Mud Brick Construction PDF

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 samples 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 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8
2.0 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................... 10
3.0 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Mud and Earth Construction............................................................................................. 12
3.1.2 Interlocking Compressed Stabilised Blocks ............................................................... 16
3.2 A Review of Potential Stabilisers for Unfired Masonry Bricks ......................... 20
3.3 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers ................................................... 22
3.4 Testing Procedures for the Mechanical Properties of Masonry ...................... 24
3.4.1 Compressive Strength Testing of Masonry ................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB .................................................................................................. 25
3.4.3 Absorption Testing of Masonry ....................................................................................... 26
3.5 Key Points from the Literature Review .................................................................... 26
4.0 Proposed Method Statement ............................................................................... 28

4.0.1 Research .................................................................................................................................... 28
4.0.2 Preliminary Experiments ................................................................................................... 28
4.0.3 Laboratory Experiments .................................................................................................... 29
4.0.4 Sustainability Study .............................................................................................................. 30
4.1 Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 31
5.0 Method Statement .................................................................................................. 33

5.1 Constructing the Mud Bricks ........................................................................................ 33
5.1.1 Equipment Required ............................................................................................................ 33
5.1.2 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 34
5.2 Shrinkage Testing ............................................................................................................. 38
3
5.3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Absorption Testing .......................................................................................................... 40
5.3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 40
5.4 Compressive Strength Testing ........................................................................ 41

5.4.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 42
6.1 Preliminary Experimental Results ............................................................................. 43
6.0 Results ......................................................................................................................... 43

6.2 Main Laboratory Experimental Results.................................................................... 44
6.2.1 Shrinkage Testing .................................................................................................................. 44
6.2.2 Sample Appearance and Texture .................................................................................... 44
6.2.3 Absorption Testing ............................................................................................................... 44
6.2.4 Compressive Strength Testing .................................................................... 46
7.0 Sustainability Study................................................................................................ 49

7.1 Ease of Manufacture ........................................................................................................ 50
7.2 Financial Cost ..................................................................................................................... 51
7.3 Health Implications.......................................................................................................... 53
7.3.1 GGBS (CEMEX, 2008) ........................................................................................................... 53
7.3.2 PC (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).................................. 53
7.3.3 PFA (Scotash, 2005) ............................................................................................................. 54
7.4 Quantitative Ecopoints Analysis ................................................................................. 54
8.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 56

8.1 Preliminary Experiments .............................................................................................. 56
8.2 Sustainability Study ......................................................................................................... 57
8.2.1 Defining Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 57
8.2.2 Ease of Manufacture ............................................................................................................. 58
8.2.3 Financial Cost .......................................................................................................................... 59
8.2.4 Health Implications .............................................................................................................. 59
8.2.5 Overall Sustainability........................................................................................................... 60
8.3 Laboratory Experiments ................................................................................................ 61
8.3.1 Shrinkage Testing .................................................................................................................. 61
4
8.3.2 Manufacturing Procedure .................................................................................................. 62
8.3.3 Absorption Testing ............................................................................................................... 63
8.3.4 Compressive Strength Testing ......................................................................................... 64
8.3.5 Application of ICSB Technology ...................................................................................... 66
8.3.6 Limitations to the Research .............................................................................................. 67
9.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 69
10.0 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................... 71
References: ............................................................................................................................ 73
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 77
Appendix 1 - Project Management Statement ..................................................................... 78
Appendix 2 Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work ....................................................... 80
Appendix 3 Ecopoints PFA....................................................................................................... 81
Appendix 4 Ecopoints GGBS .................................................................................................... 82
Appendix 5 Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing .............. 83
5
List of Figures:
Figure 1 - Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www.banasura.com )

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

Table 2 - Comparison of Interlocking Blocks to its Alternatives (Source: UN Human
Settlements Programme) ............................................................................................ 19
Table 3 - Comparison of the Energy Costs of GGBS, PFA and PC (Sources: Oti, 2008
& 2009, Reddy, 2004 & 2001, Ash Solutions Ltd, 2009)............................................. 22
Table 4 - Engineering Parameters and Performance of Unfired Clay Bricks and
Mainstream Bricks (Source: Oti, 2009) ....................................................................... 24
Table 5 - Raw Material Quantities for Mud Brick Construction .................................... 35
Table 6 - Compressive Strength Testing of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered' ......... 43
Table 7 - Absorption Testing Results .......................................................................... 45
Table 8 - Compressive Strength Results ..................................................................... 46
Table 9 - A Comparison of the Costs of Fired Bricks and ICSB (adapted from Smith,
2010) .......................................................................................................................... 52
Table 10 A Comparison of Estimated Stabiliser Cost in Ugandan Shillings and Cost
per ICSB ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 11 - An Overall Comparison of the Sustainability of the Stabilisers ................... 60
7
1.0 Introduction
Mud brick construction is not a new technology and dates back, in various forms, for
several thousand years. Recently it has been utilised and investigated as a possible
form of sustainable construction in the developing, and the developed, world.
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, particularly those of sub-Saharan
Africa and the Middle East.
Mud bricks perform considerably better, in environmental terms, than fired bricks. They
have significantly less embodied energy, contribute fewer CO2 emissions and help to
promote the local economy and local labour. At first glance they appear to be an ideal
candidate for an economically viable sustainable construction material. However, 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. 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. Research into alternative stabilisers is both relevant and necessary to ensure
unfired mud bricks remain a competitive alternative to modern construction methods.
This project, which is conducted in association with Engineers Without Borders (EWB),
will look at two alternatives to cement for stabilizing unfired mud bricks. Ground
Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA) have been
selected as the alternative stabilisers. 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). They are also used as cement
alternatives in soil stabilisation in the UK and around the developed world. Specific
research into their use in earthen construction is lacking.
This research project focuses on two main areas; the structural integrity of bricks made
with the alternative stabilisers and the potential sustainability of the stabilisers in the
developing world.
8
The structural integrity will be measured by 3 tests; compressive strength, shrinkage
and absorption. These tests will be performed on hand made mud bricks prepared in
the laboratory.
Sustainability will be assessed by the availability of GGBS and PFA in Uganda and
Tanzania, the relative costs of these products compared to PC and by looking at any
potential hazards associated with adopting these stabilisers.
9
2.0 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.
Identify two alternatives to cement for mud brick stabilisation.
Compare the alternatives to cement for cost, ease of manufacture and

embodied energy.
Investigate mud bricks made with the alternative stabilisers and compare them,
quantitatively, to cement stabilised bricks for three mechanical properties:
o Compressive strength.
o Absorption.
o Shrinkage.
Summarize whether the cement alternatives are a viable engineering

alternative.
Investigate the availability of the alternative stabilisers in the developing world

using Uganda and Tanzania as benchmarks.
Analyze whether the alternatives will be viable in the developing world.
Investigate whether there would be any social implications to the use of cement
alternatives in the developing world.
Recommend future research.
10
3.0 Literature Review
Construction with earth or clay has been around for thousands of years. In the 1970s
it was estimated that there were more than 80 million earthen dwellings in India without
considering significant numbers in Africa and China (Norton, 1997). It may be
conservative to suggest that over two billion of the worlds population live in buildings
primarily made from earth or clay.
Additionally, UN-HABITAT estimates that 3 billion people lack decent housing. With a
continually growing global population, this figure is likely only to rise. In Uganda, for
example, demand exists for 1.6 million new homes each year; this is met by a supply of
a mere 100,000. Building new homes on such a scale requires large amounts of
construction materials. Traditional building methods such as fired masonry or concrete
are environmentally damaging on many fronts deforestation occurs to provide
firewood, concrete involves large amounts of embodied energy etc (The Good Earth
Trust, 2008).
In contrast to traditional fired masonry, building with unfired mud or clay bricks reduces
the cost of construction and the environmental impact. Importantly it also promotes
local business and employment. As a potential construction material it seems to tick all
the sustainability boxes and has great potential in the developing world.
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, advocacy,

technical and business training, capacity building, research & development of the
technologies, and the provision of information and guidance. In our advocacy work we
target the government to ensure they are aware of the technology and include it in
building codes, technical specifications, and policy. We also advocate to Agencies,
NGOs, and the private sector to adopt these technologies in the projects and work they
do. In selected areas, 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. (The Good Earth Trust, 2008)
11
This project aims to research alternative stabilisers for compressed earth blocks. To
do so, further information on current ICSB technology is required. This information will
be presented, via a literature review, in 4 parts:
1. Background.
2. A review of potential stabilisers for unfired masonry bricks.
3. Comparative study of embodied energy, cost and manufacture of selected

stabilisers.
4. Testing procedures for the mechanical properties of masonry.
3.1 Background
3.1.1 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. Hadjri et al. (2007) interviewed ten
residents of earthen buildings about five key points: durability, affordability, living
conditions, aesthetics and their general performance compared to a modern house.
Their findings are as follows:
1. Durability Half of the residents indicated that their dwelling was durable, with
a lifespan of more than 20 years. The other half reported a lifespan of just 10
years with regular maintenance required. The latter category reported the
major factors in lack of durability were water and/or termite damage.
2. Affordability All residents agreed that earthen dwellings were affordable

when compared to modern dwellings.
3. Living Conditions 8 out of 10 interviewees stated that their homes offered

very comfortable living conditions with excellent thermal properties; cool in
summer and warm in winter. The other two were less impressed. However, it
should be noted that the two who complained about conditions lived in buildings
roofed with corrugated iron resulting in excessive heat transmission.
12
4. Aesthetics Four interviewees appreciated the appearance of earthen
architecture, two were indifferent but four found the appearance less pleasing
compared to modern dwellings.
5. 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.
These results show that there are still issues with the perceptions of earthen
architecture in the developing world (Hadjri, et al., 2007) and that any drive to promote
earthen architecture as a realistic alternative to modern building materials must be
combined with an educational programme.
Earthen architecture, however, has changed considerably in recent years with better
understanding and increased use. The current trend for sustainable living combined
with greater understanding of the thermal benefits, safety and potential durability of
earth has led to substantial advances in the quality and appearance of mud and clay
based buildings (Burroughs, 2009). Some examples of earthen architecture, old and
new, are shown in Figs 1 to 3 These examples show that with the correct materials,
dedication and imagination, earth structures can be as impressive as more modern
construction methods.
Figure 1 - Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www.banasura.com)
13
Figure 2 - Example of a Modern Earthen Structure in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Source: www.rael-
sanfratello.com)
Figure 3 - Rammed Earth Construction Underway in India (Source: www.banasura.com)
14
There are six predominant methods of earthen construction; these are summarized in
Table 1:
Table 1 - Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009).
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. ICSB are a
variation of this.
2 Adobe Blocks
These are similar to compressed earth
blocks and often considered their precursor.
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.
3 Cob
In cob construction a mix of clay, sand and
straw is made, then moulded and
compressed into flowing forms to make
walls and roofs.
4 Rammed Earth
This involves the making of a mould into
which the soil, inclusive of a
weatherproofing agent, is compacted and
left to dry. Subsequently the mould is
removed and the earthen form remains.
5 Earth Sheltering
This refers to the use of earth on the
structure of a building. It includes earth
berming, in-hill construction and
underground construction.
6 Wattle and Daub

