Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Optimisation of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) using natural origin

materials: A systematic literature review
Chiara Turco *, Adilson C. Paula Junior, Elisabete R. Teixeira, Ricardo Mateus
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

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

Keywords: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on the effect of the optimisation of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) using
Earth Blocks natural origin materials was made in this paper. The purpose of the study is to offer a clearer vision of recent
Reinforcement Fiber scientific developments on the topic by addressing a number of specifically formulated research questions. To
Stabilisation Effect
this end, 45 journal articles and conference proceedings were selected following some inclusion criteria, i.e., the
Sustainability
Circular Economy
raw material (soil), shape (block), methods of compaction (mechanical or hydraulic press), preparation (unfired),
the addition of natural origin materials (fibres, powders or ashes). Through a holistic approach, a discussion on
the main physical, thermal, mechanical, and durability properties was conducted to find correlations and crit­
icisms. Preliminary considerations are drawn on the sound insulation and fire resistance properties and on the
economic performance and environmental impact of optimised CEBs, opening a brief discussion on some sus­
tainability indicators. The research outcomes may encourage researchers to find new solutions to improve the
proprieties of earth building materials to promote their broader use and more sustainable buildings.

1. Introduction
“Climate action” and “Sustainable cities and communities” are
among the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals, the main
challenges of our age [1]. Many of these targets are directly and indi­
rectly linked to the construction sector, which is responsible for 33% of
all emissions, 40% of all material consumption, and 40% of all waste [2].
Although the greenhouse gases decreased in 2020 due to the Covid-19
lockdown, the pandemic highlighted the necessity to rethink the rela­
tionship between humans and the natural environment. However,
building systems have not only environmental but also social and eco­
nomic consequences [3]. At a social level, the population is growing fast
and, especially in Africa and Asia, the urbanisation demand is putting
pressure on housing delivery systems. Meanwhile, economic systems are
moving from linear to circular [4] attempting to erase the model “take,
make, dispose” [5] by keeping building materials and components at
their highest value as long as possible [6]. Therefore, it is a duty and a
necessity to focus on the use of materials suitable for meeting the sus­
tainability and Circular Economy (CE) principles, two concepts that
nowadays overlap [7]. For these reasons, researchers worldwide are
working on the development of innovative materials or alternative use
of the traditional ones.
Earth is one of the oldest building materials, and it has been esti­
mated that 40% of the world’s population lives in earth buildings [8]. In
the decades of post-war reconstruction it has been replaced by modern
materials (e.g., reinforced concrete, steel) due to the typical problems
linked to vulnerability to water, swelling and shrinkage phenomena,
brittleness after drying, etc., and some kind of prejudice [9]. Earthen
constructions have thus become the emblem of vernacular architecture
in some countries, or of the still underdeveloped rural villages. Never­
theless, popular for its thermoregulating properties in indoor environ­
ments and for the benefits on air quality, among others [10], earth as a
building material is now regaining strength and value in the attempt to
combine safety and comfort with the multiple dimensions of
sustainability.
Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) are framed in this context since the
release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is 80% less than fired
bricks [11]. At the end of their life, CEBs can be easily recycled to
produce new earthen products, or they can be disaggregated and
returned to the natural environment with a negligible environmental
impact [12], generating a potential virtuous closed-loop cycle. Addi­
tionally, CEBs do not require specialised labour or high energy con­
sumption, and they can be made everywhere.
CEBs are modern earthen construction technology, as they represent

* Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-048, Guimarães, Portugal.
E-mail address: id9631@alunos.uminho.pt (C. Turco).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125140
Received 6 July 2021; Received in revised form 8 September 2021; Accepted 1 October 2021
Available online 11 October 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Turco et al.
the evolution of the adobe [13]. The main difference lies in the
compaction process, based on a mechanical stabilisation that contrib­
utes to obtaining a denser and more resistant block [13]. Then, as is
usual also in geotechnics and other earth-based building techniques,
they can be reinforced with natural or synthetic fibres. The reinforce­
ment is essential to avoid brittleness after drying and excessive
shrinkage phenomena.
However, further chemical stabilisations are often necessary since
these blocks are vulnerable to water penetration, compromising their
strength and durability. Stabilised blocks with binders are called Com­
pressed Stabilised Earth Blocks (CSEBs). Traditional binders typically
used are lime, cement, gypsum, or bitumen. They are highly effective
but considered unsustainable from both the environmental and the
economic point of view. In order to reduce their utilisation, many re­
searchers are exploring the possibility of using waste materials for
reinforcement and stabilisation. In effect, the availability of many resi­
dues or sub-products derived from industrial processes (e.g., food and
textile industry) makes it possible to improve the general performance of
CEBs at a low price (also because most of them are waste and do not have
a market value) and low environmental impact. Like any big challenge,
this possibility would represent a great opportunity: it would combine
the need to reduce waste disposal with the optimisation of earth blocks’
performance, also diminishing the consumption of natural resources.
CEBs have demonstrated great potential, and the possibility of being
optimised with materials otherwise disposed in landfills makes the topic
really attractive. The importance lies not only in the reduction of waste
disposal: some of these wastes are highly effective in enhancing certain
physical–mechanical properties, for example, due to their chemical
composition, or after particular treatments. Therefore, it is worth
continuing to develop highly performing blocks based on readily
available natural material and local waste for a new sustainable con­
struction generation for both developed and developing countries.
To this end, scientific publications on this topic significantly
increased in recent years. However, some research gaps have not yet
been covered due to the uniqueness of the materials used, naturally
different from each other, which make the comparison of the results
complex.
In the past decade, high-quality review articles addressed the influ­
ence of various additives on earth-based materials, including CEBs. In
2020, Jannat et al. [8] examined the application of agro and non-agro
waste materials for unfired earth bricks discussing their effect on the
following thermophysical and mechanical properties: density, water
absorption, compressive and flexural strength, and thermal conductiv­
ity. In this study, 87 articles were analysed in the range of years from
2000 to 2019; results were also compared with relevant standards. In
2016, Laborel-Préneron et al. [9] proposed a wide research on the in­
fluence of eight types of plant aggregates and fibres on several earth-
based composites. The authors reviewed 50 papers focused on earth
blocks (adobe, extruded earth blocks (EEBs), CEBs, CSEBs), earth plas­
ters, rammed earth, cob, wattle and daub. In this study, the effect of the
additives on fourteen different physical, mechanical, hygrothermal and
durability properties was discussed in detail. In 2015, Danso et al. [14]
proposed a quantitative review about the mechanical and physical
performance of stabilised soil blocks with fibres and binders. In 2011,
Pacheco-Torgal and Jalali [15] reviewed eco-efficiency aspects related
to earth construction, addressing economic advantage, resource and
energy consumption, waste generation, CO2 emissions and indoor air
quality. Some other review articles focused only on adobe reinforced
with natural fibres [16], or rammed earth [17].
In general, the studies in which the potential of the application of
waste materials for the development of sustainable construction mate­
rial is analysed are many [18–25]. For example, Gupta et al. [22]
deepened the manufacturing aspect of waste incorporated bricks
through an industrial scale perspective. In particular, the research faces
issues related to the mix design and optimisation, curing conditions and
methods. Al-Fakih et al. [26] reviewed the incorporation of waste
2
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
materials within the broadening category of burnt and unburnt masonry
bricks, including concrete bricks, calcium silicate bricks and clay bricks.
Murmu and Patel [23] performed a review article about the utilisation of
industrial and municipal waste in the manufacturing process of sus­
tainable bricks. Amziane and Sonebi [24] considered the possibility of
using crushed vegetal aggregate and mineral binder to design bio-based
building materials. In particular, the study highlights the important
properties of flexibility and high deformability of these aggregates,
which confer ductility and an elastoplastic behaviour. The need to assess
the durability was also underlined, being insidious issues when dealing
with natural materials.
Unlike the mentioned literature, the present study is restricted to
discussing the exclusive use of natural origin materials, including resi­
dues and by-products, in the optimisation of CEBs. This review aims to
offer a complete and clearer vision of the topic. Some figures support the
manuscript’s contents by providing a visual representation of the main
issues related to the topic. Through a holistic approach, it collects the
main information provided by the authors to outline generalised rules
that broaden the body of knowledge in this field and support future
investigations. Despite the lack of sufficient data, it also aims to favour
the standardisation of procedures by highlighting the main obstacles
emerging from the selected studies.
This review has been conducted using the Systematic Literature Re­
view (SLR) method. In contrast to an expert review using ad hoc liter­
ature selection, the SLR is a methodologically rigorous review of
research results [27], and it presupposes the formulation of specific
questions [28].
The paper is organised as follow: the review methodology is metic­
ulously described in Section 2 and the research questions are placed at
the beginning of this first part. Section 3 describes the effect of opti­
misation on physical, thermal, mechanical, durability, sound insulation
and fire resistance properties and other aspects related to sustainability.
The studies included are classified based on the type of natural origin
additive: (i) fibres, and (ii) powders or ashes. Section 4 discusses the
results of the systematic literature review and proposes an answer to
each research question. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section
5.
2. Review methodology
This section provides an accurate description of the methodology
adopted. Graphical representations and tables also support the textual
description. In order to make the whole manuscript clearer, the main
phases of the search and review process are schematically reported in
Fig. 1.
2.1. Research questions
The five research questions that guided this review are:
• How is the research topic addressed? (Analysis)
• Why do researchers introduce additives in the mixture to produce
CEBs? (Analysis)
• What are the main findings that can be extrapolated? (Comparison)
• What are the limitations and gaps in the existing research?
(Identification)
• What are the opportunities to accomplish future researches and in­
novations? (Proposal)
2.2. Search process and inclusion–exclusion criteria
The search process was conducted in Google Scholar, Scopus re­
positories and Web of Knowledge. The used keywords were: “Com­
pressed earth blocks”; “CEBs”; “Pressed earth blocks”; “Unfired earth
blocks”; “Unfired soil bricks”; “Earth-based materials”; “Natural fibres”;
“Agricultural wastes”; “Industrial wastes”; “Waste incorporation”;
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Fig. 1. Review methodology’s phases.

“Industrial sub-products”; “Life Cycle Assessment”; “Sustainability”. used.

Due to the huge number of studies found, the authors focused on From a first classification, it was possible to create a list of the
those developed over the past six years (Jan. 2015 - Jan. 2021). properties investigated by the authors through experimental tests. Based
According to the purpose of this article (review the influence of on this list, 20 main properties were divided into six macro-categories.
natural origin materials in CEBs), the following categories of scientific The subdivision was made based on scientific definitions and sup­
articles have been excluded: ported by previous reviews [8,14,29] and major textbooks [10,30]. The
six macro-categories are: (i) physical properties, (ii) thermal properties,
• CEBs without any incorporation. (iii) mechanical properties, (iv) durability properties, (v) other proper­
• CEBs stabilised only with traditional mineral binders (e.g., cement ties (which includes sound insulation and fire resistance), (vi) sustain­
and lime). ability indicators. Such categories are synoptically represented in Fig. 2.
• Rammed earth, cob, clay bricks and adobe were also excluded. This structure allows to identify the properties most commonly
studied by the authors and, consequently, the major gaps in the scientific
Additional exclusion criteria are related to language (only papers literature. Therefore, this fourth phase is dedicated to data collection.
published in English were recruited) and publication type (only journal The data extracted from each study are:
articles and conference proceedings were recruited).
The inclusion criteria are related to raw material (soil, or earth, as a • data relating to the publications;
composition of gravel, sand, silt and clay), shape (block or brick), • data relating to the materials used;
compaction methods (mechanical and hydraulic press machines), • data relating to the properties investigated.
preparation (unfired), the addition of natural origin materials (fibres,
powders or ashes, and natural-based geopolymer). Given the significant
heterogeneity of the studies, the criteria and the search process have 2.2.1. Data relating to the publications
taken into account different: (i) synonyms (e.g., block and brick), (ii) Data related to the publications include the date of publication,
plural form (e.g., blocks and bricks), (iii) different spelling (e.g., fibre or geographical collocation of the research groups involved and journals
fiber). For the sake of clarity, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are (peer-review journals and conference proceedings). These data are
listed in Table 1. essential to deduce how and where the research topic is developing,
At the end of the search process, the selected articles were checked, growing, and evolving (Fig. 3).
and the abstracts were read. This second phase was mandatory since A significant percentage of publications was recorded in 2020 (24%).
many of these researches use natural fibres, residues and sub-products to It should be noted that the trend is growing, and eight research (19%)
enhance the properties of various earth-based materials such as adobe, are published by the journal Construction and Building Materials (Elsevier
clay bricks, extruded earth blocks, among others. Thus, it was funda­ Ltd). The category “Others” reports those papers published by a journal
mental to ensure the pertinence of the selected papers. Moreover, a that appears only once.
comparison was made on the bibliography of each article to catch ar­ Most of the research groups (53%) come from Africa, but eight ar­
ticles published in local journals. ticles (33%) are co-authored with European research groups. Moreover,
A total of 45 scientific documents were considered valid for the three studies conducted by European research groups are shared with
present study. The selected papers were identified with the code “Year- African research groups, and only one study conducted by an Asiatic
NAME-Additive” (e.g., 2021-TURCO-NaturalFibres). Then, they were research group is co-authored with an American research group.
sorted in alphabetic order. In this third phase, a synoptical table was
built to collect information related to the publication and the material 2.2.2. Data relating to the materials used
The 45 selected papers always include a description of the prove­
nience of the material used. Often, they represent a fraction of the
Table 1 massive amount of waste that every day are produced by the agricul­
Inclusion and exclusion criteria. tural, food and textile industry. Rarely, as in the case of some fibres, they
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria are directly taken from the plants. To understand the role of these ad­
ditives in the soil mixture, authors usually address the issue in various
Raw material Soil (gravel, sand, silt and clay) Mud - Turf ways: in some cases, focusing on their chemical composition and, in
Shape Blocks - Bricks Rammed earth - Earthbags - other cases, providing a thermo-physical or mechanical
Cob – characterisation.
Extruded earth blocks In this study, natural origin materials were divided into two cate­
Compaction Hand-operated press machine – Manual compaction (adobe) –
method Hydraulic press machine Hyper-compression
gories based on their morphology: (i) fibres and (ii) powders, or ashes.
Preparation Unfired - Unburnt Fired - Burnt As the graph demonstrates (Fig. 4), fibres introduction is suggested in
Additives Natural origin materials – Non-natural materials - 57% of the analysed studies (26 research), while powders and ashes are
Natural-based geopolymer – Synthetic fibres – suggested in 43% of cases (19 research).
Traditional binders (if coupled Construction and demolition
Considering the 26 studies in which natural fibres were introduced,
with any other organic matter) waste

3
C. Turco et al.
Fig. 2. Organisation of the properties into the six macro-categories.
Fig. 3. Data related to the publication: year (top left), geographical collocation of the research groups (top right), journal (bottom left).
Fig. 4. Distribution of the natural origin materials used to optimise CEBs.
12 were carried out by African research groups (Fig. 5). This distribution
attributes a leading position in this topic to the African continent.
Natural fibres. Natural fibres derive from plants or animals. Concerning
vegetable fibres, they are generally composed of cellulose, hemicellu­
lose, lignin and other minor components (pectin, waxes and water-
soluble substances). Cellulose is a natural polymer composed of long
chains of glucose units and confers strength, stiffness and stability to the
fibres. Its crystallinity degree is defined by hydrogen bonding, which
regulates the physical properties. Hemicellulose is a polysaccharides
matrix that embeds cellulose. Cellulose and hemicellulose represent the
hydrophilic compounds in fibres composition. Lignin is a complex aro­
matic hydrocarbon polymer that imparts rigidity to plants, and it rep­
resents the hydrophobic compound [31,32].
4
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
The fibres involved in the selected studies are: bamboo [33], alfa
[34], fonio [35], okra [36], coconut [37–39], date palm [40,41], lav­
ender, barley and rice straw [42], banana [43–46], abaca and maguey
[39], kenaf [47–49], jute [44,50], pineapple leaves [51], coconut, sug­
arcane bagasse and oil palm [52–55], hemp [56,57], rice straw [58],
wheat and barley straw [59].
Natural fibres are generally introduced in CEBs to reduce blocks’
shrinkage during the drying process, but it is widely accepted that they
influence positively also other thermo-physical properties due to their
lightweight and low thermal conductivity. Sometimes they have high
values of tensile strength, making the blocks also more ductile. Finally,
they are biodegradable and low-cost. However, natural fibres have some
disadvantages. For example, the high moisture absorption capacity
causes fibres swelling during the blocks’ preparation phase [53] and,
therefore, poor adhesion in the mixture after the drying process.
Moreover, exceeding certain thresholds may lead to harmful overload
that will be explained accurately in this paper.
In the case of high-water absorption rates, chemical treatments on
fibres can be used. Among the reviewed papers, the most common is the
alkaline treatment. It consists of soaking the fibres in a 4–6 wt.% of
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) for a defined time at room temperature. As
reported by Li et al. [60], the most important modification done by this
treatment is the reduction of the hydrophilic hydroxyl groups (OH) - by
disrupting their bonding - from the fibre structure (Fibre–OH + NaOH →
Fibre–O–Na + H2O + impurities), with a consequent increase of surface
roughness (Fig. 6). A rough interface is essential for better interlocking
[61].
C. Turco et al.
Fig. 5. Distribution of the natural-based materials categories on continents.
Fig. 6. Typical structure of (a) untreated and (b) alkali treated cellulose fibres,
adapted by [31].
Other beneficial effects are related to the cleaner surface, which re­
duces the stress transfer throughout the interface due to the absence of
micro voids. In addition, diameter reduction produces an increased
aspect ratio and a larger effective adhesion area, which improves the
mechanical behaviour of the blocks [52]. Finally, as reported by Mostafa
and Uddin [45], the treatment naturally changes also the pH value. One
can note that, after a certain NaOH concentration and soaking time, the
alkali treatment can cause an excessive delignification, resulting in a
weaker or damaged fibre [31].
Conversely, animal fibres are mainly composed of keratin, but the
reviewed literature lacks detailed chemical characterisation. The fibres
used are: wool fibres [62], pig hair [63] and cotton fibres [64].
However, the overall properties of natural fibres depend on: surface
morphology, aspect ratio (length/diameter), hydrophilic tendency and
dimensional stability [61]. Therefore, when introduced into the soil
mixture, some variables have to be considered: fibres length, concen­
tration and chemical treatments.
Natural-based powders or ashes. Natural-based powders or ashes usually
derive from natural origin residues and sub-products produced by food
and other industrial processes. The utilisation of these materials has
different objectives than fibres. In the last decade, many researchers are
experimenting with the addition of these wastes to stabilise the soil,
replacing – or partially replacing – traditional binders (e.g., cement,
lime, gypsum and bitumen). Moreover, some of them are often not bio-
degradable and pose a problem for landfills.
These materials are very different in terms of composition and
behaviour, despite their appearance. Some of them, similarly to plant
fibres, are made up of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. This first sub-
category includes: argan nutshell powder [65–67], ground olive stone
[68], shea butter residue [35,69–71], sawdust [66].
Some others have a certain reactivity caused by the presence of ox­
ides. In particular, significant quantities of reactive CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3
allows the pozzolanic reactions in the presence of water and over time
[72]:
5
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
Ca2+ + 2OH– + SiO2 → CSH (1)
Ca2+ –
+ 2OH + Al2O3 → CAH (2)
As shown in Eq. (1) and (2), the Silica (SiO2) and Alumina (Al2O3)
combined with the available calcium results in the formation of the
Calcium Silicate Hydrate (CSH) and Calcium Alumina Hydrate (CAH).
The formed gel is the cementitious products responsible for binding soil
particles and increasing the blocks’ overall strength and durability. This
second sub-category includes: eggshell powder and ash [73]; sawdust
ash [74]; rice husk ash [75–77], green mussel shell powder [63], wood
ash [78], sugarcane bagasse ash [79]. In particular, eggshell powder and
ash (ESP and ESA) are used with rice husk ash (RHA) to synthetize a
geopolymer. It is worth noting that some of these wastes, such as
eggshell and green mussel shell, are mostly made of Calcium carbonate
(CaCO3), and they must be submitted to further reactions to ensure that
the pozzolanic reaction takes place. For example, in the case of ESP, to
obtain the ESA, the following steps are proposed by the authors: thermal
decomposition at 700 ◦ C for 3 h of ESP to obtain ESA (CaCO3 → CaO +
CO2) and hydroxylation of ESA (CaO + H2O → Ca(OH)2) during which
OH– are liberated (Ca(OH)2 → Ca2+ + 2OH–). Similarly, also rice husk
needs to be burned to obtain the ash (RHA), but, on the contrary, its
main component is the amorphous silica (SiO2) which confer to this sub-
product accelerated activity. Finally, sawdust ash is also silica-rich
(72.2%), more than wood ash (35%).
It should be noted that clayey soils are naturally rich in Silica and
Alumina oxides, which easily allow the pozzolanic reaction. Moreover,
clay particles are coated in a film of absorbed water that exerts high
surface tension forces compared to the particles lightweight acting as a
natural binding agent [13]. Therefore, the addition of the natural-based
binders is particularly important when the amount of active oxides is
insufficient in the soil that needs to be stabilised and depends mainly on
the available soil.
Further information about the soil selection. This sub-section aims not to
discuss the behaviour of soils exhaustively but to provide a brief over­
view of the main recommendations regarding the selection phase. The
authors generally agree that soil quality is the main factor of success in
producing good and durable CEBs.
Soil is considered a composition of four basic types: gravel (>2mm),
sand (0.06–2 mm), silt (0.002–0.06 mm) and clay (less than 0.002 mm).
In the analysed studies, soils are characterised from different points of
view: chemical (ICP-AES); mineralogical (XRD, DSC-TGA, IR), micro­
structural (SEM-EDS) and geotechnical (particle size distribution,
methylene blue test and Atterberg limits). In particular, Atterberg limits
represent a fundamental knowledge to predict the soil’s physical,
chemical and mineralogical behaviour. As they represent the water
content during the different soil transition phases (liquid wL, plastic wP
and shrinkage wS), they should always be considered to assess the soil
C. Turco et al.
plasticity for effective use in engineering. Plastic and liquid limits and
plasticity index (IP) are responsible for modifying the block’s mechani­
cal, thermal and acoustic performance [62]. Table 2 reports the range of
values for different soil types and the recommended range for CEBs
production.
2.2.3. Data relating to the properties investigated
The properties investigated in the selected articles follow the sub­
division already presented in the six macro-categories. Appendix A
presents a table in which the analysed studies are classified qualitatively
according to i) the type of additives used and ii) the specific properties
investigated. The next chapter presents the quantitative analysis of the
results obtained in these studies. Below is an overview of how often
certain properties are studied (Fig. 7). From the graph, it is easy to
deduce which are the most common experiments.
Physical properties are generally examined but not always the
quantitative measurements are reported. This explains why only 55.6%
of the studies provide, for example, the value of dry bulk density.
Furthermore, although shrinkage represents one of the main problems
related to earth-based materials, only 8.9% of the studies provide a
measure of it. Among the thermal properties, 33.3% of the studies
investigate thermal conductivity, which is often the main parameter
involved in assessing the overall thermal performance of the blocks.
Conversely, mechanical properties are much more stressed, and several
studies focus just on those. Durability, which is another critical issue, is
also investigated with less frequency. In this study, durability is
expressed in terms of erosion and abrasion coefficient, but it is important
to remind that it is also strictly related to the water absorption capacity.
Other properties are systematically neglected: sound insulation is pro­
posed in only one paper (2.2%), and fire resistance is never proposed.
The category of sustainability indicators includes energy requirement,
CO2 emission and cost estimation, as they represent the data available
from the only one study that provides this analysis.
Based on the keywords present in the bibliography collected, the
software VOSviewer [XX] was used to create a semantic graph (Fig. 8).
In this visualization, items are represented by a circle, and the lines
between items represent links. The weight of each item determines the
circle’s size: the higher the weight of an item, the larger the circle of the
item. In this graph, the item is selected if repeated more than five times.
The colour of an item is determined by the cluster to which the item
belongs. Here, the six clusters are automatically created by the software.
The distance between two items in the visualization approximately in­
dicates the relatedness of the items.
This graph is a valuable tool to understand the relationship between
concepts. It is easily understandable the strong connection existing be­
tween “compressed earth blocks” and “compressive strength”, for
example, and the weaker links with other items, such as “thermal con­
ductivity” or “durability”. The “sustainability” item appears under
different forms in different clusters (e.g., “environmental impact”,
“sustainable development”, and “cost-effectiveness”). Further comments
will be provided in Section 4.
Table 2
Type of soil [10] and recommended range of Atterberg limits for CEBs, adapted by [65,80]
Type of soil Atterberg limits
Recommended value
Sandy Silty Clayey Akhzouz et al. (2021)
[65]
WL 10–23% 15–35% 28–150% 30–35%
WP 5–23% 10–25% 20–50% 12–22%
IP (wL-wP) less than 5 5–15% 15–95% 7–18%
WS – – – OWC1
1
Optimum water content.
2
Despite being outside the defined time range (2015–2021), the study of Jiménez Delgado and Guerrero (2007) is the only one dedicated to soil selection and,
therefore, is used as a reference.
6
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
3. Results
Data collected about the examined properties reveal at least 20
different important properties for the characterisation of the optimised
CEBs. In this section, the most relevant are discussed following the
structure defined by the six macro-categories (Fig. 2). Building on this
rationale, the main findings of each analysed paper have been split and
organised into categories. The results of each study corresponding to the
optimal concentration of the natural additives were compared with a
control sample (CEB, or CSEB). The following sub-sections present the
influence of the natural-based optimisation on the physical, thermal,
mechanical, and durability properties. Further investigations on sound
insulation and fire resistance properties, as well as on sustainability
indicators, are also suggested.
3.1. Physical properties
Physical properties are those properties that can be observed or
measured without changing the identity of the samples. In this study,
density, porosity, water absorption (including capillarity coefficient)
and shrinkage are considered physical properties. By changing them,
they can influence directly – improving or worsening – the other prop­
erties (i.e., thermal, mechanical, durability, sound insulation and fire
resistance).
3.1.1. Bulk density
Bulk density is the ratio between the dry mass and the apparent
volume of a sample, including pores and for a fixed water content (γ =
m/V). Typical soil density values are within the range of 1000–1500 kg/
m3, whereas typical values of compressed soil density range between
1700–2000 kg/m3. Indeed, the compaction process reduces the volume
increasing the density ratio. To attain the maximum compaction, the
water content within the mixture should be as close as possible to the
Optimum Water Content (OWC), or Optimum Moisture Content (OMC),
obtained by the Proctor Test. The specific water content leads to
achieving the maximum dry density allowing soil particles to be moved
in a denser configuration without too much friction [10].
A certain quantity of soil will be inevitably replaced when intro­
ducing additives into the earth mixture. Therefore, depending on the
density of the material added, the block will have a higher or lower
density value. Due to the lightweight of the additives, the density of the
optimised CEB is usually reduced compared with a control sample.
Given the largely accepted correlation between density and other
physical proprieties (e.g., thermal conductivity), the density trend after
adding natural origin materials is shown in the next paragraph.
3.1.2. Porosity
Porosity represents the total volume occupied by voids within the
earth matrix. It can be manifested in two different forms: open porosity,
which affects the surface of the block, and close porosity, which could
directly affect physic-mechanical properties [40]. The percentage of
pores P can be calculated using Eq. (3):
Max-Min
Jiménez Delgado and Guerrero (2007)2[81] Akhzouz et al. (2021)
[65]
25–51% 25–50%
– 10–25%
2–31% 7–29%
– 8–18%
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Fig. 7. Commonly studied properties by the authors in the selected papers.

Fig. 8. Semantic relationship of keywords in the scientific literature of optimised CEBs.

VCEB In CEBs, porosity is strictly related to density. An interesting realistic

P(%) = × 100 (3)
Vw investigation, performed with 3D X-ray microtomography (XMT), on the
structural alteration of compacted soil is provided by the study of Menon
where VCEB is the volume of the block and Vw is the volume of water
et al. [82]. It shows a decrease in water penetration after compaction
absorbed.
due to the significant reduction of total pores volume and the proportion

7
C. Turco et al.
of interpore volume and surface area. In the study of Ben Mansour at al.
[83], the porosity decrease from 50.23% to 24.11% when the compac­
tion pressure increases from 0.46 to 59.47 bars. However, it was found
that there is no significant difference between soil blocks compacted at a
low and high impact rate [84].
The addition of natural fibres increases the porosity, influencing the
shape and geometry of the pores [40] without increasing density.
However, many authors recommend not to exceed certain thresholds
that could result in an excessive pore presence. It is worth mentioning
that the thresholds are different from fibres to fibres.
Conversely, the addition of natural-based powders or ashes, as well
as of cement or lime, tends to close pores, filling them [40].
However, the increase of porosity has to be linked with the average
pore diameter in order to control the homogeneity of the products
[37,62]. Therefore, a high porosity percentage could be particularly
unfavourable if associated with a high average pore diameter, resulting
in a low-quality and low-durable CEB.
Porosity plays a crucial role in thermal conductivity and mechanical
strength proprieties, as will be handled later. Additionally, it should be
noted that a balanced porosity rate positively influences both vapour
and frost resistance [10].
3.1.3. Water content
Water content has different compounds in CEBs: (i) structural water,
which is chemically bounded; (ii) absorbed water, which is electrically
bounded; (iii) capillarity water, which is absorbed by capillarity action.
Structural water is the water needed to ensure the correct preparation of
blocks (OWC, or OMC). Especially in the presence of cement as a sta­
biliser, the addition of the required water during the mixing process is
one of the most important factors to produce high-quality CEBs. In this
framework, the study of Ranjitham et al. [43] highlights the benefit of
banana fibres within the soil matrix. Because of their composition (63%
of cellulose), these fibres absorb 30% more water, re-wet easier and
assist the hydration process of the mixture. Therefore, the presence of a
similar type of fibres can be beneficial.
The water absorbed can be assessed by immersing the dry block in
water for given periods, measuring its dry and wet weight (Wd and Ww
respectively), as shown in Eq. (4). Sometimes the blocks have some
difficulties resisting water for 24 h.
(Ww − Wd )
A(%) = (4)
Ww
An estimation of the capillarity water can be provided by measuring
the capillarity coefficient (5). The experiment consists of immersing the
lower face of the block in a 5 mm water bath and measuring the weight
after a fixed time.
100 × (W1 − W0 )
Cb = √̅ (5)
S t
In Eq. (5),W1 is the weight after immersion, W0 is the weight before
immersion, S is the immersed area and t is the immersion time.
While the structural water depends on the nature of the mixture (soil
components and other additives) and cannot be modified, the other two
compounds have to be taken under control. In particular, the water
absorbed rate should remain under 20%, which is considered an
acceptable limit by most of the standard prescriptions (for further in­
formation about the standard framework, see Jannat et al. [8].
Teixeira et al. [85] report a water absorption rate of 9.98% and a
capillarity coefficient of 34.62 g/(cm2 min0 .5), measured on non-
optimised CEBs.
In general, the introduction of natural fibres tends to increase water
absorption due to their hydrophilic nature. Typically, the percentages
increase gradually with fibres concentration [37,45,55]. However,
many authors agree that until a certain threshold, an inverse trend is
recorded. For example, Selescadevi and Thanjavur [44] observe that for
0.25% of jute and banana fibres, the water absorption decrease from
8
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
20% to 9–10% and, after that, it starts to increase. The authors state that
this is probably related to the reduction of the porosity at the interface
along fibres length. Then, increasing the content over the optimum, fi­
bres start to sticking together, and the water absorption raises.
Results presented until now demonstrate that the bulk density, the
porosity and the water absorption (including the water absorbed by
capillarity) of fibre-optimised CEBs are similarly influenced by the
presence of these natural additives. After fibres introduction, and
increasing their content, CEBs are generally less dense, more porous, and
absorb more water (Fig. 9).
The introduction of natural-based powders or ashes can lead to both
positive and negative results. Research works conducted by Azhzouz
et al. [65], Mohamed et al. [66] and Tatane et al. [67] show that the
addition of 2% of argan nutshell powder (with 5% of cement) into the
soil mixture decreases the water absorption coefficient from 16.9% to
11.1%. This is probably related to the non-absorbing nature of this
powder compared with other plant particles and to the capability of
filling gaps between particles (Fig. 10). The introduction of 2% sawdust
(with 5% of cement) suggested by Mohamed et al. [66] shows approx­
imately the same results: 8% of sawdust ash and 10% of cement, reduce
the water absorption from 9% to 7% and decrease the porosity from 34%
to 27%. Similarly, 6–8% sawdust ash with 6–10% cement satisfy all the
criteria for durable CSEBs. Moreover, some other materials, such as shea
butter residue (incorporate at 3–10% as proposed by Malbila et al. [35],
improve water repellence.
On the contrary, the addition of sugarcane bagasse ash suggested by
Ali et al. [79] did not show the same trend: after 24 h of soaking in water,
the presence of the ashes increases the water absorption rate by 73.83%.
This result could be explained by the hydrophilic nature of this material -
composed of 50% cellulose, 25% hemicellulose and 25% lignin - and by
the fact that the increase in porosity leads to greater water permeability.
This study also shows another significant result related to the curing
process. It seems that water absorption decreases with time curing:
optimised CEB with 20% sugarcane bagasse ash absorbed 24.17% of
water after 7 days and 23.08% after 28 days; non optimised CEB (control
sample) absorbed 7.04% of water after 7 days and 6.04% of water after
28 days.
The water absorption capacity is strictly related to durability. Water
presence is always dangerous in building, not just for stability. It was
found by Nshimiyimana et al. [74] that water acts as a bridge for ther­
mal conduction or diffusion. In particular, when the water content in­
crease, the thermal conductivity rate increases around 0.06 W/mK %.
Finally, some authors introduce a certain percentage of sand to
mitigate excessive water absorption rate, especially with clayey soil,
taking advantage of its drainage properties. Vodounon et al. [51] add
20% of sand to the earth mixture, while Ajouguim et al. [34] mix 30%
earth and 70% sand. It was observed that the addition of sand also helps
to reduce shrinkage.
3.1.4. Swelling and shrinkage
Shrinkage is an undesirable effect in CEBs, as in any earth-based
product, especially when the soil has a high clay content. In the pres­
ence of certain clay minerals, large swelling occurs when water is
absorbed during the preparation of the mix, and excessive shrinks
happen when the block dries. Therefore, the main issue is the appear­
ance and propagation of cracks related to this physical phenomenon.
Plant fibres, randomly placed, are capable of controlling the defor­
mation in CEBs, being one of the main reasons that prompted the use of
fibres in the earth mix. This positive effect is confirmed by different
authors [44,50,55]. In these studies, the optimised blocks are measured
before and after drying, showing that different fibres (sugarcane, coco­
nut, oil palm, jute and banana fibres) reduce the percentage of linear
shrinkage. It is widely accepted that the role of the fibres is to exert a
certain friction between the particle soil of the mixture. Finally, within
the two previous studies, it is also mentioned that the presence of fibres
reduces the drying time because they allow an easier moisture escape.
C. Turco et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of natural fibres on physical properties.
Fig. 10. Effect of natural powders or ashes on physical properties.
However, several authors underline the primary importance of soil
selection in domineering the shrinkage phenomenon. In this sense,
enough water (OWC) and curing time are indispensable in enhancing
the binding force and reducing the soil shrink. Furthermore, it appears
that a mixing time of 10 min exhibits minor deformations and cracks
compared to 1 or 20 min [10] and guarantees uniform dispersion of all
materials [51].
Fig. 11 provides a visual representation of the main concepts exposed
until now about the swelling and shrinkage phenomenon.
3.2. Thermal properties
In this sub-section, the influence of the natural-based optimisation on
CEBs thermal performance is presented. Available thermal conductivity
values are reviewed quantitatively, while the excessive heterogeneity of
data related to other properties (i.e., thermal diffusivity, volumetric and
specific heat capacity) does not allow the elaboration of further con­
siderations on them.
3.2.1. Thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity refers to the intrinsic ability of a material to
transfer or conduct heat. It is defined as the amount of heat per unit of
time and unit area that can be conducted through a plate of a given
material with a unit of thickness when the difference of temperatures
between the opposite surfaces is one unit of temperature. The reviewed
studies measure this quantity in several ways but, in general, it is
assessed on a Guarded Hot Plate using Eq. (6):
Fig. 11. Parameters affecting swelling and shrinkage.
9
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
qL
λ= (6)
AΔT
where q is the rate of heat transfer, L is the thickness, A is the area of
heat transfer normal to the direction of the heat flow and ΔT is the
temperature gradient between the warm and cold surface.
A typical hollow brick has a thermal conductivity value of 0.36 W/
mK, whereas the thermal conductivity of a non-optimised CEB is 0.60
W/mK [85]. Other values to know are the thermal conductivity of the
air, which is 0.025 W/mK, and of the water, which is about 0.60 W/mK.
This means that the heat moves easier in water than air, and this path
should always be avoided. Results presented by Nshimiyimana et al.
[75] show that the thermal conductivity after saturation of CEBs is twice
that of dry ones. Higher values, in the range of 2–2.4 times, are reported
by Bogas et al. [86]. On the contrary, in the presence of a balanced
porosity rate, the air trapped in the pores positively influence thermal
conductivity.
The introduction of natural fibres in CEBs generally improves ther­
mal conductivity compared to the control samples (Table 3). This trend
is probably related to fibres typically low thermal conductivity, which
range from 0.04 to 0.08 W/mK for plant aggregates, and the higher
porosity (more air) linked to their presence [75]. However, lower
thermal conductivity values are recorded for specific fibres concentra­
tions, after which it begins to increase.
According to the outcomes exposed, a strict relationship between the
properties may be underlined: the lower the density, the lower the
thermal conductivity is. Fig. 12 represents this relationship, showing the
trend of the reviewed fibre-reinforced CEBs and of the respective control
sample (non-optimised CEBs). This important outcome, strengthened by
the found R2 value (0.92 for optimised CEBs), confirms the correlation
between these two properties.
As for fibres, the introduction of natural-based powders and ashes
leads to a general reduction of thermal conductivity compared to the
control sample (Table 4).
Despite the similar trend, the same strong correlation between the
bulk density and thermal conductivity was not found. Fig. 13 shows this
relationship, where the coefficient of determination (R-squared value)
describes a very weak correlation: only 0.365 for optimised CEBs and
0.213 for the non-optimised ones.
However, the extremely positive effects reached by introducing both
fibres (lowest value: λ = 0.21 W/mK for 25% of HF) and powder or ashes
(lowest value: λ = 0.49 W/mK for 15% of GOS) show the high potential
of natural origin materials in optimising the thermal behaviour of CEBs.
3.3. Mechanical properties
In this sub-section, the influence of the natural-based optimisation on
CEBs mechanical performances is presented. The quantitatively
reviewed properties include: compressive, flexural and tensile strength,
whereas observations about ductility and fracture mechanisms are
presented qualitatively. Finally, some considerations about the struc­
tural response of a CEBs wall panel are summarised.
3.3.1. Compressive strength
Compressive strength is the widely investigated property in the
mechanical characterisation of optimised CEBs. As with other masonry
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Table 3
Influence of natural fibres on thermal conductivity.
Authors Natural fibres Bulk Bulk density Thermal Thermal Length, concentration and treatments
density (CS) conductivity conductivity (CS)
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [W/mK] [W/mK] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[62] Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) 1510 – 0.55 – 10 0.25% (WF) and –
3% (A)
[35] Fonio Straw (FS) – Soil A13FF 1761 1959 0.51 0.80 – 3% (FS) –
[37] Coconut Fibres (CF) and Aloe Vera – – 0.36 0.42 20 0.5% (CF) and 1% –
Mucilage (AVM) (AVM)
[36] Okra Plant Fibres (OPF) and Calcium 1610 1690 0.63 0.84 30 1.2% (OPF) and –
Carbide Residue (CCR) 10% (CCR)
[34] Alfa Fibres (alkali-treated) (TAF) 2530 2760 1.17 1.46 20–25 1% (TAF) NaOH, 6% (1
h)
[48] Kenaf Fibres (KF) – – 1.40 2.00 30 1.2% (KF) –
[56] Hemp Fibres (HF) 1404 1745 0.21 0.26 – 25% (HF) –
[41] Date Palm Fibres (DPF untreated) 1982 1936 0.76 0.85 20–35 0.2% (DPF) –
Date Palm Fibres (TDPF alkali- 1910 1936 0.81 0.85 20–35 0.2% (TDPF) NaOH,
treated) 6% (24 h)
[59] Wheat Straw Fibres (WSF) 1358 >1600 0.31 0.96 40 3% (WSF) –
(av.)
Barley Straw Fibres (BSF) 1140 >1600 0.31 0.96 40 3% (BSF) –
(av.)
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

Fig. 12. Linear correlation between dry bulk density and thermal conductivity Fig. 13. Linear correlation between bulk density and thermal conductivity on
of fibre-optimised CEBs. natural-stabilised CEBs.

units, it is a basic measure of quality for CEBs [87]. The most recom­
mended test procedure consists of a direct, confined, uniaxial test on
single units (σ = F/A). The common value of compressive strength for
non-optimised CEBs are around 9.01 MPa [85].
As it is well demonstrated by Mansour et al. [88], when natural fibres
are introduced within the soil mixture, thermal conductivity and
compressive strength do not evolve in the same sense, but they are
linearly related to density (Fig. 14). The point at which the two functions
met each other represents the optimal mixture, usually.
As for thermal conductivity, increasing the optimal fibres content

Table 4
Influence of natural-based powders or ashes on thermal conductivity.
Authors Bulk Bulk density Thermal Thermal Length, concentration and treatments
Natural powders or ashes density (CS) conductivity conductivity (CS)
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [W/mK] [W/mK] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[68] Ground Olive Stone (GOS) 1850 1980 ~0.49 ~0.79 – 15% (GOS) –
[75] Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) and 1575 1801 0.64 1.02 – 16:4 (CCR:RHA) –
Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
[35] Shea Butter Wastes (SBW) 1893 1959 0.74 0.80 – 3% (A23RD) –
[66] Argan Nut Shell Powder (PANS) and – – ~0.59 0.64 – 2% (PANS) and –
Cement (C) 5% (C)
Sawdust (S) and Cement (C) – – ~0.49 0.64 – 2% (S) and 5% –
(C)
[67] Argan Nut Shell Powder (PANS) and – – ~0.58 0.64 – 2% (PANS) and –
Cement (C) 5% (C)
[71] Shea Meal (SM) and Cement (C) 2520 2770 0.52 0.72 – 10% (SM) and –
5% (C)
[*]
CS means Control Sample

10
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Fig. 14. Thermal conductivity and compressive strength trend in fibre-

optimised CEBs as a function of dry bulk density, adapted by [88]
will result in a general degradation of the mechanical performance.
Several authors demonstrate that fibres overload causes a series of dis­
advantages such as non-uniform dispersion and fibres segregation, with
a consequent excessive porous and less compact block [55].
Available results of compressive strength related to fibre-optimised
CEBs are presented in Table 5. Generally, fibres’ introduction slightly
decreases the strength compared to the control samples, but this trend is
often hidden by the effect of additional binders, which reinforce the
blocks.
Fig. 15. Linear correlation between dry bulk density and compressive strength
of fibre-optimised CEBs.
According to the results exposed, Fig. 15 shows the relationship
between the dry bulk density and the compressive strength found. The
R2 value describes a good correlation in the fibre-optimised CEBs case
(0.874), whereas it describes a weak correlation in the non-optimised
ones (0.398).
The introduction of natural-based powders or ashes shows encour­
aging results. These additives enhance the compressive strength, as

Table 5
Influence of natural fibres on compressive strength.
Authors Natural fibres Bulk Bulk density Compressive Compressive Length, concentration and treatments
density (CS) strength strength (CS)
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[62] Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) 1510 – 3.85 – 10 0.25% (WF) and –
– Soil SR 3% (A)
Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) 1450 – 3.79 – 10 0.25% (WF) and –
– Soil SY 3% (A)
Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) 1390 – 1.70 – 10 0.25% (WF) and –
– Soil SB 3% (A)
[35] Fonio Straw (FS) – A13FF 1720 1930 3.70 3.82 – 3% (FS) –
[36] Okra Plant Fibres (OPF) and 1610 1690 ~3.55 4.30 30 1.2% (OPF) and –
Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) 10% (CCR)
[34] Alfa Fibres (AF) 2530 2760 22.46 11.51 20–25 1% (AF) NaOH, 6% (1 h)
[50] Jute Fibres (JF) – – ~3.70 4.00 – 0.5% (JF) –
[47] Kenaf Fibres (KF) – – ~5.80 ~4.20 30 1.2% (KF) –
[39] Coconut Coir Fibres (CF) and – – 2.83 3.00 – 0.25% (CF) and –
Cement (C) 8% (C)
Abaca Fibres (AF) and Cement (C) – – 2.99 3.00 – 0.25% (AF) and –
8% (C)
Maguey Fibres (MF) and Cement – – 4.27 3.00 – 0.25% (MF) and –
(C) 8% (C)
[51] Pineapple Leaves Fibres (PLF) and – – 4.81 3.04 – 3% (PLF) and 5% NaOH, 4% (1.46
Cement (C) (C) h)
[56] Hemp Fibres (HF) 1404 1745 3.83 5.27 – 25% (HF) –
[46] Banana Fibres (BF) and Cement (C) 1947 1968 6.58 3.84 50–60 5% (BF) and 7% –
(C)
[41] Date Palm Fibres (DPF) and Lime 1892 1936 ~9.20 ~10.20 20–35 0.2% (DPF) and –
(L) 10% (L)
Alkali-Treated Date Palm Fibres 1910 1936 ~9.80 ~10.20 20–35 0.2% (TDPF) and NaOH, 6% (24
(TDPF) and Lime (L) 10% (L) h) [**]
[64] Cotton Fibres (CF) and Cement (C) – – 3.30 4.20 10–20 10% (CF) and –
10% (C)
[55] Bagasse Fibres (BF) – Soil R – – ~2.60 ~2.40 80 0.5% (BF) –
Coconut Fibres (CF) – Soil R – – ~3.00 ~2.40 50 0.25% (CF) –
Oil Palm Fibres (OF) – Soil R – – ~3.00 ~2.40 38 0.25% (CF) –
[45] Banana Fibres (BF) and Cement (C) – – 5.92 3.33 50 0.35% (BF) and NaOH, 6% (2 h)
7% (C)
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample and it has to be intended for 0% fibres content
[
**] In this study, the alkaline treatment does not show a significant improvement. This is probably related to the duration of the treatment (24 h), compared with other
authors (1–2 h). [51] addressed these aspects, highlighting how extending the duration of the treatment (30, 60, 120 and 180 min) the content of cellulose, hemi­
cellulose and lignin present in the fibres decrease

11
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

some of them behave similarly to the traditional binders allowing the

pozzolanic reaction. The overall main findings are shown in Table 6.
However, also, in this case, the introduction of additives has positive
effects until certain thresholds. Elahi et al. (2020) found that the
compressive strength of optimised CEBs with various concentrations of
sawdust ash and fixed cement content increases up to a point, after
which it starts to decrease. Conversely, for a fixed amount of sawdust
ash, the compressive strength continues to increase linearly with the
cement content.
Results demonstrate the key role of the chemical interaction in
improving the compressive strength. However, it is worth mentioning
that this characteristic is also widely influenced by other parameters
such as the curing method and the curing period. By monitoring the
effect of different curing methods, Taallah and Guettala (2016) found
that CEBs cured 7 days in the oven perform better than those cured 28
days at room temperature. The compressive strength values obtained
were 10 MPa and 7 MPa, respectively. 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.
3.3.2. Flexural strength, tensile strength and ductility
In this sub-section, results concerning flexural and tensile strength
are presented parallelly because of their similar meaning. Namely,
flexural strength is an indirect measure of tensile strength.
The flexural strength is typically determined by performing the
three-point bending test on rectangular specimens and using Eq. (7):
3FL
σ=
2bd2
where F is the maximum applied load, L is the length of the support
span, b is the width, and d is the thickness of the specimens. The tensile
strength is generally determined by performing an indirect tensile test
on cylindric specimens and using Eq. (8):
2F
σt = (8)
πLd
where L is the length, and d is the diameter of the specimens.
Briefly retracing the main limitations that affect CEBs, there are
excessive shrinkage, high susceptibility to water erosion, low tensile and
flexural strength, poor ductility, limited fracture resistance. According
to Millogo et al. [49], natural fibres are introduced into the earth matrix
for two main reasons: limit shrinkage (and crack propagation) during
the drying process, and improve the tensile ductility of the block. Nat­
ural fibres reinforce the block after the failure of the soil because of their
generally high tensile strength [48,49].
Therefore, it is expected that the addition of natural fibres within the
soil matrix shows improvements in both flexural and tensile strength.
Available results are reported in Table 7 and Table 8.
Many authors discussed the positive flexural and tensile behaviour of
fibre-optimised CEBs. In general, it seems that the fibres affect the
brittleness of the soil matrix, making the blocks more ductile
[44,48,50,52,57]. Therefore, as Mostafa and Uddin [46] highlighted,
while the unreinforced blocks exhibit a sudden failure during the tests,
fibre-reinforced blocks experienced a gradual failure. This result is even
more evident when the length of the fibres increases, and therefore its
aspect ratio [52]. Indeed, the phenomenon generally observed is that
fibres continue holding the blocks after the soil failure bridging
microcracks.
Besides, the adhesion fibres to the matrix can be further improved by
using chemical treatments. Among the reviewed articles, many authors
(7) have demonstrated the positive effect of the alkaline treatment on
different natural fibres: Abessolo et al. (2020) treated bamboo fibres,
Ajouguim et al. (2019) treated alfa fibres, Vodounon et al. (2018)
treated pineapple leaves fibres, and Mostafa and Uddin (2015) treated
banana fibres.
The treatment modifies fibres surface enhancing stiffness and
roughness. Their introduction in CEBs showed a reduction of pores with

