STABILIZATION OF CLAY SOIL WITH RICE HUSK, RICE

FIBRE AND CEMENT

(A CASE STUDY OF KARDI TOWN)

BY

ABDULRASHEED MUHAMMAD KARDI

REQUIMENT FOR THE 2020 PROMOTION

DECEMBER, 2020

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful, all praise is due to Allah (SWT) the

creator, cherisher, sustainer of the world and master of the Day of Judgment. And may His

peace, benedictions be upon His final prophet, his families, companions and those who follow

his teachings till the day of resurrection. I am most grateful to Allah for his infinite mercy and

bounties that have been bestowed upon me and the opportunity given to me to embark on this

project work.

I want to acknowledge the efforts of the following members Tech. Kabiru Dangoma, Tech.

Danjuma Noma and Tech. Muhammad Tanko Daraha for their support during the entire project.

I say thank you all

ii
 ABSTRACT

This study captures the collection of data through laboratory tests that were carried out in order
to obtain some engineering properties for the soil sample. The test carried out yields the
following results: soil classification (sieve analysis) with coefficient of uniformity (Cu) = 4 and
coefficient of curvature (Cc) = 2, with a shrinkage limit (SL) =19.51%, the percentage passing
sieve 200 is 282g (i.e. the percentage for silt and clay). This implies that the soil is well graded.
Atterberg limits with a liquid limit (LL) = 28%, plastic limit (PL) = 15 % and a plastic index
(PI) =13%. Compressive strength test was also carried out where the control mix has a
compressive strength of 0.33N/mm2 and also compressive strength for sample with stabilizers of
Rice husk and cement at 5%, 10% and 15% are 0.33N/mm 2, 0.27N/mm2 and 0.33N/mm2, Rice
fibre and cement at 5%, 10%,and 15% are 0.77N/mm 2, 1.03 N/mm2 1.1 N/mm2 ,Rice husk, fibre
and cement at 5%,10% and 15% are 0.33 N/mm2 ,0.23 N/mm2 and 0.27 N/mm2, respectively.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page - - - - - - - - - - i

Approval page - - - - - - - - - ii

Certification - - - - - - - - - - iii

Dedication - - - - - - - - - - iv

Acknowledgement - - - - - - - - - v

Abstract - - - - - - - - - - vi

Table of contents - - - - - - - - - vii

List of tables - - - - - - - - - - x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study - - - - - - - - 1

1.2 Statement of Problem- - - - - - - - 2

1.3 Significance of the study - - - - - - - 3

1.4 Aim and objectives - - - - - - - - 3

1.4.1 Aim - - - - - - - - - - 3

1.4.2 Objectives - - - - - - - - - 4

1.5 Scope and Limitation - - - - - - - - 4

1.5.2 Limitation - - - - - - - - - 4

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Literature Review - - - - - - - - 5

2.2 Rice Husk - - - - - - - - - 6

iv
2.2.1 Production - - - - - - - - - 7

2.2.2 Uses of Rice Husk - - - - - - - - 7

2.3 Rice Fiber - - - - - - - - - 8

2.3.1 Benefits of Straw Bale Construction - - - - - - 9

2.4 Cement - - - - - - - - - 9

2.4.1 The Raw Material of Portland cement - - - - - 11

2.4.2 The Chemical Composition of Portland cement - - - - 11

2.4.3 Pozzolanas - - - - - - - - - 13

2.5 Factors Affecting the Strength of Stabilized Soil - - - - 13

2.5.1 Organic Matter - - - - - - - - 13

2.6 Clay Minerals - - - - - - - - - 14

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 Materials and Methods - - - - - - - 16

3.1 Materials - - - - - - - - - 16

3.2. Methods - - - - - - - - - 17

3.2.1 Preparation of specimen - - - - - - - 17

3.2.2 Experimental Procedure - - - - - - - 17

3.2.1 Preparation of samples - - - - - - - 18

3.2.2 Casting of Earth Cubes (EC) - - - - - - - 18

3.2.3 Comparison of cubes Strength - - - - - - 18

v
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Results Analysis and Discussion - - - - - - 19

4.1 Results of Sieve Analysis of the clay sample - - - - - 19

4.3 Results of Compressive Strength of Earth Cubes - - - - 22

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations - - - - - - 31

5.1 Conclusion - - - - - - - - - 31

5.2 Recommendations - - - - - - - - 31

References - - - - - - - - - 33

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2: Oxide Composition of Portland cement - - - - 12

Table 3.1: Summary of the Stabilized Earth Cubes of Cement and Rice Fibre (SEC) 17

Table 3.2: Summary of Stabilized earth cubes of Cement and Rice Husk (SEC) 18

Table 3.3: Summary of Stabilized earth cubes of Cement, Rice Husk and Rice Fibre
(SEC) - - - - - - - - 18

Table 4.1: Result for Sieve Analysis - - - - - - 19

Table 4.1.2 Atterberg Limits - - - - - - - 20

Table 4.3: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 0% stabilizers 22

Table 4.4: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RH - 23

Table 4.5: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RH - 24

Table 4.6: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RH - 24

Table 4.7: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RF 25

Table 4.8: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RF - 26

Table 4.8: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RF - 26

Table 4.9: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RH and RF 27

Table 4.10: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RH and RF 28

Table 4.11: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RH and RF 28

vii
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

1.1 Background of study

Generally soil stabilization is a method of improving soil properties by blending and mixing other

materials. Improvements includes increasing the dry unit weight, bearing capabilities, volume changes,

the performance of in situ subsoils, sands.(Firoozi, 2017).

The urgent need to develop suitable and affordable housing is born as a consequence of the fact

that over one billion people in the world, most of who live in the developing nations, are either

homeless or live in very poor housing (Namango, 2006).

Earth building is the most common method of making cheap accommodation since soil is readily

available almost anywhere on the planet. Earth also called soil (Craig, 2004) and scientifically

referred to as loam, is a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and sometimes larger aggregates like gravel

and sand. To give an idea of how big the earth building field is, it is observed that, one third of

the world’s population live in a home of unbaked earth (Namango, 2006). Roughly 50% of the

population of developing countries, the majority of rural populations, and at least 20% of urban

and suburban populations live in earth homes. Unbaked earth homes in many developing nations

are basically mud houses constructed by use of soil (earth). The application of earth for building

of homes in different forms is well known. (Namango, 2006) classifies such methods as follows:

i. Daub - moist mud placed between a framework of posts and poles

ii. Cob - the cob procedure consists of stacking earth balls on top of one another and

lightly tamping them with hands or feet to form monolithic walls.

1
 iii. Rammed earth - continuous walls formed by ramming moist mud between movable

wooden shuttering

iv. Adobe blocks - made by placing wet mud in forms and allowed to dry

v. Earth blocks (EB) - made by compressing moist soil in a press.

Cob, Rammed and Earth blocks are the most commonly used method here in Nigeria. In view of

that, this study proposes the use of available local raw materials to improve and develop new

earth block building materials as a means to positively impact on the shelter conditions in Kebbi

State (kardi town).

1.2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The genesis of this research work is as a result of the mass collapse of earth houses in kardi town of

Birnin kebbi local government. The walls of mud houses made from wet soils or earth are unable to

withstand harsh rainy seasons.

Cracks appear on the walls due to extreme shrinkage. Cracks appear because the soil particles are not

held together with sufficient bonding strength. Given that moisture from rainfall is the main cause of

cracking and other durability problems associated with earth blocks used in constructing the houses. In

line with this, it’s of great importance to investigate the possibility of stabilizing/improving the soil with

cheap, easily available and renewable raw materials here in Kebbi State.

Clay soils are usually stiff when they are dry and give up their stiffness as they become saturated. Soft

clays are associated with low compressive strength and excessive settlement. This reduction in strength

is due to moisture leads severe damage to buildings and foundations(Firoozi,2017).

The need to provide more housing for the world’s poor societies cannot be overemphasized. Shelter is,

after all, a basic requirement of human being. As concerns the developing nations, it is already

2
recognized that the huge housing requirement cannot be met with industrially produced building

materials (Minke, 2000). Indeed, 25% of the world’s population does not have any fixed abode, while

50% of the urban population lives in slums (Kerali, 2001).In spite of the many efforts such as Global

strategy for housing by the year 2000 declaration by the UN, the shelter issue remains a major problem,

and hence there is need to look at possible solutions including scientific research.

It is most likely that the majority of the people in the developing world will, out of necessity, continue to

live in mud (earth) houses, consequently, ways of improving on this traditionally built mud houses are a

subject of concern to many researchers (Namango,2006).

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Soil Stabilization serve as the basis upon which the engineering properties of this clay soil will be

improved and at the same time make the houses made from this very clay be more resistant and stable

against harshy rainfall during the raining season.

1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 AIM

The main aim of this research work is to improve the strength of earth blocks (EB) use for housing

through the stabilization of the earth with locally available materials (i.e. Rice husk, rice fiber, and

cement)

1.4.2 OBJECTIVES

The prime objectives of this research are:

3
 i. To increase the strength characteristics of soil (earth blocks) under harsh rainy condition.

ii. Determine the compressive strength of control, 5%, 10% and !5% respectively

iii. To make use of the locally available material in improving the strength of soil.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

1.5.1 Scope

This research work is restricted to the improving the compressive strength of earth blocks (EB) by

stabilization process with recourse to laboratory investigation.

1.5.2 Limitation

The research is limited to the stabilization of clay soil used for earth blocks construction in Kardi town of

Birnin Kebbi, using rice husk, rice fibre and cement as stabilizers.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

2.1 Literature Review

Stabilization involves the use of stabilizing agents (binder materials) in weak soils to improve the

geotechnical properties of material such as compressibility, strength, permeability and durability. The

components of stabilization technology include soils and or soil minerals and stabilizing agent or binders

(cementitious materials).

Earth structures have been continuously used in construction from prehistory until nowadays (33% of

worldwide houses), due to their low cost and easy production, without high energy embodied materials.

They were constructed with various techniques and materials which depicted apart from the regional

traditions in building, the construction philosophy of the past, inspired from the respect to environment

and saving of materials and energy resources. In many towns of the South East Europe there is a stock of

earth block houses of vernacular architecture. Most of them have been abandoned and destroyed or

reconstructed with concrete or cement based materials, altering completely their original

characteristics. Nowadays, there is not a unified policy for the Preservation of this significant part of the

common European Cultural Heritage due to:

i. The tradition of manufacturing earth masonry has been vanished

ii. The lack of scientific knowledge regarding the restoration and repair materials of

earth structures by using adequate and mild Interventions.

iii. The lack of regulations regarding the proper compatible materials and techniques.

However, the consolidation, upgrading and reuse of these earth masonry houses in the urban plan of

modern cities, is of great importance for the cultural identity and development of them. In the paper the

main characteristics of these houses have been recorded, as well as the main damages and problems

5
they confront. Then a series of techniques and materials compatible to the existing ones is proposed and

commented properly from the aspect of performance and cost effectiveness (Papayi annil, 2017).

Earth structures have been continuously used in construction from prehistory until nowadays (33% of

worldwide houses are still built with earth), due to their low cost and easy production, without high

energy embodied material. In Kebbi State there are villages and in some part of Kebbi State like Tudun

wada, Nassarawa areas inhabited in earth buildings. They are considered as cultural heritage of

vernacular architecture, since they are constructed with earth blocks and mud-mortars of local raw

materials and by using traditional techniques. Modern engineers are not accustomed to this type of

buildings and there is lack of scientific knowledge and experience in repairing and upgrading them.

Grouting is an old and widely used irreversible technique for consolidating historic masonries by filling

cracks and voids inside the mass of earth masonry. Most of the grouts used in the past for historic

masonries consolidation were based on cement, by which their strengthening was achieved. However,

the introduced strong cement changed significantly the behavior of the masonries’ grouted parts,

regarding deformability and response to hydrothermal loading, as well as the porosity properties and the

moisture movement (Papayiannil 2017).

2.2 Rice Husk

Rice husk are hard protecting coverings of grains of rice. In addition to protecting rice during growing

season, rice husk can be use as building material, fertilizer, insulation material (Bronzeoak, 2003).

2.2.1 Production

Rice husk are coatings of seeds, or grains, of rice. The husk protects the seed during the growing season,

since it is formed from hard materials, including opaline silica and lignin. The husk is mostly indigestible

to humans. Winnowing use to separate the rice from husk is to put the whole rice into a pan and throw

6
it into the while the wind blows. The light husks are blown away while the heavy rice falls back into the

pan. Later pestles and a simple machine called a rice pounder were developed to remove husks. In 1885

the modern rice hulling machine was invented in Brazil. During the milling processes, the husks are

removed from the raw grain to reveal the whole brown rice, which may then sometimes be milled

further to remove the bran layer, resulting in white rice.

2.2.2 Uses of Rice Husk

Rice husk as:

i. Ash

ii. Toothpaste

iii. Fertilizer and Substrate

iv. Pillow Stuffing

v. Insulating Material

Ash: Combustion of rice husks give rise to rice husk ash (RHA). This is a potential source of amorphous

reactive silica, which has a variety of applications in material science. Most of the ash is use in the

production of Portland cement. When burnt completely, the ash can have a Blaine number of as much

as 3,600 compared to the Blaine number of cement ( between 2,800 and 3,000), meaning it is finer than

cement. Silica is the basic component of sand, which is used with cement for plastering and concreting.

This fine silica will provide a very compact concrete (Coxworth and Ben 2017).

Toothpaste: In some countries like India in a town called Kerala charcoal from Rice husks were used for

over centuries in cleaning teeth, before toothpaste replaced it (Coxworth and Ben 2017).

Fertilizer and Substrate: Rice husk can be composted, but their high lignin content can make this slow

process. Sometimes earthworms used to accelerate the process. Using vermin composting techniques,

husk can be converted to fertilizer in about four months. Rice husks that are parboiled are used as

7
substrate or medium for gardening, including certain hydrocultures. The husk decay over time allows

drainage and retain less water (Coxworth and Ben 2017).

Pillow stuffing: Rice husks are used as pillow stuffing. The pillow are loosely stuffed and considered

therapeutic as they retain the shape of the head.

Insulting Material: Rice husks themselves are a class of thermal insulating material because they are

difficult to burn and less likely allow moisture to propagate mold and fungi (Coxworth and Ben 2017).

2.3 Rice Fiber

Straw is a natural fiber that can last many thousands of years under certain conditions. Under typical

conditions straw will slowly degrade as do all natural fibers materials like wood, paper, cotton fabric,

etc.

The rate at which this happens is highly dependent on the conditions under which the straw is

stored, primarily moisture content and temperature. With proper attention to moisture control, a

straw bale structure should be able to last as long as any conventional wood framed home

(Ashour, T. and Wu, W, 2010)

2.3.1 Benefits of Straw Bale Construction

A straw bale building is easy to modify, flexible enough to be used in a variety of ways, solid

and substantial, durable over time, and easy to maintain. In addition, it requires only simple tools

and unspecialized labour, which can be easily acquired and affordable in most locations around

the world. Straw bale constructions have different benefits such as aesthetics and comfort, ease

of construction, energy efficiency, environmental benefits, sustainability and seismic resistance

(Murray, 2005).

2.4 Cement

8
Cement is the oldest binding agent since the invention of soil stabilization technology in 1960’s.

It may be considered as primary stabilizing agent or hydraulic binder because it can be used

alone to bring about the stabilizing action required (Sherwood, 1993; Euro Soil Stab, 2002).

Cement reaction is not dependent on soil minerals, and the key role is its reaction with water that

may be available in any soil (Euro Soil Stab, 2002). This can be the reason why cement is used

to stabilize a wide range of soils. Numerous types of cement are available in the market; these

are ordinary Portland cement, blast furnace cement, sulfate resistant cement and high alumina

cement. Usually the choice of cement depends on type of soil to be treated and desired final

strength.

Hydration process is a process under which cement reaction takes place. The process starts when

cement is mixed with water and other components for a desired application resulting into

hardening phenomena. The hardening (setting) of cement will enclose soil as glue, but it will not

change the structure of soil (Euro Soil Stab, 2002). The hydration reaction is slow proceeding

from the surface of the cement grains and the centre of the grains may remain unhydrated

(Sherwood, 1993). Cement hydration is a complex process with a complex series of unknown

chemical reactions (MacLaren and White, 2003). However, this process can be affected by

i. Presence of foreign matters or impurities

ii. Water-cement ratio

iii. Curing temperature

iv. Presence of additives

v. Specific surface of the mixture.

Depending on factor(s) involved, the ultimate effect on setting and gain in strength of cement stabilized

soil may vary. Therefore, this should be taken into account during mix design in order to achieve the

desired strength. Calcium silicates, C3S and C2S are the two main cementitious properties of ordinary

9
Portland cement responsible for strength development (Al-Tabbaa and Perera, 2005; Euro Soil Stab,

2002). Calcium hydroxide is another hydration product of Portland cement that further reacts with

pozzolanic materials available in stabilized soil to produce further cementitious material (Sherwood,

1993). Normally the amount of cement used is small but sufficient to improve the engineering

properties of the soil and further improved cation exchange of clay. Cement stabilized soils have the

following improved properties:

i. Decreased cohesiveness (Plasticity)

ii. Decreased volume expansion or compressibility

iii. Increased strength (PCA-IS 411, 2003).

The cementitious properties of lime in mortars and concrete have been known since early historic times.

The Romans used lime concretes and developed pozzolanic cements of lime and certain volcanic earths.

Lime mortars and concretes continued to be used in the middle Ages.

1824, Joseph Aspdin from Leeds city - England, produced a powder made from the calcined mixture of

limestone and clay. He called it "Portland Cement", because when it hardened it produced a material

similar to stones from the quarries near Portland Island in UK. Although the method f making cement

has been improved, the basic process has remained same. Cement production in Turkey was first started

in Darıca Cement Factory in 1913 with a production capacity of 20,000 ton/year. Today the annual

cement production in Turkey is more than 25 million tons from more than 50 cement factories all over

the country (Sherwood, 1993).

2.4.1 The Raw Material of Portland cement

(CaCO3 > 75% such as limestone, marl, chalk),

1- Calcareous rocks

2- Argillaceous rocks (CaCO3 < 40% such as clay and shale),

10
 3- Argillocalcareous rocks (40-75% CaCO3 such as clayey limestone, clayey marl).

Materials from any two of these groups may be used for Portland cement production providing that

they must contain, in proper form and proportions of lime, silica and alumina.

2.4.2 The Chemical Composition of Portland cement

The raw materials used in the manufacture of Portland cement consist mainly of lime, silica,

alumina and iron oxide. The oxides account for over 90% of the cement. The oxide composition

of (ordinary) Portland cement may be expressed as follows:

11
Table 2.2 Oxide Composition of Portland cement

i. SO3 (sulfur trioxide): Comes from gypsum. The amount of gypsum (CaSO4˙2H2O) can

be approximated by multiplying the amount of SO3 by 2.15.

ii. MgO (magnesia): To control the detrimental expansion, MgO is limited to 5%

(expansion due to the hydration of free MgO in hardened concrete).

iii. Free CaO: Same as free MgO, free CaO is undesirable. Because these oxides hydrate

much later than other compounds of cement. Besides, they show a large volume

expansion after hydration resulting in disintegration of hardened concrete.

Main Chemical Compounds of Portland Cement

Oxides interact with each other and form more complex compounds. The measurement of the amount

of these major compounds by conventional chemical methods is not possible.

Portland cements are composed of four basic chemical compounds shown with their names, chemical

formulas, and abbreviations:

Tricalcium silicate = 3CaO·SiO2 = C3S

Dicalcium silicate = 2CaO·SiO2 = C2S

12
 Tricalcium aluminate = 3CaO. Al2O3 = C3A

Tetracalcium alumino ferrite = 4CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3 = C4AF

2.4.3 Pozzolanas

Pozzolanas are siliceous and aluminous materials, which in itself possess little or no cementitious

value, but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture, chemically react with

calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperature to form compounds possessing cementitious

properties (ASTM 595). Clay minerals such as kaolinite, montmorillonite, mica and illite are

pozzolanic in nature. Artificial pozzolanas such as ashes are products obtained by heat treatment

of natural materials containing pozzolanas such as clays, shales and certain silicious rocks. Plants

when burnt, silica taken from soils as nutrients remains behind in the ashes contributing to

pozzolanic element. Rice husk ash and rice straw and bagasse are rich in silica and make an

excellent pozzolana (Sherwood, 1993).

2.5 Factors Affecting the Strength of Stabilized Soil

Presence of organic matters, sulphates, sulphides and carbon dioxide in the stabilized soils may

contribute to undesirable strength of stabilized materials (Netterberg and Paige-Green, 1984,

Sherwood, 1993).

2.5.1 Organic Matter

In many cases, the top layers of most soil constitute large amount of organic matters. However, in well

drained soils organic matter may extend to a depth of 1.5 m (Sherwood, 1993). Soil organic matters

react with hydration product e.g. calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) resulting into low pH value.

13
2.6 Clay Minerals

Chemical weathering results in the formation of groups of crystalline particles of colloidal size (<0:002

mm) known as clay minerals. The clay mineral kaolinite, for example, is formed by the breakdown of

feldspar by the action of water and carbon dioxide. Most clay mineral particles are of ‘plate-like’ form

having a high specific surface (i.e. a high surface area to mass ratio) with the result that their structure is

influenced significantly by surface forces. Long ‘needle-shaped’ particles can also occur but are

comparatively rare. The basic structural units of most clay minerals are a silicon–oxygen tetrahedron

and an aluminium–hydroxyl octahedron, as illustrated in Figure 1.2(a). There are valency imbalances in

both units, resulting in net negative charges. The basic units, therefore, do not exist in isolation but

combine to form sheet structures. The tetrahedral units combine by the sharing of oxygen ions to form a

silica sheet. The octahedral units combine through shared hydroxyl ions to form a gibbsite sheet. The

silica sheet retains a net negative charge but the gibbsite sheet is electrically neutral. Silicon and

aluminium may be partially replaced by other elements, this being known as isomorphous substitution,

resulting in further charge imbalance. The sheet structures are represented symbolically in Figure 1.2(b).

Layer structures then form by the bonding of a silica sheet with either one or two gibbsite sheets. Clay

mineral particles consist of stacks of these layers, with different forms of bonding between the layers.

The structures of the principal clay minerals are represented in Figure 1.3. Kaolinite consists of a

structure based on a single sheet of silica combined with a single sheet of gibbsite. There is very limited

isomorphous substitution. The combined silica–gibbsite sheets are held together relatively strongly by

hydrogen bonding. A kaolinite particle may consist of over 100 stacks. Illite has a basic structure

consisting of a sheet of gibbsite between and combined with two sheets of silica (Smith, 1990).

14
Figure 2.3. Clay minerals: (a) kaolinite, (b) illite and (c) montmorillonite.

CHAPTER THREE

15
 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 MATERIALS

The materials used in this project work include clay soil, Sokoto Ordinary Portland cement (SOPC), Rice

straw (fiber) and Rice husk.

Rice Straw
Cement

Rice Husk Clay soil

1. Cement

The cement used in this research work is ordinary Portland cement (OPC)

16
3.2. METHODS

3.2.1 Preparation of specimen

Addition of about 3% water above the optimum moisture content provided a composition that would

gain adequate block density on drying. In all cases, 17% water was used. Cement and sand was

thoroughly mixed and water was added in order to get the control mix. In the process of stabilization,

5%, 10% and 15% Cement, Rice Straw (fiber) and Rice husk respectively was spread over the clay soil-

cement mixture and diligently mixed through addition of water to the dry ingredients was done by

pouring over the soil. In order to ensure uniform distribution of input elements within the mix, only

amounts or quantities sufficient to fill up the double mould were mixed in each batch.

3.2.2 Experimental Procedure

This section gives the description of the procedure for all the laboratory experiments carried out in this

project. Atterberg limit test was carried out to determine the level of consistency of the soil and also

sieve analysis to determine the grain size distribution at Waziri Umaru Ultra modern workshop Birnin

Kebbi.

Table 3.1 Summary of the Stabilized Earth Cubes of Cement and Rice Fibre (SEC)

Control Cube 5% Cement and Rice 10% Cement and 15% Cement and

fibre Rice Fibre Rice Fibre

3 3 3 3

17
Table 3.2 Summary of Stabilized earth cubes of Cement and Rice Husk (SEC)

Control Cubes 5% Cement and Rice 10% Cement and 15% Cement and

Husk Rice Husk Rice Husk

3 3 3 3

Table 3.3 Summary of Stabilized earth cubes of Cement, Rice Husk and Rice Fiber (SEC)

Control Cubes 5% Cement, Rice 10% Cement ,Rice 15% Cement, Rice

Husk and Fiber Husk and Fiber husk and Fiber

3 3 3 3

3.2.1 Preparation of samples.

Clay soil, cement, rice fiber, rice husk and water were thoroughly mixed manually by hand on a

bare floor in a dry state. Proportioning of soil to the stabilizers as well as water was done by

volume method.

3.2.2 Casting of Earth Cubes (EC).

Earth blocks were casted using a 100mm × 100mm mold, where three (3) cubes where casted for

control (i.e. Earth blocks with zero stabilizer), three (3) Earth cubes containing 5% of stabilizers

and also for that containing 10% and 15% stabilizers respectively.

3.2.3 Comparison of cubes Strength.

The comparison is done by considering the mechanical strength of each Earth cube.

18
 CHAPTER FOUR

Results Analysis and Discussion

This chapter presents the result of the Laboratory test that was carried out in this research work.

Sieve analysis and Atterberg limits are the test and the result and discussion is as follows:

4.1 Results of Sieve Analysis of the clay sample

Tables 4.1 present the results of sieve analysis for classification and gradation. A total mass of 218g was

used for sieving in the laboratory.

From Table 4.1, 47.4g of the sample is retained on BS sieve size 9.5mm. Similarly, a total mass of 46.2g

was retained on sieve size 3.35mm and 73% of the sample passed through the same sieve as well.

Table 4.1 Result for Sieve Analysis

Sieve size Mass Retained % Mass Cumulative % % passing

Retained Retained

9.5 47.40 21.65 21.65 78.35

3.35 46.20 2.11 42.76 57.29

2.0 15.40 7.04 49.80 50.20

1.18 13.10 5.98 55.78 44.22

0.600 15.40 7.04 62.82 37.18

0.300 19.40 8.86 71.68 28.32

0.150 29.50 13.48 85.16 14.84

0.063 22.90 10.46 95.62 4.38

Figure 4.1

19
From the graph D60 =1.29, D30 =0.22 and D10 = 0.1

D60 4
Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) = = =¿ 4
D10 0.1

Coefficient of Curvature (Cc) = D302/D60×D10 = 0.32/4× 0.1 = 2

Percentage passing sieve 200 = 282g

4.1.2 Atterberg Limits

Table 4.2 is a result summary of Atterberg Limits, from the result liquid limit (LL) is 28% with

an average plastic limit (PL) of 15% .From the result the plastic index

(PI) will therefore be LL – PL i.e. 28- 15 = 13%.

Results for Atterberg Limits

Type of no      

Type of test LL LL LL LL PL PL

Number of blows    

Container NO:      

Wt of wet soil      

+container (g)

Wt of dry soil      

+container(g)

Wt of container(g)      

Wt of water(g)      

Wt of dry soil(g)      

Moisture content (%)      

Average plastic limit 

(%)

Table 4.2

20
 45
40
35
30
number blows

25
20
15
10
5
0
1 10 100
moisture content (%)

Liquid limit = 28%

Plastic limit = 15%

Plastic index =13%

Shrinkage Limit (SL)

Initial Volume of soil in a saturated state = 16.2cm3

Final volume of soil in a dry state = 10.8cm3

Initial mass in a saturated state = 44.6g

Final mass in a dry state = 32.8g

M 1−M 2
SL = ( ¿ ×100−¿
M2

WhereM1 = 44.6g Vi = 16.2cm3 ƿw=1 g /¿cm3

M2 = 32.8g Vf = 10.8cm3

44.6−32.8
SL = ¿ × 100−¿
32.8

SL = 35.97 -16.46 = 19.51%

4.3 Results of Compressive Strength of Earth Cubes

21
 Compressive strength results were obtained from testing 100mm  100mm Earth cubes in the laboratory

using Hydraulic Compressive Testing Machine (HCTM). Control mix samples as well as samples stabilized

with cement, Rice Husk and Rice Straw, each at 5%, 10%, and 15% were tested respectively.

