Skip to main content

Predicting the effect of crushed brick particle size on anisotropy, physical and mechanical properties of compressed stabilized earth blocks using ultrasonic pulse velocity

Abstract

An attempt has been made to assess the quality of compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEBs) through non-destructive testing. As a potential approach, this study analyzes the influence of crushed brick waste (CBW) particle size and replacement ratio on compressive strength and structural anisotropy of CSEBs using ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV). The correlations between UPV measurements, dry density and the compressive strength were analyzed. Furthermore, microscopic observations were undertaken to emphasize the particle interface bonding. A statistical analysis was then conducted to predict the compressive strength in terms of CBW content, dry density and anisotropy for three types of CBW. The results manifest that UPV is a complementary method to evaluate the influence of particle size on mechanical performance of CSEB. Irrespective of CBW particle size, the block compressive strength decreases as the replacement percentage reaches to 100% which is well spotted by UPV values. The effect of removal of fines has hardly any influence on UPV readings. Block density reduces by almost 25.5% compared to reference, when sand was completely replaced with CBW of particle size less than 0.15 mm. CBW particle size affects the relation between strength and UPV in different ways. However, a significant exponential correlation 0.94 was found for CSEBs produced with CBW particle size lesser than 0.15 mm. For the three types of CBW a strong correlation between dry density and UPV was established. SEM analysis showed distinct morphology of CSEBs with CBW particle size and replacement ratio. The proposed equation can predict the compressive strength with correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.87, 0.95 and 0.95 for CF, CM and CL blocks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. 1.

    Murmu AL, Patel A (2018) Towards sustainable bricks production: An overview. Constr Build Mater 165:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Heathcote K (1991) Compressive strength of cement stabilized pressed earth blocks. Build Res Inf 19:101–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613219108727106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Reddy BVV, Lal R, Nanjunda Rao KS (2007) Optimum Soil Grading for the Soil-Cement Blocks. J Mater Civ Eng 19:139–148. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0899-1561(2007)19:2(139)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kouakou CH, Morel JC (2009) Strength and elasto-plastic properties of non-industrial building materials manufactured with clay as a natural binder. Appl Clay Sci 44:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2008.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Goodary R, Lecomte-Nana GL, Petit C, Smith DS (2012) Investigation of the strength development in cement-stabilised soils of volcanic origin. Constr Build Mater 28:592–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Reddy BVV, Latha MS (2014) Influence of soil grading on the characteristics of cement stabilised soil compacts. Mater Constr 47:1633–1645. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0142-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Morel JC, Pkla A, Walker P (2007) Compressive strength testing of compressed earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 21:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bruno AW, Gallipoli D, Perlot C, Mendes J (2017) Mechanical behaviour of hypercompacted earth for building construction. Mater Constr 50:160. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1027-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ruiz G, Zhang X, Edris WF et al (2018) A comprehensive study of mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 176:566–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Weed DA, Tennant AG, Motamedi MH et al (2020) Finite element model application to flexural behavior of cement stabilized soil block masonry. Mater Struct 53:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01490-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    González-López RJ, Juárez-Alvarado AC, Ayub-Francis B, Mendoza-Rangel J (2018) Compaction effect on the compressive strength and durability of stabilized earth blocks. Constr Build Mater 163:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Demirboǧa R, Türkmen I, Karakoç MB (2004) Relationship between ultrasonic velocity and compressive strength for high-volume mineral-admixtured concrete. Cem Concr Res 34:2329–2336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tarek M, Hasan A, Ibna R et al (2017) Effects of maximum size of brick aggregate on properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater 134:713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mendes SES, Oliveira RLN, Cremonez C et al (2019) Mixture Design of Concrete Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. Int J Civ Eng 18:113–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00464-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ben MM, Ogam E, Fellah ZEA et al (2016) Characterization of compressed earth blocks using low frequency guided acoustic waves. J Acoust Soc Am 139:2551–2560. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4948573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carrasco EVM, Silva SR, Mantilla JNR (2014) Assessment of mechanical properties and the influence of the addition of sawdust in soil-cement bricks using the technique of ultrasonic anisotropic inspection. J Mater Civ Eng 26:219–225. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Canivell J, Martin-del-Rio JJ, Alejandre FJ et al (2018) Considerations on the physical and mechanical properties of lime-stabilized rammed earth walls and their evaluation by ultrasonic pulse velocity testing. Constr Build Mater 191:826–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Martín-del-Rio JJ, Canivell J, Falcón RM (2020) The use of non-destructive testing to evaluate the compressive strength of a lime-stabilised rammed-earth wall: Rebound index and ultrasonic pulse velocity. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cultrone G, Sebastián E, Cazalla O et al (2001) Ultrasound and mechanical tests combined with ANOVA to evaluate brick quality. Ceram Int 27:401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kwon H, Le AT, Nguyen NT (2010) Influence of Soil Grading on Properties of Compressed Cement-soil. KSCE J Civ Eng 14:845–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-0648-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Standard Australia (2002) The Australian earth building handbook

  22. 22.

    Indian Standard. (2013) Stabilized soil blocks used in general building construction-Specification. IS 1725, New Delhi, India

  23. 23.

    Walker PJ (1995) Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil blocks. Cem Concr Compos 17:301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00019-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bachar M, Azzouz L, Rabehi M, Mezghiche B (2015) Characterization of a stabilized earth concrete and the effect of incorporation of aggregates of cork on its thermo-mechanical properties: Experimental study and modeling. Constr Build Mater 74:259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Sukmak P, De Silva P, Horpibulsuk S, Chindaprasirt P (2015) Sulfate resistance of clay-portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer. J Mater Civ Eng 27:04014158. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hallal MM, Sadek S, Najjar SS (2018) Evaluation of engineering characteristics of stabilized rammed-earth material sourced from natural fines-rich soil. J Mater Civ Eng 30:04018273. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Islam MS, Tausif-E-Elahi SAR et al (2020) Strength and Durability Characteristics of Cement-Sand Stabilized Earth Blocks. J Mater Civ Eng 32:04020087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kasinikota P, Tripura DD (2021) Evaluation of compressed stabilized earth block properties using crushed brick waste. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Arrigoni A, Beckett CTS, Ciancio D et al (2018) Rammed Earth incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregate: a sustainable, resistant and breathable construction solution. Resour Conserv Recy 137:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bogas JA, Silva M, Glória Gomes M (2019) Unstabilized and stabilized compressed earth blocks with partial incorporation of recycled aggregates. Int J Arch Herit 13:569–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1442891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Narayanaswamy AH, Walker P, Venkatarama Reddy BV et al (2020) Mechanical and thermal properties, and comparative life-cycle impacts, of stabilised earth building products. Constr Build Mater 243:118096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Oti JE, Kinuthia JM, Robinson RB (2014) The development of unfired clay building material using Brick Dust Waste and Mercia mudstone clay. Appl Clay Sci 102:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Seco A, Omer J, Marcelino S et al (2018) Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction and demolition wastes. Constr Build Mater 167:154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Joshi AM, Basutkar SM, Ahmed MI et al (2019) Performance of stabilized adobe blocks prepared using construction and demolition waste. J Build Path Rehabil 4:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-019-0052-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Jyothi TK, Jitha PT, Pattaje SK et al (2019) Studies on the strength development of Lime-Pozzolana cement–soil–brick powder based geopolymer composites. Inst Eng Ser A 100:329–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0350-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Indian Standard. (1972) Methods of test for soils: Determination of shrinkage factors. IS 2720 (Part 6), New Delhi, India

  37. 37.

    Indian Standard. (1977) Method of test for soils: Determination of free swell index of soils. IS 2720 (Part 40), New Delhi, India

  38. 38.

    Indian Standard. (1980) Methods of Test for Soils: Determination of water content-dry density relation using light compaction. IS 2720 (Part 7), New Delhi, India

  39. 39.

    Indian Standard. (1980) Methods of test for soils: Determination of specific gravity, Fine grained soils. IS 2720 (Part 3), New Delhi, India

  40. 40.

    Indian Standard. (1985) Methods of test for soils: Determination of liquid limit and plastic limit. IS 2720 (Part 5), New Delhi, India

  41. 41.

    Indian Standard. (1985) Methods of test for soils: grain size analysis. IS 2720 (Part 4), New Delhi, India

  42. 42.

    British Standard. (2013) Test for mechanical and physcial properties of aggregates: Determination of particle density and water absorption. 1–54

  43. 43.

    Indian Standard. (1963) Method of Test for aggregate for concrete. IS 2386 (Part 3), New Delhi, India

  44. 44.

    Indian Standard. (2013) Specification for 43 grade ordinary portland cement. IS 8112, New Delhi, India

  45. 45.

    Muntohar AS (2011) Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick. Constr Build Mater 25:4215–4220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Bahar R, Benazzoug M, Kenai S (2004) Performance of compacted cement-stabilised soil. Cem Concr Compos 26:811–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Walker PJ (2004) Strength and Erosion Characteristics of Earth Blocks and Earth Block Masonry. J Mater Civ Eng 16:497–506. https://doi.org/10.1061/0899-1561(2004)16:5(497)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Indian Standard. (1992) IS 13311–1 (1992): Method of Non-destructive testing of concret, Part 1: Ultrasonic pulse velocity. IS 13311 (Part 1), New Delhi, India 1–7

  49. 49.

    Ercikdi B, Karaman K, Cihangir F et al (2016) Core size effect on the dry and saturated ultrasonic pulse velocity of limestone samples. Ultrasonics 72:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2016.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Indian Standard. (2010) Test for Determination of Moisture Content–Dry Density Relation for Stabilized Soils Mixtures. IS 4332 (Part 3), New Delhi, India 1–18

  51. 51.

    Indian Standard. (1992) Methods of tests of burnt clay building bricks. IS 3495 (Part 2), New Delhi, India

  52. 52.

    Kurda R (2017) Indirect evaluation of the compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete with high fly ash ratios. Mag Concr Res 1–13

  53. 53.

    Korah LV, Nigay PM, Cutard T et al (2016) The impact of the particle shape of organic additives on the anisotropy of a clay ceramic and its thermal and mechanical properties. Constr Build Mater 125:654–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Ma G, Li Z, Wang L et al (2019) Mechanical anisotropy of aligned fiber reinforced composite for extrusion-based 3D printing. Constr Build Mater 202:770–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Noor-E-Khuda S, Albermani F (2019) Mechanical properties of clay masonry units: Destructive and ultrasonic testing. Constr Build Mater 219:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Vasanelli A, Calia E, Micelli VLF (2017) Ultrasonic pulse velocity test for non-destructive investigations of historical masonries: an experimental study of the effect of frequency and applied load on the response of a limestone. Mater Struct 50:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0892-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Beckett C, Ciancio D (2014) Effect of compaction water content on the strength of cement-stabilized rammed earth materials. Can Geotech J 51:583–590. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Toufigh V, Kianfar E (2019) The effects of stabilizers on the thermal and the mechanical properties of rammed earth at various humidities and their environmental impacts. Constr Build Mater 200:616–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank National Institute of Technology Agartala for their support during the experimental program. Also the authors gratefully acknowledge the Central Instrumentation Center, Tripura University for SEM analysis.

Funding

This work was supported by Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Grant no. EEQ/2017/000001, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Kasinikota Pardhasaradhi: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft. Deb Dulal Tripura: Conceptualization, Visualization, Supervision, Resources, Writing—review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pardhasaradhi Kasinikota.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kasinikota, P., Tripura, D.D. Predicting the effect of crushed brick particle size on anisotropy, physical and mechanical properties of compressed stabilized earth blocks using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Mater Struct 54, 112 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01712-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Compressed stabilized earth block
  • Particle size
  • Crushed brick waste
  • Ultrasonic pulse velocity
  • Anisotropy