Strength and Erosion Characteristics of Earth Blocks

and Earth Block Masonry

Peter J. Walker1

Abstract: Initially, the paper describes methods currently used for strength and erosion resistance testing of earth blocks. Following this,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

an experimental study undertaken to assess the influence of test procedure and specimen geometry on strength and erosion characteristics
is presented. Cement stabilized pressed earth blocks were fabricated using different blended soils and compacted using a constant volume
manual press. The effects of specimen geometry on experimental compressive strength are described and aspect ratio correction factors for
unconfined unit strength outlined. Proposals for a unified approach to compression strength testing are also suggested. Bending strength
testing is commonly used as an indirect method of strength assessment, as it is more readily suited to in-situ quality control testing than
compression testing. The experimental correlation between compressive and bending strengths is presented. Results of compression tests
on masonry walls are also presented together recommendations for design. Finally, the influence of test method and specimen geometry
on erosion resistance and the correlation with block strength is discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:5(497)
CE Database subject headings: Erosion; Blocks; Masonry; Tests; Earth structures.

Introduction Objectives and Scope

Earthen construction has a cultural heritage dating back over
10,000 years. As a truly ubiquitous form of construction, an
estimated one third of the world’s population still live in some
form of earth building (Houben and Guillaud 1994). Renewal of
interest in earthen construction in developed countries over the
past 30 years has been stimulated by demands for more sustain-
able forms of built development. In this regard, earth construction
offers a number of environmental benefits, including lower
embodied energy levels, high thermal mass, reduced use of non-
renewable materials, and maximizing use of locally sourced
materials.
Pressed earth blocks, the subject of this paper, are formed by
compacting earth, often stabilized with cement or lime, in a mold
into preformed masonry units. Once these blocks have attained
sufficient strength, they may be laid using cement:sand or earthen
mortars. Hydraulic binders, such as cement and lime, improve
block strength, erosion resistance, and dimensional stability. Earth
blocks are often characterized in terms of their compressive
strength and resistance to rain borne erosion. However, regional,
national, and international standards vary considerably in their
approaches to testing and specifications for strength and erosion
performance of pressed blocks, providing the stimulus for the
experimental study reported in this paper.
1
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Univ.
of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. E-mail: p.walker@bath.ac.uk
Note. Associate Editor: Zhishen Wu. Discussion open until March 1,
2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on November 26, 2002; approved on
December 17, 2003. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 5, October 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN
0899-1561/2004/5-497–506/$18.00.
The objectives of the work presented in this paper were to study,
compare, and report on the strength and erosion characteristics of
pressed earth blocks and earth block masonry. Following a review
of current test procedures, an experimental program of strength
and erosion tests was completed using pressed blocks fabricated
using a manual block press and a range of different test soils
stabilized with varying cement contents. Also, the influence of
material constituents on block geometry and moisture content at
testing on strength was studied. Pressed block masonry character-
istics under uniform and concentrated compression loading were
also considered. Finally, performance of test blocks under accel-
erated erosion tests were studied and compared with other mate-
rial characterization tests. Experimental results and conclusions
are presented in this paper, together with recommendations for
strength and erosion testing.
Review of Test Procedures for Pressed Earth
Blocks
Compressive Strength
In general, compressive strength testing procedures for earth
blocks follow those developed for fired clay and concrete ma-
sonry units (ASTM 1984; British Standards Institution 1985;
Standards Australia 1997). Individual specimens are tested in
uniaxial compressive stress in a concrete cube testing machine or
similar device. Load is applied steadily at between around 5 and
50 MPa/ min until failure. Compressive strength of each speci-
men is derived from the maximum load and original gross cross-
sectional area. In preparation, specimens may be capped with
mortar or plaster, but more commonly are sandwiched between
thin 共3 mm兲 sheets of plywood. Platen restraint effects may be
taken into account by applying a geometrical correction factor to
provide an “unconfined” compressive strength resistance for each

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 497

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 specimen (Krefeld 1938; Middleton 1992; Walker and Standards
Australia 2002). Specimens may be tested dry (ambient or oven)
or, if stabilized, wet (saturated surface dry) after overnight. im-
mersion in water. Either way, the moisture content at testing has a
significant influence on compressive strength. Typically, a mini-
mum five specimens are tested for any randomly selected sample.
In a departure from the general approach outlined above, Olivier
et al. (1997) proposed a compressive strength test procedure in
which specimens comprise two cut half-blocks stack bonded
using earthen mortar. The rationale for this approach is to repli-
cate cylinder compressive strength results of like material, though
results of recent tests have called into question the proposed pro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cedure (Walker 2000).
Modulus of Rupture
Modulus of rupture has little direct bearing on suitability for most
pressed earth block applications, though, like compressive
strength, it can be a useful indicator of overall quality. Typically,
tests comprise individual blocks simply supported across two sup-
ports and subject to transverse (typically central point, third point,
or uniformly distributed) loading (ASTM 1987; Walker and Stan-
dards Australia 2002). Spans are typically 50– 100 mm less than
the total block length. Loading is applied steadily to failure at
between 2 and 6 kN/ min. Unlike compression, flexural strength
testing is suited to both the laboratory and, more importantly for
quality assurance, fieldwork. While in the laboratory, transverse
loading is readily delivered using hydraulic or screw thread jacks,
for field testing loading may be provided using total dead weight
or through a lever-arm setup. Though specimens should be ran-
domly selected for testing, those with obvious defects likely to
significantly influence the test result, such as shrinkage cracking,
should be rejected and replaced in the sample. Some current re-
search work on going at ENTPE in France has recently called into
question the assumption of simple bending theory generally used
to determine modulus of rupture, because of the relative depth to
span ratio of single blocks in bending.
Erosion
At present, there are a large number of different test procedures
available to assess erosion resistance of earth blocks (Walker
1998). Broadly speaking test procedures can be defined either as
water-spray (Walker and Standards Australia 2002), water-drip
(Weisz et al. 1995), or wetting and drying cycles (ASTM 1989).
All seek to reproduce over a few minutes, hours, or days, rain
borne deterioration that may occur over many years. However,
given the difficulties in replicating long-term decay in a simple
and quick test, combined with somewhat arbitrary pass–fail crite-
ria, it is not surprising that erosion testing and associated regula-
tory requirements remain a contentious area in the field of earthen
construction. Two of the most common tests have been used for
this paper and are described below.
ASTM standard D-559 (1989) describes a wetting and drying
erosion test originally developed for cement stabilized road ma-
terial. Maximum weight loss requirements for blocks were devel-
oped separately (Fitzmaurice 1958), though limiting total mass
reduction to only 5% or 10% is considered by some overly re-
strictive. Test specimens are subjected to 12 48-h wetting and
drying cycles, comprising 5 – 6 h of immersion in water, followed
by 42 h of oven drying at 70° C. After drying, each surface of the
specimen is subjected to two complete strokes from a wire scratch
brush. Vertical brush strokes are applied to all surfaces with a
498 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.
constant downward force of approximately 15 N. The scratch
brush is comprised of 50⫻ 1.6 mm flat 0.40 mm wire bristles,
arranged in 50 groups of 10 bristles each, mounted in five longi-
tudinal rows, and 10 transverse rows on a moulded plastic handle
190 mm⫻ 64 mm. On completion of the 12th cycle, samples are
oven dried at 105° C to constant weight. Erosion performance is
expressed as a percentage of dry mass reduction relative to the
original mass.
Water spray testing may be considered as a more direct repli-
cation of rainfall borne erosion. The Australian earth building
handbook (Walker and Standards Australia 2002) outlines a
method in which individual specimens are subject to a continuous
pressurised water spray for 60 min or until the block is com-
pletely penetrated. Erosion performance is measured in terms of
rate of pitting depth. Water pressurized at 50 kPa is delivered
though a horizontally mounted nozzle. Specimens are mounted in
the rig in the same orientation as proposed for wall construction.
A shield ensures that only a limited area of block face is subjected
to the water spray. During testing, the spray may be stopped every
15 min to assess performance. The depth of pitting is measured
using a 10- mm diameter flat-ended rod. The erosion rate is ex-
pressed as the pitting depth (mm) per minute (of exposure). Ero-
sion rates less than 1 mm/ min is generally required for external
walls in noncyclonic areas of Australia.
Materials
All experimental blocks were produced using soils manufactured
to suit grading and plasticity requirements by blending together in
differing proportions building sands with either powdered kaolin
(china) clay (soils type I) or natural residual clay soils (soils type
II and III). Mix proportions, grading, and Atterberg characteristics
of these soils are outlined in Table 1. In using blended soils, rather
than wholly natural soils, allowed greater control over important
experimental parameters such as grading, and minimizes the in-
fluence of extraneous constituents such as organic matter content.
Blending materials to achieve desired properties is a commonly
employed technique of earthen construction (Houben and Guil-
laud 1994). The building sands, suitable for masonry mortar, were
obtained from building suppliers, while the powdered kaolin was
supplied by a commercial minerals company, and the residual
clay soils were taken from borrow pits located in northern New
South Wales, Australia (soil II), and Harare, Zimbabwe (soil III).
Portland cement was used throughout for stabilization.
Pressed earth blocks were manufactured using all six soils
listed in Table 1, which were stabilized by adding up to 10%
cement by mass. Soil-based mortars using soils IIb and III, stabi-
lized with 5% and 4% cement, respectively, were used to con-
struct blockwork prisms and walls. In addition, a conventional
1:3:12 (cement:lime:building sand) mortar was used for some of
the blockwork prisms. In all mortar mixes, sufficient water was
added to the dry materials to achieve the required workability.
Experimental Program
Prior to mixing, the natural soil constituents for block production
were prepared by initially air drying and screening to remove
particles exceeding 5 mm. Clods of dried clay soil were broken
down manually or using a wacker-plate compactor. After weight
batching, the dried aggregates were then thoroughly mixed to-
gether in a paddle mixer prior to addition of the cement. For block
 Table 1. Soil Characteristics
Soil Ia Soil Ib
Property (0.9:0.1)a (0.7:0.3)a
Grading (by mass)
Fine gravel fraction (2–6 mm) (%) 0 0
Sand fraction (0.06–2 mm) (%) 78 62
Silt fraction (0.002–0.06 mm) (%) 11 14
Clay fraction (⬍0.002 mm) (%) 11 24
Atterberg limits
Liquid limit 19 22
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Plasticity index 7 13
a
Ratio of building sand:kaolin clay by dry mass.
b
Ratio of building sand:natural soil by dry mass.
production, water was gradually added to the dry mix sufficient to
attain the soil’s optimum moisture content, as determined from
standard Proctor testing (ASTM 1982). Though block compaction
is static, rather than dynamic, Proctor has been used as a simple
and widely recognized reference for material characterization; ex-
perience indicates a close correlation with the static press opti-
mum moisture content as well. Wet mixing was undertaken for a
further 2 min after the addition of water. All blocks were com-
pacted within 30 min of completion of mixing; any excess mate-
rial was discarded. Wet mixing of the mortars was stopped after
60 s, whereupon the wet mix was covered and left to stand for
10 min, and thereafter mixing recommenced for a further 60 s
prior to use (Standards Australia 1984).
All experimental blocks were compacted using a manually op-
erated press capable of delivering 2 MPa static pressure under
normal operation. Nominal block dimensions, varied by altering
mold size and ram stroke, included 295⫻ 140⫻ 120 mm 共length
⫻ width⫻ height兲, 295⫻ 140⫻ 90 mm, 295⫻ 140⫻ 45 mm, and
225⫻ 110⫻ 80 mm. Additional smaller scale blocks were either
pressed directly by inserting spacers and dividers into the main
mold or cut from full-size units. The compactive pressure of the
press was carefully controlled throughout all production. To
achieve uniformity fresh materials were carefully weight batched
into the mold prior to compaction. All blocks were pressed solid
without perforation or recess.
After compaction, the blocks were immediately extruded from
the mold and carefully stacked for curing. Cement stabilized
blocks were moist cured under polythene sheet for 28 days before
preparation for testing. The unstabilized blocks were air dried in
the laboratory until testing. A total of 16 different block samples
were prepared for the experimental program; Table 2.
Block dimensions, (oven) dry density, uniaxial compressive
strength, modulus of rupture, wetting and drying, and accelerated
spray erosion were determined using a representative sample of
five specimens for each test. Wherever possible, recognized na-
tional standard test procedures were followed. Individual block
compressive strengths were measured by crushing specimens in
their normal aspect sandwiched between two 3-mm thick ply-
wood sheets (Walker and Standards Australia 2002). Compressive
stress was applied continuously and without shock up to a failure
at a rate of 3.5 MPa/ min. Modulus of rupture was determined
from testing individual blocks in their normal aspect under three-
point loading. Strength testing was undertaken on both wet
samples, which had been immersed in water for 24 h, and dry
samples, which had been oven dried to constant mass and cooled
in a dessicator. Erosion resistance of individual blocks was deter-
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 499
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.
Soil Ic Soil IIa Soil IIb Soil III
(0.6:0.4)a (0.8:0.2)b (0.6:0.4)b (0.6:0.4)b
0 8 13 14
56 77 63 58
16 4 4 7
28 11 20 21
30 22 27 35
16 Nonplastic 7 20
mined in accordance with both the ASTM D 559 (1989) and the
accelerated spray test described above (Walker and Standards
Australia 2002).
Earth block masonry prisms were constructed to assess perfor-
mance in compression and under accelerated erosion testing.
Compression strength testing comprised both uniaxial and con-
centrated load tests. Prisms were built using both earthen and
conventional cement:lime:sand mortars; block and mortar mix de-
tails are given in appropriate tables of test results. To study the
effects of block geometry on uniaxial compressive strength the
prisms shown in Fig. 1(a) were used. Using full-size blocks (soil
III), a total of five prisms were built for uniaxial tests, Fig. 1(b),
and 55 walls for concentrated load tests, Fig. 1(c). Stack-bonded
prisms, comprising just two blocks with a single mortar bed joint,
were also assembled for a series of erosion tests. All prisms were
cured under a polythene sheet and tested after at least 28 days
from construction in an air-dried condition. The prisms and walls
were all loaded through 40-mm thick steel plates, placed fully
across the width of each wall. All specimens were capped with
3-mm thick plywood sheeting, except for the upper strip load
steel plates in the concentrated load tests, which were bedded
directly onto the walls using dental plaster. Loads were applied
using hydraulic jacks mounted inside a reaction frame and moni-
tored using a load cell. In the concentrated tests, the strip loads
were applied both centrally and on edge, with nominal loaded
area ratios of 6.7%, 10%, 16.7%, 33%, and 67%.
Results
Block Compressive Strength
A program of full-size and small-scale block tests were under-
taken to determine the influence of block geometry and, to a
lesser extent, constituent materials and moisture condition on ap-
parent compressive strength. Experimental results, representing
five specimens for each sample, are summarized in Table 2. The
mode of failure in uniaxial compression was similar to that com-
monly observed in standard concrete cube tests, with the onset of
failure corresponding to the development of a familiar hour-glass
shape following spalling of the vertical sides of the block. This
failure was consistent irrespective of material mix, specimen size,
or moisture condition at testing.
For constant compactive effort, block compressive strength is
a function of cement content. Both dry, and, in particular, wet
strengths are improved by increasing cement content (soil type Ic,
 Table 2. Block Compressive Strengths
Wet compressive Dry compressive
Static Dimensions Dry density strength strength
Cement compaction (mm) 共kg/ m3兲 (MPa) (MPa)
Soil content pressure
type (%) (MPa) Length Width Height Proctor Block Average CV (%) Average CV (%)
Ia 5 1.1 295 140 45 2000 1775 5.8 2.5 16.0 4.7
1.1 295 140 96 2000 1851 4.4 5.3 10.2 5.4
1.1 294 140 125 2000 1829 3.9 5.4 8.5 9.5
1.1 225 110 81 2000 1851 3.8 3.8 12.8 4.7
1.8 225 110 81 2000 1914 6.4 6.3 16.7 2.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ib 5 1.8 224 110 82 1910 1980 6.6 5.1 18.3 10.6

Ic 0 1.8 219 108 80 1830 2055 — — 7.6 4.8

2.5 223 110 81 1830 1932 3.1 3.1 13.0 7.9
5 224 110 81 1830 1933 6.2 7.0 21.9 5.8
10 224 110 82 1830 2000 11.0 11.1 25.2 4.4

IIa 10 1.8 40 20 12 1883 1775 10.3 14.4 11.0 17.5

(cut blocks) 40 20 22 6.9 9.7 11.2 25.6
40 20 41 5.4 15.4 6.1 31.6
40 20 64 5.2 24.7 8.3 9.2
40 20 86 3.5 23.3 6.4 28.2
40 20 107 4.2 22.2 4.5 29.7

IIb 5 1.8 140 70 23 1873 1644 5.4 22.1 8.8 8.9

(pressed) 140 70 47 1620 1.8 20.7 4.0 15.3
140 70 77 1616 1.2 10.7 3.0 15.4
140 70 113 1567 0.6 5.0 1.4 19.7

III 4 2.0 295 140 120 1930 1817 3.3 27.2 — —

Note: CV⫽Coefficient of variation⫽(Average⫼standard deviation)⫻100%.

Table 2). As with previous studies, an increase in block compres-

sive strength with cement addition is generally quite linear
(Houben and Guillaud 1994; Walker and Stace 1997). In contrast
to previous studies (Walker 1995), there has been little or no
deterioration in strength with increasing clay content. This behav-
ior may be partly attributed to the relative increase in block den-
sity achieved with higher clay content mixes Ib and Ic. However,
the reason why the block density increased with increasing clay
content, whereas the corresponding Proctor densities for same
soils did not, is unclear. Compressive strength was also improved
by increasing compaction pressure, thereby increasing material
density (soil Ia).
Without exception dry compressive strengths exceeded the
corresponding wet value for each sample, Table 3. The reduction
in strength after soaking was typically between 40% and 75%,
though for some samples the reduction was as little as 6%, and for
the unstabilized mix it was of course complete. Interestingly, the
influence of moisture on strength was also dependent on sample
geometry (soil IIa); the influence of geometry is discussed further
below. A decrease in strength after soaking is attributed to devel-
opment of pore water pressures, a decrease in soil cohesion, and a
softening of unstabilized fines materials.
Under service conditions, earth blocks will necessarily remain
largely dry. Testing blocks in a service or even an oven-dry con-
dition would therefore seem the most logical approach. However,
compressive strength testing of individual blocks is generally un-
Fig. 1. Test specimens dertaken as a universally recognized quality control test rather

500 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Table 3. Comparison of Confined and Unconfined Compressive Strengths
Block Dimensions
(mm) Confined dry Unconfined dry
Correction factor compressive strength compressive strength
Soil type Height Width (Fig. 3) (MPa) (MPa)
Ia 45 140 0.40 16.0 6.4
96 140 0.60 10.2 6.1
125 140 0.67 8.5 5.7
81 110 0.62 12.8 7.9

IIa 12 20 0.56 11.0 6.2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

22 20 0.71 11.2 8.0

41 20 0.78 6.1 4.8
64 20 0.87 8.3 7.2
86 20 0.95 6.4 6.1
107 20 1.00 4.5 4.5

IIb 23 70 0.41 8.8 3.6

47 70 0.59 4.0 2.4
77 70 0.71 3.0 2.1
113 70 0.75 1.4 1.1

than out of a fundamental need to satisfy in-service stress condi- counted for by using “unconfined” compressive strengths, deter-
tions. Factors, such as handling, shrinkage, and durability are mined by factoring the experimental confined values in Table 2
typically more fundamental requirements for most low-rise build- with empirical height/width correction factors given in Fig. 3
ing applications. Thus, adopting compressive strength as a simple (Krefeld 1938; Walker and Standards Australia 2002). For ex-
measure of quality, then the moisture condition at testing is much ample, the former variation in compressive strengths of soil type
more easily controlled by 24 h presoaking of stabilized speci- Ia and II blocks is greatly reduced when performance is expressed
mens. Correlation between erosion and wet strength, see below, as unconfined values instead, Table 3. Remaining experimental
further supports the adoption of wet compressive strength as a variation in unconfined values is attributed to other factors, such
basic measure for quality control for stabilized pressed earth as varying density.
blocks. Minimum requirements for unit compressive strength have
A series of different block samples were manufactured using been outlined elsewhere (Walker 1996). For characteristic uncon-
soils Ia, IIa, and IIb to investigate the influence of specimen ge- fined dry compressive strength, a minimum requirement of
ometry on compressive strength. Blocks were both systematically 1.4 MPa is commonplace for lightly loaded and nonstructural ap-
pressed with varying heights or cut from full-size blocks. As ex- plications. In addition to basic structural requirements, this
pected, varying block height has had a significant influence on the strength level is indicative of sufficient integrity for general han-
apparent strength of otherwise similar samples, Table 2. The ex- dling, transportation, and wall fixing requirements. Higher unit
perimental variation in strength with specimen height is attributed
to the well known effects of platen restraint. As the block height
reduces, the frictional restraint of the end platens on specimen
deformation increases, thereby increasing apparent compressive
strength. Experimental variation in wet compressive strength with
an aspect ratio (ratio of specimen height to width) is illustrated in
Fig. 2. Strength reduction is most marked for aspect ratios less
than 2. Typically, the aspect ratio for pressed earth blocks is
around 0.5-to-1.0. Once the aspect ratio of the cut blocks ex-
ceeded 4-to-5, there was little further decrease in measured
strength.
The compressive strength behavior of pressed blocks was also
certainly influenced by a reduction in dry density. A reduction in
compressive strength with a variation in geometry may therefore
be ascribed to effects of both aspect ratio and decreasing material
density (soil IIb). This might perhaps explain the more rapid
strength decrease observed compared to the cut blocks, Fig. 2.
Although all pressed blocks were subject to constant compactive
effort, density reduction may be attributed to greater side friction
effects during compaction as specimen height increased.
For compressive strength to be a meaningful general measure
of quality control, there is an obvious need to address the influ- Fig. 2. Influence of aspect ratio on apparent block compressive
ence of specimen geometrical effects. These may be readily ac- strength

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 501

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Table 4. Block Modulus of Rupture
Wet Dry
modulus modulus
Dimensions of rupture of rupture
(mm) (MPa) (MPa)
Cement content
Soil type (%) Length Width Height Average CV (%) Average CV (%)
Ia 5 295 140 45 0.56 15.3 1.05 36.5
295 140 96 0.68 7.5 1.26 5.2
294 140 125 0.61 5.8 1.13 14.8
225 110 81 0.53 19.7 1.36 5.8
225 110 81 0.89 8.0 1.62 12.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ib 5 224 110 82 0.70 8.5 1.79 11.4

Ic 0 219 108 80 — — 1.37 7.2

2.5 223 110 81 0.33 11.6 1.19 29.9
5 224 110 81 0.44 18.3 1.49 30.1
10 224 110 82 1.59 9.4 3.58 12.0

IIa 10 295 140 125 1.08 3.2 — —

Note: CV⫽Coefficient of variation⫽(Average⫼standard deviation)⫻100%.

strengths are of course necessary when the earth block masonry is
more heavily loaded. Wet strength testing may be more generally
preferred for stabilized blocks, as it can also be indicative of
erosion resistance; a suitable minimum unconfined characteristic
value for general use is considered to be 1.0 MPa, though higher
values may of course be necessary for differing applications.
Block Modulus of Rupture Tests
Experimental values for the modulus of rupture of individual
blocks are outlined in Table 4. In line with expectations, bending
strength values typically improved with cement addition. How-
ever, unlike dry compressive strength, there was little consistent
improvement with increasing clay content, possibly as a result of
shrinkage cracking. There is significantly less variation in the
modulus of rupture, compared to confined compressive strength,
with variations in unit geometry, Table 4.
The modulus of rupture has little general direct relevance for
most earth block construction applications. However, the test has
been proposed as an alternative method of assessing strength that
is readily suited to fieldwork (Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish
1990). The experimental correlation between (unconfined) unit
compressive strength and bending strength is presented in Fig. 4.
In addition, results of some earlier experimental investigations are
also included (Catton 1952; Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish
1990; Walker 1995; Walker 1999). Although scattered, there is a
strong correlation 共R2 = 0.750兲 between the unconfined compres-
sive strength and modulus of rupture for the available data. The
scatter may be partly attributable to using data from varying test
conditions, both wet and dry. For averaged data, the bending
strength equals compressive strength/6, a linear relationship re-
ported in a number of previous studies (Catton 1952; Arman et al.
1990; Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish 1990; Walker 1995).
However, the more conservative relationship unconfined compres-
sive strength= 5 ⫻ bending strength, based on characteristic bend-
ing strength results, is proposed for purposes of indirectly predict-
ing compressive resistance. Monitoring block density during
production is also an effective and easy method of quality control.

Fig. 4. Experimental relationship between block compressive

Fig. 3. Block aspect ratio correction factors strength and bending strength

502 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Table 5. Results of Uniaxial Compression Prism Tests
Masonry properties
Block characteristics Wall size Mortar
Initial Compressive
Compressive Cube tangent strength (MPa)
Soil Size strength Length Width Height strength modulus Peak
type (mm) (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) Mix (MPa) (MPa) Average CV strain
IIb 140⫻70⫻23 5.4 140 70 380 Soil:cement 0.73 212 0.75 9.5 0.67
140⫻70⫻47 1.8 140 70 339 (5% cement) 304 0.68 10.9 0.74
140⫻70⫻77 1.2 140 70 347 326 0.66 7.9 0.72
140⫻70⫻113 0.6 140 70 368 462 0.43 14.8 0.59
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

140⫻23⫻23 5.4 140 70 377 1:3:12 1.46 168 0.77 21.6 0.55
140⫻70⫻47 1.8 140 70 339 (cement:lime: 196 0.65 8.9 0.58
140⫻70⫻77 1.2 140 70 347 sand) 238 0.63 9.6 0.59
140⫻70⫻113 0.6 140 70 371 382 0.42 25.7 0.55

III 295⫻140⫻120 3.3 295 140 640 Soil:cement 0.75 515 1.70 5.5 1.34
(4% cement)
Note: CV⫽Coefficient of variation⫽(Average⫼standard deviation)⫻100%.

Masonry Compressive Strength Tests ever, this unexpected result can be ascribed to a significant de-
crease in block strength with increasing height (Table 2). Indeed,
A series of small- and full-scale block prisms were tested to de-
and consistent with expected behavior, prism strength increased
termine basic characteristics of pressed block masonry in com-
as a proportion of block strength from around 35% to 95% as the
pression; test results are presented in Table 5. Behavior of the
block height increased from 23 mm to 113 mm. Peak strain val-
earth blockwork in uniaxial compression was similar to that of
ues at failure are relatively unchanged by block geometry.
fired clay and concrete block masonry. Failure in compression,
governed by interaction of the mortar and blocks, was marked by
vertical tensile cracking between 50% and 95% of the ultimate Concentrated Loading Test Results
load, proceeded by more general crushing of the prism.
Vertical cracking along the center line of each wall preceded fail-
In line with general masonry behavior, the average prism com-
ure under central strip loading. Initially, cracking was observed at
pressive strength values were consistently less than the corre-
approximately 80–90% of the maximum load. Upon further load-
sponding block values, Table 5. Masonry compressive strength
ing, diagonal cracks spreading out from edges of the plate often
varied between 34% and 96% of the corresponding unconfined
developed as well. Maximum loading corresponded with crushing
block strength. Small-scale block prism strengths were also con-
of the masonry directly beneath the load point. Results for the
sistently less than the mortar cube strengths, though the full-scale
bearing strength under concentrated loads are presented in Table
blockwork (soil III) behavior was more in-line with traditional
6. In-line with accepted masonry behavior, the bearing strength
masonry. Prism strength (soil IIb) is closely correlated with block
increased as the loaded area ratio decreased (Hendry 1981). This
compressive strength, though gain in prism strength is less
strength enhancement is attributed to the restraining effects of the
marked as block strength improves. Prism strength is changed
more lightly stressed material surrounding the load point. As well
little by mortar strength.
as the loaded area ratio, the degree of enhancement depends on
Surface compressive strains were measured across the section
of each prism at load increments up to or close to failure. Where
peak strains were not measured, values were mathematically ex-
trapolated from the prefailure stress–strain relationship. The form
of each stress–strain curve is characteristic of masonry, Fig. 5.
However, the initial tangent elastic modulus values, Table 5, were
typically only 25–50% of the value expected of similar strength
clay or concrete masonry (Hendry 1981). The peak strains, cor-
responding to maximum stress, are two to four times greater than
those reported in concrete blockwork. Both the experimental elas-
tic modulus and peak strain values, however, are comparable with
those reported elsewhere for similar materials (Zine-Dine et al.
2000).
The influence of block size on masonry characteristics was
considered as part of the experimental study. As the relative area
of mortar joints decreases, the expectation from general masonry
behavior is, for both compressive strength and elastic modulus, to
increase as block size increases relative to prism size. While ex-
perimental values for the elastic modulus follow this trend, prism Fig. 5. Typical experimental stress/strain relationship for pressed
compressive strengths decreased as block size increased. How- earth block masonry (soil type III)

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 503

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Table 6. Concentrated Bearing Strength Results Results for bearing strength under edge strip loading are also
Compressive (bearing) strength presented in Table 6 and Fig. 6. Edge bearing strengths are typi-
Loaded Mortar cally less than the corresponding central strip values. This is in-
(MPa)
area cube
line with expectations as the restraint provided by surrounding
ratio strength CV Strength
(%) (MPa) Average (%) enhancement material is only available along one side. As the loaded area ratio
increases, the values for bearing strength converge toward to
Central bearing those under central strip loading, since in both cases the state of
6.7 0.67 3.20 10.6 1.92 stress tends toward that of uniform loading. Unlike central strip
10.0 0.69 3.00 16.8 1.80 loading, the bearing strength did not increase as the loaded area
16.7 0.71 2.59 13.3 1.55 ratio decreased. For loaded area ratios less than 33%, the experi-
33.0 0.72 2.44 15.9 1.46 mental bearing strength was often less than the uniform compres-
67.0 0.68 1.70 7.9 1.02 sive strength. This is a departure from accepted behavior and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

100.0 0.68 1.67 12.1 1.00 code-based predictions would seem unsafe for small loads. To
avoid a significant reduction in bearing strength under edge load-
End bearing ing, it is recommended that the bearing length should extend at
6.7 0.73 1.32 11.2 0.79 least the full length of the masonry unit directly supporting the
10.0 0.74 1.42 23.8 0.85 load, otherwise a spreader beam should be used. However, where
16.7 0.71 1.91 5.3 1.14 concentrated edge loads are applied in combination with other
vertical loads, such as around a lintel opening, the weight of
33.0 0.73 1.49 16.4 0.89
material above will prevent edge block rotation, thereby effec-
67.0 0.73 1.80 3.7 1.08
tively enhancing load carrying above that recorded experimen-
Note: CV⫽Coefficient of variation⫽(Average⫼standard deviation)
tally. In such cases, the full code enhancement might prove ap-
⫻100%.
propriate.

the location of loading relative to edges of the wall, wall geom-
etry, and the manner of load application. Design guidelines for
conventional masonry (Standards Australia 1988) provide a gen-
erally conservative prediction of observed experimental behavior
for central bearing, Fig. 6.
The mode of failure under edge strip loading was dependent
on the loaded area ratio. As with central strip loading, vertical
cracking of the masonry was observed at 80–90% of the failure
load. For loaded area ratios less than 20%, the blocks directly
bearing the load tended to lift off from their bed joint and rotate
about the outer edge of the wall. Behavior under small edge loads
can be directly attributed to the eccentricity of the load with re-
spect to the block and the low strength and stiffness of the mortar.
Similar behavior has previously been reported for concrete block-
work using weak mortar (Arora 1988). Maximum loading gener-
ally corresponded with a sliding wedge-type failure. For loaded
areas, less than 20% wall failure was typically due to extensive
material crushing along the most heavily loaded edge.
Fig. 6. Concentrated load test results
Erosion Tests
Experimental values for ASTM wetting and drying [ASTM D 559
(1989)] and Australian earth building handbook accelerated ero-
sion test (Walker and Standards Australia 2002) results are set out
in Table 7. Of the samples tested all comfortably met the 10%
mass reduction limit of the wetting & drying test. Only the un-
stabilized sample (soil Ic) exhibited pitting damage upon comple-
tion of the accelerated spray erosion test, though the extent of
damage also comfortably satisfied the 60 mm/ h requirement of
the test.
As reported in past work (Spence 1975; Walker and Stace
1997), increasing cement content has had a beneficial effect on
erosion performance. However, whereas an increase in strength
with cement content is linear, the improvement in wetting–drying
erosion resistance is most significant at low cement content lev-
els. Block geometry has had a significant influence on wetting and
drying test performance. Erosion of blocks increased, at constant
density, broadly in proportion to each block’s surface area:volume
ratio. For example, erosion of the 225⫻ 110⫻ 81 mm blocks (sur-
face area: Volume= 0.052 mm−1) was, on average, 2.3 times
greater than identical (soil Ia) blocks measuring 295⫻ 140
⫻ 96 mm (surface area: Volume= 0.042 mm−1). As expected, ero-
sion also increased (0.7% to 2.3%) as block density decreased
共1 , 914 to 1 , 851 kg/ m3兲.
The correlation between wetting and drying performance and
unconfined block compressive strength is outlined in Fig. 7. In
addition, results from earlier studies are also included (Walker
1995; Walker and Stace 1997). Despite considerable scatter (in
part attributable to geometrical variations), there is a noticeable
trend between wet/dry erosion resistance and compressive
strength of cement stabilized blocks. Erosion performance im-
proves (nonlinearly) as wet compressive strength increases. Simi-
lar trends have been reported elsewhere for both soil–cement
(Shihata and Baghdadi 2001) and unstabilized mud blocks (Crow-
ley 1997). This correlation is hardly surprising since both strength
and erosion are strongly influenced by material characteristics,
such as grading, plasticity, density, and cement content. Adopting,
somewhat arbitrarily, 10% mass reduction as an acceptable per-

504 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Table 7. Block Erosion Test Results
Wetting and drying erosion
performance
Dimensions (% mass reduction
Cement Average accelerated spray
(mm) after 12 cycles)
Soil content erosion rate
type (%) Length Width Height Average CV (%) (mm/h)
Ia 5 295 140 45 Not tested — 0
295 140 96 1.0 21.6 0
294 140 125 0.8 29.9 0
225 110 81 2.3 17.2 0
225 110 81 0.7 23.1 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ib 5 224 110 82 0.3 26.3 0

Ic 0 219 108 80 Not tested — 9

2.5 223 110 81 1.6 12.5 0
5 224 110 81 0.3 37.4 0
10 224 110 82 0.0 — 0
Note: CV⫽Coefficient of variation⫽(Average⫼standard deviation)⫻100%.

formance indicator, the corresponding minimum wet compressive
strength requirement is approximately 2 MPa for stabilized
blocks. Alternative strength levels may be appropriate depending
on the erosion test method and required performance level. Given
the general correlation between strength and erosion performance,
there is arguably little need to undertake both types of test. Indeed
block quality may be assessed in situ by measuring bending
strength without the need for either compressive strength or ero-
sion resistance testing. Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish (1995)
have previously proposed using wet strength and linear expansion
to characterize durability performance of stabilized earth blocks.
Results of the spray-erosion tests on the masonry prisms are
outlined in Table 8. Upon construction, the mortar joints were
finished flush with the prism face. Mortar erosion rates were well
within the 60 mm/ h test requirement despite very low cube com-
pressive strengths. In light of this good erosion test performance,
it is interesting to note the time for moisture to penetrate the
mortar joint through to the back face 共110 mm兲. As mortar soil
clay content increased, the moisture penetration time decreased to
less than 1 min after the start of spray testing. Increased mortar
shrinkage with a higher clay content is a major contributory factor
to this trend, which may have important implications for materials
specification and wall design.
Summary and Conclusions
The influence of clay content on compressive strength is depen-
dent on moisture content during testing. For the samples tested in
this investigation, unit dry compressive strength improved as clay
content increased.
Wet block compressive strength is consistently lower than dry
strength for identical specimens. The ratio between wet and dry
performance was variable, depending on material constituents and
density.
Wet block compressive strength tests, combined with appro-
priate raw materials testing and selection, can provide a basic
measure of overall stabilized block quality. Precaution is required
with soil blocks containing active clay minerals, as blocks devel-
oping sufficient short-term wet strength can subsequently deterio-
rate more with cycles of shrinkage and swelling.
It is proposed that uniaxial compression testing of earth blocks
be undertaken on individual units. Specimens should normally be
capped with mortar, plaster, plywood sheeting, or similar mate-
rial. Due to platen restraint, block geometry has a significant in-
fluence on recorded compressive strength. These effects may,
however, be taken into account using established aspect ratio cor-
rection factors.

Table 8. Results of Accelerated Erosion Tests on Masonry Prisms

Mortar characteristics
Average Moisture
Cement Cube erosion penetration
Soil content strength rate time
type (%) (MPa) (mm/h) (min)
Ia 2.5 0.30 0 ⬎60
5 0.44 0 10

Ib 5 0.42 0 2

Ic 2.5 0.18 15 1
5 0.42 5 ⬍1 Fig. 7. Experimental relationship between erosion resistance and
10 0.73 0 ⬍1 block strength

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 505

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.

 Flexural testing of blocks provides a simple alternative method
to compression testing as a means of assessing quality. Bending
strength tests may be readily undertaken in-situ avoiding the need
for expensive compression testing normally undertaken under
laboratory conditions. For predictive purposes, unconfined com-
pressive strength should be taken as 5 ⫻ bending strength.
The behavior of pressed earth block masonry in compression
is similar to other masonry units, such as fired clay bricks. Ma-
sonry compressive strength varied between 34% and 96% of un-
confined block strength. Prism strength was comparatively influ-
enced little by mortar strength. In general, the stiffness of pressed
earth block masonry prisms was lower than that expected of com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
parable fired clay masonry. The tangent modulus was 25–50% of
equivalent strength fired clay brickwork and peak strains were
200–400% higher. A significant enhancement in compressive
strength under concentrated loads was recorded. The degree of
enhancement, dependent on size and position of the concentrated
load, was generally in line with other forms of solid unit masonry
walls.
For experimental blocks, erosion requirements of existing
tests, including the ASTM wetting–drying test and accelerated
erosion spray test, can be indirectly satisfied through the specifi-
cation of wet compressive strength. Erosion resistance improved
as the cement content of blocks increased.
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1982). “Standard
test method for moisture-density relations for soil-cement mixtures.”
ASTM D558-82, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1984). “Standard
test method for compressive strength of molded soil-cement cylin-
ders.” ASTM D1633-84, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1987). “Standard
test method for flexural strength of soil-cement using simple beam
with third-point loading.” ASTM D1635-87, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1989). “Standard
test method for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement mixtures.”
ASTM D559-89, ASTM, Philadelphia.
Arman, A., Barclay, R. T., Casias, T. J., and Crocker, D. A. (1990). “State
of the art report on soil cement.” ACI Mater. J., 87, No.4, 395–417.
Arora, S. K. (1988). “Review of BRE research into performance of ma-
sonry walls under concentrated load.” Proc., 8th Int. Brick and Block
Masonry Conf., Dublin, Ireland.
British Standard Institution (BSI). (1985). “British Standard specification
for clay bricks.” BS 3921, British Standards Institution, Milton Key-
nes.
Catton, M. D. (1952). “Soil-cement: A construction material.” Proceed-
ings of the Conference on Soil Stabilization, 26–57, MIT, USA.
Crowley, M. (1997). “Quality control for earth structures.” Australian
Institute of Building Papers, 8, 109–118.
506 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2004.16:497-506.
Fitzmaurice, R. (1958). Manual on stabilised soil construction for hous-
ing, United Nations, New York.
Hendry, A. W. (1981). Structural brickwork, Macmillan, London.
Houben, H., and Guillaud, H. (1994). Earth construction: a comprehen-
sive guide, IT Publications, London.
Krefeld, W. J. (1938). “Effect of shape of specimen on the apparent
compressive strength of brick masonry.” Proc. American Society of
Materials, 363–369.
Middleton, G. F. (1992). “Earth-wall construction.” Bulletin 5, CSIRO
Division of Building, Construction and Engineering, revised by
Schneider, L. M., 4th ed., Sydney.
Olivier, M., Mesbah, A., El Gharbi, Z., and Morel, J. C. (1997). “Test
method for strength test on blocks of compressed earth.” Mater.
Struct., 30, 515–517.
Shihata, S. A., and Baghdadi, Z. A. (2001). “Long-term strength and
durability of soil cement.” J. Mater. Chem., 13(3), 161–164.
Spence, R. J. S. (1975). “Predicting the performance of soil-cement as a
building material in tropical countries.” Build. Sci., 10, 155–159.
Standards Australia. (1984). “Methods of sampling and testing mortar for
masonry construction.” AS2701, Standards Australia, Sydney, Austra-
lia.
Standards Australia. (1988). “SAA masonry code.” AS3700, Standards
Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Standards Australia. (1997). “Masonry units and segmental pavers,”
A54455, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. (1990). “Field evaluation
of pressed soil-cement blocks.” Proc. 4th Int. Seminar on Structural
Masonry for Developing Countries, 168–175, Madras, India.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. (1995). “Influence of soil
composition on strength and durability of soil-cement blocks.” Indian
Concr. J., 69(9).
Walker, P. (1995). “Strength, durability, and shrinkage characteristics of
cement stabilised soil blocks.” Cem. Concr. Compos., 17(4), 301–
310.
Walker, P. (1996). “Specifications for stabilised pressed earth blocks.”
Masonry Int., 10(1), 1–6.
Walker, P. (1998). “Erosion testing of compressed earth blocks.” Proc.
5th Int. Masonry Conf., 264–268, London, U.K.
Walker, P. (1999). “Bond characteristics of earth block masonry.” J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 11(3), 249–256.
Walker, P. (2000). “Experimental studies on the compressive strength
testing of compressed earth blocks.” Proc. 12th Int. Brick and Block
Masonry Conf., 1929, Madrid, Spain.
Walker, P., and Stace, T. (1997). “Properties of some cement stabilised
compressed earth blocks and mortars.” Mater. Struct. 30, 545–551.
Walker, P. and Standards Australia. (2002). The Australian earth building
handbook, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Weisz, A., Kobe, A., McManus, K., and Nataatmadja, A. (1995). “Dura-
bility of mudbrick—Comparison of three test methods.” Proc. 4th
Australian Masonry Conf., Sydney, Australia.
Zine-Dine, K. et al. (2000). “Rheology of walls in compressed earth
blocks in uniaxial compression: Study and modelling.”Mater. Struct.
33, 529–536.