Table 4.3: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 0% stabilizers

Date of Cube ID Days of Date of Cube Weight Density Crushing Compressive Average
casting curing testing Conditio in Air kg/m3 Load (kN) Strength Compressive
n (kg) N/mm2 Strength
N/mm2
7/02/2020 01 7 14/02/20 Good 1.87 1870 2 0.2
20
02 1.87 1870 2 0.2

03 1.86 1860 3 0.3 0.20

14/02/2020 01 14 21/02/20 Good 1.93 1930 3 0.3

20
02 1.85 1850 3 0.3

03 1.95 1950 3 0.3 0.30

14/02/2020 01 28 13/03/20 Good 1.73 1730 4 0.4

20
02 1.88 1880 3 0.3

03 1.83 1830 3 0.3 0.33

22
 Table 4.4: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RH

Date of Cube ID Days of Date of Cubes Weight in Density Crushing load Compressive Average
casting curing testing condition the air kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive
(kg) N/mm2 Strength
7/02/2020 RH1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.69 1690 5 0.5

RH2 1.61 1610 5 0.5

RH3 1.72 1720 3 0.3 0.43

14/02/2020 RH1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.81 1810 5 0.5

RH2 1.83 1830 5 0.5

RH3 1.80 1810 4 0.4 0.47

14/02/2020 RH1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.69 1690 3 0.3

RH2 1.69 1690 4 0.4

RH3 1.71 1710 3 0.3 0.33

23
 Table 4.5: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RH

Date of casting Cube ID Days of Date of Cubes Weight in Density Crushing load Compressive Average

curing testing condition the air kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

(kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RH1 7 14/02/202 Good 1.51 1510 5 0.5

0

RH2 1.57 1570 4 0.4

RH3 1.60 1600 4 0.4 0.43

14/02/2020 RH1 14 21/02/202 Good 1.56 1560 2 0.2

0

RH2 1.59 1590 3 0.3

RH3 1.64 1640 2 0.2 0.23

14/02/2020 RH1 28 13/03/202 Good 1.52 1520 3 0.3

0

RH2 1.55 1550 3 0.3

RH3 1.61 1610 2 0.2 0.27

24
 Table 4.6: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RH

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RH1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.46 1460 5 0.5

RH2 1.39 1390 5 0.5

RH3 1.41 1410 4 0.4 0.47

14/02/2020 RH1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.51 1510 1 0.1

RH2 1.45 1450 2 0.2

RH3 1.45 1450 2 0.2 0.17

14/02/2020 RH1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.43 1430 2 0.2

RH2 1.52 1520 3 0.3

RH3 1.61 1610 5 0.5 0.33

25
 Table 4.7: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.74 1740 3 0.3

RF2 1.72 1720 4 0.4

RF3 1.75 1750 4 04 0.37

14/02/2020 RF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.64 1640 5 0.5

RF2 1.74 1740 6 0.6

RF3 1.72 1720 6 0.6 0.57

14/02/2020 RF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.50 1500 6 0.6

RF2 1.57 1570 8 0.8

RF3 1.59 1590 9 0.9 0.77

26
 Table 4.8: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN5 Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.52 1520 5 0.5

RF2 1.49 1490 6 0.6

RF3 1.43 1430 4 0.4 0.50

14/02/2020 RF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.61 1610 8 0.8

RF2 1.61 1610 9 0.9

RF3 1.70 1700 7 0.7 0.80

14/02/2020 RF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.51 1510 10 1.0

RF2 1.51 1510 10 1.0

RF3 1.52 1520 11 1.1 1.03

27
 Table 4.8: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.48 1480 3 0.3

RF2 1.58 1580 4 0.4

RF3 1.61 1610 5 0.5 0.40

14/02/2020 RF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.58 1580 7 0.7

RF2 1.58 1580 7 0.7

RF3 1.20 1700 9 0.9 0.77

14/02/2020 RF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.42 1420 11 1.1

RF2 1.39 1390 10 1.0

RF3 1.50 1500 12 1.2 1.1

28
 Table 4.9: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 5% RH and RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RHF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.34 1340 4 0.4

RHF2 1.34 1340 4 0.4

RHF3 1.40 1400 5 0.5 0.43

14/02/2020 RHF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.38 1380 3 0.3

RHF2 1.32 1320 2 0.2

RHF3 1.30 1300 3 0.3 0.27

14/02/2020 RHF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.34 1340 3 0.3

RHF2 1.36 1360 4 0.4

RHF3 1.38 1380 3 0.3 0.33

29
 Table 4.10: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 10% RH and RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RHF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.21 1210 5 0.5

RHF2 1.21 1210 3 0.53

RHF3 1.23 1230 4 0.4 0.40

14/02/2020 RHF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.16 1160 2 0.2

RHF2 1.18 1180 3 0.3

RHF3 1.20 1200 2 0.2 0.23

14/02/2020 RHF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.16 1160 3 0.3

RHF2 1.19 1190 2 0.2

RHF3 1.10 1100 2 0.2 0.23

30
 Table 4.11: Summary of Compressive Strength of cubes (N/mm2) for 15% RH and RF

Date of casting Cube Days of Date of Cubes Weight Density Crushing load Compressive Average

ID curing testing condition in the kg/m3 kN Strength Compressive

air (kg) N/mm2 Strength

7/02/2020 RHF1 7 14/02/2020 Good 1.32 1320 4 0.4

RHF2 1.31 1310 4 0.4

RHF3 1.35 1350 3 0.3 0.37

14/02/2020 RHF1 14 21/02/2020 Good 1.26 1260 4 0.4

RHF2 1.26 1260 3 0.3

RHF3 1.28 1280 5 0.5 0.40

14/02/2020 RHF1 28 13/03/2020 Good 1.23 1230 3 0.3

RHF2 1.12 1120 2 0.2

RF3 1.25 1250 3 0.3 0.27

0.9
0.8
Compressive strength (N/mm2)

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 7days
0.3 14days
28days
0.2
0.1
0
Control Rice husk Rice fibre Rice hus &
fibre
Stabilized at 5%

31
 1.2

Compressive strength (N/mm2)

0.8

0.6
7days
0.4 14days
28days
0.2

0
Contol Rice husk Rice fibre Rice husk &
fibre
Stabilized at 10%

1.2
Compressive strength (N/mm2)

0.8

0.6
7days
14days
0.4 28days

0.2

0
Control Rice husk Rice fibre Ric husk & fibre
Stabilezed at 15%

32
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

Stabilization was done manually by mixing of clay soil (Earth), Portland cement, Rice Husk, Rice Fiber

and water on a bare floor in a dry state in which the stabilizers were batch at 5%, 10% and 15% by

volume respectively. Laboratory experiments such as sieve analysis and Atterberg limits were carried out

on the sample of clay. In addition, compressive strength tests were carried out on the 75mm × 75mm

cubes casted for both control mix and stabilized mix. The control mix has the least compressive strength

of 0.33N/mm2 when fully cured and dried for 28 days. The compressive strength of 0.33N/mm2 and

also compressive strength for sample with stabilizers of Rice husk and cement at 5%, 10% and 15% are

0.33N/mm2, 0.27N/mm2 and 0.33N/mm2, Rice fibre and cement at 5%, 10%,and 15% are 0.77N/mm2,

1.03 N/mm2 1.1 N/mm2 ,Rice husk, fibre and cement at 5%,10% and 15% are 0.33 N/mm2 ,0.23 N/mm2

and 0.27 N/mm2, respectively

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations were suggested: The research shows that the compressive strength of

stabilized clay using Rice fibre and cement has the highest strength than the other stabilizers.

i. Since there is significant increase in strength of stabilized earth blocks, the method

should be adopted on clay soils used for mud houses in the towns and villages to

increase the durability and reduce the cost of maintenance.

ii. Further research may be carried out by stabilizing clay soil with other locally

available raw materials to give the poor more opportunities to build cheap, strong and

durable houses

33
34
 REFERENCES

Ali Akbar Firoozi, C.Guney, Ali Asghar Firoozi and Mojtaba Shojaei Baghini (2017), Fundamentals of Soil

stabilization

G.N. Smith and Ian G.N. Smith (1990) ,Element of Soil Mechanics Heriot-watt University and

Nepier University Edinburgh.

Jayasinghe C. (2009), Structural Design of Earth Buildings, Colombo,Eco Ceylon Limited

Murray (2005) ‘’Practical Straw Bale Building’’ Textbook.

Makusa G. P. (2012) “Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering Practice”,

Namango S. S. (2006) "Development of Cost-Effective Earthen Building Material for Housing

Wall Construction:Investigations into the Properties of Compressed Earth Blocks

Stabilized with Sisal Vegetable Fibres, Cassava Powder and Cement Compositions",

A Ph.D Dissertation, Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus.

Ph.D Thesis, Department Of Civil, Environmental And Natural Resources Engineering, Division

of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå,

Sweden

R.F. Craig (2004) ‘’ Craig’s Soil Mechanics’’ Seventh Edition. Department of Civil Engineering, University

of Dundee UK.

Rogers, C.D.F. and Glendinning, S. (1993). Modification of clay soils using lime. In C. a.

Rogers (Ed.), Proceeding of the Seminar held at Loughborough University on Lime Stabilization (pp. 99-

114). London: Thomas Telford.

Sherwood, P. (1993). Soil stabilization with cement and lime. State of the Art Review. London:

Transport Research Laboratory, HMSO.

35
Walker, P. J., Dobson, S., Pullout Tests on Deformed and Plain Rebars in Cement-Stabilized

Rammed Earth. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, pp. 291-297, July/August

2001

White, D. (2005). Fly Ash Soil Stabilization for Non-Uniform Subgrade Soils. IHRB Project TR-461, FHWA

Project 4.

36