CONTEMPORARY EARTH CONSTRUCTION IN URBAN HOUSING STABILISED OR UNSTABILISED?

Mohammad Sharif Zami & Dr. Angela Lee m.s.zami@pgr.salford.ac.uk & a.lee@salford.ac.uk School of the Built Environment University of Salford, Maxwell Building The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT United Kingdom Abstract Contemporary earthen architecture shows significant evidence solving housing crisis in the developing countries and it can also address excessive carbon dioxide emissions, global warming and climate change in developed countries. Environmental sustainability is a major challenge and built environment discipline professionals are facing an enormous task to tackle with this problem all over the world. Contemporary earth construction nowadays exists in two major formats which essentially include un-stabilised and stabilised earth construction. Surprisingly, some built environment experts are reluctant and oppose to prescribe stabilised earth as a solution of urban housing crisis and environmental sustainability. It is also noted that, the definition and meaning of stabilised earth construction is understood wrongly amongst the earth construction professionals and experts. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the meaning, relevance and reasons of the use of stabilised and un-stabilised earth in the construction of urban housing in developed and developing countries. This paper aims to explore the arguments in favour of stabilised and un-stabilised earth construction in the solution of urban housing crisis. Furthermore, to achieve the aim, author adopts the technique of critically reviewing relevant literature and to analyse the arguments of this paper. Key words: stabilised, un-stabilised earth construction, environmental sustainability, housing crisis. 1. Introduction A number of Delphi and In-depth interviews with earth construction experts carried out by the author in 2008 reveals that some experts do not at all support to promote stabilised earth construction in urban housing as they generally percieve, stabilised earth construction means cement stabilised earth construction. According to Jagadish (2007), in spite of the fact that stabilised earth is a low energy alternative and could be cost effective in many situations, its accessibility to the rural/ urban poor is far from satisfactory; and while stabilised earth construction is less costly than brick masonry, it is still often more expensive than what the majority of the poor can afford. Besides, it is unfortunate that many practitioners of systematic stabilisation do not know, or do not appreciate the original characteristics of a soil, and start about stabilising soil with undue haste when it is not particularly useful (Houben and Guillaud, 1994). In addition, the majority of disadvantages (i.e. problems of earth wall erosion by rain and flood water, rodents making holes in wall and floor, and poor performance during earthquake) associated with mud houses (un-stabilised earth) can be overcome by suitable improvements in design and technology, such as soil stabilisation, appropriate architecture, and improvement in structural techniques (Lal, 1995, p120). Therefore, it is pertinent to demystify and understand what stabilisation means and why is it 1

necessary. This paper attempts to analyse and clarify the burning arguments in favour and against stabilised earth construction in urban housing. To achieve the aim of this paper, the following section essentially demystifies the stabilised and un-stabilised earth construction. 2. Stabilised and un-stabilised earth demystified According to Houben and Guillaud (1994, p74), stabilising soil implies the modification of the properties of the soil-water-air system in order to obtain lasting properties which are compatible with a particular application and stabilisation is nevertheless a complex problem, as an extremely large number of parameters are involved. According to King (1996, p54) stabilised earth is a rocklike blend of clay, silt sand, gravel, water, microscopic air bubbles, and usually some binder, and many parts of the world earth construction is still practiced using only the clay content as binder. Some builders have experimented with lime, fly ash, asphalt, emulsion, and combination of these materials as binders and the strongest binder is Portland cement (King, 1996). Rammed earth is a monolithic masonry units made with earth, loam, straw . . . where consolidation is achieved by mechanic means, without chemical processes that changes materials nature (IETcc, 1970 cited in Delgado and Guerrero, 2005). Houben and Guillaud (1994) listed the following knowledge and skills necessary for stabilisation: The properties of the soil requiring stabilisation. The planned improvements. Project economy: cost and delays involved in soil stabilisation. The soil construction techniques chosen for the project and the system of construction. Maintenance of the completed project, maintenance cost.

According to Houben and Guillaud (1994, p74), there are three stabilisation procedures: Mechanical stabilisation: the compaction of the soil resulting in changes in its density, mechanical strength, compressibility, permeability and porosity. Physical stabilisation: the properties of the soil can be modified by acting on its texture. For example: - the controlled mixing of different grain fractions. Other techniques can involve heat treatment, drying and freezing, electrical treatment, electro-osmosis to improve the draining qualities of the soil, and giving new structural qualities. Chemical stabilisation: other material or chemicals are added to the soil thus modifying its properties, either by a physic-chemical reaction between the grains and the materials or the added product, or by creating a matrix which binds or coats the grains. A physicchemical reaction can lead to the formation of a new material, such as a pozzolana resulting from a reaction between clay and lime.

Researchers have identified around 130 different stabilising agents including cement, lime and bitumen (Lal, 1995, p120) and there is no miracle stabilizer which can be applied indiscriminately (Houben and Guillaud, 1994, p74). Furthermore, stabilisation is very ancient, but it was only in 1920 that a scientific approach could be developed; major research was carried out in the three decades after Second World War and soil stabilisation is not an exact science despite the research effort (Houben and Guillaud, 1994, p73). Houben and Guillauds (1994) definition and stabilisation procedures (Mechanical Stabilisation) of stabilised earth show that adding only stabilisers (additives) do not make earth stabilised. Therefore, rammed earth without stabilisers (additives, such as cement and 2

lime) can be called stabilised earth. But Walker et al (2005, p9) states, stabilised rammed earth is a specific form of rammed earth construction that uses sub-soils combined with stabilising agents to improve the materials physical characteristics and ordinary Portland cement is by far the most common additive used. This means rammed earth without stabilising agent (cement) is considered as un-stabilised earth, which contradicts Houben and Guillauds (1994) procedure of mechanical stabilisation of earth. Kings (1996) definition of stabilised earth also shows that adding additives is not a condition to make earth stabilised. According to Norton (1997, p26), the result of stabilisation must be permanent. Compaction, for example, increases the strength of a soil, but its effect can be reversed by water, and therefore a stabiliser may need to be added if exposure to water is likely. Conversely, some of the best results of stabilisation are achieved when it is combined with compaction or ramming, and therefore two are often treated together. Stabilisation can, however, be used on un-compacted soils as well. Nortons (1997) statement clearly shows that stabilised earth doesnt only mean adding stabiliser in earth and ramming alone can make stabilised earth. 3. Advantages of contemporary earth construction in urban housing Historically earth was used as a construction material all over the world and universal use of earth construction technology proves that, it is advantageous. According to Easton (1996), rammed earth (RE) construction is a cheap way of providing shelter since earth is an abundant resource. Frescura (1981) writes, in addition to its political, economic, social and ecological advantages, earth has great cultural and architectural importance. Construction in earth has the uniqueness of manifesting the cultural heritage of any people and encouraging the continued use of the material helps to maintain and preserve the craftsmanship and cultural values embedded in earth building. According to Morton (2007), earth bricks and blocks can be a substitute for concrete blocks in most internal applications, where it is not suitable for external use due to the severe climatic reasons. However, when using earth as a sustainable construction material for housing we should not assume that all housing problems will disappear. The advantages of a mastery of earth construction in urban housing are multiple and complementary and are as follows: Advantages Author

1. Earth construction is economically Lal, 1995; Easton, 1996; Minke, 2006; Zami & Lee, 2007; Morton, 2007; Kateregga et al, beneficial. 1983; Cassell, 1993; Walker et al, 2005; Hadjri et al, 2007; Morris and Booysen, 2000; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Maini, 2005; Reddy, 2007, p194; 2. It requires simple tools and less skilled Kateregga, 1983; Easton, 1996; Minke, 2006, p15; Hadjri et al, 2007; Morris and labour. Booysen, 2000; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Maini, 2005; 3. It encourages self-help construction. Kateregga, 1983; Minke, 2006, p15;

4. Suitable for very strong and secured Lal, 1995, p119; Houben & Guillaud, 1989; 3

structure.

Walker et al, 2005;

5. It saves energy.

Morton, 2007; Lal, 1995, p119; Minke, 2006; Hadjri et al, 2007; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Maini, 2005;

6. It balances and improves indoor air Cassell, 1993; Howieson, 2005; Alphonse et humidity and temperature which al, 1985; Minke, 2006; Kateregga et al, 1983; Lal (1995, p119); Walker et al, 2005; ensures thermal comfort. Hadjri et al, 2007; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11;

7. Earth is very good in fire resistance.

Alphonse et al, 1985; Walker et al, 2005, p43; Hadjri et al, 2007; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11;

8. Erath construction is regarded as a Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Morel et al, 2001; local job creation opportunity.

