Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Evaluation of peat strength for stability http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.12.00043

assessments Paper 1200043
Boylan and Long Received 04/04/2012 Accepted 09/10/2012
Keywords: failures/site investigation/strength and testing of materials

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Evaluation of peat strength

for stability assessments
Noel Boylan PhD, MIEI Michael Long MEngSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIEI
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Advanced Geomechanics, Perth, Western Senior Lecturer, School of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering,
Australia, formerly PhD Researcher in School of Civil, Structural and University College Dublin, Ireland
Environmental Engineering, University College Dublin, Ireland

In this paper guidance is given for the assessment of peat strength for stability assessments based on laboratory
undrained simple shear tests. When considering the stability of peat, these tests will yield a conservative estimation
of the in situ strength of the peat mass. The study was motivated by recent interest in renewable energy
developments in upland peat areas. The results of more than 111 simple shear tests from 16 sites in Ireland, Scotland
and the Netherlands were studied. It was found that the strength of peat is strongly influenced by its stress history,
and also varies as a function of the water content and degree of decomposition (fibre content). The normally
consolidated normalised strength ratio (su =ó v9 ) from simple shear tests of peat was found to be approximately 0.4,
which is towards the lower bound of previously published data for peat. Comparisons of strengths derived from
simple shear and field vane tests showed that the ratio of the strength derived from the two tests was influenced by
the degree of decomposition, and that previously published correction factors for field vane strengths are
inappropriate. Guidance is given for engineers working on future schemes on upland peat areas.

Notation may also encounter peat deposits. Peat, which forms from the
F fine fibre content accumulation of organic material over thousands of years, is
H degree of decomposition characterised by its high water content and compressibility, and
P plasticity low shear stiffness and shear strength. This soil is often classed as
R coarse fibre content problematic, owing to the large settlements observed under
su undrained shear strength relatively low loads, long-term creep settlements and low bearing
su-Fv undrained shear strength from field vane test capacity for structures founded on it. The potential for peat slides/
su-SS undrained shear strength from simple shear test flows that may occur naturally or be triggered by human activity
su-TC undrained shear strength from triaxial compression test further strengthens this negative outlook. While the occurrence of
T tensile strength of fibres peat slides/flows is not a recent phenomenon, the need to develop
W wood fraction infrastructure in these environments has brought about increased
w water content awareness of this geohazard. A number of significant peat slides/
z depth of failure surface flows have been recorded since 2003 (Dykes and Warburton,
 slope angle on base of sliding 2007, 2008; Long and Jennings, 2006; Long et al., 2011), some of
ª shear strain which occurred alongside engineering works. These have put
ªb bulk unit weight emphasis on the need to consider peat stability during develop-
FV-C field vane correction factor ment of upland areas.
 v9 vertical effective stress
 v9c consolidation vertical effective stress The task of assessing the stability of peat deposits is not a
 v90 in situ vertical effective stress straightforward one, particularly because of the wide range of
causal factors that have been noted to play a role in peat slides/
1. Introduction flows, and also the poor understanding of this material. Extreme
The growth of renewable energy developments in recent years, rainfall events or periods of prolonged antecedent rainfall are the
especially for wind energy but also for pumped storage schemes, most common factors in the occurrence of peat slides/flows. The
has led to an increased level of development in upland environ- failures that occurred at Pollatomish, Co. Mayo (Long and
ments. There has been particular interest in Ireland and the United Jennings, 2006), and on the Shetland Islands (Dykes and
Kingdom. To capture the optimum wind resource in a particular Warburton, 2008) on the same night in September 2003 were
area, these developments often take place on hills and mountains, triggered by extreme rainfall events, and the majority of failures
which in the British Isles can often have peat or strongly organic have been noted to occur in the wetter autumn and winter months
soils at the surface, particularly in the wetter regions. Roads, flood (Alexander et al., 1985). Slides/flows of peat have also been
defences, housing and small-scale developments in lowland areas initiated from bearing-type failures after the peat surface has been
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
1
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

loaded. This was identified as a factor in the failure near combination of qualitative risk assessments to rank various zones
Derrybrien, Co. Galway, in 2003 (AGEC, 2004). At this event, within a site, and engineering stability assessments to assess the
the placement of a relatively small load on the peat surface led to factor of safety of particular locations against failure. To
a failure involving 450 000 m3 of peat. Cuttings in peat for determine the stability of a deposit, having determined the slope
drainage (Tomlinson, 1981) and excavations of peat for fuel angle, an important task is to identify the drainage conditions that
(Praeger, 1897) have also been noted as trigger factors for large- dictate the soil behaviour during a particular failure scenario.
scale failures. In the latter example, eight people were killed However, from an examination of the range of causal factors of
when the 3 m high cutting gave way after a heavy rainfall event. peat failures reported in the literature, it could be argued that the
While many failures can be linked to external trigger factors, soil behaviour during a peat failure could range from undrained
causal factors linked to the morphology of the peat, the presence (e.g. sudden loading, or a short-duration extreme rainfall event)
of preferential hydrological pathways or pipes in the peat, and the to drained (e.g. drying and cracking of peat during summer, or
interaction with the underlying soil have been noted as playing a creep of peat at a significant change in the slope angle). The
role in these events (Boylan et al., 2008). range of permeability values reported for peat, and its potential to
change significantly under modest loading (Hanrahan, 1954;
Compared with mineral soils such as clays and sands, assessment of Mesri and Ajlouni, 2007), add further uncertainty to the appro-
the geotechnical properties of peat is complicated by its high water priate drainage conditions to consider. To the authors’ knowledge,
content and compressibility, and its organic composition. The high because the drainage condition could vary from fully undrained
compressibility of peat and the need to break fibres during sampling to fully drained, engineers often undertake an undrained stability
make obtaining high-quality samples difficult, and disturbed sam- assessment, which represents the more conservative approach.
ples may display non-conservative parameters for stability assess-
ments (i.e. increased strength). The difficulties with obtaining As peat slope failures for the most part resemble planar transla-
samples for laboratory tests often make in situ assessment of peat tional slides (Dykes and Kirk, 2001; Hendrick, 1990; Long and
strength a more favourable option in practice, with the field vane Jennings, 2006; Warburton et al., 2003), these stability assess-
test being the test most commonly used to obtain strength ments are generally undertaken using relatively simple infinite
parameters. However, vane testing has been noted by many slope analysis approaches. According to Haefli (1948) and
researchers to be inappropriate for peat, possibly leading to non- subsequently Skempton and De Lory (1957), the factor of safety
conservative strength parameters for stability assessments (Landva, (FOS) for a planar translation slide, if the peat is assumed to
1980; Long and Boylan, 2008). Few studies have been carried out behave in an undrained manner, is given by
using simple shear testing of peat, which would provide strength
parameters more appropriate for stability analyses of translational su
FOS ¼
type, which peat slope failures often resemble. Indeed, back-analy- 1: ªb z sin  cos 
sis of the failure of a trial embankment constructed on peat in the
Netherlands (Zwanenburg et al., 2012), where the observed failure
was translational, showed that the failure corresponded closest with where su is the undrained shear strength of peat, ªb is its bulk
parameters determined from simple shear tests. Although, trad- unit weight,  is the slope angle on the base of sliding, and z is
itionally, effective stress strength parameters have mostly been used the depth of the failure surface. For these assessments, the
to analyse embankments on organic soils in the Netherlands, greatest uncertainty surrounds the value of the undrained shear
consideration has recently been given to the use of undrained strength to be used.
strengths from simple shear tests (Den Haan and Feddema, 2012).

3. Shear strength of peat

This paper describes the results of a study carried out to examine
the undrained shear strength of peat using the simple shear 3.1 In situ testing
apparatus – also referred to as the direct simple shear (DSS) The field vane test (FVT) is the most frequently used device in
apparatus. Tests were conducted on peat samples from 16 sites in the UK and Ireland to obtain ‘undrained’ strength parameters
Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands, that cover a range of peat (su-FV ) for peat deposits. This is despite known problems with the
of varying levels of decomposition. In situ vane tests were carried test in peat, which lead to questionable results. In a comprehen-
out at a number of the sites, and the results of these are compared sive review of the vane test in peat, Landva (1980) observed that
with the strengths obtained in the laboratory. The trends observed a void was generated behind the blade into which the compressed
for both the laboratory and in situ tests are discussed, and peat in front of the blade drained, resulting in a modified peat.
recommendations are made for determining the shear strength of This would lead to strength parameters that are higher than the
peat in practice. truly undrained strength, owing to the partial drainage effects.
Helenelund (1967) and Landva (1980) also reported that a
2. Stability assessments of peat deposits cylindrical shear surface occurred at a diameter 7–10 mm outside
Given the wide range of causal factors, assessments of the the edge of the blade, and that the vane shear face was shorter,
stability of peat adjacent to engineering works often involve a owing to the compression/void mechanism described above.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
2
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

Therefore the assumed failure surface, from which su-FV is (2007), studying the stability of peat dykes, noted the unsuitability
calculated, is quite different from the actual failure surface. In of standard simple shear apparatus to test peat at the low effective
fibrous peat, fibres often wrap around the vane during rotation stress levels encountered in situ. Standard simple shear equipment
and increase the resistance being measured. Figure 1 shows an may have difficulty consolidating to low stresses (, 5 kPa).
example of a typical variation in shear strength measured during
rotation in fibrous peat. After the peak strength was reached, the Published data for laboratory tests on peat indicate that peat and
shear strength dropped suddenly and the sound of fibres tearing organic soils have large normalised undrained strength ratios
was heard. It is extremely difficult to quantify the influence of the (su = v9 ), which are higher than that of normally consolidated
fibres on the peak shear strength, and whether their interaction mineral soils. Figure 2 shows a summary from published
with the vane results in a strength that is different from the literature of the normalised strengths of peat versus organic
mobilised strength during other modes of failure. content (OC) for (a) triaxial compression tests, and (b) simple
shear tests. For triaxial compression, su-TC = v9 values range from
Unlike mineral soils, in peat su-FV has been found to decrease 0.47 to 0.75 for peat (OC . 80%). This is compared with the
with increasing vane diameter, possibly because of the effect of typical range of 0.3–0.35 for a normally consolidated clay or silt
the fibres, and the scale effect of these. Landva (1980) concluded (Ladd, 1991). For simple shear tests, su-SS = v9 values vary from
that the FVT is ‘of little engineering value in fibrous material’, 0.38 to 0.55, with one point lying outside this range. For a
and is also not suitable for organic soils. Helenelund (1967) normally consolidated clay or silt, the range would be between
similarly concluded that the ‘test is not reliable in fibrous peat’. 0.2 and 0.27 (Ladd, 1991). It is not clear from all of the
To overcome these difficulties, Edil (2001) suggested a vane publications listed in Figure 2 whether the specimens are
correction factor FV-C ¼ 0.4–0.5, and Mesri and Ajlouni (2007) normally consolidated, or have been subjected to a stress history
suggested a correction factor FV-C ¼ 0.5 to be applied to the that has increased their normalised strength ratios. Nonetheless, it
results of vane tests in peat. Despite all the issues identified with is clear that the range of su = v9 values for peat is consistently
vane tests in peat, it continues to be the most common used test higher than for normally consolidated clays and silts.
to determine the shear strength of peat.

4. Research sites and testing

3.2 Laboratory testing
Laboratory testing of peat specimens is carried out to a lesser 4.1 Overview of sites
degree than in situ tests, largely because of difficulties handling and The research described in this paper was carried out at 16 sites in
preparing samples, as well as problems in achieving the appropriate Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands. Table 1 provides a
stress levels to replicate in situ conditions in standard laboratory summary of the sites, basic properties of the peat, the sampling
apparatus. Laboratory testing of peat has mainly been carried out method employed, and whether any FVTs were carried out.
using triaxial compression tests, and simple shear tests have also Thirteen of the sites are located in Ireland, two are in the
been carried out in a limited number of cases. Long (2005) Netherlands and one is in Scotland (shown on the map in Figure
reviewed some of the issues related to carrying out triaxial tests on 3), and were investigated as part of ongoing research at
peat, particularly at low effective stresses. End platen roughness University College Dublin (UCD) on the shear strength of peat.
and corrections for membrane resistance were highlighted as The two sites in the Netherlands were investigated as part of a
important areas to be considered when testing peat. Pressure joint UCD/TU Delft research project, which is described else-
controllers used to apply the stresses to the specimen are only where (Boylan et al., 2011; Mathijssen et al., 2008)
accurate to 2 kPa and it is suggested that a differential pressure
transducer be used to ensure that the differential pressure between Sampling techniques varied from site to site, and the specific
the cell and back-pressure controlling devices is constant. De Jong technique used depended on resources available, the conditions of
the site, and health and safety considerations. For instance, hand-
10
Vane shear strength, su-FV: kPa

Ripping of carving of block samples was carried out only at shallow depths,
8 fibres where there is minimal risk to sampling personnel from collapse of
the excavation. Sampling was carried out by hand-carving blocks,
6 and by machine- or hand-pushing various sampling tubes with
either a plain or serrated edge. The SGI sampler, as described by
4
Carlsten (1988), is an example of such a sampler with a serrated
2 cutting edge. It is 100 mm in diameter, and contains an optional
core catcher. The cutting head is attached to a plastic tube, and the
0 sampler is pushed/rotated into the ground. Additionally, the high-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Vane rotation: degrees quality Sherbrooke block sampler, which is described by Lefebvre
and Poulin (1979), was used at the two sites in the Netherlands.
Figure 1. Typical in situ vane test in fibrous peat deposit
Generally, the samples were obtained from relatively shallow
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
3
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

1·0
Ajlouni (2000)
0·8 Adams (1965)
Normalised shear
strength, su-TC/σ⬘vc

Dhowian (1978)
0·6 Lechowicz (1994)
Farrell et al. (1999)
0·4
Farrell and Hebib (1998)
0·2 Edil and Wang (2000)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Organic content: %
(a)
1·0

0·8
Normalised shear
strength, su-SS/σ⬘vc

Lechowicz (1994)
0·6 Carlsten (2000)
Farrell et al. (1999)
0·4 Farrell and Hebib (1998)
0·2 Foott and Ladd (1981)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Organic content: %
(b)

Figure 2. Summary of laboratory strengths of peat: (a) triaxial

compression; (b) simple shear

Site Site Depth Water content: Degree of Sample type Vane Reference
number range: m % decomposition:* testing
H

1 Annaholty, Ireland 0.6–1.0 970–1120 H4 100 mm piston No Boylan (2008)

2 Ballincollig Hill, Ireland 0.8–2.5 530–1200 H5–H7 100 mm piston No Long et al. (2011)
3 Bodegraven, the 1.1–4.2 220–300 H5–H7 Sherbrooke block Yes Boylan et al.
Netherlands (2011); Mathijssen
et al. (2008)
4 Camster, Scotland 1.1–6.9 530–950 H5–H9 Rotary No
5 Carn Park, Ireland 0.5–2.0 720–1050 H4–H5 Hand-cut block No
6 Charlestown, Ireland 0.9–1.2 860–1170 H4–H7 100 mm piston No Boylan (2008)
7 East Galway, Ireland 1.8–5.9 510–1060 H3–H7 100 mm piston Yes
8 Cloosh, Ireland 0.1– 2.5 570–1010 H6–H9 100 mm piston Y
9 Crockagarron, Ireland 0.9–2.5 790–1260 H2–H8 Hand-cut block/SGI Yes
10 Garvagh Glebe, Ireland 0.8–2.5 610–990 H5–H9 Hand-cut block/SGI No
11 Glencolumcille, Ireland 0.5–1.5 770–1010 H4–H7 Hand-cut block No Long et al. (2011)
12 SW Donegal 0.5–2.2 530–980 H5–H8 100 mm piston Yes
13 Glinsk, Ireland 1.3–2.3 350–730 H5–H7 150 mm tube Yes
14 Loughrea, Ireland 0.5–1.0 1060–1200 H4–H5 100 mm piston Yes Boylan (2008)
15 Roosky, Ireland 1.1–1.3 840–1120 H4–H5 Hand-cut block No
16 Vinkeveen, the 2–4.7 600–940 H5–H7 Sherbrooke block Yes Boylan et al.
Netherlands (2011); Mathijssen
et al. (2008)

* Degree of decomposition assessed according to the scale developed by von Post and Granlund (1926), where H1 indicates no decomposition of
plant matter, and H10 indicates complete decomposition.

Table 1. Summary of research sites

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 147.188.128.74
4
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

6. Charlestown, Co. Mayo

4. Camster, Wick, Scotland
9. Crockgarron, Co. Tyrone
10. Garvagh Glebe, Co. Leitrim
11. Glencolumcille, Co. Donegal
12. SW Donegal, Co. Donegal
13. Glinsk, Co. Mayo
15. Roosky, Co. Longford

12
11
13
9
6 10
7
8 15
14 5
3. Bodegraven, Zuid-Holland
1 16. Vinkeveen, Utrecht
2

(a)

1. Annaholty, Co. Tipperary 16

2. Ballincollig Hill, Co. Kerry 3
5. Carn Park, Co. Westmeath
7. East Galway, Co. Galway
8. Cloosh, Co. Galway
14. Loughrea, Co. Galway (b)
100 km
(c)
Figure 3. Site locations: (a) Ireland; (b) Scotland; (c) The
Netherlands

depths between 1 m and 2.5 m, although samples were obtained men is held constant throughout the shearing stage of the test. For
from greater depths at a small number of sites where the peat is a fully saturated sample, the change in vertical stress during shear
deeper. The peat obtained from sites in Ireland generally had a to maintain the constant height is assumed to equal the change in
very high water content, usually of the order of 1000%, and had pore water pressure that would occur in a truly undrained test.
a large variation in degree of decomposition, with von Post H Dyvik et al. (1987) confirmed this assumption in a comprehensive
between 2 and 9 (von Post and Granlund, 1926). The peat from study of constant-volume simple shear tests and truly undrained
the two sites in the Netherlands had a lower water content, but a simple shear tests on normally consolidated Drammen clay.
similar range of degree of decomposition to the Irish sites.
Prior to shearing, test specimens were consolidated to either an
4.2 Simple shear testing estimate of the in situ vertical effective stress ( v90 ) or an
Simple shear testing was carried out on 111 specimens from the arbitrary large stress (expected to be higher than previous stresses
research sites. These tests were carried out using two types of SS applied to the specimen). While the former tests were consoli-
apparatus: a specially designed apparatus for testing peat at low dated to the in situ effective stress, the shear strength behaviour
effective stresses, called the UCD-DSS apparatus (Boylan and would be a function of the stress history of the specimen. The
Long, 2009), and a Geonor H-12 DSS apparatus (Bjerrum and latter tests were therefore carried out on specimens from specific
Landva, 1966). Modifications were made to the latter apparatus to sites to examine the behaviour of the peat under close to normally
improve its capability to consolidate to low effective stresses consolidated conditions. Samples were consolidated in several
(, 10 kPa). steps to the required consolidation stress ( v9c ), and then left
overnight. The following day, the specimens were sheared at a
Undrained simple shear tests were conducted in both types of constant shear strain (ª) rate of 4% per hour. In order to maintain
apparatus as constant-volume tests, where the height of the speci- constant-volume conditions, the vertical displacement of the top
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
5
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

