Fire Resistance of Walls Made of Soil-Cement and Kraftterra Compressed Earth Blocks

FIRE AND MATERIALS
Fire Mater. (2012)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/fam.2148
Fire resistance of walls made of soil-cement and Kraftterra

compressed earth blocks
Márcio Buson1, Nuno Lopes2,*,†, Humberto Varum2, Rosa Maria Sposto1 and
Paulo Vila Real2
1
Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília CEP 70910-900, Brazil
2
Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
SUMMARY
This study presents the results of fire resistance tests on walls made of soil-cement and Kraftterra
compressed earth blocks (CEBs). The purpose of this work was to evaluate and compare the fire resistance
of CEB walls with and without cellulose pulp derived from the recycling of cement sacks. This article
describes the Kraftterra mixture and its production processes as well as the fire resistance test campaign.
The fire resistance performance of CEB walls produced with Kraftterra and soil-cement blocks is analysed.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 25 July 2011; Revised 18 April 2012; Accepted 11 June 2012
KEY WORDS: compressed earth blocks; Kraftterra; soil-cement; fire resistance
1. INTRODUCTION
At present, the construction sector is moving towards the development and optimisation of more
sustainable solutions, from the materials used to the energy consumed in the construction process.
Additionally, the energy consumption involved in the heating/cooling of dwellings is a topic of
a great concern. Thus, the number of earth-based construction solutions is increasing. The
compressed earth block (CEB) is the modern descendent of the moulded earth block [1], more
commonly known as the adobe block [2]. Presses are used in CEB production to compact the soil
particles, thus increasing density. According to Rigassi [2], adding fibres to reinforce the soil is
very common in traditional adobes but is incompatible with the CEB compression process because
it complicates production.
Plant and vegetable fibres have been used extensively in traditional earth construction to improve
the mechanical properties of soil-based constructive components. To improve the durability of
adobes, strength should be increased, and water absorption should be decreased. The most effective
method to modify the adobe is to compact the earth and stabilise it with additives [3]. Fibre, cement,
bitumen, lime or cow dung can be used to stabilise the adobe [4]. Natural fibres from bamboo,
coconut husk and sisal [5] or artificial fibres such as plastic or polystyrene fabrics [6] are examples
of efficient stabilisers.
Analyses of a new composite material, Kraftterra, have has encouraging results. Kraftterra proved to
be an excellent material for the production of CEBs, as demonstrated by the compressive strength,
diagonal compression strength, shrinkage and fire resistance of walls made with Kraftterra CEBs.
*Correspondence to: Nuno Lopes, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal.
†
E-mail: nuno.lopes@ua.pt
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. BUSON ET AL.
Tonnes of cement are used every year in civil construction. Most of the cement sacks are thrown out
without any environmental treatment, causing an enormous negative environmental impact. In 2008,
cement production in Brazil reached 51.9 million tonnes. Of this, 73%, or 37.3 million tonnes of
cement, was packed in sacks [7]. Cement in Brazil is typically packed in 50-kg sacks. It is estimated
that in 2008, 747.3 million cement sacks were used in Brazil, which corresponds to a consumption
of 112.0 tonnes of Kraft paper.
The fibres of these sacks have excellent mechanical and physical properties. The fabrication of
these sacks is guided by strong specifications demanded by the cement industry. Sack fabricators use
high-resistance long-fibre sulphate cellulose, mainly in its pure form. After the cement is used, the
sack, which has desirable characteristics, ends up not being accepted by the recycling industry because
it has been ‘contaminated’ by the cement. However, there is great potential for reusing the sacks in
the production of new construction materials or for improvements in the technical, economical and
sustainable properties of some traditional components utilised in dwelling construction.
The fire risk in a dwelling may be high, as there may be several ignition sources (chemical, mechanical,
thermal or even electrical). Additionally, catastrophic events, such as impacts, explosions and earthquakes,
are commonly associated with the occurrence of fires. These building fires may have very severe
consequences (loss of human life [8]), which justify society’s increasing attention.
Kraftterra blocks have raised doubts regarding their fire resistance, limiting their application in
practice. This study presents the results of fire resistance tests on walls made with soil-cement and
Kraftterra CEBs. The walls were tested without additional loads apart from their deadweight. This
represents the typical loading conditions of these walls when inserted in single dwellings. The
purpose of this work was to assess and compare the fire resistance of CEB walls with and without
cellulose pulp derived from the recycling of cement sacks. Moreover, the eventual decay of the CEB
masonry during its lifecycle may affect the fire performance of the walls. This aspect was not
analysed in this research.
2. MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
One possibility for the use of earth in construction is the CEB. The idea of compressing earth to
improve the performance of adobe blocks is not new. The first CEBs were produced with a heavy
wood rammer, a process that is still used today in some regions of the world [9–11].
The first machine used to compress the earth probably dates to the 18th century. In France, Francois
Cointeraux, inventor and supporter of the new pisè, designed the crecise, a device derived from a grape
press for wine production. However, only in the early 20th century did the first designs appear for
mechanical presses with heavy caps for moulding earth. The decisive moment for the adoption of
presses in the production and consequent use of CEBs for construction and execution of specific
architectural demands arrived only in 1952, with the invention of the famous CINVA-RAM press,
designed by the Engineer Raul Ramirez [2].
Since the 1970s, different models of manual presses have been developed. Mechanical and
motorised presses enabled the extension of the market for the production and use of CEBs in
construction. The decision regarding the type of press to use for CEB production is of extreme
importance because the greater the compaction imposed on the soil or composite, the better the CEB
performance will be.
The presses compact the soil or composites in moulds that define the dimensions and shape of the
CEB. Today, in addition to the varied equipment available for the production of CEBs, there are
several types, forms, styles and designs for CEB blocks (see examples in Figure 1): solid, cast,
smooth, with and without inserts, curved, half-block, corner, and so on.
