World Journal of Engineering

Coconut Fibre Reinforced Cement Stabilized Rammed Earth Blocks

Shubham Raj, Sher Mohammad, Rima Das, Shreya Saha,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Shubham Raj, Sher Mohammad, Rima Das, Shreya Saha, (2017) "Coconut Fibre Reinforced Cement Stabilized Rammed
Earth Blocks", World Journal of Engineering, Vol. 14 Issue: 3,pp. -, doi: 10.1108/WJE-10-2016-0101
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WJE-10-2016-0101
Downloaded on: 06 April 2017, At: 02:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 9 times since 2017*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:277069 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Coconut Fibre Reinforced Cement Stabilized Rammed
Earth Blocks
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The study aims at investigating the optimum proportion of coconut fibre and cement
suitable for rammed earth wall construction. Coconut fibres and cement can be easily incorporated
into the soil mixture which adds strength and durability to the wall. This paper highlights the salient
observations from a systematic investigation on the effect of coconut fibre on the performance of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

stabilized rammed earth blocks.

Design/methodology/approach – Stabilization of soil was done by adding Ordinary Portland
Cement (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5% and 10.0% by weight of soil) while Coconut Fibre in length about 15mm
were added (0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8% and 1.0% by weight of soil) as reinforcement. Thirty types of
mixes were created by adding different proportions of cement and fibre to locally available soil and
compacting the mix at constant compaction energy in three layers with proctor rammer.
Findings – Samples were tested for compressive strength, tensile strength and failure patterns were
analyzed. The use of cement and fibre increases ultimate strengths significantly up to an optimum
limit of 0.8% fibre content, provides a secondary benefit of keeping material bound together after
failure and increases residual strength. Benefits of fibre reinforcement includes both improved
ductility in comparison with raw blocks and inhibition of crack propagation after its initial formation.
Originality/value – After analysing the results, it is recommended to use 0.8% fibre and 5% to 10%
cement by weight of soil to achieve considerable strength. This research may add a value in the areas
of green and sustainable housing, waste utilization, et cetera.

Keywords: Rammed Earth, Coconut Fibre, Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength, Residual
Moisture Content, Stabilized Blocks

Article Type: Research paper

1. INTRODUCTION

Rammed earth has evolved as a versatile medium of commercial and domestic building construction,
catering a healthy and safe environment. Rammed earth is highly approachable for the benefits it
provides in terms of temperature and noise control, strength, durability, low maintenance, fire
proofing and most importantly as a superior thermal mass (Miller, 1980; Simenson, 2011). Rammed

1
 earth blocks are made by ramming the mass of soil. The suitability of soil as rammed earth is neither
exactly described nor has any standard consideration. Different scholars and researchers consider
different parameters to judge whether a soil is suitable for rammed earth construction or not. There is
a wide range of values of clay, silt, sand and gravel for a soil to be used for rammed earth
construction. There is also a wide range for Atterberg’s limits (LL: 25% to 49%; PI: 2 to 30) and
density achieved (1.7 to 2.16 g/cc). Most of the studies did not differentiate whether it is dry density
or bulk density with some moisture in it, though density is an important factor governing higher
strength in rammed earth construction (Tripura and Singh, 2014). The raw soil blocks, even rammed
earth blocks do not meet the strength criteria. But their mechanical properties can be improved to a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

great extent by using stabilisers such as cement and lime in low proportions. Burroughs, (2008)
recommended concerning ranges of soil properties for stabilization: clay/silt 21–35%; gravel 13–
62%; sand 30–70%; LL ≤ 35%; PL16–19%; PI < 15%; and LS < 6%. The suitability of soil as
rammed earth as assessed by scholars (king, 1996) states that the soil with high organic content is
unsuitable for construction, as it biodegrades and results in more water consumptions. Also as stated
by researcher (Arora, 2009), granular soils with sufficient fines are ideally suited for cement
stabilization. Middleton (1992), NZS 4298 (New Zealand Standard, 1998) and SA (Standards
Australia, 2002) recommends design values for unconfined compressive strength of 0.5 MPa, 0.7
MPa and 0.4–0.6 MPa respectively for earthen blocks. IS 2110 (Indian Standard, 1998) specifies the
values to be not less than 1.4 MPa.
Natural fibres are being used since prehistoric times in earthen construction to improve the reduction
of shrinkage cracking, tensile strength, durability, ductility in tension (Oliver and Gharbi, 1995;
Morel et al., 2000; Meshab et al., 2004; Binici et al., 2005, 2007, 2009;). Coconut fibre(scientific
name : Cocos nucifera), extracted from the outer shell of coconut act as an excellent structural
member along with being moth proof, resistant to fungi, unaffected by moisture and dampness, tough
and durable. According to official website of International Year for Natural Fibres 2009,
approximately, 500 000 tonnes of coconut fibres are produced annually worldwide, mainly in India
and Sri Lanka. Its total value is estimated at $100 million. India and Sri Lanka are also the main
exporters, followed by Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. Around half of the coconut
fibres produced is exported in the form of raw fibre (Ali, 2010). Thus, using coconut fibre as
reinforcement in rammed earth construction will not only provide strength and durability to the
structure but will also serve as a major step towards waste utilisation. Coconut fibres contain
cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin as major composition. These compositions affect the different
properties of coconut fibres. The pre-treatment of fibres changes the composition and ultimately
changes not only its properties but also the properties of composites. Some-times it improves the

2
 behaviour of fibres but sometimes its effect is not favourable. Das Gupta et al., (1978 and 1979)
studied the behavior of cement paste mixed with different lengths and volume fractions of coconut
fibre. The researcher concluded that the maximum tensile strength and modulus of rupture of cement
paste composite increased up to a certain length and volume fraction of coconut fibre and further
increase in length or volume fraction decreased the strength and modulus of rupture. The researcher
obtained better mechanical properties with 4% volume fraction of 38 mm length coconut fibre. Li et
al., (2006) studied untreated coconut fibres in cementitious composites as reinforcement. The
resulting mortar had better flexural strength, higher energy absorbing ability and ductility, and lighter
than the conventional mortar. Better results were achieved with the addition of a low percentage of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

coconut fibres and chemical agents in cementitious matrix. In the present study, the authors have
attempted to improve the engineering properties of soil by using cement as stabilizer and coconut
fibre as reinforcement in varying proportions.

2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Affordable housing is a primary need of the hour in today’s world. In developing countries like
India, nearly 70% of its population live in rural areas (Census Report of India, 2011). Their income
doesn’t permit them to have houses made of modern and expensive building materials like cement,
concrete and steel bar reinforcement and to be equipped with modern technologies. Again, a big part
of India is earthquake prone especially the North-Eastern Region which comes under zone v. The
area which the authors are studying in the present research, Tripura, is an earthquake prone region
and a larger part of its population about 6.3 lakhs are living below poverty line (Planning
Commission of India Report, 2009-10). Conventional building materials here are much more costly
which ultimately adds to the poverty of people residing in this part of the country. The mud houses
here made with traditional methods are liable to severe damages even under moderate earthquake.
Also the life span of these houses are not quite satisfactory. This paper is a little effort towards
solving these problems especially for North East Region, Tripura, India. The paper shows that how a
little modification in raw soil proves it to be a much effective building material. The authors in this
research has proposed a method for strength improvement of locally available soil by stabilizing it
with Ordinary Portland Cement in low percentage and randomly mixing Coconut Fibres which are
cheaper and locally available.

3
 3. MATERIALS

3.1 Soil

The soil sample was taken from a depth of 0.5 m to 1 m from National Institute of Technology
Agartala campus, India. The soil sample was tested for its different index and mechanical properties.
All tests were performed as per Indian Standard guidelines. The properties of soil used are as
summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Properties of soil used

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Property Parameters Values

Grain Size Distribution Sand 78.1%
Silt 12.8%
Clay 9.1%
Atterberg’s Limits Liquid Limit, LL 31.1%
Plastic Limit, PL 21.9%
Plasticity Index, PI 9.2%
Proctor Test Maximum Dry Density, MDD 1.72 g/cc
Optimum Moisture Content, 19%
OMC
Particle Density Specific Gravity 2.61

3.2 Cement

Ordinary Portland cement of grade 43 confirming IS 8112 (Indian Standard, 2005) was used as
stabiliser throughout the test program. Various materials can be used as stabilisers like lime, cement,
etc. The authors have chosen to use cement as stabiliser as the soil contains very less amount of clay
and most of the researchers prefer to use cement in low proportion as stabilisers for the soil. Cement
as compared to lime, provides better strength and bonding.

3.3 Coconut Fibre

Coconut fibre or coir was obtained from local market in Agartala city, India. The fibres were fresh
and free from dust and pests. Average diameter of fibre used was approximately 0.2 mm and these
were cut into pieces of 15 mm. The authors chose this specific length of coir after going through
several research papers. According to researchers (Babu and Vasudevan, 2008), who studied the
behaviour of coir fibre of varying length on strength, concluded that the maximum strength

4
 improvement was observed by reinforcing soil with fibre of length 15 mm. Some basic physical
properties of coconut fibre were tested by the authors and rest properties could not be tested due to
limited facility, but, were studied from other similar research papers. The physical and mechanical
properties of coconut fibre are summarised in Table 2. Chemical composition of coconut fibre were
studied by researcher Corradini, et al. (2006) in detail. Similar result is obtained by Coir Board,
Ministry of MSME, Government of India. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 2: Physical and Mechanical properties of fibre used

Properties Length of Diameter Density Tensile Elastic

single fibre (mm) (g/cc) Strength Modulus
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

(mm) (MPa) (GPa)

Value 150 - 200 0.1 – 0.3 1.36 174 16 - 26
Reference Tested Tested Tested Reis, (2006) Reis, (2006)

Table 3: Chemical composition of coconut fibre

Reference Cellulose (%) Hemi-Cellulose (%) Lignin (%)

Corradini, et al. (2006) 36 - 43 0.15 – 0.25 41 - 45
Coir Board (Govt. of India) 43.44 0.25 45.84

4. METHOD

4.1 Determination of Optimum Moisture Content and Maximum Dry Density

Proctor test is one of the most important tests for soil and soil composites. Optimum moisture
content (OMC) is the water content in a soil sample for which it achieves maximum compaction i.e.
maximum dry density. Maximum dry density is that state of sample when it is most dense and has
minimum air void. The researcher (Bahar et al., 2004) obtained OMC about 9.5–11.0% and dry
density about 2.0 g/cc with this moisture content. The researcher concluded that if too little water is
present, the soil cannot achieve the same level of compaction due to greater degree of friction
between the soil particles and if too much water is present, then capillary water occupies the soil pore
spaces, reducing the level of achievable compaction and increasing the level of porosity when the
wall has dried. In the present study, standard proctor test was performed as per the guidelines of IS
2720 Part 7 (Indian Standard, 1980). The laboratory test consists of compacting soil at known
moisture content into a cylindrical mould of standard dimensions using a compactive effort of
controlled magnitude. The soil is usually compacted into the mould to a certain amount of equal
layers, each receiving a number of blows from a standard weighted hammer at a specified height.

5
 This process is then repeated for various moisture contents and the dry densities are determined for
each. The graphical relationship of the dry density to moisture content is then plotted to establish the
compaction curve. The maximum dry density is finally obtained from the peak point of the
compaction curve and its corresponding moisture content is known as the optimum moisture content.
The compaction curve for proctor test carried on locally available soil used for study is shown in
Figure 1.
1.74

1.72
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

1.7
Dry density in g/cc

1.68

1.66

1.64

1.62

1.6

1.58
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Moisture content in %

Figure 1: Compaction curve of soil used for study

4.2 Production of Test Samples

Test samples were produced in steel moulds of dimensions 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm. The
compaction energy for production of rammed earth blocks was kept constant as that for standard
Proctor test. All the test samples were produced at 1% to 2% wet of OMC as it was observed by
researchers (Freitag, 1986) that the reinforced soil compacted near and wet of optimum yields higher
strength. The rammed earth block production was carried out in categories for varying fibre content
(0%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, 0.8% and 1%) by weight of dry soil. For each category of fibre content,
rammed earth blocks were produced in sub categories of varying cement content (0%, 2.5%, 5%,
7.5%, and 10%) by weight of dry soil. The soil was thoroughly mixed with the required proportions
of cement and fibre and followed by the addition of the requisite amount of water as determined
from the OMC; to produce three samples of each category. The coconut fibre was randomly mixed
with dry soil cement. The authors observed that soil cement formed lumps with fibre which was
again and again separated by pulling fibres apart and mixed properly to obtain almost homogeneous
mix. Lubrication with grease was provided on the inner surface of mould to ensure prevention of
damage while demoulding. The moistened soil was compacted in three separate layers, each

6
 covering about one third of the height of the mould after being compacted. Standard proctor rammer
of weight 2.5 kg and a flat steel plate of dimensions 90 mm × 90 mm × 6 mm was adopted
throughout the production to achieve the required uniform compaction. The cube blocks were
demoulded after 24 hours and specimens having cement was place under damped gunny bags for
curing for a period of 28 days and the rest of the blocks were kept for drying in shade at room
temperature. Rammed earth blocks were produced in thirty categories of varying cement and fibre
content to study the effect of coconut fibre reinforced cement stabilized rammed earth blocks on
compressive strength and four categories of blocks to study the effect on split tensile strength. In the
present study a total of 102 test blocks were casted and tested.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In the present study, raw soil was added with varying proportions of cement as stabilizer and coconut
fibre as reinforcement. Detailed study was made to analyse the behaviour of mix on density,
unconfined compressive strength and split tensile strength.

5.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

The results obtained from unconfined compressive strength test are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4: Results obtained from unconfined compressive strength test
Fibre Cement Unconfined Density in Residual Dry Density
Content in Content in Compressive g/cc Moisture in g/cc
% % Strength in Content in
MPa %
0 0 1.21 1.73 2.41 1.69
0 2.5 1.04 1.74 2.43 1.70
0 5 3.38 1.76 5.43 1.67
0 7.5 5.13 1.85 9.19 1.70
0 10 8.87 1.93 10.67 1.75
0.2 0 1.48 1.80 2.85 1.75
0.2 2.5 1.55 1.81 3.30 1.75
0.2 5 3.79 1.87 6.31 1.76
0.2 7.5 4.62 1.87 7.72 1.74
0.2 10 6.44 1.89 8.45 1.74

7
 0.4 0 1.69 1.74 1.12 1.72
0.4 2.5 1.94 1.81 3.3 1.75
0.4 5 4.21 1.83 2.68 1.79
0.4 7.5 6.07 1.87 6.16 1.76
0.4 10 9.52 1.93 8.87 1.77
0.6 0 1.96 1.73 2.13 1.69
0.6 2.5 2.11 1.77 2.59 1.73
0.6 5 5.10 1.81 3.50 1.75
0.6 7.5 7.65 1.85 6.94 1.73
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

0.6 10 10.09 1.93 11.46 1.73

0.8 0 2.26 1.72 2.26 1.69
0.8 2.5 2.34 1.78 2.34 1.74
0.8 5 5.55 1.81 3.33 1.75
0.8 7.5 8.09 1.84 4.97 1.75
0.8 10 10.42 1.91 8.31 1.76
1 0 2.07 1.70 2.07 1.66
1 2.5 1.7 1.67 1.54 1.64
1 5 4.70 1.79 2.70 1.74
1 7.5 6.26 1.84 11.15 1.66
1 10 9.57 1.90 11.63 1.70

5.1.1 Density

The density of rammed earth blocks varied in the range of 1.67 g/cc to 1.94 g/cc. Similar result was
found by the researcher (Tripura and Singh, 2014), where density of rammed earth blocks varied
between 1.66 g/cc and 2.0 g/cc. According to researchers (Jagdish, 2007), the density of stabilised
mud blocks should be in the range of 1.8 g/cc to 1.85 g/cc. As cement content increases from 0% to
10%, density increases for a constant fibre content. The variation is as shown in Figure 2.

8
 1.95

1.9
DENSITY IN g/cc

1.85 0% FIBRE
0.2% FIBRE
1.8
0.4% FIBRE

1.75 0.6% FIBRE

0.8% FIBRE
1.7
1% FIBRE

1.65
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

0 2 4 6 8 10
CEMENT CONTENT IN %

Figure 2: Variation of density with cement content

The authors observed a decreasing relationship between density and varying fibre content. This
irregular decrease of density can be attributed to the resistance produced by reinforcement during
compaction. Similar result was obtained by researcher (Hoare and D. J., 1978), in which he noted
that for same compactive effort, the reinforcement produces a resistance to compaction and hence
density decreases. The trend of variation of density with varying fibre content is as shown in Figure
3.
1.95

1.9

1.85
Density in g/cc

0% CEMENT
1.8 2.5% CEMENT
5% CEMENT
1.75 7.5% CEMENT
10% CEMENT
1.7

1.65
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fibre content in %

Figure 3: Variation of density with fibre content

9
 5.1.2 Moisture Content and Dry Density

According to researcher (Simenson, 2011), it is desirable to moist-cure soil-cement blocks and thus
curing was done by sprinkling water on damped gunny bags. Hence, the blocks were cured at a
moisture content much higher than optimum moisture content. After curing for 28 days, all cement
stabilized blocks were dried for 10 days prior to testing. At the time of testing, the authors observed
that cement stabilized blocks having higher cement content showed an increased residual moisture
content after same period of curing and drying. The increased residual moisture content for
increasing cement content for the same period of drying is quite normal, because on increasing the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

cement content, the micro capillary rates increases and permeability decreases and this tends to slow
the process of evacuation of water during the drying process. As per the investigations of ACI
Materials Journal Committee (1990), on using cement as stabilizers, the permeability of most soils
get reduced due to which the ability of earth to allow passage of moisture is significantly impaired.
In this case, the residual water content is a function of the drying period that become more
important with a high quantity of cement. The sample was taken from middle of the failed specimen
and moisture content was determined as per the guidelines of IS 2720 Part 2 (Indian Standard, 1973).
The dry density of rammed earth blocks was determined as per the guidelines of IS 4332 Part 5
(Indian Standard, 2006b) using formula given by Equation 1.

ρd = 100 ρ / (100 + m) (1)

Where, ρ = Bulk density in g/cc

m = moisture content in %
In the present study, authors observed both increase and decrease in dry density in a very irregular
pattern with varying cement and fibre content at same compactive effort. This result may be due to
resistance of reinforcement in compaction and increase in bonding due to cement and reinforcement.

5.1.3 Variation of compressive strength with varying cement content

As cement content increases form 0% to 10%, there is a significant increase in compressive strength
of rammed earth blocks. The strength of stabilised blocks having cement content 5% to 10%
becomes three to seven and half times the strength of raw soil blocks. As per Crowley (1997),
cement stabilised soil blocks gain strength from both the formation of a cement gel matrix that binds
together the soil particles and the bonding of the surface-active particles, like clay, within the soil.
The compressive strength may decrease sometimes if cement used for stabilisation is in less amount.
A researcher (Minke, 2006) found that very low percentage of cement content, around 2%, can
actually lower the strength. The researcher attributed this phenomenon to the fact that cement

10
 interferes with the inter-particle bonding of silt and clay. Similar result was obtained in the present
research, when cement content is increased from 0% to 2.5%, there is a decrease of 14.46% and
17.63% in compressive strength for 0% fibre and 1% fibre reinforced blocks respectively. In fact the
increase in compressive strength for 2.5% cement content is between 1.48% and 7.65% for varying
percentage of fibre added which is not that much significant. Thus, the authors also recommend to
use cement greater than 2.5% by weight of dry soil to observe a significant improvement in strength.
The authors observed a linear variation of compressive strength with varying cement content from
5% to 10% as observed by various researchers (Tripura and Singh, 2014) which is shown in Figure
4.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

12
Compressive strength in MPa

10

8 0% FIBRE
0.2% FIBRE
6
0.4% FIBRE

4 0.6% FIBRE
0.8% FIBRE
2
1% FIBRE

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cement content in percentage

Figure 4: Variation of compressive strength with cement content

5.1.4 Variation of compressive strength with varying fibre content

As fibre content increases from 0% to 0.2%, compressive strength increases by 22.31%, 49.28% and
12.13% for 0%, 2.5% and 5% cement respectively. But for 7.5% and 10% cement content there is a
decrease in compressive strength by 9.94% and 27.4% respectively. This observation can be
attributed to the formation of soil pockets with lack of reinforcement in the blocks and interference
of fibre in bonding between soil and cement particles. As fibre content increases from 0.2% to 1%, a
uniform increase in compressive strength is observed up to 0.8% fibre content and thereafter strength
again decreases which can be clearly seen in Figure 5. This phenomenon may be due to formation of
bulk of fibre in the mix which creates weaker planes. Similar trend was observed by several
researchers (Jiang et al., 2010). Hence, 0.8% fibre is found to be the optimum amount of fibre for
achieving maximum compressive strength. The compressive strength for 0.8% fibre reinforced

11
 cement stabilised rammed earth blocks is 1.87, 1.93, 4.59, 6.69, 8.61 times the compressive strength
of raw soil block for cement content 0%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5% and 10% respectively.
12

10
Compressive strength in MPa

8
0% CEMENT
6 2.5% CEMENT
5% CEMENT
4 7.5% CEMENT
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

10% CEMENT
2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fibre content in %

Figure 5: Variation of compressive strength with fibre content

5.2 Split Tensile Test

Split tensile strength test was conducted as per the guidelines of IS 5816 (Indian Standard, 1999) on
unsatabilized rammed earth blocks having fibre content 0%, 0.2%, 0.6% and 1% by weight of dry
soil. The split tensile strength was calculated as per IS 5816 (Indian Standard, 1999) using the
formula given by Equation 2 and the results obtained are summarised in Table 5.

fct = 2000 P / π l d (2)

Where, P = maximum load in Newtons applied to the specimen

l = length of the specimen in mm
d = cross sectional dimension of the specimen in mm

Table 5: Results obtained from split tensile test

Fibre content in % 0 0.2 0.6 1

Tensile strength in KPa 96 63 170 151
The authors observed that the tensile strength initially decreases at low fibre content, that is, from 0%
to 0.2%, as a low amount of fibre interferes in the inter particle bonding between clay and silt
particles in soil. The strength decreases due to lack of reinforcement. As fibre content further
increases from 0.2%, tensile strength increases due to increase in reinforcement up to a certain fibre
content, that is, 0.8% and then strength again starts decreasing. This observation may be due to the

12
 formation of bulk of fibre in the specimen at high fibre content which certainly reduces the strength
of rammed earth. High fibre content produces a resistance to compaction for the same compactive
effort. A researcher (Hoare and D.J., 1978) observed both a decrease of the soil strength, caused by
decreased soil density for high fibre content, and an increase in the soil strength which he attributed
to the addition of reinforcement. The researcher found that by using two distinctly different types of
fibres either a strength increase or decrease could be obtained for soil compacted with the same
energy. From the curve shown in Figure 6, it can be clearly seen that maximum tensile strength
occurs at a fibre content of 0.8%. Thus, 0.8% can be concluded as the optimum fibre content for
reinforcement in rammed earth in low volume fraction.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

250

200
TENSILE STRENGTH IN KPa

150

100

50

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
FIBRE CONTENT IN %

Figure 6: Variation of tensile strength with fibre content

5.3 Failure Pattern

The main difference observed between cement stabilised rammed earth blocks with and without fibre
reinforcement was the failure pattern. Both type of blocks exhibited brittle failure but the blocks
having fibre reinforcement were attached firmly even after failure which can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 8 shows the failure of unreinforced cement stabilized block under compression. Both type of
blocks showed wedge shaped failure surface in unconfined compression test exhibiting spalling on
the four vertical sides as shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. In split tensile test, it is to be noted that
the samples without fibres cracked quicker than the samples with fibres as reinforcement. Quick and
abrupt failure was observed for raw blocks as shown in Figure 11. The two halves were held together
by fibres even after failure as can be seen in Figure 12. During the experiments, it was observed that

13
 the fibres were pulled out during failure and did not fail by tearing as shown in Figure 13. Thus,
using fibre as reinforcement in rammed earth walls serve as a protection and safety measure during
earthquake and sudden failure of walls and structures.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Figure 7: Cracking pattern of fibre reinforced stabilized block under compression

14
 Figure 8: Cracking pattern of stabilized blocks without fibre reinforcement in compression
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Figure 9: Wedge failure surface of fibre reinforced stabilized block under compression

Figure 10: Wedge failure of stabilized block without fibre reinforcement in compression

15
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Figure 11: Failure of raw soil block during split tensile test

Figure 12: Failure of fibre reinforced block during split tensile test

16
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Figure 13: Pulling out of fibres during failure in split tensile test

6. Conclusions

From the study of fibre reinforced stabilized rammed earth blocks as discussed in the present paper,
the authors concluded the following points.
1. Density has an increasing relationship with increasing cement content for a constant fibre content
while it shows a decreasing trend with increasing fibre content for a constant cement content.
2. There is an increase in residual moisture content for increasing cement content for same period of
drying. Basically, residual moisture content is a function of drying period for cement stabilized
rammed earth blocks.
3. There exists an irregular relationship between dry density of blocks and fibre content at same
compaction energy due to the resistance offered by fibre reinforcement during compaction.
4. The authors recommend to use cement content more than 2.5% by weight of dry soil to observe
an increase in strength of rammed earth blocks. A linear increasing relationship exists between
compressive strength and cement content.
5. Both compressive strength and tensile strength increases with increasing fibre content, but up to
an optimum limit of 0.8% by weight of dry soil, thereafter it starts decreasing.

17
 6. The authors recommend to use an optimum amount of 0.8% coconut fibre as reinforcement and
5% to 10% cement for stabilization and strength improvement of rammed earth blocks.
7. Introducing coconut fibre as reinforcement in rammed earth blocks has a significant effect on
strength of raw soil blocks. There is an increase in compressive strength and tensile strength by a
factor of 1.87 and 2.11 respectively for blocks having 0.8% fibre content and 0% cement content,
with respect to raw soil block.
8. The tensile properties and failure pattern of reinforced blocks shows that this type of construction
can be done in seismic areas to provide a warning to the inhabitants prior to complete collapse.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
ACI Materials Journal Committee Report (1990), State-of-the-art Report on Soil Cement, ACI
Materials Journal, July-August, pp. 395-417.
Ali, Majid (2010), “Coconut Fibre – A Versatile Material and its Applications in Engineering.” Second
International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Università Politecnica
delle Marche, Ancona, Italy, June 28 - June 30, 2010.
Arora, K R (2009), “Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering” Standard Publisher Dist., India.
Babu, Sivkumar G. L. and Vasudevan, A. K. (2008), “Strength and Stiffness Response of Coir Fibre
Reinforced Tropical Soil." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol 20, pp. 571-577.
Bahar, R., Benazzoung, M. and Kenai, S. (2004), “Performance of compacted cement stabilized soil.” Cem.
Concr. Compos., pp. 811–820.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O. and Shah, T. (2005), “Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building
material.”Construction and Building Materials, Vol 19, pp. 313-318.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Bodur, M. N., Akca, E. and Kapur, S. (2007), “Thermal isolation and mechanical
properties of fibre reinforced mud bricks as wall materials”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol 21, pp.
901-906.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Bakbak, D., Kaplan, H. and Isik, B. (2009), “Sound insulation of fibre reinforced
mud brick walls”, Construction and Building Materials,, Vol 23, pp.1035-1041.
Burroughs, S. (2008), “Soil property criteria for rammed earth stabilization.” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol 20, pp. 264-273.
Census report of India (2011).

18
 Corradini, E., De Morais, L. C., De Rosa, M. F., Mazzetto, S. E., Mattoso, L. H. C., and Agnelli, J. A. M.
(2006), “A preliminary study for the use of natural fibers as reinforcement in starch-gluten-glycerol matrix”
Macromolecular Symposia, pp. 558-564.
Crowley, M. (1997), “Quality Control for Earth Structures.” Australian Institute of Building Papers, pp. 109-
118.
Das Gupta, N. C., Paramsivam, P. and Lee, S. L. (1978), “Mechanical properties of coir reinforced cement
pastes composites.” Housing Science, Pergamon Press Inc. London, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 391-406.
Das Gupta, N. C., Paramsivam, P. and Lee, S. L. (1979), “Coir reinforced cement pastes composites.”
Conference Proceedings of Our World in Concrete and Structures, pp. 111-116.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Freitag, Dean R. (1986), "Soil Randomly Reinforced with Fibres." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol
1, August, pp. 823 – 826.
Hoare, D. J. (1978), "Laboratory study of granular soils reinforced with randomly oriented discrete fibre."
Proceeding of the International Conference and Stabilizing Techniques in Engineering Practice, pp. 45 – 72.
Indian Standard (1973), “Determination of water content.” IS 2720 (Part 2), New Delhi, India.
Indian Standard (1980) “Determination of water content-dry density relation using light compaction.” IS 2720
(Part 7), New Delhi, India.
Indian Standard (1998), “Code of practice for in-situ construction of walls in buildings with soil—cement.” IS
2110, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standard (1999), “Splitting tensile strength of concrete- Method of test.” IS 5816, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standard (2005), “Specification for 43 grade ordinary Portland cement.” IS 8112, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standard (2006b), “Specification for determination of unconfined compressive strength of stabilized
soils.” IS 4332 (Part 5), New Delhi, India.
Jagadish, K. S. (2007), “Building with Stabilised Mud.” LK International Publishimg House Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, India.
Jiang, H., Cai, Y. and Liu, J. (2010), “Engineering properties of soils reinforces by short discrete
polypropylene fibre.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol 22, pp. 1315-1322.
King, B. (1996), “Buildings of earth and straw: Structural design for rammed earth and straw bale
architecture.” Ecological Design Press, Sausalito, CA.
Li, Z., Wang, L. and Wang, X. (2006), "Flexural characteristics of coir fibre reinforced cementitious
composites.” Fibres and Polymers, pp. 286-294.
Minke, G. (2006), “Building with earth: design and technology of a sustainable architecture.” Birkhäuser,
Boston, MA.
Middleton, G. F. (1992), Bulletin 5: Earth-wall construction, 4th Ed., CSIRO, Sydney, Australia.
Miller, B., and Miller, L. (1980), Manual For Building A Rammed Earth Wall, Self-Published by Authors,
Greeley, CO.
Morel, J. C., Ghavami, K. and Mesbah, A. (2000), “Theoretical and experimental analysis of composite soil
blocks reinforced with sisal fibres subjected to shear.” Masonry International, Vol 13(2), pp. 54-62.

19
 New Zealand Standard (1998), “Materials and workmanship for earth buildings.” NZS4298, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Oliver, M. and Gharbi, Z.EL. (1995), “Sisal Fibre reinforced soil block masonry”, Proceedings of 4th
international masonry conference, British Masonry Society. London, pp. 55-58.
Planning Commission of India Report (2009-10).
Simenson, Eric Walter (2013), “Rammed Earth: Fibre-Reinforced, Cement-Stabilized.” Master thesis, Faculty
of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado.
Standards Australia (2002), “Australian Earth building handbook.” HB 195, Sydney, Australia.
Tripura, Deb Dulal and Singh, K. D. (2014), “Characteristic Properties of Cement-Stabilized Rammed Earth
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 02:41 06 April 2017 (PT)

Blocks.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-533.0001170.

Some information is taken from website http://coirboard.gov.in/?page_id=62 on October 18, 2016.

20