See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345218469

Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements

Article in IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering · November 2020

DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248

CITATIONS READS

3 2,792

6 authors, including:

Mofor Nelson Alakeh Emmanuel Yamb

THE UNIVERSITY OF BAMENDA University of Douala
23 PUBLICATIONS 167 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mofor Nelson Alakeh on 03 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)
e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 17, Issue 4 Ser. I (Jul. – Aug. 2020), PP 42-48
www.iosrjournals.org

Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building

Construction Elements
Mbuh Moses Kuma1,2*, Kagou Dongmo1, Ngapgue Francois1, Mofor Nelson
Alakeh3, Manefouet Bertille Eulalie1 and Yamb Emmanuel4
1
(Department of Earth Science, Faculty of Science, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon)
2
(Department of Civil Engineering and Forestry Techniques, Higher Technical Teacher Training College, The
University of Bamenda, Bambili, Cameroon)
3
(Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, National Higher Polytechnic Institute (NAHPI), The
University of Bamenda, Bambili, Cameroon)
4
(Department of Civil Engineering, Ecole Normale Supérieure Enseignement Technique (ENSET), University of
Douala, Douala, Cameroon)
Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Abstract:
Background: The durability and affordability of buildings could be attained in a more environmentally friendly
manner if Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks (CSEB) are used. These bricks, when appropriately dosed with
the right amount of stabilizer and pressure, could be more sustainable. The aim of this study was to examine the
behaviour of CSEB subjected to elevated temperatures.
Materials and Methods: Soil samples were taken from Menjung-Nkwen, Bamenda III in the North West Region
of Cameroon and analyzed using standard methods. The bricks were stabilized with cement CPJ 35, with an
Initial setting time of 2hrs 50 mins, Final setting time of 3 hrs 40 mins, Standard consistency of 35% and
subjected to elevated temperatures. The bricks were fabricated at the following stabilization percentages: 0%,
5.56%, 6.25%, 7.14%, 8.33% and 9.17%. Curing was done at 7 days and 28 days, and later subjected to
temperatures ranging from 25 to 900 ℃.
Results and discussion: The compressive resistance showed that bricks of rich mixture (9.17%) had a high
resistance at low temperatures. Bricks of 0% stabilization had a higher resistance at high temperatures
compared to brick batch at 9.17% stabilization. A significant positive correlation (𝑟 = 0.97, 𝑝 = 0.000 <
0.01) was recorded between stabilizer dosage and mean resistance of bricks for 7 days and 28 days. Also,
analysis between temperature and resistance revealed that as stabilization dosage increases, an increase in
temperature lead to a low resistance of the bricks both after 7 days and 28 days.
Conclusion: This study suggested that CSEB with 5.56% stabilization should be used for thermal comfort
because of its resistance to elevated temperatures.
Keywords: Temperature, Resistance, Dosage, CSEB, Menjung-Nkwen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Date of Submission: 06-07-2020 Date of Acceptance: 21-07-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

I. Introduction
With an ever growing environmental threat due to the activities of man, it is essential to sustainably
manage our environment. One of such measures is the implementation of Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick
(CSEB), which is an energy efficient, cheap and environmentally friendly building material. Soils are the main
construction materials in CSEB and is easily affordable. It is used in more than 30 countries around the world,
amongst them Mexico, USA, South Africa, India and Thailand. It is easy to make and a substitute for concrete,
been tested to identify the strength and the properties used as a load bearing material in the construction
industry1,2,3,4. Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick is the modern descendent of the molded earth block, more
commonly known as the adobe block. It is a combination from three different materials which are cement, soil,
and sand, that are mixed together with water in definite proportions. These blocks use the same parent material
as unstabilized mud bricks, but offer the significant advantage of wet compressive strength. The addition of
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) to soil changes the properties of soil and this is mainly due to the formation of
various compounds such as Calcium Silicate Hydrate (CSH), Calcium Aluminates Hydrate (CAH) and micro
fabric changes (Pozzolanicreaction). CSH and CAH are cementitious products similar to those formed in
Portland cement. They form the matrix that contributes to the strength of cement stabilized soil layers. One of
the methods of stabilization is to compact a soil sample to reduce the voids in the finished block, consequently
increasing contact between particles. Compaction is achieved by applying some manual or mechanical force to
DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 42 | Page
 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements
the soil, which in turn reduces the voids. The strength of CSEB can be improved by the process of compaction
which leads to higher densities, thereby higher compressive strength and better resistance to erosion 5. In
exploring the stabilization and compacting techniques, a cheap, yet strong and durable material for wall
construction is the CSEB. The merits of these blocks are low-cost, use of locally available material, blocks can
be made at site with no transportation cost and simplicity in the manufacturing process 4,6. The strength of CSEB
increases with density and requires compaction whether it is static, dynamic or vibro-static methods7. In this
study we considered the methods of production and stabilization of CSEB. Compaction was achieved by
applying some manual or mechanical force to the soil, which in turn reduced the voids. The principal objective
of this research was to investigate the resistance of CSEB when subjected to varying temperature conditions.

II. Material And Methods

2.1. Materials
The three main constituent materials used in the production of CSEB were: Ordinary Portland Cement
(for binding the soil particles), soil (for the skeletal structure of the block), and water (for the hydration of
cement and lubrication of soil particles). Soil samples for the experiment were collected from Menjung-Nkwen
in Bamenda III (UTM 32, E0632814, N0662929 with Elevation 1277 m) in the North West Region of
Cameroon. During sampling, the organic part of the soil was removed by digging 1.00 m deep to expose the
sub-soil. The sub-soil samples were then collected and air dried. The soil was homogenized by removing coarse
fragments and sieved using a 5 mm mesh sieve. Ordinary Portland Cement was that of CIMENCAM with an
initial setting time of 2 hrs 50 mins, final setting time of 3 hrs 40 mins and a standard consistency of 35%.
Although dosage amount is not commonly recommended, amounts as low as 3% and as high as 10% have been
used depending on the nature of the soil requiring stabilization8. Pipe borne water was used for hydration
reactions leading to the gradual hardening of Portland cement.

2.2. Methods
The soil samples were identified following the Cameroonian norms (NC 102-114, 2002) and were
tested in the Material and Geotechnical Laboratories of BEGL, GTHS Bamenda and MIPROMALO Yaounde-
Cameroon. Physical test such as smell (organic matter), touch (texture), hand washing (stickiness), cigar (clay
content), sedimentation (average clay content), grain size distribution (percentage of sand, silt and clay portions)
and Atterberg’s limits were performed. Mechanical tests were performed using the proctor test (optimum water
and maximum dry density). Chemical analysis was done by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry using an S4
pioneer Bruker spectrometer. Finally, mineralogical analyses were performed using X-ray diffractometry with a
D8 advanced Brucker. The soil was then carefully mixed with 0%, 5.56%, 6.25%, 7.14%, 8.33% and 9.17% of
cement CPJ 35 (with an initial setting time of 2 hrs 50 mins, final setting time of 3 hrs, 40 mins, Standard
consistency of 35%) and water of about 1 L/100 kg of soil was added. The resulting mixture was then poured
into the mould of the TERSTARAM press which produces bricks in triplets (dimensions 8.4×10×22 cm) and
compressed with a pressure of 1.40 N/cm2. After fabrication, the bricks were divided into two groups. Bricks in
group 1 were cured for 7 days while those in group 2 were cured for 28 days. After curing, the bricks were
heated in a kiln for two hours at varying temperatures of 25, 105, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 ℃.
Following heating, the bricks were allowed to cool for an hour and then the crushing test was done with a
Brazilian compressive machine to get the resistance of failure of the samples. On group 2 samples (cured for 28
days), abrasion, erosion and absorption test was performed to evaluate the resistance of the bricks. Correlation
analyses between stabilizer dosage and mean resistance of bricks was carried out for 7 days and 28 days using
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0 software.

III. Results
3.1. Physical parameters
The soil had a dusty smell which implies it didn’t contain organic material. This type of soil is good for
brick production. The soil was not too sharp to touch which implies that the sand content of the soil wasn’t too
high. Hand washing revealed that the soil was not sticky and washed off easily indicating the presence of gravel
and/or sand content and silt. Average cigar values for the soil sample stood at 7.2 cm and it showed that the soil
fell within the Cameroonian norms of CSEB. Average sedimentation values gave 3.96 which are in conformity
with Cameroonian norms. Attterberg limits indicated that liquid limit measure to 25 shocks was LL = 50.18%.
The plastic limit gave PL = 37.20% and index of plasticity (IP) = 13.00%. Grain size distribution (Figure 1)
indicated that the soil was well graded with a wide range of particle sizes.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 43 | Page

 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements

Figure 1: Grain size distribution of soil samples (Lower and upper limit curves have been established following
the Cameroonian Standards for Compressed Earth Blocks (NC 102-114, 2006)).

The soil also presented a Methylene blue (MBV) test value of 1.13 and a Specific gravity (Gs) value of
2.25. For the compaction test (proctor test) of the soil, it showed that the maximum dry density (Ɣ dmax) was
1.780 t/m3 and the optimum water content (Wopt) was equal to 15.5%.

3.2. Soil chemistry and mineralogy

Soil chemistry revealed the abundance of oxides such as silicon dioxide (63.69 mg/L), aluminum oxide
(18.86 mg/L), iron (III) oxide (5.42 mg/L), titanium dioxide (0.72 mg/L), potassium oxide (0.47 mg/L),
magnesium oxide (0.08 mg/L), diphosphoruspentoxide (0.06 mg/L), sulphur trioxide (0.03), dichromium (III)
oxide (0.02 mg/L), zirconium dioxide (0.02), calcium oxide (0.02 mg/L), manganese (IV) oxide (0.01 mg/L),
nickel (II) oxide (0.01 mg/L). Digallilium (III) oxide and zinc (II) oxide occurred in traces. The major mineral
components in the soil were kaolinite Al4(OH) 8 (Si4O10), quartz (SiO2), and Gibbsite (Al (OH)3.
The parameters of optimum Proctor were 15.4% for the optimal water content and 1.78 t/m3 for the
maximum dry density as shown on Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proctor curve of the soil

3.3. Evaluation of CSEB resistance

This test expresses the resistance of the CSEB to temperature. Water was poured at a point on the
CSEB using a watering can. The resistances of the soil samples were evaluated for group 1 (after 7 days curing)
and group 2 (after 28 days curing) samples.
Group 1 samples, after subjecting them to varying temperatures, showed similar patterns. They showed
an increase in resistance relative to temperature up to a certain threshold value before losing resistance to further
heating. Generally, resistance of the soil increased proportionately with increase in temperature and percentage
stabilization from 0% to 9.17% with resistance values of 0.8 and 2.8 MPa respectively. Prior to testing, samples
with 9.17% stabilizer presented the highest resistance of 2.40 MPa while samples with 0% stabilizer presented
the lowest resistance of 0.80 MPa. With increasing temperatures, the resistance of the brick samples increased to
an average maximum value of 500 ℃ before dropping with further increase in temperature up to 900 ℃ (Figure
DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 44 | Page
 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements
3). Conversely at higher temperatures, the resistance of the brick samples reduced with increasing stabilizer
percentage. For samples with 9.17% stabilizer, maximum resistance of 3 MPa was achieved at 400 ℃. Further
increase in temperatures from this point saw a drastic drop in resistance to 1 MPa. Samples with 0% stabilizer
achieved maximum resistance values of 2.8 MPa at 600 ℃ before dropping with further increase in temperature
to 1.8 MPa.

Figure 3: Combined graph for resistance against temperature after 7 days of curing and subjecting to
various elevated temperatures for various dosages

Group 2 samples had higher initial resistance values (1.1 to 3.1 MPa) prior to heating relative to group
1 samples. This meant that after 28 days of curing, the soil and stabilizer had bound enough to produce a more
resistant brick. Similar to group 1 samples, the resistance of group 2 samples increased proportionately with
temperature, attaining average maximum values of 500 ℃. After this point, the resistance of the samples
dropped with increase in temperature. It was also observed that samples with lower percentages of stabilizers
were more resistant at higher temperatures relative to those with higher stabilizers and vice versa (Figure 4).
Soil samples with 9.17% stabilizer had the highest resistance (3.6 MPa) at lower temperatures and as
temperature increased, its maximum resistance (4.6 MPa) was achieved at 400 ℃ and from this point, further
increase in temperature resulted to a drop in the resistance of the bricks. Generally, when stabilizers are added to
soils and heated, the soil becomes more compact and resistant when subjected to high temperatures. Conversely
when stabilizers are introduced into soils, it increases the resistance at lower temperatures, however at higher
temperature, they tend to loss the resistance.

Figure 4: Combined graph for resistance against temperature after 28 days of curing and subjecting to
various elevated temperatures for various dosages

DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 45 | Page

 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements
Mean resistance values indicated a general increase in resistance with increase in stabilizer percentage (Table 2).

Table 1: Compressive strength of CSEB stabilized with cement depending on the firing temperature
Stabilizer dosage Temperature (°𝐶) R p
(%) 25 105 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Compressive strength (MPa) at 7 days
0.00 0.75 1.65 2.1 2.46 2.58 2.66 2.7 2.42 1.9 1.7 0.369 0.147
5.56 1.51 2.18 2.46 1.58 2.7 2.82 2.54 1.79 1.59 1.51 -0.167 0.322
6.26 1.87 2.38 2.54 2.7 2.78 2.86 2.14 2.71 1.47 1.39 -0.399 0.127
7.14 2.22 2.42 2.54 2.7 2.78 2.78 1.98 1.59 1.39 1.23 -0.731 0.008
8.33 2.34 2.54 2.7 2.9 2.94 2.78 1.94 1.43 1.23 1.11 -0.774 0.004
9.17 2.42 2.62 2.94 3.06 3.1 2.42 1.83 1.35 1.11 1.03 -0.819 0.002
Compressive strength (MPa) at 28 days
0.00 1.11 2.46 3.17 3.73 3.89 4.01 4.05 3.65 2.9 2.54 0.368 0.148
5.56 2.22 3.29 3.69 3.89 4.01 4.21 3.81 2.74 2.42 2.26 -0.265 0.229
6.26 2.78 3.57 3.85 4.05 4.13 4.33 3.21 2.58 2.22 2.06 -0.558 0.047
7.14 3.37 3.61 3.85 4.09 4.21 4.17 3.02 2.34 2.1 1.87 -0.731 0.008
8.33 3.53 3.77 4.09 4.37 4.4 4.17 2.9 2.18 1.87 1.71 -0.773 0.004
9.17 3.61 3.93 4.44 4.6 4.64 3.61 2.78 2.06 1.71 1.59 -0.816 0.002

This can be explained by the fact that the immediate action (flocculation of clays) of cement on clays
was limited9,10,11. In addition, the chemical reaction of the cement with water is exothermic, which explains why
high temperatures rather reduce the resistance, because the density is reduced. Also the treatment of clays during
cooking gives the best resistances, compared to grainy soils (sandy and gravelly soils) which have the best
resistances when they are treated with hydraulic binders4,12.
The stabilizer dosage against mean resistance for 7 days and 28 days at 99% confidence interval is
presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Stabilizer dosage (%) against mean resistance (MPa) for 7 days and 28 days.
Stabilizer After 7 days After 28 days
dosage (%)
Mean Temp. (℃) Mean resistance Mean Temp. (℃) Mean resistance

0.00 453 2.09 453 3.15

5.56 453 2.07 453 3.25

6.26 453 2.28 453 3.28

7.14 453 2.16 453 3.26

8.33 453 2.19 453 3.30

9.17 453 2.19 453 3.30

3.4. Correlation between temperature and compressive resistance of bricks

Analysis of stabilization dosage and mean resistance at 99% confidence interval for group 1 samples
gave a Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.526 and probability value, p= 0.142 (for 7 days), and r = 0.976 and
p = 0.000 (for 28 days). At 99% confidence interval, r is significant when p < 0.01, therefore, r was only
significant after 28 days. This means that as stabilization dosage is increased, the resistance of the bricks
increases, if left for a longer period to harden. This is logical since it is admitted that after 28 days almost all
cement reacted, that is to say the characteristics of the brick were almost final9.

