STUDIES ON STABILIZED MUD BLOCK AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2763
Issue 01, Volume 3 (January 2016) www.ijirae.com
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IJIRAE: Impact Factor Value - ISRAJIF: 1.857 | PIF: 2.469 | Jour Info: 4.085 | Index Copernicus 2014 = 6.57
© 2014- 16, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved Page -19
STUDIES ON STABILIZED MUD BLOCK AS A
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
Vinu Prakash**, Amal Raj *, Aravind S*, Basil Mathew*, Sumith V R *
** (Asst. Professor, Department of Geology, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kothamangalam
*(Civil Engineering VIII Semester Students, Mar Athanasius College of Engineering, Kothamangalam
ABSTRACT- Soil as a building material is available in most areas of the world. In developing countries, earth
construction is economically the most efficient means for house construction with the least demand of resources.
Investigation is carried out to find the suitable proportion of locally available materials such as soil , coir , straw etc. with
cement as stabilizers for improving the strength of locally available mud blocks and thus to provide affordable housing.
Using soil (from areas of Neriamangalam) and stabilizers (cement, lime, straw fibre, coir fibre, plastic fibre), eleven
different types of samples were prepared. Tests were conducted on these samples in order to evaluate their performance
such as compressive strength and total water absorption on which the durability of the blocks depend. The investigation
has revealed that, out of all block samples, blocks which are produced from10% cement (C10), 10% cement with 3% coir
fibre (C10C) and 10% cement with 3% plastic fibre (C10P) have compressive strength and total water absorption values
above the recommended minimum values for structural work.(IS 1725:1992)
Keywords: Stabilizers, compressive strength, water absorption, affordable housing.
1. INTRODUCTION
Adequate shelter is one of the most important basic human needs. Currently, the majority of developing countries are faced
with a problem of providing adequate and affordable housing in sufficient numbers. In the last few decades, shelter
conditions have been worsening: resources have remained scarce, housing demand has risen and the urgency to provide
immediate practical solutions has become more sensitive [4], [5].
For providing low-cost housing, we must rely on locally available raw materials. Home brick-makers have long been using
fibrous ingredients like straw to improve the tensile strength of mud bricks. However, they have not had a chance to do
scientific experimental investigation on the balance of ingredients and the optimisation of this production [9]. The fibres,
which are connected together by mud, provide a tensile strength in mud bricks. The fibres provide a better coherence
between the mud layers. The stress–strain relation of mud bricks under compression is very important. The compressive
strength of fibre reinforced mud brick has been found to be higher than that of the conventional fibreless mud brick, because,
fibres are strong against stresses. Furthermore, such materials are abundantly available and renewable in nature. Local soil
has always been the most widely used material for earthen construction in India. However, such type of construction has
some serious drawbacks such as, i) Water penetration ii) Erosion of walls at the plinth level/ lower level by splashing of
water from ground surfaces. iii) Attacks by termites and pests. iv) High maintenance requirements. v) Low durability.
Mudbrick has several advantages over conventional fired clay or concrete masonry. Mud bricks perform considerably better,
in environmental terms, then fired bricks. They have significantly less embodied energy, contribute fewer CO2 emissions and
help to promote the local economy and local labour. At first glance they appear to be an ideal candidate for an economically
viable sustainable construction material. However, the major drawback of unfired mud bricks is that they tend to be less
durable than their fired counterparts and are more susceptible to water damage. Traditionally, unfired mud bricks have been
stabilised with cement to overcome these short comings but the use of cement and other stabilizers reduces the environmental
differential between unfired bricks and fired ones. Research into alternative stabilisers is both relevant and necessary to
ensure unfired mud bricks remain a competitive alternative to modern construction methods. They have high thermal mass
and sound absorbing property. Stabilized mud blocks can be produced easily without any skilled labour and sophisticated
machinery.
2. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
Relevance of the project includes providing a low cost alternative to the contemporary building materials. Especially in the
areas of low rainfall, stabilized compacted earth blocks are a better alternative considering cost as a factor. Since India is a
tropical country, mud blocks preserves a good living atmosphere inside the houses, it prevents too much heat from entering
the building.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this project are [2]:-
 To investigate local soils to identify their suitability in stabilized earth block production.
 To study experimentally the effect of altering important variables such as cement, lime, straw fibre, coir, plastic
fibre content on the properties and performance of stabilized earth blocks.
 To meet the economic requirements of the local situation by: reducing dependence on outside sources and ensuring
low cost alternatives.
 To determine the percentage of stabilizer and the most effective stabilizer for the chosen soil [11].
4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
4.1 COLLECTION OF SAMPLES
Different soil samples were collected from Koothattukulam, Neriamangalam, Nellikuzhy, and Cheladu of Ernakulam district.
All the samples were properly dried. Sieve analysis was done on the samples to get different fractions of gravel, sand, silt and
clay. A good soil sample for mud block construction should have 10-15% gravel, 50-75% sand, and 15-30% silt & clay.
4.2 MOULD
Moulds were prepared with dimensions 254 mm X 127mm X 76 mm size. And the mould was prepared with wood [1].
4.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS
Purpose: This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained within a soil. The mechanical
or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution of the fine and coarser or larger-sized particles [10].
This test consists of filtering the soil through a series of standard mesh sieves placed one above the other in decreasing order
(i.e. the finest mesh at the bottom) and in determining the proportion of soil particles left in each sieve. The final test result
gives a complete and quantitative proportion of the different grain sizes within the soil mass.
Observations:-The results obtained from different samples are,
Figure 1: Sieve analysis results of sample 1.
Figure 2: Sieve analysis results of sample2.
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 100 1000 10000
%finer
Particle size (microns)
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 100 1000 10000
%finer
Percentage of gravel = 6.6%
Percentage of sand = 89.6%
Percentage of silt & clay = 3.8%

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5 : Desirable proportions for brick making.
From the results obtained from sieve analysis of the collected samples ,it was found that sample 2,has almost similar
proportions for making a good brick as shown in Figure 5.Sample 2 contains 16.2% gravel , 76% sand & 7.8% silt and clay.
Proportions selected
The various proportion of stabilizers used are [6],
TABLE 1: STABILIZER PROPORTIONS.
PROPORTIONS SELECTED DESCRIPTION
S Soil only
L5 Lime-5%
C5 Cement-5%
L10 Lime-10%
C10 Cement-10%
C5C Cement-5%,coir-3%
C5P Cement-5%,plastic fibre-3%
C5S Cement-5%, straw fibre-3%
C10P Cement-10%, plastic fibre-3%
C10S Cement-10%, straw fibre-3%
C10C Cement-10%, coir-3%
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 100 1000 10000
%finer
Particle Size (microns)
0
20
40
60
80
100
10 100 1000 10000
%finer

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
4.4 COMPRESSION TEST
Compressive strength of each mud blocks were tested in the compression testing machine, initially the self-weight of the
compression testing machine was balanced. The maximum compressive strength value obtained was 3.20 N/mm2
for the mud
block with 10%cement and 3% coir fibre. As per IS 1725,the compressive strength range is between 2-3 N/mm2
[3].Results
of compression test are shown in Table 2.For mud blocks with cement as stabilizing agent showed more compressive
strength than the mud blocks with lime as the stabilizing agent. For lime when percentage of stabilizer is increased, the
change/increase in compressive strength was very slight. Whereas for the mud blocks with cement as stabilizer, the
compressive strength were increased reasonably [7].
For mud blocks which are reinforced with coir showed more compressive strength than the plastic fibre and straw fibre, for
the same proportion of stabilizer. Mud block with 5% cement & 3% straw fibre showed more compressive strength than the
mud block reinforced with plastic fibre (3%).But when the percentage of stabilizer (cement) increased to 10%, the strength is
more shown by the mud blocks which were reinforced with plastic fibre. The size of fibre used in the experiment for coir,
straw fibre and plastic fibre were 2.5 cm. Maximum dry density was shown by the mud block with 10% cement and 3%
straw fibre(C10S).
TABLE 2: RESULTS OF COMPRESSION TEST.
4.5 WATER ABSORPTION TEST
Initially the weight of each of the mud block specimen were taken (W1), then mud block specimen were soaked in water .
After 24 hours of water absorption, specimens were taken out, wiped and weighed (W2).The % water absorption can be
calculated as :-
% water absorbed =
2 − 1
1
× 100
Results of water absorption test are given in Table 3.
Adding 5 percent cement failed to satisfy the water as absorption criteria, but this level of cement addition can be useful for
applications where stability is not a governing criteria such as in internal walls, partition walls, etc. and appears to be the
most economical option [8].
As per IS specification the maximum allowable percentage of water absorption is 15 percentage [3]. Some of the bricks
failed in the test, since the water absorption rate of the bricks were higher than the allowable value. Mud blocks stabilized
with lime absorbed more amount of water and failed IS criteria, and cannot be used effectively. The mud block with 10
percentage cement and 3 percentage plastic fibre showed maximum reduced water absorption rate of 12.50 percentage
ITEM DESCRIPTION FIBER SIZE WEIGHT
(KG)
AVERAGE COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH 28 DAYS (N/MM2)
S Sand only --- 3.60 1.06
L5 5% lime --- 3.58 1.09
C5 5% cement --- 3.63 1.33
L10 10% lime --- 3.61 1.15
C10 10% cement --- 3.60 1.52
C5C 5% cement+3%coir 2.5cm 3.65 2.03
C5P 5% cement+3% plastic 2.5cm 3.65 1.94
C5S 5% cement +3% straw 2.5cm 3.68 1.99
C10P 10% cement +3% plastic 2.5cm 3.60 2.86
C10S 10% cement+3%straw 2.5cm 3.64 2.53
C10C 10%cement +3% coir 2.5cm 3.62 3.20

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 3: RESULTS OF WATER ABSORPTION.
5. COST ANALYSIS
Cost of a burnt brick = Rs 7/-
Therefore, from cost analysis, it is understood that blocks with 10 % cement are about 55.7% cheaper than burnt bricks.
Blocks having 10% cement 3% coir are about 17.14% cheaper than burnt bricks.
6. CONCLUSION
1. Compressive strength increased with increase in cement content. However, increase in lime content showed very little
increase in strength.
2. Compressive strength increased by 43.39% for 10% cement content.
3. Compressive strength increased by 201.88% for 10% cement content & 3% coir .
4. Compressive strength increased by 169.811% for 10% cement & 3% plastic.
5. The average water absorption for blocks having 10% cement (C10),10% cement 3% coir (C10C) , 10% cement 3%
plastic fibre (C10P) were less than 15% satisfying the IS recommendation.
6. Cost analysis of production shows that blocks with 10 % cement are about 55.7% cheaper than burnt bricks. Blocks
having 10% cement 3% coir are about 17.14% cheaper than burnt bricks.
7. REFERENCES
[1]. Kabiraj.K, Mandal.U.K, Experimental investigation and feasibility study on stabilized compacted earth block using
local resources, International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering Volume 2, No 3, 2012
[2]. Yaser Khaled Abdulrahman, Al-Sakkaf, Durability properties of stabilized earth blocks. Indian Standard1725-1982,
(First Revision), Specification for Soil Based Blocks used in General Building Construction, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[3]. B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, K.S Gagdish, Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and
technologies,Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 129–137
[4]. Satprem Maïni, Compressed stabilized earth block sand stabilized earth techniques, Research and development by the
Auroville earth institute (AVEI).
[5]. Habtemariam Molla, Study of stabilized mud block as an alternative building material and development of models, A
thesis submitted to Mechanical Engineering Department School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University.
ITEM WEIGHT BEFORE WATER
ABSORPTION(KG)
WEIGHT AFTER WATER
ABSORPTION (KG)
% WATER ABSORPTION
S 3.60 4.45 23.61
L5 3.58 4.33 20.94
C5 3.63 4.35 19.83
L10 3.61 4.25 17.72
C10 3.60 4.10 13.88
C5C 3.65 4.25 16.44
C5P 3.65 4.23 15.89
C5S 3.68 4.40 19.56
C10P 3.60 4.05 12.50
C10S 3.64 4.30 18.13
C10C 3.62 4.10 13.25
RAW MATERIALS RATE C10 C10C
Soil 200 per truck(180 ft) 4.05 kg - Rs .09 3.915 kg - Rs. .08
Cement 335 per bag (50 kg) .45 kg - Rs 3.01 .45 kg - Rs 3.01
Coir fiber 20 per kg (aprox) ---------- .135 kg - Rs 2.7
Total ----------- Rs 3.10/- Rs 5.80/-

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
[6]. Bansal Deepak, Masonry from stabilized earth Blocks-Sustainable & structurally viable Option, International Journal of
Earth Sciences and Engineering pp. 772-779.
[7]. Hanifi Binici, Orhan Aksogan, Tahir Shah, Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material,
Construction and Building Materials 19 (2005) 313–318.
[8]. S.Krishnaiah, P.Suryanarayana Reddy, Effect of Clay on Soil Cement Blocks,The 12th International Conference of
[9]. International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG).
[10]. Doug Harper, Alternative Methods of Stabilisation for Unfired Mud Bricks, School of Civil Engineering &
Geosciences, Newcastle University.
[11]. Dr. L. Dinachandra Singh, Shri Ch. Sarat Singh, Final Report On Low Cost Housing Using Stabilised Mud Blocks,
Manipur Science & Technology Council.

STUDIES ON STABILIZED MUD BLOCK AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to STUDIES ON STABILIZED MUD BLOCK AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL (20)

More from AM Publications (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

STUDIES ON STABILIZED MUD BLOCK AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL