Advertisement

Comparison of strength and durability properties between earth-cement blocks and cement–sand blocks

  • Youganathan Yogananth
  • Kirupairaja Thanushan
  • Pooraneswaran Sangeeth
  • Juthathatheu Gracian Coonghe
  • Navaratnarajah SathiparanEmail author
Technical paper
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

In recent years, due to the growth of the construction industry in Sri Lanka, the consumption of river sand has increased. Because of overexploitation of river sand and its various harmful environmental and social consequences, sand mining is limited by authorities, and therefore, there is a scarcity for good quality river sand at a reasonable cost. As a result, local soil is used for the production of masonry units as sand replacement material. In this study, to compare the performance of cement–sand blocks (CSBs) and earth-cement blocks (ECBs), three different cement:sand and cement:local soil mix ratios were considered for CSBs and ECBs, respectively. An experimental program was carried out to determine the physical, strength and durability characteristics of both block types. The results show that ECBs performed better in dry compressive strength and most of the durability characteristics. However, strength reduction due to wet conditions is a major issue for ECBs.

Keywords

Earth-cement blocks cement–sand blocks River sand Local soil Durability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude for the support given by Concrete Lab, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Jaffna.

References

  1. 1.
    Dias WPS, Seneviratne GAPSN, Nanayakkara SMA (2008) Offshore sand for reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 22:1377–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rajapaksha RWCN, Sooriyaarachchi HP (2009) Feasibility of quarry dust to replace river sand as fine aggregate of concrete. Engineer 42:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abeykoon AJ, Anthony CS, Subashi De Silva GH (2012) Bottom ash as a replacement of sand for manufacturing masonry blocks. UG Theses. University of RuhunaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arooz FR, Halwatura RU (2008) Mud-concrete block (MCB): mix design & durability characteristics. Case Stud Constr Mater 8:39–50Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sathiparan N, De Zoysa HTSM (2018) The effects of using agricultural waste as partial substitute for sand in cement blocks. J Build Eng 19:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mak K, MacDougall C, Fam A (2016) Freeze-thaw performance of on-site manufactured compressed earth blocks: effect of water repellent and other additives. J Mater Civ Eng 28: ID 04016034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali F (2012) Earth construction: lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Constr Build Mater 29:512–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker PJ (2004) Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and earth block masonry. J Mater Civ Eng 16(5):497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kariyawasam KKGKD, Jayasinghe K (2016) Cement stabilized rammed earth as a sustainable construction material. Constr Build Mater 105:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang L, Gustavsen A, Jelle BP, Yang L, Gao T, Wang Y (2017) Thermal conductivity of cement stabilized earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 151:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toure PM, Sambou V, Faye M, Thiam A, Adj M, Azilinon M (2017) Mechanical and hygrothermal properties of compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEB). J Build Eng 13:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sekhar DC, Nayak S (2018) Utilization of granulated blast furnace slag and cement in the manufacture of compressed stabilized earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 166:531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruiz G, Zhang X, Edris WF, Cañas I, Garijo L (2018) A comprehensive study of mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 176:566–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Inim IJ, Affiah UE, Eminue OO (2018) Assessment of bamboo leaf ash/lime-stabilized lateritic soils as construction materials. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdullah AH, Nagapan S, Antonyova A, Rasiah K, Yunus R, Sohu S (2017) Comparison of strength between laterite soil and clay compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEBs). In: MATEC web of conferences 103, 01029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jayasinghe C (2007) Comparative performance of burnt clay bricks and compressed stabilized earth bricks and blocks. Engineer 40(2):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Obonyo E, Exelbirt J, Baskaran M (2010) Durability of compressed earth bricks: assessing erosion resistance using the modified spray testing. Sustainability 2:3639–3649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis LK, Maïni S (2018) Feasibility report for compressed stabilised earth block (CSEB) production and use in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gowda RPC (2016) Experimental study of cement stabilized fiber reinforced compressed earth blocks as an alternative building material. M.Sc. Theses, Arizona State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM C140/C140 M (2017) Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related units. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    BS EN 772-1 (2011) Methods of test for masonry units—part 1: determination of compressive strength. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C1609 (2012) Standard test method for flexural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASTM D6611–16 (2016) Standard test method for wet and dry yarn-on-yarn abrasion resistance. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM D560, D560M (2016) Standard test methods for freezing and thawing compacted soil-cement mixtures. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASTM C1152 M–04 (2012) Standard test method for acid-soluble chloride in mortar and concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ASTM C289–07 (1996) Standard test method for potential alkali-silica reactivity of aggregates (chemical method). American Society for Testing and Materials International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    BSR (2016) Building schedule of rates Engineering organization western province-provincial council. Sri LankaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of JaffnaKilinochchiSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations