JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er.

Toran Prasad Bhatt

ISSN 2717-4638

Compressive Strength Characteristics of Compressed Stabilized Earth

Block (CSEB) Units and Walls
Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt1*
1
Asst. Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Far Western University, Nepal
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper is mainly focused on compressive strength behavior of Compressed Stabilized Earth Block
(CSEB) units and CSEB walls. Compressed Stabilized Earth Block (CSEB) is a rectangular block used in
wall construction. The ingredients of CSEB are soil, cement, fine aggregate, crusher dust, and a small
amount of water. These blocks have less energy consumption and carbon emission, and they provide
improved thermal insulation. In addition they use local resources, and disseminate appealing aesthetics with
elegant profile and uniform size. Due to these advantages CSEB can be used as a green construction material.
This research aims to study the strength characteristics of CSEB wall in compression and evaluate the
suitability of CSEB walls as load bearing walls in structures. This research studies physical and mechanical
characteristics of CSEB units made from red residual soil of Lele (Lalitpur) with 8% cement for stabilization.
This paper discusses the compressive strength behavior of walls constructed of size 0.660m x 1.100m x
0.220m using CSEB units in cement sand mortar and stabilized mud mortar separately which were tested
after 28 days. The experimental values after laboratory testing of CSEB masonry wall with height to
thickness ratio 5:1 for cement sand mortar (1:6) and stabilized mud mortar (stabilized with 8% cement and
16% extra sand) separately are compared with relevant values from different codes. Results obtained from
compressive strength tests of masonry walls constructed in the laboratory and those values from different
codes concerning the strength of masonry unit and mortar are compared, and found to be in agreement. The
comparison of laboratory results with codal provisions of design of masonry walls illustrate that CSEB
masonry walls can be designed in the similar way as brick masonry walls.

Keywords: CSEB, compressive strength, stabilized mud mortar, CSEB masonry walls, masonry walls

Introduction
Masonry is one of the most popular materials for building construction and other different types of
wall and fort construction due to its useful properties such as durability, relatively low cost, good
sound and thermal insulation, acceptable fire resistance, adequate resistance to weathering, and
attractive appearance (Arya, 1992). Masonry construction is generally known for its durability, which
relies on several key factors: the materials used, the quality of the mortar, workmanship, and the type
of bond used. Common materials for masonry include brick, stone, concrete blocks, compressed earth
blocks (CEB), and compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEB), each having unique advantages
(Arya, 1992).
The common building materials used in Nepal are stone, brick, cement, concrete, steel, and timber.
These materials along with their technology have been practiced for many decades and there have
been negligible improvement and innovations in these materials and their technology. Above
mentioned materials are good in structural performance. Despite of this, they are blamed for
environmental pollution, more energy consumption, and less thermal resistance. So, need for the
development of alternative materials with satisfactory structural performance that consume less
energy, become more thermal resistant, and reduce the emission of harmful gases. In the context of
Nepal, such material can be compressed stabilized earth block (CSEB). CSEB is a material that can
be used in environment-friendly houses fulfilling the strength requirements of masonry walls as well
(Riza et al., 2010). The Compressed Stabilized Earth Block (CSEB) is a masonry unit of any shape
but it is generally used in cuboidal shape which can be made in solid or interlocking type. The shape
and size of a block are defined by the mould and equipment setup used in its manufacture. For the
production of CSEB units, soil is mixed with small quantities of cement or other stabilizing material,
coarse sand, or stone dust which can be added depending on the quality of the soil (Riza et al., 2010).
CSEB has more advantages over the kiln bricks/ the burnt bricks in various ways. CSEB units are

61
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

produced by dry mixing of soil with proper stabilizing agent uniformly then remixing the dry mixture
uniformly with water of optimum moisture content and then compressing the mixture with a suitable
amount of compaction pressure.
Soil stabilization is the process of changing the physical properties of soil so that it can improve its
strength, durability, or other properties. Stabilized soil behaves in such a way that it can significantly
become more resistant to being damaged by water, frost, rain, or inclement conditions(Makusa,
2012). There are several methods of soil stabilization. Some of them are as follows:
Mechanical Stabilization
Mechanical stabilization of soil is the process of compacting the soil by using a heavy load or
pressure to reduce the volume of air voids, thus leading to an increase in the density of the soil(Das,
2003). The main effects of compaction of the soil are to increase its strength and reduce its
permeability(Das, 2003). The degree of compaction, however, is mainly affected by the type of soil
used, the optimum moisture content of the soil, the moisture content during compaction, and the
compaction force applied(Oan et al., 2021). The major drawback of mechanically compressed
stabilized earth blocks is their lack of durability especially in places of moderate to high rainfall(Das,
2003).
Cement Stabilization
Cement is an easily understood, thoroughly researched and well defined stabilizing material with
clearly defined properties among the chemical stabilizers. Earlier researches have suggested that
cement is a most suitable stabilizer among chemical stabilizers for the production of compressed
stabilized earth (soil) blocks (CSEB)(Shariful et al., 2020). Lime (CaO) and Silica (SiO2) are the
main ingredients of Cement, which react with each other and with other components in the mix
during hydraulic reaction(Das, 2003)(Hanafi, 2021)(Makusa, 2012). This reaction forms Bogues
Compounds named Tri- calcium silicate referred as C3S and Di-calcium silicate referred as C2S in
the cement as main compounds. The chemical reaction eventually generates a matrix of interlocking
crystals that cover any inert filler and provide a high compressive strength and stability to the matrix
(Makusa, 2012).
Lime Stabilization
Before cement lime was used as a binding material and nowadays also lime is main alternative binder
of cement. After adding lime to the soil for stabilization, four basic reactions are believed to occur:
Cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, carbonation, and pozzolanic reactions. The
pozzolanic reaction is believed to be the most important and it occurs between lime and certain clay
minerals to form a variety of cementing compounds, which bind the soil particles together(Saleh,
2024), (Christopher, 1996). Lime can also reduce the tendency of clay to absorb the water which can
make the soil less sensitive to changes in moisture content and improve its workability(Das, 2003).
Lime is known as a suitable stabilizer for clay soils.
Researches conducted on Compressed stabilized earth blocks and earth stabilizing techniques
suggested technical specifications for CSEB blocks as stabilizing performs better with 5% cement or
more than it (Davis & Maïni, 2017)(Walker, 1995)(D. R. Bhatt, 2011). Mechanical characteristics
are influenced by the soil quality, the compressive force applied by the press, the quality of
manufacturing, curing, quality and percentage of stabilizer(Maini, 2010), (Bhatt, 2011). These results
has proven CSEB as an environment friendly, low carbon emitting, energy efficient, sufficiently
strong alternative building material (Maini, 2010). Other stabilizers those can used to produce CSEB
blocks could be bitumen, gypsum, pozzolanas, and traditional stabilizers. Cementitious stabilization
in combination with compaction gives a product of sufficient dry and wet strength, erosion resistance,
and sufficient durability which suggests among above above-discussed soil stabilizers, in CSEB,
Cement is superior as a stabilizer due to its availability at acceptable quality everywhere among
cementitious stabilizers (Maini, 2010).

62
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Compression failure and Compressive Strength of masonry wall

The compression failure in masonry wall occurs rarely which occurs when the applied compressive
stress exceeds the compressive strength of the masonry wall. The compression failure mode is
characterized by the formation of longitudinal (vertical) cracks which are parallel to the compression
strut (Oan , et. al, 2013). Compressive strength test method of masonry prisms covers procedures for
masonry prism construction and testing, and procedures for determining the compressive strength of
masonry, fmt, used to determine compliance with the specified compressive strength of masonry, f m’.
When this test method is used for research purposes, the construction and test procedures within
serve as a guideline and provide control parameters(ASTMC-1314 ). Eurocode 6 - Design of
masonry structures - Part 1-1 suggested characteristic compressive strength of masonry other than
shell bedded masonry as follows (Eurocode 6). The characteristic compressive strength of masonry
can be determined from the results of tests in accordance with EN 1052-1 which tests may be carried
out for the project or be available from tests previously carried out e.g. a database; the results of the
tests should be expressed as a table, or in terms of following equation(Eurocode 6).
fk = Kfbαfmβ
where:
fk Characteristic Compressive Strength of the Masonry, in MPa
K is a constant
α, β are constants
fb compressive strength of the units, in the direction of the applied action effect, in MPa
fm is the compressive strength of the mortar, in N/mm
Experimental research carried out on blocks produced by varying cement contents from 4% in to 13%
at constant compressive pressure shown that wet compressive strength of blocks are good enough for
use in structural work if we are using cement content more than 5%(Bhatt, 2011)(Darshan Shrestha,
2012)(Walker, 1995). With the increase in cement content causes an increase in the compressive
strength of the block and a decrease in the absorption capacity of the soil block. Increase in the
compaction pressure also improves the compressive strength of soil cement block (Bhatt, 2011). It is
seen that Compressed Stabilized earth blocks produced by applying 200 kg/cm2 and 8% cement
content are found optimum for use considering their dry compressive strength, wet compressive
strength and water absorption capacity(Bhatt, 2011). Results of the previous research works have
shown that cement can be selected as the best soil stabilizing material for producing CSEB units.
Objective of Study
This research aims to study the strength behavior and response of CSEB material for its suitability as
a masonry building material. The specific objectives of the present study are as follows:
i) To conduct an experimental study of Compressed Stabilized Earth Block (CSEB) units
using 8% cement as stabilizing material.
ii) To conduct an experimental study of CSEB masonry walls (constructed from CSEB units
manufactured with 8% cement as stabilizing material) under compressive loading.
iii) Comparison of Experimental results of CSEB units and their masonry walls with those of
Bricks and Concrete Masonry Units (CMU).

Methodology
The study is quantitative and based on laboratory tests of CSEB units, their masonry walls and their
comparison with codal provisions and similar research works conducted by other researchers. In
order to understand the characteristics of compressed stabilized earth block (CSEB) and its masonry
wall structure, series of laboratory tests were carried out by researcher during his previous work. Test
results of those laboratory tests will be analyzed and interpreted for the suitability of CSEB as

63
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

alternative masonry blocks. To accomplish the objective of the research work, following procedure is
adopted:
i. Preliminary study
 Comprehensive study of previous works and literature review.
 Collection of required data including material properties and other different parameters.
ii. Collection of Laboratory Test Results
 Laboratory Test results for density, water absorption capacity, compressive strength of CSEB
units (in dry and wet conditions) conducted by researcher during his previous work will be
collected for analysis.
 Laboratory Test results for compressive strength of CSEB masonry walls (constructed with
cement sand mortar and stabilized mud mortar separately) conducted by researcher during his
previous work will be collected for analysis.
iii. Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results
 Laboratory Test results will be analyzed and compared with those of burnt bricks and
concrete masonry units.

Results
Calculation of Density and unit weight of CSEB Units
Density and unit weight of CSEB Units are calculated with the help of mass of CSEB unit samples,
weight of the samples and their net volume (excluding volume of frog) measured during previous
work. Calculation of Density and unit weight of the CSEB units and their average is illustrated in
following table. Average density and unit weight results of above data are 1949.86 and 19.13
respectively. Standard deviation calculation for density and unit weight results of above data are
32.77 and 0.3202 respectively which indicates that the test results are relatively close to the mean.
Table 1: Calculation of density and unit weight of CSEB units (Bhatt, 2015)

dimension(m)
Net Volume Mass (Kg) Density Unit weight
Sample No.
Length Breadth Height (x10-6m3) (Kg/m3) (KN/m3)
1 0.222 0.100 0.051 1072.692 2.116 1972.61 19.35
2 0.223 0.100 0.052 1096.24 2.168 1977.67 19.40
3 0.220 0.100 0.052 1080.682 2.143 1983.01 19.45
4 0.223 0.100 0.051 1075.38 2.103 1955.59 19.18
5 0.222 0.100 0.050 1051.536 2.000 1901.98 18.66
6 0.222 0.100 0.051 1072.692 2.047 1908.28 18.72
Average 0.222 0.100 0.051 1074.87 2.10 1949.86 19.13

Water Absorption Capacity

Water absorption capacity of CSEB units is calculated with the help of saturated weight of sample,
dry eight of samples as illustrated in following table.
Calculation of Dry Compressive Strength of CSEB Units
Dry compressive strength of CSEB units is calculated with the help of Compressive load at Failure
during compressive strength test of CSEB units in their dry state and cross sectional area of samples
as illustrated in following table. Average compressive strength of above data is 8.1. Standard
deviation calculation for the above data is 1.79 which indicates that the test results are nearly close to
the mean.

64
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Table 2: Water absorption capacity of CSEB units (Bhatt, 2015)

Water Average
Saturated
Sample Dry Weight(Kg) Absorption Absorption
Weight (Kg)
% %
1 2.4 2.085 15.11
2 2.31 1.995 15.79 15.73
3 2.285 1.965 16.28

Figure 1: Test of dry compressive strength of CSEB unit ((Bhatt, 2015))

Table 3: Dry compressive strength of CSEB units (Bhatt, 2015)

Dimension(mm)
Cross Compressive Compressive
Sample sectional Mass (Kg) load at Strength
Length Breadth Height Area(mm2) Failure (KN) (MPa)

1 222 100 53 22200 2.3 240 10.8

2 221 96 52 21216 2.31 250 11.8
3 220 99 54 21780 2.27 150 6.9
4 222 100 54 22200 2.3 140 6.3
5 222 100 54 22200 2.3 160 7.2
6 222 100 54 22200 2.38 210 9.5
7 222 100 53 22200 2.37 150 6.8
8 221 100 52 22100 2.26 150 6.8
9 222 100 53 22200 2.35 190 8.6
10 221 100 52 22100 2.34 140 6.3
11 221 100 53 22100 2.37 180 8.1
Average 178 8.1

65
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Compressive Load vs Deflection curve of Dry CSEB

300
Units Sample
250 1
Sample
200 2
Lod(KN) Sample
150 3
Sample
100 4

50
0
0 0.5 1 Deflection(mm)
1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 2: Compressive load versus deflection curve of dry CSEB units ( Bhatt., 2015)

Wet Compressive Strength of CSEB Units

Wet compressive strength of CSEB units is calculated with the help of Compressive load at Failure
during compressive strength test of CSEB units in their fully saturated wet state and cross sectional
area of samples as illustrated in following table. Average compressive strength of above data is 5.5.
Standard deviation calculation for the above data is 0.64 which indicates that the test results are
nearly close to the mean.
Table 4: Wet compressive strength of CSEB units (Bhatt., 2015)

dimension(mm) Failure
Compressive
S. No. Mass (Kg) Compressive load
Length Breadth Height Strength (Mpa)
(KN)
1 222 100 52 2.67 100 4.5
2 218 99 53 2.69 130 6.0
3 222 100 52 2.505 140 6.3
4 223 99 52 2.63 100 4.5
5 221 99 55 2.71 120 5.5
6 222 100 52 2.71 120 5.4
7 223 100 56 2.641 120 5.4
8 222 100 55 2.625 110 5.0
9 222 100 54 2.585 140 6.3
10 222 100 54 2.6 120 5.4
11 222 100 55 2.595 140 6.3
Average 122 5.5

66
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Compressive Load vs Deflection curve of Wet CSEB

Units

160
140 Sample 1
120

Lod(KN)
100 Sample 2
80
Sample 3
60
40 Sample 4
20
0 Sample 5
0 2 4 6 Sample 6
Deflection(mm)

Figure 3: Compressive load versus deflection curve of wet CSEB units (Bhatt., 2015)

Compressive Strength Test of CSEB Masonry Wall

Following Figure shows (Picture was taken during testing of masonry walls by the researcher at
Central Material Testing Laboratory, Pulchowk Campus) the crack pattern that was seen while
applying static (monotonic) compressive loading (Bhatt, 2015). In cement sand mortar, the cracks
observed were seen uni-directional, where the cracks start at the middle of the wall on front and back
face of wall and with increasing load, more vertical cracks were observed along the sides on the plane
of wall. In stabilized mud mortar the cracks were seen uni-directional, where the cracks start at the
middle of the wall on front face, back face and on side faces as well and with increasing load, more
vertical cracks were observed along the sides on the plane of wall(Bhatt, 2015). For Each masonry
wall, compressive strength was calculated by dividing each wall’s maximum compressive load
sustained by the cross-sectional area of that wall.

Figure 4: Cracking of CSEB masonry wall for a monotonic compression load (Bhatt., 2015)

Compressive Strength of CSEB Masonry Wall (in 1:6 Cement Sand Mortar)
Compressive strength of CSEB Masonry Wall (in 1:6 Cement Sand Mortar, mortar having average
compressive strength of 3.33 MPa) is calculated with the help of Compressive load at Failure during
compressive strength test of the masonry walls and cross sectional area of the masonry walls under
compression as illustrated in following table.

67
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Table 5: Compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall in 1:6 cement sand mortar (Bhatt, 2015)

Dimension(mm)
Sectional Failure Average
Compressive
Sample Area Load Compressive
Strength (Mpa)
Length Height Thickness (mm2) (kN) Strength (Mpa)

1 660 1100 220 145200 378.4 2.606

2 660 1100 220 145200 368.7 2.539 2.705

3 665 1100 220 146300 434.4 2.969

Compressive Strength of CSEB Masonry Wall (in 8% cement stabilized mud mortar mortar)
Compressive strength of CSEB Masonry Wall ((in 8% cement stabilized mud mortar, mortar having
average compressive strength of 1.33 MPa) is calculated with the help of Compressive load at Failure
during compressive strength test of the masonry walls and cross sectional area of the masonry walls
under compression as illustrated in following table.
Table 6: Compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall in 8% cement stabilized mud mortar (Bhatt, 2015)

Dimension(mm)
Sectional Failure Compressive Average
Sample Area Load Strength Compressive
Length Height Thickness (mm2) (KN) (MPa) Strength (MPa)

1 655 1150 220 144100 141.6 0.98

2 655 1150 220 144100 161.8 1.12 1.215

3 655 1165 220 144100 221.8 1.54

Compressive Load V/S Deflection in both types of Masonary

Wall CS 1
500.0
CS 2
400.0
CS 3
Load(KN)

300.0
SSM
200.0 1

100.0

0.0
0 2 4 6
Deflection(mm) 8 10

Figure 5: Compressive load versus deflection (Bhatt, 2015)

Comparison of Test Result of CSEB Units with other materials

Comparison of test results for bulk density, water absorption capacity and compressive strength of
CSEB units with those of Concrete Masonry unit (CMU IOE 2014) and Indian Standard Brick is

68
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

illustrated in the following table(Pokhrel, 2014)(Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced
Masonry, 1987).
Table 7: Comparison of test result of CSEB units with other materials

Indian Standard
CSEB Unit CMU IOE 2014
Test Parameter Brick
(IOE 2015)
A (1:6) B(1:9) 1st Class 2nd Class
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1949.86 1471.82 1432.28 NA NA

Water Absorption Capacity (%) 15.73 6.41 7.48 upto 20 20-22

Dry Compressive Strength (MPa) 8.1 5.46 4.22 >13.73 6.87-13.73

Comparison of Test Results of Wall

Comparison of test results for Compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall in 1:6 cement sand
mortar and 8% cement stabilized mud mortar is made with the Compressive Strength test results of
Concrete Masonry unit wall (CMU Wall, IOE 2014)(Pokhrel, 2014) and those values suggested by
Indian Standard IS 1905:1987 and Euro code 6 are illustrated in the following table.
Table 8 Comparison of test result of CSEB masonry wall

CSEB Wall (IOE EN 1996-

2015), IS 1-1
Test Parameter by researcher CMU Wall (IOE 2014) 1905: (2005)
1987 Euro code
1:6 8% Cement A B 6
Cement Stabilized
Sand Mud mortar
Compressive Strength (MPa) mortar
2.705 1.215 3.31 2.51 2.56 2.73

Discussion
From the analysis of experimental results of CSEB units, different properties of CSEB units are as
follows: Average Density and unit weight of CSEB unit are found to be 1949.86 kg/ m3 and 19.13
kN/m3 respectively with standard deviations showing test results are relatively close to average value
for both parameters. Water absorption capacity of these CSEB units is found to be 15.73% which is
permissible for 1st class brick as per Indian Standard. Dry compressive strength of CSEB units with
8% cement stabilization vary from 6.3 to 11.8 MPa averaging 8.1 MPa with standard deviation of test
results showing data are nearly close to average value and wet compressive strength of CSEB units
vary from 4.5 to 6.3 MPa averaging 5.5 MPa with standard deviation of test results showing data are
nearly close to average Test results of CSEB units in dry and wet condition have shown nonlinear
behavior and have similar strength results as those of second class brick. The average saturated
compressive strength of CSEB block was found to be 32 % less than the dry compressive strength of
CSEB block. Similar results were obtained in (Riza et al., 2010).
Average Compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall is found to be 2.705 MPa in cement sand
mortar (1:6) which is slightly higher than test result of Indian standard (Failure Stress) and
approximately similar with proposed result from Euro Code 6. These test results are comparable with
those of concrete masonry unit wall results carried in 2014 at TU,IOE(Pokhrel, 2014). Average
Compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall is found to be 1.215 MPa in Stabilized Mud mortar
which is very less as compared to those in Cement sand mortar.

69
JOETP, August 2024, Volume 5, Number 1, 61-70 Er. Toran Prasad Bhatt
ISSN 2717-4638

Conclusion and recommendation

Experimental analysis of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) made from red residual soil of
Lele with 8% cement content at 200 kg/cm2 compaction pressure shows satisfactory results. CSEB
units show dimensional stability. Bulk density, water absorption capacity, Dry Compressive Strength,
Wet Compressive Strength of CSEB units are found good enough to use CSEB as wall making
material. Bulk density of CSEB units is 1950 kg/m3 and Unit weight of CSEB units is 19.13 KN/m3.
Average Water absorption Capacity of CSEB units is 15.73%. Average dry compressive strength of
CSEB units is found to be 8.1 MPa and average wet compressive strength of CSEB units is found to
be 5.5 MPa. Tests on walls constructed from CSEB units with cement sand mortar and stabilized mud
mortar shows satisfactory results. Average compressive strength of CSEB masonry wall of height to
thickness ratio 5:1 for cement sand mortar (1:6) is found to be 2.705 MPa and for stabilized mud
mortar (8% cement and 16% extra sand) is found to be 1.215 Mpa. Considering above test results
CSEB Load bearing masonry walls of 220 mm thickness in cement sand mortar can be designed as
unreinforced or designed with proper reinforcement but for stabilized mud mortar walls, thickness of
wall needs to be increased from 220 mm to 330 mm or above as per requirement.

References
Arya, A. S. (1992). Masonry and Timber Structures including Earthquake Resistant Design. Nem Chand &
Bros., Roorkee, India.
Bhatt, D. R. (2011). Behaviour of Compressed Cement Stabilised Soil Block as an alternative wall making
material. Tribhuvan University.
Bhatt., T. P. (2015). Study on strength characteristics of compressed stabilized earth block units and walls
including diagonal shear behavior. Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering.
Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry (1987).
Darshan Shrestha, H. (2012). Standard Norms and Specification for CSEB Block CSEB Green Buildings in
Nepal Government of Nepal Ministry of education Department of Education Action AidInternational
Nepal Centre of Resilience Development (CoRD).
Das, B. M. (2003). Chemical and Mechanical Stabilization. Transportation Research Board.
Davis, L. K., & Maïni, S. (2017). Feasibility Report for Compressed Stabilised Earth Block (Cseb) Production
and Use in the North and East of Sri Lanka. https://doi.org/10.2871/21454
Eurocode 6 - Design of Masonry Structures - Part 1-1 (2005).
Hanafi, W. H. H. (2021). Compressed stabilized earth block: environmentally sustainable alternative for villages
housing. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, 68(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-021-
00017-9
Maini, S. (2010). auroville earth institute (avei), satprem maïni architect, november 2010.
Makusa, G. P. (2012). Soil Stabilization Methods and Materials in Engineering Practice. J0urnal, 1, 1–35.
Oan, A., Abdeltawab, A., & Elhefnawy, A. (2021). Compressive Strength and Water Absorption of CSEB
Mixtures. (Dept. C). MEJ. Mansoura Engineering Journal, 45(4), 14–20.
https://doi.org/10.21608/bfemu.2021.139425
Pokhrel, D. R. (2014). STUDY ON STRENGTH CHARACTERISTIC OF HOLLOW CONCRETE MASONRY
UNITS AND WALL INCLUDING DIAGONAL SHEAR BEHAVIOR.
Riza, F. V., Mujahid, A., & Zaidi, A. (2010). A Brief Review of Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick ( CSEB ).
Cssr, 1011–1016.
Rogers Christopher D.F., and G. S. (1996). Lime Stabilisation. Lime Stabilisation, 1–3.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ls.25639
Saleh, S. A. (2024). Effect of Soil Stabilization on Structural Design of Flexible Pavement. Journal of Studies in
Civil Engineering, 1(1), 36–54.
Shariful, I. M., null, T.-E.-E., Rafat, S. A., Kamrun, N., & Reza, H. T. (2020). Strength and Durability
Characteristics of Cement-Sand Stabilized Earth Blocks. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 32(5),
4020087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003176
Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prism. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA:
American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM).
Walker, P. J. (1995). Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil blocks. Cement
and Concrete Composites, 17(4), 301–310. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00019-9

70