Next Article in Journal
Effect of Al and La Doping on the Structure and Magnetostrictive Properties of Fe73Ga27 Alloy
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Electrophoretic Deposition as an Advanced Technique of Inhibited Polymer Films Formation on Metals from Environmentally Safe Aqueous Solutions of Inhibited Formulations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/ma16010018
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microstructural Characterization of Fibric Peat Stabilized with Portland Cement and Silica Fume

by
Afnan Ahmad
1,*,
Muslich Hartadi Sutanto
1,
Niraku Rosmawati Ahmad
1,
Mazizah Ezdiani Mohamad
2 and
Mastura Bujang
2
1
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
2
Centre of Research for Innovation and Sustainable Development (CRISD), School of Engineering and Technology, University of Technology Sarawak, Sibu 96000, Sarawak, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010018
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 3 November 2022 / Accepted: 4 November 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Peat is a renowned problematic soil and needs stabilization to enhance its engineering properties. Silica fume (SF) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) were extensively adopted to increase the mechanical properties of peat; however, their microstructural analysis is lacking. Investigated herein is the microstructural evolution caused by the OPC and SF implementation in peat soil stabilization. Initially, the compositional analysis (elements and oxides) of peat and binders was carried out via energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF). Subsequently, the microstructural changes that occurred in the stabilized peat were examined through a series of microstructural analyses. The analysis includes scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) for morphological, mineralogical, functional group analysis, and bond thermal analysis, respectively. The SEM micrographs evidence the transformation of loosely packed with large micropores of untreated peat into a compact dense peat matrix. This transformation is due to the formation of newly developed minerals, i.e., calcium hydrates (CH), calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H), calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH), ettringite (Aft) caused by the pozzolanic reaction of binders as recorded by the XRD. Similarly, different molecular functional groups were found in the FTIR analysis with the incorporation of SF and OPC. Finally, the percentage of mass loss was assessed through TGA analysis revealing the decomposition of stabilized in the second and third stages.

1. Introduction

Among problematic soils, peat is well-known for its high-water content, weak strength, compressible nature, excessive primary and secondary settlement, and extremely low bearing capacity. However, peatlands cover about 3% of the land surface where the former U.S.S.R and Canada possess the highest about of peatland [1]. In addition to temperate and cold climate zones, peatland is widely spread across the tropical regions of Southeast Asia, i.e., Malaysia and Indonesia. The removal of shallow-depth peat (up to 4 m) or its replacement with competent is often desirable during construction activities on peatland but the excavation, disposal, borrowed materials, etc. becomes expensive and not feasible [2].
Additionally, the removal/replacement of peat involves drainage causing the drawdown of the groundwater table and exposing peat to atmospheric oxygen. Thus, it disturbs the entire hydrological regime of the peatland and initiates aerobic decomposition instead of anaerobic, resulting in high carbon dioxide (CO2) discharge into the atmosphere and causing the greenhouse effect [3]. As a result, wetland becomes a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions and jeopardizes their role of being a huge carbon sink [4]. In addition, the drained-out peat having degraded vegetation is highly flammable triggering a catastrophic forest fire emitting a huge amount of CO2 into the natural atmosphere [5]. The aforementioned problems impel the boundaries of innovative research to sort out a sustainable solution to utilize wetlands. Thus, a viable peat stabilization instead of removal or replacement is applied.
Several peat stabilization techniques including mechanical, chemical, electrical, biological, etc. stabilizations are currently in practice to enhance their engineering properties to make peatland serviceable [6,7,8,9,10]. Mass stabilization including deep mixing (wet and dry) of potential additives/binders are considered an environmentally friendly and economical solution for peat stabilization [11]. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and lime are the commonly adopted binders; however, utilizing locally available and industrial pozzolanic wastes, i.e., silica fume, fly ash, gypsum, granulated blast furnace slag (GBBS), bentonite, etc. are encouraged [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Khanday et al. stabilized peat using RHA-based geopolymer [22] and GBBS [23] and obtained significant strength improvement. Similarly, enormous strength enhancement of peat has been reported by Kalantari et al. [17,24] utilizing cement and silica fume. Since the cement is a hydraulic binder, Kalantari and Prasad [25] assessed the strength development of cement-stabilized peat with prolonged curing age. Similarly, the significant strength improvement and morphological changes of Indian peat caused by cement were reported by Paul and Hussain [18]. Both silica fume and cement-stabilized peat satisfy the minimum strength criteria of 345 kPa. However, for the sake of sustainability, filler materials such as sand, crumbed waste tires, crushed demolished waste, etc. along with cementitious additives are recommended to enhance the weak engineering characteristics of peat by reducing the cement amount [9,25,26]. For this reason, Saberian and Rahgozar [25,26] utilized shredded waste tires and sand as filler materials in cement, lime, and gypsum-stabilized peat. A significant strength enhancement was reported in all combinations, meeting the minimum required strength except for sand-filled peat. Thus, it can be observed in past studies that both cement and silica fume act as potential stabilizers with and without filler materials in peat soil.
Malaysian peat possessing extremely low strength (42.94 kPa) derived from Kampung Baru, Teluk Intan was stabilized by Ahmad et al. [27] using Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and silica fume (SF). Apart from indexed properties, mechanical properties including the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) of the stabilized and untreated peat were assessed and the failure pattern of the tested UCS specimen was examined. A significant amount of strength enhancement was experienced by utilizing OPC and SF. An increasing quantity of binders (OPC and SF) and prolonging the curing duration yielded a higher strength value. The highest strength value of 1063.94 kPa was achieved by SF-stabilized peat after curing for 28 days. Moreover, an acceptable strength has been achieved by OPC and OPC-SF combination in peat. Furthermore, the failure patterns of the UCS samples revealed a ductile behavior which leads to the sustainability application of SF and OPC. However, the reason for the enhanced strength of Malaysian peat stabilized with SF and OPC is not investigated to date. The chemistry behind tremendous strength enhancement due to the use of OPC and SF in Malaysian peat needs to be unveiled.
Due to the lower fraction of clay particles in peat, the strength development of cement and silica fume in peat is questionable. Paul and Hussain [18,28] investigated the mechanical and microstructural performance of cement-stabilized peat. A compact stabilized peat matrix compared to untreated peat was observed in the field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) micrographs. This transformation was further investigated via X-ray diffraction (XRD) by reporting the development of responsible compounds such as calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), calcium aluminate hydrate (C-A-H), calcium aluminum silicate hydrate (C-A-S-H), and ettringite. The formation of newly developed compounds due to cement incorporation was also confirmed by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy analyses. On the other hand, Rikmann et al. [29] carried out a microstructural analysis on the cement and shale ash based stabilized peat. They came to the conclusion by supporting the utilization of pozzolanic materials such as silica fume, alkali pH modified, and water glass without the addition of OPC in the peat stabilization. It can be observed from the previous studies that the performance of silica fume, cement, and their combination in peat soil is rarely assessed through microstructural tests.
In this context, an intensive microstructural study of OPC and SF stabilized peat is needed for a better understanding of the strength enhancement of the treated Malaysian peat matrix. Therefore, microstructural properties tests including scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) were carried out in this paper to examine the microstructural evolution in the stabilized peat matrix caused by the hydraulic binders such as cement and silica fume.

2. Materials and Experimental Procedure

2.1. Peat Details

Peat soil collected from Kampung Baru located in the Teluk Intan state of Malaysia was used in the experimental investigation of this research. The collection site coordinates are 4°00′16.1″ N, 101°11′11.0″ E, and the peat soil was collected at a depth of 5 feet (1.52 m). The in situ von Post humification test categorized Teluk Intan peat as highly fibrous (H3) and acidic in nature. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of this peat is about 42.94 kPa which is extremely lower than the acceptable strength (345 kPa) [27].

2.2. Peat Elemental Analysis (EDX Mapping)

An analytical tool was used to chemically characterize the elemental composition of peat known as energy dispersive X-ray (EDX). Table 1 enlists the element present in the peat while Figure 1 illustrates the spectral elemental micrographs of the peat. Being highly organic in nature, peat contains predominantly C (31.88%) and O (46.17%). Moreover, the output revealed that peat also possesses Al (7.83%), Ca (0.80%), and Si (13.32%). The presence of Si and Al is desirable in the baseline soil to induce the pozzolanic reactions [30]. Furthermore, the soil composition influences the selection of binders, therefore, silica fume and OPC being pozzolanic in nature were used as potential peat stabilizers [24].

