Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.

com, ISSN 1743-3509

Compressive strength of compressed earth block

masonry
G. Bei & I. Papayianni
Department of Civil Engineering, Laboratory of Building Materials,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract

Masonry structures constitute a great part of the building stock in the world. Earth
block masonry as architectural heritage attracts the interest of engineers for
maintenance and modern construction since it is a material of high ecological
profile. This issue gains more and more field in the engineering community.
Compressive strength is one of the essential m e c h c a l properties to characterise
the stress bearing capacity of the materials. The objective of this research is the
evaluation of the cornpressive strength of the earth block masonry by using
specimens of different geometry aspect ratios. Firstly in the experimental
programme, was optimised the synthesis of the mixture for both, earth brocks and
earth mortars. For this purpose an adequate number of earth blocks were produced in
the laboratory using an apparatus especially designed for that. Uniaxial compression
tests are typically undertaken on samples of earth mortars, on single earth blocks, on
doublets, and triplets of blocks and lastly on masonry specimens. Therefore a
complete image of the behaviour of the earth on the construction is given. In
addition, stress-strain diagrams and elasticity modulus are made and discussed. The
results of this work could be useful for the design of earth block structures.

1 Introduction

The universality of earth as a building material is fascinating; it is estimated that

more than 30% of the world's buildings are made of earth today [l]. These
structures constitute an architectural heritage deposit in almost every country
worldwide. The extensive use of earth is due to the low cost, availability and
feasibility of it. Furthermore under the prism of modem directive of sustainability in
construction, earth as building materials is of great interest.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

368 Strrcctrrral Srudir~,

Rrpam atrd Marnrorancr of Hrriragr Aldzirrcruw VIII

Wherever earth blocks construction is required to meet minimum regulatory

performance requirements it is necessary to complete quality control testing.
Compressive strength is one of the essential mechanical properties to characterize
the stress bearing capacity of the materials. The objective of this research is the
investigation of the range of compressive strength of earth masonry and its
components (earth mortars and blocks) and to produce strain - stress diagrams for
the evaluation of the structural behaviour of earth walls. This article is a part of a
Ph.D. research program, which is still in process at the Department of Civil
Engineering, Laboratory of Buildings Materials.

2 Experimental program

Following tradition in building with earth [2] it was decided to use soil and sand. All
specimens were fabricated by using soil from the area of Kilkis (soil used for
industrial fixed bricks production) and river sand (0-2mm) from the river Axios.
According to Casagrande characterisation the soil used is characterised as CL (CIay
Loam) soil. Mineralogical type, Attemberg characteristics, and chemical analyses of
this soil as well as the gradation of the soil - sand mixture are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Physicochemical and Technical characteristics of earth mixture used for

earth mortars and bIocks

Chemical composition (%) Attemberg limits Particle size analysis

1.37
LL : 32,5 Sand fraction: 41,86%
cao PL : 19,5 Silt fraction: 35,54%
M@ PI : 13,O Clay fraction: 22%
Fe203 Classification : CL
A1203 (Casagrande)
SiOl Mineralogical
Loss of ignites comvosition : Quartz,
smectite,
illite

Six different soil - sand mixture compositions (Kl to K6) were used for the
estimation of the earth mortars range of strength. All proportions were mixed in dry
conditions to an homogeneous paddle and water was gradually added to attain the
mixture optimum moisture content according to the desired workability level of
13,5f0,5 cm after 15 blows [2]. The curing conditions were the same for all
specimens prisms (4Ox40x160mm) which were kept in room with 20+2 "C and
RH=75% until the day of testing. In the table 2 the mixture proportions of the
components are given as well as some other characteristics as the water percentage
of the mixture, the specific gravity of the tested specimens, the compressive and
flexural strength at the 60 day of mature (mean value of three specimens), the total
porosity and shrinkage and the moisture content of specimens when tested.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

For the earth block production three different soil-sand mixture proportions (A, B
and C) were used. The moisture content of these blocks was determined through
modified Proctor tests [3] for the three mixing proportions (see table 3).
The production of blocks was made in an apparatus especially designed for this
purpose at the laboratory (see figure 1). Earth blocks were plain solid blocks with
dimensions of 25Ox 12Ox80mm and weight approximately of 5 kg each one. For the
manufacture of every block it was compacted by static compression under 5 ~lmrn'
of pressure, which is considered as medium pressure [4]. They were cured in a room
of 20f 2 "C and RH=90% for one week and then at room of temperature of 20f 2 "C
and RH=65% after, until the testing day.

Figure 1: Earth block production apparatus

Table 2: Earth mortars characteristics

 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

370 Strrcctrrral S r u d i r ~R, r p a m atrd Marnrorancr of Hrriragr Aldzirrcruw V111

Compositions A, B and C were used for the manufacture of single specimens,

doublets and triplets (see table 3). Individual blocks were formed in cubes
(8Ox80x80mm) by sawing, before tested. All the specimens were sandwiched
between two silicon thin sheets and plywood on the top of them to minimize platen
restrain effects. Compressive stress was applied continuously at the rate of 3,5
n to failure. Doublets (125x120x170mm) of A, B and C earth blocks
~ / d r n i up
were produced following RILEM recommendations, with two half-block stack
bonded prism mangement with an earth mortar stabilized with ordinary Portland
cement [5]. The mortar compressive strength attained the 4,4 ~ l m r nTriplets
~. with
dimensions of 25Ox120x260mm, were produced with earth blocks A, B, and C and
mortar composition K3 of thickness of 1 cm. All specimens were tested under
uniaxial compressive strength at an age of 60 days after at specified curing
conditions (temperature of 20+2 "C and RH=65%). Three specimens of each
composition were used of the determination of the compressive strength for both
doublets and triplets. In figure 2 is showed the different types of specimens while in
the table 4 the mean value of three tested specimens for each composition is
presented.

Figure 2: earth block (a) unit specimen, (b) doublet (c) triplet

Table 3: Earth block production characteristics

Mixture Soil (%w/w of solids) Sand (%w/w of solids) W,,, yd

compositions ("h) (gdcm3)
A 90% 10% 12 1,975
B 80% 20% 11,9 2,38
C 70% 30% 11,75 2,l
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Table 4: Mechanical characteristics of earth blocks and earth walls

Afterwards three wallets were constructed in scale one to one with the following
geometry: length 770rnq height 800mm and thickness 120mm. The thickness of the
joint earth mortar was 10mm. The mixture composition of the wallets was the
following: B earth blocks and K3 earth mortar. These were tested under uniaxial
compressive strength [ 6 ] . For the stress-strain tests, the specimens were
instrumented with a number of displacement transducers in order to record the
displacement response during loading of the specimens as well as the deformations
at critical points of maximum compression. In the figure 3 the scheme of
instrumentation used is depicted. In figure 4, the compressive strength of the wallet
(f,,) in ~ l r n r nthe
~ , longitudinal deformation (E,,,$ in the direction of the applied
load and the transversal deformation (E,,,) in the horizontal direction, is presented.

Figure 3 : Earth block wallet. Figure 4: Stress-strain diagram on three earth

Instrumentation scheme. wallets under uniaxial compressive strength
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

372 Strrcctrrral Srudir~,

Rrpam atrd Marnrorancr of Hrriragr Aldzirrcruw V111

3 Discussion of experimental work

3.1 Earth mortars

Using a specific type of soil and sand the tested earth mortars were produced. These
mixtures have exhibited compressive strength of 1,94 to 3,21 N I of range,
~ while
their flexural strength was between the 1,13 to 1,83 ~ / r n m According
~. to their
strength they seem to be between the categories 2 (fm>l,5~/mm~) and
3(fm>2,5~/mn?) of those of the recommendation of ARS 672: 1996 of compressed
earth mortars standards in order to get mechanical constraints [7]. Category 2 was
made for structural elements capable of withstanding important external (live) loads
and category 3 was made for structural elements capable of withstanding high
external (live) loads). The relatively high deformation plays an important role for the
volume stability of earth mortars and it is obvious (table 2) that the addition of sand
to the soils reduces the shrinkage tendency whle does not contribute to the strength
development. Therefore for the selection of the best mixture for earth mortar a
compromise between shrinkage effect and mechanical characteristics should be
made.

3.2 Earth blocks

The tests on blocks were principally aimed to the determination of the compressive
strength. The experimental results are summarized in table 4. Doublets and triplets
of earth blocks can be considered as small-scale masonry prisms (combination of
blocks and joints by mortars) although their behaviour is nearer to this of singular
earth blocks. Masonry prisms contain vertical joints and different constructions
texture type, that doublets or triplets could not simulate them.
It seems that the mode of failure in compression is dependent on the test method.
For all the blocks doublets and triplets tested, the onset of failure corresponds to the
development of the familiar hourglass shape following spalling of the vertical sides.
When the ratio heighdwidth is high (>1,4) the hourglass shape of cracks is less
distinguished. The cracks are getting more vertical and are mainly centralized on the
specimen surface in comparison with those of cubes of the heightlwidth ratio equal
to one. For doublets and triplets however, the failure is more akin to that observed in
masonry wall under uniaxial compression. Singular block specimens, doublets, and
triplets develop vertical cracks throughout the specimen as the maximum load was
approached.
The compressive strength values of singular specimens are higher from those in
doublets and triplets (from 65% to 80%) (see table 4). Platen restrain effects on unit
specimen strength were evident by the apparent increase of strength with the
reduction of heighvwidth. An effort was made to take into account the geometrical
effects of the experimental confined conditions by using the factors of the table 5
[8]. In the table 6 are summarised the "unconfined" compressive strength for earth
blocks B, with the heighttwidth correction factors given in table 5.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Table 5: Aspect ratio correction

Table 6: Unconfined compressive strength

Unconfined

Doublet
Trinlet 2.16 0.78 2.05

Comparing the strength-composition relation of earth blocks, the compressive

strength of A composition seams to be higher than the corresponding of B and C
blocks between all the tested specimens (unit specimens, doublets and triplets). T h s
may be due to the higher soil percentage content as well as to the clay content of A
composition. It can be explain the higher cohesion between the grains of the earth
brick resulting in higher strength development. Compressive strength of blocks
ranges between the limits of those of Eurocode 6 that demands 2,5 N/rnm2 for
masonry blocks capable to withstand external loads. Minimum requirements for unit
compressive strength have been outlined elsewhere [9]. For unconfined dry
compressive strength a minimum requirement of 1,4 ~lrntn'is commonplace. This
strength level is indicative of sufficient safety for transportation and wall fixing
requirements.

3.3 Earth block masonry

Masonry wallets were tested using B composition on earth blocks and K3 earth
mortar. The compressive strength of these wallets is indicative for earth walls made
by soil and sand without any stabilization. This type of earth wall can be considered
as more representative for traditional earth construction because it uses the same
natural raw "traditional" materials.
Masonry specimens started to develop cracks much earlier before the ultimate
load of the wall. This characteristic behaviour of masonry is attributed to composite
interaction between the blocks and mortars joints [10]. The failure mode was typical
for wallets of fb,>fm. Detachments of the vertical joints started at the 70% of the
ultimate load. This was more obvious where the bonding of the "confined" specimen
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

374 Strrcctrrral Srudir~,

Rrpam atrd Marnrorancr of Hrriragr Aldzirrcruw V111

is abated because of hiction at the loading surfaces. Failure is of brittle type and it is
developed within the blocks mass.
It is emphasizing that earth masonry is not included in Eurocode 6 [ l l ] .
However, an estimation of fwcis attempted to see the relation between experimental
values and analytical ones.
Eurocode 6: fw,= K X ~ ~ 'X~f,0,25
'
Wallet: fwc=0,6x 3, X 2,50g2'= l,% ~ / m m '(22% deviation from experimental
mean value of the three tested specimens that is 1,92 ~/mm')
The stress-strain diagrams outline a non-linear behaviour. This could be noticed
by the low elastic part of the ultimate deformation is ~,,=f~,/~,,=2/1333=1,5xl0~~
which is 6,6 times less from the ultimate E. The ultimate longitudinal deformation
rises the 0,0074. Eurocode 6 adopts 0,2 to 0,35% maximum deformation of
masonry. The EI,, of the wall measured at the middle of the specimen reaches
the 0,0019 which is very high compared it with the E value of fired brick masonry
(see figure 4). The reduction of the stiffness due to the detachments of the vertical
joints has influenced to the transversal deformations of masonry during loading.

4 Conclusions

Wherever earth blocks construction is decided it is necessary to design it carehlly

and perform quality control in order to meet minimum regulatory performance
requirements of building codes.
Earth mortars of soil and sand can be considered as material of strength range
1,94 to 3,21 N/mm2 of compressive strength, while their flexural strength is between
the 1,13 to 1,83 ~ / m r nFor
~ . the selection of the soil mixture a compromise between
shrinkage effect and mechanical characteristics should be made in each case of raw
material. High soil content on earth block mixture increases the cohesion between
the grains of the earth block resulting to higher strength of blocks of the same
compaction rate.
The mode of failure in compression of the earth blocks is dependent on the test
method. The heightlwidth ratio plays a role in the final crushing value. For doublets
and triplets specimens, the failure seems to be more akin to that observed in
masonry wall under uniaxial compression. Compressive strength of earth blocks is
higher (3,12 NI&) than the lower limits (2,5 ~ / m m of ~ )that of Eurocode 6 for
blocks for masonry capable to withstand external loads.
The construction with earth masonry is not included in Eurocode 6. The stress-
strain diagrams of the tested wallets outline a non-linear behaviour and very small
elastic part. The wall deformations are very high (0,007) compared with those of
concrete or those of fired brick masonry. The results of this work concern the basic
mechanical characteristics of earth block masonry contribute to the establishment of
relevant Building Code.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

References
[ l ] Houben H. and Guilaud H., Earth construction: a comprehensive guide, IT
Publications, London, 1994.
[2] Bei G., Raw Earth: an ancient and modem building material, Master Thesis,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1996
[3] American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Test Method for Moisture
- Density relations of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures using 10-lb ramrner and 18-
in. drop, ASTM D1557-78
[4] Compressed earth blocks Standards, ARS 670-1996, CO- publishers CDI-
CRATerre - EAG, 1998.
[5] Olivier M., Mesbah A., El Gharbi, Z., More1 J.C., Test method for strength test
on blocks of compressed earth, Materials and Structures, 30, November, 515-517,
1997.
[6] CEN, prENI1052-1: Methods of test for masonry - Part 1: Determination of
compressive strength 1991.
[7] Compressed earth mortars Standards ARS 670-1996, CO- publishers CDI-
CRATerre - EAG, 1998.
[8] Middleton G.F. (revised by Schneider L.M.0 Earth wall construction,
Construction and Engineering, Bulletin 5, CSIRO Division of Building, 4' Edition,
Sydney, 1992.
[9] Walker P,, Specifications for stabilized pressed earth blocks, Masonry
International, 10, (1) 1996.
[ l 01 Hendry, A.W ., Structural Brickwork, Macmillan, London, l98 1.
[ l l ] Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures Part 1-1: General rules for building.
Rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry, ENV 1996-1-1: Brusselles, 1995.
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 66, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509