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

doi:10.1007/s11709-020-0630-7

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2020, Vol. 14

Issue (4) : 839-854 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0630-7

REVIEW

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

Mahgoub M. SALIH, Adelaja I. OSOFERO(

), Mohammed S. IMBABI

School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK

Download: PDF(802 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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

Corresponding Author(s): Adelaja I. OSOFERO

Just Accepted Date: 27 May 2020 Online First Date: 14 July 2020 Issue Date: 27 August 2020

Cite this article:

Mahgoub M. SALIH,Adelaja I. OSOFERO,Mohammed S. IMBABI. Critical review of recent development in fiber reinforced adobe bricks for sustainable construction[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 839-854.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-020-0630-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2020/V14/I4/839

ref. no.	additive (wt%, age used)	location	date
[²²]	waste tea (0%–5%)	Turkey	2006
[²³]	sheep’s wool (0.25%–0.5%)	UK	2010
[²⁴]	polypropylene fibers (0.2%–1.0%)	USA	2016
[²⁵]	lime-activated ground granulated blastfurnace sag (0%–1.3%) and Portland cement (0%–1.3%)	UK	2009
[²⁶]	hemp fiber (0%–15%)	Romania	2016
[²⁷]	lime (0%–20%)	UK	2008
[²⁸]	sisal fibers 0.5%	France	2004
[²⁹]	oil palm fiber (0.25%–1%)	Malaysia	2017
[³⁰]	polypropylene fibers (0.2%–1.0%)	USA	2015
[³¹]	wool fibers (2%–3%)	Italy	2012
[³²]	pineapple leaves (0.25%–0.75%) and oil palm fruit bunch (0.25%–0.75%)	Malaysia	2011
[³³]	coconut (1%), bagasse (1%), and oil palm fibers (1%)	UK	2015
[³⁴]	ground granulated blastfurnace slag (1.5%–3%) and alkaline (lime) (1.5%–3%)	UK	2009
[³⁵]	natural vernacular fibers of Grewia optivia (0.5%–2%) and Pinus roxburghii (0.5%–2%)	India	2015
[³⁶]	Grewia optivia (0%–2%) and Pinus roxburghii (0%–2%)	India	2016
[³⁷]	straw fiber (0%–0.33%)	Italy	2011
[³⁸]	banana fibers (0%–5%)	USA	2016
[³⁹]	Hibiscus cannabinus fibers (0%–0.8%)	France	2014
[⁴⁰]	rice husk ash (0%–10%)	Indonesia	2011
[⁴¹]	straw fibers (0.5%–3%)	Italy	2015
[⁴²]	plastic-fiber (0.1%–0.2%)	India	2015
[⁴³]	quicklime (0%–30%) and portland cement (0%–15%)	Egypt	2013
[⁴⁴]	sawdust (2.5%–5%)	Romania	2014
[⁴⁵]	straw (25%–33.3%)	Spain	2011
[⁴⁶]	sugarcane bagasse (2%–6%)	Brazil	2015
[⁴⁷]	sugarcane bagasse ash (0%–50%)	Thailand	2013
[⁴⁸]	date palm fibers (0%–0.2%)	Algeria	2014
[⁴⁹]	plastic fiber (0.1%), straw (2%), and polystyrene fiber (0.5%)	Turkey	2005
[⁵⁰]	wheat straw fibers (1%–3%)	Egypt	2015
[⁵¹]	date palm fiber (0.05%–0.2%)	Algeria	2016
[⁵²]	straw fibers (0%–0.75%)	Italy	2010
[⁵³]	hemp and flax fibers (0%–3%)	Austria	2016
[⁵⁴]	wheat straw fibers (0.89%–3.84%)	Turkey	2008
[⁵⁵]	brick dust waste (5%–20%)	UK	2014
[⁵⁶]	wood cutting wastes (4%)	Mexico	2016
[⁵⁷]	plastic fiber (0.2%), straw (2%), and polystyrene fabric (0.6%)	Turkey	2009
[⁵⁸]	straw (1%) and fly ash (10%)	Turkey	2011
[⁵⁹]	sugarcane fiber (0%–3%)	USA	2016
[⁶⁰]	lime (0%–12%)	Burkina Faso	2008
[⁶¹]	coconut (0.25%–1%), oil palm (0.25%–1%), and bagasse (0.25%–1%)	UK	2015
[⁶²]	corn plant (1%–3%), fescue (1%–3%), straw (1%–3%), grounded olive stones (1%–3%), rubber crumbs and polyurethane (1%–3%)	Spain	2016
[⁶³]	plastic fibers (0.2%)	Turkey	2007
[⁶⁴]	sugarcane bagasse ash (0%–8%)	Brazil	2012
[⁶⁵]	lime-activated ground (1.5%–2.6%)	UK	2009
[⁶⁶]	Pinus roxburghii (0.5%–2%) and Grewia optiva (0.5%–2%)	India	2015

Tab.1 Literature reviewed on types of fiber additives investigated

Fig.1 Chemical analysis of the soil types reviewed in the literature.

Fig.2 PS distribution of the soil types reviewed in the literature.

Fig.3 Brick production methodologies reviewed in the literature.

refs. no.	pre-conditioning	mixing water	shaping	no. samples	size (mm)	drying
[22]	sieved (max. size 4.3 mm)	24%–36.5%	by extrusion	10	40 × 70 × 100	at laboratory conditions at 21°C for 72 h and kept in an oven at 105°C
[23]	undefined	0.25%–19.75%	by molding	7	40 × 40 × 160	in an oven at 50°C for 24 h
[24]	undefined	8.0%	by molding	undefined	413 × 102 × 102	in plastic sheets and moist cured for the first 7 days
[25]	sieved (max. size 5 mm)	1.3%–1.8%	by pressure (undefined)	11	215 × 102.5 × 65	in a room temperature of about 20°C±2°C for 90 days
[26]	sieved (max. size 2 mm)	0.4%–2%	undefined	3	40 × 40 × 160	in an oven till to constant mass (undefined)
[27]	undefined	25%–40%	by pressure (undefined)	3	φ50 × 100	at room temperature of about 20°C+ 2°C for 28days
[28]	sieved (max. size 10 mm)	16.2%	by pressure (undefined)	undefined	100 × 140 × 295	in an oven at 35°C until a constant mass was attained
[29]	dried	undefined	by molding	undefined	210 × 100 × 100	dried for 28 days (undefined)
[30]	sieved (max. size 3.4 mm)	1.32%	by pressure at 1.6 MPa	5	191 × 203 × 121	under plastic sheets for 7 days (undefined)
[31]	sieved (max. size 6.2 mm)	0.18%–0.29%	by molding	undefined	360 × 75 × 75	at room temperature at 20°C for 28 days after demolding
[32]	dried, ground and sieved (max. size 63 µm)	40%	by pressure (undefined)	undefined	100 × 50 × 30	air-dried for 7 days, then transferred to an electric oven at 40°C for 7 days
[33]	sieved (max. size 7.5 mm)	18%	by pressure (undefined)	undefined	290 × 140 × 100	sun-dried at 27°C for 21 days
[34]	undefined	6%	by pressure (undefined)	11	undefined	at room temperature for 20°C±2°C
[35]	undefined	12.5%	by molding	216	φ38 × 76	undefined
[36]	sieved (max. size 10 mm)	1.4%	by molding	90	φ38 × 76	dried and cured for a period of four weeks (undefined)
[37]	sieved (undefined)	undefined	by molding	70	150 × 230 × 130	at Laboratory condition at 25.5°C
[38]	sieved (max. size 4.75 mm)	10%–12%	by molding	35	120 × 120 × 90	undefined
[39]	crushed and sieved (max. size 80 µm)	20%	by molding	undefined	295 × 140 × 100	at room temperature for 22°C until for 3 weeks
[40]	sieved (max. size 0.001 mm)	19%	by molding	12	230 × 110 × 55	at room temperature at±30°C (undefined)
[41]	dried and sieved (max. size 100 mm)	27%	by molding	36	40 × 40 × 160	dried under the sun to ensure water removal (undefined)
[42]	sieved (max. size 4000 µm)	14%	by pressure	3	101.5× 117 × 50	cured under jute bags for 28 days
[43]	sieved (max. size 10 mm)	0.35%–0.5%	by molding	undefined	50 × 50 × 50	at room temperature at 35°C±2°C for 90 days
[44]	undefined	15%–25%	by molding	undefined	40 × 40 × 40	kept in natural conditions for 28 days
[45]	sieved (max. size 0.08 mm)	17.1%	by molding	undefined	100 × 120 × 250	spread out on the ground in the open air for 4 weeks
[46]	sieved (max. size 2.78 mm)	0.2%	by molding	undefined	300 × 150 × 80	undefined
[47]	dried, crushed and sieved (max. size 70 µm)	11%–18%	by molding	10	140 × 65 × 40	air-dried at room temperature for 24 h and then oven-dried at 105°C for another 8 h
[48]	crushed and sieved (max. size 2.3 mm)	10%	by molding	undefined	100 × 100 × 200	at laboratory condition at 20°C±2°C for 28 days
[49]	sieved (max. size 20 mm)	20%	by molding	5	150 × 150 × 150	covered with wet bags and allowed to cure for a week
[50]	dried and sieved (max. size 8 mm)	24%	by pressure (undefined)	63	undefined	at room conditions at 21.7°C for 60 days
[51]	crushed and sieved (max. size 5 mm)	12%	by pressure at 10 MPa	3	undefined	at laboratory condition at 50°C for 24 h
[52]	sieved (max. size 9 mm)	2.45%	by molding	80	310 × 460 × 130	at room condition average at 26°C for least 2 months
[53]	crushed and sieved (max. size 7 mm)	undefined	by molding	3	160 × 40 × 50	undefined
[54]	dried and sieved (undefined)	40.5%	by molding	150	100 × 100 × 100	at laboratory conditions for 28 days (undefined)
[55]	sieved (max. size 7.5 mm)	16%–25%	by extrusion	3	undefined	at room temperature at 20°C for 56 days
[56]	sieved (max. size 0.96 mm)	26%	by molding	2	φ30 × 15	at room temperature for 48 h (undefined)
[57]	undefined	20%	by molding	5	150 × 150 × 150	covered with wet bags for a week (undefined)
[58]	sieved (max. size 8.8 mm)	34%	by molding	6	115 × 105 × 215	covered with a wet cloth (undefined)
[59]	undefined	18.65%	by molding	72	120 × 60 × 60	at laboratory conditions at 26°C for 28 days
[60]	sieved (max. size 0.32 mm)	30%	by molding	6	40 × 40 × 160	at room temperature for 30 days (undefined)
[61]	sieved (max. size 2 mm)	19%	by molding	5	290 × 140 × 100	sun dried at 27°C for 21 days
[62]	undefined	20%	by molding	undefined	40 × 40 × 160	at laboratory conditions at 20°C–22°C (undefined)
[63]	sieved (max. size 20 mm)	38.7%	by molding	11	150 × 150 × 150	covered with wet bags and allowed to cure for a week
[64]	sieved (max. size 4.8 mm)	13.33%	by pressure undefined	3	340 × 340 × 110	at laboratory conditions for 28 days (undefined)
[65]	undefined	17%	by molding	11	215 × 102.5 × 65	at room temperature at 20°C for 90 days
[66]	undefined	11.48%	by molding	360	φ38 × 76	undefined