Normalised shear strength, su-SS/σ⬘vc

cap was monitored throughout, and adjustments were made to the Site 1
Site 2
vertical stress to maintain the constant height of the specimen. Site 3
1·5
Site 4
The results of each test were corrected for compliance (generally Site 5
1·0 Site 6
less than 0.5 kPa) owing to membrane stiffness and apparatus
Site 7
friction. The undrained shear strength (su-SS ) is taken to be equal Site 8
to the peak horizontal shear stress attained during shearing, or 0·5 Site 9
alternatively the shear stress measured at 15% shear strain, Site 10
Site 11
whichever occurs first. 0 Site 12
0 20 40 60 80 Site 13
Vertical consolidation stress, σ⬘vc : kPa Site 14
4.3 In situ vane testing
(a) Site 15
Vane tests were carried out using both a GEONOR H-10 apparatus
Site 16
(vane height/diameter ¼ 110/55 mm) and a GEOTECH Electrical
Vane (both 280/140 mm and 172/80 mm vanes were used). The Normalised shear strength, su-SS/σ⬘vc
former is a hand-operated device, and the latter is mounted on a 1·5
Arbitrary stress
stand-alone unit and is driven by a computer-controlled motor. All In situ stress
tests were conducted at a rate of approximately 18/s. 1·0

0·5
5. Results
5.1 General trends 0
Figure 4 summarises the results from all the simple shear tests, 0 20 40 60 80
grouped by site number (given in Table 1), shown in terms of the Vertical consolidation stress, σ⬘vc : kPa
(b)
undrained shear strength (su-SS ) against the consolidation stress.
As expected, shear strength increases as a function of the
Figure 5. Normalised simple shear strengths organised by: (a) site;
consolidation stress.
(b) stress level

In Figure 5(a) the shear strengths have been normalised by the

consolidation stress, resulting in the normalised shear strengths
(su = v9c ). Values of su = v9c range from 0.25 to 1.35 across all the to 0.9, with a near-uniform value of ,0.4 for consolidation
sites. In Figure 5(b) the tests results are grouped by those that stresses greater than 30 kPa.
were carried out following consolidation to the in situ effective
stress ( v90 ) and those carried out to arbitrary stresses. The tests The difference between the two sets of data arises from the
carried out on specimens consolidated to in situ stress are different stress histories of the specimens. For the tests carried
grouped close together, as the arbitrary stresses were generally out to in situ effective stresses, the specimens may be over-
chosen to be far greater than the in situ effective stress at each consolidated to some degree, as the past maximum applied stress
site. For the in situ stress group, su = v9c ranges from 0.4 to 1.35, (e.g. due to overburden that has been removed, or frequent
while for the arbitrary stress group su = v9c values range from 0.25 changes in the water table) may be greater than the in situ
effective stress, and therefore the shear strength will be a function
of the in situ stress history. For the specimens that have been
Site 1
Site 2 consolidated to arbitrary stresses, the consolidation stresses have
Simple shear strength, su-SS: kPa

Site 3 been chosen to be many multiples of the in situ stresses, with the
30 Site 4 aim of exceeding the past maximum applied stress. Therefore the
Site 5
Site 6 near uniform su = v9c value of ,0.4 at large consolidation stresses
20
Site 7 represents conditions closer to normal consolidation conditions,
Site 8 where the consolidation stress is greater than all previous stresses
10 Site 9
applied to the specimen. This value lies towards the lower bound
Site 10
Site 11 of the published data give in Figure 2, suggesting that the scatter
0 Site 12 in the data from published literature may arise, in part, from the
0 20 40 60 80 Site 13 stress history of the specimens.
Vertical consolidation stress, σ⬘vc : kPa Site 14
Site 15
Site 16 5.2 Relationship with basic parameters
The water content of peat is sometimes used in practice to give an
Figure 4. Results of simple shear tests indication of the shear strength when laboratory or in situ measures
of strength are not available. Figure 6 shows the variation of shear
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
6
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

Simple shear strength, su-SS: kPa

35 Water content: %
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
30 Arbitrary stress 0
25 In situ stress
Amaryan et al. (1973)
20
15 0·5
10
5

Depth: m
0
1·0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Water content: %

Figure 6. Variation of simple shear strength with water content Water content
1·5 Decomposition

strength with the water content of the specimens after consolidation.

As expected, there is a general trend of decreasing shear strength 2·0
with increasing water content. The bounds of the empirical correla- 0 2 4 6 8 10
tion between vane shear strengths (su-FV ) and water content Von Post decomposition, H
(a)
suggested by Amaryan et al. (1973) are also shown. While the
majority of the data fall within the bounds, a significant portion falls Vane and simple shear
below the lower bound. The wide range of these empirical bounds strength, su-FV and sU-SS: kPa
makes them of little use for stability assessments, where an accurate 0 5 10 15
0
and conservative strength is preferable.

Figure 7 shows the variation of su-SS = v9c with the level of

decomposition. Note that the results are shown only for tests carried 0·5
out at arbitrary stresses, as no trends were observed in the full data
set due to effects of stress history. Although there is much scatter in
Depth: m

the data, there appears to be reduced variation of su-SS = v9c with

1·0
increasing decomposition. All of the peat studied here, even that at
maximum degree of decomposition, contained fibres. Nevertheless,
as the presence of fibres, and in particular the intactness of the fibre,
Simple shear
reduces with increasing decomposition, this observation empha- 1·5
sises that fibres may contribute to the variability of measured peat Vane
strengths, particularly at low degrees of decomposition.
2·0
5.3 Comparison of in situ vane and laboratory strength (b)
In situ vane tests were carried out at eight of the sites given in
Figure 8. Loughrea site: (a) variation of water content and degree
Table 1. Figure 8 shows an example of the shear strengths
of decomposition with depth; (b) comparison of vane and simple
measured at the Loughrea site (site 14 in Table 1 and Figure 3).
shear
1·00
strength, su-SS/σ⬘vc : kPa
Normalised shear

0·75 At this location, the water content of the peat varies from 900%
to 1600%, and the level of decomposition ranges from H4 to H7.
0·50 Within the 2 m depth interval, vane strengths range from 6.1 to
9.7 kPa. In contrast, the shear strengths measured in simple shear
0·25 tests resulted in su-SS values ranging from 2.5 to 3 kPa. The ratio
of vane to simple shear strength (su-vane /su-SS ) ranges from 3 to 4
0 at the depths where both tests were carried out.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Von Post decomposition, H
Figure 9(a) shows the normalised strengths for all the vane tests
Figure 7. Normalised simple shear strengths against von Post with depth. Figure 9(b) shows a close-up of the normalised vane
decomposition strengths less than 2.0. Above 2 m, the normalised strength from
all the sites ranges from about 0.8 to 9.0. This wide range of
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
7
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

Normalised vane strength, su-FV/σ⬘v0 6

0 2 4 6 8 10
0 5

1 4

Su-FV /Su-SS
2 3
Depth: m

3
2
4
1
5
0
6
su/σ⬘v ⫽ 0·4 0 2 4 6 8 10
7 Von Post decomposition, H
(a)
Normalised vane strength, su-FV/σ⬘v0 Figure 10. Ratio of in situ vane strength and simple shear
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 strength
0
1
than 1, suggest that in situ vane tests may grossly overestimate the
2
shear strength of peat deposits. Considering the su-vane /su-SS ratio of
Depth: m

3
2.0 implied by the vane correction factors suggested by Edil (2001)
4 and Mesri and Ajlouni (2007), approximately 70% of the values lie
5 above this level, implying that a universal correction factor is
6 su/σ⬘v ⫽ 0·4 insufficient for correcting vane tests in peat.
7
(b) 6. Summary
This paper describes a study of the shear strength of peat for
Figure 9. Normalised strengths from in situ vane tests with depth stability assessments using the simple shear apparatus. The
motivation of the study was to provide guidance to engineers
designing infrastructure and assessing the stability of peat
values reflects the low degree of decomposition (i.e. fibrous peat) deposits. Tests were conducted on peat samples from 16 sites
that is generally found close to the surface of peat sites. In from Ireland, Scotland and the Netherlands, and cover a range of
addition, the peat closest to the surface would have experienced peat of varying water content and degrees of decomposition. In
higher levels of stress due to surface loadings and seasonal situ vane tests were carried out at a number of the sites, and the
fluctuations of the water table, thus resulting in more overconsoli- results of these are compared with the strengths obtained in the
dated peat compared with peat at depth. At depth, the normalised laboratory. The main conclusions from this study are as follows.
strengths occupy a narrower range of values from 0.7 to 3.5,
reflecting a reduction in overconsolidation ratio with depth, and (a) The published literature shows much scatter in the range of
possibly lower levels of fibres found in the more decomposed peat. normalised strength ratios (su = v9 ) for peat. Trends observed
Compared with the range of normalised strengths observed in the in this study suggest this may be largely due to the effects of
laboratory, the lower-bound value from the vane tests is 1.75 times stress history.
greater than the normally consolidated su-SS = v9c of 0.4. (b) Based on the results presented in this paper, peat strength is
shown to be significantly affected by stress history (either in
To further investigate the range of strengths measured from in situ the field or the laboratory), its water content and the degree
vane tests, the ratios su-vane /su-SS against degree of decomposition, of decomposition.
H, for depths at which vane tests and simple shear tests exist at the (c) For the sites examined, a lower-bound normally consolidated
research sites are compared in Figure 10. For this comparison, the strength ratio for peat (su = v9 ) equal to 0.4 was obtained from
36 tests range in decomposition from H4 to H9, which covers a simple shear testing. This coincides with the lower bound of
range of moderately to well decomposed peat. The ratio su-vane /su-SS the published data.
ranges from 1 to 5.7, with the highest ratios observed for lower (d) The ratio between the shear strength measured in situ using
values of decomposition. The higher ratios for the lower levels of the vane apparatus and that obtained in the laboratory simple
decomposition are probably due to the greater influence of fibres shear tests (su-vane /su-SS ) ranges from 1 to 5.7, decreasing with
on the vane, compared with the more decomposed peat where increasing decomposition. These values are generally greater
fibres have decomposed. In addition, the effect of partial drainage than the value of 2.0 that is implied by the vane-correction
of the peat being sheared by the vane would have played a more factors suggested by Edil (2001) and Mesri and Ajlouni
significant role in tests conducted in peat of low decomposition and (2007). Thus vane tests in peat may give misleading and non-
hence more permeable than peat of a higher degree of decomposi- conservative results for stability assessments, and should be
tion. The wide variation of ratios and the high values, far greater treated with great caution.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
8
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

6.1 Advice for practising engineers Ajlouni M (2000) Geotechnical Properties of Peat and Related
The following approach is suggested for future investigations of Engineering Problems. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at
upland peat sites. Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.
Alexander R, Coxon P and Thorn RT (1985) Bog flows in south-
(a) Initially probe the site using simple methods or ideally using east Sligo and south-west Leitrim. In Sligo and West Leitrim –
ground-penetrating radar to determine the underlying IQUA Field Guide No. 8 (Thom RH (ed.)). Irish Association
morphology of the peat (Boylan and Long, 2012). for Quaternary Studies, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 58–76.
(b) Hand-sample the peat at regular intervals using a gouge auger Amaryan LS, Sorokina GV and Ostoumova LV (1973)
or ‘Russian’ peat sampler (Jowsey, 1966). Consolidation laws and mechanical-structural properties of
(c ) Carry out a detailed log of the peat, which should include full peaty soils. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
classification according to von Post and Granlund (1926). on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow,
This classification should include details of the fine (F) and pp. 1–6.
coarse (R) fibre content, the wood fraction (W), the tensile Bjerrum L and Landva AO (1966) Direct simple-shear tests on a
strength of the fibres (T), the plasticity (P) and the degree of Norwegian quick clay. Géotechnique 16(1): 1–20.
decomposition (H). A laboratory water content (w) Boylan N (2008) The Shear Strength of Peat. PhD thesis,
determination should also be made. This level of University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
classification provides a detailed baseline of the peat Boylan N and Long M (2009) Development of a direct simple
properties that is helpful when interacting with other shear apparatus for peat soils. ASTM Geotechnical Testing
disciplines (e.g. engineering geologists, geomorphologists) Journal 32(2): 126–138.
that may provide input into qualitative risk assessments. Boylan N and Long M (2012) In situ testing of peat: a review and
(d) For stability assessments, conservatively assume that the peat update on recent developments. Geotechnical Engineering
will behave in an undrained manner in the field, and estimate Journal of the SEAGS and AGSSEA 43(4): 41–55.
the strength assuming a conservative undrained strength ratio Boylan N, Jennings P and Long M (2008) Peat slope failure in
(su = v9 ). Assumed values should be confirmed through Ireland. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
laboratory testing. Hydrogeology 41(1): 93–108.
(e) Identify the most vulnerable locations, sample the peat, and Boylan N, Long M and Mathijssen FAJM (2011) In situ strength
carry out laboratory strength testing. If it is not possible to characterisation of peat and organic soil using full-flow
get block samples, use a tube with serrated edges. penetrometers. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48(7): 1085–
( f ) Multiple tests should be carried out on peat at similar depths 1099.
to assess the natural variability. It would be preferable to Carlsten P (1988) Geotechnical Properties of Peat and Up-to-Date
carry out simple shear testing, but in circumstances where Methods for Design and Construction. Swedish Geotechnical
this test method is not available, the use of alternative test Institute (SGI), Linköping, Sweden, Varia No. 215.
methods (e.g. triaxial compression) may be considered. Carlsten P (2000) Geotechnical properties of some Swedish peats.
However, the strength anisotropy and the differing modes of Proceedings of the 13th NGM, Nordiska Geoteknikermötet,
shearing in the various laboratory test types need to be taken Helsinki, Finland, pp. 51–60.
into account when assessing strength parameters. De Jong AK (2007) Modelling Peat Dike Stability. Master’s thesis,
TU Delft, Delft, the Netherlands.
Den Haan EJ and Feddema A (2012) Deformation and strength of
Acknowledgements
embankments on soft Dutch soil. Proceedings of the
The authors are very grateful to the various consulting and
Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering
contracting companies for providing access to the study sites, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geng.9.00086.
for sharing site data. In particular, the authors would like to thank
Dhowian AW (1978) Consolidation Effects on Properties of
Mr François Mathjissen of Boskalis Westminster/Delft University
Highly Compressive Soils-Peats. PhD thesis, University of
of Technology for collaboration with the Dutch sites, and Mr
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
George Cosgrave, Senior Technician at UCD, for help with the
Dykes AP and Kirk KJ (2001) Initiation of a multiple peat slide on
laboratory tests.
Cuilcagh Mountain, Northern Ireland. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 26(4): 395–408.
REFERENCES Dykes AP and Warburton J (2007) Significance of
Adams JI (1965) The engineering behaviour of a Canadian geomorphological and subsurface drainage controls on
muskeg. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on failures of peat-covered hill slopes triggered by extreme
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal, rainfall. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32(12):
Canada, pp. 3–7. 1841–1862.
AGEC (2004) Final Report on Derrybrien Wind Farm Post- Dykes AP and Warburton J (2008) Characteristics of the Shetland
Landslide Site Appraisal. Applied Ground Engineering Islands (UK) peat slides of 19 September 2003. Landslides
Consultants, Bagenalstown, Co. Carlow, Ireland. 5(2): 213–226.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
9
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation of peat strength for stability
assessments
Boylan and Long

Dyvik R, Berre T, Lacasse S and Raadim B (1987) Comparison of Long M and Boylan N (2008) Discussion of ‘A5 Llyn Ogwen
truly undrained and constant volume direct simple shear tests. peatslide, Capel Curig, North Wales’ by D Nichol, GK
Géotechnique 37(1): 3–10. Doherty & MJ Scott. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Edil TB (2001) Site characterisation in peat and organic soils. Geology and Hydrogeology 41(4): 487–489.
Proceedings of the International Conference on In Situ Long M and Jennings P (2006) Analysis of the peat slide at
Measurement of Soil Properties and Case Histories, Bali, Pollatomish, Co. Mayo, Ireland. Landslides 3(1): 51–61.
Indonesia, pp. 49–59. Long M, Jennings P and Carroll R (2011) Irish peat slides 2006–
Edil TB and Wang X (2000) Shear strength and K0 of peats and 2010. Landslides 8(3): 391–401.
organic soils. In Geotechnics of High Water Content Mathijssen FAJM, Boylan N, Long M and Molenkamp F (2008)
Materials (Edil TB and Fox PJ (eds)). ASTM International, Sample disturbance of organic soils. In Proceedings of the
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, ASTM STP 1374, pp. 209– 3rd International Conference on Geotechnical and
225. Geophysical Site Characterization, Taipei (Huang AB and
Farrell ER and Hebib S (1998) The determination of the Mayne PW (eds)). Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, pp.
geotechnical parameters of organic soils. Proceedings of the 1481–1488.
International Symposium on Problematic Soils, IS-TOHOKU Mesri G and Ajlouni M (2007) Engineering properties of fibrous
98, Sendai, Japan, pp. 33–36. peats. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Farrell ER, Jonker SK, Knibbeler AGM and Brinkgrieve RBJ Engineering, ASCE 133(7): 850–866.
(1999) Use of direct simple shear test for the design of a Praeger RL (1897) Bog bursts, with special reference to the recent
motorway on peat. Proceedings of the 12th European disaster in Co. Kerry. Irish Naturalist 6(6): 141–162.
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Skempton AW and De Lory FA (1957) Stability of natural slopes
Engineering, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 1027–1033. in London Clay. Proceedings of the 4th International
Foott R and Ladd CC (1981) Undrained settlement of plastic and Conference on Soil Mechanics, London, vol. 2, pp. 376–381.
organic clays. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Tomlinson RW (1981) A preliminary note on the bog-burst at
Division, ASCE 107(8): 1079–1094. Carrowmaculla, Co. Fermanagh, November 1979. Irish
Haefli R (1948) The stability of slopes acted on by parallel Naturalists Journal 20(8): 313–316.
seepages. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on von Post L and Granlund E (1926) Sodra Sveriges torvtilgaangar
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotterdam, the (Peat resources in southern Sweden). In Sveriges Geologiska
Netherlands, vol. 1, pp. 134–148. Undersökning, Yearbook 19, Series C, No. 335, pp. 1–127
Hanrahan ET (1954) An investigation of physical properties of (in Swedish).
peat. Géotechnique 4(3): 108–121. Warburton J, Higgitt D and Mills AJ (2003) Anatomy of a
Helenelund KV (1967) Vane tests and tension tests on fibrous Pennine peat slide, northern England. Earth Surface
peats. Proceedings of the Geotechnical Conference on Shear Processes and Landforms 28(5): 457–473.
Strength Properties of Natural Soils and Rocks, Oslo, Zwanenburg C, Den Haan EJ, Kruse GAM and Koelewijn AR
Norway, pp. 199–203. (2012) Failure of a trial embankment on peat in Booneschans,
Hendrick E (1990) A bog flow at Bellacorrick Forest, Co. Mayo. The Netherlands. Géotechnique 62(5): 479–490.
Irish Forestry 47(1): 32–44.
Jowsey PC (1966) An improved peat sampler. New Phytologist
65(2): 245–248.
Ladd CC (1991) Stability evaluation during staged construction.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE
117(4): 540–615.
Landva AO (1980) Vane testing in peat. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 17(1): 1–19. WH AT DO YO U T HI NK?

Lechowicz Z (1994) An evaluation of the increase in shear To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
strength of organic soils. In Advances in Understanding and editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be
Modelling the Mechanical Behaviour of Peat: Proceedings of forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
the International Workshop, Delft, the Netherlands (Edil TB, appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
Termaat R and den Haan E (eds)) Balkema, Rotterdam, the discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Netherlands, pp. 167–180. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
Lefebvre G and Poulin C (1979) A new method of sampling in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 16(1): 226– Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
233. should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
Long M (2005) Review of peat strength, peat characterisation and tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
constitutive modelling of peat with reference to landslides. www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica 27(3–4): 67–90. will also find detailed author guidelines.
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 147.188.128.74
10
On: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:55:17