Jannat 2020

Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
Review
Application of agro and non-agro waste materials for unfired earth

blocks construction: A review
Nusrat Jannat ⇑, Aseel Hussien, Badr Abdullah, Alison Cotgrave
Built Environment and Sustainable Technologies (BEST) Research Institute, Department of Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t
Application of agro and non-agro

wastes in unfired earth blocks is
reviewed.
Physico-mechanical and thermal
properties of the composites are
discussed.
Test results are compared with
relevant standards.
Further studies on the development
of guidelines and standards are
required.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The production process of conventional building materials consumes a high amount of energy which has
Received 28 January 2020 a negative impact on the environment. The use of locally available materials and upgradation of tradi-
Received in revised form 21 March 2020 tional techniques can be a good option for sustainable development. Consequently, earth has attracted
Accepted 24 April 2020
the attention of the researchers as a building construction material for its availability and lower environ-
mental impact. On the other hand, in developing countries waste disposal from the agricultural and
industrial sectors raises another serious concern. The scientists have introduced such waste additives into
Keywords:
the earth matrix to improve its performance. Therefore, the present paper reviews the state-of-the-art of
Agro waste
Earth block
research on the effects of these various agro and non-agro wastes in the production of unfired earth
Non-agro waste blocks. This study is divided into three sections: The first section outlines the different types of waste
Sustainability materials and earth blocks considered in the selected papers. The second part deals in depth with the test
Unfired results of the different properties (density, water absorption, compressive strength, flexural strength and
thermal conductivity) of unfired earth blocks containing waste materials. The last section analyses and
compares the results with the current earth-building construction standards. The literature survey pre-
sents that the waste materials have a clear potential to partly replace earth by complying with certain
requirements. Moreover, the application of such wastes for the development of building construction
materials provides a solution that decreases energy usage as well as contributes to effective waste man-
agement. Future research on establishing guidelines and standards for the development and production
of these sustainable unfired earth building materials is recommended.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: N.Jannat@2019.ljmu.ac.uk (N. Jannat), A.Hussien@ljmu.ac.uk (A. Hussien), B.M.Abdullah@ljmu.ac.uk (B. Abdullah), A.J.Cotgrave@ljmu.ac.uk
(A. Cotgrave).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119346
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Previous reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Review of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Wastes characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Agro wastes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Non-agro wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Unfired earth blocks construction incorporating agro wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Unfired earth blocks construction incorporating non-agro wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Effects of waste materials on the physical properties of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.1. Effects of agro wastes on the density of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the density of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.3. Effects of agro wastes on the water absorption of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.4. Effects of non-agro wastes on the water absorption of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Effects of waste materials on the mechanical properties of unfired earth blocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.1. Effects of agro wastes on the compressive and flexural strength of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the compressive and flexural strength of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3. Effects of waste materials on the thermal properties of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.1. Effects of agro wastes on the thermal conductivity of unfired earth blocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the thermal conductivity of unfired earth blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4. Optimum percentage of waste materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction being extensively replaced by more durable and stronger construc-

tion materials such as fired brick and concrete [14,17,18]. How-
Sustainable development in building construction sector has ever, unfired earth masonry provides many advantages compared
become a major challenge in both developed and developing coun- to traditional fired brick and concrete masonry in terms of environ-
tries today. Application of locally available materials and tech- mental impacts. The use of energy-intense processes of conven-
niques in building construction is considered as one of the tional fired brick and concrete masonry production leads to high
prospective ways to support sustainable development [1,2]. Con- levels of carbon dioxide emissions [19,20]. The mean energy con-
struction and maintenance of modern buildings are commonly sumed per tonne of fired brick is calculated at 706 kWh and carbon
believed to consume enormous amounts of energy and release sig- dioxide emission per tonne is estimated at 0.15 tonne [21]. On the
nificant greenhouse gas. Currently, the construction sector is con- other hand, traditional unfired earth blocks use low-energy mate-
suming 30–40% of total global energy and contributing to rials which can be modified to enhance their properties and
produce one-third of the total greenhouse gas emissions [3]. There- strengthened by low-cost natural aggregates with a little addi-
fore, the development of new green building materials with better tional energy cost [22]. Although it is important to acknowledge
properties is becoming increasingly important [4–6]. Earth is one the contributions made by modern clay brick manufacturing and
of the oldest and most traditional construction materials on our other modern earth construction to improve the overall properties
world dating back to 8000BCE [7]. The construction of earth build- of earth structures, it is equally important to consider the environ-
ing is still common in some of the most hazardous regions in the mental effects of these methods. Presently, to meet the requisite
world, such as Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, the Indian comfort standards, earth building construction is also regaining
subcontinent and other parts of Asia and Southern Europe its prominence in industrialised countries and becoming an inte-
[Fig. 1]. Statistics from UNCHS show that around 40% of the popu- gral part of ‘‘green thinking” [23,24]. Therefore, comprehensive
lation of the world lives in buildings made of earth and in develop- articles on this issue have been published over the last decades.
ing countries the number is higher [9]. In developing countries, Many studies have presented that due to the popularity and low
nearly half the population lives in earth dwellings in which at least cost of earth building materials improving it for large usage would
30% of the population is in rural areas and others are in urban or seem to be a technique more likely to succeed than replacing it
suburban areas [10]. with new modern materials or using costly and inefficient methods
Earth is considered as an environmentally friendly choice due to [25–27]. Fibrous materials such as straw have long been used by
its low carbon emission, low thermal conductivity and good hygro- local home brick manufacturers to improve the strength of mud
scopic characteristics [11,12]. However, some of the disadvantages bricks [28]. However, they were unable to conduct basic experi-
of earth construction are the lack of strength, durability and vul- mental research on the optimisation and balance of materials.
nerability to erosion by rain [13–15]. Unfortunately, due to these Hence, researchers have developed various additives and methods
drawbacks, the use of earth building materials in the modern con- to enhance the performances (strength, aggregate stability, ther-
struction sector has been ignored over many years [16] and is mal conductivity, water absorption, etc.) of unfired earth materials
N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346 3
Fig. 1. Areas of earth architecture distribution across the world [8] and location of the studies reviewed in this paper.
[29–31]. Further experiments in the field of alternative additives to cles [32,33], this paper outlines the standards used for the experi-
unfired earth materials have recently been focused mainly on agro ments and compares the results with the relevant unfired earth
and non-agro wastes [32,33]. blocks standards. Consequently, this review paper will contribute
Industrial or agricultural solid waste management has become to developing a database to support the manufacturers in the pro-
one of the most important global environmental concerns. The cur- duction of unfired earth blocks with different potential agro and
rent estimated global waste generation volume is around 1.3 bil- non-agro waste materials.
lion tonnes annually, with an expected annual increase of 2.2
billion tonnes by 2025. [34]. In many developing countries
increased large quantities of agro and non-agro wastes are not effi- 2. Review method
ciently managed and utilised which eventually generates a threat
to the environment [35–37]. Agricultural wastes are the residues This review paper addresses the current state-of-the-art of
generated from the cultivation and processing of raw agricultural developments on the utilisation of various waste materials in the
products such as crops, fruits, poultry, dairy products, etc. [38]. manufacture of unfired earth blocks. The study followed a
On the other hand, materials that are made useless during a pro- mixed-method approach collecting and analysing secondary data
duction process, such as wastes from the factory, milling and min- from several prior studies. A comprehensive systematic search
ing activities create non-agro wastes or industrial wastes [39]. was performed in the Google scholar and Scopus repositories for
Several recent studies have presented that these agro-wastes have scholarly contributions from 2000 to 2019. In order to search arti-
a high potential for use in building construction materials on cles, the following keywords were used: ‘‘Unfired earth blocks”,
account of their good physico-mechanical properties [40–42] and ‘‘Agricultural wastes”, ‘‘Non-agricultural wastes”, ‘‘Industrial
they are the most environmentally sustainable, economical and wastes”, ‘‘Sustainability” and ‘‘Earth building code”. A total of 108
energy-efficient materials [43–45]. Also, previous research articles journal articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, theses
have demonstrated the prospective use of industrial wastes for dif- and reports on unfired earth blocks incorporating agro and non-
ferent construction applications [33,46,47]. As alternative material agro waste materials were reviewed of which 87 provided useful
studies are now clearly a priority for decreasing energy consump- information.
tion and solving waste management problem, several studies have This study is divided into three sections: The first part sum-
shown that the use of such wastes in the development of unfired marises the different types of waste materials and earth blocks
earth building materials can meet this environmental challenge considered in the selected papers. The second part addresses in
[33,48,49]. Therefore, researchers have made considerable efforts great detail the experiment results of various properties of
to partially substitute soil or clay with specific agro and non-agro waste-incorporated unfired earth blocks. Finally, the paper analy-
waste materials to produce sustainable unfired earth blocks. ses the data concerning current established standards for earth
In consideration of the application of agro and non-agro waste building construction.
materials, the present paper reviews the use of various wastes in
different compositions to develop sustainable unfired earth blocks.
The study highlights only five different properties of unfired earth 3. Previous reviews
blocks (density, water absorption, compressive strength, flexural
strength and thermal conductivity) as these characteristics were A few review studies were conducted on the use of different
tested in most of the previous studies to evaluate their suitability types of waste materials as clay additives. Two of the studies
for construction purposes. Also, in contrast to previous review arti- should be addressed here.
Table 1
Different agro waste additives for the production of unfired earth blocks.
Agro-wastes Source(s) Countries References

Straw (Wheat, Barley) Agricultural by-product (Stalk) Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, France, Germany, [53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,
Iran, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Peru, Spain, 71,73,74,78,83,88,101]
Turkey
Lavender straw By-product of lavender oil production France [62]
(Stalk)
Fonio straw Agricultural by-product (Stalk) Burkina Faso [63]
Coconut coir Agricultural by-product (Fruit) Ghana, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand [64,65,66,67,68]
Banana fibre Agricultural by-product (Pseudo Stem) Egypt, India [69,70]
Hemp fibre Agricultural by-product (Bast) Egypt, France, Japan, Romania [71,72,73,74,75,76]
Rice husk Agricultural by-product (Grain) Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Iran, Vietnam [77,78,79,80]
Wood aggregate/fibre Waste of carpentry product (Trunk, Iran, Italy, UK, Zimbabwe [78,81,82,83]
Branch)
Sawdust Sawmill waste (Trunk, Branch) Nigeria, Turkey [84,85,102]
Sugarcane bagasse Food industry waste (Stalk) Brazil, Ghana, Portugal, Sri Lanka [65,86,87]
Corn cob Agricultural by-product (Grain) France [73,74]
Corn plant fibre Agricultural by-product (Stem) Spain [88]
Corn silk fibre Agricultural by-product (Grain) Japan [89]
Corn husk ash Agricultural by-product (Stem) Nigeria [90]
Cassava peels Agricultural by-product (Root) Colombia, Kenya [91,92]
Olive waste fibre Agricultural by-product (Leaf) Morocco [101]
Grounded olive stone Agricultural co-product (Pellets) Spain [88]
Pineapple leaf fibre Agricultural by-product (Leaf) Malaysia [94]
Flax fibre Agricultural by-product (Bast) Egypt [72]
Wheat hay fibre Agricultural by-product (Stalk) Egypt [95]
Sisal fibre Agricultural by-product (Leaf) Brazil, Kenya [92,93]
Fescue Agricultural by-product (Stalk) Spain [88]
Kenaf fibre Wild plant (Bast) France, Benin [96,97]
Henequen fibre Agricultural by-product (Leaf) UK [98]
Jute Agricultural by-product (Bast) Japan [71]
Date palm fibre Agricultural by-product (Leaf, Sheath) Algeria, Morocco [99,100,101]
Palm bark fibre Agricultural by-product (Bark) Iran [78]
Oil palm fruit fibre Agricultural by-product (Fruit) Ghana [65]
Oil palm fruit bunch fibre Agricultural by-product (Fruit) Malaysia [94]
Eucalyptus pulp microfibre By-product of paper manufacturing Brazil [93]
(Trunk)
Dawul Kurudu, Pines gum, Bael resin, Agricultural by-product (Leaf, Fruit, Stem) Sri Lanka [87]
Jack resin, Agarwood resin, Wood
apple resin
Pinus roxburghii fibre, Grewia optiva Forest waste, Fodder waste India [29,103,104]
fibre
Seaweeds fibre Alginate extraction by-product (Stem, UK, Italy [105,106]
Frond)
Bio-briquette Agricultural waste product India [107]
Processed waste tea Food industry waste (Leaf) Turkey [108]
Tobacco residue Tobacco industry by-product Turkey [84]
Eggshell Food industry waste Ghana, Nigeria [102,109]
Pig hair Food industry waste Chile [110]
Sheep wool Textile industry waste Italy, Morocco, Scotland [60,111,112]
Laborel-Préneron et al. [32] reported the impact of widely used as compressive strength, flexural strength, bulk density and water
plant aggregates and fibres on the development of unfired earth absorption were discussed. However, the research was limited to
building materials based on 50 major studies. The study high- the information on unfired clay bricks containing wastes since it
lighted the details of plant aggregate sources and characteristics focused on the development of different masonry brick types.
as well as the treatments used to improve their performance. All papers covered in this review are presented in Table 1 and
Moreover, the compositions and the manufacturing techniques of Table 2. The tables also specify the types of wastes, sources and
earth-based composites, for example, earth plasters, earth blocks, location of research. It should be noted that certain articles were
rammed earth, cob and wattle and daub were presented. In addi- already included in the aforementioned reviews, but they are more
tion, the paper studied mechanical, durability and hygrothermal comprehensive here.
performances of the selected plant aggregates and fibre-based
composites. The report lacked data on standards for experiments
and detailed results on the assays. 4. Review of studies
Al-Fakih et al. [33] studied physical and mechanical properties
of both fired and unfired masonry bricks such as loadbearing and 4.1. Unfired earth blocks
non-load bearing concrete masonry units, concrete building brick,
sand lime brick and clay building brick made by adding different Unfired earth blocks are made of earth materials and also
organic and inorganic wastes. The paper presented information referred to as earth masonry. These blocks are similar to other
about the manufacturing method of burnt (firing temperature) masonry systems where they are air-dried after manufacturing to
and unburnt bricks (cementing method) incorporating waste minimize shrinkage and improve strength. Unfired earth blocks
materials. Moreover, in this study, four major test findings, such can be classified into three categories, ‘‘adobe blocks,” ‘‘com-
Table 2
Different non-agro waste additives for the production of unfired earth blocks.
Non-agro-wastes Source(s) Countries References

Fly ash By-product of Coal-fired power plant Canada, China, India, Vietnam [113,114,115,122]
Granulated blast furnace slag By-product of iron and steel-making India, UK [117,118,119,120]
Bottom ash By-product of coal-fired power plant India, Niger [121,122]
Polyethylene terephthalate Shredded waste plastic bottles Morocco, Nigeria, USA [123,124,125]
Crumb rubber Recycled industry by-product, transportation waste Australia, Spain [88,126]
Polyurethane Appliances by-product Spain [88]
Salvaged steel fibre By-product of steel making Cameroon [127]
Alumina filler & Coal ash By-product of aluminium foundry plant Spain [128]
Brick dust Waste from cutting of fired clay bricks UK [129]
Magnesium oxide By-product of mining & industrial company Spain [130]
Calcium carbide residue Residues from industrial gas Burkina Faso [80,131]
Recycled aggregate Recycled aggregate derived from construction debris Portugal [132]
Molybdenum tailing By-products of the mining industry China [133]
Iron mine spoil By-products of the iron mining industry India [134]
KS770, Soda ash By-product of the locally made black soap Nigeria [135]
Glass fibre reinforced Polymer Waste from water boxes manufacturing company Brazil [136]
Ceramic, Concrete waste Waste from recycling plants Malaysia, Spain [137,138]
Marble dust, Polymer fibre Waste from marble industry Turkey [139]
Plastic fibre, Polystyrene fibre Waste Plastic, Polystyrene fibre Turkey [53]
Waterworks sludge Waste from water treatment plants China [140]
pressed earth blocks” and ‘‘cut blocks” based on the method used rials or power plants. Slag is the residue from the metal industry
to shape the blocks [8]. and sludge is produced by the wastewater treatment plant. Con-
Adobe blocks-Traditionally, adobe mud blocks are hand-shaped struction wastes often come from new buildings, refurbishment
or made in wooden moulds and left to dry under the sun after or demolition and wastes from the transport industry are created
casting. from vehicle repair such as used tyres, for example. Various types
Compressed earth blocks-The compressed earth blocks are of fibre wastes such as glass, polypropylene, polyester, textiles, etc.
made using a manual or motorised press. The method includes are also available from different industries.
moistening the soil with water or stabiliser and then pouring it Table 3 and Table 4 present the studies on the development of
into a compacting steel press for compaction. unfired earth blocks with various agro and non-agro wastes.
Cut blocks-These blocks are made by cutting earth and used like
bricks in areas where the soil is cohesive and has carbonate concre-
4.3. Unfired earth blocks construction incorporating agro wastes
tions. These examples are typically found in tropical areas where
building materials are produced by laterite soils.
Binici et al. [53], Vega et al. [54], Ashour et al. [55], Parisi et al.
Besides these three types of earth block construction, there is
another traditional earth construction named rammed earth. [56], Abanto et al. [57], Türkmen et al. [58], Azhary et al. [59], Sta-
tuto et al. [60], Wang et al. [61] evaluated the impact of straw fibre
Rammed earth- In rammed earth construction, the soil is thor-
oughly mixed with water and then poured into thin layers. Tradi- incorporation on the engineering properties of unfired earth bricks.
Various percentages and lengths of straw that were incorporated
tionally each layer is rammed by hand to increase the density.
to produce the earth blocks were as follows: 2.5 wt% [53], 25 and
Compressed earth block is considered as a development from tra-
33.3 vol% [54], 3 wt% [55], 0.64 wt% [56], 1.5–3.7 wt% [57], 1-
ditional rammed earth and adobe blocks construction.
mass% [58], 2-5 wt% [59], 3 wt% [60], 5, 10 and 15 wt% [61]. Fibre
length: 2–3 mm [61], lower than 10 mm [56], 20 mm [58,59],
4.2. Wastes characterisation 40 mm [55], 50–100 mm [54]. The analysis illustrated that the
compressive strength, density and thermal conductivity of the
4.2.1. Agro wastes unfired samples decreased with the increased amount of straw
All undesirable materials generated by agricultural activities are fibre [55,57,59,61]. From the experiments conducted by Binici
known as agro wastes. Such wastes may come from plants or ani- et al. [53], average water absorption value was found 36.80% and
mals. Most of the papers reviewed in this study included wastes the lowest thermal conductivity value was recorded for wheat
from plants while only four publications included work on animal straw at 0.30 W/mK (3% fibre), barley straw at 0.31 W/mK (3%
origin wastes (sheep wool and pig hair). The plant aggregates/fi- fibre). Other two studies presented the lowest thermal conductiv-
bres are composed of cellulose, lignocellulose and made up of ity value of 0.25 W/mK (2.5% fibre) [57] and 0.26 W/mK (5%fibre)
wood fibre, seed fibre, bast fibre, leaf fibre or grass fibre [50]. They [59]. Vega et al. [54] showed that maximum compressive strength
are popular for use in reinforcement because of their lower density (3.99 MPa for 33.3 vol% fibre) was achieved with the highest
compared to other inorganic fibre. On the other hand, the hydro- amount of straw while maximum flexural strength (0.82 MPa for
philic nature of these wastes is one of the barriers to specific appli- 25 vol% fibre) was acquired with the lowest fibre content. Wang
cations [51]. et al. [61] used cement (10, 15 and 20%) with straw and reported
that addition of cement prolonged the curing time, and increased
4.2.2. Non-agro wastes the compressive strength (11.70 MPa for 20% cement and 5% fibre).
Industrial wastes comprise any materials that are made unus- Other studies found optimum compressive strength as 5.80 MPa
able during a production procedure from mills, factories and [53], 0.46 MPa [56], 4.58 MPa [58], 1.86 MPa [60]. Parisi et al.
mines. Some industrial wastes include fly ash, bottom ash, metals, [56] measured peak tensile strength as 0.56 MPa (0.64% fibre).
glass, slag, sludge, plastic fibre etc. [52]. Fly ash and bottom ash are The density of the specimens ranged between 1544.98 kg/m3-
the remainders from various combustion processes of solid mate- 1827.58 kg/m3 [59], 1400 kg/m3-1470 kg/m3 [58], 1628.70 kg/
Table 3
6
Overview of research on agricultural waste additives for production of unfired earth blocks.
Agro-wastes Ref. Content (wt%, vol%) Unit size (mm) Soil, sand and clay type Density (kg/m3) Max. Compressive Min. Thermal Water
and fibre length (mm) Strength (CS), Flexural conductivity absorption
Strength (FS) (MPa) (W/mK) (wt%)
Straw (Wheat, Barley) [53] 2.5% 150 150 150 Clay undefined CS-5.80 undefined 36.80%
[71] 0.5, 1.5, 3% ø 50 100 Acadama, Bentonite 820–1110 CS-0.55 undefined undefined
10, 20, 30 mm ø 100 200 clay, Toyoura sand
[54] 25, 33.3 vol% 250 120 100 Local soil 1650–1820 CS-3.99 undefined undefined
50–100 mm FS-0.82
[55] 1, 3%, 40 mm 240 120 60 Cohesive soil 1357.70–1575.60 undefined 0.30 undefined
[56] 0.64% 100 200 400 Clayey/silty sand undefined CS-0.46 undefined undefined
<10 mm 40 40 160
[88] 1, 2, 3% 160 40 40 Commercial clay sand undefined CS-2.90 undefined undefined
FS-0.29
[57] 1.5, 1.8, 2.1, 2.5, 3.7% 45 45 12 Soil, sand 1628.70–1766.20 undefined 0.25 undefined
[58] 1 mass%, 20 mm 160 40 40 Cohesive soil 1400–1470 CS-4.58 undefined undefined
100 100 22
N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

