Journal of Structural Engineering No.

37-01
Vol. 37, No.01, April - May 2010 pp. 1–4

Laterite soil cement composite blocks

Ishwar P. Sonar∗
∗
Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering Department, Govt. College of Engineering, Pune-5, Maharashtra - 411 005, India.
Received ; Accepted

In order to replace costly laterite stone block, an effort is under taken to prepare composite block using of locally
available laterite soil, sand, stone dust, stone grit as aggregate and cement as binding material along-with Recron 3S
fibres and plasticizer. Test results indicate that blocks using cement to aggregate ratio of 1:11 give compressive strength
comparable to that of laterite stone available in the region and conventional bricks. Such blocks are economical, du-
rable and can be used for partition as well as external walls in multistoried framed construction. Blocks with lower
cement to aggregate ratio (less than 1:9) can be used for load bearing construction.Use of mechanization in manu-
facturing process of such types of blocks at reduced water cement ratio will improve the strength of the block. An
application oriented project with number of tests on such laterite soil cement composite blocks of specified proportion
may be taken to observe standard deviation in compressive strength of the blocks

KEYWORDS: Laterite soil, cement composite blocks, low cost blocks

In Konkan region of Maharashtra and some parts of Southern
India, laterite stone blocks are traditionally used for construc-
tion of buildings and other works. Due to increased demand,
the cost of such natural stones is increasing also environmen-
tal deterioration is observed due to over exploitation. Since
good quality of clay suitable for bricks is not available for
making of bricks, laterite stones (local name-chira) of size
300 mm × 200 mm × 150 mm are generally used for con-
struction. With the development in construction activities, in-
crease in cost of land and tendency of people to construct
reinforced concrete multistoried buildings, the demand for
chira stone is also increasing. In multistoried building dead
weight of walls is one important factor for design economy
of reinforced concrete structures. The compressive strength
of chira varies from 2.5 N/mm 2 to 4.0 N/mm2 depending
upon quality of rock. The texture of chira stone being rough,
it requires more quantity of cement plaster to get uniform le-
veled plaster. Water absorption of chira stone varies from 8 %
to 16% depending on quality of rock. Moreover, chira stone
of thickness 100 mm is not generally available due to pos-
sibility of breakage during dressing operation and transpor-
tation. Practically, it becomes costly to dress stone in thick-
ness of 100 mm when it is to be used as partition wall. The
cost of stone masonry is more than conventional brick ma-
sonry because it requires skilled labour and more time for
construction.
Ranjan Gopal and Chavan 1 have shown that randomly
distributed fibres in soil improve strength properties. D.K
Kulkarni2 stated that soil lime blocks will prove suitable for
rural housing.
* E-mail:
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before July 31, 2010)
With this background, as a part of industry institute in-
teraction, Malvan based leading construction firm “Sankalp
Developer” had taken keen interest in development of soil
cement composite blocks and the firm had supplied the ne-
cessary materials, manpower and moulds for the manufac-
ture of blocks with different proportions of ingredients. An
attempt is made to develop trial mix for cement soil compo-
site blocks using locally available material in order to replace
laterite stone block. The salient features of the research work
are as under.
Materials used
Cement, sand, stone dust, stone grit, laterite soil, Recron 3S
fibres and plasticizer as supplied the local firm. Ordinary
Portland Cement of brand ACC with Grade 43 was used. The
properties of sand, stone dust, stone grit and laterite soil are
given in Table 1, 2,3 and table 4 respectively. Recron 3S fi-
bres are manufactured by Reliance Industries Limited, are
used to improve the strength of blocks. Length of these fibres
is 12 mm and triangular in cross section. Fibres have tensile
strength in the range of 4000- 6000 kg/cm 2, as specified by
the manufacturer. Plasticizer supplied by the firm is used to
improve workability of the mix.
Brief Procedure
Initially, trial Mix A with different proportion of cement to
aggregates as given in Table 5 were considered to observe
variation of strengths of blocks. Ingredients of the given mix

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 1, APRIL - MAY 2010 1

were mixed by hand mixing method in dry state. Weigh bat- TABLE 2
ching method was adopted. Water is added in the mix. Same SIEVE ANALYSIS OF STONE DUST
workability was maintained for all types of mixes by adding
Sieve Size % Weight % cumulative % cumulative
plasticizer in required proportion. To get more strength Re-
(mm) Retained Weight retained weight passing
cron 3S Fibres were added in lean mix. Wooden mould of
4.75 0.7 0.70 99.3
given size was oiled from inside for easy removal of block
2.36 1.3 2.0 98.0
from it. Blocks were cast on the paper placed on smooth ho-
1.18 6.5 8.50 91.5
rizontal floor, by filling the mix in mould in three layers and
600 micron 15.4 23.9 76.1
hand compacting using wooden piece. After compaction and
300 micron 61.2 85.10 14.9
finishing mould was lifted carefully to get the block. After 24
1̧50 micron 12.2 97.3 2.7
hours blocks were cured by sprinkling water on it.
less than
150 Micron 2.70 100 00.00
Fineness Modulus = 2.17
Stone dust available from local source in Malvan

TABLE 3
SIEVE ANALYSIS OF STONE DUST
Sieve Size % Weight % cumulative % cumulative
(mm) Retained Weight retained weight passing
12.5 5.5 5.50 94.50
10 0.35 5.85 94.15
6.3 5.8 11.65 88.35
4.75 3.5 15.15 84.85
2.36 31.00 46.15 53.85
1.18 33.00 79.15 20.85
600 micron 12.25 91.40 8.6
300 micron 6.00 97.40 2.60
1̧50 micron 2.55 99.95 0.05
less than
150 Micron 0.05 100.00 0.00
Fineness Modulus = 5.52
The stone grit is available from local stone crushing
plant in Malvan

TABLE 4
SIEVE ANALYSIS OF LATERITE SOIL
Sieve Size % Weight % Weight % %
(mm) Retained retained cumulative cumulative
Weight Weight
retained passing
40mm 200 6.66 6.66 93.40
20mm 200 6.66 13.32 86.68
16mm 900 30.00 43.32 56.68
12.5mm 200 6.66 49.98 50.02
Fig. 1 Details of laterite soil cement composite block 10mm 140 4.66 54.64 45.36
6.3mm 390 13.00 67.64 32.36
4.75 290 9.60 77.24 22.76
TABLE 1 2.36 285 9.50 86.74 13.26
SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SAND 1.18 145 4.83 91.57 8.43
600 micron 120 4.00 95.57 4.43
Sieve Size % Weight % cumulative % cumulative 300 micron 85 2.83 98.4 1.60
(mm) Retained Weight retained weight Passing 1̧50 micron 45 1.60 100.00 00.00
4.75 1.2 1.2 98.8 Gravel = 67.64%, Sand = 32.26%, Type of soil: Coarse
2.36 1.8 3 97 grained soil with gravel Source of material: Locally
1.18 11 14 86 available laterite soil having brown to slightly reddish
600 micron 23.5 37.5 62.5 in color, was used in the present work
300 micron 50.6 88.1 11.9
150 micron 10.7 98.8 1.2 For testing purpose, block of suitable size (approx.
less than 230 mm × 160 mm) were obtained by cutting cast block
150 Micron 1.2 100 0 using chisel. Maximum compressive load was noted down
Silt content = 3.7% Fineness Modulus = 2.426 by applying compressive load using compression testing ma-
Source of material : River sand available in Malvan chine for finding compressive stress. To reduce the cost an to
region is generally fine sand, taken from creek. get desired strength of blocks, trial mixes as given in Table

2 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 1, APRIL - MAY 2010

 TABLE 5
TRIAL MIX A
Symbol Cement Sand Stone Laterite w/c plasticizer Recon No. of No. of Date of
dust soil fibres cube block casting
T1 1 1 1.5 4.5 0.6 - -- 1 - 31.7.07
T2 1 1 1.5 5 0.6 - – 1 - 31.7.07
T3 1 1.25 1.5 5 0.65 - – 1 - 31.7.07
T4 1 1.25 1.75 5.5 0.7 - – 1 - 31.7.07
T5 1 1.25 2 5.5 0.7 - – 1 - 31.7.07
T6 1 1.25 2.5 5.5 0.7 - – 2 - 31.7.07
M1 1 1.5 2.5 7 0.8 - – 1 2 14.8.07
M2 1 1.5 3.5 9 0.95 - – – 3 14.8.07
M3 1 1.5 3.5 9 1.6 0.25% 0.25% – 3 8.10.07
6 were tried and similar procedure was adopted to prepare aim was to conduct maximum possible trials with lesser cost.
and test blocks. Test results of laterite soil cement composi- Therefore only limited numbers of blocks were prepared. It
te blocks are given in the Table 7. Comparison of strengths was expected that, more number of blocks will be tested for
of different types of mix are given in Fig. 2 sample blocks a trial mix finally selected for manufacture of soil cement
are kept for further study and as a record. In this work, the composite blocks by the “Sankalp Developers, Malvan”.

TABLE 6
TRIAL MIX B
Symbol Cement Sand Stone Laterite w/c plasticizer Recon No. of No. of Date of
dust soil fibres cube block casting
M4 1 2 4 9 1.2 0.25% 0.25% —- 3 12.10.07
M5 1 2.5 4.5 10.5 1 0.40% 0.30% – 3 31.10.07
M6 1 2.5 5 11 1 0.50% 0.50% – 3 31.10.07
M7 1 3 5.5 11 1.1 0.50% 0.50% – 3 31.10.07

TABLE 7
TEST RESULTS OF LATERITE SOIL CONCRETE BLOCKS
S. NO Block type C: Agg Fibres Density Size of Area Area crushing load in N Crushing strength in N/mm2
ratio in gm/cm3 block mm3 under load mm2 7 days 14 days 28 days 7 days 14 days 28 days
1 T1 1::7 0 2.228 150x150x150 150x150 22500 20000 8.72
2 T2 1::7.5 0 2.207 150x150x150 150x150 22500 19000 8.28
3 T3 1::7.75 0 2.198 150x150x150 150x150 22500 17000 7.41
4 T4 1::8.5 0 2.186 150x150x150 150x150 22500 16000 22000 6.98 9.59
5 T5 1::8.75 0 2.18 150x150x150 150x150 22500 16000 21600 6.98 9.42
6 T6 1:;9.25 0 2.148 150x150x150 150x150 22500 15000 19200 6.54 8.37
7 M1 1;:11 0 2.222 230x160x320 230x160 36800 8500 10000 13800 2.27 2.67 3.68
8 M2 1::14 0 2.18 230x160x320 230x160 36800 9000 10000 12000 2.4 2.67 3.2
9 M3 1::14 0.25% 2.177 230x160x320 230x160 36800 8000 10000 12600 2.13 2.67 3.36
10 M4 1::15 0.25% 2.192 230x160x320 230x160 36800 9000 11000 13200 2.4 2.93 3.52
11 M5 1::17.5 0.30% 2.201 230x160x320 230x160 36800 6700 8700 9600 1.79 2.32 2.56
12 M6 1::18.5 0.50% 2.207 230x160x320 230x160 36800 6200 7800 9200 1.65 2.08 2.45
13 M7 1::19.5 0.50% 2.228 230x160x320 230x160 36800 5000 6400 8600 1.33 1.71 2.29

10.50
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7 Days compressive strength
7.50
7.00 14 days compressive strenth
Compressive strength

6.50
6.00 28 days compressive strength
5.50
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

Block Type

Fig. 2 Reinforced Concrete Layer System Fig. 3 Compressive strength of laterite soil cement blocks in N/MM2

