The properties of compressed

earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 17

F.V. Riza, I.A. Rahman
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Jalan, Malaysia

17.1 Introduction
Generally, compressed earth-based masonry blocks will give an illustration of the block
that is made up of earth-based materials and produced by a masonry method that has been
going through a compression process. The definition of compressed earth-based masonry
blocks may vary from one country to another, especially with the word ‘blocks’. In ma-
sonry, the words “block” and “brick” are not strictly categorized, as can be seen from the
description from the standards or from expert definitions.
In British Standard BS 3921: 1985, Clay brick is defined as “a masonry unit not
exceeding 337.5 mm in length, 225 mm in thickness (referred to as width in one of
the standards) or 112.5 mm in height”. As for block, BS 6073: Part 1: 1981 specifica-
tion for precast concrete masonry unit states, when used in its normal aspect, it exceeds
the length or width or height specified for brick (Thomas, 1996). CDI (1998) defined
compressed earth block as “masonry elements principally made of raw earth, which are
small in size and which have regular dynamic compression of earth in a humid state
followed by immediate demoulding.” Morton (2008) even gave a lighter definition
for brick and block as a small masonry unit, liftable with one hand, and a large
masonry unit liftable with two hands for the latter. Hence, for the rest of this chapter,
the use of the word “block” can be interchangeable with “brick” in definition; for that
reason CEB can stand for compressed earth block or compressed earth brick.
The main focus of this chapter is the properties of CEB, and as a complement, the
properties of CEB made out of agro-waste material, such as rice husk ash (RHA), palm
oil fuel ash (POFA) and cassava peels, will be elaborated on briefly.

17.2 Properties of compressed earth-based

masonry blocks
This chapter will discuss properties of CEB including its mechanical, physical and
thermal properties on a single CEB or prism.

17.2.1 Compressive strength

Apparently, of the physical properties of CEB, compressive strength is the most
universally accepted value for determining the quality of bricks. Nevertheless, it is

Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-305-8.00017-6

Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
380 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

intensely related to the soil types and stabilizer content. Typically, determination of
compressive strength in wet conditions will give the weakest strength value. Reduction
in compressive strength under saturation conditions can be attributed to the develop-
ment of pore water pressures and the liquefaction of unstabilized clay minerals in
the brick matrix. Factors affecting the CEB brick strength are cement content, types
of soil (plasticity index), compaction pressure and types of compaction.
Optimum cement content for the stabilization is in the range of 5 to 10%, where
addition above 10% 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%. The best earth soils for sta-
bilization are those with low plasticity index. But for plasticity index >20, it is not suit-
able with manual compaction (Walker, 1995). Anifowose (2000) found that the
presence of iron in the soil is responsible for low compressive strength in the soil sta-
bilization process. The strength of the CSEB can be increased by adding natural fibers
where they can improve the ductility of tension. The improvement is by retarding the
tensile crack propagation after initial formation and also the shrinkage cracking
(Mesbah, Morel, Walker, & Ghavami, 2004).
Since there is no standard testing for CEB, most researchers determined the
compressive strength using the testing method used for fired-clay brick and concrete
masonry block such as ASTM 1984, BS 6073-1:1981, BSI 1985, BS EN 772 1998,
BS 1924-2:1990, Standard Australia 1997 and Australian Standard 2733 (Oti et al.,
2009a, 2009b; Walker, 1995, 2004).
The direct testing and alternative RILEM test usually measures the compressive
strength of the CEB. Figure 17.1 shows the effect of CEB height to its
compressive strength, indicating that CEBs with greater height tend to have higher
compressive strength (Morel, Pkla, & Walker, 2005). Compressive strength of CEB
prism with a RILEM test and a direct test is shown in Figure 17.2.
The unconfined compressive test needs expensive equipment and must be carried
out in the laboratory. Hence, some researchers suggest using an indirect compressive
test (i.e. flexural test/modulus of rupture/three-point bending test). These indirect tests
provide simple, inexpensive and fast assessments of in situ bending strength of the
brick (Morel & Pkla, 2002; Morel et al., 2005). Walker (1995, 2004) suggested using
factors where the modulus of rupture is equivalent to one-sixth of its compressive
strength, and in his latest experiment suggested that unconfined compressive strength
is about five times the bending strength.
Compacting procedure also considerably affects the compressive strength of the CEB
brick. Guettala, Houari, Mezghiche, & Chebili (2002) concluded that by increasing the
compacting stress from 5 to 20 MPa, it will improve the compressive strength up to 70%.
His conclusion was strengthened by Bahar, Benazzoug, & Kenai (2004), who observed
that by using dynamic compaction energy, dry compressive strength increases by more
than 50%, but for vibro-static, compaction increases slightly by about 5%.
Brick strength and brick characteristic flexural bond strength are factors that limit
the bond strength between bricks and mortar in wall panels made from CEB (Walker,
1999). Hence, types of bricks such as solid, interlocking or hollow and types of bonds
like English, Flemmish or Rat trap bond also play an important role in the flexural
strength of the panels (Jayasinghe & Mallawaarachchi, 2009).
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 381

4
R2 = 0.7029
3.5
Compressive strength (MPa)

2.5
R2 = 0.985
2

1.5
Corrected= unconfined value
Procedure (a)
1

0.5

0
40 60 80 100 120 140

CEB height (mm)

Figure 17.1 Effect of block height on RILEM test compressive strength (Morel et al., 2005).

20

18

16
Block compressive strength (MPa)

14

12

10

4 y = 3.0338x
R2 = 0.5957
2

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
RILEM compressive strength (MPa)
Figure 17.2 Comparison between RILEM prism strength and direct block strength (Morel et al.,
2005).
382 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

Additional of natural fiber content such as palm date fibers will decrease the
tensile strength with the increase of fiber content, but only causes a slight reduction
in compressive strength (Taallah, Guettala, Guettala, & Kriker, 2014). However,
the addition of natural fiber has unfavorable results on wet compressive strength of
the CEB.

17.2.2 Density
Commonly, most researchers found that the density of compressed stabilized earth
bricks is within the range of 1500e2000 kg/m3. Density of the compressed earth brick
is consistently related to its compressive strength and compactive force applied during
production. The dry density is largely a function of the constituent material’s charac-
teristics, moisture content during pressing and the degree of compactive load applied
and even in India compressive strength is controlled by density. Types of compaction
applied such as dynamic, static and vibro will also affect the density. The density of
brick can be determined through standard procedure such as ASTM C 140 and BS
1924-2 (1990) and others (Bahar et al., 2004; Morel et al., 2005; Oti et al., 2009b,
2009c; Walker, 1999).

17.2.3 Water absorption and moisture content

Masonry construction will take on water, with or without coating. Although the mortar
and grout in the gutter considerably affect the water resistance of masonry construc-
tion, in this section, however, we will only discuss single CEB water absorption
and moisture content. As earth masonry, CEBs will absorb more moisture compared
with other building materials as shown in Figure 17.3. The results showed that CEB
can absorb 10 times more air moisture than fired bricks (Morton, 2008).
Water absorption is a function of clay and cement content and usually related
with the strength and durability of earth bricks, and therefore, it is important to
determine the rate of water absorption of earth bricks. Oti et al. (2009c) stated
that water absorption rate decreases with increasing age of earth bricks. High
rate of water absorption of a specimen may cause swelling of stabilized clay frac-
tion and result in losing strength with time. As observed by Walker (Walker &
Stace, 1996), water absorption, as well as porosity, increases with clay content
and decreasing cement content.
Between cement, lime, cement-lime and cement-resin, a combination of cement and
resin stabilization shows the lowest water absorption both in capillary absorption and
total absorption (Guettala, Abibsi, & Houari, 2006). Freidin & Erell (1995) tried to
reduce the water uptake by adding a hydrophobic material; in this case, siloxane-
polymethylhydrohen-siloxane was combined with slag þ fly ash, which is highly
absorbent, and the result showed that the water uptake with the addition of 0.5%
siloxane was less than a quarter of the water uptake of fly asheslag without additive.
Sand content in the mixes apparently can reduce water absorption and weight loss
even though it does not affect the compressive strength significantly (Guettala et al.,
2002). The standards used to determine water absorption are ASTM C 140 (total water
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 383

300

250

200 Earth brick

Timber
Lightweight concrete
g/m2

150 Gypsum plaster

Fired brick

100

50

0
0 6 12 24 48
Hours
Figure 17.3 The weight of moisture absorbed by different materials after an increase in relative
humidity from 50% to 80% RH (Morton, 2008).

absorption), BS EN 771-2 and Australian Standards 2733 (initial rate of absorption)

(Oti et al., 2009b; Walker, 1999; Walker & Stace, 1996).
Moisture content affects strength development and durability of the material and
has a significant influence on the long-term performance of stabilized soil material,
especially on bonding with mortars at the time of construction. When the brick is
dry, water is rapidly sucked out of the mortar, thereby preventing good adhesion
and proper hydration of the cement, and when the brick is very wet, the mortars
tend to float on the surface without gaining proper adhesion (Oti et al., 2009c; Walker,
1999).
Types of compaction affect the optimum water content in the stabilized mixes.
Dynamic compaction can reduce the optimum water content from 12% to 10% with
the compressive strength increased for about 50%. Bahar et al. (2004) stated the optimum
water content ranges between 10% and 13% for static compaction, whereas vibro-static
compaction slightly increases compressive strength with the same water content for low
compressive load. According to Osula (1996) soil-lime mixes required higher optimum
moisture content than soil-cement mixes. Standards conform to determine water content
such as ASTM D 558, Australian Standards 1289, BS 1924-2 (1990) and BS EN 1745
(Oti et al., 2009b, 2009c; Walker, 1999; Walker & Stace, 1996).
The addition of natural fiber such as date palm fibers will increase the total water
absorption of CEB (Taallah et al., 2014). Figure 17.4 indicates that longer immersion
times will cause higher total absorption. Absorption is the process in which a fluid is
dissolved by a liquid or a solid (absorbent), while adsorption is the process in which
atoms, ions or molecules from a substance (it could be gas, liquid or dissolved solid)
adhere to a surface of the adsorbent.
384 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

(a) (b) (c)

12 12 12
Without fibers
0.05% fibers
Total absorption (%)

Total absorption (%)

Total absorption (%)

11 11 11 0.10% fibers

10 10 10
Without fibers Without fibers
0.05% fibers 0.05% fibers
9 0.10% fibers 9 0.10% fibers 9
0.15% fibers 0.15% fibers 0.15% fibers
0.2% fibers 0.2% fibers 0.2% fibers
8 8 8
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Immersion time (days) Immersion time (days) Immersion time (days)

Figure 17.4 Effect of fiber content on the total absorption in time of CEB (with 10 MPa
compaction pressure): (a) 5% cement; (b) 6.5% cement; (c) 8% cement (Taallah et al., 2014).

Moisture absorption or desorption properties of CEB can be used as a way to

improve indoor air quality and save energy, also known as moisture buffering
(Rode & Grau, 2008). Things that affect the practical moisture buffering value
(MBV) are open surface and relative humidity, as stated in the report by Rode et al.
(2005). Among the conditions that influenced the moisture buffering measurement
of CEB is the addition of stabilizers (Figure 17.5).

17.2.4 Shrinkage
Drying shrinkage of the bricks was primarily governed by the plasticity index and
cement content. Water loss also contributes to the shrink of the clay fraction. For
low clay mineral content (index plasticity below 20%), drying shrinkage showed a
steady increase with the increase of clay content, but for a plasticity index beyond
25e30%, drying shrinkage increased rapidly as the clay content also increased. Soil
with a plasticity index <20% is good for cement stabilization with cement content
10%. And, the commonly used drying shrinkage limit is from 0.008% to 0.10%
(Walker, 1995, 1999; Walker & Stace, 1996).
Sand as part of the mix seems to have significant influence in shrinkage, although
sand content does not significantly affect the compressive strength as stated by
Guettala (Guettala et al., 2002). However, Rahman (1987) found out it can decrease
plasticity, linear shrinkage and warping.
Bahar et al. (2004) reported that shrinkage increases rapidly during the first four
days for cement-stabilized earth bricks, and the addition of sand reduces the shrinkage
as sand particles oppose the shrinkage movement. He also observed that the addition of
cement content can reduce the shrinkage up to 44% for 10% cement content added.
BSI 6073 and Australian Standards 2733 can be used to measure the drying shrinkage
(Walker, 1995; Walker & Stace, 1996). The addition of natural fiber content can
increase the swelling of CEB (Taallah et al., 2014).

17.2.5 Thermal conductivity

In the growing concern of energy consciousness and ecological awareness, thermal
comfort in building materials is an important aspect that attracts great attention
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 385

(a) 4
Unstabilized

Moisture content (%)

Cement 4%
3 Cement 8%

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RH (%)

(b) 4
Unstabilized
Moisture content (%)

Lime 4%
3 Lime 8%

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RH (%)
(c) 8
Unstabilized
Moisture content (%)

Geopolymer

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
RH (%)
Figure 17.5 DVS water vapor sorption isotherms for different stabilizers: (a) cement, (b) lime,
(c) geopolymer (McGregor, Heath, Fodde, & Shea, 2014).

nowadays since building regulations are now stressing more of the thermal perfor-
mance of the buildings compared to the past. As a building material, brick has quite
excellent thermal conductivity. Oti (Oti et al., 2009b) observed that thermal conduc-
tivity is a function of the material density and moisture content. Thus, the design
value for thermal conductivity can be determined through experimental and theoret-
ical methods. CEB showed better thermal conductivity values compare to the fired-
clay bricks.
386 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

• Lime-GGBS-based: 0.2545  0.0350 W/m K

• Cement-GGBS-based: 0.2612  0.0350 W/m K
• Fired clay bricks: 0.4007  0.0350 W/m K

Bahar et al. (2004) noted that the addition of cement and sand content can slightly
decrease the conductivity of the brick. The advantage of having low thermal con-
ductivity can result in energy efficiency, cost reduction of heating in winter and air
conditioning in summer, and the environmental friendliness of a building. Fired-
clay bricks have higher conductivity values because the firing process of clay
bricks makes the clay partially combine to form a glassy product, so as to give
the product the strength and durability. It is also a result from the breakdown of
the original clay mineral and the formation of new crystalline material and glass
phases.
To determine the thermal value of CEB, one can utilize the following standards: BS
EN 1745 (thermal conductivity and thermal resistance), ASTM C 518-91 and ASTM C
1132-89 (thermal value) (Oti et al., 2009b).

17.3 Integration of agricultural waste materials

The depleting resources and escalating price of building materials have evoked the cre-
ative side of human nature. With the abundant agricultural waste, especially in devel-
oping countries, some experiments to produce CEB have been made by using RHA
and POFA. The use of agricultural waste not only helps people to obtain cheaper
sustainable building materials, at the same time, it has also solved the environmental
problems caused by its disposal.

17.3.1 Rice husk ash

Rice husk ash (RHA) is an abundantly available and renewable agriculture by-product
from rice milling in the rice-producing countries. It has the highest proportion of silica
content among all plant residues (Siddique, 2008; Xu, Lo, & Memon, 2012; Yalçin &
Sevinç, 2001). A rice mill turns the paddy plant into 78% rice, 20% rice husk and 2% is
lost in the process (Ash, 2010). The rice husk contains about 50% cellulose, 25e30%
lignin and 15e20% silica (Ismail & Waliuddin, 1996). Hence, after the combustion,
one-fifth to one-quarter of the rice husk will change into ash.
Rice husk is difficult to ignite and does not burn easily with an open flame, unless
air is blown through the husk. Also, it has a high average calorific value of 3410 kcal/
kg. Therefore, it is a good, renewable energy source. Rice husk can be used as an alter-
native energy source, i.e. as the fuel in the boiler of a rice-milling kiln to generate
electricity where the heating value of the husk ranges from 12.6 MJ/kg (Xu et al.,
2012) to 13.34e16.20 MJ/kg (Mansaray & Ghaly, 1997) to 15.7 MJ/kg, of which
18.8% is carbon, 62.8% is volatile materials, and 9.3% is moisture content (Ekasilp,
Soponronnarit, & Therdyothin, 1995; Thorburn, 1982), and even up to 17 MJ/kg
(Ferraro, Nanni, Vempati, & Matta, 2010).
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 387

The end product of RH in the boiler is RHA, which for the most part will end up as
waste since it has little or no commercial value. Its disposal also evokes environmental
problems because RHA does not biodegrade easily (Beagle, 1978) and it generates
pollution, which has caused health problems to the inhabitants. In Uruguay, RHA
was thrown into the river and brought about great contamination and ecological
concern (Sensale, 2006).
CEB made of clay, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and fine-grind uncontrolled burnt
RHA can reach a maximum dry compression strength up to 20.7 MPa, with the best
proportion of lime and RHA 1: (Muntohar, 2011). In another experiment (Riza,
2011), the best result in compressive strength was attained by a sample with a ratio
of RHA and lime equal to 0.25:0.75 in the fourteenth day, with 3.62 MPa, and its
twenty-eighth-day strength was 3.48 MPa. Overall trends indicate that increasing
RHA proportion in a mix ratio will consequently reduce the strength.

17.3.2 Palm oil fuel ash

Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) is a by-product of palm oil processing. It is considered to
be a waste and is abundantly available in Indonesia and Malaysia. For every 100 tons
of fresh fruit bunches supplied to the mill, 20% of it is nut shells and 7% is fibers that
have no further use. It was found out that the nut shells and their fibers can be utilized
as a fuel in the boiler at 800e1000  C to produce steam for generating electricity in
order to extract palm oil (Chindaprasirt, Rukzon, & Sirivivatnanon, 2008). From
this incineration process in the steam boiler, 5% POFA was produced from the total
solid waste used (Sata, Jaturapitakkul, & Kiattikomol, 2004). By using POFA, it is
part of the green activity that turns the waste into a useful product.
Some researchers (Illston & DOmone; Ismail, Ismail, Lau, Muhammad, & Majid,
2010; Jaturapitakkul, Kiattikomol, Tangchirapart, & Saeting, 2006; Tangchirapat,
Tangpakasit, Waew-kum, & Jaturapitakkul, 2003; Tay & Show, 2003) have confirmed
the presence of pozzolanic properties in POFA, which indicates silica content that has
the ability to create cementitious material in the presence of moisture and chemically
reacts with calcium hydroxide (Massaza, 2002). Nevertheless, most of the researchers
worked on the utilization of POFA as a supplementary cementing material in concrete
production, and apparently, they always focused on the ground form because finer par-
ticle size will have higher pozzolanic reactivity, which in turn will make the production
cost higher. Moreover, the application of POFA in the compressed earth bricks (CEB)
is not attractive enough for most researchers.
Addition of unground POFA apparently showed an increase in the compressive
strength of the control sample at 28 days, but there was no visible trace of strength
gained for early age strength development at seven days. On the contrary, for seven
days strength development, addition of POFA apparently will reduce the brick strength
(Riza, Rahman, & Zaidi, 2013).
Maximum strength was achieved by 40% addition of POFA for 28 days at
13.89 MPa where the control sample strength was 12.93 MPa. In fact, the CEB
compressive strength for all additional proportions of POFA at 28 days was still higher
than compressive strength of the control sample. It reached 13.44, 13.12 and
388 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

13.07 MPa for 20%, 60% and 80% POFA addition, respectively (although, the trend is
decreasing for further POFA addition beyond 40%).
This finding corroborated the work of Abdullah, Hussin, Zakaria, Muhammad, and
Hamid (2006) which proved that replacement of POFA until 40% displayed significant
increase in concrete strength from 7 to 28 days, even though they worked on POFA as
a cement replacement for aerated concrete. Further addition of POFA seemingly has no
contribution to the strength gain; instead, the strength reduced gradually, but still the
total strengths were higher than the control mix.
According to Ahmad, Omar, Malek, Noor, & Thiruselvam (2008), strength gained
can be originated from the silica oxide content in POFA, which reacts with calcium
hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] from OPC in the hydration process and resulted in a gel com-
pound of C-S-H (Calcium Silicate Hydrate) whereas at the same time reducing the
amount of calcium hydroxide. This is certified by Zhang, Lastra, & Malhotra (1996)
investigation which stated that pozzolanic reaction in the OPC will create lower
calcium hydroxide, therefore, affected the amount of it in the interfacial transition
zone which in turns the existing interfacial transition zone will undergo densification
resulting in increasing strength.
Addition of POFA was proven to decrease water absorption of compressed bricks
for all stages of strength development (7 and 28 days), as shown in Figure 8. For con-
trol specimens, water absorption for 7 days is 17.5% and is 16.4% for 28 days. From
the compressive strength test, it was determined that the best additional proportion of
POFA is 40%, and its water absorption rate is 15.9% and 15.3% for 7 and 28 days
testing, respectively. For bricks with 80% POFA addition, water absorption showed
a significant decrease to 14.3% and 13% for 7 and 28 days, respectively.
Compared with the water absorption of paper sludgeePOFA brick, which reached
39.6%, Ismail et al. (2010) found that the water absorption of the bricks with the addi-
tion of POFA is far lower for every additional composition of POFA. These findings
are consistent with the results of Tangchirapat, Jaturapitakkul, & Chindaprasit (2009),
which also showed the reduction of water permeability for high-strength concrete, and
this could be attributed to the pozzolanic reaction and filler effect of POFA that filled
voids. Decreases in water absorption can result in improving brick durability. This
confirms the findings of Raimondo, Dondi, Gardini, Guarini, & Mazzanti (2009)
that stated that the ability of brick to absorb water is dependent on its microstructural
characteristics, especially amount, size and shape of pores. According to Lewis, Sear,
Wainwright, & Ryle (2003), fineness of particles affects the water required for con-
crete workability. This can be implemented to the bricks with the finer particles; it
will reduce water necessity in the mix.

17.3.3 Cassava peels

Cassava has been a staple food in some developing countries for centuries, and its pro-
cessing contributes to environmental pollution. As a waste, cassava peels are available
in abundant quantities in those countries. Waste materials from cassava processing are
divided into four categories: peels, fibers, starch and waste water (Ubalua, 2007).
Cassava is different from RHA and POFA, where their ash was used as a binder
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 389

together with lime. Cassava peels are used for their organic fiber within the mixture to
reinforce CEB, although the fiber does not provide adequate durability (Chen, 2009).
CEB experiments in Colombia (Villamizar, Araque, Reyes, & Silva, 2012) utilizing
clay-rich soil, coal ash and cassava peels produced a compressive strength of CEB with
composition 90:7.5:2.5 ranging between 2.43 and 2.6 MPa, lower than that of CEB
from RHA and POFA. The water absorption of cassava CEB reached 27.77%, which
showed low-resistance contact with water. Hence, it has unsatisfactory durability
properties.

17.4 Future trends

Nowadays, the use of CEB is still very uncommon despite its huge advantages, espe-
cially from the environmental and sustainability points of view. In the future, where the
cost-effective, long-term energy conservation and ease of use material are the objec-
tives, CEB is the perfect choice for energy efficiency and durability.
Innovation in CEB, with its interlocking shapes, can add versatility and help to
reduce the skill level needed for homeowners to build their own homes utilizing locally
available soils (Nelson, 2010). And the development of a CEB machine from manual,
mechanical to motor-driven presses could hopefully motivate people to “do it your-
self ” with their own houses. Furthermore, the materials of CEB could vary in line
with the effort to use greener and more environmental friendly substances.

References
Abdullah, K., Hussin, M. W., Zakaria, F., Muhammad, R., & Hamid, Z. A. (2006). POFA: A
potential partial replacement material in aerated concrete. Paper presented at the Asia-
Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (APSEC), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Ahmad, M. H., Omar, R. C., Malek, M. A., Noor, N. M., & Thiruselvam, S. (2008).
Compressive strength of palm oil fuel ash concrete. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Construction and Building Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Anifowose, A. Y. B. (2000). Stabilisation of lateritic soils as a raw material for building blocks.
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 58, 151e157.
Ash, R. H. (2010). Rice husk ash. from http://www.ricehuskash.com/.
Bahar, R., Benazzoug, M., & Kenai, S. (2004). Performance of compacted cement-stabilised
soil. Cement and Concrete Composites, 26(7), 811e820.
CDI. (1998). Compressed earth blocks: Standards (N. C, Trans.). Brussels, Belgium: CDI and
CRATerre-EAG Publication.
Chen, G. Y. Y. (2009). Analysis of stabilized adobe in rural East Africa. San Luis Obispo:
Master of Science, California Polytechnic State University.
Chindaprasirt, P., Rukzon, S., & Sirivivatnanon, V. (2008). Resistance to chloride penetration of
blended Portland cement mortar containing palm oil fuel ash, rice husk ash and fly ash.
Construction and Building Materials, 22(5), 932e938.
390 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

Ekasilp, W., Soponronnarit, S., & Therdyothin, A. (1995). Energy analysis in white rice and par-
boiled mills for cogeneration in Thailand. RERIC International Energy Journal, 17(2),
83e92.
Ferraro, R. M., Nanni, A., Vempati, R. K., & Matta, F. (2010). Carbon neutral off-white
rice husk ash as a partial white cement replacement. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering (ASCE), 22(10), 1078e1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0000112.
Freidin, K., & Erell, E. (1995). Bricks made of coal fly-ash and slag, cured in the open air.
Cement and Concrete Composites, 17(4), 289e300.
Guettala, A., Abibsi, A., & Houari, H. (2006). Durability study of stabilized earth concrete under
both laboratory and climatic conditions exposure. Construction and Building Materials,
20(3), 119e127.
Guettala, A., Houari, H., Mezghiche, B., & Chebili, R. (2002). Durability of lime stabilized earth
blocks. Courrier du Savoir, 02, 61e66.
Heath, A., Lawrence, M., Walker, P., & Fouride, C. (2009). The compressive strength of modern
earth masonry. Paper presented at the International Conference on Non-conventional
Materials and Technologies (NOCMAT 2009), Bath, UK.
Illston, J. M., & DOmone, P. L. J. Construction material: Their nature and behaviour (3rd ed.).
Taylor and Francis Group.
Ismail, M., Ismail, M. A., Lau, S. K., Muhammad, B., & Majid, Z. (2010). Fabrication of brick
from paper sludge and palm oil fuel ash. Concrete Research Letters, 1(2), 60e66.
Ismail, M. S., & Waliuddin, A. M. (1996). Effect of rice husk ash on high strength concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 10(7), 521e526.
Jaturapitakkul, C., Kiattikomol, K., Tangchirapart, W., & Saeting, T. (2006). Evaluation of the
sulfate resistance of concrete containing palm oil fuel ash. Construction and Building
Material, 21, 1399e1405.
Jayasinghe, C., & Mallawaarachchi, R. S. (2009). Flexural strength of compressed stabilized
earth masonry materials. Materials & Design, 30(9), 3859e3868.
Lewis, R., Sear, L., Wainwright, P., & Ryle, R. (2003). Cementitious additions. In J. Newman,
& B. S. Choo (Eds.), Advanced concrete technology: Constituent materials. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Mansaray, K. G., & Ghaly, A. E. (1997). Physical and thermochemical of rice husk. Energy
Sources, 19(9), 989e1004.
Massaza, F. (2002). Properties and application of natural pozzolanas. In J. Bensted, & P. Barnes
(Eds.), Structure and performance of cements. New York: Spon Press e Taylor & Francis
Group.
McGregor, F., Heath, A., Fodde, E., & Shea, A. (2014). Conditions affecting the moisture
buffering measurement performed on compressed earth blocks. Building and Environment,
75, 11e18.
Mesbah, A., Morel, J. C., Walker, P., & Ghavami, K. (2004). Development of a direct tensile test
for compacted earth blocks reinforced with natural fibers. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 16(1), 95e98.
Morel, J. C., & Pkla, A. (2002). A model to measure compressive strength of compressed earth
blocks with the ‘3 points bending test’. Construction and Building Materials, 16(5),
303e310.
Morel, J.-C., Pkla, A., & Walker, P. (2005). Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks. Construction and Building Materials, 21(2), 303e309.
Morton, T. (2008). Earth masonry design and construction guidelines. Berkshire: Construction
Research Communications Limited.
The properties of compressed earth-based (CEB) masonry blocks 391

Muntohar, A. S. (2011). Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick.

Construction and Building Materials, 25(11), 4215e4220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.04.061.
Nelson, W. (2010). Compressed earth blocks. Retrieved 19.02.10, from Natural Building
Colloquium http://www.networkearth.org/naturalbuilding/ceb.html.
Osula, D. O. A. (1996). A comparative evaluation of cement and lime modification of laterite.
Engineering Geology, 42(1), 71e81.
Oti, J. E., Kinuthia, J. M., & Bai, J. (2009a). Compressive strength and microstructural analysis
of unfired clay masonry bricks. Engineering Geology, 109(3e4), 230e240.
Oti, J. E., Kinuthia, J. M., & Bai, J. (2009b). Design thermal values for unfired clay bricks.
Materials & Design, 31(1), 104e112.
Oti, J. E., Kinuthia, J. M., & Bai, J. (2009c). Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry
bricks. Engineering Geology, 107(3e4), 130e139.
Rahman, M. A. (1987). Properties of clay-sand-rice husk ash mixed bricks. International
Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, 9(2), 105e108.
Raimondo, M., Dondi, M., Gardini, D., Guarini, G., & Mazzanti, F. (2009). Predicting the initial
water absorption in clay bricks. Construction and Building Material, 23, 2623e2630.
Riza, F. V. (2011). Application of RHA pozzolanic properties in CEB production. International
Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology (IJSCET), 2(2).
Riza, F. V., Rahman, I. A., & Zaidi, A. M. A. (2013). Influence of unground palm oil fuel ash
(UPOFA) in compressed earth brick (CEB) properties. Advanced Materials Research
Journal, 488, 188e193.
Rode, C., & Grau, K. (2008). Moisture buffering and its consequence in whole building
hygrothermal modeling. Journal of Building Physics, 31(4), 333e360.
Rode, C., Peuhkuri, R., Mortensen, L. H., Hansen, K. K., Time, B., Gustavsen, A., et al. (2005).
Moisture buffering of building materials: Department of Civil Engineering, Technical
University of Denmark.
Sata, V., Jaturapitakkul, C., & Kiattikomol, K. (2004). Utilization of palm oil fuel ash in high
strength Concrete. Journals of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 16, 623e628.
Sensale, G. R. (2006). Strength development of concrete with rice-husk ash. Cement and
Concrete Composites, 28(2), 158e160.
Siddique, R. (2008). Waste materials and by-products in concrete. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg.
Taallah, B., Guettala, A., Guettala, S., & Kriker, A. (2014). Mechanical properties and hygro-
scopicity behaviour of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers. Construction and
Building Material, 59, 161e168.
Tangchirapat, W., Jaturapitakkul, C., & Chindaprasit, P. (2009). Use of palm oil fuel ash as a
supplementary cementitious material for producing high strength concrete. Construction
and Building Material, 23, 2641e2646.
Tangchirapat, W., Tangpakasit, J., Waew-kum, S., & Jaturapitakkul, C. (2003). A new
pozzolanic material from palm oil fuel ash. KMUTT Research and Development Journal,
26(4), 459e473.
Tay, J.-H., & Show, K.-Y. (2003). Use of ash derived from oil-palm waste incineration as a
cement replacement material. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 13(1), 27e36.
Thomas, K. (1996). Masonry wall: Specification and design (1st ed.). London: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Thorburn, C. (1982). Rice husk as a fuel. Indonesia: Tekton Books.
Ubalua, A. O. (2007). Cassava wastes: treatment options and value addition alternatives. African
Journal of Biotechnology, 6(18), 2065e2073.
392 Eco-efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks

Villamizar, M. C. N., Araque, V. S., Reyes, C. A. R., & Silva, R. S. (2012). Effect of the addition
of coal-ash and cassava peels on the engineering properties of compressed earth blocks.
Construction and Building Materials, 36(0), 276e286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.04.056.
Walker, P. J. (1995). Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil
blocks. Cement and Concrete Composites, 17(4), 301e310.
Walker, P. J. (1999). Bond characteristic of earth block masonry. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 11(3), 249e256.
Walker, P. J. (2004). Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and earth block
masonry. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16(5), 497e506.
Walker, P. J., & Stace, T. (1996). Properties of some cement stabilised compressed earth blocks
and mortars. Materials and Structures/Mat4riaux et Constructions, 30(November 1997),
545e551.
Xu, W., Lo, T. Y., & Memon, S. A. (2012). Microstructure and reactivity of rich husk ash.
Construction and Building Materials, 29(0), 541e547.
Yalçin, N., & Sevinç, V. (2001). Studies on silica obtained from rice husk. Ceramics Interna-
tional, 27(2), 219e224.
Zhang, M. H., Lastra, R., & Malhotra, V. M. (1996). Rice-husk ash paste and concrete: some
aspects of hydration and the microstructure of the interfacial zone between the aggregate
and paste. Cement and Concrete Research, 26(6), 963e977.