Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth

block filled by date palm fibers
Bachir Taallah a, Abdelhamid Guettala a, Salim Guettala a,b,⇑, Abdelouahed Kriker c
a
Civil Engineering Research Laboratory, University of Biskra, 07000 Biskra, Algeria
b
Civil Engineering Department, University of Djelfa, 17000 Djelfa, Algeria
c
E.V.R.N.Z.A Laboratory, University of Ouargla, 30000 Ouargla, Algeria

h i g h l i g h t s

 Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers was investigated.
 Better result of the dry compressive strength was observed with 0.05% fiber, 8% cement and compaction pressure of 10 MPa.
 Impact of palm fibers on the tensile strength was unfavorable.
 Increasing cement content and decreasing palm fibers content there is a decrease in total water absorption.
 The swelling of the blocks increases with decreasing cement content and increasing palm fibers content.

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

Article history: This paper investigates the mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block
Received 16 November 2013 (CEB) filled by date palm fibers in order to valorize local building materials and the contribution to the
Received in revised form 13 February 2014 cost reduction of housing especially in rural areas. In this framework, a series of blocks were fabricated
Accepted 17 February 2014
using a soil, stabilised with cement, the crushed sand and fibers, and compacted with a static loading by
applying three compacting stresses (1.50, 5 and 10 MPa). Better result of the dry compressive strength
was observed by CEB with 0.05% of fiber content, 8% cement content and compaction pressure of the
Keywords:
10 MPa. But for the remaining studied cases, the addition of fibers under compaction pressure has an
Compressed earth block
Date palm fibers
adverse effect on the properties of CEB. Impact of palm fibers on the tensile strength was unfavorable
Mechanical properties because of their low tensile strength, very high water absorption, by heterogeneity or distribution and
Water absorption a low adhesion with the matrix. Could be said that by increasing cement content and decreasing palm
Swelling fibers content there is a general decrease in total water absorption of the blocks. The swelling of the
blocks increases with decreasing cement content and increasing palm fibers content.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction compacting earth to improve the quality and performance of

