KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

DOI 10.1007/s12205-021-1247-7 www.springer.com/12205

Geotechnical Engineering

Physio-Chemical Properties, Consolidation, and Stabilization

of Tropical Peat Soil Using Traditional Soil Additives
– A State of the Art Literature Review

Afnan Ahmad a, Muslich Hartadi Sutanto a, Mohammed Ali Mohammed Al-Bared a

,
Indra Sati Hamonangan Harahap a, Seyed Vahid Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad b,
and Mudassir Ali Khan a

a
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran

ARTICLE HISTORY ABSTRACT

Received 19 July 2020 Peat is formed by the degradation of plants and animals in the lack of oxygen and is widely
Revised 1st 12 December 2020 known for its very weak geotechnical characteristics. This is the reason to be considered as an
Revised 2nd 17 March 2021 unsuitable foundation soil for construction activities. Several attempts have been made to
Accepted 28 April 2021 characterize and stabilize peat soil to make construction viable. This study encapsulates an
Published Online 2 July 2021 extensive literature review of the available published data for Atterberg limits, consolidation,
and stabilization of peat soil using traditional additives, especially cement and lime. Moreover,
KEYWORDS peat formation and distribution around the world are also discussed. The analysis of the
gathered data shows that peat soils having a high amount of fibers may suffer a large amount
Peat of secondary consolidation when the load is applied. Besides, the compressibility factors vary
Organic soil for Malaysian peat due to different water and organic contents. The improvement of peat soil
Atterberg limits
is challenging and expensive, requiring an extra amount of stabilizer for the initiation of the
Consolidation
stabilization process. However, the optimum and threshold stabilizer’s dosage for peat is also a
Soil stabilization
challenging task to predict due to several factors affecting the stabilization process. Lastly, the
Traditional soil additives
study concludes with recommendations on the implication of the fall cone and thread rolling
tests for the determination of Atterberg limits of fibrous peat, effective consolidometer for
peat, and utilization of traditional additives for peat soil stabilization.

1. Introduction ground effectively, several techniques are currently in practice to

Construction of any type of infrastructures such as roads, buildings,
and bridges over peat soil is often discouraged due to its weak
engineering properties. Long-term consolidation and low bearing
capacity are the major issues in this highly problematic foundation
material causing excessive settlement resulting in pavement
cracks, breaking of drains, a major failure of buildings, etc. The
damages induced in the infrastructures put revamping cost or
become inevitable resulting in the demolition of facilities. Therefore,
it is commonly advisable to avoid peatland and change the
construction site; however, it is not always possible due to the
rapid urban development and land scarcity. To utilize peat
make the peat foundation suitable for construction activities. This
particular review study describes the peat formation, distribution,
physio-chemical, and engineering properties of peat. Moreover,
the study also focuses on the peat improvement technique using
traditional stabilizers i.e., cement, lime, etc.
Peat is formed in the atmosphere of wetlands, but not all
wetlands have peat, although the substratum includes sediments,
mineral soil, and rocks (Osman, 2018). The formation of peat is a
complex phenomenon and requires the proper insight into the
environmental mechanism leading to the formation of peat soil.
It is formed by the decomposition of plants and animals in poor
aeration conditions in wetlands. Decomposition is the process of

CORRESPONDENCE Mohammed Ali Mohammed Al-Bared albared2009@yahoo.com Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,
Bandar Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia
ⓒ 2021 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
2 A. Ahmad et al.
rotting and decaying plants' remains in soil microflora, fungi, and
bacteria in anaerobic conditions. These conditions affect the
characteristics of peat significantly and are termed as humification in
geotechnical engineering (Chimner and Ewel, 2005). The organic
substance such as the leaf, plants starts accumulating in a retained
water in depression zones. The decomposition starts slowly under
anoxic conditions resulting in microbial degradation retardation
yielding a peat layer after several years. It is essential for the peat
formation to accumulate faster than decomposition in a low
oxygen environment yielding incomplete disintegration of plants,
leaves, and trees. Initiating from the leaves cellulose structure,
decomposition develops in the remaining parts such as stems and
roots, and eventually, the whole mass is converted into an
amorphous material comprised of gelatinous organic acids
(Landva and Pheeney, 1980). Generally, the top 100 − 600 mm
non-decayed fibrous peat layer is known as acrotelm, while the
decayed lower layered peat is called catotelm (Farrell, 2012).
The rate of decomposition depends on various factors such as
environmental conditions (temperature, climate, and humidity),
groundwater table, type of plants (chemical composition), and
microorganism’s activities (Medina et al., 2011). Specifically, the
decaying rate increases with the increase in pH and temperature.
Besides, the non-uniform decaying of plants is the primary
reason for variation in peatland properties in addition to the
historic fires, previous landslides anthropogenic effect, and various
other external factors. The rate of accumulation of tropical peat is
about 4 − 5 mm/year on average but can be found up to 5 − 10 mm/
year in some regions (Maas, 1996). While temperate peatland builds
up very slowly, about 0.5 − 1 mm/year (Gorham et al., 2003).
However, about 1.8 mm/year, 1.5 mm/year, and 0.63 mm/year
accumulation of peat has been reported by Sangok et al. (2020)
in three different phasic communities of Malaysian swamp
forests.
Peatland is distributed in the arctic, boreal, temperate, or
tropical climates covering about 3% of total world land as
illustrated in Fig. 1. Canada and U.S.S.R (former) contribute the
greatest percentage of peatland followed by the United States
accounting for 30 million hectares of peatland distributed over
42 states in which Alaska, Michigan, Maine, New Jersey, New
York, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have been considered
Fig. 1. Peatland Distribution around the World (Melling, 2015)
peat abundant states (Cameron, 1983; Cameron et al., 1989).
Peatlands have been reported from 8 − 11% in the tropical and
subtropical regions such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, Zambia,
Uganda, Zaire, and Venezuela. Both lowlands and highlands in
tropical regions are enriched with peat, but the concentration in
highlands is less than that in lowlands due to the existence of
low-lying and poorly drained coastal regions. About 8% of
Malaysia's total land is peatland which is about 2,457,730
hectares out of 32,975,800 hectares. Malaysia was ranked 9th
among the world countries with the highest peatland found in the
state of Sarawak as compared to other states, constituting 13% of
its land, covering approximately 1.66 million hectares (Melling,
2015). While Negeri Sembilan state contributes the lowest peatlands
up to 6300 hectares as shown in Fig. 1. The high temperature
ranging from 23.5oC to 33oC in the tropical region accelerates the
decomposition of plants resulting in higher accumulation (formation)
of peat. This is the reason that the depth of peat at some locations
in Malaysia ranging from less than 1 m to 25 m (Moayedi and
Nazir, 2018). Peat deposits in Malaysia are found in both lowlands
(valley peat) and highlands (basin peat) and are classified as
ombrogenous (rainfed) and oligotrophic (poor in nutrients). The
upcountry peat depth is higher (ranging up to 20 m) and almost
flat than the coastal one which becomes steeper in gradient at the
periphery. On the basis of depth, the lowland peat in Malaysia is
subdivided into ombrogambists and topogambists. The prior
type peat has a depth relatively higher than the later one.
Ombrogambists usually have a depth greater than 150 cm while
the topogambists are recorded in the range of 50 cm to 150 cm
(Paramananthan, 2010). In Peninsular Malaysia, Pontian (west
coastal region of West Johor), Banting to Sabak Bernam (northwest
region of Selangor), Kuantan (east coastal region), Perak Tengah
as well as Hilir Perak, Pekan Districts, and Rompin-Endau
region contributes peatland. On the other hand, Sabah is sieged
by the South China Sea in the West, the Sulu Sea in the
Northeast, and the Celebes Sea in the East with coastal plains
contributing the least proportion of peatlands. While the coastal
area of Sarawak comprises raised bogs, flat swamp, deep peat
and musk soil, and steep heaves in the inner hills. However,
reduction in peatland has been recorded in Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah, and Sarawak up to 69%, 85%, and 31%, respectively due
to deforestation caused for farms, residential housing societies,
and urban development mainly in Sarawak and Pahang (Moayedi
and Nazir, 2018).
2. Physio-Chemical Properties and Consolidation
of the Tropical Peat
The physical and chemical properties of peat described the peat
origin, its formation, and the development process. The primary
physical properties include the degree of decomposition, specific
gravity, water content, bulk density, Atterberg limits, etc. While
the chemical properties are described by pH, ash content, fiber
content, organic content, and composition of peat. Both the
chemical and physical properties play a vital role in geotechnical

