REPORT PROJECT (NEW).docx

LIST OF GROUP MEMBERS

ANIS AQILAH BINTI MURBA (DF160094)

MOHD ZULHAIRI BIN ABDUL RASHID (DF160049)

MUHAMMAD RAFDI BIN ROSLAN (DF160106)

NUR LIYANA BINTI BAHARRUDIN (DF160099)

NURUL AMIRAH BINTI AHMAD (DF160087)

SHEIKH MUHAMAD HISHAMUDDIN BIN SH IBRAHIM (DF160024)

1

ABSTRACT

This report provides information on the distribution and characteristics of peat an organic soil which is distributed in Malaysia. Peat, clays and residual soils are the ultimate soils in engineering terms. The behaviour of peat and other soils is usually determined using the concepts and methods developed for inorganic soil. However, important anomalies exist, and these are given emphasis in the present overview of the mechanical behaviour of these soils. Peat and other soils are difficult to sample and test using normal soil techniques, and in fact there is not even an adequate engineering system in place for classifying these soils. The characteristics and engineering properties of these soils are presented with respect to its earthwork and geotechnical performance. A preliminary classification system of tehse system of these soils are also proposed. From the study, it can be concluded that the cl ay from central west coast of Malaysia have high natural moisture content (w) which reaches 125%. Other  physical  physical parameters such as liquid limit (LL) is between 50 to 125%, unit weight (γ) is in the range of 13 to 18 kN/m3 and the average specific gravity (Gs) is 2.6. From the correlation derived, it shows that the undrained shear strength decreases with the increase in natural moisture content and liquidity index.

2

LIST OF CONTENTS

 NO

CONTENT

PAGES

1

INTRODUCTION

4-5

2

DATA COLLECTION

6-9

3

CLASSIFICATION ON SOIL

10

4

DATA ANALYSIS

11-20

5

RECOMMENDATION

21

6

CONCLUSION

22

7

REFERENCES

23-27

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As development proceeds at a rapid pace throughout the region, projects are increasingly being located on poor ground. Malaysia has considerable tracts of low lying land, which comprise strata that impose difficult design and construction conditions, due to the presence of soft clay or peat soils. Slope and embankment failures on poor ground during construction has become a  problem, and with the accelerated rate of development, this problem will certainly worsen unless proper planning and management of the site is adopted at an early stage of any  proposed construction. To improve understanding of the problems that likely to be encountered, the characteristics and engineering properties of the soft soil was determined in Malaysia. Emphasis will be made on addressing the selection of parameters for the design of slopes or deep excavation. Peat soils are formed from partially decomposed plant material under anaerobic water saturated conditions. They are found in peatlands (also called bogs or mires). Peatlands cover about 3% of the earth’s land mass. They also are found in the temperate (Northern Europe and America) and tropical regions (South East Asia, South America, South Africa and the Caribbean). Peat soils are classified as histosols which is high in organic matter content. Peat formation is influenced by moisture and temperature. In highly saturated anaerobic soils, decomposition of plant material by microorganism is slowed down, resulting in high carbon accumulation. In colder climates, decomposition of plant material by microorganism is slowed down leading to quicker peat formation. The carbon content of peat soils makes  peatland a major storage of carbon on the earth sur face. This is why it is important in fighting climate change can never be overemphasized. Clay soils are prevalent in many parts of United States, and it can be a real pain if we happen to decide that we want to plant a flower or vegetable in the garden. While many trees and shrubs grow well in clay, the roots of the majority of annuals, perennials, and vegetables are just aren’t strong enough to make their way through. Besides, bulbs tend to rot over the winter in clay soils. Clay soils is defined as soils with large fractions of fine particles such as silty and clayey soils, which have high moisture content, peat foundations and loose sand deposits, located near or under the water table (Kamon and Bergado, 1991).

4

Residual soils are products of chemical weathering and thus their characteristics are dependent upon environmental factors of climate, parent material, topography and drainage, and age. These conditions are optimized in the tropics where well-drained regions produce lateritic soils rich in iron and aluminium sesquioxides and kaolinitic clays. Conversely,  poorly drained areas tend towards montmorillonitic expansive black clays. Andosols develop over volcanic ash and rock regions and are rich in allophane (amorphous silica) and metastable halloysite. The geological origins greatly affect the resulting engineering characteristics. Both lateritic soils and andosols are susceptible to property changes upon drying, and exhibit compaction and strength properties not indicative of their classification limits. Both soils have been used successfully in earth dam construction, but attetntion must  be given to seepage control through the weathered rock. Conversely, black soils are unpopular for embankments. Lateritic soils respond to cement stabilization and, in some cases, lime stabilization. Andosols should also respond to lime treatment and cement treatments if proper mixing can be achieved. Black expansive residual soils respond to lime treatment by demonstrating strength gains and decreased expansiveness. Rainfall induced landslides are typical of residual soil deposits.

5

2.0 DATA COLLECTION Location

Author

Moisture content, W (%)

Specific Gravity, Gs

Liquid Limit, LL (%)

Plastic Limit, PL (%)

Plastic Index, PI (%)

Permeability, k (m/s)

33% 18

2.62 2.17

27% 22.5

17% 6.17

10% 16.33

320%

1.34

140

16.3

2.49

49.7

25.56

24.41

87%

1.59

245

155

90

21

2.65

86

34

52

0.916

23

2.61

32

18

14

0.555

23

2.64

52

22

30

1.344

61.5

2.49

72.5

39.5

31

12

2.58

34.6

17.7

16.9

13.8

2.49

43

29

14

4

2.51

35.2

18.13

17.07

12

2.67

63.5

25.7

37.8

12

2.65

83.12

30.3

11.56

12

2.66

60.17

45.67

14.5

12

2.78

53.5

38.67

14.83

Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)

Clay Pantai Dalam Sejingkat, Sarawak

M F Yusof Emiliani Anak Geliga, Dygku Salwa Awg Ismail Banting, Bujang B.K Selangor Huat, Shukri Mail, Thamer  Ahmed Mohamed Beruas Perak I. Johari S. Said, B. Hisham, A. Bakar, Z. A.  Ahmad Sibu Sanbaga R. Saniraj

Wakaf Tapai, Terengganu Brinchang, Pahang

Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim Mutiara Aminaton Rini, Johor Marto, Fauziah Kasim Butterworth, Huat et al. Perak Kuantan, Achmad Fauzi, Pahang Zuraidah Djauhari(2016) Ibadan, A.A.  Nigeria Bello(2015) Enugu, F. O.  Nigeria OKAFOR and U. N. OKONKWO Felda Lepar Achmad Hilir Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi Sport Achmad Center,UMP Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi Jalan Achmad Paching Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi Jalan Sungai Achmad

1.3 x 10^-4

82.53

108

14

14

6

Pinang Kuantan Brick Taman Tas

Balai Cerapan, UTM Port Tanjung Lepas Kuala Muda, Kedah Batu Pahat

Pontian

Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi Achmad Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi Achmad Fauzi,Wan Mohd Nazmi M F Yusof

12

2.65

47.5

34.92

12.58

12

2.64

40

27.42

12.58

33

2.62

27

17

10

Muzamir (2006)

27

2.49

107

37

70

Muzamir (2006)

24

2.61

72

42

30

A. H. Mat Nor, F. Pakir & M. E. Sanik (2015) Muzamir (2006)

28

2.31

73

29.12

43.88

26

2.39

88

31

57

Sadek Deboucha, Roslan Hashim,  Abu Bakar Alwi Sanbaga R. Kaniraj Sanbaga R. Kaniraj Felix N. L. Ling1 Felix N. L. Ling1

75

1.34

173.75

257

156

552

1.47

413

244

79

323

39.58

50.08

8.81

1.1×10^-9

0

Peat Kuala Selangor

Miri- Marudi Similajau Parit Nipah

Batu Puteh Pulai Chondong, Kelantan Sedenak, Johor Cyberjaya, Selangor UTHM

Senai, Johor

Kiara

Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim Rohayu Che Omar, Rashid Jaafar Meei-Hoan Ho and CheeMing Chan Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim M F Yusof

643 125.87 118.13

2.41 2.41

89.66 119.13

32.44 22

42.81 33

1.764

28

2.61

55

37

22

0.483

38

2.64

59

31

32

143

2.41

63

31.7

36.3

85

2.62

68

42

77

88

2.63

119

39

21

47.3

2.6

60

26

25

0.115

7

Mohd Faruq Bin Sa'adon Mohd Faruq Bin Sa'adon A. Zainorabidin & S. H. Mansor (2016) Behzad & Bujang

57

2.51

51

27

31

48

2.49

58

37

70

26

2.59

107

24

2.31

160

118.5

57.95

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Mohd Raihan Taha, Md. Kamal Hossain, Zamri Chik

31

2.55

69

24

43

0.011

Bukit Mertajam, Pulau Pinang

Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim

10

2.55

67

28

46

0.237

Tampin, Negeri Sembilan

Aminaton Marto, Fauziah Kasim

15

2.59

74

36

33

8KM SouthEast KL Balai Cerapan, UTM KL Tower Bukit dinding RanauKundasang, Sabah, Malaysia Kuala LumpurKarak Highway Sungai Buluh, Jalan Duta Damansara, Bukit Lanjan, Tapah dan Skudai Kuala Lumpur

Mohd Raihan Taha,Md Kamal Hossain (1998 Gambo Haruna Yunusa

31

2.6

69

31.9

27.4

32

2.65

59.3

31

19

M F Yusof M F Yusof Hennie, Asvirja, & William (2016)

49.7 29.6 28

2.51 2.61 2.81

50 53.4 21.57

27 14.82 45

26 6.75 50

Bujang, Faisal & Hashim (2007)

26

2.49

95

Ramli (1991)

22

2.59

90

36

33

120.7

Zulfahmi Ali Rahman, Umar Hamzah, Norsheila Sofhia Ithnain And Noorulakma  Ahmad

25

2.49

69

41

21

126

23

2.49

62

36

33

Langgar Pahang Tua Pontian, Johor

Kampung Jawa, Western Part of Malaysia

NP

9.02 4.89×10^-6

-

Residual

Malaysia

5.00×10^-7

1.84×10^-11 2.5-4.1×10^8

56

8

From the data collected, we can conclude that t he number of parameters we have are: i.

Moisture content, W : 50

ii.

Specific gravity, Gs : 50

iii.

Liquid limit, LL : 50

iv.

Plastic limit, PL : 47

v.

Plastic index, PI : 48

vi.

Permeability, k : 14

vii.

Shear strength, Cu : 8

9

3.0 CLASSIFICATION ON SOIL

There are two type classification of soil which is AASHTO or USCS. Based on the data, that have collected, most of the soil classification on AASHTO is A-7-6. Only about two data which the classification of AASHTO is A-7-7. There are also soil classification for USCS which include CH, SC, CL and SW. The data with soil classification of AASHTO is data with PI (%) 33, 16.9, 14, 17.07, 37.8, 11.56, 14.5, 14.83, and 12.58. Each of this data have different value which include A-76, A-7-7 and A-7-5. To conclude, most of soil classification data that have collected, is AASHTO. Only a few soil classification is USCS.

10

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS

Shear Strength Versus Moisture Content     ) 140    a 120    P     k     ( 100     h    t 80    g    n    e 60    r    t    S 40    r    a 20    e     h 0    S

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moisture Content (%) Clay

Peat

Residual

From the graph above, the maximum shear strength for clay is 108 kPa, minimum is 0 kPa, median with 14 kPa and mean with 37.89 kPa. For the peat, the maximum, minimum, median and mean of moisture content is 9.02 kPa. Lastly, is for residual, the maximum is 126 kPa, minimum is 120.7 kPa, median with 123.35 kPa and mean with 123.35 kPa.

Permeability Versus Moisture Content 2

    )    s     /    m1.5     (     k  ,    y    t    i     l    i 1     b    a    e 0.5    m    r    e    P

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Moisture Content, W (%) Clay

Peat

Residual

The maximum permeability for clay is 1.344 m/s, while minimum is 0.555 m/s, median with 0.916 m/s and mean with 0.9383 m/s. For peat, the maximum is 1.764 m/s, minimum is 0.115 m/s, median with 0.483 m/s and mean is 0.7873 m/s. Last one is residual, with maximum 0.237 m/s, minimum 0.011 m/s, median with 0.124 m/s and mean with 0.124 m/s.

11

4.1 What is a Boxplot?

A boxplot, or box and whisker diagram is a way to show the spread and centers of a data set. Measures of spread include the interquartile range and the mean of the data set. Measures of center include the mean or average and median (the middle of a data set). When you look at

a

boxplot,

it’s

much

easier

to

see

how

your

data

is

centered.

4.2 How to read a box plot

A boxplot is a way to show a five number summary in a chart. The main part of the chart (the “box”) shows where the middle portion of the data is: the interquartile range. The ends of the box show the first quartile (the 25% mark) and the third quartile (the 75% mark). The far left of the chart (at the end of the left “whisker”) is the minimum and the far right is the maximum. The median is represented by a vertical bar in the center of the box. Box plots aren’t used that much in statistics. However, they can be a useful tool for getting a quick summary of data.

12

4.3 How to read a box plot: Steps

Step 1 : Find the minimum.

The minimum is the far left hand side of the graph, at the tip of the left whisker. For this graph, the left whisker end is at approximately 0.75. Step 2 : Find Q1, the first quartile.

Q1 is represented by the far left hand side of the box. In this case, about 2.5. Step 3 : Find the median.

The median is represented by the vertical bar. In this boxplot, it can be found at about 6.5.

Step 4: Find Q3, the third quartile.

Q3 is the far right hand edge of the box, at about 12 in this graph. Step 5: Find the maximum.

The maximum is the end of the “whiskers”: in this graph, at approximately 16.

13

4.4 Box-Plot Moisture Content, W (%) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 4

Peat 24

Residual 10

12 25.5 27.5 320 36.63 316

42.65 75 122 643 69.03 619

22.75 27 31 49.70 29.59 39.70

23

15

12

700

600

500

    )    %     (    W400  ,    t    n    e    t    n    o    C    e    r    u    t 300    s    i    o    M

200

100

0 Clay

Peat Peak

Residual

Type of Soil

14

4.5 Box-Plot Specific Gravity, Gs Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 1.34

Peat 1.34

Residual 2.49

2.49 2.40 2.65 2.78 2.46

2.41 2.50 2.61 2.64 2.52

2.51 2.57 2.60 2.81 2.58

1.44

1.30

0.32

23

15

12

Peat Peak

Residual

3

2.5

2

   s    G  ,    y    t    i    v    a    r 1.5    G    c    i     f    i    c    e    p    S

1

0.5

0 Clay

Type of Soil

15

4.6 Box-Plot Liquid Limit, LL (%) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 22.50

Peat 51

Residual 21.57

37.60 53.50 78.06 245 67.58 222.50

59.50 89.66 139.57 413 127.90 362

57.83 68 70.25 95 64.94 73.43

23

15

12

450

400

350

300

    )    %     ( 250    L    L  ,    t    i    m    i    L     d    i 200    u    q    i    L

150

100

50

0 Clay

Peak

Residual

Type of Soil Peat

16

4.7 Box-Plot Plastic Limit, PL (%) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 6.17

Peat 22

Residual 14.82

19.10 29.06 36.48 155 33.68 148.83

31.18 37 41.40 257 70.30 235

27.50 31.90 36 45 31.88 30.18

22

15

11

300

250

200

    )    %     (    L    P  ,    t    i 150    m    i    L    c    i    t    s    a     l    P 100

50

0 Clay

Peak

Residual

Type of Soil Peat

17

4.8 Box-Plot Plastic Index, PI (%) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 10

Peat 21

Residual 6.75

14 16.99 36.10 90 28.66 80

31.25 39.56 66.99 156 52.37 135

24.75 33 43.75 56 32.85 49.25

22

14

12

180

160

140

120

    )    %     (    I 100    P  ,    x    e     d    n    I    c    i    t    s 80    a     l    P

60

40

20

0 Clay

Peat Peak

Residual

Type of Soil

18

4.9 Box-Plot Permeability, k (m/s) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 1.1E-09

Peat 0.00000489

Residual 1.84E-11

0.00013 0.56 0.92 1.34 0.56 1.34

0.086251223 0.30 0.80 1.76 0.59 1.76

0.000000041 0.0000005 0.01 0.24 0.05 0.24

5

4

5

Peak Peat

Residual

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

    )    s 1.2     /    m     (     k  ,    y    t    i     l    i 1     b    a    e    m    r    e    P 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Clay

Type of Soil

19

4.10 Box-Plot Shear Strength, Cu (kPa) Versus Type of Soil

Minimum q1 Median q3 Maximum Mean Range Number of Data

Clay 8.81

Peat 9.02

Residual 120.70

14 14 82.53 108 45.47 99.19

9.02 9.02 9.02 9.02 9.02 0

122.03 123.35 124.68 126 123.35 5.30

5

1

2

140

120

100

    )    a    P     k     ( 80    u    C  ,     h    t    g    n    e    r    t    S    r 60    a    e     h    S

40

20

0 Clay

Peat Peak

Residual

Type of Soil

20

5.0 RECOMMENDATION

This project was to prepare a soil parameters and properties in Malaysia for three types of soil which is peat soil, clay soils, and residual soils. The main objective of this  project is to apply what we learn about soils which is to classify soils in the given data. Furthermore, we can conclude that this project has widen our knowledge and expose us to various Geotechnical Engineering technical papers from researchers around Malaysia. We also faced some problem during collection of data from journal which is lack of data from Malaysian researchers. Therefore, we had made some recommendation for this project:

a) Students should experience in-site investigation to gain more knowledge from the experts  b) Include data from other country for wider comparison between Malaysia and other countries c) Students should doing more research and observation about the properties of soil that are mostly obtained in Malaysia

21

6.0 CONCLUSION

This report provides an overview of distribution and characteristics of clay soils, peat soils and residual soils in Malaysia. It could be noted that consistence of soils changes with the amount of moisture in the soil. Atterberg limits correspond to the moisture content at which a soil sample changes it’s consistence from one state to the other. Liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) are two important states of consistence. Liquid limit is the percentage moisture content at which a soil changes with decreasing wetness from the liquid to the  plastic consistence or with increasing wetness from the plastic to the liquid consistence, whereas the plastic limit is the percentage moisture content at which a soil changes with decreasing wetness from the plastic to the semi-solid consistence or from the semi-solid to the plastic consistence. Plastic index (PI) = LL  –   PL, is the moisture content range at which the soil remains plastic. The parameters obtained in the table was to characterize the soil. The water content is measured using procedures specified in ASTM D2974 or BS 1377. As a percentage of dry weight, the organic content is measured in the laboratory using a Loss on Ignition Test, ASTM D2974 or BS 1377 Part 3(4), or a Chemical Oxidation Test, BS 1377 Part 3(3). Besides, for Atterberg Limits, the fibres in peat make determination of the Atterberg limits difficult, and results depend strongly on the methods used to prepare the samples. In the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), peats soils are described as soils consisting ‘predominantly’ of plant remains, often with a distinctive smell. And as for organic clay, silt or sand, it contains ‘substantial amounts’ of vegetable matter.

22

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Prof Madya Dr Aminaton Marto (19 September 2005), Characterisation of Malaysian  Residual Soil for Geotechnical and Construction Engineering  2. Rohayu Che Omar & Rashid Jaafar (8 September 2000), The Characteristics and  Engineering Properties of Soft Soil at Cyberjaya 3. A Gardener's Guide to Understanding and Improving Clay Soil. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2017, from https://www.thespruce.com/understanding-and-improving-clay-soil-2539857

4. Suriawati

A/P

Ramamoorthy

(November

2007),

Correlation

of

Engineering

Characteristics of Marine Clay From Central West Coast Of Malaysia

5. Peat

Soils.

(2016,

October

17).

Retrieved

May

21,

2017,

from

https://permaculturenews.org/2016/10/17/peat-soils/ 

6. Muzamiar bin Hassan (November 2006),

The Correlation of Engineering

Characteristics of Johor 7. Adnan Zainorabidin and Habib Musa Mohamad 2017. Engineering Properties of Integrated Tropical Peat Soil in Malaysia. 8. Duraisamy, Y., Huat, B, B, K., Aziz A.A. 2007. “Engineering Properties and Compressibility Behaviour of Tropical Peat Soil”,  American Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(10): 768-773. 9. Aminur M. R., Kolay P. K., Taib S. N. L., Mohd Zain, M. I. S. and Kamal, A. A. 2011. Physical, Geotechnical and Morphological Characteristics of Peat Soils from Sarawak. Journal - The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Vol. 72, No. 4, December 2011). 10. Gofar N. and Sutejo Y., 2007. Long term compression behavior of fibrous peat. Malaysian J. Civil Eng 19. 11. Habib M. M., 2015. A master’s Thesis. Post -cyclic Behaviour of Malaysian Peat Soil. Universiti tun Hussien Onn Malaysia. 12. Habib M. M. and Adnan Z., 2015c. Pre- and Post-Cyclic Behavior on Monotonic Shear Strength of Penor Peat.  Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2015. Volume 20 (2015) Bundle 15. 20.16. 6928. 13. Hashim R. and Islam H. M. S., 2008a. A Model Study to Determine Engineering Properties of Peat Soil and Effect on Strength after Stabilisation. European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X Vol.22 No.2 (2008), pp.205-215. 23

14. Hashim R. and Islam H. M. S. 2008b. Properties of Stabilized Peat by Soil-Cement Column Method. EJGE, Vol. 13, Bund. J Hobbs NB (1986). Mire morphology and the properties and behavior of some British and foreign peats. Q. I. Eng. Geol., 19(1): 7-80. 15. Huat, B. B.K. 2004. Organic and Peat Soils Engineering. Universiti Putra Malaysia Press, Serdang, Malaysia, pp. 20-80. 16. Zolkefle S. N. A. 2014. The Dynamic Characteristic of Southwest Johor Peat under Different frequencies. Degree of Master in Civil Engineering Thesis. 17. Tang B. L., Bakar I. and Chee M. C., 2011. Reutilization of Organic and Peat Soils by Deep Cement Mixing. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 18. Saedon N. and Adnan Z., 2012. An Investigation of Soil Volume Changes At Four Dimensional Points of Peat Soil Sample In Parit Nipah And Pontian.  Applied  Mechanics and Materials 07/2015; 773-774:1491-1496 19. Bonell, M. with Balek, J., 1993. Recent scientific developments and research needs in hydrological processes of the humid tropics. In: M.M. Hufsehmidt and J.S. Gladwell (Editors), Hydrology and Water Management in the Humid Tropics -- Hydrological Research Issues and Strategies for Water Management. UNESCO-Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 167-260. 20. Bruijnzeel, L.A., 1990. Hydrology of Moist Tropical Forests and Effects of Conversion: A State of Knowledge Review. UNESCO-IHP, Humid Tropics Programme, Paris. 21. Douglas, I., Spencer, T., Greer, T., Bidin, K., Sinun, W. and Meng, W.W., 1992. The impact of selective commercial logging on stream hydrology, chemistry and sediment loads in the Ulu Segama rain forest, Sabah, Malaysia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 335: 397-406. 22. Drainage and Irrigation Department, 1989. Sungai Tekam experimental basin, Final Rep. July 1977 to June 1986. Water Resources Publ. No. 7, Drainage and Irrigation Department, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 23. Dunne, T., 1978. Field studies of hillslope flow processes. In: M.J. Kirkby (Editor), Hillslope Hydrology. Wiley, New York, pp. 227-293. Dykstra, D.P. and Heinrich, R., 1992. Sustaining tropical forests through environmentally sound harvesting practices. Unasylva, 169(43): 9-15.

24

24. Elsenbeer, H., Cassel, K. and Castro, J., 1992. Spatial analysis of soil hydraulic conductivity in a tropical rain forest catchment. Water Resour. Res., 28 (12): 32013214. 25. Fries, J., 1992. UNCD -- A success or failure? IRDC Currents, 4:4 8. 26. Grip, H., Maimer, A. and Wong, F.K., 1994. Converting tropical rainforest to forest  plantation in Sabah, Malaysia. I. Dynamics and net losses of nutrients in control catchment streams. Hydrol. Process., 8: 179-194. 27. Hamilton, L.S. and King, P.N., 1983. Tropical Forested Watersheds. Hydrologic and Soil Response to Major Uses or Conversions. Westview, Boulder, CO. 28. Kessler, J. and Oosterbaan, R.J., 1974. Determining hydraulic conductivity in soils. In: Drainage Principles and Applications, Vol. 16, No. 3, International Institute for Land Reclamation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 253-296. 29. Malmer, A., 1990. Stream suspended sediment load after clear-felling and different forestry treatments in tropical rainforest, Sabah, Malaysia. In: R.R. Ziemer, C.L. O'Loughlin and L.S. Hamilton (Editors), Research Needs and Applications to Reduce Erosion and Sedimentation in Tropical Steeplands. IAHS Publ. No. 192, IAHS, Wallingford, pp. 62-71. 30. Malmer, A., 1992. Water yield changes after clear-felling tropical rainforest and establishment of forest plantation in Sabah, Malaysia. J. Hydro1., 134: 77-94. 31. Maimer, A., 1993. Dynamics of hydrology and nutrient losses as response to establishment of forest plantation. A case study on tropical rainforest land in Sabah, Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Ecology, Ume~, 182 pp. 32. Maimer, A. and Grip, H., 1990. Soil disturbance and loss of infiltrability caused by mechanized and manual extraction of tropical rainforest in Sabah, Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manage., 38: 1-12. 33. Maimer, A. and Grip, H., 1994. Converting tropical rainforest to forest plantation in Sabah, Malaysia. II. Changes of nutrient dynamics and net losses in streams due to treatments. Hydrol. Process., 8: 195 209. 34. Mok, S.T., 1992. Potential for sustainable tropical forest management in Malaysia. Unasylva, 169(43): 28-33. 35. Nagochi,S., Abdul Rahim Nik, Saifuddin Sulaiman, Sammori, T. and Tani, M., 1994. Hydrological characteristics of tropical rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia (I) -General hydrological observations on a hillslope. In: T. Ohta, Y. Fukushima, M. 25

Suzuki (Editors), Proc. Int. Symp. of Forest Hydrology, Tokyo, Japan, October 1994. IUFRO, pp. 275-282. 36. Nortcliff, S. and Thornes, J.B., 1978. Water and cation movements in a tropical rainforest environment. I. Objectives, experimental design and preliminary results. Acta Amazonica, 8: 245-258. 37. Nye, P.H. and Greenland, D.J., 1964. Changes in the soil after clearing tr opical forest. Plant Soil, 21(1): 101 112. 38. Nykvist, N., 1995. The above-ground biomass growth of secondary vegetation after the great 'Borneo fire' of 1983. J. Trop. Ecol., in press. 39. Nykvist, N., Grip, H., Sim, B.L., Malmer, A. and Wong, F.K., 1994. Nutrient losses in forest plantations in Sabah, Malaysia. Ambio, 23(3): 210-215. 40. Mohd Raihan Taha, Md. Kamal Hossain, Zami Chik and Khairul Anuar Mohd Nayan (13 March) Geotechnical Behaviour of a Malaysia Residual Granite Soil. 41. Achmad Fauzi, Zuraidah Djauhari, and Usama Juniansyah Fauzi, (1 February), Soil Engineering Properties Improvement by Utilization of Cut Waste Plastic ad Crushed Waste Glass as Additive 42. Afeez Adefemi Bello, (2 April), Analysis of Shear Strength of Compacted Lateritic Soils. 43. F.O. Okafor and U.N. Okonkwo, (1 March 2009), Effect of Rice Husk Ash Some Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soil. 44. Achmad Fauzi and Wan Mohd Nazmi, Usam Juniansyah Fauzi, Subgrade Stabilization Assessment of Kuantan Clay Using Lime, Portland Cement, Fly Ash, and Bottom Ash. 45. Kaniraj, S.R., and Yee, J.H.S. Electro-osmotic consolidation experiments on an organic soil. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Volume 29, (2011), pp. 505518. 46. Myoelinska, E.

Classification of organic soils for engineering geology. Geological

Quarterly, Volume 47 (1), (2003), pp. 39 – 42. 47. Zainorabidin, A., Wijeyesekera, D.C., Bakar, I.,

and Mohd Masirin, M.I.

Geotechnical characteristics of peat soils through the fabric and micro-structure  perspectives. Proceedings of the 8th Int. Conference on Geo. and Transportation Engineering, Sabah, Malaysia, (2010).

26

48. Basiri, N., and Abdul Rahim, N. Kajian Pemetaan Gambut di Kawasan Pontian, Johor.

Report

JMG.JHR-(GBN)-02/2010.

Unpublished

Note,

Mineral

and

Geosciences Malaysia, (2010), pp. 58-59. 49. Geological map of Peninsular Malaysia. Mineral and Geosciences Department Malaysia, Scale 1: 500 000, Eight Prints, (1985). 50. Tao-Wei Feng (2004). Using small ring and a fall-cone to determine the plastic limit. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(6), 630-635

27