IV. Discussion
Following the curves on Figures 3 and 4, at 7 days as well as at 28 days of age, the CSEB reached the
summit at the cooking temperature of almost 400 ℃. Before this temperature, the resistances changed with the
temperatures in the same manner they changed with cement dosage. On the other hand, after this temperature,
the resistances decrease with increasing temperatures. In the same manner, the resistances decrease when
cement dosage was increased after the summit temperature.
DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 46 | Page
 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements
Compression resistance values were relatively low compared to those of lateritic clay soils in the lower
zone of the southern slope of the Bambouto Mountains which are a balanced sandy-clay texture, more or less
plastic, and gravel-clay plastic4. These bricks could have better resistances in LTGS geopolymeric crosslinking
if it contained more clay13. These bricks could be used as load-bearing masonry elements without plaster;
according to standards14. The dosage of 8% cement at 25 ℃ is recommended because it is more economical in
energy and is of good resistance (3.5 MPa). The behaviour of Menjung-Nkwen soils (Bamenda III in the North
West region of Cameroon) can be justified by its nature. Indeed, the results of particle size analysis showed that
they were silty-sand in texture. The limits of Atterberg, thanks to the Casagrande diagram, showed that these
soils were fine silty-sand. The USCS classification confirms that this soil was predominantly medium to fine
sand (class S) and contained a little silt and clay. Following soil classification, the soil was of medium clay and
medium plasticity. This confirms that the soil had a low clay fraction. Therefore, the Menjung-Nkwen soils were
moderately clayey and moderately plastic loam sand. Thus, the impact of baking on them was low and the
impact of cement treatment acceptable.
Soils needs to be stabilized because in their natural state, they are not durable for long term use in
buildings. Hence their properties need to be modified to enhance its long-term performance15,16,17. Stabilization
is essential as it reduces the volume of the interstitial voids, fills empty voids, and improves bonding between
the soil grains. In this way, better mechanical properties, reduced porosity, limited dimensional changes, and
enhanced resistance to normal and severe exposure conditions can be achieved 18. The individual properties of
soils are essential to be assessed as the quality of soil used and their proportioning can significantly affect the
durability of bricks19. The experimental value obtained (1.146 MPa) however, compared well with most current
CSEB standards. Some recommended minimum values are: 1.2 MPa 20, 1.4 MPa21 and 2.8 MPa22. The value of
1.2 MPa is now more widely used23. Other studies by Kerali1 indicated an increase in the stabilizer percentage of
up to 11% and an increase in compaction pressure lead to a higher resistance (8.3 MPa) of the bricks after 28
days of curing. Bricks with 5.56% stabilizer should be used for thermal comfort because of their resistance to
elevated temperatures. This shows that for a building or structure exposed to high temperatures, the elements
with high cement content are the most affected and those elements with more cement content propagates heat
more than those with less cement content.

V. Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to investigate the resistance of CSEB when subjected to varying
temperature conditions. The soils were moderately clayey and moderately plastic loam sand. The impact of
baking on them was low and the impact of cement treatment showed that if stabilization dosage is increased, the
bricks should be left to harden for a longer period at low temperatures. These bricks could be used as load-
bearing masonry elements without plaster. According to standards14, the dosage of 8% cement at 25 ℃ is
recommended because it is more economical in energy and is of good resistance (3.5 MPa). The results also
revealed that the strengths and stiffness of CSEB at 0% stabilization increases with increase in temperature up to
600 ℃. This result is in good agreement with those of Ravindrarajah et al24 who worked on concrete and
showed that the binder material type has a significant influence on the performance of high strength concrete
particularly at temperatures below 800 ℃ and that the strengths and stiffness of high-strength concrete are
reduced with increase in temperature. From the results, we recommend that CSEB with 5.56% stabilization
should be used for thermal comfort.

Acknowledgements
We thank the technicians of the Material and Geotechnical Laboratories of BEGL, GTHS Bamenda
and MIPROMALO Yaounde-Cameroon for assisting in laboratory analyses.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