This consists of a wooden or bamboo frame
laid vertically and horizontally reinforced on
which earthen daub is packed.
This project will focus solely on compressed earth blocks and their modern evolution;
the interlocking compressed stabilised block (ICSB).
15
3.1.2 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). The blocks were then either wood-
fired or left to dry in the sun. In recent years the development of mechanical presses
has superseded the more primitive technology in most areas of the world (Norton,
1997).
In the 1950s the Chilean engineer Raul Ramirez created the CINVA-RAM press at the
Inter American Housing Centre in Columbia. 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.
The CINVA-RAM and similar machines provided a cost effective and more
environmentally friendly method of construction. However, skilled labourers were still
required to construct the blocks and significant amounts of cement and mortar were
required. To counter this, 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. These interlocking
blocks reduced the need for cement and for skilled tradesmen. As a result the cost of
construction was considerably reduced and the structural stability improved (UN
Human Settlements Programme, 2009). An example of a modern variation of the
CINVA-RAM, a Makiga press, is shown in Fig 4. Interlocking blocks have developed in
complexity since their early forerunners and now double interlocking and curved blocks
are available.
16
Figure 4 - Makiga Press (Source: www.makiga-engineering.com)
An example of double interlocking blocks is shown in Fig 5; the interlocking fins on the
top and side of the blocks are easily identifiable. Also clear from this Figure is the high
quality outward appearance of the constructed blocks.
Figure 5 - Examples of Interlocking Blocks (Source: www.goodearthtrust.org.uk)
There are many advantages of interlocking blocks including environmental

considerations, ease of use and quality of performance. Table 3-2 compares an
interlocking block to some of the alternatives over a range of properties (source: (UN
Human Settlements Programme, 2009).
17
Additional advantages of ICSB include:
1. Health Curved blocks can be used to build water tanks, latrines and septic
tanks. These basic facilities are lacking in many areas of the developing world
and their provision can dramatically reduce disease.
2. Environment ICSB are an environmentally sound alternative to traditional
fired blocks. In Uganda, for example, the firing of traditional masonry has led to
vast deforestation and destruction of wetlands (UN Human Settlements
Programme, 2009).
3. Ease of Use ICSB machines are comparatively easy to use and maintain.
Construction using the blocks also requires less skill than traditional masonry.
4. Economics ICSB construction is cheaper than traditional methods. Raw
materials can usually be sourced in the area of construction and the stabilised
blocks are weatherproof and require no further rendering.
5. Structural ICSB technology compares favourably with traditional methods of
construction (Norton, 1997).
18
Table 2 - Comparison of Interlocking Blocks to its Alternatives (Source: UN Human Settlements
Programme)
19
3.2 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.
This shows that handmade bricks satisfy the strength required for simple structures, for
example single storey shelters, and machined bricks (made with a Makiga ram for
example) are suitable for more complicated buildings.
However, the biggest drawback with mud block construction is the concerns over its
durability. Earthen structures are considered to last, on average, approximately 20%
less time than similar structures built by more traditional methods (Norton, 1997).
Traditionally cement or lime is added to stabilize the block and improve its durability
but some research has been done into chemical admixtures (Vinod, et al., 2010). This
research was inconclusive but chemicals can be discounted for use in the developed
world due to cost, difficulty of supply and the potential cost of training tradesmen.
The problem with cement stabilisation is that ICSB technology is promoted as an

environmentally friendly construction material. The addition of a cement stabiliser
lessens the embodied energy differential between ICSB and traditional fired blocks. It
is, therefore, important to investigate alternatives to cement.
Previous researchers, including Davis (2003) and Longland (1985), have suggested
lime as a suitable alternative, especially in clayey soils. Lime production is less
intensive than cement production but more lime is required to deliver similar results
(Sivapullaiah, et al., 2000). Lime as a stabiliser will not be investigated further in this
research project other than as an additive to activate the pozzolanic reaction.
Soil stabilisers are used in a variety of contexts including structural (ICSB),

geotechnical (pavement design) and geo-environmental (soil stabilisation), Jegendan
et al. (2010) investigated the use of cement blends for soil stabilisation and suggested
the following as possible alternatives to cement:
1. 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.
This slag is tapped off and rapidly quenched in water to promote its
20
cementitious properties. GGBS is used throughout the UK and approx 2 million
tonnes are used per annum (Jegendan, et al., 2010). It is commonly used as
an additive in cement mixes and lime can used to activate the reaction rather
than PC. Better durability is expected with higher GGBS content but it also
slows the curing time (Oti, et al., 2009).
2. 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,
et al., 2010). Of this, approximately 3.5 tonnes are used in the construction
industry. Coal is ground into a fine dust prior to combustion and it is the finer
ash which is cementitious. PFA requires water and a source of alkali, usually
calcium hydroxide, to stabilize soil, an application for which it has been used for
many years. The benefits of using PFA in terms of enhanced durability and
sustainability have been well documented in other applications including
pavement stabilisation (Sear, 2007), (Shafique, et al., 2004) and (Jegendan, et
al., 2010).
3. Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) This is a by-product of cement manufacture quality

control. CKD is collected from cement kiln exhaust gasses and consists of
particles of clinker, unreacted calcined raw materials, and fuel ash. The
generation of CKD is environmentally questionable as it is related to cement
manufacture with its associated high embodied energy. However, although
CKD production is reducing due to improved processes a large amount is still
disposed of in landfill. Studies have shown that CKD is a useful soil stabiliser
and can also be used as an alkali activator for GGBS ((Jegendan, et al., 2010).
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.
Coutand et al. (2006) investigated the use of Sewage Sludge Ash (SSA) as an
admixture in mortars. However, they concluded that SSA had a fundamentally different
chemical composition when compared to PFA which made it less suitable as a
stabiliser. This was mainly due to the low content of silica in SSA which meant its
pozzolanic activity was limited. SSA does not meet the European standards as a
21
mineral admixture but could be used as a low grade pozzolan (Coutand, et al., 2006).
It will not be considered further in this project.
3.3 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers
Housing construction methods in the developed and the developing world need to fulfil
a variety of criteria. These include; energy consumed in the manufacturing processes,
problems associated with long distance transportation, consumption of raw materials
and natural resources, recycling, the impact on the environment and long term
sustainability (Reddy, 2004). It is unrealistic to consider all these factors in a
comparison of stabilisers. Some prioritization is necessary and this review will
concentrate on energy consumed in the manufacturing process (embodied energy),
cost of transportation and financial cost. When considered together these factors will
indicate the environmental impact and give some suggestion as to the long term
sustainability of each stabiliser.
Oti 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, Portland
Cement (PC) stabilised unfired bricks have an embodied energy of 1025 MJ/t and
emissions of 125 Kg CO2/t. Clearly, in terms of energy, unfired bricks, even when
stabilised with PC, are a much better material for long term sustainability.
This project aims to investigate alternative stabilisers to PC for ICSB technology and
will focus on the use of GGBS and PFA. Table 3 compares these potential stabilisers
with PC in terms of energy costs during manufacture and construction.
Table 3 - Comparison of the Energy Costs of GGBS, PFA and PC (Sources: Oti, 2008 & 2009, Reddy,
2004 & 2001, Ash Solutions Ltd, 2009)
Ser Stabiliser Embodied Energy CO2 Emissions Energy in

(MJ/t) During Manufacture Transportation for
(per t) 100km
(MJ/t)
1 Portland 5000 1000 kg 100
Cement
2 GGBS 1300 70 kg 100*
3 PFA 900 800 kg 400
4 No stabiliser 525 25 kg -
*- No values were found in current literature for transportation costs of GGBS but it was assumed they would be very
similar to PC.
22
Table 3 shows that GGBS and PFA are competitive with PC in terms of energy cost.
However, bricks with no stabiliser are the most environmentally appealing.
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, et al.,
2009).
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). This should be
similar across the world as both GGBS and PFA are by products of existing industry.
However, 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, 2010). Therefore,
GGBS may deliver greater financial savings when looking at whole life cycle costs.
In conclusion, when considering embodied energy, transportation costs and financial

cost we can list the potential stabilisers in descending order of preference as follows:
GGBS, PFA, PC.
There is no literature investigating the use of PFA as a sustainable stabiliser for mud
brick construction, however, some initial research has been conducted into the use of
GGBS. Studies into the compressive strength of unfired bricks stabilised with
GGBS/PC mixtures realized results of 2.7-5 N/mm2 in the laboratory and 3.4-7.4 on an
industrial scale. These results are within the range specified by UK building
regulations (5 8 N/mm2) but at the lower end (Oti, et al., 2009).
Table 4 (source: Oti, 2009) illustrates some of the engineering parameters and
performance of unfired clay bricks stabilised with PC / lime and GGBS mixes with
mainstream bricks. Due to the early nature of the research there is no published
information on the complete range of engineering properties.
23
Table 4 - Engineering Parameters and Performance of Unfired Clay Bricks and Mainstream Bricks
(Source: Oti, 2009)
Ser Parameter Fired Clay Sun Baked PC Stabilised GGBS/PC Mix

Unfired Brick Stabilised
Unfired Brick
1 Firing X - - -
2 Stabiliser - - 8 12% PC 1.5 % Lime,
Content 5% GGBS
3 Design Internal / Internal walls Internal / Internal /
Application external walls external walls external walls
4 Robustness / Frost resistant Susceptible to Dependant on Robust and
Durability water damage stabiliser durable with
activated
GGBS blend
5 Cost High Low High Low
6 Use of PC - - x -
7 Breathability No No Impeded by PC Yes
This research further reinforces the idea that GGBS is an ideal replacement stabiliser
for PC.
3.4 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. Compressive strength.
2. Shrinkage.
3. Absorption.
Each of these properties will be tested by the European standards or the equivalent
accepted standard for ICSB technology.
3.4.1 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).
The standard specifies a number of different conditioning procedures: air dry, oven dry,
conditioning to 6% moisture content and conditioning by immersion. Previous research
24
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, et al., 2009).
For this project, and to simulate most closely the conditions likely to be found in
Uganda and Tanzania, air drying the samples will be used. To achieve this in line with
the European standard, samples must be stored at room temperature (>15oC) at a
relative humidity of approximately 60% for 14 days before testing.
The compressive strength is determined using a compressive strength testing machine.

This machine must have an error of less than 2% (BSI, 2010). Further details of the
testing machine are as follows:
The testing machine shall have adequate capacity to crush all the test specimens, but
the scale used shall be such that the failure load on the specimen exceeds one-fifth of
the full scale reading. The machine shall be provided with a load-pacer or equivalent
means to enable the load to be applied at the rate given in 8.2. The testing machine
shall be equipped with 2 steel-bearing platens. 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 0.1 mm measured over 250 mm. The platens shall either be
through hardened or the faces case hardened. The testing faces shall have a Vickers
hardness of at least 600 HV when tested in accordance with EN ISO 6507-1.
(BSI, 2010)
The European standard states that the minimum number of samples to be tested is six.
However, this is for industrial scale production and is unrealistic for handmade bricks
constructed to compare stabilisers.
3.4.2 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB
UN HABITAT recognizes that the laboratory testing of ICBS technology is not always
viable, particularly in the developing world. Instead it recommends a number of ICSB
specific tests to determine whether a site, and more importantly its soil, is suitable for
the creation of unfired mud bricks (UN Human Settlements Programme, 2009).
These tests include a sedimentation test and a shrinkage test. Only the shrinkage test
will be considered in this project. This test is important to ensure that ICSB will not
25
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, increase water absorption and have an adverse affect
on appearance. Shrinkage can be controlled with stabilisers. Depending on the soil
type and the shrinkage observed during initial testing the amount of stabiliser will vary.
Typically, when using PC, ratios of 5% are used but this can increase to 10% with
higher levels of clay (Browne, 2009).
3.4.3 Absorption Testing of Masonry
The European standard for absorption testing of clay masonry units is BS EN 772-
11:2010.
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. For clay masonry units the bed face
is the one that is tested (BSI, 2010).
3.5 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.
A stigma is still attached to earthen construction in the developing world where
it is associated with poverty and low social standing. Therefore, an educational
programme will need to run concurrently to any concerted ICSB drive promoting
it as a viable, modern and sustainable construction material.
ICSB technology has numerous advantages over rival earthen construction
methods notably in strength, appearance and ease of use.
Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) and Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA)
are potential alternatives to Portland Cement (PC) as stabilisers for ICSB
technology.
GGBS and PFA are both favourable to PC in terms of embodied energy and
CO2 emissions. They also represent no significant additional financial cost.
26
GGBS is the preferred stabiliser according to current research. However, there
is a lack of current research into the engineering properties of unfired bricks
stabilised with PFA.
BS EN 772-1:2010 gives the procedure for compressive strength testing of clay
masonry units.
UN HABITAT provides a range of tests to ensure the suitability of sites for
ICSB. The shrinkage test is useful to determine the amount of stabiliser and
the suitability of the local soil.
BS EN 772-11:2010 gives the procedure for absorption testing of clay masonry
units.
27
4.0 Proposed Method Statement
In order to achieve the aim of this research project each of the objectives outlined
above will be taken in turn. To simplify the methodology it has been divided into a
number of Sections; research, preliminary experiments, laboratory experiments and a
sustainability study.
4.0.1 Research
The first three objectives are driven largely by the literature review and studying
published professional research. The outcome of the literature review is summarized
in paragraph 3.5 but most importantly GGBS and PFA have been selected as the
stabilisers to investigate.
Further research is required into a manufacturer of GGBS and PFA who will be willing
to support the project.
4.0.2 Preliminary Experiments
Get Sheltered, an EWB workshop designed to discuss various aspects of sustainable

construction in the developing world, is to be held at Newcastle University on the 20
Nov 10. 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, will be made.
It is proposed that Get Sheltered be used as a set of preliminary experiments for the
project. The following outcomes are expected:
Familiarization with hand-made mud brick construction techniques.

Construction of moulds suitable for the main laboratory experiments testing
compressive strength and absorption.
Familiarization with compressive strength testing procedures for masonry units.
28
Production of reference data for hand-made bricks stabilised with PC, lime and
no stabiliser (these will be included in the Results Section of this project).
4.0.3 Laboratory Experiments
Laboratory experiments will be used to determine the engineering properties of mud

bricks stabilised with PC, GGBS and PFA.
The following points will remain extant:
Bricks will be hand made by the researcher and no press will be used.
Three bricks with each stabiliser will be made. The amount of stabiliser in each
brick will vary in order to test the extremes of expected optimum stabiliser
content (e.g. 5-10% for PC).
Moulds will be constructed to ensure all hand-made bricks are of the same
dimensions.
The bricks will be used for both compressive testing and for absorption testing.
The absorption test will be conducted first and there will be seven days between
the two tests to allow the bricks to dry out.
The curing period before testing will be 30 days.
Compressive strength will be tested to EN 772-1 by the procedure detailed
below:
1. Clean the bedding surface to ensure even contact is maintained.

2. Measure the width and length of the loaded area and calculate the loaded
area.
3. Align the specimen in the testing machine without using any extra packing.
4. Apply loading at a rate of 0.05 N/mm2/s (the approved rate for masonry with
a strength <10N/mm2).
5. Record the maximum load.
6. Calculate the strength of the specimen by dividing the maximum load by the
loaded area and express to the nearest 0.1 N/mm2
Shrinkage will be measured by the procedure detailed below:
29
1. Construct a wooden box with internal dimensions of 40mm x 40mm x
600mm.
2. Grease the box and insert the clay / sand mix to be tested.
3. Compact the mix well.
4. Leave to cure in the shade for at least 7 days.
5. Measure the amount of shrinkage and calculate as a percentage of the
initial dimensions. This value can be used to compare the shrinkage of soil
mixes.
Absorption will be measured using the procedure detailed below:
1. Measure the dimensions of the test face and determine the gross area.
2. Measure the dry weight of the specimen.
3. Immerse the specimen in water up to a depth of 5mm (+/-1mm) for 24 hours
(BSI, 2003).
4. Measure the new weight of the specimen.
5. Calculate the initial rate of water absorption using the formula in BS EN
772-11:2010 Section 8.3.
Results for the bricks stabilised with PC, GGBS and PFA will be compared to
each other both quantitatively and graphically.
4.0.4 Sustainability Study
This part of the project will fulfil the objectives concerned with the sustainability,
availability and potential implications of using the proposed stabilisers in the developing
world. Geographically, it will use Tanzania and Uganda as it is benchmarks.
The price and availability of GGBS and PFA will be initially sought from The Good
Earth Trust who have ongoing projects in those countries. A comparative study of the
health and social implications will be undertaken using existing published information.
The sustainability study is likely to be a relatively small part of the final project.
30
4.1 Timeline
The key milestones for this project were the PIR submission date (3 Dec 10) and the
Project submission date (20 May 11).
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).
31
Figure 6 - Proposed Project Timeline
32
5.0 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. The experimental steps are detailed in chronological order
and a table detailing the exact timeline of the project is at Appendix 1.
5.1 Constructing the Mud Bricks
Mud bricks are, by their very nature, simple to construct. They require only three raw
materials; soil, water and a stabiliser, in varying proportions. Production of mud bricks,
particularly in the developing world, is done by unskilled labourers. 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, 2009). This is one of the main advantages of this form of
construction. 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, 2009).
The method detailed below was adapted from that used at the Get Sheltered
workshop in Nov 10. This was, in turn, learnt from another EWB workshop hosted by
Paul Jaquin, an individual who has done considerable research into earthen
construction. It is noted that the method is not incredibly detailed but this recreates
well the circumstances expected on a typical earthen construction site.
5.1.1 Equipment Required
The following equipment and materials were required to construct the bricks:
60 Kg sand (coarse Leyton sand).

36 Kg pea shingle.
8 Kg powered clay (whole white e china clay).
5 Kg PC.
5 Kg GGBS.
5 Kg PFA.
5 Kg lime.
33
Safety footwear.
Heavy duty balance (up to 20 kg, 0.1 Kg accuracy).
Accurate balance (up to 2.5 Kg, 0.001 Kg accuracy)
Shovel.
Mixing tray for sand/clay.
Wheelbarrow.
PPE for lime (goggles, masks, gloves, lab coats).
Moulds for bricks (pre-made, as used at Get Sheltered).
Oil for lining moulds.
Water source.
Trowel.
Permanent marker.
5.1.2 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. The format used was
standard for the Newcastle University Geotechnical Laboratories and is reproduced at
Appendix 2.
The main risk was from using lime and this was mitigated by the wearing of correct
PPE (lab coat, safety glasses, safety footwear and a mask).
5.1.3 Procedure
In line with the Section 4.0 nine bricks were made in total, three with each stabiliser.
For this project, stabiliser percentages of 10%, 15%, and 20% were used to provide a
range of a data as outlined in Section 4.0. These values were chosen as the
homogeneous soil that was used had high clay content. Normality of the stabiliser
content across all 3 stabilisers also allows ease of comparison and consistency of
results. The use of differing stabiliser quantities is considered further in Section 8.0.
In concrete preparation, and in other uses of GGBS as a cement replacement material,

the established practice is to replace PC on a 1:1 basis (ACI Committee, 1987). PFA
34
is different from GGBS because it contains little calcium and therefore is unable to
react cementitiously unless there is lime from another source present. In common
construction practice PFA would not completely replace PC but would rather replace
up to 60%. However, in order to keep as many variables as possible constant PFA
replaced 100% of the PC during this research. For each PFA stabilised brick the PC
was replaced with the same volume of Lime/PFA in a ratio 1:2 (Caltrone, 2010).
Table 5 shows the quantities of each raw material required for the mud bricks
constructed for this project. Each brick was given an identifier to make reporting the
results more concise. These comprised of the letters A - I and are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - Raw Material Quantities for Mud Brick Construction
Type of % Stabiliser
Raw Material
Stabiliser 10% 15% 20%
Soil (+/- 0.1 kg) 9.0 8.5 8.0

PC Water (+/- 10ml) A 1000 B 1100 C 1150
PC (+/- 0.01 kg) 1.0 1.5 2.0
Soil (+/- 0.1 kg) 9.0 8.5 8.0
Water (+/- 10ml) 1100 1250 1350
PFA D E F
PFA (+/- 0.01kg) 0.67 1.0 1.33
Lime (+/- 0.01kg) 0.33 0.50 0.67
Soil (+/- 0.1 kg) 9.0 8.5 8.0
GGBS Water (+/- 10 ml) G 1000 H 1200 I 1050
GGBS (+/- 0.01 kg) 1.0 1.5 2.0
The bricks were constructed using the following method:
1. A manufactured soil mix was used for all bricks (and the shrinkage testing).
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.
By creating a homogeneous soil in the laboratory results can be more easily
and more accurately compared. The proportions chosen for the soil mix gave a
clay content of just under 8%; this is similar to the typical soil type in much of
Uganda [Mwebeze, 2007]. The soil was made as follows, in two batches:
a. 60 Kg of sand was weighed.
35
b. 36 Kg of pea shingle was weighed.
c. 8 Kg of dry clay was weighed.
d. The raw materials were mixed together on a mixing tray. Fig 7

shows the raw materials and Fig 8 shows the mixed soil.
Figure 7 - Raw Materials for Soil Mix
Figure 8 - Mixed Homogenous Soil
2. 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).
These dimensions were chosen as a suitable size to represent ICSB technology
which typically requires 35 bricks to cover 1m2, giving a profile surface area of
0.028m2, compared with 0.033m2 for the bricks manufactured during this project
36
[Smith, 2010]. These were lined with mould oil (to prevent the brick from
sticking to the mould) prior to brick construction. Fig 9 shows the empty
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.
The following equipment was required:
Safety boots.
Soil mix as made in Section 5.1.
Mould.
Trowel.
38
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.
Metal trays x 2.
Water source.
PPE.
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
Figure 13 - The Experimental Setup for the Absorption Testing
2. The water was topped up once during this period.
3. The Initial Rate of Water Absorption was calculated in line with BS EN 772:2010
Section 8.2.
5.4 Compressive Strength Testing
Compressive strength testing machine (as specified in the Section 4.0).

