McGraw-Hill
International Editions, USA.
 Dudley, J.H., (1970), “Review of Collapsing Soils”, , Journal of the Soil Mechanics &
Foundations Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 96,
No. SM3, pp. 925 – 947.
 El Howayek, A., Huang, P. T., Bisnett, R., Santagata, M. C., (2011), " Identification and
Behavior of Collapsible Soils", SPR-3109 Report Number: FHWA/IN/JTRP-2011/12,
DOI: 10.5703/1288284314625, Indiana Department of Transportation nd Purdue
University.
 Lawton, E.C., Fragaszy, R.J., and Hetherington, M.D., (1992), “Review of Wetting -
Induced Collapse in Compacted Soil”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118,
No.9, pp.1376-1394.
 Livneh, M. and Livneh, N. A. (2012), "On Collapse-Settlement Calculations for
Heterogeneous Collapsible-Soil Subgrade", International Journal of GEOMATE, Vol. 3,
No. 2 (Sl. No. 6), pp. 363-368, Japan.
 Rezaei, M.,Ajalloeian, R., Ghafoori, R., (2012), "Geotechnical Properties of Problematic
Soils Emphasis on Collapsible Cases", International Journal of Geosciences, Vol. 3,
pp.105-110.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
80
 DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS

TABLE I. RESULTS OF PHYSICAL TESTS.

Depth, (m) Specific Clay Silt, Passing

Wc, % Sand, % Gravel, % Symbol
From-to gravity % % #200

2.5 - 3.0 2.61 16 - - 90 3 7 SP-SM

0.5 - 1.0 2.60 17 12 11 70 7 23 SM
2.5 - 3.0 2.61 16 - - 90 3 7 SP-SM
4.5 - 5.0 2.63 16 - - 80 8 12 SM
6.5 - 7.0 2.66 10 - - 77 16 7 SW

8.5 - 9.0 2.65 13 - - 78 16 6 SP-SM

TABLE II MECHANICAL TEST RESULTS.

Mechanical Properties
Depth, (m) Unconfined
Direct shear test
compression test
qt (kPa) c (kN/m2)
2.5 - 3.0 16.8 2.8 42
4.5 – 5.0 18.9 11.1 30
5.5 – 6.0 18.7 0.8 45
8.5 – 9.0 18.0 4.7 40
10.5 – 11.0 18.5 5.8 37

TABLE III: THE SEVERITY OF THE COLLAPSE POTENTIAL.

Jennings and Knight, 1975 ASTM (D5333-2003) standard
Ic, (%) at σv=200 Severity of Ic, (%) at σv=200 Degree of collapse
kPa problem kPa
0-1 No problem 0 None
1-5 Moderate trouble 0.1-2.0 Slight
5-10 Trouble 2.1-6.0 Moderate
10-20 Severe trouble 6.1-10.0 Moderately severe
>20 Very sever trouble >10.0 Severe

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
81
DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS

Fig. 1: Typical oedometer-collapse test results.

Total Stress (KPa)

Vertical Strain (%)

Dry specimen
Wetting at constant load
saturated specimen

Δe

Fig. 2: Results of collapse test on sample 1

Total Stress (KPa)

Vertical Strain (%)

Dry specimen
Wetting at constant load
saturated specimen

Fig. 3: Results of collapse test on sample 2.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
82
DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS

Fig. 4: Results of plate load test on sample 1.

Time (hour)
Settlement (mm)

At natural mosture content

At Soaking

Fig. 5: Settlement-time relationship from plate load test on sample 1.

Fig. 6: Results of plate load test on sample 2.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
83
DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND
LABORATORY TESTS

Fig. 7: Settlement-time relationship from plate load test on sample 2.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017
84
 ‫‪DETERMINATION OF COLLAPSE POTENTIAL OF GYPSEOUS SOIL FROM FIELD AND‬‬
‫‪LABORATORY TESTS‬‬

‫ايجاد احتمال األنهيار للترب الجبسية حقليا ومختبريا‬

‫الخالصة‪:‬‬
‫تعرف الترب األنهيارية بأنها ترب ذات مشاكل وهي تبدي قوة كبيرة عندما تكون جافة وتفقد قوتها عندما تترطب‬
‫وتبدي هبوطا مفرطا‪ .‬ان استجابة الترب لألنهيار (مثل األنزالقات األرضية أو هبوطات التربة المهمة) لم يكن من الممكن‬
‫تخمينها بدقة‪ .‬ان تقليل الحجم غير المسترجع في الترب األنهيارية يحدث بسرعة بحيث انه اليمكن تسجيل قراءات أو‬
‫ايقاف المشكلة عند بداية حدوثها‪.‬‬
‫ان احتمال األنهيار يزداد مع الزمن نتيجة الغمر بالماء والغسل والتي تعزى الى ذوبان الجبس وغسله من الترية‪.‬‬
‫في هذا البحث ‪ ,‬اجريت مقارنة بين احتمال األنهيار المخمن من فحص األنهيار القياسي المختبري مع األنهيار الحقلي‬
‫(معامل الهطول المعاد) المخمن من فحص تحميل الصفيحة‪ .‬موقع التربة الذي تم اختياره في الدراسة هو موقع الرميل في‬
‫محافظة البصرة ‪ .‬لقد بينت نتائج فحص أالنهيار التي اجريت على نموذجين ان احتمال األنهيار ‪,(Ic ) ,‬للنموذجين يبلغ‬
‫‪ % 1.0.5‬و ‪ , % 2.103‬حيث تعتبر التربة ذات معدل انهيار متوسط‪ .‬ان معامل الهطول المعاد للتربة الجبسية تم‬
‫حسابه ايضا من فحص تحميل الصفيحة الموقعي وقد بلغ ‪ % 0..0‬و ‪ .% 5.3‬ان األختالف في الشروط الحدودية بين‬
‫الطريقتين يبدو واضحا في تقييم احتمال األنهيار‪.‬‬

‫‪Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 02, June 2017‬‬
‫‪85‬‬