Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Reinforcing rammed earth with plant fibers: A case study

A. Koutous*, E. Hilali
MMGCLab., National School of Applied Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir 80000, Morocco

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper is about an experimental study on the mechanical behavior of rammed earth
Received 10 July 2020 under compression and indirect tensile stresses. Local raw earth and sand are the base
Received in revised form 16 February 2021 materials used. As stabilizers, cement, lime, barley straw and date palm fibers were used to
Accepted 17 February 2021
manufacture the specimens tested. In all, five different mixtures were prepared and tested.
The cylindrical specimens used were prepared under optimum compaction references
Keywords: using the Proctor test procedures.
Stabilized rammed earth
Two types of mechanical tests were performed: the uniaxial compression test and the
Plant fibers
Compressive strength
splitting tensile strength test. For each compression test, four parameters were
Splitting tensile strength determined: the compressive strength, the initial tangent modulus, the secant modulus
Stiffness parameters at maximum stress and the peak axial strain corresponding to the maximum compressive
stress.
The results obtained show that, plant fibers (barley straw or date palm fibers) can provide
improvements in rammed earth strengths such as those that cement or lime can provide,
especially in tensile strength. The results also show that plant fibers decrease the stiffness
of rammed earth while cement and lime increase it. Nevertheless, a coefficient of
proportionality of about 0.6 was observed between the secant modulus and the initial
tangent modulus for all the mixtures tested. In addition, a linear correlation between
tensile strength and compressive strength has been established in the cases of both
unstabilized and cement-or-lime-stabilized rammed earth. However, no similar correlation
has been found when considering fiber-reinforced rammed earth, because the adhesion of
the fibers used to the sand-earth matrix has more effect on tensile strength than on
compressive strength.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The use of plant fibers to reinforce earth-based construction materials is a common practice in some methods such as
adobe, cob, and earth plasters [1–3]. As for compressed earth blocks (CEB), the use of plant fibers as stabilizer is still a
relatively less common practice and generally limited to research purposes. However, most of these research studies deal
with double stabilization (fiber-cement or fiber-lime) [4–7]. According to these studies, 5%–10% as cement or lime content is
sufficient to develop non-structural blocks, and better result of the dry compressive strength can be achieved with less than
1% by mass of fiber content. Also, plant fibers impact on the mechanical behavior depends on their length. Globally, these
studies show that while cement and lime improve durability and increase strength and stiffness, plant fibers bring ductility
and can improve strength.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmed.koutous@edu.uiz.ac.ma (A. Koutous).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00514
2214-5095/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Table 1
Review on main characteristics of barley straw and palm date fibers.

Fibers Length Absolute density Water absorption Elastic modulus Tensile strength References
Barley straw 1 – 6 cm 870 kg=m3 400
 600% 0:3
0:6 GPa 6
12 MPa [20]
Date palm 2 – 3.5 cm 1300 kg=m3 97
203% 5 GPa 233 MPa [20,22]

Nowadays, the use of plant fibers to reinforce rammed earth is not easy to find in the literature. Indeed, the most used
material to stabilize rammed earth is cement [8–11], or lime in some rare cases [8,12]. Even if the construction method is not
the same, the results of these studies tend to confirm those summarized above regarding compressed earth blocks stabilized
with cement or lime. In some papers, plant fibers are used in the “fabric” form to reinforce earthen materials [13,14]. The
“jute fabric” applied with a stabilized earth plaster is used in these two studies to act as a reinforcement of earthen
structures. The results show that these strengthening system “was capable to increase the load bearing capacity and ductility of
the structures, preserving their integrity for higher load levels and consequently postponing failure without adding significant mass
to the system”.
The novelty of this paper is to use, for the first time, short plant fibers as an additive to "stabilize" rammed earth in
order to analyze and compare its effects on the mechanical behavior with the effects of other chemical
stabilization using cement and lime. Note that "reinforced rammed earth" is the chosen expression to refer to fiber-
stabilized rammed earth. This expression is used to distinguish fiber stabilization from cement or lime stabilization usually
referred to as "stabilized rammed earth". This choice is not original since it is already used in the case of concrete as shown
for example in a paper about "jute fiber-reinforced concrete" [15]. Terms such “fiber reinforced soil” was also used in some
papers [16,17].
Fibers used to reinforce earth-based construction materials are mainly developed from cereal straw (barley, wheat,
etc.) but also from certain trees and plants widely available in arid and semi-arid regions, such as palm trees.
Regarding the two types of fibers used in this study, it can be noted that while the use of barley straw fibers is relatively
frequent, the use of date palm fibers is quite rare. Indeed, it is easier to find references about barley straw fibers (e.g.
Bouhicha et al. [18], Ashour et al. [19,3]) than about date palm fibers (e.g. Taallah et al. [6]). A review on this issue was the
subject of a relatively recent paper by Laborel-Préneron et al. (2016 [20]). The fiber weight content applied in the
studies reported in this review, some of which are cited above, vary considerably depending on the materials and processes
used. In the case of compressed earth blocks, the fiber optimum content to improve strength appears to be around 1% by
mass or sometimes even lower [18,21,1]. In all these studies, no sophisticated or chemical treatment were used to
prepare plant fibers for use to stabilize earthen materials. They are generally simply cleaned after being extracted,
sometimes using clean water, then dried naturally under the sun and cut into pieces of the desired size using commonly
used tools. The main properties of these two fibers can be found in previous papers which can be summarized in the
following table (Cf. Table 1).
On the assessment of mechanical behavior, almost all studies consider compressive strength. Papers dealing with
tensile strength are few especially in the case of rammed earth. This can be explained by the fact that the compression test
procedures on earthen materials are much more established than the tensile test procedures. Indeed, when reviewing the
articles dealing with the tensile strength of earth-based materials, one can see that no consensus on tensile test method for
earthen materials emerges. Thus, some studies use the direct tensile method [23,24], while others apply the splitting
tensile method [24,25], the four-point flexural tensile method [18] or the three-point flexural tensile method [26].
However, Olivier et al. have already recommended, in a previous paper on compacted soils [27], to use splitting tensile
strength test as "the direct tensile test is very delicate to perform because of the damages in the specimen resulting when placing
it on the tensile device” and as the flexural test provides “results with high dispersion because of shrinkage cracks". Given these
issues, and to keep the manufacturing procedures of the specimens as close as possible to those for the onsite manufacturing
process, dynamically compacted cylindrical specimens were chosen to be used in the present study. These specimens can be
used for both uniaxial compression test and splitting tensile test. More details are given in the Materials and Methods
paragraph.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Local earth and sand

The local earth, used in this study as base material for manufacturing the specimens tested, is from earthworks of a
building project. Raw “marly” earth of a whitish color, whose main granular fraction is the fine one with an absolute density
of 2.50 Mg/m3. The earth was extracted near Agadir city (Morocco) from 0.50 to 3.00 m deep using an excavator. The
properties of this earth in term of Atterberg limits [acc. to NF P 94-051 [28]], and grain size distribution [acc. to NF EN 933-1
[29] and NF P 94-057 [30]] are given in the following table (Cf. Table 2) and figure (Cf. Fig. 1). According to Casagrande’s
Plasticity Chart used in the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), it is a fine-grained soil of high plasticity (i.e. Clay with

2
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Table 2
USCS classification of the earth used before (Raw earth) and after adding sand (Sand-Earth).

Material Grains density rs Liquid limit Plasticity index Maximal grain size USCS Classification
vl IP
Raw earth 2500 kg/m3 51.8% 25.1% 20 mm Clay of High plasticity (CH)
Sand-Earth 2570 kg/m3 32.8% 10.6% 20 mm Clay Sand
(SC)

high plasticity "CH") which is rarely suitable to be used as an earthen construction material according to Van Damme and
Houben [31]. Therefore, a local sand was used to modify its granulometry and plasticity in order to produce a more suitable
mixture for the rammed earth construction method, as recommended by Houben and Guillaud [32]. The sand used is a semi-
crushed sand from local alluvial deposits, whose grains absolute density is 2.70 Mg/m3. The formulated Sand-Earth mixture is
prepared with 2/3 raw earth and 1/3 sand as dry weight proportions. More explanations on these proportions are presented
in previous studies [33,34]. The mineral composition of the mixture obtained was roughly determined by cross-checking the
results of the Emerson test with Atterberg's limits and their representation in the Casagrande chart. Indeed, the introduction
of dry and wet clods of the Sand-Earth mixture studied does not show clear dispersion, nor significant swelling. In addition,
its effervescence when exposed to hydrochloric acid reveals the presence of carbonate or gypsum. According to Emerson test
[35], these results show that the material studied is mainly composed of illite and montmorillonite (class 4 minerals). On the
other hand, the point representing the Atterberg limits of the material on the Plasticity Chart is located almost exclusively in
the illite zone [acc. to Holtz and Kovacs, 1981 [36]]. As a conclusion, the material is composed mainly of illite and some traces
of montmorillonite.
Based on these characteristics, the Sand-Earth mixture prepared is a Clayey Sand ("SC" soil type) according to USCS – the
Unified Soil Classification System [acc. to ASTM D3287 [37]], or "A-6" soil type according to AASHTO – the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Classification System [acc. to ASTM D3282 [38]] (Cf. Table 2) which
is a suitable material for unstabilized earth construction according to the same authors (i.e. Van Damme and Houben [31]).
These grain size limits are given as one of the conditions to be respected when the paper is used for comparative purposes by
other researchers.

2.2. Cement, lime and plant fibers

Four "stabilizers" were used in this experimental study. These stabilizers are Portland cement, air lime, barley straw fibers
and date palm fibers. The cement used is a Portland cement known locally as CPJ45 and whose characteristics are defined by
Moroccan Standards [acc. to NM 10.1.004 [39]]. This cement therefore has a characteristic 28-day compressive strength
greater than 32.5 MPa. As for lime, it is a local artisanal product commonly used in the Souss-Massa region (Morocco) for
handmade building including earthen constructions. This lime is used in this study as a stabilizer considering its
environmental benefits and for comparative purposes.
The fibers used (from barley straw and date palm leaflets) were first manually washed using clean water to eliminate the
impurities with which they were associated (dust, other plant fibers, etc.). After natural drying under sun, they were cut into

Fig. 1. Grain size curves of sand-earth mixture, compared to the grain size limits (R.E. Spindle) and the ideal grain size curve (ICD20 [RE]) recommended for
rammed earth by Houben and Guillaud.

3
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 2. Plant fibers used for reinforcement (barley straw fibers on the left, date palm fibers on the right).

pieces of about 3 cm in length and then crushed by shearing. Finally, they were sieved to eliminate the volatile organic
components generated by the crushing process (Cf. Fig. 2). In addition to their dimensions (diameter and length), two
physical properties are determined: the absolute density and the 24 h water absorption coefficient (Cf. Table 3). Diameters
and lengths were determined using conventional dimensional measurements on representative samples of each fiber. As for
the absolute density and the water absorption of the fibers used, they were determined using the same standard procedures
applied to aggregates used in the geotechnical engineering.
As mentioned in the introduction paragraph, plant fibers are rarely used to stabilize rammed earth. This paper will
therefore consider results from research on the stabilization of compressed earth blocks (CEB), which represent the closest
construction method to rammed earth (compacting earth in its wet state). These research works indicate optimum fiber
contents slightly less than 1% by mass (See § Introduction). Based on these values, a content of about 0.75% has been
considered for the two fibers used in the present study.

2.3. Formulation and preparation of mixtures

The formulations tested in this study are described in the table (Cf. Table 4). The cement content is taken equal to 6%,
which is often considered to be the minimum content for sufficient stabilization if no frost exposure conditions are expected
[32]. As for stabilization using lime, it has already been established that for a given earth, there is an optimum weight content
that varies globally between 4% and 12%. Some papers mention 4% as optimum lime content, above which no additional
beneficial changes in compressive strength are observed [40,12]. Thus, 4% of hydrated lime can be considered acceptable to a
sandy earth like the mixture Sand-Earth used in the present study. In the case of the mixtures reinforced with plant fibers, a
weight content of 0.75% was adopted as justified in the previous section.
As for compaction moisture content, it is taken equal to the optimum moisture content (i.e. 13 %) of the base material
(Sand-Earth) determined according the Proctor as reported in a previous paper [34]. This moisture content is slightly

Table 3
Characteristics of the fibers used for reinforcement.

Fibers Diameter Length Absolute density Water Absorption

Barley straw 1 to 3 mm 2 to 3 cm 720 kg/m3 175%
Date palm leaflets 1 to 2 mm 3 cm 940 kg/m3 89%

Table 4
Formulation of the five mixtures tested in this case study.

Material Stabilizer Stabilizer content Moisture content Retaining period

SE: Sand-Earth – – 13.0% 20 to 24 H
C.SE: Cement-Sand-Earth Cement (C) 6% 12.0% About 15 min
L.SE: Lime-Sand-Earth Lime (L) 4% 14.0% About 6 H
B.SE: Barley-Sand-Earth Barley fibers (BF) 0.75% 14.0% 20 to 24 H
P.SE: Palm-Sand-Earth Palm fibers (PF) 0.75% 13.5% 20 to 24 H

4
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

changed when using chemical stabilizer (+1% for lime stabilization, –1% for cement stabilization) and increased slightly to
consider the fibers water absorption during the " retaining period " in the case of fiber-reinforced materials (+1.0% for barley
straw fibers reinforcement, +0.5% for date palm fibers reinforcement) [32].
As a reminder, the retaining period is the period between mixing and compacting. This period is desirable to obtain a
homogeneous mixture in terms of moisture content. In the case of the cement-stabilized and lime-stabilized mixtures, this
period must be less than the setting time of cement and the setting time of lime, respectively.

2.4. Specimens manufacturing and storage

Taking into account the grain size distribution of the base material used, the minimum specimen size is taken equal to
100 mm (i.e. five times the maximum grain size) [acc. to NF P 94-074 [41]]. Thus, for cylindrical specimens, the diameter is
taken equal to 100 mm while the height is taken equal to 200 mm (i.e. twice the diameter). As a result, the dimensions of the
mold for specimen manufacturing are 100 mm  200 mm. Therefore, the standard Proctor test is chosen to determine
compaction references [acc. to NF P 94-093 [42]].
Each cylindrical specimen is compacted manually according to the standard Proctor test compaction procedures with five
layers as described in an open access previous paper [34]. The compaction energy is therefore of about 600 kJ/m3.
Once the compaction references were determined, five specimens were prepared per each of the five materials
formulated (three for compression test, two for tensile test). All specimens were manufactured at the same day and stored in a
room with temperatures varying from 20 to 25  C and relative humidity of about 60 %. After four weeks, the weights and
dimensions of each specimen are measured, then the densities are determined, according current European standard on
concrete material [acc. to NF EN 12390-7 [43]], and compared to the aimed dry densities. These comparisons are used to
“check” the drying of the specimens. The drying/curing of a specimen is achieved if its density is equal to the one targeted by
compaction 5% and if the weight of the specimen does not decrease by more than 2/1000 after 48 h under the drying/curing
conditions above.
Note that the “dry state” of the compacted material means that the water content has reached its equilibrium value close
to and not equal to zero. The figures above (Cf. Fig. 3) are given as examples of dry specimens tested for tensile strength. More
explanations on the manufacturing process applied in the present study can be seen in a previous paper [34].

2.5. Uniaxial compression test

The preparation of the bearing surfaces is performed in the wet state by levelling using a metal ruler. In the dry state, an
abrasive paper and a spirit level are used, when necessary, for finishing. The aim of this preparation is to provide parallel and
flat bearing surfaces. After that, the dry specimens are compressed using a machine that complies with the European
Standard [acc. to NF EN 12390-4 [44]] and allow a constant loading speed of 0:05MPa=s. Also, a value of 0:05 MPa has been
chosen as peak sensitivity that corresponds to the decrease in stress during the test at which the machine will consider the
sample to have failed and will stop the test.

Fig. 3. Fiber-reinforced specimens ready for tensile test (P.SE specimens on the left, B.SE specimens on the right).

5
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 4. Photos showing a specimen after the splinting tensile strength test.

2.6. Splitting tensile strength test

The test method used is the splitting tensile strength method, also known as the " Brazilian Test ". The test protocol
followed is the same protocol for splitting tensile strength test established for cement concrete [acc. to NF EN 12390-6 [45]]
with a loading speed of about 0:05 MPa=s. During this test, a cylindrical specimen is subjected over its entire generatrix to a
compressive stress. The resulting orthogonal tensile stress is therefore applied in the direction of compaction layers. Loading
is initiated and continues until failure, i.e. until clear longitudinal cracking occurs with a reduction in loading stress of at least
0:05 MPa (Cf. Fig. 4).
The tested specimens and the failure surface are checked for any irregularities. After each test, the maximum load " F max "
is recorded and the tensile strength " f t " determined indirectly using the following formula:
2 F max F max F max ðMNÞ
ft ¼ ¼   ½MPa
pHf p  f2 0:0314

where " f ¼ 10 cm " is the specimen diameter and " H ¼ 2 f " its height. This formula is derived from the theory of elasticity.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Compaction conditions of the specimens

The table hereafter (Cf. Table 6) gives the masses of all specimens before and after the drying process. The masses are
given to the nearest gram and the dry densities to the nearest 10 kg/m3. The water content losses during the drying process
were calculated and reported in the last column of the table.
When comparing the average dry densities of the materials tested, one can see that the specimens stabilized with cement
or lime are less dense than the other specimens. This is a consequence of the differences in the equilibrium water content (i.e.,
the difference between the water content lost during the drying process and the supposed compaction water content). Indeed, the
addition of cement or lime participates in the drying process since both binders consume water needed for their hydration.
Thus, the average equilibrium water content (Cf. Table 5) is more important in the case of fiber-reinforced materials (greater
than 0.8%) than in the case of cement-or-lime-stabilized materials (less than 0.2%). Besides, as an obvious result, fiber-
reinforced materials have lower dry densities as compared to unstabilized and unreinforced material (SE material), for which
the equilibrium water content is about 0.6%.

Table 5
Average equilibrium water contents at the end of the drying process of the materials tested.

Material Compaction water content Water content loss on drying Equilibrium water content
SE  13.0 % 12.4 %  0.6 %
C.SE  12.0 % 11.9 %  0.1 %
L.SE  14.0 % 13.8 %  0.2 %
B.SE  14.0 % 13.0 %  1.0 %
P.SE  13.5 % 12.7 %  0.8 %

6
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Table 6
Detailed compaction conditions of all the specimens tested.

Material Specimen Wet mass Dry mass Dry density Water content


mh ðgÞ md ðgÞ rd kg=m3 loss

Sand-Earth SE1 3 482 3 097 1 970 12.43%

(SE) SE2 3 519 3 130 1 990 12.43%
SE3 3 491 3 105 1 980 12.43%
SE4 3 497 3 111 1 980 12.41%
SE5 3 475 3 091 1 970 12.42%
Average 3 493 3 107 1 980 12.4 %
Cement-Sand-Earth C.SE1 3 359 3 003 1 910 11.85%
(C.SE) C.SE2 3 417 3 055 1 950 11.85%
C.SE3 3 322 2 970 1 890 11.85%
C.SE4 3 350 2 995 1 910 11.85%
C.SE5 3 338 2 984 1 900 11.86%
Average 3 357 3 001 1 910 11.9 %
Lime-Sand-Earth L.SE1 3 050 2 679 1 710 13.85%
(L.SE) L.SE2 3 312 2 909 1 850 13.85%
L.SE3 3 372 2 962 1 890 13.84%
L.SE4 3 331 2 926 1 860 13.84%
L.SE5 3 321 2 917 1 860 13.85%
Average 3 277 2 879 1 830 13.8 %
Barley-Sand-Earth B.SE1 3.499 3 097 1 970 12.98%
(B.SE) B.SE2 3.421 3 028 1 930 12.98%
B.SE3 3.370 2 983 1 900 12.97%
B.SE4 3.370 2 983 1 900 12.97%
B.SE5 3.408 3 017 1 920 12.96%
Average 3 414 3 022 1 930 13.0%
Palm-Sand-Earth P.SE1 3.567 3.165 2 020 12.70%
(P.SE) P.SE2 3.410 3.026 1 930 12.69%
P.SE3 3.441 3.053 1 950 12.71%
P.SE4 3.474 3.083 1 960 12.68%
P.SE5 3.483 3.091 1 970 12.68%
Average 3 475 3 084 1 960 12.7 %

3.2. Compressive mechanical behavior

The stress-strain curves, obtained from the compression tests, were used to determine four parameters. The calculation
methods applied are explained in a previous article (see Fig. 10 of open access article here [34]). These parameters detailed in
the table below (Cf. Table 7) are:

 The compressive strength "f c ".

 The peak strain corresponding to the maximum stress "ep ".
 The initial tangent modulus "Ei ".
 The secant modulus "Es ".

Table 7
Detailed results from uniaxial compression tests.

Material Specimen Ei ðMPaÞ Es ðMPaÞ ep ðmm=mmÞ f c ðMPaÞ

Sand-Earth SE1 332 233 0.0083 1.94
(SE) SE2 347 199 0.0109 2.16
SE3 340 214 0.0093 1.98
Cement-Sand-Earth C.SE1 763 455 0.0076 3.45
(C.SE) C.SE2 839 547 0.0057 3.10
C.SE3 800 509 0.0062 3.16
Lime-Sand-Earth L.SE1 349 196 0.0080 1.58
(L.SE) L.SE2 464 294 0.0079 2.32
L.SE3 487 285 0.0089 2.55
Barley-Sand-Earth B.SE1 163 140 0.0213 2.98
(B.SE) B.SE2 157 145 0.0189 2.73
B.SE3 148 138 0.0181 2.50
Palm-Sand-Earth P.SE1 259 190 0.0181 3.44
(P.SE) P.SE2 241 187 0.0167 3.11
P.SE3 248 189 0.0170 3.21

7
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of all the specimens obtained from the uniaxial compression test.

Table 8
Average results from uniaxial compression tests (coefficient of variation).

Material Ei ðMPaÞ Es ðMPaÞ ep ðmm=mmÞ f c ðMPaÞ

Sand-Earth (SE) 340 (2%) 215 (6%) 0.0095 (11%) 2.03 (5%)
Cement Sand-Earth (C.SE) 801 (4%) 504 (7%) 0.0065 (12%) 3.24 (5%)
Lime Sand-Earth (L.SE) 433 (14%) 259 (17%) 0.0083 (6%) 2.15 (19%)
Barley Sand-Earth (B.SE) 156 (4%) 141 (2%) 0.0194 (7%) 2.74 (7%)
Palm Sand-Earth (P.SE) 249 (3%) 189 (1%) 0.0172 (3%) 3.25 (4%)

As it can be seen in the curves (Cf. Fig. 5), it appears that the materials reinforced with plant fibers (i.e. B.SE and P.SE) are
characterized by an almost linear behavior compared to the behavior of the materials chemically stabilized with cement or
lime (i.e. C.SE and L.SE). The linear behavior observed in the case of fiber-reinforced materials is actually not a new finding.
Indeed, it is a typical behavior of fiber composite materials [46].
The following table (Cf. Table 8) gives the average values of the parameters introduced above for all the materials tested,
with the coefficients of variation (given in brackets) calculated on the basis of the three values measured and presented in the
previous table.
Considering the coefficient of variation values of the results given in the table above, the compression test repeatability is
reasonable. Indeed, apart from the case of the L.SE material, the coefficient of variation is relatively low (varying from 2% to
7%) for all the parameters except the peak strain. The dispersion of the latter's values (coefficient of variation of up to 12%) can
be explained by the influence of the method used to measure the displacements. Indeed, the displacement transducers do
not seem to be sufficiently attached to the specimens at the moment when the cracks appear on the surface, i.e. at the
moment when the maximum stress is reached, knowing that the peak strain corresponds to this maximum stress.
Concerning the L.SE material, when looking closely at the results, it can easily be seen that the results concerning the L.SE1
specimen are low compared to the two specimens L.SE2 and L.SE3. Indeed, the compressive strength of L.SE1 which is
1:58 MPa is much lower than those of L.SE2 and L.SE3 which are 2:32 MPa and 2:55 MPa respectively. This can be explained
by an insufficient compaction of the L.SE1 specimen since the dry density of the latter, which is 1710 kg=m3 , is unusually
much lower than the densities of the other specimens, which are 1850 kg=m3 for L.SE2 and 1890 kg=m3 for L.SE3.
Because of these reasons, the results concerning the L.SE1 specimen can be considered aberrant and should be ignored
when calculating the average values. Therefore, the average characteristics of the Earth-Sand-Lime (L.SE) material are the
following:

rd ¼ 1870kg=m3  ;  Ei ¼ 476 MPa ;  Es ¼ 290 MPa ;  ep ¼ 0:84 % ;  f c ¼ 2:44 MPa

3.2.1. Compressive strength

When comparing all the compressive strength values (Cf. Fig. 6), it can be seen that the stabilized materials (C.SE, L.SE, B.
SE and P.SE) have a higher compressive strength than the unstabilized material (SE), which is obvious. Also, the influence of
density, and thus the quality of compaction, on compressive strength can be observed. The denser the material, the greater its
compressive strength.
In the case of chemically stabilized materials, it appears that cement is more suitable than lime as the earlier considerably
improves strength, which confirms the recommendations [32,31] stating that cement is more suitable as a stabilizer than

8
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 6. Average uniaxial compressive strength influenced by dry density (with standard error bars).

lime in the case of sandy earths such as the Earth-Sand (ES) material used in this study. However, this result should be
considered with prudence because the lime content, in addition to being lower than that of cement, does not necessarily
correspond to the optimum content, which has not been determined experimentally. Anyway, the compressive strength
values obtained in the case of cement-or-lime-stabilized rammed earth are similar to results reported in some previous
studies [12,31,47].
As for plant fiber reinforcement, it seems that in terms of compressive strength, it is as effective as chemical stabilization.
Also, with the same weight content (0.75%) date palm fibers appear to be more effective than barley straw fibers. This result is
probably due to the difference in mechanical characteristics of the two fibers, which are reviewed and reported in the
introduction section of the present paper. Although it is possible that the optimum content is therefore not the same for the
two fibers.
Compared to the results of previous studies on fiber-reinforced earthen materials using the same fibers (i.e. barley straw
fibers [18] and date palm fibers [6]), the improvements in terms of compressive strength obtained in this studies are
encouraging but slightly lower. A possible explanation for this difference is that the materials tested in these previous studies
are produced using static compaction method (compressed earth blocs) which means that the compaction energy is
different. Thus, in a previous study on the use of other plant fibers (Hibiscus cannabinus fibers [1]) to reinforce pressed adobe
blocs, the strength obtained is lower than the strength obtained in the present study. In addition, even if the fibers used are of
the same origin, they have not necessary the same physical and mechanical characteristics. Also, the previous study about
the use of date palm fibers [6] is actually conducted considering combined stabilization with cement and fibers.
Consequently, the comparison cannot be relevant as the present study deals either with cement-stabilization alone or with
fiber-reinforcement alone.
Also, there is a quasi-linear correlation between dry density and compressive strength, but only if we distinguish between
chemically stabilized materials (C.SE and L.SE) from fiber-reinforced materials (B.SE and P.SE). Actually, the correlation
[strength = increasing function (density)] appears relatively more noticeable in the case of the materials stabilized with
cement or lime than in the case of the materials reinforced with barley straw or date palm fibers (Cf. Fig. 7). This means that
the effectiveness of the stabilization/reinforcement of the rammed earth seems to be more sensitive to the quality of
compaction in the case of chemical stabilization (with cement or lime) than in the case of reinforcement with plant fibers.

3.2.2. Stiffness parameters

Given that the mechanical behavior of the rammed earth in compression is not linear [48], one of the parameters often
used to evaluate the material stiffness is the initial tangent modulus. The results obtained show that, chemical stabilization
with cement or lime improves the initial tangent modulus while reinforcement with plant fibers decreases it. Also, the
results show that globally, the initial tangent modulus increases with density for all the materials tested (Cf. Fig. 8).
But again, to make this observation rigorously, it is necessary to distinguish the results of the chemically stabilized
materials (C.SE and L.SE) from those of the fiber-reinforced materials (B.SE and P.SE), for the same reasons already explained
in the previous paragraph. Thus, the same types of correlations as those observed between compressive strength and density
are observed between initial tangent modulus and density (Cf. Fig. 9).
The rammed earth is characterized by a non-linear mechanical behavior. Consequently, elasticity in principle concerns
only low strain for which the modulus of elasticity can be considered equal to the initial tangent modulus. When strain
exceeds this low elastic strain limit, the behavior can be considered as plastic/ductile. This plasticity is not perfect in its early
stages, as when unloading, strains change without allowing the test specimen to reach its initial dimensions.

9
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 7. Compressive strength as a function of dry density of the tested materials.

Fig. 8. Average initial tangent modulus of the materials tested (with standard error bars).

Fig. 9. Initial tangent modulus as a function of dry density of the stabilized and reinforced rammed earth.

10
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Table 9
Secant modules compared to initial tangent modulus of the materials tested.

Material Ei  ðMPaÞ Es  ðMPaÞ u ¼ Es =Ei

SE 340 (2%) 215 (6%) 0.63
C.SE 801 (4%) 504 (7%) 0.63
L.SE 476 (15%) 290 (19%) 0.61
B.SE 156 (4%) 141 (2%) 0.90
P.SE 249 (3%) 189 (1%) 0.76

The ductility of a material, opposed to its brittleness, is usually quantified by the strain at rupture compared to that at
yield stress. The strain at rupture is presented in this paper as peak strain. Since the yield stress of earth-based materials is
very low compared to the compressive strength (rupture), the peak strain can therefore be used to quantify ductility; the
more ductile the material is, the greater its peak strain is. Thus, the average peak strain of the fiber-reinforced rammed earth
tested is greater than the one of the cement-or-lime-stabilized rammed earth, meaning that plant fiber-reinforcement brings
ductility while chemical stabilization leads to more brittleness, which is an obvious finding.
The secant modulus can be accepted as a parameter to roughly describe the elastoplastic mechanical behavior of earthen
materials. As a reminder, the secant module discussed here is defined as the ratio of the maximum stress (i.e. compressive
strength) to the corresponding peak strain (Cf. Fig. 10).
The secant modulus is usually expressed in a proportion to the initial tangent modulus. The closer the coefficient of
proportionality “ u ” is to the value “ 1 ”, the more linear the mechanical behavior of the material is. According to the results
obtained (Cf. Table 9), the mechanical behavior of rammed earth reinforced with plant fibers (B.SE and P.SE) is the most linear
(Es  0: 75 to   0:90 Ei ). The unstabilized rammed earth (SE) and the chemically stabilized rammed earth with cement
(C.SE) or lime (L.SE) are far from having a linear mechanical behavior (Es  0: 61 to   0:63 Ei ). The mechanical behavior
linearity discussed here is not intended to be misinterpreted as linear elasticity. Cyclic tests are necessary to study the
reversibility of strains.
For all the materials tested, an average coefficient of proportionality between the secant modulus and the initial tangent
modulus of about } u  0: 6 } is observed (Cf. Fig. 11). This value can be used to approximately estimate the peak strain of the
rammed earth based on its compressive strength and initial tangent modulus which are often determined during
compression test. This peak strain can be used, within a factor of safety, as the limit strain not to be exceeded to avoid damage
to rammed earth structures.
To summarize, it appears, as illustrated in the figure (Cf. Fig. 12), that while stabilization of rammed earth with cement or
lime increases both its strength and stiffness, reinforcement with plant fibers can improve strength but decreases stiffness.
This improvement in strength, which is associated with lower stiffness, makes rammed earth reinforced with fibers a
resilient material when faced to significant displacements.

3.3. Tensile strength

The splitting tensile strength "  f t " is the arithmetic mean of the splitting tensile strengths of at least two specimens. The
results obtained are given in the following table (Cf. Table 10).

Fig. 10. Compressive strength as a function of peak strain of the five materials studied.

11
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Fig. 11. Average secant modulus as a function of average initial tangent modulus.

Fig. 12. Compressive strength as a function of initial tangent modulus of the materials studied.

Table 10
Splitting tensile strength of the materials tested.

Material SE C.SE L.SE B.SE P.SE

Specimen SE4 SE5 C.SE4 C.SE5 L.SE4 L.SE5 B.SE4 B.SE5 P.SE4 P.SE5
F max  ðkNÞ 12.06 11.80 13.93 13.71 12.4 12.72 15.54 15.86 14.58 14.30
 f t  ðMPaÞ 0.38 0.44 0.40 0.50 0.46

These results show that fibers provide more improvement in terms of tensile strength than cement and lime. In the case of
plant fibers, barley straw fibers seem to provide more improvement when compared to palm fibers. This difference is
probably not due to the mechanical characteristics of the fibers. Indeed, date palm fibers, which have better tensile strength,
are less effective due to the weak fiber-earth adhesion compared to barley straw fibers, for which the adhesion is likely to be
better. It also appears that in the case of sandy earth studied (SE), cement is more effective than lime. The difference in
stabilizer content may partly explain this finding. Another explanation would be that the clay content of the earth tested is

12
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

Table 11
Ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength of the materials tested.

Material SE C.SE L.SE B.SE P.SE

f t  ðMPaÞ 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.50 0.45
f c  ðMPaÞ 2.0 3.2 2.4 2.7 3.3
f t =f c 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.14

insufficient to allow the lime to significantly improve the tensile strength. Conversely, sandy earths are much more suitable
for stabilization with cement. These explanations confirm the interpretations made on compression test results.

3.4. Tensile-compressive relationships

To explore the relationship between the tensile strength "  f t " and the compressive strength "  f c " and given the
measurement uncertainties, it is proposed to round the tensile strengths to the nearest 0:05 MPa and the compressive
strengths to the nearest 0:1 MPa. The table below gives the results obtained (Cf. Table 11).
While some references refer to a ratio of tensile strength to compressive strength of about 1/10 [49,50], the values of the
ratio "  f t =f c " obtained in this study do not show any clear trend. Nevertheless, these values vary globally between 1/10 and
1/5.
Considering that earth-based materials, including rammed earth, are a kind of "concrete" with clay as binder, one may be
tempted to look for a "  f t f c " correlation similar to the one already established for cement concrete, as it was is proposed
by a French code on reinforced concrete ([51] in French). This correlation is as follow:

f t ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:6 MPa þ 0:06 f c ðMPaÞ

According to the results obtained for all the materials tested in tensile tests, no clear correlation of this type was found (Cf.
Fig. 13). The correlation observed, and given below, is very approximate and therefore unreliable (coefficient of
determination far from 1). The correlation observed for the five materials tested is as follows:
f t ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:3 MPa þ 0:04 f c ðMPaÞ

Since the tensile strength of rammed earth stabilized with fibers depends essentially on the quality of the fibers used and
the earth-fiber adhesion, it is most appropriate to study the correlation "  f t f c " only for other materials. In this case, the
linear tendency is much clearer (Cf. Fig. 13). However, the correlation formula obtained may be considered questionable
given the small number of formulations (only three formulations). Nevertheless, it is a research issue that is worth exploring
as one of the perspectives of this study.
This empirical formula suggests that rammed earth, when well manufactured, would have a minimum characteristic
tensile strength of about 0.3 MPa, which is a particularly good value for a material such as rammed earth. Although this value
seems to be very approximate given the number of specimens tested, it is however comparable to the values found in some
papers [24]. Nevertheless, more tests are needed to establish a more precise formula of this kind.

Fig. 13. The ft fc correlation observed for the materials tested.

13
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

4. Summary and conclusion

In this experimental study, cylindrical specimens were compacted using the Proctor test procedures, then dried for
several weeks under the ambient conditions (temperature of about 15–25  C and relative humidity of about 60%) before
being tested in uniaxial compression and splitting tensile tests. The base material used is a mixture of sand and local clayey
earth. This mixture, formulated to be suitable for rammed earth method, is used to prepare specimens stabilized with
cement or lime and specimens reinforced with barley straw or date palm fibers. The weight contents applied in the stabilized
or reinforced materials tested are: 6% of cement, 4% of lime and 0.75% of barley straw or date palm fibers. Each stabilizer (or
fiber) was used individually. No combined use has been tested. The procedures and equipment used to carry out compression
and tensile tests are those used in the case of cement concrete, but with lower loading speed.
The results show that the stabilization of compacted earth (rammed earth) with cement or lime improves both strength
and stiffness. Also, as reinforcing compacted earth with plant fibers permits to reach similar compressive and tensile
strengths that can be achieved with cement or lime stabilization, it considerably decreases stiffness and thus gives the
composite material manufactured a better ductility. This improvement in ductility makes fiber-reinforced rammed earth
interesting to be used in earthquake-resistant buildings. In addition, compared to cement and lime, the use of plant fibers is
much more ecological.
As for the splitting tensile strength, results show that tensile strength of the materials tested can be expressed empirically
as a linear function of the compressive strength, but if fiber-reinforced materials are not considered. For the latter, the earth-
fiber adhesion seems to play a more important role in tensile than in compressive strength. More tests are needed to
establish this empirical relationship more rigorously.

5. Limitations of the study

The present experimental study is about fiber-reinforcement effects on the mechanical behavior of dry rammed earth. It
deals with the use of barley straw and date palm fibers of given dimensions to reinforce a local earth-sand mixture of given
physical proprieties. Also, the tested specimens are not representative of onsite earthen structures. As a consequence, the
results presented and discussed in this paper should be contextualized and used only for comparative purposes. To draw
general conclusions, further experimental studies on more fiber-earth mixtures are recommended.

Declaration of Competing Interest

No conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgment

The experimental work described in this paper was carried out in the civil engineering laboratory of National School of
Applied Sciences (ENSA), Ibn Zohr University of Agadir. The contribution of the laboratory team in terms of technical
assistance is duly acknowledged. Thanks also to all the staff of the Civil Engineering Department at the same Institution for
their support and encouragement.

References

[1] Y. Millogo, J.C. Morel, J.E. Aubert, K. Ghavami, Experimental analysis of pressed Adobe Blocks reinforced with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers, Constr. Build.
Mater. 52 (February (15)) (2014) 71–78.
[2] L. Miccoli, U. Müller, P. Fontana, Mechanical behaviour of earthen materials: a comparison between earth block masonry, rammed earth and cob,
Constr. Build. Mater. 61 (2014) 327–339.
[3] T. Ashour, H. Wieland, H. Georg, F.J. Bockisch, W. Wu, The influence of natural reinforcement fibres on insulation values of earth plaster for straw bale
buildings, Mater. Des. 31 (10) (2010) 4676–4685.
[4] P.J. Walker, Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil blocks, Cem. Concr. Compos. 17 (4) (1995) 301–310.
[5] J.R. González-López, C.A. Juárez-Alvarado, B. Ayub-Francis, J.M. Mendoza-Rangel, Compaction effect on the compressive strength and durability of
stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 163 (2018) 179–188.
[6] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, S. Guettala, A. Kriker, Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 59 (May (30)) (2014) 161–168.
[7] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 5 (2016) 53–63.
[8] Q.B. Bui, J.C. Morel, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, W. Ghayad, Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering, Build. Environ.
44 (5) (2009) 912–919.
[9] J.S.J. Cheah, P. Walker, A. Heath, T.K.K.B. Morgan, Evaluating shear test methods for stabilised rammed earth, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Constr. Mater. 165 (6)
(2012) 325–334.
[10] X. Yang, H. Wang, Z. Zhao, Cyclic behavior of confined cement-stabilized rammed earth walls, Shock Vib. 2018 (2018).
[11] R. Gupta, Characterizing material properties of cement-stabilized rammed earth to construct sustainable insulated walls, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 1
(2014) 60–68.
[12] D. Ciancio, C.T.S. Beckett, J.A.H. Carraro, Optimum lime content identification for lime-stabilised rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 59–65.
[13] M. Fagone, H. Kloft, F. Loccarini, G. Ranocchiai, Jute fabric as a reinforcement for rammed earth structures, Compos. Part B Eng. 175 (June) (2019)107064.
[14] F. Loccarini, G. Ranocchiai, T. Rotunno, M. Fagone, Experimental and numerical analyses of strengthened rammed earth masonry arches, Comput.
Struct. 239 (2020)106329.

14
A. Koutous and E. Hilali Case Studies in Construction Materials 14 (2021) e00514

[15] A. Razmi, M.M. Mirsayar, On the mixed mode I/II fracture properties of jute fiber-reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 148 (2017) 512–520.
[16] K. Ghavami, R.D. Toledo Filho, N.P. Barbosa, Behaviour of composite soil reinforced with natural fibres, Cem. Concr. Compos. 21 (1) (1999) 39–48.
[17] R. Mattone, Sisal fibre reinforced soil with cement or cactus pulp in bahareque technique, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (5) (2005) 611–616.
[18] M. Bouhicha, F. Aouissi, S. Kenai, Performance of composite soil reinforced with barley straw, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (5) (2005) 617–621.
[19] T. Ashour, H. Georg, W. Wu, An experimental investigation on equilibrium moisture content of earth plaster with natural reinforcement fibres for straw
bale buildings, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2–3) (2011) 293–303.
[20] A. Laborel-Préneron, J.E. Aubert, C. Magniont, C. Tribout, A. Bertron, Plant aggregates and fibers in earth construction materials: a review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 111 (2016) 719–734.
[21] C. Chan, Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: physico-mechanical properties, Int. J. Civ. Struct. Environ. Infrastruct. Eng. Res. Dev. 3 (1) (2011)
52–57.
[22] H. Tavakoli, S.S. Mohtasebi, A. Jafari, Effects of moisture content, internode position and loading rate on the bending characteristics of barley straw,
Prog. Agric. Eng. Sci. 55 (2) (2009) 45–51 no. 1969.
[23] B.-V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta, Tensile bond strength of soil-cement block masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (1)
(2006) 36–45.
[24] H. Araki, J. Koseki, T. Sato, Tensile strength of compacted rammed earth materials, Soils Found. 56 (2) (2016) 189–204.
[25] H. Danso, Influence of compacting rate on the properties of compressed earth blocks, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. Int. J. (2016).
[26] P.L. Narloch, M. Lidner, E. Kunicka, M. Bielecki, Flexural tensile strength of construction elements made out of cement stabilized rammed earth,
Procedia Eng. 111 (TFoCE) (2015) 589–595.
[27] M. Olivier, M. Ali, A. Mesbah, Laboratory tests for compacted soils (in French), First Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, January, 1995.
[28] AFNOR, P 94-051 Soils: Investigation and Testing - Determination of Atterberg’s Limits. Liquid Limit Test Using Casagrande Apparatus. Plastic Limit Test
on Rolled Thread, (1993) , pp. 15.
[29] AFNOR, NF EN 933-1 - Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates - Part 1 : Determination of Particle Size Distribution - Sieving Method France,
(1997) , pp. 11.
[30] AFNOR, NF P 94-057 Soils : Investigation and Testing - Particle-size Analysis - Sedimentation Method France, (1992) , pp. 17.
[31] H. Van Damme, H. Houben, Earth concrete. Stabilization revisited, Cem. Concr. Res. 114 (2018) 90–102.
[32] H. Houben, H. Guillaud, Treaty of Earth Construction (in French), 2nd ed., Parenthèses Editions, Marseille, France, 1995.
[33] A. Koutous, E. Hilali, A proposed experimental method for the preparation of rammed earth material, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 8 (07) (2019) 345–354.
[34] A. Koutous, E. Hilali, Grain shape effects on the mechanical behavior of compacted earth, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 11 (2019)e00303.
[35] W.W. Emerson, A classification of soil aggregates based on their coherence in water, Aust. J. Soil Res. 5 (1) (1967) 47–57.
[36] M.M. Dewoolkar, R.J. Huzjak, Drained residual shear strength of some claystones from Front Range, Colorado, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (12)
(2005) 1543–1551.
[37] ASTM, D 2487 - 06 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) USA, (2006) , pp. 12.
[38] ASTM, D 3282 - 93 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes USA, (2004) , pp. 6.
[39] IMANOR, Hydraulic binders, Cements and Cement Constituents (in French), (2019) , pp. 56 Morocco.
[40] F.G. Bell, Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils, Eng. Geol. 42 (1996) 223–237.
[41] AFNOR, NF P 94-074 Soils: Investigation and Testing - Shear Strength Tests With Revolving Triaxial Test Apparatus - x 5.2 Specimen Size Requirements
France, (1994) , pp. 36.
[42] AFNOR, NF P 94-093 Soils: Investigation and Testing - Determination of the Compaction Characteristics of a Soil - Standard Proctor Test - Modified
Proctor Test France, (1999) , pp. 18.
[43] AFNOR, NF EN 12390-7 - Testing Hardened Concrete - Part 7 : Density of Hardened Concrete, (2001) , pp. 9.
[44] AFNOR, NF EN 12390-4 - Testing Hardened Concrete - Part 4 : Compressive Strength - Specification for Testing Machines France, (2000) , pp. 14.
[45] AFNOR, NF EN 12390-6 Testing Hardened Concrete - Part 6: Tensile Splitting Strength of Test Specimens France, (2001) , pp. 8.
[46] T.H.G. Megson, Properties of engineering materials, Structural and Stress Analysis, (2019) , pp. 203–227.
[47] V. Toufigh, E. Kianfar, The effects of stabilizers on the thermal and the mechanical properties of rammed earth at various humidities and their
environmental impacts, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 616–629.
[48] H.N. Abhilash, J.-C. Morel, Stress–strain characteristics of unstabilised rammed earth, Earthen Dwellings and Structures, Springer Nature Singapore Pte
Ltd., 2019, pp. 203–214.
[49] A. Fabbri, J.-C. Morel, D. Gallipoli, Assessing the performance of earth building materials: a review of recent developments, RILEM Tech. Lett. 3 (2018)
46–58.
[50] T.T. Bui, Q.B. Bui, A. Limam, S. Maximilien, Failure of rammed earth walls: from observations to quantifications, Constr. Build. Mater. 51 (2014) 295–302.
[51] AFNOR, BAEL Code 91 Revised 99 - Technical Guidelines for the Design and Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures and Constructions Using the
Limit States Method (in French) Frence, (1992) , pp. 221.

15