Assessment of the Suitability of Some Lateritic Soils

for the Production of Compressed Stabilised Earth

Blocks in Nigeria
Emeso Beckley Ojo1 Danladi Slim Matawal2 Adamu Isah Katagum3
Nigerian Building and Road Research Nigerian Building and Road Research Nigerian Building and Road
Institute, Abuja Nigeria Institute, Abuja Nigeria Research Institute, Abuja Nigeria
eojo@nbrri.gov.ng dsmatawal@yahoo.com

survey on the usage of earth blocks in Nigeria conducted

by two organisations: Growth and Emp loy ment in States
ABSTRACT (GEM S) and the German Society for International
Cooperation (GIZ) revealed that one of the major factors
The objective of this study was to ascertain the suitability
of laterit ic soils within Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria resulting in the poor patronage of earth blocks in Nigeria
is the scarcity of data on the properties of the blocks.
for earth block production. Test pieces were produced at
When compared with alternatives such as fired brick and
varying cement contents and performance characteristics
determined; comp ressive strength, density and water sandcrete blocks, CSEBs offers lower construction costs
at comparable quality, is suitable for a wide range of
absorption. The results show that only one soil satisfied
environments, and dramatically reduces the impact on the
the suitability requirements with regards to particle size
distribution and plasticity. Consequently, the soils environment (Riza, Rah man, &Zaidi, 2011). Other
advantages include: it ensures the use of locally available
required various levels of stabilization to meet the
construction materials thereby reducing transportation
requirements for co mpressive strength and durability.
This implies laboratory testing of soils is pertinent to costs; ensures the availability of quality and affordable
housing for a wider population; creates job opportunities
determine optimu m stabilizat ion content prior to
production of blocks. as the technology requires semi s killed labour which are
easily transferable to locals; it generates local revenue as
Keywords- Co mpressed Stabilised Earth blocks, laterites, the materials and labour are sourced locally; and it is more
compressive strength, water absorption, particle size energy efficient considering its lower embodied energy.
distribution, plasticity. CSEBs have very good insulation and thermal properties
and also possess the ability to absorb atmospheric
mo isture resulting in a healthier environment fo r the
occupants (Riza et al., 2011)
However, there are guidelines which determine the
1. INTRODUCTION effective p roduction and use of earth blocks. The first and
In recent times, there has been resurgence of earth most important step in CSEB technology is the
construction due to growing environmental concerns. identification of suitable soil for b lock production and the
Findings fro m several studies have shown that earth availability in the required quantity. Soil suitability is best
construction has the potentials of addressing the provision ascertained by laboratory techniques but field
of affo rdable houses especially in developing identification techniques can be very useful in the absence
countries(Didel, Matawal, & Ojo, 2014; Zami & Lee, of a laboratory. In Nigeria, laterites are typically used for
2011). Provision of housing has continued to be a global the production of CSEBs as a result of its abundance in
challenge as a result of the exponential growth of most parts of the country. They are residual soils which
population, low Gross National Product and consequent are rich in iron o xide and are usually formed fro m the
reduced purchasing power of the midd le/low inco me weathering of rock under strong oxidizing and leaching
earners in these countries (Aru mala&Gondal, 2007). The conditions typically in tropical areas (North more,
scarcity and /or high cost of conventional build ing Culshaw, Hobbs, Hallam & Entwisle, 1982). Previous
materials have further exacerbated the situation.T his has studies have shown that CSEBs produced fro m laterites
led to various researches into development of locally obtained from the southwestern part of the country did not
available building materials and construction techniques meet the minimu m seven day dry compressive strength of
to enhance access to housing for all. 1.60 N/ mm2 as specified in the Nigerian Building Code
The use of Co mpressed Stabilised Earth Blocks as a (Raheem, Falola, &Adeyeye, 2012).
walling material is a sustainable construction technique as The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the
it is affordable, durable and accessible. However, it has suitability of some laterites collected within the Federal
been observed that there is an apparent apathy towards its Capital Territory (F.C.T) Abuja for the production of
use in developing countries due to lack of knowledge compressed stabilized earth blocks with a view to
about its physical and socio-economic properties. A 2013 promoting co mpressed earth block building construction
 as a tool fo r sustainable development for affordable of water to ensure a ho mogenous mix. The Nigerian
housing. Building code (2012) specifies a min imu m co mpression
of 3N/ mm2 for co mpressed stabilised earth blocks.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Co mpression of the blocks was carried out through
Representative soils were ext racted fro m identified laterite dynamic co mpaction in a p roctor mould. Sixty Eight(68)
borrow pits in various locations within the F.C.T. Table 1 blows of the 4.5kg rammer falling fro m a height of
presents the coordinates of the locations and the 450mm, were applied on three layers in order to achieve a
designations for the soil samp les collected fro m these compactive effort of 4N/mm2 based on the equation below
locations.

Table 1 Location of soil s amples

Location Coordinates
Kurunduma N 090037.6E 0073158.5
(KRD)
Bombo N 091043.6E 0072238.5
(BMB)
Anagada N 090125.40E 0071042.74
(ANA)
Games Village N 090019.4E 0072545.3
(GVL)
Kuje N 085225.8E 0071349.8
(KUJ)

Figure 1 Sample of test piece

The samples obtained were first tested to determine their The blocks were cured by sprinkling twice a day and
basic geotechnical properties for the purpose of kept in a hot humid environ ment by covering them with
identifying and classifying the soils. The samples were black p lastic sheets for a seven day period. After the
tested in accordance with BS 1377:1990. The tests curing period, the test pieces were p laced in an oven at
conducted were as follows: natural mo isture content, 60C over a 48hr period. Samp le weights were taken at
particle density, atterberg limits, particle size distribution intervals until the difference between successive weights
and compaction. The results of the preliminary testing of was less than 0.1%.
soils are presented in Table 2.

2.1 Production of Test Pieces 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance characteristics of CSEBs as walling
The test pieces were produced in the laboratory following
materials were determined with respect to its compressive
the guidelines specified in the GTZ Manual of production
strength, water absorption (i.e durability) and density. The
of compressed earth blocks (Rigassi, 1995). Researchers
results are discussed below:
have shown that laboratory evaluation of CSEBs also
provides reliable data on material perfo rmance (Maskell,
Heath & Walker, 2013). Their results showed a minimal 3.1 Effect of Ce ment Content on Compressive
variation between s mall scale bricks produced in a Strength
laboratory and full scale bricks. The compressive strength of CSEB (as is the case with
Sample p reparation co mprised of manual grinding to other masonry units) is the most universally accepted
pulverise the big lu mps in order to disintegrate particles parameter fo r determining the quality of the unit (Morel,
held up by clay. Screening was performed by passing the Pkla, & Walker, 2005). This parameter is primarily
material through the 20mm sieve size to remove particles dependent on the nature of the s oil and quantity/type of
which were too coarse. The materials required (cement, stabiliser used. Other factors may include type of
soil and water) were calculated and measured out as dry compaction and compaction pressure. Past studies have
weights. The blocks were produced at water contents shown that optimu m cement content for stabilisation is
which were 95% of the Optimu m Moisture Content between 5% 10%, with cement contents above 10%
(O.M .C) obtained fro m the light compaction tests. Blocks having negative impact on the block (Riza et al, 2011).
were produced with vary ing cement contents: 0%, 3%,
5%, 6.5% and 8% dry weight of soil. Mixing of the dry
materials was first carried out before the gradual addition
 Table 2 Geotechnical Properties of soil

LOCATION KRD BMB ANA GVL KUJ

MOISTURE CONTENT (% ) 15.22 15.51 13.05 5.93 12.27

Gravel 4 4 5 14 2

Sand 38 34 51 41 60
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
Silt 14 28 28 17 28

Clay 34 32 16 28 10

Liquid Limit 41.2 41.4 28.8 44.2 45.6

Plastic Limit 29.7 31.2 16.9 32.5 NP

ATTERB ERG
LIMITS (% )
Linear Shrinkage 8.05 8.49 7.19 9.07 4.8

Plasticity Index 11.6 10.6 11.9 11.7 --

SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.46 2.49 2.48 2.61 2.60

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (Mg/m3 ) 1.72 1.72 1.83 1.77 1.69

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (% ) 18.5 18.7 13.8 16.5 17.8

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (USCS) ML ML SC SM SM

For this study, the effect of cement content on dry and wet
compressive strength was determined and the results are
presented.

