IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Two-fold sustainability – Adobe with
Compressive and Flexural Tests on Adobe sawdust as partial sand replacement
Gul A Jokhio, Sharifah M Syed Mohsin
Samples Reinforced with Wire Mesh and Yasmeen Gul

- Role of nano-silica in tensile fatigue,

fracture toughness and low-velocity impact
To cite this article: G A Jokhio et al 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 318 012030 behaviour of acid-treated pineapple
fibre/stainless steel wire mesh-reinforced
epoxy hybrid composite
T Dinesh, A Kadirvel and P Hariharan

- Costing, Adobe Technique as a

View the article online for updates and enhancements. Sustainable Construction System in the
City of Cuenca
Verónica Molina and Pedro Angumba

This content was downloaded from IP address 169.149.192.199 on 18/11/2023 at 03:33

MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

Compressive and Flexural Tests on Adobe Samples

Reinforced with Wire Mesh

G A Jokhio1,*, Y M Y Al-Tawil2, S M Syed Mohsin1, Y Gul3, and N I Ramli1

1
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources, University
Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia
2
Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources, University Malaysia
Pahang, Malaysia
3
PhD Scholar, Faculty of Built Environment, University Technology Malaysia,
Malaysia

Email: [email protected]

Abstract. Adobe is an economical, naturally available, and environment friendly

construction material that offers excellent thermal and sound insulations as well as indoor
air quality. It is important to understand and enhance the mechanical properties of this
material, where a high degree of variation is reported in the literature owing to lack of
research and standardization in this field. The present paper focuses first on the
understanding of mechanical behaviour of adobe subjected to compressive stresses as
well as flexure and then on enhancing the same with the help of steel wire mesh as
reinforcement. A total of 22 samples were tested out of which, 12 cube samples were
tested for compressive strength, whereas 10 beams samples were tested for modulus of
rupture. Half of the samples in each category were control samples i.e. without wire mesh
reinforcement, whereas the remaining half were reinforced with a single layer of wire
mesh per sample. It has been found that the compressive strength of adobe increases by
about 43% after adding a single layer of wire mesh reinforcement. The flexural response
of adobe has also shown improvement with the addition of wire mesh reinforcement.

1. Introduction
The word ‘adobe’ originates from Arabic but has been extensively used in Spanish to mean building
material made from earth or mud, possibly mixed with some organic material. The predominant use of
adobe is found in the Arabic, Persian, and Spanish regions of the world. It is understood to be a readily
available material without requiring extensive skills for its use and is commonly associated with low-
cost construction [1]. Generally, it is believed that the involvement of engineers and architects, and
detailed designs, is not required when it comes to building with adobe.
The historical use of adobe as a building material has been documented in several research
articles. It has been reported, for example, that the natural soil, earth etc. have been used as building
material for over 11,000 years [2-4]. From the ancient city of Jericho to the Mesopotamian Ziggurats
and Athens, and from Great Wall of China in the east to the Andean cities in the West, we can observe
the use of earth as a construction material. Moreover, the use of earth as a building material can also
be found in the civilization of the Indus, Egypt, and Greece. Vaulted structures can be found in the
Central Asia dating from 4th century BC [5]. In Central Asia, the use of adobe masonry has been

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

observed in buildings of importance such as monumental or religious nature [6], especially domed
structures as well regular traditional houses [5-11]. Mud bricks have been used in the construction of
shelters for several millennia [12], and approximately 30% of the human population lives in earthen
structures to the present day [13]. The city of Shibam in south Yemen and the walls of Marrakech in
Morocco are also mainly constructed with adobe. A very rich cultural heritage of earth building can be
found in the present world, notably; Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. Moreover, the
use of earth buildings can also be found in Europe including Spain, Germany, England, France,
Portugal, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden [14].
There has been an increased interest in this construction material and method by scientific and
engineering community over the past 3 decades [15] as it can be witnessed that the published research
in this field has increased about ten folds in the past decade and a half compared to the previous
decade [16]. This is partly due to the fact that earth building provides a sustainable alternative to other
construction materials and techniques, which are relatively more polluting. However, the ubiquitous
acceptance of earth as a primary building material is hindered by certain issues such as vulnerability of
this kind of construction to extreme actions such as earthquakes [17-18]. Another important challenge
facing earth building is that the participation of skilled technicians, engineers and architects is
generally deemed unnecessary. This results in non-engineered construction invoking insurance
providers to set very restrictive conditions for subscription to the insurance coverage for earthen
dwellings [14]. Last but not the least, there is a notion of class associated with this kind of construction
as it is considered to be only for the very poor or the very rich and the ‘Middle Class’ rarely uses it
[19].
The need of energy-efficient sustainable housing development cannot be overestimated. It is
needed that materials and building technologies evolve to be good to the environment, energy
efficient, affordable and fit in the contemporary context [20-22]. Therefore, sustainable and economic
construction by utilizing earth as the primary building material, such as adobe, needs to be promoted
[23] as much as possible and resources need to be allocated for further research in this field.

2. Mechanical Properties of Adobe

Mechanical properties of adobe are difficult to ascertain due to their wide ranges owing to several
factors involved in the preparation of the material. Adobe not being a factory material and not having
strict guidelines for its preparation, and the absence of skilled personnel during its preparation results
in this wide range of its mechanical properties. Several researchers have investigated and reported in
the literature the mechanical properties of adobe.
Some researchers have focused on the determination of mechanical properties of adobe from historical
buildings and archaeological sites such as the in-situ characterization of the adobe masonry of a two
thousand years old building in Turkmenistan [6]. In another study, Bronze Age earthen construction
materials from East Crete were analysed scientifically for their constituent properties [24]. The authors
pointed out the importance of including the scientific analysis of construction materials used in
deteriorated prehistoric earthen structures into the practice of archaeological site excavations. The
mechanical properties of adobe walls in a Roman Republican Domus at Suasa were investigated by
reproducing and mechanically testing wall samples [25].
For the experimental computation of mechanical properties, several standards for earth
construction can be found in the literature [26-30]. Different standards, however, provide different
procedures and specimen dimensioning criteria making it difficult to comply with them [26, 31-32].
Another study [33] focused on the post-peak strain behaviour of traditional earthen construction
material. The study was based on compression and shear test results of adobe masonry and reported
the lack of significant influence on the shear strength by the application of two different pre-loads
during the drying phase. The same research group in an earlier study [34] compared earth block
masonry, rammed earth and cob. They reported that building technique practice is one of the crucial
parameters affecting performance of earth block masonry. Leaving the earth blocks dry or otherwise
wetting them prior to use strongly affected results in shear tests. In other studies, some new

2
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

interpretations of the ‘3 points bending test’ have also been proposed for compressed earth blocks that
give the compressive strength directly [32,35]. These models, however, suffer from unavailability of
validation data and cannot be readily implemented.
The compressive response of adobe in laboratory tests depends upon the specimen form and size.
Strength values derived from cubes and cylinders after application of shape correction factors were
reported to range from 0.6 to 1.75 MPa. Prisms, on the other hand, tend to overestimate the
compressive strength due to platen restrain effects [36]. The large variance in laboratory test results
has been attributed to the inherent inhomogeneity and natural randomness of earthen materials as well
as a lack of internationally accepted standardized testing procedures. In a study of the influence of the
testing procedures in the mechanical characterization of adobe bricks [37], it was found, as expected,
that the compressive and tensile splitting strength of cylindrical specimens, 0.58 and 0.16 MPa
respectively, are close to those values obtained in an earlier study [38]. Several other authors have also
performed studies aimed at calculating the modulus of elasticity of adobe [13, 25, 39-40].
Clay is the most important component of mud bricks, since it provides the dry strength of the
blocks. Excessive clay content, however, increases drying shrinkage, and thus micro-cracking of the
mortar and blocks [17]. Traditionally, in order to activate the bonding properties of the clay, mud is
soaked 24 hours before use, which has been found to be beneficial [41]. Various stabilized soil
applications including the use of blended binders also have been found beneficial [42]. Strength,
durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilized soil blocks were studied separately [43].
Coarse sand or straw is generally added to mud for making adobe bricks in order to control
drying shrinkage [17]. Moreover, similar to concrete and other such materials, adobe is stronger in
compression whereas its tensile strength is low resulting in efforts directed at its improvement. The
mechanical properties of adobe are affected by the fibre contents [44]. Mud-brick makers of Turkey
and the Middle East, for example, have long been using fibrous ingredients such as straw for this
purpose [12]. In a study [45], the researchers investigated the effects on the compressive strength of
adobe when different types of fibres are added. They concluded that as opposed to average strength of
2 MPa achieved by traditional mud bricks, those reinforced with plastic fibres, straw, and polystyrene
along with a mix of clay, pumice, cement, lime, gypsum and water produced strengths up to 6.5, 5.4,
and 4.3 MPa, respectively. The authors claimed that these fibre reinforced mud bricks fulfil the
compressive strength requirements of the ASTM and Turkish Standards.
Some tests have used dynamic analysis by applying cyclic displacements to straw reinforced
adobe. The straw fibres produce elongated softening branches of the stress-strain curve, whereas the
increased aspect ratio makes the specimens less ductile [46]. The compressive strengths and moduli of
elasticity of cubic and prismatic specimens were reported to be 1.57 and 148.08, and 1.7 and 130.22
MPa, respectively. In an independent study [47], it was concluded that addition of hibiscus cannabinus
fibres (Kenaf) contributed to a homogenous microstructure with reduced pore sizes having positive
effect on the mechanical properties of adobe. According to another study, the addition of straw acts as
shear reinforcement and increases energy absorption [48]. Fly ash as an additional material also
exhibits similar effects. The straw mix gave the highest compressive strength of 3.99 MPa for the
straw mix ratio of 33.3% [49]. Maximum flexural strength, however, occurred at 25% straw mix ratio
and was measured to be 0.82 N/mm2. Sheep’s wool was added as a natural fibre to clay in another
study [50] to find out that it increases the compression strength with the highest value reported as 4.44
MPa for a specimen with 19.5% alginate, 0.5% lignum, 0.25% wool and 0.25% water. The same
specimen exhibited a flexural strength of 1.45 MPa in a 3-point bending test. The compressive
strength of lateritic adobe was reported in another study [51].
The experimental analysis and modelling of the mechanical behaviour of earthen bricks were
investigated in a research [52]. The bricks and blocks under consideration were prepared by manual
compaction and consisted of clay, coarse sand and straw. The compressive strength of bricks was
reported to range from 5.15 to 8.29 MPa with the range of modulus of elasticity being from 59 to 94
MPa, whereas the blocks exhibited lower strength, ranging from 2.14 to 2.88 MPa and interestingly
higher modulus of elasticity, ranging from 98 to 211 MPa.

3
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

Knowledge of the stress-strain behaviour laws of adobe is important, because these curves
express essential information about the properties and mechanical behaviour of adobe [53]. The quasi-
brittle behaviour of adobe and other concrete-like materials can be well modelled by using a material
response curve such as that by Popovics [54] for implementation into standard finite element codes.
One such example is a constitutive model developed for describing adobe’s stress-strain behaviour
under compression [36]. It is based on third order polynomials derived from data obtained from
cylindrical specimens and includes relations for the pre-peak and post-peak ranges. The authors
reported the coefficients of variation with average and highest values of; 15.38% and 27.5% for
cylindrical specimens, 19% and 42.5% for prismatic specimens, and 24.23% and 76.8% for cubical
specimens. Due to this large variation, despite having the highest compressive strengths of 1.41, 3.31
and 1.75 MPa, the average of the same were 0.99, 1.54 and 1.15 MPa for cylindrical, prismatic, and
cubic specimens respectively. The proposed stress-strain relationship, therefore, was obtained through
fitting a curve using optimization routines and consisted of two distinct cubic relations for ranges of
strain between 0 to 1.07 and 1.07 to 4. The proposed normalized stress-strain relationship is shown in
Fig 1. In another study [55], strength and stress-strain characteristics of traditional adobe block and
masonry were documented by conducting uniaxial compressive tests on adobe blocks and masonry
prisms with different constituents. The average unconfined compressive strength of block and mortar
was reported to range from 1.39 to 1.7 MPa. Stress-strain characteristics for adobe masonry were also
presented such as average initial tangent modulus ranging from 32.61 to 36.51 MPa and average
tangent modulus at 50% of peak stress ranging from 81.51 to 114.18 MPa. The coefficient of variation
for all these values, however, was considerably high.

Figure 1. Stress strain curve for adobe [36]

3. Steel Wire Mesh as Reinforcement

Steel wire mesh has traditionally been used as a reinforcement along with cement sand mortar in the
preparation of ferrocement, for e.g. [56-57]. Wire mesh generally reduces cracking in ferrocement,
thus allowing for using much smaller cross-sections and very thin structural elements compared to
conventional reinforced concrete structures. When it comes to adobe, wire mesh has generally been
used as external reinforcement in order to improve the seismic response of adobe as well as provide an
improved hold for the plastering and other finishing applied to adobe walls [1]. However, the use of
steel wire mesh as reinforcement in adobe cubic or prismatic samples has not been previously reported
in the literature. Therefore, the present study is unique in this sense. The findings of the present
research are of preliminary in nature and provide a strong foundation for future researches to build
upon it.
There are several types of steel wire mesh that can be used as reinforcement in adobe or any other
cementitious composite. The main variations of wire mesh include chain link mesh, chicken wire mesh
(named so because of its extensive use in making chicken coops), and expanded metal mesh. These

4
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

three types of wire mesh have been illustrated in Fig 2. Chain link mesh has a range of opening sizes
from 5 to 25 mm with wire diameters ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm in size. The chicken mesh is generally
larger with its opening and wire diameters ranging from 13 to 50 mm and from 0.6 to 1.2 mm,
respectively. The size ranges of the expanded metal mesh are similar to those of the chicken wire
mesh. In the present study, chain link mesh, which is also known as the square mesh has been used.
Several researchers have investigated the effectiveness of one type of steel wire mesh over others,
for example [58], however, it is not the focus of this study. Therefore, no attempt was made to
optimize the selection of wire mesh as a reinforcement for adobe samples. This aspect can be studied
later in another study. In the present study, chain link or square wire mesh was used only on the basis
that it is easily available and relatively simpler to work with. A wire mesh reinforcement layer formed
for a cubic specimen is shown as an example in Fig 3.

Figure 2. Three main variations of steel wire mesh from left: chain link mesh, chicken mesh and
expanded metal mesh.

Figure 3. Wire mesh reinforcement layer prepared for a cubic specimen.

4. Experimental Setup and Methodology

The experimental setup for the present study consisted of two types of tests i.e. compressive strength
test and flexural strength test. The details of specimens, materials, preparation procedures and tests
conducted are provided as the following.

4.1 Details of Specimens

A total of 22 samples were prepared and tested in both categories. There were 12 cubes for testing of
compressive strength, 6 out of which were control specimens whereas the remaining 6 were reinforced

5
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

with wire mesh. For the purposes of identification, the cube samples without any reinforcement were
named CP-1 to CP-6, whereas those reinforced with wire mesh were named CW-1 to CW-6. Similarly,
5 out of the 10 prismatic specimens for the flexural strength tests were control whereas the remaining
5 were reinforced with a single layer of wire mesh. The control prismatic specimens were named PP-1
to PP-5 and those prismatic elements that were reinforced with wire mesh were named PW-1 to PW-6.
The details of all the samples are presented in Table 1. The cubes and prismatic specimens ready for
testing are shown in Fig 4.

Figure 4. Cube and prismatic samples ready for testing

Table 1. Details of specimens.

S. Sample Sample Type Test Type
No. Name
1 CP-1
2 CP-2
3 CP-3 Cubes without any reinforcement (Size: 150 mm × 150 mm ×
4 CP-4 150 mm)
5 CP-5
6 CP-6 Compressive strength
7 CW-1 test
8 CW-2
9 CW-3 Cubes reinforced with wire mesh (Size: 150 mm × 150 mm ×
10 CW-4 150 mm)
11 CW-5
12 CW-6
13 PP-1
14 PP-2
Prismatic specimens without any reinforcement (Size 100 mm ×
15 PP-3
100 mm × 500 mm)
16 PP-4
17 PP-5
Flexural strength test
18 PW-1
19 PW-2
Prismatic specimens reinforced with wire mesh (Size 100 mm ×
20 PW-3
100 mm × 500 mm)
21 PW-4
22 PW-5

6
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

4.2 Adobe Mix Preparation

Since the present research focused on the effect of wire mesh reinforcement on the mechanical
properties of adobe, the mixture used for preparing the adobe material was the same for all the
samples. The ingredients of the mixture consisted of sand, silt, clay, and Kenaf (hibiscus cannabinus)
fibre. The proportion of different constituents used in the preparation of the mixture is given in Table
2. In one batch of mixture, 0.012 m3 volume was prepared, which required a total of 4 gallons of
water. The mix was prepared in a concrete mixer in order to make sure that the ingredients, especially
the Kenaf fibres are distributed well throughout the material matrix. Dry ingredients were mixed first
and then water was added gradually. This process ensured the preparation of a homogenous adobe
mixture.
Table 2. Proportions of constituents in adobe mixture used
S. No. Name of Constituent Average Size of Particles Proportion
1. Sand 2 mm 50%
2. Silt 0.06 mm 20%
3. Clay 0.002 mm 25%
4. Kenaf fibre - 5%

4.3 Sample Preparation

Once the adobe material mix was ready, the specimens were prepared by pouring the mixture into
moulds. The pouring process was carried out in steps with every next addition of material done only
after the previous material was well compacted with the help of applying sufficient pressure.

4.4 Compressive Strength Tests

The compressive strength tests were carried out on the Universal Testing Machine. For this purpose,
the British standard for compressive strength tests for concrete cubes (BS EN 12390:3-2002) was
adapted for adobe. The sample preparation, especially the compacting process was modified
accordingly, whereas the remaining aspects of the standard were adhered to. The compressive strength
test setup is shown in Fig 2. After the placement of the sample in the machine, the load was applied
and the maximum value of the load observed on the digital display was recorded as the breaking load
for that particular sample. Compressive strength test setup along with a specimen being tested is
shown in Fig 5.

4.5 Flexural Strength Tests

The test setup for flexural strength test consisted of a system that applied a single point load at the
mid-span of the prismatic specimen. The two end supports were placed about 50 mm inside the edge
of the beam resulting in an effective span of 400 mm. The test setup was mounted on the Universal
Testing Machine. Deflection sensors were used to measure the beam deflection in order to plot the
load-deflection curve. The load and deflection values were recorded for each specimen from the start
of the test until failure at regular intervals. Fig 6 shows the flexural testing setup along with a
prismatic specimen being tested.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Compressive Strength Test Results
Adobe has been reported in literature not as a very strong material. There is a high variation reported
in the mechanical properties of adobe. The present research focused on the effects of wire mesh
reinforcement on the mechanical properties of adobe. While the compressive strength of all the
samples considerably varied, a significant improvement was noted when the samples were reinforced
with wire mesh. On average, the total load taken by the samples without any reinforcement was about
4.97 kN resulting in a compressive strength of 0.22 MPa. This strength is on the lower side compared

7
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

to the values reported in literature. This is due to the fact that the present study did not focus on the
optimization of adobe strength. The inclusion of the primary parameter of wire mesh reinforcement for
this study, however, increased the average total load to 7.12 kN resulting in compressive strength of
0.31 MPa. Therefore, the addition of a single layer of wire mesh reinforcement increases the
compressive strength of adobe samples by approximately 43%. The summary of the results of the
compressive strength test is presented in Table 3.

Figure 5. A cube sample being tested Figure 6. A prismatic sample being

for compressive strength tested for flexural strength

Out of interest, it was checked what happens if the outer samples in both categories i.e. samples
showing the highest and the lowest compressive strength were ignored. The average after ignoring
these samples for un-reinforced cubes was 4.9 kN and that for the samples reinforced with wire mesh
was 6.85 kN, which means an increase of over 45%. Although this may be a more accurate approach,
the main finding of an increase of 43% has been reported conservatively after including all the six
samples in both categories.
An interesting observation was made in that the cubes reinforced with wire mesh retained their shape
even after failure and did not total dismantle. This behaviour is different from the unreinforced cubic
samples, which after failure are totally destroyed. A cubic sample after failure is shown in Fig 7. It is
hypothesized that the walls made with adobe bricks reinforced with wire mesh will tend to retain their
shape even after failure, resulting in an improved response to earthquake and other similar disasters.

Figure 7. A cubic sample after failure

8
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

5.2 Flexural Strength Test Results

The flexural strength of adobe has traditionally been observed as almost non-existent. For the un-
reinforced samples, it was observed in this study that the flexural strength of adobe is negligible. The
comparison of the normalized stress-strain curve of un-reinforced prismatic specimens was made with
the stress strain curve for adobe suggested by Illampas et al. [36]. The experimental results were taken
as the average load of all the 5 samples against each deflection value. This comparison has been
shown in Fig 8. It can be seen that while the average of the experimental results does display the
tendency of the proposed model, the variation throughout the load-deflection history is relatively
large, thus reducing the reliability of this association.

Table 3. Summary of compressive strength test results

S. No. Sample Name Maximum Load (kN) Compressive Strength (MPa)
1 CP-1 5.3 0.2356
2 CP-2 4.9 0.2178
3 CP-3 4.7 0.2089
4 CP-4 4.6 0.2044
5 CP-5 5.6 0.2489
6 CP-6 4.7 0.2089
Average for Unreinforced Samples 4.9667 0.2207
Standard Deviation for Unreinforced Samples 0.3983 0.0177
7 CW-1 5.8 0.2578
8 CW-2 6.8 0.3022
9 CW-3 6.9 0.3067
10 CW-4 9.5 0.4222
11 CW-5 6.8 0.3022
12 CW-6 6.9 0.3067
Average for Samples Reinforced with Wire Mesh 7.1167 0.3163
Average for samples Reinforced with Wire Mesh 1.2416 0.0552
% Increase for Samples Reinforced with Wire Mesh 43.2883%

Figure 8. Stress-strain response for unreinforced adobe beams

It can be observed in Fig 6 that the initial pre-peak response is varying highly, whereas, the post-peak
softening is closer to the proposed model. The overall value of coefficient of determination between
the two data sets is only 27.35%, whereas the coefficient of determination for the softening branch
only is 71%. This can in part be attributed to the fact that the overall flexural strength of adobe is very
low resulting in some discrepancies in the initial measurement of the same.

9
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

The addition of a single layer of wire mesh reinforcement, however, significantly improves the
flexural response of the prismatic adobe specimens. The comparison can be seen in Fig 9, where the
average of actual load-deflection response of the unreinforced specimens is compared with that of the
specimens reinforced with wire mesh. The addition of wire mesh reinforcement has not only increased
the flexural strength of adobe samples to about 3 times the original values, the response of the
reinforced specimens also appears more reliable and can be represented by an idealized tri-linear
curve. The slope and the relevant coefficients of determination for the three parts of the idealized
curve are given in Table 4.

Figure 9. Comparison of load-deflection response of unreinforced samples and samples reinforced

with wire mesh along with idealized tri-linear load-deflection curve
Table 4. Summary of compressive strength test results
Stage of Load-Deflection Curve Slope (Modulus of Elasticity in MPa) Coefficient of Determination (%)
Stage 1 121.98 93.4
Stage 2 16.13 81.2
Stage 3 0 26.5
Overall 90

Although the coefficient of determination for the stage 3 or the proposed tri-linear model is
numerically low, it is due to the nature of this calculation that in the case of zero or a very small slope,
the coefficient of determination is generally low. It does not directly indicate the lack of significance
of the relationship.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

From the results obtained through experiments in the present research, the following conclusions and
recommendations are made:
 A total of 22 adobe samples consisting of 12 cubes and 10 prismatic samples were tested for
compressive and flexural strength, respectively.
 It has been found that the addition of a single layer of wire mesh reinforcement increases the
compressive strength of adobe samples by about 43%.
 It is hypothesized that the adobe walls made with bricks reinforced by wire mesh will tend to
retain their shape post-failure.
 The load-deflection response of adobe in case of flexural loading is generally highly
unreliable, however, with the addition of wire mesh reinforcement, the flexural strength of
adobe can be increased about 3 times.

10
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

 It has been indicated through the research findings that the load-deflection curve for adobe
reinforced with wire mesh and subjected to flexure can be approximated as a tri-linear curve.
 It is recommended that the same study may be repeated for an adobe mixture designed for
optimized compressive strength.
 The same study may also be repeated by increasing the wire mesh layers to 2 and 3 in order to
study the resulting effects.

The authors acknowledge the research environment and infrastructure provided by University
Malaysia Pahang. The research funding for the present study was also provided by University
Malaysia Pahang through research grant number RDU160370, for which the authors are highly
grateful.

References

[1] M. Blondet and G. V. Garcia M., Adobe Construction, Tech. Rep., (2003).
[2] Q. Angulo-Ibanez, A. Mas-Tomas, V. Galvan-LLopis and J. L. Santolaria-Montesinos, Const & Bldg
Mat, 30, 389-399 (2012).
[3] L. Keefe, Earth Buildings - Methods, materials, repair and conservation, (Taylor & Francis, 2005).
[4] T. Morton, Earth masony - design and construction guidelines, (HIS BRE Press, 2008).
[5] E. Fodde, Int J of Arch Heritage, 3, 2, 145-68, (2009).
[6] E. Adorni, E. Coisson and D. Ferretti, Const & Bldg Mat, 40, 1-9, (2013).
[7] A. Chasagnoux, L'architecture voute iranienne-modelisation et simulation par elements finis. PhD
thesis (in French), (Universite de Nantes, 1996).
[8] R. Ghirshman, S. Gilbert and J. Emmons, Persian Art, The Parthian and Sassanian Dynasties,
249{BC}-{AD}651., (Golden Press, 1962).
[9] M. Hejazi, Historical buildings of Iran: their architecture and structure., (Queen Mary and Westfield
College University of London, 1997).
[10] A. U. Pope, Persian Architecture, (George Braziller, 1965).
[11] H. E. Wulff, The traditional crafts of Persia, (MIT Press, 1966).
[12] H. Binici, O. Aksogan, D. Bakbak, H. Kaplan and B. Isik, Const & Bldg Mat, 23, 2, 1035-1041,
(2009).
[13] F. Fratini, E. Pecchioni, L. Rovero and U. Tonietti, App Clay Sc, 53, 3, 509-516, (2010).
[14] M. C. J. Delgado and I. C. Guerrero, Const & Bldg Mat, 20, 9, 679-690, (2006).
[15] R. Illampas, I. Ioannou and D. C. Charmpis, Int J of Arch Heritage, 7, 2, 165-188, (2013).
[16] F. Pacheco-Torgal and S. Jalali, Const & Bldg Mat, 29, 512-519, (2012).
[17] M. Blondet and G. V. Garcia M., Earthquake Resistant Earthen Buildings?, (2004).
[18] Y. Gul, G. A. Jokhio and E. Kakar, 6th Int Civ Engg Cong, (2013).
[19] L. Baker, Mud, 1, (2015).
[20] K. M. Roufechaei, A. H. Abu Bakar and A. A. Tabassi, J of Cleaner Prod, 65, 380-388, (2014).
[21] S. H. Sameh, J of Cleaner Prod, 65, 362-373, (2014).
[22] G. Seyfang, En Pol, 38, 12, 7624-7633, 2010.
[23] H. Niroumand, M. F. Zain and M. Jamil, Proc - Soc and Behav Sc, 89, 0, 231-236, (2013).
[24] E. Nodarou, C. Frederick and A. Hein, J of Arch Sc, 35, 11, 2997-3015, (2008).
[25] E. Quagliarini and S. Lenci, J of Cul Heritage, 11, 3, 309-314, (2010).
[26] R. Walker and H. Morris, Proc of the Aust Str Engg Conf, Auckland, vol. 1, pp. 477-84, 1998.
[27] P. Walker, The Australian earth building handbook, (Standards Australia, 2002).

11
MUCET 2017 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 318 (2018) 012030 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/318/1/012030
1234567890‘’“”

[28] NZS, Materials and workmanship for earth buildings, (Standards New Zealand, 1998).
[29] NMAC, New Mexico earthen building materials code, (New Mex Admin Code, 2009).
[30] P. Walker, Masonry Int, 1-6, (1996).
[31] B. Briccoli, L. Rovero and U. Tonietti, Proc of the 10th Int Conf on the Study of Conserv of Earthen
Arch Heritage, Mali, 253-8, (2008).
[32] J. C. Morel, A. Pkla and P. Walker, Const & Bldg Mat, 21, 2, 303-309, (2007).
[33] L. Miccoli, A. Garofano, P. Fontana and U. Muller, Engg Str, 104, 80-94, (2015).
[34] L. Miccoli, U. Muller and P. Fontana, Const & Bldg Mat, 61, 327-339, (2014).
[35] J. Morel and A. Pkla, Const & Bldg Mat, 16, 5, 303-310, (2002).
[36] R. Illampas, I. Ioannou and D. C. Charmpis, Const & Bldg Mat, 53, 83-90, (2014).
[37] D. Silveira, H. Varum and A. Costa, Const & Bldg Mat, 40, 719-728, (2013).
[38] D. Silveira, H. Varum, A. Costa, T. Martins, H. Pereira and J. Almeida, Const & Bldg Mat, 28, 1, 36-
44, (2012).
[39] A. Eslami, H. Ronagh, S. Mahini and R. Morshed, Const & Bldg Mat, 35, 251-260, (2012).
[40] P. Gavrilovic, V. Sendova, W. Ginell and L. Tolles, 11th Eur Conf on EQ Engg, (2002).
[41] J. Vargas, J. Bariola and M. Blondet, Resistencia Sismica de la Mampotera de Adobe, (2000).
[42] A. S. Muntohar, Const & Bldg Mat, 25, 11, 4215-4220, (2011).
[43] P. Walker, Cem & Conc Comp, 17, 4, 301-310, (1995).
[44] U. Yetgin, O. Cavdar and A. Cavdar, Const & Bldg Mat, 22, 3, 222-227, (2008).
[45] H. Binici, O. Aksogan and T. Shah, Const & Bldg Mat, 19, 4, 313-318, (2005).
[46] S. Lenci, Q. Piattoni, F. Clementi and T. Sadowski, Int J of Frac, 172, 193-200, (2011).
[47] Y. Millogo, J. C. Morel, J. E. Aubert and K. Ghavami, Const & Bldg Mat, 52, 71-78, (2014).
[48] L. Turnali and A. Saritas, Const & Bldg Mat, 25, 4, 1747-1752, (2011).
[49] P. Vega, A. Juan, M. Ignacio Guerra, J. M. Moran, P. J. Aguado and B. Llamas, Const & Bldg Mat, 25,
7, 3020-3023, (2011).
[50] C. Galan-Marin, C. Rivera-Gomez and J. Petric, Const & Bldg Mat, 24, 8, 1462-1468, (2010).
[51] E. A. Okunade, J of Engg & App Sc, 2, 9, 1455-59, (2007).
[52] Q. Piattoni, E. Quagliarini and S. Lenci, Const & Bldg Mat, 25, 4, 2067-2075, (2011).
[53] J. Gere and B. Goodno, Mechanics of materials, Brief Ed., (Cengage Learning, 2011).
[54] S. Popovics, Cem & Conc Res, 583-99, (1973).
[55] F. Wu, G. Li, H. N. Li and J. Q. Jia, Mat & Str, 46, 9, 1449-1457, (2013).
[56] S. H. Lodi, S. F. A. Rafeeqi, G. A. Jokhio and A. J. Sangi, J of Ferrocement, 36, 2, 792-798, (2006).
[57] S. H. Lodi, S. F. A. Rafeeqi and G. A. Jokhio, NED Uni J of Res, 7, 2, 137-151, (2010).
[58] S. P. Shah, M. Sarigaphuti and M. E. Karagular, ACI Sp Pub, 142, 1-18, (1994).

12