Asmamaw Tadege

STUDY OF COMPRESSED CEMENT STABILISED SOIL BLOCK AS AN ALTERNATIVE WALL MAKING MATERIAL
BY ASMAMAW TADEGE ADVISOR: PROFESSOR ABEBE DINKU
A thesis submitted to The Schools of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Construction Technology and Management October 2007
STUDY OF COMPRESSED CEMENT STABILISED SOIL BLOCK AS AN ALTERNATIVE WALL MAKING MATERIAL
BY ASMAMAW TADEGE
ADVISOR: PROFESSOR ABEBE DINKU
A thesis submitted to The Schools of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Construction Technology and Management
October 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I praise the Lord God Almighty for providing me with the power and grace to carry out this thesis work. I am very pleased to thank my advisor Professor Abebe Dinku for his kind cooperation, constant encouragement and valuable comments at the various stages of this research work. I am also very pleased to thank Dr.-Ing. Surafel Ketema for his constructive suggestions. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Addis Ababa University for financing my thesis work. In addition, I am extremely thankful to Selam Technical and Vocational Center for providing me the research center facilities. My profound gratitude also goes to the following people for their invaluable material as well as technical support, which was extremely essential to my work. Ato Tadesse Mekuria from the Ministry of Works and Urban Development. Ato Solomon Negash and Ato Mekonen Biru from Selam Technical and Vocational Center. AtoYonas Mekonen and Ato Daniel kifle from the Addis Ababa University Faculty of Technology, Department of Civil engineering. I also like to acknowledge Ato Dawit Taye and W/t Haimanot Etsubdink who were of help for me during the thesis work. Special thank goes to all my family members in general and my mother in particular for her lovely support and encouragement.
Asmamaw Tadege Addis Ababa, October 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------i ABSTRACT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii TABLE OF CONTENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv LIST OF TABLES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ix LIST OF FIGURES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 General ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1.2 Justification for this work ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 1.3 Objectives of the thesis --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1.4 Scope of the study --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1.5 Methodology --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 1.6 Structure of the research -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 CHAPTER TWO CONTEXTUAL FRAME WORK OF EARTH AS A BUILDING MATERIAL 2.1 Building materials improvement needs -------------------------------------------------- 6 2.2 Building materials and economic development ----------------------------------------- 9 2.3 Traditional housing construction in Ethiopia------------------------------------------ 10 2.4 Salient features of earth as a building material---------------------------------------- 11 2.5 Main techniques using earth as a building material ---------------------------------- 15 2.6 Compressed Earth Block ----------------------------------------------------------------- 17 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 Historical background of compressed earth block--------------------------- 17 Compressed earth block role in development -------------------------------- 21 The future of Compressed Earth Block --------------------------------------- 22
2.7 Social acceptance -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 2.8 Comparison of Compressed Earth Block with other building materials----------- 23 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 Compressive strength ------------------------------------------------------------ 24 Density and Thermal properties ------------------------------------------------ 24 Moisture movement -------------------------------------------------------------- 25
ii
2.8.4
Durability, Maintenance and Appearance ------------------------------------ 25
CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 3.1 General -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 3.2 Properties and analysis of soil for soil cement block--------------------------------- 28 3.2.1 3.2.2 General properties ---------------------------------------------------------------- 28 Classification of soil ------------------------------------------------------------- 30
3.2.2.1 Classification by grain size ------------------------------------------------- 31 3.2.2.2 Classification by plasticity (Fine content)-------------------------------- 33 3.3 Suitable soil-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 3.4 Available criteria for soil suitability ---------------------------------------------------- 35 3.4.1 3.4.2 Criteria based on African Regional Standards ------------------------------- 36 Criteria based on Spence, R.J.S & Cook, D.J.1983 Building materials in developing countries --------------------------------------------- 38 3.5 Test for soils-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 3.5.1 Types of tests---------------------------------------------------------------------- 39
3.5.1.1 Field tests---------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 3.5.1.2 Laboratory tests -------------------------------------------------------------- 41 3.6 Soil as a building material---------------------------------------------------------------- 43 3.7 Soil Stabilization--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 Mechanical stabilisation --------------------------------------------------------- 44 Cement stabilisation-------------------------------------------------------------- 47 Lime stabilisation----------------------------------------------------------------- 51 Bitumen stabilisation------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Gypsum stabilisation------------------------------------------------------------- 52 Pozzolanas stabilisation --------------------------------------------------------- 53 Other stabilisers------------------------------------------------------------------- 53
3.8 Rationale of soil cement ----------------------------------------------------------------- 53
iii
CHAPTER FOUR PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS, MIX PROPORTIONS AND TESTS ON BLOCKS 4.1 Introduction-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 4.2 Soil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 56 4.3 Cements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 57 4.4 Water --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 4.5 Mix proportions --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 4.6 Specimen preparation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 4.7 Tests on blocks ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 4.7.1 4.7.2 Compressive strength test ------------------------------------------------------ 62 Water absorption test------------------------------------------------------------- 63
CHAPTER FIVE TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUITABILITY OF SOIL SAMPLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COMPRESSED STABILISED SOIL BLOCK 5.1 Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 5.2 Laboratory tests and results on soil sample -------------------------------------------- 66 5.2.1 General classification -------------------------------------------------------------- 66 5.2.2 Soil compaction test ---------------------------------------------------------------- 72 5.3 Chemical analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------73 5.4 Summery------------------------------------------------------------------------------------74 CHAPTER SIX TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE PRODUCED COMPRESSED CEMENT STABILISED SOIL BLOCK 6.1 Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 6.2 Compressive strength --------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 6.2.1 Effects of cement and cement content on the compressive strength of soil block-------------------------------------------------------------- 76 6.2.2 Comparison of compressive strength of soil cement block made using Mugher and Messobo Portland pozzolana cements ------------------ 79 6.3 Effects of Compaction pressure on compressive strength of soil cement block -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80
iv
6.4 Water absorption--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 82 6.5 Summery ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------83 CHAPTER SEVEN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CEMENT STABILISED COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCK VERSUS OTHER CONVENTIONAL BUILDING MATERIALS 7.1 Production cost of Cement Stabilised Compressed Earth block --------------------- 85 7.2 Parameters that influence the production cost of CSEB------------------------------- 85 7.3 Details for cost calculation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 86 7.3.1 Variable costs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 86 7.3.2 Fixed costs --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 7.3.3 Profit Margin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 87 7.4 Unit cost -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 87 7.5 Sensitivity analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 7.5.1 Comments on how the parameters influence the cost of CSEB-------------- 90 7.6 Comparison of CSEB with Hollow Concrete Blocks per m2 area of wall --------- 94 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Conclusions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 96 8.2 Recommendations--------------------------------------------------------------------------98 REFERENCES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 APPENDIX ONE SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS ---------------------------------------------- 102 APPENDIX TWO CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SOIL------------------------------------------------------107 APPENDIX THREE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS USING MUGHER PPC -------------- 108
APPENDIX FOUR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS USING MESSOBO PPC ------------- 113 APPENDIX FIVE EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL BLOCK BY USING 6% CEMENT-------------------------------- 118 APPENDIX SIX EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL BLOCK BY USING 8% CEMENT-------------------------------- 119 APPENDIX SEVEN EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL BLOCK BY USING 10% CEMENT ------------------------------ 120 APPENDIX EIGHT EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL BLOCK BY USING 12% CEMENT ------------------------------ 121 APPENDIX NINE WATER ABSORPTION TEST RESULT ----------------------------------------------------- 122 APPENDIX TEN COST OF M7 E 380 MACHINERY AND ACCESSORIES ------------------------------- 123 APPENDIX ELEVEN PICTURES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 124
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Average cost break-up of Building Construction Properties of compressed stabilised earth blocks versus other walling materials Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Soil classifications according to particle size in mm The grain size classification based on the ASTM-AFNOR Standards Cement to soil ratio Physical properties of the soil Chemical composition of the soil Composition and properties of cements produced in Ethiopia Mix proportions for the first series Mix proportions for the second series Mix proportions for the third series Atterburg limit test results of soil sample from Kara area Mean compressive strength of soil cement blocks using Mugher PPC Mean compressive strength of soil cement blocks using Messobo PPC Rate of increase in compressive strength for Mugher cement content increments Rate of increase in compressive strength for Messobo cement content increments Table 6.5 Comparison of the 56th day compressive strength of CSEB by using Mugher and Messobo PPC as stabilisers Table 6.6 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Effects of compaction pressure on the 28th day compressive strength of CSEB On-site /Cost calculation table for (220x220x110 mm) block using 7% cement Block yard /Cost calculation table for (220x220x115 mm-) block using 7% cement Effects of cement content on the cost of soil cement block Cost calculation for (200x200x400) mm HCB Class C Cost calculation for (200x200x400) mm HCB Class B Comparison of CSEB with other wall making building materials
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Soil block building in India Figure 2.2 Use of Earth as building material Figure 2.3 The first manual press Cinvaram Figure 2.4 Typical Compressed Earth Block Figure 3.1 Diagram of texture Figure 3.2 Diagram of Plasticity Figure 3.3 Triangular chart for particle size classification Figure 3.4 Plasticity chart Figure 3.5 Unconfined, semi-confined and confined compaction Figure 3.6 Diagram of particle intimacy around the O.M.C. Figure 3.7 O.M.C. for soil at different compaction energies Figure 3.8 Crystal line cement growth in sandcrete Figure 4.1 M7 E380 machine Figure 4.2 Compressive strength testing of blocks samples. Figure 5.1 Particle size distribution of soil from Kara area Figure 5.2 Particle size distribution of the sample soil on the diagram of texture Figure 5.3 Triangular chart for particle size classification of soil sample from Kara area Figure 5.4 Diagram of Plasticity Figure 5.5 Plasticity chart Figure 5.6 Proctor compaction curve Figure 6.1 Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of soil block using Mugher PPC Figure 6.2 Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of Soil Block using Messobo PPC Figure 6.3 Comparison of the Compressive Strength of CSEB using Messobo and Mugher cement Figure 6.4 Effects of compaction pressure on compressive strength of CSSB Figure 6.5 Effects of cement content on the absorption capacity of soil cement block Figure 7.1 Sensitivity test chart
viii
ABSTRACT
This research is intended to provide detailed technical and economic information on the production of compressed cement stabilised earth blocks. These include information on suitable soil types, local stabilisers, stabilisation techniques, production of compressed stabilised earth blocks and their economical value and potential. Critical review of related literatures show that soil types, proportions between soil and stabiliser and compaction pressure applied to the moist soil mix affects the quality of the compressed earth block. Since soil in the Kara area of Addis Ababa is mainly used to compressed stabilised earth block production, this area was the prime target for the investigation and testing. Laboratory tests conducted on Kara area soil provided more precise and detailed information on the soils grading, plasticity, chemical composition and the result proved the soils suitability for block production. Using two types of cements manufactured in Ethiopia as stabiliser and soil sample from Kara area of Addis Ababa, three different series of tests were prepared based on literature recommendations. Tests were conducted on soil blocks performance like compressive strength and water absorption on which the durability of the blocks depend. The effects of compaction pressure on the quality of the soil blocks, the optimum cement content for stabilisation and cost comparison with hollow concrete blocks are prepared. The performance characteristics of local stabilisers are evaluated and comparisons are made. The investigation has revealed that from the blocks produced at the varying cement contents from 4% in increments of 2% up to 12% at constant compressive pressure of 10MPa, all the blocks except blocks produced by 4% cement have 56th day wet compressive strength values well above most of the recommended minimum values for use in structural work. Thus 6% cement is taken as optimum cement content for stabilisation of Kara area soil for block production. Further increasing cement content results in an increase in the compressive strength value and a decrease in the absorption capacity of the soil block. Increment of the compaction pressure also improves the compressive strength of soil cement block. Comparisons of the effects of local cement stabilisers, Mugher PPC and
ix
Messobo PPC showed that Mugher PPC has shown better stabilisation effect based on the 56th day compressive strength of blocks. The cost comparison with the conventional walling making material, hollow concrete blocks, has revealed that compressed cement stabilised soil block is preferred because it is more economical walling material in itself and permits the use of economical building techniques.
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
It has been generally agreed that slums and squatter settlements are steadily growing at alarming rates in cities of developing countries. In most cases, this growing phenomenon is an outcome of failed polices, poor governance, inappropriate planning regulations, unresponsive financial systems, strong pressure of rural-urban migration and lack of political will to reverse the situation amicably. The dominance of slums in urban areas adds to the toll on the people already burdened deeply by abject poverty and constrains the enormous potential for human development that urban life offers [1]. According to the Ethiopian Urban Sector Study, Ethiopian urban population is currently estimated to be 11 Million; 80% of these live in substandard housing units and environmentally unfit living conditions in slum neighborhoods. This fact coupled with high urbanization rate and other urban development challenges left urban areas with complex and rooted physical, environmental, economic and social problems where the urban poor, who reside in slums, are most vulnerable [1]. The scarcity of houses, the very low standard of the existing houses and the ever-increasing cost of construction also demands the need for producing low cost construction materials of acceptable quality. This initiated professionals to seek low cost materials and low cost methods of construction to solve the problems. In this research compressed stabilised earth blocks are considered as an alternative walling material. In this chapter, attempts have been made to outline the motivation and objectives for the research work, and explain the need of the research. The limitations and delimitations and the methods to achieve the research objectives are also presented. The final section of the chapter outlines the structure of the thesis and informs the reader certain conventions used throughout the thesis.
1. Introduction
1.2 Justification for the thesis

There is a self- evident need for adequate and durable housing, especially in the urban and peri-urban areas of Ethiopia. The poorest sector of the community is most affected by this housing shortage, as it is least able to afford construction materials classified as permanent under prevailing building regulations. Assuming land availability and planning permission for further development, the need is to deliver more durable housing of lower cost. Building materials accounts large portion of the housing construction cost. Production of building components using techniques imported from the developed World is highly capital and energy intensive. By using improved locally available traditional building materials, the construction cost of housing can be reduced significantly [2]. Earth construction is very successful in arid areas, but significant stabilisation is required for adequate performance in humid areas. With good production control compressed stabilised soil block can perform quite adequately, but further improvement in material performance will help in meeting the same requirements as other present day building materials. Compressed and cement stabilised soil blocks are building components of growing importance in tropical countries. Their performance has sometimes been lacking, so that its improvement is critical to their obtaining a larger market share. Compressed stabilised block durability is influenced by the interplay of three main factors: i). the process by which the compressed stabilised block was produced, ii). the choice of the constituent materials and iii).the nature of the exposure conditions in service. This thesis addresses a critical aspect of these factors, by examining proportions between soil and stabiliser, the compaction pressure and the amount of water to be applied taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the soil so as to produce blocks that are dense and strong with regular surfaces and edges. In this way, higher strength blocks,
Department of Civil Engineering
1. Introduction
which are therefore dimensionally stable and durable, can be produced at tolerable cement cost. A further motivation of this research is its extensive use of raw earth as main building material, thereby using a local resource to help develop technologies that are energy saving, eco friendly and sustainable. Currently popular alternatives such as fired brick and concrete blocks do not have these advantages.
1.3 Objectives of the thesis

As the population of the world continues to grow, so does the need for housing, thus cheap, easy to build accommodation for the thriving masses is a big problem in the developing World. Soil has been used as a building material for thousands of years, but unprotected structures seldom withstand wet climates for long periods of time. Relatively new materials such as cement have meant that blocks can be made which will last for centuries, but they are too expensive for most people in developing countries. A possible solution to this would be to make blocks using soil that is then stabilised, as this adds strength and durability to the raw material, even in less arid conditions. Stabilisation fulfills a number of objectives that are necessary to achieve a lasting structure from locally available soil. Some of these are: better mechanical characteristics (leading to better wet and dry compressive strength), better cohesion between particles (reducing porosity which reduces changes in volume due to moisture fluctuations), and improved resistance to wind and rain erosion. Using one or more of the stabilisation techniques listed latter, many of these objectives may be fulfilled. Optimum methods depend greatly on the type of soil, and a careful study of the local soil is necessary to suggest an effective method of stabilisation. The objective of this thesis is thus to provide detailed technical and economic information on the production of compressed stabilised earth blocks with a view to making available existing experiences in this field to those who produce or plan to manufacture blocks so as to improve production techniques and quality of output. This includes information on suitable soil types, local stabilisers, production of compressed stabilised earth blocks,
1. Introduction
quality of the blocks, and their economical value. It also comes up with optimum cement content of stabilised soil blocks for low cost housing.
1.4
Scope of the study
The research will cover only the technical and economic analysis of cement stabilised soil block. It focuses on the soil from Addis Ababa Kara area. The research is delimited to the general study in Addis Ababa Kara area soil. Relevant data are acquired for cements from the two manufactures, and index properties of the raw materials and compressive strength tests are conducted at Addis Ababa University, Civil Engineering Department Soil Mechanics and Construction Materials laboratory. Mix design, blocks production and curing are conducted at Selam Technical and vocational center. During the investigation, the research is limited to get soil sample from a single site, because of time and budget constraints. Therefore this research investigation is relied on the soil from Kara area of Addis Ababa.
1.5 Methodology
The research work begins with literature review followed by assessment of the case in Ethiopia. For the development of concepts, which are fundamental for the formulation of the whole research work, both conceptual and contextual frameworks of the problem are reviewed. The method of approach to the solution of the problem determines the required data, which intern is a ground to decide on type and method of data collection and their analysis. Different alternative data collection methods such as experiments, observations, and archival records are examined and used where proved suitable. Both primary data (collected personally) from the source itself and secondary data from different countries is collected and used for the analysis. Primary data is collected at controlled environments by testing in laboratories by using electro mechanical equipments. The analysis of the collected data is both qualitative and quantitative.
1. Introduction
1.5
Structure of the research
This thesis is designed to report the academic findings from the research carried out during this M.Sc. research work. Its function is also to present information to examining body for assessment for awarding masters degree to the author. The thesis has been written to reflect the chronological order of events with a minimum of forward and backward referencing of the different chapters. The thesis is divided in to 8 chapters and each chapter contains a number of sections and further subsections. These three hierarchical levels are identified by numbers and break down the majority of the text in to manageable portions. The contextual framework of earth as a building material is described in chapter two. The conceptual review comes in chapter three. The properties of materials, mix proportions and tests are reported in chapter 4. Chapters 5 and 6 detail the results of tests on soil and cement stabilised compressed soil blocks. Economic analysis and comparisons with other alternative walling material is described in chapter 7. Finally chapter 8 summaries the conclusions made throughout the thesis and makes recommendation for further research to work. Data is presented in three different formats in this thesis. Graphs are used to show trends and to highlight possible relationships. Tables are used to present statistical analysis of the data collected. These two formats appear in the body of the text close to their point of reference as possible, but not necessarily on the same page. Other important data are recorded in the appendices for cross- referencing.
CHAPTER TWO CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK OF EARTH AS A BUILDING MATERIAL 2.1 Building materials improvement needs
The choice of building materials is one of the important criteria, which determines the strength, quality, and economy of any construction. Originally, stone, sand, earth, grass, logs, skin, etc were used as construction/building materials in their crude form. As technique advanced, the crude as well as the partly refined materials were replaced by others, especially made for different purposes. The history of development of house facilities reveals that man has been modeling his environment throughout the ages for more comfortable living [3]. Provision of housing for developing countries is one of the most important basic needs of low-income groups. It is a very difficult requirement to meet, since land and construction costs are mostly beyond the means of both the rural and urban poor. In order to address this issue various governments have undertaken housing schemes that aim to facilitate some form of housing ownership by low-income groups. These ideas include self-help housing schemes that provide housing subsidies, provision of credit, and/or low interest rates etc [4]. Due to limited means within developing countries, it is necessary to seek ways to reduce construction costs, especially for low-income housing, as well as adopting easy and effective solutions for their repair and maintenance. Such objectives can be achieved partially through the production and use of cheap yet durable locally available building materials [4]. Two-third of the expenditure in housing construction goes for building materials. Production of building components using techniques imported from the western world is highly capital and energy intensive. A significant cost cut down can be achieved in building construction using improved locally available traditional building materials with appropriate technology [2].
2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material
In the case of low cost housing, building materials account for 70-75 % of the total cost of construction as shown Table 2.1 below [5]. Table 2.1. Average cost break-up for low cost building construction [5]. Materials Cement Iron &steel Bricks Timber Sand Aggregate Sum 18% 10% 17% 13% 7% 8% 73% Labor Masons Wage Carpenters wage Unskilled labor 10% 15% 12% Component wise Foundation Wall Roofs Doors & Windows Flooring Finishing 10% 30% 25% 15% 10% 10% 100%
27 %
Due to large-scale construction programs in Ethiopia, the demand for conventional building materials like cement, steel, bricks and timber has outstripped their supply. The major cost of construction is incurred on building materials and most of these building materials are cement products. The ever increasing price of cement coupled with the rise in the price of other construction materials make the construction cost far from the reach of the low and the middle income group of urban dwellers. Alternative solutions have to be thought to rectify such problems and minimize the burden of the community. Since the early 1950s, much attention has been focused on the importance of access to housing for low-income populations, notably by undertaking research into building materials and techniques which aim to make the best possible use of local resources, both material and cultural [6]. In Ethiopia there are various traditional construction materials which have proved to be suitable for a wide range of buildings and which have a great potential for increased use in the future. One such material is the compressed stabilised earth block, an improved form of one of the oldest materials used in building construction (Adobe). Soil is one of the primary materials used for construction of traditional low-cost dwellings and is well suited to local weather conditions and occupancy patterns. Different soil construction methods are used in the majority of urban and rural areas of Ethiopia.
Buildings are constructed entirely, or partially of soil, depending on location, climate, available skills, cost, building use and local tradition. Traditional earth construction techniques such as wattle and daub, cob and adobe need continuous maintenance in order to keep them in good condition. Research works to increase the durability of earth as a construction material is very important. Unfortunately the quality of compressed stabilised earth blocks in some construction schemes is far from adequate and often materials are wasted in the production process. To extend the use of compressed stabilised earth building blocks to all types of housing e.g. low-cost housing in rural and urban areas and middle income housing in urban areas, production techniques need to be further improved so as to achieve better quality and reduce production costs [7]. In order to do this the following points need to be considered carefully: i) Proportions between soil and stabiliser need to be optimized, taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the soil, ii) Compaction pressure applied to the moist soil mix needs to be sufficient so as to produce blocks that are dense and strong with regular surfaces and edges. iii) Block surfaces need to be smooth so that they have the potential to be used without an additional surface coating or render. Long term planning for building materials development based on an assessment of future needs, is generally lacking in many developing countries. Poor co-ordination of the research institutions and government offices concerning aspects of building materials industry does not promote an effective planning effort. The absence of clearly defined polices and failure to accord explicit recognition to the industry in national development plans must also be seen as constraints to be overcome. The successful exploitation of indigenous resources for increasing the supply of building materials will depend on the fulfillment of some conditions, namely: renewed political commitment, strengthening of building research and information infrastructure, manpower
development and training, development of tools and spare parts industry, and sustained promotion of the local building materials industry and its products [7].
2.2 Building materials and economic development

