P. 1
Mud Brick Construction

Mud Brick Construction

|Views: 81|Likes:
Published by KT LOoi
Brick
Brick

More info:

Published by: KT LOoi on May 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/25/2013

pdf

text

original

Sections

  • List of Figures:
  • List of Tables:
  • 1.0 Introduction
  • 2.0 Aims and Objectives
  • 3.0 Literature Review
  • 1. Background
  • 3.1 Background
  • 3.1.1 Mud and Earth Construction
  • Table 1 - Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009)
  • 3.1.2 Interlocking Compressed Stabilised Blocks
  • Figure 4 - Makiga Press (Source: www.makiga-engineering.com)
  • Figure 5 - Examples of Interlocking Blocks (Source: www.goodearthtrust.org.uk)
  • 3.2 A Review of Potential Stabilisers for Unfired Masonry Bricks
  • 3.3 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers
  • 3.4 Testing Procedures for the Mechanical Properties of Masonry
  • 3.4.1 Compressive Strength Testing of Masonry
  • 3.4.2 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB
  • 3.4.3 Absorption Testing of Masonry
  • 3.5 Key Points from the Literature Review
  • 4.0 Proposed Method Statement
  • 4.0.1 Research
  • 4.0.2 Preliminary Experiments
  • 4.0.3 Laboratory Experiments
  • 4.0.4 Sustainability Study
  • 4.1 Timeline
  • 5.0 Method Statement
  • 5.1 Constructing the Mud Bricks
  • 5.1.1 Equipment Required
  • 5.1.2 Health and Safety
  • 5.1.3 Procedure
  • Table 5 - Raw Material Quantities for Mud Brick Construction
  • Figure 7 - Raw Materials for Soil Mix
  • Figure 8 - Mixed Homogenous Soil
  • Figure 9 - Empty Brick Moulds
  • Figure 11 - Bricks and Shrinkage Test Left for Curing
  • 5.2 Shrinkage Testing
  • 5.2.1 Equipment Required
  • 5.2.2 Health and Safety
  • 5.3.3 Procedure
  • Figure 12 - Shrinkage Testing Mould
  • 5.3 Absorption Testing
  • 5.3.1 Equipment Required
  • 5.3.2 Health and Safety
  • Figure 13 - The Experimental Setup for the Absorption Testing
  • 5.4 Compressive Strength Testing
  • 5.4.1 Equipment Required
  • 5.4.2 Health and Safety
  • 5.4.3 Procedure
  • Figure 14 – The Experimental Set-up for the Compressive Strength Testing
  • 6.1 Preliminary Experimental Results
  • Table 6 - Compressive Strength Testing of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered'
  • 6.0 Results
  • 6.2 Main Laboratory Experimental Results
  • 6.2.1 Shrinkage Testing
  • 6.2.2 Sample Appearance and Texture
  • 6.2.3 Absorption Testing
  • Table 7 - Absorption Testing Results
  • 6.2.4 Compressive Strength Testing
  • Table 8 - Compressive Strength Results
  • Figure 19 - Stress-Strain Curves for the PC Stabilised Bricks
  • Figure 20 - Stress-Strain Curves for the PFA Stabilised Bricks
  • Figure 21 - Stress-Strain Curves for the GGBS Stabilised Bricks
  • 7.0 Sustainability Study
  • 7.1 Ease of Manufacture
  • 7.2 Financial Cost
  • 7.3 Health Implications
  • 7.3.1 GGBS (CEMEX, 2008)
  • 7.3.2 PC (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995)
  • 7.3.3 PFA (Scotash, 2005)
  • 7.4 Quantitative Ecopoints Analysis
  • 8.0 Discussion
  • 8.1 Preliminary Experiments
  • 8.2 Sustainability Study
  • 8.2.1 Defining Sustainability
  • 8.2.2 Ease of Manufacture
  • 8.2.3 Financial Cost
  • 8.2.4 Health Implications
  • 8.2.5 Overall Sustainability
  • Table 11 - An Overall Comparison of the Sustainability of the Stabilisers
  • 8.3 Laboratory Experiments
  • 8.3.1 Shrinkage Testing
  • 8.3.2 Manufacturing Procedure
  • 8.3.3 Absorption Testing
  • 8.3.4 Compressive Strength Testing
  • 8.3.5 Application of ICSB Technology
  • 8.3.6 Limitations to the Research
  • 9.0 Conclusions
  • 10.0 Recommendations for Future Research
  • References:
  • Appendices
  • Appendix 1 - Project Management Statement
  • Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work
  • Appendix 3 – Ecopoints PFA
  • Appendix 4 – Ecopoints GGBS
  • Appendix 5 – Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing

Alternative Methods of Stabilisation for Unfired Mud Bricks

Doug Harper
B.Eng Civil and Structural Engineering School of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Newcastle University 2011

1

Executive Summary

Mud brick construction dates back, in various forms, for several thousand years. Recently, Interlocking Compressed Soil Blocks (ICSB) have emerged as a viable, sustainable and affordable construction material, suitable for the provision of low cost housing in the developing world. However, questions have been raised as to their long term durability and susceptibility to water damage. Traditionally, unfired mud bricks have been stabilised with cement to overcome these short comings but the use of cement reduces the environmental differential between unfired bricks and fired ones. This report investigates the use of Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverised Fly Ash (PFA) as alternatives to cement for the stabilisation of ICSB. Sample bricks were constructed using varying concentrations of PC, PFA and GGBS and the sample’s compressive strength and Initial rate of Water Absorption (IRA) compared. Simultaneously, a sustainability study was undertaken to contrast the three materials in terms of ease of manufacture, financial cost and implications to health. The PC stabilised bricks displayed the highest compressive strength (4.3-6.0 kN/mm2) followed by the PFA bricks (0.75-0.98 kN/mm2) and then the GGBS samples (0.12-0.17 kN/mm2). Only two of the samples, both stabilised with PC, had compressive strengths acceptable under UK Building Regulations. All of the tested samples had an IRA of less than 0.13 kg/m2/min, significantly below accepted limits. The report concludes that whilst GGBS and PFA are alternative stabilisers for ICSB they do not perform as well as PC in the proportions tested. The sustainability study concludes that GGBS is more sustainable (though the limitations of any definition of sustainability are acknowledged) than PC and PFA. This is contrary to previously published information that would define both GGBS and PFA as more environmentally sound. The use of GGBS and PFA in ICSB ultimately depends on two factors: whether the observed engineering properties are sufficient for the requirement and whether the alternative stabilisers are available.

2

Table of Contents
List of Figures: ......................................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables: ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 2.0 3.0
3.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................... 10 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11
Background......................................................................................................................... 12 Mud and Earth Construction............................................................................................. 12 Interlocking Compressed Stabilised Blocks ............................................................... 16 3.1.1 3.1.2

3.2 3.3 3.4

A Review of Potential Stabilisers for Unfired Masonry Bricks ......................... 20 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers ................................................... 22 Testing Procedures for the Mechanical Properties of Masonry ...................... 24 Compressive Strength Testing of Masonry ................................................................. 24 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB .................................................................................................. 25 Absorption Testing of Masonry ....................................................................................... 26

3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5

Key Points from the Literature Review .................................................................... 26

4.0

Proposed Method Statement ............................................................................... 28
4.0.1 4.0.2 4.0.3 4.0.4 Research .................................................................................................................................... 28 Preliminary Experiments ................................................................................................... 28 Laboratory Experiments .................................................................................................... 29 Sustainability Study .............................................................................................................. 30

4.1

Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 31

5.0
5.1

Method Statement .................................................................................................. 33
Constructing the Mud Bricks ........................................................................................ 33 Equipment Required ............................................................................................................ 33 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 34 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 34 Equipment Required ............................................................................................................ 38 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 39 3 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3

5.2

Shrinkage Testing ............................................................................................................. 38

5.2.1 5.2.2

5.3.3 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3

Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 39 Equipment Required ............................................................................................................ 40 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 40 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 40

Absorption Testing .......................................................................................................... 40

5.4

Compressive Strength Testing ........................................................................ 41
5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 Equipment Required ............................................................................................................ 41 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 41 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 42

6.1

Preliminary Experimental Results ............................................................................. 43

6.0
6.2

Results ......................................................................................................................... 43
Main Laboratory Experimental Results.................................................................... 44 Shrinkage Testing .................................................................................................................. 44 Sample Appearance and Texture .................................................................................... 44 Absorption Testing ............................................................................................................... 44 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3

6.2.4 7.0
7.1 7.2 7.3

Compressive Strength Testing .................................................................... 46 Sustainability Study................................................................................................ 49
Ease of Manufacture ........................................................................................................ 50 Financial Cost ..................................................................................................................... 51 Health Implications.......................................................................................................... 53 GGBS (CEMEX, 2008) ........................................................................................................... 53 PC (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).................................. 53 PFA (Scotash, 2005) ............................................................................................................. 54

7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.4

Quantitative Ecopoints Analysis ................................................................................. 54

8.0
8.1 8.2

Discussion ................................................................................................................ 56
Preliminary Experiments .............................................................................................. 56 Sustainability Study ......................................................................................................... 57 Defining Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 57 Ease of Manufacture ............................................................................................................. 58 Financial Cost .......................................................................................................................... 59 Health Implications .............................................................................................................. 59 Overall Sustainability........................................................................................................... 60 Shrinkage Testing .................................................................................................................. 61 4

8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.3 8.3.1

Laboratory Experiments ................................................................................................ 61

...................Project Management Statement ........... 82 Appendix 5 – Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing .....0 Recommendations for Future Research .....................3............................................. 69 10............................ 67 9.................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work .................................................................................................................................3...............................................................6 Manufacturing Procedure .................................8................................ 73 Appendices ......4 8.............. 64 Application of ICSB Technology ....................................................... 77 Appendix 1 ................................... 71 References: .3............................................ 83 5 .......................................................................... 66 Limitations to the Research ..3 8...................0 Conclusions .......................................................................... 81 Appendix 4 – Ecopoints GGBS ...................3.......5 8....................................................................3.......................................................................... 63 Compressive Strength Testing ................ 80 Appendix 3 – Ecopoints PFA..............2 8........................ 62 Absorption Testing .......................................................................................................................................................................................

........The Appearance of a Selection of Samples after Compressive Strength Testing...Empty Brick Moulds ...... shrinkage test) .......... GGBS.......... 43 Figure 16 – The Appearance of the Bricks after Curing (Top: GGBS.............................................. 36 Figure 9 ......Raw Materials for Soil Mix .......................................... 2009)..................banasura... 41 Figure 14 – The Experimental Set-up for the Compressive Strength Testing ....A Comparison of the Compressive Strength of the Samples ........... et al............................makiga-engineering.............................................Rammed Earth Construction Underway in India (Source: www.............................................Example of a Modern Earthen Structure in Riyadh....................................Compressive Strength of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered' ................. Figure 2 ...............com) ..........Examples of Interlocking Blocks (Source: www......The Initial Rate of Water Absorption for the Samples ...........................................Mixed Homogenous Soil ....Completed Bricks in Moulds (L-R......................... Btm Left: PC............ 14 Figure 3 ..................... 46 Figure 19 .............rael-sanfratello..........Bricks and Shrinkage Test Left for Curing ..............................................................................Stress-Strain Curves for the GGBS Stabilised Bricks........Shrinkage Testing Mould ........................................... 14 Figure 4 ........................................com ) ...goodearthtrust.......Stress-Strain Curves for the PC Stabilised Bricks ............. 49 6 ....................... PFA........... 17 Figure 5 ....................Interrelationship between the Spheres of Sustainability (Source: Tanguay.. 45 Figure 18 .... 17 Figure 6 ............................. 39 Figure 13 .................................... 47 Figure 20 ....... 48 Figure 23 ........... Error! Bookmark not defined............................................................ 38 Figure 12 .. 44 Figure 17 ........... Btm Right: PFA) ........................... 47 Figure 22 .....................................The Experimental Setup for the Absorption Testing ............................................ 37 Figure 10 ........................................................List of Figures: Figure 1 ............com) ........Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www................................com) ................................................... 37 Figure 11 ............................................org........... 32 Figure 7 .....................uk) .......... 36 Figure 8 ....................... 47 Figure 21 .......................Proposed Project Timeline .......................................Makiga Press (Source: www.. 42 Figure 15 .... stabilised with PC........................................................Stress-Strain Curves for the PFA Stabilised Bricks ................................banasura........................ Saudi Arabia (Source: www...

