EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR …eprints.uthm.edu.my/9927/1/Norhaliza_Wahab.pdf · EFFECT...
Transcript of EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR …eprints.uthm.edu.my/9927/1/Norhaliza_Wahab.pdf · EFFECT...
EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR STRENGTH
PROPERTIES OF PEAT
NORHALIZA BINTI WAHAB
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the
Degree of Master of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
AUGUST 2017
iii
“Special dedicated with much love and affection to my beloved parents,
Haji Wahab bin Ngah and Hajjah Munah binti Mohd Nor,
and beloved siblings,
Norhayati, Shaifudin, Noraizam, Azizudin, Nasarudin and Norhashima
Also my booster energy (nieces)
Arissya, Adam, Haziq, Irfan, Auni Camellia and Nafis
In addition, person who’s always support me
Tok, Tokki, Cik Ngoh, Ayah De, Mok Teh Ani, Mok yah, Abang Ri, Kak Ti, Umi,
My ex- supervisor Emeritus Prof Dato’ Dr. Ismail bin Hj. Bakar
Also my current supervisor Dr. Mohd Khaidir bin Abu Talib
and also to all my fellow friends who always helped me and encourage myself to
complete my study in Master of Civil Engineering”
Thank you for always being there for me.
Without your support this would mean nothing.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Alhamdulillah, all the praise for Allah S.W.T. the most graceful and merciful; who
give me the courage and faith for me along the period to accomplish this
postgraduate project. Praise is to Allah for, without His will, I would have not able to
complete this project.
Firstly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my ex- supervisor,
Emeritus Prof Dato’ Dr. Ismail bin Hj. Bakar for his generous time and patience to
meet all my queries and providing revision materials related during this study.
Special gratitude to my supervisor Dr Mohd Khaidir bin Abu Talib for his endless
support, guidance, supervision, advices, patience, ideas and unlimited encouragement
through my research.
I would like to extend my appreciation to those who indirectly helped me; lecturers,
laboratory technical assistants; Puan Salina Sani and all the staff at Research Centre
for Soft Soil (RECESS) and Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
(FKAAS), Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Finally, my deep appreciation to my beloved parents (Haji Wahab bin Ngah and
Hajjah Munah binti Mohd Nor) and siblings for keep supporting me physically and
mentally. I am also grateful to all my friends for their concern, encouragement and
understanding during completion this research.
v
ABSTRACT
Peat is an organic soil contains more than 75% organic content. Shear strength of the
soil is one of the most important parameters in engineering design, especially during
the pre-construction and post-construction periods, since used to evaluate the
foundation and slope stability of soil. Peat normally known as a soil that has very
low shear strength and to determine and understand the shear strength of the peat is
difficult in geotechnical engineering because of a few factors such as the origin of
the soil, water content, organic matter and the degree of humification. The aim of this
study was to determine the effective undrained shear strength properties of
reconstituted peat. All the reconstituted peat samples were of the size that passing
opening sieve 0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm and 3.350mm and were pre-
consolidated at pressures of 50 kPa, 80 kPa and 100 kPa. The relationship deviator
stress- strain, σdmax and excess pore water pressure, ∆u, shows that in both of
reconstituted and undisturbed peat gradually increased when confining pressure, σ’
and pre- consolidation pressure, σc increased. As a conclusion, the undrained shear
strength properties result obtained shows that the RS3.350 has higher strength than
RS0.425, RS1.000 and RS2.360. However, the entire reconstituted peat sample
shows the increment value of the shear strength with the increment of peat size and
pre- consolidation pressure. For comparison purposes, the undrained shear strength
properties result obtained shows that the reconstituted peat has higher strength than
undisturbed peat. The factors that contributed to the higher shear strength properties
in this study are segregation of peat size, pre- consolidation pressure, initial void
ratio and also the physical properties such as initial water content, fiber content and
liquid limit.
vi
ABSTRAK
Gambut adalah tanah organik mengandungi lebih daripada 75% kandungan organik.
Kekuatan ricih tanah adalah satu parameter yang paling penting dalam rekabentuk
kejuruteraan, terutamanya semasa tempoh pra-pembinaan dan selepas pembinaan,
digunakan bagi menilai asas dan cerun kestabilan tanah. Gambut biasanya dikenali
sebagai tanah yang mempunyai kekuatan ricih yang sangat rendah dan untuk
menentukan dan memahami kekuatan ricih tanah gambut adalah sukar dalam bidang
kejuruteraan geoteknikal disebabkan beberapa faktor seperti asal-usul tanah,
kandungan air, bahan organik dan tahap penguraian gambut. Tujuan kajian ini adalah
untuk menentukan ciri-ciri berkesan kekuatan ricih taktersalir penstrukturan semula
gambut. Semua sampel penstrukturan semula gambut melepasi saiz bukaan ayak
0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm dan 3.350mm dan dikenakan tekanan pra- penyatuan
50 kPa, 80 kPa dan 100 kPa. Hubungan tegasan terikan sisih, σdmax dan lebihan
tekanan air liang, Δu, menunjukkan bahawa kedua- dua tanah penstrukturan semula
gambut dan gambut takterganggu secara beransur-ansur meningkat apabila tekanan
terkurung, σ’ dan tekanan pra- penyatuan, σc meningkat. Kesimpulannya, keputusan
ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih taktersalir yang diperolehi menunjukkan bahawa RS3.350
mempunyai kekuatan lebih tinggi daripada RS0.425, RS1.000 dan RS2.360. Walau
bagaimanapun, sampel bagi keseluruhan penstrukturan semula gambut menunjukkan
nilai kenaikan kekuatan ricih dengan peningkatan saiz tanah gambut dan tekanan pra-
penyatuan. Bagi tujuan perbandingan, keputusan ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih taktersalir
yang diperolehi menunjukkan bahawa penstrukturan semula gambut mempunyai
kekuatan yang lebih tinggi daripada tanah gambut takterganggu. Faktor-faktor yang
menyumbang kepada ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih yang lebih tinggi dalam tesis inin
adalah pengasingan saiz gambut, tekanan pra-penyatuan, nisbah lompang asal dan
juga ciri-ciri fizikal seperti kandungan air awal, kandungan serat dan had cecair.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENT vii
LIST OF TABLE xii
LIST OF FIGURE xiv
LIST OF SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATION xviii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background study 1
1.2 Problem statements 4
1.3 Research objectives 6
1.4 Scopes of research 6
1.5 Significance of research 7
1.6 Structure of thesis 8
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Peat 11
2.3 Classification of peat 17
2.4 Particle size distribution 21
2.4.1 Distribution of peat size 22
2.5 Physical properties of peat 24
viii
2.6 Soil specimen 29
2.6.1 Disturbed 30
2.6.2 Undisturbed 30
2.6.3 Reconstituted 30
2.6.3.1 Reconstituted method 31
2.6.3.1.1 Wet sieve 31
2.6.3.1.2 Pre- consolidation 32
method
2.7 Shear strength 33
2.7.1 Shear strength of soil 34
2.7.2 Shear strength of peat 35
2.7.2.1 Effect of pre- consolidation 38
pressure (σc) on the shear strength
parameter of the reconstituted
peat soil
2.7.2.2 Effect of fiber and organic content 40
on the shear strength
2.7.2.3 Effect of degree of humification 41
on shear strength properties
2.8 Triaxial compression test 42
2.8.1 Consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial test 43
2.8.1.1 Stress –strain and excess pore 45
water pressure curve
2.8.1.2 Mohr- coulomb failure criterion 48
2.9 Summary 50
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 53
3.2 Peat samples 55
3.2.1 Disturbed peat samples 55
3.2.2 Undisturbed peat samples 56
3.3 Particle size distribution (BS1377 Part 1: 1990) 58
3.4 Preparation of reconstituted peat samples 60
ix
3.4.1 Wet sieve 60
3.4.2 Pre- consolidation 61
3.5 Laboratory test 66
3.6 Physical properties test 67
3.6.1 Moisture content of peat (BS 1377: Part 2: 67
1990, Clause 3.0)
3.6.2 Liquid limit (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, 68
Clause 4.3)
3.6.3 Specific gravity (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, 69
Clause 8.3)
3.6.4 Organic content- loss on ignition (LOI) 71
method (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, Clause 4.0)
3.6.5 Fiber content (ASTM, D 1997 – 91 (2001)) 72
3.7 Engineering properties test 76
3.7.1 Calibration on triaxial machine 76
3.7.2 Process of specimen testing on triaxial 78
machine
3.8 Summary 80
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction 81
4.2 Von Post classification 81
4.3 Particle size distribution 83
4.4 Physical properties 84
4.4.1 Water content 84
4.4.2 Liquid limit 86
4.4.3 Specific gravity 88
4.4.4 Organic content 90
4.4.5 Fiber content 91
4.5 Summarise of physical properties 93
4.6 Consolidated undrained identification tag of 96
reconstituted peat
4.7 Relationship of stress- strain and excess pore 96
x
water pressure- strain
4.7.1 Stress- strain relationships for undisturbed 96
and reconstituted Parit Nipah peat
4.7.1.1 Stress- strain relationships at 97
pre- consolidation 50kPa on
deviator stress, σdmax (kPa)
4.7.1.2 Stress- strain relationships at 99
pre- consolidation 80kPa on
deviator stress, σdmax (kPa)
4.7.1.3 Stress- strain relationships at 101
pre- consolidation 100kPa on
deviator stress, σdmax (kPa)
4.7.2 Excess pore water pressure- strain 104
relationships for undisturbed and
reconstituted Parit Nipah peat
4.7.2.1 Excess pore water pressure- 104
strain relationships of undisturbed
and reconstituted peat at pre-
consolidation 50kPa
4.7.2.2 Excess pore water pressure- 107
strain relationships of undisturbed
and reconstituted peat at pre-
consolidation 80kPa
4.7.2.3 Excess pore water pressure- 109
strain relationships of undisturbed
and reconstituted peat at pre-
consolidation 100kPa
4.8 Shear strength properties 114
4.9 Effect of reconstituted peat samples on shear 119
strength properties
4.10 Summary 123
xi
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Introduction 125
5.2 Conclusions 125
5.3 Recommendation 130
REFERENCES 131
APPENDIX
xii
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Proportionate distribution of peat in Malaysia 2
(Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010; and CREAM, 2015)
1.2 Thesis outline 9
2.1 Distribution area of peat in Malaysia (CREAM, 2015) 12
2.2 Summary description and determination of peat soil 17
2.3 General purpose definition of peat 17
2.4 Peat classification according to degree of humification 19