3.1.1 Dry Compressive Strength

Figure 2 presents a plot of dry co mpressive strength
against cement content for the five samples. The plot
shows an overall increase of compressive strength with
increasing cement content. Results fro m past research
works have often shown a strong, mostly linear,
correlation between co mpressive strength and cement
content (Morel et al., 2005).
The plot shows an almost linear relat ionship between
compressive strength and cement content for all the soils
except for Games Village (GVL) soils wh ich peaked at
6.5% cement content and began to drop. The test pieces
produced from soils fro m Anagada and Games village had
the highest compressive strengths and ranged from 1.84 -
7.66 N/ mm2 and 1.14 7.57N/ mm2 respectively. However,
optimu m cement content was observed at 6.5% for Games
Village and 8% for Anagada soil samples. On the other
hand, the test pieces produced from the soils fro m Kuje Figure 2 Variation of dry compressive strength with
had the lowest maximu m co mpressive strength (3 cement content
N/mm2 )..
Typically, CSEBs are produced at 5% cement content. cylinders disintegrated within the 24hr immersion prior to
According to the Nigerian Build ing code, min imu m the test.
compressive strength at seven days should not be less than Depending on soil properties and cement content, the wet
1.6 N/ mm2 . At 5% cement content, all the co mpressive compressive strength of CSEBs is typically around 50%
strengths were above 1.6 N/ mm2. The compressive of that measured under dry conditions (Walker, 1995).
strengths ranged from 2.65 - 5.52 N/ mm2 . At 3% cement Figure 4 presents the wet to dry co mpressive strength
content, all the test pieces had also exceeded this ratio for the soils at the varying cement contents.
recommended characteristic strength of 1.60 N/ mm2 with The wet to dry co mpressive strength ratios ranged from
the exception of Bo mbo soils. This would suggest that at 0.3 to 0.55 over the range of cement content with the
the specified co mpactive effort (4N/ mm2 ), cement content ratios peaking at 6.5% cement content.
may be as low as 3% by weight for these soils.

3.1.2 Wet Compressive Strength

For most investigations, the wet compressive strength is
also determined. The determination of compressive
strength in the wet condition gives the strength
characteristic at its weakest condition (Riza et al., 2011).
To determine the wet co mpressive strength, the test pieces
were immersed fully in water fo r 24hrs before
determining their load at failure. This testing procedure
allo ws min imu m strength to be determined under easily
controlled and replicable moisture conditions, though
these represent conditions unlikely to be experienced in
practice (Morel et al., 2005).

Figure 4 Wet to dry compressive strength ratio

3.2 Density
The bulk density of a soil is the mass per unit volu me of
the soil sample including its water content. The density of
the laterite blocks is therefore a measure of the
effectiveness of the compression of the sample. The
density was determined using the linear measurement
method since the test pieces had a regular geometric
shape. The density of CSEBs is typically within the range
of 1500 2000kg/m3 (Riza et al., 2011). Figure 5 presents
a plot of the varying densities of the cylinders produced
Figure 3 Variation of wet compressive strength with fro m soils fro m the five locations at varying cement
cement content contents. As with comp ressive strength, the Anagada and
As observed in the dry compressive strength tests, Games village soils had the highest densities: 1938kg/ m3
cylinders produced fro m the Games village and Anagada at 5% and 1889kg/m3 at 6.5% cement contents
soils had the highest wet compressive strength (4N/ mm2 ) respectively. The lowest density observed was 1610 kg/ m3
with Ku je soils having the lowest compressive strength (Bo mbo at 0%). Hence, all samples fell within the typical
(1.5N/ mm2 ). A lso, there was an observed increase in range of densities. There was an observed reduction in
compressive strength with increase in cement content densities at cement content above 5% for Anagada,
within the range of cement content tested for all the Games village and Kuje soils.
cylinders except for games village where co mpressive The dry density of CSEBs is largely dependent on the soil
strength dropped at 6.5%. At 5% cement content, wet properties, moisture content during co mpression and
compressive strength for all the samples ranged between degree of co mpactive effort (Riza et al., 2011). The soils
1.41-2.47N/ mm2 . The wet co mpressive strength could not were co mpacted at moisture contents within the range of
be determined for 0% cement stabilisation, as the the OMC obtained from the proctor compaction test.
Results from the proctor compaction test show Anagada
soils had the lowest OMC (13.8%) as presented in Table 2 As can be observed fro m the plot, a significant correlat ion
while the soils fro m Ku runduma and Bo mbo had the exists between the compressive strengths and densities for
highest OMC (18.5% & 18.7% respectively). Fro m the all the cylinders produced. This implies that given
plot it can be observed that the cylinders produced from sufficient data, the compressive strength can be modelled
these soils (Bo mbo and Kurunduma) had the lowest on site for a known density without having to crush the
densities. According to Bahar (2004), optimu m mo isture samples. Also, it imp lies that prior to production of b locks
content range between 10 to 13% for static compaction. on the site, the densities and compressive strengths of
prototype blocks can be determined in the laboratory.
Hence, for a given co mpactive effort, the quantity of
material can be weighed out and placed in a mould to
achieve a specified density.

