Performance of Embedded, Base-anchored ‘Cut-bag’ Reinforcement

in Contained Earth Earthbag Walls

Patricia N. Stouter, June 2021
Build Simple Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico
pstouter@buildsimple.org

Abstract: Earthbag walls built with cohesive soil make flexible bed-joints bridged by
barbed wire, but with conventional inserted rebar reinforcement their high
deformability limits usefulness in high seismic risk areas. Previous in-plane testing
showed that higher soil fill strength and interconnected rebar both increase
strength, and embedded rebar increases strength and stiffness. Two 0.9 m (3’) x 1
m (3.3‘) wide 60% scale sample walls were built to test a novel embedded but
base-anchored ‘cut-bag’ rebar technique. Under static horizontal force these
plastered samples showed that better connection at the wall base of embedded
rebar increased both strength and stiffness 22% more than inserted overlapped
rebar and decreased deformation by 66% despite using weaker fill soil.
Performance did not appear to be adversely affected by openings in the fabric
containers caused either by slits cut for construction or by UV damage.
Keywords: Ductile masonry, Earthbag wall, Earthquake-resistant earthen walls, Low-
carbon reinforcement, Low-tech natural building.

INTRODUCTION

There is a great need for ‘simple building technologies for improved seismic resistance’ in
regions where earthquakes routinely destroy traditional unreinforced buildings, particularly
adobe (earth block) and masonry (Comartin et al. 2004). Earthbag is a low-tech low-cost
technique that uses mostly local subsoil but offers promise to resist vibration due to its fine-
grained tensile reinforcement (Ross et al. 2013) and intrinsic containment (Rao, Raghunath,
and Jagadish 2004) from its fabric forms.
Contained earth (CE) earthbag walls are built using damp adobe-type soil in fabric or mesh
forms using only hand tools and very little water, sand, gravel or cement. Courses are
tamped to consolidate and level and then topped with barbed wire. Buildings with vertical
walls often have reinforcement hammered in at mid-story and bond beam height. Steel

1
rebars are used in warm climate regions to avoid potential insect damage to biodegradable
reinforcement materials hidden in wall interiors. Walls are plastered to avoid UV damage to
the polypropylene tube or bag containers and moisture damage to the usually ‘raw’ or
unstabilized fill (Hart 2018).
Recommended for hazardous areas since before Khalili published his Emergency Sandbag
Shelter manual in 2008, during past decades builders and researchers have tried innovations
with rebar, wire and fill to improve earthbag performance with varying success. Engineers
recommended pinned rebar reinforcement in pairs along walls (Geiger 2010). Builders used
variations, such as inserting rebar between pinning vertical sets at corners, but small scale
tests indicate rebars increase strength and stiffness most when fully embedded in wall
material (Stouter 2020, 7). Barbed wire adds strength when taut (Ross). Using complex
patterns at corners, wire can be attached to external rebar but not to rebars inserted after
walls are built. Confusion about various possible fill materials led early researchers to test
bags with unconventional sand fill (Pelly 2008) although trainers recommend ‘adobe-type’
soil (Hart 2018). Since small scale testing indicates more strongly cohesive fill increases wall
strength and toughness (Stouter 2020, 10) this author uses the term contained earth or CE
for cohesive fill built damp and dried, in contrast to contained gravel footings or any walls
with non-cohesive fill or fill that was not dampened or not fully dried. The most successful
earthbag innovation to date came from researchers at Santa Clara University (SCU) who
tested well-dried near-full-size CE samples after moving with heavy machinery.
Reinforcement systems included threaded rod couplers and concrete splices to connect
rebars. Inexpensive couplers at bond beams failed under uplift forces of 10.1 kN (2288 lbs)
resulting from horizontal pressure (Strong, Jensen and Huebner-Schurch 2018, 30), but
concrete splices cast within the walls held. Splicing increased maximum strength by 30%
(Strong, 33; Rodriguez, Stein, and Darby 2018, 30) over conventional inserted separate
rebars which caused cracks in the soil masses at rebar overlaps (Rodriguez, 35).
Rebars inserted into walls may miss splice areas. In addition, wood formwork 250 mm (10”)
wide for the SCU splices at 1 m (3.3’) spacing decreased wall panel stability as smooth-
textured soil fill shrank slightly when drying (Strong). Splices cast inside earthbag walls are
easier to make at outer corners or the ends of walls. Using small bags of sand as place-
holders to be emptied of sand and filled with concrete (Stouter 2021a, 37) causes less
disruption to wall continuity than wooden splice forms, but other improved reinforcement
techniques are needed as well. Simpler processes that can also embed base-anchored
vertical rebars include ‘punching’ tubes at the beginning of courses down onto base-
anchored rebars and small cuts in fabric containers so that courses can be built around
rebars. Both ‘cut-bag’ and punching techniques let barbed wire be pulled taut at steel
reinforcement. If splices are used as well, steel rebars can create embedded bracing or
trusswork (Stouter 2021b, 7).
To evaluate the buildability of cut-bag and its contribution to wall strength, students from
2
Uvina’s alternative materials architecture course at the University of New Mexico built two
60% scale sample walls for in-plane testing. These 0.9 m 2 (9.7 sf) and 230 mm (9”) thick
samples (Figure 1a) matched previous research with meshed earthen plaster (Stouter 2020).
The current samples used low and medium strength fill with half-scale rebar and barbed
wire to establish a baseline wall strength that would not be too strong for the author’s
equipment.

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Materials
Medium strength soil fill was a local fill dirt with coarse grit classified as sand by hand
texturing (Presley and Thien 2008) but with enough fine particles to solidify well when
tamped into bags. Weak fill was a local loess silt mixed with sand and classified by hand-
texturing (Presley) as loamy sand. Both soils had been stored under cover. Unconfined
compressive strength testing of a single dried sample of weak soil returned 1.03 Mpa (150
psi) while testing of three samples of dried medium soil returned a 1.8 Mpa (260 psi)
strength average, (Stouter 2020, 17) higher than the 1.3 Mpa (188 psi) minimum acceptable
strength for earth block in an evidence-based earthen building code for New Zealand
(Standards New Zealand 1998).
Plaster applied over a light bird netting plastic mesh was made with straw and NM Earth
Adobes soil mix, meeting state standards of an average of 2.1 Mpa (300 psi) (NMRLD 2015).
Polypropylene bags of woven fabric were sewn 330 mm (13”) wide (laid flat). A cord used for
pulling electrical wire through conduit was tied to barbed wire at 600 mm (24”) centers.
Samples 864- 940 mm (34- 37”) high x 1.02 m (40”) wide were built on recyclable 267 mm
(10.5”) wide wooden bases made from wood 50x100 mm (2x4) as slats screwed together.
Bond beams were 50x200 (2x8) boards 1 m (39”) long (Figure 1b).
Samples used half-scale reinforcement of two vertical #10 (3/8 inch) diameter deformed
rebars hammered into tight holes in the wood base and attached at bond beam each with
two screwed brass grounding rod acorn nuts (Figure 1c). One strand of high tensile strength
2 strand 4-prong barbed wire was used per course.

Procedures

Vertical wood forms were attached to the base to keep wall sides and ends plumb. Fill soil
was dampened lightly before placing in bags on a metal ‘slider’ sheet. Next to the vertical
rebars the bag was cut and slid to embed the rebar. The slider was removed after final
placement and the bag settled down onto the barbed wire. Courses were tamped with about

3
15- 20 blows. A preformed loop of barbed wire was dropped over the rebar at one end and
twisted around the rebar at the other (Figure 2a).
Bond beam attachment was delayed on both samples because one of the rebars was too
short to complete the full sample height. Both samples were covered with tarps and left to
dry unobserved for several months. When next inspected, the pulling cord used to tie the
tarps had decayed from UV exposure, the samples had been fully exposed to the sun, and
the bags on the south sides of both samples were also decayed (Figure 2b).