[59] 2, 3, 4, 5%, 20 mm Local Clay 1544.98–1827.58 undefined 0.26 undefined
[78] 0.3, 0.6, 0.9% 220 220 70 Clay, sand and gravel undefined CS-8.70 undefined undefined
10–40 mm ø150 300
[74] 3, 6% ø50 20 Quarry fines 1100–1537 undefined 0.14 undefined
180 70 35
[73] 3, 6% ø50 20 Quarry fines 1315–1519 CS-3.80 undefined undefined
15 mm 180 70 35 FS-1.80
[60] 3% undefined Clay undefined CS-1.86 undefined undefined
[62] 3, 6 mass% ø50 50 Quarry fines 1195–1520 CS-3.80 0.15 undefined
10 mm 150 150 50
[83] <2%, 17–18% ø40 40 Clayey sandy silt 1180–1790 CS-6 undefined undefined
[101] 10, 20, 30 vol% undefined Clay 1221.43–1554.35 undefined 0.26 undefined
[61] 5, 10, 15%, 2–3 mm 50 100 200 River dredging sludge undefined CS-11.70 undefined undefined
Lavender straw [62] 3, 6 mass% ø50 50 Quarry fines 1585–1772 CS-3.90 0.28 undefined
10 mm 150 150 50
Fonio straw [63] 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0% 160 40 40 Reddish brown clayey undefined CS-2.90 0.35 undefined
10 mm local soil FS-1.30
Coconut coir [64] 10, 15, 20 vol% 125 250 100 Lateritic soil, river sand 1344.60–1754.94 CS-5.79 0.65 undefined
[65] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1%, 50 mm 290 140 100 Local red, brown soil 1772–1857 CS-3 undefined 9.80–15.30%
[66] 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 mass% 150 150 150 Local soil Dry: 1765–1785 CS-3.44 undefined undefined
400 100 100 Wet: 2025–2060 FS-0.99
[67] 5%, 20, 40, 60, 80 mm 150 150 150 Local soil 1450–1510 CS-1.67 undefined undefined
[68] 4% 230 110 55 Soil from hill undefined CS-3.50 undefined 30–50%
250 mm 50 50 50 FS-0.70
Banana fibre [69] 0.35, 0.175% 120 120 90 River soil 2050.36 CS-5.92 undefined 10–20%
25, 50 mm 240 120 90 FS-0.95
[70] 1–5% 120 120 90 River soil 1947 CS-6.19 undefined undefined
50,60,70,80,90,100 mm 240 120 90 FS-1.02
Hemp fibre [71] 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4% ø 50 100 Acadama, Bentonite 820–1110 undefined undefined undefined
10, 30 mm ø 100 200 clay, Toyoura sand
[72] 1%, 3% 160 40 40 Cohesive soil 1060–1700 CS-3.75 undefined undefined
180 70 35
[73] 3, 6% ø50 20 Quarry fines 1221–1603 CS-2.40 undefined undefined
15 mm 180 70 35 FS-1.34
[75] 1.5%, 1–5 mm 200 100 50 Illitic soil 2244–2316 undefined 1.27 undefined
[76] 50, 66, 75 vol% 150 150 30 Earth clay 966–1060 CS-0.94 0.09 undefined
40 40 160 FS-0.47
Table 3 (continued)
Rice husk [77] 5, 10, 15% 230 110 55 Clay soil undefined CS-20.70 undefined 0.80–9.60%
600 150 150 FS-0.05
[78] 0.3, 0.6, 0.9% 220 220 70 Clay, sand, gravel undefined CS-4.14 undefined undefined
ø150 300
[79] 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% 220 105 60 Natural sand 1930–2075 CS-30.30 0.68 7.50–10.40%
FS-6.17
[80] 10–40% 140 140 95 Clayey soil undefined CS-6.60 undefined undefined
Wood aggregate/ Wood [81] undefined 222.8 105.6 66.9 Conventional Clay 1597 CS-10.50 undefined undefined
fibre [78] 0.3, 0.6, 0.9% 220 220 70 Clay, sand, gravel undefined CS-6.91 undefined undefined
10 mm ø150 300
[82] 1.5, 3% 225 105 65 Clayey soil 1600 Dry CS-8.30 undefined 11–16%
ø 60 85 Wet CS-1.49
[83] <2%, 17–18%, 20 mm ø 40 40 Clayey sandy silt 1180–1790 CS-6 undefined undefined
Sawdust [84] 2.5, 5, 10% 100 75 40 Raw brick clay undefined CS-5.10 undefined undefined

[85] 4, 8, 12 mass% 285 130 115 s Laterite undefined undefined undefined 2–6%
Sugarcane bagasse [86] 2, 4, 8% 340 340 110 Sandy earth undefined CS-2.89 undefined 11.57–13.79%
[65] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1%, 80 mm 290 140 100 Local red, brown soil 1790–1867 CS-2.80 undefined 10.40–16.50%
[87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil 1800–1825 CS- 0.50 undefined 10–11.30%
Corn cob [73] 3, 6% ø50 20 Quarry fines 1754–1878 CS-3.20 undefined undefined
15 mm 180 70 35
180 70 35
Corn plant fibre [88] 1, 2, 3% 160 40 40 Commercial clay Sand undefined CS-3.25 undefined undefined
FS-0.39
Corn silk fibre [89] 0.25, 0.5, 1%, 10 mm ø50 100 Silty sand undefined CS-9 undefined undefined
Corn husk ash [90] 10, 20% undefined Local rammed earth 942.50–959.50 undefined 0.48 undefined
Cassava peel [91] 2.5, 5% 320 80 150 Raw clay from local undefined CS-2.60 undefined 26.38–29.36%
brick plant FS-0.58
Cassava powder [92] 1.5, 2.5, 4, 5 ,7, 10, 15, 20% undefined Bautzen clay 1635.31–1781.25 CS-7.36 undefined undefined
FS-1.71
Olive waste fibre [101] 10, 20, 30 vol% undefined Clay 1398.30–1642.59 undefined 0.40 undefined
Grounded olive stone [88] 5, 10, 15% 160 40 40 Commercial clay sand undefined CS-1.61 undefined undefined
FS-0.16
Pineapple leaf fibre [94] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75%, 10 mm 100 50 30 Clay soil 1250–1430 CS-18 undefined 1.10–1.25%
Flax fibre [72] 1, 3% 160 40 40 Cohesive soil 1080–1700 CS-4.50 undefined undefined
Wheat hay fibre [95] 0.5, 1, 1.5% test-ø25.4 63.5 Clayey soil 1550–1730 CS-0.50 undefined undefined
15–25 mm ø25 50
Sisal fibre [92] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25% 160 40 40 Bautzen clay 1738–1895 CS-9.14 undefined undefined
3–10 mm FS-1.63
[93] 0.5, 1.0, 2.0%, 10 mm 200 50 15 Ceramic company soil 1700–1740 FS-5.50 undefined 19–20%
Fescue [88] 1, 2, 3% 160 40 40 Commercial clay sand undefined CS-2.88 undefined undefined
FS-0.60
Kenaf or Hibiscus [96] 0.2, 0.4, 0.8% 295 140 100 Lateritic soil undefined CS-2.85 1.30 undefined
cannabinus fibre 30, 60 mm FS-1.15
[97] 1.2% 40 40 160 Local soil undefined CS-6.40 1 undefined
10, 20, 30 mm FS-2.75
Henequen fibre [98] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0% ø50 100 Brick manufacturer 1884–1906 CS-5.22 undefined undefined
clay
Jute [71] 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4% ø50 100 Acadama, Bentonite 820–1110 CS-1.30 undefined undefined
5, 10, 20, 30 mm ø100 200 clay, Toyoura sand
Date palm fibre [99,100] 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.2% 100 100 200 Local soil, crushed sand 1892–1930 CS-12.50 0.76 9.50–11.30%
35, 120 mm
[101] 10, 20, 30 vol% undefined Clay 1218.74–1572.19 undefined 0.28 undefined
(continued on next page)
7
8
Table 3 (continued)
Palm bark fibre [78] 0.3, 0.6, 0.9% 220 220 70 Clay, sand, gravel undefined CS-16.53 undefined undefined
ø150 300
Oil palm fruit fibre [65] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1%, 38 mm 290 140 100 Local red and brown 1802–1889 CS-3 undefined 9.40–14.30%
soil
Oil palm fruit bunch [94] 0.25, 0.5, 0.75%, 10 mm 100 50 30 Clay soil 1300–1500 CS-19.50 undefined 1.10–2%
Eucalyptus pulp [93] 0.5, 1.0, 2.0% 200 50 15 Ceramic company soil 1680–1700 FS-4.50 undefined 20–21.25%
microfibre 0.7 mm
Dawul Kurudu [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil 1800–1850 CS-0.50 undefined 9.50–13.30%
Pines gum [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil 1925–2052 CS-2.65 undefined 9.30–15%
Bael resin [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil undefined CS-0.13 undefined undefined
Jack Resin [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil undefined CS-0.24 undefined undefined
Agarwood [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil undefined CS-0.20 undefined undefined
Wood apple [87] 5, 10, 15, 20% undefined Podzolic soil undefined CS-0.25 undefined undefined

Pinus roxburghii fibre [103,104,29] PR-0.5, 1, 1.5, 2%, 30 mm ø38 76 Local sand, clay PR: 1700–1950 PR:CS-2.25 undefined PR: 2.33–3.62%
(PR), Grewia optiva GO-0.5, 1, 2%, 30 mm 190 90 90 GO: 1650–1890 GO:CS-3 GO: 2.07–2.67%
(GO)fibre
Grass [84] 2.5, 5, 10% 100 75 40 Raw brick clay undefined CS-5.15 undefined undefined
Seaweed fibre [105] 10%, 10 mm 100 100 100 Quaternary sediment 1720–1810 CS-4.44 undefined undefined
[106] 0.1% 160 40 40 Silt loam 1690–2250 CS-1.64 undefined undefined
FS-0.95
Bio-briquette [107] (5,15,25,35,45,55%) 230 100 85 Sand 1170–1470 CS-4.19 0.35 13–25%
Processed waste tea [108] 2.5, 5 mass% 40 70 100 Clay undefined CS-7.60 undefined undefined
Tobacco residue [84] 2.5, 5, 10% 100 75 40 Raw brick clay undefined CS-4.75 undefined undefined
Eggshell [109] 10, 20, 30, 40% 200 100 75 Laterite soil 2001–2044 CS-3.05 undefined undefined
Eggshell and sawdust [102] 2, 4, 8, 16% 291 138 115 Laterite soil 1489–1749 CS-1.25 undefined undefined
ash
Pig hair [110] 0.5, 2% 310 105 70 Clayey soil undefined CS-1.92 undefined undefined
7, 15, 30 mm FS-0.49
Sheep wool [111] 0.25, 0.5% 160 40 40 Soil from brick 1790–1800 CS-4.44 undefined undefined
10 mm 40 40 40 manufacturer FS-1.45
[60] 3% undefined Local clay undefined CS- 4.32 undefined undefined
[112] 0.25, 0.5, 1% 160 40 40 Local red clay Illite undefined CS-3.04 0.19 undefined
30–50 mm 100 50 50 FS-1.83
Table 4
Overview of research on non-agricultural waste additives for production of unfired earth blocks.
Non-Agro-wastes Ref. Content (wt%, vol%) and Unit size (mm) Soil, sand and clay type Density (kg/m3) Max. Compressive Min. Thermal Water
fibre length (mm) strength (CS), Flexural conductivity absorption
strength (FS) (MPa) (W/mK) (wt%)
Fly ash [113] 3, 6, 9, 12, 15% ø40 80 Natural soil 1796–1820 CS-5.97 undefined undefined
1774–1805
[122] 4, 8, 12% ø150 300 Soil 1800–1850 CS-2.50 undefined undefined
450 300 150
[114] 5, 10, 15, 20% 70.7 70.7 70.7 Loess undefined CS-23.72 undefined 15–25%
40 40 160 FS-2.63
[115,116] 10, 15, 20% 80 80 180 River sand undefined CS-6.03 0.78 0.79–8.50%
Granulated blast furnace [117,118,119] 5, 5.5, 11, 12% 215 102.5 65 Lower Oxford Clay 1790–1800 CS-7.40 0.37 17–20%
slag 102 102 35
[120] Lithomargic:5, 15, 25, 35, 45% 305 143 105 Laterite soil, undefined Lithomargic:5.55 undefined Lithomargic: 12.51–13.90%
Laterite:10, 15, 20, 25, 30% Lithomargic clay Laterite:5.25 Laterite: 10.90–12.90%
Bottom ash [121] 75, 60, 52.5 vol% 140 140 90 Lateritic clayey soil and 1200–1600 CS 27 undefined undefined

