Cement Stabilised Rammed Earth. Part A: Compaction Characteristics and Physical Properties of Compacted Cement Stabilised Soils

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:681693
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9658-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Cement stabilised rammed earth. Part A: compaction

characteristics and physical properties of compacted cement
stabilised soils
B. V. Venkatarama Reddy P. Prasanna Kumar
Received: 13 October 2009 / Accepted: 16 August 2010 / Published online: 31 August 2010
RILEM 2010
Abstract Rammed earth is used for load bearing

walls of buildings and there is growing interest in this
low carbon building material. This paper is focused
on understanding the compaction characteristics and
physical properties of compacted cement stabilised
soil mixtures and cement stabilised rammed earth
(CSRE). This experimental study addresses (a) influence of soil composition, cement content, time lag on
compaction characteristics of stabilised soils and
CSRE and (b) effect of moulding water content and
density on compressive strength and water absorption
of compacted cement stabilised soil mixes. Salient
conclusions of the study are (a) compaction characteristics of soils are not affected by the addition of
cement, (b) there is 50% fall in strength of CSRE for
10 h time lag, (c) compressive strength of compacted
cement stabilised soil increases with increase in
density irrespective of moulding moisture content and
cement content, and (d) compressive strength
increases with the increase in moulding water content
and compaction of CSRE on the wet side of OMC is
beneficial in terms of strength.
B. V. Venkatarama Reddy (&)

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
e-mail: venkat@civil.iisc.ernet.in
P. Prasanna Kumar
Department of Civil Engineering, BMS College
of Engineering, Bangalore 560 019, India
e-mail: pras_ajsh@yahoo.com
Keywords Soil cement Soil Compaction

Compressive strength Rammed earth
Stabilised earth
1 Introduction
Rammed earth wall is a monolithic construction
formed by compacting processed soil in progressive
layers in a formwork. Use of rammed earth walls for
both load bearing and non-load bearing applications
can be seen across the world. Rammed earth
constructions can be grouped into two broad categories: stabilised rammed earth and un-stabilised
rammed earth. Soil, sand and gravel constitute the
materials used for unstabilised rammed earth. In
addition to soil, sand and gravel, stabilisers (cement,
lime, etc.) are added for stabilised rammed earth.
Loss of strength on saturation and erosion due to rain
impact are the two major drawbacks of unstabilised
rammed earth walls. Use of inorganic additives like
cement for rammed earth walls has been in practice
since the last 56 decades. Successful use of cement
stabilised rammed earth for walls can be seen in
several countries across the world [16]. Seamless
wall surface, scope for adjusting the surface texture
and colour, flexibility in wall thickness and plan
form, etc. represent some of the major advantages of
rammed earth construction. There is a growing
interest to use cement stabilised rammed earth for
structural applications including buildings.
682
Cement stabilised rammed earth (CSRE) wall

construction involves (a) processing of materials
(soil, sand, cement, etc.), (b) mixing the dry materials with water, (c) compacting the processed
materials into a dense mass, and (d) curing. Thus
the strength and performance of cement stabilised
rammed earth walls are influenced by (a) soil grading
and soil composition (particularly clay type and
percentage), (b) dry density, (c) cement content and
(d) elapsed time since mixing water and commencement of CSRE wall compaction process (termed as
time lag). Compaction characteristics of cement
stabilised soils, influence of moulding water content
on compressive strength of compacted cement stabilised soils, and effect of time lag on compaction
characteristics and strength of CSRE form the main
parameters of the investigations in Part A. Part B of
the investigations is focused on compressive strength
and elastic properties of CSRE considering the
influence of moisture content, soil composition,
cement content and density.
2 Earlier studies
Stabilised soils find applications in the construction of
base courses for roads and pavements, ground improvement and for the construction of superstructure of
buildings (mainly walls). Accordingly the properties
expected from the stabilised soils vary depending upon
the specific engineering application. Compressive/
shear strength, CBR value, permeability, etc. are some
of the characteristics examined for stabilised soils
finding applications in the construction of roads and
pavements, and ground improvement. For superstructure applications in buildings attention is paid to the
properties like compressive strength (in saturated
condition), dimensional stability and durability. In
majority of the applications stabilised soils are densified through a suitable compaction process.
There are many investigations on soil stabilisation
as applicable to the construction of roads/pavements,
embankments, ground improvement, etc. Similarly
there are another class of investigations focused on
the technology of compacted stabilized soil blocks
used for masonry construction. The third category of
investigations on CSRE for structural walls is
emerging since the last 23 decades. The basic soil
stabilization principles remain the same, but the
limits on certain strength and performance characteristics vary depending upon the type of application.
Reviews of some papers on cement stabilized soils
and CSRE construction have been highlighted below.
Compressive strength of rammed earth is the most
important physical property needed for assessing the
load carrying capacity of such walls subjected to
gravity loads. Focused studies on strength of CSRE
are limited. Verma and Mehra [1] specified that sand
content of the soil should not be less than 35%, liquid
limit should not be greater than 25% and plasticity
index in the range of 8.510.5. Eastons [2] monograph is a compilation of his experiences of rammed
earth construction in the USA. He states that (a) soil
with 30% clay and 70% sand is ideal for rammed
earth, (b) strength of rammed earth wall can be
increased by as much as 500% with the addition of
cement (7%) and (c) stabilised rammed earth is much
less susceptible to damage from rain, snow, or runoff
than a wall built of plain rammed earth.
King [7] conducted strength tests on cement
stabilised (11% cement) cylindrical rammed earth
specimens and reports compressive strength between
9.8 and 26.85 MPa for curing duration varying from
14 to 215 days with a large scatter (150%) in the
strength values. Walker [8] examined the behaviour
of reinforced composite CSRE panels under flexure.
He reports a cylinder compressive strength (air dry)
varying between 3.9 and 7.9 MPa. Hall et al. [9] and
Hall [10] discuss some issues on stability of CSRE
walls and the relevant building regulations in UK.
They mention tests on durability for CSRE exposed
to pressure driven rainfall in the climatic chamber.
The results show that CSRE specimens with 6%
cement are highly resistant towards moisture penetration and no significant erosion is noticed when
subjected to pressure driven rainfall.
Walker et al. [6] compiled design and construction
guidelines for rammed earth, and they mention dry
compressive strength of [10 N/mm2 for stabilised
rammed earth. They suggest that soil for rammed
earth should be well graded containing 4580% sand
and gravel, 1030% silt, 520% clay, liquid limit
\45% and plasticity index 230. Structural properties of cement stabilised rammed earth using three
types of Sri Lankan laterite soils with three cement
contents (6%, 8% and 10%) has been examined by
Jayasinghe and Kamaladasa [11]. They observed that
(a) strength increases with increase in cement content
and wet compressive strength of CSRE panels was

about 0.450.6 times the dry compressive strength
and (b) saturated strength is a function of cement
content and fines content of the soil and sandier
laterite soils resulted in higher compressive strength.
Houben and Guillaud [5] report [2 MPa wet
compressive strength for 8% cement with excellent durability characteristics. Prasanna Kumar and
Venkatarama Reddy [12] established relationships
between density, moisture content and compressive
strength of CSRE and concluded that compressive
strength of CSRE is sensitive to the dry density and
moisture content of specimen at the time of testing.
Bui et al. [13] attempted to measure the compressive
strength and modulus of rammed earth stabilized with
5% lime exposed for 20 years under natural weathering conditions and reported dry strength of about
1.0 MPa with a modulus of 100 MPa. Burroughs [14]
attempted to define the criteria for selecting soils
applicable for stabilised rammed earth. A comparison
of strength and elastic properties of CSRE and stabilised rammed earth brick masonry has been examined
by Venkatarama Reddy and Prasanna Kumar [15].
This study shows that compressive strength of CSRE
is 2030% more than that of rammed earth brick
masonry. Also, the study indicates that the wet compressive strength of CSRE and rammed earth brick
masonry is about half of their respective dry strengths.
CSRE in dry condition shows ductile behaviour
having strains at failure of the order of 2%. The
investigations of this study pertain to only one type of
soil with 8% cement content.
There are some codes of practice on earth construction also dealing with some aspects of rammed
earth constructions. Bulletin 5 [16] specifies the
requirements for the rammed earth and other earthwall constructions. IS: 2110 [17] code recommends
that CSRE shall be used only for single storeyed
buildings with a minimum wall thickness of 300 mm
for load bearing walls. Soil for rammed earth should
contain minimum 35% sand having a maximum liquid
limit of 27% and plasticity index in the range of
8.510.5. Cement content shall not be less than 3.5%
and dry density should be above 1800 kg/m3. Compressive strength of the soilcement (cylindrical
specimen) shall not be less than 1.4 and 0.70 MPa
in dry state and saturated condition respectively. NZS:
4297 [18], NZS: 4298 [19] and NZS: 4299 [20] codes
from New Zealand provide specifications for the
683
construction of rammed earth apart from other earth

building methods. Lehmbau Regeln [21] is used as
earth construction standard or guide in Germany.
Rammed earth specifications by this guide include dry
density in the range of 17002200 kg/m3, dry compressive strength of 23 and 35 MPa for unstabilised
and stabilised rammed earth respectively.
The literature on stabilised rammed earth indicates
wide range of values for soil grading, density, thickness and strength. Literature recommends use of sandy
soils with cement content in the range of 512%. There
is a need for more comprehensive studies to understand the structural behaviour of CSRE. Hence, the
present investigations are focused towards understanding various aspects of CSRE through extensive
experimentation. The results of the investigations are
presented in Part Adealing with compaction characteristics and physical properties of compacted
cement stabilised soil mixes and Part Bdealing with
strength and elastic properties of CSRE.
3 Objectives and scope of the investigation

