Mechanical performance and water absorption in compressed earth bricks stabilized with small doses of lime and cement

Introduction. Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks (CSEB) represent a sustainable alternative to conventional burnt clay bricks, offering significant environmental benefits such as reduced energy consumption and a lower carbon footprint. CSEB are manufactured by mixing soil, sand, water, and a stabilizer typically ordinary Portland cement, lime, fly ash, bitumen, or a combination thereof followed by mechanical compaction of the mixture in a mold.

Materials and method. This study investigates the mechanical properties (compressive strength and flexural tensile strength) and water absorption behaviour of CSEB stabilized with low dosages of stabilizers: 2 % lime + 3 % cement, 3 % lime + 4 % cement, 4 % lime + 6 % cement, 5 % cement, and 0 % stabilizer (unstabilized). The experimental programme includes evaluation of compressive strength in both dry and wet states, flexural tensile strength, capillary water absorption, and total water absorption.

Results. Results indicate that increasing the stabilizer content significantly enhances both compressive and flexural strength, and the mechanical properties were in the A and B CSEB categories of the standards requirements. However, total water absorption also increased with increasing stabilizer dosage. Despite this, the observed absorption values remained below the maximum limits specified in relevant standards.

Conclusions. Overall, the research findings demonstrate that by using the low dosages of stabilizers, CSEB can have appropriate potential as a sustainable, beneficial, and applicable building material, where the use of locally sourced materials can consequentially reduce construction costs and minimize environmental impact compared to conventional fired clay bricks and concrete blocks.

1. Bell F.G. Engineering Treatment of Soils. London, CRC Press, 1993; 320. DOI: 10.1201/97814-82288971

2. Kamal M.A. The Study of Thermal Mass as a Passive Design Technique for Building Comfort and Energy Efficiency. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture. 2011; 5(1). DOI: 10.17265/1934-7359/2011.01.009

3. Kamal M.A. Analyzing the Potential of Compressed earth blocks as a feasible and sustainable building material. Architecture Engineering and Science. 2023; 4(2):62-71. DOI: 10.32629/aes.v4i2.1183

4. Walker P.J. Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil blocks. Cement and Concrete Composites. 1995; 17(4):301-310. DOI: 10.1016/0958-9465(95)00019-9

5. Nagaraj H.B., Sravan M.V., Arun T.G., Jagadish K.S. Role of lime with cement in long-term strength of Compressed stabilized Earth Blocks. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment. 2014; 3(1):54-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.03.001

6. Deboucha S., Hashim R. A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Research and Essays. 2011; 6(3).

7. Bell F.G. Lime stabilization of clay minerals and soils. Engineering Geology. 1996; 42(4):223-237. DOI: 10.1016/0013-7952(96)00028-2

8. Raheem A.A., Bello O.A., Makinde O.A. A comparative study of cement and lime stabilized lateritic interlocking blocks. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology. 2010; 11(2):27-34.

9. Alavéz-Ramíre R., Montes-García P., Martínez-Reyes J., Altamirano-Juárez D.C., Gochi-Ponce Y. The use of sugarcane bagasse ash and lime to improve the durability and mechanical properties of compacted soil blocks. Construction and Building Materials. 2012; 34:296-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.072

10. Khatib J.M., Ellis E.A. The influence of soil properties on compressive strength of stabilized earth blocks. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment. 2018; 7(1):140-151.

11. Acosta L.A., Côté P. Effect of soil composition on the mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks. Construction and Building Materials. 2016; 113:246-253.

12. Rahman M.M., Rashiduzzaman M.M., Ak-hand F.Z., Kabir K.B. Compressed Stabilized Earth Block: A Green Alternative for Non-Load Bearing Building Block in Developing Countries Like Bangladesh. American Chemical Science Journal. 2016; 12(3):1-10. DOI: 10.9734/ACSJ/2016/23071

13. Bakar S.K.A., Abdullah A.H. Simulation of Thermal Performance in an Office Building. Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium. 2012; 318-323. DOI: 10.1109/BEIAC.2012.6226074

14. Abdullah A.H., Bakar S.K.A., Rahman I.A. Indoor thermal performance of an office building using conventional brick versus interlocking compressed earth brick (ICEB) wall. International Journal of Construction Technology and Management. 2013; 1(1):22-27.

15. Avizovas R., Baskutis S., Navickas V. Tamá-ndl L. Effect of Chemical Composition of Clay on Physical-Mechanical Properties of Clay Paving Blocks. Buildings. 2022; 12(7):943. DOI: 10.3390/buildings120-70943

16. Narloch P.L., Woyciechowski P., Kotowski J., Gawriuczenkow I., Wojcik E. The effect of soil mineral composition on the compressive strength of cement stabilized rammed earth. Materials. 2020; 13(2):324. DOI: 10.3390/ma13020324

17. Riza F.V., Rahman I.A., Zaidi A.M.A. Preliminary study of compressed stabilized earth brick (CSEB). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2011; 5(9):6-12.

18. Beckett C.T.S., Jaquin P.A., Morel J.C. Weathering the storm: A framework to assess the resistance of earthen structures to water damage. Construction and Building Materials. 2020; 242:118098. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118098

19. Panagiotou R., Kyriakides M.A., Illampas R., Ioannou I. An experimental approach for the investigation of the performance of non-stabilized Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) against water-mediated weathering. Journal of Cultural Heritage. 2022; 57(2):184-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.culher.2022.08.009

20. Turco C., Paula Junior A., Jacinto C., Fernandes J., Teixeira E., Mateus R. Influence of Particle Size on Compressed Earth Blocks Properties and Strategies for Enhanced Performance. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(5):1779. DOI: 10.3390/app14051779