Among the types of CEBs available, solid and smooth blocks were chosen for analysis in this study.
The choice of these types of blocks simplifies the laboratory procedures by reducing the occurrence of
any deviation in the test results associated with the consistency in the form and location of the holes.
These blocks also allow the study of wall elements constructed with mortar bed-joints.
Barbosa [12] comments that, in general, CEB quality depends on the type of soil, amount of moisture
during moulding, type of CEB machine, choice of curing process and type and quantity of binder.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Fire Mater. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/fam
SOIL-CEMENT AND KRAFTTERRA CEBS
Figure 1. Examples of different geometries of CEBs [8].
Currently, the most commonly used composite for the production of CEBs is the soil-cement mixture.
As the name implies, these blocks consist of soil stabilised with cement, normally Portland cement.
The main binder in the new composite Kraftterra, which is studied in this work, is dispersed Kraft
fibres obtained from the recycling of cement bags. Other materials such as cement and lime may also
be used as supplementary stabilising agents in Kraftterra. However, depending on the characteristics of
the soil used in the mixture, these additional agents may be omitted.
3. FIRE RESISTANCE TESTS
Fire safety regulations and codes are prescriptive in nature. Most of these regulations are both
extensive and complex, making their interpretation difficult. In reality, Brazil has a national fire
code, which consists of a general document and does not contain detailed fire safety requirements.
Therefore, detailed regional fire safety regulations are applied on a daily basis and vary from city to
city. Despite these regional regulations, some required systems for buildings are analysed and
certified on the basis of national standards [13].
These regulations are based on international standards such as ASTM E119, ISO 834 and BS 476,
among others [13]. The typical fire resistance required for the structural frame is defined by regulations
NBR 5628 [14] and NBR 14432 [15]. The fire resistance of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls is
regulated by NBR 10636 [16]. Regarding the European standards, Eurocode 6 [17] gives the design
procedures for obtaining fire resistance in masonry walls.
The Laboratory for Structures and Fire Resistance at the Department of Civil Engineering of the
University of Aveiro, Portugal, uses the European Standards for testing fire resistance (e.g. EN
1363-1 [18] and EN 1364-1 [19]).
In comparing the Brazilian standard NBR 10636 [16] with the European Standard EN 1363-1 [18],
many similarities in their descriptions, recommendations and procedures are observed. Both are aimed
at evaluating the fire resistance of vertical non-load-bearing partition elements. These properties are
characterised by the ability of the construction element to maintain its load-bearing capacity,
integrity and thermal insulation.
Load-bearing capacity refers to the ability of the wall or partition to maintain its mechanical
strength (load-bearing capacity) without collapsing. Integrity refers to the ability of the separating
element to prevent the passage of flames or hot gases from the compartment with the fire to
another compartment. In addition, thermal insulation refers to the ability of the partition element
to resist heat transmission, keeping the temperature increase on the face not exposed to fire within
allowable limits.
A test specimen is considered to maintain its load-bearing capacity when, during tests involving
the application of loads, it does not deform at a rate higher than the limits prescribed in the
aforementioned standards.
A test specimen is considered to guarantee fire integrity when, during a test, it does not present openings
that permit the passage of hot gases or flames lasting for more than 10 s from the fire-exposed face to the
opposite face (not exposed).
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
A test specimen is considered to be thermally insulated when the average temperature increase does
not exceed 140 C on the unexposed face and when the temperature increase is always lower than
180 C at any thermocouple of the same face [16,18].
A difference between these standards can be observed regarding the heating conditions used to
define the temperature–time curve imposed during the test. NBR 10636 [16] uses in its formula
(expression 1) T0, which refers to the furnace initial temperature in C, with 10 C ≤ T0 ≤ 40 C. EN
1363-1 [18] adopts the ISO 834 fire curve (expression 2), which considers a constant value equal to
20 C and allows variations of 20 C 10 C in the initial temperature.
T T0 ¼ 345 log10 ð8t þ 1Þ (1)
T ¼ 345 log10 ð8t þ 1Þ þ 20 (2)
The other procedures and recommendations provided by the two standards are similar, particularly
with regard to temperature tolerance, pressure conditions, temperature measurements of the furnace
and of the unexposed face of the test specimen, average and maximum allowable temperature, and
the installation and dimensions of the test specimen.
In Brazil, it is recognised that the city of São Paulo has the most advanced standards regarding the
prevention and control of fire in buildings; these standards are often used as a model for the
development of standards in other Brazilian cities [13].
Technical Instruction 8/2004 of the São Paulo Fire Department [20] includes a table of masonry fire
resistances, which provides the minimum performance requirements for some types of masonry and
structural sealing. As a reference, the performance values for ceramic brick walls, concrete hollow
blocks (14 and 19 cm thick), clay bricks with eight holes and uncoated reinforced concrete walls are
presented in Table I.
In this technical reference [20], a table with fire resistance time requirements (TRRF, from the original
Portuguese name) that depend on the type of occupation and use of the building is also presented. This
regulation proposes that the required fire resistance is determined as a function of several parameters,
including the type of occupation: residential, service hosting, retail trade, professional services,
personal and technical, educational and physical culture, public meeting, automotive services, health
services and institutional industrial and deposits. The TRRF required for buildings with a height of up
to 80 m is 120 min.
This study was not conducted under ideal temperature and pressure conditions, under which six
different specimens of 3.1 3.1 m2 would be tested for each of the three configurations (without
plaster, with plaster on the face exposed to the fire and with plaster on both sides) for the two materials.
The concurrent construction of six different specimens, with dimensions 3.1 3.1 m2, was not
possible because of limitations of the number of frames available in the laboratory. Otherwise, the
construction of the six specimens on different dates would influence their behaviour because of the
differences in the curing conditions of each specimen.
Table I. Masonry fire resistance [20].

Time to fulfil each of the criteria (h)
Fire
Tested wall Load-bearing Integrity Thermal insulation resistance (h)
Ceramic brick 5 10 20 cm ≥2 ≥2 1½ 1½
Concrete hollow blocks 14 19 39 cm ≥1½ ≥1½ 1½ 1½
Concrete hollow blocks 19 19 39 cm ≥2 ≥2 1½ 1½
Clay bricks with eight holes 10 20 20 cm ≥2 ≥2 2 2
with cement-mortar coating of 1.5 cm
Uncoated reinforced concrete, thickness 11.5 cm 2 2 1 1½
DOI: 10.1002/fam
4. TEST CAMPAIGN AND PROTOTYPES DESCRIPTION
A TERSTARAM Appro-Techno press was used for the CEB production (Figure 2). This machine
produces two CEBs at each pressing and has a system to adjust the height and volume of the mould
with steel plates (Figure 2c).
This press produces CEBs with dimensions of 22 11 5.5 cm. For the construction of the wall,
vertical and horizontal joints with a thickness of approximately 1.5 cm were adopted. To conduct the
fire resistance test, a CEB wall was constructed in a surrounding reinforced concrete frame, with
dimensions 3.10 3.10 m, which constituted the oven cover.
A test to characterise the fire resistance of Kraftterra masonry was carried out. Comparative analyses
were performed on the wall panels constructed with soil-cement blocks and on those constructed
with Kraftterra blocks. Different plastering conditions were also studied. To that end, the wall was
constructed in two different phases corresponding to two distinct horizontal bands: the bottom
half-height wall with traditional soil-cement CEBs and soil-cement mortar in the joints and the top
half-height wall with Kraftterra in the CEBs and mortar.
To experimentally assess different plastering conditions commonly adopted in building
construction using CEBs, the wall was divided into three vertical strips, each 1 m wide, to produce
three different plastering configurations for each type of wall (soil-cement and Kraftterra).
Figure 3 shows views of the finished wall, particularly the external face not exposed to fire
(Figure 3a) and the inner surface before exposing it to fire (Figure 3b). The nomenclature adopted
for each wall panel is presented in Figure 4. The central strip was not plastered on both sides
(P2 and P5 for the panels with Kraftterra and soil-cement blocks, respectively). One lateral strip
was plastered only on the face exposed to the fire (P1 and P4 for the panels with Kraftterra
and soil-cement blocks, respectively). The other lateral strip was plastered on both sides of the
Figure 2. (a) Machine TERSTARAM; (b) CEBs production; (c) detail of the system to adjust the height of
the mould; (d) general aspect of the CEBs produced for this research.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
Figure 3. (a) External face and (b) inner surface of the constructed wall infilled in a reinforced concrete
frame mounted to test for fire resistance at the Laboratory for Structures and Fire Resistance.
A B C
M O
22 1 2 9 10 30
P1 P2 P3
A B C
1 3
4 25 11 1
26
Krafterra
G I K
23 5 6 12 13 31
2 2
3 H
7
J L 3
8 14 15
P4 P5 P6
D E F
4 16 28 4
18 17
29
Soil-cement
24 19 20 21 27 32
N P
x
Thermocouples for the increase of average unexposed face temperature