(Von, 1992 and Adon et. al, 2012)
2.5 Organic soil classification based on the organic content 20
Jarret (1995)
2.6 Classification based on the fiber content of peat (Jarret, 1995) 20
2.7 Definition and significance of the test 20
2.8 Classification of soil chart (ASTM D2487-06) 23
2.9 The physical properties of peat soil in Malaysia 27
2.10 Soil specimen description 29
2.11 Factors control the shear strength (Poulos, 1989) 35
2.12 Undrained shear strength of fine soils 37
(BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004)
2.13 Undrained shear strength of peat 38
2.14 Shear strength parameter and pre- consolidation pressure of 39
the reconstituted soil (Rabbee et al., 2012)
2.15 Shear strength under pre- consolidation pressure of the 40
reconstituted peat (Anggraini, 2006)
2.16 Method to strengthen and toughen peat soil 51
3.1 Total reconstituted peat samples 66
3.2 Experimental method based on standard 66
4.1 Result of particle size distribution test for undisturbed and 84
xiii
reconstituted peat
4.2 Water content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 85
4.3 Liquid limit for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 87
4.4 Specific gravity for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 89
4.5 Organic content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 91
4.6 Classification of reconstituted soil from organic content range 91
4.7 Fiber content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 92
4.8 Classification of reconstituted soil from fiber content range 93
4.9 Summary of physical properties on Parit Nipah peat soil 95
4.10 Summary of deviator stress at pre- consolidation 98
pressure 50kPa
4.11 Summary of deviator stress at pre- consolidation 100
pressure 80kPa
4.12 Summary of deviator stress at pre- consolidation 102
pressure 100kPa
4.13 Summary of excess pore water pressure at pre- consolidation 105
pressure 50kPa
4.14 Summary of excess pore water pressure at pre- consolidation 108
pressure 80kPa
4.15 Summary of excess pore water pressure at pre- consolidation 110
pressure 100kPa
4.16 Summary of ɛa, σd max and ∆umax for undisturbed and 111
reconstituted peat
4.17 Effective undrained triaxial summary results 117
5.1 Summary of physical properties of Parit Nipah peat soil 127
5.2 Summary of shear strength properties analysis 128
5.3 Classification of shear strength properties based on fiber 130
content range
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Peat land in Malaysia (Wetlands International-Malaysia, 2010) 3
2.1 Peat distribution in the world (Trumper et al., 2009) 12
2.2 General distribution of quarternary deposits including 13
peat and soft soils in Peninsular Malaysia (modified after
geological map of Peninsular Malaysia, 9th. edition, 2014;
CREAM, 2015)
2.3 General distribution of quarternary deposits including 13
peat and soft soils in Sabah and Sarawak (modified after
geological map Sabah and Sarawak, geological survey of
Malaysia, 1992; CREAM, 2015)
2.4 Profile morphology of drained organic soil (Mutalib et al., 14
1992; Rahman and Chan, 2013)
2.5 Texture of tropical peat (Wust et al., 2002) 15
2.6 Subsidence rate versus groundwater level relationships 26
for different areas in the world (Wösten et al., 1997;
Al- Ani, 2015)
2.7 General arrangement of slurry consolidometer (Barnes, 2015) 33
2.8 Variation of cohesion with pre-consolidation pressure 39
(Rabbee et al., 2012)
2.9 Variation of ϕ with pre-consolidation pressure 40
(Rabbee et al., 2012)
2.10 Effect of degree of humification on shear strength properties 42
2.11 Triaxial compression test apparatus (Teferi, 2011) 43
2.12 Results of stress- strain and excess pore water pressure on 46
undisturbed peat at Parit Nipah (Mohamad, 2015)
xv
2.13 Variation of stress strain and pore water pressure relationship 47
Das (2007)
(a) deviator stress against axial strain for loose soil,
(b) deviator stress against axial strain for dense soil,
(c) pore water pressure against axial strain for loose soil,
(d) pore water pressure against axial strain for dense soil
2.14 Pore pressure pattern for undrained peat 48
(Gosling and Keeton, 2006)
2.15 Shear strength parameter of total and effective stress failure 49
envelopes for consolidated undrained triaxial tests (Das, 2007)
2.16 Failure envelope for undisturbed peat (Mohamad, 2015) 50
3.1 Methodology flow 54
3.2 Process of removing top soil 55
3.3 Illustration of the tube sampler setup condition 56
3.4 Process to collect undisturbed peat sample 58
3.5 Drying peat samples retained on sieve 59
3.6 Peat retained on varied sizes of sieve 59
3.7 Wet sieving process to obtain reconstituted peat sample 61
3.8 Placed slurry sample into the remolded sampler 62
3.9 Remolded sampler preparation equipment (one dimensional 63
consolidation)
3.10 The main steps of the slurry deposition process (Barnes, 2015) 63
a) Check the holes and tube does not stuffy,
b) Pouring the slurry sample slowly on flexible tube,
c) Raise the flexible tube while pouring the slurry sample,
d) Fill the slurry sample until full,
e) Load the slurry sample with pre- consolidation pressure
3.11 Reconstituted peat sampler 65
3.12 Peat sample for consolidated undrained test 65
3.13 Moisture content samples 67
3.14 Cone penetration equipment 68
3.15 Specific gravity test 70
3.16 Loss of ignition test 72
xvi
3.17 Sodium hexametaphosphate 73
3.18 Peat was submerged into hydrochloric acid solution 74
3.19 Process of fiber content test 75
3.20 GDS triaxial compression test 76
3.21 The piston touch the top cap during shearing stage 80
4.1 Von Post squeezing method 82
4.2 Particle size distribution of disturbed sample Parit Nipah peat 84
4.3 Water content versus type of sample 85
4.4 Liquid limit versus type of sample 87
4.5 The differences between the usage of kerosene and water 89
4.6 Specif gravity versus type of sample 89
4.7 Organic content versus type of sample 90
4.8 Fiber content versus type of sample 92
4.9 Typical curve for deviator stress versus axial strain for 98
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 50kPa
4.10 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 99
pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on deviator stress
4.11 Typical curve for deviator stress versus axial strain for 100
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 80kPa
4.12 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 101
pre- consolidation pressure 80kPa on deviator stress
4.13 Typical curve for deviator stress versus axial strain for 103
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 100kPa
4.14 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 103
pre- consolidation pressure 100kPa on deviator stress
4.15 Excess pore water pressure- strain relationship for 106
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 50kPa
4.16 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 106
pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on excess pore
xvii
water pressure
4.17 Excess pore water pressure- strain relationship for 108
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 80kPa
4.18 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 109
pre- consolidation pressure 80kPa on excess pore
water pressure
4.19 Excess pore water pressure- strain relationship for 110
undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation
pressure 100kPa
4.20 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 111
pre- consolidation pressure 100kPa on excess pore
water pressure
4.21 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 115
undisturbed sample
4.22 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 115
RS0.425
4.23 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 116
RS1.00
4.24 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 116
RS2.36
4.25 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 117
RS3.35
4.26 Effect of peat size at pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on 119
effective cohesion and effective angle of friction
4.27 Effect of peat size at pre- consolidation pressure 80kPa on 120
effective cohesion and effective angle of friction
4.28 Effect of peat size at pre- consolidation pressure 100kPa on 120
effective cohesion and effective angle of friction
4.29 Reconstituted sample (passing peat size) against cohesion and 121
angle of friction
4.30 Reconstituted sample (pre- consolidation pressure) against 122
cohesion and angle of friction
xviii
LIST OF SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATION
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
BS - Bristish Standard
c - Cohesion value of soil
c’ - Apparent cohesion in term of effective stress
Cc - gradation coefficient
Cu - uniformity coefficient
Cu - Undrained shear strength
CD - Consolidated drained test
CU - Consolidated undrained test
D10 - Effective size at 10%
D30 - Effective size at 30%
D60 - Effective size at 60%
eo - Void ratio
g - gram
Gs - Specific gravity
Ha - Hectare
HCI - Hydrochloric acid
kN/ m2
- KiloNewton per meter square
kPa - Kilopascal
LL - Liquid limit
LOI - Loss on Ignition
M - Mass
m - meter
ml - mililitre
mm - millimeter
mg/m3 - Milligram per cubic meter
xix
O - Organic
Pt - Peat
PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride
RECESS - Research Centre for Soft Soils
RS - Reconstituted peat
Su - Undrained shear strength
UCS - Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
UD - Undisturbed peat
USCS - Unified Soil Classification System
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture
UTHM - Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
UU - Unconsolidated undrained test
μm - Micrometer
ɛa - Axial strain
σdmax - Maximum deviator stress
w - Water content
% - Percentage
ϕ - Angle of internal friction
ϕ’ - Angle of internal friction based on effective stress
- Shear stress
τf - Shear strength at failure
f’ - Effective shear strength at failure
Δu - Excess pore water pressure
σc - Pre- consolidation pressure
σ’ - Normal stress on the failure plane based on effective stress
σn - Normal stress
µm - Micrometer
° - Degree
ρk - Density of the kerosene (mg/ms)
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Study
Peat soil is formed when a decay process of plants is produced and it is divided into
three categories namely hemic peat, fibric peat and sapric peat. The difference
between peat and inorganic soil leads to difference in the physical and mechanical
properties such as high compressibility. During the sampling process and specimen
test, the peat soil sample preparation undergoes a careful process. This is because of
the structure of fibrous peat has a high compressibility, especially when dealing with
low peat decomposition. Physical properties of peat can represent the structure and
engineering properties (MacFarlane and Radforth, 1965; and Zainorabidin and
Bakar, 2003). Peat is a problematic soil in terms of stability and long term settlement.
