Compressive and Shear Strengths of

Straw Log Bearing Walls

Patti Stouter, BuildSimple.org, April 2023

Figure 1 Straw log wall. Left: Under construction. Center: Earth-plastered log wall. Right: After ten years.

Abstract
Shelters with insulation are needed for disaster response that should be able to last five or
more years but be easy to disassemble and recyclable. Straw-clay made from natural subsoil
and agricultural waste makes a modest-strength 18 cm (7”) thick geotextile wall of R3 or
higher. Easily attached to a 38 cm (15”) high 30 cm (12”) thick base wall of earthbag and
covered with earthen and/ or lime plaster these straw log walls can incorporate minimal
amounts of wood or steel as reinforcement if needed. For use in cold climates the bearing wall
strength must be established to determine shelter sizes for different snow loading conditions.
Four plastered wallettes underwent shear and/ or compressive forces and one 1,5 m (5’) wide
vault was also tested for compression and for thermal performance. Research of light straw-
clay performance is combined with these straw log wall experiments to establish a range of
bearing wall strengths with and without reinforcement for different serviceability limits.

Straw Log Introduction

Straw logs combine the toughness and flexibility of geotextiles with the light weight and insulation
value of natural fibers in clay. Straw logs utilize light straw-clay (LSC)- a code-recognized
architectural infill material (ICC, 2018)- as a moderate strength matrix within stiff plastic mesh
tubing that has redundant connections between courses and embeds in plaster for a structural
skin.
Precedents for light-wall construction with logs include aligned straw and liquid clay built in layers
for a 3 m (9.8’) diameter storage silo (Hengsadeekul and Nimityongskul, 2004) and bundled
structural members from wrapped oriented-straw cables called StrawJet (Chino, 2009). LSC is
usually built by packing straw dipped in liquid clay randomly between posts into temporary forms
30 cm (12”) deep. Straw-clay can reach high R values but takes months to dry (Doleman, 2018).
Straw logs are 15 cm (6”) diameter tubes that dry more quickly than monolithic LSC. Mesh tubing
used for erosion control (Figure 2 left) is stuffed firmly with dry straw (Figure 2 center). Logs are
sewn into panels and then sewn to an attachment course on a low base wall (Figure 2 right).
Because straw log walls are light-weight, base walls can consist of a few 30 cm (12”) thick earthbag
courses (Hart, 2018) to anchor the LSC and lift it above water damage. The geotextile basewall
tolerates some subsoil motion (Guyer, 2013), compatible with the resilient upper walls.

Figure 2 Straw log construction- Left: Wattle mesh. Center: Stuffing straw in mesh tube. Right: Straw log
sewn to earth in wattle attachment course pinned to thin earthbag base wall.

Overlapping corners stiffen straw walls but bracing is needed on long straight sections. After liquid
clay poured into the assembled log courses (Figure 3 left) hardens, earthen plaster embeds in the
mesh (Figure 3 center) to form a tough skin resistant to mechanical damage (Figure 3 right).

Figure 3 Coating straw logs- Left: Straw area freshly soaked with clay slip. Center: Straw-rich earth plaster
filling nooks between courses. Right: End view of lime plaster on earthen plaster on clay-soaked straw logs.

Straw log walls have lasted for a decade in several buildings in dry climates (Figures 1 and 4).
Straw logs use 10– 15% as much straw as straw bale construction and can be built without wood. A
1000 m (3000’) roll of the UV resistant mesh “wattle” tube and 50 bales of straw will build walls for
about five small 5,7 m2 (61 sf) gable-roofed shelters with some cord and clay soil. A single person
can build and plaster the shelter walls in about 7- 10 days.

2
Figure 4 Haitian Dorm- Left: Upper walls of log embedded on rebar. Center: Finished exterior. Right: Interior
wall surface of cement-stabilized earthen plaster above ledge of earthbag base wall.

Wood top plates are recommended to spread loads on bearing walls. Wood posts can be attached
to the base wall and upper walls for temporary bracing during the soaking process. If roof beams
are needed for higher roof loading, wood posts can be attached to base and upper walls near gable
peaks or in long straight wall panels for a hybrid structural system.
More information about ways to build and potential building plans is online (Stouter, 2023)

Characteristics of Light Clay Materials

Clay soaked straw materials have shown moderate compressive strength in small sample testing.
Vetiver-clay logs of aligned straw had a bearing strength of 194 kPa (27.6 psi) (Hengsadeekul and
Nimityongskul, 2004). LSC ‘compression curves all displayed wide plastic regions indicating a high
ductility’. Since SLC ‘very likely rarely reaches the point of ultimate failure’ researchers used 5% of
initial strain ‘as a reasonable maximum load.’ Light straw-clay 15 cm (6”) cube samples of 681
kg/m3 (43 pcf) or 921 kg/ m3 (58 pcf) density averaged of 0,09- 0,17 mPa (14- 25 psi) (Thornton,
2005). Denser straw-clay has higher strength than lighter materials (Table 1).

Table 1: Average strengths of straw-clay small samples per density

Compressive strength Flexural strength Modulus of Elasticity

Low density straw-clay 0,093 mPa (14 psi) at 5% 0,26 mPa (38 psi) 0,002 mPa (0.233 psi)
681 kg/m3 (43 pcf)

Medium density straw- 0,165 mPa (25 psi) at 5% 0,48 mPa (71 psi) 0.08 mPa (1.1 psi)
clay 921 kg/m3 (58 pcf)

Vetiver-clay logs 980 0,193 mPa (28 psi) at ULS 2,3 mPa (334 psi)
kg/m3 (61 pcf)

Light straw-clay tested in prisms 15 cm (6”) square by 405 (16”) long had flexural strengths ranging
from 0,19- 0,57 mPa (28- 84 psi) and σ from 0,001- 0,008 mPa (0.1- 1.2 psi) (Thornton) which on
average related to the sample density (Table 1). The aligned vetiver-clay logs’ higher strength likely
related to the alignment of the vetiver straw strands which are thicker than wheat straw.

3
Thermal conductivity testing showed similar relationships between density and R value. Eight LSC
samples 0,28 m2 (3 sf) by 10 or 15 cm (4 or 6”) thick at densities of 160- 640 kg/m 3 (10- 40 pcf)
tested for thermal conductivity had R values per inch ranging from 0.9- 1.8 (Forest Products Lab,
2004). Seven smaller LSC samples 1/3 as large in densities from 597- 951 kg/m3 (37- 59 pcf) had R
values per inch ranging from 0.8- 2.1. Lighter samples of 600- 700 kg/m3 (37- 44 pcf) averaged 1.8
per inch and heavier samples had a lower average R value (Thornton).
Because strengths of SLC samples are lower than natural plasters (Thornton), the inter-connected
mesh of tubes embedded in plaster will add significant strength to wall assemblies by transmitting
forces along and through the wall materials. Traditional wattle and daub techniques (Carbajal and
Schexnader, 2005) use similar materials but lack this fine grain of reinforcement.

Methodology
Experiments used four wall panels of 0,7- 1,5 m2 (7.5- 16 sf) and one small 1,5 m (5’) span vault for
shear, compressive, and thermal testing. All were prepared using the same diameter of straw log
with low-strength earthen or lime plaster on the sides but not the ends.
All samples dried for a month between plastering and testing. The first two wall panels used
untested strength subsoil with some added powdered clay. The last two wall panels and the vault
used pottery ball clay added to a New Mexico sandy adobe clay soil that met 2,06 mPa (300 psi)
dried block requirements for unconfined compressive strength (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2015).

Sample Preparation
The small panel tested in 2011 was 0.8 x 1 m (2.5’ x 3’) long and rested on one course of earthbag
base wall. Four diagonal 12 mm (half inch) dia. reinforcement poles were tied into the log mesh on
one side (Figure 5 left). The sides were finished with earthen plaster, which cracked as it dried.
One wood-braced panel tested in 2012 was 1,2 x 1,2 m (4’ x 4’) and was built on two courses of
earthbag base wall using a very weakly cohesive fill soil. Three 50 mm (2”) diameter vertical poles
tied to one side (Figure 5 center) kept the panel plumb during construction. Logs were soaked in
clay slip before tying to the vertical poles and sewing courses together. Both sides received earthen
plaster and one side also received a coat of lime plaster (Figure 5 right).

Figure 5 Left: Small diagonal pole panel. Center, right: Wood-reinforced panel with lime plaster one side.

4
The panel rested on two courses of earthbag on a wood base. The poles were attached to the
earthbag base wall on one side of the straw log by screwing them to a pole cross piece. The base
pole was strapped and nailed to the earthbag using more than 15 nails. The straw log panel was
not well attached to the other side of the base wall. A vertical line was drawn on the plaster side.
Two steel-reinforced panels 1,2 m (4’) long and almost 1,2 m (4’) high tested in 2015 contrasted
reinforcement by 3 pinned external rebars near the sample center (Figure 6 left) with 3 embedded
rebars on 30 cm (12”) centers (Figure 6 right). These samples were built in a heated shed using 20 x
150 mm (1 x 6”) forms for uniform size. Thin leveling plaster was used on both sides up to the
bottom of the top course, but without any finish plaster coats.

Figure 6 Left: Construction of steel-reinforced pinned panel. Right: Thin plaster on embedded steel panel.

12 mm (half inch) diameter rebars were anchored to two courses of 30 cm (12”) thick earthen base
wall which had dried for more than a year. The base walls were strapped with wire to the wood
base at the pressure side. The rebars were hammered into the dried base wall, but because the
pinned rebars were located near the edge of the base wall a concrete patch was added on top to
stiffen the attachment. On top the rebars were strapped to attached wood blocks screwed to the
50 x 100 mm (2 x 4”) top plates (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Left: Pinned rebars strapped to blocks on top plate. Right: Embedded rebars through holes in plate.

5
An unreinforced straw log vault was built during July 2013 leaning against a prototype straw log
bench and wall. Nubian vaults of earthen blocks are built without formwork (Elizabeth and Adams,
2005) by leaning beginning courses against an existing vertical wall (Figure 8 left). The straw log
vault required formwork (Figure 8 right) to build and to prevent collapse when soaked.

Figure 8 Left: Vault courses leaning on banco wall. Right: Formwork needed to build and soak vault.

The vault had light earthen plaster layers inside and out and a thin limewash layer. It was tested in
November and then disassembled.

Strength Experiments
The first experiments on straw log walls used very simple equipment for testing but caused little or
no measurable damage.

Compression of Small Panel

Weights for exercising were stacked on top of the 0,7 m2 (7.5 sf) panel on a 50 x 100 mm (2 x 4”)
wood top plate (Figure 9 left). A person also sat on top, for a total of 2,1 kN (480 lbf) but no
deformation was measurable.

Diagonal Compression of Wood-Braced Panel

The 1,5 m2 (15.6 sf) wood-braced panel had poles untied from the straw log courses before testing.
Diagonal compressive force was applied to one upper corner through a plywood box using a lever
system with chains and turnbuckles (Figure 9 center) and a metal pipe pivot. The chain was
attached to the lever arm 13 cm (5”) above the pivot point and a rope tied to the lever exactly 2,87
m (113”) distant, for a mechanical advantage of 22.6 to 1.

Exercise weights were added into buckets suspended from a pulley near the lever. Displacement
measurements were taken using a contractor’s laser level aimed at the top of the vertical line
drawn on the plaster.

Displacement was elastic up to 2,3 kN (522 lb-force) at 1.4 mm. At first application of the maximum
force of 3,3 kN (745 lb-force) displacement was measured at 4 mm. Pressure was maintained at
that level for some minutes, causing displacement to increase to 14 mm. At this time the base

6
lifted noticeably. Displacement did not decrease when weight was removed and when 2,8 kN (633
lbf) was applied displacement increased.

After weight was removed the upper panel showed poor stability by rocking laterally when pushed,
so testing was discontinued, although upper panel plaster had not cracked (Figure 9 right).

Figure 9 left: Small wall panel under weights. Center: Wood-reinforced panel set up with lever for diagonal
compression. Right: No obvious damage to the panel that was next pushed over for disassembley after
losing vertical stability.

