Upload
dotram
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STABILIZATION OF SARAWAK PEAT BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF STABILIZER
Md Aminur Rahman
Master of Engineering 2010
PKHIDMAT MAKLUMAT AKADEMIK
111111111 IIimslll III 1III 1000246357
STABILIZAnON OF SARA W AK PEAT BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF STABILIZER
MD AMINUR RAHMAN
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering
Faculty of Engineering UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAW AK
2010
----- ----- - -
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge my supervisors Assoc Prof Dr Prabir Kumar Ko)ay and Dr Siti
Noor Linda Bt Hj Taib for their constant support and obligatory direction also their
perseverance with my some ideas and running hypothesis Special thanks to Prof Dr Kopli
Bujang and CGS staffs for their generosity advice and guidance From this I am beginning to
appreciate how a structured directed and enthusiastic approach to research such as this has many
benefits including success Although in saying that there are many walls encountered in research
and without perseverance and lateral thinking some ofthem would never be overcome
I also would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)
Malaysia and UNlMAS postgraduate scholarship (ZPU) for financial support Also [ would like
to express deep gratitude for the technical supports offered by the Geotechnical laboratory staff
and the Construction on Soft Soil Group members University Malaysia Sarawak
Finally I would like to acknowledge my beloved parents brothers and friends for their eternal
support and understanding my goals and aspirations It is from them that I have drawn all my
determination and perseverance as there have been many occasions where I have questioned my
direction and purpose Without help and appreciations I w~uld have not been able to complete
much of what I done and become who I am
ABSTRACT
The present research describes a study on tropical peat soil stabilization by using different
chemicals to improve physical and geotechnical properties The samples were collected from
eight different locations of Matang Sarawak Malaysia Among them two samples were selected
with higher percentage of organic content for geotechnical characterization and the remaining
samples were used only for physical characterization In this study ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) quick lime (QL) coal fly ash (FA) and different types of chemical namely C 1 (Mix of
2 sodium sulphate (Na2S04) 050 sodium chloride (NaCl) and 010 triethanolamine
(C6HJsN03raquo C2 (260 Calcium sulphate (CaS04raquo and C3 (260 Aluminum sulphate
(Ah(S04)3raquo and 2 NaOH were used with peat soil samples to check the strength gain The
amount of OPC QL and FA added to the peat soil sample as percentage of the dry soil mass
were in the range of 5 to 25 2 to 8 and 5 to 25 respectively The Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests were carried out for curing period of 7 - 120 days and the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were carried out after 96 hours of soaking on treateduntreated peat
soil samples The result shows that UCS and CBR values increases significantly with the
increase of stabilizers used However in case of FA and QL the UCS value increases up to 20
amp 6 respectively with a curing period of 28 days but decreases or rather steady beyond this
percentage Comparing the performance of these stabilizers ordinary Portland cement is the most
suitable stabilizer but in case of 5 OPC and FA plus 26 CaS04 where the peat soil was first
treated with NaOH is better than only 5 OPC and FA stabilized peat soil Few UCS tests have
been conducted with the combination of FA and QL to study their combined effect The CBR
11
result for combination ofFA and ope shows better strength as compared with only FA and peat
soil The present research also establish few correlations between different physical and
geotechnical properties of tropical peat soils from Sarawak Malaysia and the results indicate
reasonably good correlations for this particular tropical peat soil A design chart has also been
developed on treated peat soil with different types of stabilizers Engineers can refer to these
correlations and design chart in order to comprehend the preliminary behavior and to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of stabilized peat soil for long term curing period where the
geotechnical data are not readily available In addition few Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) studies were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil to investigate their
microstructure
111
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
PKHIDMAT MAKLUMAT AKADEMIK
111111111 IIimslll III 1III 1000246357
STABILIZAnON OF SARA W AK PEAT BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF STABILIZER
MD AMINUR RAHMAN
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering
Faculty of Engineering UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAW AK
2010
----- ----- - -
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge my supervisors Assoc Prof Dr Prabir Kumar Ko)ay and Dr Siti
Noor Linda Bt Hj Taib for their constant support and obligatory direction also their
perseverance with my some ideas and running hypothesis Special thanks to Prof Dr Kopli
Bujang and CGS staffs for their generosity advice and guidance From this I am beginning to
appreciate how a structured directed and enthusiastic approach to research such as this has many
benefits including success Although in saying that there are many walls encountered in research
and without perseverance and lateral thinking some ofthem would never be overcome
I also would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)
Malaysia and UNlMAS postgraduate scholarship (ZPU) for financial support Also [ would like
to express deep gratitude for the technical supports offered by the Geotechnical laboratory staff
and the Construction on Soft Soil Group members University Malaysia Sarawak
Finally I would like to acknowledge my beloved parents brothers and friends for their eternal
support and understanding my goals and aspirations It is from them that I have drawn all my
determination and perseverance as there have been many occasions where I have questioned my
direction and purpose Without help and appreciations I w~uld have not been able to complete
much of what I done and become who I am
ABSTRACT
The present research describes a study on tropical peat soil stabilization by using different
chemicals to improve physical and geotechnical properties The samples were collected from
eight different locations of Matang Sarawak Malaysia Among them two samples were selected
with higher percentage of organic content for geotechnical characterization and the remaining
samples were used only for physical characterization In this study ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) quick lime (QL) coal fly ash (FA) and different types of chemical namely C 1 (Mix of
2 sodium sulphate (Na2S04) 050 sodium chloride (NaCl) and 010 triethanolamine
(C6HJsN03raquo C2 (260 Calcium sulphate (CaS04raquo and C3 (260 Aluminum sulphate
(Ah(S04)3raquo and 2 NaOH were used with peat soil samples to check the strength gain The
amount of OPC QL and FA added to the peat soil sample as percentage of the dry soil mass
were in the range of 5 to 25 2 to 8 and 5 to 25 respectively The Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests were carried out for curing period of 7 - 120 days and the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were carried out after 96 hours of soaking on treateduntreated peat
soil samples The result shows that UCS and CBR values increases significantly with the
increase of stabilizers used However in case of FA and QL the UCS value increases up to 20
amp 6 respectively with a curing period of 28 days but decreases or rather steady beyond this
percentage Comparing the performance of these stabilizers ordinary Portland cement is the most
suitable stabilizer but in case of 5 OPC and FA plus 26 CaS04 where the peat soil was first
treated with NaOH is better than only 5 OPC and FA stabilized peat soil Few UCS tests have
been conducted with the combination of FA and QL to study their combined effect The CBR
11
result for combination ofFA and ope shows better strength as compared with only FA and peat
soil The present research also establish few correlations between different physical and
geotechnical properties of tropical peat soils from Sarawak Malaysia and the results indicate
reasonably good correlations for this particular tropical peat soil A design chart has also been
developed on treated peat soil with different types of stabilizers Engineers can refer to these
correlations and design chart in order to comprehend the preliminary behavior and to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of stabilized peat soil for long term curing period where the
geotechnical data are not readily available In addition few Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) studies were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil to investigate their
microstructure
111
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
----- ----- - -
Acknowledgement
I would like to acknowledge my supervisors Assoc Prof Dr Prabir Kumar Ko)ay and Dr Siti
Noor Linda Bt Hj Taib for their constant support and obligatory direction also their
perseverance with my some ideas and running hypothesis Special thanks to Prof Dr Kopli
Bujang and CGS staffs for their generosity advice and guidance From this I am beginning to
appreciate how a structured directed and enthusiastic approach to research such as this has many
benefits including success Although in saying that there are many walls encountered in research
and without perseverance and lateral thinking some ofthem would never be overcome
I also would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)
Malaysia and UNlMAS postgraduate scholarship (ZPU) for financial support Also [ would like
to express deep gratitude for the technical supports offered by the Geotechnical laboratory staff
and the Construction on Soft Soil Group members University Malaysia Sarawak
Finally I would like to acknowledge my beloved parents brothers and friends for their eternal
support and understanding my goals and aspirations It is from them that I have drawn all my
determination and perseverance as there have been many occasions where I have questioned my
direction and purpose Without help and appreciations I w~uld have not been able to complete
much of what I done and become who I am
ABSTRACT
The present research describes a study on tropical peat soil stabilization by using different
chemicals to improve physical and geotechnical properties The samples were collected from
eight different locations of Matang Sarawak Malaysia Among them two samples were selected
with higher percentage of organic content for geotechnical characterization and the remaining
samples were used only for physical characterization In this study ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) quick lime (QL) coal fly ash (FA) and different types of chemical namely C 1 (Mix of
2 sodium sulphate (Na2S04) 050 sodium chloride (NaCl) and 010 triethanolamine
(C6HJsN03raquo C2 (260 Calcium sulphate (CaS04raquo and C3 (260 Aluminum sulphate
(Ah(S04)3raquo and 2 NaOH were used with peat soil samples to check the strength gain The
amount of OPC QL and FA added to the peat soil sample as percentage of the dry soil mass
were in the range of 5 to 25 2 to 8 and 5 to 25 respectively The Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests were carried out for curing period of 7 - 120 days and the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were carried out after 96 hours of soaking on treateduntreated peat
soil samples The result shows that UCS and CBR values increases significantly with the
increase of stabilizers used However in case of FA and QL the UCS value increases up to 20
amp 6 respectively with a curing period of 28 days but decreases or rather steady beyond this
percentage Comparing the performance of these stabilizers ordinary Portland cement is the most
suitable stabilizer but in case of 5 OPC and FA plus 26 CaS04 where the peat soil was first
treated with NaOH is better than only 5 OPC and FA stabilized peat soil Few UCS tests have
been conducted with the combination of FA and QL to study their combined effect The CBR
11
result for combination ofFA and ope shows better strength as compared with only FA and peat
soil The present research also establish few correlations between different physical and
geotechnical properties of tropical peat soils from Sarawak Malaysia and the results indicate
reasonably good correlations for this particular tropical peat soil A design chart has also been
developed on treated peat soil with different types of stabilizers Engineers can refer to these
correlations and design chart in order to comprehend the preliminary behavior and to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of stabilized peat soil for long term curing period where the
geotechnical data are not readily available In addition few Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) studies were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil to investigate their
microstructure
111
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
ABSTRACT
The present research describes a study on tropical peat soil stabilization by using different
chemicals to improve physical and geotechnical properties The samples were collected from
eight different locations of Matang Sarawak Malaysia Among them two samples were selected
with higher percentage of organic content for geotechnical characterization and the remaining
samples were used only for physical characterization In this study ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) quick lime (QL) coal fly ash (FA) and different types of chemical namely C 1 (Mix of
2 sodium sulphate (Na2S04) 050 sodium chloride (NaCl) and 010 triethanolamine
(C6HJsN03raquo C2 (260 Calcium sulphate (CaS04raquo and C3 (260 Aluminum sulphate
(Ah(S04)3raquo and 2 NaOH were used with peat soil samples to check the strength gain The
amount of OPC QL and FA added to the peat soil sample as percentage of the dry soil mass
were in the range of 5 to 25 2 to 8 and 5 to 25 respectively The Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) tests were carried out for curing period of 7 - 120 days and the California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were carried out after 96 hours of soaking on treateduntreated peat
soil samples The result shows that UCS and CBR values increases significantly with the
increase of stabilizers used However in case of FA and QL the UCS value increases up to 20
amp 6 respectively with a curing period of 28 days but decreases or rather steady beyond this
percentage Comparing the performance of these stabilizers ordinary Portland cement is the most
suitable stabilizer but in case of 5 OPC and FA plus 26 CaS04 where the peat soil was first
treated with NaOH is better than only 5 OPC and FA stabilized peat soil Few UCS tests have
been conducted with the combination of FA and QL to study their combined effect The CBR
11
result for combination ofFA and ope shows better strength as compared with only FA and peat
soil The present research also establish few correlations between different physical and
geotechnical properties of tropical peat soils from Sarawak Malaysia and the results indicate
reasonably good correlations for this particular tropical peat soil A design chart has also been
developed on treated peat soil with different types of stabilizers Engineers can refer to these
correlations and design chart in order to comprehend the preliminary behavior and to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of stabilized peat soil for long term curing period where the
geotechnical data are not readily available In addition few Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) studies were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil to investigate their
microstructure
111
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
result for combination ofFA and ope shows better strength as compared with only FA and peat
soil The present research also establish few correlations between different physical and
geotechnical properties of tropical peat soils from Sarawak Malaysia and the results indicate
reasonably good correlations for this particular tropical peat soil A design chart has also been
developed on treated peat soil with different types of stabilizers Engineers can refer to these
correlations and design chart in order to comprehend the preliminary behavior and to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of stabilized peat soil for long term curing period where the
geotechnical data are not readily available In addition few Scanning Electron Microscope
(SEM) studies were carried out on original and stabilized peat soil to investigate their
microstructure
111
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini membicangkan kaedah pemantapan tanah gambut tropika dengan menggunakan bahan
kimia yang berbeza untuk meningkatkan ciri-ciri fizikal dan geoteknikalnya Sampel tanah dikutip
dari lapan lokasi yang berbeza di Matang Sarawak Malaysia Antaranya dua sampel yang
mengandungi peratusan kandungan organik yang lebih tinggi dipilih untuk pencirian geoteknikal dan
sampel yang selebihnya digunakan untuk pencirian fizikal Dalam kajian ini simen Portland biasa
(OPC) kapur tohor (QL) abu batu arang (FA) dan bahan kimia yang lain iaitu Cl (Campuran 2
Natrium Sulfat (Na2S04) 050 Natrium Klorida (NaCl) dan 010 Trietanolamina (C6H 1sN03))
C2 (260 Sulfat Calcium (CaS04)) dan C3 (260 Sulfat Aluminum (Ah(S04h)) dan 2 Natrium
Hidroksida (NaOH) dicampurkan ke dalam tanah gambut untuk memeriksa kekuatan yang diperolehi
Jumlah OPC QL dan FA yang ditambahkan ke dalam sampel tanah gambut sebagai peratusan jisim
tanah kering berada dalam julat 5 - 25 2 - 8 dan 5 - 25 masing-masing Ujian Kekuatan
Mampatan Tak Terkurung (DCS) dijalankan bagi tempoh pengawetan 7 - 120 hari manakala ujian
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) dijalankan selepas 96 jam pengawetan pada tanah gambut asalltanah
gambut yang dirawat Keputusan UCS dan CBR menunjukkan peningkatan yang nyata dengan
peningkatan penstabil yang digunakan Walau bagaimanapun bagi pengunaan FA dan QL nilai UCS
meningkat sebanyak 20 dan 6 masing-masing bagi tempoh pengawetan 28 hari tetapi berkurang
atau agak stabil apabila peratusan ini dilepasi Dengan membandingkan prestasi penstabil ini simen
Portland biasa (OPC) adalah penstabil yang paling sesuai akan tetapi sekiranya 5 OPC dan FA
dicampurkan 26 CaS04 di mana tanah gambut diperawetkan dengan NaOH terdahulu menjadi
lebih baik jika dibandingkan dengan hanya 5 OPC dan FA yang digunakan untuk memantapkan
tanah gambut Beberapa ujian UCS dikendalikan dengan mengabungkan FA dan QL untuk
IV
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
mempelajari kesan pengabungan mereka Hasil ujian CBR bagi pengabungan FA dan OPC
menunjukkan kekuatan yang lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan pengabungan FA dan tanah
gambut sahaja Kajian ini juga menjalinkan hubung kait antara perbezaan ciri-ciri fizikal dan
geoteknikal tanah gambut tropika dari Sarawak Malaysia dan keputusannya menunjukkan hubung
kait yang baik untuk tanah gambut tropika ini Satu carta rekabentuk tentang tanah gambut yang
dimantapkan dengan pelbagai penstabil juga dibina lurutera-jurutera boleh merujuk kepada hubung
kait dan carta rekabentuk untuk memahami tingkah laku awal dan menentukan keupayaan galas
muktamad bagi tanah gambut yang distabilkan untuk tempoh pengawetan jangka panjang di mana
data geoteknikalnya tidak mudah didapati Sebagain tambahan beberapa Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) juga dijalankan bagi tanah gambut asal dan yang dimantapkan untuk mengaji
mikrostruktur mereka
v
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akadcmlk UNlVERSm MALAYSIA SARAWAK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknow ledge me n t
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations and Notations
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
11 Background
12 Statement of the problem
13 Objectives ofthe study
14 Significance 0 f this research
15 Organization ofthe thesis
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
21 General
22 Highly organic or peat soil
23 Soil stabilization
23 1 Stabilization ofsoH using fly ash
232 Stabilization of soil using cement
1-1
ll-V
VI-XVlll
XVlll-XIX
1-4
4-6
6-7
7-7
7-8
9-9
10-12
13-18
19-22
VI
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
I
233 Stabilization of soil using lime
234 Stabilization of soil by other stabilizers
23 5 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test
24 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
23 Summary
CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
31 General
32 Materials
321 Peat soil
322 Stabilizers
33 Methodology
331 Determination ofphysical properties
3311
3312
33 13
33 14
33 15
3316
3317
Moisture content
Degree ofdecomposition
Fiber content
Atterberg limits
Specific gravity
Loss on ignition (LOI) and organic content (OC)
pH test
332 Determination of Engineering Properties
3321 Standard Proctor test
Vll
22-24
24-27
28-28
28-29
29-30
31-31
31 -32
32-32
32-33
33-33
33-34
34-34
35-35
35-36
36-36
36-37
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
3322 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
33221 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test37-37
33222 Sample preparation for UCS test 38-38
3323 California bearing ratio (CBR) test 38-39
3324 Quantity of Stabilizer and curing period 39-40
333 Scanning electron microscope (SEM) 40-41
CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
41 General 42-42
42 Physical Properties
421 Natural water content test 43-43
422 Degree ofdecomposition test 44-44
423 Fiber content test 44-45
424 Loss on ignition (N) and organic content (OC) test 45-46
425 Liquid limit (LL) test 46-47
426 Specific gravity (Gs) test 47-48
427 pH test 48-49
428 Effect of stabilizer on liquid limit (LL) and specific gravity (Gs) 49-51
43 Geotechnical Properties
431 Standard Proctor test 51-53
432 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test 53-59
Vlll
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
43 2 1 Effect of chemical on OPC and FA stabilized peat
433 California bearing ratio (CBR) test
44 Correlation between different physical and geotechnical properties ofpeat
45 Correlation between UCS strength and different percentages of stabilizers
46 Morphological characteristics
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5l
52
53
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
ALl Moisture content ofpeat samples
A12 Moisture content of coal ash samples
A13 Fiber conten t ofpeat soil samples
A 14 Loss on ignition and organic content ofpeat soil samples
A 15 Loss on ignition ofcoal ash samples
A16 Liquid limit test (Sample M 1)
A 17 Liquid limit test (Sample M2)
IX
59-62
62-63
63-67
67-69
70-72
73-74
74-75
75-76
77-90
91-92
92-92
93-93
93-94
94-95
95-95
95-96
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
A18 Liquid limit test (Sample M3)
A19 Liquid limit test (Sample M4)
A 11 0 Liquid limit test (Sample M5)
A111 Liquid limit test (Sample M6)
A1l2 Liquid limit test (Sample M7)
A113 Liquid limit test (Sample M8)
A1l4 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-Ol)
AIl5 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-02)
A1 16 Liquid limit test (Sample FA-03)
AU 7 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-C)
AU8 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-M)
AU9 Liquid limit test (Sample PA-F)
A120 Specific gravity ofpeat soil samples
A121 Specific gravity of Coal ash samples
APPENDIXB
BL1 Standard Proctor test ofpeat sample (M 1)
B12 Standard Proctor test of peat samples (M2-M8)
B13 Standard Proctor test of coal ash samples
96-97
97-97
97-98
98-98
99-99
99-100
100-100
100-101
101-101
101-102
102-102
103-103
104-104
105-105
106-106
107-107
107-107
x
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
APENDIX C
Cll California Bearing Ratio of original peat (MI sample)
Cl2 California Bearing Ratio of 10FA+Peat
Cl3 California Bearing Ratio of20 and 30FA+Peat
Cl4 California Bearing Ratio of 10 and 20OPC+Peat
Cl5 California Bearing Ratio of30OPC and combination of 5OPC+ IOFA
C16 California Bearing Ratio of combination of5OPC+20 and 30FA
APPENDIX-D
Dll UCS test ofpeat soil samples (36 mm 0 Mold)
Dlll Calculation for the mass of materials
Dl12 Sample S-I (Original Peat M I 50 rom 0)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 11 Peat Soil Distribution Map in Sarawak Malaysia
Figure 41 Variation of LL with curing periods
Figure 42 V ruiation of Gs with curing periods
Figure 43 Proctor Test for different location of peat soil samples
Figure 44 Proctor Test for different location of coal ash samples
Figure 45 UCS results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL
Xl
108-109
109-110
110-111
111-112
112-113
113-114
115-115
116-116
6-6
50-50
50-50
52-52
52-52
54-54
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Figure 46 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofQL 54-54
Figure 47 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 48 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofope 55-55
Figure 49 ues results on stabilized peat soil with different ofFA 55-55
Figure 410 Ues results on stabilized peat soil with di fferent of FA 55-55
Figure 411 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5FA 56-56
Figure 412 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+5F A 56-56
Figure 413 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+ lOFA 57-57
Figure 414 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+lOFA 57-57
Figure 415 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 416 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+15FA 57-57
Figure 417 ues results on stabilized peat with different of QL+20FA 58-58
Figure 418 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+20FA 58-58
Figure 419 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 420 ues results on stabilized peat with different ofQL+25FA 59-59
Figure 421 ues result ofuntreated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 422 ues result of treated ope stabilized peat soils 60-60
Figure 423 ues result ofuntreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 424 ues result oftreated FA stabilized peat soils 61-61
Figure 425 eBR values on original peat and different types ofFA 62-62
Figure 426 eBR values for 5 ope and different FA with Peat soils 62-62
Figure 427 eBR values for different of ope with Peat soils 63-63
Figure 428 eBR values for different ope with Peat soils (Behzab and Huat 2009) 63-63
xu
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Figure 429 Variation of specific gravity and loss on ignition
Figure 430 Variation ofLL and OMC with MDD
Figure 431 Variation of OMC and FC with OC
Figure 432 Variation ofMDD with OC
Figure 433 Variation of Os with OC
Figure 434 Relationship between UCS and different percentage of
stabilizer used
Figure 435 Relationship between UCS value and different
combination of FA and QL
Figure 436 SEM of Original peat soil sample (M2)
Figure 437 SEM of Original fly ash sample (F-01)
Figure 438 SEM ofStabilized peat soils with 20 FA (M2)
Figure 439 SEM of Stabilized peat soils with 20 FA and 6 QL (M2)
Figure 440 SEM image QL stabilized peat soil for 28 days curing period
Figure 441 SEM image OPC stabilized peat soil for 28 days cumg period
Figure 442 SEM image ofQL stabilized peat for 28 days curing period
Figure 443 SEM image ofOPC stabilized peat for 28 days curng period
Figure Al Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A2 Liquid limit ofpeat soil
Figure A3 Liquid limit of fly ash
Figure A4 Liquid limit ofpond ash
Figure D1 Stress Vs Strain graph for M 1 sample (50 mm 0 Original Peat)
Figure D2 Stress Vs Strain graph for M2-M4 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat)
Xlll
64-64
65-65
65-65
66-66
67-67
68-68
69-69
70-70
70-70
71-71
71-71
72-72
72-72
72-72
72-72
103-103
103-103
104-104
104-104
117-117
117-117
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Figure 0 3 Stress Vs Strain graph for M5-M8 sample (38 mm 0 Original Peat) 118-118
Figure D4 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 7 Days (38 mm 0) 118-118
Figure D5 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 14 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure D6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 28 Days (38 mm 0) 119-119
Figure 0 7 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2- 8 QL 120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 08 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 120-120
Figure 0 9 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 10 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 121-121
Figure 0 11 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0 ) 122-122
Figure 0 12 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 FA 7-120 Days (38 nun 0) 122-122
Figure 0 13 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 014 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 123-123
Figure 0 15 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 01 6 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 124-124
Figure 017 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25 ope 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 01 8 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 125-125
Figure 0 19 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 20 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 126-126
Figure 0 21 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 127-127
Figure 0 22 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 rum 0) 127-127
Figure 0 23 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 24 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 128-128
Figure 0 25 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
XIV
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Figure 026 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 129-129
Figure D27 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure D28 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 130-130
Figure 0 29 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 30 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 131-131
Figure 0 31 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 32 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 132-132
Figure 0 33 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 34 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 133-133
Figure 0 35 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 36 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 134-134
Figure 0 37 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (38 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 38 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 135-135
Figure 0 39 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 040 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 136-136
Figure 041 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 042 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 137-137
Figure 043 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8F A 7 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure D44 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 14 Days (50 mm 0) 138-138
Figure 045 Stress Vs Strain graph for2-8FA 28 Days (50 nun 0) 139-139
Figure 0 46 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2-8FA 120 Days (50 mm 0) 139-139
Figure 047 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
Figure 048 Stress Vs Strain graph for 10OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 140-140
xv
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Figure 0 49 Stress Vs Strain graph for 15OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure D50 Stress Vs Strain graph for 20OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 141-141
Figure 05 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 25OPC 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 052 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 142-142
Figure 053 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 0 54 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 143-143
Figure 055 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+5FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 056 Stress Vs Strain graph for2QL+10FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 144-144
Figure 057 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 058 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+1OFA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 145-145
Figure 059 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+I0FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 146-146
Figure 060 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0raquo 146-146
Figure 0 61 Stress Vs Strain graph for 4QL+ 15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 062 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 147-147
Figure 0 63 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+15FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 0 64 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 148-148
Figure 065 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 066 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 149-149
Figure 067 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+20FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 0 68 Stress Vs Strain graph for 2QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 150-150
Figure 069 Stress Vs Strain graph for4QL+ 25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure 0 70 Stress Vs Strain graph for 6QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 151-151
Figure D7 1 Stress Vs Strain graph for 8QL+25FA 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
XVI
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
---------- ------------------
Figure 072 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Acc UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 152-152
Figure 073 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 Ab(S04)3
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 074 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 153-153
Figure 075 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 076 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 AccUT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 154-154
Figure 0 77 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+26 CaS04
UT 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 078 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 155-155
Figure 079 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 0 80 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 156-156
Figure 081 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5FA+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 157-157
Figure 082 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Acc T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 0 84 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+Ah(S04)3 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 158-158
Figure 085 Stress Vs Strain graph for 5OPC+CaS04 T 7-120 Days (50 mm 0) 159-159
LIST OF TABLES
Table 11 Peat lands ofthe earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007) 2-2
Table 12 Peat soils in Sarawak (Singh et aI 1997) 5-5
Table 31 Geographical position ofpeat soil samples 32-32
xvii
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
Table 32 Different percentages of stabilizers with peat soils 40-40
Table 41 Moisture content of peat samples 43-43
Table 42 Moisture content of coal ash samples 43-43
Table 43 Degree ofDecomposition ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 44 Fiber content ofpeat soil samples 44-44
Table 45 Loss on Ignition and Organic content ofpeat samples 44-44
Table 46 Loss on Ignition and Organic content coal ash samples 45-45
Table 47 Liquid limit ofpeat soil samples 46-46
Table 48 Liquid limit ofcoal ash samples 47-47
Table 49 Specific gravity of peat soil samples 47-47
Table 4 10 Specific gravity of coal ash samples 48-48
Table411 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 412 pH values ofpeat soil and coal ash samples 49-49
Table 4 13 UCS values oforiginal peat soil samples 54-54
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS
C Correction factor
CBR California Bearing Ratio
DID Department ofIrrigation and Drainage
FA Fly ash (FA-O to 03)
FC Fiber Content
Gs Specific gravity
XVlll
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
HI-HIO Degree ofhumification
LL Liquid Limi t
LOI Loss on Ignition
MI-8 Sampling location
MC Moisture content ()
MDD Maximum dry density (gcc)
OC Organic content ()
OMC Optimum moisture content ()
OP Original peat
OPC Ordinary Portland cement
PA-C Pond ash (Close)
PA-F Pond ash (Far)
PA-M Pond ash (Middle)
QL Quick lime
rac Temperature (OC)
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
w Natural water content
UT Untreated
T Treated
XlX
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
CHAPTERl
INTRODUCTION
11 Background
Highly organic soil or peat is a non-homogeneous soil which is generated from decomposition of
organic matter such as plant remains leaves and trunks The organic soil having organic matter
more than 75 is called peat soil as per ASTM D 2607-69 According to Magnan (1994) peat
soils have unique characteristic mainly due to different degree of decomposition which imposes
a serious impediment to accurate interpretation peat soil behavior at field and at laboratory When
a peat soil sample is collected from site its access to oxygen increases its pH and temperature
which is generally higher than that in the ground and consequently the biological degradation
rate is greatly enhanced (elymo and Hayward 1982 Ingram 1983 and Von der Heijden et aI
1994 Mesri et a1 1997) Organic or peat soil can be found anywhere on Earth except in barren
and arctic regions The peat deposit covers 5 to 8 of the land area of the Earth surfaces (Mesri
and Ajlouni 2007) Among them 8 to 11 are tropical peat soils deposited in Indonesia
Malaysia Brazil Uganda Zambia Zambia Venezuela and Zaire (Moore and Bellamy 1974
Shier 1984) Table 11 shows the percentage of peat land around the World In Malaysia there
are about 27 million hectare ofpeat and organic soils ie about 8 of the total land area Out 0 f
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
that more than half deposited in Sarawak which covers about 166 million hectare of land or
constituting 13 of the state (Mutalib et a1 1991)
Table 11 Peat lands of the Earth surfaces (Mesri and Ajlouni 2007)
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Country Peat lands (lan2
)
land area
Canada 1500000 18 Ireland 14000 USSR Uganda 14000 17
(The fonner) 1500000 Poland 13000 United States 600000 10 Falklands 12000
Indonesia 170000 14 Chile 11000 Finland 100000 34 Zambia 11000 Sweden 70000 20 26 other China 42000 countries 220 to 10000
Norway 30000 10 Scotland 10 Malaysia 25000 15 other Gennany 16000 countries 1 to 9
Brazil 15000
The peat or highly organic soil is a problem in the infrastructure development in Sarawak It is
generally considered as problematic soil in any construction project because of high
compressibility and very low shear strength However with the rapid industrialization and
population growth it has become a necessity to construct infrastructure facilities on peat-land as
well ie construction is planned almost everywhere including the area ofpeat-land
Previous cases revealed that several construction methods such as displacement method
replacement method stage loading and surface reinforcement method pile supported
embankment method light weight fill raft method deep in-situ chemical stabilization method and
thennal pre-compression method are available to improve the soft or peat soil (Edil 2003) Only
some of these methods have been employed in Sarawak It is observed that some of the projects
2
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3
I were technically successful while others had excessive settlement and failure problems several
years after completion Out of several alternatives one of the promising methods of construction
on the peat soil is to stabilize the peat soil by using suitable stabilizer
According to Jarrett (1997) peat soils are subject to instability and massive primary and longshy
tenn consolidation settlements when subjected to even moderate load increment Stabilization
can improve the strength and decrease the excessive settlement of this higMy compressible soft or
peat soil Also soil stabilization can eliminate the need for expensive borrow materials and
expedite construction by improving wet or unstable soil Many types of admixtures are available
to stabilize the highly organic or peat soil Chemical admixtures involve treating the soil with
some kind of chemical compound when added to the soil would result a chemical reaction The
chemical reaction modifies or enhances the physical and engineering aspects of a soil such as
increase its strength and bearing capacity and decrease its water sensitivity and volume change
potential (Van Impe 1989) In geotechnical engineering soil stabilization is divided into two
sections These are
(1) Mechanical stabilization which improves the structure of the soil (and consequently the
bearing capacity) usually by compaction
(2) Chemical stabilization which improves the physical properties of the soil by adding or
injecting a chemical agent such as sodium silicate polyacrylamides lime fly ash cement
or bituminous emulsions
According to Brown (1999) soil stabilization is a procedure for improving natural soil properties
to provide more adequate resistance to erosion water seepage and the environmental forces and
more loading capacity
3