Thermocouples for the increase of maximum unexposed face temperature
Thermocouples at 3 cm deep within the wall
Thermocouples at 6 cm deep within the wall
Points for the deflection measurement
Figure 4. Test instrumentation set-up, thermocouples and points where displacements were measured.
wall (P3 and P6 for the panels with Kraftterra and soil-cement blocks, respectively). Thus, six different
panels were studied. The plaster, a soil-cement mortar, had the same composition in all of the
panels, and the same soil was used in the production of the CEBs and 12% cement (in mass). The
average thickness of the plaster was 2.0 cm, which resulted in a wall with a total thickness of 15 cm
(for the panels plastered on both faces). Before plastering, the wall was wet to prevent rapid water
absorption from the mortars and to reduce shrinkage.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
5. TEST MEASUREMENTS
The test was conducted at the Laboratory for Structures and Fire Resistance in two distinct stages
(heating and cooling) with a total duration of 6 h 54 min. Figure 4 presents the external thermocouple
position on the test specimen in each panel and the points used for measuring displacements. The
position of the internal thermocouples used to measure the temperature evolution within the wall
behind panels P2 and P5 can also be observed in Figure 4.
A neutral pressure plane (a pressure of zero) was imposed 500 mm above the floor level.
During the first 2 h of the test, the average temperature values for all of the furnace thermocouples
followed the ISO 834 fire temperature evolution curve, defined by expression (2), where t is time in
minutes and T is the average temperature of all furnace thermocouples.
After the first 2 h of the test, the furnace was turned off, but all of the connected external
thermocouples continued to measure the temperature evolution during the cooling phase.
Some additional observations were noted: thermocouple 28 did not provide temperature values
throughout the test; humidity, caused by water evaporation inside of the blocks and subsequent
condensation on the plastered surface not directly exposed to fire, was observed during heating in
different cracks (Figure 5b); and 1 h 53 min after the beginning of the test, a vertical fissure
developed on the face that was not exposed to the fire, initially in the middle of the panel P2, as
shown in Figure 5. It is noteworthy that the wall integrity was not at risk, and no hot gases or
flames passed through the test specimen.
The crack ran vertically along the centre of the wall (panels P2 and P5) and was more visible on the
face directly exposed to the fire (see Figure 6). On the exposed face, detachment of the plaster was
observed in some locations.
6. TEST RESULTS AND COMPARISON
The room temperature recorded in the laboratory at the beginning of the test was 22.8 C. After
120 min, the temperature increased to 23.0 C. At the end of the test (after 414 min, including the
wall cooling), the recorded room temperature was 31.2 C (see Table II), which is in the range of
the ambient temperature condition limits prescribed by EN 1363-1 [18].
The graph in Figure 7 illustrates the furnace temperature evolution corresponding to the ISO 834
curve up to 120 min. After 120 min, the furnace was turned off to reproduce the cooling phase of a
natural fire. It was decided not to account for the ignition phase of real fires [21] to make it possible
to determine the fire resistance time as prescribed in fire resistance tests standards [16,18].
According to the behaviour criteria proposed in EN 1363-1 [18], insulation is defined by the time in
minutes during which the wall maintains its separation function without developing high temperatures
Figure 5. Vertical crack at the centre of the non-exposed to fire face. Appearance of humidity in cracks
caused by water evaporation inside the wall (b).
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
Figure 6. Vertical crack in the centre of the wall face directly exposed to fire. Detail of detachments of the plaster.
Table II. Room temperature recorded during the fire resistance test.
t (min) Room temperature ( C) t (min) Room temperature ( C)

0 22.8 80 22.3
10 22.0 90 22.6
20 22.0 100 22.8
30 21.8 110 22.7
40 21.8 120 23.0
50 22.1 220 28.7
60 22.1 310 30.0
70 22.5 414 31.2
Figure 7. Furnace temperature evolution.
on the unexposed surface. This property is evaluated by limiting the increase in the average
temperature to 140 C or by limiting the increase of temperature at any point to 180 C.
The mean initial temperature value recorded was 22.8 C. Thus, the materials studied will be
considered insulators until the instant when the average temperatures on the surface not exposed to
fire reach 162.8 C or until a temperature above 202.8 C is recorded.
In Technical Instruction No. 08/2004 of the São Paulo Fire Department [20], the structural safety of
a building is evaluated according to the fire resistance of its elements. In that document, values are
proposed for the TRRF.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
According to the values proposed in the document, it is possible to verify that the maximum fire
resistance required for all buildings is 120 min, with the exception of Group M (labelled ‘special’),
where 150 min is required.
The global behaviour of the wall was excellent. The temperature on the external surface did not
increase more than 80 C at any point until the furnace was turned off (120 min after the test began).
This demonstrates that CEB walls perform adequately against fire, considering the performance criteria
outlined previously. After 120 min, wall behaviour during the cooling phase was also characterised.
It is noteworthy that the different analysed walls showed adequate performance for consideration as
firewalls to be eventually used in stairs or in partitions.
As presented in Figure 4, thermocouples t25 and t26 measured the temperature evolution at different
depths of Kraftterra panel 2, and thermocouple t29 (thermocouple t28 was damaged during the test)
measured the temperature evolution for the soil-cement panel 5. Figure 8 presents the temperature
evolution at these thermocouples and for the corresponding unexposed surface thermocouples (t4
for panel 2 and t16 for panel 5). The maximum temperature recorded in the interior of panel 2
(from thermocouple t26), which is inferior to the corresponding thermocouple from panel 5 (t29),
was approximately 75 C.
Although the maximum furnace temperature was achieved at 120 min, the wall temperature
continued to increase afterwards because of the heat transfer process.
From the graph in Figure 8, it is also possible to observe along the wall the differences in the
occurrence of total water vaporisation. This vaporisation process decelerates the temperature evolution
on the unexposed to fire surface. Figure 9 presents the temperature profile evolution in panels 2 and 5.
It can be observed that in both panels, the heating on the unexposed surface is faster and the cooling
is slower when compared with the corresponding temperature changes inside the blocks. For the
Kraftterra blocks, the vaporisation occurs at 120 min on the surface that was not exposed to the fire.
From the temperature evolution curves in Figures 8 and 9, a rough estimation of the materials’
thermal properties can be made mainly on the basis of comparisons between Kraftterra and soil-cement.
It can be observed that Kraftterra may have a slightly lower thermal conductivity and specific heat.
Future works will focus on the analysis of these parameters.
To evaluate the insulation performance of the different materials, the average temperature and the
maximum temperature increases were calculated.
The average temperature increases for the six panels were compared within the limit of 140 C. For
each panel, only the thermocouple located in the panel centre was considered. Figure 10 presents the
average temperature evolutions for the six panels. The temperature increase limit (140 C) is not
reached in any panel during the first 120 min of the test with the ISO fire curve.
Temperatures increase in the wall cross-section

400
t4-P2
t25-P2
350 t4, t25 and t26
t26-P2
t16-P5
300 t16 and t29
t29-P5
Temperature (°C)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 8. Temperature evolution throughout the wall cross section.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
Temperature increase profiles in panel 2

300
250
Temperature (°C)
200
120 min
150 240 min
420 min
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Thickness (cm)
Temperature increase profiles in panel 5

400
350
Temperature (°C)
300
250
120 min
200 240 min
420 min
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Thickness (cm)
Figure 9. Temperature profile evolution in the cross section of the panel: (a) Kraftterra, (b) soil cement.
Temperatures average increase t3-P1
t4-P2
200
t11-P3
180 t18-P4
t16-P5
160
t17-P6
Temperature (°C)
140 140°C
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 10. Averages temperature increase in the unexposed surface of the six panels during the fire
resistance test.
Graphs in Figures 11–16 show the temperature evolution recorded in each thermocouple for each
panel tested.
By individually analysing the results for each panel, it is concluded that Kraftterra CEBs present
slightly better performance than soil-cement BTCs, especially in the conditions without plaster and
DOI: 10.1002/fam
t1-P1
Temperatures increase in panel 1 t3-P1
200 t5-P1
t22-P1
180
t23-P1
160 180°C
140
Temperature (°C)
120
100
80 t22 t1
60 t3
40 t23 t5
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 11. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P1, Kraftterra blocks with plaster
only in the surface exposed to fire.
t7-P4
200 t19-P4
t24-P4
180
180°C
160
140
Temperature (°C)
t7
120
t18
100
t23 t19
80
60
40
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 12. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P4, soil-cement blocks with plaster
only in the surface exposed to fire.
with plaster on both sides. However, it is also clear that, in general terms, both types of blocks showed
similar performances, with the major difference being the lower heat transfer showed by the walls with
Kraftterra blocks. In fact, as can be observed in the graphs of the previous figures, after switching off
the furnace, lower temperatures were recorded for the panels with Kraftterra blocks. This difference is
more pronounced when comparing the two panels without plaster (P2 and P5).
The recorded plateau temperature on all of the thermocouples, which varied by 60 C to 80 C, was
induced by material moisture. All of the moisture evaporation occurred in the cooling phase, when it
was possible to observe rising temperatures, mainly in the panels without plaster.
It can also be concluded that the plaster had a positive effect on fire resistance. Separation between
the plaster and the wall was observed in both the surfaces exposed to fire and the surfaces not exposed
to fire. The separation of the plaster induced the emergence of air flow zones, which does not favour a
temperature increase.
The cooling phases in fire scenarios are gaining increasing importance in fire safety design. In fact,
the test results showed that the cooling phase is strongly related to delays in temperature increases
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
t2-P2
Temperatures increase in panel 2
t4-P2
200
t6-P2
180 t9-P2
t12-P2
160 180ºC
140
Temperature (°C)
120
t2 t9
100
t4
80
t6 t12
60
40
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 13. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P2, Kraftterra blocks without
plaster.
t8-P5
200 t16-P5
t20-P5
180 t21-P5
180ºC
160
140
Temperature (°C)
120
100
80
60 t8 t14
40 t16
20 t20 t21
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 14. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P5, soil-cement blocks without
plaster.
(in Figure 8, see the temperature recorded in thermocouples t29 and t26). It can be observed that the
maximum temperatures were achieved in the cooling phase, after approximately 240 min in the
panels with no plaster and approximately 340 min in the panels with plaster on one side. The results
show that these temperature increases never reached 180 C, which is the prescribed limit for the
ISO curve and is not directly applicable to this phase.
The lateral displacement evolution was also measured during the test. During the ISO fire, the wall,
which was subjected to its own weight, was able to maintain stability, and the maximum lateral
displacement recorded was 20 mm.
The horizontal displacements recorded in all positions have small values and do not affect the
stability of the wall. The low values for these displacements do not invalidate the fire resistance
characterisation test.
Illustrations of the displacement evolution at different levels are presented in Figures 17 to 19.
It is observed that the centre points of the soil-cement panels (D, E and F) showed a more
pronounced horizontal displacement than the corresponding points of the Kraftterra panels. The
DOI: 10.1002/fam
t10-P3
200 t13-P3
t30-P3
180 t31-P3
t10 t30 180°C
160
140 t11
Temperature (°C)
120 t13 t31
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 15. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P3, Kraftterra blocks with plaster
on both surfaces.
t15-P6
200
t27-P6
180 t32-P6
180°C
160
140 t15
Temperature (°C)
120
t17
100
t27 t32
80
60
40
20
0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
Time (min)
Figure 16. Temperature increase evolutions in the thermocouples of panel P6, soil-cement blocks with plaster
on both surfaces.
Displacements at level 1 Level 1 0 min
10 20 min
Outside the furnace

5 40 min
Displacements (mm)
X (mm)
60 min
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 80 min
-5
100 min
-10
120 min
-15 220 min
Inside the furnace

414 min
-20
Figure 17. Evolution of the measured horizontal displacements profiles for the Kraftterra panels.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
0 min
Displacements at level 4
X (mm)
0 20 min
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

40 min
Displacements (mm)
-5 60 min
80 min
-10
100 min
120 min
-15
220 min
Level 4 Inside the furnace
414 min
-20
Figure 18. Evolution of the measured horizontal displacements profiles for the soil-cement panels.
Displacements at line B
0 min
2500
Inside the furnace Outside the furnace
20 min
40 min
60 min 2300
80 min
100 min
120 min 2100
220 min
414 min
1900
Displacements (mm)
1700
1500
1300
1100
Line B
900
700
500
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20
X (mm)
Figure 19. Evolution of the measured horizontal displacements profiles for the non-plastered walls with
Kraftterra and soil-cement blocks.
points closest to the interfaces between different materials, namely points H, J and L on the soil-cement
panels, showed larger displacements than those for the Kraftterra panels.
The concave shape of the deformed wall, which deviated towards the inner part of the furnace
because of the thermal gradients across the wall thickness in the early stages of the heating
process, is consistent with the observations that have been made in other similar tests. At the
later stages, the deformed shape evolved in the opposite direction because of a reversal of the
thermal gradients within the wall, which occurs because of the thermal inertia of the wall (see
Figures 17 and 18).
DOI: 10.1002/fam
7. FINAL COMMENTS
The application of this constructive technique is increasing in many countries, both in developing
regions and in developed regions where sustainable solutions are enforced and optimised.
The mechanical characteristics of CEBs may guarantee its use in certain applications, such as
dwellings, in which structural safety and comfort are required. Walls made of Kraftterra blocks,
which incorporate cement sacks, has raised doubts regarding their fire resistance, limiting their
application in practice.
With the fire resistance test performed, it is concluded that the inclusion of Kraft paper fibres
from the recycling of cement bags in the production of CEBs resulted in panel elements with
adequate performance and fire resistance. The test results confirm that the walls with Kraftterra
CEBs, with or without plaster, can be used as partition walls.
As discussed, all of the walls built with CEBs composed of soil-cement and Kraftterra showed
adequate performance and fire resistance. For all of the panels, the stability was guaranteed, and
the different compositions guaranteed wall integrity until the conclusion of the ISO fire test
(120 min duration). The walls also prevented the passage of flames, smoke and hot gases. In
regard to thermal insulation, the wall with Kraftterra CEBs showed a better performance.
It is noteworthy that for all of the walls (made with soil-cement and Kraftterra CEB blocks),
the temperature rise on the external face was far below the values recommended in the
standards. The performance of the studied walls made with CEBs was comparatively better
than required for other types of partition masonry walls.
REFERENCES
1. Silveira D, Varum H, Costa A, Martins T, Pereira H, Almeida J. Mechanical properties of adobe bricks in ancient
constructions. Construct Build Mater 2012; 28(1):36–44.
2. Rigassi V. Compressed earth blocks—manual of production. CRATerre-EAG, vol.1, GATE/GTZ/BASIN,
German, 1985.
3. Yetgin S, Çavdar O, Çavdar A. The effects of the fiber contents on the mechanic properties of the adobes. Construct
Build Mater 2008; 22:222–227.
4. Ngowi AB. Improving the traditional earth construction: a case study of Botswana. Construct Build Mater
1997; 11:1–7.
5. Ghavami K, Toledo Filho RD, Barbosa NP. Behaviour of composite soil reinforced with natural fibres. Cement and
Concrete Composites 1999; 21:39–48.
6. Binici H, Aksogan H, Shah T. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material. Construct Build
Mater 2005; 19:313–318.
7. SNIC. Sindicato Nacional da Indústria do Cimento. Relatório Anual 2008–9. http://www.snic.org.br/pdf/relat2008-
9web.pdf (webpage visited in Nov/2009).
8. Richardson L. Fire losses in selected property classifications of non-residential, commercial and residential
wood buildings. Part 1: hotels/motels and care homes for aged. Fire and Materials 2007; 31(2):97–123.
9. Buson MA. Autoconstrução com tijolos prensados de solo estabilizado (1st edn). Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo
da Universidade de Brasília: Brasília, Brazil, 2007.
10. Buson M, Varum H, Sposto RM. Viability analysis of using cellulose pulp recycled from cement sacks in
the production of compressed earth blocks. 37th IAHS World Congress on Housing Science: Design, technol-
ogy, refurbishment and management of buildings—Santander, Cantabria, Espanha, 26–29 October 2010.
11. Buson M, Varum H, Sposto RM. Performance improvement of adobe blocks with addition of cellulose pulp
derived from cement sacks recycling—KRAFTTERRA. 15th International Conference on Composite Structures,
ICCS15, FEUP, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 15–17 June 2009.
12. Barbosa NP, Matonne R, Mesbah A. Blocos de Concreto de Terra: Uma Opção Interessante Para a
Sustentabilidade da Construção. Proceedings of the 44º Congresso Brasileiro de Concreto, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil, 2002.
13. Tavares RM. An analysis of the fire safety codes in Brazil: is the performance-based approach the best practice? Fire
Safety Journal 2009; 44:749–755.
14. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas—ABNT. NBR 5628—Componentes construtivos estruturais—Determinação
da resistência ao fogo. 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
15. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas—ABNT. NBR 14432—Exigências de resistência ao fogo de elementos
construtivos de edificações—Procedimento. 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
16. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas—ABNT. NBR 10636—Paredes divisórias sem função estrutural—
Determinação da resistência ao fogo. 2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
DOI: 10.1002/fam
M. BUSON ET AL.
17. CEN, European committee for standardization. EN1996-1-2, Eurocode 6—design of masonry structures—Part
1–2: general rules—structural fire design. Brussels, 2005.
18. CEN, European committee for standardization. EN 1363-1, Fire resistance tests—Part 1: general requirements. 1999.
Brussels, Belgium.
19. CEN, European committee for standardization. EN 1364-1, Fire resistance tests for non-load-bearing elements—Part
1: walls. 1999. Brussels, Belgium.
20. CBESP, Corpo de Bombeiros do Estado de São Paulo: Instrução Técnica n. 08—Segurança estrutural nas
edificações / Resistência ao fogo dos elementos de construção. Secretaria de Estado dos Negócios da
Segurança Pública. São Paulo, Brazil, 2004.
21. Manzello S, Gann R, Kukuck S, Prasad K, Jones W. Real fire performance of partition assemblies. Fire and
Materials 2005; 29(6):351–366.
DOI: 10.1002/fam

Fire Resistance of Walls Made of Soil-Cement and Kraftterra Compressed Earth Blocks

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fire Resistance of Walls Made of Soil-Cement and Kraftterra Compressed Earth Blocks

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FIRE AND MATERIALS

Fire Mater. (2012)

Fire resistance of walls made of soil-cement and Kraftterra

Received 25 July 2011; Revised 18 April 2012; Accepted 11 June 2012

KEY WORDS: compressed earth blocks; Kraftterra; soil-cement; ﬁre resistance

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figure 1. Examples of different geometries of CEBs [8].

3. FIRE RESISTANCE TESTS

T T0 ¼ 345 log10 ð8t þ 1Þ (1)

T ¼ 345 log10 ð8t þ 1Þ þ 20 (2)

Table I. Masonry ﬁre resistance [20].

4. TEST CAMPAIGN AND PROTOTYPES DESCRIPTION

Thermocouples for the increase of average unexposed face temperature

6. TEST RESULTS AND COMPARISON

t (min) Room temperature ( C) t (min) Room temperature ( C)

Figure 7. Furnace temperature evolution.

Temperatures increase in the wall cross-section

Figure 8. Temperature evolution throughout the wall cross section.

Temperature increase profiles in panel 2

Temperature increase profiles in panel 5

Temperatures average increase t3-P1

Displacements at level 1 Level 1 0 min

Outside the furnace

-15 220 min

Inside the furnace

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen