Engineering

Properties of Peat
2. Shear Strength
Shear strength parameters always play a vital role when
engineering decision comes across with any soils including
peat.

Shear strength is a concern both during construction for

supporting construction equipment as well as at the end of
construction in supporting the structure.

Low shear strength and high compressibility of the peat

however confined them in problematic category.

Accuracy in determining the shear strength of these soils is

associated with several variables namely; origin of soil, water
content, organic content and degree of humification.

2
For case of peats, presence of fibers modifies our concepts of
strength behavior in several ways.

- It can provide effective stress where there is none and it

induces anisotropy.

- It also results in reduced Ko values compared to clays.

- Shear resistance may continue to develop at high strains

without a significant peak behavior.

3
 Laboratory Testing

Several methods can be used to determine the drained and

undrained shear strength in the laboratory, namely:
- triaxial test,
- shear box test,
- ring shear or direct shear, and
- vane shear test.

4
 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory shear box test results of peat (Al-Raziqi et al, 2003)
Von Angle of
Moisture Organic Liquid Cohesion
Location Post Internal
Content Content Limit (kPa)
Scale Friction (deg)
211 85 294 H1 9-11 9-20
195 79 219 H2 6-11 9-16
Banting,
832 84 361 H5 8-10 7-10
Selangor
219 94 316 H6 11-12 9-12
225 85 166 H8 8-12 6-11
215 78 180 H3 10-12 6-14
Kg. Jawa,
209 89 325 H6 12-14 7-25
Selangor
786 85 368 H8 7-11 8-13
680 85 298 H3 11-12 10-15
Kg. Jawa,
747 93 352 H5 10-12 5-10
Selangor
720 83 282 H7 7-9 9-12
246 98 305 H2 13-17 3-12
Dengkil,
N. 301 98 335 H5 11 13-15
Sembilan 786 83 377 H8 8-9 12-20

5
 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Vane test results of peat (Al-Raziqi et al, 2003)
Laboratory Vane
Von Post
Location Moist. Content Org. Content Liquid Limit Shear Strength
Scale
(kPa)
211% 85% 294% H1 10 – 12
195% 79% 219% H2 11
832% 84% 361% H5 10
Banting, Selangor
219% 94% 316% H6 7 – 9
225% 85% 166% H8 4
802% 83% 362% H10 4 – 6
214% 79% 180% H3 11
Kg. Jawa, Klang 225% 84% 325% H6 8
618% 88% 368% H8 5
680% 85% 298% H3 10 – 15
Kg. Jawa, Klang 747% 93% 352% H5 5 – 10
720% 83% 282% H7 9 – 12
246% 98% 305% H2 9 - 13
Dengkil, N.
301% 98% 335% H5 6 - 10
Sembilan
786% 83% 377% H8 3 - 6
Berengbengkel, 467-1224% 41-99% -
H2-H5 6 - 17
Central Kalimantan
 Laboratory Testing

24
22 High fibrous content (H1-H3)
Vane Shear Strength ( kPa)

20
M edium fibrous conten (H4-H6)
18
16 Low fibrous content (H7-H9)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500

Moisture Content (%)

7
 Laboratory Testing

24.0
22.0 High fibrous content (H1-H3)
Vane Shear Strength (kPa)

20.0 Medium fibrous content (H4-H6)

18.0
Low fibrous content (H7-H9)
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Organic Content (%)

8
 Laboratory Testing

30
28
High fibrous content (H1-H3)
Vane Shear Strength (kPa)

26
24 Medium fibrous content (H4-H6)
22
20 Low fibrous content (H7-H9)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Degree of Humification (H)

9
 Laboratory Testing

Effective friction angleof peats is typically determined in

consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial compression tests and
occasionally in drained direct, ring or simple shear tests.

Drained triaxial tests are seldom performed due to gross change in

specimen dimensions and shape during the test.

Normally consolidated peat’s exhibit zero or small effective

cohesion and generally high effective friction angles.

10
 Laboratory Testing

Effective friction angle versus organic content (Edil 2003)

11
 Laboratory Testing

Yamaguchi et. al. (1985) and Farrell and Hebib (1998) report lower
friction angles in triaxial extension tests compared to triaxial
compression tests.

12
 Field Testing

Field vane shear and cone penetration test (CPT) are the most
commonly used for testing in situ undrained shear strength of peat.

13
 Field Testing

Undrained Shear Strength

Cu (kpa)
0 50 100 150 200
0
Su v a n e = 1 6. 6 kP a
Layer 1 : Fr om 0. 0m - 0. 5m

1 Su v a n e = 8. 5 kP a
Layer 2: Fr om 0. 5m t o 2. 6m
Or gani c Cont ent , H = 71 %
Degr ee of Humi f i cat i on = H3
2
8.5
Su v a n e = 1 3 kP a
Layer 3: Fr om 2. 6m t o 4. 0m
3 Or gani c Cont ent , H = 65%
Depth (m)

Degr ee of Humi f i cat i on = H3

4 13.0

5
13.5 Sof t Clay

7
24.5 Vane shear subsoil profile
8 for site in Putrajaya,
Vane Shear Test CPT Malaysia
14
 Field Testing
According to Edil (2003), large vane of diameter 55 to 110mm and
height to diameter ratio of 2 are recommended for peat.

The rate of vane rotation has to be faster than for clay, i.e greater
than 0.1 degree/s.

Reduction factors are often applied to the measured field value as

follows:

- (0.43/LL) 0.45 (Sweden)

Where LL is the liquid limit.

- 0.50 – 0.55 (Poland)

- 0.5 (Japan)

15
Field Testing

Interaction of vane with peat

during test (Edil, 2003)

16
 Field Testing
The accuracy of standard CPT is often insufficient to delineate
strength of very soft organic deposits.
Edil (2003) advocates the use of extra sensitive and larger cone
for this purpose.

Cone resistance versus direct shear

strength (after Edil 2003)

17
Shear Strength Increase with Consolidation

In order to estimate and take into account the rate of increase

of undrained shear strength as a function of consolidation and
subsequent densification of peat, Magnan (1994) suggests
laboratory compression tests are performed, and the
coefficient cu= cu/ is then applied to shear strength
obtained from vane test.

For peat, cu is generally higher than clay, with values close to
0.50.

18
 Anisotropically Consolidated Compression
Anisotropically Consolidated Compression
Isotropically Consolidated Compression
Isotropically Consolidated Compression
120
Isotropically Consolidated Extention
100
Cu / v c = 
Undrained shear strength Cu

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Effective vertical consolidation stress vc

Cu versus depth and ’vc laboratory (Farrel, 1997)

19
Normalized undrained strength versus
organic content (Edil & Wang, 2000)

20
Effect of Cyclic Loading

Yasuhara et. al. (1994) studied the effect of cyclic loading on peat
which can be introduced by earthquakes, and concluded that peat
loses its undrained strength when subjected to undrained cyclic
loading.

Even if drainage is allowed due to dissipation of excess pore

pressures generated by the cyclic loading, undrained strength is
not improved very much.
Ko Behavior

Ko represents the one-dimensional lateral earth pressure

coefficient under confined conditions in which no lateral strain is
permitted, in other words, at-rest condition.

22
 Ko versus organic content (Edil
and Wang, 2000)

The Ko data presented above pertains to normally loaded

specimens.
Summary:

The undrained shear strength of peat depends on:

1. Degree of humification
2. Water content, and
3. Mineral Content.

The higher the moisture and degree of humification, the lower is

the shear strength. High mineral content gives higher shear
strength.

Lab shear strength tests are difficult due to difficulty in getting

good representative samples.
In situ tests, like vane shear tests would be probably be better.
24