Experimental investigations on ultimate bearing capacity of peat stabilized by a group of soil–cement column: a comparative study

Dehghanbanadaki, Ali; Ahmad, Kamarudin; Ali, Nazri

doi:10.1007/s11440-014-0328-x

Cited by 33 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, geotechnical engineers do face challenges due to inadequate basic tropical peat soil data for construction projects. There are only a few studies [11,[26][27][28][29] that have discussed the stabilization of highly organic soil or peat soil. It is difficult to determine the physical or index properties of peat soils due to high water content and variability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Tropical Peat and Its Stabilization

Kolay¹,

Taib²

2018

Peat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter presents the physical and engineering properties of tropical peat treated with various types of stabilizers. Quick lime (QL), fly ash (FA), and ordinary Portland cement (OPC) were used as stabilizers. The amounts of QL, FA, and OPC added with the peat samples are in the range of 2-8, 5-20, and 5-20%, respectively. Various physical or index and engineering tests have been conducted to characterize the peat samples. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests were conducted on original and treated peat samples cured for 7, 14, and 28 days. The results show that the UCS value increases with the increase of all stabilizers used and with curing period. The UCS tests were also conducted on the peat samples with the combination of QL and FA to study the combined effects of the stabilizers. The present study established different correlations between physical and engineering properties of original peat and UCS results on treated peat samples with different types of stabilizers. Geotechnical engineers can refer to these correlations to determine the bearing capacity of treated peat. In addition, scanning electron microscope (SEM) studies were conducted on original and treated peat samples to investigate the microstructure of the samples.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Tropical Peat and Its Stabilization

Kolay¹,

Taib²

2018

Peat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tank size was sufficiently large that its side-walls had negligible influence on the punching failure mode responses of the model footings (Dehghanbanadaki et al, 2016;Razali et al, 2013). At full penetration depth, peat layer thickness of >0•35 m remaining between the tank base and the bottom of the deepest footings was investigated.…”

Section: Peat Materials and Preparation Of Test Bedsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultralightweight foundation system for peaty ground

AminuIbrahim¹,

Asadi

O’KellyBrendan

et al. 2022

Environmental Geotechnics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construction on peat deposits represents a major challenge for the geotechnical community. Waterlogged peat deposits have great potential for buoyancy generation. The premise of the present investigation is that this can be beneficially incorporated in foundation design practice, thereby reducing the net bearing pressure and hence resulting settlements. A novel foundation system, comprising a bamboo frame (BF) structure incorporating recycled plastic block (RPB) inclusions, is presented for supporting lightweight structures bearing on peaty ground. The buoyancy effect is produced by the lower bulk density of the foundation construction materials combined with the waterlogged condition of the peat deposit. A programme of reduced-scale 1 g physical modelling was conducted to investigate the performance of BF- and BF–RPB-type footing bearing on remoulded peat with different water content and fibre content (FC) values. The mobilised undrained bearing capacity (q f) increased for lower-water-content and higher-FC peat materials. Deeper BF footings and the inclusion of the RPBs within their cavities significantly improved the mobilised q f value. Advantages of the presented foundation system over conventional solutions for peaty ground include its simple technology, reduced earthworks in construction, reduced settlement due to the buoyancy contribution and being more sustainable and economically viable.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the centrifugal model, the physical model, and full-scale experiments have been applied to observe the change in strength, load distribution, and the load-strain relationship along the SC columns (Bell, Baka, and Galagoda 2007;Chai, Liu, and Du 2002;Dehghanbanadaki, Ahmad, and Ali 2016;Frikha et al 2017;Shirvani and Shooshpasha 2015;Sukpunya and Jotisankasa 2016;Taheri and Tatsuoka 2015). The results of the research on the destructive mechanism, bearing capacity, and stability of the SC ground were also summarized by Bruce (2000) and Kitazume and Terashi (2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full-Scale Experimental Study on the Single and Group of Soil-Cement Columns under Vertical Load Applying for Buildings

Pham

Phan

et al. 2021

Geotechnical Testing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of in-situ research on the soil-cement (SC) column as the foundation of buildings. A physical model was constructed consisting of two single SC columns, one group of three SC columns (G1), and another group of five SC columns (G2) with a diameter of 0.6 m and a length of 7.5 m. Among ten experimental columns, four SC columns were instrumented by strain gages to determine the load transfer and analysis of the skin and toe resistance distributions along the depth of the SC columns. These columns were constructed by the wet mixing method according to Japanese technology with two static blades to increase the quality of the mixture. The bearing capacity of the single SC column was measured as 1,180 kN, and the top and toe displacements were measured to be approximately 36.6 mm and 27.7 mm, respectively. For the group of SC columns, the skin resistance of the center and outer columns decreased by 4.17 % and 16.16 %, respectively, in comparison to the single column. The toe resistance of the SC column in the groups was significantly lower than that of the single column, from 45.10 % for the group G1, and up to 60.78 % for the group G2. The effect of the group of SC columns was also determined from the experiment with the group coefficients around 0.664 for group G1 and 0.554 for group G2. The research results from the full-scale model are essential in evaluating the group effects of the SC columns, especially in applications for the foundation of buildings.

show abstract

Experimental investigations on ultimate bearing capacity of peat stabilized by a group of soil–cement column: a comparative study

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Tropical Peat and Its Stabilization

Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Tropical Peat and Its Stabilization

Ultralightweight foundation system for peaty ground

Full-Scale Experimental Study on the Single and Group of Soil-Cement Columns under Vertical Load Applying for Buildings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About