a critical performance study of innovative...
TRANSCRIPT
i
A CRITICAL PERFORMANCE STUDY OF INNOVATIVE LIGHTWEIGHT
FILL TO MITIGATE SETTLEMENT OF EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTED
ON PEAT SOIL
TUAN NOOR HASANAH BINTI TUAN ISMAIL
A thesis submitted in
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Doctoral of Philosophy
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
March 2017
iii
Specially Dedicated to
My beloved husband and family
Thanks for all the love and support
Sincerely, Tuan Noor Hasanah binti Tuan Ismail
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
Syukur Alhamdulillah and all thanks are due to Allah for gave me strength and
ability to complete my research successfully. First and foremost, I would like to
express my deepest gratitude to my project supervisor, Prof. Dr. Devapriya Chitral
Wijeyesekera for his supervision and guidance, invaluable assistance and his
constant confidence in me. Without his continued guidance and support, this thesis
would not have been a success. Forever I appreciate his patience and availability for
any help whenever needed despite his heavy workload.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof. Dato’ Dr. Ismail Hj.
Bakar as my co supervisor for their helpful suggestions, assistance, and
encouragement. His absolute support is greatly appreciated.
I also gratefully acknowledge all the academic staffs and support staffs
especially Mr As-Shar bin Kasalan and Mdm. Salina binti Sani for assisting and give
the guidance to me during conducting the laboratory and field works.
I am also very thankful to all my colleagues and other researchers I have met
for their help, encouragement, motivation and friendship on my research work.
Financial support from MTUN-COE grant and MyPhD scholarship are also
gratefully acknowledged
Heartfelt acknowledgements are expressed to my beloved husband and
parents for their sacrifices, support and encouragement. Without them, I may never
have overcome this long journey in my studies. Not forgetting my siblings for their
friendship and support during the difficult times of my study. May Allah reward all
of you. Thank you…
v
ABSTRACT
Infrastructure construction now demands the development on soft ground such as
peat. Discomfort of road users such as bumpy road need to be addressed with the use
of appropriate lightweight and stiff backfill materials. Alternative lightweight fills
used in current highway construction is critically reviewed in this research prior to
the conceptual development of a stiff lightweight mat (Geocomposite Cellular Mat,
GCM). The GCM concept is somewhat similar to the EPS concept by virtue of the
mat form. However, the EPS is lighter than GCM, but the GCM is much stronger,
stiffer, more porous and permeable. The performance of the GCM on hemic peat
ground at the test site in Parit Nipah, Johor was compared with that from
conventional backfill (sand fill). The typical geotechnical properties of Parit Nipah
peat were high in organic content (85.3 %), high in moisture content (> 600 %) and
low in undrained shear strength (< 15 kPa). The consolidation characteristics of Parit
Nipah peat was obtained from both laboratory and field tests using Terzaghi’s, and
hyperbolic methods. The settlement predicted by hyperbolic method gave a better
agreement with the field data. The field tests were environmentally monitored and
innovative field instrumentation for the settlement monitoring was specially designed
for this research. The research effectively demonstrates potential for the use of GCM
to mitigate settlement of highway embankment built on peat ground. The field
observation showed that the maximum settlements were reduced up to 84 % with the
adoption of GCM fills. Furthermore, 70 % differential settlement was reduced with
GCM fill compared with sand fill. GCM fills not only reduces excessive settlement
but also reduces the differential settlement. However, they also effectively accelerate
the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through the ease of dissipation of
the excess pore water pressure through the open-porous cellular structure of the
GCM fills.
vi
ABSTRAK
Pembinaan infrastruktur di atas tanah lembut contohnya tanah gambut kini mendapat
permintaan yang tinggi. Namun yang demikian, pembinaan jalan raya diatas tanah
gambut memberi ketidakselesaan kepada pengguna jalan raya disebabkan oleh jalan
yang beralun dan ini perlu ditangani dengan pendekatan yang sesuai seperti
penggunaan bahan tambak yang ringan dan kuat. Melalui penyelidikan ini, kajian
secara kritikal terhadap bahan alternatif tambak ringan yang digunakan dalam
pembinaan jalan raya masa kini telah dilakukan sebelum pembangunan konseptual
bahan tambak berbentuk tikar yang ringan dan keras (Geocomposite Celular Mat,
GCM). GCM mempunyai konsep yang hampir sama dengan EPS iaitu berbentuk
tikar. Namun yang demikian, EPS adalah lebih ringan berbanding GCM, tetapi GCM
lebih kuat, keras, poros dan telap jika dibandingkan dengan EPS. Hasil ujikaji
terhadap prestasi GCM ke atas tanah gambut hemik yang dilakukan di tapak ujikaji
terletak di Parit Nipah, Johor dibandingkan dengan tambak konvensional berbentuk
pasir. Ciri geoteknikal tanah gambut di Parit Nipah yang tipikal mempunyai
kandungan organik yang tinggi (85.3%), kandungan kelembapan yang tinggi (> 600
%) dan kekuatan ricih yang rendah (< 15 kPa). Ciri-ciri pengukuhan tanah gambut ini
diperoleh melalui ujikaji makmal dan lapangan dengan menggunakan kaedah
Terzaghi dan hiperbolik. Kaedah hiperbolik menunjukkan ramalan pemendapan
lapangan yang lebih baik berbanding dengan kaedah lain. Pemantauan terhadap
persekitaran kawasan lapangan telah dilakukan dan penggunaan peralatan tapak telah
direka khas dalam kajian ini untuk memantau pemendapan. Hasil kajian menunjukkan
potensi penggunaan GCM bagi mengurangkan pemendapan penambakan jalan raya
yang dibina diatas tanah gambut adalah sangat efektif. Kajian lapangan menunjukkan
penggurangan sehingga 84% terhadap pemendapan maksimum berjaya dicapai
dengan menggunakan GCM. Selain itu, perbezaan pemendapan juga berjaya
dikurangkan sebanyak 70 % dengan penggunaan GCM. GCM bukan saja dapat
mengurangkan jumlah dan perbezaan pemendapan, ianya juga mampu
mempercepatkan pemendapan subgred secara efektif dengan memudahkan
penyerapan lebihan tekanan air liang melalui struktur sel liang terbuka GCM.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xv
LIST OF FIGURES xix
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xxviii
LIST OF APPENDICES xxxiv
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preamble 1
1.2 Problem identification 3
1.3 Research hypothesis 5
1.4 Research aim and objectives 5
1.4.1 Aim of the research 5
1.4.2 Objectives of the research 5
1.5 Scope (boundary) of research 6
1.6 Research programme 8
1.7 Thesis outline
9
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 10
2.2 Settlement induced failure of highways and infrastructures on soft
soil
10
viii
2.3 Problematic soils in Malaysia 13
2.3.1 Definition of peat soil 13
2.3.2 Peatland in Malaysia 15
2.3.2.1 Peat morphology 17
2.3.2.2 Structural arrangement of peat soil 18
2.3.2.3 Classification of peat soil (engineering) 19
2.3.2.4 Characteristic properties of peat soils 21
2.3.2.5 Critical review of characteristic properties of peat
soils at Parit Nipah, Johor
24
2.4 Ground improvement methods 25
2.4.1 Alternative construction technologies using lightweight fill
materials particularly for road construction
29
2.4.1.1 Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam 30
2.4.1.2 Shredded tires and tire bale fills 32
2.4.1.3 Foamed concrete (blocks/panel) 34
2.4.1.4 Bamboo grid frame 35
2.4.1.5 Other lightweight fill materials (mixed or added to
the soils)
36
2.4.2 Critical design properties of feasible lightweight fill blocks
used in embankment construction
39
2.4.3 Review of past literature on road embankments constructed
using lightweight fill material
42
2.5 Plastic (synthetic and semi-synthetic polymer) as an alternative
lightweight construction materials
48
2.5.1 Why recycled plastics? 50
2.5.2 Engineering and thermal properties of plastic 53
2.5.2.1 Properties of virgin plastic 53
2.5.2.2 Critical review of mechanical properties of
recycled plastic blends
55
2.5.3 Use of plastic in engineering field 58
2.6 Contributory advantages from cellular structure 61
2.6.1 Characteristic properties of cellular solids 65
2.6.2 Engineering applications of cellular structure 67
ix
2.7 Field monitoring instrumentation 70
2.7.1 Survey method for measuring vertical movement 72
2.7.2 Comparisons of field instrumentation 78
2.7.3 Appropriate field instrumentation for embankment over soft
ground
79
2.8 Consolidation settlement of soils 83
2.8.1 Consolidation model for peat soils 84
2.8.1.1 Cα/Cc concept (1977) 84
2.8.1.2 Rheological model for peat soil (1961) 86
2.8.1.3 Summary of rheological model 90
2.8.2 Consolidation behaviour of peat 90
2.8.3 One-dimensional consolidation test 94
2.8.4 Settlement prediction based on one-dimensional
consolidation test
96
2.8.5 Applicability of Terzaghi’s theory to predict settlement over
peat
102
2.8.6 Comparative overview of classical One-dimensional (1D),
three-dimensional (3D) and large strain consolidation theories
104
2.8.7 Settlement prediction during construction period 110
2.9 Alternative methods of settlement analysis 112
2.9.1 Hyperbolic method 112
2.9.2 Asaoka method 116
2.10 Guideline and standard for road embankment construction 118
2.10.1 Critical overview of JKR Malaysia standard (ATJ 5/85) for
road construction
118
2.10.2 Critical overview of guideline for the construction on peat
and organic soil by CREAM and CIDB
121
2.10.3 Critical overview of geotechnical design standard for road
embankment
125
2.10.4 Critical overview of design guidelines for lightweight fill
embankment system
125
2.10.4.1 Basic of the load bearing analysis design
procedure
127
x
2.10.4.2 Design guideline and design procedure for
embankment construction
129
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 132
3.2 Material and site selection 132
3.2.1 Geocomposite Cellular Mat (GCM) 132
3.2.1.1 Quality assessment of the GCM tube 135
3.2.1.2 Structures of GCM 137
3.2.1.3 Brief outline of GCM production 138
3.2.2 Site selection – field soil sample and field test 140
3.2.2.1 Visual observation of Parit Nipah peat 141
3.2.2.2 Peat sampling 142
3.3 Laboratory tests 144
3.3.1 Testing on peat soil 146
3.3.2 One-dimensional consolidation test on undisturbed peat soil 146
3.3.3 General index property tests on GCM material 148
3.3.2.1 Determination of density and specific gravity of
vPP and rPP particle (solid block form)
148
3.3.2.2 Properties of GCM block 153
3.3.2.3 Water absorption 157
3.3.4 Thermal analysis of polypropylene 159
3.3.4.1 Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) testing 159
3.3.4.2 Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) testing 161
3.3.5 Engineering characteristic of GCM block 166
3.3.5.1 Compression test 166
3.3.5.2 Loading and unloading evaluation 171
3.3.5.3 Interface shearing strength 172
CHAPTER 4 – FIELD INSTRUMENTATION, TESTING AND
OBSERVATIONS AT PARIT NIPAH
4.1 Introduction 176
4.2 Site location (Research Peat Station at Parit Nipah) 176
xi
4.2.1 Temporary Bench Mark (TBM) at the test site 177
4.2.2 Other relevant site information 180
4.3 Field instrumentation 181
4.3.1 Instrumentation for environmental observation 181
4.3.2 Instrumentation for settlement observation 183
4.3.2.1 Instrument setup 185
4.3.2.2 Checking the level accuracy 185
4.3.3 Appropriately design instrumentation for settlement
observation (settlement plate gauge)
186
4.4 Observation of site environmental conditions 189
4.4.1 Temperature and humidity observation 189
4.4.2 Rainfall data 190
4.4.3 Groundwater level variation 191
4.4.4 Heave and settlement of ground due to changes in
groundwater level
192
4.5 Field test description 195
4.5.1 Outline of the field test group 1 (F11-GCM1 and F21-CF) and
group 2 (F32-GCM2 and F42-CF) – uniform loading
199
4.5.1.1 Quality controls for field test groups 1 and 2 199
4.5.1.2 Field test preparation for field test groups 1 and 2 203
4.5.1.3 Site instrumentation setup for field test groups 1
and 2
203
4.5.1.4 Construction stages for testing (groups 1 and 2) –
uniform loading
203
4.5.2 Outline of the field test group 3 (F53-GCM3,4,5 and F63-CF) –
trial embankment loading
210
4.5.2.1 Quality controls in field testing (group 3) 210
4.5.2.2 Field test preparation for field test group 3 211
4.5.2.3 Arrangement of GCM fill in trial embankment
(F53-GCM3,4,5)
211
4.5.2.4 Site instrumentation setup for field test group 3 213
4.5.2.5 Construction stages for testing group 3 – trial
embankment loading
213
xii
4.5.3 Data collection 216
4.5.4 Monitoring interval 217
4.6 Observation results and analysis 218
4.6.1 Settlement during construction loading (for test groups 1, 2
and 3)
219
4.6.2 Long term settlement observation for field test group 1: F11-
GCM1 (GCM fill – uniform loading) and F21-CF (sand fill –
non-uniform loading)
225
4.6.3 Long term settlement observation for field test group 2: F32-
GCM2 (GCM fill – uniform loading) and F42-CF (sand fill –
non-uniform loading)
232
4.6.4 Long term settlement observation for field test group 3: F53-
GCM3,4,5 (GCM fill – uniform embankment loading) and
F63-CF (sand fill – non-uniform embankment loading)
234
4.6.5 Summary of observation results 237
CHAPTER 5 – CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH OBSERVATIONS
AND PREDICTIONS
5.1 Introduction 239
5.2 Performance of GCM fill 240
5.2.1 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – compression test 240
5.2.1.1 Observation of the axial compressive strength and
stiffness of vPP and rPP material
242
5.2.1.2 Observation on the influence of single and
multiple polypropylene (PP) tube arrangements
and specimen heights on axial compressive
strength and stiffness
243
5.2.1.3 Observation on the influence of diameter of open-
cell on the axial compressive strength and
stiffness
247
5.2.1.4 Observation on the influence of wall thickness on
the axial compressive strength and stiffness
348
xiii
5.2.1.5 Observation on the influence of temperature on
axial compressive strength and stiffness of the
specimens
249
5.2.1.6 Transverse compressive stress and stiffness of
specimens
252
5.2.1.7 Summary of strength and stiffness of GCM and
compared with other alternative lightweight fill
materials
253
5.2.2 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – loading unloading
evaluation
255
5.2.3 Engineering characteristic of the GCM – interface shearing
strength
256
5.2.3.1 Shear strength of GCM block alone (in material) 259
5.2.3.2 Shear strength between GCM-GCM blocks
(within embankment)
261
5.2.3.3 Comparison of shear strength parameter of GCM
fill with other alternative lightweight fill
materials
263
5.3 Consolidation behaviour Parit Nipah peat 264
5.3.1 Analysis of settlement curves from one-dimensional
consolidation tests
264
5.3.2 Determination consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah
peat
266
5.3.3 Effect of secondary settlement on rate of consolidation 271
5.4 Critical analysis of field observation 273
5.4.1 Test F21-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation 274
5.4.2 Test F11-GCM1 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation 279
5.4.3 Test F42-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation (repeat
test F21-CF)
280
5.4.4 Test F32-GCM2 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation
(repeat test F11-GCM1)
283
5.4.5 Test F63-CF – Settlement due to a flexible foundation (trial
embankment)
284
xiv
5.4.6 Test F53-GCM3,4,5 – Settlement due to a rigid foundation 287
5.4.7 Performance compatibility with design standards and
guidelines
290
5.5 Theoretical prediction
5.5.1 Prediction of settlements using Terzaghi’s one-dimensional
consolidation theory
5.5.2 Prediction of settlement based on field consolidation data
using hyperbolic method
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Introduction 305
6.2 Conclusions obtained for objectives 305
6.2.1 The engineering and geotechnical properties of GCM fill
material
306
6.2.2 Consolidation characteristic of Parit Nipah peat 307
6.2.3 The field settlement performance of GCM fill compared
with conventional sand fill
308
6.2.4 Theoretical predicted laboratory and field settlement
performance
310
6.3 Contributions to knowledge and industry 311
6.4 Recommendations for further research
311
REFERENCES 313
APPENDICES 336
xv
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Thesis outline 9
2.1 Definition of peat soil by various fields 14
2.2 Organic content based on ASTM D4427-1992 14
2.3 Definition of soils based on organic content in the soil 14
2.4 von Post degree of humification 20
2.5 Classification of peat 20
2.6 Classification of peat based on fiber content 21
2.7 General properties of peat soils in Malaysia by various
researchers
22
2.8 Strength terms according to laboratory test and hand
identification
23
2.9 List of soil improvement methods are practiced to stabilize the
soil
26
2.10 General properties of various lightweight materials and problem
associated with them
28
2.11 Comparison of typical properties of EPS geofoam, tire bales and
earth fill materials
40
2.12 Types and classification of plastics by Plastics Industry
Association
49
2.13 Typical properties of various types of plastic for engineering
application
54
2.14 Mechanical properties of rPP/vHDPE blends 56
2.15 Mechanical properties of vPP/rPP blends 57
2.16 Uses of plastic in civil engineering field 60
2.17 Typical relative densities of some cellular material 65
2.18 General applications of cellular structure 68
xvi
2.19 Uncertainty of instrument performance 71
2.20 Causes and remedies of errors in measurement 72
2.21 General match between monitoring needs and instruments 73
2.22 Surveying methods 77
2.23 Instruments for monitoring progress of consolidation 80
2.24 Summary of selected case histories of embankment on soft
ground
81
2.25 Comparison between consolidation and compaction process 84
2.26 Values of natural moisture content (wc) and Cα/Cc for peat
deposit
85
2.27 Rheological model for various types of soil 91
2.28 Definition of notation and consolidation parameters of soil 100
2.29 Typical values of Cα′ /Cc ratio for different types of soils 101
2.30 Prediction of magnitude of the settlement based on Terzaghi’s
one-dimensional consolidation theory
102
2.31 Comparative overview of one-dimensional (1D), three-
dimensional (3D) and large strain consolidation
108
2.32 Comparison of observed and predicted settlement 115
2.33 Material properties for each layer 120
2.34 Methodology and criteria for road design 121
2.35 Correlation between basic properties and parameters for
estimating consolidation settlement
122
2.36 Minimum geotechnical requirements in design of the road
embankment
124
2.37 Design parameter considered for EPS application 127
2.38 Summary of EPS design guideline for the use in highway
embankment by NCHRP
129
3.1 Typical properties of particle virgin PP and recycled PP 134
3.2 Geometry of cell and the GCM blocks used 135
3.3 Range of tube geometry and density for vPPB 136
3.4 A summary from the visual observation on the GCM tubes 136
3.5 Outlined of the laboratory tests on Parit Nipah Peat and the test
results on the general properties of peat in comparison to
145
xvii
published data
3.6 Outlined of the laboratory tests were conducted on plastic
particle and GCM block
150
3.7 Density and specific gravity of vPP and rPP particles based on
Method A
151
3.8 Average specific gravity of vPP and rPP particles 153
3.9 Measured weight of the GCM block 156
3.10 Water absorption of vPP and rPP compared with EPS 158
3.11 Important thermal properties observed in this study 162
3.12 Total samples were tested through TGA and DSC tests 165
3.13 Summary of thermal characteristics 165
3.14 Schedule of specimens tested under axial compression loading 168
3.15 Test specimens were used for load and unloading evaluation 171
3.16 Test specimens were tested through direct shear test 174
3.17 Summary of important shear test parameter by past researchers 175
4.1 The instrument used to evaluate environment condition on site 182
4.2 National vertical control accuracy standard 183
4.3 Standpipe head elevation and water table under various
environmental conditions
191
4.4 Details of field test groups 196
4.5 Materials used and setup on test site (for field test groups 1 and
2)
204
4.6 Schematic view of model tests and settlement points were
evaluated for tests F11-GCM1, F21-CF, F32-GCM2 and F42-CF
205
4.7 Materials used and setup on test site (for field test group 3) 210
4.8 Schematic view of field test group 3 and settlement points were
evaluated
212
4.9 Summary of field test observation in this research 210
4.10 Embankment height and schedule of staged construction
practices adopted by previous researchers
220
5.1 Summary of the transverse compressive strength and stiffness of
tube at different temperature stages
253
5.2 Average strength and stiffness of GCM for temperature of 30 oC 254
xviii
5.3 Average strength and stiffness of GCM for temperature of 50 oC 255
5.4 Average peak shear strength at different normal stresses for
shearing resistance in GCM alone/itself
259
5.5 Average peak shear strength at different normal stresses for
shearing resistance between GCM-GCM blocks
263
5.6 Comparison of shear strength parameter of various lightweight
fill alternatives
264
5.7 Summary of one-dimensional consolidation parameters 268
5.8 The comparisons of coefficient of consolidation (cv) value for
single drainage obtained from different methods
270
5.9 The comparisons of coefficient of consolidation (cv) value for
double drainage obtained from different methods
271
5.10 Comparison of consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah peat 272
5.11 Summary of the relevant information for the critical analysis 275
5.12 Summary of settlement analysis of this research and comparison
with previous researches
287
5.13 Research output in the contact of performance standard and
guideline for road embankment
291
5.14 Unit weight of the sample from point A and C 293
5.15 Summary of stress increment at the middle of each sublayer of
peat
293
5.16 Determination of time to reach 90 % consolidation 294
5.17 Primary and secondary consolidation settlement predicted based
on laboratory one-dimensional consolidation data
295
5.18 Determination of β and α for hyperbolic method using field
consolidation data
299
5.19 Comparison of ultimate primary settlement (∆Hp) estimates using
hyperbolic method and settlement observed in this research
302
6.1 Comparison of typical properties of GCM fill, EPS geofoam and
conventional earth fill
307
6.2 Comparison of consolidation characteristics of Parit Nipah peat
and typical inorganic clay
308
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Ground subsidence in Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia (a) failure of
structure and (b) road settlement
4
1.2 Peat settlement occurring at Parit Nipah, Johor 4
1.3 Research elements studies within the boundary of in investigation 6
1.4 General detail of field location and soil sampling 7
1.5 Flow for the research 9
2.1 Typical section of a structure on peat; (a) immediately after
completion of construction, (b) several years after completion of
construction
11
2.2 Settlement condition in shallow flexible and rigid foundation 12
2.3 Tropical peatland of Southeast Asia 15
2.4 Peatland of Johor area 16
2.5 Typical cross section of a basin peat 17
2.6 Profile morphology of organic soil 18
2.7 Schematic diagram; (a) multi-phase system of peat, and (b) peat
arrangement
19
2.8 Variation of soil properties with depths; (a) natural moisture
content profile, (b) specific gravity, (c) undrained strength profile
25
2.9 Road construction using EPS block 30
2.10 Tire shreds into 50 to 300 mm in length 32
2.11 Tire bales for lightweight embankment fill 33
2.12 SEM images of foamed concrete 34
2.13 Ground improvement using bamboo grid frame technology 35
2.14 (a) wood chip coarse fibre, (b) sawdust coarse fibre 36
2.15 Expended shale 37
2.16 Clam shells 38
xx
2.17 Typical road embankment constructed by EPS geofoam 43
2.18 View of Athens-Thessaloniki highway failure 45
2.19 Road embankment constructed by shredded tire 45
2.20 Road embankment constructed by application of tire bales 46
2.21 Application of tire bales in embankment construction 47
2.22 Construction of road embankment using tire bales as subgrade 48
2.23 Solid wastes composition generated: (a) volume percentage in
Malaysia, (b) volume percentage United State
51
2.24 Percentage components of plastic waste available in Europe and
USA
51
2.25 Waste management practice in Malaysia 53
2.26 A chart showing the correlation of density and Young’s modulus 55
2.27 Example of cellular and foam structure: (a) two-dimensional
honeycomb structure, (b) three-dimensional open-cell foam, (c)
three-dimensional closed-cell foam
62
2.28 Mechanics of material: (a) cell structure, (b) individual soil
particles structure
63
2.29 Some examples of nature cellular structure: (a) wood, (b)
cancellous bone, (c) skull, (d) plant stems
63
2.30 (a) Schematic of sandwich panel structure, (b) sandwich panel
structure with honeycomb core
64
2.31 The range of properties available to the engineer through
foaming; (a) density, (b) thermal conductivity, (c) Young’s
modulus, (d) compressive strength
66
2.32 Aircraft component with cellular structure 67
2.33 Construction of the flexible pavement using polymer geocell 69
2.34 Accuracy and precision 71
2.35 Benchmark installation in rock 78
2.36 Embankment on soft ground 79
2.37 Possible layout of instrumentations beneath a test embankment
when vertical drain have been installed
80
2.38 Calculation of Cα/Cc ratio value 85
2.39 Rheological model by Gibson and Lo (1961) 87
xxi
2.40 Theoretical log strain (∆𝜀/∆𝑡) against time curve 87
2.41 Correction for b parameter for field condition 88
2.42 Rheological model based on Berry & Poskitt (1972) theory for
fibrous peat
89
2.43 Types of time-compression curved from consolidation test 92
2.44 Time-settlement behavious of peat Type II 92
2.45 Time-settlement relationship 93
2.46 Settlement-time curve at the center of Middleton test fill 94
2.47 Schematic diagram of an consolidation cell 95
2.48 Void ratio – log effective stress curve to determined consolidation
parameters; (a) for normally consolidated curve and (b) for
overconsolidated curve
97
2.49 Determining preconsolidation pressure (𝜎𝑐′) from e-log 𝜎′ curve
by Casagrande method
98
2.50 Void ratio versus incremental stress curve for determining
coefficient of compressibility
98
2.51 Determination of the coefficient of secondary consolidation 99
2.52 Relationship between degree of consolidation (U) and time factor
(Tv) curve
101
2.53 (a) A soil layer infinite lateral extent and (b) a soil element with
boundaries fixed in space
104
2.54 One, two- and three-dimensional conditions 105
2.55 Domain of a soil layer under consolidation using Lagrangian
coordinate system; (a) before and (b) after consolidation
107
2.56 Settlement coefficient (𝜇𝑐) for pore pressures set up under a
foundation proposed by Skempton & Bjerrum, 1957
110
2.57 Correction of graphical settlement curve during construction
period
111
2.58 Settlement prediction by hyperbolic method 112
2.59 Hyperbolic plot Terzaghi’s one-dimensional consolidation theory 113
2.60 Hyperbolic plot of field settlements 114
2.61 Comparison of measured and predicted settlement 116
2.62 Graphical method of settlement prediction 117
xxii
2.63 Typical flexible pavement cross-section in Malaysia by JKR 118
2.64 Flexible pavement cross section with the certain thickness of
layers
119
2.65 Thickness design by nomograph 120
2.66 Correlation of bulk density (𝛾𝑏) and dry density (𝛾𝑑) with natural
moisture content (wo)
122
2.67 Correlation of specific gravity (Gs) with ignition loss 122
2.68 Correlation of initial void ratio (eo) with natural moisture content
(wo)
123
2.69 Correlation of void ratio (e) with coefficient of permeability (k) 123
2.70 Correlation of compressibility index (Cc) with natural moisture
content (wo)
123
2.71 Correlation of compressibility index (Cc) with secondary
compression index (C𝛼)
124
2.72 Important Components of an EPS block embankment 126
2.73 Load bearing failure of the EPS block resulting in excessive
settlement
128
2.74 Compression stress-strain behaviour on EPS block specimen
through unconfined compression test
128
2.75 Stress-strain relationship of EPS block specimen based on
unconfined compression creep test
128
2.76 Cyclic load behaviour for EPS block specimen 129
3.1 Flow plan for the research 133
3.2 Geocomposite cellular mat (GCM) block (with dimension of 0.5
x 0.5 m by 0.2 m height); (a) by rPP and (b) by vPP
134
3.3 Determination of outer diameter, inner diameter and wall
thickness of the GCM tube cell
136
3.4 Various geometry and density observed along the 1000 mm tube;
(a) outer diameter of cell, (b) inner diameter of cell, (c) wall
thickness of cell, (d) solid density
137
3.5 GCM structure 138
3.6 Phase involved in producing of GCM 138
3.7 Typical layout of soil sampling and field site 139
xxiii
3.8 The soil is squeezed in the palm of hand 140
3.9 Classification of soil profile at Parit Nipah using peat sampler 141
3.10 Decayed tree stump removed from test site 142
3.11 Peatland Parit Nipah (test site); (a) pineapple roots in the peat (b)
hemic peat
142
3.12 Standard consolidation test; (a) test setup, (b) Consolidation cell 147
3.13 Mettler Toledo balance used to measure weight and density of
solid material
149
3.14 Test specimens for specific gravity test 152
3.15 Test specimen in pycnometer for specific gravity test 153
3.16 Measure weight of GCM block using digital hook scale 155
3.17 (a) TGA testing machine, and (b) test setup 159
3.18 Typical TGA and DTG thermograms on (a) vPP and (b) rPP 160
3.19 Typical DSC thermogram for plastic 162
3.20 TA DSC Instrument 163
3.21 Apparatus to prepare DSC sample; (a) aluminum hermatic pans
and lid, (b) encapsulating press, and (c) die set
163
3.22 The platform to hold both the sample and reference pans 164
3.23 Axial compression test equipment 167
3.24 Universal Testing Machine with a temperature chamber 167
3.25 The different tubes arrangements (single and multiple tubes
arrangement) to be tested
169
3.26 Compression loading on tube; (a) axial loading and (b) transverse
loading.
169
3.27 Strength and stiffness parameters as measured in compression test 170
3.28 Geocomp Shear Trac II direct shear apparatus used in this testing 172
3.29 Schematic diagram of direct shear test setup 173
3.30 Test specimen; (a) GCM block alone, (b) between GCM-GCM
block interfaces
173
4.1 Research Peat Station (REPEATS) office at Parit Nipah 177
4.2 TBMs on Parit Nipah site 178
4.3 Observations of TBM1, 2, 3 and 4 during testing period (14th
April to 1st December 2015)
180
xxiv
4.4 Location of rainfall data stations 181
4.5 Levelling instrumentation used in the study 184
4.6 Important functions of digital automatic level 185
4.7 Method for checking the level accuracy 186
4.8 Settlement plate gauge was used for field tests 187
4.9 Calibration of developed settlement plate gauge 189
4.10 Variation of temperature and humidity observed (from 14th April
to 28th December 2015)
189
4.11 Temperature profile for 1 year 190
4.12 Rainfall observed at the two closest stations to the field site 190
4.13 Variation of groundwater level and rainfall with time at the test
site
192
4.14 Schematic diagram of test setup on site 193
4.15 Ground movement in relation to groundwater level 194
4.16 Field test outline and setup at Parit Nipah, Johor 198
4.17 Load test setup on site 200
4.18 Loading with concrete cube (7.74 kg each) arrangement 201
4.19 Ground settlement profile with preliminary load test on peat 201
4.20 Soil box system compensation setup on site for field test groups 1
and 2
202
4.21 Stage 1 - preparation of platform for test groups 1 and 2 207
4.22 Stage 2 - level the ground surface for test groups 1 and 2 207
4.23 Stage 3 - (a) Transfer soil box to test area and (b) level the soil
box
208
4.24 Stage 4 – (a) setup instrumentation for field test group 1 and (b)
setup instrumentation for field test group 2
208
4.25 Stage 6 – view of the barcode staff of the settlement plate gauges 209
4.26 Isometric of trial embankment 213
4.27 Stage 1 - preparation of platform for test group 3 214
4.28 Stage 2 - level the ground surface 214
4.29 Stage 4 - settlement plate gauges fixed on site for F6 215
4.30 Stage 5 - construction process for test group 3 215
4.31 Trial embankment constructed with GCM fill 219
xxv
4.32 Settlement curve during construction due to step loading 221
4.33 Loading pattern and settlement during construction period
222
4.34 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the
field loading for tests F11-GCM1 and F21-CF
225
4.35 Zoom out of the ground movement over GCM fill compared with
the sand fill
226
4.36 Ground movement at center in relation to groundwater level 227
4.37 Ground movement at various points beneath fill loading (F11-GCM1
and F21-CF)
228
4.38 Settlement measurement taken at distance of 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B
and 1.0B from the GCM fill loading (F11-GCM1)
229
4.39 Settlement measurement taken at distance of 0.25B, 0.5B, 0.75B
and 1.0B from the sand fill loading (F21-CF)
231
4.40 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the
field loading for tests F32-GCM2 and F42-CF
232
4.41 Ground movements at various points beneath GCM fill (F32-GCM2) 233
4.42 Ground movements at various points beneath sand fill (F42-CF) 233
4.43 Measured settlement of the ground surface at the center of the
field loading for tests F53-GCM3,4,5 and F63-CF
234
4.44 Ground movements at various points; (a) beneath GCM fill (F53-
GCM3,4,5) and (b) beneath sand fill (F63-CF)
235
4.45 The ground movement at centerline of all fill loading 236
4.46 Typical settlement-log time curve of field settlement observed on
peat ground
237
5.1 Stress area on single and multiple arrangements of tubes 241
5.2 Example calculation of material stress and average mat stress 241
5.3 Stress-strain response on rPPC and vPPD tubes 243
5.4 Stress-strain curve influenced by single and multiples tubes
arrangements at temperature stage of 30 oC
244
5.5 Stress-strain curve influenced by specimen height 246
5.6 Stress-strain curve influenced by different diameters of open-cell
tube
248
xxvi
5.7 Stress-strain curve influenced by different wall thickness 249
5.8 Stress-strain behaviour of multiple tube arrangements under axial
compression loading at temperature stage of 50 oC
250
5.9 Comparison of maximum axial compressive strength at
temperatures of 30 oC and 50 oC
251
5.10 Comparison of initial stiffness at temperatures of 30 oC and 50 oC 252
5.11 Stress-strain behaviour of tube under transverse loading 253
5.12 Comparison of the initial stiffness of GCM and EPS geofoam 254
5.13 Stress-strain relationship of cyclic loading from axial
compression tests
255
5.14 Shear stress-displacement curve of GCM block at two speed rate
(0.2 and 0.5 mm/min)
257
5.15 Variation of shear stress versus horizontal displacement behavior
of GCM block at different times (15 min, 30 min and 60 min)
258
5.16 Shear stress-displacement behaviour at different normal stress
(25, 40 and 50 kPa)
260
5.17 Shear strength envelope for rPP-GCM and vPP-GCM interface 261
5.18 Shear stress-displacement behaviour at different normal stress for
two GCM block
262
5.19 Shear strength envelope from GCM-GCM block interface 263
5.20 Typical settlement-log time curve from one-dimensional
consolidation tests.
265
5.21 Variation of the end of primary consolidation or beginning of
secondary consolidation with increasing of effective stress.
266
5.22 Relationship of void ratio versus effective pressure 267
5.23 Time-settlement plotted from one-dimensional consolidation test
results at both, (a) Casagrande’s method, and (b) Taylor’s method
269
5.24 Hyperbolic plots based on laboratory consolidation data 270
5.25 Variation of coefficient of consolidation (cv) analysed for the peat
sample A1 using different method
271
5.26 Variation of coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) as a
function of effective stress
272
5.27 Variation of coefficient of secondary consolidation with 273
xxvii
increasing of effective stress.
5.28 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test
F21-CF
277
5.29 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test
F11-GCM1
278
5.30 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test
F42-CF
281
5.31 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test
F32-GCM2
282
5.32 Settlement behaviour over flexible foundation represented by test
F63-CF
284
5.33 Case studies 286
5.34 Settlement behaviour over rigid foundation represented by test
F53-GCM3,4,5
288
5.35 Percentage improvement using GCM fills 290
5.36 Layout of soil sampling 293
5.37 Profile of the soil layers for settlement prediction 294
5.38 Comparison of the settlement prediction with observed field
settlements
295
5.39 Methodology scheduling for settlement prediction 298
5.40 Predicted settlements using field data in test F11-GCM1 299
5.41 Predicted settlements using field data in test F21-CF 300
5.42 Predicted settlements using field data in test F32-GCM2 300
5.43 Predicted settlements using field data in test F42-CF 301
5.44 Long-term settlements predicted using hyperbolic method based
on field data
302
5.45 Post construction settlements predicted using hyperbolic method
based on field data
303
6.1 Visual observation of settlement profile for field test group 3; (a)
flexible settlements observed in test F53-GCM3,4,5, and (b) rigid
settlements observed in test F63-CF
309
xxviii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
av – Coefficient of compressibility
AASTHO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official
ASTM – American Standard Testing Method
ATJ – Arahan Teknik Jalan
B – Buoyancy Factor
B – Width of loaded area
B – Foundation width/
BM – Benchmark
BS – British Standard
c – Cohesion
Cc – Compression index
Cr – Recompression index
Cs – swelling index
Cα – Coefficient of secondary consolidation
Cα′ – secondary consolidation
cv – Coefficient of consolidation
CIDB – Construction Industry Development Board
cm – Centimeter
CO – carbon monoxide
CO2 – carbon dioxide
CREAM – Construction Research Institute of Malaysia
D – Diameter
D – Depth of foundation
DSC – Differential Scanning Calorimetry
e – Void ratio
eo – Void ratio intercept of virgin consolidation line at 𝜎′ = 1 kPa
xxix
ep – Void ratio at the end of primary consolidation
E – East
Ei – Initial stiffness
Ese – Secant stiffness
Es – Modulus of elasticity
Et – Tangent modulus
EDM – Electronic distance measurement
EOP – End of primary consolidation
EPS – Expanded Polystyrene
FKAAS – Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
FS – Factor safety
ft – feet
ft2 – Square feet
G – Shear modulus
Gs – Specific gravity
GCM – Geocomposite Cellular Mat
g – Gram
g/cm3 – Gram per cubic centimeter
g/m2 – Gram square meter
GPS – Global Positioning System
GPa – Gigapascal
H – Height of embankment
H – Height of specimen/mat
H𝑖 – Initial height
HDPE – High density polyethylene
hr, hrs – Hour
ID – Inner diameter
in – Inches
JKR – Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Work Department)
J/m – Joule per meter
k – Thermal Conductivity
k – Coefficient of permeability (or hydraulic conductivity)
kh – Horizontal hydraulic conductivity
xxx
kv – Vertical hydraulic conductivity
kg – Kilogram
kg/m3 – Kilogram per cubic meter
km – Kilometer
kN/m3 – Kilonewton per cubic meter
kN/m2 – Kilonewton per square meter
kN/mm2 – Kilonewton per square millimeter
kPa – Kilopascal
L – Length
L – Foundation length
LDPE – Light density polyethylene
LL – Liquid limit
M – Mass
m – Meter
m3 – Cubic meter
mv – volume compressibility
MFI – Melt Flow Index
mg – Milligram
Mg/m3 – Milligram per cubic meter
min – Minimum
mm – Millimeter
mm/min – Millimeter per minutes
m2/MN Square meter per meganewton
MPa – Megapascal
N – Newton
N – North
N – Number of tube
NCHRP – National Cooperative Highway Research Board
OC – Organic content
OCR – overconsolidation ratio
OD – Outer diameter
OPKIM – Operasi Khidmat Masyarakat
P – Point load
xxxi
PE – Polyethylene
PET – Polyethylene terephthalate
PFA – Pulverised Fuel Ash
pH – Potential Hydrogen
PL – Plastic limit
PM – Member of Parliament
POFA – Palm Oil Fuel Ash
PP – polypropylene
PS – Polystyrene
PVC – Polyvinyl chloride
q – Uniformly distribution load
Q – Applied load
R – Thermal Resistance
RECESS – Research Centre for Soft Soil
REPEATS – Research Peat stations
RM – Ringgit Malaysia
rHDPE – Recycled high density polyethylene
rPP – Recycled Polystyrene
Su – Undrained shear strength
SCDOT – South Carolina Department of Transportation
SP – Poorly graded sand
t – time
t – Rate of consolidation settlement
tp – Time at the end of primary settlement
t – Thickness
T – Temperature
Tamb – Ambient temperature
Td – Degradation Temperature
Tg – Glass Transition Temperature
Tm – Melting Temperature
Tv – time factor
TBM – Temporary Bench Mark
TGA – Thermal Gravimetric Analysis
xxxii
TP – thermoplastics
TS – thermoset
U, Uv – degree of consolidation
U.S. – United States
USA – United States of America
USCS – United Soil Classification System
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
UTHM – Universiti Tun Husein Onn Malaysia
UTM – Universal Testing Machine
V – Volume
Vs – Volume of solid material
Vv – Volume of void
VCL – Virgin consolidation line
vPP – Virgin Polystyrene
w – Moisture content
wo – Natural moisture content
W – Weight
WA – Water absorption
WSDOT – Washington State Department of Transportation
WT – Water level
z – Depth below load
∆H, S – Settlement
∆Hp, Sp – Primary settlement
∆Hs, Ss – Secondary settlement
oC – Degree Celsius
oC/min – Degree Celsius per minute
oF – Fahrenheit
𝜀 – Strain
𝜎 – Stress
𝜎′ – Effective stress
𝜎v′ – Vertical effective stress
σc′ – Preconsolidation pressure
𝜎𝑖, – Initial effective stress
xxxiii
σmax – Maximum stress
𝜎𝐶𝐸𝐿𝐿 – Material stress
𝜎𝑀𝐴𝑇 – Mat stress
∆𝜎′ – increase of effective stress
σc′ – Preconsolidation pressure
𝜙 – Friction angle
𝜌 – Density
𝜌∗ – Density of cellular material
𝜌𝑠 – Solid density
𝜌𝑠𝑎𝑡 – Saturated density
𝜌𝑤 – Density of water
𝛾𝑏 – Bulk unit weight
𝛾𝑑 – Dry unit weight
𝛾𝑤 – Unit weight of water
o – Degree
% – Percentage
𝜇𝑠 – Poisson’s ratio
𝜇𝑐 – Settlement coefficient
xxxiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Method to Determine Coefficient of Consolidation (cv) 336
B1 Soil Profile 340
B2 Undisturbed Peat Sampling 345
C Index properties and classification 346
D1 Calibration curve (compression test) 350
D2 Calibration curve (direct shear box test) 351
E Data Temperature 352
F1 The Arrangement of GCM structure 356
F2 Arrangement of Number of GCM Fills Block in Embankment 358
G1 Engineering properties – compression test data 360
G2 Engineering properties – direct shear strength test data 368
H Consolidation data 370
I Regression analysis 381
J1 Theoretical calculation of vertical stress distribution 385
J2 Settlement prediction 389
1
0
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preamble
Infrastructure constructions on compressible soil have had many post construction
problems in the past. The most critical geoenvironment challenges are associated
with excessive settlement and differential settlement leading to hazard and
discomfort in road usage. Nearly, 28.6 % of the road user complaints received in
2011 referred to poor condition of road due to differential consolidation settlement
(Unit Komunikasi Korporat, 2011).
Within the Medium term National Infrastructure Development Plans there are
proposals being mooted for the construction of the new East Coast Highway and
Dual Track Rail Road extensions from Kluang to Seremban. Such projects will
necessarily meet challenging peat ground conditions. Some authorities frequently
consider construction of roads on peat to be a ‘black art’. Consequently many
engineers opt for conservative but unsustainable construction technology such as
excavation and replacement with alternative natural resources. Furthermore, this
technology also leads to uneconomic designs because it will increase the cost of
construction and delay the period to completion (Kadir, 2009). Various alternative
construction and stabilisation methods such as surface reinforcement, preloading,
chemical stabilisation, sand or stone column, pre-fabricated vertical drains, and piles
have been suggested and adopted in the past to support structures over soft yielding
ground (Huat, Maail & Mohamed, 2005; Kadir, 2009; Construction Research
Institute of Malaysia, 2015). However these technologies are constrained by
2
technical feasibility, space and time limitations and expensive process. Even after
these procedures, problems of differential settlement are not uncommon.
Innovative use of lightweight fill material can meet the geotechnical
challenges posed by soft yielding ground, because it offers an attractive solution to
reduce settlement. The stress on the subsoil can be reduced so that the settlement is
reduced or eliminated, if the road embankment is constructed out of fill material
lighter than that of soil. In this respect, various types of lightweight materials
(sawdust, fly ash, slag, cinders, cellular concrete, lightweight aggregates, expanded
polystyrene (EPS, shredded tires, and sea shells) have been proposed for road
embankment construction.
Application of lightweight fill materials such as EPS (also known as
“geofoam”) has been used for more than 40 years around the world for roadwork
construction projects (Frydenlund & Aaboe, 2001; Buksowics & Culpan, 2014).
However, the first application of this technology in Malaysia was in 1992 for the
remedy of settlement of bridge abutments (Gan & Tan, 2003). Others are as below:
▪ Remedial of bridge abutment settlements at Kota Bridge II, Klang, Selangor,
1992.
▪ Construction of lightweight road embankment at Teluk Kalung Bypass,
Kemaman, Terengganu, 1994.
▪ Construction of approach embankment to overpass bridge at Sungai Tengi,
Kuala Selangor, Selangor, 1995.
▪ Remedial of differential settlement problem for a bus terminal platform,
1996.
▪ Transition treatment between the approach embankment and a major bridge
at the main entrance of Tanjung Pelepas Port, Johor, 1997.
▪ Remedial of platform settlement at Sungai Dua Toll Canopy, Penang, 1997
▪ Strengthening of bridge abutments on both sides of a bridge, 1999.
▪ Transition treatment of a railway bridge abutment founded on the reclamation
fills at Tanjung Pelepas Port, Johor, 2001.
▪ Mitigate platform settlement at Sungai Dua Toll Canopy Extension Works,
Penang, 2002.
3
1.2 Problem identification
The recent dramatic growth of population in Malaysia and many other parts of the
world has been a cause for rapid pace of infrastructure development to meet the
demands of society and transformation of the economy (Department of Statistic
Malaysia, 2012). Due to the limited availability of ‘suitable’ ground, construction
activities are now forced to consider the development on soft yielding ground. Such
soils are geotechnically problematic, which comprise of high compressibility, high
moisture content (>200 %), low bearing capacity (<8 kN/m2) and low shear strength
(<20 kPa) as reported by Zainorabidin & Wijeyesekera (2007). These usually are
subjected to localised sinking and slip failure, and massive primary and long-term
consolidation settlement even when subjected to a moderate load (Huat et al., 2005;
Duraisamy et al., 2008). Roller coaster scenarios in different settling highways have
proved uncomfortable to the driver and passenger.
Figure 1.1(a) shows a house in Sibu which was badly damaged just one year
after completion of the construction, due to differential settlement in peat soil (Huat,
2004). Figure 1.1(b) shows the poor condition of a road in Sibu town, Malaysia
caused by ground settlement (Kolay, Sii & Taib, 2011). Huat (2004) and Kolay et al.
(2011) state that the ground subsidence on peat land in Sibu town is due to poor
groundwater flow, which has resulted in negative gradients to drainage. Figure 1.2
(taken by author) shows another example of settlement failure occurring in a
structure constructed on peat at Parit Nipah, Johor. Here the peat has settled from the
original level causing the structure of the house to become unsupported. This case
clearly shows the peat soil settlements not only depend on its magnitude but also on
its degree of non-uniformity and the nature’s effects such as dewatering and drying
of the peat. This was also reported by Nurhana (2010).
Any construction activity below the groundwater table must also carefully
consider the buoyancy forces in the design especially for the lightweight fill material.
Three failures associated with buoyancy forces on EPS and water fluctuations have
been reported. Two different failures occurred at Northern Europe in 1987 and
Thailand (Asia) were reported by Frydenlund & Aaboe (2001) and failure at
Carousel Mall in Syracuse New York was reported by Horvath (1999).
4
(a) (b)
Figure 1.1: Ground subsidence in Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia (a) failure of structure
and (b) road settlement.
Figure 1.2: Peat settlement occurring at Parit Nipah, Johor.
The alternative technology of the lightweight cellular mat structure is
developed in Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) and is being used in
this research. The idealised cellular structure in this technology allows water to flow
freely and vertically, reduces the probability of floating, minimising the settlement
and help accelerate the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through rapid
dissipation of the excess pore water pressure developed. Furthermore, the mat
structure will even out any local differential settlement. The performance of this
technology constructed on peat soil is critically studied in this research.
Unsupported structure
5
1.3 Research hypothesis
This research is backed by the following hypothesis. The adoption of the
Geocomposite Cellular Mat (GCM) as a lightweight fill embankment will:
a) Reduce the embankment settlement that occurs due by reducing self-weight
of embankment.
b) Minimise the differential settlement that may occur through the use of a stiff
and contiguous mat structure and the consequent load sharing mechanism of
the mosaic style laying of the mats.
c) Accelerate the consolidation settlement within the sub-grade through the
dissipation of the excess pore water pressure via the very open porous cellular
structure of the GCM.
d) Reduce the probability of floatation. Buoyancy forces arise when submerged
in water. Relatively low densities are prone to create greater buoyancy, and
the open-porous cell structure becomes effective to accommodate the high
permeability characteristic for unhindered flow.
1.4 Research aim and objectives
1.4.1 Aim of the research
The aim of this research is to study the performance of the GCM as a fill material to
mitigate settlement of embankment construction on peat soil.
1.4.2 Objectives of the research
In pursuit of the above aim, the following objectives will necessarily be done:
1) To evaluate the engineering characteristics of GCM fill through laboratory
test.
2) To evaluate the consolidation properties of Parit Nipah peat based on results
obtained from one-dimensional consolidation test.
3) To critically evaluate the field performance of settlement behaviour of GCM
over soft ground compared with sand fill.
4) Assessment of observed and predicted settlement
6
1.5 Scope (boundary) of research
The focus of this research is to critically investigate the GCM performance in
particular the use as a fill embankment for soft ground especially peat soil. The
boundary of research activity is shown in Figure 1.3. Within the embankment
construction only the application of it on problematic ground condition is studied
particularly in excessive and differential settlement. Considerable attempt is given to
investigate the appropriateness of using this lightweight fill (rather than soil
stabilisation), and the economic and logistics of the use of this material.
Figure 1.3: Research elements studies within the boundary of in investigation.
The research includes series of both laboratory and field testing as well as
theoretical evaluation of predicted settlement. The necessary GCM produced at
Research Centre for Soft Soil (RECESS), UTHM are used for both laboratory and
field tests. Laboratory testing is primarily done at RECESS and Polymeric and
Ceramic Laboratory, UTHM. The aim is to determine characteristic properties of the
GCM. Results of strength and stiffness obtained through laboratory testing are
compared with past literature values for different fill materials. This research also
considered the variation of three geometrical parameter of the tube associated with
TE
CH
NIQ
UE
to
over
com
e
the
pro
ble
mat
ic s
oil
s
MATERIALS USED
LIGHTWEIGHT
FILL TO MITIGATE
SETTLEMENT OF
EMBANKMENT
CONSTRUCTED ON
PEAT SOIL Lig
htw
eig
ht
Fil
l
Ma
teria
ls
Differ
entia
l
& ex
cessiv
e
settlem
en
t
CH
AL
LE
NG
ING
SO
IL
Plastic
Embankment Fill
CONSTRUCTION
7
the weight being (1) thickness of tube, (2) external diameter of tube and (3) height of
cellular mat form from the tubes.
Figure 1.4: General details of field location and soil sampling.
The field testing was conducted using prototype testing setups on a site to
investigate performance of GCM under fill loading only and compared the response
from conventional natural fill material. Furthermore, this research scope for field
testing comprised of:
▪ Evaluation of the magnitude of independent settlement in vertical direction
only.
Grid reference:
Latitude: 1o 50’ 07.1” N
Longitude: 103o 11’ 04.6” E
Distance:
17.1 km
(28 min from UTHM by car)
N
Parit Nipah
Test Site
Field test area at Parit Nipah
Scale: 2 km Scale: 2 km
Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn
Malaysia (UTHM)
8
▪ Monitoring of the field settlement was using an improvised digital automatic
level.
▪ Evaluation of environmental condition at the site (groundwater table
fluctuation, soil surface movement, air temperature, humidity and rainfall).
Figure 1.4 shows detail of the field test site at Parit Nipah, Johore. More
information of the site is discussed in Chapter 3.
1.6 Research programme
Figure 1.5 shows the planned flow of the research programme in order to achieve the
aim and objectives of this study.
Figure 1.5: Flow for the research.
Research Programme
Literature Review
Selection Material and Testing
Site
Laboratory Properties and
Implementation Results
Critical Analysis of Research
Observations and Predicted
Field Instrumentation, Testing
and Observation at Parit Nipah
Objectives 1 & 2
Objective 3
Objective 4
Conclusion and Recommendation
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 6
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
9
1.7 Thesis outline
This thesis consists of five chapters, a brief summary of each chapter is as presented
in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Thesis outline
Chapter Description
1 Introduction This chapter presents general information regarding this
study; includes a preamble, problem identification, aim and
objectives, boundaries or focus of the study, hypothesis and
flow to achieve the aim and objectives of this study.
2 Literature
Review
This chapter presents a critical review of the past literature
on the geo-environmental challenge facing highway design
and construction, and current technologies used to
construct highway embankment on soft ground.
Furthermore, in this chapter, literature reviews associated
with the use of plastic products in civil engineering,
contributory advantages from cellular structure, theoretical
predictions of settlement, field measurement devices and
methods used to observe settlement are also presented. It
further discusses the outlines of the design guideline for
lightweight fill material application and other topics that
are relevant to this research work.
3 Research
Methodology
This chapter gives guidance for this study to ensure that the
process of the research is carried out systematically. Brief
descriptions on the materials used throughout the research
are covered in this chapter. All methods involved and how
the method was done in order to achieve the aim and
objectives of the study are also described in this chapter. In
this chapter, it also briefly discusses the general laboratory
test results.
4 Field
Instrumentation,
Testing and
Observation at
Parit Nipah
This chapter discusses in detail the field testing, including
description and implementation of the GCM on test site,
field instrumentation setup, environmental condition on
site, field site preparation and construction, data collection
and field observation. Moreover, the development of
settlement plate gauge as well as calibration results using
this instrument is also presented in this chapter.
5 Critical Analysis
of Research
Observation and
Predicted
This chapter presents a comprehensive analysis of the
result from laboratory and field performance as well as
theoretical evaluation of predicted settlement.
6 Conclusion and
Recommendation
This chapter presents the summary and conclusions from
this research, significance findings from laboratory and
field studies, brief of preliminary design guideline adopted
for GCM application and recommendation for future work
on the topic related to the present study.
10
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the current geoenvironmental problems relevant
to this research. Past research and the research drivers leading to design and
construction of infrastructure, particularly in highway constructions on difficult
ground condition are also presented in this chapter. Furthermore, in this chapter a
comprehensive literature associated with current lightweight technologies used to
construct highway embankment on soft yielding ground, advantage and application
of plastics product (basis of new alternative) in civil engineering, contributory
advantages from cellular structure, field measurement devices to observe settlement
(vertical movement), consolidation behaviour of peat soil, applicability of Terzaghi’s
theory on peat soil and theoretical predictions of settlement are also presented. It
further discusses the outlines of the standard and design guideline for lightweight fill
material application and other topics that are relevant to this research work. The
supportive information presented in this chapter was comprehensively and critically
compared with the results obtained from this research as presented and discussed in
Chapter 4 and 5.
2.2 Settlement induced failure of highways and infrastructures on soft soil
Soil stiffness of a road sub-grade/base helps define the potential to prevent
indiscriminate road settlement leading to uneven road surfaces. Settlement is the
downward movement of foundations to a point below its original position.
11
Settlement of highway embankments over soft soils (silty, clayey or excessive
organic soils) is a prime problem encountered in maintaining structure facilities.
Such soils tend to lack both the requisite shear strength and consolidation or long
term creep. These soils also have poor drainage properties (low permeability) and
tend to retain moisture (high moisture content). These types of soils tend to initially
consolidate (short term settlement) much more than comparable soils with less water.
(b)
Figure 2.1: Typical section of a structure on peat; (a) immediately after completion
of construction, (b) several years after completion of construction (Huat et al., 2005).
(a)
12
Figure 2.1 presents the typical section of a road and housing on peat soils
(organic content greater than 75 %). This figure shows the structure resulting in
settlement several years after completion of construction due to consolidation of the
soft soil. Additional failures have been reported by Kolay et al. (2011), Adon et al.
(2012) and Razali (2013). This is a challenge to civil engineers in the design and
construct road and highway embankment on this soil because they are extremely soft,
wet, unconsolidated surficial occurring in wetland systems.
Designing of roads and buildings foundation must consider the factor that
causes settlement. The settlement may occur due to the following reasons:
▪ Elastic compression of the structure and underlying soil (also called
immediate settlement).
▪ Plastic or inelastic compression of the underlying soil.
▪ Groundwater lowering is another major cause of settlement. Repeated rising
and lowering of groundwater, particularly in granular soils, tend to reduce the
void volume and cause the surface settlement.
▪ Pumping of water or draining of water without proper filter material also can
cause settlement.
▪ Other cause of settlement includes volume change of soil, ground movement
and excavation for adjacent structures, mining subsidence, etc.
Figure 2.2: Settlement condition in shallow flexible and rigid foundation (Das, 2011)
13
In additional, the interaction between soil and foundation also plays an
important role in the distribution of settlements. This study identifies two types of
settlement as shown in Figure 2.2. This figure shows the uniform settlement that
occurs with a rigid foundation while the non-uniform settlement is a result of the
flexibility of the foundation structures as portrayed by the effect of the particulate
material in the conventional fill. This will be closely observed in this research.
2.3 Problematic soils in Malaysia
Organic materials are formed by biochemical processes, whereas the process of
organic material accumulation is mainly a direct function of environmental
conditions, the climate, and the ecosystems (peat swamps, bogs or mires) in which
the peat is formed. Organic materials only accumulate to form peat under certain
conditions. It is essential that the production of biomass (organic materials) is greater
than its chemical breakdown to form peat (Andriesse, 1988; Zulkifley et al., 2013).
2.3.1 Definition of peat soil
Peat deposits are superficial soils with high organic matter content, usually occurring
as integral parts of wetland systems, where they form extremely soft, wet,
unconsolidated superficial deposits. Peat deposits sometimes occur as underlying
strata or layers under other superficial deposits. Huat (2004) defines peats as
naturally occurring highly organic substances that are derived primarily from plant
materials and are formed when the accumulation of plant organic matter occurs more
quickly than it humifies, usually when organic matter is preserved below high water
tables, as in swamps or wetlands (Huat, 2004).
The definition of peat soil in soil science, agriculture and engineering fields is
defined in a different way as stated in Table 2.1. Soil scientists define peat as a soil
with organic content greater than 35 %. In agriculture field, peat soils consist of
organic content more than 20 % (refer to reference in Zolkefle, 2015). In
geotechnical engineering, organic soil with organic content is greater than 75 %, it is
called a ‘peat’ soil. Soils are termed organic soil when their organic content is
between of 25 to 75 %. However, when the organic content is lower than 20 %, the
soils will become clay, silt or sand soils (Huat, 2004). These variations in definition
14
are due to the mechanical properties of the soil, which change when the organic
content of the soil is greater than 20 %. The classifications of peat according to
ASTM D4427-92 and according to Jarrett, based on laboratory testing, are shown in
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 (ASTM D4427 1992; Jarrett 1995; Huat 2004).
Table 2.1: Definition of peat soil by various fields (adopted from Zolkefle, 2015)
Field Description Standard
Geotechnical
Engineering
All soils with organic content greater than 75
% are known as peat. Soils that have an
organic content below 75 % are known as
organic soils.
ASTM D4427-1992
Soil Science All soils with organic content greater than 35
% are categorized as peat. USDA (Soil Taxonomy)
Agriculture Peat is classified if the organic content is
more than 20 % USDA (Soil Taxonomy)
Table 2.2: Organic content based on ASTM D4427-1992 (adopted from Huat, 2004)
Soil Groups Description Organic Content (%)
Clay or Silt or Sand Slightly organic 2 – 20
Organic Soil - 25 – 75
Peat Soil - > 75
Table 2.3: Definition of soils based on organic content in the soil (Jarret, 1995; Huat,
2004)
Soil Groups Description Symbol Organic Content (%)
Clay or Silt or Sand Slightly organic O 2 – 20
Organic Soil - O 25 – 75
Peat Soil - Pt > 75
Nevertheless, the Malaysian Soil Classification System for Engineering
Purposes based on BS5930 defined that the soils that have organic contents from 3 to
20 % are classified as slightly organic soils, soils with organic contents in the range
of 20 to 75 % are classified as organic soils, and soils with organic contents greater
than 75 % are classified as peats (adopted from Zulkifley et al., 2013).
The amount of the organic content in soil significantly affects engineering
properties of soils include hydraulic conductivity and compressibility. Zulkifley et al.
(2013) claimed that the ignition test is a most common practice for the determination
of organic content (ASTM D2974). When used in conjunction with the Standard
Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil
Classification System) (ASTM D2487), the ignition test provides a quick and
15
inexpensive means of determining the organic content of a soil and is usually the
only laboratory test needed for the classification of organic soil (Engineering
Geology Working Group, 2007; Zulkifley et al., 2013).
Figure 2.3: Tropical peatland of Southeast Asia (modified from Hassan, 2006 and
Huat et al., 2005).
2.3.2 Peatland in Malaysia
Peat soil is formed by the decomposition or breakdown of plant and other organic
materials. Peat has been identified as a major group of problem soils found in many
Distribution of Peat Land in
Peninsular Malaysia
Java
Kalimantan
Peat
Organic Clay and Muck
Peatland
Sabah Brunei
Malaysia
Sumatra Perlis
Kedah
Pera
k
P. Pinang
N. Sembilan
Terengganu
Pahang
Kelantan
Johor
Melaka
Selangor
16
countries including Malaysia. Peat covers more than 4 million km2 of the planet’s
surface which represents 50 to 70 % of the total wetlands on the earth (Abdullah et
al., 2007). About 3.0 million hectares or 8 % of the land area in Malaysia is covered
with tropical peat as shown in Figure 2.3 (Huat, 2004; Huat et al., 2005; Kadir,
2009). Among these lands, 6,300 hectares of the peatlands are found in Pontian, Batu
Pahat and Muar at West Johore area (Gofar, 2005; Huat at el., 2011). Figure 2.4
shows the distribution of peatlands in Johor (Hassan, 2006). This was the main driver
in conducting this research. Furthermore, peatland is also found in Pahang (such as
Endau Rompin, Kuantan and Pekan district), northwest Selangor and Perak (such as
Perat Tengah and Hilir Perak district) (Kadir, 2009). Sarawak has the largest
coverage of tropical peat in Malaysia as peat covers up to 1.66 million hectares (Huat
et al., 2011).
Figure 2.4: Peatland of Johor area.
In the tropical area, peat occurs mainly between the lower stretches of the
main river course (basin peat) and in poorly drained interior valleys (valley peats)
(Kadir, 2009). According to Huat (2004), basin peat is found on the inward edge of
mangrove swamps along the coast while valley peat is flat or interlayered with river
Segamat
Mersing Muar
Kluang
Batu Pahat Kota Tinggi
Johor Baharu Pontian
Area of field
performance
study for this
research
Parit Raja
17
deposits. Figure 2.5 shows a typical cross section of a basin peat. The depth of the
peat is generally shallower near the coast and increases inwardly, locally exceeding
more than 20 m. Gofar (2005) claims that the peat deposits in the west coast of
Malaysia are mainly formed in depressions consisting predominantly of marine clay
deposits or a mixture of marine and river deposits especially in area along river
courses.
Figure 2.5: Typical cross section of a basin peat (Huat, 2004).
2.3.2.1 Peat morphology
Generally, peat deposits consist of the elements that are not uniform in nature with
large variations occurring over very small distances (Zolkefle, 2015). It depends on
the accumulated plant material, the state of decay and the access to oxygen (Zolkefle,
2015). The morphological characteristics of lowland organic soils are quite similar
throughout the region. The convexity of coastal and deltaic peat swamps surfaces is
increasingly pronounced with distance from the sea (Mohamed et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, in drained areas, where the organic soils are transformed to a compact
mass consisting of partially and well-decomposed plant remains with large wood
fragments and tree trunks embedded in it (Mohamed et al., 2002). This led to the
formation of various elements in the peat deposits. According to Mohamed et al.
(2002), the profile morphology in drained organic soils consists of three distinct
Nipah and Mangrove Nipah and
Mangrove Padang Forest
LEGEND
Sapric Peat
Hemic-Fibric Peat
Clayey Peat
Sand
Clay
Bedrock
18
layers as illustrated in Figure 2.6. The upper layer consisting of well-decomposed
organic materials of the sapric type, a middle layer consisting of semi-decomposed
organic materials of the hemic type and a lower layer of fibric materials which is
mainly large wood fragments and branches and tree trunks (Mohamed et al., 2002).
Figure 2.6: Profile morphology of peat soil (Mohamed et al., 2002).
2.3.2.2 Structural arrangement of peat soil
The structural arrangement of peat highly influences its engineering properties. They
are dependent on the forming plant, the conditions on which the peat accumulated
and deposited, and the degree of decomposition (Yulindasari, 2006). The presence of
fiber content has been affecting the consolidation behaviour of peat (it is further
discussed in Section 2.8). Dhowian & Edil (1980) also reported that fiber
arrangement to be a major compositional factor in determining the way in which peat
soils behave. The structure of fibrous peat is coarser than clay. This condition gives a
significant effect to the geotechnical properties of peat related to the particle size and
compressibility behavior of peat.
Moreover, physical properties of fibrous peat differ markedly from other
mineral soils. The fibrous peat has many void spaces existing between the solid
grains. Due to the irregular shape of individual particles, fibrous peat deposits are
porous and the soil is considered as a permeable material (Yulindasari, 2006).
Kogure, Yamaguchi & Shogari (2003) have developed a multi-phase system
of peat as presented in Figure 2.7(a). It was divided into two categories which are
Sapric
(20-30 cm thick)
Hemic
(30-40 cm thick)
Fibric
19
organic bodies and organic spaces. Figure 2.7(b) shows a simple schematic diagram
of cross section of deposition in order to give a clear picture of the peat soil
arrangement (Wong, Hashim & Ali, 2009). It can be seen that organic particles
consist of solid organic matter and inner voids. The solid organic matter is flexible
with the inner voids, which is filled with water and it can be drained under
consolidation pressure. The spaces between the organic bodies are known as outer
voids, which is filled with solid particles (solids), fiber and water.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.7: Schematic diagram; (a) multi-phase system of peat (Kogure et al., 2003),
(b) peat arrangement (Wong et al., 2009).
2.3.2.3 Classification of peat soil (engineering)
In geotechnical engineering, the classification of peat soil is defined based on
decomposition of fiber, the vegetation forming the organic content and fiber content.
(a) Classification of peat soil based on degree of humification
The classification of peat based on the degree of humification test (von Post
classification system) was developed in the early 1920s in Sweden and is related to
the fiber content of the peat (Zulkifley et al., 2013). This reflects the amount on soil
water and peat soil that is expelled between the fingers when the soil is squeezed in
the palm of hand, and it was classified as belonging to one of ten (H1 – H10) degree
Org
anic
Bo
die
s
Organic Particles
(Solids)
Water (Inner voids)
Org
anic
Sp
aces
Soil Particles (Solids)
Water (outer voids)
Solid organic
matter
Solid particle
Inner void
Outer
void
Fiber
Organic particle
20
of humidification scale as shown in Table 2.4. However, for geotechnical purposes,
these 10 degrees of humification has been divided in three (3) classes namely fibric
(fibrous), hemic (semi-fibrous) and sapric (amorphous) peat as shown in Table 2.5
(Huat, 2004). Fibrous peats are in the humification range of H1 to H4. Hemic peats
are in the range of H5 to H7. Sapric peats are in humification range of H8 to H10.
Table 2.4: von Post degree of humification (Huat, 2004)
von Post
Scale
Description
H1 Completely undercomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases almost clear water.
Plant remains easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.
H2 Almost entirely undecomposed peat, when squeezed, releases, clear or yellowish water.
Plant remains still easily identifiable. No amorphous material present.
H3
Very slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases muddy brown water
but for which no peat passes between the fingers. Plant remains still identifiable and no
amorphous material present.
H4
Slightly decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very muddy dark water. No
peat is passed between the fingers but the plant remains are slightly pasty and have lost
some of their identifiable features.
H5
Moderately decomposed peat which, when squeezed, releases very “muddy” water
with a very small amount of amorphous granular peat escaping between the fingers.
The structure of the plant remains is quite indistinct although it is still possible to
recognize certain features. The residue is very pasty.
H6
Moderately decomposed peat which a very indistinct plant structure. When squeezed,
about one-third of the peat escapes between the fingers. The structure more distinctly
than before squeezing.
H7
Highly decomposed peat which contains a lot of amorphous material with very faintly
recognizable plant structure. When squeezed, about one – half of the peat escapes
between the fingers. The water, if any is released, is very dark and almost pasty.
H8
Very highly decomposed peat with a large quantity of amorphous material with very
indistinct plant structure. When squeezed, about two thirds of the peat escapes between
the fingers. A small quantity of pasty water may be released. The plant material
remaining in the hand consists of residues such as roots and fibers that resist
decomposition.
H9 Practically fully decomposed peat in which there is hardly any recognizable plant
structure. When squeezed it is fairly uniform paste.
H10 Completely decomposed peat with no discernible plant structure. When squeezed, all
the wet peat escapes between the fingers.
Table 2.5: Classification of peat (Huat, 2004)
Type of Peat von Post Scale Description
Fibric peat H1 – H4 Low humified
Easy recognized plant structure, primarily of white masses
Hemic peat H5 – H7 Intermediate humified
Recognizable plant structure
Sapric peat H8 – H10 Highly humified
No visible plant structure
21
(b) Classification of peat soil based on fiber content
Peat is further classified based on fiber content due to the presence of fiber which
alters the consolidation process of peat from that of inorganic soil (Gofar, 2005).
Boelter (1968) claims that the fiber content gives a high impact to the physical
properties of peat soil especially in compressibility characteristic. Table 2.6 shows
the classification of peat based on fiber content. Peat soil with fiber content less than
33 % can be classified as sapric peat. It contains mostly particles of colloidal size
(less than 2 microns), and the pore water is absorbed around the particle surface
(Gofar, 2006). The behaviour of sapric peat is almost similar to the clay soil. The
fiber content of between 33 to 67 % was classified as hemic peat while fibric peat
consists of fiber content more than 67 % and possess two types of pore which are
macro-pores (pores between the fiber) and micro-pores (pores inside the fiber itself)
(Gofar, 2006). The behavious of fibric peat is very contradictory to the clay soil due
to fiber in the soil. Moreover, fibric peat differs from sapric peat in that it has a low
degree of decomposition, fibrous structure, and easily recognizable plant structure
(Gofar, 2005). In addition, the compressibility of fibrous peat is very high.
Table 2.6: Classification of peat based on fiber content (Huat, 2004; Gofar, 2005)
Classification of peat based on ASTM standards
Fiber Content (ASTM
D1997)
Fibric peat Peat with greater than 67 % fibers
Hemic peat Peat with between 33 % and 67 % fibers
Sapric peat Peat with less than 33 % fibers
2.3.2.4 Characteristic properties of peat soils
Peat soil possesses a variety of physical properties such as texture, water content,
density and specific gravity. This has an implication on the geotechnical properties of
peat related to the compressibility behaviour of peat. Thus, the geotechnical
properties and behaviour of the soil is necessary in order to choose the best practical
design and material for foundations. The basic index properties of Malaysia peat soil
observed by past researchers are given in Table 2.7. As noted in the table, peat is
classified as a problematic soil due to the high moisture content, low bearing
capacity and large settlement characteristics. These properties which are summarised
from the table are given as follows:
22
Table 2.7: General properties of peat soils in Malaysia by various researchers
References Standard Location Degree of
Humification
Characteristic Properties
w (%) OC (%)
Fiber
Content
(%)
Gs 𝛾𝑏
(kN/m3) e LL (%) pH Cc
Su
(kPa)
Deboucha &
Hashim, 2009
and 2010
BS West
Malaysia -
700 –
850
88.61 -
99.06 84.99 1.34 15.60 10.99 173.75
3.68 –
4.6 -
Kolay et al.,
2011 ASTM
Sarawak,
Malaysia H4 598.5 90.47 79.33 1.21 - - 200.2 3.75 -
Kazemian &
Huat, 2009 BS Malaysia 504 88.23 - 1.21 10.04 - 159.6 4.9 -
Huat, 2004 BS
West
Malaysia
200 –
700 65 – 97 - 1.38 – 1.7 - -
190 –
360 -
1.0 –
2.6
East
Malaysia
200 –
2207 76 - 98 - 1.07 – 1.63 - -
210 –
550 -
0.5 –
2.5
Islam &
Hashim, 2010a,b BS West
Malaysia H4
414 –
674
88.61 –
99.06
90.25 –
90.49 0.95 – 1.34
10.16 –
10.20 9.33 208.39 3.51
2.43 –
2.84
Zainorabidin, &
Bakar, 2003 - Johore (hemic peat) 230-500 80-96 - 1.48 –1.8 - -
220-
250 -
0.9-
1.5
7 – 11
Duraisamy et
al., 2008 BS
West
Malaysia (fibrous peat)
140 –
350 70 -88 - 1.42 – 1.56
7.95 –
10.01
4.13-
10.48
240 -
398 -
1.88 –
3.63 -
Atemin, 2012 - Parit Nipah
Peat (hemic peat) 791.00 78.76 - 1.88 - 119 3.6
3.76 –
5.30
5 – 15
Saedon, 2012 BS Parit Nipah
Peat H5 546.43 86.24 - 1.56 - - 417 - - -
Johari et al.,
2015
BS &
ASTM
Parit Nipah
Peat - 640.00 83.1 61.42 1.36 10.54 8.36 322 - 2.68 -
Yusoff, 2015 BS Parit Nipah
Peat - 480.61 - - 1.51 - - 162.50 3.76 - -
Zolkefle, 2015 BS Parit Nipah
Peat H6 710.44 78.77 40.97 1.34 - - 318 3.69 0.79 -
22
23
▪ Water content greater (w) than 100 % (when natural and wet)
▪ Organic content in range 65 ~ 100 % (note: peat is defined when organic
content >75 %, see Table 2.2 and 2.3)
▪ Specific gravity (Gs) in range 0.95 ~ 1.88
▪ Bulk density (𝛾𝑏) in range 7.95 ~ 11.5 kN/m3
▪ Liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) more than 100 % (when natural and
wet)
▪ Acidity (pH) in range 3.5 ~ 4.9 (very acidic)
▪ Compression index (Cc) in range 0.13 ~ 5.30
▪ Undrained shear strength (Su) in range 5 ~ 15 kPa (very soft soil as classified
in Table 2.8)
The determination of undrained shear strength is also important when
considering that peat soil is always below the groundwater table. Due to this,
sampling of undisturbed peat for laboratory evaluation of undrained shear strength is
almost impossible, so it is suggested that the test to be done via in-situ test. Gofar
(2006) lists some approaches to in-situ testing in peat deposits such as vane shear
test, cone penetration test, pressure-meter test, dilatometer test, plate load test and
screw plate load tests. Amongst them, the vane shear test is the most frequently used
in practices (Gofar, 2006; Atemin, 2012; Tong, 2015). Gofar (2006) found that the Su
value of peat soil obtained by vane shear test ranged from 3 to 15 kPa.
Table 2.8: Strength terms according to laboratory test and hand identification
(Barnes, 2000)
Term Su (kPa) Field Identification
Very Soft <20 Exudes between fingers when squeezed in hand
Soft 20 – 40 Moulded easily by finger pressure
Soft to Firm 40 – 50 -
Firm 50 – 75 Can be moulded by strong finger pressure
Firm to Stiff 75 – 100 -
Stiff 100 – 150 Cannot be moulded by fingers but can be indented with
thumb
Very Stiff 150 – 300 Cannot be indented by thumb nail
Hard >300 Broken with difficulty
In addition, peat soil is also considered as a frictional and/or non-cohesive
material due to having high fiber content. Thus, the shear strength of peat is usually
determined in drained condition (Gofar, 2006). The friction is typically due to the
fiber, but fiber is not always solid because it is usually filled with water. Gofar
24
(2006) stated that the high friction angle does not actually reflect the high shear
strength of the soil. Direct shear box is the frequently test used to determining the
drained shear strength of peat and triaxial test is the most common test for
determining shear strength of peat under consolidated-undrained condition (Noto,
1991). Edil & Dhowian (1981) investigated that the effective internal friction angle
(𝜙) of peat is generally higher than inorganic soil which are 50 o
for amorphous
granular peat and in the range of 53 o to 57 o
for fibrous peat. According to Landva &
La Rochelle (1983), the friction angle of peat under a normal stress of 30 to 50 kPa
in the range of 27 o to 32 o. Huat (2004) reported that the range of internal friction
angle of peat in West Malaysia was in the range of 3 o to 25 o. However, studies done
by Mansor & Zainorabidin (2014) on direct shear box reported that the hemic peat at
Parit Nipah, Johore (West Malaysia) had a 39.35 o friction angle (𝜙).
Consolidation behaviour is one of most important properties related to the
peat soil which is generally controlled by the fiber content. Consolidation behaviour
and determination of consolidation parameters of peat are further discussed in
Section 2.8.
2.3.2.5 Critical review of characteristic properties of peat soils at Parit Nipah,
Johor
The characteristic properties of peat soil at Parit Nipah by past research are critically
discussed in this section. This is the site area chosen for field performance study for
this research. The average index properties of peat at Parit Nipah is given and
highlighted in Table 2.7. In this section, moisture content (w), specific gravity and
undrained shear strength (Su) parameter were determined at various depths as shown
in Figures 2.8(a), (b) and (c), respectively (Tong, 2015). All of these parameters
varied with depth in Parit Nipah peat and generally:
▪ Moisture content (w) in range 450 to 1200 %
▪ Specific gravity (Gs) in range 1.25 to 1.65
▪ Undrained shear strength (Su) in range 5 to 16 kPa
The geotechnical properties presented in Sections 2.3.2.4 and 2.3.2.5 show
difficulties for construction on the peat deposit. The loads of heavy traffic and the
road embankment weight imposed on the subsoil results in settlement due to the
subsoil which lacks the capability of supporting the weight or bearing pressure
313
REFERENCES
Abdelrahman, G. E., Duttine, A. & Tatsuoka, F. (2007). Interface Friction Properties
of EPS Geofoam Blocks from Direct Shear Tests. 14eme CRA MSG, Yaoundé,
26-28 Novembre 2007 – 14th ARC SMGE, Yaounde.
Abdullah, M., Huat, B. B. K., Kamaruddin, R., Ali, A. K. & Duraisamy, Y. (2007).
Design and Performance of EPS Footing for Lightweight Farm Structure on
Peat Soil. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 4 (7), pp. 484-490.
Abdullah, M. S., Osman, M. H., Ahmad, M. F., Huey, C. S. and Jamalludin, D.
(2009). Performance of POFA with Lime as Stabilising Agent for Soil
Improvement. Retrieved on February15, 2015, from http://versys.uitm.edu.
my/prisma/ view/view Pdf.php?pid=1358
Adams, J. I. (1963). A Comparison of Field and Laboratory Measurement in Peat.
Proceeding 9th Muskeg Res Conference Ontario Hydro Res Q, 15, pp. 1-7.
Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C. & Zainorabidin, A. (2012). Overview of the
Sustainable Uses of Peat Soil in Malaysia with Some Relevant Geotechnical
Assessments. International Journal of Integrated Engineering – Special Issue
on ICONCEES, Vol. 4(3), pp. 38-46.
Ahmad, S. K. & Huang, W. D. (2013). Over-Coming Differential Settlement in Soft
Grounds using ‘Floating’ Semi-rigid Pavement. Procedding of 14th REAAA
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ahmed, S. I. (2009). A New Approach for Modelling the Non-linear One-
Dimensional Consolidation Behavious of Tailings. Bandladesh University of
Engineering and Technology: Master’s Thesis.
Ajdari, A. (2008). Mechanical Behavior of Cellular Structures: A Finite Element
Study. Northeastern University: Mechanical Engineering Master's Thesis.
Albano L. & Sanchez G. (1999). Study of the Mechanical, Thermal and
Thermodegradative Properties of Virgin PP with Recycled and Non Recycled
HDPE. PolymerEngineering and Science, Vol. 39(8),pp. 1456-1462.
314
Aldridge, D. (2005). Introduction to Foamed Concrete: What, Why, How? Use of
Foamed Concrete in Construction. University of Dundee, Scotland, UK:
Thomas Telford.
Al-Manaseer, A.A. & Dalal, T.R. (1997). Concrete containing Plastic Aggregates.
Journal of Concrete International, Vol. 19(8), pp. 47-52
Andriesse, J. P. (1974). The Characteristics, Agriculture Potential and Reclamation
Problems of Tropical Lowland Peats in South-east Asia. Department of
Agriculture Research, Amsterdam, pp 63–70.
Al-Sharmani, M. A. (2002). Settlement Prediction of Sabkha Formations using
Rectangular Hyperbolic Method.
Al-Sharmani, M. A. & Dhowian, A. W. (n.d.). Settlement-Time Behaviour of
Preloaded Sabkha Sediments. Retrieved on April 24, 2016, from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.486.8905&rep=rep1&typ
e=pdf
Alqassim, G. (2011). Mechanical Properties of Hierarchical Honeycomb Structures.
Northeastern University: Master's Thesis (Mechanical Engineering).
Anjana, R. & George, K. E. (2012). Reinforcing Effect of Nano Kaolin Clay on
PP/HDPE Blends. International Journal Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA), Vol. 2(4), pp. 868-872.
Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 20/98 (1998). Design Review Checklist for Road Projects.
Public Works Department Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Arahan Teknik Jalan 5/85 (Pindaan 2013). Manual for the Structural Design of
Flexible Pavement. Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia.
Arellano, D. & Stark, T. D. (2009). Load bearing Analysis of EPS-block Geofoam
Embankments. Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields –
Tutumluer & Al-Qadi (eds), London, pp. 981-990.
Arshad, A. K. (2009). Development of Mechanictic Flexible Pavement Design
Method for Malaysian Conditons. Universiti Teknologi Mara: Ph.D. Thesis.
Asaoka, A. (1978). Observational Procedure of Settlement Prediction. Soils and
Foundations, 18(4), pp. 87-101.
Aslam & Rahman, S. (2009). Use of Waste Plastic in Construction on Flexible
Pavement. Retrieved on January 10, 2016, from http://www.nbmcw.com/
articles/roads-pavements/930-use-of-waste-plastic-in-construction-of-
flexible-pavement.html
315
ASTM D570-98. Standard Test Method for Water Absorption of Plastics. West
Conshohocken, United States. 1990.
ASTM D792-08. Standard Test Method for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative
Density) of Plastics. West Conshohocken, United States. 2008.
ASTM D854-02. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer. Annual Book of ASTM Standard. Vol. 04.08. 2005.
ASTM D 903-98. Standard Test Method for Peel or Stripping Strength of Adhesive
Bonds. Retrieved on March 2, 2014, from http:// file.yizimg.com/
175706/2011090910354968.pdf. Reapproved 2004.
ASTM D1621-00. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Rigid
Cellular Plastics. West Conshohocken, United States. 2010.
ASTM D2435. Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation
Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading. Annual Book of ASTM
Standard. Vol. 04.08. 1999.
ASTM D2487. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken. 2010.
ASTM D2974. Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of
Peat and Organic Soils, ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA,
DOI, 10. 2007.
ASTM D3080. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soil. West
Conshohocken, United States.
ASTM D3417. Standard Test Method for Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of
Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC).
ASTM D3807 – 98. Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Adhesives in
Cleavage Peel by Tension Loading. West Conshohocken, United States.
Reapproved 2004.
ASTM D4427. Standard Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory Testing.
American Society for Testing and Materials, STM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA. 1992.
Atemin, H. H. (2012). A Study on Consolidation and Permeability Properties of
Tropical Peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis.
Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2012). The effect of
Blend Ratio on Tensile Properties of Recycled Polypropylene/Recycled High
316
Density Polyethylene Geo-composites. Proceeding International Seminar of
Analytical Science (SKAM25), Medan, Indonesia.
Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2013). Effect of
Different Blend Ratios and Compatibilizer on Tensile Properties of Recycled
Polypropylene/Recycled High Density Polyethylene Blends. Proceeding of
Innovation in Polymer Science and Technology (IPST 2013), Yogyakarta,
Indonesia.
Atiqah, A. A. S. M., Salmah, H., Firuz, Z. & Lan, D. N. U. (2014). Properties of
Recycled High Density Polyethylene/Recycled Polypropylene Blends : Effect
of Maleic Anhydride Polypropylene. Engineering Materials, Vol. 594-595,
pp. 837-341.
Atkinson, J. (2007). The mechanics of Soils and Foundation. 2nd. London and New
York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-36256-6.
Awol, T. A. (2012). A Parametric Study of Creep on EPS Geofoam Embankments.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Master’s Thesis
(Department of Civil and Transport Engineering).
Babu, G. I. S. & Kumar, P. (2012). An Approach for Evaluation of Use of Geocells
in Flexible Pavement. Proceeding of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Delhi
Paper No. E502.
Badv, K. & Sayadian, T. (2012). An Investigation into the Geotechnical
Characteristics of Urmia Peat. IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol.
36, No. C2, pp. 167-180.
Balunaini, U. , Yoon, S., Prezzi, M. & Salgado, R. (2009). Tire Shred Backfill in Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Wall Applications. Publication FHWA/IN/JTRP-2008/17.
Joint Transportation Research Program, Indiana Department of
Transportation and Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Barden, L. (1968). Primary and Secondary Consolidation of Clay and Peat.
Geotechnique, Vol. 18, pp. 1-24.
Barnes, G. (2000). Soil Mechanics: Principle and Practice. 2nd ed. London:
Macmillan Press LDT.
Bartholomeeusen, G. (2003). Compound Shock Waves and Creep Behaviour in
Sediment Beds. The University of Oxford: Ph.D. Thesis.
317
Bathurst, R. J. & Jarrett, P. M. (1988). Large-scale Model Tests of Geocomposite
Mattresses over Peat Subgrades. Journal of Transportation Research Record,
Vol. 1188, pp. 28-36.
Beckwith, C. W., Baird, A. J. & Heathwaite, A. L. (2003). Anisotropy and Depth-
related Heterogeneity of Hydraulick Conductivity in a Bog Peat I: Laboratory
Measurement. Hydrol Process, Vol. 17, pp. 89-101.
Benayoune, A., Samad, A. A. A., Trikha, D. N., Ali, A. A. A. & Akhand, A. M.
(2004). Precast Reinforced Concrete Sandwich Panel as an Industrialised
Building System. International Conference on Concrete engineering and
Technology, Universiti Malaya
Berry, P. L. & Poskitt, T. J. (1972). The Consolidation of Peat. Geotechnique,
London, England, Vol. 22(1), pp. 27-52.
Bettess, F. (1992). Surveying for Archaeologists. University of Durham Department
of Archaeology.
Biot, M. A. (1941). General Theory of Three-Dimensional Consolidation. Journal of
Applied Physics, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-164.
Boelter, D. H. (1968). Important Physical Properties of Peat Materials, Proceeding of
the Third International Peat Congress, Quebec, Canada. August 18-23,
1968.
Bosscher, P.J., Edil, T.B. & Eldin, N. (1993). Construction and Performance of
Shredded Waste Tire Test Embankment. Transportation Research Record
No. 1345, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 44-52.
Brezny, R.. & Green, D. J. (1990). The Effect of Cell Size on the Mechanical
Behavior of Cellular Materials. Acta Metall. Mater, Vol. 38, pp. 2517–2526.
British Standards Institution (1987). British Standard Methods of Tests for Soils for
Civil Engineering Purposess. London: BS 1377:Part2,3,5,7:1990.
Buksowics, M. & Culpan, S. (2014). Use of EPS as a Lightweight Fill Material on
the Port Mann / Highway 1 Improvement Project Cancouver to Langley, BC.
Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Montreal, Quebec,
pp. 1-20.
Cancelli, P., Recalcati, P., & Doh, S. R. (2000). Reducing Differential Settlements
under a Road Embankment in Korea by use of Geosynthetics: a Finite
Elements Analysis. 2nd Proceeding of Asian Geosyntethics Conference,
Chicago
318
Cernica, J. N. (1995). Geotechnical Engineering: Soil Mechanics. United States of
America. ISBN 0-471-30884-6.
Chai, H. (2008). On Optimizing Crash Energy and Load-bearing Capacity in Cellular
Structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 45, pp. 528-
539.
Chavan, A. J. (2013). Use of Plastic Waste in Flexible Pavements. International
Journal of Application or Innovative in Engineering and Management
(IJAIEM), Vol. 2(4), pp. 540-552.
Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (2015). Guidelines for Construction on
Peat and Organic Soils in Malaysia. Malaysia: Perpustakaan Negara
Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-0242-15-6.
Correia, J. R., Garrido, M., Gonilha, J. A., Branco, F.A. & Reis, L. G. (2012). GFRP
Sandwich Panels with PU Foam and PP Honeycomb Cores for Civil
Engineering Structural Applications. International Journal of Structural
Integrity, Vol. 3, Issues 2, pp. 127-147.
Das, B. M. (2006). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. United States of
America: Cengage Learning.
Das, B. M. (2011). Principle of Foundation Engineering. 7th ed. United States of
America: Cengage Learning.
Davis, E. H. & Poulos, H. G. (1972). Rate of Settlement under Two and Three-
Dimensional Conditions. Geotechnique, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 95-114.
David, J. S. & Haydn, N. G. W. (2002). Cellular Metal Truss Core Sandwich
Structures. Advanced Engineering Materials, Vol. 4(10), pp. 759-764.
Davies, L., Kucki, T., Fry, C. & Bull, J. (2010). Lightweight Backfill Materials in
Integral Bridge Construction. Retrieved on February 3, 2016, from http://
www.atkinsglobal.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-Global/Attachments/sectors/
roads/library-docs/technical-journal-7/104%20-%20Lightweight%20backfill
%20materials%20in%20integral%20bridge%20construction.pdf
Deboucha, S. & Hashim, R. (2009). Durability and Swelling of Tropical Stabilised
Peat Soils. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(13), pp. 2480-2484.
Deboucha, S. & Hashim, R. (2010). Effect of OPC and PFA cement on Stabilised
Peat Bricks. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5(11), pp. 1671-
1677.
319
Delleur, J. W. (1999). The Handbook of Groundwater Engineering. 2nd ed. New
York: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Department of the Army (1999). Engineering and Design: Use of Waste Materials in
Pavement Construction. Technical paper, No. 1110-3-503.
Department of Statistic Malaysia. Preliminary Count Report, Population and Housing
Census, Malaysia, (2010). Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=350:
pre...&Itemid=&lang=bm
Dhane, G., Kumar, D. & Priyadarshee, A. (2015). Geocell: An Emerging Technique
of Soil Reinforcement in Civil Engineering Field. Journal of Mechanical and
Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), pp. 59-63.
Dhowian, A. W. & Edil, T. B. (1978). Consolidation Behaviour of Peats. Journal of
Gotech Testing, Vol. 3(3), pp. 105-114.
Dhowian, A. W. & Edil, T. B. (1980). Consolidation Behaviour of Peats.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 3(3), pp. 105-114.
Ding, X., & Qin, H. (2000). Geotechnical instruments in structural
monitoring. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, Vol. 2(1), pp. 45-56.
Dondi, G., Simone, A. & Biasuzzi, K. (2003). Lightweight Materials in Road
Construction. University di Bologna, Italia. Proceedings of XXII World Road
Congress DURBAN , South Africa.
DSC Operating Instrument. TA Instrumentation Differential Scanning Calorimeter
(DSC). Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from http://faculty.olin.edu/~jstolk/
matsci/Operating%20Instructions/DSC%20Operating%20Instructions.pdf
Dunnicliff, J. (1993). Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field
Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-00546-0.
Duraisamy, Y., Huat, B. B. K.,Muniandy, R. & Aziz, A. A. (2008). Compressibility
Behavior of Fibrous Peat Reinforced with Cement Columns. International
Conference on Construction and Building Technology(ICCBT), 9, pp. 93-110.
Duskov, M. (1997). Measurements on a Flexible Pavement Structure with an EPS
Geofoam Sub-base. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 15, pp. 5-27.
Dynalab Corp (2008). Technical Plastic Properties. Retrieved on April 15, 2013,
from https://www.midlandsci.com/customer/miscne/specpages/DYNALONE
DUCATION.PDF
320
EAB Associated (2016). Uses of Lightweight Foam Concrete. Retrieved on March
15, 2014 from http://www.eabassoc.co.uk/uses-of-foamed-concrete.php
Edil, T. B. & Dhowian, A. (1979). Analysis of Long-term Compression of Peats.
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 10.
Edil, T. B. & Dhowian, A. (1981). At-rest Lateral Pressure of Peat Soils. Conference
on Sedimentation and Consolidation Model, ASCE, San Fransisco, pp. 411-
424.
Edil, T. B. & Fox, P. J. (1994). Field Demonstration on Thermal Precompression.
Specialty Conference of the American Society of Civil Engineering,
Geotechnical Engineering Division, College Station, TX, 2, pp. 1274-1286.
Edil, T. B. (1997). Construction over Peats and Organic Soils. Conference on Recent
Advance in Soft Soil Engineering, Kuching, Sarawak, pp. 85-108.
Elragi, A. F. (2006). Selected Engineering Properties and Applications of EPS
Geofoam. Proceedings of the Soft Ground Technology Conference,
Netherlands.
Elhassan, I. M. & Ali, A. S. (2011). Comparative Study of Accuracy in Distance
Measurement using: Optical and Digital Levels. Journal of King Sand
University – Engineering Sciences, Vol. 23, pp. 15-19.
Elzafraney, M. Soroushian, P. & Deru, M. (2005). Development of Energy-Efficient
Concrete Buildings Using Recycled Plastic Aggregates. Journal of
Architectural Engineering © Asce / December 2005.
Emersleben, A., & Meyer, N. (2008). The Use of Geocells in Road Constructions
over Soft Soil: Vertical Stress and Falling Weight Deflectometer
Measurements. In Proceedings of 4th European Geosynthetics Conference,
Edinburgh, UK.
Engineering Geology Working Group (2007). Guideline for Engineering Geological
Investigation in Peat and Soft Soils. Minerals and Geoscience Department of
Malaysia, Sabah, 72.
Engstrom, G & Lamb, R. (1994).Using Shredded Waste Tires as a Lightweight Fill
Material for Road Subgrades. Materials Research and Engineering, Report
Number 94-10
EPS Industry Alliance. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam Application &
Technical Data. Retrieved on March 20, 2013, from http://www.epsindustry.
org/
321
Farnsworth, C.B., Bartlett, S.F. & Lawton, E.C. (2013). Estimation of the Time-Rate
of Settlement for Multi-Layered Clays undergoind Radial Drainage.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, (2363), 3-11.
Fox, P. J., Edil, T. B. & Lan, L. T. (1992). Cα/Cc Concept applied to compression of
Peat. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118 (8), pp. 1256-1263.
Freilich, B. & Zornberg, J. G. (2009). Mechanical Properties of Tire Bales for
Highway Applications. Technical Report Documentation, Report No.
FHWA/TX-10/0-5517-1
Frydenlund, T. E. & Aaboe, R. (2001). Long Term Performance and Durability of
EPS as a Lightweight Filling Material. 3rd International Conference, Salt
Lake City, December 2001.
Ganasan, R. (2016). Evaluation of Innovation Lightweight Fill in Problematic Soil.
Universiti Tun Hussein Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.
Gan, C. H. & Tan, S. M. (2003). Some Construction Experiences on Soft Soil using
Lightweight Materials. 2nd International Conference on Advances in Soft Soil
Engineering and Technology, 2-4 July 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Gawande, A., Zamare, G., Renge, V. C., Tayde, S. & Bharsakale, G. (2012). An
Overview on Waste Plastic utilization in Asphalting of Roads. Journal of
Engineering Research and Stidies, Vol. 3(2). E-ISSN0976-7916.
Geopave Material Technology (2006). Construction of Embankment over Weak
Ground using Lightweight Fill (Expanded Polystyrene). Technical Note, 40.
Geo Slope Indicator (2004). Guide to Geotechnical Instruments. Washington, United
States of America: Mukilteo.
Ghanti, R. & Kashliwal, A. (2008). Ground Improvement Techniques – with a
Focused Study on Stone Columns. Dura Build Care PVT LTD. Retrieved on
January 30, 2013, from http://www.durabuildcare.com/pdf/Ultimate%20
Bearing%20Capacity%20of%20a%20SINGLE%20STONE%20COLUMN.p
df
Ghazavi, M. & Ghaffari, J. (2013). Experimental Investigation of Time-Dependent
Effect on Shear Strength Parameters Of Sand–Geotextile Interface. IJST,
Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 37, No. C1, pp. 97-109.
Ghosh, P. (2002). Polymer Science and Technology – Plastics, Rubbers, Blends and
Composites, 2nd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
322
Gibbs, H. J. (1953). Estimating Foundation Settlement by One-dimensional
Consolidation Test. Engineering Monograph, No. 13. Denver, Colorado.
Gibson, L. J. & Ashby, M. F. (2001).Cellular Solid: Structure of Properties. 2nd ed.
United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. ISBN: 0 521 49560 1 hardback.
Gibson, L. J. (2005). Biomechanics of Cellular Solids. Journal of Biomechanics, 38,
pp. 277-399.
Gibson, R. E. & Lo, K. Y. (1961). A Theory of Consolidation for Soil Exhibiting
Secondary Compression. Acta Polytexch, Scandinavia, Vol. 10, pp. 296.
Giroud, J.P., Zornberg, J.G. & Zhao, A. (2000). Hydraulic design of geosynthetic
and granular liquid collection Layers. Geosynthetics International., Sp. Issue
on Liquid Collection Systems, 7(4-6), pp. 285-380.
Gofar, N. (2005). Study of Compressibility Characteristics of Peat Soil using Large
Strain Consolidometer. Laporan Projek Penyelidikan Fundamental Vot
75210. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Gofar, N. (2006). Determination of Coefficient of Rate of Horizontal Consolidation
of Peat Soil. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Laporan Projek Penyelidikan
Fundamental, Vot 75210.
Gofar, N & Sing W. L. (2005). Evaluation of the beginning of Secondary
Compression of Peat. Proceedings pf National Civil Engineering Conference
(NACEC), Johor.
Graettinger, A. J., Johnson, P. W., Sunkari, P., Duke, M. C. and Effinger, J. (2005).
Recycling of Plastic Bottles for use as a Lightweight Geotechnical Material.
Management of Environmental Quality, 16(6), pp. 658-669.
Hanapiah, M. Z. M. (2009). Performance of Full Scale Embankment on Soft Clay
Reinforced with High Strength Geotextile at the Interface. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.
Hany, L. R., D’ Angelo, D.A., Ricci, A. L., Horvath, J. S. & Osborn, P. W. (2004).
Design of Lightweight Fills for Road Embankments on Boston's Central
Artery/Tunnel Project. Fifth International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, No. 8.07.
Hassan, A. (2006). Extent of Peatlands and ‘C’ Contents of Soils in Peninsular
Malaysia. Workshop on Vulnerability of Carbon Pools of Tropical Peatlands
in Asia, Pekan Baru, Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. Retrieved on March 20, 2013,
from www.gecnet.info/view file.cfm?fileid=1724.
323
Head, K.H., (1981). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 1, 2, and 3. London:
Pentech Press.
Head, K. H. (1982). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Vol. 2. London: Plymouth.
Ho, M. H. (2014). The Potential of using Cement-Rubber Chips and Cement-Sand as
additives in Stabilised Soft Clay. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia:
Ph.D. Thesis.
Horvath, J. S. (1999). Geofoam fills and the non-issue of buoyancy. Lessons Learned
from Failure Involving Geofoam in Roads and Embankments: Report No.
CE/GE-99-1. Civil Engineering Manhattan College.
Huat, B. B. K. (2004). Organic and Peat Soils Engineering. Serdang: Universiti
Putra Malaysia Press, 2004. ISBN: 9789832871088.
Huat, B. B. K., Ng, C. H. & Munzir H. A. (2004). Observation Methods for
Predicting Embankment Settlement. Journal Sciences and Technology, Vol.
12(1), pp. 115-128.
Huat, B. B. K., Maail, S. & Mohamed, T. A. (2005). Effect of Chemical Admixtures
on the Engineering Properties of Tropical Peat Soils. American Journal of
Applied Sciences, 2(7), pp. 1113-1120.
Huat, B. B. K., Kazemian, S., Prasad, A & Barghchi, M. (2011). State of an art
Review of Peat: General Perspective. International Journal of the Physical
Sciences, 6(6), pp. 1988-1996.
Imtiaz , A. & Lovell C. W. (1993). Rubber Soils as Lightweight Biomaterials. Transportation
Research Record, 1422, pp. 61 – 70.
Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar. Soil Testing Lab: Consolidation.
Retrieved on October 15, 2015, from, http://www.iitgn.ac.in/research/stl/consolidation.
php#
Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Wijeyakulasuriya, V., McIntosh, G. & Kelly, R.
(2010). Soft Soils improved by Prefabricated Vertical Drains: Performance
and Prediction. Retrieved on January 20, 2016, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=engpapers
Isioye, O. A. & Musa, A. A. (2007). The Use of Geodetic Leveling For Crustal
Motion and Deformation Studies: A 30-Year Case Study in Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria. The Information Manager, Vol. 7 (2).
324
Islam, M. S. & Hashim, R. (2010a). Stabilization of Peat Soil by Soil-Column
Technique and Settlement of the Group Columns. International Journal of
the Physical Sciences, Vol. 5(9), pp. 1411-1418.
Islam, M. S. & Hashim, R. (2010b). Behaviour of Stabilised Peat: A Field Study.
Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 5(17), pp. 2366-2374.
Ismail, T. N. H. T., Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I. & Wahab, S. (2014). New
Lightweight Construction Material: cellular Mat using Recycled Plastic.
Engineering Materials, Vols. 594-595, pp. 503-510.
Jabatan Meteorologi Malaysia (MetMalaysia). Meteorology Data. Retrieved on
December 15, 2015, from http://www.met.gov.my/
JKR Malaysia Standard (1985). Manual on Pavement Structures. Malaysia: Arahan
Teknik (Jalan) 5/85.
Johari, N. N., Bakar, I., Razali, S. N. M., & Wahab, N. (2015). Fiber Effects on
Compressibility of Peat. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, Vol. 136(1), p. 012036. IOP Publishing.
Kadir, M. I. A. (2009). Long Term Consolidation Study on the Tropical Peat at
Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia. Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Degree’s Thesis
(Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources).
Jarret, P. M. (1995). Site Investigation for Organic Soils and Peat. JKR Document
20709-0341-95, Institute Kerja Raya Malaysia, pp. 4-16.
Kalla, S. (2010). Modeling Studies to Assess Long Term Settlement of Light Weight
Aggregate Embankment. University of Texas, Arlington: Master’s Thesis.
Katimon, A. & Demun, A. S. (2005). A Study of Flow Theory towards the different
Degree of Tropical Peat Decomposition.
Kazemian, S. & Huat, B. B. K. (2009) Compressibility Characteristics of Fibrous
Tropical Peat Reinforced with Cement column. EJGE, 4.
Kellett, J. R. (1974). Terzaghi’s Theory of One-dimensional Primary Consolidation
of Soils and its Applications. Department of Minerals and Energy. Retrieved
on November 3, 2015, from https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/13148/Rec
1974_108.pdf
Khaw, Y. H. (2010). Performance of Lightweight Foamed Concrete using Laterite as
Sand Replacement. Universiti Malaysia Pahang: Degree’s Thesis (Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Earth Resources).
325
Kogure, K., Yamaguchi, H. & Shogari, T. (2003). Physical and Pore Properties of
Fibrous Peat Deposit. Proceeding of the 11th
Southeast Asian, Geotechnical
Conference, Singapore.
Kolay, P. K., Sii, H. Y. & Taib, S. N. L. (2011). Tropical Peat Soil Stabilization
using Class F Pond Ash from Coal Fired Power Plant. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, 50.
Kozlowski, M. (2012). Lightweight Plastic Materials. Retrieved on December 25,
2012, from http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/34071
Krause, Q. & Ghavami, K. (2009). Transversal Reinforcementin Bamboo Culms.
Proceeding of the international Conference on Non-conventional Materials
and Technologies (NOCMAT), Bath, UK.
Kuantsai, L. (1979). An Analytical and Experimental Study of Large Strain Soil
Consolidation. Linacre College, Oxford: Ph.D Thesis.
Kumar, B. V. K. & Prakash, P. (2006). Use of Waste Plastics in Cement Concrete
Pavement. Retrieved on October 2nd, 2015, from file:///C:/Users/User/
Downloads/waste_plastic.pdf
Kun, Z., Shi, Q. L., Bing, C. X.,Hong, L. L. & Sheng, X. L. (2010). Comparative
Study on Disturbed and Undisturbed Soil Sample Incubation for Estimating
Soil Nitrogen-Supplying Capacity. Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, Vol. 41, pp. 2371-2382.
Landva, A. O. & La Rochelle, P. (1983). Compressibility of Peat. University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin: Ph.D. Thesis.
Larsson, R., Bengtsson, P. & Eriksson, L. (1997). Prediction of Settlements of
Embankments on Soft, Fine-Grained Soils. Swedish Geotechnical Institute.
ISBN 0281 7578.
Leica Geosystems (2015). Leica Catalogue 2015. Switzerland:Heerbrugg.
Leonards, G.A. & Girault, P. (1961). A Study of The One-dimensional Consolidation
Test. Proceeding 9th ICSMFE, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 116-130.
Leshchinsky, D., Horvanth, J. S., Stark, T. D. & Arellano, D. (2004). NCHRP Report
529: Guideline and Recommended Standard for Geofoam Application in
Highway Embankment. Washington: Transportation research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences. ISBN: 978-0-309-26914-8.
326
Leshchinsky, B. A. (2012). Enhancing Ballast Performance using Geocell
Confinement. Columbia University: Ph.D. Thesis (Graduate School of Arts
and Sciences).
Li, C. (2014). A simplified Method for Predict of Embankment Settlement in Clays.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6, pp. 61-66.
Lightweight Material. Clam Shells. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from
http://www. southjerseyshedsandgazebos.com/ 2007- 11- 28website_025.htm
Lim, A. J. M. S. (2014). Development of a New Sand Particle Clustering Method
with respect to its Static and Dynamic Morphological and Structural
Characteristics. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Ph.D. Thesis.
Lindstrom, A. (2007). Strength of Sandwich Panels Loaded in In-plane
Compression. Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Engineering Science, Licentiate
Thesis.
Lingwall, B. N. & Anderson, S. (2013). Settlement of Large Embankment
Constuction Adjacent to a Buried Gas Pipeline – A Case History in
Settlement Mtitgation using Lightweight Fill. 7th international Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, Paper No. 6.28a.
Little, D. N. & Nair, S. (2009). Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade
Soils and Base Material. National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report. Transportation Research Board, Texas.
Liu, S. Y. (2003). Settlement Prediction of Embankment with Stage Construction on
Soft Ground. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 228-232.
Lotte Chemical Titan (M) Sdn. Bhd. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from
http://www.titangroup.com/
Lu, C. Y. & Zhu, S. (2014). Analysis of Three-Dimensional Consolidation of
Unsaturated Soils. Transactions of Civil Engineering, IJST, Vol. 38, N0. C2,
pp. 485-493.
Lulianelli, G., Tavares, M. B. & Luetkmeyer, L. (2010). Water Absorption
Behaviour and Impact Strength of PVC/Wood Flour Composites. Chemistry
& Chemical Technology, Vol. 4(3).
Madi, N. K. (2013). Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Injection Molded
Recycled High Density Polyethylene Blends with Virgin Isotactic.
Polypropylenejournal of Material and Design, 46, pp. 435-441.
327
Mansor, S. H. & Zainorabidin, A. (2014). The Shear Strength Behaviour of Johore’s
Hemic Peat. Southeast Asia Conference on Soft Soils Engineering and
Ground Improvement, Vol. 2, pp. H3.
Manual of Geotechnical Design Standard – Minimum Requirements (2015).
Queensland: Department of Transport and Main Roads.
Marto, A. & Othman, B. A. (2011). The Potential use of Bamboo as Green Material
for Soft Clay Reinforcement System. International Conference on
Environmental Science and Engineering, IPCBEE, Vol. 8, pp. 129-133.
Material Properties of Plastic (2011). Laser Welding of Plastics. 1st Edition. Rolf
Klein. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Retrieved on October 2,
2015, from http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527409726_c01.pdf
Malaysian Meteorological Department. Meteorology Data. Retrieved on January 10,
2016 from http://www.met.gov.my/web/metmalaysia/home
Mesri, G. & Castro, A. (1987). Cα/Cc Concept and K0 during Secondary
Compression. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113(3), pp.
230-247.
Mesri, G. & Goldewski, P. M. (1977). Time and Stress- Compressibility
Interrelationship. Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 103(GT5),
pp. 417-430.
Mesri, G., Stark, T. D., Ajlouni, M. A., & Chen, C. S. (1997). Secondary
Compression of Peat with or without Surcharging. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 123(5), pp. 411-421.
Midwest Construction Product (2015). Soil Stabilisation by Geocell Product.
Retrieved on November 10, 2015, from http://midwestconstruct.com/
geosynthetic-products/soil-stabilization
Mills, B. (2009). Recycled Tires as Lightweight Fill. RRFB Nova Scotia Knowledge
Session, Halifax, NS.
Mohamed, H. & Masmoudi, R (2008). Experimental study for the slenderness ratio
of the axially loaded. CFFT columns. Fourth International Conference on
FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE2008).
Mohamed, M., Padmanabhan, Mei, B. L. H. & Siong W. B. (2002). The Peat Soils of
Sarawak. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Retrieved on February 23, 2013,
http://www.strapeat.alterra.nl/ download/12% 20peat%20soils%20of%20
Sarawak.pdf.
328
Mokhtar, N. E. (1997). Perbedaan Perilaku Teknis Tanah Lempung dan Tanah
Gambut (peat Soil). Jurnal Geoteknik, Himpunan Ahli Teknik Tanah
Indonesia, Vol. 3(1), pp. 16-34.
Motlagh, A. A., Kiasat, A., Mirzaei, E. & Birgani, F. O. (2012). Improving Technical
Characteristics of Asphalt Pavement using Wastes of Polystyrene Disposable
Dishes. World Applied Science Journal, 18(5), pp 605-612.
Montepara, A. & Giuliani, F. (2000). Design of Road Embankment Lightened by
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) laying on Low-Bearing Capacity Ground.
Retrieved on April 15, 2013, from http://old.unipr.it/arpa/dipcivil/felice
_giuliani_files/articoli/Montep&Giuliani_Tokyo2000.pdf
National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA). Guidelines for the use of
Plastic Waste in Rural Roads Constructions. Retrieved on December 17,
2015, from http://pmgsy.nic.in/circulars/GPW.htm
Nequssey, D. & Stuedlein, A. (2003). Geofoam Fill Performance Monitoring. Report
No. UT-03.17.
Nguyen, H. Q. (2006). Reanalysis of the Settlement of a Levee on Soft Bay Mud.
University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi, Vietnam: Master’s Thesis.
Nurhana, S. (2010). Verification and Predicted Settlement using Soil
Instrumentation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis.
Nor, A. H. M. (2012). Performance of Unpaved Road with different Soft Clay
Reinforcement. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.
Noto, S. (1991). Peat Engineering Handbook. Civil Engineering Research Institute,
Hokkaido development Agency, Prime Minister’s Office, Japan.
Oh, Y. N. E. (2006). Geotechnical and Ground Improvement Aspects of Motorway
Embankments in Soft Clay, Southeast Queensland. Griffith University Gold
Coast: Ph.D. Thesis.
Oh, E. Y. N., Balasubramaniam, A. S., Surarak, C., Chai, G. W. K., & Bolton, M. W.
(2007a). Interpreting Field Behaviors of Embankment on Estuarine Clay. The
Seventeenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Lisbon, Portugal.
Oh, E. Y. N., Surarak, C., Balasubramaniam, A. S., & Huang, M. (2007b). Observed
Field Behaviour of Soft Clay due to Embankment Loading: A Case Study in
Queensland, Australia. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, pp. 1-6.
329
Olson, R. E. (1989). State of the Art: Consolidation Testing. Consolidation of Soils,
Yong and Townsend, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 7-67.
Olsson, M. (2010). Calculating Long-term Settlement in Soft Clays. Chalmers
University of Technology: Report for Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI).
Othman, M. A. (2015). Sustainable Construction on Malaysian Peat. Soft Soil
Engineering International Conference (SEIC), Langkawi, pp. 1-12.
Padade, A. H. & Mandal, J. N. (2012). Direct Shear Test on Expanded Polystyrene
(EPS) Geofoam. In Proc., 5th European Geosynthetic Congress,
International Geosynthetics Society, Jupiter, FL.
Papacharalampous, G. & Sotiropoulos, E. (2011). First Time Application of
Expanded Polystyrene in Highway Projects in Greece. 4th International
Conference on Geofoam Blocks in Construction Applications EPS 2011
Norway.
Papka, S. D. & Kyriakides, S. (1994). In-plane Compressive Response and Crushing
of Honeycomb. Journal of Mechanical Physical Solids, Vol. 42, pp. 1499–
1532.
Pardeep, S. & Gill, K. S. (2012). CBR Improvement of Clayey Soil with Geo-grid
Reinforcement. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Vol. 2,
Issue 6.
Periathamby, A., Hamid, F.S. & Khidzir, K. (2009). Evolution of solid waste
management in Malaysia: impact sand implications of the solid waste bill,
2007. Journal of Mater Cycles Waste management, 11, pp. 96-103.
Platt, M. R. (2013). Settlement Assessment of Highway Embankment. The University
of Utah: Master’s Thesis (Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering).
Pokharel, S., Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X., Leshchinsky, D., Halami, I. &
Parsons, R. (2011). Accelerated Pavement Testing of Geocell-Reinforced
Unpaved Roads over Weak Subgrade. Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2204, Low-Volume Roads. Vol. 2, pp. 67-75.
Popik, M., Trout, M. & Brown, R. W. (2010). Improving Soil Stiffness Beneath
Pavement Using Polyurethane Injection.
Prasad, S. K. (n.d.). Foundation Settlement. Retrieved on January 3, 2015 from
http:// elearning .vtu. ac.in/10/enotes/06CV64/Unit8-SKP.pdf
330
Prezzi, M. (2009). Construction of Embankments and Fills Using Lightweight
Materials. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2009/36. Purdue University: West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Punmia, B. C., Jain, A. K. & Jain, A. K. (2005). Soil Mechanics and Foundations.
16th ed. New Delhi: Laxmi Publications (P) Ltd. ISBN 81-7008-081-9.
Puvanasvaran, A. P., Hisham, S. & Kamil S, M. (2011). Investigation on the
Mechanical Characteristics of Sawdust and Chipwood Filled Epoxy. Journal
of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 71-78.
Qiao, Z., Wei, F. Davalos, J. F. & Zou, G. (2008). Optimization of Transverse Shear
Moduli for Composite Honeycomb Cores, Journal of Composite Structure,
Vol. 85, pp. 265-274.
Queheillalt, D. T. & Wadley, H. N. G. (2005). Cellular Metal Lattices with Hollow
Trusses. Acta Mat, 53, pp. 303–313.
Rafizul, I. M., Assaduzzaman, M. & Alamgir, M. (2012). The Effect of Chemical
Admixtures on the Geotechnical Parameter of Organic Soil: A New
Statistical Model. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Research, 1(4).
Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. A. & Ahmed, M. (2012). Recycling of Waste Polymeric
Materials as a Partial Replacement for Aggregate in Concrete. International
Conference on Chemical, Environmental and Biological Sciences
(ICCEBS'2012) Penang, Malaysia, pp. 99-102.
Raj, M. M., Patel, H. V., Raj, L. M. & Patel, N. K. (2013). Studies on Mechanical
Properties of Recycled Polypropylene blended with Virgin Polypropylene.
International Journal of Science Inventions Today (IJSIT), 2(3), pp. 194-203.
Rajendran, S., Scelsi, L., Hodzic, A., Soutis, C. & Mariam A. A. (2012).
Conservation and Recycling. Journal of Resources, Vol. 60, pp.131-139.
Rao, M. V. K., Kumar, P. R. & Srinivas, B. (2011). Effect of Size and Shape of
Specimen on Compressive Strength of Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(GFRC). Document of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.
1-9.
Razali, S. N. M. (2013). Instrumented Physical Model Studies of the Peat Soil
engineering Structure Interaction. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia:
Master’s Thesis.
331
Rebeiz, K.S., Serhal, S.P. & Fowler, D.W. (1994). Structural behavior of Polymer
Concrete Beams using Recycled Plastic. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 6(1), pp. 150-165.
Rujikiatkamjorn, C. & Indraratna, B. (2006). Three-Dimensional Analysis of Soft
Soil Consolidation improved by Prefacricated Vertical Drains. Proceeding of
Geotechnical, Shanghai, Paper No. 152.
Saedon, N. (2012). Atterberg Limit on Peat Soils and its Application. Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia: Degree’s Thesis (Faculty of Civil and Environmental
Engineering).
Salem, M. & El-Sherbiny, R. (2014). Comparison of Measured and Calculated
Consolidation Settlement of Thick Underconsolidated Clay. Alexandria
Engineering Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 107-117.
Sas, W. & Malinowska, E (2006). Surcharging as a Method of Road Embankment
Construction on Organic Soil. IAEG International Congress, United
Kingdom, Paper Number 403.
SCDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2010). Chapter 19: Ground Improvement.
Retrieved on March 1, 2013, from, https://www.soils.org/files/publications
/soils-glossary/table-4.pdf
Shenoy, A. V., Saini, D. R. & Nadkarni, V. M. (1984). Melt Rheology of Polymer
Blends from Melt Flow Index. International Journal of Polymeric Materials,
Vol.10, pp. 213-235.
Siddique, R., Khatib, J. & Kaur, I. (2008). Use of Recycled Plastic in Concrete: A
Review. Waste Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1835-1852.
Simons, N. & Menzies, B. (1977). A Short Course in Foundation Engineering.
England: Butterworth & Co Ltd. pp. 69-70. ISBN 0 408 00295 6.
Simons, N. & Menzies, B. (2000). A Short Course in Foundation Engineering.
London: Thomas Telford Ltd. ISBN 0 7277 2751 6.
Skempton, A.W. & Bjerrum, L., (1957). A Contribution to the Settlement Analysis
of Foundations on Clay. Geotechnique, Vol. 7, pp. 168.
Smith, I. (2014). Elements of Soil Mechanics. 9th ed. United Kingdom: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Soil Building System. Expanded Shale. Retrieved on December 25, 2012, from
http://www. soilbuildingsystems.com/ products/compost
332
Stark, T. D. & Arellano, D. (2003). Geofoam Application in the Design and
Construction of Highway Embankment. NCHRP Web Document 86 (Project
24-11).
Steven, S. (2008). Evaluation of Alternative Embankment Construction Methods.
Alaska Department of Transportation Statewide Research Office.
Strong, A. B. (2006). Plastics (Material and Processing. 3rd ed. United States:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Subhash, G. & Liu, Q. (2004). Crushability Maps for Structural Polymeric Foams in
Uniaxial Loading under Rigid Confinement. Exp. Mechanical, Vol. 44,
pp.289–294.
SURCON (2003). Specifications for Geodetic Surveys in Nigeria. Surveyors’
Council of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria
Suryani, S. & Mohamad, N. ( 2012). Structural Behaviour of Precast Lightweight
Foamed Concrete Sandwich Panel under Axial Load: An Overview.
International Journal of Integrated Engineering - Special Issue on
ICONCEES, Vol. 4(3), pp. 47-52.
Tan, Y. C., Lee, P. T. & Koo, K. S. (2013). Instrumented Trial Embankment on Soft
Ground at Tokai, State of Kedah, Malaysia. Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Paris, Technical Committee, pp. 2977-2980.
Tan, S. A. (1995). Validation of Hyperbolic Method for Settlement in Clays with
Vertical Drains. Soils and Foundations, Vol. 35(1), pp. 101–113.
Tan, S. A. & Chew, S. H. (1996). Comparison of the Hyperbolic and Asaoka
Observational Metho of monitoring Sonsolidation with Vertical Drains. Soil
and Foundation, Japane Geotechnical Society, Vol. 36(3), pp. 31-42.
Tan, Y. C. (2005). Embankment over Soft Clay – Design and Construction Control.
Geotechnical Engineering. Retrieved on May 12, 2016, from http://www.
gnpgeo.com.my/download/publication/2005_08.pdf
Tan, Y. C. & Gue, G. S. S. (2000). Design Construction Control of Embankment
over Soft Cohesion Soils. Seminar on Ground Improvement Soft-Clay
(SOGISC).
Tong, T. I. (2015). Evaluation of Humified and Non-humified Organic Matters
affecting the Srength of Peat. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s
Thesis. Unpublished.
333
Tiger Polymer (M) Sdn. Bhd. (2014). Physical Properties of Polypropylene.
Trambauer, P., Nonner, J., Heijkers, J. & Uhlenbrook, S. (2011). On the Validity of
Modelling concepts for the Simulation of groundwater Flow in Lowland Peat
Areas – Case Study at the Experimental Field. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 3017-3031.
Types and Classification of Plastic. Difference Types of Plastics and their
Classification. Retrieved on May 12, 2015, from http://www.ryedale.gov.uk
/attachments/article/690/Different_plastic_polymer_types.pdf
Typical Engineering Properties of Polypropylene (2014). Retrieved on April 13,
2016, from http://www.ineos.com/globalassets/ineos-group/businesses/ineos-
olefins-and-polymers-usa/products/technical-information--patents/ineos-
engineering-properties-of-pp.pdf
Ultracki, L.A. (2003). Polymer Blends Handbook. Chapter 2: Thermodynamic of
Blends. 123-201. ISBN 978- 0-306-48244-1. Retrieved on June 5, 2013, from
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0-306-48244-4
Unit Komunikasi Korporat (2011). Maklumat Aduan Awam. Retrieved on October
19, 2012, from http://www.kkr.gov.my/files/Chapter7_4.pdf.
U.S. Department of Transportation (2011). Federal Highway Administration
Research and Technology. Retrieved on February 5, 2013, from
http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/research /deployment/geofoam.cfm
Verma, S. S. (2008). Roads from Plastic Waste. The Indian Concrete Journal, pp. 43.
Retrieved on July 5, 2013, from http://icjonline.com/views/pov_s.s.verma.pdf
Vidula, S., Abhijeet, J., Karan, P., Suhas, P., Sushil, P. & Karan, S. (2012). Use of
Waste Plastic in Construction of Bituminous Road. International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 4(5), pp. 2351-2355.
Vipulanandan, C., Bilgin, O., Guezo, Y. J. A., Vembu, K. & Erten, M. B. (2009).
Prediction of Embankment Settlement over Soft Soils. Technical Report No.
FHWA/TX-09/0-5530-11.
Vural, M. & Ravichandran, G. (2003). Dynamic Response and Energy Dissipation
Characteristics of Balsa Wood: Experiments and Analysis. International
Journal Solids Structure, Vol. 40, pp. 2147–2170.
Weckstrom, D. (2012) Changes in Mechanical Properties of Recycled
Polypropylene. Arcada-University of Applied Sciences: Degree’s Thesis in
Plastic Technology.
334
Wei, S., Yiqiang, C., Yunsheng, Z. & Jones, M. R. (2013). Characterization and
Simulation of Microstructure and Thermal Properties of Foamed Concrete.
Journal of Construction and Building Materials, 47, pp. 1278-1291.
Wetzel, C. A. & Winter, D. G. (2014). Comparison of Theoretical and Actual Time-
dependent Settlement induced by Fill Placement. New Applications of
Geotechnologies, ASCE Metropolitan, New York City.
Whitlow, R. (2001). Basic Soil Mechanics. 4th ed. England: Pearson Education.
ISBN 0-582-3819-6
Wiesinger, R. (2009). Sandwich Panel: Application Guide. Retrieved from http://
www.brucha.at/opmodule/user/brucha-neu/dokumente/Verlegerichtlinien_20
09_engl_WEB.pdf
Wijeyesekera, D. C., Bakar, I. & Ismail, T. N. H. T. (2015). Sustainable Construction
Material for Challenging Highway Technology. ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences. ISSN: 1819-6608.
Wijeyesekera, D. C., Numbikannu, L., Ismail, T. N. H. T. & Bakar, I. (2016).
Mitigating Settlement of Structure founded on Peat. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 136.
Wijeyesekera, D. C. & Patel, J. C. (1998). A Three Level Finite Difference Analysis
of the Large Strain One-Dimensional Consolidation Equation. Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Winter, M. G. (2013). Road Foundation Construction using Lightweight Tire Bales.
Proceeding of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geothenical Engineering, Paris, pp. 3275-3278.
Winter, M. G., Johnson, P. E. & Reid, J. M. (2005). Construction of Road
Foundation on Soft Ground using Lightweight Tyre Bales. Proceeding of
International Conference on Problematic Soils, pp. 25-27.
Wong, L. S., Hashim, R. & Ali, F. H. (2009). A Review on Hydraulic Conductivity
and Compressibility of Peat. Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 18, pp
3207-3218.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual (2013). Retrieved on June 25, 2016, from
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M46-03.htm
Xenaki, V. C. & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (2001). Experimental Investigation of the
Interaction Mechanism at the EPS Geofoams and Interface by Direct Shear
Testing. Geosynthetics International 2001, Vol. 8, No. 6.
335
Xie, K. H. & Leo, C. J. (2004). Analytical Solution of One-Dimensional Large Strain
Consolidation of Saturated and Homogeneous Clays. Computers and
Geotechnics, Vol. 31, pp. 301-314.
Yulindasari (2006). Compressibility Characteristics of Fibrous Peat Soil. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia: Master’s Thesis (Geotechnics).
Yusoff, S. A. N. M. (2015). Soil Stabilisation using Lignin and Bio-Enzymes.
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.
Zainorabidin, A. & Wijeyesekera, D. C. (2007). Geotechnical Challenges with
Malaysia Peat. Advances in Computing and Technology, The School of
Computing and Technology 2nd Annual Conference.
Zainorabidin, A. & Bakar, I. (2003). Engineering Properties of In-Situ and
Modified Hemic Peat Soil in Western Johor. Proceedings of 2nd International
Conference on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology,
Putrajaya, Malaysia, pp.173-182.
Zarm Scientific & Supplier Sdn. Bhd. (2014). Document coded: 841571-D.
Unpublished.
Zhang, L. & O’Kelly, B. C. (2013), Constitutive Models for Peat – A Review.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational;
Plasticity – Fundamentals and Application (COMPLASS XII), Barcelona,
Spain, pp. 1294-1304.
Zhou, H. & Wen, X. (2008). Model studies on geogrid- or geocell-reinforced sand
cushion on soft soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Vol. 26, pp. 231-238.
Zolkefle, S. N. A. (2015). The Dynamic Properties of Peat Soil in South West of
Johor. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia: Master’s Thesis.
Zornberg, J. G., Christopher, B. R. & Oosterbaan, M. D. (2005). Tire Bales in
Highway Applications Feasibility & Properties Evaluation. Colorado
Department of Transportation Research Branch. Report No. CDOT-DTC-R-
2005-2.
Zulkifley, M. T. M., Ng, T. F., Raj, J. K., Hashim, R., Ghani, A., Shuib, M. K., &
Ashraf, M. A. (2013). Definitions and Engineering Classifications of Tropical
Lowland Peats. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, Vol.
72(3-4), pp. 547-553.
Zwanenburg, C. (2005). The Influence of Anisotropy on the Consolidation Behaviour
of Peat. Netherlands: DUP Science. ISBN 90-407-2615-9.