Brick samples, as prepared above.
Wood packing.
The Risk Assessment at Appendix 2 was used for this procedure. No additional
controls were required.
41
5.4.3 Procedure
The procedure used was as detailed in the Section 4.0. The only variation was the use
of wooden packing to distribute the load over the surface of the brick. This was
necessary due to the design of the machine. Fig 14 shows the experimental set up.
Figure 14 The Experimental Set-up for the Compressive Strength Testing
The bricks were tested sequentially, on the same day. This meant that all the bricks
benefited from the same curing time.
42
6.0 Results
6.1 Preliminary Experimental Results
The experiments conducted at Get Sheltered proved to be less extensive than at first
hoped. 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. Some previously constructed bricks, which had cured for 28 days, were
tested for their compressive strength. These bricks were stabilised with lime or PC and
one contained no stabiliser. A fired brick (from Uganda) and a regular house brick, as
used in masonry construction in the UK, were also tested. The results of the
compressive strength testing are shown in Table 6.1 and Figure 15.
Table 6 - Compressive Strength Testing of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered'
Brick
Ser 1 2 3 4 5
Parameter
1 Description Lime stab PC stab No stab Fired brick House brick
2 Failure load (N) 40196 17427 51617 62352 249376
2
3 Area (mm ) 41300 41300 41300 29000 22360
4 Compressive Strength 0.97 0.42 1.25 2.15 11.2
2
(N/mm )
12
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
10
0
Lime stab PC stab No stab Fired brick House brick
Type of Brick
Figure 15 - Compressive Strength of the Bricks Tested at 'Get Sheltered'
43
6.2 Main Laboratory Experimental Results
6.2.1 Shrinkage Testing
The shrinkage test produced no shrinkage after the prescribed period. Even after
extending the test to 28 days, the observed shrinkage was still negligible.
6.2.2 Sample Appearance and Texture
Fig 16 shows the appearance of the samples once they had been removed from the
moulds. The PFA and PC stabilised samples (A-F) presented as expected with a
dense, hard texture. In contrast, samples G-I were very delicate, crumbling on touch
and with obvious surface cracking.
Figure 16 The Appearance of the Bricks after Curing (Top: GGBS, Btm Left: PC, Btm Right: PFA)
6.2.3 Absorption Testing
The formula used to calculate the Initial Rate of Water Absorption is taken from BS EN
771-11:2010:
Where:
44
Cws = Initial Rate of Water Absorption (kg/m2/min)
The results of the absorption testing are shown in Table 7 and Figure 17.
Table 7 - Absorption Testing Results
Initial rate of
Mass before Mass after
Change in mass Water
Sample Stabiliser % absorption test absorption test
(g) Absorption
(g) (g)
(kg/m2/min)
A 10 10240 10450 210 0.033524904

B PC 15 10340 10430 90 0.014367816
C 20 10560 10620 60 0.009578544
D 10 9550 10040 490 0.078224777
E PFA 15 9480 10030 550 0.087803321
F 20 9360 10090 730 0.116538953
G 10 9580 10040 460 0.073435504
H GGBS 15 9470 10260 790 0.126117497
I 20 9070 9700 630 0.100574713
0.14
Initial Rate of Water Absorption (kg/m2/min)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
A B C D E F G H I
Sample
Figure 17 - The Initial Rate of Water Absorption for the Samples
45
6.2.4 Compressive Strength Testing
Sample raw data for the compressive strength testing is reproduced at Appendix 5.
Table 8 and Fig 18 compare the compressive strength of the various samples using all
the raw data recorded. Figs 19 21 show stress-strain curves for the bricks made with
the three stabilisers. Fig 22 shows the appearance of a selection of the bricks at the
conclusion of the test.
Table 8 - Compressive Strength Results
Stabiliser % Ultimate Load 2 Compressive Strength

Sample Area (mm ) 2
(kN) (N/mm )
A PC 10 187.751 43500 4.316114943
B 15 247.544 43500 5.690666667
C 20 262.501 43500 6.034505747
D PFA 10 32.519 43500 0.747563218
E 15 33.331 43500 0.766229885
F 20 42.703 43500 0.981678161
G GGBS 10 5.011 43500 0.115195402
H 15 6.277 43500 0.144298851
I 20 7.407 43500 0.170275862
6
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
0
A B C D E F G H I
Sample
Figure 18 - A Comparison of the Compressive Strength of the Samples
46
0.007
0.006
Stress (kn/mm2)
0.005
0.004
10% Stabilizer
0.003
15% Stabilizer
0.002
20% Stabilizer
0.001
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Strain
Figure 19 - Stress-Strain Curves for the PC Stabilised Bricks
0.0012
0.001
Stress (kN/mm2)
0.0008
0.0006 10% Stabilizer

20% Stabilizer
0.0002
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Strain
Figure 20 - Stress-Strain Curves for the PFA Stabilised Bricks
0.00018
0.00016
0.00014
Stress (kN/mm2)
0.00012
0.0001
0.00002
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
Figure 21 - Stress-Strain Curves for the GGBS Stabilised Bricks
47

A:
S:
Figure 22 - The Appearance of a Selection of Samples after Compressive Strength Testing
48
7.0 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, interpreted and assessed. Proponents of the theory have
designed earnest procedures for the measuring and reporting of it. Others, more
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, 2001). 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, 2010).
However, there is broad consensus that the concept is multi dimensional, advocating a
complicated, and often subjective, interrelationship between social, environmental and
economic factors (as shown in Fig 23). 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, et al., 2005). 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.
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
Figure 23 - Interrelationship between the Spheres of Sustainability (Source: Tanguay, et al. 2009)
49
One method of measuring sustainability and one that is popular with a number of public
administrators is the use of Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs). However, the
sheer number of SDIs and the lack of common interpretation of their meaning means
that their use is still problematic (Tanguay, et al., 2009).
In the context of this report this presents difficulty in determining exactly how to define
sustainability and how to compare the different stabilisers.
To counter this difficulty the report will broadly endorse the WCED definition and
investigate the proposed alternative stabilisers, GGBS, PFA and PC, across four
areas:
Ease of Manufacture (environmental, economic, and social).

Financial cost (economic).
Health implications (social, environmental).
Quantitative eco-points analysis (environmental).
Whilst it is acknowledged that this approach has its limitations, so do the alternatives
and this method will at least provide both quantitative and qualitative results for
discussion.
7.1 Ease of Manufacture
PFA and GGBS are both by products of existing industry. Details of their manufacture
are contained in Section 3.2 above.
PC is not a by-product. Instead its manufacture consists of a tightly controlled

combination of calcium, silica, aluminium, iron and small amounts of other materials.
Gypsum is added at the final grinding stage in order to regulate the setting time.
Two methods of production exist for PC; wet and dry. In both methods the raw
materials (calcium carbonate and silica) are mixed together and fed into large rotating
kiln cylinders. These are heated to approx 1450oC to create the conditions necessary
for the chemical reactions to take place. A substance called clinker is produced,
50
cooled and then ground with gypsum to produce cement powder (Portland Cement
Association, 2011).
The cement manufacturing procedure is extremely energy intensive and the

environmental implications of producing PC, in comparison to PFA and GGBS, have
already been stated in Table 3.
7.2 Financial Cost
The financial cost of ICSB technology varies, depending on a number of factors

primarily the availability of quality material on site, 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. The discrepancy in mortar
requirements between fired bricks and ICSB is due to the fins designed into the ICSB
blocks, these reduce the need for mortar. However, 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.
51
Table 9 - A Comparison of the Costs of Fired Bricks and ICSB (adapted from Smith, 2010)
Per 100 Bricks Per 400 Bricks Per Brick

Fired Bricks
Blocks:
Purchase cost 15000 150
Mortar:
Coarse sand (3 wheelbarrows) 6300 63
Fine sand (2 wheelbarrows) 6000 60
PC (25 kg) 28000 280
Labour:
1 x mason (per day) 10000 25
0.5 x labourer (per day) 2500 6
2
Total (Ugandan Shillings / m 29213
(50 bricks))
ICSB
Blocks:
Marram (6 wheelbarrows) 8400 84
PC (25 kg) 28000 280
Mortar:
Coarse sand (3 wheelbarrows) 6300 16
Fine sand (2 wheelbarrows) 6000 15
PC (25 kg) 28000 70
Labour:
1 x mason (per day) 10000 25
3.5 x labourers (per day) 17500 44
2
Total (Ugandan Shillings / m 18690
(35 bricks))
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. Unfortunately, finding
prices for GGBS and PFA in Uganda or Tanzania proved unsuccessful. However, 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.
Prices for PC, GGBS and PFA in the UK were found ([A1 Building Supplies, 2011],
[Benny Industries, Unknown], [ValueUK, 2011], [The Building Lime Company, 2011]).
These are presented in Table 10. By comparing the UK PC price to the Ugandan PC
price a multiplication factor of 7197.94 can be applied to all prices to give an
52
approximate Ugandan price, assuming availability. Table 10 also compares the price,
in Ugandan Shillings, of producing 1 x ICSB with the various stabilisers using the
variables detailed in Table 9.
Table 10 A Comparison of Estimated Stabiliser Cost in Ugandan Shillings and Cost per ICSB
PC GGBS PFA / Lime

