Sie sind auf Seite 1von 53

+

PROJECT REPORT

On Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction Of Nonstructural walls with different additives

construction Of Nonstructural walls with different additives Submitted by TARUN JANDYAL ROHIT ATTRI RAJESH BANCHRA

Submitted by

TARUN JANDYAL ROHIT ATTRI RAJESH BANCHRA

Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12

BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 1
BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 1
UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction Of Nonstructural walls with different

UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT

Evaluation of stabilized earth blocks in construction

Of

Nonstructural walls with different additives

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Professor F.A. MIR

Civil Engineering Department

TARUN JANDYAL

ROHIT ATTRI

RAJESH BANCHRA

Submitted By

Enrolment No. 336/12

Enrolment No.03/12

Enrolment No.100/12

Submitted By Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
Submitted By Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that project report entitled “ Evaluation of Stabilized Earth Block

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that project report entitled “Evaluation of Stabilized Earth Block in construction of Nonstructural wall with Different Additiveshas been prepared

by the 8 th semester students. TARUN JANDYAL

Enrolment No. 336/12, ROHIT

ATTRI

our guidance. Their work embodied extensive study of various books, and the internet browsing. The report is hereby certified according to the protocols set for the same, towards partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the B.Tech Degree in the Civil Engineering discipline of this institute.

Enrolment No.03/12, RAJESH BANCHRA Enrolment No.100/12 under

(PROFESSOR. F.A .MIR)

PROJECT SUPERVISOR

Enrolment No.100/12 under (PROFESSOR. F.A .MIR) PROJECT SUPERVISOR Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 3
Enrolment No.100/12 under (PROFESSOR. F.A .MIR) PROJECT SUPERVISOR Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 3
PREFACE This Report is a complete and detailed analysis that we performed for the cause

PREFACE

This Report is a complete and detailed analysis that we performed for the cause of our project Evaluation of Stabilized Earth Block in construction of Nonstructural wall with Different Additives. In this report we describe every detail required for the implementation of our project. We have discussed the perspectives, applications and the requirement of the project. All this helped to get us a clear vision of how we are going to do our project. We hope this effort will clearly define the vision and scope of our project.

Submitted By

TARUN JANDYAL ROHIT ATTRI RAJESH BANCHRA

Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12

BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 4
BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 4

ABSTRACT

Earth as a building material has already known for centuries started with plain mud and straw utilized sun dried producing brick adobe with low strength and durability until its evolved to become fired clay brick with mass rapid production in the kiln. In the growing concern of awareness regarding sustainable building material and environmental issue, Stabilized Earth Brick (SEB) give the view of energy efficient, cost reduction and environmental friendly building materials, overall contribution on the sustainable development. It turned out that SEB properties can be very easy bear comparison with other materials such as concrete block or normal fired brick. Stabilized earth is an alternative building material that is significantly cheaper than using conventional brick and concrete Various compositions of lime and cement were used with different soil Types as additives in earth block molding and then were pressed with a pressed to provide Compaction and a definite shape in solid form. Drying and curing was done before the blocks were tested for strength. Although the strength yielded by the blocks was not comparable to that of fired clay brick, it produced rewarding results regarding the reduction of GHG emission, energy consumption and overall cost of production.

of GHG emission, energy consumption and overall cost of production. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
of GHG emission, energy consumption and overall cost of production. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude and thanks to our learnt and worthy guide Professor. F. A. MIR, Department of Civil Engineering, who helped us to complete our project successfully. They have been very supportive throughout the period.

We express our deep gratitude to DR. M. A. LONE , H.O.D Civil Engineering Department, NIT Srinagar for giving us an opportunity to pursue this project.

Our special thanks to our classmates, friends, the distinguished faculty members and the non- teaching employees of the Geotechnical Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, N.I.T Srinagar , Who co-operated with us in the collection of the materials, laboratory testing and making it a success. Lastly we would like to thank our parents who always been there for us, supporting us all along the way.

TARUN JANDYAL

ROHIT ATTRI

RAJESH BANCHRA

Enrolment No. 336/12

Enrolment No.03/12

Enrolment No.100/12

BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 6
BANCHRA Enrolment No. 336/12 Enrolment No.03/12 Enrolment No.100/12 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 6

PROJECT TITLE

Table of contents

SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE

PREFACE

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

General………………………………………………………………………………………12

What are stabilized Earth Blocks?

Aims and Objectives…………………………………………………………………………13

13

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE

REVIEW…………………………………………………14

Stabilised Earth Block……………………………………………………………………….16

Soil stabilization Techniques ……………………………………………………………

Soil stabilizers ………………………

Principle of soil stabilisers……………………………………………………………………19

………………………………………………………18

17

CHAPTER 3 :METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………22

CHAPTER 4: TEST PERFORMED………………………………………………….24

Specific Gravity…………………………………………………………………………………25 Liquid Limit……………………………………………………………………………………25 Plastic Limit…………………………………………………………………………………….26 P.S.D…………………………………………………………………………………………… 27 Standard Proctor Test………………………………………………………………………….27

U.C.S……………………………………………………………………………………………28

29 ……………

Results………………………………………………………… ………………………………29

CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION OF SOIL SAMPLE.……………

CHAPTER 6: PREPARATION OF RAW MATERIAL…………………………………….38

Pulverization……………………………………………………………………………………38

Sieving……… …………………………………………………………………………………38 Proportioning… ………………………………………………………………………………39 Mixing……………………………………………………………………………………… …39

…39 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 8
…39 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 8

CHAPTER 7 : TEST RESULT AND DISCUSSION……………………………………… 40

CHAPTER 8 : CONCLUSION AND COMPARISON………………………………………52

CHAPTER 9: BIBLOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………54

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1, PSD Curve …………………………………………………………………………

32

Graph 2,Determination of Plastic Limit & Liquid limit…………………………………… 34

Graph 3,Compaction Curve……………………………………………………………………35

Graph 4,5Compressive Strength/Axial Strain……………………………………

…………36

Graph 6, Cement %age vs Compressive Strength………………………………………….42

Graph 7, Water Absorption vs %age Cement……………………………………………….44

Graph 8, Water Absorption vs %age Lime………………………………………………… 45

Graph 9, Erosion Rate vs Cement…………………………………………………………….47

Graph 10, Erosion Rate vs Lime………………………………………………………………49

49 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 9
49 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1,Stabilized earth block……………………………………………………………………16

Fig 2 , Atterbergs apparatus……………………………………………………………….….20

Fig 3, Sieve Set ………………………………………………………………………….…… 22

Fig 4, Atterbegs Limit………………………………………………………………………… 26

Fig 5, Compressive Strength test………………………………………………………………41

Fig 6, Weathering Test……………………………………………………………………

42

42 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 10
42 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 10

LIST OF TABLES Table 1, 2: Specific Gravity………………………………………………29 Table 3,4: PSD Curve and Hydrometer……………………………30,31 Table 5: Coefficient Determination……………………………………33 Table 6,7: Atterberg Limits…………………………………………….34 Table 8: OMC and MDD ………………………………………………35 Table 9: Strength Determination………………………………………41

Table 10: Strength Determination……………………………………

Table 11,12: Water Absorption………………………………………44,45 Table 13,14: Weathering of Earth Blocks……………………………46,47

42

Weathering of Earth Blocks …………………………… 46,47 42 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 11
Weathering of Earth Blocks …………………………… 46,47 42 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 11

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

1.1. General Fire-burnt clay brick has been the main building material of construction industry in India for quite a long time due to the unavailability of stone aggregate or other alternative building materials at comparable cost in the country.

This rapid proliferation of Fixed Chimney Kiln (FCK) in North Cluster has resulted in an elevated concentration of CO2,SO2, and fine particulate matter in the air of North India especially during dry season.

SEB technology is an alternative to the conventional burnt brick technology and is relatively less expensive, uses local resources and consumes less energy with reduced carbon emission at the production stage. However, SEB needs systematic approach for ensuring the consistency of the method applied to manufacture such building block. The percentage of sand and clay in soil is an important factor that governs the selection of the type and amount required of the stabilizer for particular type of SEB production

Stabilization of soil by lime is achieved mainly through cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, and reaction. Cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration reactions takes place rapidly and bring immediate changes in soil properties such as strength, plasticity and workability, whereas,reactions are time dependent. The cation exchange starts to take place between the monovalent metallic ions associated with the surface of the clay particles (Na+, K+ etc.) and that are surrounded by a diffuse hydrous double layer (H+), which is modified by the ion exchange of calcium, because of which there is alteration in the density of the electrical charge around the clay particles, that leads to the flocculation and agglomeration of soil particles. This process mainly takes place within the lime fixation point and is mainly responsible for the modification of the engineering properties of soils treated with lime. In addition to cation exchange,reaction occurs between the silica and some alumina of the lattices of the clay minerals.

the silica and some alumina of the lattices of the clay minerals. Department of Civil Engineering
the silica and some alumina of the lattices of the clay minerals. Department of Civil Engineering

The effectiveness of the treatment depends on the quality and quantity of lime as well as the chemical and mineralogical composition of the soil. The strength developed is obviously influenced by the quantity of cementitious gel produced and consequently by the amount of lime consumed. SEB that will reduce emission and energy requirement and thus replace part of the traditional fired bricks which are mainly used as non-load bearing purpose in household construction sector in India.

1.2. What are stabilized earth blocks ?

Stabilized earth blocks are the blocks made of soil along with the admixtures such as cement and lime. These blocks have modified strength and other parameters as compared to the ordinary mud block.

1.3. Aims and Objectives

The main purpose of this research study was to replace the relatively expensive cement and lime as stabiliser of compressed earth blocks (CEB) through ingredients which are renewable resources in nature. A strength and therefore durability testing method, in the absence of laboratory facilities in the rural areas, was to be established; this was to be accomplished by determining a conversion function between standard laboratory tests and the proposed simple testing method i.e. loading strength was to be correlated with compressive strength. Of equal importance was to investigate properties of the prepared soil blocks and recommend specifications accordingly.

of the prepared soil blocks and recommend specifications accordingly. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
of the prepared soil blocks and recommend specifications accordingly. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Stabilized Earth Blocks (SEB) is considered to be an important step in the manufacture of SEBs, and is aimed at improving the performance of a soil as a construction material. Amongst the variety of soil stabilizers used, cement has been the most popular stabilizer in the manufacture of SEBs. However, compared to cement, utilization of lime as a stabilizer in the preparation of SEBs has not found popularity. Stabilized earth blocks (also called adobe earth blocks) are made from soil mixed with stabilizing material such as Portland cement, formed into blocks and dried in the sunlight. Researchers have showed that stabilized earth bricks demonstrate many advantages compared to conventional burnt bricks. This study focuses on the comparative performances of earth blocks using different stabilizer.

Dr. Bell and Coulthard, 1990; Little, 1995; Mallela et al., 2004; Amu et al., 2011; Herrier et al., 2012 reported Lime has been used in stabilizing clayey soils, and has been found to impart long-term strength gain

Herrier et al. (2012) as reported that An outstanding testimonial of the durability of the lime- stabilized soils is the Friant-Kern irrigation canal in California. In the recent past, attempts to independently utilize lime instead of cement in the preparation of SEBs and compare their properties with those prepared with cement has been reported in the literature

Raheem et al. (2010) have reported the 28 days wet compressive strength of compressed stabilized interlocking earth blocks prepared with lime and cement alone as stabilizers added in varying quantities from 5% to 25%, with an increment of 5%. For maximum amount of stabilizer content namely 25%, the strength gain of the blocks is found to be 3.2 MPa and 1.2 MPa for blocks prepared with cement and lime respectively

MPa and 1.2 MPa for blocks prepared with cement and lime respectively Department of Civil Engineering
MPa and 1.2 MPa for blocks prepared with cement and lime respectively Department of Civil Engineering

(Guettala et al., 2002; Raheem et al., 2010; Miqueleiz et al., 2012). Guettala et al. (2002) have tried to use various quantities of lime namely, 5%, 8% and 12% to improve the durability of the blocks. The evaluated dry strength of blocks reported by them is around 9.4, 14.2 and 16.2 MPa respectively for 5%, 8% and 12% of lime. Similarly, when tested under humid state, the strength of the blocks was found to be 4.4, 8.2 and 9.8 MPa respectively for 5%, 8% and 12% lime. From their study, it is clear that after an optimum value of lime content, any further increase in lime will not be so beneficial in the strength gain of the blocks

Guettala (2002) describes the durability of lime stabilized earth blocks. They conducted durability test and freeze-thaw test on earth blocks using clay soil and sand and lime as stabilizer. They concluded that by increasing the compacting stress from 5 to 20 MPa, it will improve the compressive strength up to 70%. They also found that water absorption and weight loss decrease with increasing of compacting stress and lime content.

Miqueleiz (2012) have reported the advantage of using lime towards the development of unfired clay bricks. From the results of tests conducted on cylindrical specimens of 65 mm diameter and 30 mm height prepared with use of 18% lime, they have found that, at the end of 90 days of ageing the maximum compressive strength of the cylindrical specimens was nearly 13 MPa, and the strength of cylindrical specimens prepared with 18% of cement were around 18mpa .However, attempts to utilize lime in combination with cement as a stabilizer to achieve desirable properties of SEBs have not been studied and reported. As lime is known to impart strength in the long term, its utilization in some proportion as a replacement to cement may be beneficial. This paper reports the attempts made to understand the role of lime in combination with cement as a stabilizer in improving the long-term properties of SEBs, optimize the use of stabilizers and maximize the strength of the blocks. Any effort to optimize the quantity of stabilizers used in combination would help in reducing the cost of the blocks. This work is thus aimed at contributing towards improvising the existing technology of manufacture of unfired earth blocks. This would be a good contribution towards sustainable development

This would be a good contribution towards sustainable development Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
This would be a good contribution towards sustainable development Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

2.1 STABILISED EARTH BLOCK (SEB)

2.1 STABILISED EARTH BLOCK (SEB) FIG. 1 Stabilised Earth Blocks 2.1.1 Definition Stabilised earth blocks are

FIG. 1 Stabilised Earth Blocks

2.1.1 Definition Stabilised earth blocks are blocks made of earth but have additives present in them for the enhancement of there strength and resistance to erosion.

2.2. Need of stabilised earth blocks

Traditional earth construction techniques such as wattle and daub, cob (jalous) and adobe need continuous maintenance in order to keep them in good condition. Current research, carried by us, aims to increase the durability of earth as a construction material. our work has led to the improvement stablised earth blocks as building techniques. Unfortunately the quality of stablised earth blocks in some construction schemes is far from adequate and often materials are wasted in the production process.

from adequate and often materials are wasted in the production process. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
from adequate and often materials are wasted in the production process. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

To extend the use of compressed stablised earth building blocks to all types of housing e.g. low- cost housing in rural and urban areas and middle income housing in urban areas, production techniques need to be further improved so as to achieve better quality and reduce production costs. In order to do this the following points need to be considered carefully.

proportions between soil and stabiliser need to be optimised, taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the soil

block surfaces need to be smooth so that they have the potential to be used without an additional surface coating or render.

Good quality compressed stablised earth blocks improve hygiene (e.g. there will be less surface cracks for insects to lodge in), reduce maintenance and repair costs and, in general, prolong the life span of a wall. 2.3. Soil Stabilisation techniques There are several methods of soil stabilisation widely used to improve construction quality. Some of the major stabilisation techniques are described in this section. 2.3.1 Cement stabilisation Ordinary Portland cement hydrates when water is added, the reaction produces a cementitious gel that is independent of the soil. This gel is made up of calcium silicate hydrates, calcium aluminate hydrates and hydrated lime. The first two compounds form the main bulk of the cementitious gel, whereas the lime is deposited as a separate crystalline solid phase. The cementation process results in deposition between the soil particles of an insoluble binder capable of embedding soil particles in a matrix of cementitious gel. Penetration of the gel throughout the soil hydration process is dependent on time, temperature and cement type. The lime released during hydration of the cement reacts further with the clay fraction forming additional cementitious bonds. Soil-cement mixes should be compacted immediately after mixing in order not to break down the newly created gel and therefore reduce strengthening. The basic function of cementation is to make the soil water-resistant by reducing swelling and increasing its compressive strength. With respect to the general processes of cementation, penetration and binding mentioned above, many factors must be considered. Processes may also vary between different types of soils. Cement is considered a good stabiliser for granular

types of soils. Cement is considered a good stabiliser for granular Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
types of soils. Cement is considered a good stabiliser for granular Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

soils but unsatisfactory for clays. Generally cement can be used with any soil type, but with clays it is uneconomical because more cement is required. The range of cement content needed for good stabilisation is between 8% and 12% by weight according to soil type

2.3.2.Lime stabilisation By adding lime to the soil for stabilisation, four basic reactions are believed to occur:cation exchange, flocculation and agglomeration, carbonation, and pozzolanic reactions. The pozzolanic reaction is believed to be the most important and it occurs between lime and certain clay minerals to form a variety of cementitious compounds which bind the soil particles together. Lime can also reduce the degree to which the clay absorbs water, and so can make the soil less sensitive to changes in moisture content and improve its workability. Lime is a suitable stabiliser for clay soils. Lime is more widely available than Portland cement in Sudan and is produced locally in traditional kilns. However, some improvements still need to be made in its production and processing. The advantages that lime has over Portland cement are that it requires less fuel to manufacture and requires relatively simple equipment to make. It is therefore more suitable for village scale production and use.

2.4. Soil stabiliser Modifying soil properties by adding another material to improve its durability is called soil stabilisation. Soil stabilisation has been used widely since the 1920s mainly for road construction. When a soil is successfully stabilised one or more of the following effects will be evident.

strength and cohesion of the soil will increase,

permeability of the soil will be reduced,

the soil will be made water repellent

the durability of the soil will increase,

the soil will shrink and expand less in dry and wet conditions

 the soil will shrink and expand less in dry and wet conditions Department of Civil
 the soil will shrink and expand less in dry and wet conditions Department of Civil

Natural soil construction techniques such as cob, adobe, wattle and daub, or rammed earth are still widely used throughout the developing world by lowincome groups. This is mainly because of their low cost and the abundance of easily available soil. The principal soil fraction which enables a soil to be used as a construction material is clay because it provides cohesion and binds together the other fractions. Unfortunately, because clay usually swells on absorbing water and shrinks on drying, this can give rise to severe cracking and in extreme cases eventual disintegration. It can also give rise to difficulties in getting rendering to adhere to the walls. In order to enable soil to serve as a better and more durable construction material an additional material should be added to the soil mix to strengthen it. Traditionally, animal dung and straw have been used and are still used in many areas. Although they have the advantage of being low in cost, they are not very durable and need to be renewed after every rainy season. Many stabilisers have been tried, including manufactured ones such as Portland cement, lime, bitumen, gypsum, alkalis, sodium chloride, calcium chloride, aluminum compounds, silicates, resins, ammonium compounds, polymers, and agricultural and industrial wastes. The most widely used stabilisers in developing countries, are Portland cement, lime and bitumen because they are inexpensive and readily. 2.5. Principle of Soil Stabilisation Silt and clay within a soil sample react to moisture, swelling when water is absorbed, and shrinking when the soil dries out. Such movement can result in surface cracking of walls and consequently accelerate erosion, which may eventually lead to structural failures. Movement often causes the crumbling of surface coatings. The main objective of soil stabilisation is to enhance soil resistance to the erosive effects of the local weather conditions, including variations in temperature, humidity and rainwater. The use and adoption of the right stabilisation method can improve the compressive strength of a soil by as much as 400 to 500% and increase its resistance to erosion and mechanical damage. Good resistance to erosion can be obtained in one or more of the following ways:-

increasing the density of the soil,

adding a stabilising agent that either reacts with, or binds the soil grains together

adding a stabilising agent which acts as a waterproofing medium.

 adding a stabilising agent which acts as a waterproofing medium . Department of Civil Engineering
 adding a stabilising agent which acts as a waterproofing medium . Department of Civil Engineering

