Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Reinforced soil blocks: Viable option for low cost building units
Evangelin Ramani Sujatha ⇑, S. Selsia Devi
School of Civil Engineering, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur 613401, India

h i g h l i g h t s

Fibre reinforcement helps in controlling the width and length of the cracks.

Fibre reinforcement improves the compressive and tensile strength of soil blocks.

Fibre reinforced blocks show higher resistance to wearing and erosion.

Fibre reinforcement does not adversely affect the cost of the soil blocks.

Reinforced soil blocks offer a sustainable solution toward low cost construction.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soil as a construction material offers the most economic and effective alternative toward solving the huge
Received 18 July 2018 demand for low cost housing units, as it imposes the least demand on resources, particularly in tropical
Received in revised form 5 September 2018 regions. But the strength and durability of soil blocks is a major concern. Therefore, an investigation was
Accepted 14 September 2018
carried out to reinforce soil blocks with natural and synthetic fibres in an attempt to offer an economic
Available online 21 September 2018
and sustainable alternative without compromising the strength and function. A comparison on the per-
formance of soil blocks reinforced with four different fibres – alkali resistant glass, polypropylene, banana
Keywords:
and jute were studied. The effect of fibre reinforcement on the physical, mechanical and durability prop-
Reinforced soil block
AR glass fibre
erties were examined for the fibre contents of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1% by weight of soil. The optimum
Polypropylene fibre percentage of fibre reinforcement for each type of fibre was determined. The study shows that fibre rein-
Banana fibre forcement augments the performance of the soil blocks significantly. It improves the strength & resis-
Jute fibre tance to erosion and wearing of the soil blocks and deters its susceptibility to shrinking and cracking.
Linear shrinkage Reinforcement with jute fibre yielded the maximum strength and was also observed to be the most dur-
Compressive strength able option of the selected fibres. Natural fibre reinforced soil blocks were also the most economic option
Water absorption among the fibres studied.
Wearing resistance
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Erosion resistance

1. Introduction to increased construction and transportation costs as a result of

increasing energy demand in the production process and dearth
Traditional building materials like fired bricks, cement, con- of natural resources like coal, sand, etc. Therefore, the indiscrimi-
crete, steel, glass and tiles, etc. are resource and energy intensive nate use of these traditional building materials raises concerns
and thereby cause major environmental concerns like resource related to economy and environment and demand a sustainable
depletion and environmental damage. Their manufacturing pro- alternative that offers not only economic solution but also aids sus-
cesses also demand high energy and result in release of carbon tainable development. This demand has revived a great interest in
dioxide and other harmful pollutants like sulphur oxide, carbon exploring alternate materials like soil blocks. Soil blocks are one of
monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, polluting the the oldest building material but the advent of new materials paved
environment. The emissions contaminate soil, water and air and way to the decline in its use as a construction material. Historical
affect adversely the biotic environment and human health [1]. evidences of magnificent buildings built of earth like the Akhetaten
The enormous use of these materials in construction industry lead in Egypt, Babylon City in Iraq and Draa valley of Morocco [2]
demonstrate the success of earth construction. Soil is a common
construction material, particularly, in regions where the climate
⇑ Corresponding author.
is favourable. Soil with its good engineering properties offer a
E-mail address: [email protected] (E.R. Sujatha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.077
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133 1125

viable option of energy stringent (roughly it requires 86% lesser 2.2. Fibres
energy in its production process) [3] and environmentally friendly
The fibres selected to reinforce the soil blocks were AR glass, polypropylene,
building material when compared to other traditional building banana and jute fibre. The fibres were chosen on account of their wide availability
materials like steel, concrete and glass, etc. It is cost effective, recy- and cost effectiveness.
clable and often available in the vicinity of the building sites offer- Fig. 1 shows images of the fibres magnified at different scales to demonstrate
ing a considerable saving on transportation costs. the texture of the fibres and it can be observed from the Fig. 1 that natural fibres
exhibit a rough texture and a more porous nature and while synthetic fibres are
Statistics from United Nations Centre for Human Settlements
smooth. The properties of both the natural and artificial fibers are listed in Table 2.
(UNCHS) reports that 40% of world population lives in earth dwell-
ings and 25% of world population does not have access to decent 2.2.1. Natural fibres
housing. Attempts on the development of reliable and reproducible Banana and jute fibres used for the study are shown in Fig. 1 (c) and 1 (d). Sur-
technology for the extensive use of soil blocks started in nineteen face roughness of the natural fibres must be enhanced for better mechanical bond-
fifties, and from then on has been a topic of research interest [4– ing and this was achieved by alkali treatment that involves soaking the fibreswith
sodium hydroxide of normality 0.1 N for 2 h and rinsing it thoroughly to remove
14] and is still evolving from research to practice. Considerable
any unreacted alkali. The fibres are then dried completely [12].
efforts are directed towards using fibres, both natural & synthetic
and solid waste as reinforcement in soil blocks. These reinforce- 2.2.2. Synthetic fibres
ments not only improve the performance of the blocks but also The synthetic fibres used in this study include alkali resistant glass fibre and
make them a cost effective building material. These choices have polypropylene fibre. These fibres were selected due to their abundant market avail-
proven to be environmentally friendly, sustainable and economic. ability with the specific standards in production process. These artificial fibres have
low water absorption which promotes the usage in soil building blocks. AR glass
Many fibres like barley straw, wheat straw, coir, sisal, hibiscus, cas- fibres show resistance to breaking or disintegration during mixing and processing
sava peel, tea residue, pineapple, date palm, oil palm and bagasse but show a tendency to stay in bundles of filaments. They have high tensile
have been investigated for their performance in improving the strength, do not corrode and high modulus also. These fibres can be incorporated
strength and durability of the soil blocks. Their selection to a larger into mixes with minimum effort.
Polypropylene fibres were selected on account of their low specific gravity and
extent is dependent on their abundant availability [4,12,13,15–18].
this makes these fibres yield a huge volume of fibre for a specified weight. Thereby,
Fibre reinforced soil blocks have shown excellent thermal comfort these fibres provide good cover and bulk, in addition to being light in weight. It has
in addition to the regular functional requirements and offers value a low thermal conductivity than any other synthetic or natural. Polypropylene
addition in terms of cultural significance [6,8,13,15–18]. Also, fibres are resistant to attack by bacteria or other micro-organisms.
industrial by-products and wastes such as steel fibre, saw dust,
fly ash, blast-furnace slag, plastic, rubber, gypsum, phosphogyp- 3. Methods
sum and animal wastes like cow dung & wool, have been used to
reinforce the soil blocks [15–26]. 3.1. Production of soil blocks
Soil blocks have numerous advantages. The most significant of
them are the less energy requirement, faster construction, easy The size of the soil blocks moulded for the study is 215 mm x
adaptability and transferable technology, local availability, cost 105 mm x 65 mm. Soil blocks were prepared using the selected
effectiveness, fire resistant and environmentally sustainable nature natural and synthetic fibres as reinforcement by replacement of
[12–13,20]. But the strength and durability of the blocks are a con- fibre by weight of soil in proportions of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and
cern and needs the improvement. The most prevalent technique 1%. Blocks were hand pressed at the optimum moisture content.
adopted to improve these properties is to add traditional binders The soil and the specific fibres were hand mixed to a homogeneous
like lime and cement which are both cost and energy intensive. mixture by repeated mixing. The mixture was spread uniformly on
This study, therefore, focuses on improving the physical, mechan- the mould and pressed for the preparation of block. Prepared
ical and durability properties by reinforcing with natural and syn- blocks were sun baked during normal climatic condition for
thetic fibres like jute, banana, alkali resistant (AR) glass and 21 days. An average temperature between 25 ⁰C and 30 ⁰C was
polypropylene fibres in an attempt to make the choice of soil maintained during the block making. During periods of high tem-
blocks more relevant within the construction industry. The rein- perature the blocks were covered using banana leaves or plastic
forced soil blocks can be used as an alternative for bricks in con- sheets to maintain humidity. The blocks were dusted before testing
struction on account of the approximate equal compressive the specimens to remove dust and loose soil on them.
strength.
3.2. Experimental investigation

2. Materials Physical properties like density, linear shrinkage and water

absorption by capillarity, mechanical properties such as compres-
2.1. Soil sive strength and indirect tensile stress and properties that repre-
sent durability, namely resistance to erosion and wearing were
Soil from Kallaperambur, Thanjavur district was used for the preparation of the
soil blocks. The soil was dark brown in colour with no characteristic odour. The tested by a compressive experimental programme. Further modu-
specific gravity of the soil is 2.67. The percentage of gravel, sand, silt and clay in lus of rupture and ductility factor were also determined on speci-
the soil was 0, 46, 34 and 20 respectively. The soil was low plastic in nature, its liq- mens at their optimum fibre content of each fibre type to
uid limit and plasticity index are 18% and 3% respectively. The optimum moisture comprehend the behaviour of soil blocks reinforced with fibres.
content of the soil was 10% and the corresponding maximum dry unit weight of
the soil was 19.4 kN/m3. The organic content of the soil was less than 1%. An anal-
Physical properties of both unreinforced and reinforced soil blocks
ysis of the chemical properties of the soil does not contain any deleterious material. include the determination of density, linear shrinkage and water
Table 1 shows the chemical properties of the soil. absorption by capillarity. Density of the soil blocks were calculated

Table 1
Chemical properties of the soil.

Composition pH OC (%) N (Kg/A) P2O5 (Kg/A) K2O (Kg/A)

Value 7.3 0.25 50 1.15 83.5
1126 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133

Fig. 1. Microscopic images of (a) polypropylene fibre (b) ar glass fibre (c) jute fibre (d) banana fibre.

Table 2
Physical properties of the fibres.

Property Banana fibre Jute fibre AR glass fibre Polypropylene fibre

Length (mm) 60–70 60–70 12 12
Diameter (mm) 0.04–0.10 0.8–1 0.05 0.15
Density (g/cc) 1.35 1.46 2.7 0.91
Tensile strength (MPa) 259–274 216–225 330–414 316–328
Fibre Rate/kg (Rs.) 100 100 250 180

as the ratio of the weight to volume of the reinforced soil blocks as Durability of the blocks were measured by their resistance
prescribed in BS EN 771-1 [27]. Water absorption by capillarity offered to erosion and wearing and erosion under adverse condi-
was determined in line with the specifications outlined in BS EN tions and their ability to stand with time. Wet and dry tests (abra-
772-11 [28]. The blocks were oven dried at 40 °C till a constant sion) were performed as specified in ASTM D559-03 [30]. Blocks
weight was obtained. The sample was immersed 5 cm in a water were soaked in water for 2 min, removed from water and were
bath for a period of ten minutes and the wet block was weighed dried at a temperature 105 °C for 24 h. Abrasion resistance offered
to determine the water absorption by capillary action. Linear by the blocks were measured by the percentage change in weights
shrinkage was computed by measuring the difference in length, after the application of 18 vertical steel brush strokes of 13.3 N
prior to and after drying at temperatures between 50 °C and force each (approximately) brush strokes on each side of the block
60 °C for 24 h. and four strokes at the end of each cycle.
Mechanical properties of the specimens include the determina- A pressure spray/accelerated erosion test was used to assess
tion of compressive stress and indirect tensile stress. Compression the erosion resistance of the blocks in adverse conditions like
test was performed to assess the strength of the blocks with differ- incessant rainfall. The test is empirical and was developed by
ent fibre type and content. Loading continued till complete failure. Commonwealth, Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
The ultimate load divided by its cross sectional area measures the (CSIRO) according to Australian Standard to simulate rain action
ultimate cube compressive strength. Tensile strength of the blocks [13] and New Zealand Standard [31]. The test was set up as
was determined using the indirect tensile stress method [29] and shown in Fig. 2 and each block was exposed to a water spray
was calculated using the ultimate load carrying capacity as given through a hole of 100 mm diameter. Only a restricted area of
in Eqs. (1) and (2). the block face was exposed to the water spray by using a shield.
Water was sprayed on the exposed surface for 10 min and was
0:648 P drained out through the outlet provide in the plastic bath
Tensile Stress ¼ ð1Þ
dl (Fig. 2a). The eroded depth of the block per minute was mea-
sured using a rod with a flat-bed end of 10 mm diameter
0:625
1:30ða  bÞ (Fig. 2b).
d¼ 0:25
ð2Þ The modulus of rupture (MOR) of a soil block quantifies its
ða þ bÞ
capacity to resist bending stress. The test was performed on a block
where P = force (N), d = equivalent diameter (mm) and l = length of of size 50 cm  10 cm  10 cm as suggested by ASTM C-67-07 [32].
the specimen (mm). The blocks were centred between the two supports under the
 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133 1127

Fig. 2. (a) Erosion test setup (b) blocks after testing.

Fig. 3. (a) Testing Of prism block (b) deflected prism block.

loading. The rate of loading was gradually increased at a rate of 4.1. Physical properties
20 N/s. The (MOR) was calculated using the following Eq. (3).
The dry density of the reinforced soil blocks, water absorption
3FL
S¼ 2
ð3Þ by capillarity and linear shrinkage were determined to assess effect
2wh of reinforcement by fibres, type of fibres and quantity of fibres on
where S = Modulus of rupture of the block along the failure plane, the performance of the soil blocks.
(MPa), F = Maximum load, (N), L = Span length between the sup- Density of the soil blocks was observed to decline with the
ports, (mm), w = Average width of the block along the failure plane, increase in the quantity of fibre added (Table 3). Any fibre has a
(mm) and h = Average height of the block along the failure plane, lower weight compared to soil and hence there is a decrease in
(mm). The ductility factor and the load versus displacement graph the density with the addition of fibres. Fibres displace soil of that
were obtained using the resultant load and displacement of each has a higher weight than the fibres and this causes a decrease in
fibre optimum mix ratio. Fig. 3 shows the testing of the prism block density of fibre reinforced soil blocks. The rate of reduction
and the deflection of the prism block at failure. depends on the density of the fibres that replace the soil. The
decrease in density ranges between 2.7% and 16.2%. Banana fibres
4. Results and discussion show the least change (decrease) in density, between 2.7% and 7.2%
and the maximum decrease in density is observed for the
The economic and environmental concerns of conventional polypropylene fibre that ranges between 11.2% and 16.2%.
building materials have created the need to explore alternative Banana fibre is natural fibre and is made of lignocellulose mate-
materials which are less energy and cost efficient and at the same rial [12] with a higher average diameter and weight compared to
time satisfy the strength and safety criteria too. In line with this other fibres used. Also, in the same way, polypropylene is a manu-
attempt and a step forward in sustainable development, a compre- factured material which is very light in weight with higher
hensive experimental investigation was carried out to assess the strength [33]. And these difference in their nature and weight leads
feasibility of using reinforced earth blocks for construction pur- to the changes in density. Similar trends are observed in previous
poses. A detailed testing procedure was adopted to assess its phys- studies [5–6,13].
ical, mechanical and durability properties. Also its post-failure Water absorption is one of the major causes of failure/deterio-
characteristics and damage resilience was investigated. ration of soil blocks. Higher rate of water absorption leads not only

Table 3
Effect of fibre type and inclusion quantum on density of soil block.

Fibre Inclusion (%) Density (kg/m3)

Banana fibre Jute fibre AR glass fibre Polypropylene fibre
0 2040.6 2040.6 2040.6 2040.6
0.25 1985.18 1979.49 1865.29 1812.12
0.5 1981.39 1783.06 1864.89 1805.38
0.75 1955.03 1754.86 1854.97 1715.72
1 1893.02 1751.19 1810.5 1710.19
1128 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133

they accelerate movement of water through their voids. Fibres

not only control cracking but also bridge the crack width, limiting
the width of the shrinkage cracks that appear on drying. Jute and
polypropylene fibres are most effective in controlling linear shrink-
age. The maximum permissible linear shrinkage as suggested by
different codes of practice is 3% [13]. Both the unreinforced and
reinforced blocks have linear shrinkage less than 1.8% underlining
the fact that both the soil and the reinforcements selected for the
study are suitable for construction activities.

4.2. Mechanical properties

Fig. 4. Effect of type of fibre on water absorption of soil blocks. Mechanical properties are a measure of the performance of the
soil blocks under loads and determine their suitability in construc-
tion. Compressive strength, indirect tensile strength, modulus of
the higher rate of deterioration [11,17] but also caused a significant rupture, bond strength and ductility are studied under this section.
decrease in strength. It indicates the porosity of the soil blocks. Compressive strength of the soil block dictates its utility in con-
Water absorption by capillarity of reinforced soil blocks with dif- struction. Fibre reinforcement increases the compressive strength
ferent fibres depends on the type of fibres, their inherent void significantly (Fig. 6). Both, type of fibre and the fibre content play
structure and fibre content. The artificial fibres – AR glass fibre a role in modifying the compressive strength of the soil blocks
and polypropylene fibre are compact and negligibly porous in nat- (Table 4).
ure and the inclusion of these fibres tends to reduce the water It is observed from Fig. 6 that fibre reinforcement has increased
absorption of the soil blocks. The decrease in water absorption the strength for all types of fibres used. Presence of fibre in the soil
decreases with the increase in fibre content (Fig. 4). matrix improves the surface area and provides more surface for the
Natural fibres are made of cellulose and tend to absorb water by interaction of the soil and the fibre and this mechanism leads to
virtue of their higher void volume and cellulose content that the increase in the compressive strength of the reinforced soil
encourages water absorption [7,13]. The voids in the fibres create blocks [4,15,16]. The compressive strength also increases with
a path, allowing more water absorption in the blocks. Water the increase in fibre content as the number of fibres intersecting
absorption increases with the increase in the fibre content for the failure planes increase with the increase in fibre content and
the same reason. Polypropylene fibres are more effective in con- this mobilizes the tensile strength of the fibre and improves the
trolling the water absorption while banana fibres are least interlocking the between the soil and the fibre improving its com-
effective. pressive strength. Failure of unreinforced soil blocks was observed
to be sudden and complete with the propagation of a single long
4.1.1. Linear shrinkage and wide crack but fibre reinforced blocks failed with multiple fine
Soils that exhibit plastic nature are susceptible to volume cracks and the failure was gradual with the fibres bridging the
change and a high degree of volume change induces cracks of large cracks formed and this tendency improved with the increase in
width on drying. This renders the soil blocks unfit for construction the fibre content (Fig. 3).
purposes. Shrinkage increases with time as drying increases [4]. The performance of ARGF is not appreciable due to its tendency
Fibres present in the soil matrix resist deformation through friction to clump (balling effect). This cause’s improper distribution of fibre
and reduce the linear shrinkage in the soil blocks to a greater within the soil matrix which affects the resistance offered to the
extent. load carrying capacity of the block. All the other fibres show an
The effect of reinforcement on linear shrinkage depends on the increase in strength with the increase in fibre content for all tested
type and amount of fibre used (Fig. 5). It is observed from Fig. 5 percentages of fibre. Natural fibres show better performance that
that all types of fibres used for the study help in controlling linear artificial fibres. This can be attributed to the higher density and
shrinkage. Also, higher quantity of fibre is more effective in arrest- surface roughness of natural fibres which lead to higher mobiliza-
ing the shrinkage cracks. Fibre length is also an important param- tion of friction at the soil-fibre interface. The performance of jute
eter in the control of linear shrinkage [13]. Presence of fibres, fibre is better than all the other fibres used, at 1% fibre inclusion,
particularly natural fibres in the soil matrix quickens drying as an increase of nearly 81% over the unreinforced soil block is

Fig. 5. Effect of fibre type and content on linear shrinkage. Fig. 6. Effect of fibre type and content on compressive strength.
 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133 1129

Table 4
Effect of Type of Fibre and Fibre Content on Mechanical Properties of Soil Blocks.

