Cogon fiber in earth brick as a sustainable

building material.

Project Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirement for the award of the
Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering
In Civil Engineering
By
Sonam Tamang(02161087) Leki Dorji (02161040)
Phurba ThinlayBlon (02161068) Tshering Dorji (02161107)
Budhi Man Powdyel (02161007)

Under the Guidance of

Guide Mr.TsheringTobgyel
Co-guide Ms. SangayDema
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF BHUTAN
PHUNTSHOLING: BHUTAN
June 2020

i
 ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF BHUTAN
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

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 Mr.TsheringTobyel and
Ms.SangayDema.

Dated:

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

Mr.TsheringTobyel Ms. SangayDema

Project guide Project co-guide

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank each and every individual involved in this beautiful project venture. We
would like to thank the College of Science and Technology for giving us financial support and
opportunities to explore further into the unknown world of civil engineering. We would like to
thank our beloved guide and co-guide for ushering us and making this project complete
successfully without much adversity. We would like to thank the panel members for their
constructive feedback and pointing out the flaws in the project. We would like to thank the lab
technicians for helping us with the operation of sophisticated machines and guiding us to carry
out the 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

Research on earth brick mixed with cogon fiber and cow dung as a sustainable building material
was carried out by an experimental method by field and laboratory set up. The aim of the study is
to technically analyze earth brick reinforced with cogon fiber and cow dung, determine favorable
soil parameters, fiber length, percentage of fiber, compare water absorption, CO 2 emissions and
cost per unit brick with that of commercial burnt clay bricks. The scope of study covers physical
and mechanical properties of soil and earth brick, design mix proportion for cogon fiber-
reinforced earth brick as an alternative to burnt clay bricks in rural areas.

Soil was collected within the locality of College of Science and Technology. Cow dung and
cogon fiber were collected from Tading gewog. From the experimental tests suitable soil
findings were well graded sandy soil with specific gravity of 2.69, liquid limit of 58.33%, plastic
limit of 47.5%, plasticity index of 10.83%, MDD of 1.34g/cc and OMC of 18.75%. In the case of
earth brick fiber length of 30mm and fiber percentage of 4% resulted maximum flexural and
compressive strength. The average water absorption of cogon fiber reinforced earth brick was
25.38% determined indicating that this earth brick is suitable only in dry environment or
otherwise a better stabilizer is required to limit the water absorption and unit cost of earth brick
at Tading gewog was 25% cheaper in comparison to 3 nd class burnt clay bricks. The future study
required are durability, provision of interlocking mechanism and strength variation with
arrangement of fibers in the earth brick.

Key words: Cogon fiber, cow dung, sustainability, flexural strength, compressive strength, water
absorption, mix design.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................viii
ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
1.1 General.............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement..........................................................................................................................3
1.3 Aims and Objectives........................................................................................................................3
1.4 Scope.................................................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................9
3.1 Literature review...........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Material Collection........................................................................................................................10
3.2.1 Soil...........................................................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Cow dung (CD).......................................................................................................................11
3.2.3 Cogon grass (Imperata Cylindrica).......................................................................................13
3.3 Material Test..................................................................................................................................14
3.4 Equipment Fabrication.................................................................................................................14
3.5 Sample Test Preparation...............................................................................................................15
3.5.1 Mix Proportion.......................................................................................................................15
3.5.2 Blow Determination................................................................................................................16
3.5.3 Casting of Samples..................................................................................................................16
3.6 Sample Test....................................................................................................................................16
3.7 Comparative analysis of CO2 emission with burnt clay brick...................................................17

CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL TEST.........................................................................................................18

4.1 SOIL TEST..............................................................................................................................18
4.1.1 Field test for soil......................................................................................................................18
4.1.2 Laboratory test on soil............................................................................................................22

v
 4.2 Fiber test...................................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 5: SAMPLE TEST PREPARATION.................................................................................34
5.1 Mix proportion...............................................................................................................................34
5.2 Blow determination test.................................................................................................................35
5.3 Casting of samples.........................................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 6: SAMPLE TEST..............................................................................................................40
6.1 Fiber length determination.....................................................................................................40
6.1.1 Flexure test.......................................................................................................................40
6.2 Fiber percentage determination...................................................................................................43
6.2.1 Compression test.....................................................................................................................43
6.3 Water Absorption test.............................................................................................................44
CHAPTER 7: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CO2 EMISSION AND RATE WITH BURNT
CLAY BRICK..........................................................................................................................................46
7.1 CO2emission for burnt clay brick in comparison to the fiber-reinforced earth brick..............46
7.2 Rate Analysis..................................................................................................................................48
CHAPTER 8: RESULT AND DISCUSSION........................................................................................49
8.1 Material Collection........................................................................................................................49
8.1.1 Soil Test...................................................................................................................................49
8.1.2 Fiber Test................................................................................................................................50
8.2 Sample Test....................................................................................................................................50
8.2.1 Flexure Test.............................................................................................................................50
8.2.2 Compression Test.............................................................................................................51
8.2.3 Water Absorption Test...........................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................54
CHAPTER 10: RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................55
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................56
Appendix A..............................................................................................................................................61
Appendix B...............................................................................................................................................62

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Methodology chart for the project....................................................................................9

Figure 2: Soil collection site. Source: Google earth......................................................................10
Figure 3: (a) Soil site A and (b) Soil site B..................................................................................11
Figure 4: Cogon grass and Cow dung collection site. Source: Google earth................................12
Figure 5: Cow dung crushed and sieved........................................................................................13
Figure 6: Sapling (a), Harvested (b) and Chopped cogon grass (c)...............................................13
Figure 7: Typical Mold for brick casting.......................................................................................15
Figure 8: Wooden tamping rod......................................................................................................15
Figure 9: (a) Soil Sample A and (b) Soil Sample B.....................................................................19
Figure 10: (a) Soil sample A and and (b) Soil sample B...............................................................19
Figure 11: Sedimentation test: (a) Soil sample A and (b) Soil sample B......................................21
Figure 12: (a) Standard Proctor Apparatus (b) Oven-dried samples.............................................22
Figure 13: Comparative MDD and OMC of two soil samples......................................................23
Figure 14: (a) Soil sample (b) Weight of soil retained on the sieve and (c) sieve analysis
apparatus........................................................................................................................................24
Figure 15: Grain size distribution graph........................................................................................25
Figure 16: (a) Liquid limit device (b) Liquid limit device with soil sample.................................26
Figure 17: Semi-log graph of moisture content Vs no of blows....................................................27
Figure 18: Laboratory testing (a) soil sample; (b) molding of sample with water; (c) rolling of the
sample; (d) measurement of weight...............................................................................................28
Figure 19: Plasticity chart as per IS1498-1970..............................................................................29
Figure 20: Shrinkage potential of soil used in earth brick [source: Wattle and Daub: Craft,
Conservation and Wiltshire Case Study A dissertation]................................................................30
Figure 21: (a) Empty Pycnometer (b) Pycnometer with sample..................................................31
Figure 22: Swell test......................................................................................................................32
Figure 23: (a) Fiber testing; (b) Fiber strand, loading and (c) Strand failure at ultimate loading. 33
Figure 24: Core cutter test for mold size (a) (12*12*15) cm and (b) (24*12*15) cm..................36
Figure 25: Mold dimensions (24*12*9) cm..................................................................................37
Figure 26: Fiber length of (a) 1cm, (b) 2cm, (c) 3cm, (d) 4cm and (e) 5cm.................................37
Figure 27: (a) Dry mix and (b) Dry curing of cast earth bricks....................................................37
Figure 28: (a) Mold dimension (12*12*9) cm, (b) dry mix (c) dry curing of cast earth brick.....38
Figure 29: (a) design mix and (b) dry curing of cast earth brick...................................................39
Figure 30: Dry curing of earth brick samples................................................................................40
Figure 31: (a) Sample before the one point load test and (b) Sample after the one-point load test
.......................................................................................................................................................41
Figure 32: Graph of flexural strength Vs fiber length...................................................................42
Figure 33: (a) air drying of earth brick samples (b) Compressive test on reinforced earth brick. 43
Figure 34: Compressive strength Vs fiber percentage...................................................................44

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Chemical composition of cow dung in % of its weight. (Source:...................................12

Table 2: Soil composition identifications of soil sample A...........................................................21
Table 3: Soil composition identifications of soil sample B...........................................................21
Table 4: Percent passing data for corresponding sieve sizes.........................................................24
Table 5: Liquid limit determination...............................................................................................26
Table 6: Plastic limit test observation............................................................................................28
Table 7: Specific gravity of soil.....................................................................................................31
Table 8: Free swelling index of soil as per IS 2720-40 (1977).....................................................32
Table 9: Tensile strength of fiber (Cogon Fiber)...........................................................................33
Table 10: Mix proportion for flexural strength test.......................................................................34
Table 11: Mix proportion for compressive strength test...............................................................34
Table 12: Mix proportion for water absorption test.......................................................................35
Table 13: Fiber length with its average peak load and MoR.........................................................41
Table 14: Compressive strength of the sample with different fiber percentage............................43
Table 15: Water absorption test data.............................................................................................45
Table 16: CO2 process energy emission for clay brick..................................................................46
Table 17: CO2 transport energy emission for clay brick................................................................47
Table 18: Cost of unit brick for the given production sites...........................................................48
Table 19: Overall test results.........................................................................................................53
Table 20: Blow determination for mold dimension (12*12*15) cm.............................................61
Table 21: Blow determination for mold dimension 24*12*15 cm................................................62
Table 22: Rate analysis for cogon fiber-reinforced earth brick.....................................................64

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS

Sl.
No Terms Descriptions
1 B-CEBs Banana Compressed Earth Bricks
2 Btu British Thermal Unit
3 CD Cow dung
4 CSBs Compressed Earth Bricks
5 CST College of Science and Technology
6 Ip Plasticity Index
7 EB Earth Brick
8 MDD Maximum Dry Density
9 MoR Modulus of Rupture
10 MTCE Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent
11 OMC Optimum Moisture Content
12 SW Well Graded Sand

ix
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Earthen building practice has been implemented for thousands of years; the formation of bricks
by compacting soils into molds is an aged technique, and structures built with these bricks have
sustained for a long time (Mostafa & Uddin, 2016). Earth bricks are called “adobe” in Central
America and “thobe” in North Africa (Salih et al., 2018). From the times of industrial revolution
that took place in the 1760s, bricks were used in many earthen masonry structures all over the
world, due to its outstanding physical and mechanical characteristics (Salih et al., 2018). Earthen
masonry structures are widely recommended to be used in construction particularly in
developing countries because they are energy-efficient, reusable, affordable, and locally
available. Moreover, unlike concrete and steel construction, highly skilled labor is not required
(Saleem et al., 2016). Traditional construction typology of Bhutan can be classified as rammed
earth, stone rubble masonry, ekra (wattle and daub), adobe block, timber houses and bamboo
houses (Chettri et al., 2019).

The impacts of building on the environment and the health of their occupants have now become
priority issues. The indoor quality of air of buildings has become a major objective. This can be
attained by using safe construction materials with low impact (Aubert et al., 2016). Earth is still
the most widely used construction material in many countries in the world. Even these days,
about one-third of human lives in earthen houses and, in developing countries, this figure is more
than one half (Aubert et al., 2016). The need to develop affordable housing counts because of the
increasing shelter less people in developing countries (Mostafa & Uddin, 2016). Recent interest
in the use of natural material for earth brick production is due to high importing cost of burnt
clay brick to meet the demand of construction industry (Subba, 2018).

Earth bricks have excellent resistance property against fire, sound, insect damage and if they
were properly protected they are very durable (Saleem et al., 2016). Therefore, earth bricks can
be inferred as energy-efficient and environment-friendly bricks. However, if the ingredients are
not properly designed and optimized during the production processes of earthen bricks, it may
lead to poor performance during earthquake events where subjected loads are very intense

1
leading to the collapse of the whole structure. Normally, earthen masonry bricks have low
ductility and tensile strength. As a result, the addition of natural fibers can be used to reinforce
these bricks to improve properties like tensile strength, durability characteristics, resistance
against shrinkage cracking, and enhance ductility (Mostafa & Uddin, 2016).
Studies conducted between the compressive strength of fiber-reinforced earth brick and fiber-less
earth brick found out that the compressive strength of fiber-reinforced earth brick was much
higher than that of the conventional fiber-less earth brick since fibers are very strong against
stresses (Binici et al., 2005). Fibers prevent the appearance of deformations in the earth brick,
hence, the shape of the brick is being preserved and the regions near the surface being crushed
are prevented (Binici et al., 2005).
Commonly used natural fibers in earth bricks are coconut fibers, straw, and sisal fibers which
have produced excellent results (Binici et al., 2005). The most popular synthetic fiber that has
been used as reinforcement in earth brick was polyethylene fiber like concrete in other
construction materials (Mostafa & Uddin, 2016). The use of synthetic fibers has made society
face environmental loss due to the generation of pollution during the production and recycling
process of such synthetic fibers (Amezugbe, 2013). Hence, the use of natural fibers had once
again drawn attention. The search for new materials necessitates the use of renewable resources
to reduce environmental impact and production costs. Earth brick using sustainable natural plant
fiber like cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) for earthen masonry structures represents significant
potential for the reduction of material, energy resource consumption, and pollutant emissions.

This research distinctly uses new natural fiber in earth brick with cow dung as additives
recommending the design mix with optimum fiber length and fiber percentage. This research
study reveals the result of tests on materials (soil and fiber) and sample tests on cogon fiber-
reinforced earth brick. Comparative analysis of CO2 emission and rate with burnt clay brick
carried out to confirm that cogon fiber-reinforced earth brick is a sustainable building material.

2
 1.2 Problem Statement
• Although cogon fiber is in abundance, its use as thatching material has become trivial
since the introduction of CGI sheet.

• The cost of burnt clay brick is comparatively expensive.

• The production of burnt clay bricks emits higher CO2 leading to global warming.

1.3 Aims and Objectives

Aim: To technically analyze earth brick reinforced with cogon fiber and cow dung.

Objectives:
 Analyze soil parameters favorable for earth brick production

 Recommend a suitable fiber length for earth brick

 Propose a percentage of fiber for earth brick

 Comparative analysis of water absorption, CO2 emission and rate with burnt clay bricks

1.4 Scope

Scope of the study includes:

 The physical and mechanical properties of soil used in this research study were analyzed.
 Design mix proportion for cogon fiber-reinforced in earth brick.
 Provide mechanical properties regarding earth brick reinforced with cogon fiber and cow
dung.
 Cogon fiber-reinforced earth brick as an alternative to burnt clay brick in rural areas.

3
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

(Mostafa & Uddin, 2016) studied banana fiber reinforced compressed earth brick (B- CEBs) as
an alternative building material. In most developing countries globally, the cement for
construction was extensively used. The B- CEBs was made so that even low-income resident can
manage to utilize the technically analyzed compressed earth brick. The B-CEBs was eco-friendly
with low cost as the binder was locally available in the form of waste. The B-CEBS composition
consists of soil, sand, aggregate, cement binder (banana fiber), and water. The bricks were
mechanically compressed into the different mold dimensions as per the nature of the test. The
analysis of B-CEBs was done experimental based to determine the optimum fiber length to be
adopted in the B- CEBs mix design technology. For the given composition, various fiber lengths
were tested ranging from 50mm to 100mm with 5 samples for each mix design as per the ASTM.

The compression and flexural test were performed on the cast B- CEBs with sample dimensions
of (12*12*9) cm and (24*12*9) cm respectively as per the ASTM. As per the technical data of
the compression test, 60mm fiber length gave maximum compression strength of 6.58MPa. As
per the flexure test, 70mm fiber length gave maximum flexure strength of 1.02MPa. Giving
70mm as optimum fiber length to be used in B- CEBs technology. The increase in the stresses
was observed to be 82% compared to the CEBs without fiber reinforcement. The fiber-reinforced
compressed earth brick showed higher mid-span deflection than unreinforced CEBs. Stresses
distribution in the binder was explained in the B-CEBs and its bridging characteristics in the
inelastic deformation of the bricks upon the application of external load. The confinement of
fiber in the matrix affects the mechanical property of the B-CEBs.

(Danso et al., 2015) explains about physical, mechanical, and durability properties of soil
building bricks reinforced with natural fibers. The research aims to produce low-cost building
materials, particularly in rural areas. The mix composition consists of soil, binders, and water.
Two types of soil with 3 different types of fibers were adopted for experimental based research.
The fibers are coconut husk, bagasse, and oil palm fiber with a fixed cutting length of 50mm,
80mm, and 38mm respectively with variation in the fiber percentage (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 & 1%). The
sample of each mix design was adopted with the dimension of (29*14*10) cm. The fiber was

4
soaked for 48 hours and the sample was cast mechanically. Test performed on the samples are
compression test, tensile test, water absorption test, and serviceability test as per the British
Standards.

The soil- R with fiber percentage of 0.25% to 0.5% results maximum compressive strength and
for soil- B, 0.25% to 0.5% results maximum compressive strength. Thus the optimum fiber
length recommended was 0.25% to 0.5% of the weight of soil. For soil-R, an increase in
compressive strength to unreinforced CEBs was 42%, 41%, and 21% for oil palm, coconut, and
bagasse fiber respectively. For soil-B, an increase in compressive strength to unreinforced CEBs
was 53%, 57%, and 18% for oil palm, coconut, and bagasse fiber respectively. For soil-R, an
increase in tensile strength to unreinforced CEBs was 35%, 23%, and 16% for oil palm, coconut,
and bagasse fiber respectively. For soil-B, an increase in tensile strength to unreinforced CEBs
was 38%, 29%, and 21% for oil palm, coconut, and bagasse fiber respectively. Sudden failure is
not observed in reinforced CEBs unlike in unreinforced CEBs. This indicates that CEBs have
more capacity to resist load even after yielding. Serviceability properties of CEBs are enhanced
by reinforcing CEBs by binders with the use of optimum fiber percentage. The reinforcement of
fiber has reduced the density of CEBs, thereby reducing the dead load on the structure.

Study of strength of mud brick incorporated with cow dung and coir fiber (Arunima et al., 2019).
According to the author manufacturing building material with the most abundant material
available, can reduce the waste problems and increase the economy of the people. They did a
study on strength of mud brick incorporated with cow dung and coir fiber. Mud bricks were
incorporated with coir fiber and cow dung in different percentages. 20% and 25% (in comparison
to mass of clay) and 1% and 1.5% (in comparison to mass of clay) of coconut fibers were taken
for production of reinforced mud brick. Taking 20% of cow dung and 1% of coconut fiber, 3
bricks were cast. In a similar manner, 20% of cow dung and 1.5% of coconut fiber, 3 bricks were
cast. 3 mud bricks with only clay were also produced. Water taken for the mixture was 30% of
total mass.
They found an increase in the amount of coir fiber and cow dung has increased the dry
compressive strength up to a certain percent and again further inclusion of coconut fiber and cow
dung showed the decrease in strength under compression load. So they finally came to a

5
conclusion saying that the mud brick incorporated with 1% coconut fiber, and 20% cow dung
resulted maximum strength under compression load.

Potential of congo grass (Imperata cylindrical) as an alternative fiber in the paper-based industry
(Sari et al., 2016). The author found that there are limited resources in paper production, so non-
wood plants were investigated as alternative fiber in Malaysia. Imperata Cylindrica has been
used as renewable material to obtain cellulosic pulp for paper production and therefore avoid
environmental problems associated with the Imperata Cylindrical. The chemical composition,
mechanical properties, pulp, and fiber dimensions of Imperata Cylindrica were investigated for
its use in paper production. The chemical composition studied in this literature are cellulose,
holocellulose, ligin, ash, hot water, and 1% NaOHsolubilities, and this was found by chlorite
method, Kurscher-Hoffner approach, and TAPPI test method. The dimension of fiber were
determined using Franklin method. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) used to examine the
surface morphology of Imperata Cylindrica and sheet. TAPPI test was used to measure the
mechanical properties such as tensile indices, burst indices, and tear indices of the hand sheet.
From examining the fiber, the author found the felting rate of imepreta cylindrica is higher, and
when the pulp was extracted and made into a hand sheet, it shows a higher tensile index (45.06
Nm/g), tear index (2.17 mNm2/g), and burst index (3.90 kPam2/g) and compared to other non-
wood fibers. So in conclusion author found out that Imperata Cylindrica is a good alternative
fiber for paper-based industry and in other sectors such as agriculture and biofuel.

Salih et al., (2018) studied on mechanical properties of fiber reinforced earth brick where animal-
based fiber like chicken fiber (CF) and plant-based fiber like sugarcane bagasse (SB) were used.
Five different mixes were prepared for each fiber. 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 mold 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 fiber-reinforced samples increases (almost linearly) with increasing
chicken feathers content and sugarcane bagasse content. The dry density of earth bricks

6
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.

Picuno, (2016) stated that to progress the compressive strength of locally manufactured earth
brick, little amount of naturally available fibers are mixed to the soil mixture. The main factors
that intensely alters the mechanical performance of soil mixtures are: its category, strength under
tensile force, length of fiber and percentage of fiber. The optimum fiber percentage and length of
fiber were resulted to range in between 0.3% to 0.8% by total mass with 30 to 80mm length of
fiber.
Fibers of Spanish broom and wheat were adopted in fiber reinforced mud brick. Bricks of cubic
dimensions (15*15*15) cm were made with soil having following parameters: 49.3 percentage of
clay, 36.9 percentage of silt and 13.8 percentage of sand. Wheat straw incorporated in mud
bricks were referred as guiding material to compare the results. During compression test a
constant force were given without any shock and gradually incremented until the development of
cracks at a rate of 1mm/min. In tensile test, Spanish broom as a twig and a fiber taken from a ball
of rope were inspected. Fiber reinforced adobe bricks showed a very small elastic stage,
continued by a partial plastic stage before rapidly undergoing conclusive failure. This test found
out that the presence of fibers, together with their length, shows a vital role in the improvement
of strength under compression load.

Stabilized earth brick as a substitute for conventional brick (Rajakumara & Gunasheela, 2016).
The author says that the developing more new construction materials would be of immense value
to reduce the effect on emissions from the environment. It was found out that there are some
undesirable properties, such as loss of strength due to wind or driving rain and low dimensional
stability filled with water vapor on the wall.  Therefore, stabilized earth bricks were prepared and
test was performed to find out its characteristics.

The stable earth brick is prepared with 7%,5% and 2% cement, the soil which contained sand 60-
75% and clay 10-15% was known to give best combination with cement so it was used and if the

7
content of sand was less quarry dust was also added. Experiments on compressive strength test
and absorption of water have be carried out to determine the characteristics of the bricks
produced. Water absorption was found to be lower and the dry compressive strength of cement
stabilizer as 7% was higher compared to 5% and 2% cement. As a result they found that cement
with 7% as a stabilizing agent is good compared to others. So when compared with other bricks
it was found that stabilized earth bricks (SMB) have more wet and dry compressive strength and
less water absorption characteristics.

According to (Bhattarai, S.K., &Bhuyan, A. n.d.) for study of improvement of interlocking earth
bricks stabilized with cement, straw and cow dung. The research aims to produce low cost
alternative building material. The composition consists of soil, cement, binder (straw), cow dung,
saw dust and water. The mold dimension of 30*15*15cm was adopted and mechanically
compressed. External pressure is applied on the process of casting to increase the compression
strength of CEBs. Dry curing of 7, 14, 21 and 28days are carried out in absence of direct sun
light. Four design mixes are made with and without additives and binder. Various stabilizers to
soil ratio of 1:3, 1:4 and 1:5 are tested for 3 different soil types.
Compression strength of 0.7MPa (1:4) was observed for sandy soil with straw and saw dust for
28days of curing. Interlocking CEBs with sandy soil of 1:3 and 1:4 for stabilizer to soil is
recommended for the construction of CEBs. Interlocking mechanism put in reduces the mortar in
the masonry wall construction. With the interlocking CEBs mechanism, the material usage for
bonding is avoided, thereby reducing construction cost and producing eco- friendly material.

Studies done on mechanical properties of mud brick for earthen structures with composition of
soil, sand and rice husks. Adobe brick dimension were 40* 20*10 cm 3. Poorly graded (SP)
classified soil was used in the adobe brick matrix. Variation of rice husks percentage and sand
percentage was made and its optimum percentage was computed for maximum compressive
strength. Horizontal compressive strength (6c) of 21.76, 15.76 and 13.48kg/cm2 was observed for
3 different soil types incorporated. Horizontal flexure strength (fb) of 5.86, 6.24 and 4.27kg/cm2
was computed. Definite relationship was observed between f b, PI and 6c. 1.8% of rice husks and
0.2% of sand was found to give maximum compressive strength. The adobe brick performance in
terms of strength and serviceability properties can be enhanced by adopting appropriate
quantities of soil, sand and rice husks in the adobe matrix (Sriwattanaprayoon, 2014).

8
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The methodology chart proposed below depicts the overview of the project work carried out to
fulfill the aims and objectives of this research.

Literature Review

Soil
Material collection Cow dung
fiber
Tamping rod
Mold Material test(soil)
Dry density Test
Sieve Analysis Test
Atterberg Limit Test
Equipment fabrication
Specific Gravity
Swell Test

Mix proportion
Blow determination Sample test preparation
Casting of samples
Mechanical test
Flexural strength test
Sample test Compressive strength test
Water absorption test

Comparative analysis of CO2 emission and

rate with burnt clay brick

Material Collection
Sample test
Result & Discussion

Figure 1: Methodology chart for the project.

9
3.1 Literature review
Among the several works of literature review that were referred for this research work. The study
conducted by Mostafa & Uddin (2016); Arunima et al., (2019) on the topics; “Experimental
analysis of Compressed Earth Brick (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression
forces”) and “Study of Strength of Earth brick Reinforced with Coir fiber and Cow dung” were
relevant with the objectives of this research work. Its comprehensive report is provided in
chapter 2, pp. 4-8.

3.2 Material Collection

3.2.1 Soil
Soil for this earth brick were used from the locality of Rinchending, Chhukha in the southern belt
of Bhutan. Soil selection was done at the site by physical observation and laboratory tests were
performed to identify the most suitable soil. Two potential sites were selected and technical tests
were carried out. Sieve analysis test was performed at the College of Science and Technology
(CST) laboratory to classify the soil as per IS 1498 (1970). Since the soil passing through
4.75mm sieve was greater than 50%, dry sieve analysis was adopted. The soil was classified in
the group of well-graded sand (SW). The grain size distribution is shown in figure 15.

Figure 2: Soil collection site. Source:

Google earth.

10
 (a) (b)

Figure 3: (a) Soil site A and (b) Soil site B

The compaction test on the soil was performed to determine the OMC and MDD as per IS 2720-
Part 7 (1980). From the observation, the most suitable soil was selected. Atterberg limit test was
done as per IS 2720-5 (1985). Atterberg limit test gives an idea about the plasticity of soil and
the amount of clay content as shown in figure 17, 19, and 20, table 5 and 6. The specific gravity
test was performed as per IS 2720-3-1 (1980): Part 3 and it gives information about the soil’s
relative density. Swell test was carried out as per IS 2720-40 (1977), which concluded that the
soil has a FSI of 11.3% and has low degree of expansion.

3.2.2 Cow dung (CD)

The cow dung was readily available and collected from the nearby locality of Tading Gewog
under Samtse dzongkhag. It was crushed and oven-dried. The dried cow dung was sieved
through a 4.75mm sieve size (Arunima et al., 2019). Cow dung used contains fibrous materials,
which further binds the matrix materials and acts as good additives (Olokode et al., 2012). In this
study following chemical composition of cow dung (Khalid et al., 2016) as revealed in Table 1
below could not be conducted due to lack of equipment.

11
 Table 1: Chemical composition of cow dung in % of its weight. (Source:

Composition Dry wt (%)

Starch 5.2
Cellulose 31.4
Hemicellulous 15
Lignin 17
Fat 3.21
Crude protein 18.12

Note. Reprinted from Mechanical and physical performance of cow dung-based polypropylene
biocomposites, by Mohammad Khalid, retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net Copyright
2016.

Figure 4: Cogon grass and Cow

dung collection site. Source: Google earth

12
 Figure 5: Cow dung crushed and sieved

3.2.3 Cogon grass (Imperata Cylindrica).

Cogon grass was readily available and collected from the locality of Tading gewog under Samtse
dzongkhag. Different designated design lengths were adopted based upon the similar research
article on experimental analysis of compressed earth brick with banana fibers resisting flexural
and compression forces (Mostafa & Uddin, 2016). Fiber was soaked in water for 48 hours to
saturate before adding to the mix to avoid absorption of moisture contained in soil by fiber so
that the OMC of the brick matrix is not altered (Danso et al, 2015). Cogon fiber used in this
research is presented in figure 6 below.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6: Sapling (a), Harvested (b) and Chopped cogon grass (c)

The mechanical properties of cogon grass study are conducted and explained in chapter 4:
Material Testing, pp. 27-33.

13
3.3 Material Test
Field tests such as visual examination, dilatancy test, and sedimentation tested were carried out
to determine suitable soil to be used in earth brick production. After the field tests, following
laboratory tests were conducted to determine the engineering properties of soil: Dry density test,
Sieve Analysis test, Atterberg Limit test, Specific gravity test, and Swell test. The soil was made
free of organic matter. Larger soil lump was crushed and oven-dried for 24 hours. Atterberg limit
test was conducted as per IS 2720-5 (1985) to determine the plastic, liquid limit, and plasticity
index to understand the plasticity of the soil. MDD and OMC were computed by dry density test
as per IS 2720-7 (1980) to understand the mechanical properties of soil samples. The specific
gravity test done as per IS 2720-3-1 (1980): Part 3, which identifies, the soil does not contain any
organic material which was suitable for brick production. The soil contained a suitable amount of
sand, gravel, and clay, which can be used in the earth brick production.
Cow dung was collected from the nearest available source (Tading Gewog) and oven-dried.
Dried samples were made to pass through a 4.75mm sieve (Arunima et al., 2019). The presence
of fibrous material in cow dung further binds the earth bricks. The cow dung was expected to
bind the soil grains and enhance the mechanical properties of earth brick.

Cogon fiber was collected and stored in a dry place. The fiber was cut in its cutting length and
soaked in water for 48 hours (Danso et al., 2015). The fiber was found to have a rough texture
for proper binding in the earth brick. A combination of cogon fiber in the earth brick with
additives was predicted to provide good binding properties (Ibrahim et al., 2018). Therefore the
study on the requirement of soil parameters for brick productions by suitable fiber length and
percentage of fiber mix was carried out for earth brick.

3.4 Equipment Fabrication

Mold:
As per the dimensions required by ASTM C67-07, collected timber was shaped into a mold
dimension of full-size brick (24*12*9) cm for flexure and water absorption test. Half-brick
dimension (12*12*9) cm was adopted as per ASTM
C67-07 for the compressive strength test.

14
 Figure 7: Typical Mold for brick casting
Wooden tamping rod:
The collected timber was shaped into a tamping rod and it was weighted using an electronic
weighing machine (1.37 kg) and it was kept constant for all the cube sizes for the determination
of the number of blows for manual compaction of soil dropped from a height of 305 mm with a
constant compaction force.

Figure 8: Wooden tamping rod

3.5 Sample Test Preparation

3.5.1 Mix Proportion

Before casting the sample bricks it’s important to determine the ratio of each material. In this
project different ratios of soil, fiber, cow dung, and water were used for the production of earth
bricks. Three mix proportions for three different tests were prepared depending on the shape of
the mold. Upon knowing the density of soil as per IS 2720-7 (1980) and knowing the volume of
mold the total mass of the soil was calculated. To the total soil mass proportion of fiber, cow

15
dung, and water is added. So that mix proportion is expected to produce brick with high strength.
Its detailed explanation is provided in chapter 5, pp. 34-35.

3.5.2 Blow Determination

For mold size of (24*12*9) cm, the degree of compaction for 48 hits was 97.77% so it was
adopted with constant compaction energy. For mold size of (12*12*9) cm, the degree of
compaction for 38 hits was 98.9%, so it was adopted with constant compaction energy. The test
was performed according to IS 2720-29 (1975) as mentioned in chapter 5, pp. 35-36.

3.5.3 Casting of Samples

Samples were cast for mold dimensions of (24*12*9) cm and (12*12*9) cm. Earth brick samples
were tested for flexural, compression, and water absorption. For each mix proportion, three
samples were adopted as further explained in chapter 5, pp. 36-39.

3.6 Sample Test

The flexural test was performed as per ASTM C-67-07. Three samples each of different fiber
lengths: 10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, and 50 mm were cast. The heads of the supports on the
UTM were cleaned. The specimen was placed lengthwise onto the supports in such a manner that
one-inch overhang remains from the edge of the specimen to the support. UTM (Universal
Testing Machine) was turned on and data like rate of loading (rate of loading should not be more
than 1.25 mm/min) and the dimension of specimen (24*12*9) cm were put to the control unit of
UTM. The intermediate crosshead was moved by pressing control buttons such that the loading
pin attached to the intermediate crosshead just touches the surface of the specimen. Pump valve
was turned on to apply pressure and stopped until the specimen failed. Dial gauge readings were
noted down. After analysis of the flexure strength Vs fiber length graph, as illustrated in figure
32, chapter 6, p. 42, the optimum fiber length was determined.

Compression test was performed as per ASTM C-67-07. Three samples each of 30 mm fiber
length of different fiber percentages of 0%, 1%, 2%, 4%, and 6% were cast. Specimens were
placed lengthwise between the intermediate crosshead and the lower crosshead. UTM (Universal
Testing Machine) was turned on and data like rate of loading was adopted as one mm/min (Lan
16
et al., 2018) and the dimension of the specimen (12*12*9) cm was transferred to the control unit
of UTM. Intermediate crosshead was adjusted by pressing the control buttons such that the
loading pad just touches the surface of the specimen. The pump valve was turned on to apply
pressure on the specimen and stopped when the specimen failed. Dial gauge readings were noted
down to plot the graph. Optimum fiber percentage was obtained from the compressive strength
Vs fiber percentage graph, as illustrated in figure 34, chapter 6, p. 44.

Water absorption was performed as per IS 3495 (Part 2): 1992. Three samples of 30 mm fiber
length and 4% cogon fiber were cast. The specimens were oven-dried for 24 hours at 105C-
115C and left to cool. After cooling, the specimens were weighted by electronic weighing
machine and the weights were noted down as the dry weight of the earth brick. Then the
specimens were submerged in water for 24 hours at room temperature of 27C+2C. The
specimens were patted dry with a cloth and immediately weighted using an electronic weighing
machine. The weights were noted down as wet weight of the specimen.

Water absorption = [(Wet Weight – Dry Weight) / Dry Weight] * 100.

After the evaluation of results obtained from the flexural test, compressive test, and water
absorption test, the following objectives of the project are supposed to be achieved:

 Recommend a suitable fiber length for earth brick.

 Propose a percentage of fiber for earth brick.

3.7 Comparative analysis of CO2 emission with burnt clay brick

Energy sources like electricity, coal, and diesel are used in the process of production of earth
brick (burnt clay bricks). Fuel specific carbon coefficient was computed and used in the analysis
of carbon emission. The CO2 process energy emission for clay brick were analyzed in metric
tons (Background Document for Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Clay Brick
Reuse and Concrete Recycling, 2003). Comparatively the earth brick in this research was
supposed to have negligible carbon emission to that of burnt clay bricks. Comprehensive studies
carried out are explained in chapter 7, pp. 46-47.

17
 CHAPTER 4: MATERIAL TEST

Report on various material testing conducted on soil sample used in the mix proportions are
presented. It covers field tests: Visual examination, dilatancy test, sedimentation test, and
laboratory tests: Dry density test, grain size distribution test, Atterberg limit test, specific gravity
tests were conducted. Ultimate tensile load carried by cogon fiber was performed. Except for
tests on fibers on a microscopic level is not reported.

4.1 SOIL TEST

Knowing the physical properties of a soil is a pre-requisite (visual examinations, dilatancy test,
and sedimentation test) before any soil tests are conducted. This is required to analyze the soil
type and its characteristics to determine the most suitable soil to be used in earth brick. After
knowing the suitable soil, test on dry density test, grain size distribution, Atterberg limit test, and
specific gravity test were explained in the following paragraph.

4.1.1 Field test for soil

Field identification and classification such as visual examination, dilatancy/Shaking test, and
sedimentation test were found necessary and were carried out in this research study as per IS
1498 (1970): Classification and identification of soils for general engineering purposes.

a. Visual examination
To understand the pattern of coarse and fine grains, a soil sample was spread on a flat surface.
Coarse grains with larger particles in the soil indicate the presence of gravel and sand. Grains of
soil visible through the naked eyes are identified as coarse grain particles. On the other hand, if
not visible then those are fine-grain particles. More than 50% of visible particles indicate the
presence of coarse grain soil and less than 50% indicates as fine-grained soil. Soil sample A was
observed to have more coarse grains than fine grain. Soil sample B was observed to have similar
soil grain particles like soil sample A, but with a lesser portion of coarse grains. A good
proportion of coarse and fine soil grains to be used in the earth brick was identified in both the
soil samples.

18
 (a) (b)
Figure 9: (a) Soil Sample A and (b) Soil Sample B
b. Dilatancy/Shaking test

In the collected soil, water was added nearly to saturate the soil. A small pat of soil was taken in
palm and vigorously shaken horizontally, striking against the other hand several times. Soil
surface appearing glossy indicates that the moisture has risen to the surface. If soil surface
become shiny which contains silt or very fine sand. Absence of glossy surface indicates clayey
soil. If the soil surface is slowly glistening it indicates the presence of predominantly silt and
small amount of clay content. Both the soil samples appeared glossy on soil surface indicating
presence of silt with possible amount of clay.

(a) (

Figure 10: (a) Soil sample A and and (b) Soil sample B

19
 c. Sedimentation Test
To determine the amount of sand, silt, and clay content in the soil sample as well as to recognize
the differences in soil texture (sand, silt & clay), sedimentation test was carried out as per UC
ANR. Soil samples were collected in a container from two different locations within the locality
of the CST campus. Organic materials and larger lumps were removed from the collected
sample. Three measuring cylinder each of 500 ml were collected. In a cup of 200ml soil sample
was filled as half the cup volume and then it was transferred to measuring cylinder. Water was
filled in measuring cylinder as 1.5 times the cup volume. Laundry detergent was used to dissolve
soil aggregates so as to keep the soil particles separated.

The mixture was thoroughly shook for five minutes and kept undisturbed for 24 hours. After
completion of 24 hours, total depth of the sample was measured. Again the sample in the
measuring cylinder was shook for 5 minutes and was allowed to settle for 30 seconds, this allows
sand to settle hence sand depth was measured. Without shaking the cylinder, it was allowed to
stand for 30 minutes and silt depth was measured by subtracting the sand depth. Samples in the
cylinder was shaken for 5 mins, after completion of 3 hours the remaining unsettled particles are
clay. Clay depth was calculated by subtracting sand depth and silt depth from total depth.
Corresponding percentage for each soil texture were analyzed, calculated and resulted as
displayed in table 2 and table 3.

20
 (a) (b)
Figure 11: Sedimentation test: (a) Soil sample A and (b) Soil sample B

Table 2: Soil composition identifications of soil sample A

Compositio
Compositio Sample content in (mm) n
n (500ml cylinder capacity) (%)
type i ii iii Avg.
Sand 49 48 45 47.33 57.72
Silt 17 18 19 18.00 21.95
Clay 16 16 18 16.67 20.33

Table 3: Soil composition identifications of soil sample B

Sample content in (mm) Composition

Composition (500ml cylinder capacity) (%)
type i ii iii Avg.
Sand 46 48 45 46.33 56.50
Silt 17 18 19 18.00 21.95
Clay 19 16 18 17.67 21.54

21
From the above table 2 and 3 for soil sample A and B, the percentage composition of sand, silt
and clay were 57.72%, 21.95%, 20.33% and 56.5%, 21.95%, 21.54% respectively. As it is
evident both the soil sample falls under sandy clay loam and agrees the composition of soil
specifications that makes good earth brick as recommended by (Hohn, 2003).

The above field tests conducted confirmed and validated that both the soil samples contained
good proportion of sand, silt and clay.

4.1.2 Laboratory test on soil

Laboratory tests were performed on the soil sample to analyze the mechanical properties of the
soil sample used in this research study. Tests performed on the soil samples were dry density
test, sieve analysis test, Atterberg limit test, and specific gravity test.

1. Dry Density Test

Standard Proctor test was adopted in this research study to determine OMC and MDD as per IS
2720-7 (1980). Soil sample passing through a 4.75mm sieve was used. For soil sample A (lab
soil) and B (brick C soil), water was added in an increment of 6%, 8%, 10%,12%, 16%, 20%,
24% and 10%, 14%, 18%, 22% respectively. The soil sample was compressed into three layers
and each layer was given 25 blows with a rammer of 2.5 kg dropped from a height of 310 mm.

(a) (b)
Figure 12: (a) Standard Proctor Apparatus (b) Oven-dried samples

22
 Figure 13: Comparative MDD and OMC of two soil samples

Soil sample B (brick C soil) appears to have comparatively high MDD, which indicates that
more soil particles are packed in a given unit space. Therefore, soil sample B was selected in this
research with an MDD of 1.34g/cc and OMC of 18.75%.

The following tests were performed on the soil sample B.

2. Sieve Analysis test

As per IS 1498 (1970), the Sieve Analysis test of soil was followed. Table 4 shows the result
obtained after grain size distribution analysis and displays percentage finer ranging from 0 to
86% for various sieve sizes.

23
 (a) (b)
(c)
Figure 14: (a) Soil sample (b) Weight of soil retained on the sieve and (c) sieve analysis
apparatus

Table 4: Percent passing data for corresponding sieve sizes

Cumulative % Percentage
Sieve size(mm) Wt. retained(g) Wt. retained (%) retained Finer (%)
4.75 70 14 14 86
2.36 100 20 34 66
1.18 77 15.4 49.4 50.6
0.6 97 19.4 68.8 31.2
0.3 63 12.6 81.4 18.6
0.15 56 11.2 92.6 7.4
0.075 32 6.4 99 1
Nil 4 0.8 100 0

The grain size distribution curve plotted between particle size and percentage finer is illustrated
in figure 15.

24
 Figure 15: Grain size distribution graph

From the graph it is visible that gravel % = (100 - 63.33) % = 36.6% and sand % = (63.33 - 0) %
= 63.33%. Since the percentage of sand was greater than the gravel, the soil is classified as sandy
soil with soil group of well-graded sand (SW) as per IS 1498 (1970) soil classification.

