Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Soil property apotheosis to corral the finest compressive strength

of unbaked adobe bricks
Pinakin Dhandhukia a, Dweipayan Goswami b, Parth Thakor b, Janki N. Thakker b,⇑
a
Ashok and Rita Patel Institute of Integrated Study and Research in Biotechnology and Allied Sciences, ADIT Campus, New Vidyangar 388121, Anand, Gujarat, India
b
Department of Biotechnology, P.D. Patel Institute of Applied Sciences, Charotar University of Science and Technology, CHARUSAT Campus, Changa 388421, Anand, Gujarat, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 We aimed to find out co-relationship between different physical parameters of soil and compressive strength of adobe bricks.
 Focused is to optimize the soil type that can be used to develop unbaked adobe bricks with optimum compressive strength.
 Atterberg’s limits and soil grain size analysis has been determined of various soils of Gujarat.
 Effect of each soil parameter on compressive strength of bricks has been determined.
 These data will be helpful to the engineers across the globe to screen the soil used for the adobe construction with ease.

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

Article history: The aim of the present study was to find out co-relationship between different physical parameters (soil
Received 29 April 2013 grain size and Atterberg’s limit) of soil and compressive strength of adobe bricks. Nine different soil sam-
Received in revised form 9 July 2013 ples were collected from assorted locations of Gujarat, India and classified according to ASTM D3282.
Accepted 21 July 2013
Changes in the physical properties were determined by mixing high clay containing soil with high sand
Available online 24 August 2013
containing soil. Adobe bricks form all the different soil types and there mixtures were prepared and
tested for its compressive strength. Bricks with high compressive strength can be prepared from the soil
Keywords:
with sand content 53 ± 3%, silt + clay content 48 ± 5% and Plastic Limit (PL) in the range of 2–6.
Adobe bricks
Soil classification
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Compressive strength

1. Introduction transmittance (thermal value) [1,4]. Most building regulations

Earth has been used to construct houses over the period of sev-
eral thousand years. Wood, stones, clay and sand are the main
earth components which are been used for construction. The con-
struction technologies have changed due to advancement in the
technologies over the period of time but still large amount of pres-
ent construction involves earthen materials [1]. Brick is one such
imperative earthen material currently been used for construction
industry. Research on the bricks is inevitable as the constant effort
has to be made them at low cost and rapid pace to meet demand of
the industry [2]. Another aspect of pursuing research on bricks is to
provide unfired eco-friendly bricks as fired bricks generate
unpleasant pollutant gasses [3]. There is a growing interest in un-
fired clay building materials with good physical material behavior,
with respect to an energy conscious and ecological design, which
fulfils all strength and serviceability requirements for thermal
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 2697 247500/248133x2194; fax: +91 2697
247100.
E-mail address: jankithakker.bt@ecchanga.ac.in (J.N. Thakker).
have increasingly laid down strict criteria for the thermal perfor-
mance of buildings rather than the theoretically possible level of
performance, used in the design of thermal value in the past [5].
The increase in the popularity of using environmental friendly
and low cost bricks in building industry has brought about the
need to investigate how this can be achieved by benefiting to the
environment as well as maintaining the material requirements af-
firmed in the standards. Brick is one of the most accommodating
masonry units as a building material due to its properties [5,6].
Present research is focused to develop unfired mud bricks that
can provide sufficient compressive strength to the bricks. Co-rela-
tion of soil composition (sand, silt and clay content) and soil
behavior such as Liquid limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and PI% on
the compressive strength of the brick has been developed to opti-
mize the brick preparation which can provide maximum compres-
sive strength. To accomplish such avowed endeavor, a study was
designed to comprehend the co-relationship between different
physical parameters of soil with compressive strength of bricks.
Composition of earthen material including natural sand, clay and
silt was quantified and used to develop adobe bricks with optimum

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.043
 P. Dhandhukia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953 949

compressive strength. To accomplish such aim, natural soil sam-

ples from various locations of Gujarat, India were procured, ana-
lyzed and used to prepare bricks and its compressive strength
was measured. Moreover, naturally available soils were mixed in
various ratios to alter Atterberg’s limits and similar experiments
were repeated to determine the workable range of soil property
best suited to produce adobe bricks with optimum strength.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Collection of soil samples and preparation of various soil mixtures

Eight different types of soils were collected from various regions of Gujarat. EB1
was collected from dry pond surface soil at Karoli, Petlad (23°060 N, 72°800 E), EB2- was
collected from dry pond 6 m below the soil surface at Karoli, EB3 was collected from
saline clayey desert of Little Rann of Kutch (23°290 N, 71°720 E), EB4- was the black cot-
ton soil from Bhimnath, Barwala (22°250 N, 71°920 E), EB5- was the soil collected from
CHARUSAT Campus Nr. R&D center (22°600 N, 72°820 E), EB6 was the soil sample from
Narmada river bed, Bharuch (21°600 N, 73°020 E). After examining physical properties
of soil EB1 it was found to be having high sand content and EB4 was found to be having
high clay content. Further, EB7,EB8, EB9, EB10, EB11 these 5 soil types were prepared
by mixing EB1 and EB4 in the ratios of 1:9, 2:8, 3:4, 4:6 and 5:5 (% w/w) respectively to
understand change in Atterberg’s limits. EB12 was the farm soil (21°690 N, 72°840 E)
from Bharuch dist. having yellow color and EB13- was the farm collected from tobac-
co farm from Changa village, dist. Anand (22°590 N, 72°800 E).
Fig. 1. Procedure in brief described to explain the work flow for determining the co-
relationship between soil property and compressive strength of unbaked adobe
2.2. Examination of physical properties of soil
bricks.

All the 13 soil samples were checked for soil grain size analysis (Determination
of gravel, sand, silt + clay) using sieve test. Further all the soils were also character-
ized for Atterberg’s limit %, which included determination of PL, LL and PI. Experi-
ments were performed according to ASTM Standard C33 [7].

2.3. Classifying the soil based on physical properties

All the tested soils were classified using ASTM D3282 and Unified soil classifi-
cation system (USCS) which classifies the soil on the basis of soil grain composition
and Atterberg’s limit (ASTM Standard C33) [7].

2.4. Brick preparation and its analysis

Bricks were prepared from all the soil types under study. For brick preparation
soil was mixed with water in the proportion of 5:1 (w/v%), mixed well and allowed
to get charged for 24 h. After the soil water mixture gets charged bricks of sized
228  107  69 mm were prepared using wooden mould [8]. Bricks sun dried for
72 h followed by oven drying at 60 °C for 24 h. Compressive strength of each and
every brick was determined [9]. Compressive strength of bricks was determined by
a conventional method according to the standard ASTM C109-93 using compression
testing machine having testing capacity of 50 tons. Designated unit for compressive
strength determination was N/mm2. Work flow to determine the correlation ship be-
tween compressive strength of bricks with various soil parameters is described in
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the brick preparation procedure is expressed in Fig. 2.
2.5. Correlation of compressive strength with soil properties
All the data obtained were randomly plotted on the graph. Individual soil prop-
erty was correlated with compressive strength and plotted using scatter graph
trend line with polynomial trend/regression pattern with the order =2. Such analy-
sis was performed to plot the workable range of soil properties which can aid to de-
velop adobe bricks with optimum compressive strength. Correlation coefficient was
calculated and R2 value is displayed in graphs. Greater R2 value indicates variables
under study are dependent on each other and value of R2 never exceeds 1.0.
Fig. 2. Flow diagram showing the procedure to prepare adobe bricks.
with LL more than 50 are classified in to ML (Inorganic silts and
very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with slight
plasticity), CL (Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity) and
OL (Organic silts and clays of low plasticity). Soils with LL less than
50 are classified in to MH (Inorganic silts, micaceous or silty soils
which are elastic), CH (Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays),
OH (Organic clays and silts of medium to high Plasticity).
According to ASTM D3282 classification soils are classified as
A1–A7. When the soil passing the 0.075 mm sieve is less than
35% soils can be classified as A1 (LL < 6) , A2 (PI < 10) and A3
(10 < PI > 6). Soil passing the 0.075 mm sieve 35% or more it can
be classified as A4 (Silty soil with LL < 40, PI < 10), A5(Silty soil
with LL > 40, PI < 10), A6 (Clayey soil with LL < 40, PI > 10) and
A7(Clayey soil with LL > 40, PI > 10). Table 1 shows classification
according to ASTM and USCS classification of all the soils used
for the study.

3. Results
3.1. Soil analysis result
According to USCS, soil can be classified in to coarse-grained soil
and fine-grained-soil. Coarse-grained soil contains half of the total
soil with grain size greater than 1/4 of an inch in diameter gener-
ally known as gravel. Such soil cannot be used for brick prepara-
tion, so fine-grained-soils with smaller grain size were used for
brick preparation. Fine-grained-soils are further classified in to
soils with LL greater than 50 and soils with LL less than 50. Soils
3.2. Classified soil type and compressive strength
Correlation of the soil type and compressive strength of the soil
is expressed in Fig. 3. Here soils with A4 (ASTM D3282) soil type
produced good quality bricks. Soils with CL, ML, CL–ML and CH
according to USCS classification were found to inappropriate to
prepare bricks as bricks from such soils were difficult to make as
soils were sticky and bricks from such soils developed cracks due
to high shrinkage (Fig. 4). Similar inference was also true for soil
type A-7-6 classified as per ASTM D3282.
950 P. Dhandhukia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953

Table 1
Analysis of physical properties of soil and its classification using Unified and ASTM D3282 classification.

Soil type Collection site Grain size analysis Atterberg Unified classification ASTM D3282
limit (%)
Gravel Sand Silt + Clay LL PL PI Group Group name Group Significant
(%) (%) (%) symbol material
EB1 Dry pond surface soil at Karoli 0 51 49 23 22 1 SM Silty sand A4 Silty soil
EB2 Dry pond 6 mt deep soil at Karoli 0 53 47 23 22 1 SM Silty sand A4 Silty soil
EB3 Little Rann of Kutch 0 19 81 61 20 41 CH Clay of high plasticity, A-7-6 Clayey soil
fat clay
EB4 Black cotton soil from Bhimnath, 12 24 64 42 22 20 CL Clay A-7-6 Clayey soil
Bhavnagar
EB5 Charusat campus Nr. R&D center 0 31 69 26 24 2 ML Silt A4 Silty soil
EB6 Narmada River Bed, Bharuch 0 16 84 24 22 2 ML Silt A4 Silty soil
EB7⁄(9:1) 10% 3 35 62 25 22 2 ML Silt A4 Silty soil
EB8⁄ 20% 0 32 68 27 21 6 CL–ML Clayey-silt A4 Silty soil
(8:2)
EB9⁄ 30% 1 36 63 26 22 4 ML Silt A4 Silty soil
(7:3)
EB10⁄ 40% 0 38 62 28 22 6 CL–ML Clayey-silt A4 Silty soil
(6:4)
EB11⁄ 50% 0 32 68 28 21 7 CL Clay A-7-6 Clayey soil
(1:1)
EB12 Bharuch yellow soil 0 59 41 28 27 1 SM Silt A4 Silty soil
EB13 Changa farm soil 0 54 46 24 21 3 SM Silty sand A4 Silty soil

EB7, EB8, EB9, EB10, EB11 these 5 soil types were prepared by mixing EB1 and EB4 in the ratios of 1:9, 2:8, 3:4, 4:6 and 5:5 respectively.

Fig. 3. Figure showing the correlation between classified soil types with compressive strength.

EB1, EB2 and EB13 soils were classified as SM and A4 according
to USCS and ASTM respectively produced best quality bricks and
respective average compressive strength obtained were 3.96,
3.54 and 5.05 N/mm2. EB6, EB7, EB8 and EB9 which were classified
as A4 according to ASTM but CL according to USCS produced bricks
with average compressive strength of 2.9, 4.03, 3.8 and 3.39
(Fig. 3). Thus, soils with respective classifications of SM-A4 and
CL-A4 produced good quality bricks as such bricks showed com-
paratively greater compressive strength.
3.3. Soil grain size and compressive strength co-relationship
Physical properties of the soils were correlated with compres-
sive strength of the soil. Each and every parameter of the soil has
been individually correlated with the compressive strength of the
soil. Fig. 5 shows the relation of compressive strength and grain
content of the soil. Bricks made with soil EB13 show the maximum
compressive strength with an average strength greater than 5 N/
mm2 which had clay and sand content 46% and 54% respectively.
From Fig. 7 it can be inferred that clay + silt and sand ratio in the
soil play a huge role for providing strength to the bricks. EB13 hav-
ing clay and sand content 46% and 54% respectively. Also EB1 and
EB2 show similar clay and sand profile with ratio of sand to clay + -
silt near to 1. EB7, EB8 and EB9 are having varying soil profile yet
the bricks made from them show reasonable compressive strength
above 3.5 N/mm2. All these 3 soils contain higher amount of silt + -
clay with the ratio of sand to clay less than 0.66. If the amount of
clay in the soil were more than 70% it was impossible to prepare
good quality bricks as such bricks developed cracks. From the data
so obtained it can deduced that soil with the ratio of sand to clay in
 P. Dhandhukia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953
Fig. 4. (A) Is the brick prepared with soil EB13 which shows maximum compressive strength. (B) Soil EB10 showing crack development. (C) Brick prepared with EB11 soil (D)
shows the brick prepared with EB4 soil which shows prominent cracks due to shrinkage.
Fig. 5. Figure showing correlation between soil compositions with compressive
strength of bricks.
Fig. 6. Figure showing correlation between sand content with compressive strength
of bricks (- -d- - indicates the arithmetic mean of the values present in the scatter
graph and these mean values are used to add the trend line with polynomial trend/
regression pattern with the order =2).
the range of 0.57–1.17 can produce good quality adobe bricks with
compressive strength in the range of 3–5 N/mm2. Along with sand,
clay and silt composition other properties of soil such as Liquid
limit, plastic limit and plasticity index will also play a crucial role
in providing strength to the adobe bricks so it is inevitable to inte-
grate plastic behavior of soil and compressive strength of bricks.
Fig. 6 shows the relationship prevailing between sand content
and compressive strength irrespective of soil type used. For analyz-
ing the compressive strength of bricks, prepared with various soil
samples as shown in Table 1. Here, from Fig. 6 it can be observed
that soil with sand content within the range of 50–55% produced
bricks with highest compressive strength. Further, introducing
the polynomial trend line with order of 2 shows the bell shape
relationship with sand content of soil with compressive strength.
Trend line postulates that for optimum compressive strength, sand
951
Fig. 7. Figure showing correlation between silt + clay content with compressive
strength of bricks (- -d- - indicates the arithmetic mean of the values present in the
scatter graph and these mean values are used to add the trend line with polynomial
trend/regression pattern with the order =2).
content in the soil should be in the range of 45–50%. Above and be-
low these ranges compressive strength of bricks decreases.
Similarly, correlation between silt + clay content with compres-
sive strength is shown in Fig. 7. Data obtained both from the trend
analysis and practical data of compressive strength it can be in-
ferred that soil with the silt + clay content in the range of 45–
55% produce bricks with higher compressive strength. Above and
below these ranges compressive strength of bricks decreases. Form
the combined analysis (trend analysis and practical data of com-
pressive strength analysis) it can be concluded that sand, clay
and silt composition is highly crucial for making good quality
adobe bricks.
3.4. Atterberg’s limit and compressive strength of the soil co-
relationship
Other than sand, clay and silt content of soil other properties of
plasticity of soil plays an important role for providing compressive
strength to the soil. Atterberg’s limits are the limits of water con-
tent used to define soil behavior. Liquid limit (LL) is the lowest
water content above which soil behaves like liquid, plastic limit
(PL) is the lowest water content at which soil behaves like a plastic
material and the difference between LL and PL is known as plastic-
ity index (PI). Understanding relationship between compressive
strength of bricks with Atterberg’s limits aids to analyze soil prop-
erty and brick compressive strength demeanor. From Fig. 8 it can
be inferred that soil with LL% of 24 and 25 shows optimum com-
pressive strength. Trend of the compressive strength with LL%
shows decrease in the compressive strength above and below the
range of 25 and 24 respectively. From Fig. 9, PL% of 21 and 22
shows maximum compressive strength. And unlike LL% to
compressive strength of bricks, trend for PL suggests decrease in
the compressive strength with increases in PL%.
952 P. Dhandhukia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953
Fig. 8. Figure showing correlation between Liquid limit (LL%) with compressive
strength of bricks (- -N- - indicates the arithmetic mean of the values present in the
scatter graph and these mean values are used to add the trend line with polynomial
trend/regression pattern with the order =2).
Fig. 9. Figure showing correlation between Plastic limit (PL%) with compressive
strength of bricks (- -d- - indicates the arithmetic mean of the values present in the
scatter graph and these mean values are used to add the trend line with polynomial
trend/regression pattern with the order =2).
Fig. 10. Figure showing correlation between Plasticity Index (PI%) with compres-
sive strength of bricks (- -d- - indicates the arithmetic mean of the values present in
the scatter graph and these mean values are used to add the trend line with
polynomial trend/regression pattern with the order =2).
Fig. 10 shows relation of PI% with compressive strength. Here
trend line suggests the bell shape curve of compressive strength
with varying PI. Bricks made from the soil with PI = 3 shows opti-
mum compressive strength, soils with PI below and above 3 shows
decrease in compressive strength which was proved in coalesce with
trend line analysis and practical analysis. Within small grain size soil
particles which includes clay and silt and their ratio in the soil influ-
ences PI. So, soils with higher PI has larger proportions of clay and
lower proportions of silt, vice versa. So this signifies even the ratio
of silt to clay in the soil influences compressive strength of bricks.
4. Discussion
Across the globe there has been prominent use of mud bricks.
The Mediterranean area is exceedingly dominated by the use of
mud bricks over the period of thousand years and this system to
use mud non-baked bricks is called ‘adobe’ [10–12]. Aveiro district
of Portuguese is still dominated by adobe construction even after
the development of cement industry. According to the reports by
Aveiro municipality, 25% of the existing buildings are made of
adobe and 40% of entire district contains adobe construction
[13,14]. According to the survey by Rael [15] approximately 58%
of all buildings in India are constructed using mud brick and its
trend is increasing, as large population of peasants are unable to
lure themselves by farming. Bricks could be made adobe or it could
be baked in kilns to improve strength which leads to air pollution.
Approximately 200 tons of coal is been used for every million
bricks produced [15]. An alternative of kiln baked bricks is to use
unbaked adobe bricks which has several advantages over baked
bricks. Unbaked adobe bricks provide low cost of production, local
availability of various soils, recyclable and lastly it provides greater
thermal and acoustic insulation [16–18]. On the other hand there
are several disadvantages of using unbaked adobe bricks. Such un-
baked bricks have poor water resistance and they tend to melt
down in presence of water but a drawback can be handled if proper
construction technologies are followed [18]. The major drawback
of using adobe brick is that if sand and mud used for the construc-
tion is not properly quantified can cause severe structural damage
due to lack of strength and high expansion–shrinkage ratio [16,17].
Adobe bricks are prone to damage and degradation whereas large
population of Africa and other developing continents live in the
houses made from unfired adobe bricks as it provides low cost of
construction. Research efforts for development of bricks with high-
er strength on only by modifying soil composition can be a boon to
population living in rural areas. Moreover, preparation of bricks
using waste material [19] could further help to produce superior
bricks. Attempts have been made to incorporate waste in the pro-
duction of bricks; for instance, the use of paper processing resi-
dues, cigarette butts, fly ash, textile effluent treatment plant
(ETP) sludge, polystyrene foam, plastic fiber, straw, polystyrene
fabric, cotton waste, dried sludge collected from an industrial
wastewater treatment plant, rice husk ash, granulated
[2,3,6,20,21]. So, if such optimized soil is used along with waste
materials it can further be helpful to develop improved bricks.
Burroughs [22], analyzed 104 soil types, compacted and stabi-
lized with lime or cement in a total of 219 mixtures. According
to study a soil could be considered suitable for stabilization if its
compressive strength exceeds 2 MPa. Further, Linear Shrinkage
(LS) and PI were found to be the best discriminators of soil predis-
position, with textural variables being useful secondary discrimi-
nators. ‘‘Favorable’’ soils, with stabilization success rates of
P80%, include those with: (1) LS < 6.0% and PI < 15%; and (2) LS
6.0–11.0%, PI 15–30%, and sand content <64%. These soils were sta-
bilized with treatments averaging 4.2% cement and 1.8% lime, with
individual treatments ranging from 4–8% total cement and/or lime.
‘‘Unfavorable’’ soils, with stabilization success rates of <60%, in-
clude those with LS 6.0–11.0, PI 15–30, andsand content P64%,
or with LS > 11.0, PI > 30. According to Morel et al. [21] the clay
fraction is generally less than 25% in earth used for adobe blocks.
Here, the stabilization processes aim at the reduction of the soil
plasticity. Under present research, we firmly support the findings
of Burroughs, but as the focus was on understanding correlation
between different parameters of soil and compressive strength of
soil to produce adobe bricks with optimum compressive strength
we did not use cement or lime.
5. Conclusion
Importance of adobe construction is again gaining importance
in modern era because of its low cost of production and
 P. Dhandhukia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 48 (2013) 948–953
eco-friendly behavior. But on the contrary adobe construction is
prone to degradation as it has poor strength for construction.
Adobe construction makes the use of unbaked mud bricks which
is the key component providing strength to the construction. To
prepare adobe construction with significant strength mud bricks
should be having significant compressive strength. In present
study, various soil parameters of various different soils have been
analyzed with the compressive strength of the bricks made from
respective soil type. It was found that A4 type soil (according to
ASTM D3282) and SM, ML and CL–ML (according to USCS) soils
gave better results as compared to other soil types with respect
to compressive strength. Further, Adobe bricks from the soil with
sand content 53 ± 3%, silt + clay content 48 ± 5% and plastic limit
in the range of 2–6 produced best quality bricks. Present research
provides rigid correlation between soil physical characteristic with
the compressive strength of the bricks made from it. These data
will be helpful to the engineers across the globe to screen the soil
to be used for the adobe construction with ease.
Acknowledgement
Authors are thankful to Department of Science and Technology
(DST), New Delhi, India for the fellowship and financial aid.
References
[1] Binici H, Aksogan O, Bodur MN, Akca E, Kapur S. Thermal isolation and
mechanical properties of fibre reinforced mud bricks as wall materials. Constr
Build Mater 2007;21:901–6.
[2] Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a
building material. Constr Build Mater 2005;19:313–8.
[3] Raut SP, Ralegaonkar RV, Mandavgane SA. Development of sustainable
construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: a review
of waste–create bricks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:4037–42.
[4] Binici H, Aksogan O, Bakbak D, Kaplan H, Isik B. Sound insulation of fibre
reinforced mud brick walls. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(2) 1035–41.
953
[5] Oti JE, Kinuthia JM, Bai J. Design thermal values for unfired clay bricks. Mater
Des 2010;31:104–12.
[6] Ngowi AB. Improving the traditional earth construction: a case study of
Botswana. Constr Build Mater 1997;11:1–7.
[7] ASTM C33 20. Specification for concrete aggregates, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA; 2003. doi:10.1520/C0033-03.
[8] Indian Standards (IS). Dimensions for special shapes of clay bricks, bureau of
Indian standards, IS 6165. 1st Rev. India: New Delhi; 1992.
[9] ASTM C67 00. Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and
structural clay tile. Masonry test methods and specifications for the building
industry. 4th ed. Philadelphia; 2001.
[10] Soles JS, Davaras C. Excavations at mochlos 1990–1991. Hesperia 1994;63:
391–436.
[11] Spencer AJ. Brick architecture in ancient Egypt. UK: Aris and Phillips Ltd.;
1979.
[12] Quagliarini E, Lenci S, Iorio M. Mechanical properties of adobe walls in
a Roman Republican domus at Suasa. J Cultural Heritage 2010;11:
130–7.
[13] Oliveira EV, Galhano F. Traditional portuguese architecture. Lisbon:
Publicações D. Quixote; 1992 [in Portuguese].
[14] Jean-Nicolas L, Adília A, António JC, editors. Earth architectures seminar. In:
Proceedings of the seminárioarquitecturas de terra, 1990 July, Coimbra,
Portugal. Coimbra: Comissão de Coordenação da Região Centro; 1992 [in
Portuguese].
[15] Rael R. Earth architecture. Princeton Architectural Press; 2008.
[16] Webster F, Tolles E. Earthquake damage to historic and older adobe buildings
during the 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 12th
world conference on earthquake engineering [CD-ROM], Auckland, New
Zealand; January 30–February 4; 2000.
[17] Ocola L, Huaco P. Seismic response of adobe buildings in Peruvian territory:
1974-2001 earthquakes. In: Proceedings of Sismo Adobe 2005 [CD-ROM],
Lima, Peru; May 16–19, 2005 [in Spanish].
[18] Piattoni Q, Quagliarini E, Lenci S. Experimental analysis and modelling of the
mechanical behaviour of earthen bricks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:
2067–75.
[19] Torgal FP, Jalali S. Earth construction: lessons from the past for future eco-
efficient, construction; 2012.
[20] Alonso-Santurde R, Coz A, Viguri JR, Andrés A. Recycling of foundry by-
products in the ceramic industry: green and core sand in clay bricks. Constr
Build Mater 2012;27:97–106.
[21] Morel JC, Pkla A, Walker P. Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks. Constr Build Mater 2007;21:303–9.
[22] Burroughs S. Soil property criteria for rammed earth stabilization. J Mater Civil
Eng 2008;20(3):265–73.