sand
[122] 6, 12, 18% ø150 300 Soil 1800–1850 CS-2.50 undefined undefined
450 300 150
Polyethylene terephthalate [123] 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0%, 54 mm 191 203 121 Local soil undefined CS-5.55 undefined undefined
229 203 121 FS-1.02
[124] 1, 3, 7% undefined Local brown soil undefined CS-1.55 undefined undefined
[125] 1, 3, 7, 15, 20% 160 40 40 Local clayey soil 1440–1710 CS-4.50 undefined undefined
Crumb rubber [88] 5, 10, 15% 160 40 40 Commercial clay Sand undefined CS-2.52 undefined undefined
FS-0.16
[126] 5, 10, 20% 150 150 150 Quarry products sand, 2064 CS-10 undefined 7.50–8.75%
Kaolin clay
Polyurethane [88] 5, 10, 15% 160 40 40 Commercial clay Sand undefined CS-2.62 undefined undefined
FS-0.17
Salvaged steel fibre [127] 1.7, 2, 2.7 vol% 215 105 55.0 Lateritic soil undefined CS-11.60 undefined undefined
20, 35, 50 mm FS-2.60
Alumina filler (AF) and Coal [128] AF:16.1, 32.2, 47.82%, CA:7% 125 60 40 Gray Marl clay soil 1540–1840 CS-16 undefined 15–24%
ash (CA)
Brick Dust [129] 5, 10, 15, 20% ø50 100 Mercia mudstone clay undefined CS-2.10 undefined 5.50–8.20%
Magnesium oxide [130] 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18% ø65 75 Local red clay 2000–1890 CS-9.90 undefined 4.90–14.25%
Calcium carbide residue [80] 0–15% 140 140 95 Clayey soil undefined CS-3.40 undefined undefined
[131] 5, 10, 15, 20, 25% 295 140 95 Local Beige clayey soil 1610–1820 undefined 0.47 undefined
60 40 30
Recycled aggregate [132] 15% 295 140 90 Local soil 1740–1810 CS-5.40 0.61 13.60–16.50%
145 140 90 FS-1.19
Molybdenum tailing [133] 55, 60, 65, 70, 75% 160 40 40 River sand undefined CS-27.35 undefined undefined
FS-7.56
Iron mine spoil [134] 30, 40, 50% 230 110 75 Qssuarry Dust 2050 CS-6 undefined 12.0–18.90%
FS-1.12
Soda ash [135] 4.38,4.56,4.74,4.92 l of water 200 225 75 Lateritic 1160–1410 CS-1.71 undefined undefined
KS770 [135] 4.38,4.56,4.74,4.92 l of water 200 225 75 Lateritic 1250–1300 CS-1.45 undefined undefined
Glass fibre reinforced [136] 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10% 300 150 80 Red Latosol, clay 1524–1565 CS-2.05 0.68 12.88–15.76%
polymer 600 85 35
Ceramic waste [137] 50, 75, 100% 100 50 40 Laterite 1703.33–1774.89 CS-33.60 undefined 17.52-
19.52%
[138] 30% ø65 75 Grey marl undefined CS-12.65 undefined
225 110 60 5.90–19.20%
Concrete waste [138] 50% ø65 75 Grey marl undefined CS-12.75 undefined 9–16.90%
225 110 60
Marble dust (MD) and [139] MD-10, 20% 50 50 50 Haspolat and Taskent undefined CS-3.47 undefined undefined
Polymer fibre PF) PF-0.5, 1, 1.5, 0.2% 40 40 160 soil FS-1.43
Plastic fibre [53] 2% 150 150 150 Clay undefined CS-7.10 undefined 37.60%
Polystyrene fibre [53] 1% 150 150 150 Clay undefined CS-4.90 undefined 33.50%
Waterworks sludge [140] 20–50% undefined Ordinary sand undefined CS-30 undefined undefined
9
m3-1766.2 kg/m3 [57], 1357.70 kg/m3-1575.60 kg/m3 (wheat that fibre addition increased water absorption (215.20 kg/m3 to
straw) and 1139.90–1542.50 kg/m3 (barley straw) [56]. 293.30 kg/m3). On the other hand, there was a progressive
Giroudon [62] compared the effects of utilisation of barley and decrease in compressive (2.72 MPa to 3.44 MPa) and flexural
lavender straw (3%, 6% by mass and 10 mm) in unfired earth brick strength (0.87 MPa to 0.99 MPa). Dry density and wet density of
production. The test results showed that barley straw improved all specimens were more similar with a slight increase from
thermal performance but lowered engineering strength while bet- 1765 kg/m3 to 1785 kg/m3 and 2025 kg/m3 to 2060 kg/m3 respec-
ter durability and fungus growth resistance were achieved with tively. Besides, the freeze and thaw test revealed that the compres-
lavender straw. Compressive strength tests were conducted using sive strength of the samples decreased by 19% after 12 freezing
the same standard followed by Laborel-Préneron et al. [73] and cycles while for the unreinforced sample it was 33%.
for all the specimens a compressive strength value higher than Sangma et al. [67] prepared unfired earth blocks by adding coir
the minimum requirements of the New Mexico Earthen Building fibre (5 wt% and 20 to 80 mm) and studied its effect on the physical
Code (2 MPa) [149] and the New Zealand Earth Building standard and mechanical properties of the samples. The compressive and ten-
NZS D4298 (1.30 MPa) [151] was recorded. For both types of straw, sile strength tests were conducted following the Indian Standard, IS
the maximum compressive strength 3.90 MPa (lavender straw) 4332 Part 5 and IS 5816 respectively. The study concluded that the
and 3.80 MPa (barley straw) were achieved for 6% fibre addition. unreinforced sample had lower compressive (1.15 MPa) and tensile
Thermal conductivity decreased as the percentage of both types strength (0.14 MPa) than the reinforced ones. The peak compressive
of fibre increased and the lowest values were measured as and tensile strength were measured as respectively 1.67 MPa and
0.28 W/mK (6% lavender straw) and 0.15 W/mK (6% barley straw). 0.56 MPa which were 1.45 and 4 times higher than the unreinforced
Moreover, the results indicated that the incorporation of lavender block. In the case of fibre length, samples reinforced with 40 mm
straw improved the dry abrasion resistance while it was reduced long coconut fibre displayed the best performance.
by the addition of barley straw. Purnomo and Arini [68] conducted experimental studies to
Ouedraogo et al. [63] investigated the physical, thermal and investigate the influence of humidity on the physical and mechan-
engineering properties of adobe blocks incorporating fonio straw ical properties of unfired bricks made with treated coconut coir.
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 wt% and a maximum length of 10 mm). It The samples were developed following the Indonesian Standard
can be observed that the association of fonio straw with clay SK SNI S-04–1989-F [153] and strength tests were conducted as
matrix increased water absorption and reduced thermal conduc- per the ASTM Designation: C 67–03a [154]. It was found that in
tivity. However, the inclusion of small quantities of straw wet conditions, the sample with 4% treated and 25 mm coir fibre
improved the engineering properties of the samples and made showed better mechanical properties than other samples. Average
them less fragile. The compressive (2.90 MPa) and flexural maximum compressive and bending strength were measured as
(1.30 MPa) strength reached its optimum value at 0.4% and 0.2% 3.50 MPa and 0.70 MPa respectively at 90 days. Moreover, there
fibre content respectively. However, the lowest thermal conductiv- was a variation in water absorption rate in different humid condi-
ity value (0.35 W/mK) was shown by 1% of fibre sample. The cap- tions though the tendency to have a higher absorption rate (30–
illarity water absorption coefficient was maximum around 1.82 g/ 50%) was in more humid conditions.
m2/s1/2 (0.2% fibre) and minimum around 0.139 g/m2/s1/2 (1% Mostafa and Uddin [69 70] studied the mechanical properties of
fibre). The research concluded that 0.2 to 0.4% of fonio straw could compressed earth blocks by mixing various proportions (1-5 wt%)
contribute to improving the properties of the adobe blocks. and lengths (25–100 mm) of banana fibre. The blocks reinforced
Khedari et al. [64] analysed the influences of coconut coir fibre with fibre lengths of 60 mm and 70 mm had the highest compres-
(10%, 15% and 20% of reference cement volume) addition in the sive (6.58 MPa) and bending strength (1.02 MPa) than other sam-
thermal properties of unfired soil blocks. The test results demon- ples. The compressive strength improved about 68% (70 mm) and
strated that coconut coir addition to the blocks led to a reduction 71% (60 mm) while flexural strength increased by 82% (70 mm)
in density (1754.94 kg/m3 to 1344.60 kg/m3), thermal conductivity and 77% (60 mm) over the sample without fibre [70]. Moreover,
(1 W/mK to 0.6 W/mK) and compressive strength (5.79 MPa to the water absorption rate of the banana fibre reinforced com-
1.50 MPa). According to the study, optimum coconut coir ratio pressed earth blocks was recorded as an average of 10.60% [69].
was 20% as it showed the best thermal performance. Islam and Iwashita [71] utilised the waste jute fibre (0.5, 1, 2, 3,
Danso et al. [65] assessed the suitability of sugarcane bagasse 4 wt% and 5, 10, 20, 30 mm) and straw fibre (0.5, 1.5, 3 wt% and 10,
(SB), coconut husk (CH) and oil palm fruit (OP) incorporation in 20 and 30 mm) to produce low-cost earthquake resistant adobe
two different types of earth to produce unfired building blocks. blocks. The results presented that a higher amount of fibre in the
Various proportions (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1 wt%) and lengths of samples caused the dry density to decrease slightly from
(50 mm, 80 mm and 38 mm) CH, SB and OP were used to 1110 kg/m3 to 820 kg/m3. The results also showed that ductility
strengthen the earth blocks. The test results exhibited that water significantly improved with the addition of 1.5% of straw fibre,
absorption increased and dry density decreased with increasing although it caused a drop in compressive strength. In the case of
fibre content. Dry density varied from 1772 kg/m3 to 1857 kg/ samples containing 20 mm straw fibre, the toughness seemed to
m3, 1790 kg/m3 to 1867 kg/m3 and 1802 kg/m3 to 1889 kg/m3 show an increasing rate and for 30 mm straw samples, toughness
and water absorption ranged from 9.80 to 15.30%, 10.40–16.50% displayed a slightly declining rate after addition of 1.5% fibre.
and 9.40–14.30% for CH, SB and OP reinforced samples respec- Therefore, to improve the ductility of the adobe, 1.5% straw and
tively. Moreover, the results showed that there was a significant 20 mm long fibre were recommended as optimum value. The study
improvement in compressive (3 MPa for CH and 2.80 MPa for SB) also found that specimens made of crushed straw had greater com-
and tensile strength (0.32 MPa for CH and 0.30 MPa for SB) by pressive strength than specimens that contained whole straw. On
incorporating fibre up to 0.5%. The values continued to drop with the other hand, compressive strength decreased and ductility
the addition of fibre from 0.5% to 1%. On the other hand, OP fibre improved by increasing jute fibre quantity in the samples. The
samples reached the highest compressive (3 MPa) and tensile value sample with jute fibre reached the highest toughness with 2%
(0.36 MPa) at 0.25% of fibre content. Therefore, the study indicated and 20 mm long fibre. The optimum compressive strength for
that 0.5% of the fibres would be ideal for enhancing the strength of straw and jute fibre sample was noted as 0.55 MPa and 1.30 MPa
unfired earth blocks. respectively.
Thanushan et al. [66] incorporated 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6% of mass Zak et al. [72] investigated the mechanical properties of unfired
portions of coconut fibre with unfired soil blocks and presented earth bricks incorporating flax and hemp fibre (1 and 3 mass%). The
test findings presented that flax fibre addition did not considerably and WC admixed samples reached a maximum compressive
change the compressive strength of the samples compared to the strength of 8.71 MPa and 6.91 MPa and maximum tensile strength
control sample but the brittle breaking behaviour of the sample of 0.10 MPa and 0.08 MPa respectively.
decreased. However, in contrast with the control sample hemp Huynh et al. [79] investigated the effects of rice husk ash (10-
fibre inclusion induced a slight reduction in compressive strength 50 wt%) on the various properties of unfired bricks. A solution of
of the unfired bricks. The highest compressive strength was Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was used as an activator when produc-
attained as 3.75 MPa and 4.50 MPa for hemp and flax fibre sample ing the samples. The study concluded that the strength of the sam-
respectively at 3% of fibre addition. Samples density was between ples improved with curing period and compressive and flexural
1060 kg/m3 and 1700 kg/m3 for hemp fibre and 1080 kg/m3 and strength of all samples at 28 days ranged from 16.20 MPa to
1700 kg/m3 for flax fibre. 30.30 MPa and 4.04 MPa to 6.17 MPa respectively. The highest
Laborel-Préneron, A. et al. [73,74] utilised 3 and 6 wt% of hemp strength was obtained at 10% of rice husk addition and the strength
shiv, barley straw and corn cob to produce unfired earth blocks and steadily declined at a higher percentage of ash content. The maxi-
investigated the mechanical and hygrothermal properties. The mum compressive and flexural strength was respectively 3.5% and
average length of 15 mm straw fibre was used for bending strength 2.7% higher than the values of the control brick sample. Moreover,
testing. The test results showed that bulk density decreased from the rate of water absorption for all specimens was between 7.50%
1878 kg/m3-1754 kg/m3, 1603 kg/m3-1221 kg/m3, 1519 kg/m3- and 10.40%, substantially lower than the 12% maximum limit for
1315 kg/m3 and thermal conductivity reduced from 0.26 W/mK- the M15 and M20 brick grades. Besides, the bulk density of all sam-
0.35 W/mK, 0.20 W/mK-0.30 W/mK, 0.14 W/mK-0.28 W/mK with ples varied from 1930 kg/m3 to 2090 kg/m3. Furthermore, oven-
the addition of corn cob, hemp shiv and straw fibre respectively dried specimens displayed remarkably lower thermal conductivity
[74]. Moreover, compressive and flexural strength also reduced (0.68 W/mK-1.25 W/mK) values than the sun-dried specimens (1.
with a higher amount of waste addition except for the straw fibre 24 W/mK-1.68 W/mK) in the range of 34 to 82%. The discrepancy
blended samples where maximum compressive strength was mainly due to the sample temperature variation because gen-
(3.80 MPa) was found at 6% of fibre addition. Optimum compres- erally thermal conductivity decreases with the increase in sample
sive strength of hemp and corn cob samples were recorded as temperature.
2.40 MPa and 3.20 MPa respectively for 3% of fibre content. Fur- P. Nshimiyimana et al. [80] investigated the compressive
thermore, peak flexural strength (1.80 MPa) was achieved by straw strength of compressed earth blocks utilising calcium carbide resi-
mixed sample followed by hemp (1.34 MPa) [73]. Based on the test due (CCR) and rice husk ash (RHA). At the first phase of experi-
results, it can be concluded that the straw mixed sample displayed ments, different fractions of CCR (0-15 wt%) were used to
the best thermal performance, which reduced the thermal conduc- determine the effect of CCR on the samples and its optimum com-
tivity by 75% compared to the waste-free sample. pressive strength. The results showed that due to the pozzolanic
Bruno et al. [75] examined the thermal performance of unfired interaction between earth particles and the CCR the compressive
earth brick walls utilising hemp fibre (1.5 wt% and 1–5 mm). The strength nearly doubled (3.40 MPa) for 8%CCR content in compar-
hemp brick samples were developed in the laboratory by hyper- ison to the control sample (1.90 MPa). However, more than 8% of
compacting to 100 MPa resulting in a high dry density and bulk CCR addition decreased compressive strength. Therefore, in the
density value of 2244 kg/m3 and 2316 kg/m3 respectively. The second phase, the compressive strength of the samples with more
thermal conductivity value of the individual sample was measured than 8 CCR was further enhanced by the partial replacement of CCR
as 1.28 W/mK whereas the result from the tested hemp brick wall by RHA (10 to 40%). It was observed that in the case of 10% and 15%
presented the conductivity value of 1.27 W/mK. CCR the optimum RHA replacement was 20% and 30% respectively.
Fernea et al. [76] conducted experimental research on the prop- The compressive strength was found 5.30 MPa for 20%RHA and
erties of clay building material using hemp and clay binder in a 6.60 MPa for 30%RHA substitution which was respectively twice
ratio of 1: 1, 2: 1 and 3: 1. From the tests, it was observed that and three times higher than the only 10% (2.50 MPa) and 15%
the sample with 1:2 ratio reached the highest density above CCR (2.20 MPa) sample.
1000 kg/m3. At the same time, this composition had an optimum Heath et al. [81], Masuka et al. [82] and Piani, et al. [83] inves-
flexural strength value of 0.47 MPa. Conversely, a 1:3 ratio sample tigated the incorporation of wood fibre/ aggregate in the develop-
showed the lowest density close to 966.73 kg/m3 and the highest ment of unfired earth blocks. Masuka et al. [82] initially prepared
compressive strength of 0.94 MPa. Furthermore, thermal conduc- four samples of the various ratio of lime (L), coal fly ash (F) and
tivity increased from 0.09 to 0.18 W/mK when the density wood aggregate (W) (L: 4–8%, F: 10–16%, W: 1.5–3%). Among all
increased. the samples, L-10%, F-10% and W1.5% sample showed a signifi-
Muntohar [77] studied the application of rice husk ash and lime cantly higher compressive strength value of 8.30 MPa. Later the
(5, 10, 15 wt%) for the manufacture of compressed earth blocks. study used cement (4% and 10%) with this mixture to further inves-
The results revealed that the ratio of 1:1 rice husk and lime showed tigate its impact on the physical and mechanical properties of the
the best performance for compressive (20.70 MPa) and flexural samples. Moreover, the author evaluated the water-resistance of
strength (0.05 MPa). As the lime and rice husk ratio increased the samples using a qualitative scoring system by observing their
the water absorption rate decreased significantly from 9.60% to damage evidence after a shorter immersion period of 2 h and
0.80%. However, water absorption properties of all lime and rick 4 h. The results revealed that L-10%, F-10% and W-1.5% sample
husk blended specimens met the Indonesian Standard SNI 15– had maximum water resistance by exhibiting negligible and mod-
2094-2000 [18] for masonry brick. erate damage. The study concluded that the sample prepared with
Oskouei et al. [78] utilised straw (S), rice husk (RH), palm fibre 10% lime, 10% fly ash and 4% cement was the most cost-effective
(PF) and wood chips carpentry (WC) in the production of unfired composition (based on the cost of raw materials lime and cement)
mud bricks with the amount of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 wt%. The tests which also fulfilled the engineering specifications as stated in the
demonstrated that the compressive strength of additive samples British standards BS EN772 [156]. Heath et al. [81] found that add-
ranged from 2.67 MPa to 16.53 MPa and the tensile strength ing wood fibre to unfired brick resulted in a dry density reduction
improved from 57% to 281%. The compressive (16.53 MPa) and ten- (1597 kg/m3) of up to 12% than the control sample (1793 kg/m3)
sile strength (0.16 MPa) of palm fibre specimens showed the best and compressive strength was noted as 10.50 MPa. Piani et al.
performance whereas RH incorporated specimens displayed the [83] utilised wood and straw fibre together (<2%, 17–18% and a
lowest compressive (4.14 MPa) and tensile strength (0.70 MPa). S maximum length of 20 mm) in adobe blocks to examine the
compressive strength. The results showed that the density of the 0.25%of fibre content respectively. Further increasing fibre con-
samples varied between 1180 kg/m3 to 1790 kg/m3 and maximum tent from this range resulted in a decline or slight increase in
compressive strength was attained as 6 MPa (<2% fibre). strength. Also, the dry unit weight decreased with the addition
Demir [84] conducted experiments to develop unfired clay of fibre and ranged from 13.10kN/m3 to 12.20kN/m3. Therefore,
bricks using grass, sawdust and tobacco residues (2.5, 5 and the optimum fibre content was proposed as 0.25%-0.5% as it
10 wt%). Based on the test results it can be concluded that the com- showed around 177% and 88% of improvement in compressive
pressive strength of the unfired brick samples improved from and tensile strength respectively compared to the fibre-free
3.35 MPa to 5.10 MPa, 3.10 MPa to 4.75 MPa and 3.40 MPa to sample.
5.15 MPa for sawdust, tobacco residue and grass addition Batagarawa et al. [90] investigated the potential use of corn
respectively. husk ash (10 and 20 wt%) as a stabiliser for rammed earth to
Fadele and Ata [85] investigated the water absorption proper- improve the thermophysical properties. The test results exhibited
ties of compressed earth blocks incorporating sawdust lignin addi- a considerable reduction in thermal conductivity from 0.63 W/
tives and cement. Samples were prepared separately using 4, 8 and mK to 0.48 W/mK and a slight increase in density from
12% by mass of cement and sawdust additives. In contrast to 942.50 kg/m3 to 959.50 kg/m3 with an increasing percentage of
cement-stabilised samples, the sawdust additives mixed samples corn husk ash. Hence, the study recommended 20% of corn husk
showed an improvement in the water absorption properties. The ash as the optimum percentage to improve the thermal properties
water absorption rate was measured high for cement-stabilised of rammed earth blocks.
samples ranging from 6% to 15%, while it varied between 2% and Villamizar et al. [91] studied the effects on the strength of com-
6% for sawdust additives. pressed earth blocks by incorporating coal-ash (5, 7.5 and 10 wt%)
Lima et al. [86] incorporated sugarcane bagasse ash to the com- and cassava peels (2.5 and 5 wt%). The test results showed that the
pressed earth blocks (2, 4 and 8 wt%) aiming at the application in stabilised earth blocks exhibited the highest compressive
non-structural masonry elements. The findings presented that, (3.37 MPa) and flexural strength (0.75 MPa) for 5% coal ash addi-
blocks blended with 8% sugarcane bagasse ash and 12% Portland tion while for 5% cassava peal incorporated sample the value was
cement had higher compressive (2.89 MPa) and tensile strength 2.21 MPa and 0.50 MPa respectively. At 2.5% cassava peel and
(0.39 MPa) at 28 days than the minimum value mentioned by 7.5% coal ash combination, the sample presented compressive
the Brazilian standards (2 MPa). Therefore, in the manufacture of strength of 2.60 MPa and flexural strength of 0.58 MPa. Besides
non-structural masonry components, this mixer proportion was 10% of coal ash sample showed the lowest compressive
proposed. (1.09 MPa) and flexural strength (0.40 MPa). Water absorption,
Udawattha et al. [87] evaluated the performance of natural however, appeared to decline as cassava peels percentage
polymer addition (5, 10, 15 and 20 wt%) to earth blocks as a sta- increased. The average water absorption rate was measured as
biliser. Seven natural polymers such as pines resin (PR), dawul kur- 30.65% (10% coal ash), 28.64% (5% coal ash), 27.77% (2.5% cassava
udu (DK), bael resin (BS), sugarcane bagasse (SB), agarwood resin peel and 7.5% coal ash) and 27.01% (5% cassava peel). The study
(AWR), wood apple resin (WAR) and jack resin (JR) were collected suggested that the optimum percentage to produce CEB should
from vernacular polymer technologies of Sri Lanka. According to be 2.5% cassava peel and 7.5% coal ash.
the results DK (0.85–1.17 MPa), PR (0.98–1.70 MPa) and SB Namango [92] investigated the different properties of sisal fibre
(0.54–0.87 MPa) presented the proper compressive strength while (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25 wt% and 10 mm) and cassava powder (1.5,
BR, WAR, AWR and JR functioned against the block strength. The 2.5, 4, 5 ,7, 10, 15, 20 wt%) stabilised compressed earth blocks. The
optimum compressive strength was found as 0.13 MPa (20%BR), test results revealed that for sisal fibre-reinforced blocks optimum
0.25 MPa (10%WAR), 0.20 MPa (5%AWR) and 0.24 MPa (15%JR). flexural (1.63 MPa) and compressive strength (9.14 MPa) were
Moreover, the results showed a decline in sample densities from achieved for 0.75% of sisal which corresponded to a 64.30% and
1925 kg/m3-2052 kg/m3, 1800 kg/m3-1850 kg/m3, 1800 kg/m3- 90.50% improvement in strength compared to the fibre-free block.
1825 kg/m3 and a rise in water absorption rates from 9.30 to The density of the sisal reinforced blocks increased to 1895 kg/m3
15%, 9.50–13.30% and 10–11.30% with the increasing amount of for 0.75% fibre and subsequently dropped at 1.25% of fibre addition
PR, DK and SB respectively. From the tensile splitting test, it was (1738 kg/m3). On the other hand, the samples with cassava powder
observed that for PR (2.58 MPa for 15%) and DK (0.25 MPa for had compressive strength between 7.36 MPa (1.5% cassava) and
15%) the tensile strength increased with an increased percentage 4.29 MPa (7% cassava). The trend of flexural strength values was
of polymer whereas for SB maximum value was recorded as similar to that of the compressive strength and ranged between
1.75 MPa at 5% polymer content. 0.94 MPa and 1.71 MPa. The optimum value of compressive and
Serrano et al. [88] studied the feasibility of different by- flexural strength of cassava powder blended samples provided a
products wastes as additives in the manufacture of adobe blocks. 53.50% and 72.50% strength increase respectively compared to
The additives were categorised into two groups namely fibre (corn the non-reinforced block.
plant, fescue and straw of 1–3 wt%) and pellet (olive stones of 5– Ojo et al. [93] investigated the properties of extruded alkali-
15 wt%). The mechanical test results indicated that in the case of activated earth building blocks incorporated with sisal (0.5-2 vol
fibre admixed samples the best flexural strength behaviour was % and 10 mm) and eucalyptus pulp (wood kraft pulp) microfibre
achieved by fescue admixed samples (0.33 MPa-0.60 MPa) fol- (0.5-2 vol% and 0.7 mm). Sisal fibre admixed samples showed
lowed by corn plant (0.25 MPa-0.39 MPa) and straw (0.15 MPa- higher improvement in tensile strength (74%) than eucalyptus pulp
0.29 MPa) while the highest compressive strength was obtained blended samples (29%) compared to the control sample. Moreover,
by corn plant (1.98 MPa-3.25 MPa) followed by straw (2.04 MPa– wastes addition increased density from 1700 kg/m3 to 1740 kg/m3
2.90 MPa) and fescue (1.93 MPa–2.88 MPa). On the other hand, (sisal), 1680 kg/m3 to 1700 kg/m3 (eucalyptus pulp) and water
pellet adobe samples exhibited compressive and flexural strength absorption ranged from 19% to 20% (sisal), 20% to 21.25% (eucalyp-
varied from 0.98 MPa to 1.61 MPa and 0.07 MPa to 0.16 MPa tus pulp). Sisal fibre reinforced sample had the highest flexural
respectively. strength (5.50 MPa) at 0.5% of fibre content and eucalyptus pulp
Tran et al. [89] experimented on mechanical properties of soil specimens reached its peak strength (4.5 MPa) at 1% of fibre
blocks incorporating waste corn silk fibre (0.25, 0.5, and 1 wt% content.
and 10 mm). The results revealed that the compressive (9 MPa) Chan, [94] studied the performance of clay bricks using oil palm
and tensile strength (1.30 MPa) reached a peak at 0.5% and fruit bunch and pineapple leaf fibre (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 wt% and
10 mm). The results presented that the sample density ranged (OW), 1218.74 kg/m3-1572.19 kg/m3 (DPF) and 1221.43 kg/m3-
between 1300–1500 kg/m3 (oil palm), 1250–1430 kg/m3 (pineap- 1554.35 kg/m3 (S). In the case of thermal conductivity, straw fibre
ple leaf) and the water absorption rate varied between 1.10% and reinforced samples performed the best (0.26 W/mK), followed by
2% (oil palm), 1.10% to 1.25% (pineapple leaf). The maximum com- DPF (0.28 W/mK) and OW (0.40 W/mK) samples.
pressive strength was similar and achieved at 0.75% of fibre con- Ayodele et al [102] utilised sawdust ash and eggshell ash (0, 2,
tent for both samples being 19.50 MPa (oil palm fibre) and 4, 8 and 16 wt%) in the production of lateralised unfired bricks.
18 MPa (pineapple leaf fibre) which satisfied the minimum From the experiment results, it was noticed that the sample with
strength requirement for conventional brick. 4% ash had the lowest density (1749 kg/m3) while 16% ash blended
Mohamed [95] studied the properties of clay blocks utilising sample had the maximum density (1489 kg/m3). On the other
hay fibre (0.5, 1, 1.5 wt% and 15–25 mm). The test results indicated hand, there was a downward trend in the values of compressive
that the water absorption, swelling potential, the maximum dry strength of the samples as the amount of ash percentage increased
density and shrinkage limit of the samples decreased (up to 1% and maximum compressive strength reached around 1.25 MPa
hay fibre) while the shear strength as well as the tensile strength, which was achieved at 2% and 4% ash content.
increased with the addition of hay fibre. The maximum tensile Sharma et al. [29,103,104] investigated the compressive
strength was recorded as 0.07 kg/cm2 (1% hay fibre) which was a strength and durability of rural adobe blocks incorporating pinus
30% increase in strength compared to the fibre-free sample. How- roxburghii fibre (PR), grewia optiva fibre (GO) in the Indian state
ever, the maximum compressive strength was found as 0.45 MPa of Himachal Pradesh. Different proportions of fibres (0.5, 1, 1.5,
at 0.5% of fibre. 2 wt% and 30 mm) were used in the sample along with 2.5%
Millogo et al. [96] examined the prospect of utilising kenaf fibre cement. The results revealed that GO fibre-mixed samples showed
in the production of pressed adobe blocks (PAB) and Laibi et al. [97] better improvement in durability than PR fibre-mixed samples. GO
conducted experiments to investigate the influences of different and PR samples reported 72% and 56% decreased in water absorp-
