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
A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 655 [email protected]
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
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 656 [email protected]
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)
A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 657 [email protected]
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).
Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized
by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 658 [email protected]
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
A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 659 [email protected]
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
Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized
by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 660 [email protected]
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
A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 661 [email protected]
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
Earth Earth + Industriel
Lime
Earth + Artisanal
Lime
7200
84009000
Stu
rati
on
Tim
e (m
in)
Compositions
0
5
10
15
20
Earth Earth + Industriel
Lime
Earth + Artisanal
Lime
10.8 11.2
19.5
Sa
tura
tio
n R
ate
(%
)
Compositions
Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized
by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 662 [email protected]
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.
A. Zebair, A. Hamouine, R. Abdeldjabar and S. Bouzerouata
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 663 [email protected]
[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.
Comparative Study of Mechanical Behavior and durability of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized
by Two Types of Lime: Industrial and Artisanal
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 664 [email protected]
[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