See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242307887

Physical and Geotechnical Characteristics of Stabilized and Unstabilized

Tropical Peat Soil

Article  in  World Journal of Engineering · September 2011

DOI: 10.1260/1708-5284.8.3.223

CITATIONS READS

3 135

3 authors, including:

Prabir K. Kolay M.A Rahman

Southern Illinois University Carbondale Deakin University
82 PUBLICATIONS   503 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geotechnical Investigation of Major Hydro Power Project View project

Soil stabilization using liquid polymer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M.A Rahman on 14 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Physical and geotechnical characteristics of
stabilized and unstabilized tropical peat soil

by

P. K. Kolay and M. R. Aminur

reprinted from

WORLD JOURNAL
OF ENGINEERING
VOLUME 8 NUMBER 3 2011

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD.

 World Journal of

World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230 Engineering

Physical and geotechnical characteristics of

stabilized and unstabilized tropical peat soil
P. K. Kolay1, and M. R. Aminur 2
1 Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Illinois University Carbondale,
1230 Lincoln Drive, Engg. MC 6603, Carbondale 62901, Illinois, USA.
2 University Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.

pkolay@siu.edu

(Received 6 Junary2011; accepted 11 march 2011)

ABSTRACT
This paper presents physical and geotechnical characteristics of unstabilized (original) and
stabilized peat soil samples from Sarawak, Malaysia. Peat soil is heterogeneous, with high
compressibility, high water content, low specific gravity and has medium to low permeability. As
a result, evaluation of physical and geotechnical properties are very important for any types of
construction on it. Different physical and geotechnical properties e.g. organic content, loss on
ignition, liquid limit, specific gravity, fiber content, compaction and Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests have been carried out on peat soil sample. Locally available fly ash (FA) from
coal fired thermal power plant and commercially available quick lime (QL) were used as
stabilizers. The amount of FA and QL added to the peat soil sample, is 5 to 25% and 2 to 8%;
respectively, for curing periods of 7 to 120 days. The standard Proctor compaction test and UCS
test were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil samples with the above mentioned
percentages of stabilizer and results show that the UCS value increases significantly with the
increase of FA and QL percentage and also with curing periods. But, with 15 to 20 % FA and 6
% QL added with peat soil, the UCS values slightly decreases up to 28 days and again increases
after 120 days curing periods. Furthermore, liquid limit and specific gravity tests have been carried
out with only for the FA stabilized peat soil samples, in order to comprehend their stabilized
behavior.
Key words: Tropical peat, physical property, geotechnical property, stabilization, UCS

1. Introduction solution by increasing or improving the strength of

In Sarawak, the peat soil deposit covers
approximately 1.6 million hector (i.e., 13 %) of the
total land area, making it the largest peat deposit in
Malaysia (Mutalib et al., 1991). With the rapid
industrialization and population growth, it has
become necessary to have infrastructure facilities in
peat-land as well. There is no other way but to find
the peat soil. Peat soil is an extremely soft and often
referred as problematic soil, because of its high
compressibility and very low shear strength (Huat,
2004). These soils contain partly decomposed and
fragmented remains of plants leaves, roots that have
accumulated under water and fossilized (Moore,
1989). As a result, they are not suitable for any type