Table 6
Influence of natural-based powders or ashes on compressive strength.
Authors Natural powders or ashes Bulk Bulk density Compressive Compressive Length, concentration and treatments
density (CS) strength strength (CS)
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[73] Egg Shell Powder (ESP) and Rice 1550–1600 1800–1850 1.00–1.10 1.40–1.50 – 10% (ESP:RHA) in NaOH
Husk Ash (RHA) 20:80 ratio
Egg Shell Ash (ESA) and Rice Husk 1550–1600 1800–1850 1.30–1.40 1.40–1.50 – 10% (ESA:RHA) in NaOH
Ash (RHA) 30:70 ratio
[74] Sawdust Ash (SDA) and Cement (C) 2086 1633 2.00 1.50 – 8% (SDA) and 10% –
(C)
[75] Rice Husk Ash (RHA) and Calcium 1575 1801 7.00 1.10 – 20% (CCR:RHA) in –
Carbide Residue (CCR) 16:4 ratio
[69] Shea Butter (SB) and Cement (C) – – – 2.88 2.98 – 4% (SB) ab 5% (C) –
Soil F
Shea Butter (SB) and Cement (C) – – – 3.01 2.98 – 4% (SB) ab 5% (C) –
Soil K
Shea Butter (SB) and Cement (C) – – – 2.49 2.98 – 4% (SB) ab 5% (C) –
Soil Y
[35] Shea Butter Residue (SBR) - A13RL 1870 1930 3.20 3.82 – 3% (SBR) –
[63] Green Mussel Shell (GMS) and Pig – – 4.16 2.36 – 10% (GMS) and –
Hair Fibres (PHF) 0.75& (PHF)
[78] Wood Ash (WA) and Cement (C) 1725 1590 ~2.00 0.80 – 5% (WA) and 5% –
(C)
[77] Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) – – 6.60 2.20 – 15% (CCR:RHA) in –
and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) 7:3 ratio
[67] Argan Nut Shell Powders (PANS) – – ~3.10 2.00–3.00 – 2% (PANS) and 5% –
and Cement (C) (C)
[66] Argan Nut Shell Powders (PANS) – – ~3.10 ~2.50 – 2% (PANS) and 5% –
and Cement (C) (C)
Sawdust (S) and Cement (C) – – ~2.60 ~2.50 – 2% (S) and 5% (C) –
[89] Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) 1725 1783 3.73 0.66 – 15% (POFA) –
Treated Palm Oil Fuel Ash (TPOFA) 1725 1783 3.94 0.66 – 15% (TPOFA) –
[79] Sugarcane Bagasse Ash (SBA) 1711 1718 16.23 15.33 – 20% (SBA) –
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

12
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Table 7
Influence of natural fibres on flexural (bending) strength.
Authors Natural fibres Bulk Flexural Flexural strength Length, concentration and treatments
density strength (CS)
[kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[62] Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) – Soil R 1510 0.91 – 10 0.25% (WF) and 3% –
(A)
Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) – Soil R 1450 0.86 – 10 0.25% (WF) and 3% –
(A)
Wool Fibres (WF) and Alginate (A) – Soil R 1390 0.39 – 10 0.25% (WF) and 3% –
(A)
[35] Fonio Straw (FS) – A13FF 1720 1.53 1.26 – 3% (FS) –
[34] Alfa Fibres (AF) 2530 5.23 2.98 20–25 1% (AF) NaOH, 6% (1 h)
[47] Kenaf Fibres (KF) – ~2.10 ~1.70 30 1.2% (KF) –
[39] Coconut Coir Fibres (CF) and Cement (C) – 0.38 0.42 – 0.25% (CF) and 8% (C) –
Abaca Fibres (AF) and Cement (C) – 0.30 0.42 – 0.25% (AF) and 8% –
(C)
Maguey Fibres (MF) and Cement (C) – 0.41 0.42 – 0.25% (MF) and 8% –
(C)
[51] Pineapple Leaves Fibres (PLF) and Cement – 0.92 0.43 – 3% (PLF) and 5% (C) NaOH, 4% (1.46
(C) h)
[50] Jute Fibres (JF) – 0.69 – – 0.5% (JF) –
[46] Banana Fibres (BF) and Cement (C) 1947 0.99 0.56 50–60 5% (BF) and 7% (C) –
[64] Cotton Fibres (CF) and Cement (C) – 0.76 0.80 10–20 10% (CF) and 10% (C) –
[45] Banana fibres (BF) and Cement (C) – 0.95 0.49 50 0.35% (BF) and 7% (C) NaOH, 6% (2 h)
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

Table 8
Influence of natural fibres on tensile strength.
Authors Natural fibres Bulk Tensile Tensile strength Length, concentration and treatments
density strength (CS)
[kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[44] Banana Fibres (BF) – 7.46 1.92 60–70 1% BF –

Jute Fibres (JF) – 9.90 1.92 60–70 1% JF –
[41] Date Palm Fibres (DPF) and Lime (L) 1892 ~1.35 ~1.45 20–35 0.2% (DPF) and 10% –
(L)
Alkali-Treated Date Palm Fibres (TDPF) and 1910 ~1.39 ~1.45 20–35 0.2% (TDPF) and 10% NaOH, 6% (24
Lime (L) (L) h)
[55] Bagasse Fibres (BF) – Soil R – ~0.30 ~0.26 80 0.5% (BF) –
Coconut Fibres (CF) – Soil R – ~0.31 ~0.26 50 0.25% (CF) –
Oil Palm Fibres (OF) – Soil R – ~0.35 ~0.26 38 0.25% (OF) –
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

a consequent increase in density and bond adhesion, demonstrating how
the treatment led to a better link between fibres and the earth matrix. As
a result, blocks with improved mechanical properties (flexural strength,
E-Modulus and ductility) are obtained (Fig. 16).
The introduction of natural-based powders or ashes does not benefit
the flexural and tensile strength, as expected. These additives act as
binders that reasonably lead to better compressive strength, but they
have a little tensile strength. Table 9 and Table 10 present the available
results.
From the structural point of view, the study of Lejano and Pineda
(2018) is the only one in which the load-carrying capacity of a wall made
of fibre-reinforced CEBs was tested. The experimental results are re­
ported in Table 11.
The fibre-reinforced wall shows an increase of the peak strength of
33.78%, compared to the unreinforced one. The authors attributed the
lower buckling load to the elongation capacity of the fibres, while the
failure pattern indicates that shear governs the failure mode of both
walls. These authors recommend interlocking and changes in blocks
dimensions to mitigate this problem.
However, no further data are available and still many aspects still to

Fig. 16. Effect of alkaline treatment on natural fibres and consequences on CEBs (left), according to [34] and the relationship between pineapple leaf fibres tensile
strength and duration of the alkaline-treatment in 4% NaOH solution (right), adapted by [51].

13
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Table 9
Influence of natural-based powders or ashes on flexural (or bending) strength.
Authors Natural powders or ashes Bulk Flexural Flexural strength Length, concentration and treatments
density strength (CS)
[kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[35] Shea Butter Residue (SBR) – A13RL 1870 0.67 1.26 – 3% (SBR) –
[63] Green Mussel Shell (GMS) and Pig Hair Fibres – 0.77 0.11 – 10% (GMS) and 0.75% –
(PHF) (PHF)
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

Table 10
Influence of natural-based powders or ashes on tensile strength.
Authors Natural powders or ashes Bulk density Tensile strength Tensile strength (CS) Length, concentration and treatments
[kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [mm] [%] [treatment]

[67] Argan Nut Shell Powder (PANS) – 0.65 0.75 – 6% (PANS) –

Argan Nut Shell Powder (PANS) and Cement (C) – 0.68 0.90 – 6% (PANS) and 5% (C) –
[ ]
* CS means Control Sample

mussel shell.
Table 11
However, it is worth mentioning that the study of Danso [54]
Wall test results, adapted by [39]
declared that soils with high plasticity index (clayey soil) behave better
Compressive Buckling Shear Peak against the water eroding effect due to the stronger bonding between
load load load strength
smaller particles.
[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN]
Unreinforced 457.30 8120.40 129.10 142.61
3.4.2. Abrasion resistance
wall
Fibre-reinforced 572.50 4634.70 160.10 190.79 The abrasion resistance is the strength that the blocks have against
wall external actions that cause cracks or damage. This property is valuable
in performing the wearing test by measuring the coefficient of abrasion
Ca. It represents the quantity of matter removed from the block surface
be clarified in this framework before understanding the real structural by brushing forth and back 60 times with a metallic brush:
behaviour.
A
Ca = (9)
Wf − Wi
3.4. Durability properties
In Eq. (9) A is the brushed area, Wf is the final weight and Wi is the
initial weight. The higher the coefficient is, the better is the abrasion
The durability of CEBs depends mainly on exposure to weather and
resistance performance.
human action. Other environmental factors could also intervene in the
The results in this area are contrasting. The formulation suggested by
deterioration of the block: the impact strength or the action of the micro-
Velasco-Aquino et al. [37], with coconut fibres and aloe vera mucilage,
organisms related to fungal growth reported in Laborel-Préneron et al.
shows an improvement of the abrasion coefficient compared to a control
(2019) are examples. Nevertheless, the scarce availability of similar
sample. The addition of 3% barley straw and rice husk proposed by
experimental data makes the influence of these factors still secondary. In
Laborel-Préneron et al. [42] worsen it. Contrariwise, within the same
this study, the reviewed properties include erosion and abrasion
study, lavender straw greatly enhances the abrasion resistance, bringing
resistance.
the coefficient from 3.5 to 8 cm2/g. Even in this situation, as for the
erosion resistance, a key role is probably played by the aspect ratio:
3.4.1. Erosion resistance
lavender straw is thinner and longer (high aspect ratio) than barley
The erosion phenomenon appears when blocks are freely exposed to
straw (low aspect ratio). Additionally, the first one has a rougher
the weather. Generally, it is assessed by the authors through the water
external surface that encourages the bond fibre–matrix.
spray test or by the accelerated erosion test. The material is considered
As a result, there may be a relationship between erosion and abrasion
erosive (Class 3) when the pit depth is between 5 and 10 mm, and very
resistance based on the fibres’ aspect ratio (Fig. 17). Instead, other than
erosive (Class 4) when the pit depth is between 10 and 15 mm. Over 15
rice husk, no further studies were found to evaluate the durability of
mm (Class 5), the material fails the test.
optimised CEBs with natural-based powders or ashes. Therefore, their
The influence of natural fibres on the erosion resistance of CEBs is
role has yet to be clarified.
still not fully understood. However, the available literature demon­
strates that fibres presence improves erosion resistance. In particular,
despite not wholly preventing blocks’ erosion, it seems that they protect
soil from eroding effect as the tree roots protect ground soil [54,55].
Moreover, Danso [52] found that this phenomenon is more visible
increasing fibres aspect ratio: coconut fibres (125 mm) perform better
than sugarcane bagasse (80 mm) and oil palm fruit (38 mm) fibres.
Laborel-Préneron et al. [42] researched the effect of introducing
different additives, finding that all of the optimised samples showed
improvement compared to the non-optimised one, which was in Class 5.
Specifically, 3 wt% of rice husk ash turns the mixture in Class 4, whilst 3
wt% of barley and lavender straw turn the mixture in Class 3. Lejano
et al. [63] obtained similar positive effects by using pig hair and green Fig. 17. Parameters affecting erosion and abrasion resistance.

14
C. Turco et al.
3.5. Sound insulation and fire resistance properties
Nowadays, construction materials are expected to be high perform­
ing and satisfy the needs of thermo-hygrometric and structural comfort
and acoustic insulation and fire protection to guarantee further privacy
and safety. These factors acquire greater importance, especially whether
CEBs technology is adopted in a high population density place where
dwellings are very close to each other.
The intrinsic parameters that affect the acoustic performance of CEBs
are the sound absorption and the attenuation coefficient. The available
literature on CEBs reports that, generally, the higher the porosity, the
higher the sound absorption coefficient is [83].
As it has already been noted, the introduction of natural fibres
generally increases the porosity. Rivera-Gómez et al. [62], which
experiment with the usage of sheep wool fibres and alginate (natural
polymer) to optimise CEBs, confirm the strong correlation between the
acoustic performance and the porosity. In particular, the study high­
lights the importance of a homogeneous porous structure: the porosity
has to be associated with the average pore diameter. In such a way,
optimal pore (aperture diameter ratio) reduces the average porosity and
improves the sound insulation absorption coefficient (Fig. 18).
The fire risk in dwellings is a complex and always a delicate problem.
Assessing the fire resistance of optimised CEBs is rather difficult as the
study of this property has not been found in any study.
Even if it falls outside of this review, the only clues found were in the
G. Minke’s text book [10] and in a research article from 2012 [90,91].
The first one reports that the loam, even with some straw content, is
considered not combustible whether the density is not less than 1700
kg/m3. The second provides a study of the fire performance of fibre-
reinforced CEBs with Kraft paper fibres taken from cement bags.
Among the main outcomes, it demonstrates how the CEBs’ partition wall
can respect the prescription of the considered European Standards (EN
1363–1 and EN 1364–1), namely: maintain its integrity (preventing
flames and hot gases passage) and maintain its thermal insulation (resist
to the heat transmission within allowable limits). In particular, the
overall CEBs’ wall performance was higher than other partition masonry
walls, and the temperature rise on the external face was far below the
value recommended in the standards.
3.6. Sustainability indicators
The term sustainability is widely used to indicate various aspects
ranging from pollution control to social integration [92]. Therefore, its
evaluation may appear complex as it includes environmental, economic,
functional and social indicators [93,94].
From the authors’ knowledge, in the range of years considered for
this study (2015–2021) four papers performed sustainability analyses of
CEBs [73,95–97], and only one of these concerns optimised CEBs with
natural origin materials. Therefore, the indicators considered below will
be those provided by the latter study carried out by Poorveekan et al.
[73].
Fig. 18. Parameters affecting acoustic performance.
15
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
3.6.1. Environmental and economic sustainability
The study by Poorveekan et al. [73], conducted in Sri Lanka, uses
geopolymers to strengthen earth blocks. In particular, two widely
available local wastes are used to synthesize the geopolymer: eggshell
powder (ESP) and rice husk ash (RHA). The sustainability indicators
evaluated are embodied energy, CO2 emissions and production costs. In
this study, the authors compared the results obtained from the geo­
polymer blocks with cement-stabilised CEBs.
Table 12 summarises the data provided by the study [73] relating to
embodied energy and CO2 emissions for the production of cement, used
in the reference cement-stabilised blocks, and the production of eggshell
powder (ESP), eggshell ash (ESA) and Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), used
for geopolymer’s production.
The data clearly show the advantage obtained from the production of
ESP instead of cement (0.87 kWh vs. 0.22 kWh and 0.59 kg of CO2 vs.
0.06 kg of CO2). However, the environmental impact and economic
performance worsens when ESA production is considered, instead of
ESP. In fact, a considerable amount of energy is required for the heat
treatment of the ESP (calcination at 700 ◦ C) to obtain the ESA. Finally,
the table shows the well-known data relating to the production of NaOH
[98], necessary to synthesize the geopolymer.
Even though the impact is much lower and has not been calculated, it
is worth noting that the RHA (also used in the production of the geo­
polymer) is also burned in the open air for 60 min to release the SiO2
content.
Costs are also affected by the treatments: they decrease up to 30% in
the geopolymer block, but the heating process leads them to increase up
to 10% (consuming 50% of the total production cost). These contra­
dictions are typical in the context of the sustainability assessment, as in
them lies the complexity of finding a balance between its multiple di­
mensions and indicators. In effect, even if geopolymers represent a valid
alternative to the replacement of Ordinary Portland Cement (from the
mechanical resistance point of view), their synthesis with NaOH repre­
sents a high potential environmental impact.
However, the production of the geopolymer-CEBs result in a reduc­
tion of 63–70% of CO2 emissions compared to the stabilised CEB with
cement percentage of 10–20%.
It must be said that these latest data do not consider the energy
required and the emissions caused by the transport of materials and the
mixing process. On the contrary, studies focusing on CEBs’ LCA assess­
ment [12,95] report that (i) the transport of raw material from the
extraction site to the production site and (ii) the consumption of elec­
tricity and fuel used during the screening processes, mixing and pressing
represent the two major contributors in the evaluation of the environ­
mental impact, considering the cradle-to-gate life cycle. Therefore, some
substantial aspects still remain to be clarified.
Bio-composite materials represent a valuable option to make the
construction sector more sustainable, confirming that a closed-loop
approach for the construction industry is possible [56]. However, this
awareness is not yet supported by adequate scientific evidence.
4. Discussion of the results
Natural-based optimisation of CEBs is a research topic designed for a
purpose. The general outcome is the definition of prescriptions and
practical guidelines devoted to producing the building product.
Table 12
Embodied energy and CO2 emissions for the production of 1 kg of different
materials.
Material Embodied energy CO2 emissions
Cement (1 kg) 0.87 kWh 0.59 kg
ESP (1 kg) 0.22 kWh 0.06 kg
ESA (1 kg) 0.75 kWh 0.18 kg
NaOH (1 kg) 0.98 kWh 0.63 kg
C. Turco et al.
However, research groups worldwide deal with this topic following
approaches driven by their expertise rather than the real needs of the
research issue. The 22.2% (10/45) of the selected articles performed a
complete characterisation of the blocks by addressing at least thermo-
physical and mechanical proprieties. In contrast, two only of them
also investigated durability tests [37] or sound insulation proprieties
[62]. The remaining 77.8% (35/45) partially characterised the opti­
mised CEBs. Thermophysical, mechanical or durability properties are
investigated separately, neglecting the possible correlations among
them. Moreover, within this percentage, six studies addressed particular
aspects: (i) the effect of fibres aspect ratio on the mechanical perfor­
mance [52], (ii) the microstructural interaction of the fibres within the
soil matrix [53], (iii) the chemical and microstructural changes in the
presence of CCR and RHA [76], (iv) the strength of the blocks under
different curing methods [41] or (v) different humidity conditions [38]
and, finally, (vi) the impact of fibres on fracture behaviour [57].
These very focused studies are essential for a proper comprehension
of the optimisation problem. However, most of the mechanisms gov­
erning the behaviour of the optimised CEBs are still only hypothesised
by the authors. The uncertainties in the interaction between soil and
additives represent one of the main limitations of this research topic.
Other limitations are related to the wide variability of data available,
making the comparison of results hard. The main variables intercepted
are related to the mineralogical and chemical composition of soil
selected, presence of one or more additives, type and concentration of
these additives, fibres treatment, compaction force, specimens’ size,
mixing and curing time, and curing time method. It emerges an overall
fragmented and heterogeneous framework.
On the other hand, the differences in the role of fibres, powders or
ashes are clearer. Natural fibres are introduced within the soil mixture
because of their properties: lightweight, high tensile strength, and low
thermal conductivity. The studies in this framework aim at under­
standing how to improve the properties of CEBs to make them more
performing. Conversely, natural origin powders or ashes are residues or
sub-products derived mainly from the food industry. They are used to
offer an alternative to cement, typically used as a stabiliser and a solu­
tion to waste disposal. However, their introduction partially solves some
disadvantages of the earth-based materials (e.g., vulnerability to water,
durability) because of their chemical composition.
Fig. 19. Concept map of the main findings.
16
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
Therefore, it follows that the influence of fibres and powders, or
ashes, is markedly different in CEBs optimisation. Fig. 19 reports the
main findings of this review. This concept map presents observations
and correlations widely accepted by the authors to provide a more
defined vision of the problem. It refers, in general, to the results corre­
sponding to the optimal concentration of the additives.
From the thermophysical point of view, the introduction of natural
fibres on CEBs exert an evident influence. Usually, fibres decrease the
dry bulk density and increase the porosity of the blocks. Several studies
consider the possibility of improving thermal performance by making
them lightweight and more porous. Indeed, it is widely shared that the
air trapped in the pores, which has a low thermal conductivity value,
allows for better thermal behaviour and more vapour and frost resis­
tance. It is important to remember that porosity positively affects the
blocks until a specific percentage and is associated with a low-medium
average pore diameter.
On the contrary, the water content must be limited to maintain a
constant level of thermal conductivity (because of the high thermal
conductivity of water) and preserve the integrity of the blocks. The
dashed line indicates a tendency about the effect of fibres on water
content, which is related to the hydrophilic nature of these additives.
However, it is important to remember that within certain thresholds, the
addition of fibres can decrease the water absorbed by the optimised
blocks.
In general, problematic absorption rate (i.e., exceed 20%) can be
mitigated by introducing sand, which contributes to water drainage or
submitting the fibres to chemical treatment. In any case, the presence of
any crack must be avoided as this could represent a path for water
movement.
Cracks arise during the drying process due to excessive swelling and
shrinkage, which mainly affect clayey soil. It was found that fibres
adequately control linear shrinkage and that the addition of sand also
mitigates the phenomenon.
Regarding the mechanical properties, natural fibres are not intro­
duced to increase the compressive strength of the blocks. However, they
can lead to a general improvement of the ductility and flexural strength
of CEBs because of their high tensile strength. Fig. 20 represents the
modification of the flexural strength after the introduction of the
optimal content of different fibres.
C. Turco et al.
Fig. 20. Trend of flexural strength of CEBs with and without natural fibres.
In general, the mechanical performances are positively influenced by
the compaction force, longer curing process (at least 28 days) and the
presence of traditional binders (5–10% of lime or cement). However, the
most critical response is given by the quality of the soil. In this
perspective, Atterberg limits represent a fundamental knowledge in the
predictions of CEBs’ mechanical behaviour. It can be concluded that soil
selection is essential in compressive strength, while plant fibres are
significant in flexural-tensile strength [55].
A different role is generally attributed to the natural powders and
ashes, as some of them behave similarly to the traditional stabilisers (e.
g., cement). The stabilisation is often indispensable because of the
vulnerability of earth blocks against water attack. Water presence is
strictly related to the durability of the block and if soaking samples in
water for 24 h, they will often fail the test. The durability of the blocks,
in the present study evaluated in terms of erosion and abrasion coeffi­
cient, results positively influenced by the presence of fibres (and
increasing the aspect ratio).
Fig. 21 provides a critical comparison between optimised and non-
optimised CEBs regarding the Coefficient of Structural Efficiency
(CSE). This coefficient is defined as the ratio between the bulk density
and the dry compressive strength [75]. Results concerning fibre-
reinforced blocks are presented on the left, whereas those concerning
the naturally-stabilised blocks are presented on the right.
The 62.5% (10/16) of the studies considered shows a higher value of
CSE when some natural origin additive is included. In particular, an
Fig. 21. Coefficient of Structural Efficiency: a comparison.
17
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
extremely positive effect is recorded in the presence of alfa and banana
fibres (+53.02% and + 42.26%), rice husk ash (+86.26%), wood ash
(+56.60%) and palm oil fuel ash (+82.88% and 84.79%).
The main findings just presented demonstrate that natural origin
materials can optimise the performance of CEBs and, due to their
different meaning, fibres and powders or ashes can be used together to
reinforce and stabilise blocks, respectively.
Nevertheless, the analyses show that while >75% of the studies
perform compressive strength tests, less than 35% provide thermal
conductivity measurement. Again, less than 12% of the studies address
aspects related to shrinkage and durability, which are among the most
problematic issues in CEBS. Finally, the lack of data identified in sound
insulation and fire resistance properties added to the limits mentioned
above, negatively affects the completeness of the functional indica­
tors essential to introduce CEBs on the market definitively.
The scarcity of sustainability analysis was unexpected as this concept
itself gave the mainspring in developing this technology. Analysing the
semantic graph, it is easy to understand that keywords as “sustainabil­
ity”, “environmental impact, “embodied energy” and “cost-effective­
ness” are much further away than, e.g., “compressive strength” (Fig. 22).
The LCA, EE and EC, and other sustainability indicators, will soon
become the primary decision-support tool for the adoption of con­
struction products [99]. It is expected that these identified gaps will be
filled by future research.
Finally, from the definition of limitations and gaps, future research
and innovation opportunities can be identified. Further studies are
needed to: assess the durability and ageing of fibres; understand if it is
possible to adopt computational models to optimise the mixture design
and predict the thermophysical and mechanical characterisation of the
optimised blocks; understand failure modes, fracture mechanism and
the overall structural behaviour of optimised CEBs walls; assess the
environmental and economic impact; finally, research should also sup­
port the creation of new public housing policies to promote the socio-
economic acceptance of the materials [100–102].
The discussion of the results allowed to achieve the answers for the
five research questions formulated at the beginning of this work.
Table 13 summarizes the goals, the main findings and the limitations of
this research.
5. Conclusions
Results presented and discussed highlight the complex multidisci­
plinary nature of this research topic, which can be only deal with a
holistic approach. The SLR method helped for an easier discretisation of
the problem and the answers to the five research questions formulated
C. Turco et al. Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140

Fig. 22. Zooming into the semantic graph: comparison between some sustainability indicators items and compressive strength item.

• it is recommended to clearly explain test procedures adopted,

Table 13
working also on their uniformities;
Research questions and answers.
• finally, it is recommended to approach the new study with the
How is the research topic addressed? awareness that soil selection represents the first variable that must be
– Only 22.8% (of 45 studies) perform a full characterisation taken into account to produce high-quality CEBs. The addition of any
– The remaining 77.2% provides a partial characterisation natural-based additives can modify the thermo-physical, mechanical
Why do researchers introduce additives in the mixture to produce CEBs? and durability behaviour of these blocks, but the appropriateness of
the selected soil consistently gives the primary response.
– Fibres: reinforcement
– Powders, or ashes: stabilisation
Natural-based optimisation is technically possible, and it can make
What are the main findings that can be extrapolated?
the construction sector more sustainable by also triggering a virtuous
See the concept map (Fig. 19) system of a circular economy. Waste acquires added value, and its
What are the limitations and gaps in the existing research? storage is reduced. It requires low energy consumption and low pollu­
Limitations: Gaps:
tion during the whole life cycle, from the extraction phase to the end-of-
– Uncertainties in the interaction – In-depth knowledge of shrinkage life [103].
soil-additives phenomenon However, further studies are still needed to investigate the aspects
– Uniqueness of the natural – In-depth knowledge of the relationship related to durability, mix design, numerical modelling and structural
origin materials porosity-sound insulation
behaviour, sound insulation and fire resistance properties, as well as the
– Fire resistance behaviour
– Structural simulation models impact of materials of natural origin in a comprehensive set of sus­
– Sustainability analyses tainability indicators. This is necessary before the potential of this
technology can be fully adopted by the construction industry.
What opportunities are there for future research and innovation? Beyond the engineering aspects, from the reviewed literature, two
main research lines emerge: the research of scientists whose aim is to
– Investigations on the durability and aging of fibres
– Computational models for the optimisation of the mixture design improve existing building techniques and materials for developing
– Numerical modelling of the mechanical behaviour countries, and the research of scientists whose aim is to develop new
– Assessment of the environmental and economic impact building techniques, examining renewable materials, for developed
– Promotion of the socio-economic acceptance of the material countries.
In this perspective, wondering what the aim of our research is not so
were found (see synoptical representation in Table 13). ordinary. Is it to study a feasible material, with a low price, to meet the
Among the main outcomes: the role of several additives was clarified, housing demand in the developing countries? Or perhaps is to make our
and the linear relationship between natural fibres and thermal con­ polluting buildings more sustainable?
ductivity was confirmed. However, based on the knowledge gained, the
following concluding remarks useful for future research can be Declaration of Competing Interest
extrapolated:
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
• it is recommended to take into consideration the possibility of using interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
both natural-based binders and fibres to stabilise and reinforce the the work reported in this paper.
mixture, respectively;
• it is recommended to explain clearly and exhaustively all the data Acknowledgements
related to the characterisation and the chemical composition of the
soil and the additives used; This work is financed by national funds through FCT - Foundation for
Science and Technology, under grant agreement UIBD/150874/2021

18
C. Turco et al.
attributed to the 1st author. This work was also partly financed by 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] THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development, (n.d.). https://sdgs.un.org/goals
(accessed August 31, 2021).
[2] D.A. Ness, K.e. Xing, Toward a Resource-Efficient Built Environment: A Literature
Review and Conceptual Model, J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3) (2017) 572–592, https://doi.
org/10.1111/jiec.12586.
[3] H. Danso, Identification of Key Indicators for Sustainable Construction Materials,
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018 (2018) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6916258.
[4] G. Bertino, J. Kisser, J. Zeilinger, G. Langergraber, T. Fischer, D. Österreicher,
Fundamentals of Building Deconstruction as a Circular Economy Strategy for the
Reuse of Construction Materials, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021) 939, https://doi.org/
10.3390/app11030939.
[5] G.L.F. Benachio, M.d.C.D. Freitas, S.F. Tavares, Circular economy in the
construction industry: A systematic literature review, J. Clean. Prod. 260 (2020)
121046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046.
[6] K. Rahla, R. Mateus, L. Bragança, Implementing Circular Economy Strategies in
Buildings-From Theory to Implementing Circular Economy Strategies in Buildings
— From Theory to Practice, Appl. Syst. Innov. 4 (2) (2021) 26, https://doi.org/
10.3390/asi4020026.
[7] K.M. Rahla L. Bragança R. Mateus 225 012058 10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/
012058.
[8] N. Jannat, A. Hussien, B. Abdullah, A. Cotgrave, Application of agro and non-agro
waste materials for unfired earth blocks construction: A review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 254 (2020) 119346, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119346.
[9] A. Laborel-Préneron, J.-E. Aubert, C. Magniont, P. Maillard, C. Poirier, Effect of
Plant Aggregates On Mechanical Properties Of earth bricks, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29
(12) (2017) 04017244, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0002096.
[10] G. Minke, Building with earth : design and technology of a sustainable
architecture / Gernot Minke, [Transl.: Shalima Hingorami]. (2009). http:
//spydus8.nmit.vic.edu.au:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=cat00793a&AN=nmit.84215&site=eds-live.
[11] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, J. Bai, Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry
bricks, Eng. Geol. 107 (3-4) (2009) 130–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enggeo.2009.05.002.
[12] R. Mateus, J. Fernandes, E.R. Teixeira, Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of
Earthen Building Materials, Elsevier Ltd. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
0-12-803581-8.11459-6.
[13] V. Rigassi, Compressed earth blocks: Manual of production, 1985. http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.133.3044&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed May 13, 2021).
[14] H. Danso, B. Martinson, M. Ali, C. Mant, Performance characteristics of enhanced
soil blocks: A quantitative review, Build. Res. Inf. 43 (2) (2015) 253–262, https://
doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.933293.
[15] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future
eco-efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054.
[16] S. Ramakrishnan, S. Loganayagan, G. Kowshika, C. Ramprakash,
M. Aruneshwaran, Adobe blocks reinforced with natural fibres: A review, Mater.
Today Proc. 45 (2021) 6493–6499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2020.11.377.
[17] D. Ciancio, C. Beckett, Rammed earth: An overview of a sustainable construction
material, Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. (2013-Augus (2013).).
[18] W. Chen, R. Jin, Y. Xu, D. Wanatowski, B. Li, L. Yan, Z. Pan, Y. Yang, Adopting
recycled aggregates as sustainable construction materials: A review of the
scientific literature, Constr. Build. Mater. 218 (2019) 483–496, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.130.
[19] M.V. Madurwar, R.V. Ralegaonkar, S.A. Mandavgane, Application of agro-waste
for sustainable construction materials: A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013)
872–878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.011.
[20] A. Mohajerani, S.-Q. Hui, M. Mirzababaei, A. Arulrajah, S. Horpibulsuk, A. Abdul
Kadir, M.T. Rahman, F. Maghool, Amazing types, properties, and applications of
fibres in construction materials, Materials (Basel). 12 (16) (2019) 2513, https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma12162513.
[21] S.C. Paul, P.B.B.K. Mbewe, S.Y. Kong, B. Šavija, S. Chandra Paul, P.B.B.K. Mbewe,
S. Ying Kong, B. Šavija, materials Agricultural Solid Waste as Source of
Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Developing Countries, Materials (Basel)
12 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071112.
[22] V. Gupta, H.K. Chai, Y. Lu, S. Chaudhary, A state of the art review to enhance the
industrial scale waste utilization in sustainable unfired bricks, Constr. Build.
Mater. 254 (2020) 119220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119220.
[23] A.L. Murmu, A. Patel, Towards sustainable bricks production: An overview,
Constr. Build. Mater. 165 (2018) 112–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.01.038.
19
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
[24] S. Amziane, M. Sonebi, Overview on biobased building material made with plant
aggregate, Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 1 (2016-Augus (2016).) 31, https://
doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.v1.9.
[25] S.P. Raut, R.V. Ralegaonkar, S.A. Mandavgane, Development of sustainable
construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: A review of
waste-create bricks, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (10) (2011) 4037–4042, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.038.
[26] A. Al-Fakih, B.S. Mohammed, M.S. Liew, E. Nikbakht, Incorporation of waste
materials in the manufacture of masonry bricks: An update review, J. Build. Eng.
21 (2019) 37–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.023.
[27] B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J. Bailey, S. Linkman,
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature
review, Inf. Softw. Technol. 51 (1) (2009) 7–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infsof.2008.09.009.
[28] 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.v103.110.1002/jee.20038.
[29] 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.
[30] T.W. Lambe, V.R. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, Massachusetts Inst. Technol. (1969).
https://books.google.pt/books?
hl=it&lr=&id=oRLcDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=behavior+of+
soil&ots=rKue2-rlij&sig=KuoPY8XrzhGW2ARSraEjenIXc9Q&redir_
esc=y#v=onepage&q=behavior of soil&f=false (accessed April 29, 2021).
[31] M. Chandrasekar, M.R. Ishak, S.M. Sapuan, Z. Leman, M. Jawaid, A review on the
characterisation of natural fibres and their composites after alkali treatment and
water absorption, Plast. Rubber Compos. 46 (3) (2017) 119–136, https://doi.org/
10.1080/14658011.2017.1298550.
[32] A. Komuraiah, N.S. Kumar, B.D. Prasad, Chemical Composition of Natural Fibers
and its Influence on their Mechanical Properties, Mech. Compos. Mater. 50 (3)
(2014) 359–376, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11029-014-9422-2.
[33] D. Abessolo, A.B. Biwolé, D. Fokwa, E. Njeugna, M.B.G. Koungang, Modeling of
the Variation of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Compressed Earth Blocks
Stabilized With Treated Bamboo Fibers, Int. J. Eng. Sci. (2020) 7–12, https://doi.
org/10.9790/1813-0903010712.
[34] 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.
[35] E. Malbila, S. Delvoie, D. Toguyeni, S. Attia, L. Courard, An Experimental Study
on the Use of Fonio Straw and Shea Butter Residue for Improving the
Thermophysical and Mechanical Properties of Compressed Earth Blocks, J. Miner.
Mater. Charact. Eng. 08 (03) (2020) 107–132, https://doi.org/10.4236/jmmce:
2020.83008.
[36] P. Nshimiyimana, C. Hema, O. Zoungrana, A. Messan, L. Courard,
Thermophysical and mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks
containing fibres: By-product of okra plant and polymer waste, WIT Trans. Built
Environ. 195 (2020) 149–161, https://doi.org/10.2495/ARC200121.
[37] A.A. Velasco-Aquino, J.A. Espuna-Mujica, J.F. Perez-Sanchez, C. Zuñiga-Leal,
A. Palacio-Perez, E.J. Suarez-Dominguez, Compressed earth block reinforced with
coconut fibers and stabilized with aloe vera and lime, J. Eng. Des. Technol. 19 (3)
(2021) 795–807, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2020-0055.
[38] H. Purnomo, S.W. Arini, Experimental Evaluation of Three Different Humidity
Conditions to Physical and Mechanical Properties of Three Different Mixtures of
Unfired Soil Bricks, Makara J. Technol. 23 (2) (2019) 91, https://doi.org/
10.7454/mst.v23i210.7454/mst.v23i2.3583.
[39] B.A. Lejano, K.S.D. Pineda, Investigation of the effects of different natural fibers
on the strength of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (Cseb), Int. J. GEOMATE.
14 (2018) 37–43. https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.42.7142.
[40] A. Idder, A. Hamouine, B. Labbaci, R. Abdeldjebar, The porosity of stabilized
earth blocks with the addition plant fibers of the date palm, Civ. Eng. J. 6 (2020)
478–494. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2020-03091485.
[41] 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.
[42] 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 (2019) 012069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/660/
1/012069.
[43] M. Ranjitham, V. Gokulakrishnan, M.G. Kannan, K. Deepak Kumar, Study on
Effect of Banana Fiber on Performance of Soil Cement Brick, Int. Res. J. Eng.
Technol. (2019) 1790, www.irjet.net.
[44] T.S. Selescadevi, S, V Thanjavur Varshini, Earth Building Blocks Reinforced with
Jute and Banana Fiber (2018) 1–4, www.ijert.org.
[45] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Effect of banana fibers on the compressive and flexural
strength of compressed earth blocks, Buildings. 5 (2015) 282–296, https://doi.
org/10.3390/buildings5010282.
[46] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB)
with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces, Case Stud, Constr.
Mater. 5 (2016) 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.07.001.
[47] A. Laibi, M. Gomina, M. Agbahoungbata, P. Poullain, A. Leklou, D.K.
Sohounhloue, A. Laibi, M. Gomina, M. Agbahoungbata, P. Poullain, A. Leklou, B.
A. Laibi, M. Gomina, E. Sagbo, M. Agbahoungbata, P. Poullain, N. Leklou, K.C.D.
C. Turco et al.
Sohounhloule, Physicochemical and mechanical characterization of Benin ’ s
Kenaf fibers and its effect on the building compressed Earth Blocks (CEB)
mechanical properties To cite this version : HAL Id : hal-01914168
Physicochemical and mechanical characterization of, (2018).
[48] A.B. Laibi, P. Poullain, N. Leklou, M. Gomina, D.K.C. Sohounhloué, Influence of
the kenaf fiber length on the mechanical and thermal properties of Compressed
Earth Blocks (CEB), KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (2) (2018) 785–793, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12205-017-1968-9.
[49] Y. Millogo, J.E. Aubert, E. Hamard, J.C. Morel, How properties of kenaf fibers
from Burkina Faso contribute to the reinforcement of earth blocks, Materials
(Basel). 8 (2015) 2332–2345, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8052332.
[50] M.A. Zardari, N.A. Lakho, M.A. Amur, Structural behaviour of large size
compressed earth blocks stabilized with jute fiber, J. Eng. Res. 8 (2018) 60–72.
[51] N.A. Vodounon, C. Kanali, J. Mwero, Compressive and Flexural Strengths of
Cement Stabilized Earth Bricks Reinforced with Treated and Untreated Pineapple
Leaves Fibres, Open, J. Compos. Mater. 08 (04) (2018) 145–160, https://doi.org/
10.4236/ojcm.2018.84012.
[52] H. Danso, D.B. Martinson, M. Ali, J. Williams, Effect of fibre aspect ratio on
mechanical properties of soil building blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 83 (2015)
314–319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.039.
[53] H. Danso, D.B. Martinson, M. Ali, J.B. Williams, Mechanisms by which the
inclusion of natural fibres enhance the properties of soil blocks for construction,
J. Compos. Mater. 51 (27) (2017) 3835–3845, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021998317693293.
[54] 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.
[55] 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.
[56] A.F. Minguela, Bio-composites to tackle UK built environment carbon emissions:
Comparative analysis on load-bearing capacity, hygroscopic and thermal
performance of compressed earth blocks with addition of industrial hemp waste,
Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 11 (1) (2017) 395–412, https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874836801711010395.
[57] F. Aymerich, L. Fenu, L. Francesconi, P. Meloni, Fracture behaviour of a fibre
reinforced earthen material under static and impact flexural loading, Constr.
Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 109–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.01.046.
[58] J.M.C. Ongpeng, E. Gapuz, C.L.C. Roxas, Optimization of mix proportions of
compressed earth blocks with rice straw using artificial neural network World
Congr, Adv. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2017 (2017) 1–14.
[59] T. Ashour, A. Korjenic, S. Korjenic, W. Wu, Thermal conductivity of unfired earth
bricks reinforced by agricultural wastes with cement and gypsum, Energy Build.
104 (2015) 139–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.016.
[60] X. Li, L.G. Tabil, S. Panigrahi, Chemical treatments of natural fiber for use in
natural fiber-reinforced composites: A review, J. Polym. Environ. 15 (1) (2007)
25–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-006-0042-3.
[61] M.M. Kabir, H. Wang, K.T. Lau, F. Cardona, Chemical treatments on plant-based
natural fibre reinforced polymer composites: An overview, Compos. Part B Eng.
43 (7) (2012) 2883–2892, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb:2012.04.053.
[62] C. Rivera-Gómez, C. Galán-Marín, V.P. López-Cabeza, E. Diz-Mellado, Sample key
features affecting mechanical, acoustic and thermal properties of a natural-
stabilised earthen material, Constr. Build. Mater. 271 (2021) 121569, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121569.
[63] 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.
[64] T.C. Akanho, F.B.F. Z, G. Bagan, R.S.A. Loko, S.J. Avamasse, Mechanical
characterization of an eco- material : Case of compress earth bloc (CEB) with
addition of cotton waste 4 (2015) 109–114.
[65] H. Akhzouz, H. El Minor, M. Tatane, A. Bendarma, Physical characterization of
bio-composite CEB stabilized with Argan nut shell and cement, Mater. Today
Proc. 36 (2021) 107–114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.522.
[66] T. Mohamed, A. Hajar, E. Hassan, F. M’bark, Thermal, mechanical and physical
behavior of compressed earth blocks loads by natural wastes, Int. J. Civ. Eng.
Technol. 9 (2018) 1353–1368.
[67] M. Tatane, H. Elminor, M. Ayeb, A. Lacherai, M. ’bark Feddaoui, F. Ait Nouh, L.
Boukhattem, Effect of Argan Nut Shell Powder on Thermal and Mechanical
Behavior of Compressed Earth Blocks, Int. J. Appl. Eng. 13 (2018) 973–4562.
[68] S. Djadouf, N. Chelouah, A. Tahakourt, The influence of the addition of ground
olive stone on the thermo-mechanical behavior of compressed earth blocks,
Mater. Tech. 108 (2020) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1051/mattech/2020023.
[69] A. Niamien Kouamè, L. Koffi Konan, B. Irié Hervé Goure Doubi, M. Tohoue
Tognonvi, S. Oyetola, Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Compressed
Earth Bricks (CEB) Incorporating Shea Butter Wastes and Stabilized with Cement,
J. Mater. Phys. Chem. 8 (2020) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.12691/jmpc-8-1-1.
[70] A.N. Kouamé, et al., The effect of Shea butter wastes on Physical Properties of
Compressed Earth Bricks (CEB) and Cement Stabilized, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.
(2019), https://doi.org/10.22587/ajbas.2019.13.2.3.
[71] H.G. Doubi, A.N. Kouamé, L.K. Konan, M. Tognonvi, S. Oyetola, Thermal
Conductivity of Compressed Earth Bricks Strengthening by Shea Butter Wastes
with Cement, Mater. Sci. Appl. 08 (12) (2017) 848–858, https://doi.org/
10.4236/msa:2017.812062.
20
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
[72] A. Seco, F. Ramirez, L. Miqueleiz, P. Urmeneta, B. Garca, E. Prieto, V. Oroz, Types
of Waste for the Production of Pozzolanic Materials – A Review, in: Ind. Waste,
InTech, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/36285.
[73] K. Poorveekan, K.M.S. Ath, A. Anburuvel, N. Sathiparan, Investigation of the
engineering properties of cementless stabilized earth blocks with alkali-activated
eggshell and rice husk ash as a binder, Constr. Build. Mater. 277 (2021) 122371,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122371.
[74] T.E. Elahi, A.R. Shahriar, M.K. Alam, M.Z. Abedin, Effectiveness of saw dust ash
and cement for fabrication of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build.
Mater. 259 (2020) 120568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120568.
[75] 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.
[76] P. Nshimiyimana, A. Messan, Z. Zhao, L. Courard, Chemico-microstructural
changes in earthen building materials containing calcium carbide residue and rice
husk ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 216 (2019) 622–631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.05.037.
[77] P. Nshimiyimana, D. Miraucourt, A. Messan, L. Courard, Calcium Carbide Residue
and Rice Husk Ash for improving the Compressive Strength of Compressed Earth
Blocks, MRS Adv. 3 (34-35) (2018) 2009–2014, https://doi.org/10.1557/
adv.2018.147.
[78] C.-L. Hwang, M.D. Yehualaw, T.-P. Huynh, Development of Compressed
Stabilized Earth Block as an Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Wall Making Material,
Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 7 (2018) 233–237, https://doi.org/10.18178/
ijscer.7.3.233-237.
[79] N. Ali, N.A. Zainal, M.K. Burhanudin, A.A. Abdul Samad, N. Mohamad,
S. Shahidan, S.R. Abdullah, N. Abd Rahman, Z. Mohd Jaini, R. Yunus, S.
N. Rahmat, Physical and mechanical properties of compressed earth brick (CEB)
containing sugarcane bagasse ash, MATEC Web Conf. 47 (2016) 01018, https://
doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164701018.
[80] M.C. Jiménez Delgado, I.C. Guerrero, The selection of soils for unstabilised earth
building: A normative review, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 237–251,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.006.
[81] M.C. Jiménez Delgado, I.C. Guerrero, I. Can, M.C. Jime, The selection of soils for
unstabilised earth building: A normative review, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007)
237–251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.006.
[82] M. Menon, X. Jia, G.J. Lair, P.H. Faraj, A. Blaud, Analysing the impact of
compaction of soil aggregates using X-ray microtomography and water flow
simulations, Soil Tillage Res. 150 (2015) 147–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
still.2015.02.004.
[83] M. Ben Mansour, E. Ogam, A. Jelidi, A.S. Cherif, S, Ben Jabrallah, Influence of
compaction pressure on the mechanical and acoustic properties of compacted
earth blocks: An inverse multi-parameter acoustic problem, Appl. Acoust. 125
(2017) 128–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.04.017.
[84] H. Danso, Influence of Compacting Rate on the Properties of Compressed Earth
Blocks, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016 (2016) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/
8780368.
[85] E.R. Teixeira, G. Machado, A.de. P. Junior, C. Guarnier, J. Fernandes, S.M. Silva,
R. Mateus, Mechanical and Thermal Performance Characterisation of Compressed
Earth Blocks, Energies. 13 (11) (2020) 2978, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13112978.
[86] 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.
[87] J.-C. Morel, A. Pkla, P. Walker, Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 303–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.08.021.
[88] 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.
[89] J.R. Zelaya, J.C. Ochoa, Y.P. Arias, The use of colombian palm oil fuel ash in
alkali activated cement compressed stabilized earth blocks, Int. J. Sustain. Policy
Pract. 13 (2) (2017) 19–30.
[90] Márcio Buson, N. Lopes, H. Varum, R.M. Sposto, P.V. Real, Fire resistance of walls
made of soil-cement and Kraftterra compressed earth blocks, Fire Mater. 37 (7)
(2013) 547–562, https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.v37.710.1002/fam.2148.
[91] M. Buson, N. Lopes, H. Varum, R.M. Sposto, P. Real, Evaluation of performance
under fire of compressed earth blocks, Undefined. (2012).
[92] L. Bragança, R. Mateus, H. Koukkari, Building sustainability assessment,
Sustainability. 2 (2010) 2010–2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/su2072010.
[93] R. Mateus, S. Neiva, L. Bragança, P. Mendonça, M. Macieira, Sustainability
assessment of an innovative lightweight building technology for partition walls -
Comparison with conventional technologies, Build. Environ. 67 (2013) 147–159,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.012.
[94] M. Mailler, E.N.V. Principles, E. Science, Sustainability Assessment of an Iaia
Educational & Networking, Forum (2008) 1–5.
[95] J. Fernandes, M. Peixoto, R. Mateus, H. Gervásio, Life cycle analysis of
environmental impacts of earthen materials in the Portuguese context: Rammed
earth and compressed earth blocks, J. Clean. Prod. 241 (2019) 118286, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118286.
[96] L.K. Davis, M. Varma, S. Maïni, Sharanam: Case Study of a 15 Meter Span Earthen
Conical Vault, Structures. 18 (2019) 10–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2018.11.014.
C. Turco et al.
[97] A.H. Narayanaswamy, P. Walker, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Heath, D. Maskell,
Mechanical and thermal properties, and comparative life-cycle impacts, of
stabilised earth building products, Constr. Build. Mater. 243 (2020) 118096,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118096.
[98] L. Thannimalay, S. Yusoff, N.Z. Zawawi, Life Cycle Assessment of Sodium
Hydroxide, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7 (2013) 421–431.
[99] L.F. Cabeza, L. Boquera, M. Chàfer, D. Vérez, Embodied energy and embodied
carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through
literature map analysis, Energy Build. 231 (2021) 110612, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612.
[100] O. Zoungrana, M. Bologo/Traoré, A. Messan, P. Nshimiyimana, G. Pirotte, The
Paradox around the Social Representations of Compressed Earth Block Building
21
Construction and Building Materials 309 (2021) 125140
Material in Burkina Faso: The Material for the Poor or the Luxury Material?,
Open, J. Soc. Sci. 09 (01) (2021) 50–65, https://doi.org/10.4236/
jss.2021.91004.
[101] H. Danso, Evaluation of training on the production of fibre reinforced soil blocks |
International, Journal of Current Research, Int. J. Curr. Res. (2017).
[102] Y. Kulshreshtha, N.J.A. Mota, K.S. Jagadish, J. Bredenoord, P.J. Vardon, M.C.
M. van Loosdrecht, H.M. Jonkers, The potential and current status of earthen
material for low-cost housing in rural India, Constr. Build. Mater. 247 (2020)
118615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118615.
[103] M. Giroudon, A. Laborel-Préneron, J.E. Aubert, C. Magniont, Comparison of
barley and lavender straws as bioaggregates in earth bricks, Constr. Build. Mater.
202 (2019) 254–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.126.