kenaf fibre length on the thermal and engineering properties of tion respectively, resulting in a proportionate durability increase
compressed earth blocks (CEB). The adobe sample blocks were compared to the control sample. Furthermore, the compressive
reinforced with 0.2 to 0.8 wt% and two different lengths (30, strength of the sample blocks increased around 94% to 200% for
60 mm) of fibres [96] while CEBs were produced using 1.2 wt% GO and 73% to 137% for PR fibre. Compressive strength value
and three various lengths (10, 20 and 30 mm) of fibres [97]. The reached its peak at 2.25 MPa (1%fibre) and 3 MPa (2% fibre) for
results showed that for short (30 mm) and long (60 mm) fibres, PR and GO respectively. The water absorption test presented that
compression strength improved respectively by 16% and 8%. More- it ranged from 2.33% to 3.62% for PR and 2.07% to 2.67% for GO
over, the addition of 0.2 to 0.6% of 30 mm fibres reduced the pore samples [29]. The study recommended using 2% GO and 1% PR
size of the samples. Furthermore, the amount of 0.8 wt% of 60 mm fibres for earth blocks construction in seismic prone areas.
fibres negatively influenced the compressive strength of the adobe Achenza and Fenu, [105] and Dove [106] incorporated seaweed
samples [96]. Another study [97] showed maximum compressive fibre additives for unfired clay bricks production. Achenza and
and flexural strength as 6.40 MPa (20 mm) and 2.75 MPa Fenu [105] used 10 mm long and 10 wt% seaweed fibre and natural
(30 mm) respectively. The results also indicated that the thermal polymer (beetroots and tomato residues) with soil. Dove [106] uti-
conductivity reduced when both the fibre length and percentage lised 0.1% Scottish seaweeds (Laminaria hyperborean) with silt
were raised. Thermal conductivity value was measured as loam to prepare the blocks. According to the test results density
1.30 W/mK (0.8% and 60 mm) [96] and 1 W/mK (1.2% and of the samples varied from 1690 kg/m3 to 2250kgm/m3 [106]
20 mm) [97]. Hence, the studies recommended 30 mm fibre length and 1720 kg/m3 to 1810 kg/m3 [105]. It was observed that the
of kenaf as suitable for stabilisation of PAB and CEB. compressive strength improved (about 75%) with natural polymers
Murillo et al. [98] evaluated the effects of addition of henequen addition in the sample and the highest compressive strength was
fibre (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 mass%) on engineering properties of observed as 4.40 MPa. The test results also presented a water
unfired earth blocks. The findings indicated that 1% of fibre addi- absorption value of around 2.10gm/cm2 [105]. On the other hand,
tion led to a decrease in compressive strength up to 33% and linear Dove [106] presented maximum compressive and flexural strength
shrinkage up to 36% in comparison with the fibre-free sample. The of 1.64 MPa and 0.95 MPa respectively.
compressive strength and the linear shrinkage of the samples were Sakhare and Ralegaonkar [107] conducted research using bio-
found respectively between 4.21 MPa and 5.22 MPa and 4.1% to 3%. briquette ash (BBA) (5–55 wt%) for the development of unfired
However, the lowest density was measured as 1884 kg/m3 (0.75% masonry bricks. The findings showed that the density of the sam-
fibre) and the highest was reported as 1906 kg/m3 (0.5% fibre). ples tended to slowly decrease from 1470 kg/m3 to 1170 kg/m3 as
Taallah et al. [99], Taallah and Guettala [100] studied the utili- levels of the waste quantity increased. However, the increase in
sation of date palm fibre on compressed earth blocks production. BBA content increased water absorption from 13% to 25%. The
Various percentages of cement (5, 6.5 and 8%) and fibre (0.05, compressive strength reached its highest value (4.19 MPa) at 35%
0.10, 0.15, 0.2 wt% and 20 mm, 35 mm) were incorporated to con- BBA addition and gradually declined with the increase of BBA. Fur-
duct the tests. The results of the experiments exhibited that the thermore, the tests of thermal conductivity showed that the value
better outcome of the dry compressive (12.50 MPa) and tensile decreased as BBA increased and the best thermal conductivity
strength (1.50 MPa) were achieved by samples with 0.05% of fibre value was found (0.35 W/mK) for a sample of 45% BBA.
and 8% cement content. The lowest water absorption (9.50%) and Demir [108] examined the durability and mechanical proper-
swelling value (0.18%) was also attained with this percentage. ties of unfired clay bricks utilising processed waste tea (2.5 and
However, higher fibre content decreased the thermal conductively 5% by mass). The results showed that the unit weight of unfired
(0.80–0.76 W/mK) and bulk density (1910–1892 kg/m3) of the specimens reduced with an increasing waste ratio in mixtures
specimens. and ranged from 1.52 to 1.70 kg/dm3. The compressive strength
Lamrani et al. [101] assessed the thermal efficiency of unfired of unfired samples was above 5 MPa which corresponded to the
clay masonry bricks combining 10, 20, 30 vol% of olive waste fibre Turkish standard [152]. However, the optimum compressive
[OW], date palm fibre [DPF] and straw [S]. It reported that the addi- strength was measured as 7.60 MPa with 5% waste content. Based
tion of S and DPF improved the thermal performance of the sam- on the test results, it can be concluded that a maximum of 5%
ples while OW began to degrade the performance. The density of processed tea waste can be used as an additive in unfired brick
the samples ranged between 1398.30 kg/m3-1642.59 kg/m3 manufacturing.
Adogla et al. [109] utilised eggshell powder (10, 20, 30 and 100% loess, 8% cement, 3% quicklime, 5% phosphogypsum and
40 wt%) to examine their potentiality to substitute soil partially 20% fly ash, the flexural strength improved from 1.31 MPa to
in the production of lateralised unfired compressed bricks. From 2.63 MPa at 28 days when temperature increased from 55 °C to
the density tests, it was noticed that the dry density of the samples 85 °C. Also, the compressive strength increased from 18.20 MPa
increased gradually (2101 kg/m3 to 2044 kg/m3) as the amount of to 23.72 MPa for the same mixture in the same condition and both
waste increased. On the other hand, compressive strength test the values met the Chinese national standard GB/T 5101–2003
findings showed that there was an upward trend in the values of [155]. Besides, the water absorption rate of the samples varied
compressive strength of the samples as the amount of ash percent- from 15 to 25%. The highest softening coefficients for flexural
age increased to maximum 30% and after that compressive strength (0.9) and compressive strength (0.95) were obtained from
strength showed a decrease in value. The optimum compressive the mixture proportion of 100% loess, 20% fly ash, 10% cement, 3%
value was found at 3.05 MPa after 6 days of curing. phosphogypsum and 8% quicklime. Huynh et al. [115,116] devel-
Araya-Letelier et al. [110] measured the efficacy of using pig oped a novel eco-friendly building brick using different propor-
hair as reinforcement in adobe (0.5, 2 wt% and 7, 15, 30 mm). tions of crushed sand (70, 80, 90 and 100%wt), river sand (10, 20,
The test results presented a reduction in strength with the incorpo- 30 wt%), low-calcium fly ash (10, 15, 20 wt%) and ordinary Portland
ration of a higher amount (2%) and long length (15 mm and cement (8, 10, 12 wt%). From the Scanning electron microscope
30 mm) of pig hair. After 28 days of curing the average flexural observation, it was noticed that the density of the samples
and compressive strength values were found between 0.34 MPa decreased and water absorption rate increased (around 8–8.5%)
and 0.49 MPa and 1.20 MPa to 2.02 MPa respectively. Moreover, with an increasing amount of fly ash. The compressive strength
incorporation of larger quantities (2%) and higher length value was found as 4.50 MPa (10% fly ash), 5.10 MPa (15% fly
(30 mm) of wastes minimised the drying shrinkage of the adobe ash) and 6.03 MPa (20% fly ash) which were 36.7%, 17.7%, and
samples. The research recommended 0.5% and 7 mm length of 3.4% higher than the control sample. For the ordinary Portland
pig hair for adobe manufacturing since it exhibited best perfor- cement content strength was recorded as 4.24 MPa (8%) which
mances in flexural toughness and drying shrinkage cracking com- was further increased by 4.0% and 9.4% with cement content
pared to waste-free adobe. increase to 10% and 12%. respectively.
Galán-Marín et al. [111], Statuto et al. [60], Benkhadda and Oti et al. [117–119] used ground granulated blast furnace slag
Khaldoun [112] examined the utilisation of sheep wool to reinforce (5, 5.5, 11, 12 wt%), clay, two different types of lime (quicklime
unfired earth blocks. Statuto et al. [60] used 3 wt% whereas Galán- and hydraulic lime) and Portland cement to conduct the experi-
Marín et al. [111] and Benkhadda and Khaldoun [112] incorporated ments. The results indicated that lime activated samples per-
0.25-1 wt% of 10–50 mm sheep wool and alginate as a natural formed better than cement activated samples. The dry density of
polymer to produce the blocks. The results reported that density the samples varied from 1790-1800 kg/m3 [118]. The highest com-
increased with the increasing amount of wool fibre and ranged pressive strength was obtained as 7.40 MPa (lime activated) and
from 1790 kg/m3 (19.5% alginate and 0.25% wool) to 1800 kg/m3 5.50 MPa (cement activated) at 90 days curing [117]. Besides, the
(19.5% alginate 0.50% wool) [111]. The compressive strength lime activated samples showed a lower thermal conductivity value
reached its peak at 4.44 MPa [111] and 3.04 MPa [112] and maxi- (0.37 W/mK) than the cement activated sample (0.38 W/mK) [119].
mum flexural strength was recorded as 1.45 MPa [111] and At the end of the 90 days, the lime activated samples displayed a
1.83 MPa [112] with 0.25% sheep wool and 19% alginate content. lower water absorption rate (17–20%) relative to the cement acti-
vated samples (20–22%) [118]. Also, the rate of linear shrinkage of
4.4. Unfired earth blocks construction incorporating non-agro wastes the samples was found to be very low after 28 days curing.
Sekhar and Nayak [120] studied the utilisation of granulated
Siddiqua and Barreto [113], Gu and Chen [114] and Huynh et al. blast furnace slag (GBFS) in the manufacture of compressed earth
[115 116] studied the potential use of fly ash as a stabiliser for blocks. Different percentages of waste (5, 15, 25, 35, 45 wt% for
unfired earth bricks and rammed earth construction. Siddiqua lithomargic clay and 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 wt% for laterite soil) were
and Barreto [113] investigated the use of two industrial by- used in the production of the samples. The results revealed that
products namely, fly ash (FA) and calcium carbide residue (CCR) compressive strength improved and water absorption decreased
as binders in rammed earth construction. Gu and Chen [114] used when cement was added to the mixer (6-12 wt% for lithomargic
fly ash, phosphogypsum waste, cement and quicklime for rammed clay and 2-8 wt% for laterite). For lithomargic clay blocks, maxi-
earth compaction. On the other hand, Huynh et al. [115 116] mum compressive strength was obtained as 5.55 MPa (25%GBFS +
explored the mechanical strength and thermal characteristics of 12%Cement) and for laterite blocks, it was 5.25 MPa (20%GBFS + 8%
unfired samples by combining fly ash, fine aggregates and cement. Cement). Besides, for all samples, the water absorption values
Siddiqua and Barreto [113] used two different compositions of CCR were<15%. The study suggested that 20% granulated blast furnace
and FA (CCR:FA = 40:60, CCR:FA = 60:40) with 5 diverse binders (3- slag, 80% laterite soil and 6% cement are the ideal composition to
15 wt%) for the experiments. For both the compositions dry density manufacture unfired earth blocks.
decreased (1820 kg/m3 to 1796 kg/m3 for CCR: FA = 40:60 and Vinai et al. [121] incorporated bottom ash (52.5, 60, 75 vol%)
(1805 kg/m3 to 1774 kg/m3 for CCR: FA = 60:40) with the increase with the various proportions of cement (10-57 vol%), sand and
of binder content. The maximum compressive strength was lateritic clayey soil for the production of unfired bricks. The test
achieved at a 15% binder addition. The peak compressive values results indicated that the porous microstructure of bottom ash pro-
were 5.97 MPa (CCR: FA = 40:60) and 5.82 MPa (CCR: duced very lightweight samples (1200–1600 kg/m3). The uniaxial
FA = 60:40) after 60 days of curing. However, 12% binder content compressive strength was reported between 4 MPa and 27 MPa
and CCR: FA = 40:60 was proposed as an optimum percentage since for the maximum amount of cement mixed samples. The study
it presented a substantial development of the strength in the sam- concluded that most economic stabilisation mixture proportion
ples. Gu and Chen [114] incorporated 5, 10, 15, 20 wt% of fly ash could be 10% cement and 20% laterite which reached around
with loess, waste phosphogypsum (3, 5, 8, 10 wt%), cement 8 MPa of strength.
(10 wt%) and quicklime (2, 4, 6, 8 wt%) to produce self- Raj S. et al. [122] conducted experimental research on the char-
compacting rammed earth. The study showed that flexural and acteristics of rammed earth using two binders, fly ash (FA) (4, 8,
compressive strength improved when the temperature increased 12 wt%) and bottom ash (BA) (6, 12, 18 wt%). Results showed that
at different curing ages. For the sample with mix proportion of unconfined compressive strength significantly improved from
7.13 MPa to 17.36 MPa when the mixing ratio was 60:40 (BA:FA). Oti et al. [129] analysed the possibility of utilising brick dust
Also, the dry density of the samples varied from 1800 kg/m3 to waste (BDW) as a partial replacement (5, 10, 15 and 20 wt%) for
1850 kg/m3. The study proposed the use of 30% of the binder along earth in the production of unfired building materials such as brick
with 3% and 6% cement as an activator for the determination of and mortar. The primary stabilising agent for the experiment was a
rammed earth properties. lime-activated ground granulated blast furnace slag. The results
Donkor and Obonyo [123], Akinwumi et al. [124] and Limami presented that the replacement of 5–20% clay with BDW led to a
et al. [125] investigated the utilisation of polyethylene terephtha- significant increase in stabilised mixture strength (around 0.60 to
late to develop unfired compressed earth blocks. Different propor- 2.10 MPa) which is approximately 250% higher than the control
tions of polyethylene terephthalate 1, 3 and 7 wt% [124], 0.2, 0.4, sample. Moreover, the water absorption rate (5.40–8.20%) and lin-
0.6, 0.8 wt% with length of 54 mm [123] and 1, 3, 7, 15 and ear expansion of the specimens increased as the percentage of
20 wt% [125] were mixed to produce the samples. The test results waste increased. The linear expansion value of the waste mixed
showed that the highest compressive and flexural strength were samples was between 0.25% and 0.67% when the three-days curing
measured as 5.55 MPa and 1.02 MPa respectively for 0.4% of waste process was completed but improved to 0.30% to 95% when the
content [123]. On the other hand, from the test results of Akin- fifty-three days was completed. The results of the freeze–thaw sta-
wumi et al. [124] and Limami et al. [125], the maximum compres- bility test showed that weight losses were between 1.20% and
sive strength was found to be 1.55 MPa and 5.04 MPa respectively 1.60% after the 7th cycle and a significant increase in weight loss
with 1% of waste incorporation. A growing proportion of the shred- of approximately 1.40% to 1.90% for all stabilised test specimens
ded plastic content increased the erosion rate [124] and capillary was reported after cycle 28.
water absorption coefficient (33.69% to 64.15%) [125] of the sam- Espuelas et al. [130] studied the efficiency of magnesium oxide
ples. According to Donkor and Obonyo [123], mixing of various (3–18%) and calcareous hydrated lime (3–18%) as substitute bin-
materials became more difficult and the strength started to drop ders for the development of unfired clay bricks. The results demon-
when the percentage of fibre went over 0.6%. Therefore, the study strated that maximum dry density (1980 kg/m3 to 2000 kg/m3)
suggested the optimum range of fibre between 0.4% and 0.6%. and the optimum moisture content slightly increased (12.60% to
Serrano et al. [88] and Porter et al. [126] evaluated the incorpo- 15.70%) with the addition of magnesium oxide to the soil. On the
ration of crumb rubber (5-20 wt%) to enhance the varies properties other hand, the addition of lime decreased the maximum dry den-
of adobe bricks and rammed earth respectively. According to Ser- sity (1890 kg/m3 to 1800 kg/m3) but caused an increase in the opti-
rano et al. [88], the optimum compressive and flexural strength mum moisture content (13.10 to 18.30%). Maximum compressive
values were obtained 2.52 MPa (5% crumb rubber) and 0.16 MPa strengths for magnesium oxide and calcareous hydrated lime
(15% crumb rubber) respectively. Porter et al. [126] presented that incorporated bricks were reported as 9.90 MPa (15% magnesium
compressive strength decreased (10 MPa to 5.20 MPa) as crumb oxide) and 9.80 MPa (6% lime). From the durability point of view,
rubber residues increased. On the contrary, the water absorption water absorption decreased (14.25% to 4.90% for magnesium oxide
rate of the samples amplified (7.5% to 8.75%) with an increased and 13.50% to 6.10% for lime) as the doses increased for both addi-
amount of waste. Thermal property test was conducted for a sam- tives. A minimum dose of 9% and 6% respectively of magnesium
ple containing 20% of crumb rubber and specific heat capacity oxide and lime were found as optimum in the case of sample
value was measured as 1321 J/kgK. Serrano et al. [88] investigated stability.
the mechanical properties of adobe bricks combining polyurethane Moussa at el. [131] investigated the stabilisation effects of 5–25
(waste from refrigerators insulation) as additives by using 5-15 wt mass% calcium carbide residue (CCR) and 8 mass% of cement on
%. The experiment results revealed that flexural and compressive compressed earth blocks produced from quartz-kaolinite rich earth
strength varied from 0.17 MPa (10% polyurethane) to 0.07 MPa material. The results exhibited that the inclusion of CCR waste in
(15% polyurethane) and 2.62 MPa (5% polyurethane) to 1.23 MPa the earth matrix resulted in a reduction of apparent density
(15% polyurethane) respectively. (1820 kg/m3 to 1600 kg/m3). Also, the total porosity of the samples
Eko et al. [127] explored the utilisation of salvaged steel fibre rose from 30% to 40% compared to 20% for the non-stabilised sam-
(1.7, 2, 2.7 vol%) from used tires for reinforcement of unfired earth ple. At the same time, there was a decreasing trend in thermal con-
blocks. The fibre lengths used in the experiment were 20, 35, and ductivity (0.69 W/mK to 0.52 W/mK) and increasing trend in heat
50 mm with a radius of 1.59 mm. The maximum tensile strength capacity (812 J/kg/K to 938 J/kg/K) as the amount of CCR residues
was observed as 0.68 MPa for 2% fibre reinforced sample. More- increased.
over, the maximum unconfined compressive (11.60 MPa) and flex- Bogas et al. [132] evaluated the possibility of utilising 15 wt% of
ural strength (2.60 MPa) were found with the addition of 10% recycled fine aggregates (consisting of fired clay bricks, concrete
cement. The results concluded that the ideal fibre quantity and and cement mortar from construction debris) in the production
essential fibre length were respectively 2% by volume and of compressed earth blocks. The results presented that fresh den-
35 mm for the production of steel fibre reinforced earth blocks. sity of unfired compressed earth blocks incorporated recycle aggre-
Miqueleiz [128] utilised alumina filler waste (16.1, 32.2 and gates ranged between 1929 kg/m3 and 2003 kg/m3 whereas dry
47.82 wt%) and coal ash waste (7 wt%) as replacement of clay for density varied from 1740 kg/m3 to 1810 kg/m3 depending on the
unfired bricks construction. Two different limes, natural hydraulic moisture composition. The highest compressive, tensile and flexu-
lime, calcareous hydrated lime and Portland cement were used in ral strength were recorded as 5.40 MPa, 0.61 MPa and 1.19 MPa
the experiment. The results showed a lower sample density respectively. Besides, the water absorption rate ranged from
(1500 kg/m3-1840 kg/m3) with increased alumina fillers. Nonethe- 13.6% to 16.5% and 0.61 W/mC was found as the lowest conductiv-
less, the optimum moisture content value of the samples was ity value.
between 9% and 14%. A maximum unconfined compressive Zhou et al. [133] incorporated Shang Luo molybdenum tailings
strength was found at 16.1% waste content (16 MPa) and with (55, 60, 65, 70, 75 wt%) to produce unfired bricks. Test results indi-
the increase in waste amount unconfined compressive strength cated that when 55% of molybdenum tailings was applied to the
decreased. On the contrary, with the addition of waste, water samples, the compressive and flexural strength were recorded
absorption rate increased from 15% to 24%. The freeze and thaw 27.35 MPa and 7.56 MPa respectively after 28 days which met
cycle test revealed that 47.82% waste added sample performed MU25 requirements [155]. The compressive and bending strength
very good but some surface cracks in the samples made with 60% decreased from 20.12 MPa to 23.36 MPa and 5.36 MPa to 6.42 MPa
of waste were observed from the beginning to the end of the cycles. respectively, when the molybdenum tailings ratio increased to
60%-70%. Finally, as molybdenum was applied at 75%, the compres- no major distinction existed between the two bricks blends, but
sive and flexural strength dropped to 15.69 MPa and 4.83 MPa. Fur- the decrease in water resistance in concrete waste samples was
thermore, the study also examined the consequence of silica slightly greater than the ceramic waste samples. Water absorption
powder addition on the properties of unfired samples and the rate varied between 5.90% and 19.20% (ceramic waste) and 9% to
experiments concluded that with the addition of silica powder 16.90% (concrete waste). However, the test results revealed that
the mechanical properties of unfired bricks decreased. bricks mixed with concrete waste performed better than bricks
Nagaraj and Shreyasvi [134] studied the prospect of using iron with ceramic waste in freeze–thaw resistance. Finally, the analysis
mine spoil waste (MSW) (30, 40, 50 wt%) in the production of com- of the life cycle found that the environmental impact of the
pressed earth blocks using quarry dust, cement and lime. Test blended bricks was largely determined by the binder materials in
results revealed that the optimum waste percentage was 30% as the mixture.
at this amount the compressive (5 MPa) and flexural strength Balkis [139] investigated the mechanical properties of adobe
(1.12 MPa) were found the maximum after 6 months of ageing. blocks comprising different amounts of polymer fibre (0.5–2.0 wt
However, with an increase in the waste amount water absorption %) and marble dust waste (10 and 20 wt%). This research examined
rate declined from 18.9% to 12.0%. the effects of such wastes on the compressive and bending
Oladeji and Akinrinde [135] analysed the influences of two strength of adobe samples made of two separate soils collected
chemical additives namely KS770 and soda ash (4.38, 4.56, 4.74, from Taskent and Haspolat regions in Turkey. The findings pre-
4.92 l of water) on the different properties of unfired clay bricks. sented that adobe samples reinforced with polymer fibres
The results reported that soda ash improved the clay brick prop- enhanced the mechanical properties of the samples. For both soils,
erties than KS770 additives. However, the addition of soda addi- the most desirable results were achieved with a ratio of 0.5% poly-
tive decreased the density (1410 kg/m3 to 1160 kg/m3) and mer fibre and 10% marble dust since these complied with the min-
compressive strength (1.71 MPa to 1.50 MPa) of the unfired brick imum strength requirements of Turkish standard for adobe block
samples. In comparison, the additive KS770 seemed to improve [152]. The combination had a compressive and flexural strength
the moisture content of the samples and thus avoided early set- of 3.47 MPa and 1.43 MPa respectively.
ting and hardening. The study suggested an optimum water addi- Binici et al. [53] developed an earthquake-resistant mud brick
tive ratio of 1:27 with soda ash to enhance the workability of using two industrial waste materials (polystyrene fibre and plastic
unfired clay bricks. fibre). The mud bricks were made by combining clay (50 kg),
Gandia et al. [136] carried out an experimental study on differ- cement (10 kg), lime (2 kg), gypsum (3 kg), basaltic pumice
ent physical, mechanical and thermal behaviour of adobe blocks (15 kg), polystyrene fibre (0.5 kg), plastic fibre (0.1 kg) and water
strengthened with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) waste (20 kg). The produced samples were checked for compressive
(2.5, 0.5, 7.5, 10 wt%). The results showed that as the percentage strength development after different casting days such as 28 days,
of GFRP waste increased in the adobe samples, the bulk density 72 days and lastly 96 days. The results revealed that the compres-
(1565 kg/m3-1524 kg/m3) and thermal conductivity (0.79 W/mK- sive strength (3.70 MPa to 7.10 MPa) of fibre-reinforced samples
0.68 W/mK) decreased while compressive strength (1.32 MPa to exceeded the minimum requirement indicated in Turkish Standard
2.05 MPa) and water absorption (12.88% to 15.76%) increased. (1 MPa) [152]. The ultimate compressive strengths of plastic and
The study concluded that the optimum mix ratio of GFRP was polystyrene fibre reinforced samples were obtained respectively
10% because it showed a 6% reduction in bulk density, a 21% reduc- 7.10 MPa and 4.90 MPa at 96 days curing. Moreover, the study con-
tion in thermal conductivity and a 45% increase in compressive cluded that water absorption rate (after 24 h) for plastic fibre rein-
strength. forced samples was higher (37.60%) than polystyrene fibre
Ali et al. [137] assessed the effects of the addition of cera- reinforced samples (33.50%). In addition, the weight losses for plas-
mic waste (50, 75, 100 wt%) in the composition of laterite soil tic fibre and polystyrene fibre samples were measured as 16.10%
compressed bricks. It reported that 75% of ceramic content had and 13.40% respectively by the wetting and drying cycling test
the highest density (1774.89 kg/m3) while the lowest density (7 days).
was (1703.33 kg/m3) found for 100% ceramic content. More- Xie et al. [140] investigated the utilisation of waterworks sludge
over, the sample containing 75% of ceramic waste exhibited waste (WS) (20-50 wt%), fly ash, sodium silicate and feldspar pow-
the best compressive strength with the results of 24.40 MPa der as additives in the manufacture of fired and unfired bricks. The
(7 days curing) and 33.60 MPa (28 days curing). However, maximum compressive strength value for unfired blocks reached a
the compressive strength decreased for both 7 and 28 days peak of around 30 MPa (20 wt% WS) and decreased when the WS
above 75% of ceramic waste replacement. Furthermore, 75% ratio rose from 20% to 35%. However, in all the cases, compressive
of ceramic waste reported the lowest value as 17.20% and strength value stayed above 20 MPa. But the permeability coeffi-
1.63 kg/min/m2 respectively for water absorption test and ini- cient of the unfired bricks was lower than the acceptable value.
tial rate absorption test. It happened because the smaller particles of cement managed to
Seco et al. [138] utilised the concrete waste (50 wt%) and cera- fill the gaps formed by the large particles of soil. Also, cement, soil
mic remains (30 wt%) to partially replace the soil in the production and WS were closely bound together during the hydration process,
of unfired bricks. The study investigated the mechanical properties, leaving little gaps.
water absorption rate and freeze–thaw resistance. In addition,
based on Life Cycle Analysis the environmental impacts of the
specimens were measured. The samples were manufactured by 5. Discussion
using grey marl soil from northern Spain and four additives such
as ground granulated blast furnace slag, Portland cement, calcare- Tables 3 and 4 indicate that researchers used different agro
ous hydrated lime and natural hydrated lime as binder compo- and non-agro waste materials in various quantities to produce
nents. According to the test results, the maximum unconfined unfired earth building blocks. Several physical, mechanical and
compressive strength was witnessed for concrete and ceramic- thermal properties were assessed by distinctive tests following
based bricks respectively 12.65 MPa (after 21 days of curing) and the different available standards (see Table 5). As presented by
12.65 MPa (after 28 days of curing). The ideal binder proportion Cid et al. [141] and Schroeder [142] there are some certain uni-
for both the mixer was 2% calcareous hydrated lime and 8% ground versal and regional guidelines established for the unfired earth
granulated blast furnace slag. In the case of water absorption rate, building construction worldwide. However, the properties mostly
Table 5
Different standards followed by all the reviewed papers.
Compressive strength test

American Standard: ASTM C 140-96b [64], ASTM C 109/C 109 M [114,139], ASTM C 618–15, ASTM D698-12e2 [113], ASTM: C 1018 [110], ASTM: C 67–07 [69,108,123],
ASTM D 1633 [89], ASTM D 2166-00e1/06 [91,95,127], ASTM E 11–04 [56]
British Standard: BS 3921:1985 [94,137], BS 1377 [102,135], BS 1924–2: 1990 [129], European Standard: EN 196–1 [97], EN 1015–11 [58,72], EN 1926 [56,66], EN
12390–3 [54], EN 83–821-925 [111], BS EN 772–1[65,81,82,83,87], BS EN 771–1:2003 [117], BS EN 1015–11:1999 [106], SR EN 196–1:2016 [76], French Standard:
XP P 13–901 [63,73,80,99,100], Spanish Standard: UNE 103,400 [130,138], UNE EN 772–1(2002) [128], UNE-EN 196–1 [88]
Brazilian Standard: NBR 8491, NBR 8492 [86,132,136], New Mexico Earthen Building Materials Code: CID-GCBNMBC [62], Peruvian Standard: NTE-E.080 [136],
Columbian Standard: NTC 5324 (2004) [132]
Ghana Standard: GS 297–1 [109], Moroccan Standard: NM EN 772–1-2015 [125]
Turkish Standard: TS EN 771–1 (2002), TS 2514, 1977 [84], TS 2514–2515 [139], TS 704, TS 705 [108,124], Iranian Standard No. 7 [78]
Indian Standard: IS 4332 [67], IS: 2720–10 [29], IS 3495 : 1992 [107,134], IS:1905-IS:1987, IS:1725-IS:1982, [120,122], Malaysian Standard: MS 76:1972 [94,137],
Indonesian Standard: SNI 15–2094-2000, Vietnamese Standard: TCVN 6477:2011 [79], TCVN 6477–2016 [115,116], Chinese Standard: MU15 [133], MU7.5 [61], GB/
T 17671–1999 [114], JC/T945-2005 [140], Japanese Standard: JIS A1216 [71]
New Zealand Earth Building Standard: NZS 4298 (NZS 1998) [62,73]
Flexural and Tensile strength test
American Standard: ASTM C 67–07 [69], ASTM C1018 [110], ASTM C 1609 [66], ASTM D 1635–00 [91], ASTM C 496 [89], ASTM D 3967–08-16 [87,95]
British Standard: BS 6073 [73], European Standard: EN 83–821-925 [111], EN 196–1 [97], EN 772–6 (2001) [132], EN 12,372 [54], EN 1015–11 [56], EN 12390–6 (2009)
[132], BS EN 1015–11:1999 [106], BS EN 12390–6 [65,87], SR EN 196–1:2016 [76], French Standard: NF EN 196–1 [73], AFNOR: XP P13-901[63,99,100], Spanish
Standard: UNE-EN 196–1 [88]
Turkish Standard: TS 2514–2515[139, Indian Standard: IS 5816 [67]
Indonesian Standard: SNI 03–6458-2000 [77], Chinese Standard: MU15 [133]
Density test
American Standard: ASTM C 67 [108], ASTM C 134–94 [64], ASTM C 948 [93], ASTM D 6611 [66]
British Standard: BS 1377 [102], BS 6073 [109], European Standard: BS EN 771–1 [65], French Standard: NF P18-459 [131]
Moroccan Standard: NM EN 772–16, NM 10.1.009–2014 [125], Kenyan Standard: KS 1070:1993 [92]
Indian Standard: IS 3495 (Part I-III): 1992, IS 1077:1992 (d) [107], Vietnamese Standard: TCVN 6355:2009 [79]
Water absorption test
American Standard: ASTM C 67–11 [91], ASTM C 272/C272M-12 [87], ASTM C 948 [93]
British Standard: BS 3921:1985 [94], BS 1377 (1990) [135], BS 3921: 1985 [137], European Standard: EN 771–1 [130,138], BS EN 772–11[58,65,85,87], BS EN 771–1
[118,119,129], French Standard: AFNOR: XP P13-901 [63,99,100], Spanish Standard: UNE EN 771–1(2003) [128], Portuguese Standard: LNEC E394 (1994) [132]
Brazilian Standard: NBR 8491, NBR 8492 [86]
Moroccan Standard: NM EN 772–11[125]
Turkish Standard: TS 704, TS 705 [108]
Indian Standard: IS 1077:1992 (d) [107], IS: 1725, 1982, 2013 [29,120,122,134], Malaysian Standard: MS 76:1972 [94,137], Vietnamese Standard: TCVN 6355:2009
[79], TCVN 6477–2016[116], Chinese Standard: GB/T 50082–2009 [114]
Thermal conductivity test
American Standard: ASTM C 1113–99 [55], ASTM C518-91, ASTM C1132-89 [119]
European Standard: BS EN 1745 [119], SR EN 12667:2002 [76], French Standard: AFNOR: XP P13-901[63]
Japanese Standard: JIS R 2618 [64]
specified in different accessible standards include bulk density, standards and codes. In the following sections, we discuss the
water absorption and compressive strength. In Table 6, unfired results of all tests conducted by various authors of the chosen
earth blocks specifications are provided in compliance with the articles.
Table 6
Different Standards Requirements for Clay Masonry and Earth Building.
Standards Compressive strength (min.) Flexural strength Bulk density Water absorption (max. %
(min.) (min.) by weight)
Standards for masonry American Standard: ASTM Grade SW: 20.70 MPa, Grade SW: 17%
clay brick 62–17 [143] Grade MW: 17.20 MPa Grade MW: 22%
Grade NW: 10.30 MPa Grade NW: no limit
British Standard: BS 3921 5 MPa
[144]
BS 5628 [145] 12–20%
Standards for unfired Indian Standard: IS 1725 Class 20: 20 MPa 0.50 MPa 1750 kg/m3 15%
earth blocks [146] Class 30: 30 MPa
Sri Lankan Standard: SLS 1382 Dry CS- 2.80 MPa 1750 kg/m3 15%
[147] Wet CS- 1.20 MPa
Brazilian Standard: NBR 8492 2 MPa 20%
[148]
New Mexico Earthen Building 2.06 MPa 0.35 MPa
Code [149]
German Standard: DIN 18,945 Class 2 to Class 6 brick: 2 MPa to 6 MPa
[150] respectively
New Zealand Standard: NZS 1.30 MPa 0.25 MPa
D4298 [151]
Turkish Standard: TS 2514 1 MPa
[152]
SW: Severe weathering, MW: Moderate weathering, NW: Negligible Weathering
5.1. Effects of waste materials on the physical properties of unfired lower specific density of the wastes relative to the earthen par-
earth blocks ticles [131,135,113,128]. However, the density of bottom ash
blended samples decreased initially, but additional waste
Density and water absorption are two physical properties increased the dry density by enhancing the mixture gradation.
extensively examined by the authors. The density of the composite [122]. In the case of glass fibre reinforced polymer, the porosity
material is an important measurement because many other prop- of the samples increased due to displacement of the fibres in
erties including mechanical and thermal properties can be associ- contact with the soil resulting in lower sample density [136].
ated with this. Increasing the waste amount in earth samples Fig. 6 illustrates that only three waste materials (glass fibre
induces a drop in earth content, which eventually reduces the com- reinforced polymer waste, KS770 and soda ash) did not fulfil
posite density. The results showed that porosity and water absorp- the minimum requirements of the standards IS 1725 and SLS
tion of the samples were inversely related to bulk density (1750 kg/m3).
[65,77,93,100,102,109,125,128,136,137]. Therefore, more pores of
the low-density samples permitted high water flow due to the cap-
illary effect, leading to a higher water absorption coefficient. Also, 5.1.3. Effects of agro wastes on the water absorption of unfired earth
from the discussions in Section 4.3, it could be generalised that the blocks
addition of agro wastes increased water absorption rate because of Out of 58 papers only 19 papers discussed on the water absorp-
the hydrophilic nature of lignocellulosic fibres [93]. Fig. 3 and Fig. 7 tion of the waste-incorporated composites. Fig. 3 indicates that the
exhibit the water absorption results from different research work rate of water absorption of straw and cassava peel samples
reviewed. exceeded the requirements stated in the standards whereas bio-
briquette, wood aggregate/fibre, banana fibre, sugarcane bagasse,
coconut coir, date palm fibre, dawul kurudu, pines gum, oil palm
5.1.1. Effects of agro wastes on the density of unfired earth blocks
fruit fibre, rice husk, pinus roxburghii fibre, grewia optiva fibre,
The density of the samples varied depending on the types of
sawdust, oil palm fruit bunch fibre, pineapple leaf fibre fulfilled
earth materials and fibres used. Danso et al. [65] found that adding
all the standards criteria. In addition, eucalyptus pulp microfibre,
coconut husk, sugarcane bagasse and oil palm fruit fibres to the
sisal fibre satisfied the NBR 8492 and BS 5628 standard (20%).
samples led to a decrease in density as fibres had a low density
Based on the data in Fig. 3 it is evident that the strongest resistance
(810 kg/m3 to 500 kg/m3) itself relative to soil density (1780 kg/
(1.10%) was demonstrated by pineapple leaf fibre and oil palm fruit
m3). Thus, increasing fibre content to replace the heavier soil
bunch fibre samples.
decreased sample density [72,83,93,100]. In the case of powdered
materials, Huynh et al. [79] and Namango [92] presented that rice
husk ash and cassavas powder addition decreased the density of 5.1.4. Effects of non-agro wastes on the water absorption of unfired
the samples due to their lower density like the soil used. On the earth blocks
other hand, the result was slightly different for the eggshell ash Section 4.4 indicates that 14 studies addressed the water
[102] as the percentage of ash increased to 4% the density of the absorption rate of the manufactured samples utilising non-
samples increased. This is because of the very small particles of agro wastes. It also presents that, the inclusion of various resi-
ash that filled the voids in lateritic soil. Subsequently, the sample dues in unfired earth blocks amplified the water absorption
density dropped by a rise of 8% and 16% in the amount of ash, since rate. In some of the cases, however, the rate of water absorp-
the ash had a lower specific gravity than the laterite. In general, tion declined with an increase in waste amount as stated by
from the Fig. 2 it can be concluded that almost all the waste- Nagaraj and Shreyasvi [134], Espuelas et al. [130] and Sekhar
incorporated samples complied with the minimum IS 1725 and and Nayak [120]. Fig. 7 illustrates the water absorption rate
SLS 1382 criteria (1750 kg/m3) except wheat hay fibre, flax fibre, of non–agro wastes blended samples from all the studies con-
eucalyptus pulp microfibre, olive waste fibre, oil palm fruit bunch cerning the different standard values. According to the figure,
fibre, bio-briquette, pineapple leaf fibre, jute and corn husk ash all the samples met the requirements of the standards apart
samples. from plastic fibre and polystyrene fibre for which the water
absorption rate was higher than the standard requirements of
5.1.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the density of unfired earth blocks 15–22%. In the case of ceramic waste, it complied with the
In general, the density of the waste blended samples NBR 8492, BS 5628 (20%) and ASTM 62–17 (22%)
decreased with the addition of waste materials due to the requirements.
Fig. 2. Density of agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 3. Water absorption of agro waste-incorporated samples.
5.2. Effects of waste materials on the mechanical properties of unfired strength continued to decrease when the ratio increased. In moist
earth blocks condition, lime and RHA consumed water for exothermic reaction
and generated cementitious materials (calcium silicate hydrate)
The key details contained in Table 3, 4 and section 4.3, 4.4 state which bound the clay particles together, imparting strength to
that the application of waste materials changed the physical, the soil mixture. When the quantities of RHA was higher than
mechanical and thermal properties of unfired earth blocks in dif- the amount of lime in the mixtures, there was an insignificant
ferent ways. The effects of adding waste to the samples differed increase in strength due to the insufficient presence of calcium in
by researchers as the performance of the materials depended on the lime–RHA system for the reaction. Besides for higher lime ratio,
the types of the wastes, compaction process of the soil and meth- unreacted lime caused the formation of portlandite which
ods used for testing. For example, with the same soil and the same increased the porosity and caused the reduction of mechanical
testing procedure, the addition of different waste materials can resistance. On the other hand, Udawattha et al. [87] reported that
accomplish the opposite results. Therefore, there can be no gener- thicker natural polymers (Pine resin, Dawul kurudu, sugarcane
alisation of the results. resin) created better bonds between soil particles than very light-
weight natural polymers (Bael resin, Jack wood resin, Agarwood
5.2.1. Effects of agro wastes on the compressive and flexural strength resin, wood apple resin). Also, in most of the studies, the compres-
of unfired earth blocks sive strength generally improved with the addition of cement or
The findings of the different studies in Section 4.3 showed that other binders.
all most all the researchers examined the compressive strength of The compressive strength findings from several different stud-
the samples. The results indicated that the majority of the waste ies are shown in Fig. 4. The figure displays that the peak compres-
materials contributed to improving the strength of the specimens. sive strength was achieved by rice husk ash (30.30 MPa) waste
Strength increased due to the isotropic matrix formation between sample followed by oil palm fruit bunch fibre (19.50 MPa) and
the structure of earth mixture and the all-directional fibre network pineapple leaf fibre (18 MPa). On the other hand, natural polymer
which resisted particles movements and provided stability. The such as bael resin (0.13 MPa), agarwood resin (0.20 MPa) and jack
impacts of fibre length on the mechanical properties of earth resin (0.24 MPa) had the lowest values. It can be observed that,
blocks were also investigated by some of the authors. Sangma dawul kurudu, wheat hay fibre, wood apple resin, jack resin, agar-
et al. [67] observed that samples of 40 mm coconut fibre obtained wood resin, bael resin did not satisfy any standard criteria whereas
the highest compressive (1.67 MPa) and tensile strength rice husk, oil palm fruit bunch, pineapple leaf fibre, palm fibre, date
(0.56 MPa). However, as the fibre length increased from 40 mm palm fibre and straw met all the standard requirements. Sisal fibre,
to 80 mm both compressive (1.13 MPa) and tensile strength wood aggregate/fibre, corn silk fibre, processed waste tea, cassava
(0.18 MPa) declined. Similarly, the maximum compressive powder, banana fibre, kenaf fibre, coconut coir, henequen fibre,
(6.58 MPa) and flexural strength (1.02 MPa) of banana fibre [70] grass and sawdust waste materials fulfilled the minimum require-
were assessed for fibre lengths of 60 mm and 70 mm respectively. ments (2 MPa) of the New Mexico Earthen Building Code [149],
Besides, whereas shorter kenaf fibres [97] (10 and 20 mm) had a NBR 8492 [148], DIN 18,945 [150], IS 1725 [146] and BS 3921
positive effect on flexural strength, the best result was achieved [144] (5 MPa) except ASTM 62–17 [143] (10.30 MPa). Tobacco resi-
with 30 mm fibre length. For pig hair [110] the average compres- dues, flax fibre, seaweeds fibre, sheep wool, bio-briquette, lavender
sive and flexural strength decreased as the amount and length of straw, hemp fibre, corn plant fibre, corn cob, oil palm fruit fibre,
pig hair increased. It is due to the cluster generation by the higher grewia optiva fibre, eggshell, fonio straw, sugarcane bagasse, fes-
fibre length in the mixture which induced poor adhesion between cue, pines gum, cassava peel and pinus roxburghii fibre satisfied
the fibres in the clusters and the earth matrix. In addition, fibre the New Mexico Earthen Building Code, NBR 8492, DIN 18945, IS
clusters in the matrix functioned as porosity, impacting its average 1725. Nevertheless, grounded olive stones, pig hair and jute com-
strength. Oskouei et al. [78] showed that non-fibrous rice husk par- piled with the NZS D4298 [151] (1.30 MPa), SLS 1382 [147]
ticles decreased the adhesion of clay with other constituents which (1.20 MPa) and TS 2514 [152] (1 MPa) standards.
also reduced the friction of components by separating the soil par- Like compressive strength, flexural strength varied noticeably
ticles. Hence, the compressive strength decreased as the amount of depending on the references (see Fig. 5). The results presented that
rice husk increased in the samples. Muntohar [77] explained that flexural strength improved with the addition of waste. But for
the addition of lime and rice husk ash (RHA) increased the com- higher waste content of cassava peel, sisal fibre, pig hair, banana
pressive strength and reached a maximum value at 1:1 ratio but fibre, rice husk and hemp shiv and flexural strength seemed to
Fig. 4. Compressive strength of agro waste-incorporated samples.
decrease. Only grounded olive stones had the value (0.16 MPa) presented that the addition of crumb rubber decreased the com-
lower than the standards and all other waste-incorporated samples pressive strength as it is a softer material which reduced the bulk
met the standard requirements of IS 1725 (0.50 MPa) [146], New properties of the mixture. For alumina filler waste [128] increasing
Mexico Earthen Building Code (0.35 MPa) [149] and NZS D4298 waste content resulted in a decrease in strength because of the
(0.25 MPa) [151]. The highest flexural strength value was achieved reduction of cohesion between particles thereby forming an addi-
by rice husk ash (6.17 MPa) followed by sisal fibre (5.50 MPa) cor- tional internal open structure on the samples. According to Zhou
responding to around 11 times higher than IS 1725 standard. et al. [133], the raw materials (cement, sand and molybdenum tail-
ings) reacted with water and formed CaO.SiO2xH2O (CSH) and
5.2.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the compressive and flexural CaO.Al2O3xH2O (CAH). The particles of molybdenum tailing were
strength of unfired earth blocks bonded by CSH and CAH forming skeletal structure and hence
Section 4.4 revealed that almost all studies showed an increase the samples attained mechanical strength. However, when the
in compressive strength with increasing additive percentage. How- addition of molybdenum was greater, the CSH and CAH were lack-
ever, additives such as KS770, soda ash, molybdenum tailing, ing in the samples, as a result, the mechanical strength decreased.
crumb rubber and alumina filler waste showed a decreasing trend It is evident from the Fig. 8 that ceramic waste (highest value of
in strength as the volume of waste increased. Porter et al. [126] 33.60 MPa), waterworks sludge, molybdenum tailings, bottom
Fig. 5. Flexural strength of agro waste-incorporated samples.
Fig. 6. Density of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.
Fig. 7. Water absorption of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.
ash, fly ash, coal ash, alumina filler residues, concrete waste and approximately 15 and 5 times greater than the standard IS 1725
salvaged steel fibre satisfied all the standard requirements men- (0.50 MPa) requirement. Also, marble dust and polymer fibre, recy-
tioned in Table 6. On the other hand, KS770 (1.45 MPa) and soda cled aggregate, iron mine spoil waste and polyethylene terephtha-
ash showed the lowest compressive strength (1.71 MPa) but met late waste achieved the minimum requirements mentioned in
the NZS D4298, SLS 1382 and TS 2514 standard. In addition, poly- Indian standard for Earth Building, New Mexico Earthen Building
styrene fibre, marble dust, polymer fibre, calcium carbide residues, Code and New Zealand Standard NZS 18945. Contrarily, polyur-
polyurethane, glass fibre reinforced polymer and brick dust waste ethane (0.17 MPa) and crumb rubber (0.16 MPa) indicated value
fulfilled the New Mexico Earthen Building Code, NBR 8492, DIN bellow the standards.
18945, IS 1725, NZS D4298, SLS 1382 and TS 2514 standard condi-
tions. Other wastes such as crumb rubber, magnesium oxide waste, 5.3. Effects of waste materials on the thermal properties of unfired
granulated blast furnace slag, plastic fibre, iron mine spoil waste, earth blocks
polyethylene terephthalate and recycled aggregate complied with
all the standards except ASTM 62–17. The influences of agro and non-agro waste materials on the
Table 4 indicates that only 9 papers out of 29 conducted tests on thermal properties of the unfired earth blocks were very rarely
flexural strength. From the results summarised in Section 4.4, it studied. Thermal properties were rarely investigated by the
can be presented that the incorporation of waste materials in the selected articles. However total 15 articles
samples had various impacts on the flexural strength. In general, [62,63,64,73,79,90,97,101,107,112,115,119,131,132,136] mea-
all the additives enhanced the flexural strength with the increase sured the thermal conductivity and only 6 articles
of their doses. From Fig. 9, it can be observed that molybdenum [90,101,115,119,126,131] measured specific heat capacity as well
tailing (7.56 MPa) followed by fly ash, salvaged steel fibre (see Fig. 10 and Fig. 11). Different apparatus was used to measure
(2.60 MPa) showed higher flexural strength values which were the conductivity value such as QTM-500 quick thermal
Fig. 9. Flexural strength of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

1.40 W/mK for 300 kg/m3 to 2.200 kg/m3 of material density. All
the studies reviewed presented that thermal conductivity value
decreased with the addition of agro-wastes and ranged between
0.14 and 1 W/mK which complied with the results presented by
Schroeder [142]. The straw fibre reinforced sample showed the
lowest thermal conductivity value (0.14 W/mK) followed by sheep
wool (0.19 W/mK) and hemp fibre (0.20 W/mK) samples. On the
other hand, higher conductivity values were recorded for kenaf
fibre (1 W/mK), rice husk (0.68 W/mK) and coconut fibre
(0.65 W/mK) samples. For other wastes such as fonio straw, date
palm, corn husk, corn cob, lavender straw and olive waste the
value reached between 0.25 and 0.50 W/mK.
5.3.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the thermal conductivity of unfired

Fig. 10. Thermal conductivity of agro waste-incorporated samples. earth blocks
Oti et al. [119] conducted the tests using Laser-comp FOX 200
thermal conductivity meter within the temperature range of 2.5–
17.5 °C and Bogas et al. [132] used an ISOMET 2114 portable heat
transfer analyser for laboratory data collection and analysis. In all
the five cases of the study, it indicated that incorporation of waste
materials to the sample blocks enhanced the thermal performance
by decreasing the thermal conductivity values. Fig. 11 shows that
granulated blast furnace slag (0.37 W/mK) blended samples exhib-
ited the best performance followed by calcium carbide residue
(0.47 W/mK), recycled aggregate (0.61 W/mK), glass fibre rein-
forced polymer waste (0.68 W/mK) and fly ash (0.78 W/mK).
5.4. Optimum percentage of waste materials

Fig. 11. Thermal conductivity of non– agro waste-incorporated samples.
Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show respectively the optimum percentage

conductivity meter [55], EP500 guarded hot plate apparatus [74],
of agro and non-agro wastes recommended by the several
TR-1 probe [63] and Fox 200 device with the thermoflux meter
reviewed studies. Among various agro wastes bio-briquette
[76]. Huynh et al. [79], Oti et al. [119] and Bogas et al. [132] pre-
(35%), eggshell powder and olive waste (30%) had a greater opti-
sented that density, void volume and thermal conductivity were
mum percentage followed by corn husk ash and bael resin (20%).
correlated. Thermal conductivity decreased with the reduction in
Sugarcane bagasse, dawul kurudu, pines gum, jack resin, tobacco
density but it had an inverse relation with the void volume of
residues, grass, wood apple resin, sawdust and seaweeds fibre per-
the samples. Overall, the results of the review papers suggested
formed better between 10% and 15%. Moreover, straw, lavender
that the thermal efficiency of the unfired earth samples enhanced
straw, corn cob, rice husk, grounded olive stones, processed waste
with the introduction of waste materials.
tea and agarwood resin had a lower percentage (5% to 6%). Other
agro wastes blended samples achieved better properties in lower
5.3.1. Effects of agro wastes on the thermal conductivity of unfired than 5% of the waste quantity.
earth blocks Fig. 13 reveals that ceramic waste, molybdenum tailing and
Schroeder [142] reported that for earth building materials, concrete waste can replace 50% soil effectively whereas water-
the thermal conductivity values ranged from 0.10 W/mK to works sludge and iron mine spoil waste can substitute 40% and
35%
30%
Optimum percentage
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t
Waste materials
a-Bio-briquette [107], b-Eggshell [109], Olive waste [101], c- Bael resin [87], Corn husk ash [90], d-Sugarcane bagasse, Dawul kurudu, Pines gum, Jack
resin [87], e-Sawdust, Tobacco residue, Grass [84], Wood apple resin [87], Seaweed [105], f-Straw (Wheat, Barley), Lavender [62], Corn cob [73], g-Rice
husk [77], Agarwood resin [87], Grounded olive stone [88], Processed waste tea [108], h-Hemp, Flax [72], Corn plant [88], i-Cassava peel [91], j-Grewia
optiva [29], Jute [71], k-Wood aggregate/fibre [82], Cassava powder [92], l-Pinus roxburghii [29], Fescue [88], Eucalyptus pulp [93], Wheat hay [95], m-
Palm bark [78], n-Sisal [92], Oil palm fruit bunch [94], o-Kenaf [96], p-Coconut coir [65], Pig hair [110], q-Fonio [63], r-Banana [69], s-Oil palm fruit [65],
Corn silk [89], Pineapple leaf [94], Henequen [98], Sheep wool [111], t-Date palm [99], [100].
Fig. 12. Optimum percentage of different agro wastes.

Ceramic waste [137]

Molybdenum tailing [133]
Concrete waste [138]
Waterworks sludge [140]
Iron mine spoil waste [134]
Granulated blast furnace slag [120]
Brick dust waste [129]
Calcium carbide residue [131]
Fly ash [114]
Magnesium oxide waste [130]
Alumina filler and Coal ash waste [128]
Polyurethane [88]
Glass fibre reinforced Polymer waste [136]
Marble dust [139]
Bottom ash [122]
Crumb rubber [88], [126]
Salvaged steel fibre [127]
Polyethylene terephthalate [124]
Polymer fibre [139]
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Optimum percentage
Fig. 13. Optimum percentage of different non– agro wastes.
30% soil respectively. On the other hand, the optimum ratio of ther research work in the field of establishment of standards is
granulated blast furnace slag was reported as 25%. Brick dust, cal- required. In conclusion, as waste management in the developing
cium carbide waste, magnesium ash and magnesium oxide waste world raises environmental concerns, utilising these wastes in
accounted for an optimum proportion of approximately 20%. Also, the building construction sector might be a worthwhile alternative
alumina filler performed better at 16% of doses. Polyurethane, glass solution for global environmental pollution control.
fibre reinforced polymer waste and marble dust exhibited the best
performance at the same amount (10%). Besides, crumb rubber, Declaration of Competing Interest
polyethylene terephthalate, salvaged steel fibre, polymer fibre
had a lower optimum value ranged between 0.50 and 6%. The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
6. Conclusion
The following conclusions can be reached based on the review References

of numerous agro and non-agro-waste materials incorporations
[1] R. Dayaratne, Toward sustainable development: Lessons from vernacular
into unfired earth blocks production: settlements of Sri Lanka, Front. Archit. Res. 7 (3) (2018) 334–346, https://doi.
Several recent studies widely considered the use of several org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.04.002.
waste materials for the development of unfired earth blocks con- [2] H.M. Mazraeh, M. Pazhouhanfar, Effects of vernacular architecture structure
on urban sustainability case study: Qeshm Island, Iran, Front. Archit. Res. 7 (1)
struction and concluded that waste materials can help to develop (2018) 11–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.06.006.
renewable and environmentally friendly building products [138]. [3] A. Chel, G. Kaushik, Renewable energy technologies for sustainable
Different test methods and standards have been listed and results development of energy efficient building, Alexandria Eng. J. 57 (2) (2018)
655–669, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.02.027.
have been discussed by the types of wastes addition. The literature
[4] Y. Song and H. Zhang, ‘‘Research on sustainability of building materials,” in
contains different tests, but the most widely mentioned are den- IMMAEE 2018, 2018, vol. 452, no. 2: IOP Publishing Ltd, doi: https://doi.org/
sity, compressive strength and water absorption. It is also observed 10.1088/1757-899X/452/2/022169.
that the selected papers rarely mentioned other important proper- [5] Z. Zhou et al., Heating energy saving potential from building envelope design
and operation optimization in residential buildings: A case study in northern
ties such as thermal, acoustic and fire resistance of the earth China, J. Cleaner Prod. 174 (2018) 413–423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
blocks. Since these building material properties are related to jclepro.2017.10.237.
human comfort and safety, it may be useful to implement the eval- [6] Y. Shi, X. Liu, Research on the Literature of Green Building Based on the Web
of Science: A Scientometric Analysis in Cite Space (2002–2018), Sustainability
uation of these features in the manufacture of waste-integrated 11 (13) (2019) 3716, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133716.
earth building materials [58,76,110]. The test results varied [7] M. Blondet and G. V. Garcia, ‘‘Earthquake resistant earthen buildings,” in 13th
according to the types of waste materials (fibre, powder, pellet, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 1-6 2004, no. 2447. [Online]. Available: https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/
polymer etc.), length of fibres and soil composition. Regarding wcee/article/13_2328.pdf
physical properties, a decrease in density and an increase in water [8] A. E. Institute. ‘‘Building with Earth – Technique overview.” Unesco chair
absorption was observed with the addition of agro wastes content earthen architecture. http://www.earth-
auroville.com/world_techniques_introduction_en.php (accessed January 02,
because of their lightweight and high hydrophilic characteristics. 2020).
Besides, strength and thermal efficiency enhanced with the addi- [9] A. E. Institute. ‘‘Building with Earth – Introduction, Earthen Architecture.”
tion of waste materials. In most of the cases, the produced http://www.earth-auroville.com/building_with_earth_en.php (accessed
January 02, 2020).
waste-incorporated earth blocks were well agreed with the speci-
[10] J. Vyncke et al., ‘‘Earth as Building Material – an overview of RILEM activities
fications specified in the relevant standards. Moreover, it was con- and recent Innovations in Geotechnics,” in 2nd International Congress on
cluded as a cost-effective choice for sustainable green building Materials & Structural Stability (CMSS-2017), 2018, vol. 189: MATEC Web of
material design [71,82,131]. As there are no specific experimental Conferences doi: https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201814902001.
[11] P. Chauhan et al., Unsaturated behavior of rammed earth: Experimentation
guidelines available to select design parameters for production towards numerical modelling, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 (2019), https://doi.
and property assessment of waste-incorporated earth blocks fur- org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.027 116646.
[12] L.R. Valero et al., In situ assessment of superficial moisture condition in [38] F.O. Obi et al., Agricultural waste concept, generation, utilization and
façades of historic building using non-destructive techniques, Case Stud. management, Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH) 35 (4) (2016)
Constr. Mater. 10 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00228 957–964, https://doi.org/10.4314/njt.v35i4.34.
e00228. [39] A. C. Godswill, ‘‘Industrial waste management: brief survey and advice to
[13] F.R. Arooz, R.U. Halwatura, Mud-concrete block (MCB): mix design & cottage, small and medium scale industries in Uganda,” International Journal
durability characteristics, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 8 (2018) 39–50, https:// of Advanced Academic Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.004. [40] S.C. Paul et al., Agricultural Solid Waste as Source of Supplementary
[14] C. Costa et al., The sustainability of adobe construction: past to future, Cementitious Materials in Developing Countries, Materials 12 (7) (2019)
International Journal of Architectural Heritage 13 (5) (2018) 639–647, 1112, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12071112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1459954. [41] M. Lagouin et al., Influence of types of binder and plant aggregates on
[15] H. Anysz, P. Narloch, Designing the Composition of Cement Stabilized hygrothermal and mechanical properties of vegetal concretes, Constr. Build.
Rammed Earth Using Artificial Neural Networks, Materials 12 (9) (2019) Mater. 222 (2019) 852–871, https://doi.org/10.1016/
1396, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12091396. j.conbuildmat.2019.06.004.
[16] I. I. Danja et al., ‘‘Vernacular Architecture of Northern Nigeria in the Light of [42] A. Mohajerani et al., Amazing Types, Properties, and Applications of Fibres in
Sustainability,” in 2017 International Conference on Environmental and Construction Materials, Materials 12 (16) (2019) 2513, https://doi.org/
Energy Engineering (IC3E 2017) 2017, vol. 63: IOP Publishing Ltd., doi: 10.3390/ma12162513.
https://doi.org/:10.1088/1755-1315/63/1/012034. [43] S. Amziane, M. Sonebi, Overview on Biobased Building Material made with
[17] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: Lessons from the past for plant aggregate, RILEM Technical Letters 1 (2016) 31–38, https://doi.org/
future eco-efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519, 10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.054. [44] D. Peñaloza, ‘‘The role of biobased building materials in the climate impacts
[18] A.W. Rempel, A.R. Rempel, Frost Resilience of Stabilized Earth Building of construction,” Doctoral, School of Architecture and the Built Environment,
Materials, Geosciences 9 (8) (2019) 328, https://doi.org/ Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Division of Building
10.3390/geosciences9080328. Materials, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2017.
[19] R. Latawiec et al., Sustainable Concrete Performance—CO2-Emission, [45] R. Paiva et al., Role of Bio-based Building Materials in Climate Change
Environments 5 (2) (2018) 27, https://doi.org/10.3390/ Mitigation: Special Report of the Brazilian Panel on Climate Change, Brazil
environments5020027. (2018).
[20] A.J. Nath et al., Fired Bricks: CO2 Emission and Food Insecurity, Global [46] S.P. Raut et al., Development of sustainable construction material using
Challenges 2 (4) (2018) 1700115, https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700115. industrial and agricultural solid waste: A review of waste-create bricks,
[21] Z. Zhang et al., A review of studies on bricks using alternative materials and Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (10) (2011) 4037–4042, https://doi.org/10.1016/
approaches, Constr. Build. Mater. 188 (2018) 1101–1118, https://doi.org/ j.conbuildmat.2011.04.038.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.152. [47] A. Sharkawi, ‘‘Recycling Local Industrial Wastes for Production of Green
[22] O.B. Adegun, Y.M.D. Adedeji, Review of economic and environmental benefits Construction Materials,” in International Conference on Advances in
of earthen materials for housing in Africa, Frontiers of Architectural Research Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Egypt, 2015.
6 (4) (2017) 519–528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.003. [48] R. Muthuraj et al., Sustainable thermal insulation biocomposites from rice
[23] M.S. Lekshmi et al., An investigation on the potential of mud as sustainable husk, wheat husk, wood fibers and textile waste fibers: Elaboration and
building material in the context of Kerala, International Journal of Energy performances evaluation, Ind. Crops Prod. 135 (2019) 238–245, https://doi.
Technology and Policy 13 (1–2) (2017) 107–122, https://doi.org/10.1504/ org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.04.053.
IJETP.2017.080621. [49] A. Romano et al., Dynamic behaviour of bio-based and recycled materials for
[24] D. Undén, ‘‘The road to sustainable building-‘as clear as mud’?: Investigating indoor environmental comfort, Constr. Build. Mater. 211 (2019) 730–743,
the conditions for sustainability transitions in Sweden: A case study of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.126.
earthen and straw bale builders,” Master Thesis, Department of Human [50] ‘‘Physical and mechanical properties of natural fibers,” in Advanced High
Geography, Stockholm University, 2017. Strength Natural Fibre Composites in Construction 3 (2017, ch.) 59–83.
[25] J. Goodbun, Mud and Modernity, ARENA Journal of Architectural Research 1 [51] J. Graham-Jones and J. Summerscales Eds., ‘‘Marine Applications of Advanced
(1) (2016) 4, https://doi.org/10.5334/ajar.6. Fibre-reinforced Composites,” Woodhead Publishing, 2015.
[26] C. J. Eze et al., ‘‘Evaluation of Traditional Methods in the Maintenance of Mud [52] M. Barbuta et al., ‘‘Wastes in Building Materials Industry,” in Agroecology, V.
Houses for Environmental Sustainability in Northern Nigeria,” Journal of Pilipavičius Ed., 2015, ch. 1.
Architecture and Construction, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 34-43, 2018. [Online]. [53] H. Binici et al., Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building
Available: https://www.sryahwapublications.com/journal-of-architecture- material, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (4) (2005) 313–318, https://doi.org/
and-construction/. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.013.
[27] H.V. Damme, H. Houben, Earth concrete. Stabilization revisite, Cem. Concr. [54] P. Vega et al., Mechanical characterisation of traditional adobes from the
Res. 114 (2018) 90–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.035. north of Spain, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (7) (2011) 3020–3023, https://doi.org/
[28] S. O. Odeyemi et al., ‘‘Determination of Load Carrying Capacity of Clay Bricks 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.02.003.
Reinforced with Straw,” International Journal of Sustainable Construction [55] T. Ashour et al., Thermal conductivity of unfired earth bricks reinforced by
Engineering & Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, 2017. [Online]. Available: https:// agricultural wastes with cement and gypsum, Energy Build. 104 (2015) 139–
eprints.lmu.edu.ng/id/eprint/1783. 146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.07.016.
[29] V. Sharma et al., Enhancing durability of adobe by natural reinforcement for [56] F. Parisi et al., Experimental characterization of Italian composite adobe
propagating sustainable mud housing, International Journal of Sustainable bricks reinforced with straw fibers, Compos. Struct. 122 (2015) 300–307,
Built Environment 5 (1) (2016) 141–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.11.060.
ijsbe.2016.03.004. [57] G.A. Abanto et al., Thermal properties of adobe employed in Peruvian rural
[30] J.R. González-López et al., Compaction effect on the compressive strength and areas: Experimental results and numerical simulation of a traditional bio-
durability of stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 163 (2018) 179– composite material, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 6 (2017) 177–191, https://doi.
188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.074. org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.02.001.
[31] E.E. Ndububa, Y.I. Malgwi, Strength Improvement of Mud Houses Through _ Türkmen et al., The mechanical and physical properties of unfired earth
[58] I.
Stabilization of the Lateritic Materials, The International Journal of bricks stabilized with gypsum and Elazığ Ferrochrome slag, International
Engineering and Science (IJES) 5 (9) (2016) 56–60. Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 6 (2017) 565–573, https://doi.org/
[32] A. Laborel-Préneron et al., Plant aggregates and fibers in earth construction 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.12.003.
materials: A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 111 (2016) 719–734, https://doi. [59] K.E. Azhary et al., Energy Efficiency and Thermal Properties of the Composite
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.119. Material Clay-straw, Energy Procedia 141 (2017) 160–216, https://doi.org/
[33] A. Al-Fakih et al., Incorporation of waste materials in the manufacture of 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.030.
masonry bricks: An update review, Journal of Building Engineering 21 (2019) [60] D. Statuto et al., ‘‘Experimental development of clay bricks reinforced with
37–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.023. agricultural by-products,” in 46th International Symposium: Actual tasks on
[34] D. Hoornweg and P. Bhada-Tata, ‘‘What a waste: a global review of solid agricultural engineering, Croatia (2018) 595–604.
waste management,” World Bank, vol. 15, p. 116, 2012. [Online]. Available: [61] Z. Wang et al., Study on Strength Characteristics of Straw (EPS Particles)-
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388. Sparse Sludge Unburned Brick, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
[35] G. Pardo et al., SIMSWASTE-AD-A modelling framework for the Engineering 490 (3) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/490/3/
environmental assessment of agricultural waste management strategies: 032005 032005.
Anaerobic digestion, Sci. Total Environ. 574 (2017) 806–817, https://doi.org/ [62] M. Giroudon et al., Comparison of barley and lavender straws as
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.096. bioaggregates in earth bricks, Constr. Build. Mater. 202 (2019) 254–265,
[36] D. Broitman et al., Designing an agricultural vegetative waste-management https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.126.
system under uncertain prices of treatment-technology output products, [63] M. Ouedraogo et al., Physical, thermal and mechanical properties of
Waste Manage. 75 (2018) 37–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adobes stabilized with fonio (Digitaria exilis) straw, Journal of Building
wasman.2018.01.041. Engineering 23 (2019) 250–258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[37] K. He et al., Knowledge domain and emerging trends of agricultural waste jobe.2019.02.005.
management in the field of social science: A scientometric review, Sci. Total [64] J. Khedari et al., Development of fibre-based soil–cement block with low
Environ. 670 (2019) 236–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. thermal conductivity, Cem. Concr. Compos. 27 (1) (2005) 111–116, https://
scitotenv.2019.03.184. doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.02.042.
[65] H. Danso et al., Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building Cement Compositions, Faculty of Environmental Science and Process
blocks reinforced with natural fibres, Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (1) (2015) Engineering, Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus, PhD Doctoral, 2006.
797–809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.069. [93] E.B. Ojo et al., Effects of fibre reinforcements on properties of extruded alkali
[66] K. Thanushan et al., Strength and Durability Characteristics of Coconut Fibre activated earthen building materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 (2019),
Reinforced Earth Cement Blocks, Journal of Natural Fibers (2019) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116778 116778.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1652220. [94] C.M. Chan, Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: Physico-
[67] S. Sangma et al., ‘‘Size Effect of Fiber on Mechanical Properties of Mud Earth mechanical properties, International Journal of Civil and Environmental
Blocks,” Recycled Waste Materials, pp. 119-125, 2019. Engineering 3 (1) (2011) 51–57.
[68] H. Purnomo, S.W. Arini, Experimental Evaluation of Three Different Humidity [95] A.E.M.K. Mohamed, Improvement of swelling clay properties using hay fibers,
Conditions to Physical and Mechanical Properties of Three Different Mixtures Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 242–247, https://doi.org/10.1016/
of Unfired Soil Bricks, Makara Journal of Technology 23 (2) (2019) 92–102. j.conbuildmat.2012.08.031.
[69] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Effect of Banana Fibers on the Compressive and Flexural [96] Y. Millogo et al., Experimental analysis of Pressed Adobe Blocks reinforced
Strength of Compressed Earth Blocks, Buildings 5 (1) (2015) 282–296, https:// with Hibiscus cannabinus fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 71–78,
doi.org/10.3390/buildings5010282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.094.
[70] M. Mostafa, N. Uddin, Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) [97] A.B. Laibi et al., Influence of the kenaf fiber length on the mechanical and
with banana fibers resisting flexural and compression forces, Case Stud. thermal properties of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB), KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22 (2)
Constr. Mater. 5 (2016) 53–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.07.001. (2018) 785–793, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-017-1968-9.
[71] M.S. Islam, K. Iwashita, Earthquake Resistance of Adobe Reinforced by Low [98] C. G. Murillo et al., ‘‘Henequen fibres for reinforcement of unfired earth
Cost Traditional Materials, Journal of Natural Disaster Science 32 (1) (2010) blocks,” in The Eleventh International Conference for Renewable Resources
1–21, https://doi.org/10.2328/jnds.32.1. and Plant Biotechnology (NAROSSA), 2005.
[72] P. Zak et al., The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, gypsum and [99] B. Taallah et al., Mechanical properties and hygroscopicity behavior of
cement on compressive strength of earth bricks materials, Constr. Build. compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 59
Mater. 106 (2016) 179–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/ (2014) 161–168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.058.
j.conbuildmat.2015.12.031. [100] B. Taallah, A. Guettala, The mechanical and physical properties of compressed
[73] A. Laborel-Préneron et al., Effect of Plant Aggregates on Mechanical Properties earth block stabilized with lime and filled with untreated and alkali-treated
of Earth Bricks, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (12) (2017) 04017244. date palm fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 52–62, https://doi.org/
[74] A. Laborel-Préneron et al., Hygrothermal properties of unfired earth bricks: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.007.
Effect of barley straw, hemp shiv and corn cob addition, Energy Build. 178 [101] M. Lamrani et al., Thermal study of clay bricks reinforced by three ecological
(2018) 265–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.021. materials in south of morocco, Energy Procedia 156 (2019) 273–277, https://
[75] A.W. Bruno et al., Thermal performance of fired and unfired earth bricks doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.141.
walls, Journal of Building Engineering 28 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [102] A.L. Ayodele et al., Effect of sawdust ash and eggshell ash on selected
jobe.2019.101017 101017. engineering properties of lateralized bricks for low cost housing, Nigerian
[76] R. Fernea et al., Hemp-clay building materials - An investigation on acoustic, Journal of Technology 38 (2) (2019) 278–282, https://doi.org/10.4314/njt.
thermal and mechanical properties, Procedia Manuf. 32 (2019) 216–223, v38i2.1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.205. [103] V. Sharma et al., Enhancing compressive strength of soil using natural fibers,
[77] A.S. Muntohar, Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth Constr. Build. Mater. 93 (2015) 943–949, https://doi.org/10.1016/
brick, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (11) (2011) 4215–4220, https://doi.org/ j.conbuildmat.2015.05.065.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.061. [104] V. Sharma et al., Enhancing sustainability of rural adobe houses of hills by
[78] A.V. Oskouei et al., Experimental investigation on mud bricks reinforced with addition of vernacular fiber reinforcement, International Journal of
natural additives under compressive and tensile tests, Constr. Build. Mater. Sustainable Built Environment 4 (2) (2015) 348–358, https://doi.org/
142 (2017) 137–147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.065. 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.07.002.
[79] T.P. Huynh et al., Effect of residual rice husk ash on mechanical- [105] M. Achenza, L. Fenu, On earth stabilization with natural polymers for earth
microstructural properties and thermal conductivity of sodium-hydroxide- masonry construction, Mater. Struct. 39 (1) (2006) 21–27, https://doi.org/
activated bricks, Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 37 (5) (2017) 1647–1656, 10.1617/s11527-005-9000-0.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12848. [106] C.A. Dove, The development of unfired earth bricks using seaweed
[80] P. Nshimiyimana et al., Calcium carbide residue and rice husk ash for biopolymers, Eco-Architecture V: Harmonisation between Architecture and
improving the compressive strength of compressed earth blocks, MRS Adv. 3 Nature 142 (2014) 219.
(34–35) (2018) 2009–2014, https://doi.org/10.1557/adv.2018.147. [107] V.V. Sakhare, R.V. Ralegaonkar, Use of bio-briquette ash for the development
[81] A. Heath et al., ‘‘Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry of bricks, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016) 684–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
units,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Construction jclepro.2015.07.088.
Materials, 2009, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 105-112. [108] I. Demir, An investigation on the production of construction brick with
[82] S. Masuka et al., Development, engineering properties and potential processed waste tea, Build. Environ. 41 (9) (2006) 1274–1278, https://doi.
applications of unfired earth bricks reinforced by coal fly ash, lime and org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.05.004.
wood aggregates, Journal of Building Engineering 18 (2018) 312–320, https:// [109] F. Adogla et al., Improving Compressed Laterite Bricks using Powdered
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.010. Eggshells, The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES) 5 (4)
[83] T.L. Piani et al., Dynamic behaviour of adobe bricks in compression: The role (2016) 65–70.
of fibres and water content at various loading rates, Constr. Build. Mater. 230 [110] G. Araya-Letelier et al., Influence of natural fiber dosage and length on adobe
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117038 117038. mixes damage-mechanical behavior, Constr. Build. Mater. 174 (2018) 645–
[84] I. Demir, Effect of organic residues addition on the technological properties of 655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.151.
clay bricks, Waste Manage. 28 (2008) 622–627, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [111] C. Galán-Marín et al., Clay-based composite stabilized with natural polymer
wasman.2007.03.019. and fibre, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (8) (2010) 1462–1468, https://doi.org/
[85] O.A. Fadele, O. Ata, Water absorption properties of sawdust lignin stabilised 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.01.008.
compressed laterite bricks, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 9 (2018), https://doi.org/ [112] N. Benkhadda and A. Khaldoun, ‘‘Effective Unfired Clay Bricks with Natural
10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00187 e00187. Additives ”, School of Science & Engineering Al Akhawayn University, 2019.
[86] S.A. Lima et al., Analysis of the mechanical properties of compressed earth [Online]. Available: http://www.aui.ma/sse-capstone-repository/pdf/spring-
block masonry using the sugarcane bagasse ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 2019/UNFIRED%20CLAY%20BRICKS%20WITH%20ADDITIVES-WOOL.pdf
(2012) 829–837, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.127. [113] S. Siddiqua, P.N.M. Barreto, Chemical stabilization of rammed earth using
[87] C. Udawattha et al., Performance of natural polymers for stabilizing earth calcium carbide residue and fly ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 169 (2018) 364–
blocks, Materialia 2 (2018) 23–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.209.
mtla.2018.07.019. [114] K. Gu, B. Chen, Loess stabilization using cement, waste phosphogypsum, fly
[88] S. Serrano et al., Use of by-products as additives in adobe bricks: Mechanical ash and quicklime for self-compacting rammed earth construction, Constr.
properties characterisation, Constr. Build. Mater. 108 (2016) 105–111, Build. Mater. 231 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117195
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.044. 117195.
[89] K.Q. Tran et al., Improvement of mechanical behavior of cemented soil [115] T. P. Huynh et al., ‘‘Strength and thermal properties of unfired four-hole
reinforced with waste cornsilk fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 178 (2018) 204– hollow bricks manufactured from a mixture of cement, low-calcium fly ash
210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.104. and blended fine aggregates.,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
[90] A.L. Batagarawa et al., ‘‘Enhancing the Thermophysical Properties of Rammed Engineering vol. 625, no. 1, 2019.
Earth by Stabilizing with Corn Husk Ash,” Sustainable Building for a Cleaner [116] T.P. Huynh et al., Feasibility of producing unfired four-hole hollow bricks
Environment, [Online]. Available:, 2019, pp. 405–413. from blended cement-fly ash-chippings under coupled-static forming
[91] M.C.N. Villamizara et al., Effect of the addition of coal-ash and cassava peels pressure, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 625 (1)
on the engineering properties of compressed earth blocks, Constr. Build. (2019) 012005.
Mater. 36 (2012) 276–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [117] J.E. Oti et al., Compressive strength and microstructural analysis of unfired
j.conbuildmat.2012.04.056. clay masonry bricks, Eng. Geol. 109 (3–4) (2009) 230–240, https://doi.org/
[92] S.S. Namango, Development of Cost-Effective Earthen Building Material for 10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.08.010.
Housing Wall Construction: Investigations into the Properties of Compressed [118] J.E. Oti et al., Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry bricks, Eng. Geol.
Earth Blocks Stabilized with Sisal Vegetable Fibres, Cassava Powder and 107 (3–4) (2009) 130–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.002.
[119] J.E. Oti et al., Design thermal values for unfired clay bricks, Mater. Des. 31 (1) [136] R.M. Gandia et al., Physical, mechanical and thermal behavior of adobe
(2010) 104–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.07.011. stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer waste, Constr. Build. Mater.
[120] D.C. Sekhar, S. Nayak, Utilization of granulated blast furnace slag and cement 222 (2019) 168–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.107.
in the manufacture of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. [137] N. Ali et al., Investigation of compressed earth brick containing ceramic
Mater. 166 (2018) 531–536, https://doi.org/10.1016/ waste, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 11 (8) (2016) 5459–
j.conbuildmat.2018.01.125. 5462.
[121] R. Vinaia et al., Coal combustion residues valorisation: Research and [138] A. Seco et al., Sustainable unfired bricks manufacturing from construction
development on compressed brick production, Constr. Build. Mater. 40 and demolition wastes, Constr. Build. Mater. 167 (2018) 154–165, https://doi.
(2013) 1088–1096, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.096. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.026.
[122] S. Raj S. et al., ‘‘Performance appraisal of coal ash stabilized rammed earth,” [139] A.P. Balkis, The effects of waste marble dust and polypropylene fiber contents
Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 18, pp. 51-57, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/ on mechanical properties of gypsum stabilized earthen, Constr. Build. Mater.
10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.001. 134 (2017) 556–562, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.172.
[123] P. Donkor, E. Obonyo, Earthen construction materials: Assessing the [140] M. Xie et al., Utilization of waterworks sludge in the production of fired/
feasibility of improving strength and deformability of compressed earth unfired water permeable bricks, Advanced Materials Research 531 (2012)
blocks using polypropylene fibers, Mater. Des. 83 (2015) 813–819, https:// 316–319, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.531.316.
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.017. [141] J. Cid et al., The earth building normative documents in the world, Informes
[124] I.I. Akinwumi et al., Marine plastic pollution and affordable housing de la Construcción 63 (523) (2011) 159–169, https://doi.org/10.3989/
challenge: Shredded waste plastic stabilized soil for producing compressed ic.10.011.
earth bricks, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [142] H. Schroeder, ‘‘Modern earth building codes, standards and normative
cscm.2019.e00241 e00241. development,” in Modern Earth Buildings, Materials, Engineering,
[125] H. Limami et al., Study of the suitability of unfired clay bricks with polymeric Constructions and Applications, M. R. Hall, R. Lindsay, and M. Krayenhoff
HDPE & PET wastes additives as a construction material, Journal of Building Eds.: Woodhead Publishing, 2012, ch. 4, pp. 72-109.
Engineering 27 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100956 100956. [143] ASTM, C62–17, Standard Specification for Building Brick (Solid Masonry
[126] H. Porter et al., Rammed earth blocks with improved multifunctional Units Made from Clay or Shale), ASTM, International, West, Conshohocken,
performance, Cem. Concr. Compos. 92 (2018) 36–46, https://doi.org/ PA, 2017.
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.04.013. [144] BS 3921, Specification for clay bricks, BSI, London, 1985.
[127] R.M. Eko et al., Potential of salvaged steel fibers for reinforcement of unfired [145] BS 5628-1, British Standard Code of Practice for Use of Masonry, Structural
earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 340–346, https://doi.org/ use of unreinforced masonry, BSI, London, 2005.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.050. [146] IS: 1725, Specification for Soil Based Blocks Used in General Building
[128] L. Miqueleiz et al., Alumina filler waste as clay replacement material for Construction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1982.
unfired brick production, Eng. Geol. 163 (2013) 68–74, https://doi.org/ [147] SLS 1382, Specification for Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks, Sri Lanka
10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.05.006. Standards Institution, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2009.
[129] J.E. Oti et al., The development of unfired clay building material using Brick [148] ABNT – NBR 8492, Tijolo maciço de solo-cimento – Determinação da
Dust Waste and Mercia mudstone clay, Appl. Clay Sci. 102 (2014) 148–154, resistência à compressão e da absorção de água (Massive earth cement
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.031. bricks – determination of compressive strength and water absorption), Rio de
[130] S. Espuelas et al., Magnesium oxide as alternative binder for unfired clay Janeiro, 1984 [in Portuguese].
bricks manufacturing, Appl. Clay Sci. 146 (2017) 23–26, https://doi.org/ [149] CID-GCBNMBC-91-1, New Mexico Adobe and Rammed earth building code,
10.1016/j.clay.2017.05.034. General Construction Bureau, Regulation & Licensing Department, Santa Fe,
[131] H.S. Moussa et al., Comparative Study of Thermal Comfort Induced from New Mexico, 1991.
Masonry Made of Stabilized Compressed Earth Block vs Conventional [150] DIN 18945, Earth blocks – Terms and definitions, requirements, test methods,
Cementitious Material, Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization DIN, Berlin, Germany, 2013.
and Engineering 7 (2019) 385–403. [151] NZS 4298, Materials and Workmanship of Earth Buildings, Standard New
[132] J.A. Bogas et al., Unstabilized and stabilized compressed earth blocks with Zealand, 1998.
partial incorporation of recycled aggregates, International Journal of [152] TS 2514, Adobe blocks and production methods, Turkish Standard Institute,
Architectural Heritage 13 (4) (2019) 569–584, https://doi.org/10.1080/ Ankara, Turkey, 1977 [in Turkish].
15583058.2018.1442891. [153] SK SNI S-04-1989-F, Building Materials Specification, Ministry of Public
[133] C. Zhoua et al., ‘‘Investigation of unfired Bricks Prepared by Shangluo Works-Republic of Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia, 1989.
Molybdenum tailings,” in 5th International Conference on Civil Engineering [154] ASTM C67-03a, Standards Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and
and Transportation (ICCET 2015), 2015. Structural Clay Tile, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015,
[134] H.B. Nagaraj, C. Shreyasvi, Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks Using Iron www.astm.org.
Mine Spoil Waste - An Explorative Study, Procedia Eng. 180 (2017) 1203– [155] GB/T 5101-2003, Fired common bricks, China national standard, Beijing,
1212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.281. China, 2003.
[135] O.S. Oladeji, A.F. Akinrinde, Performance Characteristics of Stabilized Clay [156] BS EN 772, Methods of test for masonry units, BSI, London, 2005
Bricks Using Additives, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications 3 (6) (2013) 806–810.

Jannat 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jannat 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jannat 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

Application of agro and non-agro waste materials for unfired earth

 Application of agro and non-agro

1. Introduction being extensively replaced by more durable and stronger construc-

Agro-wastes Source(s) Countries References

Non-agro-wastes Source(s) Countries References

N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

(continued on next page)

N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

N. Jannat et al. / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119346

Compressive strength test

Fig. 2. Density of agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 3. Water absorption of agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 4. Compressive strength of agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 5. Flexural strength of agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 6. Density of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 7. Water absorption of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

Fig. 9. Flexural strength of non-agro waste-incorporated samples.

5.3.2. Effects of non-agro wastes on the thermal conductivity of unfired

5.4. Optimum percentage of waste materials

Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show respectively the optimum percentage

Fig. 12. Optimum percentage of different agro wastes.

Ceramic waste [137]

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Fig. 13. Optimum percentage of different non– agro wastes.

The following conclusions can be reached based on the review References

You might also like

Application of agro and non-agro