International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment (2016) 5, 141–155

H O S T E D BY
Gulf Organisation for Research and Development

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Original Article/Research

Enhancing durability of adobe by natural reinforcement

for propagating sustainable mud housing
Vandna Sharma a,⇑, Bhanu M. Marwaha a, Hemant K. Vinayak b
a
Department of Architecture, NIT Hamirpur, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Hamirpur, India

Received 25 July 2015; accepted 15 March 2016

Abstract

Low durability and compressive strength of adobe blocks leads to frequent maintenance problem associated with rural house wall con-
struction. This forms the main reason of abandonment of vernacular mud housing building technology in rural areas today. The present
paper presents an attempt to improve upon the low durability of adobe blocks by addition of natural reinforcement of Grewia Optiva and
Pinus Roxburghii which otherwise are treated as waste material in rural areas. Experimental investigations were carried out for cylindrical
and cubical stabilized and unstabilized soil samples. Durability tests conducted included wetting and drying test, water absorption and
expansion test, sponge water absorption test, spray test, total absorption test, and water strength coefficient tests carried out as per Indian
standards and international research. Results indicated that durability of stabilized soil samples increases by 72% and 68% for fibers of
Grewia Optiva and Pinus Roxburghii as compared with unstabilized soil samples. The results recommend that fibers of Grewia Optiva
and Pinus Roxburghii can be advantageously added in adobe blocks for improving durability. This would propagate durable mud housing
on a large scale thereby reducing housing shortage especially in developing countries, economizing use of natural resources, reducing
energy consumption during manufacturing of modern construction materials and most importantly provide sustainable way of living.
Ó 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adobe; Durability; Fibers; Grewia Optiva; Pinus Roxburghii

1. Introduction
1.1. Earth: most economical and user-friendly local building
material
Earth is the oldest building material which is most
commonly used for making shelter. Dethier (1986) and
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9882721138; fax: +91 1972 223834.
E-mail address: vandna@nith.ac.in (V. Sharma).
Peer review under responsibility of The Gulf Organisation for Research
and Development.
Coffman et al. (1990) discuss that nearly 30% of total pop-
ulation of world still resides in mud houses. It is one of the
most popularly used building construction materials in
Europe. Singh and Singh (2007) discuss that 55% of houses
in India are constructed with mud walls. Earth is the most
preferred building material for providing shelter for people
especially in less economically developed countries as dis-
cussed by Danso et al. (2015). Research studies by
Ciancio et al. (2013) regarding soil suitability test for
rammed earth highlighted financial and environmental
aspects of earth as construction material. The discussion

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.004
2212-6090/Ó 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
142 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
on social, economic and environmental benefits associated
with use of earth reveals that when soil is used as raw mate-
rial on site both financial and environmental impact of the
construction are significantly reduced. Ease of use of earth
and associated building techniques can help employ even
the unskilled labor. This would enhance self-help technol-
ogy among rural people eliminating the need for costly
transportation of labor, material and equipment from
other places. This would also act as a boon for the areas
where other construction materials and technologies are
not available (Ngowi, 1997). Earth is used in varied forms
for construction of shelters such as adobe, rammed earth,
cob, wattle and daub, compressed soil blocks etc.
(Delgado and Guerrero, 2006; Falceto et al., 2012).This
varied use of earth depends upon climatic factors, topogra-
phy and living requirements of inhabitants of the area.
While use of compressed earth blocks have seen popularity
over past few years as reported by Reddy et al. (2007), use
of unbaked earth in shelter construction dates back to over
thousand years as discussed by Minke (2001). Research by
Falceto et al. (2012) discusses international durability tests
in Spain regarding compressed earth blocks. The study dis-
cusses that different terminologies used in literature in this
context like earth blocks as compressed earth blocks,
cement stabilized earth blocks, compressed stabilized earth
blocks, soil–cement blocks all refer to use of same product,
that is earth blocks (without reinforcement). Similarly doc-
ument by CRATerre (CRATerre-EAGC, 1998) states that
compressed earth blocks comprise of different varieties
with or without stabilization. AENOR (2008) discusses
compressed earth blocks used for the construction of walls
and partitions highlighting their benefits over use of raw
earth blocks as adobe. Standards of New Zealand regard-
ing earth buildings (NZS 4297, 1998; NZS 4298, 1998;
NZS 4299, 1999) also state use of pressed bricks in con-
struction of buildings. Similarly ASTM standards provide
a set of guidelines for design of buildings involving use of
varied forms of earth (ASTM. Standard guide, 2010). Mid-
dleton discusses use of pressed blocks in earth wall con-
struction (Middleton, 1987). Standards of Sri Lanka (SLS
1382-1, 2009; SLS 1382-2, 2009; SLS 1382-3, 2009) regard-
ing compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEB) discuss at
length the requirements, test methods and guidelines for
production, design and construction with CSEB blocks.
Use of soil–cement blocks either in a compressed form as
CSEB or pressed blocks is considered beneficial and sus-
tainable over other modern construction materials like
burnt bricks, cement, glass etc. A similar idea is supported
by standards of Brazil (ABNT.NBR 8491, 1986; ABNT.
NBR 8492, 1986; ABNT.NBR 10832, 1989; ABNT.NBR
10833, 1989; ABNT.NBR 12023, 1992; ABNT.NBR
12025, 1990; ABNT.NBR 12024, 1992; ABNT.NBR
10834, 1994; ABNT.NBR 10835, 1994; ABNT.NBR
10836, 1994; ABNT.NBR 13554, 1996; ABNT.NBR
13555, 1996). These standards give specifications regarding
use of soil–cement blocks. In India; standards give specifi-
cations regarding soil based blocks for general building
construction purposes. Research works in CBRI Roorkee
(India) regarding development of low cost sustainable
building materials especially cement stabilized mud blocks
and non-erodable mud plaster (REHSI, 1958; BRN12) give
an idea of practical ways of use of improved earth material
in building construction activity at minimal environmental
and financial costs. Experimental investigation shows that
non-erodable mud plaster is not only water repellent and
erosion resistant but also provides safety to walls during
rainfall. ICONTEC (ICONTEC.NTC 5324, 2004), KEBS
(KEBS, 1993) and Lunt (1980) discuss in detail the specifi-
cations regarding ground block cements and stabilized soil
blocks used for construction of walls and otherwise. Simi-
larly New Mexico earthen buildings materials Code (CID,
2009) and African Regional Standards (ARSO.ARS 670,
ARSO.ARS 671, ARSO.ARS 672, ARSO.ARS 673)
regarding varied aspects of compressed earth blocks give
an idea about the importance of earth as building material
in the construction industry in varied and improved forms.
1.2. Thermal and mechanical properties of earth
Literature studies (Galan et al., 2010; Ogunye and
Boussabaine, 2002; Hall, 2007; Ola, 1990; Walker, 2004)
involving different experimental investigations give a com-
parative analysis of properties of earth products before and
after modifications. Studies by Ogunye and Boussabaine
(2002), Mbumbia and Tirlocq (2000), Ola (1990), Obonyo
and Baskaran (2010), Donkor and Obonyo (2015),
Villamizar et al. (2012), Prasad et al. (2012), Yetimoglu
et al. (2005) all ascertain considerable improvement in
mechanical and physical properties of soil after treatment.
Table 1 gives a literary review of comparative improvement
in properties of soil after treatment (stabilization and
reinforcement).
Given the advantages of thermal comfort (Taylor and
Luther, 2004), heat and sound insulation (Binici et al.,
2009; Binici et al., 2005, 2007; Acosta et al., 2010), local
material availability, local employment criteria (Morel
et al., 2001), minimal impact on environment (John et al.,
2005) and easy repair and maintenance of adobe structures
(Turanli and Erdogan, 1996) earth has remained a fre-
quently used building and construction material. Research
studies (Goodhew and Griffiths, 2005; Hall and Djerbib,
2004) have shown that thermal, acoustic and fire resistant
properties of earth materials are very high and addition
of fibrous material to adobe further enhances its thermal
conductivity thereby increasing heat savings in the build-
ings. Research studies by Reddy (2012), Quagliarini et al.
(2015) and Kinuthia (2015) discuss the energy efficiency
and low embodied energy aspects of earth as building
material.
Considering all these advantages and popularity of earth
material for construction of shelter many countries have
framed legal regulations and codes dictating use of earth
in varied forms as discussed by Torgal and Jalali (2012).
Research discusses at length codes and regulations of
Table 1

V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155

Improvement in properties of soil after treatment.
Reference Property improvement Treatment Results
Stabilizer Reinforcement
Vilane (Vilane, 2010) Compressive strength Ordinary Portland Cement Molasses, cow-dung, Soil samples with molasses and Ordinary Portland Cement shown improved
sawdust compressive strength
Ngowi Strength of earth construction Cement, lime, bitumen Fibers, cow-dung Specimen of lime and cement show improved strength
Heathcote Durability of adobe Cement; different proportions – Specimens of 7.5% cement show improved durability
(2.5%, 5%, 7.5%)
Ren Durability of adobe Sodium silicate solution, – Treated specimens show better durability than untreated samples
silioxane and silicone
emulsion
Turnali and Erdogan Structural behavior of adobe – Straw, fly ash, plaster Load carrying capacity increased by addition of straw, fly-ash and plaster
reinforcement reinforced mesh
Binci et al. Compressive strength, heat Cement, gypsum, basaltic Plastic fibers, straw, Specimens reinforced with plastic fibers showed increased compressive
conductivity, earthquake resistance pumice polystyrene fabric strength, thermal insulation, elasticity and earthquake resistance
Ramı́rez et al. Durability, compressive strength, Lime Sugarcane bagasse Specimens with 10% lime + 10% SCBA showed improved properties
flexural strength ash (SCBA)
Muntohar Compressive strength Lime Rice husk ash Specimens with 1:1; lime : rice hush addition showed improved compressive
(Muntohar, 2011) and flexural strength
Kumar et al. Compressive strength – Plain and crimped Fibers reinforced samples showed improved compressive strength
polyester fiber
Ghavami et al. Compressive strength Coconut and sisal Fibers reinforced samples showed improved compressive strength
(Ghavami et al., fibers
1999)
Guettala et al. Durability, strength Cement, lime, resin – Samples stabilized with 5% cement and resin showed better durability
Danso et al. Compressive and tensile strength Coconut, bagasse, oil Addition of coconut and oil palm fibers showed increase in strength
palm fibers
Taallah et al. Mechanical properties and Cement Date palm fibers Specimen with .05% fiber + 8% cement showed improved properties
hygroscopicity of compressed earth
blocks
Tang et al. (Tang Compressive strength and Cement Discrete short Reinforced Specimens both cemented and uncemented showed increased
et al., 2007) mechanical properties polypropylene fiber compressive strength, shear strength, decrease in stiffness and loss in post-
peak strength

143
144 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
countries like New Zealand, Australia, Zimbabwe, New
Mexico, Germany, Spain, Brazil, and France regarding
use of earth. These regulations also give design and plan-
ning guidelines involving use of earth for various construc-
tion purposes for maximizing benefits from earth shelters.
1.3. Limitations in use of earth
Use of earth suffers from certain drawbacks as well as
discussed by Heathcote (1995), Guettala et al. (2006) and
Ren and Kagi (1995). These have been identified mainly
as with less durability and low compressive strength of
which low durability has been seen as a very prominent fac-
tor affecting the use of earth. Study by Degirmenci (2008)
show that adobe has poor mechanical properties in terms
of compressive strength and durability in addition to poor
resistance to moisture and water attack. Adverse climatic
conditions produce deteriorating effects on mud shelters
as reported by Bengtsson and Whitaker (1986) and
Reman (2004). Rainwater erodes mud walls and severity
of rainfall even leads to their collapse. Frequent exposure
of mud walls to water leads to absorption of water in the
walls which results in their swelling and upon evaporation
during drying, shrinkage occurs. It produces structural and
surface cracks in mud walls in addition to surface erosion
as discussed by Heathcote (1995) and Frencham (1982).
1.4. Need for stabilization of earth for improvement of
properties
Studies (Ngowi, 1997; Frencham, 1982; Walker, 1995)
have shown that stabilization of earth with suitable stabi-
lizer and reinforcing material either natural or man-made
not only improves its durability but also compressive
strength. Study by Sharma et al. (2015a,b) shows that com-
pressive strength of soil increases considerably by addition
of fibers. Study by Egenti et al. (2014) discussed that earth
is a sustainable low cost construction material and its use
for building purposes is very old in Nigeria. Research work
further discusses planning, quality control and soil stabiliza-
tion ways associated with earth and recommends Shelled
Compressed Earth Block as an effectively durable building
material for propagating cost effective housing in Nigeria.
Different stabilizers produce different impacts on dura-
bility of mud bricks. Most frequently used natural stabiliz-
ers are jute, sisal, straw, rice-husk, sugarcane bagasse
(Ramı́rez et al., 2012; Khosrow et al., 1999) and soluble sil-
icate silanes or siloxanes, isocyanates (Consoli et al., 2002),
lime, cement, gypsum, basaltic pumice (Smith, 1996) are
some of the frequently used man-made stabilizers. Studies
by Parisi et al. (2015), Demir (2006), Achenza and Fenu
(2006), Kolop et al. (2010), Juárez et al.(2010), Chan
(2011), Villamizar et al. (2012) and Millogo et al. (2014)
regarding stabilization of soil using natural fibers of straw,
processed waste tea, vegetal, oil palm empty fruit bunches,
lechuguilla, pineapple leaves, cassava peel and hibiscus
cannabinus respectively prove that mechanical properties
of unstabilized earth can be considerably improved upon
by use of natural stabilizers (Danso et al., 2015). Recent
studies by Taallah et al. (2014), Quagliarini et al. (2015)
and Kinuthia (2015) discuss improvement in weatherability
of modified earth blocks in addition to their improvement
in thermal properties. Most commonly adopted durability
tests employed are spray erosion test, drip test, wet to
dry strength ratio test (Heathcote, 1995; Ogunye and
Boussabaine, 2002), wetting and drying cycling, UV-
condensation weathering test (Ngowi, 1997; Ren and
Kagi, 1995), capillary water absorption test, total water
absorption test and freezing and thawing test (Guettala
et al., 2006)
1.5. Utilization of forest and fodder waste
Processes involved in the production of soil blocks are
less energy intensive than for cement and burnt brick man-
ufacturing processes (Fitzmaurice, 1958). Due to this, soil
blocks have less impact on environment and are more sus-
tainable (Danso et al., 2015). Moreover, soil is locally
available therefore its abundance makes it an easy and
affordable construction material especially for mass hous-
ing in rural areas of less economically developed countries
(Chan, 2011). Furthermore, study area comprises large
Pinus Roxburghii forest area that requires prescribed fires
in controlled area by local forest department every year
to counteract spread of natural fire during every summer
season. Prescribed fires are most common practice globally
in Pine forests that result in harmful emissions. Therefore
in order to minimize negative impacts associated, fibers
of Pinus Roxburghii have been proposed for manufactur-
ing of improved soil blocks to advantageously use this for-
est waste product (ENVIS Centre of Forestry). Similarly
use of fibers of Grewia Optiva is limited to rope making
that has diminished nowadays due to use of plastic rope.
Moreover after use of leaves of Grewia Optiva as fodder
for animals, its fibrous stem and branches are thrown away
as waste material. Hence fibers of Grewia Optiva can be a
lucrative option to be used for producing improved soil
blocks. Therefore understanding of how these waste fibers
can be used to enhance adobe block properties is important
to practitioners of earth construction technology to maxi-
mize benefits of this sustainable material.
1.6. Research objectives
With the aforementioned issues in mind, the present
research study was undertaken to fulfill the following
objectives:
1. Check for possible improvement in durability of soil
after reinforcement with natural fibers of Grewia Optiva
and Pinus Roxburghii (as reinforced adobe blocks)
comparative with durability of raw soil (as unreinforced
raw adobe blocks) through planned experimental
investigation. This would therefore check the feasibility
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155 145