Generally, peat soil can be described as soil that is formed by the dead
wetland materials that cannot decay in a normal way because of the presence of high
water table. When the organic matter decomposed, it turns into a sort of glue called
humus, which is strong enough to bind several smaller particles together, making
them into larger multi- particles, which can alter the behavior of the soil (Paikowsky
et al., 2003). Additionally, organic matter also contains products of microbial
synthesis which includes (CREAM, 2015):
2
i. Fresh plant and animal residues (decomposable)
ii. Humus (resistant)
iii. Inert forms of nearly elemental carbon (charcoal, coal or graphite)
Table 1.1 shows the proportionate distribution of peat across the states in
Malaysia. There are about 2.5 million hectares of peatland in Malaysia including 0.7
million hectares of peat soil in Peninsular Malaysia, 1.7 million hectares in Sarawak
and 0.2 million hectares in Sabah (Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010 and
CREAM 2015). The state of Sarawak has the largest areas of peat soils that
amounted to 1, 697, 847 hectares, followed by Peninsular Malaysia with 642, 918
hectares; then followed by Sabah which recorded 116, 965 hectares, with the
percentage of total peatland area are 69.08%, 26.16% and 4.76% respectively.
Figure 1.1 shows the locations where peat located in Malaysia. The shaded
area shows the distribution of peat in Malaysia. Based on Figure 1.1, the largest
peatland in Malaysia is located in Sarawak with 16,500 km2. In Peninsular Malaysia,
the peat areas are found in the east and west coast areas, especially in the coastal
areas of West Johore, Kuantan and Pekan district, Rompin-Endau area, Northwest
Selangor and the Perak (Hilir Perak district and Perak Tengah district). In Sarawak,
peat occurs mainly between the lower stretches of the poorly drained interior valleys
(valley peat) and the main river course (basin peat). Peat is found in the
administrative division of Sri Aman, Sibu, Sarikei, Bintulu, Miri, Kuching,
Samarahan and Limbang. In Sabah, the organic soils are found around the coastal
areas of the Klias peninsula, Krah swamps in Sugut, Kota Belud and Labuk
estruaries and Kinabatangan floodplains (Phillips, 1998).
Table 1.1: Proportionate distribution of peat in Malaysia
(Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010; and CREAM, 2015)
Regions Total peat
area (ha)
Percentage of total
peatland area (%)
Peninsular 642, 918 26.16
Sabah 116, 965 4.76
Sarawak 1, 697, 847 69.08
Total (ha) 2, 457, 730
3
Figure 1.1: Peat Land in Malaysia (Wetlands International-Malaysia, 2010)
Peat soils have higher moisture content and wet density values that are
approximately equal to the water density value. Classification of the decomposition
proposed by Von Post (1922) was divided into ten groups, H1 to H10. The values
represent the degree of decomposition are increasing as the number of classification
increase. According to this system, test samples are classified into H3 and H6 with
an average organic content of 75% and 30%, respectively. H3 refers to very slightly
Peninsular
Malaysia
Sabah Sarawak
Legend:
Peat Distribution
4
decomposed peat, which releases very muddy brown water when being squeezed but
no peat passes through the fingers. The remaining plants are still identifiable and no
amorphous material is present. H6 refers to moderately decomposed peat with a very
indistinct plant structure. When it is squeezed, about one-third of the peat escapes
between the fingers and the structure is more distinct compared to before squeezing.
The symbol of Peat is ‘Pt’ and grouped into the soil at the rate of two high organic
(organic soil). Based on Mankinen and Gelfer (1982), peat is a soil with organic
content greater than 50%, but according to Landva et al., (1983); Kearns and
Davison (1983); and ASTM D4427 (2013), peat is a soil with organic content more
than 75%. Whitlow (2001) and Jelisic and Leppanen (2003) stated that peat has a low
bearing capacity in the range 5kPa – 20 kPa which is lower than the soft clay, so the
result can cause a slide / collapse (bearing capacity failure) due to low shear strength
and high settlement due to high compressibility characteristic of peat. Hence,
construction over peat deposit may cause excessive settlement and bearing capacity
failure.
1.2 Problem Statement
In construction, there is problem rises on peat soil since it lacks of strength which
contributes to ground failure. In order to overcome this problem, ground
improvement and alternative methods need to be executed and these certainly gain
added costs for development. Nevertheless, the challenge on the peats is the
difficulty to collect undisturbed peat samples that truly represent site conditions due
to the soil condition and its properties (Munro, 2004). Whitlow (2001) stated that is
actually it most impossible to gain a totally undisturbed sample of soft soil because
of the process of boring, driving the coring tool, raising and withdrawing the coring
tool and extruding the sample from the coring tool which caused some disturbance in
the structure of the soft soil. Hence, the knowledge and deeper understanding on
forming reconstituted samples and engineering parameters of peat soil is needed to
overcome this study.
Peat soil is highly problematic because the traits that originally led to the
weak of the soil is due to the low undrained shear strength in normally consolidated
state and low bearing capacity under the foundation which cause it is not
5
recommended in construction by some developers (Gofar and Sutejo, 2007).
Construction on peat soil nowadays increasing rapidly because of the lack space on
the suitable land. Due to this rapid urban development the land owner and developers
are forced to open a new space area. Due to this phenomenon the construction of
infrastructure likes building, highway and other construction have to be constructed
on the organic soil. There are various construction techniques that have been carried
out to support embankments over peat deposits without risking bearing failures but
settlement of these embankments remains excessively large and continues for many
years. Thus, the active and effective research has to be conducted to find and
understand the best solution on this phenomenon to overcome this problem.
Generally, peat commonly occur as extremely soft, wet, unconsolidated
surficial deposits that are an integral part of wetland systems. These types of soils
contribute to geotechnical problems in the area of sampling, settlement, stability, in
situ testing, stabilization and construction. Formation of peat significantly takes time
to fully decompose. It will decompose from fibrous (least decomposed) to hemic
(intermediate decomposed) and then settle down as sapric (most decomposed). The
degree of peat decomposition will contribute to the changing of peat fiber, thus it
affects to the changing of engineering properties such as shear strength properties.
The different sizing of peat fiber will result in different shear strength properties.
Hebib (2001) has revealed that least decomposed peat has higher shear strength
rather than most decomposed peat due to the presence of large fiber in the peat acts
as reinforcement.
Peat also contains high water content because of the high presence of
hollow pore in the fiber itself. Due to this condition, it may affect the strength of the
peat. To remove the water content from peat soil, the pre- consolidation slurry
method is suitable to be applied in this study. Pre- consolidation slurry method is a
very popular method to drain out the excessive water content from the soil specimen.
This method is popular conducted by researchers to form the reconstituted samples
from slurry samples. Barnes (2015), Anggraini (2006) and Rabbee et al., (2012) has
figured that the reconstitution specimen is one of the great techniques in the
laboratory to obtain element testing of repeatable and homogenous test samples.
Anggraini (2006) conducted reconstituted sample on fibrous peat at Pontian Johor.
The peat sample was consolidated with pre- consolidation pressure (50kPa, 100kPa,
150kPa and 200kPa) to test the sample on the triaxial Unconsolidated Undrained
6
Triaxial Test (UU- Test). The result of shear strength properties (cohesion and angle
of friction) of reconstituted peat increased, due to the increase of the pre-
consolidation pressure. Differ from this thesis, the author conducted the reconstituted
peat on Parit Nipah peat that classified as hemic peat. The reconstituted peat sample
through segregation peat size via wet sieving and consolidated with the 50kPa, 80kPa
and 100kPa pre- consolidation pressure to test the specimen on the Consolidated
Undrained Triaxial Test (CU- Test).
1.3 Research Objectives
The aim of this study was to determine the effective undrained shear strength
properties of reconstituted peat. Therefore, the shear strength properties (c' and ϕ')
need to investigate to correlate with the effect of the reconstituted method (peat size
and pre- consolidation pressure). To achieve the outcomes, the objective was
highlighted
The specific objectives of this thesis are:
1) To determine the physical properties of undisturbed and reconstituted peat.
2) To investigate the shear strength parameters of undisturbed and reconstituted
peat of different sizes of peat and in different pre- consolidation pressure.
3) To correlate the shear strength properties with the effect of passing peat size
and pre- consolidation pressure.
1.4 Scope of Research
The scope of this study is about to investigate the shear strength properties of
reconstituted peat sample. Peat samples are obtained from Parit Nipah, Johor. The
samples were taken at depth of about 0.3m – 1.0m (depends on the existing of
ground water table) from surface level. The samples were divided into two samples
that are disturbed sample and undisturbed sample. The disturbed peat samples were
obtained to reconstruct peat as reconstituted peat sample meanwhile; undisturbed
peat samples were obtained in this study as a comparison sample with reconstituted
peat samples. The physical properties test was also performed in this study such as
moisture content, liquid limit, organic content, fiber content and specific gravity. All
7
tests were conducted according to British Standard Institution (BS 1377: 1990),
Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing by Head and Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
All the peat samples were brought to the RECESS, UTHM to proceed with
the physical and mechanical test. The disturbed peat samples were sieved through
wet sieves with different sizes of sieve opening to obtain the reconstituted samples.
In this project the reconstituted peat samples were prepared through four different
sizes that are 0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm and 3.350mm. Reconstituted peat
samples were formed by using a pre-consolidation pressure of 50kPa, 80kPa and
100kPa that represent the pressure at the site that can be exerted on a soil without
irrecoverable volume change. Johari et al. (2014) stated the value for pre-
consolidation pressure for Parit Nipah peat is 26kPa at the depth 0.3m to 1.0m.
In this study, the Consolidated Undrained Trixial Compression Shear Test
(CU-Test) was applied on the specimens of diameter 50mm and 100mm height and
was subjected to confining pressure of 25 kPa, 50 kPa and 100 kPa. This pressure
was performed to represent peat depth layers where average stress has been carried
by the soil and simulate as the real site pressure condition (Mohamad, 2015). The
results that obtained from the triaxial test were analyzed to understand the shear
strength properties by determining the effective cohesion (c’) and effective angle of
friction (ϕ’). The standard for triaxial compression test (BS 1377-8: 1990) was used
to determine the shear strength properties (effective stress). Subsequently, the shear
strength properties results that obtained for both undisturbed and reconstituted
samples were correlated with the sizes of peat and pre- consolidation pressure.
1.5 Significance of Research
A sound scientific understanding of the nature and functions of peat and organic soils
is critical to their correct and safe use, and this research contributes by offering
students, researchers, engineers and academics involved with these types of soils a
comprehensive overview. In the principle of the shear strength, the effective
cohesion (c’) and effective angle of friction (ϕ’) are the shear strength parameters.
These parameters are very important and it is necessary to determine these values to
design the retaining structures, foundation, slope and other structures. Therefore, in-
8
depth knowledge regarding the shear strength parameters is necessary because it is
very useful to engineers to design safe structures.
This research is very useful to geotechnical engineering and who is involved
in the development of peat lands. In the future, the developers and contractors can
determine the soil shear strength properties in a variety of peat size, degree of
decomposition, fiber content, organic content and others data that offers in this study
by referring the data value obtained and thus can be used in preliminary work in
construction. This study may also help researchers in the shear strength
determination at certain of peat size with the classification of peat. For example,
when the researchers go to the construction areas and determine the type of peat
whether fibric, hemic and sapric by using the Von Post method, thus the researchers
can evaluate and relate the range value of shear strength from the data that were
obtained in this study. Apart from that, this data will also help the peat researchers in
the future who work on with the distribution of soil, where to refer directly to the
shear strength data on different sizes obtained from this study without having to
make consolidated- undrained test and maybe can proceed with the other test
experiment.
Hopefully, in the future, more peat researchers study about shear strength
peat in term of the peat size passing through a wet sieve to obtain more shear
strength data.
1.6 Structure of Thesis
The entire thesis chapter consists of five chapters and outlined in Table 1.2. Chapter
1 consists of the project background, problem statement, aim, objectives, scope and
significance of the study. Chapter 2 contains literature review that summarises some
information about the study that can be related to the topic subject like physical
properties of peat, wet sieve method and shear strength parameters that can relate
with the pre- consolidation loads. Chapter 3 consists of the research methodology
and explanation in detail about the soil sample preparation procedure, test apparatus
and equipment, materials, data acquisition and processing methods used. In Chapter
4, the test results were analyzed and presented in table and graph, where soil
classification, properties of peat soils and shear strength are discussed in detail. The
9
last chapter summarised all the results and recommendation for future work based on
current study experience and literature review.
Table 1.2: Thesis outline
Chapter Title Description
1 Introduction
Project introduction including aim, objective and
scopes of study
2 Literature
Review
Reviews the literature relating to the research, which
includes soil properties/ characteristics, materials,
and laboratory testing.
3 Research
Methodology
Materials and experimental work in terms of sample
preparation, test equipment, and procedure is
described. This section discusses a developed
laboratory testing technique which is considered
necessary in the site for successful field
implementation.
4
Result and
Analysis
Results and and discusses the findings of this study.
This include soil identification and classification,
physical and engineering properties including shear
strength properties.
5 Conclusion and
Recommendation
Conclude all the results gained in chapter 4. Link all
the result with the objective proposed in Chapter 1.
List suggestions for future studies.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Nowadays, the construction development over peat soil is increasing due to the lack
of space and suitable land for building infrastructure, highway construction and other
development. The problems of peat in foundation construction generally is because
of its own characteristics such as low shear strength, very high natural moisture
content, high compressibility and water holding capacity, low specific gravity and
low bearing capacity (Kazemian et al., 2011).
The problems of peat can be solved using soil improvement method such as
soil replacement, water removal, site strengthening, thermal and geosynthetics. The
water removal method can be divided into four categories which are trenching,
electroosmosis, pre-compression without vertical drain and pre- compression with
vertical drain. In Malaysia, pre- compression with vertical drain method is popular to
remove the water from the soil (Yusoff, 2015). Vertical drains concept artificially-
created drainage paths which installed by one of several method and can have a
variety of physical characteristics. Vertical drains installation also used in order to
accelerate settlement and gain in strength of peat soil. A proper understanding of the
shear strength properties of peat soil is an important element in the solution of the
soft soil problems especially on strengthening the ground. In this regard,
understanding and determining the laboratory element testing that can represent or
mimic the field conditions plays an important role in characterising soil behaviour.
On top of that, the selection of the reconstituted method is very important to gain
11
uniformity and repeatability specimens that can simulate the study area ground
strength.
In this chapter, the literature review and the information on properties peat
soil samples and obtaining the shear strength parameter are discussed according to
the objectives of this research. The information gathered is obtained from journals,
books, proceedings and reports.
2.2 Peat
There is about thirty million hectares of peat soil coverage around the world with
Canada and Russia having the largest distribution of peat (Zainorabidin, 2010). More
than sixty percent of the world‟s tropical peat lands are found in South-East Asia
(Lette, 2006). Most notable are the large peat land on the islands of Borneo
belonging to Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. However, there are also
significant occurrences in other parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and
the Philippines (Adon et al., 2012). Figure 2.1 shows the picture of peat distribution
around the world which shows that the percentage distribution of peat is in the range
0% to more than 10%. Malaysia is in the range 5% to more than 10% as shown in the
red circle areas. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 displays the distribution of quaternary soil
around Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak areas. The yellow color areas show
the distribution of peat, soft soils, clay, silt, sand and gravel in both figures.
The tabulated data in Table 2.1 shows the distribution of peatland in Malaysia
at several states that was listed by (CREAM, 2015). In Peninsular Malaysia, Selangor
recorded the highest distribution area of peat and the smallest distribution area was
recorded by Negeri Sembilan. Johor has recorded the third largest area of peat
distribution after Pahang and Selangor with the total area 143, 974 hectares.
However, the distribution of peat in Sarawak has recorded the largest distribution of
peat area with 1, 697, 847 hectares followed by Sabah and the Peninsular Malaysia
with 116, 965 hectares and 642, 918 hectares respectively. Overall, the total
distribution area of peatland in Malaysia is about 2, 457, 730 hectares.
12
Table 2.1: Distribution area of peat in Malaysia (CREAM, 2015)
State Total Area of Peat (Ha) Johor 143,974 Pahang 164,113 Selangor 164,708 Perak 69,597 Terengganu 84,693 Kelantan 9,146 Negeri Sembilan 6,245 Federal Territory 381
Sabah 116, 965
Sarawak 1, 697, 847
Total 2, 457, 730
Figure 2.1: Peat Distribution in the World (Trumper et al., 2009)
Malaysia
13
Figure 2.2: General Distribution of Quaternary Deposits including Peat and Soft
Soils in Peninsular Malaysia (modified after Geological Map of Peninsular
Malaysia, 9th. Edition, 2014; CREAM, 2015)
Figure 2.3: General Distribution of Quaternary Deposits including Peat and
Soft Soils in Sabah and Sarawak (modified after Geological Map Sabah and
Sarawak, Geological Survey of Malaysia, 1992; CREAM, 2015).
14
Figure 2.4 illustrate the profile morphology of peat structure. The
arrangement of particle seen loose in fibric peat compared to the sapric peat because
of the presence of woody plant. Figure 2.5 shows the texture of tropical peat. As can
be seen, the colour of peat soil in Malaysia is generally dark reddish brown to black.
It consists of loose, branches, partly decomposed leaves, twigs and tree trunks with a
low mineral content (Wust et al., 2002). The formation of peat is mainly controlled
by the combination of water and temperature. On earth, temporal and spatial changes
of water and temperature depend upon climatic conditions, and geological,
geomorphologic, and hydrological factors. These factors directly and indirectly
influence peat formation, development, and its characteristics.
Figure 2.4: Profile Morphology of drained organic soil (Mutalib et al., 1992;
Rahman and Chan, 2013)
Legend:
Remnants of decomposing wood/ trucks
Semi decomposed woodlog/ trunk
15
Figure 2.5: Texture of Tropical Peat (Wust et al., 2002)
Peat originates from plants and denotes the various stages in the humification
process where the plant structure can be discerned (Hartlen and Wolski, 1996;
CREAM, 2015). Peat is partially or totally decomposed remains of dead plants which
have accumulated under water for tens to thousands of years. Based on Zainorabidin
and Wijeyesekera (2007), peat soil is generally originated from the plant and animal
remains. According to Kazemian et al. (2011), peat soil composed of high content of
16
fibrous organic matters and was produced by the partial decomposition and
disintegration of mosses, sedges, trees and other plants that grow in marshes and
other wet place in the condition of lack of oxygen. At the same time, peat is a
mixture of fragmented organic material formed in wetlands under appropriate
climatic and topographic conditions and it is derived from vegetation that has been
chemically changed and fossilized (Edil and Dhowian, 1981; Mesri and Ajlouni,
2007). Decomposition or humification involves the loss of organic matter either in
gas or in solution, the disappearance of the physical structure and the change in the
chemical state (Huat et al., 2009).
In natural state, peat consists of water and decomposed plant fragment with
virtually no measurable strength (Munro, 2005). Table 2.2 shows the description and
determination of peat from peat researchers. As concluded, peat is a mixture of
fragmented organic material forms where the lack of oxygen prevents natural micro-
organisms from decomposing the dead plant material. Thus, peat is considered
unsuitable for supporting foundations in its natural state.
Peat represents the extreme form of soft soil. It is an organic soil, which
consists more than 75% of organic matters (Huat et al., 2014). The organic content of
peat is basically the remains of plant for which rate of accumulation is faster than the
rate of decay. The content of peat differs from location to location due to the
factor such as the origin fiber, temperature and humidity (Huat, 2004). The definition
of peat soil depends on the purpose or the field of application that is shown in Table
2.3. Based on USDA (Soil Taxonomy) and Zainorabidin (2010), the purpose of
application from agriculture and soil science perspectives, peat is defined with
organic content more than 20% and 35% respectively. Meanwhile, from the
geotechnical engineering purpose, the organic content below than 75% is known as
organic soil, otherwise is known as peat.
17
Table 2.2: Summary description and determination of peat soil
Name Year Description
Edil and
Dhowian 1981
Peat is a mixture of fragmented organic material formed in
wetlands under appropriate climatic and topographic
conditions and it is derived from vegetation that has been
chemically changed and fossilized.
