See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267637559

Effect Of Varying Cement Proportions On Properties Of Compressed Stabilized

Earth Blocks (CSEB) - A Sustainable Low-Cost Housing Material

Conference Paper · October 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4966.4963

CITATIONS READS

4 9,314

4 authors, including:

Ayan Anil Garg

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
2 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect Of Varying Cement Proportions On Properties Of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) - A Sustainable Low-Cost Housing Material View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayan Anil Garg on 02 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Effect Of Varying Cement Proportions On Properties Of Compressed Stabilized

Earth Blocks (CSEB) - A Sustainable Low-Cost Housing Material

Ayan Anil Garg1, Amit Yalawar2, Anuradha Kamath3, Jagannath Vinay4

1
MS(Research)-2014, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology - Delhi, New Delhi - 110016: [email protected]
2
M.S.-2014, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San
Diego - 92093, USA: [email protected]
3
MTech-2014, Department of Structural Engineering, Vellore Institute of
Technology, Vellore - 632014, Tamil Nadu: [email protected]
4
B.E. (2010-14), Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College of Engineering,
Bangalore - 560019, Karnataka: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Soil being readily available, represents the earliest construction

material to be used by mankind. Earthen construction technologies have evolved from
manufacturing (low strength and less durable) plain mud-straw utilized sundried brick
adobes, wattle and daub, cob walls; to the present rapid mass-production of kiln-fired
clay bricks. But these modern construction materials are quite energy-intensive as
they involve burning of fossil fuels which are rapidly depleting. Fortunately, with
growing awareness on green building concept and many innovative construction-
techniques coming up, a variety of decade old earth-based materials like rammed
earth and stabilized mud blocks are gaining popularity recently. They not only solve
problems relating to environmental degradation due to clay mining, sand mining, loss
of top soil, etc. but also use local machinery, generate local employment and provide
appreciable strength and durability characteristics to the structure as compared to clay
bricks and concrete masonry. Today more than 200 earth buildings are being built in
Bangalore and near-by places every year. Stabilised soils have successfully been used
for the construction of roads, pavements, foundations, earthen bunds and masonry
wall units all across the world. This project provides an insight to the properties of
Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) manufactured using 5%, 7%, 9%, and
10% cement as stabilizer.

The soil samples were taken from a site at Ghati Subramanya, Doddaballapura (70km
north of Bangalore, India). After obtaining optimum mix design and satisfactory clay
fraction, moisture content and plasticity index, the stabilized mud was compressed
with hand-operated Mardini press. These masonry units of size
230mmx190mmx100mm were then tested for compression (both wet and dry
strength), water absorption, flexure test and weathering tests after 28days curing
period.

Keywords: earth blocks; low cost; sustainable; cement stabilization; compressed soil.

1000
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

1. INTRODUCTION
Compressed stabilized earth blocks are a type of construction material
manufactured in a mechanical press that forms a compressed block out of an
appropriate mix of fairly dry inorganic soil, non-expansive clay, fine aggregate, and a
small amount of stabilizer.
It is a known fact that soil when compacted at optimum moisture content reaches
maximum dry density which depends on the energy input during compaction and is
used to calculate its compressive strength in dry state. But it loses its strength during
saturation. To accommodate this loss, a stabilizer is required.
Stabilizers namely lime, cement, bitumen can be used for the following purpose:
 Loss of strength during saturation
 Abrasion due to rain impact.
Limited data sources on CSEB around the world, with different types of soils and
stabilizers, is present regarding standard performance under service loads and
behavior under ultimate loads.

Advantages of CSEBs:
 Earth is a local material and the soil is available virtually everywhere.
 Earth construction is an easily adaptable and transferable technology.
 It is a cost and energy effective material.
 It is much less energy consuming than country fired bricks (about 4 times less).
 It is much less polluting than country fired bricks (about 4 times less).
 CSEBs are bio-degradable
 It facilitates effective management of resources

Limitations of CSEBs:
 Proper soil identification is required or unavailability of soil.
 Wide spans, high and long building are difficult to do.
 Low technical performances compared to concrete.
 Low social acceptance due to counter examples

2. SITE INVESTIGATION AND SAMPLING

BMS Training and Research Institute (BMSTRI) owned land in Ghati Subramanya
was selected as the site for obtaining the soil. The soil was found to be grainy on
preliminary observations. It was discovered that there were predominantly 5 different
types of soils differentiated by their color and texture. Samples of all the types were
tested for composition and plasticity.

3. TESTS ON THE SAMPLES

3.1 Grain size distribution

1001
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Three samples of each type of soil were subjected to sieve and hydrometer analyses
to obtain the entire spectrum of particles sizes. The tests were conducted in
accordance with the prescribed IS codes.

Figure 1. Grain Size Distribution

Table 1. Grain Size Distribution Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5

Clay (%) 7 32 6 6 23
Silt (%) 25.62 11.812 9.07 15.4 24.8
Sand (%) 67.38 56.188 84.93 78.6 52.2

3.2 Selection of the soil

Samples 2 and 5 were rejected due to high clay content which is undesirable given
clay’s erratic properties. Samples 1 and 5 were rejected due to their high silt content
which makes handling the soil difficult. Sample 4 was deemed to the best sample for
the manufacturing process. Other samples can be made suitable for CSEBs by
adjusting the composition

3.3 Atterberg Limits

1002
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Plasticity Index of the soil should be less than 13%. Liquid and Plastic limits were
estimated by standard procedures.

3.4 Liquid Limit

Liquid Limit was evaluated using Cone Penetrometer Test and results were plotted
on a graph.
Figure 2. Water Content Vs Penetration

From the graph, Liquid Limit= 26%

3.5 Plastic Limit

Table 2. Plastic Limit Determination

Container Weight of Wet Weight Dry Weight of Water

Name empty of soil, g Soil, g Content, %
container, g
P2 16.52 27.67 25.92 18.617021
B 27.58 41.23 39.21 17.368873
2 32.34 46.71 44.74 16.887096
40 36.19 51.55 49.18 18.244803

Plastic Limit of the soil = 18%

1003
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

3.6 Plasticity Index

Plasticity Index = Liquid Limit – Plastic Limit

= 26 – 18
= 8% < 13%

3.7 Moisture Content Test

Table 3. Moisture Content Determination

Trial Number Bulk Weight (g) Dry Weight (g) Water Content (%)
1 30 29.2 2.67
2 30 29.1 3
3 30 29.1 3

The Moisture Content of the soil was found out to be 3%.

4. MANUFACTURE OF CSEBS

Dimensions of the blocks were chosen as 230mm X 190mm X 100mm to be

compressed using Mardini press.

4.1 Fixing the configurations

Table 4 Selected Configuration

%Cement Cement (g) Water(ml) Soil (kg) Total Density

Weight (g/cc)
(Kg)
5% 400 760 6.84 8 1.88

7% 560 760 6.68 8 1.88

9% 720 760 6.52 8 1.88

10% 800 760 6.44 8 1.88

1004
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Additional water to be added was found based on trial and error method. Trial
blocks were cast with 8%, 9%, 9.5%, 10%, 10.5% and 11% water content. It was
found that the block with 9.5% water found to be most stable just after casting.
Another pivotal parameter was the block density. It is required that the dry density
of the block be at least 1.8 g/cc. Many configurations, ranging from 2.1 g/cc to 1.85
g/cc, were tested and a bulk density of 1.88g/cc was evaluated to be the ideal density
for the compressing machine that was available.

4.2 Dry Mixing

The first step was to dry mix the right proportions of the contents. It was done in a
large pan. In order to ensure a uniform dry mix, the mixing was done very
meticulously. After the dry mixing was completed, the amount of dry mix required
for one block was taken in to a plastic tub for wet mixing.

4.3 Wet Mixing

As previously mentioned, 9.5% (760ml) of water was added to the dry mix, for one
block. The total water content of the mix was 12.5% including the inherent moisture
content.

4.4 Readying the mould

The mould was properly lubricated prior to pouring of soil into the mould. This is
done to prevent any friction between the block and mould while removing the block.
The mould was filled with wet mixed soil ensuring zero wastage. It was also ensured
that the soil was not hand-compacted while filling in the mould.

4.5 Pressing and Placing the blocks

After filling in the soil into the mould, the lid was properly closed. The handle of
the manual compactor machine is pulled down to compress the soil in to a block. The
blocks were temporarily placed in a steel rack next to the machine. After an hour,
they were placed on the ramp and covered with hessian cloth.

4.6 Curing
All the blocks were cured twice every day for 28 days, except for the blocks that
were taken for compression tests after 7, 14 and 21 days of time. All the remaining
tests have been conducted after 28 days of proper curing.

5. TESTS ON BLOCKS

The tests conducted on the blocks are:

a) Water Absorption Test

1005
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

b) Dry Compressive Strength

c) Wet Compressive Strength
d) Flexure Test (3 point bending test)
e) Weathering Tests

Nomenclature for specimens used

NcM → Nc = Cement %, M= Sample Number
For example, 5c1 denotes the sample number 1 of 5% cement block.

5.1 Water Absorption Test:

The blocks were tested after soaking in water for 24 hours.

Figure 2. Water Content

5.2 Dry Compressive Strength

Oven-dried sample blocks were tested for dry compressive strength.

1006
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Figure 3 Dry Compressive Strength

5.3 Wet Compressive Strength

Wet compressive strength was determined in saturated conditions.

Figure 4. Wet Compressive Strength

5.4 Flexure Test

Three-point bending test was performed and the strength was plotted on a graph.

1007
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Figure 5. Flexure Test

5.5 Weathering Test

Weight loss was determined after 12 cycles of wetting and drying, including
scratching block surface with a wire scratch brush.

Figure 6 Weathering Test

1008
ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

6. CONCLUSION

The extensive studies on Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks have yielded the
following conclusions:
 Stabilization of Soil with Cement is found to be very beneficial.
 Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks prepared with 9% Stabilization have
observed to be yielded good engineering properties required for a masonry block.
The observed compressive strength, flexural strength at 28days of ageing is
observed to be 3.2 MPa and 1 MPa respectively.
 The water absorption values at 28 days of ageing found to be nearly 7.5%, which
is much below the limiting value of 20%.
 Weathering test results were less than the limiting value of 3.0%.
 Additionally, Compressed Stabilized Earth blocks fared exceedingly well with
less than 1% loss of weight.
 From the observed values of engineering properties as listed above, it can be
inferred that the Compressed Stabilized Earth blocks prepared with Cement
Stabilization are a good promise as a green building material.
 If practically implemented, it would revolutionize the construction industry by
addressing all the environmental concerns of sustainability while delivering added
benefits.

7. FURTHER SCOPE OF WORK

This work can be improvised to prepare superior quality compressed stabilized

blocks which are comparable or better than the concrete blocks presently being used.
This can be achieved by trying various combinations of ingredients and stabilizers.
There is also a need to identify and develop a suitable stabilizing agent for soils with
high silt content. Fracture Properties of CSEB masonry may be studied to better
understand the performance of the blocks.

1009
 ICSCI 2014 © ASCE India Section, Oct 17 – 18, 2014, Hitex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

8. REFERENCES

Reddy, B.V. Venkatarama (2007). “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Manufacture and
use of Stabilised Mud Blocks for Masonry” Proceedings of International Symposium
on Earthen Structures, Interline Publishers, IISc Bangalore, India
Fitzmaurice, R. (1958). “Manual on Stabilised Soil Construction for Housing” United
Nations, New York, USA
Maini, Satprem (2010). “Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks and Stabilized Earth
Techniques” Research and Development by The Auroville Earth Institute, Tamil
Nadu
Jagadish, K.S. (2007). “Earth Construction Today: Prospects and Tasks” Proceedings of
International Symposium on Earthen Structures, IISc Bangalore, India
Ganesh, K.R. (2007). “Stabilised Mud Blocks in Architectural Design Process”
Proceedings of International Symposium on Earthen Structures, IISc Bangalore,
India
Ullas, S.N. (2007). “Characteristics of Soil-Cement Blocks from Different Construction
Sites” Proceedings of International Symposium on Earthen Structures, IISc
Bangalore, India
I S: 5454 (1978). “Methods for sampling of clay building bricks” Bureau of Indian
Standards, India
I S: 3495 (1992). “Methods of tests of burnt building bricks – Part 1: Determination of
compressive strength” Bureau of Indian Standards, India
I S: 3495 (1992). “Methods of tests of burnt building bricks – Part 2: Determination of
water absorption” Bureau of Indian Standards, India
Jagadish, K.S., Reddy, B.V. Venkatarama and Rao, K.S. Nanjunda (2007). “Alternative
Building Materials and Technologies” New-Age International Publishers, New Delhi,
India
Walker, P. and Stace, T. (1997) “Properties of some cement stabilized compressed earth
blocks and mortars” Materials and Structures, Vol. 30, pp. 545 - 551
Walker, Peter J. (2004). “Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and earth
block masonry” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering (ASCE), 16 (5), pp. 497-
506
Catton, M.D. (1952). “Soil-cement: A construction material.” Proceedings of the
Conference on Soil Stabilization, 26-57, MIT, USA

1010

View publication stats