Mitigating Settlement of Structures founded on Peat

Observations made of two common failures of structures founded on peat organic soil in Johor, Malaysia is presented. Critical evaluation of current lightweight fill technology to mitigate such settlement is also discussed. Lightweight technology, such as Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), has been used in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IOP conference series. Materials Science and Engineering 2016-07, Vol.136 (1), p.12042-12050
Main Authors: Wijeyesekera, D C, Numbikannu, L, Ismail, T N H T, Bakar, I
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
cellular mat
Cellular structure
Construction sites
Differential settlement
EPS
Failure
Free flow
Grounds
Lightweight
Materials science
Peat
Polystyrene resins
Sand
Settlement mitigation
Soft soil
Weight reduction
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Observations made of two common failures of structures founded on peat organic soil in Johor, Malaysia is presented. Critical evaluation of current lightweight fill technology to mitigate such settlement is also discussed. Lightweight technology, such as Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), has been used in construction on soft yielding ground for decades. Regrettably, some published information of EPS failures to perform on construction sites are also cited in this paper. This paper outlines some concepts leading to the development of an alternative innovative lightweight fill is that the idealised cellular structure of the GCM permit free flow of water and complemented by the mat structure which evens out any differential settlement A further highlight of this paper is the monitoring of the field performance of this lightweight fill (GCM) as a feasible alternative to fill weight reduction on yielding ground.. Hence, a prime research objective was to compare the fill settlements observed with 1m high fill of surcharge loading on peat ground (comparison of the case of using a partial 0.6m high GCM and that of a total of 1m of conventional sand backfill).
ISSN:1757-8981
1757-899X
DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012042