Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

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

Mechanical and hygrothermal properties of compressed stabilized earth MARK

bricks (CSEB)
⁎
Pape Moussa Touréa, Vincent Samboua, , Mactar Fayea,b, Ababacar Thiama,b, Mamadou Adja,
Dorothé Azilinona
a
Laboratoire d’Energétique Appliquée, Ecole Supérieure Polytechnique, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, BP:5085 Dakar-Fann, Senegal
b
Département de Physique, Université Alioune Diop de Bambey, BP 30 Bambey, Senegal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In Africa, compressed stabilized earth bricks are used increasingly in construction. The mechanical, thermal and
Compressed stabilized earth bricks hygroscopic properties of earth-based building materials available in the African market are not known with
Compression strength accuracy. For this reason, it is often difficult to predict the thermal behavior and the sustainability of buildings
Thermal conductivity made from earth bricks. The work presented in this paper aims at measuring the mechanical, thermal and
Thermal capacity
hygroscopic properties of compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEB) produced by eight brickworks in Senegal.
Water vapor permeability
These properties include compressive strength, thermal conductivity, thermal capacity, and water vapor per-
meability. The mechanical characterization showed that the compressive strength of CSEB made by these
brickworks is insufficient for CSEB to be used in a load-bearing wall according to the African standard ARS 674.
The thermal characterization gives an average thermal conductivity of 0.75 W m−1 K−1 and an average specific
heat of 1040 J kg−1 K−1, with a Variation Coefficient of 8% and 7%, respectively. The hygroscopic character-
izations show a low resistance to water vapor of these bricks. These values are close to the few data existing in
the literature on CSEB.

1. Introduction
The energy consumption of residential buildings accounts for about
40% of global energy used in the world [1,2]. Residential buildings are
responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions [3]. In Senegal
residential buildings represent 49% of total final consumption ac-
cording to the Energy Information System of SENEGAL. It is therefore
necessary to reduce this energy consumption to decrease the impact of
buildings on the environment. In doing so several solutions have been
implemented. Among them, we can note the improvement of building
envelope to better thermal comfort in the buildings. In this context,
innovative materials based on earth is used as a substitute for con-
ventional materials, such as concrete. Earth has many advantages. It is
available in large quantities. The energy requirement for its extract,
transform and produce is low. In [4,5] embodied energy of cement
stabilized rammed earth is given. Its good capacity to regulate the in-
door humidity [6] and its very high thermal inertia [7] are added to
these advantages. Both parameters are an asset to improve thermal
comfort in buildings. In this context, the laterite is increasingly used in
earth construction. The laterite is available in large quantities in tro-
pical countries, it is rich in aluminum, silica and iron oxides [8]. The
content of these chemical substances varies with mineral and chemical
composition based on formation [8]. Mineralogical analyses showed
that the laterite is composed of kaolinite, hematite, goethite and quartz
[9]. The kaolinite is the predominant clay mineral in laterites [10].
Pozzolanic reaction in soils containing kaolinite mixed with cement
seems to start at about 1 h after the mixing, but does not modified the
soil [10]. Earth construction contains several techniques: wattle and
daub cob, rammed earth and earth bricks [11]. The technique of earth
bricks is the one used in Senegal. The earth bricks can be compressed or
not. To improve water resistance, the earth bricks are often stabilized.
The stabilization of earth bricks is necessary in rainy zones.
The mechanical properties of CSEB have been studied by many re-
searchers. State of the art on different procedures (Direct unit strength,
RILEM test and Indirect tests) used for measuring compressive strength
of CSEB has been done by Morel et al. [12]. They have shown in this
review that the value of strength compressive of CSEB differs according
the test procedure used. Another work about the compressive and
flexural strengths of compressed earth bricks stabilized with cement has
been done by Walker [13]. The results show that the strength of CSEB is
improved by increasing cement content and impaired by clay content.
The compressive strength at different days of curing (7, 14, 21 and 28

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vincent.sambou@ucad.edu.sn (V. Sambou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.08.012
Received 23 December 2016; Received in revised form 25 August 2017; Accepted 31 August 2017
Available online 04 September 2017
2352-7102/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.M. Touré et al.
days) of compressed laterite bricks stabilized with cement has been
studied by Waziri et al. [14]. The largest value of the compressive
strength was obtained at 28 days curing. In their work, Jayasinghe and
Mallawaarachchi [15] are interested in the flexural strength of com-
pressed earth bricks stabilized with cement. Their results indicate that
the flexural strength of compressed stabilized earth masonry walls can
be 0.25 N/mm2 or above, which can be comparable with conventional
masonry, such as burnt clay brickwork. Lasisi and Ogunjide [16] have
studied the effect of grain size on the strength characteristics of laterite
bricks stabilized with cement. The results show that the increasing of
laterite/cement ratio decreases the compressive strength and the in-
creasing of finer grain size increases the compressive strength.
Other studies about mechanical and hygroscopic characterization of
CSEB have been done. Reddy [17] in a review affirms that compressive
strength of CSEB increases with the increase of density irrespective of
cement content and moulding moisture content. Also he affirms that the
water absorption of CSEB increases with the increasing of clay content
in the blocks. The compressive strength and water absorption of CSEB
from laterite soil and clay under different compaction has been done by
Abdullah et al. [18]. They found that the increasing of compaction
increases the compressive strength and decreases water absorption for
both CSEB made from laterite soil and clay. Another work concerning
the strength and absorption rate of CSEB under different mixture ratios
and degree of compaction has been achieved by Abdullah et al. [19].
They have shown that for all mixtures the increasing of compaction
degree increases the compressive strength and decreases rates of ab-
sorption of CSEB despite their ages. Raheem et al. [20] have determined
the compressive strength and the water absorption of lateritic inter-
locking blocks stabilized with cement or with lime. The results show
that the compressive strength of blocks stabilized with cement is better
compared to the compressive strength of blocks stabilized with lime.
The water absorption decreases when the percentage of the cement or
lime increases. Nagaraj et al. [21] have worked on effects of lime with
cement in long-term compressive strength and water absorption of
compressed stabilized earth blocks. The authors observed a continuous
increase of compressive strength and a continuous decrease water ab-
sorption of bricks over time.
Other researches concerning mechanical, thermal and hygroscopic
characterization of CSEB have been achieved. Bahar et al. [22] have
evaluated the mechanical, thermal and hygroscopic performances of
compacted cement-stabilized soil. The experimental results showed that
the increase of the cement content increases the compressive strength
and reduces water permeability of CSEB. The thermal conductivity of
CSEB decreases slightly with increasing of cement content and sand
content. The compressive strength, water absorption, thermal con-
ductivity and thermal diffusivity of compressed stabilized laterite bricks
has been done by Meukam et al. [23]. They found that the increasing
cement content decreases water absorption and increases compressive
strength of CSEB. The thermal conductivity increases with water con-
tent. The maximum of thermal diffusivity is obtained at 14% water
content in the CSEB.
Thermal characterization of CSEB has been done by other re-
searchers. The thermo-physical properties of compressed earth bricks
stabilized with cement and those stabilized with lime using different
soil types has been done by Adam and Jones [24]. The results give for
each type of soil a higher thermal conductivity value for the bricks
stabilized with cement. Azakine Sindanne et al. [25] have done a
thermophysical characterization of compressed earth bricks stabilized
by cement and lime. Their results indicate an increasing of thermal
conductivity when percentages of cement and lime increase.
Other works concerning hygroscopic characterization of CSEB has
been done. Houngan et al. [26] have studied sorption isotherms of la-
terite bricks stabilized with cement. Hysteresis of sorption has been
observed which loop decreases with increasing temperature. McGregor
et al. [27] has calculated the water vapor permeability of compressed
earth blocks stabilized with cement and compressed earth blocks
267
Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271
stabilized with lime. The results show that stabilization (cement or
lime) reduce the water vapor permeability of earth blocks. Cement
stabilization reduce vapor permeability more than lime stabilization.
All these works have used bricks manufactured in laboratory. The
bricks are manufactured as part of the study. The bricks used by home
builders are manufactured by artisanal or industrial brickworks. These
brickworks produce a lot of bricks per day for home builders.
According to our review, a few number of characterization studies
has been done on bricks produced by artisanal or industrial brickworks.
Most of these studies are done on the characterization of bricks pro-
duced by industrial brickworks. Cagnon et al. [7] worked on the hy-
grothermal characterization of five extruded earth bricks produced by
five brickworks in France. Their results give very close hygrothermal
properties, despite the mineralogical difference of bricks. Maillard and
Aubert [28] studied the effect of anisotropy on the hygrothermal
properties of five extruded earth bricks manufactured by five industrial
brickworks in France. Their results show that the extrusion process
affects the distribution of clay layer, which has an impact on the hy-
grothermal properties of brick. Laaroussi et al. [29] determined the
thermal properties of a fired earth brick from a Moroccan industrial
brickwork. Their results give an average thermal conductivity of
0.346 W m−1 K−1 and an average thermal effusivity of
705 W m−2 K−1 s1/2.
The aim of this work is the characterization of compressed stabilized
earth bricks found on the Senegalese market and proposed by different
brickworks artisanal. The originality of this work compared to the
others mentioned above is that it concerns of CSEB manufactured by
artisanal brickworks. This kind of bricks are used increasingly in
building construction in West Africa. The artisanal brickworks do not
know the precise quantities of materials used in their formulation. The
formulations can vary from one producer to another. The mechanical,
thermal and hygroscopic properties of CSEB available on the Senegalese
market are not known with exactness. For these reasons, it is often
difficult to predict the thermal behavior and sustainability of buildings
made from these earth bricks. In order to do the bricks characterization,
we have chosen eight representative artisanal brickworks in Senegal. In
their stock of bricks, we collected six samples from each. These samples
are mechanically and thermally characterized. A statistical analysis of
the results is then made to obtain the properties that could be used in
the analysis of energy performance of buildings made with CSEB
2. Materials and procedures
2.1. Materials
The samples studied were manufactured with laterite, sand and
cement. The cement used is Portland CEM-II 32.5 MPa produced by the
three cement companies based in Senegal. In this study, the eight ar-
tisanal brickworks selected are named, respectively, A, B, C, D, E, F, G
and H for anonymity. In the stock of each artisanal brickwork six
samples is collected for characterization. The technique of manu-
facturing bricks is the same for all artisanal brickworks except for C and
F. After its extraction, laterite is dried through spreading. The grinding
follows, which consists of breaking large pieces of clay. After the
grinding, the sieving of laterite is done with a sieve having a diameter
of 5–10 mm. Properties of laterite before modification are gives in
Table 1. These properties concern the laterite used by artisanal brick-
work A. The next step is the manual mixing, which is done to homo-
genize the mixture of laterite, sand and cement. The mixture is humi-
dified progressively. The wet mixture is then poured into a manual
press for compression. When the brick is demoulded, it is placed in a
moist cure for 5–14 days, then stored pending use. However, brick-
works C and F do not place their bricks in a wet cure after demoulding,
instead they are directly exposed to the sun. It should be noted that the
artisanal brickworks do not use the same proportions of laterite, sand
and cement. The compacting pressure is not mastered as the press is
P.M. Touré et al. Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271

Table 1
Properties of laterite before modification.

Property Value (%)

Passing sieve 0.08 mm 45

Liquid limit 34
Plastic limit 17
Plasticity index 17
Clay content 18.4
Silt content 19.5
Sand content 40.3
Gravel 21.8

Table 2
Dimensions and density of CSEB.

Brickworks Length (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm) Dry density (kg/m3)

A 295 140 95 2000

B 295 140 95 1818
C 300 150 80 1889
D 295 140 95 1934
E 295 140 100 1881
F 295 140 80 1861
G 240 240 100 1838
H 295 140 95 1871

manual. The brick sizes vary between the brickworks. The bricks sizes
are modified by using mold inserts because the method of production is
non-industrial.
The dimensions and density of bricks are presented in Table 2. The
Fig. 2. Photo of compression machine.
values presented in the table are obtained by making the mean value on
the six different samples. The average density of the eight bricks is
1887 kg/m3, with a Coefficient of Variation of 3%. The low value of the A compression machine, presented in Fig. 2, with 0.05 kN of pre-
Coefficient of Variation shows that the average density found above is cision and a loading speed of 2 kN/s is used. The compressive strength
very representative for bricks even though their compositions and of CSEB is evaluated on the basis of expression (1).
compacting pressure vary.
F
Fc =
S (1)
2.2. Procedures
where;

2.2.1. Mechanical characterization

The compressive strength is measured by using the RILEM proce-
dure described in [12]. In this method the bricks are halved, stacked
and bonded using an earth mortar bed joint (Fig. 1). The earth mortar
joint has the same composition as the CSEB. The thickness of earth
mortar joint is 1 cm. The specimens are capped with a layer of silicone
grease. The slenderness ratio of the brick is doubled. The RILEM pro-
cedure is the method recommended by African Regional Organization
for Standardization [30] for the measurement of compressive strength
of CSEB. Pkla [31] showed that the compressive strength of CSEB
measured by RILEM procedure is close to compressive strength of entire
CSEB. However, Morel et al. [12] have reported that the RILEM pro-
cedure underestimates the compressive strength of CSEB.
Fc is the compressive strength (N/mm2);
F is the failure load (N);
S is the area of specimen (mm2).
2.2.2. Thermal characterization
For thermal properties measurement, bricks have been cut into
pieces with the dimensions 10 × 10 × 3 cm3. The thermal capacity and
the thermal conductivity of bricks are measured using the transient
asymmetrical hot plate device represented schematically in Fig. 3.
The asymmetrical experimental device is described in details by Bal
et al. [32]. The modeling of system is done with the hypothesis that the
heat transfer remains unidirectional (1D) at the center of the sample
during the experiment [32]. The principle of this method is to estimate

Fig. 1. Photo of compressive strength test specimen. Fig. 3. Schema of the experimental asymmetrical hot plate device [32].

268
P.M. Touré et al.
Fig. 4. Operating conditions for the wet cup method.
the value of the parameters thermal capacity and thermal conductivity
of the sample that minimizes the sum of the quadratic error between the
experimental curve and the theoretical curve. The expression of quad-
ratic error is:
N 2
ψ= ∑ [Texp (j) − Tmod (j)]
j=0
where;
ψ is the quadratic error between experimental and theoretical va-
lues;
Texp is the experimental temperature;
Tmod is the theoretical temperature.
2.2.3. Water vapor permeability
The determination of water vapor permeability is carried out using
the method of cup [7,28]. Relative humidity inside the cup containing
saturated solutions of sodium chloride (NaCl) is 76%. Relative humidity
inside the climatic chamber is 50% and the temperature is fixed at 20 °C
(Fig. 4). The standard used for this measure is NF EN ISO 12572 [7]. For
a lack of means, the test is performed on one sample for each manu-
facturer. These same reasons explained, the study of water vapor per-
meability for only four manufacturers. During the test, the weight of the
entire cup and sample is measured two times per day until constant rate
of mass change. At the equilibrium, the slope of the curve G becomes
constant.
The vapor permeability of the material is calculated using the fol-
lowing expression:
G×e
δp =
S × ΔPv
where δp is the vapor permeability of the material; G is the water vapor
flow rate through the specimen (kg s−1); e is the thickness of the spe-
cimen (m); S is the face area of the specimen (m2); and ΔPv , the water
vapor pressure difference across the specimen.
17.269 θ
ΔPv = (HR1 − HR2) × 610.5 × e 237.3 + θ
θ is the temperature (°C), RH1 = 76% and RH2 = 50% in the ‘‘wet
cup’’ conditions.
The water vapor resistance factor is the ratio between the water
vapor permeability of air (δair ) and the water vapor permeability of
material, according to the expression (3):
δair
μ=
δp
Water vapor permeability of air at 20 °C is: δair = 1.96 ×
10−10 kg m−1 s−1 Pa−1 [7].
Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271
Table 3
Mechanical characterization results.
Brickworks Fc (MPa)
A 3.3 (0.4)
B 1.7 (0.1)
C 1.7 (0.4)
D 3.1 (0.1)
E 1.9 (0.2)
F 1.3 (0.5)
G 2.0 (0.2)
H 3.3 (0.3)
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Compressive strength
Table 3 shows the compressive strength of bricks produced by the
different brickworks. These values are the average of the results ob-
tained on three different samples. The highest compressive strength is
3.3 MPa while the lowest is 1.3 MPa. The African standard ARS 674
(2) [30] divided compressed earth bricks into two categories: compressed
earth bricks with a compressive strength between 2 and 4 MPa, used for
a non-load-bearing wall, and those of compressive strength greater than
4 MPa, for a load-bearing wall. According to this standard, none of the
eight brickworks make CSEB which could be used as a load-bearing
wall. The CSEB proposed by brickworks A, D, G and H can be used as a
non-load-bearing wall. Those offered by brickworks B, C, E and F are
not consistent with the requirements of earth construction. The com-
pressive strength obtained for bricks made by brickworks A, D and H
which is above 3 MPa can be explained by the fact that these brick-
works have a dedicated production site, do a characterization test of the
laterite to know the amount of sand to be added and do a wet cure for
14 days. These results are comparable to those published by Meukam
[23] and Bahar [22]. In these study the compressive strength of earth
blocks stabilized by 8% of cement varies between 2.5 and 3.5 MPa.
The influence of density on the compressive strength of samples
produce by brickworks is illustrated in Fig. 5. The figure shows that
there is no correlation with the density of bricks. This non-correlation
with density was found by walker [13] on earth bricks having the same
composition. Another work concerning the compressive strength of
extruded earth bricks stabilized with cement [33] confirms this non-
correlation. In this study, the bricks do not have the same composition
in laterite, sand and cement. They do not have also the same pressure of
compaction. Abdullah et al. [19] have shown that the sand content and
degree of compaction affect the compressive strength of CSEB. The
(3)
(4)
(5)
Fig. 5. Relationship between density and compressive strength.
269
P.M. Touré et al. Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271

Table 4 Table 6
Thermal conductivity results. Water vapor permeability and water vapor resistance factor of four bricks.

Brickworks k (W m−1 K−1) Brickworks δp (kg m−1 s−1 Pa−1) × 10−11 μ

A 0.69 (0.04) A 2.7 7

B 0.74 (0.01) B 2.5 8
C 0.72 (0.02) C 2.9 7
D 0.81 (0.01) D 2.9 7
E 0.85 (0.02)
F 0.79 (0.02)
G 0.66 (0.01)
3.3. Water vapor permeability
H 0.74 (0.01)

effect of density on the compressive strength of bricks stabilized is
negligible according to [33]. These factors seem to be the cause of lack
correlation.
3.2. Thermal results
3.2.1. Thermal conductivity
Table 4 shows the thermal conductivity values of bricks pro-
duced by different brickworks. The highest value is obtained from
brickwork E (k = 0.85 W m −1 K −1 ) and the lowest from brickwork
G (k = 0.66 W m −1 K −1). Despite the different composition of
CSEB, the thermal conductivity values are close
(0.66 W m−1 K −1 < k < 0.85 W m −1 K −1). If one refers to Table 1,
one can see that the density of the bricks from the eight brickworks
is essentially the same, which is consistent with the low variation
observed on the thermal conductivity values because density is one
of the main physical parameters that influences thermal con-
ductivity. The average thermal conductivity of bricks is
0.75 W m −1 K−1 , with a Coefficient of Variation of 8%. This low
value allows us to say that the average thermal conductivity is
sufficiently representative. In comparison with literature results,
the values found are very close to those obtained on compressed
earth bricks stabilized with cement by Adam and Jones [24] and
Meukam [23].
3.2.2. Specific heat
Table 5 shows the specific heat of bricks produced by the different
brickworks. The specific heat is calculated from the heat capacity
measured using the asymmetrical hot plate device and the density. The
highest value is obtained by brickwork D (c = 1170 J kg−1 K−1), and
the lowest value is obtained by brickwork E (c = 939 J kg−1 K−1). The
average specific heat of bricks is 1040 J kg−1 K−1, with a Variation
Coefficient of 7%. This low gap allows us to say that the average value
is sufficiently representative. In a look at the literature, this value is
close to those obtained on cement-stabilized laterite bricks by Meukam
[23].
Table 5
Specific heat results.
Brickworks c (J kg−1 K−1)
A 997
B 1060
C 988
D 1170
E 939
F 1000
G 1120
H 1060
Table 6 shows the water vapor permeability and the water vapor
resistance factor of bricks produced by four brickworks. Despite the
different composition of stabilized compressed earth bricks, the values
of both the water vapor permeability and the water vapor resistance
factor for the four bricks are very close to each other, only ranging
between 2.5 and 2.9 10–11 kg m−1 s−1 Pa−1 and 7–8 respectively.
These results are of the same order of magnitude with the values found
in the literature [27] for earth bricks and show a low resistance to water
vapor of these bricks.
4. Conclusion
During this study eight CSEB produced by artisanal brickworks in
Senegal were characterized. The mechanical and thermal properties
that have been studied in this work included the compressive strength,
thermal conductivity and thermal capacity. The shape of the bricks is
parallelepiped with slightly different dimensions. For each brickworks,
six samples were collected in the stock of bricks. The average density of
bricks found is 1887 kg/m3, with a Variation Coefficient of 3%. The low
value of standard deviation shows that the average value is very re-
presentative even though the compositions and compaction pressure of
bricks are different for the eight brickworks.
The results of mechanical characterization show that:
- half of the brickworks produce CSEB with a compressive strength
lower than 2.0 MPa;
- the CSEB produced by the others can be used on a non-load-bearing
wall;
- the compressive strength of bricks are not correlate to the density of
bricks.
Despite the different composition of compressed stabilized earth
blocks, the thermal conductivity values found in the thermal char-
acterization are close. Indeed, the average thermal conductivity of
bricks is 0.75 W m−1 K−1 with a Variation Coefficient of 8%. The
average value of specific heat obtained is 1040 J kg−1 K−1, with a
Variation Coefficient of 7%. The values of thermal conductivity and
specific heat found are close to those obtained in the literature [23,24].
These thermal values show that CSEB may have a good thermal inertia.
The values of water vapor permeability obtained for bricks from
four artisanal brickworks show a low resistance to water vapor and a
good capacity to regulate indoor humidity.
Further research concerning the variation of the mechanical and
thermal properties of CSEB as a function of the relative humidity is
required. Moreover, in the design of future buildings using these CSEB
as construction material to improve occupant comfort, these experi-
mental data could be useful.
References
[1] S. Mounir, Y. Maaloufa, A.B. Cherki, A. Khabbazi, Review thermal properties of the
composite material clay/granular cork, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 183–190.
[2] S. Bahria, M. El Ganaoui, M. Amirat, A. Hamidat, L. Ouhsaine, A Dynamic simu-
lation of the low-energy building using wood based material, in: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Materials and Energy – ICOME 16, 2016, pp. 641–644.

270
P.M. Touré et al.
[3] A. Abderraouf, B. Naima, G. Fouad, Thermal conductivity and thermal degradation
of cementitious mortars reinforced with doum and diss fibers, in: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Materials and Energy – ICOME 16, 2016, pp. 635–639.
[4] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Embodied energy in cement stabi-
lised rammed earth walls, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 380–385.
[5] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, G. Leuzinger, V.S. Sreeram, Low embodied energy ce-
ment stabilised rammed earth building – a case study, Energy Build. 68 (2014)
541–546.
[6] F. McGregor, A. Heath, A. Shea, M. Lawrence, The moisture buffering capacity of
unfired clay masonry, Build. Environ. 82 (2014) 599–607.
[7] H. Cagnon, J.E. Aubert, M. Coutand, C. Magniont, Hygrothermal properties of earth
bricks, Energy Build. 80 (2014) 208–217.
[8] H.N. Abhilash, F. McGregor, Y. Millogo, A. Fabbri, A.D. Séré, J.E. Aubert,
J.C. Morel, Physical, mechanical and hygrothermal properties of lateritic building
stones (LBS) from Burkina Faso, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 731–741.
[9] U. Mahalinga-Iyer, D.J. Williams, Properties and performance of lateritic soil in
road pavements, Eng. Geol. 46 (1997) 71–80.
[10] D.O.A. Osula, A comparative evaluation of cement and lime modification of laterite,
Eng. Geol. 42 (1996) 71–81.
[11] F.P. Torgal, S. Jalali, Review earth construction: lessons from the past for future
eco-efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519.
[12] J.C. Morel, A. Pkla, P. Walker, Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 303–309.
[13] P.J. Walker, Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised
soil blocks, Cem. Concr. Compos. 17 (1995) 301–310.
[14] B.S. Waziri, Z.A. Lawan, Mustapha Ma’aji Mala, Properties of compressed stabilized
earth blocks (CSEB) For low-cost housing construction: a preliminary investigation,
Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2 (2013) 39–46.
[15] C. Jayasinghe, R.S. Mallawaarachchi, Technical report flexural strength of com-
pressed stabilized earth masonry materials, Mater. Des. 30 (2009) 3859–3868.
[16] F. LASISI, A.M. Ogunjide, Effect of grain size on the strength characteristics of ce-
ment-stabilized lateritic soils, Build. Environ. 1 (1984) 49–54.
[17] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, Stabilised Soil Blocks for Structural Masonry in Earth
Construction (MSc (Engg) thesis), Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India, 2012.
[18] A. Abdullah, S. Nagapan, A. Antonyova, K. Rasiah, R..Yunus, S. Sohu, Comparison
of strength between laterite soil and clay compressed stabilized earth bricks
(CSEBs), in: Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 103, 01028, 2017,
pp. 1–8.
271
Journal of Building Engineering 13 (2017) 266–271
[19] A. Abdullah, S. Nagapan, A. Antonyova, K. Rasiah, R. Yunus, S. Sohu, Strength and
absorption rate of compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEBs) due to different
mixture ratios and degree of compaction, in: Proceedings of the MATEC Web of
Conferences, Vol. 103, 01028, 2017, pp. 1–8.
[20] A.A. Raheem, O.A. Bello, O.A. Makinde, A comparative study of cement and lime
stabilized lateritic interlocking blocks, Pac. J. Sci. Technol. 2 (2010) 27–34.
[21] H.B. Nagaraj, M.V. Sravan, T.G. Arun, K.S. Jagadish, Role of lime with cement in
long-term strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Int. J. Sustain. Built
Environ. 1 (2014) 54–61.
[22] R. Bahar, M. Benazzoug, S. Kenai, Performance of compacted cement-stabilised soil,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (2004) 811–820.
[23] P. Meukam, Y. Jannot, A. Noumowe, T.C. Kofane, Thermo physical characteristics
of economical building materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 18 (2004) 437–443.
[24] E.A. Adam, P.J. Jones, Thermophysical properties of stabilized soil building blocks,
Build. Environ. 2 (1995) 245–253.
[25] S. Azakine Sindanne, G.E. Ntamack, R.P. Lemanle Sanga, C.A. Moubeke,
E.S. Kelmamo Sallaboui, H. Bouabid, K. Mansouri, S.C. D’Ouazzane,
Thermophysical characterization of earth blocks stabilized by cement, sawdust and
lime, J. Build. Mater. Struct. 1 (2014) 58–64.
[26] A.C. Houngan, M. Anjorin, N. Chitou, L.M. Vissoh, A. Vianou, P. Perre, Isothermes
de sorption de la latérite stabilisée au ciment et du composite ciment bois pour deux
niveaux de température, J. Rech. Sci. l'Univ. Lome 2 (2011) 9–18.
[27] F. McGregor, A. Heath, E. Fodde, A. Shea, Conditions affecting the moisture buf-
fering measurement performed on compressed earth blocks, Build. Environ. 75
(2014) 11–18.
[28] P. Maillard, J.E. Aubert, Effects of the anisotropy of extruded earth bricks on their
hygrothermal properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 63 (2014) 56–61.
[29] N. Laaroussi, A. Cherki, M. Garoum, A. Khabbazi, A. Feiz, Thermal properties of a
sample prepared using mixtures of clay bricks, Energy Procedia 42 (2013) 337–346.
[30] Organisation Régionale Africaine de Normalisation, Ed. Blocs de terre comprimée:
norme. Technologie no 11, CDI et CRATerre-EAG, Belgique, mars, 1998.
[31] Abalo P'Kla, Caractérisation en compression simple des blocs de terre comprimée
(btc): application aux maçonneries "BTC-mortier de terre" (Thése de Doctorat
d’Etat), Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de LYON, 2002.
[32] H. Bal, Y. Jannot, N. Quenette, A. Chenu, S. Gaye, Water content dependence of the
porosity, density and thermal capacity of laterite based bricks with millet waste
additive, Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 144–150.
[33] Daniel Maskell, Andrew Heath, Pete Walker, Inorganic stabilisation methods for
extruded earth masonry units, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 602–609.