ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Harakeke reinforcement of soil–cement building materials:

Manufacturability and properties
Michael Segetin, Krishnan Jayaraman, Xun Xu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1020, New Zealand
Received 30 June 2006; accepted 24 July 2006

Abstract

Fibre from the New Zealand flax plant, Phormium tenax, or Harakeke as it is otherwise known in Maori, has been used to reinforce
soil–cement composites in an attempt to improve the strength and ductility of the composite material. Previous investigations have found
the interfacial bond strength between the harakeke fibre and the soil–cement matrix to be an important factor for the strength of the
composite. In an effort to improve the interfacial bond strength, an enamel paint coating has been applied to the fibre surface. Fibre
lengths of 70 and 85 mm have been investigated along with fibre content levels of 0.6% and 0.8% measured as a percentage of the dry
mass of the soil in the composite. Significant improvement in the ductility of the soil–cement composite has been realised with the
addition of the harakeke fibre-reinforcement. It has been found that the specific make-up of the composite with regard to fibre length and
content is not critical for the achievement of ductility improvement. Instead, these parameters were found to be controlled more by
manufacturing issues such as the workability of the composite. It was found that 85 mm represented an upper limit on fibre length for the
manual mixing technique adopted, while a maximum fibre content level of 0.8% was achieved. In order to reduce manufacturing
difficulties, different mixing techniques were studied. A successful tumble mixing technique has been identified which is able to improve
composite uniformity and the ease of manufacture. Based on the similarity of results for the two fibre content levels investigated, it is
recommended that a level of 0.6% be adopted as this both improves the ease of manufacture and minimises the amount of fibre required.
When the fibre content level was dropped below 0.6%, it was found that the material exhibited a more brittle failure behaviour.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flax fibre; Harakeke; Soil–cement; Strength; Ductility

1. Introduction The extent of earth construction in the developed world

Earth has been used as a construction material for
thousands of years [1], with its most primitive form dating
back to the hunter–gatherer period where humans lived a
migratory life and often constructed temporary, seasonal
shelters from brush and wooden members which they then
covered with mud [2]. Due to its many benefits earth is still
used extensively today [1–5] and it has been estimated that
over half of the world’s current population reside in
earthen based homes [2]. Although many of these people
live in developing nations where other materials may be
unavailable or simply deemed too expensive, the use of
earth in construction is not limited to the developing world.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +649 373 7599; fax: +649 373 7479.
E-mail address: k.jayaraman@auckland.ac.nz (K. Jayaraman).
may actually be a lot greater than one might expect. For
example it has been estimated that in Australia approxi-
mately 20% of the new building market is occupied with
earth based construction projects [4]. The prevalence of
earth as a construction material may be attributed to its
proven durability which is evidenced by the fact that
many of the oldest buildings still standing are made from
earth [6].
1.1. Soil stabilisation and reinforcement
Soil on its own can be used to produce adequate housing;
however most often some form of stabiliser is added to the
mixture to enhance the properties of the material. There
are two main techniques used to stabilise earth for

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.033
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
construction purposes: chemical stabilisation and fibre
reinforcement.
1.1.1. Chemical stabilisation
The most popular form of chemical stabilisation is the
addition of cement to a soil. It has been shown in many
studies [7–10] that the addition of ordinary Portland
cement to earth building materials can improve their
mechanical properties. As soil for earth construction is
often obtained from the building site or nearby [7,11–13],
there will always be some variability in the amount of
cement needed to sufficiently improve the strength of the
material. It has generally been found [3,7,8,10,12,14,15]
that the amount of cement required to be added to a soil is
in the range of 3–10% by dry weight of soil, with a higher
cement content tending to give greater strength to the
composite. It has also been suggested that cement contents
in excess of 7.5% may increase costs too much for low-cost
housing projects [7]. It is also known that the strength of
the earthen material increases with the curing time allowed
for the cement and for the cement range identified above
compressive strength values obtained after 7 days of cure
only reach 70% of that observed after 21 or 28 days [14]. It
is therefore common practice for soil–cement materials to
be cured for at least 21 days prior to their use or testing
[1,10–12,14,16,17]. Along with the improvements in com-
pressive strength associated with the addition of cement, an
increase in soil cohesiveness is often found [12,15,18]. It can
therefore be assumed that the compressive strength of a
soil–cement composite is related to its cohesiveness.
1.1.2. Fibre-reinforcement
From the beginnings of earthen construction, fibre-
reinforcement has been used to improve the properties of
this versatile material [2,5]. Fibre-reinforcement can take
on many forms from the introduction of large fibres such
as steel or bamboo [13], also commonly found in concrete
construction, to much smaller ones such as sisal and flax
[17–19]. It has been reported that strength, toughness and
ductility all improve with fibre content up to 3% by mass
of soil [10]. It is also widely accepted that the greatest effect
fibre addition has on a soil–cement composite is to give a
vast improvement in ductility [3,8–10,18]. This improve-
ment in ductility can be explained by the way that the fibres
act to suppress the development of cracks within the
soil–cement matrix [3,10]. In some situations the gains in
ductility can have quite significant impacts. For example,
in the case of a significant earthquake the extra ductility
provided by fibre-reinforcement could provide the vital
extra seconds between getting out alive or being trapped
inside when the building falls down [20].
1.1.3. Fibre-reinforcement
Fibre-reinforcement of soil–cement composites can take
on a number of forms with fibre lengths and diameters
varying over a large range. For example, flax fibres have an
average diameter of approximately 23-mm [21] whereas
3067
other soil–cement composites may utilise entire bamboo
stalks as a form of fibre reinforcement [13]. Steel fibre-
reinforcements found in concrete structures are also used
for the reinforcement of soil–cement composites [3,22,23].
Steel fibres can themselves be found in a variety of forms,
the most common of which is the standard reinforcing bar.
Other forms of steel fibre reinforcement include mesh and
various geometries of shorter fibre inclusions [22].
1.1.4. Fibre-reinforcement
As the focus of the present study is on natural fibres it is
important that their interaction with the soil–cement
matrix be understood. Adhesion at the fibre–matrix inter-
face has been found to be governed by the following three
factors [18]:
(a) The shear resistance of the soil due to the surface form
and roughness of the fibre.
(b) The compressive friction forces on the surface of the
fibre due to shrinkage of the soil.
(c) The cohesive properties of the soil.
Further, each of these three factors is affected by
dimensional changes of the natural fibre which can occur
due to changes in moisture and temperature [18]. Such
changes in fibre dimension can occur during the curing
stage of the earth–fibre composite material and this then
determines a possible mechanism resulting in a poor
interfacial bond. During the mixing and drying stages of
production, the hydrophilic nature of the natural fibre can
lead it to absorb water and effectively push out on the
soil–cement matrix. Then near the end of the curing
(drying) period the fibre loses the water it has absorbed,
causing it to shrink back. Because the matrix is now set, a
void is formed around the periphery of the fibre and a
weakened interfacial bond can result [10,13,18]. This
mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Therefore, in looking for an additive to improve the
bonding characteristics of fibre-reinforced soil–cement
composites, it is required that the treatment reduce the
transfer of water between the matrix and the fibre. Possible
additives identified from the literature include water
resistant coatings such as asphalt emulsion, rosin–alcohol
mixture, paints [13], bituminous materials [13,17,18], a
water soluble acrylic and a polystyrene coating [17].
Khazanchi et al. [17] with their study of wall panels
consisting of soil, 2.5% cement and polystyrene coated
wheat straw, reported a fibre bond strength of 1.3 MPa.
With the same material but using bitumen and acrylic
coatings, they also achieved bond strengths of 0.1–0.12 and
0.08–0.125 MPa, respectively. In this study untreated fibres
gave bond strengths in the range of 0.07–0.08 MPa.
In addition to bonding agents, the length of the fibre also
plays a role in the interfacial bond strength. The longer a
fibre is, the greater a surface area it has to form a bond with
the matrix material. For sisal and flax fibres, which can be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3068 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
Fig. 1. Schematic of the effect of fibre deformation due to moisture changes.
deemed to be comparable, it has been found that fibre
lengths in the range of 60-85 mm are preferable [3,10].
1.2. Mixing of fibre-reinforced soil–cement composites
The mixing of natural fibres through soil–cement
composites is not well discussed in the literature. Some
information is provided by Allen [24] that folding fibres
through a soil matrix is the most effective method
of mixing. This can be done with the use of a front-
end-loader, bobcat or similar device with a bucket
attachment [24].
The lack of available information relating to the mixing
of natural fibres in soil–cement composites has motivated
the investigation into different mixing methods in the
current research.
2. Scope of the present research
The work presented in this paper focuses on the
development of soil–cement building materials appropriate
for the construction of habitable dwellings within New
Zealand. In particular the use of fibre extracted from the
New Zealand flax plant Phormium tenax, or Harakeke as it
is traditionally known to Maori, is investigated as a means
of improving the mechanical properties of the soil–cement
composite.
The current research is part of an ongoing investigation
within the University of Auckland, aimed at developing
low cost housing through the use of earthen-based
construction technology. The primary focus of the
investigation is the provision of new technologies which
can be used to develop Whareuku (earth based buildings)
on Papakainga (communally owned Maori land) by
making use of local resources and traditional materials. It
is intended that the local community be involved as much
as possible in the construction process, giving them the
opportunity to acquire the skills necessary for the
construction of further housing. This community involve-
ment is a key element for the success of the project as it will
instil a level of pride in the housing produced, ensuring that
the developed construction materials and techniques will
continue to be used in the future. The selection of flax as a
fibre-reinforcement in the composite will further enhance
local Maori acceptance of the project as Harakeke is a
plant that is of particular significance to their culture due to
the many uses they have found for it throughout their time
in this country.
In addition to having cultural significance to the local
community, the use of flax reinforced earth as a housing
material also presents the environmental benefits asso-
ciated with the use of natural materials. Earthen building
materials are also able to regulate heat well, keeping the
interior climate comfortable and minimising the need for
additional heating and cooling of the living space.
3. Experimental details
3.1. Materials
The soil used in this investigation was sourced from a
local quarry and can be classified as a very silty SAND
containing approximately 20% silt and 77% sand particles.
Fibres from the New Zealand Flax plant Phormium tenax
were used in this study and were extracted from the leaf of
the harakeke plant by means of a mechanical stripping
device. Ordinary Portland cement was used for the
stabilisation of the soil. The paint used for coating the
flax fibres was an enamel paint which was diluted using
mineral turpentine.
3.2. Fibre mixing
The mixing of flax fibres through a soil–cement matrix is
a problematic task which requires much attention in order
to make flax fibre-reinforced soil–cement composite
panels a viable construction material. The major area of
concern is the tangling of fibres, which often makes it very
difficult to obtain a homogenous mixture. If adequate
mixing techniques cannot be developed, large scale
production of fibre-reinforced soil–cement structures will
not be feasible.
There are two avenues which can be taken when
investigating the mixing of fibre through a soil–cement
composite. Fibres can either be mixed through the
soil–cement matrix material manually or a mechanical
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
means of mixing can be used. Both manual and mechanical
mixing techniques were investigated in the current study
and details of the range of tests conducted are presented
below.
3.2.1. Manual mixing
Manual mixing of flax fibres is by far the simplest
method and can be used to produce a high-quality mixture
with good fibre dispersion. This method of mixing involves
simply taking the soil and cement in a container and mixing
it with hands and a trowel, to obtain an even mixture as
shown in Fig. 2a. Fibres are then added in small amounts
and mixed into the matrix material until the desired
content level is reached. Although this task is simple, it is
very labour intensive; average mixing times for test
specimens produced by this method would lie in the range
of 40–50 min. If this method were to be used to produce
larger structures, many workers would be required in
order to produce the volume of material required in a
short enough time span so as to prevent the water content
of the soil from dropping significantly during the mixing
process.
Fig. 2. Mixing methods trialled; (a) manual mixing, (b) cultivator mixing, (c) concrete mixer, (d) tumble mixer.
3069
3.2.2. Mechanical mixing
There are a number of considerations which need to be
taken into account when searching for appropriate
mechanical mixing techniques. The selected technique must
be able to give a homogenous mix to the composite,
ensuring that fibres are evenly dispersed throughout the
matrix material and are not clumping together. Fibre
damage is also a key concern as this could lead to
premature fibre failure and inefficient use of the material.
Three different mechanical mixing techniques have been
trialled in the current study, namely a cultivator or rotary-
hoe device, a concrete mixer and a tumble mixer.
(i) Cultivator or rotary-hoe: A mechanical cultivator
device (usually used for aerating soils before the planting of
seeds) was trialled in an effort to ease the task of mixing
flax fibres into the soil–cement composite. Soil was spread
onto the laboratory floor for the cultivator to be pushed
through. The constraints of the testing program restricted
usage to the production of only two flexural specimens and
this presented some problems given the large size of a small
cultivator. Trying to push the cultivator over the spread
soil proved to be a cumbersome task with the relatively
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3070 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
small amount of soil and the mix was sprayed out behind
the cultivator meaning it would need to be swept up and re-
gathered for mixing to continue. In order to overcome this
problem, the machine was mounted in one place with the
blades just off the ground. A small box was then built
around the cultivator to contain debris and a chute was
created to feed the mixture into the blades of the device.
This setup can be seen in Fig. 2b. Although this setup did
not reflect accurately how the cultivator device would
behave when used on a larger amount of soil, it did give an
indication as to the effectiveness of such a device at mixing
flax fibres into a soil–cement matrix.
The device did not perform the mixing task as well as
intended, fibres tending to be separated from the soil after
being fed through a number of times. This seemed to only
occur when fibres became dirtier and could suggest that a
state of over-mixing was occurring. Over-mixing is known
to be an issue which can lead to non-homogeneous
mixtures with fibres tending to separate from the soil
[24]. The separating fibres congregated in front of the
blades, while the soil that was thrown behind the blades did
appear to have an even mixture of fibres through it. The
overall failure of this method could be attributed to the
way in which the machine was used. There is reason to
believe that on a larger scale, with fibres spread evenly over
a larger area of soil, the cultivator device would be able to
mix the fibres through the soil. No tangling of fibres
around the cultivator blades was noted and the blades did
not appear to cut or damage the fibres.
(ii) Concrete mixer: A concrete mixer device (Fig. 2c)
with four mixing vanes was used in several trials to produce
successful mixtures which were then used to produce
flexural specimens. In general however, fibres showed a
tendency to ‘float’ above the soil rather than mix through
it; again this is an indication that over-mixing has occurred.
The fibres were also observed to tangle around the mixer
vanes which required regular clearing. There are several
factors that may be contributing to the poor performance
of the concrete mixer. The drum of the mixer was on a high
angle and this may be contributing to the soil staying at the
bottom of the drum. The fibres are also light in comparison
to the soil and so do not tend to get dragged down into the
soil at the bottom of the mixer drum. For this device to
work more effectively modification to the mixing vanes
may also be necessary to create more of a folding action
and reduce tangling problems.
It should also be noted that fibres treated with paint were
found to mix more easily in the concrete mixer than those
that were left untreated. This is thought to be due to the
stiffening effect that the paint has on the fibre. Stiffer fibres
do not appear to wrap around each other and tangle as
easily. This finding may help to highlight potential fibre
treatments which could be used to improve the mixing
behaviour of the fibres in the future.
(iii) Tumble mixer: It has been reported [24] that the
most effective method of mixing fibre through a soil matrix
is to fold it in the same manner that ingredients are folded
during baking. On a large scale this can be done effectively
with the use of a front-end-loader or a bobcat with a
bucket attachment [24]. This type of mixing technique
could also be extended to a manual method by making use
of a shovel or similar implement.
A tumble mixing technique was developed making use of
a small manual clothes washing device as shown in Fig. 2d.
This technique follows the basic principle of folding the
flax fibre soil–cement mixture which is known to be
effective [24]. This device was only capable of processing
a small amount of fibre-reinforced soil–cement; however
the concept could easily be extended to a larger scale device
if the process proved to be successful.
Initial testing of the tumble mixing device revealed that
this device could be used to quickly and easily obtain a
mixture with good fibre dispersion. The relative success of
the tumble mixing device over other mixing techniques has
justified further, more detailed investigation. It has also
been found through experience in earlier investigations that
fibres would separate more easily from each other once
they had become slightly dirtied by the soil–cement matrix
material. This finding contradicts reports that fibre is best
mixed through a soil when both soil and fibre are in a dry
state [24]. Further investigation of this observation was
therefore incorporated into the investigation of the tumble
mixing concept, by attempting to mix fibres in a slurry of
soil and water before the remainder of the composite
constituents were added.
Due to the quality of the results of a mixing trial being
subjective, this investigation was conducted on a trial and
error basis where successful trials were built upon and
unsuccessful experiments were documented and discarded.
A total of eight different trials were run with different
methods of adding the composite constituents being
examined. The quantities of the composite constituents
used for these experiments are outlined in Table 1.
A detailed investigation into the use of a tumble mixing
device has revealed a mixing technique that would be
suitable for adoption on a larger scale. This method
involved pre-mixing the cement through a dried soil in the
tumble mixing device. A slurry was then made with a small
amount of this mixture and the full amount of water
required for the formation of the composite; the water
content of this slurry mixture was approximately 350%
(measured as a percentage of the dry mass of the soil in the
slurry). Fibre was mixed through this slurry before the
remaining soil–cement mixture was added as a single
Table 1
Composite constituent levels for tumble mixing trials
Constituent Content level Mass (g)
(% of dry mass of soil)
Soil (dry mass) 100% 2000
Cement 10% 200
Fibre 0.7% 14
Water 26% 520
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
addition and mixed further in the tumble mixer for a short
period of time.
One detriment of using a slurry technique for mixing is
that there is a requirement for the soil being used to be
dried to a level well below its optimum water content
before the slurry is made. This should not hinder the
adoption of this method however as it is an issue which can
easily be managed in the planning phase of a construction
project.
Although a successful method for mixing fibre through
the soil–cement matrix has been found using the tumble
mixing technique, the only available apparatus for doing
this for the current study was not of sufficient size for the
production of flexural specimens. This meant that the
mixing of the test specimens had to revert back to a manual
hand mixing technique which required high labour and
time inputs but could reliably produce a high quality
mixture with good fibre dispersion.
3.3. Specimen preparation
3.3.1. Specimen designation
In order to keep track of the variables used for each
specimen, a meaningful specimen naming method had to be
adopted which could quickly and easily give full informa-
tion about the composition of a specimen without the need
for referral to experimental notes. As there were three
factors being investigated, fibre coating, fibre length and
fibre content level, it was decided that a three character
name would be assigned to each specimen followed by a
number representing which repeat of the experiment a
specimen belonged to. The first character of the specimen
name could take the value of ‘‘C’’ for a coated fibre
specimen or ‘‘N’’ for a non-coated fibre specimen. The
second character of the specimen name related to the
length of the fibres with ‘‘S’’ being used for short, 70 mm
fibres and ‘‘L’’ being used for the longer 85 mm fibres.
Fibre content level was identified in the third character of
the specimen name as being either low, ‘‘L’’ (0.6%) or high,
‘‘H’’ (0.8%). Using this convention a specimen named
CSH_03 would then be identified easily as a coated fibre
specimen containing 70 mm fibres at a content level of
0.8% and belonging to the third experimental run. By this
method the nine different specimen combinations are then
NLH, NLL, NSH, NSL, CLH, CLL, CSH, CSL and NIL,
where NIL refers to a control specimen containing no fibre-
reinforcement.
3.3.2. Fibre coating
In order to limit the transfer of moisture between the
harakeke fibres and the soil–cement matrix, fibres were
coated with an enamel paint using an immersion method. It
was hoped that by controlling moisture transfer this
coating may be able to improve the interfacial bond
strength between the fibre and the soil–cement matrix by
limiting dimensional changes in the fibre. The paint was
diluted with turpentine to a watery consistency and poured
3071
into a large open container. Fibres were then added in large
bundles to the paint mixture, soaked thoroughly and then
the excess paint was squeezed off before placing them in a
drying basket. Coated fibres were then left to dry for a
period of 2–3 days before being used for specimen
production.
This method of coating fibres, although effective, was
not ideal as it resulted in an excessively heavy coating and
fibres were found to stick together after coating. The
coating work also involved spending extended periods
crouched over the coating container in the presence of toxic
fumes. For future use a quicker method of application that
gives a finer coating will be required. This will likely come
in the form of a spray on coating method, which would
have been investigated for the current study however the
required facilities were not available. It should be noted
that a spray-can method of coating used in an initial
coating feasibility investigation produced a good quality
coating without fibres sticking together in large bundles.
This method of using canned spray-paint would not be
practical on a large scale however due to the expense
involved. A similar method using commercial paint
spraying techniques may be more viable.
3.3.3. Specimen compaction
Each specimen was compacted in two layers of equal size
using a heavy wooden mould and a 21 kg steel hand-
tamper with a 100 mm  100 mm square face. The
composite mixture was spread into the mould taking care
to ensure that large clumps of fibre were not present. Once
half of the mixture had been transferred to the mould it
was levelled out and pressed firm by hand before
compaction with the tamper. The soil was tamped
continuously until a ringing sound could be heard as the
tamper rebounded from the surface of the specimen. Care
was taken to ensure that an even amount of compaction
was given across the entire surface of the specimen. Once
compaction of both layers of the specimen was completed
the mould was dismantled and the specimen was carefully
removed.
3.3.4. Specimen cure and drying
Upon removal from the mould specimens were bagged,
labelled and left to cure for a period of 3 days out of direct
sunlight. This curing period was required to ensure that the
specimen did not dry too quickly as this can often result in
cracking. Following this cure period the bags were opened
and the brick was left to dry for a further period of 18 days
before testing could commence, giving a total period of at
least 21 days between the time of specimen manufacture
and the time of testing.
3.4. Testing
Flexure and compressive testing followed testing stan-
dards set out by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). The test standards used were ASTM
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3072 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
D1635-00 [25] for flexure and ASTM D1634-00 [26] for
compression. Specimen size was determined in accordance
with fibre-reinforced concrete standard ASTM C1018-97
[27]. This called for a flexural specimen width and depth of
at least three times the maximum fibre length and a
specimen length of at least 50 mm greater than three times
the depth. For practical purposes however, the width and
depth of the specimens were kept at 150 mm, this is
permitted in the fibre-reinforced concrete standard ASTM
C1018-97 for fibre lengths up to 75 mm. A specimen length
of 600 mm was chosen for the flexural specimens.
3.4.1. Flexural testing
Flexural testing standard ASTM D1635-00 [25] makes
use of simple soil–cement beams tested on their side relative
to their moulded position. The beams were loaded under
third-point loading conditions with the lower supports
placed apart at a distance of 450 mm, corresponding to
three times the depth of the beam. The flexural testing
setup can be seen in Fig. 3. An Instron Universal Testing
Machine, equipped with a HP 3852A data acquisition and
control unit was used for flexural testing, with a crosshead
advance rate of 0.02 mm/s.
One of the major effects of including fibre into a
soil–cement composite is the improvement given in
ductility [3,8–10,18]. Therefore the ductility of the flexural
specimens was of interest in the current study. To obtain a
measure of the ductility of the specimens, the displacement
of the crosshead of the testing machine was measured and
plotted against the flexural stress of the specimen.
Although this does not give a measure of the strain
experienced by the specimen, it does give an indication of
ductility which can be used for comparison.
3.4.2. Compression testing
The compressive strength of specimens was determined
following the compressive testing standard ASTM D1634-00
[26]. This standard makes use of portions of broken flexural
beams as tested under ASTM D1645-00 [25] for compressive
Fig. 3. Flexural testing setup.
specimens. This means that each specimen produced can be
used for both flexural and compressive testing, saving both
time and raw materials.
Compressive specimens were cut from the ends of the
broken specimens used for flexural testing to a length of
175 mm, this being 25 mm longer than their 150 mm depth
as required. Care was also taken to select specimens which
were relatively free from cracks, chipped surfaces and other
obvious defects such as excessive amounts of fibre
clumping.
Specimens were tested on their side with respect to their
moulded position. They were placed in a central location
on the testing machine (Grade A Contest Concrete Test
Machine). The load was applied continuously at a rate of
140 kPa/s in accordance with testing standard ASTM
D1634-00 [26] and care was taken to avoid any shock
loading.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Flexural strength
It is a requirement of the New Zealand Earth Building
standard NZS 4298 [28] that a flexural strength exceeding
0.25 MPa be achieved for any earth building material. This
means that this level of flexural strength must be achieved
by the composite technology being developed in the current
study for it to be used in this country.
4.1.1. Specimens without fibre reinforcement
All control specimens created without fibre reinforce-
ment were found to show a similar stress development
profile when tested, with a maximum flexural strength of
0.427 MPa being attained with specimen NIL_11. This
level of flexural strength exceeds that required by NZS 4298
[28] however it can be seen from Fig. 4 that this specimen
reached an unusually high strength level. Specimens
NIL_08 and NIL_10 appeared to give more consistent
results however giving strengths of 0.258 and 0.26 MPa,
respectively. These results are comparable with those
obtained in an earlier study [29] and although they do
meet the requirements of the building standard, they do so
only marginally and so it is required that an improvement
to the strength of the soil–cement composite be made. It
can also be seen from Fig. 4, that these non-reinforced
specimens did not exhibit ductile behaviour. This was also
noted during testing in the catastrophic nature by which
these specimens failed.
4.1.2. Specimens with fibre reinforcement
Fig. 5 shows that in general specimens produced with
non-coated fibre-reinforcement showed good recovery after
first-cracks occurred. This finding indicates that loading
was being successfully transferred to the fibre reinforce-
ment during testing and that ductility had definitely been
improved. This improvement in ductility is further
reinforced by the fact that crosshead displacements of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079 3073

Fig. 4. Flexural strength comparison for specimens with no fibre-reinforcement.

Fig. 5. Flexural strength comparison for non-coated, fibre-reinforced specimens.

5–7 mm were reached before the composites strength fell
back below the 0.25 MPa level required by the NZS 4298
[28]. It was also observed that with the exception of
specimen NLH_03, all specimens reached strength levels in
the range of 0.35–0.5 MPa, comfortably exceeding the
0.25 MPa minimum requirement. Upon comparison with
the other non-coated fibre-reinforced specimens, specimen
NLH_03 can be considered to be an outlier and
disregarded.
4.1.3. Specimens with coated fibre reinforcement
For the coated fibre specimens displayed in Fig. 6, it can
be seen that although all of the specimens except CSH_02
and CSL_03 managed to exceed the 0.25 MPa requirement
with their first-crack strength, only specimens CLH_01 and
CSH_03 showed enough recovery strength to reach this
level again. It must also be noted that the recovery strength
of specimen CLH_01 only marginally exceeded the
0.25 MPa requirement. The addition of coated fibres has
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3074 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
Fig. 6. Flexural strength comparison for all coated, fibre-reinforced specimens.
also improved the ductility of the composite, but not to the
same degree as the addition of non-coated fibres. In the
case of the coated fibres the ultimate recovery strength
generally occurred in the ductility range of 1.3–2.4 mm of
crosshead displacement with the greatest amount of
ductility at the 0.25 MPa minimum strength requirement
level being recorded for specimen CSH_03 as 2.5 mm.
A large drop in strength was also noted for all coated fibre
specimens at the first-crack point. This indicates a slightly
more brittle nature for this material than what was found
with the non-coated fibre-reinforced specimens.
4.1.4. Use of Duracem cement
Inspection of the flexural strength comparison plots will
reveal that a number of the experimental specimens are not
represented. The results obtained from these specimens
have been omitted as they were produced using a different
type of cement to the rest of the specimens. The cement
used was a product known as Duracem and is designed for
use in harsh environments. The specimens produced with
this cement were found to have both flexural and
compressive strength values greatly exceeding those ob-
tained with ordinary Portland cement. The Duracem
product has a price premium of 5–15% over ordinary
Portland cement [30]. However the gains obtained in
composite strength, which can be seen for specimen
NSL_01 in Fig. 7, may mean that this product is worth
investigating in future trials. The gain noted in strength for
specimen NSL_01 in Fig. 7 is typical of that shown for all
specimens produced with Duracem cement. The gains in
strength obtained through the use of this product may also
allow for the exclusion of fibre treatments meaning that a
composite could be produced with the cement providing
the required strength improvements and a virgin fibre being
used to provide the much desired improvements in
ductility.
4.1.5. Effect of fibre coating
The differences noted above between coated and non-
coated fibre-reinforced specimens should be treated with
caution. Late in the testing programme it was realised that
the fibre coating method being used was applying a layer of
paint that was too thick. This resulted in a misrepresenta-
tion of the fibre content levels used for the coated fibre
specimens. It has been determined that for the coated fibre
specimens the mass of the paint attached to the fibres made
up 47% of the total measured mass of the fibres. This
finding means that the actual fibre content levels for the
low and high fibre content coated fibre specimens were
0.32% and 0.43%, respectively, approximately half of the
fibre content that was intended. Specimen *NSH_00 was
therefore created with a fibre content level of 0.43% to
allow a meaningful comparison between a non-coated
fibre-reinforced specimen and its corresponding coated
fibre specimens. This comparison is represented in Fig. 8
where it can be seen that the coated fibre specimens
performed comparatively well. Specimen *NSH_00 dis-
played the greatest first-crack strength, 0.332 MPa, of the
three specimens portrayed in the comparison plot. How-
ever, with a recovery strength of 0.293 MPa specimen
CSH_03 was the only one of the three specimens to show a
recovery strength exceeding the minimum requirement of
0.25 MPa. Although only one non-coated fibre-reinforced
specimen has been produced at this fibre content level,
these findings indicate that the addition of paint to the fibre
surface has not had a detrimental effect on composite
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079 3075

Fig. 7. Typical effect on flexural strength of use of Duracem cement product.

Fig. 8. Flexural strength comparison for adjusted fibre content specimen.

strength as may otherwise have been assumed upon
examination of the main experimental results.
Unfortunately due to the lack of experimental specimens
no further information about the interaction between fibre
length and content levels can be provided from the testing
information gathered. From general observations made
during manufacture and testing of flax fibre-reinforced
soil–cement specimens however it has been noted that
differences in fibre length and content over the ranges
tested are not likely to have much impact on the strength
performance of the composite material. Fibres at these
lengths have been shown to be pulling out of the
soil–cement matrix at the failure surface for both coated
and non-coated fibre-reinforced specimens as can be seen
in Fig. 9. With 85 mm being found to represent a limit to
fibre length based on mixing requirements, the above
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3076 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079

findings suggest that fibre length will be determined by It is clear from Fig. 10 that only specimens CSL_03 and
manufacturing constraints rather than its effect on NIL_11 fall below this value, each with a compressive
composite strength. strength of 1.26 MPa, which is very close to the minimum
requirement of 1.3 MPa. It can also be shown that the
4.2. Compressive strength average compressive strength taken over all of the speci-
mens trialled is 2.14 MPa, comfortably exceeding the
In order for the composite technology to be adopted in requirements of the earth building standard NZS 4298 [28].
New Zealand it must meet the requirements of the New The specimens without fibre-reinforcement have an
Zealand Earth Building standard NZS 4298 [28] which average compressive strength of 1.79 MPa with a standard
state that soil used for building purposes must have a deviation of 0.5 MPa, while the coated and non-coated
compressive strength of at least 1.3 MPa. fibre-reinforced specimens have compressive strengths of

Fig. 9. Fibres shown to be pulling out of matrix material for (a) coated and (b) non-coated fibre-reinforced specimens.

4.0

3.5

3.0
Compressive Strength (MPa)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
NIL_08

NIL_09

NIL_10

NIL_11

NLH_02

NLH_03

NLL_03

NSH_02

NSH_03

NSL_02

NSL_03

CLH_01

CLH_02

CLH_03

CLL_02

CLL_03

CSH_02

CSH_03

CSL_01

CSL_02

CSL_03

*NSH_00

Specimen ID

Fig. 10. Compressive strengths for soil–cement specimens using ordinary Portland cement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
2.0 and 2.49 MPa, respectively, with standard deviations of
0.43 and 0.5 MPa. The standard deviations reported here
are relatively high compared to the average values and this
can be attributed to the low number of experimental
specimens produced. The average compressive strengths
are all seen to exceed the minimum requirement of 1.3 MPa
set by the earth building standard NZS 4298 [28] indicating
that in terms of compressive strength the material may be
suitable for building construction. It is also interesting to
note that the compressive strengths for both the coated and
non-coated fibre-reinforced specimens are greater than for
the non-reinforced specimens. This result was not expected
as the fibre-reinforcement is primarily intended to enhance
tensile or flexural behaviour and ductility. Due to the large
standard deviations involved however these results can
only be considered to be indicative and further experi-
mentation is required to provide conclusive findings.
The dramatic improvement in the compressive strength
of the soil–cement composite provided by the use of the
Duracem cement product can be seen in Fig. 11. The use of
this product has increased the average compressive
strength from 2.14 to 4.55 MPa, easily exceeding the
required 1.3 MPa of the New Zealand Earth Building
standard NZS 4298 [28].
5. Conclusions
Investigations into the mixing of flax fibres through a
soil–cement matrix material have found that hand mixing
techniques can give a high quality mixture with good fibre
6.0
5.0
Compressive Strength (MPa)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
NIL_01
NIL_02
NIL_03
NIL_04
NIL_05
NIL_06
Specimen ID
Fig. 11. Compressive strengths for soil–cement specimens using Duracem cement.
3077
dispersion. On a large scale however they would not be
suitable as they require a large labour input and are too
time consuming. It is for these reasons that mechanical
methods of mixing were investigated. It has been found
that a tumble mixing device is the most suitable solution,
offering a good quality mixture for a minimal time and
effort input. A suitable method of adding the composite
constituents to a tumble mixing device has also been
identified which involves mixing fibres through a slurry of
pre-mixed soil and cement before adding the remainder of
the mixture.
The immersion method used for applying the enamel
paint coating to fibres has proved to be inadequate with
excessive amounts of paint being added to the fibres. It is
suggested that if work is to continue with the investigation
of paint as a fibre treatment, a new method of application
will need to be used. A spray on method will most likely
give the best results as a preliminary investigation into fibre
coating treatments found that this type of method gave a
good quality coating.
The investigation into the improvement of flax fibre-
reinforced soil–cement composites has found that the
addition of fibre to a soil–cement matrix can significantly
enhance the ductility of the material and eliminate the
catastrophic failure pattern displayed by specimens without
fibre-reinforcement.
Through the testing of control specimens it has also been
found that the flexural strength of non-reinforced soil–
cement composites is at present insufficient. Although the
specimens produced in the present research managed to
H_01NS
NLH_01
L_01NS
NLL_01
NLL_02
CLL_01
NIL_07
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
3078 M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
exceed the 0.25 MPa requirement of the New Zealand earth
building standard NZS 4298 [28], they did so only
marginally and due to the low volume of specimens tested
they cannot be relied upon to be consistently able to meet
the required strength.
Fibre pull-out was still witnessed in flexural testing
specimens with coated fibres. This suggests that an
insufficient interfacial bond still exists between the fibre
surface and the soil–cement matrix, indicating that the
paint coating is not offering any significant improvement in
bonding.
The 85 mm fibre length represents an upper length limit
with regard to the mixing of fibre and the findings that
ductility was improved for the 70 mm fibres and fibre pull-
out was noted for both fibre lengths suggests that fibre
length is not a critical factor in the reinforcement of
soil–cement composites. A greater fibre length may be able
to offer an increased fibre bond strength, but it would be
too difficult to mix through the soil–cement matrix
meaning that its use is unrealistic.
Compressive testing of the soil–cement specimens has
revealed that almost all specimens can comfortably meet
the 1.3 MPa compressive strength requirement of the New
Zealand earth building standard NZS 4298 [28]. The only
two specimens not meeting this requirement both displayed
a compressive strength of 1.26 MPa which is very close to
the 1.3 MPa requirement. It was also found that the
addition of fibre-reinforcement to the soil–cement compo-
site did not have a detrimental effect on specimen
compressive strength as was found in a previous study [29].
The accidental use of a cement product designed for
harsh environments, known as Duracem, has found that
this product gives significant improvements to both the
flexural and compressive strengths of the material.
Although this product does have a price premium in the
range of 5–15% over that of ordinary Portland cement, it
may still be worth incorporating into soil–cement compo-
sites due to the extent of the gains in composite strength.
The additional cost of the Duracem cement may also be
offset by the fact that its use may remove the need for fibre
coating and shift the purpose of the fibre-reinforcement
from a strength providing role to a role of providing only
ductility.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous sup-
port of the UKU Sustainable Housing group at the
University of Auckland and the funding provided by the
Foundation for Research Science and Technology of New
Zealand for this project.
The authors are also thankful to the School of
Engineering at the University of Auckland for the financial
assistance provided through the Guaranteed Financial
Support Scheme.
References
[1] Hall M, Djerbib Y. Rammed earth sample production: context,
recommendations and consistency. Construction and Building
Materials 2004;18(4):281–6.
[2] McHenry PG. Adobe and Rammed Earth Buildings: Design and
Construction. New York: Wiley; 1984.
[3] Ali HK. Sisal Fibre Reinforced Soil Cement. Master of Engineering
Studies Project Report, The University of Auckland, 1998.
[4] Easton D. The Rammed Earth House. White River Junction: Chelsea
Green Publishing Company; 1996.
[5] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth Construction: A Comprehensive
Guide. London: Intermediate Technology Publications; 1994.
[6] King PE. Buildings of Earth and Straw: Structural Design for
Rammed Earth and Straw-Bale Architecture. California: Ecological
Design Press; 1996.
[7] Akinmusuru JO. Lateritic soil–cement bricks for rural housing. The
International Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight
Concrete 1984;6(3):185–8.
[8] Consoli NC, Prietto PDM, Ulbrich LA. Influence of fiber and cement
addition on behavior of sandy soil. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 1998;124(12):1211–4.
[9] Kaniraj SR, Havanagi VG. Behaviour of cement-stabilized fiber-
reinforced fly ash soil mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 2001;127(7):574–84.
[10] Medjo Eko R, Riskowski G. Effects of fibers and cement on the
mechanical behavior of soil–cement reinforced with sugar cane
bagasse. Housing Science 1994;18(2):79–89.
[11] Khedari J, Watsanasathaporn P, Hirunlabh J. Development of fibre-
based soil–cement block with low thermal conductivity. Cement and
Concrete Composites 2004;27(1):111–6.
[12] Lasisi F, Osunade JA. Effect of grain size on the strength of cubes
made from lateritic soils. Building and Environment 1984;19(1):55–8.
[13] Subrahmanyam BV. Bamboo reinforcement for cement matricies. In:
Swamy RN, editor. New Reinforced Concretes. Glasgow: Surrey
University Press; 1984.
[14] Bahar R, Benazzoug M, Kenai S. Performance of compacted
cement-stabilised soil. Cement and Concrete Composites 2004;26(7):
811–20.
[15] Olotuah AO. Recourse to earth for low-cost housing in Nigeria.
Building and Environment 2002;37(1):123–9.
[16] Aggarwal LK, Singh J. Effect of plant fibre extractives on properties
of cement. Cement and Concrete Composites 1990;12(2):103–8.
[17] Khazanchi AC, Saxena M, Rao TC. Material science of natural
organic fibres reinforced composites in polymer-cement-mud matrix
for construction engineering. Proceeding of the international
symposium of textile composites in building construction, France;
1990. p. 69–76.
[18] Ghavami K, Filho RDT, Barbosa NP. Behaviour of composite soil
reinforced with natural fibres. Cement and Concrete Composites
1999;21(1):39–48.
[19] Scheele S, Harris W. The cultivation, harvesting and processing of
harakeke (Phormium tenax) as a source of fibre for inclusion in earth
building composites. Manaaki Whenua Contract Report: LC9798/
134; 1998.
[20] Giesecke A. Strengthening existing Adobe housing in earthquake-
prone regions in the Andean countries. Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management 1996;4(4):241–4.
[21] Baley C. Analysis of the flax fibres tensile behaviour and analysis of
the tensile stiffness increase. Composites: Part A 2002;33(7):939–48.
[22] Boominathan S, Senathipathi K, Jayaprakasam V. Field studies on
dynamic properties of reinforced earth. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering 1991;10(8):402–6.
[23] Murray RT, Farrar DM. Temperature distributions in reinforced soil
retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 1988;7(1-2):33–50.
[24] Allen M. Out of the Ground: Earthbuilding in New Zealand.
Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press Ltd; 1997.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Segetin et al. / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 3066–3079
[25] ASTM D 1635-00. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of
Soil–Cement Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading. Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials: Philadelphia; 2000.
[26] ASTM D 1634-00. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength
of Soil–Cement Using Portions of Beams Broken in Flexure
(Modified Cube Method). American Society for Testing and
Materials: Philadelphia; 2000.
[27] ASTM C 1018-97. Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness
and First-Crack Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam
3079
With Third-Point Loading). American Society for Testing and
Materials: Philadelphia; 1997.
[28] NZS 4298: 1998. Materials and Workmanship for Earth Buildings.
Standards New Zealand: Wellington; 1998.
[29] Segetin M, Lescher P, Jayaraman K, Xu X. Flax fibre-reinforced
soil–cement composites for low cost housing. Proceeding of the 3rd
international workshop on green composites, Kyoto; 2005, p. 39–45.
[30] Engineered Concrete Solutions. Retrieved December 7, 2005 from http://
www.holcim.com/Upload/NZ/Publications/ECS_Marine&Coastal.pdf.