Fig. 2. Atterberg Limits with Associated Solid States corresponding to Water Content
engineering. The basic physical and chemical properties of the
tropical peat in Malaysia are demonstrated in Table 1. Atterberg
limit is a common test performed on all types of soil to assess
their properties. This is considered controversial due to the
presence of fiber content in peat. Similarly, consolidation parameters
of peat have been investigated using different consolidometer. In
the light of previous studies, a detailed discussion about the
Atterberg limits and consolidation parameters has been added in
the following sub-sections.
2.1 Atterberg Limits
The Atterberg limits; liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and
shrinkage limit (SL) are the common soil tests, originally presented
by a Swedish chemist, Albert Atterberg (Atterberg, 1911a; 1911b).
Fig. 2 shows the Atterberg limits with soil states corresponding
to the water content in the soil.
The Atterberg limits for peat or peaty soil were criticized by
O’Kelly due to its inappropriateness for organic materials. This
is due to the variation of Atterberg limit values caused by its
compressible nature, method of material preparation, and stress
history (O’Kelly, 2015). Usually, strong adsorption and high
interparticle adherence developed by the high cation-exchange
ability of peat resulted in a high value of liquid limit (Hobbs,
1986). Besides, the high value of Atterberg limits may be
triggered by the fiber’s connectivity and reinforcement effect in
less humified peat (O’Kelly and Orr, 2014). Hence, the composition
of peat especially a non-completely humified peat does not
strictly obey the idea of distinct mineral soil particle which
support the inaptness of Atterberg limits (Yang and Dykes, 2006;
Asadi et al., 2011). Therefore, Skempton and Petley forbid
Atterberg limits testing on peat soil (Skempton and Petley, 1970).
Despite these fundamental issues and conflicting perspectives on its
values in the literature, Atterberg limits are widely adopted and
regularly performed by many researchers during the indexed
properties determination of peat soil.
2.1.1 Plastic Limit (PL)
The plastic limit (PL) determines the ductile-brittle transition and
defines the workability limit of soil. Unlike mineral soil, it has
been observed that peat exhibit a plastic behavior at less water
content than its PL values and easily remolded by hand during
the test performed by following the guidelines of (BS 1377-2,
1990). This indicates that the workability limit of peat is not
properly defined by the PL values in the brittle-ductile transition.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 3
Fig. 3. Water Content and Thread Final Diameter by O'Kelly (2015)
The reason for the greater value of PL than the water content is
due to the adhesive and reinforcing behavior of larger fiber size.
However, the same phenomenon was observed after satisfying
the requirement of the particle-size fraction (i.e., particle size
should not exceed 425 µm) for Atterberg limit testing, molding a
peat mass in the form of a ball at low water content than its PL
value. This agrees with the findings of O’Kelly (2014), highlighting
the flexible, permeable, and compressible nature of the porous
organic nature of the peat matrix.
The scale effect can be applied for the plastic limit determination
of peat which has been previously adopted by Prakash et al.
(2009) and Haigh et al. (2014) for inorganic soil by considering a
6 mm crumbling diameter thread and obtained an acceptable
plastic limit value. An attempt is made by O’Kelly (2015) to
deduce PL values of peat starting from a larger crumbling diameter
thread up to 20 mm, overcoming the scale effect. Several attempts
have been made as shown in Fig. 3, where F denotes the reduction
in diameter attained during the rolling of peat thread. The PL
values linearly increase with the thread diameter increment and
thread rolled on water content below the PL boundary failed in
both longitudinal as well as in the transverse direction, producing
no meaningful results. Therefore, it is forbidden to adopt thread
rolling tests for peat, but still widely practicing technique due to
lack of proper methodology, and thread rolling is the only way to
investigate the brittle transition point (Vardanega et al., 2019).
4 A. Ahmad et al.
2.1.2 Liquid Limit
The liquid limit of soil indicates the amount of water at which
soil behaves like a flowing liquid by losing its shear strength. In
other words, it shows the water content at the liquid-plastic
transition phase of soil. It depends on the gradation of soil, its
composition, mineralogy, and the precise value is also dependent
on the method adopted to measure the LL (Trauner et al., 2005;
O’Kelly et al., 2018).
Currently, two standard techniques have been developed for the
determination of LL; the Casagrande percussion-cup and fall-
cone also known as cone penetrometer. The former one is
adopted by the USA (ASTM_D4318-10, 2010; AASHTO_T89–
13, 2017) and the latter technique is favored in the UK and
Eurocode-7. Both the Casagrande percussion cup test (Haigh,
2012) and the fall-cone test (Koumoto and Houlsby, 2001) share
a similar approach by measuring the undrained shear strength
associated with the LL of the soil. The undrained shear strength
in the case of the Casagrande cup device is dependent on soil’s
density because the pre-cut standardized groove need to be
closed by the slope shear failure initiated by shock loading
imposes on the tested soil as a result of cup impacts against the
base of the apparatus. While on the other hand, the liquid limit in
the case of the fall-cone test corresponds to a fixed value of
undrained shear strength, irrespective of the soil density. Variation
exists within these two techniques due to a lack of standardization.
A considerable variation has been found in the Casagrande
percussion cup base (soft and hard base cup) after two decades
the test was commenced (Haigh, 2016). Similarly, the fall-cone
technique which assesses the shear strength of soil ( suFC ) correlated
with the depth of penetration (d), cone factor (K) depends upon
cone angle, and weight of fall-cone (W). Eq. (1) indicates the soil
shear strength and found to be suffered from the equipment
variability (Sivapullaiah and Sridharan, 1985; Koumoto and
Houlsby, 2001):
KW
suFC = --------
2
-. (1)
d which the load is sustained. Initial compression is primarily
Just like PL, the liquid limit values and water content are also
recorded higher in fibrous peat soil (Hobbs, 1986). This is due to
strong adsorption and higher interparticle adherence caused by
the open cellular structure in fibrous peat particles which is
compressible and flexible in nature. In contrast, the scenario in
fen peat is reverse and LL decreases due to highly decomposed
plant tissues which weaken the adsorption complex on the cell
walls (Berry and Poskitt, 1972). However, the degree of
humification, structure, and morphology of peat are the influencing
factors on its LL (Farrell, 2012). Such as for moderate to highly
humified peat (i.e., H6 to H10 von Post scale) or clayey peat, no
problems have been faced by Skempton and Petley (1970) during
the Casagrande LL test but the results become unsatisfactory when
dealing with slightly humified peat (i.e., less than H6). Similarly,
the liquid limit of peat either by the Casagrande cup or fall-cone
method has been discouraged by Landva and Pheeney (1980)
and Long and Boylan (2012) due to the high content of fibrous
material causing issues in making groove. Besides peat, the LL
test has been questioned in other organic fibrous soil such as
Moo-Young and Zimmie (1998) utilized paper mill sludge. They
reported unsatisfactory results due to the problems during groove
making via the ASTM plastic groove tool. Later, ASTM brass
groove tools have been recommended instead of ASTM plastic
groove tools yielding more satisfactory results due to making a
bit smoother groove (Moo-Young and Zimmie, 1997). However,
Sherwood and Ryley (1970) recommended a fall-cone device for
the determination of LL due to certain limitations of the
Casagrande percussion cup. The difficulty in making a groove in
low plasticity soil and fibrous peat, the soil tends to liquify rather
due to shock and slides rather than filling the groove by shear
failure. Moreover, base stiffness, base dimensions, supporting
platform insulation, cup’s physical properties, cup’s drop height,
frequency of drop, grooving tool wearing, watering of dilatant
soil during the test, maintenance issue of the apparatus, and less
reproducibility of the Casagrande percussion cup outcomes are
the most arguing aspect which makes fall-cone device superior.
In support, fall-cone device is associated with simplicity, correct
adjustment, easy maintenance, results are reproducible, and can
be employed to low plasticity soil. In addition, O’Kelly et al.
(2018) recommended the standard fall-cone device with 30° – 80 g
specification after carefully reviewing various techniques employed
to consistency limits determination. Therefore, fall-cone device
has been widely adopted by numerous researchers for the LL
investigation.
2.2 Compressibility of the Tropical Peat
Consolidation is the reduction in soil bulk volume as a result of
pore water expulsion while compressibility is the decrease in soil
volume with the aid of mechanical loading. The compressibility
of soil is defined in three stages; initial, primary, and secondary
compression (Kalantari et al., 2010). The prior one occurs for a
few seconds after applying external load while the remaining
two are based on the magnitude of load applied and the time for
caused by the void spaces and somehow due to the elasticity of
soil. The secondary consolidation is based on the pore water
pressure and is experienced when the pore water pressure
dissipates causing an increase in the effective stresses. Once the
pore water pressure dissipates, the secondary consolidation starts
developing at constant vertical stresses (Kazemian and Prasad,
2011).
Almost all types of soil are prone to settlement, but peat is
especially known for its highly compressible nature and long-
term consolidation behavior with a high magnitude of creep.
Fig. 4. Soil Classification Based on Compression Ratio (Fox et al., 1992)

Fig. 5. Comparison of Compression Index and In-Situ Water Content
Empirical Correlation
This is the reason secondary compression is of prime concern
when considering peat consolidation exhibiting a high value of
Cα/Cc. As evident by Duraisamy et al. (2007b), fabric peat is
abundant in the tropical region which gains the highest amount
of settlement when exposed to long-term sustained loading
conditions followed by Hemic and Sapric. Fig. 4 demonstrates
the classification of soil on the basis of compressibility ratio (Cc/
1+e). While Table 1 summarizes the indexed properties of the
tropical peat soil existing in Malaysia, evidently demonstrate the
large void ratio and high value of Cc/1+e ratio (above 0.20 for all
types of peat). Kolay et al. (2012) compared the empirical
correlations among compression index and in-situ water content
for West Malaysia as shown in Fig. 5. They suggested Cc =
0.00725wo empirical correlation for Malaysian peat.
2.2.1 Secondary Compression of Tropical Peat
The coefficient of secondary consolidation (Cα), also called creep
is the vertical stain over a long period keeping constant load
increment which determines the compressibility characteristics
of peat. Eq. (2) formulate the secondary compression of soil
based on the slope of e-log t curves:
Cα = Δe ⁄ Δ log t . (2)
Where e is the void ratio and t denotes the time of consideration.
Besides, an empirical equation i.e., Cα = 0.035Cc proposed by
Mesri et al. (1997) based on primary consolidation is developed
for secondary compression. For several reasons, the secondary
compression becomes more significant in peatlands such as
high-water content and void ratio in peat deposits, high Cα/Cc
ratio, and high permeability (Mesri et al., 1997). Typically, the
initial permeability value of peat is 100 – 1,000 times higher than
the permeability of silt deposits and soft clay. Therefore, mostly
the primary consolidation is completed early after the construction
loading and secondary consolidation begin.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 5
The coefficient of secondary consolidation (Cα) of natural
untreated peat is apparatus as well as consolidation pressure
dependent. The values recorded by the Rowe cell apparatus are
higher than the 1-D Oedometer apparatus (Duraisamy et al.,
2009). Peat collected from different locations of West Peninsular
Malaysia exhibit different values of Cα. As reported by Duraisamy
et al. (2007b), Rowe cell apparatus reported Cα value ranging
from 0.0608 to 0.0985 for fabric peat, 0.0585 to 0.0959 for
hemic peat, and 0.0544 to 0.0939 for sapric peat. Subsequently,
Cα values of the same peat using 1-D Oedometer ranging from
0.0374 to 0.0901 for fabric peat, 0.0225 to 0.0881 for hemic, and
0.014 to 0.0851 for sapric peat were recorded (Duraisamy et al.,
2007b). Overall, Malaysian peat is classified as highly compressible
due to the high value of compression ratio (Cc/1+e), i.e., above
0.20 as observed in Table 1. However, the compression indexed
(Cc) and the coefficient of secondary compression (Cα) for
Malaysian peat has been reported higher for fabric type peat
followed by hemic and sapric peat (Huat et al., 2011). This is due
to the higher void ratio in fabric peat compared to hemic and
sapric as seen in Table 1.
2.2.2 Compressibility Ratio (Cα/Cc) of Malaysian Peat
The compressibility ratio (Cα/Cc), also called the law of
compressibility is a widely investigated correlation. Its value for
peat has been recorded in the range of 0.05 − 0.07 by Mesri and
Castro (1989). However, the compressibility ratio for Malaysian
peat is not in agreement with the range proposed by Mesri and
Castro (1989) as observed in Table 1. The same observation of
lower and high Cα/Cc ratio than 0.05 – 0.07 has been reported by
Duraisamy et al. (2007b). Besides, no specific pattern of Cα/Cc
ratio has been observed in Malaysian peat due to different
concentrations of organic matter and water content.
Besides, the compressibility ratio (Cα/Cc) is dependent on
consolidation pressure and apparatus adapted to record Cc and
Cα. The Cα/Cc ratio decreases with the increasing consolidation
pressure (Kazemian and Huat, 2009). Moreover, the value may
differ by adopting different equipment (Duraisamy et al., 2007b).
This indicates that the Cα/Cc value is not constant but varies as
also evident by Amuda et al. (2019a).
2.2.3 Laboratory Investigation on the Reliable Apparatus
for Peat Soil
Fibrous peat undergoes large secondary consolidation upon
loading resulting in several issues including the difficulty to
separate the primary and secondary consolidation required for
the long-term consolidation analysis. Various studies have been
conducted to record the secondary consolidation in peat soil,
mitigating the problems with conventional 1-D oedometer. Gofar
and Sutejo (2007) appreciated the Rowe cell consolidation apparatus
for measuring the large deformation and settlement in fibrous
peat. Kolay et al. (2012) utilized both conventional oedometer
and Rowe cell to investigate the consolidation in fibrous peat
collected from the Matang region of Sarawak, Malaysia. The
authors concluded with an argument by recommending the
6 A. Ahmad et al.

Table 1. Summary of the Physio-chemical, Consolidation, and Mechanical Properties of the Tropical Peat Soil Collected from Various Sites in
Malaysia
Properties Classifica- Unconfined
Moisture Dry Specific Liquid Organic Fiber Ash Void Com- Compres- Secondary Cohesion, Friction
Depth tion Plastic Cα/Cc compression
Location content Density gravity limit pH content content content ratio pression sion ratio compres- c u angle
(m) (von Post) index ratio strength
& reference (%) (g/cm ) 3
(G )s (%) (%) (%) (%) (e )o index, C (C /1+e) sion (Cα)
c c (kPa) (φ u)
(Peat type) (kPa)

Kampung Jawa 5-65 417(±3%) 1.02-1.04 - H -H

1 4 160 - 6.4 80.23 43 9.2 12.55 3.64 0.26 - - 0.5 36.6 28
(Kalantari and Fabric
Prasad, 2014)
Parit Nipah 1.66-2 125.87 - 2.41 H -H
1 4 89.66 50.08 2.86 84.18 - 15.82 - - - - - Vane Shear = Not suitable
(Ling et al., 2014) Fabric 14 kPa at for testing
2.33 m
Batu Puteh-1 0.74-1 119.13 - 2.41 H -H
1 4 75.25 42.81 4.73 92.71 - 7.29 - - - - - Vane Shear = Not suitable
(Ling et al., 2014) Fabric 4 kPa at 0.9 m for testing
Batu Puteh-2 1- 1.5 103.68 - 2.37 H -H
1 4 106.13 57.19 2.47 85.79 - 14.21 - - - - - Vane Shear = Not suitable
(Ling et al., 2014) Fabric 1 kPa at 1.3 for testing
Pontain 0.1-1.0 495 1.019 1.38 H3 260 - 4.1 91 80 - 11 3 0.250 0.065 Vane Shear = 10
(Dehghanbanadaki Fabric 11 kPa
et al., 2019)
Peninsular - 286-350 0.811- 1.42-1.51 H 4 310-398 - - 77-88 68-77 - 9.25 2.752 0.268 0.0608 0.0283 - -
Malaysia-1 0.956 Fabric
(Duraisamy et al.,
2007a)
Sibu (Kifli et al., - 1030.55 - 1.18 H4 347.5 - 3.6 96.28 45.84 - - - - - - - -
2016) Fibric
Klang (Hashim and 0.5-1.0 555 1.037 1.24 H4 208.3 - 3.5 96.4 93.3 3.5 9.32 2.635 0.255 - - - -
Islam, 2008) Fibric
Banting BH-2 - 330 0.834 1.45 H4 350 - - 84 75 - 9.535 2.752 0.261 - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Fabric
2007b)
Banting BH-3 - 350 0.811 1.42 H4 398 - - 88 77 - 10.48 2.752 0.239 - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Fabric
2007b)
Kampung 0.5-1 198-417 1.02-1.04 1.22 H -H
1 4 160 - - 80.23 - - 12.55 3.64 0.268 - - - -
(Kalantari, 2010) Fabric
Banting BH-7 - 286 0.956 1.51 H4 310 - - 77 68 - 7.895 2.752 0.30 - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Fabric
2007b)
Klang 1.3 668 - 1.40 H Fabric
4 - - 3.51 96 90 4 - - - - - - -
(Sing et al., 2008)
Matang 0.3-0.6 698.62 0.985 1.21-1.26 H -H
3 4 200.2 - 3.74 90.36 74.72 9.64 8.735 4.4785 0.459 0.2865 0.064 - -
(Kolay et al., 2012) Fibric
West Johor - 608 1.0 1.47 H4 - - 3.2 97 90 - 9 3.15 0.315 0.0304 0.0097 - -
(Gofar and Sutejo, Fibric
2007)
Matang 0.40-0.80 620.14 - 1.45 H3 78.00 - 4.05 85 65 - - - - - - - -
(Kolay and Aminur, Fabric
2011)
Kampong Bahru 0.5 - 1 150 0.98 1.42 H3 - - 5.30 80 60 - 11 - - - - - -
(Latifi et al., 2016) Fabric
Klang - 480 1.16 - H Fabric
3 230 - 5.6 95 - - - - - - - Undrain Shear -
(Asadi et al., 2011) Strength = 15 kPa
Sarawak - 620.20 - 1.45 H Fabric
3 78 - 4.05 85.10 65 - - - - - - - 31.28
(Kolay and Rahman,
2016)
Matang 0.40 620.14 0.719 1.45 H Fabric
3 78 - 4.05 85.67 65 - - - - - - - -
(Aminur et al., 2009)
Matang 0.80 519.98 0.719 1.35 H Hemic
4 95 - 4.12 80.79 84.91 - - - - - - - -
(Aminur et al., 2009)
Pontian 0.3-1 533 0.956 1.66 H -H
4 6 189 - 2.23 92.69 48 7.31 8.8 3.76 0.383 - - Undrain Shear 10
(Kamaruidzaman Hemic Strength = 5 kPa
et al., 2019)
Sri Ndi, Klang 1-3 668 - 1.40 H6 34 - 3.51 96 90 4 9.35 - - - - - - 15
(Wong et al., 2013) Hemic
Parit Nipah 1-4 635 0.104 1.34 H6 252 - - 95.5 37.8 - - 1.48 - - - - -
(Zainorabidin et al., Hemic
2019)
Kampung Tumbuk 1-1.2 470-560 0.61 1.25 H -H
5 6 184 - 3.51 97.42 - - - - - - - Undrain Shear 8.4
Darat (Rahman et al., Hemic Strength = 13.8 kPa
2016)
Peninsular - 181-266 0.856- 1.52-1.55 H -H
5 7 250-285 - - 73-76 55-65 - 6.53 2.165 0.28 0.0585 0.0356 - - -
Malaysia-2 1.008 Hemic
(Duraisamy et al.,
2007a)
Parit Nipah 0.5 593 - 1.3 H -H
5 7 243 - 4 95.6 38.5 - - - - - - - - -
(Mohamad et al., Hemic
2020)
Lumadan 0.5 455.51 - 1.37 H -H
5 7 211 - 4.3 95.51 66 - - - - - - - - -
(Mohamad et al., Hemic
2020)
 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 7

Table 1. (continued)
Properties Classifica- Unconfined
Moisture Dry Specific Liquid Organic Fiber Ash Void Com- Compres- Secondary Cohesion, Friction
Depth tion Plastic Cα/C c compression
Location content Density gravity limit pH content content content ratio pression sion ratio compres- c u angle
(m) (von Post) index ratio strength
& reference (%) (g/cm ) 3
(G )s (%) (%) (%) (%) (e )o index, C (C /1+e) sion (Cα)
c c (kPa) (φ u)
(Peat type) (kPa)

Parit Nipah 0.5 605 - 1.4 H 5 203 - 3.75 66 - - - - - - - - - -

(Razali et al., 2018) Hemic
Banting BH-1 - 266 0.922 1.52 H 5 285 - - 76 65 - 7.541 2.165 0.253 - - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Hemic
2007b)
Banting BH-4 - 181 1.008 1.55 H 7 250 - - 73 55 - 5.522 2.165 0.331 - - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Hemic
2007b)
Banting BH-5 - 241 0.856 1.53 H 6 275 - - 75 58 - 6.536 2.165 0.287 - - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Hemic
2007b)
Perlis (Zambri and 0.3-0.6 327.14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27.72 40.78 -
Ghazaly, 2018)
Parit Nipah Darat 0.3-1.2 640.09 1.075 1.36 H 5 322 - - 83.01 61.42 8.36 2.68 0.286 - - - - -
(Johari et al., 2016) Hemic
Mukah (Hassan 0.40-0.80 130 - 1.60 H 5 128.25 - - 53 - - - - - - - - - 13
et al., 2019) Hemic
Jalan Johan - 606.8 - 1.57 H -H5 6 - - 4.08 87.09 50.12 - - - - - - 3 - 6
Setia (Zain and Hemic
Zulastry, 2020)
Kampung Johan 599.20 1.38 H -H5 6 - 3.02 84.15 46.46 - - - - - - Undrain Shear 12
Setia (Jais et al., 2019a) Hemic Strength = 6 kPa
Seri Iskandar - 141.5 - 1.45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.8
(Yusof et al., 2018)
Lumadan 0.5-3.0 713.35 - 1.34 H -H5 7 256.13 - 4.6 65.22 70.97 - - - - - - - - -
(Zainorabidin and Hemic
Mohamad, 2016)
Klang - 260 1.26 - H 7 164 - 6.45 82 - - - - - - - Undrain Shear -
(Asadi et al., 2011) Hemic Strength = 6.5 kPa
Sarawak (Kolay - 562.04 - 1.58 H -H4 7 85.42 - 4.7 75.01 59 - - - - - - - 35.96
and Rahman, 2016) Hemic
Klias, Sabah 0.3-0.8 673.99 - 1.22 H -H6 7 171 - 3.0 99.42 67.03 - - - - - - - -
(Sapar et al., 2020) Hemic
Lumada, Sabah 0.3-0.8 630.35 - 1.57 H 6 158 - 3.5 56.63 61.28 - - - - - - - -
(Sapar et al., 2020) Hemic
Kampung Endap 0.3-6 378-620 - 1.69-1.71 H -H 8 9 540-602 - - - - - 10.78 5.45 0.462 0.24 0.440 4 33.3 -
(Amuda et al., 2019a) Sapric
Peninsular - 140-300 0.996- 1.49-1.56 H 8 240 –- - 70-80 32-31 - 4.378 1.935 0.359 0.0544 0.0380 - - -
Malaysia-3 1.019 Sapric 330
(Duraisamy et al.,
2007a)
Kampung Endap - 540 - 1.7 H -H8 10 - - - 93 5.6 - - - - - - - - -
(Amuda et al., 2019b) Sapric
Banting BH-6 - 140 1.019 1.56 H 8 240 - - 70 32 - 4.125 1.935 0.377 - - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Sapric
2007b)
Banting BH-8 - 300 0.996 1.49 H 8 330 - - 80 31 - 4.824 1.935 0.332 - - - - -
(Duraisamy et al., Sapric
2007b)
Kampung Meranek 0.5-1 1210.497 1.408 H 8 458 - 3.31 95.793 32.333 - - - - - - - - -
(Rahmi et al., 2018) Sapric

Rowe cell apparatus for assessing the consolidation in peat as it
closely replicates the site geotechnical characteristics of peat.
Similarly, Duraisamy et al. (2007a) assessed the compressibility
of the tropical peat including fabric, hemic, and sapric adopting
both conventional 1-D oedometer and Rowe cell apparatus.
Overall, fabric peat experienced larger secondary consolidation
followed by hemic and sapric undergo the least settlement.
Moreover, the consolidation parameters recorded from the Rowe
cell apparatus are higher than the conventional 1-D oedometer
due to the lack of applying back pressure mechanism in the
conventional oedometer. Therefore, the results of the 1-D oedometer
are considered less reliable as compared to the Rowe cell
consolidation apparatus. In contrast, the compression and density
indexed of peat recorded by 1-D oedometer are higher than that
obtained from the Rowe cell apparatus (Yuswandono et al.,
2020). The collapse settlement in terms of the collapse potential
of an unsaturated soil was determined by utilizing the Rowe cell
consolidation and classical oedometer apparatus (Ata et al.,
2007). The predicted collapse settlement from the Rowe cell
apparatus was better than the outcomes of the conventional 1-D
apparatus. However, a plausible agreement in the results has
been found among the small-scale laboratory experimentations
and Rowe cell consolidations, highlighting the reliability of the
Rowe cell consolidation apparatus in lieu of the conventional
apparatus.
Apart from conventional oedometer and Rowe cell apparatus,
a large consolidometer has been developed by O’Kelly (2009). It
is specially designed for peat and other highly organic soil
8 A. Ahmad et al.
incorporating floating ring confining cells with an aspect and
scale ratio of 1:4 and 1:0.5 respectively. This assembly enables
the correct recording of settlement as well as hydraulic parameters
as the effective stress increases. For validation, the conventional
oedometer test was performed and found a similar strain response
regardless of the size which accommodates a much bigger test
specimen representing the anisotropic and heterogeneous behavior
of peat.
3. Peat Stabilization
Peat is known for its low bearing capacity and weak shear
strength due to the high water content, spongy and compressible
nature, and high organic content (Deboucha et al., 2008; Huat et
al., 2014; Abdel-salam, 2017). Sometimes, it becomes very hard
to sample peat soil for testing or yield very low strength to bear
the weight of an adult as observed in the intensive literature
review conducted in Table 1 (Ling et al., 2014). The shear
strength is mainly dependent upon the moisture content, mineral
content, degree of humification, and depth of peat in a particular
site. Low water and a high degree of humification increase the
shear strength of peat soil and vice versa (Munro, 2004). The
non-cohesive or fractional behavior of peat soil due to enormous
fiber content imparts a high value of frictional angle which alters
the actual shear strength. This can be due to the fiber content,
filled with water and gas molecules induces anisotropy and
modify the shear strength of peat (Kazemian et al., 2011). Shear
strength of peat can be determined in many ways either in the
laboratory or in-situ. The direct shear test is frequently used by
many researchers to find out the drained shear strength of peat
Zainorabidin and Mansor (2016). However, before the
commencement of any construction activity, peat soil must be
subjected to the stabilization processes.
Soil stabilization is a process of enhancing the engineering
properties of a weak problematic soil to the predetermined or
expected engineering values (Al-Bared et al., 2019a). Currently,
various techniques are in practice to improve the strength of soft
soil and make it viable for construction activities. These techniques
include soft soil excavation or replacement with potential material,
mechanical compaction or densification (Al-Bared et al., 2018b;
Alhani et al., 2020), staged construction, hydraulic modification
(dewatering method), admixtures/additives stabilization (mass or
deep mixing binding material with soft soil), soil reinforcement
(using fibers, geosynthetics, geocells, geogrids, geonet, bamboo,
etc.), utilization of waste material (Al-Bared et al., 2018a; Al-
Bared et al., 2018c; Al-Bared et al., 2019b), electrical stabilization
(Wahab et al., 2020), thermal modification procedure, biological
improvement method, lightweight material utilization (Jais et al.,
2019b), and some other techniques (Lersow, 2001; Ibrahim et al.,
2014; Afrin, 2017; Al-Amoudi et al., 2017; Cai and Liu, 2017;
Al-Bared and Marto, 2017a; Khan et al., 2018; Hashemi et al.,
2019). It has been reported that the excavation and replacement
with high engineering properties material techniques are feasible
for shallow depth soft soil (3 − 5 m) as the construction cost will
outstrip (Kempfert and Gebreselassie, 2006). Staged construction
also called preloading is adopted to mitigate the failure of fills
over problematic soil such as peat. But this technique is highly
time-consuming which can be overcome by the drain’s installation.
Besides, the most adaptable technique for the construction over a
high depth peat layer is deep mixing (cemented column) and
forced driven piles (Kazemian et al., 2011). However, for the
shallow depth peat layer, mass stabilization is a well-known
adopted technique that injects and blends the stabilizing binders
yielding a strong stabilized block (Axelsson et al., 2002).
The soil stabilizers are getting fame due to their extensive use
in mass stabilization. These stabilizers are divided into two
primary groups on the basis of their usability; the traditional and
non-traditional stabilizers (Latifi et al., 2019; Md Zahri and
Zainorabidin, 2019). The prior group includes ordinary Portland
cement, lime, gypsum, fly ash, slag, bituminous materials, alum,
stone dust, kiln dust. While polymers, salts, organic materials,
and some biological binders are currently available non-traditional
stabilizers (Anjaneyappa and Amarnath, 2011). Among the
traditional stabilizers, lime and gypsum are the oldest and most
popular materials being used for strengthening purposes followed
by cement, yet fly ash is also a widely used stabilizer in the
current world. Interestingly, the traditional stabilizers have not
only proved their potential in an organic soil improvement, but
also strengthen almost all kinds of problematic soil including
peat, laterite, and marine clay (Yong and Ouhadi, 2007;
Borthakur and Singh, 2014; Vishwanath et al., 2014; Al-Bared
and Marto, 2017a; 2017b). This particular section emphasizes
the comparative study of the strength improved by utilizing
traditional stabilizers and the mechanism involved, especially
cement due to its frequent implementation.
Peat soil is the most unusual soil due to the variation of organic
material and water content, ranging from 200% to 1500% as
shown in Table 1 (Dekker and Ritsema, 1996). It has high water
to soil ratio (water: soil) than clay which ultimately creates larger
voids requiring a greater amount of stabilizer. Peat soil will
remain non-stabilized until the stabilizer exceed the minimum
threshold to neutralize the humic acid which is the main retarding
agent (Yonekura and Shibazaki, 1996). Moreover, it requires a
high quantity of stabilizers as compared to clay because peat
contains less quantity of solid particles to bear the applied load
(Axelsson et al., 2002; Janz and Johansson, 2002).
3.1 Cement as a Peat Stabilizing Agent
Stabilization using cement is the most commonly adopted technique
to strengthen the mechanical properties of soft problematic soil
(Al-Bared et al., 2020). Comparatively, cement is the cost-effective
additive in Southeast Asia than lime and other stabilizers and is
considered the most favorable mean of stabilization due to
higher strength gain and shorter curing periods (Broms, 1989).
Similarly, Huat et al. (2005) also favored cement over lime as a
stabilizing agent in terms of strength gain. Cement is a heterogeneous
material having particles made up of four clinker minerals;
tricalcium silicate (C3S), dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium

aluminate (C3A), and a high viscous solution of calcium alumino-
ferrite (C4A) (Sagiri et al., 2018). It is worth mentioning that soil
chemical contribution is not needed as OPC is enriched with all
the chemical components needed for the bond generation of
calcium silicate and aluminate hydrates. That is the reason, soil
mineralogy intended to be stabilized does not significantly affect
the results using cement as a stabilizing agent.
3.1.1 Mechanism of Cement Stabilization
The stabilization process of peat soil using cement is initiated by
the hydration of 2CaO-SiO2, 3CaO-SiO2, 3CaO-Al2O3, and then
pozzolanic reaction among the cement and mineral particle
strengthen the peat (Bergado, 1994). The hydrogen product formed
during hydration is a governing factor during the strengthening
of inorganic soil by filling up the pores. However, the pores in
the case of peat soil are larger than the hydrogen product, which
becomes less effective in filling the peat voids. Moreover, the
hydration of cement is hindered by the absorption of humic acid
present in peat (Clare and Sherwood, 1954; Hayashi and Nishimoto,
2005). In addition, the long-term strength gain has been reduced
by the retardation of the secondary pozzolanic reaction of peat
stabilized with cement due to insufficient quantity of silica (SiO2)
and alumina (Al2O3) which form calcium silicates (Kalantari and
Prasad, 2011). The hydration reaction forming the hydrogen
product is shown in Eq. (3):
3CaO - Al2O3 + 3CaSO4 + 32H 2O → 3CaO - Al2O3 - 3CaSO4 - 32 H 2O .
3CaO - Al2O3 - 3CaSO4 - 32 H 2O
is a hydrous calcium aluminum
sulphate mineral product having a large needle-like shape (change
from ordinary hydrogen product) as shown in Fig. 6. It yields
from the hydration of cement which is known as ettringite. It
absorbs a huge amount of water during its formation which
ultimately lowers down the water quantity in peat soil. Therefore,
stabilization of peat using cement has been observed up to
certain limits due to the entanglement of this needle-like crystal.
Similar effects have been reported by Tang et al. (2011) by
observing a significant strength enhancement of cement stabilized
peat due to the formation of ettringite and calcium silicate
Fig. 6. Microscopic View of Ettringite
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 9
hydrate.
Besides ettringite, the ratio of calcium disilicate (CS2) and
calcium trisilicate (CS3) is a leading parameter in strength gain,
which releases calcium ion during hydration forming hydroxide
ion (Maclaren and White, 2003). The reduction of water in peat
soil during cement hydration flocculate and solidify peat soil and
improve its strength (Kalantari, 2011). Moreover, the strength
development in peat depends on the degree of decomposition,
usually classified by the von Post procedure.
3.1.2 Curing Period Effect
The stabilization process using cement stabilizer is based on the
hydration reaction as explained in section 3.1.1 in detail. It has
been reported that the strength of cement-stabilized peat increases
with the increase of curing age (Aminur et al., 2009), and the
hydration reaction is usually terminated after 28 days (Janz and
Johansson, 2002; Deboucha et al., 2008; Islam and Hashim,
2009). This is the reason, Rahmi et al. (2018) experienced
insignificant strength increased after comparing the UCS of 28
days and 56 days cement stabilized sapric peat. However, the
curing period may extend up to a few months for other additives
such as fly ash or GBBS (ground granulated blast furnace slag)
(Janz and Johansson, 2002).
Peat curing has been done through the water as well as air, an
increase in strength has been recorded in both cases. For instance,
Hebib and Ferrel (2003) adopted a water curing technique with a
(3)
7, 28, 90, and 360 days curing period for the stabilized Ballydermot
peat and an increase in the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) was recorded. Similarly, the Soderhamn peat of Sweden
was stabilized with granulated blast furnace slag and higher
strength was recorded after one year of curing period (EuroSoilStab,
2002). Also, the same effect has been reported by stabilizing
tropical peat after 1, 3, 7, and 28 days (Islam and Hashim, 2009).
At the same time, Deboucha et al. (2008) experienced an
increase in UCS of peat stabilized with cement and sand as a
filler among the voids from 7 to 14 days. On the other hand, air
curing techniques have been adopted by Kalantari and Huat
(2008) to stabilize Malaysian peat with the aid of cement and
polypropylene fibers. They observed a gradual decrease in moisture
content and an increase in compressive strength after 28, 90, and
180 days curing period. It may be due to the reduction of water to
cement (w/c) ratio which ultimately resulted in the hardening of
peat. Practically, the air curing technique is employed after the
drainage of the construction site rather than water curing during in-
situ stabilization process. It is well known that most of the peat are
water-logged, especially tropical swampy peat which renders
several issues including heavy construction machinery mobilization
sinking in the gully peatlands. To mitigate this issue, the air curing
technique is considered to assist the construction in peatland.
3.1.3 Stabilizer’s Dosage Effect
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of cement stabilized
peat soil is increased with the increased amount of cement,
following a similar trend like inorganic soil by reducing the
10 A. Ahmad et al.
Fig. 7. General Demonstration of the Binder Quantity Effects on the
Shear Strength of Peat (EuroSoilStab, 2002)
water-cement ratio (Rahmi et al., 2018). Moreover, a tremendous
decrease in the void ratio has been observed with the addition of
OPC and 5% SCBA. Besides, the same author argued that
minute strength enhancement was observed in the trail of water
to cement ratio lower than 2.0 due to the non-adequate quantity
of cement to neutralize humic acid. Both the humic acid and
fulvic acid proved setbacks during peat soil stabilization via
cement addition. The prior one has a strong chemical affinity to
calcium component present in cement forming calcium humic
acid which is insoluble in nature hindering the crystallization of
calcium. While the latter one tends to destroy the existing crystal
lattice such as (C3AH6), Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12·26H2O. On the
other side, calcium ferrite–aluminate hydrate present in the
cement stabilized peat soil matrix by sticking to the mineral
particles in peat and forming an adsorbed layer which ultimately
retard the cement hydration reaction (Zulkifley et al., 2014). This
indicates a threshold effect during the cement stabilization
process and the binder must exceed a certain limit to initiate the
stabilization process as shown in Fig. 7. Furthermore, the pH of
peat is dropped due to the presence of organic acids which
hamper the hydration reaction, impeding the strength gain.
It is of utmost needed to ameliorate the optimum dosage for
peat, meeting the threshold amount as it depends on several
factors such as type of stabilizer, peat soil (degree of humification),
fiber content, the purpose of stabilization, and the water to binder
ratio. For these reasons, the optimum stabilizer dosage is very
difficult to identify for peat soil. However, Table 2 enlists the
dosage of traditional stabilizers and the threshold amount for peat
stabilization. For instance, Hebib and Farrell (2003) investigated the
minimum amount of stabilizer needed to activate the stabilization of
Irish fibrous peat and found it to be about 150 kg/m3. Similarly,
Axelsson et al. (2002) obtained higher strength by using 250 kg/m3
binders than adding 400 kg/m3 highlighting the effectiveness of
water to binder ratio. On the other hand, Chen and Wang (2006)
failed to gain the strength of 300 kPa by treating peat with 30%
cement only by adopting deep mixing techniques for a specific
project. They concluded that surplus additives need to be added
in peat stabilization to attain desirable strength. For this reason,
Dehghanbanadaki et al. (2013) added 125 kg/m3 well-graded
sand as a natural filler along with 300 kg/m3 cement and the
results showed satisfactory outcomes. However, increasing the
filler material resulted in strength reduction which highlights the
sensitivity filler content. Similarly, Saberian and Rahgozar (2016)
obtained 11 times the highest UCS strength using 400 kg/m3
sand filler material in peat. However, the minimum required
UCS (345 kPa) was achieved by using tire chips as a lightweight
fill material along with sand incorporation. This threshold of
UCS was achieved by Wong et al. (2013) at 460 kg/m3 dosage by
adding silica sand in 0, 149, 298, 447, and 596 kg m-3. However,
they observed an increasing strength with the incorporation of
sand as a filler material due to the increased density and voids
reduction. Other than sand, stone dust and kiln dust has been
added in peat to strengthen the mechanical performance (Borthakur
and Singh, 2014). Besides filler, the mixture of two or more
potential stabilizers also assists the strength enhancement. Such
as Kalantari and Prasad (2011) added 5% silica fume and 25%
cement into peat and the results achieved a value of 380 kPa for
unconfined compressive strength. They also recorded almost the
same unconfined compressive strength by the addition of 15%
cement alone and 5% with 10% silica fume, indicating the
potential of filler material to replace cement.
3.1.4 Organic Content and Degree of Humification
Effect on the Strength
It is obvious from the previous discussion that cement enhances
the mechanical properties of peat soil. Now it is worth mentioning
that the presence of higher organic content affects the strength
enhancement significantly. It is found that the strength enhancement
is relatively less in peat possessing a higher amount of organic
matters than the peat containing lower organic content (Paul and
Hussain, 2020). The higher quantity of natural fibers in peat
resulted in lower strength, in other words, the amorphous peat
has a higher strength than the fibrous peat. Moreover, the cement-
based stabilized peat strength increment was found reduced with
the increasing organic content and a higher degree of humification
(Huat et al., 2005). The same effect was reported by Huttunen et
al. (1996) stating that the unconfined compressive strength of
cement stabilized peat decreased as the decomposition of peat
increased. The mechanism behind the lower strength gained due
to the higher amount of organic content is the availability of a
significantly inferior quantity of mineral to bind with cement and
obtain the desired strength (Zulkifley et al., 2014). Contrarily,
Zainorabidin and Mansor (2016) obtained higher strength parameters
(c & φ) for hemic peat compared to amorphous peat by conducting
the direct shear box test. Besides, a study was conducted by
Hebib and Farrell (2003) to assess the engineering properties of
Irish peat soil collected from two different sites (Raheenmore
and Ballydermot). It was encapsulated that both the peat soils
had the same amount of organic matter but gained a different
degree of improvement. This clearly shows that peat soil stabilization
is a highly site-specific job.
3.1.5 Strength Gained of Cement Stabilized Peat Soil
Adopting Different Technique
The cement-treated peat obtained enhanced engineering

characteristics such as reduced liquid limit, water content,
permeability, compressibility, and increased density, compaction,
and unconfined compressive strength (Rahman et al., 2016).
Several researchers utilized cement as a stabilizing source in peat
to enhance its engineering properties (Haan, 1997; Hampton and
Edil, 1998; Lee and Lee, 2002; Tremblay et al., 2002; Hayashi
and Nishimoto, 2005; Kasama et al., 2006; 2007; Zambri and
Ghazaly, 2018). The increasing quantity of cement and an
extended curing period has proven higher strength in almost all
cases. Peat soil collected from Rimbo Panjang, Indonesia with
more than 15% ash content (high ash) had a UCS value of 52
kN/m2, evidently obtained highest UC strength up to 91 kN/m2
using 15% cement (Putri et al., 2020). Chen and Wang (2006)
claimed that extra admixture should be added along with the
cement content to stabilize highly organic soil due to the presence of
humic acid, fulvic acid, and humin.
Adopted techniques also play an important role in achieving
recommendable peat strength. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
in 15, 20, and 50% was used by Kalantari and Prasad (2011) in
hemic peat, and UCS were assessed at 28, 90, and 180 days
curing stages adopting three different methods of curing; air
curing, moist curing and moist curing with surcharge load of 10
kPa. Similarly, stabilized peat with 50% cement at 180 days
curing period, adopting the surcharge load curing technique
obtained the highest compressive strength. The same trend was
recorded by Rahman et al. (2016) during Kampung Tumbuk Darat
(Selangor) cement stabilization. In addition, different researchers
adopted a different methodology for adding cement content. A
tremendous difference in the UCS value was observed among
the soaked and un-soaked peat samples (Kalantari et al., 2010).
The unconfined compressive strength of about 210.2 kPa was
dropped to 41.8 kPa after soaking a peat sample. Similar effects
were reported by Kalantari et al. (2010) experiencing a high
difference in UCS between soaked and un-soaked peat samples.
Water-additive ratio (W/A) was reported by numerous researchers
as a mix design in the stabilization of peat instead of adding
stabilizer dosage in percentage or kg/m3 (Timoney et al., 2012).
Rahmi et al. (2018) added cement to the amorphous peat
(sapric), collected from Matang (Locate in Malaysia) on the
bases of water additive ratio (W/A) of 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0,
obtaining a tremendous increase in UCS at W/A of 2.0 while the
slight increase has been experienced from 2.5 to 4.0 W/A ratio.
Likewise, a wide range of data has been studied by Timoney et
al. (2012) recapitulating the 28 days highest UCS achieved by
utilizing a W/A ratio of 4.0. Besides the W/A ratio, the stabilizer
quantity has been added on the basis of a ratio among dry binder
weight to the wet weight of treated soil (Hayashi and Nishimoto,
2005).
3.2 Other Traditional Stabilizers for Peat Soil
A part of cement, various other traditional additives have been
used to enhance the engineering properties of peat soil such as
lime, gypsum, fly ash, slag, kaolin, etc. Lime is chemically
manufactured by the transformation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 11
into calcium oxide (CaO) which reacts with water forming calcium
hydro-oxide [Ca(OH)2]. A number of researchers have tried lime
to flocculate the peat structure, improving the strength and dry
density, and reducing the moisture content, liquid limit, and
compressibility (Nikookar et al., 2016). Even a few got better
outcomes than using cement as a stabilizer, such as Zambri and
Ghazaly (2018) who found a 14.1% and 13.5% increase in shear
strength using lime and cement, respectively. Lime stabilization
is also based on the hydration process reacting with the pore
water of peat soil and strengthening the peat matrix. Lime has
been effectively used in peat soil stabilization in both states; pure
(CaCO3) known as quick lime and hydrated [Ca(OH)2]. Nikookar et
al. (2016) performed the UCS test and consolidated undrained
(CU) test to investigate the strength of hydrated lime-treated
Iranian peat soil, classified as Sapric (Amorphous) peat. Both the
tests were conducted on peat treated with 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15%
lime and cured for 7, 14, 28, and 90 days. It has been observed
that unconfined CU strength was about half of the UCS value. In
combination with other stabilizing agents has shown better
performance such as 8% hydrated lime mixed with 10% pond
ash yielding three times higher strength compared to plan peat
(Yusof et al., 2015). Similar studies have been reported by utilizing
rice husk ash mixed with lime, which recorded improved physical
as well as engineering properties (Vishwanath et al., 2014). Lime
in combination with cement not only improved the engineering
properties of peat but also extend the burning point of fibrous
peat preventing the tropical forest fire which is a major issue in
the tropical region (Muhardi et al., 2019).
Besides lime, Kolay and Pui (2010) utilized gypsum and fly
ash to stabilize the peat soil in the Matang region of Sarawak,
Malaysia. Gypsum was used in 2, 4, 6, and 8% while the later
one was added in 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25% to the peat soil. They
performed the unconfined compressive strength after 7, 14, and
28 days curing periods. In general, the unconfined compressive
strength increased with the increasing quantity of additives. A
drop in strength was observed after a 6% increment for gypsum
and 20% fly ash. An instant increase in the unconfined compressive
strength of organic soil has been found by using fly ash from 5%
to 15%. This is due to the formation of cementing gel resulted
from the reaction of Al2O3 and SiO2 of peat soil and CaO of fly
ash (Nath et al., 2017). Two lightweight additives; Baggage ash
and sawdust ash were added in Rimbo Panjang peat soil along
with 15% cement in the ratio of 1:2 (OPC: Additives). Baggage
ash utilization had proven more efficient than sawdust ash in
terms of cost and strength (Putri et al., 2020). A byproduct of
acetylene, carbide lime was utilized for the stabilization of peat
soil by Said and Taib (2009). It was noticed that the unconfined
compressive strength of stabilized peat soil was increased with
the increased amount of carbide lime and curing period.
Kaolin, a clay mineral (kaolin-serpentine) widely used by many
researchers to improve the strength of weak soil, was first identified
in Kauling or Gaoling (clay mine), China (Keller et al., 1980). It
has many polytypes known as kaolinite, dickite, and nacrite and
a polymorph (hydrated analogous) called halloysite (Haq et al.,
12 A. Ahmad et al.
2008). It has a white color and is identified as soft clay formed
from the alteration of anhydrous aluminate silicate commonly
found in granite rocks (feldspars or muscovite) by weathering or
hydrothermal processes (Ramadhansyah et al., 2004). The chemical
reaction under which potassium feldspars transform into kaolin
mineral is shown in Eq. (4). Its microstructure is regular and
irregular hexagonal platelets, rolled sheets, co-axial sheets, and
rarely found in tubes shape, comprised of grains (Taggart et al.,
1954):
2 KAlSi3O8 + 3 H2O → Al2 Si2O5 ( OH )4 + 4 SiO 2 + 2 K ( OH ) .
(4)
Kaolin is a natural pozzolan and frequently used as a partial
replacement of cement in various civil engineering projects as
evidenced by several studies (Sabir et al., 2001; Samet et al.,
2007; Badogiannis and Tsivilis, 2009; Gonçalves et al., 2009;
Harbi et al., 2017). However, its application in the improvement
of the engineering properties of peat soil is limited. It was used as
a pozzolanic additive by Wong et al. (2013) to improve the
strength and reduce the permeability of peat. Besides kaolin (K),
they also incorporate Portland composite cement (PCC), calcium
chloride (CC), and silica sand to strengthen the peat soil. It was
concluded that using 90% PCC, 10% K, and 4% CC in binder
composition, 300 kg m-3 binder dosage, and 596 kg m-3 silica
sand dosage an unconfined compressive strength of 485 kPa has
been achieved.
Abdel-Salam (2017) tried two locally available admixtures to
enhance the properties of peat soil. The first one comprised 20%
clayey diatomite, 27% calcium carbonate, 12% lime, and 41%
water which increased the strength of peat soil from zero to 170
kPa. While the other one consisted of 25% cement, 33% calcium
carbonate, 14% lime, and 28% water which boosted up the
strength from zero to 4,000 kPa. A similar binder has been used
up to 15% to stabilize natural peat with the addition of 85% OPC
and 4% sodium chloride and obtained UCS of 61 kPa (Sing et
al., 2011).
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
1. Malaysia possesses all three types of peat (fabric, hemic, and
sapric), categorized as highly compressible (compression ratio
above 0.20). The coefficient of secondary compression (Cα) and
Table 2. Comparative Strength Enhancement by Traditional Stabilizers
Stabilizer/binder Binder Dosage Threshold Dosage Curing Period
Cement (OPC) 250 kg/m 3
150 kg/m 3
Lime 400 kg/m 3
300 kg/m 3
Gypsum (6%) 180 kg/m 3
140 kg/m 3
Fly Ash (20%) 180 kg/m 3
140 kg/m 3
OPC (90%), Kaolin (10%), 596 kg/m 3
460 kg/m 3
& CaCl (4%)
2
OPC (15%) & CaCO (5%)3 - -
compressibility ratio (Cα/Cc) depend upon consolidation
pressure and apparatus adopted. The secondary compression
value for Malaysian peat decreases with the increasing
degree of decomposition (fabric > hemic > sapric). Moreover,
the Cα/Cc ratio for Malaysian peat is neither constant nor
follows a specific pattern. Due to which it disagrees with the
range provided by Mesri and Castro (1989) due to varying
amounts of organic and water contents.
2. The consolidation behavior of highly decomposed peat (sapric or
amorphous) is comparable to clay due to similar rheological
behavior and Terzaghi 1-D consolidation theory becomes
applicable. Thus, allowing the application of a conventional 1-
D oedometer. However, highly fibrous peat encompasses a
considerable amount of fibers and woody substance suffering
higher secondary consolidation upon loading, ultimately
arduous using standard 1-D Oedometer. For this purpose, a
large cell consolidometer was invented to correctly investigate
the consolidation in peat where Rowe cell consolidation
apparatus was adopted. Although, the Rowe cell consolidation
apparatus elucidated many limitations associated with the
standard classical oedometer. Nevertheless, it is also associated
with few complications in the diaphragm or bellofram loading
system. This emphasizes the improvement of the Rowe cell
consolidometer to record the most reliable outcomes.
3. Both LL and PL tests are not appropriate for fibrous peat,
especially for not completely humified peat type, yielding a
high value of PL and LL which becomes meaningless. Besides,
an adopted sampling method and stress history have a significant
effect, resulting in the reduction of LL and PL values along
with the plasticity index value using a more mechanically
breakdown peat. But there is no available scientific way to
identify the water content at the brittle-ductile transition state
and liquid-plastic transition state of peat. Therefore, it is needed
to investigate the proper testing procedures for the Atterberg
limits for highly organic soil such as peat. An utmost effort is
needed to improve the quality and standard of the thread
rolling test and the fall-cone test.
4. Peat improvement is challenging yet expensive required an
extra amount of stabilizer for the initiation of the stabilization
process. It is a highly site-specific job depending upon several
parameters such as water content, liquid limit, mineral
content, fiber content, density, cement dosage, curing period,
Peak UCS Value Reference
28 days About 660 kPa (Hebib and Farrell, 2003)
90 days 65 kPa (Dehghanbanadaki et al., 2017)
90 days 72 kPa (Dehghanbanadaki et al., 2017)
90 days 121 kPa (Dehghanbanadaki et al., 2017)
7 days 495 kPa (Wong et al., 2013)
28 days 126.79 kPa (Muhardi et al., 2019)

pH, and loosely combined humus in the peat soil.
5. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) used as a stabilizing agent
only may not effectively enhance the strength due to fewer
mineral particles in peat. Therefore, other materials should be
used as a filler material which will not only increase the
cementitious minerals for cement hydration but also fill the
voids in peat, leading to peat improvement.
6. Unlike inorganic soil, the stabilizer added to peat soil initially
neutralizes the humic acid followed by the initiation of the
stabilization process. Therefore, the stabilizer dosage should
be vigilantly decided by taking the indexed properties and the
amount of humus into account.
7. Other traditional stabilizers such as lime, gypsum, fly ash,
kaolin, etc. have also proven the potential to stabilize peat
soil, almost the same as cement stabilized peat. However, the
outcomes of cement stabilizer in combination with other
additives show better performance than cement stabilizer
alone. Since cement adds to global warming and becoming
costly as it is an industry-based product. Therefore, the
potential of cement in combination with other traditional
stabilizers as well as waste material such as expired tires and
demolished waste concrete which had proven potential in
inorganic soil stabilization should be investigated in peat
stabilization.
Acknowledgments
Not Applicable
ORCID
Afnan Ahmad https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6677-2893
Muslich Hartadi Sutanto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1574-4710
Mohammed Ali Mohammed Al-Bared
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9208-9855
Indra Sati Hamonangan Harahap
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4736-1837
Seyed Vahid Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-7575
Mudassir Ali Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7824-189X
References
AASHTO_T89-13 (2017) Determining the liquid limit of soils. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Abdel-salam AE (2017) Stabilization of peat soil using locally admixture.
HBRC Journal 14(3):294-299, DOI: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.11.004
Afrin H (2017) A review on different types soil stabilization techniques.
International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology
3(2):19-24, DOI: 10.11648/j.ijtet.20170302.12
Al-Amoudi OSB, Al-Homidy AA, Maslehuddin M, Saleh TA (2017)
Method and mechanisms of soil stabilization using electric arc furnace
dust. Scientific Reports 7(46676):1-10, DOI: 10.1038/srep46676
Al-Bared MAM, Harahap ISH, Marto A (2018a) Sustainable strength
improvement of soft clay stabilized with two sizes of recycled
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 13
additive. International Journal of GEOMATE 15(51):39-46, DOI:
10.21660/2018.51.06065
Al-Bared MAM, Harahap ISH, Marto A, Mohamad H, Alavi Nezhad
Khalil Abad SV, Mustaffa Z (2020) Cyclic behavior of RT-cement
treated marine clay subjected to low and high loading frequencies.
Geomechanics and Engineering 21(5):433-445, DOI: 10.12989/
gae.2020.21.5.433
Al-Bared MAM, Harahap ISH, Marto A, Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad
SV, Mustaffa Z, Ali MOA (2019a) Mechanical behaviour of
waste powdered tilesand Portland cement treated soft clay.
Geomechanics and Engineering 19(1):37-47, DOI: 10.12989/
gae.2019.19.1.037
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A (2017a) A review on the geotechnical and
engineering characteristics of marine clay and the modern methods
of improvements. Malaysian Journal of Fundamental and Applied
Sciences 13(4):825-831, DOI: 10.11113/mjfas.v13n4.921
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A (2017b) Review on the geotechnical and
engineering properties of marine clay and the suitable common
stabilization methods. The 2nd International Conference on Separation
Technology (ICoST 2017) 13(4):825-831, DOI: 10.11113/mjfas.
v13n4.921
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A (2019) Evaluating the compaction behaviour
of soft marine clay stabilized with two sizes of recycled crushed tiles.
In: Pradhan B (ed) GCEC 2017. Lecture notes in civil engineering, vol
9. Springer, Singapore, 1273-1284, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-8016-
6_90
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A, Harahap ISH (2019b) Eco-friendly sustainable
stabilization of dredged soft clay using low-carbone recycled additives.
In: Aziz MA, Kassim KA, Bakar WAWA, Marto A, Muhammad
SASF (eds) Fossil free fuels. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 71-
84, DOI: 10.1201/9780429327773-5
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A, Harahap ISH, Kasim F (2018b) Compaction
and plasticity comparative behaviour of soft clay treated with coarse
and fine sizes of ceramic tiles. E3S Web of Conferences 34:1-9, DOI:
10.1051/e3sconf/20183401012
Al-Bared MAM, Marto A, Latifi N (2018c) Utilization of recycled tiles
and tyres in stabilization of soils and production of construction
materials – A state-of-the-art review. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
22(10):3860-3874, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-018-1532-2
Alhani IJ, Noor MJ, Bin M, Al-Bared MAM, Harahap ISH, Albadri
WM (2020) Mechanical response of saturated and unsaturated
gravels of different sizes in drained triaxial testing. Acta Geotechnica 4,
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-020-00954-4
Aminur MR, Kolay PK, Taib SNL (2009) Effect of admixtures on the
stabilization of peat soil from sarawak. Indian geotechnical conference
(IGC-2009), December 17-19, Guntur, India, 410-414
Amuda AG, Hasan A, Unoi DND, Linda SN (2019a) Strength and
compressibility characteristics of amorphous tropical peat. Journal
of GeoEngineering 14(2):85-96, DOI: 10.6310/jog.201906_14(2).4
Amuda AG, Sahdi F, Hasan A, Taib SNL, Boylan N, Mohamad A
(2019b) Measurement of amorphous peat shear strength in the direct
shear box at high displacement rates. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 37(2):1059-1072, DOI: 10.1007/s10706-018-0643-3
Anjaneyappa, Amarnath M (2011) Studies on soils treated with non
traditional stabilizer for pavements. Indian Geotechnical Journal
41(3):162-167
Asadi A, Huat BBK, Hanafi MM, Mohamed TA, Shariatmadari N
(2011) Chemico-geomechanical sensitivities of tropical peat to pore
fluid pH related to controlling electrokinetic environment. Journal
of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 34(4):481-487, DOI: 10.1080/
14 A. Ahmad et al.
02533839.2011.576491
ASTM_D4318-10 (2010) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index of soils. ASTM_D4318-10, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, DOI: 10.1520/D4318-10
Ata A, Mashhour M, Aly A (2007) The use of rowe cell test results in
predicting collapse settlement of soils. Proceedings of the 3rd Asian
Conference on Unsaturated Soils, Science Press, Beijing, China,
169-172
Atterberg A (1911a) Die plastizität der tone. Internationale Mitteilungen
Der Bodenkunde 1:4-37 (in German)
Atterberg A (1911b) Lerornas forhållande till vatten, deras plasticitetsgränser
och plasticitetsgrader. Kungliga Lantbruksakademiens Handlingar
Och Tidskrift 50(2):132-158 (in Swedish)
Axelsson K, Johansson S, Andersson R (2002) 3rd Report: Stabilization
of organic soils by cement and puzzolanic reactions – Feasibility
study. Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, Linköping,
Sweden
Badogiannis E, Tsivilis S (2009) Exploitation of poor greek kaolins:
Durability of metakaolin concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites
31(2):128-133, DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2008.11.001
Bergado DT (1994) Improvement techniques of soft ground in subsiding
and lowland environment. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Berry PL, Poskitt TJ (1972) The consolidation of peat. Geotechnique
22(1):27-52, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1972.22.1.27
Borthakur N, Singh MS (2014) Stabilization of peat soil using locally
admixture. International Journal of Advances in Computer Science &
Its Applications – IJCSIA 4(4):227-231
Broms BB (1989) Stabilization of soft clay with lime and cement columns
in southeast. International Conference on Engineering Problems of
Regional Soils 27(2), DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(90)95192-4
BS 1377-2 (1990) Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes
- Part 2: Classification tests
Cai G, Liu S (2017) Compaction and mechanical characteristics and
stabilization mechanism of carbonated reactive MgO-stabilized silt.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 21(11):2641-2654, DOI: 10.1007/
s12205-017-1145-1
Cameron CC (1983) Geology of peat as it affects the exploitation of the
economic commodity. International Symposium on Peat Utilization
41-42
Cameron CC, Esterle JS, Palmer CA (1989) The geology, botany and
chemistry of selected peat-forming environments from temperate and
tropical latitudes. International Journal of Coal Geology 12(1-4):105-
156, DOI: 10.1016/0166-5162(89)90049-9
Chen H, Wang Q (2006) The behaviour of organic matter in the process
of soft soil stabilization using cement. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 65:445-448, DOI: 10.1007/s10064-
005-0030-1
Chimner RA, Ewel KC (2005) A tropical freshwater wetland: II. Production,
decomposition, and peat formation. Wetlands Ecology and Management
13(6):671-684, DOI: 10.1007/s11273-005-0965-9
Clare KE, Sherwood PT (1954) The effect of organlc matter on the setting
of soil-cement mixtures. Journal of Applied Chemistry 4: 625-630,
DOI: 10.1002/jctb.5010041107
Deboucha S, Hashim R, Alwi A (2008) Engineering properties of
stabilized tropical peat soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 13:1-9
Dehghanbanadaki A, Ahmad K, Ali N (2013) Influence of natural fillers
on shear strength of cement treated peat. Journal of the Croatian
Association of Civil Engineers 65(7):633-640, DOI: 10.14256/
jce.814.2013
Dehghanbanadaki A, Arefnia A, Keshtkarbanaeemoghadam A, Ahmad
K, Motamedi S, Hashim R (2017) Evaluating the compression index
of fibrous peat treated with different binders. Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 76(2):575-586, DOI: 10.1007/s10064-
016-0890-6
Dehghanbanadaki A, Khari M, Arefnia A, Ahmad K, Motamedi S
(2019) A study on UCS of stabilized peat with natural filler: A
computational estimation approach. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
23(4):1560-1572, DOI: 10.1007/s12205-019-0343-4
Dekker LW, Ritsema CJ (1996) Variation in water content and wetting
patterns in Dutch water repellent peaty clay and clayey peat soils.
CATENA 28:89-105, DOI: 10.1016/S0341-8162(96)00047-1
Duraisamy Y, Huat BBK, Aziz AA (2007a) Compressibility behavior of
tropical peat reinforced with cement columns. American Journal of
Applied Sciences 4(10):786-791, DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.2007.786.791
Duraisamy Y, Huat BBK, Aziz AA (2007b) Engineering properties and
compressibility behavior of tropical peat soil. American Journal of
Applied Sciences 4(10):768-773, DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.2007.768.773
Duraisamy Y, Huat BBK, Muniandy R, Aziz AA (2009) Compressibility
behavior of fibrous peat reinforced with cement columns. Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering 27(5):619-629, DOI: 10.1007/s10706-
009-9262-3
EuroSoilStab (2002) Development of design and construction methods
to stabilize soft organic soils: Design guide soft soil stabilization.
CT97-0351, Project no. BE 96-3177, Industrial and Materials
Technologies Programme (Brite-EuRam III)
Farrell ER (2012) Organic/peat soils. In: Geotechnical engineering
principles, problematic soils and site investigation. ICE Publishing,
London, UK, 463-479
Fox PJ, Edil B, Li-Tus L (1992) Ca/Cc concept to compression of peat.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 118(8):1256-1263, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:8(1256)
Gofar N, Sutejo Y (2007) Long term compression behavior of fibrous
peat. Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 19(2):14-26
Gonçalves JP, Tavares LM, Filho RDT, Fairbairn EMR (2009) Performance
evaluation of cement mortars modified with metakaolin or ground
brick. Construction and Building Materials 23(5):1971-1979, DOI:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.08.027
Gorham E, Janssens JA, Glaser PH (2003) Rates of peat accumulation
during the postglacial period in 32 sites from Alaska to Newfoundland,
with special emphasis on northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of
Botany 81(5):429-438, DOI: 10.1139/B03-036
Haan D (1997) An overview of the mechanical behaviour of peat and
organic soil. Proceedings of conference on recent advances in soft
soil engineering, March 5-7, Kuching, Malaysia
Haigh SK (2012) Mechanics of the casagrande liquid limit test.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49(9):1015-1023, DOI: 10.1139/
T2012-066
Haigh S (2016) Consistency of the casagrande liquid limit test. Geotechnical
Testing Journal 39(1):13-19, DOI: 10.1520/GTJ20150093
Haigh SK, Vardanega PJ, Bolton MD, Barnes GE (2014) The plastic
limit of clays. Geotechnique 64(7):5840586, DOI: 10.1680/geot.13.D.06
Hampton MB, Edil TB (1998) Strength gain of organic ground with
cement-type binders. In: Soil improvement for big digs. American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Press, Reston, VA, USA, 135-
148
Haq A, Iqbal Y, Khan MR (2008) Historical development in the
classification of kaolin subgroup. Journal of Pakistan Materials
Society 2(1):44-49
Harbi R, Derabla R, Nafa Z (2017) Improvement of the properties of a

mortar with 5% of kaolin fillers in sand combined with metakaolin,
brick waste and glass powder in cement. Construction and Building
Materials 152:632-641, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.062
Hashemi M, Vahidi M, Kaviani A (2019) Effect of thermal stabilization
of soil, bentonite, calcium carbonate and fibers on behavior properties of
clay soil. Journal of Civil Engineering and Materials Application
3(1):55-64, DOI: 10.22034/jcema.2019.92028
Hashim R, Islam MS (2008) Engineering properties of peat soils in
Peninsular, Malaysia. Journal of Applied Science 8(22):4215-4219,
DOI: 10.3923/jas.2008.4215.4219
Hassan N, Wan Hassan WH, Rashid ASA, Latifi N, Mohd Yunus NZ,
Horpibulsuk S, Moayedi H (2019) Microstructural characteristics of
organic soils treated with biomass silica stabilizer. Environmental
Earth Sciences 78(12):1-9, DOI: 10.1007/s12665-019-8369-y
Hayashi H, Nishimoto S (2005) Strength characteristic of stabilized peat
using different types of binders. Proceedings of the International
Conference of Deep Mixing Best Practices and Recent Advances,
Deep Mixing 5:55-62
Hebib S, Farrell ER (2003) Some experiences on the stabilization of
Irish peats. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40(1):107-120, DOI:
10.1139/T02-091
Hobbs NB (1986) Mire morphology and the properties and behaviour of
some British and foreign peats. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology 19(1):7-80, DOI: 10.1144/gsl.qjeg.1986.019.01.02
Huat BBK, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Barghchi M (2011) A study of the
compressibility behavior of peat stabilized by DMM: Lab model and
FE analysis. Scientific Research and Essays 6(1):196-204, DOI:
10.5897/SRE10.790
Huat BBK, Maail S, Mohamed TA (2005) Effect of chemical admixtures
on the engineering properties of tropical peat soils. American
Journal of Applied Sciences 2(7):1113-1120, DOI: 10.3844/ajassp.
2005.1113.1120
Huat BBK, Prasad A, Asadi A, Kazemian S (2014) Engineering properties
of peat and organic soils. In: Geotechnics of organic soils and peat.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1-52, DOI: 10.1201/b15627
Huttunen E, Kujala K, Vesa H (1996) Assessment of the quality of
stabilized peat and clay. Symposium Grouting and Deep Mixing 607-
612
Ibrahim A, Huat BBK, Asadi A, Nahazanan H (2014) Foundation and
embankment construction in peat: An overview. Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 19:10079-10094
Islam MS, Hashim R (2009) Bearing capacity of stabilised tropical peat
by deep mixing method. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences 3(2):682-688
Jais MIB, Abdullah N, Md Ali MA, Johar MA (2019a) Peat modification
integrating Geopolymer and fly ash. GEOTROPIKA 2019 527(1):1–15,
DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/527/1/012021
Jais MIB, Che Lat D, Tengku Endut TND (2019b) Compressiblity of
peat soil improved with polyurethane. Malaysian Journal of Civil
Engineering 31(1):35-41, DOI: 10.11113/mjce.v31n1.545
Janz M, Johansson S-E (2002) 9th report: The function of different
binding agents in deep stabilization. Swedish Deep Stabilization
Research Centre, Linköping, Sweden
Johari NN, Bakar I, Razali SNM, Wahab N (2016) Fiber effects on
compressibility of peat. Soft Soil Engineering International Conference
136(1), DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012036
Kalantari B (2011) Strength evaluation of air cured, cement treated peat
with blast furnace slag. Geomechanics and Engineering 3(3):1-12,
DOI: 10.12989/gae.2011.3.3.207
Kalantari B, Huat BBK (2008) Peat soil stabilization, using ordinary
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 15
Portland cement, polypropylene fibers, and air curing technique.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 13:1-13
Kalantari B, Huat BBK, Prasad A (2010) Effect of polypropylene fibers on
the California bearing ratio of air cured stabilized tropical peat soil.
American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 3(1):1-6,
DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp. 2010.1.6
Kalantari B, Prasad A (2011) Stabilising peat soil with cement and silica
fume. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 164(1):33-
39, DOI: 10.1680/geng.900044
Kalantari B, Prasad A (2014) A study of the effect of various curing
techniques on the strength of stabilized peat. Transportation Geotechnics
1(3):119-128, DOI: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2014.06.002
Kalantari B, Prasad A, Huat BBK (2010) Peat stabilization using cement,
Polypropylene and steel fibres. Geomechanics and Engineering
2(4):321-335, DOI: 10.12989/gae.2010.2.4.321
Kamaruidzaman NS, Khaidir M, Talib A, Amirah N, Adnan Z, Madun
A, Abidin HZ, Dan MF (2019) Peat Stabilization by using sugarcane
bagasse ash (SCBA) as a partial cement replacement materials.
International Journal of Integrated Engineering 11(6):204-213
Kasama K, Zen K, Iwataki K (2006) Undrained shear strength of
cement-treated soils. Soils and Foundations 46(2):221-232, DOI:
10.3208/sandf.46.221
Kasama K, Zen K, Iwataki K (2007) High-strengthening of cement-
treated clay by mechanical dehydration. Soils and Foundations
47(2):171-184, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.47.171
Kazemian S, Huat BBK (2009) Compressibility characteristics of
fibrous tropical peat reinforced with cement column. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 14
Kazemian S, Huat BBK, Prasad A, Barghchi M (2011) A state of art
review of peat: Geotechnical engineering perspective. International
Journal of Physical Sciences 6(8):1974-1981
Keller WD, Cheng H, Johns WD, Meng C (1980) Kaolin from the original
Kauling (Gaoling) Mine locality, Kiangsi Province, China. Clays and
Clay Minerals 28(2):97-104, DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.1980.0280204
Kempfert H-G, Gebreselassie B (2006) Shallow foundations on soft
soils. Excavations and Foundations in Soft Soils 275-347, DOI:
10.1007/3-540-32895-5_5
Khan A, Adil M, Ahmad A, Hussain R, Zaman H (2018) Stabilization
of soil using cement and bale straw. International Journal of Advance
Engineering and Research Development 5(09):44-49
Kifli AZ, Zainorabidin A, Mohd S, Masirin MIM (2016) Physical
properties of peat in Sibu, Sarawak. International conference on
problematic soils 2016, Bandung, Indonesia
Kolay P, Aminur M (2011) Physical and geotechnical characteristics of
stabilized and unstabilized tropical peat soil. World Journal of
Engineering 8(3):223-230
Kolay PK, Pui M (2010) Peat Stabilization using gypsum and fly ash.
UNIMAS E-Journal of Civil Engineering 1(2):1-5, DOI: 10.33736/
jcest.75.2010
Kolay PK, Rahman MA (2016) Physico-geotechnical properties of peat
and its stabilisation. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Ground Improvement 169(3):206-216, DOI: 10.1680/jgrim.15.00025
Kolay P, Sii H, Taib S (2012) Compressibility characteristics of tropical
peat using Rowe cell consolidation. World Journal of Engineering
9(4):277-284, DOI: 10.1260/1708-5284.9.4.277
Koumoto T, Houlsby GT (2001) Theory and practice of the fall cone
test. Géotechnique 51(8):701-712, DOI: 10.1680/geot.51.8.701.40475
Kujala K, Makikyro M, Lehto O (1996) Effect of humus on the binding
reaction in stabilized soils. The 2nd International Conference on
Ground Improvement Geosystems, Tokyo, Japan, 415-420
16 A. Ahmad et al.
Landva AO, Pheeney PE (1980) Peat fabric and structure. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 17(3):416-435, DOI: 10.1139/t80-048
Latifi N, Rashid ASA, Marto A, Tahir MM (2016) Effect of magnesium
chloride solution on the physico-chemical characteristics of tropical
peat. Environmental Earth Sciences 75(3):1-9, DOI: 10.1007/
s12665-015-4788-6
Latifi N, Siddiqua S, Marto A (2019) Stabilization of tropical peat using
liquid polymer. In: Zhan L, Chen Y, Bouazza A (eds) Proceedings of
the 8th international congress on environmental geotechnics. Springer,
Singapore, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-2221-1_94
Lee KH, Lee S (2002) Mechanical properties of weakly bonded cement
stabilized Kaolin. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 6(12):389-
398, DOI: 10.1007/BF02841993
Lersow M (2001) Deep soil compaction as a method of ground
improvement and to stabilization of wastes and slopes with danger
of liquefaction, determining the modulus of deformation and shear
strength parameters of loose rock. Waste Management 21(2):161-
174, DOI: 10.1016/S0956-053X(00)00066-0
Ling FNL, Kassim KA, Karim ATA, Tan CK, Tiong KPC (2014)
Geotechnical properties of malaysian organic soils: Case study in
Batu Pahat, Johor. International Journal of Integrated Engineering
6(2):52-59
Long M, Boylan N (2012) In-situ testing of peat - A review and update
on recent developments. Geotechnical Engineering 43(4):41-55
Maas A (1996) A note on the formation of peat deposits in Indonesia.
Tropical Lowland Peatlands of Southeast Asia: Proceedings of a
Workshop on Integrated Planning and Management of Tropical
Lowland Peatlands, Cisarua, Indonesia
Maclaren DC, White MA (2003) Cement: Its chemistry and properties.
Journal of Chemical Education 80(6):623-635, DOI: 10.1021/
ed080p623
Md Yusof Z, Mohd Harris SN, Mohamed K (2015) Compressive
strength improvement of stabilized peat soil by pond ash - Hydrated
lime admixture. Applied Mechanics and Materials 747:242-245,
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.747.242
Md Zahri A, Zainorabidin A (2019) An overview of traditional and non
traditional stabilizer for soft soil. 11th international conference on
geotechnical engineering in tropical regions (GEOTROPIKA) and
1st international conference on highway and transportation engineering
(ICHITRA) 2019, February 27-28, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, DOI:
10.1088/1757-899X/527/1/012015
Medina E, Cuevas E, Huber O (2011) Origin of organic matter leading
to peat formation in the Southeastern Guayana uplands and highlands.
In: Zinck J, Huber O (eds) Peatlands of the Western Guayana
Highlands, Venezuela. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, DOI:
10.1007/978-3-642-20138-7_8
Melling L (2015) Peatland in Malaysia. In: Osaki M, Tsuji N (eds)
Tropical peatland ecosystems. Springer, Tokyo, Japan
Mesri G, Castro A (1989) Cα/Cc concept and Ko during secondary
compression. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 115(2):273-277
Mesri G, Stark TD, Ajlouni MA, Chen CS (1997) Secondary compression
of peat with or without surcharging. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 123(5):411-421, DOI: 10.1061/
(asce)1090-0241(1997)123:5(411)
Moayedi H, Nazir R (2018) Malaysian experiences of peat stabilization,
state of the art. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 36(1):1-
11, DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-0321-x
Mohamad HM, Zainorabidin A, Nurul S, Zolkefle A (2020) Determination
of the post-cyclic yield strength. International Journal of Geomate
18(70):172-177, DOI: 10.21660/2020.70.6676
Moo-Young HK, Zimmie TF (1997) Waste minimization and re-use of
paper sludges in landfill covers: A case study. Waste Management
and Research 15(6):593-605, DOI: 10.1006/wmre.1996.0114
Moo-Young HK, Zimmie TF (1998) Geotechnical properties of paper
mill sludges for use in landfill covers. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 124(4):370-370, DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:4(370)
Muhardi Wibisono G, Febrie RZH (2019) Peat soils stabilization using
lime-cement mixture to prevent peat fires. International Conference
on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering (ICAnCEE
2018) 276:1-8, DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201927605006
Munro R (2004) Dealing with bearing capacity problems on low
volume roads constructed on peat. The Highland Council
Nath BD, Molla KA, Sarkar G (2017) Study on strength behavior of
organic soil stabilized with fly ash. International Scholarly Research
Notices 1-6, DOI: 10.1155/2017/5786541
Nikookar M, Arabani M, Mirmao’zen SM, Pashaki MK (2016)
Experimental evaluation of the strength of peat stabilized with hydrated
lime. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering 60(4):491-502,
DOI: 10.3311/PPci.8159
O’Kelly BC (2009) Development of a large consolidometer apparatus
for testing peat and other highly organic soils. SUO (Society of
Urologic Oncology) 60(1-2):23-36
O’Kelly BC (2014) Characterisation and undrained strength of
amorphous clay. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Geotechnical Engineering 167(3):311-320, DOI: 10.1680/geng.11.00025
O’Kelly BC (2015) Atterberg limits are not appropriate for peat soils.
Geotechnical Research 2(3):123-134, DOI: 10.1680/jgere.15. 00007
O’Kelly BC, Orr TLL (2014) Briefing: Effective-stress strength of peat
in triaxial compression. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering 167(5):417-420, DOI: 10.1680/
geng.13.00143
O’Kelly BC, Vardanega PJ, Haigh SK (2018) Use of fall cones to
determine Atterberg limits: A review. Geotechnique 68(10):843-
856, DOI: 10.1680/jgeot.17.R.039
Osman KT (2018) Peat soils. In: Management of soil problems: An
introduction. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 146-183
Paramananthan S (2010) Keys to the identification of Malaysian soils
according to parent materials, 2nd edition. Param Agricultural Soil
Surveys (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Paul A, Hussain M (2020) Cement stabilization of Indian peat: An
experimental investigation. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
32(11):04020350, DOI: 10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003363
Prakash K, Sridharan A, Prasanna HS (2009) A note on the determination
of plastic limit of fine-grained soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal
32(4):372-374, DOI: 10.1520/GTJ101960
Putri EE, Yuliet R, Harris LE, Makinda J (2020) Stabilization of rimbo
Panjang peat soil using lightweight materials mixed with cement as
subgrade for road pavement. International Journal of GEOMATE
18(66):30-36, DOI: 10.21660/2020.66.9180
Rahman ZA, Sulaiman N, Rahim SA, Idris WMR, Lihan T (2016)
Effect of cement additive and curing period on some engineering
properties of treated peat soil. Sains Malaysiana 45(11):1679-1687
Rahmi A, Taib SNL, Sahdi F (2018) Investigation of the application of
various water additive ratios on unconfined compressive strength of
cement-stabilized amorphous peat at different natural moisture
contents. Advances in Civil Engineering 2018:1-9, DOI: 10.1155/
2018/1945808
Ramadhansyah PJ, Awang H, Nur Amirah MS, Khairul Idham MSM,
Haryati Y, Rosli MH, Norhidayah AH, Naquiddin MWM, Abdul

Hamid AR, Mohd Rosli MH (2018) Performance of asphalt mixture
incorporating kaolin clay at different aging. The 12th International Civil
Engineering Post Graduate Conference (SEPKA), The 3rd International
Symposium on Expertise of Engineering Design (ISEED), DOI:
10.1088/1755-1315/220/1/012004
Razali SNM, Zainorabidin A, Bakar I, Mohamad HM (2018) Strength
changes in peat-polymer stabilization process. International Journal
of Integrated Engineering 10(9):136-141
Saberian M, Rahgozar MA (2016) Geotechnical properties of peat soil
stabilised with shredded waste tyre chips in combination with
gypsum, lime or cement. Mires and Peat 18:1-16, DOI: 10.19189/
MaP.2015.OMB.211
Sabir BB, Wild S, Bai J (2001) Metakaolin and calcined clays as
pozzolans for concrete: A review. Cement & Concrete Composites
23:441-454, DOI: 10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00092-5
Sagiri MA, Orangi J, Asatourian A, Gutmann JL, Garcia-Godoy F, Lotfi
M, Sheibani N (2018) Calcium silicate-based cements and functional
impacts of various constituents. Dent Mater Journal 36(1):8-18
Said J, Taib SNL (2009) Peat stabilization with carbide lime. UNIMAS
E-Journal of Civil Engineering 1(1):3-8, DOI: 10.33736/jcest.64.2009
Samet B, Mnif T, Chaabouni M (2007) Use of a kaolinitic clay as a
pozzolanic material for cements: Formulation of blended cement.
Cement & Concrete Composites 29:741-749, DOI: 10.1016/
j.cemconcomp.2007.04.012
Sangok FE, Sugiura Y, Maie N, Melling L, Nakamura T, Ikeya K, Watanabe
A (2020) Variations in the rate of accumulation and chemical
structure of soil organic matter in a coastal peatland in Sarawak,
Malaysia. Catena 184:104244, DOI: 10.1016/j. catena.2019.104244
Sapar NIF, Matlan SJ, Mohamad HM, Alias R (2020) A study on
physical and morphological characteristics of tropical peat in Sabah.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and
Technology (IJARET) 11(11):542-553
Sherwood PT, Ryley M (1970) An investigation of a cone-penetrometer
method for the determination of the liquid limit. Géotechnique
20(2):203-208, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1970.20.2.203
Sing WL, Hashim R, Ali FH (2008) Behavior of stabilized peat soils in
unconfined compression tests. American Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences 1(4):274-279
Sing WL, Hashim R, Ali F (2011) Unconfined compressive strength
characteristics of stabilized peat. Scientific Research and Essays
6(9):1915-1921
Sivapullaiah PV, Sridharan A (1985) Liquid limit of soil mixtures.
Geotechnical Testing Journal 8(3):111-116, DOI: 10.1520/GTJ10521J
Skempton AW, Petley DJ (1970) Ignition loss and other properties of
peats and clays from Avonmouth, King’s Lynn and Cranberry Moss.
Geotechnique 20(4):343-356, DOI: 10.1680/geot.1970.20.4.343
Taggart MS, Milligan WO, Studer HP (1954) Electron micrographic
studies of clays. Clays Clay Miner 3:31-64, DOI: 10.1346/CCMN.
1954.0030104
Tang BL, Bakar I, Chan CM (2011) Reutilization of organic and peat
soils by deep cement mixing. International Journal of Civil and
Environmental Engineering 5(2):87-92, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1075466
Timoney MJ, Mccabe BA, Bell AL (2012) Experiences of dry soil
mixing in highly organic soils. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers: Ground Improvement 165(1):3-14, DOI: 10.1680/
grim.2012.165.1.3
Trauner L, Dolinar B, Mišič M (2005) Relationship between the undrained
shear strength, water content, and mineralogical properties of fine-
grained soils. International Journal of Geomechanics 5(4):350-355,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:4(350)
Tremblay H, Duchesne J, Locat J, Leroueil S (2002) Influence of the
nature of organic compounds on fine soil stabilization with cement.
Canadian Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 39(3):535-546,
DOI: 10.1139/T02-002
Vardanega PJ, Hickey CL, Lau K, Sarzier HDL, Couturier CM, Martin
G (2019) Investigation of the Atterberg limits and undrained fall-
cone shear strength variation with water content of some peat soils.
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 12(2):
131-138, DOI: 10.1007/s42947-019-0017-0
Vishwanath G, Pramod K, Ramesh V (2014) Peat soil stabilization with
rice husk ash and lime powder. International Journal of Innovation and
Scientific Research 9(2):225-227
Wahab A, Embong Z, Hasan M, Musa H, Zaman QUZ, Ullah H (2020)
Peat soil engineering and mechanical properties improvement under
the effect of EKS technique at Parit Kuari, Batu Pahat, Johor, West
Malaysia. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 70:133-138,
DOI: 10.7186/bgsm70202011
Wong LS, Hashim R, Ali F (2013) Improved strength and reduced
permeability of stabilized peat: Focus on application of kaolin as a
pozzolanic additive. Construction and Building Materials 40:783-
792, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.065
Yang J, Dykes AP (2006) The liquid limit of peat and its application to
the understanding of Irish blanket bog failures. Landslides 3(3): 205-
216, DOI: 10.1007/s10346-006-0038-z
Yong RN, Ouhadi VR (2007) Experimental study on instability of bases
on natural and lime/cement-stabilized clayey soils. Applied Clay
Science 35(3-4):238-249, DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2006.08.009
Yusof NZ, Samsuddin NS, Hanif MF, Syed Osman SB (2018) Peat soils
stabilization using effective microorganisms (EM). Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science 140(1):1-8, DOI: 10.1088/
1755-1315/140/1/012088
Yuswandono M, Somantri AK, Rabiya R (2020) Comparison of Rowe
cell and oedometer test to determine peat soil consolidation parameters.
The 3rd International Conference on Innovation in Engineering and
Vocational Education (ICIEVE 2019) 830(2):1-6, DOI: 10.1088/
1757-899X/830/2/022053
Zain NHM, Zulastry MI (2020) Compressive strength of peat soil treated
with waste tyre granules. International Conference on Architecture and
Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019) 59:185-192, DOI: 10.1007/978-
981-15-1193-6_5
Zainorabidin A, Abdurahman MN, Kassim A, Azlan MFMD, Razali
SN, Ab Rahman ESE (2019) Settlement behaviour of Parit Nipah
peat under static embankment. International Journal of GEOMATE
17(60):151-155, DOI: 10.21660/2019.60.8263
Zainorabidin A, Mansor H (2016) Investigation on the shear strength
characteristic at Malaysian peat. ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences 11(3):1600-1606
Zainorabidin A, Mohamad HM (2016) A geotechnical exploration of
Sabah peat soil: Engineering classifications and field surveys.
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 21(20):6671-6687
Zambri NM, Ghazaly Z (2018) Peat soil stabilization using lime and
cement. International Conference on Civil & Environmental Engineering
(CENVIRON 2017) 1-7, DOI: 10.1051/e3sconf/20183401034
Zulkifley MTM, Ng TF, Raj JK, Hashim R, Bakar AFA, Paramanthan,
S, Ashraf MA (2014) A review of the stabilization of tropical
lowland peats. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
73(3):733-746, DOI: 10.1007/s10064-013-0549-5