2.3. Properties of Binders

Commonly available Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) of grade 53 was utilized for the experimentations. OM Materials (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd provides silica fume (SF) which is a byproduct in the silicon and ferrosilicon alloy production during the smelting process (Bintulu, Malaysia). SF is used as a potential binder for peat stabilization in the current research. Its particle is a tiny and spherical shape that is approximately 100 times smaller than cement granules and possesses a diameter of approximately 150 nm. Table 2 enlists the physical and chemical properties of SF provided by the supplier, used in the experimentation. Table 3 illustrates the oxides composition of peat, SF, and OPC.

2.4. Experimental Testing Matrix

Table 4 indicates the microstructural experimental matrix including SEM, XRD FTIR, and TGA tests. An oven-dried parent sample and 28 days cured stabilized/treated samples were exposed for testing to reveal the microstructural changes in the peat.

2.4.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out to investigate and analyze the morphology of the treated and untreated peat derived from Teluk Intan. The Zeiss EVO LS 15 model machine (Oberkochen, Germany) available in the Universiti Teknologi Petronas located in Seri Iskandar, Malaysia was utilized for all the SEM testing. All SEM micrographs were taken from the 28 days cured finely grounded samples in the range of 1000×–10,000× magnification. The mix combinations used for morphological comparison are illustrated in Table 4.

2.4.2. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

The X-ray diffraction, commonly known as the XRD test was performed to identify the mineralogical composition of untreated and treated Teluk Intan peat. A continuous type PANalytical X’pert powder diffractometer (Malvern, UK), available in the Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL) of the Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) was utilized keeping the scan range of 10–90° and a step of 0.0262606°. A finely grounded XRD sample smaller than 75 μm was exposed to a radiation source of CuKα having the wavelength (λ) of 1.5418 A° with an input voltage of 40 kV and a current of 30 mA. All the XRD analysis has been performed on all four mixes: parent peat and three stabilized peat samples, i.e., peat + SF, peat + OPC, and peat + OPC + SF as described in Table 4.

2.4.3. Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

The Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) test was performed to investigate the chemical bonds or the functional groups in the untreated and treated peat derived from Teluk Intan. For this purpose, a PerkinElmer model spectrometer, installed at the Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) located in Seri Iskandar, Perak state of Malaysia was utilized (Waltham, MA, USA). It is equipped with a diamond attenuated total reflectance (ATR) having a scanning range of about 500–4000 cm−1 with a 4 cm−1 resolution. For the test to perform, a mixture of about 5 mg of finely grounded peat and 200 mg of KBr were exposed to an infrared spectrum. The FTIR analysis was performed on the untreated peat, peat + SF mix, peat + OPC mix, and peat + OPC + SF mix after 28 days of curing as illustrated in Table 4.

2.4.4. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)

PerkinElmer STA 6000 simultaneous thermal analyzer available at the Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL) of the Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) was employed to perform the thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of treated and untreated peat as described in Table 4. All the TGA tests were performed at a temperature ranging from 30 °C to 800 °C with an increment of 10 °C/min under a nitrogenous environment.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was carried out to examine the morphology of a treated and untreated peat derived from Teluk Intan, Perak. The internal mineralogical formation of peat significantly alters upon the application of OPC, and SF. Figure 2 illustrates a 300× magnified SEM image of untreated peat. It can be seen that the internal structure of the untreated peat is made up of hollow cavities and pores, flaky and loosely packed, and spongy organic matter. Typically, the organic matters are hollow from the inside and spongy in nature and hence possesses high water-holding capacity upon saturation [31,32]. Moreover, the entire topography is arranged randomly, without profound orientation. The same morphology of Malaysian peat has been reported by other researchers [32,33,34,35,36,37]. These factors are responsible for the low unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and California bearing ratio (CBR) values of the untreated peat as reported by Ahmad et al. [27].
On the other hand, the 28-day cured OPC stabilized peat has a dense and compacted morphology compared to untreated peat, as seen in Figure 3. The development of C-S-H gel, C-A-H, AFt, and micropores reduction as shown in Figure 3b,c reasonably enhances the strength of peat [33,38,39]. Similar products have been observed in the silica fume-stabilized peat. However, the silica fume (SF) stabilized peat seems more uniformly compacted compared to the OPC stabilized peat as illustrated in Figure 4a,b. The utilization of both OPC and SF in a single mix creates a denser matrix after 28 days of curing by filling the pores more efficiently as observed in Figure 5a. Moreover, cementitious products, i.e., C-S-H gel, AFt, and C-A-H formation have been observed noticeably as seen in Figure 5b,c. Thus, they gained higher UCS and CBR values compared to OPC-treated and silica fume-treated peat samples [27].
Overall, the application of OPC, SF, and OPC-SF reduces the pores and improves the surficial characteristics by filling the void spaces and binding the peat components into a dense flocculated mass. Moreover, the development of calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), calcium aluminate hydrate (C-A-H), aluminum calcium oxide (C-A-O), and ettringites (AFt) are the indication of a strong interfacial bonding network which helps in the interlocking and friction coefficient among the soil particles [18,31]. These are the reasons treated Teluk Intan peat exhibits higher UCS and CBR values compared to untreated peat samples [27]. Moreover, some packs of grain particles have been observed which may be formed due to the presence of water and clay coagulations.

3.2. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

The X-ray diffraction (XRD) was carried out to identify the minerals as well as reveal the pozzolanic activities in stabilized peat upon being treated with different additives. Figure 6 illustrates the XRD results of parent peat, peat treated with OPC, silica fume, and the combination of OPC and silica fume, respectively. The interpreted XRD results of the stabilized peat were performed on the 28-day cured specimen.
The XRD results of parent peat (untreated) are shown in Figure 6. It is observed that quartz (SiO2) is the primary mineral present in the untreated peat along with clay minerals such as kaolinite (Al2O3 2SiO2·2H2O). The prominent peaks of quartz were found at the position of 2θ (20.93°, 26.71°, 36.64°, 39.55°, 59.98°) and kaolinite at 2θ position of 40.29° and 42.52°. The existence of quartz and kaolinite in the same position was evident in the previous studies [30,40,41]. Furthermore, the existence of quartz in peat has been evidenced by Khanday et al. [42,43] and clay minerals by Paul and Hussain [28]. Moreover, Moayedi et al. [44] particularly mentioned kaolinite as the prominent clay mineral present in untreated peat soil.
Similarly, the application of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and silica fume impart some new minerals which are considered responsible for the stabilization. As seen in Figure 6, ettringite (AFt phase), calcium hydrate [Ca (OH)2], calcium silicate hydrate (5Ca2SiO4·6H2O), calcium aluminate hydrate (3Ca2Al2O3·6H2O), and halloysite hydrate [Al2Si2O5(OH)4·2H2O] are the prominent detected minerals upon using OPC and silica fume as a stabilizing agent. Compared with the untreated peat, the reduction in peak intensities as illustrated in Figure 6 is attributed to the aforementioned mineral’s formation due to the pozzolanic reactions of OPC and silica fume, respectively [45].

3.3. Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

The evidence of the different molecular functional groups in the parent and treated Teluk Intan peat is illustrated in Figure 7 and Table 5. Like Paul and Hussain [18], the entire absorption band series has been divided into three regions to analyze the data, i.e., 4000–2500 cm−1, 2500–1500 cm−1, and 1500–400 cm−1 [46].
As shown in the first region of Figure 7, a single known absorption peak has been noticed at 3450 cm−1 which corresponds to the stretching of the O-H group. In the second region, two prominent peaks were observed at 2341 and 1650 cm−1. Along 2341 cm−1, the intensities increase in the SF and OPC + SF treated peat which indicates the development of –C=O stretching of the aliphatic compound. The double bond of cyclic compounds was evident at 1650 cm−1, especially in OPC-treated peat [28,46]. Similarly, the occurrence of peaks in the last absorption band was found at 1400, 1040, 803, and 790 cm−1. A prominent absorption peak has been identified at 1400 cm−1 in the cement-treated peat spectra (i.e., Peat + OPC and Peat + OPC + SF) due to the development of Ca-OH bond upon the reaction of atmospheric CO2 and CH during the curing of samples as reported by [28,47,48]. The occurrence of polysaccharide, C=C bond, and Si-O stretching are represented by 1040, 803, and 790 cm−1 peaks [28,49,50]. Moreover, the intense peaks were observed around 1118 cm−1 in the SF-treated peat samples, i.e., Peat + SF and Peat + OPC + SF. For this, Yacob and Som [48] mentioned the development of C-S-H in the absorption band at 1100–1200 cm−1. Hence, the FTIR results confirmed the development of new compounds which imparts considerable changes in the absorption bands when treated peat with OPC and SF.

3.4. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA)

The thermal degradation of untreated and treated peat was carried out using the TGA test. Similar to the other microstructural tests, untreated and three treated and cured samples were employed for the TGA testing including Peat, Peat + OPC, Peat + SF, and Peat + OPC + SF. The presented results shown in Figure 8 have two curves: the blue line indicates the mass loss vs. temperature (TGA curve), and the red line indicates the first derivative of mass loss vs. temperature (DTG curve).
Past studies reported that peat undergoes pyrolytic decomposition due to its complex qualitative and quantitative compositions [51,52]. Moreover, it has been observed in the previously published articles that peat decomposition occurred at three different stages. Initially, the dehydration of bound (hygroscopic) and free (capillary) water occurs at a temperature range of 27–150 °C. The capillary water evaporates during oven drying while the water present in the hydrated products, i.e., C-S-H gel and C-A-H of stabilized peat evaporates during the TG test at elevated temperature [51,53,54]. On the other hand, the mass loss in the second stage (150–600 °C) is attributed to the less condensed components such as the components of humic acids as well as aliphatic compounds functional groups [55]. Comparing the parent peat DTG curve shown in Figure 8a with the rest of the stabilized peat curves illustrated in Figure 8b–d after 300 °C, prominent mass loss as is noticed in the form of endothermic and exothermic peaks. However, beyond 600 °C temperature, there are more condensed materials, i.e., ettringite (Aft), aromatic components of lignin as well as the humic acids nuclear region [56].

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study investigated the microstructural characteristics of untreated and stabilized Malaysian fibric peat caused by the incorporation of SF and OPC. Several microstructural tests including the scanning electron microscope (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) were carried out to assess the microstructural changes in the stabilized peat caused by SF and OPC. The following conclusions have been drawn.
  • The morphological test (SEM) exposed hollow cavities/pores, spongy organic matters, and the flaky and loosely packed internal structure of the parent peat which is responsible for its low compressive and bearing capacity. On the other hand, a compact matrix with strong interparticle bonding is revealed in the SF and OPC stabilized peat.
  • The morphological alteration in the stabilized peat is further investigated in XRD and observed in the formation of a newly developed compound. The hydration products, i.e., calcium hydrate (CH) and calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) are dominantly found in the SF-treated peat. Similarly, the Aft formation, calcium hydrate (CH), calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), and calcium aluminate hydrates (CAH) are the prominent products found in the OPC and SF-OPC treated peat.
  • The prominent functional groups were observed during FTIR spectral analysis in the stabilized peat including Si-O, –C=O, O-H stretching, and C=C and Ca-OH bond formation.
  • The TG analysis revealed that untreated peat decomposes in the first stage (27–150 °C). Most of the hydrated products in the stabilized peat undergo decomposition in the second stage of heating (150–600 °C). Moreover, the ettringite (Aft) developed as a result of OPC incorporation decomposes beyond 600 °C.
  • This study revealed the microstructural changes that occurred in Teluk Intan peat using an industrial stabilizer SF and OPC. While the mechanical aspect of the same peat using SF and OPC is evaluated by Ahmad et al. [27]. However, the environmental effect of industrial waste (SF) and OPC in peat is still lacking and needs to be assessed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A. and M.H.S.; methodology, A.A. and M.H.S.; validation, M.H.S. and N.R.A.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, M.H.S. and N.R.A.; supervision, M.H.S. and N.R.A.; project administration, M.H.S., M.E.M. and M.B.; funding acquisition, M.H.S., M.E.M. and M.B. 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 “015MD0-072”.

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 the University College of Technology Sarawak for the lab facilities and financial support. Additionally, the assistance of OM Materials (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd in providing the silica fume is highly acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wetlands International. A Quick Scan of Peatlands in Malaysia; Wetlands International: Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ghadr, S.; Hung, C. Stabilisation of peat with colloidal nanosilica. Mires Peat 2020, 26, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Osman, K.T. Peat Soils. In Management of Soil Problems: An Introduction; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 146–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Page, S.E.; Morrison, R.; Hooijer, A.; Rieley, J.O.; Juahiainen, J. Review of Peat Surface Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Palm Plantations in Southeat Asia; ICCT White Paper 15; The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT): Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. Paul, A.; Hussain, M. Sustainable Use of GGBS and RHA as a Partial Replacement of Cement in the Stabilization of Indian Peat. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2020, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al-Hokabi, A.; Hasan, M.; Amran, M.; Fediuk, R.; Vatin, N.I.; Klyuev, S. Improving the Early Properties of Treated Soft Kaolin Clay with Palm Oil Fuel Ash and Gypsum. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ali, M.; de Azevedo, A.; Marvila, M.; Khan, M.; Memon, A.; Masood, F.; Almahbashi, N.; Shad, M.; Khan, M.; Fediuk, R.; et al. The Influence of COVID-19-Induced Daily Activities on Health Parameters—A Case Study in Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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 Second International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Technology and Innovation in Building Designs, Sakheer, Bahrain, 11–12 November 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wahab, A.; Embong, Z.; Hasan, M.; Musa, H.; Zaman, Q.U.; Ullah, H. Peat soil engineering and mechanical properties improvement under the effect of EKS technique at Parit Kuari, Batu Pahat, Johor, West Malaysia. Bull. Geol. Soc. Malays. 2020, 70, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Juha, F.; Leena, K.-T.; Pyry, P. Mass Stabilization as a Ground Improvement Method for Soft Peaty. In Peat; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2018; pp. 107–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khan, A.; Adil, M.; Ahmad, A.; Hussain, R.; Zaman, H. Stabilization of Soil Using Cement and Bale Straw. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Dev. 2018, 5, 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  13. Vishwanath, G.; Pramod, K.; Ramesh, V. Peat soil stabilization with Rice husk ash and lime powder. Int. J. Innov. Sci. Res. 2014, 9, 225–227. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zambri, N.M.; Ghazaly, Z.M. Peat Soil Stabilization using Lime and Cement. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 34, 01034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deboucha, S.; Hashim, R.; Alwi, A. Engineering Properties of Stabilized Tropical Peat Soils. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2008, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kolay, P.; Pui, M. Peat Stabilization using Gypsum and Fly Ash. UNIMAS E-J. Civ. Eng. 2010, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kalantari, B.; Prasad, A.; Huat, B.B.K. Cement and Silica Fume Treated Columns to Improve Peat Ground. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013, 38, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Paul, A.; Hussain, M. Cement Stabilization of Indian Peat: An Experimental Investigation. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abdel-Salam, A.E. Stabilization of peat soil using locally admixture. HBRC J. 2018, 14, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Yusof, Z.M.; Harris, S.N.M.; Mohamed, K. Compressive Strength Improvement of Stabilized Peat Soil by Pond Ash—Hydrated Lime Admixture. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 747, 242–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jais, I.B.M.; Abdullah, N.; Ali, M.A.M.; Johar, M.A. Peat modification integrating Geopolymer and fly ash. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 527, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Khanday, S.A.; Ahongshangbam, D.; Hussain, M. Durability of Peat Stabilized with RHA—Based Geopolymer Formed by Adding Pure Alumina. Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng. 2022, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khanday, S.A.; Hussain, M.; Das, A.K. Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer-Treated Fibrous Peat. In Recent Trends in Civil Engineering; Sil, A., Kontoni, D.-P.N., Pancharathi, R.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 409–418. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kalantari, B.; Prasad, A. Transportation Geotechnics A study of the effect of various curing techniques on the strength of stabilized peat. Transp. Geotech. 2014, 1, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rahgozar, M.A.; Saberian, M. Geotechnical properties of peat soil stabilised with shredded waste tyre chips. Mires Peat 2016, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saberian, M.; Rahgozar, M.A. Geotechnical properties of peat soil stabilised with shredded waste tyre chips in combination with gypsum, lime or cement. Mires Peat 2016, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.; Rosmawati, N.; Bujang, M.; Mohamad, M.E. The Implementation of Industrial Byproduct in Malaysian Peat Improvement: A Sustainable Soil Stabilization Approach. Materials 2021, 14, 7315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Paul, A.; Hussain, M. An experiential investigation on the compressibility behavior of cement-treated Indian peat. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 1471–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Moayedi, H.; Kazemian, S.; Huat, B.B.K. Shear Strength Parameters of Improved Peat by Chemical Stabilizer. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2013, 31, 1089–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kolay, P.K.; Rahman, A. Physico-geotechnical properties of peat and its stabilisation. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 2016, 169, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kolay, P.K.; Taib, N.S.L. Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Tropical Peat and Its Stabilization. In Bülent Topcuoğlu and Metin Turan; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; p. 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. 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 Malays. 2016, 45, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Islam, M.S.; Hashim, R. Behaviour of stabilised peat: A field study. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 2366–2374. [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Islam, M.S.; Hashim, R. Bearing capacity of stabilised tropical peat by deep mixing method. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009, 3, 682–688. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sargent, P. The Development of Alkali-Activated Mixtures for Soil Stabilization. In Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes; Woodhead Publishing Limited; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015; pp. 555–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lemos, S.G.F.P.; Almeida, M.D.S.S.; Consoli, N.C.; Nascimento, T.Z.; Polido, U.F. Field and Laboratory Investigation of Highly Organic Clay Stabilized with Portland Cement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Khanday, S.A.; Hussain, M.; Das, A.K. Rice Husk Ash–Based Geopolymer Stabilization of Indian Peat: Experimental Investigation. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khanday, S.A.; Hussain, M.; Das, A.K. Stabilization of Indian peat using alkali-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 5539–5551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Moayedi, H.; Kassim, K.A.; Kazemian, S.; Raftari, M.; Mokhberi, M. Improvement of Peat Using Portland Cement and Electrokinetic Injection Technique. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39, 6851–6862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bahmani, S.H.; Huat, B.B.; Asadi, A.; Farzadnia, N. Stabilization of residual soil using SiO2 nanoparticles and cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 64, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aiken, G.R. Humic Substances in Soil, Sediment, and Water. Geochemistry, Isolation, and Characterization; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Al-Bared, M.A.M.; Harahap, I.S.H.; Marto, A.; Abad, S.V.A.N.K.; Mustaffa, Z.; Ali, M.O.A. Mechanical behaviour of waste powdered tilesand portland cement treated soft clay. Geomech. Eng. 2019, 19, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yacob, L.S.; Som, A.M. Stabilisation of peat soil using magnesium oxide: A preliminary study. Malays. J. Anal. Sci. 2020, 24, 578–586. [Google Scholar]
  50. Latifi, N.; Rashid, A.S.A.; Marto, A.; Tahir, M. Effect of magnesium chloride solution on the physico-chemical characteristics of tropical peat. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Krumins, J.; Klavins, M.; Seglins, V.; Kaup, E. Comparative study of peat composition by using FT-IR spectroscopy. Mater. Sci. Appl. Chem. 2012, 26, 106–114. [Google Scholar]
  52. Paul, A.; Hussain, M.; Ramu, B. The physicochemical properties and microstructural characteristics of peat and their correlations: Reappraisal. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2021, 15, 692–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Paul, A.; Hussain, M. Geotechnical properties and microstructural characteristics of Northeast Indian peats. Mires Peat 2019, 24, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sabrin, S.; Siddiqua, S.; Muhammad, N. Understanding the effect of heat treatment on subgrade soil stabilized with bentonite and magnesium alkalinization. Transp. Geotech. 2019, 21, 100287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ghantous, R.M.; Farnam, Y.; Unal, E.; Weiss, J. The influence of carbonation on the formation of calcium oxychloride. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2016, 73, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Francioso, O.; Ciavatta, C.; Montecchio, D.; Tugnoli, V.; Sánchez-Cortés, S.; Gessa, C. Quantitative estimation of peat, brown coal and lignite humic acids using chemical parameters, 1H-NMR and DTA analyses. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 88, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 16 00018 g001 550
Figure 1. Elemental images of peat from EDX mapping.
Figure 1. Elemental images of peat from EDX mapping.
Materials 16 00018 g001
Materials 16 00018 g002 550
Figure 2. SEM image of untreated peat.
Figure 2. SEM image of untreated peat.
Materials 16 00018 g002
Materials 16 00018 g003 550
Figure 3. SEM image of 28-day cured OPC stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 8000×, (c) 10,000×.
Figure 3. SEM image of 28-day cured OPC stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 8000×, (c) 10,000×.
Materials 16 00018 g003
Materials 16 00018 g004 550
Figure 4. SEM images of 28-day cured SF stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 8000×, (c) 10,000×.
Figure 4. SEM images of 28-day cured SF stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 8000×, (c) 10,000×.
Materials 16 00018 g004
Materials 16 00018 g005 550
Figure 5. SEM images of 28 days cured OPC-SF stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 5000×, (c) 10,000×.
Figure 5. SEM images of 28 days cured OPC-SF stabilized peat (a) 1000×, (b) 5000×, (c) 10,000×.
Materials 16 00018 g005
Materials 16 00018 g006 550
Figure 6. XRD analysis of Peat only, Peat + OPC, Peat + SF, and Peat + OPC + SF.
Figure 6. XRD analysis of Peat only, Peat + OPC, Peat + SF, and Peat + OPC + SF.
Materials 16 00018 g006
Materials 16 00018 g007 550
Figure 7. FTIR analysis of the untreated peat and treated peat with OPC, SF, and OPC + SF.
Figure 7. FTIR analysis of the untreated peat and treated peat with OPC, SF, and OPC + SF.
Materials 16 00018 g007
Materials 16 00018 g008 550
Figure 8. Thermogravimetric analysis of treated and untreated peat. (a) Peat, (b) Peat + OPC, (c) Peat + SF, and (d) Peat + OPC + SF.
Figure 8. Thermogravimetric analysis of treated and untreated peat. (a) Peat, (b) Peat + OPC, (c) Peat + SF, and (d) Peat + OPC + SF.
Materials 16 00018 g008
Table
Table 1. Quantitively elemental analysis of peat.
Table 1. Quantitively elemental analysis of peat.
ElementAtomic (%)Weight (%)
Aluminum4.597.83
Calcium0.310.80
Carbon41.9731.88
Oxygen45.6246.17
Silicon7.5013.32
Table
Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of SF.
Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of SF.
PropertiesValue/Description
AppearanceUltrafine amorphous powder
ColourGrey, off-white
OdorOdorless
pH @ 20 °C6.0–9.0
Solubility (water)Insoluble/slightly soluble
Solubility (Organic solvents)Insoluble/slightly soluble
Melting point1550–1700 °C
Bulk density150–700 kg/m3
Specific gravity2100–2300 kg/m3
Particle Size0.4–0.5 μm
Table
Table 3. XRF analysis of peat, SF, and OPC.
Table 3. XRF analysis of peat, SF, and OPC.
Oxides (% Weight)PeatSFOPC
CO290.12--
Al2O30.7460.8762.68
SiO26.6491.012.3
CaO0.3551.2075.5
FexOy0.6733.392.86
K2O0.0451.420.479
TiO20.0200.0130.231
SO30.9420.3521.32
MgO0.1420.4091.80
P2O50.030--
ZrO2-0.0750.217
MoO30.240.0521.29
MnO-0.2050.411
ZnO0.0320.02920.0275
Total weight (%)99.9899.0299.10
Table
Table 4. Microstructural testing matrix.
Table 4. Microstructural testing matrix.
CombinationSEMXRDFTIRTGA
Peat✓✓✓✓
Peat + OPC✓✓✓✓
Peat + SF✓✓✓✓
Peat + OPC + SF✓✓✓✓
Table
Table 5. Tentative band assignment for IR spectra of parent and stabilized peat.
Table 5. Tentative band assignment for IR spectra of parent and stabilized peat.
Wavelength (cm−1)Tentatively Assigned Band
3450O-H stretching
2341–C=O stretching of the aliphatic compound
1650C=C of cyclic compounds
1400Ca-OH bond formation
1040Polysaccharide occurrence
803C=C bond formation
790Si-O stretching
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmad, A.; Sutanto, M.H.; Ahmad, N.R.; Mohamad, M.E.; Bujang, M. Microstructural Characterization of Fibric Peat Stabilized with Portland Cement and Silica Fume. Materials 2023, 16, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010018

AMA Style

Ahmad A, Sutanto MH, Ahmad NR, Mohamad ME, Bujang M. Microstructural Characterization of Fibric Peat Stabilized with Portland Cement and Silica Fume. Materials. 2023; 16(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmad, Afnan, Muslich Hartadi Sutanto, Niraku Rosmawati Ahmad, Mazizah Ezdiani Mohamad, and Mastura Bujang. 2023. "Microstructural Characterization of Fibric Peat Stabilized with Portland Cement and Silica Fume" Materials 16, no. 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop