i

A CRITICAL PERFORMANCE STUDY OF INNOVATIVE LIGHTWEIGHT

FILL TO MITIGATE SETTLEMENT OF EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTED

ON PEAT SOIL

TUAN NOOR HASANAH BINTI TUAN ISMAIL

A thesis submitted in

fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the

Doctoral of Philosophy

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

March 2017

iii

Specially Dedicated to

My beloved husband and family

Thanks for all the love and support

Sincerely, Tuan Noor Hasanah binti Tuan Ismail

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful

Syukur Alhamdulillah and all thanks are due to Allah for gave me strength and

ability to complete my research successfully. First and foremost, I would like to

express my deepest gratitude to my project supervisor, Prof. Dr. Devapriya Chitral

Wijeyesekera for his supervision and guidance, invaluable assistance and his

constant confidence in me. Without his continued guidance and support, this thesis

would not have been a success. Forever I appreciate his patience and availability for

any help whenever needed despite his heavy workload.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof. Dato’ Dr. Ismail Hj.

Bakar as my co supervisor for their helpful suggestions, assistance, and

encouragement. His absolute support is greatly appreciated.

I also gratefully acknowledge all the academic staffs and support staffs

especially Mr As-Shar bin Kasalan and Mdm. Salina binti Sani for assisting and give

the guidance to me during conducting the laboratory and field works.

I am also very thankful to all my colleagues and other researchers I have met

for their help, encouragement, motivation and friendship on my research work.

Financial support from MTUN-COE grant and MyPhD scholarship are also

gratefully acknowledged

Heartfelt acknowledgements are expressed to my beloved husband and

parents for their sacrifices, support and encouragement. Without them, I may never

have overcome this long journey in my studies. Not forgetting my siblings for their

friendship and support during the difficult times of my study. May Allah reward all

of you. Thank you…

v

ABSTRACT

Infrastructure construction now demands the development on soft ground such as

peat. Discomfort of road users such as bumpy road need to be addressed with the use

of appropriate lightweight and stiff backfill materials. Alternative lightweight fills

used in current highway construction is critically reviewed in this research prior to

the conceptual development of a stiff lightweight mat (Geocomposite Cellular Mat,

GCM). The GCM concept is somewhat similar to the EPS concept by virtue of the

mat form. However, the EPS is lighter than GCM, but the GCM is much stronger,

stiffer, more porous and permeable. The performance of the GCM on hemic peat

ground at the test site in Parit Nipah, Johor was compared with that from

conventional backfill (sand fill). The typical geotechnical properties of Parit Nipah

peat were high in organic content (85.3 %), high in moisture content (> 600 %) and

low in undrained shear strength (< 15 kPa). The consolidation characteristics of Parit

Nipah peat was obtained from both laboratory and field tests using Terzaghi’s, and

hyperbolic methods. The settlement predicted by hyperbolic method gave a better

agreement with the field data. The field tests were environmentally monitored and

innovative field instrumentation for the settlement monitoring was specially designed

for this research. The research effectively demonstrates potential for the use of GCM

to mitigate settlement of highway embankment built on peat ground. The field

observation showed that the maximum settlements were reduced up to 84 % with the

adoption of GCM fills. Furthermore, 70 % differential settlement was reduced with

GCM fill compared with sand fill. GCM fills not only reduces excessive settlement

but also reduces the differential settlement. However, they also effectively accelerate

the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through the ease of dissipation of

the excess pore water pressure through the open-porous cellular structure of the

GCM fills.

vi

ABSTRAK

Pembinaan infrastruktur di atas tanah lembut contohnya tanah gambut kini mendapat

permintaan yang tinggi. Namun yang demikian, pembinaan jalan raya diatas tanah

gambut memberi ketidakselesaan kepada pengguna jalan raya disebabkan oleh jalan

yang beralun dan ini perlu ditangani dengan pendekatan yang sesuai seperti

penggunaan bahan tambak yang ringan dan kuat. Melalui penyelidikan ini, kajian

secara kritikal terhadap bahan alternatif tambak ringan yang digunakan dalam

pembinaan jalan raya masa kini telah dilakukan sebelum pembangunan konseptual

bahan tambak berbentuk tikar yang ringan dan keras (Geocomposite Celular Mat,

GCM). GCM mempunyai konsep yang hampir sama dengan EPS iaitu berbentuk

tikar. Namun yang demikian, EPS adalah lebih ringan berbanding GCM, tetapi GCM

lebih kuat, keras, poros dan telap jika dibandingkan dengan EPS. Hasil ujikaji

terhadap prestasi GCM ke atas tanah gambut hemik yang dilakukan di tapak ujikaji

terletak di Parit Nipah, Johor dibandingkan dengan tambak konvensional berbentuk

pasir. Ciri geoteknikal tanah gambut di Parit Nipah yang tipikal mempunyai

kandungan organik yang tinggi (85.3%), kandungan kelembapan yang tinggi (> 600

%) dan kekuatan ricih yang rendah (< 15 kPa). Ciri-ciri pengukuhan tanah gambut ini

diperoleh melalui ujikaji makmal dan lapangan dengan menggunakan kaedah

Terzaghi dan hiperbolik. Kaedah hiperbolik menunjukkan ramalan pemendapan

lapangan yang lebih baik berbanding dengan kaedah lain. Pemantauan terhadap

persekitaran kawasan lapangan telah dilakukan dan penggunaan peralatan tapak telah

direka khas dalam kajian ini untuk memantau pemendapan. Hasil kajian menunjukkan

potensi penggunaan GCM bagi mengurangkan pemendapan penambakan jalan raya

yang dibina diatas tanah gambut adalah sangat efektif. Kajian lapangan menunjukkan

penggurangan sehingga 84% terhadap pemendapan maksimum berjaya dicapai

dengan menggunakan GCM. Selain itu, perbezaan pemendapan juga berjaya

dikurangkan sebanyak 70 % dengan penggunaan GCM. GCM bukan saja dapat

mengurangkan jumlah dan perbezaan pemendapan, ianya juga mampu

mempercepatkan pemendapan subgred secara efektif dengan memudahkan

penyerapan lebihan tekanan air liang melalui struktur sel liang terbuka GCM.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE i

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xv

LIST OF FIGURES xix

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xxviii

LIST OF APPENDICES xxxiv

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble 1

1.2 Problem identification 3

1.3 Research hypothesis 5

1.4 Research aim and objectives 5

1.4.1 Aim of the research 5

1.4.2 Objectives of the research 5

1.5 Scope (boundary) of research 6

1.6 Research programme 8

1.7 Thesis outline

9

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Settlement induced failure of highways and infrastructures on soft

soil

10

viii

2.3 Problematic soils in Malaysia 13

2.3.1 Definition of peat soil 13

2.3.2 Peatland in Malaysia 15

2.3.2.1 Peat morphology 17

2.3.2.2 Structural arrangement of peat soil 18

2.3.2.3 Classification of peat soil (engineering) 19

2.3.2.4 Characteristic properties of peat soils 21

2.3.2.5 Critical review of characteristic properties of peat

soils at Parit Nipah, Johor

24

2.4 Ground improvement methods 25

2.4.1 Alternative construction technologies using lightweight fill

materials particularly for road construction

29

2.4.1.1 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam 30

2.4.1.2 Shredded tires and tire bale fills 32

2.4.1.3 Foamed concrete (blocks/panel) 34

2.4.1.4 Bamboo grid frame 35

2.4.1.5 Other lightweight fill materials (mixed or added to

the soils)

36

2.4.2 Critical design properties of feasible lightweight fill blocks

used in embankment construction

39

2.4.3 Review of past literature on road embankments constructed

using lightweight fill material

42

2.5 Plastic (synthetic and semi-synthetic polymer) as an alternative

lightweight construction materials

48

2.5.1 Why recycled plastics? 50

2.5.2 Engineering and thermal properties of plastic 53

2.5.2.1 Properties of virgin plastic 53

2.5.2.2 Critical review of mechanical properties of

recycled plastic blends

55

2.5.3 Use of plastic in engineering field 58

2.6 Contributory advantages from cellular structure 61

2.6.1 Characteristic properties of cellular solids 65

2.6.2 Engineering applications of cellular structure 67

ix

2.7 Field monitoring instrumentation 70

2.7.1 Survey method for measuring vertical movement 72

2.7.2 Comparisons of field instrumentation 78

2.7.3 Appropriate field instrumentation for embankment over soft

ground

79

2.8 Consolidation settlement of soils 83

2.8.1 Consolidation model for peat soils 84

2.8.1.1 Cα/Cc concept (1977) 84

2.8.1.2 Rheological model for peat soil (1961) 86

2.8.1.3 Summary of rheological model 90

2.8.2 Consolidation behaviour of peat 90

2.8.3 One-dimensional consolidation test 94

2.8.4 Settlement prediction based on one-dimensional

consolidation test

96

2.8.5 Applicability of Terzaghi’s theory to predict settlement over

peat

102

2.8.6 Comparative overview of classical One-dimensional (1D),

three-dimensional (3D) and large strain consolidation theories

104

2.8.7 Settlement prediction during construction period 110

2.9 Alternative methods of settlement analysis 112

2.9.1 Hyperbolic method 112

2.9.2 Asaoka method 116

2.10 Guideline and standard for road embankment construction 118

2.10.1 Critical overview of JKR Malaysia standard (ATJ 5/85) for

road construction

118

2.10.2 Critical overview of guideline for the construction on peat

and organic soil by CREAM and CIDB

121

2.10.3 Critical overview of geotechnical design standard for road

embankment

125

2.10.4 Critical overview of design guidelines for lightweight fill

embankment system

125

2.10.4.1 Basic of the load bearing analysis design

procedure

127

x

2.10.4.2 Design guideline and design procedure for

embankment construction

129

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 132

3.2 Material and site selection 132

3.2.1 Geocomposite Cellular Mat (GCM) 132

3.2.1.1 Quality assessment of the GCM tube 135

3.2.1.2 Structures of GCM 137

3.2.1.3 Brief outline of GCM production 138

3.2.2 Site selection – field soil sample and field test 140

3.2.2.1 Visual observation of Parit Nipah peat 141

3.2.2.2 Peat sampling 142

3.3 Laboratory tests 144

3.3.1 Testing on peat soil 146

3.3.2 One-dimensional consolidation test on undisturbed peat soil 146

3.3.3 General index property tests on GCM material 148

3.3.2.1 Determination of density and specific gravity of

vPP and rPP particle (solid block form)

148

3.3.2.2 Properties of GCM block 153

3.3.2.3 Water absorption 157

3.3.4 Thermal analysis of polypropylene 159

3.3.4.1 Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) testing 159

3.3.4.2 Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) testing 161

3.3.5 Engineering characteristic of GCM block 166

3.3.5.1 Compression test 166

3.3.5.2 Loading and unloading evaluation 171

3.3.5.3 Interface shearing strength 172

CHAPTER 4 – FIELD INSTRUMENTATION, TESTING AND

OBSERVATIONS AT PARIT NIPAH

4.1 Introduction 176

4.2 Site location (Research Peat Station at Parit Nipah) 176

xi

4.2.1 Temporary Bench Mark (TBM) at the test site 177

4.2.2 Other relevant site information 180

4.3 Field instrumentation 181

4.3.1 Instrumentation for environmental observation 181

4.3.2 Instrumentation for settlement observation 183

4.3.2.1 Instrument setup 185

4.3.2.2 Checking the level accuracy 185

4.3.3 Appropriately design instrumentation for settlement

observation (settlement plate gauge)

186

4.4 Observation of site environmental conditions 189

4.4.1 Temperature and humidity observation 189

4.4.2 Rainfall data 190

4.4.3 Groundwater level variation 191

4.4.4 Heave and settlement of ground due to changes in

groundwater level

192

4.5 Field test description 195

4.5.1 Outline of the field test group 1 (F11-GCM1 and F21-CF) and

group 2 (F32-GCM2 and F42-CF) – uniform loading

199

4.5.1.1 Quality controls for field test groups 1 and 2 199

4.5.1.2 Field test preparation for field test groups 1 and 2 203

4.5.1.3 Site instrumentation setup for field test groups 1

and 2

203

4.5.1.4 Construction stages for testing (groups 1 and 2) –

uniform loading

203

4.5.2 Outline of the field test group 3 (F53-GCM3,4,5 and F63-CF) –

trial embankment loading

210

4.5.2.1 Quality controls in field testing (group 3) 210

4.5.2.2 Field test preparation for field test group 3 211

4.5.2.3 Arrangement of GCM fill in trial embankment

(F53-GCM3,4,5)

211

4.5.2.4 Site instrumentation setup for field test group 3 213

4.5.2.5 Construction stages for testing group 3 – trial

embankment loading

213

xii

4.5.3 Data collection 216

4.5.4 Monitoring interval 217

4.6 Observation results and analysis 218

4.6.1 Settlement during construction loading (for test groups 1, 2

and 3)

219

4.6.2 Long term settlement observation for field test group 1: F11-

GCM1 (GCM fill – uniform loading) and F21-CF (sand fill –

non-uniform loading)

225

4.6.3 Long term settlement observation for field test group 2: F32-

GCM2 (GCM fill – uniform loading) and F42-CF (sand fill –

non-uniform loading)

232

4.6.4 Long term settlement observation for field test group 3: F53-

GCM3,4,5 (GCM fill – uniform embankment loading) and

F63-CF (sand fill – non-uniform embankment loading)

234

4.6.5 Summary of observation results 237

CHAPTER 5 – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH OBSERVATIONS

AND PREDICTIONS

5.1 Introduction 239

5.2 Performance of GCM fill 240

5.2.1 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – compression test 240

5.2.1.1 Observation of the axial compressive strength and

stiffness of vPP and rPP material

242

5.2.1.2 Observation on the influence of single and

multiple polypropylene (PP) tube arrangements

and specimen heights on axial compressive

strength and stiffness

243

5.2.1.3 Observation on the influence of diameter of open-

cell on the axial compressive strength and

stiffness

247

5.2.1.4 Observation on the influence of wall thickness on

the axial compressive strength and stiffness

348

xiii

5.2.1.5 Observation on the influence of temperature on

axial compressive strength and stiffness of the

specimens

249

5.2.1.6 Transverse compressive stress and stiffness of

specimens

252

5.2.1.7 Summary of strength and stiffness of GCM and

compared with other alternative lightweight fill

materials

253

5.2.2 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – loading unloading

evaluation

255

5.2.3 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – interface shearing

strength

256

5.2.3.1 Shear strength of GCM block alone (in material) 259

5.2.3.2 Shear strength between GCM-GCM blocks

(within embankment)

261

5.2.3.3 Comparison of shear strength parameter of GCM

fill with other alternative lightweight fill

materials

263

5.3 Consolidation behaviour Parit Nipah peat 264

5.3.1 Analysis of settlement curves from one-dimensional

consolidation tests

264

5.3.2 Determination consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah

peat

266

5.3.3 Effect of secondary settlement on rate of consolidation 271

5.4 Critical analysis of field observation 273

5.4.1 Test F21-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation 274

5.4.2 Test F11-GCM1 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation 279

5.4.3 Test F42-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation (repeat

test F21-CF)

280

5.4.4 Test F32-GCM2 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation

(repeat test F11-GCM1)

283

5.4.5 Test F63-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation (trial

embankment)

284

xiv

5.4.6 Test F53-GCM3,4,5 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation 287

5.4.7 Performance compatibility with design standards and

guidelines

290

5.5 Theoretical prediction

5.5.1 Prediction of settlements using Terzaghi’s one-dimensional

consolidation theory

5.5.2 Prediction of settlement based on field consolidation data

using hyperbolic method

CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Introduction 305

6.2 Conclusions obtained for objectives 305

6.2.1 The engineering and geotechnical properties of GCM fill

material

306

6.2.2 Consolidation characteristic of Parit Nipah peat 307

6.2.3 The field settlement performance of GCM fill compared

with conventional sand fill

308

6.2.4 Theoretical predicted laboratory and field settlement

performance

310

6.3 Contributions to knowledge and industry 311

6.4 Recommendations for further research

311

REFERENCES 313

APPENDICES 336

xv

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Thesis outline 9

2.1 Definition of peat soil by various fields 14

2.2 Organic content based on ASTM D4427-1992 14

2.3 Definition of soils based on organic content in the soil 14

2.4 von Post degree of humification 20

2.5 Classification of peat 20

2.6 Classification of peat based on fiber content 21

2.7 General properties of peat soils in Malaysia by various

researchers

22

2.8 Strength terms according to laboratory test and hand

identification

23

2.9 List of soil improvement methods are practiced to stabilize the

soil

26

2.10 General properties of various lightweight materials and problem

associated with them

28

2.11 Comparison of typical properties of EPS geofoam, tire bales and

earth fill materials

40

2.12 Types and classification of plastics by Plastics Industry

Association

49

2.13 Typical properties of various types of plastic for engineering

application

54

2.14 Mechanical properties of rPP/vHDPE blends 56

2.15 Mechanical properties of vPP/rPP blends 57

2.16 Uses of plastic in civil engineering field 60

2.17 Typical relative densities of some cellular material 65

2.18 General applications of cellular structure 68

xvi

2.19 Uncertainty of instrument performance 71

2.20 Causes and remedies of errors in measurement 72

2.21 General match between monitoring needs and instruments 73

2.22 Surveying methods 77

2.23 Instruments for monitoring progress of consolidation 80

2.24 Summary of selected case histories of embankment on soft

ground

81

2.25 Comparison between consolidation and compaction process 84

2.26 Values of natural moisture content (wc) and Cα/Cc for peat

deposit

85

2.27 Rheological model for various types of soil 91

2.28 Definition of notation and consolidation parameters of soil 100

2.29 Typical values of Cα′ /Cc ratio for different types of soils 101

2.30 Prediction of magnitude of the settlement based on Terzaghi’s

one-dimensional consolidation theory

102

2.31 Comparative overview of one-dimensional (1D), three-

dimensional (3D) and large strain consolidation

108

2.32 Comparison of observed and predicted settlement 115

2.33 Material properties for each layer 120

2.34 Methodology and criteria for road design 121

2.35 Correlation between basic properties and parameters for

estimating consolidation settlement

122

2.36 Minimum geotechnical requirements in design of the road

embankment

124

2.37 Design parameter considered for EPS application 127

2.38 Summary of EPS design guideline for the use in highway

embankment by NCHRP

129

3.1 Typical properties of particle virgin PP and recycled PP 134

3.2 Geometry of cell and the GCM blocks used 135

3.3 Range of tube geometry and density for vPPB 136

3.4 A summary from the visual observation on the GCM tubes 136

3.5 Outlined of the laboratory tests on Parit Nipah Peat and the test

results on the general properties of peat in comparison to

145

xvii

published data

3.6 Outlined of the laboratory tests were conducted on plastic

particle and GCM block

150

3.7 Density and specific gravity of vPP and rPP particles based on

Method A

151

3.8 Average specific gravity of vPP and rPP particles 153

3.9 Measured weight of the GCM block 156

3.10 Water absorption of vPP and rPP compared with EPS 158

3.11 Important thermal properties observed in this study 162

3.12 Total samples were tested through TGA and DSC tests 165

3.13 Summary of thermal characteristics 165

3.14 Schedule of specimens tested under axial compression loading 168

3.15 Test specimens were used for load and unloading evaluation 171

3.16 Test specimens were tested through direct shear test 174

3.17 Summary of important shear test parameter by past researchers 175

4.1 The instrument used to evaluate environment condition on site 182

4.2 National vertical control accuracy standard 183

4.3 Standpipe head elevation and water table under various

environmental conditions

191

4.4 Details of field test groups 196

4.5 Materials used and setup on test site (for field test groups 1 and

2)

204

4.6 Schematic view of model tests and settlement points were

evaluated for tests F11-GCM1, F21-CF, F32-GCM2 and F42-CF

205

4.7 Materials used and setup on test site (for field test group 3) 210

4.8 Schematic view of field test group 3 and settlement points were

evaluated

212

4.9 Summary of field test observation in this research 210

4.10 Embankment height and schedule of staged construction

practices adopted by previous researchers

220

5.1 Summary of the transverse compressive strength and stiffness of

tube at different temperature stages

253

5.2 Average strength and stiffness of GCM for temperature of 30 oC 254

xviii

5.3 Average strength and stiffness of GCM for temperature of 50 oC 255

5.4 Average peak shear strength at different normal stresses for

shearing resistance in GCM alone/itself

259

5.5 Average peak shear strength at different normal stresses for

shearing resistance between GCM-GCM blocks

263

5.6 Comparison of shear strength parameter of various lightweight

fill alternatives

264

5.7 Summary of one-dimensional consolidation parameters 268

5.8 The comparisons of coefficient of consolidation (cv) value for

single drainage obtained from different methods

270

5.9 The comparisons of coefficient of consolidation (cv) value for

double drainage obtained from different methods

271

5.10 Comparison of consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah peat 272

5.11 Summary of the relevant information for the critical analysis 275

5.12 Summary of settlement analysis of this research and comparison

with previous researches

287

5.13 Research output in the contact of performance standard and

guideline for road embankment

291

5.14 Unit weight of the sample from point A and C 293

5.15 Summary of stress increment at the middle of each sublayer of

peat

293

5.16 Determination of time to reach 90 % consolidation 294

5.17 Primary and secondary consolidation settlement predicted based

on laboratory one-dimensional consolidation data

295

5.18 Determination of β and α for hyperbolic method using field

consolidation data

299

5.19 Comparison of ultimate primary settlement (∆Hp) estimates using

hyperbolic method and settlement observed in this research

302

6.1 Comparison of typical properties of GCM fill, EPS geofoam and

conventional earth fill

307

6.2 Comparison of consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah peat

and typical inorganic clay

308

xix

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Ground subsidence in Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia (a) failure of

structure and (b) road settlement

4

1.2 Peat settlement occurring at Parit Nipah, Johor 4

1.3 Research elements studies within the boundary of in investigation 6

1.4 General detail of field location and soil sampling 7

1.5 Flow for the research 9

2.1 Typical section of a structure on peat; (a) immediately after

completion of construction, (b) several years after completion of

construction

11

2.2 Settlement condition in shallow flexible and rigid foundation 12

2.3 Tropical peatland of Southeast Asia 15

2.4 Peatland of Johor area 16

2.5 Typical cross section of a basin peat 17

2.6 Profile morphology of organic soil 18

2.7 Schematic diagram; (a) multi-phase system of peat, and (b) peat

arrangement

19

2.8 Variation of soil properties with depths; (a) natural moisture

content profile, (b) specific gravity, (c) undrained strength profile

25

2.9 Road construction using EPS block 30

2.10 Tire shreds into 50 to 300 mm in length 32

2.11 Tire bales for lightweight embankment fill 33

2.12 SEM images of foamed concrete 34

2.13 Ground improvement using bamboo grid frame technology 35

2.14 (a) wood chip coarse fibre, (b) sawdust coarse fibre 36

2.15 Expended shale 37

2.16 Clam shells 38

xx

2.17 Typical road embankment constructed by EPS geofoam 43

2.18 View of Athens-Thessaloniki highway failure 45

2.19 Road embankment constructed by shredded tire 45

2.20 Road embankment constructed by application of tire bales 46

2.21 Application of tire bales in embankment construction 47

2.22 Construction of road embankment using tire bales as subgrade 48

2.23 Solid wastes composition generated: (a) volume percentage in

Malaysia, (b) volume percentage United State

51

2.24 Percentage components of plastic waste available in Europe and

USA

51

2.25 Waste management practice in Malaysia 53

2.26 A chart showing the correlation of density and Young’s modulus 55

2.27 Example of cellular and foam structure: (a) two-dimensional

honeycomb structure, (b) three-dimensional open-cell foam, (c)

three-dimensional closed-cell foam

62

2.28 Mechanics of material: (a) cell structure, (b) individual soil

particles structure

63

2.29 Some examples of nature cellular structure: (a) wood, (b)

cancellous bone, (c) skull, (d) plant stems

63

2.30 (a) Schematic of sandwich panel structure, (b) sandwich panel

structure with honeycomb core

64

2.31 The range of properties available to the engineer through

foaming; (a) density, (b) thermal conductivity, (c) Young’s

modulus, (d) compressive strength

66

2.32 Aircraft component with cellular structure 67

2.33 Construction of the flexible pavement using polymer geocell 69

2.34 Accuracy and precision 71

2.35 Benchmark installation in rock 78

2.36 Embankment on soft ground 79

2.37 Possible layout of instrumentations beneath a test embankment

when vertical drain have been installed

80

2.38 Calculation of Cα/Cc ratio value 85

2.39 Rheological model by Gibson and Lo (1961) 87

xxi

2.40 Theoretical log strain (∆𝜀/∆𝑡) against time curve 87

2.41 Correction for b parameter for field condition 88

2.42 Rheological model based on Berry & Poskitt (1972) theory for

fibrous peat

89

2.43 Types of time-compression curved from consolidation test 92

2.44 Time-settlement behavious of peat Type II 92

2.45 Time-settlement relationship 93

2.46 Settlement-time curve at the center of Middleton test fill 94

2.47 Schematic diagram of an consolidation cell 95

2.48 Void ratio – log effective stress curve to determined consolidation

parameters; (a) for normally consolidated curve and (b) for

overconsolidated curve

97

2.49 Determining preconsolidation pressure (𝜎𝑐′) from e-log 𝜎′ curve

by Casagrande method

98

2.50 Void ratio versus incremental stress curve for determining

coefficient of compressibility

98

2.51 Determination of the coefficient of secondary consolidation 99

2.52 Relationship between degree of consolidation (U) and time factor

(Tv) curve

101

2.53 (a) A soil layer infinite lateral extent and (b) a soil element with

boundaries fixed in space

104

2.54 One, two- and three-dimensional conditions 105

2.55 Domain of a soil layer under consolidation using Lagrangian

coordinate system; (a) before and (b) after consolidation

107

2.56 Settlement coefficient (𝜇𝑐) for pore pressures set up under a

foundation proposed by Skempton & Bjerrum, 1957

110

2.57 Correction of graphical settlement curve during construction

period

111

2.58 Settlement prediction by hyperbolic method 112

2.59 Hyperbolic plot Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory 113

2.60 Hyperbolic plot of field settlements 114

2.61 Comparison of measured and predicted settlement 116

2.62 Graphical method of settlement prediction 117

xxii

2.63 Typical flexible pavement cross-section in Malaysia by JKR 118

2.64 Flexible pavement cross section with the certain thickness of

layers

119

2.65 Thickness design by nomograph 120

2.66 Correlation of bulk density (𝛾𝑏) and dry density (𝛾𝑑) with natural

moisture content (wo)

122

2.67 Correlation of specific gravity (Gs) with ignition loss 122

2.68 Correlation of initial void ratio (eo) with natural moisture content

(wo)

123

2.69 Correlation of void ratio (e) with coefficient of permeability (k) 123

2.70 Correlation of compressibility index (Cc) with natural moisture

content (wo)

123

2.71 Correlation of compressibility index (Cc) with secondary

compression index (C𝛼)

124

2.72 Important Components of an EPS block embankment 126

2.73 Load bearing failure of the EPS block resulting in excessive

settlement

128

2.74 Compression stress-strain behaviour on EPS block specimen

through unconfined compression test

128

2.75 Stress-strain relationship of EPS block specimen based on

unconfined compression creep test

128

2.76 Cyclic load behaviour for EPS block specimen 129

3.1 Flow plan for the research 133

3.2 Geocomposite cellular mat (GCM) block (with dimension of 0.5

x 0.5 m by 0.2 m height); (a) by rPP and (b) by vPP

134

3.3 Determination of outer diameter, inner diameter and wall

thickness of the GCM tube cell

136

3.4 Various geometry and density observed along the 1000 mm tube;

(a) outer diameter of cell, (b) inner diameter of cell, (c) wall

thickness of cell, (d) solid density

137

3.5 GCM structure 138

3.6 Phase involved in producing of GCM 138

3.7 Typical layout of soil sampling and field site 139

xxiii

3.8 The soil is squeezed in the palm of hand 140

3.9 Classification of soil profile at Parit Nipah using peat sampler 141

3.10 Decayed tree stump removed from test site 142

3.11 Peatland Parit Nipah (test site); (a) pineapple roots in the peat (b)

hemic peat

142

3.12 Standard consolidation test; (a) test setup, (b) Consolidation cell 147

3.13 Mettler Toledo balance used to measure weight and density of

solid material

149

3.14 Test specimens for specific gravity test 152

3.15 Test specimen in pycnometer for specific gravity test 153

3.16 Measure weight of GCM block using digital hook scale 155

3.17 (a) TGA testing machine, and (b) test setup 159

3.18 Typical TGA and DTG thermograms on (a) vPP and (b) rPP 160

3.19 Typical DSC thermogram for plastic 162

3.20 TA DSC Instrument 163

3.21 Apparatus to prepare DSC sample; (a) aluminum hermatic pans

and lid, (b) encapsulating press, and (c) die set

163

3.22 The platform to hold both the sample and reference pans 164

3.23 Axial compression test equipment 167

3.24 Universal Testing Machine with a temperature chamber 167

3.25 The different tubes arrangements (single and multiple tubes

arrangement) to be tested

169

3.26 Compression loading on tube; (a) axial loading and (b) transverse

loading.

169

3.27 Strength and stiffness parameters as measured in compression test 170

3.28 Geocomp Shear Trac II direct shear apparatus used in this testing 172

3.29 Schematic diagram of direct shear test setup 173

3.30 Test specimen; (a) GCM block alone, (b) between GCM-GCM

block interfaces

173

4.1 Research Peat Station (REPEATS) office at Parit Nipah 177

4.2 TBMs on Parit Nipah site 178

4.3 Observations of TBM1, 2, 3 and 4 during testing period (14th

April to 1st December 2015)

180

xxiv

4.4 Location of rainfall data stations 181

4.5 Levelling instrumentation used in the study 184

4.6 Important functions of digital automatic level 185

4.7 Method for checking the level accuracy 186

4.8 Settlement plate gauge was used for field tests 187

4.9 Calibration of developed settlement plate gauge 189

4.10 Variation of temperature and humidity observed (from 14th April

to 28th December 2015)

189

4.11 Temperature profile for 1 year 190

4.12 Rainfall observed at the two closest stations to the field site 190

4.13 Variation of groundwater level and rainfall with time at the test

site

192

4.14 Schematic diagram of test setup on site 193

4.15 Ground movement in relation to groundwater level 194

4.16 Field test outline and setup at Parit Nipah, Johor 198

4.17 Load test setup on site 200

4.18 Loading with concrete cube (7.74 kg each) arrangement 201

4.19 Ground settlement profile with preliminary load test on peat 201

4.20 Soil box system compensation setup on site for field test groups 1

and 2

202

4.21 Stage 1 - preparation of platform for test groups 1 and 2 207

4.22 Stage 2 - level the ground surface for test groups 1 and 2 207

4.23 Stage 3 - (a) Transfer soil box to test area and (b) level the soil

box

208

4.24 Stage 4 – (a) setup instrumentation for field test group 1 and (b)

setup instrumentation for field test group 2

208

4.25 Stage 6 – view of the barcode staff of the settlement plate gauges 209

4.26 Isometric of trial embankment 213

4.27 Stage 1 - preparation of platform for test group 3 214

4.28 Stage 2 - level the ground surface 214

4.29 Stage 4 - settlement plate gauges fixed on site for F6 215

4.30 Stage 5 - construction process for test group 3 215

4.31 Trial embankment constructed with GCM fill 219

xxv

4.32 Settlement curve during construction due to step loading 221

4.33 Loading pattern and settlement during construction period

222

4.34 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the

field loading for tests F11-GCM1 and F21-CF

225

4.35 Zoom out of the ground movement over GCM fill compared with

the sand fill

226

4.36 Ground movement at center in relation to groundwater level 227

4.37 Ground movement at various points beneath fill loading (F11-GCM1

and F21-CF)

228

4.38 Settlement measurement taken at distance of 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B

and 1.0B from the GCM fill loading (F11-GCM1)

229

4.39 Settlement measurement taken at distance of 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B

and 1.0B from the sand fill loading (F21-CF)

231

4.40 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the

field loading for tests F32-GCM2 and F42-CF

232

4.41 Ground movements at various points beneath GCM fill (F32-GCM2) 233

4.42 Ground movements at various points beneath sand fill (F42-CF) 233

4.43 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the

field loading for tests F53-GCM3,4,5 and F63-CF

234

4.44 Ground movements at various points; (a) beneath GCM fill (F53-

GCM3,4,5) and (b) beneath sand fill (F63-CF)

235

4.45 The ground movement at centerline of all fill loading 236

4.46 Typical settlement-log time curve of field settlement observed on

peat ground

237

5.1 Stress area on single and multiple arrangements of tubes 241

5.2 Example calculation of material stress and average mat stress 241

5.3 Stress-strain response on rPPC and vPPD tubes 243

5.4 Stress-strain curve influenced by single and multiples tubes

arrangements at temperature stage of 30 oC

244

5.5 Stress-strain curve influenced by specimen height 246

5.6 Stress-strain curve influenced by different diameters of open-cell

tube

248

xxvi

5.7 Stress-strain curve influenced by different wall thickness 249

5.8 Stress-strain behaviour of multiple tube arrangements under axial

compression loading at temperature stage of 50 oC

250

5.9 Comparison of maximum axial compressive strength at

temperatures of 30 oC and 50 oC

251

5.10 Comparison of initial stiffness at temperatures of 30 oC and 50 oC 252

5.11 Stress-strain behaviour of tube under transverse loading 253

5.12 Comparison of the initial stiffness of GCM and EPS geofoam 254

5.13 Stress-strain relationship of cyclic loading from axial

compression tests

255

5.14 Shear stress-displacement curve of GCM block at two speed rate

(0.2 and 0.5 mm/min)

257

5.15 Variation of shear stress versus horizontal displacement behavior

of GCM block at different times (15 min, 30 min and 60 min)

258

5.16 Shear stress-displacement behaviour at different normal stress

(25, 40 and 50 kPa)

260

5.17 Shear strength envelope for rPP-GCM and vPP-GCM interface 261

5.18 Shear stress-displacement behaviour at different normal stress for

two GCM block

262

5.19 Shear strength envelope from GCM-GCM block interface 263

5.20 Typical settlement-log time curve from one-dimensional

consolidation tests.

265

5.21 Variation of the end of primary consolidation or beginning of

secondary consolidation with increasing of effective stress.

266

5.22 Relationship of void ratio versus effective pressure 267

5.23 Time-settlement plotted from one-dimensional consolidation test

results at both, (a) Casagrande’s method, and (b) Taylor’s method

269

5.24 Hyperbolic plots based on laboratory consolidation data 270

5.25 Variation of coefficient of consolidation (cv) analysed for the peat

sample A1 using different method

271

5.26 Variation of coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) as a

function of effective stress

272

5.27 Variation of coefficient of secondary consolidation with 273

xxvii

increasing of effective stress.

5.28 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test

F21-CF

277

5.29 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test

F11-GCM1

278

5.30 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test

F42-CF

281

5.31 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test

F32-GCM2

282

5.32 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test

F63-CF

284

5.33 Case studies 286

5.34 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test

F53-GCM3,4,5

288

5.35 Percentage improvement using GCM fills 290

5.36 Layout of soil sampling 293

5.37 Profile of the soil layers for settlement prediction 294

5.38 Comparison of the settlement prediction with observed field

settlements

295

5.39 Methodology scheduling for settlement prediction 298

5.40 Predicted settlements using field data in test F11-GCM1 299

5.41 Predicted settlements using field data in test F21-CF 300

5.42 Predicted settlements using field data in test F32-GCM2 300

5.43 Predicted settlements using field data in test F42-CF 301

5.44 Long-term settlements predicted using hyperbolic method based

on field data

302

5.45 Post construction settlements predicted using hyperbolic method

based on field data

303

6.1 Visual observation of settlement profile for field test group 3; (a)

flexible settlements observed in test F53-GCM3,4,5, and (b) rigid

settlements observed in test F63-CF

309

xxviii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

av – Coefficient of compressibility

AASTHO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official

ASTM – American Standard Testing Method

ATJ – Arahan Teknik Jalan

B – Buoyancy Factor

B – Width of loaded area

B – Foundation width/

BM – Benchmark

BS – British Standard

c – Cohesion

Cc – Compression index

Cr – Recompression index

Cs – swelling index

Cα – Coefficient of secondary consolidation

Cα′ – secondary consolidation

cv – Coefficient of consolidation

CIDB – Construction Industry Development Board

cm – Centimeter

CO – carbon monoxide

CO2 – carbon dioxide

CREAM – Construction Research Institute of Malaysia

D – Diameter

D – Depth of foundation

DSC – Differential Scanning Calorimetry

e – Void ratio

eo – Void ratio intercept of virgin consolidation line at 𝜎′ = 1 kPa

xxix

ep – Void ratio at the end of primary consolidation

E – East

Ei – Initial stiffness

Ese – Secant stiffness

Es – Modulus of elasticity

Et – Tangent modulus

EDM – Electronic distance measurement

EOP – End of primary consolidation

EPS – Expanded Polystyrene

FKAAS – Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

FS – Factor safety

ft – feet

ft2 – Square feet

G – Shear modulus

Gs – Specific gravity

GCM – Geocomposite Cellular Mat

g – Gram

g/cm3 – Gram per cubic centimeter

g/m2 – Gram square meter

GPS – Global Positioning System

GPa – Gigapascal

H – Height of embankment

H – Height of specimen/mat

H𝑖 – Initial height

HDPE – High density polyethylene

hr, hrs – Hour

ID – Inner diameter

in – Inches

JKR – Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Work Department)

J/m – Joule per meter

k – Thermal Conductivity

k – Coefficient of permeability (or hydraulic conductivity)

kh – Horizontal hydraulic conductivity

xxx

kv – Vertical hydraulic conductivity

kg – Kilogram

kg/m3 – Kilogram per cubic meter

km – Kilometer

kN/m3 – Kilonewton per cubic meter

kN/m2 – Kilonewton per square meter

kN/mm2 – Kilonewton per square millimeter

kPa – Kilopascal

L – Length

L – Foundation length

LDPE – Light density polyethylene

LL – Liquid limit

M – Mass

m – Meter

m3 – Cubic meter

mv – volume compressibility

MFI – Melt Flow Index

mg – Milligram

Mg/m3 – Milligram per cubic meter

min – Minimum

mm – Millimeter

mm/min – Millimeter per minutes

m2/MN Square meter per meganewton

MPa – Megapascal

N – Newton

N – North

N – Number of tube

NCHRP – National Cooperative Highway Research Board

OC – Organic content

OCR – overconsolidation ratio

OD – Outer diameter

OPKIM – Operasi Khidmat Masyarakat

P – Point load

xxxi

PE – Polyethylene

PET – Polyethylene terephthalate

PFA – Pulverised Fuel Ash

pH – Potential Hydrogen

PL – Plastic limit

PM – Member of Parliament

POFA – Palm Oil Fuel Ash

PP – polypropylene

PS – Polystyrene

PVC – Polyvinyl chloride

q – Uniformly distribution load

Q – Applied load

R – Thermal Resistance

RECESS – Research Centre for Soft Soil

REPEATS – Research Peat stations

RM – Ringgit Malaysia

rHDPE – Recycled high density polyethylene

rPP – Recycled Polystyrene

Su – Undrained shear strength

SCDOT – South Carolina Department of Transportation

SP – Poorly graded sand

t – time

t – Rate of consolidation settlement

tp – Time at the end of primary settlement

t – Thickness

T – Temperature

Tamb – Ambient temperature

Td – Degradation Temperature

Tg – Glass Transition Temperature

Tm – Melting Temperature

Tv – time factor

TBM – Temporary Bench Mark

TGA – Thermal Gravimetric Analysis

xxxii

TP – thermoplastics

TS – thermoset

U, Uv – degree of consolidation

U.S. – United States

USA – United States of America

USCS – United Soil Classification System

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

UTHM – Universiti Tun Husein Onn Malaysia

UTM – Universal Testing Machine

V – Volume

Vs – Volume of solid material

Vv – Volume of void

VCL – Virgin consolidation line

vPP – Virgin Polystyrene

w – Moisture content

wo – Natural moisture content

W – Weight

WA – Water absorption

WSDOT – Washington State Department of Transportation

WT – Water level

z – Depth below load

∆H, S – Settlement

∆Hp, Sp – Primary settlement

∆Hs, Ss – Secondary settlement

oC – Degree Celsius

oC/min – Degree Celsius per minute

oF – Fahrenheit

𝜀 – Strain

𝜎 – Stress

𝜎′ – Effective stress

𝜎v′ – Vertical effective stress

σc′ – Preconsolidation pressure

𝜎𝑖, – Initial effective stress

xxxiii

σmax – Maximum stress

𝜎𝐶𝐸𝐿𝐿 – Material stress

𝜎𝑀𝐴𝑇 – Mat stress

∆𝜎′ – increase of effective stress

σc′ – Preconsolidation pressure

𝜙 – Friction angle

𝜌 – Density

𝜌∗ – Density of cellular material

𝜌𝑠 – Solid density

𝜌𝑠𝑎𝑡 – Saturated density

𝜌𝑤 – Density of water

𝛾𝑏 – Bulk unit weight

𝛾𝑑 – Dry unit weight

𝛾𝑤 – Unit weight of water

o – Degree

% – Percentage

𝜇𝑠 – Poisson’s ratio

𝜇𝑐 – Settlement coefficient

xxxiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Method to Determine Coefficient of Consolidation (cv) 336

B1 Soil Profile 340

B2 Undisturbed Peat Sampling 345

C Index properties and classification 346

D1 Calibration curve (compression test) 350

D2 Calibration curve (direct shear box test) 351

E Data Temperature 352

F1 The Arrangement of GCM structure 356

F2 Arrangement of Number of GCM Fills Block in Embankment 358

G1 Engineering properties – compression test data 360

G2 Engineering properties – direct shear strength test data 368

H Consolidation data 370

I Regression analysis 381

J1 Theoretical calculation of vertical stress distribution 385

J2 Settlement prediction 389

1

0

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

Infrastructure constructions on compressible soil have had many post construction

problems in the past. The most critical geoenvironment challenges are associated

with excessive settlement and differential settlement leading to hazard and

discomfort in road usage. Nearly, 28.6 % of the road user complaints received in

2011 referred to poor condition of road due to differential consolidation settlement

(Unit Komunikasi Korporat, 2011).

Within the Medium term National Infrastructure Development Plans there are

proposals being mooted for the construction of the new East Coast Highway and

Dual Track Rail Road extensions from Kluang to Seremban. Such projects will

necessarily meet challenging peat ground conditions. Some authorities frequently

consider construction of roads on peat to be a ‘black art’. Consequently many

engineers opt for conservative but unsustainable construction technology such as

excavation and replacement with alternative natural resources. Furthermore, this

technology also leads to uneconomic designs because it will increase the cost of

construction and delay the period to completion (Kadir, 2009). Various alternative

construction and stabilisation methods such as surface reinforcement, preloading,

chemical stabilisation, sand or stone column, pre-fabricated vertical drains, and piles

have been suggested and adopted in the past to support structures over soft yielding

ground (Huat, Maail & Mohamed, 2005; Kadir, 2009; Construction Research

Institute of Malaysia, 2015). However these technologies are constrained by

2

technical feasibility, space and time limitations and expensive process. Even after

these procedures, problems of differential settlement are not uncommon.

Innovative use of lightweight fill material can meet the geotechnical

challenges posed by soft yielding ground, because it offers an attractive solution to

reduce settlement. The stress on the subsoil can be reduced so that the settlement is

reduced or eliminated, if the road embankment is constructed out of fill material

lighter than that of soil. In this respect, various types of lightweight materials

(sawdust, fly ash, slag, cinders, cellular concrete, lightweight aggregates, expanded

polystyrene (EPS, shredded tires, and sea shells) have been proposed for road

embankment construction.

Application of lightweight fill materials such as EPS (also known as

“geofoam”) has been used for more than 40 years around the world for roadwork

construction projects (Frydenlund & Aaboe, 2001; Buksowics & Culpan, 2014).

However, the first application of this technology in Malaysia was in 1992 for the

remedy of settlement of bridge abutments (Gan & Tan, 2003). Others are as below:

▪ Remedial of bridge abutment settlements at Kota Bridge II, Klang, Selangor,

1992.

▪ Construction of lightweight road embankment at Teluk Kalung Bypass,

Kemaman, Terengganu, 1994.

▪ Construction of approach embankment to overpass bridge at Sungai Tengi,

Kuala Selangor, Selangor, 1995.

▪ Remedial of differential settlement problem for a bus terminal platform,

1996.

▪ Transition treatment between the approach embankment and a major bridge

at the main entrance of Tanjung Pelepas Port, Johor, 1997.

▪ Remedial of platform settlement at Sungai Dua Toll Canopy, Penang, 1997

▪ Strengthening of bridge abutments on both sides of a bridge, 1999.

▪ Transition treatment of a railway bridge abutment founded on the reclamation

fills at Tanjung Pelepas Port, Johor, 2001.

▪ Mitigate platform settlement at Sungai Dua Toll Canopy Extension Works,

Penang, 2002.

3

1.2 Problem identification

The recent dramatic growth of population in Malaysia and many other parts of the

world has been a cause for rapid pace of infrastructure development to meet the

demands of society and transformation of the economy (Department of Statistic

Malaysia, 2012). Due to the limited availability of ‘suitable’ ground, construction

activities are now forced to consider the development on soft yielding ground. Such

soils are geotechnically problematic, which comprise of high compressibility, high

moisture content (>200 %), low bearing capacity (<8 kN/m2) and low shear strength

(<20 kPa) as reported by Zainorabidin & Wijeyesekera (2007). These usually are

subjected to localised sinking and slip failure, and massive primary and long-term

consolidation settlement even when subjected to a moderate load (Huat et al., 2005;

Duraisamy et al., 2008). Roller coaster scenarios in different settling highways have

proved uncomfortable to the driver and passenger.

Figure 1.1(a) shows a house in Sibu which was badly damaged just one year

after completion of the construction, due to differential settlement in peat soil (Huat,

2004). Figure 1.1(b) shows the poor condition of a road in Sibu town, Malaysia

caused by ground settlement (Kolay, Sii & Taib, 2011). Huat (2004) and Kolay et al.

(2011) state that the ground subsidence on peat land in Sibu town is due to poor

groundwater flow, which has resulted in negative gradients to drainage. Figure 1.2

(taken by author) shows another example of settlement failure occurring in a

structure constructed on peat at Parit Nipah, Johor. Here the peat has settled from the

original level causing the structure of the house to become unsupported. This case

clearly shows the peat soil settlements not only depend on its magnitude but also on

its degree of non-uniformity and the nature’s effects such as dewatering and drying

of the peat. This was also reported by Nurhana (2010).

Any construction activity below the groundwater table must also carefully

consider the buoyancy forces in the design especially for the lightweight fill material.

Three failures associated with buoyancy forces on EPS and water fluctuations have

been reported. Two different failures occurred at Northern Europe in 1987 and

Thailand (Asia) were reported by Frydenlund & Aaboe (2001) and failure at

Carousel Mall in Syracuse New York was reported by Horvath (1999).

4

(a) (b)

Figure 1.1: Ground subsidence in Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia (a) failure of structure

and (b) road settlement.

Figure 1.2: Peat settlement occurring at Parit Nipah, Johor.

The alternative technology of the lightweight cellular mat structure is

developed in Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) and is being used in

this research. The idealised cellular structure in this technology allows water to flow

freely and vertically, reduces the probability of floating, minimising the settlement

and help accelerate the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through rapid

dissipation of the excess pore water pressure developed. Furthermore, the mat

structure will even out any local differential settlement. The performance of this

technology constructed on peat soil is critically studied in this research.

Unsupported structure

5

1.3 Research hypothesis

This research is backed by the following hypothesis. The adoption of the

Geocomposite Cellular Mat (GCM) as a lightweight fill embankment will:

a) Reduce the embankment settlement that occurs due by reducing self-weight

of embankment.

b) Minimise the differential settlement that may occur through the use of a stiff

and contiguous mat structure and the consequent load sharing mechanism of

the mosaic style laying of the mats.

c) Accelerate the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through the

dissipation of the excess pore water pressure via the very open porous cellular

structure of the GCM.

d) Reduce the probability of floatation. Buoyancy forces arise when submerged

in water. Relatively low densities are prone to create greater buoyancy, and

the open-porous cell structure becomes effective to accommodate the high

permeability characteristic for unhindered flow.

1.4 Research aim and objectives

1.4.1 Aim of the research

The aim of this research is to study the performance of the GCM as a fill material to

mitigate settlement of embankment construction on peat soil.

1.4.2 Objectives of the research

In pursuit of the above aim, the following objectives will necessarily be done:

1) To evaluate the engineering characteristics of GCM fill through laboratory

test.

2) To evaluate the consolidation properties of Parit Nipah peat based on results

obtained from one-dimensional consolidation test.

3) To critically evaluate the field performance of settlement behaviour of GCM

over soft ground compared with sand fill.

4) Assessment of observed and predicted settlement

6

1.5 Scope (boundary) of research

The focus of this research is to critically investigate the GCM performance in

particular the use as a fill embankment for soft ground especially peat soil. The

boundary of research activity is shown in Figure 1.3. Within the embankment

construction only the application of it on problematic ground condition is studied

particularly in excessive and differential settlement. Considerable attempt is given to

investigate the appropriateness of using this lightweight fill (rather than soil

stabilisation), and the economic and logistics of the use of this material.

Figure 1.3: Research elements studies within the boundary of in investigation.

The research includes series of both laboratory and field testing as well as

theoretical evaluation of predicted settlement. The necessary GCM produced at

Research Centre for Soft Soil (RECESS), UTHM are used for both laboratory and

field tests. Laboratory testing is primarily done at RECESS and Polymeric and

Ceramic Laboratory, UTHM. The aim is to determine characteristic properties of the

GCM. Results of strength and stiffness obtained through laboratory testing are

compared with past literature values for different fill materials. This research also

considered the variation of three geometrical parameter of the tube associated with

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

to

over

com

e

the

pro

ble

mat

ic s

oil

s

MATERIALS USED

LIGHTWEIGHT

FILL TO MITIGATE

SETTLEMENT OF

EMBANKMENT

CONSTRUCTED ON

PEAT SOIL Lig

htw

eig

ht

Fil

l

Ma

teria

ls

Differ

entia

l

& ex

cessiv

e

settlem

en

t

CH

AL

LE

NG

ING

SO

IL

Plastic

Embankment Fill

CONSTRUCTION

7

the weight being (1) thickness of tube, (2) external diameter of tube and (3) height of

cellular mat form from the tubes.

Figure 1.4: General details of field location and soil sampling.

The field testing was conducted using prototype testing setups on a site to

investigate performance of GCM under fill loading only and compared the response

from conventional natural fill material. Furthermore, this research scope for field

testing comprised of:

▪ Evaluation of the magnitude of independent settlement in vertical direction

only.

Grid reference:

Latitude: 1o 50’ 07.1” N

Longitude: 103o 11’ 04.6” E

Distance:

17.1 km

(28 min from UTHM by car)

N

Parit Nipah

Test Site

Field test area at Parit Nipah

Scale: 2 km Scale: 2 km

Universiti Tun

Hussein Onn

Malaysia (UTHM)

8

▪ Monitoring of the field settlement was using an improvised digital automatic

level.

▪ Evaluation of environmental condition at the site (groundwater table

fluctuation, soil surface movement, air temperature, humidity and rainfall).

Figure 1.4 shows detail of the field test site at Parit Nipah, Johore. More

information of the site is discussed in Chapter 3.

1.6 Research programme

Figure 1.5 shows the planned flow of the research programme in order to achieve the

aim and objectives of this study.

Figure 1.5: Flow for the research.

Research Programme

Literature Review

Selection Material and Testing

Site

Laboratory Properties and

Implementation Results

Critical Analysis of Research

Observations and Predicted

Field Instrumentation, Testing

and Observation at Parit Nipah

Objectives 1 & 2

Objective 3

Objective 4

Conclusion and Recommendation

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 6

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

9

1.7 Thesis outline

This thesis consists of five chapters, a brief summary of each chapter is as presented

in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Thesis outline

Chapter Description

1 Introduction This chapter presents general information regarding this

study; includes a preamble, problem identification, aim and

objectives, boundaries or focus of the study, hypothesis and

flow to achieve the aim and objectives of this study.

2 Literature

Review

This chapter presents a critical review of the past literature

on the geo-environmental challenge facing highway design

and construction, and current technologies used to

construct highway embankment on soft ground.

Furthermore, in this chapter, literature reviews associated

with the use of plastic products in civil engineering,

contributory advantages from cellular structure, theoretical

predictions of settlement, field measurement devices and

methods used to observe settlement are also presented. It

further discusses the outlines of the design guideline for

lightweight fill material application and other topics that

are relevant to this research work.

3 Research

Methodology

This chapter gives guidance for this study to ensure that the

process of the research is carried out systematically. Brief

descriptions on the materials used throughout the research

are covered in this chapter. All methods involved and how

the method was done in order to achieve the aim and

objectives of the study are also described in this chapter. In

this chapter, it also briefly discusses the general laboratory

test results.

4 Field

Instrumentation,

Testing and

Observation at

Parit Nipah

This chapter discusses in detail the field testing, including

description and implementation of the GCM on test site,

field instrumentation setup, environmental condition on

site, field site preparation and construction, data collection

and field observation. Moreover, the development of

settlement plate gauge as well as calibration results using

this instrument is also presented in this chapter.

5 Critical Analysis

of Research

Observation and

Predicted

This chapter presents a comprehensive analysis of the

result from laboratory and field performance as well as

theoretical evaluation of predicted settlement.

6 Conclusion and

Recommendation

This chapter presents the summary and conclusions from

this research, significance findings from laboratory and

field studies, brief of preliminary design guideline adopted

for GCM application and recommendation for future work

on the topic related to the present study.

10

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the current geoenvironmental problems relevant

to this research. Past research and the research drivers leading to design and

construction of infrastructure, particularly in highway constructions on difficult

ground condition are also presented in this chapter. Furthermore, in this chapter a

comprehensive literature associated with current lightweight technologies used to

construct highway embankment on soft yielding ground, advantage and application

of plastics product (basis of new alternative) in civil engineering, contributory

advantages from cellular structure, field measurement devices to observe settlement

(vertical movement), consolidation behaviour of peat soil, applicability of Terzaghi’s

theory on peat soil and theoretical predictions of settlement are also presented. It

further discusses the outlines of the standard and design guideline for lightweight fill

material application and other topics that are relevant to this research work. The

supportive information presented in this chapter was comprehensively and critically

compared with the results obtained from this research as presented and discussed in

Chapter 4 and 5.

2.2 Settlement induced failure of highways and infrastructures on soft soil

Soil stiffness of a road sub-grade/base helps define the potential to prevent

indiscriminate road settlement leading to uneven road surfaces. Settlement is the

downward movement of foundations to a point below its original position.

11

Settlement of highway embankments over soft soils (silty, clayey or excessive

organic soils) is a prime problem encountered in maintaining structure facilities.

Such soils tend to lack both the requisite shear strength and consolidation or long

term creep. These soils also have poor drainage properties (low permeability) and

tend to retain moisture (high moisture content). These types of soils tend to initially

consolidate (short term settlement) much more than comparable soils with less water.

(b)

Figure 2.1: Typical section of a structure on peat; (a) immediately after completion

of construction, (b) several years after completion of construction (Huat et al., 2005).

(a)

12

Figure 2.1 presents the typical section of a road and housing on peat soils

(organic content greater than 75 %). This figure shows the structure resulting in

settlement several years after completion of construction due to consolidation of the

soft soil. Additional failures have been reported by Kolay et al. (2011), Adon et al.

(2012) and Razali (2013). This is a challenge to civil engineers in the design and

construct road and highway embankment on this soil because they are extremely soft,

wet, unconsolidated surficial occurring in wetland systems.

Designing of roads and buildings foundation must consider the factor that

causes settlement. The settlement may occur due to the following reasons:

▪ Elastic compression of the structure and underlying soil (also called

immediate settlement).

▪ Plastic or inelastic compression of the underlying soil.

▪ Groundwater lowering is another major cause of settlement. Repeated rising

and lowering of groundwater, particularly in granular soils, tend to reduce the

void volume and cause the surface settlement.

▪ Pumping of water or draining of water without proper filter material also can

cause settlement.

▪ Other cause of settlement includes volume change of soil, ground movement

and excavation for adjacent structures, mining subsidence, etc.

Figure 2.2: Settlement condition in shallow flexible and rigid foundation (Das, 2011)

13

In additional, the interaction between soil and foundation also plays an

important role in the distribution of settlements. This study identifies two types of

settlement as shown in Figure 2.2. This figure shows the uniform settlement that

occurs with a rigid foundation while the non-uniform settlement is a result of the

flexibility of the foundation structures as portrayed by the effect of the particulate

material in the conventional fill. This will be closely observed in this research.

2.3 Problematic soils in Malaysia

Organic materials are formed by biochemical processes, whereas the process of

organic material accumulation is mainly a direct function of environmental

conditions, the climate, and the ecosystems (peat swamps, bogs or mires) in which

the peat is formed. Organic materials only accumulate to form peat under certain

conditions. It is essential that the production of biomass (organic materials) is greater

than its chemical breakdown to form peat (Andriesse, 1988; Zulkifley et al., 2013).

2.3.1 Definition of peat soil

Peat deposits are superficial soils with high organic matter content, usually occurring

as integral parts of wetland systems, where they form extremely soft, wet,

unconsolidated superficial deposits. Peat deposits sometimes occur as underlying

strata or layers under other superficial deposits. Huat (2004) defines peats as

naturally occurring highly organic substances that are derived primarily from plant

materials and are formed when the accumulation of plant organic matter occurs more

quickly than it humifies, usually when organic matter is preserved below high water

tables, as in swamps or wetlands (Huat, 2004).

The definition of peat soil in soil science, agriculture and engineering fields is

defined in a different way as stated in Table 2.1. Soil scientists define peat as a soil

with organic content greater than 35 %. In agriculture field, peat soils consist of

organic content more than 20 % (refer to reference in Zolkefle, 2015). In

geotechnical engineering, organic soil with organic content is greater than 75 %, it is

called a ‘peat’ soil. Soils are termed organic soil when their organic content is

between of 25 to 75 %. However, when the organic content is lower than 20 %, the

soils will become clay, silt or sand soils (Huat, 2004). These variations in definition

14

are due to the mechanical properties of the soil, which change when the organic

content of the soil is greater than 20 %. The classifications of peat according to

ASTM D4427-92 and according to Jarrett, based on laboratory testing, are shown in

Tables 2.2 and 2.3 (ASTM D4427 1992; Jarrett 1995; Huat 2004).

Table 2.1: Definition of peat soil by various fields (adopted from Zolkefle, 2015)

Field Description Standard

Geotechnical

Engineering

All soils with organic content greater than 75

% are known as peat. Soils that have an

organic content below 75 % are known as

organic soils.

ASTM D4427-1992

Soil Science All soils with organic content greater than 35

% are categorized as peat. USDA (Soil Taxonomy)

Agriculture Peat is classified if the organic content is

more than 20 % USDA (Soil Taxonomy)

Table 2.2: Organic content based on ASTM D4427-1992 (adopted from Huat, 2004)

Soil Groups Description Organic Content (%)

Clay or Silt or Sand Slightly organic 2 – 20

Organic Soil - 25 – 75

Peat Soil - > 75

Table 2.3: Definition of soils based on organic content in the soil (Jarret, 1995; Huat,

2004)

Soil Groups Description Symbol Organic Content (%)

Clay or Silt or Sand Slightly organic O 2 – 20

Organic Soil - O 25 – 75

Peat Soil - Pt > 75

Nevertheless, the Malaysian Soil Classification System for Engineering

Purposes based on BS5930 defined that the soils that have organic contents from 3 to

20 % are classified as slightly organic soils, soils with organic contents in the range

of 20 to 75 % are classified as organic soils, and soils with organic contents greater

than 75 % are classified as peats (adopted from Zulkifley et al., 2013).

The amount of the organic content in soil significantly affects engineering

properties of soils include hydraulic conductivity and compressibility. Zulkifley et al.

(2013) claimed that the ignition test is a most common practice for the determination

of organic content (ASTM D2974). When used in conjunction with the Standard

Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil

Classification System) (ASTM D2487), the ignition test provides a quick and

15

inexpensive means of determining the organic content of a soil and is usually the

only laboratory test needed for the classification of organic soil (Engineering

Geology Working Group, 2007; Zulkifley et al., 2013).

Figure 2.3: Tropical peatland of Southeast Asia (modified from Hassan, 2006 and

Huat et al., 2005).

2.3.2 Peatland in Malaysia

Peat soil is formed by the decomposition or breakdown of plant and other organic

materials. Peat has been identified as a major group of problem soils found in many

Distribution of Peat Land in

Peninsular Malaysia

Java

Kalimantan

Peat

Organic Clay and Muck

Peatland

Sabah Brunei

Malaysia

Sumatra Perlis

Kedah

Pera

k

P. Pinang

N. Sembilan

Terengganu

Pahang

Kelantan

Johor

Melaka

Selangor

16

countries including Malaysia. Peat covers more than 4 million km2 of the planet’s

surface which represents 50 to 70 % of the total wetlands on the earth (Abdullah et

al., 2007). About 3.0 million hectares or 8 % of the land area in Malaysia is covered

with tropical peat as shown in Figure 2.3 (Huat, 2004; Huat et al., 2005; Kadir,

2009). Among these lands, 6,300 hectares of the peatlands are found in Pontian, Batu

Pahat and Muar at West Johore area (Gofar, 2005; Huat at el., 2011). Figure 2.4

shows the distribution of peatlands in Johor (Hassan, 2006). This was the main driver

in conducting this research. Furthermore, peatland is also found in Pahang (such as

Endau Rompin, Kuantan and Pekan district), northwest Selangor and Perak (such as

Perat Tengah and Hilir Perak district) (Kadir, 2009). Sarawak has the largest

coverage of tropical peat in Malaysia as peat covers up to 1.66 million hectares (Huat

et al., 2011).

Figure 2.4: Peatland of Johor area.

In the tropical area, peat occurs mainly between the lower stretches of the

main river course (basin peat) and in poorly drained interior valleys (valley peats)

(Kadir, 2009). According to Huat (2004), basin peat is found on the inward edge of

mangrove swamps along the coast while valley peat is flat or interlayered with river

Segamat

Mersing Muar

Kluang

Batu Pahat Kota Tinggi

Johor Baharu Pontian

Area of field

performance

study for this

research

Parit Raja

17

deposits. Figure 2.5 shows a typical cross section of a basin peat. The depth of the

peat is generally shallower near the coast and increases inwardly, locally exceeding

more than 20 m. Gofar (2005) claims that the peat deposits in the west coast of

Malaysia are mainly formed in depressions consisting predominantly of marine clay

deposits or a mixture of marine and river deposits especially in area along river

courses.

Figure 2.5: Typical cross section of a basin peat (Huat, 2004).