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 1, APRIL - MAY 2010 3

Discussion
A locally available red loamy soil with clay fraction 21.7%
-30.4% is modified into reconstituted soil by adding crushed
sand by researchers 4, 5, 6 to observe the effect of clay fracti-
on on block characteristics and on tensile strength of soil ce-
ment block masonry using soil cement mortar. Dry and wet
compressive strength of soil cement blocks with 4% of ce-
ment varies from 5- 8.33 MPa and 0.99—3.14 MPa respec-
tively. For blocks with 8% cement, dry and wet compressive
strength values varies from 8.10—9.86 MPa and 4.42—5.73
MPa respectively. Experimental investigation in determinati-
on of various block characteristics concludes that optimum
strength of soil cement block corresponds to clay content of
14 to 16% for both 4 and 8% cement blocks. It is observed
from the results that the compressive strength of cement soil
mortar decreases with the increase in clay fraction of the mor-
tar mix for a given cement content. It is the fact that bond
formation is purely a mechanical phenomenon. It is also con-
cluded that optimum moisture content of block during con-
struction is 75% to achieve maximum bond stress for blocks
having cement content 6-8%. The results show that cement
soil mortar (with 15% cement) has 15-50% higher tensile
bond strength as compared to cement mortar (1:6) and ce-
ment lime mortar(1:1:6).
The materials used by the author in his research work
on laterite soil cement blocks includes locally available la-
terite soil (67.64% gravel and 32.26% sand with negligible
clay content), stone dust( fineness modulus 2.17), fine sand
from river (fineness modulus2.4), stone grit (fineness modu-
lus 5.52) and Recron3S fibres (0.25–0.5% by weight of ce-
ment). Blocks were cast manually using wooden mould with
plain surfaces without frogs. The experimental work was do-
ne with aim to develop soil cement blocks using suitable
proportion of ingredients available locally to replace local-
ly available laterite stone (Chira). Due to lack of resources
for investigation, the work was limited to find compressive
strength, water absorption of blocks with different proportion
of the ingredients. The compressive strength of blocks M1 to
M7 (in which cement content varies from 8.33–4.87%) were
found comparable to that of laterite stone. Further improve-
ment of properties of these blocks is possible by controlling
water cement ratio and using block making machine. Dif-
ferent characteristics of these laterite soil cement composite
block may be further investigated by carrying out appropriate
tests.
CONCLUSIONS
1. From the trial mixes of different proportions of ingredients
it is seen that, compressive strength of blocks decreases as
proportion of laterite soil increases.
2. For M1, M2, M3 type blocks , comp. strength at 14 days is
nearly 22% more than 7 days strength. For M3 block, ad-
dition of 0.25% of Recron fibres and Plasticizer does not
show increase in strength. Addition of stone grit in place
of stone dust as indicated for block M4 shows that, incre-
ase in nearly 16% and 7.6% comp strength for 7 days and
14 days respectively as compared to M3 block.
4 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING VOL. 37, NO. 1, APRIL - MAY 2010
3. One block type M1 was kept in water for about 40 days to
observe any disintegration. No disintegration was obser-
ved.
4. Soil cement composite blocks are fairly smooth with
strong edges, easy to cut, having low water absorption
and compressive strength nearly equal to that of average
strength of locally available chira stone. They are econo-
mical due to use of low cost materials and without use of
costly stone aggregates.
5. Further improvement in strength properties may be pos-
sible through mechanization in the manufacture of such
blocks by implementing quality control techniques. Rese-
arch on durability, thermal conductivity and sound absorp-
tion etc, can be conducted at IIT or Engineering Colleges,
where such facilities are available.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks are due to “Sankalp Developers, Malvan” in showing
interest in Industry Institute Research Program with Govt.
Polytechnic, Malvan and providing materials and labour for
the work. Thanks due to Prof. R.D. Gaikwad, Principal, Govt.
Polytechnic, Malvan for permission and encouragement for
the work. Thanks also due to supporting staff and students
for their interest and involvement in the present work.
REFERENCES
1. Ranjan Gopal, Charan H.D, “Randomly Distributed Fib-
re Reinforced Soil-State-of the Art” Jl. of Institution of
Engineers, Vol. 79, December, 1998, pp 91–100.
2. Kulkarni. D.K., Joshi S.K., “Soil lime Blocks for Rural
Housing” All India conference on technologies for rural
development in Y2K Tirupati, 2000, pp 167–169.
3. Tambe S.R, Chavan V.V., Sonar I. P., 2004, “Low cost
Light weight Concrete Blocks for Konkan Region” Na-
tional level paper presentation “Threshold-2004” held at
B.N. College of Engineering, Pusad, Dist : Yavatmal.
4. Venkatarama Reddy B.V and Ajay Gupta, “Tensile Bond
Strength of Soil-cement Block Masonry Cousplets using
Cement- Soil Mortars”, ASCE-Jl. of Materials in Civil
Engg., 2006, pp 36–45.
5. Venkatarama Reddy B.V., Richardson Lal, and Nanjunda
Rao K.S., “Enhancing Bond Strength and Characteristics
of Soil-cement Block Masonry”, ASCE-Jl. of Materials in
Civil Engg., 2007, pp 164–172.
6. Venkatarama Reddy B.V., Richardson Lal, and Nanjun-
da Rao K.S., “Optimum Soil Grading for the Soil-cement
Blocks”, ASCE-Jl. of Materials in Civil Engg., 2007,
pp 139–148.