FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT

(SUMMER SEMESTER, 2020)

NATURAL FIBER IN EARTH BRICK AS BUILDING

MATERIAL

SUBMITTED BY:
Leki Dorji (02161040)
Buddiman Powdyel (02161007)
Phurba Thinlay Blon (02161068)
Tshering Dorji (02161107)
Sonam Tamang (02161087)

Guide and Co-Guide:

Sir Tshering Tobgyel and Madam Sangay Dema

i
 DECLARATION

We hereby declared that the project work entitled as “NATURAL FIBER IN EARTH BRICK
AS BUILDING MATERIAL” is an authentic work and true to its originality which is carried out
at “COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY”. The project is mandatory requirement for
acquiring degree certificate in civil engineering. The Project was done under the supervision of
Sir Tshering Tobyel and Madam Sangay Dema.

Dated: ________ Leki Dorji (02161040)

Buddiman Powdyel (02161007)
Phurba Thinlay Blon (02161068)
Tshering Dorji (02161107)
Sonam Tamang (02161087)

Certified that the above statement is remarked by the students are original to the best of our
knowledge and belief.

Sir Tshering Tobyel and Madam Sangay Dema

(Senior Lecturer and Assistant lecturer)
College Of Science And Technology

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank each and every individual involved directly and indirectly in this
beautiful project venture. Firstly, we would like to thank the college for giving us such
opportunities to explore further into the unknown world of civil engineering. Secondly, we
would like to thank our beloved guide and co-guide for ushering us and making this project
complete successfully without much adversity. Thirdly, we would like to thank the panel
members for their constructive feedbacks and pointing out the flaws in the project. Fourthly, we
would like to thank the lab technicians for helping us with operation of sophisticated machines
and guiding us to carry out lab test. Lastly, we would like to thank our parents for unconditional
support.
There may be some individuals who have helped in making this project a success, directly or
indirectly, that we may have unintentionally and unknowingly not mentioned here. We would
like to extend our gratitude to those individuals also.

iii
ABSTRACT

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
1 CHAPTER I.......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................2
1.3 SCOPE........................................................................................................................................2
1.4 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................3
2 CHAPTER II.....................................................................................................................................4
2.1 COMPACTION OF SOIL (CORE CUTTER METHOD).....................................................4
2.2 ATTERBERG TEST.................................................................................................................5
2.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST....................................................................................10
3 CHAPTER III..................................................................................................................................12
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................12
4 CHAPTER IV..................................................................................................................................13
4.1 RESULTS.................................................................................................................................13
5 CHAPTER V....................................................................................................................................14
5.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION......................................................................14
6 CHAPTER VI..................................................................................................................................15
6.1 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................15

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

No table of figures entries found.

vi
 1 CHAPTER I
1.1 INTRODUCTION

1
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Aim: To analyze technically rammed earth brick reinforced with sun grass and cow dung.

Objectives:
 Recommend a suitable fiber length for rammed earth brick.
 Propose percentage of fiber for rammed earth brick.
 Comparative analysis of CO2 emission with burnt clay bricks.
 Eco-friendly bricks can be produce.
 Reduce the import of burnt clay bricks and production of concrete bricks.

1.3 SCOPE

 Interlocking earth blocks can be produce with different interlocking mechanism.

 The earth blocks can be further analyze by adding different stabilizer.
 The technical data of the sun grass can be used with varying nature of the additives and the
soil.
 Various serviceability properties can be analyze on this mix design earth blocks (Shrinkage
and durability).

2
1.4 METHODOLOGY

3
 2 CHAPTER II

2.1 COMPACTION OF SOIL (CORE CUTTER METHOD)

Compaction of soil is a fundamental step in any construction. It helps to increase the shear
strength of the soil and reduces the permeability of water through soil. In 1933, R.R.Proctor
showed that there is relationship between the water content of the soil and dry density of the soil.
At a particular water content called the optimum moisture content, the soil attains its maximum
dry density.
There are two types of test to determine the compaction of soil: light compaction test and heavy
compaction test (core cutter method falls under heavy compaction test).

Observation Table:

Sample Calculation:
Sample 1
1. Determination of Bulk Density:
Weight of core cutter=693 g

4
Weight of core cutter and soil=2283 g
Weight of wet soil=2283-693=1590 g
Volume of mold=1000.1 cc
Bulk density=1590/1000.1=1.590 g/cm3
2. Determination of Moisture Content:

Weight of crucible=8 g
Weight of crucible and wet soil=27 g
Weight of crucible and dry soil=25 g
Weight of dry soil=25-8=17 g
Weight of water in soil=27-25=2 g
Moisture content= (2/17)*100=11.764%

3. Determination of Dry Density:

Dry density=1.590/ {1+ (w/100)} =1.423 g/cm3

4. Determination of degree of compaction:

Cd= (1.423/1.389)*100=102.451%

2.2 ATTERBERG TEST

Liquid limit:
Observation table for liquid limit :

Determination No. I II III IV

No. of blows 32 25 20 15
Mass of container + Mass soil (g) 15 26 23.5 17
Mass of container + Oven dry soil
(g) 13.5 22.5 20 15
Mass of water (g) 1.5 3.5 3.5 2
Mass of container (g) 10 16.5 14.5 12
Mass of oven dry soil (g) 3.5 6 5.5 3
Moisture Content (%) 42.86 58.33 63.64 66.67

5
 Figure 1 semi-log graph of moisture content vs no of blows
Liquid limit corresponding to 25 no. of blows= 58.33%

Plastic limit test:

(a) (b)

6
 (c) (d)

Figure 2: (a) soil sample;(b) moulding of sample with water; (c) rolling of the sample; (d)
measurement of weight.

Observation table for plastic limit:

Sl.N
Determination No. I II III IV
O
2 Mass of container (W0)g 20 19.5 10 14
3 Mass of container +wet soil (W1)g 24 23 13 19
Massof container + oven dry soil
4 23 22 12 17
(W2)g

5 Massof water (W1-W2)g 1 1 1 2

6 Massof dry soil (W2-W0)g 3 2.5 2 3

Moisture content(%)= P.L= ((W1-
7 33.333 40 50 66.667
W2)/(W2-W0))*100
8 Average value of P.L 47.5

Average value of P.L=47.5%

7
Therefore plasticity index (Ip)=Wl-Wp= 58.33-47.5= 10.83%.
So according to the plasticity chart as per IS 1498:

Figure 4 plasticity chart as per IS1498-1970.

The soil is classified as inorganic silt.

 Degree of expansion low.
 High compressibility.
 Medium toughness.
So this means the soil can be made into the desired shapes by decreasing its volume and has
the ability to absorb energy and deform without fracturing.

Mix design:
Mix proportion and design for (12*12*9) cm cube size.
For compressive strength test.

8
 Mixture Proportion (%) Weight(Kg) Relation

soil 100 2.5

fiber 0-6 In relation to total dry mixture

cow dung 20 0.5 In relation to total dry mixture

water 18.33 0.4582 In relation to total dry mixture 

For compressive strength test we used varying fiber percent from 0-6% with varying fiber length
from 1cm-5cm.

Mix proportion and design for (24*12*9) cm cube size.

For flexural strength test.

Mixture Proportion(%) Weight(Kg) Relation

soil 100 5

fiber 3 0.15 In relation to total dry mixture

cow dung 20 1 In relation to total dry mixture

water 18.33 0.9165 In relation to total dry mixture 

• For compressive strength test we used fiber percent as constant but the fiber length was
varying from 0 to 5cm. The results also indicates how the fiber reinforced earth brick
with fiber length of 40 mm and with fiber length 50 mm performed the highest stresses
with a significant increase by 50.7% and 52.36% respectively compared to with no fibers.
• Though we observed 5cm length gave highest tensile strength, the fiber length 4cm and
above reduced the compaction efficiency and workability by entangling the fiber. So,
optimum sun grass fiber length found is 3cm.

9
For water absorption test.

Mixture Proportion (%) Weight(Kg) Relation

soil 100 5

fiber 4 0.2 In relation to total dry mixture

cow dung 20 1 In relation to total dry mixture

water 18.33 0.9165 In relation to total dry mixture 

For water absorption test we used 4% fiber with 3cm fiber length.

2.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

The test is performed on the sample dimension of 12x 12x9cm with the maximum dry density of
1.34g/cc in the Universal testing machine in College of Science and Technology laboratories
under the supervision of lab technician as per the IS:3495- PART 1- 1992 as shown in the
fig no.1. The rate of loading is taken as 1mm/min as per the study done by (Lan, Wang, & Chao,
2018). The sample is made with three numbers and of 5 mix design.

Compressive strength test result.

The fiber reinforced earth block with evenly distributed of sun grass with highest average
compressive strength is shown in table 1. Highest average compressive strength of 4.38MPa is
observed with respect to the zero percent fiber in the sample, giving 4% as optimum fiber
percentage. The increase of 60.3% compressive strength is observed in 4% with respect to the
0% fiber added in the sample.
Table 1. Compressive strength of the sample with different fiber percentage.

Sample, (MPa) Avg.

Mix Fiber length Compressive
(mm) I II III strength, (MPa)
1 0 (Lowest) 2.53 2.72 2.66 2.64
2 1 2.94 3.13 2.73 2.93
3 2 4.46 4.01 4.2 4.22
4 4 (Highest) 4.06 4.47 4.61 4.38
5 6 3.78 4.57 4.02 4.12

10
Fig 1. Compressive test on reinforced earth block.

Material and method.

The cow dung is used as additives, reinforced with sun grass.

Fig 2. Cow dung Fig 3. Sun grass

Sun grass is cut into desired length and it is soaked in water and cow dung is dried and crushed.
Then it is collected passing through 4.75mm sieve (Arunima, Narayani, Salim, & Shamna, 2019)
Soil is collected and larger lumps are broken down. Then it is oven dried for ready usage.
Water from tape is used in reference to its OMC.

11
 3 CHAPTER III

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. (Mahgoub et al., 2018) studied on mechanical properties of fibre reinforced earth brick
where chicken fibre (CF) and sugarcane bagasse (SB) were used. Five different mixes were
prepared for each fibre. Chicken feathers/sugarcane bagasse (0%, 1%, 3%, 5% and 7% by
total weight) were mixed with clay and dried to make sample bricks. The laboratory mould is
then used to make samples with a dimension of 50 × 50 × 50 mm. The samples were
naturally dried under laboratory conditions for seven days until constant weight is achieved.
The obtained samples were tested for dry density and compressive strength according to
relevant British standard EN 1052-2:2016 and EN 772-13:2000.They found out that the
compressive strength of fibre-reinforced samples increases (almost linearly) with increasing
chicken feathers content and sugarcane bagasse content. The dry density of mud bricks
decreases as the amount of chicken feathers and sugarcane bagasse increases attributing to
lower density of chicken feathers and sugarcane bagasse compared to that of clay, leading to
lighter bricks. In a nutshell they found out that inclusion of feathers and bagasse reduces
brick density and improves its strength.

2. (Arunima et al., 2019) did study on Strength of Earthbrick Reinforced with Coirfibre and
Cowdung. Reinforced bricks are prepared by mixing the clay with different percentages of
cow dung and coir fiber. 20% and 25% of cow dung (out of total weight of clay) and 1%and
1.5% (out of total weight of clay) of coir fibers are used for the making of reinforced
bricks .Using 20% of cowdung and 1% of coir fiber, 3 bricks are casted. Similarly using 20%
of cowdung and 1.5% of coir fiber, 3 bricks are casted. 3 bricks with only clay are also
casted. Water used for mixing is 30% of that of total weight.Here the testing is done on the
7th day after firing in the kiln. First it is kept at room temperature for one day. Then it is
sundried for 6 days. After that it is fired in a kiln for 3 days completely and tested after 7
days. They found out that the earth bricks stabilized with 20% cow dung and 1% coir fiber
exhibits maximum compressive strength and abrasive strength which indicates the best
combination and considerable improvement in compressive strength and and reduction in
mass were exhibited by earth bricks reinforced with cow dung and coir fiber.

12
 4 CHAPTER IV

4.1 RESULTS

13
 5 CHAPTER V

5.1 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1.1 CONCLUSION:

5.1.2 RECOMMENDATION:

14
 6 CHAPTER VI

6.1 REFERENCES

Arunima, M., Narayani, S., Salim, S., & Shamna, J. (2019). Study of Strength of Earthbrick
Reinforced with Coirfibre and Cowdung. 8(06), 834–839.
Illampas, R., Ioannou, I., & Charmpis, D. C. (n.d.). A study of the mechanical behaviour of
adobe masonry. 118, 485–496.
Laborel-Préneron, A., Aubert, J. E., Magniont, C., Tribout, C., & Bertron, A. (2016). Plant
aggregates and fibers in earth construction materials: A review. Construction and Building
Materials, 111, 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.119
Lan, G., Wang, Y., & Chao, S. (2018). Influences of Specimen Geometry and Loading Rate on
Compressive Strength of Unstabilized Compacted Earth Block. 2018.
Morel, J. C., & Pkla, A. (2019). A model to measure compressive strength of compressed earth
blocks with the ‘ 3 points bending test .’ 0618(November 2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-
0618(02)00023-5
Mostafa, M., & Uddin, N. (2016). Case Studies in Construction Materials Experimental analysis
of Compressed Earth Block ( CEB ) with banana fi bers resisting fl exural and compression
forces. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 5, 53–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.07.001
Sridharan, A., & Prakash, K. (2015). Shrinkage Limit of Soil Mixtures. (September), 2–8.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11118J
Venkatasubramanian, C., Muthu, D., Aswini, G., Nandhini, G., & Muhilini, K. (2017).
Experimental studies on effect of cow dung ash (pozzolanic binder) and coconut fiber on
strengthproperties of concrete. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/80/1/012012

15
16