The test proceeded to almost 35 mm (1- 3/8”) displacement (Table 2, Figure 10), but since no
plaster cracks were visible, the displacement may have originated from slippage between the two
courses of the earthbag base wall.
Table 2: Wood-braced Panel
Results Figure 10: Diagonal Compression Results
Horizontal
Wood-braced Panel
displacement mm Force kN
3.5
0 0 3
Diagonal force kN

2.5
1.0 2,011 2
1.5
1.4 2,322
1
0. 0 0.5
0
2.0 2,815 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000
Horizontal displacement mm
4 3,317

14 3,317

14 0

35 2,815

7
Compression and Horizontal Pressure on Steel-reinforced Panels
Two 1,5 m2 (15.6 sf) samples were tested using a hand-pumped hydraulic jack with a pressure
gage. Deformation was recorded by camera with a vertical or horizontal tape measure.
First compression was applied to the center of each panel (Figure 12 left). Force was raised and
removed several times on each sample (Table 3, Figure 11). Compression did not cause visible
cracking and neither sample reached ultimate compressive strength.

Figure 11: Compressive Strength of Straw Log

Steel-Reinforced Panels
4
3.5
3
2.5
F o rc e k N

Pinned
2 Embedded
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deformation mm

Force reached a maximum of 2,9 kN (653 lbf) on the pinned sample, which compressed 2.4% but
when maximum force was removed after several minutes under pressure, the sample expanded
back to about 99% of its original height.
Force reached a maximum of 3,4 kN (761 lbf) on the embedded rebar sample which only
compressed 0.4%. The embedded rebar sample showed some evidence of creep, experienced
elastic motion through 85% of the maximum force and was still showing plastic motion after
maximum force.
Next the same samples were tested by applying horizontal pressure to a wood pressure plate
resting on the top plate and on the two top courses of the panel (Figures 12 center, 13 center).
Deformation measurements of horizontal motion were compared to a plumb line suspended from
the shed framing (Figure 13 right) that indicated the original line of the wall edge.

8
Figure 12 Testing steel reinforced pinned rebar panel- Left: Piston location for compression test. Center:
Piston braced against post for shear test. Right: Deformation from vertical after maximum pressure
removed.

Figure 13 Testing embedded rebar sample- Left: Little crushing at pressure plate under horizontal force with
102 mm (4”) deformation at maximum. Right: Cracking at maximum force near wire strapping base down.

Both samples required horizontal force to be applied and repeated many times to reach ultimate
shear strength. See Appendix for full data results.

9
Table 3: Steel-Reinforced Compression Results

Vertical KN force KN force

deformation mm Pinned rebar Embedded rebar

0 0 0

1 1.065

1 1.452

2 1.935

1 0.968

2 1.935

3 2.177

3 2.419

4 2.661

5 2.903

2 0.968

0 0.000

4 2.903

5 3.387

4.8 1.065

6.4 1.452

14.3 1.935

7.9 0.000

14.3 1.935

17.5 2.177

20.6 2.419

23.8 2.661

28.6 2.903

15.9 0.968

Both wall panels racked but lost no material. Both showed some cracking near the base indicative
of slight uplift and one or two short cracks along the edge where force was applied indicating slight

10
damage to the upper wall material. Both walls were still stable after testing, and required
disassembly by breaking plaster and cutting mesh.
The pinned sample showed a very gradual strength decline after reaching a maximum force of 3,4
kN (761 lbf) at 34 mm (1.3”) deformation (Figure 14 left). The sample then lost 14% of its shear
strength over an additional 24 mm (0.9”) of deformation.
The embedded sample showed creep as higher force levels were repeated and also showed plastic
behavior until ultimate strength at 3,15 kN (707 lbf) at a very high deformation of 118 mm (Figure
14 right). After ULS the wall showed a sudden strength decline.

Figure 14 Force levels were applied repeatedly to both panels, resulting in large deformations.

The pinned rebar panel had crushing on the straw-clay courses under the pressure plate (Figure 12
center) but the embedded rebar panel showed little surface crushing (Figure 13 center) despite
resisting similar forces.

Compression Test of Vault

The 1,5 m (5’) wide x 2,13 m (7’) long plastered, unreinforced vault underwent informal strength
test. The end of the vault had been closed off for thermal testing but the final top plug was not
inserted under the vault so that the end wall would not bear much of the load (Figure 14 left).
Dry filled earthbags were stacked on top of the straw log vault (Figure 14 right). Each bag was
weighed before placement. Because the vault roof surface was sloping and uneven and bags were
different shapes and sizes, no more weight was added after the stack appeared unsafe at a total of
508 kg (1,120 lb).
No sagging of the vault or compression of the wall heights was noticeable. After weight was
removed no plaster was cracked on the vault itself.

11
Figure 14 left: Final plaster coat drying on straw log vault. Right: Dried vault under added weight.

Thermal Test of Vault

Informal thermal testing was completed on the vault after the interior and exterior were fully
covered with earthen plaster and dried. A final end wall layer was placed snugly in the opening.
The vault surface area was 11,7 m2 (126 sf) total including both 7,7 m2 (83 sf) of 18 cm (7”) thick
straw log walls and 3,34 m2 (36 sf) of uninsulated dry, sandy dirt floor. The volume inside the vault
was 3,4 m3 (120 cf).
The air temperatures inside and outside of the vault were recorded using thermisters and a data
logger during several days with and several without added heat. On three warm days in October
temperatures ranged from 6- 26º C (43- 79º F), and on the three colder days in November
temperatures ranged from -5 to 13º C (23- 55º F). A clear flywheel thermal mass effect is seen in
Figure 15 left as the interior temperature remains near the average of the exterior highs and lows.
In colder weather a 200 watt heater running continuously increased nighttime temperatures about
7º C (20º F) (Figure 15 right).
The straw log vault performed equivalent to having all walls insulated between R3 and R4.

Figure 15 Straw log temperatures- Left: Interior temperatures stayed stable while air temps fluctuated,
indicating thermal mass. Right: Insulation value kept the small space about 8º C (18º F) warmer than
outside air with only 200 watts of heat added, similar to the body heat from two people.

12
The wall material density of 416 kg/m3 (26 pcf) was close to International Residential Code limits
that consider LSC thermally to be mass wall at 480 kg/m3 (30 pcf) and denser (ICC, 2018).

Evaluation
These experiments have provided limited data about a small number of samples, but the separate
experiments provide correlating results.

Unreinforced Walls
The wood-braced panel experiment has shown a stress level below yield, with similar values from
the vault. Shear stress and strain under diagonal compression must be calculated to take into
consideration the 45 degree angle of force to the square sample using formulas 1 and 2 (ASTM,
1981). Important information about the vertical changes in the sample are not available for
Formula 2. If the lack of straw log crushing or sliding between courses indicates that vertical
components of the motion were approximately equal to horizontal displacement, the resultant
data would be as shown in Figure 16.

Formula 1: Shear stress Ss = 0.707 * applied load lbf

((w in. + h in.)/2)* thickness in.)

Formula 2: Shear strain γ = ΔV + ΔH

vertical gage length

Figure 16: Approximate Stress-Strain under Diagonal

Compression
Wood-Braced Panel
12
10
Shear Stress kPa

8
6
4
2
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
%Strain

The nearly straight line deformation progression between 6,6 and 9,2 kPa (0.5- 1.33 psi) indicates
that it is possible this motion only resulted from upper wall compression before the base wall
separated. The lack of plaster cracking is not surprising at strain levels below 1%, since eight

13
different earthen wall shear tests of similar size panels by the author using similar strength earthen
plaster with light mesh reinforcement had first cracks occurring fromn 1.4- 3.8% strain, appearing
at an average of 2.8% strain. At 9,2 kPa (1.33 psi) when the rate of deformation changes it may
have been the upper wall yielding to reach a 0.66% strain.
The creep observed after 10,8 kPa and the strength decline that followed (Table 2) were likely both
related to base wall slippage. When the strain reached 5.74% before testing was stopped this
motion in the upper wall alone would have caused plaster cracking. The total additional horizontal
displacement of 33 mm (1.3”) can be explained by sliding between the two earthbag courses with
some minor sliding of the pole frame along the top of the earthbag top course. Normal earthbag
courses of weak compressive strength fill interlain with barbed wire have exhibited similar sliding
and creep under horizontal force as the weak fill chips around the barb points (Stouter, 2020)
This simple straw log wall strength test showed that unreinforced plastered straw log walls can
survive 9,2 kPa (1.33 psi) forces and higher with little damage. In the standard 18 cm (7”) thick wall
of 480 kg/m2 (30 pcf), this translate to approximately 1,63 kN/m (112 plf).
Although less data was retrieved from the experiment with the vault, the weight it carried was
directly resting on two 2,13 m (7’) long side walls. Force levels from the undamaged vault at 1,168
kN/m (80 plf) on each side of the vault may be conservative but are not inconsistent with the
wood-braced panel results.

Wood-Reinforced Walls
Although the early small compressive test did not provide yield or damage states information, the
small panel with diagonal thin pole reinforcement did resist 2,34 kN/ m (160 plf) without damage.

Steel-Reinforced Walls
Compressive Testing
The pinned rebar yielded at 6,7 kPa (1 psi) but did not reach ultimate strength or 5% deformation.
Maximum force at 13,4 kPa (2 psi) resulted in 2.4% strain after a long plastic range (Figure 17).
Although the pinned rebars were embedded in surface plaster and tied into the external log mesh,
this compressive strength was much lower than for the embedded rebar sample.
The embedded rebar showed much less deformation at the same yield point. The maximum tested
load was 15,7 kPa (2.3 psi) at only 0.42% strain, but no strength decline indicated that this was the
ultimate strength. Although the rebars were located further from the pressure point than in the
pinned rebar sample, at 15 cm (6”) from the pressure point on each side, a stronger bond must
have existed with the surrounding LSC material.
These test results indicate that steel reinforced straw-log walls will not receive compressive
damage under loads of 1,18 kN/m (81 plf) and either wall type should be able to support 2,45
kN/m (168 plf) at less than 3% deformation. Embedded rebar at this spacing should be able to
support loads as high as 2,81 kN/m (193 plf).

14
 Figure 17: Straw Log Compressive Stress-Strain
Steel-reinforced Panels
18
16
14
12
Shear stress kPa

Pinned
10
Embedded
8
6
4
2
0
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00%
Strain

Shear Testing
Straw log walls have similar modest shear strengths. The steel-reinforced samples showed
elasticity and significant plastic ranges.
The pinned rebar sample which was 118 cm (46.5”) high, had a defined yield point at 11,6 kPa (1.7
psi). There was almost no permanent deformation until the sample had received 12,8 kPa (1.85
psi) seven times and reached 4% strain. Ultimate strength was 16,2 kPa (2.35 psi) at 2.7% strain,
followed by strength decline until almost 5% strain.
The embedded rebar sample which was 107 cm (42.2”) high, had a slightly lower yield strength
near 10 kPa (1.45 psi) but survived more than twice as much deformation before ULS. This sample
reached 5% strain after reaching 12,7 kPa (1.84 psi) loads four times. Ultimate strength was 16,54
kPa (2.39 psi) followed by a sudden small strength decline.

Figure 18: Straw Log Shear Stress-Strain

Steel-reinforced Panels
18.00
16.00
14.00
Shear stress kPa

12.00
pinned
10.00
embedded
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Strain

15
These two samples show similar peak strengths. Although the pinned rebar showed less than a
third as much deformation at peak load, shear strength may not be the determining factor for
small structures of this relatively light-weight material.

Conclusions
Fiber-reinforced clay flexes easily because of tensile strength, and can continue to flex or deform if
stressed. After testing and knocking over the wood-braced straw log panel workers took a sledge
hammer to the surface suspended above the ground. Blows bounced off and did not damage the
mesh. Prompt disassembly was a longer process, involving cracking plaster with a chisel and pulling
mesh outward to cut it free from under the plaster. Later straw log panels were soaked and
weathered before disassembly after months earth plaster side up to soften plaster and LSC.
In earthquake regions the ‘ability of a building to deform without collapsing is essential for saving
human lives...’1 High ductility (the capacity of a material to continue deforming under stress for
extended periods) in engineers’ structural design formulas allows designers to accept lower
material strength because an earthquake won’t cause a “sudden, dangerous, and potentially
deadly collapse” (Kelly, 2020).
Straw log samples tested for density were 416- 480 kg/m2 (26- 30 pcf) within normal ranges for
lighter weight LSC. Although LSC samples under compressive stress tend to crumble first at the
edges, sudden collapse under high loads is unlikely because of straw-clay’s very gradual damage
increase under extended deformation (Thornton, 2005). Because straw log wall material has strong
and fine-grained containment provided by the plastic mesh tubing and plaster layers it is even less
vulnerable to mechanical damage.
When reinforcement is needed, embedded rebar’s elasticity to high levels of deformation
combined with its superior compressive strength offer more protection for these modest strength
walls that can benefit from both good compressive strength and added stiffness. This bond
between the vertical deformed rebar and the 75 mm (3”) of surrounding random-oriented low
density LSC fill is more valuable than the bond between the same type of rebar and an edge
condition of solid but straw-reinforced earthen plaster, similar to results of pinned and embedded
rebar in earthbag walls (Stouter, 2020).
Although LSC researchers recommend using serviceability limits of 5% deformation, most
structural data for straw log walls does not include this level of strain. Small sample strength
results do not reflect large sample material characteristics, but the ratios between yield and
serviceability limits may be similar. Potential bearing strengths at an allowable 5% deformation can
be estimated by comparing to the similar stress-strain curves from LSC small samples compressive
testing (Table 4) to straw log results.

1 Commenting on similar but denser cob construction that creates high-fiber earthen mass walls (Miccolli,
Muller and Fontana, 2014)

16
Samples in the light density class of 681 kg/m3 (43 pcf) averaged 2.4% strain at stresses 35% above
yield and 5% strain at stresses ranging from 60- 80% higher than yield.

Table 4: Compressive Strength Comparisons between LSC and Straw Log Panels

Small sample Unreinforced Lightly-reinforced Pinned rebar Embedded rebar

strengths of straw log wall with external straw log wall straw log wall
light straw- strength results wood poles/ reeds strength results strength results
clay

Yield 1 >1,17- 1,63 kN/m >2,34 kN/m 2,09 kN/m 1,78 kN/m
(>80- 112 plf) (>160 plf) (143 plf) (122 plf)

0.4% def 2,82 kN/m

(193 plf)

2.4% def 1.35 x yield 1,6- 2,2 kN/m 3,15 kN/m 2,45 kN/m
(±108- 151 plf) (±216 plf) (168 plf)

5% def 1.62- 1.83 x

yield

Estimated at 1,9- 2,6 kN/m 3,73 kN/m 3,34 kN/m 2,85 kN/m
1.6 x yield (±128- 179 plf) (±256 plf) (±229 plf) (±195 plf)

Assumed safe 1,8 kN/m 2,2 kN/m 2,5 kN/m 2,8 kN/m
serviceability (125 plf) (150 plf) (170 plf) (195 plf)
limit

Recommendations
Straw log walls that are well tied together and plastered do not lose material and collapse under
either compressive or shear forces. But builders unused to modest strength materials need to
avoid any point loads by using top plates to spread rafter weight out along walls. Bracing is also
helpful during the short soaking process that makes course sections temporarily heavier and less
stiff. Finally, the more redundancy that is created in connections between courses, the better.
Pinned rebars may be helpful on longer or higher straw log panels to increase wall stiffness both
during soaking and against horizontal warping in earthquakes. But embedded rebars can increase
compressive strength of straw log panels along eaves walls more than pinned external rebars and
also stiffen walls. Smaller 6 mm (¼”) diameter rebar may be more cost effective if any is used. For
short-term shelters bamboo, reed or small diameter wood poles can also be used as
reinforcement.

17
More straw log wall panels should be tested under compression, with enough force to cause 5%
strain. Variables should be external wood and internal steel reinforcement at different spacing. The
use of different compressive strength subsoil for the liquid clay to soak walls and for the wall
plaster layers should be explored.
The limited span of the straw vault indicate it may be practical only for very small spaces. A straw
log vault might function well as roofing if soaked with a binder stabilized against water infiltration
(such as hydrated lime mixed into the clay slip). Because dried soaked straw logs are relatively light,
it might be possible to build segments of roof vaults in forms and pre-soak and dry them before
assembling. Concerns about poor maintenance would need to be addressed, because light straw-
clay filling would lose all strength and collapse if soaked by leaks in the exterior surface unless it
was completely stabilized to resist water.
Engineers or students interested in researching this material would be welcome to contact the
author at simple_earth@yahoo.com.

Bibliography
Amec Foster Wheeler (2015). NM Earth 2015 Misc. Testing. Albuquerque, NM.

American Society for the Testing of Materials (2000). ASTM E:519-00: Standard Test Method for Diagonal
Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages. West Conshohocken, PA.

Carbajal, F., Ruiz, G. & Schexnayder, C. J. (2005). Quincha Construction in Peru, ASCE Practical Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction (10:1) 56

Chino, M. (9/14/2009). StrawJet Transforms Straw Waste into Building Beams, Inhabitat at
https://inhabitat.com/strawjet/

Doleman, L. (2018). Building with Light Straw Clay, Mother Earth News, at
https://www.motherearthnews.com/sustainable-living/green-homes/building-with-light-straw-clay-
ze0z1805zmos/

Elizabeth, L. and Adams, C. (2005). Alternative Construction: Contemporary Natural Building Methods,
Wiley, NY.

Forest Products Lab (2004). Engineering Report of Light Clay Specimens, Madison, Wisconsin at
http://www.designcoalition.org/articles/Lansing-LHJ/research/FPLreport.pdf.

Guyer, J. P. (2013). An Introduction to Geotextiles for Soil Wall Reinforcement. CED Engineering course
notes. At https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/An%20Introduction%20to%20Geotextiles%20for
%20Soil%20Wall%20Reinf%20R1.pdf

Hart, K. (2018). Essential Earthbag Construction: the complete step-by-step guide, New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island, BC.

Hengsadeekul, T. and Nimityongskul, P. (January 2004). Construction of Paddy Storage Silo Using Vetiver
Grass and Clay. Assumption University Journal of Technology, 7(3): 120- 128.

18
International Code Council (2018). Appendix R: Light Straw-Clay Construction, International Residential
Code. at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IRC2018P7/appendix-r-light-straw-clay-construction

Kelly, E. E. (2020). What is ductility and why is it important in earthquake resistant structure? School of PE
Blog. EduMind, Dublin, OH. At https://www.schoolofpe.com/blog/2020/07/what-is-ductility-and-why-is-it-
important-for-earthquake-resistant-structure.html

Miccoli, L., Müller, U., & Fontana, P. (2014). Mechanical behaviour of earthen materials: A comparison
between earth block masonry, rammed earth and cob. Construction and Building Materials, 61, 327-339.

Stouter, P. (2023). Plan Instant Shelter: Straw Log Walls for Insulation and Safety, BuildSimple.org, Canyon,
TX at https://buildsimple.org/ws/media-library/72e2f92c53894522aa6baad5b344f182/
planinstantshelter.pdf

Stouter, P. (2020). 60% Scale Contained Earth Earthbag Shear Performance. BuildSimple.org, Albuquerque,
NM. at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352979614_60_Scale_Contained_Earth_Earthbag_Shear_Perfor
mance

Thornton, J. (2005). Research Highlight: Initial Material Characterization of Light Straw Clay, Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Ottawa, Ontario. at http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/63928.pdf?
fr=1353817759673

19
Appendix: Results from Steel-reinforced Panel Shear Testing
Pinned sample Embedded sample
mm kN mm kN

0.00 0.97 0 0.97

0.00 1.45 0 1.45

3.00 1.94 3.00 1.94

5.23 2.15 0 2.00

8.00 2.42 12 2.18

22.00 2.66 22 2.42

14.00 1.45 38 2.66

16.00 2.03 40 2.42

20.00 2.42 52 2.42

26.00 2.90 53 2.42

26.00 1.94 48 1.94

28.00 2.90 0 0.00

37.00 3.15 22 0.97

37.00 1.94 33 1.94

46.00 3.15 46 2.42

55.00 2.90 53 3.00

55.00 1.21 20 0.00

10.00 0.00 37 1.94

0.00 0.00 49.78 2.35

10.00 0.97 52 2.42

15.00 1.94 0 0.00

18.00 2.42 25 0.97

23.00 3.00 0 0.00

27.00 3.15 60 2.42

34.00 3.39 102 2.90

33.00 3.15 0 0.00

33.00 2.61 118 3.15

20
 36.00 2.81 118 1.94

38.00 3.15

35.00 1.45

25.00 0.97

0.00 0.00

4.00 1.45

13.00 1.94

19.00 2.42

26.00 2.90

42.00 2.90

29.00 1.45

0.00 0.00

15.00 1.45

19.00 1.94

32.00 2.42

41.00 2.42

49.78 2.67

58.00 2.90

Compressive and Shear Strengths of Straw Log Bearing Walls © 2023 by Patti Stouter
is licensed under CC BY 4.0 Attribution, 4.0 International License.

21