The building materials and construction industry is one of the most important sectors of economic activity and represents an essential instrument of socio economic development. It provides a wide range of services and capabilities for designing and constructing facilities necessary for economic development. The links between consumption, production and construction show that economic growth and social equality are dependent on construction. The activities of construction industry are not confined to the construction of dwelling houses, but extend to infrastructure, equipment and services as well as their repair and maintenance. Thus, construction is powerful stimulator of social growth and well being. It is therefore not surprising that in the developed countries investment in the construction sector, including building materials is higher than in any other sector, (over half the total investment) [7]. At present, the Ethiopian construction industry accounts for only 5.5% of GDP, compared to a sub-Saharan Africa average of 6%. However with sustained economic growth over the past four years, the sector has registered 8.2% growth; and public construction projects account for nearly 60% of the Governments capital budget [8]. The building materials and the construction industry is one of the most important sectors of economic activity and represent an essential instrument of socio-economic development. It provides a wide range of services and capabilities for designing and constructing facilities necessary for economic development [7]. Considering the other factors needed for the smooth operation of the construction industry such as the goods produced by other industries, manpower and other inputs, it is easy to see why this sector is so sensitive to socio-economic conditions and why political leaders attach so much importance to controlling its development by formulating and adopting clearly defined policies and strategies.
Reciprocally, it can be said that, because they have in the past misjudged or still misjudging the importance of the building materials and construction industries sector and its primary links with other socioeconomic sectors, some countries, despite their material resources, have repeatedly made unsuccessful experiments in the field of construction which, instead of serving as an instrument of development, represents, in the last analysis a bottomless pit swallowing up their wealth and efforts and constitutes no more than a socio-economic dead weight [7]. Strategic planning for building materials development should be based on an assessment of future needs. Firm polices on the use of non conventional materials, backed by a demonstration of the governments commitment to use them in government sponsored projects would contribute greatly in enhancing their increased application in both public and private housing and building projects. There is also an urgent need for governments to ensure that are expected to make significant contributions to an improvement of the supply of essential building material receive priority in the allocation of funds.
2.3 Traditional housing construction in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia like many countries in the third world, there is a big gap between the income of the majority of the population and the cost of the buildings. Based on Climatic conditions and altitude, Traditional house construction in Ethiopia are divided in to houses of low lands-Kolla (<1400m); houses of highlands- Woina Dega (1400-2700m) and houses of highlands Dega (2700 above sea level) [3]. In Ethiopia soil is used extensively in the traditional construction of mud walls (Chika) both in the Kolla, Woina Dega and Dega area, especially in the central, northeast, northwest and in the southern eastern rift valley area of the country. Chika is a mixture of Clay, fine and short straw of the Ethiopian common cereal,teff (Eragroetis Abyssinica) and water [7]. The mixture, after it has thoroughly been mixed by treading with the human feet is either immediately used, or is left to ferment for some time before it is used as a filling material of the opening between wood poles and finally as plaster. Unfortunately the traditional building techniques adopted for mud walls in Ethiopia have serious defects. The mud walls suffer from extended shrinkage cracks, which weaken the walls. Mud walls can
10
easily be eroded by rain. The practice was to cover mud walls with protective coating consisting of animal dung. This was intended to serve as a wearing surface. The protective surface needed continued maintenance and some times renewal almost every year. These entire drawbacks lead most of the people to the misconception that buildings with soil are of inferior quality and should be avoided.
2.4 Salient features of earth as a building material

Earth as a building material has the following salient features:
A) Strength
Earth block buildings are structurally sound. New Mexico adobe code requires a minimum of 2MPa for traditional adobe blocks. The strength, durability and longevity of Earth Blocks stand in stark contrast to other building materials. A typical wood frame building has an average life span of 75 years while earthen structures will stand for centuries [9]. The technology of the hydraulic press machine has enhanced the fundamentals of earthen construction, durability, simplicity and sustainability. These characteristics have remained constant throughout the ages. For thousands of years people around the world have relied on earthen construction for their shelter with minimal impact on the environment. Approximately about half of the worlds population currently resides in earthen dwellings. Earth block construction combines the purity and timelessness of a natural material with the opportunities and innovations of today, a timeless technology.
B) Cost and Energy efficient

Probably the most impressive and important selling point of earth block building is the incredible energy savings the owner will be awarded throughout the life of the building. The thermal mass quality alone defines the strongest attribute of earth block and can be spelled out in energy savings to the owner, which means the community, saves as well. Energy efficiency can also be realized in the construction process itself. Earth blocks are made on-site saving in transportation costs and fuel consumption and require little energy in the block making process.
11
C) Virtually Sound proof

Earth Block is so dense a building material that occupants are relatively protected from the outside World [9]. Sound recording studios have been built with pressed block for that very quality. Earth block buildings create their own world on the inside, which most people find is an added bonus.
D) Non-Toxic
Block making itself is a non-toxic process; therefore, buildings themselves are clean. Often, man-made ingredients of modern construction set up an environment that is filled with toxic chemicals and gases. Earth block is a frequently chosen material for home construction for those people suffering from chemical sensitivity [9]. Its a win-win for both occupant and the community when new buildings are constructed with earth-friendly materials.
E) Environmentally friendly
When you consider the attributes listed above, the underlying theme is that building with Earth block is environmentally friendly. From the construction of the block itself to the finished product, this is a way to build that benefit everyone.
F) Durable
Durability is the measure of the ability of the block to endure or sustain its distinctive characteristics of strength, dimensional stability and resistance to weathering under conditions of use for the duration of the services lifetime of the structure [10].Earth blocks have to be durable and water proof to exclude any undesirable influences of the environment such as rain, winds, rising damp or other severe weather conditions of exposure. When you consider that the oldest structures standing throughout the world today are made of earth, the statement that earth block is durable speaks for itself. Earth block has a good resistance for fire and pest.
12
For the purpose of this thesis, cement stabilised soil block is defined as a durable material which is produced from a natural or modified soil containing sufficient fines to provide cohesion on densification, sufficient to allow unsupported handling or stack curing.
G) Uses available and abundant raw materials

Three ingredients make up the right combination used for earth block: sand, clay and silt materials, which are combined with a small percentage of Portland cement. The only other ingredient needed for wall construction is water, to make the mud slurry that binds the blocks together.
H) Aesthetically pleasing
Earth block buildings can be made to look like any kind of finished structure; however, most people who adopt for this type of construction find they love the look of the block itself and the adobe look of a finish plaster. Exteriors typically are given a weather-resistant skin that can be colored or left natural and interiors plastered with a variety of mixtures or left exposed. Arches and rounded corners are an option that allow for flexibility in design as shown in Fig 2.1 below. They have a look and a feel that envelops their occupants and blends beautifully with the natural world.
13
Fig 2.1 Soil block building in India
I) Thermal Properties
Building materials are rated for thermal performance based on measurements known as Rand U -values. The R-value indicates the ability of a wall to insulate efficiently. Insulation is nothing more than the resistance of a material to the transference of heat. It makes sense that the higher the R-value, or resistance, the better insulator the material is. The R-value is calculated by dividing the thickness of the wall by the walls thermal conductivity, a value established by the amount of heat (per sq. ft. per hour) flowing from the hotter to the cooler side of the wall [9]. The U-value, or value of conductance, is represented by the reciprocal of the R-value and reflects the rate at which heat is conducted through material. Total R- and U- values may be calculated for a given wall by adding the sum of the values of each of the individual components of the wall structure (all insulation, interior sheathing, framing, or masonry must be taken into consideration) [9].
14

[
Both of these values reflect the rate at which heat passes through a wall only after it has achieved the steady-state condition or the state when heat energy is passing uninterrupted from one side of the wall to the other at a constant rate. What is not taken into consideration and is of critical importance in the case of masonry-mass walls like adobe, is the heat capacity of the wall, which determines the length of time which passes before a steady state of heat flow is achieved. The higher the heat capacity of the wall, the longer period of time it will take for heat flow to reach a steady state. In reality, external and internal temperatures are changing constantly so that a true steady state condition is rarely achieved. What does occur, in the high-capacity wall such as adobe, is the constant comfort zone found in adobe buildings. For example, in the morning, when the sun rises, heat from the warmer, exterior side of the wall begins to move through the adobe mass. Depending not only on the resistance (Rvalue) of adobe, but also on the heat capacity of the wall (a factor both of the specific heat capacity and the thickness of the wall), the heat takes a certain length of time to reach the cooler, interior side of the wall and be released into the surrounding air. In adobe walls of sufficient thickness and of sufficient R-values, the normal daily fluctuations of temperatures never really allow much heat to pass through the wall at a steady state. At night, when the warmer side of the wall drops in temperature, heat already absorbed into the masonry-mass wall continues to flow, not just in one direction, but to both sides of the wall until a temperature equilibrium has been reached. This cycle is repeated in what is known as the flywheel effect [9]. It is responsible for the comfort well known to those who live in properly designed compressed earth block homes.
2.5 Main techniques using earth as a building material

For 10,000 Years, earth has been used as a building material. Today, one third of the world population is living in earth buildings [11]. There are eighteen principal well-known methods using earth as a building material as shown in the Fig. 2.2 below. Amongst these, eight are widely employed and constitute the following major techniques:
15
1. Adobe: The earth, in a malleable state, often improved by addition of straw or other fibers, is moulded in to a brick form and dried in the sun (11, 12, 13). 2. Rammed earth: The earth is massively dumped into formworks, compacted by means of a rammer, layer by layer, and formwork (5). 3. Straw clay: The earth is spread out in water until a homogenous thick liquid state is attained. This muddy liquid is mixed with straw in order to form a film on every wisp. The building material obtained conserves its straw like aspect. It is put in to place by means of a formwork in order to erect a monolithic wall, which necessitates a primary support structure (16). 4. Wattle and Daub: Clayey material, mixed with straw or other fibers, is layered on top of wattles that fill in a timber structure (14, 15). 5. Shaped earth: The earth, often improved by the addition of straw or other fibers is shaped in to a wall using the same technique as that used for pottery, without tools. This ancient technique is still widely used. (4). 6. Extruded earth: The earth is extruded by a powerful machine similar to, or derived from, the machines used for the manufacture of fired brick (10). 7. Cob: The earth, often improved by the addition of straw or other fibers, is shaped in to big balls, which are piled on top of one another and lightly packed, by hand or foot, in
order to erect shaped monolithic walls. In order cases, the cob is incorporated into a timber framework or structure (3). 8. Compressed Earth: The earth is compressed, in block form, in a mould in the past; the earth was compressed in the mould by means of a small pestle, or by tamping a very heavy lid forcefully on the mould. Nowadays, a wide variety of presses is used (6, 7).
16
Fig.2.2 Use of Earth as Building material [11]
2.6 Compressed Earth Block

2.6.1 Historical background of compressed earth block
From the roof of the World in Tibet or in the Andes Mountains in Peru, to the shores of the Nile in Egypt or in the fertile valleys of China, many are examples of earth used as a building material. The oldest one can still be seen in Egypt, near Luxor, which was built around 1300 BC: the vaults of Ramasseum, in the "rest" of the Thebes. It has been built with adobes, the sun dried mud bricks [12].
17
India also shows very old earthen buildings, like the Shey Palace in Ladakh, which was built with adobe in the 17th century. The oldest one has withstood 1006 Himalayan winters: the Tabo monastery in Spiti Vally, Himachal Pradesh, which was built with rammed earth in 996 AD [4]. Raw earth for building has been used world wide for millennia but during the 20thcentury, most of the skills of earth builders were lost and building with earth became marginal. Thanks a lot to the Egyptian architect Hassen Fathy for the renaissance of earthen architecture in the middle of the 20th century [12]. The new development with earth construction really started in the nineteen fifties, with the technology of compressed stabilised earth blocks (CSEB): a Colombian research program for affordable houses proposed the first Manual press, the CINVARAM (Fig 2.3). This has led to a renaissance of the tradition of earthen architecture and construction-a revival, which is benefiting from the results of scientific research [12]. The compressed earth block is the modern descendent of the moulded earth block, more commonly known as the adobe block. The idea of compacting earth to improve the quality and performance of moulded earth blocks is, however, far from new, and it was with wooden tamps that the first compressed earth blocks were produced.
Fig 2.3 The first Manual press, Cinvaram [13].
18
The first machines for compressing earth probably date from the 18th century. In France, Francois Cointeraux, inventor and fervent advocate of "new pise" (rammed earth) designed the "crecise", a device derived from a wine-press. But it was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the first mechanical presses, using heavy lids forced down into moulds, were designed. Some examples of this kind of press were even motor-driven. The fired brick industry went on to use static compression presses in which the earth is compressed between two converging plates. But the turning point in the use of presses and in the way in which compressed earth blocks were used for building and architectural purposes came only with effect from 1952, following the invention of the famous little ClNVA-RAM press, designed by engineer Raul Ramirez at the CINVA centre in Bogot, Columbia. With the 70's and 80's there appeared a new generation of manual, mechanical and motor-driven presses, leading to the emergence today of a genuine market for the production and application of the compressed earth block [6].
In view of the history of earth construction, the compressed block technique is a new technique. It has been developed in the fifties in the frame of a research program
concerning rural housing in Columbia. It is an improvement of the adobe technique. Instead of being molded by hand in a wooden frame, the blocks are formed by compressing earth, slightly moistened, in a steel press. Compared to the hand-moulded block, the compressed earth Block is very regular in size and shape, and much denser as shown in the Fig. 2.4 below. It has better resistance to compressive stresses and to water. Earth blocks are blocks of compressed soil that are aesthetically pleasing as well as cost and energy efficient, fire and pest resistant, virtually soundproof, durable and structurally sound. They provide complete architectural freedom and are made from non-toxic readily available natural raw material dirt [9].
19
Fig.2.4 Typical compressed earth blocks [9]. Since the very earliest of times, earth has been used as a major building material and today we can find evidence of this fact over vast areas of our planet. The developments of industrial building materials such as concrete and steel have to a large extent suppressed the use of unfired earth. Today, however, there is a re-awaking of the use of this traditional building material, not only in developing countries, but also in the developed Western world. Earth, the oldest of building materials on our planet, is still today the most commonly used [9]. There is now a worldwide tendency towards using soil as a building material to achieve economy in the final cost of a building [7]. It is also the most popular material amongst Europes bio-ecological constructors on account of its physical attributes and ability to regulate moisture and temperature. This in turn allows for heating/energy reductions of up to 30 % and in some cases even up to 80% [9]. The technology behind the production of compressed earth blocks is based on a mechanical process. This ensures a high quality product regular in dimension and of durability consistent with high quality traditional brick building. Earth, as opposed to pure clay, is the raw material used in the production of earth blocks.
20
2.6.2 Compressed earth block role in development

Since its emergence in the 50's, Compressed Earth Block (CEB) production technology and its application in building have continued to progress and to prove its scientific as well as its technical worth [6]. Research centers, Industrialists, entrepreneurs and builders have developed a very sophisticated body of knowledge, making this technology competent to the present construction technologies. Compressed Earth Building production meets scientific requirements for product quality control, from identification, selection and extraction of the earth used, to quality assessment of the finished block, thanks to procedures and tests on the materials, which are now standardized. This scientific body of knowledge ensures the quality of the material. Simultaneously, the accumulated experience of builders working on a very large number of sites has also enabled architectural design principles and working practices to emerge and today these form practical points of reference for architects and entrepreneurs, as well as for contractors. The setting up of compressed earth block production units, whether on a small-scale or at industrial level, in rural or urban contexts, is linked to the creation of employment generating activities at each production stage, from earth extraction in quarries to building work itself. The use of the material for social housing programs, for educational, cultural or medical facilities, and for administrative buildings, helps to develop societies' economies and well-being. Compressed earth block production forms part of development strategies for the public and the private sector, which underline the need for training and new enterprise, and thus contributes to economic and social development. This was the case in the context of a program on the island of Mayotte, in the Comoros archipelago, for the construction of housing and public buildings, a program today regarded as an international reference. The use of Compressed Earth Blocks which followed the setting up of an island production industry proved to be pivotal in Mayottes development, founded on a building economy generating employment and local added value in monetary, economic and social terms.
21
Housing programs are often integrated into a strategy of development. One must consider not only the direct benefits of the program (number of improved dwellings) but also its effects on the local economy. An organization can produce compressed earth block on the site itself or encourage local entrepreneurship by subcontracting teams. In any case, vocational training provided during a program is a benefit for the community housing programs can provide an opportunity to set up a local industry if appropriate materials such as compressed earth block as preferred to materials based on imported components.
2.6.3 The future of compressed earth block

Earth as a building material undoubtedly presents certain outstanding shortcomings, however, it also has important assets, which compensate any disadvantages, that could be corrected. The shortcomings, principally low mechanical characteristics, unsatisfactory resistance to weathering and liability to volume changes especially in the case of clayey soils, can be corrected by combining chemical and mechanical action. Excellent stabilisation results have been obtained on very different materials with various stabilisers [7]. However, it is essential to guarantee quality of the compressed earth block by proper mix design and adopting appropriate stabiliser to the earth to be treated; to carry out the work in compliance with well established rules. The research centers in India Auroville, CRATerre in France, and the Hydraform Company in South Africa have made great progress on compressed earth block; thanks to scientific research, experimentation, and architectural achievements which form the basis of a wide range of technical documents and academic and professional courses. A major effort is now being devoted to the question of norms and this should help to confer ultimate legitimacy upon the technique in the coming years.
2.7
Social acceptance
Another key to success in an earth building is the social acceptance of the dwellings by their future inhabitants. They generally ask for a modern look, i.e. a house made of sand cement blocks. But at the same time, the traditional way of life must be preserved and attention has to be paid to the local climatic conditions, especially in hot countries. The
22
compressed earth block looks modern. Its flexible size and shape allows it to be used to achieve many different types of masonry and so to build houses of any style. In hot countries, and even more in those with a wide thermal variation, a compressed earth block wall creates a truly comfortable living environment compared to sand, cement based materials. Occasionally, a social reluctance to use the compressed earth block can be encountered when the compressed earth block has been too strongly associated with low cost or cheap building. Social acceptance depends a great deal on how it is presented to the population. Organizations have an active part to play in this respect, as well as political decision makers. The involvement of architects and engineers in this process is also necessary.
2.8
Comparison of compressed earth block with other building materials
Compressed earth blocks represent a considerable improvement over traditional earth building techniques. When guaranteed by quality control, compressed earth block products can very easily bear comparison with other materials such as the sand-cement block or the fired brick as shown in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2 Properties of compressed stabilised earth blocks versus other walling materials [4]. Property Compressed Fired Stabilised clay Earth bricks Blocks
1-40 5-60
Calcium silicate bricks
Dense concrete blocks
Aerated Lightweight concrete concrete blocks blocks
Wet compressive strength (MPa ) Moisture movement (%) Density (kg/m3) Thermal conductivity w/moC Durability against rain
10-55
7-50
2-6
2-20
0.02-0.2 1700-2200 0.81-1.04 Good to very poor
0.00-0.02 1400-2400 0.70-1.30 Excellent to very poor
0.01-0.035 1600-2100 0.10-1.60 Good to moderate
0.02-0.5 1700-2200 1.00-1.70 Good to poor
0.05-0.10 400-950 0.10-0.20 Good to moderate
0.04-0.08 600-1600 0.15-0.70 Good to poor
23
2.8.1 Compressive strength

The compressive strength of compressed stabilised earth blocks (i.e. the amount of pressure they can resist without collapsing) depends upon the soil type, type and amount of stabiliser, and the compaction pressure used to form the block. Maximum strengths (described in MPa) are obtained by proper mixing of suitable materials and proper compacting and curing. Several different minimum values of 28-day wet compressive strength, all above 1.0 MPa are proposed; some of the recommendations by different authors for the minimum compressive strength of compressed stabilised soil block include 1MPa, 1.4 MPa, from 1.4 to 2MPa and 2MPa [10]. In practice, typical wet compressive strengths for compressed stabilised earth building blocks may be less than 4MPa. It is a strength suitable for many building purposes. It also competes favorably, for example, with the minimum British Standard requirements of 2.8MPa for precast concrete masonry units and load bearing fired clay blocks, and of 5.2MPa for bricks [4]. Where building loads are small (e.g. in the case of single storey constructions), a compressive strength of 1MPa to 4MPa may be sufficient. Many building authorities around the world recommend values within this range.
2.8.2 Density and thermal properties

Normally compressed stabilised earth blocks are denser than a number of concrete masonry products such as aerated and lightweight concrete blocks. While having densities within the range of various types of bricks e.g. clay, calcium silicate and concrete bricks (see Table 2.2). The high density of compressed stabilised earth blocks may be considered as a disadvantage due to its dead weight on the structure and when the blocks have to be transported over long distances; however, it is of little consequence when they are produced at or near the construction site. Low density compressed stabilised earth blocks have an advantage over high density ones of acting as better thermal insulators. This is particularly
24
advantageous in hot dry climates where extreme temperatures can be moderated inside buildings made of compressed stabilised earth blocks.
2.8.3 Moisture movement

Building materials with high porosity when used for wall construction may expand slightly in wet and dry conditions. Such movements may result in cracking and other defects to the building. Expansion of compressed stabilised earth blocks may vary according to the properties of the soil; some soils expand or shrink more than others. The addition of a stabiliser will reduce this expansion. In general, however, there may be greater movement in structures built with compressed stabilised earth blocks than those using alternative construction materials (see Table 2.2). Proper block manufacture and construction methods, however, will reduce such movement. Moisture movement is denoted in terms of linear percentage. It is worth mentioning that moisture movement becomes especially important when two materials with different movement properties are used in a building. Differential movement results in stress, which may break the bond between the materials, or cause other damage. For example, cement renderings often peal off earth walls or poorly compressed stabilised earth blocks because of their different expansion properties.
2.8.4 Durability, Maintenance and Appearance

As a rule soil blocks containing stabilisers show greater resistance to extreme weather conditions [4]. Blocks of the same size, when made of a sufficiently good quality and shape with a high quality finish, can be used for fair-faced walling. Their appearance depends upon soil colors, particle size, and degree of compaction used. With high quality blocks external or even internal rendering should not be necessary. A white wash finish applied directly to the blocks as a render coat could be used to reduce solar gain.
25
It should be noted that compressed stabilised earth blocks, in common with other types of blocks and bricks, would need adequate steel reinforcement if used in areas prone to earthquakes or cyclones etc. Termites, bacteria, fungi and fire do not present a particular hazard for compressed stabilised earth blocks. However, organic material in the soil may weaken the strength of the block.
26
CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL REVIEW 3.1 General

Where there is a demand for improving traditional building materials made of raw earth, compressed earth block may provide an answer since the production methods are technically accessible to the local labor, and because laying the block requires only elementary masonry skills [11]. Compressed earth block is regular in shape and size and can be used in prestigious buildings as well as in social building programs. It can be produced in small-scale village workshops as well as in medium or large-scale urban plants. In the early of the development of the compressed earth block technique, the attention of researchers was focused mainly on the strength of the blocks and the design of presses. But experience has shown the importance of other production parameters such as selection and preparation of the soil. Failures were generally due to an underestimation of some
production parameters or due to an improper building design. Since the beginning of the 80s great stress has been laid on vocational training in the filed of production and building techniques at every level. Technical data obtained on sites or from researches have been put into practice. Improving existing equipment and developing new tools specific to the compressed earth block is one way of assisting the spread of the technique. Another key to a successful dissemination is the development of managerial tools at workshop level as well as for the implementation of large-scale programs [11]. Furthermore, research and further development has still to be done in the field of building norms, standards and technical manuals to facilitate the introduction of the technique to the formal building sector.
27
3. Conceptual Review
3.2 Properties and analysis of soil for soil cement block 3.2.1 General properties
Soil is the result of the transformation of the underlying rock under the influence of physical, chemical and biological processes related to biological and climatic conditions [14].It is found deposited on the surface of the earth and may consists of many different types. The variation in the soils present at the surface can be attributed to a series of natural effects working on the area over time. On the very surface of the soil one typically finds material with a large amount of organic compounds. This is unsuitable for block manufacture and can usually be distinguished by a musty smell especially on heating [15]. Material underneath this organic layer is much better as it usually contains a cross section of particle sizes and includes a proportion of small soil particles called fines. These are usually defined as particles passing a 75m mesh and consist of silt and clay. Clay is necessary in block production because it aids the workability of the mixture, increasing levels of consolidation and improving green strength. Larger particles sands found in soil can generally be assessed as minerals that are silicas, silicates or limestones. Soil has a proportion of water and air that fill the gaps between adjoining particles in the soil. This gives natural soil a nonhomogenous and porous nature. Systems for identifying some major characteristics have been developed to define different ranges of soil characteristics. The most common of these is the size distribution of the soil particles. The physical characteristics that can define a sample of soil includes color, shape, apparent bulk density, specific bulk density, size or texture, moisture content, porosity or voids ratio, permeability, effective surface area, adhesion, specific heat capacity, dry strength and linear contraction [15]. Chemical properties are also sometimes of interest particularly when a chemical additive is used. These chemical properties include the composition, mineral content, metallic oxides, pH levels and sulphates in the soil [15, 16]. Soil characteristics and climatic conditions of an area must be evaluated before manufacturing soil building blocks. A dry climate, for example, needs different soil blocks
28
from those used in temperate, rainy or tropical areas. All soils are not suitable for every building need [4]. With so many different characteristics that one could discover about a sample of soil, it would be foolhardy to try and discover them all in every situation that soil is to be used for making compressed stabilised soil block. Only a small number of characteristics are of real relevance to the scientist testing the soil. The chemical composition of the soil is of little importance once the absence of unstable compounds and organic matter has been established. The physical properties are of greater interest for making compressed stabilised soil block as these will help to determine its ease of mixing, forming, de-moulding, porosity, permeability, shrinkage, dry strength and apparent bulk density. Controlling or monitoring the clay fraction is important in making compressed stabilised soil blocks. Too much clay results in unacceptably high expansion upon wetting, requiring excessive amounts of cement to attune this. Too little clay causes low adhesion between particles and hence causes high breakage rates on de-moulding of the compressed stabilised soil block [15]. The basic material, however, required to manufacture compressed stabilised earth building blocks is a soil containing a minimum quantity of silt and clay so as to facilitate cohesion [4]. Optimum fines content for making compressed stabilised soil block was suggested by the United Nations to be about 25% of which more than 10% is clay. A more useful range of particle sizes suitable for building with earth block is given in as follows [15]: Sand/fine gravel: 40 - 75% Silt: 10 - 30% Clay: 15 - 30% From the literature it is unclear how much a change of say 5% to the clay content will have on the overall performance of the compressed stabilised soil lock. Controlling the moisture content in the mixture is also important, but generally the production manuals use a simple drop test to determine an acceptable range. The accuracy of this test is fairly low and what effect the possible variation in the moisture has on the finished product is not clear.
29
The detrimental characteristic of expansion and contraction of a compressed stabilised soil block can only occur if three characteristics are present: Clays and Porosity and Permeability and Moisture differential. If any one of those is absent then expansion and contraction will not occur, (ignoring thermal expansion and contraction). We need clay to be present in compressed stabilised soil block and it is impossible in humid climates to avoid moisture differentials so that the only characteristics that we can seek to reduce are the porosity and permeability. Using a suitable soil for soil-cement block production will result in [4]: Strong blocks, namely those that after curing possess high wet strength and erosion resistance. Handle able blocks that immediately upon demoulding can be transferred to a curing area without a high breakage rate. Block that will not seriously distort or crack during curing. Blocks, which will not expand and contract excessively in the building if subjected to wetting and drying cycles. Specifically disqualified soils are: Those containing high excessive organic impurity. Those, which are highly expansive. Those containing excessive soluble salts e.g. gypsum and chalk.
3.2.2 Classification of soil

Soils are classified in many different ways: by their use, origin, size, texture, color and density [3]. For building purpose soil can be generally characterized in two ways, by a particle size distribution analysis and by a plasticity index. The particle size analysis will give information on the soil ability to pack into a dense structure and the quantity of fines present (combined silt and clay fraction), while the plasticity index gives an idea of cohesion of the fines [17].
30
3.2.2.1 Classification by grain size

All soils consist of disintegrated rock, decomposed organic matter and soluble mineral salts. Soil types are graded according to particle size using a system of classification widely used in civil engineering. The classification of soils based on grain size, according to the Ethiopian Building Code of Practice, EBCS and ASTM, are summarized as shown in Table 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Table 3.1 Soil classification according to particle size in mm EBCS 7[18].
Particle Size Basic soil type

Stone Gravel Sand Silt Clays
[1] [2]
Coarse
60-200(1) > 200(2) 20-60 0.6-2 0.02-0.06
Medium
-6-20 0.2-0.6 0.006-0.02 <0.002 mm
Fine
-2-6 0.06-0.2 0.002-0.006
Cobbles Boulders
Table 3.2 The grain size classification based on the ASTM D 2487 Standards [14]: Pebbles 200 to 20 mm Gravel 20 to 2mm Sand 2 to 0.006mm Silt 0.06 to 0.002 mm Clay 0.002 to 0mm
Gravel is not usually used in soil- cement production, as the large particle size may lead to a poor (rough) surface finish. A suitable soil will contain a mixture of sand, silt and clay sized particles. The properties of each of these three fractions influence the properties of the block and will be discussed below.
[
A particle size analysis will determine the fraction of a soils particles that fall with in each of the above size bands. If dense block is to be produced, it is important that the soil used is well graded. The theoretical distribution of particle sizes to provide a perfectly packed structure is called the fuller curve [17]. The fuller distribution is an ideal model and never
31
occurs naturally. However, a natural soil which has an even distribution of particle size, termed well graded is a good approximation. The fuller curve is based upon the assumption that all of the particles are spherical and that the largest particles just touch each other, while there are enough intermediate particles to fill the voids between the largest, but without holding them apart. The value of a well-graded soil for soil cement is that such a distribution of sizes gives a dense structure with a low specific surface area. A dense structure is important for several reasons. A densely packed arrangement will have a higher number of contacting particles, giving a better load-bearing skeleton. The number and size of the inter-particle voids will be reduced as will the number of linked voids, these will reduce the porosity of the soil and hence also its permeability, thereby reducing susceptibility to water penetration. As the interlocking calcium silicate matrix extends through the soil voids, a more compact void system requires less cement to provide a matrix of equal efficiency. Similarly if it is imagined that cement coats the surfaces of soil particles, a high specific surface area soil will need high amount of cement for blinding, or a lower specific surface area soil will require less cement to provide the same particle surface coverage and consequently the same strength and durability. The upper and lower limit to the soils grading also need to be considered. A soil may be considered well graded with a uniform distribution of particles from fine silt to coarse sand (coarse soil). The coarse soil will have a lower specific surface area than the fine soil, as the same mass of soil will contain fewer and larger particles. From the above consideration of specific surface area, it might be concluded that the more coarse soil would produce strong blocks with lower cement content than that needed for the fine soil. This is however only the case when the blocks are kept within the mould to cure.
A coarse soil containing no fines (silt and clay) is non-plastic and will not have sufficient cohesion to retain its shape on ejection from the mould or to allow easy transportation to the curing area [17]. The coarse soil could be considered to be a form of sand-cement
32
containing large voids (a result of the lack of fines). Large voids would increase the porosity of the block and lead back to the common sand-cement problem of rapid drying before the cement has had time to adequately cure. Such a soil would be considered wellgraded but still be unsuitable for soil-cement block production. Conversely a well-graded fine soil, containing little sand but high clay content, would have a high specific surface area and expansive behavior. The high clay content would give the soil cohesion and stability on ejection from the mould, but the high specific surface area would require a large amount of cement to provide reasonable particle coverage. Thus, a suitable soil will be well graded but certain other limits should also be imposed: the largest particle size present should not be sufficiently large to cause a poor surface finish. Sufficient fines (silt and clay) should be present to allow handleability on demoulding but not enough to blind the small quantity of cement to be used.
3.2.2.2 Classification by plasticity (Fine content)

The silt and clay content of a soil are responsible for soil cohesion and it is these fines that provide the fresh blocks with handleability until the initial set of the cement has occurred. The degree of cohesion provided to the block is dependent both on the fines present and the degree of compaction used to form the block. In general terms, a low-pressure moulding process will require higher fines content than a high pressure moulding process. This is because increased compaction will force the soil particles into more intimate contact, thus strengthening the fresh compact. However, the fines, in particular the clay fraction can also lead to blinding of the cement as a result of their high surface area. The approximate surface area of fine sand and medium silt are 0.023 and 0.23 square meters per gram, while for three major clay groups, kaolinite, illite and montmorillonite this increases to 10, 100 and 1000 square meters per gram respectively [17]. The fines also affect the final cured blocks expansion on wetting. Clay usually exists in small agglomerations, which expand in three dimensions on wetting as water penetrates some of the numerous individual particle boundary fissures. The expansions of the clay
33
fraction must be largely restrained by the calcium silicate matrix in order to minimize expansion and contracting of the cured block, on reported wetting and drying. Hence for durability the clay fraction should be as small as possible to allow the lowest cement content. It might be expected form the large difference between the specific surface areas of the three clay types mentioned above that different clays significantly differing expansions characteristics on wetting. This is the case, in general as the surface area of the clay fraction rises, so does the amount it will expand on wetting. As a result the type of clay as well as the quantity present will affect the block [17]. The fine fraction can be seen to be helpful to the block production process but to adversely affect the wet strength and durability of the final cured block. The quantity and type of clay should therefore be considered important soil parameters. The quantity of fines may be measured by using one of the sedimentation tests, however the clay type present is very difficult to determine without highly complex tests. In fact it is not necessary to know the clay type present but it is important to know the properties exhibited by the clay. The Atterburg tests defining liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index are used to quantify the plasticity of the finer fraction of a soil (only particles less than 0.425 mm are tested). These tests measure the percentage water contents at which the soil passes from a liquid state to a plastic state (liquid limit) and from a plastic state to a solid state (plastic limit). The numerical difference between the liquid and plastic limit (the plasticity index) thus gives the range of water content over which the soil may be considered plastic. As plasticity is dependent on the soil cohesion, it has been found that this index reflects the cohesive characteristics of the soil. Furthermore as cohesion is largely dependent on the specific surface area of the fines, these plasticity limits also reflects the expansiveness of the soil. A soil with a low plasticity index will display low cohesion and usually low expansion on wetting, while a high index soil will display the reverse.
34
3.3 Suitable soil for soil cement block

A suitable soil should not contain organic material or excessive soluble salts, which would interfere with the setting of the cement. Its sand fraction should be well graded to provide a densely packed load-bearing skeleton for the block and its largest size particle should be small enough to give a smooth surface finish. The fine fraction should be just sufficient to provide enough cohesion to the fresh block to prevent damage on ejection and transportation from the mould. Too large fines content will either require large cement content for adequate stabilisation or will reduce the durability and wet strength of the final cured block. The cohesion of the fresh block will depend on the compaction pressure used and the type as well as the quantity of clay present in the fines. From the above it should now be possible to see the role that each of the soils component fractions plays in a soil-cement block and the importance of selecting a suitable soil. If the soil available on site appears unsuitable, it should be remembered that natural soil exists in distinct strata with differing compositions. If the different strata are adequately tested then it is a comparatively simple operation to mix suitable masses of two or more strata to produce an acceptable soil [17].
3.4 Available criteria for soil suitability

Selecting a suitable type of earth can take place in the field using parameters, which are the fruit of experience acquired in the course of operational practice. If any doubt persists, laboratory identification tests should be carried out. It is not an exhaustive review but rather included as indication of the variation between authors and as a warning that such criteria should be used as a guide in initial soil selection rather than as a rigid set of rules. Some of the criteria based only on particle size while others use criteria based solely on the Atterburg limits (plasticity index). In general it would be wise to consider both [17].
35
3.4.1 Criteria based on African Regional Standards A. Granular composition

In order to decide whether a soil sample is suitable for soil cement block production or not, one should determine the particle size distribution. From such test results and previous practical experiences, one can get indication on the suitability of the soil sample in question. Based on African Regional Standards and experiences from laboratory investigations, if the granular composition of soil falls with in the limits of the recommended shaded area of Fig. 3.1, the soil is usually considered as suitable for stabilised soil block production. Types of earth the granular composition of which fall out side the shaded area may still give acceptable results, but it is recommended that they be subjected to a series of tests enabling their suitability to be assessed.
Fig.3.1 Diagram of texture [19].
36
B. Plasticity
Additional tests such as liquid and plastic limits can also be made. Such test results will give indication about the plasticity (workability) of the soil in question. If plasticity of the soil fall preferably with in the limits of the recommended shaded area of the diagram of plasticity as shown in Fig. 3.2 below, the soil is considered suitable for soil cement block production. Types of earth the plasticity of which fall out side the shaded area may still give acceptable results, but it is recommended that they be subjected to a series of tests enabling their suitability to be assessed.
Fig.3.2 Diagram of Plasticity [19].
37
3.4.2 Criteria based on Spence, R.J.S & Cook, D.J.1983, Building Materials in Developing Countries
The suitability criteria of soil for soil cement block production have variations between different authors. Spence and Cook are among the authors who set the criteria on soil cement block production. Space and Cook include a graphical plot on a triangular U.S. Bureau of public roads particle size graph roughly between the limits: Sand: 90 - 60 silt: 25-0 clay: 25-0
A. Triangular chart for particle size classification of soils:

If the granular composition of soil falls with in the limits of the recommended shaded area of Fig. 3.3, the soil is usually considered as suitable for stabilised soil block production. Shaded area indicates soil most suitable for soil stabilisation.
Fig.3.3 Triangular chart for particle size classification [17].
38
B. Atterburg limit criteria for soil stabilisation

If plasticity of the soil fall preferably with in the limits of the recommended shaded area of the plasticity chart as shown in Fig. 3.4 below, the soil is considered suitable for soil cement block production. From Fig 3.4 is applicable only to the fraction of soil finer than 0.4 mm, roughly between the limits; Plasticity index 0- 22 %, liquid limit 7-40%.
Fig 3.4 Plasticity chart [17].
3.5 Tests for soils

3.5.1 Types of tests
Prior to soil cement block production there are three main types of tests, which may be conducted: Field tests, Laboratory tests and trial production tests [8]. First, field tests can divide the soils in to two categories. These categories are suitable and unsuitable and if suitable in to potential high and low cement classes [17].
39
Second, Laboratory tests can be used to characterize the soils by particle size distribution, plasticity or other numerical measures for relation to the selection criteria (see section 3.4) and enable simple soil modification by blending [17]. Most small- scale manufacturers of blocks, especially those producing blocks at a rural building site, have little or no access to laboratory facilities and in particular accurate mass measurement to 0.01g. For these block makers, judicious use of the field tests, the shrinkage test, production trials and past experience has to suffice. The laboratory tests are appropriate where medium or large- scale production is planned, where minimizing cement content is especially important or when soil cement block making is moving into a new area. Third, trial production tests can be carried out on manufactured blocks to check that the final block properties required (dry strength, wet strength and durability) can be achieved.
3.5.1.1 Field tests

Field tests are for preliminary site surveying to identify if the soils are most likely suitable and so restrict the number of soils to be more rigorously assessed by laboratory tests or trial production. The tests will provide a rough idea of a soils grading and plasticity and also indicate whether a soil contains significant organic matter (reject outright), a majority of gravel, a majority of sand or a majority of fines. They may also be able to distinguish whether silt or clay is a more significant fraction of the fines. They are generally fairly easy to perform and often require little or no experimental equipment, making them very simple to implement. Simple field tests which are performed to get an indication of the composition of the soil sample includes: smell test, nibble test, touch test, sedimentation test, adhesion test, washing test, linear shrinkage test, dry strength test, water retention test, consistency test and cohesion test [4].
40
However field tests are frequently reported, with out acknowledging the reliance they place on the operators senses. Interpretation of the results is a skilled operation. Consider for example the dry strength test, the prepared soil sample is crushed between the fingers and the ease of crushing is taken as a measure of the soils clay content. For a novice operator the ease of crushing the soil and comparing the clay content is difficult but a skilled operator may compare the ease of crushing with that of soils he/ she has previously tested and hence arrives at a more precise conclusion. Tests that rely on personal judgment are open to differing interpretation between operators and depend on the operators skill for their accuracy. Training and experience of field tests may provide a fact, quite accurate determination of the soils characteristics. All of the test results observed (both the good and the bad), plus the location and depth of the soil samples in question should be recorded in case it is later necessary to use a soil for blending which on preliminary examination had been rejected [17].
3.5.1.2 Laboratory tests

The laboratory tests establish numerical values for certain soil parameters, primarily the percentage distribution of the different sizes of soil particles present and the plasticity limits. These values are subsequently used to determine the best available soil or domination of soils. All of these tests rely on accurate weighing and or some form of laboratory equipment scales with a resolution higher than one thousandth of the chosen sample weights is desirable. There are four main types of tests: The sieving test, sedimentation test, Atterburg limit test and compaction test. The sieving tests separate the different size fractions of the soil in to discrete parts thereby indicating the soils particle grading. The silt and clay fraction are too small to particle grading. The silt and clay fractions are too small to be easily separated by sieving and as such are normally reported as a combined fraction [11]. The larger particles may be separated in to a number of size fractions, depending on the number of sieve seizes available, according to the EBCS and ASTM particle classification boundaries, given in
41
section 3.2.2.1. A full laboratory analysis would give the percentage by weight of each of these size bands. The sedimentation tests if correctly conducted have the ability to separate the larger sand and gravel size fraction from the combined fines fraction and under favorable circumstance to further distinguish the combined fraction in to separate silt and clay fraction [16, 18]. However the simplest test, the glass-jar sedimentation test, is usually included under fieldtests because visual discrimination of the silt/ clay boundary may not be possible. In this case the test can only be used to give an idea of the general relative proportions of sand and fines. In its coarsest form the glass- jar sedimentation test provides no more information than a sieving test and although less accurate, it does not require any mass measurement. Further, although the sedimentation time is long the operator time required to conduct the test is less than that for a sieving test [17]. The Atterburg or plasticity tests define the soils liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity [16, 17]. The Atterburg limits allow the soils plasticity characteristics to be related to the criteria given in section 3.4 above. The shrinkage test is a test of the soils contraction on drying and gives a combined measure of the soils particle grading, plasticity and clay type. It gives an overall idea of the soils behavior and suitability for stabilisation. The degree of contraction may be thought of as a measure of the expansive force, which the soil stabiliser will have to withstand when a manufactured block is exposed to water. The degree of contraction is then taken as a measure of the quantity of stabiliser required. The shrinkage test may be used as a straightforward method of determining a soils suitability for use where more complex testing is not possible or not justified for small- scale production. However it must be remembered that this test gives no direct information on the soils constituent parts and as such will not allow easy soil modification [17]. It was empirically designed for used with the CINVA RAM, a low- pressure (2MPa) manual-
42
compaction-moulding machine developed by VITA. It was intended to gauge the amount of stabiliser required for a given soil compacted with this machine. It is very suitable for small- scale production if soil modification is not considered cost effective but it must be used in conjunction with tests on trial blocks. It should be remembered from the above discussion of soil suitability that the compaction pressure used to compact the block does affect the soil requirements. The shrinkage test was empirically calibrated for the CINVA-RAM (2MPA) and is not directly applicable to a machine operating at a different compacting pressure. In general if the machine compacts to a higher pressure then the cement content may be reduced for a given soil shrinkage, or alternatively the range of acceptable soil shrinkage values may be increased [17]. If the results from these are to be useful, a great deal of time and care must be taken. This point is seldom mentioned. These tests appear simple to carry out and they produce numerical values, which are relatively easy to interpret, but they are not proofed and will produce misleading results if not carefully performed. The sedimentation tests in particular are very delicate, requiring time and practice to be perfect. In general soil tests are subject to two accuracy limitations: experimental care and measurement resolution.
3.6 Soil as a building material

Some form of soil covers virtually the whole land surface of the earth. This soil is usually readily processed with simple hand tools into an easily mouldable material, which possesses good compressive strength when dry. Given soils widespread availability, it is not surprising that it was traditionally widely used as a building material. The major drawback to building with soil is its susceptibility to water. A soil wall may be considered as a load-bearing skeleton of silt and sand glued together by clay. This glue-like behavior when dry is caused by micro droplets of water, which exist at clay particles interfaces. Clay particles are usually electro statically charged as a result of surface ion substitution. The charge tightly bonds a thin adsorbed layer of water to the particles surface. The bonding is sufficiently strong for some adsorbed water to remain even at oven drying
43
temperatures (105-110C). At the point of contact between two adjacent particles, micro droplet of water can exist where the two adsorbed water layers come into contact. These micro droplets generate both surface and capillary tension forces, which hold the clay particles together. However when any significant quantity of water is absorbed into empty soil pores, the droplets increase in size and the capillary and surface tension forces reduced, causing the soil to quickly soften and subsequently swell. On repeated wetting and drying the outer surfaces of a soil wall expand and contract more quickly than the main body. In a comparatively short time this leads to cracking and spalling of the outer surfaces and low durability for the wall. Moreover if the wall becomes saturated with water the compressive strength may fall sufficiently to allow complete collapse [17]. There are many methods to reduce a soils susceptibility to weakening by water. These fall in to the following broad categories: i) ii) iii) iv) Protecting the wall from exposure to water, Reducing the permeability of the wall by increasing the soil density, Making the soil water-repellant by the addition of a water proofing agent and Providing a secondary cementitious- type strength mechanism which is largely unaffected by water [17].
3.7 Soil stabilisation

There are several methods of soil stabilisation widely used to improve construction quality. Some of the major stabilisation techniques are described below.
3.7.1 Mechanical stabilization

Mechanical stabilisation involves tamping or compacting the soil by using a heavy weight to bring about a reduction in the air void volume, thus leading to an increase in the density of the soil. The main effects of compaction on the soil are to increase its strength and reduce its permeability. The degree of compaction possible, however, is affected greatly by the type of soil used, the moisture content during compaction and the compression effort applied. Best results can be obtained by mixing the correct proportions of sand and clay in a soil [4].
44
More recent developments for roads and embankment construction have led to compacting soil with vibrating rollers and tampers. Tampers and block-making presses are also used for single storey constructions. The major drawback of mechanically compressed stablised earth blocks is their lack of durability especially in places of moderate to high rainfall. Manual stabilisation or compaction methods vary from foot treading to hand tamping equipment, with compacting pressures varying between 0.05 to about 4MPa. Mechanical equipment may achieve compacting pressures of several thousand MPa [4]. Within the civil engineering industry there are several methods of compaction that are used in ground stabilisation that use methods of static, vibration and dynamic blows to compact soil. Block compaction uses similar methods and similar technology only on a smaller scale and typically compaction takes place in a confined space rather than in unconfined open areas [15]. Block compaction has predominantly used vibration or slow steady squeezing (quasi-static) compaction to achieve the desired levels of soil consolidation. Until very recently the dynamic element used in block manufacture has been limited to the compression piston coming into contact with the surface of the soil at some speed followed by static pressure being applied to the material The following three figures (Fig 3.5, 3.6, 3.7) demonstrate the different types of compaction, the particle intimacy around the optimum moisture content (O.M.C.), and the relationship between moisture content and achieved density for different compaction energies.
45
Fig.3.5 Unconfined, semi-confined and confined compaction [15].
Fig.3.6 Diagram of particle intimacy around the optimum moisture content [15].
46
Fig.3.7 Optimum moisture content for soil at different compaction energies [15]. Improved levels of compaction have a significant effect on the compressive strength of the sample and on the effectiveness of the cement stabiliser added. If a compressed stabilised soil block could be compacted to a higher density, then for the same ultimate strength the cement content could be reduced. The trade off is an increased energy cost for a reduction in chemical additives [15]. Another thing that is apparent is the possible miss match of moisture contents desired for optimum compaction for a given energy and optimum moisture content for cement curing.
3.7.2 Cement stabilisation

Cement as a stabilising material is well researched and understood and its properties are clearly defined. From different types of cement, Portland cement is readily available in most urban areas, and usually available in semi-urban areas, as it is one of the major components
47
for any building construction. Earlier studies have shown that cement is a suitable stabiliser for use with soil in the production of compressed stabilised soil Block. Cement is mainly composed of Lime (CaO) and Silica (SiO2), which react with each other and the other components in the mix when water is added. This reaction forms combinations of Tri-calcium silicate and Di-calcium silicate referred to as C3S and C2S in the cement literature [20]. The chemical reaction eventually generates a matrix of interlocking crystals that cover any inert filler (i.e. aggregates) and provide a high compressive strength and stability. Fig. 3.8 below attempts to illustrate how these crystals actually give the material strength. The basic mechanism is friction of point contacts between the particles taking place at a microscopic level. The duration of time for this reaction to take place is not precisely defined. There is however the definition of the critical time after which further working of the mix causes breaking of the crystals that have formed but before the total matrix has gained strength. The flow chart that follows shows the reaction and their effect with respect to time.
48
Fig.3.8 Crystalline cement growth in sandcrete [21]
Cement is usually mixed with an aggregate to form concrete. The aggregate is usually inert filler that makes up the bulk of the material, and the cement coats the aggregate in the gaps [20]. The concrete industry has recognized that the achieved strength of concrete is highly dependent on the quantity of voids present in the mixture before curing. The presence of 5% air voids will reduce the strength of a concrete mix by about 30% and even 2% voids can result in a drop of strength of more than 10% compared to a sample with 0% voids present [20]. To aid the particle intimacy, different aggregate grades are mixed together giving a spectrum of particle sizes that reduces the quantity of air voids in the material. The water used to mix the concrete plays an important role both in placing the material and in achieving strength. The quantity of water used is typically calculated using an appropriate water-cement ratio.
49
Very low water-cement ratios yield a highly unworkable mixture and more water has to be added to form the mixture into the desired shape. Additional water is called the free-water content and is calculated from the Slump or Vebe test. This water does not form part of the chemical reaction and will eventually evaporate from the concrete leaving voids of air throughout the material [20]. In order to keep the free-water as low as possible concrete can be compacted or vibrated to aid workability and consolidation. Portland cement hydrates when water is added; the reaction produces a cementitious gel that is independent of the soil. This gel is made up of calcium silicate hydrates; calcium aluminate hydrates and hydrated lime. The first two compounds form the main bulk of the cementitious gel, whereas the lime is deposited as a separate crystalline solid phase. The cementation process results in deposition between the soil particles of an insoluble binder capable of embedding soil particles in a matrix of cementitious gel. Penetration of the gel throughout the soil hydration process is dependent on time, temperature and cement type. The lime released during hydration of the cement reacts further with the clay fraction forming additional cementations bonds. Soil-cement mixes should be compacted immediately after mixing in order not to break down the newly created gel and therefore reduce strengthening. The basic function of cementation is to make the soil water-resistant by reducing swelling and increasing its compressive strength. With respect to the general processes of cementation, penetration and binding mentioned above, many factors must be considered. Processes may also vary between different types of soils. Cement is considered a good stabiliser for granular soils but unsatisfactory for clays. Generally cement can be used with any soil type, but with clays it is uneconomical because more cement is required. The range of cement content needed for good stabilisation is between 3% and 18% by weight according to soil type [4]. Findings have shown that there is a relationship between linear shrinkage and cement content needed for stabilisations. Table 3.3 below shows that the cement to soil ratio ranges between 5.56% and 8.33% for measured shrinkage variations of between15mm to 60mm [4].
50
Table 3.3 Cement to soil ratio [4]. Measured shrinkage (mm) Under 15 15 30 30 45 45 60 Cement to soil ratio 1:18 parts (5.56%) 1:16 parts (6.25%) 1:14 parts (7.14%) 1:12 parts (8.33%)
It may be noted that for a given shrinkage the cement to soil ratio is a function of the compaction effort exerted. For example, a CINVA RAM machine exerts a compaction pressure of about 2MPa by increasing this pressure to about 10MPa the cement content can be reduced to between 4% and 6% for soil with shrinkage of up to 25mm. Over this shrinkage value, 6% - 8% cement would need to be used for effective stabilization
3.7.3 Lime stabilisation

One major alternative binder to cement is lime. By adding lime to the soil for stabilisation, four basic reactions are believed to occur: Cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, carbonation, and pozzolanic reactions [4]. The pozzolanic reaction is believed to be the most important and it occurs between lime and certain clay minerals to form a variety of cementitious compounds, which bind the soil particles together. Lime can also reduce the degree, to which the clay absorbs water, and so can make the soil less sensitive to changes in moisture content and improve its workability. Lime is a suitable stabiliser for clay soils. Lime is cheaply available than Portland cement in Ethiopia and is produced locally in traditional kilns. However, some improvements still need to be made in its production and processing. It is estimated that up to 40% of cement used in building construction in masonry mortars could be saved through the use of lime and other lime associated binders. The advantages that lime has over Portland cement are that it requires less fuel to manufacture and requires relatively simple equipment to make. It is therefore more suitable for village scale production and use [7].
51
When lime is used as a stabiliser instead of cement, the quantity of stabiliser required has been increased. However, research at the United Kingdom Building Research Establishment shows that such increment is not necessary if a sufficiently high compacting effort is applied on a high clay content soil. The reduction in the volume of air voids brings the lime and soil particles into closer contact and the stabilising reactions can take place more easily. Tests show that wet compressive strengths of between 3MPa and 3.5MPa may be achieved with compacting efforts in the range of 8 - 14MPa [4].
3.7.4 Bitumen stabilisation

There are two ways whereby bitumen can stabilise soil. The first way is a binding process that increases soil strength particularly in granular soils. Generally, small amounts of bitumen (2% to 6%) give the soil cohesion. When these percentages are exceeded the bitumen tends to act as a lubricant separating the particles and thus reducing the strength. The second way is when the bitumen acts as a water repellent. The two mechanisms usually occur together in any soil but to different degrees, depending on the type of soil. Soils suitable for bituminous stabilisation are sandy soils. Clays need large amounts for good results [4]. The main disadvantages of bituminous materials as stabilisers are: They are not a traditional building material in most developing countries, Bituminous materials are expensive to import, Preparation costs are high (heating, storing and mixing), Heat can have an adverse effect on their binding properties, particularly in hot countries.
3.7.5 Gypsum stabilisation

Gypsum is a traditional material found in many Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries. The earliest civilizations used gypsum for building purposes, mainly for plasters and mortars. The advantage that gypsum has over Portland cement and lime is that it requires a low calcinations temperature (about 1/7th of that needed for cement and 1/5th of that needed for lime). Besides its agricultural and chemical uses, the main use of gypsum in
52
Ethiopia is in the production of Portland cement where it retards the setting of the cement. Gypsum is a good stabiliser for sandy soils.
3.7.6 Pozzolanas stabilisation

Pozzolanas are fine silica and alumina rich materials which when mixed with hydrated lime produce cementitious materials suitable for stabilisation and construction needs. Pozzolanas are found in their natural state as volcanic ash or pumice or it can be man made [20].
3.7.7 Other stabilisers

Traditionally, many stabilisers such as animal dung, ant hill materials, bird droppings, plant extracts and animal blood, have been used for the manufacture of compressed stablised earth building blocks. These waste materials generally consist of nitrogenous organic compounds, which help bind together soil grains. Chopped straw, grasses and natural organic fibers, although not active stabilisers, they are used as reinforcement materials to reduce linear shrinkage problems, which occur with soil that has high clay content.
3.8 Rationale of soil cement

Soil on its own can be used for construction, but unless it is protected from water the resulting building will not be very durable in any but the driest climates, as has been described above. Cementitious stabilisation in combination with densification gives soil both wet strength and erosion resistance. Densification or compaction reduces the soils permeability and enhances the secondary cementitious bonding mechanism. Portland cement is the most commonly used stabiliser and at present usually the cheapest. Lime and lime pozzolan stabilisation are growing in popularity because, unlike cement, lime may be produced economically by small scale batching kilns. How ever at present the quality of lime produced by such small-scale kilns is highly variable and liable to change from one batch to another. Soil cement is produced by dry mixing a suitable soil with a small quantity of cement and remixing the product with a specific quantity of water [the criteria for suitable soil is
53
discussed above but it should be noted that two or more unsuitable soils may be combined by simple mixing to produce one more successful soil]. The resulting damp soil is normally compressed in a mould, ejected and subsequently wet cured for 3-4 days then damp cured for twenty-eight days before incorporation in a building. In many ways soil- cement may be seen as a simpler version of sand-cement, not requiring the sand to be first separated from other soil constituents. Sand-cement is widely used, though variable in quality as a result of poor curing [17]. Soil cement blocks produced with compression are in general denser and hence less porous than sand cement. The resultant reduction of moisture loss during curing leads to a greater consistency in quality for soil cement. The minimum amount of cement required to stabilise a block depends on the type of soil, the degree of compression and the final application for the blocks. Generally the interest is to minimize the cement content to below 10%. Given suitable conditions, blocks cement contents as low as 3% are possible. The exact mechanism by which a small content of cement may stabilise a large mass of soil is not fully understood. A typical Portland cement is made up of 54.1% tricalcium silicate (C3S). This is in keeping with most of the published concrete literature and is acceptable, allowing these simple equations to be given as illustrations instead of the more complicated fully balanced chemical equations] and 16.6 % dicalcium silicate (C2S) [20]. In the presence of damp soil these components hydrate to form mono and dicalcium silicate hydrate gels (CSH and C2SH, see equation below). These gels then slowly crystallise in to an insoluble interlocking matrix throughout the soil voids binding the soil particles together. As the matrix is insoluble it gives a strength mechanism that works to restrain the softening and swelling of the unaffected soil, thereby dramatically reducing the weakening effect of water. The interlocking calcium silicate fibers may be seen when a cured soil cement sample is examined under an electron microscope [17].
54
Making the approximate assumption that C3S2H3 (Calcium silicate hydrate) binding gel, is the final product of the hydration of both C3S and C2S, the reactions of hydration can be written (as a guide, although not as exact stoichiometeric equation) [20] and results in the release of free lime (CH) according to the reaction:
2C3S+6H=C3S2H3+3Ca (OH) 2---------------------------------- [3.1] 2C2S+4H=C3S2H3+Ca (OH) 2---------------------------------- [3.2] The free lime then reacts further with the clay fraction (pozzolanic reaction) by the removal of silica from the clay minerals and subsequently forms more calcium silicate gel that also gradually crystallizes. In summary, soil cement is a building material which has superior strength and erosion resistance compared to unstabilised soil, with out incurring the cost of the large quantities of cement found in concrete.
55
4. Properties of Materials, Mix Proportions and Tests
CHAPTER FOUR PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS, MIX PROPORTIONS AND TESTS

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter the materials used in the investigation are described with respect to their sources, and their physical and chemical properties. All laboratory investigations on materials are carried out in the A.A.U, Faculty of Technology construction materials and soil mechanics laboratory, Selam Technical and Vocational center and Geological Survey of Ethiopia Geochemical laboratory.
4.2 Soil
The soil used in this investigation was brought from Kara area, which is about 20km East of Addis Ababa. It was found out with different sizes and deleterious substances. It was then pulverized, and sieved to the appropriate size. The physical properties and chemical compositions of the soil are given in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 below respectively. Table 4.1 Physical properties of the soil NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Physical Properties Specific gravity Natural moisture content Optimum moisture content Maximum dry density Silt content Clay content Sand content Linear shrinkage Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index Values
2.61 14.87% 19% 1610kg/m3 16.25 13.75 70% 7.14% 31.91% 25.75% 6.16%
Table 4.2 Chemical composition of the soil Chemical oxides of the soil and their chemical Composition SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O MnO H2O LOI TiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl- pH 65.32 15.27 7.68 <0.01 0.18 1.59 4.08 0.17 0.19 4.06 0.4 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 6.75
56
4.3
Cements
In this research work five mixes are prepared using Mugher Portland pozzolana cement and 9 mixes are prepared using Messobo Portland cement. Portland pozzolana cements were produced by Mugher and Messobo cement factory and comply with the requirements of Ethiopian standards. The chemical composition of the cements is shown in Table 4.3.below. Table 4.3 Composition and properties of cements produced in Ethiopia [22].
Cement Source Mugher Messobo Dire Dawa Cement Source Mugher Messobo Dire Dawa Cement Source Mugher Messobo Cement Source Mugher Messobo Cement Source Mugher Messobo Dire Dawa Cement Source Mugher Messobo Dire Dawa Mean Chemical Oxides of Clinker (%) SIO2 Al2 O3 Fe2O3 MgO 21.26 5.76 3.79 0.95 21.50 5.21 4.03 1.26 22.31 4.95 4.03 1.84 Mean Chemical Compounds of Clinker (%) C2S C3A C4AF Total 8.9 11.5 95.7 7.0 12.3 96.6 6.3 12.3 96.6 Mean Chemical Oxides of OPC (%) SIO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO 21.36 4.89 3.92 1.27 20.50 4.75 3.70 1.31 Mean Chemical Compounds of OPC (%) C2S C3A C4AF Total 17.0 13.3 20.7
CaO 65.61 66.36 65.81 C3S 58.3 64.0 57.4 CaO 63.38 63.94 C3S 50.04 60.41
SO3 1.08 0.68 0.70 %of Silicates 75.3 77.4 78.1 SO3 2.54 2.41 %of Silicates 73.52 73.61 SO3 0.00 0.03 0.00 Specific Gravity 3.15 N/a 3.15 2.75 N/a
23.48 6.32 11.91 91.76 13.19 6.32 11.27 91.20 Mean Chemical Oxides of Pozzolana (%) SIO2 Al 2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO 64.58 2.27 0.97 4.04 15.17 54.80 8.83 10.55 8.14 6.22 68.10 11.32 4.82 1.50 0.63 Pozzolana Gypsum Content Pozzolana Cement Type included in in cement (%) Type Produced PPC (%) 28.3 4-5 Pumice OPC PPC 25.0 5 Volcanic OPC Basalt PPC 25.0 5 Pumice PPC
57
4.4 Water
Throughout the investigation tap water, which is supplied by the Addis Ababa water supply system of the city, is used.
4.5 Mix proportion

Providing detailed technical and economic information on the production of compressed stabilised earth blocks by assessing the potential of local materials i.e. types of cement and soil is the purpose of this investigation. Thus two types of cement from manufacturers, and a soil sample from Kara area of Addis Ababa are selected and prepared. To this effect the following test programs, are followed. The mix proportions are made based on literature recommendations. 1. The first series of mixes (5 in number) are conducted to compare the difference in compressive strength values with age, rate of strength development of the block produced using Mugher Portland pozzolona cement. They are made with 24% of water and cement content of 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% by weight of soil. The Mix proportions are given in Table 4.4 below. Table 4.4 Mix proportions for the 1st series Mix code MG4 MG6 MG8 MG10 MG12 Cement (Kg) 4 6 8 10 12 Water (%) 24 24 24 24 24 Soil (kg) 100.45 100.45 100.45 100.45 100.45
2. The second series of mixes (5 in number) are conducted to compare the difference in compressive strength values with age, rate of strength development of the block produced using Messobo Portland pozzolona cement. They are made with 24% water and cement content of 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10%&12% by weight of soil. The Mix proportions are given in Table 4.5 below.
58
Table 4.5 Mix proportions for the 2nd series Mix code MO4 MO6 MO8 MO10 MO12 Cement (Kg) 4 6 8 10 12 Water (%) 24 24 24 24 24 Soil (Kg) 100.45 100.45 100.45 100.45 100.45
3. The third series of mixes (4 in number) are conducted to compare the effects of mould pressure on the compressive strength of the sample and on the effectiveness of the cement stabiliser. They are made with 4MPa, 6MPa, 8MPa and 10MPa pressure mould and cement contents of 6%, 8%, 10% and12% by weight of soil. The mix proportions are given in Table 4.6 below. Table 4.6 Mix proportions for the third series Mix code C6P4 C6P6 C6P8 C6P10 C8P4 C8P6 C8P8 C8P10 C10P4 C10P6 C10P8 C10P10 C12P4 C12P6 C12P8 C12P10 Cement (Kg) 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 Mould pressure (MPa) 4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10 4 6 8 10
59
4.6 Specimen preparation

Since the preparation of specimens was considered to be one of the most important stages in the execution of the experiments, extra care had been taken with the soil, cement mix, moisture content, compression, curing, and sizing of the samples. The high levels of accuracy, reliability and consistency demanded by the experiments be maintained throughout the testing regimes, and for all the different types of tests conducted. Specimen preparation describes the raw materials used, the mix proportions, addition of moisture, the compression method used, the curing regime, and the dimensions of the samples. Literature indicates that an ideal soil would have an optimum raw materials composition of: sand 75%, fines (silt and clay) 25% of the fines, at least not less than 10% has to be clay [10]. The actual mix then used consisted of: Sand 70%, Silt 16.25% and Clay 13.75%. A shrinkage test and a simplified sedimentation test were used to confirm the limits for the different constituents [10]. Proportioning the mix of the soil raw material with the cement stabiliser was done in varying quantities, by percent weight of cement from 4% by weight in 2% increments up to 12% by weight of the soil as follows: 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12%. A total of two hundred four blocks of average dimension 220*220*115 mm were subsequently made in this manner for three series of tests. The constituent parts of the mixed soil preparations were separately weighed using an accurate and sensitive electronic weighing machine accurate to 0.05g. To improve on the degree of mix, a mechanical mixer had to be used. To produce the blocks, a pre-installed M7 E380 machine designed on the quasi-static compression principal was used for the entire samples see (Fig 4.1). Before filling the mould for each compression, the mould lining was lightly oiled with used engine oil. The soil was carefully poured into the mould, all pre-weighed, packed and sealed in light transparent plastic bags. After each pouring, the soil was leveled in the mould. The use of the M7 E380 machine was based on the operational manual of the machine.
60
The blocks were compressed by the pumping action of the side pump up to 10 MPa. The hydraulic pressure was released using the flow valve screw causing the hand pump to become slack. The mould cover (Top ram) was then moved upwards to expose the green block, which was, then demoulded. The green blocks were then carefully removed and put over base plates, and immediately placed in plastic bags and left to cure in the shade. The dimensions and the weights of the green blocks were recorded.
Fig.4.1 M7 E380 machine [23]. Curing of the blocks consisted of two distinct phases described herein as primary and secondary phases. The curing time, temperature, duration, and moisture conditions were of particular interest to the experiment. Primary curing, whose purpose is to ensure that moisture is retained in the block, and not lost rapidly, was done for a period of five days. Laboratory dry conditions were used with curing temperatures of 22-24 C. After five days, the blocks were noticeably lighter in color than when demoulded. Each of the blocks were marked using permanent ink markers in each case to clearly show the percentage cement content, moulding pressure, date and time of production, and an identification number. This decision to mark individual blocks was to be found very useful later on. In order to enable the blocks to further achieve strength, secondary curing was allowed to continue for a further fifty-one days. The clearly marked blocks were placed side by side and covered
61
with a large polythene sheet. This was done to slow down evaporation and to protect the blocks from external interference. The blocks were then left to dry in this manner under laboratory air conditions.
4.7 Tests on blocks

Different separate tests and experiments, all of which have direct bearing with the investigation of the effects of stabilisation and moulding pressure on the strength and performance of blocks, were selected and conducted. The tests include the wet and dry compressive strength tests and the water absorption test. Although the wet and dry compressive strength tests and the water absorption tests are both now standard performance tests widely described and used for stabilised soils, they were originally developed for concrete blocks and fired bricks.
4.7.1 Compressive strength test

The compressive strength of the blocks is perhaps their most important property. The compressive strength values give an overall picture of the quality of the block and are an indication of the hardness of the hydrated cement paste that binds the various particles together. The main aim of the compressive strength tests was to determine the wet compressive strength values of the blocks. It is the wet compressive strength value, which is normally lower than the dry compressive strength, which is used in the structural design of buildings. The compressive strength test done is a standard test based on ASTM standards, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock, 1996. After the 7, 14, 28 and 56 days curing period, the blocks of average dimension 222211.5cm is measured and weighed. The main compression equipment used was the Concrete Testing Machine with a maximum load of 100KN. The machine is certified and calibrated for the test duration by Hydraform Company South Africa. Figure 4.2 shows a photographic record of the compressive strength test taken during the experiment. Three blocks in each category of varying cement content from 4% in increments of 2% up to12% were tested for wet compressive strength. Each block sample of dimension 222211cm was soaked for 24 hours or overnight in ordinary tap water. They were then
62
removed and kept aside for 30 minutes to let the extra surface water to drip off. The samples were then carefully placed within the set marking pins of the compression-testing machine.
Fig. 4.2 Compressive strength testing The crushing load was then continuously applied without shock to the sample at a rate of 3.5 MPa per minute till failure [24], and in this way the maximum crushing load was obtained for each sample. The wet compressive strength was then calculated in each case from the ratio of the maximum load and the cross sectional area of the block in N/mm2.
4.7.2 Water absorption test

The aim of the water absorption test was to determine the percentage moisture absorption capacity of the block samples. Block samples were weighed in the laboratory dry condition (Wd) and, immersed in water for 24 hours, removed and weighed again (WW). An accurate electronic weighing machine was used in case, to an accuracy of 0.05g. The percentage moisture absorption by weight was calculated from the formula:
63
Mc = Ww Wd x 100 (%) [4.1] Wd Where: Mc = percentage moisture absorption (%) Ww= mass of wetted sample (g) Wd = mass of dry sample (g) Through the water absorption test, it should be possible to determine the ability and extent to which blocks can absorb moisture. Knowledge of the water absorption levels of blocks could serve as useful criteria for setting limits and for investigating possible ways of reducing the same in order to improve on the durability of blocks. The apparatus consisted of an accurate weighing balance, a stop watch and a water trough with a capacity to hold up to 2 fully immersed blocks. The entire test took two days to complete mainly due to the overnight soaking of the block samples in water. This test helps to investigate the effect of water absorption of stabilised soil blocks during the rainy season. The recommended maximum water absorption value of blocks is from 15% to the maximum value of 20% [10].
64
CHAPTER FIVE
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE SUITABILITY OF SOIL SAMPLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COMPRESSED STABILISED SOIL BLOCK
5.1 Introduction
The use of a suitable soil is fundamental to successful production of compressed cement stabilised soil block. Since soil from the Kara area of Addis Ababa is used to compressed stabilised earth block production, this area was the prime target for investigation and testing. The following report examined the process of soil selection for the purpose of soil cement block production. Soil suitable for soil cement block production is then considered from a particle grading and plasticity viewpoint, with due consideration to the underlying mechanisms responsible for strength and durability. In general the literature concerned with soil testing provides a number of suitable tests but does not provide a logical testing plan for their implementation. The following section discusses and analyzes soil laboratory test results for soil suitability. From this discussion it is hoped that the reader may be able to appreciate the need for different scales of soil testing. A full laboratory analysis includes soil grading, plasticity, and chemical composition. In this case a soil sample from the Kara area of Addis Ababa considered suitable by the field test selection process is taken to the Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Technology, Civil Engineering Department and Geological Survey of Ethiopia Geochemical laboratories and relevant soil tests are conducted. Based on the results of soil testing, trial blocks by using different content and type of cement is produced and the block is tested for 7th day, 14th day, 28th day and 56th day compressive strength and water absorption capacity.
65
5. Test Results and Discussions on the

Suitability of Soil Sample for the Production of Compressed Stabilised Soil Block
5.2 Laboratory tests and results on soil sample

Laboratory tests conducted provide more precise detailed information on the soil gradation and plasticity. This information helps to check the suitability of the soil based on the selection criteria given in Section 3.3 and 3.4. With so many different characteristics that one could discover about a sample of soil, it would be unwise to try and discover them all in every situation that soil is to be used for making compressed stabilisied soil block. In this research work only a small number of characteristics that are of real relevance to the production of compressed cement stabilised soil block is considered. The physical properties are of greater interest for making compressed stabilised soil block as these will help to determine its ease of mixing, forming, de-moulding, porosity, permeability, shrinkage, dry strength and apparent bulk density. The soil sample is generally characterized in two ways, by a particle size distribution analysis and by plasticity index. The particle size analysis gives information on the soil ability to pack in to a dense structure and the quantity of fines present (combined silt and clay fraction), while the plasticity index gives an idea of the cohesion of the fines.
5.2.1 General classification

The laboratory tests conducted helps to establish numerical values for the soil sample parameters, primarily the percentage distribution of the different sizes of the soil particles present and the plasticity limits. These values are subsequently used to determine the suitability of the soil sample for block production.
A) Particle size distribution

The combined sieving and hydrometer tests separated the different size fractions of the soil sample into discrete parts thereby indicating the soil's particle grading. The results of these tests are plotted in Figure 5.1 below. Detail raw data's and test results are given in (Appendix A1.5, A1.6 &A1.7).
66

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOIL

100 90 2 80 70 PERCENT PASSING 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.001 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 0.0328 0.0209 0.0123 0.0087 0.0062 0.0044 0.0031 0.0023 0.0019 0.0013
0.01
0.1 GRAIN DIAMETER
10
100
Fig. 5.1 Particle size distribution of soil from Kara area From the above curve, actual composition of the soil from the Kara area of Addis Ababa is grouped as follows: Sand -70%, Silt -16.25% and Clay -13.75%. Based on this result, now it is possible to check the suitability of the soil by using different techniques as per the literature. A.1 Based on African Regional Standard (ARS) As per ARS 680:1996 Code of practice for the production of compressed earth blocks recommendations, if the granular composition of the soil fall with in the shaded area on the diagram of texture as shown in Fig. 3.1, it gives satisfactory result. The gradation curve of the soil sample from the Kara area shown in Fig. 5.1 above falls completely with in the shaded area of the diagram of texture as shown in Figure 5.2 below. This implies that the sample soil chosen fulfills this requirement.
67

Upper bound Curve 1 3 2 Lower bound curve
Gradation curve
Fig 5.2 Particle size distribution of the sample soil on the diagram of Texture
A.2
Based on Space and Cook modifications on a triangular U.S Bureau of public roads particles size graph
The shaded area in Fig 3.3 indicates soils most suitable for stabilisation. Soil sample from Kara area which has a composition of (70% sand, 16.25%silt and 13.75% clay) as plotted 1 in Fig 5.3 below falls with in the shaded area is an indicator for the soils suitability for soil cement block production.
68

1 = Sand- 70% Silt -16.25% Clay-13.75%
Fig 5.3 Triangular chart for particle size classification of soil sample from Kara area Both ARS and Space and Cook modifications on a triangular U.S Bureau of public roads particles size graph indicated the suitability of the soil from the Kara area of Addis Ababa for compressed stabilised soil block production. The suitability criteria of soil for soil cement block production have variations between different authors. It is better to take such criteria as a guide in initial soil selection rather than as a rigid set of rules. Some authors recommend in the criteria based on solely on atterburg limits. As per the recommendation of the literature survey the researcher checked the suitability by using both criteria. The following section discusses on the criteria based on the atterburg limits of the soil sample. B) Atterburg limit criteria (Plasticity) The Atterburg or plasticity tests define the moisture content at which the soil passes from a liquid state to plastic state and from plastic state to a solid state; these boundary points are the liquid and plastic limits respectively. The atterburg limits allow the soil plasticity characteristics to be related to the suitable soil selection criteria given above in section 3.4.
69

The plastic limit and liquid limit tests described in the appendix A1.3 and A1.4 are prepared by using method of ASTM D 2216-92. The linear shrinkage test which is a test of the soils contraction on drying and believed to give a combined measure of the soils particle grading, plasticity and clay type is conducted based on BS 1377-2:1990. It gives an overall idea of the soils behavior and suitability for stabilisation. Atterburg limit test results of the soil sample are given in Table 5.1 below but full test measurements and data records are described in appendix A1.3 and A1.4.
Table 5.1 Atterburg limit test results of soil sample from Kara Area Atterburg limits Plastic limit Liquid limit Plasticity index Shrinkage limit Value 25.78 32.4 6.62 7.15
Based on these results we can check the suitability of the sample soil for soil cement block production. The following two sections area the criterias based on the atterburg limits of the soil sample.
B.1 Based on African Regional Standard (ARS)

The soil sample is checked for suitability in the plasticity chart as shown below by using the atterburg limit values from Table 5.1 above. The plasticity index of 6.62 and liquid limit of 32.4 falls at point 1 in the plasticity chart of Fig 5.4 below. Point 1 is located in the shaded area, which indicates the suitability of the Kara area soil for soil cement production.
70

Point 1
Plasticity index=6.62 Liquid limit = 32.4
Fig 5.4 Diagram of Plasticity
B.2 Spence, R.J.S & Cook, D.J.1983 Building Materials in Developing Countries
The soil sample is checked for suitability in the plasticity chart below by using the atterburg limit values from Table 5.1 above. The plasticity index of 6.62 and liquid limit of 32.4 falls at point 1 in the plasticity chart as shown in fig 5.5 below. Point 1 is located in the shaded area, which indicates the suitability of the soil for soil cement production.
71

Point 1 Plasticity index=6.62 Liquid limit = 32.4
Fig 5.5 Plasticity chart
5.2.2 Soil compaction test

After the above index properties of the soil sample are quantified, the soil is considered as suitable for further testing. The first test to be performed by the researcher was the compaction test. The general meaning of soil compaction in soil mechanics is to press soil particles tightly together by expelling the air from void spaces between the particles. It is also cheap and effective way to improve the properties of a soil sample. The amount of compaction is quantified in terms of dry density (dry unit weight) of the soil. The usual practice in a construction project to determine the optimum moisture content and maximum dry density is to perform laboratory compaction tests. A common compaction test in the laboratory is known as Standard Proctor test. The Standard Proctor Compaction was carried out on the soil sample from the Kara area using ASTM D 698 Method A and the result is plotted in Fig 5.6 and detail measurements and raw datas are given in Appendix A1.8.
72

COMPACTION CURVE
1620
A
1600 1580 1560 DRY DENSITY 1540 1520 1500 1480 1460 1440 1420 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 MOISTURE CONTENT Series1
Fig 5.6 Proctor compaction curve Point A in the above curve shows the maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soil. MDD and OMC are 1610kg/m3 and 19% respectively. The compaction effort is the primary factor affecting maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for a given soil type. In this particular case compaction of the soil sample was conducted by using M7 E380 Hydra form machine using 10MPa system pressure. The optimum moisture content was determined by using the ideal block length for a given soil type. The amount of moisture content used to produce this ideal block length is taken as optimum moisture content. The ideal block length was 22cm and the amount of water required to get this length was 24%.
5.3 Chemical analysis

From the literature chemical properties of the soil (the composition, mineral content, metallic oxides, pH levels and sulphates) are of interest particularly when a chemical additive is used. Since cement is to be used as a stabiliser the chemical analysis of Soil from Kara area was conducted at Geological survey of Ethiopia, Geochemical laboratory. The ultimate goal was to get the chemical components of the soil and to gain insight into
73

the reactions occurring in Portland cement soil mixtures. Soil of Kara area found (20km) east of Addis Ababa was investigated and the results are expressed in Table 4.2 above and Appendix 2. From the chemical components we can see that the amount of SiO2 (65%) is an indication of the composition of sand in the soil. Soil silica and alumina react with cement to form a cementing agent. SiO2 and Al2O3 from soil react with CaO from cement and water. This implies that given sufficient cement, soil properties control results. The higher the silica contents in the soil the more active the soil and better reactive. Chemical and organic contents of the soil hinder hydration reaction. Even though organic content and low pH of the soil do not in them selves constitute a definite indication of poorly reacting soil, 6.75 pH level and low organic content (2.03%) of the Kara area soil helps to consider the soil as good reacting soil because sandy soil with the organic content greater than 2% or having a pH lower than 5.3 will generally not react normally with cement. Other important property of Kara area soil is its small percentage of SO3 (0.07%), which is important to reduce the amount of sulphates to be produced.
5.4 Summary
The report examined the process of soil selection for the purpose of soil cement block production. Soil suitable for soil cement block production is considered from a particle grading and plasticity viewpoint and its chemical composition, with due consideration to the underlying mechanisms responsible for strength and durability. To this effect soil in the Kara area of Addis Ababa is examined and numerical values of basic physical property parameters are determined in Addis Ababa University Civil Engineering Department laboratories and the chemical compositions of the soil are determined in Geological Survey of Ethiopia Geochemical laboratories. Based on these laboratories results, the suitability of this soil for soil cement block production is evaluated. The suitability criteria of soil for soil cement block production have variations between different authors but in this research work the suitability of soil is tested by using African Regional standards and Space and Cook criteria. The particle grading and plasticity results of the soil in question fall with in the acceptable rages on both criteria and then the soil is accepted and passed for further investigation.
74
CHAPTER SIX
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE PRODUCED COMPRESSED CEMENT STABILISED SOIL BLOCK
6.1 Introduction
Tests and experiments on blocks are necessary to measure the block properties upon which durability is dependent like strength, water absorption and to monitor the blocks performance in conditions, which simulate the cause of the deterioration. The tests will provide experimental results and data from which general and localized trends could be identified, and from which comparisons can be made with theoretical predictions or other available data. The tests also would provide an opportunity with which the validity of currently held beliefs could be tested, and any agreements or departures from the norm spotted. It is expressed early that translating the experimental data into information to facilitate the potential improvement of production and the performance of blocks would be the broad objective of this thesis.
6.2 Compressive strength

There are several manufacturing variables that could affect the performance of blocks. These include soil type, cement content, compaction pressure, moisture content, and curing method. In the experiments conducted it was decided that of these several variables, only the cement content be varied while all the other parameters would remain fixed. The reason for this decision and approach was based on the fact that it was the stabiliser content, which, according to the literature on stabilised soils, was significantly responsible for the improvement in strength, dimensional stability and durability of blocks.
75
6. Test Results and Discussions on the Produced Compressed Stabilised Soil Block
6.2.1 Effects of cement and cement content on the compressive strength of soil blocks
The 7th, 14th, 28th and 56th days mean compressive strength values of compressed soil blocks stabilised with Messobo and Mugher pozzolana cement contents of 4%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% are shown in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 below and all the raw datas of cube compressive strength test results are presented in a tabulated form in Appendix 3 and in a graphical form in Fig 6.1 and Fig 6.2 below.
Table 6.1 Mean compressive strength of soil cement blocks using Mugher PPC Mix code MG4 MG6 MG8 MG10 MG12 Mean compressive strength [MPa] 7 days 14 days 28 days 0.3 0.6 1 0.6 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.8 2.1 1.4 2.1 2.6 1.5 2.5 3.5 56 days 1.25 2.23 3.2 4.03 5.03
Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of CSEB

5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Cement content (%) Compressive Strength(Mpa)
7th day 14th day 28th day 56th day
Fig 6.1 Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of soil block using Mugher PPC
76
Table 6.2 Mean compressive strength of soil cement blocks using Messobo PPC Mix code MO4 MO6 MO8 MO10 MO12 Mean compressive strength [MPa] 7 days 14 days 28 days 56 days 0.15 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.6 1.85 1.0 1.3 2.3 2.9 1.3 1.7 3 3.2 1.7 1.8 3.4 4
Effects of cement content on compressive Strength of CSSB

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Cement content (%) 14
Compressive Strength (MPa)
7th Day 14th Day 28 th Day 56th Day
Fig 6.2 Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of Soil Block using Messobo PPC From these results general and localized trends can be recognized. According to the tabulated results in Appendix 3 and 4, it would be reasonable to conclude that for a given constant compaction pressure, an increase in absolute compressive strength can be achieved by increasing the cement content. This increment in cement content results in deposition of cement gel between soil particles. The interlocking cement gel between the soil particles binds the soil particles together and creates high strength. The results also show that from the blocks produced at the varying cement contents from 4% in increments of 2% up to 12% at constant compressive pressure of 10MPa, all the blocks except blocks produced by 4% cement have 28 day wet compressive strength values well above most of the
77
recommended minimum values for use in structural work as per the literature. According to the literature, several different minimum values of 28-day wet compressive strength, all above 1.0 MPa are proposed; but the 56 day wet compressive strength of all the blocks produced in this research are well above the minimum recommended values. From the graphical presentation of the results shown above in Fig 6.1 and 6.2, the rate of increase in strength can be approximated. The graph reveals that the absolute increase in compressive strength appears to remain constant but then increases less at the lower cement contents but more at the higher cement contents. For instance, when the Mugher cement content is doubled from 4% to 8% at constant compaction pressure, a compressive strength increase of 110% is achieved; further doubling of the cement content from 6% to 12% would produce a projected increase in wet compressive strength of up to 135%. Table 6.3 Rate of increase in compressive strength for Mugher cement content increment Mix Cement content code (%) MG4 4 MG6 6 MG8 8 MG10 MG12 10 12 28th day compressive Strength(MPa) 1 1.5 2.1 2.6 3.5 Compressive strength % Increase
50 40 24 35
Table 6.4 Rate of increase in compressive strength for Messobo cement content increment Mix code MO4 MO6 MO8 MO10 MO12 Cement content (%) 4 6 8 10 12 28th day compressive Strength(MPa) 0.8 1.6 2.3 3 3.4 Compressive strength % Increase
-
100 44 30 14
78
6.2.2 Comparison of compressive strength of soil cement block made using Mugher and Messobo Portland pozzolana cements
There are only three operating cement factories in Ethiopia. Mugher and Messobo Cement factories produce both ordinary Portland and Portland pozzolana cements (OPC and PPC) while the Dire Dawa cement factory produces only PPC. Mugher and Messobo cements are distributed through out the country markets and Dire Dawa PPC is distributed around Dire Dawa area. The annual production capacity of these three cement factories is about 1.6 Million Tons and of which 15% is OPC and the rest is PPC. The physical and chemical compositions of cements produced from these three factories are summarized in Table 4.2. Due to availability and cost in the market, the researcher used only Mugher and Messobo Portland pozzolana cements as a stabiliser in this research work. For the production of Mugher and Messobo Portland pozzolana cements, the factories used different type and amount of pozzolanic materials as shown in Table 4.2, which in turn has an effect on the physical and chemical properties of the cement produced. These differences in the physical and chemical properties of Mugher and Messobo Portland pozzolana cements is thought to have a different stabilisation effect on compressed earth block. In this section detailed analysis of the test results is undertaken from the point of view of determining the comparative effect of each cement type on the variable under investigation. To check these effects different trial mixes are prepared as shown in Table 4.4 and 4.5.The results of tests are shown in appendixes and the 56 day compressive strength comparison curves are shown in Fig 6.3 below. From Fig 6.3 it is observed that the 56th day compressive strength of the compressed stabilised soil blocks by using these two cements revealed that stabilising by using Mugher Portland pozzolana cement has better compressive strength than using Messobo Portland pozzolana cement and the percentage differences are given in Table 6.5 below.
79
Compressive Strength of CSEB using Mugher and Messobo PPC 56th day Compressive Strength (MPa)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15
Cement Content (%)
Mugher PPC Messobo PPC
Fig 6.3 Comparison of the 56th day compressive strength of CSEB using Messobo and Mugher cement Table 6.5 Comparison of the 56th day compressive strength of CSEB by using Mugher and Messobo PPC as stabilisers. Cement type Cement content by weight of soil and compressive strength of CSSB in MPa 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Mugher 1.25 2.23 3.2 4.03 5.03 Messobo 1 1.85 2.7 3.2 4 %difference 20 17 16 20 20 Taking Mugher as reference
6.3 Effects of compaction pressure on compressive strength of soil block

Although the stabiliser content could be responsible for binding, sealing, reinforcing and imparting flexibility to the block, compaction pressure could contribute towards increasing the densification and thereby reducing voids. The stabiliser increases the compressive strength and impact resistance of the block, as well as reducing its tendency to swell and shrink; by sealing all voids and pores and providing a waterproofing film. The stabiliser
80
may help to reduce cracking; conversely, by reinforcing the soil, the stabiliser may reduce excessive expansion and contracting. The effect of stabilisation is greatly increased when the soil is compacted. In the previously conducted experiments, all blocks were compacted prior to curing to a compaction pressure 10 MPa, a value considered to be high enough to produce the best possible quality blocks. In practice however, Most CSEB producers including Selam Technical and vocational center used to compaction pressure values much less than 10 MPa. In subsequent experiments to follow, both the compaction energy and the cement content will be varied. The stabiliser used in this experiment was Messobo Portland pozzolana cement. This is because of availability and cost currently on the market; it is only Portland pozzolana cement, which is widely available and used in most parts of the Ethiopia. It is likely to remain the stabiliser of choice due to its well-established reliability, availability and quality record. From the literature, improved levels of compaction have a significant effect on the compressive strength of the sample and on the effectiveness of the cement stabiliser added. The researcher proved this fact in the laboratory by using different compaction pressure and cement content according to the mix proportion and design given in section 4.5. Fig 6.4 and Table 6.6 below indicate test results of the relationship between cement content, compaction pressures and 28-day compressive strength of the soil cement block. The full laboratory test result of this test is given in Appendix 5, 6, 7 and 8.
EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CSEB

28 TH DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (MPa) 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 CEMENT CONTENT (%) 4Mpa 6Mpa 8Mpa 10Mpa
Fig 6.4 Effects of compaction pressure on compressive strength of CSSB
81
Table 6.6 Effects of compaction pressure on the 28th day compressive strength of CSEB
CEMENT CONTENT (%) 6 8 10 12
COMPACTION PRESSURE AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CSEB (MPa) 4 6 8 10 0.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.3 1.65 2.1 2.6 1.4 2.2 2.6 2.75 1.8 2.4 2.95 3.4
According to the tabulated results in Table 6.6 above the compressive strength of CSEB is tested for various cement content samples ranging from 4% to 12% by differing the confining pressure from 4% to 10% with an interval of 2Mpa for all cement content of samples. The results of this test proved that compaction pressure have an effect on the compressive strength of soil cement block. The higher the compaction pressure the higher the compressive strength. When the compaction pressure is doubled from 4MPa to 8MPa at constant cement content of 8, 10 and 12, a compressive strength is increased by 62%, 86% and 64%, respectively.
6.4 Water absorption

The experimental results of the water absorption test are tabulated in Appendix 9, and shown in a graphical form in Fig 6.5. Fig 6.5 shows the effect of cement content increase on the water absorption capacity of the block. According to the tabulated results in Appendix 9, the mean water absorption values for the various samples tested range from 9.8% for the 12% cement content samples to 15.81% for the 4% cement content samples. From the literature the recommended maximum water absorption value for blocks is below15%. According to Appendix 9, an increase in cement content has the effect of reducing the water absorption value of the blocks produced at constant compaction pressure. A doubling
82
of the cement content from 4% to 8% results into a reduction in mean water absorption of 10%. A further doubling of cement content from 6% to 12% is projected to reduce the mean water absorption by 30%. This shows that the increase in cement content results into a reduction in water absorption. In practice, water can gain access to the block either in liquid phase in the case of rainwater infiltration or suction from a wet surface, or in the vapor phase in the case of condensation or adsorption, but leaves the block almost exclusively in the vapor phase through evaporation. Therefore the water content of the wall should be determined not only by its contact to water sources but also with its water vapor balance i.e., evaporation minus condensation and adsorption. Given that the block undergoes seasonal cycle with maximum water content in the rainy season and minimum water content in the dry season, such cycles constitute an added complexity in analyzing the moisture balance and therefore any remedial steps that could be taken.
EFFECTS OF CEMENT CONTENT ON THE ABSORPTION CAPACITY OC CSEB

ABSORPTION CAPACITY(%)
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
CEMENT CONTENT(%)
Fig 6.5 Effects of cement content on the absorption capacity of soil cement block
6.5 Summary
Stabilisation of soil for the production of compressed stabilised soil blocks improves the performance characteristics of soil block. In this research work, by using soil from Kara area of Addis Ababa and Portland pozzolana cements from Mugher and Messobo cement factories, three different series of mixes are prepared and more than 200 soil cement blocks
83
are produced. By using these test blocks, different standard performance tests are conducted at Selam technical and vocational center. The effects of varying the cement content with 2% from 4% to 12 % on the performance of soil block, the effects of compaction pressure on the quality of soil cement block, the effects of different local stabilisers (Mugher and Messobo PPC), the effects of cement content on the absorption capacity of soil cement blocks are also examined. Based on the results obtained the following points are concluded:
The performance characteristics of soil blocks are improved by cement stabilistaion. Increment of cement content increases the compressive strength and decreases the absorption capacity of soil cement block.
Increment of the compaction pressure improves the compressive strength of soil cement block.
The effects of local stabilisers (Mugher and Messobo pozzolana cements) are examined and comparisons are made. The 56th day compressive strength of compressed cement stabilised soil block is much higher than the 28th day.
84
CHAPTER SEVEN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CEMENT STABILISED COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCK 7.1 Production cost of cement stabilised compressed earth block
In this research work, the production cost of compressed stabilised soil block are based on Hydraform M7 E380 Machine and relevant datas of working conditions are taken from Selam Technical and Vocational center. Prices of raw materials used for the production of the blocks are from the current price indexes of construction materials and the quantity of materials needed are calculated based on the optimum mix design of this research. Two typical cases have been considered for the cost calculation. These are the production on site and Block yard. 1. On site production: the production is done on construction site. This case has the minimum physical set up: simple store room and light production shed. This physical set ups could be re-used by the owner at the end of the project. The soil is extracted from the site. 2. Blockyard production: The production is done with durable facilities and a good set up. The store room, office and production shed are movable, so that they can be re-used several times after wards. The blockyard site is located in the countryside and it has a quarry.
7.2 Parameters that influence the production cost of CSEB

1.Machine life span This represents the total number blocks, which can be produced by the press: About 1.5 million blocks can be produced by using M7 E380 Hydraform block making machine over a period of 5 years with proper maintenance.
85
7. Economic Analysis of Compressed Cement Stabilised Soil Block Versus Other Conventional Building Materials
2.Daily production
It varies with the block size. In the case of 220220115 cm block the daily production ranges from 1200 to 1500. In this research work 1200 blocks per day are taken as the daily production.
3.Annual production
It is the monthly production (26 days) over a period of 11 months. Every year, one month is deducted for the maintenance of the equipment.
4.Equipment cost
Main equipments and machineries: Hydraform Block Making Machine (M7 E 380), Pan Mixer, Motor, Soil crusher, Soil sieve, Wheel barrow, Water Can and Plastic sheet .The detail cost of the equipment is given in the Appendix 10.
5. Buildings & Infrastructure
On-site production: It needs simple store room 15m2 and a simple production shed 75m2. It could be re-used at the end of the project, for another purpose. Blockyard: Moveable office 10m2, moveable store room 20m2, moveable production shed 75m2. They would be moved and reused at the end of the exercise or project.
6. Maintenance
This is the total cost of the maintenance during the lifespan of the press. It includes the daily maintenance and the yearly repairs, once in a year. It is a lump sum given according to the experience in Selam (proper maintenance).
7.3 Details for cost calculation

7.3.1 Variable costs
1. Labor 2. Water This includes workers salaries. It represents, about 20% of the mix. It would vary with the soil quality. 3. Cement 6% cement (by weight) is taken as optimum for the cost calculations.
86
4. Soil
The cost includes the selected soil type excavation, loading unloading and transportation costs.
5. Maintenance per CSEB
Maintenance cost over the lifespan of the press divided by the total production.
7.3.2 Fixed costs

1. Investment cost 2. Equipment depreciation This corresponds to the interest of the loan taken from a bank This is calculated on the lifespan of the press (for about 1.5 million blocks); on average it serves for 5 years. The lifespan depends on the daily productivity with one type of block. Therefore, the depreciation can be estimated as 20% per year. 3. Buildings depreciation On-site production: they can be re-used at the end of the project for another purpose. They have only a little value and their depreciation is evaluated to 50%. Blockyard and Research Center: they would be moved at the end of the exercise and re-used several times. Therefore, their depreciation is evaluated to 5%.
7.3.3 Profit Margin

1. On-site production 2. Blockyard Production There is no profit margin, as the blocks are not for sale but for use on the project site. This margin should allow some profit, which would be reinvested at the end of the exercise to start another similar enterprise.
7.4 Unit cost

For both production on site and blockyard, when fixed and variable costs are added together and this total sum is divided by the number of blocks produced, it gives the unit cost as shown in Table 7.1 and 7.2.This enables the price of the blocks to be set at sensible level, by adding a profit margin to the unit cost.
87
Table 7.1 On-site /Cost calculation table for (220x220x110 mm) block using 6% cement COST CALCULATION Daily production (blocks) Annual production (blocks) Equipment cost (Hydraform machine with Accessories) Buildings and infrastructure cost
VARIABLE COSTS
ON-SITE PRODUCTION 1200 343,000 165,000 20,000

Cost/unit Units Cost/block
Labor per day (Man/day) Soil per day (11.25m per 1200 blocks) Cement per day (6%=6.03Qt. per 1200 blocks) Maintenance per block Total variable Costs Fixed Costs Investment cost (interest) Equipment depreciation (Press lifespan) Building depreciation (site duration) Miscellaneous Total fixed costs Total cost price per block
3
10 6.67 150
9 11.25 6.03
0.075 0.063 0.754
6.98%
5.87% 70.20%
0.014
0.014 0.906
1.3% 84.36%
Total cost(Birr)
Cost/Block (Birr)
4% 20% 50% 2%
185,000 165,000 20,000
0.022 0.096 0.029 0.021 0.168 1.074
2.05% 8.94% 2.7% 1.96% 15.64% 100%
Note: Factory cost of Mugher PPC =108.69birr

VAT+ Transportation cost (30%) =32.60birr Total = 141.30birr/Qt. Factory cost of Messobo PPC =100.00birr VAT+ Transportation cost (45%) = 45birr
Total = 145birr/Qt
88
Table 7.2 Blockyard /Cost calculation table for (220x220x110 mm-) block using 6% cement COST CALCULATION Daily production (blocks) Annual production (blocks) Equipment cost (Birr) Buildings and infrastructure cost(Birr) VARIABLE COSTS Labor per day (Man/day) Soil per day (11.25m3 per 1200 blocks) Cement per day (6% = 6.03Qt. per 1200 blocks) Maintenance per block Total variable costs Fixed Costs Investment cost (interest) Equipment depreciation (Press lifespan) Building depreciation (site duration) Miscellaneous Total fixed costs Total cost price per block Profit margin Selling price Blockyard production 1200 343,000 165,000 60,000
Cost / unit Units Cost/block
10 31.67 150 0.014
9 11.25 6.03 1 Total cost 225,000 165,000 60,000
0.075 0.296 0.754 0.014 1.14 Cost/Block 0.026 0.096
5.77% 22.77% 58% 1.08% 87.69% 2% 7.38%
4% 20% 5% 2%
0.010 0.77% 0.025 1.92% 0.16 12.31% 100% 1.3 20% 0.26 1.56 Infrastructure is large The soil cost includes digging and sieving on The Block yard is assumed to be 10 km site away from the quarry and soil transport cost is taken as 25 Birr/m3

VAT+ Transportation cost (30%) =32.60birr Total = 141.30birr/Qt. Factory cost of Messobo PPC =100.00birr VAT+ Transportation cost (45%) = 45birr Total = 145birr/Qt
89
7.5 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is used to evaluate the effects of change in the variable and fixed costs on the final cost of the soil block. This prevents one being caught unaware if costs increase or if productivity falls. The following comments are driven from this sensitivity analysis and Table 7.3 and Fig 7.1 shows the effects of cement content on the final cost of the soil cement block.
7.5.1 Comments on how the parameters influence the cost of CSEB

Two production cases: On-site and Blockyard On-site production uses small facilities with low overheads. Thus it is a low cost case. The other case has larger physical set-ups. The blockyard has the larger overheads and the soil is delivered by lorry. Thus the cost is high. This shows that on-site production is the cheapest but has the disadvantage of scattered production. The blockyard case is a middle way, and presents a lot of advantage. Daily production This influences, substantially, the production cost of the block. For example, if the productivity of interlocking blocks could be increased from 1200 to 1400 blocks per day (without decreasing their quality), the blocks would be 14% cheaper. Note that increasing the given outputs is difficult, since they are near the maximum. Annual production The number of months worked yearly has very little influence on the production cost. Working one month more or less will change the production cost by not more than 2 %. Investment cost and For each case considered, this variable has a small influence on the Maintenance cost production cost of the block. Doubling the investment and maintenance cost will increase the production cost of the block by 3%. Depreciation cost This also has an influence on the production cost of the block. Doubling the depreciation cost will increase the production cost of the block by more than 7 %. Labor cost This influences substantially the production cost of the block. An increase of 25% for the labor cost will increase the production cost of the block by about 1.5 %.
90
Soil cost
It influences substantially the production cost of the block an increase of 25% for soil will increase the production cost of the block by 5.7 %.
Cement cost
This has a high influence on the production cost of the block: an increase of 25% will increase the production cost of the block by more than 14.5%.
Overheads and miscellaneous
This has a little influence on the production cost of the block: doubling the miscellaneous costs will increase the production cost of the block by less than 2%.
Profit margin
Its base, for a healthy unit should be determined. For this research work 20% is determined as profit margin.
Table 7.3 Effects of cement content on the cost of soil cement block
Cement content (%) by weight Cement content kg/Block Cost/Block (Birr) 56 days wet Compressive Strength (MPa)
4 6 8 10 12
0.335 0.502 0.67 0.837 1.005
1.33 1.56 1.83 2.08 2.33
1.25 2.23 3.2 4.03 5.03
EFFECT OF CEMENT CONTENT ON SOIL CEMENT COST

COST OF A BLOCK 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 CEMENT CONTENT IN KG/BLOCK
Fig.7.1 Sensitivity test chart
91
Table 7.4 Cost calculation for (200x200x400) mm HCB Class C

COST CALCULATION Daily production (blocks) Annual production (blocks) Equipment cost with accessories Buildings and infrastructure cost VARIABLE COSTS Labor per day (Man/day) Sand per day (4.1m3 per 1200 blocks) Red sand per day (6.17m3 per 1200 blocks) Crushed stone 00 per day (1.03m3) Crushed stone 01 per day (1.03m3) Cement per day (28.6Qt. per 1200 blocks) Maintenance per block Total Variable Costs Fixed Costs Investment Cost (interest) Equipment Depreciation (Press lifespan) Building Depreciation (site duration) Miscellaneous Total Fixed costs Total cost price per block Profit margin Selling Price HCB production 1200 343,000 22900 60,000
Cost per unit Units Cost/block
10 150 70 185 185 150 0.014
14 4.1 6.17 1.03 1.03 28.6 1 Total cost 82900 22900 60,000 458
0.117 0.51 0.36 0.16 0.16 3.58 0.014 4.74 Cost/Block 0.009 0.013 0.0087 0.001 0.0317 4.77 0.95 5.72
2.45% 10.69% 7.55% 3.35% 3.35% 75.05% 0.29% 99.37% 0.19% 0.27% 0.18% 0.02% 0.66% 100.00%
4% 20% 5% 2%
20%

92
Table 7.5 Cost calculation for (200x200x400) mm HCB Class B COST CALCULATION HCB production Daily production (blocks) 1200 Annual production (blocks) 343,000 Equipment cost with accessories 27000 Buildings and infrastructure cost 60,000 Cost per Units Cost/block VARIABLE COSTS
unit
Labor per day (Man/day) 10 3 Sand per day (3.82m per 1200 blocks) 150 Red sand per day (3.82m3 per 1200 70 blocks) Crushed stone 00 per day (3.39m3) 185 3 Crushed stone 01 per day (1.7m ) 185 Cement per day (35.3Qt. per 1200 150 blocks) Maintenance per block 0.014 Total Variable Costs Fixed Costs Investment Cost (interest) Equipment Depreciation (Press lifespan) Building Depreciation (site duration) Miscellaneous Total Fixed costs Total cost price per block Profit margin Selling Price
14 3.82 3.82 3.39 1.7 35.3 1
0.117 0.48 0.223 0.523 0.262 4.41 0.014
1.93% 7.93% 3.69% 8.64% 4.33% 72.89% 0.23% 99.50% 0.15% 0.21% 0.17% 0.02% 0.55% 100.00%
4% 20% 5% 2%
6.02 Total cost Cost/Block 82900 0.009 22900 60,000 458 0.013 0.010 0.001 0.033 6.05 1.21 7.26
20%

93
7.6 Comparison of compressed stabilised soil block with hollow concrete blocks per m2 area of wall
The first question a potential user will ask is weather a building built with compressed stabilised earth block is more economical than one built with any other material. First of all, one must consider the type of building. In luxury villa, the cost of the wall building materials accounts very little of the total cost. Choosing the compressed stabilised earth block to build a prestige villa is mainly a question of thermal comfort and of taste. But in the case of low cost houses, such as those social housing programs, the cost of walls is a major component of the total cost; as per the literature survey it accounts 30%of the total building cost. This implies that the choice of building materials and the wall building techniques are more critical. The use of hollow concrete blocks is increasing rapidly in every part of the world. But there thermal performance is poor and there cost is very dependent on the local cost and availability of cement. Further more HCB wall always requires plastering and/or rendering. To make a realistic comparison, it was important to consider a complete section of wall including the cost of plastering and structural elements. In this research, wall made of HCB plastered on both sides in one hand and HCB wall pointed on both sides on the other hand compared with dry stacked compressed stabilised soil blocks wall varnished on both sides per m2 area of wall and cost comparisons are prepared and tabulated in Table 7.6 below. According to Table 7.6 the cost of HCB wall plastered and painted internally and externally costs 204.06 Birr per m2 but one m2 of CSEB wall varnished both internally and externally costs 91.4 Birr. This implies that the cost of CSEB wall is 55.2% cheaper than HCB. .
94
Table 7.6 Comparison of CSEB with Hollow Concrete Blocks per m2 area of wall
No Description Hollow concrete block (HCB) blocks Per m2 Plastered and painted (out side &inside) (Birr) Hollow concrete block (HCB) blocks Per m2 Pointed (out side & inside) Dry stack Soil blocks (plastered internally) Per m2 Dry stack Soil blocks Per m2
(Birr)
(Birr)
(Birr)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Block Mortar for fixing Plastering Pointing Painting Varnish Labor Total walling cost Percentage
74.36 21.70 50.00 --24.00 -34.00 204.06 0
74.36 21.70 --20.00 ----22.00 138.06 -32.35
62.40 --25 --12.00 7.00 23.00 129.40 -36.59
62.40 --------14.00 15.00 91.40 -55.2
Note:
In this table comparison is made on CSEB and HCB wall. The building elements ( Soil cement blocks) have a compressive strength of 2MPa or equivalent to Class C HCB. As per the out comes of this research, increasing the cement content in the compressed stabilised soil block yields a better compressive strength of the block. Cost comparison for structural/load bearing wall (wall constructed from Class A and B HCBS) can be made with better % of cement in the Compressed Stabilised Soil block.
95
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and Recommendations that could be drawn from the results of these research and experiments are wide ranging and are summarized as follows:
8.1 Conclusions
1. Stabilisation of soil block using Portland pozzolana cement fulfills a number of objectives that are necessary to achieve a lasting structure from locally available soil. Some of these are: better mechanical characteristics (leading to better compressive strength), better cohesion between particles (reducing porosity which reduces changes in volume due to moisture fluctuations). 2. Increase in cement content results in an increase in the compressive strength value of blocks made at the same constant compaction pressure. For instance, by using 10 MPa compacting pressure, increasing the cement content from 4% to 8 % yields 110 % increment in compressive strength of the block. 3. Increase in cement content could be a more effective method of increasing compressive strength values than an increase in compaction pressure and the final wet strength reached by a block is much more sensitive to variations in the cement content than to densification. 4. The investigation of this thesis has revealed that many different factors are responsible for ensuring a good bond between the cement and the particles mixed within it. These requirements not only affect the components of the mixture used, how it is prepared, delivered into its final state, but also subsequent curing times and environmental conditions of the finished product. 5. The amount of water for the soil-cement mixture needs to be carefully controlled. There needs to be sufficient moisture for the cement to fully hydrate
96
but no excess of water which would reduce the final density, increase porosity and reduce final strength. 6. The moisture absorption capacity of the block could be significantly correlated to its durability. Increase in the cement content of block results into a reduction of its water absorption capacity. 7. The cost and technical performance comparison between compressed stabilised soil block and hollow concrete block has revealed that compressed stabilised soil block is interesting by the social and economical impact it will bring to local people. In the case of low cost housing, the technologies are really more affordable by (55%) than the conventional ones used (HCB). 8. From literature the best soil composition for soil-cement is 75% sand, 25% silt and clay, of which more than 10% is clay. In this research, Soil from Kara area of Addis Ababa with a composition of Sand 70%, Silt 16.25% and Clay 13.75% is used as a raw material for soil cement. This composition yielded a sandcrete product after mixed with cement and exhibited good structural characteristics. Unfortunately, soil with these exact characteristics will not be found easily near every potential building site and so one of the following two things must be done. Either the soil is tested and the required parts added to make the ideal soil, or a compromise is made and a slightly higher percentage of cement is used to ensure a satisfactory outcome whatever the type of soil is used. 9. The two types of Portland pozzolana cements used for stabilisation, Mugher PPC and Mossebo PPC showed more or less equivalent technical performance at 28 day, irrespective of their chemical composition, but Mugher PPC has shown better stabilisation effect based on the 56th day compressive strength of blocks.
97
8.2 Recommendations
1. Occasionally, a social reluctance to use the compressed earth block can be encountered when the compressed earth block has been too strongly associated with low cost or cheap building. Social acceptance depends a great deal on how it is presented to the population. Organizations have an active part to play in this respect, as well as political decision makers. The involvement of Architects and Engineers in this process is also necessary. 2. The results of this research work have revealed that compressed stabilised soil block can be used as an alternative wall making material. Significant cost cut can be achieved in low cost housing projects especially town houses and duplex buildings. Any concerned body can use this material as an alternative wall making material with proper quality control. 3. The use of compressed stabilised soil block as a walling material in Ethiopia has shown different defects. These defects include time related loss of quality of the block under direct or indirect influence of environment. This can be reduced by proper quality control during production; Plastering of the first two courses of the wall and increasing the overhangs of the roof. 4. Improvements to the durability of blocks can only become possible when most of the currently unanswered questions are settled. The most probable likely answer will lie in ways to achieve higher inter particle bonding and the exclusion of the damaging effects of moisture. 5. In Ethiopia especially in the central, northeast, northwest and in the southern eastern rift valley area it is believed that the soil is suitable for the soil cement block production. Suitable soil selection using laboratory tests may be expensive for small-scale production. Adoption of simple field test methods and trial block production can be the best solution.
98
6. Premeditated further research will still be needed to test refine and validate the findings contained in this report with a view to developing a reliable long-term durability model. 7. Further research on different type of soil including clay soils is very important due to availability and diversity of these soil types. A more detailed account of the interaction between cement and clay and why too much clay in the mixture is detrimental to the effectiveness of the cement is another topic for further investigation. 8. Chemical and organic contents of soil that hinder hydration reaction and how to treat these unsuitable soils are further research topics for better understand.
99
REFERENCES
1. Mathewos consult in collaboration with The Federal Urban Planning Institute (FUPI) and Urban Development Capacity Building office, Ministry of Works and Urban Development of Ethiopia, Urban upgrading and Renewal manual, 2006 2. Appropriate Technology in Civil Engineering, proceedings of conference held by the Institute of Civil Engineers, Tomas Telford, Ltd. London, April 1981 3. Dr.-Ing. Abebe Dinku, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, A text book of Building Construction, Addis Ababa University, 2007 4. Doctor. E.A.Adam in collaboration with Professor A.R.A.Agib, Compressed stabilized Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan, UNESCO, Paris, July 2001 5. A.K.LAL, Hand book of Low Cost Housing, New Age International (p) Ltd. March 1995 6. Vincent Rigassi, Craterre-ERG, Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of production, A publication of the Deutsches Zentrum fur Entwicklungtechnologien-Gate Volume 1,1985 7. Appropriate Building Materials for Low Cost Housing African region, proceedings of a symposium held in Nairobi Kenya from 7 to 14 November 1983, E.&F.N.Spon Ltd, London 1985 8. Ethiopian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained development to end poverty (PASDEP), (2005/06-2009/10) 9. Cebtex, Compressed Earth Block Construction Http://Cebtex.Com 10. A.G.Kerali, Working paper, Destructive effects of moisture on Long-Term Durability of Stabilised Soil Blocks, Development Technology Unit, University of Warwick, January 2000, http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/DTU/ 11. CRATerre, The Basics of Compressed Earth Blocks, A publication of the Deutsches Zentrum fur Entwicklungtechnologien-Gate, 1991 12. Satprem Mani, Building with Earth in Auroville, A case study, Auroville Earth Institute, India, April 2005.
100
13. Satprem Mani, Modernity of Earthen Architecture, presentation on National Alternative Building materials workshop Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Feb, 2006 14. Satprem Maimi, Production and use of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks, Auroville Earth Institute, India, March 2006 15. David Edward Montgomery, Dynamically-compacted cement stabilised soil blocks for low-cost walling, University of Warwick, School of Engineering, January 2002 16. Craig, R.F, Soil mechanics, E & FN Spon, 1997. 17. D. E.M. Gooding, Soil testing for soil cement block preparation, DTU Working paper No.38, 1993, http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/DTU/ 18. Ethiopian Building Code Standard: Foundations, EBCS-7, Ethiopian Ministry of Works and Urban Development, Addis Ababa, 1995. 19. African Regional Standards, Compressed Earth Blocks Standards, CDI and CRATerre-Publications, 1998. 20. A.M. Neville, Properties of concrete, ELBS with Addison Wesley Longman, fourth edition, 1996 21. David Edward Montgomery, Stabilised soil research progress report, University of Warwick, School of Engineering, 1998. http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/DTU/ 22. Birhanu Bogale, Comparison of concrete Durability as produced by various cements manufactured in Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, AAU, February 2007. 23. Hydraform Training manual. www.Hydraform.com 24. ASTM, Annual book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08,Soil and Rock, 1996
101
APPENDIX ONE SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES TEST RESULTS

Soil Testing Laboratory Table A1.1 Natural moisture content Determination Method used ASTM D 2216
Sample no: Boring No Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.Sc.Thesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: April 30/2007
Determination No:
Container (Can)no. Weight of Can+moist soil,W1(g) Weight of Can+dry soil,W2(g) Weight of can,Wc(g) weight of water,ww(g) weight of dry soil,ws(g) Moisture content,
1
31 51.176 46.546 15.414 4.63 31.13 14.87
2
76 43.798 40.129 15.715 3.67 24.41 15.03
3
26 51.3 46.737 15.671 4.57 31.06 14.71
=14.87%
Table A1.2 Specific Gravity Test Method used ASTM D 854

Sample no: Boring No Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.Sc.Thesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: May 12 /2007
Determination No:
weight of pycnometer+soil+water(m3) weight of pychnometer+water(m4) weight of pychnometer+Soil (m2) weight of pychnometer(m1) Temprature,T(C) specific gravity Average specific Gravity
1
167.79 149.29 79.54 49.59 23 2.61
2
167 148.28 78.64 48.55 23 2.64
3
163.18 144.79 75.09 45.1 23 2.58
2.61
102
Appendix One
Table A1.3 Plastic Limit Determination Method used ASTM D 2216-92

Sample no: Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.ScThesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: June 14/2007
Determination No:
Can no Weight of can+Moist soil, W1 (g) Weight of can+Dry soil, W2 (g Weight of can, Wc (g) Weight of water, Ww (g) Weight of dry soil, Ws (g) Water content, (%) Plastic content (%)
1
36 22.262 20.9029 15.568 1.3591 5.3349 25.48
2
80 24.9634 22.9985 15.7085 1.9649 7.29 26.95
3
40 12.2203 11.09 6.5545 1.1303 4.5355 24.92
25.78
Table A1.4 Liquid Limit Determination Method used ASTM D 2216-92

Sample no: Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.Sc.Thesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: June 14/2007
Determination No:
Number of drops Can no Weight of can+Moist soil,W1(g) Weight of can+Dry soil,W2(g Weight of can,Wc(g) Weight of water,Ww(g) Weight of dry soil,Ws(g) Moisture content, (%)
1
17 10 22.72 18.61 6.39 4.11 12.22 33.60
Liquid limit
2
26 4 23.00 19.01 6.56 3.99 12.45 32.08
3
31 15 26.04 21.35 6.48 4.69 14.87 31.55
34 33.5 Moisture content 33 32.5 Series1, 26, 32.22 32 31.5 31 0 5 10 15 20 No of Blow s 25 30 35 Series1, 31, 31.55 Series1, 17, 33.6
103
Appendix One
Table A1.5 Hydrometer Analysis/ Grain-Size Analysis Method used ASTM D 422
Sample no: Boring No Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.Sc.Thesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: May 19-20/2007
Date May 19,2007
Time 8.15 A.M 8.17 A.M 8.20 A.M 8.30 A.M 8.45 A.M 9.15 A.M 10.15 A.M 12.15 P.M 4.15 P.M 8.15 P.M 8.15 A.M
Hydrometer Reading 1.019 1.018 1.016 1.015 1.014 1.013 1.012 1.011 1.0105 1.01
Composite correction Temperature c 20 20 20.5 21 21 22 22 21 20 20 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
May 20,2007
Table A1.6 Sieve analysis of fine aggregate

Weight of oven dry sample for Hydrometer analysis = 100gm Percentage of sample passing sieve no 10 = 100% Calculated weight of total Hydrometer analysis sample=100gm
Sieve size[mm] 2 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.15 0.075 Pan
Weight retained(gm) 0 9 23 24 9 5 30
Weight passed(gm) 100 91 68 44 35 30
Total percentage passing 100 91 68 44 35 30
104
Appendix One
Table A1.7 Hydrometer Analysis /Grain-Size Analysis

Method used ASTM D 422 Types of Hydrometer analysis used 151H Specific gravity of soil =2.61 Weight of oven dry Sample = 100gm Amount of Dispersing agent used 40gm/Liter Data Timemm mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm m 8.15AM 8.17 AM 8.2 AM 8.3 AM 8.45 AM 9.15 AM 10.15AM 6.15 PM 10.1PM 2.15 PM May20 /2007 8.15AM 1440 1.01 0.002 1.008 20 13.7 0.0138 0.0013 12.94 Elapsed time, T in min nmmm mmmm m 0 2 5 15 30 60 120 240 480 720 1.019 1.018 1.016 1.015 1.014 1.013 1.012 1.011 1.0105 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 1.017 1.016 1.014 1.013 1.012 0.011 1.01 1.009 1.0085 20 20 20.5 21 21 22 22 21 20 11.3 11.5 12.1 12.3 12.6 12.9 13.1 13.4 13.6 0.0138 0.0138 0.0137 0.0136 0.0136 0.0134 0.0134 0.0136 0.0138 0.0328 0.0209 0.0123 0.0087 0.0062 0.0044 0.0031 0.0023 0.0019 27.47 25.88 22.64 21.02 19.41 17.79 16.17 14.56 13.75 Actual hydrometer Reading Project: M.Sc. Thesis Location: Addis Ababa, Kara area Description of Sample sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw T.
Date: May 19-20/2007
Composite Correction
Hydromete r reading with composite Correction
Temperature C
Effective depth of Hydrometer L,cm
Value of K
Diameter of Soil particle (mm)
Soil in suspension i.e. % of soil finer) (%)
May19 /2007
105
Appendix One
Table A1.8 Compaction Test Method used ASTM D 698 Method A

Sample no: Depth Description of Sample: sandy soil Tested by: Asmamaw Tadege Project: M.Sc.Thesis Location: Addis Ababa Kara area Date: 21/06/2007
Moisture content determination Trial No. Weight Of Mould Wm (g) 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 5602 Wet Density wet Can no Weight of Wet soil+ Can, W1 (g) 55.78 54.36 51.58 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 83.39 83.3 93.52 Weight of dry soil+ can,W2(g) 50.4 49.05 46.47 53.21 53.92 52.86 52.57 52.14 52.2 51.21 50.66 51.19 68.71 68.66 76.15 Weight of water, Ww(g) 5.38 5.31 5.11 6.79 6.08 7.14 7.43 7.86 7.8 8.79 9.34 8.81 14.68 14.64 17.37 Weight of Dry soil Ws (g) 34.8 33.54 32.63 38.21 37.92 37.86 37.57 39.14 37.2 35.21 36.66 37.19 53.11 54.53 62.39
Weight of Compacted Soil+Mould wsm(gm) 7215 7215 7215 7404 7404 7404 7450 7450 7450 7442 7442 7442 7405 7405 7405
Weight of Compacted Soil (g) 1613 1613 1613 1802 1802 1802 1848 1848 1848 1840 1840 1840 1803 1803 1803
Weight of can,Wc(g)
Moisture Content W(%) 15.46 15.83 15.66 17.77 16.03 18.86 19.78 20.08 20.97 24.96 25.48 23.69 27.64 26.85 27.84
Dry Density, dry 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.59 1.61 1.57 1.60 1.60 1.59 1.53 1.52 1.54 1.47 1.48 1.46
13
16
19
22 25
1.67 1.67 1.67 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.87 1.87 1.87
63 A36 C10 1 48 A10 D7 C23 D8 D16 C9 C19 35 C11 C33
15.6 15.51 13.84 15 16 15 15 13 15 16 14 14 15.6 14.13 13.76
Notes: D = B-C ; E = D/963 ; I = G-H ; K = H-J; L = I/K100 ; M = (E/(100+L)100
106
Appendix One
APPENDIX TWO
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOIL
107
APPENDIX THREE
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS USING MUGHER PPC
Table A3.1 Blocks Compressive Strength Tests Result using 4% Mugher PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 in days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 20.322.111.6 20.722.111.6 20.422.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1844.7 1771.36 1845.23
Compressive Strength Mpa 0.3 0.2 0.3
Average Strength MPa
0.3
Date Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 23/7/2007 23/7/2007 23/7/2007
Age Dimension In days 14 14 14 LWH 20.322.111.6 20.422.111.6 20.322.111.6
Unit Weight Kg/m3 1806.27 1816.53 1810.41
Compressive Strength MPa 0.5 0.6 0.6
0.6
Marking
Date Casted Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007
Age in days 28 28 28
Dimension LWH 20.622.111.6 20.522.111.6 20.622.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1761.00 1769.60 1761.00
1 2 3
9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007
1.0
Age Dimension in days 56 56 56 LWH 2122.111.6 2122.111.6 21.222.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1690.3 1708.9 1711.18
1.25
108
Appendix Three
Table A3.2 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using Mugher 6 % PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 in days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 20.522.111.6 20.922.111.6 21.222.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1864.76 1866.39 1867.56
0.6
Age Dimension in days 14 14 14 LWH 21.822.111.6 20.322.111.6 21.122.111.6
Unit Weight Kg/m3 1837.86 1844.69 1839.12
Average Strength Mpa
1.3
Marking
Age in days 28 28 28
Dimension LWH 20.722.111.6 2122.111.6 20.922.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1790.20 1801.8 1791.7
1 2 3
9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007
1.5
Date Marking Casted 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007
Age Dimension in days 56 56 56 LWH 20.822.111.6 20.522.111.6 20.322.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1762.85 1769.62 1748.62
1 2 3
2.23
109
Appendix Three
Table A3.3 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 8% Mugher PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 In days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 20.422.111.6 20.922.111.6 20.222.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1873.9 1885.06 1870 Compressive Strength MPa 1 1.1 1.2 Average Strength MPa
1.1
Unit weight Kg/m3 1831.34 1846.74 1828.74
1.8
Marking
Age In days 28 28 28
Dimension LWH 21.122.111.6 21.122.111.6 20.622.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1793.20 1793.20 1780.00
1 2 3
9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007
2.1
Unit weight Kg/m3 1756.27 1756.27 1754.41
1 2 3
3.2
110
Appendix Three
Table A3.4 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 10%Mugher PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 In days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 20.722.111.6 20.422.111.6 20.322.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1846.74 1931.26 1876.94 Compressive Strength MPa 1.3 1.4 1.4 Average Strength MPa
1.4
Age Dimension In days 14 14 14 LWH 2122.111.6 21.122.111.6 21.822.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1857.51 1848.7 1839.7
Compressive Strength MPa 2 1.9 2.2
2.1
Marking
Date Casted 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007
Dimension LWH 20.622.111.6 20.622.111.6 2122.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1836.8 1836.8 1838.9
1 2 3
2.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1795.9 1771.36 1771.36
1 2 3
4.03
111
Appendix Three
Table A3.5 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 12%Mugher PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 16/7/2007 In days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 21.922.111.6 21.722.111.6 21.122.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1888.04 1869.49 1899.47 Compressive Strength MPa 1.4 1.5 1.5 Average Strength MPa
1.5
Age Dimension In days 14 14 14 LWH 22.322.111.6 2322.111.6 22.822.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1806.27 1841.7 1818.22
2.5
Marking
Dimension LWH 21.822.111.6 2222.111.6 21.722.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1807.2 1808.5 1797.6
1 2 3
9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007
3.5
Unit weight Kg/m3 1729.75 1765.05 1758.83
1 2 3
5.03
112
APPENDIX FOUR
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS USING MESSOBO PPC Table A4.1 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 4% Messobo PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07 Date Tested 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 in days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 19.622.111.6 20.622.111.6 20.222.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1880.73 1846.23 1861.71
0.15
Unit weight Kg/m3 1814.53 1806.27 1800.76
0.7
Marking
Dimension LWH 19.522.111.6 19.922.111.6 20.422.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1720.34 1705.36 1682.68
1 2 3
25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07
0.8
Age Dimension In days 56 56 56 LWH 20.422.111.6 19.522.111.6 2022.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1606.2 1600.32 1638.3
1.0
113
Appendix Four
Table A4.2 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 6% Messobo

Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07 Date Tested 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 in days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 2022.111.6 20.722.111.6 20.222.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1852.86 1856.16 1854.49 Compressive Strength MPa 0.33 0.4 0.35 Average Strength Mpa
0.4
Unit weight Kg/m3 1826.7 1817.83 1827.9
Compressive Strength MPa
1 1 1
1.0
Marking
Dimension LWH 20.822.111.6 20.122.111.6 19.922.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1725.34 1766.02 1783.77
1 2 3
25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07
1.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1638.32 1660.72 1649.58
1.85
114
Appendix Four
Table A4.3 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 8% Messobo PPC
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07 Date Tested 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 02/7/2007 in days 7 7 7 Dimension LWH 20.222.111.6 20.522.111.6 20.122.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1852.86 1856.16 1853.95 Compressive Strength MPa 0.8 1.0 1.0 Average Strength MPa
1.0
Unit weight Kg/m3 1842.57 1836.77 1829.07
1.3
Marking
Dimension LWH 21.222.111.6 20.522.111.6 20.522.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1784.78 1769.62 1769.62
Compressive Strength MPa 2.3 2.5 2
1 2 3
25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07
2.3
Unit weight Kg/m3 1671.76 1699.35 1690.97
1 2 3
2.7
115
Appendix Four
Table A4.4 Blocks Compressive Strength Test Results using 10% Messobo PPC
1.3
Age Dimension In days 14 14 14 LWH 2222.111.6 21.622.111.6 21.222.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1826.27 1823.97 1821.58
Compressive Strength MPa 2 1.6 1.5
1.7
Marking
Dimension LWH 20.822.111.6 20.922.111.6 21.222.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1781.6 1791.74 1766.38
Compressive Strength MPa 3 3 2.5
1 2 3
25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07
3.0
Unit weight Kg/m3 1704.21 1790.20 1693.5
1 2 3
3.2
116
Appendix Four
Table A4.5 Blocks Compressive Strength test results using 12% Messobo PPC
1.7
Age Dimension In days 14 14 14 LWH 20.621.111.6 21.121.111.6 2121.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1923.82 1936.32 1945.54
1.8
Marking
Dimension LWH 21.421.111.6 21.421.111.6 20.721.111.6
Unit weight Kg/m3 1890.08 1870.99 1788.64
1 2 3
25/06/07 25/06/07 25/06/07
3.4
Unit weight Kg/m3 1790.96 1805.28 1813.62
1 2 3
4.0
117
APPENDIX FIVE
EFFECTS OF COMPACTION PRESSURE ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL BLOCK BY USING 6% CEMENT Table A5.1 Block compressive strength test result by using compaction pressure of 4MPa.
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 in days 28 28 28 Dimension LWH 2521.111.6 24.521.111.6 2421.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1666.9 1667.6 1668.7 Compressive Strength MPa 0.1 0.1 0.2 Average Strength MPa
0.1
Table A4.2 Block compressive strength test result by using compaction pressure of 6MPa.
Date Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 In days 28 28 28 Age Dimension LWH 23.121.111.6 23.721.111.6 23.221.111.6 Unit Weight Kg/m3 1715.6 1741.1 1723.3 Compressive Strength MPa 0.9 0.9 1.0 Average Strength MPa 0.9
Marking Date Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 Age In days 28 28 28 Dimension LWH 23.621.111.6 22.821.111.6 23.121.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1800.4 1809.9 1802 Compressive Strength MPa 1.0 1.2 1.2 Average Strength MPa
1.2
Date Marking Casted 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 In days 28 28 28 Age Dimension LWH 21.821.111.6 22.321.111.6 2221.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1799.2 1795.5 1791.4 Compressive Strength MPa 1.8 1.5 1.7 Average Strength MPa
1 2 3
1.7
118
APPENDIX SIX
Age Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Date Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 in days 28 28 28 Dimension LWH 22.121.111.6 22.121.111.6 22.521.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1737.8 1756.3 1717.82 Compressive Strength MPa 1.3 1.3 1 Average Strength MPa
1.3
Date Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 In days 28 28 28 Age Dimension LWH 21.821.111.6 21.921.111.6 22.421.111.6 Unit Weight Kg/m3 1799.2 1809.6 1829.6 Compressive Strength MPa 1.5 1.8 1.6 Average Strength MPa
1.65
Marking Date Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 Age In days 28 28 28 Dimension LWH 21.721.111.6 21.521.111.6 21.421.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1845.1 1862.3 1878.8 Compressive Strength MPa 2.0 2.0 2.2 Average Strength MPa
2.1
Date Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 In days 28 28 28 Age Dimension LWH 2121.111.6 20.921.111.6 20.421.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1906.6 1896.2 1908.3 Compressive Strength MPa 2.5 2.75 2.5 Average Strength MPa
2.6
119
APPENDIX SEVEN
1.4
Date Marking Casted 1 2 3 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 9/7/2007 Tested 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 In days 28 28 28 Age Dimension LWH 21.521.111.6 21.421.111.6 21.721.111.6 Unit weight Kg/m3 1805.3 1851.9 1801.5 Compressive Strength MPa 1.8 2.5 2.1 Average Strength MPa
2.2
2.6
2.75
120
APPENDIX EIGHT
1.8
2.4
2.95
3.4
121
APPENDIX NINE
WATER ABSORPTION TEST RESULT Table A9.1 Water absorption test result of soil cement block Sample WW Wd Absorption Wc 8165 1 9492 16.25 15.36 2 9476 8214 8522 1 9629 12.99 15.45 2 9610 8324 8717 1 9991 14.61 13.63 2 9970 8774 9038 1 10285 13.76 2 13.63 10251 9021 9303 1 10189 9.52 2 10.08 10142 9213
Cement content 4 6 8 10 12
Absorption 15.81 14.22 14.12 13.76 9.8
122
APPENDIX TEN
COST OF M7 E 380 MACHINERY AND ACCESSORIES TABLE A10.1 Cost of Haydraform machine and its accessories Quantity Unit Description Unit Price (Birr) 93,534.15 4,035.85 41,356.38 16,400.00 Total price (Birr) 138,926.38
1 1 1
M7 E 380
PNONS1
1 1
PNONS1 PNONS1
1 1
PNONS1 PNONS1
PNONS1
Machinery Block tester Air Freight Soil mixer Overall dimension (lxwxh) mm (2100x950x100) mm Capacity up to 200lit Motor 2.2kw 960 rpm Soil crusher with out motor Overall size (lxwxh) mm (1130x1550x1520) mm Capacity more than 2m3 Per hr. Motor power, 11kw, 1400rpm` Soil sieve (9100 x1091x1495) mm mainly made of RHS angle iron, flat iron and wire mesh Wheel Barrow
16,400.00
1,500.00 6,700.00
1,500.00 6,700.00
2,300.00 1075.00
2,300.00 1075.00
500.00 Total
500.00 167,401.38
123
APPENDIX ELEVEN
PICTURES
124

Asmamaw Tadege

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asmamaw Tadege

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY OF COMPRESSED CEMENT STABILISED SOIL BLOCK AS AN ALTERNATIVE WALL MAKING MATERIAL

BY ASMAMAW TADEGE ADVISOR: PROFESSOR ABEBE DINKU

ADVISOR: PROFESSOR ABEBE DINKU

Asmamaw Tadege Addis Ababa, October 2007

Durability, Maintenance and Appearance ------------------------------------ 25

3.8 Rationale of soil cement ----------------------------------------------------------------- 53

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.2 Justification for the thesis

Department of Civil Engineering

1.3 Objectives of the thesis

Department of Civil Engineering

Scope of the study

Department of Civil Engineering

Structure of the research

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.2 Building materials and economic development

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.3 Traditional housing construction in Ethiopia

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.4 Salient features of earth as a building material

B) Cost and Energy efficient

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

C) Virtually Sound proof

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

G) Uses available and abundant raw materials

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Fig 2.1 Soil block building in India

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.5 Main techniques using earth as a building material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Fig.2.2 Use of Earth as Building material [11]

2.6 Compressed Earth Block

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Fig 2.3 The first Manual press, Cinvaram [13].

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.6.2 Compressed earth block role in development

Department of Civil Engineering

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

2.6.3 The future of compressed earth block

2. Contextual Framework of Earth as a Building Material

Comparison of compressed earth block with other building materials

Calcium silicate bricks

Dense concrete blocks

Aerated Lightweight concrete concrete blocks blocks