STRENGTH AND DEFORMABILITY OF INTERLOCKING

COMPRESSED HOLLOW EARTH BLOCKS AND THEIR

CORRELATIONS WITH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
CONSTITUENT MATERIAL

Submitted by

Harshal Kumar Panchal

(Roll Number: 19PCE013)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AGARTALA
799046, INDIA
STRENGTH AND DEFORMABILITY OF INTERLOCKING
COMPRESSED HOLLOW EARTH BLOCKS AND THEIR
CORRELATIONS WITH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
CONSTITUENT MATERIAL
Dissertation submitted to
National Institute of Technology Agartala
For partial fulfilment of the award of the degree
of
Master of Technology
(In Structural Engineering)

Submitted by
Harshal Kumar Panchal
(Enrolment no: 19PCE013)
Under the guidance of
Dr. Deb Dulal Tripura
Associate Professor

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITIUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AGARTALA
“Dedicated to my family, friends and nation!!”

12i
 APPROVAL SHEET

This report entitled “Strength and Deformability of Interlocking Compressed Hollow Earth
Blocks and Their Correlations with Mechanical Properties of Constituent Material ” prepared by
Mr.Harshal Kumar Panchal (Enrolment No. 19PCE013) is hereby approved for the degree of
Master of Technology in Structural Engineering.

Examiners
________________________
________________________
________________________
Supervisor (s)
________________________
________________________
________________________
Chairman
________________________
Date: ____________
Place: ____________

12ii
 DECLARATION

I declare that this written submission represents my idea in my own words and where others’
ideas and words have been included, I have adequately cited and referenced the original
sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty, integrity and
have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any idea / data / fact / source in my
submission. I understood that any violation of the above will be cause for disciplinary action
by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have thus not been
properly cited from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.

Harshal Kumar Panchal

19PCE013
Date: /12/2020

12iii
 CERTIFICATE

It is certified that the work contained in the report titled “Strength and Deformability of
Compressed Hollow Earth Blocks and Their Correlations with Mechanical Properties of
Constituent Material” by Mr. Harshal Kumar Panchal, has been carried out under my
supervision and that this work has not been submitted elsewhere for a degree of Master of
Technology (in Structural Engineering).

Dr. Deb Dulal Tripura

Associate Professor
Civil Engineering Department
N.I.T Agartala

12iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am sincerely thankful to Dr. Deb Dulal Tripura, Associate Professor, for his continuous
careful guidance during this project. It was a great experience working under his supervision,
which helped me to achieve in-depth insight into this field. His supervision was always
enlightening during my work.

I also express my deep sense of sincere gratitude to Dr. Sima Ghose,Associate Professor and
HOD of Civil department for her constant, encouraging inspiring guidance and support
throughout this study. I am indeed thankful to all my respected teachers and batch mates, who
have continuously encouraged and supported during my work.

I also express my deep sense of sincere gratitude to the Mechanical Engineering

Department, NIT Agartala for providing and supporting me during the various works done
in mechanical engineering workshops that were required for this experimental work.

I am very thankful to Ph. D seniors (Mrs. Sangketa Sangma, Mr.Raavi SatyaSai Deep,
Mr.Lumlangki Pohti and Mr. Kasinikota Pardhasaradhi) for their help during my
experimental programme.

I am also very thankful to Mr. Bush RC, Mr. Krishna Joshi and Mr. Suryank for their skilled
work for helping in my project work.

Last but not least, I am very thankful to my parents, brother, and sister for their constant
support during these two years.

Date: /12/2020 Harshal Kumar Panchal

12v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

No. No.
1 Hadul Press 4
2 Compressive strength test 14
3 Load setup of out of plane lateral load 15
4 Load setup of in plane lateral load 16
5 Experimental Setup for Diagonal Shear Test of ICHEB-SQ Wallettes 16
6 Plan of ICHEB 17
7 Front view of ICHEB 18
8 Interlocking compressed hollow earth block 19
9 Total deformation of ICHEB 19
10 Equivalent elastic strain in ICHEB 20
11 Equivalent stress in ICHEB 20

12vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

No. No.
1 Soil test results 14
2 CSE Mixture Material Weights Per Batch 15
3 Drop test observation 18
4 Description of Un-Reinforced Wallettes used for investigation. 24
5 Description of Steel Reinforcement Wallettes used for investigation. 25
6 Description of Bamboo Reinforcement Wallettes used for investigation. 34
7 Data for clay bricks 36

12vii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Meaning
Wl Liquid limit
Wp Plastic limit
Ip Plasticity Index
l ods Length of oven dried sample

l0 Initial length of sample

σc Compressive strength

σt Splitting tensile strength

σb Bending stress

σo Flexure strength out-of- plane bending

σi Flexure strength In- plane bending

M Bending moment due to lateral load

P Maximum load
D Cross sectional dimension of specimen
W Moisture content
Z Section modulus
I Moment of inertia

12viii
 ABSTRACT

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”, has become a major issue when trying to meet the
challenges in providing proper housing for the ever-increasing world population. Cement
stabilized Compressed earth blocks (CSEBs) may play a vital role to fulfill this goal. The
incomplete understanding of the inelastic performance of CSEBs building systems limits
wide spread acceptance of this structural system in earth quake prone areas. Various
researchers have find out the behavior of interlocked or non-interlocked CHEBs walls. But
the research is limited with the concrete-grout mixture used for grouting and for the varying
of type the reinforcing material.
Prior to this study of behavior of CSEBs masonry Wallettes under Compressive, Flexural and
Shear loads, various Interlocking Compressed Hollow earth blocks (ICHEBs) were made in
this project work by the use of a manually operated compressed earth block making press.
Then those were tested for the Compressive strength, In- plane flexural strength, Out-of-plane
flexural strength and for the Shear strength. It was found that bamboo reinforced Wallettes
gave larger deflections than the other types of Wallettes. It was also found that the strength of
concrete-grout mixture must has the nearby values of compressive strength of the ICSEB
block. The load carrying capacity can be enhanced by the use of reinforcements through the
grout keys. The comparative study was also done for the mortar jointed ICHEBs Wallettes
for the out- of-plane flexural strength. Various moment-curvature relationship was also
developed to find out the modulus of elasticity of various Wallettes.

12ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval sheet Ii
Declaration Iii
Certificate Iv
Acknowledgement V
List of figures vi-vii
List of Tables Viii
List of symbols Ix
Abstract X
Table of contents xi-xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1-4

1.1 General 1-2
1.2 Background
1.3 Objective 2-3
1.4 Organisation 3-4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5-12
2.1 General 5
2.2 Literature review 5-12
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND TESTINGS 13-20
3.1 Materials and its characteristics 13-17
3.1.1 Soil 13-14
3.1.2 Cement 14-15
3.2 Material preparation and mixing 17-22
3.2.1 Drop test 13-14
3.2.2 Pressing Procedure 14-15
3.2.3 Curing 14-15
3.2.4 Mortar Selection 15-16
3.2.5 Grout : Concrete Selection 16-17

12x
CHAPTER 4: TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE 23-32
4.1 Test setup and procedure 23-26
4.2 Experimental setup 27
4.2.1 Compressive load test setup 27-28
4.2.2 Shrinkage test 30
4.2.3 Out-of-plane lateral load test setup 31
4.2.4 In-plane lateral load test setup 32
4.2.5 Diagonal Shear Compression Test 33
CHAPTER 5: EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT AND RESULT 33-44
5.1 Experimental element and result 33-44
5.1.1 Interlocking compressed hollow earth block (ICHEB) 34-35
5.2 Compressive load test on the ICHEB using ANSYS Software 35-36
5.3 Result 37-38
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 45-47
REFERENCE 49-51

12xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS

The construction practices of today heavily depend on materials like burnt bricks, cement,
and other metals like steel, aluminium etc. These are energy intensive materials which
consume a lot of energy and thus the production of these building blocks has a negative
impact on environment. Since these materials can be produced only in particular areas
there is a need to transport to the site to be used and again resulting in consumption of
energy, so it is evident that these materials contain lot of embodied energy in them.

Hence it is important to produce alternative building materials which consume less energy
and can be used for construction. Earth has been the most widely known and abundantly
available material for human society to use it in construction. Even though building with
earth once fell out of popularity when the modern building materials and methods were
discovered, but then it gains its revival time following the energy crisis. Local availability
of mud makes its use leads to energy efficient building material, cost effective and it is a
very reliable material for any building in general and low cost buildings in particular.

Traditional earth construction technology has undergone a considerable change that

enhances earth’s durability and quality as a construction material for low-cost buildings.
Such methods include rammed earth and machine compressed stabilized earth blocks.
The technique to enhance natural durability and strength of soil defined as soil
stabilization. The main advantage of manufacturing unfired bricks is that it requires lesser
energy than fired bricks, and hence the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is
80% less than fired bricks. Compressive strength of the block has become a basic and
universally acceptable unit of measurement to specify the quality of masonry units, as this
is an indirect measure of durability of the blocks.

As an environmentally sustainable building material pressed earth blocks offer many

advantages, including reduced energy consumption and a decreasing reliance on
nonrenewable resources. Pressed earth blocks maximize use of locally available
materials, require relatively simple technology for their manufacture, and offer favorable

3
 insulating characteristics. Although around one-third of the world's population live in
some form of unbaked earth structure , to date there have been very few engineering
studies of earthen wall characteristics. Like many other low cost low energy building
materials much research and development work is required.

Compressed cement-stabilized earth-block construction is currently a popular topic, with

growing interest due to its high levels of sustainability and thermal and acoustic
performance, the low energy required for production and transport, the decrease in land
fill waste, its fire resistance, and the cost of the raw material. Compressed cement-
stabilized earth-block construction is a feasible solution for sustainable buildings in many
developed and developing countries because compressed earth blocks offer a number of
advantages, such as simple construction methods and maximal utilization of local
materials. Much research has been undertaken to investigate the mechanical properties of
compressed earth blocks.

The first stabilized compressed earth blocks, or CEBs were made in 1954 with
development of the world’s first block press, the CINVA-Ram, by engineer Raul
Ramirez. CEBs are made by mixing a small amount of binder, typically cement, with soil
and then compressing the mixture to produce a regular and durable block. CEBs have a
number of advantages as a building material, most notably how economical their
production can be. The primary component, soil is typically acquired immediately
adjacent to the project site at a minimal cost. Other costs, such as the energy required for
firing traditional bricks, are eliminated in CEBs production. The overall energy input and
low cost of materials make CEBs both an economical and environmentally friendly
method of construction.

1.2 Background

Soil has been used as a building material for thousands of years. Adobe, rammed earth,
and compressed earth masonry are examples of this building tradition in today’s world.
Using soil as the main material component of a building provides benefits such as the use
of local materials, high thermal mass values, and increased workability (Maini,2010).
The soil used in earth buildings is taken from the surrounding areas or the excavation for
the foundations (Maini,2010). In cement stabilized earth construction, cement use is
commonly kept to 5-10% by weight (Walker, 1999). In contrast, concrete and concrete
masonry construction use anywhere from (10%-15%) by volume of cement (Portland
Cement Association, 2012). By eliminating the need for heating kilns and reducing the
amount of cement, compressed earth blocks are energy efficient. CSEBs require
anywhere from 1/5 to 1/15 of energy to make when compared to fired bricks and
concrete masonry units (Maini, 2010). All of these facts about earth construction
contribute to a decreased cost of construction and an increased availability in developing
countries.
In developed countries, research, design, and construction improvements of masonry
buildings have lead to better performance and safety of masonry buildings during an

4
 earthquake. However, little structural testing of dry stacked CSEBs masonry has been
done, leaving the masonry form vulnerable to significant damage or failure during a
seismic event. North-East India region is an earthquake prone area, the houses in the
rural are made here mainly by the means of bamboo and other local available materials.
Some research has been done on earthen structures in IIT Guwahati and NIT Agartala in
north-east region of India. It is found that the soil available in Agartala is one of the most
favorable soil which should be used for the CSEBs construction. This project can helps
the local rural area peoples to provide the earthquake resistant houses at very low cost
when compared with the modern construction techniques.

1.3 Objective

The objective of this project is to test Compressed Hollow Earth Blocks (CHEBs) and
Interlocked Compressed Earth Blocks (ICEBs) in order to investigate its compressive
strength, in-plane flexural strength, out-of plane flexural strength and diagonal compressive
strength. Also determined the strength and deformability of Compressed Hollow Earth
Blocks (CHEBs) and their correlation with mechanical properties of constituent material.

1.4 Thesis organisation

Chapter 1 Presents brief introduction of the earthen construction techniques, research

Performed and objective of Experimental work.

Chapter 2 Presents a literature review of topics related to Earthen Block Construction,

Testing and Results.

Chapter 3 Describes the manufacturing process of Interlocking Compressed Hollow Earth

Blocks and wallettes. Experimental materials strength results are presented for each
component.

Chapter 4 Explains the test setup and procedure of the above mentioned tests. The layout and
purpose of instrumentation is for each Interlocking Compressed Hollow Earth blocks and
wallettes is discussed in relation to the overall goal of the thesis.

Chapter 5 summarizes the results from the testing. The observed behaviours from all
experiments are discussed.

Chapter 6 provides the summary and conclusion of this project work.

5
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

The earthen structure has been known since 10,000 B.C., depending upon the construction
technique various forms of earthen structures have been categorised. Among these ones is
hollow compressed earth block which can be easily constructed in rural areas due to the
availability of earth and less workmanship. These earthen structures require retrofitting
techniques to make residents safe at the time of disaster like earthquake. Different
Retrofitting materials have been compared in this project.

2.2 Literature review

This chapter presents a brief review of previous researches on cob structure construction,
treatment of natural fibres, various retrofitting techniques and materials.

C.Jayasinghe and R.S. Mallawaarachchi, presented the study on Flexural strength of

compressed stabilized earth masonry materials which shows the findings of a detailed
research carried out on flexural strength of alternative masonry materials such as compressed
stabilized earth (CSE) bricks and blocks and stabilized rammed earth. The stabilization agent used to
manufacture com-pressed stabilized earth was cement. The results were compared with the values
obtained for conventional masonry to highlight the suitability of compressed stabilized earth masonry
for wider application with confidence. The results indicate that the flexural strength of compressed
stabilized earth masonry walls can be in the range of 0.25 N/mm 2 or above which can be comparable
with conventional masonry such as burnt clay brickwork.

12
I.G. Castro1 et.al (2014) presented the study on Performance Of Interlocking compressed
Earth Block Infill In Confined Masonry Construction which presents preliminary results from
an experimental program investigating the behavior of confined interlocking compressed
earth block (CEB) walls subjected to lateral in-plane cyclic loading. Two (2) walls were
constructed and tested. Design of the walls was based on the current design practice in
Indonesia. The first wall was built with CEBs from a hand- operated block press and the
second wall with CEBs from a hydraulic block press. Results pertaining to strength and drift
capacity is be presented and compared to results from an experimental program conducted on
(non-confined) reinforced CEB walls. Interlocking compressed earth blocks investigated
herein are cement stabilized and commonly used in dry stack masonry construction in
developing countries, e.g. Thailand and Indonesia, due to its low cost and simplicity. Current
application in these regions consists of a mildly reinforced concrete frame cast around the
mildly reinforced CEB infill. The current design practice for this construction form in
countries with severe natural hazards (typhoons and earthquakes) is highly questionable in
terms of structural integrity. This is accentuated by a complete lack of experimental load
testing. However, scientific evidence to improve the current design practice could make this a
safer and more reliable construction form. The experiments showed that confined CEB walls
were ductile and provided significant lateral strength, despite the low block strength. It was
also found that block geometry significantly affected the behavior. Comparison with results
from testing of a bare CEB panel showed a 20% increase in lateral strength and a 100%
increase of drift capacity as a result of the confining frame.
Khosrow Ghavami (2005) presented the study on Bamboo as a reinforcement in structural
concrete elements which shows Vegetable fibers can be used either alone or as reinforcement
in different types of matrices such as soil and cement composites. This paper presents the
results of some of the recent studies of the microstructure of bamboo as a functionally
gradient material. These studies led to the establishment of bamboo s composite behavior
through the rule of mix. A concise summary regarding bamboo reinforced concrete beams,
permanent shutter concrete slabs and columns is discussed. Finally, some recommendations
for future studies are proposed with the hope that the newly developed material could
contribute, on a large scale, to sustainable development without harming our globe. The
results of the investigations show that bamboo can substitute steel satisfactorily. The
structural elements developed and studied could be used in many building constructions.
Many investigations are being carried out to establish the durability of bamboo
reinforcement, besides improving the bonding of bamboo reinforcing bars. There is a need to
establish the characteristic strength of bamboo for design purpose based on a rigorous
statistical analysis.
Swapnil H.Patil presented a literature survey on Inter Locking Stabilized Soil Bricks
(I.S.S.B.) in 2016. The report shows a literature study of research & development on
Interlocking Stabilized Soil Bricks. The different developed conventional design for
interlocking systems of blocks which is used for construction of brick walls described and
various working principles related to the Interlocking Stabilized Soil Bricks systems concepts
are outlined. This is followed by & overviewed of research work that has been related to
I.S.S.B. by several research articles. The research work under taken which is received
categorized according to proposed I.S.S.B. systems concepts. Research survey conclude that
if we made production of ISSB bricks on site then it reduce the transportation which will save

13
cost of transportation, fuel, time & money. This product is energy efficient & environment
friendly because it required 15 – 20 % less energy consumption per m3 than energy
consumed by Fired bricks per m3. This research survey also conclude that the construction of
a interlocking bricks are easy & time saving with less investment of money which increase
the speed of construction. Also one of the benefits is that it need not required firewood for
production of ISSB which will automatically saves the forests. Sometime lack of knowledge
about soil, Unskilled labors, Bad quality of equipments & soil may responsible for bad
quality of product. where in other side this type of constructions have some draw backs like it
cannot use for long spans walls, high & long buildings structures. For improving the quality
of bricks the mix proportions required to do for particular soil which is available in particular
area. Required to do the design the economical & compact compressing machines.
Nasly M.A. et.al presented the study on Compressed Stabilized Earth as Load Bearing
Interlocking Block which shows the strength of the compressed stabilized soil block (CSSB)
is dependent on the compaction force during manufacturing .The strength of the CSSB is
dependent on the type of soil as well as the amount of stabilizer and sand added to the mix.
Laterite soil has the potential to be used as a compressed stabilized soil load bearing block.
The materials required for block production and building construction are usually locally
available in most regions. Compared with conventional masonry, the dry assembly of
interlocking blocks saves construction time and a large amount of mortar. Additional cost
reduction is achieved by building load bearing walls since there is no timber formwork
required. The structural stability and durability of interlocking block constructions can be
enhanced by grout holes and channel blocks that provide means to insert steel reinforcements
in vulnerable parts of buildings for increased wind and earthquake resistance.
N.A. Herskedal et.al, presented a study on Interlocking Compressed Earth Block Walls in
Out-Of-Plane Structural Response, which shows the results from an experimental program
designed to explore the behavior of ICEB walls built according to current design practice in
Indonesia and Thailand, and subjected to out-of-plane loading. A total of five reinforced and
grouted walls were constructed and tested. Results from experimentation show that the
current masonry design code in the U.S. can adequately predict the yield strength of these
walls. However, the masonry code grossly over-predicts the actual wall
stiffness.Furthermore, a brittle failure was observed in one wall before reaching the predicted
flexural strength. The testing results provide useful data for developing analytical models that
predicts the seismic behavior of ICEB walls under out-of-plane loading.
B. Quet.al presented a study on Interlocking Compressed Earth Block Walls in In- plane
Structural Response of Flexure-dominated Walls, which shows the results from a testing
program investigating flexure-dominated ICEB walls. Four 1.8-m high ICEB walls were
constructed and tested under in-plane cyclic loading. The specimens were varied to identify
the effects of height-width aspect ratio, presence of a flange at one end of the wall, and
presence of an opening in the wall on performance of the system. Testing results show that
flexure-dominated ICEB walls can exhibit stable hysteretic behavior until a ductile failure
occurs. Furthermore, the strength of the wall can be enhanced due to the presence of a flange
at one end and will be reduced due to the presence of an opening. Ordinary plastic analysis
procedure is shown to provide reasonable predictions for in-plane resistance of flexure-
dominated ICEB walls.

14
The Center for Vocational Building Technologies (CVBT) developed a manual of
construction for ICEB buildings (Wheeler, 2005). The manual provides insight into how the
construction of ICEB buildings is currently being designed. A rhino type block is used by the
CVBT due to its ability to interlock and allow for steel reinforcement when necessary. The
blocks can be made into nine different shapes, including channel blocks and half blocks.
Foundations are prescribed for all seismic areas as concrete footings with vertical
reinforcement extending from the footing. Rebar splices are formed by one of three methods:
a 15 cm weld, bend and hook, or a set of thin wire ties that are tightened around two
overlapping bars. All vertical rebar is placed inside the large reinforcement holes in the rhino
blocks, and grout is poured in every hole. Wheeler recommends no more than 10 layers of
blocks be stacked before a grout pour takes place. In designing ICEB buildings, it is
recommended by Wheeler that no wall span be more than 4.5 meters long without a
perpendicular wall, pilaster, or other stiffening member. This recommendation is based on
knowledge that long, slender walls are vulnerable to collapse. It is one of the goals this thesis
to investigate the span limit recommendation of the CVBT’s manual.
Bales et al. (2009) experimentally determined the structural properties of compressed earth
blocks. The research aimed to create a consistent soil-to-water-to cement mixing ratio to
provide sufficient strength and consistent blocks. Blocks were made with various soil types
and were allowed to cure under multiple conditions. Curing methods included submersion in
water, under a tarp, or sun dried. Researchers viewed the effects to compressive strength,
durability, and compactness. The authors tested the block compressive strength, as well as the
grouted and ungrouted prism strength. These prisms were confined in a wooden form to
simulate the effect of confinement the blocks would have in an actual building. The average
compressive strength of the fully grouted prisms was found to be 2.58 MPa. The prism
compressive strength was found to be 0.43 for grouted prisms and 0.37 for un-grouted prisms
times the single block compressive strength to prism compressive strength. The prisms failed
by splitting down the grout plane. This failure was attributed to the difference in compressive
strength from compressed earth blocks to the grout being used to fill them. Researchers
provided detailed instructions for the forming of consistent ICEB’s, which were to be used in
this project.
Bland (2011) constructed walls of dry-stacking ICEB’s in order to determine the in-plane
properties of shear dominated shear walls. The same soil, press, and block properties
determined by Bales et al. were used. Three, 1.8 meter by 1.8 meter walls were constructed
and subjected to cyclic lateral loading. One wall was fully grouted without horizontal
reinforcement, one was partially grouted without horizontal reinforcement, and one was fully
grouted with horizontal reinforcement. The goal was to determine the appropriateness of
using current concrete masonry design standards for shear walls constructed with ICEBs. In
comparing the in-plane strength of the fully grouted wall with the partially grouted wall, it
was found that the partially grouted wall sustained about 50% of the strength of the fully
grouted wall. The study also determined that the ACI 530-08 code predicted a shear strength
that by far exceeded the experimentally determined shear strength. The third wall was
designed to explore the shear strength contribution due to horizontal reinforcement.
As a companion thesis of Bland (2011), research was simultaneously being conducted to
determine the behavior of flexural dominated ICEB shear walls under in plane loads (Stirling,
2011). Stirling tested three walls: a slender wall, 1800 mm tall and 900mm wide, a 1800 mm

15
by 1800 mm square wall with a 750mm wide flange at one end, and another 1800 mm by
1800 mm square wall with a 900mm square opening in the center. Stirling found that these
three walls failed in flexure with tensile yielding of the vertical rebar. This is unlike the brittle
failures found by Bland (2011). All walls showed significant differences in ductility due to
varying dimensions and reinforcement. Further analysis was performed of flexural dominated
walls in order to more accurately predict the behavior of these types of walls during an
earthquake. A nonlinear lumped plasticity model and a plastic analysis model were made.
Stirling determined that the current masonry code (ACI 530-08) was able to predict the
flexural strength of the ICEB walls within an acceptable margin. The lumped plasticity model
was found to predict the strength accurately but did not provide a stiffness that was
comparable to the experimental results.
The Aurum 3000 is a manual vertical block press manufactured by Aureka in Tamil Nadu,
India. It can be used with 15 different molds to produce about 75 different regular and
interlocking block variations. Aurum block system has been designed to allow for installation
of reinforcing steel for earthquake resistant construction. Most blocks are meant to be used
with mortar between joints, but the Series 300 dry interlocking blocks are designed to be dry
stacked and filled with fluid grout after.
The Hydraform M7 series of block presses are manufactured by Hydraform in
Johannesburg, South Africa. Different press models are available for different budgets and
manufacturing goals. The Hydraform compressed earth blocks are horizontally pressed earth
blocks which interlock in two planes.
The Soeng Thai BP6 press is a modern descendent of the original CINVA Ram press. The
BP6 is a manually operated vertical block press manufactured by the CVBT in Thailand. The
ICEB system is a combination between a typical CEB (or “CINVA Brick”) and an
interlocking dry stack masonry unit. The interlocking dowels are intended to provide ease of
block alignment during construction and resistance to lateral in and out-of-plane forces. The
round reinforcement holes are provided to allow use of grouted vertical reinforcement, and
the rectangular holes or “grout key channels” are provided to help ensure wall stability and
proper load distribution. The grout key channels also help minimize cracking of blocks due to
uneven load distribution across gaps. This style of block was originally introduced in 1983 by
the Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research (TISTR) and later modified
by the Asian Institute of Technology (Pathum Thani, Thailand) and Soil Block Development
Company (Chiang Rai, Thailand) into the block which today is commonly called the “Rhino
Block” or ICEB (interlocking compressed earth block)(Wheeler 2005). The ICEB variations
allow for reinforced dry stacked masonry construction which can be grouted after stacking.
Bei and Papayianni (2003) conducted experimental testing to determine the effect of soil to
sand mixture proportions on the compressive strength of un-stabilized CEBs at a constant
compaction level. Test specimens included single blocks, doublet and triplet block prisms
with aspect ratio h/L of 1.4 and 2.2, respectively, and small walls with dimensions 770mm
(height) x 800mm (width) x 120 mm (thickness). Block prisms and walls were constructed
using a 10mm soil cement mortar. The experimental testing indicated that the mode of failure
in compression of earth blocks is dependent on the h/L ratio. For doublet and triplet block
prisms (stacked prisms of two or three blocks), the failure mode is similar to observed
crushing of masonry walls, with noticeable hourglass shape. Most notable is that the

16
measured stress strain response of compressed earth masonry under compressive loading is
non-linear with very little elastic behavior.
Measured strains of 0.007 at peak compressive stress were significantly high compared to
typical strains for concrete or fired brick masonry, which commonly are closer to 0.0025 and
0.0035, respectively.
Pave (2007) conducted a series of experimental testing using the Hydraform dry stack CEB
system. The author conducted testing to determine the influence of cement and moisture
contents in addition to the general performance of the system. Several dry stack wall systems
with dimensions 3000mm by 2500mm were tested under centric axial loading. Individual
block units and small wallets, consisting of 4 or 8 blocks, were also tested. In order to
determine if the blocks were manufactured with consistent density, cube specimens were cut
from various locations of the pressed blocks. The measured compressive strength of cube
specimens cut from the top of the pressed earth block was approximately 78% of specimens
cut from the bottom. Recommendations were made specific to the Hydraform dry stacking
system regarding use of half and corner blocks which would be more susceptible to failures
because of this non uniform strength. The experimental results indicated that the wall panel
strength of dry-stack systems is directly proportional to the strength of the masonry units with
a ratio of panel compressive strength to unit compressive strength of 0.3 for the dry stacked
system. Under uniform compression loading the Hydraform dry-stacked panels typically
failed by development of vertical cracks through the center. Out of plane flexural strength of
dry-stack masonry/composite reinforced concrete beams was evaluated by testing. Beams
were constructed with dry stack blocks and reinforcing steel, with or without reinforced
concrete bond beam sections. Experimental results indicated that simple flexural theory
accurately predicted the flexural capacity of the reinforced beams and lintels, and that more
work is necessary to validate shear capacity calculations.

Sangma et al. 2018, the author has found that fibre length 40 mm gave the maximum result
1.45 times and 1.4 times than that of unreinforced blocks in compressive and tensile strength
tests respectively. An experimental study has been done on cob earth blocks with 5 percent
fibre content by weight of dry soil as reinforcing the material with varying sizes from 20 to
80 mm. Effects on properties like shrinkage, compressive and tensile strength, cracking time,
and failure pattern due to the presence of reinforcing material has been studied.
Sangma and Tripura 2019, studied the characteristics properties of cob blocks. Coconut
coir, paddy straw and cement were mixed with soil at varying proportions from 0 to 10 % by
mass of dry soil. It was found that the cement stabilised blocks made more durable. Blocks
with moulding content 33.7 % and fibre with 5 % by mass of dry soil were found to be
optimum content of fibre. Drop height of 0.75 m gave higher strength compared to non-
consistent drop height.

17
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND TESTINGS

3.1 Materials and its Characteristics

This section discusses the materials used in the creation of the CHEB panels. The discussion of
relevant materials will include specifications, methods of construction, and measured structural
properties.

INTERLOCKING COMPRESSED HOLLOW EARTH BLOCKS

3.1.1 Soil :

The soil used in the production of the cob blocks and wallettes was obtained from NIT Agartala
campus at a depth of 20 cm (approximately) as the top layer is unsuitable for the investigation
due to presence of organic matter and other impurity.
Preliminary soil testing has been performed to determine the Atterberg limits, grain size
distribution and standard proctor test. Standard proctor test has been done to get idea about the
optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Moulding water content has been taken as
suggested by Sangma and Tripura, (2019) as the soil taken for the present study is same.

3.1.2 Cement:

OPC-43 Grade Star Cement is used for the construction of Compressed Earth Blocks.

19 | P a g
e
 Table 1: Soil test results
Property Parameters Details
Liquid limit, Wl 40%
Atterberg limits Plastic limit, Wp 28.57%
(Sangma and Tripura 2019)
Plasticity Index, Ip 11.43%
Sand 60.5%
Grain size distribution Silt 22.25%
(Sangma and Tripura 2019)
Clay 14.25%
Proctor test Optimum moisture content (OMC) 18.50%
Maximum dry density (g/cc) 1.90

3.2 Material Preparation and Mixing

The proportions of each material were weighed out to the nearest 0.1 kg to the mass specified in
Table 3.1.

Table 2- CSE Mixture Material Weights Per Batch

Weight (kg) % of Total

Soil
Cement
Water
Total

Soil, Cement (10%by weight of dry soil) and water (OMC+2%) were mixed in batches to form
six compressed earth blocks at a time. The size of batches was selected in order to provide
enough time for pressing between the addition of water and the mixture being dried out. The
amount of water (OMC+2%) was selected by doing many trials for appropriate workable mix to
get.

20 | P a g
e
The amount of cement (10% of dry weight of soil) and water(OMC+2%) were varying for each
day as the natural present water content was also different for each day soil.
Weighed amounts of soil, cement were first dry mixed by hand mixing. The materials were
mixed until a uniform mixture had been achieved. After the dry mix of batch water is sprinkled
in two-three stages for the wet mixing done by hand mixing.
To check the performance of the batch the drop test (Proto et.al., 2010) were also performed for
each batch:

3.2.1 Drop test

1.) Take a handful of moistened soil and shape it into a ball using a moderate amount of
pressure.
2.) Drop the ball of soil onto a hard surface from a height of 1 m.
3.) Observe the reaction of the ball as per the Table 3.2

Observed Result Conclusion

Ball shattered or broke into more than 7 Soil is too dry
pieces.
Ball broke into 4-6 pieces Water content suitable for compression
Ball broke into 3 or less pieces, or did not Soil is too wet.
break at all

Table 3: Drop Test Observations

3.2.2 PRESSING PROCEDURE:

Once an optimal mixture was obtained, the mixture was filled in the soil-frustum- charger
assembly (Appendix-A) of Hadul Press (Appendix-A). The press named as Hadul press was
designed and fabricated in NIT Agartala and has the ability to construct each of the blocks
needed for the thesis. For each block, the mixture was added to the Hadul Press in two stages.
Pouring half the mixture into the press at a time allowed for coMPaction of the mixtures into the
press at two stages. Without this separation, the mixture would overflow in the press, and the
cover plate would not completely close. Once the mixture was in the press, the cover plate was
closed, and the lever of the press was pulled, it was held there at maximum compression
(Compression Ratio: 1.67) for a minimum of three seconds. The lever was then released and
pulled down in the opposite direction, effectively ejecting the solid block out from the press.

21 | P a g
e
 Fig. 1 – Hadul Press

3.2.3 CURING:
After pressing, each CSE-Block was carefully moved for 4-6 hours air-sun drying and then set in
to the stacks of blocks for curing. Each block was allowed to cure for at least three-four times in
a day continuously for 28 days. As it was cement stabilized earth blocks containing 10% of
cement content in each batch so it was necessary to give proper curing to these blocks so that the
proper moisture content may get available to the blocks for the proper hydration. The blocks
were kept under moisture condition by the use of wet jute bags.

3.2.4 MORTAR SELECTION:

To make the panels using Compressed Hollow Earth Blocks (CHEBs) a mortar grade is selected.
A sustainable and cost effective mixture was desired using the materials that would already be on
site during construction. A suitable mixture of cement sand and water was taken to make the
mortar to join the CHEBs to make the panels. Iterations of different mortar grades were made in
order to find a mixture that would have compressive strength almost equal of less than the
strength of individual strength of CHEBs so that we would be allow us to utilize the itself
properties of blocks under the structural use of these.

22 | P a g
e
3.2.5 GROUT: CONCRETE SELECTION:
Grout mixture for CHEBs Construction must be workable enough to pour into the small holes of
CHEBs. For the grouting, a grout mixture of stone aggregates (size < 4.75 mm), sand, cement
and water with a enough workable slump was used. As effort was also made to create a grout
that would closely match the compressive strength of CHEBs. Previous testing has shown that
brittle failure occur in prisms where grout has a significantly higher compressive strength when
compared to CSE Blocks (Bales et al., 2009). A suitable mixture of the ingredients of the grout
materials were obtained by doing various iterations.

23 | P a g
e
 CHAPTER 4

TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURE

4.1 Test setup and procedure

In this chapter the CHEBs wallettes construction methods, test setup, loading protocol and
instrumentation are discussed.
The construction process of these Hollow Compressed Earth Blocks and wallette involves the
following steps:
1. Soil processing.
2. Mixing of soil with stabilizers like cement in dry state.
3. Mixing of calculated water in dry mixture to form the wet mixture of soil, cement and
water.
4. Construction of CHEBs by the use of Hadul Press.
5. Laying of CHEBs to form the various wallettes with mortar and mortar less joints.
6. Grouting of Grout-Concrete Mixture.
7. White Washing of wallettes.
Three types of wallettes were made in experimental analysis of CHEBs wallettes:
1) Unreinforced wallettes, only grout mixture were added in the holes of CHEBs.
2) Steel Reinforced Wallettes, with the grout mixture steel reinforcement were also provided
through the holes of CHEBs.
3) Bamboo Reinforced Wallettes, with the grout mixture bamboo reinforcement having cross
sectional area almost equal to that of steel reinforcement were provided through.

Table 4, table 5, table 6 shows the summary of each wallettes tested for this thesis:

24 | P a g
e
Wallette Name Length Height Width Loading Reinforc Morta
e ment r
Joints
CHEB-N-1 290 560 140 Out of plane No Yes
Flexure

CHEB-N-2 290 560 140 Out of plane No Yes

Flexure

CHEB-N-3 290 560 140 In plane No Yes

Flexure

CHEB-N-4 290 560 140 Out of plane No Yes

Flexure

CHEB-N-5 290 560 140 In plane No Yes

Flexure

CHEB-N-6 290 560 140 Compressive No Yes

Load

CHEB-N-7 290 560 140 In plane No Yes

Flexure

CHEB-N-8 290 560 140 Compressive No Yes

Load

CHEB-N-9 290 560 140 Compressive No Yes

Load

ICEB-N-1 290 480 140 Out of plane No No

Flexure

ICEB-N-2 290 480 140 Out of plane No No

Flexure

ICEB-N-3 290 480 140 Out of plane No No

Flexure

CHEB-SQ-N 460 460 140 Diagonal No Yes

Shear Load

Table 4: Description of Un-Reinforced Wallettes used for investigation.

25 | P a g
e
Wallette Name Length Height Width Loading Reinforcement Mortar
Joints

CHEB-S-1 290 560 140 In plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-S-2 290 560 140 In plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-S-3 290 560 140 Compressive Steel Yes

Load Reinforcement

CHEB-S-4 290 560 140 Out of plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-S-5 290 560 140 In plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-S-6 290 560 140 Compressive Steel Yes

Load Reinforcement

CHEB-S-7 290 560 140 Compressive Steel Yes

Load Reinforcement

CHEB-S-8 290 560 140 Out of plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-S-9 290 560 140 Out of plane Steel Yes

Flexure Reinforcement

ICEB-S-1 290 480 140 Out of plane Steel No

Flexure Reinforcement

ICEB-S-2 290 480 140 Out of plane Steel No

Flexure Reinforcement

ICEB-S-3 290 480 140 Out of plane Steel No

Flexure Reinforcement

CHEB-SQ-S-1 460 460 140 Diagonal Steel Yes

Shear Load Reinforcement

CHEB-SQ-S-2 460 460 140 Diagonal Steel Yes

Shear Load Reinforcement

CHEB-SQ-S-3 460 460 140 Diagonal Steel Yes

Shear Load Reinforcement

Table 5: Description of Steel Reinforced Wallettes used for investigation.

26 | P a g
e
Wallette Name Length Height Width Loading Reinforcement Mortar
Joints

27 | P a g
e
 CHEB-B-1 290 560 140 In plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-2 290 560 140 In plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-3 290 560 140 Out of plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-4 290 560 140 Out of plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-5 290 560 140 In plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-6 290 560 140 Compressive Bamboo Yes
Load Reinforcement
CHEB-B-7 290 560 140 Compressive Bamboo Yes
Load Reinforcement
CHEB-B-8 290 560 140 Out of plane Bamboo Yes
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-B-9 290 560 140 Compressive Bamboo Yes
Load Reinforcement
ICEB-B-1 290 480 140 Out of plane Bamboo No
Flexure Reinforcement
ICEB-B-2 290 480 140 Out of plane Bamboo No
Flexure Reinforcement
ICEB-B-3 290 480 140 Out of plane Bamboo No
Flexure Reinforcement
CHEB-SQ-B-1 460 460 140 Diagonal Bamboo Yes
Shear Load Reinforcement
CHEB-SQ-B-2 460 460 140 Diagonal Bamboo Yes
Shear Load Reinforcement
CHEB-SQ-B-3 460 460 140 Diagonal Bamboo Yes
Shear Load Reinforcement

Table 6: Description of Bamboo Reinforced Wallettes used for investigation.

4.2 Experimental setup 28 | P a g

e
Four type of experimental setup were made for this project work to analyse the structural
performances of cob blocks and wallette for various loading:

a) Compression load setup to analyse the compressive strength of CHEBs.

b) Diagonal shear compressive load setup to analyze the behavior of square

CHEBs wallettes in diagonal shear.
c) Out of plane lateral load setup to analyse the out of plane flexural strength of CHEB
wallette.
d) In – plane lateral load setup to analyse the In-plane flexural strength of CHEB
wallette.

4.2.1 Compressive load test setup

Compressive load setup is made in compressive testing machine (CTM) of capacity 400 kN.
Cob blocks are 150 mm size cube which are 12 in number. The load is applied without shock
and increased continuously at a rate of approximately 3.43 N/mm2/min until the resistance of
cube to the increasing load breaks down and no greater load can be sustained. All other
specification is as per IS 4332 (Part 5) 2006.
Moisture content of tested specimen has been taken from the interior of the specimen as
stated in IS 4332 (Part 2) - 1967.

Fig. 2 : Compressive strength test

29 | P a g
e
Compressive strength will be calculated as following as per IS 4332(Part 5):2006.

P
σ c= 2
d

Whereσ c: Compressive strength (MPa)

P: Maximum load in Newton applied to the specimen.
d: Cross sectional dimension of the specimen. (mm)

4.2.2 Shrinkage test

The linear shrinkage soil test for soil was conducted according to IS 2720 Part 20 using the
steel mould size 280 mm × 25 mm × 25 mm. A comparison of linear shrinkage in
unreinforced, untreated coconut coir and treated coconut coir fiber reinforced of 40 mm
length at 5% fiber content by volume of dry soil and Moulding moisture content (MMC) of
33.7%. Once the dry mixing was over each type sample were mixed thoroughly with 33.7%
MMC. Each type of sample was prepared by placing the mix in the mould followed by
temping and levelling the top surface. Samples were oven dried at controlled temperature of
30o, 50o and 70oC. Linear shrinkage test was conducted on varying temperature of 30o, 50o
and 70oC using the following formula.

lengt h of oven dry sample (l ods )

Linear s h rinkage=1− ×100
initial lengt h of sample (l 0 )

Shrinkage cracks were measured by using vernier calliper followed by measuring the dry
weight of sample for calculating dry density of sample

30 | P a g
e
4.2.3 Out of plane lateral load test setup

The experimental setup was made as a lateral load applied on the out-of-plane of the cob
wallette, parallel to the joints in the wallette to find out the flexural load carrying of the cob
wallette retrofitted with bamboo strips. For flexural strength the third point loading method
will be used. The pre-compression will be set to 0.06 N/mm 2.As specification such as
spacing, shim diameter is as per code ASTM E518/E518M-15.
Flexural strength is calculated as per following formulae:

M
σ o= −σ p
Z

Where, σ o:flexural strength out-of-plane bending (MPa)

σ p:Pre-compression (MPa)
M: Bending moment generated due to lateral load (Nmm)
Z: Section Modulus (mm3)

Fig 3 : Schematic diagram of complete experimental load setup o of out o

31 | P a g
e
4.2.4 In-plane lateral load test setup

The experimental setup was made as a lateral load applied on the In-plane of the cob wallette,
parallel to the joints in the wallette to find out the flexural load carrying of the cob wallette
retrofitted with bamboo strips. For flexural strength the third point loading method will be
used. The pre-compression will be set to 0.06 N/mm 2.As specification such as spacing, shim
diameter is as per code ASTM E518/E518M-15.
Flexural strength is calculated as per following formulae:

M
σ i= −σ p
Z

Where, σ i:flexural strength In-plane bending(MPa)

σ p:Pre-compression (MPa)
M: Bending moment generated due to lateral load (Nmm)
Z: Section Modulus (mm3)

Fig. 4 : Schematic diagram of complete experimental load setup

32 | P a g
e
4.2.5 Diagonal Shear Compression Test:

This test method covers determination of the diagonal tensile or shear strength of CHEBs
square wallettes by loading them in compression along one diagonal, thus causing a diagonal
tension failure with the wallette splitting apart parallel to the direction of the load. The
guidelines for test setup, setup requirements, loading shoe and the load applications were
taken as mentioned in the ASTM-E519/E519M.
The loading shoes used for this test is shown in the figure 4.:

Fig. 5 : Experimental Setup for Diagonal Shear Test of CHEB-SQ

Wallettes.

33 | P a g
e
 CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENT AND RESULT

5.1 Experimental element:

5.1.1 Interlocking Compressed Hollow Earth Block (ICHEB)

This chapter will provide the results for the compressive strength of the interlocking
compressed hollow earth (ICHEB) using ANSYS software.

Fig. 6 – Plan of ICHEB Fig. 7 – Front view of ICHEB

34 | P a g
e
 Fig.8 – Interlocking Compressed Hollow Earth Block

5.2Compressive load test on the ICHEB using ANSYS Software

To find the behavior of various ICHEB block under the direct compression, the test was

performed in ANSYS software.

Properties Values

Density 2000 kg/m3

Young’s Modulus of Elasticity 37000 Mpa

Poisson’s Ratio 0.1

Table 7 – Data for Clay Bricks

By using the above data, ICHEB block model in the ANSYS software for finding the

compressive strength of the block.

35 | P a g
e
5.3 RESULTS :
By applying the load of 10Mpa on Interlocking Compressed Hollow Concrete Block the
various result is to be find as shown in below figures:

Fig. 9 – Total Deformation of ICHEB

Fig. 11 – Equivalent Elastic Strain of ICHEB

36 | P a g
e
Fig. 10 - Equivalent Stress in ICHEB

37 | P a g
e
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The various methods used for finding the strength and deformability of interlocking
compressed hollow concrete block. In this report we determined the compressive strength of
the ICHEB using ANSYS. This result will compare by doing the experiment of same block
in the laboratory for the direct compression test and do other experiment like in of plane test,
out of plane test, shear test of ICHEB..

38 | P a g
e
 REFERENCES

[1] Agarwal, A., Nanda, B., & Maity, D. (2014). Experimental investigation on chemically treated
bamboo reinforced concrete beams and columns. Construction and Building Materials, 71,
610-617.

[2] ASTM. (2010). Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in masonry assemblages.

[3] ASTM, C. (67). Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay
Tile.

[4] Bales, C., Donahue, C., Fischer, M., Mellbom, A., & Pearson, T. (2009). INTERLOCKING
COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS.

[5] Bland, D. W. (2011). In-plane cyclic shear performance of interlocking compressed earth block
walls.

[6] British Standard 1052-1 (1999), Methods of test for masonry.

[7] Herskedal, N. A. (2012). Investigation of out-of-plane properties of interlocking compressed

earth block walls.

[8] Indian Standard 516 (1959), Methods of tests for strength of concrete.

[9] Indian Standard 1077 (1992), Common burnt clay building bricks-Specifications.

[10] Indian Standard 1725 (2013), Stabilized soil blocks used in general building construction
specifications.

[11] Indian Standard 2250 (1981), Code for practice for preparation and use of masonry mortar.

[12] Jayasinghe, C., & Mallawaarachchi, R. S. (2009). Flexural strength of compressed stabilized
earth masonry materials. Materials & Design, 30(9), 3859-3868.

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

[14] Proto, C., Sanchez, D., Rowley, K., & Thompson, R. (2010). ICEB: design and construction
manual. Senior Project.

99 | P a g
e
[15] Qu, B., Stirling, B. J., Jansen, D. C., Bland, D. W., & Laursen, P. T. (2015).
Testing of flexure-dominated interlocking compressed earth block walls.
Construction and Building Materials, 83, 34-43.

[16] Reddy, B. V., & Gupta, A. (2008). Influence of sand grading on the
characteristics of mortars and soil–cement block masonry. Construction and
Building Materials, 22(8), 1614-1623.

[17] Sitton, J. D., Zeinali, Y., Heidarian, W. H., & Story, B. A. (2018). Effect of
mix design on compressed earth block strength. Construction and Building
Materials, 158, 124-131.

[18] Stirling, B. J. (2011). Flexural behavior of interlocking compressed earth

block shear walls subjected to in-plane loading

[19] Tripura, D. D., & Singh, K. D. (2014). Characteristic properties of cement-

stabilized rammed earth blocks. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
27(7), 04014214.

[20] Walker, P. J. (2004). Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and
earth block masonry. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 16(5), 497-
506.

[21] Wheeler, 2005 Wheeler, Geoffrey. Interlocking Compressed Earth Blocks

Volume II. Manual of Construction. Center for Vocational Building
Technology, Thailand (2005).
[22] Sangma S, Pohti L, Tripura DD. (2019). “Size effect of fibre on mechanical properties
of cob earth blocks.” Recycled Waste Materials, 32, 119-125
[23] Sangma S, Tripura DD. (2019). “Characteristic properties of unstabilized, stabilized
and fibre reinforced cob blocks.” Structural Engineering International.

99 | P a g
e