References
[1]. Kerali AG. Durability of compressed and cement-stabilised building blocks., School of Eengineering, PhD thesis 336p, University
of Warwick, University of Warwick institutional repository. 2001; pp. 360.
[2]. Reddy B and Walker P. Stabilised mud blocks: problems, prospects. In: Proceeding of international earth building conference
2005, Sydney, Australia, 2005; pp 63–75.
[3]. Harikuma M, Sankar N and Chandrakaran S. Behaviour of Model Footing Resting on Sand Bed Reinforced with Multi-Directional
Reinforcing Elements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 2016; 44(4).
[4]. Manefouet BE. Caractérisation altérologique et géotechniquedes argiles et graveleux latéritiques de la zone basse du versant sud des
monts Bambouto (Ouest – Cameroun) - traitements aux liants hydrauliques. Thèse Doctorat/Ph.D., Univerité de Yaoundé 1, 2016;
pp. 234.
[5]. Boutterin C et Davidovits J. Réticulation Géopolymérique (LTGS) et Matériaux de Construction. Geopolymer. 2003; 1:79-88.
[6]. Deboucha S and Hashim R. A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Research and Essays. 2011; 6(3):
499-506.
DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 47 | Page
 Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building Construction Elements
[7]. Fetra VR, Ismail AR and Ahmad Z. Preliminary study of compressed stabilized earth brick (CSEB). Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences. 2011; 5(9): 6-12.
[8]. Rigassi V. Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of Production. Vol. 1. CRATerre-EAG.Vilefontaine Cedex, France. A Publication of
the Deutsches Zentrum für. 1995; pp. 143.
[9]. Venuate M. Le traitement des sols à la chaux et au ciment. Auteur-éditeur; CERILH. 1980; pp.430.
[10]. GTS, Guide technique. Traitement des sols à la chaux et/ou aux liants hydrauliques.
Application à la réalisation des remblais et des couches de forme, LCPC-SETRA (Paris Bagneux). 2000; pp.246.
[11]. Millogo Y. Etude géotechnique, chimique et minéralogique de matières premières
argileuses et latéritiques du Burkina-Faso améliorées aux liants hydrauliques : application au Génie Civil (Bâtiment et Route).
Thèse Doc. Univ. de Ouagadougou. Labo. de Physicochimie et Technologie des matériaux. 2008; pp.157.
[12]. Manefouet BE, Kamgang V and Mvondo O. Geotechnical application of the alterology of an effusive rock and foundation rocks in
the lower area of the southern side of Bambouto mountains (West Cameroon). International Journal of Geology, Earth &
Environmental Sciences, 2015; 5 (1): 29-39.
[13]. Cordi-Ggéopolymère S.A., Coordination et Développement International des
Géopolymères.. La brique géopolymère L.T.G.S. Geopolymer ‘’88’. 2003; 1:79-88.
[14]. Guillaud H, Joffroy T, Odul P. et al. Blocs de terre comprimée. Volume II, manuel de conception et de construction. 1995; pp.151.
[15]. Bureau of Reclamation. Earth Manual, Part I, Third Edition, Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory, Geotechnical Research,
Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado. US Department of Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., USA.
1998; pp.348.
[16]. Dunlap WA. US Air forceForce Soil Stabilisation Index System-A Validation. Air force Weapons Laboratory. New Mexico,US
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, USA. 1975; Pp.307.
[17]. Herzog A and Mitchell J. Reactions accompanying the stabilisation of clay with cement. 42nd Annual Meeting of the HRB.
Washington, USA. 1963; pp.26.
[18]. Gooding DE and Thomas TH. The Potential of Cement Stabilised Building Blocks as an Urban Building Material in Developing
Countries. Working Paper No. 44. Development Technology Unit, University of Warwick. 1995; pp.22.
[19]. Head KH. Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Pentech Press. London, England. 1980.
[20]. Lunt MG. Stabilised Soil Blocks for Building. Overseas Building Note No. 184. Building Research Establishment. Garston,
England. 1980.
[21]. Fitzmaurice R. Manual on Stabilised Soil Construction for Housing. Technical Assistance Programme, United Nations, New York,
USA. 1958.
[22]. ILO/UNIDO. Small-scale Brickmaking. Technology Series, Memorandum No.6. International Labour Organisation. Geneva,
Switzerland,. ISBN 92-2-103567-0. 1984.
[23]. Houben H and Guillaud H. Earth Construction: A Comprehensive Guide. CRATerre-EAG. Intermediate Technology Publications.
London, England. 1994; pp. 362.
[24]. Ravindrarajah RS, Lopez R and Reslan H. Effect of Elevated Temperature on the Properties of High-Strength Concrete containing
Cement Supplementary Materials. 9th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Brisbane,
Australia, Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, Universityof Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007,
Australia. 2002; pp.10.

Mbuh Moses Kuma, et. al. “Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) As Building
Construction Elements.” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE),
17(4), 2020, pp. 42-48.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-1704014248 www.iosrjournals.org 48 | Page

View publication stats