CHINTHA RAVALI 2019H1430099

 
STUDY OF SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS FOR
LOW COST HOUSING- COMPRESSED
EARTH BLOCKS (CEB’S)
BITS Pilani
Hyderabad Campus
CONTENTS
• NEED OF STUDY
• INTRODUCTION
• HISTORY
• OBJECTIVES
• METHODOLOGY
• LITERATURE REVIEW
• RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
• CONCLUSIONS
• FURTHER SCOPE
• WORK PROGRESS
• SCHEDULE OF WORK
• REFERENCES
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
 NEED OF STUDY
SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS:
– Durability requirements
– Conserve energy and save money
– Minimise waste
– Improved resale value
– Recycling and reuse of resources.

LOW COST HOUSING SCHEMES

– Use of Green materials and technologies
– Compressed earth blocks or
– stabilized earth blocks
– Use of hollow cement concrete blocks etc.,.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

WHAT IS CEB?
A building material made primarily from damp soil compressed at high
pressure(with or without stabilizer) to form blocks.
WHAT IS CSEB?
It is a CEB where a stabilizers such
as cement , lime etc. ,.are used.
Compressed at 3000psi or 21Mpa.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

HISTORY
Old age :
– All over the world raw earth was used as building material.
– To achieve long lasting buildings.
As per UNCHS(United Nations Commission on Human Settlements)
40 % of the world population lives in earthen dwellings.
25 %of the world population does not have access to decent housing.
Development of earth construction:
– 1950’s-new development off earth construction started
– 1960 – 1970-Africa has seen the widest world development for CEB.
– 1980’s- India developed this technology.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
OBJECTIVES
8

• To give the view of energy efficient, cost reduction and environmental friendly

building materials, overall contribution on the sustainable development.

• To reduce disposal cost of industrial waste and use them as stabilizers in the

compressed earth block to improve properties of it.

• To increase the durability of a structure by using sustainable materials.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 METHODOLOGY
9

Study of all the properties of CSEB’s and listing out the special properties

Comparative study of CSEB’s with conventional materials

Detailing the use of CSEB’s and how it reduces cost of housing

Listing out all information concerning CSEB’S

Exploration of materials which have same stabilizing properties as the normal conventional stabilizers

Submission of project report

9
 SOIL IDENTIFICATION

• Grain size distribution

• Plasticity characteristics such as plastic limit, liquid limit, plasticity index

• Tests for plasticity characteristics

• Deciding type of soil and understanding properties from the results

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CSEB
(COMPRESSED STABILIZED EARTH BLOCKS)
1
• Collect the soil sample. 1

• Test for soil classification.

• Various mixing of ingredients/stabilizers with clay soil and sand varies in
percentage of mixing.
• The various mixes are placed in the proposed brick mold.
• The mold is compressed in a process (manually compress).
• Then it is dried for 28 days.
• Strength determination on UTM/CTM.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 1
2
• Types of presses:
Hand press
Hydraulic press
AURAM 4000 and 5000-cost-2to3 lakhs approx.

AURAM 4000 AURAMIX 5000

semi-automatic Automatic
Available force Available force
200 KN (20 tons) 400 KN (40 tons)
400 blocks per hour Mixer output can be adjusted from
4 to 7 m3/h
standard block mold 240 mm x 240 standard block mold 240 mm x
mm x 90 mm. 240 mm x 90 mm.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 Good soil Gravel 15 % Sand 50 % Silt 15 % Clay 20%
 
A good soil for CSEB is more sandy than clayey.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

SIX PRODUCTION STAGES
14

Preparation (Digging + Sieving)  2 to 4 people

 Measuring  1 people
 Mixing (dry + wet)  2 people
 Pressing  3 people
 Initial curing and first stacking  1 people
 Final curing and stacking  2 people
 
 11 to 13 people
Total No.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

TESTS ON CSEB
15

WET COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: [IS: 3495-1, 1992]

• blocks were immersed in clean water for 2 days

• Universal Testing Machine (UTM) at the rate of 2 N/mm2/min

• Plywood sheets of 3 mm thick

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 16

WATER ABSORPTION [IS: 1725, 2013]:

• blocks were dried completely in the oven and intial mass is noted

• immersed in water for 24 h and blocks were weighed again.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 17

FLEXURAL TEST: ASTM C 67-02c [20]

• Blocks prepared with different mix proportions of MSW, quarry dust and

admixtures were tested for the flexural strength at 28 days of ageing.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

POLLUTION EMISSION (Kg of CO2) PER M3 OF
WALL

CSEB wall = 56.79 Kg / m3

Kiln Fired Brick (KFB) = 230.06 Kg / m3

POLLUTION EMISSION (Kg of CO2) PER M3
Fired Brick (CFB) = 547.30 Kg / m3

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

COST EFFECTIVENESS
Types of press Cost of press(Rs) Local production Time of manufacturing
potential

Normal press 50000 Yes 10-15days

Interlocking press 60000 Yes 10-15days

SOIL STABILIZATION
  MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM
Cement Stabilization 3% 5% No technical maximum
Lime Stabilization 2% 6% 10%

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

LITERATURE REVIEW
S.NO YEAR PAPER POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

1 2019 CHARACTERIZATION OF COMRESSED EARTH By including pozzolona,properties of CEB are enhanced.

BLOCKS STABILIZED WITH CLAY POZZOLONA But it was limited only to the low- rise buildings. The
study must have given the further scope of using clay
pozzolona induced CEB in high rise buildings and what
will be the possible methods to achieve that.

2 2018 Stabilization of compressed earth blocks Geopolymer with 15% stabilization ensures good
(CEBs) by geopolymer binder based on local cohesion of the CEB particles whereas CEBs without
materials from Burkina Faso stabilizer show poor cohesion. CEBs stabilized with a
geopolymer binder and heat treated at 60 °C have very
good mechanical properties, which increase sig- nificantly
with the geopolymer content.It would be important to
evaluate the environmental impact (life cycle analysis) of
this new stabilization method compared to cement
stabilization.
3 2017 Potential Use of Enzymes in the Preparation By including enzymes along with other standard
of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks stabilising materials like cement and lime the wet
compressive strength of compressed earth blocks
increased with the aging. But the study would have done
for no cement condition so that the actual change in
properties are examined.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

S.NO YEAR PAPER POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

4 2016 EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF COMPRESSED By reinforcing CEB with banana fiber increased internal
EARTH BLOCK (CEB) WITH BANANA FIBERS strength and represented significant reduction of material
RESISTING FLEXURAL AND COMPRESSION and energy consumption
along with controlling pollution emissions.
FORCES.  This paper did very good tests of B-CEB and given very
good conclusions but didn’t talk more about the
durability conditions and suitability of using this
technology.

5 2016 COMPRESSED STABILIZED EARTH BLOCKS Iron spoil waste is used as a stabilizer in this paper and
USING IRON MINE SPOIL WASTE-AN some tests were conducted for wet compressive strength
EXPLORATIVE STUDY. and water absorption where they met the is code limits.
But since iron forms rust when comes in contact with
water this paper has given water resistance to the CEB

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

S.NO YEAR PAPER
6 2016 INFLUENCE OF COMPACTING RATE ON THE
PROPERTIES OF COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS.
7 2014 ROLE OF LIME WITH CEMENT IN LONG-TERM
STRENGTH OF COMPRESSED STABILIZED
EARTH BLOCKS.
8 2014 EFFECT OF POLYPROPYLENE FIBRE LENGTH ON THE
FLEXURAL AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
COMPRESSED STABILIZED EARTH BLOCKS.
POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Compacting rate has no much significance in changing
properties of compressed earth blocks.
From the results it is clear that tensile and compressive
strength a weak linear correlation. They might done the
experiments by inducing some stabilizers and compare the
results with normal CEB’s.
Using lime as a replacement to cement in certain
proportions has improved long-term build-up strength than
cement alone. The combination of cement and lime had
found to be very beneficial.
The use of cement and lime as stabilizers increase cost but
also increase properties of a CSEB. The study might have
done for further more mixes of cement lime and other
proportionating stabilizers.
In this study they tackled the problem of lowering
compressive strength and density when fibres are
reinforced with the CSEB materials. Where the compressive
strength and tensile strength has improved. There is a need
for re-evaluation of the end of service life options of the
material.
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
S.NO YEAR PAPER POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

9 2013 PROPERTIES OF COMPRESSED STABILIZED The two samples from two different areas are
EARTH BLOCKS (CSEB) FOR LOW-COST considered. The higher the cement content higher will
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION: A PRELIMINARY be the stabilization range from 0 to 7.5% with an
average value of 0.35N/mm2. These samples are within
INVESTIGATION.  the minimum strength required so it recommended for
the low-rise buildings.

10 2011 A REVIEW ON BRICKS AND STABILIZED Stabilized compressed earth blocks include; uniformed
COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS.  building component sizes, use of locally available
materials and reduction of transportation. Uniformly,
sized building components can result in less waste,
faster construction and the possibility of using other
pre-made components or modular manufactured
building elements.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

S.NO YEAR PAPER POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

11 2006 SOME HYDRAULIC, MECHANICAL, AND Increasing cement level from 8 to 10% induced high
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THREE TYPES strength gains to fully stabilized CEBs while this increase
OF COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS.  of cement level had nearly no effect on partially stabilized
CEBs. The low strength gains of partially stabilized CEBs in
this range of cement levels was observed.

12 2002 DURABILITY OF LIME STABILIZED EARTH The important influence of sand content, the compacting
BLOCKS. stress and the lime content on the behaviour of stabilized
earth blocks with respect to water attacks is prevented.
By stabilization with lime durable material with limited
loss in mechanical strength was obtained. Other possible
stabilizers can be used.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

ENERGY EFFECTIVENESS
•Producing •Only 1 liter of •Building a m² of
compressed earth diesel is needed masonry with
blocks requires CSEB consumes
to produce 145
about 1% of earth blocks, 5 times less
the energy making it an energy than a m²
needed to energy-saving of wire cut bricks
produce a building production masonry and 15
brick. process with times less than
minimum country fired
CO2 emissions. bricks!
BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
OPTIMIZATION 26

• Light manual equipment –cheap

• Disadvantage of a low durability, a low output and not very well compressed blocks.

• Heavy manual equipment -more output, more durability and more strength-subsequent increase of

costs.

• Motorized equipment -better quality blocks with more output-more expensive.

• Heavy manual presses -best choice in terms of optimisation for the investment/output/quality ratio

26
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
• Comparison b/n compressive strength of different brick:
COMPARISON B/N COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH OF DIFFERENT BRICK: 28

Types of Brick Compressive

strength in N/mm2

Burnt Convectional brick 1.92

Black Cotton + Fly ash brick 4.47

Stone dust + Gypsums brick 8.18

Stone dust+20%fly + chem. 8.18

Stone dust+30%fly + chem. 8.71

Black cotton +fly ash +Chemical 6.36

Standard strength of Brick 3.5

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

COMPARISON B/N COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
OF DIFFERENT FLYASH CONTENT: 29

Fly ash Compressive strength in

N/mm2

10% 146.67
20% 125.00
30% 113.33
40% 131.67
50% 33.33

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

COMPARISON B/N COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
OF DIFFERENT STABILIZATION PERCENTAGE: 30

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 31

Banana fibres bridging the

B-CEB cracks during failure

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Proportion and combination of stabilizers, Iron mine spoil waste and quarry dust
used in the preparation of CSEBs.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Wet compressive strength versus ageing for CSEBs
prepared with different combinations of MSW and
admixtures

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 plot of wet compressive strength versus aging for CSEBs
prepared with and without the enzyme along with cement
and lime used in combination

ENZYMES

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

plot of water absorption versus aging for CSEBs
prepared with and without the enzyme along with
cement and lime used in combination.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

SEM view at 5,000× magnification of CSEB prepared (a)
without enzyme at 1 month of aging; (b) with enzyme at 1
month of aging

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 SEM view at 13,000× magnification of CSEB prepared (a)
without enzyme at 2 years of aging; (b) with enzyme at 2
years of aging

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Material CEB-0% CEB_8%CP(ce CEB_5%G CEB_10%G CEB_15%G CEB_20%G
(zero ment) (Geopolymer)
stabilizer)
Laterite (%) 100 92 95 90 85 80
Cement (%) // 8 // // // //
Geopolymer(Na // // 5 10 15 20
OH-activated
MK)(%)
Binder/Laterite 0 8 5 10 15 20
(%)
Water/Solid (%) 16.7 17.0 17.7 18.5 21.5 22.3

Percentage of basic materials for each type of CEB.

metakaolin (MK)-anhydrous calcined form of claymineral kaolinite.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

. XRD of laterite (L) and metakaolin (MK).
 

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Dry and wet compressive strength of CEB
samples.
 

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

Bending strength of CEB samples.
 

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

CONCLUSIONS

• Stabilised earth blocks provide more desirable strength properties than normal CEB.

• Stabilisers like enzymes(TerraZyme),geopolymers(NaOH-activated MK) not only reduce co2

emissions by using cement as stabilizers, but give desired results. If dose is appropriate.

• The other way is to adjust the fiber dia or length accordingly to improve strength properties.

• As excavated soil can be used the transport cost and construction can be reduced using earth blocks.

• The desigh life of structures can be increased with suitable stabilized earth blocks.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

FURTHER SCOPE

• Other properties such as thermal diffusivity, capacity etc. can also be tested.

• Other stabilizers can also be used which can give further more improved

results than the ones which are already used.

• Trials to reduce the weight of the blocks can be done using some other

polymers reducing the dead weight of the structure.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

 WORK PROGRESS
S.
N WORK AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMB
O ER
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd

1 Literature review

2 Study of properties of
CSEB
3 Exploration of study of
possible use of stabilizers

4 Listing out all the

information concerning
CSEB
5 Preparation of report

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

SCHEDULE OF WORK

S.NO DATES PROJECT SCHEDULE

1 1st sep-15th sep Property study of CSEB’s

2 16th sep-30th sep Special properties and behavioral study of

CSEB’s
3 1st oct-20th oct Comparative study of other materials with
CSEB’s
4 21st oct-5th nov Exploration of new materials which can used
as stabilizers.
5 5th nov -13th nov Preparation of report

6 14th nov Project presentation

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

REFERENCES

• Danso, H., & Adu, S. (2019). Characterization of Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized with Clay Pozzolana. J Civil
Environ Eng, 9(331), 2.
• Mostafa, M., & Uddin, N. (2016). Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers
resisting flexural and compression forces. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 5, 53-63.
• Nagaraj, H. B., & Shreyasvi, C. (2017). Compressed stabilized earth blocks using iron mine spoil waste-An
explorative study. Procedia engineering, 180, 1203-1212.
• Danso, H. (2016). Influence of compacting rate on the properties of compressed earth blocks. Advances in
Materials Science and Engineering, 2016.
• Nagaraj, H. B., Sravan, M. V., Arun, T. G., & Jagadish, K. S. (2014). Role of lime with cement in long-term strength
of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3(1), 54-61.
• Donkor, P., Obonyo, E., Matta, F., & Erdogmus, E. (2014). Effect of Polypropylene fiber length on the flexural and
compressive strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks. In Construction Research Congress 2014:
Construction in a Global Network (pp. 661-670).

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

• Waziri, B. S., & Lawan, Z. A. (2013). Properties of compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEB) for low-cost
housing construction: a preliminary investigation. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering
and Technology, 4(2), 39-46.
• Deboucha, S., & Hashim, R. (2011). A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific
Research and Essays, 6(3), 499-506.
• Eko, R. M., Mpele, M., Doumtsop, M. D., Minsili, L. S., & Wouatong, A. S. (2006). Some hydraulic, mechanical,
and physical characteristics of three types of compressed earth blocks. Agricultural Engineering International:
CIGR Journal.
• Guettala, A., Houari, H., Mezghiche, B., & Chebili, R. (2002). Durability of lime stabilized earth blocks. Courrier
du Savoir, 2(1), 61-66.

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus

THANK YOU !!!!

BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus