See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224238871

A brief review of Compressed Stabilized Earth

Brick (CSEB)

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773936 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

10 7,085

3 authors, including:

Fetra Venny Riza Ismail Abdul Rahman

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
18 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 755 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

SWID Web (Solid Waste Illegal Dumping Web) View project

Developing Expert System For Controlling Cost Overrun and Time Overrun in Construction Industry of
Pakistan View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ismail Abdul Rahman on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2010 International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010), December 5 - 7, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A Brief Review of Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick

(CSEB)

Fetra Venny Riza Ismail Abdul Rahman

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
Parit Raja, Malaysia Parit Raja, Malaysia
fetravenny@gmail.com

Ahmad Mujahid Ahmad Zaidi

Faculty of Engineering
National Defense University of Malaysia
Malaysia

Abstract—Earth as a building material has already known for earth used is generally subsoil, thus the topsoil can be used for
centuries started with plain mud and straw utilized sun dried agriculture. Building with local materials can employ local
producing brick adobe with low strength and durability until its people, and is more sustainable in crisis [1-5].
evolved to become fired clay brick with mass rapid production in
the kiln. In the growing concern of awareness regarding One of the drawbacks using earth alone as a material for
sustainable building material and environmental issue, construction is its durability which is strongly related to its
Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) give the view of compressive strength [6-8]. Because most soil in their natural
energy efficient, cost reduction and environmental friendly condition lack the strength, dimensional stability and
building materials, overall contribution on the sustainable
durability required for building construction. The technique to
development. It turned out that CSEB properties can be very
easy bear comparison with other materials such as concrete block enhance natural durability and strength of soil defined as soil
or normal fired brick. stabilization. there are several types of stabilization: first,
mechanical stabilization; second; physical stabilization; and
Keywords-bricks; soil; compressed; stabilized. third chemical stabilization [2, 9].
Limited data sources regarding CSEB around the world
with different types of soils and stabilizers also the lack of
I. INTRODUCTION standard performance and criteria in most country and hence
Earth, undoubtedly is the oldest building material known. adopt standard and criteria for normal fired clay brick has
Even though building with earth once fell out of popularity moved us to give little contribution in CSEB literatures. The
when the modern building materials and methods were rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
discovered, but then it gains its revival time following the CSEB bricks in general, brick classification, the advantage of
energy crisis. Moreover, growing concern and interest about using CSEB also production and curing method of CSEB.
environmental and ecological issue globally also increased the Section 3 describes the mix of CSEB, types of soil and
used of earth as a building material. stabilizer used and the proportion of CSEB mixes. Section 4
In comparison with another building material, CSEB describes performance of CSEB including strength, density,
offered numbers of advantages. It increases the utilization of water absorption, moisture content, shrinkage and durability.
local material and reduces the transportation cost as the Finally, the conclusion of our work is described in section 5.
production is in situ, makes quality housing available to more
people, and generates local economy rather than spending for
import materials. Faster and easier construction method II. CSEB BRICKS
resulted in less skilled labor required, good strength, insulation
Brick can be classified in several ways. ASTM standard
and thermal properties, less carbon emission and embodied
categorized brick as building brick (ASTM C 62), facing brick
energy in the production phase, create extremely low level of
(ASTM C 216), hollow brick (ASTM C 652), and thin veneer
waste and easily dispose off, cause no direct environmental
brick (ASTM C 1088) [10]. The building brick can be used in
pollution during the whole life cycle. Earth brick also have the
load bearing and non-load bearing walls and also for
ability to absorb atmospheric moisture which resulted create
insulation purpose. Brick can also be categorized as clay
healthy environment inside a building for its occupant. The

978-1-4244-8985-5/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 1011

bricks, mortar brick, fired or unfired brick and others. CSEB lime achieved, its call lime fixation and normally the amount
brick is distinguished with conventional fired bricks through between 1 to 3% lime added by weight. The addition of lime
its production process. CSEB brick requires compaction after lime fixation contributing to the pozzolanic reaction that
whether it’s static, dynamic or vibro-static methods and also created hydrated gel and this process is time dependent where
the content of stabilizer added for gaining its strength. strength developed gradually over long period [19].
A striking contrast between CSEB and conventional bricks When clay soil is blended with Portland cement in the
is the energy consumed during the production process and presence of water, hydration reaction will take place. The
carbon emission. CSEB brick creates 22 kg CO2/tonne compound of C3S and C2S present in the Portland cement
compare to that of concrete blocks (143 kg CO2/tonne), react with water forming complex Calcium Silicate Hydrates
common fired clay bricks (200 kg CO2/tonne) and aerated (C-S-H) gel [20]. C-S-H gel has beneficial effect in clay
concrete blocks (280 – 375 kg CO2/tonne) during production material by reduction of deleterious heaving effects such as
[1]. In average, cement stabilised earth bricks consumed less the growth of ettringite due to the rapid removal of alumina.
than 10% of the input energy as used to manufacture similar The formation of ettringite contributes to the increase of
fired clay and concrete masonry unit [2]. porosity and simultaneously decreases the free moisture
Production of CSEB required moderate to low skilled content. The C-S-H gel formed fill the void spaces and bind
worker since the CSEB manufacture is very simple. It only the soil particles together thus imparting strength to the soil
takes 3 stages process which are: soil preparation, mix mixture [21].
compression and the curing. In soil preparation, it needs For laterite soil, Attoh-Okine [18] noted that lime
careful and correct selection of the soil to get the best result stabilization of soil is a function of quantity of lime, curing
and after the mix was put in the mould, it should be given time, environmental condition and testing method. Billong [9]
proper compressive load. Curing method in CSEB production also observed the potential of using lime and other pozzolanic
usually took advantage from natural humid where bricks could material to form a binder that can acts as a stabilizer. Oti [20-
stacked immediately after compression but the strength gain 22] suggested the combination of lime with ground granulated
over time and it is important to prevent rapid drying out hence blast furnace (product in the manufacturing of pig iron) that
the brick is moist cured under polythene sheet (or wet gunny will gives better performance compared to the use of cement
in India) in the open air (humid atmosphere where air relative as the stabilizer. Natural stabilizer as proposed by Mesbah at
humidity >70% is the best condition in order to assure a el [16] is more environmental friendly and cheaper. Even
maximum hydration of the used stabilizer) for about 28 days if though stabilization with hydraulic binder (cement)
used cement as a stabilizer [6, 11-13]. significantly improved strength and water resistance but it
contributes to negative environmental impact. Guettala et al
[6] suggested the use of an aqueous dispersion of resin as an
III. MIXES additive in earth stabilizer. The additive has increased the
strength significantly until 2-3 fold to those indicated by
Stabilizer for CSEB playing an important role in creating standards for both wet and dry conditions.
bonding between soil-stabilizers mixes. One of the main In general, soil stabilizations enhance quite significant
functions of the stabilizing medium is to reduce the swelling bricks properties as described in section 4. Types of soil
properties of the soil through forming a rigid framework with played an important role to determine the proper stabilizer for
the soil mass, enhancing its strength and durability [14]. specific properties of brick to be enhanced. Even though the
Portland cement is the most widely used stabilizer for earth best soil for stabilization is the soil that has low plasticity, the
stabilization. Many research works [2, 8, 15] found that soil advantages of using cement for soil with low plasticity can be
with plasticity index below 15 is suitable for cement substituted with lime and other pozzolanic based stabilizer for
stabilization. Typically, cement binder is added between 4 and soil with high plasticity and high clay content. The inventions
10 % of the soil dry weight [16]. However, if the content of of new stabilizers whether it from natural or artificial
cement is greater than 10% then it becomes uneconomical to substances have had broaden the range of options to be chosen
produce CSEB brick. For brick using less than 5% of cement, from.
it often too friable for easy handling [2].
For soil that has plasticity index below 15 more suitable to
use cement as a stabilizer whether for the soil that has IV. PERFORMANCE OF CSEB
plasticity index above 15 or have clay content, it is suggested
to use lime as a stabilizer [8, 17]. Lime can be added to the A. Strength
cement and clay mix to enhance stabilization process because Apparently, compressive strength is the most universally
with the additional lime, the lime-clay ratio will be increased accepted value for determining the quality of bricks.
due to the existing of lime in cement and the present of lime Nevertheless, it intensely related with the soil types and
attributed to the immediate reduction of plasticity [18]. stabilizer content. Typically, determination of compressive
Although the same trend happen to the soil-cement mixes, the strength in wet condition will gives the weakest strength
immediate effect of modification more obvious in the soil- value. Reduction in compressive strength under saturation
lime mixes [17]. When lime added to the clay soil, first it condition can be attributed to the development of pore water
adsorbed by the clay mineral until the affinity of the soil for pressures and the liquefaction of unstabilized clay minerals in

1012
the brick matrix. Factors affecting the CSEB brick strength are plasticity index. But for plasticity index >20, it is not suitable
cement-content, types of soil (plasticity index), compaction with manual compaction [2]. Anifowose [14] found that iron
pressure and types of compaction. presents in the soil is responsible for low compressive strength
Optimum cement content for the stabilization is in the range in the soil stabilization process.
of 5% to 10% where addition above 10% will affect the Table 1 provides the summary of salient research literatures
strength of the bricks in negative way. Plasticity index of the related to the compressed earth brick comprises prominent
clay soil is usually in the range of 15 to 25. study that ranging from 1995 to 2009.
The best earth soils for stabilization are those with low

Table 1 Overview of salient research literatures pertaining to the properties of CSEB

Research Work Stabilizer Types of soil Method Findings Remarks
Walker, P.J., 1995 OPC Clay soil -Manual compaction -Dry density Propose empirical relationship that
“Strength, durability and -compaction pressure 2-4 MN/mm2 -Dry/saturated compressive strength modulus of rupture shall equal at least
shrinkage characteristics of -Dimension 295 x 140 x 130 mm -Modulus of rupture one-sixth of compressive strength as a
cement stabilised soil blocks” -BSI 6073 (drying shrinkage) -Drying shrinkage simple mean of field assessment.
[4] -AS 2733 -Resistance to water erosion
-ASTM D559 (resistance to water erosion)
Walker and Stace, 1996 OPC Clay soil -Manual/constant volume pressure. -Compressive strength Soil with mineral content less than 15%
“Properties of some cement -Compaction pressure 2 MN/mm -Drying Shrinkage to 30% most suitable with cement
stabilised compressed earth -Dimension 295 x 140 x 125 mm2 -Durability stabilization between 5% and 10%.
blocks and mortars”[23] -AS 2701 (wet mixing) -Water absorption
-AS 1289 (optimum moisture content)
-AS 2733 (compressive strength, drying shrinkage,
initial rate of absorption)
-ASTM D 559 (durability)
Walker, P.J., 1999 OPC Kaolinite -ASTM D 558 (optimum moisture content) -Flexural bond strength Bond strength clearly limited by block
“Bond characteristics of earth clay soil -ASTM C 140 (dry density, total water strength and characteristic flexural
block masonry”[24] absorption)) bond strength between pressed earth
-ASTM D 559 (durability) blocks and mortars (soil:cement or
-ASTM C 110 (water retention) cemen:lime:sand) is often < 0.1 MPa.
-ASTM C 1027 (bond wrench testing)
Guettala et al, 2002 Lime Clay soil, -ASTM D 559-57 (durability) -Compressive strength -Compressive strength increase with
“Durability of lime stabilized sand -ASTM D 560 (freeze-thaw test) -Water absorption increasing of compacting stress.
earth blocks[11]” -Durability -Water absorption and weight loss
- decrease with increasing of compacting
stress and lime content.
Bahar et al, 2004 OPC Clay sandy -Static compaction -Splitting tensile strength -Mechanical stabilization by dynamic
“Performance of compacted soil -Vibro-static compaction -Compressive strength compaction is better than static or
cement-stabilised soil”[25] -Dynamic compaction -Shrinkage vibro-static compaction.
-Water permeability -Chemical stabilization with cement
-Conductivity content higher than 8% resulted better
-Durability compressive strength.
Mesbah et al, 2004 Sisal fibers Sandy silty -Dimension 295 x 140 x 100 mm -Tensile strength The used of natural fiber reinforcement
soil -Direct tensile test method can improve ductility in tension,
“Development of a direct inhibition of tensile crack propagation
tensile test for compacted earth after initial formation, and inhibition of
blocks”[20] shrinkage cracking.
Walker, P.J., 2004 -Manual compressed -Block compressive strength -Uniaxial compression testing of earth
-Static pressure 2 MPa -Block modulus of rupture blocks should be undertaken on
“Strength and erosion -Dimension -Prism compressive strength individual unit.
characteristics of earth block * 295 x 140 x 120 -Durability -For predictive purpose, unconfined
and earth block masonry”[26] * 295 x 140 x 90 compressive strength should be taken
* 295 x 140 x 80 as 5x bending strength.
* 295 x 140 x 45 -Flexural/bending [4]test provides a
-ASTM 1984 (compr strength) simple alternative method to
-ASTM 1987 (modulus of rupture) compression testing as a means of
-ASTM D 559 (1989) (durability-wetting and assessing quality in situ.
drying)
-BSI 1985 (compr strength)
-AS 1997 (compr strength)
-AS 2002 (modulus of rupture, water spray test)
-Weisz at al 1995 (water-drip test)
Guettala et al, 2005 OPC, lime, Sandy clayey -Manual static compression -Compressive strength -Durability improves considerably with
Medalatex soil -Pressure applied 15 MPa -Absorption the addition of stabilizers
“Durability study of stabilised resin -Dimension 100 x 100 x 200 mm -Durability -For sandy clayey soil, it is
earth concrete under both -ASTM D 559 (durability) recommended to stabilize with 5%
laboratory and climatic -ASTM D 560 (freez and thaw test) cement and compacting stress at 10
conditions exposure”[27] -Doat et al (spray test) MPa
Morel et al, 2005 OPC soil -Dimension -Density -Most recommended test for
* UK 215 x 102.5 x 65 mm -Compressive strength compressive strength is direct, confined
“Compressive strength testing * AS 230 x 110 x 76 mm -Moisture content test on single unit
of compressed earth -Compressive strength testing -Flexural strength (three-point bending -RILEM test dependent on mortar
blocks”[28] *Direct unit strength test) quality since blocks are tested together
*RILEM test with a mortar joint in a prism
*Indirect test -Indirect testing (three-point bending
test) can provide an indication of
relative strength
Billong et al, 2008 Calcined Laterite soil -Hydraulic press -Pozzolanic properties -Increase the percentage of lime
“Properties of compressed kaolinitic -Force applied 10 kN -Compressive strength increases compressive strength
lateritic soil stabilized with a clay, -Pressed surface 115.4 x 80 mm -Water absorption -increase laterite-binder ratio decrease
burnt clay-lime binder: Effect industrial -Density compressive strength and water
of mixture components”[21] slaked absorption but increase apparent
lime density
Oti et al, 2009 Quicklime, Lower -BS 1924-2 (1990) (max dry density, optimum -Compressive strength -Quicklime removes water from the
hydraulic Oxford Clay moisture content) -Water absorption stabilised mix
“Engineering properties of lime, (LOC) -Moisture content -Hydraulic lime has slower setting time
unfired clay masonry GGBS, -Density and gain strength over time
bricks”[15] OPC -It is possible to utilize Lime-GGBS
binder, with or without dosing with
small amount of PC
Oti et al, 2009 Quicklime, Lower -BS EN-772-1 (compressive strength) -Design values for thermal conductivity Material density and moisture content
hydraulic Oxford Clay -DDCEN/TS 772-22 (Freeze/thaw cycle) and thermal resistance are the fundamental parameters for
“Design thermal values for lime, (LOC) -BS EN 771-2 (water absorption) thermal conductivity
unfired clay bricks”[29] GGBS, -BS EN 1745 (moisture content, dry density,
OPC thermal conductivity, thermal resistance)
-ASTM C518-91 (thermal value)
-ASTM C1132-89 (thermal value)
Jayasinghe, C. and OPC Laterite soil -Dimension -Flexural strength parallel/perpendicular Flexural strength of brick or block
Mallawaarachchi, R.S., 2009 *brick 230 x 110 x 75 mm to bed joints of brick panel, block panel panel about 0.25N/mm2 and
“Flexural strength of *block 225 c 225 x 115 mm and rammed earth, comparable with burnt clay bricks
compressed stabilized earth -BS 5629: Part 1: 1992 (testing procedure) having water absorption above 12%
masonry materials”[30]
Oti et al, 2009 Quicklime, Lower -BS 1924-2:1990 (compr strength) -Compressive strength -Compressive strength result showed
hydraulic Oxford Clay -BS EN 771-1:2003 (compr strength) -Swelling/shrinkage bricks made of industrial by-product
“Compressive strength and lime, (LOC) -SEM, SBD/EDX (microstructure) -SEM are strong and volumetrically stable
microstructural analysis of GGBS, -Effect of swelling/shrinkage on the
unfired clay masonry OPC unfired clay bricks is negligible,
bricks”[19] suggesting good durability

1013
 absorption rate decrease with increasing in age of earth bricks.
High rate of water absorption of a specimen may cause
The strength of the CSEB can be increased by adding swelling of stabilized clay fraction and resulting in losing
natural fibers where it can improve the ductility in tension. strength with time. As observed by Walker [15] water
The improvement is by retarding the tensile crack propagation absorption, as well as porosity, increases with clay content and
after initial formation and also the shrinkage cracking [16]. decreasing cement content.
Since there is no standard testing for CSEB, most Between cement, lime, cement-lime and cement-resin,
researchers determined the compressive strength using the combination cement and resin stabilization show the lowest
testing method used for fired clay brick and concrete masonry water absorption both in capillary absorption and total
block such as ASTM 1984, BS 6073-1:1981, BSI 1985, BS absorption [6]. Freidin and Errel [11] tried to reduce the water
EN 772-1, BS 1924-2:1990, Standard Australia 1997, uptake by adding a hydrophobic material, in this case was
Australian Standard 2733 [2, 12, 21, 22]. The unconfined siloxane-polymethylhydrohen-siloxane and combined with
compressive test needs expensive equipment and must be slag + fly ash which is highly absorbent and the result showed
carried out in the laboratory, hence some researchers suggest that the water uptake with the addition of 0.5% siloxane less
using indirect compressive test (i.e. flexural test/modulus of than a quarter of the water uptake of fly ash-slag without
rupture/three-point bending test). These indirect test provide additive.
simple, inexpensive and fast assessment of in-situ bending Sand content in the mixes apparently can reduce water
strength of the brick [23, 24]. Walker [2, 12] suggested to use absorption and weight loss even though does not affect the
factors that modulus of rupture is equivalent with one-sixth of compressive strength significantly [8]. Standard used to
its compressive strength and in his latest experiment suggested determine water absorption is ASTM C 140 (total water
that unconfined compressive strength is about five times of the absorption), BS EN 771-2 and Australian Standards 2733
bending strength. (initial rate of absorption) [15, 22, 26].
Compacting procedure also affect considerably on the Moisture contents affect strength development and
compressive strength of the CSEB brick. Guettala et al [8] durability of the material and have a significant influence on
concluded that by increasing the compacting stress from 5 to the long term performance of stabilized soil material
20 MPa, it will improve the compressive strength up to 70%. especially has an effect on bonding with mortars at the time of
His conclusion was strengthened by Bahar et al [25] observed construction. When the brick is dry, water is rapidly sucked
that by using dynamic compaction energy dry compressive out of the mortar preventing good adhesion and proper
strength increases by more than 50% but for vibro-static hydration of the cement and when the brick is very wet the
compaction increases slightly for about 5%. mortars tends to float on the surface without gaining proper
Brick strength and brick characteristic flexural bond adhesion [20, 26].
strength are the factors that limiting the bond strength between Types of compaction affect the optimum water content in
bricks and mortars in wall panels made from CSEB [26]. the stabilized mixes. Dynamic compaction can reduce the
Hence, types of bricks such as solid, interlocking or hollow optimum water content from 12% to 10% with the
and type of bond like English, Flemmish or Rat trap bond also compressive strength increased for about 50%. Bahar [25]
play an important role in flexural strength of the panels [27]. stated the optimum water content range between 10 to 13% for
static compaction, as for vibro-static compaction slightly
B. Density increase compressive strength with the same water content for
Commonly, most researchers found that the density of low compressive load. According to Osula [17] soil-lime
compressed stabilized earth bricks is within the range of 1500 mixes required higher optimum moisture content than soil-
to 2000 kg /m3. Density of the compressed earth brick is cement mixes. Standards conform to determine water content
consistently related to its compressive strength and such as ASTM D 558, Australian Standards 1289, BS 1924-2
compactive force applied during production. The dry density (1990), BS EN 1745[15, 20, 22, 26].
is largely a function of the constituent material’s
characteristics, moisture content during pressing and the D. Shrinkage
degree of compactive load applied and even in India Drying shrinkage of the bricks was primarily governed by
compressive strength is controlled by density. Types of the plasticity index and cement content. Water-loss also
compaction applied such as dynamic, static and vibro will also contributes to the shrink of the clay fraction. For low clay
affect the density. The density of brick can be determined mineral content (index plasticity below 20%), drying
through standard procedure such as ASTM C 140 and BS shrinkage showed steady increase with the increase of clay
1924-2 (1990) and others [20, 22, 23, 25, 26]. content, but for plasticity index beyond 25% – 30% drying
shrinkage increased rapidly as the clay content also increased.
C. Water Absorption and Moisture Content Soil with plasticity index <20 is good for cement stabilization
Water absorption is a function of clay and cement content with cement content 10%. And commonly used drying
and usually related with the strength and durability of earth shrinkage limit from 0.008% to 0.10% [2, 15, 26].
bricks and therefore it is important to determine the rate of Sand as part of the mix, seems has significance influence in
water absorption of earth bricks. Oti [20] stated that water shrinkage although sand content does not affect significantly

1014
the compressive strength as stated by Guettala [8] but Rahman through experimental and theoretical method. Compressed
[28] found out it can decrease plasticity, linear shrinkage and stabilized earth bricks showed better thermal conductivity
warping. value compare to the fired clay bricks.
Bahar et al [25] reported that shrinkage increases rapidly ¾ Lime-GGBS based: 0.2545 ± 0.0350 W m-1 K-1
during the first 4 days for cement stabilized earth bricks and ¾ Cement-GGBS based: 0.2612 ± 0.0350 W m-1 K-1
the addition of sand reduces the shrinkage as sand particles ¾ Fired clay bricks: 0.4007 ± 0.0350 W m-1 K-1
oppose the shrinkage movement. He also observed that the Bahar et al [25] noted that the addition of cement and sand
addition of cement content can reduce the shrinkage until 44% content can decrease slightly the conductivity of the brick. The
for 10% cement content added. BSI 6073 and Australian advantage of having low thermal conductivity can result in
Standards 2733 can be used to measure the drying shrinkage energy efficiency, cost reduction of heating in winter and air
[2, 15]. conditioning in summer, and environmental friendly of a
building. Fired clay bricks have higher conductivity value
E. Durability because the firing process of clay bricks makes the clay to
The basic principal of the stabilization is to prevent water partially combine to form a glassy product so as to give the
attacks and it could be achieved if a durable material can be product the strength and durability. It is also a result from the
obtained with limited loss in mechanical strength in a wet breakdown of the original clay mineral and the formation of
state. From several experiments, durability associated with the new crystalline material and glass phases.
stabilizer content, clay content and compacting stress. To determine the thermal value of compressed stabilized
Basically, durable stabilized clay material building can be earth bricks can utilize the following standards such as BS EN
achieved as long as they are not saturated. The problems arise 1745 (thermal conductivity and thermal resistance), ASTM C
when the materials are subjected to the long term saturation 518-91 and ASTM C 1132-89 (thermal value) [22].
and exposed to various climatic conditions. Also it is observed
that the present of unstabilized material was likely to be
particularly detrimental to the durability. V. CONLUSION
Heathcote [7] observed that rain drop can release the kinetic In this paper, we have done a brief review on Compressed
energy that impacted the brick and causing material falling Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB). Previous researches showed
from the surface of wall panels. He stated that wet/oven dry that compressed earth bricks demonstrate many advantages
ratio of 33% may be a suitable criterion for evaluating the compare to conventional fired bricks. Compressed stabilized
durability of cement stabilized earth specimen. earth bricks are ultimately greener, eco friendly, comparable
As observed by Oti [20] combination bricks made of clay, in strength, durability and thermal conductivity. The use of
cement, lime and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace (GGBS) compressive earth bricks also promotes healthier living for the
subjected up to 100 cycles 24 hours repeated of freezing and building dwellers. Still it has many possibilities to explore
thawing showed satisfaction result where only having more in enhancing its properties.
maximum 1.9% weight loss at the end of the 100th cycles. The Data from related works showed that an average saturated
examination after the test showed no damaged occur of any compressive strength of CSEB is 35% less than its average dry
type. compressive strength. The average density of CSEB is almost
The measurement of durability according to the standards equivalent with the common brick. Also it has shown that
such as ASTM normalization (ASTAM 1993), ASTM D 599- compressed earth brick demonstrates comparable durability
57 (resistance to water erosion), ASTM 560 and DDCENT/TS with that of normal fired clay bricks. Thermal value
772-22 (freeze-thaw test), wire brush test, Australian experiment indicated that thermal conductivity of CSEB
Standards 2002 and Doat et al (water spray test), Weisz et al showed compliance with the design thermal requirements for
(water drip test), are very severe compared to the natural clay masonry and building regulations.
condition, nevertheless, in general, clay material still have The research conducted emphasizes on the advantages of
potential to damage from rising damp, freeze/thaw cycles and using CSEB for better living. As it promote healthier building
surface erosion caused by wind-driven rain as clay mineral material and cost reducing not only in production but also in
tend to disrupt the cement action [2, 8, 12, 15, 20, 22, 26]. service cost. Although economic potential may attract more
rather than ecological reasons, the full scale production of
F. Thermal Value compressed stabilized earth bricks has demonstrated that this
In the growing concern of energy conscious and ecological kind of building material have a great potential in the future
awareness, thermal comfort in building materials is an for low to medium cost housing construction and contribute on
important aspect that attracts great attention nowadays since sustainable development.
building regulations nowadays stressing more on the thermal
performance of the buildings compare to the past. As a
building material, brick has quite excellent thermal
conductivity. Oti [22] observed that thermal conductivity is a
function of the material density and moisture content Thus
design value for thermal conductivity can be determined

1015
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Geology, 109(3-4): p. 230-240, 2009
[22] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, and J. Bai, “Design thermal values for unfired
The authors would like to thank the Universiti Tun clay bricks”, Materials & Design, 31(1): p. 104-112, 2009
Hussein Onn (UTHM), Johor, Malaysia for providing the [23] J.C. Morel, A. Pkla, and P. Walker, “Compressive strength testing of
international student scholarship and finally acknowledge the compressed earth blocks”, Construction and Building Materials, 21(2):
p. 303-309, 2005
research and staffing resources provided by the Faculty of [24] J.C. Morel, and A. Pkla, “A model to measure compressive strength of
Civil and Environment of the Universiti Tun Hussein Onn compressed earth blocks with the 3 points bending test”. Construction
(UTHM). and Building Materials, 16(5): p. 303-310, 2002
[25] R. Bahar, M. Benazzoug, and S. Kenai, “Performance of compacted
cement-stabilised soil”, Cement and Concrete Composites, 26(7): p.
811-820, 2004
REFERENCES [26] P.J. Walker, “Bond Characteristic of Earth Block Masonry”, Journal of
[1] T. Morton, “Earth Masonry Design and Construction Guidelines”, Materials in Civil Engineering, 11(3): p. 249-256, 1999
Berkshire: Construction Research Communications Limited, 2008 [27] C. Jayasinghe, and R.S. Mallawaarachchi, “Flexural strength of
[2] P.J. Walker, “Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of compressed stabilized earth masonry materials”, Materials & Design,
cement stabilised soil blocks”, Cement and Concrete Composites, 30(9): p. 3859-3868, 2009
17(4): p. 301-310, 1995 [28] M.A. Rahman, “Properties of clay-sand-rice husk ash mixed bricks:,
[3] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, and K.S. Jagadish, “Embodied energy of International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete,
common and alternative building materials and technologies”, Energy 9(2): p. 105-108, 1987
and Buildings, 35(2): p. 129-137, 2003
[4] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, and P. Prasanna Kumar, “Embodied energy
in cement stabilised rammed earth walls”, Energy and Buildings, 42(3):
p. 380-385, 2009
[5] J.C. Morel, et al., “Building houses with local material: means to
drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction”, Building
and Environment, 36: p. 1119-1126, 2001
[6] A. Guettala, A. Abibsi, and H. Houari, “Durability study of stabilized
earth concrete under both laboratory and climatic conditions exposure”,
Construction and Building Materials, 20(3): p. 119-127, 2006
[7] K.A. Heathcote, “Durability of earthwall buildings”, Construction and
Building Materials, 9(3): p. 185-189, 1995
[8] A. Guettala, H. Houari, B. Mezghiche, R. Chebili, “Durability of lime
stabilized earth blocks”. Courrier du Savoir, 02: p. 61-66, 2002
[9] N. Billong, U.C. Melo, F. Louvet, D. Njopwouo, “Properties of
compressed lateritic soil stabilized with a burnt clay-lime binder: Effect
of mixture components”. Construction and Building Materials, 23(6): p.
2457-2460, 2008
[10] R.C. Jaffe, “Masonry Instant Answer”, New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, 2004
[11] K. Freidin and E. Erell, “Bricks made of coal fly-ash and slag, cured in
the open air”. Cement and Concrete Composites, 17(4): p. 289-300,
1995
[12] P.J. Walker, “Strength and Erosion Characteristics of Earth Blocks and
Earth Block Masonry”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,.
16(5): p. 497-506, 2004
[13] CRAterre, “The Basic of Compressed Earth Blocks”,
Eschborn, Germany: Deutsches Centrum fur
Entwicklungstechnologien, 1991
[14] A.Y.B. Anifowose, “Stabilisation of lateritic soils as a raw material for
building blocks”, Buletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 58: p. 151-157, 2000
[15] P.J. Walker and T. Stace, “Properties of some cement stabilised
compressed earth blocks and mortars”, Materials and
Structures/Mat4riaux et Constructions, 1996. 30: p. 545-551,
November 1997
[16] A. Mesbah, J.C. Morel, P. Walker, K. Ghavami, “Development of a
Direct Tensile Test for Compacted Earth Blocks Reinforced with
Natural Fibers”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16(1): p. 95-
98, 2004
[17] D.O.A. Osula, “A comparative evaluation of cement and lime
modification of laterit”, Engineering Geology, 42(1): p. 71-81, 1996
[18] N.O. Attoh-Okine, “Lime treatment of laterite soils and gravels –
revisited”, Construction and Building Materials, 9(5): p. 283-287, 1995
[19] F.G. Bell, “Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils”, Engineering
Geology, 42(4): p. 223-237, 1996
[20] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, and J. Bai, “Engineering properties of unfired
clay masonry bricks”, Engineering Geology, 107(3-4): p. 130-139,
2009
[21] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, and J. Bai, “Compressive strength and
microstructural analysis of unfired clay masonry bricks”, Engineering

1016
View publication stats