INVESTIGATION OF THE ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF COMPRESSED EARTH

BLOCKS MADE FROM RED COFFEE SOIL STABILIZED WITH A MIXTURE OF

CASSAVA PEEL ASH AND SUGARCANE BAGASSE ASH

NYANGENA M. ABNER

EECQ/04548/2013S

A Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of

the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering

Department of Civil and Construction Engineering

Technical University of Kenya

August 2019
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this is my original work and has never been presented for the award of a
degree or any other award in this or any other university.

Signed …………………………………… Date ……………………………………….

Nyangena M Abner

(Reg. No. EECQ/04548/2013S)

CERTIFICATION
I confirm that the work reported in this research project was carried out by the candidate under my
supervision.

Signed ……………………………………. Date ………………………………………….

Eng. Emma Muringi

i
 DEDICATION
To my Dad Prof Elijah Nyangena and my Mom Dr Jane Nyangena who sacrificed their time and
resources to ensure I attain this level of education, to my brother and the friends and all who
provided every necessary support towards this goal. May God grant you favour.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the Almighty God for his favour throughout the period of this research
project. My sincere thanks to my supervisor Eng. Emma Muringi, for her encouragement and
guidance in the course of writing this project. I also thank the Civil Engineering department
teaching staff, who have guided us throughout the study period. Finally, many thanks to my close
friends who stood by my side throughout my studies.

iii
Table of Contents

DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ i
CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Equations ........................................................................................................................ viii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix
List of Symbols .............................................................................................................................. x
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Justification ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 Main Objective.......................................................................................................... 3
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Research Question ............................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB) ..................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Configurations of CEBs ............................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of CEBs .................................................................. 6
2.2.3 Performance of CEB ................................................................................................. 7
2.2.4 Compressed Earth Block Technology ...................................................................... 8
2.3 Soil as a Construction Material ...................................................................................... 10
2.4 Soil Stabilization ............................................................................................................ 11
2.4.1 Types of Stabilizers................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Cassava Peel Ash ........................................................................................................... 13
iv
 2.5.1 Red Coffee Soil ....................................................................................................... 14
2.6 Sugarcane Bagasse Ash .................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 17
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Materials ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Red Coffee Soil ....................................................................................................... 17
3.2.2 Sugarcane Bagasse Ash .......................................................................................... 17
3.2.3 Cassava Peel Ash .................................................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Water ....................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Tests on Soil ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 Particle Size Distribution ........................................................................................ 19
3.3.2 Atterberg Limits ...................................................................................................... 21
3.4 Tests on Compressed Earth Blocks ................................................................................ 24
3.4.1 Preparation of CEB Samples .................................................................................. 24
3.4.2 Compressive Strength test....................................................................................... 26
3.4.3 Water Absorption Test ............................................................................................ 29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 30
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Tests on Soil ................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1 Particle Size Distribution ........................................................................................ 30
4.2.2 Atterberg Limits ...................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Tests on Compressed Earth Block ................................................................................. 33
4.3.1 Compressive Strength Test ..................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Water Absorption Test ............................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 37
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 37
References .................................................................................................................................... 38

v
List of Tables
Table 1: Soil classification according to particle size ............................................................. 10
Table 2: Chemical composition of CPA ................................................................................. 13
Table 3: Chemical composition of SBA ................................................................................. 16
Table 4: Proposed CPA and SBA mix proportions by percentage for various tests ............... 25
Table 5: Sieve analysis results ................................................................................................ 30
Table 6: Atterberg limits results.............................................................................................. 32
Table 7: Compressive strength test results .............................................................................. 34
Table 8: Water absorption test results ..................................................................................... 35

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Types of Compressed Earth Blocks ......................................................................... 5
Figure 2: (A) Representation of clay minerals, (B) Surface and interlayer water ................. 14
Figure 3: Sugarcane Bagasse Ash .......................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Cassava Peel Ash ................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5: Undertaking the particle size distribution test ........................................................ 20
Figure 6: Soil sample ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 7: Undertaking the liquid limit test............................................................................. 22
Figure 8: Production process of Compressed Earth Blocks .................................................. 24
Figure 9: Compressed Earth Blocks ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: Undertaking the compressive strength test............................................................. 27
Figure 11: CEB at failure ......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 12: Particle size distribution curve ............................................................................... 31
Figure 13: Variation of the atterberg limits of red coffee soil treated with CPA and SBA..... 32
Figure 14: Variation of PI of red coffee soil treated with CPA and SBA ............................... 33
Figure 15: Variation of compressive strength against the stabilizer content ........................... 34
Figure 16: Variation of water absorption against the stabilizer content .................................. 36

vii
List of Equations
Equation 1 .................................................................................................................................... 20
Equation 2 .................................................................................................................................... 20
Equation 3 .................................................................................................................................... 23
Equation 4 .................................................................................................................................... 24
Equation 5 .................................................................................................................................... 28
Equation 6 .................................................................................................................................... 28
Equation 7 .................................................................................................................................... 29

viii
List of Abbreviations/ Acronyms
BS British Standard
BS EN British Standard European Norm
CPA Cassava Peel Ash
CP Cassava Peels
CEB Compressed Earth Blocks
LS Linear Shrinkage
WL Liquid Limit
LOI Loss of Ignition
MDG Millennium Development Goals
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
WP Plastic Limit
IP Plasticity Index
SBA Sugarcane Bagasse Ash
UN United Nations
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
XRF X-ray fluorescence

ix
List of Symbols
% Percentage
°C Degrees Celsius
ρ Density
Ac Area Under Compression
Al2O3 Alumina
CaO Calcium oxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
𝒇𝒄 Compressive Strength
Fe2O3 Ferric oxide
g Grams
K2O Potassium oxide.
Kg Kilograms
kN/min Kilonewton per Minute
L Length
m Weight of Sample
MgO Magnesium Oxide
mm Millimeter
N/mm2 Newton per Square millimeter
Na2O Sodium Oxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
P Maximum Load at Failure
P2O5 Phosphorus pentoxide
SiO2 Silicon dioxide
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO3 Sulfur Trioxide
V Volume

x
 ABSTRACT
This research project aimed to investigate the engineering properties of CEBs made from red
coffee soil stabilized with a mixture of CPA and SBA. Atterberg Limits Tests, Compressive
Strength Tests and Water absorption Tests were conducted on CEB samples with CPA and SBA
content of 0%, 10%, 15%, and 20% by weight of dry Red Coffee soil. A constant mix ratio of 1:1
for the CPA and SBA was used.

The 20% CPA and SBA addition resulted in CEBs of optimum engineering properties. After
analysis of results, it was observed that the liquid limit was 64.20% for the control mix and 56.75%
for the optimum mix. This represented an 11.6% decrease in liquid limit. The linear shrinkage was
10.90% for the control mix and 7.14% for the optimum mix. This represented a 34.5% decrease in
linear shrinkage. On the other hand, the Plastic limit was 27.90% for the control mix and 37.60%
for the optimum mix. This represented a 34.8% increase in plastic limit. The compressive strength
of the CEBs was 0.83N/mm2 for the control mix and 2.55N/mm2 for the optimum mix. This
represented a 207% increase in Compressive Strength. The CEBs with control mix dissociated
when they were left in water during the test period while for the optimum mix, the water absorbed
was 12.36%.

xi
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
A variety of natural materials have been used by man in the construction of houses, soil is the most
commonly used material. However, depending on the geotechnical properties of the soil used,
construction of houses using soil poses a challenge. This is due to the highly variable physical
properties of soil. According to BS 5930: 1999, the basic types of soils are cobbles, gravel,
boulders, silt, sand, and clay. Often, soils in nature appear as a mixture of the basic soil types as
composite types. All these types of soils have different behaviours with regards to strength
expansiveness, susceptibility to cracking, and permeability.

In Kenya, there is a need for sustainable construction materials that would help in the reduction of
the cost of building construction (Matindi, 2015). An example of sustainable construction material
gaining popularity in Kenya is the Compressed Earth Block. However, the ideal material for
construction should be strong enough to withstand various exposure conditions in the natural
environment.

Soils such as Red Coffee soils contain a relatively high clay content hence, are characterized by
Swelling due to wetting and Shrinkage due to drying. This leads to the development of internal
pressures in clay whenever it is confined and cannot swell. This often leads to the development of
cracks. It is observed that red coffee soils are very hard when dry. However, they lose this strength
when in a wet condition (Reddy, et al., 2017).

Therefore, to be used in building construction, the properties of red coffee soil need to be improved
by modification or stabilization using materials such as cement, lime, bitumen, and other
pozzolanic materials. Cement and lime are the most commonly used material.

The rising cost of production of cement particularly in developing countries like Kenya have
however made construction rather expensive and for a majority of the population which is mainly
composed of low-income earners to construct houses from such materials is becoming difficult.

Furthermore, Devi, et al., (2018) outlined that the production of cement is characterized by the
extraction of great quantities of limestone from the natural environment by quarrying and the
manufacture of cement. This process leads to the release of high quantities of emissions into the
atmosphere. These emissions include gaseous emissions, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC),

1
dust, bad odours, and noise. Therefore, the cement industry is an energy-intensive industry that
forms one of the major contributors to climate change.

Due to these challenges associated with cement production, there is a need to develop alternative
materials to be used in soil stabilization to ensure cost-effectiveness in construction and
environmental sustainability.

This, therefore, calls for research into the possibility of using various industrial and agricultural
wastes as materials for soil stabilization. Cassava Peel Ash (CPA) and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash
(SBA) are some of the waste materials that can be used for stabilization of soil. Such stabilized
soil can then be used to produce Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB) for wall construction in
buildings. When burned at a temperature of about 600-7000C, Cassava Peels and Sugarcane
bagasse produce ash which contains a considerable percentage of siliceous compounds, making
them good materials for red coffee soil stabilization (Bello, et al., 2015).

1.2 Problem Statement

The ideal soil to be used for the manufacture of compressed earth blocks should be of low
compressibility, free of deleterious and organic materials and be well graded. This would ensure
that the produced compressed earth blocks are of adequate strength.

However, such soil is not available in some localities in Kenya. For instance, in many parts of
Kenya, Red Coffee soil is abundant. Red coffee soils have a high clay content; hence, it is an
expansive soil considered unsuitable for engineering construction.

This necessitates their stabilization when used in the production of CEB to improve their
engineering properties. Cement, lime or fly ash are often used in soil stabilization. However, the
production of cement and lime is costly and often results in vast degrees of environmental
degradation. Therefore, there is a need for use of sustainable material for construction.

1.3 Justification
According to Noppen, (2013), building materials constitute the single largest input in construction
and account for about 70% of the cost of housing. Although Kenya is well endowed with abundant
natural resources that can be used as basic materials, the housing sector is faced with limited
research and information on innovative low-cost appropriate building materials.

2
Cassava peels and Sugarcane bagasse are readily available especially in agricultural areas but have
not been put into proper economical use. If they are dumped haphazardly, they are likely to cause
an environmental menace. Previous research shows that these materials exhibit pozzolanic
properties when calcined and hence can be used for soil stabilization to make earth blocks.

However, the durability of this CEB stabilized with CPA and SBA needs to be assessed to ensure
the quality of construction. This is to ensure that they possess the required engineering properties
for construction and can withstand exposure to adverse environmental conditions. This project
aims at investigating the potential for the use of Cassava Peel Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as
sustainable substitutes of cement or lime in the stabilization of red coffee soil for production of
compressed earth blocks.

1.4 Objectives
1.4.1 Main Objective
To determine the engineering properties of compressed earth blocks made from red coffee soil
stabilized with a mixture of cassava peel ash and sugarcane bagasse ash

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

i. To determine the Atterberg limits of soil containing a mixture of 0% CPA and 0% SBA;
5% CPA and 4% SBA; 7.5% CPA and 7.5% SBA; and 10% CPA and 10% SBA
ii. To evaluate the compressive strength of CEB containing a mixture of 0% CPA and 0%
SBA; 5% CPA and 4% SBA; 7.5% CPA and 7.5% SBA; and 10% CPA and 10% SBA
iii. To evaluate the water absorption of CEB containing a mixture of 0% CPA and 0% SBA;
5% CPA and 4% SBA; 7.5% CPA and 7.5% SBA; and 10% CPA and 10% SBA
iv. To determine the CPA and SBA proportions by percentage that result in CEB of optimum
engineering properties.

1.5 Research Question

What are the engineering properties of compressed earth blocks made from red coffee soil
stabilized with a mixture of cassava peel ash and sugarcane bagasse ash?

3
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
With the rapid increase in the population in the world, there is an urgent need for the development
of suitable and affordable housing. Over the next 25 years, over 2 billion people will add to the
growing demand for housing, water supply, sanitation, and other urban infrastructure services.
About 3 billion people, which is at about 40% of the world’s population by 2030, will need to have
housing and basic infrastructure services (UN Habitat, 2015).

Masonry construction presents a possible solution to the housing crisis due to the availability of
various types of masonry units for construction in the local setting and at relatively lower costs.
The common masonry units in construction are bricks, earthen blocks, building stone such as
marble, granite, travertine, and limestone, cast stone, concrete block, glass block, and cob.

The construction of houses using earthen blocks is a fairly popular practise in Kenya, especially
in the rural and peri-urban setting. Earthen blocks range from the strong and more durable
Compressed Earth Blocks, Earth Blocks stabilized using cementing binders, bitumen or polymer-
based binders to the low strength blocks that are neither compressed nor stabilized in their
production (Matindi, 2015).

The selection of the type of earthen blocks used in a given construction project depends on the
available materials and the cost of the materials (Noppen, 2013). This is considering the fact that
building materials are the main determinants of the cost of construction.

Hence, this study aims at addressing this problem by evaluating the engineering properties of
Compressed Earth Blocks made from red coffee soil stabilized using the locally available Cassava
peel ash and Sugarcane Bagasse ash in varying proportions.

2.2 Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB)

The compressed earth block is the modern variant of the moulded earth block, more commonly
known as the adobe block. The CEBs are manufactured by the compression of wet soil within a
mould of the desired size.

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 (Patowary, et al., 2015).

4
CEBs provide architectural freedom and are made using non-toxic materials, that is, soil which is
readily available locally hence is cheaper. However, the main challenge when it comes to
construction using earth blocks is their durability. One of the possible methods of improving the
durability of earth blocks is by stabilization of the soil used to make them (Houben & Guillaud,
1994).

Therefore, CEBs represent a considerable improvement over traditional earth building techniques.
When guaranteed by quality control, CEB products can very easily bear comparison with other
materials such as the sand-cement block or the fired brick.

2.2.1 Configurations of CEBs

According to WD-ARS 1333, (2018), CEBs may be produced in different formats and
configurations depending on the mould and purpose for the blocks. CEBs can be classified based
on their geometry/shape or the types of stabilizer used in their production.

Figure 1 indicates the various formats and configurations of compressed earth blocks currently in
use for wall construction (WD-ARS 1333, 2018).

Figure 1: Types of Compressed Earth Blocks

Source: (WD-ARS 1333, 2018)

Therefore, possible formats and configurations of compressed earth blocks include:

a) Plain Solid Blocks:

5
Plain CEBs are produced without any feature of interlocking. Plain CEBs are mainly used for load-
bearing masonry up to 3 to 4 stories depending on the design of the building and the quality of the
blocks.

They are typically produced with a rectangular shape, however, for special used, trapezoidal or
polygonal shapes can also be produced.

b) Hollow Blocks:

Hollow compressed stabilized blocks are considered as those whose net cross-sectional area in any
plane parallel to the surface containing cores, cells, or deep frogs is 75 % or more of its gross cross-
sectional area measured in the same plane.

These blocks can support composite columns in large format and for light load-bearing structures
up to 2 floors in light formats. Hollow blocks can also be used for load-bearing masonry but for
lesser building height. They are found also in rectangular or square shapes.

c) Interlocking Blocks

Interlocking CEBs are produced with features allowing for interlocking. These blocks can either
be solid or hollow. Solid ones can be laid faster by unskilled labour but they cannot be used in
seismic zones. Hollow interlocking blocks will be used only for disaster resistance as they have
the possibility to be reinforced with reinforced concrete. They can be available in rectangular or
square shapes.

d) Special blocks

Special blocks are used for various purposes such as hollow round blocks for columns, indentation
blocks for provision for electrical conduits, U blocks for casting ring beams, thinner blocks for
building vaults and domes, floor tiles, hourdi blocks for floor and roofs, etc. Special blocks are
often produced by the basic mould with various kinds of inserts and they are used in different parts
of the building.

2.2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of CEBs

This study will focus mainly on the plain solid blocks. Houben and Guillaud, (1994) identified the
following advantages and disadvantages of Solid CEBs

6
 2.2.2.1 Advantages
Environment-friendly: block making process is comparatively clean and environmentally friendly
as compared to the manufacture of fired bricks which require the use of fuel e.g. firewood, leading
to the felling of trees.

The material required for the production of CEBs and building construction are usually locally
available in most regions, therefore in areas in which timber is scarce and expensive, construction
with CEBs blocks has an environmental advantage (no deforestation, low energy requirement for
block production and transportation).

CEBs production is cost and energy-efficient: the cost of production of an earth block is cheaper
as compared to fired bricks which need to be fired, increasing their production cost. This, therefore,
results to lower building costs.

2.2.2.2 Disadvantages
If not manufactured with the necessary quality control, the resulting CEBs will have considerably
low compressive and flexural strength.

When not regularly maintained and properly protected against adverse environmental conditions,
they have lower durability.

In the production of the blocks training is needed not only in determining the correct type of soil,
correct mix proportion and moisture contents, but also in producing uniform sized blocks (that is,
avoiding under or over-filling the block moulds before compaction)

2.2.3 Performance of CEB

2.2.3.1 Strength
Riza, et al., (2011) noted that the optimum chemical stabilizer content for the stabilization is in the
range of 5% to 10% where addition above 20% will affect the strength of the bricks in a negative
way. Plasticity index of the clay soil is usually in the range of 15 to 25. Since there is no
standardized testing for CSEB, most researchers determined the compressive strength using the
testing method used for fired clay brick and concrete masonry block such as BSI 1985, and BS EN
772-1.

7
 2.2.3.2 Density
The density of CEB is within the range of 1400 to 2000 kg /m3. The density of the compressed
earth brick is consistently related to its compressive strength and compaction force applied during
production (Riza, et al., 2011). The density of brick can be determined through a standard
procedure such as ASTM C 140 and BS 1924-2 (1990)

2.2.3.3 Water Absorption and Moisture Content

Water absorption is a function of clay and stabilizer content and is usually related to the strength
and durability of CEB (Riza, et al., 2011). The high rate of water absorption of a specimen may
cause swelling of stabilized clay fraction and result in losing strength with time. Types of
compaction affect the optimum water content in the stabilized mixes. Standards conform to
determine water content such as ASTM D 558, Australian Standards 1289, BS 1924-2 (1990), BS
EN 1745.

2.2.3.4 Shrinkage
Drying shrinkage of the bricks is primarily governed by the plasticity index and stabilizer content.
Water-loss also contributes to the shrink of the clay fraction. Riza, et al., (2011) reported that
shrinkage increases rapidly during the first 4 days for cement stabilized earth bricks and the
addition of sand reduces the shrinkage as sand particles oppose the shrinkage movement. BSI 6073
and Australian Standards 2733 can be used to measure the drying shrinkage.

2.2.3.5 Durability
From several experiments, Riza, et al., (2011) noted that durability associated with the stabilizer
content, clay content and compacting stress.

2.2.4 Compressed Earth Block Technology

The production of compressed earth blocks is similar to fired earth blocks produced by compaction
except that in CEBs there is no firing stage. The CEB production technology offers a cost-effective,
environmentally sound masonry system.

The blocks are manufactured by compacting earth mixed with a stabilizer such as cement or lime
under a pressure of 20-40kg/cm2 using manual or mechanical soil press depending on the shape,
material used, the quality of blocks required, type of block to be made, and the resources that are

8
available. They can be made at the building site or on a larger scale block yard. Soil-cement blocks
are commonly manufactured in manually operated block presses (Rigassi, 1995).

According to Bowen, (2017), the cost of a block depends upon various of conditions such as the
source, quality, and price of available soil, amount of stabilization, labour required, equipment to
be used and overhead costs. The degree of stabilization has the maximum influence on the cost of
the product.

The production of these blocks is based on the principle of densification of raw earth mixed with
a stabilizer (cement or lime) in small quantities ranging from 5-10% by weight of the mix (Bowen,
2017). The process of production is essentially made of three major stages:

2.2.4.1 Mix Preparation

Normally, the process of production begins with the extraction of the main raw material (soil) from
a quarry or pit. For small projects, materials are usually extracted by use of shovels and picks.
However, for larger projects excavators and loaders can be used (Rigassi, 1995).

The material is then dried by spreading in thin layers or passing through a hot-air cyclone. Once it
is dry enough, it is pulverized to break up lumps of clay into smaller particles. The pulverized
material is then screened to eliminate undesirable elements after general preparation.

The required materials, (normally clay and sand) are measured out by weight or by volume with a
view to mixing it with water and/or with a stabilizing agent. The resulting materials (clay, sand
and the stabilizing agent) are mixed while dry to maximize the effectiveness of a stabilizer in
powder form. Wet mixing is then done by the addition of water by spraying after adequate dry
mixing (Rigassi, 1995).

2.2.4.2 Filling the Mould

The prepared material is then filled into the moulds of desired sizes and shape. To ensure optimum
block density, a measured amount of mixed material is usually filled into the moulds. The material
is compacted either by hand for small-scale production or by mechanical means for large-scale
production (Rigassi, 1995).

9
 2.2.4.3 Post Production
According to Rigassi, (1995), in this stage, the prepared material is cured for a length of time
depending on the climate and the nature of the stabilizer. For cement stabilized blocks, the curing
period is 28 days.

2.3 Soil as a Construction Material

Soil construction is one of the oldest building methods around. Soil forms the upper layer of the
earth’s crust, hence, is a readily available source of building material that is eco-friendly and cheap.
Therefore, it is one of the most commonly used building materials. It can be used in making walls
for houses in the form of earth blocks.

Soil is formed from a bed-rock as a result of very long processes of weathering and the very
complex manner in which particles migrate. These result in an infinite number of types of soil,
with infinite variations in characteristics (Rigassi, 1995). Hence, to be effectively used in any form
of engineering structure, it is important to understand the type and composition of a given soil.
Soils are made up of varying proportions of four types of material: gravels, sands, silts, and clays.

Table 1 shows the classifications of soils based on the size of their particles. The largest particles
are the gravels while clays have the fines particles sizes (Craig, 1997).

Table 1: Soil classification according to particle size

Principle Soil Fraction Name of Fraction Particle sizes (mm)

Gravel Coarse Gravel 20.0-60.0
Medium Gravel 6.0-20.0
Fine Gravel 2.0-6.0
Sand Coarse Sand 0.60-2.0
Medium Sand 0.20-0.6
Fine Sand 0.06-0.2
Silt Coarse Silt 0.02-0.06
Medium Silt 0.006-0.02
Fine Silt 0.002-0.006
Clay Clay Less than 0.002

Source: (Craig, 1997)

10
According to Rigassi, (1995), soils with high sand and gravel content are considered to be stable,
those with high silt and clay are relatively unstable. This notion of stability, that is, the ability to
withstand alternate wetness and dryness without its properties changing, is of fundamental
importance to any material that is to be used for construction purposes.

2.4 Soil stabilization

Soil stabilization is the alteration of the properties of soil to improve the engineering performance
of soils. It is a process involving the blending and mixing of materials with soil to improve the
soil's strength and durability. The process may include blending soils to achieve the desired
gradation or mixing commercially available additives that may alter the strength and durability, or
act as a binder to cement the soil. The properties most often altered are density, water content,
plasticity, and strength.

Rigassi, (1995), in the manual of the production of compressed earth blocks, notes that during
stabilization, there are two characteristics of the soil that can be treated: its structure and its texture.
The structure and the texture of soil can be treated by reducing the volume of voids between the
particles, that is, affecting its porosity; blocking up the voids which can't be eliminated, i.e.
affecting its permeability; and improving the links binding the particles together, i.e. affecting its
mechanical strength.

According to (Bowen, 2017), in earth construction, the main objectives being pursued by the
stabilization of the soil used to produce the compressed earth blocks include: Obtaining better
mechanical performances: increasing dry and wet compressive strength; Reducing porosity and
variations in volume: swelling and shrinking with moisture content variations; and Improving the
ability to withstand weathering by wind and rain: reducing surface abrasion and increasing
waterproofing.

Generally, there are two methods of stabilization, they are:

a) Mechanical stabilization: involves the modification of the properties of the soil by treating
its structure, that is, compaction of the soil hence modifying its density, its mechanical
strength, and its compressibility, its permeability and its porosity; and
b) Chemical stabilization: is achieved by the addition of proper percentages of Portland
cement, lime, lime-cement-fly ash (LCF), or combinations of these materials to the soil.

11
In recent times, chemical stabilization using pozzolanic materials obtained from agricultural and
industrial waste has been under research to review their suitability as stabilizing agents. Such waste
includes cassava peels, sugarcane bagasse, rice husks, cow dung, coffee beans husks, tomato peels
among others. These wastes are burnt and calcined at a temperature of about 7000C to activate
their pozzolanic properties.

2.4.1 Types of Stabilizers

Makusa, (2012) noted that for the best results, it is important to select the proper stabilizer type for
a particular soil, the following are the types of stabilizers that are normally used:

2.4.1.1 Cement
Portland cement can be used either to modify and improve the quality of the soil or to transform
the soil into a cemented mass with increased strength and durability. Ordinary Portland Cement
(OPC) undergoes a hydration reaction when water is added to produce a cementitious gel made up
of Tri-calcium silicate, Di-calcium silicate, Tri-calcium Aluminate, and tetra calcium-
aluminoferrite. The gel coats and binds the soil particles thus resist movement within the material.

The amount of cement used depends on whether the soil is to be modified or stabilized.

2.4.1.2 Lime
Lime reacts with many media, moderately fine, and fine-grained soils to produce decreased
plasticity, increased workability, reduced swell, and increased strength.

2.4.1.3 Bituminous
Most bituminous soil stabilization has been performed with asphalt cement, cutback asphalt, and
asphalt emulsions. Bituminous materials are water-proofing that fill the voids of a soils mass with
a material which is not water-sensitive.

2.4.1.4 Other Stabilizers

In the traditional setting, there are a variety of products that have been used for stabilization of soil
used for construction purposes. They include cow dung, birds' droppings, and plant extracts. These
organic products generally contain cementitious compounds which bind together soil particles.
Furthermore, grasses, chopped straw, and organic fibres have been used to reinforce soil for
construction of walls in the traditional setting.

12
 2.5 Cassava Peel Ash
In Kenya, Cassava is considered to be a major food crop by small-scale farmers. Cassava is grown
virtually throughout Kenya. However, the Western, Coastal and semi-arid (Eastern) regions of
Kenya have the highest production. Therefore, the counties with the highest cassava production
include Kisumu, Homabay, Migori, Siaya, Busia, Kitui and Kilifi.

Cassava peel is a by-product of cassava processing, either for domestic consumption or industrial
uses. Tons of cassava peel is generated annually and more are expected to be produced as
communities in Kenya begin to embrace this crop. Indiscriminate disposal of cassava peels due to
gross underutilization as well as lack of appropriate technology to recycle them is a major
challenge, which results in the environmental problem (Bello, et al., 2015).

For this research, the Cassava Peels will be obtained from refuse from a local Cassava Miller at
Gikomba Market.

Cassava peel ash will be produced by first sun-drying till the peel is well dried before burning
followed by calcination of the peels in an electric furnace at temperatures between (600ºC-700ºC)
for 4-6 hours since the silica content is obtained at higher the temperatures. The clinker was ground
to a fine ash. The fine ash is then sieved in accordance with (BS EN 450-1: 2005) 75microns sieve
to get fine ash. The CPA is a fine powder with a specific gravity of 2.05 (Bello, et al., 2015).

Table 2 shows the chemical composition of CPA according to the XRF analysis done by (Salau,
2012).

Table 2: Chemical composition of CPA

Mineral Percentage (%)

SiO2 58.02
Al2O3 12.8
Fe2O3 1.41
CaO 8.53
MgO 5.02
SO3 2.18
K2O 7.67
Na2O 0.03
LOI 4.18

Source: (Salau, 2012)

13
 2.5.1 Red Coffee Soil
Red soils derive their name from their red colour. Red coffee soils are tropical soils that result
from weathering of parent rock containing a high iron content which is enriched with oxides of
iron and alumina in the form of clay mineral especially kaolinite group and secondary clays like
goethite and haematite (Kong & Guo, 2015). Red Coffee soils in Kenya occur in highlands and on
volcanic steep slopes, for example in the central highlands of Kenya, some areas of Nairobi and
around Mts. Kenya. They are developed from volcanic rocks. Most red soils are acidic with a pH
less than 5.5 due to the leaching of soluble bases (Smart, 1973).

Red soils often have a high clay content (more than 35%). The microscopic clay mineral particles
that can be found in red coffee soils include, amongst others, kaolinites, illites, and
montmorillonites. Smith, (1998) noted that soil containing montmorillonite minerals exhibits high
swelling and shrinkage characteristics. This is due to the fact that bonding by Van der Waals forces
between silica sheet of adjacent structural units is weak and there is a net negative charge
deficiency in octahedral sheet, water, and exchangeable cations can enter and separate the layers.

Figure 2: (a) and (b) show a schematic representation of the structure of the montmorillonite
mineral that is present in expansive clays such as Red coffee soil.

Figure 2: (A) Representation of clay minerals, (B) Surface and interlayer water
Source: (Craig, 1997)

Therefore, expansive soils such as red coffee soils pose a serious engineering problem hence the
need to stabilize them before being used for any engineering purposes.

14
 2.6 Sugarcane Bagasse Ash
Sugarcane is a perennial grass of the tropical world that is mainly grown for its high sugar content.
In Kenya, Sugarcane is commercially grown around the Nyanza Sugar-cane belt extending from
Koru through Muhoroni and Chemelil to Kibos near Kisumu. Sugarcane is also grown in Kisii and
Siaya Districts. In Western Kenya, sugarcane can be found around Mumias, Bungoma and the
eastern parts of Busia.

Basically, the process of production of sugar includes the harvesting of sugarcane, transportation
to the mill, followed by its washing and finally processing. Processing of sugarcane produces
various wastes and by-products. The wastes and by-products of the sugarcane processing industry
include cane-washing water, bagasse, and molasses. the other products and their by-products of
less commercial value are green leaves and tops, trash, boiler ash and effluent generated by the
sugar industry and distillery (Salim, et al., 2014). However, bagasse is the major by-product.

The Bagasse is the fibrous waste produced after the extraction of the sugar juice in cane mills.
Bagasse ash is the residue obtained from the incineration of bagasse in sugar-producing factories.
SBA is considered waste because it is not bio-gradable, and hence poses a detrimental effect on
the environment.

Salim, et al., (2014) noted that in most of the tropical countries in which sugarcane is grown
produce a large amount of SBA with limited recycling for soil amendment. For instance, the total
Sugarcane Bagasse Ash generation in Kenya is estimated to be about 1.6 million tons per year with
a potential of about 2.6 million tonnes out of which only 25% is recycled by the factories as
renewable energy. A larger percentage of it is disposed to open landfills

In many tropical countries such as Kenya, there are substantial quantities of Bagasse is rich in
amorphous silica indicated that it has pozzolanic properties.

For this research, the SBA will be obtained from Chemelil sugar company. The SBA was ground
to a fine powder. The fine powder will then be sieved in accordance with (BS EN 450-1: 2005)
75microns sieve to get fine ash. The SBA is a fine powder with a specific gravity of 1.98.

Table 3 shows the chemical composition of SBA according to the analysis done by (Salim, et al.,
2014).

15
 Table 3: Chemical composition of SBA

Mineral Percentage (%)

SiO2 37
Al2O3 6.7
Fe2O3 6.3
CaO 2.8
MgO 3.2
P2O5 4
Na2O 1.1
K2 O 2.4
LOI 0.9

Source: (Salim, et al., 2014)

16
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The main materials that were used for this research include red coffee soil, CPA and SBA. The red
coffee soil was obtained from Ruaka area in Kiambu County. The Cassava Peels for the production
of CPA was obtained from a local Cassava Miller in Kiambu county. The SBA was obtained from
Chemelil sugar factory, where the bagasse had been burnt at about 10000C to provide energy for
sugar production.

The Atterberg limit tests: liquid limit, plastic limit, and linear shrinkage and were carried out on
four soil samples in accordance with (BS 1377: 2-1990). Furthermore, the compressive strength
and the water absorption of CEB tests were also carried out.

For the purposes of this research, 24 blocks were made. Of the 24, 12 were used in testing the
compressive strength while 12 were used in testing for water absorption.

3.2 Materials
3.2.1 Red Coffee Soil
Red Coffee Soil was the main material used in this research project. The soil was taken from
homogenous layers below 1000mm from the topsoil to limit organic matter. The red clay was
obtained from Ruaka, Kiambu County.

The soil sample was then be transported to the Technical University of Kenya soil labs for testing.
The soil received from the field was first air-dried. The clods were broken with a mallet to hasten
drying. Tree roots and pieces of bark were removed from the sample.

3.2.2 Sugarcane Bagasse Ash

The Sugarcane Bagasse Ash were obtained from Chemelil sugar factory and transported to Nairobi
at the Technical University of Kenya Soil lab.

The SBA received from the factory was sieved using a 75 μm sieve size to get a fine ash (BS EN
450-1: 2005). The materials passing the sieve were used for sample preparation.

Figure 3 shows a sample of the SBA prepared according to BS EN 450-1: 2005 to be used for this
study’s tests.

17
 Figure 3: Sugarcane Bagasse Ash
3.2.3 Cassava Peel Ash
The Cassava Peels for the production of CPA was obtained from a local Cassava Miller in Kiambu
county.

Cassava peel ash was produced by first sun drying until the peel was well dried before burning at
600 - 700ºC for 90minutes. The burning and calcination were done at the Mechanical laboratory of
the Numerical Machining Complex Limited –Ministry of Industry, Investment & Trade (Nairobi). The
cassava peel ash was sieved using a 75 μm sieve size to get a fine ash (BS EN 450-1: 2005). The
materials passing the sieve was used for sample preparation.

Figure 4 shows a sample of the CPA prepared according to BS EN 450-1: 2005 to be used for this
study’s tests.

18
 Figure 4: Cassava Peel Ash
3.2.4 Water
Potable water that is, clean water which is free of impurities, was used in making the CEB. The
same portable water was used for testing and curing of the red coffee soil and CEB produced.

3.3 Tests on Soil

3.3.1 Particle Size Distribution
The Sieve analysis test was carried out in accordance with BS 1377-2: 1990. Sample for this test
was air-dried and prepared according to BS 1377-1: 1990. This test was carried out to determine
the relative portions of different sizes of particles, that is, to determine whether the soil consists of
predominantly gravel, sand, silt or clay sizes.

The equipment used includes Test sieves (4 mm, 2.4 mm, 1.2 mm, 0.6 mm, 0.3 mm, and 0.15 mm)
Lid and receiver; A balance readable and accurate to 0.5 g; A drying oven; Metal trays; and a
Trowel.

Figure 5 shows the particle distribution test being carried out.

19
 Figure 5: Undertaking the particle size distribution test
3.3.1.1 Calculations
i. After the tests, the results were calculated as follows:
ii. The proportion by mass of material retained on each of the coarse sieves was calculated as
a percentage of 𝑚1 as shown in equation 1.
𝑚
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚
1

Equation 1

iii. The cumulative percentage by mass of the sample passing each of the sieves was calculated
from the general relationship as shown in equation 2:

(% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 ) = (% 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒) – (% 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒)

Equation 2
iv. A curve on a semi-logarithmic chart was then generated.

20
 3.3.2 Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limit is a basic measure of the critical water content of fine-grained soils. These tests
include linear shrinkage, plastic limit, and liquid limit, which are outlined in (BS 1377-2: 1990).
Depending on the water content of a soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and
liquid.

Figure 6 shows a soil sample prepared according to BS 1377-1: 1990 to be used for the Atterbeerg
limits tests.

Figure 6: Soil sample

3.3.2.1 Liquid Limit
The liquid limit test was carried out to establish the moisture content at which soil passes from the
liquid state to the plastic state. Liquid limit is the moisture content of a sample at which a standard
cone penetrometer penetrates a depth of 20mm into the sample

The equipment used in this test includes a flat glass plate; two palette knives or spatulas; cone
penetrometer.

Figure 7 shows the liquid limit test is carried out using the Cone Penetrometer as specified by (BS
1377-2: 1990)

21
 Figure 7: Undertaking the liquid limit test
The samples for the liquid limit test were prepared according to (BS 1377-1: 1990)

a) Calculations
i. The moisture content of each test sample was calculated.
ii. The relationship between the moisture content and the corresponding cone penetrations
was then plotted.
iii. From the graph, the moisture content corresponding to the penetration of 20mm was
obtained.
iv. This moisture content was expressed to the nearest whole number and report it as the liquid
limit (𝑤𝐿 ).

3.3.2.2 Plastic Limit

The plastic limit test was undertaken to establish the moisture content at which soil becomes too
dry to be plastic.

22
A sample of about 300g of the red soil was passed through the 425µm sieve. The plastic limit of
the neat red soil was determined first and then different percentages of the CPA+SBA mixture
were added to the soil and the plastic index determined for each percentage.

Equipment used includes: two flat glass plates; two palette knives or spatulas and Apparatus for
moisture content determination (Clean water; and A length of the rod, 3 mm in diameter and 100
mm long.)

This test was performed as a continuance of the Liquid Limit test, and material for the test could
conveniently be prepared as part of the Liquid Limit test.

a) Calculations
i. The moisture content of both samples was calculated.
ii. The average of the 2 moisture content values was obtained and expressed to the nearest
whole number. This is the Plastic Limit 𝑤𝑃 .
iii. The Plasticity Index (𝐼𝑃 ) is defined as the difference between the Liquid Limit (𝑤𝐿 )
and the Plastic Limit (𝑤𝑃 ), and was calculated as per equation 3:
𝐼𝑃 = 𝑤𝐿 − 𝑤𝑃
Equation 3

3.3.2.3 Linear Shrinkage

The linear shrinkage test was carried out to establish the amount of shrinkage likely to be
experienced by the clayey material.

Linear shrinkage test was carried out to determine the linear shrinkage characteristics of the red
soil sample when completely dry and also the linear shrinkage characteristics of the soil when
various percentages of CPA+SBA were added.

Equipment used includes a flat glass plate; two palette knives or spatulas; a drying oven capable;
a brass mould for Linear Shrinkage test and Vernier callipers or steel rule.

This test was performed as a continuance of the Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit tests, and material
for the test was thus be prepared as part of the Liquid Limit test.

23
 a) Calculations
i. The Linear Shrinkage of the soil was calculated as a percentage of the original length of
the specimen, 𝐿0 (𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑚), as per Equation 4:

𝐿
𝐿𝑆 (%) = (1 − 𝐿𝐷) 100
0

Equation 4

3.4 Tests on Compressed Earth Blocks

3.4.1 Preparation of CEB Samples
The basic materials used for the production of CEB are soil, the stabilizers (CPA and SBA), and
water.

Figure 8 is a flowchart showing the process adopted for the production of Compressed Earth
Blocks in this research (WD-ARS 1333, 2018).

Figure 8: Production process of Compressed Earth Blocks

Source: (WD-ARS 1333, 2018)

3.4.1.1 Pulverisation of soil:

To obtain a uniform mix of the material components for making the CEB, soil lumps more than
200mm in diameter were broken up so that at least 50 per cent of the grains are less than 5mm in
diameter.

24
 3.4.1.2 Drying:

The soil was then air-dried.

3.4.1.3 Sieving/screening:

To remove the oversized material that was still too large for use in Compressed Earth Block
production, the soil was sieved to ensure most of the soil was less than 5mm in diameter.

3.4.1.4 Proportioning:

The proportioning of the soil, stabilisers, and water for the production of the CEB will be done by
batching based on weight.

Table 4 shows the summary of the mix proportions for CPA and SBA by weight for the control
test and subsequent tests.

Table 4: Proposed CPA and SBA mix proportions by percentage for various tests

S/NO. CPA SBA

Control 0% 0%
1 5% 5%
2 7.5% 7.5%
3 10% 10%
3.4.1.5 Mixing:
The dry materials (red coffee soil, CPA and SBA) were first mixed until they formed a uniform
colour.

Water was then added to the uniform dry mix. As mixing continued, water was added a little at a
time, until a homogeneous mix was obtained.

Mixing was performed by hand on a hard surface.

3.4.1.6 Moulding of the CEB:

The above prepared four soil sample mixes were placed in a mould (lubricated with oil for easy
removal of the blocks) and appropriate pressure applied to make a total of 24 blocks by
compacting.

25
A solid block size is 215mm long, 102.5mm thick and 65mm. The blocks were then compacted to
increase their density. The blocks formed were placed aside and labelled.

Figure 9 shows some of the blocks prepared awaiting to be used in the tests outlined for this study.

3.4.1.7 Curing:
To achieve maximum strength, CEB were subjected to a period of damp curing, where they are
kept moist to avoid rapid loss of moisture which could lead to shrinking and cracking. In this case,
the freshly moulded blocks were laid out in a single layer, on a non-absorbent surface, and covered
with a sheet to prevent loss of moisture. The duration of curing for this research was 28days.

Figure 9 shows the Cured Compressed Earth Blocks ready to be used to the tests in this study.

Figure 9: Compressed Earth Blocks

3.4.2 Compressive Strength test
The Compressive strength tests was carried as outlined in BS EN 772-1: 2011 to determine the dry
compressive strength of the compressed earth blocks for this study.

The results from this test gave an idea of the amount of loading that the block can withstand under
working conditions before failure. The neat control block was also crushed in order to do a
comparison of the strengths as varying percentages of CPA and SBA was added to the soil for
CEB preparation.

26
The equipment used includes Compression Testing Machine; Measuring Rule; Water Bath and a
weighing balance.

The CEBs were subjected to a gradually increasing load without shock at a uniform rate of 150
kN/min until failure occurred. The maximum load at failure applied to the cube, 𝑃 was recorded.

Figure 10 shows the compressive strength test is carried out using the as specified by BS EN 772-
1: 2011

Figure 10: Undertaking the compressive strength test

Figure 11 shows a sample CEB that has failed after loading under a Compression Testing Machine

27
 Figure 11: CEB at failure
3.4.2.4. Calculations
i. The cross-sectional area of the CEB was calculated as shown in equation 5:

𝐴𝐶 = 𝐵 𝑥 𝐿

Equation 5

Where, B is the width and length L of each CEB test specimen.

ii. The compressive strength of each CEB was calculated by dividing the maximum load at
failure by the cross-sectional area. Express the result to the nearest 0.5 MPa (N/mm2) as
shown in equation 6.

𝑃
𝑓𝐶 = 𝐴
𝐶

Equation 6

iii. The average of the test results for the two specimens made from the same sample of
stabilized soil mix was calculated. This was reported as the Compressive Strength of the
CEB test sample

28
 3.4.3 Water Absorption Test
This water absorption test was conducted to determine the water absorption of Compressed Earth
Blocks. This test was carried out as outlined in WD-ARS 1333: 2018.

CEBs are vulnerable to weather especially during rainy season as soil material can expand and
loose cohesiveness, particularly with cement plaster.

Walls constructed out of CEB should have adequate compressive strength under dry conditions;
however, they will lose their strength under adverse moisture content. The amount of water
absorption by a CEB is thus of particular importance in this case.

The equipment used in this test includes A weighing Balance; A Drying Oven and a Water bath.

In this study, two blocks were randomly selected from each group at 28 days and then weighed on
a balance. These blocks were then immersed completely in water for 24 hours, after which they
were removed and weighed again.

3.4.3.1 Calculations
The water absorption (percent) for each specimen was calculated as per equation 7:

(𝑚2 −𝑚1 )
𝐴𝑤 = 𝑥100
𝑚1

Equation 7

29
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The study was carried out chiefly to determine the engineering properties of compressed earth
blocks made from red coffee soil stabilized with a mixture of cassava peel ash and sugarcane
bagasse ash. The analysis and discussion outlined in this section therefore revolves around the
engineering properties of Red Coffee Soil Stabilized with CPA and SBA and the blocks made from
such soil.

4.2 Tests on Soil

4.2.1 Particle Size Distribution
Table 5 shows the data obtained from the Particle Size distribution test conducted on the Red
Coffee Soil Sample.

Table 5: Sieve analysis results

Sieve Size Mass Retained % Cumulative Retained Cumulative Passing

(mm) (g) Retained (%) (%)
4.0 77 12.92% 12.92% 87.08%
2.4 68 11.41% 24.33% 75.67%
1.2 85 14.26% 38.59% 61.41%
0.6 130 21.81% 60.40% 39.60%
0.3 140 23.49% 83.89% 16.11%
0.2 65 10.91% 94.80% 5.20%
0.0 31 5.20% 100.00% 0.00%
Total 596
Initial Mass 600g

Figure 12 shows the graph obtained from the plotting the data from Particle Size distribution test
conducted on the Red Coffee Soil Sample.

30
 100.00%
90.00%
80.00%

Percentage Passing (%)

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve Apeture (mm)

Figure 12: Particle size distribution curve

From the Figure 12, the Coefficient of uniformity and Coefficient of Curvature are computed as
follows:

Hence, as can be seen from Figure 12, it was concluded that the soil sample used in this study was
well graded.

4.2.2 Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limit tests were conducted as outlined in (BS 1377-2: 1990).

The Atterberg Limits test were conducted to investigate the behaviour of Red Coffee soil when
various percentages of Cassava Peel Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash. The analysis and results in
this section therefore revolve around the variation of the Plasticity Index (PI) with CPA+SBA
percentages.

Table 6 shows the data obtained from the Atterberg Limits tests conducted on the Red Coffee Soil
Sample.

31
 Table 6: Atterberg Limits Results

CPA (%) SBA (%) CPA+SBA (%) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%) Linear Shrinkage (%)
0 0 0 64.20 27.90 36.30 10.90
5 5 10 60.50 31.40 29.10 9.25
7.5 7.5 15 59.25 35.20 25.05 8.67
10 10 20 56.75 37.60 19.15 7.14

Figure 13 and 14 show the graph obtained from the plotting the data from Atterberg’s Limits tests
conducted on the neat and Stabilized Red Coffee Soil Samples. Chart 2 shows the variation of the
Liquid Limit, Plastic limit and Linear Shrinkage at various proportions of CPA and SBA added to
the Red Coffee Soil samples.

70.00

60.00

50.00
Atterberg Limit (%)

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0 10 15 20
CPA+SBA(%)

Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Linear Shrinkage

Figure 13: Variation of the Atterberg Limits of red coffee soil treated with CPA and SBA

32
 40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00
PI (%)

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0 10 15 20
CPA+SBA (%)

PI

Figure 14: Variation of PI of red coffee soil treated with CPA and SBA

From the above results, the following observations were made:

i. There was a general decrease in the liquid limit, and linear shrinkage with the increased
quantity of Cassava Peel Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash added to the Red Coffee Soil
Sample.
ii. There was a general increase in the Plastic limit with the increase in the quantity of Cassava
Peel Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash added to the Red Coffee Soil Sample.
iii. There was a general decrease in the plastic index of the red coffee soils treated with CPA
and SBA.
iv. The was a gradual reduction in the plastic index with increase in the amount of Cassava
Peel Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash.

4.3 Tests on Compressed Earth Block

4.3.1 Compressive Strength Test
The Compressive strength test was carried as outlined in BS EN 772-1: 2011 to determine the dry
compressive strength of the compressed earth blocks for this study.

33
Table 7 shows the data obtained from the Compressive Strength test conducted on the CEB made
from the neat and subsequent stabilized Red Coffee Soil.

Table 7: Compressive Strength Test Results

S Stabilizer Loaded Area Crushing Average Average Compressive
No. Content (%) (mm2) Force (kN) Crushing Force strength (N/mm2)
(kN)
1 22,037.50 17.20
2 0 22,037.50 19.10 18.18 0.83
3 22,037.50 18.25
4 22,037.50 35.50
5 10 22,037.50 37.80 36.68 1.66
6 22,037.50 36.75
7 22,037.50 45.25
8 15 22,037.50 46.75 45.58 2.07
9 22,037.50 44.75
10 22,037.50 54.50
11 20 22,037.50 55.20 56.13 2.55
12 22,037.50 58.70

Figure 15 shows the graph obtained from the plotting the data from Compressive Strength tests
results, that is, the Compressive strength against the Stabilizer content (CPA+SBA).

3.00

2.50
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 10 15 20
Stabilizer Content (%)

Figure 15: Variation of Compressive Strength against the Stabilizer Content

34
From the above data, it was observed that there was a gradual increase in the strength of the CEBs
with an in the proportions of CPA and SBA added to the Red Coffee Soil used to make the blocks.

According to WD-ARS 1333, (2018), the recommended 28day strength for Compressed Earth
Blocks is at least 2.5N/mm2.

Therefore, the stabilizers adopted in this study resulted in an increase in the compressive strength
of the Compressed Earth Blocks, when compared to those made without any stabilizer added.
Furthermore, the highest strength recorded for the CEB samples tested in this study was
2.55N/mm2. The block with 20% (10%CPA and 10%SBA) therefore attained the recommended
compressive strength for masonry units to be used in construction.

4.3.2 Water Absorption Test

Table 8 shows the data obtained from the Water Absorption test conducted on the CEB made from
Red Coffee Soil with varied proportions of CPA and SBA.

Table 8: Water Absorption Test Results

S No. Stabilizer Average
Content Saturated Mass of Water Water
(%) Dry Mass, Mass, M2 Water, Absorption Absorption
M1 (Kg) (Kg) Mw (Kg) (%) (%)
1 1.90 - - -
2 0 1.85 - - - -
3 1.90 - - -
4 2.00 2.35 0.35 17.50%
5 10 1.90 2.28 0.38 20.00% 18.37%
6 2.10 2.47 0.37 17.62%
7 1.90 2.18 0.28 14.74%
8 15 1.95 2.23 0.28 14.36% 14.37%
9 2.00 2.28 0.28 14.00%
10 2.10 2.36 0.26 12.38%
11 20 2.00 2.26 0.26 13.00% 12.36%
12 2.05 2.29 0.24 11.71%

35
 20%

18%

16%

Water Absorption (%) 14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
0 10 15 20
Stabilizer Content (%)

Figure 16: Variation of Water Absorption against the Stabilizer Content

Figure 16 is a graphical representation of the variation of the Water Absorption of the CEB| with
the variation of stabilizer content.

From the above results, it is evident that the amount of water absorbed by the CEBs reduces with
an increase in stabilizer content.

According to WD-ARS 1333, (2018), the maximum water absorption of CEBs after 28 days for
the blocks should be at most 15%. In the above test, at a stabilizer content of 15% (7.5% CPA and
7.5% SBA) the water absorption percentage is 14.37% and at a stabilizer content of 20% (10%
CPA and 10% SBA) the water absorption percentage is 12.36%. Therefore, these blocks met the
recommended water absorption levels.

However, for blocks with a stabilizer content of 10%, the water absorption percentage is 18.37%.
While those without any stabilizer (control blocks) disintegrated when left in water during the
period of the test. Hence, both the 10% and 0% stabilizer content blocks failed to meet the
recommended water absorption levels.

36
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
From the experimental work carried out in this research project, the 20% CPA and SBA content
resulted in CEBs of optimum engineering properties. Furthermore, the following can be drawn:
i. The liquid limit was 64.20% for the control mix and 56.75% for the optimum mix. This
represented an 11.6% decrease in liquid limit. The linear shrinkage was 10.90% for the
control mix and 7.14% for the optimum mix. This represented a 34.5% decrease in linear
shrinkage. On the other hand, the Plastic limit was 27.90% for the control mix and 37.60%
for the optimum mix. This represented a 34.8% increase in plastic limit
ii. The compressive strength of the CEBs was 0.83N/mm2 for the control mix and 2.55N/mm2
for the optimum mix. This represented a 207% increase in Compressive Strength.
iii. The CEBs with control mix dissociated when they were left in water during the test period
while for the optimum mix, the water absorbed was 12.36%.
iv. The 20% CPA and SBA addition resulted in CEBs of optimum engineering properties with
a compressive strength of 2.55N/mm2 and a water absorption percentage of 12.36%.

5.2 Recommendations
i. Further research should be conducted to establish an optimum CPA-SBA combination at
percentage proportions higher than 20% that would effectively improve the engineering
properties of CEBs.
ii. Further research should be done to evaluate the economic viability of adopting CPA and
SBA as stabilizers in CEB manufacture for affordable housing construction.

37
 References
1. Ali, N. et al., 2016. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Compressed Earth Brick (CEB)
Containing Sugarcane Bagasse Ash. Johor, Malaysia, EDP Sciences.

2. Bello, A. A., Ige, A. J. & Ayodele, H., 2015. Stabilization of Lateritic Soil with Cassava Peels Ash.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(6), pp. 642-650.

3. Bowen, T., 2017. A Best Practices Manual for Using Compressed Earth Blocks in Sustainable
Home Construction in Indian Country. Boulder, USA, University of Colorado, Boulder.

4. BS 1377-1, 1990. Methods of test for Soils for civil engineering purposes - Part 1: General
requirements and sample preparation. London, UK, British Standard Institute.

5. BS 1377-2, 1990. Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes: Classification tests.
London, UK: British Standard Institute.

6. BS EN 450-1, 2005. Fly Ash for Concrete - Part 1: Definition, Specifications and Conformity
Criteria. London, UK, British Standards Institution.

7. BS EN 771-1, 2011. Specification for masonry units, Part 1: Clay masonry units. London, UK,
British Standard Institute.

8. BS EN 772-1, 2011. Methods of test for masonry units, Part 1: Determination of compressive
strength. London, UK, British Standard Institute.

9. Chavan, P. & Nagakumar, M. S., 2014. Studies on Soil Stabilization by Using Bagasse Ash.
Bangalore, India, International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology.

10. Craig, R. F., 1997. Soil Mechanics. 6th ed. London, UK: Spon Press.

11. Devi, S. K., Lakshmi, V. V. & Alakanandana, A., 2018. Impact of Cement Industry on
Environment- An Overview. Asia Pacific Journal of Research.

12. Houben, H. & Guillaud, H., 1994. Earth Construction. London, UK: ITDG Publishing.

13. Kong, L.-w. & Guo, A.-g., 2015. Analysis of Engineering Properties of Red Clay during Drying
Process. Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design, pp. 301-306.

14. Lima, S. A., Varum, H., Sales, A. & Neto, V. F., 2012. Analysis of the mechanical properties of
compressed earth block masonry using the sugarcane bagasse ash. Construction and Building
Materials, Volume 35, pp. 827-837.

15. Matindi, N. N., 2015. Affordable Housing for Low and Middle-Income Earners in Nairobi- Kenya,
Lund, Sweden: Lund University.

16. Noppen, A. V., 2013. The ABC’s of Affordable Housing in Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya: Acumen Fund.

17. Patowary, B. N., Nath, N., Hussain, I. & Kakoti, H. J., 2015. Study of Compressed Stabilised Earth
Block. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(6), pp. 1-4.

38
18. Pourakbar, S. & Huat, B., 2016. A review of alternatives traditional cementitious binders for
engineering improvement of soils. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 11(2), pp.
206-216.

19. Reddy, S. K., Vivek, S. P. & Chambrelin, S. K., 2017. Stabilization of expansive soil using bagasse
ash. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4), pp. 1730-1736.

20. Rigassi, V., 1995. Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of Production. Eschborn, Germany:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

21. Riza, V. F., Rahman, A. I. & Zaidi, M. A., 2011. A brief review of Compressed Stabilized Earth
Brick (CSEB). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Conference: Science and Social Research (CSSR).

22. Salau, M. A., 2012. Structural Strength Characteristics of Cement-Cassava Peel Ash Blended
Concrete. Civil and Environmental Research, 2(10), pp. 68-77.

23. Salim, R. W., Ndambuki, J. M. & Adedokun, D. A., 2014. Improving the Bearing Strength of Sandy
Loam Soil Compressed Earth Block Bricks Using Sugarcane Bagasse Ash. Sustainability, 6(6), pp.
3686-3696.

24. Smart, P., 1973. Structure of a red clay soil from Nyeri, Kenya. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology and Hydrogeology, 6(2), pp. 129-139.

25. Smith, G. N., 1998. Elements of Soil Mechanics. 7th ed. London, UK: Blackwell Science
Publishers.

26. UN Habitat, 2015. The Housing Crisis, Nairobi, Kenya: UN Habitat.

27. WD-ARS 1333, 2018. Compressed stabilized earth blocks — Requirements, production, and
construction. 1st ed. Nairobi, Kenya: African Organisation for Standardisation.

39