LIST OF GROUP MEMBERS

MOHD
ANIS AQILAH
ZULHAIRI BIN
BINTI MURBA
ABDUL RASHID
(DF160094)
(DF160049)

MUHAMMAD NUR LIYANA

RAFDI BIN BINTI
ROSLAN BAHARRUDIN
(DF160106) (DF160099)

SHEIKH
MUHAMAD
NURUL AMIRAH
HISHAMUDDIN
BINTI AHMAD
BIN SH
(DF160087)
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 clay from central
west coast of Malaysia have high natural moisture content (w) which reaches 125%. Other
physical parameters such as liquid limit (LL) is between 50 to 125%, unit weight () 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 earths 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 surface. 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 arent 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 Specific Liquid Plastic Plastic Permeability, Shear

content, Gravity, Limit, Limit, Index, k (m/s) Strength,
W (%) Gs LL (%) PL PI (%) Cu (kPa)
(%)
Clay
Pantai Dalam M F Yusof 33% 2.62 27% 17% 10%
Sejingkat, Emiliani Anak 18 2.17 22.5 6.17 16.33 1.3 x 10^-4 82.53
Sarawak Geliga, Dygku
Salwa Awg
Ismail
Banting, Bujang B.K 320% 1.34 140
Selangor Huat, Shukri
Mail, Thamer
Ahmed
Mohamed
Beruas Perak I. Johari S. Said, 16.3 2.49 49.7 25.56 24.41
B. Hisham, A.
Bakar, Z. A.
Ahmad
Sibu Sanbaga R. 87% 1.59 245 155 90
Saniraj
Wakaf Aminaton 21 2.65 86 34 52 0.916
Tapai, Marto, Fauziah
Terengganu Kasim
Brinchang, Aminaton 23 2.61 32 18 14 0.555
Pahang Marto, Fauziah
Kasim
Mutiara Aminaton 23 2.64 52 22 30 1.344
Rini, Johor Marto, Fauziah
Kasim
Butterworth, Huat et al. 61.5 2.49 72.5 39.5 31 108
Perak
Kuantan, Achmad Fauzi, 12 2.58 34.6 17.7 16.9
Pahang Zuraidah
Djauhari(2016)
Ibadan, A.A. 13.8 2.49 43 29 14
Nigeria Bello(2015)
Enugu, F. O. 4 2.51 35.2 18.13 17.07 14
Nigeria OKAFOR and
U. N.
OKONKWO
Felda Lepar Achmad 12 2.67 63.5 25.7 37.8
Hilir Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Sport Achmad 12 2.65 83.12 30.3 11.56 14
Center,UMP Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Jalan Achmad 12 2.66 60.17 45.67 14.5
Paching Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Jalan Sungai Achmad 12 2.78 53.5 38.67 14.83

6
 Pinang Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Kuantan Achmad 12 2.65 47.5 34.92 12.58
Brick Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Taman Tas Achmad 12 2.64 40 27.42 12.58
Fauzi,Wan
Mohd Nazmi
Balai M F Yusof 33 2.62 27 17 10
Cerapan,
UTM
Port Muzamir 27 2.49 107 37 70 8.81
Tanjung (2006)
Lepas
Kuala Muzamir 24 2.61 72 42 30 1.110^-9
Muda, (2006)
Kedah
Batu Pahat A. H. Mat Nor, 28 2.31 73 29.12 43.88
F. Pakir & M.
E. Sanik
(2015)
Pontian Muzamir 26 2.39 88 31 57 0
(2006)
Peat
Kuala Sadek 75 1.34 173.75 257 156
Selangor Deboucha,
Roslan Hashim,
Abu Bakar Alwi
Miri- Marudi Sanbaga R. 552 1.47 413 244 79
Kaniraj
Similajau Sanbaga R. 643 323 39.58 50.08
Kaniraj
Parit Nipah Felix N. L. Ling1 125.87 2.41 89.66 32.44 42.81
Batu Puteh Felix N. L. Ling1 118.13 2.41 119.13 22 33 1.764
Pulai Aminaton 28 2.61 55 37 22 0.483
Chondong, Marto, Fauziah
Kelantan Kasim
Sedenak, Aminaton 38 2.64 59 31 32
Johor Marto, Fauziah
Kasim
Cyberjaya, Rohayu Che 143 2.41 63 31.7 36.3
Selangor Omar, Rashid
Jaafar
UTHM Meei-Hoan Ho 85 2.62 68 42 77 0.115
and Chee-
Ming Chan
Senai, Johor Aminaton 88 2.63 119 39 21
Marto, Fauziah
Kasim
Kiara M F Yusof 47.3 2.6 60 26 25

7
 Langgar Mohd Faruq 57 2.51 51 27 31
Bin Sa'adon
Pahang Tua Mohd Faruq 48 2.49 58 37 70 9.02
Bin Sa'adon
Pontian, A. 26 2.59 107 NP 4.8910^-6
Johor Zainorabidin -
& S. H.
Mansor (2016)
Kampung Behzad & 24 2.31 160 118.5 57.95
Jawa, Bujang
Western
Part of
Malaysia
Residual
Kuala Mohd Raihan 31 2.55 69 24 43 0.011
Lumpur, Taha, Md.
Kamal Hossain,
Malaysia Zamri Chik
Bukit Aminaton 10 2.55 67 28 46 0.237
Mertajam, Marto, Fauziah
Pulau Kasim
Pinang
Tampin, Aminaton 15 2.59 74 36 33
Negeri Marto, Fauziah
Sembilan
Kasim
8KM Mohd Raihan 31 2.6 69 31.9 27.4
SouthEast Taha,Md Kamal 5.0010^-7
KL Hossain (1998
Balai Gambo Haruna 32 2.65 59.3 31 19
Cerapan, Yunusa
UTM
KL Tower M F Yusof 49.7 2.51 50 27 26
Bukit dinding M F Yusof 29.6 2.61 53.4 14.82 6.75 1.8410^-11
Ranau- Hennie, Asvirja, 28 2.81 21.57 45 50 2.5-4.110^-
Kundasang, & William (2016) 8
Sabah,
Malaysia
Kuala Bujang, Faisal & 26 2.49 95 56
Lumpur- Hashim (2007)
Karak
Highway
Sungai Ramli (1991) 22 2.59 90 36 33 120.7
Buluh, Jalan
Duta
Damansara,
Bukit Lanjan,
Tapah dan
Skudai
Kuala Zulfahmi Ali 25 2.49 69 41 21 126
Lumpur Rahman, Umar
Hamzah,
Malaysia Norsheila Sofhia 23 2.49 62 36 33
Ithnain And
Noorulakma
Ahmad

8
From the data collected, we can conclude that the 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-7-
6, 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
Shear Strength (kPa)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
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
Permeability,k (m/s)

1.5

0.5

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, its 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
arent 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

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 4 24 10
q1 12 42.65 22.75
Median 25.5 75 27
q3 27.5 122 31
Maximum 320 643 49.70
Mean 36.63 69.03 29.59
Range 316 619 39.70
Number
of Data 23 15 12

700

600

500
Moisture Content, W (%)

400

300

200

100

0
Clay Peat
Peak Residual
Type of Soil

14
4.5 Box-Plot Specific Gravity, Gs Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 1.34 1.34 2.49
q1 2.49 2.41 2.51
Median 2.40 2.50 2.57
q3 2.65 2.61 2.60
Maximum 2.78 2.64 2.81
Mean 2.46 2.52 2.58
Range 1.44 1.30 0.32
Number
of Data 23 15 12

2.5

2
Specific Gravity, Gs

1.5

0.5

0
Clay Peat
Peak Residual
Type of Soil

15
4.6 Box-Plot Liquid Limit, LL (%) Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 22.50 51 21.57
q1 37.60 59.50 57.83
Median 53.50 89.66 68
q3 78.06 139.57 70.25
Maximum 245 413 95
Mean 67.58 127.90 64.94
Range 222.50 362 73.43
Number
of Data 23 15 12

450

400

350

300
Liquid Limit, LL (%)

250

200

150

100

50

0
Clay Peak Residual
TypePeat
of Soil

16
4.7 Box-Plot Plastic Limit, PL (%) Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 6.17 22 14.82
q1 19.10 31.18 27.50
Median 29.06 37 31.90
q3 36.48 41.40 36
Maximum 155 257 45
Mean 33.68 70.30 31.88
Range 148.83 235 30.18
Number
of Data 22 15 11

300

250

200
Plastic Limit, PL (%)

150

100

50

0
Clay Peak Residual
Type of Soil
Peat

17
4.8 Box-Plot Plastic Index, PI (%) Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 10 21 6.75
q1 14 31.25 24.75
Median 16.99 39.56 33
q3 36.10 66.99 43.75
Maximum 90 156 56
Mean 28.66 52.37 32.85
Range 80 135 49.25
Number
of Data 22 14 12

180

160

140

120
Plastic Index, PI (%)

100

80

60

40

20

0
Clay Peat
Peak Residual
Type of Soil

18
4.9 Box-Plot Permeability, k (m/s) Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 1.1E-09 0.00000489 1.84E-11
q1 0.00013 0.086251223 0.000000041
Median 0.56 0.30 0.0000005
q3 0.92 0.80 0.01
Maximum 1.34 1.76 0.24
Mean 0.56 0.59 0.05
Range 1.34 1.76 0.24
Number
of Data 5 4 5

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Permeability, k (m/s)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Clay Peak
Peat Residual
Type of Soil

19
4.10 Box-Plot Shear Strength, Cu (kPa) Versus Type of Soil

Clay Peat Residual

Minimum 8.81 9.02 120.70
q1 14 9.02 122.03
Median 14 9.02 123.35
q3 82.53 9.02 124.68
Maximum 108 9.02 126
Mean 45.47 9.02 123.35
Range 99.19 0 5.30
Number
of Data 5 1 2

140

120

100
Shear Strength, Cu (kPa)

80

60

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 its 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 masters 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): 3201-
3214.
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 tropical 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. 505-
518.
46. Myoelinska, E. Classification of organic soils for engineering geology. Geological
Quarterly, Volume 47 (1), (2003), pp. 3942.
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