Understanding the influence of various parameters on
the compaction characteristics and physical properties of cement stabilised soils and CSRE is the main
objective of the investigation. Therefore the parameters considered in this investigation (Part A) include:
(a)
Influence of moulding water content on compressive strength of compacted cement stabilised soils.
(b) Compaction characteristics of cement stabilised soil
as the soil grading and cement content are varied.
(c) Influence of time lag on OMC and MDD for
various combinations using four different soil
gradations and three cement contents.
(d) Strength loss in cement stabilised rammed earth
versus time lag.
4 Methodology
Type and quantity of clay fraction in the soil
influences the characteristics of the compacted CSRE
or compacted stabilised soil bricks/blocks. Therefore,
a natural soil with high clay fraction was reconstituted
by adding river sand and thus generating different soil
684
5 Characteristics of materials used

in the investigations
5.1 Soil and river sand
Locally available soil, river sand and ordinary Portland
cement were used in the experimental investigations.
100
S1
River sand
S2
S3
S4
S5
90
80
70
% Finer
grading curves keeping the same clay mineral but

varying its quantity in the soil mixes. Reconstituted
soil mixes were used in various experiments on
compacted soil mixes and CSRE.
Compaction characteristics of soils are generally
evaluated with reference to two important parameters: optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD). OMC and MDD were
determined by conducting Standard Proctor tests.
Standard Proctor test (as per IS: 2720 [22] guidelines)
was conducted on reconstituted soils including the
natural soil and the soilcement mixes. Generally, the
cement percentages used for CSRE vary in the range
of 512% and hence three cement contents (5%, 8%
and 12% by weight) were considered.
Time lag was varied between 0 and 10 h. The main
objective of the experiment was to throw some light on
influence of time lag on compaction characteristics of
cement stabilised rammed earth and the resulting
consequences on strength. Influence of time lag on
compressive strength of CSRE was examined by testing
rammed earth prisms (of size 150 9 150 9 300 mm).
Rammed earth wall construction can be carried out
to achieve any desired dry density using water content
equivalent of Proctor OMC of the mix. It is possible to
achieve higher dry density ([MDD) during rammed
earth construction by supplying more compaction
energy as compared to Standard Proctor test energy.
In such situations the question arises regarding optimum moulding water content to be used in order to
achieve best possible strength for the cement stabilised
rammed earth. In order to throw more light on strength
and moulding water content relationships an exploratory experimental study was planned to establish
relationships between dry density, moulding water
content and compressive strength. Tests were performed on compacted soil samples considering three
moulding water contents (dry of OMC, near OMC and
wet of OMC) and three cement contents (5%, 8% and
12%).
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
Particle size (mm)

Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curves for sand, soil and
reconstituted soils
Table 1 Mix proportions of reconstituted soilsand mixtures

Proportion (by weight)
Mix composition (%)
Designation
Soil
Sand
Sand
Silt
Clay
0.0
50.3
18.1
31.6
S1
0.5
65.1
13.9
21.0
S2
1.0
72.6
11.6
15.8
S3
1.5
77.0
10.4
12.6
S4
2.5
82.1
8.9
9.0
S5
Grain size distribution curves for the natural soil (S1)

and river sand are displayed in Fig. 1. The soil S1
contains 31.6% clay size fraction. This soil was
reconstituted by mixing with various proportions of
river sand and thus generating five soil compositions
having different grain size distributions. Mix proportions of reconstituted soils are given in Table 1. The
table gives details of mix ratios, percentage of sand
silt and clay fractions, and designation of each mix.
The clay fraction of the soil and reconstituted soil
mixtures vary between 9.0 and 31.6%. The grain size
distribution curves for these five different soil mixtures are shown in Fig. 1. Natural soil and the
reconstituted soils are well graded. Table 2 gives
various properties of the sand, natural soil and the
reconstituted soils. Details of textural composition,
Atterberg limits, pH, organic matter, predominant
clay minerals and compaction characteristics of the
five different soil compositions have been presented in
the table.
Natural river sand has small percentage of silt size
fraction (5%). Natural soil (S1) possesses sand, silt
and clay fractions of 50.3%, 18.1% and 31.6%
685
Table 2 Properties of sand, natural soil and reconstituted soils

Properties
Type of soil
Sand
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
94.8
50.3
65.1
72.6
77.0
82.1
1. Textural composition (mass%)

Sand (4.750.075 mm)
Silt (0.0750.002 mm)
5.2
18.1
13.8
11.6
10.4
8.9
Clay (\0.002 mm)
31.6
21.1
15.8
12.6
9.0
2. Atterbergs limits
Liquid limit (%)
NP
40
32.0
26.9
25.6
24.9
Plasticity index
21
19.7
17.5
NP
NP
3. Unified soil classification (USC)
SC
SC
SC
SC
SPSC
4. Predominant clay mineral
Kaolinite
Kaolinite
Kaolinite
Kaolinite
Kaolinite
5. Chemical properties
pH
9.05
7.73
7.81
8.0
8.13
8.32
Organic matter (%)
0.0
0.94
0.63
0.47
0.38
0.27
Maximum dry density (kg/m3)
1814
1910
1992
1980
1958
Optimum moisture content (%)
15.52
11.30
10.28
9.38
9.26
6. Compaction characteristics
respectively. S1 soil has 40% liquid limit and

plasticity index of 21, and the clay mineral is
Kaolinite. Reconstituted soilsand mixes have clay
fraction ranging between 9 and 21%, whereas the
sand fraction is in the range of 65.1 to 82.1%. Soils
S1, S2, S3 and S4 belong to class SC and soil S5
belongs to the class SPSC in USC system. Atterberg
limits and compaction characteristics vary as the soil
composition changes. The pH of sand, natural soil
and reconstituted soils is in the range of 7.739.05.
Organic matter for the soils is low, in the range of
0.270.94%.
5.2 Portland cement
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) conforming to IS:
8112 [23] was used in the experiments. IS: 4031 [24]
specifies procedure for testing the cement sample
using Vicat apparatus for Initial and final setting times
determination, and tests on cube specimens for
strength. 7 and 28 day compressive strengths of the
OPC tested following the guidelines of IS: 4031, was
38.5 and 57.5 MPa respectively as against 30 and
43 MPa specified in IS: 8112 code. The initial
and final setting times for the cement were 183 min
and 312 min respectively. The initial setting time
specified in IS: 8112 for OPC is 30 min, whereas the
OPC used in the present study has a higher initial
setting time. The manufacturer of the OPC used in the

present study quotes an initial setting time of 180 min.
6 Casting specimens and testing procedures

Rammed earth prisms and cylindrical specimens were
used in the investigations. Details of casting/preparation of these specimens are discussed below.
6.1 Casting CSRE prisms
Prisms of size 150 mm 9 150 mm square crosssection and 300 mm height were used for determining
compressive strength of CSRE. Procedure adopted to
prepare the rammed earth prisms is as follows.
(a)
Manually powdered oven dried soil (at 60C)

sieved through a 4.75 mm mesh was used. The
dried soil was mixed with required quantity of
cement and then with water (OMC) manually. It
was ensured to distribute the cement and water
uniformly in the mix.
(b) The wetted mix was stored in a sealed plastic
bag till the end of designated time lag. Then the
mix was poured into a metal mould and
compacted in three layers of 100 mm each.
The mass of the material in each layer was
686
Fig. 3 Cylindrical specimens used for unconfined compressive strength tests
Fig. 2 CSRE prism
(c)
controlled such that the final designated dry

density of the prism was achieved.
The prism specimen was removed from the
metal mould after 24 h of casting and kept for
curing under wet burlap. After 28 days, curing
was discontinued and the prisms were allowed
to dry in air inside the laboratory for 2 weeks
and then tested for strength. Figure 2 shows the
CSRE prism.
6.2 Casting cylindrical specimens for unconfined

compressive strength
Establishing relationships between dry density,
moulding water content (dry of OMC, near OMC
and wet of OMC) and compressive strength for three
cement contents (5%, 8% and 12%) involves testing
large numbers of samples. Hence, use of prisms (of
size: 150 9 150 9 300 mm) for such a parametric
study requires handling of huge quantity of soil and
cement. Therefore, smaller cylindrical specimens of
size 76 mm height and 38 mm diameter (Fig. 3) were
prepared for determining unconfined compressive
strength. Procedure followed for casting of the
cylindrical specimens is as follows.
(a)
Oven dried soil (at 60C) containing small

lumps was powdered and then blended with
requisite quantity of Portland cement. The

powdering and cement blending was carried
out in a small ball mill for 8 min to ensure
uniform mixing of cement.
(b) Requisite quantity of potable water was mixed
(manually) with soilcement blend. A small
sprayer was used for spraying water during
mixing and it was ensured that the moisture was
uniformly distributed in the entire mix.
(c) Wetted soilcement mixture was fed (known
weight) into an open-ended cylindrical mould.
The mould was then mounted horizontally and
compaction carried out from both the ends using
a mechanical screw-jack arrangement as shown
in Fig. 4.
(d) The specimen was extruded from the mould
immediately after the compaction. Compacted
specimens were kept for curing under wet
burlap after 24 h of casting.
Fig. 4 Screw-jack set-up for casting the cylindrical specimens
687
6.3 Testing CSRE prisms and cylindrical

specimens
S1, 0 min lag
S2, 0 min lag
S3, 0 min lag
S5, 0 min lag
15
OMC (% )
After 28 day curing, the specimens were air dried

inside the laboratory for 2 weeks. Air dried specimens were soaked in water for 48 h. Then the
specimens were removed from water, the dimensions
and mass were measured. The saturated cylindrical
specimens were tested in a loading frame at constant
piston displacement of 1.25 mm/min, whereas prism
specimens were tested in a displacement controlled
universal testing machine. Failed specimen was
immediately transferred to a beaker and its moisture
content was assessed by drying at 110C in an oven
for 24 h. Based on the test data, wet compressive
strength, dry density and saturated moisture content
of the specimens were calculated.
17
13
11
9
5
10
11
12
Cement content (%)

Fig. 5 Standard Proctor OMC versus cement content
7 Results and discussion
2100
S1, 0 minutes time lag

7.1 Influence of soil composition and cement

content on compaction characteristics
There is a marginal variation (23%) in OMC

and MDD values as the cement content
increases. Thus OMC and MDD are not sensitive to the variation in cement content of the mix
irrespective of clay fraction of the mix.
(b) OMC increases as the clay content of the mix
increases. There is a steep increase in OMC
value as the clay content of the mix is increased.
The increase in OMC is about 5070%, as the
clay content increases from 9 to 31.6%.
MDD (kg/m3 )
2000
Standard Proctor compaction tests were carried out

on four soil compositions (S1, S2, S3 and S5) with
three cement contents (5%, 8% and 12% by weight).
In case of cementsoil mixes compaction tests were
carried out immediately after mixing with the water.
Density and moisture content relationships were
plotted and the respective OMC and MDD values
were determined. Figures 5 and 6 show the plots of
OMC versus cement content and MDD versus cement
content respectively. Figures 7 and 8 show the
variation of OMC and MDD with clay fraction of
the mix for the cement contents of 0%, 5%, 8% and
12%. The following observations can be made from
the results shown in Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 8.
1900
1800
1700
5
10
11
12
Cement content (%)

Fig. 6 Standard Proctor MDD versus cement content
(a)
(c)
There is hardly any variation in MDD for the

clay content in the range of 915.8%. For
15.831.6% clay content range there is 810%
decrease in MDD irrespective of cement content
of the mix.
Variation in OMC and MDD values as clay

content of the soil increases is on the expected lines
as found in the literature for stabilised soils [25]. But
688
7.2 Effect of delayed compaction (time lag)

on compaction characteristics
16
0% cement
5% cement
15
8% cement
12% cement
OMC ( %)
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
Clay content (%)

Fig. 7 Standard Proctor OMC versus clay content of soil
2100
0% cement
5% cement
8% cement
12% cement
MDD (kg/m )
2000
1900
Compaction characteristics of the different soil mixes

were examined with three cement percentages (5%,
8% and 12%) and by varying the time lag between 0
and 10 h. Time lag versus MDD and OMC values for
the three cement contents (5%, 8% and 12%) were
plotted and examined. OMCtime lag and MDD
time lag relationships appear similar for all the four
soil mixtures and three cement contents attempted.
Figure 9 shows a typical plot of OMC versus time lag
and MDD versus time lag. The following points
emerge from these results.
OMC steadily increases with increase in time lag
irrespective of soil type and cement content. The
percentage increase in OMC varies between 25 and
40% for the time lag between 0 and 10 h. For 1 h
time lag, the increase in OMC is about 510% for all
the four soil mixtures and three cement percentages
attempted. Aggregation of cement mixed soil particles with increase in time lag was noticed and may be
due to hydration and setting of cement. Figure 10
illustrates the aggregated cementsoil particles with
time lag. The size of the aggregated lumps of
particles increases as the time lag increases. Energy
supplied in Standard Proctor compaction test is fixed
and hence, some of this energy will be utilised to
break the already established bonds due to aggregation of particles, the remaining energy may not be
sufficient to properly compact these aggregated
particles and thus leading to creation of more porous
1800
15
2100
14
1900
12
16
20
24
28
32
MDD
Clay contet (%)

Fig. 8 MDD versus clay content of soil
the results clearly show that addition of cement to

soils did not affect the OMC and MDD values much.
This may be attributed to the fact that the compaction
tests were performed immediately after mixing the
water where the scope for cement setting was
avoided. Influence of cement setting on compaction
characteristics is discussed in the following section.
1700
13
1500
12
OMC
5 % Cement
8% Cement
12% Cement
1300
11
10
1100
0
10
Time lag (Hours)

Fig. 9 MDD/OMCtime lag relationships for S5 soil
OMC (%)
MDD ( Kg/m )
1700
689
7.3 Variation in strength of cement stabilised

rammed earth with time lag
structure. This could be the reason for higher OMC

values with increase in time lag.
In contrast to the increase in OMC with time lag,
the MDD steadily decreases with an increase in time
lag for all the four soil mixtures with three cement
contents attempted. The decrease in MDD is in the
range of 1016% for the time lag between 0 and 10 h.
For 1 h time lag there is hardly any variation (13%)
in MDD for all the four soils and three cement
percentages attempted. Decrease in MDD could be
attributed to increase in porosity due to improper
compaction of aggregated soil particles. There is
marginal variation in OMC and MDD values as the
cement content is changed from 5 to 12% throughout
the time lag period (from 0 to 10 h).
West [26] studied the influence of elapsed time on
density of medium clay stabilised with 10% cement.
He reports *15% reduction in dry density for a time
lag of 7 h. The present study clearly indicates the
influence of delayed compaction on OMC and MDD
of cement stabilised soils. The results indicate a fall
in density with time lag. Fall in density could affect
the strength and absorption characteristics of cement
stabilised rammed earth. Hence, it is preferable to
complete the compaction process of cement stabilised
rammed earth walls within an hour of mixing with the
water.
Wet compressive strength ( MPa)
Fig. 10 Aggregation of wetted cementsoil mixture particles

with time lag
Influence of time lag on compressive strength of

CSRE was examined by testing rammed earth prisms.
Rammed earth prisms of size 150 9 150 9 300 mm
were prepared using S3 soil (clay content = 15.8%)
with 8% Portland cement by weight. The dry density
of the prisms was controlled and maintained at
1800 kg/m3, thus avoiding the interference of density
on strength. Three prisms were tested in each category
and the mean values were obtained. Figure 11 shows a
plot of wet compressive strength versus time lag. For
the time lag beyond 10 h it becomes difficult to cast
the prisms at the designated dry density of 1800 kg/m3
due to the larger sized aggregated cementsoil
particles and hence, the strengths were obtained only
up to 10 h of time lag. It is clear from the plot in
Fig. 11 that the wet compressive strength steadily
decreases with increase in time lag. The strength falls
from 3.3 to 1.66 MPa (50% decrease) for a time lag of
10 h. This decrease in strength can be attributed to the
fact that the compaction of cement stabilised soil has
been carried out after the setting time of cement and
aggregation of particles, wherein already established
cementitious bonds were broken during compaction.
1
0
10
Time lag ( hours)

Fig. 11 Compressive strength versus time lag for rammed
earth prisms (clay content of the soil mix = 15.8%, cement
content = 8%, dry density = 1800 kg/m3, Moulding water
content = OMC)
690
7.4 Influence of moulding water content, cement

content and density on strength
S3 soil was used in casting specimens for these
experiments. OMC for S3 soil with 512% cement is
in the range of 10.7511.5%. Compressive strength of
cement stabilised compacted soil specimens using S3
soil and with three cement contents (5%, 8% and
12%) was evaluated by considering three different
moulding moisture contents of 8.5% (dry of OMC),
12% (near OMC) and 14.5% (wet of OMC). From the
results of density and strength relationships shown in
Fig. 12 it is clear that the curves corresponding to
moulding water content of 14.5% (wet of OMC) lie
above the curves corresponding to moulding water
content of 12% (near OMC) and 8.5% (dry of OMC)
in that order, irrespective of density and cement
content. Figure 13 shows the variation in strength
Wet compressive strength (MPa)
8
7
6
5% cement, dry of OMC

5% cement, close to OMC
5% cement, wet of OMC
5
4
3
2
1
0
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
Dry density (kg/m 3 )

Fig. 12 Compressive strength versus density for various
moulding moisture contents
5% cement, 1700 kg/m
Compressive strength (MPa)
West [26] reports 37% reduction in compressive

strength for a time lag of 7 h, for a medium clay
stabilised with 10% cement. These results indicate
that the wetted cementsoil mixture should be
rammed into a wall within an hour after mixing with
water. Beyond an hour of time lag the strength
decreases rapidly.
0
8
10
12
14
16
Moulding moisture content (%)

Fig. 13 Compressive strength versus moulding moisture
content (for densities of 1700 and 1900 kg/m3)
with the moulding water content for the dry densities

of 1700 and 1900 kg/m3. It is clear from this figure
that the compressive strength increases with the
increase in moulding water content. For 5 and 8%
cement contents the strength increase is in the range
of 2050% as the moulding water content changes
from 8 to 14.5%, whereas for 12% cement the
strength increase is in the range of 4070%.
Dry soilcement mixture contains cement and clay
particles both having affinity for water. When the
water is added to the dry soilcement mixture, the
water is shared by both cement and clay particles.
When the samples are compacted using small quantity of moulding water (say 8%) there could be
insufficient supply of water for proper hydration of
cement to take place. As the moulding water content
is increased (say 14.5%) more water is available for
cement hydration. This could be the reason for
increased strength when higher percentage of moulding water was used.
Figure 13 illustrates that the compressive strength
increases with increase in cement content. For the dry
7.5 Density versus water absorption (saturated

water content)
Variation in the percentage of saturated water content
with the dry density of the cement stabilised compacted soil specimens with different cement contents
as well as different moulding water contents is
displayed in Fig. 14. Figure reveals that the saturated
water content of the specimens decreases with the
increase in dry density of the specimen for different combinations attempted. Figure shows a linear
relationship between density and water absorption
and is of the form: Water absorption (%) = 57.92 0.0242cd, where cd is in kg/m3 and water absorption is
in (%). The saturated water content doubles (from
*10%) as the dry density changes from 1600 to
2000 kg/m3. The saturated water content is in the
range of 1020% (and lie in the same band) for all the

2000
1900
Dry density (kg/m 3)
density range of 17001900 kg/m3, the wet compressive strength increases by 200250% as the cement
content changes from 5 to 12%. Venkatarama Reddy
and Gupta [27] report 250% increase in compressive
strength for compacted soilcement blocks for a
change in cement content from 6 to 12%.
Compressive strength of compacted cement stabilised soil mixes increases with increase in density
irrespective of cement content and moulding moisture content. The relationship between density and
strength is nearly linear. The strength increases by
46 times for a change in dry density from 1600 to
2000 kg/m3, for the three cement contents and three
moulding moisture contents considered. There is a
considerable increase in strength for small changes in
dry density. For example 10% increase in density
from 1600 kg/m3 results in about 300% increase in
compressive strength for 5% cement irrespective of
the moulding moisture content. Similarly for 8 and
12% cement contents the compressive strength
increases by 200% for a 10% increase in dry density
from 1700 kg/m3. This trend is in tune with results
reported by Venkatarama Reddy [28] for compacted
stabilised mud blocks. He reports linear relationship
between density and strength, and sharp increase in
strength for small increase in dry density. Increase in
strength due to increase in (closer contact among
particles) dry density can be attributed to reduction in
the porosity of the compacted specimen resulting in
better bonding due to cement hydration products.
691
1800
1700
1600
1500
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
Water absorption (%)

Fig. 14 Densitywater absorption relationships (for 5%, 8%,
and 12% cement)
three cement contents (5%, 8% and 12%) attempted

and for the dry density range of 16002000 kg/m3. It
is obvious that lower density will have higher porosity
and hence can accommodate more water at saturated
condition. The porosity of the specimens is 0.26 and
0.42 for the dry densities of 2000 and 1600 kg/m3
respectively.
8 Summary and conclusions

Results of experimental investigations in understanding various physical characteristics of compacted
cement stabilised soil mixes and CSRE were discussed. The major conclusions emerging out of the
experimental work are as follows.
OMC and MDD values of soil with a wide range
of clay contents are not affected by the addition of
ordinary Portland cement. But MDD and OMC
values of cement mixed soils vary as the soil
composition changes. Generally, MDD decreases
and OMC increases as the clay fraction of the cement
mixed soil increases. OMC increases and MDD
decreases as the time lag increases, irrespective of
soil type and cement content. There is 2540%
increase in OMC for the time lag between 0 and 10 h.
The decrease in MDD is in the range of 1016% for
the time lag between 0 and 10 h.
The wet compressive strength of CSRE steadily
decreases with increase in time lag. There is a 50%
692
fall in strength for a time lag of 10 h. This decrease in

strength can be attributed to the compaction of
cement stabilised soil being carried out after the
commencement of setting of cement, wherein already
established cementitious bonds are broken during
compaction. These results indicate that the wetted
cementsoil mixture should be rammed into a wall
within an hour after mixing with water.
Compressive strength of compacted cement stabilised soil is sensitive to density and increases with
increase in density irrespective of cement content and
moulding moisture content. For small increase in
density there is a considerable increase in strength.
Compressive strength increases with the increase in
moulding water content. For a 2% increase in water
content beyond OMC the strength increase is of the
order of 2070%. It is preferable to carry out the
compaction of CSRE on the wet side of OMC. Water
absorption of the compacted cement stabilised soil
mixes decreases with the increase in dry density of
the specimen. There is linear relationship between the
water absorption and dry density (cd) and is of the
type: Water absorption (%) = 57.92 - 0.0242c,d
where cd is in kg/m3 and water absorption in (%).
Some important findings of these investigations
which directly affect the quality of cement stabilised
rammed earth construction are:
(1)
(2)
Compressive strength is sensitive to dry density.

Strength increases with increase in density
irrespective of moulding water content. Achieve
higher dry densities for CSRE by using moulding moisture contents wet of Standard Proctor
OMC.
Cementsoil mixture should be rammed into a
wall within an hour after mixing with the water.
Time lag results in lower strength and difficulty
in achieving higher density.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
References
18.
19.
1. Verma PL, Mehra SR (1950) Use of soilcement in house

construction in the Punjab. Indian Concr J 24:9196
2. Easton D (1982) The rammed earth experience, 1st edn.
Blue Mountain Press, Wilseyville
3. Easton D (2008) The industrialisation of monolithic earth
walling for first world applications. In: Proceedings of the
5th international conference on building with earth (LEHM
20.
21.
22.
2008), Koblanz, Germany. Dachverband Lehm e.V.,

Weimar, Germany, pp 9097
Hall M (2002) Rammed earth: traditional methods, modern
techniques, sustainable future. Build Eng 77(11):2224
Houben H, Guillaud H (2003) Earth constructiona
comprehensive guide. Intermediate Technology Publications, London
Walker P, Keable R, Martin J, Maniatidis V (2005)
Rammed earth design and construction guidelines. BRE
Bookshop, Watford
King B (1996) Buildings of earth and straw. Structural
design for rammed earth and straw bale architecture.
Ecological Design Press, Sausalito
Walker PJ (2002) Reinforced composite rammed earth in
flexure. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
non-conventional materials and technologies (NOCMAT/3),
Vietnam, pp 439445
Hall M, Damms P, Djerbib Y (2004) Stabilised rammed
earth and the building regulations 2000. Part A. Structural
stability. Build Eng 79(6):1821
Hall MR (2007) Assessing the environmental performance
of stabilised rammed earth walls using a climatic simulation chamber. Build Environ 42(1):139145
Jayasinhe C, Kamaladasa N (2007) Compressive strength
characteristics of cement stabilised rammed earth walls.
Construct Build Mater 21:19711976
Prasanna Kumar P, Venkatarama Reddy BV (2007)
Moisture content and compressive strength relationships
for cement stabilised rammed earth walls. In: Proceedings
of the international symposium on earthen structures.
Interline Publishers, Bangalore, India, pp 224230
Bui QB, Hans S, Morel JC (2007) The compressive
strength and pseudo elastic modulus of rammed earth. In:
Proceedings of the international symposium on earthen
structures. Interline Publishers, Bangalore India, pp 217
223
Burroughs S (2008) Property criteria for rammed earth
stabilisation. J Mater Civ Eng 20(3):264273
Venkatarama Reddy BV, Prasanna Kumar P (2009)
Compressive strength and elastic properties of stabilised
rammed earth and masonry, Masonry International. J Int
Masonry Soc 22(2):3946. ISSN 0950-2289
Bulletin 5: Earth Wall Construction (1992) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(Division of Building Construction and Engineering),
4th edn. G.F. Middleton, Revised by L. M. Schneider,
Australia
IS: 2110 (1998) Code of practice for in situ construction of
walls in buildings with soilcement. Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India
NZS: 4297 (1998) Engineering design of earth buildings.
Standards New Zealand, New Zealand
NZS: 4298 (1998) Materials and workmanship for earth
buildings. Standards New Zealand, New Zealand
NZS: 4299 (1998) Earth buildings not requiring specific
design. Standards New Zealand, New Zealand
Lehmbau Regeln (2009) Dachverbandlehm, e.V., (Hrsg.),
Begriffe-Baustoffe-Bauteile, and Auflage. PRAXIS, Germany
IS: 2720 (1980) Methods of test for soils. Part VII.
Determination of water content-dry density relation using

light compaction. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India
23. IS: 8112 (1989) Indian standard specification for 43 grade
ordinary Portland cement. Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India
24. IS: 4031 (1988) Methods of physical tests for hydraulic
cement. Part 6. Determination of compressive strength of
hydraulic cement other than masonry cement. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India
25. Ingles OG, Metcalf JB (1977) Soil stabilization principles
and practice. Butterworths Pty. Limited, Sydney
693
26. West G (1959) A laboratory investigation into the effects
of elapsed time after mixing on the compaction and
strength of soilcement. Geotechnique 9(1):913
27. Venkatarama Reddy BV, Gupta A (2005) Characteristics
of soilcement blocks using highly sandy soils. Mater
Struct (RILEM) 38(280):651658
28. Venkatarama Reddy BV (2008) Retrofitting of damaged
stabilised earth block buildings. In: Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on building with earth (LEHM
2008), Koblanz, Germany. Dachverband Lehm e.V.,
Weimar, Germany, pp 105111

Cement Stabilised Rammed Earth. Part A: Compaction Characteristics and Physical Properties of Compacted Cement Stabilised Soils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cement Stabilised Rammed Earth. Part A: Compaction Characteristics and Physical Properties of Compacted Cement Stabilised Soils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Materials and Structures (2011) 44:681693