IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Chemical and mechanical properties of
Mechanical characterization and environmental geopolymer concrete incorporated with
cigarette filters
assessment of stabilized earth blocks Marianne Saba, Karolos J Kontoleon,
Efthimios Zervas et al.

- Energy–water nexus of formal and

To cite this article: W Arairo et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1123 012060 informal water systems in Beirut, Lebanon
Yasmina Choueiri, Jay Lund, Jonathan
London et al.

- The InterPlanetary Network Supplement to

the Second Fermi GBM Catalog of Cosmic
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Gamma-Ray Bursts
K. Hurley, R. L. Aptekar, S. V. Golenetskii
et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 90.62.47.19 on 25/01/2023 at 13:16

ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

Mechanical characterization and environmental assessment of

stabilized earth blocks

W Arairo1,*, M Saba2, M El Bachawati2, J Absi3, K J Kontoleon4

1
Issam Fares Faculty of Technology, University of Balamand, 100-Tripoli, Lebanon
2
Faculty of Engineering, University of Balamand, 100-Tripoli, Lebanon
3
Institut de Recherche sur les Céramiques, CNRS, University of Limoges, 12 rue
Atlantis, 87068 Limoges Cedex, France
4
Department of civil engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki (A.U.Th.), Gr-54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

*Corresponding author e-mail address: wahib.arairo@balamand.edu.lb

Abstract. Soil is a local material which allows populations in warm regions to better cope with
severe environmental conditions. The materials' performance depends on the chemical and
physical nature of the soil. The greatest problem with these materials remains their high
sensitivity to shrinkage, and their vulnerability in terms of cracking due to drying. These
pathologies may lead to a radical decrease in their mechanical performance. Several works have
indicated that the consideration of plant fibers, as reinforcement in earth materials, made it
possible to avoid cracking, and, thus, ensure the stability of structures. These results are not
generalizable and depend on the involved materials. This work aims to investigate different
scenarios for the stabilization of earth blocks. In this context, the use of cement with two types
of natural fibers for the stabilization of Lebanese earth blocks has been studied. The mechanical
properties of stabilized earth blocks have shown that the developed mix provides suitable results
compared to the traditional masonry block. The environmental impacts of earth blocks have been
compared using SimaPro software. The results of this study show that the stabilized earth blocks
are gaining their place as a sustainable, affordable building material suitable for low-cost
construction.

1. Introduction
Raw earth structure dates back several thousand years in various forms. Interlocking Compressed Soil
Blocks (adobe blocks) have recently established themselves as a feasible, long-lasting, and cost-
effective building material for low-cost housing construction in underdeveloped countries.
Characteristics of earth blocks include very low environmental impact, good thermal properties, low
bearing capacity, and low vulnerability to seismic vibrations. They can be fully recyclable, and have a
lower embodied energy than traditional blocks, long service life, low costs, availability, and easy
handling. However, questions have been raised about their long-term durability.
Even though these materials met local strength requirements, their brittleness and limited ability to
dissipate energy raise concerns about their applicability. To overcome these flaws and, , to improve the
material's specific qualities, additives or stabilizers are commonly utilized. Earthen building has
employed a variety of modifiers, including binders (cement, lime) and synthetic or natural fibers
(coconut fiber, oil palm, bagasse, wool, wheat straw). Although synthetic fiber-reinforced soil blocks
outperform natural fiber-reinforced soil blocks in terms of mechanical and durability, there is interest in
using natural fibers in blocks due to environmental concerns [1]. Although a lot of work has gone into

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

fiber reinforcing, the majority of it has been done on concrete blocks and adobe. The research on fiber
reinforcing in earth blocks is still in its early stages. These findings are not general and are highly
dependent on the materials used [2]. The performance of such kind of materials depends on the chemical
and physical nature of the soil. As a result, the current research was conducted to look at several
possibilities for the stabilization of earth blocks. The use of cement combined with two types of natural
fibers for the stability of Lebanese earth blocks has been investigated in this regard.
Goat hair and straw are natural materials that are widely available in Mediterranean countries; however,
only a small portion is recycled; the remainder may be considered waste, resulting in pollution. Due to
the availability of the material in the region as well as the need to reduce the environmental impact of
the construction industry, this study proposed using goat hair and straw to prepare stabilized earth
blocks.

2. Mechanical Characterization

2.1. Materials and methods

The goal of the experimental part was to determine the mechanical properties of stabilized earth blocks
reinforced by goat hair and wheat straw. The following materials were used for specimen preparation in
this study:
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) has an apparent density of 1362 kg/m3 and a specific density of 3150
kg/m3.
Soil: The soil used in this study came from the Akkar region of northern Lebanon. The apparent density
is 1346 kg/m3, while the specific density is 2368 kg/m3. The liquid limit (LL) was 40.5% and the
plasticity index (PI) was 14.9%, according to the Atterberg limits. The soil contained 45.8% of clay and
silt, 50.2% of sand, and 4% gravel.
The samples were prepared using locally available untreated fibers: goat hair, and natural wheat straw.
Sieve analysis is used to analyze the particle size distribution of the local soil used for specimen
preparation, and particle size distribution curves are shown in Figure 1.

100
90
80
70
Percentage Passing

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Diameter (mm)

Figure 1. Sieve analysis for the local soil

To study the effect of adding natural fibre, three different mixes were considered, with the following
mass proportions:
M1: 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% goat hair ;
M2: 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% wheat straw;
M3: 94% soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat hair + 0.5% wheat straw.

2
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

The Proctor test was used to determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) for each mixture. The
water content in a soil sample that achieves maximum compaction, that is, maximum dry density, is
referred to as the optimal moisture content (OMC).

All test samples were created with 1 to 2% more water than the optimum moisture content (OMC).
Three beams were prepared for each mix to determine the compressive strength and flexural strength.
The molds used were 40*40*160 mm in size. After 28 days, the beams are demolded and tested.

Figure 2. M1 Sample: 94% Figure 3. M2 Sample: Figure 4. M3 Sample: 94%

soil + 5% cement + 1% goat 94% soil + 5% cement + soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat
hair 1% wheat straw hair + 0.5% wheat straw.

2.2. Results and discussions

In this study, the soil was mixed with constant proportions of cement (5%) as a stabilizer and two types
of fibers as reinforcement.
For sake of replication, three samples of each mixture category were prepared. The soil was thoroughly
mixed with the necessary amounts of cement and fibers, then the necessary quantity of water was added,
as indicated by the optimal moisture content. Than, a thorough investigation was carried out to examine
the mix's behavior in terms of density, unconfined compressive strength, and flexural tensile strength.
Table 1 summarizes the results of the unconfined compressive strength test.

Table 1. Results of the unconfined compressive strength test for different mixtures

Mix Proportions Density (g/cc) Unconfined

Compressive
Strength (MPa)
M1 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% goat hair 1.88 4.03 (+/-0.18)
M2 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% wheat straw 1.79 2.44 (+/-0.08)
M3 94% soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat hair + 1.83 6.67 (+/-0.11)
0.5% wheat straw.

For the same percentage of fibers, compressive strength is affected by the type of fibers introduced.
This observation can be qualified for the development of soil pockets in the blocks due to a lack of
reinforcement and interference of fiber in bonding between soils and cement particles.
This phenomenon could be caused by the formation of fiber bulk in the mix, which results in weaker
planes for the mixture M2. Several researchers [3] noticed a similar pattern. As a result, among the three
mixtures, 0.5 percent wheat straw and 0.5 percent goat hair are revealed to be the optimal amount of
fiber for achieving maximum compressive strength.

3
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

0
soil + 5% cement + 1% goat hair soil + 5% cement + 1% wheat soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat
straw hair + 0.5% wheat straw

Figure 5. Unconfined compressive strength (MPa) of different mixtures

The flexural tensile strength test was carried out following ASTM C78 guidelines.
The flexural strength was calculated according to ASTM C78 [4] using the equation (1) formula, and
the results are summarized in Table 2:
σ = 3Fl/2bd2 (1)
With
F = maximum load applied to the specimen in Newton;
l = length of the specimen in mm;
b = width of the specimen in mm; and
d = thickness of the specimen in mm.

Table 2. Flexural strength test results for different mixtures.

Mix Proportions Flexural Strength

(MPa)
M1 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% goat hair 0.738 (+/-0.044)
M2 94% soil + 5% cement + 1% wheat straw 0.665 (+/-0.017)
M3 94% soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat hair + 0.889 (+/-0.021)
0.5% wheat straw.

Figure 6 and Table 2 show that mix M3 is the most resistant to bending with an average flexural strength
of 0.89 MPa
In conclusion, from the results obtained we can conclude that mix 3 (94% soil+ 5% cement+0.5 goat
hair+0.5% wheat straw) is among the most resistant mixes in compression with σc = 6.67 MPa, and in
flexion with 0.89MPa. The authors discovered that a mixture reinforced with one type of fibers has a
lower flexural strength than a mixture with both fibers: goat hair and wheat straw because a small amount
of fibers interferes with the inter-particle bonding between clay and silt particles in the soil. Strength
declines due to a lack of reinforcement. A researcher [5] observed a decrease in soil strength due to
decreased soil density for high fiber content, as well as an increase in soil strength due to the addition
of reinforcement. The researcher discovered that by using two distinct types of fibers, either a strength
increase or decrease in soil compacted with the same energy could be obtained.

4
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
soil + 5% cement + 1% goat soil + 5% cement + 1% wheat soil + 5% cement + 0.5% goat
hair straw hair + 0.5% wheat straw

Figure 6. Flexural strength (MPa) of different mixtures

3. Environmental Characterization

3.1. Environmental Impact assessment for M3 material components

From the previous experimental study, we concluded that the M3 mixture (94%soil, 0.5%straw, 0.5%
goat hair, 5%cement) is the most resistant among the other mixes. This part aims to analyze the effect
of the content of mixture M3 on the environment. The manufacturing environmental impact assessment
tries to create an impact profile from the inventory's findings. The IMPACT 2002+ technique is chosen
as the impact assessment approach because it reaches an endpoint for all potential impact categories,
which are highly demanded by the industry [6].
IMPACT 2002+ takes into account a number of key categories, including ozone depletion, global
warming, and land occupation. SimaPro 8.5.3.0 Analyst Multi user software [7] and the Ecoinvent
database were used to model the environmental impact. The study was carried out on 1kg of the mixture.
The following table shows the impact of each material used in Mixture 3.
Table 3 and Figure 7 show how the block's components contribute to each of the 15 environmental
impact categories. A positive impact score indicates that burdens outnumber credits and the net effect is
harmful to the environment, whereas a negative impact score indicates that credits outnumber burdens
and the net effect is beneficial to the environment. According to the findings, goat hair and cement are
the major contributors to the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. They are also the primary
contributors to the majority of impact categories.

5
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100

Straw Clay and soil Goat hair Tap water Cement, Portland

Figure 7. Contribution of different components of the mixture M3 on environmental impact

categories

Table 3. Impact categories of the different components of the M3 mixture.

Label Straw Clay and soil Goat Hair Tap water Cement, Portland
Carcinogens 0.675 0 70.1976 0.6811 28.4463
Non-carcinogens 4.5511 0.0052 -32 1.014 94.4296
Respiratory inorganics 0.2127 3.156 86.561 0.0846 9.9856
Ionizing radiation 0.7335 0 56.8776 0.5579 41.8309
Ozone layer depletion 0.7495 0 53.8676 0.8936 44.4893
Respiratory organics 0.3145 30.3666 56.7909 0.0787 12.4493
Aquatic ecotoxicity 0.9867 9.94E-05 54.0163 0.2507 44.7462
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 1.9148 0.0003 -100 0.083 18.1333
Terrestrial acid/nutri 0.1042 1.2278 96.2017 0.0088 2.4575
Land occupation 0.4288 0 99.5153 0.0003 0.0555
Aquatic acidification 0.1202 2.1057 93.7177 0.0201 4.0363
Aquatic eutrophication 0.6579 0 97.3087 0.0177 2.0157
Global warming 0.2201 9.4454 53.609 0.0836 36.6419
Non-renewable energy 0.4991 27.0799 37.5954 0.2415 34.5841
Mineral extraction 0.7958 19.665 64.9961 0.1375 14.4056

6
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

3.2. Comparison between fiber-reinforced earth blocks and normal masonry blocks

Using the SimaPro Software, the environmental impact of stabilized earth blocks and normal masonry
blocks has been compared. Figure 8 compares the environmental impacts of the manufacturing stage of
the life cycle of concrete masonry blocks and earth blocks.
The results are very satisfactory as concrete masonry blocks contribute more than fiber-reinforced earth
blocks to all impact categories, with few exceptions such as: "respiratory inorganics", "respiratory
organics", "Terrestrial acids/nutrients" and "Land use" impact categories due to the use of clay and goat
hair.
100
80
60
40
20
%

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100

Masonry Mixture Mixture M3

Figure 8. Comparative damage assessment of concrete masonry and mixture M3

4. Conclusion

The mechanical properties and environmental impact analysis of stabilized earth blocks are investigated
in this study. The results of this study show that using goat hair combined with wheat straw as
reinforcement in stabilized earth blocks has a significant effect on raw soil block strength. Compressive
strength increases by a factor of 1.65 and 2.73, respectively, for blocks containing 1% goat hair and 1%
wheat straw.
The flexural properties and failure pattern of reinforced blocks demonstrate that this type of construction
can be used in seismic areas to warn residents before total collapse.
In terms of the environmental impact, the results show that goat hair and cement are the most significant
contributors to all categories in the manufacturing life cycle stage. In line with this, the comparative
manufacturing stage depicts that the conventional concrete masonry blocks contribute more than the
stabilized earth blocks for all impact categories except for "respiratory inorganics", "respiratory
organics", "Terrestrial acids/nutrients" and "Land use" impact categories due to the use of clay and goat
hair.

7
ICED-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1123 (2022) 012060 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012060

5. References

[1] Hejazi S, Sheikhzadeh M, Abtahi SM, and Zadhoush A 2012 A simple review of soil
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers Construction and Building Materials Vol 30 pp100-
116.
[2] Tuan Anh Ph 2018 Formulation et caractérisation d’un composite terre-fibres végétales : la bauge.
Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Caen Normandie.
[3] Jiang H, Cai Y and Liu J 2010 Engineering properties of soils reinforces by short discrete
polypropylene fibre Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering vol 22 No. 12 pp 1315-1322.
[4] ASTM C78. 2018 Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with
third-point loading). ASTM International (West Conshohocken, Pa., USA).
[5] Hoare D J 1978 Laboratory study of granular soils reinforced with randomly oriented discrete
fibre Proceeding of the International Conference and Stabilizing Techniques in Engineering Practice
pp. 45-72.
[6] Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R et al. 2003 IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment
methodology The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment vol 8 No. 324.
[7] Goedkoop M, Oele M, Leijting J, Ponsioen T, and Meijer E 2013 Introduction to LCA with
SimaPro Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.