See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359467033

Evaluation of recycling capabilities of bio-stabilised earth building materials

Conference Paper · March 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 47

4 authors:

Alessia Cuccurullo Sravan Muguda

Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour Durham University
19 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   351 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Domenico Gallipoli Céline Perlot

Università degli Studi di Genova Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour
175 PUBLICATIONS   3,299 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THEBES - THMC Behaviour of the Swelling Clay Barriers View project

Ezponda View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alessia Cuccurullo on 28 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of recycling capabilities of bio-stabilised earth building materials
Alessia Cuccurullo1*, Sravan Muguda2, Domenico Gallipoli3 and Céline Perlot1
1SIAME Laboratoire, University of Pau and Pays de l’Adour, Anglet, France
2Department of Engineering, Durham University, South Road, Durham, United Kingdom
3DICCA, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy

Introduction
Earth building materials are considered sustainable due to the inherent low embodied and
operational energies, the ability to buffer hygrothermal fluctuations and the recycling potential.
Despite these advantageous attributes, they are not employed in mainstream construction
mainly because of their vulnerability to water. To improve durability in humid environments,
earth is often stabilised with chemical binders, such as cement, which results in similar
mechanical properties to those of conventional building materials. It has been reported that
the addition of about 8-12% of cement to the earth is sufficient to obtain the same mechanical
performance of fired bricks1. Cement stabilisation was initially adopted for the manufacture of
compressed earth blocks, but it has now become a norm for other forms of earthen
construction like adobe. The addition of cement increases durability but also contributes to
carbon emissions while increasing embodied energy. Studies have shown that cement-
stabilised earthen materials have the same net carbon emissions as lean concrete and,
therefore, relatively poor green credentials. Furthermore, cement stabilisation negatively
impacts other aspects of material performance by reducing both hygroscopicity and ease of
recycling2. Reduced hygroscopicity leads to a poorer ability to buffer hygrothermal fluctuations
and, hence, higher levels of operational energy for ensuring adequate levels of indoor comfort.
The loss of recycling potential means instead that demolished materials cannot experience a
full lifecycle but are either downcycled or dumped in landfills. To reinstate the original
sustainability of the material without compromising on durability, it is necessary to look for
alternative stabilisation techniques that can ensure engineering performance while retaining
hygroscopic and recycling advantages.
Bio-stabilisation of soils
In the recent past, the bio-stabilisation of earth materials has gained popularity in geotechnical
engineering. Bio-stabilisation relies on the improvement of soil properties via biological
process like Enzyme Induced Calcite Precipitation (EICP) or biopolymer binding. The authors
have recently explored the suitability of both these stabilisation techniques to improve the
engineering properties of earth building materials. With reference to EICP, it was observed
that the addition of the urease enzyme in the form of soybeans powder resulted in better
stabilisation performance compared to the introduction of the urease enzyme in the form of an
aqueous solution3. The interaction between soybeans powder and soil particles provides an
extra source of bonding besides calcite precipitation. With reference to biopolymer binding, it
was seen that xanthan gum produced larger improvements of tensile strength and durability
compared to guar gum4. Importantly, both stabilisation techniques produced an improvement
of the mechanical characteristics of the earth without compromising the advantageous
hygroscopic properties3,4.
Materials & Methods
The present study further explores the recycling potential of both these stabilisation
techniques. A soil comprising about 20% sand and 80% fines, which has been typically used
for manufacturing fired bricks, was here employed to assess the recycling potential of EICP.
The urease enzyme was introduced in the form of powdered soybeans with optimum
concentration of urea and calcium chloride equal to 2.5 Molality. In the biopolymer case, a soil
mix comprising 20% fines, 70% sand and 10% gravel was stabilised with an amount of
xanthan gum corresponding to 2.0% of the dry soil mass. In both cases, Proctor compacted
earth bricks with dimensions of 200 mm x 100 mm x 75 mm were manufactured and left to
age in the laboratory environment (23.0 ± 2.00C, 50±5% RH) for about 2 years. On the day of
testing, the samples were crushed to gravel size and the recycled material was mixed
thoroughly with a sodium hexametaphosphate solution (6g/l) to ensure the deflocculation of
soil agglomerations formed during stabilisation. The mixture was left to settle for about 8 hours,
before being washed repeatedly under a water jet stream to separate the fine and coarse
fractions, which were then oven-dried to calculate the percentage of the different components.

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Percentage soil components before and after recycling (a) EICP _ Soybean Powder
and (b) Biopolymer _ Xanthan Gum

Results & Conclusion

Figure 1 shows the fractions of the recycled and original soils for both stabilisation techniques.
In the case of EICP, the fine fraction dominates in the original soil while sand constitutes the
largest fraction of the recycled soil. The higher percentage of sand-sized particles in the
recycled soil is an indication of the agglomerations formed during the stabilisation process.
This confirms that the precipitated calcite crystals not only fill the voids of the soil but also
 bond particles together. Although some bonds may have been broken under the actions of
pressure, deflocculation and washing, these results indicate that the agglomerations formed
by stabilisation are generally stable. Additional stable bonds also exist due to strong chemical
interactions between the active clay particles and the soybeans powder. In the biopolymer
case, stabilisation occurs through formation of water-bearing hydrogels connecting soil
particles. Xanthan gum, which is an anionic polysaccharide, forms strong ionic bonds with clay
particles along with hydrogen bonds. These bonded clay particles coat the surface of the
coarser grains, thus forming larger agglomerations. The strength of chemical bonds, i.e. ionic
bonds, causes some of the agglomerations to resist both the dispersion and washing, which
explains the higher percentage of gravel-sized particles in the recycled material. Albeit
important differences exist, the preservation of certain fractions of the original soil inside the
recycled material is promising and warrants further exploration for both stabilisation
techniques.
References:
1 Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. et al. Mason. Int. 3, 80–84 (1989)
2 Arrigoni, A. et al. Build. Environ. 115, 358–367 (2017)
3 Cuccurullo, A. et al. Geomech. Energy Environ. 100230 (2020)
4 Muguda, S. et al. Constr. Build. Mater. 259, 119725 (2020)

View publication stats