2.3.2.1 Peat morphology

Generally, peat deposits consist of the elements that are not uniform in nature with

large variations occurring over very small distances (Zolkefle, 2015). It depends on

the accumulated plant material, the state of decay and the access to oxygen (Zolkefle,

2015). The morphological characteristics of lowland organic soils are quite similar

throughout the region. The convexity of coastal and deltaic peat swamps surfaces is

increasingly pronounced with distance from the sea (Mohamed et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, in drained areas, where the organic soils are transformed to a compact

mass consisting of partially and well-decomposed plant remains with large wood

fragments and tree trunks embedded in it (Mohamed et al., 2002). This led to the

formation of various elements in the peat deposits. According to Mohamed et al.

(2002), the profile morphology in drained organic soils consists of three distinct

Nipah and Mangrove Nipah and

Mangrove Padang Forest

LEGEND

Sapric Peat

Hemic-Fibric Peat

Clayey Peat

Sand

Clay

Bedrock

18

layers as illustrated in Figure 2.6. The upper layer consisting of well-decomposed

organic materials of the sapric type, a middle layer consisting of semi-decomposed

organic materials of the hemic type and a lower layer of fibric materials which is

mainly large wood fragments and branches and tree trunks (Mohamed et al., 2002).

Figure 2.6: Profile morphology of peat soil (Mohamed et al., 2002).

2.3.2.2 Structural arrangement of peat soil

The structural arrangement of peat highly influences its engineering properties. They

are dependent on the forming plant, the conditions on which the peat accumulated

and deposited, and the degree of decomposition (Yulindasari, 2006). The presence of

fiber content has been affecting the consolidation behaviour of peat (it is further

discussed in Section 2.8). Dhowian & Edil (1980) also reported that fiber

arrangement to be a major compositional factor in determining the way in which peat

soils behave. The structure of fibrous peat is coarser than clay. This condition gives a

significant effect to the geotechnical properties of peat related to the particle size and

compressibility behavior of peat.

Moreover, physical properties of fibrous peat differ markedly from other

mineral soils. The fibrous peat has many void spaces existing between the solid

grains. Due to the irregular shape of individual particles, fibrous peat deposits are

porous and the soil is considered as a permeable material (Yulindasari, 2006).

Kogure, Yamaguchi & Shogari (2003) have developed a multi-phase system

of peat as presented in Figure 2.7(a). It was divided into two categories which are

Sapric

(20-30 cm thick)

Hemic

(30-40 cm thick)

Fibric

19

organic bodies and organic spaces. Figure 2.7(b) shows a simple schematic diagram

of cross section of deposition in order to give a clear picture of the peat soil

arrangement (Wong, Hashim & Ali, 2009). It can be seen that organic particles

consist of solid organic matter and inner voids. The solid organic matter is flexible

with the inner voids, which is filled with water and it can be drained under

consolidation pressure. The spaces between the organic bodies are known as outer

voids, which is filled with solid particles (solids), fiber and water.

(a) (b)

Figure 2.7: Schematic diagram; (a) multi-phase system of peat (Kogure et al., 2003),

(b) peat arrangement (Wong et al., 2009).

2.3.2.3 Classification of peat soil (engineering)

In geotechnical engineering, the classification of peat soil is defined based on

decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the organic content and fiber content.

(a) Classification of peat soil based on degree of humification

The classification of peat based on the degree of humification test (von Post

classification system) was developed in the early 1920s in Sweden and is related to

the fiber content of the peat (Zulkifley et al., 2013). This reflects the amount on soil

water and peat soil that is expelled between the fingers when the soil is squeezed in

the palm of hand, and it was classified as belonging to one of ten (H1 – H10) degree

Org

anic

Bo

die

s

Organic Particles

(Solids)

Water (Inner voids)

Org

anic

Sp

aces

Soil Particles (Solids)

Water (outer voids)

Solid organic

matter

Solid particle

Inner void

Outer

void

Fiber

Organic particle

20

of humidification scale as shown in Table 2.4. However, for geotechnical purposes,

these 10 degrees of humification has been divided in three (3) classes namely fibric

(fibrous), hemic (semi-fibrous) and sapric (amorphous) peat as shown in Table 2.5

(Huat, 2004). Fibrous peats are in the humification range of H1 to H4. Hemic peats

are in the range of H5 to H7. Sapric peats are in humification range of H8 to H10.

Table 2.4: von Post degree of humification (Huat, 2004)

von Post

Scale

Description

H1 Completely undercomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases almost clear water.

Plant remains easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.

H2 Almost entirely undecomposed peat, when squeezed, releases, clear or yellowish water.

Plant remains still easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.

H3

Very slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases muddy brown water

but for which no peat passes between the fingers. Plant remains still identifiable and no

amorphous material present.

H4

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

Highly decomposed peat which 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 a 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 fairly uniform paste.

H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure. When squeezed, all

the wet peat escapes between the fingers.

Table 2.5: Classification of peat (Huat, 2004)

Type of Peat von Post Scale Description

Fibric peat H1 – H4 Low humified

Easy recognized plant structure, primarily of white masses

Hemic peat H5 – H7 Intermediate humified

Recognizable plant structure

Sapric peat H8 – H10 Highly humified

No visible plant structure

21

(b) Classification of peat soil based on fiber content

Peat is further classified based on fiber content due to the presence of fiber which

alters the consolidation process of peat from that of inorganic soil (Gofar, 2005).

Boelter (1968) claims that the fiber content gives a high impact to the physical

properties of peat soil especially in compressibility characteristic. Table 2.6 shows

the classification of peat based on fiber content. Peat soil with fiber content less than

33 % can be classified as sapric peat. It contains mostly particles of colloidal size

(less than 2 microns), and the pore water is absorbed around the particle surface

(Gofar, 2006). The behaviour of sapric peat is almost similar to the clay soil. The

fiber content of between 33 to 67 % was classified as hemic peat while fibric peat

consists of fiber content more than 67 % and possess two types of pore which are

macro-pores (pores between the fiber) and micro-pores (pores inside the fiber itself)

(Gofar, 2006). The behavious of fibric peat is very contradictory to the clay soil due

to fiber in the soil. Moreover, fibric peat differs from sapric peat in that it has a low

degree of decomposition, fibrous structure, and easily recognizable plant structure

(Gofar, 2005). In addition, the compressibility of fibrous peat is very high.

Table 2.6: Classification of peat based on fiber content (Huat, 2004; Gofar, 2005)

Classification of peat based on ASTM standards

Fiber Content (ASTM

D1997)

Fibric peat Peat with greater than 67 % fibers

Hemic peat Peat with between 33 % and 67 % fibers

Sapric peat Peat with less than 33 % fibers

2.3.2.4 Characteristic properties of peat soils

Peat soil possesses a variety of physical properties such as texture, water content,

density and specific gravity. This has an implication on the geotechnical properties of

peat related to the compressibility behaviour of peat. Thus, the geotechnical

properties and behaviour of the soil is necessary in order to choose the best practical

design and material for foundations. The basic index properties of Malaysia peat soil

observed by past researchers are given in Table 2.7. As noted in the table, peat is

classified as a problematic soil due to the high moisture content, low bearing

capacity and large settlement characteristics. These properties which are summarised

from the table are given as follows:

22

Table 2.7: General properties of peat soils in Malaysia by various researchers

References Standard Location Degree of

Humification

Characteristic Properties

w (%) OC (%)

Fiber

Content

(%)

Gs 𝛾𝑏

(kN/m3) e LL (%) pH Cc

Su

(kPa)

Deboucha &

Hashim, 2009

and 2010

BS West

Malaysia -

700 –

850

88.61 -

99.06 84.99 1.34 15.60 10.99 173.75

3.68 –

4.6 -

Kolay et al.,

2011 ASTM

Sarawak,

Malaysia H4 598.5 90.47 79.33 1.21 - - 200.2 3.75 -

Kazemian &

Huat, 2009 BS Malaysia 504 88.23 - 1.21 10.04 - 159.6 4.9 -

Huat, 2004 BS

West

Malaysia

200 –

700 65 – 97 - 1.38 – 1.7 - -

190 –

360 -

1.0 –

2.6

East

Malaysia

200 –

2207 76 - 98 - 1.07 – 1.63 - -

210 –

550 -

0.5 –

2.5

Islam &

Hashim, 2010a,b BS West

Malaysia H4

414 –

674

88.61 –

99.06

90.25 –

90.49 0.95 – 1.34

10.16 –

10.20 9.33 208.39 3.51

2.43 –

2.84

Zainorabidin, &

Bakar, 2003 - Johore (hemic peat) 230-500 80-96 - 1.48 –1.8 - -

220-

250 -

0.9-

1.5

7 – 11

Duraisamy et

al., 2008 BS

West

Malaysia (fibrous peat)

140 –

350 70 -88 - 1.42 – 1.56

7.95 –

10.01

4.13-

10.48

240 -

398 -

1.88 –

3.63 -

Atemin, 2012 - Parit Nipah

Peat (hemic peat) 791.00 78.76 - 1.88 - 119 3.6

3.76 –

5.30

5 – 15

Saedon, 2012 BS Parit Nipah

Peat H5 546.43 86.24 - 1.56 - - 417 - - -

Johari et al.,

2015

BS &

ASTM

Parit Nipah

Peat - 640.00 83.1 61.42 1.36 10.54 8.36 322 - 2.68 -

Yusoff, 2015 BS Parit Nipah

Peat - 480.61 - - 1.51 - - 162.50 3.76 - -

Zolkefle, 2015 BS Parit Nipah

Peat H6 710.44 78.77 40.97 1.34 - - 318 3.69 0.79 -

22

23

▪ Water content greater (w) than 100 % (when natural and wet)

▪ Organic content in range 65 ~ 100 % (note: peat is defined when organic

content >75 %, see Table 2.2 and 2.3)

▪ Specific gravity (Gs) in range 0.95 ~ 1.88

▪ Bulk density (𝛾𝑏) in range 7.95 ~ 11.5 kN/m3

▪ Liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) more than 100 % (when natural and

wet)

▪ Acidity (pH) in range 3.5 ~ 4.9 (very acidic)

▪ Compression index (Cc) in range 0.13 ~ 5.30

▪ Undrained shear strength (Su) in range 5 ~ 15 kPa (very soft soil as classified

in Table 2.8)

The determination of undrained shear strength is also important when

considering that peat soil is always below the groundwater table. Due to this,

sampling of undisturbed peat for laboratory evaluation of undrained shear strength is

almost impossible, so it is suggested that the test to be done via in-situ test. Gofar

(2006) lists some approaches to in-situ testing in peat deposits such as vane shear

test, cone penetration test, pressure-meter test, dilatometer test, plate load test and

screw plate load tests. Amongst them, the vane shear test is the most frequently used

in practices (Gofar, 2006; Atemin, 2012; Tong, 2015). Gofar (2006) found that the Su

value of peat soil obtained by vane shear test ranged from 3 to 15 kPa.

Table 2.8: Strength terms according to laboratory test and hand identification

(Barnes, 2000)

Term Su (kPa) Field Identification

Very Soft <20 Exudes between fingers when squeezed in hand

Soft 20 – 40 Moulded easily by finger pressure

Soft to Firm 40 – 50 -

Firm 50 – 75 Can be moulded by strong finger pressure

Firm to Stiff 75 – 100 -

Stiff 100 – 150 Cannot be moulded by fingers but can be indented with

thumb

Very Stiff 150 – 300 Cannot be indented by thumb nail

Hard >300 Broken with difficulty

In addition, peat soil is also considered as a frictional and/or non-cohesive

material due to having high fiber content. Thus, the shear strength of peat is usually

determined in drained condition (Gofar, 2006). The friction is typically due to the

fiber, but fiber is not always solid because it is usually filled with water. Gofar

24

(2006) stated that the high friction angle does not actually reflect the high shear

strength of the soil. Direct shear box is the frequently test used to determining the

drained shear strength of peat and triaxial test is the most common test for

determining shear strength of peat under consolidated-undrained condition (Noto,

1991). Edil & Dhowian (1981) investigated that the effective internal friction angle

(𝜙) of peat is generally higher than inorganic soil which are 50 o

for amorphous

granular peat and in the range of 53 o to 57 o

for fibrous peat. According to Landva &

La Rochelle (1983), the friction angle of peat under a normal stress of 30 to 50 kPa

in the range of 27 o to 32 o. Huat (2004) reported that the range of internal friction

angle of peat in West Malaysia was in the range of 3 o to 25 o. However, studies done

by Mansor & Zainorabidin (2014) on direct shear box reported that the hemic peat at

Parit Nipah, Johore (West Malaysia) had a 39.35 o friction angle (𝜙).

Consolidation behaviour is one of most important properties related to the

peat soil which is generally controlled by the fiber content. Consolidation behaviour

and determination of consolidation parameters of peat are further discussed in

Section 2.8.

2.3.2.5 Critical review of characteristic properties of peat soils at Parit Nipah,

Johor

The characteristic properties of peat soil at Parit Nipah by past research are critically

discussed in this section. This is the site area chosen for field performance study for

this research. The average index properties of peat at Parit Nipah is given and

highlighted in Table 2.7. In this section, moisture content (w), specific gravity and

undrained shear strength (Su) parameter were determined at various depths as shown

in Figures 2.8(a), (b) and (c), respectively (Tong, 2015). All of these parameters

varied with depth in Parit Nipah peat and generally:

▪ Moisture content (w) in range 450 to 1200 %

▪ Specific gravity (Gs) in range 1.25 to 1.65

▪ Undrained shear strength (Su) in range 5 to 16 kPa

The geotechnical properties presented in Sections 2.3.2.4 and 2.3.2.5 show

difficulties for construction on the peat deposit. The loads of heavy traffic and the

road embankment weight imposed on the subsoil results in settlement due to the

subsoil which lacks the capability of supporting the weight or bearing pressure

313

REFERENCES

Abdelrahman, G. E., Duttine, A. & Tatsuoka, F. (2007). Interface Friction Properties

of EPS Geofoam Blocks from Direct Shear Tests. 14eme CRA MSG, Yaoundé,

26-28 Novembre 2007 – 14th ARC SMGE, Yaounde.

Abdullah, M., Huat, B. B. K., Kamaruddin, R., Ali, A. K. & Duraisamy, Y. (2007).

Design and Performance of EPS Footing for Lightweight Farm Structure on

Peat Soil. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 4 (7), pp. 484-490.

Abdullah, M. S., Osman, M. H., Ahmad, M. F., Huey, C. S. and Jamalludin, D.

(2009). Performance of POFA with Lime as Stabilising Agent for Soil

Improvement. Retrieved on February15, 2015, from http://versys.uitm.edu.

my/prisma/ view/view Pdf.php?pid=1358

Adams, J. I. (1963). A Comparison of Field and Laboratory Measurement in Peat.

Proceeding 9th Muskeg Res Conference Ontario Hydro Res Q, 15, pp. 1-7.

Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C. & Zainorabidin, A. (2012). Overview of the

Sustainable Uses of Peat Soil in Malaysia with Some Relevant Geotechnical

Assessments. International Journal of Integrated Engineering – Special Issue

on ICONCEES, Vol. 4(3), pp. 38-46.

Ahmad, S. K. & Huang, W. D. (2013). Over-Coming Differential Settlement in Soft

Grounds using ‘Floating’ Semi-rigid Pavement. Procedding of 14th REAAA

Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Ahmed, S. I. (2009). A New Approach for Modelling the Non-linear One-

Dimensional Consolidation Behavious of Tailings. Bandladesh University of

Engineering and Technology: Master’s Thesis.

Ajdari, A. (2008). Mechanical Behavior of Cellular Structures: A Finite Element

Study. Northeastern University: Mechanical Engineering Master's Thesis.

Albano L. & Sanchez G. (1999). Study of the Mechanical, Thermal and

Thermodegradative Properties of Virgin PP with Recycled and Non Recycled

HDPE. PolymerEngineering and Science, Vol. 39(8),pp. 1456-1462.

314

Aldridge, D. (2005). Introduction to Foamed Concrete: What, Why, How? Use of

Foamed Concrete in Construction. University of Dundee, Scotland, UK:

Thomas Telford.

Al-Manaseer, A.A. & Dalal, T.R. (1997). Concrete containing Plastic Aggregates.

Journal of Concrete International, Vol. 19(8), pp. 47-52

Andriesse, J. P. (1974). The Characteristics, Agriculture Potential and Reclamation

Problems of Tropical Lowland Peats in South-east Asia. Department of

Agriculture Research, Amsterdam, pp 63–70.

Al-Sharmani, M. A. (2002). Settlement Prediction of Sabkha Formations using

Rectangular Hyperbolic Method.

Al-Sharmani, M. A. & Dhowian, A. W. (n.d.). Settlement-Time Behaviour of

Preloaded Sabkha Sediments. Retrieved on April 24, 2016, from http://

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.8905&rep=rep1&typ

e=pdf

Alqassim, G. (2011). Mechanical Properties of Hierarchical Honeycomb Structures.

Northeastern University: Master's Thesis (Mechanical Engineering).

Anjana, R. & George, K. E. (2012). Reinforcing Effect of Nano Kaolin Clay on

PP/HDPE Blends. International Journal Engineering Research and

Applications (IJERA), Vol. 2(4), pp. 868-872.

Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 20/98 (1998). Design Review Checklist for Road Projects.

Public Works Department Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Arahan Teknik Jalan 5/85 (Pindaan 2013). Manual for the Structural Design of

Flexible Pavement. Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia.

Arellano, D. & Stark, T. D. (2009). Load bearing Analysis of EPS-block Geofoam

Embankments. Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields –

Tutumluer & Al-Qadi (eds), London, pp. 981-990.

Arshad, A. K. (2009). Development of Mechanictic Flexible Pavement Design

Method for Malaysian Conditons. Universiti Teknologi Mara: Ph.D. Thesis.

Asaoka, A. (1978). Observational Procedure of Settlement Prediction. Soils and

Foundations, 18(4), pp. 87-101.

Aslam & Rahman, S. (2009). Use of Waste Plastic in Construction on Flexible

Pavement. Retrieved on January 10, 2016, from http://www.nbmcw.com/

articles/roads-pavements/930-use-of-waste-plastic-in-construction-of-

flexible-pavement.html

315

ASTM D570-98. Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics. West

Conshohocken, United States. 1990.

ASTM D792-08. Standard Test Method for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative

Density) of Plastics. West Conshohocken, United States. 2008.

ASTM D854-02. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water

Pycnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol. 04.08. 2005.

ASTM D 903-98. Standard Test Method for Peel or Stripping Strength of Adhesive

Bonds. Retrieved on March 2, 2014, from http:// file.yizimg.com/

175706/2011090910354968.pdf. Reapproved 2004.

ASTM D1621-00. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid

Cellular Plastics. West Conshohocken, United States. 2010.

ASTM D2435. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation

Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading. Annual Book of ASTM

Standard. Vol. 04.08. 1999.

ASTM D2487. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering

Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West

Conshohocken. 2010.

ASTM D2974. Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of

Peat and Organic Soils, ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA,

DOI, 10. 2007.

ASTM D3080. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soil. West

Conshohocken, United States.

ASTM D3417. Standard Test Method for Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of

Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC).

ASTM D3807 – 98. Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Adhesives in

Cleavage Peel by Tension Loading. West Conshohocken, United States.

Reapproved 2004.

ASTM D4427. Standard Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory Testing.

American Society for Testing and Materials, STM International, West

Conshohocken, PA, USA. 1992.

Atemin, H. H. (2012). A Study on Consolidation and Permeability Properties of

Tropical Peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis.

Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2012). The effect of

Blend Ratio on Tensile Properties of Recycled Polypropylene/Recycled High

316

Density Polyethylene Geo-composites. Proceeding International Seminar of

Analytical Science (SKAM25), Medan, Indonesia.

Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2013). Effect of

Different Blend Ratios and Compatibilizer on Tensile Properties of Recycled

Polypropylene/Recycled High Density Polyethylene Blends. Proceeding of

Innovation in Polymer Science and Technology (IPST 2013), Yogyakarta,

Indonesia.

Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2014). Properties of

Recycled High Density Polyethylene/Recycled Polypropylene Blends : Effect

of Maleic Anhydride Polypropylene. Engineering Materials, Vol. 594-595,

pp. 837-341.

Atkinson, J. (2007). The mechanics of Soils and Foundation. 2nd. London and New

York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-36256-6.

Awol, T. A. (2012). A Parametric Study of Creep on EPS Geofoam Embankments.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Master’s Thesis

(Department of Civil and Transport Engineering).

Babu, G. I. S. & Kumar, P. (2012). An Approach for Evaluation of Use of Geocells

in Flexible Pavement. Proceeding of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Delhi

Paper No. E502.

Badv, K. & Sayadian, T. (2012). An Investigation into the Geotechnical

Characteristics of Urmia Peat. IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol.

36, No. C2, pp. 167-180.

Balunaini, U. , Yoon, S., Prezzi, M. & Salgado, R. (2009). Tire Shred Backfill in Mechanically

Stabilized Earth Wall Applications. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/17.

Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of

Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Barden, L. (1968). Primary and Secondary Consolidation of Clay and Peat.

Geotechnique, Vol. 18, pp. 1-24.

Barnes, G. (2000). Soil Mechanics: Principle and Practice. 2nd ed. London:

Macmillan Press LDT.

Bartholomeeusen, G. (2003). Compound Shock Waves and Creep Behaviour in

Sediment Beds. The University of Oxford: Ph.D. Thesis.

317

Bathurst, R. J. & Jarrett, P. M. (1988). Large-scale Model Tests of Geocomposite

Mattresses over Peat Subgrades. Journal of Transportation Research Record,

Vol. 1188, pp. 28-36.

Beckwith, C. W., Baird, A. J. & Heathwaite, A. L. (2003). Anisotropy and Depth-

related Heterogeneity of Hydraulick Conductivity in a Bog Peat I: Laboratory

Measurement. Hydrol Process, Vol. 17, pp. 89-101.

Benayoune, A., Samad, A. A. A., Trikha, D. N., Ali, A. A. A. & Akhand, A. M.

(2004). Precast Reinforced Concrete Sandwich Panel as an Industrialised

Building System. International Conference on Concrete engineering and

Technology, Universiti Malaya

Berry, P. L. & Poskitt, T. J. (1972). The Consolidation of Peat. Geotechnique,

London, England, Vol. 22(1), pp. 27-52.

Bettess, F. (1992). Surveying for Archaeologists. University of Durham Department

of Archaeology.

Biot, M. A. (1941). General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation. Journal of

Applied Physics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-164.

Boelter, D. H. (1968). Important Physical Properties of Peat Materials, Proceeding of

the Third International Peat Congress, Quebec, Canada. August 18-23,

1968.

Bosscher, P.J., Edil, T.B. & Eldin, N. (1993). Construction and Performance of

Shredded Waste Tire Test Embankment. Transportation Research Record

No. 1345, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 44-52.

Brezny, R.. & Green, D. J. (1990). The Effect of Cell Size on the Mechanical

Behavior of Cellular Materials. Acta Metall. Mater, Vol. 38, pp. 2517–2526.

British Standards Institution (1987). British Standard Methods of Tests for Soils for

Civil Engineering Purposess. London: BS 1377:Part2,3,5,7:1990.

Buksowics, M. & Culpan, S. (2014). Use of EPS as a Lightweight Fill Material on

the Port Mann / Highway 1 Improvement Project Cancouver to Langley, BC.

Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Montreal, Quebec,

pp. 1-20.

Cancelli, P., Recalcati, P., & Doh, S. R. (2000). Reducing Differential Settlements

under a Road Embankment in Korea by use of Geosynthetics: a Finite

Elements Analysis. 2nd Proceeding of Asian Geosyntethics Conference,

Chicago

318

Cernica, J. N. (1995). Geotechnical Engineering: Soil Mechanics. United States of

America. ISBN 0-471-30884-6.

Chai, H. (2008). On Optimizing Crash Energy and Load-bearing Capacity in Cellular

Structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 45, pp. 528-

539.

Chavan, A. J. (2013). Use of Plastic Waste in Flexible Pavements. International

Journal of Application or Innovative in Engineering and Management

(IJAIEM), Vol. 2(4), pp. 540-552.

Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (2015). Guidelines for Construction on

Peat and Organic Soils in Malaysia. Malaysia: Perpustakaan Negara

Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-0242-15-6.

Correia, J. R., Garrido, M., Gonilha, J. A., Branco, F.A. & Reis, L. G. (2012). GFRP

Sandwich Panels with PU Foam and PP Honeycomb Cores for Civil

Engineering Structural Applications. International Journal of Structural

Integrity, Vol. 3, Issues 2, pp. 127-147.

Das, B. M. (2006). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. United States of

America: Cengage Learning.

Das, B. M. (2011). Principle of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. United States of

America: Cengage Learning.

Davis, E. H. & Poulos, H. G. (1972). Rate of Settlement under Two and Three-

Dimensional Conditions. Geotechnique, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 95-114.

David, J. S. & Haydn, N. G. W. (2002). Cellular Metal Truss Core Sandwich

Structures. Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 4(10), pp. 759-764.

Davies, L., Kucki, T., Fry, C. & Bull, J. (2010). Lightweight Backfill Materials in

Integral Bridge Construction. Retrieved on February 3, 2016, from http://

www.atkinsglobal.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-Global/Attachments/sectors/

roads/library-docs/technical-journal-7/104%20-%20Lightweight%20backfill

%20materials%20in%20integral%20bridge%20construction.pdf

Deboucha, S. & Hashim, R. (2009). Durability and Swelling of Tropical Stabilised

Peat Soils. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(13), pp. 2480-2484.

Deboucha, S. & Hashim, R. (2010). Effect of OPC and PFA cement on Stabilised

Peat Bricks. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5(11), pp. 1671-

1677.

319

Delleur, J. W. (1999). The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering. 2nd ed. New

York: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.

Department of the Army (1999). Engineering and Design: Use of Waste Materials in

Pavement Construction. Technical paper, No. 1110-3-503.

Department of Statistic Malaysia. Preliminary Count Report, Population and Housing

Census, Malaysia, (2010). Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=350:

pre...&Itemid=&lang=bm

Dhane, G., Kumar, D. & Priyadarshee, A. (2015). Geocell: An Emerging Technique

of Soil Reinforcement in Civil Engineering Field. Journal of Mechanical and

Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), pp. 59-63.

Dhowian, A. W. & Edil, T. B. (1978). Consolidation Behaviour of Peats. Journal of

Gotech Testing, Vol. 3(3), pp. 105-114.

Dhowian, A. W. & Edil, T. B. (1980). Consolidation Behaviour of Peats.

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 3(3), pp. 105-114.

Ding, X., & Qin, H. (2000). Geotechnical instruments in structural

monitoring. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, Vol. 2(1), pp. 45-56.

Dondi, G., Simone, A. & Biasuzzi, K. (2003). Lightweight Materials in Road

Construction. University di Bologna, Italia. Proceedings of XXII World Road

Congress DURBAN , South Africa.

DSC Operating Instrument. TA Instrumentation Differential Scanning Calorimeter

(DSC). Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from http://faculty.olin.edu/~jstolk/

matsci/Operating%20Instructions/DSC%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf

Dunnicliff, J. (1993). Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field

Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-00546-0.

Duraisamy, Y., Huat, B. B. K.,Muniandy, R. & Aziz, A. A. (2008). Compressibility

Behavior of Fibrous Peat Reinforced with Cement Columns. International

Conference on Construction and Building Technology(ICCBT), 9, pp. 93-110.

Duskov, M. (1997). Measurements on a Flexible Pavement Structure with an EPS

Geofoam Sub-base. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 15, pp. 5-27.

Dynalab Corp (2008). Technical Plastic Properties. Retrieved on April 15, 2013,

from https://www.midlandsci.com/customer/miscne/specpages/DYNALONE

DUCATION.PDF

320

EAB Associated (2016). Uses of Lightweight Foam Concrete. Retrieved on March

15, 2014 from http://www.eabassoc.co.uk/uses-of-foamed-concrete.php

Edil, T. B. & Dhowian, A. (1979). Analysis of Long-term Compression of Peats.

Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 10.

Edil, T. B. & Dhowian, A. (1981). At-rest Lateral Pressure of Peat Soils. Conference

on Sedimentation and Consolidation Model, ASCE, San Fransisco, pp. 411-

424.

Edil, T. B. & Fox, P. J. (1994). Field Demonstration on Thermal Precompression.

Specialty Conference of the American Society of Civil Engineering,

Geotechnical Engineering Division, College Station, TX, 2, pp. 1274-1286.

Edil, T. B. (1997). Construction over Peats and Organic Soils. Conference on Recent

Advance in Soft Soil Engineering, Kuching, Sarawak, pp. 85-108.

Elragi, A. F. (2006). Selected Engineering Properties and Applications of EPS

Geofoam. Proceedings of the Soft Ground Technology Conference,

Netherlands.

Elhassan, I. M. & Ali, A. S. (2011). Comparative Study of Accuracy in Distance

Measurement using: Optical and Digital Levels. Journal of King Sand

University – Engineering Sciences, Vol. 23, pp. 15-19.

Elzafraney, M. Soroushian, P. & Deru, M. (2005). Development of Energy-Efficient

Concrete Buildings Using Recycled Plastic Aggregates. Journal of

Architectural Engineering © Asce / December 2005.

Emersleben, A., & Meyer, N. (2008). The Use of Geocells in Road Constructions

over Soft Soil: Vertical Stress and Falling Weight Deflectometer

Measurements. In Proceedings of 4th European Geosynthetics Conference,

Edinburgh, UK.

Engineering Geology Working Group (2007). Guideline for Engineering Geological

Investigation in Peat and Soft Soils. Minerals and Geoscience Department of

Malaysia, Sabah, 72.

Engstrom, G & Lamb, R. (1994).Using Shredded Waste Tires as a Lightweight Fill

Material for Road Subgrades. Materials Research and Engineering, Report

Number 94-10

EPS Industry Alliance. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam Application &

Technical Data. Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from http://www.epsindustry.

org/

321

Farnsworth, C.B., Bartlett, S.F. & Lawton, E.C. (2013). Estimation of the Time-Rate

of Settlement for Multi-Layered Clays undergoind Radial Drainage.

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board, (2363), 3-11.

Fox, P. J., Edil, T. B. & Lan, L. T. (1992). Cα/Cc Concept applied to compression of

Peat. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118 (8), pp. 1256-1263.

Freilich, B. & Zornberg, J. G. (2009). Mechanical Properties of Tire Bales for

Highway Applications. Technical Report Documentation, Report No.

FHWA/TX-10/0-5517-1

Frydenlund, T. E. & Aaboe, R. (2001). Long Term Performance and Durability of

EPS as a Lightweight Filling Material. 3rd International Conference, Salt

Lake City, December 2001.

Ganasan, R. (2016). Evaluation of Innovation Lightweight Fill in Problematic Soil.

Universiti Tun Hussein Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.

Gan, C. H. & Tan, S. M. (2003). Some Construction Experiences on Soft Soil using

Lightweight Materials. 2nd International Conference on Advances in Soft Soil

Engineering and Technology, 2-4 July 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Gawande, A., Zamare, G., Renge, V. C., Tayde, S. & Bharsakale, G. (2012). An

Overview on Waste Plastic utilization in Asphalting of Roads. Journal of

Engineering Research and Stidies, Vol. 3(2). E-ISSN0976-7916.

Geopave Material Technology (2006). Construction of Embankment over Weak

Ground using Lightweight Fill (Expanded Polystyrene). Technical Note, 40.

Geo Slope Indicator (2004). Guide to Geotechnical Instruments. Washington, United

States of America: Mukilteo.

