TITLE PAGE

CE G619: FEA COURSE PROJECT MONTHLY

REPORT

ON

STUDY OF SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS FOR LOW COST HOUSING-

COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS (CEB’S)

BY

2019H1430099H-CHINTHA RAVALI

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE PILANI

(RAJASTHAN)

HYDERABAD CAMPUS

(SEPTEMBER-2019)

i
 ABSTRACT

Of the three basic needs of a human, basic shelter is the one every common man dreams of.
Due to depletion of natural resources the cost of basic needs is at apace. Now-a-days, to build
even a G+2 or G+3 building the cost of construction, materials and so are high. For a
common man it’s been a challenge to build his own house with his own earnings. As a civil
engineer it is one’s responsibility to makes their dreams come true. So, this project deals with
the implementation of one of the low cost housing technologies that employed in most parts
of the world. In this the technology that will be studied is compressed earth blocks (CEB’s)
or stabilized earth blocks (SEB’s).

A compressed earth block is a compacted soil mass under certain compacting rate so
that inter molecular attraction between the particles will be so strong that these blocks can be
used for load bearing walls in place of cement blocks.  Compressed earth blocks use a
mechanical press to form blocks out of an appropriate mix of fairly dry inorganic subsoil,
non-expansive clay and aggregate. If the blocks are stabilized with a chemical binder such
as Portland cement they are called compressed stabilized earth block (CSEB) or stabilized
earth block (SEB). Typically, around 3,000 psi (21 MPa) is applied in compression, and the
original soil volume is reduced by about half.

This project includes the complete study of compressed earth blocks or stabilized
earth blocks. Where the stabilized earth block is the one where the conventional soil mass is
mixed up with the stabilizing materials such as cement, fibres, iron spoil waste. And also
inculcates the possible use of different materials other than mentioned above to achieve same
properties as done by the materials mentioned above. This project also gives information how
a CEB or CSEB can reduce cost of construction which is nothing but low-cost housing
technology.

KEYWORDS: Low cost housing, compressed earth blocks (CEB’s),

ii
CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE.........................................................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................ii

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1

LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................9
PREPARATION OF CEB’S:..............................................................................................................26

TESTING SOIL PRIOR TO BLOCK PRODUCTION.......................................................................29

SOIL TESTING METHODS...............................................................................................................31

SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS OF CSEB:.................................35

GOOD SOIL FOR COMPRESSED STABILISED EARTH BLOCKS..............................................36

ENERGY EFFECTIVENESS.............................................................................................................37

COST EFFECTIVENESS...................................................................................................................37

BASIC DATA ON CSEB....................................................................................................................38

OPTIMIZATION OF INVESTMENT / OUTPUT / QUALITY RATIO............................................39

DIVERSITY AND SELECTION OF THE EQUIPMENT..................................................................39

COMPRISION OF CSEB WITH OTHER WALLING MATERIALS...............................................40

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................41

REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................43

ANNEXURE.......................................................................................................................................44
Table 1 Six production stages of compressed stabilized earth blocks..................................................27
Table 2 Sustainability and friendliness of CSEB.................................................................................31
Table 3 Cement and lime stabilization compositions...........................................................................32
Table 4 Average proportions for cement and lime stabilizations.........................................................32
Table 5 Energy effectiveness and co2 emission statistics....................................................................33
Table 6 Cost breakup analysis.............................................................................................................33
Table 7 Properties of Compressed stabilized earth blocks...................................................................34
Table 8 Comparision of different walling materials with their properties............................................36
Y

Figure 1 Perforated compressed earth block wall......................................................................1

Figure 2 Manual compressed earth block made from machine.................................................4
Figure 3 A typical compressed earth block................................................................................7
Figure 4 Typical site view of CSEB making...........................................................................26
Figure 5 Sedimentation test......................................................................................................29
Figure 6 Water retention test....................................................................................................30

2
 INTRODUCTION
CEB technology has been developed for low-cost construction, as an alternative to
adobe, and with some advantages. A commercial industry has been advanced by eco-friendly
contractors, manufacturers of the mechanical presses, and by cultural acceptance of the
method. In the United States, most general contractors building with CEB are in the South-
western states: New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, California, and to a lesser extent in Texas.
The methods and presses have been used for many years in Mexico, and in developing
countries.

The South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry considers that CEB, locally
called "Dutch brick" is an appropriate technology for a developing country, as are adobe,
rammed earth and cob. All use natural building materials. In 2002 the International Institute
for Energy Conservation was one of the winners of a World Bank Development Marketplace
Award for a project to make an energy-efficient Dutch brick-making machine for home
construction in South Africa. By making cheaper bricks that use earth, the project would
reduce housing costs while stimulating the building industry The machine would be mobile,
allowing bricks to be made locally from earth.

Various types of CEB production machines exist, from manual to semi-automated and fully
automated, with increasing capital-investment and production rates, and decreased labour.
Automated machines are more common in the developed world, and manual machines in the
developing world.

Figure Perforated compressed earth block wall

HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT:

The history of civilization is synonymous to the history of masonry. Man’s first

civilization, which started about 6000 years ago, was evident from the remains of the
Mesopotamians masonry heritage. During those days, masonry buildings were constructed
from any available material at hand. The Mesopotamians used bricks, made from alluvial
deposits of the nearby River Euphrates and Tigris to build their cities beside two rivers.
Where civilization existed in the vicinity of mountains or rocky outcrops, stone was used.
The Egyptian pyramids that existed along the rocky borders of the Nile valley were examples
of such stone masonry. In the Eastern civilization, remains of historical masonry are the
reputed Great Wall of China, which is considered as one of the seven construction wonders in
the world. The prevision of good quality housing is recognized as an important responsibility
for welfare of people in any country. For this, building materials based on natural resources
are often used. Some examples are the use of clay for making bricks, and river sand for
making cement sand blocks.

The commercial exploitation of these resources often leads to various environmental

problems. If clay mines are not properly filled up, they can collect water and allow
mosquitoes to breed. Extensive sand mining can lower the river- beds and allow salt-water
intrusion inland. Therefore, the development of many alternative walling materials as
possible will be of immense benefit to minimize the impact on the environment. Earth can be
used for construction of walls in many ways. However, there are few undesirable properties
such as loss of strength when saturated with water, erosion due to wind or driving rain and
poor dimensional stability. These draw backs can be eliminated significantly by stabilizing
the soil with a chemical agent such as cement. Cement stabilized soil is generally used as
individual blocks compacted either with manual hydraulically operated machines. Significant
research data are available for these applications either as block strength or wall strength
(Perera and Jayasingh, 2003; Reddy and Jagadish, 1989). The early forms of masonry
application in Malaysia dated back about 350 years ago with the construction of the
Stadthuys in Malacca, built by the Dutch in 1650. The British colonized the Malaysia
Peninsula initiated a more modern form of masonry construction. Brickwork buildings were
at that time built specially for government offices, quarters and residential homes. The
administrative block, Sultan Abdul Samad building built in 1894 and given a face-lift during
the Fourth Malaysia Plan (1981- 1985) is an example of a masonry heritage, which stands as
a remarkable landmark of Kuala Lumpur.

2
ROLE OF STABILIZERS USED IN CSEBS:
Stabilization is a process of mixing admixtures with soil to improve its volume
stability, strength, permeability and durability (Bell, 1993). Stabilization is considered
to be an important step in the manufacture of CSEBs, and is aimed at improving the
performance of a soil as a construction material. Amongst the variety of soil
stabilizers used, cement has been the most popular stabilizer in the manufacture of
CSEBs. Attempts have been made by various researchers in the past to document the
role of cement as a stabilizer in CSEBs. However, compared to cement, utilization
of lime as a stabilizer in the preparation of CSEBs has not found popularity. Lime has
been used in stabilizing clayey soils, and has been found to impart long-term strength
gain as reported in the literature. An outstanding testimonial of the durability of the
lime-stabilized soils is the Friant-Kern irrigation canal in California as reported by.
In the recent past, attempts to independently utilize lime instead of cement in the
preparation of CSEBs and compare their properties with those prepared with cement
has been reported in the literature have tried to use various quantities of lime namely,
5%, 8% and 12% to improve the durability of the blocks. The evaluated dry strength
of blocks reported by them is around 9.4, 14.2 and 16.2 MPa respectively for 5%,
8% and 12% of lime. Similarly, when tested under humid state, the strength of the
blocks was found to be 4.4, 8.2 and 9.8 MPa respectively for 5%, 8% and 12% lime.
From their study, it is clear that after an optimum value of lime content, any further
increase in lime will not be so beneficial in the strength gain of the blocks. have
reported the 28 days wet compressive strength of compressed stabilized interlocking
earth blocks prepared with lime and cement alone as stabilizers added in varying
quantities from 5% to 25%, with an increment of 5%. For maximum amount of
stabilizer content namely 25%, the strength gain of the blocks is found to be 3.2 MPa
and 1.2 MPa for blocks pre- pared with cement and lime respectively.
Very recently have reported the advantage of using lime towards the
development of unfired clay bricks. From the results of tests conducted on
cylindrical specimens of 65 mm diameter and 30 mm height prepared with use of
18% lime, they have found that, at the end of 90 days of age- in the maximum
compressive strength of the cylindrical specimens was nearly 13 MPa, and the

3
 strength of cylindrical-specimens prepared with 18% of cement were around 18
MPa. However, attempts to utilize lime in combination with cement as a stabilizer to
achieve desirable properties of CSEBs have not been studied and reported. As lime
is known to impart strength in the long term, its utilization in some proportion as a
replacement to cement may be beneficial. This paper reports the attempts made to
understand the role of lime in combination with cement as a stabilizer in improving
the long-term properties of CSEBs, optimize the use of stabilizers and maximize the
strength of the blocks. Any effort to optimize the quantity of stabilizers used in
combination would help in reducing the cost of the blocks. This work is thus aimed
at contributing towards improvising the existing technology of manufacture of
unfired earth blocks. This would be a good contribution towards sustain- able
development.

Figure Manual compressed earth block made from machine

DURABILITY

STRENGTH:

Strength of CEBs depends on the machine (especially automated versus manual) and
the quality of the soil (poorly mixed soil can lead to a weaker brick). According to

4
Wikipedia, "CEB can have a compressive strength as high as 2,000 pounds per square inch.
Blocks with compressive strengths of 1,200 to 1,400 p.s.i. are common." We have not yet
strength-tested blocks from The Liberator.

The compressive strength of CEB sounds impressive, but according to Fred Webster,
Ph.D. seismic Engineer in his paper "Some Thoughts on ‘Adobe Codes', it is neither the only
nor the most important variable in determining the ability of CEB's to withstand loads. "In
actuality, high compressive strength is and should not be the greatest concern related to
pressed block quality. If the block has a compressive strength of 1000 psi rather than 300 psi,
it is quite superfluous to the performance of the building subjected to ordinary service loads
or even earthquake loads. It is not requisite that earthen blocks be up to the standard of
concrete in order to perform well during severe earthquake shaking." Webster suggests that
soil quality may be more important than compressive strength in determining the bricks
overall durability. "Standards for appropriate soil selection need to be aggressively and
rationally developed and tested by the pressed block industry. Currently, the best standards
and research are being performed by BASIN, a combined appropriate technology effort made
up of Germany, England, Switzerland, and France" (Webster).

WATER RESISTANCE

Although high quality blocks are water-resistant, they are not fully waterproof and
commercial builders, such as Midwest Earth Builders use a stucco to protect the exterior
walls. Other design features, such as a large overhang, can also provide some protection
against weathering.

CEB buildings may need to be re-finished with stucco coating, just like a house
would occasionally need new paint. If a conventional roof is used, maintenance repairs would
be identical to a traditional house. More research is needed on maintenance costs of a CEB
building.

ADVANTAGES:

There are many advantages of the CEB system. On-site materials can be used, which
reduces cost, minimizes shipping costs for materials, and increases efficiency and
sustainability. The wait-time required to obtain materials is minimal, because after the blocks
are pressed, materials are available very soon after a short drying period. The uniformity of

5
the blocks simplifies construction, and minimizes or eliminates the need for mortar, thus
reducing both the labor and materials costs. The blocks are strong, stable, water-resistant and
long-lasting.

 CEB can be pressed from damp earth. Because it is not wet, the drying time is much
shorter. Some soil conditions permit the blocks to go straight from the press onto the
wall. A single mechanical press can produce from 800 to over 5,000 blocks per day,
enough to build a 1,200 square feet (110 m2) house in one day. A high performance CEB
press, of open source design, named "The Liberator", can produce from 8,000 to 17,000
or more blocks per day. The production rate is limited more by the ability to get material
into the machine, than the machine itself.

 Shipping cost: Suitable soils are often available at or near the construction
site. Adobe and CEB are of similar weight, but distance from a source supply gives CEB
an advantage. Also, CEB can be made available in places where adobe manufacturing
operations are non-existent.

 Uniformity: CEB can be manufactured to a predictable size and has true flat sides and
90-degree angle edges. This makes design and costing easier. This also provides the
contractor the option of making the exteriors look like conventional stucco houses.

 Presses allow blocks to be consistently made of uniform size, while also obtaining
strengths that exceed the ASTM standard for concrete blocks (1900 psi).

 Non-toxic: materials are completely natural, non-toxic, and do not out-gas

 Sound resistant: an important feature in high-density neighbourhoods, residential

areas adjacent to industrial zones

 Fire resistant: earthen walls do not burn

 Insect resistant: Insects are discouraged because the walls are solid and very dense,
and have no food value

 Mold resistant: there is no cellulose material - such as in wood, Oriented Strand

Board or drywall - that can host mold or rot

6
 In India, CSEB's with cement stabilization have shown to be very beneficial. The
observed compressive strength, flexural strength at 28 days of aging with 9% cement
stabilization has been observed to be 3.2 MPa and 1 MPa respectively. Ideally, the
production is made on the site itself or in the nearby area. Thus, it will save the
transportation, fuel, time and money.
 Well-designed CSEB houses can withstand, with a minimum of maintenance, heavy
rains, snowfall or frost without being damaged. The strength and durability has been
proven since half a century. But let’s imagine a building fallen down and that a jungle
grows on it: the bio-chemicals contained in the humus of the topsoil will destroy the
soil cement mix in 10 or 20 years… And CSEB will come back to our Mother Earth!
 Firewood is not needed to produce CSEB. It will save the forests, which are being
depleted quickly in the world, due to short view developments and the
mismanagement of resources.
 Each quarry should be planned for various utilisations: water harvesting pond,
wastewater treatment, reservoirs, landscaping, etc. It is crucial to be aware of this
point: very profitable if well managed … disastrous if unplanned!
 Being produced locally it is easily adapted to the various needs: technical, social,
cultural habits.


Figure A typical compressed earth block

7
DISADVANTAGES:

The CEB does fall short of perfection in a couple respects. The press and other
needed equipment (i.e. rototiller and tractor) are not made from locally harvested materials.
However, almost all building methods require use of some heavy machinery, and to its
advantage, the press is designed to be locally manufactured. Also, The Liberator is not
designed to make roofing shingles (although these can be made from compressed earth). So,
the ecological qualities of the roof cannot be addressed. Soil composition may not be
appropriate on some sites as well which would mean appropriate soil would need to be
transported from elsewhere.

 Unawareness of the need to manage resources.

 Ignorance of the basics for production & use.

 Wide spans, high & long building are difficult to do.

 Low technical performances compared to concrete.

 Untrained teams producing bad quality products.

 Over-stabilization through fear or ignorance, implying outrageous costs.

 Under-stabilization resulting in low quality products.

 Bad quality or un-adapted production equipment.

 Low social acceptance due to counter examples (By unskilled people, or bad soil &

equipment).

8
 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Danso H et al (2019):

The high cost of cement and its greenhouse effect on the environment have led to the
use of alternative building materials in the production of block and bricks. This paper tells us
how to investigate the properties of compressed earth blocks (CEBs) stabilized with clay
pozzolana. CEBs of size 290 × 140 × 100 mm were prepared with 0, 10, 20 and 30% weight
of clay pozzolana. The CEBs were compressed at a constant pressure of 5 MPa and cured.
The blocks, after 7, 14, 21 and 28 days of curing were tested for density, water absorption,
compressive strength, tensile strength and erosion resistance. It was found that the pozzolana
content slightly improved the blocks’ density. There was increase water absorption resistance
of the stabilized blocks between 32.8% and 252% over the unstabilised blocks. The 30%
pozzolana content block specimens gained 116.8% compressive strength and 62.1% tensile
strength over the unstabilised blocks. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant
difference in the erosion resistance between the stabilized blocks and the unstabilised blocks.
This paper concludes that the inclusion of the clay pozzolana generally improved the
properties of the CEBs, and therefore recommended it for use in the building of low-rise
houses.

The use of pozzolana either as a partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement or

with lime has gained widespread popularity in construction. Pozzolan can be defined as a
siliceous or aluminosiliceous material with very fine particles, and in the presence of water, it
reacts with calcium hydroxide released by the hydration of Portland cement at ordinary
temperatures, to form compounds of possessing cementing properties. Pozzolana in the
context of concrete technology is actually acidic oxides that will react with the excess basic
calcium hydroxide formed during hydration of cement and form ‘neutral’ hydrates.
Pozzolana is sometimes preferably used for the construction of structures because of their
resistance to the alkali-aggregation reaction, improved durability properties which are due to
resistance to sulphate attack. such as volcanic tuff, clay and waste products from industrial
plants such as slag, fly ash and silica fume. To reduce the consumption and dependency on
cement, utilization of pozzolanic materials as supplementary cementing materials has become
the leading research interest in the area of cement and materials research in recent decades.
Recently, as a supplement of cement, the utilization of pozzolanic materials in cement and

9
concrete manufacturing has increased significantly. Pozzolana is therefore important
replacement of cement in recent time due to its sustainable properties.

10
2. Seick Omar Sore et al (2018):

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of stabilizing

compressed earth blocks with a geopolymer binder that is less polluting than
Portland cement. Thus, a performance evaluation of these materials compared to
non-stabilized or Portland cement-stabilized earth blocks was the main aim this
study. The geopolymer was synthesized from a mixture of metakaolin and
sodium hydroxide solution. Laterite formed the principal matrix of the bricks.
Compressed Earth Bricks (CEBs) stabilized with 5, 10, 15 and 20% of
geopolymer were produced and compared to both CEBs containing 8% of
Portland cement and CEBs without stabilizer. After a cure of 14 days for the
specimens without stabilizer and geopolymerized CEBs and 21 days for Portland
cement-stabilized CEBs, the blocks were subjected to several characterization
tests in order to evaluate their properties (physical mechanical and thermal
properties).

The results showed that geopolymerization of CEBs significantly improved

their mechanical perfor- mance and gave them thermal properties that were very
similar to those of non-stabilized blocks. For a 15% geopolymer content, these
materials displayed properties comparable to those of Portland cement-stabilized
CEBs, in particular with regard to their stability in water.

In Burkina Faso, the conventional building materials (cement) are relatively

expensive because their raw materials are imported (clinker, mostly from the
neighboring country of Togo), and are not affordable for a large proportion of the
population. In this con- text, earthen materials remain the most economical way for
these populations to build. Such materials, especially laterite, are found over almost
all the national territory except the desert area in the far north and the extreme east
of the country

On the physical level, in spite of the maximum densities/porosi- ties of CEBs

stabilized by cement, an average geopolymer con- tent of 15% ensures good
cohesion of the CEB particles whereas CEBs without stabilizer show poor
cohesion.

11
CEBs stabilized with a geopolymer binder and heat treated at 60 °C have very good mechanical
properties, which increase sig- nificantly with the geopolymer content. A quantity of 10 or 15%
of geopolymer gives CEBs a compressive strength of at least 4 MPa, as recommended by the
standard XP P13-901 [22] for earthen constructions.

12