Fibre Inclusion (%) Tensile Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

ARGF PF BF JF ARGF PF BF JF
0 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
0.25 2.16 4.56 2.28 5.61 4.15 8.31 4.37 10.23
0.5 2.68 4.71 6.06 6.06 4.39 8.58 11.04 11.04
0.75 3.99 4.92 7.04 6.55 6.87 8.97 12.84 11.93
1 3.01 5.44 7.46 9.89 4.86 9.91 13.59 18.04

observed. Similarly, banana fibre, polypropylene and AR glass fibre fracture resistance [8,11]. Fibre reinforcement improves the ductil-
show an increase of nearly 74%, 65% and 28% respectively. ity of the soil blocks (i.e) they control the failure and the cracking
Tensile strength is usually not a characteristic measure of the pattern and bridge the cracks improving the post peak behavior of
performance of the soil block but the presences of fibre that rein- the soil blocks. Here again, the interaction surface available around
force the soil matrix impart a considerable improvement in the the fibre for the soil matrix and the friction that resists deforma-
tensile strength of the blocks. In this study, the measure is used tion play a role in improving the ductility of the matrix. All fibres
to underline the importance of the fibre reinforcement in stiffening used in the study show an enhanced ductility factor than unrein-
the fibre reinforced soil blocks. It is observed from Table 4 that forced soil except in AR glass fibre and this again can be attributed
fibre inclusion has a positive effect on the tensile strength of the to its tendency to ball.
soil blocks. As in the case of compressive strength, jute fibres show
the best performance with an increase of nearly 74%, followed by 4.2.3. Load displacement behavior
banana fibres with 65% improvement and the minimum improve- Load displacement behavior of the unreinforced and reinforced
ment in strength of 36% is observed for AR glass fibres. Tensile soil blocks depicts the change in nature of the soil matrix on rein-
strength increases with the increase in fibre content for all the forcement (Fig. 8). Fig. 8 depicts the load displacement behaviour
types of fibres tested. of the reinforced soil blocks at the fibre content which yielded
maximum compressive strength. The unreinforced soil blocks
4.2.1. Modulus of rupture showed a sudden failure with mid-span cracks of 2 mm width.
Modulus of rupture is a measure of the resistance offered by the The fibre reinforced soil blocks show better post – peak behavior
material before rupture. Fibre reinforcement stiffens the soil than unreinforced soil blocks. The results are consistent with sim-
matrix and improves the strength of the blocks at rupture. The ilar studies conducted by Mostafa and Uddin [11]. Polypropylene
increase in the modulus of rupture on using jute fibres is nearly fibres show a gradual failure than other fibres depicting a ductile
36%. AR glass fibres show the least performance and the increase behavior while all the other fibres show brittle failure though the
in the modulus of rupture is nearly 11%. Fig. 7 shows that all the failure is not as abrupt as in the case of the unreinforced soil block.
fibres used in the study have improved the modulus of rupture The displacement at peak load ranges between 2 mm and 2.8 mm
and jute fibre has shown the best performance. The increase in for all types of fibre and 2.2 mm for unreinforced soil block. Post
the modulus of rupture can be attributed to the fibre – soil matrix peak failure behavior suggests that polypropylene fibres perform
bond [12]. The increased surface of interaction around the fibre better than other fibres.
creates a tougher matrix that resists load to a higher extent. The
poor performance of the AR glass fibre can again be due to its ten- 4.2.4. Energy absorption
dency to clump limiting the number of fibres cutting the failure The energy absorbed by the soil blocks was calculated as the
planes when other fibres that do not exhibit a tendency to clump. area under the load – displacement curve till the selected displace-
ment [8]. It is observed that the energy absorbed by blocks rein-
4.2.2. Ductility factor forced with polypropylene has a high energy absorption capacity
Ductility Factor, which is the ratio between the displacements followed by jute fibre reinforced block with 16.3 kNmm and
at the ultimate load and yield load, is yet another measure that 14.8 kNmm respectively. Conventional soil building blocks’
describes the resilience of the soil-fibre matrix to complete failure absorbed energy capacity was 3.89 kNmm whereas AR glass fibre
on loading. It reflects the ductility of the soil blocks and their reinforced block shows 53% and banana fibre shows 61.68%

Fig. 7. Effect of fibre reinforcement on modulus of rupture and ductility of soil

blocks. NF-No Fibre; ARGF-Alkali Resistant Glass Fibre; PF-Polypropylene Fibre; BF-
Banana Fibre; JF-Jute Fibre. Fig. 8. Load – displacement behaviour of unreinforced and reinforced soil blocks.
1130 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133

against wearing. It is observed that at 0.5% jute fibre inclusion the

reduction in wearing is 1.19% and on increasing the fibre content to
1%, it further reduced to 0.83% (i.e) an improvement of nearly 31%
is observed. The results of the study are in line with results of
authors who have worked on fibre reinforced soil blocks [12–
13,15–16]. Resistance to wearing indicates that the blocks will
show resistance against external factors like wind, animal and
anthropogenic activities.

4.3.2. Erosion resistance

Erosion resistance of the soil blocks is a measure of the capacity
of reinforced soil blocks to withstand erosion. Fibre reinforcement
Fig. 9. Energy absorption capacity of reinforced soil blocks. has brought about a significant reduction in the erosion of the soil
blocks (Fig. 11) and the resistance increases with the increase in
the fibre content. Soil-fibre bond strength has resisted the erosion
increase in absorbed energy with the increase in absorbed energy in the soil blocks [13]. Fibres hold the soil matrix together and
of 8.29 kNmm and 10.16 kNmm respectively. The increase in the resist erosion as like tree roots hold to the soil for erosion resistant.
energy absorption capacity of fibre reinforced soil blocks can be All the fibres tested in the study have effectively resisted erosion.
attributed to the ability of the fibres to resist the deformation Jute fibre reinforcement has showed highest resistance to ero-
and control the crack width, preventing sudden and complete fail- sion while AR glass fibre has shown least resistance to erosion.
ure of the block. Fig. 9 depicts the energy absorption capacity of the Nearly 50% reduction in erosion is achieved on reinforcing soil
reinforced soil blocks at the fibre content of their maximum com- blocks with jute fibre while in case of AR glass fibre there is a
pressive strength. reduction of approximately 26% reduction at 1% fibre inclusion in
both cases. Increase in fibre content has improved the resistance
4.3. Durability properties against erosion [12–13,15–18]. Resistance to erosion indicates that
the blocks will show resistance against external factors like rain-
The resistance of the soil blocks to adverse conditions is an fall. Stabilizers like lime or cement can be added to improve the
important parameter that dictates its use as a construction mate- erosion resistance further [9].
rial. In order to assess its durability, two tests – wearing and ero-
sion test were performed and the results of these tests are
described below. 4.4. Cost analysis

4.3.1. Wearing resistance A comparison on the cost of construction using fired bricks with
Wearing resistance of the soil blocks is a measure of its resis- 1:6 cement mortar and the reinforced soil blocks with the same
tance to abrasion. Fibre reinforcement has brought out significant mortar mix is made to understand the economic advantage of using
reduction in the wearing of the soil blocks (Fig. 10) and the resis- reinforced soil blocks. The cost analysis presented is calculated for
tance increases with the increase in the fibre content. Soil-fibre the construction of one cubic meter of masonry including labour
bond strength has resisted the wearing in the soil blocks. Fibres charges. Table 5 presents the total cost of masonry using fired
hold the soil matrix together and resist abrasion. All the fibres bricks. Labour charges are based on the rates at the local brick kilns.
tested in the study have effectively resisted abrasion. The size of the fired bricks used are 190 mm  90 mm  90 mm.
Jute fibre reinforcement has showed highest resistance to abra- The cost of reinforced soil blocks were calculated for the opti-
sion while AR glass fibre has shown least resistance to abrasion. mum fibre content of each type of fibre. The optimum fibre content
Nearly 95% reduction in wearing is achieved on reinforcing soil by weight for AR glass fibre was 0.75% and 1% for the rest of the
blocks with jute fibre while in case of AR glass fibre there is a fibres – polypropylene, jute and banana fibres. Table 6 presents
reduction of approximately 39.2% reduction at 1% fibre inclusion the rates for the manufacture of the reinforced soil blocks. The soil
in both cases. Increase in fibre content has improved the resistance and labour cost were based on the rates in the locality.

Fig. 10. Effect of fibre reinforcement on wearing of soil blocks.

 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133 1131

Fig. 11. Effect of fibre reinforcement on erosion of soil blocks.

Table 5
Cost data for 1 m3 fired brick masonry.

Quantity Description Rate (Rs.) Unit Amount (Rs.)

98 Numbers Bricks 8 Each 784.00
0.22 m3 Cement Mortar (1:6) 1060 1 m3 233.20
1 m3 Labour charge 200 1 m3 200.00
Sundries 0.30
Total 1217.50

Table 6
Cost of production of the reinforced soil blocks.

Fibre Optimum Fibre Content (%) Fibre/Block (kg) Fibre Rate/kg (Rs.) Soil (Rs.) Fibre/block (Rs.) Labour (Rs.) Rate/Block (Rs.)
Polypropylene 1.00 0.025 180 2 4.5 0.10 6.6
AR glass 0.75 0.018 250 2 4.5 0.10 6.6
Jute 1.00 0.025 100 2 2.5 0.10 4.6
Banana 1.00 0.025 100 2 2.5 0.10 4.6

Table 7
Cost data for 1 m3 soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibre masonry.

Quantity Description Rate (Rs.) Unit Amount (Rs.)

110 Numbers Reinforced Soil Blocks 4.6 Each 506.00
0.26 m3 Cement Mortar (1:6) 1060 1 m3 275.60
1 m3 Labour charge 200 1 m3 200.00
Sundries 0.30
Total 981.90

The cost of construction of one cubic meter of masonry of soil banana fibre and jute fibre are used as reinforcement. The cost
blocks reinforced with natural fibre and 1:6 cement mortar mix reduction in natural fibres was due to the wide availability of
for construction is shown in Table 7. The production cost of soil selected natural fibres in the region that resulted in a competitive
blocks reinforced with natural fibres is nearly 43% cheaper than cost than the synthetic fibres.
the conventional fired bricks (Table 5 and 6). This has led to consid-
erable savings in the masonry construction using reinforced soil 4.5. Improvement indices
blocks.
A similar cost analysis using synthetic fibres – AR glass and An elaborate experimental investigation yielded encouraging
polypropylene fibres yielded a total amount of Rs. 1202 due to results on the effect of fibre reinforcement on the soil blocks. Fibre
the increase in the cost of manufacture of synthetic fibre reinforced reinforcement enhanced the physical, mechanical and durability
soil blocks (Table 6). properties of the soil blocks rendering it an attractive alternative
The cost analysis points out that soil blocks reinforced with nat- to conventional bricks for non-load bearing structural units. The
ural fibres are more economic. Table 8 summarizes the cost analy- quantum of improvement of each property is expressed as the ratio
sis for the fired bricks and reinforced soil blocks. It can be inferred of the reinforced soil block to the unreinforced soil block. For
from Table 8 that there is cost reduction of about 1.28% when arti- example, the compression factor is the ratio of the compressive
ficial fibre like AR glass fibre and polypropylene fibre are used for strength of the reinforced soil block to the compressive strength
reinforcing the soil blocks and 19.35% when natural fibres like of the unreinforced soil block. Fig. 12(a–e) portrays the effect of
1132 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133

Table 8
Comparison of fired bricks and soil blocks reinforced with natural and artificial fibre.

S. No Parameter Fired Bricks ARGFREB PFREB JFREB BFREB

1 Dimensions (mm) 190  90  90 215  105  65
2 Volume (mm3) 1.539  106 1.467  106
3 Volume ratio 1 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953
4 Weight (kg) 3.5 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.48
5 Optimum fibre content (%) – 0.75 1 1 1
6 Cost/unit on site (Rs.) 8 4.5 4.5 2.5 2.5
7 No of blocks/m wall 98 110 110 110 110
8 Cost of wall/m3 (Rs.) 1217.50 1201.90 1201.90 981.90 981.90

ARGFREB – AR glass fibre reinforced soil block; PFREB – Polypropylene fibre reinforced soil block; JFREB – jute fibre reinforced soil block and BFREB – Banana fibre reinforced
soil block.

Fig. 12. Improvement indices showing the performance of reinforced soil blocks.
 E.R. Sujatha, S. Selsia Devi / Construction and Building Materials 189 (2018) 1124–1133 1133

fibre reinforcement on the performance of soil blocks through the [2] D. Easton, The Rammed Earth House, Chelsea, Publishing Company, Vermont,
USA, 1998.
improvement indices for each of the properties tested.
[3] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, J. Bai, Unfired clay bricks: from laboratory to industrial
It can be observed from Fig. 12(a) that strength shows a consid- production, Proc. Inst. Eng. Eng. Sust. 162 (2009) 229–237.
erable improvement on fibre reinforcement. Natural fibres, both [4] F.A. Bouhicha, S. Kenai, Performance of composite soil reinforced with barley
jute and banana have shown better resistance to linear shrinkage straw, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (2005) 617–621.
[5] I. Demir, An investigation on the production of construction brick with
than the artificial fibres (Fig. 12b). All fibres have shown almost processed waste tea, Build. Environ. 49 (1) (2006) 1274–1278.
similar resistance to erosion (Fig. 12c). Similarly, fibre reinforce- [6] C.M. Chan, Effect of natural fibers inclusion in clay bricks: physico-mechanical
ment has led to a high wearing resistance (Fig. 12d). Water absorp- properties, Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 3 (1) (2011) 51–57.
[7] S. Ismail, Z. Yaacob, Properties of laterite brick reinforced with oil palm empty
tion, though is better at lower percentages of fibre addition and fruit bunch fibres, Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 19 (1) (2011) 33–43.
this can be attributed to their porous nature (Fig. 12e). [8] L.F. Aymerich, P. Meloni, Effect of reinforcing wool fibres on fracture and
energy absorption properties of an earthen material, Constr. Build. Mater. 27
(2012) 66–72.
5. Conclusions [9] P.P. Yalley, Use of Waste and Low Energy Materials in Construction, LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany, 2012.
[10] A.J. Fopossi, R.N. Mutuku, F. Ngapgue, Effects of stabilizers on compressive
Soil blocks offer an economic alternative to conventional fired
strength of soil blocks: a case study using mangu soil, Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng.
bricks and reinforcing these soil blocks, further enhances its prop- Res. 3 (4) (2014) 122–130.
erties as a building material. The results of the study shows that [11] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, S. Guettala, A. Kriker, Mechanical properties and
performance of the natural fibres in enhancing the properties of hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 59 (2014) 161–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/
the soil blocks is superior in comparison with the artificial fibres j.conbuildmat.2014.02.058.
for all cases of physical, mechanical and durability properties. Soil [12] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Experimental analysis of compressed earth block (CEB)
blocks reinforced with 1% jute fibres have shown the best perfor- with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 5 (2016) 53–63.
mance with nearly 81% increase in compressive strength, 65% [13] H. Danso, D. Brett Martinson, Muhammad Ali, John Williams, Effect of fibre
increase in tensile strength, 36% increase in modulus of rupture, aspect ratio on mechanical properties of soil building blocks, Constr. Build.
95% reduction in wearing and 50% higher resistance to erosion. Mater. 83 (2015) 314–319.
[14] H. Danso, Properties of coconut, oil palm and bagasse fibres: as potential
The principal conclusions of the study are summarized as building materials, Proc. Eng. 200 (2017) 1–9.
follows, [15] S.M. Hejazi, M. Sheikhzadeh, S.M. Abtahi, A. Zadhoush, A simple review of soil
reinforcement using natural and synthetic fibres, Constr. Build. Mater. 30
(2012) 100–116.

The reinforcing soil blocks with natural and artificial fibres
[16] A. Laborel-Preneron, J.E. Aubert, C. Magniont, C. Tribout, A. Bertron, Plant
resulted in the reduction of density and linear shrinkage point- aggregates and fibres in earth construction material: a review, Constr. Build.
ing out that the blocks will be lighter in weight, reducing the Mater. 111 (2016) 719–734.
[17] C. Chee-Ming, Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: physico-
self-weight of structure and also control cracking. However
mechanical properties, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 73 (2011) 1–8.
water absorption in blocks reinforced with natural fibres is a [18] S. Yetgin, O. Cavdar, A. Cavdar, The effects of the fibre contents on the
concern. mechanic properties of the adobes, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 222–

Fibre reinforcement enhances the compressive strength and 227.
[19] N. Degirmenci, The using of waste phosphogypsum and natural gypsum in
tensile strength of the blocks. Natural fibres showed better per- adobe stabilization, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 1220–1224.
formance than synthetic fibres with an increase in strength of [20] P. Turgut, B. Yesilata, Physico-mechanical and thermal performances of newly
91% and 28% respectively. developed rubber-added bricks, Energy Build. 40 (5) (2008) 679–688.
[21] R.M. Eko, E.D. Offa, T.Y. Ngatcha, L.S. Minsili, Potential of salvaged steel fibers

The inclusion of the fibres as reinforcement reduced the rate of for reinforcement of unfired earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 340–
wearing by 31%–95% and erosion of the soil blocks by 26%–50%. 346.
The effect of fibre varied significantly in the enhancing the dura- [22] C.N. Villamizar, V.S. Araque, C.A.R. Reyes, R.S. Silva, Effect of the addition of
coal-ash and cassava peels on the engineering properties of compressed earth
bility blocks. blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 276–286.

Considerable savings can be achieved in wall construction by [23] C.K.S. Prasad, E.K.K. Nambiar, B.M. Abraham, Plastic fiber reinforced soil blocks
using stabilized soil blocks without plastering instead of using as a sustainable building material, Int. J. Adv. Res. Technol. 1 (5) (2012) 42–45.
[24] G.B. Juarez, P. Valdez, A. Duran-Herrera, Mechanical properties of natural
ordinary bricks. Soil block masonry gives good appearance
fibers reinforced sustainable masonry, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 1536–
and it does not require plastering. The weight of the stabilized 1541.
soil block per m3 is comparatively less than that of burnt brick. [25] P. Zak, T. Ashour, A. Korjenic, S. Korjenic, W. Wu, The influence of natural
reinforcement fibers, gypsum and cement on compressive strength of earth
Fibre reinforcement can improve its performance.
bricks materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 106 (2016) 179–188.
[26] C.S. Darshan, N. Sitaram, Utilization of granulated blast furnace slag and
Conflict of interest cement in the manufacture of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Constr.
Build. Mater. 166 (2018) 531–536.
[27] BS EN 771-1:2003 – Specification for masonry units, British Standard
None. European Norm.
[28] BS EN 772-11:2011 – Methods of test for masonry units, British Standard
Acknowledgements European Norm.
[29] A.V. Oskouei, M. Afzali, M. Madadipour, Experimental investigation on mud
bricks reinforced with natural additives under compressive and tensile tests,
The authors acknowledge with thanks the Vice Chancellor, SAS- Constr. Build. Mater. 142 (2017) 137–147.
TRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur, India for the infrastruc- [30] ASTM D559-03-2012 – Standard test methods for wetting and drying
compacted soil-cement mixtures, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ture facilities to carry out the work and the encouragement in [31] New Zealand Standard NZS 4298. Materials and Workmanship for earth
completing this work. building. Standard New Zealand. 1998.
[32] ASTM C67-07-2007 – Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick
and structural clay tile, American Society for Testing and Materials.
References
[33] P. Donkor, E. Obonyo, Earthen construction materials: assessing the feasibility
of improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using
[1] C. Gelán Marín, C. Rivera Gomez, J. Petric, Clay-based composite stabilized with Polypropylene fibers, Mater. Des. 83 (2017) 813–819.
natural polymer and fibre, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (8) (2010) 1462–1468.