Jarret 1995
Peat is an organic soil which consist more than 70% of
organic matters. Peat deposits are found where conditions are
favorable for their formation.
Hartlen and
Wolski
1996
Peat originates from plants and denotes the various stages in
the humification process where the plant structure can be
discerned.
Munro 2004
Peat forms where the lack of oxygen prevents natural micro-
organisms from decomposing the dead plant material. Peat
forms slowly involving an accumulation of organic materials
in water, and taking approximately 10 years for 1cm of peat to
form.
Duraisamy et
al., 2007
Peat is considered unsuitable for supporting foundations in its
natural state
Kazemian et
al., 2011
Peat soil composed of high content of fibrous organic matters
and is produced by the partial decomposition and
disintegration of mosses, sedges, trees and other plants that
grow in marshes and other wet place in the condition of lack
of oxygen.
Table 2.3: General purpose definition of peat
Purpose of
application Definition From reference
Geotechnical
engineering
Organic content < 75% = organic soil
Organic content > 75% = peat ASTM D4427- 92
Agriculture Organic content > 20% = peat USDA (Soil
Taxonomy)
Soil science Organic content > 35% = peat USDA (Soil
Taxonomy)
2.3 Classification of Peat
The physical, chemical, and geotechnical characteristics commonly used for
classification of inorganic soil may not be applicable to the characterization of peat.
On the other hand, properties which are not pertinent to inorganic soil may be
important for classification of peat. Furthermore, the range values applied for some
properties of inorganic soil may not be relevant for peat. Generally, the classification
18
of peat is developed based on the decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the
organic content, and fiber content.
Table 2.4 shows the classification of peat according to degree of
humification. The classification of peat soils have been classified into 10 groups (H1-
H10) by Von Post based on water content, fibre properties, and degree of
decomposition (Von, 1922). The test was conducted by pressing the peat soil in the
hand and it gives off marked muddy water. The pressed residue material remaining
in the hand has fibrous structure and it is some-what thick. Based on (Hartlen and
Wolski, 1996), the fibrous peat with more than 60% fiber content is usually in the
range of H1 to H4.
To a geotechnical engineer, all soils with organic content of greater than 20%
is known as organic soil. Peat soil is an organic soil with organic content of more
than 75% (Huat, 2004). This classification is partly the same as ASTM D 2487- 06
classifications; a soil with organic content less than 75% (or ash content more than
25%) as muck or organic soil, while a soil with organic content higher than 75% (or
ash content less than 25%) as a peat. For geotechnical purposes, degree of peat
decomposition or humification system of Von Post is often divided into 3 classes that
are (Magnan, 1980; ASTM Standard D 5715- 00):
a) Fibric or fibrous (least decomposed) tentatively ranging from H1 to H3
b) Hemic or semi-fibrous (intermediate decomposed) tentatively ranging
from H4 to H6
c) Sapric or amorphous (most decomposed) tentatively ranging from H7 to
H10
Davis (1997) said that peat is classified as woody, fibrous, sedimentary, and
granular peat in terms of texture. In Malaysia, Malaysian Soil Classification System
(MSCS) also had been introduced to classify organic soil and peat. The MSCS is
developed based on British Soil Classification (BS 5930: 1981) and improved by
Public Work Malaysia. MSCS used the degree of humidification as another
parameter to classify the state of decay of organic soil after organic content.
Fiber content is also included in the system as the third factor to be
considered for classifying the organic soil. The additional factors introduced into the
system have provided better description and information about organic soil in
19
Malaysia (Zainorabidin et al, 2007). Generally, the classification of peat is developed
based on the decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the organic content, and
fiber content. Based on Jarret (1995), the soil classification of organic soil can be
determined as shown in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. The features of the physical
properties determination with the definitions and significance of the tests is
summarised in Table 2.7. The physical properties accommodate the valuable
information in determining the peat classification.
Table 2.4: Peat classification according to degree of humification
(Von, 1992 and Adon et al., 2012)
Degree of
Decomposition
Description
H1
Fibric
Completely undecomposed peat which releases almost clear water.
Plant remains easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.
H2
Almost completely undecomposed peat which releases clear or
yellowish water. Plant remains still easily identifiable. No
amorphous material present.
H3
Very slightly decomposed peat which releases muddy brown water,
but for which no peat passes between the fingers. Plant remains still
identifiable and no amorphous material present.
H4
Hemic
Slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very
muddy dark water. No peat is passed between the fingers, but the
plant remains are slightly pasty and have lost some of their
identifiable features.
H5
Moderately decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very
“muddy” water with a very small amount of amorphous granular
peat escaping between the fingers. The structure of the plant remains
is quite indistinct although it is still possible to recognize certain
features. The residue is very pasty.
H6
Moderately decomposed peat which a very indistinct plant structure.
When squeezed, about one-third of the peat escapes between the
fingers. The structure more distinctly than before squeezing.
H7
Sapric
Highly decomposed peat. Contains a lot of amorphous material with
very faintly recognizable plant structure. When squeezed, about one
- half of the peat escapes between the fingers. The water, if any is
released, is very dark and almost pasty.
H8
Very highly decomposed peat with large quantity of amorphous
material with very indistinct plant structure. When squeezed, about
two thirds of the peat escapes between the fingers. A small quantity
of pasty water may be released. The plant material remaining in the
hand consists of residues such as roots and fibers that resist
decomposition.
H9
Practically fully decomposed peat in which there is hardly any
recognizable plant structure. When squeezed it is a fairly uniform
paste.
H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure.
When squeezed, all the wet peat escapes between the fingers.
20
Table 2.5: Organic soil classification based on the organic content
(Jarret, 1995)
Soil Types Description Symbol Organic Content (%)
Clay or silt or sand Some Organic O 2-20
Organic Soil - O 25-75
Peat - Pt >75
Table 2.6: Classification based on the fiber content of peat (Jarret, 1995)
Soil Types Fiber Content Degree of Humification
Fibric Peat >66% H1-H3
Hemic Peat 33%-66% H4-H6
Sapric Peat <33% H7-H10
Table 2.7: Definition and significance of the test
Test Definition Significant
Degree of
Humification
The physical appearance of
soil was described based on
the Von Post classification.
A detail description on
classification of soil by refer H1-
H10 classification of peat
Particle Size
Distribution
The list of values that
defines as the relative
amount, typically by mass,
of particles present
according to size.
To determine the percentage of
various sized soil particles in a soil
mass. The findings of the results
allow the particle size distribution
curve is plotted
Moisture
Content
The ratio of the mass of
water in a specimen to the
mass of solid in the
specimen.
The percentage of moisture content
can be related to the settlement,
shear strength and compressibility
of the soil.
Liquid Limit
The water content at which
soil passes from the plastic
to the liquid state.
The limit is expressed as a
percentage of the dry weight of the
soil.
Specific Gravity Specify is the ratio of the
weight of a given volume of
the material to the mass of
an equal volume of water.
It is related to the degree of
decomposition and mineral content
of peat.
Organic Content The organic content is the
percentage of the organic
matter present in a soil.
Important parameter whereby the
percentage of peat and organic soils
can be indistinguishable
Fiber Content
Determined typically from
dry weight of fiber retained
on 0.15 mm as a percentage
of oven-dried mass
The percentage of fiber content is
used to classified the peat
decomposition range.
21
2.4 Particle Size Distribution
The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is the most widely used soil
classification system practice in the geotechnical engineering. The purpose of this
system is for classifying mineral and organic soil based on the particle size and limit
(liquid and plastic) determination. The grain size distribution of a soil determines the
governing particle- level forces, inter- particle packing and the ensuing macro scale
behavior, while grain shape was established at three different scales: the global form,
the scale of major surface features and the scale of surface roughness (Tang, 2011).
Santamarina and Cho (2004) reported that each scale reflects the features of the
formation history and particles in deciding the global behaviour of the soil mass,
from particle packing to mechanical response.
Boelter (1968) has stated that the physical properties of peat are highly
affected by the distribution of the pore size and the porosity. These two parameters
are related to the distribution of peat size. The degree of decomposition affects the
porosity of peat and the porosity is affected by both the particle size and structure of
peat. With an increment in the degree of decomposition, the particle size of organic
matters decreases Boelter (1968).
In particle size distribution, the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and gradation
coefficient (Cc) are taken into account to determine and verify the grade of soil. A
well graded known as a soil that has a broad distribution of particle size, while
poorly graded or uniform soils are composed of a narrow size particle distribution
only. Cu> 5 accounted as a well-graded soil, Cu<3 demonstrate a uniform soil, Cc
between 0.5 and 2.0 reveal a well- graded soil and < 0.1 indicates a possible gap-
graded soil (Das, 2011).
22
2.4.1 Distribution of Peat Size
ASTM (D2487-06) classified the soil in three major soil divisions: coarse- grained,
fine grained and highly organic soil as tabulated in Table 2.8. The peat soil was
described and categorized in highly organic soils with the symbol „Pt‟. Peat is
different with other types of soils because the identification of this type of soil is
identified through organic matter, colour and odour.
Based on Levesque and Dinel (1977), particle- size distribution of peat fiber
was determined according to the wet sieving method. For the case of organic soils,
particles size distribution is not necessarily used in characterization and it is highly
influenced by its botanic nature. As for mineral soil, the theory of particle composed
of single grain unit is not able to be visualized in an organic area. Therefore, it could
be practical to use particle size as the comparison for fibrous and non-fibrous peat
materials which denote their decomposition level. Wet sieving is chosen to separate
fine grains from the coarse grains and it is carried out onto the disturbed or
undisturbed soil by using tap water with the arrangement of a stack of aperture sizes
which chosen. Said and Taib (2009) has specified their opinion that to obtain the
particle size distribution result precisely, the wet sieving analysis must be done on
the soil in order to further break the soil particles into a smaller size. Kalantari and
Prasad (2014) stated that, tropical peat soils are normally having sizes between
0.006mm to 5.000mm.
Tang (2011) revealed the wet method for coarse peat soil is more effective to
practice and the soil fraction finer than 63 µm was analyzed with diffraction laser
method (CILAS test). Mohamad (2015) stated the coefficient of curvature (Cc) for
peat soil at Parit Nipah Johor is 1.07 and coefficient of uniformity (Cu) is 9.6. In
regard of that, with referring to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Parit
Nipah peat is classified as well- graded soil and behaves in various shapes and sizes.
23
Table 2.8: Classification of soil chart (ASTM D2487-06)
Major Divisions Group
Symbol Typical Names
Course-
Grained Soils
More than
50% retained
on the 0.075
mm
(No. 200)
sieve
Gravels
50% or more of
course fraction
retained on
the 4.75 mm
(No. 4) sieve
Clean Gravels
GW
Well-graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or
no fines
GP
Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or
no fines
Gravels
with Fines
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-
clay mixtures
Sands
50% or more of
course
fraction passes
the 4.75
(No. 4) sieve
Clean Sands
SW
Well-graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no
fines
SP
Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no
fines
Sands
with Fines
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fine-Grained
Soils
More than
50% passes
the 0.075 mm
(No. 200)
sieve
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit 50% or less
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock four, silty or clayey fine
sands
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity,
gravelly/sandy/silty/lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts and Clays
Liquid Limit greater than 50%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or
silts, elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays or high
plasticity, fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity
Highly Organic Soils Pt Peat, muck, and other highly
organic soils
Keyword:
Prefix: G= Gravel, S= Sand, M= Silt, C=Clay, O= Organic
Suffix: W= Well Graded, P= Poorly Graded, M= Silty, L= Clay, LL < 50%, H=
Clay, LL > 50%
24
2.5 Physical Properties of Peat
There are a few unique physical properties of peat which should be paid
attention in discussion. Hobbs (1986) stated that the physical characteristics such as
color, degree of humification, water content and organic contents should be included
in a full description of peat. They are influenced by main component of the formation
such as mineral content, organic content, moisture and air. When one of these
components changes, it will result in the changes of the whole physical properties of
peat. Table 2.9 shows the all the physical properties peat data that were recorded
from the past researchers in Malaysia.
Boelter (1968) reported that the physical properties of peat are highly affected
by the porosity and the distribution of the pore size. Both of these parameters are
related in the distribution of peat size. Rahman (2015) stated the degree of
decomposition affects the porosity of peat and the porosity is influenced by the
particle size and structure of peat. With an increase of the decomposition level, thus
it tends to the particle size of organic matters decreases. Past researchers have
reported that the degree of decomposition for Parit Nipah peat is H5 (moderately
decomposed peat) with the organic and fiber content is in the range between 78 -
93% and 40 - 67% respectively, as tabulated in Table 2.9.
The water content is the most important criteria properties for peat soil. The
value of water content depends on the origin, degree of decomposition and the
chemical composition of peat (Rahman and Chan, 2014). Generally, peat has very
high natural water content due its ability to holding water capacity. Mesri and
Ajlouni (2007) emphasized that the water content of peat may range from 200 to
2000% which is quite different from that for clay and silt deposits which rarely
exceed 200%. Water content of fibrous peat generally is very high. It is because
fibrous peat holds a considerable amount of water as its organic coarse particles are
generally very loose and the organic particles itself are hollow and largely full of
water (Rahman and Chan, 2014). In Parit Nipah Johor, the water content ranges from
330 to 650% (Azhar et al., 2016, Saedon and Zainorabidin 2012, Johari et al., 2016,
Zainorabidin and Mohamad 2015; Yusoff et al., 2015).
Nurhamidah et al., (2011) reported that the tropical peat in tidal swamplands
areas (Peninsular and East Malaysia) is identified with land subsidence on the peat
layers. The Peninsular Malaysia area subsidence rate was found to be 2cm until
131
REFERENCES
Abdullah, M., Huat, B. B. K., Kamaruddin, R., Ali, A. K. and Duraisamy, Y. (2007).
Design and performance of eps footing for lightweight farm structure on peat
soil. American Journal of Applied Sciences 4 (7): 484-490.
Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., and Adnan. (2012). Overview of the
sustainable uses of peat soil in Malaysia. Int. Journal of Integrated
Engineering – Special Issue on ICONCEES. Vol. 4 No. 3. pp. 38-46.
Ajlouni, M.A. (2000) Geotechnical Properties of Peat and Related Engineering
Problems. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: PhD Thesis.
Al-Ani, H. and Oh, E. and Chai, G. (2013). Engineering properties of peat in
estuarine environment. Foundation and Soft Ground Engineering
Conference. Thu Dau Mot University.
Al- Ani, H. A. H. (2015). Digital geotechnical maps and classification of soil
engineering properties by using GIS. Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith
University, Gold Coast Campus: PhD. Thesis
Al- Raziqi, A. A., Huat, B. B. K. and Munzir, H. A. (2003). Potential usage of
hyperbolic method for prediction of organic soil settlement. Proc. 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and
Technology Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.439- 45.
Ali, A. W. M., Sabarudin, M., Mohd, I. M. M., Saiful, A. A. T., Ismail, B., Adnan,
Z., Azrul, Z. K. and Ling, J. H. (2016). Construction of buildings on peat:
Case Studies and Lessons Learned, MATEC Web of Conferences, 47 03013.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Methods for
Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils, ASTM
D2974- 00, Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2001). Standard Test Method for
Laboratory Determination of the Fiber Content of Peat Samples by Dry
132
Mass, ASTM D1997- 91, Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Classification of Peat
Samples by Laboratory Testing. ASTM D4427- 92, Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2005). Standard Test Methods for
Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM D4318- 05,
Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Terminology Relating
to Soil, Rock, and Contained Fluids. ASTM D653- 06, Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Soil Soilds by Water Pycnometer, ASTM D854- 06, Vol.
04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Practice For
Classification of Soils For Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification
System). ASTM D2487- 06, Vol. 04.08.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Test Method For
Estimating the Degree of Humification of Peat and Other Organic Soils
(Visual/ Manual Method). ASTM D5715- 00 (2006) , Vol. 04.08.
Aminur M. R., Kolay P. K., Taib S. N. L., Mohd Zain, M. I. S. and Kamal, A. A.
(2011). Physical, geotechnical and morphological characteristics of peat soils
from sarawak. Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia. Vol. 72, No.
4, December 2011.
Anggraini, V. (2006). Shear Strength Improvement of Peat Soil Due To
Consolidation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Degree of Master.
Axelsson, K., Johansson, S. and Anderson, R. (2002). Stabilization of organic soil by
cement and pozzaolanic reaction- feasibility study. Swedish Deep
Stabilization Research Centre, Report 3, 1- 51.
Barnes, D.M (2015). Monotonic and cyclic shear response of reconstituted natural
silt. The University of British Columbia: Degree of Master
Bashar, M. A. (2002). Stress-deformation characteristics of selected coastal soils of
Bangladesh and their sampling effects. Dept. of Civil Eng., BUET: PhD
Thesis.
Boelter DH (1968). Important physical properties of peat materials. Proc. of the
Third International Peat Congress. Quebec, Canada. 150-156.
133
Boso, M. (2005). Shear Strength Behaviuor of A Reconstituted Partially Saturated
Clayey Silt. University of Trento: PhD Thesis.
Bradshaw, A.S. and Baxter, C.D.P. (2007). Sample preparation of silts for
liquefaction testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 30(4), Paper ID
GTJ100206, 9 pages.
British Standard Institution (1990). Classification test. British Standards Institution,
London. UK: BS 1377 Part 2.
British Standard Institution (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering
purposes, chemical and electrochemical tests, London. UK: BS 1377 Part 3.
British Standard Institution (1990). Shear strength tests (effective stress): British
Standards Institution, London. UK: BS1377 Part 8.
Boylan N., Jennings P. and Long M. (2008). Peat slope failure in Ireland. Quarterly
Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2008; v. 41; p. 93-108
doi:10.1144/1470- 9236/06-028.
Burland, J. B., (1990). The Thirtieth Rankine Lecture: On the Compressibility and
Shear Strength of Natural Soils, Geotechnique 40, No.3, pp. 329-378.
Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Sur une application des regles maximis et minimis a
quelques problems de statique, relatives a l’architecture. Acad Sci Paris Mem
Math Phys 7:343–382.
Cola, S. and Cortellazo, G., (2005). The shear strength behaviour of two peaty soils,
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, pp. 679-695.
Cortellazzo, G. and Cola, S. (1999). Geotechnical characteristics of two Italian peats
stabilized with binders. In: Bredenberg H, Holm G, Broms BB (eds) Dry mix
methods for deep soil stabilization. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 93–100
Craig, R.F. (1993). Mekanik Tanah. Terjemahan Soil Mechanics oleh Aminaton
Marto, Fatimah Mohd Noor, dan Fauziah Kasim. Edisi ke-4. Unit Penerbitan
Akademik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
CREAM (2015). Guidelines for Construction on Peat and Organic Soils in
Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Construction Research Institute of
Malaysia (CREAM).
Culloch, F.M. (2006). Guidelines for the Risk Management of Peat Slips on the
Construction of Low Volume/ Low Cost Road Over Peat.Scotland. For. Civ.
Eng. For. Comm., pp. 1-46.
134
Das, B. M. (2007). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th Ed. United States of
America: Christopher M. Shortt.
Das, B.M. (2008). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering. 4th Ed. Canada:
Christopher M. Shortt.
Das, B. M., (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 7th Edition. Stamford,
USA: Cengage Learning.
Das, B. M., (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th Ed. Stamford, USA:
Christopher M. Shortt
Davis, J. H. (1997). The Peat Deposits of Florida their Occurrence, Development
and Uses. Florida Geological Survey. Geological Bulletin, 3.
Deboucha, S. and Hashim, R. (2009). Durability and swelling of tropical stabilized
peat soils. Journal of Applied Sciences. 9 (13): 2480- 2484.
Dehghanbanadaki, A.,Arefnia, A., Keshtkarbanaeemoghadam, A., Kamarudin, A.,
Motamedi, S. and Hashim, R. (2016). Evaluating the compression index of
fibrous peat treated with different binders. Bull Eng Geol Environ. DOI
10.1007/s10064-016-0890-6
Duraisamy, Y., Huat, B, B, K., Aziz A.A. (2007). Engineering Properties and
Compressibility Behaviour of Tropical Peat Soil. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 4(10): 768-773.
Edil, T. B. (1997). Construction Over Peats and Organic Soil. Proc. Conf. On Recent
Advances in Soft Soil Engineering, Kuching. Referred by Abedin
Edil, T.B. and A. W. Dhowian. (1981). At-rest Lateral Pressure of Peat Soils. Conf.
On Sedimentation and Consolidation Model, ASCE, San Fransisco, 411 –
424.
Edil T. B. and Wang, X. (2000). Shear strength and ko of peats and organic soils
geotechnics of high water content materials, ASTM STP 1374, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Farrell E.R. (2012). Organics/peat soils. In ICE Manual of Geotechnical
Engineering. Burland J, Chapman T, Skinner H and Brown M (eds). ICE
Publishing, London, vol. 1, pp. 463– 479.
Gofar N. and Sutejo Y., (2007). Long term compression behavior of fibrous peat.
Malaysian Journal Civil Engineering 19.
Gosling D. and Keeton P. (2006). Problems with Testing Peat for Stability Analysis.
135
Peat Seminar. Edinburgh, 11 March 2008.
Hanzawa, H., Kishida, T., Fukusawa, T. and Asada, H. (1994). A case study of the
application of direct shear and cone penetration tests to soil investigation,
design and quality control for peaty soils. Soils and Foundations, Jap. Soc.
Soil Mechan. Found. Eng., 4: 13-22.
Hartlen, J. and Wolski, W. (1996). Embankments on Organic Soils, 1st Edn.,
B.V. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, ISBN: 0-444-88273-1, pp: 456.
Hashim, R. and Islam, S. (2008). Engineering Properties of Peat Soil in Peninsular
Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci., 8(22). pp. 4215-4219.
Head, K. H. (1998). Manual of soil laboratory testing: Effective stress tests. 1st
edition . Pentech Press. London Ltd. Vol 2.
Hebib, S. (2001). Experimental Investigation on The Stabilisation of Irish Peat.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Hobbs, N. B. (1986). Mire Morphology and the Properties and Behaviour of Some
British and Foreign Peats. Q. I Eng. Geol., London, 19(1): 7-80.
Huat, B. B. K. (2004) Organic and Peat Soil Engineering. Publisher Serdang :
Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, 2004.
Huat, B, B.K., (2006). Deformation and Shear Strength Characteristics of Some
Tropical Peat and Organic Soils. Petanika J. Sci. and Technol. 14 (1 and 2),
pp. 61- 74.
Huat, B. B., Asadi, A. and Kazemian, S. (2009). Experimental investigation on
geomechanical properties of tropicanal organic soil and peat. American
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2 (1), 184- 188
Huat, B. B., Kazemian, S., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011). State of an art review
of peat: General prespective. International Journal of the Physic Sciences, 6
(8), 1988- 1996.
Huat, B. B., Prasad, A., Asadi, A. and Kazemian, S. (2014). Geotechnics of Organic
Soils and Peat. London, UK: Taylor and Francis Group.
Hyde, A.F.L., Higuchi, T. and Yasuhara, K. (2006). Liquefaction, Cyclic Mobility,
and Failure of Silt. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(6) p. 716-735.
Jarret P. M. (1995). Site Investigation for Organic Soils and Peat Soil. JKR
Document, 20709- 0341- 95. Institute Kerja Raya Malaysia.
136
Jelisic N. and Leppanen M. (2003). Mass stabilization of organic soils and soft clay
[M]. Reston, VA, USA: Geotechnical Special Publication (120 I) : 552−561.
Johari. N. N., Bakar, I. and Razali, S. N. M., (2014). Oedometer Testing on
Undisturbed and Reconstituted Peat. Proceedings of Soft Soils 2014.
Bandung, Indonesia: Universiti Tun Hussein Onn.
Johari, N. N., Bakar, I., Razali, S. N. M. and Wahab, N. (2016). Fiber effects on
compressibility of peat. Soft Soil Engineering International Conference 2015
(SEIC2015).
Kalantari, B. and Huat, B. B. K. (2009). Load-Bearing Capacity Improvement for
Peat Soil. European Journal of Scientific Research. 32.2 (2009): 252-259
Kalantari, B. and Prasad, A. (2014). A study of the effect of various curing
techniques on the strength of stabilized peat. Transp Geotech, 1:119–128
Kazemian S., Asadi A. and Huat B. B. K. (2009). Settlement Problems in Peat Due
to Their High Compressibility and Possible Solution Using Cement Columns.
In: Shen-en C, de Leon AD, Dolhon AM, Drerup MJ, Parfitt K, Forensic
engineering 2009: Pathology of the built.
Kazemian, S., Huat, B.B.K., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011). A state of art
review of peat: Geotechnical engineering perspective. International Journal
of the Physical Sciences. Vol. 6(8), pp. 1974-1981.
Kazemian, S., and Moayedi, H. (2012). Effect of Cement-Sodium Silicate Grout on
the Compressibility Parameters of Fibrous Peat. Advanced Materials
Research. Vol. 629, pp 461-465.
Kazemian, S., Huat, B. B. K. and Moayedi, H. (2012). Undrained Shear
Characteristics of Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement Stabilized Soil
Column. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30:753–759
Khalid, N., Mukri, M., Kamarudin, F., Sidek, N., and Arshad, M.F., (2013).
Experimental Studies on Fibrous Peat Stabilized Using Waste Paper Sludge
Ash (WPSA). Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 13,
Bundle B.
Khalili, A., Wijewickreme, D. (2008). New Slurry Displacement Method for
Reconstitution of Highly Gap-Graded Specimens for Laboratory Element
Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 31(5). Paper ID GTJ101373, 9 pages.
137
Kolay, P.K., Pui, M.P. (2010). Peat Stabilization Using Gypsum and Fly Ash.
Unimas E- Journal of Civil Engineering; Vol 1.Issue 2.
Kolay, P.K., Sii, H. Y. and Taib, S.N.L. (2011). Tropical Peat Soil Stabilization
Using Class F Pond Ash Form Coal Fired Power Plant. Int. Journal of Civil
and Environmental Engineering. Vol 3 (No. 2)
Landva,A.O. and La Rochelle, P. (1983). Compressibility and Shear Characteristics
of Radforth Peats, Testing of Peat and Organic Soils, ASTM STP, 820: 157-
191.
Landva, A.O., Korpijaakko, E.O. and Pheeney, P.E. (1983). Geotechnical
classification of peats and organic soils. In: Jarrett, P.M. (Ed.), Testing of
Peats and Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia. pp. 37 – 51.
Landva, A. O., Pheeney, P. E, La Rochelle, P. and Briaud, J. L. (1986). Structure on
Peatland: Geotechnical Investigations. Proc of the Symposium and Advances
in Peatlands Engineering. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. pp. 31-52.
Leete, R. (2006). Malaysia’s peat swamp forest conservation and sustainable use.
Publised by United Nations Development Programme Malaysia, Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia.
Levesque, M. and Dinel, H. (1977). Fiber Content, Particle- Size Distribution and
Some Related Properties of Four Peat Materials in Eastern Canada. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 57: 187- 195. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by
123.136.107.184 on 09/28/16
Liu, M.D., Carter J. P. and Desai C. S. (2003). Modeling Com- Pression Behavior of
Structured Geomaterials. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE. Vol.
3 (No. 2), 191-204.
Ling, J. H., Sabarudin, M. , Saiful, A. A. T. , Syazie, N. A. M., Ismail, B., Mohd, I.
M. M., Adnan, Z. and Ali, A. W. M., (2016). Construction of Infrastructure
on Peat: Case Studies and Lessons Learned, MATEC Web of Conferences, 47
03014.
Long, M. (2005). Review of peat strength, peat characterisation and constitutive
modelling of peat with reference to landslides. Studia Geotechnica et
Mechanica 27(3–4): 67–90.
138
Lukas, M. (2010). A Study on the Effect of Remolding on the Mechanical Behavior of
Addis Ababa Red Clay Soil. Addis Ababa University: Degree of Master
Thesis.
Macfarlane, I. C. and Radforth, N. W. (1965). A study of the physical behaviour of
peat derivatives under compression. Proc. 10th Muskeg Res. Conf. N.R.C.
Ottawa.pp. 159.
Magnan, J.P. (1980) Classification geotechnique des sols: 1- A propos del la
classification LPC, Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoiresdes Ponts et
Chaussees, Paris, PP. 19- 24.
Mandal, J. N. (1995). Soil Testing in Civil Engineering.A.A Balkema. Rotterdam.
Mankinen, G.W., Gelfer, B., (1982). Comprehensive use of peat in the U.S.S.R.
DOE Fifth Technical Conference on Peat. U.S. Department of Energy,
Bethesda, MD, pp. 44 – 54.
Mansor, S. H. and Zainorabidin, A. (2014). The shear strength behavior of Johore’s
hemic peat. Proceedings of soft soils 2014, October 20- 23rd 2014, Bandung,
Indonesia.
Mayne, P. W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ
tests. Proceedings, International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil
Properties and Case Histories, Bali,Indonesia, May 21-24, 2001, pp. 27-48.
McGeever, J. (1987). The Strength Parameters of an Organic Silt. University Of
Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin Ireland. MSc Thesis
Mesri, G. and Ajlouni, M. (2007). Engineering Properties of Fibrous Peats. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(7): 850-866.
Mitchell, J.K (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. J. Wiley and Son Inc.
Mohamad, H.M (2015). Post-cyclic Behaviour of Malaysian Peat Soil. Universiti
Tun Hussein Onn: Degree of Master
Munfakh, G. A. (2003. Ground improvement in transportation projects: from old
visions to innovative applications. Ground Improv 7(2):47–60
Munro, R. (2004). Dealing with bearing capacity problems on low volume roads
constructed on peat. The Highland Council, Environmental and Community
Service, HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Interness IV3 5NX Scotland
Munro, R. (2005). Dealing with Bearing Capacity Problems on Low Volume Roads
Constructed on Peat. ROADEX II Northern Periphery.