of stabilization of adobe using natural fibers as an Table 2

attempt to enhance the weatherability of soil at minimal Soil characteristics.
financial and environmental impacts. Property Value
2. To provide for sustainable use of otherwise waste forest Classification as per Indian Standard SC
product (Pinus Roxburghii) and animal fodder waste Specific gravity of soil solids, G 2.67
(Grewia Optiva) posing disposal problems. Liquid limit % 23.29
Plastic limit % 17.79
Plasticity index, PI 5.512
The present study has been undertaken as follow up Water content % 12.5
work of compressive strength improvement of low com-
pressive soil using local natural fibers as reported in earlier
size distribution curve is shown in Fig. 1. From the curve it
work (Sharma et al., 2015a). The main aim of the present
can be interpreted that the soil was Sand Clay designated
work is to provide a sustainable way to address rural hous-
by SC as per Indian Standard classification (IS: 1498,
ing problem due to construction material constraints.
1970) given in codal provision IS: 2720-4 (1985) and was
Adobe is a frequently used building material for wall con-
classified as clay of low compressive strength. Other prop-
struction in rural areas of Indian state of Himachal Pra-
erties include maximum dry density of 18.8 kN/m3, opti-
desh and nearly 60% of rural houses are made of adobe
mum moisture content of the soil as 12.5%, and specific
(Revised Development Plan, 2012). Today, however people
gravity of soil as 2.67. Soil composition consists of coarse
are shifting more toward use of modern building construc-
grain particles as .0756 for sand and .0005 for clay (IS:
tion materials like cement, glass, burnt bricks and similar
1498, 1970). The cement used was of standard M43 grade
others due to low durability and strength constraints asso-
with specific gravity 3.10. The study involves use of cement
ciated with vernacular building materials and technology.
for stabilization of earth for the reasons of: (1) poor dura-
This has pushed this indigenous and self-help construction
bility of unstabilized raw adobe bocks (based on both field
technology into the state of abandonment. The present
observation and experimental investigation) due to high
research work tries to address the problem of low durabil-
surface erosion demanding repair and maintenance even
ity associated with vernacular building material adobe. For
two times in a year and (2) easy availability and knowledge
this purpose material modification of adobe using natural
of use of cement (over selection of other stabilizers) since it
fiber reinforcement has been undertaken. Enhancement of
is one of the most common modern building construction
durability of soil in natural and sustainable manner would
materials. However the proportion has been selected as
also enhance the use of adobe on a wider scale for mass
minimum as possible and stated by Indian codes (IS:
housing which otherwise is restricted due to problems of
1725, 1982) so that it may not affect the sustainability of
frequent repair and maintenance associated with it. Exper-
the resultant adobe block to a significant extent.
imental framework comprises weatherability testing of
Study by Kumar et al. (2006) and Casagrande et al.
adobe blocks stabilized with natural fibers of Pinus Rox-
(2006) show that the peak strength value of soil increases
burghii and Grewia Optiva in different proportions of
after stabilization of soil matrix with fiber reinforcement.
fibers randomly distributed in the samples comparative
Babu and Vasudevan (2008) discuss that strength and stiff-
with non-stabilized adobe blocks through a series of dura-
ness of tropical soil increases by addition of discrete coir
bility tests as per IS codes (IS: 2720-4, 1985; IS: 2720-5,
fibers by 1–2% by weight in the soil. Similarly variations
1985; IS: 2720-7, 1980; IS: 2720-10, 1991; IS: 1725, 1982;
in length and content of fibers also affect the strength char-
IS: 4332-1, 1967; IS: 4332-4, 1968; IS: 4332-10, 1969) and
acteristics of soil.
international research works (Heathcote, 1995; Guettala
et al., 2006; Ren and Kagi, 1995; Degirmenci, 2008;
Bengtsson and Whitaker, 1986; Reman, 2004; Frencham, 2.1.2. Fibers
1982; Walker, 1995). Checking of the detailed thermal Fibers used were natural indigenous fibers of Pinus Rox-
comfort performance of stabilized adobe bricks for rural burghii (Chir Pine) and Grewia Optiva (Beul). Only natural
houses has been identified as follow up work.

2. Experimental program

2.1. Materials used

2.1.1. Soil
The soil used in this investigation was sourced from NIT
Hamirpur (near gate 1) located in District Hamirpur of the
Indian state Himachal Pradesh. Atterberg limits and phys-
ical properties of soil were tested (IS: 2720-4, 1985; IS:
2720-5, 1985; IS: 2720-7, 1980; IS: 2720-10, 1991) and
reported in the Table 2 (Sharma et al., 2015a). The particle Figure 1. Particle size distribution of the experiment soil.
146 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
vernacular fibers were selected on the basis of (1) easy
availability and good abundance as both are locally avail-
able natural vernacular materials, (2) both materials pose
disposal problems and need an alternative use. Moreover,
preliminary pilot survey and case study of vernacular
houses conducted during research pointed out the problem
of frequent repair and maintenance in adobe walls because
of surface erosion owing to poor durability. This prompted
the need to find some sustainable natural fibrous
material which is not only cost-effective but also is easy
to procure and use by rural people. This fibrous material
when mixed with soil matrix would increase the weather-
ability of adobe. Therefore fibers of Pinus Roxburghii
and Grewia Optiva were selected for use as reinforcement
in soil matrix.
Fibers were used in raw and dry states without any prior
treatment as shown in Fig. 2. Fibers of Pinus Roxburghii
were procured as needle leaves of the tree and used in nat-
ural dry state. Fibers of Grewia Optiva were obtained from
the branches of the tree after leaves were used as animal
fodder. Fibers were obtained from the tree branches as
per the procedure given in CSWCRTI (CSWCRTI)
(http://www.cswcrtiweb.org/technology/english/m.pdf). The
fibers obtained in this way were used in raw state without
any chemical or other prior treatment. Same literature also
supports that earlier fibers of Grewia Optiva were also used
in rope making for packaging of vegetables like jute ropes
till the fiber rope was replaced by synthetic ropes. The
fibers were cut into pieces of length 30 mm. Properties of
fibers were examined and have been reported. Table 3
(Sharma et al., 2015a) and Table 4 show the mechanical
and physical properties of fibers.
Life of pine needles has been estimated up to three years
(when lying in open) as indicated by ENVIS Center for for-
estry (ENVIS. Chir Pine http://www.frienvis.nic.in/) and
Shuaib et al. (2013). However similar studies and field
experience also indicate that when mixed with earth they
can exist in soil matrix without decomposition or change
in state for more than a period of three years. Similarly
for fiber Grewia Optiva, field experience of local villagers
and study by Singha and Thakur (2009) reveal that fibers
have longevity of over 10 years. There are, however not
enough experimental evidence to confirm the exact age
and more research work can be undertaken in this regard.
2.2. Testing method and mix proportions
For experimental investigation two different types of
samples were prepared: 90 cylindrical samples (38 mm
diameter and 76 mm height) and 162 cubical samples
(modular brick of size 190 mm  90 mm  90 mm) as per
Indian standards (IS: 1725, 1982; IS: 4332-1, 1967). The
soil–fiber matrix was prepared as per Indian codal provi-
sions (IS: 2110, 1980 for cylindrical samples and IS: 1725,
1982 for cubical samples).The soil–fiber matrix was first
mixed in dry state and then kneaded properly with hands
after addition of water to achieve randomly distributed
yet approximately even mix of fibers in soil. Fiber–soil
matrix was compacted mechanically as per the codal provi-
sions (IS: 2110, 1980; IS: 4332-1, 1967; IS: 4332-3, 1967).
Fiber–soil moist matrix was compacted into three equal
layers in the mold. The mold was lubricated from inside
before compacting the matrix in order to reduce the
chances of sample fracturing during removal. Mold was
filled in three layers and each layer was compacted before
filling in subsequent layers. The surface of each layer was
scoured after compaction and filling of subsequent layers
in order to provide good bond between different layers.
After the mold was filled to the desired height and com-
pacted the specimen was trimmed off with scissors for
any fiber striking out of the sample. The untreated and
treated specimens were subjected to different laboratory
tests as per Indian standards (IS: 1725, 1982; IS: 4332-1,
1967, 51-54) and international research (Heathcote, 1995;
Guettala et al., 2006; Ren and Kagi, 1995) and are men-
tioned in subsequent subsections. Four sample tests were
taken for each type of specimen for all durability tests as
per codal provisions (IS: 4332-4, 1968). Overall test results
were found as the average of the four test results for each
experimental investigation. Individual variations of more
than ±5% of the average were not considered in calculating
the average values. Verification tests were also performed
so that the repeatability of the experimental investigation
can be established. Durability tests like wetting and drying
cycling test, water absorption and expansion test, sponge
water absorption test, spray test, total absorption test,
and ‘wet’ to ‘dry’ strength ratio test were conducted for
all samples of both types (cylindrical and cubical). The pre-
sent paper discusses test values of cubical samples (modu-
lar brick: 190 mm  90 mm  90 mm). Soil samples were
prepared at maximum dry unit weight which was deter-
mined using the standard Proctor test and optimum mois-
ture content and tested (IS: 2720-7, 1980). The study
comprised preparation and testing of unstabilized unrein-
forced samples (0% cement + 0% fibers), stabilized unrein-
forced samples (2.5% cement + 0% fiber) and stabilized
reinforced samples prepared with 2.5% cement and 0.5%,
1%, 1.5% and 2% (by weight of dry soil) of fibers of both
Pinus Roxburghii (Chir Pine) and Grewia Optiva (Beul).
Samples were classified as per different compositions as
listed in Table 5. The samples were taken out from the
molds, dried and cured for a period of four weeks (IS:
1725, 1982). Then they were tested for different durability
tests.
2.3. Tests conducted
Durability tests conducted included wetting and drying
test (IS: 4332-4, 1968), water absorption and expansion test
(IS: 4332-10, 1969), sponge water absorption test (Ren and
Kagi, 1995), spray test (IS: 1725, 1982), total absorption
test (IS: 1725, 1982; IS: 3495-1 to 4, 1992), water strength
coefficient (Houben et al., 1989 and AFNOR) and their
results have been reported in Table 6.
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155 147

(1) Pinus Roxburghii

(2) Grewia Optiva

(3) Bricks made of fibers

Figure 2. Natural vernacular fibers of (1) Pinus Roxburghii and (2) Grewia Optiva (3) Bricks made of fibers.
148 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
Table 3
Mechanical properties of fibers.
Property Pinus Roxburghii (value)
Tensile strength (N) 11.15
Length (mm) 324
Elongation at break % 10.68
Aspect ratio (l/d) .00148
Table 4
Physical properties of fibers.
Property
Cross-section
Diameter (mm)
Natural water content %
Water absorption % (after 05 min)
Water absorption % (after 24 h)
Water absorption % (after 48 h)
Water absorption to saturation %
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Effect of addition of fiber on properties of soil
3.1.1. Wetting and drying cycling test
Almost all mud bricks either treated or untreated absorb
water when completely immersed in water and during dry-
ing shrink and crack due to evaporation. The results as
reported in Table 6 and Fig. 5 indicate that minimum
weight loss was shown by sample M9 reinforced with fiber:
2% Grewia Optiva followed by sample M4 reinforced with
fiber: 1% Pinus Roxburghii. Untreated unstabilized sam-
ples of mix M1 and stabilized and unreinforced samples
of mix M2 broke after just after 1st cycle and 4th cycle
respectively. It can be interpreted from the curves that sam-
ples of mixes M9, M4, M8, M7, M5, M3 and M6 showed
95.42%, 95.38%, 95.25%, 95.16%, 93.16%, 90.32% and
87.97% reduced weight loss respectively and hence there
was proportionate improvement in durability (with base
case M1).The test results showed that addition of stabilizer
and fiber reinforcement improves durability of soil matrix.
3.1.2. Water absorption and expansion test
The test was conducted to imitate moist conditions which
are generally seen after and during rainfall during monsoon
season in the study area (refer Fig. 3). The water absorption
values of all samples have been reported in Table 6. Results
clearly indicate that samples of mix M9 reinforced with 2%
Grewia Optiva showed minimum water absorption values.
Treated (stabilized and fiber reinforced) adobe bricks
absorb less moisture than untreated adobe bricks. Fig. 6
shows reduction in water absorption values with addition
of fiber content and thus there was corresponding improve-
ment in durability. It can be interpreted from the values that
the samples of mixes M9, M8, M4, M6, M7 and M2 showed
58%, 54%, 50.4%, 48%, 45% reduced water absorption
(with base case M1) respectively and hence there was
Grewia Optiva (value)
15.35
730
10.28
.000041
Pinus Roxburghii (value) Grewia Optivia (value)
Triangular Circular
.48 .03
1.4% .25%
66.23 121.64
189.08 220
157.9 165
127.6 144.2
proportionate improvement in durability. This implies that
stabilization of soil with cement and fibers of Grewia Optiva
leads to maximum improvement in durability.
3.1.3. Sponge water test
This test was conducted to imitate moderate and low
rainfall conditions accompanied by occasional sunshine
in the study area which results in alternate wetting and dry-
ing of adobe in real life conditions. According to Indian
standards (IS: 1725, 1982), weight loss limit is 5%. Weight
loss (in percentage) values of all the specimens correspond-
ing to 14 cycles over a period of 28 days are represented in
Table 6 and Fig. 7. From the curves it can be interpreted
that minimum weight loss is shown by sample M9 followed
by samples M4 and M6 corresponding to soil matrix rein-
forced with 2% Grewia Optiva, 1% Pinus Roxburghii and
2% Pinus Roxburghii respectively. The values give the
interpretation that samples of mixes M9, M4, M6, M8
and M7 showed 48%, 42%, 37%, 34.5% and 30% reduced
water absorption respectively (with base case M1) and
hence proportionate improvement in durability. This
implies that stabilization of soil with cement and fibers of
Grewia Optiva leads to maximum improvement in durabil-
ity followed by stabilization with cement and fibers of
Pinus Roxburghii.
3.1.4. Spray test
This test was conducted to imitate average to heavy
rainfall conditions in real life conditions (refer Fig. 4).
According to Indian standards (IS: 1725, 1982), maximum
permissible pit depth for surface erosion is 10 mm. Erosion
values of all samples are reported in Table 6 and Fig. 8. It
can be interpreted from the figure that sample M9 showed
no erosion while sample M8 and sample M6 showed aver-
age erosion effect. Here samples M9, M8 and M6 corre-
spond to soil matrix reinforced with fibers of 2% Grewia
Optiva, 1% Grewia Optiva and 2% Pinus Roxburghii
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155 149

Table 5
Designation of mix compositions.
Mix designation Mix specification
M1 Soil (0% Cement, 0% Fiber)
M2 Soil (2.5% Cement, 0% Fiber)
M3 Soil (2.5% Cement 0.5% Fiber: Pinus Roxburghii)
M4 Soil (2.5% Cement 1.0% Fiber: Pinus Roxburghii)
M5 Soil (2.5% Cement 1.5% Fiber: Pinus Roxburghii)
M6 Soil (2.5% Cement 2.0% Fiber: Pinus Roxburghii)
M7 Soil (2.5% Cement 0.5% Fiber: Grewia Optiva)
M8 Soil (2.5% Cement 1.0% Fiber: Grewia Optiva)
M9 Soil (2.5% Cement 2.0% Fiber: Grewia Optiva)

respectively. The results give the interpretation stabiliza-

tion of soil with cement and fibers of Grewia Optiva leads
to maximum improvement in durability followed by stabi-
lization with cement and fibers of Pinus Roxburghii. The
test results also indicated that with increase in fiber content
durability of soil matrix increases. This may be attributed
to better fiber–soil interaction and resultant fiber–soil bond
which binds soil particles together more firmly unlike in the
case of unreinforced soil samples.

3.1.5. Total water absorption test

Figure 3. Water absorption test.
The test was conducted to identify maximum water
absorption capacity of adobe both as untreated and treated
compositions. The water absorption values of all the sam-
ples are reported in Table 6 and Fig. 9. Reinforced stabi-
lized samples of soil mixes M3, M4, M7 and M9 showed
water absorption values within maximum permissible limit
given by Indian standard codes (IS: 1725, 1982) which is
15%. The curves give the interpretation that samples of
mixes M7, M8, M4 and M9 showed 72%, 68%, 56% and
51% reduced water absorption respectively and hence there
was proportionate improvement in durability (with base
case M1). Comparison of both treated (stabilized and rein-
forced) and untreated (unstabilized and unreinforced) sam-
ples showed lower water absorption values in the case of

Figure 4. Spray test result specimens.

150 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155

Table 6
Test results.
Brick characteristics Values
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Wet–dry cycling test (weight loss) % 100.00 70.00 9.68 4.62 6.84 12.03 4.84 4.75 4.58
Water absorption test (water absorption) % 4.90 2.70 3.62 2.43 2.73 2.33 2.67 2.26 2.07
Sponge water absorption test (weight loss) % 6.51 4.77 5.51 3.78 6.08 4.11 4.58 4.26 3.36
Spray test (pit depth, mm) 18 36 47 8 33 6 7 5 0
Total absorption test (water absorption)% 23.60 52.29 7.56 10.35 23.68 21.71 6.8 8.73 11.65
Compressive strength in dry state, N/mm2 .95 1.2 1.75 2.25 2.05 1.3 1.85 2.35 3
Compressive strength in wet state, N/mm2 .10 .19 .62 1.45 1.13 .41 .78 1.39 2.04
Water strength coefficient .11 .16 .35 0.64 0.55 .32 .42 0.59 0.68

Figure 8. Spray test results: pit depth (mm).

Figure 5. Wetting and drying cycling test: weight loss (%) over period of
24 days.

Figure 9. Total absorption test results: water absorption (%).

treated samples than untreated samples. This indicates

Figure 6. Water absorption test results: Water absorption (%). improvement in durability with addition of stabilizer and
fiber reinforcement in treated samples.

3.1.6. Water strength coefficient

Figure 7. Sponge water test: weight loss (%) over period of 28 days.
This gives the ratio of ‘wet’ to ‘dry’ compressive strength
for all samples (treated and untreated). As stated by Cra-
Tere specification (Houben et al., 1989) and AFNOR spec-
ification, the minimum permissible value for this ratio has
been taken as 0.5. Water strength coefficient values for all
samples have been reported in Table 6 and Fig. 10. It
can be interpreted from the figure that samples of mix
M9 reinforced with 2% Grewia Optiva show the highest
water coefficient value. Samples of mixes M4, M8 and
M5 reinforced with 1% Pinus Roxburghii, 1% Grewia
Optiva and 1.5% Pinus Roxburghii respectively also show
considerable values of water strength coefficient which
are well above the permissible limit of 0.5. The tests
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
Figure 10. Wet to dry strength ratio test results: water strength coefficient.
therefore showed improvement in durability with addition
of stabilizer (cement) and fiber reinforcement (Grewia
Optiva and Pinus Roxburghii) as compared with untreated
and unstabilized samples of soil.
An analysis of improvement in durability of different
samples with respect to different tests is presented in
Fig. 11. The curves give the interpretation that with addi-
tion of fiber content in soil both water absorption and
weight loss over a period of cycles have reduced as com-
pared with unstabilized soil samples. This implies that trea-
ted samples of soil matrix show improvement in durability
as compared with untreated mix samples. These results are
in agreement with previous research works by Ziegler et al.
(1998) and Millogo et al. (2014) which state that addition
of natural fibers in soil improves the durability and
strength of earth.
3.2. Effect of content proportion of fiber on properties of soil
Experimental investigation also revealed that in the case
of fibers of Grewia Optiva increase in proportion of fiber
content resulted in an increase in durability unlike in the
Figure 11. Analysis of test results: improvement in durability (%).
151
case of fiber Pinus Roxburghii where durability in general
decreased with an increase in the proportion of fiber
content in soil matrix. The reason for such varied behavior
of fibers is explained by different structures of both types of
fiber. Fibers of Grewia Optiva are finer than triangular
cross-sectional fibers of Pinus Roxburghii. This results in
better bonding not only among soil particles and fibers
but also among fibers themselves in the case of Grewia
Optiva unlike slipping of fibers over each other in the case
of Pinus Roxburghii (with increase in proportions of both
the fibers) due to which fibers hold together soil particles
more firmly in the case of samples of fiber Grewia Optiva
than samples of fiber Pinus Roxburghii. This resulted in
a better fiber–soil bond interaction in the case of Grewia
Optiva as compared to samples of fiber Pinus Roxburghii.
Almost all test result values indicated a better performance
of Grewia Optiva fibers than fibers of Pinus Roxburghii.
Factors that influence fiber–soil bond will be examined at
the microscopic level for both types of fibers over the per-
iod of time.
The purpose of the study is primarily to compare and
improve the durability of existing adobe blocks (which
are basically raw untreated and unreinforced earth blocks)
used in mud walls of rural houses with sustainable and
most commonly available stabilizers and reinforcement.
Results of the experimental investigation indicate that
durability of fiber reinforced and cement stabilized mud
blocks/adobe is more than that of non-stabilized and unre-
inforced adobe (M1) and cement stabilized and unrein-
forced adobe (M2) samples. This low cost adobe
technology, therefore can be advantageously used in rural
areas where (1) people have self-help tendency, (2) trans-
portation cost of modern construction materials like
cement, burnt bricks, and marble is very high, (3) availabil-
ity of skilled labor for construction processes is both time
and finance consuming. Fiber reinforced adobe blocks
would prove user-friendly for uneducated poor rural
152 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
people for whom use of compressed cement stabilized earth
blocks also appears to be a laborious and complicated
construction technology. This is due to the reason that
manufacturing of compressed cement stabilized earth
blocks involves pressing of blocks at specific compaction
rates demanding specialized mechanical equipment and
trained manpower. This makes it a comparatively compli-
cated work making it less user-friendly technology espe-
cially in rural areas. Moreover use of cement for
stabilization purposes of earth is much more which lessens
the sustainability of compressed cement stabilized earth
blocks. Research study, however does not draw compar-
isons of this technology with other earth technologies like
compressed earth blocks, or compressed cement stabilized
mud blocks. It has been proposed as complementary sus-
tainable technology for poor people and unskilled people
of rural areas to address the problem of economical mass
housing.
4. Conclusion
With the objective to improve weatherability of soil in a
sustainable manner by stabilization with natural fibers of
Grewia Optiva and Pinus Roxburghii, durability tests were
conducted on untreated and treated adobe compositions in
laboratory as per Indian standard codes. Test results are
summarized as follows:
 All test results indicated that treated soil samples (stabi-
lized and reinforced) showed improvement in weather-
ability as compared with untreated (unstabilized and
unreinforced) samples. Samples reinforced with fibers
of Grewia Optiva showed more improvement in durabil-
ity than samples reinforced with fibers of Pinus
Roxburghii.
 In wetting and drying test, results indicated that samples
reinforced with fiber: 2% Grewia Optiva + 2.5% cement
showed least weight loss over a period of 12 cycles fol-
lowed by samples reinforced with fiber: 1% Pinus Rox-
burghii + 2.5% cement. Both samples showed
maximum improvement in durability as compared with
other samples.
 In water absorption and expansion test, results indicated
that samples reinforced with fiber: 2% Grewia Optiva
+ 2.5% cement showed least water absorption over a
period of 7 days. Samples showed maximum improve-
ment in durability.
 In sponge water absorption test, results indicated that
samples reinforced with fiber: 2% Grewia Optiva
+ 2.5% cement showed least weight loss over a period
of 14cycles followed by samples reinforced with 1%
Pinus Roxburghii + 2.5% cement. Both samples showed
maximum improvement in durability as compared with
other samples.
 In spray erosion test, results indicated that samples rein-
forced with fiber: 2% Grewia Optiva + 2.5% cement
showed no erosion and samples reinforced with fiber:
2% Pinus Roxburghii + 2.5% cement showed slight ero-
sion values. Both samples showed maximum improve-
ment in durability as compared with other samples.
 In total water absorption test, results indicated that
samples reinforced with fiber: 0.5% Grewia Optiva
+ 2.5% cement and 1.0% Grewia Optiva + 2.5% cement
showed least water absorption corresponding to
improvement in durability.
 In the case of water strength coefficient, the maximum
value was shown by samples reinforced with fiber: 2%
Grewia Optiva + 2.5% cement followed by samples rein-
forced with fiber: 1% Pinus Roxburghii + 2.5% cement.
Both samples showed maximum improvement in dura-
bility as compared with other samples.
Therefore sustainable stabilization with recommended
proportion of Grewia Optiva (2% addition by weight)
and Pinus Roxburghii fibers (1% addition by weight) is
advantageous for producing improved and durable adobe
bricks used for rural house wall construction. These tests
were performed with the purpose of establishing effective-
ness of natural fibers in enhancement of low durability
properties of soil. In today’s context especially in rural
areas, vernacular construction techniques and materials
are abandoned due to problems of low durability and
compressive strength of vernacular materials like adobe.
The present paper is an attempt to improve upon the ver-
nacular material; adobe so that low durability problem
associated with rural house wall construction can be
addressed effectively. This would reduce frequent mainte-
nance problems of adobe walls of rural houses owing to
weatherability problems. It would also propagate the
use of adobe for sustainable mass housing on a large scale
especially for people in less economically developed
countries.
5. Limitations of the study
Factors influencing fiber–soil bond would be examined
at the microscopic level over a period of time which has
not been included in the present study. Moreover the study
of impact of fiber reinforced cement stabilized adobe bricks
on indoor thermal comfort environment of houses for the
area would be taken up as follow up work. Experimental
investigation is required to be carried out to confirm the
age of Pinus Roxburghii and Grewia Optiva fiber rein-
forced soil matrix which is also not included in the scope
of the study.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to Ar. Aniket Sharma of
Architecture department and Dr. R.K. Dutta of Civil Engi-
neering Department, NIT Hamirpur for providing guid-
ance and advice in performance of the various
experiments and their analysis.
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
References
ABNT.NBR 10832, 1989. Fabricação de Tijolo Maciço de Solo-cimento
com a Utilização de Prensa Manual. Associação Brasileira de Normas
Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 10833, 1989. Solid Soil–cement Bricks and Hollow Blocks
using Hydraulic Brick Making Machine–procedure. Associação
Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 10834, 1994. Bloco Vazado de Solo-cimento sem Função
Strutural. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro
(Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 10835, 1994. Bloco Vaza Dode Solo-cimento sem Funçãoe
Strutural–formae Dimensões. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técni-
cas, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 10836, 1994. Bloco Vaza Dode Solo-cimento sem Funçãoe
Strutural–determinação da Resistência à Compressão e da Absorção
de Agua. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro
(Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 12023, 1992. Solo-Cimento–ensaio de Compactação. Asso-
ciação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 12024, 1992. Solo-cimento-Moldagem e Cura de Corpos-de-
prova Cilı́ndricos. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnica, Rio de
Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 12025, 1990. Solo-cimento–ensaio de Compressão simples de
Corpos-de-prova Ilı́ndricos. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técni-
cas, Rio de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 13554, 1996. Solo-cimento–Ensaio de Durabilidade por
Molhagem e Secagem. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio
de Janeiro (Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 13555, 1996. Solo-cimento–determinação da Absorção
D’água. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro
(Brasil).
ABNT.NBR 8491, 1986. Tijolo Macico de Solo-cemento. Especificacao.
Associacao Brasileira De Normas Tecnicas, Rio de Janeiro.
ABNT.NBR 8492, 1986. Tijolo Maciço de Solo-cimento. Determinacao
da Resistencia a Compressao e da Absorcao d’agua. Associação
Brasileira De Normas Técnicas, Rio de Janeiro.
Achenza, M., Fenu, L., 2006. On earth stabilization with natural polymers
for earth masonry construction. Mater. Struct. 39, 21–27.
Acosta, J.D.R., Diaz, A.G., Zarazua, G.M.S., Garcia, E.R., 2010. Adobe
as a Sustainable Material: A Thermal Performance. Journal of Applied
Sciences 10, 2211–2216.
AENOR.UNE 41410, 2008. Compressed Earth Blocks for WallsaAnd
Partitations. Definitions, Specifications and Test Methods. Spanish
Association for Standardisation and Certification, Madrid (Spain).
Normalisation Francaise, 2001. AFNOR XP P13-901.
ARSO.ARS 670, 1996. Compressed Earth Blocks, Standard for Termi-
nology. African Regional Standard, Nairobi (Kenya).
ARSO.ARS 671, 1996. Compressed Earth Blocks, Definition, Classifica-
tion and Designation of Compressed Earth Blocks. African Regional
Standard, Nairobi (Kenya).
ARSO.ARS 672, 1996. Compressed Earth Blocks, Definition, Classifica-
tion and Designation of Earth Mortars. African Regional Standard,
Nairobi (Kenya).
ARSO.ARS 673, 1996. Compressed Earth Blocks. Definition, Classifica-
tion and Designation of Compressed Earth Blocks Masonry. African
Regional Standard, Nairobi (Kenya).
ASTM, 2010. Standard Guide for Design of Earthen Wall Building
Systems. ASTM International, Pennsylvania 19428-2959 (United
States).
Babu, G.L.S., Vasudevan, A.K., 2008. Strength, and stiffness response of
coir fiber-reinforced tropical soil. J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 20 (9), 571–577.
Bengtsson, L.P., Whitaker, J.H., 1986. Farm Structures in Tropical
Climates. FAO/SIDA Cooperation Programme, Rome.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Bodur, N.M., Akca, E., Kapur, S., 2005.
Investigation of fiber Reinforced mud brick as a building material.
Constr. Build. Mater. 19, 313–318.
153
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Bodur, N.M., Akca, E., Kapur, S., 2007. Thermal
isolation and mechanical properties of fiber reinforced mud bricks as
wall materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 21, 901–906.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Bakbak, D., Kaplan, H., Isik, B., 2009. Sound
insulation of fiber reinforced mud brick walls. Constr. Build. Mater.
23, 1035–1041.
BRN12. Non-Erodable Mud Plaster on Mud-Walls for Rural Houses.
http://krc.cbri.res.in/dspace/bitstream/123456789/222/1/BRN12.pdf.
Casagrande, M.D.T., Coop, M.R., Consoli, N.C., 2006. Behaviour of a
fiber reinforced bentonite at large shear displacements. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (11), 1505–1508.
Chan, C.M., 2011. Effect of natural fibers inclusion in clay bricks: physico-
mechanical properties. Int. J. Civil Environ. Eng. 3 (1), 51–57.
Ciancio, D., Jaquin, P., Walker, P., 2013. Advances on the assessment of
soil suitability for rammed earth. Constr. Build. Mater. 42, 40–47.
CID.NMAC 1474, 2009. New Mexico Earthen Buildings Materials Code.
Construction Industries Division, Santa Fe.
Coffman, R., Agnew, N., Auiston, G., Doehne, E., 1990. Adobe
mineralogy: characterization of adobes from around the world. In:
6th International Conference on the Conservation of Earthen Archi-
tecture, Las Cruces, NM, 14–19 October.
Consoli, N.C., Montardo, J.P., Prietto, P.D.M., 2002. Engineering
behavior of sand reinforced with plastic waste. J. Geotech. Geoenv-
iron. Eng. ASCE 128, 462–472.
CRATerre-EAGC, 1998. Compressed Earth Blocks: Standards. CDI,
Brussels.
CSWCRTI. High Yielding Provenances of Bhimal (Grewia Optiva) for
North-Western Himalayas.
Danso, H., Martinson, D.B., Ali, M., Williams, J., 2015. Effect of fiber
aspect ratio on mechanical properties of soil building blocks. Constr.
Build. Mater. 83, 314–319.
Degirmenci, N., 2008. The using of waste phosphogypsum and natural
gypsum in adobe stabilization. Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 1220–1224.
Delgado, M.C.J., Guerrero, I.C., 2006. Earth building in Spain. Constr.
Build. Mater. 20, 679–690.
Demir, I., 2006. An investigation on the production of construction brick
with processed waste tea. Build Environ. 49 (1), 1274–1278.
Dethier, J., 1986. Des Architectures de Terre. Edition de Centre
Pompidou, Paris.
Donkor, P., Obonyo, E., 2015. Earthen construction materials: assessing
the feasibility of improving strength and deformability of compressed
earth blocks using Polypropylene fibers. Mater. Des. 83, 813–819.
Egenti, C., Khatib, J.M., Oloke, D., 2014. Conceptualisation and pilot
study of shelled compressed earth block for sustainable housing in
Nigeria. Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 3, 72–86.
ENVIS Centre of Forestry. Chir Pine (Pinus roxburghii). (http://www.
frienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/file/pdfs/Chir_Pine.pdf).
Falceto, J.C., Mazarrón, F.R., Cañas, I., 2012. Assessment of compressed
earth blocks made in Spain: international durability tests. Constr.
Build. Mater. 37, 738–745.
Fitzmaurice, R., 1958. Manual on Stabilized Soil Construction for
Housing 1958. United Nations, New York, USA.
Frencham, G.J., 1982. The Performance of Earth Buildings. Deakin
University, Geelong.
Galan, M.C., Gomez, R.C., Petric, J., 2010. Clay-based composite
stabilized with natural polymer and fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 24
(8), 1462–1468.
Ghavami, K., Filho, R.D.T., Barbosa, N.P., 1999. Behaviour of compos-
ite soil reinforced with natural fibres. Cem. Concr. Compos. 21, 39–48.
Goodhew, S., Griffiths, R., 2005. Sustainable earth walls to meet the
building regulations. Energy Build. 37, 451–459.
Guettala, A., Abibsi, A., Houari, H., 2006. Durability study of stabilized
earth concrete under both laboratory and climatic conditions expo-
sure. Constr. Build. Mater. 20, 119–127.
Hall, M.R., 2007. Assessing the environmental performance of stabilized
rammed earth walls using a climatic simulation chamber. Build.
Environ. 42 (1), 139–145.
154 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
Hall, M., Djerbib, Y., 2004. Rammed earth sample production: context
recommendations and consistency. Constr. Build. Mater. 18, 281–286.
Heathcote, K.A., 1995. Durability of earth wall buildings. Constr. Build.
Mater. 9 (3), 185–189.
Houben, H., Verney, P.E., Maini SCra Terre, Webb, D.J.T., 1989.
Compressed Earth Bricks. Selection of Production Equipment. CDI,
Brussels.
ICONTEC.NTC 5324, 2004. Ground Blocks Cement for Walls and
Divisions. Definitions. Especifications. Test Methods. Conditions of
Delivery.
IS: 1498, 1970. Classification and Identification of Soils for General
Engineering Purposes.
IS: 1725, 1982. Specification for Soil Based Blocks used in General
Building Construction.
IS: 2110, 1980. Code of Practice for In-situ Construction of Walls in
Buildings with Soil-Cement.
IS: 2720-10, 1991. Method of Test for Soils-Part 10: Determination of
Unconfined Compressive Strength.
IS: 2720-4, 1985. Grain Size Analysis: Indian Standards.
IS: 2720-5, 1985. Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit: Indian
Standards.
IS: 2720-7, 1980. Method of test for soils -Part 7: Determination of Water
Content-Dry Density Relation Using Light Compaction.
IS: 3495-1 to 4, 1992. Methods of Test of Burnt Clay Building Bricks –Part
2: Determination of Water Absorption.
IS: 4332-1, 1967. Method of Test for Soils -Part 1: Method of Sampling
and Preparation of Stabilized Soils for Testing.
IS: 4332-10, 1969. Method of Test for Soils -Part 10: Methods of Test For
Stabilized Soils.
IS: 4332-3, 1967. Method of Test for Stabilized Soils-Part 3: Test for
Determination of Moisture Content – Dry Density Relation for
Stabilize Sol Mixtures.
IS: 4332-4, 1968. Method of Test for Soils – Part 4: Wetting and Drying
and Freezing and thawing Tests For compacted Soil–Cement
Mixtures.
John, G., Croome, D.C., Jeronimidis, G., 2005. Sustainable building
solutions: a review of lessons from the natural world. Build. Environ.
40, 319–328.
Juárez, C., Guevara, B., Valdez, P., Durán-Herrera, A., 2010. Mechanical
properties of natural fibers reinforced sustainable masonry. Constr.
Build. Mater. 24, 1536–1541.
KEBS.KS 02-1070, 1993. Specifications for Stabilized soil Blocks. Kenya
Bureau of Standards, Nairobi.
Khosrow, G., Filho, R.D.T., Barbosa, N.P., 1999. Behavior of composite
soil reinforced with natural fibers. Cem. Concr. Compos. 21, 39–48.
Kinuthia, J.M., 2015. The durability of compressed earth-based masonry
blocks. In: Eco Efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks. Design,
Properties and Durability, pp. 393–421.
Kolop, R., Haziman, W.I.M., Eng, J.W., 2010. Properties of Cement
Blocks Containing High Content of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches
(EFB) Fibers. UniversitiTun Hussein Onn, Malaysia.
Kumar, A., Walia, B.S., Mohan, J., 2006. Compressive strength of fiber
reinforced highly compressible clay. Constr. Build. Mater. 20, 1063–
1068.
Lunt, M.G., 1980. Stabilized soil blocks for building construction.
Overseas Building Notes, vol. 184.
Mbumbia, L.W.A.M., Tirlocq, J., 2000. Performance characteristics of
lateritic soil bricks fired at low temperatures: a case study of
Cameroon. Constr. Build. Mater. 14 (3), 121–131.
Middleton, G., 1987. Bulletin 5. Earth Wall Construction. In: Schneider,
L.M. (Ed.). North Ryde (Australia), CSIRO Division of Building,
Construction and Engineering, 1992.
Millogo, Y., Morel, J.C., Aubert, J.E., Ghavami, K., 2014. Experimental
analysis of pressed adobe blocks reinforced with hibiscus cannabinus
fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 52, 71–78.
Minke, G., 2001. Manual de Construcción en Tierra, 1994 ed. Editorial
Nordan-comunidad, Montevideo-Uruguay.
Morel, J.C., Mesbah, A., Oggero, M., Walker, P., 2001. Building houses
with local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental
impact of construction. Build. Environ. 36, 1119–1126.
Muntohar, A.S., 2011. Engineering characteristics of the compressed-
stabilized earth brick. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 4215–4220.
Ngowi, A.B., 1997. Improving the traditional earth construction: a case
study of Botswana. Constr. Build. Mater. 11 (1), 1–7.
SNZ.NZS 4297, 1998. Engineering Design of Earth Buildings. Standards
New Zealand, Wellington.
SNZ.NZS 4298, 1998. Materials and Workmanship for Earth Buildings.
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
SNZ.NZS 4299, 1999. Earth Buildings not Requiring Specific Design.
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
Obonyo, E.E.J., Baskaran, M., 2010. Durability of compressed earth
bricks: assessing erosion resistance using the modified spray testing.
Sustainability, 3639–3649.
Ogunye, F.O., Boussabaine, H., 2002a. Diagnosis of assessment methods
for weatherability of stabilized compressed soil blocks. Constr. Build.
Mater. 16, 163–172.
Ogunye, F.O., Boussabaine, H., 2002b. Development of a rainfall test rig
as an aid in soil block weathering assessment. Constr. Build. Mater. 16
(3), 173–180.
Ola, S.A., 1990. Durability of soil–cement for building purposes. Rain
erosion resistance test. Constr. Build. Mater. 4 (4), 182–187.
Parisi, F., Asprone, D., Fenu, L., Prota, A., 2015. Experimental
characterization of Italian composite adobe bricks reinforced with
straw fibers. Compos. Struct. 122, 300–307.
Prasad, C.K.S., Nambiar, E.K.K., Abraham, B.M., 2012. Plastic fiber
reinforced soil blocks as a sustainable building material. Int. J. Adv.
Res. Technol. 1 (5), 42–45.
Quagliarini, E., Orazi, M., Lenci, S., 2015. Eco-Efficient Masonry
Bricks and Blocks. Design, Properties and Durability, pp. 361–
378.
Ramı́rez, R.A., Garcı́a, P.M., Reyes, J.M., Juárez, D.C.A., 2012. The use
of sugarcane bagasse ash and lime to improve the durability and
mechanical properties of compacted soil blocks. Constr. Build. Mater.
34, 296–305.
Reddy, B.V., 2012. 13 – Stabilised soil blocks for structural masonry in
earth construction. Modern Earth Buildings. Materials, Engineering,
Constructions and Applications, pp. 324–363.
Reddy, B.W., Lal, R., Rao, K.S.N., 2007. Optimum soil grading for the
soil–cement blocks. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 19 (2), 139–148.
REHSI, S.S., 1958. Non-erodable Mud Plaster: Bulletin of The Institution
of Engineers (India). Vol. 7, No. 12, Aug. 1958.
Reman, O., 2004. Increasing the strength of soil for adobe construction.
Archit. Sci. Rev. 47, 373–386.
Ren, K.B., Kagi, D.A., 1995. Upgrading the durability of mud bricks by
impregnation. Build. Environ. 30 (3), 433–440.
Revised Development Plan, 2012. Hamirpur. <http://himachal.nic.in/tcp/
DPHamirpur.pdf> (accessed on 25.12.2014).
Sharma, V., Vinakyak, H.K., Marwah, B.M., 2015a. Enhancing com-
pressive strength of soil using natural fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 93
(2015), 943–949.
Sharma, V., Vinakyak, H.K., Marwah, B.M., 2015b. Enhancing
sustainability of rural adobe houses of hills by addition of vernacular
fiber reinforcement. Int. J. Sustainable Built Environ. 4 (2), 348–
358.
Shuaib, M., Ali, M., Ahamad, J., Naquvi, K.J., Ahmad, M.I., 2013.
Pharmacognosy of pinus roxburghii: a review. J. Pharmacogn.
Phytochem. 2 (1), 262–268.
Singh, L.D., Singh, S.C.S., 2007. Final Report on Low Cost Housing
Using Stabilized Mud Blocks. Manipur Science & Technology
Council.
Singha, A.S., Thakur, V.K., 2009. Mechanical, thermal and morpholog-
ical properties of grewia optiva fiber/polymer matrix composites.
Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 48 (2), 201–208. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/03602550802634550.
 V. Sharma et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 141–155
SLSI.SLS 1382-1, 2009. Specification for Compressed Stabilized Earth
Blocks. Part 1: Requirements. Sri Lanka Standards Institution, Sri
Lanka.
SLSI.SLS 1382-2, 2009. Specification for Compressed Stabilized Earth
Blocks. Part 2: Test Methods. Sri Lanka Standards Institution, Sri
Lanka.
SLSI.SLS 1382-2, 2009. Specification for Compressed Stabilized Earth
Blocks. Part 3: Guidelines on Production, Design and Construction.
Sri Lanka Standards Institution, Sri Lanka.
Smith, E.W., 1996. G. S. Bulletin 159-adobe, Pressed Earth and Rammed-
earth Industries in New Mexico. University of Mexico Printing
Services, USA.
Taallah, B., Guettala, A., Guettala, S., Kriker, A., 2014. Mechanical
properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block
filled by date palm fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 59, 161–168.
Tang, C., Shi, B., Gao, W., Chen, F., Cai, Y., 2007. Strength and
mechanical behavior of short polypropylene fiber reinforced and
cement stabilized clayey soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 25, 194–202.
Taylor, P., Luther, M.B., 2004. Evaluating rammed earth walls: a case
study. Sol. Energy 76, 79–84.
155
Torgal, F.P., Jalali, S., 2012. Earth construction: lessons from the past for
future eco-efficient construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 29, 512–519.
Turanli, L., Erdogan, T.Y., 1996. Improving the mechanical properties of
adobe blocks used in low-cost rural housing. In: XXIVth IAHS World
Housing Congress, Ankara, Turkey.
Vilane, B.R.T., 2010. Assessment of stabilization of adobes by confined
compression tests. Biosyst. Eng. 106, 551–558.
Villamizar, M.C.N., Araque, V.S., Reyes, C.A.R., Silva, R.S., 2012. Effect
of the addition of coal–ash and cassava peels on the engineering proper-
ties of compressed earth blocks. Constr. Build. Mater. 36, 276–286.
Walker, P., 1995. Strength, Durability and Shrinkage Characteristics of
Cement Stabilised Soil Blocks. Cem. Concr. Compos. 17, 301–310.
Walker, P., 2004. Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and
earth block masonry. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 16 (5), 497–506.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity
of randomly distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay.
Geotext. Geomembr. 23 (2), 174–183.
Ziegler, S., Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H.I., Perry, E.B., 1998. Effect of short
polymeric fibers on crack development in clays. Soils Found. 38 (1),
247–253.