Critical review of recent development in fiber reinforced adobe bricks for sustainable construction

Abstract

This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of research on the utilization of fibers (predominantly derived from waste materials) as reinforcement in adobe brick production. Recycling of these wastes provides sustainable construction materials and helps to protect the environment. Specimen preparation and test procedures are outlined. The effects of addition of these wastes on the physical and mechanical properties of adobe bricks as presented in the literature, are investigated. The main results for each additive are presented and discussed. It is concluded that improved adobe brick properties can be expected with the addition of combination of waste additives. The use of waste materials in the construction industry is generally of interest and useful for engineers and designers seeking sustainable solutions in construction. It is also of interest to researchers actively seeking to develop methodical approaches to quantifying, optimising and testing the performance in use of such waste material additives.

Keywords

adobe bricks / fibre reinforced bricks / green / sustainable building material / physical and mechanical properties

Introduction

Adobe is a composite construction material made of earth mixed with water and organic materials such as straw and dung. It has been used in construction across the world for thousands of years. Adobe continues to present an environmentally sustainable alternative that avoids the use of energy intensive, high carbon content materials. Features of adobe bricks include their availability, low cost, unsophisticated production technique and, in many applications, acceptable physical and mechanical properties. The adequacy and durability of adobe construction is well documented [¹–⁵].

However, adobe has some undesirable properties such as affinity for water, brittle behavior and low compressive and tensile strength compared to other mainstream construction materials [⁶–⁹]. Such deficiencies may be overcome by reinforcing the soil mixture with additives or stabilizers. Moreover, the rising demand and popularity for use of sustainable, lightweight and affordable construction materials drives the need to investigate how this can be achieved to benefit the environment while ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. As a result, the use of additives in adobe bricks has been the focus of many studies. Much of the research in this area is based on the hypothesis that brick properties can be enhanced by the addition of natural and waste materials. In addition, use of such additives in reinforcing construction materials is a practical and valuable solution to the environmental pollution problem.

Recycling waste materials, instead of dumping or burning them, is one of the advantages using waste in brick-making. A number of other advantages are reported in the literature. Some of these include improved strength and durability of the finished product. The inclusion of certain additives creates a network of fibers, which can help to reduce the size of shrinkage cracks and post-cracking tensile strength [¹⁰–¹⁴]. Likewise, enhanced thermal and acoustic properties of adobe reinforced bricks due to their porous structure have also been investigated [¹⁵–¹⁷].

Much research has been carried out, but commercial production of improved adobe brick using waste additives remains very limited. The authors of the present paper draw attention to the importance of developing and using green building materials such as adobe bricks made of readily available local materials. The use of energy-intensive, high carbon content, and very often expensive construction materials can be avoided, for example in the housing sectors worldwide especially in developing countries, where the use of adobe has withstood the test of time.

A wide variety of clay compositions and preparation methods have been used in previous studies to improve the performance of adobe bricks by selectively incorporating waste materials in its production. There is thus a need for production methodology and characterization of raw materials use, including recycled waste additives, and the method of production to be investigated and documented in some detail. The primary objective of the present paper is to assess and present the information that is reported in the literature, to encourage brick makers and researchers to better evaluate the potential for producing improved adobe bricks from selected, widely available waste materials. This study contribute to solving the problem of housing shortage by providing affordable building materials, and relevant to all with an interest in sustainable, affordable construction material development.

Previous reviews on utilization of waste additives in adobe bricks production

Over the years, many review papers have been carried out that looked at incorporating different kinds of agricultural and industrial wastes in adobe brick making. Four studies of note are highlighted in this section [¹⁸–²¹].

Bahobail [¹⁸] reviewed mud additives that are used in different regions of the world and their effect on adobe brick making and performance. This study presents information about additive addition in improving soil mixture. However, precise details about sample preparation and soil characterization were missing.

Raut et al. [¹⁹] investigated recycling of several industrial and agricultural solid wastes in the development of sustainable waste-modified adobe bricks. Size of sample, shaping methods and curing process and tests conducted were discussed. However, the study was limited because the effect of percentage of additive on water absorption (WA) and the compressive strength (CS) of the modified bricks were not presented.

Dondi et al. [²⁰,²¹] studied the utilization of different waste additives in adobe brick production. Additive content, shaping technique and chemical composition, for each additive, were outlined. In addition, the influence of each additive on linear shrinkage (LS), WA, bending strength (BS), and CS were determined. This study was published in two parts and is one of the early attempts to discuss the recycling of industrial wastes in brick production. Some of this work is mentioned in Refs. [¹⁸–²¹] but is discussed here in greater detail.

Table 1 lists the full body of literature reviewed in this study, summarizing the types and percentages of additives used, together with the origin /location and publication date of the study. 22 different additives are discussed, based on 45 literature studies from the past 15 years. It is important to note that in most cases the additives used were locally available, inexpensive (or even free), and recycled. This explains their variety, they were thus chosen not only for their composition or properties but more for their abundance.

It can be seen from Table 1 that some additives were only partially investigated. Wool fiber, for example, was the only animal fiber reported in the literature to date, as indicated in Table 1 [²³,³¹]. Moreover, animal fiber such as chicken feather is inexpensive, lightweight, and continuously renewable with excellent compressibility and resilience. It is a global waste product and has good thermal insulation properties [⁶⁷]. Due to its desirable characteristics, a number of studies looked at the use of fiber from chicken feather in many potential industrial applications such as in textile industry [⁶⁸], bioplastics [⁶⁹] and wastewater treatment [⁷⁰]. However, none have focused on reinforcing adobe bricks with this additive. Research and development trials, to reinforce adobe bricks with chicken feather, are being carried out by the authors and will be reported in the near future.

Another interesting additive presented in Table 1 is sugarcane bagasse. According to Sun et al. [⁷¹], the annual production of sugarcane bagasse globally is over 54 million tons. This large amount of sugarcane bagasse, a commonly found waste product in some parts of the world, creates several environmental problems such as land contamination, dust, and air pollution [⁷²]. Sugarcane bagasse has been used in applications ranging from animal feed to paper production [⁷³]. However, due to the low volume usage of these industries, the reduction in the quantity of bagasse waste used is small. Sugarcane bagasse is mainly composed of crystalline silica particles and could be used as a filler in clay brick [³³,⁴⁶,⁴⁷,⁶¹,⁶⁴]. Studies on the use of sugarcane bagasse in adobe brick production are limited. More comprehensive and detailed research on adobe brick reinforced with sugarcane bagasse is therefore indicated.

Use of chicken feather and sugarcane bagasse have thus been selected for further study by the authors because of their availability across the world, their low cost along with superior properties such as density and strength.

Review of developments in reinforced adobe bricks

Soil characterization

The chemical analysis of soil without additives must be considered as the chemical composition of soil has significant effect on its physical and mechanical properties [⁷⁴,⁷⁵]. Therefore, this must be established so that the effect of additives can be properly studied. Based on X-ray diffraction (XRD) results obtained from the reviewed papers [²²,²³,²⁶–²⁸,³³,³⁴,³⁹,⁴⁰,⁴⁷,⁴⁸,⁵¹,⁵⁵,⁵⁷,⁵⁸,⁶⁰,⁶³–⁶⁵], the chemical properties of the soil used in the papers that were considered in Table 1 are summarized in Fig. 1.

XRD analysis shows that there are four main chemical components. The most abundant component is silica (SiO₂) which typically ranges from 50% to 60% by weight (Fig. 1). The porosity of adobe is strongly related to the silica content in the mix. The next most abundant component is alumina (Al₂O₃). At constant pH, strength increases with alumina content, which typically averages at about 10% by weight of the soil composition. Its presence is thought to contribute to improved quality of adobe bricks (Fig. 1).

Another important component observed is ferric oxide (Fe₂O₃), which may often be the cause of efflorescence in adobe. As a result, it is considered good practice to keep the ferric oxide content at less than 10% by weight (Fig. 1). Lastly, the concentration of lime (CaO) can be up to 10% by weight (Fig. 1). Mechanical strength increases with increasing interaction between lime and silica. However, if free lime does not bond with silica, expansion in bricks due to moisture absorption may be developed, which will eventually lead to cracks and failure [⁷⁴].

It should be noted that most of the papers considered by this work have used soil with acceptable chemical composition by brick manufacturers. Nevertheless, few papers presented low SiO₂ content such as [²⁷,³³,⁵¹,⁶¹] and other showed high concentration of CaO [²⁷,⁵¹]. When adobe bricks are reinforced with lime [²⁷]; coconut [³³,⁶¹] or date palm [⁵¹], exhibit problems related to porosity and strength that are expected in the manufacture of adobe bricks from one of these additives at industrial scale.

The chemical composition of soils reported in the literature is shown in Fig. 1, highlighting similarities and differences. The chemical composition of the additives used can vary significantly due to different origins and treatment process of such additives. It is not possible to quantify the chemical composition of every additive because of variability source: this aspect will be the subject of a separate, future investigation.

Particle size (PS) distribution is carried out by shaking the soil samples in a set of descending opening size sieves, and measurement of the cumulative percentage amounts passing through each sieve size [³⁸]. Different soil components will have a significant influence on the binding force, and therefore also on the tensile and compressive strength of adobe bricks [⁵³]. The PS of the soils reported in the literature are presented in Fig. 2.

According to the literature, the following ranges are suitable for earth construction: less than 10% of gravel (grain diameter d_g>2.0 mm); 40%–70% of sand (0.063 mm<d_g<2.0 mm); 10%–30% of silt (0.002 mm<d_g<0.063 mm) and less than 40% of clay (d_g<0.002 mm) [²⁶,³⁰,³³,³⁶–³⁸,⁴⁰–⁴²,⁴⁹–⁵⁴,⁵⁸,⁶¹,⁶³,⁶⁴].

Sample preparation

Sample preparation methods can define the physical, mechanical and thermal properties of adobe bricks. For industrial applications, authors are required to state clearly how samples are developed. A review of literature shows that several adobe-making methodologies were used in the papers that were considered by this work as presented in Fig. 3.

Adobe bricks are generally made from soil, water, and additives. All materials are mixed and sufficient amount of water is added to the mixture for workability purposes. The amount of water is a main factor that can affect the shaping and the drying of the finished bricks, before the clay mixture is shaped using one of the following shaping techniques: pressing, extrusion or molding. The technique chosen for brick shaping, influences the required amount of mixing water to achieve optimum plasticity. Adobe brick manufacture by extrusion generally uses an Archimedes auger. This method is preferred as it delivers lower overall production cost [⁷⁴].

It should be noted that the pressing force was not reported in studies that employed the pressing method [²⁵,²⁷,³²–³⁴,⁴²,⁵⁰,⁶⁴], except for Refs. [³⁰,⁵¹]. For samples made by molding [²³,²⁴,⁶⁵,⁶⁶], information about the molding method is not fully described, and less so with the extrusion method [²²,⁵⁵]. For example, pressure data for bricks made by molding is not given although this information is valuable to upscale results to commercial level. This is also important for the brick manufacturer since the volume of mixing water required depends on this pressure.

Finally, the shaped samples are dried at ambient laboratory conditions, and/or in an oven. The drying process can affect the size and volume of the finished product. Uncontrolled dry conditions may produce cracks, deformation on adobe bricks, and/or efflorescence due to the soluble salts contained. Gentle drying at ambient in the laboratory is the most commonly used drying method [²⁴,²⁵,²⁷,²⁹–³¹,³³,³⁴,³⁷,³⁹–⁴⁵,⁴⁷–⁵²,⁵⁴–⁶⁵] with the temperature ranging between 20°C to 35°C until constant weight is achieved. However, Refs. [²³,²⁶,²⁸,³²] used oven for drying at temperature reaching up to 105°C. Some researcher used both natural drying and electronic oven [²²,³²,⁴⁷], while few researchers did not report their drying methods [³⁸,⁵³]. Drying time and temperature are key factors to retain the resistance of the brick and avoid cracks or fractures.

It is notable that the practice in many countries is for adobe bricks to be mixed, cast or molded, dried and stored outdoors, where the process would be influenced by outdoor air relative humidity, temperature and flow, and exposure to solar radiation. In factory production, on the other hand, the drying process involves several stages of tunnel drying with controlled humidity and temperature requirements.

Procedures for the making of adobe bricks in the papers that have been considered are summarized in Table 2. Shaping techniques, number of samples, size and drying methods are also presented. Various types of brick with different shapes (blocks, cubes, cylindrical, prism shape) were produced in the literature, as summarized in Table 2. Some studies did not report their sample number [²⁴,²⁸,²⁹,³¹–³³,³⁹,⁴³–⁴⁶,⁴⁸,⁶²], while others did not mention their sample size [³⁴,⁵⁰,⁵¹]. It is important to note that all the steps followed in the study and development of reinforced adobe bricks are important if one is to replicate and confirm the findings from these studies. Therefore, all information related to sample preparation should be recorded and reported in detail to assure the same results on commercial scale.

It is clear from Table 2 that researchers have tested various waste additives in different proportions and adopted various methodologies to produce adobe bricks, as per the various applicable standards in their countries.

The testing of samples

Various types of tests have been carried out on adobe bricks to measure their properties for construction purposes as presented in Table 2. The properties of the bricks obtained depend, among other things, on the nature and quantity of the additives added. The authors of these studies have mainly focused on durability, reliability and strength. The most common adobe tests conducted in the papers reviewed were CS, WA, and flexural strength (FS). Based on the results of these tests, bricks can be grouped into different categories according to different material standards. Bulk density (BD) and LS are also required and should be measured to guide the design of suitable molds and tools used in adobe brick production. Characterization of raw materials through XRD, PS, porosity measurement (AP), and scanning electron microscope (SEM) investigations were used to understand how different waste additives affect clay mixtures.

One of the known benefits of adobe construction is its inherent potential to help ensure stable, well controlled indoor environmental conditions (temperature and humidity) in buildings. However, limited research has been carried out to investigate and quantify the thermal conductivity (TC) of adobe [²⁶,²⁹,³⁰,³⁹,⁴⁷,⁵⁰,⁵¹,⁶⁰,⁶³]. Only one study touched on the hygroscopic performance of adobe bricks by testing its water suction (WS) [²⁹].

Table 3 summarizes all the tests that have been undertaken in the considered papers, and the standards referenced. It should be noted that some of the additives used include toxic agents such as rice husk ash [⁴⁰], sugarcane bagasse ash [⁴⁷,⁶⁴], fly ash [⁵⁸], and brick dust waste [⁵⁵]. In these cases, leaching tests should be carried out to avoid health risk related problems. More research regarding the environmental impact of adobe bricks is required.

Discussions

The procedures and tests reported in the papers that were considered have been summarized in Table 3. The adobe brick properties considered by most researchers as required by various standards are BD , water absorption (WS), and CS. The results from these tests will now be evaluated and discussed in detail.

The density of a material is known to strongly correlate with mechanical and thermal properties. Adding additives into the clay mixture decreases the density of the bricks. As bricks are generally heavy and compact, future research must focus on the development of lightweight products, reducing weight and at the same time recycling wastes to obtain the desired result. Too high a reduction in density can, however, lead to structural defects.

Figure 4 shows that BD of adobe bricks incorporating plastic fiber [⁵⁷] is the lowest (1.26 g/cm³) compared to bricks incorporating other waste materials. BD is clearly reduced when plastic fibers are used in the mix. Adobe bricks created from waste have an average of 1.67 g/cm³. The reported density for a good quality, traditionally made adobe brick is between 1.80 and 2.00 g/cm³. Most of the samples that were tested fall within this range, except for those incorporating 0.20% plastic fiber at 1.26 g/cm³ [⁵⁷] and 5% sawdust at 1.32 g/cm³ [⁴⁴].

As expected, brick density falls when the amount of waste additive is increased. The reduction in density was between 7%–9% compared to control samples [⁶¹]. The main reason for such a result is the lower waste additives density itself compared to soil, which is heavier.

Adobe bricks with coconut fiber have the highest density of 1.95 g/cm³ [⁶¹]. This is evidence of densification, where the presence of waste actually improves sample compaction. No record of adobe BD has been found for some waste additives, including oil balm fiber [²⁹], blast furnace slag [³⁴], Grewia optivia (a fiber-rich tree commonly found in the Indian subcontinent) [³⁶], rice husk ash [⁴⁰], date palm fiber [⁴⁸], brick dust [⁵⁵], wood cutting waste [⁵⁶], polypropylene fiber [³⁰], Hibiscus cannabinus fiber [³⁹], and corn plant [⁶²].

In general, BD is directly related to CS and inversely related to water absorption (WS). In addition, a decrease in density also lead to an improvement in the thermal and sound insulation performance of adobe bricks.

The water absorption test is commonly used to quantify the durability of adobe brick in wet environments and used as an indicator for the adobe bricks resistance to immersion. The creation of porosity due to the incorporation of additives in the adobe bricks lead to an increase in water absorption. The voids in the samples while immersed, are filled with water which can penetrate the material easily, with a preferential pathway depending on the structure of pores and the way they are interconnected. High value of water absorption for adobe bricks is not desirable as it affects durability and resistance to natural conditions.

Most building standards specify the allowable water absorption of adobe bricks to be no more than 15% [¹⁰⁸] to 20% [¹¹⁴] by weight. Many specimens that were stabilized using waste satisfy the water absorption requirements for adobe bricks, apart from plastic fiber [⁵⁷], lime [⁶⁰], waste tea [²²], and blastfurnace slag [³⁴] as shown in Fig. 5. Water absorption plays a significant role in bonding between fiber and soil particles. High water absorption may damage the fiber-soil bonding, which results in increase shrinkage during drying due to evaporation. On the contrary, too low water absorption lead to brittle adobe brick, eventually leading to strength loss of the structure over time.

The minimum water absorption recorded was for date palm fiber [⁵¹], rice husk ash [⁴⁰], and Grewia optivia [³⁶] having values of 5.30%, 6.20%, and 6.51%, respectively. This indicates improvement in durability with addition of these additives.

In general, water absorption of the adobe blocks increases with increase waste additives content. This increase may be attributed to the absorbent nature of additives which creates pathway through adobe blocks, thereby allowing more water to be absorbed by the bricks. However, decrease in water absorption with increase in additive content were reported in some studies [³⁶,⁴⁰,⁶⁰].

The values recommended for minimum allowable CS for adobe bricks are very wide ranging and vary across national boundaries. The lowest allowable strength limits set in most current adobe brick standards range from 1.20 to 2.10 MPa [⁵¹]. The results of compression tests reported in the literature vary from 1.53 to 7.60 MPa [²²,⁴⁶], with the most common values being between 4.37 and 6.20 MPa [²³,⁶⁵]. This strength is suitable for many building purposes such as load-bearing construction. It is worth mentioning that the failure mode of the control sample was always sudden and very quick, while that of the composite material was more ductile and gradual. This means that the fibers affect the brittle behavior of the soil mix.

It is notable from Fig. 6 that the highest compressive strength for adobe brick is obtained with a waste tea additive, but with a correspondingly higher than average water absorption value of 27.30%, see Fig. 5. The compressive strength of adobe bricks incorporating waste tea is about 6 times greater than the minimum value recommended by most standards. It is also interesting that, despite possessing the lowest BD, plastic fiber reinforced adobe has almost 2.5 times the compressive strength of coconut fiber reinforced adobe, which has the highest BD, see Fig. 4.

The reason for increase in compressive strength with increase in content of additives attributed to well soil fiber interaction and resultant bond between clay mix and added additive. The development of strength properties of reinforced adobe bricks mainly depends on the formation of fiber-soil, soil-soil, and fiber-fiber bonds. The strength of these bonds mainly depends on the dimension, surface conditions, and quantity of additives added to the soil. First, fiber-soil bond, new bond introduced in reinforced samples, is responsible for stress transmission within soil composite. This is known as fiber bridging mechanism in composite, which binds soil grains together more firmly unlike in the case of unreinforced soil samples. This phenomenon is responsible for increase in strength with the increase in additive content up to an optimum point. Secondly, soil-soil bond is the one and only bond in unreinforced samples which is responsible for unreinforced samples strength. Finally, fiber-fiber bond is the weakest bond among the three bonds and do not contribute to the composite strength.

As additive content increased above the optimal value, a loss of fiber bond was observed as fiber-fiber bond increased thus decreasing the formation of fiber-soil and soil-soil interactions leading to a lower compressive strength [³⁰]. The effect of fiber on the properties of adobe bricks was therefore depended more on the quantity of fiber interact with the soil matrix and the fiber pull-out characteristics than on total fiber content [²⁴]. It is important to note that higher strengths are achievable using binder such as cement or lime. The compressive strength of the cement-stabilized bricks is 70% higher than the bricks reinforced with waste additives such as lime [²³,⁴⁴].

Clearly, more fundamental research is needed if we are to fully understand the complex intersections of additive type on the different material properties that are of interest. One might, for example, empirically investigate the combination of different percentages of waste tea with other waste materials such as date palm fiber, which has the lowest water absorption of 5.30%, to reduce water absorption while improving physical and mechanical properties. Moreover, new adobe bricks made from waste tea and date palm fiber could be tested for the physical, mechanical and thermal properties summarized in Table 3. Lastly, in order to underpin the sustainability credentials of adobe bricks, carbon lifecycle analysis for commercial production of innovative adobe bricks should be performed.

For future significant commercial production and application of these studies of waste-created adobe brick, several aspects need to be carefully considered. First, potential contaminants within waste additives should be managed in an effective and safe manner. Leaching tests can be carried out in line with ASTM and/or other building standard methods. Secondly, current low public acceptance of adobe bricks made from waste materials needs to be tackled through public awareness campaigns on the economic and environmental benefits of using waste-based adobe bricks. Physical properties such as color, efflorescence, and toughness are essential for public acceptance. These properties should be studied in all research papers on adobe bricks for industrial use. Finally, to encourage more adobe brick makers to incorporate waste materials in their process, adobe standards should be relevant and respond to regulatory and market needs.

Conclusions

The present study reviews the utilization of waste materials as reinforcement in adobe brick production. The following conclusions can be drawn from this review.

1) The use of wastes as additives in adobe production is not only environmentally friendly, affordable and energy efficient, but can also lead to the production of sustainable and durable adobe bricks by enhancing some of its physical, mechanical and thermal properties.

2) Almost all the waste additives studied in the literature are within the acceptable limit of design standards for stabilized adobe bricks in term of BD, WA, and CS.

3) Several types of test were reported in the literature. However, TC and WS tests were only carried out in limited studies.

4) Although a wide variety of waste additives have been studied for inclusion in adobe bricks, commercial-scale production remains untested. We attribute this primarily to potential contamination from waste additives, lack of appropriate adobe standards and low public acceptance.

5) Researches must define their implemented production methodology (soil characterization, sample preparation, drying and testing) in detail. Shaping pressure, for example, plays an important role in the density of adobe which influences all other brick properties. However, this information is missing in most studies on adobe brick in the literature.

6) Although the benefits of including a single waste additive in adobe bricks is evident in the literature, further research on combinations of waste material, such as waste tea and date palm fiber, is suggested.

7) To extend the production of new, improved types of environmentally friendly adobe brick made using waste additives, further research that integrates scientific, technical, environmental, regulatory and economic impacts of such adobe bricks is needed.

8) The use of waste materials in adobe brick production provides an economic contribution and also helps protects the environment. The proposed use of waste stabilizers will help promote sustainable development in the construction industry.

Various methodologies to design and develop adobe bricks from waste additives are reviewed. Important characteristic of the bricks, incorporating different waste additives, are studied in accordance with the relevant standards. Enhanced performance of the waste/fiber reinforced adobe bricks in terms of lightweight and compressive strength is useful for researchers and designer interested in developing sustainable construction material. Despite these efforts toward improving the mechanical and thermal properties of adobe bricks, it is evident that full understanding of its behavior is still far from being conclusive. The main limitation in the literature is obtaining the optimum fiber content without considering the full response of adobe bricks. Further, appropriate design procedure for fiber-reinforced adobe brick structure has not been proposed. Therefore, the authors aim to carry out a detailed study on adobe bricks reinforced with chicken feather and sugarcane bagasse through experimental work and finite element modeling to address these issues.

References

[1] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth Construction—A Comprehensive Guide. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1994

[2] Deboucha S, Hashim R. A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Research and Essays, 2011, 6(3): 499–506

[3] Bui Q B, Morel J C, Venkatarama Reddy B V, Ghayad W. Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering. Built Environment, 2009, 44(5): 912–919

[4] Taylor P, Luther M B. Evaluating rammed earth walls: A case study. Solar Energy, 2004, 76(1–3): 79–84

[5] Morel J C, Mesbah A, Oggero M, Walker P. Building houses with local materials: Means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction. Building and Environment, 2001, 36(10): 1119–1126

[6] Adam E A, Agib A. Compressed Stabilized Earth Block Manufacturing in Sudan. Technical Note No. 12. Comparing Adobe with Fired Clay Bricks. Paris: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 2001

[7] Minke G. Earth Construction Handbook: The Building Material Earth in Modern Architecture. Southampton: Wit Press, 2000

[8] Minke G. Building with Earth. Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006

[9] Avrami E, Guillaud H, Hardy M. Terra Literature Review. An Overview of Research in Earthen Architecture Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008

[10] Ziegler S, Leshchinsky D, Ling H L, Perry E B. Effect of short polymeric fibres on crack development in clays. Soil and Foundation, 1998, 38(1): 247–253

[11] Rigassi V. Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of Production. Braunschweig: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), 1995

[12] United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-Habitat). Earth Construction Technology. Nairobi: Earth Construction Technology, 1992

[13] Mesbah A, Morel J C, Walker P, Ghavami K. Development of a direct tensile test for compacted earth blocks reinforced with natural fibers. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2004, 16(1): 95–98

[14] Elenga R G, Mabiala B, Ahouet L, Goma-Maniongui J, Dirras G F. Characterization of clayey soils from Congo and physical properties of their compressed earth blocks reinforced with post-consumer plastic wastes. Geomaterials, 2011, 1(3): 88–94

[15] Russ W, Mörtel H, Meyer-Pittroff R. Application of spent grains to increase porosity in bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2005, 19(2): 117–126

[16] Yetgin Ş, Çavdar O, Çavdar A. The effects of the fibre contents on the mechanic properties of the adobes. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 222–227

[17] Grimwood C. Complaints about poor sound insulation between dwellings in England and Wales. Applied Acoustics, 1997, 52(3–4): 211–223

[18] Bahobail M A. The mud additives and their effect on thermal conductivity of adobe bricks. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2011, 40(1): 21–34

[19] Raut S P, Ralegaonkar R V, Mandavgane S A. Development of sustainable construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: A review of waste-create bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(10): 4037–4042

[20] Dondi M, Marsigli M, Fabbri B. Recycling of industrial and urban wastes in brick production: A review (Part 1). Tile Brick International, 1997, 13(3): 218–225

[21] Dondi M, Marsigli M, Fabbri B. Recycling of industrial and urban wastes in brick production: A review (Part 2). Tile Brick International, 1997, 13(4): 302–309

[22] Demir I. An Investigation on the production of construction brick with processed waste tea. Building and Environment, 2006, 41(9): 1274–1278

[23] Galán-Marín C, Rivera-Gómez C, Petric J. Clay-based composite stabilized with natural polymer and fibre. Construction & Building Materials, 2010, 24(8): 1462–1468

[24] Donkor P, Obonyo E. Compressed soil blocks: Influence of fibers on flexural properties and failure mechanism. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 121: 25–33

[25] Oti J E, Kinuthia J M, Bai J. Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of unfired clay masonry bricks. Engineering Geology, 2009, 109(3–4): 230–240

[26] Calatan G, Hegyi A, Dico C, Mircea C. Determining the optimum addition of vegetable materials in adobe bricks. Procedia Technology, 2016, 22: 259–265

[27] Oti J E, Kinuthia J M, Bai J. Developing unfired stabilised building materials in the UK. Engineering Sustainability, 2008, 161(4): 211–218

[28] Mesbah A, Morel J C, Walker P, Ghavami K. Development of a direct tensile test for compacted earth blocks reinforced with natural fibers. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2004, 16(1): 95–98

[29] Raut A N, Gomez C P. Development of thermally efficient fibre-based eco-friendly brick reusing locally available waste materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 133: 275–284

[30] Donkor P, Obonyo E. Earthen construction materials: Assessing the feasibility of improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 2015, 83: 813–819

[31] Aymerich F, Fenu L, Meloni P. Effect of reinforcing wool fibres on fracture and energy absorption properties of an earthen material. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 27(1): 66–72

[32] Chan C. Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: Physico-mechanical properties. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2011, 5(1): 7–13

[33] Danso H, Martinson D B, Ali M, Williams J. Effect of fibre aspect ratio on mechanical properties of soil building blocks. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 83: 314–319

[34] Oti J E, Kinuthia J M, Bai J. Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry bricks. Engineering Geology, 2009, 107(3–4): 130–139

[35] Sharma V, Vinayak H K, Marwaha B M. Enhancing compressive strength of soil using natural fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 93: 943–949

[36] Sharma V, Marwaha B M, Vinayak H K. Enhancing durability of adobe by natural reinforcement for propagating sustainable mud housing. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 2016, 5(1): 141–155

[37] Piattoni Q, Quagliarini E, Lenci S. Experimental analysis and modelling of the mechanical behaviour of earthen bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(4): 2067–2075

[38] Mostafa M, Uddin N. Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2016, 5: 53–63

[39] Millogo Y, Morel J, Aubert J, Ghavami K. Experimental analysis of Pressed Adobe Blocks reinforced with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 52: 71–78

[40] Muntohar A S. Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(11): 4215–4220

[41] Parisi F, Asprone D, Fenu L, Prota A. Experimental characterization of Italian composite adobe bricks reinforced with straw fibers. Composite Structures, 2015, 122: 300–307

[42] Subramaniaprasad C K, Abraham B M, Kunhanandan Nambiar E K. Influence of embedded waste-plastic fibers on the improvement of the tensile strength of stabilized mud masonry blocks. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2015, 27(7): 04014203

[43] El-Mahllawy M S, Kandeel A M. Engineering and mineralogical characteristics of stabilized unfired montmorillonitic clay bricks. HBRC Journal, 2014, 10(1): 82–91

[44] Smeu S, Gal A, Badea C. Environmental friendly building materials: Unfired clay bricks. Journal of Environment, 2014, 3(3): 47–50

[45] Vega P, Juan A, Ignacio Guerra M, Morán J M, Aguado P J, Llamas B. Mechanical characterisation of traditional adobes from the north of Spain. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(7): 3020–3023

[46] Ribeiro C A, Paula P T, Tarcísio L J, Denzin T G, Marin M L. Mechanical properties of adobe made with sugar cane bagasse and “synthetic termite saliva” incorporation. Key Engineering Materials, 2015, 634: 351–356

[47] Tonnayopas D. Green building bricks made with clays and sugar cane bagasse ash. In: Proceeding of the 11th International Conference on Mining, Materials and Petroleum Engineering. Mai: ASEAN, 2013, 7–14

[48] Taallah B, Guettala A, Guettala S, Kriker A. Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 59: 161–168

[49] Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material. Construction & Building Materials, 2005, 19(4): 313–318

[50] Ashour T, Korjenic A, Korjenic S, Wu W. Thermal conductivity of unfired earth bricks reinforced by agricultural wastes with cement and gypsum. Energy and Building, 2015, 104: 139–146

[51] Taallah B, Guettala A. The mechanical and physical properties of compressed earth block stabilized with lime and filled with untreated and alkali-treated date palm fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 104: 52–62

[52] Quagliarini E, Lenci S. The influence of natural stabilizers and natural fibres on the mechanical properties of ancient Roman adobe bricks. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2010, 11(3): 309–314

[53] Zak P, Ashour T, Korjenic A, Korjenic S, Wu W. The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, gypsum and cement on compressive strength of earth bricks materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 106: 179–188

[54] Yetgin S, Cavdar O, Cavdar A. The effects of the fiber contents on the mechanic properties of the adobes. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 222–227

[55] Oti J E, Kinuthia J M, Robinson R B. The development of unfired clay building material using Brick Dust Waste and Mercia mudstone clay. Applied Clay Science, 2014, 102: 148–154

[56] Rojas-Valencia M N, Bolaños E A. Sustainable adobe bricks with construction wastes. Water Resources Management, 2016, 169: 158–165

[57] Binici H, Aksogan O, Bakbak D, Kaplan H, Isik B. Sound insulation of fibre reinforced mud brick walls. Construction & Building Materials, 2009, 23(2): 1035–1041

[58] Turanli L, Saritas A. Strengthening the structural behavior of adobe walls through the use of plaster reinforcement mesh. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(4): 1747–1752

[59] Bock-Hyeng C, Ofori-Boadu A N, Yamb-Bell E, Shofoluwe M A. Mechanical properties of sustainable adobe bricks stabilized with recycled sugarcane fiber waste. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2016, 6(9): 50–59

[60] Millogo Y, Hajjaji M, Ouedraogo R. Microstructure and physical properties of lime-clayey adobe bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(12): 2386–2392

[61] Danso H D, Martinson B, Ali M, Williams J B. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 101: 797–809

[62] Serrano S, Barreneche C, Cabeza L F. Use of by-products as additives in adobe bricks: Mechanical properties characterisation. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 108: 105–111

[63] Binici H, Aksogan O, Bodur M N, Akca E, Kapur S. Thermal isolation and mechanical properties of fibre reinforced mud bricks as wall materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2007, 21(4): 901–906

[64] Lima S A, Varum H, Sales A, Neto V F. Analysis of the mechanical properties of compressed earth block masonry using the sugarcane bagasse ash. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 35: 829–837

[65] Oti J E, Kinuthia J M, Bai J. Unfired clay bricks: From laboratory to industrial production. Engineering Sustainability, 2009, 162(4): 229–237

[66] Sharma V, Vinayak H K, Marwaha B M. Enhancing sustainability of rural adobe houses of hills by addition of vernacular fiber reinforcement. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 2015, 4(2): 348–358

[67] Martínez-Hernandez L, Velasco-Santos C, de-Icaza M, Castaño V M. Microstructural characterization of keratin fibers from chicken feathers. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 2005, 23(2): 162–178

[68] Reddy B V. Stabilized soil blocks for structural masonry in earth construction. Modern Earth Buildings, 2012: 324–363

[69] Roh M S, Bauchan G R, Huda M S. The effect of biobased plastic resins containing chicken feather fibers on the growth and flowering of Begonia boliviensis. Journal of Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology, 2012, 53(1): 81–91

[70] Al-Asheh S, Banat F, Al-Rousan D. Beneficial reuse of chicken feathers in removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11(3): 321–326

[71] Sun X F, Sun R C, Sun J X. Acetylation of sugarcane bagasse using NBS as a catalyst under mild reaction conditions for the production of oil sorption active materials. Bioresource Technology, 2004, 95(3): 343–350

[72] Abdul Kadir A, Maasom N. Recycling sugarcane bagasse waste into fired clay brick. International Journal of Zero Waste Generation, 2013, 1(1): 21–26

[73] Banerjee R, Pandey A. Bio-industrial application of sugarcane bagasse: A technological perspective. International Sugar Journal, 2002, 104: 64–70

[74] Muñoz Velasco P, Morales Ortíz M P, Mendívil Giró M A, Muñoz Velasco L. Fired clay bricks manufactured by adding wastes as sustainable construction material—A review. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 63: 97–107

[75] Gualtieri M L, Gualtieri A F, Gagliardi S, Ruffini P, Ferrari R, Hanuskova M. Thermal conductivity of fired clays: Effects on mineralogical and physical properties of the raw materials. Applied Clay Science, 2010, 49(3): 269–275

[76] Brick Industry Association (USA). Manufacturing, Classification and Selection of Brick Manufacturing—Part I. Virginia: BIA, 1986

[77] ASTM C 67. Standard Methods of Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile. Brick Manufacturing Part I. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1986

[78] Turkish Standard, TS 704. Clay Bricks-Wall Tile. Ankara: Turkish Standard Institution, 1983

[79] Turkish Standard, TS 705. Solid Brick and Vertically Perforated Bricks (the Classification, Properties, Sampling, Testing and Marking of Solid Bricks and Vertically Perforated Bricks). Ankara: Turkish Standard Institution, 1985

[80] European Committee for Standardization, EN 196-1 2005. Methods of Testing Cement. Part 1: Determination of Strength. Brussels: AENOR, 2005

[81] European Committee for Standardization, 1015-2 1998. Methods of Test for Mortars for Masonry. Part 2: Bulk Sampling of Mortars and Preparation of Test Mortars. Brussels: AENOR, 1999

[82] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12190 1999. Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures. Test methods. Determination of compressive strength of repair mortars. Brussels: AENOR, 1998

[83] European Committee for Standardization, EN 83-821-925. Determination of Compressive Strengths in Mortars Used for Rough Castings and Mortar Linings, Being Made with Lime or Hydraulic Conglomerate. Brussels: AENOR, 1998

[84] ASTM C 1609. Standard Test Method for flexural performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2012.

[85] British Standards, BS 1924-2. Stabilised Materials for Civil Engineering Purposes—Part 2: Methods of Test for Cement-Stabilised and Lime-Stabilised Materials. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1990

[86] British Standards, BS EN 771-1. Specification for Masonry Units-Part 1: Clay masonry units. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 2003

[87] ASTM E 2392/E2392M-10. Standard Guide for Design of Earthen Wall Building Systems. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2016

[88] Zimbabwe Standard, SAZ 724. Code of Practice for Rammed Earth Structures. Harare: Standards Association of Zimbabwe, 2001

[89] ASTM D 2487-11. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2011

[90] British Standards Institute, BS 1377-2. Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, Part 2: Classification Tests. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1998

[91] British Standards Institute, BS 3921:1985. Specifications for Clay Bricks. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1998

[92] ASTM C 20-00. Standard Test Methods for Apparent Porosity, Water Absorption, Apparent Specific Gravity, and Bulk Density of Burned Refractory Brick and Shapes by Boiling Water, ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2015

[93] Indian Standard, IS 4860:1968. Specification for Acid Resistant Bricks. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1996

[94] ASTM C 618-15. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2015

[95] New Mexico Construction Bureau, NMAC14.7.4. New Mexico Adobe and Rammed Earth Building Code, Construction Industries Division. New Mexico: General Construction Bureau, 2009

[96] ASTM D 422-63. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007

[97] Standards New Zealand, NZS 4297. Engineering Design of Earth Buildings. Wellington: Standards New Zealand, 1998

[98] Standards New Zealand, NZS 4298. Materials and Workmanship for Earth Buildings. Wellington: Standards New Zealand, 1998

[99] ASTM C 1018-97. Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and Firstcrack Strength of Fiber-reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1997

[100] Malaysian Standards, MS 76. Specifications for Bricks and Blocks of Fired Bricks, Clay or Shale, Part 2: Metric Units. Selangor: Standard and Industrial Research Institute of Malaysia (SIRIM), 1972

[101] British Standards Institute, BS EN 197-1. Cement—Part 1: Composition, Specification and on forming Criteria for Common Cements. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 2000

[102] British Standards Institute, BS EN 771-3. Methods of Test for Masonry Units—Part 3: Determination of Net Volume and Percentage of Voids of Clay Masonry Units by Hydrostatic Weighing. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1998

[103] US EPA. Final Rule. 40 CFR Part 63. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2003

[104] Indian Standards, IS 2720-4. Grain Size Analysis. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1985

[105] Indian Standards, IS 2720-5. Determination of Liquid and Plastic Limit. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1985

[106] Indian Standards, IS 2720-7. Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation Using Light Compaction. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1985

[107] Indian Standards, IS1498. Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1970

[108] Indian Standards, IS 1725. Specification for Soil Based Blocks Used in General Building Construction. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1982

[109] Indian Standards, IS 2720-10. Method of Test for Soils—Part 10: Determination of Unconfined Compressive Strength. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1991

[110] Indian Standards, IS 4332-1. Method of Test for Soils—Part 1: Method of Sampling and Preparation of Stabilized Soils for Testing. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1967

[111] Indian Standards, IS 4332-3. Method of Test for Stabilized Soils—Part 3: Test for Determination of Moisture Content-Dry Density Relation for Stabilize Soil Mixtures. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1967

[112] ASTM D 3822-07. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Single Textile Fibers. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007

[113] Indonesian Standard, SNI 15-2094. Massive Red Bricks for Masonry Works. Jakarta: National Standardization Agency of Indonesia, 2000

[114] Indonesian standard, SNI 03-6458. Methods for Flexural Strength of Soil-cement Using Simple Beam with Third-point Loading. Jakarta: National Standardization Agency of Indonesia, 2000

[115] Italian Building Code (IBC). D. M. 14.01. Technical Standards for Construction. Rome: Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transportation, 2008 (in Italian)

[116] Indian Standards, BIS 1725. Specifications for Soil Based Blocks Used in General Building Construction. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards, 2002

[117] Egyptian Standard Specification. ESS 1234. Masonry Building Units Made from Desert Clay Used for Non-load Bearing Walls. Cairo: Egyptian Standard Specification (ESS), 2005

[118] Egyptian Standard Specification. ESS 584-1. Quick and Hydrated Lime—Part 1: Definitions, Requirements and Conformity Criteria. Cairo: Egyptian Standard Specification (ESS), 2008

[119] European Committee for Standardization, EN 12372. Natural Stone Test Methods—Determination of Flexural Strength under Concentrated Load. Brussels: EN, 2006

[120] Spanish Standard, UNE 103101. Particle Size Analysis of A Soil by Screening. Madrid: AENOR, 1995 (in Portuguese)

[121] ASTM D 790. Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2000

[122] Thai Industrial Standard Institute, TIS 77. Standards Specification for Building Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from Clay or Shale). Bangkok: Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI), 1974

[123] ASTM C 1113/C 1113 M-09. Standard test Method for Thermal Conductivity of Refractories by Hot Wire (Platinum Resistance Thermometer Technique). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2009

[124] French Standard, AFNOR, XP P13-901. Compressed Earth Blocks for Walls and Partitions: Definitions-Specifications-Test Methods-Delivery Acceptance Conditions. Paris: French Standard Institute, 2001 (in French)

[125] European Committee for Standardization, EN 1015-11. Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 11: Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar. Brussels: AENOR, 1999

[126] DIN 18952 Part 2. Experiments of Earth Materials. Koln: DIN, 1956

[127] British Standards Institute, BS 5628-3. Code of Practice for the Use of Masonry—Part 3: Materials and Components, Design and Workmanship. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 2005

[128] ASTM C 384-98. Standard Test Method for Impedance and Absorption of Acoustical Materials by the Impedance Tube Method. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1998

[129] French Standard, AFNOR, NF P 14-306. Precast Concrete Blocks- Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Blocks for Wall and Partitions. Paris: French Standard Institute, 1986 (in French)

[130] British Standards Institute, BS EN 772-1. Methods of Test for Masonry Units—Part 1: Determination of Compressive Strength. London: British Standards Institution (BSI), 1998

[131] ASTM D 559-03. Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2003

[132] Turkish Standards, TS-2514. Adobe Blocks and Production Methods. Ankara: Turkish Standards Institute, 1997

[133] ABNT NBR 8492. Massive Earth-cement Bricks—Determination of Compressive Strength and Water Absorption. Rio de Janeiro: NBR, 1984 (in Portuguese)

[134] Indian Standards, IS 2720-2. Determination of Water Content of Soils. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 1973

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2020. This article is published with open access at link.springer.com and journal.hep.com.cn