Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Characterizing the shear parameters of rammed earth material by using

a full-scale direct shear box
R. El-Nabouch a, Q.-B. Bui b,⇑, O. Plé a, P. Perrotin a
a
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, LOCIE, 73000 Chambery, France
b
Sustainable Developments in Civil Engineering Research Group, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

h i g h l i g h t s

 The cohesion and the friction angle of rammed earthen were determined.
 A full-scale shear box (0.5 m width  0.5 m length  0.45 m height) was developed.
 The friction angle and the cohesion of the intralayers were of 37.3° and 30.9 kPa.
 The friction angle and the cohesion of the interlayers were of 34.8° and 24.0 kPa.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rammed earth (RE) is one of the different techniques of earth constructions. The RE wall is built by com-
Received 29 December 2017 pacting the soil in a formwork, layer after layer (about 10–15 cm thick for each layer). RE buildings are
Received in revised form 17 March 2018 recognized for their very low embodied energy and their positive hygrothermal behaviour. Several recent
Accepted 19 March 2018
studies have investigated RE material and among different aspects, the seismic performance remains an
interesting topic that needs to be explored. In order to propose a robust model for seismic investigation,
the shear characteristics of RE material should be appropriately determined. These shear characteristics
Keywords:
include the cohesion, the friction angle of the intralayers and also the cohesion, the friction angle of the
Rammed earth
Cohesion
interlayers (between the layers) as a RE wall contains multilayers. However, few studies have directly
Friction angle identified these parameters by experiments. This is the first time, to our knowledge, that a full-scale shear
Direct shear test box (0.5 m width  0.5 m length  0.45 m height) was specifically developed to study the shear param-
One-scale shear box eters of the rammed earth. This full-scale shear box was designed to reproduce the manufacturing con-
Interlayer ditions of a current rammed earth wall in Europe (50-cm-thickness). Direct shear tests were performed
both for intralayers and interlayers. The results showed that the shear strength obtained at the interlay-
ers were about 80–90% of the corresponding values obtained at the intralayers. Finally, the influences of
the moisture content and the size effect on the obtained results were also discussed.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Rammed earth is a construction technique which consists on
compacting the soil by layers (10–15 cm thick) inside a formwork.
The compaction is performed with a rammer (pneumatic or man-
ual) at an optimum moisture content which depends on the used
soil and the compaction energy [1]. With the growing conscious-
ness for seeking sustainable materials, rammed earth is receiving
considerable interest from scientific researchers, because the
material has a low embodied energy, a positive hygrothermal
behaviour which offers an attractive living comfort during the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
E-mail address: buiquocbao@tdt.edu.vn (Q.-B. Bui).
dwelling and a recyclability at the end of the building life cycle
[2–4].
Characterizing the rammed earth material is actually an impor-
tant topic due to the renewed interests of this natural material. Sci-
entific knowledge is necessary to have suitable and appropriate
ways for the conservation and restoration of the existing RE build-
ing, and also to provide new recommendations for the design of
new RE structures respecting actual regulations (for example dura-
bility exigencies, thermal or earthquake regulations).
A considerable number of studies on RE material is noted during
the last decade, on several aspects: thermal and hygrothermal
behaviours [3,4], durability [5,6], mechanical characteristics
[7–11]. More details about the state of the art can be found in
[12,13]. However, an important topic still needs more investiga-
tions is the seismic performance assessment of RE structures,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.142
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420
although some preliminary studies can be cited [14–20]. To cor-
rectly characterize the seismic behaviour of complex RE structures,
advanced numerical models with time history analysis seems to be
a reasonable approach. However, the relevancy of the numerical
models strongly depends on the input parameters used in the
model. Therefore, the parameters such as the friction angle and
the cohesion are the important characteristics for the shear beha-
viour of RE walls under earthquakes and need to be identified.
That was why several studies have tried to identify the cohesion
and the friction angle of RE material by performing experiments or
numerical modellings. For experimental studies, Cheah et al. [21]
used triaxial tests and triplet tests on cement-stabilised RE speci-
mens. The results showed different values for the cohesion of the
stabilised RE between the two types of tests and a high variation
of the results was noted. Jaquin et al. [22] carried out triaxial tests
on compacted soil specimens, showing a relationship between the
suction and the strength of compacted soil material; but in that
study, the shear parameters were not presented. Other studies,
not directly on RE materials but on fiber stabilised earths, are also
interesting to be cited here. Bouhicha et al. [23] used direct shear
tests to study the shear performance of a composite soil reinforced
with barley straw; the tests were done using a Casagrande box of 6
cm  6 cm  3.6 cm and the results showed that the addition of
straw increased the apparent cohesion by up to 50% but decreased
the friction angle. Corbin and Augarde [24] also carried out direct
shear tests on RE specimens (6 cm  6 cm  2 cm) stabilised by
whool; however, an important variation of the results was
observed due to the specimens representativeness, so no conclu-
sion about the shear parameters could be done. Other studies used
numerical approaches by performing parametric studies on the
shear parameters and searching the best values which provided
the numerical results closest to experiments [25,26].
The present study aims to investigate the experimental values
of the cohesion and the friction angle. While the classical shear
box tests or triaxial tests need to be performed on small specimens
(compared to the thickness of in-situ RE walls), the manufacture of
representative specimens within small moulds has several difficul-
ties and the size effects cannot be evaluated [1,7]. That was why a
full-scale shear box (50 cm width  50 cm length  45 cm height)
was developed which enabled to perform direct shear tests on
full-scale specimens. The specimens were fabricated in the same
manufacturing process of an in-situ RE wall. Therefore, the repre-
sentativeness of the specimens could be insured. This full-scale
shear box was used to perform the direct shear tests which enabled
to determine the cohesion and the friction angles of the intralayer
(within an earthen layer) and the interlayer (frontier between two
earthen layers).
2. Materials
The earth used in this study was provided by a RE manufacturer company, in
the Rhone-Alpes region (France). This soil had been used to build numerous ancient
RE buildings in this region. The grain size distribution of the earth is presented in
Fig. 1, which shows that the soil used has 20% clay and does not contain gravels.
The mineralogical composition was analyzed by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD)
[27] which reveals the presence of quartz (72.6%), albite (15.1%), illite (11%), and
traces of vermiculite were identified (1.3%).
To have an assessment of the quality and properties of the earth and the RE
material tested, uniaxial compression tests were performed. Three prismatic spec-
imens (25 cm  25 cm  50 cm height) were manufactured by using the same
pneumatic rammer and the manufacturing water content as an in-situ RE wall.
The specimens were compacted in five layers with a water content of 12% (by
weight, determined following French Standard [28]). Then, the specimens were
dried in laboratory ambient conditions (20 °C and 60% RH). The moisture content
at the moments of test was about of 2.5% (by weight, determined after the compres-
sion tests by the oven-drying method) and the mean compressive strength obtained
was of 1.1 ± 0.1 MPa. This value is usual for unstabilised RE, comparing to others
values presented in the literature which were in the range from 0.5 to 2 MPa
[1,7,12].
415
100
90
80
70
Passing (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Diameter (mm)
Fig. 1. Grains size distribution of the earth used.
3. Methods
3.1. The full-scale shear box
Casagrande shear test is a classical test in soil mechanics where
a dry sand specimen is placed in a shear box that consists of two
independent half-boxes; the sliding plane located at the frontier
of the two half-boxes is also the shear plane of the specimen
tested. To determine the friction angle and the cohesion of the
material tested, at least two different tests are necessary and in
general three different tests are recommended, in which each test
is carried out with a different normal stress [29]. The test consists
on firstly applying a vertical (normal) stress that is maintained
constant during the test and then the shear force is generated by
applying a horizontal displacement on one of the half-boxes.
The shear box used in this study (0.5 m  0.5 m  0.45 m) was
specially designed and manufactured to test full scale RE speci-
mens, in order to reproduce the same manufacturing process of
an in-situ RE wall. Indeed, the 0.5 m-width is the current thickness
of RE walls in France and Europe [5] and it has been explained
above that the specimen size had important influences on the
mechanical results.
The total height 0.45 m was chosen which enables to manufac-
ture three earthen layers in the box (15 cm for each layer) where
the horizontal shear plan is in the middle of the second layer. It
is important to note that the last layer compacted (the top layer)
is less representative than other layers since it receives only one
compaction while other layers receive compaction several times.
This observation was confirmed in a previous study [8]. For this
reason, the last layer should not be tested in shear. In the present
study, a specimen had three earthen layers and the shearing sur-
face was located at the middle (intralayer) of the second layer.
The shear box is dimensioned with respect to various conditions
imposed for direct shear tests indicated in the French Standard
[29]. The standard was respected and adapted to the manufactur-
ing process of the large box. In fact, several constraints were taken
into account for the design of the full-scale shear box. The steel
walls forming the full-scale shear box must be rigid enough to be
considered as ‘‘undeformable” during the application of different
loadings on the shear box. A maximum rotation of ±1° was
imposed for the horizontal walls of the shear box. The application
of the vertical load on the specimen must follow a vertical direc-
tion with a tolerance of ±1° and the vertical force applied must
be constant.
Following the above constraints, the full-scale shear box
designed is made of two steel boxes as shown in Fig. 2 where the
416 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420

very low coefficient of friction of Teflon material. These Teflon

plates reduced the friction between the RE specimen and the walls
of the shear box, which enabled a uniform distribution of the nor-
mal stresses due to the vertical loading.
For the vertical loading, a top rigid plate was necessary to cor-
rectly distribute the normal stresses on the specimen; so a specific
metallic plate with reinforced profiles was designed (Fig. 2, on the
top).

3.2. Specimen manufacturing

3.2.1. Specimens for intralayer direct shear tests

The manufacturing process of the specimens consisted of ram-
ming the earth at a water content of 12% (by weight), in three lay-
ers directly into the shear box, by using a pneumatic rammer
(Fig. 4a). The earth quantity used for each earth layer was precisely
calculated, such that the middle of the second earthen layer was
Fig. 2. The model of the large-scale designed shear box.
located at the middle of the shear box (at 22.5 cm height); conse-
quently each earthen layer had 15 cm thick. The calculation of the
earth amount was performed by knowing beforehand the density
dimension of each half-box is 0.5 m  0.5 m  0.225 m. These half-
of the RE fabricated. The density was determined before (following
boxes are composed of four welded UPN 220 steel profiles.
the French Standard [28]) with some preliminary tests.
The horizontal shear force was applied on the lower half-box.
Three different specimens were manufactured. The median
The horizontal displacement of this lower half-box was enabled
plane of the shear box was effectively located at the middle of
by placing 14 cylindrical metal rolls (4 cm diameter and 20 cm in
the second layer. This position was chosen to distinguish from
length), positioned into 2 parallel rows, under the box (Figs. 2
the interlayers which were investigated in other tests (presented
and 3). The whole system was placed on a steel base of I-shape
in the next section).
which was fixed to the steel loading frame (Fig. 3). The inside sur-
After the manufacturing, the specimen was turned 90° and kept
faces of the box were covered by Teflon plates of 5 mm thickness
in the metal shear box in a vertical position during the drying per-
(see later in Fig. 4); these surfaces were very smooth due to the
iod (Fig. 4b). Two sides (0.5 m  0.5 m) were opened to facilitate
the moisture evaporation (Fig. 4b). The temperature around the
specimen was maintained about 50 °C to accelerate the drying.
The specimen was tested one month after the manufacturing.
Then, the full-scale shear box was reused to fabricate and test
other specimens.

3.2.2. Specimens for interlayer direct shear tests

The manufacturing of the specimens for the interlayer direct
shear tests was carried out in the same manner as for the speci-
mens sheared at the intralayer. The unique difference was that in
this case, an interface between two earthen layers must be located
at the middle of the shear box (at 22.5 cm height). Four earthen
layers were compacted consecutively: first, a thin earthen layer
of 7.5-cm-thick; then a second and a third layers of 15-cm-thick;
Fig. 3. Cylindrical rolls under the shear box.
and finally a last layer of 7.5-cm-thick were placed, in such a

Fig. 4. (a) Manufacturing rammed earth directly in the shear box; (b) Opening two sides of the shear box for moisture evaporation.
 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420 417

box was well fixed during the test. Then, the curves of the horizon-
tal forces (from the horizontal actuator) in function of the horizon-
tal displacements (from displacement sensors at the lower half-

VA
HA
Fig. 5. The full-scale shear box installed on the loading frame.
way that the shear plane is located at the interlayer between the
second and third earthen layers.
Due to the long drying time for each specimen, only two spec-
imens were manufactured for the direct shear tests at the interlay-
ers. These two tests provide information about shear behaviour of
the interlayers and these results are used also to compare with the
intralayer results.
box) were also obtained for the three tested specimens (Fig. 6). It
is interesting to note that for the case of 0.1 MPa-vertical stresses,
a peak was observed while this was not the case for 0.2 and 0.3
MPa-vertical stresses. This phenomenon was also experimentally
observed in the literature [32]. Indeed, it is well known in soil
mechanics that the peak corresponds to the behaviour of a ‘‘dense
sand” where the soil grains are in an interlocking phase and the
shear strength reaches the maximum value when there is a ‘‘jump”
of the soil grains under the shear stress. This jumping mechanism
is the origin of the peak observed during the test. When the vertical
stress increases (the cases of 0.2 and 0.3 MPa), this phenomenon
could not be produced, because the high vertical pressure (from
the top to the bottom) does not allow the ‘‘jump” mechanism
which is in the opposite direction.
After each direct shear test, the upper part of the shear box was
removed to examine the sheared area of each specimen (Fig. 7). It
was observed that the RE layer was effectively cut at the middle of
the layer, with a quasi-horizontal plane (along the median plane of
the box). The value of the shear stress was calculated by taking into
account the net sheared area which was obtained by using the hor-
izontal displacements measured by the horizontal sensors.
Following the classical Mohr-Coulomb theory, the friction angle
and the cohesion can be obtained from the direct shear tests by
plotting the relationship between the maximum shear stress and
the normal stress applied. It is important to note that following

3.3. Direct shear tests on the full-scale box 70

= 0.3 MPa
An electrical actuator VA (capacity of 60 kN) was used to apply 60
the vertical load on the specimen (Fig. 5). This load was applied at a
rate of 1 kN/s until the desirable constant vertical load. The con-
Horizontal load (kN)

50
stant vertical loads for three direct shear tests were chosen corre- = 0.2 MPa
sponding to the normal stresses of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 MPa, 40
respectively. For the two shear tests at interlayer, the normal stres-
ses were of 0.1 and 0.3 MPa. The upper face of RE specimens was 30 = 0.1MPa
not perfectly plane, that was why a sand layer (about 1–2 cm thick)
was placed on the upper part of the RE specimen – which was in
20
contact with the metallic plate – to assure a uniform distribution
of the vertical stresses [30].
10
The horizontal shear force was performed by a horizontal actu-
ator (HA) as shown in Fig. 5, of a maximal capacity of 300 kN. The
shear force was applied with displacement control, at 1 mm/min, 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
up to failure. This loading rate is usually chosen for the case of Horizontal displacement (mm)
large-scale shear boxes because it provides a good compromise
between the quasi-static loading characteristic and the reasonable Fig. 6. Horizontal shear forces in function of horizontal displacements.
testing time [31]. The upper part of the shear box was fixed during
the test to a vertical column of the steel frame by using tie rods. A
horizontal displacement sensor was placed on the fixed part of the
shear box to verify if there was any displacement during the test.
Two other horizontal displacement sensors were placed on the
lower part of the box to measure the horizontal displacements of
the lower half-box. Three other vertical displacement sensors were
placed on the top plate of the shear-box, at three different posi-
tions, to check if there was any rotation of the top plate, in order
to check the uniform distribution of the vertical stresses.

4. Results

4.1. Results of intralayer direct shear tests

First, the values from the horizontal displacement sensor fixed

on the upper half-box confirmed that the upper part of the shear Fig. 7. Unmoulding of the upper part of the shear box after the test.
418 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420

the continuum mechanics theory, the shear stress distribution is
parabolic: zero at the borders and maximum at the mid-part of
the shear section; for a rectangle cross-section, the maximum
shear stress at the mid-part of the cross-section can be estimated
by: smax = 3/2. F/A, where F is the maximum horizontal force during
the direct shear test; A is the cross-section areas. However, follow-
ing the standard [29], the shear stress is simply calculated by divid-
ing the horizontal shear force F by the horizontal shear areas A.
This calculation means that the shear stresses are assumed uni-
formly distributed on the horizontal shear surface.
The results calculated following the standard are illustrated in
Fig. 8. From the trend line presented in this figure, the cohesion
and the friction angle can be easily calculated, which correspond
to clayer = 30.9 kPa and ulayer = 37.3°, respectively.
After each test, the moisture contents of the specimens were
measured, at different positions. It is important to note that due
to a large size of the specimens, the moisture contents were not
homogeneous: the specimen was dry at the surface (about 2.5–
3% of moisture content, by weight) but still wet inside (5–6% of
moisture content, by weight).
4.2. Results for the interlayer direct shear tests
Fig. 9 displays the horizontal forces in function of the horizontal
displacements for the two specimens tested at the interlayers, with
two vertical stresses of 0.1 MPa and 0.3 MPa.
0.3
y = 0.7631x + 0.0309
0.25 R² = 0.9929
Shear stress (MPa)
The graph shows that, at a same vertical stress, the specimens
tested inside an earthen layer had a greater shear strength than
that of the interlayer. This result is not surprising because inside
the earthen layer – which is better compacted during the manufac-
turing – the density is higher and therefore has a higher strength
than that at the interlayer. Thus, comparing to the results obtained
previously with the intralayer, the maximum shear force at the
interfaces were of 78% and 91%, respectively for the case of 0.1
MPa and 0.3 MPa of normal stresses.
If the Mohr-Coulomb line is plotted for these two direct shear
tests at the interlayers, similar to that for the direct shear tests at
the intralayers presented above, the friction angle and the cohesion
are uinterface = 34.8° and cinterface = 24.0 kPa, respectively. The mois-
ture contents of the specimens were similar to that of the speci-
mens sheared at intralayers, presented above.
4.3. Discussion
This was the first time that the direct shear tests on a full scale
shear box were performed, the experiments provided interesting
results.
- First, it was showed that the shear strength at the interlayers
was of 78–91% of that at the intralayers. This is a positive result,
because until now, the interlayers have been considered as very
weak points of RE walls, especially for horizontal loading, and
people wondered always about the shear strength of interlayers.
- The interlayer friction angle was slightly lower than that at the
intralayer (35° for interlayer and 37° for intralayer) but these
values remain close. This result can be explained that the fric-
tion angle come from the roughness of the components at the
microscopic scale (gravels, sands . . .). Although the roughness

0.2 is similar for the intralayers and the interlayers, the density
has also influences on the friction angle, which explain why
0.15 the interlayers had slightly lower values of friction angles than
the intralayers.
0.1 - The cohesion of the interlayers was of about 80% of the intralay-
ers (respectively 24 kPa and 30 kPa). This result can be
0.05 explained that the intralayers are more compacted than the
interlayers, which provides smaller micro-pores and conse-
0 quently higher suction than that at the interlayers. It was
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 showed in a previous study that the suction had direct influ-
Normal stress (MPa) ences on the cohesion of earthen materials [33].

Fig. 8. Results for the intralayer shear tests, following the uniform distribution of
However, another important point needs to be deeply investi-
shear stress.
gated that is the influence of the moisture content on the results
obtained. Indeed, it was observed that the moisture was not homo-
geneous within the specimens and could vary from 2.5% to 6%,
70
depending on the positions (specimens were taken at different
0.3 MPa
positions for the determination of moisture content). It was
60 0.3 MPa
showed in previous studies that the moisture content played a pre-
dominant role on the suction of earthen material and the suction
Horizontal load (kN)

50
was the main source of the cohesion in earthen material
40 [22,33,34]. It was also showed in the study of Bui et al. [33] that
beyond 4% of moisture content, when moisture content increased,
30 the cohesion decreased quickly. That may explain why the cohe-
0.1MPa
sion obtained in this study for intralayers were relatively low
20 (31 kPa, with moisture contents higher than 4% in many places).
0.1MPa At Interface For comparison, following the recommendations in New Zealand
10 In middle layer Standard [35] or in Bui et al. [10], the cohesion should be 7–10%
of the compressive strength, which corresponds to 70–100 kPa
0 for the RE in the present study. Following the values suggested
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
by Miccoli et al. [20], the intralayer cohesion would be in the range
Horizontal displacement (mm)
from 132 to 264 kPa for the RE used in the present study.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the results obtained for direct shear tests at the interlayers It is important to mention that another study [36] was
and that at the intralayers. carried out on this RE material, but using a standard shear box
 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420
(10 cm  10 cm  4 cm). The specimens were taken from a RE wall
and reshaped by a saw. Only the intralayer shear tests were per-
formed because the interlayer tests were not possible. These small
specimens were at a quasi-dry state and had moisture contents of
2.5–3% (by weight). The results showed that the cohesion and the
friction angle for the intralayer case (middle) were of 135 kPa and
45°, respectively.
The lower results obtained in the present study when compared
to the above existing results (for both the cohesion and the friction
angle) are likely due to the effects of the moisture content and the
specimens’ size on the results. Indeed, it was observed in the study
of Flitti et al. [37] that when the moisture content increased (from
0 to 3%), the friction angle could decreased about 1° (for a friction
angle of 40°). So, it can be suggested that the moisture may act as a
lubricant which decreases the friction between the particles, but
this phenomenon does not have enough amplitudes to explain
the low results obtained. The present study shows that the size
effect plays a non-negligible role on the obtained result, which
confirm the interest of the full scale tests.
5. Conclusion
In the present paper, the shear parameters of RE material were
investigated by using direct shear tests with a full-scale shear box,
which was specifically developed for RE material. It was showed at
the first time by experiments that the interfaces had the shear
strengths of 78–91% of the earthen layers, which is a positive
result, because until now, the interfaces have been considered as
very weak points of RE walls, especially for the cases of earthquake
loadings. Then, the experiments showed that the interlayer friction
angle was slightly lower than that of the intralayers (94%). The
cohesion of the interlayers was about 80% of that of the intralayers.
These finding are interesting for the studies on the earthquake per-
formance of RE structures [38].
The specimens tested in the present study had large dimen-
sions, which demanded long drying periods and caused the inho-
mogeneity of the moisture content within the specimens. For
specimens tested, the moisture contents varied from 2.5% (nearby
the surface) to 6% (inside the specimens). The friction angle and the
cohesion obtained were of 37.3° and 30 kPa for the intralayers,
respectively. By comparing with the existing results on the small
and dry specimens, the present study showed the influences of
the moisture content and the size effect on the shear parameters.
When the moisture content and the specimen size increase, the
shear parameters decrease. Further studies to determine the rela-
tionship between the full-scale shear parameters and the moisture
content are interesting to be explored.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the French National Research Agency
(ANR) for the funding of the PRIMATERRE project (ANR-12-Villes et
Bâtiments Durables), and the technical staffs from LOCIE for their
precious collaboration. Anonymous reviewers are thanked for their
valuable comments which enables to improve the quality of this
paper.
References
[1] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, S. Hans, N. Meunier, Compression behaviour of non-
industrial materials in civil engineering by three scale experiments: the case of
rammed earth, Mater. Struct. 42 (8) (2009) 1101–1116.
[2] J.C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, P. Walker, Building houses with local
materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of
construction, Build. Environ. 36 (10) (2001) 1119–1126.
419
[3] L. Soudani, A. Fabbri, J.C. Morel, M. Woloszyn, P.A. Chabriac, H. Wong, A.C.
Grillet, Assessment of the validity of some common assumptions in
hygrothermal modeling of earth based materials, Energy Build. 116 (2016)
498–511.
[4] P. Taylor, R.J. Fuller, M.B. Luther, Energy use and thermal comfort in a rammed
earth office building, Energy Build. 40 (5) (2008) 793–800.
[5] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, B.V.V. Reddy, W. Ghayad, Durability of rammed earth walls
exposed for 20 years to natural weathering, Build. Environ. 44 (5) (2009) 912–
919.
[6] A. Arrigoni, C. Beckett, D. Ciancio, G. Dotelli, Life cycle analysis of
environmental impact vs. durability of stabilised rammed earth, Constr.
Build. Mater. 142 (2017) 128–136.
[7] V. Maniatidis, P. Walker, Structural capacity of rammed earth in compression,
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (3) (2008) 230–238.
[8] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, Assessing the anisotropy of rammed earth, Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (2009) 3005–3011.
[9] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, First exploratory study on the ageing of rammed earth
material, Materials 8 (2015) 1–15.
[10] T.T. Bui, Q.B. Bui, A. Limam, S. Maximilien, Failure of rammed earth walls: from
observations to quantifications, Constr. Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 295–302.
[11] D. Ciancio, C. Augarde, Capacity of unreinforced rammed earth walls subject to
lateral wind force: elastic analysis versus ultimate strength analysis, Mater.
Struct. 46 (9) (2013) 1569–1585.
[12] P. Walker, R. Keable, J. Martin, V. Maniatidis, Rammed Earth : Design and
Construction Guidelines, BRE Bookshop, 2005.
[13] M. Hall, R. Lindsay, M. Krayenhoff, in: Modern Earth Buildings – Materials,
Engineering, Constructions and Applications, Woodhead Publishing, 2012, p.
800.
[14] Q.B. Bui, S. Hans, J.C. Morel, A.P. Do, First exploratory study on dynamic
characteristics of rammed earth buildings, Eng. Struct. 33 (12) (2011) 3690–
3695.
[15] M.I. Gomes, M. Lopes, J. Brito, Seismic resistance of earth construction in
Portugal, Eng. Struct. 33 (3) (2011) 932–941.
[16] Q.B. Bui, T.T. Bui, A. Limam, Assessing the seismic performance of rammed
earth walls by using discrete elements, Cogent Eng. 3 (2016) 1200835.
[17] R. El-Nabouch, Q.B. Bui, O. Plé, P. Perrotin, Assessing the in-plane seismic
performance of rammed earth walls by using horizontal loading tests, Eng.
Struct. 145 (2017) 153–161.
[18] M.E. Arslan, M. Emiroğlu, A. Yalama, Structural behavior of rammed earth
walls under lateral cyclic loading: a comparative experimental study, Constr.
Build. Mater. 133 (2017) 433–442.
[19] L. Miccoli, U. Müller, S. Pospíšil, Rammed earth walls strengthened with
polyester fabric strips: experimental analysis under in-plane cyclic loading,
Constr. Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 29–36.
[20] L. Miccoli, A. Drougkas, U. Müller, In-plane behaviour of rammed earth under
cyclic loading: experimental testing and finite element modelling, Eng. Struct.
125 (2016) 144–152.
[21] J.S.J. Cheah, P. Walker, A. Heath, T.K.K.B. Morgan, Evaluating shear test
methods for stabilised rammed earth, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 165
(6) (2012) 325–334.
[22] P.A. Jaquin, C.E. Augarde, D. Gallipoli, D.G. Toll, The strength of unstabilised
rammed earth materials, Géotechnique 59 (5) (2009) 487–490.
[23] M. Bouhicha, F. Aouissi, S. Kenai, Performance of composite soil reinforced
with barley straw, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (5) (2005) 617–621.
[24] A.C. Corbin, C.E. Augarde, Investigation into the shear behaviour of rammed
earth using shear box tests, in: First International Conference on Bio-based
Building Materials, Clermont Ferrand (France), 2015, pp. 93–98.
[25] T.T. Bui, Q.B. Bui, A. Limam, J.C. Morel, Modeling rammed earth wall using
discrete element method, Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 28 (1–2) (2015) 523–
538.
[26] L. Miccoli, D.V. Oliveira, R.A. Silva, U. Müller, L. Schueremans, Static behaviour
of rammed earth: experimental testing and finite element modelling, Mater.
Struct. 48 (10) (Oct. 2015) 3443–3456.
[27] A. Arrigoni, A.C. Grillet, R. Pelosato, G. Dotelli, C. Beckett, M. Woloszyn, D.
Ciancio, Reduction of rammed earth’s hygroscopic performance under
stabilisation: an experimental investigation, Build. Environ. 115 (2017) 358–
367.
[28] NF P94-093, Sols: reconnaissance et essais – Détermination des références de
compactage d’un matériau – Essai Proctor Normal – Essai Proctor modifié,
AFNOR, Octobre 2014.
[29] NF P 94-071-1, Sols: Reconnaissance et Essais – Essai de cisaillement rectiligne
à la boîte – Partie 1: Cisaillement direct, AFNOR, 08/1994, p. 16.
[30] C. Hsieh, M.W. Hsieh, Load plate rigidity and scale effects on the frictional
behavior of sand/geomembrane interfaces, Geotext. Geomembr. 21 (1) (2003)
25–47.
[31] Alain Bernard, Laurent Peyras, Paul Royet, Casagrande large shear box test: an
experimental test equipment to evaluate the properties of coarse soils and for
other applications in geomechanics, Rev. Fr. Geotech. 146 (2016) 4.
[32] M. Bahaaddini, P.C. Hagan, R. Mitra, M.H. Khosravi, Experimental and
numerical study of asperity degradation in the direct shear test, Eng. Geol.
204 (2016) 41–52.
[33] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, S. Hans, P. Walker, Effect of moisture content on the
mechanical characteristics of rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater. 54 (2014)
163–169.
420 R. El-Nabouch et al. / Construction and Building Materials 171 (2018) 414–420

[34] F. Champiré, A. Fabbri, J.C. Morel, H. Wong, F. McGregor, Impact of relative
humidity on the mechanical behavior of compacted earth as a building
material, Constr. Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 70–78.
[35] NZS4297, Engineering design of earth buildings, New Zealand Standard,
Auckland, 499, New Zealand, 1998.
[36] R. El-Nabouch, Q.B. Bui, P. Perrotin, O. Plé, Experimental and Numerical Studies
on Cohesion and Friction Angle of Rammed Earth Material, in: Sixth Biot
Conference on Poromechanics, Paris, 07-2017, ASCE.
[37] A. Flitti, N. Della, R.D.V. Flores, Experimental study of the shear resistance of
granular material: influence of initial state, J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 55 (2) (2017)
523–533.
[38] T.T. Bui, A. Limam, Q.B. Bui, Discrete element modelling and time history
analysis for the in-plane seismic assessment of rammed earth walls, in:
preparation for Engineering Structures, 2018.