EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR …eprints.uthm.edu.my/9927/1/Norhaliza_Wahab.pdf · EFFECT...

EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR STRENGTH

PROPERTIES OF PEAT

NORHALIZA BINTI WAHAB

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the

Degree of Master of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

AUGUST 2017

iii

“Special dedicated with much love and affection to my beloved parents,

Haji Wahab bin Ngah and Hajjah Munah binti Mohd Nor,

and beloved siblings,

Norhayati, Shaifudin, Noraizam, Azizudin, Nasarudin and Norhashima

Also my booster energy (nieces)

Arissya, Adam, Haziq, Irfan, Auni Camellia and Nafis

In addition, person who’s always support me

Tok, Tokki, Cik Ngoh, Ayah De, Mok Teh Ani, Mok yah, Abang Ri, Kak Ti, Umi,

My ex- supervisor Emeritus Prof Dato’ Dr. Ismail bin Hj. Bakar

Also my current supervisor Dr. Mohd Khaidir bin Abu Talib

and also to all my fellow friends who always helped me and encourage myself to

complete my study in Master of Civil Engineering”

Thank you for always being there for me.

Without your support this would mean nothing.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Alhamdulillah, all the praise for Allah S.W.T. the most graceful and merciful; who

give me the courage and faith for me along the period to accomplish this

postgraduate project. Praise is to Allah for, without His will, I would have not able to

complete this project.

Firstly, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my ex- supervisor,

Emeritus Prof Dato’ Dr. Ismail bin Hj. Bakar for his generous time and patience to

meet all my queries and providing revision materials related during this study.

Special gratitude to my supervisor Dr Mohd Khaidir bin Abu Talib for his endless

support, guidance, supervision, advices, patience, ideas and unlimited encouragement

through my research.

I would like to extend my appreciation to those who indirectly helped me; lecturers,

laboratory technical assistants; Puan Salina Sani and all the staff at Research Centre

for Soft Soil (RECESS) and Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

(FKAAS), Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.

Finally, my deep appreciation to my beloved parents (Haji Wahab bin Ngah and

Hajjah Munah binti Mohd Nor) and siblings for keep supporting me physically and

mentally. I am also grateful to all my friends for their concern, encouragement and

understanding during completion this research.

v

ABSTRACT

Peat is an organic soil contains more than 75% organic content. Shear strength of the

soil is one of the most important parameters in engineering design, especially during

the pre-construction and post-construction periods, since used to evaluate the

foundation and slope stability of soil. Peat normally known as a soil that has very

low shear strength and to determine and understand the shear strength of the peat is

difficult in geotechnical engineering because of a few factors such as the origin of

the soil, water content, organic matter and the degree of humification. The aim of this

study was to determine the effective undrained shear strength properties of

reconstituted peat. All the reconstituted peat samples were of the size that passing

opening sieve 0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm and 3.350mm and were pre-

consolidated at pressures of 50 kPa, 80 kPa and 100 kPa. The relationship deviator

stress- strain, σdmax and excess pore water pressure, ∆u, shows that in both of

reconstituted and undisturbed peat gradually increased when confining pressure, σ’

and pre- consolidation pressure, σc increased. As a conclusion, the undrained shear

strength properties result obtained shows that the RS3.350 has higher strength than

RS0.425, RS1.000 and RS2.360. However, the entire reconstituted peat sample

shows the increment value of the shear strength with the increment of peat size and

pre- consolidation pressure. For comparison purposes, the undrained shear strength

properties result obtained shows that the reconstituted peat has higher strength than

undisturbed peat. The factors that contributed to the higher shear strength properties

in this study are segregation of peat size, pre- consolidation pressure, initial void

ratio and also the physical properties such as initial water content, fiber content and

liquid limit.

vi

ABSTRAK

Gambut adalah tanah organik mengandungi lebih daripada 75% kandungan organik.

Kekuatan ricih tanah adalah satu parameter yang paling penting dalam rekabentuk

kejuruteraan, terutamanya semasa tempoh pra-pembinaan dan selepas pembinaan,

digunakan bagi menilai asas dan cerun kestabilan tanah. Gambut biasanya dikenali

sebagai tanah yang mempunyai kekuatan ricih yang sangat rendah dan untuk

menentukan dan memahami kekuatan ricih tanah gambut adalah sukar dalam bidang

kejuruteraan geoteknikal disebabkan beberapa faktor seperti asal-usul tanah,

kandungan air, bahan organik dan tahap penguraian gambut. Tujuan kajian ini adalah

untuk menentukan ciri-ciri berkesan kekuatan ricih taktersalir penstrukturan semula

gambut. Semua sampel penstrukturan semula gambut melepasi saiz bukaan ayak

0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm dan 3.350mm dan dikenakan tekanan pra- penyatuan

50 kPa, 80 kPa dan 100 kPa. Hubungan tegasan terikan sisih, σdmax dan lebihan

tekanan air liang, Δu, menunjukkan bahawa kedua- dua tanah penstrukturan semula

gambut dan gambut takterganggu secara beransur-ansur meningkat apabila tekanan

terkurung, σ’ dan tekanan pra- penyatuan, σc meningkat. Kesimpulannya, keputusan

ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih taktersalir yang diperolehi menunjukkan bahawa RS3.350

mempunyai kekuatan lebih tinggi daripada RS0.425, RS1.000 dan RS2.360. Walau

bagaimanapun, sampel bagi keseluruhan penstrukturan semula gambut menunjukkan

nilai kenaikan kekuatan ricih dengan peningkatan saiz tanah gambut dan tekanan pra-

penyatuan. Bagi tujuan perbandingan, keputusan ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih taktersalir

yang diperolehi menunjukkan bahawa penstrukturan semula gambut mempunyai

kekuatan yang lebih tinggi daripada tanah gambut takterganggu. Faktor-faktor yang

menyumbang kepada ciri- ciri kekuatan ricih yang lebih tinggi dalam tesis inin

adalah pengasingan saiz gambut, tekanan pra-penyatuan, nisbah lompang asal dan

juga ciri-ciri fizikal seperti kandungan air awal, kandungan serat dan had cecair.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE i

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENT vii

LIST OF TABLE xii

LIST OF FIGURE xiv

LIST OF SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATION xviii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background study 1

1.2 Problem statements 4

1.3 Research objectives 6

1.4 Scopes of research 6

1.5 Significance of research 7

1.6 Structure of thesis 8

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Peat 11

2.3 Classification of peat 17

2.4 Particle size distribution 21

2.4.1 Distribution of peat size 22

2.5 Physical properties of peat 24

viii

2.6 Soil specimen 29

2.6.1 Disturbed 30

2.6.2 Undisturbed 30

2.6.3 Reconstituted 30

2.6.3.1 Reconstituted method 31

2.6.3.1.1 Wet sieve 31

2.6.3.1.2 Pre- consolidation 32

method

2.7 Shear strength 33

2.7.1 Shear strength of soil 34

2.7.2 Shear strength of peat 35

2.7.2.1 Effect of pre- consolidation 38

pressure (σc) on the shear strength

parameter of the reconstituted

peat soil

2.7.2.2 Effect of fiber and organic content 40

on the shear strength

2.7.2.3 Effect of degree of humification 41

on shear strength properties

2.8 Triaxial compression test 42

2.8.1 Consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial test 43

2.8.1.1 Stress –strain and excess pore 45

water pressure curve

2.8.1.2 Mohr- coulomb failure criterion 48

2.9 Summary 50

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 53

3.2 Peat samples 55

3.2.1 Disturbed peat samples 55

3.2.2 Undisturbed peat samples 56

3.3 Particle size distribution (BS1377 Part 1: 1990) 58

3.4 Preparation of reconstituted peat samples 60

ix

3.4.1 Wet sieve 60

3.4.2 Pre- consolidation 61

3.5 Laboratory test 66

3.6 Physical properties test 67

3.6.1 Moisture content of peat (BS 1377: Part 2: 67

1990, Clause 3.0)

3.6.2 Liquid limit (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, 68

Clause 4.3)

3.6.3 Specific gravity (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990, 69

Clause 8.3)

3.6.4 Organic content- loss on ignition (LOI) 71

method (BS 1377: Part 3: 1990, Clause 4.0)

3.6.5 Fiber content (ASTM, D 1997 – 91 (2001)) 72

3.7 Engineering properties test 76

3.7.1 Calibration on triaxial machine 76

3.7.2 Process of specimen testing on triaxial 78

machine

3.8 Summary 80

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction 81

4.2 Von Post classification 81

4.3 Particle size distribution 83

4.4 Physical properties 84

4.4.1 Water content 84

4.4.2 Liquid limit 86

4.4.3 Specific gravity 88

4.4.4 Organic content 90

4.4.5 Fiber content 91

4.5 Summarise of physical properties 93

4.6 Consolidated undrained identification tag of 96

reconstituted peat

4.7 Relationship of stress- strain and excess pore 96

x

water pressure- strain

4.7.1 Stress- strain relationships for undisturbed 96

and reconstituted Parit Nipah peat

4.7.1.1 Stress- strain relationships at 97

pre- consolidation 50kPa on

deviator stress, σdmax (kPa)







4.7.2 Excess pore water pressure- strain 104

relationships for undisturbed and

reconstituted Parit Nipah peat

4.7.2.1 Excess pore water pressure- 104

strain relationships of undisturbed

and reconstituted peat at pre-

consolidation 50kPa




consolidation 80kPa




consolidation 100kPa

4.8 Shear strength properties 114

4.9 Effect of reconstituted peat samples on shear 119

strength properties

4.10 Summary 123

xi

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction 125

5.2 Conclusions 125

5.3 Recommendation 130

REFERENCES 131

APPENDIX

xii

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Proportionate distribution of peat in Malaysia 2

(Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010; and CREAM, 2015)

1.2 Thesis outline 9

2.1 Distribution area of peat in Malaysia (CREAM, 2015) 12

2.2 Summary description and determination of peat soil 17

2.3 General purpose definition of peat 17

2.4 Peat classification according to degree of humification 19

(Von, 1992 and Adon et. al, 2012)

2.5 Organic soil classification based on the organic content 20

Jarret (1995)

2.6 Classification based on the fiber content of peat (Jarret, 1995) 20

2.7 Definition and significance of the test 20

2.8 Classification of soil chart (ASTM D2487-06) 23

2.9 The physical properties of peat soil in Malaysia 27

2.10 Soil specimen description 29

2.11 Factors control the shear strength (Poulos, 1989) 35

2.12 Undrained shear strength of fine soils 37

(BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004)

2.13 Undrained shear strength of peat 38

2.14 Shear strength parameter and pre- consolidation pressure of 39

the reconstituted soil (Rabbee et al., 2012)

2.15 Shear strength under pre- consolidation pressure of the 40

reconstituted peat (Anggraini, 2006)

2.16 Method to strengthen and toughen peat soil 51

3.1 Total reconstituted peat samples 66

3.2 Experimental method based on standard 66

4.1 Result of particle size distribution test for undisturbed and 84

xiii

reconstituted peat

4.2 Water content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 85

4.3 Liquid limit for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 87

4.4 Specific gravity for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 89

4.5 Organic content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 91

4.6 Classification of reconstituted soil from organic content range 91

4.7 Fiber content for undisturbed and reconstituted peat 92

4.8 Classification of reconstituted soil from fiber content range 93

4.9 Summary of physical properties on Parit Nipah peat soil 95

4.10 Summary of deviator stress at pre- consolidation 98

pressure 50kPa


pressure 80kPa


pressure 100kPa

4.13 Summary of excess pore water pressure at pre- consolidation 105

pressure 50kPa


pressure 80kPa


pressure 100kPa

4.16 Summary of ɛa, σd max and ∆umax for undisturbed and 111

reconstituted peat

4.17 Effective undrained triaxial summary results 117

5.1 Summary of physical properties of Parit Nipah peat soil 127

5.2 Summary of shear strength properties analysis 128

5.3 Classification of shear strength properties based on fiber 130

content range

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Peat land in Malaysia (Wetlands International-Malaysia, 2010) 3

2.1 Peat distribution in the world (Trumper et al., 2009) 12

2.2 General distribution of quarternary deposits including 13

peat and soft soils in Peninsular Malaysia (modified after

geological map of Peninsular Malaysia, 9th. edition, 2014;

CREAM, 2015)

2.3 General distribution of quarternary deposits including 13

peat and soft soils in Sabah and Sarawak (modified after

geological map Sabah and Sarawak, geological survey of

Malaysia, 1992; CREAM, 2015)

2.4 Profile morphology of drained organic soil (Mutalib et al., 14

1992; Rahman and Chan, 2013)

2.5 Texture of tropical peat (Wust et al., 2002) 15

2.6 Subsidence rate versus groundwater level relationships 26

for different areas in the world (Wösten et al., 1997;

Al- Ani, 2015)

2.7 General arrangement of slurry consolidometer (Barnes, 2015) 33

2.8 Variation of cohesion with pre-consolidation pressure 39

(Rabbee et al., 2012)

2.9 Variation of ϕ with pre-consolidation pressure 40

(Rabbee et al., 2012)

2.10 Effect of degree of humification on shear strength properties 42

2.11 Triaxial compression test apparatus (Teferi, 2011) 43

2.12 Results of stress- strain and excess pore water pressure on 46

undisturbed peat at Parit Nipah (Mohamad, 2015)

xv

2.13 Variation of stress strain and pore water pressure relationship 47

Das (2007)

(a) deviator stress against axial strain for loose soil,

(b) deviator stress against axial strain for dense soil,

(c) pore water pressure against axial strain for loose soil,

(d) pore water pressure against axial strain for dense soil

2.14 Pore pressure pattern for undrained peat 48

(Gosling and Keeton, 2006)

2.15 Shear strength parameter of total and effective stress failure 49

envelopes for consolidated undrained triaxial tests (Das, 2007)

2.16 Failure envelope for undisturbed peat (Mohamad, 2015) 50

3.1 Methodology flow 54

3.2 Process of removing top soil 55

3.3 Illustration of the tube sampler setup condition 56

3.4 Process to collect undisturbed peat sample 58

3.5 Drying peat samples retained on sieve 59

3.6 Peat retained on varied sizes of sieve 59

3.7 Wet sieving process to obtain reconstituted peat sample 61

3.8 Placed slurry sample into the remolded sampler 62

3.9 Remolded sampler preparation equipment (one dimensional 63

consolidation)

3.10 The main steps of the slurry deposition process (Barnes, 2015) 63

a) Check the holes and tube does not stuffy,

b) Pouring the slurry sample slowly on flexible tube,

c) Raise the flexible tube while pouring the slurry sample,

d) Fill the slurry sample until full,

e) Load the slurry sample with pre- consolidation pressure

3.11 Reconstituted peat sampler 65

3.12 Peat sample for consolidated undrained test 65

3.13 Moisture content samples 67

3.14 Cone penetration equipment 68

3.15 Specific gravity test 70

3.16 Loss of ignition test 72

xvi

3.17 Sodium hexametaphosphate 73

3.18 Peat was submerged into hydrochloric acid solution 74

3.19 Process of fiber content test 75

3.20 GDS triaxial compression test 76

3.21 The piston touch the top cap during shearing stage 80

4.1 Von Post squeezing method 82

4.2 Particle size distribution of disturbed sample Parit Nipah peat 84

4.3 Water content versus type of sample 85

4.4 Liquid limit versus type of sample 87

4.5 The differences between the usage of kerosene and water 89

4.6 Specif gravity versus type of sample 89

4.7 Organic content versus type of sample 90

4.8 Fiber content versus type of sample 92

4.9 Typical curve for deviator stress versus axial strain for 98

undisturbed and reconstituted peat at pre- consolidation

pressure 50kPa

4.10 Comparison of undisturbed and reconstituted peat at 99

pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on deviator stress



pressure 80kPa





pressure 100kPa



4.15 Excess pore water pressure- strain relationship for 106


pressure 50kPa


pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on excess pore

xvii

water pressure



pressure 80kPa



water pressure



pressure 100kPa



water pressure

4.21 Shear stress at failure (Τf) against normal stress (σn) for 115

undisturbed sample


RS0.425


RS1.00


RS2.36


RS3.35

4.26 Effect of peat size at pre- consolidation pressure 50kPa on 119

effective cohesion and effective angle of friction





4.29 Reconstituted sample (passing peat size) against cohesion and 121

angle of friction

4.30 Reconstituted sample (pre- consolidation pressure) against 122

cohesion and angle of friction

xviii

LIST OF SYMBOL AND ABBREVIATION

ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials

BS - Bristish Standard

c - Cohesion value of soil

c’ - Apparent cohesion in term of effective stress

Cc - gradation coefficient

Cu - uniformity coefficient

Cu - Undrained shear strength

CD - Consolidated drained test

CU - Consolidated undrained test

D10 - Effective size at 10%



eo - Void ratio

g - gram

Gs - Specific gravity

Ha - Hectare

HCI - Hydrochloric acid

kN/ m2

- KiloNewton per meter square

kPa - Kilopascal

LL - Liquid limit

LOI - Loss on Ignition

M - Mass

m - meter

ml - mililitre

mm - millimeter

mg/m3 - Milligram per cubic meter

xix

O - Organic

Pt - Peat

PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride

RECESS - Research Centre for Soft Soils

RS - Reconstituted peat

Su - Undrained shear strength

UCS - Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

UD - Undisturbed peat

USCS - Unified Soil Classification System

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

UTHM - Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

UU - Unconsolidated undrained test

μm - Micrometer

ɛa - Axial strain

σdmax - Maximum deviator stress

w - Water content

% - Percentage

ϕ - Angle of internal friction

ϕ’ - Angle of internal friction based on effective stress

- Shear stress

τf - Shear strength at failure

f’ - Effective shear strength at failure

Δu - Excess pore water pressure

σc - Pre- consolidation pressure

σ’ - Normal stress on the failure plane based on effective stress

σn - Normal stress

µm - Micrometer

° - Degree

ρk - Density of the kerosene (mg/ms)

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Study

Peat soil is formed when a decay process of plants is produced and it is divided into

three categories namely hemic peat, fibric peat and sapric peat. The difference

between peat and inorganic soil leads to difference in the physical and mechanical

properties such as high compressibility. During the sampling process and specimen

test, the peat soil sample preparation undergoes a careful process. This is because of

the structure of fibrous peat has a high compressibility, especially when dealing with

low peat decomposition. Physical properties of peat can represent the structure and

engineering properties (MacFarlane and Radforth, 1965; and Zainorabidin and

Bakar, 2003). Peat is a problematic soil in terms of stability and long term settlement.

Generally, peat soil can be described as soil that is formed by the dead

wetland materials that cannot decay in a normal way because of the presence of high

water table. When the organic matter decomposed, it turns into a sort of glue called

humus, which is strong enough to bind several smaller particles together, making

them into larger multi- particles, which can alter the behavior of the soil (Paikowsky

et al., 2003). Additionally, organic matter also contains products of microbial

synthesis which includes (CREAM, 2015):

2

i. Fresh plant and animal residues (decomposable)

ii. Humus (resistant)

iii. Inert forms of nearly elemental carbon (charcoal, coal or graphite)

Table 1.1 shows the proportionate distribution of peat across the states in

Malaysia. There are about 2.5 million hectares of peatland in Malaysia including 0.7

million hectares of peat soil in Peninsular Malaysia, 1.7 million hectares in Sarawak

and 0.2 million hectares in Sabah (Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010 and

CREAM 2015). The state of Sarawak has the largest areas of peat soils that

amounted to 1, 697, 847 hectares, followed by Peninsular Malaysia with 642, 918

hectares; then followed by Sabah which recorded 116, 965 hectares, with the

percentage of total peatland area are 69.08%, 26.16% and 4.76% respectively.

Figure 1.1 shows the locations where peat located in Malaysia. The shaded

area shows the distribution of peat in Malaysia. Based on Figure 1.1, the largest

peatland in Malaysia is located in Sarawak with 16,500 km2. In Peninsular Malaysia,

the peat areas are found in the east and west coast areas, especially in the coastal

areas of West Johore, Kuantan and Pekan district, Rompin-Endau area, Northwest

Selangor and the Perak (Hilir Perak district and Perak Tengah district). In Sarawak,

peat occurs mainly between the lower stretches of the poorly drained interior valleys

(valley peat) and the main river course (basin peat). Peat is found in the

administrative division of Sri Aman, Sibu, Sarikei, Bintulu, Miri, Kuching,

Samarahan and Limbang. In Sabah, the organic soils are found around the coastal

areas of the Klias peninsula, Krah swamps in Sugut, Kota Belud and Labuk

estruaries and Kinabatangan floodplains (Phillips, 1998).

Table 1.1: Proportionate distribution of peat in Malaysia

(Wetlands International Malaysia, 2010; and CREAM, 2015)

Regions Total peat

area (ha)

Percentage of total

peatland area (%)

Peninsular 642, 918 26.16

Sabah 116, 965 4.76

Sarawak 1, 697, 847 69.08

Total (ha) 2, 457, 730

3

Figure 1.1: Peat Land in Malaysia (Wetlands International-Malaysia, 2010)

Peat soils have higher moisture content and wet density values that are

approximately equal to the water density value. Classification of the decomposition

proposed by Von Post (1922) was divided into ten groups, H1 to H10. The values

represent the degree of decomposition are increasing as the number of classification

increase. According to this system, test samples are classified into H3 and H6 with

an average organic content of 75% and 30%, respectively. H3 refers to very slightly

Peninsular

Malaysia

Sabah Sarawak

Legend:

Peat Distribution

4

decomposed peat, which releases very muddy brown water when being squeezed but

no peat passes through the fingers. The remaining plants are still identifiable and no

amorphous material is present. H6 refers to moderately decomposed peat with a very

indistinct plant structure. When it is squeezed, about one-third of the peat escapes

between the fingers and the structure is more distinct compared to before squeezing.

The symbol of Peat is ‘Pt’ and grouped into the soil at the rate of two high organic

(organic soil). Based on Mankinen and Gelfer (1982), peat is a soil with organic

content greater than 50%, but according to Landva et al., (1983); Kearns and

Davison (1983); and ASTM D4427 (2013), peat is a soil with organic content more

than 75%. Whitlow (2001) and Jelisic and Leppanen (2003) stated that peat has a low

bearing capacity in the range 5kPa – 20 kPa which is lower than the soft clay, so the

result can cause a slide / collapse (bearing capacity failure) due to low shear strength

and high settlement due to high compressibility characteristic of peat. Hence,

construction over peat deposit may cause excessive settlement and bearing capacity

failure.

1.2 Problem Statement

In construction, there is problem rises on peat soil since it lacks of strength which

contributes to ground failure. In order to overcome this problem, ground

improvement and alternative methods need to be executed and these certainly gain

added costs for development. Nevertheless, the challenge on the peats is the

difficulty to collect undisturbed peat samples that truly represent site conditions due

to the soil condition and its properties (Munro, 2004). Whitlow (2001) stated that is

actually it most impossible to gain a totally undisturbed sample of soft soil because

of the process of boring, driving the coring tool, raising and withdrawing the coring

tool and extruding the sample from the coring tool which caused some disturbance in

the structure of the soft soil. Hence, the knowledge and deeper understanding on

forming reconstituted samples and engineering parameters of peat soil is needed to

overcome this study.

Peat soil is highly problematic because the traits that originally led to the

weak of the soil is due to the low undrained shear strength in normally consolidated

state and low bearing capacity under the foundation which cause it is not

5

recommended in construction by some developers (Gofar and Sutejo, 2007).

Construction on peat soil nowadays increasing rapidly because of the lack space on

the suitable land. Due to this rapid urban development the land owner and developers

are forced to open a new space area. Due to this phenomenon the construction of

infrastructure likes building, highway and other construction have to be constructed

on the organic soil. There are various construction techniques that have been carried

out to support embankments over peat deposits without risking bearing failures but

settlement of these embankments remains excessively large and continues for many

years. Thus, the active and effective research has to be conducted to find and

understand the best solution on this phenomenon to overcome this problem.

Generally, peat commonly occur as extremely soft, wet, unconsolidated

surficial deposits that are an integral part of wetland systems. These types of soils

contribute to geotechnical problems in the area of sampling, settlement, stability, in

situ testing, stabilization and construction. Formation of peat significantly takes time

to fully decompose. It will decompose from fibrous (least decomposed) to hemic

(intermediate decomposed) and then settle down as sapric (most decomposed). The

degree of peat decomposition will contribute to the changing of peat fiber, thus it

affects to the changing of engineering properties such as shear strength properties.

The different sizing of peat fiber will result in different shear strength properties.

Hebib (2001) has revealed that least decomposed peat has higher shear strength

rather than most decomposed peat due to the presence of large fiber in the peat acts

as reinforcement.

Peat also contains high water content because of the high presence of

hollow pore in the fiber itself. Due to this condition, it may affect the strength of the

peat. To remove the water content from peat soil, the pre- consolidation slurry

method is suitable to be applied in this study. Pre- consolidation slurry method is a

very popular method to drain out the excessive water content from the soil specimen.

This method is popular conducted by researchers to form the reconstituted samples

from slurry samples. Barnes (2015), Anggraini (2006) and Rabbee et al., (2012) has

figured that the reconstitution specimen is one of the great techniques in the

laboratory to obtain element testing of repeatable and homogenous test samples.

Anggraini (2006) conducted reconstituted sample on fibrous peat at Pontian Johor.

The peat sample was consolidated with pre- consolidation pressure (50kPa, 100kPa,

150kPa and 200kPa) to test the sample on the triaxial Unconsolidated Undrained

6

Triaxial Test (UU- Test). The result of shear strength properties (cohesion and angle

of friction) of reconstituted peat increased, due to the increase of the pre-

consolidation pressure. Differ from this thesis, the author conducted the reconstituted

peat on Parit Nipah peat that classified as hemic peat. The reconstituted peat sample

through segregation peat size via wet sieving and consolidated with the 50kPa, 80kPa

and 100kPa pre- consolidation pressure to test the specimen on the Consolidated

Undrained Triaxial Test (CU- Test).

1.3 Research Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the effective undrained shear strength

properties of reconstituted peat. Therefore, the shear strength properties (c' and ϕ')

need to investigate to correlate with the effect of the reconstituted method (peat size

and pre- consolidation pressure). To achieve the outcomes, the objective was

highlighted

The specific objectives of this thesis are:

1) To determine the physical properties of undisturbed and reconstituted peat.

2) To investigate the shear strength parameters of undisturbed and reconstituted

peat of different sizes of peat and in different pre- consolidation pressure.

3) To correlate the shear strength properties with the effect of passing peat size

and pre- consolidation pressure.

1.4 Scope of Research

The scope of this study is about to investigate the shear strength properties of

reconstituted peat sample. Peat samples are obtained from Parit Nipah, Johor. The

samples were taken at depth of about 0.3m – 1.0m (depends on the existing of

ground water table) from surface level. The samples were divided into two samples

that are disturbed sample and undisturbed sample. The disturbed peat samples were

obtained to reconstruct peat as reconstituted peat sample meanwhile; undisturbed

peat samples were obtained in this study as a comparison sample with reconstituted

peat samples. The physical properties test was also performed in this study such as

moisture content, liquid limit, organic content, fiber content and specific gravity. All

7

tests were conducted according to British Standard Institution (BS 1377: 1990),

Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing by Head and Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

All the peat samples were brought to the RECESS, UTHM to proceed with

the physical and mechanical test. The disturbed peat samples were sieved through

wet sieves with different sizes of sieve opening to obtain the reconstituted samples.

In this project the reconstituted peat samples were prepared through four different

sizes that are 0.425mm, 1.000mm, 2.360mm and 3.350mm. Reconstituted peat

samples were formed by using a pre-consolidation pressure of 50kPa, 80kPa and

100kPa that represent the pressure at the site that can be exerted on a soil without

irrecoverable volume change. Johari et al. (2014) stated the value for pre-

consolidation pressure for Parit Nipah peat is 26kPa at the depth 0.3m to 1.0m.

In this study, the Consolidated Undrained Trixial Compression Shear Test

(CU-Test) was applied on the specimens of diameter 50mm and 100mm height and

was subjected to confining pressure of 25 kPa, 50 kPa and 100 kPa. This pressure

was performed to represent peat depth layers where average stress has been carried

by the soil and simulate as the real site pressure condition (Mohamad, 2015). The

results that obtained from the triaxial test were analyzed to understand the shear

strength properties by determining the effective cohesion (c’) and effective angle of

friction (ϕ’). The standard for triaxial compression test (BS 1377-8: 1990) was used

to determine the shear strength properties (effective stress). Subsequently, the shear

strength properties results that obtained for both undisturbed and reconstituted

samples were correlated with the sizes of peat and pre- consolidation pressure.

1.5 Significance of Research

A sound scientific understanding of the nature and functions of peat and organic soils

is critical to their correct and safe use, and this research contributes by offering

students, researchers, engineers and academics involved with these types of soils a

comprehensive overview. In the principle of the shear strength, the effective

cohesion (c’) and effective angle of friction (ϕ’) are the shear strength parameters.

These parameters are very important and it is necessary to determine these values to

design the retaining structures, foundation, slope and other structures. Therefore, in-

8

depth knowledge regarding the shear strength parameters is necessary because it is

very useful to engineers to design safe structures.

This research is very useful to geotechnical engineering and who is involved

in the development of peat lands. In the future, the developers and contractors can

determine the soil shear strength properties in a variety of peat size, degree of

decomposition, fiber content, organic content and others data that offers in this study

by referring the data value obtained and thus can be used in preliminary work in

construction. This study may also help researchers in the shear strength

determination at certain of peat size with the classification of peat. For example,

when the researchers go to the construction areas and determine the type of peat

whether fibric, hemic and sapric by using the Von Post method, thus the researchers

can evaluate and relate the range value of shear strength from the data that were

obtained in this study. Apart from that, this data will also help the peat researchers in

the future who work on with the distribution of soil, where to refer directly to the

shear strength data on different sizes obtained from this study without having to

make consolidated- undrained test and maybe can proceed with the other test

experiment.

Hopefully, in the future, more peat researchers study about shear strength

peat in term of the peat size passing through a wet sieve to obtain more shear

strength data.

1.6 Structure of Thesis

The entire thesis chapter consists of five chapters and outlined in Table 1.2. Chapter

1 consists of the project background, problem statement, aim, objectives, scope and

significance of the study. Chapter 2 contains literature review that summarises some

information about the study that can be related to the topic subject like physical

properties of peat, wet sieve method and shear strength parameters that can relate

with the pre- consolidation loads. Chapter 3 consists of the research methodology

and explanation in detail about the soil sample preparation procedure, test apparatus

and equipment, materials, data acquisition and processing methods used. In Chapter

4, the test results were analyzed and presented in table and graph, where soil

classification, properties of peat soils and shear strength are discussed in detail. The

9

last chapter summarised all the results and recommendation for future work based on

current study experience and literature review.

Table 1.2: Thesis outline

Chapter Title Description

1 Introduction

Project introduction including aim, objective and

scopes of study

2 Literature

Review

Reviews the literature relating to the research, which

includes soil properties/ characteristics, materials,

and laboratory testing.

3 Research

Methodology

Materials and experimental work in terms of sample

preparation, test equipment, and procedure is

described. This section discusses a developed

laboratory testing technique which is considered

necessary in the site for successful field

implementation.

4

Result and

Analysis

Results and and discusses the findings of this study.

This include soil identification and classification,

physical and engineering properties including shear

strength properties.

5 Conclusion and

Recommendation

Conclude all the results gained in chapter 4. Link all

the result with the objective proposed in Chapter 1.

List suggestions for future studies.

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Nowadays, the construction development over peat soil is increasing due to the lack

of space and suitable land for building infrastructure, highway construction and other

development. The problems of peat in foundation construction generally is because

of its own characteristics such as low shear strength, very high natural moisture

content, high compressibility and water holding capacity, low specific gravity and

low bearing capacity (Kazemian et al., 2011).

The problems of peat can be solved using soil improvement method such as

soil replacement, water removal, site strengthening, thermal and geosynthetics. The

water removal method can be divided into four categories which are trenching,

electroosmosis, pre-compression without vertical drain and pre- compression with

vertical drain. In Malaysia, pre- compression with vertical drain method is popular to

remove the water from the soil (Yusoff, 2015). Vertical drains concept artificially-

created drainage paths which installed by one of several method and can have a

variety of physical characteristics. Vertical drains installation also used in order to

accelerate settlement and gain in strength of peat soil. A proper understanding of the

shear strength properties of peat soil is an important element in the solution of the

soft soil problems especially on strengthening the ground. In this regard,

understanding and determining the laboratory element testing that can represent or

mimic the field conditions plays an important role in characterising soil behaviour.

On top of that, the selection of the reconstituted method is very important to gain

11

uniformity and repeatability specimens that can simulate the study area ground

strength.

In this chapter, the literature review and the information on properties peat

soil samples and obtaining the shear strength parameter are discussed according to

the objectives of this research. The information gathered is obtained from journals,

books, proceedings and reports.

2.2 Peat

There is about thirty million hectares of peat soil coverage around the world with

Canada and Russia having the largest distribution of peat (Zainorabidin, 2010). More

than sixty percent of the world‟s tropical peat lands are found in South-East Asia

(Lette, 2006). Most notable are the large peat land on the islands of Borneo

belonging to Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. However, there are also

significant occurrences in other parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and

the Philippines (Adon et al., 2012). Figure 2.1 shows the picture of peat distribution

around the world which shows that the percentage distribution of peat is in the range

0% to more than 10%. Malaysia is in the range 5% to more than 10% as shown in the

red circle areas. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 displays the distribution of quaternary soil

around Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak areas. The yellow color areas show

the distribution of peat, soft soils, clay, silt, sand and gravel in both figures.

The tabulated data in Table 2.1 shows the distribution of peatland in Malaysia

at several states that was listed by (CREAM, 2015). In Peninsular Malaysia, Selangor

recorded the highest distribution area of peat and the smallest distribution area was

recorded by Negeri Sembilan. Johor has recorded the third largest area of peat

distribution after Pahang and Selangor with the total area 143, 974 hectares.

However, the distribution of peat in Sarawak has recorded the largest distribution of

peat area with 1, 697, 847 hectares followed by Sabah and the Peninsular Malaysia

with 116, 965 hectares and 642, 918 hectares respectively. Overall, the total

distribution area of peatland in Malaysia is about 2, 457, 730 hectares.

12

Table 2.1: Distribution area of peat in Malaysia (CREAM, 2015)

State Total Area of Peat (Ha) Johor 143,974 Pahang 164,113 Selangor 164,708 Perak 69,597 Terengganu 84,693 Kelantan 9,146 Negeri Sembilan 6,245 Federal Territory 381

Sabah 116, 965

Sarawak 1, 697, 847

Total 2, 457, 730

Figure 2.1: Peat Distribution in the World (Trumper et al., 2009)

Malaysia

13

Figure 2.2: General Distribution of Quaternary Deposits including Peat and Soft

Soils in Peninsular Malaysia (modified after Geological Map of Peninsular

Malaysia, 9th. Edition, 2014; CREAM, 2015)

Figure 2.3: General Distribution of Quaternary Deposits including Peat and

Soft Soils in Sabah and Sarawak (modified after Geological Map Sabah and

Sarawak, Geological Survey of Malaysia, 1992; CREAM, 2015).

14

Figure 2.4 illustrate the profile morphology of peat structure. The

arrangement of particle seen loose in fibric peat compared to the sapric peat because

of the presence of woody plant. Figure 2.5 shows the texture of tropical peat. As can

be seen, the colour of peat soil in Malaysia is generally dark reddish brown to black.

It consists of loose, branches, partly decomposed leaves, twigs and tree trunks with a

low mineral content (Wust et al., 2002). The formation of peat is mainly controlled

by the combination of water and temperature. On earth, temporal and spatial changes

of water and temperature depend upon climatic conditions, and geological,

geomorphologic, and hydrological factors. These factors directly and indirectly

influence peat formation, development, and its characteristics.

Figure 2.4: Profile Morphology of drained organic soil (Mutalib et al., 1992;

Rahman and Chan, 2013)

Legend:

Remnants of decomposing wood/ trucks

Semi decomposed woodlog/ trunk

15

Figure 2.5: Texture of Tropical Peat (Wust et al., 2002)

Peat originates from plants and denotes the various stages in the humification

process where the plant structure can be discerned (Hartlen and Wolski, 1996;

CREAM, 2015). Peat is partially or totally decomposed remains of dead plants which

have accumulated under water for tens to thousands of years. Based on Zainorabidin

and Wijeyesekera (2007), peat soil is generally originated from the plant and animal

remains. According to Kazemian et al. (2011), peat soil composed of high content of

16

fibrous organic matters and was produced by the partial decomposition and

disintegration of mosses, sedges, trees and other plants that grow in marshes and

other wet place in the condition of lack of oxygen. At the same time, peat is a

mixture of fragmented organic material formed in wetlands under appropriate

climatic and topographic conditions and it is derived from vegetation that has been

chemically changed and fossilized (Edil and Dhowian, 1981; Mesri and Ajlouni,

2007). Decomposition or humification involves the loss of organic matter either in

gas or in solution, the disappearance of the physical structure and the change in the

chemical state (Huat et al., 2009).

In natural state, peat consists of water and decomposed plant fragment with

virtually no measurable strength (Munro, 2005). Table 2.2 shows the description and

determination of peat from peat researchers. As concluded, peat is a mixture of

fragmented organic material forms where the lack of oxygen prevents natural micro-

organisms from decomposing the dead plant material. Thus, peat is considered

unsuitable for supporting foundations in its natural state.

Peat represents the extreme form of soft soil. It is an organic soil, which

consists more than 75% of organic matters (Huat et al., 2014). The organic content of

peat is basically the remains of plant for which rate of accumulation is faster than the

rate of decay. The content of peat differs from location to location due to the

factor such as the origin fiber, temperature and humidity (Huat, 2004). The definition

of peat soil depends on the purpose or the field of application that is shown in Table

2.3. Based on USDA (Soil Taxonomy) and Zainorabidin (2010), the purpose of

application from agriculture and soil science perspectives, peat is defined with

organic content more than 20% and 35% respectively. Meanwhile, from the

geotechnical engineering purpose, the organic content below than 75% is known as

organic soil, otherwise is known as peat.

17

Table 2.2: Summary description and determination of peat soil

Name Year Description

Edil and

Dhowian 1981

Peat is a mixture of fragmented organic material formed in

wetlands under appropriate climatic and topographic

conditions and it is derived from vegetation that has been

chemically changed and fossilized.

Jarret 1995

Peat is an organic soil which consist more than 70% of

organic matters. Peat deposits are found where conditions are

favorable for their formation.

Hartlen and

Wolski

1996

Peat originates from plants and denotes the various stages in

the humification process where the plant structure can be

discerned.

Munro 2004

Peat forms where the lack of oxygen prevents natural micro-

organisms from decomposing the dead plant material. Peat

forms slowly involving an accumulation of organic materials

in water, and taking approximately 10 years for 1cm of peat to

form.

Duraisamy et

al., 2007

Peat is considered unsuitable for supporting foundations in its

natural state

Kazemian et

al., 2011

Peat soil composed of high content of fibrous organic matters

and is produced by the partial decomposition and

disintegration of mosses, sedges, trees and other plants that

grow in marshes and other wet place in the condition of lack

of oxygen.

Table 2.3: General purpose definition of peat

Purpose of

application Definition From reference

Geotechnical

engineering

Organic content < 75% = organic soil

Organic content > 75% = peat ASTM D4427- 92

Agriculture Organic content > 20% = peat USDA (Soil

Taxonomy)

Soil science Organic content > 35% = peat USDA (Soil

Taxonomy)

2.3 Classification of Peat

The physical, chemical, and geotechnical characteristics commonly used for

classification of inorganic soil may not be applicable to the characterization of peat.

On the other hand, properties which are not pertinent to inorganic soil may be

important for classification of peat. Furthermore, the range values applied for some

properties of inorganic soil may not be relevant for peat. Generally, the classification

18

of peat is developed based on the decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the

organic content, and fiber content.

Table 2.4 shows the classification of peat according to degree of

humification. The classification of peat soils have been classified into 10 groups (H1-

H10) by Von Post based on water content, fibre properties, and degree of

decomposition (Von, 1922). The test was conducted by pressing the peat soil in the

hand and it gives off marked muddy water. The pressed residue material remaining

in the hand has fibrous structure and it is some-what thick. Based on (Hartlen and

Wolski, 1996), the fibrous peat with more than 60% fiber content is usually in the

range of H1 to H4.

To a geotechnical engineer, all soils with organic content of greater than 20%

is known as organic soil. Peat soil is an organic soil with organic content of more

than 75% (Huat, 2004). This classification is partly the same as ASTM D 2487- 06

classifications; a soil with organic content less than 75% (or ash content more than

25%) as muck or organic soil, while a soil with organic content higher than 75% (or

ash content less than 25%) as a peat. For geotechnical purposes, degree of peat

decomposition or humification system of Von Post is often divided into 3 classes that

are (Magnan, 1980; ASTM Standard D 5715- 00):

a) Fibric or fibrous (least decomposed) tentatively ranging from H1 to H3

b) Hemic or semi-fibrous (intermediate decomposed) tentatively ranging

from H4 to H6

c) Sapric or amorphous (most decomposed) tentatively ranging from H7 to

H10

Davis (1997) said that peat is classified as woody, fibrous, sedimentary, and

granular peat in terms of texture. In Malaysia, Malaysian Soil Classification System

(MSCS) also had been introduced to classify organic soil and peat. The MSCS is

developed based on British Soil Classification (BS 5930: 1981) and improved by

Public Work Malaysia. MSCS used the degree of humidification as another

parameter to classify the state of decay of organic soil after organic content.

Fiber content is also included in the system as the third factor to be

considered for classifying the organic soil. The additional factors introduced into the

system have provided better description and information about organic soil in

19

Malaysia (Zainorabidin et al, 2007). Generally, the classification of peat is developed

based on the decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the organic content, and

fiber content. Based on Jarret (1995), the soil classification of organic soil can be

determined as shown in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. The features of the physical

properties determination with the definitions and significance of the tests is

summarised in Table 2.7. The physical properties accommodate the valuable

information in determining the peat classification.

Table 2.4: Peat classification according to degree of humification

(Von, 1992 and Adon et al., 2012)

Degree of

Decomposition

Description

H1

Fibric

Completely undecomposed peat which releases almost clear water.

Plant remains easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.

H2

Almost completely undecomposed peat which releases clear or

yellowish water. Plant remains still easily identifiable. No

amorphous material present.

H3

Very slightly decomposed peat which releases muddy brown water,

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

identifiable and no amorphous material present.

H4

Hemic

Slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very

muddy dark water. No peat is passed between the fingers, but the

plant remains are slightly pasty and have lost some of their

identifiable features.

H5

Moderately decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very

“muddy” water with a very small amount of amorphous granular

peat escaping between the fingers. The structure of the plant remains

is quite indistinct although it is still possible to recognize certain

features. The residue is very pasty.

H6

Moderately decomposed peat which a very indistinct plant structure.

When squeezed, about one-third of the peat escapes between the

fingers. The structure more distinctly than before squeezing.

H7

Sapric

Highly decomposed peat. Contains a lot of amorphous material with

very faintly recognizable plant structure. When squeezed, about one

- half of the peat escapes between the fingers. The water, if any is

released, is very dark and almost pasty.

H8

Very highly decomposed peat with large quantity of amorphous

material with very indistinct plant structure. When squeezed, about

two thirds of the peat escapes between the fingers. A small quantity

of pasty water may be released. The plant material remaining in the

hand consists of residues such as roots and fibers that resist

decomposition.

H9

Practically fully decomposed peat in which there is hardly any

recognizable plant structure. When squeezed it is a fairly uniform

paste.

H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure.

When squeezed, all the wet peat escapes between the fingers.

20

Table 2.5: Organic soil classification based on the organic content

(Jarret, 1995)

Soil Types Description Symbol Organic Content (%)

Clay or silt or sand Some Organic O 2-20

Organic Soil - O 25-75

Peat - Pt >75

Table 2.6: Classification based on the fiber content of peat (Jarret, 1995)

Soil Types Fiber Content Degree of Humification

Fibric Peat >66% H1-H3

Hemic Peat 33%-66% H4-H6

Sapric Peat <33% H7-H10

Table 2.7: Definition and significance of the test

Test Definition Significant

Degree of

Humification

The physical appearance of

soil was described based on

the Von Post classification.

A detail description on

classification of soil by refer H1-

H10 classification of peat

Particle Size

Distribution

The list of values that

defines as the relative

amount, typically by mass,

of particles present

according to size.

To determine the percentage of

various sized soil particles in a soil

mass. The findings of the results

allow the particle size distribution

curve is plotted

Moisture

Content

The ratio of the mass of

water in a specimen to the

mass of solid in the

specimen.

The percentage of moisture content

can be related to the settlement,

shear strength and compressibility

of the soil.

Liquid Limit

The water content at which

soil passes from the plastic

to the liquid state.

The limit is expressed as a

percentage of the dry weight of the

soil.

Specific Gravity Specify is the ratio of the

weight of a given volume of

the material to the mass of

an equal volume of water.

It is related to the degree of

decomposition and mineral content

of peat.

Organic Content The organic content is the

percentage of the organic

matter present in a soil.

Important parameter whereby the

percentage of peat and organic soils

can be indistinguishable

Fiber Content

Determined typically from

dry weight of fiber retained

on 0.15 mm as a percentage

of oven-dried mass

The percentage of fiber content is

used to classified the peat

decomposition range.

21

2.4 Particle Size Distribution

The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is the most widely used soil

classification system practice in the geotechnical engineering. The purpose of this

system is for classifying mineral and organic soil based on the particle size and limit

(liquid and plastic) determination. The grain size distribution of a soil determines the

governing particle- level forces, inter- particle packing and the ensuing macro scale

behavior, while grain shape was established at three different scales: the global form,

the scale of major surface features and the scale of surface roughness (Tang, 2011).

Santamarina and Cho (2004) reported that each scale reflects the features of the

formation history and particles in deciding the global behaviour of the soil mass,

from particle packing to mechanical response.

Boelter (1968) has stated that the physical properties of peat are highly

affected by the distribution of the pore size and the porosity. These two parameters

are related to the distribution of peat size. The degree of decomposition affects the

porosity of peat and the porosity is affected by both the particle size and structure of

peat. With an increment in the degree of decomposition, the particle size of organic

matters decreases Boelter (1968).

In particle size distribution, the uniformity coefficient (Cu) and gradation

coefficient (Cc) are taken into account to determine and verify the grade of soil. A

well graded known as a soil that has a broad distribution of particle size, while

poorly graded or uniform soils are composed of a narrow size particle distribution

only. Cu> 5 accounted as a well-graded soil, Cu<3 demonstrate a uniform soil, Cc

between 0.5 and 2.0 reveal a well- graded soil and < 0.1 indicates a possible gap-

graded soil (Das, 2011).

22

2.4.1 Distribution of Peat Size

ASTM (D2487-06) classified the soil in three major soil divisions: coarse- grained,

fine grained and highly organic soil as tabulated in Table 2.8. The peat soil was

described and categorized in highly organic soils with the symbol „Pt‟. Peat is

different with other types of soils because the identification of this type of soil is

identified through organic matter, colour and odour.

Based on Levesque and Dinel (1977), particle- size distribution of peat fiber

was determined according to the wet sieving method. For the case of organic soils,

particles size distribution is not necessarily used in characterization and it is highly

influenced by its botanic nature. As for mineral soil, the theory of particle composed

of single grain unit is not able to be visualized in an organic area. Therefore, it could

be practical to use particle size as the comparison for fibrous and non-fibrous peat

materials which denote their decomposition level. Wet sieving is chosen to separate

fine grains from the coarse grains and it is carried out onto the disturbed or

undisturbed soil by using tap water with the arrangement of a stack of aperture sizes

which chosen. Said and Taib (2009) has specified their opinion that to obtain the

particle size distribution result precisely, the wet sieving analysis must be done on

the soil in order to further break the soil particles into a smaller size. Kalantari and

Prasad (2014) stated that, tropical peat soils are normally having sizes between

0.006mm to 5.000mm.

Tang (2011) revealed the wet method for coarse peat soil is more effective to

practice and the soil fraction finer than 63 µm was analyzed with diffraction laser

method (CILAS test). Mohamad (2015) stated the coefficient of curvature (Cc) for

peat soil at Parit Nipah Johor is 1.07 and coefficient of uniformity (Cu) is 9.6. In

regard of that, with referring to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Parit

Nipah peat is classified as well- graded soil and behaves in various shapes and sizes.

23

Table 2.8: Classification of soil chart (ASTM D2487-06)

Major Divisions Group

Symbol Typical Names

Course-

Grained Soils

More than

50% retained

on the 0.075

mm

(No. 200)

sieve

Gravels

50% or more of

course fraction

retained on

the 4.75 mm

(No. 4) sieve

Clean Gravels

GW

Well-graded gravels and

gravel-sand mixtures, little or

no fines

GP

Poorly graded gravels and

gravel-sand mixtures, little or

no fines

Gravels

with Fines

GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt

mixtures

GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-

clay mixtures

Sands

50% or more of

course

fraction passes

the 4.75

(No. 4) sieve

Clean Sands

SW

Well-graded sands and

gravelly sands, little or no

fines

SP

Poorly graded sands and

gravelly sands, little or no

fines

Sands

with Fines

SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SC Clayey sands, sand-clay

mixtures

Fine-Grained

Soils

More than

50% passes

the 0.075 mm

(No. 200)

sieve

Silts and Clays

Liquid Limit 50% or less

ML

Inorganic silts, very fine sands,

rock four, silty or clayey fine

sands

CL

Inorganic clays of low to

medium plasticity,

gravelly/sandy/silty/lean clays

OL Organic silts and organic silty

clays of low plasticity

Silts and Clays

Liquid Limit greater than 50%

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or

diatomaceous fine sands or

silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or high

plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to

high plasticity

Highly Organic Soils Pt Peat, muck, and other highly

organic soils

Keyword:

Prefix: G= Gravel, S= Sand, M= Silt, C=Clay, O= Organic

Suffix: W= Well Graded, P= Poorly Graded, M= Silty, L= Clay, LL < 50%, H=

Clay, LL > 50%

24

2.5 Physical Properties of Peat

There are a few unique physical properties of peat which should be paid

attention in discussion. Hobbs (1986) stated that the physical characteristics such as

color, degree of humification, water content and organic contents should be included

in a full description of peat. They are influenced by main component of the formation

such as mineral content, organic content, moisture and air. When one of these

components changes, it will result in the changes of the whole physical properties of

peat. Table 2.9 shows the all the physical properties peat data that were recorded

from the past researchers in Malaysia.

Boelter (1968) reported that the physical properties of peat are highly affected

by the porosity and the distribution of the pore size. Both of these parameters are

related in the distribution of peat size. Rahman (2015) stated the degree of

decomposition affects the porosity of peat and the porosity is influenced by the

particle size and structure of peat. With an increase of the decomposition level, thus

it tends to the particle size of organic matters decreases. Past researchers have

reported that the degree of decomposition for Parit Nipah peat is H5 (moderately

decomposed peat) with the organic and fiber content is in the range between 78 -

93% and 40 - 67% respectively, as tabulated in Table 2.9.

The water content is the most important criteria properties for peat soil. The

value of water content depends on the origin, degree of decomposition and the

chemical composition of peat (Rahman and Chan, 2014). Generally, peat has very

high natural water content due its ability to holding water capacity. Mesri and

Ajlouni (2007) emphasized that the water content of peat may range from 200 to

2000% which is quite different from that for clay and silt deposits which rarely

exceed 200%. Water content of fibrous peat generally is very high. It is because

fibrous peat holds a considerable amount of water as its organic coarse particles are

generally very loose and the organic particles itself are hollow and largely full of

water (Rahman and Chan, 2014). In Parit Nipah Johor, the water content ranges from

330 to 650% (Azhar et al., 2016, Saedon and Zainorabidin 2012, Johari et al., 2016,

Zainorabidin and Mohamad 2015; Yusoff et al., 2015).

Nurhamidah et al., (2011) reported that the tropical peat in tidal swamplands

areas (Peninsular and East Malaysia) is identified with land subsidence on the peat

layers. The Peninsular Malaysia area subsidence rate was found to be 2cm until

131

REFERENCES

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

Design and performance of eps footing for lightweight farm structure on peat

soil. American Journal of Applied Sciences 4 (7): 484-490.

Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., and Adnan. (2012). Overview of the

sustainable uses of peat soil in Malaysia. Int. Journal of Integrated

Engineering – Special Issue on ICONCEES. Vol. 4 No. 3. pp. 38-46.

Ajlouni, M.A. (2000) Geotechnical Properties of Peat and Related Engineering

Problems. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: PhD Thesis.

Al-Ani, H. and Oh, E. and Chai, G. (2013). Engineering properties of peat in

estuarine environment. Foundation and Soft Ground Engineering

Conference. Thu Dau Mot University.

Al- Ani, H. A. H. (2015). Digital geotechnical maps and classification of soil

engineering properties by using GIS. Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith

University, Gold Coast Campus: PhD. Thesis

Al- Raziqi, A. A., Huat, B. B. K. and Munzir, H. A. (2003). Potential usage of

hyperbolic method for prediction of organic soil settlement. Proc. 2nd

International Conference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and

Technology Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.439- 45.

Ali, A. W. M., Sabarudin, M., Mohd, I. M. M., Saiful, A. A. T., Ismail, B., Adnan,

Z., Azrul, Z. K. and Ling, J. H. (2016). Construction of buildings on peat:

Case Studies and Lessons Learned, MATEC Web of Conferences, 47 03013.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Standard Test Methods for

Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils, ASTM

D2974- 00, Vol. 04.08.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2001). Standard Test Method for

Laboratory Determination of the Fiber Content of Peat Samples by Dry

132

Mass, ASTM D1997- 91, Vol. 04.08.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2002). Standard Classification of Peat

Samples by Laboratory Testing. ASTM D4427- 92, Vol. 04.08.


Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils, ASTM D4318- 05,

Vol. 04.08.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Terminology Relating

to Soil, Rock, and Contained Fluids. ASTM D653- 06, Vol. 04.08.


Specific Gravity of Soil Soilds by Water Pycnometer, ASTM D854- 06, Vol.

04.08.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Practice For

Classification of Soils For Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification

System). ASTM D2487- 06, Vol. 04.08.

American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Standard Test Method For

Estimating the Degree of Humification of Peat and Other Organic Soils

(Visual/ Manual Method). ASTM D5715- 00 (2006) , Vol. 04.08.

Aminur M. R., Kolay P. K., Taib S. N. L., Mohd Zain, M. I. S. and Kamal, A. A.

(2011). Physical, geotechnical and morphological characteristics of peat soils

from sarawak. Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia. Vol. 72, No.

4, December 2011.

Anggraini, V. (2006). Shear Strength Improvement of Peat Soil Due To

Consolidation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Degree of Master.

Axelsson, K., Johansson, S. and Anderson, R. (2002). Stabilization of organic soil by

cement and pozzaolanic reaction- feasibility study. Swedish Deep

Stabilization Research Centre, Report 3, 1- 51.

Barnes, D.M (2015). Monotonic and cyclic shear response of reconstituted natural

silt. The University of British Columbia: Degree of Master

Bashar, M. A. (2002). Stress-deformation characteristics of selected coastal soils of

Bangladesh and their sampling effects. Dept. of Civil Eng., BUET: PhD

Thesis.

Boelter DH (1968). Important physical properties of peat materials. Proc. of the

Third International Peat Congress. Quebec, Canada. 150-156.

133

Boso, M. (2005). Shear Strength Behaviuor of A Reconstituted Partially Saturated

Clayey Silt. University of Trento: PhD Thesis.

Bradshaw, A.S. and Baxter, C.D.P. (2007). Sample preparation of silts for

liquefaction testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 30(4), Paper ID

GTJ100206, 9 pages.

British Standard Institution (1990). Classification test. British Standards Institution,

London. UK: BS 1377 Part 2.

British Standard Institution (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering

purposes, chemical and electrochemical tests, London. UK: BS 1377 Part 3.

British Standard Institution (1990). Shear strength tests (effective stress): British

Standards Institution, London. UK: BS1377 Part 8.

Boylan N., Jennings P. and Long M. (2008). Peat slope failure in Ireland. Quarterly

Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 2008; v. 41; p. 93-108

doi:10.1144/1470- 9236/06-028.

Burland, J. B., (1990). The Thirtieth Rankine Lecture: On the Compressibility and

Shear Strength of Natural Soils, Geotechnique 40, No.3, pp. 329-378.

Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Sur une application des regles maximis et minimis a

quelques problems de statique, relatives a l’architecture. Acad Sci Paris Mem

Math Phys 7:343–382.

Cola, S. and Cortellazo, G., (2005). The shear strength behaviour of two peaty soils,

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, pp. 679-695.

Cortellazzo, G. and Cola, S. (1999). Geotechnical characteristics of two Italian peats

stabilized with binders. In: Bredenberg H, Holm G, Broms BB (eds) Dry mix

methods for deep soil stabilization. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 93–100

Craig, R.F. (1993). Mekanik Tanah. Terjemahan Soil Mechanics oleh Aminaton

Marto, Fatimah Mohd Noor, dan Fauziah Kasim. Edisi ke-4. Unit Penerbitan

Akademik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

CREAM (2015). Guidelines for Construction on Peat and Organic Soils in

Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Construction Research Institute of

Malaysia (CREAM).

Culloch, F.M. (2006). Guidelines for the Risk Management of Peat Slips on the

Construction of Low Volume/ Low Cost Road Over Peat.Scotland. For. Civ.

Eng. For. Comm., pp. 1-46.

134

Das, B. M. (2007). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th Ed. United States of

America: Christopher M. Shortt.

Das, B.M. (2008). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering. 4th Ed. Canada:

Christopher M. Shortt.

Das, B. M., (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 7th Edition. Stamford,

USA: Cengage Learning.

Das, B. M., (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th Ed. Stamford, USA:

Christopher M. Shortt

Davis, J. H. (1997). The Peat Deposits of Florida their Occurrence, Development

and Uses. Florida Geological Survey. Geological Bulletin, 3.

Deboucha, S. and Hashim, R. (2009). Durability and swelling of tropical stabilized

peat soils. Journal of Applied Sciences. 9 (13): 2480- 2484.

Dehghanbanadaki, A.,Arefnia, A., Keshtkarbanaeemoghadam, A., Kamarudin, A.,

Motamedi, S. and Hashim, R. (2016). Evaluating the compression index of

fibrous peat treated with different binders. Bull Eng Geol Environ. DOI

10.1007/s10064-016-0890-6

Duraisamy, Y., Huat, B, B, K., Aziz A.A. (2007). Engineering Properties and

Compressibility Behaviour of Tropical Peat Soil. American Journal of

Applied Sciences, 4(10): 768-773.

Edil, T. B. (1997). Construction Over Peats and Organic Soil. Proc. Conf. On Recent

Advances in Soft Soil Engineering, Kuching. Referred by Abedin

Edil, T.B. and A. W. Dhowian. (1981). At-rest Lateral Pressure of Peat Soils. Conf.

On Sedimentation and Consolidation Model, ASCE, San Fransisco, 411 –

424.

Edil T. B. and Wang, X. (2000). Shear strength and ko of peats and organic soils

geotechnics of high water content materials, ASTM STP 1374, West

Conshohocken, PA.

Farrell E.R. (2012). Organics/peat soils. In ICE Manual of Geotechnical

Engineering. Burland J, Chapman T, Skinner H and Brown M (eds). ICE

Publishing, London, vol. 1, pp. 463– 479.

Gofar N. and Sutejo Y., (2007). Long term compression behavior of fibrous peat.

Malaysian Journal Civil Engineering 19.

Gosling D. and Keeton P. (2006). Problems with Testing Peat for Stability Analysis.

135

Peat Seminar. Edinburgh, 11 March 2008.

Hanzawa, H., Kishida, T., Fukusawa, T. and Asada, H. (1994). A case study of the

application of direct shear and cone penetration tests to soil investigation,

design and quality control for peaty soils. Soils and Foundations, Jap. Soc.

Soil Mechan. Found. Eng., 4: 13-22.

Hartlen, J. and Wolski, W. (1996). Embankments on Organic Soils, 1st Edn.,

B.V. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, ISBN: 0-444-88273-1, pp: 456.

Hashim, R. and Islam, S. (2008). Engineering Properties of Peat Soil in Peninsular

Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci., 8(22). pp. 4215-4219.

Head, K. H. (1998). Manual of soil laboratory testing: Effective stress tests. 1st

edition . Pentech Press. London Ltd. Vol 2.

Hebib, S. (2001). Experimental Investigation on The Stabilisation of Irish Peat.

Ph.D. thesis, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Hobbs, N. B. (1986). Mire Morphology and the Properties and Behaviour of Some

British and Foreign Peats. Q. I Eng. Geol., London, 19(1): 7-80.

Huat, B. B. K. (2004) Organic and Peat Soil Engineering. Publisher Serdang :

Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, 2004.

Huat, B, B.K., (2006). Deformation and Shear Strength Characteristics of Some

Tropical Peat and Organic Soils. Petanika J. Sci. and Technol. 14 (1 and 2),

pp. 61- 74.

Huat, B. B., Asadi, A. and Kazemian, S. (2009). Experimental investigation on

geomechanical properties of tropicanal organic soil and peat. American

Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2 (1), 184- 188

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

of peat: General prespective. International Journal of the Physic Sciences, 6

(8), 1988- 1996.

Huat, B. B., Prasad, A., Asadi, A. and Kazemian, S. (2014). Geotechnics of Organic

Soils and Peat. London, UK: Taylor and Francis Group.

Hyde, A.F.L., Higuchi, T. and Yasuhara, K. (2006). Liquefaction, Cyclic Mobility,

and Failure of Silt. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

Engineering, 132(6) p. 716-735.

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

Document, 20709- 0341- 95. Institute Kerja Raya Malaysia.

136

Jelisic N. and Leppanen M. (2003). Mass stabilization of organic soils and soft clay

[M]. Reston, VA, USA: Geotechnical Special Publication (120 I) : 552−561.

Johari. N. N., Bakar, I. and Razali, S. N. M., (2014). Oedometer Testing on

Undisturbed and Reconstituted Peat. Proceedings of Soft Soils 2014.

Bandung, Indonesia: Universiti Tun Hussein Onn.

Johari, N. N., Bakar, I., Razali, S. N. M. and Wahab, N. (2016). Fiber effects on

compressibility of peat. Soft Soil Engineering International Conference 2015

(SEIC2015).

Kalantari, B. and Huat, B. B. K. (2009). Load-Bearing Capacity Improvement for

Peat Soil. European Journal of Scientific Research. 32.2 (2009): 252-259

Kalantari, B. and Prasad, A. (2014). A study of the effect of various curing

techniques on the strength of stabilized peat. Transp Geotech, 1:119–128

Kazemian S., Asadi A. and Huat B. B. K. (2009). Settlement Problems in Peat Due

to Their High Compressibility and Possible Solution Using Cement Columns.

In: Shen-en C, de Leon AD, Dolhon AM, Drerup MJ, Parfitt K, Forensic

engineering 2009: Pathology of the built.

Kazemian, S., Huat, B.B.K., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011). A state of art

review of peat: Geotechnical engineering perspective. International Journal

of the Physical Sciences. Vol. 6(8), pp. 1974-1981.

Kazemian, S., and Moayedi, H. (2012). Effect of Cement-Sodium Silicate Grout on

the Compressibility Parameters of Fibrous Peat. Advanced Materials

Research. Vol. 629, pp 461-465.

Kazemian, S., Huat, B. B. K. and Moayedi, H. (2012). Undrained Shear

Characteristics of Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement Stabilized Soil

Column. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30:753–759

Khalid, N., Mukri, M., Kamarudin, F., Sidek, N., and Arshad, M.F., (2013).

Experimental Studies on Fibrous Peat Stabilized Using Waste Paper Sludge

Ash (WPSA). Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 13,

Bundle B.

Khalili, A., Wijewickreme, D. (2008). New Slurry Displacement Method for

Reconstitution of Highly Gap-Graded Specimens for Laboratory Element

Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 31(5). Paper ID GTJ101373, 9 pages.

137

Kolay, P.K., Pui, M.P. (2010). Peat Stabilization Using Gypsum and Fly Ash.

Unimas E- Journal of Civil Engineering; Vol 1.Issue 2.

Kolay, P.K., Sii, H. Y. and Taib, S.N.L. (2011). Tropical Peat Soil Stabilization

Using Class F Pond Ash Form Coal Fired Power Plant. Int. Journal of Civil

and Environmental Engineering. Vol 3 (No. 2)

Landva,A.O. and La Rochelle, P. (1983). Compressibility and Shear Characteristics

of Radforth Peats, Testing of Peat and Organic Soils, ASTM STP, 820: 157-

191.

Landva, A.O., Korpijaakko, E.O. and Pheeney, P.E. (1983). Geotechnical

classification of peats and organic soils. In: Jarrett, P.M. (Ed.), Testing of

Peats and Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia. pp. 37 – 51.

Landva, A. O., Pheeney, P. E, La Rochelle, P. and Briaud, J. L. (1986). Structure on

Peatland: Geotechnical Investigations. Proc of the Symposium and Advances

in Peatlands Engineering. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. pp. 31-52.

Leete, R. (2006). Malaysia’s peat swamp forest conservation and sustainable use.

Publised by United Nations Development Programme Malaysia, Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment, Malaysia.

Levesque, M. and Dinel, H. (1977). Fiber Content, Particle- Size Distribution and

Some Related Properties of Four Peat Materials in Eastern Canada. Can. J.

Soil Sci. 57: 187- 195. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by

123.136.107.184 on 09/28/16

Liu, M.D., Carter J. P. and Desai C. S. (2003). Modeling Com- Pression Behavior of

Structured Geomaterials. International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE. Vol.

3 (No. 2), 191-204.

Ling, J. H., Sabarudin, M. , Saiful, A. A. T. , Syazie, N. A. M., Ismail, B., Mohd, I.

M. M., Adnan, Z. and Ali, A. W. M., (2016). Construction of Infrastructure

on Peat: Case Studies and Lessons Learned, MATEC Web of Conferences, 47

03014.

Long, M. (2005). Review of peat strength, peat characterisation and constitutive

modelling of peat with reference to landslides. Studia Geotechnica et

Mechanica 27(3–4): 67–90.

138

Lukas, M. (2010). A Study on the Effect of Remolding on the Mechanical Behavior of

Addis Ababa Red Clay Soil. Addis Ababa University: Degree of Master

Thesis.

Macfarlane, I. C. and Radforth, N. W. (1965). A study of the physical behaviour of

peat derivatives under compression. Proc. 10th Muskeg Res. Conf. N.R.C.

Ottawa.pp. 159.

Magnan, J.P. (1980) Classification geotechnique des sols: 1- A propos del la

classification LPC, Bulletin de Liaison des Laboratoiresdes Ponts et

Chaussees, Paris, PP. 19- 24.

Mandal, J. N. (1995). Soil Testing in Civil Engineering.A.A Balkema. Rotterdam.

Mankinen, G.W., Gelfer, B., (1982). Comprehensive use of peat in the U.S.S.R.

DOE Fifth Technical Conference on Peat. U.S. Department of Energy,

Bethesda, MD, pp. 44 – 54.

Mansor, S. H. and Zainorabidin, A. (2014). The shear strength behavior of Johore’s

hemic peat. Proceedings of soft soils 2014, October 20- 23rd 2014, Bandung,

Indonesia.

Mayne, P. W. (2001). Stress-strain-strength-flow parameters from enhanced in-situ

tests. Proceedings, International Conference on In-Situ Measurement of Soil

Properties and Case Histories, Bali,Indonesia, May 21-24, 2001, pp. 27-48.

McGeever, J. (1987). The Strength Parameters of an Organic Silt. University Of

Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin Ireland. MSc Thesis

Mesri, G. and Ajlouni, M. (2007). Engineering Properties of Fibrous Peats. J.

Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(7): 850-866.

Mitchell, J.K (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. J. Wiley and Son Inc.

Mohamad, H.M (2015). Post-cyclic Behaviour of Malaysian Peat Soil. Universiti

Tun Hussein Onn: Degree of Master

Munfakh, G. A. (2003. Ground improvement in transportation projects: from old

visions to innovative applications. Ground Improv 7(2):47–60

Munro, R. (2004). Dealing with bearing capacity problems on low volume roads

constructed on peat. The Highland Council, Environmental and Community

Service, HQ, Glenurquhart Road, Interness IV3 5NX Scotland

Munro, R. (2005). Dealing with Bearing Capacity Problems on Low Volume Roads

Constructed on Peat. ROADEX II Northern Periphery.

139

Munro R. and MacCulloch F. (2006). Managing Peat Related Problems on Low

VolumeRoads. ROADEX III Project.

Murthy, V. N. S. (2008). Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. CBS

Publishers & Distributors: New Delhi.

Mutalib, A., Lim, J. S., Wong, M. H. and Koonvai, L. (1991). Characterization,

distribution and utilization of peat in Malaysia. Symposium on Tropical Peat

Land. 8-10 March 1991,Kuching, Sarawak.

Mutalib, A. A., Lim J. S., Wong M.H and Koonvai L. (1992). Characterization,

distribution and utilization of peat in Malaysia. In: B.Y. Aminuddin (Editor),

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland, Kuching,

Sarawak, MARDI, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 7-16.

Naskar, N. (2013). Effect of organic content on shear strength characteristics of

clay. Jadavpur University. Degree of Master Thesis.

Noto. S (1991). Peat Engineering Handbook. Civil Engineering Research Institute,

Hokkaido Development Agency, Prime Minister’s Office, Japan. 1-35.

Nurhamidah, Giesen, N.V.D and Hoes, O. (2011). Subsidence and Deforestation:

Implications for Flooding in Delta’s Southeast and East Asia. International

Scientific Conference 2011. Proceeding of the International Conference on

Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 2011. Hotel

Equatorial Bangi-Putrajaya, Malaysia, 14 - 15 January 2011.

O’Kelly, B.C. and Orr, T.L.L. (2014). Briefing: Effective Stress Strength of Peat in

Triaxial Compression. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). pp. 417-420.

O’Kelly, B. C. and Pichan, S. P. (2013). Effects of decomposition on the

compressibility of fibrous peat- a review. Geomechanics and

Geoengineering: An International Journal, 9(4): 286–296.

Paikowsky, S.G., Elsayed, A.A., and Kurup, P.U. (2003). Engineering Properties of

Cranberry Bog Peat, 2nd International Conference on Soft Soil Engineering

and Technology, Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.157-171.

Parmar, S. (2016). Factors controlling stress strain behaviour of soil. Department of

Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.

https://www.slideshare.net/samirsinhparmar/factors-controlling-stress-

strain-behaviour-of-soil.

140

Phillips V.D. (1998). Peat swamp ecology and sustainable development in Borneo. –

Biodiversity Conservation 7: 651-671.

Poulos, S. J. (1989) Jansen, R. B., ed., “Liquefaction Related Phenomena”, Advance

Dam Engineering for Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold): 292-320.

Rabbee, T. and Rafizul, I. M. (2012). Strength and compressibility characteristics of

reconstituted organic soil at Khulna Region of Bangladesh, International

Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2 No. 10, October, 2012.

Rabbee, T., Rafizul, I. M., Assaduzzaman, M., and Alamgir, M. (2012). Investigate

the effect of pre-consolidation pressure and organic content on the shear

strength and compressibility parameter of reconstituted soil. Int. Journal of

Applied Sciences and Engineering Research, Vol. 1, Issue 6.

Rahgozar, M. A. and Saberian, M. (2016). Geotechnical properties of peat soil

stabilised with shredded waste tyre chips. Mires and Peat, Volume 18 (2016),

Article 03, 1–12

Rahiman, R.A. (2010). Membuat Penentukuran Terhadap Alat Bilah Ricih dengan

Membandingkannya dengan Alat Mampatan Tak Terkurung di Makmal.

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Ijazah Sarjana.

Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2013). Influence of temperature on the mass losses

of tropical peat at different decomposition level. Soft Soil Engineering

international Conference.

Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2014). Effect of the moisture content at different

decomposition level of peat. Journal of Civil Engineering 2014, 4(3A): 59-62

Rahman, J. A. and Chan, C. M., (2015). Physico-Chemical Characterization of Peat

at Different Decomposition Levels. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering. Vol. 20, Bundle 9.

Rahman, J. A. (2015). Correlation between decomposition level and induced

solidification of peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn: Degree of Master Thesis.

Saedon, N. And Zainorabidin, A. (2012). An investigation of soil volume changes at

four dimensional points of peat soil sample in Parit Nipah and Pontian.

Applied Mechanics and Materials, 773-774:1491-1496.

Saedon, N., Zainorabidin, A. and Razali, S. N. M. (2014). Temperature effect to the

shrinkage characteristics of peat soil. Proceedings of Soft Soils 2014, October

20- 23rd

2014. Bandung, Indonesia.

141

Said J. M. and Taib S. N. L. (2009). Peat stabilization with carbide lime. UNIMAS E-

Journal of civil engineering. Vol. 1: issue 1/August 2009

Salih, A.G. and Kassim, K.A. (2012). Effective shear strength parameters of

remoulded residual soil. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17,

243- 253.

Santamarina, J. C. and Cho, G. C. (2004). Soil behaviour: the role of particle shape.

Proceeeding Skemptom Conference, March, London.

Schothorst, C. J. (1977). Subsidence of low moor peat soils in the western

Netherlands. Geoderma 17 (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,

Amsterdam Printed in The Netherlands): 265-291.

Shogaki T. and Kaneko M. (1994). Effects of sample disturbance on strength and

consolidation parameters of soft clay. Soils Found., 34(3): 1-10.

Singh, A. (1992). The determination of swelling pressure of expansive clays,

invention intelligence. Invention Promotion Board, New Delhi.

Tang, B. L. (2011). Revitalisation of organic and peat soils. Universiti Tun Hussein

Onn Malaysia: Degree of Master

Tang B. L., Bakar, I. and Chee M. C. (2011). Reutilization of Organic and Peat Soils

by Deep Cement Mixing. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology.

Teferi, E. (2011). Unsaturated Shear Strength Characterstics and Stress - Strain

Behaviour of Silt Soils of Hawassa. Ethiopia: Addis Ababa Institute of

Technology.

Teong, I. T., Felix, N. L. L. and Mohd, S. (2015). Characteristics and Correlation of

the Index Properties Peat Soil: Parit Nipah. Journal of Applied Science and

Agriculture, 10(5) Special 2015, Pages: 19-23

Trumper, K., Bertzky, M., Dickson, B., van der Heijden, G., Jenkins, M., Manning,

P. (2009). The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. A

UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme,

UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Wang, S., Luna, R. and Stephenson, R.W. (2011). A Slurry Consolidation Approach

to Reconstitute Low-Plasticity Silt Specimens for Laboratory Triaxial

Testing. Geotechnical Testing Journal. 34(4). p. 1-9.

142

Wetlands International-Malaysia. 2010. A Qucik Scan of Peatlands in Malaysia.

Project funded by the Kleine Natuur Initiatief Projecten, Royal Netherlands

Embassy.

Whitlow, J.R. (1983). Vlei cultivation in Zimbabwe- reflections on the past.

Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal 80: 1234-135

Whitlow, J.R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th Ed. England: Pearson Education

Ltd.

Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I., and Ismail, T. N. H. T. (2015). Sustainable

Construction Material For Challenging Highway Technology. Asian

Research Publishing Network (ARPN) Journal of Engineering and Applied

Sciences.

Wong L.S., Hashim R. and Ali F.H., (2008). Strength and permeability of stabilized

peat soil. J.Appl. Sci., Vol 8(No 17). pp. 1-5.

Wong, L.S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F.H., (2009). A review on hydraulic conductivity

and compressibility of peat. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9: 3207-3218.

Wust, R. A.J, Bustin, R. M., and Lavkulich, L. M. (2002). New classification

systems for tropical organic- rich deposits based on studies of the Tasek Bera

Basin, Malaysia. www.elsevier.com/locate/catena. pp. 133- 163.

Wösten, J.H.M, Ismail, A.B., and van Wijk, A.L.M. (1997). Peat subsidence and its

practical implications: a case study in Malaysia. Geoderma, Science Direct.

Volume 78, Issues 1–2, July 1997, Pages 25–36.

Yamaguchi, H., Ohira, Y., Kogure, K. and MORI, S. (1985). Deformation and

strength properties of peat, Proc.11th. ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 4, pp.

2461–2464.

Yusoff, S. A. N. M., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., Zainorabidin, A., Madun, A.

(2015). Comparison of geotechnical properties of laterite, kaolin and peat.

Applied mechanics and material 773, 1438-1442.

Yusoff, S. A. N. M. (2015). Soil Stabilization Using Lignin and Bio- Enzymes.

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. Master Thesis.

Zainorabidin, A. (2010). Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Peat With Macro

and Micro Structure Perspective. University East London. PhD Thesis.

Zainorabidin, A. and Bakar, I. (2003). Engineering properties of in-situ and modified

hemic peat soil in Western Johor. Proc. of 2nd International Conference on

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/catena.%20pp.%20133-%20163

143

Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology, Putra Jaya, Malaysia. pp.

173-182.

Zainorabidin,A. and Mansor, S.H., (2016). Investigation on the shear strength

characteristic at Malaysian peat. Asian Research Publishing Network (ARPN)

Journal of Engineering and Applied Science. Vol. 11 (No. 3).

Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2015). Pre- and post-cyclic behavior on

monotonic shear strength of Penor Peat. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering 2015. Volume 20, Bundle 15. 20.16. 6928.

Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2016a). Preliminary peat surveys in

ecoregion delineation of North Borneo: Engineering Perspective. Electronic

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 21, Bund. 12.

Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2016b). A geotechnical exploration of Sabah

peat soil : engineering classifications and field surveys. Electronic Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 21, Bund. 20.

Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H.M., (2017). Engineering properties of integrated

tropical peat soil in Malaysia. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering. Vol. 22, Bundle 02.

Zainorabidin, A. and Wijeyesekera, D. (2007). Geotechnical challenges with

Malaysian peat. Paper presented at The School of Computing and

Technology 2nd Annual Conference, London.

Zainorabidin, A., Wijeyesekera, D. C., and Mohd Masirin, M. I. (2007). Comparative

Study of British and Malaysian Peat Soils Pertaining to Geotechnical

Characterizatics.

Zainorabidin, A. and Zolkefle, S. N. A. (2014). Dynamic Behaviour of Western

Johore Peat, Malaysia. APCBEE Procedia.

Zhang, L. and O'Kelly, C.B. (2013). The Principle of Effective Stress and Triaxial

Compression Testing of Peat. In Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 167, Issue.

GE1. Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity

College Dublin, Ireland.

Zolkefle S. N. A. (2014). The Dynamic Characteristic of Southwest Johor Peat

under Different Frequencies. Degree of Master in Civil Engineering Thesis.

144

Zolkefle S. N. A., Zainorabidin, A. and Mohamad, H. M. (2015). The characteristics

of Pontian peat under dynamic loading. InCIEC 2014 International Civil and

Infrastructure Engineering Conference. pp 487-499.

EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR …eprints.uthm.edu.my/9927/1/Norhaliza_Wahab.pdf · EFFECT...

Documents

Transcript of EFFECT OF RECONSTITUTED METHOD ON SHEAR …eprints.uthm.edu.my/9927/1/Norhaliza_Wahab.pdf · EFFECT...