3. Atterberg Limit Test

Atterberg Limit Test was performed to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity
index of fine grain soils. The test differentiates between clay and silt, and it also helps to classify
the types of clay and silt. Alberet Atterberg a Swedish chemist has created these limits. It was
later modified by Arthur Casagrande. This is a type of experiment mainly used on clay silty soils
because these soils expand and shrink due to moisture content. This test helped us to control the
amount of expansion and shrinkage of the soil, so that the correct amount of moisture is added
while working with the soil used in the mix.

25
Liquid limit:
Liquid limit is defined as a limiting water content separating the viscous liquid state and plastic
state of soil consistency (Andrade et al., 2011).

(a) (b)
Figure 16: (a) Liquid limit device (b) Liquid limit device with soil sample

Table 5 below illustrates the average liquid limit of the soil and this value is used in soil
classification which gives an idea about the plasticity of the soil.

Table 5: Liquid limit determination

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

26
The graph displayed below illustrates the moisture content of the soil corresponding to the
number of blows.

Figure 17: Semi-log graph of moisture content Vs no of blows

The liquid limit of the soil used was obtained as 58.33%.

Plastic limit test

The plastic limit is the water content at which a soil just begins to crumble when rolled into a
thread of 3 mm in diameter. The difference in liquid limit and plastic limit is called plasticity
index. By determining the liquid limit and plasticity index, soil can be classified with the help of
a plasticity chart based on the Indian Standard of soil classification (IS 1498-1970).

27
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 18: Laboratory testing (a) soil sample; (b) molding of sample with water; (c) rolling of the
sample; (d) measurement of weight

Table 6 below depicts the average value of the plastic limit computed from four different trials
on the soil sample.

Table 6: Plastic limit test observation

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

5 Mass of water (W1-W2)g 1 1 1 2

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

Moisture content(%)= P.L= ((W1-
7 33.33 40 50 66.67
W2)/(W2-W0))*100
8 Average value of P.L 47.5

The average value of P.L=47.5%

28
Therefore plasticity index (Ip)=Wl-Wp= 58.33-47.5= 10.83%.

Figure 19 below illustrates the soil classification based on the Casagrande plasticity chart as per
IS 1498.

Figure 19: Plasticity chart as per IS1498-1970

The soil was classified as inorganic silt with the following properties:

 Low degree of expansion.

 High compressibility.
 Medium toughness.

Based on the above parameters, the soil was cast into the desired shapes by decreasing its
volume. The soil used has the ability to absorb energy and deform without fracturing.

29
Shrinkage Potential of Soil

Figure 20: Shrinkage potential of soil used in earth brick [source: Wattle and Daub: Craft,
Conservation and Wiltshire Case Study A dissertation]

The results obtained from the liquid limit test and plastic limit test, value of plasticity index was
found as 10.83% and liquid limit was 58.33%. Figure 20 above depicts the plot of plasticity
index and liquid limit, from where low shrinkage potential was observed. Low shrinkage
potential indicates that with the change in moisture content, low volume change was observed
(Graham, 2003).

30
 4. Specific gravity test.
Test methods for determination of specific gravity for fine-grained soil were followed as per IS
2720-5 (1985).

(a) (b)
Figure 21: (a) Empty Pycnometer (b) Pycnometer with sample

The given table 7 below depicts the average value of specific gravity for the soil used.
Table 7: Specific gravity of soil

SL.
Description I II III IV
NO
1 Mass of pycnometer (g) 634 638 639 638
Mass of pycnometer +
2 mass of dry soil (g) 734 738 738 738
Mass of pycnometer +
3 mass of wet soil (g) 1580 1587 1592 1586
Mass of pycnometer +
4 mass of water (g) 1518 1525 1529 1522
5 Mass of dry soil (g) 100 100 100 100
6 Specific gravity,Gs 2.63 2.63 2.70 2.78
  Gs.avg 2.69

31
The specific gravity of 2.69 was observed for the soil sample. The soil sample’s specific
gravity was above 2.6, which validates that there was no contained of a large amount of
organic matter (ASTM D854-92).

5. Swell Test

Figure 22: Swell test

Table 8: Free swelling index of soil as per IS 2720-40 (1977)
SL.
N Determination No. I II
O
1 Mass of fry soil (gm) 10 10
Volume in water after 24 hrs swell(Vd)
15.4 17
2 (cc)
Volume in kerosene after 24 hrs swell(vk)
14 15
3 (cc)
4 Free swell index[(Vd-Vk)/Vk]*100 (%) 10 13.3
  Average (%) 11.7

Computed FSI was 11.3%, which indicates that soil has low degree of expansion. The swelling
of soil was observed to have no much impacts, when it is used as building materials.

4.2 Fiber test

4.2.1. Ultimate Tensile Load.

32
Five samples of cogon fibers woven into three strands of equal lengths were taken for the test.
The diameter of a strand of cogon fiber was measured with the help of a Vernier caliper. A
hollow cylindrical rod of uniform diameter and thickness was taken for the strands to be hung.
Loads were applied to the lower end of the strand in increasing order until the fiber reaches its
ultimate tensile load.

Observation data.
Fiber Length = 80cm
Fiber Diameter = 0.65 mm
The average ultimate load for five fiber strands was 18.63 kg as shown in table 9 below.
Table 9: Tensile strength of fiber (Cogon Fiber)

Fiber Load(kg)
1 18.6
2 18.66
3 19.1
4 19.6
5 18.16
Avg 18.63

The fiber was able to withstand ultimate load of 182.76 N.

(a)

(b) (c)
Figure 23: (a) Fiber testing; (b) Fiber strand, loading and (c) Strand failure at ultimate loading

33
 CHAPTER 5: SAMPLE TEST PREPARATION

5.1 Mix proportion

Performance of earth brick in terms of flexural and compressive strength could be achieved by
the inclusion of right quantities of soil, cow dung, and cogon fiber. The proportion of water
added to all mixture was determined from the dry density test of soil conducted as per Indian
Standard Specification – IS: 2720-7 (1980).

For determining the flexural strength test, three soil bricks of (24*12*9) cm were prepared for
each 0,1, 2, 3, 4 and 5cm fiber lengths with constant fiber percentage of 3% and 20% cow dung
(Arunima et al., 2019) as shown in table 10 below.

Table 10: Mix proportion for flexural strength test

Mixture Proportion (%) Weight(Kg) Relation

Soil 100 5
Cogon 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 

Optimum fiber length obtained from the flexural strength test was adopted to determine the
compressive strength of earth brick. Three samples of (12*12*9) cm were cast for each fiber
percentage of 0%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 6% with a constant fiber length of 3cm, and 20% cow dung
(Arunima et al., 2019).

Table 11: Mix proportion for compressive strength test

Mixture Proportion (%) Weight(Kg) Relation

Soil 100 2.5
fiber 0-6 In relation to the total dry mixture
34
 cow dung 20 0.5 In relation to the total dry mixture
Water 18.33 0.4582 In relation to the total dry mixture 

From the flexural test the optimum fiber length obtained was 3cm and fiber percentage of 4%
was computed from the compressive strength test. Therefore, for water absorption test, a fiber
percentage of 4% with 3cm fiber length was used.

Table 12: Mix proportion for water absorption test

Mixture Proportion (%) Weight(kg) Relation

Soil 100 5

fiber 4 0.2 In relation to the total dry mixture

cow dung 20 1 In relation to the total dry mixture

Water 18.33 0.9165 In relation to the total dry mixture 

5.2 Blow determination test

A blow determination test was conducted to compute the number of blows that were required to
achieve the maximum dry density of the soil. This test was improvised from the standard proctor
test due to variation in the mold dimension. The number of blows required to achieve MDD was
determined on the trial and error method. Mold dimensions of (24*12*15) cm and (12*12*15)
cm were incorporated to accommodate full height of the core cutter (13cm). An arbitrary number
of blows were performed and the density of the soil achieved was confirmed by core cutter
method. If the degree of compaction achieved was greater than 95%, the arbitrary number of
blows performed was adopted for tamping of the earth brick as per THC 03. SADCSTAN.
Sample calculations for the blow determination are presented in appendix A.

35
 (a)
(b)

Figure 24: Core cutter test for mold size (a) (12*12*15) cm and (b) (24*12*15) cm
For mold size of (12*12*15) cm, 38 blows were adopted with constant compaction energy to
achieve maximum dry density.

For mold size of (24*12*15) cm, 48 blow was adopted with constant compaction energy to
achieve the maximum dry density.

5.3 Casting of samples

Samples were cast for mold dimensions of (24*12*9) cm and (12*12*9) cm. Earth brick samples
were tested for compression, flexural, and water absorption test. For each mix proportion, three
samples were adopted.

i. Preparation of earth brick samples for the flexural test was adopted according to the article
(Danso et al., 2015)
 Earth brick of (24*12*9) cm was cast for each fiber lengths 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cm by taking
fiber percentage of 3% and 20% cow dung.
 Fiber was soaked in water for 48hrs before adding to the mix.
 Manual tamping of 43 blows was performed in each three layers with a wooden tamping
rod of 1.37kg.

36
 Cast samples were air-dried in indirect sunlight for 21 days.

Figure 25: Mold dimensions (24*12*9)

cm

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 26: Fiber length of (a) 1cm, (b) 2cm, (c) 3cm, (d) 4cm and (e) 5cm

(a)

Figure 27: (a) Dry mix and (b) Dry curing of cast earth bricks

37
ii. Preparation of earth brick samples for the compressive test was adopted according to the article
(Danso et al., 2015).
 Earth bricks of (12*12*9) cm were cast for fiber percentage of 0%, 1%, 2%, 4% 6% with
3cm fiber length and 20% cow dung.
 Fiber was soaked in water for 48hrs before adding to the mix.
 Manual tamping of 32 blows was performed in each three layers with a wooden tamping
rod of 1.37kg.
 Cast samples were air-dried in indirect sunlight for 21 days
(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 28: (a) Mold dimension (12*12*9) cm, (b) dry mix (c) dry curing of cast earth brick

iii. Preparation of earth brick samples for water absorption test. (Danso et al., 2015).
 Earth brick of (24*12*9) cm was cast for fiber percentage of 3%, 3cm fiber length, and
20% cow dung.
 Fiber was soaked in water for 48hrs before adding to the mix.
 Manual tamping of 43 blows was performed in each three layers with a wooden tamping
rod of 1.37kg.
 Cast samples were air-dried in indirect sunlight for 21 days.

38
 (a)

(b)

Figure 29: (a) design mix and (b) dry curing of cast earth brick

CHAPTER 6: SAMPLE TEST

39
Earth brick samples were tested for flexural strength, compression strength, and water
absorption. Flexural strength test was conducted to determine the fiber length. Fiber percentage
was computed from compressive strength test.

6.1 Fiber length determination

6.1.1 Flexure test

Flexural strength (MoR) quantifies a brick's ability to resist a certain amount of bending stress
(Mostafa & Uddin, 2016). This test was performed on full-size brick (24*12*9) cm according to
ASTM C-67-07. The device used for the test consisted of a universal testing machine (UTM) and
the force was connected to a data acquisition system by which the force was recorded every
second. Three samples were tested for each particular fiber length. The rate of loading was taken
as 1.27 mm/min.

Figure 30: Dry curing

of earth brick samples

40
 (a) (b)
Figure 31: (a) Sample before the one point load test and (b) Sample after the one-point load test

The average value of modulus of rupture computed after performing flexural test is presented in
Table 13 below.

Table 13: Fiber length with its average peak load and MoR.

Fiber length (mm) Sample, peak load (kN) Average peak MoR
load (kN)
I II III (MPa)

0 18.2 19.1 16.3 17.86 0.55

10 24.5 24.6 25.8 24.96 0.77

20 25.4 27.1 26.1 26.2 0.808

30 25.9 28.3 24.9 26.3667 0.814

40 26.1 29.1 25.4 26.86 0.829

50 24.2 30.2 27.1 27.16 0.838

After the computation of flexural strength, it was plotted against fiber length as illustrated in
figure 32 below.

41
 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 32: Graph of flexural strength Vs fiber length

Flexure test results interpretation.

The test result indicates that flexure strength of cogon fiber-reinforced earth brick increases with
the increase in fiber length. The maximum MoR observed was 0.838MPa with fiber length
50mm. In fiber-reinforced earth brick, fiber lengths of 40 mm and 50 mm achieved the highest
stresses with a significant increase by 50.7% and 52.36% respectively compared to that of
unreinforced earth brick.

The unreinforced earth bricks exhibited a sudden failure in all instances, while fiber-reinforced
earth bricks experienced a gradual failure. These modes of failure could be explained as a result
of the fibers bridging the cracks before failure. In this experimental study, results proved that the
optimum fiber length was 50 mm which produced a higher tensile strength in earth brick. Due to
entangling of fibers during the mixing and compaction process, 30 mm fiber length was chosen
as the optimum fiber length. This indicated that the most suitable fiber length was 30 mm for
earth brick.

42
6.2 Fiber percentage determination

6.2.1 Compression test

Compression test was performed on half-sized brick (12*12*9) cm with a maximum dry density
of 1.34g/cc in UTM at the College of Science and Technology laboratory under the supervision
of a lab technician as per ASTM C-67-07. The rate of loading was taken as 1mm/min as per the
study done by (Lan et al., 2018).

(a)

Figure 33: (a) air drying of earth brick samples (b) Compressive test on reinforced earth brick
The compressive strength of the samples for the varying percentage of fibers was computed and
presented in table 14 below.

Table 14: Compressive strength of the sample with different fiber percentage.

Sample, (MPa) Avg.

Mix Fiber % 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

43
 Average compressive strength
5
4.5 4.22 4.38 Figure 34:
Compressive strength (MPa)

4.12
4 Compressive strength
3.5 Vs fiber percentage
2.93
3 2.64
2.5
2 Compressive
1.5 strength test result.
1 The highest average
0.5
compressive strength
0
0 1 2 4 6
of 4.38MPa was
fiber % (%)
observed in 4% fiber
mix. The increase of 60.3% compressive strength is observed in 4% fiber added with respect to
the unreinforced earth brick sample. Thus fiber percentage of 4% was adopted as the optimum
fiber percentage for earth brick production.

6.3 Water Absorption test

Three earth brick samples of dimension (24*12*9) cm were adopted with 3cm fiber length, 4%
fiber percentage, and 20% cow dung. For the water absorption test, the specimens were oven-
dried for 24 hours and it was left to cool. After cooling, the specimens were weighed. The
samples were then submerged in water as per IS 3495 Part 2: (1992). Specimens were removed,
patted dry with a cloth, and weighted.

Computation on average water absorption for the earth brick samples results is presented in
Table 15 below.

Table 15: Water absorption test data.

SL
NO. Sample Dry Weight Wet Weight Water Absorption (%)
1 w1 3.63 4.72 30.03
2 w2 3.4 4.22 24.12
3 w3 3.73 4.55 21.98

44
 Avg. 25.38

% water absorption = [(Wet Weight – Dry Weight) / Dry Weight] * 100

Water absorption result and interpretation.

The average water absorption of brick was 25.38% as referred to table 13 above. The maximum
water absorption for bricks should be 20%. The water absorption of tested brick was more than
the desired percent, this indicates that the earth brick sample is not suitable for a wet
environment. It is suitable only for dry environment, or otherwise, a suitable stabilizer is required
to reduce water absorption.

CHAPTER 7: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CO2 EMISSION

AND RATE WITH BURNT CLAY BRICK

7.1 CO2emission for burnt clay brick in comparison to the fiber-reinforced earth
brick

45
GHG emission has become an alarming issue leading to global warming (Cho & Chae, 2020).
Therefore, it was crucial to adopt in our study more eco-friendly earth brick building material.

Table 16 and table 17 given below were adopted for comparison of CO 2 emission of burnt clay
brick in terms of process and transport energy emission with our study.

Table 16: CO2 process energy emission for clay brick

(b) (c)
(d) (e)
Million Btu Fuel-specific
Fugitive CH4 Process
(a) used for Carbon
Emissions Energy CO2
Fuel Type Percent of Clay Coefficient
MTCE/Millio Emissions
Total Btu Brick MTCE/Millio
n (MTCE/Ton)
Production n
Btu (=bx c)
(=5.1008x a) Btu
Diesel 1.89% 0.0963 0.0199 0.0001 0.0019
National
Average Fuel
Mix for
Electricity 39.38% 2.00087 0.0158 0.0006 0.0317
Natural Gas 58.70% 2.9958 0.0138 0.0007 0.0413
Total 100% 5.1008 n/a n/a 0.0749

Note. Reprinted from Background Document for Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors
for Clay Brick Reuse and Concrete Recycling, n.d., retrieved from https://books.google.bt
Copyright 2003.

Table 17: CO2 transport energy emission for clay brick

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fuel type Present of Million Btu used for Fuel-Specific Fugitive Transport
Total Btu Clay Brick Carbon CH4 Energy CO2
Transport(=0.031*a) Coefficient Emission Emission
(MTCE/Million MTCE/ (MTCE/Ton)

46
 Btu) Million Btu (=b*c)
Diesel 100 0.0307 0.0199 0.0001 0.0006
Total 100 0.0307 n/a n/a 0.0006

Note. Reprinted from Background Document for Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors
for Clay Brick Reuse and Concrete Recycling, n.d., retrieved from https://books.google.bt
Copyright 2003.

Interpretation

According to table 16 CO2 process energy emission for clay bricks were 0.0749 MTCE/ton
(approx.= 74.9kg/ton) and CO2 transportation energy emission were 0.0006MTCE/ton (approx.=
0.6kg/ton) from table 17 mentioned above. It is revealed from table 16 and table 17 that CO 2
transport energy emission was negligible as compared to process energy CO2 emission. Indian
construction industries annually produce 70billion tones of bricks giving 5.243MTCE of CO 2
process energy emission (Shukla et al., 2009).

We studied in our process energy emission for clay bricks does not involve any burning of fuels
in the production process. Dry curing consisting of soil, CD, fiber, and water was performed. The
soil was readily available at molding site without requiring vehicular transportation except for
fiber. Molding of earth brick was manually produced. Even though some equipment was
employed, CO2 emission was very negligible compared to burnt clay brick production and was
concluded as an eco-friendly building material with negligible CO2 emission. Since no energy
was used in this experiment.

7.2 Rate Analysis

Detailed rate analysis are presented in Appendix B.

Table 18: Cost of unit brick for the given production sites

Production Site Cost (Nu.)

Phuentsholing Town 5.66/-

47
 Tading gewog 5.61/-

Cost of unit 3rd class burnt clay brick = Nu. 7 /-

Cost of unit cogon fiber reinforced earth brick at Phuentsholing town and Tading gewog were
24% & 25% cheaper in comparison to 3nd class burnt clay bricks.

CHAPTER 8: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

8.1 Material Collection
8.1.1 Soil Test
8.1.1.1 Field Test
i. Visual Examination
A good proportion of fine and coarse grains were observed in the visual examination test for both
the soil samples. The presence of fine and coarse grains in the sample was expected to be
suitable for the earth brick. The detailed explanation was carried out in chapter 4, pp. 18-19. To
further clarify the results obtained from the visual examination, dilatancy test was carried out.

48
 ii. Dilatancy/ shaking test

Conducting dilatancy test on both soil samples, the samples appeared glossy on the soil surface
indicating the presence of silt with a possible amount of clay. Clay content in the soil acts as a
binder, enhancing the mechanical properties of earth brick. A detailed explanation was carried
out in chapter 4, p. 19. Through sedimentation test, further analysis of the soil samples was
carried out to quantify the composition of the soil.

iii. Sedimentation test

Both soil samples were categorized as sandy clay loam as presented in Tables 2 and 3. Thus, this
soil agrees to the composition of soil specifications that makes good earth brick. Detailed
findings were provided in chapter 4, pp. 20-22 above. Field tests could not conclude the most
suitable soil sample thus, laboratory tests were carried out to further analyze the soil samples.

8.1.1.2 Laboratory Test

i. Dry density test
Through this test, the MDD and OMC of the soil sample A were 1.31 g/cc and 18.33%
respectively. For the soil sample B, the MDD and OMC were 1.34g/cc and 18.75% respectively.
Since the MDD of soil sample B was greater than soil sample A as illustrated in figure 13, soil
sample B was used in this research study. Detailed dry density test results were analyzed and it
can be referred in chapter 4, pp. 22-23. A sieve analysis test on soil sample B was conducted for
soil grading.

ii. Sieve analysis test

Soil sample used in this research study was classified as well graded sandy soil by analyzing the
sieve analysis test as presented in figure 15 of chapter 4, pp. 23-25. In order to understand the
plasticity of the soil Atterberg limit test was carries out.

iii. Atterberg Limit test

According to Atterberg limit test illustrated by chapter 4, pp. 25-30 resulted in liquid limit of
58.33%, a plastic limit of 47.5%, and a plasticity index of 10.83% classifying the soil as
inorganic silt with low shrinkage potential as illustrated in figure 17, figure 19 and figure 20

49
above. Thus, the soil was found to have low degree of expansion, high compressibility, and
medium toughness. A specific gravity test was carried out to confirm the inorganic property of
the soil sample used.

iv. Specific gravity test

Specific gravity of the soil sample was computed to be 2.42, as presented in chapter 4, pp. 31-32,
table7. Since the specific gravity of 2.69 was greater than 2, this result confirms the inorganic
property of the soil sample used.

8.1.2 Fiber Test

8.1.2.1 Ultimate tensile load

Through improvised tensile strength tests, the ultimate tensile load of 182.76N was resisted by
three woven strands of cogon fiber as displayed in chapter 4, pp. 32-33. Since the cogon fiber
was able to resist high tensile load, this indicates that the fiber has an ultimate tensile strength
which can be incorporated in conventional earth brick to improve its mechanical properties.

8.2 Sample Test

8.2.1 Flexure Test

The results obtained from center point load test are shown in table 13 of earth brick incorporated
with different fiber lengths. Flexural test measures the tensile strength of a material indirectly. It
was observed that the flexural strength increases with an increase in fiber length. Flexural
strength increased significantly and remained constant with a negligible increase in flexure
strength after 10 mm fiber length. The findings also confirmed that fiber lengths of 40 mm and
50 mm achieved the highest stresses with a substantial increase by 50.7% and 52.36%
respectively in comparison to that of unreinforced earth brick.

In all cases, unreinforced earth bricks demonstrated sudden failure, while the fiber-reinforced
earth brick gradually failed because the fibers bridged the cracks prior to failure. It was observed
that 50 mm fiber length gave the highest flexural strength of 0.838 MPa. Longer fiber length
means more chances of entanglement which would ultimately reduce the workability of the earth
brick. Considering this factor into account, 30 mm fiber length was considered as the optimum
fiber length for earth brick in this research. The results were graphically presented in figure 32 of

50
chapter 6, pp. 40-42. A compression test was necessary to be conducted to know the optimum
fiber percentage to be adopted in the fiber-reinforced earth brick.

8.2.2 Compression Test

The result obtained from the universal testing machine (UTM) had been illustrated in table 14 of
earth brick with 30 mm fiber length and varying fiber percentage. A compression test measures
the compressive strength of the material. It was observed that the compressive strength increases
to 4% fiber and dropped after 4%. The highest compressive strength of 4.38 MPa was achieved
when the earth brick was incorporated with 4% cogon fiber and the lowest compressive strength
of 2.64 MPa was achieved when the earth brick had no fiber reinforcement. The increase of
60.3% compressive strength was observed in earth brick when it was incorporated with a fiber
percentage of 4% in comparison to that of earth brick without fiber. These reveal that the
incorporation of cogon fiber further enhanced the compressive strength of the earth brick. The
lowest class designation for burnt clay bricks illustrates a compressive strength of 3.5 MPa
which can be used for building purposes as per IS 1077 (1992): Common Burnt Clay Building
Bricks-Specification. The earth brick in this research illustrates a compressive strength of 4.38
MPa which implies that the earth brick reinforced with cogon fiber can be used as a building
material. The results were graphically presented in figure 34 of chapter 6, pp. 43-44. Although
the compression test validates the fiber-reinforced earth brick to be used in building material,
water absorption property of the brick was required to be analyzed.

8.2.3 Water Absorption Test

A water absorption test measures the amount of water absorbed under specified conditions. The
result obtained from water absorption test is shown in table 15 of earth brick with 30 mm fiber
length and 4% cogon fiber. It was observed that the average water absorption of earth brick with
cogon fiber is 25.38%. The maximum water absorption of earth brick is 20%. A higher water
absorption means the water was absorbed rapidly from the bedding mortar and stiffens very
quickly. This reduces the compressive and flexural strength of the overall walling. Due to the
high water absorption rate, it is suitable in dry environment only, or otherwise, a better stabilizer
is required to increase resistance to water. Detailed test results were presented in chapter 6, pp.
44-45.

51
 The overall results and discussions are compressively summarized as tabulated in table 19 below
for material and sample test carried out for future study and improvements over it if the further
need arises.
Table 19: Overall test results
Sl
No Test Results Remarks
.
1 Sample Soil Field Test Visual Examination Good Proportion of IS 1498 (1970)
Collection coarse & fine soil grains

52
 Silt with possible amount
Dilatancy/ IS 1498 (1970)
of clay.
Shaking Test

UC ANR
Sedimentation Test Sandy clay loam

MDD= 1.34 g/cc IS 2720-7 (1980)

Dry Density Test
OMC = 18.75%
IS 1498 (1970)
Sieve Analysis Test Well graded sandy soil
Laboratory
Test IS 2720-5 (1985)
Atterberg Limit Test Inorganic silt

IS 2720-3-1 (1980): Part 3

Specific Gravity Test Gs = 2.69

Fibe Improvised test

Ultimate Tensile Load 182.76 N
r
ASTM C-67-07
Flexural Test Fiber length=30mm

ASTM C-67-07
2 Sample Test Compressive Test Fiber percentage = 4%

IS 3495 Part 2: (1992)

Water Absorption 25.38%

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION
Earth brick reinforced with cogon fiber and cow dung presented in this research was technically
analyzed. Favorable soil parameters, optimum fiber length, optimum fiber percentage,
comparative analysis of water absorption, CO2 emission, and cost per unit brick with that of
burnt clay brick were investigated. The experimental tests carried out for this study confirms that,
mechanical characteristics of conventional earth brick were improved by including cogon fiber
within the earthen mixture. The soil sample used in this research paper was a well graded sandy
soil with specific gravity of 2.69, liquid limit of 58.33%, plastic limit of 47.5%, plasticity index
of 10.83%, MDD of 1.34g/cc and OMC of 18.75%.

53
It was observed that 50 mm fiber length gave the highest flexural strength of 0.838 MPa. Due to
entanglement of fibers, optimum fiber length was concluded to be 30mm. The highest
compressive strength of 4.38 MPa was resulted by 4% cogon fiber reinforced in the earth brick.
It was observed that the average water absorption of cogon fiber reinforced earth brick was
25.38%. Which indicated that this earth brick is suitable only in dry environment or otherwise a
better stabilizer is required to limit the water absorption. The fiber reinforced earth brick
produced in this research was found to have negligible CO2 process energy emission in
comparison to burnt clay bricks. Cost of unit cogon fiber reinforced earth brick at Phuentsholing
town and Tading gewog were 24% & 25% cheaper in comparison to 3nd class burnt clay bricks.

Future analysis appears necessary mainly for the improvement on adhesion of fibers with the
clay matrix, addition of suitable stabilizers and selection of other natural fibers, in order to
further improve the mechanical properties of the fiber reinforced earth brick.

CHAPTER 10: RECOMMENDATION

Through the course of this study, several opportunities for further research were noted. Results of
this study lead to the following recommendations;

• Addition of a good stabilizer to reduce the water absorption.

• Conduct thermal insulation tests.
• Improvement of adhesion of the fibers with the clay matrix.
• Different natural fibers (plant-based fibers & animal-based fibers) can be used to
reinforce the earth mortar.

54
 • Conduct study on the various percentage of cow dung and its effects on mechanical
properties of earth brick

Limitation of studies:
• Fiber testing equipment was required to further analyze the mechanical properties of the
cogon fiber.
• A detailed study on the morphology of cogon fiber needs to be analyzed (Scanning
electron microscope).
• Cow dung of 20% was adopted from the literature by (Arunima et al., 2019) due to time
constraint

Future research area:

• Durability of fiber reinforced earth brick can be analyzed.
• There is an opportunity for analyzing the interlocking mechanism of earth brick.
• Further studies can be carried out on strength variation due to the arrangement of fibers
within the brick (fibers can be arranged orthogonal to the loading applied).

REFERENCES

Amezugbe, F. A. (2013). the Performance of Natural and Synthetic Fibers in Low Strength.
Anderson-teixeira, K. J., Davies, S. J., Bennett, A. M. Y. C., Muller-landau, H. C., & Wright, S.
J. (2014). CTFS-ForestGEO : a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global
change. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12712
Andrade, F. A., Al-Qureshi, H. A., & Hotza, D. (2011). Measuring the plasticity of clays: A
review. Applied Clay Science, 51(1–2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.10.028
Arooz, F. R., & Halwatura, R. U. (2018). Mud-concrete block (MCB): mix design & durability

55
 characteristics. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 8(January 2018), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.004
Arunima, M., Narayani, S., Salim, S., & Shamna, J. (2019). Study of Strength of Earthbrick
Reinforced with Coirfibre and Cowdung. 8(06), 834–839.
ASTM. (2019). Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile.
In ASTM International (Vol. 04, pp. 1–17). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0067
Aubert, J. E., Magniont, C., Tribout, C., & Bertron, A. (2016). Plant aggregates and fibers in
earth construction materials : A review. 111, 719–734.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.119
Background Document for Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Clay Brick Reuse
and Concrete Recycling. (2003).
Binici, H. (2020). Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material. January.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.013
Bureau of Indian Standard. (1992). Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks -Specification. In IS
1077 (1992).
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1975). Indian Standard, Method of Test for Soils, Part 29:
Determination of Dry Density of Soils In-place by the Core-Cutter Method. In IS:2720-29:
Vol. Reaffirmed (Issue 2005, pp. 1–9).
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1982). Specification for soil based blocks used in general building
constructuion. In IS 1725 (p. 13).
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1992). Methods of Tests of Burnt Clay building brick. IS 3495 :
1992 - Parts 1 to 4, 1–7.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (2011). Methods of test for soils, determination of water content dry
density relation using light compaction. In IS : 2720 (Part VII-1980) (pp. 1–16).
Bureau of Indian Standards. (2016). Classification and identification of soils for general
engineering purposes. In IS 1498:1970 (pp. 1–24).
Burt, R., Minke, G., & Williams-Ellis, C. (2001). Earth Construction Handbook: The Building
Material Earth in Modern Architecture. APT Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.2307/1504775
Calatan, G., Hegyi, A., Dico, C., & Mircea, C. (2016). Determining the Optimum Addition of
Vegetable Materials in Adobe Bricks. Procedia Technology, 22(October 2015), 259–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.077

56
Cho, S., & Chae, C. (2020). A Study on Life Cycle CO 2 Emissions of Low-Carbon Building in
South Korea. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060579
Corbin, A., & Augarde, C. (2014). Fracture Energy of Stabilised Rammed Earth. Procedia
Materials Science, 3, 1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.270
Danso, H., Martinson, D. B., Ali, M., & Williams, J. B. (2015). Physical, mechanical and
durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres. Construction and
Building Materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.069
El mabchour, F. E., Zeriab Es-sadek, M., Abouchadi, H., & Taha-Janan, M. (2019). Mechanical
behavior modeling of a construction material on stabilized earth made by straw fibers.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 10(1), 1569–1576.
El, Y., Khabbazi, A., Benayad, C., & Dadi, A. (2016). Contribution to the Thermal and
Mechanical Behavior of the Two Materials at the Base of Clay Reinforced by Fibers ALFA
and of Straw Fibers. 12(4), 490–497. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.12.2389
Galán-Marín, C., Rivera-Gómez, C., & García-Martínez, A. (2015). Embodied energy of
conventional load-bearing walls versus natural stabilized earth blocks. Energy and
Buildings, 97, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.054
Galán-Marín, C., Rivera-Gómez, C., & Petric-Gray, J. (2010). Effect of animal fibres
reinforcement on stabilized earth mechanical properties. Journal of Biobased Materials and
Bioenergy, 4(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1166/jbmb.2010.1076
Gmez, I., Sala, J. M., & Milln, J. A. (2007). Characterization of moisture transport properties for
lightened clay brick - Comparison between two manufacturers. Journal of Building Physics.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1744259107082687
Graham, T. (2003). Wattle and Daub : Craft , Conservation and Wiltshire Case Study A
dissertation submitted by. In Architecture (Issue March).
https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1875.2806
Hohn, C. M. (2003). ABCs of Making Adobe Bricks: Vol. Guide G-52 (Issue Revised).
Ibrahim, S., Ahmad, M., Megat, K., & Kantasamy, N. (2018). Cogon Grass for Oil Sorption :
Characterization and Sorption Studies Cogon Grass for Oil Sorption : Characterization
and Sorption Studies. December 2019.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.775.359
Ibrahim, S., Baharuddin, S. N. I. B., Ariffin, B., Hanafiah, M. A. K. M., & Kantasamy, N.

57
 (2018). Cogon grass for oil sorption: Characterization and sorption studies. Key
Engineering Materials, 775 KEM(August), 359–364.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.775.359
Illampas, R., Ioannou, I., & Charmpis, D. C. (2011). A study of the mechanical behaviour of
adobe masonry. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 118, 485–496.
https://doi.org/10.2495/STR110401
Indra, A., Edison, E., & Nofrianto, H. (2018). Optimization of compaction pressure on brick.
MATEC Web of Conferences, 215, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201821501025
Jayasinghe, C. (2007). Comparative Performance of Burnt Clay Bricks and Compressed
Stabilized Earth Bricks and Blocks. Engineer: Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri
Lanka, 40(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v40i2.7137
Keable, R., Walker, P., Worcester, B. W. of, Maniatidis, V., & Martin, J. (2005). Properties of
Rammed Earth. Rammed Earth: Design and Construction Guidelines, 99–110.
Kim, T. H., Chae, C. U., Kim, G. H., & Jang, H. J. (2016). Analysis of CO2 emission
characteristics of concrete used at construction sites. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040348
Kishore, N. (2017). Embodied Energy Assessment and Comparisons for a Residential Building
Using Conventional and Alternative Materials in Indian Context. June 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-014-0075-x
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.
Lecturer, A., & Bhuyan, A. (n.d.). Study of improvement of inter-locking mud bricks stabilized
with cement , straw and cow dung.
Malkanthi, S. N., & Perera, A. (2018). Durability of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks with
Reduced Clay and Silt. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 431(8).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/431/8/082010
Maniatidis, V., & Walker, P. (2003). A review of rammed earth construction. Developing
Rammed Earth for UK Housing, May, 109.

58
 http://staff.bath.ac.uk/abspw/rammedearth/review.pdf
Morel, J. C., & Pkla, A. (2002). A model to measure compressive strength of compressed earth
blocks with the “3 points bending test.” Construction and Building Materials, 16(5), 303–
310. 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
Olokode, O. S., Aiyedun, ; P O, Raheem, ; D M, Owoeye, ; F T, & Anyanwu, B. U. (2012).
Production and characterization of clay-cow dung insulating fire-bricks. Global Advanced
Research Journal of Engineering, Technology and Innovation.
Perera, A. A. D. A. J. (2008). Innovations , Applications and Standards of Compressed
Stabilised Earth Blocks ( Cseb ). 154–162.
https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB15593.pdf
Picuno, P. (2016). Use of traditional material in farm buildings for a sustainable rural
environment. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(2), 451–460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.05.005
Rajakumara, H. N., & Gunasheela, P. (2016). Stabilized mud block as a substitute for
conventional brick block. 7(5), 1–9.
SADCSTAN. (2014). Rammed Earth Structures. Code of Practice. In THC 03. SADCSTAN TC
1/SC 5/CD SAZS 724 (p. 39).
Sajanthan, K., Balagasan, B., & Sathiparan, N. (2019). Prediction of compressive strength of
stabilized earth block masonry. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2072430
Saleem, M. A., Abbas, S., & Haider, M. (2016). Jute Fiber Reinforced Compressed Earth Bricks
( FR-CEB ) – A Sustainable Solution. 19(2005), 83–90.
Salih, M. M., Osofero, A. I., & Imbabi, M. S. (2018). Mechanical Properties of Fibre-reinforced
mud bricks MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF FIBRE-REINFORCED MUD BRICKS.
December.
Sari, A., Kassim, M., Aripin, A. M., Ishak, N., Hanis, N., & Hairom, H. (2016). POTENTIAL
OF COGON GRASS ( IMPERATA CYLINDRICA ) AS AN ALTERNATIVE FIBRE IN

59
 PAPER-BASED INDUSTRY. 11(4), 2681–2686.
Science, E. (2017). Experimental studies on effect of cow dung ash ( pozzolanic binder ) and
coconut fiber on strengthproperties of concrete Experimental studies on effect of cow dung
ash ( pozzolanic binder ) and coconut fiber on strengthproperties of concrete.
Sharma, V., Marwaha, B. M., & Vinayak, H. K. (2016). Enhancing durability of adobe by
natural reinforcement for propagating sustainable mud housing. International Journal of
Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.004
Shukla, A., Tiwari, G. N., & Sodha, M. S. (2009). Embodied energy analysis of adobe house.
Renewable Energy, 34(3), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.04.002
Siebel, E. A., & Kott, A. E. (1937). Determination of Specific Gravity. In Journal of AOAC
INTERNATIONAL (Vol. 20, Issue 3, pp. 535–542). https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/20.3.535
Sriwattanaprayoon, N. (2014). Engineering properties of adobe brick for earth structures.
International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (IJERD), 5(2), 41–46.
UC ANR. (n.d.). Sedimentation test of soil texture (pp. 7–9).
Vega, P., Juan, A., Ignacio Guerra, M., Morán, J. M., Aguado, P. J., & Llamas, B. (2011).
Mechanical characterisation of traditional adobes from the north of Spain. Construction and
Building Materials, 25(7), 3020–3023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.02.003

Appendix A
Blow Determination
The density of the compacted soil for mold dimension (12*12*15) cm corresponding to 38
number of blows was determined by core cutter method and analyzed in table 19 below.

Table 20: Blow determination for mold dimension (12*12*15) cm

Sl.No Description 33 blows 38 blows

T M B T M B

60
 1 Weight of crucible(g) 8 14 12 13 14 10
2 Weight of crucible + wet soil(g 34 30 32 33 47 32
3 Weight of crucible + dry soil(g) 25 29 28 29 40 30
4 Weight of dry soil (g) 17 15 16 16 26 20
5 Weight of water(g) 9 1 4 4 7 2
6 Moisture content(g) 52.94 6.67 25.00 25 26.923 10
7 Dry density dry, (g/cm3) 1.04 1.49 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.45
8 Avg. Dry density, (g/cc) 1.27 1.32
9 Degree of Compaction (%) 94.80 98.9

The density of the compacted soil for mold dimension (24*12*15) cm corresponding to 48
number of blows was determined by core cutter method and analyzed in table 20 below.

Table 21: Blow determination for mold dimension 24*12*15 cm

Sl.N
Description 42 blows 48 blows
o
T M B T M B
1 Weight of crucible(g) 12 15 13 8 10 9
Weight of crucible + wet
2 33 46 31 31 32 31
soil(g
Weight of crucible + dry
3 29 40 27 25 29 28
soil(g)
4 Weight of dry soil (g) 17 25 14 17 19 19
5 Weight of water(g) 4 6 4 6 3 3

61
 6 Moisture content(g) 23.53 24.00 28.57 35.29 15.79 15.79
7 Dry density dry, (g/cm3) 1.29 1.28 1.24 1.18 1.37 1.37
8 Avg. Dry density, (g/cc) 1.27 1.31
9 Degree of Compaction (%) 94.5 97.77

Appendix B
Rate Analysis
Material cost:

1. Cogon grass fiber:

1 bari = Nu.100 /-

1 bari = 10 bundles.

So price per bundle = Nu.10 /-

Weight of 1 bundle = 1 kg

Weight of fiber in one brick = 0.04 x 3.47 kg = 0.1388 kg

Cost of fiber in one brick = Nu.1.388 /-

2. Cow dung:

Price per sack of cow dung = Nu. 50 /-

62
Weight of 1 sack full cow dung = 65 kg

Wt. of cow dung in one brick= 0.2 * 3.47 kg = 0.694 kg

Cost of cow dung in one brick= Nu. 0.5338 /-

3. Soil:

Quantity of soil for 1 brick = 3.47 kg

Maximum dry density of soil =1.34 g / cc = 1340 kg / m3

Volume of soil in one brick=0.0026 m3

As per BSR 2020, price for m3 of dry earth = Nu. 86.39 /-

So, price of soil for one brick = 0.0026 * 86.39 = Nu. 0.225 /-

36 samples were produced in this research for sample test. Average time taken to caste single
earth brick was observed to be around 3.5 minutes.

Working hours= 8 hours (8 am – 5 pm) = 480 minutes

Considering unskilled labor,

Number of earth bricks that can be produced in a day by one labor = 480 min. / 3.5min = 137
numbers.

Considering two labors, number of earth bricks that can produced in a day= 137 * 2 = 274
numbers.

Constants:
As per BSR 2020 a fixed 5% for hand tools & equipment on labor cost, lubrication & corrective
maintenance on machinery cost and wastages & unaccounted on materials cost. A fixed 1 % for
water charges (sanitation, mixing of mortar, drinking, curing, etc.). 10% for contractor’s profit
and overhead charges.
Table 22: Rate analysis for cogon fiber-reinforced earth brick

SL.   Production Site

N Particulars Quantity Rate Phuentsholing Tading gewog
O   cost (Nu) cost (Nu)

63
 1 Fiber 274 1.39 380.31 380.312
2 Materials Cowdung 274 0.53 146.26 146.2612
3 Soil 274 0.23 61.65 61.65
275.6
4
Mason 1 4 275.64 275.64
Manpower
232.9
Labour 2 3 465.86 465.86
TOTAL 1329.72 1329.7232
Tools and
5
Equipment 0.05 66.49 66.49
TOTAL 1396.21 1396.21
6 Water charges 0.01 13.96 0.00
TOTAL 1410.17 1396.21
7 Overhead charges 0.10 141.02 139.62
TOTAL 1551.19 1535.83
    Cost per brick     5.66 5.61

Sonam Tamang
sonamtcst@gmail.com

Leki Dorji
lekidorji6816@gmail.com

Tshering Dorji
christopherfroom1999@gmail.com

Buddhi Man Powdyel

budhim28@gmail.com

Phurba Thinley Blon

64
pblon50@gmail.com

65