Figure 1 (left to right): a) Sample and test frame. b) Building courses between wood forms. c)
Grounding rod acorn nuts to hold bond beam down on the vertical rebar.
Almost a 250 mm (10”) length of fill material was removed from the top course of the
medium fill sample (Figure 2b) and a rebar extension welded to the short rebar. The same fill
soil was lightly dampened and tamped into place without a bag. The bond beams were slid
down over the rebars and attached with acorn nuts.
Both samples dried under a metal cover for two weeks before plastering, then for another
two weeks before testing. Vertical lines were drawn on the plaster before testing (Figure 2d).
Half of a welded frame (Figure 3a) was bolted to 100x150 mm (4x6) spacer blocks on each
side of the base. Ratchet straps were used to reduce horizontal force on the four lag bolts
attaching the base to the testing frame and as vertical hold-downs (Figure 3b). A hand-
powered 44 kN (10,000 lb-f) hydraulic jack applied quasi-static pressure through a 12.6 cm²
(1.96 si) piston supported on a cradle clamped to the test frame. The pressure plate of
plywood spread force to both the bond beam and the top earthbag course (Figure 3c). A 114
mm (4.5”) diameter analog pressure gauge to 6.9 kPa (1000 psi) was used for lower force
levels and a smaller 41 MPa (6,000 psi) class B for higher loads. A contractor’s level laser light
4
rested on a separate stand with the light aimed at a measuring stick tacked to the sample.

Figure 2 (left to right): a) Barbed wire looped on rebar. b) Bag fabric rotted by UV on one side
of medium fill sample and fill material removed to allow access to rebar. c) Vertical lines on
plastered sample.

The jack operator read out force levels from the gauge while this author noted them and
observed deformation. Each stage of force was also photographed.

Figure 3 Testing frame (left to right): a) Frame attached to sample base. b) Straps as hold-downs and
horizontal ties. c) Piston in cradle with steel plates on plywood pressure plate for weak fill sample.

Pressures were revisited at low levels several times when forces reached plateaus and
declined slightly due to creep.

5
Testing on the medium fill sample was stopped when the piston pressed through the
pressure plate. The weak fill sample was tested second, with a stronger pressure plate and
steel plates beneath the piston tip.

RESULTS

Plaster began to crack at 5 kN (1124 lb-f) on the weak fill sample and at 7 kN (1574 lb-f) on
the medium fill sample. Shear damage to sample plaster was seen after higher forces (Figure
4a). Samples remained stable although the nuts on the bond beams slid upward and allowed
the bond beams to lift. Fill near wall toes was crushed but contained within the bag and/ or
meshed plaster.
Maximum force at 8.7 kN (1956 lb-f) on the weak fill sample (Table 1) was followed by
declining strength. The weak sample deformed almost 25 mm (1”) at yield and 120 mm
(4.5”) at maximum, causing multiple fractures in the plaster with some shearing seen near
the sample top (Figure 4b).

Figure 4: Samples at maximum force (left to right): a) Weak fill sample. b) Med

Testing on the medium fill sample never reached higher force levels than seen at yield and
was stopped after the near-pressure side of the upper course collapsed. Force levels never
rose above 7 kN (1574 lb-f).
On the weak fill sample pressure compressed the top course more than 51 mm (2”). The top
soil fill mass also cracked across and the rebar hole stretched the fabric. Some fill chipping
was seen on a few embedment points in the weak fill wall.

6
Table 1: In-plane test results

Weak fill sample Defective medium fill sample

kN mm Comments kN mm Comments

0 0 0 0

5.23 23 1.74 5

0 8 5.23 10 First plaster crack

5.23 33 Lifting, cracking 5.23 15 No rotation

5.67 63 0 2 Adjusted jack

6.53 50 6.98 16 Plaster cracking on top course

0 85 6.10 26 Lifting

8.72 120 5.23 26

0 89 5.23 36 Top course compressing

6.98 150 6.10 50 Pressure plate tilted

6.98 65 Piston broke through plate

0 33

Although the simplified data extraction resulted in few data points, yield points (Table 2)
were determined from obvious flattening of the force-deformation curves (Figure 5) that
also corresponded to the beginning of plaster cracking.

Table 2: Plastered cut-bag contained earth earthbag sample performance under in-plane load

Weak fill sample Medium fill sample Average

Yield- kN (Lb-F) 5.2 (1,176) 7.0 (1,568) 6.1 (1,372)
Yield deform.- mm (in.) 23 (0.91) 10 (0.4) 17 (0.67)
Maximum- kN (Lb-F) 8.7 (1,961) 7.0 (1,568) 7.9 (1,765)
Max. deform.- mm (in.) 120 (4.5) 65 (2.5) 93 (3.7)

7
Figure 5: Force-deformation graph of samples under horizontal force

Instead of overall deformation after yield, the top bag compressed and then fill collapsed
outward (Figure 6a) due to an area of fill that appeared darker and felt damp to the touch.
The faulty medium fill sample deformed 10 mm (0.4”) at yield but was only deformed 65 mm
(2.5”) when testing was halted. Barb embedment points on the medium fill wall were not
enlarged or chipped.

EVALUATION

Shear box testing of bags with non-cohesive sand fill resulted in small slits to the container
fabric at barb points (Vadgama 2010, 40). Most barb embedment points in the weak fill
sample were not damaged and no fabric at barbs was cut, indicating that dried soil masses of
weak ±1.0 Mpa (145 psi) fill can transmit some stresses from barbed wire. CE earthbag walls
for small buildings in low seismic risk levels may not need minimum fill strengths as high as
codes require for earthen block walls.
When earthbag wall fill is well dried, partial bags and small cuts to bag fabric do not appear
to influence wall strength. Bags in the current samples were not displaced during testing
where they only partially surrounded an earthen fill mass. Fill was not damaged where bags
were cut. The fabric had been cut in alignment with the panel itself, and cracks in the fill all
extended across the walls. Although the serious flaws of these two samples may have
reduced sample strengths, results prove that unlike civil engineering soil bags (Xu et al.
2008), CE earthbag wall shear strength is not based primarily on container fabric tensile
strength.
8
The weak fill sample rebars flexed but did not bend and the wall warped by incremental
sliding at all bedjoints.
The medium fill samples’ damp fill inclusion had low cohesion and a weak bond with the
rebar which prevented it from resisting any forces higher than yield. The loss of fill in the
upper course interfered with the ability of the rebar and/or the meshed plaster (Figure 6b)
to transmit stresses downward. The medium fill sample rebar near the piston was bent in
the upper courses (Figure 6c) and most sliding at bed-joints ocurred in the upper wall.

Figure 6: Medium fill sample details (left to right): a) Collapsed fill from dampness. b) Severely
cracked plaster held in place by light mesh. c) Rebar near pressure after testing.

Compared as force per length of samples, current cut-bag samples showed higher yield
strengths as well as lower overall yield deformation values than previous samples, even
though many used stronger soil as well as different reinforcement (Table 3). Comparing
similar 1.8 Mpa (260 psi) fill soil samples, cut-bag reinforcement increased yield strength by
22% over inserted rebar and by 82% over external rebar and with only 34% as much
deformation as inserted rebar. Considering that this data compares the average of the
current samples which includes the defective medium fill sample this strength and stiffness
improvement is significant. Cut-bag’s higher strength may also be even more understated in
comparison to conventional wall techniques since most builders use overlapped separate
rebars that previous unit tests indicate may be 30% weaker (Stouter 2020) than the use of
full-length rebar.

9
 Table 3: Horizontal load in-plane performance of 0.9 m2 contained earth samples at 1:1 aspect ratio

Sample type Yield Yield defor- Max. Max. defor-

strength mation mm strength mation mm
kN/m (plf) (“) kN/m (plf) (“)
Single plastered samples
1 7.9 (541) 41 (1.6) 12.2 (836) 137 (5.4)
2.2 MPa (320 psi) fill inserted rebar
1, 3 4.8 (329) 21 (0.8) 9.1 (624) 91 (3.6)
2.2 MPa (320 psi) fill external rebar
1 6.0 (411) 46 (1.8) 6.9 (473) 81 (3.2)
1.8MPa (260 psi) fill inserted rebar
1 4.0 (274) 8 (0.3) 8.0 (548) 51 (2.0)
1.8 MPa (260 psi) fill external rebar
2, 4 7.3 (500) 16 (0.6) 7.3 (500) 65 (2.6)
1.8 MPa (260 psi) fill cut-bag
2 5.8 (397) 19 (0.7) 9.6 (658) 119 (4.7)
1.0 MPa (150 psi) fill cut-bag
1 2 3
(Stouter 2020) Current samples Defective sample lacked barbed wire on the second course from
4
the top. Defective sample failed early when small damp repair inclusion collapsed.

Although these sample sets all lack exact duplicates, by combining results from samples with
some similar attributes, average performance of certain characteristics can be contrasted
(Table 4).

Table 4: Horizontal load in-plane performance of 0.9 m2 contained earth samples at 1:1 aspect ratio

Sample type Yield strength Yield defor- Max. strength Max. defor-
kN/m (plf) mation mm (“) kN/m (plf) mation mm (“)
Average of two samples
2 6.4 (439) 18 (0.7) 9.6 (658) 109 (4.3)
Cut-bag rebar, avg. 1.4 MPa fill
1 7.0 (480) 44 (1.7) 9.6 (658) 109 (4.3)
Inserted rebar, avg. 2.0 Mpa fill
1 4.4 (301) 15 (0.6) 8.6 (589) 71 (2.8)
External rebar, avg. 2.0 Mpa fill
1 6.4 (439) 31 (1.2) 10.7 (733) 114 (4.5)
2.2 Mpa fill (external & ins.)
1 5.0 (343) 27 (1.1) 7.4 (507) 66 (2.6)
1.8 MPa fill (external & ins.)
1 2
(Stouter 2020) Current samples

10
Comparisons of averages derived from similar pairs support the evidence from single
samples that cut-bag improves performance significantly. The averages from previous
research showed that with external and inserted reinforcement 28% weaker fill reduced
strength 28% at yield and 45% at maximum. If 28% weaker strength fill than 1.8 Mpa (260
psi) fill reduced cut-bag performance by the same proportion, strength values for the current
research could be expected near 5 kN/m (343 plf) at yield and 5.3 kN/m (363 plf) at
maximum. The strength improvement of 45% at yield and 12% at maximum in comparison
to external base-anchored rebar of 43% stronger soil fill is even more compelling.

CONCLUSIONS

For the purposes of structural design, the fact that averages of these two samples with cut-
bag embedded and base-anchored reinforcement was both stronger and stiffer at yield than
1.8 Mpa (260 psi) samples with 33% stronger soil merits further research.
Resilient earthbag structures that ‘exhibit highly plastic behaviour’ (Pelly) need
reinforcement to decrease deformation within acceptable limits for structural design in
moderate or high seismic risk locations. Previous research showed that better
interconnection of rebar and stronger bonds between dried soil fill and steel reinforcement
bridging courses are both important for better wall in-plane performance (Stouter 2020).
Current cut-bag samples showed even more improvement despite flaws in sample
construction.
This research also disproves early assumptions that similar to civil engineering soil bags with
non-cohesive fill fabric ‘tearing strength determines how much shear load can be transferred
to the barbwire’... (Croft 2011). CE earthbag with dried cohesive fill can have significant in-
plane wall strength even without intact containers. The current weak fill sample’s strong
performance despite lack of confinement by fabric indicated that cohesion of the dried fill
mass allows transfer of stresses from barbed wire to soil masses and that fabric forms are
not critical in stress transfer when dried soil masses have 1 Mpa (145 psi) or higher
unconfined compressive strengths. Large damaged areas of containers can reduce wall
performance if breaking or crushing of the dried soil fill masses occurs at the container
damage locations, but these tests show no evidence that small cuts to container fabric of CE
earthbag walls will reduce wall performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

All elements of earthbag walls are structurally significant, including those that connect
plaster mesh to foundations, to bond beams and to walls. Builders cannot always time
construction and plastering processes as desired, so UV-resistant materials are
11
recommended for both containers and tie cords or strapping to connect plaster mesh to wall
systems. For more predictable longevity, use hooks of heavy wire that reach from inside the
walls to the exterior so that cord and/ or wires attaching plaster can be replaced in the
future.
Future testing equipment should include lateral bracing at the wall tops to reduce sample
twisting and results should be recorded to differentiate more separate points of force and
deformation.
Because cut-bag technique is easy to build and shows more stiffness and higher yield
strengths than inserted separate reinforcement, it should receive further research. The
current tests used earthen plaster to establish minimums. Future tests should compare
panels with and without the same plaster and panels with cement stucco.
If future larger scale testing proves actual wall panel strength of CE earthbag with
interconnected embedded reinforcement, builders may be able to use lower strength fill
with better interconnected reinforcement for some buildings in some moderate or low
seismic risk areas.

REFERENCES

Comartin, Craig, Svetlana Brzev, Farzad Naiem, Marjorie Greene, Marcial Blondet, Sheldon
Cherry, Dina D’ayala, Mohammed Farsi, Sudhir K. Jain, Jelena Pantelic, Laura Samant, and
Mauro Sassu. 2004. “A Challenge to Earthquake Engineering Professionals,” Earthquake
Spectra, 20 (November): 1049–1056. doi: 10.1193/1.1809.
Croft, Chris. 2011. “Structural Resistance of Earthbag Housing Subject to Horizontal Loading.”
Masters of Engineering, Bath University, 2011.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Structural-Resistance-of-Earthbag-Housing-
Subject-%3A-Croft/64dc03097a2fef1e41047ad787faecce85c0917c.
Geiger, Owen. 2010. ‘Reinforced Earthbag Specifications,’ Mother Earth News online.
https://www.motherearthnews.com/diy/reinforced-earthbag-specifications
Hart, Kelly. 2018. Essential Earthbag Construction: the Complete Step-by-Step Guide.
Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
NMRLD. 2015. 2015 New Mexico Earthen Building Materials Code. Title 14 Chapter 7 Part 4,
http://164.64.110.134/parts/title14/14.007.0004.html. New Mexico Regulation and
Licensing Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Pelly, Ralph. 2009. “Plastic Limit Analysis of Earthbag Structures.” Masters of Engineering,
Bath University, 2009. https://www.istructe.org/journal/volumes/volume-89-(published-in-
2011)/issue-13/plastic-limit-analysis-of-earthbag-structures/.

12
Presley, DeAnn, and Steve Thien. 2008. “Estimating Soil Texture by Feel.” Manhattan,
Kansas. https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF2852.pdf.
Rao, K. S. Nanjundra, S. Raghunath and K. S. Jagadish. 2004. “Containment Reinforcement
for Earthquake Resistant Masonry Buildings.” 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 1968. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_1968.pdf.
Rodriguez, David A., Jeff Stein, and Taylor Darby. 2018. “Cyclic Testing of Reinforced
Earthbag Walls.” Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University, 2018.
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/ceng_senior/68/.
Ross, Brandon, Michael Willis, Peter Datin and Ryan Scott. 2013. “Wind Load Test of
Earthbag Wall,” Buildings, 3(August): 532–544. doi: 10.3390/buildings3030532.
Standards New Zealand. 1998. NZS 4298: Materials and Workmanship for Earth Buildings.
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Code Council.
Stouter, Patricia. 2020. “60% Scale Contained Earth Earthbag Shear Performance, revised.”
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Build Simple Inc..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352979614_60_Scale_Contained_Earth_Earthbag_Shear_
Performance.
Stouter, Patricia. 2021a. “B102 Build Standard Grade Resilient CE.” Albuquerque, New
Mexico: Build Simple Inc.. https:// www.buildsimple.org/resources/
Stouter, Patricia. 2021b. “B104 Extra Strength Details for Resilient CE.” Albuquerque, New
Mexico: Build Simple Inc.. https:// www.buildsimple.org/resources/
Strong, Noah, Ethan Jensen, and Emil Huebner-Schurch. 2018. “Analysis of Structural
Components During Cyclical Loading of Steel Reinforced Earthbag Construction.” Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University.
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=ceng_senior.
Vadgama, Nikul. 2010. “A material and structural analysis of earthbag housing.” Masters of
Engineering, Bath University, 2011. http://earthbagbuilding.com/pdf/vadgama.pdf.
Xu, Yongfu, Jian Huang, Yanjun Du and De-an Sun. 2008. “Earth reinforcement using
soilbags.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26 (February): 279- 289.
https://www.academia.edu/11787621/Earth_reinforcement_using_soilbags.

13