3.3 Water Absorption

The major drawbac k on the use of earth as masonry
blocks is its high water absorption characteristics which
affect the overall performance of the blocks in terms of
durability. Hence, the addition of cement to earth masonry
is basically to improve its strength properties and reduce
the rate of water absorption. Water absorption is a
function of clay content and high rate of water absorption
results in swelling of clay fract ions which leads to a loss
of strength over time. The blocks were fully immersed for
24hrs and the percentage increase in weight was
determined as the water absorption. This method of total
immersion depicts the worst condition of exposure to
water
Figure 5 Variation of density with cement content Figure 7 presents a plot of water absorption against
cement content for the cylinders produced for all the soils.
A general reduction of water absorption can be observed
Co mmonly, most researchers have related the densities of
for all soils with increasing cement content. According to
CSEBs to their comp ressive strengths. It has been
the standard, maximu m water absorption for masonry
recorded that the compressive strength of individual
units should be 12%.
blocks consistently increases as dry density increases
(Houben&Guillaud, 1994). Figure 7 shows a correlat ion
plot between compressive strength and density from test
data obtained from this investigation.

Figure 7 Variation of water absorption with cement

content

Figure 6 Correlation plot of compressive strength against As observed in Figure 7, the cylinders produced from soil
density samples fro m Anagada and Games village had the lowest
rates of water absorption (9.5 12.6%) over the range of
cement content tested. Bo mbo had the highest water
absorption at 18%. At 5% cement s tabilisation, three soils
(Anagada, Games village and Ku je) fell below the
recommended maximu m value of 12% for masonry units.
The water absorption could not be determined fo r 0%
cement stabilisation, as the cylinders disintegrated during
the 24hr period of the test.

3.4 Suitability of soils

A major factor affect ing the performance of CSEBs is the
selection of suitable soils for use. The suitability of soils
depends on its gravel, sands, silts and clay portions.
Determining the proportions of each fraction gives an
indication of the suitability of the soil. As specified in
Rigassi (1995), the manual reco mmends the following
proportions for each fraction:
Figure 9 Plasticity plot of samples
Gravels: 0-40%
Sands: 25-80%
Silts:10-25%
According to Riza et al (2011), the reco mmended
Clays: 8-30%
plasticity index for suitable soils should fall within the
Figure 8 shows the particle size d istribution for the five
range of 15 25%. The soils under investigation had
soil samples. The thicker lines indicate the boundaries for
Plasticity Indices with in the range of 10.6 11.9 % while
suitable soils as recommended in the ARS 680:1996
one of the soils (Kuje So ils) was found to be non- plastic.
(Co mpressed Earth Blocks Code of Practice for the
This indicates that these soils fall with in the
Production of Compressed Earth Blocks).
recommended range of P.I but have higher liquid limits.
Fro m the figure, it can be observed that three soil samples
Test pieces produced fro m soils fro m Anagada and games
fell within the envelope (Anagada, Games village and
village had the highest maximu m co mpressive strengths
Kuje soil samples).
(7.66N/ mm2 and 7.57N/ mm2 respectively). Both of the
soils satisfied the requirements for particle size
distribution but only the Anagada soils satisfied the
requirements for plasticity. Although the Kuje soils
satisfied the requirements for particle size d istribution,
these soils were non-plastic and therefore recorded the
lowest maximu m comp ressive strength of 3N/ mm2 . In
terms of clay content, the percentage clay content for
Bo mbo and Kurunduma soils exceeded the recommended
limit of 30%. Hence, maximu m co mpressive strength for
both soils was observed at about 6N/mm2 .
With regards to water absorption, although the cylinders
produced from Anagada had the lowest rates of water
absorption, cylinders produced from Kuje and games
village soils performed just as satisfactorily. These three
soils satisfied the requirements for particle size
distribution, but only Anagada soils satisfied the
requirements for plasticity. This would suggest that the
Figure 8 Particle size distribution curves for soil samples envelope for plasticity may need to be adjusted to include
soils with higher liquid limits. Fro m this investigation, it
can be concluded that the two distinct properties of soils
Similarly, the plasticity of the soil is expected to fall which govern their suitability for use as CSEBs are the
within the limits of the shaded area as recommended in particle size distribution as well as plasticity index.
ARS 680:1996. Figure 9 presents a plot of the plasticity
index and liquid limit fo r the soil samples. As can be
observed, only one soil sample fell within the boundaries 4. CONCLUSION
of the shaded portion as recommended in ARS 680:1996.
Fro m the investigation conducted, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
 In selecting suitable soils for use in CSEB dynamic co mpaction is used at a higher
production, recommended guidelines have been compactive effort.
proposed with regards to particle size With regards to durability, some soils may
distribution and plasticity. However, results require mo re than 5% cement stabilisation to
fro m this investigation show that soils which meet the maximu m requirement of 12% water
meet the particle size distribution requirements absorption while others may require lower than
and fall within a range of plasticity index can 5% cement stabilization. Hence, as stated
still g ive satisfactory results. Hence, it may be earlier, it is imperative to conduct preliminary
necessary to conduct laboratory tests on soils tests on soils prior to block production to
prior to CSEB production to determine ascertain the optimu m cement stabilization as
suitability of soils in order to ascertain optimu m Durability/Water absorption is a critical
cement stabilisation especially for large property that should be determined in the
projects. production of CSEBs to ensure optimu m
Past studies have shown that increase in cement performance of the walling material throughout
content typically results in an increase in its service life.
compressive strength. This linear relationship
was observed for all the soils tested over the
stabilization range (i.e 0 8 %). However, this
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
linear relat ionship trend was not observed in The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support for
one of the soils as the compressive strength the execution of this study from the Nigerian Building and
reduced after 6.5% cement stabilisation Road Research Institute.
At 3% cement content, all the compressive
strength values for the test pieces exceeded the
minimu m value of 1.6N/ mm2 as specified in the
Nigerian Building code. Th is may be attributed
to the type of co mpression used i.e dynamic
compaction as co mpared to static co mpaction.
Also compactive effort of 4N/ mm2 was applied
during compression as the Building code
recommends a minimu m of 3N/ mm2 . This may
suggest at a lower cement content, blocks of
higher comp ressive strengths maybe produced if

[6] Houben, H. and Gu illaud, H.(1994) Earth

construction: a co mprehensive guide, IT
REFERENCES Publications, London
[7] Madedor, A.O. (1992). The Impact of Bu ild ing
[1] Arumala, J.O. & Gondal, T. (2007) Co mpressed Material Research on Low Cost Housing
Earth Bu ild ing Blocks for A ffordable Housing. Develop ment in Nigeria. Engineering Focus.4(2) p
The Construction and Building Research 37-41
Conference of the Royal Chartered Institute of [8] Maskell, D., Heath, A. and Walker, P. (2013)
Surveyors. Atlanta U.S.A Laboratory scale testing of ext ruded earth masonry
[2] BS 1377: (1990). Methods of Testing Soils for uni
Civil Engineering Purposes. British Standards [9] Matawal, D.S. (2012). Defo rmation of soils:
Institute (BSI). Settlement, Consolidation and Ground
[3] Didel M.J., Matawal D.S. & Ojo E.B. (2014). Improvement Techniques. 1st ed. Cephas and
Co mparative Cost Analysis of Compressed Clems Nigeria Ltd.Abuja
Stabilised Earth Blocks and Sandcrete Blocks in [10] Morel, J.C., Pkla, A., & Walker, P. (2005)
Affordable Housing Delivery in Nigeria. Co mpressive Strength Testing of Co mpressed
Proceedings of International Housing Summit on Earth Blocks. Construction and Building
Achieving Affordable Housing in Nigeria.Abuja Materials, 21(2) p303-309
Nigeria [11] Nigerian Nat ional Building Code (2006).Bu ild ing
[4] Heathcote, K.A. (1995). Durability of Eart wall Regulations. LexisNexis Butterworths
Buildings.Construction and Build ing [12] Northmo re, K.J., Culshaw, M.G., Hobbs, P.R.N.,
Materials.9(3). 185-189 Hallam, J.R., &Entwisle, D.C. (1992). Engineering
[5] Herzog, A. and Mitchell, J.K., 1963. React ions Geology of Tropical Red Clays: Su mmary
accompanying stabilization of clay with cement. Findings and their Applications for Engineering
Highway Research Board Rec., 36: 146-171. Purposes.British Geological Survey Technical
Report. WN.93/1
[13] Raheem, A.A., Falo la, O.O., & Adeyeye, J.K.
(2012).Production and Testing of Lateritic
Interlocking Blocks. Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries. 17(1) p 33-48
[14] Rigassi, V. (1995).Co mpressed Earth Blocks :
Manual of Production. Vol 1.CRATerre-EA G
[15] Riza F.V, Rah man I.A &Zaidi A.M.A
(2011).Preliminary Study of Co mpressed
Stabilized Earth Brick.Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences 5(9): 6-12
[16] UN-Hab itat.(2009). Interlocking Stabilised Soil
Blocks Appropriate earth technologies in
Uganda .Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
[17] Walker, P. (1995). St rength, durability and
Shrin kage Characteristics of Cement Stabilised
Soil Blocks.Cement and Concrete Composites
17(4) p 301-310