........... Ash Solutions Ltd............................ Reddy........................................................................................................... 46 Table 9 .................. 45 Table 8 .....Absorption Testing Results .............A Comparison of the Costs of Fired Bricks and ICSB (adapted from Smith................... 15 Table 2 ....................................................... 19 Table 3 ...List of Tables: Table 1 ... 2009) .......................................................Comparison of Interlocking Blocks to its Alternatives (Source: UN Human Settlements Programme) ................... 43 Table 7 .....................Compressive Strength Testing of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered' ............... 2008 & 2009.................... PFA and PC (Sources: Oti.........................Engineering Parameters and Performance of Unfired Clay Bricks and Mainstream Bricks (Source: Oti......Compressive Strength Results . 52 Table 10 – A Comparison of Estimated Stabiliser Cost in Ugandan Shillings and Cost per ICSB .. 2010) ........... 24 Table 5 ...................................................................... 2004 & 2001.................... 2009)..............................Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009). ................ 35 Table 6 .......An Overall Comparison of the Sustainability of the Stabilisers . 60 7 ....Raw Material Quantities for Mud Brick Construction ....................... 53 Table 11 ........ 22 Table 4 ..................................Comparison of the Energy Costs of GGBS.........................

world. These are both by-products of existing industry (steel production and coal fired power stations respectively) and are considered to be more sustainable than Portland Cement (PC). and the developed. Specific research into their use in earthen construction is lacking. Recently it has been utilised and investigated as a possible form of sustainable construction in the developing. for several thousand years. will look at two alternatives to cement for stabilizing unfired mud bricks. than fired bricks. This project.0 Introduction Mud brick construction is not a new technology and dates back. in environmental terms. Traditionally. Mud bricks perform considerably better. Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA) have been selected as the alternative stabilisers. Research into alternative stabilisers is both relevant and necessary to ensure unfired mud bricks remain a competitive alternative to modern construction methods. contribute fewer CO2 emissions and help to promote the local economy and local labour. which is conducted in association with Engineers Without Borders (EWB). There has been a large amount of interest and subsequent research into the use of interlocking mud bricks as an economical and environmentally sound method of satisfying the housing demand in many countries. They are also used as cement alternatives in soil stabilisation in the UK and around the developed world. They have significantly less embodied energy. unfired mud bricks have been stabilised with cement to overcome these short comings but the use of cement reduces the environmental differential between unfired bricks and fired ones. At first glance they appear to be an ideal candidate for an economically viable sustainable construction material. However. the structural integrity of bricks made with the alternative stabilisers and the potential sustainability of the stabilisers in the developing world. particularly those of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. in various forms. the major drawback of unfired mud bricks is that they tend to be less durable than their fired counterparts and are more susceptible to water damage. 8 . This research project focuses on two main areas.1.

Sustainability will be assessed by the availability of GGBS and PFA in Uganda and Tanzania.The structural integrity will be measured by 3 tests. compressive strength. shrinkage and absorption. the relative costs of these products compared to PC and by looking at any potential hazards associated with adopting these stabilisers. These tests will be performed on hand made mud bricks prepared in the laboratory. 9 .

Investigate the availability of the alternative stabilisers in the developing world using Uganda and Tanzania as benchmarks. Investigate whether there would be any social implications to the use of cement alternatives in the developing world. Compare the alternatives to cement for cost. quantitatively. Recommend future research.    Summarize whether the cement alternatives are a viable engineering alternative. Absorption.2. ease of manufacture and embodied energy. Identify two alternatives to cement for mud brick stabilisation. Analyze whether the alternatives will be viable in the developing world. Shrinkage.0 Aims and Objectives The aim of this individual research project is to investigate sustainable alternatives to cement for the stabilisation of unfired mud bricks. To achieve the aim. the following objectives will apply:  Undertake a literature review to establish the current position of research relating to the topic. to cement stabilised bricks for three mechanical properties: o o o  Compressive strength.     10 . Investigate mud bricks made with the alternative stabilisers and compare them.

research & development of the technologies. NGOs. technical and business training.0 Literature Review Construction with earth or clay has been around for thousands of years.000. and the private sector to adopt these technologies in the projects and work they do. 1997). building with unfired mud or clay bricks reduces the cost of construction and the environmental impact. As a potential construction material it seems to tick all the sustainability boxes and has great potential in the developing world. this is met by a supply of a mere 100. Traditional building methods such as fired masonry or concrete are environmentally damaging on many fronts – deforestation occurs to provide firewood. demand exists for 1. In the 1970’s it was estimated that there were more than 80 million earthen dwellings in India without considering significant numbers in Africa and China (Norton. In our advocacy work we target the government to ensure they are aware of the technology and include it in building codes. We also advocate to Agencies. With a continually growing global population. Building new homes on such a scale requires large amounts of construction materials. this figure is likely only to rise.‟ 11 (The Good Earth Trust. Additionally.6 million new homes each year. advocacy. capacity building. Importantly it also promotes local business and employment. and the provision of information and guidance. 2008) . 2008). In Uganda. It may be conservative to suggest that over two billion of the worlds’ population live in buildings primarily made from earth or clay. In selected areas.3. UN-HABITAT estimates that 3 billion people lack decent housing. and policy. In contrast to traditional fired masonry. The Good Earth Trust aims to promote the use of Interlocking Compressed Stabilised Blocks (ICSB) in the developing world with an eventual aspiration to transform the market so that people will opt for this technology rather than fired bricks: „…to do this we take a multi-pronged approach through awareness raising. concrete involves large amounts of embodied energy etc (The Good Earth Trust. technical specifications. we engage directly with local communities to implement practical projects to understand what is needed to promote the adoption of the technology at community levels. for example.

The latter category reported the major factors in lack of durability were water and/or termite damage. However. 2. This information will be presented. affordability. 3. further information on current ICSB technology is required. 12 . The other half reported a lifespan of just 10 years with regular maintenance required. (2007) interviewed ten residents of earthen buildings about five key points: durability. Background. To do so. in 4 parts: 1. 2.1 Background Mud and Earth Construction Although mud and earth construction has been around for thousands of years it is important to ask whether it is still relevant today. Affordability – All residents agreed that earthen dwellings were affordable when compared to modern dwellings. aesthetics and their general performance compared to a ‘modern’ house. cool in summer and warm in winter.1 3. 4. it should be noted that the two who complained about conditions lived in buildings roofed with corrugated iron resulting in excessive heat transmission. Hadjri et al. living conditions. cost and manufacture of selected stabilisers. via a literature review. Their findings are as follows: 1. A review of potential stabilisers for unfired masonry bricks. with a lifespan of more than 20 years. 3. Comparative study of embodied energy. Durability – Half of the residents indicated that their dwelling was durable. 3. The other two were less impressed. Testing procedures for the mechanical properties of masonry.This project aims to research alternative stabilisers for compressed earth blocks. Living Conditions – 8 out of 10 interviewees stated that their homes offered very comfortable living conditions with excellent thermal properties.1.

et al.. earth structures can be as impressive as more modern construction methods. old and new. 5. are shown in Figs 1 to 3 These examples show that with the correct materials. however. Earthen architecture.com) 13 . 2007) and that any drive to promote earthen architecture as a realistic alternative to ‘modern’ building materials must be combined with an educational programme. two were indifferent but four found the appearance less pleasing compared to ‘modern’ dwellings. The current trend for sustainable living combined with greater understanding of the thermal benefits.Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www. Aesthetics – Four interviewees appreciated the appearance of earthen architecture. General Preference – 70% of residents stated that they would not live in an earthen home if they had the financial resources to do otherwise. This was mainly due to the fact that earthen dwellings were associated with poverty and a lower social class. 2009). Figure 1 . safety and potential durability of earth has led to substantial advances in the quality and appearance of mud and clay based buildings (Burroughs. These results show that there are still issues with the perceptions of earthen architecture in the developing world (Hadjri. Some examples of earthen architecture.banasura. has changed considerably in recent years with better understanding and increased use. dedication and imagination.4.

banasura. Saudi Arabia (Source: www.Figure 2 .Rammed Earth Construction Underway in India (Source: www.com) 14 .raelsanfratello.com) Figure 3 .Example of a Modern Earthen Structure in Riyadh.

Adobe blocks are usually made of a compacted mixture of clay and straw but are less uniform in size and shape than compressed earth blocks. This project will focus solely on compressed earth blocks and their modern evolution. then moulded and compressed into flowing forms to make walls and roofs. Rammed Earth This involves the making of a mould into which the soil.Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009). 2 3 4 5 6 Wattle and Daub This consists of a wooden or bamboo frame laid vertically and horizontally reinforced on which earthen daub is packed.There are six predominant methods of earthen construction. is compacted and left to dry. Earth Sheltering This refers to the use of earth on the structure of a building. 15 . It includes earth berming. inclusive of a weatherproofing agent. Adobe Blocks These are similar to compressed earth blocks and often considered their precursor. Subsequently the mould is removed and the earthen form remains. in-hill construction and underground construction. 1 Compressed Earth Block These are construction blocks made from a mixture of soil and a stabilizing agent compressed by different types of manual or motor driven press machines. sand and straw is made. these are summarized in Table 1: Table 1 . ICSB are a variation of this. Cob In cob construction a mix of clay. the interlocking compressed stabilised block (ICSB).

As a result the cost of construction was considerably reduced and the structural stability improved (UN Human Settlements Programme. skilled labourers were still required to construct the blocks and significant amounts of cement and mortar were required. Interlocking blocks have developed in complexity since their early forerunners and now double interlocking and curved blocks are available. The CINVA-RAM and similar machines provided a cost effective and more environmentally friendly method of construction. the Human Settlements Division of the Asian Institute of Technology and the Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research worked together to modify the CINVA-RAM to produce interlocking blocks.3. Methods of producing earth blocks have continually developed since and there are now a diverse range of both manual and motor driven presses catering for all scales of production. a Makiga press. 16 . However. In the 1950’s the Chilean engineer Raul Ramirez created the CINVA-RAM press at the Inter American Housing Centre in Columbia.2 Interlocking Compressed Stabilised Blocks In the past the traditional method of making blocks from compacting earth used wooden moulds (similar to Adobe in Table 3-1). These interlocking blocks reduced the need for cement and for skilled tradesmen. 2009). To counter this. The blocks were then either woodfired or left to dry in the sun. 1997). is shown in Fig 4. In recent years the development of mechanical presses has superseded the more primitive technology in most areas of the world (Norton.1. An example of a modern variation of the CINVA-RAM.

the interlocking fins on the top and side of the blocks are easily identifiable.org. Table 3-2 compares an interlocking block to some of the alternatives over a range of properties (source: (UN Human Settlements Programme. Also clear from this Figure is the high quality outward appearance of the constructed blocks.Figure 4 . Figure 5 .makiga-engineering. 2009).Makiga Press (Source: www.Examples of Interlocking Blocks (Source: www. ease of use and quality of performance. 17 .uk) There are many advantages of interlocking blocks including environmental considerations.com) An example of double interlocking blocks is shown in Fig 5.goodearthtrust.

These basic facilities are lacking in many areas of the developing world and their provision can dramatically reduce disease. 3. 5. 4. Ease of Use – ICSB machines are comparatively easy to use and maintain. 1997). Structural – ICSB technology compares favourably with traditional methods of construction (Norton. latrines and septic tanks. 2009). 18 . the firing of traditional masonry has led to vast deforestation and destruction of wetlands (UN Human Settlements Programme.Additional advantages of ICSB include: 1. 2. In Uganda. for example. Health – Curved blocks can be used to build water tanks. Environment – ICSB are an environmentally sound alternative to traditional fired blocks. Economics – ICSB construction is cheaper than traditional methods. Construction using the blocks also requires less skill than traditional masonry. Raw materials can usually be sourced in the area of construction and the stabilised blocks are weatherproof and require no further rendering.

Comparison of Interlocking Blocks to its Alternatives (Source: UN Human Settlements Programme) 19 .Table 2 .

Earthen structures are considered to last. for example single storey shelters. Lime as a stabiliser will not be investigated further in this research project other than as an additive to activate the pozzolanic reaction. Traditionally cement or lime is added to stabilize the block and improve its’ durability but some research has been done into chemical admixtures (Vinod. However. It is. (2010) investigated the use of cement blends for soil stabilisation and suggested the following as possible alternatives to cement: 1. difficulty of supply and the potential cost of training tradesmen. Lime production is less intensive than cement production but more lime is required to deliver similar results (Sivapullaiah. Previous researchers. 2000). especially in clayey soils. Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) – This is a by product of the steel industry which occurs when iron ore is separated from the remaining slag. 1997).2 A Review of Potential Stabilisers for Unfired Masonry Bricks Browne (2005) tested handmade bricks and found they typically display strengths of 2 N/mm2 compared to machined bricks that provide strengths of more than 4 N/mm2..3. This slag is tapped off and rapidly quenched in water to promote its 20 . geotechnical (pavement design) and geo-environmental (soil stabilisation). and machined bricks (made with a Makiga ram for example) are suitable for more complicated buildings. The addition of a cement stabiliser lessens the embodied energy differential between ICSB and traditional fired blocks. therefore. approximately 20% less time than similar structures built by more traditional methods (Norton.. et al. including Davis (2003) and Longland (1985). The problem with cement stabilisation is that ICSB technology is promoted as an environmentally friendly construction material. 2010). Jegendan et al. This research was inconclusive but chemicals can be discounted for use in the developed world due to cost. on average. This shows that handmade bricks satisfy the strength required for simple structures. Soil stabilisers are used in a variety of contexts including structural (ICSB). the biggest drawback with mud block construction is the concerns over its durability. important to investigate alternatives to cement. have suggested lime as a suitable alternative. et al.