ISSN:1708-5284
224 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230

of construction and development projects. little data are available from East Malaysia
The geotechnical properties of peat soils are especially in Sarawak. Hence, the present study
significantly different from mineral or inorganic concentrates on the stabilization of peat soil samples
soils. Most of the peat soils have different with different percentages of FA and QL and to find
characteristic, mainly degree of decomposition their optimum mixing quantity.
which is a serious impediment to accurate
interpretation of peat behavior from laboratory and
field observation (Magnan, 1994). Different 2. Materials and methodology
construction methods such as replacement method, 2.1 Peat soil Sample
displacement method, surface reinforcement and In this study, peat soil sample was collected from
stage loading method, light weight fill raft method, Matang (from 0.40-0.80 m depth) to evaluate
pile supported embankment method, deep in-situ physical and engineering properties and
chemical stabilization method and thermal comprehended between stabilized and unstabilized
precompression method to improve the soft or peat samples. First the peat soil was sundried, grinded
soil (Edil, 2003). Among them only some of the and passed through 1.18 mm sieve and then used for
methods have been employed in Sarawak and some different physical and engineering properties.
projects were technically successful, while others
had large settlement and failure problems after 2.2 Stabilizers
several years’ of completion. Generally, these In this study, fly ash (FA) sample has been
projects had high financial cost because it requires collected from Sejingkat thermal power plant,
transportation of large amount of mineral soil. Kuching, Malaysia, for the stabilization purposes as
Soil stabilization can be defined as a means of a primary stabilizer. The chemical composition of
permanently altering soil properties to increase its FA is shown in Table 1. From Table 1, it can be
strength and bearing capacity, and to decrease its noticed that the FA sample falls in the category of
water sensitivity and volume change potential (Van Class F ash as per ASTM C 618. Commercially
Impe, 1989). Many researchers have tried to available quick lime (QL) has been used as a
improve the peat soil by modification and secondary stabilizer with FA.
stabilization. The stabilization of peat soil can
Table 1.
improve the ability of the soil to perform well, due Chemical composition of fly ash
to increased strength and decreased excessive
Oxides %
settlement when it is subjected to loads. Several
SiO2 59.40
methods are available for soil stabilization and one Al2O3 24.40
of the promising methods is the use of admixtures Fe2O3 7.60
that contributes to stabilization of peat soil. MgO 1.71
Chemical admixtures or chemical stabilization CaO 2.22
always involves treatment of the soil with some kind Na2O 0.23
K2O 3.91
of chemical compound, which when added to the P2O5 0.23
soil, would result in a chemical reaction. In this SO3 0.17
studies fly ash (FA) is used as a primary stabilizer TiO2 0.15
for peat soil stabilization, which is locally available Ig. loss 0.85
by-product from a coal-fired thermal power plant.
Several researchers have studied the stabilization of
clay, soft soil by cement, fly ash and lime. However, 2.3 Physical properties
most of the studies concentrate on the stabilization The moisture content of peat soil samples have
of mineral soil such as clayey soil, silty clay and been determined by drying them in an oven at 105°C
dispersive soil. Only few studies (Huttunen et al., for 24 hours as per BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. The Loss
1996; Janz and Johansson, 2002; Hebib and Farrell, on Ignition test has been determined as a percentage
2003; Huat et al., 2005; Kolay and Romali, 2006, of oven-dried mass as per ASTM D 2974. Organic
2007; Sadek et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2008; Roslan content (H) is calculated according to an equation
and Shahidul, 2008) discussed the stabilization of proposed by Skempton and Petley (1970) as per
highly organic soil or peat stabilization. Also, very following Eq. (1).
 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230 225

H % = 100 – C (100 – N) (1) that FC is high because high FC has higher contraction
capacity. The result also shows that the pH value of
Where, C is the correction factor and N is the
the soil sample is 4.05, which is more acidic.
Loss On Ignition in percent. The degree of
decomposition is generally assessed by means of the Table 2.
Von Post scale. There are 10 degrees of Physical and engineering properties of peat soil and fly ash sample
humification (H1 to H10) in the Von Post system
Property Peat FA
(Von Post 1922). The specific gravity (Gs) of the Natural moisture content (w) (%) 620.14 1.15
highly organic or peat soil is determined based on Degree of decomposition H3 —
procedure stated in BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. The Loss on ignition, (N) (%) 85.67 0.85
average Gs is obtained from the results of three tests. Organic content, (OC) (%) 85.10 —
The fiber content (FC) is determined from dry Specific gravity, (Gs) 1.45 2.02
Fiber content, (FC) (%) 65.00 —
weight of fibers retained on ASTM sieve no. 100
Liquid limit (LL) (%) 78.00 26.80
(>0.15 mm opening size) as a percentage of oven Linear shrinkage (%) 5.76 —
dried mass (ASTM D1997-91). The particle size Max. dry density (MDD) kN/m3 7.16 12.86
distribution of the peat soil samples were conducted Optimum moisture content (OMC) % 67.00 23.00
by sieve analysis according to the method described pH 4.05 9.76
in ASTM D 422-63. In this study, cone
penetrometer method has been used to determine the 3.2 Effect of Stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and
liquid limit (LL) of peat soil sample. The LL and pH specific gravity (Gs)
test have been conducted as per guidelines based on The LL values of original peat soil and stabilized
BS1377: Part 2:1990. peat soil samples are presented in Figure 1. From
2.4 Engineering Properties Figure 1 it can be noticed that, the LL decreases
Standard Proctor test has been conducted as per with an increase in FA and curing periods.
BS 1377-1990: Part 4 to determine the maximum
dry density (MDD) (?d) and the optimum moisture
content (OMC) of the stabilized and unstabilized
peat soil samples. To determine the undrained shear
strength of the stabilized and unstabilized remolded
peat soil samples, the UCS test have been conducted
according to the guidelines provided by ASTM D
2166. The size of the mould used in this study was
38 mm in diameter and 76 mm in height. A rate of
strain of 1.27 mm/min has been maintained
throughout the tests. For the sake of consistent
results, a minimum of 3 samples have been tested.
Fig.1.Variation of LL with curing periods.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Physical and Engineering properties
The results of different physical properties of peat
soil samples are presented in Table 2. From Table 2, it
can be observed that the peat soil sample falls in the
category with degree of humification H3 (Sapric)
according to the Von Post scale (1992). The OC of the
peat soil samples tested is more than 75%, hence the
soil can be categorized as peat soil, as per ASTM D
2607 69. The OC, FC, Gs and N are 85.10, 65, 1.45
and 85.67, respectively, for the peat soil samples. The
linear shrinkage of the peat soil samples is 5.76%,
which is quite more; it may be attributed to the fact Fig. 2.Variation of Gs with curing periods.
226 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230

It may be attributed to the fact that, LL of FA is Furthermore, the Gs of stabilized peat soil
lower than original peat soil, because the peat soil is samples are higher than the original peat soil
spongy type with 65% fiber content. Therefore, the samples. Therefore, the dry density increases and
combined effect of LL for FA and original peat is moisture content decreases with the increase in FA.
lowered. The decrease of LL with increase of FA and
curing periods may be due to some mineralogical
formation by chemical reaction between FA and peat
soil samples, as a result the spongy characteristics of
peat soil has been changed and decreased its
consistency and water holding capacity.
In this study, Gstests have been conducted on
original and stabilized peat soil samples to
investigate the effect of stabilizer and curing
periodon stabilized peat soils. The Gs of original and
stabilized peat soil samples are present in Table 3
and Figure 2, respectively. From Figure 2, it can be
observed that Gsincrease with the increase of FA Fig. 4.Standard Proctor test for stabilized peat soil with
percentages and also curing periods. Also from the different percentages of FA.
compaction test (as shown in Figure 4) it can be
noticed that, the dry density increases with the
4. Effects of stabilizer on unconfined
increase of FA %. The Gs of FA is more than
compressive strength (UCS) test
original peat soil hence, the combined effect for FA
The UCS test has been conducted for original peat
and original peat is higher. Another reason may be
soil sample which is compacted at MDD and OMC.
due to mineralogical changes occurred between FA
It has been found that for the original peat soil the
and peat soil samples with curing periods.
UCS value is 28.46 kPa. The peat soil samples were
3.3 Compaction characteristics mixed with different percentage of admixtures,
Standard Proctor test were carried out on OP, FA compacted at MDD and OMC of the original peat
and stabilized peat soil samples, which are presented soil, and the results are presented in Figure 5 to 10.
in Figure 3 and 4. From Figure 3 and 4 it can be
noticed that the MDD are 12.86 and 7.16 kN/m3 for
the FA and OP soil samples respectively, and the
value of OMC are 23 and 67 %. From Figure 4, it also
can be observed that the dry density increases with the
increase of FA % and moisture content decrease with
the increase of FA. This may be attributed to the fact
that, when the FA was added with peat soils, the
internal void spaces decrease with finer particle of FA.

Fig. 5. UCS results for stabilized peat soil with different

percentages of FA.

From Figure 5, it can be observed that, in general

Fig.3.Standard Proctor test for original peat and fly ash.
the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
increases with the increase of percentage of FA
content added to the original peat soil sample. Also,
the strength increases with the curing periods for all
percentages of FA added. The increase in strength is
much more predominant with higher percentage
 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230
(i.e., 20%) of FA added to the original peat soil
sample. Figure 6 to 10 shows that the UCS values
increases with the increase of combination of FA
and QL to the original peat soil sample and increases
with curing period. This results increases up to
addition of 6% QL and 20% FA, with a curing
period of 120 days but decreases beyond 20% FA
and 6% QL until 28 days curing period.
Fig.6. UCS results for stabilized peat soil with different
percentages of FA and QL.
Fig.7. UCS Results for stabilized peat soil with different
percentages of FA and QL.
Fig. 8. UCS Results for stabilized peat soil with different
percentages of FA and QL.
227
But in case of 15 to 20% FA and 6 to 8% QL, the
UCS values again increase at 120 days curing
period. This may be attributed to the fact that FA
reacts with soil particles after long curing period.
It can be noted that FA plus QL is the most
suitable stabilizer compared with FA alone, for this
particular peat soil sample. Here it can be observed
that approximately 52% UCS value increases for
8% QL added and 20% FA for 120 days curing
period with peat soil, to compare with 20% FA
stabilized peat soil.
Fig.9. UCS results for stabilized peat soil with different
percentages of FA and QL.
Fig.10. UCS results for stabilized peat soil with different
percentages of FA and QL.
Conclusion
The present research shows the influence of FA
on stabilized peat soil samples from Matang,
Malaysia. This work shows the potential benefit of
stabilizing peat soils with FA. From the laboratory
tests results, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
228 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230
i. Specific gravity, Gs increases with the increase
of curing periods and FA added with original
peat soil samples.
ii. The LL values for stabilized peat soil samples
with curing period and increase of FA added.
iii. The dry density decreases and moisture
content increases with increase of FA added.
iv. UCS for the stabilized peat soil sample
increases with the increase in percentage of FA
(i.e., 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%) added to the
original peat sample.
v. The UCS values for peat soil samples increase
with 2, 4, 6 & 8% of QL but decrease rather
steadily beyond 6% of QL added.
vi. UCS test shows that the strength of peat soil
sample increases with 5 to 20%, of FA but
decreases rather steadily when 25% of FA was
used up to 28 days curing period but again
increase after 120 days.
vii UCS increase with the increase of combination
of QL and FA, but decrease after 6% QL and
20% FA up to 28 days but increase after 120
days curing periods.
viii. The UCS value for combination of QL and FA
shows better results in comparison with the
individual use of FA.
From the above results and discussion it can be
concluded that addition of chemical admixture, i.e.,
QL and FA can improve the engineering properties
of tropical peat soils. As a result, geotechnical
engineers can be used the locally available FA for
local peat soil stabilization purposes which is
environmentally threat for random dumping.
References
ASTM C 618 94, 1994.Specification for coal fly ash
and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use as
a mineral admixture in Portland cement
concrete.Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D 2166, 2000.Standard Test Method for
Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive
Soil.Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D 2607 69, 1990.Classification of Peats,
Mosses, Humus, and Related Products.Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM,
Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D 2974, 2000.Standard Test Method for
Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat
and other Organic Soils.Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D 422 63, 1994.Standard test method for
particle size analysis of soils.Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D1997-91, 1996.Standard Test Method for
Laboratory Determination of the Fiber Content
of Peat Samples by Dry Mass, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA.
BS 1377, Part 1–4, 1990. Soils for civil engineering
purposes.British Standards Institution.
London. UK.
Edil T.B., 2003. Recent advancements in
geotechnical characterization and construction
over peat and organic soil. In Proc. of 2nd
International Conference on Advances in soft
soil Engineering and Technology, Ed. Huat, et
al., Putrajaya, Malaysia, 3-35.
Hebib S. and Farrell R.E., 2003. Some experiences
on the stabilization of Irish peats. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 40, 107-120.
Huat B.B.K., 2004. Organic and Peat Soils
Engineering. University Putra Malaysia press.
Huat B.B.K., Shukri M.S. and Mohamed T.A.,
2005. Effect of chemical admixtures on the
engineering properties of tropical peat soils.
American Journal of Applied Sciences 2(7),
1113-1120.
Huttunen E.K., Kujala and Vesa H., 1996.
Assessment of the quality of stabilized peat
and clay. Symposium Grouting and Deep
Mixing, 607-612, Balkema.
Janz M. and Johansson S.E., 2002. The function of
different binding agents in deep stabilization.
Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Center,
Linkoping, SGI. 9.
Kolay P. K., and Romali N.S.B., 2007. Stabilization
of organic soil by different types of
stabilizer.Intl. Conference on Civil Engineering
in the New Millennium: Opportunities and
Challenges, BESU, Shibpur, India.
Kolay P.K. and Romali N.S.B., 2006. Highly
organic soil stabilization by different types of
admixtures. 2nd Intl. Conference on
Problematic Soils, Sunway Resort Hotel,
Selangor, Malaysia, 211-216.
Landva A.O., and Pheeney P.E. 1980. Peat fabric
and structure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal
17(3), 416-435.
Magnan J.P., 1994. Construction on peat: State of
the art in France. Proc., Int. workshop on
 Kolay et al./World Journal of Engineering 8(3) (2011) 223-230
advances in Understanding and modeling the
mechanical behavior of peat, Balkema, Delft,
Netherlands, 369-379.
Moore P.D. and Bellamy D.J. 1974. Peatlands,
Springer, New York, 221.
Moore P.D., 1989. The ecology of peat forming
processes. Intl. Journal of Coal Geology
129(1-4), 89-103.
Mutalib A.A., Lim J.S., Wong M.H., and Koonvai
L. 1991. Characterization, distribution and
utilization of tropical peat in malaysia, Proc. of
theIntl. symposium on Tropical Peatland,
Kuching, Malaysia, 7-16.
Ohira Y., 1977. Methods of test and
investigation.Special Rep., Engineering
problems of organic soils in Japan, Research
committee on organic soils, 19-33.
Roslan H., and Shahidul M.S., 2008. A model study
to determine engineering properties of peat soil
and effect of strength after stabilization.
European Journal of Scientific
Research22(2),205-215.
229
Sadek D., Roslan H., and Abubakar A., 2008.
Engineering properties of stabilized tropical
peat soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 13 Bund. E
Skempton A.W., and Petley D.J., 1970. Ignition loss
and other properties of peats and clays from
Avonmouth, King’s Lynn and Cranberry
Moss. Geotechniques 20(4), 343-356.
Van Impe W.F., 1989. Soils Improvement
Techniques and their Evolution, A.A.
Balkema.
Von Post L., 1922. Sveriges geologiska
undersøknings torvinventering och nogra av
dess hittils vunna resultat (SGU peat inventory
and some preliminary results) Svenska
Mosskulturføreningens Tidsskrift, Jønkøping,
Sweden 36.
Wong L.S., Roslan H., and Faisal H.A., 2008.
Engineering behaviour of stabilized peat soil.
European Journal of Scientific Research21(4),
581-591.
View publication stats