Tab.2 Sample making methodologies from literature

ref. no.	XRD	PS	LS	SEM	WA	BD	AP	WS	CS	TC	FS	relevant standards
[²²]	–	X	X	X	–	X	–	–	X	–		BIA [⁷⁶], ASTM C67 [⁷⁷], TS 704 [⁷⁸], TS 705 [⁷⁹]
[²³]	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	X		X	UNE-EN 196-1 [⁸⁰], UNE-EN 1015-2 [⁸¹], UNE-EN 12190 [⁸²], EN 83-821-925 [⁸³]
[²⁴]	–	–	–	X	–	X	–	–	–	–	X	ASTM 106 [⁸⁴]
[²⁵]	–	X	X	X	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	BS 1924-2 [⁸⁵], BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶]
[²⁶]	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	X	X	X	ASTM E2392 [⁸⁷], SAZ 724 [⁸⁸], ASTM D2487-11 [⁸⁹], BS 1377-2 [⁹⁰], BS 3921 [⁹¹]
[²⁷]	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	BS 1924-2 [⁸⁵]
[²⁸]	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	–	–	X	Undefined
[²⁹]	X	–	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	ASTM C20-00 [⁹²], ASTM C67 [⁷⁷], IS 4860 [⁹³], BS 3921 [⁹¹], ASTM C618-15 [⁹⁴]
[³⁰]	–	X	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	X	NMAC14.7.4 [⁹⁵]
[³¹]	X	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	–	–	X	ASTM D422-63 [⁹⁶], ASTM D2487-11 [⁸⁹], NMAC14.7.4 [⁹⁵], NZS 4297 [⁹⁷], NZS 4298 [⁹⁸], ASTM E2392 [⁸⁷], ASTM C1018 [⁹⁹]
[³²]	–	X	–	–	X	X	–	–	X	–	–	BS 1377-2 [⁹⁰], BS 3921 [⁹¹], MS 76 [¹⁰⁰]
[³³]	–	X	–	X	–	–	–	–	X	–	X	BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶], BS 1377-2 [⁹⁰]
[³⁴]	–	–	–	–	X	X	–	–	X	–	–	BS 1924-2 [⁸⁵], BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶], BS EN 197-1 [¹⁰¹], BS EN 771-3 [¹⁰²], US EPA 2003 [¹⁰³]
[³⁵]	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	IS 2720-4 [¹⁰⁴], IS 2720-5 [¹⁰⁵], IS 2720-7 [¹⁰⁶]
[³⁶]	–	X	–	–	X	X	–	–	–	–	X	IS 1498 [¹⁰⁷], IS 2720-4 [¹⁰⁴], IS 1725 [¹⁰⁸], IS 2720-10 [¹⁰⁹], IS 2720-5 [¹⁰⁵], IS 2720-7[ [¹⁰⁶], IS 4332-1 [¹¹⁰], IS 4332-3 [¹¹¹]
[³⁷]	–	X	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	Undefined
[³⁸]	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	ASTM C67 [⁷⁷], ASTM D422-63 [⁹⁶]
[³⁹]	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	–	X	X	X	ASTM D 3822-07 [¹¹²]
[⁴⁰]	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	X	SNI 15-2094 [¹¹³], SNI 03-6458 [¹¹⁴]
[⁴¹]	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	ASTM D2487-11 [⁸⁹], IBC 14.01 [¹¹⁵], NMAC14.7.4 [⁹⁵]
[⁴²]	–	X	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	X	BIS 1725 [¹¹⁶]
[⁴³]	X	–	–	–	X	X	–	–	X	–	–	ESS 1234 [¹¹⁷], ESS 584-1 [¹¹⁸]
[⁴⁴]	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	Undefined
[⁴⁵]	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	X		X	EN 12372 [¹¹⁹], UNE 103101 [¹²⁰]
[⁴⁶]	X	–	–	X	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	ASTM D 790 [¹²¹]
[⁴⁷]	X	–	–	X	X	X	–	–	X	X	–	TIS 77 [¹²²]
[⁴⁸]	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	X	Undefined
[⁴⁹]	X	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	Undefined
[⁵⁰]	X	X		–	X	X	–	–	–	X	X	ASTM C 1113-99 [¹²³]
[⁵¹]	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	X	X	XP P13-901 [¹²⁴]
[⁵²]	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	ASTM D2487-11 [⁸⁹]
[⁵³]	X	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	X	–	X	EN 1015-11 [¹²⁵]
[⁵⁴]	–	X	–	–	X	X	–	–	X	–	X	DIN 18952 [¹²⁶]
[⁵⁵]	–	–	–	–	X	X	-	–	X	–	–	BS 1924-2 [⁸⁵], BS 5628-3 [¹²⁷], BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶]
[⁵⁶]	–	X	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	NMAC14.7.4 [⁹⁵]
[⁵⁷]	X	–	–	–	–	X	X	–	X	–	–	ASTM C 384 [¹²⁸]
[⁵⁸]	–	X	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	Undefined
[⁵⁹]	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	–	X	–	–	Undefined
[⁶⁰]	X	–	–	X	X	–	–	–	–	X	X	NF P14-306 [¹²⁹]
[⁶¹]	–	X	–	X	X	X	–	–	X		X	BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶], NZS 4298 [⁹⁸], BS EN 772-1 [¹³⁰], ASTM D559-03 [¹³¹]
[⁶²]	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	X	UNE-EN 196-1 [⁸⁰]
[⁶³]	X	X	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	X	–	TS 2514 [¹³²]
[⁶⁴]	X	X	–	X	X	–	–	–	X	–	X	NBR 8492 [¹³³]
[⁶⁵]	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	X	–	–	BS EN 771-1 [⁸⁶], BS EN 772-1 [¹³⁰]
[⁶⁶]	–	–	–	–	X	X	–	–	X	–	–	IS 2720-4 [¹⁰⁴], IS 2720-5 [¹⁰⁵], IS 2720-7 [¹⁰⁶], IS 2720-10 [¹⁰⁹], IS 2720-2 [¹³⁴]

Tab.3 Tests conducted and referenced standards from literature

Fig.4 BD of adobe bricks made using different waste additive.

Fig.5 WA of adobe bricks made from various waste additive.

Fig.6 CS of adobe bricks made from various waste additive.

1	H Houben, H Guillaud. Earth Construction—A Comprehensive Guide. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1994
2	S Deboucha, R Hashim. A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Research and Essays, 2011, 6(3): 499–506
3	Q B Bui, J C Morel, B V Venkatarama Reddy, W Ghayad. Durability of rammed earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering. Built Environment, 2009, 44(5): 912–919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.001
4	P Taylor, M B Luther. Evaluating rammed earth walls: A case study. Solar Energy, 2004, 76(1–3): 79–84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.08.026
5	J C Morel, A Mesbah, M Oggero, P Walker. Building houses with local materials: Means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction. Building and Environment, 2001, 36(10): 1119–1126 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00054-8
6	E A Adam, A Agib. 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	G Minke. Earth Construction Handbook: The Building Material Earth in Modern Architecture. Southampton: Wit Press, 2000
8	G Minke. Building with Earth. Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2006
9	E Avrami, H Guillaud, M Hardy. Terra Literature Review. An Overview of Research in Earthen Architecture Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008
10	S Ziegler, D Leshchinsky, H L Ling, E B Perry. Effect of short polymeric fibres on crack development in clays. Soil and Foundation, 1998, 38(1): 247–253 https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.38.247
11	V. Rigassi 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	A Mesbah, J C Morel, P Walker, K Ghavami. 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 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:1(95)
14	R G Elenga, B Mabiala, L Ahouet, J Goma-Maniongui, G F Dirras. 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 https://doi.org/10.4236/gm.2011.13013
15	W Russ, H Mörtel, R Meyer-Pittroff. Application of spent grains to increase porosity in bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2005, 19(2): 117–126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.05.014
16	Ş Yetgin, O Çavdar, A Çavdar. The effects of the fibre contents on the mechanic properties of the adobes. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 222–227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.022
17	C Grimwood. Complaints about poor sound insulation between dwellings in England and Wales. Applied Acoustics, 1997, 52(3–4): 211–223 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-682X(97)00027-3
18	M A Bahobail. The mud additives and their effect on thermal conductivity of adobe bricks. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 2011, 40(1): 21–34
19	S P Raut, R V Ralegaonkar, S A Mandavgane. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.038
20	M Dondi, M Marsigli, B Fabbri. Recycling of industrial and urban wastes in brick production: A review (Part 1). Tile Brick International, 1997, 13(3): 218–225
21	M Dondi, M Marsigli, B Fabbri. Recycling of industrial and urban wastes in brick production: A review (Part 2). Tile Brick International, 1997, 13(4): 302–309
22	I Demir. An Investigation on the production of construction brick with processed waste tea. Building and Environment, 2006, 41(9): 1274–1278 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.004
23	C Galán-Marín, C Rivera-Gómez, J Petric. Clay-based composite stabilized with natural polymer and fibre. Construction & Building Materials, 2010, 24(8): 1462–1468 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.01.008
24	P Donkor, E Obonyo. Compressed soil blocks: Influence of fibers on flexural properties and failure mechanism. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 121: 25–33 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.151
25	J E Oti, J M Kinuthia, J Bai. Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of unfired clay masonry bricks. Engineering Geology, 2009, 109(3–4): 230–240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.010
26	G Calatan, A Hegyi, C Dico, C Mircea. Determining the optimum addition of vegetable materials in adobe bricks. Procedia Technology, 2016, 22: 259–265 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.077
27	J E Oti, J M Kinuthia, J Bai. Developing unfired stabilised building materials in the UK. Engineering Sustainability, 2008, 161(4): 211–218 https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2008.161.4.211
28	A Mesbah, J C Morel, P Walker, K Ghavami. 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 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:1(95)
29	A N Raut, C P Gomez. Development of thermally efficient fibre-based eco-friendly brick reusing locally available waste materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2017, 133: 275–284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.055
30	P Donkor, E Obonyo. Earthen construction materials: Assessing the feasibility of improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using polypropylene fibers. Materials & Design, 2015, 83: 813–819 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.017
31	F Aymerich, L Fenu, P Meloni. Effect of reinforcing wool fibres on fracture and energy absorption properties of an earthen material. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 27(1): 66–72 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.008
32	C Chan. Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: Physico-mechanical properties. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2011, 5(1): 7–13
33	H Danso, D B Martinson, M Ali, J Williams. Effect of fibre aspect ratio on mechanical properties of soil building blocks. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 83: 314–319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.039
34	J E Oti, J M Kinuthia, J Bai. Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry bricks. Engineering Geology, 2009, 107(3–4): 130–139 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.002
35	V Sharma, H K Vinayak, B M Marwaha. Enhancing compressive strength of soil using natural fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 93: 943–949 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.065
36	V Sharma, B M Marwaha, H K Vinayak. Enhancing durability of adobe by natural reinforcement for propagating sustainable mud housing. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 2016, 5(1): 141–155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.004
37	Q Piattoni, E Quagliarini, S Lenci. Experimental analysis and modelling of the mechanical behaviour of earthen bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(4): 2067–2075 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.039
38	M Mostafa, N Uddin. Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2016, 5: 53–63 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.07.001
39	Y Millogo, J Morel, J Aubert, K Ghavami. Experimental analysis of Pressed Adobe Blocks reinforced with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 52: 71–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.094
40	A S Muntohar. Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(11): 4215–4220 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.061
41	F Parisi, D Asprone, L Fenu, A Prota. Experimental characterization of Italian composite adobe bricks reinforced with straw fibers. Composite Structures, 2015, 122: 300–307 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.060
42	C K Subramaniaprasad, B M Abraham, E K Kunhanandan Nambiar. 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 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001165
43	M S El-Mahllawy, A M Kandeel. Engineering and mineralogical characteristics of stabilized unfired montmorillonitic clay bricks. HBRC Journal, 2014, 10(1): 82–91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.08.009
44	S Smeu, A Gal, C Badea. Environmental friendly building materials: Unfired clay bricks. Journal of Environment, 2014, 3(3): 47–50
45	P Vega, A Juan, M Ignacio Guerra, J M Morán, P J Aguado, B Llamas. Mechanical characterisation of traditional adobes from the north of Spain. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(7): 3020–3023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.02.003
46	C A Ribeiro, P T Paula, L J Tarcísio, T G Denzin, M L Marin. Mechanical properties of adobe made with sugar cane bagasse and “synthetic termite saliva” incorporation. Key Engineering Materials, 2015, 634: 351–356
47	D Tonnayopas. 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	B Taallah, A Guettala, S Guettala, A Kriker. Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 59: 161–168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.058
49	H Binici, O Aksogan, T Shah. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material. Construction & Building Materials, 2005, 19(4): 313–318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.013
50	T Ashour, A Korjenic, S Korjenic, W Wu. Thermal conductivity of unfired earth bricks reinforced by agricultural wastes with cement and gypsum. Energy and Building, 2015, 104: 139–146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.016
51	B Taallah, A Guettala. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.007
52	E Quagliarini, S Lenci. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2009.11.012
53	P Zak, T Ashour, A Korjenic, S Korjenic, W Wu. The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, gypsum and cement on compressive strength of earth bricks materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 106: 179–188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.031
54	S Yetgin, O Cavdar, A Cavdar. The effects of the fiber contents on the mechanic properties of the adobes. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(3): 222–227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.022
55	J E Oti, J M Kinuthia, R B Robinson. The development of unfired clay building material using Brick Dust Waste and Mercia mudstone clay. Applied Clay Science, 2014, 102: 148–154 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.031
56	M N Rojas-Valencia, E A Bolaños. Sustainable adobe bricks with construction wastes. Water Resources Management, 2016, 169: 158–165
57	H Binici, O Aksogan, D Bakbak, H Kaplan, B Isik. Sound insulation of fibre reinforced mud brick walls. Construction & Building Materials, 2009, 23(2): 1035–1041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.008
58	L Turanli, A Saritas. Strengthening the structural behavior of adobe walls through the use of plaster reinforcement mesh. Construction & Building Materials, 2011, 25(4): 1747–1752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.092
59	C Bock-Hyeng, A N Ofori-Boadu, E Yamb-Bell, M A Shofoluwe. 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	Y Millogo, M Hajjaji, R Ouedraogo. Microstructure and physical properties of lime-clayey adobe bricks. Construction & Building Materials, 2008, 22(12): 2386–2392 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.09.002
61	H D Danso, B Martinson, M Ali, J B Williams. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres. Construction & Building Materials, 2015, 101: 797–809 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.069
62	S Serrano, C Barreneche, L F Cabeza. Use of by-products as additives in adobe bricks: Mechanical properties characterisation. Construction & Building Materials, 2016, 108: 105–111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.044
63	H Binici, O Aksogan, M N Bodur, E Akca, S Kapur. Thermal isolation and mechanical properties of fibre reinforced mud bricks as wall materials. Construction & Building Materials, 2007, 21(4): 901–906 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.11.004
64	S A Lima, H Varum, A Sales, V F Neto. Analysis of the mechanical properties of compressed earth block masonry using the sugarcane bagasse ash. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 35: 829–837 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.127
65	J E Oti, J M Kinuthia, J Bai. Unfired clay bricks: From laboratory to industrial production. Engineering Sustainability, 2009, 162(4): 229–237 https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2009.162.4.229
66	V Sharma, H K Vinayak, B M Marwaha. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.07.002
67	L Martínez-Hernandez, C Velasco-Santos, M de-Icaza, V M Castaño. Microstructural characterization of keratin fibers from chicken feathers. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 2005, 23(2): 162–178 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2005.006858
68	B V Reddy. Stabilized soil blocks for structural masonry in earth construction. Modern Earth Buildings, 2012: 324–363
69	M S Roh, G R Bauchan, M S Huda. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13580-012-0118-z
70	S Al-Asheh, F Banat, D Al-Rousan. Beneficial reuse of chicken feathers in removal of heavy metals from wastewater. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2003, 11(3): 321–326 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00045-8
71	X F Sun, R C Sun, J X Sun. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.025
72	A Abdul Kadir, N Maasom. Recycling sugarcane bagasse waste into fired clay brick. International Journal of Zero Waste Generation, 2013, 1(1): 21–26
73	R Banerjee, A Pandey. Bio-industrial application of sugarcane bagasse: A technological perspective. International Sugar Journal, 2002, 104: 64–70
74	P Muñoz Velasco, M P Morales Ortíz, M A Mendívil Giró, L Muñoz Velasco. Fired clay bricks manufactured by adding wastes as sustainable construction material—A review. Construction & Building Materials, 2014, 63: 97–107 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.045
75	M L Gualtieri, A F Gualtieri, S Gagliardi, P Ruffini, R Ferrari, M Hanuskova. Thermal conductivity of fired clays: Effects on mineralogical and physical properties of the raw materials. Applied Clay Science, 2010, 49(3): 269–275 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.06.002
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	NZS Standards New Zealand, 4297. Engineering Design of Earth Buildings. Wellington: Standards New Zealand, 1998
98	NZS Standards New Zealand, 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

[1]	Ning ZHANG, Xu LI, Qinghui JIANG, Xingchao LIN. Rotation errors in numerical manifold method and a correction based on large deformation theory[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1036-1053.
[2]	Rao Arsalan KHUSHNOOD,Sajjad AHMAD,Luciana RESTUCCIA,Consuelo SPOTO,Pravin JAGDALE,Jean-Marc TULLIANI,Giuseppe Andrea FERRO. Carbonized nano/microparticles for enhanced mechanical properties and electromagnetic interference shielding of cementitious materials[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(2): 209-213.
[3]	LI Baofeng, ZHANG Weining. Museum of Wangwu Mountain International Geo-park[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2008, 2(3): 261-266.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed