materials

Article
The Implementation of Industrial Byproduct in Malaysian Peat
Improvement: A Sustainable Soil Stabilization Approach
Afnan Ahmad 1, * , Muslich Hartadi Sutanto 1 , Niraku Rosmawati binti Ahmad 1 , Mastura Bujang 2
and Mazizah Ezdiani Mohamad 2

1 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,

Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia; [email protected] (M.H.S.); [email protected] (N.R.b.A.)
2 Civil Engineering Programme, School of Engineering and Technology, University College of Technology,
Sarawak 96000, Malaysia; [email protected] (M.B.); [email protected] (M.E.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Peat is a well-known problematic soil associated with poor engineering properties. Its
replacement with an expensive competent foundation material is practiced for road embankment
construction which is costly and causes greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this paper investi-
gated the effectiveness of a byproduct from a metal industry (silica fume) to stabilize peat along
with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) through a series of experimental tests. After peat-indexed
characterization, a number of standard compaction and mechanical tests were performed on the
stabilized and parent peat. For this purpose, nine designated mixes were prepared possessing various
combinations of silica fume (SF) and 10–20% OPC. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were carried out after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing to assess





 strength enhancement and binder effectiveness, and the microstructural evolution induced by the
binders was examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The analysis revealed a substantial
Citation: Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.;
improvement in mechanical properties with the incorporation of SF and OPC, ultimately meeting the
Ahmad, N.R.b.; Bujang, M.;
Mohamad, M.E. The Implementation
minimum strength requirement for highway construction (i.e., 345 kPa). A peak UCS of 1063.94 kPa
of Industrial Byproduct in Malaysian was recorded at 20% SF, and an unsoaked CBR value of 42.95 was observed using 15% SF and 15%
Peat Improvement: A Sustainable Soil OPC after 28 days of curing. Furthermore, the increasing percentage of hydraulic binders exhibited
Stabilization Approach. Materials brittle, collapsible failure, while the microstructural study revealed the formation of a dense matrix
2021, 14, 7315. https://doi.org/ with a refined pore structure in the treated peat. Finally, a significant statistical analysis was carried
10.3390/ma14237315 out by correlating the test parameters. In this way, rather than stockpiling and dumping, an industrial
byproduct was implemented in peat stabilization in an eco-friendly manner.
Academic Editor: Neven Ukrainczyk

Keywords: peat; sustainable soil stabilization; eco-friendly; reuse of industrial byproducts;

Received: 28 August 2021
unconfined compressive strength; California Bearing Capacity; scanning electron microscope
Accepted: 29 September 2021
Published: 29 November 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- Histosol, moss, bogs, fen, and mires are widely classified as peat soil that originates
iations. from the anaerobic decaying of plants and animals. Peat soil is considered the most un-
desirable base material for any sort of construction activity [1]. The poor engineering
properties associated with peatland, i.e., high water content and high void ratio, result
in low shear strength and compressible behavior, making it unable to bear infrastructure
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
loads. Unluckily, peatland comprises 3% of the world’s land, with Canada and the for-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
mer USSR being the major contributors; 8% of Malaysia, a tropical country, comprises
This article is an open access article
peatland [2]. However, the rapid growth of Malaysia in Southeast Asia has demanded
distributed under the terms and land acquisition for development projects such as highway construction, housing societies,
conditions of the Creative Commons and industrialization. Thus, the stabilization of peat soil is necessary to attain desirable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// load-bearing capacities and utilize unserviceable peatland for developing schemes.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Among various soil stabilization techniques, sustainable chemical stabilization gain-
4.0/). ing interest around the globe [3]. Several binders, including traditional and non-traditional

Materials 2021, 14, 7315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237315 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2021, 14, 7315 2 of 22

additives, are currently used to strengthen peat [1,2]. However, the implementation of sec-
ondary waste materials is highly encouraged to avoid the pressing issues of its disposal [4].
Various raw materials, including scraped tires, demolished concrete waste, silica fume,
blast furnace slag, gypsum, oil shale, municipal solid waste, fly ash, and palm oil fuel ashes,
have been adopted for the stabilization of peat [2,4]. The implementation of these additives
causes physical and chemical changes in peat soil in favor of engineering applications.
For instance, Mahmood et al. [5] utilized palm oil fuel ash (POFA) in Malaysian peat at
5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%; an approximate 4-fold increase in the maximum dry density and
31–40-fold-higher CBR values were reported.
Silica fume (SF) is a byproduct derived from the smelting process of silicon, and an
alloy containing silicon in an electric arc furnace possesses an extremely fine spherical
shape (1/100th of ordinary Portland cement), thus causing health and environmental
issues upon dumping and mixing in an open atmosphere. However, its highly amorphous
nature with enriched silicon dioxide makes it substantially pozzolanic [6]. The silicon
dioxide reacts with the calcium hydroxide in the presence of water to produce calcium
silicate hydrate gel, which is responsible for the strength improvement of problematic soil [7].
Therefore, SF has been extensively adopted in the stabilization of peat soil [7–9]. For instance,
Kalantari et al. [7] utilized SF in the presence of cement to assess the mechanical and
compressibility characteristics of peat. The same authors further conducted a comparative
study of cement (5–50%) and SF (5–10%) via unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
and California Bearing Capacity (CBR) tests in peat stabilization [8]. The effectiveness of
adopting SF in the presence of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) for the stabilization of peat
has been previously highlighted.
SF and OPC not only bring physical changes but also alter the chemical composition
of soil. The micrographs of untreated and cement-, silica-sand-, and kaolin-stabilized peat
reported by Wong et al. [10] revealed a clear transformation from loosely packed peat to a
compact solid matrix. Moreover, Rikmann et al. [9] performed microstructural testing (XRD,
XRF, and FTIR) of the utilization of cement and shale ash in peat stabilization; their results
supported the application of pozzolanic additives such as silica fume, pH-modified alkali,
and water glass without the addition of ordinary Portland cement for the stabilization of
peat soil. In summation, previous findings have shown that both silica fume and OPC are
potential binders in peat stabilization.
The stabilization process of soil, especially in the case of peat, is a highly site-specific
task because it depends on a number of factors, e.g., peat type, water content, and acidity,
as reported by Hebib and Farrell [11]. Additionally, the concentration of humic and fulvic
compounds in peat is a key factor that causes an inhibitory effect on the hardening of
binder–soil mixtures. However, studies on Peninsular Malaysian peat stabilization via SF
and OPC have been limited. The performance of SF and OPC in Peninsular Malaysian
peat soil has been exclusively assessed through mechanical testing. Thus, an inclusive
mechanical and microstructural assessment of Peninsular Malaysian peat utilizing SF
and OPC for soil stabilization is needed to better predict the engineering behavior of the
stabilized peat matrixes. Furthermore, comparative analyses of the binder’s effectiveness
in peat stabilization are lacking.
In the current research work, the chemical stabilization of Malaysian peat soil was
carried out through a series of compaction and mechanical tests, and the morphological
characteristics were investigated via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine and
compare the microstructural evolution of the parent and stabilized peat matrixes caused by
SF and OPC. The mechanical assessment involved a UCS test followed by failure pattern
examination and a CBR test in light of the highway construction criterion. Furthermore,
strong statistical correlations were examined to investigate the effect of one parameter
on the others. Overall, the effectiveness of silica fume with and without cement was
assessed in the context of Peninsular Malaysian peat enhancement via mechanical and
microstructural approaches.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 3 of 22

2. Materials and Experimental Procedure

2.1. Peat Collection
The peat soil utilized for the experimental investigations was collected from the
Kampung Baru, Teluk Intan, Perak state of Peninsular Malaysia. The coordinates of the
peat soil sampling were 4◦ 000 16.1” N, 101◦ 110 11.0” E, and peat sampling was carried out at
5 feet (1.52 m) of depth. The peat’s chemical composition by percentage weight is illustrated
in Table 1.
Table 1. Chemical compositions (weight percentages) of peat, SF, and OPC revealed by XRF analysis.

Oxides (% Weight) Peat Silica Fume OPC

CO2 90.12 - -
Al2 O3 0.746 0.876 2.68
SiO2 6.64 91.0 12.3
CaO 0.355 1.20 75.5
Fe2 O3 0.673 3.39 2.86
K2 O 0.045 1.42 0.479
TiO2 0.020 0.013 0.231
SO3 0.942 0.352 1.32
MgO 0.142 0.409 1.80
P2 O 5 0.030 - -
ZrO2 - 0.075 0.217
MoO3 0.24 0.052 1.29
MnO - 0.205 0.411
ZnO 0.032 0.0292 0.0275
Total weight (%) 99.98 99.02 99.10

2.2. Silica Fume and OPC (Binders)

The silica fume, obtained from OM Materials (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd as a byproduct,
was used as a potential binder in the Peninsular Malaysian peat stabilization. Silica fume is
an industrial waste obtained as a secondary material from silicon and ferroalloy production.
Moreover, it has a spherical shape with a diameter of approximately 150 nm (100 times
smaller than cement granules). Additionally, it has a high pozzolanic potential and is widely
used in high-performance concrete. The results of XRF analyses (chemical composition) of
SF and OPC by percentage weight are shown in Table 1, and Table 2 illustrates the physical
and chemical properties of the silica fume. Commonly available grade 53 OPC was utilized
as an additional additive.

Table 2. Physical and chemical properties of silica fume.

Properties Value/Description
Appearance Ultrafine amorphous powder
Color Gray, off-white
Odor Odorless
pH @ 20 ◦ C 6.0–9.0
Solubility (water) Insoluble/slightly soluble
Solubility (organic solvents) Insoluble/slightly soluble
Boiling point No information
Melting point 1550–1700 ◦ C
Bulk density 150–700 kg/m3
Specific gravity 2100–2300 kg/m3
Particle Size 0.4–0.5 µm

2.3. Mix Design

Silica fume is a pozzolanic and industrial waste utilized for the stabilization of Peninsu-
lar Malaysian peat. The findings of Kalantari et al. [8] suggested that an effective SF content
for peat with its natural moisture content is 20% by weight. In this study, three mixes
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 4 of 22

containing SF in varying percentages (10, 15, and 20%) by weight of dry mass were taken
into consideration [12], as shown in Table 3. Several trail mixes containing OPC and SF
in varying amounts ranging from 5 to 15% were employed to stabilize Teluk Intan peat
while keeping the cumulative binder amount below or equal to 20%, as shown in Table 3.
For the sake of comparison, trial mixes of 15% OPC alone and in combination with 15% SF
were used.

Table 3. Summary of the mix design.

Design Mixes Peat SF OPC

Peat 100% - -
Peat and 10% SF 90% 10% -
Peat and 15% SF 85% 15% -
Peat and 20% SF 80% 20% -
Peat and 15% OPC 85% - 15%
Peat, 15% SF, and 15% OPC 60% 15% 15%
Peat, 5% SF, and 15% OPC 80% 5% 15%
Peat, 10% SF, and 10% OPC 80% 10% 10%
Peat, 15% SF, and 5% OPC 80% 15% 5%

2.4. Specimen’s Preparation and Curing

Initially, the indexed properties of Teluk Intan peat were determined using disturbed
soil collected from the sampling site. Subsequently, a series of standard compaction, UCS,
and CBR tests were carried out on the treated and untreated peat. The compaction tests
were performed on a peat sample passed through a No. 4 sieve utilizing a 101.6 mm
(4 in) diameter mold. Similarly, the specimen preparation for UCS testing was carried
out according to ASTM D2166/D2166M-16 [13]. As prescribed by ASTM guidelines,
all specimens were molded to keep a height to diameter ratio of 2:1. Each UCS sample was
prepared by tamping a mass of peat mixed with OMC into three layers in a cylindrical tube
with a diameter equal to 35 mm; each layer received 27 blows [10]. All molds were disclosed
after one day, exposing the untreated peat to compressive testing while keeping the treated
samples for 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. The curing technique prescribed by Kaniraj and
Gayathri [14] was followed. All the stabilized UCS samples were carefully wrapped in
airtight plastic bags and kept in a controlled environment for 7, 14, and 28 days of curing
to avoid moisture loss and maintain temperature (25 ◦ C). A similar curing procedure was
adopted for CBR samples; following ASTM D 1883-16, using a mold with a diameter of
152.4 mm (6 in) and a height of 101.6 mm (4 in) [15].

2.5. Experimental Testing Matrix

The experimental procedure of peat stabilization was initiated with a basic properties’
examination. These indexed properties play vital roles in peat characterization and may
hinder the stabilization process. Table 4 illustrates the entire experimental matrix including
standard compaction, UCS, and CBR. As illustrated in Table 4, a total of 9 (one parent and
8 treated peat) designated mixes were tested. Three trials of every test was conducted,
and the averages of three tests are presented as the outcomes.

2.5.1. Standard Compaction

Standard compaction tests of the treated and untreated Teluk Intan peat were carried
out according to ASTM D698-12 [16]; soil samples were subjected to about 600 kN-m/m3
(12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 ) over three layers, and maintained 25 blows per layer using a 24.5 N
(2.5 kg) rammer dropped from a height of 305 mm (12 in). Cumulatively, 27 standard
compaction tests were carried out on the 9 designated mixes by performing 3 trials on
every mix.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 5 of 22

Table 4. Standard compaction and mechanical property testing matrix.

CBR
Standard UCS
Mixes Soaked Unsoaked
Compaction
7D 1 14 D 1 28 D 1 7D 1 14 D 1 28 D 1 7D 1 14 D 1 28 D 1
Peat 3 - - - - - - - - -
Peat and 10% SF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat and 15% SF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat and 20% SF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat and 15% OPC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat, 15% SF, and 15% OPC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat, 5% SF, and 15% OPC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat, 10% SF, and 10% OPC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Peat, 15% SF, and 5% OPC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
1 D denotes days of curing period; 3: Tests performed.

2.5.2. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)

The UCS tests on the parent peat were conducted after one day of sampling, while the
stabilized samples were exposed to the UCS test after curing periods of 7, 14, and 28 days.
About 72 (24, 24, and 24) total stabilized UCS samples were tested after 7, 14, and 28 day
curing periods, as described in Table 4. ASTM D2166/D2166M-16 [13] was followed for
UCS testing.

2.5.3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

Like UCS, the CBR tests of the parent peat were carried out after one day of curing,
while the stabilized, unsoaked specimens were exposed to load penetration after 7, 14,
and 28 days of curing. The stabilized, soaked peat CBR samples were placed in the
water bath for 4 days after curing before being subjected to load penetration. Collectively,
144 cumulatively (72 soaked and 72 unsoaked) stabilized CBR samples were tested after 7,
14, and 28 days of curing, as illustrated in Table 4. ASTM D 1883-16 [15] was followed for
the CBR testing procedure.

2.5.4. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

SEM was used to assess and compare the morphology of the treated and parent Teluk
Intan peat. The SEM machine (Zeiss EVO LS 15, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia) available
in the Universiti Teknologi Petronas was utilized for all micrographs. The untreated peat
and stabilized peat cured for 28 days were SEM-imaged at magnifications of 1000×–10 k×.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Peat Indexed Properties
Peat soil is predominantly composed of organic and mineral components. The first
component is carbonaceous in origin and combustible in nature, and the mineral con-
stituents form ash after burning due to their incombustible nature. Both these constituents
play vital roles in classification and influence peat behavior [17]. The experimental find-
ings indicated that Teluk Intan peat contains 80.86% of organic content and 19.13% of
ash content, as presented in Table 5. Thus, it is clear that the collected sample possessed
more than 75% of organic matter, so they could be termed “peat” according to ASTM D
4427–13 [18,19]. Additionally, the peat samples were classified as having high ash contents
according to ASTM D2974-00 [20]. Both the reported organic and ash contents were in
agreement with previously reported studies on Peninsular Malaysian peat soil [21,22].
Moreover, the collected peat was blackish-brown in color ,and the in situ von Post humifica-
tion test categorized the Teluk Intan peat as fibric peat (H3 ). The fiber content test showed
an 80.4% value and verified the samples as fabric peat. The permeability test revealed high
fiber content and specific gravity (1.88), which were directly related to the samples’ void
spaces, as shown in Table 5.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 6 of 22

Table 5. Essential indexed and compaction properties of Teluk Intan peat.

Characteristics Values Guidelines

Color Blackish brown -
Moisture content, % 224.18 ASTM D 2974-00 [20]
von Post humification H3 Landva and Pheeney (1980) [23]
Specific gravity, Gs 1.88 ASTM D 854–14 [24]
Liquid limit, LL (%) 64.4 ASTM D4318–10 [25]
Permeability, kv (m/sec) 5.86 × 10−5 ASTM D2434–68 [26]
pH (peat leachate) @ 20 ◦ C 4.0 ASTM D4972–19
Ash content, AC (%) 19.13 ASTM D2974–00 [20]
Organic content, OC (%) 80.86 ASTM D2974–00 [20]
Fiber content, FC (%) 80.4 ASTM D 1997–91 [27]
Compaction Properties
Optimum moisture content, OMC (%) 31.1 ASTM D698–12 [16]
Maximum dry density, MDD (kg/m3 ) 1130 ASTM D698–12 [16]
Unconfined compressive strength, UCS (kPa) 42.94 ASTM D2166/D2166M-16 [13]

3.2. Standard Compaction

The application of hydraulic binders, e.g., SF and OPC, alters the properties of peat. It
has significant effects on the density of a treated peat matrix and the water amount required
to attain the maximum dry density (MDD), commonly called the optimum moisture content
(OMC) [28]. In this light, standard compaction tests were carried out for all the designated
combinations of peat and additives to assess their effects on MDD and OMC.
The compaction curves of untreated Teluk Intan peat and peat treated with 10%, 15%,
and 20% silica fume (SF) are shown in Figure 1a. The MDD and OMC (Wopt ) of untreated
Teluk Intan peat were recorded at about 1130 kg/m3 and 31.1%, respectively. Figure 1b
indicates the effects of different percentages of SF on Wopt and MDD. It can be observed
that the dry density increased and OMC (Wopt ) decreased as the amount of silica fume
increased. Furthermore, Figure 2 indicates the combined effect of SF and OPC on the
compaction curves. It can be observed that the incorporation of SF tended to better reduce
the OMC and increase the MDD compared to OPC. This may have been due to the SF
particles’ fineness and greater surface areas for water absorption. However, all effects of
OPC and SF on compaction characteristics are associated with their finer and adhesive
natures, which filled up the pores of peat soil and bound the particles together to make
a dense matrix, thus increasing the density of the stabilized peat compared to untreated
peat. Meanwhile, the lowering of OMC was due to the hydraulic reactions of OPC and
SF. The involvement of hydraulic reactions consumed water and subsequently generated
heat, so the consumption of water in the peat reduced the optimum water content [29].
In consideration of the swampy environment of peatland, hydraulic binders are suitable
for consuming water during the hydration process, thus enhancing peat strength. Sim-
ilar results have been reported in previous studies on peat stabilization using cement
and silica [7,30,31].

3.3. Mechanical Testing

3.3.1. UCS Development
The UCS results of untreated peat and 8 designated treated mixes are presented in
Figures 3–5. The untreated Teluk Intan peat showed a low strength of about 42.94 kPa
due to the high amount of organic matter, which imparted compressible and collapsible
characteristics in the parent peat, thus yielding a low compressive strength—as also stated
in previous studies [32–34].
 Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

Materials 2021, 14, 7315 7 of 22
have been reported in previous studies on peat stabilization using cement and silica
[7,30,31].
have been reported in previous studies on peat stabilization using cement and silica
[7,30,31].
Peat and SF (10, 15, and 20%) Effect of Silica fume (SF) on Peat
2000 Peat and SF (10, 15, and 20%)
SF (10%) Effect of Silica fume (SF) on Peat
1625 35
2000 MDD OMC
SF (15%)
SF (10%) 1625 35

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

MDD OMC

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)

1800 SF (20%) 1425 30
SF (15%)

Optimum Moisture Content (%)

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)
1800 Peat Only
SF (20%) 1425 30
3)

1225
1600 PeatZero
OnlyAir Void Line
(kg/m

25
3)

1225
1600 Zero Air Void Line
(kg/m

1025 25
1400 1025 20
Density

1400 825 20
Density

1200 825 15
1200 625 15
Dry

625
Dry

1000 10
1000 425 10
425
800 225 5
800 225 5

600 25 0
600 25 0
0 10 15 15 20 20
99 1919 29 29 39 39 49 49 0 10
Water
Water Content
Content (%)(%) Silica Silica fume (%)
fume (%)

(a)(a) (b) (b)

Figure
Figure
Figure 1.1.
1. (a) (a)
(a) Standard
Standard
Standard compaction
compaction
compaction curves
curves
curves of of untreated
ofuntreated
untreated and
andand treated
treated peat
treated peat
with
peat with10%,
10%,
with 10%,15%,
15%, 15%,
and andSF;
20%
and 20%
20% SF;
(b)SF; (b) of
effects
(b) effects of
ofincreasing
increasing
effects increasing
SFdosage
SF dosage onon the
the dry
dry density
density and
and W Wof
opt of treated
opttreated peat.
peat.
SF dosage on the dry density and Wopt of treated peat.

Peat
Peatwith
withvaring amount
varing of SF
amount andand
of SF OPCOPC Effect of varying
Effect percentages
of varying of OPC
percentages ofand
OPC and
SF onSF
Peat
on Peat
OPC (15%)
OPC (15%) 34 34 1600 1600
2000
2000 SF (15%) + OPC
SF (15%) (5%)(5%)
+ OPC OMC OMCMDD MDD
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Optimum Moisture Content (%)

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)

SF (10%) + OPC (10%) 1400

Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)

SF (10%) + OPC (10%) 32 32 1400
1800 SF (5%) + OPC
SF (5%) (15%)
+ OPC (15%)
1800 1200
1200
3) )

SF (15%) + OPC (15%) 30

3

SF (15%) + OPC (15%) 30

(kg/m
Density(kg/m

Peat Only 1000

1600 Peat Only 1000
1600 Zero Air Void Line 28
Zero Air Void Line 28
800
Density

800
1400 26
1400 26 600
600
Dry

24
Dry

1200 24 400
1200 400
22 200
22 200
1000
1000 20 0
20 0
800
8000 20 40 60
0 20 40 60
Water Content (%)
Water Content (%)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 2. (a)
2. (a) Standard
Standard (a) curves
compaction
compaction curves of
ofuntreated
untreatedand
andtreated peat
treated withwith
peat varying percentages
varying of SF(b)
percentages and OPC;
of SF and(b) effects
OPC; (b) effects
of varying SF–OPC dosages on the dry density and Wopt of treated peat.
of varying
FigureSF–OPC dosages
2. (a) Standard on the dry
compaction density
curves and Woptand
of untreated of treated
treated peat.
peat with varying percentages of SF and OPC; (b) effects
of varying SF–OPC dosages on the dry density and Wopt of treated peat.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 8 of 22
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

Peat P-SF (10%) Peat P-SF (10%) Peat P-SF (10%)
P-SF (15%) P-SF (20%) P-SF (15%) P-SF (20%) P-SF (15%) P-SF (20%)
350 1200
Peat 7 Days P-SF (10%)
Curing 600 Peat 14 Days
P-SFCuring
(10%) Peat 28 Days
P-SF (10%)Curing
P-SF (15%) P-SF (20%) P-SF (15%) P-SF (20%) P-SF (15%)1063.94
P-SF (20%)
300
350 296.69 534.7 1000
500
600 1200
7 Days Curing 14 Days Curing 28 Days Curing
250 1063.94

UCS (kPa)
300 534.7

UCS (kPa)
UCS (kPa)

296.69 400
500 800
1000
256.76 331.66
200 250

UCS (kPa)
UCS (kPa)
UCS (kPa)

400
300 800
600
331.66
150 200 126.85256.76 228.41 409.47
300
200 600
400
100 150 126.85 228.41 409.47
200 400 362.65
50 100 42.94 100 42.94 200
42.94
362.65
50 42.94 100 42.94 200
0 0 0 42.94
0 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 Strain
2 3(%)
4 5 6 7 0 1 Strain
2 3 4(%)
5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4Strain
5 6 (%)
7 8
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3.3.The
FigureFigure unconfined
The3.unconfined compression
compression strength ofof
strength 10%, 15%,
10%, and
15%, 20%
and SF-stabilized
20% peat
SF-stabilized under
peat varying
under varyingcuring periods:
curing (a)
periods:
The unconfined compression strength of 10%, 15%, and 20% SF-stabilized peat under varying curing periods: (a)
7(a)
days, (b) 14
7 days, (b)days, andand
14 days, (c) 28
(c)days.
28 days.
7 days, (b) 14 days, and (c) 28 days.

4. The4.unconfined
FigureFigure The unconfinedcompression strength
compression ofofSF-
strength SF-and
andOPC-stabilized peatunder
OPC-stabilized peat under varying
varying curing
curing periods:
periods: (a) 7 days,
(a) 7 days,
(b) 14 and
(b) 14 days, days,(c)
and28(c) 28 days.
days.
Figure 4. The unconfined compression strength of SF- and OPC-stabilized peat under varying curing periods: (a) 7 days,
(b) 14 days, and (c) 28 days.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 9 of 22
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

FigureFigure
5. The5.unconfined
The unconfined compression
compression strengthofofuntreated
strength untreated peat,
peat, 15%
15%OPC-stabilized
OPC-stabilized peat, andand
peat, 15%15%
SF- and
SF- 15%
andOPC-
15% OPC-
stabilized
stabilized peat under
peat under varying
varying curing
curing periods:
periods: (a)(a)
7 7days,
days,(b)
(b)14
14 days,
days, and
and(c)
(c)2828days.
days.

3.3.2. Strength
Various Development
factors, by the
including Various
typeMix Designs
of peat, water content, mineral content, organic,
content,ASTM
fiber D 4609 (Standard
content, and pH, Guideaffectforthe
Evaluating
strengthEffectiveness of Admixtures forpeat.
gain of cement-stabilized Soil The
Stabilization) specifies a UCS value of 345 kPa for a stabilized
UCS results of the Teluk Intan peat stabilized with varying SF contents (10, 15, and soil to be considered an 20%)
effective binder, as shown in Figure 6 [29]. As such, the strength
and cured for 7, 14, and 28 days are presented in Figure 3a–c. it can be observed that development index (SDI)
obtained with Equation (1) is used, to assess the influence of various mix designs on peat
the compressive strength significantly increased as the amount of SF and curing period
strength [40].
increased. The highest strength was recorded by mixing 20% SF in all curing periods. The
. ( ) . ( )
highest valuesSDIof = UCS after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing were 296.6, 534.7, and 1063.94 (1) kPa,
. ( )
respectively, which also indicated the development of strength as the curing duration was
where Max.
prolonged. TheUCS (stabilized) and
strength Max. UCS(parent)
enhancement indicate the
of stabilized ultimate
peat usingunconfined
silica fume compressive
was due to the
strengthof
formation ofcalcium
treated and untreated
silicate (C–S) peat, respectively.
and calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gels [35]. Similarly,
Figure 7 shows
the effectiveness of OPC the SDI results
in peat soilof has
stabilized
been and parent peat
previously cured for
reported 7, 14, and
[8,36,37]. 28
However,
days. Based on the untreated peat UCS value (42.94 kPa) and
the strength enhancements of SF- and OPC-stabilized peat with curing were different duethe targeted UCS value (345
kPa), an SDI of 7.03 was calculated, as indicated in Figure 7. It was observed that the par-
to the differences in hydration rate. Comparatively, SF led to higher strength enhancements
ent peat and almost all stabilized peat cured for 7 days fell below the targeted unconfined
than OPC due to peat’s acidic nature, which hindered the stabilization caused by OPC.
compression strength. After extending the curing period to 14 days, several mixes met the
Additionally,
minimum strength the detrimental
criteria: peat and environmental
20% SF; peat, 10% effectSF, of
andOPC
10%hasOPC; hindered
peat, 5% its
OPC,applica-
tions.
and 15% SF; and peat, 15% OPC, and 15% SF. All the stabilized peat mixes met the mini- peat
For the sake of comparison, OPC was replaced by different amounts of SF for
stabilization, as shown
mum UCS criteria advised Figures
by ASTM 4 and D 5.4609Toafter
assess the of
28 days combined
curing, aseffect
shownofinSF and OPC,
Figures
three
6 and 7. A slower development of UCS when using OPC compared to when using SF10%
different mix combinations were made: 5% SF and 15% OPC, 10% SF and was OPC,
andobserved
15% SF here
and and
5% OPC. previouslyThe cumulative quantity
in [41]. Considering theoftargeted
bindersSDI was keptofat7.03,
value 20%both because
theOPC treated
highest peat cured
strength for 28Intan
of Teluk days peat
and SF wastreated
achievedpeat cured for 14SF
with 20% days encouraged
content. Moreover,
subgrade
Kalantari et improvement.
al. [8] suggested a 20% cumulative OPC and SF binder for peat stabilization.
Figure 4a–c shows the 7, 14, and 28 day curing-strengths of SF (5, 10, and 15%) and OPC
(5, 10, and 15%), respectively. Figure 5. indicates the strength obtained by using 15% SF,
as advised by Kalantari et al. [8], and a trail mix of adopting 15% OPC and 15% SF. It can
be observed that the achieved strength was higher than the parent peat due to its fine
pozzolanic nature. However, the gained strength was still lower than the strength obtained
when using 20% SF. Comparatively, the strength gained by using SF was higher compared
to that gained by using OPC; this may have been due to the extremely fine size of silica
fume, which is also approximately 120–200% more pozzolanic than OPC [35]. Moreover,
the presence of humic acid in peat soil reduces the efficiency of OPC by retarding strength
enhancement. For this reason, Axelsson et al. [38] suggested utilizing a surplus amount of
OPC to neutralize the humic acid. Thus, using SF (a waste material and effective binder) to
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 10 of 22

enhance the strength of peat is a more cost-efficient and sustainable solution than using
OPC. Combining SF and OPC for strength development is associated with pozzolanic reac-
tions and the development of calcium silicate (CS), calcium aluminate hydrate (C–A–H),
calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) bonds, and ettringite (AFt) formation [7,8,39].

3.3.2. Strength Development by Various Mix Designs

ASTM D 4609 (Standard Guide for Evaluating Effectiveness of Admixtures for Soil
Stabilization) specifies a UCS value of 345 kPa for a stabilized soil to be considered an
effective binder, as shown in Figure 6 [29]. As such, the strength development index
(SDI) obtained with Equation (1) is used, to assess the influence of various mix designs on
peat strength [40].

Max. UCS (stabilized) − Max. UCS (parent)

SDI = (1)
Max. UCS (parent)
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24
where Max. UCS(stabilized) and Max. UCS(parent) indicate the ultimate unconfined compres-
sive strength of treated and untreated peat, respectively.

1400 7 days 14 days 28 days Target UCS value

1200 1063.94
Target UCS = 345 kPa

784.43
1000
UCS (kPa)

508.86
800

510.96
534.7

456.54
415.15
409.47

393.57

409.64
362.65

365.64

600
357.84
331.66

317.83
263.42
258.82
296.69
256.76
228.41

226.97

214.66

400
151.06
126.85
42.94

200

Figure 6. Comparing
Figure 6. Comparing the
the compressive
compressive strength
strength of
of untreated
untreatedpeat
peatand
andstabilized
stabilizedpeat
peatafter
after7,7,14,
14,and
and28
28days
daysof
ofcuring.
curing.

Figure 7 shows the SDI results of stabilized and parent peat cured for 7, 14, and
287days.
days (SDI) 14 days (SDI)
Based on the untreated 28 days
peat UCS value (SDI)
(42.94 Target
kPa) and the SDI UCS value
targeted
30.00
23.78

(345 kPa), an SDI of 7.03 was calculated, as indicated in Figure 7. It was observed that
the parent peat and almost all stabilized peat cured for 7 days fell below the targeted
25.00 unconfined compression strength. After extending the curing period to 14 days, several
mixes met the minimum strength criteria: peat and 20% SF; peat, 10% SF, and 10% OPC;
17.27

20.00 peat, 5% OPC, and 15% SF; and peat, 15% OPC, and 15% SF. All the stabilized peat mixes
met the minimum UCS criteria advised by ASTM D 4609 after 28 days of curing, as shown
11.45

Target SDI = 7.03 6 and 7. A slower development of UCS when using OPC compared to when
SDI

in Figures
10.85

15.00
10.90
9.63

using SF was observed here and previously in [41]. Considering the targeted SDI value
8.54

8.67
8.17

8.54

of 7.03, both OPC treated peat cured for 28 days and SF treated peat cured for 14 days
7.45

7.52
6.72

7.33
5.03

10.00
6.40
4.98

5.13
5.91

encouraged subgrade improvement.

4.29

4.00
4.32

2.52

5.00
1.95

0.00
 0

Materials 2021, 14, 7315 11 of 22

Figure 6. Comparing the compressive strength of untreated peat and stabilized peat after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing.

7 days (SDI) 14 days (SDI) 28 days (SDI) Target SDI

30.00

23.78
25.00

17.27
20.00

11.45
Target SDI = 7.03
SDI

10.85
15.00

10.90
9.63
8.54

8.67
8.17

8.54
7.45

7.52
6.72

7.33
5.03
10.00

6.40
4.98

5.13
5.91

4.29

4.00
4.32

2.52
5.00
1.95

0.00

Figure 7. Strength development index (SDI) of all mixes after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing.
Figure 7. Strength development index (SDI) of all mixes after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing.
3.3.3. Binder’s Effect on the Failure Modes
3.3.3.The
Binder’s Effect
presence on theand
of fibers Failure Modes
partially decomposed vegetation induces structural anisotropy
The thus
in peat, presence of fibers
affecting and partially modes
the compression decomposed vegetation
of failure [42]. The induces
failurestructural
modes ofani-
the
sotropy in peat,
parent Teluk thus
Intan peataffecting the compression
and stabilized modes of
peat are presented failure 8.[42].
in Figure The
It can befailure
observedmodes
that
of
thethe parent
failure Telukchanged
pattern Intan peat andthe
with stabilized peat of
stabilization arepeat.
presented in Figure
Moreover, 8. It can
the failure be ob-
behavior
served
changed that thebinder
with failuredosages
pattern changed with the
due to changes instabilization
density [43].of peat. Moreover, the failure
Duechanged
behavior to the high
withfiber and dosages
binder organic due
content, the parent
to changes peat underwent
in density [43]. bulging with
an unrecognized failure plane upon axial compressive loading, as shown in Figure 8.
However, it was observed that the utilization of hydraulic binders increased stiffness
and thus led to a change in the failure mode. This type of failure mode is associated
with ductile behavior [44]. The bulging failure mode subsided, and a compressive V-
shaped failure pattern was observed in the 10% SF and 15% OPC treated UCS samples,
which indicated a reduction in the ductility with the use of a hydraulic binder. On the
other hand, a clear shear failure pattern was noticed in the 15% SF treated peat due to
its increased stiffness causing brittleness. In the same way, steep sheerness and high brit-
tleness with bursting failure, causing the destruction of the entire UCS specimen, were
observed in the 20% SF treated peat and the 15% SF and 15% OPC treated peat, as shown
in Figure 8. This means that the incorporation of higher hydraulic binders caused a pre-
dominant failure plane that induced brittleness. This brittle behavior has been previously
reported to be caused by increasing amounts of hydraulic binder [44,45]. Additionally, non-
recognizable compressive collapsible failure was noticed in the 5% OPC and 15% SF, 10%
OPC and 10% SF, and 15% OPC and 5% SF treated peat, as shown in Figure 8, indicating
its structural heterogeneity. Thus, additives such as fibers, shredded tires, and geofoam
materials are recommended in tandem with hydraulic binders in peat to limit brittle and
collapsible failure.
 that the incorporation of higher hydraulic binders caused a predominant failure plane that
induced brittleness. This brittle behavior has been previously reported to be caused by
increasing amounts of hydraulic binder [44,45]. Additionally, non-recognizable compres-
sive collapsible failure was noticed in the 5% OPC and 15% SF, 10% OPC and 10% SF, and
15% OPC and 5% SF treated peat, as shown in Figure 8, indicating its structural heteroge-
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 12 of 22
neity. Thus, additives such as fibers, shredded tires, and geofoam materials are recom-
mended in tandem with hydraulic binders in peat to limit brittle and collapsible failure.

2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

Figure 8. Failure modes of the

Figure 8. stabilized and parent
Failure modes peat.
of the stabilized and parent peat.

3.3.4. CBR and Comparison

The CBR test is an essential test conducted to estimate the shearing resistance
(strength) of a subgrade or subbase of pavement. It is used to examine the durability, ef-
ficiencies, and thus overall performance of a pavement foundation material. The subgrade
can either be a natural existing ground (original subgrade) or an embankment constructed
from borrowed material (new subgrade). In both cases, the minimum permissible CBR
value for subgrade is 10% [46], and the relative ratings of the shearing resistance based on
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 13 of 22

3.3.4. CBR and Comparison

The CBR test is an essential test conducted to estimate the shearing resistance (strength)
of a subgrade or subbase of pavement. It is used to examine the durability, efficiencies,
and thus overall performance of a pavement foundation material. The subgrade can either
be a natural existing ground (original subgrade) or an embankment constructed from
borrowed material (new subgrade). In both cases, the minimum permissible CBR value
for subgrade is 10% [46], and the relative ratings of the shearing resistance based on CBR
values are given in Table 6 [47].
Table 6. Relative ratings of CBR values for subgrade.
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

Material CBR Value (%) Rating/Remarks

Subgrade <5 Very poor
calcium silicate
Subgradehydrate (C–S–H) gel and calcium5–10 silicate (CS) [7,52], while the combined
Poor–fair
effect of SF and
SubgradeOPC may be associated with the
10–20 formation of calcium silicate (CS) and
Fair–good
hydrated Subgrade
components as a result of hydration, i.e.,
20–30 calcium aluminate hydrate (C–A–H),
Very good
calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gel, and AFt formation. [1]. Moreover, the development
of greater interfacial
The soaked andconfinement
unsoaked bonding,
CBR values roughness, contact
of treated andarea, and friction
untreated Telukmobili-
Intan peat
zation upon the loading of the stabilized peat yielded higher CBR values [53].
cured for 7, 14, and 28 days are presented in Figures 9–11, respectively. The parent Teluk Compara-
tively, the strength gains caused by the combined SF and OPC was higher than the other
Intan peat showed extremely low soaked and unsoaked CBR values of 1.1% and 3.1%,
treatments. About 1054%, 1145%, and 1163% CBR was recorded by 15% SF and 15% OPC
respectively. In the literature, the unsoaked CBR value of undisturbed peat has been shown
treated peat after curing for 7, 14, and 28 days of curing, respectively. However, OPC is
toexpensive
be as lowand as causes
0.785%environmentally
[48] and ranging from 2.43
hazardous to 5.66%
effects, [49–51].isThe
so its adoption Table 6 ratings
discouraged.
suggest that Teluk Intan peat very poor in strength for subgrade materials
Therefore, SF, which is an industrial by-product waste that is cementitious, is a more and sus-
need to be
treated toand
tainable enhance their shearing
cost-effective resistance.
binder than OPC.

Figure
Figure 9. (a)9.The
(a) The 7 days
7 days cured
cured soakedand
soaked andunsoaked
unsoaked CBR
CBRvalues
valuesofof
treated andand
treated untreated Teluk
untreated IntanIntan
Teluk peat; (b) changes
peat; in
(b) changes in
soaked and unsoaked CBR values after treatment.
soaked and unsoaked CBR values after treatment.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 14 of 22
Materials2021,
Materials 2021,14,
14,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 1515ofof2424

10. (a)10.
FigureFigure
Figure The
10. (a)14
(a) Thedays
The cured
1414days
days soaked
cured
cured and
soaked
soaked unsoaked
and
and unsoaked
unsoaked CBR
CBR
CBR values
valuesof
values treated
ofoftreated and
treatedand untreated
anduntreated Teluk
untreatedTeluk
Teluk Intan
Intan
Intan peat;
peat;
peat; (b)(b)
(b) changes in
changes
changes
in
in the
the soaked
soaked and
and unsoaked
unsoaked CBR
CBR values
values after
after
the soaked and unsoaked CBR values after treatment. treatment.
treatment.

11. (a)11.
FigureFigure
Figure The
11. (a)28
(a) Thedays
The cured
2828days
days soaked
cured
cured and
soaked
soaked unsoaked
and
and unsoaked
unsoaked CBR
CBR
CBR values
valuesof
values treated
ofoftreated and
treatedand untreated
anduntreated Teluk
untreatedTeluk
Teluk Intan
Intan
Intan peat;
peat;
peat; (b)(b)
(b) changes in
changes
changes
ininthe
the soaked theand
soaked
soaked andunsoaked
and
unsoaked unsoaked CBRvalues
CBR
CBR values values aftertreatment.
afterafter treatment.
treatment.

The treatment of Teluk Intan peat with hydraulic binders (SF and OPC) showed
substantial improvements of the CBR value after curing for 7, 14, and 28 days. As noticed
in Figure 9a, all the designated mixes obtained a higher unsoaked CBR value than 10 after
7 days of curing, which indicated their suitability as subgrade materials. The highest CBR
value of the specimens cured for 7 days specimens was obtained by treating peat with 15% SF
and 15% OPC, as shown in Figure 9b. Similarly to UCS, CBR was increased after prolonging
the curing period due to pozzolanic reactions, as shown in Figures 10 and 11. Moreover, the
CBR of the stabilized peat increased with the increasing SF and OPC contents. Even the
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 15 of 22

soaked samples of peat; 20% SF and peat; and 15% OPC, and 15% SF achieved CBR values
of more than 10, indicating their feasibility as subgrade materials. The observed strength
enhancement due to SF may be associated with the formation of calcium silicate hydrate
(C–S–H) gel and calcium silicate (CS) [7,52], while the combined effect of SF and OPC
may be associated with the formation of calcium silicate (CS) and hydrated components
as a result of hydration, i.e., calcium aluminate hydrate (C–A–H), calcium silicate hydrate
(C–S–H) gel, and AFt formation. [1]. Moreover, the development of greater interfacial
confinement bonding, roughness, contact area, and friction mobilization upon the loading
of the stabilized peat yielded higher CBR values [53]. Comparatively, the strength gains
caused by the combined SF and OPC was higher than the other treatments. About 1054%,
1145%, and 1163% CBR was recorded by 15% SF and 15% OPC treated peat after curing
for 7, 14, and 28 days of curing, respectively. However, OPC is expensive and causes
environmentally hazardous effects, so its adoption is discouraged. Therefore, SF, which is
an industrial by-product waste that is cementitious, is a more sustainable and cost-effective
binder than OPC.

3.4. Morphological Variations

SEM was used to reveal the morphology of the parent and treated Teluk Intan peat.
The internal mineralogical formation upon the application of hydraulic binders, i.e., silica
fume (SF) and OPC, significantly alter the strength of the peat soil.
It can be observed in Figure 12a that the internal structure of the parent peat consisted
of hollow cavities/pores that were flaky and loosely packed, as well as spongy organic
matter. Typically, organic matter is hollow and spongy in nature, so they possess a high
water-holding capacity upon saturation [10,33]. The same morphology of Malaysian peat
has been reported by other researchers [10,30,54–57]. These are the features of parent
Teluk Intan peat that are responsible for its low UCS and CBR values, as observed during
the mechanical testing. On the other hand, a more dense and compacted microstructure
compared to parent peat was observed in the 28 days cured SF peat and the SF- and OPC-
stabilized peat, as shown in Figure 12b,c, respectively. The formation of hydration products,
i.e., C–S–H gel, C–A–H, and Aft, caused a reduction in the micropores, thus yielding a
dense and compact matrix of peat that reasonably enhanced its strength [54,58,59].

3.5. Statistical Correlations

To elucidate the interdependency of SF-stabilized peat soil parameters, the statistical
correlations among the UCS, CBR (soaked and unsoaked), and SF content were evaluated.
The use of correlations is a well-established and widely adopted technique to investigate
the effect of one parameter on others. Moreover, it can be used to indicate the closeness of
experimentally investigated values to a tailored trend (regression) line that ranges from 0 to
1 via the coefficient of determination (R2 ). Generally, any regression model that possesses
an R2 value equal to or close to 1 is considered a more effective predictive model than one
near zero. Several studies have adopted the statistical correlation method to identify the
effect of one parameter on others [60–62].

3.5.1. Compaction Parameters Correlations

The OMC and MDD have significant effects on the engineering properties of soil.
A highly significant statistical correlations (R2 > 0.96) among the compaction parame-
ters and the increasing amount of silica fume, as shown in Figure 13. In Figure 13a,
two linear significant regression models can be seen, thus indicating an increasing trend
in the maximum dry density and a decreasing trend in the OMC with the increased
amount of SF content. Moreover, a significant correlation among the OMC and MDD of SF-
stabilized peat were observed in the range of 10–20% of silica fume content, as illustrated in
Figure 13b. It can be seen that MDD predominantly decreased with the increasing amounts
of OMC, which could also be clearly observed in the mechanical characteristics.
 luk Intan peat that are responsible for its low UCS and CBR values, as observed during
the mechanical testing. On the other hand, a more dense and compacted microstructure
compared to parent peat was observed in the 28 days cured SF peat and the SF- and OPC-
stabilized peat, as shown in Figure 12b and 12c, respectively. The formation of hydration
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 products, i.e., C–S–H gel, C–A–H, and Aft, caused a reduction in the micropores, 16 thus
of 22
yielding a dense and compact matrix of peat that reasonably enhanced its strength
[54,58,59].

Air
Voids

Compact mass
Loose organic matter

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

The (a)
use of correlations is a well-established and widely
(b)adopted technique to investigate
the effect of one parameter on others. Moreover, it can be used to indicate the closeness of
experimentally investigated values to a tailored trend (regression) line that ranges from 0
to 1 via the coefficient ofDense
determination
Matrix (R ). Generally, any regression model that pos-
2

sesses an R value equal to or close to 1 is considered a more effective predictive model

2

than one near zero. Several studies have adopted the statistical correlation method to iden-
tify the effect of one parameter on others [60–62].

3.5.1. Compaction Parameters Correlations

The OMC and MDD have significant effects on the engineering properties of soil. A
highly significant statistical correlations (R2 > 0.96) among the compaction parameters and
the increasing amount of silica fume, as shown in Figure 13. In Figure 13a, two linear
significant regression models can be seen, thus indicating an increasing trend in the max-
imum dry density and a decreasing trend in the OMC with the increased amount of SF
content. Moreover, a significant correlation among the OMC and MDD of SF-stabilized
peat were observed in the range of 10–20% of silica fume content, as illustrated in Figure
13b. It can be seen that MDD(c)predominantly decreased with the increasing amounts of
OMC,
Figure 12. Micrographs which and
of treated could also bepeat:
untreated clearly observed
(a) peat; in the
(b) peat and mechanical characteristics.
SF; and (c) peat, SF, and OPC.
Figure 12. Micrographs of treated and untreated peat: (a) peat; (b) peat and SF; and (c) peat, SF, and OPC.

3.5. Statistical Correlations

To elucidate the interdependency of SF-stabilized peat soil parameters, the statistical
correlations among the UCS, CBR (soaked and unsoaked), and SF content were evaluated.

Figure 13. Statistical correlation among the peat compaction parameters: (a) variation
variation of OMC and MDD with SF content
and
and (b)
(b) variation
variation of
of MDD
MDD with
with the OMC of
the OMC of SF-stabilized
SF-stabilized peat.
peat.

3.5.2. Mechanical Strength Parameters and Binders Dosage Effects

Binder content plays a vital role in peat stabilization, as observed from our mechan-
ical property testing and previous studies. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the statistical cor-
relations among UCS–SF, CBR–SF, and UCS–CBR content, respectively. Figure 14 shows
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 17 of 22

3.5.2. Mechanical Strength Parameters and Binders Dosage Effects

Binder content plays a vital role in peat stabilization, as observed from our mechanical
property testing and previous studies. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the statistical correlations
among UCS–SF, CBR–SF, and UCS–CBR content, respectively. Figure 14 shows a strong
quadratic model (R2 > 0.90) among the UCS and SF contents for the 7, 14, and 28 day curing
periods. Using Equations (2)–(4), the unconfined compression strength was predicted for
the stabilized peat cured for 7, 14, and 28 days, respectively.

(UCS)7days = 13.336 × (SF) + 30.78 (2)

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW (UCS)14days = 23.56 × (SF) + 19.377 18 of 24
(3)

(UCS)2 days = 2.8393 × (SF)2 − 9.4609 × (SF) + 61.567 (4)

Similar
SimilartotoUCS–SF
UCS–SFcontent
contentrelationship,
relationship,effective
effectivemodels
modelswere weredeveloped
developedtotopredict
predict
theCBR
the CBRvalues
values (soaked
(soaked andand unsoaked)
unsoaked) of varying
of varying SF contents
SF contents after after
curing curing stabilized
stabilized peat
peat
for for and
7, 14, 7, 14,
28and
days,28 as
days,
shown as shown
in Figure in Figure 15a–c. Likewise,
15a–c. Likewise, the regression
the regression models
models shown
inshown
Figurein16a–c
Figure 16a–c
were were developed
developed among the amongUCStheandUCSCBRand CBR (soaked
(soaked and unsoaked)
and unsoaked) of 10–
of 10–20% SF-stabilized peat after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. All
20% SF-stabilized peat after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing. All the developed models were the developed models
were statistically
statistically significant
significant and couldand becould be adapted
adapted to predict
to predict the UCS theand
UCS CBRand CBR values
values of stabi-of
stabilized
lized peatincorporates
peat that that incorporates10–20% 10–20%
of SF.of SF.
Moreover,the
Moreover, thestatistical
statistical mean
mean differences
differences among
among the the soaked
soaked and and unsoaked
unsoaked CBR
CBR val-
values
ues afterafter 7, and
7, 14, 14, and 28 days
28 days of curing
of curing were were obtained
obtained withwith a Student’s
a Student’s t-test,
t-test, which
which is ais
widely adopted statistical test that was developed by William Sealy Gosset in 1905. It isIt
a widely adopted statistical test that was developed by William Sealy Gosset in 1905.
is used
used to investigate
to investigate significant
significant differences
differences between
between thethe means
means of two
of two setssets of data,
of data, with
with a
a significance level of 0.05 (α = 0.05). Several remarkable studies have
significance level of 0.05 (α = 0.05). Several remarkable studies have used the t-test to as- used the t-test to
assess
sess statistically
statistically significant
significant differences
differences among
among experimentaldata
experimental data[63–65].
[63–65].Table
Table77shows
shows
the variability of the CBR results and the effect of soaking on the CBR value after 7,7,14,
the variability of the CBR results and the effect of soaking on the CBR value after 14,
and 28 days of curing. It can be observed that the statistically significant
and 28 days of curing. It can be observed that the statistically significant differences be- differences
between
tween the the soaked
soaked and and unsoaked
unsoaked CBRCBR valuesvalues vanished
vanished as curing
as curing time increased.
time increased. This
This may
may have been due to the hydration of SF causing the matrix
have been due to the hydration of SF causing the matrix of peat to be cemented afterof peat to be cemented after
propercuring,
proper curing,thus
thusreducing
reducingthe thestrength-degrading
strength-degradingeffect effectofofsoaking.
soaking.

7 Days Curing
y = 2.8393x2 - 9.4609x + 61.567
1200 R² = 0.9306
14 Days Curing
1000 28 Days Curing

Linear (7 Days Curing)

800
Linear (14 Days Curing)
UCS (kPa)

y = 23.56x + 19.377
600 Poly. (28 Days Curing) R² = 0.9612

400

200 y = 13.336x + 30.78

R² = 0.9462
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
SF Content (%)
Figure14.
Figure Thestatistical
14.The statisticalrelationship
relationship between
between the
the increasing
increasing amounts
amounts of of
SFSF and
and UCS
UCS obtained
obtained after
after 7, 14,
7, 14, andand 28 days
28 days of
of curing.
curing.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 18 of 22
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

28 days cured
45
Soaked
40
Unsoaked
35 Linear (Soaked)
30 Linear (Unsoaked)
CBR (%)

y = 1.6726x + 1.1086
25
R² = 0.9431
20
15
10
y = 0.5891x + 1.1971
5 R² = 0.995
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
SF Content (%)

(c)
Figure
Figure 15.15. Statisticalrelationship
Statistical relationshipbetween
between increasing
increasing amounts
amountsofofSF
SFand
andCBR
CBR(soaked and
(soaked unsoaked)
and obtained
unsoaked) afterafter
obtained 7 (a),
7 (a),
14 (b), and 28 (c) days of curing.
14 (b), and 28 (c) days of curing.

Table 7. Statistical analysis results for the verification of the variable similarity of CBR values (soaked and unsoaked) of 7, 14,
and 28 days of curing.

7 Days 14 Days 28 Days

Mean 6.27 9.17 10.07
Variance 1.21 6.10 8.00
P (T ≤ t) one-tail 0.02 0.05 0.04
t Critical one-tail 2.13 2.13 2.13
P (T ≤ t) two-tail 0.04 0.10 0.09
t Critical two-tail 2.78 2.78 2.78
Statistically significant difference? Yes (p < 0.05) No (p > 0.05) No (p > 0.05)
Materials 2021, 14, 7315
x FOR PEER REVIEW 2019of
of 24
22

Figure 16.
Figure The
16. The statistical
statistical relationship
relationship between
between UCSUCS and (soaked
and CBR CBR (soaked and unsoaked)
and unsoaked) obtainedobtained after
after 7 (a), 7 (a),
14 (b), and1428(b),
(c)
and 28 (c) days
days of curing. of curing.
4. Conclusions
Table 7. Statistical analysis results for the verification of the variable similarity of CBR values
This
(soaked andstudy was of
unsoaked) aimed
7, 14, to
andquantify
28 days ofand assess the mechanical property variations
curing.
of peat resulting from the incorporation of hydraulic binders (SF and OPC) through a
systematic experimental procedure. In addition 7 Days 14 Days
to the index and 28 Days
compaction characteristics,
the experimentalMean program included UCS and6.27 9.17
CBR tests for mechanical property10.07
and binder
effectiveness Variance
assessments. The microstructural 1.21 details were obtained with 8.00
6.10 SEM. The
derived results were analyzed,
P (T ≤ t) one-tail and the following
0.02 conclusions were
0.05 drawn. 0.04
1. Telukt Critical
Intan peatone-tail 2.13
contains high water, organic, and fiber2.13 2.13 as an
contents; is classified
P (T ≤ t) two-tail 0.04 0.10
H3 level of humification that is acidic in nature; and possesses a low UCS 0.09
value of
42.94t kPa.
Critical two-tail 2.78 2.78 2.78
2.Statistically
Overall, significant
the MDD values increasedYes
difference? and(pthe OMC reduces
< 0.05) No (pwith increasing
> 0.05) No (pamounts
> 0.05) of
SF and OPC due to the involvement of hydraulic reactions.
3. Conclusions
4. Similar to MDD, the mechanical properties (UCS and CBR) of the stabilized peat
were enhanced
This study with increasing
was aimed amounts
to quantify of binders
and assess and longer
the mechanical curing periods.
property variationsThe
of
effectiveness of these binders was acceptable for highway subgrade improvement
peat resulting from the incorporation of hydraulic binders (SF and OPC) through a sys-
after 28 days of proper curing.
tematic experimental procedure. In addition to the index and compaction characteristics,
4. Considering the targeted SDI of 7.03, the strength development by SF more rapid
the experimental program included UCS and CBR tests for mechanical property and
than that of OPC.
binder effectiveness assessments. The microstructural details were obtained with SEM.
5. Both the hydraulic binders (SF and OPC) and their mixes enhanced strength but
The derived results were analyzed, and the following conclusions were drawn.
induced brittle failure after increasing the binder dosage.
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 20 of 22

6. The morphological studies revealed the hollow cavities/pores, spongy organic matter,
flaky and loosely packed internal structure of the parent peat, which evolved into a
compact matrix with strong interparticle bonds when using SF and OPC.
7. Effective statistical models were generated for the assessment of UCS and CBR (soaked
and unsoaked) with increasing amounts of SF ranging from 10 to 20% and curing
periods of 7, 14, and 28 days. Moreover, a strong correlation (R2 > 0.9) was observed
between the UCS and CBR (soaked and unsoaked) of SF-stabilized peat.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A. and M.H.S.; methodology, A.A. and M.H.S.; formal
analysis, A.A. and N.R.b.A.; investigation, A.A. and N.R.b.A.; writing—original draft preparation,
A.A.; writing—review and editing, M.H.S. and A.A.; supervision, M.H.S. and N.R.b.A.; project
administration, M.H.S., M.B. and M.E.M.; funding acquisition, M.H.S., M.B. and M.E.M. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research and APC were funded by the “Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS–University
College of Technology Sarawak”, grant number “015MD0-036”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the Malaysian government, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS, and University College of Technology Sarawak. Additionally, the assistance of OM
Materials (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd in providing the silica fume is highly acknowledged. Lastly, the first
author is thankful to Muhammad Safdar (UET-Peshawar) for his unending support and cooperation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.; Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Harahap, I.S.H.; Abad, S.V.A.N.K.; Khan, M.A. Physio-Chemical Properties,
Consolidation, and Stabilization of Tropical Peat Soil Using Traditional Soil Additives—A State of the Art Literature Review.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 3662–3678. [CrossRef]
2. Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.; Harahap, I.S.H.; Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Khan, M.A. Feasibility of Demolished Concrete and Scraped Tires
in Peat Stabilization—A Review on the Sustainable approach in Stabilization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Second International
Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs, Sakheer, Bahrain, 11–12 November
2020; pp. 1–5.
3. Muhammad, N.; Siddiqua, S. Full factorial design for optimization of magnesium alkalinization additive. Transp. Geotech. 2019,
21, 100294. [CrossRef]
4. Vincevica-Gaile, Z.; Teppand, T.; Kriipsalu, M.; Krievans, M.; Jani, Y.; Klavins, M.; Setyobudi, R.H.; Grinfelde, I.; Rudovica, V.;
Tamm, T.; et al. Towards Sustainable Soil Stabilization in Peatlands: Secondary Raw Materials as an Alternative. Sustainability
2021, 13, 6726. [CrossRef]
5. Mahmood, A.A.; Hussain, M.K.; Mohamad, S.N.A. Use of palm oil fuel ash (POFA)-stabilized Sarawak peat composite for road
subbase. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 20, 505–511. [CrossRef]
6. Panesar, D.K. Supplementary Cementing Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 55–85. [CrossRef]
7. Kalantari, B.; Prasad, A.; Huat, B.B.K. Cement and Silica Fume Treated Columns to Improve Peat Ground. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2012,
38, 805–816. [CrossRef]
8. Kalantari, B.; Prasad, A.; Huat, B.B.K. Stabilising peat soil with cement and silica fume. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 2011,
164, 33–39. [CrossRef]
9. Rikmann, E.; Zekker, I.; Teppand, T.; Pallav, V.; Shanskiy, M.; Mäeorg, U.; Tenno, T.; Burlakovs, J.; Liiv, J. Relationship between
Phase Composition and Mechanical Properties of Peat Soils Stabilized Using Oil Shale Ash and Pozzolanic Additive. Water 2021,
13, 942. [CrossRef]
10. Wong, L.S.; Hashim, R.; Ali, F. Improved strength and reduced permeability of stabilized peat: Focus on application of kaolin as a
pozzolanic additive. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 40, 783–792. [CrossRef]
11. Hebib, S.; Farrell, E.R. Some experiences on the stabilization of Irish peats. Can. Geotech. J. 2003, 40, 107–120. [CrossRef]
12. Sariosseiri, F.; Muhunthan, B. Effect of cement treatment on geotechnical properties of some Washington State soils. Eng. Geol.
2009, 104, 119–125. [CrossRef]
13. ASTM International. ASTM-D2166/D2166M-16, Standard Test. Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
14. Kaniraj, S.R.; Gayathri, V. Factors Influencing the Strength of Cement Fly Ash Base Courses. J. Transp. Eng. 2003, 129, 538–548. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 21 of 22

15. ASTM International. ASTM-D1883-16, Standard Test. Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted Soils; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016. Available online: http://www.astm.org/Standards/D4429.htm (accessed on
10 March 2021).
16. ASTM International. ASTM-D698-12, Standard Test. Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort
(12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
17. El Mouchi, A.; Siddiqua, S.; Wijewickreme, D.; Polinder, H. A Review to Develop new Correlations for Geotechnical Properties of
Organic Soils. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2021, 39, 3315–3336. [CrossRef]
18. Haut, B. Problematic Soils; Universiti Putra Malaysia Press: Serdang, Malaysia, 2004.
19. ASTM International. ASTM D4427-13, Standard Classification of Peat Samples by Laboratory Testing 1; ASTM International: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
20. ASTM International. ASTM:D2974-00, Standard Test. Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2000.
21. Hashim, R.; Islam, S. Engineering Properties of Peat Soils in Peninsular, Malaysia. J. Appl. Sci. 2008, 8, 4215–4219. [CrossRef]
22. Youventharan, D.; Arif, S.M.; Rokiah, O. Ultimate bearing capacity of peat treated with cement columns in physical model.
In Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Wind and Earthquake Engineering & International Seminar on Sustainable
Construction Engineering (NCWE & ISSCE 2019), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2–13 July 2019; pp. 1–7.
23. Landva, A.O.; Pheeney, P.E. Peat fabric and structure. Can. Geotech. J. 1980, 17, 416–435. [CrossRef]
24. ASTM International. ASTM_D854-14, Standard Test. Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014. Available online: www.astm.org (accessed on 15 February 2021).
25. ASTM International. ASTM_D4318-10, Standard Test. Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
26. ASTM International. ASTM_D2434-19, Standard Test. Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head); ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019. [CrossRef]
27. ASTM International. ASTM:D1997-91, Standard Test. Method for Laboratory Determination of the Fiber Content of Peat Samples by Dry
Mass; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2001.
28. Cai, G.; Liu, S. Compaction and mechanical characteristics and stabilization mechanism of carbonated reactive MgO-stabilized
silt. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 2641–2654. [CrossRef]
29. Paul, A.; Hussain, M. Cement Stabilization of Indian Peat: An Experimental Investigation. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020350. [CrossRef]
30. Rahman, Z.A.; Sulaiman, N.; Rahim, S.A.; Idris, W.M.R.; Lihan, T. Effect of cement additive and curing period on some engineering
properties of treated peat soil. Sains Malaysiana 2016, 45, 1679–1687.
31. Pashaki, E.A. Geomechanical properties of peat stabilized with cement and sand. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2017, 4, 19–25. [CrossRef]
32. Kalantari, B.; Huat, B.B.K. Peat soil stabilization, using Ordinary Portland Cement, Polypropylene fibers, and Air Curing
Technique, Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2008, 13, 1–13. Available online: http://www.ejge.com/2008/Ppr0888.pdf (accessed on
25 March 2021).
33. Kolay, P.K.; Rahman, A. Physico-geotechnical properties of peat and its stabilisation. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2016,
169, 206–216. [CrossRef]
34. Zain, N.H.M.; Zulastry, M.I. Compressive Strength of Peat Soil Treated with Waste Tyre Granules. In Proceedings of the Annual
International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, Singapore, 26–27 June 2019; pp. 185–192. [CrossRef]
35. Agarwal, S. Pozzolanic activity of various siliceous materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 1735–1739. [CrossRef]
36. Dehghanbanadaki, A.; Arefnia, A.; Keshtkarbanaeemoghadam, A.; Ahmad, K.; Motamedi, S.; Hashim, R. Evaluating the
compression index of fibrous peat treated with different binders. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 2017, 76, 575–586. [CrossRef]
37. Sing, W.L.; Hashim, R.; Ali, F.H. Behavior of Stabilized Peat Soils in Unconfined Compression Tests. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2008, 1,
274–279. [CrossRef]
38. Axelsson, K.; Johansson, S.; Andersson, R. 3rd Report: Stabilization of Organic Soils by Cement and Puzzolanic Reactions—
Feasibility Study, Linkoping (Sweden). 2002. Available online: www.swedgeo.se/sd/pdf/SD-R3E.pdf (accessed on
20 March 2021).
39. Kalantari, B.; Prasad, A.; Huat, B.B. Peat stabilization using cement, polypropylene and steel fibres. Géoméch. Eng. 2010, 2, 321–335.
[CrossRef]
40. Bhurtel, A.; Eisazadeh, A. Strength and Durability of Bottom Ash and Lime Stabilized Bangkok Clay. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2019,
24, 404–411. [CrossRef]
41. Yang, Y.; Wang, G.; Xie, S.; Tu, X.; Huang, X. Effect of mechanical property of cemented soil under the different pH value.
Appl. Clay Sci. 2013, 79, 19–24. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, L.; O’Kelly, B.C.; Nagel, T.; Vandamme, M.; Dangla, P.; Pereira, J.-M.; Ghabezloo, S. Tensile and Compressive Contributions of
Fibres in Peat; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2017; pp. 1466–1473.
43. Tiwari, N.; Satyam, N.; Shukla, S.K. An experimental study on micro-structural and geotechnical characteristics of expansive clay
mixed with EPS granules. Soils Found. 2020, 60, 705–713. [CrossRef]
44. Wahab, N.; Roshan, M.; Rashid, A.; Hezmi, M.; Jusoh, S.; Norsyahariati, N.N.; Tamassoki, S. Strength and Durability of
Cement-Treated Lateritic Soil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6430. [CrossRef]
Materials 2021, 14, 7315 22 of 22

45. Chenarboni, H.A.; Lajevardi, S.H.; MolaAbasi, H.; Zeighami, E. The effect of zeolite and cement stabilization on the mechanical
behavior of expansive soils. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 121630. [CrossRef]
46. Amadi, A.; Sadiku, S.; Abdullahi, M.; Danyaya, H. Case study of construction quality control monitoring and strength evaluation
of a lateritic pavement using the dynamic cone penetrometer. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2018, 11, 530–539. [CrossRef]
47. Schaefer, V.R.; White, D.J.; Ceylan, H.; Stevens, L.J. Design Guide for Improved Quality of Roadway Subgrades and Subbases,
Ames, United States. 2008. Available online: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/intrans_reports/46%0AThis (accessed on 20 March 2021).
48. Kalantari, B.; Huat, B.B.; Prasad, A. Effect of Polypropylene Fibers on the California Bearing Ratio of Air Cured Stabilized Tropical
Peat Soil. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2010, 3, 1–6. [CrossRef]
49. Muhardi, G.; Wibisono, H.; Febrie, R.Z. Peat soils stabilization using lime-cement mixture to prevent peat fires. In Proceedings of
the International Conference in Advanced Civil Environmental Engineering (ICAnCEE 2018), Bali, Indonesia, 24–25 October
2018; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
50. Ibrahim; Herius, A.; Fikri, J.; Ramadhinata, M.S. Maryani Stabilization of Peat Soils Using Petrasoil with Cement Viewed From
CBR Value and Free Compressive Strength Value Of Soils. J. Physics Conf. Ser. 2020, 1500. [CrossRef]
51. Putri, E.E.; Yuliet, R.; Harris, L.E.; Makinda, J. Stabilization of Rimbo Panjang peat soil using lightweight materials mixed with
cement as subgrade for road pavement. Int. J. Geomate. 2020, 18, 30–36. [CrossRef]
52. Bui, N.K.; Satomi, T.; Takahashi, H. Influence of industrial by-products and waste paper sludge ash on properties of recycled
aggregate concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 403–418. [CrossRef]
53. Sudhakaran, S.P.; Sharma, A.K.; Kolathayar, S. Soil Stabilization Using Bottom Ash and Areca Fiber: Experimental Investigations
and Reliability Analysis. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018169. [CrossRef]
54. Kolay, P.K.; Taib, S.N.L. Physical and geotechnical properties of tropical peat and its stabilization. In Bülent Topcuoğlu and Metin
Turan; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018; p. 13.
55. Tang, B.L.; Bakar, I.; Chan, C.M. Reutilization of organic and peat soils by deep cement mixing. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2011,
5, 87–92. [CrossRef]
56. Islam, M.S.; Hashim, R. Behaviour of stabilised peat: A field study. Sci. Res. Essays. 2010, 5, 2366–2374.
57. Sapar, N.I.F.; Matlan, S.J.; Mohamad, H.M.; Alias, R. A study on physical and morphological characteristics of tropical peat in
sabah. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Technol. 2020, 11, 542–553. [CrossRef]
58. Amuda, A.G.; Hasan, A.; Unoi, D.N.D.; Linda, S.N. Strength and compressibility characteristics of amorphous tropical peat.
J. Geoengin. 2019, 14, 85–96. [CrossRef]
59. Islam, M.S.; Hashim, R. Bearing capacity of stabilised tropical peat by deep mixing method. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009,
3, 682–688. Available online: http://www.ajbasweb.com/ajbas/2009/682-688.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2021).
60. Ullah, Z.; Qureshi, M.I.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, S.U.; Javaid, M.F. An experimental study on the mechanical and durability properties
assessment of E-waste concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102177. [CrossRef]
61. Ahmad, A.; Adil, M.; Khalil, A.; Rahman, M. Mechanical properties and durability of boardcrete blocks prepared from recycled
cardboard. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 33, 101644. [CrossRef]
62. Jia, L.; Guo, J.; Jiang, Y.; Fu, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Lim, S.M.; Zhao, X. Experimental Investigation on Shear Strength Parameters of Lime
Stabilized Loess. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5397. [CrossRef]
63. Khan, M.I.; Sutanto, M.H.; Sunarjono, S.; Room, S.; Yusoff, N.I.M. Effect of Crumb Rubber, Epolene (EE-2), and Date Palm Ash as
Modifiers on the Performance of Binders and Mixtures: A Sustainable Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6484. [CrossRef]
64. Khan, M.I.; Huat, H.Y.; Dun, M.H.B.M.; Sutanto, M.H.; Jarghouyeh, E.N.; Zoorob, S.E. Effect of Irradiated and Non-
Irradiated Waste PET Based Cementitious Grouts on Flexural Strength of Semi-Flexible Pavement. Materials 2019, 12,
4133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Cui, Y.; Gao, K.; Zhang, P. Experimental and Statistical Study on Mechanical Characteristics of Geopolymer Concrete. Materials
2020, 13, 1651. [CrossRef]