2.6. Soil properties

2.6.1 Atterberg Limits

2.6. Soil properties 2.6.1 Atterberg Limits FIG 2. Atterbergs appratus 1) Shrinkage Limit: This limit is

FIG 2. Atterbergs appratus 1) Shrinkage Limit:

This limit is achieved when further loss of water from the soil does not reduce the volume of the soil. It can be more accurately defined as the lowest water content at which the soil can still be completely saturated. It is denoted by wS. 2) Plastic Limit:

This limit lies between the plastic and semi-solid state of the soil. It is determined by rolling out a thread of the soil on a flat surface which is non-porous. It is the minimum water content at which the soil just begins to crumble while rolling into a thread of approximately 3mm diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by wP.

a thread of approximately 3mm diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by wP. Department of Civil Engineering
a thread of approximately 3mm diameter. Plastic limit is denoted by wP. Department of Civil Engineering

3) Liquid Limit:

It is the water content of the soil between the liquid state and plastic state of the soil. It can be defined as the minimum water content at which the soil, though in liquid state, shows small shearing strength against flowing. It is measured by the Casagrande’s apparatus and is denoted by wL.

2.6.2 Particle Size Distribution

Soil at any place is composed of particles of a variety of sizes and shapes, sizes ranging from a few microns to a few centimetres are present sometimes in the same soil sample. The distribution of particles of different sizes determines many physical properties of the soil such as its strength, permeability, density etc. Particle size distribution is found out by two methods, first is sieve analysis which is done for coarse grained soils only and the other method is sedimentation analysis used for fine grained soil sample. Both are followed by plotting the results on a semi-log graph. The percentage finer N as the ordinate and the particle diameter i.e. sieve size as the abscissa on a logarithmic scale. The curve generated from the result gives us an idea of the type and gradation of the soil. If the curve is higher up or is more towards the left, it means that the soil has more representation from the finer particles; if it is towards the right, we can deduce that the soil has more of the coarse grained particles. The soil may be of two types- well graded or poorly graded (uniformly graded). Well graded soils have particles from all the size ranges in a good amount. On the other hand, it is said to be poorly or uniformly graded if it has particles of some sizes in excess and deficiency of particles of other sizes. Sometimes the curve has a flat portion also which means there is an absence of particles of intermediate size, these soils are also known as gap graded or skip graded. For analysis of the particle distribution, we sometimes use D10, D30, and D60 etc. terms which represents a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and 60% of particles respectively are

a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and 60% of particles respectively are Department of
a size in mm such that 10%, 30% and 60% of particles respectively are Department of

finer than that size. The size of D10 also called the effective size or diameter is a very useful data.

called the effective size or diameter is a very useful data. Fig 3, Sieve set 2.7.

Fig 3, Sieve set

2.7. Specific gravity

Specific gravity of a substance denotes the number of times that substance is heavier than water. In simpler words we can define it as the ratio between the mass of any substance of a definite volume divided by mass of equal volume of water. In case of soils, specific gravity is the number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of

is the number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of Department of
is the number of times the soil solids are heavier than equal volume of Department of

water. Different types of soil have different specific gravities, general range for specific gravity of soils:

Soil Type

Specific Gravity

Gravel

2.65-2.68

Sand

2.65-2.68

Silty Sand

2.66-2.70

Silt

2.66-2.70

Inorganic Clays

2.68-2.80

Organic Soils

Variable, may fall below 2.00

Clays 2.68-2.80 Organic Soils Variable, may fall below 2.00 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
Clays 2.68-2.80 Organic Soils Variable, may fall below 2.00 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

3.TESTING OF SOIL PRIOR TO BLOCK PRODUCTION / METHODOLOGY

3.1. Tests Performed:

3.1.1 Specific gravity of soil

3.1.2 Determination of soil index properties (Atterberg’s Limits)

3.1.2.1.

Liquid limit by Casagrande’s apparatus

3.1.2.2

Plastic limit

3.1.3.

Particle size distribution by wet sieve & hydrometer analysis

3.1.4

Determination of the maximum dry density (MDD) and the corresponding optimum

moisture content (OMC) of the soil by Proctor compaction test

3.1.5. Unconfined compressive test

3.2. Soil sample

Soil sample are chosen from Nit Srinagar

3.2.1.

Mechanical pit

3.2.1.

Behind J&K Bank

Nit Srinagar 3.2.1. Mechanical pit 3.2.1. Behind J&K Bank Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
Nit Srinagar 3.2.1. Mechanical pit 3.2.1. Behind J&K Bank Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

4.Test Procedure

The experimental study involved performing a series of laboratory CBR tests on unreinforced and randomly oriented plastic strip reinforced soil specimen

Brief steps involved in the experiments

4.1.Specific gravity of the soil

The specific gravity of soil is the ratio between the weight of the soil solids and weight of equal volume of water. It is measured by the help of a volumetric flask in a very simple experimental setup where the volume of the soil is found out and its weight is divided by the weight of equal volume of water

Specific gravity =

W1- Weight of bottle

W2- Weight of bottle + Dry soil

(W2-W 1 )/ (W 2 -W 1 )-(W 3 -W 4 )

W3- Weight of bottle + Soil + Water

W4- Weight of bottle + Water

4.2.Liquid limit

The Casagrande tool cuts a groove of size 2mm wide at the bottom and 11 mm wide at the top and 8 mm high. The number of blows used for the two soil samples to come in contact is

The number of blows used for the two soil samples to come in contact is Department
The number of blows used for the two soil samples to come in contact is Department

noted down. Graph is plotted taking number of blows on a logarithmic scale on the abscissa and water content on the ordinate. Liquid limit corresponds to 25 blows from the graph.

4.3. Plastic limit

This is determined by rolling out soil till its diameter reaches approximately 3 mm and measuring water content for the soil which crumbles on reaching this diameter. Plasticity index (I P ) was also calculated with the help of liquid limit and plastic limit;

I P = WL - WP

WL-Liquid limit

WP-Plastic limit

limit; I P = WL - WP WL-Liquid limit WP-Plastic limit Fig. 4 , atterbergs limits

Fig. 4 , atterbergs limits

= WL - WP WL-Liquid limit WP-Plastic limit Fig. 4 , atterbergs limits Department of Civil
= WL - WP WL-Liquid limit WP-Plastic limit Fig. 4 , atterbergs limits Department of Civil

4.4. Particle size distribution

The results from sieve analysis of the soil when plotted on a semi-log graph with particle diameter or the sieve size as the abscissa with logarithmic axis and the percentage passing as the ordinate gives a clear idea about the particle size distribution. This Curve can be completely obtained by performing both wet sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis. As in our case, only 3% of total weight of soil was retained on the sieve. Rest of the soil was finer than 0.075mm so hydrometer analysis was conducted to get a clearer picture of

% of particles of different sizes in our soil sample. From the help of the curve, percentage content of different sizes of particles can be easily obtained and hence soil can be classified accordingly.

4.5. Proctor compaction test

This experiment gives a clear relationship between the dry density of the soil and the moisture content of the soil. The experimental setup consists of (i) cylindrical metal mould (internal diameter- 10.15 cm and internal height-11.7 cm), (ii) detachable base plate, (iii) collar (5 cm effective height), (iv) rammer (2.5 kg).

Compaction process helps in increasing the bulk density by driving out the air from the voids. The theory used in the experiment is that for any compactive effort, the dry density depends upon the moisture content in the soil. The maximum dry density (MDD) is achieved when the soil is compacted at relatively high moisture content and almost all the air is driven out, this moisture content is called optimum moisture content (OMC). After plotting the data from the experiment with water content as the abscissa and dry density as the ordinate, we can obtain the OMC and MDD.

and dry density as the ordinate, we can obtain the OMC and MDD. Department of Civil
and dry density as the ordinate, we can obtain the OMC and MDD. Department of Civil

Unconfined compressive strength

The unconfined compression test is by far the most popular method of soil shear testing because it is one of the fastest and cheapest methods of measuring shear strength. The method is used primarily for saturated, cohesive soils recovered from thin-walled sampling tubes. The unconfined compression test is inappropriate for dry sands or crumbly clays because the materials would fall apart without some land of lateral confinement. To perform an unconfined compression test, the sample is extruded from the sampling tube. A cylindrical sample of soil is trimmed such that the ends are reasonably smooth and the length-to-diameter ratio is on the order of two. The soil sample is placed in a loading frame on a metal plate; by turning a crank, the operator raises the level of the bottom plate. The top of the soil sample is restrained by the top plate, which is attached to a calibrated proving ring. As the bottom plate is raised, an axial load is applied to the sample. The operator turns the crank at a specified rate so that there is constant strain rate. The load is gradually increased to shear the sample, and readings are taken periodically of the force applied to the sample and the resulting deformation. The loading is continued until the soil develops an obvious shearing plane or the deformations become excessive. The measured data are used to determine the strength of the soil specimen and the stress-strain characteristics. Finally, the sample is oven dried to determine its water content. The maximum load per unit area is defined as the unconfined compressive strength, qu. In the unconfined compression test, we assume that no pore water is lost from the sample during set-up or during the shearing process. A saturated sample will thus remain saturated during the test with no change in the sample volume, water content, or void ratio. More significantly, the sample is held together by an effective confining stress that results from negative pore water pressures (generated by menisci forming between particles on the sample surface). Pore pressures are not measured in an unconfined compression test; consequently, the effective stress is unknown. Hence, the undrained shear strength measured in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the total stress.

in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the total stress. Department of Civil Engineering
in an unconfined test is expressed in terms of the total stress. Department of Civil Engineering

5. Evaluation of Soil Sample

5.1. Specific Gravity Test

1. Test temperature

T t, °C=15

2. Relative density of water at

T t, °C=0.999

3. Relative density of water at

27°C=0.996

4. Correction factor due to temperature Ct=1.00301

Sample: J&K Bank

 

Bottle No.

1

2

3

Mass of empty bottle W1 {gm}

31.10

31.10

31.10

Mass of bottle + dry soil W2 {gm}

41.34

45.48

43.49

Mass of bottle + dry soil + water

88.16

91.04

89.02

W3{ m}

Mass of bottle + water W4 {gm}

81.92

82.32

81.39

Specific Gravity

2.61

2.62

2.61

Avg. Specific Gravity

2.61

Table 1 , Specific Gravity determination

 

Sample: Mechanical pit

Sample 3

 

Bottle No.

1

2

3

Mass of empty bottle W1 {gm}

31.28

31.28

31.28

Mass of bottle + dry soil W2 {gm}

40.34

40.42

40.39

Mass of bottle + dry soil + water

87.65

87.670

87.60

Mass of bottle + water W4 {gm}

82.10

82.10

82.01

Specific Gravity

2.60

2.62

2.61

Avg. Specific Gravity

2.61

Table 2 , Specific gravity determination

5.2 Wet Sieve and hydrometer Analysis

, Specific gravity determination 5.2 Wet Sieve and hydrometer Analysis Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
, Specific gravity determination 5.2 Wet Sieve and hydrometer Analysis Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR

Sample: J&K Bank

 

Weight

Weight

   

Sieve

Retained

Retained

Cumulative weight retained

Finer (%)

Size(mm)

(gm)

(%)

2

0.30

0.15

0.15

99.85

1

0.60

0.30

0.45

99.55

0.6

0.35

0.175

0.63

99.37

0.425

0.64

0.32

0.94

99.06

0.3

0.55

0.275

1.22

98.78

0.150

0.63

0.315

1.54

98.46

0.075

0.52

0.26

1.79

98.21

Particle size

 

hydrometer

 

in mm

 

0.042

 

93.5

0.0312

84.32

0.0260

62.83

0.0170

46.12

0.0138

37.42

0.0106

27.3

0.0081

19.46

0.00521

15.63

0.0038

10.53

0.0015

4.23

19.46 0.00521 15.63 0.0038 10.53 0.0015 4.23 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 30
19.46 0.00521 15.63 0.0038 10.53 0.0015 4.23 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 30

Sample: Mechanical Pit

 

Weight

Weight

   

Sieve

Retained

Retained

Cumulative weight retained

Cumulative

Size(mm)

(gm)

(%)

Finer (%)

2

0.53

0.26

0.26

99.74

1

1.6

0.8

1.06

98.94

0.6

0.55

0.27

1.33

98.67

0.425

1.0

0.5

1.83

98.17

0.3

0.8

0.4

2.23

97.77

0.150

0.98

0.49

2.72

97.28

0.075

0.7

0.35

3.07

96.93

Particle size

 

hydrometer

 

in mm

 

0.0381

 

91.62

0.0312

80.76

0.025

59.23

0.018

41.26

0.015

33.38

0.0112

24.73

0.009

15.42

0.0052

12.29

0.0035

10.46

0.0023

5.32

Table 4

0.0052 12.29 0.0035 10.46 0.0023 5.32 Table 4 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 31
0.0052 12.29 0.0035 10.46 0.0023 5.32 Table 4 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page 31

PSD CURVE

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
% FINER

PARTICLE SIZE( MM )

------------- Sample 1

------------- Sample 2

P.S.D Curve

----

MM ) ------------- Sample 1 ------------- Sample 2 P.S.D Curve ---- Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
MM ) ------------- Sample 1 ------------- Sample 2 P.S.D Curve ---- Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

Coefficient

Sample 1

Sample 2

C

u

6.15

7.352

C

c

1.53

1.98

Table 5, Coefficent determination

Both samples are WELL GRADED FINE SOIL

5.3 Index Properties

Atterbergs’ limit

Sample: J&K Bank

 

Liquid Limit

 

Plastic Limit

Container No.

18

58

21

8

114

2

Mass of empty container

16.58

15.91

15.28

16.35

16.19

45.42

Mass of container + wet soil

33.64

33.19

31.56

30.80

19.14

49.77

Mass of container + dry soil

28.33

29.74

26.64

26.59

18.59

48.93

Mass of dry soil

11.75

12.03

11.36

10.24

2.4

3.51

Mass of water

5.31

5.25

4.92

4.21

0.55

0.84

Water content (%)

45.19

43.64

43.309

41.11

22.91

23.93

No. of blows

14

21

29

35

   
 

LL=43.1%

 

PL=23.42%

PI=19.82

 

I

F =8.8

 

I

T =2.66

 

P

IA =16.86

P

IU =31.59

   

Type of soil Intermediate clay (CI)

 

TABLE 6,Atterbergs limits

soil – Intermediate clay (CI)   TABLE 6,Atterbergs limits Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
soil – Intermediate clay (CI)   TABLE 6,Atterbergs limits Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
Determination of PI and LL Sample: Mechanical Pit   Liquid Limit   Plastic Limit  

Determination of PI and LL

Sample: Mechanical Pit

 

Liquid Limit

 

Plastic Limit

 

Container No.

80

7

31

10

15

13

38

Mass of empty container

16.57

15.65

15.75

16.7

15.84

16.84

16.0

Mass of container + wet soil

28.94

31.4

28.44

29.16

20.07

20.43

19.51

Mass of container + dry soil

25.57

26.65

24.44

25.6

19.25

19.78

18.9

Mass of dry soil

8.57

11

8.69

8.9

3.41

2.94

2.9

Mass of water

3.8

4.75

4.0

3.56

0.82

0.65

0.61

Water content (%)

44.3

43

46

39.85

24

22.1

21

No. of blows

26

30

22

38

     
 

LL=44.54

 

PL=21.55

 

PI=23

 

I

F =14

 

I

T =1.64

 

P

IA =17.9

 

P

IU =32.8

   

Type of soil Intermediate clay (CI)

 

TABLE 7,Atterbergs limits

soil – Intermediate clay (CI)   TABLE 7,Atterbergs limits Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
soil – Intermediate clay (CI)   TABLE 7,Atterbergs limits Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

5.4 Compaction Test

COMPACTION CURVE

1.9 1.85 sample 1 1.8 sample 2 1.75 zav 2 1.7 zav 3 1.65 1.6
1.9
1.85
sample 1
1.8
sample 2
1.75
zav 2
1.7
zav 3
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
10
15
20
25
30
35
DRY UNIT WEIGHT IN G/CC

% WATER CONTENT

Compaction Curve

Sample No

MDD in g/cc

OMC

1(J&K )

1.65

18.58

2(Mech)

1.73

21.49

TABLE 8,omc, mdd determination

5.5 Compression Test

Sample:J&K Bank

TABLE 8,omc, mdd determination 5.5 Compression Test Sample:J&K Bank Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
TABLE 8,omc, mdd determination 5.5 Compression Test Sample:J&K Bank Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
2.8000 2.6000 2.4000 2.2000 2.0000 1.8000 1.6000 1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000
2.8000
2.6000
2.4000
2.2000
2.0000
1.8000
1.6000
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Compressive Strength N/cm2

Axial Strain %

Compressive strength vs Axial strain

Unconfined Compressive Stength =2.271N/cm2

Strain At failure = 14.47

2.8000 2.6000 2.4000 2.2000 2.0000 1.8000 1.6000 1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000
2.8000
2.6000
2.4000
2.2000
2.0000
1.8000
1.6000
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Compressive strength N/cm2

Axial Strain %

10.00 12.00 14.00 Compressive strength N/cm2 Axial Strain % Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
10.00 12.00 14.00 Compressive strength N/cm2 Axial Strain % Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

Unconfined Compressive Stength =2.290N/cm2

Strain At failure = 14.00

6.Preparation of Raw Materials

6.1 The Requirements for Preparation

The basic materials required for the production of compressed stablised earth building blocks are soil, stabiliser, and water. The stabiliser, whether lime or cement or some other material, is usually available in powder or liquid form, ready for use. The soil may be wet or dry when it is first obtained, and will probably not be homogeneous. In order to have uniform soil, it is often necessary to crush it so that it can pass through a 5 to 6mm mesh sieve.

Different soil types may also need to be used together so as to obtain good quality products. For instance, a heavy clay may be improved by addition of a sandy soil. It is not only important to measure the optimum proportion of ingredients, but also to mix them thoroughly. Mixing brings the stabiliser and soil into direct contact, thus improving the physical interactions as well as the chemical reaction and cementing action. It also reduces the risk of uneven production of low quality blocks. Various types and sizes of mixing equipment are available on the market.

6.2. Pulverisation of soil

The material is hit with great force so it disintegrates. The machinery required is complex but performs satisfactorily. At the delivery end, any large pieces left can be removed by means of screen.

6.3.

Sieving

Soil contains various sizes of grain, from very fine dust up to pieces that are still too large for use in block production. The oversized material should be removed by sieving, either using a built-in sieve, as with the pendulum crusher, or as a separate operation.

sieve, as with the pendulum crusher, or as a separate operation. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
sieve, as with the pendulum crusher, or as a separate operation. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

6.4. Proportioning

Before starting production, tests should be performed to establish the right proportion of soil, stabiliser and water for the production of good quality blocks. The proportions of these materials and water should then be used throughout the production process. To ensure uniformity in the compressed stabilised earth blocks produced, the weight or volume of each material used in the block making process should be measured at the same physical state for subsequent batches of blocks. The volume of soil or stabiliser should ideally be measured in dry or slightly damp conditions.

6.5. Mixing

In order to produce good quality blocks, it is very important that mixing be as thorough as possible. Dry materials should be mixed first until they are a uniform colour, then water is added and mixing continued until a homogeneous mix is obtained. Mixing can be performed by hand on a hard surface, with spades, hoes, or shovels. It is much better to add a little water at a time, sprinkled over the top of the mix from a watering can with a rose spray on the nozzle. The wet mix should be turned over many times with a spade or other suitable tool. A little more water may then be added, and the whole mixture turned over again. This process should be repeated until all the water has been mixed in. When lime is used as a stabiliser, it is advisable to allow the mix to stand for a short while before moulding starts to allow better moistening of soil particles with water. However, if cement is used for stabilisation, it is advisable to use the mix as soon as possible because cement starts to hydrate immediately after it is wetted and delays will result in the production of poor quality blocks. For this reason the quantity of cement-sand mix should not exceed what is needed for one hour of operation. Even so, the blocks produced at the end of one hour may be considerably weaker than those produced immediately after the mixing.

considerably weaker than those produced immediately after the mixing. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
considerably weaker than those produced immediately after the mixing. Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page

7.Test , Results And Discussion

7.1. Materials Used

Cement: Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 43 grade conforming to IS: 8112 1989, having a specific gravity of 3.15 was made use of, in the casting of the specimens. Lime : conforming to IS:8112 1989 ,was used in casting of the specimen.

7.2. Preparation of blocks

A mix ratio of Cement as 8% , 10% , 12 % with respect to weight of soil is taken. The Indian Standard

specification IS 1725 1982 specifies the following three sizes for soil cement blocks: 29 x 19 x

9cm, 19 x 9 x 9 cm and 19 x 9 x 4 cm .The size of the block selected for this investigation is 29 x 19 x 9 cm.

.

3 moulds each of 6 different combinations of mixtures were made of both sample TOTAL NO OF BLOCKS = 3 x 6 x 2 =36 Blocks. For each mixes 36 blocks were cast out of which 12 blocks were tested for their compressive strength and 12 blocks were subjected to water absorption test and 12 for weathering test. All the ingredients were thoroughly mixed and after dry mixing of all the ingredients, water is added a little. After complete mixing, mixture was filled into the wooden moulds in three layers and the compaction was done for each layer manually The blocks thus prepared are shown

7.3. Testing of blocks

All the cast blocks were tested for the parameters like compressive strength and water absorption as per the requirements of IS 1725 1982 for soil cement blocks and Lime Blocks.

of IS 1725 1982 for soil – cement blocks and Lime Blocks. Department of Civil Engineering
of IS 1725 1982 for soil – cement blocks and Lime Blocks. Department of Civil Engineering

7.4. Compressive Strength

For each of the mixes one block was tested under UTM. In general the blocks having highest % of cement had highest bearing capacity i.e upto 24 x 1000 x kg / area . As per the recommendations of Indian Standard specification IS 1725 cement blocks shall have a minimum average compressive strength of 1.96 N/mm

have a minimum average compressive strength of 1.96 N/mm Fig 5, Compressive strength 7.5. Water Absorption

Fig 5, Compressive strength

7.5. Water Absorption

In this test we, Immerse completely dried specimen in clean water at a temperature of 27 f 2°C for 24 hours. Remove the specimen and wipe out any traces of water with a damp cloth and weigh the specimen. Complete the weighing 3 minutes after the specimen has been removed from water (M 2 ). * Water absorption, percent by mass, after 24-hour immersion in cold water is given by the Following formula:

((M 2 -M 1 )/ (M 1 ))*100

7. 6.Weathering of earth block In this test we simulate the raining condition of the (i) rain drop diameter at impact (range in 2

raining condition of the (i) rain drop diameter at impact (range in 2 Department of Civil
raining condition of the (i) rain drop diameter at impact (range in 2 Department of Civil

mm for medium intensity and 4 mm for high intensity) ( ii) maximum terminal velocity of 6’5

m/set at impact, and (iii) maximum intensity of rainfall,

shower on the full body of the block is used. The diameter of each shower is 10 cm with 36 holes of 2 mm diameter. A facility for providing a device pump to create a constant pressure of l-5 f

0.2 Kgf/cm 2 should be available for this test.

15-30 (mm/hr.) a sprayer which can

available for this test. 15-30 (mm/hr.) a sprayer which can 7.7. Results Fig 6, Weathering test

7.7. Results

Fig 6, Weathering test

7.7.1. Compressive strength due to cement stabilise

Soil sample

Percentage(%) of

Load(KN)

Compressive

cement

strength(MPa)

 

08

95

1.7241

Mechanical pit

10

180

3.2666

12

240

4.3555

 

08

90

1.6333

J&k bank

10

130

2.3555

12

170

3.0855

Table 9. Strengh determination

130 2.3555 12 170 3.0855 Table 9. Strengh determination Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
130 2.3555 12 170 3.0855 Table 9. Strengh determination Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Compressive Strength (N/mm 2 )

Cement Percentage (%)

Cement % age vs compressive strength

---------- sample 1

----------- sample 2

7.7.2. Compressive strength due lime stabiliser Table 12:

Soil sample

Percentage(%)

Load(KN)

Compressive

lime

strength(MPa)

 

08

80

1.451

Mechanical

1o

85

1.542

pit

12

120

2.177

 

08

70

1.270

J&k bank

10

110

1.995

12

185

3.357

Table 10. Strengh determination

110 1.995 12 185 3.357 Table 10. Strengh determination Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
110 1.995 12 185 3.357 Table 10. Strengh determination Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR Page
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Compressive strength Mpa

%ge Lime

---------- sample 1

----------- sample 2

7.7.3. Compressive strength of soil block with no stabilizer = .42 Mpa

7.7.3. Compressive strength of soil block with no stabilizer = .42 Mpa Department of Civil Engineering
7.7.3. Compressive strength of soil block with no stabilizer = .42 Mpa Department of Civil Engineering

7.7.4. Water Absorption

Cement Stabliser

Soil sample

Percentage

Dry weight

Wet weight

Water absorption

(%)

of

of

(%)

Cement

block(w1,kg)

block(w2,kg)

={( w2-

w1)/w1}*100

 

08

10.4

11.3

8.6

Mechanical

1o

10.54

11.62

10.24

pit

12

10.62

11.50

8.23

 

08

9.45

10.42

10.2

J&k bank

10

9.57

10.38

8.49

12

9.38

10.25

9.2

Table 11, Water absorption

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Water absorption

%ge cement

Water absorption vs %ge cement

---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2

absorption vs %ge cement ---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
absorption vs %ge cement ---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR

Stabilizer-Lime

Soil

Percentage

Dry weight

Wet weight

Water

sample

(%) Lime

of

of

absorption (%)

block(w1,kg)

block(w2,kg)

={( w2-

w1)/w1}*100

 

08

7.12

8.32

16.85

Mechanical

1o

7.53

8.86

17.66

Pit

12

6.5

7.8

20

 

08

6.23

7.41

18.94

J&K Bank

10

6.43

7.8

21.3

12

6.2

7.62

22.9

Table 12, Water absorption

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Water
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Water Absorption

% lime

Water absorption vs %ge lime

---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2

absorption vs %ge lime ---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
absorption vs %ge lime ---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR

7.7.5. Weathering of Earth Block

Cement Stabiliser

 

Percentage

     

Soil sample

(%)

Cement

Time(Minutes)

Depth of

Erosion(mm)

Rate of Erosion (mm/min)

   

15

16

 

30

17.5

08

45

21

0.40

60

24

 

15

14

 

30

15.5

10

45

18

0.35

Mechanical

60

21.5

pit

 

15

13

 

30

14.5

12

45

17

0.32

60

19.5

   

15

17

 

30

19

0.42

08

45

22

60

26

 
 

15

18.5

 

30

20

10

45

22

0.41

60

25

J&K Bank

 

15

19

 

30

20.5

12

45

22

0.39

60

23.5

19   30 20.5 12 45 22 0.39 60 23.5 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
19   30 20.5 12 45 22 0.39 60 23.5 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Rate Of erosion mm/min

% cement

Erosion rate vs % cement

---------- sample 1 ----------- sample 2

7.7.7 Erosion due to stabiliser Lime

sample 1 ----------- sample 2 7.7.7 Erosion due to stabiliser Lime Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
sample 1 ----------- sample 2 7.7.7 Erosion due to stabiliser Lime Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

Soil sample

Percentage

 

Depth of

Rate of Erosion (mm/min)

(%) Lime

Time(Minutes)

Erosion(mm)

   

15

21

 

08

30

24

0.516

45

28

60

31

Mechanical pit

 

15

22

 

10

30

24

0.53

45

27

60

32

 

15

19

 

12

30

22

0.49

45

24.5

60

29.5

   

15

27

 

08

30

30.5

0.65

45

33

60

39.5

J&K Bank

 

15

29

 

10

30

32

0.69

45

35.5

60

41.5

 

15

28

 

12

30

31.5

0.61

45

34

60

37

15 28   12 30 31.5 0.61 45 34 60 37 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
15 28   12 30 31.5 0.61 45 34 60 37 Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Rate of Erosion mm/min

% lime

---------- sample 1

----------- sample 2

Erosion rate vs % lime

7.7.8. Weathering rate of block without Stabiliser = 1.24 mm/min

lime 7.7.8. Weathering rate of block without Stabiliser = 1.24 mm/min Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
lime 7.7.8. Weathering rate of block without Stabiliser = 1.24 mm/min Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

8. CONCLUSION AND COMAPRISON

Soil has been, and continues to be, the most widely used building material throughout most developing countries. It is cheap, available in abundance, simple to form into building elements. It provides adequate shelter against hot and cold weather conditions due to its high thermal capacity and insulating properties. Despite its long proven applications, earth is sometimes looked upon with scepticism and mistrust, and is often not recognised by authorities as an acceptable, durable building material. Its main technical disadvantage is the lack of resistance to

extreme weather conditions, in particular rain. In many developing countries building standards, which often rule out applications of soil as an acceptable building material, have been formulated. Earth is mostly used for buildings that are built without formal authorisation, such as rural housing or squatter settlements around urban centres

The previous sections have demonstrated that in general, the utilization of compressed stabilised earth buildings blocks in building construction can provide a great number of advantages, especially to the Low GDP areas and developing countries in general. The development and promotion of good quality building blocks can also improve the standard of living for low- income groups in developing countries. Soil blocks are the only building material that can be produced in-situ if the proper equipment and optimum amount of stabiliser is available. For example, housing authorities may organize for the transport of a block making machine and supporting equipment to the building site and assist in training of the work-force. Alternatively, the equipment can be owned by a contractor within the urban areas, and/or by co-operatives in rural areas operating on a self help basis.

8.1 COMPARISON

By the above experiments we are able to determine the following results and comparison,

1)

The maximum compressive strength

By the sample of Mechanical pit which is 11 times as compared to simple soil block.

shown by cement Block @12 % =4.355

as compared to simple soil block. shown by cement Block @12 % =4.355 Department of Civil
as compared to simple soil block. shown by cement Block @12 % =4.355 Department of Civil

2) The maximum compressive strength shown by cement Block @12 % =3.0855 By the sample of J&K Bank which is 7.34 times as compared to simple soil block.

3)The maximum compressive strength is shown by lime Block @12 % =2.177 By the sample of Mechanical pit which is 5.13 times as compared to simple soil block.

4) The maximum compressive strength is shown by lime Block @12 % =3.357 By the sample of J&K Bank 7.99 which is 11 times as compared to simple soil block.

5)The minimum water absorption is shown by cement Block(Mechanical Pit) @12% = 8.23 as compared to minimum water absorption of the Cement Block (J&K Bank) @ 10% =8.49 Which are almost equal

6)The minimum water absorption is shown by Lime Block(Mechanical Pit) @8% = 16.85 as compared to minimum water absorption of the Lime Block (J&K Bank) @ 8% =18.94 Which are almost equal

7) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by cement block(Mech pit) @12% =.32 mm/min which is 3.875 times less as compared to simple soil block

8) ) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by cement block(J&K Bank) @12% =.39mm/min which is 3.17 times less as compared to simple soil block

9) ) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by Lime block(mech pit) @12% =.49 mm/min which is 2.53 times less as compared to simple soil block

10) The minimum rate of erosion is shown by Lime block(J&K Bank) @12% =.61mm/min which is 2.03 times less as compared to simple soil block

8.2. Advantages

Soil is available in large quantities in most regions

Cheap and affordable - in most parts of the world soil is easily accessible to low-income groups. In some locations it is the only material available

low-income groups. In some locations it is the only material available Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT
low-income groups. In some locations it is the only material available Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT

Ease of use - usually no very specialised equipment is required.

Suitable as a construction material for most parts of the wall

Fire resistant - non-combustible with excellent fire resistance properties

Beneficial climatic performance in most regions due to its high thermal capacity, low thermal conductivity and porosity, thus it can moderate extreme outdoor temperatures and maintain a satisfactory internal temperature balance.

Low energy input in processing and handling soil - only about 1% of the energy required to manufacture and process the same volume of cement concrete. This aspect was investigated by the Desert Architecture Unit which has discovered that the energy needed to manufacture and process one cubic metre of soil is about 36 MJ (10 kwh), while that required for the manufacture of the same volume of concrete is about 3000 MJ (833 kwh). Similar findings were also reported by Habitat (UNCHS), Technical Note No. 12 comparing adobe with fired clay bricks

Environmental appropriateness - the use of this almost unlimited resource in its natural state involves no pollution and negligible energy consumption thus further benefiting the environment by saving biomass fuel.

9. Biblography

https://www.cyut.edu.tw/~jrlai/CE7334/Unconfined.pdf Department o f C ivi l Engineering ,NIT S XR Page 52
https://www.cyut.edu.tw/~jrlai/CE7334/Unconfined.pdf Department o f C ivi l Engineering ,NIT S XR Page 52

IS 1725: 1982, Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Basic and applied soil mechanics by Gopal Ranjan and A S R Rao

IS 2720(XIII):1986 Methods of Test for Soils, direct shear test

IS 2720(X):1991 Methods of Test for Soils, determination of unconfined compression test.

IS 2720(IV):1985 Methods of Test for Soils, determination of grain size analysis

Methods of Test for Soils, determination of grain size analysis Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR
Methods of Test for Soils, determination of grain size analysis Department of Civil Engineering ,NIT SXR