Earth is an ancient building material that has been used in
many different ways around the world for thousands of years.
Nowadays, we register an increasing return to construction raw
earth in several countries including industrialized countries taking
advantage of the development of production techniques very
varied, sustained by extensive scientific research illustrated partic-
ularly in those concerning the technology of compressed earth
blocks (CEB) [1]. The CEB is the modern descendent of the moulded
earth block, more commonly known as the adobe block. The idea of
⇑ Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering Research Laboratory, University of
Biskra, 07000 Biskra, Algeria. Tel.: 00 213 551874005.
E-mail address: guettalasalim@yahoo.com (S. Guettala).
molded earth blocks is, however, far from new, and it was with
wooden tamps that the first compressed earth blocks were
produced [2]. If it is confirmed now that the stabilization of CEB
by binders and the bitumen improves their mechanical strength
and the insensitivity to water [3], the use of natural fibers as a
building material poses a special challenges to science and technol-
ogy. The natural fibers industry faces the challenge of developing
new technologies to facilitate the use of natural fibers in produc-
tion of building materials, where their natural advantages allow
competing effectively with synthetics. The special challenges for
the scientists are: concerns over the fiber coherence/quality, low
impact strength, problem of stocking raw material for extended
time, fibers are hydrophilic, issues of compatibility, sensitive to
humidity, fiber degradation during processing, fiber orientation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.058
0950-0618/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
162 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168
and distribution. The use of local natural fibers is more beneficial
for the population as fibers are locally available in abundance,
economical benefits, low energy consumption and allows the
reduction of environmental impacts [4–12]. We note that the addi-
tion of natural fibers was customary in the manufacture of adobes
and other products since antiquity in order to reduce shrinkage
cracking and improve the tensile strength [5,13]. The latest studies
appeared on the CEB have shown that the addition of natural fibers
reduces the size of shrinkage cracks and improves durability and
the tensile strength [5,6,14–16] and decreases the thermal conduc-
tivity of composite materials [17,18]. The advantage of the cost of
natural fibers compared to the cost of synthetic fibers, which partly
explains the tendency of use in favour of the natural fibers [19].
The palm fibers have filament textures with special properties such
as low costs, plenitude in the region, durability and lightweight
[20]. Fibers extracted from decomposed palm trees are found to
be brittle, having low tensile strength and a low elasticity modulus
and very high water absorption [21]. Salehan and Yaacob [22]
found that the water absorption test results indicated a small in-
crease in water absorption with the increase in the palm fibers
content. While synthetic fibers are commonly used in soil rein-
forcement to increase compressive strength and shear strength
[23,24]. In a study conducted by Namango, a considerable increase
in strength with increasing sisal fibers, cassava powder, cement as
well as cement-fiber content within certain limits is observed. Re-
sults show that sisal fiber content outside these stated limits are
detrimental to the strength characteristics of compressed soil
blocks [25]. Minke noted that the addition of fibers such as human
or animal hair, coir, sisal, agave, bamboo and straw can help to
reduce the shrinkage, because the clay content is reduced and a
certain quantity of water is absorbed by the pores of the fibers
[26]. In the same context, Villamizar et al. [27] found that the
use of cassava peels considerably increased the dry strength of
the mixtures, which is useful for reducing scraps due to handling
problems of the CEB. But Rigassi stated, without forwarding
research data, that although fibers are commonly used to reinforce
the adobe, they are incompatible with CEB compaction pressure as
they render the mix elastic [2]. But it should be noted that for
preserving the environment, there are studies conducted on the
compressed earth blocks filled by recycling synthetic fibers. E.g.,
study of Eko et al. [28]. The abundance and variety of date palms
in southern Algeria, allowed people to integrate the various com-
ponents of the date palm in several fields of activities including
construction. A study was made on four types of surface fibers of
date palms (known locally as: lif) namely: male date palm,
Deglette-Nour, Degla-Bida and Elghers (local designations), has
revealed that male date palm surfaces fibers (MDPSF) have a ten-
sile strength greater than other types of fibers studied [29]. Several
researchers have used the fibers of date palms in their studies. E.g.,
Marandi et al. for soil reinforcement [30], Dawood and Ramli in the
lightweight concrete [31] and Kriker et al. in the concrete [29].
The objective of this study is to try to improve the performance
of compressed earth block by using local materials (soil, date palm
fibers) and at the same time its hygroscopicity behavior. In this
framework, the mechanical properties in dry and wet state of
CEB filled by fibers of male date palm will be examined, through
its dry and wet compressive strength and dry tensile strength.
Subsequently, we investigate the hygroscopicity behavior (total
Table 1
Chemical composition of soil (%).
SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO
33.33 2.99 1.39 26.45 0.88
LOI: Loss on ignition.
absorption and swelling after immersion in water) of the com-
pressed earth block (CEB) filled by date palm fibers.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Soil
The soil used in this investigation was sourced from the Biskra region located in
south-east Algeria. The elemental chemical analysis performed by X-ray fluores-
cence on this soil revealed the chemical composition shown in Table 1. The analysis
by X-ray diffraction was used to determine the mineralogical composition
presented in Table 2. The mineralogical composition shows that the soil contains
a significant concentration of gypsum and calcite and quartz and a low content of
kaolin. The granular composition of the soil is determined through two tests: Grain
size analysis and sedimentometry, according to NF P 18-560 and NF P 94-057
successively. The test results are presented in Fig. 1. It can be seen from the grain
size distribution curve of the soil that the curve is well within the zone limit recom-
mended by the standard of compressed earth blocks XP P 13-901. Apparent
density = 1210 kg/m3 and specific density = 2579 kg/m3. The Atterberg limits were:
liquid limit (LL = 36%) and plasticity index (PI = 13%).
2.1.2. Cement
Recognizing the importance of the sulfate content in the soil studied, and for a
better durability of the block, we used the ordinary Portland cement (CEM I) class
42.5 MPa. The chemical analysis of clinker shows that it is in conformity with
standard NFP 15-301. The chemical and mineralogical compositions of clinker are
presented in Table 3. The potential mineralogical composition of the clinker is
calculated according to the empirical formula of Bogue [32].
2.1.3. Water
The water is drinking water that contains little sulfate and having a tempera-
ture of 20 ± 2 °C. Its quality conforms to the requirements of NFP 18–404 standard.
2.1.4. Crushed Sand
The sand used in all mixtures was a crushed sand (0/3) from the quarries of the
Biskra region (Algeria). Apparent density = 1445 kg/m3, specific density = 2600 kg/
m3, fineness modulus = 3.08, sand equivalent (by piston test) = 41.1% and sand
equivalent (by sight) = 44.7%. Grain size distribution: 3.25% (0.01–0.08 mm),
52.83% (0.08–1.25 mm) and 43.92% (1.25–5 mm).
2.1.5. Fibers
The natural fibers used in this research are from the surface of the turn of date
palm. Male date palm surfaces fibers (MDPSF) are a natural woven, and are pulled
out from trunk in the form of nearly rectangular mesh (300–500 mm length and
200–300 mm width) formed with three superposing layers (Fig. 2a). It is easy to
separate them into individual fibers of diameter of 0.1–0.8 mm in water (Fig. 2b).
The fibers were finally cut into pieces of lengths between 20 and 35 mm (Fig. 2c).
The physical and mechanical characteristics are taken from a previous study of
Kriker et al. [29]. Table 4 shows the upper, lower, and means physical properties
of MDPSF as well as the coefficient of variation (CV), whereas Table 5 gives mechan-
ical properties of MDPSF [29]. It must be pointed that the fibers are used in the raw
state, so they have not undergone any prior treatment.
2.2. Testing method and mix proportions
According to studies conducted by Mesbah et al. [33] and Abalo [34], the static
compaction is better adapted to clay soils, and determining the optimum water
content for the CEB from the test Proctor is inappropriate because the compaction
energy is not the same as for the static compaction used in the manufacture of the
CEB. For this reason the press is used directly by applying the static compaction
method proposed by C.D.E [35]. For the preparation of mixtures, the results of
the study prepared by Guettala et al. [36], which showed that the concentration
of sand in CEB has small influence on the mechanical strength, but dosages between
25% and 40% have given the best results. The global dry weight of the mixture for
each block is kept constant during all stages of this study; it is taken equal to
2 kg. The details of the mixtures proportions are given in Table 6. In total fifteen
mixtures were used. Three blocks were produced to give average results for each
SO3 K2O Na2O P2 O5 LOI TiO2
14.21 0.5 0.13 0.06 19.85 0.21
 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168 163

Table 2 Table 4
Mineralogical composition of soil (%). Morphological and physical properties of MDPSF [29].

Minerals Mineralogical composition (%) Properties Lower–upper Mean–CV (%)

Quartz 29.5 Diameter (mm) 0.10–0.80 0.45–54.43
Gypsum 30.5 Apparent density (kg/m3) 512–1089 900–17.64
Calcite 29.5 Specific density (kg/m3) 1300–1450 1383–5.52
Muscovite – Natural moisture content (%) 9.50–10.50 10–5.00
K-feldspar 3 Water absorption after 5 min 60–84 74–14.02
Kaolin 6.5 under water (%)
Water absorption to saturation (%) 97–203 132.50–20.56

100
Percent finer by weigth (%)

90 Table 5
80 Mechanical properties of MDPSF fiber (dry) [29].
70
60 Specimen’s length Tensile strength Elongation Elasticity modulus
50 (mm) (Mpa) (%) (GPA)
40 100 170 ± 40 16 ± 3 4.74 ± 2
30 60 240 ± 30 12 ± 2 5.00 ± 2
20 20 290 ± 20 11 ± 2 5.25 ± 3
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Table 6
Grain size (mm) Mixture proportions of CEB.

Fig. 1. Grain size distribution of the tested soil. Soil (%) 70 70 70 in relation to the dry mixture
Crushed sand (%) 30 30 30 (soil-sand)
Cement (%) 5 6.50 8 in relation to the global dry mixture
test. Before mixing, must be ensured that the mixture is really dry. For this we must Fibers (%) 0 0 0
submit the soil and the crushed sand to drying in an oven for 24 h at 60 °C. After 0.05 0.05 0.05
that we proceeded to mixing the dry mixture (soil with sand crushed) for 2 min 0.10 0.10 0.10
in a cement mixer for 5 s with a speed of 139 rev/min, then adding cement and con- 0.15 0.15 0.15
tinue mixing for a minute [37]. Water was added to the mixture and continuing 0.20 0.20 0.20
mixing for all during 2 min. Finally we proceed to the addition of fibers by mixing Water (%) 10 10 10
manually. The material is placed in the mould and compacted immediately. The
compaction is static type simple effect; it is assured by a hydraulic press. The used
mould is made of steel; it is composed of five elements forming after mounting a
volume of (100  100  200 mm). The mould is with a piston to ensure the
2.3. Tests conducted
transmission of the pressure from the press compaction to the mixture. The schema
of the mould in the press is shown in Fig. 3 [37]. During all stages of this study,
2.3.1. Dry and wet compressive strength test
mixtures were subjected to three compaction pressure:
This test determines the nominal strength in simple compression of blocks of
raw earth compressed according to standard XP P 13-901. This test consists of sub-
a. The first series of blocks: 10 MPa, for 5%, 6.50% and 8% the cement contents;
jecting a sample constituted by two half-blocks superposed and adhered by a joint
b. The second and third series of blocks: 1.50 MPa and 5 MPa for 5% cement
of cement mortar to a simple compression until failure.
content.

The demoulding is produced immediately after the compaction; the block is
manually taken carefully. The conservation of CEB is realized in the laboratory at
a temperature 20 ± 2 °C, each block is covered with plastic film to ensure its sealing,
allowing the cement hydration takes place in standard conditions. Curing of CEB is
ensured for 28 days. Before submitting the CEB to the tests, they must be dry in an
oven to constant weight.
2.3.2. Dry tensile strength test
This test is performed according to the C.D.E testing procedure [35]. It is derived
from the splitting tensile test (Brazilian test). In this test the block is subjected to
compression along two strips of hardwood located either side of the block, produc-
ing a tensile stress along a vertical facet passing between these two strips. Finally
the block is divided into two half-blocks.

Table 3
Chemical and mineralogical compositions of clinker (%).

Chemical composition Bogue composition

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 K2O Na2O Free CaO LOI IR C3S C2S C3A C4AF
22.17 4.53 3.04 64.44 1.02 1.34 0.42 0.21 1.09 0.94 0.8 51.2 21.16 3.1 12.42

IR: Insoluble residue, LOI: Loss on ignition.

Fig. 2. Fibers: (a) the lif after pulling out from trunk of date palm; (b) the fibers resulting from the decomposition of the lif; (c) the fibers cut in pieces.
164 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168

that dry compressive strength increases with increasing cement

Upper plate of the press
Mould Piston
Material
Lower plate of the press
Fig. 3. Schema of the mold used for the manufacture of CEB [37].
2.3.3. Total absorption test
This test consists of immersing a block in a water bath for different times: 1, 2, 3
and 4 days after measuring his dry weight Ws and measuring the wet block weight
Wh after being removed from the water bath. The relative difference (in percentage)
in weight compared to the dry block weight gave the percentage of water absorbed
as shown in the following formula: A (%) = (Wh Ws)  100/Ws.
2.3.4. Swelling by immersion test
This test is performed according to standard XP P 13-901. The blocks are placed
in a water bath during 96 h. Just after, the blocks are drained for about 10 min, and
then the distance between two studs fixed before is measured. The swelling of each
block is given by the following formula: Dls (mm/m) = (l1 l0)/l0.
With l0 is the distance before immersion and l1 is the distance after immersion.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Effect of fibers content on the properties of compressed earth
blocks
3.1.1. Dry compressive strength
The effect of change in the fibers content on the dry compres-
sive strength of CEB is illustrated in Fig. 4. From the results, it
can be noticed that for 8% cement content the inclusion of fibers
in the CEB will slightly increase the dry compressive strength.
Better result was obtained by using 0.05% of fibers, and the in-
crease percentage for compressive strength was 6% compared to
the non-filled blocks, while for the rest of the results there is a
decrease in strength with increasing fibers content. For the case
of 5% and 6.5% cement contents, the addition of fibers in the mix-
tures of CEB caused a slight reduction in the strength for some fi-
bers contents and no change in others. The difference between
the lowest and highest values of strength is 4%, 5% and 5.5% for
cement contents 5%, 6.5% and 8%, respectively. Fig. 4 also shows
content. E.g., the strength block without fibers stabilised with 8%
cement content were 60% and 20% higher than that at 5% and
6.5% successively. Based on the above results, for low cement
contents (5% and 6.5%) the decrease of compressive strength can
be attributed to the dominance of fibers effect on that cement con-
tent, since the amount of hydration products is small in front the
importance of the voids created in the mix due to the existence
of fibers in soil mixture under an important compaction pressure,
which render the mix too elastic after discharge, resulting in an in-
crease of the pore network of blocks affecting adversely the
mechanical strength. While for important cement content (8%),
the increase dry compressive strength would be due to the increas-
ing amount of C2S and C3S brought about by increasing cement
content. The increasing amount of calcium silicate hydrates, cal-
cium aluminate hydrates and the calcium aluminosilicate hydrates
which is derived from cement hydration, fill pores of the matrix
and enhance the rigidity of its structure by forming a large number
of rigid bonds connecting the soil mixture particles [38–42], which
oppose soil mixture decompression after discharge caused by the
presence of fibers, reducing the porosity of the block, giving a high-
est strength. This finding is in agreement with findings of Namango
for the cement–sisal stabilised soil blocks [25], who concluded that
the sisal content, in the presence of cement does not seem to have
any effect on the strength characteristics of compressed earth
blocks. The results are also in agreement with the results of
Khedari et al. [18]. They’ve concluded that the increase in coconut
fibers content resulted in a decrease in bond strength of the
specimens, leading to a lower compressive strength.
3.1.2. Dry tensile strength
The addition of natural fibers is used in the manufacture of ado-
bes and other products of earth in order to reduce shrinkage crack-
ing and improve the tensile strength [5,23], but this is not clear in
the case of the compressed earth block. By analyzing the results
presented in Fig. 5, indicated that the tensile strength of CEB is
about 700% lower than its compressive strength. This is largely be-
cause of the ease with which cracks can propagate under tensile
loads [43]. The addition of fibers to mixtures of CEB caused a de-
crease in tensile strength with the increase of the fibers content,
and the lowest value is found for 0.2% fibers content for all cement
content used in this work. For this case, the decrease in tensile
strength compared to CEB without fibers is 23.5%, 18.5% and 14%

2
14
13
12
1.5
11
Compressive strength (MPa)

Tensile strength (MPa)

10
9
8
1
7
6
5
4 5% Cement
0.5
3 6.5% Cement 5% Cement
2 8% Cement 6.5% Cement
1 8% Cement
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Fiber content (%) Fiber content (%)

Fig. 4. Dry compressive strength of CEB as a function of fiber content (with 10 MPa Fig. 5. Dry tensile strength of CEB as a function of fiber content (with 10 MPa of
of compaction pressure). compaction pressure).
 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168 165

for 5%, 6.5% and 8% cement content, respectively. Contrary to the 2

result found for compressive strength in the case of 0.05% fibers

Dry to wet compressive strength ratio

1.9
content and 8% cement content, there is no increase observed in 5% cement
1.8
tensile strength. Fig. 5 shows the increase of tensile strength with 6.5% cement
increasing cement content. The decreases in tensile strength found 1.7
8% cement
in this research disagree with the results found by Ziegler et al. and 1.6
Millogo et al. According to Ziegler et al. [14], the natural fibers in
1.5
compressed earth blocks have been shown to reduce the size of
shrinkage cracks and to improve durability and tensile strength. 1.4
Millogo et al. [10], values of the flexural strength of fiber- 1.3
reinforced blocks is highest than those of unreinforced blocks by fi-
1.2
bers. They also indicated that the increase of this parameter is
mainly due to the high tensile strength of Hibiscus cannabinus fibers 1.1

and the homogeneous repartitioning and adhesion of fibers with 1

the clay matrix. The reduction of the tensile strength is attributed
to the low adhesion between the fiber and the matrix caused by
the decompression of the block after unloading during its manufac-
ture. Therefore it has a poor transfer of forces from the matrix to the
fibers during loading, also causing slipping the fibers relative to ma-
trix. The third effect is due to heterogeneity or distribution of the
date palm fibers. When the palm fibers are not evenly distributed
in the mixture, they can clump together with less mixture material
in between to hold them together, creating a highest porosity and
rendering the low blocks. The decrease in tensile strength was ob-
served in a few studies as a consequence of the addition of cut straw
reinforcement in the material [8,44]. Fibers extracted from decom-
posed palm trees are found to be brittle, having low tensile strength
[21]. On the other hand, there is an agreement with the view of
Rigassi [2], who stated that although fibers are commonly used to
reinforce the adobe, they are incompatible with CEB compaction
pressure as they render the mix elastic.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Fiber content (%)
Fig. 7. Dry and wet ratio of compressive strength (DCS/WCS) of CEB as a function of
fiber content (with 10 MPa of compaction pressure).
shows that the increase of the cement content, decrease the
fractional difference between mean wet and dry strength in a
block. The findings confirm earlier work by other researchers that
increase in stabiliser content is a more economic way of increasing
the wet compressive strength in the blocks [45].
Fig. 7 shows that the highest compressive strength ratio (DCS/
WCS) is found for 0.2% fibers and 5% cement; it is equal to 1.87.
It has been recommended that the ratio of the dry and wet
compressive strength in the CEB should not be greater than 2
[46]. The experimental results obtained here fall well within this
limit.

3.1.3. Wet compressive strength 3.1.4. Total water absorption

The variation of the wet compressive strength of CEB as a func-
tion of fibers content is shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, there is a
decrease in strength with increasing fibers content for all blocks
tested compared to the blocks without fibers, therefore the pres-
ence of fibers in blocks has a negative effect on the wet compres-
sive strength. The decrease on strength ranged between 3% and
20% for all the blocks tested. The values of the wet compressive
strength in blocks without fibers are 5 MPa, 6.9 MPa and 9.2 MPa
for 5%, 6.5% and 8% cement content, respectively. The difference
between dry compressive strength and wet compressive strength
is about 50% (for 5% cc), 45% (for 6.5% cc) and 30% (for 8% cc). This
10
Knowledge of the value of the total water absorption (TWA) of a
block is important because it can be used for approximation of the
voids content of a block. Generally, the less water a block absorbs
and retains the better is its performance likely to be [47]. The
results illustrated in Fig. 8 shows that there is a decrease in water
absorption for one day of immersion with increase in cement
content. The decrease was generally about 10% with variation in
cement content from 5% to 8%. It was found that the TWA of CEB
ranged between 9.2% and 11.2%. The values obtained of total water
absorption were favourable when compared with those of such as
materials (clay bricks 0–30%; concrete blocks 4–25%; calcium
silicate bricks 6–16%) [48]. An increase in water absorption with

9
12
8
Compressive streingth (MPa)

11
6
Total absorption (%)

4 10

3
Without fibers
2
5% Cement 9 0.05% fibers
6.5% Cement 0.10% fibers
1 0.15% fibers
8% Cement 0.2% fibers
0 8
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8
Fiber content (%) Cement content (%)

Fig. 6. Wet compressive strength of CEB as a function of fiber content (with 10 MPa Fig. 8. Effect of varying cement content and fibers content on the total water
of compaction pressure). absorption after one day of immersion.
166 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168

(a) 12 (b) 12 (c) 12

Total absorption (%)

Total absorption (%)
Total absorption (%)

11 11 11

10 10 10
Without fibers
0.05% fibers Without fibers Without fibers
9 0.10% fibers 9 0.05% fibers 9 0.05% fibers
0.10% fibers 0.10% fibers
0.15% fibers
0.15% fibers 0.15% fibers
0.2% fibers 0.2% fibers 0.2% fibers
8 8 8
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Immersion time (days) Immersion time (days) Immersion time (days)

Fig. 9. Effect of fibers content on the total absorption in time of CEB (with 10 MPa of compaction pressure): (a) 5% cement; (b) 6.5% cement; (c) 8% cement.

increasing the fibers content is observed. In this study we

measured the total water absorption in time of CEB stabilised with
cement and fibers.
The results presented in Fig. 9a–c, it can be seen from these
figures that CEB without fibers is characterised by a total absorp-
tion less than in CEB filled by fibers during the whole period of
immersion in water for all cement content used. The results show
that the addition of fibers in the mixtures increases slightly the to-
tal water absorption. This means that there is more water infiltra-
tion in the specimens. This is attributed to the water absorption
capacity of the fibers and the adverse affect on the bonding ability
of the mixture with the presence of alien materials, such as the
fibers [49]. Cellulosic fibers are more hydrophilic, because have
the highest amount of OH groups (reactive sites) in this chemical
composition, and any material reinforced with these elements in
their original form tends to have highest levels of water absorption.
This capacity of the fibers to absorb water is due to its porous
structure and its highly hydrophilic character because of the
hydroxyl groups of the cellulose and hemicelluloses. The water
be taken by the fibers, it is either in the form of free water restraint
between the interstices of packets microfibrils be linked at the sur-
face of the microfibrils [50]. Fibers extracted from decomposed
palm trees are found to be brittle, having low tensile strength
and a low elasticity modulus and very high water absorption
[21]. Salehan and Yaacob [22] found that the water absorption test
results indicated a small increase in water absorption with the
increase in the palm fibers content. We noted also that there is a
slight increase of TWA from first to fourth day of immersion in
water for all cement content and fibers content. The highest value
of TWA for all CEB with fibers tested was found 11.8% for 0.2% of
fibers content and 5% of cement content after 4 days of immersion
in water. Despite the increase in total absorption for CEB with
fibers, it remains lower than that found by Villamizar et al. [26]
for manufacturing the CEB with cassava peels. We must take into
consideration the importance of the influence of the compaction
pressure on the total water absorption, because the compaction
of the soil modifies its density, its mechanical strength and its
compressibility, its permeability and its porosity [2].
3.1.5. Swelling by immersion in water
The curves shown in Fig. 10, illustrate the variation of the swell-
ing by immersing the CEB as a function of fibers content. From this
figure we see that the swelling of the blocks increases with increas-
ing fibers content. The swelling of all the blocks tested ranges from
0.18% to 0.53%. The lowest values of swelling for the blocks with
fibers correspond to 0.05% of fibers content and 8% of cement con-
tent while the highest values correspond to 0.2% of fibers content
and 5% of cement content. The swelling of the blocks increases
with decreasing cement content. The values of swelling for the
blocks without fibers are 0.19%, 0.14% and 0.1% for 5%, 6.5% and
0.7
0.6
5% Cement
0.5 6.5% Cement
8% Cement
Swelling (%)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Fiber content (%)
Fig. 10. Swelling by immersion of CEB as a function of fiber content (with 10 MPa of
compaction pressure).
8% cement content respectively; therefore the cement-stabilization
reduces the extent of swelling, as mentioned by Rigassi [2]. The
swelling registered in this study is due both to the effect of water
on the physico-chemical properties the soil which consists of
(gypsum, calcite, quartz and kaolin) and the variations in fiber
dimension can occur during the curing stage of (soil–fiber) and this
then determines a possible mechanism resulting in a bad interfa-
cial bond. During the mixing and drying stages, the hydrophilic
nature of the natural fibers can lead it to absorb water and the
swelling of the fibers pushes the soil away, at least at micro-level.
At the end of the drying process, the fibers lose the water that has
absorbed and shrink back almost to their original dimensions,
Because the matrix is now set, a void is formed around the
periphery of the fiber and a weakened interfacial bond can result
allows the development of a larger pore network. In the same
context, these results are confirmed by [5,51].
3.2. Effect of compaction pressure on the mechanical properties of
compressed earth blocks
The effect of varying compaction pressure on the dry and wet
compressive strength of compressed earth blocks were investi-
gated experimentally. The CEB specimens stabilised with 5%
cement content and compacted at 1.5 MPa, 5 MPa and 10 MPa
were used. Fig. 11 shows that for the same cement content, the in-
crease in compaction pressure leads to an increase in dry compres-
sive strength of CEB. The highest density obtained thanks to
 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168 167

8 towards reducing voids and thereby increasing density in blocks,

without fibers
0.05% fibers its effects can be easily reversed in the absence of a stabilizer [47].
7
Compressive strength (MPa)

0.1% fibers The results illustrated in Fig. 12 highlight an increase in wet

6 0.15% fibers compressive strength with the increasing compaction pressure.
0.2% fibers
This result confirms that found by Kerali [47]. For the specimens
5
filled by fibers, was observed in Fig. 12 that there is a slight de-
4 crease in wet compressive strength with increasing fibers content
for both 5 MPa and 10 MPa of compaction pressure. This shows
3
that the presence of fibers in mixtures under compaction pressure
2 has an adverse effect on dry and wet strength. The same remarks
with the case of 1.5 MPa compaction pressure, but here the lowest
1
dry strength value coincides with 0.15% fibers content and not with
0 0.2% as the other two cases. This result shows that blocks stabilised
1.5 5 10
at high fibers content but stabilised at low cement content and
Compaction pressure (MPa)
compacted at low compaction pressures were found possess a
Fig. 11. Effect of compaction pressure on the dry compressive strength of CEB with better strength.
fibers stabilised by 5% cement. Fig. 13 shows a decrease in dry and wet ratio of compressive
strength (DCS/WCS) with the increasing compaction pressure. For
all CEB tested, the increase in compaction pressure from 1.5 MPa
to 10 MPa resulted in a decrease in dry and wet ratio of compres-
6
without fibers sive strength between 10% and 28.9%. This result shows the
0.05% fibers
importance of the compaction pressure effect on strength of CEB
Compressive strength (MPa)

5 0.1% fibers
0.15% fibers in dry and wet state.
0.2% fibers
4
4. Conclusion
3
In this paper, was studied the effect of fibers content and the
2 compaction pressure on the mechanical properties and hygroscop-
icity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers.
1 Based on the results of this experimental study, the following con-
clusions could be drawn:
0
1.5 5 10
 Better result of the dry compressive strength was observed (see
Compaction pressure (MPa)
Fig. 4) by CEB with 0.05% of fiber content, 8% cement content
Fig. 12. Effect of compacting pressure on the wet compressive strength of CEB with and compaction pressure of the 10 MPa.
fibers stabilised by 5% cement.  Impact of palm fibers on the tensile strength was unfavorable
because of their low tensile strength, very high water absorp-
tion, by heterogeneity or distribution and a low adhesion with
compaction significantly increases the compressive strength of the the matrix.
blocks [2]. It was found that for specimens without fibers the  In most cases examined, the addition of date palm fibers has an
increase in compaction pressure from 1.5 MPa to 5 MPa (about adverse effect on (dry and wet) compressive strength and the
330%) resulted in very important increase in dry compressive tensile strength of compressed earth block, which leads us not
strength of about 240%, and from 5 MPa to 10 MPa (100%) to recommend the use of date palm fibers if our choice criterion
compaction pressures there is an increase in strength about is strength.
120%. Unfortunately, although compaction pressure contributes  Increase in compaction pressure leads to an increase in dry and
wet compressive strength of CEB.
 Increasing cement content and decreasing palm fibers content
2.5 there is a general decrease in total water absorption of the
without fibers
blocks.
0.05% fibers
Dry to wet compressive strength ratio

0.1% fibers  The swelling of the blocks increases with decreasing cement
0.15% fibers content and increasing palm fibers content.
0.2% fibers
2

References

[1] Houben H, Guillaud H. Treaty construction earth. CRATerre: Edition

Parenthèse, Marseille, France; 2006. p. 355.
1.5 [2] Rigassi V. Compressed earth blocks. CRATerre-EAG, vol. 1. Germany: Manuel
de production; 1995.
[3] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction–a comprehensive
guide. London: Intermediate Technology; 1994.
[4] Swamy RN. Vegetable fibre reinforced cement composite A false dream or a
potential reality. In: Sobral H.S, editor. Proceedings of the second international
1 RILEM symposium, vegetable plants and their fibres as building materials,
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Salvaor, Bahia (Brazil), Chapman and Hall; 1990: p. 139–49.
Compaction pressure (MPa) [5] Ghavami K, Filho RDT, Barbosa NP. Behaviour of composite soil reinforced with
natural fibres. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21(1):39–48.
Fig. 13. Dry and wet ratio of compressive strength (DCS/WCS) of CEB as a function [6] Coutts RSP, Ni Y. Autoclaved bamboo pulp fibre reinforced cement. Cem Concr
of compaction pressure. Compos 1995;17(2):99–106.
168 B. Taallah et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 161–168
[7] Aggarwal LK. Bagasses-reinforced cement composites. Cem Concr Compos
1995;17(2):107–12.
[8] Bouhicha M, Aouissi F, Kenai S. Performance of composite soil reinforced with
barley straw. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(5):617–21.
[9] Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a
building material. Constr Build Mater 2005;19(4):313–8.
[10] Millogo Y, Morel J-C, Aubert J-E, Ghavami K. Experimental analysis of pressed
adobe blocks reinforced with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers. Constr Build Mater
2014;52:71–8.
[11] Hejazi SM, Sheikhzadeh M, Abtahi SM, Zadhoush A. A simple review of soil
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers. Constr Build Mater
2012;30:100–16.
[12] Baley C. Natural fibers reinforcements for composite materials. Tech de
l’Ingénieur AM5 2004;130.
[13] Mesbah A, Morel JC, Walker P, Ghavami Kh. Development of a direct tensile
test for compacted earth blocks reinforced with natural fibers. J Mater Civil
Eng 2004;16(1):95–8.
[14] Ziegler S, Leshchinsky D, Ling HL, Perry EB. Effect of short polymeric fibres on
crack development in clays. Soils Found 1998;38(1):247–53.
[15] Ramaswamy HS, Ahuja BM, Krishnamoorthy S. Behavior of concrete reinforced
with jute, coir, and bamboo fibres. Int J Cem Compos Lightweight Concr
1983;5(1):3–13.
[16] Filho RDT, Scrivener K, England GL, Ghavami K. Durability of alkali-sensitive
sisal and coconut fibres in cement mortar composites. Cem Concr Compos
2000;22(2):127–43.
[17] Khedari J, Charoenvai S, Hirunlabh J. New insulating particleboards from
durian peel and coconut coir. Build Environ 2003;38(3):245–54.
[18] Khedari J, Watsanasathaporn P, Hirunlabh J. Development of fibre-based soil-
cement block with low thermal conductivity. Cem Concr Compos
2005;27(1):111–6.
[19] Thielemans W, Wool RP. Butyrated Kraft lignin as compatibilizing agent for
natural fiber reinforced thermoset composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf
2004;35(3):327–38.
[20] Yusoff M, Salit M, Ismail N, Wirawan R. Mechanical properties of short random
oil palm fiber reinforced epoxy composites. Sains Malay 2010;39(1):87–92.
[21] Swamy R.N. New reinforced concretes, Surry University Press; 1984. p. 200.
[22] Salehan I, Yaacob Z. Properties of laterite brick reinforced with oil palm empty
fruit bunch fibers. Pertanika J Sci Technol 2011;19(1):33–43.
[23] Estabragh AR, Bordbar AT, Javadi AA. Mechanical behavior of a clay soil
reinforced with nylon fibers. Geotech Geol Eng 2011;29(5):899–908.
[24] Prabakar J, Sridhar RS. Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength
behaviour of soil. Constr Build Mater 2002;16(2):123–31.
[25] Namango S.S. Development of cost-effective earthen building material for
housing wall construction. In: Investigations into the properties of compressed
earth blocks stabilized with sisal vegetable fibres. cassava powder and cement
compositions. A doctoral dissertation. Brandenburg Technical University;
Cottbus (Germany): 2006.
[26] Minke G. Earth Construction Handbook. Boston: WIT Press; 2000.
[27] Villamizar MCN, Araque VS, Reyes CAR, Silva RS. Effect of the addition of coal-
ash and cassava peels on the engineering properties of compressed earth
blocks. Constr Build Mater 2012;36(11):276–86.
[28] Eko RM, Offa ED, Ngatcha TY, Minsili LS. Potential of salvaged steel fibers for
reinforcement of unfired earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 2012;35(10):340–6.
[29] Kriker A, Debicki G, Bali A, Khenfer MM, Chabannet M. Mechanical properties
of date palm fibres and reinforced date palm fibre concrete in hot-dry climate.
Cem Concr Compos 2005;27(5):554–64.
[30] Marandi SM, Bagheripour MH, Rahgozar R, Zare H. Strength and ductility of
randomly distributed palm fibers reinforced silty-sand soils. Am J Appl Sci
2008;5(3):209–20.
[31] Dawood ET, Ramli M. Effects of palm fiber on the mechanical properties of
lightweight concrete crushed brick. Am J Eng Appl Sci 2010;3(2):489–93.
[32] Bogue RH. Chemistry of portland cement. 2nd ed. New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corp; 1955. p. 790.
[33] Mesbah A, Morel JC, Olivier M. Clayey soil behaviour under static compaction
test. Mater Struct 1999;32(9):687–94.
[34] Abalo P. Characterization in simple compression of compressed earth blocks
(CEB): Application to Masonry (BTC-mortar earth). Thèse de
Doctorat. France: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon; 1999.
[35] Centre for Development of Enterprise (C.D.E). Compressed earth blocks:
Testing procedures. In: C.D.E., ENTPE et CRATerre Coed, Belgique: Bruxelles;
2000. p. 121.
[36] Guettala A, Guenfoud M. Stabilized earth concrete: physico-mechanical
properties and influence of clay types. La Technique Moderne Paris
1997;86(1–2):21–6.
[37] Guettala A, Abibsi A, Houari H. Durability study of stabilized earth concrete
under both laboratory and climatic conditions exposure. Constr Build Mater
2006;20(3):119–27.
[38] Bahar R, Benazzoug M, Kenai S. Performance of compacted cement-stabilised
soil. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26(7):811–20.
[39] Kenai S, Bahar R, Benazzoug M. Experimental analysis of the effect of some
compaction methods on mechanical properties and durability of cement
stabilized soil. J Mater Sci 2006;41(21):6956–64.
[40] Bastian G. Determination of thermophysical characteristics of building
materials by the method of the plane source in asymptotic transient
regimes. Rev Phys Appl (Paris) 1987;22(6):431–44.
[41] Attoh-Okine NO. Lime treatment of laterite soils and gravels-revisited. Constr
Build Mater 1995;9(5):283–7.
[42] Oti JE, Kinuthia JM, Bai J. Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of
unfired clay masonry bricks. Eng Geol 2009;109(3–4):230–40.
[43] Robert ME, Engelbert DO, Thierry YN, Lezin SM. Potential of salvaged steel
fibers for reinforcement of unfired earth blocks. Constr Build Mater
2012;35(10):340–6.
[44] Piattoni Q, Quagliarini E, Lenci S. Experimental analysis and modelling of the
mechanical behaviour of earthen bricks. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(4):2067–75.
[45] Lunt M.G. Stabilised soil blocks for building. Overseas Building Note no. 184.
Building Research Establishment, England: Garston; 1980.
[46] Houben H, Rigassi V, Garnier P. Compressed earth blocks. In: Production
equipment. CRATerre-EAG. Series Technologies Nr. 5. 2nd ed. Belgium:
Brussels; 1996.
[47] Kerali G. Durability of compressed and cement-stabilised building blocks.
Ph.D. Thesis; School of Engineering, University of Warwick, UK: Warwich;
2001.
[48] Jackson N, Dhir R.K. Civil Engineering Materials. 5th ed. England: McMillan
Press Ltd., London; 1996.
[49] Weng CH, Lin DF, Chiang PC. Utilization of sludge as brick materials. Adv
Environ Res 2003;7(3):679–85.
[50] Sbiai A. Composite materials at epoxy filled matrix by fibers of date palm: In:
Effect of Oxidation to Tempo on the Fibers. France: Thèse de Doctorat, Institut
National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon; 2011.
[51] Segetin M, Jayaraman K, Xu X. Harakeke reinforcement of soil-cement building
materials: Manufacturability and properties. Build Environ 2007;42(8):
3066–79.