Investigation On The Compaction Characteristic of Sabah Peat Soil Stabilised With Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP)

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering Innovation
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023

http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijarei
Investigation on the Compaction Characteristic of Sabah Peat

Soil Stabilised with Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP)
Mohd Syeddre Sutarno1, Habib Musa Mohamad1*
1
Faculty of Engineering, University Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: habibmusa@ums.edu.my
Received: 27 May 2023 | Accepted: 10 September 2023 | Published: 30 September 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55057/ijarei.2023.5.3.1
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Peat soil was defined as the highly organic surface layer derived primarily from
plant remains. Peat, on the other hand, was the subsurface of wetland systems, consisting of
unconsolidated superficial layers with high non-crystalline colloid (humus) content. It has a
dark brown to black colour, an organic odour, and a spongy consistency in general. Peat soil
was mainly found in swamp areas. It was a partly decomposed organic layer of soil generated
primarily from plant matter that has collected under waterlogging, high acidity, oxygen
scarcity, and nutritional insufficiency. Peat soils have a low shear strength of 5 to 20 kPa, high
compressibility of 0.9 to 1.5, and a high moisture content of >100%. Peat also has a lot of
deformation, a lot of magnitudes, and many screens, and it contains a lot of organic stuff
(>75%). The purpose of the study was to prognosticate the potential of Eco-Processed
Pozzolan (EPP) as peat soil stabilisation material with improved technique and its
consequence of the methods, which was the peat soils index properties and analyse the
characteristics of the peat soil stabilisation before and after treatment using Eco-Processed
Pozzolan (EPP). The undistributed soil sample was taken 0.5m underground from the surface
in cylindrical shape 150 mm high and 90 mm inner diameter. The soil was mixed with 10%,
20%, and 30% Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP) then compacted (compaction test) in a metal
mould of internal diameter 105 mm using a 2.5 kg rammer, of 50 mm diameter, free-falling
from 300 mm above the top of the soil Three layers compaction of approximately equal depth
and 27 blows spread evenly over the soil surface for each layer. The expected result to
accomplish the main purpose was to prognosticate the potential Eco-Processed Pozzolan
(EPP) as peat soil stabilization material with improvement technique and its consequence of
the methods. According to the findings, peat soil treated with EPP will transform its qualities
from peat to usable soil. However, the presence of moisture will reduce the mixture's ability.
According to the findings of this study, the optimum EPP for stabilising peat soils was 30-40%.
Keywords: Peat, Stabilization, Eco-Processed Pozzolan, Compaction test, Soil Compaction

__________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
In the previous study, the term "peat soil" was defined as the highly organic surface layer
derived primarily from plant remains. On the other hand, "peat" was defined as unconsolidated
superficial deposits with high non-crystalline colloid (humus) content, constituting the
subsurface of wetland systems. Generally, it has a dark brown to black color, an organic odor,
and mostly has a spongy consistency. There was a time when the plant fibers were visible, and
sometimes they may not be in the advanced stages due to the decomposition of the peat soil,
as claimed by Huat et al. (2014). Botanical composition and degree of coalification are the
1
Copyright © 2023 ASIAN SCHOLARS NETWORK - All rights reserved
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
main things that need to be considered before categorizing the types of peat soils. The
coalification process is only beginning, and lignin, cellulose, and even microorganism proteins
can be seen in its structure. Pyrolysis of peat generates a compound typical for its component
that allows identification of information on the peat component, classification of the peat by its
origin, and allows the evaluation of the degree of coalification according to Serban C.
Moldoveanu (2021) (Moldoveanu, 1998). According to the statement by Dennis et al. (2017),
in terms of chemical properties, peat soils contain a high-water content of around 88%-92%,
50%-60% carbon, typically consisting of hydrogen (5%-7%), nitrogen (2%-3%), phosphorus
(<0.2%), and mineral nutritional elements and oxygen, which do not have more than 35% of
dry ingredient weight mass. Peat soils are characterized by a high-water table, absence of
oxygen, reducing conditions, low bulk density and bearing capacity, soft spongy substratum,
low fertility, and usually high acidity. Peatland vegetation includes Sphagnum mosses, rushes
and sedges, bog cotton, ling heather, bog rosemary, bog asphodel, and sundew. There are also
forested peatlands in Europe (Alder forests) and in lowland humid tropical areas of Southeast
Asia (freshwater swamp forests and mangroves). Peat soils are characterized by a high-water
table, absence of oxygen, reducing conditions, low bulk density and bearing capacity, soft
spongy substratum, low fertility, and usually high acidity (Osman, 2018).
Peat soil can be found in swamp areas, which are the surface areas consisting partially of
decomposed organic matter derived mostly from plant matter that has accumulated under
conditions of waterlogging, high acidity, oxygen deficiency, and nutrient insufficiency. Prior
to the work of Razal et al. (2013), peat soils were known to have low shear strength (around
5kPa-20kPa), high compressibility (0.9-1.5), and high moisture content (>100%). Peat also has
a large deformation, high magnitude, and rates of settlement, and contains organic matter
(>75%). Therefore, peat soil is not suitable for placing any foundation, road, or other
construction in peatland. Pursuant to the Duraisamy et al. (2007), peat commonly occurs as
extremely soft, wet, unconsolidated superficial deposits, normally as an integral part of wetland
systems. They may also occur as a stratum underneath a layer of superficial deposits. The term
peat is used to describe highly organic material formed mostly from plant components that
occurs naturally. It forms when organic matter accumulates more quickly than it decays, which
usually occurs when organic matter is preserved below a high-water table, such as in swamps
or wetlands. Peat soil needs to be stabilized so that they can be used as a construction area in
the future. Therefore, this research will focus on stabilizing peat soils' compaction
characteristics by using the method of compaction testing of peat soils at Klias Peat Swamp
Forest, Sabah. The results of the test were taken before and after mixing the sample with Eco-
Processed Pozzolan (EPP). The expected result is that the stabilized soil will have high shear
strength, low compressibility, and normal moisture content. The study aimed to investigate the
potential of using Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP) as a stabilization material for peat soil, with
a focus on improving its properties. The specific objectives of the study were to determine the
index properties of the peat soil, identify the optimal mixture of EPP for stabilizing the peat
soil, and analyze the changes in dry density of the soil before and after treatment with EPP.
The scope of work covered all necessary tasks and data required to achieve the stated objectives
of this research. This research aimed to investigate the use of Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP)
as a material for stabilizing peat soil by identifying its compaction characteristics. The study
involved obtaining a peat soil sample from Klias, Beaufort and subjecting it to compaction tests
at the Geotechnical Laboratory of the Faculty of Engineering, University Malaysia Sabah. The
soil was mixed with different percentages of EPP and compacted in a metal mold using a
rammer. The results aimed to determine the optimal mixture of EPP to improve the load-
carrying capacity and compressibility of the peat soil, with potential applications in industry
2
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
and construction. The aim of this research was to investigate the potential of using Eco-
Processed Pozzolan (EPP) to stabilize peat soil and to evaluate the effects of this method. The
study had specific objectives such as determining the index properties of the peat soil,
analyzing its compaction characteristics, and assessing its load-carrying capacity and
compressibility with the addition of EPP. The research aimed to find a suitable method to
improve the characteristics of peat soil for use in industries and construction and to create a
new product in the form of optimal EPP to stabilize peat soil for various applications. Research
focused on evaluating the effectiveness of using Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP) as a soil
stabilizer for peat soil. The study aimed to address problematic soil issues and expand upon
previous research on peat soil by filling a gap in compaction characteristics. The research
findings provide engineers with a better understanding of peat soil issues and establish a new
method in the industry that can be traded as a new product for peat soil stabilization.
1.1 Eco Processed Pozzolan (EPP)

Pozzolanic materials have long been utilized as a substitute for cement. The incorporation of
pozzolans can reduce the cement quantity used (Chindaprasirt et al., 2007), which is significant
considering that cement manufacturing accounts for 5-7 percent of global carbon dioxide
emissions, making it one of the largest contributors to CO2 emissions (Benhelal et al., 2013).
Despite the usefulness of pozzolanic materials in reducing the amount of cement required,
cement is still necessary to start the pozzolanic process, which contributes to CO2 emissions
(Gartner, 2004). EPP contains a significant amount of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3, which makes
up 68.98 percent of its overall chemical composition, exceeding the ASTM C618 requirements.
SEM micrographs of EPP particles revealed irregularly shaped and some spherical particles as
well as particle aggregation. Mortar containing 20% EPP as a cement substitute exhibited
higher compressive strength than the control sample at 7 and 28 days, with strength activity
indices of 114.4 percent and 104.2 percent, respectively (Raihana et al., 2020). Blended cement
has been produced using eco-processed pozzolan (EPP), which is derived from the waste
generated during the crude palm oil degumming and bleaching processes at refinery facilities.
The waste product, referred to as spent bleaching earth (SBE), is typically discarded at landfills
in Malaysia. The disposal of SBE in landfills poses a risk of environmental pollution (Loh et
al., 2013).
As a substitute of cement, 20% of EPP was used in mortar, and ASTM C778 was utilized to
prepare the sand. Mortars of 50 mm size were made for 7 and 28 days to assess the compressive
strength and strength activity index of EPP. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) was employed to study
the chemical makeup of the materials. ASTM C109 was used to test the compressive strength
of mortar, while the strength activity index (SAI) test was utilized to measure EPP's pozzolanic
reactivity in accordance with ASTM C311. The morphology of EPP was examined using a
scanning electron microscope (SEM). Table 1.0 presents the chemical compositions of ordinary
Portland cement (OPC) and EPP. SiO2 was found to be the primary component of EPP,
accounting for 47.6%. The total combined quantity of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 was 68.98%,
which is above the 50% threshold set by ASTM C618. EPP has a loss on ignition of 3.3%,
which is less than the ASTM C618 limit of 6%. Based on the chemical compositions, EPP can
be categorized as a Class C pozzolan according to ASTM C618. Table 1.1 shows the physical
characteristics of EPP. The mean particle sizes of EPP and OPC were 29.3 µm and 27.4 µm,
respectively. The d90 particle sizes (90% of particles under this size) were 80.42 µm for EPP
and 94.36 µm for OPC. EPP had a specific gravity of 1.93, while OPC had a specific gravity
of 3.27. This was due to EPP's greater mean particle size, which resulted in a lower specific
gravity.
3
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Table 1: Chemical compositions of EPP

Chemical Properties (%) OPC EPP
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 14.4 47.6
Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 3.6 11.6
Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) 3.2 9.8
Calcium oxide (CaO) 72.3 12.5
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 1.7 6.2
LOI 3.3 5.78
Table 2: Physical properties of EPP

Physical Properties OPC EPP
Mean particle size, d50 (μm) 27.4 29.3
Particle size, d90 (μm) 94.36 80.42
Specific gravity 3.27 1.93
1.2 Mechanical Compaction Test

Soil compaction refers to the process of exerting mechanical stress on the soil, causing
densification by forcing solid particles to pack tightly together and minimizing air gaps. Soil is
a three-phase system that consists of solid particles and spaces filled with water or air, and its
three-phase nature can be better explained as such. When soil is stressed, its particles are
redistributed, and void volume decreases, leading to densification. Mechanical stress can be
applied using kneading, dynamic, or static approaches. The degree of compaction is determined
by measuring the change in the dry unit weight of the soil, denoted as d (Soil Compaction Test,
2014). The process of compaction involves minimizing air gaps between soil particles using
mechanical means, often with water as a lubricating medium (Sridharan & Nagaraj 2005).
Although air spaces decrease during compaction, water content remains constant. Compaction
is used to reduce unwanted settlement, permeability, and swelling, and to improve slope
stability and soil shear strength, which increases soil-bearing capacity. In a 1000 cm3
cylindrical mold, Proctor (1933) suggested laboratory methods for compaction that involve
compressing soil particles at the required compaction effort to imitate the energy exerted by a
soil compaction machine in the field. Regular Proctor compaction is usually used for routine
traffic loading scenarios, while a modified Proctor compaction test is used for situations
involving significant unit weights, such as airport pavements (Viji et al., 2013). The results of
the test, conducted in the laboratory using either standard Proctor compaction (ASTMD 698
2012) or modified Proctor compaction (ASTM D 2012), are graphically represented as an
inverted 'V' curve, with the peak referred to as maximum dry density (MDD) and the
corresponding moisture content referred to as optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soil.
Table 3: Type of compaction test

Compaction type E (kNm/m3) A B
Reduced standard Proctor 360 0.3786 0.146
Standard Proctor 600 0.5864 0.107
Reduced modified Proctor 1300 0.7332 0.074
Modified Proctor 2700 0.8321 0.087
4
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Figure 1: Typical curves derived by the Standard and Modified Proctor tests.
2. Testing and Method
The aim of this research is to examine the compaction properties of peat soil stabilized with
Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP). This chapter delves into greater detail on the flow planning
technique used in this research. The laboratory work and tests applied in accordance with
BS1377:1990, British Standard Research Methods for Soil Civil Engineering Purposes, are
described in depth to establish the study's findings. The chapter presents an experimental
evaluation of peat soil compressibility and discusses the consolidation analysis methodologies
utilized in this research. The aim of this research was to investigate the effects of Eco-Processed
Pozzolan (EPP) on peat soil's healing and hardening. The descriptive research approach was
employed to establish the relevance of compaction in the process of soil stabilization. The tests
were divided into three stages and conducted in accordance with BS1377:1990, including tests
for index characteristics and settlement behavior. The British Standard clause for each test was
referred to for the purpose of these investigations. The test procedures are described in detail
on the following pages. Index quality tests, including natural moisture content and pH testing,
were carried out to identify the soil sample and analyze the site-specific fundamental index
properties. The soil hemic deposit was examined at Klias Peat Swamp Field Center (KPSFC),
Beaufort. The laboratory test on a peat soil sample was conducted to investigate the sample's
soil properties and features. Figure 2 illustrates the research approach from start to finish.
5
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Figure 2: Flowchart of Research
The locations of Klias Peat Swamp Field Center (KPSFC) in Beaufort, Sabah were documented
based on the presence of adequate peat soil deposits. The collected samples were then
transported from the field to the Malaysia University Sabah Geotechnical Laboratory and
proper sample storage procedures were implemented and explained. During the sampling
6
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
process of peat soil from the site, a von Post scale was used. The research includes three types
of tests: index properties, settlement behaviour testing, and treated and untreated soil analysis.
Standard tests were conducted to evaluate the degree of humification, moisture content, and
other index properties of the soil. Compaction tests were performed to assess the soil's settling
behaviour, using a 4.5 kg drop weight and a 45 cm drop height, and the soil was compacted at
five levels with 25 blows each.
Figure 3: Location of Klias Peninsular, Sabah, Malaysia
This study was conducted in the Klias Peninsula, a vast wetland area located in the southern
state of Sabah, Malaysia (as shown in Figure 3). Beaufort, the administrative district where the
research was conducted, covers an extensive land area of 466,804 hectares, receiving an annual
precipitation between 2,500 to 3,000 mm. The rest of the Klias Peninsula is predominantly
covered in wetlands, serving as a buffer zone for the core area. It is situated between Kimanis
Bay to the north and Brunei Bay to the south, facing the South China Sea, and falls within the
administrative boundaries of both the Beaufort and Kuala Penyu Districts. The area is widely
considered as a forest reserve, as denoted by the red boundaries on the map in Figure 3. The
region between 115.45' and 115.72'N and 5.42' and 5.15'E is classified as a Class 1 peat swamp
forest, indicating it is entirely covered with peat swamp.
Figure 4: Klias site location for peat soils
7
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Soil samples were investigated in Klias, Beaufort, as part of this study. An undisturbed sample
of peat soil was desired for the purpose of obtaining accurate test findings. Since all research
and conclusions were based on a single soil sample, it was crucial to utilize a sampling
procedure appropriate for the intended soil type and ability. Correct soil sampling procedures
were necessary to obtain samples from the area and extrapolate laboratory results to the field.
A thin wall sampler, also known as a Shelby, was utilized as a soil sampling method to gather
relatively undisturbed peat soil samples for strength and consolidation tests. The field of soil
samples was excavated to a depth of 0.5 m. The soil was penetrated by the tube sampler, which
had a diameter of 105 mm. A stringent care procedure was implemented to prevent the exposure
of samples to air conditions to ensure the completeness of soil samples, and to prevent pollution
by any contaminants. Appropriate soil preservation and transfer methods were determined for
preventive and monitoring purposes, and the samples were properly packed and bundled.
Manpower was utilized to assist with field testing and sample collection activities in soil
sampling.
The techniques and procedures for obtaining soil samples vary depending on the sampling
objective. Soil samples may need to be analysed to discover the soil's properties and
characteristics. This study defines soil sampling for research purposes, which aims to enhance
peat soil using compaction stabilized by EPP. Five samples will be used for this research: peat
soils, peat soils + 10% EPP, peat soils + 20% EPP, peat soils + 30% EPP, and peat soils + 40%
EPP. The selected amount of EPP is based on previous research and fills the gap, as no
researcher has used the same amount of EPP in previous studies, and EPP was only used as a
stabilizer.
Soil qualities that aid in soil identification and categorization were index properties. These
features were often defined in the laboratory. In situ density and relative density need
undisturbed sample extraction, whereas other variables may be computed from disturbed soil
samples. In other words, tests were carried out to identify the index qualities, which then aid in
defining and indicating the soil type's quality. Fundamentally, soil parameters such as moisture
content, liquid limit, specific gravity, pH measurement, fibre content, and organic content was
determined.
Disturbed soil samples do not preserve the in-situ characteristics of the soil during the
collection process. Testing for disturbed soil samples is typically used to analyze soil type,
texture, moisture content, nutrient levels, and contaminant analysis, among other factors. To
prepare the site for sample collection, clearing and grubbing were conducted simultaneously.
Excavation activities were then carried out immediately to collect topsoil from areas where the
groundwater table was less than 2 meters below the ground level and up to a depth of 0.5 m.The
disturbed soil samples were collected using a small shovel, and large excavated samples of peat
soil were stored in heavy-duty plastic bags as a backup storage medium. The disrupted samples
were placed in plastic bags inside heavy-duty containers and transported to the laboratory,
where they were stored at room temperature to retain moisture. After collecting the disturbed
samples, visual inspection of the peat soil was conducted using the Von Post categorization
system. The sample used in this study is of undisturbed quality and conforms to BS 5930:1999,
the code of practice for site investigations. A deranged sample was used in this research to
prepare experiments conducted at the Geotechnical Laboratory at UMS, such as determining
the degree of humidification and moisture content.
Disturbed soil samples do not maintain the original features of the soil during the collection
process. Testing for disturbed soil samples is often conducted to analyze soil type and texture,
8
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
moisture content, nutrient, and contaminant analyses, among other things. To prepare the site
for the undisturbed soil samples, clearing and grubbing activities were performed. Excavation
operations began immediately to collect topsoil from where the groundwater table was less
than 2 meters below ground. Undisturbed soil samples preserve the structural integrity of the
soil and have a high recovery rate inside the sampler. However, obtaining a completely
undisturbed sample is challenging, and only a small amount of undisturbed soil can be found
in the samplers at the top and bottom of the sample length. Tube samplers were used for
undisturbed sampling, extruding into the soil until the desired depth was reached. For this
investigation, the sampling technique used for a depth of up to 0.5 m was like the disrupted
sampling technique. The PVC tube sampler had a diameter of 50 mm and a height of 160 mm.
The drive sampler was pushed into the soil without rotating it, displacing the soil as it does so.
The tube at its base was sharpened to a cutting edge to facilitate penetration into the peat soil.
After the peat sampler penetrated the soil, it was thoroughly inspected to ensure that the soil
sample collected hit the area of the sampler. The sampler was properly scooped and waxed out
of the sampling hole. Waxed sealing was applied instantaneously to both the top and bottom
openings and was then wrapped in layers of paraffin wax. The sample was kept in containers
lined with foil and plastic wrap, which were tightly sealed. The tubes were temporarily stored
in a storage box before being relocated to the UMS Geotechnical Laboratory for proper storage
and maintenance at normal room temperature. The peat sampler was positioned horizontally
during storage to minimize the pre-consolidation process. The undisturbed sample was used to
prepare for compaction in this study, with effective pressure applied as shown in Figure 2, the
flowchart of the research.
3. Results and Discussion
The average natural moisture content of peat soils obtained from this investigation was
587.57%, which was significantly higher than that of clay and silt deposits, which rarely
exceeded 200%. According to Mesri and Ajlouni (2007), the moisture content of peat can range
from 200 to 2000 percent. KBpt's moisture content was found to be within this range. Different
moisture content values have been reported in earlier studies, such as 546.43% by Saedon
(2012), 678% by Ali Hauashdh et al. (2020), and 491.16 to 985.3% by Adnan and Habib
(2016). Adnan and Habib (2017) attributed the variations in results to climate change, which
affects the soil saturation intensity by altering temperature, precipitation, and rainfall, leading
to a relatively horizontal water table that may rise above or fall below the actual water table
level. Moisture content variations, as stated by J. P. Andriesse (1998), were influenced by
several factors, such as the degree of decomposition and botanical origin. Yulindasari Sutejo
et al. reported that the soil's moisture content and shear strength were inversely correlated in
2019. When the ground temperature is lower, the water content rises, and the shear strength
decreases, whereas when the ground temperature is higher, the water content decreases, and
the shear strength increases.
The laboratory testing of organic content revealed an average loss of ignition of 96%. The
"initial" loss on ignition was calculated as the weight of the sample before heating minus the
weight after heating. The percentage of loss on ignition was then obtained by dividing the
"initial loss" by the original weight of the sample and multiplying it by 100. According to soil
scientists, peat was defined as soil with an organic content of more than 35%, while
geotechnical engineers consider all soils with an organic content of more than 20% to be
organic soil. However, for engineers, "peat" was defined as soil with an organic content of
more than 75% (S. Kazemian, 2018). Adnan and Habib (2016) reported that the organic content
9
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
of peat soil ranged from 53.97% to 95.51%, while Mahmod et al. (2016) found that the organic
content of peat soils located at Tun Zaidi Stadium Sibu, Sarawak, was in the range of 96.22%
to 96.35%.
Chemical pH tests were conducted using a pH meter to determine the soil's acidity. The test
results revealed that KBpt had an average pH value of 2.34, indicating its acidic nature. The
soil's acidic properties were affected by its location and decomposition processes. The acidity
of peat soil profiles can determine if the soil is acidic or alkaline. Previous studies have shown
that peat acidity ranges from 4.0 to 4.9 on the acidic scale (Adnan and Habib, 2016), and peat
pH ranges from 3.16 to 3.71 on the acidic scale (Yulindasari Sutejo et al., 2019; Sa'adon et al.,
2015). Dariyah et al. (2014) reported that the acidity of tropical peat soils varies from 3 to 5.
Therefore, the results obtained in this study were deemed satisfactory since they fell within the
range of previous research findings as presented in Table 2.3 of Chapter 2 of Peat Soil
Properties in Malaysia. The pH level of the soil is influenced by the rate of decay of organic
material and the depth of peat.
Based on the results, the peat soils were classified as fibrous peat within the von Post scale,
with a fibre content in the range of H1-H3, where the fibre content of 69.36% was greater than
the minimum requirement of 67%. Fibrous peat has a high organic and fibre content and a low
humification level. It is formed of undigested fibrous organic debris, which is easily identified
and is exceedingly acidic. In contrast, sapric peat includes a lot of degraded material, and the
original plant fibres are essentially gone, resulting in a lower water-holding capacity than that
of fibrous or hemic peat. Sapric peat is often very dark grey to black in colour and has very
stable physical qualities. Sapric peat deposits have lower vacancy ratios, lower permeability,
lower compressibility, a smaller friction angle, and a larger coefficient of earth pressure at rest
than fibrous peat deposits. Hemic peat has qualities that fall between fibrous and sapric peat
(Huat et al., 2011). According to Adnan and Habib (2016), the fibre content of peat ranges
from 61.61 percent to 79.40 percent. Other researchers have reported the fibre content of peat
soil to range between 70.45 and 76.659 percent (Yulindasari et al., 2019).
Figure 5: Graph Average penetration vs Moisture content
Figure 5 graph indicates a direct relationship between the average penetration and the moisture
content of peat soil. The liquid limit of peat soils was determined by measuring the moisture
content using established test procedures, such as a cone penetrometer method. In the previous
10
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
research the moisture content range of peat soil represented the liquid limit of peat, and it was
found to be between 133% to 180%. Adnan and Habib (2016) reported that the liquid limit of
peat ranged from 211% to 299.5%, whereas Bujang (2004) found the liquid limit to range from
190% to 360%.
The mean specific gravity value of the peat sample collected in this study was 1.47. As per
Hauashdh (2020), specific gravity in Kampung Medan Sari Johor was 1.63, while Adnan and
Habib (2016) found the specific gravity of peat soil in Lumadan, Sabah to be between 1.24 to
1.44. As per earlier studies, the specific gravity of this research study was still within the range
of 1.24 to 1.63. Peat soil typically has a specific gravity of 1.34, according to Zolkefle (2014).
Specific gravity is an important quantity in peat soil mechanics, and it may be associated with
the mineral content and weathering of peat soil.
The von Post scale served as an indicator of degradation. It is a field-based ten-class

categorization system created to classify peat soils based on the "type of liquid expressed on
squeezing," "proportion of peat extruded between fingers," and "nature of plant remnants"
(Armstrong and Castle, 1999). The von Post humification test involves squeezing the peat and
analysing the material that is extruded between the fingers, and categorizing the soil based on
humification or decomposition groups (H1-H10) (Zulkifley et al., 2013). According to the von
Post scale used during the site visit, the peat soil in KPSFC can be classified as H6-H7,
indicating a muddy to strongly muddy peat.
Based on the results, the peat soils were classified as fibrous peat within the von Post scale,
with a fibre content in the range of H1-H3, where the fibre content of 69.36% was greater than
the minimum requirement of 67%. Fibrous peat has a high organic and fibre content and a low
humification level. It is formed of undigested fibrous organic debris, which Based on the
preliminary research findings, the implications of this study are discussed in this section. Table
3 presents tabulated data on the index properties of Malaysian peat soils from previous research
conducted by different experts. Therefore, the main aim of this research was to consolidate past
research findings. The conclusions of this study were compared with existing data to analyze
the characteristics of KPSFC and ensure that the reported results fell within the expected ranges
Table 3: Index properties of Klias peat soil

Properties Value
Natural Moisture Content, w (%) 587.57
Specific Gravity (Gs) 1.47
Acidity (pH) 2.34
Organic Content (%) 96
Fiber Content (%) 69
11
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Figure 6: Graph Dry density vs Moisture content (untreated)
Figure 7: Graph Dry density vs Moisture content (peat + 10% EPP)
The untreated peat soils were employed for the compaction test. As a consequence, the figure
6 graph was in a downward trend, with two identical data points of 0.58 Mg/m3 dry density in
tests 3 and 4, while the greatest dry density was 0.59 Mg/m3. 𝑅 2 for the test was 0.0347, and
the highest moisture content was 55%. The 𝑅 2 is low, the error may cause it during the test
because the test is not finished in a day. A few days are taken to get all the data. The peat soils
were added mixture 10% of EPP for the compaction test. Therefore, the figure 7 shows the
graph was in an upward trend, with the highest dry density was 0.63 Mg/m3 which was in test
no 4 meanwhile the lowest dry density was in the test no 1 0.57 Mg/m3. 𝑅 2 for the test was
0.9047, and the highest moisture content was 69%.
12
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Figure 8: Graph Dry Density vs Moisture Content (peat + 20% EPP)
13
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
The peat soils were added mixture of 20% EPP for the compaction test. Therefore, the figure
8 shows the graph was in an upward trend, with the highest dry density being 0.65 Mg/m^3
which was in test no 4 meanwhile there was an identical dry density was in tests 1 and 2 0.62
Mg/m^3. R^2 for the test was 0.9245, and the highest moisture content was 61% while the
lowest was 36%. The peat soils were added mixture of 30% EPP for the compaction test.
Therefore, the figure 9 shows the graph was in an upward trend, with the highest dry density
being 0.7 Mg/m^3 which was in test no 4 meanwhile the lowest dry density was in tests 1 0.67
Mg/m^3. R^2 for the test was 0.999, and the highest moisture content was 55% while the lowest
was 32%. The peat soils were added mixture of 30% EPP for the compaction test. Therefore,
the figure 10 shows the graph was in an upward trend, with the highest dry density being 0.7
Mg/m^3 which was in test no 4 meanwhile the lowest dry density was in tests 1 0.66 Mg/m^3.
R^2 for the test was 0.8239, and the highest moisture content was 51% while the lowest was
31%.
3.1 Comparison between 5 samples

Peat soil is widely considered to be one of the most challenging types of soil to work with due
to its high compressibility, low shear strength, high moisture content, and low bearing capacity
(Bujang, 2004; Adnan et al., 2007). During the experiment, various parameters such as the
weight of the moulded sample, weight of the moulded + sample, moisture content of the sample
used, and dry density data were collected. The investigation involved five samples: Sample 1,
Sample 2, Sample 3, Sample 4, and Sample 5. Sample 1 was the control sample consisting of
peat soil without any stabilizer, whereas EPP was added as a binder. Sample 2 was peat soil
with 10% EPP added, followed by Sample 3 with 20% EPP added. Samples 4 and 5 were peat
soils treated with 30% and 40% EPP, respectively.For Sample 1, 2000g of peat soil was tested
without any stabilizer added. Sample 2 consisted of 1800g of peat soil with 200g of EPP
powder added, with 200ml of water added for each set, followed by compaction testing. For
Sample 3, 1600g of peat soil was weighed and combined with 400g of EPP powder, and the
mixture was compacted with 200ml of water for each set. Sample 4 represented 1400g of peat
soil with the addition of 600g of EPP powder, while Sample 5 weighed 1200g of peat soil with
the addition of 800g of EPP powder. Each sample was subjected to the same testing as Sample
1.
Table 4: Summary Mixture used in this study.

Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
Untreated Peat soils + 10% Peat soils + 20% Peat soils + 30% Peat soils + 40%
Description
Sample EPP powder EPP powder EPP powder EPP powder
Peat soils 1600g Peat soil 1400g Peat soils 1200g
Peat soils Peat soils 1800g + + +
2000g + EPP powder EPP powder EPP powder
+ EPP powder 200g 400g 600g 800g
Mixture
200ml water + + + +
was added for 200ml water was 200ml water 200ml water 200ml water was
each set added for each set was added for was added for added for each
each set each set set
2.5kg Rammer Method with free falling height 300mm was used. Compacted in 3 layers with
Compaction
each layer applied 27 blows
Graph
Red Blue Orange Green Yellow
Colour
14
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Figure 11: Behaviour of peat soils graph dry density and moisture content.
Figure 11 illustrates the behaviour of untreated peat soil and peat soil treated with various
percentages of EPP. The untreated peat soil showed a consistent dry density of 0.59, 0.56, 0.57,
and 0.58 (Mg/m3) with a slight increase in moisture content, reaching its highest rate of 55%
in the fourth set. In contrast, the treated samples showed an upward trend in dry density and
moisture content. Sample 2 containing 10% EPP exhibited a slight increase in dry density and
moisture content, with the highest moisture content of 69% among all samples. The use of EPP
significantly improved the behaviour of peat soils, with Sample 2 showing the most significant
improvement. Sample 3 had a higher dry density range of 0.62-0.65 (Mg/m3) and a moisture
content range of 36%-61%. Samples 4 and 5 had the highest dry density of all samples, with
both hitting 0.7 (Mg/m3), although Sample 4 had a slightly lower dry density of 0.67, and
Sample 5 had a dry density of 0.66. Both samples showed an upward trend in moisture content,
with ranges between 32%-55% and 31%-51%, respectively.The data from this study suggest
that EPP has high potential as a stabiliser for peat soil. Samples 4 and 5 were found to be the
optimum amounts of EPP to improve peat soil, with 30%-40% EPP used. The use of EPP as a
stabiliser may alleviate soil problems by generating stable soil with improved strength
characteristics. The maximum dry density of soil increases as the percentage of additives used
increases, while the optimal moisture content decreases (Zambri & Ghazaly, 2018;
Boobathiraja S et al., 2014).
15
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Dry density vs No.of Sample

0.75
0.7
0.7
Dry density (Mg/m^3)
0.67
0.66
0.65 Peat + 10% EPP
0.65 Peat + 20% EPP
0.63
0.62 Peat + 30% EPP
Peat + 40% EPP
0.6 0.59 Untreated Peat Soils
0.58
0.57
0.55
0 1 2 3 4 5
No. of Sample
Figure 12: Graph of dry density vs No. of Sample
In this study, each sample underwent four rounds of testing, as depicted in Figure 12. A small
portion of each sample was taken to determine its moisture content. As shown on the graph,
the untreated peat soils are represented by the red line, peat soils with 10% EPP are represented
by the blue line, peat soils with 20% EPP are represented by the orange line, peat soils with
30% EPP are represented by the green line, and peat soils with 40% EPP are represented by
the yellow line. The graph indicates that all four samples treated with EPP exhibited an upward
trend, in contrast to untreated peat soil, which exhibited a downward trend. The initial and final
readings of the dry density values were used to construct this graph. The yellow and green lines
demonstrate data that is similar to the blue and orange lines but differs slightly. The lowest dry
density recorded was 0.57 Mg/m3 in the blue line, while the highest dry density recorded was
0.7 Mg/m3 in the red line.
4. Conclusion and Discussion
The investigation focused on studying the behaviour of peat soil following stabilisation with
EPP, as well as monitoring its behaviour before and after stabilisation. Four compaction tests
were performed, each with a different EPP admixture value of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. Index
properties, such as moisture content, pH, specific gravity, liquid limit, organic content, and
fibre content, were assessed. The moisture content of the sample was found to be 587.57%,
which was compared to prior research to confirm its validity. The average pH of peat was
estimated to be 2.34 due to its high acidity content. A graph was used to demonstrate the
relationship between average penetration and moisture content from the liquid limit test. The
percentage of fibre in the fibre content test was determined to be 67%, indicating that the peat
soil was fibrous. The specific gravity of the study was 1.47, and the loss of ignition testing of
organic content found a value of 96 percent, both of which were within the range of prior tests.
The results confirmed that peat soil is a problematic soil type when compared to conventional
soil, and the little variation observed was influenced by variables such as site location and
agricultural activities.
16
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Peat soil is known to have high settlement when subjected to loading over time due to its soil
properties. This investigation showed that stabilised peat soil had minimal variation. Adding
EPP to peat changes the characteristics of the soil, but also increases water content. The
findings demonstrate that EPP treatment improves the behaviour of peat, transforming it from
peat to usable soil. However, the presence of moisture may limit its ability. The research
concludes that the best EPP admixture for stabilising peat soil is between 30-40%. It was
concluded that a combination of the proper quantity of moisture, EPP, and cured peat soil helps
stabilise the soil. Therefore, this research supports the hypothesis that treating peat with EPP
improves the qualities of peat soil and maintains settlement over time.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and funded under Skim
UMSGreat, research grant No. GUG0595-1/2023. We thank our colleagues from UMS who
provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.
References
Abat, M., McLaughlin, M. J., Kirby, J. K., & Stacey, S. P. (2012). Adsorption and desorption
of copper and zinc in tropical peat soils of Sarawak, Malaysia. Geoderma, 175-176,
58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.024
Adon, R., Bakar, I., Wijeyesekera, D. C., & Zainorabidin, A. (2013). Overview of the
Sustainable Uses of Peat Soil in Malaysia with Some Relevant Geotechnical
Assessments. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 4(4).
Ahmad, A., Sutanto, M. H., Ahmad, N. R., Bujang, M., & Mohamad, M. E. (2021). The
Implementation of Industrial Byproduct in Malaysian Peat Improvement: A
Sustainable
Ashraf E. Abdel-Salam (2018). Stabilization of peat soil using locally admixture, HBRC
Journal, 14(3), 294-299. DOI: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.11.004
Adnan, Z., & Habib Musa, M. (2016). A geotechnical exploration of Sabah peat soil:
Engineering classifications and field surveys. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 21(20), 6671–6687.
Ahmad, A., Sutanto, M. H., Ahmad, N. R., Bujang, M., & Mohamad, M. E. (2021). The
Implementation of Industrial Byproduct in Malaysian Peat Improvement: A
Sustainable Soil Stabilization Approach. Materials, 14(23), 7315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237315
Bahadori, H., Hasheminezhad, A., & Taghizadeh, F. (2019). Experimental Study on Marl Soil
Stabilization Using Natural Pozzolans. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
31(2), 04018363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002577
Benhelal, E., Zahedi, G., Shamsaei, E., & Bahadori, A. (2013). Global strategies and potentials
to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 142–
161.
Boobathiraja, S., Balamurugan, P., Dhansheer, M., & Adhikari, A. (2014). Study on strength
of peat soil stabilised with cement and other pozzolanic materials. International
Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 5(4), 431-438.
Bujang, B. K. (2004) Organic and peat soils engineering. Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
Chindaprasirt, P., Kanchanda, P., Sathonsaowaphak, A., & Cao, H. T. (2007). Sulfate
resistance of blended cements containing fly ash and rice husk ash. Construction and
Building Materials, 21(6), 1356–1361
Deboucha S., Hashim R., & Alwi A. (2008). Engineering properties of stabilized tropical peat
soils. Electron. J. Geotechn. Eng., 13E
17
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Dennis Jones & Christian Brischke (2017). Nonwood bio-based materials Performance of Bio-
based Building Materials, Woodhead Publishing, 2017, Pages 97-186,
Edil T. B., & Wang, X. (2000). Shear strength and K0 of peats and organic soils. In Geotechnics
of High-Water Content Materials (Edil TB and Fox PJ (eds)). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, ASTM STP 1374, pp. 209–225.
Farahiyah, R., Rahman, A., Asrah, H., Rizalman, A., Mirasa, A., & Rajak, M. (2020). Study of
Eco-Processed Pozzolan Characterization as Partial Replacement of Cement. Journal
of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 2020(3), 967–970.
Gartner, E. (2004). Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cement and
Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489–1498
Global distribution of peatlands | GRID-Arendal. (2018). Global distribution of peatlands |
GRID-Arendal.
Gumbricht, T., Roman‐Cuesta, R. M., Verchot, L., Herold, M., Wittmann, F., Householder, E.,
Herold, N., & Murdiyarso, D. (2017). An expert system model for mapping tropical
wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Global
Change Biology 23(9). 3581–3599.
Gunarso, P., Hartoyo, M., Agus, F., & Killeen, T. (2013). Oil palm and land use change in
Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. Report from the technical Panels ` 92 of
the 2° Greenhouse Gas Working Group of Roundtable on sustainable Palm oil
(RSPO).
Hua, L. J., Mohd, S., Ahmad Tajudin, S. A., Ali Mohamad, S. N., Bakar, I., Mohd Masirin, M.
I., … Mahmood, A. A.-W. (2016). Construction of Infrastructure on Peat: Case
Studies and Lessons Learned. MATEC Web of Conferences, 47, 03014.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164703014
Huat, B.B.K., Prasad, A., Asadi, A., & Kazemian, S. (2014). Geotechnics of Organic Soils and
Peat (1st ed.).
Huat, B. B., Kazemian, S., Prasad, A., & Barghchi, M. (2011). State of an art review of peat:
General perspective. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(8), 1988-1996
Hurley, M. J., Gottuk, D. T., Hall, J. R. Jr, Harada, K., Kuligowski, E. D., & Puchovsky, M.
(2015) SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. Springer, Berlin
Jr, K., Iglesias, E., & Karatas, I. (2021). Biopolymer soil stabilization for wind erosion control.
Iospress.nl, 881–884. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-881
Katz, L. E., Rauch, A. F., Liljestrand, H. M., Harmon, J. S., Shaw, K. S., & Albers, H. (2001).
Mechanisms of soil stabilization with liquid ionic stabilizer. Transportation Research
Record, 1757(1), 50-57.
Kazemian, S., Huat B. B. K., Prasad A., & Barghchi M. (2011). A state of art review of peat:
geotechnical engineering perspective. Int J Phys Sci, 6(8), 1974–1981.
Kern, J., Tammeorg, P., Shanskiy, M., Sakrabani, R., Knicker, H., Kammann, C., … Glaser,
B. (2017). Synergistic Use of Peat And Charred Material In Growing Media – An
Option To Reduce The Pressure On Peatlands? Journal Of Environmental Engineering
and Landscape Management, 25(2), 160–174.
https://doi.org/10.3846/16486897.2017. 1284665
Lestari, P., Muthmainnah, F., & Permadi, D. A. (2020). Characterization of carbonaceous
compounds emitted from Indonesian surface and sub surface peat burning. Atmos
Pollut Res 11(9),1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.06.001
Lin, S., Sun, P., & Huang, X. (2019) Can peat soil support a flaming wildfire? Int J Wildland
Fire 28. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF19018
Loh, S. K., James, S., Ngatiman, M., Cheong, K. Y., Choo, Y. M., & Lim, W. S. (2013).
Enhancement of palm oil refinery waste - Spent bleaching earth (SBE) into bio-
18
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
organic fertilizer and their effects on crop biomass growth. Industrial Crops and
Products, 49, 775–781.
Mesri, G., & Ajlouni, M. (2007). Engineering properties of fibrous peats. Journal of
Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering. 133(7). 851-866.
Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2011). Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia
between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology. 17(7). 2261–2270.
Mesner, N. (2014). Stream Side Science Lesson Plan: Appendices.
Mahmod, A. A. W., Mohd, S., Masirin, M. I. M., Tajudin, S. A. A., Bakar, I., Zainorabidin,
A., ... & Hua, L. J. (2016). Construction of buildings on peat: Case Studies and
Lessons Learned. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 47, p. 03013). EDP Sciences.
Nikookar, M., Nikookar, H., & Arabani, M. (2013). Peat soil stabilizing by hydrated lime. In
7th National Congress on Civil Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan,
Zahedan, Iran (pp. 1-7).
Nurul Irah Fazirah Sapar, Siti Jahara Matlan, Habib Musa Mohamad, Rohaya Alias &
Aniza Ibrahim (2020). A Study on Physical and Morphological Characteristics of
Tropical Peat in Sabah, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering
and Technology, 11(11), pp. 542-553.
O’Kelly, B. C., Vardanega, P. J., & Haigh, S. K. (2018). Use of fall cones to determine
Atterberg limits: a review. Géotechnique, 68(10), 843–856.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.r.039
Olaniyan, O. S., Olaoye, R. A., Okeyinka, O. M., & Olaniyan, D. B. (2011). Soil stabilization
techniques using sodium hydroxide additives. International Journal of Civil and
Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS, 11(6), 9-22.
Osman, K. T. (2018). Peat Soils. Management of Soil Problems, 145–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75527-4_7
P. K. Kolay, M. R. Aminur, S. N. L. Taib, M. I. S., & Mohd Zain. (2011), Stabilization of
Tropical Peat Soil from Sarawak with Different Stabilizing Agents. Geotech Geol Eng
(2011) 29:1135–1141 DOI 10.1007/s10706-011-9441-x
Pashaki, M. K., Nikookar, M., Mirmoa’zen, S. M., & Arabani, M. (2017). Geomechanical
properties of peat stabilized with cement and sand. International Journal of Advanced
and Applied Sciences, 4(9), 19-25.
Rahgozar, M. A., Saberian, M., & Li, J. (2018). Soil stabilization with non-conventional eco-
friendly agricultural waste materials: An experimental study. Transportation
Geotechnics, 14, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.09.004
Raihana Farahiyah Abd Rahman1, Hidayati Asrah, Ahmad Nurfaidhi Rizalman, Abdul K.
Mirasa, M A A Rajak, 2020, Study of Eco-Processed Pozzolan Characterization as
Partial Replacement of Cement.J. Environ. Treat. Tech. ISSN: 2309-1185, Journal
web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com
Razali, S. N. M., Bakar, I., & Zainorabidin, A. (2013). Behaviour of Peat Soil in Instrumented
Physical Model Studies. Procedia Engineering, 53, 145–155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.020
Rein, G. (2013). Smouldering fires and natural fuels. In C. M. Belcher (Ed.), Fire Phenomena
and the Earth System: An Interdisciplinary Guide to Fire Science (pp. 15-33)
Rieley J., Page S. (2016) Tropical Peatland of the World. In: Osaki M., Tsuji N. (eds) Tropical
Peatland Ecosystems. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55681-7_1
Serban C. Moldoveanu (2021). Analytical Pyrolysis of Natural Organic Polymers (2nd
Edition).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012818571100011X
Soil Stabilization Approach. Materials 2021, 14, 7315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237315
19
e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023
Sridharan, A., & Nagaraj, H. B. (2005). Plastic Limit and Compaction Characteristics of
Finegrained Soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground
Improvement. 9(1), 17–22. doi:10.1680/grim.2005.9.1.17.
Stepanova, V. A., Pokrovsky, O. S., Viers, J., Mironycheva-Tokareva, N. P., Kosykh, N. P., &
Vishnyakova, E. K. (2015). Elemental composition of peat profiles in western Siberia:
Effect of the micro-landscape, latitude position and permafrost coverage. Applied
Geochemistry, 53, 53-70.
Tangchirapat, W., Saeting, T., Jaturapitakkul, C., Kiattikomol, K., & Siripanichgorn, A.
(2007). Use of waste ash from palm oil industry in concrete. Waste Management,
27(1), 81–88.
Turetsky M. R., Benscoter B., Page S., Rein G., Van Der Werf G. R., & Watts A. (2015) Global
vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat Geosci, 8(1),11–14
Veloo, R., Ranst, E. van, & Selliah, P. (2015). Peat Characteristics and its Impact on Oil Palm
Yield. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 72-73, 33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2014.11.001
Viji, V. K., K. F. Lissy, C. Sobha, & M. A. Benny. (2013). Predictions on Compaction
Characteristics of Fly Ashes Using Regression Analysis and Artificial Neural
Network Analysis. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 7(3), 282–291.
doi:10.1179/1938636213Z.00000000036.
W, J. A., & R, S. J. (2021). FACTORS INFLUENCING COMPACTION TEST RESULTS.
Highway Research Board Bulletin, (319).
What is peat? - International Peatland Society. (2019, July 2). Retrieved November 16, 2021,
from International Peatland Society website: https://peatlands.org/peat/peat/
Xu, J., Morris, P. J., Liu, J., & Holden, J. (2017). PEATMAP: refining estimates of global
peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. Catena. 160. 134-140.
Youventharan Duraisamy, Bujang B. K. Huat, & Aziz, A. A. (2007, April). Methods of
Utilizing Tropical Peat Land for Housing Scheme. Retrieved November 16, 2021,
Yulindasari, S., Anis, S., Wiwik, R., & Hanafiah. (2019). Effect of Temperature nd heating
time variation on characteristics of fibrous peat soils. IOP Conference Series Materials
Science and Engineering. 620.
Zainorabidin & Habib. (2016). A Geotechnical Exploration of Sabah Peat Soil: Engineering
Classifications and Field Surveys. Vol. 21 [2016], Bund. 20
Zakri Abdul Hamid. (2019, February 10). Peatlands threatened. NST Online, New Straits
Times Retrieved November 14, 2021,
www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2019/02/459026/ peatlands-threatened
Zuber, S. S., Kamarudin, H., Abdullah, M. M., & Binhussain, M. (2013). Review on soil
stabilization techniques. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(5), 258-
265.
Zambri, N. M., & Ghazaly, Z. M. (2018). Peat soil stabilization using lime and cement. In E3S
Web of Conferences (Vol. 34, p. 01034). EDP Sciences.
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, 72(3-4), 547–553.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10064-013-0520-5
20

Investigation On The Compaction Characteristic of Sabah Peat Soil Stabilised With Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation On The Compaction Characteristic of Sabah Peat Soil Stabilised With Eco-Processed Pozzolan (EPP)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering Innovation

e-ISSN: 2682-8499 | Vol. 5, No. 3, 1-20, 2023

Investigation on the Compaction Characteristic of Sabah Peat

*Corresponding Author: habibmusa@ums.edu.my

Received: 27 May 2023 | Accepted: 10 September 2023 | Published: 30 September 2023

Keywords: Peat, Stabilization, Eco-Processed Pozzolan, Compaction test, Soil Compaction

1.1 Eco Processed Pozzolan (EPP)

Table 1: Chemical compositions of EPP

Table 2: Physical properties of EPP

1.2 Mechanical Compaction Test

Table 3: Type of compaction test

2. Testing and Method

Figure 2: Flowchart of Research

Figure 3: Location of Klias Peninsular, Sabah, Malaysia

Figure 4: Klias site location for peat soils

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 5: Graph Average penetration vs Moisture content

The von Post scale served as an indicator of degradation. It is a field-based ten-class

Table 3: Index properties of Klias peat soil

Figure 6: Graph Dry density vs Moisture content (untreated)

Figure 7: Graph Dry density vs Moisture content (peat + 10% EPP)

Figure 8: Graph Dry Density vs Moisture Content (peat + 20% EPP)

Figure 9: Graph Dry density vs Moisture content (peat + 30% EPP)

3.1 Comparison between 5 samples

Table 4: Summary Mixture used in this study.

Dry density vs No.of Sample

Figure 12: Graph of dry density vs No. of Sample

4. Conclusion and Discussion

You might also like