Ghanti, R. & Kashliwal, A. (2008). Ground Improvement Techniques – with a

Focused Study on Stone Columns. Dura Build Care PVT LTD. Retrieved on

January 30, 2013, from http://www.durabuildcare.com/pdf/Ultimate%20

Bearing%20Capacity%20of%20a%20SINGLE%20STONE%20COLUMN.p

df

Ghazavi, M. & Ghaffari, J. (2013). Experimental Investigation of Time-Dependent

Effect on Shear Strength Parameters Of Sand–Geotextile Interface. IJST,

Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 37, No. C1, pp. 97-109.

Ghosh, P. (2002). Polymer Science and Technology – Plastics, Rubbers, Blends and

Composites, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

322

Gibbs, H. J. (1953). Estimating Foundation Settlement by One-dimensional

Consolidation Test. Engineering Monograph, No. 13. Denver, Colorado.

Gibson, L. J. & Ashby, M. F. (2001).Cellular Solid: Structure of Properties. 2nd ed.

United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. ISBN: 0 521 49560 1 hardback.

Gibson, L. J. (2005). Biomechanics of Cellular Solids. Journal of Biomechanics, 38,

pp. 277-399.

Gibson, R. E. & Lo, K. Y. (1961). A Theory of Consolidation for Soil Exhibiting

Secondary Compression. Acta Polytexch, Scandinavia, Vol. 10, pp. 296.

Giroud, J.P., Zornberg, J.G. & Zhao, A. (2000). Hydraulic design of geosynthetic

and granular liquid collection Layers. Geosynthetics International., Sp. Issue

on Liquid Collection Systems, 7(4-6), pp. 285-380.

Gofar, N. (2005). Study of Compressibility Characteristics of Peat Soil using Large

Strain Consolidometer. Laporan Projek Penyelidikan Fundamental Vot

75210. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Gofar, N. (2006). Determination of Coefficient of Rate of Horizontal Consolidation

of Peat Soil. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Laporan Projek Penyelidikan

Fundamental, Vot 75210.

Gofar, N & Sing W. L. (2005). Evaluation of the beginning of Secondary

Compression of Peat. Proceedings pf National Civil Engineering Conference

(NACEC), Johor.

Graettinger, A. J., Johnson, P. W., Sunkari, P., Duke, M. C. and Effinger, J. (2005).

Recycling of Plastic Bottles for use as a Lightweight Geotechnical Material.

Management of Environmental Quality, 16(6), pp. 658-669.

Hanapiah, M. Z. M. (2009). Performance of Full Scale Embankment on Soft Clay

Reinforced with High Strength Geotextile at the Interface. Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.

Hany, L. R., D’ Angelo, D.A., Ricci, A. L., Horvath, J. S. & Osborn, P. W. (2004).

Design of Lightweight Fills for Road Embankments on Boston's Central

Artery/Tunnel Project. Fifth International Conference on Case Histories in

Geotechnical Engineering, No. 8.07.

Hassan, A. (2006). Extent of Peatlands and ‘C’ Contents of Soils in Peninsular

Malaysia. Workshop on Vulnerability of Carbon Pools of Tropical Peatlands

in Asia, Pekan Baru, Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. Retrieved on March 20, 2013,

from www.gecnet.info/view file.cfm?fileid=1724.

323

Head, K.H., (1981). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 1, 2, and 3. London:

Pentech Press.

Head, K. H. (1982). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 2. London: Plymouth.

Ho, M. H. (2014). The Potential of using Cement-Rubber Chips and Cement-Sand as

additives in Stabilised Soft Clay. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia:

Ph.D. Thesis.

Horvath, J. S. (1999). Geofoam fills and the non-issue of buoyancy. Lessons Learned

from Failure Involving Geofoam in Roads and Embankments: Report No.

CE/GE-99-1. Civil Engineering Manhattan College.

Huat, B. B. K. (2004). Organic and Peat Soils Engineering. Serdang: Universiti

Putra Malaysia Press, 2004. ISBN: 9789832871088.

Huat, B. B. K., Ng, C. H. & Munzir H. A. (2004). Observation Methods for

Predicting Embankment Settlement. Journal Sciences and Technology, Vol.

12(1), pp. 115-128.

Huat, B. B. K., Maail, S. & Mohamed, T. A. (2005). Effect of Chemical Admixtures

on the Engineering Properties of Tropical Peat Soils. American Journal of

Applied Sciences, 2(7), pp. 1113-1120.

Huat, B. B. K., Kazemian, S., Prasad, A & Barghchi, M. (2011). State of an art

Review of Peat: General Perspective. International Journal of the Physical

Sciences, 6(6), pp. 1988-1996.

Imtiaz , A. & Lovell C. W. (1993). Rubber Soils as Lightweight Biomaterials. Transportation

Research Record, 1422, pp. 61 – 70.

Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar. Soil Testing Lab: Consolidation.

Retrieved on October 15, 2015, from, http://www.iitgn.ac.in/research/stl/consolidation.

php#

Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Wijeyakulasuriya, V., McIntosh, G. & Kelly, R.

(2010). Soft Soils improved by Prefabricated Vertical Drains: Performance

and Prediction. Retrieved on January 20, 2016, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/

viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=engpapers

Isioye, O. A. & Musa, A. A. (2007). The Use of Geodetic Leveling For Crustal

Motion and Deformation Studies: A 30-Year Case Study in Ahmadu Bello

University, Zaria. The Information Manager, Vol. 7 (2).

324

Islam, M. S. & Hashim, R. (2010a). Stabilization of Peat Soil by Soil-Column

Technique and Settlement of the Group Columns. International Journal of

the Physical Sciences, Vol. 5(9), pp. 1411-1418.

Islam, M. S. & Hashim, R. (2010b). Behaviour of Stabilised Peat: A Field Study.

Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 5(17), pp. 2366-2374.

Ismail, T. N. H. T., Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I. & Wahab, S. (2014). New

Lightweight Construction Material: cellular Mat using Recycled Plastic.

Engineering Materials, Vols. 594-595, pp. 503-510.

Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia (MetMalaysia). Meteorology Data. Retrieved on

December 15, 2015, from http://www.met.gov.my/

JKR Malaysia Standard (1985). Manual on Pavement Structures. Malaysia: Arahan

Teknik (Jalan) 5/85.

Johari, N. N., Bakar, I., Razali, S. N. M., & Wahab, N. (2015). Fiber Effects on

Compressibility of Peat. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and

Engineering, Vol. 136(1), p. 012036. IOP Publishing.

Kadir, M. I. A. (2009). Long Term Consolidation Study on the Tropical Peat at

Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia. Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Degree’s Thesis

(Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources).

Jarret, P. M. (1995). Site Investigation for Organic Soils and Peat. JKR Document

20709-0341-95, Institute Kerja Raya Malaysia, pp. 4-16.

Kalla, S. (2010). Modeling Studies to Assess Long Term Settlement of Light Weight

Aggregate Embankment. University of Texas, Arlington: Master’s Thesis.

Katimon, A. & Demun, A. S. (2005). A Study of Flow Theory towards the different

Degree of Tropical Peat Decomposition.

Kazemian, S. & Huat, B. B. K. (2009) Compressibility Characteristics of Fibrous

Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement column. EJGE, 4.

Kellett, J. R. (1974). Terzaghi’s Theory of One-dimensional Primary Consolidation

of Soils and its Applications. Department of Minerals and Energy. Retrieved

on November 3, 2015, from https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/13148/Rec

1974_108.pdf

Khaw, Y. H. (2010). Performance of Lightweight Foamed Concrete using Laterite as

Sand Replacement. Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Degree’s Thesis (Faculty of

Civil Engineering and Earth Resources).

325

Kogure, K., Yamaguchi, H. & Shogari, T. (2003). Physical and Pore Properties of

Fibrous Peat Deposit. Proceeding of the 11th

Southeast Asian, Geotechnical

Conference, Singapore.

Kolay, P. K., Sii, H. Y. & Taib, S. N. L. (2011). Tropical Peat Soil Stabilization

using Class F Pond Ash from Coal Fired Power Plant. World Academy of

Science, Engineering and Technology, 50.

Kozlowski, M. (2012). Lightweight Plastic Materials. Retrieved on December 25,

2012, from http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/34071

Krause, Q. & Ghavami, K. (2009). Transversal Reinforcementin Bamboo Culms.

Proceeding of the international Conference on Non-conventional Materials

and Technologies (NOCMAT), Bath, UK.

Kuantsai, L. (1979). An Analytical and Experimental Study of Large Strain Soil

Consolidation. Linacre College, Oxford: Ph.D Thesis.

Kumar, B. V. K. & Prakash, P. (2006). Use of Waste Plastics in Cement Concrete

Pavement. Retrieved on October 2nd, 2015, from file:///C:/Users/User/

Downloads/waste_plastic.pdf

Kun, Z., Shi, Q. L., Bing, C. X.,Hong, L. L. & Sheng, X. L. (2010). Comparative

Study on Disturbed and Undisturbed Soil Sample Incubation for Estimating

Soil Nitrogen-Supplying Capacity. Communications in Soil Science and Plant

Analysis, Vol. 41, pp. 2371-2382.

Landva, A. O. & La Rochelle, P. (1983). Compressibility of Peat. University of

Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin: Ph.D. Thesis.

Larsson, R., Bengtsson, P. & Eriksson, L. (1997). Prediction of Settlements of

Embankments on Soft, Fine-Grained Soils. Swedish Geotechnical Institute.

ISBN 0281 7578.

Leica Geosystems (2015). Leica Catalogue 2015. Switzerland:Heerbrugg.

Leonards, G.A. & Girault, P. (1961). A Study of The One-dimensional Consolidation

Test. Proceeding 9th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 116-130.

Leshchinsky, D., Horvanth, J. S., Stark, T. D. & Arellano, D. (2004). NCHRP Report

529: Guideline and Recommended Standard for Geofoam Application in

Highway Embankment. Washington: Transportation research Board of the

National Academy of Sciences. ISBN: 978-0-309-26914-8.

326

Leshchinsky, B. A. (2012). Enhancing Ballast Performance using Geocell

Confinement. Columbia University: Ph.D. Thesis (Graduate School of Arts

and Sciences).

Li, C. (2014). A simplified Method for Predict of Embankment Settlement in Clays.

Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6, pp. 61-66.

Lightweight Material. Clam Shells. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from

http://www. southjerseyshedsandgazebos.com/ 2007- 11- 28website_025.htm

Lim, A. J. M. S. (2014). Development of a New Sand Particle Clustering Method

with respect to its Static and Dynamic Morphological and Structural

Characteristics. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Ph.D. Thesis.

Lindstrom, A. (2007). Strength of Sandwich Panels Loaded in In-plane

Compression. Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Engineering Science, Licentiate

Thesis.

Lingwall, B. N. & Anderson, S. (2013). Settlement of Large Embankment

Constuction Adjacent to a Buried Gas Pipeline – A Case History in

Settlement Mtitgation using Lightweight Fill. 7th international Conference on

Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, Paper No. 6.28a.

Little, D. N. & Nair, S. (2009). Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade

Soils and Base Material. National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Report. Transportation Research Board, Texas.

Liu, S. Y. (2003). Settlement Prediction of Embankment with Stage Construction on

Soft Ground. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 2,

pp. 228-232.

Lotte Chemical Titan (M) Sdn. Bhd. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from

http://www.titangroup.com/

Lu, C. Y. & Zhu, S. (2014). Analysis of Three-Dimensional Consolidation of

Unsaturated Soils. Transactions of Civil Engineering, IJST, Vol. 38, N0. C2,

pp. 485-493.

Lulianelli, G., Tavares, M. B. & Luetkmeyer, L. (2010). Water Absorption

Behaviour and Impact Strength of PVC/Wood Flour Composites. Chemistry

& Chemical Technology, Vol. 4(3).

Madi, N. K. (2013). Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Injection Molded

Recycled High Density Polyethylene Blends with Virgin Isotactic.

Polypropylenejournal of Material and Design, 46, pp. 435-441.

327

Mansor, S. H. & Zainorabidin, A. (2014). The Shear Strength Behaviour of Johore’s

Hemic Peat. Southeast Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and

Ground Improvement, Vol. 2, pp. H3.

Manual of Geotechnical Design Standard – Minimum Requirements (2015).

Queensland: Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Marto, A. & Othman, B. A. (2011). The Potential use of Bamboo as Green Material

for Soft Clay Reinforcement System. International Conference on

Environmental Science and Engineering, IPCBEE, Vol. 8, pp. 129-133.

Material Properties of Plastic (2011). Laser Welding of Plastics. 1st Edition. Rolf

Klein. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Retrieved on October 2,

2015, from http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527409726_c01.pdf

Malaysian Meteorological Department. Meteorology Data. Retrieved on January 10,

2016 from http://www.met.gov.my/web/metmalaysia/home

Mesri, G. & Castro, A. (1987). Cα/Cc Concept and K0 during Secondary

Compression. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113(3), pp.

230-247.

Mesri, G. & Goldewski, P. M. (1977). Time and Stress- Compressibility

Interrelationship. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103(GT5),

pp. 417-430.

Mesri, G., Stark, T. D., Ajlouni, M. A., & Chen, C. S. (1997). Secondary

Compression of Peat with or without Surcharging. Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123(5), pp. 411-421.

Midwest Construction Product (2015). Soil Stabilisation by Geocell Product.

Retrieved on November 10, 2015, from http://midwestconstruct.com/

geosynthetic-products/soil-stabilization

Mills, B. (2009). Recycled Tires as Lightweight Fill. RRFB Nova Scotia Knowledge

Session, Halifax, NS.

Mohamed, H. & Masmoudi, R (2008). Experimental study for the slenderness ratio

of the axially loaded. CFFT columns. Fourth International Conference on

FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008).

Mohamed, M., Padmanabhan, Mei, B. L. H. & Siong W. B. (2002). The Peat Soils of

Sarawak. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Retrieved on February 23, 2013,

http://www.strapeat.alterra.nl/ download/12% 20peat%20soils%20of%20

Sarawak.pdf.

328

Mokhtar, N. E. (1997). Perbedaan Perilaku Teknis Tanah Lempung dan Tanah

Gambut (peat Soil). Jurnal Geoteknik, Himpunan Ahli Teknik Tanah

Indonesia, Vol. 3(1), pp. 16-34.

Motlagh, A. A., Kiasat, A., Mirzaei, E. & Birgani, F. O. (2012). Improving Technical

Characteristics of Asphalt Pavement using Wastes of Polystyrene Disposable

Dishes. World Applied Science Journal, 18(5), pp 605-612.

Montepara, A. & Giuliani, F. (2000). Design of Road Embankment Lightened by

Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) laying on Low-Bearing Capacity Ground.

Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from http://old.unipr.it/arpa/dipcivil/felice

_giuliani_files/articoli/Montep&Giuliani_Tokyo2000.pdf

National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA). Guidelines for the use of

Plastic Waste in Rural Roads Constructions. Retrieved on December 17,

2015, from http://pmgsy.nic.in/circulars/GPW.htm

Nequssey, D. & Stuedlein, A. (2003). Geofoam Fill Performance Monitoring. Report

No. UT-03.17.

Nguyen, H. Q. (2006). Reanalysis of the Settlement of a Levee on Soft Bay Mud.

University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi, Vietnam: Master’s Thesis.

Nurhana, S. (2010). Verification and Predicted Settlement using Soil

Instrumentation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis.

Nor, A. H. M. (2012). Performance of Unpaved Road with different Soft Clay

Reinforcement. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.

Noto, S. (1991). Peat Engineering Handbook. Civil Engineering Research Institute,

Hokkaido development Agency, Prime Minister’s Office, Japan.

Oh, Y. N. E. (2006). Geotechnical and Ground Improvement Aspects of Motorway

Embankments in Soft Clay, Southeast Queensland. Griffith University Gold

Coast: Ph.D. Thesis.

Oh, E. Y. N., Balasubramaniam, A. S., Surarak, C., Chai, G. W. K., & Bolton, M. W.

(2007a). Interpreting Field Behaviors of Embankment on Estuarine Clay. The

Seventeenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.

International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Lisbon, Portugal.

Oh, E. Y. N., Surarak, C., Balasubramaniam, A. S., & Huang, M. (2007b). Observed

Field Behaviour of Soft Clay due to Embankment Loading: A Case Study in

Queensland, Australia. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Southeast Asian

Geotechnical Conference, pp. 1-6.

329

Olson, R. E. (1989). State of the Art: Consolidation Testing. Consolidation of Soils,

Yong and Townsend, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 7-67.

Olsson, M. (2010). Calculating Long-term Settlement in Soft Clays. Chalmers

University of Technology: Report for Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI).

Othman, M. A. (2015). Sustainable Construction on Malaysian Peat. Soft Soil

Engineering International Conference (SEIC), Langkawi, pp. 1-12.

Padade, A. H. & Mandal, J. N. (2012). Direct Shear Test on Expanded Polystyrene

(EPS) Geofoam. In Proc., 5th European Geosynthetic Congress,

International Geosynthetics Society, Jupiter, FL.

Papacharalampous, G. & Sotiropoulos, E. (2011). First Time Application of

Expanded Polystyrene in Highway Projects in Greece. 4th International

Conference on Geofoam Blocks in Construction Applications EPS 2011

Norway.

Papka, S. D. & Kyriakides, S. (1994). In-plane Compressive Response and Crushing

of Honeycomb. Journal of Mechanical Physical Solids, Vol. 42, pp. 1499–

1532.

Pardeep, S. & Gill, K. S. (2012). CBR Improvement of Clayey Soil with Geo-grid

Reinforcement. International Journal of Emerging Technology and

Advanced Engineering Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Vol. 2,

Issue 6.

Periathamby, A., Hamid, F.S. & Khidzir, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste

management in Malaysia: impact sand implications of the solid waste bill,

2007. Journal of Mater Cycles Waste management, 11, pp. 96-103.

Platt, M. R. (2013). Settlement Assessment of Highway Embankment. The University

of Utah: Master’s Thesis (Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering).

Pokharel, S., Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D., Halami, I. &

Parsons, R. (2011). Accelerated Pavement Testing of Geocell-Reinforced

Unpaved Roads over Weak Subgrade. Journal of the Transportation

Research Board, No. 2204, Low-Volume Roads. Vol. 2, pp. 67-75.

Popik, M., Trout, M. & Brown, R. W. (2010). Improving Soil Stiffness Beneath

Pavement Using Polyurethane Injection.

Prasad, S. K. (n.d.). Foundation Settlement. Retrieved on January 3, 2015 from

http:// elearning .vtu. ac.in/10/enotes/06CV64/Unit8-SKP.pdf

330

Prezzi, M. (2009). Construction of Embankments and Fills Using Lightweight

Materials. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2009/36. Purdue University: West Lafayette,

Indiana.

Punmia, B. C., Jain, A. K. & Jain, A. K. (2005). Soil Mechanics and Foundations.

16th ed. New Delhi: Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd. ISBN 81-7008-081-9.

Puvanasvaran, A. P., Hisham, S. & Kamil S, M. (2011). Investigation on the

Mechanical Characteristics of Sawdust and Chipwood Filled Epoxy. Journal

of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 71-78.

Qiao, Z., Wei, F. Davalos, J. F. & Zou, G. (2008). Optimization of Transverse Shear

Moduli for Composite Honeycomb Cores, Journal of Composite Structure,

Vol. 85, pp. 265-274.

Queheillalt, D. T. & Wadley, H. N. G. (2005). Cellular Metal Lattices with Hollow

Trusses. Acta Mat, 53, pp. 303–313.

Rafizul, I. M., Assaduzzaman, M. & Alamgir, M. (2012). The Effect of Chemical

Admixtures on the Geotechnical Parameter of Organic Soil: A New

Statistical Model. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering

Research, 1(4).

Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. A. & Ahmed, M. (2012). Recycling of Waste Polymeric

Materials as a Partial Replacement for Aggregate in Concrete. International

Conference on Chemical, Environmental and Biological Sciences

(ICCEBS'2012) Penang, Malaysia, pp. 99-102.

Raj, M. M., Patel, H. V., Raj, L. M. & Patel, N. K. (2013). Studies on Mechanical

Properties of Recycled Polypropylene blended with Virgin Polypropylene.

International Journal of Science Inventions Today (IJSIT), 2(3), pp. 194-203.

Rajendran, S., Scelsi, L., Hodzic, A., Soutis, C. & Mariam A. A. (2012).

Conservation and Recycling. Journal of Resources, Vol. 60, pp.131-139.

Rao, M. V. K., Kumar, P. R. & Srinivas, B. (2011). Effect of Size and Shape of

Specimen on Compressive Strength of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete

(GFRC). Document of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.

1-9.

Razali, S. N. M. (2013). Instrumented Physical Model Studies of the Peat Soil

engineering Structure Interaction. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia:

Master’s Thesis.

331

Rebeiz, K.S., Serhal, S.P. & Fowler, D.W. (1994). Structural behavior of Polymer

Concrete Beams using Recycled Plastic. Journal of Materials in Civil

Engineering, Vol. 6(1), pp. 150-165.

Rujikiatkamjorn, C. & Indraratna, B. (2006). Three-Dimensional Analysis of Soft

Soil Consolidation improved by Prefacricated Vertical Drains. Proceeding of

Geotechnical, Shanghai, Paper No. 152.

Saedon, N. (2012). Atterberg Limit on Peat Soils and its Application. Universiti Tun

Hussein Onn Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis (Faculty of Civil and Environmental

Engineering).

Salem, M. & El-Sherbiny, R. (2014). Comparison of Measured and Calculated

Consolidation Settlement of Thick Underconsolidated Clay. Alexandria

Engineering Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 107-117.

Sas, W. & Malinowska, E (2006). Surcharging as a Method of Road Embankment

Construction on Organic Soil. IAEG International Congress, United

Kingdom, Paper Number 403.

SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2010). Chapter 19: Ground Improvement.

Retrieved on March 1, 2013, from, https://www.soils.org/files/publications

/soils-glossary/table-4.pdf

Shenoy, A. V., Saini, D. R. & Nadkarni, V. M. (1984). Melt Rheology of Polymer

Blends from Melt Flow Index. International Journal of Polymeric Materials,

Vol.10, pp. 213-235.

Siddique, R., Khatib, J. & Kaur, I. (2008). Use of Recycled Plastic in Concrete: A

Review. Waste Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1835-1852.

Simons, N. & Menzies, B. (1977). A Short Course in Foundation Engineering.

England: Butterworth & Co Ltd. pp. 69-70. ISBN 0 408 00295 6.

Simons, N. & Menzies, B. (2000). A Short Course in Foundation Engineering.

London: Thomas Telford Ltd. ISBN 0 7277 2751 6.

Skempton, A.W. & Bjerrum, L., (1957). A Contribution to the Settlement Analysis

of Foundations on Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 7, pp. 168.

Smith, I. (2014). Elements of Soil Mechanics. 9th ed. United Kingdom: John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

Soil Building System. Expanded Shale. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from

http://www. soilbuildingsystems.com/ products/compost

332

Stark, T. D. & Arellano, D. (2003). Geofoam Application in the Design and

Construction of Highway Embankment. NCHRP Web Document 86 (Project

24-11).

Steven, S. (2008). Evaluation of Alternative Embankment Construction Methods.

Alaska Department of Transportation Statewide Research Office.

Strong, A. B. (2006). Plastics (Material and Processing. 3rd ed. United States:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Subhash, G. & Liu, Q. (2004). Crushability Maps for Structural Polymeric Foams in

Uniaxial Loading under Rigid Confinement. Exp. Mechanical, Vol. 44,

pp.289–294.

SURCON (2003). Specifications for Geodetic Surveys in Nigeria. Surveyors’

Council of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria

Suryani, S. & Mohamad, N. ( 2012). Structural Behaviour of Precast Lightweight

Foamed Concrete Sandwich Panel under Axial Load: An Overview.

International Journal of Integrated Engineering - Special Issue on

ICONCEES, Vol. 4(3), pp. 47-52.

Tan, Y. C., Lee, P. T. & Koo, K. S. (2013). Instrumented Trial Embankment on Soft

Ground at Tokai, State of Kedah, Malaysia. Proceedings of the 18th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,

Paris, Technical Committee, pp. 2977-2980.

Tan, S. A. (1995). Validation of Hyperbolic Method for Settlement in Clays with

Vertical Drains. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35(1), pp. 101–113.

Tan, S. A. & Chew, S. H. (1996). Comparison of the Hyperbolic and Asaoka

Observational Metho of monitoring Sonsolidation with Vertical Drains. Soil

and Foundation, Japane Geotechnical Society, Vol. 36(3), pp. 31-42.

Tan, Y. C. (2005). Embankment over Soft Clay – Design and Construction Control.

Geotechnical Engineering. Retrieved on May 12, 2016, from http://www.

gnpgeo.com.my/download/publication/2005_08.pdf

Tan, Y. C. & Gue, G. S. S. (2000). Design Construction Control of Embankment

over Soft Cohesion Soils. Seminar on Ground Improvement Soft-Clay

(SOGISC).

Tong, T. I. (2015). Evaluation of Humified and Non-humified Organic Matters

affecting the Srength of Peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s

Thesis. Unpublished.

333

Tiger Polymer (M) Sdn. Bhd. (2014). Physical Properties of Polypropylene.

Trambauer, P., Nonner, J., Heijkers, J. & Uhlenbrook, S. (2011). On the Validity of

Modelling concepts for the Simulation of groundwater Flow in Lowland Peat

Areas – Case Study at the Experimental Field. Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 3017-3031.

Types and Classification of Plastic. Difference Types of Plastics and their

Classification. Retrieved on May 12, 2015, from http://www.ryedale.gov.uk

/attachments/article/690/Different_plastic_polymer_types.pdf

Typical Engineering Properties of Polypropylene (2014). Retrieved on April 13,

2016, from http://www.ineos.com/globalassets/ineos-group/businesses/ineos-

olefins-and-polymers-usa/products/technical-information--patents/ineos-

engineering-properties-of-pp.pdf

Ultracki, L.A. (2003). Polymer Blends Handbook. Chapter 2: Thermodynamic of

Blends. 123-201. ISBN 978- 0-306-48244-1. Retrieved on June 5, 2013, from

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0-306-48244-4

Unit Komunikasi Korporat (2011). Maklumat Aduan Awam. Retrieved on October

19, 2012, from http://www.kkr.gov.my/files/Chapter7_4.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation (2011). Federal Highway Administration

Research and Technology. Retrieved on February 5, 2013, from

http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/research /deployment/geofoam.cfm

Verma, S. S. (2008). Roads from Plastic Waste. The Indian Concrete Journal, pp. 43.

Retrieved on July 5, 2013, from http://icjonline.com/views/pov_s.s.verma.pdf

Vidula, S., Abhijeet, J., Karan, P., Suhas, P., Sushil, P. & Karan, S. (2012). Use of

Waste Plastic in Construction of Bituminous Road. International Journal of

Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 4(5), pp. 2351-2355.

Vipulanandan, C., Bilgin, O., Guezo, Y. J. A., Vembu, K. & Erten, M. B. (2009).

Prediction of Embankment Settlement over Soft Soils. Technical Report No.

FHWA/TX-09/0-5530-11.

Vural, M. & Ravichandran, G. (2003). Dynamic Response and Energy Dissipation

Characteristics of Balsa Wood: Experiments and Analysis. International

Journal Solids Structure, Vol. 40, pp. 2147–2170.

Weckstrom, D. (2012) Changes in Mechanical Properties of Recycled

Polypropylene. Arcada-University of Applied Sciences: Degree’s Thesis in

Plastic Technology.

334

Wei, S., Yiqiang, C., Yunsheng, Z. & Jones, M. R. (2013). Characterization and

Simulation of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of Foamed Concrete.

Journal of Construction and Building Materials, 47, pp. 1278-1291.

Wetzel, C. A. & Winter, D. G. (2014). Comparison of Theoretical and Actual Time-

dependent Settlement induced by Fill Placement. New Applications of

Geotechnologies, ASCE Metropolitan, New York City.

Whitlow, R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th ed. England: Pearson Education.

ISBN 0-582-3819-6

Wiesinger, R. (2009). Sandwich Panel: Application Guide. Retrieved from http://

www.brucha.at/opmodule/user/brucha-neu/dokumente/Verlegerichtlinien_20

09_engl_WEB.pdf

Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I. & Ismail, T. N. H. T. (2015). Sustainable Construction

Material for Challenging Highway Technology. ARPN Journal of

Engineering and Applied Sciences. ISSN: 1819-6608.

Wijeyesekera, D. C., Numbikannu, L., Ismail, T. N. H. T. & Bakar, I. (2016).

Mitigating Settlement of Structure founded on Peat. IOP Conference Series:

Materials Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 136.

Wijeyesekera, D. C. & Patel, J. C. (1998). A Three Level Finite Difference Analysis

of the Large Strain One-Dimensional Consolidation Equation. Geotechnical

Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Winter, M. G. (2013). Road Foundation Construction using Lightweight Tire Bales.

Proceeding of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Geothenical Engineering, Paris, pp. 3275-3278.

Winter, M. G., Johnson, P. E. & Reid, J. M. (2005). Construction of Road

Foundation on Soft Ground using Lightweight Tyre Bales. Proceeding of

International Conference on Problematic Soils, pp. 25-27.

Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. & Ali, F. H. (2009). A Review on Hydraulic Conductivity

and Compressibility of Peat. Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 18, pp

3207-3218.

WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2013). Retrieved on June 25, 2016, from

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M46-03.htm

Xenaki, V. C. & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2001). Experimental Investigation of the

Interaction Mechanism at the EPS Geofoams and Interface by Direct Shear

Testing. Geosynthetics International 2001, Vol. 8, No. 6.

335

Xie, K. H. & Leo, C. J. (2004). Analytical Solution of One-Dimensional Large Strain

Consolidation of Saturated and Homogeneous Clays. Computers and

Geotechnics, Vol. 31, pp. 301-314.

Yulindasari (2006). Compressibility Characteristics of Fibrous Peat Soil. Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia: Master’s Thesis (Geotechnics).

Yusoff, S. A. N. M. (2015). Soil Stabilisation using Lignin and Bio-Enzymes.

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.

Zainorabidin, A. & Wijeyesekera, D. C. (2007). Geotechnical Challenges with

Malaysia Peat. Advances in Computing and Technology, The School of

Computing and Technology 2nd Annual Conference.

Zainorabidin, A. & Bakar, I. (2003). Engineering Properties of In-Situ and

Modified Hemic Peat Soil in Western Johor. Proceedings of 2nd International

Conference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology,

Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.173-182.

Zarm Scientific & Supplier Sdn. Bhd. (2014). Document coded: 841571-D.

Unpublished.

Zhang, L. & O’Kelly, B. C. (2013), Constitutive Models for Peat – A Review.

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational;

Plasticity – Fundamentals and Application (COMPLASS XII), Barcelona,

Spain, pp. 1294-1304.

Zhou, H. & Wen, X. (2008). Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-reinforced sand

cushion on soft soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol. 26, pp. 231-238.

Zolkefle, S. N. A. (2015). The Dynamic Properties of Peat Soil in South West of

Johor. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.

Zornberg, J. G., Christopher, B. R. & Oosterbaan, M. D. (2005). Tire Bales in

Highway Applications Feasibility & Properties Evaluation. Colorado

Department of Transportation Research Branch. Report No. CDOT-DTC-R-

2005-2.

Zulkifley, M. T. M., Ng, T. F., Raj, J. K., Hashim, R., Ghani, A., Shuib, M. K., &

Ashraf, M. A. (2013). Definitions and Engineering Classifications of Tropical

Lowland Peats. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol.

72(3-4), pp. 547-553.

Zwanenburg, C. (2005). The Influence of Anisotropy on the Consolidation Behaviour

of Peat. Netherlands: DUP Science. ISBN 90-407-2615-9.