139
Munro R. and MacCulloch F. (2006). Managing Peat Related Problems on Low
VolumeRoads. ROADEX III Project.
Murthy, V. N. S. (2008). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. CBS
Publishers & Distributors: New Delhi.
Mutalib, A., Lim, J. S., Wong, M. H. and Koonvai, L. (1991). Characterization,
distribution and utilization of peat in Malaysia. Symposium on Tropical Peat
Land. 8-10 March 1991,Kuching, Sarawak.
Mutalib, A. A., Lim J. S., Wong M.H and Koonvai L. (1992). Characterization,
distribution and utilization of peat in Malaysia. In: B.Y. Aminuddin (Editor),
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland, Kuching,
Sarawak, MARDI, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 7-16.
Naskar, N. (2013). Effect of organic content on shear strength characteristics of
clay. Jadavpur University. Degree of Master Thesis.
Noto. S (1991). Peat Engineering Handbook. Civil Engineering Research Institute,
Hokkaido Development Agency, Prime Minister’s Office, Japan. 1-35.
Nurhamidah, Giesen, N.V.D and Hoes, O. (2011). Subsidence and Deforestation:
Implications for Flooding in Delta’s Southeast and East Asia. International
Scientific Conference 2011. Proceeding of the International Conference on
Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 2011. Hotel
Equatorial Bangi-Putrajaya, Malaysia, 14 - 15 January 2011.
O’Kelly, B.C. and Orr, T.L.L. (2014). Briefing: Effective Stress Strength of Peat in
Triaxial Compression. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). pp. 417-420.
O’Kelly, B. C. and Pichan, S. P. (2013). Effects of decomposition on the
compressibility of fibrous peat- a review. Geomechanics and
Geoengineering: An International Journal, 9(4): 286–296.
Paikowsky, S.G., Elsayed, A.A., and Kurup, P.U. (2003). Engineering Properties of
Cranberry Bog Peat, 2nd International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering
and Technology, Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.157-171.
Parmar, S. (2016). Factors controlling stress strain behaviour of soil. Department of
Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
https://www.slideshare.net/samirsinhparmar/factors-controlling-stress-
strain-behaviour-of-soil.
140
Phillips V.D. (1998). Peat swamp ecology and sustainable development in Borneo. –
Biodiversity Conservation 7: 651-671.
Poulos, S. J. (1989) Jansen, R. B., ed., “Liquefaction Related Phenomena”, Advance
Dam Engineering for Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold): 292-320.
Rabbee, T. and Rafizul, I. M. (2012). Strength and compressibility characteristics of
reconstituted organic soil at Khulna Region of Bangladesh, International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2 No. 10, October, 2012.
Rabbee, T., Rafizul, I. M., Assaduzzaman, M., and Alamgir, M. (2012). Investigate
the effect of pre-consolidation pressure and organic content on the shear
strength and compressibility parameter of reconstituted soil. Int. Journal of
Applied Sciences and Engineering Research, Vol. 1, Issue 6.
Rahgozar, M. A. and Saberian, M. (2016). Geotechnical properties of peat soil
stabilised with shredded waste tyre chips. Mires and Peat, Volume 18 (2016),
Article 03, 1–12
Rahiman, R.A. (2010). Membuat Penentukuran Terhadap Alat Bilah Ricih dengan
Membandingkannya dengan Alat Mampatan Tak Terkurung di Makmal.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Ijazah Sarjana.
Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2013). Influence of temperature on the mass losses
of tropical peat at different decomposition level. Soft Soil Engineering
international Conference.
Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2014). Effect of the moisture content at different
decomposition level of peat. Journal of Civil Engineering 2014, 4(3A): 59-62
Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2015). Physico-Chemical Characterization of Peat
at Different Decomposition Levels. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering. Vol. 20, Bundle 9.
Rahman, J. A. (2015). Correlation between decomposition level and induced
solidification of peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn: Degree of Master Thesis.
Saedon, N. And Zainorabidin, A. (2012). An investigation of soil volume changes at
four dimensional points of peat soil sample in Parit Nipah and Pontian.
Applied Mechanics and Materials, 773-774:1491-1496.
Saedon, N., Zainorabidin, A. and Razali, S. N. M. (2014). Temperature effect to the
shrinkage characteristics of peat soil. Proceedings of Soft Soils 2014, October
20- 23rd
2014. Bandung, Indonesia.
141
Said J. M. and Taib S. N. L. (2009). Peat stabilization with carbide lime. UNIMAS E-
Journal of civil engineering. Vol. 1: issue 1/August 2009
Salih, A.G. and Kassim, K.A. (2012). Effective shear strength parameters of
remoulded residual soil. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17,
243- 253.
Santamarina, J. C. and Cho, G. C. (2004). Soil behaviour: the role of particle shape.
Proceeeding Skemptom Conference, March, London.
Schothorst, C. J. (1977). Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the western
Netherlands. Geoderma 17 (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam Printed in The Netherlands): 265-291.
Shogaki T. and Kaneko M. (1994). Effects of sample disturbance on strength and
consolidation parameters of soft clay. Soils Found., 34(3): 1-10.
Singh, A. (1992). The determination of swelling pressure of expansive clays,
invention intelligence. Invention Promotion Board, New Delhi.
Tang, B. L. (2011). Revitalisation of organic and peat soils. Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malaysia: Degree of Master
Tang B. L., Bakar, I. and Chee M. C. (2011). Reutilization of Organic and Peat Soils
by Deep Cement Mixing. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology.
Teferi, E. (2011). Unsaturated Shear Strength Characterstics and Stress - Strain
Behaviour of Silt Soils of Hawassa. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa Institute of
Technology.
Teong, I. T., Felix, N. L. L. and Mohd, S. (2015). Characteristics and Correlation of
the Index Properties Peat Soil: Parit Nipah. Journal of Applied Science and
Agriculture, 10(5) Special 2015, Pages: 19-23
Trumper, K., Bertzky, M., Dickson, B., van der Heijden, G., Jenkins, M., Manning,
P. (2009). The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. A
UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme,
UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Wang, S., Luna, R. and Stephenson, R.W. (2011). A Slurry Consolidation Approach
to Reconstitute Low-Plasticity Silt Specimens for Laboratory Triaxial
Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 34(4). p. 1-9.
142
Wetlands International-Malaysia. 2010. A Qucik Scan of Peatlands in Malaysia.
Project funded by the Kleine Natuur Initiatief Projecten, Royal Netherlands
Embassy.
Whitlow, J.R. (1983). Vlei cultivation in Zimbabwe- reflections on the past.
Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal 80: 1234-135
Whitlow, J.R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th Ed. England: Pearson Education
Ltd.
Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I., and Ismail, T. N. H. T. (2015). Sustainable
Construction Material For Challenging Highway Technology. Asian
Research Publishing Network (ARPN) Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences.
Wong L.S., Hashim R. and Ali F.H., (2008). Strength and permeability of stabilized
peat soil. J.Appl. Sci., Vol 8(No 17). pp. 1-5.
Wong, L.S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F.H., (2009). A review on hydraulic conductivity
and compressibility of peat. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9: 3207-3218.
Wust, R. A.J, Bustin, R. M., and Lavkulich, L. M. (2002). New classification
systems for tropical organic- rich deposits based on studies of the Tasek Bera
Basin, Malaysia. www.elsevier.com/locate/catena. pp. 133- 163.
Wösten, J.H.M, Ismail, A.B., and van Wijk, A.L.M. (1997). Peat subsidence and its
practical implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma, Science Direct.
Volume 78, Issues 1–2, July 1997, Pages 25–36.
Yamaguchi, H., Ohira, Y., Kogure, K. and MORI, S. (1985). Deformation and
strength properties of peat, Proc.11th. ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 4, pp.
2461–2464.
Yusoff, S. A. N. M., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., Zainorabidin, A., Madun, A.
(2015). Comparison of geotechnical properties of laterite, kaolin and peat.
Applied mechanics and material 773, 1438-1442.
Yusoff, S. A. N. M. (2015). Soil Stabilization Using Lignin and Bio- Enzymes.
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. Master Thesis.
Zainorabidin, A. (2010). Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Peat With Macro
and Micro Structure Perspective. University East London. PhD Thesis.
Zainorabidin, A. and Bakar, I. (2003). Engineering properties of in-situ and modified
hemic peat soil in Western Johor. Proc. of 2nd International Conference on
143
Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. pp.
173-182.
Zainorabidin,A. and Mansor, S.H., (2016). Investigation on the shear strength
characteristic at Malaysian peat. Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN)
Journal of Engineering and Applied Science. Vol. 11 (No. 3).
Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2015). Pre- and post-cyclic behavior on
monotonic shear strength of Penor Peat. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 2015. Volume 20, Bundle 15. 20.16. 6928.
Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2016a). Preliminary peat surveys in
ecoregion delineation of North Borneo: Engineering Perspective. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 21, Bund. 12.
Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2016b). A geotechnical exploration of Sabah
peat soil : engineering classifications and field surveys. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 21, Bund. 20.
Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2017). Engineering properties of integrated
tropical peat soil in Malaysia. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering. Vol. 22, Bundle 02.
Zainorabidin, A. and Wijeyesekera, D. (2007). Geotechnical challenges with
Malaysian peat. Paper presented at The School of Computing and
Technology 2nd Annual Conference, London.
Zainorabidin, A., Wijeyesekera, D. C., and Mohd Masirin, M. I. (2007). Comparative
Study of British and Malaysian Peat Soils Pertaining to Geotechnical
Characterizatics.
Zainorabidin, A. and Zolkefle, S. N. A. (2014). Dynamic Behaviour of Western
Johore Peat, Malaysia. APCBEE Procedia.
Zhang, L. and O'Kelly, C.B. (2013). The Principle of Effective Stress and Triaxial
Compression Testing of Peat. In Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 167, Issue.
GE1. Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity
College Dublin, Ireland.
Zolkefle S. N. A. (2014). The Dynamic Characteristic of Southwest Johor Peat
under Different Frequencies. Degree of Master in Civil Engineering Thesis.