Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Compaction effect on the compressive strength and durability of

stabilized earth blocks
J. Rodrigo González-López, César A. Juárez-Alvarado ⇑, Bárbara Ayub-Francis,
José Manuel Mendoza-Rangel
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Apartado postal #17, Pedro de Alba S/N, Ciudad Universitaria CP 66455, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, Mexico

h i g h l i g h t s

There is a strong dependence between the CEB strength and the granulometry.

10% of the stabilized lime or OPC is sufficient to develop non-structural CEB.

The compaction forces increase the compressive stress when OPC is used as stabilizer.

The 5% and 10% stabilizers reduced the anisotropy of the compressive strength.

The microstructure is related to the durability coefficients.

For the same amount of binder, the compressive stress increased more than 200% by changing the mesh distribution.

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

Article history: This work aims to investigate the design of clay matrices with optimum granulometry for their use in com-
Received 30 July 2017 pressed earth blocks with and without stabilizers. The results and discussion focus on the mechanical
Received in revised form 8 November 2017 properties, compressive strength anisotropy according to the compaction direction, and durability tests
Accepted 9 December 2017
such as abrasion and absorption coefficients. The results show that the granulometry is an important
aspect for matrices without stabilizers, as well as the applied compaction forces, obtaining values greater
than 2 MPa with compaction forces of 1.96 kN. The clay-sand microstructure matrices are densified when
Keywords:
the stabilizers are added, which causes a change in the failure mechanism due to the stiffening of the
Lime
Clay
matrix.
Cement Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Durability
Compaction

1. Introduction
Construction procedures have a great impact on the environ-
ment. This deterioration occurs not only by the modification of
the environment, but also by the materials that are used in it [1].
In the countries with the highest population growth, there is a great
demand for low-rise dwellings. This demand cannot be reached
even by traditional low-rise construction methods [2], which also
generate a large amount of waste and emissions during the extrac-
tion, manufacture, transfer, use, and disposal typical of the linear
economy. One possible solution to this problem is construction
with compressed earth blocks (CEBs) [3]. These construction mate-
rials allow building with low technology in an economical, sustain-
able way, and use materials of the environment. Construction with
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cesar.juarezal@uanl.edu.mx (C.A. Juárez-Alvarado).
earth has its origins in ancient civilizations, and even today a large
part of the world’s low-rise dwellings are built with simple tech-
nologies that use earth as the building material [4]. However, con-
struction with earth has different problems in its manufacture and
performance, as has been observed in history [5]; it is still a chal-
lenge to improve the properties and service life of these materials
[6–8]. Therefore, the extensive use of soil-based construction can
be feasible if construction processes become standardized, efficient,
effective, and easily reproduced using knowledge of the climatic
conditions of each region [9].
The Cinva Ram was the first of the instruments that pushed this
type of construction procedure [10]. In addition, the performance
of CEB, rammed earth, adobe, and cob has been constantly evalu-
ated in order to identify their performance under conditions where
their properties are compromised [11–17]. Construction with CEB
uses the soil according to granulometry distributions and mix
proportions of silica sand and clay. These materials mixed in the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.074
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
180 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
appropriate amount with water will develop binder properties. The
workable mixture is compressed into blocks, generally paral-
lelepipeds, which develop their resistance as a function of the com-
paction force and amount of clay. However, because these blocks
have compressive strength between 1 and 7 MPa, they fail easily
under inclement weather conditions [18–20]. Therefore, it is nec-
essary to add different materials to stabilize their performance
[21,22]. The stabilization may be mechanical or chemical, and will
depend on the type of stabilizing agent and amount added.
The most common stabilizers are Portland cement and lime.
Other materials that have been tested as stabilizers are synthetic
compounds, supplementary materials, residues, fibers, and alkaline
activated materials, among others [23,24]; even materials with
high salt content have been used [25]. The quantity and type of
addition will depend on the characteristics of the soil type and
the expected performance of the manufactured compressed earth
stabilized block (CESB). Thus, the focus on these materials is the
response of their durability and the correlation with the manufac-
turing characteristics of these elements [26–28]. Currently,
research is underway to change from the simple stabilization of
CEB to the manufacture of soil construction materials with a tech-
nology similar to concrete, in which through additives it is possible
to control the behavior in a plastic state and achieve high resistance
in short production times. However, the debate on how to achieve
better performance of these materials and their contribution to
reduce the environmental impact of buildings remains open [29].
The aim of this study was to determine the effect on com-
pressed earth blocks of different granulometric distributions with
and without stabilizers, and their relationship with different com-
paction forces and durability. Compaction forces and a suitable
particle size distribution will help to reduce the anisotropy of the
properties and the consumption of stabilizers used in the com-
pressed earth blocks. In the initial part of this study, the design
of sand-clay mixtures was carried out with four different distribu-
tion particle sizes for testing without stabilizers. In this part, the
effect of different compaction forces on the compressive strength
was analyzed to determine the granulometry distribution that pro-
duces the highest compressive strength without stabilizers. A
reduced test specimen was used considering the restrictions of
the sample block size aspect factor (longer size/shorter size)
reported in other investigations [30,31]. After the granulometric
distribution that produces the highest resistance were selected,
two stabilizers were added in three different percentages to deter-
mine the effect along with the compaction forces, and analyze the
stabilizer content in the performance regarding the resistance as a
function of the compaction direction [32] and durability tests, such
as coefficients of abrasion (Ca) (33) and absorption coefficient (Cb)
[34]. The results are discussed in terms of regulations related to
this type of product [33–35].
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Characterization of materials and manufacturing blocks
The CEBs were manufactured with silica and clay. First, the
granulometry of these materials was determined by a sieve
method and by laser diffraction with a Malvern Zeta sizer 2000.
The surface area was determined by nitrogen physisorption with
a BET method. The use of the surface area indicates the ideal area
relation between mix materials. The morphology of the materials
was also characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
and the chemical composition by X-ray fluorescence with a Pana-
lytical Epsilon 3 device. The CEBs were manufactured using four
different sand distribution granulometries. The selection of granu-
lometry was based on first determining the amount of clay, which
determines the binding characteristics and the water content nec-
essary to achieve the compressive resistance properties [36]. In
this work, the granulometries recommended by the guidelines
were taken as a reference, being an important factor in the perfor-
mance that the CEB with or without stabilizers will develop
[37,38]. Even though these guidelines are a good indicator for the
feasibility of soil, they do not indicate the impact that the different
granulometries have on the final compressive strength of the CEB.
Therefore, the selection was based on the evaluation of the com-
pressive strength development of each of the proposed distribu-
tions. After the granulometries to be used were established (see
Table 1), three specimens were tested to determine the simple
compressive stress. Silica sand with a dry density of 2.60 g/cm3
was used along with 20% of the mixture with clay of kaolinite ori-
gin. According to the classification parameters of Atterberg, it has a
liquid limit of 33.46%, a plastic limit of 21.82%, a plasticity index of
11.64, and a dry density of 2.63 g/cm3 with an average size of
23.71 lm. The sand-clay and water mixes were compacted with
forces of 0.49, 0.98, and 1.96 kN applied to a constant area to make
the specimens.
The manufacture of the specimens tested in this research
required a 4.75-l capacity mixer with the characteristics described
in standard ASTM C305, a steel mold with interior dimensions of
30 mm  40 mm x 200 mm, and a hydraulic press with control of
the load application during the complete manufacturing cycle.
Mixtures were produced in 3-kg batches, homogenizing all dry
materials for 3 min at a speed of 140 rpm. While the equipment
was still running, water was added for 30 s. Subsequently, the
material was mixed for 5:30 min more. The compaction force
required to achieve a certain compressive stress is higher in poorly
graded soils than well-graded soils. However, it is unknown to
what extent this fact affects the homogeneity of the properties.
For that reason, it was decided to conduct a series of tests in two
different directions, to establish an anisotropy measure of this
property [39]. After that, the granulometry distribution to be used
during the remaining experimentation was definitively selected.
The manual methodology used a Cinva-Ram press [10], whereby
pulling a lever activates a piston, which pushes the material to
be compressed between steel plates, forming a parallelepiped. This
action generates a compaction force of approximately 0.45 kN
when making either CEBs or CESBs.
The second manufacturing methodology used a 200 K Tinius
Olsen model super L hydraulic press, which generally applies
forces between 0.39 and 1.96 kN or more. In this work, three com-
paction forces were used to evaluate their effect on CEBs and
CESBs. The evaluated forces were 0.49, 0.98, and 1.96 kN, and the
results obtained by applying different compaction forces and the
resulting block properties can justify the compaction force applied
[40]. Because each stabilization variable has a specific process of
property development, it was necessary to treat each type differ-
ently, dividing them in two groups: the specimens without stabi-
lizers and those stabilized. Resistance in soils that use only clay
as a material must undergo a process of moisture loss. Therefore,
the specimens of CEB were oven dried for only 24 h at 100 ± 5 °C.
The CESBs with added lime and ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
were cured in the laboratory for 28 days at a room temperature
of 25 ± 5 °C and a relative humidity of 30 ± 5%.
2.2. Mechanical testing and durability of CEB and CESB
The compressive stress measurement of the CEB or CESB is a
test that is normally specified in the manufacturing guidelines. In
this case, because of the high compaction forces used, the force
induces an anisotropic behavior of the element. Therefore, the
specimens were tested in two different directions: normal to the
compaction load (RCV) and parallel to the compaction direction
 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188 181

Table 1
Granulometry of the fine aggregate (pass %).

Mesh size, (mm) Mesh Number (0.075) Pan (0.15) No.100 (0.30) No. 50 (0.60) No. 30 (1.18) No. 16 (2.36) No. 8 (4.75) No. 4
G-0.3-A 30 60 75 90 100 100 100
G-0.3-B 30 45 55 65 80 100 100
G-0.3-C 30 41 50 60 70 90 100
G-0.3-D 30 38 43 51 61 80 100

(RCH). In addition, the compression tests were carried out after the
specimens had been immersed in water for 24 h. Subsequently,
they were removed, superficially dried, weighed, and placed
between two 2.5-cm-thick steel plates to be tested in the RCV
direction before determining their stress loss. The durability of
the CEB is directly influenced by the water absorption. Therefore,
the capillary absorption coefficient (Cb) was measured following
the recommendations of the UNE 41410 guidelines [34]. Nine spec-
imens were placed during 10 min in a container with water on an
electric iron plate to maintain a temperature of 70 ± 5 °C through-
out the test (see Fig. 1). Subsequently, Eq. (1) was used to deter-
mine the Cb.
imen when brushed. The brushing must be done with a metal
brush with stainless steel bristles, brushing in one direction once
per second for 1 min on the entire surface (that is, 60 brushes in
each direction) without applying vertical force. To prevent damage
on the edges of the block, at least half the brush must be in contact
with the surface of the block during the entire test. At the end of
the brushing, the specimen was cleaned to remove the elements
detached; subsequently, the specimen was weighed again to calcu-
late the Ca by:
Lx A
Ca ¼ ð2Þ
Po  Pf

100 M 100ðPt  PoÞ where

Cb ¼ pffiffi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ Ca = abrasion coefficient, (cm2/g)
S t S 10
L = specimen length, cm
where A = brush width, cm
Cb = capillary coefficient Po = initial mass of the specimen, g
Pt = weight after cycles, g Pf = mass after test, g.
Po = dry weight, g
M = mass of water absorbed by the block during the test, g 2.3. Scanning electron microscopy
S = surface of the face submerged in cm2
T = immersion duration, min. Microstructural analyses were performed on the cross sections
of the specimens in a scanning electron microscope (Jeol Model
Another parameter that determines the bonding of the sand JSM-6490LV) to compare each of the compaction conditions and
grains is the abrasion coefficient (Ca). For this test, nine specimens presence of the stabilizer. These tests aimed to understand the
were tested following the recommendations indicated in interaction between the clay-sand phases and the effect that the
guidelines AFNOR XP P 13 901 and NTC 5324 [33], which offer a stabilizers generated in their densification. The parameters used
methodology to analyze such parameters. To perform the test, in the SEM analysis were a voltage acceleration of 20 keV and a
the specimen was placed on a horizontal working plane, with a working distance of 13–15 mm. The specimens obtained by frac-
brush on top of it, so the weight was exerted vertically on the spec- turing the samples were approximately 30 mm  4 mm  20 mm,

Fig. 1. Test to determine the capillary coefficient (Cb).

182 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188

Table 2
Chemical composition of materials, % mass.

Material MgO Al2O3 SiO2 K2O CaO TiO2 Fe2O Na2O SO3 P2O5
Clay 1.87 22.15 66.24 2.05 3.20 0.77 3.72 – – –
Sand – 8.11 89.88 0.47 0.52 – 1.01 – – –
Lime 3.56 1.02 18.20 – 77.02 – 0.20 – – –
Cement 1.14 4.09 19.92 0.92 66.01 0.23 3.28 0.24 3.51 0.09

Fig. 2. Effect of the compaction force and granulometry in the compressive stress of Fig. 3. Effect of the compaction force and granulometry in the compressive stress of
the specimens without stabilizers. the specimens with stabilizers.

and were dried at a temperature of 60 °C to a constant weight and

coated with Au-Pd on the observation surface.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Properties of materials and granulometry selection

The materials were obtained from commercially available sam-

ples and no further processing, such as sieving and/or milling, was
performed. The chemical composition of these materials is pre-
sented in Table 2. The particle size of the clay, OPC, and lime were
23.71, 21.15, and 15.80 mm respectively. The dry density values of
sand, clay, OPC, and lime were 2.59, 2.63, 3.02, and 2.28 g/cm3
respectively. The size and distribution of the meshes used in the Fig. 4. Isotropy ratio in compression tests for specimens with stabilizers.
first part of the study for the granulometry selection are shown
in Table 1. The proposal of these distributions meets the recom-
mendations of UNE (Spanish association of standardization) guide-
lines. Specimens without stabilizer were tested on these
distributions in the first part of the study. The purpose of this stage
is to determine the granulometry, which, along with the clay as a
binder, results in the greatest compressive stress. The clay content
was selected from the greatest possible recommended amount:
30% by weight in the proportions. The optimum use of cement or
lime as a stabilizer was evaluated in the compressive strength from
the effect of adding different contents in the test mixtures.
The CEB specimens were made in a hydraulic press with the
three compaction forces mentioned previously. The effect of the
clay on the specimens of low compaction forces resulted in a
compressive stress of less than 1 MPa; see Fig. 2. The value recom-
mended in the guidelines is a minimum compressive stress of 2
MPa for non-structural CEB. Therefore, only the compaction force
Fig. 5. Effect of moisture and compaction force in the compressive stress loss of the
of 1.96 kN combined with granulometry G03-D resulted in values specimens with stabilizers.
above 2 MPa on average. The arrangement of the sand grains and
the compaction forces allowed the compressive stress to increase
up to 260% when compared to the compaction forces of 0.49 kN, mechanical strength properties. However, these values are too low
which are similar to those obtained by a manual press. This is to be recommended for structural use. The granulometry effect
important because good grading allows the development of better was positive at higher loads than lower ones. The compressive
 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188 183

Fig. 6. Physical and Durability properties of CESB. a) Density, b) Absorption, c) absorption coefficient, d) abrasion coefficient.

Fig. 7. Samples subjected to the abrasion test (Ca) with 5% of stabilizer and force of 0.49 kN. (a) Specimens with lime. (b) Specimens with OPC.

stress of the samples made with a compaction force of 0.98 kN
increased 82%, changing from granulometry G03-A to G03-D. The
same situation but with 1.96 kN resulted in an increase of 66% in
compressive stress for the same granulometry.
The G03-D granulometric distribution was selected to make
specimens with stabilizer materials added in the mixtures. The
amount of addition was of 5, 10 and 15%, and lime or OPC were
used as stabilizers. The forces used in the compaction were the
same as those previously used to observe the efficiency that could
be applied with a manual press, 0.49 kN, and forces that would be
obtained with hydraulic presses, 0.98 kN and 1.96 kN.
3.2. Compressive stress of specimens with stabilizers
Fig. 3 shows the compressive stress when the stabilizers, ordi-
nary Portland cement (C) or lime (L) were added to the clay-sand
specimens. The effect of adding OPC is quite noticeable in the
compressive stress because in all the conditions the minimum
recommended value of 2 MPa was exceeded. The addition of OPC
would be the most effective stabilizer because even for compaction
forces similar to manual presses, the CESB could be produced with
adequate compressive stress, even with only 5% added OPC.
Some guidelines recommend 6 MPa for construction blocks with
structural load capacity. The blocks with 10 and 15% added OPC
exceed this value. The maximum compressive stress, 11.84 MPa,
was obtained with 15% OPC and 1.96 kN, which was expected
when it coincided with the results of the stage without stabilizer.
For this last compaction force, the addition of only 5% OPC was
sufficient to exceed 4 MPa of compressive stress. The values of
compressive stress in the case of the specimens with added lime
as a stabilizer are lower than 2 MPa, except for the addition of
15% lime and 1.96 kN.
184 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
Fig. 8. Micrographs of failed specimens with clay-sand matrices without stabilization with lime or OPC. Four images belong to the same sample at different magnifications a)
18, b) 500, c) 1000 and d) 2000.
3.3. Anisotropic behavior regarding the compaction force
A characteristic that must be evaluated when high compaction
forces are applied is the compressive stress anisotropy. In order to
evaluate it, tests were carried out in the same direction and per-
pendicular to the compaction force. The results of the ratio of these
tests are shown in Fig. 4 for the different compaction forces and
stabilizer additions. The influence of the direction of compaction
is higher in CESB with compaction forces of 0.49 kN and with 5%
stabilizer than in samples with a larger lime content. The RCV val-
ues are higher in the compaction direction with these stabilizer
content levels than in the RCH direction. CESB tends to develop
isotropic properties of compressive stress when 10 and 15% stabi-
lizer material, either lime or OPC, is added. The homogeneous
properties in the CEB/CESB are important because the application
of the components can be indistinct in any load orientation.
3.4. Wet compressive stress of specimens with stabilizers
Is widely recognized that materials made with CEB have the
disadvantage of being susceptible to size reduction due to
environmental conditions. The addition of stabilizer materials
seeks to generate a structure with sufficient continuity to maintain
the sand grains of the soil. The amount and type of addition is
important to achieve the stabilized blocks. Therefore, specimens
previously saturated in water for 24 h were tested to obtain their
compressive stress. The compressive stress loss was even found
to reach 100% when compaction forces of 0.49 kN were used with
the addition of 5 and 10% lime (see Fig. 5). The greater addition of
lime helps to reduce the loss to approximately 80%. The effect of
the force on the compressive stress loss is a minimum; thus, the
stabilizer content has a higher influence than force. The CESB made
with OPC showed lower compressive stress loss when the addition
content was 10 and 15%. The difference between these two addi-
tions is minimal, so the ideal value will be between these amounts
of addition. The compaction force of 1.96 kN presents an increase
in the compressive stress loss, possibly because the high forces
could compact the particles to an unstable point when they absorb
moisture. On one hand, the clay contained in the specimens will
tend to increase its volume when exposed to moisture, reducing
its binding action. On the other hand, some solubility of the fines
may exist, weakening the compaction structure.
3.5. Physical and durability properties of the stabilized specimens
The percentage of absorption by immersion reported in Table 3
is related to the amount of stabilized material. The relation
between the materials of the matrix, sand, and clay remained con-
stant for all specimens. The amount of stabilizer acted as the main
promoter of the absorption increase in these specimens. The effect
of the compaction force was a minimum in the CESB with lime
because the decrease in absorption was less than 8% when the
force increased from 0.49 to 1.96 kN. The stabilizing action of
OPC is reflected in the lower water absorption, which decreased
from 26 to 38% when the compaction force increased from 0.49
to 1.96 kN. The capillary coefficient (Cb) shows the capacity of a
block to absorb water. The Cb tends to decrease as the compaction
force increases in all conditions because the bulk density of the
materials also increases from the forces used. The CESB with lime
showed a high Cb, probably because the surface area of the lime
particles is much greater than that of the OPC. At high compaction
forces, the Cb of the samples with lime decreased between 50 and
80%; in contrast, the Cb of the samples with OPC decreased
between 97 and 200%. The greatest effect was when the stabilizer
content was 5%. In the case of the samples with OPC, a greater sta-
bilizer content corresponded with a lower Cb, because the phases
developed in the cement hydration are completely insoluble. The
case of the stabilized samples was the opposite; a lower stabilizer
content corresponded with a lower Cb, because the lime particles
are smaller and would tend to absorb more water if they had not
previously been converted to Ca(OH)2.
 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
Fig. 9. Micrographs of clay-sand matrices stabilized with lime. The three images above (a), correspond to the samples with 5% lime addition. The three images of the center
(b) correspond to the samples with 10% lime and the below images correspond to the samples with 15% lime addition. The compaction force was 0.49, 0.98 and 1.96 kN; from
left to right.
The coefficient of abrasion (Ca) shows the resistance of the
material to an abrasive force. The contact forces in this test tend
to detach particles of the specimens, and they act as abrasives that
cause further loss of material. The CESB stabilized with OPC
showed higher wear resistance than that with lime stabilization.
A higher compaction load in these samples corresponded with a
higher Ca. The wear resistance by abrasion decreased as the
amount of OPC decreased. In CESB stabilized with lime, the ten-
dency to increase Ca was presented with the highest compaction
force for 5 and 10% lime. In contrast, when 15% was added, the
value of Ca decreased approximately 30%. The binder action of
the lime is quite weak to the point that for a compaction force of
1.96 kN, there is practically no difference in the value of Ca for
the three different conditions of additions, as observed in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of abrasion on CEBs stabilized with lime
and OPC. Fig. 7(a) presents a specimen stabilized with 5% lime and
compacted with a force of 0.49 kN. It can be observed that the sand
grains are without the binder material; this indicates that the lime
is highly susceptible to abrasion. In contrast, when the specimens
are stabilized with OPC under the same conditions (amount of
stabilizer and compaction force), a smoother finish without the
presence of loose aggregate is observed after the abrasion test, as
shown in Fig. 7(b).
3.6. Microstructure of the clay-sand matrices without stabilizers
Figure 8 shows that the clay fraction was detached and it
skirted the sand grains in the matrix. The clay was able to hold
185
together all the parts that constitute the soil, mainly because of
secondary forces of attraction. However, when the specimen
received a load that exceeded these forces, it was no longer possi-
ble to hold the unconfined soil together. Thus, micro-failures were
generated that caused deformation, which together created macro-
failures that finally dispersed the soil that formed the specimen. A
similar phenomenon occurs in ceramics [41], where the failure is
mainly due to surface cracks and porosity. The pores are regions
where the stress is concentrated, and when such stress reaches a
critical value, a crack is formed and propagated; thus the pore vol-
ume is an important factor for mechanical strength. The failures
observed in Fig. 8 were visible in the edges of the grains. However,
while that happened, the clay failed in a ductile manner, generat-
ing micro-holes, which favored the propagation of cracks in these
areas. Other studies [42–45] have found this type of failure in cera-
mic materials, where the failures were mainly observed in the
edges of the grains and in high-porosity areas.
3.7. Microstructure of clay-sand matrices with stabilizers
The micrographs presented in Figs. 9 and 10 show the morphol-
ogy of the specimens with clay-sand matrix and stabilized with
lime and OPC, respectively. It is possible to observe in the figures
that the bulk density increases with the increase in percentage of
the stabilizers and the compaction forces. Fig. 9 shows that the
matrix of 5% lime compressed with 0.49 kN has a more porous tex-
ture; whereas the matrices made with 10 and 15% lime and with
compaction forces of 0.98 kN show a more compacted structure.
186 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
Fig. 10. Micrographs of clay-sand matrices stabilized with OPC. The three images above (a), correspond to the samples with 5% cement addition. The three images of the
center (b) correspond to the samples with 10% cement and the below images correspond to the samples with 15% cement addition. The compaction force was 0.49, 0.98 and
1.96 kN; from left to right.
Fig. 11. Fragile failure due to loss of adhesion in the clay-sand matrix stabilized
with lime.
This agrees with the results of the Ca coefficient. As observed in
both figures, in the matrices stabilized with lime and OPC, the
cementant surrounded the grains and adhered them, unlike the
loose particle conglomerate as was the case with the specimens
made only with clay as binder material. This union suggests the for-
mation of crystals, producing large adhesion strength, in contrast to
that observed in non-stabilized specimens, either by the formation
of CaCO3 or the beginning of formation of crystals of calcium silicate
hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrates. The creation of new crys-
talline species modified the appearance of failure that was observed
in the CEB specimens (see Fig. 8), mainly for 10 and 15% stabilizer.
However, the amount of cementant in the specimens with 5% lime
was not sufficient to modify the failure mechanism of the grains, as
observed in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9 it is possible to observe that the speci-
mens made with OPC as stabilizer produced a matrix with little
porosity for the three percentages of cementant addition and for
the compaction forces used in the present study. This resulted in
the densification of the cement matrix surrounding the sand grains.
These modifications in the microstructure of the material have a
significant impact in the macrostructure and in the physical,
mechanical, and durability behavior of the stabilized CEB.
3.8. Failure behavior in clay-sand matrices with stabilizers
The difference between the failure behavior of cemented gran-
ular materials compared to cohesive granular materials that main-
tain a surface adhesion (clay-sand matrix without stabilizer) lies in
the mechanical behavior of rigidity and in the resistance, depend-
ing on the transfer of load between the matrix and the cemented
particles. Thus, the failure mechanisms are due to the loss of inter-
face adhesion, particle fracture, and matrix deformation. Fig. 11
shows a failure similar to that described in cement granular matter
[46], regarding the loss of adhesion at the grain-matrix interface.
4. Conclusions
From the experimental data, the following was concluded:
 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
The compressive stress increased more than 200% by changing
only the mesh distribution of the material used, for the same
amount of binder. The compaction force increased the compressive
stress for each of the granulometries proposed in these tests. It was
possible to obtain values greater than 2 MPa at compaction forces
of 1.96 kN. In contrast, the low loads reached a maximum of 0.86
MPa of compressive stress.
The compressive stress of the samples stabilized with OPC was
more effective. The reached values exceeded 2 MPa for all condi-
tions, and even with 10% OPC and compaction forces of 0.98 and
1.96 kN, values greater than 6 MPa were reached, which are rec-
ommended in some guidelines for structural applications. This
results from the hydraulic behavior of the OPC. In addition, wet
curing conditions improve strength development.
An anisotropic tendency of compressive stress at low stabilizer
addition levels was found. The tendency decreased as the com-
paction force increased, so the load capacity of the blocks is highly
stable regardless of the direction of compaction. In contrast, high
stabilizer additions affected less anisotropic compressive stress.
The absorption of water is related to the amount and type of
stabilizer. The samples stabilized with lime absorb similar
amounts of water for the different forces used for compacting. In
contrast, the samples stabilized with OPC absorbed less water,
and the action of compacting with greater force resulted in a
decrease of up to 38% for samples with 5% stabilizer.
The Cb increased as the content of OPC and the compaction
force increased. The greatest amount of absorption of specimens
stabilized with lime would be related to the greatest surface area
of their particles and the possibility of being soluble in water.
CESB will develop a minimum 6 MPa either with high com-
paction force with low OPC addition or low compaction force with
increasing OPC stabilizer content.
References
[1] I. Hafliger, V. John, A. Passer, S. Lasvaux, E. Hoxha, M. Saade, G. Habert,
Buildings environmental impacts’ sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices
of construction materials, J. Cleaner Prod. 156 (2017) 805–816, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.052.
[2] G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, C. Chen, A. Jullien, Development of a depletion indicator
for natural resources used in concrete, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (6) (2010)
364–376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.09.002.
[3] J. Dahmen, J. Kim, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, Life cycle assessment of emergent
masonry blocks, J. Cleaner Prod. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.10.044.
[4] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future
eco-efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (1) (2012) 512–519, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054.
[5] E. Avrami, H. Guillaud, M. Hardy (Eds), Terra literature review—an overview of
research in earthen architecture conservation, The Getty Conservation
Institute, Los Angeles (United States).
[6] V. Sharma, B.M. Marwaha, H.K. Vinayak, Enhancing durability of adobe by
natural reinforcement for propagating sustainable mud housing, Int. J.
Sustainable Built Environ. 5 (1) (2016) 141–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijsbe.2016.03.004.
[7] H.B. Nagaraj, M.V. Sravan, T.G. Arun, K.S. Jagadish, Role of lime with cement in
long-term strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Int. J. Sustainable
Built Environ. 3 (1) (2014) 54–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.03.001.
[8] J.E. Aubert, A. Fabbri, J.C. Morel, P. Maillard, An earth block with a compressive
strength higher than 45 MPa, Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 366–369, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.068.
[9] A. Almssad, A. Almusaed, Environmental reply to vernacular habitat
conformation from a vast areas of scandinavia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
48 (2015) 825–834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.013.
[10] R. Moss, C. Proto, D. Sanchez, K. Rowley, R. Thompson. ICEB: Design and
Construction Manual, Civil Engineering Senior Design, Cal Poly, San Luis
Obispo, 2010.
[11] L. Miccoli, U. Muller, P. Fontana, C.B.I. Betonginstitutet, AB, SP – Sveriges
Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, & RISE., Mechanical behaviour of earthen
materials: a comparison between earth block masonry, rammed earth and
cob, Constr. Build. Mater. 61 (2014) 327–339, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.03.009.
[12] Y. Millogo, J. Morel, Microstructural characterization and mechanical
properties of cement stabilised adobes, Mater. Struct. 45 (9) (2012) 1311–
1318, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9833-2.
187
[13] Q. Bui, J. Morel, S. Hans, P. Walker, Effect of moisture content on the
mechanical characteristics of rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater. 54 (2014)
163–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.12.067.
[14] E. Kianfar, V. Toufigh, Reliability analysis of rammed earth structures, Constr.
Build. Mater. 127 (2016) 884–895, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2016.10.052.
[15] Pape Moussa Touré, Vincent Sambou, Mactar Faye, Ababacar Thiam, Mamadou
Adj, Dorothé Azilinon, Mechanical and hygrothermal properties of compressed
stabilized earth bricks (CSEB), J. Build. Eng. 13 (2017) 266–271, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2017.08.012. 2352-7102.
[16] A. Arrigoni, R. Pelosato, G. Dotelli, C. Beckett, D. Ciancio, Weathering’s
beneficial effect on waste-stabilised rammed earth: a chemical and
microstructural investigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 157–166,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.009.
[17] A. Arrigoni, C. Beckett, D. Ciancio, G. Dotelli, Life cycle analysis of environ-
mental impact vs. durability of stabilised rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater.
142 (2017) 128–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.066.
[18] Mariette Moevus-Dorvaux, Lucile Couvreur, Basile Cloquet, Laetitia Fontaine,
Romain Anger, Patrice Doat, Béton d’Argile Environnemental: résultats d’un
programme de recherche tourné vers l’application, CRAterre, Villefontaine,
2016.
[19] Mariette Moevus, Laetitia Fontaine, Romain Anger, Patrice Doat. Projet: Beton
d’Argile Environnemental (B.A.E.): Rapport scientique, Rapport scientique,
2013.
[20] L. Miccoli, A. Garofano, P. Fontana, U. Muller, C.B.I. Betonginstitutet, AB, SP –
Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, RISE., Experimental testing and finite
element modelling of earth block masonry, Eng. Struct. 104 (2015) 80–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.020.
[21] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Cement stabilised rammed earth.
Part B: compressive strength and stress-strain characteristics, Mater. Struct./
Materiaux Et Constructions 44 (3) (2011) 695–707, https://doi.org/10.1617/
s11527-010-9659-8.
[22] K. Kariyawasam, C. Jayasinghe, Cement stabilized rammed earth as a
sustainable construction material, Constr. Build. Mater. 105 (2016) 519–527,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.189.
[23] J. Munoz, T. Easton, J. Dahmen, Using alkali-activated natural aluminosilicate
minerals to produce compressed masonry construction materials, Constr.
Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 86–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2015.07.144.
[24] H. Van Damme, H. Houben, Earth concrete. Stabilization revisited, Cem. Concr.
Res. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.035.
[25] H. Yu, L. Zheng, J. Yang, L. Yang, Stabilised compressed earth bricks made with
coastal solonchak, Constr. Build. Mater. 77 (2015) 409–418, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.069.
[26] S. Deboucha, R. Hashim, A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth
blocks, Sci. Res. Essays 6 (3) (2011) 499–506.
[27] Y. Millogo, J. Morel, J. Aubert, K. Ghavami, Experimental analysis of pressed
adobe blocks reinforced with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers, Constr. Build. Mater.
52 (2014) 71–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.094.
[28] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, The mechanical and physical properties of compressed
earth block stabilized with lime and filled with untreated and alkali-treated
date palm fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 52–62, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.007.
[29] J.C. Morel, J.E. Aubert, Y. Millogo, E. Hamard, A. Fabbri, Some observations
about the paper ‘‘earth construction: lessons from the past for future eco-
efficient construction” by F. Pacheco-Torgal and S. Jalali, Constr. Build. Mater.
44 (2013) 419–421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.054.
[30] J. Morel, A. Pkla, P. Walker, Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 303–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2005.08.021.
[31] Q. Bui, J. 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./Materiaux Et Constructions 42 (8) (2009) 1101–1116,
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9446-y.
[32] P. Maillard, J. Aubert, Effects of the anisotropy of extruded earth bricks on their
hygrothermal properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 63 (2014) 56–61, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.001.
[33] Colombian Institute of Technical Standards. Colombian standard for cement
blocks for walls and divisions. Definitions, Specifications. Methods of testing.
Delivery conditions, ICONTEC, 2004, pp. 39, NTC 5324.
[34] Spanish Association of Standardization and Certification. Compressed earth
blocks for walls and partitions. Definitions, specifications and testing methods,
2008, pp. 28, UNE 41410.
[35] M. Ben Mansour, A. Jelidi, A. Cherif, S. Ben Jabrallah, Optimizing thermal and
mechanical performance of compressed earth blocks (CEB), Constr. Build.
Mater. 104 (2016) 44–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.024.
[36] C.H. Kouakou, J.C. Morel, Strength and elasto-plastic properties of non-
industrial building materials manufactured with clay as a natural binder,
Appl. Clay Sci. 44 (1–2) (2009) 27–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2008.
12.019.
[37] M.C. Jiménez Delgado, I.C. Guerrero, The selection of soils for unstabilised
earth building: a normative review, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 237–
251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.006.
[38] B.V.V. Reddy, R. Lal, K.S.N. Rao, Optimum soil grading for the soil-cement
blocks, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2) (2007) 139–148, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2007) 19:2(139).
188 J.R. González-López et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 179–188
[39] Q. Bui, J. Morel, Assessing the anisotropy of rammed earth, Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (9) (2009) 3005–3011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.
04.011.
[40] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Embodied energy in cement
stabilised rammed earth walls, Energy Build. 42 (3) (2010) 380–385, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.10.005.
[41] W.F. Smith, J. Hashemi, Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering,
fourth ed., Mc Graw Hill, México, 2006.
[42] S. Gallops, T. Fett, J.J. Kruzic, Fatigue threshold RCurve behavior of grain
bridging ceramics: role of grain size and grain-boundary adhesion, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. 94 (8) (2011) 2556–2561.
[43] P.Y. Huang, C.S. Ruiz-Vargas, Van Der Zande, M. Arend, W.S. Whitney, M.P.
Levendorf, J.W. Kevek, D.A. Muller, Grains and grain boundaries in single-layer
graphene atomic patchwork quilts, Nature 469 (7330) (2011) 389–392,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09718.
[44] C.J. Gilbert, R.H. Dauskardt, R.O. Ritchie, Microstructural mechanisms of cyclic
fatigue-crack propagation in grain-bridging ceramics, Ceram. Int. 23 (5) (1997)
413–418.
[45] P.L. Swanson, C.J. Fairbanks, B.R. Lawn, Y.W. Mai, B.J. Hockey, Crack-interface
grain bridging as a fracture resistance I, mechanism in ceramics: I,
experimental study on alumina, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. (1987) 279–289.
[46] V. Topin, J.Y. Delenne, F. Radjaï, L. Brendel, F. Mabille, Strength and failure of
cemented granular matter, Eur. Phys. J. E (2007) 413–429.