Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DECOMPOSITION LEVEL AND INDUCED
SOLIDIFICATION OF PEAT BASED ON LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
JUNITA BINTI ABD RAHMAN
A thesis submitted in
Fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of Master of Civil Engineering
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
JULY 2015
v
ABSTRACT
Over 60 % of Pontian district is covered by peat. Peat is considered as a poor quality
soil for construction due to the high moisture content and low bearing capacity.
Solidification of peat is important in this area before any construction work could
start thus, will increase the population rate in the district. The degree of
decomposition affects the porosity of peat while the porosity is affected by both
particle size and structure of the peat. The pores between the decomposed materials
in peat can be filled and bound using ordinary portland cement (OPC) and coal ash
(fly ash, FA and bottom ash, BA). Different decomposition levels of peat require
different amounts of filler and binder to achieve the optimum strength. The peats are
categorized as fabric for the less decomposed peat, hemic for the moderately
decomposed and sapric for the mostly decomposed peat. The Pontian peat has high
moisture content with fabric peat having 970 %, hemic peat, 417 % and sapric peat,
720 %. All peat was found acidic with pH 3-4.5 while the binders and filler are in
alkaline state. The physico-chemical and mechanical properties of peat were
identified according to British (BS 1377, 1990) and US (ASTM, 2000) standards.
Chemical tests were adopted from previous researchers to identify the chemical
properties. The mixtures of peat-binder-filler were subjected to the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) test, bender element (BE) test and the same chemical
tests as applied for the original sample. The mix ratios examined were of four types
being 100 % OPC, 50 % OPC 50 % BA, 50 % OPC 25 % BA 25 % FA and 25 %
OPC 50 % BA 25 % FA. Two water-binder ratios were used, i.e. 1 and 3. Curing
periods of 7, 14, 28 and 56 days were applied for all samples. The moisture content
of the peat was controlled at 300 % before mixing. The scanning electron microscope
(SEM) result shows that over time, the peat was filled with calcium silicate hydrate
(CSH) and calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) which were products of cement
hydration. The strength gain for fabric peat is 157 kPa, while hemic peat, 737 kPa
and sapric peat, 121 kPa. It is concluded that regardless the peat decomposition level,
the optimum for a peat-binder-filler mixture to get the significant strength, should
consist of i) 23 - 34 % of particles, being combination of peat fiber and BA with size
ranging from 2 mm to 0.15 mm, ii) OPC with equal amount of dry mass of the peat
and iii) 25 % of FA by the total mass of binder. This combination was found to be
effective for the peat-binder-filler mixture.
Keywords: Peat decomposition level, bottom ash, fly ash, OPC, solidification.
vi
ABSTRAK
Lebih 60 % daripada daerah Pontian adalah terdiri dari tanah gambut. Tanah gambut
lazimnya dikenali sebagai tanah yang tidak berkualiti bagi sebarang kerja-kerja
binaan disebabkan oleh kandungan lembapan yang sangat tinggi dan kapasiti galas
yang rendah. Pemejalan tanah gambut di kawasan ini adalah penting sebelum
sebarang kerja-kerja pembinaan boleh dimulakan dimana ia akan meningkatkan
tahap populasi di daerah ini. Tahap penguraian tanah gambut memberi kesan kepada
tahap keliangan tanah manakala tahap keliangan pula dipengaruhi oleh saiz zarah dan
struktur tanah gambut tersebut. Liang-liang diantara bahan yang telah terurai boleh
dipenuhi dan diikat menggunakan semen portland biasa (OPC) dan abu arang batu
(abu atas, FA dan abu bawah, BA). Tahap penguraian tanah gambut yang berbeza
memerlukan jumlah pengisi dan pengikat yang berbeza bagi mencapai kekuatan yang
optimum. Tanah gambut dikategorikan sebagai gambut fabrik bagi yang kurang
terurai, gambut hemik bagi separa terurai dan gambut saprik bagi yang paling terurai.
Tanah gambut Pontian mempunyai kadar kelembapan yang tinggi dengan gambut
fabrik 970 %, gambut hemic, 417 % dan gambut saprik, 720 %. Semua jenis gambut
didapati berasid dengan pH 3-4.5 sementara pengikat dan pengisi adalah dalam tahap
alkali. Sifat fizik-kimia dan mekanikal tanah gambut dikenalpasti berdasarkan
standard British (BS 1377, 1990) dan US (ASTM, 2000). Ujian kimia pula diadaptasi
dari kajian-kajian terdahulu bagi mengenalpasti sifat-sifat kimia bahan. Campuran
tanah gambut-pengikat-pengisi adalah tertakluk kepada ujian kekuatan mampatan tak
terkurung (UCS), ujian unsur terbengkok (BE) dan ujian kimia yang sama seperti
yang telah dilakukan keatas sampel asal. Terdapat empat nisbah campuran yang diuji
iaitu 100 % OPC, 50 % OPC 50 % BA, 50 % OPC 25 % BA 25 % FA dan 25 %
OPC 50 % BA 25 % FA. Dua jenis nisbah air-pengikat digunakan iaitu 1 dan 3.
Tempoh bertenang 7, 14, 28 dan 56 hari telah diaplikasi pada semua sampel.
Kandungan lembapan tanah gambut telah dikawal pada 300 % sebelum pencampuran
dibuat. Keputusan dari imbasan mikroskop elektron (SEM) menunjukkan dengan
bertambahnya masa, tanah gambut telah diisi dengan calcium silicate hydrate (CSH)
dan calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH), dimana ia adalah hasil dari proses
penghidratan simen. Kekuatan yang telah dicapai oleh gambut fabrik ialah 157 kPa,
gambaut hemik, 737 kPa dan gambut saprik, 121 kPa. Kesimpulannya, bagi sebarang
jenis tanah gambut, campuran optimum bagi sebatian gambut-pengikat-pengisi
mendapatkan kekuatan yang signifikan mestilah terdiri daripada, i) 23 - 34 %
partikel, kombinasi fiber dari tanah gambut dan abu bawah dengan saiz julat dari 2
mm ke 0.15 mm, ii) kuantiti OPC yang sama banyak dengan jisim tanah gambut
kering, dan iii) 25 % FA berasaskan jisim keseluruhan sebatian. Kombinasi
campuran ini didapati efektif bagi sebatian gambut-pengikat-pengisi.
Kata kunci: tahap penguraian tanah gambut, abu atas, abu bawah, OPC, pemejalan
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND
ABBREVIATION
xvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Background of study 2
1.3 Statement of the problem 4
1.4 Objectives 5
1.5 Scopes of the study 5
1.6 Significance of the study 5
1.7 Organization of the thesis 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Peat soil 7
2.2.1 Definition and review 7
2.2.2 Decomposition level of peat 9
2.3 Peat solidification 13
2.4 Selection of binder 13
2.4.1 Cement 14
viii
2.4.2 Fly ash 18
2.5 Filler 21
2.5.1 Bottom ash 21
2.6 Factors affecting solidification of peat 23
2.7 Relationship between different
decomposition level of peat and binder
25
2.8 Testing for solidified peat 29
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 34
3.1 Introduction 34
3.2 Flow of study 35
3.3 Test 36
3.3.1 Experimental Procedures 38
3.3.1.1 Physical Properties
Determination
38
3.3.1.2 Chemical Properties
Determination
42
3.3.1.3 Engineering properties 48
3.4 Field Sampling 52
3.4.1 Soil sample 52
3.4.2 Binders and filler 56
3.5 Mixing of treated samples 57
3.5.1 Peat 57
3.5.2 Binder and filler preparation 58
3.5.3 Mixing plan 59
3.6 Summary 62
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 63
4.1 Introduction 63
4.2 Preparing the peat for mixing -
controlling the moisture content
63
4.3 Identification of the physico-chemical
properties of raw materials
66
4.4 The effectiveness of solidification
concept
69
ix
4.4.1 Strength analysis of solidified peat 69
4.4.2 Solidified peat stiffness 75
4.4.3 Shear wave velocity of solidified
peat
78
4.5 Physico-chemical effect to solidified
peat
82
4.5.1 Neutralization concept 83
4.5.2 Microscopic image 87
4.5.3 Chemical composition pre and post
solidification
94
4.5.4 Effect of curing days 101
4.6 Establishment of the relationship
between decomposition level and the
induced solidification of peat
102
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
107
5.1 Introduction 107
5.2 Conclusions 107
5.3 Recommendations 109
REFERENCES 110
APPENDIX 126
VITA
x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
NO.
TITLE PAGE
1.1 Pontian district 1
1.2 Population at Johor in 20 years: 1991- 2
1.3 Examples of road and building affected by
settlement of peat at Pontian on 2013
3
2.1 Peat distributions in the world 8
2.2 Distribution of peat swamp in Malaysia 8
2.3 SEM images of peats 10
2.4 Profile morphology of drained organic soil 11
2.5 Typical XRD pattern of OPC 15
2.6 Simplified illustration of hydration of cement paste 18
2.7 Fly ash 21
2.8 Bottom ash application in US in 2007 22
2.9 Particle size distributions for filler 23
2.10 Unconfined compressive stress- vertical strain
relationships of the stabilized peat specimen
27
2.12 Graph showing stress-strain of four materials 29
2.13 The derivation of E0, Ep and E50 from UCS stress-
strain curve
30
2.14 Shear Wave Velocity Data at Sherman Island 31
2.15 Scanning electron micrographs of the (a) untreated
peat, and stabilized peat at (b) 7 (c) 14 and (d) 28
days of curing in water
31
2.16 Scanning electron micrographs of treated peat 32
2.17 XRD pattern of 5 samples over time 32
3.1 Cone penetration instrument 38
xi
3.2 Specific Gravity Test: Small Pycnometer method 39
3.3 FESEM instrument 41
3.4 Electronic inverted microscope 41
3.5 pH meter and samples 42
3.6 Completely burnt peat at 450oC 43
3.7 XRF instrument 44
3.8 The Perkin Elmer FTIR spectrometer 46
3.9 Thermogravimetric analysis equipment 47
3.10 Unconfined Compressive Strength test equipment
with sample
48
3.11 The pattern of stress-strain curve that indicate the
properties of UCS sample prepared
48
3.12 Vane used in this work 49
3.13 Spring used for laboratory vane shear test 49
3.14 Schematic diagram of laboratory vane shear 49
3.15 Laboratory vane shear 50
3.16 Bender element setup 51
3.17 Actual soft-sample 51
3.18 Villagers normally embank up to 2 m to avoid
subsidence after some years of housing construction
53
3.19 Road failures due to peat settlement at Pontian 53
3.20 Pontian site 54
3.21 Sample collection 55
3.22 Site layout - plan view 56
3.23 The fly ash is forwarded to ash pool while the land
is filled with bottom ash
57
3.24 Fibers that have been taken out from peat sample
before mixing process
58
3.25 Labelling of specimen 61
4.1 Specimen of fabric peat with 200 % OPC at
moisture content of 805 %
64
4.2 Projection of undrained shear stress versus
percentage of OPC
64
xii
4.3 Peat was dried at 100oC 65
4.4 Dried peat unable to re-absorb water 65
4.5 Peat dried at room temperature 65
4.6 Moisture content versus time taken for controlling
the water content of peat using air drying technique
65
4.7 Particle size distributions of peat, binders and filler 67
4.8 qu versus curing days 69
4.9 Unconfined compressive strength versus water to
binder ratio
72
4.10 Unconfined compressive stress–vertical strain
relationships of the stabilized peat specimens
74
4.11 Young’s modulus (E) - unconfined compressive
strength
75
4.12 Modulus strain versus qu 77
4.13 Modulus strain versus qu (Hoo, 2013) 77
4.14 Stress-strain curves for optimum mixture of
solidified fabric peat and solidified clay at D28
77
4.15 Shear wave velocity and unconfined compressive
strength, qu versus curing days
78
4.16 Shear wave velocity, vs versus curing days 78
4.17 Particle size distributions of peat and clay 79
4.18 The poor signal received by the H(1)50OPC_50FA
with the specimen size of 38 x 76 mm
80
4.19 The good signal received by the H(1)50OPC_50FA
with modified method
80
4.20 qu versus Vs 81
4.21 Process flowchart of peat solidification 82
4.22 pH versus curing days 84
4.23 pH of peat and solidified peat 85
4.24 Vane shear of peat with OPC at D3 86
4.25 SEM of peat-OPC mixture (magnification 2000x,
2 kV)
86
4.26 Particles and its sizes in the peat-binder-filler 87
xiii
mixture
4.27 H(1)50OPC_25BA_25FA 90
4.28 H(1)_100OPC 90
4.29 Illustration of binding of OPC with organic matter
in peat
91
4.30 SEM photos of 10 % OPC at different curing time
(Horpibulsuk, 2012)
91
4.31 Bleeding phenomenon due to thyxothropic effect of
S(3)_50OPC_50BA at D56
93
4.32 Average penetration for mixture of peat and BA 93
4.33 Mass percentage versus time and heating
temperature
96
4.34 TGA on Pontian peat 97
4.35 TGA on solidified peat 98
4.36 FTIR reading for peat 99
4.37 FTIR reading for solidified peat (optimum
formulation)
100
4.38 Moisture content versus curing days 101
4.39 Illustration of fine particles filling porous spaces in
BA and peat
102
4.40 Undrained sheer strength versus percentage of
binder/ filler in a mixture
104
4.41 FESEM images for peat-binders at D3 104
4.42 Flowchart of peat solidification 106
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NO.
TITLE PAGE
2.1 General definitions of peat 7
2.2 USDA classification of peat 9
2.3 Degree of Humification of Peat 10
2.4 Physical and chemical properties of peat 12
2.5 Prices comparison of binders and fillers in Malaysia
as year 2010
14
2.6 Main chemical compounds of Portland cement 16
2.7 Hydration reaction of OPC 17
2.8 Typical chemical compounds of Class C and Class F 20
2.9 Influencing parameters to classify fly ash 20
2.10 Comparison of binder and strength gained 28
3.1 List of test description 36
3.2 Common functional groups on FTIR spectra of peat 46
3.3 Height of BE sample for specific UC strength, qu 51
3.4 Peat profile at Pontian site 55
3.5 Mixing portion for peat-binder- filler admixture 60
3.6 Calculation of mixture in peat-binder-filler admixture 61
3.7 Summary of testing 62
4.1 Physico-chemical and engineering properties of peat 66
4.2 Physico-chemical properties of binders and fillers 67
4.3 Deformation and failure patterns 74
4.4 Microscopic images of peat under low magnification 86
4.5 Microscopic images of peat under high magnification 87
4.6 Summary of patterns in solidified peat 87
xv
4.7 SEM images and qu of solidified peat at D28 with
different mixing portion and techniques
90
4.8 XRF analysis on peat, binder and filler 92
4.9 XRF analysis on 3 main oxides in mixture of
solidified peat with different mixing proportion
93
4.10 Explanation of optimum mixture 103
4.11 Calculation of solid content in an optimized mixture
based on 100 g of dry peat
103
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATION
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
Al2O3 aluminium oxide
ASTM American Society for testing and Materials International
Standard
BA Bottom ash
BE Bender Element
BS Bristish Standard
C Cement
C2S Dicalcium silicate
C2SHx, C3S2Hx Hydrated calcium silicates
C3A Tricalcium aluminate
C3S Tricalcium silicate
C4AF Tetracalcium aliminofferrite
CaO calcium oxide
CH calcium hydroxide
CILAS Particle Size Analyzer
CSH calcium silicate hydrate
Cl Chlorine
Cu Undrained shear strength
Cv Coefficient of consolidation
D Diameter
e Void ratio
Eo Initial Tangent Modulus
Ep secant modulus at peak stress
E50 50 % of peak stress
EC Electrical conductivity
xvii
e.g. For example
EDS Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy
ET ettringite
et al and other people
etc and others
F Fibric peat
FA Fly ash
Fe2O3 feric oxide
FESEM Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
g Gram
Gmax maximum shear modulus
Gs Specific gravity
GWT Ground water table
H Hemic peat
i.e. In other words
i.e. that is
kg Kilogram
kN Kilo Newton
kPa Kilo Pascal
L Length
LL Liquid limit
LOI Loss on ignition
MARDI Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute
Mg Mega gram (1000 kg)
mm Milimeter
MSCS Malaysian Soil Classification System
N Ignition loss
oC degree celcius
OC Organic content
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
qu Unconfined compressive strength
RECESS Research Centre for Soft Soils
S Sapric peat
xviii
SEM Scanning electron microscopy
SiO2 silica dioxide
SO3 sulfur dioxide
TGA Thermogravimetric Analysis
UCS Unconfined compressive strength
USCS unified soil classification systems
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
UTHM Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
vs shear wave velocity
vp compression wave velocity
W (%) percent moisture content
w Water content
w/c Water-cement ratio
wn Natural water content
WS Weight of dry soil
XRF X – Ray fluorescence
ZnO zinc oxide
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Over 60 % of Pontian district is covered with peat as shown in Figure 1.1. Figure
1.2 shows that Pontian has least population compared with other towns in Johor. It
reflects that peat area is not a preferred inhabitants place due to limitation of the road
network and infrastructure. Engineers are reluctant to construct on peat due to
challenging accessibility to the sites and other problems related to the unique
characteristics of peat. Report from National Audit Department (2011) stated that
most projects that have been delayed and reconstructed were due to peat settlement.
Hence, it is important to have peat treatment in this area to catalyze the population
rate and to avoid unbalanced district population over time i,e, some cities to be more
congested compared to the others.
Figure 1.1 Pontian district (Jabatan Pertanian Pontian, 2012)
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the type of peat soil, binder and filler with its properties.
The correlation between all these substances is critically discussed here.
2.2 Peat soil
2.2.1 Definition and review
Peat is generally referred as cumulative of decomposed plant material but it actually
has various definitions, depending on the scope of usage. The standard definitions
are as given in Table 2.1:
Table 2.1 General definitions of peat
Purpose of
application Definition Reference
Geotechnical
engineering
Peat = Organic content > 75 %
Organic soils, clay or sand = organic content <
75 %
*ASTM
D4427 – 92
Agriculture Peat = Organic content > 20 %.
**USDA (Soil
Taxonomy)
Soil science Peat = Organic content > 35 %
**USDA (Soil
Taxonomy)
*USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
8
Based on the global chart of total peat deposit around the world, Malaysia is
the 9th
country with the highest total area of peat soil (Figure 2.1). The total area of
peat soil in Malaysia is about 2.6 million hectares (26,000 km2), of which 13 % are in
Malaysian Peninsular, over 80 % in Sarawak and about 5 % in Sabah as shown in
Figure 2.2 (Leete, 2006).
Figure 2.1 Peat distributions in the world (source: http://www.wetlands.org)
Figure 2.2 Distribution of peat swamp in Malaysia (Leete, 2006)
Technically, any material that contains carbon is called 'organic'. An organic
soil is one that contains a significant amount of organic material recently derived
from plant remains. The term peat refers to highly organic soils derived primarily
from plant remains. It normally has a dark brown to black colour, a spongy
consistency, and an organic odor. Plant fibers are sometimes visible but in the
9
advanced stages of decomposition, they may not be evident. Peat is an organic soil
with organic content of more than 75 % as defined by ASTM D4427 (Table 2.1).
2.2.2 Decomposition level of peat
There are several types of peat classification system for example, United
State Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Table 2.2) and Van Post scale (Table
2.3). Both systems are comparable as depicted in Table 2.2. According to Van Post
scale, peat classification is determined based on the appearance of soil water that is
extruded when the soil is squeezed by hand. Degree of decomposition (humification)
is expressed in terms of a ten-class scale on which higher numbers indicate stronger
peat decomposition. The peat classification according to the USDA classification
system will be used throughout this thesis.
Table 2.2 USDA classification of peat
Type of peat Fiber content Von Post Scale
Fibric peat Over 66 % H4 or less
Hemic peat 33 - 66 % H5- H6
Sapric peat Less than 33 % H7 and above
The degree of decomposition varies between peat mosses since some plants
or some parts of the plants are more resistant than others. Also, the degree of
decomposition of peat depends on combination of conditions, such as the chemistry
of the water supply, the temperature of the region, aeration and the biochemical
stability of the peatforming plant (Huat et al., 2011). These variations make peat
possesses wider range of physical properties such as colour, texture, density, specific
gravity and water content.
Boelter (1968) reported that the physical properties of peat are highly affected
by the porosity and the distribution of the pore size. Both parameters are related to
grain size distribution. 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
increase in the decomposition, the particle size of organic matters decreases (Boelter,
1968). Qualititatively, Scanning Electron Micrograph (SEM) is commonly used to
10
observe this physical variation of peat. The arrangement of particles seen to be
relatively loose in fibrous peat compared to the more decomposed peat, for example,
sapric as seen in Figure 2.3. The morphology, structure of peat is shown in Figure
2.4. The remnants of logs and woody plant can be seen clearly in fibrous peat but
almost absent in sapric peat.
Table 2.3 Degree of Humification of Peat (Von Post and Granlund 1926)
Degree of
humification
Description
H1 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 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. 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 fairly uniform paste.
H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure. When
squeezed, all the wet peat escapes between the fingers.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.3 SEM images of peats: (a) fibrous, (b) sapric and (c) hemic (Huat et al.,
2011)
11
Figure 2.4 Profile morphology of drained organic soil (Mutalib et al., 1992)
According to Hartford (1993), bulk density of organic soils or peat tends to
increase with decomposition. Slightly decomposed organic soils (fibric peat) have
larger pore spaces and higher rates of saturated water movement compared to well-
decomposed sapric peat which may have hydraulic conductivity rates lower than clay
soils (Robert, 1996).
Among three types of peat, namely: fibric, hemic and sapric, fibric or fibrous
peat generally has very high natural water content due to its natural water-holding
capacity. Soil fabric, characterized by organic coarse particles, holds a considerable
amount of water because the course particles are generally very loose, and the organic
particle itself is hollow and largely full of water. Previous researches have indicated that
high water content of fibrous peat results in high buoyancy and high pore volume
leading to low bulk density and low bearing capacity (Huat, 2004; Islam, 2009).
Table 2.4 lists the physical and chemical properties of peat. The comparison
shows that the same type of peat may have a variety of natural water content, bulk
density, specific gravity and acidity. Thus, the mentioned parameters cannot be used in
determining the peat decomposition level. The higher moisture content of peat, normally
reflect the ability of the fiber to retain water. Peat generally is acidic but, the level of
acidity is influenced by the climate, the microbial activity in that specific location and
type of plants that involved in peat accumulation. According to Mal and Maksimenok
(1974), the formation of humic acid in peat is depending on the type of plant and
temperature. Higher temperature increases the rate of formation of humic acid. The
deeper the peat layer, the less temperature recorded thus resulting to humic acid
production is stop or minimum. This causes the quantity of humic acid remain as the
decomposing process continue.
12
Table 2.4 Physical and chemical properties of peat
Peat type Natural water
Content
(w,%)
Bulk
density
(Mg/m3)
Specific
gravity
(Gs )
Acidity
(pH)
Reference
Fabric 1168 - 1.44 5.3 O’Kelly and Pichan
(2013)
Peat 500 - 800 1.03 - - H. Hayashi et al.
(2012)
Fabric 598.5 1.21 3.75 Kolay et al.(2011)
Fibric 605-1290 0.87-1.04 1.41-1.7 - Moayedi et al.
(2011)
Fibric 850 0.95-1.03 1.1-1.8 - Asadi et al., (2009,
2010)
Fabric 700-850 1.59 1.343 4.6 Deboucha and
Hashim (2009)
Fabric 668 - 1.4 3.51 Wong et al. (2008)
Fabric 510-850 - 1.53-1.65 - Mesri and Ajlouni
(2007) 1000-1340 1.5-1.64
Hemic 230-500 - 1.48-1.80 - Zainorabidin
and Ismail (2003)
Fabric and hemic 1090-1210 - - - Jelisic and
Leppänen (2000)
Fibric (Middleton) 510-850 0.99-1.1 1.47-1.64 4.2 Ajlouni (2000)
Fibric (James Bay) 1000-1340 0.85-1.02 1.37-1.55 5.3
Peat (Netherlands) 669 0.97 1.52 - Termatt and
Topolnicki (1994)
Fibric 700-800 ~1.00 - - Hansbo (1991)
Peat 630-1200 - 1.58-1.71 - Nakayama et al.
(1990)
Peat 400-1100 0.99-1.1 1.47 4.2 Yamaguchi 1990
Peat 419 1 1.61 - Jones et al. (1986)
Peat 125-375 0 1.55-1.63 5-7 Yamaguchi et al.
(1985)
Fibric 660-1590 - 1.53-1.68 - Lefebvre et al.
(1984)
Peat portage 600 0.96 1.72 7.3 Edil and Mochtar
(1984) Peat waupaca 460 0.96 1.68 6.2
Fibric peat
(Middleton)
510 0.91 1.41 7
Fibric peat
(Noblesville)
173-757 0.84 1.56 6.4
Coarse Fibric 202-1159 1.05 1.5 4.17 Berry (1983)
Fine Fibric 660 1.05 1.58 6.9 NG and Eischen
(1983) Fine Fibric 418 1.05 1.73 6.9
Hemic granular 336 1.05 1.72 7.3
Fibric sedge 350 - - 4.3 Levesque et al.
(1980) Fibric sphagnum 778 - - 3.3
Fibric peat 660-890 0.94-1.15 - - Olson and Mesri
(1970) Hemic peat 200-875 1.04-1.23 - -
Hemic to Fibric 850 - 1.5 - Keene and
Zawodniak (1968)
Hemic and Fibric
355-425 - 1.73 6.7 Adams (1965)
500-1500 0.88-1.22 1.5-1.6 - Lea and Browner
(1963)
13
2.3 Peat solidification
Soft soil stabilization or solidification is a term that refers to treatment of peat
where the soil is expected to be strengthened for construction above ground. The
challenge in the peat stabilization is on finding the best binder, filler and ratio for the
admixture. Several studies on binder and filler for soft soil stabilization have been
done for centuries, which include the use of recycle waste product, rice husk and
many more. This study is limited to cement and fly ash as binders while bottom ash
as filler.
Peat stabilization depends upon the water content; physical, chemical and
mineralogical properties; nature and amount of organic content and pH of pore water.
Tremblay et al., (2002) reported that the properties of treated organic soils by binder
and filler depend not only on the content of the organic matter but also on the nature
or the type of the organic matter. The strength gained will also depend upon the
decomposition of the organic compound to organic acid due to biological activity.
The engineering behaviour of fine-grained soil is mostly influenced by their specific
surface area (Santamarina et al., 2002). Kazemian (2011) reported the specific
surface area of sapric, hemic and fibrous peat is 93, 69 and 50 m2/g, respectively. As
the specific surface of peat increases, a greater surface area is available (sapric peat)
for reaction when considered on a unit mass or volume basis. Hence, higher shear
strength is obtained when compared with the other two peats, fabric and hemic
(Kazemian,2011).
2.4 Selection of binder
Referring to Oxford Dictionary (Soanes, 2008), binder is defined as a substance that
used to make other substances or materials stick or mix together. In civil engineering,
binder is described as a material which has properties of holding solid particles
together to constitute a coherent mass.
Binders may be hydraulic or non-hydraulic. A hydraulic binder is self curing
when in contact with water, while a non-hydraulic binder requires a catalyst to
initiate curing. A hydraulic binder will stabilize almost any soil. The mechanical
mixing of the binder into the soil must be precise to avoid heterogeneous condition.
Non-hydraulic binders generally react with clay minerals in the soil, which result in
14
stabilized material with improved geotechnical properties. Cement is a hydraulic
binder. Interaction of the binder with the soft soil leads to a material which has better
engineering properties than the original soil (Hebib and Farrell, 2003).
The cost of the raw materials for binders and filler in this study, would form a
significant influence in modeling the construction material. Table 2.5 shows the
price of the most common binders and fillers used in peat treatment. Based on
financial comparison , OPC, fly ash and bottom ash are still the competitive materials
to be used in solidification of peat.
Table 2.5 Prices comparison of binders and fillers in Malaysia as at year 2010
(Kalantari, 2010)
Material Price (RM/m
3)
OPC* 23.00
Fly ash - class C 15.20
Fly ash - class F* 0.00
Blast furnace slag 22.70
Sand 6.10
Bottom ash* 0.00
Sodium bentonite 130.40
Steel fiber 56.70
* materials use in this study
2.4.1 Cement
It is generally recognized that peat can be solidified by Ordinary Portland Cement
(OPC) (Consoli et al., 2002, Tremblay et al., 2002, Rotta et al., 2003, Rao and
Shivananda, 2005 and Ahnberg, 2006). The finer the grain size of cement, the more
reactive it will be (Sha'abani and Kalantari, 2012).
Figure 2.5 shows the XRD analysis of OPC that indicate the presence of
calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), calcium hydroxide (CH) and ettringite (ET) which
are the major reaction products that influence the stabilized soil (Nontananandh et
al., 2005). XRF result indicates that OPC contains calcium, silica and aluminium
compounds which will transform to hardened solid mass when it interact with water,
over time.
15
Figure 2.5 Typical XRD pattern of OPC (Tsakiridis et al., 2008)
Bergado et al., (1996) noted that there are two major chemical reactions in
cement stabilization namely primary hydration reaction of cement and water, and
secondary pozzolanic reaction between cement and soil minerals. The hydration
reaction leads to initial gain in strength as the cementation product is formed due to
drying up of water. Moreover, pozzolanic reaction, which is also understood as
solidification, will harden the soil skeleton with increase in strength over time.
When tricalcium silicate (C3S) and dicalcium silicate (C2S) are mixed with
water or original water in the soil, calcium ions are quickly released into the solution.
The formation of hydroxide ions and the production of OH- ions direct to the
formation of CSH gel with a corresponding increase in strength. The increase in
strength is governed by the ratio of C3S to C2S. On the other hand, when Ca(OH)2 is
produced by cement hydration, the constituent becomes active and reacts
spontaneously with its own lime content (Janz and Johansson, 2002, Huat et al., 2011
and Kazimeien et al., 2011). The calcium hydroxide that forms from this reaction
will be absorbed into the soil particles. Ion exchange will take place and the soil will
be modified into somewhat drier and coarser structure due to the slaking process and
flocculation of the soil particle that take place (Saitoh et al., 1985). The slaking
process occurs when calcium oxide is mixed with water. The main chemical
compounds in portland cement are described in detail in Table 2.6.
16
Table 2.6 Main chemical compounds of Portland cement (Jackson, 1996)
The calcium hydroxide is not consumed during the hardening process and is
free to react with any minerals present in the soil or even filler. The reaction which
takes place in soil-cement stabilizations is presented in equation 2.1 to equation 2.4.
CS + HO CSH (Hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2 (2.1)
(Primary cementitious product)
Ca(OH)2 Ca2+
+ 2(OH)- (2.2)
Ca2+
+ 2(OH)- + SiO2 (Soil silica) CSH (2.3)
(Secondary cementitious product)
Ca2+
+ 2(OH)- + Al2O3 (Soil alumina) CAH (2.4)
(Secondary cementitious product)
Name of
compound
Chemical
composition
Usual
abbreviation Descriptions
Tricalcium
silicate 3CaO.SiO2 C2S
Hydrates and hardens rapidly and is largely
responsible for initial set and early strength.
Portland cement with higher percentage of
C2S will exhibit higher early strength.
Dicalcium
silicate 2CaO.SiO2 C2S
Hydrates and hardens slowly and is largely
responsible for strength increases beyond one
week.
Tricalcium
aluminate 3CaO.Al2O3 C3A
Hydrates and hardens the quickest. Liberates a
large amount of heat almost immediately and
contributes somewhat to early strength.
Gypsum is added to portland cement to retard
C3A hydration. Without gypsum, C2A
hydration would cause portland cement to set
almost immediately after adding water.
Tetracalcium
aliminoferrite
4CaO.Al2O3
Fe2O3 C4AF
Hydrates rapidly but contributes very little to
strength. Its use allows lower kiln
temperatures in portland cement
manufacturing. Most portland cement colour
effects are due to C4AF.
17
The cement hydration and pozzolanic reaction can last for months, or even
years, after mixing. Thus, the strength of cement-treated soil tends to increase with
time as long as the reactions still occur. The hydration of portland cement is rather
more complex than that of the individual constituent minerals. A simplified
illustration of the development of hydrate structure in cement paste is given in
Figure 2.6 and the detail of hydration reaction is presented in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7 Hydration reaction of OPC (Xiao and Li, 2009)
Hydration
stage
Kinetics of hydration Main chemical
phenomena
Chemical reaction
I. Dissolution Ion dissolution dominating Initial rapid
chemical reaction of
C3A
C3A + 3(CSH2) + 26H
C6AS3H32
II. Dynamic
balance
A competition process of the
dissolution precipitation
CH nucleation Ca2+
+ OH- Ca(OH)2
III. Setting The formation of hydration
product C-S-H dominating
Chemical reaction
control of C3S
C3S + 11H C3S2H8 +
3CH
IV.
Hardening
Continuous formation of
hydration products, large
increase in the volume of
solids
C3S hydration;
phase transferfrom
AFt to AFm
C3S + 11H C3S2H8 + 3CH
2C2S + 9H C3S2H8 + CH
C6AS3H32 C4ASH12 +
2CaSO4
C6AS3H32 + 2C3A + 4H
3C4ASH12
V. Hardening
deceleration
Chemical reaction slows
down, diffusion control
The second reaction
of C3A; C3S and
other components
of hydration
C3A + 3(CSH2) + 26H
C6AS3H32
C3S + 11H C3S2H8 + 3CH
2C2S + 9H C3S2H8 + CH
Cement is also commonly used to optimised soil acidity, as well as to
improve the physical condition of the soil (Mohamed et al., 2002). The pozzolanic
reaction increases the pH of pore water due to dissolution of the hydrated lime. The
strong base dissolves both soil silica and alumina from soil minerals (Sposito, 2008).
Care must be taken to ensure homogeneous mixing, because cement, unlike lime,
does not diffuse into the surrounding soil mass (Kazimien et al., 2011).
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) is often use to determine the presence of
Ca(OH)2 in OPC or solidified soil. Ca(OH)2 content was determined based on the
weight loss between 450 and 580°C (El-Jazairi and Illston, 1977 and 1980, Wang et
al., 2004). The change of the cementitious products can be expressed by the change
of Ca(OH)2 since they are the hydration products, i.e the ettringite (Horpibulsuk,
2012).
18
Figure 2.6 Simplified illustration of hydration of cement paste (Newman, 2003)
2.4.2 Fly Ash
Pozzolan is a material that contains siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material
which, in itself, possesses little or no cementitious value. With the presence of water,
pozzolan will react chemically with calcium hydroxide at room temperature to form
compounds possessing cementitious properties (Mehta, 1987). Small amount of
secondary pozzolanic materials is added to the admixture to promote secondary
pozzolanic reactions. This is the reason of the long term strength gain of the
cemented soil. In this study, fly ash (Figure 2.7) was used as the secondary
pozzolanic material. Although research has been carried out for peat soil stabilization
by using admixtures like cement, lime and fly ash; but very few literature is available
on fly ash utilization, particularly on its use as a stabilization material (Kolay et al.,
2011)
19
Fly ash is a by-product from the burning of coal in thermal power stations. It
is the non-combustible portion of coal that is collected at the combustion chamber.
The particles themselves are spherical and smooth with the size ranging from
0.5 µm to 300 µm which is finer than cement particles. Fly ash is one of the
component in cement that have the characteristics to reduces permeability, greater
corrosion resistance, substantially higher fire resistance (up to 2400° F), high
compressive and tensile strengths, a rapid strength gain, and lower shrinkage. This
translates to higher durability of cement.
There are two types of fly ash which are Class C and Class F. Class C fly ash
exhibits considerable true cohesive strength due to cementitious reactions. Due to
this property, self-cementing ash could define as a very economical stabilization
agent, for a wide range of application. When exposure to water, Class C fly ash
reacts with water immediately and hydrates forming cementitious products that are
similar to those produced during the hydration of Portland cement. Type C fly ash
exhibits self hardening when mixed with water due to its higher calcium content
(Collins, 1988).
McLaren & DiGioia (1987) reported the shear strength of fly ash. Class F fly
ash is a frictional material, its shear strength is mainly derived from friction between
particles. According to the ASTM C618, the classification of the fly ash is based on
the specified major element oxide content (Mattigod et al., 1990). Class F fly ash
must contain at least 70 % sum of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 and it normally produced
by Bituminous or Anthracite Coal which has low CaO. For the Class C fly ash, sum
of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 is less than 70 % but more than 50 % and commonly
generated from the combustion of Lignite or Sub-bituminous coal with a high CaO.
Hydration properties of a fly ash depend on some factors including the coals
source, boiler design, and type of ash collection system. The coal source controls the
amount and type of inorganic matter present in the coal, thus dominating the
chemical composition of the ash. Bituminous coals and some lignite coals have low
calcium contents. The ash (Class F fly ash,) which is produced from bituminous
coals and some lignite coals contain rarely amount of calcium.
Class F ash does not show self-cementing characteristic. But, the presence of
lime from OPC can cause a pozzolanic reaction which produces cementitious
products ( Kevan, 1993). The chemical composition of fly ash is dependent on both
the mineral composition of coal and boiler operation conditions (Miller & Linak,
20
2002).The comparison between chemical composition of class C fly ash and class F
fly ash is shown in Table 2.8. The amount of calcium compounds are higher in Sub-
bituminous coals and the ashes produced through combustion of these coals typically
contain from 20 to 35 % calcium oxide, as determined by ASTM C - 311 (sampling
and testing fly Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland
Cement Concrete). Addition of fly ash in this study is to understand the secondary
pozzolanic effect and the correlation with the solidification of peat.
Table 2.8 Typical chemical compounds of Class C and Class F (Halstead, 1986)
Chemical Compound Class C Class F
SiO2 39.9 54.9
Al2O3 16.7 25.8
Fe2O3 5.8 6.9
CaO 24.3 8.7
MgO 4.6 1.8
SO3 3.3 0.6
Na2O & K2O 1.3 0.6
The most influencing factor that divide these two classes of fly ashes are their
amount of calcium, silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), and iron contents (Fe2O3) among
other factors. Some of the most influential parameters that divide the two types of fly
ashes are shown in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9 Influencing parameters to classify fly ash (Samsuri 1997)
Properties Fly ash class
F C
Sio2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3, min, % 70 50
SO3, max, % 5.0 5.0
Moisture content, max, % 3.0 3.0
Loss on ignition, max, % 6.0 6.0
Past researches show that addition of fly ash in cement, or lime when mixed
with mineral soils can improve the performance of the final product (Sukumar et al.
2008; Douglas 2004; Sobhan, and Mashnad 2002; Little 1999).
21
Figure 2.7 Fly ash
2.5 Filler
Fillers are used to increase the amount of solid particles in wet peat for the binder to
join. Practically, the filler produce insignificant chemical reactions in cement
hydrolysis due to the large size of the particles but it enhance the strength of the
cemented peat by increasing the contact surface areas for the cementation bonds to
form, thereby producing a stabilized soil structure. In addition, the filler reduces void
ratio of cemented peat by filling the spaces within the loose peat during the
cementation process. Economically, it is feasible to reduce the cost of peat
stabilization by including the filler into the cemented peat.
Peat normally requires big quantities of stabilizer or binder. This is because
peat contains fewer solid particles to stabilize. Since it is the solid particles that
provide structure, a greater quantity of binder need to be added. Moreover, peat has
considerably high water content, which is usually not less than 200%. The large
amount of water in the soil implies larger voids, requiring more binder. Filler is
introduced to lessen the amount of binder needed in filling the void in peat during
soil stabilization (Wong, 2008).
2.5.1 Bottom ash
Bottom ash is recommended as sands replacement as it has almost all of sand
properties but with relatively higher pozzolanic effect. According to the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), BA is classified as well graded sand (Marto et al.,
2010). Bottom ash is the secondary by-product from a coal burning power plant and
categorized as non-hazardous scheduled waste under the Scheduled Waste SW104
22
(Environmental Quality Act) (Rashid et al. 2010). The low density of bottom ash,
around 700 kg/m3 creates a lighter product. The usage of bottom ash is still an
ongoing study but a few industries found it is effective to use bottom ash in their
sector as reported in Figure 2.8.
The main components of the bottom ash are glass, magnetic metals, minerals,
synthetic ceramics, paramagnetic metals and unburned organic matter. The 4–25 mm
size fraction (Figure 2.9) accounts for approximately 50 % of the bottom ash weight
and comprises mainly of glass. 50 % of the glass fraction consists of synthetic
ceramics 26 % and minerals 8 %, and it is suitable as secondary building materials or
for glass recycling industry. Magnetic metals, 1–6 mm particle in size accumulate
6 % of this fraction (Chimenos,1999).
The main chemical element in bottom ash consists of SiO2, Al2O3, CaO and
Fe2O3, which are the essential pozzolanic oxide compounds with the total of 92.64 %.
Such an indication confirms the suitability of bottom ash as a natural pozzolan due to
the sum of the oxide compounds exceeds 70% as recommended by ASTM C 618
Standard (Billong et al., 2009).
Figure 2.8 Bottom ash application in US in 2007 (source: American Coal Ash
Association, ACAA)
Structural Fills
Embarkments
46.6%
Cement-Raw Feed
for Clinker
11.0%
Road Base
Subbase
Pavement
9.7%
Miscelaneous
Other
8.1%
Aggregate
7.7%
Concrete,
Concrete
Products, Grout
7.1%
Snow and Ice
Control
4.0%
Soil Modification
Stabilization
2.2%
Waste
Stabilization
Solidification
1.3%
Blast Grit, Roofing
Granules
1.0%
Mining
Applications
1.0%Mineral Filler in
Asphalt
0.2%
Agriculture
0.1%
Figure 2.9
2.6 Factors affecting solidification of
The study of soil and cement interaction normally
Clay as inorganic soils reacts with cement nicely and form ettringite as product of
hydration process. This ettringite is the reason why the solidified clay strong and
stiff. However, the solidification of peat is more challenging th
inherent variability and the tendency of humic acids to hinder the hydration
processes and related reactions required for the development of
solidification (Axelsson
Peat consists
macromolecules collectively known as humic substance, that contribute to odour,
taste, as well as acidity in
substances represent one of the most chemicall
their high surface area, and surface charge, and thus have a critical influence on the
chemical and physical properties of soils
low pH of peat in the presence of
if it is to be stabilized by ordinary Portland cement. This is possible due to the fact
that the acid tends to react with calcium liberated from cement hydrolysis to form
insoluble calcium humic acid making it difficult for calcium c
calcium crystallization
Islam, 2008; Chen and Wang,
9 Particle size distributions for filler (Chimenos, 1999)
ffecting solidification of peat
The study of soil and cement interaction normally use clay as the benchmark.
Clay as inorganic soils reacts with cement nicely and form ettringite as product of
hydration process. This ettringite is the reason why the solidified clay strong and
stiff. However, the solidification of peat is more challenging than clay, given their
inherent variability and the tendency of humic acids to hinder the hydration
processes and related reactions required for the development of
(Axelsson et al., 2002).
s of organic matter, some of which are complex aromatic
macromolecules collectively known as humic substance, that contribute to odour,
taste, as well as acidity in water supply (Fong and Mohamed,
substances represent one of the most chemically reactive fractions
their high surface area, and surface charge, and thus have a critical influence on the
d physical properties of soils (Santagata et al., 2008).
low pH of peat in the presence of humic acid tend to interrupt the hydration process,
if it is to be stabilized by ordinary Portland cement. This is possible due to the fact
that the acid tends to react with calcium liberated from cement hydrolysis to form
insoluble calcium humic acid making it difficult for calcium c
calcium crystallization product would strenghten the cemented
; Chen and Wang, 2005).
23
Particle size distributions for filler (Chimenos, 1999)
clay as the benchmark.
Clay as inorganic soils reacts with cement nicely and form ettringite as product of
hydration process. This ettringite is the reason why the solidified clay strong and
an clay, given their
inherent variability and the tendency of humic acids to hinder the hydration
processes and related reactions required for the development of strength following
some of which are complex aromatic
macromolecules collectively known as humic substance, that contribute to odour,
water supply (Fong and Mohamed, 2006). Humic
y reactive fractions of the peat due to
their high surface area, and surface charge, and thus have a critical influence on the
2008). Organic matter and
the hydration process,
if it is to be stabilized by ordinary Portland cement. This is possible due to the fact
that the acid tends to react with calcium liberated from cement hydrolysis to form
insoluble calcium humic acid making it difficult for calcium crystallization. The
ed soil (Hashim and
24
O'kelly and Pichan (2014) stated that addition of more FA produced a
progressively stronger alkaline blend which would inhibit growth of the
microorganisms and microbial activity. However, Mitchell and Santamarina (2005)
stated that microorganisms generally have very rapid rates of generation, mutation
and natural selection, which allows very fast adaptation and extraordinary
biodiversity to develop under ideal environments. This probability provides the
possibility that microorganism in the solidified peat is re-activated after sometime.
Thus, it secretes chemicals that digest organic matter into fragments (Hobbs, 1986;
Pankratov et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the microbial population and activity in peat
material have hardly been explored and are less understood.
Peat usually requires larger stabilizer quantities, because they contain few
solids to stabilize.Therefore, more stabilizers are required to bind the particles
together (Kalantari, 2010). The high water content in peat gives a higher water/total-
cementitious ratio and which in turn lower the strength. The quantity of binder for
soils with high organic content must exceed a certain threshold before any
stabilization is obtained. A possible reason for this threshold effect possibly due to
sufficient binder added to neutralize the humic acids (Janz and Johansson, 2002).
The quantity of natural fiber in peat gives a significant role in peat
solidification. Kalantari (2010) induced polypropylene fiber in hemic and sapric peat.
Hemic peat, as moderately decomposed consist of 33 - 66 % of fiber. The presence
of polypropylene fiber in hemic peat, improves its strength for about 600 %.
Dehghanbanadaki et al. (2013) use well graded sand, poorly graded gravel, coarse
poorly graded sand and fine poorly graded sand as filler to fibric peat. The strength
increased from 17 kPa to 178 kPa as the highest reading shown amongst the samples.
However, certain trend shown that too much of filler in solidified peat, reduced its
strength. The peat was found increasing it strength at dosage of filler 75 - 122 kg/m3
but started to decline at filler dosage of 125 - 150 kg/m3. It was somehow indicated
that maximum allowable quantity of filler should be added for peat solidification.
The behaviour of a soil-fiber composite is governed basically by the fiber
content, geometry, nature, and orientation related to the failure plane (Consoli et al.,
2011). Consoli et al. (2009) have shown that longer fibers provide anchorage, and
under low confining pressures, fiber slippage will occur. These studies have been
carried out in clay with artificial fiber which the size, shape and quantity were
controlled. The artificial fiber normally will not affect to microbial activity and the
108
REFERENCES
Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2013). Influence of Temperature on the Mass
Losses of Tropical Peat at Different Decomposition Level. Soft soil
Engineering International Confrence 2013. Sarawak.
Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2014). A preliminary study of the threshold limit
for cementation of peat at different decomposition levels. Zaytoonah University
International Engineering Conference on Design and Innovation in
Sustainability 2014 (ZEC Infrastructure 2014). Amman, Jordan.
Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2014). Effect of Additive to the Moisture Content
at Different Decomposition Level of Peat. Journal of Civil Engineering
Research 2014, 4(3A). 59-62.
Abdul Rahman, I. Memon, A. H., Nagapan, S. Bux, Q., Latif, A. I. and Abdul
Azis, A. A. (2012). Time and Cost Performance of Costruction Projects in
Southern and Cenrtal Regions of Penisular Malaysia. IEEE Colloquium on
Humanities, Science & Engineering Research (CHUSER 2012), Malaysia. 52-
57.
Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Zainorabidin, A. (2013). Overview of
the Sustainable Uses of Peat Soil in Malaysia with Some Relevant
Geotechnical Assessments. International Journal of Integrated Engineering,
4(3).
Ahnberg, H. (2006). Consolidation stress effects on the strength of stabilised
Swedish soils. Ground Improvement, 10(1): 1-13. Digital Object Identifier
(DOI): 10.1680/grim.2006.10.1.1.
Ahnberg, H. and Bengtsson, P.E. (2005) Shear wave velocity and shear strength
relation for binder-mixed soil – preliminary results from a laboratory study.
Vattenbyggaren, No. 4, pp. 46–51 (in Swedish).
Ahnberg, H. and Holmen, M. (2008). Assessment of stabilized soil strength with
geophysical methods. Ground Improvement. Volume 164 Issue GI3. 109-116.
Akol, A. K.(2012). Stabilization of peat soil using lime as a stabilizer. Project
dissertation .Civil Engineering Programme Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.
Alawode, O. and Idowu, O. I. (2011). Effects of Water-Cement Ratios on the
Compressive Strength and Workability of Concrete and Lateritic Concrete
109
Mixes. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology. Volume 12. Number
2. 99-105.
Ali, F., Wong, L. S. and Hashim, R. (2010). Engineering properties of improved
fibrous peat. Scientific Research and Essay Vol. 5 (2). 154-169.
Alwi, A. (2008). Ground improvement of Malaysian peat soils using stabilized peat
column techniques. PhD thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) (2000). Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Section four: Construction, vol. 04.08.
Andriesse, J.P. (1988). Nature and Management of Tropical Peat Soils. FAO Soils
Bulletin 59, Rome.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards. (2000). ASTM D 2974: Standard Test Method for
Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and other Organic Soils. USA:
Philadelphia.
Annual Books of ASTM Standards. (1994). ASTM C 618: Specification for Coal Fly
Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolanic for Use as A Mineral Admixture
in Portland Cement Concrete. USA: Philadelphia.
Annual Books of ASTM Standards. (1996). ASTM D 1997-91: Standard Test Method
for Laboratory Determination of the Fiber Content of Peat Samples by Dry
Mass. USA: Philadelphia.
ASTM D2976-71. Standard Test Method for pH of Peat Materials. American
Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken,PA. 317-318.
ASTM D4427-07. (2007). Standard Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory
Testing. D 4427-92. ASTM International. Retrieved on March 23, 2013 from
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D4427.htm.
Axelsson, K., Johansson, Sven-Erick. and Anderson, R. 2002. Stabilization of
organic soils by cement and pozzolanic reaction-feasability study. Swedish
Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Report 3, 1–51.
Barbosa, N. R. and Overstreet, C. (2010). What Is Soil Electrical Conductivity? LSU
AgCenter Pub. 3185. 1-4.
Barefield, E. and Shakoor, A. (2006). The effect of degree of saturation on the
unconfined compressive strength of selected sandstones. The Geological
Society of London. IAEG2006 Paper number 606.
110
Barrière, J., Oth, A., Schenkluhn, R., Krein, A.(2013). Joint Analysis of seismograms
and hydroacoustic data for bedload transport monitoring in a small lowland
river. International workshop of acoustic and seismic monitoring of bedload
and mass movements 2013, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL,
Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
Behzad, K and Huat, B.B. K. (2008). Peat soil stabilization using ordinary portland
cement, polypropelene, fibers and air curing technique. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 13, Bund. J.
Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N.& Balasubramaniam, A.S. (1996). Soft
Bergner K. and Albano C. (1993). Thermal analysis of peat. Analitical Chemistry.
204-208.
Billong, N., Melo, U.C., Louvet, F., Njopwouo, D. (2009). Properties of compressed
lateritic soil stabilized with a burnt clay-lime binder: effect of mixture
components. Construction and Building Materials 23, 2457–2460.
Blissett, R.S. and Rowson, N.A. (2012). A review of the multi-component
utilisation of coal fly ash. Fuel . Vol. 97.1–23.
Boelter, D.H. (1968). Important physical properties of peat materials. Proceedings of
the Third International Peat Congress. Quebec,Canada. 150-156.
Book, A. A. (1985). Standard Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory Testing
(D4427-84). ASTM, Section, 4, 883-884.
Boulanger, R. W., Arulnathan, R., Harder Jr., L. F., Torres, R. A. and Driller, M.
W. (1998). Dynamic properties of Sherman Island peat. Journal of Geotech.
Geoenvironment Engineering.124. 12-20.
British Standard Institution, 1986. BS 8004: 1986. Method of Test for Soils for Civil
Engineering Purposes.
British Standard Institution, 1990. BS 1377, 1-8: 1990. Method of Test for Soils for
Civil Engineering Purposes.
Brouwer, P. N. (2010). Theory of XRF, 3rd edition, The Netherlands, PANalytical
B.V.
Cancellieri, D., Leroy, C. V., Leoni, E., Simeoni, A., Kuzin, A. Y., Filkov, A. I. and
Rein, G. (2012). Kinetic investigation on the smouldering combustion of boreal
peat. Fuel. Vol. 93, 479–485.
Carey, F. and Giuliano R. (2001). Organic Chemistry, England, McGraw Hill, Sixth
edition.
111
Cement and Its Impact on Concrete Performance. (2012). Portland Cement
Association, USA.
Chan, C.M. (2006). A Laboratory Investigation of Shear Wave Velocity in Stabilized
Soft Soils. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering,
University of Sheffield.
Chan, C.M. (2009). NeuSOIL: Regenerating soft soils for engineering applications.
Engineering Seminar on Peat, Sibu, Sarawak.
Chan, C.M. (2012). On the intepretation of shear wave velocity from bender element
Chapman, S. J., Campbell, C. D., Fraser, A. R. and Puri, G. (2001). FTIR
spectroscopy of peat in and bordering Scots pine woodland: relationship with
chemical and biological properties. vol. 33. 1193–1200.
Chen, H. and Q. Wang, 2006. The behaviour of organic matter in the process of soft
soil stabilization using cement. B. Eng. Geo. Environ., 65(4): 445-448.Digital
Object Identifier (D OI): 10.1007/s10064-005-0030-1.
Chimenos, J. M., Segarra, M., Fernandez, M. A. and Espiell, F. (1999).
Characterization of the bottom ash in municipal solid waste incinerator.
Journal of Hazardous Materials A:64 1999 211–222.
Collins, R. (1988). A Comparison between Coal Ash and Incinerator Ash.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Municipal Solid Waste
Combustor Ash Utilization, Philadelphia. 99 - 108.
Consoli, N. C., Zortéa, F. de Souza, M. and Festugato, L. (2011). Studies on the
Dosage of Fiber-Reinforced Cemented Soils. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering © ASCE . 1624-1632.
Consoli, N.C., G.V. Rotta and P.D.M. Prietto (2002). Influence of curing under
stress on the triaxial response of cemented soils. Geotechnique, 52(5): 382-
384.
Cwalina, B. (2008). Biodeterioration of concrete. Architecture Civil Engineering
Environment. 133-140.
Deboucha, S. and Hashim, R. (2009). Durability and swelling of tropical stabilized
peat soils. Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (13). 2480-2484.
Den Haan, E. J. (1997). An overview of the mechanical behaviour of peats and
organic soils and some appropriate construction techniques. Conference on
Recent Advances in Soft Soil Engineering, 5-7 March, Sarawak, Malaysia. By
Ahnberg, H. and Holm, G. (2009). Influence of laboratory procedures on
112
properties of stabilized soil specimens. In International Symposium on Deep
Mixing and Admixture Stabilization, Okinawa 12-21 May.
Dehghanbanadaki, A., Ahmad, K. and Ali, N. (2013).Influence of natural fillers on
shear strength of cement treated peat. Gradevinar 65. 633-640.
Dobry, R. and Vucetic, M. (1987). State of the art report: Dynamic properties and
response of soft clay deposits. Proceeding, International Symposium on
Geotechnics Engineering of Soft Soils, Mexico City, Vol. 2. 51–87.
Douglas, P.R., 2004. Properties of self-consolidating concrete containing type F fly
ash. Thesis (MS). North western University. USA.
Dunlap, M. and Adaskaveg, J.E. (1997). Introduction to the Scanning Electron
Microscope, Theory, Practice, & Procedures, Facility for Advanced
Instrumentation, U. C. Davis.
El-Jazairi, B. & Illston, J.M. (1977). A Simultaneous Semi-Isothermal Method of
Thermogravimetry and Derivative Thermogravimetry, and Its Application to
Cement Plates. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.7, 247-258.
El-Jazairi, B. & Illston, J.M. (1980). The Hydration of Cement Plate Using the
SemiIsothermal Method of Thermogravimetry. Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol.10, 361-366.
Erol, M., Küçükbayrak, S. and Ersoy-Meriçboyu, A. (2008). Characterization of
sintered coal fly ashes. Fuel. Vol. 87. 1334–40.
EuroSoilStab. (2002). Development of design and construction methods to stabilize
soft organic soils (design guide soft soil stabilisation). European Comission,
Industrial and Material Technologies programme (Brite-EuRam III), Brussels.
Ferrari, L., Kaufmann, J., Winnefeld, F. and Plank, J. (2011). Multi-method approach
to study influence of superplasticizers on cement suspensions. Cement and
Concrete Research. 41(10). 1058-1070.
Francioso O., Ciavatta C., Montecchio D., Tugnoli V., Sanchez-Cortes S., Gessa
C.(2003). Quantitative Estimation of Peat, Brown Coal and Lignite Humic
Acids Using Chemical Parameters, 1H-NMR and DTA Analyses. Bioresource
Technology, N 88, 189-195.
Gofar, N. (2006). Determination of coefficient of rate of horizontal consolidation of
peat soil. Laporan Projek Penyelidikan Fundamental Vot 75210. Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
113
Gofar, N. and Sutejo, Y. (2007). Long term compression behaviour of fibrous peat.
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 19(2) :104-116.
Greaves, G. N., Greer,A. L., Lakes, R. S. and Rouxel, T. (2011). Poisson’s ratio and
modern materials. Nature Materials 10, 823–837.
Ground Improvement in LowLand and Other Environments. American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) Press. 235-238.
Halstead, W.J. (1986). Use of Fly Ash in Concrete. Washington: Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council.
Hamer, D.A. (2012), Stabilization of peat by infiltration of reactants, feasibility
study: infiltration of silica biopolymer suspension in peat, Msc. Thesis
University of Utrecht, Netherlands.
Harrison, A. M., Taylor, H. F. W., and Winter, N. B.(1985). Electron optical
analyses of the phases in a portland cement clinker, with some observations on
the calculation of quantitative phase composition. Cement Concrete
Research.15:775.
Hartford, R. A. (1993). Smoldering combustion limits in peat as influenced by
moisture, mineral content, and organic bulk density (Master's thesis,
University of Montana).
Hashim, R. and Islam S. (2008). A Model Study to Determine Engineering
Properties of Peat Soil and Effect on Strength after Stabilization. European J.
Scientific Res., 2, 205–215.
Hayashi, H., Yamazoe, N., Mitachi, T., Tanaka, H. and Nishimoto, S. (2012)
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest for normally and overconsolidated peat
ground in Hokkaido area. Soils and Foundations 52. The Japanese
Geotechnical Society. 299–311.
Hebib, S. and Farell, E. R. (2003). Some experiences on the stabilisation of Irish
peats: Can. Geotech. Journal. 40. 107-120.
Hingley, M. (1993). Microscopic Life in Sphagnum. Richmond Publishing, England.
Hiraide, A., Baba, K. and Azuma, H. (1996). Quality assessment of stabilized soil by
S-wave logging. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ground
Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo. AA Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
603–606.
114
Hoo, L.S. (2013). Solidification of Malaysian Dredged Soils: Strength
Characteristics. Bachelor Degree Thesis. Faculty of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Horpibulsuk, S. (2012). Strength and Microstructure of Cement Stabilized Clay,
Scanning Electron Microscopy. ISBN: 978-953-51-0092-8, InTech.
Horpibulsuk, S., Miura, N. and Nagaraj, T. S. (2005). Clay–Water/Cement Ratio
Identity for Cement Admixed Soft Clays. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engneering © ASCE. 187-192.
Horpibulsuk, S., Rachan, R., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Raksachon, Y. and Suddeepong,
A., (2010). Analysis of strength development in cement-stabilized silty clay
from microstructural considerations. Construction and Building Materials 24.
2011–2021.
Huat, B. B. K., Maail, S. and Mohamed, T. A. (2005). Effect of Chemical
Admixtures on the Engineering Properties of Tropical Peat Soils. American
Journal of Applied Sciences: Vol. 2 (7). 1113-1120.
Huat, B.B.K. (2004). Organic and peat soil engineering. Serdang, University Putra
Malaysia Press.
Huat, B.B.K., Kazemian, S., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011). State of an art
review of peat: General perspective. International Journal of the Physical
Sciences Vol. 6(8), 1988-1996.
Hunter, P.J., Petch, G.M. and Calvo-Bado, L.A. (2006). Differences in microbial
activity and microbial populations of peat associated with suppression of
damping-off disease caused by Pythium sylvaticum. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 72(10). 6452–6460.
Islam, M. S. and Hashim, R. (2010). Behaviour of stabilised peat: A field . study.
Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 5(17), 2366-2374.
Islam, M.D.I. and Hashim, R. (2008). Stabilization of Peat by Deep Mixing Method:
A critical Review of the state of Practice. Electronic J. of Geotechn. Eng., 13,
Bund H.
Ismail, N., Nonaka, T., Noda, S.and Mori, T. (1993). Effect of carbonation on
microbial corrosion of concretes. Journal of Construction Man. and
Engineering. 133-138.
J. Cohen, (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed.
115
Jackson, N. and Dhir, R.K. (1996). Civil Engineering Materials 5th edition.
McMillan Publisher.
Janz, M. and Johansson, S. (2002). The function of different binding agents in deep
stabilization. Report 9, Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Center,
Linköping, Sweden. 1-47.
Jolicoeur, C. and Simard, M. A. (1998). Chemical Admixture-Cement Interactions:
Phenomenology and Physico-chemical Concepts. Cement and Concrete
Composires. Vol. 20. 87-101.
Kahn, Z., Majid, A., Cascante, G., Hutchinson, D.J. and Pezeshkpour, P. (2006).
Characterization of a cemented sand with the pulsevelocity method. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 43(3): 294– 309.
Kalantari, B. (2010). Stabilization of tropical fibrous peat using ordinary portland
cement and additives. PHD thesis. Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Kalantari, B. and Prasad, A. (2011). Precast Peat Columns Stabilized with Cement
and Fibers to Reinforce Peat Deposits. 5th SASTech, Khavaran Higher-
education Institute, Mashhad, Iran. 1-16.
Kalantari, B. and Prasad, A. (2014). A study of the effect of various curing
techniques on the strength of stabilized peat. Transportation Geotechnics 1.
119–128.
Kazemian, S., Huat, B. B. K., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011a). A state of art
review of peat: Geotechnical engineering perspective. International Journal of
the Physical Sciences. Vol. 6(8). 1974-1981.
Kazemian, S., Huat, B.K., Prasad, A. and Barghchi, M. (2011b). Effect of peat media
on stabilization of peat by traditional binders, International Journal of the
Physical Sciences Vol. 6(3), pp 476-481.
Kevan, D.S. (1993). Fly Ash for Soil Improvement. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Kido, Y., Nishimoto, S., Hayashi, H. and Hashimoto, H. (2009). Effects of curing
temperatures on the strength of cement-treated peat. Proceedings of
International Symposium on Deep Mixing and Admixture Stabilization
(Kitazume M and Terashi M (eds)), Okinawa.
116
Kido, Y., Nishimoto, S., Hayashi, H. and Hashimoto, H. (2009). Effects of curing
temperatures on the strength of cement-treated peat. International Symposium
on Deep Mixing and Admixture Stabilization, OKINAWA 2009.
Kolay, P.K, Sii, H. Y. and Taib, S.N.L.(2011).Tropical Peat Soil Stabilization using
Class F Pond Ash from Coal Fired Power Plant International Journal of Civil
and Environmental Engineering 3:2. 79-83.
Kosmatka, S. and Farny, J. (1997). Concrete Technology Today. Illinois ,USA.
Portland Cement Association.
Krumins, J., Klavins, M., Seglins, V. and Kaup, E. (2012). Comparative Study of
Peat Composition FT-IR Spectroscopy. Material Science and Applied
Chemistry.106-114.
Laporan Ketua Audit Negara, Aktiviti Jabatan/Agensi Dan Pengurusan Syarikat
Kerajaan Negeri Johor Tahun 2011, Jabatan Audit Negara, Malaysia.
Larkin, P. J. (2011). IR and Raman: Principles and Spectral Interpretation.
Waltham, USA. Elsevier Inc.
Larsson, R., Holm, G., Ahnberg, H. and Bengtsson, P.E. (2005). Shear wave velocity
and shear strength relation for binder-mixed soil – preliminary results from a
laboratory study. No. 4. 46–51.
Lee, J. S. and Santamarina, J. C. (2005). Bender Elements: Performance and Signal
Interpretation. Journal of geotechnical and environmental engineering©
ASCE. 1063- 1070.
Leete, R. (2006). Malaysia’s Peat Swamp Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use.
United Nations Development Programme Malaysia. Ministry of Natural.
Resources and Environment, Malaysia.
Leong, E. C. and Eriktius, D. T. (2013). Improvement of peaty soils with municipal
solid waste fly ash. Environmental Geotechnics Volume 1 Issue EG4.200–209.
Leong, E.C., Yeo, S.H. and Rahardjo, H. (2005). Measuring shear wave velocity
using bender elements. Geotechnical Testing Journal 28(5). 488–498.
Little, D. N. (1999). Evaluation of structural properties of lime stabilized soils and
aggregates. Summary of findings, Volume I, National Lime Association,
USA.
Liu, G., Vassilev, S. V., Gao, L., Zheng, L. and Peng, Z. (2005). Mineral and
chemical composition and some trace element contents in coals and coal ashes
117
from Huaibei coal field, China . Energy Conversion and Management 46.
2001–2009.
Ma, X. J. and Hua, J. M. (2005). Peat and peatlands. Encyclopaedia of Life Support
System (EOLSS).
Maher, A., Douglass, W.S., Jafari, F. and Pecchioli, J. (2013). The Processing and
Beneficial Use of Fine-Grained Dredged Material: A Manual for Engineers.
RUTGERS. Centre of Advance Infrastructure and Transportation. New Jersey.
Mahlaba, J. S., Kearsley, E. P. and Kruger, R. A. (2011). Physical, chemical and
mineralogical characterisation of hydraulically disposed fine coal ash from
SASOL Synfuels. Fuel. Vol. 90. 2491–2500.
Mal, S.S. and Maksimenok,G.I. (1974). An investigation of changes in the chemical
composition of lowland peat in the process of self-heating. The formation of
organic acids. NASA Technical Report.
Maria Chrysochoou, A.M. (2013). Investigation of mineral dissolution rate and
strength development in stabilized soils using quantitative X-ray Diffraction.
ASCE. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.
Marto, A., Kassim, K. A., Makhtar, A.M., Wei, L.F. and Lim, Y.S.
(2010).Engineering Characteristics of Tanjung Bin Coal Ash. Engineering
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15. 1117-1129.
Mattigod, S.V., Rai, D., Eary, L.E. & Ainsworth, C.C. (1990). Geochemical Factors
Controlling the Mobilization of Inorganic Constituents from Fossil Fuel
Combustion Residues (I). Review of the Major Elements. Journal of
Environmental Quality, Vol.19:188.
Mattsson. H., Larsson, R., Holm, G., Dannewitz, N. and Eriksson, H. (2005). Down-
hole technique improves quality control on dry mix columns. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Deep Mixing, Stockholm. Swedish Deep
Stabilization Research Centre, Linko¨ping, Sweden, vol. 1.2. 581–592.
McLaren, R.J. & DiGioia, A.M. (1987). Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal:
The Typical Engineering Properties of Fly Ash. Geotechnical Special
Publication.
Mehta, P.K. (1987). Natural pozzolans: Supplementary cementing materials in
concrete. CANMET Special Publication 86. 1–33.
Melling, L. (1997). Adsorption of Cu & Zn in Tropical Peat Soil. MAgrSc Thesis,
University of Reading, UK.
118
Mesri, G. and Ajlouni, M. (2007). Engineering Properties of Fibrous Peats. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133:850-866.
Miller, C.A. & Linak, W.P. (2002). Primary Particles Generated by the Combustion
of Heavy Fuel Oil and Coal. Review of Research Results from EPA’s National
Risk Manage. EPA-600/R-02-093. 31-35.
Mitchell, J. K., and Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of soil behavior, 3rd
Ed., Wiley,
New York.
Moayedi, H., Nazir, R., Kazemian, S. and Huat, B. K. (2014). Microstructure
analysis of electrokinetically stabilized peat. Measurement 48. 187–194.
Mohamed, M., Padmanabhan, E., Mei, B. L. H. and Siong, W. B. (2002). The Peat
Soils of Sarawak. Strapeat- status report, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
Mott, P. H. and Roland, C. M. (2012). Limits to Poisson’s ratio in isotropic
materials – general result for arbitrary deformation. Naval Research
Laboratory, Washington DC. 1-15.
Mutalib, A. A., Lim, J. S., Wong, M. H. and Koonvai, L. (1992). Characterization,
distribution and utilization of peat in Malaysia. In Aminudin, B. Y., (ed.).
Proceeding of the International Symposium on Tropical Peatland, Serdang:
MARDI. 7-16. By Mohamed, M., Padmanabhan, E., Mei, B. L. H. and Siong,
W. B. (2002). The Peat Soils of Sarawak. Strapeat- status report, Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak.
Newman, J. and Ban S.C. (2003). Advanced concrete technology: Constituent
material. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd. 1/17 - 1/18.
Nontananandh, S., Thakon, Y., and Sanupong, B. (2005). Scanning electron
microscopic investigation of cement stabilized soil. In Proceeding of The 10th
National Convention on Civil Engineering. 23-26.
O’Kelly B.C. and Pichan S. P. (2014). Effect of decomposition on physical
properties of fibrous peat. Environmental Geotechnics. 22–32.
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 8(4). 286–296.
Pichan, S. P. and O’Kelly, B.C. (2013). Stimulated decomposition in peat for
engineering applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Ground Improvement 166(3). 168–176.
119
Porbaha, A., Ghaheri, F. and Puppala, A.J. (2005). Soil cement properties from
borehole geophysics correlated with laboratory tests. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Deep Mixing, Stockholm. Swedish Deep
Stabilization Research Centre, Linko¨ping, Sweden, vol. 1. 605–611.
Pravettoni, R. (2009).The natural fix the role of ecosystems in climate mitigation,
UNEP/GRID-Arendal.
Purmalis, O., Porsnovs, D. and Klavins, M. (2011). Differential Thermal Analysis
of Peat and Peat Humic Acids. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University
Material Science and Applied Chemistry. 89-94.
Rao, S.M. and P. Shivananda (2005). Compressibility behaviour of lime-stabilized
clay. Geotech. & Geology Engneering, 23(3). 309-319.
Rashid, Z. A., Alias, A. B., Aris, M. J., El-Harbawi, M., Rahman, N., & Som, A.
(2010). Hazardous waste management: current status and future strategies in
Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2(1). 139-158.
Reinert, E. T., Brandenberg, S. J. and Stewart, J. P. (2013). Measurements of
Translational and Rotational Dynamic Stiffness for a Model Levee on Peat.
10th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo,
Japan.
Robert, H. K. and Rober, L. K. (1996). Treatment wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, New York.
Rotta, G.V., Consoli,N. C., Prietto, P.D.M., Coop, M. R. and Graham, J. (2003).
Isotropic yielding in an artificially cemented soil cured under stress.
Geotechnique, 53(5). 493-501.
Saeed, K.A., Kassim, K. A. and Eisazadeh, A. (2012). Inferences of Cement based-
solidification/ stabilization and heavy metals: A review. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering. 2555-2565.
Saitoh, S., Suzuki, Y. and Shirai, K. (1985). Hardening of soil improvement by deep
mixing method. Electronic Journal of Geotech and Environment.
Samsuri., A. 1997. The application of palm oil fly ash in improving a petroleum well
cement characteristics. In: Proc. Regional symposium on chemical
engineering. 13–15 Oct. Johor Baru, Malaysia, Session B1-5, 332.
Santamarina, J.C., Klein, K. A., Wang, Y. H. and Prencke, E. (2002). Specific
surface area: determination and relevance, Canadian Geotech. Journal, 39:
233-241.
120
Sariosseiri, F., Muhunthan, B. (2009). Effect of cement treatment on geotechnical
properties of some Washington State soils. Engineering Geology 104, 119–
125.
Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1970). Soil Moduli and damping factors for dynamic
response analysis. Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley.
In Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Balkerna, Rotterdam. By
Sukhmander, S. (1992). Dynamic strength and stability of refuse landfills
during earthquakes. 1205- 1216.
Seng, S. and Tanaka, H. (2012). Properties of very soft clays: A study of thixotropic
hardening and behavior under low consolidation pressure. Soils and
Foundations Vol. 52(2). 335–345.
Sha'abani,M. and Kalantari, B. (2012). Mass Stabilization Technique for Peat Soil –
A Review , ARPN Journal of Science and Technology.
Sheng, C. and Li, Y. (2008). Experimental study of ash formation during pulverized
coal combustion in O 2 /CO 2 mixtures. Fuel. Vol. 87. 1297–1305.
Sinsiri, T., Jaturapitakkul, C. & Chindaprasirt, P. (2006). Influence of Fly Ash
Fineness on Calcium Hydroxide in Blended Cement Paste, Proceedings of
Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development Conference
(TISD2006), Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
Soanes, C.and Stevenson, A. (2008). Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Sobhan, K. and Mashnad, M. 2002. Tensile Strength and Toughness of Soil-Cement-
Fly-Ash Composit Reinforced with Recyled high-Density Polyethylene
Strips. J. Materials in Civil Eng., ASCE, 14 (2), 177-184.
Som P. Pichan, S.P. and O’Kelly, B. C. (2013). Effect of decomposition on physical
properties of fibrous peat. Environmental Geotechnics Volume 1 Issue EG1.
Sposito, G. (2008). The chemistry of soils. 2nd
Ed. Oxford university press Inc.
Stark, J. (2011). Recent advances in the field of cement hydration and microstructure
analysis. Cement and Concrete Research 41. 666–678.
Stuart, B. H. (2004). Infrared Spectroscopy: Fundamentals and Applications. John
Wiley & Sons. 224.
Stutzman, P. (2004). Scanning electron microscopy imaging of hydraulic cement
microstructure. Cement & Concrete Composites 26. 957–966.
121
Sukumar, B., Nagamani, K., and Raghavan, S.R. 2008. Evaluation of strength at
early ages of self-compacting concrete with high volume fly ash. Construction
and Building Materials. 22. 1394–1401.
Tan, V.C.K. (2009). Sustainable construction on soft soils in Sibu: A practical
perspective. Engineering Seminar on Peat, Sibu, Sarawak.
Tang, B. L., Bakar, I. and Chan, C. M. (2011). Reutilization of Organic and Peat
Soils by Deep Cement Mixing. International Journal of Environmental, Earth
Science and Engineering Vol:5 No:2.
Taylor, H. F. W. and Telford, T. (1997). Cement chemistry. 2nd edition. 459.
Terzaghi, K., R.B. Peck and G. Mesri (1996). Soil mechanics in engineering
practice. 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York. ISBN Number: 978-0-471-
08658-1.
Timoney, M. J., McCabe, B. A. and Bell, A. L. (2011). Experiences of dry soil
mixing in highly organic soils. Ground Improvement Volume 165 Issue GI1.
Tolstoy, V. P., Chernyshova, L. V. and Skryshevsky, V. A. (2003). Handbook of
infrared spectroscopy. Vol. 126, N 47. 15633–15634.
Trausch-Giudici, J. L. (2005). Stress-strain Characterisation of Seebodenlehm. Swiss
Federal Institut of Technology Zurich.
Tremblay, H ., J. Duchesne, J. Locat and S. Leroueil (2002). Influence of the nature
of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement. Canadian
Geotech. Journal, 39(3). 535-546.
Tsakiridis, P. E., Papadimitriou, G.D., Tsivilis, S. and Koroneos , C. (2008).
Utilization of steel slag for Portland cement clinker production. Journal of
Hazardous Materials. Vol. 152, Issue 2. 805–811.
Venmans, A. (2009), Summary Material Properties, AES1630 Engineering
properties of soil and rock, Deltares: Delft.
Verwaal, W. (2004). Soil mechanics laboratory manual. Geotechnical laboratory of
DGM, Thimpu, Bhutan.
Von Post, L. and Granlund, E. (1926). Södra Sveiges torvtillgangångar I. Peat
resources in southern Sweden. Sveriges geoliska undersökning.
Wair, B. R. and DeJong, J. T (2012). Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave
Velocity Profiles. PEER Vol. 08.
122
Wang, K.S., Lin, K.L., Lee, T.Y. & Tzeng, B.Y. (2004). The Hydration
Characteristics When C2S Is Present in MSWI Fly Ash Slag. Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol.26, 323-330.
Wang, Y. H., Lo, K. F., Yan, W. M and Dong, X. B. (2007). Measurement Biases in
the Bender Element Test. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. 2007.133:564-574.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. (2013). Improved strength and reduced
permeability of stabilized peat: Focus on application of kaolin as a pozzolanic
additive. Journal of Construction and Building Materials 40. 783–792.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. (2008) Engineering Behaviour of Stabilized Peat
Soil. European Journal of Scientific Research Vol.21 No.4. 581-591.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. (2008). Compression Rates of Untreated and
Stabilized Peat Soils. Electronic Journal of geotechnic and Engineering. Vol.
13, Bund. F. 1-13.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. (2009). Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Cemented Peat . Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(4): 3850-
3856.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. (2013). Utilization of sodium bentonite to
maximize the filler and pozzolanic effects of stabilized peat. Engineering
Geology 152. 56–66.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. and Ali, F. H. (2008). Strength and permeability of
stabilized peat soil. Journal of Applied Sciences. 1-5.
Wong, L.S. (2010). Stabilization of peat by chemical binders and siliceous sand.
PhD thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Xiao, L. and Li, Z. (2009). New Understanding of Cement Hydration Mechanism
through Electrical Resistivity Measurement and Microstructure Investigations.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Vol. 21. 368-373.
Yamashita, S., Fujiwara, T., Kawaguchi, T., Mikami, T., Nakata, Y. and Shibuya, S.
(2007) International Parallel Test on the Measurement of Gmax using Bender
Elements organized by TC-29. ISSMGE TC 29 Laboratory Stress Strain
Strength Testing of Geomaterials, TC29-JGS.
Zainorabidin, A. and Bakar, I. (2003). Engineering properties of in-situ and modified
hemic peat soil in Western Johor. In Proceedings of 2nd International
123
Conference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology, Malaysia.
173-182.
Zeng, X. and Ni, B. (1998). Application of Bender Elements in Measuring G max of
Sand Under Ko Condition. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 21, No.
3. 251-263.
Zeng, X. and Ni, B. (1999). Stress-Induced Anisotropic G max of Sands and Its
Measurements, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 9. 741- 749.
Zeng, X., (2005) Cone penetrometer equipped with piezoelectric sensors for
measurement of soil stiffness in highway pavement. Ohio Department of
Transportation Office of Research and Development. 1-70.
Zeng, X., Figueroa, J.L. and Fu, L. (2003). Measurement of Base and Subgrade
Layer Stiffness During and After Construction Using a Cone Penetrometer
Equipped with Piezoelectric Sensors. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Highway Pavement Data, Analysis and Mechanistic Design
Applications. Volume 2. September, Columbus, Ohio.
Zeng, X., Figueroa, J.L. and L. Fu. (2004) Measurement of Base and Subgrade Layer
Stiffness Using Bender Element Technique. Recent Advances in Materials
Characterization and Modeling of Pavement Systems. Special Publication 123.
35-45.
Zhu, W., Zhang, C. L. and Chiu, A. C. F. (2007). Soil–Water Transfer Mechanism
for Solidified Dredged Materials Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. 588-598.
124
APPENDIX
PUBLICATIONS
1) Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2013). Influence of Temperature on the Mass
Losses of Tropical Peat at Different Decomposition Level. Soft soil
Engineering International Confrence 2013. Sarawak.
2) Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2014) (a). A preliminary study of the threshold
limit for cementation of peat at different decomposition levels. Zaytoonah
University International Engineering Conference on Design and Innovation in
Sustainability 2014 (ZEC Infrastructure 2014). Amman, Jordan.
3) Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2014) (b). Effect of Additive to the Moisture
Content at Different Decomposition Level of Peat. Journal of Civil
Engineering Research 2014, 4(3A). 59-62.
4) Abd Rahman, J. and Chan, C.M. (2015). Physico-Chemical Characterization of
Peat at Different Decomposition Levels. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Vol 20, Bund 9. 4011-4019.
