Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Thermal performance assessment of masonry made of ICEB’s

stabilised with alkali-activated fly ash
Dinis Leitão a,∗ , José Barbosa b , Edgar Soares b , Tiago Miranda b , Nuno Cristelo c ,
Ana Briga-Sá d
a
C-TAC, University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, Guimarães, Portugal
b
ISISE, University of Minho, Department of Civil Engineering, Guimarães, Portugal
c
CQVR, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Department of Civil Engineering, Vila Real, Portugal
d
C-MADE, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Department of Civil Engineering, Vila Real, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite being a material used over time, soil has lost its space as a building material with the appearance
Received 8 July 2016 of the most diverse materials and techniques that today are considered traditional. However, with the
Received in revised form latest environmental and energetic concerns, earth construction techniques appear revitalized. Recently,
20 December 2016
the Interlocking Compressed Earth Block (ICEBs) masonry system has experienced considerable devel-
Accepted 22 December 2016
opment. Some studies prove the potential of new stabilization techniques, such as alkaline activation,
Available online 29 December 2016
to improve the mechanical performance and the durability of the blocks, allowing the incorporation
of industrial by-products. The high-energy consumption for buildings acclimatization has been another
Keywords:
ICEBs
aspect of high discussion. Many times, buildings constructed with earth are referred as an example with
Earth masonry respect to the thermal performance. In this sense, an assessment of the heat transfer coefficient of the
Thermal performance ICEBs was carried out. The results show that the ICEBs system performs poorly when compared to other
Alkali activated fly ash current construction materials regarding the heat transfer coefficient, but presents an improvement when
stabilization is done with alkali activated fly ash compared to other earth based materials.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Earth has been used as construction material since the ancient
times and nowadays it is still possible to find earth constructions all
over the world [1,2–4]. Approximately 17% of the sites classified by
UNESCO as world heritage are built on earth [5], and the number of
people living in earth buildings is around 30% to 50%, showing the
importance of the earth construction in the world housing scenery
[3,6–8].
Nevertheless, there has been recently an abandon of the earth
construction techniques, mainly due to two factors. The first
regards to the emergence of new materials and technologies such as
concrete, which allowed a faster building process and the construc-
tion of multistory buildings. The second is related with the lack of
institutional acceptance, the memory of economic poverty and the
association to the construction in underdeveloped countries [9].
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho,
Azurém, Guimarães 4800-058, Portugal.
E-mail address: dleitao@civil.uminho.pt (D. Leitão).
More recently, issues such as the local economy and the envi-
ronmental protection led to the revitalization of earth construction
techniques. This is due to the fact that the construction industry as
high environmental impacts, induced by the over-exploitation of
non-renewable resources, processing and transportation of mate-
rials and waste production [10–13]. Recent estimates point that
approximately 50% of non-renewable resources extracted from
the earth are used in the construction sector [14]. Ordinary Port-
land cement (OPC) production and application process consumes
about 2% of the energy produced globally and is responsible for
the emission of approximately 5% of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), as well
as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and composed
of lead, being responsible for the emission of 30%–40% of these
gases [10,15–17]. The production of construction and demolition
wastes in Europe reaches 33% of the total waste generated, with
values between 800 and 1000 million tons annually [16–19], but
still below the 40% reached globally [17]. Moreover, the construc-
tion sector is responsible for 25%–40% of the energy consumption
worldwide [17,20,21].
The potential of earth as a construction material for more
sustainable and environmentally healthier built environment is
underestimated [14]. Studies show that in moderate climates such

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.068
0378-7788/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52
as the Mediterranean, the use of Earth can even reduce energy
needs and provide increased comfort [61].
It is clear that its use not only represents a positive impact
regarding the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases, but
also a reduction in the extraction of raw materials [22–24]. The
earth is a reusable and ecologically viable material, being 100% recy-
clable and allowing its redisposition in the environment (as long
as some cares are taken regarding cement content) without high
impacts and expensive actions of collection, selection and recycling,
as happens in the case of other construction materials [9,25,26].
Masonry construction with Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) has
been subject to a huge evolution. CEBs are small units of masonry, in
parallelepiped form, produced according to different systems [27].
One of these is the Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks system
(ICEBs). In this system, the blocks are placed in a line allowing the
execution of the vertical reinforcement of the masonry. This con-
structive method is easy, quick and does not require the use of bed
joints mortar [28,29]. As the process is industrialized, the use of
these elements allows the quality control of the production [30],
inducing improvements in its manufacturing process [31].
Often, local soils are not suitable for use in the earth construc-
tion, being necessary their improvement using cementation agents,
such as OPC [32]. This process mitigates some of the weaknesses
that are usually associated with this type of construction, such as
their compressive and tensile strength, resistance to water actions
and durability in general [33,34]. However, the use of this cementa-
tion agent increases the environmental impact of the material and
hinders the disposal of the material in its end of life. In this sense, the
use of innovative soil improvement techniques to produce ICEBs
should be considered.
However, the research of new materials should not be restricted
to the enhancement of the mechanical performance and durability.
New requirements regarding energy consumption must be stud-
ied. Thus, earth construction assumes once again a prominent role,
especially due to its good behavior regarding thermal mass and per-
meability to water vapor [35–37]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of
studies about the thermal behavior of ICEBs.
This work aims to contribute to the understanding of the ther-
mal behavior of environmentally friendly ICEBs masonry, produced
without incorporation of OPC, using alkaline activation of fly ash.
This type of ICEBs had shown improved performance and lower
environmental impacts, as well as promoting the incorporation of
industrial wastes [38,39]. In this way, an experimental work was
performed with ICEBs manufactured using residual granitic soil
improved using the alkaline activation of fly ash, and with two
different constructive solutions: (i) dry-stack masonry and (ii) dry-
stack masonry with sealed joints on both sides. The experimental
work and the results obtained are presented and discussed.
2. ICEB’s Characterization
There are two materials common to all earth construction tech-
niques: soil and water. However, it is often impossible to obtain a
local soil suitable for the production of ICEB’s, thus requiring the use
of cementing agents. Traditional binders for soil improvement in
earth construction are cement and lime, which are chosen depend-
ing on strength requirements and the presence of clay minerals. If
the soil presents a very low clay content and activity, the cementing
agent is usually cement which increases the material’s environ-
mental impacts. These impacts start at the extraction phase, and
continue through the processing, transportation and application,
ending in their need to landfill, at the end of its life cycle. Regard-
ing the advantages associated to its use, the study was carried out
using fly ash and alkaline activation technique as a way to produce
an eco-friendly binder capable of the ICEB’s improvement.
45
Fig. 1. Comparison of the PSD curve with the envelope presented by Viana da Fon-
seca [44,38].
2.1. Materials and soil improvement description
2.1.1. Soil
The soil used in this research study was collected in Guimarães,
located in the Northern Region of Portugal. This soil, like other typ-
ical soils of this region, is defined as granitic residual soil (GRS).
The GRS are usually sandy soils with very low clay content, com-
posed by aggregates and crystals of altered minerals, such as quartz,
feldspars and micas. In order to produce earth blocks with the min-
imum required resistance, this type of soils is frequently improved
with a binder. The geotechnical characterization of the soil was per-
formed in terms of particle size distribution (PSD) [40], Atterberg
limits [41], particle density [42] and Proctor compaction parame-
ters [43].
The curve represented in Fig. 1 was obtained with the PSD test,
confirming the low clay content. In the same figure it is possible
to make a comparison with the envelope proposed by Viana da
Fonseca [44] for granitic residual soils of the Northern Region of
Portugal and it is possible to observe that the soil used in this study
lays within the envelope defined for GRS.
The value obtained for the liquid limit (LL) was 28%, while the
plastic limit (PL) was undetermined. This leads to the fact that, in
terms of plasticity, this soil is classified as non-plastic.
A value for the particle density was 2.62 g/cm3 . The maximum
dry density and optimum water content (OWC) were determined
by the Proctor compaction test, with standard and modified energy.
The two compaction energy levels were used to conclude about the
representative compression level that is achieved using the press
available for the production of the ICEBs. The values of maximum
dry density (γd) and optimum water content obtained in the nor-
mal Proctor test were 1.71 g/cm3 and 12.1%, respectively. For the
modified Proctor, the values were 1.85 g/cm3 and 12.3% (Table 1).
This characterization is a key stage in the assessment of the
soil suitability for earth construction. The soil consists essentially
of particles of variable size, namely clay, silt and sand, which are
mixed together, being the soil behavior previewed by the relative
presence of these particles [45]. Despite the importance of all tests
performed, the highlighted test in the literature is the PSD. For
example, Houben and Guillaud [6] specifies that the clay fraction
should be between 0% and 20% and the PSD curve must fall inside
the envelope shown in Fig. 2a. In standards such as UNE 41410 [46],
it is also possible to find an envelope where the PSD curve should
be located (Fig. 2b) [38]. In this case, the recommended clay con-
46 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52
Table 1
Results of the GRS characterization.
Test Fraction
PSD Clay
Silt
Sand
Gravel
Atterberg limits
Particle density test
Proctor compaction test
Fig. 2. Comparison between the PSD curve obtained and the proposed envelope [38]: (a) Houben and Guillaud [6]; (b) UNE 41410 [46].
tent should be between 10 and 30%. By the observation of Fig. 2
it is possible to conclude that the PSD curve of the GRS is not in
accordance with the proposed envelopes, since the percentage of
the clay fraction is too low (4%). In this case, in order to manufac-
ture and instantly handle the blocks, it is necessary to improve the
soil using cementing agents.
Another aspect that should be mentioned is related with
the block density, which is directly connected with the soil’s
local availability for the ICEBs production, and with its dura-
bility. The knowledge of the proper block density, considered
through the results obtained in the Proctor compaction test, allows
the production of ICEBs with enhanced durability and mechani-
cal performance without the introduction of large quantities of
cementing agents, such as OPC. In fact, there are some standards
that stipulate a minimum density for the blocks. For example,
standards such HB195 (Australia) [47], NC103 (Cameroon) [48],
MS777 (Malawi) [49] and FDUS849 (Uganda) [50] indicate values
of 1.5 g/cm3 , 1.75 g/cm3 , 1.6 g/cm3 and 1.6 g/cm3 , respectively. In
the case of the GRS used in this research, the maximum dry density
obtained in the Proctor compaction test, with standard compaction
energy (1.71 g/cm3 ), is in accordance with the standards minimum
requirements, and can be achieved through the ICEB production
press available.
The analysis reveals the need of the soil improvement in order
to proceed with the ICEBs production. As mentioned, in order to
enhance its characteristics, such as durability, strength and instant
handling, and to suppress the absence of the clay fraction, OPC is
often added to the mixture. Nevertheless, in this particular case,
it was used an alternative binding technique, known as alkaline
Content (%) Type Feature Result
4
14
60
22
Liquid limit (LL) 28%
Plastic limit (PL) –
(g/cm3 ) 2.62
Standard Maximum dry density (g/cm3 ) 1.71
OWC (%) 12.1
Modified Maximum dry density (g/cm3 ) 1.85
OWC (%) 12.3
activation, which allows the exclusion of OPC and the incorporation
of industrial by-products in a much more sustainable approach.
2.1.2. Soil improvement technique
The alkaline activation technique (AAT) dates back to 1940,
when Purdon carried out studies using alkali-activated blast fur-
nace slags and concluded that the hydroxides of the alkali metals
act as catalysts [51]. Davidovits found that it was possible to pro-
duce binders, taking advantage of the alkali reaction produced by a
solution containing silicium (Si) and aluminium (Al) with geologi-
cal origin or resulting from industrial by-products, such as the fly
ash and slag [52]. For Palomo, Grutzeck and Blanco [53] the alka-
line activation is a polymerization reaction of aluminum–silicon
compounds which occurs in the presence of certain high alka-
line solutions, such as potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide
and potassium silicate or sodium silicate. This hydration reaction
occurs in the presence of alkali or alkaline earth metals, includ-
ing: (i) hydroxides (ROH, R(OH)2 ); (ii) salts of weak acids (R2 CO3 ,
R2 S, RF); (iii) salts of strong acids (Na2 SO4 , CaSO4 ·2H2 O); (iv) sil-
icate salts of the type R2 ·(n)SiO2 , where R is an alkaline ion like
sodium (Na), potassium (K) or lithium (Li) or an alkaline earth ion
like calcium (Ca) [54]. For Vargas et al. [55], this technique trans-
forms partially or fully amorphous structures in well compressed
compounds, with cementitious properties, by means of highly alka-
line solutions, which is accomplished by using sodium hydroxide
and calcium hydroxide.
The AAT has been used recently for soil improvement, show-
ing great potential. The investigations carried out by some authors
demonstrate significant improvements achieved with the use of
this technique, especially regarding the increment of the original
 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52
soil load capacity [31,56]. This technique has not been studied only
in this sense, but also as a binding agent for behavior improvement
in the production of compressed earth blocks, demonstrating all its
potential in this application [30]. With respect to the environmental
aspects, the soil improvement with AAT has shown very promis-
ing features [39]. The creation of alkali activated binders (AAB) is
based on the formation of a gel which involves the soil particles
and bind them more effectively, producing a composite material
[58]. For this particular study, fly ash was used in the role of the
precursor, while sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate composed
the activator.
Fly ash is an amorphous solid, with spherical morphology,
exhibiting high pozzolanic properties and valued as an additive in
mortars and concretes due essentially to the high improvements in
terms of strength and durability. Because of its origin in the mineral
impurities contained in coal, fly ash are mainly composed by sili-
con dioxide (SiO2 ), aluminium oxide (Al2 O3 ) and iron oxide (Fe2 O3 ),
being an interesting source of aluminium and silicium in the cre-
ation of the AAM. Fly ash can be classified as Class F or Class C,
depending on its composition. In a Class C fly ash, the amount of cal-
cium in its composition is typically higher than 10%, while in a Class
F, with a lower quantity of calcium, fly ash leads to the existence of
pozzolanic properties, but not hydraulic and binding properties. In
the presence of a chemical activator they acquire these properties,
obtaining high chemical stability during the curing process.
In this study, a Class F fly ash was collected in a Portuguese
thermoelectric power plant (Fig. 3) to produce the ICEBs. It was
characterized in terms of size and chemical composition. With
respect to the grain size, it presents an average of 10.64 ␮m [31].
In terms of chemical composition (analysis performed in Electronic
Microscopic Unit in University of Trás-os-Monte e Alto Douro), the
amount of material available for the activation process is approxi-
mately 75%, corresponding to the aluminium, silicium and calcium
present, as it is possible to observe in Table 2.
The activator was obtained using sodium hydroxide and sodium
silicate. Its first function was to grant workability to the mixture
and, in a later stage, to react with the fly ash creating a stable binding
matrix. The sodium hydroxide was obtained in solid form (flakes)
with 98% purity. Before use, it was dissolved in water to obtain
a sodium hydroxide solution with the desired concentration. The
sodium silicate used for the activator was obtained in solution form,
containing sodium oxide (Na2 O) and silicon dioxide (SiO2 ) in a 1:2
mass ratio and presenting a density of 1.464 ± 0.021 g/cm3 .
2.2. ICEB’s production
In order to produce the ICEBs for this study the soil was previ-
ously air dried. The composition of the mixture was selected based
on previous studies [30] [38,57], and it is presented in Table 3.
To obtain the alkali activator with the desired characteristics, the
sodium hydroxide solution was prepared 24 h before its use with a
12.5 m concentration.
Before the mixture preparation all materials were weighted. The
mixture was prepared in two steps. The first step was the homog-
enization of the dry phase, composed by GRS and fly ash. In the
second step, the liquid phase (alkaline activator) was added to the
pre-homogenized solid phase, producing the final mixture (Fig. 4a).
In order to more accurately control the density of each block, the
necessary amount of mixture for its production was previously
weighted. After this process, the mixture was properly placed in the
press and the block was immediately manufactured (Fig. 4b). The
®
press used in the ICEBs manufacture was a Terstaram press, which
allows the application of a compression stress up to 4 MPa. After
manufacture, the blocks were left indoor, for air-curing, during
28 days, as shown in Fig. 4c. An average temperature and relative
47
humidity of 18 ◦ C and 55%, respectively, were used, respecting the
conditions displayed in NP EN772-1:2002 [59].
2.3. ICEB’s characteristics and masonry system
The geometry adopted for the used blocks was based on the
geometry proposed in the HiLoTec research project [29]. This geom-
etry consists in a vertical hollow interlocking block system. The
adopted vertical hollow system has various advantages, such as the
decrease in the unit weight and the reduction of the material con-
sumed for the production of each block, which is directly related
to the overall construction costs. Moreover, these openings allow
the structural reinforcement of the elements as well as the passage
of hydraulic and electrical systems, without damaging the struc-
tural masonry integrity. The ICEBs used and its dimensions can be
seen in Fig. 5. The average density was 1800 kg/m3 , which means
that each block weights approximately 6.7 kg. The thermal perfor-
mance assessment was executed in blocks with 28 days curing. At
this stage, its average compressive strength is about 3 MPa [57].
The masonry walls built with these blocks have a mechanical
interlocking system, which dispenses the use of bed joint mortars.
Due to its geometric features, it is possible to construct single-
leaf and double-leaf walls, as represented in Fig. 6. This type of
interlocking based walls promotes a simpler, fast and inexpensive
construction.
3. Metodology
The test procedures for the thermal performance assessment of
this masonry building solution were carried out in accordance with
ASTM C1046 [60] and ASTM C1155 [61] standards. These standards
aim to promote correct use and installation of heat flow meters and
surface temperatures measurement equipment’s and to describe
the calculation methods and the rules for results validation and
presentation.
3.1. Equipment
The sensor used in the measurement of the heat flux across
the masonry wall was the Hukseflux HFP01SC with self-calibrating
heat flux sensorTM (Fig. 7a). This sensor allows high accuracy mea-
surement of soil heat flux. For the elements surface temperatures
measurement, type T thermocouples of copper/constantan (Fig. 7b)
were used. In order to perform the control, acquisition and data
®
storage it was used a Campbell Scientific CR10X datalogger. The
calibration of the masonry surface temperature sensors was exe-
cuted using a Rotronic Instruments HygroClip HC2-S (Fig. 7c).
The assessment of thermal conductivity tests were performed
in a test cell (Fig. 8) with about 2.5 × 2.5 × 4.0 (m3 ) of interior
dimensions and high thermal insulation. The construction of the
single-leaf testing wall was done in a mobile frame with inner
dimensions of 2.7 × 4.2 (m2 ). The wall in the mobile frame was
pressed against the test cell compressing a very compressible mate-
rial with high density and high thermal resistance to assure absence
of leaks or thermal bridges.
An air conditioning system (Daykin FTXS50G2V1B) was used to
control and maintain constant temperature inside the test cell. The
indoor air temperature in the opposite side of the wall was main-
tained through passive means and thermal inertia of the building.
There was some fluctuation in day/night cycles but it was possi-
ble to obtain large periods with constant temperature as shown
afterwards, allowing constant heat flux.
48 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52

Fig. 3. Class F fly ash used in the AAM [31]: (a) natural scale image; (b) SEM image with 1600× amplification.

Table 2
Chemical composition obtained by EDS [31] .

Element Si Al Na Ca Fe Mg P S K Ti

Quantity (%) 48.81 21.77 1.31 3.85 14.74 1.56 0.58 1.17 4.42 1.79

Table 3
Mixture composition for ICEBs production.

Solid Phase (%) Liquid Phase (%) Solid/Liquid (Phases) (%) Concentration NaOH2 (m)

Fly Ash Soil NaOH2 Na2 SiO2

15 85 66.7 33.3 13.7 12.5

Fig. 4. ICEBs production: (a) final mixture; (b) block manufacture; (c) blocks in air-curing process.

Fig. 5. Geometry of the ICEBs: (a) block after curing; (b) block dimensions (in mm) [29].

3.2. Test procedure
To assess the masonry thermal behavior in accordance with the
ASTM C1046 standard, five test points were selected to place the
surface temperature and heat flux sensors (Fig. 9a): (i) vertical joint
(test point A); (ii) horizontal joint (test point B); (iii) joint intersec-
tion (test point C); (iv) hollow zone of the block (test point D);
(v) massive zone of the block (test point E) (Fig. 9). The five test
points were selected to assure measurement of the thermal behav-
ior of all representative areas of the blocks. The selection of the
central zone of the wall assures that the fluxes measures were fully
perpendicular to the wall surface.
 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52 49

Fig. 6. ICEBs masonry [29]: (a) single-leaf walls; (b) double-leaf walls.

Fig. 7. Sensors used in the heat transfer measurement: (a) Hukseflux HFP01SC; (b) type T thermocouples; (c) HygroClip HC2-S.

Fig. 8. Preparation for the test execution: (a) test cell; (b) ICEB’s wall during construction; (c) final aspect of the tested wall.

toothpaste as the thermal contact material. The heat flow sensors

were placed in the outer face of the wall, over the thermocouples
(Fig. 9). At last, air temperature and relative humidity sensors were
placed inside the test cell. During the first 24 h, no results were con-
sidered to allow stabilization of the heat fluxes. The temperature
difference between the inside of the test cell and the outer tempera-
ture was enough to guarantee a suitable temperature gradient. The
measurements were carried out in 5 min intervals and the values
obtained represent the physical quantities average over that time
period.

3.3. Results analysis procedure

For the assessment of the ICEBs’ thermal resistance, the analysis

Fig. 9. Placement of the heat flux sensors and the thermocouples in the ICEB’s wall. of results was performed according to the procedures described
in the standard ASTM C1155. It was considered that the tests were
performed in line with point 5 of this standard. The method used for
The test procedures for in-situ measurement of thermal con- calculation of the thermal resistance was the summation technique,
ductivity using heat flux meters and surface temperature sensors applying Eq. (1).
followed the recommendations preconized in standard ASTM
C1046. The thermocouples were installed on both sides of the wall
M
k=1
Tk
in order to measure the masonry surface temperature during the Re = (1)
tests. Afterwards, the fixing of the heat flow sensors was done using M q
k=1 k
50 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52

Table 4
Results for thermal resistance and heat transfer coefficient.

Test Point Rej (m2 ◦ C/W) Aeq (m2 ) Rm (m2 ◦ C/W) RT (m2 ◦ C/W) U (W/m2 ◦ C)

A 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.34 2.94

B 0.16 0.72
C 0.18 0.18
D 0.18 1.26
E 0.20 0.43

Where Re is the thermal resistance of the wall, Tk is the temper-
ature difference between the interior and exterior faces of the wall
in a particular period of time k, and qk is the heat flux in the same
period.
It was possible to calculate Re for each period considering the
surface temperatures and heat flux in that period. Over the course
of the tests, the surface temperatures and the heat flux stabilizes
and consequently, the value of Re calculated for each period also
stabilizes. The determined Re for the wall is obtained by the aver-
age of 3 different intervals of 12 h of time where Re verifies the
Convergence (Eq. (2)) and Variance (Eq. (3)) tests.
Re (t) − Re (t − n)
CRn = ≤ 0.1
Re (t)
Being CRn the convergence factor, Re (t) the thermal resistance in
the period t and Re (t-n) the thermal resistance calculated between
two consecutive time periods.
 
s (Re )
V(Re ) = × 100 ≤ 0.1
Re
Where V(Re) is the sample variance, s(Re) is the standard deviation
and Re is the sample average.
Since the element in assessment is not homogeneous and
presents different behavior, Eq. (4) was used to determine a repre-
sentative value for the thermal resistance of the masonry wall as a
whole.
 M 
k=1 Aj
Rm =   (4)
A
N
j=1 R
j
ej
Being Rm the masonry thermal resistance average and Rej the ther-
mal resistance in a region of a constructive element with an area Aj
where the thermal conditions are similar. The thermal behaviour
of the blocks is different in the hollow zones and in the areas of the
massive zones. The overall thermal resistance (Rm ) is computed
from the thermal resistance of its composing regions (Rej ).
Computed the masonry thermal resistance, the heat transfer
coefficient (U) can be obtained using Eq. (5):
1 0.35 and 0.5 W/m2 ◦ C [65].
U=
[Rm ]
The average value of Re, in the 12 h’ intervals that verified the
convergence and variation tests, obtained for the massive zone
of the block was 0.20 m2 ◦ C/W. Regarding the other points, the
average values for Re were: A: 0.13 m2 ◦ C/W, B: 0.16 m2 ◦ C/W, C:
0.18 m2 ◦ C/W; D: 0.18 m2 ◦ C/W. Considering that each point is asso-
ciated to a different reference area, Eq. (4) was used to compute the
representative thermal resistance of the wall. The reference area
(Aeq ) of each test point was calculated taking into consideration
the representative area of each part of the brick and the heat flux
sensor dimensions. Table 4 summarizes the results obtained in the
process.
To know the total masonry thermal resistance (RT ) it is necessary
(2) to add the value of the surface thermal resistance [62]. According to
[59] and considering the ICEBs wall working as an external wall, the
interior superficial thermal resistance (Rsi ) is 0.13 m2 ◦ C/W and the
exterior superficial thermal resistance (Rse ) is 0.04 m2 ◦ C/W. Using
Eq. (5), the corresponding heat transfer coefficient of the ICEBs wall
(U) was 2,94 W/m2 ◦ C.
In Portugal there is a reference work from the National Labo-
(3)
ratory of Civil Engineering that provides guidelines to determine
the thermal resistance and heat transfer coefficients of several
materials and elements such as walls, floors and ceilings [62]. Fer-
nandes et al. used these guidelines [62] to calculate the value for
a 100 cm thickness rammed earth wall and obtained a value of
U = 0.87 W/m2 ◦ C [63] and the U value for a 55 cm granite wall
and obtained a value of 2.87 W/(m2 ◦ C) [64]. Using these guidelines
and considering the thickness of the ICEB’s wall analysed (14 cm),
the heat transfer coefficient of the wall would be approximately
4.6 W/m2 ◦ C [62]. The heat transfer coefficient computed for the
ICEB’s wall was lower that the value obtained by following the cal-
culation guidelines of the Portuguese National Laboratory of Civil
Engineering. It is possible to state that either these guidelines are
not accurate for building solutions with earth or the stabilization of
the earth material with alkali activated fly ash improves the thermal
behaviour of the wall regarding heat transference.
Comparing the measured ICEBs performance to walls with sim-
ilar thickness using other materials, the U values of the ICEBs wall
are similar or lower (Table 5). For reference, the Portuguese thermal
regulation imposes maximum U values for external walls between
(5)

4. Results and discussion

The results obtained in the tests are presented and discussed in

this chapter for the 5 points analysed. Considering the controlled Table 5
environment where the tests were conducted, it was possible to Heat transfer coefficient of walls using different materials with 14 cm thickness
obtain stable results in a considerable short period. In Fig. 10, the according to [59].
results for the analysis of the thermal behaviour of the wall are Material U (W/m2 ◦ C)
presented in a graphical overview for the massive zone of the block. 3
Cavernous concrete (1700 kg/m ) 4.72
On the graph, the values of the measurements of the heat flux, the Cavernous concrete (1900 kg/m3 ) 5.16
external surface temperature and the internal surface temperature Regular concrete (2150 kg/m3 ) 5.72
are presented over the course of a 36 h’ sample. The negative heat Regular concrete (2450 kg/m3 ) 6.25
flux values represent its direction, which was from the outside to Concrete blocks masonry 2.70
Ceramic hollow bricks masonry 1.79
the inside.
 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52
Exterior Termocouple
27
26
Temperature (ºC)
25
24
23
22
21
6:00 10:00 14:00
Fig. 10. Sample measurement of heat flux, external and internal superficial temperatures in the massive zone of the block.
5. Conclusions
The results obtained with the experimental work characterize
the thermal resistance of a masonry wall constructed with ICEB’s,
stabilised with alkali activated fly ash. It should be noted that the
soil, and in this particular case the GRS, is a multiphase system
containing solid particles with different shapes and sizes. There-
fore, the thermal performance of the element is determined by
the thermal characteristics of each of its constituents. The thermal
resistance of the wall was of 0.34 m2 ◦ C/W, corresponding to a heat
transfer coefficient of 2.94 W/m2 ◦ C. This value for the heat transfer
coefficient is high when compared to the minimum requirements
of the Portuguese legislation but this also happens to other sin-
gle walls with the same thickness using conventional materials.
This means that both the ICEBs wall and other single walls using
conventional materials require extra insulation layers to verify the
legislation. However, the ICEBs wall performance is comparable to
other conventional building solutions. These results seem to go
in contradiction against the general accepted idea that the earth
constructions present good thermal performance. This is because
the main role of this type of solutions is not to provide thermal
resistance but to provide thermal mass, being recommended for
tempered climates such as in Portugal and other Mediterranean
countries. In fact, thermal mass is a parameter considered in the
Portuguese legislation and it allows reducing the calculated energy
needs. However, high thermal mass does not eliminate the need
to verify the maximum U values of external walls, which is some-
how contradictory to the fact that earth buildings in warm climates
can have low energy needs without external insulation layers. This
shows that it is necessary to perform additional studies to analyse
the energy performance of earth buildings.
Acknowledgements
This work is financed by FEDER funds through the Competitiv-
ity Factors Operational Programme – COMPETE and by national
funds through FCT − Foundation for Science and Technology
within the scope of the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633.
The financial support provided by the FCT through the scholar-
ship SFRH/BD/111346/2015 is also gratefully acknowledged. The
authors wish to express their gratitude to Helena de Araújo for
her support in the experimental work, to Eng. Jorge Henriques, on
behalf of the company PEGOP − Energia Eléctrica SA, for providing
the fly ash, and to Miguel Rodrigues, on behalf of the company CJR
GROUP, for providing the soil.
51
Interior Termocouple Heat Flux
-4
-8
Heat Flux (W/m 2)
-12
-16
-20
-24
-28
18:00 22:00 2:00 6:00 10:00 14:00 18:00
Test Time (Hours)
References
[1] Waitakere City Council, Earth Building, in: Wait. City Counc. Sustain. Home
Guidel., Henderson, Waitakere City 0650, New Zealand, 2008.
[2] F.V.P. Doat, A. Hays, H. Houben, S. Matuk, Construire en Terre, 3è édition,
Editions l’Harmattan, Paris, 1996.
[3] Earth Construction Solutions for a Sustainable World, (n.d.). https://www.
empowering-people-network.siemens-stiftung.org/en/shortlist/projects/
earth-construction-solutions-for-a-sustainable-world/ (Accessed 07 March
2016).
[4] B. Qu, B.J. Stirling, D.C. Jansen, D.W. Bland, P.T. Laursen, Testing of
flexure-dominated interlocking compressed earth block walls, Constr. Build.
Mater. 83 (2015) 34–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.
080.
[5] UNESCO, Inventory of World Heritage Earthen Architecture, 2012. http://whc.
unesco.org/en/earthen-architecture/.
[6] H. Houben, H. Guillaud, Earth Construction: A Comprehensive Guide, edition
pa, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd., Marseille, France, 2008.
[7] P. Donkor, E. Obonyo, Earthen construction materials: assessing the feasibility
of improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using
polypropylene fibers, Mater. Des. 83 (2015) 813–819, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.matdes.2015.06.017.
[8] Lara K. Davis, Building with earth: earthen Architecture for sustainable
development (Is earth an urbun material?), Auroshilpam, 605 101 Auroville,
TN India, 2015.
[9] E. Adam, A. Agib, Compressed Stabilised Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan,
Print. by Graphoprint United Nations Educ. Sci. Cult. Organ, France, Pa, 2001,
101 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128236e.pdf.
[10] R.M. Pulselli, E. Simoncini, R. Ridolfi, S. Bastianoni, Specific emergy of cement
and concrete: an energy-based appraisal of building materials and their
transport, Ecol. Indic. 8 (2008) 647–656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.
2007.10.001.
[11] J.C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, P. Walker, Building houses with local
materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of
construction, Build. Environ. 36 (2001) 1119–1126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0360-1323(00)00054-8.
[12] K.K.G.K.D. Kariyawasam, C. Jayasinghe, Cement stabilized rammed earth as a
sustainable construction material, Constr. Build. Mater. 105 (2016) 519–527,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.189.
[13] M. Ben Mansour, A. Jelidi, A.S. Cherif, S. Ben Jabrallah, Optimizing thermal and
mechanical performance of compressed earth blocks (CEB), Constr. Build.
Mater. 104 (2016) 44–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.
024.
[14] A. Braga, V. Rocheta, A construção em terra e a sustentabilidade. (In
Portuguese). 5◦ Semin. Arquit. Em Terra Em Port. − Aveiro, 2007. − 8 P.,
(2008). 978-972-8692-40-7.
[15] A. Teixeira Pinto, Novos sistemas ligantes obtidos por ativação alcalina
(geopolimerização). (In Portuguese). 2002. http://home.utad.pt/∼ibentes/
index files/Novos%20Materiais.pdf.
[16] The Centre for Sustainable Design, V.C. University for the Crative Arts −
Martin Charter, Scott Keiller, Eco-design for the construction industry, Jackie
Walker, Enterprise Europe Network, 53 Bugle Street, Southampton, SO14 2LF,
United Kingdom, n.d.
[17] R. Anger, L. Fontaine, T. Joffroy, E. Ruiz, Earthen construction, an other way to
house the planet, Priv. Sect. Dev. (10) (2011) 18–21 http://www.proparco.fr/
lang/en/Accueil PROPARCO/Publications-Proparco/secteur-prive-et-
developpement/Les-derniers-numeros/Issue-10-cement.
[18] E.F. Ledesma, J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, J.M. Fernández, J. De Brito, Maximum
feasible use of recycled sand from construction and demolition waste for
52 D. Leitão et al. / Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 44–52
eco-mortar production − Part-I: ceramic masonry waste, J. Clean. Prod. 87
(2015) 692–706, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.084.
[19] F. Di Maria, F. Bianconi, C. Micale, S. Baglioni, M. Marionni, Quality assessment
for recycling aggregates from construction and demolition waste: an
image-based approach for particle size estimation, Waste Manag. 48 (2016)
344–352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.005.
[20] R.M. Pulselli, E. Simoncini, F.M. Pulselli, S. Bastianoni, Emergy analysis of
building manufacturing, maintenance and use: em-building indices to
evaluate housing sustainability, Energy Build. 39 (2007) 620–628, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.10.004.
[21] R.M. Pulselli, E. Simoncini, N. Marchettini, Energy and emergy based
cost-benefit evaluation of building envelopes relative to geographical location
and climate, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 920–928, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2008.06.009.
[22] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: lessons from the past for future
eco-efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054.
[23] D. Maskell, A. Heath, P. Walker, Laboratory scale testing of extruded earth
masonry units, Mater. Des. 45 (2013) 359–364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2012.09.008.
[24] H. Yu, L. Zheng, J. Yang, L. Yang, Stabilised compressed earth bricks made with
coastal solonchak, Constr. Build. Mater. 77 (2015) 409–418, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.069.
[25] F. Torgal, S. Jalali, A sustentabilidade dos materiais de construção. (In
Portuguese). (2010) 1–14. D.O.I: 10.5335/ciatec.v2i2.1266.
[26] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB)
with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces, Case Stud,
Constr. Mater. 5 (2016) 53–63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.07.001.
[27] V. Rigassi, Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of Production, 1985.
[28] G. Fiegel, C., Bales, C., Donahue, M., Fischer, T. Pearson, Interlocking
Compressed Earth Blocks CE 467- Senior Project Interlocking Compressed
Earth Blocks From Soils to Structures Spring 2009 Advisor: Authors: (2009).
[29] T.M. Sturm, J.L.F. da silva Ramos, P.J.B.B. Lourenço, Characterization of
dry-stack interlocking compressed earth blocks, 2013, 1–39. D.O.I:
10.1617/s11527-014-0379-3.
[30] R.A. Silva, D.V. Oliveira, T.F. Miranda, P. Esteves, E. Soares, N. Cristelo,
Mechanical behavior of compressed earth blocks stabilized with industrial
wastes, in: Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (Ed.), 14 Congr. Nac.
Geotec., Covilhã, 2014, p. 16.
[31] E. Soares, Melhoria do Solo Residual Granítico com Recurso à Activação
Alcalina de Cinzas Volantes (In Portuguese), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes
e Alto Douro, 2013 http://repositorio.utad.pt//handle/10348/4619.
[32] R. Bahar, M. Benazzoug, S. Kenai, Performance of compacted
cement-stabilised soil, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (2004) 811–820, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.01.003.
[33] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, The mechanical and physical properties of compressed
earth block stabilized with lime and filled with untreated and alkali-treated
date palm fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 52–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.007.
[34] I. Alam, A. Naseer, A.A. Shah, Economical stabilization of clay for earth
buildings construction in rainy and flood prone areas, Constr. Build. Mater. 77
(2015) 154–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.046.
[35] P. Gerard, M. Mahdad, A. Robert McCormack, B. François, A unified failure
criterion for unstabilized rammed earth materials upon varying relative
humidity conditions, Constr. Build. Mater. 95 (2015) 437–447, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.100.
[36] F. El Fgaier, Z. Lafhaj, E. Antczak, C. Chapiseau, Dynamic thermal performance
of three types of unfired earth bricks, Appl. Therm. Eng. 93 (2016) 377–383,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.009.
[37] D. Allinson, M. Hall, Hygrothermal analysis of a stabilised rammed earth test
building in the UK, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 845–852, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.005.
[38] R.A. Silva, E. Soares, D.V. Oliveira, T. Miranda, N.M. Cristelo, D. Leitão,
Mechanical characterisation of dry-stack masonry made of CEBs stabilised
with alkaline activation, Constr. Build. Mater. 75 (2015) 349–358, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.038.
[39] N. Cristelo, T. Miranda, D.V. Oliveira, I. Rosa, E. Soares, P. Coelho, L. Fernandes,
Assessing the production of jet mix columns using alkali activated waste
based on mechanical and financial performance and CO2 (eq) emissions, J.
Clean. Prod. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.102.
[40] LNEC, LNEC E196. Soils: Particle Size Distribution Analysis, Especificação do
Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, 1966 (In
Portuguese).
[41] NP 143. Soils: determination of the consistency limits, Instituto Português da
Qualidade, Portuguese Standard, Caparica, Portugal. (In Portuguese), 1969.
[42] NP 83. Soils: particle density test, Instituto Português da Qualidade,
Portuguese Standard, Caparica, Portugal. (In Portuguese), 1965.
[43] LNEC E197. Soils: compaction test, Especificação do Laboratório Nacional de
Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal. (In Portuguese), 1966.
[44] A. Viana da Fonseca, Geomechanics of the granitic residual soils from Porto,
in: Criteria for the Design of Direct Foundations. (In Portuguese), University of
Porto, 1996.
[45] F.P. Torgal, R.M.G., Eires, S. Jalali, Construção em terra. (In Portuguese).
Publidisa, Guimarães, 2009.
[46] UNE 41410, Bloques de tierra comprimida para muros y tabiques −
Definiciones, especificaciones y métodos de ensayo, AENOR, Madrid,E spanhã,
2008. M 55496:2008.
[47] HB 195, The Australian earth building handbook, Standards Australia
International Ltd, Sydney,NSW 2001, Australia, 2009.
[48] NC 103, Blocs de terre comprimée: Norme de définition, classification et
désignation des blocs de terre comprimée, ANOR. 2002.
[49] MS 777, Stabilised soil blocks − Specification, Malawi Stand. (2007) 15.
[50] FDUS 849, Specification for stabilized soil blocks, UGANDA Stand, 2009.
[51] A.O. Purdon, The action of alkalis on blast-furnace slag, J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 59
(1940) 191–202.
[52] J. Davidovits, Properties of geopolymer cements, First Int Conf. Alkaline Cem.
Concr. 13 (1994) 131–149.
[53] A. Palomo, M.W. Grutzeck, M.T. Blanco, Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement
for the future, Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (1999) 1323–1329, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0008-8846(98)00243-9.
[54] A. TeixeiraPinto, Introdução ao Estudo dos Geopolímeros. (In Portuguese),
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, 2006.
[55] A.S. de Vargas, D.C.C. Dal Molin, A.C.F., Vilela, S., Jalali, J.P.C. Gomes, Ativação
alcalina de cinzas volantes utilizando solução combinada de NaOH e Ca(OH)2 ,
61(Congr. Anu. Da ABM. In Portuguese (2006).
[56] N. Cristelo, S. Glendinning, A. Teixeira Pinto, Deep soft soil improvement by
alkaline activation, Proc. ICE − Gr. Improv. 164 (2011) 73–82, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1680/grim.900032.
[57] R.A. Silva, E. Soares, D.V. Oliveira, T. Miranda, N. Cristelo, J.V. Oliveira, CEBs
stabilised with geopolymeric binders: mechanical performance of dry-stack
masonry, 2015, 336–342.
[58] J.L. Provis, J.S.J. van Deventer, Alkali Activated Materials, Springer,
Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7672-2.
[59] N. P EN 772-1, Determinação da resistência à compressao de blocos para
alvenaria − Parte 1: Determinação da resistência à compressão. (In
Portuguese), 2011, 14.
[60] ASTM C1046-95, Standard practice for In-Situ measurement of heat flux and
temperature on building envelope components, ASTM Int. 95 (2001), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1520/C1046-95R13.2.
[61] ASTM C1155-95(2013), Standard Practice for Determining Thermal
Resistance of Building Envelope Components from the In-Situ Data, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org.
[62] C.A. Pina, L. Matias, Coeficientes de Transmissão Térmica da Envolvente dos
Edifícios, Versão actualizada 2006 (ITE 50). (In Portuguese), 2006.
[63] J. Fernandes, R. Mateus, L. Bragança, J.J. Correia da Silva, Portuguese
vernacular architecture: the contribution of vernacular materials and design
approaches for sustainable construction, Archit. Sci. Rev. 58 (2014) 324–336,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.974019.
[64] J. Fernandes, C. Pimenta, R. Mateus, S. Silva, L. Bragança, Contribution of
portuguese vernacular building strategies to indoor thermal comfort and
occupants’ perception, Buildings 5 (2015) 1242–1264, http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/buildings5041242.
[65] Ministério da Economia e do Emprego, Decreto-Lei n.o 118/2013, Diério Da
Repáblica 159 (2013) 4988–5005, in Portuguese.