UK Price (GBP per 25 kg) 3.89 6.00 3.78 (PFA)
9.97 (Lime)
= 5.84
Ugandan Price (Ugandan Shillings per 25 kg) 28000 43187 42036
Total cost of producing 1 x ICSB (Ugandan 18690 24005 23602.25
Shillings)
7.3 Health Implications
7.3.1 GGBS (CEMEX, 2008)
For use as a stabiliser or concrete admix GGBS is supplied as a fine powder or dust.
As with all dusts it can irritate the eyes, skin, respiratory system or gastro-intestinal
tract. When mixed with water the resulting solution can be alkali. Current industry
practice in the UK is that appropriate protective clothing should be worn to minimize
contact with the skin and eyes. The substance is stable in normal conditions and,
provided reasonable care is taken, is not hazardous in the quantities that would be
used for ICSB stabilisation.
7.3.2 PC (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995)
PC is also used in powered form, comprising a grey, fine, odourless powder. The
health risks associated with the substance are similar to GGBS, notably that the dust
can cause eye irritation and prolonged or repeated contact with the skin can cause
dermatitis. Protective clothing (boots and gloves) should be worn when handling
cement but the use of a respirator is unnecessary unless heavy exposure is
anticipated.
53
7.3.3 PFA (Scotash, 2005)
PFA also presents as a grey, odourless dust. However the health risks associated with
it are markedly lower than either GGBS or PC. It is still recommended to wear
protective clothing but there is no clinical evidence of skin inflammation, respiratory
problems (unless excessive amounts have been inhaled) or issues associated with
ingestion.
However, it should be noted that PFA requires lime to initiate the cementitious reaction
and this has health and safety implications of its own (CEMEX, 2007). Lime can burn
skin in the presence of water and there is risk of serious damage to the eyes.
Protective clothing must be worn at all times, including eye protection and face masks.
It should also be noted that the reaction between water and lime is highly exothermic.
7.4 Quantitative Ecopoints Analysis
The environmental impacts of construction are hard to analyse as they impact on a

number of different areas, for example water resource quality and climate change.
Comparing directly different situations is unhelpful and inaccurate as it involves
subjective judgement on the scope of influence and their relative importance. 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.
The parameters that Eco-points consider include climate change, fossil fuel depletion,
freight transport, toxicity and waste disposal. BRE have then attempted to normalize
the environmental impact of these activities by comparing them to a norm. This norm
has been taken as the average impact of a UK citizen, calculated by dividing the total
UK impact by the population of the UK. The system has also, in consultation with
industry experts and stakeholders, assigned a weighting to each environmental impact
(BRE, 2009). The result is a single figure score for the environmental impact of a
material where the higher the number, the higher the impact.
54
The Eco-point summaries for PFA and GGBS are reproduced in Appendices 3 and 4.
The Eco-point summary for PC was not available but several articles and papers detail
the score at around 4.1 ([A1 Building Supplies, 2011] [Portland Cement Association,
2011]). 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 by-
products of existing industry. To summarise, the Eco-point scores are as follows:
GGBS: 0.35 Eco-points.

PFA: 0.066 Eco-points.
PC: Approx 4 Eco-points.
55
8.0 Discussion
8.1 Preliminary Experiments
The results from the preliminary experiments were not as expected. The compressive
strength of all the unfired bricks was disappointingly low (0.42-1.25 N/mm2) and short
of the 5-8 N/mm2 required by current Eurocode, and UK Building Regulation, standards
(Oti, et al., 2009). Another notable observation is that the unfired brick without a
stabiliser performed recorded the highest compressive strength during testing. There
are a number of potential reasons for this:
1. Unknown Provenance. The manufacture of the bricks took place at an

external location and by unknown individuals. This means there is plenty of
scope for inaccuracy, both in terms of the manufacturing procedure and the
materials used. For example, substandard or badly stored lime may have been
used and this could have affected the results. Other factors, which remain
unknown, that could have affected the performance of the bricks include the
manner of storage, the curing period and how they have been treated since
manufacture (e.g. have they been dropped, have they been exposed to water
etc).
2. Appropriate Ratios of Materials. The mix of materials that was used for the
production of the bricks in the preliminary experiment is also unknown.
Although there were estimates of a uniform addition of 20% of stabiliser across
the bricks this has not been confirmed. 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.
3. Uneven Loading on the Bedding Plane. The tested bricks were particularly
coarse. The nature of the compressive strength testing machine means that
the application of the load is, therefore, 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). Even with a
piece of soft wooden packing to try and lessen the effects there were still raised
56
points on the bedding plane which will have taken the brunt of the load. This
source of error could potentially be reduced by testing one of the surfaces that
were in contact with the mould (and, therefore, smoother). However, EN 772-1
states that the bedding plane to be loaded is the one that should be tested.
Testing the brick on its side, for example, would give skewed results because it
would be testing the compressive strength in a plane not loaded in usual use.
The most obvious way to provide a more level bedding surface is to use a
mould that contains the brick on all surfaces. 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.
The preliminary experiments were still a worthwhile exercise. The results show that the
compressive strength of both the fired brick and the house brick (2.15 N/mm2 and 11.2
N/mm2 respectively) are superior to the unfired bricks. 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. Another positive
outcome from the preliminary experiments was the hands-on experience of making
mud bricks. This proved invaluable when conducting the main laboratory experiments
as a manufacturing method was already known and had been practiced.
8.2 Sustainability Study
8.2.1 Defining Sustainability
The first paragraphs of Section 7.0 alluded to the problems with attempting to define
sustainability and outlined the areas which would be considered in the context of this
report. For clarity these are reproduced below:
Ease of Manufacture (environmental, economic, and social).

Financial cost (economic).
Health implications (social, environmental).
Quantitative eco-points analysis (environmental).
57
The decision to use these four areas was based on the fact that they would produce
both qualitative and quantitative results for comparison. Each of these areas will be
discussed in turn.
8.2.2 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. As PFA and GGBS are by-products of
existing industry so their production contributes no more environmental damage than
the primary industry. Indeed, the environmental damage caused by the production of
these stabilisers has already been compared in Section 3.3. However, this is a fairly
simplistic overview and the environmental considerations, and the longevity, of the
primary industry must be taken into account.
Coal fired power stations, the industry behind the production of PFA, have a limited
lifespan as the global reserves of coal are finite. However, as recently as 2009 the UK
government announced plans for 4 new plants before 2020. 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. 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. 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, whilst it is certainly not
a solution that will be applicable forever, PFA will be produced for the foreseeable
future though the rate of production may slow if power stations continue to improve
efficiency. 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.
GGBS is a by-product of the steel manufacturing process and the demand for steel is
increasing. Attempts are being made to streamline industry processes and make them
more sustainable, particularly regarding the recycling of steel. However, it is
reasonable to deduce that steel, and by inference GGBS, production will continue for
58
the foreseeable future. Steel is a key industry in Uganda with Sembule Steel providing
steel products to more than 10 countries in East and Central Africa [USGS, 2006].
This alludes to the possibility of GGBS production in the area. The sustainability of
GGBS, in terms of ease of manufacturing, can therefore be placed on a par with PFA.
If the primary industry for both materials persists then they will continue to be, at least
theoretically, available.
It is widely known, and reported, that cement production is an extremely energy

intensive manufacturing process that cannot claim to have good environmental
credentials. However, the cement industry is suggesting reformist agendas to
modernize production and improve the reputation of the industry. There is strong
scepticism about these reforms, however, 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. To minimize emissions the cement industry is attempting to reduce the fuel
input in production. However, 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, and in terms of ease of manufacture, PC is
the least sustainable stabiliser tested in this project.
8.2.3 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. 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), GGBS (23602.25 UGS per ICSB) then PFA
(24005 UGS per ICSB).
8.2.4 Health Implications
There is no major difference in the potential stabilisers in terms of health implications.

However, PFA requires lime to initiate the cementitious reaction and this is a potentially
hazardous material.
59
In a social context it can be assumed that more sustainable means least hazardous.
As a result the stabilisers can be ranked in the following order: PC and GGBS are
equal followed by PFA.
8.2.5 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. It is
incredibly difficult, not to mention subjective, to compare such different substances
over such a diverse range of factors. However, Table 11 and the preceding
paragraphs, attempt to do that. Table 11 shows the stabilisers ranked according to
three of the four key areas considered above. It ranks each stabiliser against each
area allocating a 1 (green) for the most sustainable and a 3 (red) for the least. The
final column shows an overall sustainability score according to the research carried
out for this project and the criteria discussed in Sections 8.2.2 to 8.2.4. This score was
calculated by adding together the individual scores for each key area.
Table 11 - An Overall Comparison of the Sustainability of the Stabilisers
Stabiliser Ease of Financial Cost Health Total

Manufacture Implications
PC 3 1 1 5
PFA 1 3 3* 7
GGBS 1 2 1 4
*Although PFA is considerably less harmful than either GGBS or PC the requirement for lime makes it the least
sustainable option.
Table 11 shows that, according to the sustainability study in Section 7.0, GGBS is the
most sustainable followed by PC and then PFA. This is at odds with the eco-points
scores which rank the stabilisers in the following order: PFA, GGBS and then PC.
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. 2 possible reasons for this discrepancy will be
considered here. The first is that the eco-point system is based on the energy
consumption of a typical UK resident. This report has attempted to rate the
60
sustainability of the stabilisers from a Ugandan and Tanzanian perspective. The
financial cost for example, which has been calculated in UGS, has had a significant
impact on the overall sustainability score achieved from this research. The second,
and perhaps more considerable, reason for the discrepancy is one of the fundamental
drawbacks of the concept of sustainability; subjectivity. Any author or authority can,
intentionally or otherwise, skew the results of such a subjective idea. Whilst every
intention can be made to be as neutral as possible there is always a vested interest by
the compiler of any research. This may vary from a desire to produce the best possible
report, thesis or article to providing evidence in support of the claims of a financial
backer. It is not being proposed that all measures of sustainability have inherent
intentional inaccuracy but it would be nave to take all published data simply at face
value.
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. Whilst it has been proved that the industry that produces these by-products
exist in Uganda and Tanzania, and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future, there
has been no definitive evidence found that PFA and/or GGBS are refined, marketed
and sold in those countries. If these substances are not available, or need to be
imported from further afield, then any environmental and financial advantage will be
negated. Conversely, questions can be asked if the products arent available in the
developing world yet the industry that produces them exists. It is worth further
investigation to see if the economic, commercial and social conditions exist to make
their sale worthwhile.
8.3 Laboratory Experiments
8.3.1 Shrinkage Testing
The shrinkage testing returned a result of zero shrinkage, despite increasing the curing
time to allow the soil to dry further. There are several possible reasons for this
unexpected result:
1. The Use of an Artificial Homogeneous Soil. As described in Section 5.0

an artificial homogeneous soil was used for the construction of all the bricks.
61
Although this allowed more accurate comparison of the various samples it
also meant that the soil was devoid of the differences (e.g. void ratios and
variable water content) that would influence the shrinkage of a natural
material.
2. Inappropriate Curing Conditions. The shrinkage mould was left to cure at

room temperature (approx 20OC) and normal humidity. This may not have
provided the ideal curing conditions for shrinkage to occur. The effect of
this, however, is likely to be minimal because the curing time was extended
when no shrinkage was observed initially.
3. Lack of Hydration. The shrinkage testing mix was hydrated with 2000ml of
water. 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.
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. Since this project
intended to investigate the use of alternative stabilisers in mud bricks, the percentage
of stabiliser was likely to be varied. Therefore, the utility of the test in this instance is
fairly limited. 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. Even the 10% bricks,
the lowest tested percentage of stabiliser, should, therefore, not have been affected by
shrinkage during the project. In practical application the amount of stabiliser tends to
be around 10% (Browne, 2009). This published data, and the negligible shrinkage,
gives additional credence to the stabiliser percentages chosen for the main laboratory
experiments.
8.3.2 Manufacturing Procedure
The manufacturing procedure is a potential source of inaccuracy in the Method

Statement. As previously stated, the procedure used was adapted from a technique
taught at EWB workshops. However, an element of judgement was required when
calculating mix proportions and curing times. Although previous research and standard
62
procedures were consulted to shape the method used in this project (notably UN
HABITAT and Oti, 2009) there is no professional standard for this type of brick
manufacture.
Other sources of inaccuracy in the manufacturing procedure include the mixing

technique (which could be improved by the use of a mechanical mixing device), the
source of the materials (which was taken on trust from the laboratory technicians) and
the curing conditions (which, although designed to simulate a practical environment,
were subject to the vagaries of the laboratory).
8.3.3 Absorption Testing
The Initial Rate of water Absorption (IRA) ranged from 0.01 Kg/m2/min for the 20% PC
brick (sample C) to 0.13 Kg/m2/min for the 15% GGBS brick (sample H).
The PC bricks (samples A-C) performed as expected and the IRA decreased with
increased proportions of stabiliser. This is not surprising as higher cement content will
decrease the porosity of the material and cement is a water resistant material when
cured.
Conversely, the PFA bricks (samples D-E) performed contrary to expectation because
the IRA increased with increased stabiliser content. 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. The excess lime would then absorb the water during
the absorption testing adversely affecting the IRA results.
The results from the GGBS bricks (samples G-I) are unreliable. There is no pattern to
the IRA as the 15% brick (sample H, 0.13 Kg/m2/min) exceeds both the 10% brick
(sample G, 0.07 Kg/m2/min) and the 20% brick (sample I, Kg/m2/min). There is no
obvious explanation for these results and, when combined with the disappointing
compressive strength results discussed in Section 8.3.4, the conclusion must be that
the manufacture of the GGBS bricks was in some way unsatisfactory. This is
discussed in further detail in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.4.
The results from all the samples, however, are positive. The IRA of a brick has a
significant effect on the eventual overall strength of a masonry wall. For example, if the
63
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%. Bricks with large IRA values will draw moisture from the mortar
and reduce its effectiveness. (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). Bricks with
an IRA of greater than 2 Kg/m2/min are considered difficult to lay with traditional
mortars. All of the samples tested in this research have displayed IRAs of significantly
less than 2 Kg/m2/min and, therefore, would be acceptable in traditional construction
[Claybricks and Tiles Sdn, 1998-2007].
There is one important aspect of the absorption testing method that should be
considered and potentially adapted for future research. BS EN 772-11:2010 Section
8.3 details the absorption testing procedure that was followed during this research.
That document states that the sample should be submerged in water up to a depth of
5mm (+/- 1mm) for 24 hours. It makes no mention of whether the water level should be
topped up during that 24 hour period. When using samples as permeable as unfired
bricks this becomes a noteworthy omission. 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, the GGBS bricks would probably have been unusable for further
testing had this been the case). As mentioned in Section 5.0 the water, in this
absorption test, was topped up once during the 24 hour period and this may have
affected the results for the PFA and GGBS bricks. Careful consideration should be
given to this, and to the proportion of lime in the PFA mix, if the research is to be
repeated. Further discussion on the applicability of the Eurocodes to this type of
construction material is contained in Section 8.3.5.
8.3.4 Compressive Strength Testing
The compressive strength of the bricks varied from 0.12 N/mm2 for the 10% GGBS
brick (sample G) to 6.03 N/mm2 for the 20% PC brick (sample C). The mean
2
compressive strength for all the samples was 2.11 N/mm which is below the desired
minimum of 5 N/mm2 required for UK building regulations. This is not unexpected,
however, as previous research into similar bricks yielded compressive strengths of 2.7
7.4 N/mm2 (Oti, et al., 2009). These are also below the required building regulation
standards. The results from this project, however, were still significantly below the
published findings.
64
Specifically, and surprisingly, the GGBS stabilised bricks (samples G-I) performed least
well with a compressive strength range of 0.12 0.17 N/mm2. However, increased
percentages of stabiliser improved the performance of the bricks as expected.
Previous research had been conducted into GGBS stabilised unfired bricks by Oti and
they performed much better in his work (2.7 5 N/mm2).
The PFA bricks (samples D-F) produced a compressive strength range of 0.75 0.98
N/mm2 with a slightly anomalous result for the 15% brick (sample E, 0.77 N/mm2)
which should have been higher when compared to the 10% brick (sample D, 0.75
N/mm2). The compressive strength results were all below 1 N/mm2 which is lower than
expected.
The PC bricks (samples A-C) exhibited the highest compressive strength by a large
margin. This is not an unexpected result and reinforces the selection of PC as the
preferred stabiliser in current ICSB practice. Samples A-C produced a compressive
strength range of 4.32-6.03 N/mm2 though the value for C is estimated as it exceeded
the load capacity of the testing machine. These results also increased with the
stabiliser content. 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.
There are several factors pertaining to the compressive strength testing that should be
considered further:
1. Uneven Bedding Planes. The same issues discussed in Section 8.1 are
applicable to the main laboratory experiments. The same suggestions
should be followed to mitigate them.
2. Materials Provenance. The GGBS bricks (samples G-I) produced

surprising results across both areas of interest. A question must, therefore,
be raised as to the quality, and the provenance, of the raw material.
Published research by Oti has realized much improved results (see above).
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. Construction sites, and
construction workers, across the world are unlikely to favour GGBS to PC if
65
the change involves complicated handling or storage implications.
Alternatively, the results could be due to another reason, 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.
3. Machine Reliability. The machine used to test the compressive strength

was modern and complied with all the requirements stated in EN 772-1.
Therefore, machine reliability can be discarded as the reason for the low
compressive strength results.
4. Subsequent Testing on the same Samples. Both the absorption test and
the compressive strength testing were carried out on the same samples.
This may have influenced the results, particularly for the bricks that showed
a higher rate of IRA (i.e. the GGBS bricks). Excess water in the bricks may
have reduced their strength. 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 doesnt breed confidence in the use of GGBS
bricks in a practical environment
8.3.5 Application of ICSB Technology
In summary, the results of the engineering property testing indicate that whilst all of the
bricks performed adequately in terms of IRA, the vast majority were not sufficiently
strong in terms of compressive strength to be considered as a construction material
according to UK Building Regulations. However, it is important to define exactly what
the requirements are for ICSB technology. The primary use, certainly in the developing
world, is to provide affordable housing and for low scale construction projects. Even
the diverse projects discussed in Section 3.0 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.
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
considerably less than, for example, a 2 storey house in the UK. Design could be
undertaken without recourse to snow loads, which would further lessen the expected
forces. The primary loads are likely to be the dead weight of the structure and wind
loading. 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.
There is a strong argument for the creation of a specific standard for this type of
technology. This standard could contain substantial information relating to the use of
ICSB technology including:
Manufacturing guidance.
Typical mix proportions for different shrinkage results.
Testing procedures.
Minimum required engineering properties.
Curing procedures.
Although the UN HABITAT guide gives some of the information listed above it is not
presented in a scientific way nor is it comprehensive. Research into a new
professional standard is recommended in Section 10.0.
8.3.6 Limitations to the Research
Several limitations to the research conducted during this project have been alluded to
throughout this report. The major limitations are summarized below and should be
given due consideration if the research is to be repeated:
1. Manufacturing Process. ICSB is made using a press in the practical

environment. The bricks tested in these experiments were hand-made and,
despite best intentions, will not have been compressed as well as those made
in a press. This is likely to have negatively affected both the IRA and
compressive strength results.
67
2. Sample Size. The sample size was necessarily small due to time and labour
constraints. A larger variety of samples would have meant anomalous results
had less credence.
3. Whole Life Analysis. The manufactured bricks were only tested in the short
term and the long term durability has not been addressed.
68
9.0 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this research:
Current research on alternative stabilisers for unfired mud bricks is fairly limited.
Some published data is available for bricks stabilised with Ground Granulated
Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) but none is available for Pulverised Fly Ash (PFA).
However, the use of these substances as admixtures in other applications is
well documented.
PFA and GGBS were identified as potential alternatives to PC for unfired mud
brick stabilisation.
GGBS was assessed as more sustainable than PC in terms of cost, ease of

manufacture. embodied energy and health implications. PFA fared worse than
both the alternatives, mainly due to the requirement for lime to facilitate the
cementitious reaction.
Bricks manufactured with the alternative stabilisers, at a range of proportions,

were compared across three mechanical properties:
o Compressive Strength. 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.
o Absorption. All of the bricks tested had an acceptable Initial Rate of
Water Abortion (IRA) according to current standards.
o Shrinkage. The soil used in these experiments displayed zero
shrinkage after 14 days curing.
The PFA and GGBS stabilised bricks tested were not a viable engineering
alternative according to UK Building Regulations. However, the PFA bricks
may be adequate depending on their practical application.
The availability of the alternative stabilisers in the developing world remains

unknown.
69
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
10.0 Recommendations for Future Research
The following list outlines some recommended topics for further research. This is not
an exhaustive list and there are many more variables that could be adjusted or
amended. The topics detailed here are those which have become obvious avenues of
exploration after the research undertaken during this project; there are countless others
involving mud bricks in general and other sustainable construction materials.
1. More Extensive Testing. Due to time constraints the sample size considered
in this report was very small. Indeed, it was the smallest possible sample size
that allows useful comparison. There is scope to increase the number of bricks
tested, the variations in mix composition, the number of stabilisers tested and
different curing conditions.
2. Repeat Research with GGBS. 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 mix proportions and
the curing method.
3. Long Term Durability. Research into unfired mud bricks is partially justified by
the concerns surrounding their long term durability and susceptibility to water
damage. This has not been addressed in this project. There is considerable
value in undertaking research to compare the long term durability of bricks
stabilised with alternatives to PC, ideally in a location which is likely to use the
technology (e.g. Uganda). 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, chemically, is affecting the durability.
4. Chemical Changes. Detailed research into the chemical reactions that take
place during cementation would be useful. 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. The results may drive a
consistent approach to mix compositions that could be implemented in a
practical environment.
71
5. Testing on Bricks made with a Press. Perhaps the most limiting factor in this
research, and others, is that the bricks tested were hand-made and not made
using a Magika press (or similar). This is likely to have an effect on the
uniformity of the shape, the chemical structure and, ultimately, on the
performance of the bricks. 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.
6. Appropriate Manufacturing Standard. Section 8.3 highlights some of the

shortcomings that manifest themselves as a result of applying Eurocode
standards to technology that doesnt require such rigorous testing and
application. The development of a specific manufacturing standard for ICSB
technology could be a useful step forward. In an ideal world this could then be
applied to all ICSB building and help to standardize practices. Unfortunately
this is unlikely to happen, at least in the short to medium term, due to the
conditions, and locations, where ICSB is likely to be considered an option.
However, there is still value in such a standard.
7. Availability. The availability of the alternative stabilisers was discussed in

8.2.5. There are 2 distinct research possibilities in this area. Firstly, 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 arent
currently available.
72
References:
A1 Building Supplies. (2011). Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from A1 Building Supplies

Limited: http://www.a1building.co.uk/index.php?osCsid=0fpg0kb115v4gqs4j75r7grcr0
ACI Committee. (1987). Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as an Admixture. 87a
(226) . ACI.
Ash Solutions Ltd. (2009). Fly Ash BSEN 450 Product Information. Retrieved Nov 10,
2010, from Aggregate.com: www.aggregate.com/Documents/TDS/fly-ash-techdata.pdf
Benny Industries. (Unknown). How to Buy Fly Ash. Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from Fly
Ash Bricks Information: http://flyashbricksinfo.com/flyash-brick-machine-price-
quotation.html
BRE. (2009). Ecopoints: A Single Score Environmental Assessment. Glasgow: BRE.
Browne, G. (2009). Stabilised Interlocking Rammed Earth Blocks. Southampton:

Southampton Solent University.
BSI. (2003). BS EN 771-1:2003. Specifications of Masonry Units . Brussels: BSI

Group.
BSI. (2010, Jun 29). BS EN 772-1:2010. Part 1 - Determination of Compressive

Strength . London: BSI Group.
BSI. (2010). BS EN 772-11:2010. Part 11: Determination of water absorption of

aggregate concrete, autoclaved aerated concrete, . Brussels: BSI Group.
Burroughs, S. (2009). Relationships Between the Strength and Demsity of Rammed

Earth. Construction Materials (CM3).
Caltrone, G. (2010). Fly Ash Addition in Clayey Materials to Improve the Quality of
Solid Bricks. Retrieved January 31, 2011, from Constructionz: www.constructionz.com
73
CEMEX. (2008). Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Material Safety Datasheet.
Rugby: CEMEX UK.
CEMEX. (2007). Hydrated Lime - Material Safety Datasheet. Rugby: CEMEX.
Claybricks and Tiles Sdn. (1998-2007). The Basics of Bricks. Retrieved 05 02, 2011,
from Clay Bricks: http://www.claybricks.com/more_info/basic-of-bricks.html
Coutand, M., Cyr, M., & Clastres, P. (2006). Use of Sewage Sludge Ash as Mineral
Admixture in Mortars. Construction Materials , 159 (CM4), 153-162.
Davidson, K. (2010). Reporting Systems for Sustainability: What are they Measuring?
2011.
Hadjri, K., Osmani, M., Baiche, B., & Chifunds, C. (2007). Attitudes Towards Earth
Building for Zambian Housing Provision. Engineering Sustainability , 160 (ES3), 141-
169.
Heath, A., Walker, P., Fourie, C., & Lawrence, M. (2009). Compressive Strength of
Extruded Unfired Clay Masonry Units. Constructions Materials 162 , 105-112.
Jegendan, S., Liska, M., Osman, A., & Aj-Tabbaa, A. (2010). Sustainable Binders for
Soil Stabilisation. Ground Improvement , 163 (G11), 53-61.
Lindsay, G. (2001, May). The Holy Grail of Sustainable Development. Retrieved Feb
14, 2011, from Indiana University: http://www.indiana.edu/
Mwebeze, S. (2007). Uganda. Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from Grasslands and Pastural
Crops:
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/uganda.htm#2.%20SOILS%20AND%
20TOPOGRAPHY
Norton, J. (1997). Building With Earth. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Oti, J. E., Kinuthua, J., & Bai, J. (2009). Compressive Strength and Microstructural
Analysis of Unfired Clay Masonry Bricks. Engineering Geology , 109, 230-249.
74
Oti, J. E., Kinuthua, J., & Bai, J. (2009). Unfired Clay Bricks: From Laboratory to
Industrial Production. Engineering Sustainability , 229-237.
Oti, J. E., Kinuthua, J., & Bai, J. (2008). Using Slag for Unfired Clay Masonry Bricks.
Construction Materials , 147-155.
Portland Cement Association. (2011). How Portland Cement is Made. (PCA) Retrieved
02 25, 2011, from Cement and Concrete Basics:
http://www.cement.org/basics/howmade.asp
Reddy, B. V., & Kumar, P. (2001). Embodied Energy of Common and Alternative
Building Materials and Technologies. Energy and Buildings , 129-137.
Reddy, V. (2004). Sustainable Building Technologies. Current Science , 899-907.
Scotash. (2005). Health and Safety Information - Pulverised Fly Ash. Kincardine:
Scotash.
Shafique, S. B., Edil, T., Benson, C., & Senol, A. (2004). Incorporating a Fly-ash
Stabiliser Layer into Pavement Design. Geotechnical Engineering , 157 (GE4), 239-
249.
Sivapullaiah, P. V., Sridharan, A., & Bhaskar, K. (2000). Role of Amount and Type of
Clay in the Lime Stabilisation of Soils. Ground Improvement , 4, 37-45.
Smith, E. (2010). Interlocking Stabilised Soil Blocks: Appropriate Technology that

Doesn't Cost the Earth. 88 (15/16).
Tanguay, G., Rajaonson, J., & Lefebvre, J.-F. (2009). Measuring the Sustainability of
Cities: An Analysis of the Use of Local Indicators. 10.
The Building Lime Company. (2011). Price List. Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from The
Building Lime Company: http://www.buildinglime.co.uk/price.html
75
The Good Earth Trust. (2008). What We Do. Retrieved October 2010, from Good Earth
Trust: http://www.goodearthtrust.org.uk/index.html
UN Human Settlements Programme. (2009). Interlocking Stabilised Soil Blocks.

Nairobi: UN Habitat.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Occupational Health and

Safety Guidance for Portland Cement. US Government.
USGS. (2006). 2006 Minerals Yearbook Uganda. US Department for the Interior.
ValueUK. (2011). Portland Cement 25kg Bags. Retrieved 03 14, 2011, from
ValueMEDIA: http://www.valuemedia.co.uk/popprods.htm?Product=566897
Vincent, T. H. (2010). Mastering Different Fields of Civil Engineering Works. Retrieved

Nov 15, 2010, from Civil Engineering Portal: http://www.engineeringcivil.com/which-of-
the-following-cement-replacement-material-is-better-pfa-or-ggbs.html
Vinod, J. S., Indraratna, B., & Mahamud, A. (2010). Stabilisation of an Erodible Soil
Using a Chemical Admixture. Ground Improvement , 163 (GI1), 43-51.
Walton, J. S., El-Haram, M., Castillo, N., Horner, M., & Price, A. (2005). Integrated
Assessment of Urban Sustainability. 158 (ES2).
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.

Oxford: Oxford Press.
76
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Project Management Statement ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.8

Appendix 2 Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work ......................................... 80
Appendix 3 Ecopoints PFA................................................................................ 81
Appendix 4 Ecopoints GGBS ............................................................................ 82
Appendix 5 Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing..83
77
Appendix 1 - Project Management Statement
The following table summarises the main activities conducted each week during the
course of the project. It should be read in conjunction with the Project Timeline in
Section 4.0. There were no major alterations to the conduct of the project throughout
its duration.
Week Commencing Activities Completed

28 Jun 10 Initial project meeting with Claire Furlong.
Jun Sep 10 Background research conducted.
Literature review started.
27 Sep 10 Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) received from
Engineers Without Borders (EWB).
11 Oct 10 Paul Jaquin (PJ) appointed as EWB liaison.
25 Oct 10 Return to NCL, project meeting with Charlotte Paterson (CP)
and Chandra Vemury (CV).
8 Nov 10 Project meeting with CP and CV.
Aims/objectives agreed.
PIR compiled.
15 Nov 10 Draft PIR submitted to CP and CV.
Get Sheltered workshop.
22 Nov 10 Proposed Method Statement compiled.
29 Nov 10 PIR submitted.
13 Dec 10 Get Sheltered results written up and analysed.
PIR returned.
Feedback from Paul Joaquin (PJ) received.
10 Jan 11 Project meeting with CP and CV.
PIR feedback discussed.
PJ feedback discussed.
Project timeline agreed.
31 Jan 11 Mix composition researched.
Sustainability study started.
Bursary awarded by EWB.
78
7 Feb 11 Method statement for brick construction completed.
Lab sessions booked / raw materials arranged.
Project meeting with CP and CV.
Method statement discussed and improvements suggested.
14 Feb 11 Risk Assessment compiled.
Mud brick preparation and shrinkage testing started completed.
Methodology improved.
21 Feb 11 Curing method adapted.
Sustainability study continued (ease of manufacture and health
implications).
Methodology completed for mud brick construction and
shrinkage testing.
28 Feb 11 Project meeting with CP and CV.
Methodology and sustainability study drafts discussed.
Sustainability study continued.
Shrinkage testing complete.
14 Mar 11 Sustainability study continued, financial cost model designed.
Compressive strength testing booked.
Absorption testing conducted.
Absorption and shrinkage testing results compiled.
21 Mar 11 Compressive Strength testing undertaken completed.
28 Mar 11 Results compiled and presented.
Project meeting with CP and CV.
25 Apr 11 Style and content of results presentation amended.
Discussion, conclusions and recommendations for future
research started.
2 May 11 Discussion, conclusions and recommendations continued.
9 May 11 Discussion, conclusions and recommendations completed.
Draft copy complete.
Editing started.
16 May 11 Project completed and handed in.
79
Appendix 2 Risk Assessment for Laboratory Work
Risk Assessment Assessment Supervisory Review Assessment

For Undertaken Review
Newcastle University Date: 14 Feb 11 Date: 16 Feb 11 Date: N/A

CEGs Name: D Harper Name: S Patterson
Geotechnical Signed: [Original Signed: [Original
Engineering signed] signed]
Laboratory
Hazard People at Risk Existing Controls

Information Location
Controls Needed
Mixed hazards of non related All Do not touch non related
experiments experiments or equipment
Slips, trips and falls All Proceed with caution in the
lab.
No running.
Any liquid spillage reported
and cleaned up.
Heavy masses around lab All Care taken to employ correct
handling techniques.
Safety footwear to be worn at
all time.
Hazards associated with lime Researcher PPE worn when handling lime
(goggles, lab coats, masks.
safety footwear).
Shattering of samples during All Eye protection to be worn
compressive strength testing. during testing.
Hazards associated with OPC Researcher PPE to be worn (as above).
NB. All existing Risk Assessments relating to the Geotechnical laboratory

remain extant.
80
Appendix 3 Ecopoints PFA
81
Appendix 4 Ecopoints GGBS
82
Appendix 5 Samples of Raw Data for the Compressive Strength Testing
The following tables show selected raw data from the compressive strength testing.
PC 10% PC 15% PC 20%

Compressive Compressive Compressive Compressive Compressive Compressive
Strain Stress Strain Stress Strain Stress
extension load extension load extension load
(mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2) (mm) (kN) (kN/mm2)

0 0 0.01 2.3E-07 0 0 0.008 1.84E-07 0 0 0.007 1.61E-07
0.5 0.004545 0.087 0.000002 0.5 0.004545 0.12 2.76E-06 0.5 0.004545 0.104 2.39E-06
1 0.009091 0.463 1.06E-05 1 0.009091 0.717 1.65E-05 1 0.009091 0.476 1.09E-05
1.5 0.013636 2.609 6E-05 1.5 0.013636 1.83 4.21E-05 1.5 0.013636 0.998 2.29E-05
2 0.018182 6.624 0.000152 2 0.018182 3.49 8.02E-05 2 0.018182 1.73 3.98E-05
2.5 0.022727 15.505 0.000356 2.5 0.022727 5.475 0.000126 2.5 0.022727 3.444 7.92E-05
3 0.027273 32.925 0.000757 3 0.027273 7.822 0.00018 3 0.027273 6.372 0.000146
3.5 0.031818 59.336 0.001364 3.5 0.031818 10.596 0.000244 3.5 0.031818 11.365 0.000261
4 0.036364 89.964 0.002068 4 0.036364 13.708 0.000315 4 0.036364 20.574 0.000473
4.5 0.040909 118.033 0.002713 4.5 0.040909 17.381 0.0004 4.5 0.040909 35.471 0.000815
5 0.045455 144.202 0.003315 5 0.045455 21.897 0.000503 5 0.045455 57.308 0.001317
5.5 0.05 164.97 0.003792 5.5 0.05 27.243 0.000626 5.5 0.05 86.041 0.001978
6 0.054545 177.027 0.00407 6 0.054545 33.588 0.000772 6 0.054545 115.226 0.002649
6.5 0.059091 182.817 0.004203 6.5 0.059091 41.629 0.000957 6.5 0.059091 142.606 0.003278
7 0.063636 186.192 0.00428 7 0.063636 55.026 0.001265 7 0.063636 167.36 0.003847
7.5 0.068182 186.85 0.004295 7.5 0.068182 75.524 0.001736 7.5 0.068182 185.306 0.00426
8 0.072727 186.486 0.004287 8 0.072727 96.898 0.002228 8 0.072727 195.407 0.004492
83
8.5 0.077273 184.853 0.004249 8.5 0.077273 116.117 0.002669 8.5 0.077273 204.197 0.004694
9 0.081818 182.43 0.004194 9 0.081818 135.197 0.003108 9 0.081818 212.43 0.004883
9.5 0.086364 181.227 0.004166 9.5 0.086364 154.178 0.003544 9.5 0.086364 220.945 0.005079
10 0.090909 178.901 0.004113 10 0.090909 171.173 0.003935 10 0.090909 229.456 0.005275
10.5 0.095455 173.8 0.003995 10.5 0.095455 185.471 0.004264 10.5 0.095455 237.869 0.005468
11 0.1 196.809 0.004524 11 0.1 246.398 0.005664
12 0.109091 215.178 0.004947
12.5 0.113636 222.341 0.005111
13 0.118182 228.311 0.005249
13.5 0.122727 232.854 0.005353
84
PFA 10% PFA 15% PFA 20%

0 0 0.009 2.07E-07 0 0 0.008 1.84E-07 0 0 0.008 1.84E-07
0.5 0.004545 0.043 9.89E-07 0.5 0.004545 0.054 1.24E-06 0.5 0.004545 0.184 4.23E-06
1 0.009091 0.293 6.74E-06 1 0.009091 0.351 8.07E-06 1 0.009091 0.26 5.98E-06
1.5 0.013636 1.099 2.53E-05 1.5 0.013636 0.851 1.96E-05 1.5 0.013636 0.477 1.1E-05
2 0.018182 2.595 5.97E-05 2 0.018182 1.55 3.56E-05 2 0.018182 0.732 1.68E-05
2.5 0.022727 4.378 0.000101 2.5 0.022727 2.238 5.14E-05 2.5 0.022727 1.088 2.5E-05
3 0.027273 7.902 0.000182 3 0.027273 3.786 8.7E-05 3 0.027273 1.486 3.42E-05
3.5 0.031818 12.767 0.000293 3.5 0.031818 7.207 0.000166 3.5 0.031818 2.011 4.62E-05
4 0.036364 17.536 0.000403 4 0.036364 12.039 0.000277 4 0.036364 3.053 7.02E-05
4.5 0.040909 21.5 0.000494 4.5 0.040909 17.814 0.00041 4.5 0.040909 4.718 0.000108
5 0.045455 24.389 0.000561 5 0.045455 22.901 0.000526 5 0.045455 7.552 0.000174
5.5 0.05 26.983 0.00062 5.5 0.05 26.54 0.00061 5.5 0.05 11.403 0.000262
6 0.054545 29.181 0.000671 6 0.054545 28.978 0.000666 6 0.054545 15.519 0.000357
6.5 0.059091 30.848 0.000709 6.5 0.059091 30.549 0.000702 6.5 0.059091 18.639 0.000428
7 0.063636 31.879 0.000733 7 0.063636 31.766 0.00073 7 0.063636 23.508 0.00054
7.5 0.068182 32.425 0.000745 7.5 0.068182 32.579 0.000749 7.5 0.068182 28.572 0.000657
8 0.072727 32.261 0.000742 8 0.072727 33.115 0.000761 8 0.072727 33.106 0.000761
8.5 0.077273 30.7 0.000706 8.5 0.077273 33.305 0.000766 8.5 0.077273 37.052 0.000852
9 0.081818 27.86 0.00064 9 0.081818 32.567 0.000749 9 0.081818 40.224 0.000925
9.5 0.086364 30.176 0.000694 9.5 0.086364 41.302 0.000949
85
10 0.090909 27.699 0.000637 10 0.090909 42.579 0.000979
10.5 0.095455 39.546 0.000909
11 0.1 38.801 0.000892
86
GGBS 10% GGBS 15% GGBS 20%

0 0 0.013 2.99E-07 0 0 0.003 6.9E-08 0 0 0.008 1.84E-07
0.5 0.004545 0.091 2.09E-06 0.5 0.004545 0.266 6.11E-06 0.5 0.004545 0.118 2.71E-06
1 0.009091 0.196 4.51E-06 1 0.009091 0.688 1.58E-05 1 0.009091 0.329 7.56E-06
1.5 0.013636 0.056 1.29E-06 1.5 0.013636 1.17 2.69E-05 1.5 0.013636 0.692 1.59E-05
2 0.018182 0.184 4.23E-06 2 0.018182 1.863 4.28E-05 2 0.018182 1.14 2.62E-05
2.5 0.022727 0.435 0.00001 2.5 0.022727 2.813 6.47E-05 2.5 0.022727 1.823 4.19E-05
3 0.027273 0.531 1.22E-05 3 0.027273 3.849 8.85E-05 3 0.027273 2.86 6.57E-05
3.5 0.031818 0.62 1.43E-05 3.5 0.031818 4.772 0.00011 3.5 0.031818 4 9.2E-05
4 0.036364 0.626 1.44E-05 4 0.036364 5.557 0.000128 4 0.036364 5.057 0.000116
4.5 0.040909 0.677 1.56E-05 4.5 0.040909 6.04 0.000139 4.5 0.040909 6.08 0.00014
5 0.045455 1.001 2.3E-05 5 0.045455 6.254 0.000144 5 0.045455 6.875 0.000158
5.5 0.05 1.395 3.21E-05 5.5 0.05 6.215 0.000143 5.5 0.05 7.327 0.000168
6 0.054545 2.104 4.84E-05 6 0.054545 5.876 0.000135 6 0.054545 7.314 0.000168
6.5 0.059091 3.055 7.02E-05 6.5 0.059091 6.961 0.00016
7 0.063636 3.887 8.94E-05
7.5 0.068182 4.606 0.000106
8 0.072727 4.922 0.000113
8.5 0.077273 4.989 0.000115
9 0.081818 4.921 0.000113
9.5 0.086364 4.591 0.000106
87
88

Mud Brick Construction PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mud Brick Construction PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alternative Methods of Stabilisation for Unfired Mud Bricks

List of Figures: ......................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables: ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8

2.0 Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................... 10

3.0 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11

4.0 Proposed Method Statement ............................................................................... 28

5.0 Method Statement .................................................................................................. 33

5.4 Compressive Strength Testing ........................................................................ 41

6.0 Results ......................................................................................................................... 43

6.2.4 Compressive Strength Testing .................................................................... 46

7.0 Sustainability Study................................................................................................ 49

8.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 56

9.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 69

10.0 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................... 71

Figure 1 - Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www.banasura.com )

Table 1 - Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009). .. 15

The aim of this individual research project is to investigate sustainable alternatives to

To achieve the aim, the following objectives will apply:

Undertake a literature review to establish the current position of research

Identify two alternatives to cement for mud brick stabilisation.

Compare the alternatives to cement for cost, ease of manufacture and

Summarize whether the cement alternatives are a viable engineering

Investigate the availability of the alternative stabilisers in the developing world

Analyze whether the alternatives will be viable in the developing world.

Recommend future research.

to do this we take a multi-pronged approach through awareness raising, advocacy,

2. A review of potential stabilisers for unfired masonry bricks.

3. Comparative study of embodied energy, cost and manufacture of selected

4. Testing procedures for the mechanical properties of masonry.

3.1.1 Mud and Earth Construction

2. Affordability All residents agreed that earthen dwellings were affordable

3. Living Conditions 8 out of 10 interviewees stated that their homes offered

Figure 1 - Examples of Earthen Architecture in India (Source: www.banasura.com)

Figure 3 - Rammed Earth Construction Underway in India (Source: www.banasura.com)

Table 1 - Types of Earth Construction Methods (adapted from UN HABITAT 2009).

1 Compressed Earth Block

6 Wattle and Daub

Figure 5 - Examples of Interlocking Blocks (Source: www.goodearthtrust.org.uk)

There are many advantages of interlocking blocks including environmental

The problem with cement stabilisation is that ICSB technology is promoted as an

Soil stabilisers are used in a variety of contexts including structural (ICSB),

1. Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS) This is a by product of the

3. Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) This is a by-product of cement manufacture quality

3.3 A Comparative Study of the Selected Stabilisers

Ser Stabiliser Embodied Energy CO2 Emissions Energy in

In conclusion, when considering embodied energy, transportation costs and financial

Ser Parameter Fired Clay Sun Baked PC Stabilised GGBS/PC Mix

3.4 Testing Procedures for the Mechanical Properties of Masonry

3.4.1 Compressive Strength Testing of Masonry

The compressive strength is determined using a compressive strength testing machine.

3.4.2 Shrinkage Testing of ICSB

3.4.3 Absorption Testing of Masonry

3.5 Key Points from the Literature Review

4.0.2 Preliminary Experiments

Get Sheltered, an EWB workshop designed to discuss various aspects of sustainable

Familiarization with hand-made mud brick construction techniques.

4.0.3 Laboratory Experiments

Laboratory experiments will be used to determine the engineering properties of mud

The following points will remain extant:

1. Clean the bedding surface to ensure even contact is maintained.

Shrinkage will be measured by the procedure detailed below:

Absorption will be measured using the procedure detailed below: