Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks PDF

CE 467 INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS
CE 467- Senior Project
INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS
From Soils to Structures
Spring 2009
Advisor:
Dr. Gregg Fiegel
Authors:
Cole Bales
Caitlin Donahue
Mark Fischer
Amos Mellbom
Tyler Pearson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................1
2. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................1
2.1 CVBT.....................................................................................................................................................................1
2.2 ICEB CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................2
2.3 ICEB PRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................2
3. - SOIL-CEMENT STABILIZATION ..................................................................................................................................3
3.1 - TYPE OF CEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................3
3.2 - CEMENT CONTENT ............................................................................................................................................4
3.3 - SOIL TYPE ...........................................................................................................................................................6
3.3.1 VISUAL-MANUAL CLASSIFICATION: ASTM D 2488 ........................................................................................6
3.3.2 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: ASTM D 422 ..............................................................................................................7
3.3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS (PL, LL, PI): ASTM D 4318 ..............................................................................................8
3.3.4 COMPACTION CURVES: ASTM 698, ASTM 1557 ...........................................................................................8
3.3.5 - DURABILITY TESTING: ASTM D 558-04, ASTM D 559-03, ASTM D 560 .......................................................9
4. MATERIALS PREPARATION.......................................................................................................................................14
4.1 INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS ...................................................................................................14
4.1.1 PRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................14
4.1.2 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................15
4.2 GROUT ...............................................................................................................................................................15
4.2.1 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................15
4.2.2 STRENGTH ...................................................................................................................................................15
4.3 CONCRETE ..........................................................................................................................................................16
4.3.1 PRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................16
4.3.2 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................16
4.4 MORTAR ............................................................................................................................................................16
i
4.5 REINFORCEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................16
5. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CURING CURVE ..............................................................................................................17
5.1 CURING ..............................................................................................................................................................17
5.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................17
5.3 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................17
5.4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................18
5.5 ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................19
6. SOAK TEST ................................................................................................................................................................20
6.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................20
6.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................20
7. CONFINED PRISM TEST ............................................................................................................................................21
7.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................21
7.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................22
7.4 ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................23
8. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH INTERLOCKING BLOCKS ...............................................................................................24
8.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................24
8.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................25
8.4 ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................25
8.4.1 BAMBOO REINFORCEMENT ........................................................................................................................26
8.4.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT ..............................................................................................................................26
8.4.3 GROUT-ONLY ..............................................................................................................................................27
9. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH NON-INTERLOCKING BLOCKS ......................................................................................28
9.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................28
ii
9.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................29
9.4 ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................29
10. REINFORCEMENT PULL-OUT TEST .........................................................................................................................30
10.1 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................................................30
10.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................30
10.3 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................................................31
10.4 ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................................32
10.4.1 STEEL REINFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................................32
10.4.2 BAMBOO REINFORCEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………...33
11. PREPARATION FOR SHEAR WALL TESTING ...........................................................................................................34
11.1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................34
11.1.1 SITE CONSIDERATION...............................................................................................................................34
11.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................37
11.2.1 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................39
11.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF AN ICEB SHEAR WALL ..........................................................................................40
11.3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................40
11.3.2 CALCULATIONS.........................................................................................................................................40
11.3.3 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................42
11.4 SHEAR WALL TESTING .....................................................................................................................................42
11.4.1 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................42
11.4.2 TEST SETUP ..............................................................................................................................................43
11.4.3 TEST PROCEDURE .....................................................................................................................................43
11.4.4 TEST RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................................44
iii
CE 467 INTERLOCKING COMPRESED EARTH BLOCKS
1. PURPOSE
The research and testing we performed has advanced our understanding of Interlocking Compressed
Earth Blocks (ICEBs) and the structural systems constructed using ICEBs. Our first step in the direction of designing
ICEB structures began with the production of a single block. We researched the different soil compositions used,
and studied their effects on strength and durability. We then experimented with these different compositions
until we achieved a balance of workability, cost-effectiveness, and compressive strength. In analyzing the
compressive strength of ICEBs within a wall system, the lateral resistance provided by block-to-block interface, and
the resistance provided at the interface between reinforced concrete and block, we will have the knowledge base
to be able to analyze shear wall test results in a more qualitative manner. The results of these tests and our
opinions on the matter will be discussed with engineers designing ICEB homes in developing countries in Southeast
Asia. As the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) we are in contact with are affiliated with Engineers Without
Borders, we plan on presenting our shear wall analysis to the Technical Advisory Committee. With the approval of
the TAC, future EWB groups could design earthquake resistant homes using ICEBs.
2. BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2004, a 9.3 magnitude earthquake was caused by under-sea subduction off the west
coast of Sumatra. A series of devastating tsunami killed more than 225,000 people in eleven countries bordering
the Indian Ocean. Indonesia was the hardest hit with an estimated overall damage of 4.5 to 5 billion dollars. The
following March, Indonesia experienced even more devastation due to a magnitude 8.7 earthquake with an
epicenter near Nias Island. This disaster prompted an international relief effort unlike any other in history.
Donations were accepted from individuals, charities, companies, entire countries, and NGOs. Among these NGOs
is the Center for Vocational Building Technology (CVBT).
2.1 CVBT
The primary goal of CVBT is to train communities to produce ICEBs and build ICEB structures.
Constructing with earth blocks is not only a good way to reduce the cost of building, but it promotes the use of
local materials and provides people with work. The blocks are made using a manual operated press so no fossil
fuels are burned as with the production of clay-fired bricks. Although production requires hard work, manual labor
is easy to come by in most developing countries. There are five different centers in affiliation with CVBT, two of
which we are in contact with. While we have gained the majority of our experience with ICEBs through our
relations with Geoffrey Wheeler, manager of the Thailand branch, our test results will be more applicable for
designing ICEB structures in Indonesia.
Vaughn Thomas, manager of CVBT in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, has provided us with useful information with
regards to block strengths and typical reinforcing patterns used. All of our test specimens were made to replicate
the compressive strength and reinforcing techniques used in Indonesia. The mix design we used for the grout and
Section: 1. PURPOSE
concrete is in accordance with Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks-Volume II. Manual of Construction. Whereas
it would be difficult to change construction practices in Indonesia, we hope to enhance the design of the structures
based on the way they are currently built.
1
CE 467 INTERLOCKING COMPRESED EARTH BLOCKS
2.2 ICEB CONSTRUCTION
Adobe bricks and compressed earth blocks have been used as construction materials for centuries. More
recently, interlocking compressed earth blocks have been used due to a few advantages they have over traditional
smooth block construction. ICEBs have male and female appendages that make them easy to stack in a line, and
holes that allow for both vertical and horizontal reinforcement. Construction is both easier and faster with ICEBs
because mortar is not used between blocks. Instead, grout is poured through holes in the blocks to form vertical
grout columns that tie the wall together. Vertical reinforcement runs from the foundation through the entire
height of the wall and is tied into the horizontal reinforcement in the top channel block. Reinforcement is spaced
in accordance to the local building practice which varies based on the seismic activity of the region.
2.3 ICEB PRODUCTION
Interlocking compressed earth blocks are composed of soil and cement. Since the desired soil properties
are difficult to attain with just one sample, a combination of soils are typically used in ratios that provide for the
strongest block. Soils that contain high amounts of gravels or clays are ground up using a soil pulverizer. These are
then sifted before being mixed with a specified percentage of cement and water. This mixture is then weighed and
placed into a manual operated block press. Once the block is pressed, the “green density” is tested with the use of
a hand held penetrometer. Weighing each “charge” before it is pressed and testing the density insures consistent
block strengths. The strength of the blocks is tested one week after production. Blocks are cured under plastic
tarps that ensure high humidity and are fully submerged in water for two days to simulate a worst case scenario
before testing the compressive strength.
Section: 2. BACKGROUND
2

3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
The practice of soil‐cement stabilization has existed for far longer than ICEBs, and its implementation in the ground
improvement realm of geotechnical engineering has proved invaluable in providing a technical, working knowledge
with which to approach the formation of ICEBs. As one would expect, an excessive number of parameters would
require defining should we expect theoretical models accurately predict the properties of a soil‐cement mixture, as
soil possesses an extent of variability found in nearly no other engineering material. According to Bergado et al.,
due “to the large number of alternatives and combinations, it is impossible to tabulate the various mechanical
properties as function of these factors, so the experimental determination is indispensable in most cases.” (p. 241)
In light of this, observation has provided some basic guidelines to the parameters which primarily dictate the
performance of soil‐cement mixtures, of which Bergado et al. notes the seven following as paramount: “Type of
cement, cement content, curing time, soil type, curing temperature, soil minerals, and soil pH.” (pp. 241‐243)
3.1 ‐ TYPE OF CEMENT
The primary concerns, as we have found, when considering which cementing agent to employ when stabilizing
blocks regard the following criteria: strength, curing time, durability and failure characteristics of the resultant
cement treated soil. In light of this, we have considered the following cement types: gypsum, calcite, lime and
Portland cement (types I, II, III, IV and V). From the studies which we have uncovered, it appears that the initial
failure of cemented soils resembles that of undrained clays, as the “shearing mechanism before yield is primarily
cohesive, with stresses mainly carried through the cement bond, with little interangular friction before yielding.”
(Ismail et al., 2002) In essence, the greater the percent of reliance upon the resulting cement matrix in the soil, as
opposed to utilizing both the matrix and frictional interfaces between the cement and host grains, the more drastic
the brittle failure. As the testing by Ismail et al. (2002) found, “Portland cement showed ductile yield and a high
level of dilation afterwards. On the other hand, calcite and gypsum‐cemented samples exhibited brittle yield and
more contraction.” Based upon the post failure response, the contractive nature of the gypsum and calcite
samples stands as a definitive marker of the soil‐cement mixture relying solely upon the brittle cement matrix,
whereas the dilation of the Portland cement sample reveals utilization of both the matrix and frictional interfaces.
Table 3.1.1 – Durability and strength performance of various stabilizers (Guettala et al., 2006)
Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
Therefore, upon the basis of failure mechanisms, we have concluded Portland cement to exhibit more desirable
engineering properties than gypsum or calcite.

3

To date, civil engineers have extensively employed Portland cement and lime as the two of the foremost
means of ground improvement via chemical processes. Each of them interacts in unique fashions with various soil
types and, though an atomic level discussion is beyond the scope of the general analysis of this discussion, we
recommend looking at the brief overview found in Appendix A. A. Guettala et al. (2006) conducted a durability
study of various cement, lime, and cement + lime stabilized bricks, and a summary of the test findings appear in
Table 3.1.1. Though the cement + resin specimens proved to possess the greatest performance characteristics, “It
is also important to note that the utilization of the resin as a protection material is not economic. It is practically
eight times more expensive than the treatment by cement.” (Guettala et al., 2006) As shown in the table, though,
per percent addition of a given treatment, cement provides the greatest increase in both durability and
compressive strength, vital to the performance fiscal feasibility of ICEBs. Fortunately, these findings combine well
with those of Broms (1986), who, for Southeast Asia, recommended cement over lime on the following bases: “the
low cost of cement compared to lime; the difficulty of storing unslaked lime in a hot and humid climate; the
greater strength which can be obtained with cement while there is a limit of maximum strength that can be
obtained with lime.” In light of these findings, cement appears to be superior to lime on the following grounds:
compressive strength, durability, economic efficiency, and ease of storage. Therefore, given the geographic
concern of this study (Thailand and Indonesia) and overwhelming evidence, the authors recommend Portland
cement over lime as a stabilizer for ICEBs.
Finally, the curing time of soil‐cement mixture must garner attention, as construction using ICEBs
commences within the first two weeks of curing. With Portland cement, typical concrete nearly reaches its peak
compressive strength at approximately 28 days into the curing process. In the presence of clayey soil, though, the
rate of this reaction changes dramatically. According to Bergado et al. (1996), “The cement hydration and the
pozzolanic reaction can last for months, or even years.” According to studies by Assarsons et al. (1974) and
Diamond and Kinter (1965), the bulk of the reactions due to lime stabilization will not commence until days after
mixing and will not reach completion until years later, as the primary reactions proceed considerably slower than
those associated with Portland cement. Once again, lime proves to be a lesser alternative, though the length of
time associated with Portland cement certainly merits a few considerations. First off, should the testing of the
bricks yield acceptable compressive strength values during early testing stages, such as 7 to 14 days, one may rest
assured that the bricks will indeed reach significantly greater strength values over the design life of the structure.
Secondly, due to the relatively concise time frame associated with ICEB construction, the ideal stabilizer will
achieve its peak strength values in the least amount of time possible. Amongst the types of Portland cement, Type
III achieves approximate peak strength values in significantly less time than Types I or II, yet sacrifices a bit in these
peak values. It remains the opinion of the authors that, although Type III Portland cement proves itself as the ideal
stabilizer of ICEBs. Despite this, Type I Portland cement provides adequate performance and, as Type III may be
difficult to obtain and somewhat less economical in some locations throughout the world, Type I Portland cement
garners our approval as a suitable stabilizer which satisfactorily meets the discussed criteria. Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
3.2 ‐ CEMENT CONTENT
In light of the prior discussions regarding the importance of identifying the properties of the soil
comprising the ICEBs, we again must reiterate the significance of that identification here. In reality, the use of an
appropriate amount of cement will in fact adequately stabilize any soil available, regardless of how poor the
engineering characteristics of the soil appear. However, such an approach negates the basic economic thrust of
these blocks. Therefore, we have sought to produce fundamental guidelines regarding the optimum cement
content per a given range of soil types.

4

As said before, theoretical models cannot replace in situ testing, but the following guidelines should
provide a fundamental basis with which to approach the cement content of the ICEB. The saturated compressive
strength of a block reveals a great deal about its performance characteristics, more so than its dry compressive
strength. At present, users conduct preliminary compressive strength testing of bricks, to ensure adherence to
standard, in the saturated state to model the supposed worst case scenario. According to Walker (1995), the
“Reduction in compressive strength with saturation can be attributed to the development of pore water pressures
and the liquefaction of unstabilised clay minerals in the block matrix.” Walker (1995) found that the relationship
between the saturated and dry compressive strengths varied based upon the cement content and the PI (Plasticity
Index) of the soil according to the following relationships:
UCS sat 1
∝
UCS dry PI
Figure 3.2.1 – Dry and Saturated Compressive Strengths versus
Cement Content (Bahar et al, 2004)
UCSsat
∝ Cement(%)
UCSdry

Along these lines, R. Bahar et al. (2004) studied the
behavior of a soil sample, containing 62% fines and
a PI of 15, when the cement content varies and the
sample is subjected to both dry and saturated
compressive testing. As found in Figure 2, the
minimum strength loss occurred at a cement
content of 10%, after which the “increase in cement
content does not give any positive effect in the wet
samples.” (Bahar et al., 2004) As seen in the graph,
the dry compressive strength of the sample
increases in a linear fashion whereas the shape of
the saturated compressive strength curve appears
to be a function of the clay content. This trend
corroborates previous findings, as the loss of
strength in the saturated state delineates from the
fact that “clays have an inherent uniaxial dry
compressive strength which is lost with saturation.”
(Walker, 1995) In light of this, we have concluded that
Figure 3.2.2 – Compressive strength characteristics for ICEBs during dry
although a specific formula relating PI or clay content and saturated strengths
to an ideal cement content oversimplifies reality, there
indeed exists an optimum cement content per given soil to minimize the apparent strength loss between dry and
saturated states.
Again, as with any other property associated with ICEBs, the effect of cement content on the durability
and shrink/swell characteristics of the stabilized soil does not exist as a function of the cement content alone, but
rather relies also upon the nature of the soil present.

5

3.3 ‐ SOIL TYPE
“Civil engineering includes the conception, analysis, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a diversity
of structures, facilities, and systems. All of them are built on, in, or with soil or rock. The behavior of this soil and
rock at the location of any project has a major influence on the success, economy, and safety of the work. Civil
engineers are also concerned with virtually all aspects of environmental control, including water resources, water
pollution control, waste disposal and containment, and the mitigation of such natural disasters as floods,
earthquakes, landslides and volcanoes. To properly deal with the earth materials associated with any project
requires knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the importance of geology, materials testing, and
mechanics. …analysis and designs are useless if the boundary conditions and material properties are improperly
defined.” (Mitchell, 1993)
In order to properly begin to treat ICEBs as a viable engineering material, one must recognize the nature of the
constituents of the blocks. Soil remains a product of environment, an engineering material which nature has
dictated the properties of. As noted by Holtz and Kovacs, “Because of the nature of soil and rock materials, both
laboratory and field testing are very important in geotechnical engineering.” (p. 4) In light of this, we have made a
concentrated effort to define the experimental materials to the fullest extent possible, given the technology in
hand.
3.3.1 VISUAL‐MANUAL CLASSIFICATION: ASTM D 2488
When looking for a soil source to use for the production of ICEBs, those at the CVBT and other places use several
basic field tests to determine the adequacy of a soil. The tests used by the CVBT are as follows: The Cigar Test, The
Biscuit Test, The Sedimentation Test, and the Shrinkage Test. Along with these tests, general observations are
made regarding the color, texture, and smell of the soil.
Our ICEB team noticed a lack of knowledge of soils amongst the personnel producing the blocks. We discussed
whether or not correlations could be achieved which related results from the field tests being used to standard lab
soils tests. An example of this would be to relate different results of the ‘Cigar Test’ to a specific PI from ASTM D
427 test. After further thought it was decided that this would be impossible to achieve because the field tests
more closely represented the ASTM D 2488 Visual Manual Method.
It would be suggested to the CVBT, along with others using the current field tests, to adopt the visual manual
method to gain a better understanding of the soil being analyzed and a more precise classification. For example
the dilatancy test in D 2488 may show if the soil’s fine grains are more silt like or more clay like, an important
characteristic of the soil. The results from D 2488’s plasticity test, which is the same as a rollout found in ASTM D
427, along with the Dilatancy and Dry Strength Test, may be used together to classify the fines of the soil being
used.

6

3.3.2 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: ASTM D 422
3.3.2.1 SAND
Throughout the course of study, we found no data relating variations in grain size distribution or particle
topography to the strength or durability properties of cement stabilized soil. Due to the nature of the composition
of the ICEBs, typical properties which would govern the characteristics of clean sand, such as particle sphericity
and roundness, will likely have little bearing on the performance of the bricks. Since the topography of particles
dictates interparticle behavior via frictional interfaces, the ability to compact and strengthen clean sand relies
heavily upon the nature of these interfaces. In the case of ICEBs, though, the large presence of clay and silt
particles tends to minimize the impact of particle angularity, as fine particles will somewhat ease the rigidity of the
frictional interfaces. In light of this, we hypothesize that particle sphericity and roundness need not be evaluated
when considering a given sand.
For typical sand, the grain size distribution dictates the
ultimate density attainable in a soil, and subsequently
the strength characteristics. The more uniform the
grain size distribution is, the higher the void ratio will
remain, whereas well graded sand will substantially
reduce the void ratio. The ramifications of this
distribution in soil‐cement blocks have yet to be
analyzed, and though clean sand relies heavily upon
the variations in grain size, we have postulated that the
effect is negligible. We arrived at this hypothesis by
considering the impact of clay particles and studying
the nature of the cement‐particle interactions in
compacted soil‐cement mixtures, which may be viewed
in greater detail in the Section 3.1. In short, we believe
that the sand‐cement matrix formed during curing will
rely primarily upon the number of sand particles present
and compactive effort. With an increasing proportion of Figure 3.3.1 – Coupled effect of void ratio and cement content on UCS
(Consoli et al., 2006)
sand particles and a higher the compactive effort, the
lower the void ratio will be and the greater soil‐cement matrix will be more confined and coupled. This analysis
corroborates the results found in Figure 3.3.1 and the findings of Consoli et al. (2000), and will be discussed in
greater detail in Section 3.3.5.2. In light of this, we concluded that performing sieve analysis on the sand simply
established a readily acknowledged parameter of the soil used in the testing, but found the grain size distribution
inconsequential in regards to ICEB performance.
3.3.2.2 CLAY
On the most fundamental level, the properties of soil blocks, and the properties of any soil deposit in general, rely
heavily upon the clay content of the given specimen. In the context of modern soil science, the term clay resides in

7

some ambiguity, as one may define clay either by particle size or mineral type. In regards to defining clay, Mitchell
states that “As a mineral term, it refers to specific clay minerals, which are distinguished by (1) small particle size,
(2) a net negative electrical charge, (3) plasticity when mixed with water, and (4) high weathering resistance.” (p.
18) The defining of clay as the range of particles smaller than 2 μm remains somewhat of a common misnomer, as
the 2 μm line may appear a bit arbitrary and indeed clay and silt particles may reside on either side of that line, but
Mitchell quickly notes that “the amount of clay mineral in a soil is often closely approximated by the amount of
material finer than 2 μm.” (18) Accordingly, for ease of testing, our findings regarding percent clay content rely
upon the simplified definition regarding size as opposed to mineral composition, but one must take into
consideration the ramifications of such decisions, noting the variability of properties available per given clay
content based on mineral composition.
We conducted a simple hydrometer analysis for both the Cal Poly Soil and the Los Osos Soil in order to establish
their clay contents. This clay content was used to establish a baseline criteria for varying compositions in future
tests, as the remaining tests rely upon fluctuating clay content to incite variability. This information may be seen in
Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.
3.3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS (PL, LL, PI): ASTM D 4318
Obviously, one cannot inherently infer engineering properties of a given soil specimen based solely upon the
approximate ratios of sand, silt and clay; therefore, in orderly to properly predict the performance of ICEBs, users
must carry forth certain basic tests to define the soil parameters. As noted earlier, the minerals comprising soil will
define its properties, especially in the case of clay soils. For example, the minerals bentonite and kaolinite will
possess varying characteristics, especially in the presence of water, as the high plasticity of bentonite will cause
significantly greater shrink/swell than kaolinite, making bentonite a highly undesirable constituent of an ICEB.
Therefore, in order to accommodate this variability, users of ICEBs must take care to identify the nature of the clay
particles present. Based upon the work of, amongst others, Walker and Tang et al., we have concluded that
although the identification of specific percent compositions per each clay mineral remains a bit superfluous for the
case of ICEBs, the identification of fundamental properties, such as the plasticity index (PI), provides necessary
insight regarding the behavior of the clay present, and, as such, must not be neglected. The information regarding
plasticity index was subsequently used in the durability test, at which time the behavior of the soil‐cement mixes
were analyzed in regards to both clay content and PI in order to establish the relational priority in reference to
ICEB performance.
3.3.4 COMPACTION CURVES: ASTM 698, ASTM 1557
Prior to commencing any analysis of the soil, we sought to establish the optimum moisture content and minimum
void ratio achievable by the ICEB press. The Modified Proctor (ASTM 1557) and Standard Proctor (ASTM 698)
provide differing compactive efforts, exerting 56,000 ft‐lb/ft3 (Modified) and 12,400 ft‐lb/ft3 (Standard) of work,
respectively. The peaks of these two curves, representing the maximum dry density attainable at a given
compactive effort, correlate to the optimum moisture. Per a given soil, one may join the peaks of these two curves
to produce a line, parallel to the zero air voids line, which will theoretically predict the optimum moisture content
at any compactive effort. In light of this, the mechanical engineering team set out to monitor the effort exerted on
the blocks during compaction via the implementation of strain gauges on the press. With defined strength

8
CE 467 INTERL
LOCKING CO
OMPRESSED EARTH BLO
OCKS

parameterrs of the constituents of the p press, the straiin gauges shou
uld theoretically provide amp ple means to
calculate the effort. Unfortunately, thee erratic inform
mation obtaineed by the strainn gauges inhibited the team ffrom
reasonablyy estimating thhe effort duringg compaction, as the team deeemed the varriability too greeat. Thus, we
completed d only the Moddified Proctor test for the obttained soil sam
mples in order tto establish a m
means of monittoring
basic soil p
properties.
3.3.4.1 R
RESULTS
AS
STM 1557: ICEB Dessign Mix
2..000
Dry Unit Weight: γd (g/cm3)
1..980
1..960
ASTM 1557:
1..940 ICEB Designn
1..920 Mix
Poly. (ASTMM
1..900 1557: ICEB
1..880 Design Mixx)
1..860
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Moisturee Content

Figure 3.3.2 – Optimum moisture content per ICEEB design mix (9.1
17% clay)
3.3.5 ‐ DU
URABILITY TEESTING: AST M D 558‐04, ASTM D 559
9‐03
“D
Different opera ators at variouss capacities ha
ave extensivelyy applied the acccelerated wea athering tests, and
opinion ap ppears to be un nanimous on th heir performan nce scale. The ttests are too aggressive, exceessively simpliffied,
fail to repliicate the actua
al environmenttal conditions, bear little pracctical correlatio
on with actual long‐term field d
performan nce and hence p provide a conservative estimate of durability. This opinio on has far reach hing effects on
n the
investigatiive approachess to the accelerrated weatheriing test. The eemerging limita ations have beccome more
apparent a as a number off soils that faileed the tests have subsequenttly performed q quite well in prractice. Houbeen and Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
Guillaud (11994) have view wed the erosioon of an exposeed wall as insiggnificant compa ared with the eerosion observved in
the tests. Undoubtedly, m many successfful earth buildinngs that have ssurvived for ceenturies would be in violation n of
the accelerrated test meth hods.” (Ogunye and Boussab baine, 2002)
First published iin 1939, and uppdated numerous times since, the wet‐dry test (ASTM D 559‐03) was
“designed explicitly for teesting the duraability of soil‐cement mixturees used for higghway pavement and airfield
constructioon.” (Ogunye aand Boussabain ne, 2002) Sincce then, the tesst has been carrried out counttless times, alo
ong
with its correlated freezee‐thaw test (ASSTM D 560), to o establish baseeline criteria fo
or the implemeentation of
adequatelyy performing soil‐cement blo ocks and walls. Unfortunately, this has not come withoutt a fair amountt of
controverssy, as the tests have almost u unanimously beeen deemed faar too aggressive, and subseq quently

9

unreasonably conservative. Testing by Guettala et al. (2004) sought to accommodate this discrepancy by
evaluating durability performance by performing both the standard ASTM D 559‐03 test and a four year exposure
of block walls, using various stabilization methods while being subjected to typical climatic conditions found in
Algeria. Unfortunately, this test did not provide grounds upon which to establish a relationship between
assessment methods, as Guettala et al. (2004) “noted that all treatments showed no signs of deterioration after 4
years in real climatic conditions.” In light of this, we sifted through several studies seeking research noting the
time rate of degradation of different soil‐cement mixes while subjected to the standard ASTM tests. Our study
uncovered no such data, and thus we carried forth our testing paying particular attention to the time‐degradation
relationship in order to establish grounds for future testing conducted in a similar fashion to Guettala et al. (2004).
It is our hope that future testing will seek to, through dimensional analysis, correlate natural, climatic weathering
rates with those found in the accelerated ASTM tests.
3.3.5.1 ‐ ASTM D 558‐04
ASTM D 558, similar to the Standard Proctor (see Testing: ASTM 698), finds the optimum moisture
content of a soil‐cement mixture for maximum dry density at a given compactive effort. The following
represents a concise outline of the testing methodology:
3.3.5.1.1 ‐ METHODOLOGY:

o Due to the inclusion of sand in the mixture (some of which will be retained upon the number 4
sieve), the appropriate test method stands as the following: Test Method B.
o Methodology of Test Method B
Sieve the dry soil sample, noting the retained material on both the No. 4 and 3”
sieves.
Separate the soil contained on the No. 4 and 3” sieves. Discard any of the sample
retained on the 3” sieve.
Saturate the soil retained on the No. 4 sieve, soaking for no less than 10 minutes.
While the No. 4 soil soaks, add the appropriately proportioned cement to the soil
passing the No. 4 sieve, mixing until uniform coloring is attained.
Take the saturated sample retained on the No. 4, surface dry the material, and then
thoroughly mix with the cement‐soil mixture.
Run the test by taking the sample and running a traditional proctor. The mold will Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
possess three layers compacted by 25 blows from a height of 12” (by the 5.5 lb
hammer).
Each subsequent soil mold should receive an increase in moisture by an approximate
2% increment. If the weighed, resultant soil sample posses less than or equal to the
amount of mass of the prior test, then optimum has been exceeded and no further
testing need be conducted.

3.3.5.1.2 ‐ RESULTS:

10

Table 3.3.1 – Optimum moisture content of soil‐cement cylinders as obtained via ASTM D 558‐04
PI ↓ Clay ↓ Optimum Moisture Content Maximum Dry Density (γd, max - g/cm3)
0.00 5.56% 11.00% 1.925
8.92 9.17% 12.00% 1.845
7.42 16.67% 13.75% 1.860
10.81 22.22% 13.50% 1.790

3.3.5.2 ‐ ASTM D 559‐03
3.3.5.2.1 ‐ PREDICTIONS:
According to the wealth of research conducted, the near unanimous findings states that “block
compressive strength, drying shrinkage, and durability are improved by increasing cement content and
impaired by increasing clay content.” (Walker et al., 1997) In light of this, we came into the study confidently
expecting the final performance analysis of our specimens to relate accordingly, with increasing clay content
(and inherently increasing PI) necessitating a drop in durability. The primary reason for this relationship derives
from the increase in void ratio/decrease in dry density associated with an increase in clay content/PI (see Table
3.3.1). Studies have strongly demonstrated a direct relationship between specimen density and compressive
strength, (Consoli et al., 2006; Consoli et al., 2000; Huang & Airey, 1998) and Consoli et al. (2000) made the
following assessment: “As the density increases with increasing curing stress, the cemented soil becomes
stiffer, more resistant, and dilatant. The authors believe that, as well as the obvious effect of void ratio
reduction, there is an increase in the quantity of cementation bonds formed, since the number of interparticle
contacts is likely to increase with increasing density…” Based on this information, we believe that the
durability of the soil‐cement cylinders will decrease with decreasing dry density. However, the nature of the
relationship between time, degradation and clay content should not be expected to follow a clear trend.
3.3.5.2.2 ‐ METHODOLOGY:

o This test will require a period of approximately 28 days to complete. Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
o Methodology of Test B
Compact soil at optimum using methodology of Test B from D 558‐03.
In order to obtain optimum, consider the following:
• Measure the total weight of the soil sample to be used (following
oven dry).
• Add the equivalent of 1% beyond optimum in water content to the
separated sample retained on the No. 4.
• Thoroughly mix the separated soils together. During this time,
some of the excess moisture will be lost, and the sample should fall
at approximately optimum.
Per given composition, compact two soil samples (each at optimum).

11

Identify each sample as either sample CC (control cylinder) or sample SC (scratch
cylinder). On sample SC, also record the necessary identification marks for future
measurements.
Determine the average diameter and height of sample CC (in order to calculate
volume).
Place the specimens in the curing room for a period of 7 days.
After the 7 days, submerge the soil samples in water for 5 hours. Record the mass
and measurements of sample 1 (water content and volume change specimen).
Place both specimens in an oven at 160°F for 42 hours. Record the mass and
measurements of sample 1 following oven dry.
After recording the mass of sample SC, take a wire brush, scrub the lateral surface 2x
per given section and scrub the ends 4x per given section. Following scrubbing,
again record the mass of sample 2.
After 12 cycles of this process (a period of 48 h each), dry the specimens to a constant
mass by placing in an oven at 230°F and record the mass.
o Follow the standards provided in the tables found on p. 37 of the ASTM testing manual for
reporting findings.
1) 42 hour oven dry 2) Mass

(160 ℉) 3) Scratch
6) Mass
4) Mass
5) 5 hour soak

Figure 3.3.3 – Typical Cycle for Scratch Cylinders (ASTM D 559‐03)
1) 42 hour oven dry
(160 ℉) 2) Mass 3) Measurements
6) Measurements
5) Mass
4) 5 hour soak

Figure 3.3.4 – Typical Cycle for Control Cylinders (ASTM D 559‐03)

12

3.3.5.2.3 ‐ RESULTS:
The following represent an example of our findings. Due to the massive amounts of data obtained, a thorough
presentation may be found in Appendix A:
ASTM D 559-03: Scratched Cylinders

22.00%
21.00%
20.00% Clay Content =
Total Mass Loss (%)
19.00% 5.56%
17.00% 9.17%
15.00% 16.67%
13.00% 22.22%
12.00%
0 5 Cycle Number 10 15

Figure 3.3.5 – Total Mass Loss of Scratched Cylinders In Time (ASTM D 559‐03)
3.3.5.2.4 ‐ DATA ANALYSIS:
As expected, the durability performance of the cylinders hinges indirectly upon the PI/clay content of the soil, with
no clear distinction as to which is of greater importance. This apparent ambiguity relates to the fact that PI and
clay content only indirectly relate to performance, rather than the direct correlations assumed by the void ratio
and dry density. In short, this study has found that the minimum feasible clay content, so as to still allow ease of
handling and aesthetic acceptability, ought to be used to ensure optimum performance. Unfortunately, the time
rate of degradation of the blocks appears very difficult to accurately model in a precise, accurate fashion. Should
future teams seek to develop this realm of testing, we recommend paying particular attention to the following:
o Obtain finer measuring instruments (i.e. calipers)
o Place batch of 12 soil‐cement cylinders in climatic conditions through the course of 6 months
(preferably November through April; 3 per given composition, 4 compositions)
o Create 16 extra cylinders per given composition for compressive strength testing throughout
the accelerated test under the following conditions (per composition):
Place 4 cylinders in the curing room – Control Samples (CS) Section: 3. – SOIL‐CEMENT STABILIZATION
Subject 8 cylinders to accelerated test (ASTM D 559‐03, no scratching) – Weathered
Samples (WS)
Run unconfined compressive strength after every three cycles (1 CS, 1 WS following
24 hour soak – 5 hour soak of cycle + take measurement + remaining 19 hour soak, 1
WS following 19 hour dry – 5 hour soak of cycle + take measurement + remaining 19
hour dry)
o Also, if possible, we recommend testing using fiber reinforcement in 1 set of cylinders. As
expected, a study by Tang et al. (2007) found fiber reinforcement to improve the strength and
ductility of soil‐cement mixtures, and we feel that applying this technology to ICEBs would be
of great benefit. As of yet, no testing has monitored the durability performance of fiber
reinforced soil‐cement mixtures, though this would stand as a fundamental first step to
advancing ICEBs as acceptable building materials.

13
4. MATERIALS PREPARATION
4.1 INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS
4.1.1 PRODUCTION
1. Pulverize and sieve clumpy soils.
2. Measure the soil and cement amounts according to the composition specified. See Table 4.1
3. Mix dry composition thoroughly, add water, and continue mixing until all the soil is evenly hydrated.
4. Weigh each “charge” before manually pressing into a block.
5. Remove the block from press and stack close together. Soak the blocks with water one to two hours after
pressing.
6. Move blocks to curing chamber one day after production. Make sure the blocks stay out of direct sunlight
to prevent drying.
1 2 3
Section: 4. MATERIALS PREPARATION
4 5 6
Figure 4.1- Brick Production Process
14
4.1.2 COMPOSITION
Table 4.1- Batch Composition
Blocks
*One mixed batch produced 8 blocks with a small amount of mix remaining.
Material Mass % of
(kg) Total
Soil 47 68%
Sand 10.8 16%
Cement 3.7 5%
Water 7.9 11%
Total 69.4 100%
4.2 GROUT
4.2.1 COMPOSITION
Table 4.2- Grout Composition
Grout
*The grout composition was based on the specifications recommended in
Material Mass % of
the CVBT construction manual.
(kg) Total
Sand 12.69 57%
Cement 3.1 14%
Water 6.55 29%
Total 22.34 100%
4.2.2 STRENGTH
Table 4.3-Grout Strength Section: 4. MATERIALS PREPARATION
Specimen Max Strength

Load (psi)
(lbs) *The grout was considerably weaker than ASTM standards due to the
1 4802 1200.5 amount of hydration required for workability.
2 5704 1426
3 4973 1243.25
4 4187 1046.75
5 3071 767.75
AVG 4547.4 1136.85
15
4.3 CONCRETE
4.3.1 PRODUCTION
We mixed the concrete in a powered mixer on 4/16/09 according to the composition laid out in the CVBT Manual
of Construction for Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks. Concrete was allowed a full 28 days to cure before
testing.
4.3.2 COMPOSITION
Table 4.4-Concrete Composition
Concrete
Material Mass % of
(kg) Total *The mixture used was Type II / IV cement.
Sand 1 6%
Cement 2.54 16% *Fine aggregates were collected from the gravel bins near Building 13.
Gravel 4.23 27%
Water 7.9 50%
Total 15.67 100%
4.4 MORTAR
The mortar used to bond the non-interlocking compressed earth blocks for the lateral shear test was Quickcrete
Type M. We allowed the mortar to cure for 28 days before testing.
4.5 REINFORCEMENT
BAMBOO--The bamboo reinforcement was prepared by splitting seasoned culms into ¾ “ strips. The strips were
then waterproofed using silicone spray.
STEEL--The steel reinforcement was #3 deformed rebar.

Section: 4. MATERIALS PREPARATION
16
5. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CURING CURVE
5.1 CURING
The blocks cured in the shed for a day and then cured under a clear tarp with containers of water for the
remainder of the time before testing.
5.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE
We performed the compressive strength test of the blocks for the curing curve on the SATEC machine in the
Advanced Materials Lab on the Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo campus. The machine loaded the blocks at a rate of 330
psi/min. The compression test was set up as seen in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Compressive Strength Test Set-Up Procedure
Section: 5. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CURING CURVE

5.3 PURPOSE
We performed this test to measure the strength gained by the block as a function of the time it is cured. This
information can be used for construction purposes to determine how soon after block production that the blocks
can be placed in the wall. This test also gave us an idea of how the compressive strength and mode of failure of a
single block compares to a block system (see Section 7).
17
5.4 RESULTS
Table 5.1-Compressive Strength Test Data
28 Day Curing Curve

1000
900
Compressive Strength (psi)
800

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (Days)
Figure 5.2-Curing Curve
18
Figure 5.3 Curing Chamber Data

5.5 ANALYSIS
The blocks gained compressive strength similarly to concrete, gaining more strength in the initial days but gaining
strength indefinitely over the 28 day period where it is assumed to be at full strength. The failure mode of a single
block in compression was a conical break where the sides form an hourglass shape as shown in Figure 5.4. As seen
in Figure 5.3, the temperature and humidity varied significantly which probably had an adverse effect on the curing
and strength of the blocks.
19
Figure 5.4-Failure Mode of a Single Block
6. SOAK TEST
6.1 PURPOSE
This test is used in the field according to CVBT construction practices to simulate the worst-case scenario. We
performed the soak test to get an idea of the compressive strength of our blocks compared with the strengths that
are typical in the field.
The blocks were cured in the curing chamber for 5 days and then submerged in water for 2 days before they were
tested. The compressive strength testing followed the same procedure as the curing curve compressive test (see
Section 5.2).
6.3 RESULTS
Table 6.1-Soak Test
The average block compressive strength was in the range of 1.7-2.2 MPa expected in CVBT construction practices.
6.4 ANALYSIS
Blocks failed in the same manner as for the compressive strength curing curve test (see Section 5.5).
Section: 6. SOAK TEST
20
7. CONFINED PRISM TEST
7.1 PURPOSE
According to ASTM C1314-07, this test provides a means of verifying that masonry materials used in construction
result in masonry that meets the specified compressive strength. As we found, the compressive strength is
significantly reduced when the aspect ratio is decreased. This is important when analyzing the compressive
strength of a wall system.
We stacked three blocks vertically and placed wooden forms on either side and on the bottom, then poured and
tamped grout down the holes. The prisms consisted of fully-cured blocks. The grout for these blocks was poured
on 4/13/09. The test was done on the SATEC machine in the Advanced Materials Lab on 5/11/09. The machine
was used to load the blocks at 330 psi/minute and was set up as shown in Figure 7.1.
Plaster filled the gaps in the plate

and helped to distribute load to the
grout columns
Wood forms provided confinement

to simulate the blocks being in a
wall
Figure 7.1-Confined Prism Test Set-up
Section: 7. CONFINED PRISM TEST
21
7.3 RESULTS
Table 7.1-Confined Prism Test
Confined Prism Test

450
400
350
300
Stress (psi)
250 Grouted 1
200 Grouted 2
150
Grouted 3
100
Non-Grouted
50
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Strain (in/in)
Figure 7.2-Stress vs. Strain Graph for Confined Prism Test

22
7.4 ANALYSIS
The average was 374 psi for the prisms with grouted columns and the for the non-grouted sample was 324
psi; the average was 874 psi. Correlating the strengths of the prism and individual block compressive strengths:
= the compressive strength of the prism
= the compressive strength of an individual block
According to Jaafar, et al. in Strength correlation between individual block, prism, and basic wall panel for load
bearing interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry, the correlation between the compressive strength of a
prism and the compressive strength of an individual block is (p. 492). Our tests specimens had more
of a strength reduction than Jaafar’s test results despite the fact that his test specimens had a slenderness ratio of
4 in comparison to our specimen’s slenderness ratio of 2. The reason for this strength reduction could be due to
the failure mechanism of the blocks splitting in half. As can be seen in Figure 8.3, the grout columns may have
acted as wedge and split the blocks in half. Grout and the compressed earth blocks most likely have different
Poisson’s ratios and therefore deform differently under stress. Typically, grout has a higher Poisson’s ratio, thus
greater expansion would occur under equal loading. The different expansion rates would cause stress between
the grout columns and block and cause the block to fail. Also, it is clear that the bond between the grout and the
blocks was weak enough that the two materials supported the load independently and did not work as one
cohesive unit. Therefore the mode of failure was through the weakest plane, the center of the block where the
grout holes and reinforcement holes are located. The dry stack specimen, which involved 3 blocks stacked without
any grout, had a reduced strength of 13% compared to the average strength of the prism test with the grouted
columns. However, only one sample was tested for the dry stack.
Figure 7.3-Failure Plane of Confined Prism Test
23
8. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH INTERLOCKING BLOCKS
8.1 PURPOSE
Through this test, we looked to find the difference in the lateral shear resistance of blocks with different
reinforcement. We tested specimens reinforced with #3 ribbed rebar, silicone-treated bamboo, and unreinforced
specimens which consisted of grout in the two reinforcing holes.
We stacked fully cured blocks and prepared them as shown in Figure 8.1.
For steel and bamboo reinforced samples, one

of the reinforcing holes has concrete and
reinforcement while the other hole does not.
Grout holes are filled for each of

the tests
Section: 8. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH INTERLOCKING BLOCKS

Figure 8.1-Lateral Shear Test Specimen
We tested the specimens on 5/13/09 with the SATEC machine in the Advanced Materials Lab on the Cal Poly, San
Luis Obispo campus. The test was setup as shown in Figure 8.2 and conducted at a loading rate of 2000 lb/min.
Straps are ratcheted to a snug fit

(approximately uniform tension for each test
for each of the lateral shear tests to provide
confinement and simulate gravity loads on the
blocks
Steel plates allow the middle block to move

relative the top and bottom blocks
Figure 8.2-Lateral Shear Test Set-up 24

8.3 RESULTS
Table 8.1-Lateral Shear Test
8.4 ANALYSIS
As expected, steel had the highest lateral force resistance. In one of the grout-only specimens, the bottom block
fully utilized the dowel as seen in Figure 8.3, but many of the failure planes went above the dowels altogether,
raising the question of whether the interlocking mechanism significantly increases the block-to-block interface
shear resistance. By far the most common failure plane for not only the lateral shear test but also the prism test
was failure through the dowel holes and reinforcement holes as seen in Figure 8.6. This failure plane has only
67.5% of the soil cross-sectional area of the block portion without the holes. Because the mode of failure is
through the weak plane of the blocks, the most efficient method to increase the lateral resistance and more fully
utilize the concrete and reinforcement is improve the strength of the block along its failure plane. This can be done

by increasing the strength of block by increasing the cement content or improving the soil properties. An
alternative method would be to increase the cross-
sectional area of the block along the failure plane.
This could easily be done in the field by removing one
of the hole inserts in the press and adding the soil
needed to keep the same block density. By having
only one reinforcing hole, which is the most used by a
single block in the field except in a column
application, the cross-sectional area of the failure
plane would increase by 11.7% - from 810 cm2 to 905
cm2. Further testing should be done to test how much
this increases the lateral strength and the
compressive strength of the blocks.
Figure 8.3-Failure of Dowel
25
8.4.1 Bamboo Reinforcement
The concrete split away from the bamboo as

show in Figure 8.4. From the figure, it appears
that the bond between the concrete and the
bamboo was not very strong. See the pull-out
test analysis for more information on this. The
expansion and contraction of the bamboo due
to moisture and/or temperature differences
could have cause the concrete to crack, which
would have made the concrete weaker than it
would have been had there been no bamboo
reinforcement at all. We did not test
specimens filled solely with concrete in the
reinforcement holes, but it is possible that the
concrete without bamboo reinforcement would
have been stronger due to the cracking caused
Figure 8.4-Failure Path of Bamboo Specimen
by the bamboo. In order to get an idea of how
much shear resistance the concrete provided,
we used the following equation assuming .
= resistance of concrete in pounds
= compressive strength of concrete (psi)
= cross sectional area of concrete (in2)
This gives a value of about 700 lbs of resistance, which puts the grout-only specimens in the same failure range as
the bamboo specimens. This raises the question of how effective bamboo is as a reinforcing material. If bamboo
is not treated properly, it can do more damage than good because of its shrinkage and swelling properties.
26
8.4.2 Steel Reinforcement
The steel test specimens could take a significantly higher load than the bamboo, which had the same shear area.
The steel resisted a load 46% greater than that of the bamboo. The steel to concrete bond was strong enough that
the steel did provide some of the lateral resistance, bending as
seen in Figure 8.5. This suggests that the rebar is somewhat
effective as a reinforcement material and has more shear
resistance than the specimens without rebar. As seen in Figure
8.6, the blocks fail by splitting in half, and the concrete- to-block
interface is weak, failing along that plane.
Figure 8.5-Bent Rebar Figure 8.6-Split Blocks
8.4.3 Grout-Only

The grout-only specimens had the lowest lateral shear resistance but did not have the shear resistance of the
concrete as both the bamboo and steel reinforced specimens did.
Figure 8.8-Crushing of Dowels in Grout-Only Specimen

Figure 8.7-Failure Plane of Grout-Only Specimen
27
9. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH NON -INTERLOCKING BLOCKS
9.1 PURPOSE
The non-interlocking blocks were made using the same materials and methods but did not have the grout holes,
reinforcement holes, or interlocking dowels. We made these blocks to simulate adobe-style compressed earth
blocks that use mortar to bond the layers instead of the interlocking dowels with grout columns of the ICEBs. We
did this to get a sense of how the lateral shear resistance of the ICEB blocks compare to that of adobe masonry
blocks bonded with Type M mortar as specified by the California Adobe Building Code. It should be noted that
according the California Adobe Building Code, the minimum thickness of a bearing wall is 16 inches. The smooth
blocks we tested were 15 cm (5.9 in) wide and would not meet the code requirements.
We removed the inserts from the press and used 9.2 kg of soil per block, as opposed to 8.2 kg with the inserts, in
order to keep the same density. We wetted the fully-cured blocks and mortared them together as seen in Figure
9.1. After letting the mortar cure for 28 days, we tested the blocks on 6/1/09 following the same setup and
procedure as the lateral shear test with the interlocking blocks (see Section 8.2).
Section: 9. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH NON-INTERLOCKING BLOCKS
Figure 9.1-Smooth Block Specimen Figure 9.2-Lateral Shear Test Set-up with Smooth Blocks
28
9.3 RESULTS
Table 9.1-Non-Interlocking Lateral Shear Test
9.4 ANALYSIS
The mortar did not bond well with the blocks; every test specimen failed along the block-to-grout interface.
Parameters that influence interfacial block-mortar bond development are the characteristics of the block surface,
which include: surface texture, pore size, pore size distribution; absorption characteristics; moisture content of the
block at the time of construction; etc. The strength of the mortar-to-block bond is generally attributed to the
mechanical interlocking of cement hydration into the surface pores of the bricks. (Reddy et al., 2007) Compressed
earth blocks contain more fine particles and are less porous than a concrete block. Since earth blocks are not as
porous, the cement cannot penetrate into the block as well, which results in a weaker bond. Figure 9.4 shows a
gap between the mortar and block after failure. The load resistance provided by these smooth block specimens is
only about 72% of the average grout-only specimen resistance for the ICEBs. Because the mortar-to-block bond is
weak for earth blocks, the ICEB method of lateral resistance, which utilizes the shear resistance of the grout
columns with the resistance of the ICEB’s interlocking mechanism, appears to be a better method for providing
lateral shear resistance.
Section: 9. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH NON-INTERLOCKING BLOCKS
Figure 9.3-Failure Plane Occurred Between Mortar and Block Figure 9.4-Lack of Bonding Between Mortar and Block
29
10. REINFORCEMENT PULL-OUT TEST
10.1 PURPOSE
The resistance provided at the concrete to block interface is important to consider in the event of seismic up-lift
forces and overturning moments. We tested both bamboo and steel reinforcement to see if they would behave in
a different manner.
We tested the specimens in the Engineering Materials Lab (13-115) using the SATEC universal testing machine.
Since the loading rate is manually operated, it varied between 10 and 50 lbs/sec. The loading rate was initially
kept at a lower value to prevent slipping of the reinforcement and then gradually increased.
Steel plate distributes loading to

avoid failure of the blocks
Section: 10. REINFORCEMENT PULL-OUT TEST
Steel tubing is hammered onto No.

3 bar to provide better gripping
Figure 10.1- Pull-out Test Setup
30
10.3 RESULTS
Table 10.1
Reinforcement Type Sample Max Load (lbs) Rc Rb

(psi) (psi)
Steel 1 1963 27.7

2 2895 43.6
Average 2429 35.65
Bamboo 1 1386 59.14
2 1419
3 1099 46.89
Average 1301 53.02
Steel Pull Out Test

3500
3000
2500
2000
Load (lbs)
1500 Specimen 1
1000 Specimen 2
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Deflection (in)
Figure 10.2 – Steel Pull Out Test Results
1600
Bamboo Pull Out Test
1400

1200
1000
Load (lbs)
Specimen 1
800
600 Specimen 2 (Brittle
400 Failure of Bamboo)
200 Specimen 3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Deflection (in)
Figure 10.3 – Bamboo Pull Out Test Results
31
10.4 ANALYSIS
10.4.1 STEEL REINFORCEMENT
Figure 10.4 - Concrete to Block Failure Figure 10.5 - Concrete Failure
Not only did the concrete column pull out of the block stack as shown in Figure 10. 4, but it failed in tension as
shown in Figure 10.5. The rupture of concrete occurred at the base of the block stack. This may have been due to
the concrete cap that formed on the under-side of the bottom block. Also, the concrete in the bottom seemed less
uniform due to poor tamping or loss of moisture. This caused a failure at the interface between steel and concrete.
Since the tensile strength of concrete is comparable to its shear strength, the resistance provided by concrete
rupture is treated as shear (Dongming et al., 2006). Approximate concrete-block resistance, Rc, is calculated using
the equation below:
Where = axial load
= compressive strength of concrete
= concrete to block surface area
= cross sectional area of concrete
= diameter of concrete

= length of un-ruptured concrete
Sample Calculation:
32
10.4.2 BAMBOO REINFORCEMENT
Figure 10.6 - Block Shear at Knot Figure 10.7 - Bamboo-Concrete interface
Two of the bamboo-reinforced specimens failed at the interface between bamboo and concrete. The third
specimen had a slightly smaller cross section and failed due to tensile rupture of bamboo. Figure 10.6 shows how
the concrete sheared in the location of the knot before the bamboo slipped. Approximate calculations for
concrete-bamboo resistance, Rb, do not take into account shearing of concrete.
Where = axial load
= concrete to bamboo area
Sample Calculation: = length of bamboo section
= thickness of bamboo section
= width of bamboo section
The tensile strength of this bamboo specimen was calculated using

the equation below:
Figure 10.8 – Tensile Rupture of Bamboo
33
11. PREPARATION FOR SHEAR WALL TESTING
11.1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
11.1.1 SITE CONSIDERATION
We generated a design response spectrum based on spectral acceleration parameters Ss and S1 for Medan,
Indonesia from UFC 3-310-01. This site is located near Banda Aceh, Indonesia, which is the location of a CVBT
directed by Vaughn Thomas. ICEB structures are being constructed in this seismic region, thus, providing us with
initiative to perform seismic analysis at this site. The design spectrum and related parameters are presented in
Table 11.1 and Figure 11.1.
Table 111.1 – Design spectral acceleration parameters according to FEMA 450-1/2003
SS (g) 1.115
S1 (g) 0.446
Fa 1.054
Fv 1.554
SMS (g) 1.175
SM1 (g) 0.693
SDS (g) 0.783
SD1 (g) 0.462
T0 0.118
TS 0.590
0.90
0.80
0.70
Section 11: PREPARATION FOR SHEAR WALL TESTING

0.60
PSa (g)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Period (sec)
Figure 11.1 - Design spectrum for Medan, Indonesia according to FEMA 450-1/2003
34
11.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
We performed the seismic analysis procedure outlined in FEMA 450-1/2003 based on the site considered in
Indonesia and a summary of the procedure is presented in Table 11.2
Table 111.2 - Seismic Analysis Procedure according to FEMA 450-1/2003
Section Table
No Item ASCE7- FEMA ASCE7- FEMA Value
05 450 05 450
1. Occupancy Category 1.5 1.2 1-1 1.3-1 I II III IV
Occupancy Importance
2. 11.5 1.3 11.5-1 1.3-1 I = 1.0 or 1.25 or 1.5
Factor
Site Classification
3. 20.3 3.5 20.3-1 3.5-1 A B C D E F
(Check one)
SS
4. MCE SS and S1 22-1 22-1 = 1.115
S1 = 0.446
Site Coefficients Fa and 3.2 11.4-1 3.3-1 Fa = 1.054
5. 11.4.3
Fv 3.3 11.4-2 3.3-2 Fv = 1.554
Site Coefficient Adjusted 3.3-1 SMS Fa SS (1.054)(1.115)=1.175

6. 11.4.3 3.3.2
MCE SRA 3.3-2 SM 1 Fv S1 (1.554)(0.446) = 0.693
S DS 2 / 3 S MS (2/3)(1.175) =
Design Spectral 3.3-3 0.783
7. 11.4.4 3.3.3
Acceleration 3.3-4 S D1 2 / 3 S M 1 (2/3)(0.693) =
0.462
11.6-
8. Seismic Design Category 11.6 1.4 1.4-1 A B C D E F
1/2

None Torsional Extreme Torsional
Irregularity: Plan
9. 12.3 4.3.2.2 12.3-1 4.3-2 Re-entrant Diaphragm
(Check one)
Out-of-plane Nonparallel
None Soft-story
Irregularity: Vertical Extreme Soft-Story Mass
10. 12.3 4.3.2.3 12.3-2 4.3-3
(Check one) Vertical-geometry
In-Plane Weak-story
35
Bearing Wall
Building Frame
Structural System
Moment-resisting Frame
(Check one)
11. 12.2 4.3 12.2-1 4.3-1 Dual/SMRF
Note material and other
Dual/IMRF
details here
Cantilevered Column
Undefined
12. Coefficient R 4.3.1 12.2-1 4.3-1 R =3.5
13. Overstrength Factor 4.3.1 12.2-1 4.3-1 o 2.5
14. Deflection Amplification 4.3.1 12.2-1 4.3-1 Cd 3.5
Structural System/Height
15. 4.3.1 12.2-1 4.3-1 P or NP
Limitation
16. Redundancy Factor 12.3.4 4.3.3 1.0
17. Fundamental Period 12.8.2 5.2.2 12.8-1 T = 0.002 sec
18. Seismic Dead Weight 12.7.2 5.2.1 W = 2.92 k
Design Base Shear
V CS W
S DS
Cs
R/I
S D1
Cs for T TL
R/I T
19. 12.8.1 5.2.1 Cs = 0.224
S D1TL
Cs 2
for T>TL
T R/I
Cs 0.01
0.5S1
Cs for S1 0.6 g
R/I
20. Lateral Force Procedure 12.6 5.2 12.6-1 Equivalent Lateral Force
21. Design Base Shear, Vb 12.8.1 5.2.1 Vb = 0.653 k
11.2.1 CONCLUSION

The Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure is satisfactory for the structural analysis of an ICEB shear wall at the site
considered in Indonesia. Of the four structural analysis procedures outlined in FEMA 450-1/2003, we used this
procedure for the structural analysis in the following section due to its simplicity. However, the design spectrum
generated in Section 11.1.1 could readily be used to perform structural analysis using the Response Spectrum
Procedure presented in FEMA 450-1/2003. The fundamental period was calculated according to FEMA 450-1/2003
and can be found in the Appendix.
36
11.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF AN ICEB SHEAR WALL
11.3.1 INTRODUCTION
We analyzed an ICEB shear wall using the Chapter 3 Strength Design guidelines of ACI 530-08, which is the building
code for masonry structures. The analysis we performed was based on the shear wall specifications we plan to use
during shear wall testing. These specifications are consistent with the dimensions and specifications currently
employed by the CVBT in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. The dimensions of the wall are 2.25 m long and 2.4 m high. The
wall is reinforced vertically with one 10 mm deformed bar spaced at 120 cm. The wall is reinforced horizontally
with one 8 mm flat bar spaced at 70 cm, which is every 7th block. The development length of the bars into the
foundation and into the top of the wall will be assumed to be sufficient. The reinforcement steel is assumed to be
grade 40. The wall is 0.15 m thick, which is the thickness of an ICEB. The wall is subject to a bearing dead load of
13.0 kN (2.92 kips), which is based on a typical ICEB structure roof load. The wall is subject to a lateral earthquake
load of 0.653 k, which was found using the FEMA 450 seismic analysis procedure previously addressed.
11.3.2 CALCULATIONS
1) Find Material Strength of ICEB

f 'm f 'ICEB 374 psi (from confined prism test data)
2) Determine the Self Weight of the Wall
a) Mass of wall
mwall 8.2kg / block 64 blocks 524.8 kg
b) Accounting for grout and mortar weight (assumption)
1.5 mwall 787.2 kg
c) Weight of the wall
m
Wwall 787.2kg 9.81 7.72 kN 1.74 kips
s2
3) Check Axial
a) Demands

D Wwall DLroof 1.74 2.92 4.66 k
L 20 psf * ATRIB 20 psf 60.8 ft 2 1.216 k
b) Apply worst case vertical load combination
Pu 1.2D 1.6L 7.54 k
c) Capacity
2
h
Pn 0.80 0.80 f 'm ( An Ast ) f y Ast 1
140r
2
3.46
0.80 0.80(374 psi ) (5.9in)(88.58in) 3(0.122in 2 ) (40000 psi)(3)(0.122in 2 ) 1
140
139.6k
37
d) Design Check
Pu 7.54kips 139.6kips OK
4) Check Shear
a) Demand Base Shear
Vb CsW 0.224(2.92k ) 0.653k
b) Factored Ultimate Shear Demand
Vu 1.6Vb 1.045k
c) Capacity
Vn 4 An f 'm 0.5 An h fy
i) Horizontal reinforcement ratio
As ,hor 0.078in 2
h 0.000479
s twall (7blocks )(3.94in)(5.9in)
Vn 4(5.9in 88.58in) 374 psi 0.5(5.9in 88.58in)(0.000479)(40000 psi)

69.5kips
d) Design Check
ii)
Vu Vn
Vu 1.045k Vn 0.8(69.5k ) 55.6k
5) Check Bending
a) Demand (Neglect Axial)
Mu Vu hwall 1.045k (7.38 ft ) 7.71k ft
b) Capacity
i) Consider Only Outside Bar in Tension
As f y 0.122in 2 (40, 000 psi)
a 5.61in
0.80 f 'm b 0.80(374 psi)
a 1.087in
Mn As f y d 0.122in2 (40000 psi ) 85.63in
2 2
34.60k ft

c) Design Check
Mu 7.71k ft Mn 0.9(34.60k ft ) 31.14k ft OK
6) Detailing Check
a) Horizontal Reinforcement
i) Using one 8 mm bar for horizontal reinforcement
As ,hor 0.078in2
ii) Check minimum area of horizontal (shear) reinforcement
Amin,hor 0.0007bdv 0.0007(5.9in)(27.78in) 0.1139in2
iii) Design Check
As ,hor 0.078in2 Amin,hor 0.1193in2 N.G.
iv) Try 8 mm bar spaced every 4 blocks
Amin,hor 0.0007bdv 0.0007(5.9in)(15.75in) 0.0651in2
38
v) Design Check
As ,hor 0.078in2 Amin,hor 0.0651in 2 OK
b) Vertical Reinforcement
i) Using one 10 mm bar for vertical reinforcement
As ,vert 0.122in2
ii) Check minimum area of vertical reinforcement
1
Amin,vert As ,hor 0.000943in 2
3
iii) Design Check
1
As ,vert 0.0026in 2 Amin,hor 0.000943in 2 OK
3
c) Special Boundary Elements Check

Pu 0.10 Ag f 'm 0.10(88.58in 5.9in)(374 psi) 19.55k
Pu 7.54k 10.55k OK
special boundary elements are not required
11.3.3 CONCLUSION
The shear wall specifications currently employed in Indonesia meet most of the requirements of ACI 530-08 with a
few exceptions to the code requirements. One requirement that is not met is the minimum amount of horizontal
shear reinforcement. Currently, horizontal reinforcement is laid every 7th block. However, to meet the code
requirements, this steel would need to be laid every 4th block. Alternatively, two 8 mm bars instead of one 8mm
bar laid every 7th block would satisfy the code requirements. Also, the ICEB shear wall is 5.9 inches thick, which is
the thickness of an ICEB. This does not meet the code requirement of a minimum 8-inch thick wall. Also
noteworthy for analysis and design purposes, the ICEB compressive strength value used was based on the confined
prism test results. This value is much lower than the 28-day compressive strength of a single block. The confined
prism compressive strength of 374 psi was similar to the compressive strength of the 5-day cure, 2-day soak
compressive strength testing method used by CVBT. The CVBT compressive strength method gave a compressive
strength of 310 psi. Therefore, the CVBT method for determining the ICEB compressive strength is conservative
and adequate for design purposes.

11.4 SHEAR WALL TESTING
11.4.1 PURPOSE
We will perform a minimum of two shear wall tests on a typical ICEB shear wall designed in Indonesia by CVBT.
The dimensions and specifications of the shear wall are outlined in Section 11.3.1. The purpose of performing a
shear wall test is to develop a better understanding of the cyclic behavior of shear walls. From shear wall testing,
we will be able to determine the response modification factor (R) of an ICEB shear wall. R is the code design
reduction factor. It is a function of the structural system and is material dependent. For instance, the R used in
developing the design base shear of Section 11.2 was based on an ordinary masonry shear wall, which gave us an R
of 3.5 (FEMA, 2003) R is used in determining the elastic design base shear force. The higher the R-factor, the
lower the design force. A lower design force will prevent a structural system from becoming inelastic.
39
11.4.2 TEST SETUP
We will conduct shear wall tests in which out-of-plane motion at the top boundary of the shear wall will be
prevented. A load beam will be attached to the top of the shear wall in order to ensure that this out-of-plane
motion is prevented. A dynamic actuator will be used to load the shear walls.
11.4.3 TEST PROCEDURE
We will run the shear wall test as per the reversed cyclic CUREE loading protocol. The protocol calls for an
initiation cycle followed by a series of primary and trailing cycles which are executed at various loading rates. This
protocol simulates ordinary ground motion and provides a standard for seismic analysis of shear walls. The
protocol calls for a 2.5 % drift, which is used to determine the monotonic deformation capacity. The reference
deformation is than calculated and used in the development of CUREE ground motion. See Appendix B for the
detailed loading protocol. Table 11.3 displays the parameters used in developing the loading protocol.
Table 111.3 – CUREE Test Protocol Parameters
Wall Height(in) 94.5

% drift 2.5
Δm (in) 2.36
Δ(in) 1.42
Load Rate 1(in/sec) 0.02
Load Rate 2 (in/sec) 0.06
Load Rate 3 (in/sec) 0.1
Figure 11.2 – Pushover Curve Deformation Calculations
CUREE Test Protocol

Monotonic Deformation Capacity (Δm) of 2.36 in
8

4
Displacement (in)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2
-4
-6
-8
Time (s)
Figure 11.3 – Simulation of Ordinary Ground Motion using the CUREE Test Loading Protocol
40
11.4.4 TEST RESULTS
The shear wall test will give us a force-deformation curve known as a hysteretic curve. Figure 11.4 illustrates the
hysteretic curves of a masonry structure. We would expect hysteretic curves of similar shape from an ICEB shear
wall. Backbone curves can then be created by enveloping the primary cycles of hysteresis curves gives a good
representation of the wall stiffness, relative strength, and deformation capacity (Gatto and Uang, 2003)). An
example backbone curve is shown in Figure 11.5. From the force-deformation relationship between a linear and
nonlinear system, we will be able to calculate a yield reduction factor, Ry, for the ICEB shear wall, which is
illustrated in Figure 11.6. When applying an overstrength factor to the yield reduction factor, we will get the
response modification factor (R) for the system (Qu, 2009). Ductility can also be determined from a shear wall
test. Ductility is an indicator of how much deformation a system can endure in the nonlinear range without a
significant loss of strength, which has applications in seismic design of structures (Chadwell, 2009).
Figure 11.5 - Backbone Curve from Shear Wall Testing (Pang,

Figure 11.4 - Hysteretic Curves for a Masonry Structure (Qu, 2007)
2009)
Figure 11.6 - Calculation of Yield Reduction Factor (Qu, 2009) Figure 11.7 - Calculation of Ductility Factor (Qu, 2009)
41
REFERENCES
Abramson, Lee W., Thomas S. Lee, Sunil Sharma, and Glenn M. Boyce. Slope Stability and Stabilization
Methods. New York: Wiley, 2001.
Adam, Doctor E.A., and Professor A.R.A. Agib. "Compressed Stabilised Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan."
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (n.d.): n. pag. July 2001. Web.
Assarson, K., Broms, B., Granholm, S., and Paus, K. (1974), Deep stabilization of soft cohesive soils, Linden
Alimark, Sweden.
Bahar, R., M. Benazzoug, and S. Kenai. "Performance of compacted cement-stabilized soil." Cement &
Concrete Composites 26 (2004): 811-20. ScienceDirect. 12 Jan. 2004. Elsevier, Ltd.
<www.sciencedirect.com>.
Barbosa, Normando P.; Ghavami, Khosrow; Mattone, Roberto; Mesbah, Ali. The potentiality of earth
construction to a sustainable development in emerging countries. Sebrae Biblioteco On Line
Bergado, D. T., L. R. Anderson, N. Miura, and A. S. Balasubramaniam. Soft ground improvement in lowland and
other environments. New York, N.Y: ASCE P, 1996.
Broms, B.B. (1986), Stabiliztion of soft clay with lime and cement columns in Southeast Asia, Applied Research
Project RP10/83, Nanyang Technical Institute, Singapore.
Burroughs, Steve (2006) ‘Strength of compacted earth: linking soil properties to stabilizers.’ Building Research
& Information, 34:1, 55-65
Carolis, S. de, R. Mattone, G. Pasero, and A. Rivotti. "Raw Earth Construction In Patagonia." 10125. Department
of Human Settlements Science and Technology. Polytechnic of Turin.
REFERENCES
Chadwell, Charles. "Earthquake Engineering Module 2." Ch. 3 - CE 466/467 - Fight the Earthquakes with Force or
Ductility - The "R" Factor. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. May 2009. Lecture.
45
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM-Serdang, Malaysia
Consoli, N. C., G. V. Rotta, and P. D. Prietto. "Influence of curing under stress on the triaxial response of
cemented soils." Geotechnique 50 (2000): 382-84.
Consoli, N. C., G. V. Rotta, and P.D. M. Prietto. "Yielding-compressibility-strength relationship for an artificially
cemented soil cured under stress." Geotechnique 56 (2006): 69-72.
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project. W-13
Cyclic Response of Woodframe Shearwalls. By Kip Gatto and Chia-Ming Uang. N.p.: CUREE
Publications, 2008. Print.
Diamond, S., and Kinter, E. B. (1965), Mechanisms of soil-lime stabilization – An interpretive review, Highways
Research Record No. 92, Highway Research Board, Washington D.C., pp. 83-102.
Dongming, Yan, and Lin Gao. "Dynamic properties of concrete in direct tension, Cement and Concrete Research."
Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006): 1371-378.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450). 2003rd ed. Washington D.C.: National
Institute of Building Sciences, 2005. Print.
Guettala, A., A. Abisi, and H. Houari. "Durability study of stabilized earth concrete under both laboratory and
climatic conditions exposure." Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006): 119-27. ScienceDirect. 8
Mar. 2005. ELSEVIER. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Heathkote, K.A. Durability of earth wall buildings. Construction Building Materials, 1995; 9(3):185-189.
Holtz, Robert D., and William D. Kovacs. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981.
REFERENCES
46
Houben, H. and Guillaud, H. Earth construction – a comprehensive guide. Southampton Row, London WC1B
4HH: IT Publication Limited, 1994
Huang, J.T. & Airey, D.W. (1998) Properties of artificially cemented carbonate sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 124, 492-499.
Ismail, Mostafa A.; Joer, Hackmet A.; Sim, Wee H.; Randolph, Mark F. (2002) Effect of Cement Type on Shear
Behavior of Cemented Calcareous Soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE
128.06, 520-529.
Jaafar, Mohd Saleh, Waleed A. Thanoon, Amad M.S. Najm, Mohd Razali Abdulkadir, and Abang Abdullah Abang
Ali. "Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic wall panel for load bearing
interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry." Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006): 492-98.
ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd., 1 Apr. 2005. Web. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Jayasinghe, C., and N. Kamaladasa. "Compressive strength characteristics of cement stabilized rammed earth
walls." Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007): 1971-976. ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd, 28 Sept.
2006. Web. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Jayasinghe, C., and R.S. Mallawaarachchi. "Flexural strength of compressed stabilized earth masonry
materials." Materials and Design (2009): n. pag. ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd., 22 Jan. 2009. Web.
<www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes>.
Khedari, Joseph, Pornnapa Watsanasathaporn, and Jongjit Hirunlabh. "Development of fibre-based soil-cement
block with low thermal conductivity." Cement & Concrete Composites 27 (2005): 111-16. ScienceDirect.
16 Feb. 2004. ELSEVIER. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Lorenzo, Glen A., and Dennes T. Bergado. "Fundamental Parameters of Cement-Admixed Clay -- New
Approach." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130.10 (2004): 1042-050.
American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE, 1 Oct. 2004s. Web.
Mitchell, James Kenneth. Fundamentals of soil behavior. New York: Wiley, 1993.
REFERENCES
47
Mohd Saleh Jaafar , , Waleed A. Thanoon, Amad M.S. Najm, Mohd Razali Abdulkadir and Abang Abdullah
Abang Ali, “Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic wall panel for load bearing
interlocking mortarless” hollow block masonry
Morel, J. C., A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, and P. Walker. "Building houses with local materials: means to drastically
reduce the environmental impact of construction." Building and Environment 36 (2001): 1119-126.
ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd., 3 July 2000. Web. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Morel, J.C., and A. Pkla. "A model to measure compressive strength of compressed earth blocks with the '3
points bending test'" Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002): 303-10. ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd.,
17 Apr. 2002. Web. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Morel, Jean-Claude, Abalo Pkla, and Peter Walker. "Compressive strength testing of compressed earth blocks."
Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007): 303-09. ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd., 11 Oct. 2005. Web.
Nazar, Maqsud E., and S. N. Sinha. "Behavior of Interlocking Grouted Stabilised Sand-Fly Ash Brick Masonry
Under Uniaxial Cyclic Compressive Loading." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 19.11 (n.d.): 947-56.
ASCE, 1 Nov. 2007. Web.
Nusbaum, P. J., and B. E. Colley. Dam Construction and Facing with Soil Cement. Portland Cement Association,
1971.
Ogunye, F. O., and H. Boussabaine. "Diagnosis of assesment methods for weatherability of stabilised
compressed soil blocks." Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002): 163-72. ScienceDirect. 9 Jan.
2002. ELSEVIER. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Pang, W.C., D.V. Rosowsky, S. Pei, and J. W. Van De Lindt. "Evolutionary Parameter Hysteretic Model for Wood
Shear Walls." Journal of structural engineering 133.8 (2007): 1118-129. American Society of Civil
Engineers. ASCE Publications. Web. 12 May 2009. <http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?0706325>.
REFERENCES
Park, Taesoon, and Siew Ann Tan. "Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls by the inclusion of short
fiber." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2005): 348-61. ScienceDirect. Elsevier, Ltd., 7 Mar. 2005. Web.
48
Qu, Bing. "Earthquake Response of Nonlinear Systems." Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo. May 2009.
Lecture.
Reddy, B. V. Venkatarama, and Ajay Gupta. "Tensile Bond Strength of Soil-Cement Block Masonry Couplets
Using Cement-Soil Mortars." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 18.1 (n.d.): 36-45. ASCE, 1 Feb.
2006. Web.
Reddy, Venkatarama, Lal Richardson, and Nanjunda Rao K.S. "Enhancing Bond Strength and Characteristics of Soil-
Cement Block Masonry." ASCE 164th ser. February.
Sengupta, Nilanjan. "Use of cost effective construction technologies in India to mitigate climate change."
Current Science 94.1 (n.d.): n. pag. 10 Jan. 2008. Web.
Tang, Chaosheng, Bin Shi, Wei Gao, Fengjun Chen, and Yi Cai. "Strength and mechanical behavior of short
polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement stabilized clayey soil." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25
(2007): 194-202. ScienceDirect. 22 Dec. 2006. ELSEVIER. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. "Sustainable Building Technologies." Current Science 07. Department of Civil
Engineering & Center for Sustainable Technologies. 10 Oct. 2004. Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., Richardson Lal, and K. S. Nanjunda Rao. "Enhancing Bond Strength and
Characteristics of Soi-Cement Block Masonry." Journal of Materials In Civil Engineering 19 (2007): 164-
72. ASCE. 1 Feb. 2007. American Society of Civil Engineers. 15 May 2009
<http://pubs.asce.org/journals/>.
Walker, P. J. "Strength, Durability and Shrinkage Charactersitics of Cement Stabilised Soil Blocks." Cement &
Concrete Composites 17 (1995): 301-10. Science Direct. Elsevier. <www.sciencedirect.com>.
Walker, Peter, and Trevor Stace. "Properties of some cement stabilised compressed earth blocks and mortars."
Materials and Structures 30 (1997): 545-51.
REFERENCES
49

APPENDIX A
CEMENT TYPE
PORTLAND CEMENT
GOVERNING REACTIONS
“2(3CaO.SiO2) + 6H2O = 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O + 3Ca(OH)2 – Eq. 1
(tricalcium silicate) (water) (tobermite gel) (calcium hydroxide ‐‐ lime)
2(2CaO.SiO2) + 4H2O = 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O + Ca(OH)2 – Eq.2
(bicalcium silicate) (water) (tobermite gel) (calcium hydroxide)
4CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3 + 10H2O +2Ca(OH)2 =6CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3.12H2O – Eq. 3
(tetracalciumaluminoferrite) (calcium aluminoferrite hydrate)
3CaO.Al2O3 + 12H2O +Ca(OH)2 = 3CaO.Al2O3.Ca(OH)2.12H2O – Eq. 4
(tricalcium aluminate) (tetracalcium aluminate hydrate)
3CaO.Al2O3 + 12H2O +CaSO4.2H2O = 3CaO.Al2O3.Ca(OH)2.12H2O – Eq. 5
(tricalcium alulminate) (gypsum) (calcium monosulfoaluminate)”
“The first two equations, whose materials constitute 75% of the Portland cement, show that the hydration of
the two calcium silicate types produces new compounds: lime and tobermite gel, with the latter playing the
leading role with regards to strength, since bondage, strength, and volume variations are mainly governed by
them. …The reactions given here are for tricalcium silicate only, because they are the most important
constituents of Portland cement:
C3S + H20 Æ C3S2Hx (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2 – Eq. 6
(primary cementitious products)
Ca(OH)2 Æ Ca++ + 2(OH)‐ – Eq. 7
Ca++ + 2(OH)‐ + SiO2 (soil silica) Æ CSH – Eq. 8

APPENDIX A
(secondary cementitious product)

i

Ca++ + 2(OH)‐ + Al2O3 (soil alumina) Æ CAH – Eq. 9
(secondary cementitious product)
When pH < 12.6, then the following reaction occurs:
C3S2Hx Æ C3S2Hx (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2 – Eq. 10”
(from Soft ground improvement in lowland and other environments: Bergado et al., 1996)

APPENDIX A

ii

ASTM D 4318
EXCEL SHEETS
Table A1
Liquid Limit Determination
Sample ID 36 54 96
Mc,l (g) 30.75 30.8 30.55
N 33 24 17
Mc,l,ms (g) 48.26 47.28 52.53
Mc,l,ds (g) 44.09 43.29 47.12
Mms (g) 17.51 16.48 21.98
Mds (g) 13.34 12.49 16.57
w (%) 23.81% 24.21% 24.61%
Liquid Limit 24.20%
Plastic Limit Determination
Sample ID 230 87
Mc,l (g) 30.45 30.66
Mc,l,ms (g) 33.14 34.77
Mc,l,ds (g) 32.75 34.11
Mms (g) 2.69 4.11
Mds (g) 2.3 3.45
w (%) 14.50% 16.06%
Plastic Limit 15.28%
PI 8.92%

APPENDIX A

iii

FIGURES
24.70%
24.60% 9% Clay: ASTM
D 4318
24.50%
Water Content
24.40%
24.30%
24.20%
24.10%
24.00%
23.90% 9% Clay
23.80%
23.70%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 y = ‐0.000x + 0.254
R² = 0.994
Number of Drops (N)

Figure A1
23.40%
23.20% 16% Clay:
23.00%
ASTM D 4318
Water Content
22.80%
22.60%
22.40%
22.20%
22.00%
21.80%
21.60% 16% Clay
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
y = ‐0.002x + 0.272 Linear (16% Clay)
R² = 0.843 Number of Drops (N)

Figure A2
26.40%
26.20%
22% Clay:
Water Content
26.00% ASTM D 4318

25.80%
25.60%
25.40%
25.20%
22% Clay Contentl
25.00%
0
y = ‐3E‐05x + 0.260 10 20 30 40 Linear (22% Clay
R² = 0.013
Number of Drops (N) Contentl)
APPENDIX A

Figure A3

iv

ASTM D 422
EXCEL SHEETS
Table A2: Example Data Sheet For Sieve Analysis of Cal Poly Sand
Sieve Analysis
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Empty Sieve Mass (g) Sieve + Soil (g) Retained Soil (g) % Retained % Passing
4 4.750 744.000 770.000 26.000 1.170 98.830
10 2.000 670.000 967.000 297.000 13.366 85.464
20 0.850 612.000 1056.000 444.000 19.982 65.482
40 0.425 578.000 1258.000 680.000 30.603 34.878
60 0.250 548.000 1034.000 486.000 21.872 13.006
100 0.150 315.000 526.000 211.000 9.496 3.510
200 0.075 333.000 391.000 58.000 2.610 0.900
Pan 0.000 489.000 509.000 20.000 0.900 0.000
Total Weight 2222.000
Soil Info/Visual Classification Data Interpretation
% Gravel 1.170
Source
% Sand 97.930
% Fines 0.900
D10 0.220
Visual Classification
D30 0.380
D60 0.720
Container Mass (g) cu 3.273
Container + Dry Soil (g cc 0.912
Dry Soil (g) 0.000 UCS Classification SW ‐ Well Graded Sand

FIGURES
ASTM D 422: Grain Size Analysis for Cal Poly Sand
120.000
100.000
Percent Passing
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0.000
10.000 1.000 0.100 Cal Poly Sand 0.010
Grain Size (mm)

Figure A4 – Grain size distribution of Cal Poly Sand as obtained via sieve analysis (ASTM D 422)
APPENDIX A

v

ASTM D 422: Grain Size Analysis for Fine Soils

70
60
50
Percent Finer
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Cal Poly Soil Los Osos Soil
Grain Size (mm)

Figure A5 – Grain size distribution of Cal Poly Soil and Los Osos Soil as obtained via hydrometer analysis per ASTM D 422

APPENDIX A

vi

ASTM D 558‐03
EXCEL SHEETS
Table A3
Cal Poly Soil + Cal Poly Sand @ 12% of Soil Being Clay
Soil Sand Cement Water Eq. ClayTotal Mass Eq. ClaySol i ds Mass
Composition of Soil-Cement Mixtures Based Upon 10 kg Total Mass
6.878 1.580 0.541 1.000 0.825 0.825

68.78% 15.80% 5.41% 10.00% 8.25% 9.17%
Total Mass 10.000
4.169 4.290 0.541 1.000 0.500 0.500
41.69% 42.90% 5.41% 10.00% 5.00% 5.56%
Total Mass 10.000
Los Osos Soil + Cal Poly Sand @ 29.2% of Soil Being Clay
5.137 3.322 0.541 1.000 1.500 1.500
51.37% 33.22% 5.41% 10.00% 15.00% 16.67%
Total Mass 10.000
6.849 1.610 0.541 1.000 2.000 2.000
68.49% 16.10% 5.41% 10.00% 20.00% 22.22%
Total Mass 10.000

Table A4
APPENDIX A

vii
CE 467 INTERL
LOCKING CO
OMPRESSED EARTH BLO
OCKS

FIGURES
AS
STM D 558
5 - 04
4
1..95
1
1.9
Cal Polly Soil + Cal
Poly Saand: 5.56% Clay
C
1..85
Dry Density (γd)
Cal Polly Soil + Cal

1
1.8 Poly Saand: 9.17% Clay
(Implimmented ICEB B
1..75 Compoosition)
Los Osoos Soil + Call
1
1.7 Poly Saand: 16.67%
Clay
1..65
Los Osoos Soil + Call
Poly Saand: 22.22%
1
1.6
Clay
0 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture Content
C (%))
Figure A6
APPENDIX A

viiii

ASTM D 559‐03
EXCEL SHEETS
Table A5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Initial Measurements
Mass 2000 2005 2002 2000 Mass 1967 1968 1960 1947 Mass 1896 1866 1890 Mass 1938 1955 1908
hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.8 11.7 hL 11.7 11.8 hL 11.8 11.8
hT 11.7 11.7 hT 11.7 11.8 hT 11.8 11.7 hT 11.7 11.7
c'1 3 4.5 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4
c'2 6 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8
c1 32.2 32.4 c1 32.2 32.2 c1 32.2 32.2 c1 32.2 32.4
c2 32.4 32.2 c2 32.4 32.4 c2 32.3 32.2 c2 32.2 32.2
Following Cycle 1 - 5 hr Soak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Mass 1977 1992 1975 Mass 1940 1950 1940 1931 Mass 1881 1853 1875 Mass 1935 1947 1910
hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.9
hT 11.8 11.7 hT 11.8 11.9 hT 11.9 11.6 hT 11.7 11.7
c'1 3 4.5 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4
c'2 6 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8
c1 32.2 32.2 c1 32.1 32.2 c1 32.1 32 c1 32.1 32.2
c2 32.2 32.4 c2 32.2 32.3 c2 32.2 32.1 c2 32.2 32.1
Following Cycle 1 - 42 hr Dry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1753 1682 1665 1564 1659
hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.7 11.8
hT 11.75 11.7 hT 11.75 11.9 hT 11.6 11.6 hT 11.7 11.7
c'1 3 4.5 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4
c'2 6 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8
c1 32.1 32.1 c1 32 32 c1 32 31.9 c1 32 32.1
c2 32.1 32.1 c2 32 32.1 c2 32 32 c2 32.2 32.1
Following Cycle 2 - 5 hr Soak
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
hL 11.65 11.7 hL 11.7 11.75 hL 11.7 11.7 hL 11.75 11.85
hT 11.75 11.8 hT 11.8 11.9 hT 11.9 11.65 hT 11.7 11.7
c'1 3 4.5 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4
c'2 6 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8
c1 32.2 32.1 c1 32.1 32 c1 31.9 32.1 c1 32.1 32.1
c2 32.1 32.2 c2 32.1 32.1 c2 31.9 31.9 c2 32.1 32.2
Following Cycle 2 - 42 hr Dry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1746 1675 1661 1560 1648
hL 11.6 11.65 hL 11.6 11.75 hL 11.7 11.65 hL 11.7 11.8
APPENDIX A
hT 11.7 11.7 hT 11.75 11.85 hT 11.9 11.55 hT 11.7 11.65
c'1 3 4.5 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4 c'1 4 4
c'2 6 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8 c'2 8 8
c1 32.2 32.1 c1 32 32 c1 31.9 32.1 c1 32.1 32
c2 32.1 32.2 c2 32 32 c2 31.9 31.9 c2 32 32.2

ix

Table A6
Sample Number Clay Content (% Solidsy Content (% Total Ma Wet Mass Gain (%) Dry Mass Loss (%) Scratch Mass Loss (% V dry ,1 (cm3) V sat,2 (cm3) Vdry ,2 (cm3) ΔVdry → sat. (cm3) ΔV sat. → dry (cm3) ΔVdry → dry (cm3)
Cycle Set 1 → 2
CC1 5.56% 5.00% 13.71% -0.12% 961.42 962.36 958.25 0.94 -4.11 -3.17
SC2 5.56% 5.00% 13.29% 0.00% 0.46%
CC3 5.56% 5.00% 16.06% -2.30% 959.37 966.47 960.30 7.10 -6.17 0.93
CC5 9.17% 8.25% 14.81% -0.18% 955.44 963.47 951.36 8.03 -12.11 -4.07
SC6 9.17% 8.25% 15.87% 0.06% 0.42%
CC7 9.17% 8.25% 14.75% -0.06% 964.56 966.60 961.55 2.04 -5.05 -3.01
SC8 9.17% 8.25% 15.23% 0.00% 0.30%
CC9 16.67% 15.00% 19.74% -0.13% 949.33 955.55 955.55 6.22 0.00 6.22
CC10 16.67% 15.00% 19.66% -0.06% 946.36 951.36 945.25 5.00 -6.11 -1.11
SC11 16.67% 15.00% 18.63% 0.13% 0.19%
CC12 22.22% 20.00% 15.35% -0.06% 959.37 961.42 956.38 2.05 -5.04 -2.99
CC13 22.22% 20.00% 13.81% 0.06% 959.37 968.53 961.42 5.06 -7.11 -2.05
SC14 22.22% 20.00% 14.17% 0.18% 0.42%
Tables A7‐A9
Wet Mass Gain (%) -- Control Cylinders Dry Mass Loss (%) -- Control Cylinders Scratch Mass Loss (%)
Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67%
Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓
0 -1.15% -1.37% -0.15% -0.79% 0 13.20% 14.84% 13.26% 17.46% 0 0.40% 0.36% 0.48% 0.13%
0 -1.35% -1.02% -0.41% -0.70% 0 15.38% 14.54% 13.35% 17.42% 0 0.24%
1 13.71% 14.81% 15.35% 19.74% 1 -0.12% -0.18% -0.06% -0.13% 1 0.46% 0.42% 0.42% 0.19%
1 16.06% 14.75% 13.81% 19.66% 1 -2.30% -0.06% 0.06% -0.06% 1 0.30%
2 12.43% 13.29% 13.50% 18.06% 2 0.17% 0.18% 0.42% 0.19% 2 0.46% 0.42% 0.31% 0.26%
2 12.69% 13.78% 13.29% 18.48% 2 0.06% 0.06% 0.12% 0.19% 2 0.36%
3 13.26% 13.91% 14.45% 19.95% 3 -0.06% 0.00% 0.00% -0.13% 3 0.58% 0.48% 0.37% 0.39%
3 13.51% 14.03% 13.31% 19.88% 3 0.06% 0.12% 0.06% -0.19% 3 0.49%
4 12.90% 13.19% 13.97% 18.58% 4 -0.29% -0.30% -0.24% -0.45% 4 0.58% 0.61% 0.49% 0.32%
4 13.29% 13.69% 13.14% 18.94% 4 -0.35% -0.48% -0.36% -0.45% 4 0.49%
5 12.98% 13.39% 14.00% 18.37% 5 0.29% 0.36% 0.30% 0.45% 5 0.53% 0.49% 0.99% 0.39%
5 13.07% 13.62% 13.15% 18.53% 5 0.29% 0.42% 0.41% 0.39% 5 0.55%
6 13.02% 13.38% 13.68% 18.97% 6 0.00% -0.06% 0.36% -0.06% 6 0.59% 0.55% 0.95% 0.39%
6 13.16% 13.62% 13.32% 18.54% 6 0.00% 0.12% 0.18% 0.00% 6 0.56%
7 13.36% 13.67% 14.21% 19.85% 7 -0.06% 0.12% 0.30% 0.00% 7 0.59% 0.62% 0.76% 0.52%
7 13.28% 14.23% 13.94% 19.18% 7 0.12% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 7 0.50%
8 13.41% 14.82% 15.09% 19.97% 8 0.06% 0.00% 0.42% 0.06% 8 0.60% 0.62% 1.03% 0.40%
8 13.70% 14.42% 14.48% 14.48% 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.12% 0.12% 8 0.69%
9 13.36% 14.35% 14.98% 19.92% 9 0.06% 0.12% 0.36% 0.00% 9 0.42% 0.31% 0.78% 0.33%
9 13.64% 14.24% 14.56% 19.79% 9 0.00% 0.18% 0.06% -0.06% 9 0.46%
10 13.26% 14.42% 15.39% 19.86% 10 0.06% 0.06% 0.48% 0.06% 10 0.66% 0.63% 1.19% 0.47%
10 13.47% 14.45% 14.33% 19.65% 10 0.06% 0.12% 0.24% 0.13% 10 0.89%
11 13.49% 14.67% 15.71% 19.94% 11 0.00% 0.06% 0.43% 0.06% 11 0.55% 0.64% 1.27% 0.47%
11 13.48% 14.83% 14.66% 20.00% 11 0.17% 0.12% 0.24% 0.00% 11 0.77%
12 -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 12 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 12 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
12 -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 12 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 12 #DIV/0!
APPENDIX A

x

Tables A10‐A11
Wet Mass Gain (%) -- Scratch Cylinders Dry Mass Loss (%) -- Scratch Cylinders
Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67%
Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓
0 -0.65% -0.91% 0.10% -0.79% 0 12.57% 14.53% 13.05% 17.25%
0 -0.82% 0 14.48%
1 13.29% 15.87% 14.17% 18.63% 1 0.00% 0.06% 0.18% 0.13%
1 15.23% 1 0.00%
2 12.77% 15.41% 13.59% 18.05% 2 0.12% 0.18% 0.24% 0.06%
2 14.43% 2 0.18%
3 12.85% 15.86% 13.73% 18.04% 3 0.12% 0.18% 0.18% 0.13%
3 14.39% 3 0.06%
4 13.00% 15.73% 13.37% 17.94% 4 -0.23% -0.18% 0.12% -0.39%
4 14.71% 4 -0.31%
5 12.69% 15.49% 13.58% 17.73% 5 0.06% 0.12% 0.25% 0.26%
5 14.25% 5 0.12%
6 12.29% 14.79% 13.12% 17.46% 6 0.18% 0.31% 0.38% 0.33%
6 13.18% 6 0.37%
7 13.16% 16.09% 14.38% 18.96% 7 -0.12% -0.06% 0.13% -0.13%
7 14.54% 7 -0.19%
8 13.10% 15.74% 14.38% 18.97% 8 0.06% 0.12% 0.26% 0.13%
8 14.46% 8 0.12%
9 12.83% 15.49% 14.30% 18.74% 9 0.12% 0.31% 0.46% 0.26%
9 14.20% 9 5.22%
10 13.02% 15.96% 14.88% 19.12% 10 -0.06% -0.06% 0.13% -0.07%
10 20.45% 10 -5.20%
11 12.67% 15.48% 14.54% 18.80% 11 0.06% 0.19% 0.20% 0.13%
11 14.38% 11 0.26%
12 -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 12 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
12 -100.00% 12 100.00%
Tables A12‐A14
Av. Wet Mass Gain (%) -- Control Cylinders Av. Dry Mass Loss (%) -- Control Cylinders Av. Scratch Mass Loss (%)
Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67%
Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓
0 -1.25% -1.20% -0.28% -0.74% 0 14.29% 14.69% 13.31% 17.44% 0 0.40% 0.30% 0.48% 0.13%
1 14.88% 14.78% 14.58% 19.70% 1 -1.21% -0.12% 0.00% -0.10% 1 0.46% 0.36% 0.42% 0.19%
2 12.56% 13.54% 13.39% 18.27% 2 0.12% 0.12% 0.27% 0.19% 2 0.46% 0.39% 0.31% 0.26%
3 13.38% 13.97% 13.88% 19.92% 3 0.00% 0.06% 0.03% -0.16% 3 0.58% 0.48% 0.37% 0.39%
4 13.10% 13.44% 13.55% 18.76% 4 -0.32% -0.39% -0.30% -0.45% 4 0.58% 0.55% 0.49% 0.32%
5 13.02% 13.51% 13.57% 18.45% 5 0.29% 0.39% 0.36% 0.42% 5 0.53% 0.52% 0.99% 0.39%
6 13.09% 13.50% 13.50% 18.75% 6 0.00% 0.03% 0.27% -0.03% 6 0.59% 0.56% 0.95% 0.39%
7 13.32% 13.95% 14.07% 19.52% 7 0.03% 0.09% 0.18% 0.03% 7 0.59% 0.56% 0.76% 0.52%
8 13.56% 14.62% 14.79% 17.23% 8 0.03% 0.00% 0.27% 0.09% 8 0.60% 0.65% 1.03% 0.40%
9 13.50% 14.29% 14.77% 19.86% 9 0.03% 0.15% 0.21% -0.03% 9 0.42% 0.39% 0.78% 0.33%
10 13.36% 14.44% 14.86% 19.75% 10 0.06% 0.09% 0.36% 0.10% 10 0.66% 0.76% 1.19% 0.47%
11 13.49% 14.75% 15.19% 19.97% 11 0.09% 0.09% 0.33% 0.03% 11 0.55% 0.70% 1.27% 0.47%
APPENDIX A
12 -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 12 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 12 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

xi

Tables A15‐A16
Av. Wet Mass Gain (%) -- Scratch Cylinders Av. Dry Mass Loss (%) -- Scratch Cylinders
Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67% Clay Content → 5.56% 9.17% 22.22% 16.67%
Cycle # ↓ Cycle # ↓
0 -0.65% -0.87% 0.10% -0.79% 0 12.57% 14.51% 13.05% 17.25%
1 13.29% 15.55% 14.17% 18.63% 1 0.00% 0.03% 0.18% 0.13%
2 12.77% 14.92% 13.59% 18.05% 2 0.12% 0.18% 0.24% 0.06%
3 12.85% 15.13% 13.73% 18.04% 3 0.12% 0.12% 0.18% 0.13%
4 13.00% 15.22% 13.37% 17.94% 4 -0.23% -0.24% 0.12% -0.39%
5 12.69% 14.87% 13.58% 17.73% 5 0.06% 0.12% 0.25% 0.26%
6 12.29% 13.98% 13.12% 17.46% 6 0.18% 0.34% 0.38% 0.33%
7 13.16% 15.32% 14.38% 18.96% 7 -0.12% -0.12% 0.13% -0.13%
8 13.10% 15.10% 14.38% 18.97% 8 0.06% 0.12% 0.26% 0.13%
9 12.83% 14.85% 14.30% 18.74% 9 0.12% 2.77% 0.46% 0.26%
10 13.02% 18.21% 14.88% 19.12% 10 -0.06% -2.63% 0.13% -0.07%
11 12.67% 14.93% 14.54% 18.80% 11 0.06% 0.22% 0.20% 0.13%
12 -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 12 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
APPENDIX A

xii

FIGURES
ASTM D 559-03: Control Cylinders ASTM D 559-03: Control Cylinders

0.2 0.002
Average Wet Mass Gain (%)
Average Dry Mass Loss (%)

0.19
0.0015
0.18
0.17 0.001
Average Wet Mass
0.16
Gain Per Cycle 0.0005 Average Dry Mass
0.15 Loss Per Cycle
0.14 0
0.13 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
‐0.0005
0.12
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 ‐0.001
Clay Content
Clay Content
ASTM D 559-03: Scratch Cylinders ASTM D 559-03: Scratch Cylinders

0.2 0.0025

0.19
0.002
0.18
0.17 0.0015
Average Wet Mass Average Dry Mass
0.16
Gain Per Cycle Loss Per Cycle
0.15 0.001
0.14
0.0005
0.13
0.12 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Clay Content Clay Content
ASTM D 559-03: Scratch Cylinders

0.009
Average Scratch Mass Loss (%)
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005 Average Scratch
0.004 Mass Loss Per
Cycle
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Clay Content

Figures A7‐A11: Average Mass Fluctuation Per Cycle – Clay Content

APPENDIX A

xiii


0.2 0.002

0.19
0.0015
0.18
0.17 0.001
Average Wet Mass
0.16
Gain Per Cycle 0.0005 Average Dry Mass
0.15 Loss Per Cycle
0.14 0
0.13 0 5 10 15
‐0.0005
0.12
0 5 10 15 ‐0.001
PI
PI

0.2 0.0025

0.19
0.002
0.18
0.17 0.0015
Average Wet Mass Average Dry Mass
0.16
Gain Per Cycle Loss Per Cycle
0.15 0.001
0.14
0.0005
0.13
0.12 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
PI PI

0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005 Average Scratch
0.004 Mass Loss Per
Cycle
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 5 10 15
PI

Figures A12‐A16: Average Mass Fluctuation Per Cycle – Plasticity Index

APPENDIX A

xiv


0.2 0.002

0.19
0.0015
0.18
0.17 0.001
Average Wet Mass
Gain Per Cycle 0.16 Average Dry Mass 0.0005
0.15 Loss Per Cycle
0.14 0
0.13 1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
‐0.0005
0.12
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75 ‐0.001
Dry Density (g/cm3)

Dry Density (g/cm3)

0.2 0.0025

0.19
0.002
0.18
0.17 0.0015
Average Wet Mass
Gain Per Cycle 0.16 Average Dry
Mass Loss Per 0.001
0.15
Cycle
0.14
0.0005
0.13
0.12 0
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75 1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
Dry Density (g/cm3) Dry Density (g/cm3)

0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
Average Scratch Mass 0.005
Loss Per Cycle 0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
Dry Density (g/cm3)

Figures A17‐A21: Average Mass Fluctuation Per Cycle – Dry Density

APPENDIX A

xv


0.2 0.005
Cycle 1 Cycle 1
0.19

Cycle 2 Cycle 2
0.18 Cycle 3 0.003 Cycle 3
0.17 Cycle 4 Cycle 4
0.16 Cycle 5 0.001 Cycle 5
Cycle 6 Cycle 6
0.15
Cycle 7 Cycle 7
0.14 Cycle 8 ‐0.001 0 5 10 15 Cycle 8
Cycle 10 ‐0.003 Cycle 10
0.12
Cycle 11 Cycle 11
0 5 10 15
‐0.005
PI PI

0.2 0.005
Cycle 1 Cycle 1
0.19

Cycle 2 Cycle 2
0.18 Cycle 3 0.003 Cycle 3
0.16 Cycle 5 0.001 Cycle 5
Cycle 6 Cycle 6
0.15
Cycle 7 Cycle 7
0.14 Cycle 8 ‐0.001 0 5 10 15 Cycle 8
Cycle 10 ‐0.003 Cycle 10
0.12
Cycle 11 Cycle 11
0 5 10 15
‐0.005
PI PI

0.014
Cycle 1
0.012 Cycle 2
Cycle 3
0.01 Cycle 4
Cycle 5
0.008
Cycle 6
0.006 Cycle 7
Cycle 8
0.004 Cycle 9
Cycle 10
0.002 Cycle 11
0
0 5 PI 10 15

Figures A12‐A26: Mass Fluctuation Per Cycle – Plasticity Index

APPENDIX A

xvi


0.2 0.005
Cycle 1 Cycle 1

Cycle 2 0.19 Cycle 2
Cycle 3 Cycle 3 0.003
0.18
Cycle 4 Cycle 4
Cycle 5 0.17 Cycle 5 0.001
Cycle 7 Cycle 7 1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75‐0.001
0.15
Cycle 8 Cycle 8
‐0.003
Cycle 11 Cycle 11
0.12 ‐0.005
Dry Density (g/cm3)
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
Dry Density (g/cm3)

0.2 0.005
Cycle 1 Cycle 1

Cycle 3 Cycle 3 0.003
0.18
Cycle 4 Cycle 4
Cycle 5 0.17 Cycle 5 0.001
Cycle 7 Cycle 7 1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75‐0.001
0.15
Cycle 8 Cycle 8
‐0.003
Cycle 11 Cycle 11
0.12 ‐0.005
Dry Density (g/cm3)
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
Dry Density (g/cm3)

0.014
Cycle 1
Cycle 2 0.012
Cycle 3
0.01
Cycle 4
Cycle 5 0.008
Cycle 6
Cycle 7 0.006
Cycle 8
0.004
Cycle 9
Cycle 10 0.002
Cycle 11
0
1.95 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75
Dry Density (g/cm3)
Figure A30‐A34: Mass Fluctuation Per Cycle – Dry Density

APPENDIX A
xvi

i


0.2 0.005

0.19 0.004
0.003
0.18 PI = 0.00
0.002
0.17 PI = 0.00 0.001 PI = 7.42
0.16 PI = 7.42 ‐1E‐17
PI = 8.92
0.15 ‐0.001 0 5 10 15
PI = 8.92
‐0.002 PI = 10.81
0.14 PI = 10.81 ‐0.003
0.13 ‐0.004
0.12 ‐0.005
0 5 10 15
Cycle Number
Cycle Number

0.2 0.005

0.19
0.003
0.18 PI = 0.00
0.17 PI = 0.00 0.001 PI = 7.42
0.16 PI = 7.42
PI = 8.92
0.15 ‐0.001 0 5 10 15
PI = 8.92
PI = 10.81
0.14 PI = 10.81 ‐0.003
0.13
0.12 ‐0.005
0 5 10 15
Cycle Number
Cycle Number

0.014
0.012
0.01 PI = 0.00
0.008 PI = 7.42
0.006 PI = 8.92
0.004 PI = 10.81
0.002
0
0 5 10 15
Cycle Number

Figure A34‐A37: Mass Fluctuation v. Cycle Number – Plasticity Index

APPENDIX A
xvi

ii


0.2 0.005

0.19 Dry 0.004 Dry

Density = 0.003 Density =
0.18 1.925 1.925
0.002
0.17 Dry
Dry 0.001
Density =
0.16 Density = ‐1E‐17 1.860
0.15 1.860 ‐0.001 0 Dry
5 10 15
Dry ‐0.002 Density =
0.14
Density = ‐0.003 1.845
0.13 1.845 ‐0.004 Dry
0.12 ‐0.005 Density =
Dry 1.790
0 5 10 15 Density =
Cycle Number
1.790
Cycle Number

0.2 0.005
Dry

Dry
0.19 Density =
Density = 0.003
0.18 1.925 1.925
Dry Dry
0.17 0.001 Density =
Density =
0.16 1.860 1.860
‐0.001 0 Dry
0.15 Dry 5 10 15 Density =
Density =
0.14 1.845
1.845 ‐0.003 Dry
0.13 Dry Density =
0.12 Density = ‐0.005 1.790
1.790
0 5 10 15
Cycle Number
Cycle Number

0.014
Dry
0.012 Density =
0.01 1.925
Dry
0.008 Density =
1.860
0.006 Dry
Density =
0.004 1.845
Dry
0.002 Density =
0 1.790
0 5 10 15
Cycle Number

Figures A38‐A42: Mass Fluctuation v. Cycle Number – Dry Density
APPENDIX A

xix
APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PERIOD
APPENDIX B
xx
CUREE LOADING PROTOCOL
Table B.1 – CUREE Loading Protocol Based on a Monotonic Deformation Capacity of 2.63 in.
Cycle # of Deflection % Time Freq. Load Rate

Type Cycles (in) Drift (min) (Hz) (in/s)
Initiation 6 0.071 1.4 0.0705
Primary 1 0.106 0.11% 1.8 0.0470
Trailing 6 0.080 3.4 0.0627
Primary 1 0.142 0.15% 3.8 0.0353
Trailing 6 0.106 6.0 0.0470
Primary 1 0.284 0.30% 6.9 0.0176
Trailing 3 0.213 9.0 0.0235
Primary 1 0.425 0.45% 10.5 0.0118 0.02
Trailing 3 0.319 13.6 0.0157
Primary 1 0.567 0.60% 15.5 0.0088
Trailing 2 0.425 18.4 0.0118
Primary 1 0.992 1.05% 21.7 0.0050
Trailing 2 0.744 26.6 0.0067
Primary 1 1.418 1.50% 31.4 0.0035
Trailing 2 1.063 33.7 0.0141
Primary 1 2.126 2.25% 36.1 0.0071
Trailing 2 1.595 39.6 0.0094
Primary 1 2.835 3.00% 42.8 0.0053
0.06
Trailing 2 2.126 47.5 0.0071
Primary 1 3.544 3.75% 51.4 0.0042
Trailing 2 2.658 57.3 0.0056
Primary 1 4.253 4.50% 60.2 0.0059
Trailing 2 3.189 64.4 0.0078
Primary 1 4.961 5.25% 67.7 0.0050
Trailing 2 3.721 72.7 0.0067
0.1
Primary 1 5.670 6.00% 76.5 0.0044
Trailing 2 4.253 82.2 0.0059
Primary 1 6.379 6.75% 86.4 0.0039
Trailing 2 4.784 92.8 0.0052
APPENDIX B
xx
i

Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks 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

Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE 467 INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS

CE 467- Senior Project

INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS

From Soils to Structures

Dr. Gregg Fiegel

2.2 ICEB CONSTRUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................2

2.3 ICEB PRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................2

3. - SOIL-CEMENT STABILIZATION ..................................................................................................................................3

3.1 - TYPE OF CEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................3

3.2 - CEMENT CONTENT ............................................................................................................................................4

3.3 - SOIL TYPE ...........................................................................................................................................................6

3.3.1 VISUAL-MANUAL CLASSIFICATION: ASTM D 2488 ........................................................................................6

3.3.2 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS: ASTM D 422 ..............................................................................................................7

3.3.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS (PL, LL, PI): ASTM D 4318 ..............................................................................................8

3.3.4 COMPACTION CURVES: ASTM 698, ASTM 1557 ...........................................................................................8

4.1 INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS ...................................................................................................14

4.1.1 PRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................14

4.1.2 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................15

4.2 GROUT ...............................................................................................................................................................15

4.2.1 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................15

4.2.2 STRENGTH ...................................................................................................................................................15

4.3 CONCRETE ..........................................................................................................................................................16

4.3.1 PRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................16

4.3.2 COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................16

4.4 MORTAR ............................................................................................................................................................16

4.5 REINFORCEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................16

5. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH CURING CURVE ..............................................................................................................17

5.1 CURING ..............................................................................................................................................................17

5.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................17

5.3 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................17

5.4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................18

6. SOAK TEST ................................................................................................................................................................20

6.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................20

6.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................20

6.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................20

7. CONFINED PRISM TEST ............................................................................................................................................21

7.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................21

7.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................21

7.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................22

8. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH INTERLOCKING BLOCKS ...............................................................................................24

8.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................24

8.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................25

8.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................25

8.4.1 BAMBOO REINFORCEMENT ........................................................................................................................26

8.4.2 STEEL REINFORCEMENT ..............................................................................................................................26

8.4.3 GROUT-ONLY ..............................................................................................................................................27

9. LATERAL SHEAR TEST WITH NON-INTERLOCKING BLOCKS ......................................................................................28

9.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................28

9.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................................28

9.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................29

10. REINFORCEMENT PULL-OUT TEST .........................................................................................................................30

10.1 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................................................30

10.2 TEST SET-UP AND PROCEDURE ........................................................................................................................30

10.3 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................................................31

10.4 ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................................32

10.4.1 STEEL REINFORCEMENT ................................................................................................................................32

10.4.2 BAMBOO REINFORCEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………...33

11. PREPARATION FOR SHEAR WALL TESTING ...........................................................................................................34

11.1 SEISMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................................34

11.1.1 SITE CONSIDERATION...............................................................................................................................34

11.2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................37

11.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF AN ICEB SHEAR WALL ..........................................................................................40

11.3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................40