COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND …€¦ · compressed earth blocks, through an...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 654 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 5, May 2018, pp. 654–664, Article ID: IJCIET_09_05_071

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=5

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MECHANICAL

BEHAVIOR AND DURABILITY OF

COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS STABILIZED

BY TWO TYPES OF LIME: INDUSTRIAL AND

ARTISANAL

A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata

ARCHIPEL Laboratory, University Tahri Mohammed Bechar, Faculty of Technology,

Civil Engineering Department, BP. 417, Bechar, Algeria

ABSTRACT

The lime micro-porosity allows the manufacture of a permeable mortar to water

vapor. The main defect of cement-mounted walls is the rise of soil moisture by

capillarity. Lime, on the other hand, rids the walls of their moisture and thus

eliminates the associated problems.

The lime in combination with other building materials including clay materials

has insulating properties, as well as thermal and phonic therefore generates a net

improvement of indoor comfort.

The idea in this topic is to promote artisanal lime in the manufacture of

compressed earth blocks, through an experimental comparative study based on

mechanical strength tests between compressed earth blocks stabilized by industrial

lime available on the market and which stabilized with artisanal lime of our region.

Key words: Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB), Lime, Mechanical Strength

and Durability.

Cite this Article: A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata,

Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth

Blocks Stabilized by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal, International

Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(5), 2018, pp. 654–664.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=5

1. INTRODUCTION

Earth is one of the main building materials used for thousands of years [01, 02]. About 50%

of the world's population at least still lives in mud houses [03]. There are about 500,000 earth

buildings in the United Kingdom, most of them built before the 20th century and still

occupied [04]. In India, the walls of 55% of houses are still built from the raw earth [05]. In

addition, earth has been widely used for construction in Algeria, especially in the south of the



country where it is very hot, dry and the rain is very rare [06]. It is a subject that attracts today

[07], given the many sustainability benefits that can be brought by the use of this kind of

materials: it is a natural, very likely non-toxic, ecological, with low energy intensity, low CO2

emissions, and very able to be recycled [08].

Indeed, earthen constructions are generally associated with vernacular architecture,

because of local soils are generally used by local people. This means that a wide variety of

traditional construction technics exists and reflects several properties, such as the difference

of soils, the social, cultural and economic contexts of populations [09]. Compressed Earth

Blocks (CEB) is one of the earth building technics and it has widely been used in several

countries all over the world. This is the modern form of adobe brick gaining popularity as a

building material in the world [10]. But, they are usually stronger than adobe bricks [11].

They can also be produced in different sizes offering an architectural and aesthetic variety.

CEB can be made with local materials using little energy [12]. Where, The Cinva Ram was

the first of the instruments that pushed this type of construction procedure [13].

Since the earthen constructions are very water sensitive constructions in generally, the

abnormal presence of moisture can alter the quality of constructions; affect the quality of the

indoor environments, the thermal comfort of the inhabitants and the structural resistance of

building [14]. Practically, there are several types of interventions at the end of the design to

minimize the damage caused by water presence.

At the material level, several works have been carried out to introduce and evaluate

different stabilizers [15, 16], as well as to improve the properties of materials [17, 18].

Stabilization earth with hydraulic binders began in 1917 where many researchers focused

their research in this direction [19, 20].

Thus, a large number of articles have reported the impact of cement or lime on certain

physical and mechanical properties of adobe blocks [21, 22, 23, 24, 25].

It should be noted that these chemical additives are added to the mixture of raw and

uncured earth to protect the adobe brick against decomposition and moisture deterioration

[05], and to acquire particular properties [26].

Cement and lime not only improve strength, but they also reduce the tendency to swell

and shrink, to crack and generate dust [02, 27].

Although these two chemical stabilizers are authorized or even recommended by several

authors [02,28, 29, 30], some studies indicate that the addition of cement to the earth mortar is

not appropriate in earthen buildings [31] and represents a colossal error that gives rise to

major long-term problems [32, 33], while adding lime can improve compressive and flexural

strength of earth brick [34].

Talking about traditional earth construction, using zero transport energy implies the use of

local materials as much as possible (assuming that the soil is already available). If it’s

necessary, the stabilizers must be transported from the nearest treatment plant to the

construction site [35, 36]. Hence the idea that we compare two types of lime: industrial and

artisanal.

Engineers and practitioners assume that strength and durability are interchangeable

properties, this means whenever that the material is stronger, it is more durable too [37].

Therefore, we had necessary to change the earth concrete components until a compatible

composition with durability requirements.

Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized

by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal


2. MATERIALS

2.1. Site earth

Earthen materials used to manufacturing the stabilized Earth blocks SEB tested in this work

were sourced from Mougeul’s Ksar site, located in Bechar (south-ouest Algeria).

It should be noted that this kind of construction requires the identification of certain

properties of the raw material [33, 38].

For the soil identification, standard tests were performed. The elemental chemical analysis

were realized in order to determine the soil composition, the obtained results were

summarized in the Table 1.

Table 1 Chemical analysis of soil

Component %

CO3-2

% 15,90

SO4-2

% Traces

CL-% 0,67

Insolubles 83,43

The Methylene blue test has been done also. It’s consists in evaluating by indirect

measurement the specific surface of the solid grains by adsorption of a Methylene blue

solution up to saturation; It was performed and allows to find an value of VBS =1% which

characterize the soil as not very absorbent and defined as "loamy soil". A granulometric

analysis was carried out in two stages: by sieving and by Sedimentometry. The results given

in Fig.1, shows the used soil is rather coarse and have an spreading granulometry.

Figure 1 Granular grain of the site earth

Atterberg limits (liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index) were also measured; the

results are giving in the Table 2 below.

Table 2 State of site earth consistency (Atterberg limits)

Parameters Value

Liquid Limit WL 19,45%

Plastic Limit WP 11,36%

Plasticity Index IP 08,09%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Ta

mis

ata

s a

ccru

ed

%

Sieve (mm)



Some others in the literature [39] propose a plasticity index IP value between 3 <IP<15

for soil used in the earthen construction, notably in the stabilized earthen. The obtained

results, shows than the soil of the Mougheul site is characterized with favorable plasticity

(plasticity index 3 < Ip= 8,09% < 15).

2.2. Industrial lime

The lime used as stabilizer in this study is from Sarl BMSD Chaux which is located on a lime

quarry in Hasasna, town of Saida, in the North West of Algeria. There chemicals analysis and

the physical characteristics are given in the following Table 3.

Table 3 Chemical and Physical analysis of industrial lime [Source: Technical sheet]

Chemical characteristics Physical characteristics

CO3-2

% <10 Density (g/l) <500

SO4-2

% <1 volume Constance good

CL-% <1 Specific weights (g/cm3) 2,26 g/cm3

CaO % 64,4 à 73,25 H2O Of hydration 19,46 à 23, 29

Remains insoluble % <6.50 Refusal 360 µ (%) 0

2.3. Artisanal lime

We chose to use CaCOH Artisanal lime made in a traditional oven in KENADSA [40] witch

characterized as follows (Table 4).

Table 4 Chemical and Physical analysis of artisanal lime [40]

Chemical characteristics Physical characteristics

CO3-2

% 5,60 Unpacked density (g/cm ³) 0,637

SO4-2

% 3,28 Packed density (g/cm ³) 0,869

CL-% 0,28 Absolute density (g/cm ³) 2,580

CaO % 77,26 Finesse following Blaine’s method (cm³/g) 10189

Remains insoluble % 13,58 Water content (%) 0,30

Passing through the sieve 80 μm (%) 100

3. METHODS

3.1. Samples preparation

Sampling is done directly from the adobe bricks that exist in the degraded part of ksar

Mougheul. After grinding these bricks, sieving with φ6.3mm is carried out to separate the

large pebbles. Chemical stabilization is a very interesting procedure in the case where the

available earth does not have the adequate properties. To this end we added 10% of lime.

The dry mixture (earth + stabilizer) must remain three hours in the open air so that the

composition of the earth is better reacted with lime. Then we added 20% water relative to the

mass of the earth, in order to move the dry mix at a low humidity and homogeneous mixture

ready for molding. We fill the press mold (Figure 2) in order to get the dimensions of the

bricks such as the dimensions of the mold (07 × 12 × 24) cm3. A compressive force is

manually applied using the press arm in order to make the mixture well compressed. Finely,

bricks were kept under a plastic tarpaulin for 3 days (Figure 2), and then left them to air dry

for (28 days).




Figure 2 Manufacture and conservation of compressed earth blocks (07×12×24)cm3

3.2. Mechanical tests

3.2.1. Bending tensile test

The prepared block is placed between two lower rollers which are the supports, with a

distance between them about (3a = 18cm). The upper roller will be placed on the blocks

between the two other lower rollers (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Bending tensile test (3-point).

For a total load P, the constant bending moment between the two points of application of

load is: M ��

�

With P = strength at break

L = 3 a: distance between supports.

The flexural tensile strength is given by:

σ�� = 4.60x10-2xP For low cross direction (Figure 4(a))

� = 2.68x10-2xP For strong transverse direction (Figure 4(b))

(a) (b)

Figure 4 Bending tensile test in: (a) low cross direction (b) strong transverse direction



3.2.2. Compression test

The studied sample is under increasing load until fracture. The compressive strength is the

ratio of the breaking load to the cross section of the sample. In our case (CEB and SCEB),

testing is done on rectangular parallelepiped blocks of dimensions (24x12x07) cm3 in both

directions (Figure 5). Block is passed to the press which allows us reading the force exerted

on the side faces of sample block

(a) (b)

Figure 5 Compression test in: (a) low inertia direction (b) strong inertia direction

3.3. Capillary upwelling test

This involves immersing the facing face in a thin layer of water (5mm) for 10 minutes and

observing the weight gain of the brick during this test (Figure 6). The water absorption

coefficient is deduced from this test according to the following formula [41]: Cb ��

�√��[g/m2/s0.5]

Knowing that :

Cb = Coefficient of resistance to capillary rise

P1 =Weight of the brick after immersion in grams

P0 = Weight of the brick before immersion in grams

S = Surface of the immersed brick in m2

It is considered that a brick is:

• Weak capillary when Cb≤ 20

• Little capillary when Cb <40

Figure 6 Rise of water within the block




4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Mechanical tests results

Figure 7 the average strength result of mechanical tests

For the bending tensile test in low cross direction, there is a big difference between the

strength of compressed earth blocks without stabilizer and that of stabilized with lime. This

difference exceeds 96%, which means that the stabilized earth blocks have a low tensile

strength in this direction. In the other direction (strong), we notice a result with a slight

difference where compressed earth blocks without stabilizer are always the best, then it comes

the strength value of stabilized earth blocks with industrial lime.

For the simple compression test in low cross direction, we have a result with a same

appearance as the other direction (strong), we noticed the big values in low cross direction for

the three cases of composition. But compressed earth blocks without lime stabilization have

always the best result.

4.2. Capillary upwelling test result

Figure 8 Capillary upwelling test result

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Earth Earth +

Industriel

Lime

Earth +

Artisanal

Lime

0.81

0.03 0.02

0.550.50

0.30

Ben

din

g t

ensi

le s

tren

gth

(M

Pa

)

Compositions

Low Cross

Direction

Strong

Transverse

Direction

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Earth Earth +

Industriel

Lime

Earth +

Artisanal

Lime

2.25

1.92

1.01

1.39

0.68

0.36

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th (

MP

a)

Compositions

Low Cross

Direction

Strong

Transverse

Direction

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

0

5 m

in

10 m

in

15 m

in

20 m

in

1h

10

3h

30

5h

10 h

20h

40h

60h

80h

120

h

140

h

145

h

150

h

155

h

160

h

Wei

gh

t (g

)

Time (Hours)

Earth

Earth +

Industriel

Lime

Earth +

Artisanal

Lime



Figure 9 Resistance coefficient of capillary rise

Figure 10 Water saturation time

Figure 11 Water saturation rate

The calculation of the absorption coefficient (Cb) (Figure 9) gives a big value in the case

of compressed earth blocks without stabilizer. But whatever the composition, our material is

not very capillary since the Cb is less than 20.

For the water saturation time (Figure 10), it is said that the compressed earth block

stabilized with artisanal lime takes the most important time more than 150 hours, less than

this time; the compressed earth block stabilized with industrial lime takes 140 hour of time,

while the compressed earth block without stabilizer becomes saturated after 120 hours.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Earth Earth + Industriel

Lime

Earth + Artisanal

Lime

5.2

1.1

3.4

Cb

(g

/m2

S0

,5)

Compositions

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000


Lime

Earth + Artisanal

Lime

7200

84009000

Stu

rati

on

Tim

e (m

in)

Compositions

0

5

10

15

20


Lime

Earth + Artisanal

Lime

10.8 11.2

19.5

Sa

tura

tio

n R

ate

(%

)

Compositions




For the absorbed water weight (Figure 11), we say that the big mass is given in the case of

compressed earth block, stabilized with artisanal lime. For both cases, we have the

approximate weights.

5. CONCLUSION

Our results show that the mechanical strength of the proposed compressed earth blocks,

stabilized by lime, is low compared to that of compressed earth blocks without lime stabilizer.

Regarding the water characterization, the capillary rise test showed a moderately short

absorption in the case of compressed earth blocks, stabilized by artisanal lime. As a result,

this ensures the stability from water rise and gives a potential use of local materials up to

100% at the same time.

So, it should be noted that the stabilization of earth by lime in the manufacture of blocks

gives results better than without stabilization at the point of view durability from water attack.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Pollock, Ancient Mesopotamia, Vols. 1-250, Printed in the United Kingdom at the

University Press, Cambridge, 2) 1999.

[2] G. Minke, Building with Earth: Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture,

Birkhäuser – Publishers for Architecture Basel, Berlin, Boston, 2006.

[3] J. Dethier Des architectures de terre. In: Edition de centre Pompidou, Paris 1986.

[4] B. Little, T.Morton, Building with Earth in Scotland. Innovative design and sustainability.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit; 2007 (ISBN 9780755930081).

[5] Singh LD, Singh SCS, Final report on low cost housing using stabilised mud blocks.

Central Jail Road, Imphal-795001: Manipur Science & Technology Council, 2007.

[6] Guettala a, A. Abibsi a, H. Durability study of stabilized earth concrete under both

laboratory and climatic conditions exposure HouariConstruction and Building Materials

20 (2006) 119–127.

[7] Q.-B. Bui, J.-C. Morel, S. Hans, N. Meunier, Compression behaviour of non- industrial

materials in civil engineering by three scale experiments : the case of rammed earth,

Mater. Struct. 42 (2009) 1101–1116.

[8] Maria Idalia Gomes a, Paulina Faria b, Teresa Diaz Gonçalyes. Earth-based mortars for

repair and protection of rammed earth walls. Stabilization with mineral binders and fibers.

Journal ofe Cleaner

[9] Rui A. Silva Edgar Soares, Daniel V. Oliveira, Tiago Miranda, Nuno M. Cristelo, Dinis

Leitão, Mechanical characterisation of dry-stack masonry made of CEBs stabilised with

alkaline activation Construction and Building Materials 75 (2015) 349–358

[10] Peter Donkor, Esther Obonyo -Earthen construction materials: Assessing the feasibility of

improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using polypropylene

fibers, Materials & Design 83 (2015) 813–819.

[11] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future eco-

efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519.

[12] J.C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, P. Walker, Building houses with local materials:

means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction, Build. Environ. 36

(10) (2001) 1119–1126.

[13] R. Moss, C. Proto, D. Sanchez, K. Rowley, R. Thompson. ICEB: Design and Construction

Manual, Civil Engineering Senior Design, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, 2010.



[14] J. Berger et al, L’humudité dans les bâtiments: Pathologies et paramètres gouvernants,

XXXe AUGC/IBPSA, Chambéry: Ass. universitaire Génie civil/ The international

Guilding Performance Simulation Association), (2012).

[15] A. Hakimi, N. Yamani, H.Ouissi, Resultats d'essai de resistance mecanique sur echantillon

de terre comprimee, Materials and Structures/Materiaux et constructions 1996; 29:600–8

[16] A. Guettala, M. Guenfoud, Influence des Types d'Argiles sur les Proprie´te´s Physico-

me´caniques du Be´ton de Terre Stabilise´e au Ciment. Annales du Batiment et des

Travaux Publics 1998;1:15–25.

[17] M. Moor, K. Heathcote, Earth Building in Australia – Durability Research. In Proceedings

of Modern Earth Building, Germany: Berlin, 19–21 April 2002. p. 129–39.

[18] AG. Kerali, Durability of compressed and cement-stabilized building blocks. Ph.D Thesis.

UK: University of Warwick, school of Engineering, September 2001.

[19] R. Bahar, M. Benazzoug, S. Kenai, Performance of compacted cement-stabilised soil.

Cem Concr Compos 2004;26(7):811–20.

[20] R. Goodary, GL. Lecomte-Nana, Petit C, Smith DS. Investigation of the strength

development in cement-stabilised soils of volcanic origin. Constr Build Mater

2012;28(1):592–8.

[21] B.V.V. Reddy, S. Hubli, Properties of lime stabilised steam-cured blocks for masonry,

Mater Struct 35 (2002) 293–300.

[22] B.V.V. Reddy, A. Gupta, A, Characteristics of soil-cement blocks highly sandy, Mater.

Struct. 38 (2005) 651–658.

[23] B.V.V. Reddy, A. Gupta, A, Characteristics of cement-soil mortars, Mater. Struct. 38

(2005) 639–650.

[24] Y. Millogo, M. Hajjaji, R. Ouedraogo, Microstructure and physical properties of lime-

clayey adobe bricks, Construc. Build. Mater. 22 (2) (2008) 2386– 2392.

[25] Y. Millogo, J.C. Morel, Microstructural characterization and mechanical properties of

cement stabilised adobes, Mater. Struct. 45 (2012) 1311–1318.

[26] KMA. Hossain, M. Lachemi, S. Easa, Stabilized soils for construction applications

incorporating natural resources of Papua new Guinea. Resour Conserv Recycle

2007;51:711–31.

[27] M.I. Gomes, T.D. Gonçalves, P. Faria, Hydric behavior of earth materials and the effects

of their stabilization with cement or lime: study on repair mortars for historical rammed

earth structures, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 28 (7) (2016).

[28] J.Ashurst, N. Ashurst, Practical building conservation: brick, terracotta & earth. In:

English Heritage Technical Handbook, vol. 2. Gower technical press, Hampshire,

England., 1995.

[29] SAZS 724, 2001. Standards Association Zimbabwe. Standard Code of Practice for

Rammed Earth Structures. Standards Association of Zimbabwe, Harare.

[30] New Mexico Code, New Me,xico Earthen Building Materials Code 14.7.4. NM:

Construction Industries Division (CID) of the Regulation and Licensing Department, New

Mexico: Santa Fe, 2006.

[31] J.Warren, Conservation of Earth Structures, first ed. Butterworth Heinemann, British

Library, Oxford, UK, 1999.

[32] P. McHenry, Adobe and Rammed Earth Buildings: Design and Construction. The

University of Arizona Press. Wiley-Interscience, Arizona, 1984.

[33] P. Walker, Australia, S., 2002. HB 195-The Australian Earth Building Handbook.).

[34] AS. Muntohar, Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick,

Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 4215–4220.




[35] S. Horpibulsuk, N. Miura, TS. Nagaraj, Assessment of strength development in cement-

admixed high water content clays with Abrams’ law as a basis. Geotechnique

2003;53(4):439–44.

[36] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Embodied energy in cement stabilised

rammed earth walls, Energy Build. 42 (3) (2010) 380–385.

[37] Alessandro Arrigoni a, Christopher Beckett b, Daniela Ciancio b, Giovanni Dotelli a “Life

cycle analysis of environmental impact vs. durability of stabilised rammed earth”

construction and building materiels 142(2017) 128-136.

[38] M. Jimènez Delgado, C.G. Ignacio, The selection of soils for unstabilised earth building: a

normative review, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 237–251.

[39] A. Guettala, Caractéristiques du béton de terre stablilisée (B.T.S) des sols de la région de

Biskra. Thèse de Magister, 1995.

[40] L. Lahmar, R. Abdeldjebar, B. Draoui, B. Moudden, L. Missoum and B. Labbaci,

Environmental Effect on the Mechanical Properties of BTS Brick of Bechar Region in

Algeria, Energy Procedia, Volume 36, Pages 1035-1042, 2013.

[41] Cédric F. Thèse Valorisation des fines de lavage de granulats: application construction en

terre crue Université d’Artois

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND …€¦ · compressed earth blocks, through an...

Documents

Transcript of COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR AND …€¦ · compressed earth blocks, through an...