9. Earth construction is environmentally Minke, 2006; Easton, 1998; Walker et al, 2005; Hadjri et al, 2007; Adam and Agib, sustainable. 2001, p11; Maini, 2005; Ngowai, 2000. Reddy, 2007, p194; Morel et al, 2001; 10. Loam preserves timber and other Minke, 2006, p15; (Mohler 1978, p. 18). organic materials. 11. Earth wall (loam) absorbs pollutants. Cassell, 1993; Minke, 2006;

12. Easy to design and high aesthetical Morton, 2007; Houben & Guillaud, 1989; Walker et al, 2005; Hadjri et al, 2007. value. 13. Earth building provides noise control. Kateregga, 1983; Alphonse et al, 1985; Hadjri et al, 2007;

14. Earth construction promotes local Frescura, 1981. culture and heritage.

15. Earth is readily available in large Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Easton, 1996; Lal, 1995; Hadjri et al, 2007; Morris and quantities in most regions. Booysen, 2000; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11;

Table 1: advantages of earth construction. Source: compiled by author, 2009.

In the light of all the advantages and benefits of earth construction listed in Table 1, it can be posited that contemporary earth construction is beneficial in urban housing. Furthermore, it is notable from the Table 1 that the economic benefit of earth construction, mentioned by most of the authors makes it the principal advantage of contemporary earth construction. It is worth mentioning here that, some earth construction researchers (for example: Sanya, 2007) found contemporary stabilised earth construction not economically beneficial. Literature on the economic benefits of contemporary stabilised earth construction is scanty and very few structured research is available. Soil has been, and continues to be, the most widely used building material throughout most developing countries: it is cheap, available in abundance, and simple to form into building elements (Adam and Agib, 2001; Morris and Booysen, 2000). Experience has shown that earth remains a viable material, given costly increases in energy consumption caused by the production of modern building materials (Agarwal, 1981 and Montgomery, 2002 cited in Hadjri et al, 2007). Maini (2005, p6) states that, in Auroville, a finished cubic metre of CSEB (compressed stabilised earth block) wall is generally 48.4 % cheaper than wire cut bricks and 23.6 % cheaper than country fired bricks. Agarwal (1981) and Doat et al. (1991) stated that the appropriate use of earth construction produces costeffective and comfortable buildings. CSEB were successfully used for low-income housing in Sudan (Adam and Agib, 2001 cited in Hadjri et al. 2007). Thus, contemporary earth construction is economically beneficial in the construction of urban housing. 4. Arguments in favour of un-stabilised earth construction Un-stabilised earth constructions includes cob walls, adobe masonry, rammed earth, wattle and daub and were the commonly employed mud wall techniques. Such techniques of using soil have the distinct advantages like eco-friendly, recyclable, economical, and better thermal comfort (Reddy, 2007). According to Jagadish (2007), experts and pioneers of modernisation would have us believe that the so called mud house will no longer be present in a well developed world and it is necessary to examine the relevance of the use of un-stabilised earth in the near future. It must be pointed out that the burgeoning issue of climate change can alter the possible future scenarios completely. If climate change has to be halted, the use of fossil fuels needs to be curtailed in the western world and the growth of fossil fuel consumption in the developing world needs to slowed down and in this regard, use of un-stabilised earth offers an excellent no fossil fuel alternative to the use of stabilised earth or brick (Jagadish, 2007). Besides, un-stabilised earth is readily available in large quantities in most regions making most users and builders favour this construction. According to Mani et al (2007, p154), an earthen structure is a construction that relies primarily on locally available, unprocessed earth as its basic building material, and substantial interest has been generated in earthen constructions of late on account of their low embodied energy, minimal impact on the environment and their ability to provide better occupant comfort. Several earth construction practices have been found to incorporate high embodied energy due to adoption of technologies similar to modern construction techniques (Treloar et al, 2001). According to Minke (2006), loam is always reusable and unbaked loam can be recycled an indefinite number of times over an extremely long period. Old dry loam can be reused after soaking in water, so loam never becomes a waste material that harms the environment. On the other hand, in stabilised earth construction, stabilisation and compaction introduces an unfamiliar sophistication making the delivery of technology a complex affair and establishment of new trained teams also adds to the cost of the technology (Jagadish, 2007). Therefore, there is reason of environmental sustainability to support, promote and explore the use of un-stabilised earth construction. 5