et al. Of this. SSA does not meet the European standards as a 21 . an application for which it has been used for many years. (Shafique. to stabilize soil... This was mainly due to the low content of silica in SSA which meant its pozzolanic activity was limited.5 tonnes are used in the construction industry. Other soil stabilisers suggested include reactive magnesia and zeolite though these have been discounted due to high prices and expected problems of availability in the developed world. et al. 2010). 2007). 2009). and fuel ash. 2004) and (Jegendan. Coal is ground into a fine dust prior to combustion and it is the finer ash which is cementitious. et al. approximately 3. 2. However.. 2010). The generation of CKD is environmentally questionable as it is related to cement manufacture with its associated high embodied energy. although CKD production is reducing due to improved processes a large amount is still disposed of in landfill. et al... The benefits of using PFA in terms of enhanced durability and sustainability have been well documented in other applications including pavement stabilisation (Sear. CKD is collected from cement kiln exhaust gasses and consists of particles of clinker. usually calcium hydroxide. Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) – This is a by-product of cement manufacture quality control. 2010).. GGBS is used throughout the UK and approx 2 million tonnes are used per annum (Jegendan. However. PFA requires water and a source of alkali. 2010). et al. unreacted calcined raw materials. It is commonly used as an additive in cement mixes and lime can used to activate the reaction rather than PC. et al. Coutand et al. Studies have shown that CKD is a useful soil stabiliser and can also be used as an alkali activator for GGBS ((Jegendan. (2006) investigated the use of Sewage Sludge Ash (SSA) as an admixture in mortars.cementitious properties. 3. Better durability is expected with higher GGBS content but it also slows the curing time (Oti. Pulverised Fly Ash (PFA) – Fly ash is a by product from coal fired power stations and over 6 million tonnes are produced annually in the UK (Jegendan. they concluded that SSA had a fundamentally different chemical composition when compared to PFA which made it less suitable as a stabiliser.

in terms of energy. even when stabilised with PC. comparison of stabilisers. 22 . are a much better material for long term sustainability. These include. This project aims to investigate alternative stabilisers to PC for ICSB technology and will focus on the use of GGBS and PFA. 3. Reddy. 2004). energy consumed in the manufacturing processes. recycling. 2009) Ser Stabiliser Embodied Energy (MJ/t) CO2 Emissions During Manufacture (per t) 1000 kg 70 kg 800 kg 25 kg 1 2 3 4 Portland Cement GGBS PFA No stabiliser 5000 1300 900 525 Energy in Transportation for 100km (MJ/t) 100 100* 400 - *.3 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers Housing construction methods in the developed and the developing world need to fulfil a variety of criteria. Table 3 compares these potential stabilisers with PC in terms of energy costs during manufacture and construction. It will not be considered further in this project. Table 3 . 2004 & 2001. Clearly. et al. (2009) found that the embodied energy and carbon dioxide emissions of fired bricks are 4186 MJ/t and 202 Kg CO2/t respectively and comparatively.No values were found in current literature for transportation costs of GGBS but it was assumed they would be very similar to PC. Ash Solutions Ltd. the impact on the environment and long term sustainability (Reddy. consumption of raw materials and natural resources.. 2006). Oti et al.mineral admixture but could be used as a low grade pozzolan (Coutand. It is unrealistic to consider all these factors in a Some prioritization is necessary and this review will concentrate on energy consumed in the manufacturing process (embodied energy). When considered together these factors will indicate the environmental impact and give some suggestion as to the long term sustainability of each stabiliser. problems associated with long distance transportation. cost of transportation and financial cost.Comparison of the Energy Costs of GGBS. 2008 & 2009. PFA and PC (Sources: Oti. Portland Cement (PC) stabilised unfired bricks have an embodied energy of 1025 MJ/t and emissions of 125 Kg CO2/t. unfired bricks.

however. when considering embodied energy. PFA. some initial research has been conducted into the use of GGBS. et al. Studies into the compressive strength of unfired bricks stabilised with GGBS/PC mixtures realized results of 2.. 2009).7-5 N/mm2 in the laboratory and 3. Table 4 (source: Oti. There is no literature investigating the use of PFA as a sustainable stabiliser for mud brick construction. However.Table 3 shows that GGBS and PFA are competitive with PC in terms of energy cost. These results are within the range specified by UK building regulations (5 – 8 N/mm2) but at the lower end (Oti. bricks with no stabiliser are the most environmentally appealing. This should be similar across the world as both GGBS and PFA are by products of existing industry. PC. Therefore. 2010). However. transportation costs and financial cost we can list the potential stabilisers in descending order of preference as follows: GGBS. 23 .4 on an industrial scale. 2009). In conclusion. it should be noted that in previous studies GGBS has replaced up to 70% of PC compared to 40% for PFA and can be more durable (Vincent.. GGBS may deliver greater financial savings when looking at whole life cycle costs.4-7. Unfortunately a lack of stabiliser means the brick is susceptible to water damage and has poor durability when compared to a stabilised brick making it unviable (Oti. 2009) illustrates some of the engineering parameters and performance of unfired clay bricks stabilised with PC / lime and GGBS mixes with mainstream bricks. et al. In the UK GGBS and PFA retail for about the same price and making concrete with these admixtures rather than PC is no more expensive (Vincent. 2010). Due to the early nature of the research there is no published information on the complete range of engineering properties.

Engineering Parameters and Performance of Unfired Clay Bricks and Mainstream Bricks (Source: Oti.4 Testing Procedures for the Mechanical Properties of Masonry For this project three engineering properties have been selected to investigate the strength and durability of the blocks stabilised with the cement alternatives: 1. The standard specifies a number of different conditioning procedures: air dry. Absorption. Compressive strength. 2009) Ser Parameter Fired Clay Sun Baked PC Stabilised Unfired Brick 8 – 12% PC Internal / external walls Dependant on stabiliser 1 2 3 4 Firing Stabiliser Content Design Application Robustness / Durability X Internal / external walls Frost resistant Internal walls Susceptible to water damage 5 6 7 Cost Use of PC Breathability High No Low No High x Impeded by PC GGBS/PC Mix Stabilised Unfired Brick 1.5 % Lime. Previous research 24 . Each of these properties will be tested by the European standards or the equivalent accepted standard for ICSB technology. 3.Table 4 .4. 3. oven dry.1 Compressive Strength Testing of Masonry The European standard for the compressive strength of clay masonry units is BS EN 772-1:2010 (though this draft has yet to be approved it varies little from the 2000 version). 5% GGBS Internal / external walls Robust and durable with activated GGBS blend Low Yes This research further reinforces the idea that GGBS is an ideal replacement stabiliser for PC. conditioning to 6% moisture content and conditioning by immersion. Shrinkage. 2. 3.

2010) The European standard states that the minimum number of samples to be tested is six. 2010).” (BSI.2. and to simulate most closely the conditions likely to be found in Uganda and Tanzania. For this project. The machine shall be provided with a load-pacer or equivalent means to enable the load to be applied at the rate given in 8. Instead it recommends a number of ICSB specific tests to determine whether a site. Further details of the testing machine are as follows: “The testing machine shall have adequate capacity to crush all the test specimens. The testing faces shall have a Vickers hardness of at least 600 HV when tested in accordance with EN ISO 6507-1. However.2 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB UN HABITAT recognizes that the laboratory testing of ICBS technology is not always viable. 2009). particularly in the developing world. The testing machine shall be equipped with 2 steel-bearing platens. This machine must have an error of less than 2% (BSI. is suitable for the creation of unfired mud bricks (UN Human Settlements Programme. These tests include a sedimentation test and a shrinkage test. 2009). Only the shrinkage test will be considered in this project. 3. The stiffness of the platens and the manner of load transfer shall be such that the deflection of the platen surfaces at failure load shall be less than 0.4. samples must be stored at room temperature (>15oC) at a relative humidity of approximately 60% for 14 days before testing.1 mm measured over 250 mm.. This test is important to ensure that ICSB will not 25 . et al. To achieve this in line with the European standard. The compressive strength is determined using a compressive strength testing machine. this is for industrial scale production and is unrealistic for handmade bricks constructed to compare stabilisers. but the scale used shall be such that the failure load on the specimen exceeds one-fifth of the full scale reading. and more importantly its soil. The platens shall either be through hardened or the faces case hardened.suggests that immersing unfired bricks is unnecessary as if the bricks are handled correctly and the building is properly detailed it is unlikely that bricks will be immersed whilst in use (Heath. air drying the samples will be used.

Therefore.   ICSB technology has numerous advantages over rival earthen construction methods notably in strength.3 Absorption Testing of Masonry The European standard for absorption testing of clay masonry units is BS EN 77211:2010. Depending on the soil type and the shrinkage observed during initial testing the amount of stabiliser will vary. The principle of absorption testing is to immerse a face of the masonry unit in water for a set period and determine the increase in mass. when using PC. increase water absorption and have an adverse affect on appearance. A stigma is still attached to earthen construction in the developing world where it is associated with poverty and low social standing. Shrinkage can be controlled with stabilisers.4. ratios of 5% are used but this can increase to 10% with higher levels of clay (Browne. 26 .shrink so much during curing as to prove difficult to work with during subsequent construction. Another drawback to significant shrinkage is the appearance of cracks which can decrease durability. They also represent no significant additional financial cost. appearance and ease of use. 3.  GGBS and PFA are both favourable to PC in terms of embodied energy and CO2 emissions. modern and sustainable construction material. an educational programme will need to run concurrently to any concerted ICSB drive promoting it as a viable. 3. Typically. For clay masonry units the bed face is the one that is tested (BSI.5 Key Points from the Literature Review The following key points have been drawn out from the literature review:   Various forms of earthen construction have been used for thousands of years. 2009). Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA) are potential alternatives to Portland Cement (PC) as stabilisers for ICSB technology. 2010).

  BS EN 772-1:2010 gives the procedure for compressive strength testing of clay masonry units.  BS EN 772-11:2010 gives the procedure for absorption testing of clay masonry units. The shrinkage test is useful to determine the amount of stabiliser and the suitability of the local soil. UN HABITAT provides a range of tests to ensure the suitability of sites for ICSB. there is a lack of current research into the engineering properties of unfired bricks stabilised with PFA. GGBS is the preferred stabiliser according to current research. 27 . However.

0 Proposed Method Statement In order to achieve the aim of this research project each of the objectives outlined above will be taken in turn.4.2 Preliminary Experiments Get Sheltered. laboratory experiments and a sustainability study.0. an EWB workshop designed to discuss various aspects of sustainable construction in the developing world. 28 . is to be held at Newcastle University on the 20 Nov 10. 4. The following outcomes are expected:    Familiarization with hand-made mud brick construction techniques. 4.5 but most importantly GGBS and PFA have been selected as the stabilisers to investigate. It is proposed that Get Sheltered be used as a set of preliminary experiments for the project. Familiarization with compressive strength testing procedures for masonry units. preliminary experiments. will be made. The outcome of the literature review is summarized in paragraph 3. Further research is required into a manufacturer of GGBS and PFA who will be willing to support the project. research. To simplify the methodology it has been divided into a number of Sections. This workshop will include a session on mud bricks during which ICSB technology will be introduced to the participants by the researcher before a number of mud bricks. some stabilised with lime or PC. Construction of moulds suitable for the main laboratory experiments testing compressive strength and absorption.0.1 Research The first three objectives are driven largely by the literature review and studying published professional research.

Apply loading at a rate of 0. Record the maximum load. Three bricks with each stabiliser will be made. 4. Calculate the strength of the specimen by dividing the maximum load by the loaded area and express to the nearest 0. Production of reference data for hand-made bricks stabilised with PC.1 N/mm2  Shrinkage will be measured by the procedure detailed below: 29 . Measure the width and length of the loaded area and calculate the loaded area. lime and no stabiliser (these will be included in the Results Section of this project).   Moulds will be constructed to ensure all hand-made bricks are of the same dimensions.g. Compressive strength will be tested to EN 772-1 by the procedure detailed below: 1.   The curing period before testing will be 30 days. 4. The absorption test will be conducted first and there will be seven days between the two tests to allow the bricks to dry out.0. 2. The following points will remain extant:   Bricks will be hand made by the researcher and no press will be used. 3. 5-10% for PC). The bricks will be used for both compressive testing and for absorption testing. Align the specimen in the testing machine without using any extra packing. GGBS and PFA.05 N/mm2/s (the approved rate for masonry with a strength <10N/mm2). Clean the bedding surface to ensure even contact is maintained.3 Laboratory Experiments Laboratory experiments will be used to determine the engineering properties of mud bricks stabilised with PC. 6. 5. The amount of stabiliser in each brick will vary in order to test the extremes of expected optimum stabiliser content (e.

Immerse the specimen in water up to a depth of 5mm (+/-1mm) for 24 hours (BSI. 4. 2. Compact the mix well. 5. This value can be used to compare the shrinkage of soil mixes. Calculate the initial rate of water absorption using the formula in BS EN 772-11:2010 Section 8. A comparative study of the health and social implications will be undertaken using existing published information.  Absorption will be measured using the procedure detailed below: 1. GGBS and PFA will be compared to each other both quantitatively and graphically.4 Sustainability Study This part of the project will fulfil the objectives concerned with the sustainability. Measure the amount of shrinkage and calculate as a percentage of the initial dimensions. it will use Tanzania and Uganda as it is benchmarks. 3. Construct a wooden box with internal dimensions of 40mm x 40mm x 600mm. Geographically. 5. 4. 2003).  Results for the bricks stabilised with PC. 30 . 3. Grease the box and insert the clay / sand mix to be tested. The sustainability study is likely to be a relatively small part of the final project. The price and availability of GGBS and PFA will be initially sought from The Good Earth Trust who have ongoing projects in those countries. Measure the new weight of the specimen.1. Measure the dry weight of the specimen.3. Measure the dimensions of the test face and determine the gross area. 4. 2. Leave to cure in the shade for at least 7 days.0. availability and potential implications of using the proposed stabilisers in the developing world.

All laboratory testing will take place during the period Jan – Mar 11 and a Gantt chart showing the proposed timeline for the project is at Fig 1 (shaded tasks are ones that were completed by 3 Dec 10).1 Timeline The key milestones for this project were the PIR submission date (3 Dec 10) and the Project submission date (20 May 11).4. 31 .

Proposed Project Timeline 32 .Figure 6 .

2009). The percentage of stabiliser used usually varies depending on the soil type but is typically between 5 and 20% with the higher proportions being applicable to clayey soils (Browne. by their very nature. Production of mud bricks. The method detailed below was adapted from that used at the ‘Get Sheltered’ workshop in Nov 10. learnt from another EWB workshop hosted by Paul Jaquin. in varying proportions. 8 Kg powered clay (whole white e china clay). It is noted that the method is not incredibly detailed but this recreates well the circumstances expected on a typical earthen construction site.1 Equipment Required The following equipment and materials were required to construct the bricks:        60 Kg sand (coarse Leyton sand). 2009). 36 Kg pea shingle. 5. 5 Kg lime. 5 Kg GGBS. in turn.0 Method Statement The points in the Proposed Method Statement remain extant throughout this section and technical details of the compressive strength. absorption and shrinkage tests can be found in that section. 5 Kg PFA. an individual who has done considerable research into earthen construction. This means that the measuring and mixing of the materials is usually approximated and is at best measured using crude units such as ‘bags of sand’ or ‘wheelbarrows full’ (UN Human Settlements Programme. is done by unskilled labourers. This was.5. They require only three raw materials.1 Constructing the Mud Bricks Mud bricks are. particularly in the developing world. 5. The experimental steps are detailed in chronological order and a table detailing the exact timeline of the project is at Appendix 1. This is one of the main advantages of this form of construction. simple to construct.1. water and a stabiliser. 33 . soil. 5 Kg PC.

Permanent marker. Trowel. three with each stabiliser.            Safety footwear. The main risk was from using lime and this was mitigated by the wearing of correct PPE (lab coat. stabiliser percentages of 10%.0.2 Health and Safety In addition to the existing safety rules of the laboratory a project specific risk assessment was completed prior to the laboratory sessions. Mixing tray for sand/clay. 1987). 5. masks.3 Procedure In line with the Section 4. The use of differing stabiliser quantities is considered further in Section 8. These values were chosen as the homogeneous soil that was used had high clay content. Oil for lining moulds. Water source.0. lab coats). gloves. For this project.1. Normality of the stabiliser content across all 3 stabilisers also allows ease of comparison and consistency of results. PPE for lime (goggles. 0. and 20% were used to provide a range of a data as outlined in Section 4. 15%. 5.5 Kg. 0.001 Kg accuracy) Shovel. Heavy duty balance (up to 20 kg. Accurate balance (up to 2. Wheelbarrow. the established practice is to replace PC on a 1:1 basis (ACI Committee. safety glasses. as used at ‘Get Sheltered’).1. and in other uses of GGBS as a cement replacement material.1 Kg accuracy).0 nine bricks were made in total. Moulds for bricks (pre-made. In concrete preparation. PFA 34 . safety footwear and a mask). The format used was standard for the Newcastle University Geotechnical Laboratories and is reproduced at Appendix 2.

5 I F C 20% 8.0 1350 1. 60 Kg of sand was weighed.10ml) PFA (+/.0 G 1000 1.33 0.5 8.Raw Material Quantities for Mud Brick Construction Type of Stabiliser Raw Material Soil (+/. Table 5 shows the quantities of each raw material required for the mud bricks constructed for this project. this is similar to the typical soil type in much of Uganda [Mwebeze. However. For each PFA stabilised brick the PC was replaced with the same volume of Lime/PFA in a ratio 1:2 (Caltrone. Each brick was given an identifier to make reporting the results more concise.01 kg) The bricks were constructed using the following method: 1.0. A manufactured soil mix was used for all bricks (and the shrinkage testing).0 0.67 8.0. By creating a homogeneous soil in the laboratory results can be more easily and more accurately compared.0 8.50 8.0. In common construction practice PFA would not completely replace PC but would rather replace up to 60%.0 9.0 A 1000 1.10 ml) GGBS (+/. in two batches: a. The soil was made as follows.1 kg) PFA Water (+/.0. 35 .0.5 1200 1.1 kg) 10% 9.is different from GGBS because it contains little calcium and therefore is unable to react cementitiously unless there is lime from another source present.01 kg) Soil (+/.0 1050 2. 2010).0 1150 2. These comprised of the letters A .0.67 0.I and are shown in Table 5.1 kg) GGBS Water (+/.01kg) Lime (+/. This mix was made by the researcher and was used to ensure that the only variables changed during the research were the type and quantity of stabiliser.0. The proportions chosen for the soil mix gave a clay content of just under 8%. in order to keep as many variables as possible constant PFA replaced 100% of the PC during this research.5 1100 1.5 1250 1.0 D 1100 0.0 H E B % Stabiliser 15% 8.10ml) PC (+/.0 PC Water (+/. 2007].01kg) Soil (+/. Table 5 .33 9.

The raw materials were mixed together on a mixing tray. Fig 7 Figure 7 . d. giving a profile surface area of 0. 36 Kg of pea shingle was weighed.b. c. These dimensions were chosen as a suitable size to represent ICSB technology which typically requires 35 bricks to cover 1m2. 8 Kg of dry clay was weighed.028m2.Raw Materials for Soil Mix Figure 8 . shows the raw materials and Fig 8 shows the mixed soil.033m2 for the bricks manufactured during this project 36 . compared with 0. The moulds used for the bricks were previously constructed using 5mm plywood and were of the dimensions 145mm (w) x 300 mm (l) x 110 mm (d).Mixed Homogenous Soil 2.

[Smith, 2010].

These were lined with mould oil (to prevent the brick from Fig 9 shows the empty

sticking to the mould) prior to brick construction. moulds.

Figure 9 - Empty Brick Moulds

3. The raw materials were mixed in the required proportions for each sample.

4. One brick with each proportion of materials from Table 5 was constructed, compacted well and levelled. Fig 10 shows the completed bricks in the moulds.

Figure 10 - Completed Bricks in Moulds (L-R, stabilised with PC, GGBS, PFA, shrinkage test)

5. The moulds for each brick were clearly marked.

6. The moulds were left to cure for 28 days prior to absorption testing. For the initial curing period they were left loosely covered with plastic, as shown in Fig 11, for 7 days (The Good Earth Trust, 2008). This was to create a humid

37

environment which would prevent the clay from setting before the cementitious reaction was complete. After 7 days several holes were made in the plastic to allow the evaporated water to escape. The plastic was kept in place to increase the temperature and help recreate the humid conditions expected in the developing world.

Figure 11 - Bricks and Shrinkage Test Left for Curing

No replicates of the bricks were made as this would have placed unnecessary time constraints on the project. The sample size selected is the minimum size to allow a comparison to be made between the different stabilisers.

5.2

Shrinkage Testing

The shrinkage testing was conducted at the same time as the curing of the mud bricks.

5.2.1

Equipment Required

The following equipment was required:    

Safety boots. Soil mix as made in Section 5.1. Mould. Trowel.

38

5.2.2

Health and Safety

As this experiment was carried out at the same time as the construction of the mud bricks in Section 5.1 the same risk assessment was used (reproduced at Appendix 2).

5.3.3

Procedure

The following procedure was followed:

1. In order to achieve a mould similar to the one detailed in the UN HABITAT guide one of the internal batons was removed from a spare mud brick mould constructed for ‘Get Sheltered’. This left a rectangular mould of dimensions 615 mm (l) x 145 mm (w) x 110 mm (d). The mould is shown in Fig 12.

Figure 12 - Shrinkage Testing Mould

2. The mould was filled with 20kg of the soil mix, rehydrated with 2000 ml of water. No stabiliser was added.

3. The soil was compacted and levelled off before being left to cure in the same conditions as the mud bricks for 14 days.

4. The shrinkage was calculated as per the method outlined in Section 4.0.3.

39

5.3

Absorption Testing

The absorption testing was undertaken over a 24 hour period 28 days after the bricks were constructed. It was conducted in line with the Proposed Method Statement, specifically Section 4.0.3.

5.3.1

Equipment Required

The following equipment was required:   

Metal trays x 2. Water source. PPE.

5.3.2

Health and Safety

No additional Risk Assessment was required because of the basic nature of the test.

5.3.3

Procedure

As stated, the proposed method was adhered to. Additional details are as follows:

1. The bricks were exposed to water (depth = 5mm) for a period of 24 hours. Fig 13 shows the experimental setup.

40

1 Compressive Strength Testing Equipment Required The following equipment was required:    Compressive strength testing machine (as specified in the Section 4.4 5. Brick samples. The Initial Rate of Water Absorption was calculated in line with BS EN 772:2010 Section 8. 3.The Experimental Setup for the Absorption Testing 2. as prepared above. No additional controls were required.Figure 13 .2 Health and Safety The Risk Assessment at Appendix 2 was used for this procedure.2.4. Wood packing.4. 5. The water was topped up once during this period. 5. 41 .0).

0. This meant that all the bricks benefited from the same curing time.5. on the same day. 42 . Figure 14 – The Experimental Set-up for the Compressive Strength Testing The bricks were tested sequentially. Fig 14 shows the experimental set up.3 Procedure The procedure used was as detailed in the Section 4. This was necessary due to the design of the machine. The only variation was the use of wooden packing to distribute the load over the surface of the brick.4.

Nevertheless a range of mud bricks were constructed using the same method as for those in the main laboratory experiments allowing familiarisation with the procedure.1 Results Preliminary Experimental Results The experiments conducted at ‘Get Sheltered’ proved to be less extensive than at first hoped. which had cured for 28 days.0 6.1 and Figure 15. These bricks were stabilised with lime or PC and one contained no stabiliser.42 3 No stab 51617 41300 1.Compressive Strength of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered' 43 .15 249376 22360 11.2 Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lime stab PC stab No stab Fired brick House brick Type of Brick Figure 15 . as used in masonry construction in the UK.25 4 5 Fired brick House brick 62352 29000 2. compressive strength testing are shown in Table 6. A fired brick (from Uganda) and a regular house brick.Compressive Strength Testing of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered' The results of the Ser 1 2 3 4 Brick Parameter Description Failure load (N) Area (mm ) Compressive Strength (N/mm ) 2 2 1 Lime stab 40196 41300 0.6. were also tested. Some previously constructed bricks.97 2 PC stab 17427 41300 0. Table 6 . were tested for their compressive strength.

1 Shrinkage Testing The shrinkage test produced no shrinkage after the prescribed period. 6.2. In contrast.2 Sample Appearance and Texture Fig 16 shows the appearance of the samples once they had been removed from the moulds.2 Main Laboratory Experimental Results 6. hard texture.2. Btm Right: PFA) 6. crumbling on touch and with obvious surface cracking.3 Absorption Testing The formula used to calculate the Initial Rate of Water Absorption is taken from BS EN 771-11:2010: Where: 44 . the observed shrinkage was still negligible. samples G-I were very delicate. Btm Left: PC.2. The PFA and PC stabilised samples (A-F) presented as expected with a dense. Figure 16 – The Appearance of the Bricks after Curing (Top: GGBS.6. Even after extending the test to 28 days.

Cws = Initial Rate of Water Absorption (kg/m2/min) The results of the absorption testing are shown in Table 7 and Figure 17.014367816 0.02 0 A B C D E Sample Figure 17 .08 0.116538953 0.The Initial Rate of Water Absorption for the Samples F G H I 45 .1 0.100574713 0.14 Initial Rate of Water Absorption (kg/m2/min) 0.Absorption Testing Results Initial rate of Change in mass (g) Water Absorption (kg/m2/min) Mass before Sample Stabiliser Mass after absorption test (g) % absorption test (g) A B C D E F G H I GGBS PFA PC 10 15 20 10 15 20 10 15 20 10240 10340 10560 9550 9480 9360 9580 9470 9070 10450 10430 10620 10040 10030 10090 10040 10260 9700 210 90 60 490 550 730 460 790 630 0.033524904 0.12 0.04 0.087803321 0.073435504 0. Table 7 .078224777 0.126117497 0.009578544 0.06 0.

Fig 22 shows the appearance of a selection of the bricks at the conclusion of the test.A Comparison of the Compressive Strength of the Samples 46 .331 42.544 262.703 5.144298851 0.011 6.751 247.6. Table 8 .501 32.034505747 0.690666667 6.2.407 43500 43500 43500 43500 43500 43500 43500 43500 43500 4.4 Compressive Strength Testing Sample raw data for the compressive strength testing is reproduced at Appendix 5. Figs 19 – 21 show stress-strain curves for the bricks made with the three stabilisers.170275862 PFA 10 15 20 GGBS 10 15 20 Compressive Strength (N/mm2) A B C D E Sample F G H I Figure 18 .747563218 0.Compressive Strength Results Sample Stabiliser PC % 10 15 20 Ultimate Load (kN) Area (mm ) 2 Compressive Strength 2 (N/mm ) A B C D E F G H I 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 187.316114943 5. Table 8 and Fig 18 compare the compressive strength of the various samples using all the raw data recorded.981678161 0.115195402 0.519 33.766229885 0.277 7.

15 0.00004 0.007 0.00018 0.1 Strain Stress (kN/mm2) 10% Stabilizer 15% Stabilizer 20% Stabilizer Figure 21 .00006 0.001 Stress (kN/mm2) 0.Stress-Strain Curves for the PFA Stabilised Bricks 10% Stabilizer 15% Stabilizer 20% Stabilizer 0.00002 0 0 0.005 0.0001 0.05 Strain Figure 20 .08 0.0004 0.Stress-Strain Curves for the PC Stabilised Bricks 0.05 0.02 0.00014 0.04 0.006 Stress (kn/mm2) 0.0008 0.002 0.0012 0.0006 0.1 0.00016 0.00012 0.0002 0 0 0.Stress-Strain Curves for the GGBS Stabilised Bricks 47 .004 0.15 0.1 Strain 0.003 0.00008 0.2 Figure 19 .001 0 10% Stabilizer 15% Stabilizer 20% Stabilizer 0 0.06 0.0.

PC: PF A: A: GGB S: S: Figure 22 .The Appearance of a Selection of Samples after Compressive Strength Testing 48 .

2001). interpreted and assessed. et al. 2005). Many definitions exist but most typically suggest some responsibility to current and future generations as well as an appreciation that the natural environment is not an infinite resource to be continually degraded (Walton. They assert that sustainable development is an oxymoron and that neo liberal discourse on the subject focuses almost solely on the economic rather than any social or environmental aspects (Davidson.‟ (World Commission on Environment and Development. interrelationship between social. advocating a complicated. more designed earnest procedures for the measuring and reporting of it. 2009) 49 .7.. sceptical to the concept are of the opinion that the World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) definition is ‘an idea so vague that everyone can agree to it’ (Lindsay. and often subjective. there is broad consensus that the concept is multi dimensional. et al. However.0 Sustainability Study More than 20 years since the Brundtland Commission brought sustainable development to international prominence the issue still arouses much debate as to how it should be defined. Perhaps the most commonly quoted definition is that proposed by the WCED: „…development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 1987) Figure 23 . Proponents of the theory have Others. 2010).Interrelationship between the Spheres of Sustainability (Source: Tanguay. environmental and economic factors (as shown in Fig 23).

In both methods the raw materials (calcium carbonate and silica) are mixed together and fed into large rotating kiln cylinders. PFA and PC. Gypsum is added at the final grinding stage in order to regulate the setting time. To counter this difficulty the report will broadly endorse the WCED definition and investigate the proposed alternative stabilisers. the sheer number of SDIs and the lack of common interpretation of their meaning means that their use is still problematic (Tanguay. Whilst it is acknowledged that this approach has its limitations. environmental). Quantitative eco-points analysis (environmental).One method of measuring sustainability and one that is popular with a number of public administrators is the use of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs).2 above.. aluminium. et al. Financial cost (economic). Health implications (social. A substance called clinker is produced. These are heated to approx 1450oC to create the conditions necessary for the chemical reactions to take place. PC is not a by-product. and social). iron and small amounts of other materials. across four areas:     Ease of Manufacture (environmental. 50 . wet and dry. 2009). silica. However. In the context of this report this presents difficulty in determining exactly how to define sustainability and how to compare the different stabilisers. so do the alternatives and this method will at least provide both quantitative and qualitative results for discussion. 7. economic. Two methods of production exist for PC. GGBS.1 Ease of Manufacture PFA and GGBS are both by products of existing industry. Instead its manufacture consists of a tightly controlled combination of calcium. Details of their manufacture are contained in Section 3.

in comparison to PFA and GGBS. 7. these reduce the need for mortar. 51 . the transportation costs and the amount of mortar used. A financial estimate for 1 m2 of ICSB wall compared to 1 m2 of fired brick wall is shown in Table 9. In this table it should be noted that marram is a grass traditionally added as a further stabiliser/aggregate.2 Financial Cost The financial cost of ICSB technology varies. The discrepancy in mortar requirements between fired bricks and ICSB is due to the ‘fins’ designed into the ICSB blocks. The cement manufacturing procedure is extremely energy intensive and the environmental implications of producing PC. have already been stated in Table 3. However. depending on a number of factors primarily the availability of quality material on site. more labour is required for the ICSB blocks as they are usually made locally (or even on site) rather than being delivered from a manufacturing plant.cooled and then ground with gypsum to produce cement powder (Portland Cement Association. 2011).

2011].94 can be applied to all prices to give an 52 . 2011].Table 9 . 2011]).5 x labourer (per day) Total (Ugandan Shillings / m (50 bricks)) ICSB Blocks: Marram (6 wheelbarrows) PC (25 kg) Mortar: Coarse sand (3 wheelbarrows) Fine sand (2 wheelbarrows) PC (25 kg) Labour: 1 x mason (per day) 3. [The Building Lime Company. These are presented in Table 10. GGBS and PFA in the UK were found ([A1 Building Supplies. 2010) Per 100 Bricks Fired Bricks Blocks: Purchase cost Mortar: Coarse sand (3 wheelbarrows) Fine sand (2 wheelbarrows) PC (25 kg) Labour: 1 x mason (per day) 0. Unknown].5 x labourers (per day) Total (Ugandan Shillings / m (35 bricks)) 2 2 Per 400 Bricks Per Brick 15000 150 6300 6000 28000 63 60 280 10000 2500 25 6 29213 8400 28000 84 280 6300 6000 28000 16 15 70 10000 17500 25 44 18690 Table 9 shows that ICSB technology is financially more viable than fired bricks but this table was based on mud bricks that had been stabilised with PC. However. finding prices for GGBS and PFA in Uganda or Tanzania proved unsuccessful.A Comparison of the Costs of Fired Bricks and ICSB (adapted from Smith. [Benny Industries. a model has been developed to adjust the costs proposed for PC stabilised blocks to give a proposed cost for blocks stabilised with GGBS and PFA. [ValueUK. By comparing the UK PC price to the Ugandan PC price a multiplication factor of 7197. Prices for PC. Unfortunately.

Protective clothing (boots and gloves) should be worn when handling cement but the use of a respirator is unnecessary unless heavy exposure is anticipated.25 7. assuming availability. comprising a grey.3. odourless powder. The substance is stable in normal conditions and. Table 10 also compares the price. skin.78 (PFA) 9. The health risks associated with the substance are similar to GGBS.1 Health Implications GGBS (CEMEX.approximate Ugandan price. in Ugandan Shillings.00 PFA / Lime 3.2 PC (US Department of Health and Human Services. fine.97 (Lime) = 5. Current industry practice in the UK is that appropriate protective clothing should be worn to minimize contact with the skin and eyes. 53 . provided reasonable care is taken.89 GGBS 6. When mixed with water the resulting solution can be alkali. 2008) For use as a stabiliser or concrete admix GGBS is supplied as a fine powder or dust.3. is not hazardous in the quantities that would be used for ICSB stabilisation. respiratory system or gastro-intestinal tract. Table 10 – A Comparison of Estimated Stabiliser Cost in Ugandan Shillings and Cost per ICSB PC UK Price (GBP per 25 kg) 3.84 Ugandan Price (Ugandan Shillings per 25 kg) Total cost of producing 1 x ICSB (Ugandan Shillings) 28000 18690 43187 24005 42036 23602. 1995) PC is also used in powered form. As with all dusts it can irritate the eyes. notably that the dust can cause eye irritation and prolonged or repeated contact with the skin can cause dermatitis.3 7. 7. of producing 1 x ICSB with the various stabilisers using the variables detailed in Table 9.

It should also be noted that the reaction between water and lime is highly exothermic. 2007). For example is a mineral extraction programme that significantly impacts water quality but has very little effect on climate change a better or worse construction practice than an industry with the reverse environmental implications? To enable greater accuracy in such assessments BRE (formerly the Building Research Establishment) have developed Eco-points. in consultation with industry experts and stakeholders.7. odourless dust. Comparing directly different situations is unhelpful and inaccurate as it involves subjective judgement on the scope of influence and their relative importance. 7. The parameters that Eco-points consider include climate change.4 Quantitative Ecopoints Analysis The environmental impacts of construction are hard to analyse as they impact on a number of different areas. Lime can burn skin in the presence of water and there is risk of serious damage to the eyes. calculated by dividing the total UK impact by the population of the UK.3 PFA (Scotash. the higher the impact. fossil fuel depletion. 54 . it should be noted that PFA requires lime to initiate the cementitious reaction and this has health and safety implications of its own (CEMEX. freight transport.3. This norm has been taken as the average impact of a UK citizen. The system has also. respiratory problems (unless excessive amounts have been inhaled) or issues associated with ingestion. toxicity and waste disposal. 2005) PFA also presents as a grey. The result is a single figure score for the environmental impact of a material where the higher the number. BRE have then attempted to normalize the environmental impact of these activities by comparing them to a norm. assigned a weighting to each environmental impact (BRE. 2009). It is still recommended to wear protective clothing but there is no clinical evidence of skin inflammation. However. Protective clothing must be worn at all times. However the health risks associated with it are markedly lower than either GGBS or PC. including eye protection and face masks. for example water resource quality and climate change.

To summarise. PFA: 0.1 ([A1 Building Supplies. 55 . 2011] [Portland Cement Association. PC: Approx 4 Eco-points.066 Eco-points.The Eco-point summaries for PFA and GGBS are reproduced in Appendices 3 and 4. 2011]). The Eco-point summary for PC was not available but several articles and papers detail the score at around 4. the Eco-point scores are as follows:    GGBS: 0. This is largely due to the huge amounts of embodied energy involved in the production of cement compared to the other two substances which are merely byproducts of existing industry.35 Eco-points.

There are a number of potential reasons for this: 1. the curing period and how they have been treated since manufacture (e.42-1. The tested bricks were particularly coarse. et al. The nature of the compressive strength testing machine means that the application of the load is. have they been dropped. The compressive strength of all the unfired bricks was disappointingly low (0. have they been exposed to water etc). Even with a piece of soft wooden packing to try and lessen the effects there were still raised 56 . Although there were estimates of a uniform addition of 20% of stabiliser across the bricks this has not been confirmed. 2. substandard or badly stored lime may have been used and this could have affected the results. Another notable observation is that the unfired brick without a stabiliser performed recorded the highest compressive strength during testing. For example. standards (Oti. which remain unknown. Uneven Loading on the Bedding Plane.g. Unknown Provenance. Appropriate Ratios of Materials.8.0 8. that could have affected the performance of the bricks include the manner of storage. The manufacture of the bricks took place at an external location and by unknown individuals. 2009). This makes any comparison with the results from the main laboratory experiments virtually worthless and also casts doubt on the appropriateness of the mix proportions. This means there is plenty of scope for inaccuracy. Other factors.. The mix of materials that was used for the production of the bricks in the preliminary experiment is also unknown. 3.1 Discussion Preliminary Experiments The results from the preliminary experiments were not as expected.25 N/mm2) and short of the 5-8 N/mm2 required by current Eurocode. and UK Building Regulation. therefore. both in terms of the manufacturing procedure and the materials used. uneven (because a point load is transferred across the bedding plane by a piece of additional material and there is no cushioning between the two to mitigate for uneven surfaces).

However. Testing of ICSB that has been produced in a press will probably sidestep this potential source of inaccuracy as the bricks will be more uniform. 57 . economic.0 alluded to the problems with attempting to define sustainability and outlined the areas which would be considered in the context of this report.2 N/mm2 respectively) are superior to the unfired bricks. Financial cost (economic). Quantitative eco-points analysis (environmental). and social). This proved invaluable when conducting the main laboratory experiments as a manufacturing method was already known and had been practiced. for example. The most obvious way to provide a more level bedding surface is to use a mould that contains the brick on all surfaces. This confirms that although unfired mud bricks are an adequate solution for affordable housing they are not as efficient at carrying load as more traditional methods of construction. Health implications (social. would give skewed results because it would be testing the compressive strength in a plane not loaded in usual use. The results show that the compressive strength of both the fired brick and the house brick (2. The preliminary experiments were still a worthwhile exercise.2 Sustainability Study 8.points on the bedding plane which will have taken the brunt of the load.2. environmental). For clarity these are reproduced below:     Ease of Manufacture (environmental. This source of error could potentially be reduced by testing one of the surfaces that were in contact with the mould (and. therefore. Testing the brick on its side.15 N/mm2 and 11. Another positive outcome from the preliminary experiments was the hands-on experience of making mud bricks. EN 772-1 states that the bedding plane to be loaded is the one that should be tested. 8. smoother).1 Defining Sustainability The first paragraphs of Section 7.

2 Ease of Manufacture If it is assumed that a product or service is ‘more sustainable’ if its manufacturing process is least harmful to the environment then it is apparent that PFA and GGBS are inherently ‘more sustainable’ products than PC. 8. as recently as 2009 the UK government announced plans for 4 new plants before 2020. it is reasonable to deduce that steel.3. GGBS is a by-product of the steel manufacturing process and the demand for steel is increasing.2. production will continue for 58 . particularly regarding the recycling of steel.The decision to use these four areas was based on the fact that they would produce both qualitative and quantitative results for comparison. However. As PFA and GGBS are by-products of existing industry so their production contributes no more environmental damage than the primary industry. of the primary industry must be taken into account. and the longevity. have a limited lifespan as the global reserves of coal are finite. However. Indeed. There are natural concerns about this apparent pursuance of ‘dirty’ technology and questions raised as to the merit of investing in existing technology rather than pursuing greener energy options such as nuclear power and renewable energy. This claim is reinforced by the fact that there are currently plans in place to build a new 200MW coal powered plant in Tanzania. Therefore. the environmental damage caused by the production of these stabilisers has already been compared in Section 3. However. and by inference GGBS. However. since it is reasonable to assert that ‘green’ technology in the developing world is likely to lag behind that of the developed world then it is also reasonable to assume that coal fired power stations will continue to be used in the areas where ICSB technology is most likely to be employed. whilst it is certainly not a solution that will be applicable forever. Coal fired power stations. The use of PFA will also help to reduce the environmental impact of coal fired power stations by committing less waste to landfill and creating worthwhile products out of a greater percentage of raw materials. PFA will be produced for the foreseeable future though the rate of production may slow if power stations continue to improve efficiency. this is a fairly simplistic overview and the environmental considerations. the industry behind the production of PFA. Attempts are being made to streamline industry processes and make them more sustainable. Each of these areas will be discussed in turn.

25 UGS per ICSB) then PFA (24005 UGS per ICSB). PFA requires lime to initiate the cementitious reaction and this is a potentially hazardous material. scepticism about these reforms. 59 . in terms of ease of manufacturing. If it is assumed that ‘more sustainable’ in a financial context is defined as lower cost then the relative ranking of the stabilisers would be: PC (18690 UGS per ICSB). The sustainability of GGBS.2. as the cement producers are disadvantaged by basic chemistry. The chemical reaction that produces cement releases large amounts of CO2 and about 60% of the CO2 emissions from manufacture are from this reaction. and in terms of ease of manufacture. and reported. Steel is a key industry in Uganda with Sembule Steel providing steel products to more than 10 countries in East and Central Africa [USGS. However. However. 8. To minimize emissions the cement industry is attempting to reduce the fuel input in production. However.4 Health Implications There is no major difference in the potential stabilisers in terms of health implications. the cement industry is suggesting reformist agendas to There is strong modernize production and improve the reputation of the industry. It is widely known. if demand for concrete continues to rise faster than the emissions are reduced then the negative environmental effect of cement manufacture will continue to worsen. For this reason. however. can therefore be placed on a par with PFA.2. GGBS (23602. at least theoretically.the foreseeable future. available. that cement production is an extremely energy intensive manufacturing process that cannot claim to have good environmental credentials.3 Financial Cost The financial cost of the stabilisers is easier to compare as there is quantitative data available from the model detailed in Section 7.2. 2006]. 8. If the primary industry for both materials persists then they will continue to be. PC is the least sustainable stabiliser tested in this project. This alludes to the possibility of GGBS production in the area.

attempt to do that.2 to 8. It is incredibly difficult. not to mention subjective.5 Overall Sustainability This project is attempting to rank the proposed stabilisers in terms of their overall sustainability and the problems with this approach have been made clear. This score was calculated by adding together the individual scores for each key area. according to the sustainability study in Section 7.2. The first is that the eco-point system is based on the energy This report has attempted to rate the consumption of a typical UK resident. 60 . The final column shows an overall sustainability ‘score’ according to the research carried out for this project and the criteria discussed in Sections 8.2.In a social context it can be assumed that ‘more sustainable’ means least hazardous.2.4. Ease of Manufacture Financial Cost Health Implications Total 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 3* 1 5 7 4 *Although PFA is considerably less harmful than either GGBS or PC the requirement for lime makes it the least Table 11 shows that. GGBS is the most sustainable followed by PC and then PFA. As a result the stabilisers can be ranked in the following order: PC and GGBS are equal followed by PFA. 8. It ranks each stabiliser against each area allocating a 1 (green) for the most sustainable and a 3 (red) for the least. to compare such different substances over such a diverse range of factors. Table 11 shows the stabilisers ranked according to three of the four key areas considered above. Since the eco-points system and the sustainability study in this report are effectively trying to achieve the same result (although the eco-point system considers many more factors) this is a surprising outcome. Table 11 and the preceding paragraphs. However. 2 possible reasons for this discrepancy will be considered here. GGBS and then PC. This is at odds with the eco-points scores which rank the stabilisers in the following order: PFA.An Overall Comparison of the Sustainability of the Stabilisers Stabiliser PC PFA GGBS ‘sustainable’ option.0. Table 11 .

has had a significant impact on the overall sustainability score achieved from this research. The second. subjectivity.3. Any author or authority can. The Use of an Artificial Homogeneous Soil. skew the results of such a subjective idea. marketed and sold in those countries. 61 . intentionally or otherwise. It is not being proposed that all measures of sustainability have inherent intentional inaccuracy but it would be naïve to take all published data simply at face value. despite increasing the curing time to allow the soil to dry further. 8. thesis or article to providing evidence in support of the claims of a financial backer. commercial and social conditions exist to make their sale worthwhile. Whilst it has been proved that the industry that produces these by-products exist in Uganda and Tanzania. then any environmental and financial advantage will be negated. unexpected result: There are several possible reasons for this 1. As described in Section 5.0 an artificial homogeneous soil was used for the construction of all the bricks. If these substances are not available. A final point to note from the sustainability study is that this entire report has been conducted under the assumption that PFA and GGBS are available in the developing world. questions can be asked if the products aren’t available in the developing world yet the industry that produces them exists. It is worth further investigation to see if the economic. or need to be imported from further afield. which has been calculated in UGS. Whilst every intention can be made to be as neutral as possible there is always a vested interest by the compiler of any research. The financial cost for example. there has been no definitive evidence found that PFA and/or GGBS are refined. Conversely.1 Shrinkage Testing The shrinkage testing returned a result of zero shrinkage. and perhaps more considerable.3 Laboratory Experiments 8.sustainability of the stabilisers from a Ugandan and Tanzanian perspective. This may vary from a desire to produce the best possible report. and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future. reason for the discrepancy is one of the fundamental drawbacks of the concept of sustainability.

therefore. is likely to be minimal because the curing time was extended when no shrinkage was observed initially. however. Therefore. Inappropriate Curing Conditions. The shrinkage mould was left to cure at room temperature (approx 20OC) and normal humidity. This was estimated from the amount of water required to hydrate the bricks and may not have been sufficient to properly hydrate the soil to obtain any significant shrinkage. This published data. an element of judgement was required when calculating mix proportions and curing times.g. However. The shrinkage testing mix was hydrated with 2000ml of water.2 Manufacturing Procedure The manufacturing procedure is a potential source of inaccuracy in the Method Statement. void ratios and variable water content) that would influence the shrinkage of a natural material. The effect of this. gives additional credence to the stabiliser percentages chosen for the main laboratory experiments.3. Although previous research and standard 62 . the procedure used was adapted from a technique taught at EWB workshops. 3. This may not have provided the ideal curing conditions for shrinkage to occur. Although the shrinkage testing produced disappointing results the reason for undertaking the test should be reiterated. The test has been adapted from the UN HABITAT test for calculating the required amount of stabiliser. the percentage of stabiliser was likely to be varied. 8. Since this project intended to investigate the use of alternative stabilisers in mud bricks. 2. 2009). and the negligible shrinkage. Even the 10% bricks. As previously stated.Although this allowed more accurate comparison of the various samples it also meant that the soil was devoid of the differences (e. Lack of Hydration. not have been affected by shrinkage during the project. No shrinkage would suggest that a low proportion of stabiliser is required as one of the key roles of the stabiliser is to prevent shrinkage. should. the utility of the test in this instance is fairly limited. the lowest tested percentage of stabiliser. In practical application the amount of stabiliser tends to be around 10% (Browne.

There is no obvious explanation for these results and.07 Kg/m2/min) and the 20% brick (sample I.3 Absorption Testing The Initial Rate of water Absorption (IRA) ranged from 0.3.4. 0.13 Kg/m2/min for the 15% GGBS brick (sample H). For example.procedures were consulted to shape the method used in this project (notably UN HABITAT and Oti.3. however. This is The results from all the samples. Kg/m2/min). 2009) there is no professional standard for this type of brick manufacture. The results from the GGBS bricks (samples G-I) are unreliable.2 and 8. although designed to simulate a practical environment.13 Kg/m2/min) exceeds both the 10% brick (sample G.3. 0. the PFA bricks (samples D-E) performed contrary to expectation because the IRA increased with increased stabiliser content. if the 63 . the conclusion must be that the manufacture of the GGBS bricks was in some way unsatisfactory. when combined with the disappointing compressive strength results discussed in Section 8. 8.4. The excess lime would then absorb the water during the absorption testing adversely affecting the IRA results. This is not surprising as higher cement content will decrease the porosity of the material and cement is a water resistant material when cured. are positive. discussed in further detail in Sections 8. Conversely. There is no pattern to the IRA as the 15% brick (sample H. The IRA of a brick has a significant effect on the eventual overall strength of a masonry wall. Other sources of inaccuracy in the manufacturing procedure include the mixing technique (which could be improved by the use of a mechanical mixing device).3. the source of the materials (which was taken on trust from the laboratory technicians) and the curing conditions (which. The PC bricks (samples A-C) performed as expected and the IRA decreased with increased proportions of stabiliser. This is probably due to the presence of excess lime in the PFA bricks which would not have been fully hydrated during the cementitious reaction. were subject to the vagaries of the laboratory).01 Kg/m2/min for the 20% PC brick (sample C) to 0.

IRA of a brick rises from 2 Kg/m2/min to 4 Kg/m2/min then the strength of the wall will be reduced by 50%. would be acceptable in traditional construction [Claybricks and Tiles Sdn. 2009).12 N/mm2 for the 10% GGBS brick (sample G) to 6. therefore. It makes no mention of whether the water level should be topped up during that 24 hour period. et al. 64 . was topped up once during the 24 hour period and this may have affected the results for the PFA and GGBS bricks.7 – 7. if the research is to be repeated.3 details the absorption testing procedure that was followed during this research.11 N/mm which is below the desired minimum of 5 N/mm2 required for UK building regulations. This is not unexpected. All of the samples tested in this research have displayed IRAs of significantly less than 2 Kg/m2/min and. When using samples as permeable as unfired bricks this becomes a noteworthy omission. That document states that the sample should be submerged in water up to a depth of 5mm (+/. Further discussion on the applicability of the Eurocodes to this type of construction material is contained in Section 8. 2 The mean compressive strength for all the samples was 2.4 N/mm2 (Oti.3.0 the water. however.5. in this absorption test. Bricks with an IRA of greater than 2 Kg/m2/min are considered difficult to lay with traditional mortars.1mm) for 24 hours. Careful consideration should be given to this. the GGBS bricks would probably have been unusable for further testing had this been the case). (Whilst it is appreciated that one of the appeals of ICSB technology is the reduced reliance on mortar there is still a need for some).03 N/mm2 for the 20% PC brick (sample C). There is one important aspect of the absorption testing method that should be considered and potentially adapted for future research. were still significantly below the published findings. and to the proportion of lime in the PFA mix. These are also below the required building regulation standards.4 Compressive Strength Testing The compressive strength of the bricks varied from 0.. BS EN 772-11:2010 Section 8. 1998-2007]. The results from this project. however. If the water was to be kept at a constant level throughout the 24 hour period then it is likely that the IRA results would be very different (indeed. 8. As mentioned in Section 5.3. as previous research into similar bricks yielded compressive strengths of 2. Bricks with large IRA values will draw moisture from the mortar and reduce its effectiveness.

The same issues discussed in Section 8.17 N/mm2. The PC bricks (samples A-C) exhibited the highest compressive strength by a large margin. should be followed to mitigate them. and surprisingly.03 N/mm2 though the value for C is estimated as it exceeded the load capacity of the testing machine. therefore.Specifically. Uneven Bedding Planes. Construction sites. However. increased percentages of stabiliser improved the performance of the bricks as expected. This is not an unexpected result and reinforces the selection of PC as the preferred stabiliser in current ICSB practice. Materials Provenance.77 N/mm2) which should have been higher when compared to the 10% brick (sample D. be raised as to the quality. There are several factors pertaining to the compressive strength testing that should be considered further: 1. and construction workers. the GGBS stabilised bricks (samples G-I) performed least well with a compressive strength range of 0. These results also increased with the Samples B and C (15% and 20% PC stabiliser respectively) displayed compressive strengths over 5.0 N/mm2 and would thus be acceptable to UK building regulations. A question must. of the raw material.75 – 0.75 N/mm2). 0. across the world are unlikely to favour GGBS to PC if 65 .98 N/mm2 with a slightly anomalous result for the 15% brick (sample E. stabiliser content. The same suggestions 2.32-6.1 are applicable to the main laboratory experiments. The GGBS bricks (samples G-I) produced surprising results across both areas of interest. Published research by Oti has realized much improved results (see above). Samples A-C produced a compressive strength range of 4. Previous research had been conducted into GGBS stabilised unfired bricks by Oti and they performed much better in his work (2. 0.7 – 5 N/mm2). The compressive strength results were all below 1 N/mm2 which is lower than expected. and the provenance. Whist the surprisingly poor results in this research may be attributable to inappropriate material storage or handling it is important to remember the eventual practical application of ICSB technology.12 – 0. The PFA bricks (samples D-F) produced a compressive strength range of 0.

Even the diverse projects discussed in Section 3. If the application of ICSB technology in the developing world is limited to small scale projects then the loads that would be expected to act on the structure would be 66 . Excess water in the bricks may have reduced their strength. The machine used to test the compressive strength was modern and complied with all the requirements stated in EN 772-1. the results of the engineering property testing indicate that whilst all of the bricks performed adequately in terms of IRA. machine reliability can be discarded as the reason for the low compressive strength results. certainly in the developing world.5 Application of ICSB Technology In summary. it is important to define exactly what the requirements are for ICSB technology.e. The primary use. is to provide affordable housing and for low scale construction projects. the vast majority were not sufficiently strong in terms of compressive strength to be considered as a construction material according to UK Building Regulations. This may have influenced the results.0 all share a fairly limited ambition in terms of construction scope. Therefore. it may not be essential for ICSB to satisfy the requirements of construction materials that are used in more complex developments. 3. the results could be due to another reason. Alternatively. However.3. Although this is a valid source of potential error it should be remembered that one of the concerns surrounding the use of unfired bricks is their susceptibility to water damage If it proved the case that the compressive strength was considerably reduced by the previous absorption testing then it doesn’t breed confidence in the use of GGBS bricks in a practical environment 8. Therefore. Subsequent Testing on the same Samples. Machine Reliability.the change involves complicated handling or storage implications. the GGBS bricks). perhaps inaccurate manufacture (but this should have affected the other stabilisers as well because all of the sample were made in the same way) or unsuitable mix proportions. Both the absorption test and the compressive strength testing were carried out on the same samples. 4. particularly for the bricks that showed a higher rate of IRA (i.

This is likely to have negatively affected both the IRA and compressive strength results. which would further lessen the expected forces. The major limitations are summarized below and should be given due consideration if the research is to be repeated: 1. will not have been compressed as well as those made in a press. for example.considerably less than. In this situation a compressive strength of less than 1 kN/mm 2 may be adequate though it is still unlikely that the GGBS blocks produced for this research would be of any considerable utility due to their brittle nature. The primary loads are likely to be the dead weight of the structure and wind loading. Minimum required engineering properties. Research into a new 8. Typical mix proportions for different shrinkage results. Testing procedures. Curing procedures. Manufacturing Process. ICSB is made using a press in the practical environment.3. despite best intentions. This standard could contain substantial information relating to the use of ICSB technology including:      Manufacturing guidance. 67 .6 Limitations to the Research Several limitations to the research conducted during this project have been alluded to throughout this report. The bricks tested in these experiments were hand-made and. Although the UN HABITAT guide gives some of the information listed above it is not presented in a scientific way nor is it comprehensive. a 2 storey house in the UK. There is a strong argument for the creation of a specific standard for this type of technology.0. professional standard is recommended in Section 10. Design could be undertaken without recourse to snow loads.

2. 3. The sample size was necessarily small due to time and labour constraints. Sample Size. The manufactured bricks were only tested in the short term and the long term durability has not been addressed. Whole Life Analysis. A larger variety of samples would have meant anomalous results had less credence. 68 .

 The availability of the alternative stabilisers in the developing world remains unknown. were compared across three mechanical properties: o Compressive Strength.0 Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from this research:  Current research on alternative stabilisers for unfired mud bricks is fairly limited. the use of these substances as admixtures in other applications is well documented.  Bricks manufactured with the alternative stabilisers. 69 . The soil used in these experiments displayed zero shrinkage after 14 days curing. the PFA bricks may be adequate depending on their practical application. mainly due to the requirement for lime to facilitate the cementitious reaction. embodied energy and health implications. Shrinkage. PFA fared worse than both the alternatives. However. at a range of proportions.  GGBS was assessed as ‘more sustainable’ than PC in terms of cost.  The PFA and GGBS stabilised bricks tested were not a viable engineering alternative according to UK Building Regulations. o o Absorption. The PC stabilised bricks performed considerably better than either the GGBS or PFA stabilised bricks. Only the PC bricks exhibited a compressive strength greater than 1 N/mm2. However.9. All of the bricks tested had an acceptable Initial Rate of Water Abortion (IRA) according to current standards.  PFA and GGBS were identified as potential alternatives to PC for unfired mud brick stabilisation. Some published data is available for bricks stabilised with Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) but none is available for Pulverised Fly Ash (PFA). ease of manufacture.

 PFA and GGBS are viable admixtures in the developing world since their primary industries will exist for the foreseeable future.  There are no known social implications to the use of PFA or GGBS in the developing world. 70 .

Due to the disappointing results obtained for the GGBS stabilised bricks it would be useful to repeat the experiments with greater emphasis on the provenance of the materials. the number of stabilisers tested and different curing conditions. is affecting the durability. There has been some research already undertaken in this area but there is still scope to clarify the chemistry that occurs when using alternative stabilisers. 2. Repeat Research with GGBS. Chemical Changes. there are countless others involving mud bricks in general and other sustainable construction materials. Uganda).10.g. Indeed. the variations in mix composition. ideally in a location which is likely to use the technology (e. Research into unfired mud bricks is partially justified by the concerns surrounding their long term durability and susceptibility to water damage. More Extensive Testing. The results may drive a consistent approach to mix compositions that could be implemented in a practical environment. This is not an exhaustive list and there are many more variables that could be adjusted or amended. Long Term Durability. There is considerable value in undertaking research to compare the long term durability of bricks stabilised with alternatives to PC. the mix proportions and the curing method. it was the smallest possible sample size that allows useful comparison. This has not been addressed in this project. Cross referencing the results of these experiments with research into the absorption rates of bricks stabilised with PC alternatives could give useful clues as to what. There is scope to increase the number of bricks tested. 1.0 Recommendations for Future Research The following list outlines some recommended topics for further research. Detailed research into the chemical reactions that take place during cementation would be useful. Due to time constraints the sample size considered in this report was very small. chemically. The topics detailed here are those which have become obvious avenues of exploration after the research undertaken during this project. 71 . 4. 3.

Section 8. The development of a specific manufacturing standard for ICSB technology could be a useful step forward. Testing on Bricks made with a Press.5. in-country research to assess the availability of the stabilisers and secondly a cost-benefit analysis into the feasibility of sourcing and distributing them if they aren’t currently available. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen. where ICSB is likely to be considered an option.5.3 highlights some of the shortcomings that manifest themselves as a result of applying Eurocode standards to technology that doesn’t require such rigorous testing and application. Availability. However. Perhaps the most limiting factor in this research.2. There are 2 distinct research possibilities in this area. Appropriate Manufacturing Standard. 6. and locations. The availability of the alternative stabilisers was discussed in 8. is that the bricks tested were hand-made and not made using a Magika press (or similar). ultimately. Firstly. on the performance of the bricks. due to the conditions. and others. This research could be combined with that suggested in Part 1 of this Section as using a press is likely to speed up the manufacture of the bricks so a larger sample could be used. 72 . This is likely to have an effect on the uniformity of the shape. the chemical structure and. 7. at least in the short to medium term. In an ideal world this could then be applied to all ICSB building and help to standardize practices. there is still value in such a standard.

87a (226) . Retrieved 03 14. Construction Materials (CM3). Glasgow: BRE. (Unknown). Fly Ash Addition in Clayey Materials to Improve the Quality of Solid Bricks. Jun 29). Retrieved 03 14. S.constructionz.pdf Benny Industries.com 73 .uk/index. 2010.Determination of Compressive Strength . ACI. BSI. BSI. Brussels: BSI Group. BSI. Retrieved January 31. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as an Admixture. (2009). from Aggregate.a1building. Caltrone. Specifications of Masonry Units . How to Buy Fly Ash. 2011. from Constructionz: www.html BRE. Brussels: BSI Group. (1987). Part 1 . London: BSI Group. G. . Southampton: Southampton Solent University. Ash Solutions Ltd. (2010).co. (2011). BS EN 772-11:2010. G. from A1 Building Supplies Limited: http://www. (2009).References: A1 Building Supplies.com/Documents/TDS/fly-ash-techdata. Relationships Between the Strength and Demsity of Rammed Earth. BS EN 771-1:2003. (2010.com: www. Browne.com/flyash-brick-machine-pricequotation. (2010). 2011.aggregate. Burroughs. (2003).php?osCsid=0fpg0kb115v4gqs4j75r7grcr0 ACI Committee. Fly Ash BSEN 450 Product Information. Retrieved Nov 10. Ecopoints: A Single Score Environmental Assessment. 2011. from Fly Ash Bricks Information: http://flyashbricksinfo. Part 11: Determination of water absorption of aggregate concrete. autoclaved aerated concrete. (2009). (2009). BS EN 772-1:2010. Stabilised Interlocking Rammed Earth Blocks.

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Material Safety Datasheet. K. Retrieved 03 14. Hadjri. A. Engineering Sustainability . Rugby: CEMEX UK. A. (2007). Use of Sewage Sludge Ash as Mineral Admixture in Mortars. J. & Chifunds. M. J. Constructions Materials 162 . Lindsay.. Ground Improvement . Davidson. Retrieved Feb 14.CEMEX. & Lawrence. Construction Materials .... J.Material Safety Datasheet. from Indiana University: http://www. Kinuthua. 163 (G11). (2009). M. Baiche. G. C.edu/ Mwebeze.... 74 . & Bai. 2011. 160 (ES3). 153-162. Oti. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. (2010). B... P. S. Building With Earth. Claybricks and Tiles Sdn. CEMEX. Uganda. & Aj-Tabbaa. Retrieved 05 02. (2008).indiana. (2007). Compressive Strength and Microstructural Analysis of Unfired Clay Masonry Bricks. 159 (CM4).. Fourie. (2009). M. Heath. Rugby: CEMEX.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/uganda. 105-112.fao.. Hydrated Lime . (2001. S. Osman. A. 53-61. Jegendan. Attitudes Towards Earth Building for Zambian Housing Provision. (2010).htm#2. 2011. C. J. (1997). (2007). P. (1998-2007). 230-249. M. 2011. The Basics of Bricks. 109. The Holy Grail of Sustainable Development. & Clastres. (2006). Compressive Strength of Extruded Unfired Clay Masonry Units. Cyr.. K.claybricks. Sustainable Binders for Soil Stabilisation. from Clay Bricks: http://www. E.. M. Reporting Systems for Sustainability: What are they Measuring? 2011. Engineering Geology . Osmani. 141169.html Coutand. Liska.%20SOILS%20AND% 20TOPOGRAPHY Norton.com/more_info/basic-of-bricks. May). from Grasslands and Pastural Crops: http://www. Walker.

K.. 239249. & Lefebvre. V. (2009). Sridharan. Kinuthua. Measuring the Sustainability of Cities: An Analysis of the Use of Local Indicators. 88 (15/16). Sivapullaiah. Sustainable Building Technologies.Oti. from The Building Lime Company: http://www. & Bai. (2008). Scotash.. 2011. Using Slag for Unfired Clay Masonry Bricks. Shafique. A. Ground Improvement . (PCA) Retrieved 02 25. V. (2010).html 75 . The Building Lime Company..org/basics/howmade.. J.buildinglime. J. J. J.asp Reddy. C. Smith. & Bhaskar. 229-237. & Kumar.. A. Unfired Clay Bricks: From Laboratory to Industrial Production. Geotechnical Engineering . E. E. Embodied Energy of Common and Alternative Building Materials and Technologies. Benson. 157 (GE4).. B. (2011). 899-907. Engineering Sustainability .Pulverised Fly Ash. 2011.. 37-45. J. Tanguay. G. T. P. Interlocking Stabilised Soil Blocks: Appropriate Technology that Doesn't Cost the Earth. (2004). V.uk/price. J. (2000). (2011). Current Science . J. B. from Cement and Concrete Basics: http://www.-F.. Construction Materials . & Senol.. Edil. P. J.. Oti.. Incorporating a Fly-ash Stabiliser Layer into Pavement Design. Rajaonson. Reddy.co. (2009). Energy and Buildings . Price List. 147-155. (2001). Kinuthua. 4. Portland Cement Association. (2005). Role of Amount and Type of Clay in the Lime Stabilisation of Soils.. Retrieved 03 14. 10. Kincardine: Scotash. E. Health and Safety Information . How Portland Cement is Made. & Bai. (2004).cement. 129-137. S.

US Department for the Interior. USGS. 163 (GI1)...html UN Human Settlements Programme. Integrated Assessment of Urban Sustainability. (2011).com/which-ofthe-following-cement-replacement-material-is-better-pfa-or-ggbs. A. from Civil Engineering Portal: http://www. Interlocking Stabilised Soil Blocks. H.uk/index. Portland Cement 25kg Bags. Stabilisation of an Erodible Soil Using a Chemical Admixture.engineeringcivil. S.valuemedia. Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works. Retrieved October 2010. 2011. T. Indraratna. US Government. Our Common Future. Ground Improvement . A. 158 (ES2). J. El-Haram. (1987).. & Mahamud. S. Horner.uk/popprods. Castillo.goodearthtrust. from Good Earth Trust: http://www.. J. 2006 Minerals Yearbook Uganda. (2009). Occupational Health and Safety Guidance for Portland Cement. (2005). (2010).html Vinod. B.. (1995). US Department of Health and Human Services. 43-51. M. (2010).htm?Product=566897 Vincent.org. Oxford: Oxford Press. M. What We Do. Nairobi: UN Habitat. (2008). 76 . (2006). N.. Retrieved Nov 15. from ValueMEDIA: http://www. Walton.The Good Earth Trust.co. 2010. Retrieved 03 14. ValueUK. World Commission on Environment and Development. & Price.

...... 82 Appendix 5 – Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing…....................... 81 Appendix 4 – Ecopoints GGBS ..Project Management Statement ........... 80 Appendix 3 – Ecopoints PFA......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.....................................Appendices Appendix 1 ...............8 Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work ...........................................83 77 .

PIR returned. 27 Sep 10 Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) received from Engineers Without Borders (EWB). Week Commencing 28 Jun 10 Jun – Sep 10 Activities Completed Initial project meeting with Claire Furlong.Project Management Statement The following table summarises the main activities conducted each week during the course of the project. 15 Nov 10 Draft PIR submitted to CP and CV. 22 Nov 10 29 Nov 10 13 Dec 10 Proposed Method Statement compiled. PIR compiled. PJ feedback discussed. Literature review started.0. Aims/objectives agreed. Background research conducted. 8 Nov 10 Project meeting with CP and CV.Appendix 1 . 10 Jan 11 Project meeting with CP and CV. 31 Jan 11 Mix composition researched. Get Sheltered results written up and analysed. There were no major alterations to the conduct of the project throughout its duration. PIR feedback discussed. It should be read in conjunction with the Project Timeline in Section 4. Bursary awarded by EWB. Sustainability study started. project meeting with Charlotte Paterson (CP) and Chandra Vemury (CV). 78 . ‘Get Sheltered’ workshop. PIR submitted. 11 Oct 10 25 Oct 10 Paul Jaquin (PJ) appointed as EWB liaison. Return to NCL. Feedback from Paul Joaquin (PJ) received. Project timeline agreed.

Methodology and sustainability study drafts discussed. 16 May 11 Project completed and handed in. conclusions and recommendations for future research started. Method statement discussed and improvements suggested. conclusions and recommendations continued. Editing started. Sustainability study continued. conclusions and recommendations completed. Absorption and shrinkage testing results compiled. Results compiled and presented.7 Feb 11 Method statement for brick construction completed. Discussion. 28 Feb 11 Project meeting with CP and CV. 2 May 11 9 May 11 Discussion. 14 Mar 11 Sustainability study continued. Methodology completed for mud brick construction and shrinkage testing. Draft copy complete. financial cost model designed. Discussion. Lab sessions booked / raw materials arranged. Sustainability study continued (ease of manufacture and health implications). 79 . Project meeting with CP and CV. Mud brick preparation and shrinkage testing started completed. 14 Feb 11 Risk Assessment compiled. Absorption testing conducted. Methodology improved. Project meeting with CP and CV. 21 Feb 11 Curing method adapted. 25 Apr 11 Style and content of results presentation amended. 21 Mar 11 28 Mar 11 Compressive Strength testing undertaken completed. Compressive strength testing booked. Shrinkage testing complete.

Researcher PPE to be worn (as above). Shattering of samples during compressive strength testing. Hazards associated with lime Researcher PPE worn when handling lime (goggles. NB.Appendix 2 – Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work Risk Assessment For Assessment Undertaken Supervisory Review Assessment Review Newcastle University CEGs Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Date: 14 Feb 11 Name: D Harper Signed: [Original signed] Date: 16 Feb 11 Name: S Patterson Signed: [Original signed] Date: N/A Hazard People at Risk Existing Controls Information Location Controls Needed Mixed hazards of non related experiments Slips. No running. Heavy masses around lab All Care taken to employ correct handling techniques. masks. Any liquid spillage reported and cleaned up. Hazards associated with OPC All Eye protection to be worn during testing. lab coats. All existing Risk Assessments relating to the Geotechnical laboratory remain extant. safety footwear). 80 . trips and falls All Do not touch non related experiments or equipment All Proceed with caution in the lab. Safety footwear to be worn at all time.

Appendix 3 – Ecopoints PFA 81 .

Appendix 4 – Ecopoints GGBS 82 .

054545 0.026 75.5 8 0 0.000152 0.000626 0.822 10.574 35.045455 0.5 4 4.003278 0.027273 0.471 57.009091 0.76E-06 1.002713 0.027273 0.524 96.068182 0.013636 0.36 185.964 118.5 1 1.5 5 5.998 1.02E-05 0.004545 0.226 142.5 3 3.001265 0.013636 0.475 7.5 4 4.00428 0.027273 0.036364 0.001364 0.003315 0.65E-05 4.000473 0.05 0.21E-05 8.000757 0.243 33.004545 0.008 0.002649 0.059091 0.000356 0.5 2 2.01 0.040909 0.5 4 4.381 21.73 3.00426 0.040909 0.104 0.004545 0.009091 0.031818 0.365 20.39E-06 1.372 11.000315 0.031818 0.000503 0.588 41.013636 0.000126 0.5 1 1.97 177.5 3 3.002228 0 0.83 3.5 6 6.033 144.00018 0.059091 0.606 167.5 2 2.476 0.5 6 6.708 17.202 164.629 55.84E-07 2.068182 0.336 89.072727 0.000146 0.072727 83 0.12 0.001978 0. PC 10% Compressive extension Strain Compressive load Stress Compressive extension Strain PC 15% Compressive load Stress Compressive extension Strain PC 20% Compressive load Stress (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) 0 0.5 8 0 0.5 8 0 0.444 6.022727 0.05 0.Appendix 5 – Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing The following tables show selected raw data from the compressive strength testing.925 59.5 7 7.003792 0.045455 0.3E-07 0.85 186.001736 0.000815 0.05 0.06E-05 6E-05 0.004203 0.5 3 3.486 2.192 186.007 0.003847 0.407 1.897 27.624 15.61E-07 2.063636 0.059091 0.5 7 7.5 1 1.036364 0.5 7 7.054545 0.022727 0.09E-05 2.004295 0.018182 0.004287 0 0.49 5.898 1.5 2 2.041 115.000002 1.5 6 6.000261 0.29E-05 3.087 0.5 5 5.717 1.009091 0.004492 .031818 0.596 13.000244 0.5 5 5.018182 0.308 86.054545 0.98E-05 7.063636 0.036364 0.002068 0.000957 0.609 6.063636 0.068182 0.040909 0.0004 0.018182 0.00407 0.92E-05 0.045455 0.000772 0.817 186.022727 0.027 182.001317 0.505 32.306 195.463 2.072727 0.

1 0.43 181.5 0.311 232.003544 0.122727 116.853 182.1 204.077273 0.854 0.095455 0.5 11 0.118182 0.197 212.095455 184.004166 0.809 215.456 237.227 178.086364 0.005111 0.004249 0.5 9 9.003995 8.004694 0.077273 0.004883 0.005353 8.5 10 10.004194 0.004947 0.004264 0.945 229.077273 0.869 246.005249 0.113636 0.086364 0.8 0.5 0.095455 0.090909 0.081818 0.178 222.005275 0.090909 0.086364 0.43 220.117 135.005664 84 .004524 0.8.005468 0.004113 0.901 173.471 196.003108 0.090909 0.5 9 9.081818 0.5 13 13.178 171.003935 0.081818 0.5 11 12 12.197 154.398 0.005079 0.341 228.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 10 10.002669 0.173 185.109091 0.

077273 0.53E-05 5.036364 0.07E-07 9.000761 0.718 7.98E-06 1.022727 0.477 0.054545 0.000925 0.851 1.176 1.786 7.54 28.000108 0.05 0.639 23.115 33.000174 0.000262 0.5 8 8.5 7 7.567 30.036364 0.5 3 3.84E-07 1.5 3 3.036364 0.378 7.054545 0.063636 0.5 7 7.099 2.054545 0.077273 0.000166 0.000494 0.767 17.5 0 0.181 30.305 32.879 32.081818 0.1E-05 1.486 2.766 32.238 3.02E-05 0.5 24.000694 0 0.063636 0.207 12.PFA 10% Compressive extension Strain Compressive load Stress Compressive extension Strain PFA 15% Compressive load Stress Compressive extension Strain PFA 20% Compressive load Stress (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) 0 0.732 1.009 0.081818 0.039 17.040909 0.053 4.84E-07 4.040909 0.059091 0.045455 0.063636 0.022727 0.5 9 9.00061 0.000766 0.106 37.5 1 1.000706 0.5 2 2.040909 0.000742 0.05 0.059091 0.96E-05 3.018182 0.302 1.000293 0.000403 0.011 3.05 0.5 6 6.595 4.42E-05 4.07E-06 1.000182 0.848 31.26 0.004545 0.403 15.983 29.000852 0.000657 0.00073 0.5 9 0 0.000357 0.389 26.000949 85 .549 31.224 41.5 2 2.74E-06 2.077273 0.5 0 0.23E-06 5.62E-05 7.059091 0.008 0.5E-05 3.004545 0.018182 0.814 22.5 5 5.072727 0.000561 0.009091 0.24E-06 8.031818 0.293 1.5 8 8.519 18.5 1 1.027273 0.000745 0.000671 0.902 12.89E-07 6.5 6 6.5 6 6.572 33.00054 0.018182 0.55 2.000761 0.536 21.000526 0.086364 0.261 30.901 26.552 11.000666 0.000277 0.00041 0.68E-05 2.009091 0.00062 0.031818 0.086364 0.97E-05 0.5 4 4.027273 0.5 4 4.022727 0.86 2.013636 0.579 33.5 7 7.000428 0.000733 0.000702 0.978 30.043 0.14E-05 8.045455 0.5 5 5.027273 0.009091 0.068182 0.045455 0.031818 0.425 32.5 4 4.5 5 5.068182 0.000709 0.000101 0.000749 0.013636 0.008 0.351 0.088 1.7 27.00064 0 0.508 28.5 3 3.5 9 9.000749 0.072727 0.068182 0.5 2 2.5 8 8.7E-05 0.5 1 1.072727 0.052 40.184 0.56E-05 5.004545 0.081818 0.054 0.013636 0.

1 42.090909 27.000979 0.10 0.000637 10 10.090909 0.801 0.5 11 0.000892 86 .579 39.000909 0.546 38.095455 0.699 0.

5 6 6.000106 0.000168 0.11E-06 1.054545 0.5 9 9.054545 0.004545 0.00014 0.5 3 3.040909 0.47E-05 8.04 6.055 3.040909 0.5 8 8.013636 0.56E-06 1.045455 0.5 7 7.008 0.022727 0.849 4.591 2.43E-05 1.887 4.018182 0.05 0.000135 0 0.022727 0.GGBS 10% Compressive extension Strain Compressive load Stress Compressive extension GGBS 15% Strain Compressive load Stress Compressive extension GGBS 20% Strain Compressive load Stress (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) 0 0.05 0.086364 0.5 2 2.688 1.5 4 4.5 3 3.84E-07 2.018182 0.004545 0.606 4.001 1.196 0.000144 0.59E-05 2.823 2.027273 0.5 5 5.045455 0.031818 0.99E-07 2.5 3 3.5 5 5.118 0.027273 0.000139 0.057 6.5 4 4.059091 0.09E-06 4.5 5 5.054545 0.254 6.17 1.000143 0.091 0.003 0.5 6 6.5 1 1.056 0.772 5.5 0 0.863 2.71E-06 7.018182 0.000128 0.009091 0.05 0.068182 0.626 0.922 4.013 0.5 2 2.040909 0.000106 0 0.813 3.84E-05 7.184 0.02E-05 8.215 5.081818 0.44E-05 1.22E-05 1.435 0.56E-05 2.077273 0.327 7.58E-05 2.036364 0.022727 0.013636 0.85E-05 0.3E-05 3.961 1.000115 0.921 4.23E-06 0.692 1.063636 0.000113 0.027273 0.19E-05 6.531 0.62 0.08 6.009091 0.29E-06 4.072727 0.031818 0.5 1 1.036364 0.5 2 2.5 4 4.876 6.69E-05 4.000158 0.557 6.875 7.00011 0.031818 0.009091 0.86 4 5.00001 1.00016 87 .2E-05 0.51E-06 1.104 3.989 4.21E-05 4.677 1.329 0.5 1 1.000116 0.28E-05 6.57E-05 9.14 1.314 6.036364 0.5 6 0 0.62E-05 4.395 2.000113 0.9E-08 6.266 0.5 0 0.004545 0.000168 0.94E-05 0.059091 0.045455 0.013636 0.

88 .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->