Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126888

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Authors closure to the Discussion of the Review article “Optimisation of

Compressed earth blocks (CEBs) using natural origin materials: A
systematic literature review”
Chiara Turco *, Adilson de Paula Junior, Elisabete Teixeira, Ricardo Mateus
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal (PT)

A B S T R A C T

The purpose of this closure is to present a response to the doubts arisen by the authors of the Discussion of the Review article with the title “Optimisation of
Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) using natural origin materials: A systematic literature review” [1], published in the journal Construction and Building Materials on 1
October 2021. The body of the text answers directly to the five critical points raised, namely: soil reactivity as the main criterion in the selection process of soil for
stabilisation purposes (no. 01); modification of the optimal water content in the case of stabilisation and doubtful effectiveness of the Proctor test (no. 02);
contestation of the relationships found in the Review between the bulk density of CEBs optimised with natural materials and thermal conductivity (no. 03) and
compressive strength (no. 04); consideration of the percentage of eroded area in the evaluation of CEBs’ durability (no. 05). As the results of this closure confirm that
there is still the lack of information regarding this research topic, the article concludes with some recommendations for future studies. We thank the authors for the
Discussion, which certainly enriches the state-of-the-art in the field of stabilised CEBs.

1. Introduction
The optimisation of earth-based building material is a challenging
topic. The main complexities lie in the wide fluctuation of the several
variables involved and lack of standardisation of test procedures and
normative framework. Dealing with natural origin materials make the
process even more demanding. To better discretise the problem and
offer a clearer vision of the current state-of-the-art, the systematic
method was adopted to review the literature in this field. This led to an
unambiguous statement of the methodology used, and of the sources and
selection criteria for the research articles involved. The method used
also reduces the risk of bias, which is an obstacle in this type of studies
and can affect the overall quality of the research [2].
The authors made a great effort to ensure the consistency and
authenticity of the work. However, some aspects that fall outside the
research domain have been discussed in a non-in-depth manner for
clarity. In this sense, the detailed description of laboratory test pro­
cedures of the reviewed research, the exhaustive discussion of soil
characteristics and behaviours as well, does not fall within the remit of
the Review [1], whose aim was to survey the latest innovations and
developments in natural-based Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) opti­
misation techniques.
Nevertheless, it is extremely stimulating to open a scientific debate
between authors engaged in the same research topic from different
countries, backgrounds and experiences. With the hope of further
expanding the scope of the discussion in the future, the following text
provides justifications in response to the critical issues raised by the
authors of the Discussion1.
In Point no. 01 (Reactivity for the selection of earthen materials),
the authors of the Discussion state: “The study [3] showed that the
earthen material can be suitable for stabilisation using the lime
considering its reactivity; although it would not be considered if the
plasticity and the particle size distribution were the only selection
criteria”. Tying in with the above premise, the Review focuses on
natural-based optimisation of CEBs, namely on the effect of natural
origin materials on CEBs properties, rather than the mere stabilisation
with traditional binders (e.g., lime or cement), which is a separate
research topic. For the sake of completeness, it still refers to these

DOIs of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126887.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: id9631@alunos.uminho.pt (C. Turco).
1
In this document, Discussion (written with the capital letter) refers the document presented by Philbert Nshimiyimana, Cheick Omar Sore, Césaire Hema,
Ousmane Zoungrana, Adamah Messan and Luc Courard, which proposes a discussion of the review article published on 1 October 2021 by the journal Construction
and Building Materials, with the title “Optimisation of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) using natural origin materials: A systematic literature review”. Similarly, in
this document, Review (written with the capital letter) refers to the aforementioned article.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126888
Received 19 January 2022; Received in revised form 14 February 2022; Accepted 15 February 2022
Available online 23 February 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Turco et al.
traditional binders but does not include studies using them exclusively.
One selection criterion was their pairing with at least one other additive
of natural origin, as defined in the methodology section.
On the other hand, according to the purpose of the research, the
possibility of pozzolanic reaction linked to the reactivity of some natural
additives was taken into account and thoroughly summarised in the
section dedicated to natural powders or ashes. A discussion of the
reactivity of clay soils in relation to their Alumina and Silica oxides
content was also provided. However, acknowledging the breadth of the
topic, the paragraph providing ‘further information on soil selection’
openly states that “[…] it aims not to discuss the behaviour of soils
exhaustively but to provide a brief overview of the main recommenda­
tions regarding the selection phase”. In the literature reviewed, soils
electrical conductivity and reactivity were two aspects not usually
mentioned and, therefore, were neglected.