5. Arguments in favour of stabilised earth construction According to Lal (1995, p122), the major advantage of the stabilised soil block vis-a-vis the burnt brick is the significant saving in energy (about70%) and such blocks are cheaper by 20 to 40% compared to burnt bricks. The pure mud constructions (un-stabilised) suffer from two major drawbacks: - complete loss of strength on saturation and erosion due to rain impact; hence, the soils are stabilised and used for various engineering applications (Reddy, 2007, p194). According to Bui and Morel (2007, p113), in order to comply with the standards devoted to industrial materials, more stringent durability norms are expected from rammed earth. Several types of durability tests (i.e. spray and drip test, wet to dry strength approach, etc.) are proposed for earthen materials in general and rammed earth in particular (Heathcote, 1995). Since non-stabilised rammed earth could not pass these tests, it was systematically abandoned and replaced with stabilised rammed earth (Bui and Morel, 2007). On the other hand Minke (2006, p39) states that, it is only necessary to modify the characteristics of loam for special applications and additives (stabilisers) that improve certain properties might worsen others. For instance, compressive and bending strength can be raised by adding starch and cellulose, but these additives also reduce the binding force and increase the shrinkage ratio, which is disadvantageous. These statements of various authors (Lal, 1995; Reddy, 2007; Bui and Morel, 2007) support that the disadvantages associated with un-stabilised earth can be overcome by suitable soil stabilisation. Therefore it is pertinent look at the overall disadvantages of earth construction compiled in Table 2 and how stabilisation can help to overcome these disadvantages. Disadvantages Authors

1. Less durable as a construction material Kateregga, 1983; Lal, 1995, p119; Cassell, 1993; Blondet & Aguilar, 2007; compared to conventional materials. Maini, 2005; Morris and Booysen, 2000; Hadjri et al, 2007; Adam and Agib, 2001, p11; Minke, 2006; Walker et al, 2005, p13; Bui and Morel, 2007, p113; Reddy, 2007, p194; 2. Earth construction is labour intensive. Lal, 1995, p119; Cassell, 1993;

3. Mud houses behave poorly in the event of Blondet & Aguilar, 2007; earthquakes.

4. Structural limitations.

Maini, 2005; Hadjri et al, 2007;

5. Need high maintenance.

Hadjri et al, 2007;

6. Professionals make less money from earth Robinson, 1939. building projects.

7. Special skills needed for plastering.

Hadjri, et al, 2007

8. Loam is not a standardised building Minke, 2006. material. 9. Need higher wall thickness. 10. Suitable only for in situ construction. Walker et al, 2005. Walker et al, 2005.

Table 2. Disadvantages of earth construction. Source: compiled by author, 2009.

The disadvantages stated in Table 2 are derived and mentioned from the experience of unstabilised earth construction. According to Cassell (1993), the two historical disadvantages to rammed earth has been water damage and labor intensity. The Australians have solved the water damage problem by spraying the wall with a transparent plastic ideal for wall cleaning with a hose or damp sponge. Labor intensity has been solved by the use of gasoline and pneumatic powered tamping devices (Beyond, 2000). Furthermore, vernacular earthen houses located in seismic areas are at risk because of their inherent structural vulnerability, and it is possible to provide reinforcement to earthen buildings in order to improve their structural performance and to prevent their collapse during earthquakes (Blondet & Aguilar, 2007). Furthermore, it is important to take note from the disadvantages to earth construction mentioned in Table 2 that lack of durability and structural limitations of earth construction are emphasised by most of the authors. Therefore it is important to look at the research and up to date development and review literature on contemporary stabilised earth construction on seismic response, durability and structural achievement in brief. The following section reviewed literature on seismic response, durability and structural achievement of contemporary stabilised earth construction. 5.1 Seismic response, durability and structural achievement of contemporary stabilised earth construction This section briefly reviews the literatures regarding the influence of natural disasters on contemporary stabilised earth construction and progress of stabilised earth construction technology to minimise the damage. According to Blondet and Aguilar (2007), most vernacular earthen houses are built without professional intervention, and thus with poor construction quality. Besides most present day earthen houses are built without any structural reinforcement, with several stories, thin walls, large windows and door openings, irregular plan and elevation configurations and these buildings are extremely vulnerable and suffer significant damage or collapse during earthquakes (Blondet and Aguilar, 2007). During last three decades, researchers at the Catholic University of Peru (PUCP) have attempted to find solutions for improving the seismic performance of earthen buildings (Vargas et al. 2005). The principal alternative solutions of seismic reinforcement for these vulnerable buildings are consisting of: - internal cane mesh reinforcement (Figure 1), external wire mesh reinforcement, and external polymer mesh reinforcement (Figure 2).

Figure 1 Internal Cane mesh reinforcement in CSEB Construction. Source: Blondet and Aguilar, 2007.

Figure 2 Adobe model reinforced with plastic mesh. Source: Blondet and Aguilar, 2007

According to Maini (2007), extensive research was carried out to develop cost effective technology of reinforced masonry with hollow interlocking CSEBs. Vertical and horizontal reinforced concrete members reinforced the masonry so as to create a box type system which can resist disasters. As a result of the research two types of blocks have been developed: - the square hollow interlocking block suitable for two storied building and the rectangular hollow interlocking block suitable for single storied building. This technology has been used extensively in Gujarat for the rehabilitation after the 2001 earthquake with a six months technical assistance of Auroville Earth Institute and with this assistance the Catholic Relief Services built 2698 houses and community centres in 39 villages (Maini, 2007). According to Maini (2005), this technology has been approved by the Government of Gujarat (GSDMA) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2001 earthquake in Kutch district (Figure 3), the Government of Iran (Housing Research Centre) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2003 earthquake of Bam (Figure 4), the Government of Tamil Nadu, India (Relief and Rehabilitation) as a suitable construction method for the rehabilitation of the zones affected by the 2004 tsunami of Indonesia (Maini, 2007).

Figure 3 Houses built by the CRS Gujarat, India. 2698 houses built in a year time, in 39 villages. Source: Maini, 2005.

Figure 4 House built by the International Blue Crescent. Bam Iran. Source: Maini, 2005.

According to Kotak (2007), there was a huge demand for houses to rehabilitate the earthquake affected families in Gujarat state (India) after 2001 Kutch earthquake. HUNNAR SHAALA Foundation for Building Technology and Innovations, Bhuj, India is a registered not-for-profit corporation who built several stabilised rammed earth houses for the earthquake affected families. There were two types of houses built in this rehabilitation exercise: - Circular and Rectangular stabilised rammed houses. According to Minke (2006), earth as a building material has lost its credibility chiefly because most modern houses with earth walls cannot withstand earthquakes and because earth is viewed a building material for the poor. In this context, it is worth mentioning that a census conducted by the Salvadoran government after the earthquake of January 13, 2001 (measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale), states that adobes houses were not worse affected than other types of construction (Minke, 2006). Minke (2006) also explained about earthquake resistant earth construction to address low cost housing crisis in Guatemala. A bamboo-reinforced panelled rammed earth wall technique was developed in 1978 as part of a research project by the BRL, and successfully implemented jointly with the Francisco Marroqun University (UFM) and the Centre for Appropriate Technology (CEMAT), both in Guatemala (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Earthquake resistant low cost housing prototype With bamboo-reinforced rammed earth walls, Guatemala, 1978. Source: Minke, 2006, p142.

Figure 6 Earthquake resistant low cost housing prototype building. Alhue, Chile, 2001. Source: Minke, 2006, p143.

In 1998 the BRL developed another reinforced rammed earth wall system that was utilised for a low-cost housing project built in cooperation with the University of Santiago de Chile in Alhue, Chile, in 2001 (Figure 6). The examples of these earthquake resistant earthen houses shows that contemporary earth construction is durable enough to replace conventional brick and block construction to address low cost housing crisis even in the earthquake prone localities. Therefore, natural disaster resistant contemporary earth construction is effectively solving the problems of natural disaster destructive to shelters all over the world in particular in India and South America. Structural limitation is one of the major drawbacks of earth construction highlighted in Table 2. Related to this, Maini (2005) shows enough examples of buildings with large span constructed of compressed stabilised earth blocks (CSEB) and the research and development seeks to optimize the structures by increasing the span of the roof, decreasing its thickness, and creating new shapes. Note that all vaults and domes are built with compressed stabilised earth blocks, which are laid in free spanning mode (without formwork), which has been developed by the Auroville Earth Institute and this technique is a development of the Nubian technique (Maini, 2005). Figure 7 shows vault measured diameter of 7.9 meter constructed 9

out of CSEB and Figure 8 shows dome measured 22.16 meter of a temple constructed out of CSEB. Therefore, these examples support that contemporary stabilised earth construction is able to overcome the drawback of structural limitation.

Figure 8 Figure 7 Dome of the Dhyanalingam temple, Coimbatore, Vault of Mirramukhi School at Auroville, CSEB. 22. 16m dia, 7.90m rise, 570 tons. built in 9 weeks. 10.35m span, 2.25m rise, 30 tons, built in 3 weeks. Source: Maini, 2005, p11. Source: Maini, 2005, p11.

Sanya (2007), concluded in his research that, cement stabilised earth blocks (CSEB) cause more air pollution compared to the conventional fired brick which leads CSEB to an environmentally unsustainable material (one can argue this as a disadvantage of stabilised earth construction). But significant number of research shows that, cement stabilised earth block do not cause more air pollution compared to conventional brick and blocks. Therefore, the following section briefly reviews the literature on environmental benefits of stabilised earth construction in low cost housing. 5.2 Environmental benefits of Stabilised Earth construction in urban housing This section is going to analyse critically the existing literature particularly on the environmental benefits of contemporary stabilised earth in the construction of low cost urban housing. According to Maini (2005), some studies have shown that, in the Indian context, building a square metre of masonry with CSEB (compressed stabilised earth block) consumes 5 times less energy than a square metre of wire cut bricks masonry and 15 times less than country fired bricks. Maini (2005) also stated that the compressed stabilised earth blocks (CSEB) are more eco-friendly than fired bricks and their manufacture consumes less energy and pollute less than fired bricks. Energy consumption 4.9 times less than wire cut bricks 15.1 times less than country fired bricks Pollution emission 2.4 times less than wire cut bricks 7.9 times less than country fired bricks

Table 3 shows a comparative analysis of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission of four types of building material. According to the numerical data shown in Table 3, CSEB consume the lowest energy and lowest carbon dioxide emission if compared with Wire Cut Bricks, Country Fired Bricks, and the Concrete blocks.

10

Product and thickness

Number of units (Per square metre) 40 87 112 20

Energy consumption (MJ per square metre) 110 539 1657 235

CSEB 24 cm Wire Cut Bricks 22 cm Country Fired Bricks 22 cm Concrete blocks 20 cm

Carbon dioxide emission (Kg per square metre) 16 39 126 26

Table 3 A comparative analysis of energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission of four types of building material. Source: Maini, 2005.

Adam and Agib reported that compressed stabilised earth blocks were successfully used for low cost housing in Sudan (Hadjri, 2007). According to Adam and Agib (2001), low energy input in processing and handling soil - only about 1% of the energy required manufacturing and processing the same volume of cement concrete. This aspect was investigated by the Desert Architecture Unit which has discovered that the energy needed to manufacture and process one cubic metre of soil is about 36 MJ (10 kwh), while that required for the manufacture of the same volume of concrete is about 3000 MJ (833 kwh) (Adam and Agib, 2001). According to Vroomen (2007), there are two important aspects playing a role in the ecological impact of a construction technique, and they are: - the energy required constructing a house and carbon dioxide emission resulting from the total process. In order to be able to assess the performances of the construction materials on the above aspects, a computation is made in Vroomens (2007) research and to make the computations as transparent as possible, the values that were applied in different construction materials are given in Table 4. Energy required in Carbon dioxide emission in Kg MJ/ Kg carbon dioxide per Kg material Gypsum (NBVG, Herpen) Cement (Adobemachine) Soil (Adobemachine) Fired bricks (Houben) 1 4.8 0.028 3.16 0.01 1.25 0 0.19

Table 4 The characteristics of the materials as applied in the computation. Source: Vroomen, 2007.

The resulting totals are given in Table 5. The complete computation with all sources is added to the CDrom. Adobe CSEB Fired brick Hollow concrete blocks (HCB) 390 Gypsum stabilised earth wall in sections 191 Gypsum stabilised earth massive blocks 161

Energy required (MJ/ fu)

36

233

1026

11

Carbon dioxide emission (Kg/ fu)

55

118

98

Table 5 The totals of the environmental computation. Source: Vroomen, 2007, p69.

It is notable from this section that contemporary stabilised earth construction is environmentally sustainable compare to the conventional (fired brick, concrete, etc.) building materials and would be appropriate in the case of urban house construction. Promotion and adoption of stabilised earth as an alternative urban house construction material is worthwhile and significantly helpful in achieving environmental sustainability (less carbon dioxide emission and less energy used). It is also notable that contemporary stabilisation of earth doesnt only mean the cement stabilisation. Gypsum is also one of the stabilisers which are discussed in this section proved to be more environmentally sustainable than the cement stabiliser. 6. Conclusions This paper critically and briefly analyses the arguments in favour of stabilised and unstabilised earth construction in the construction of urban housing. It is notable that the drawbacks of earth construction mentioned by different authors in Table 2 can be addressed and solved by different solutions invented in contemporary stabilised earth construction research and innovation. Reduction of shrinkage cracks, solution to water erosion, enhancement of binding force, increasing compressive strength, strength against abrasion and increasing thermal insulation of earth building material is explained by different researchers, such as Houben & Guillaud, 1989; Minke, 2006; Walker, 2005 and Maini, 2005 in their published books and publications (reference list) in detail. These researchers published several journal papers and handbooks on stabilized earth construction which cover how to address the drawbacks of earth construction. Therefore, in the case of addressing the urban housing crisis the disadvantages of earth construction can be overcome by the adoption of appropriate stabilised earth construction such as, rammed earth (RE) and compressed stabilised earth block (CSEB), stabilised adobe and other contemporary stabilised earth construction techniques. 7. References 1. Adam, E. A. and Agib, A. R. A. (2001). Compressed Stabilised Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan. Printed by Graphoprint for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. France, Paris, UNESCO. 2. Agarwal, A. (1981). Mud, Mud: The Potential of Earth-Based Materials for Third World Housing. Earthscan, London. 3. Alphonse, S. S. (1985). General report, Appropriate Building Materials for Low cost Housing, African region. Proceedings of a symposium held in Nairobi, Kenya, 1983. Volume II. E. & F. N. SPON, London, New York. 4. BEYOND 2000. Discovery Channel. 1993. 5. Bui, Q. and Morel, J. (2007). Durability of rammed earth walls exposed to 20 years of natural weathering. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 12

6. Cassell, R. O. (1993). A traditional research paper: Rammed Earth Construction, The compaction of successive layers of earth between forms to build a wall. http://webs.ashlandctc.org/jnapora/hum-faculty/syllabi/trad.html, 12.08.2007. 7. Delgado, M. C. J. and Guerrero, I. C. (2005). Earth building in Spain. Construction and building materials 20 (2006) 679-690. Elsevier Ltd. www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat 8. Doat, P., Hays, A., Houben, H., Matuk, S. and Vitoux, F. (1991). Building with Earth. The Mud Village Society, New Delhi. 9. Easton, D. (1996). The Rammed Earth House. Chelsea Publishing Company, White River Junction, Vermont, USA. 10. Frescura, F. (1981). Rural Shelter in Southern Africa. Ravon Press, Johannesburg, RSA. 11. Hadjri, K., Osmani, M., Baiche, B. And Chifunda, C. (2007). Attitude towards earth building for Zambian housing provision. Proceedings of the ICE institution of civil engineers, engineering sustainability 160, issue ES3. 12. Heathcote, K. A. (1995). Durability of earth-wall buildings. Construction and building materials, vol. 9, no. 3, pp 185-189. 13. Houben, H. and Guillaud, H. (1994). Earth construction A comprehensive guide. Intermediate Technology publications 1994, London. 14. Howieson, S. (2005). Housing & Asthma, Spon Press, ISBN 0-415-33646-5. 15. Jagadish, K. S. (2007). Earth construction today: prospects and tasks. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 16. Kateregga, J. K. (1983). Improvement and use of earth construction products for low cost housing. Appropriate Building Materials for Low cost Housing, African region. Proceedings of a symposium held in Nairobi, Kenya, 1983. Volume one. E. & F. N. SPON, London, New York. 17. King, B. (1996). Buildings of earth and straw: structural design for rammed earth and straw-bale architecture. Ecological Design Press, California, USA. 18. Kotak, T. (2007). Constructing cement stabilised rammed earth houses in Gujarat after 2001 Bhuj earthquake. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 19. Lal, A. K. (1995). Handbook of low cost housing. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, India. 20. Maini, S. (2005). Earthen architecture for sustainable habitat and compressed stabilised earth block technology. Progrmmae of the city on heritage lecture on clay architecture and building techniques by compressed earth, High Commission of Ryadh City Development. The Auroville Earth Institute, Auroville Building Centre INDIA. 21. Mani, M., Dayal, A. and Chattopadhyay, R. N. (2007). An assessment into the sustainability of earthen structures and modern transitions. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 22. Minke, G. (2006). Building with earth design and technology of a sustainable architecture. Birkhauser publishers for Architecture, Basel, Berlin, Boston. 23. Mohler, K. (1978). Grundlagen der Holzhochbaukonstruktionen, in Gtz, K.-HJ.; Hoor, D et al.: Holzbauatlas. Munich, Germany. 24. Montgomery, D. E. (2002). Dynamically-Compacted Cement Stabilised Soil Blocks for Low-Cost Walling. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. 25. Morris, J. and Booysen, Q. (2000). Earth construction in Africa. Proceedings: strategies for a sustainable Built Environment, Pretoria, 23-25 August.

13

26. Morel, J. C., Meshah, A., Oggero, M. and Walker, P. (2001). Building houses with local material: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction, building and environment, 36, 1119-1126. 27. Morton, T. (2007). Towards the development of contemporary Earth Construction in the UK: drivers and benefits of Earth Masonry as a Sustainable Mainstream Construction Technique. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 28. Ngowai, A. B. (2000). The conflict between survival and sustainability. Proceedings: international conference sustainable building, 2000. 22-25 October, 2000. Maastricht: Netherlands. 29. Norton, J. (1997). Building with earth: A handbook (2nd edition). Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. 30. Reddy, B. V. V. (2007). Indian standard code of practice for manufacture and use of stabilised mud blocks for masonry. International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 22-24 August. Interline Publishing, India. 31. Robinson, S. (1939) "Houses Dirt Cheap." The Rotarian Aug. 1939: 24. United States. Department of Agriculture. 32. Sanya, T. (2007). Living in Earth the sustainability of earth architecture in Uganda. PhD thesis, the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway. 33. Treloar, G. J., Owen, C. and Fay, R. (2001). Environmental assessment of rammed earth construction systems, structural survey. 34. Vargas, J. Blondet, M. Ginocchio, F. Villa-Garcia, G. (2005). 35 years of research on SismoAdobe. In Spanish. International Seminar on Architecture, Construction and Conservation of earthen buildings in seismic areas. SismoAdobe2005. PUCP, Lima, Peru. 35. Vroomen, R. (2007). Gypsum stabilised Earth - Research on the Properties of cast Gypsum-stabilised Earth and its Suitability for Low Cost Housing Construction in Developing Countries. Final thesis for MSc Architecture, Building & Planning, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. 36. Walker, P. Keable, R. Martin, J. and Maniatidis, V. (2005). Rammed earth: Design and Construction Guidelines. BRE Bookshop, Zimbabwe. 37. Zami, M. S. & Lee, A. (2007). Earth as an alternative building material for sustainable low cost housing in Zimbabwe. 7th International Postgraduate Research Conference, 2007. Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. 38. Zami, M. S. & Lee, A. (2007). The influence of housing standards in the development of low cost sustainable housing in Zimbabwe. The 7th International Postgraduate Research Conference. March 28 29, 2007, The Lowry, Salford Quays, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

14