With regard to the considerations of plasticity index and particle size
distribution (PSD), it should be noted that the only document referred to
by the authors of the Discussion is written in French [4]. Moreover,
beyond this discussion, the forty-five articles analysed in the Review, the
general literature consulted and the main standards [5–7] still use this
information to identify the soil type.
Furthermore, the last published RILEM Report TC 274-TCE (Testing
and Characterisation of Earth-based Building Materials and Elements)
[8] continues to recommend the use of the PSD together with at least one
of the following tests: Atterberg limits, methylene blue value or cation
exchange capacity. The Report specifies that the objective of these tests
is to assess the reactivity of the active phase of the clay, but also clarifies
that “this observation is only valid for non-stabilised earth materials”. In
particular, the Technical Committee points out that the use of any nat­
ural additive or traditional binder profoundly alters the properties of the
earth matrix. In these cases, the Report states that the chemical-physical
interactions are more complex and need to be further investigated.
Point no. 02 (Optimum moisture content, bulk density and porosity
of CEBs and effects of binders) of the Discussion addresses several as­
pects related to the Optimum Water Content (OWC), focusing on its
evaluation through the Proctor test and the relationship/modification of
water demand in relation to the presence of a binder.
Starting from the beginning, major textbooks [9,10], the literature
considered in the Review, the standard [11] and also the most recent
literature [8] refer to the Proctor test as the method used to quantify the
water content and attain the maximum compaction. Although the value
obtained for fine-grained soils is often underestimated [7] and should be
treated as a minimum water content [9], at present, it is the most
commonly followed test procedure, certainly adapted on a case-by-case
basis according to needs and experience. The scientific literature rec­
ognises this adaptation, in practice, of the Proctor test, to situations
closer to reality. The study by Leonard et al. [12] reports that although
the test involves the dynamic application of a falling hammer, this
procedure is rarely applied in real applications. This represents a
problem that should be addressed and clarified in future studies.
Regarding the static/dynamic issue, Minke’s book [9] explains,
supported by data, how vibrations (resulting from the application of
dynamic forces) positively affect soil particles configurations, gener­
ating waves allow them to settle into a denser pattern. On the other
hand, the testing procedure guide [13] mentioned in the Discussion only
refers to static compaction without clearly providing a comparison with
the dynamic one. Stating that this last is not appropriate, besides being
an observation that needs to be supported by scientific evidence, is
equally improper as saying that it is correct. Instead, this point still needs
to be clarified and demonstrated in a specific study. This other research
opportunity is therefore noted and recommended.
The issue related to the relationship between water content and the
physical properties of density and porosity has been addressed in the
Review within the limits of the results obtained by the authors in the
articles considered. Regarding the specific variation in OWC due to
possible additives, we agree and encourage future work to address this
2
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126888
aspect. In particular, the OWC’s assessment with reference to the test
procedure adopted, the quality of the soils and the presence of additives
(natural and not) seems to be of great interest. However, the studies and
empirical relationships mentioned in the discussion [3,14–16] are very
specific and do not adequately represent a trend. Moreover, it seems
inappropriate to build a discussion on them since calcium carbide res­
idue (CCR), hydrated lime (HL) and metakaolin-based geopolymer (MG)
were not considered in the Review, as it includes only additives of
natural origin.
Finally, we acknowledge and thank the authors of the Discussion for
bringing to our attention the typo error in Eq. (3) reported in [1], where
the numerator and denominator should be reversed (P(%) = VW/VCEB).
We apologise to the readers for any inconvenience caused by this
mistake.
Point no. 03 (Thermal conductivity and bulk density of CEBs) focus
on the linear relationship found between the bulk density and thermal
conductivity values measured on the analysed CEBs. Even though the
Discussion highlighted that the amount of data has a very low statistical
significance, and the graphs aimed to show the cause-and-effect rela­
tionship between two properties, confirming a trend already well-known
in the literature [17].
On the other hand, referring to the graphs reported in the first figure
of the Discussion, we must emphasise that the risk of a biased analysis is
very high, since the data shown are taken from nine studies selected
without apparently defining a criterion or rationale. Specifically, the
study by Bogas et al. [18] refers to CEBs with partial incorporation of
recycled fine aggregates from demolition debris; the study by Mansour
et al. [19] investigates CEBs differently compacted; the study by Cagnon
et al. [20] regards extruded earth blocks; the study by Zhang et al. [21]
relates to cement stabilised earth blocks; the study by Touré et al. [22]
involves laterite-sand-cement blocks; the study by Sore et al. [16] uses
metakaolin-based geopolymer and cement as stabilisers; the studies by
Nshimiyimana et al. [3] and Moussa et al. [23] deal with stabilised CEBs
with calcium carbide residue, and the first includes also rice husk ash;
finally, the study by Asadi et al. [24] is a review article on the thermal
conductivity of concrete. Results collected by these studies are not
comparable with the analysis performed in the Review, and not even
between them. In this regard, it is worth reminding that the Review
involved studies focusing on blocks optimised with natural origin ma­
terials. The results presented in the mentioned graphs are only related to
that situation.
Despite this circumstance, we agree with the fact that “[…] the
thermal conductivity of optimised CEBs is not only influenced by the
stabiliser (type or content) but also by the characteristics of the earthen
material itself, the compaction energy, and the measurement methods,
among others”, as reported in the Discussion. In this regard, it is
essential to emphasise that since the aim of the Review was to mainly
investigate the role of natural additives on the main properties of CEBs,
all the analyses were reasonably focused on that aspect. However, in
agreement with that statement, it can be quoted one of the final rec­
ommendations provided by the Review, which reads: “[…] finally, it is
recommended to approach the new study with the awareness that soil
selection represents the first variable that must be taken into account to
produce high-quality CEBs. The addition of any natural-based additives
can modify the thermo-physical, mechanical and durability behaviour of
these blocks, but the appropriateness of the selected soil consistently
gives the primary response”.
Point no. 04 (Bulk density and compressive strength of CEBs) dis­
putes the relationship between density and compressive strength.
Concerning the observation regarding the unusual density value of
2800 kg/m3, although it may not seem obvious, it is still a result pre­
sented in the literature [25] and, from the perspective of a review
article, deserves to be mentioned as long as it has been measured and
appears in a paper. In this connection, we indicate once again that the
systematic method is intended to reduce the potential bias of the pro­
posed analysis by avoiding the inclusion of only those scientific articles
C. Turco et al.
Fig. 1. Bulk density and compressive strength in fibre-reinforced CEBs: linear relationship (on the left), as reported in the Review, and exponential relationship (on
the right).
judged “acceptable” by the subjective opinion of the authors. Therefore,
the Review has been conducted following a rigorous and unbiased
approach (including all the studies published from 2015 to 2021 falling
into the research domain rather than a random selection), described in
detail within the methodology section, which is replicable and only
reports scientific evidence.
According to the above, the Discussion’s statement: “Figure 2a shows
that the dry bulk density can barely reach 2300 kg/m3, even after hyper
compaction at a pressure of 25–100 MPa”, appears even more distorted
since it is still based on a very limited number of studies. Furthermore,
the second part of the following sentence: “Moreover, the value of the
bulk density decreases with the addition of fibres and/or with the in­
crease of OMC for the production of CEBs”, should be supported by more
evidence than the only study cited [3].
In any case, the trend assumed by the data presented in the Discus­
sion is not comparable to that obtained from the Review because the two
documents focus on studies dealing with different topics. Additionally,
being aware of the lack of data, it is worth mentioning again that the
purpose of those graphs was to show the cause-effect relationship be­
tween two properties and not to find an empirical model. Furthermore,
to the authors’ knowledge, there are no international studies to date in
which the “exponential” trend has been confirmed.
However, for the avoidance of doubt, the graphs in Fig. 1 of the
Review shows lower R2 values when using an exponential law than those
found in the linear case.
Finally, regarding the Discussion’s sentence: “CEBs, specially opti­
mised with binders, should not be simply dried in the open air. They
should be correctly cured in humid conditions, […]. Otherwise, the
optimised CEBs would dry before maturation and have even worse
performance than non-optimised CEBs”, we remind that providing
guidelines for CEBs manufacturing falls out of the scope of this research.
Besides, the Review stated that: “[…] By monitoring the effect of
different curing methods, Taallah and Guettala [26] found that CEBs
cured 7 days in the oven perform better than those cured 28 days at
room temperature. […] However, among the studies analysed, most of
the blocks are simply dried in the open air, and the best performance is
recorded after at least 28 days”. This means that among the articles
reviewed, only one study [26], which deals with a comparative analysis
of the curing method, reports scientific evidence on the matter in the
face of other still unclear or conflicting opinions. The second part of the
reported text merely summarises the procedures described by the
authors.
In Point no. 05 (Erosion resistance), the authors of the Discussion
address the suitability of the methods for assessing the erosion resis­
tance. The discussion on the appropriateness of some methods is
extremely interesting. However, it falls outside the scope of the Review
3
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126888
article, as the aim is to identify, assess and synthesise the literature
gathered [27]. Moreover, it should be noted that the work by Bogas et al.
[18] mentioned in the Discussion reports that, even though among the
accelerated durability tests “[…] the water spray method has been
viewed as the best simulation of natural ageing” [28], there are still no
standard consensus tests to evaluate this property.
In this particular case, the five studies (among the forty-five
reviewed) that provided an assessment of the erosion resistance
[29–33] use one of the two methods mentioned in the Review, i.e., water
spray or drip erosion test, and they all refer to the New Zealand standard
NZS4298 [34].
Finally, we indicate that observations related to the eroded area are
supported by only one study [35], which is also out of the range of in­
clusion of the Review (January 2015 – January 2021), as it was pub­
lished in June 2021.
In light of the above considerations, it can be concluded that the
majority of the critical issues raised by the Discussion, despite being of
some scientific interest, fall outside the macroscopic domain of the Re­
view article proposed. Instead, they seem to be more oriented towards
providing updated guidelines for manufacturing compressed stabilised
earth blocks (CSEBs). Nevertheless, such guidelines would undoubtedly
be a welcome contribution from researchers and practitioners.
However, with reference to the issues discussed, the following final
recommendations can be summarised for future works:
• To investigate the utility of soil reactivity as additional criteria in the
selection process;
• To update the state-of-art with new and innovative soil selection
criteria;
• To take into consideration the variation of the OWC with reference to
the addition of traditional stabiliser and further additives of natural
origin;
• To complement the research and, where possible, confirm the rela­
tionship and correlations between variables involved;
• To address further studies on the durability assessment methods.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by FCT (Foundation for Science and Tech­
nology), under grant agreement UIBD/150874/2021 attributed to the
C. Turco et al.
1st author. This work was also partly financed by Fundação “La Caixa”,
under the reference PV20-00072, and FCT/MCTES through national
funds (PIDDAC) under the R&D Unit Institute for Sustainability and
Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), under reference UIDB/
04029/2020.
References
[1] C. Turco, A.C. Paula Junior, E.R. Teixeira, R. Mateus, Optimisation of Compressed
Earth Blocks (CEBs) using natural origin materials: A systematic literature review,
Constr. Build. Mater. 309 (2021) 125140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.125140.
[2] M. Borrego, M.J. Foster, J.E. Froyd, Systematic Literature Reviews in Engineering
Education and Other Developing Interdisciplinary Fields, J. Eng. Educ. 103 (1)
(2014) 45–76, https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038.
[3] P. Nshimiyimana, A. Messan, L. Courard, Physico-mechanical and hygro-thermal
properties of compressed earth blocks stabilized with industrial and agro by-
product binders, Materials (Basel). 13 (2020) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma13173769.
[4] H. Houben H. Guillaud CRATerre: Traité de Construction en Terre: L’encyclopédie
de la construction en terre 2006 Marseille.
[5] Polish Committee for Standardization, P ISO 17892-4: Geotechnical investigation
and testing - Laboratory testing of soil - Part 4: Determination of particle size
distribution, (2016).
[6] LNEC E 196-1966, E196. Solos. Análise granulométrica. Laboratório Nacional de
Engenharia Civil (LNEC), (1966).
[7] H. Schroeder, Modern earth building codes, standards and normative development,
Mod. Earth Build. Mater. Eng. Constr. Appl. (2012) 72–109, https://doi.org/
10.1533/9780857096166.1.72.
[8] A. Fabbri, J.-C. Morel, J.-E. Aubert, Q.-B. Bui, D. Gallipoli, B.V.V. Reddy, Testing
and Characterisation of Earth-based Building Materials and Elements (2022),
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83297-1.
[9] G. Minke, Building with earth : design and technology of a sustainable architecture,
(2009).
[10] M.R. Hall, R. Lindsay, M. Krayenhoff, Modern earth buildings (2012), https://doi.
org/10.1533/9780857096166.
[11] ASTM International, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using, ASTM Stand. Guid. 3 (2003) 1–10.
[12] L. Leonard, E.I. Ekwue, A. Taylor, R. Birch, Evaluation of a machine to determine
maximum bulk density of soils using the vibratory method, Biosyst. Eng. 178
(2019) 109–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOSYSTEMSENG.2018.11.006.
[13] J.C. Morel, A. Mesbah, H. Houben, V. Rigassi, Compressed earth blocks, testing
procedures, Mater. Struct. 121 (2000).
[14] P. Nshimiyimana, H.S. Moussa, A. Messan, L. Courard, Effect of production and
curing conditions on the performance of stabilized compressed earth blocks:
Kaolinite vs quartz-rich earthen material, MRS Adv. 5 (25) (2020) 1277–1283.
[15] F. Zhu, Z. Li, W. Dong, Y. Ou, Geotechnical properties and microstructure of lime-
stabilized silt clay, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 78 (2019) 2345–2354, https://doi.
org/10.1007/S10064-018-1307-5/FIGURES/11.
[16] S. Omar Sore, A. Messan, E. Prud’homme, G. Escadeillas, F. Tsobnang, Stabilization
of compressed earth blocks (CEBs) by geopolymer binder based on local materials
from Burkina Faso, Constr. Build. Mater. 165 (2018) 333–345.
[17] A. Laborel-Préneron, J.E. Aubert, C. Magniont, C. Tribout, A. Bertron, Plant
aggregates and fibers in earth construction materials: A review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 111 (2016) 719–734, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.119.
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126888
[18] J.A. Bogas, M. Silva, M. Glória Gomes, Unstabilized and stabilized compressed
earth blocks with partial incorporation of recycled aggregates, Int. J. Archit. Herit.
13 (4) (2019) 569–584, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1442891.
[19] M. Ben Mansour, A. Jelidi, A.S. Cherif, S. Ben Jabrallah, Optimizing thermal and
mechanical performance of compressed earth blocks (CEB), Constr. Build. Mater.
104 (2016) 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.024.
[20] H. Cagnon, J.E. Aubert, M. Coutand, C. Magniont, Hygrothermal properties of
earth bricks, Energy Build. 80 (2014) 208–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENBUILD.2014.05.024.
[21] L. Zhang, A. Gustavsen, B.P. Jelle, L. Yang, T. Gao, Y. Wang, Thermal conductivity
of cement stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 151 (2017) 504–511,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2017.06.047.
[22] P.M. Touré, V. Sambou, M. Faye, A. Thiam, M. Adj, D. Azilinon, Mechanical and
hygrothermal properties of compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEB), J. Build.
Eng. 13 (2017) 266–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2017.08.012.
[23] H.S. Moussa, P. Nshimiyimana, C. Hema, O. Zoungrana, A. Messan, L. Courard,
Comparative Study of Thermal Comfort Induced from Masonry Made of Stabilized
Compressed Earth Block vs Conventional Cementitious Material, J. Miner. Mater.
Charact. Eng. 07 (06) (2019) 385–403.
[24] I. Asadi, P. Shafigh, Z.F.B. Abu Hassan, N.B. Mahyuddin, Thermal conductivity of
concrete – A review, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018) 81–93.
[25] S. Ajouguim, S. Talibi, C. Djelal-Dantec, H. Hajjou, M. Waqif, M. Stefanidou,
L. Saadi, Effect of Alfa fibers on the mechanical and thermal properties of
compacted earth bricks, Mater. Today Proc. 37 (2019) 4049–4057, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.539.
[26] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, The mechanical and physical properties of compressed
earth block stabilized with lime and filled with untreated and alkali-treated date
palm fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 52–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.12.007.
[27] J. Higgins, S. Green, Editors, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions 4.2.6, in: Cochrane Libr., 2006. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203778784-16.
[28] J.M. Kinuthia, The durability of compressed earth-based masonry blocks, Eco-
Efficient Mason, Bricks Blocks Des. Prop. Durab. (2015) 393–421, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-1-78242-305-8.00018-8.
[29] A. Laborel-Préneron, M. Giroudon, J.E. Aubert, C. Magniont, P. Faria, Experimental
assessment of bio-based earth bricks durability, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 660
(1) (2019) 012069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/660/1/012069.
[30] S. Selsiadevi, S. Selescadevi, V. Varshini, Earth Building Blocks Reinforced with
Jute and Banana Fiber, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (2018) 1–4, www.ijert.org.
[31] B.A. Lejano, R.J. Gabaldon, P.J. Go, C.G. Juan, M. Wong, Compressed earth blocks
with powdered green mussel shell as partial binder and pig hair as fiber
reinforcement, Int. J. GEOMATE. 16 (2019) 137–143. https://doi.org/10.21660/
2019.57.8138.
[32] H. Danso, Improving Water Resistance of Compressed Earth Blocks Enhanced with
Different Natural Fibres, Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 11 (1) (2017) 433–440,
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801711010433.
[33] H. Danso, D.B. Martinson, M. Ali, J.B. Williams, Physical, mechanical and
durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres, Constr.
Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 797–809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.10.069.
[34] NZS 4298, Materials and Workmanship for Earth Buildings, (1998).
[35] P. Nshimiyimana, A. Messan, L. Courard, Hydric and Durability Performances of
Compressed Earth Blocks Stabilized with Industrial and Agro By-Product Binders:
Calcium Carbide Residue and Rice Husk Ash, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (6) (2021)
04021121, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003745.