Mud Blocks and Industrial

Wastes for Sustainable

Construction
Prof. Vibha N Dalawai
Department of Civil Engineering
CMRIT, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Email- [email protected]

Dr. Lakshmi Shrikanth

Department of Civil Engineering
CMRIT, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Email- XYZ

Abstract-

There is a growing demand for sustainable and green building technology in the
present generation to bring down the greenhouse gas emission by construction
industry. The stabilized mud block (SMB) is a very good choice in this focus.
With well-defined stabilization techniques, the mud block can attain the same
strength to that of burnt brick blocks as specified in Bureau of Indian
Standards. This work presents the experimental investigation on selected locally
available soil having 58% sand, 14% silt and 28% clay, stabilized with cement
and fly ash. Steel slag is added to reduce the effect of clay content on soil. In the
present study, Adobe type of SMB is adopted and the block size is 90mm
x90mmx110mm. The compressive strength of the block is tested for 7 days, 14
days and 28 days by varying the percentage of stabilizing agent from 4%
to10%. From the experimental findings it is confirmed that compressive
strength for 10% cement is 3.97 Mpa and on replacement of 20% of cement
with fly ash as stabilizer, compressive strength has been increased to 4.58 Mpa.
This study also exhibits the effective utilization of steel slag in soils with low
sand content.

Keywords – Stabilized mud block, Compressive strength, Steel slag, and

Flyash

I. INTRODUCTION
The construction sector is one of the most significant causative fields of the
dioxide outrage. Production of cement contributes to 7% of world’s total
greenhouse gas emission, generating the largest share of carbon footprint.[1]
(Oh et al., 2014). It is estimated that 40% of global energy is consumed by
building sector which also contributes to 1/3 of the total greenhouse gas
emissions, in both developed and developing countries [2] (Akhtar et al
2017). The growing demand for materials in the construction industry has
led to exploitation of natural resources, resulting in steep hike in the prices
of construction materials [3] (Kariyawasam et al.) Moreover, recycling and
reuse of concrete block is also of great concern. Sustainability in building
construction means both conservation of natural resources and reduction in
the generation of carbon footprint. Hence there is a need to produce
sustainable materials with low energy consumption and minimal
environmental impact during both manufacturing and operational stages. [4]
(Arooz et al 2017).
Various researchers have proposed alterative building materials to concrete
block such as stabilized mud block, compressed earth block that are
environmental friendly and economically viable, with adequate tensile
strength [5, 6](Walker et al. 2000, 2004, Reddy et al. 2007). Several studies
have revealed that production of unfired bricks, also commonly known as
stabilized mud blocks, consumes less energy and releases 80% less carbon-
di-oxide into atmosphere. Hence, they are the viable and reliable alternatives
to conventional fired bricks [7, 8](Heath. A et al 2009, Oti J.E. et al., 2009,
Deboucha. S et al. 2011). [9] ((Reddy et al. 2005) studied the assorted
characteristics of soil cement blocks having highly sandy soil by altering
cement content. It was found that varying cement content has influenced the
properties of blocks. The results indicated 2.5 times increase in strength on
doubling of cement content. Initial rate of absorption and pore size
decreased drastically with the rise in cement content of the block. It was
also observed that modulus of elasticity increased by 2.5 times once the
cement content has been raised from 6-8%.
Kabiraj et al (2012) [10] arrived at an appropriate mix proportion by
combining locally available building materials such as soil, sand, clay, grits
and jute for making cost effective, environmental friendly compacted earth
blocks. They concluded that blocks having 7.5 percent cement content
satisfied strength, water absorption criteria and were cheaper than the burnt
clay bricks by 36.66%. [11] Jijo James et al. (2016) studied the performance
of adobe type of stabilized mud blocks by replacing ordinary Portland
cement (OPC) with sugar cane bagasse ash (SBA) as stabilizer. Their study
revealed the utilization of 4% cement with 8% SBA in soil blocks meeting
the requirements for compressive strength and water absorption as per BIS
specifications. Malkanthi et al (2020) [12] performed a study on compressed
stabilized earthen blocks to investigate the usefulness of lime and lime-
cement combination as stabilizers with low content of clay and silt. Their
findings also showed that, rather than using only lime as stabilizer, lime-
cement combination helped in achieving higher compressive strength for
soils having low clay and silt content.
The primary objective of this study is to determine the requirement of
optimum percentage of stabilizers for earth blocks to achieve compressive
strength that meets BIS norms.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the manufacture of the adobe blocks, the soil is collected from

Doddaballapur taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka. Cement of OPC
53 having the chemical composition of SiO 2 of 21.45% and Al2O3 of 4.45%
Thomas (2000) is used as stabilizer along with class C fly ash. The Class C
fly ash is produced from the burning of younger lignite or sub-bituminous
coal. In addition to having pozzolanic properties, also have some self-
cementing properties. In the presence of water, class C fly ash hardens and
gets stronger over time. It generally contains more than 20% lime. Alkali
and sulphate contents are generally higher in class C.
The by-product obtained either from conversion of iron into steel during a
Basic atomic number 8 chamber (BOF), or by the melting of the scrap to
create steel within the electric discharge chamber (EAF). Blast furnace slag
is added to the soil in present study so as to reduce the clay content. The
above told materials are tested in the laboratory to ascertain their basic
properties conforming to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).The test results
on the properties of the materials are as listed below.

2.1 Soil characteristics-

The locally available soil is excavated from a depth of 1 to 1.5 m depth and
preliminary studies are conducted as per BIS specification. The sieve
analysis of the soil sample was evaluated as per IS 2720(Part 4) 1985. Table
4.1summarizes the studies conducted on the soil. The grain size analysis
was performed resulting in 58% of sand content, 14% of silt content and
28% of clay content which designates the soil as sandy clay loam soil. The
soil is also tested for specific gravity in accordance with IS 2720:1980 (Part
3), the specific gravity value being 2.6. In accordance with the BIS [19, 20,
21] norms the tests are conducted, The liquidity index and plasticity index
are 31.62 and 14.28 respectively, conforming to IS 2720:1985 (Part 5)
standards and the plasticity index is 17.34, which is well in agreement
with Walker (1995)[5].
Table 4.1 – Soil Characteristic
Characteristics Result
Specific gravity of the soil 2.6
Water content 2.45%
Liquid limit 31.62%
Plastic limit 14.28%
Shrinkage limit 7.41%
Maximum dry density 2.25 gm/cc
Optimum moisture content 15%
Sieve analysis sandy clay loam soil

2.2 Cement as a stabilizer and its characteristics

Cement is the most commonly used stabilizer in manufacturing
SMB to stabilize the soil by reducing swelling and increasing its
compressive strength. [5] Walker (1995) suggests minimum cement content
of 7% and 10% to attain a characteristic compressive strength of 1MPa and
2MPa, respectively.
The OPC 53 grade is selected for the study and the basic tests on its physical
properties were conducted aAs per BIS norms [13], . Table 4.2 summarizes
on the test results of basic physical properties on cement.

Table 4.2 – Experimental results on physical properties of cement

Characteristics Result
Fineness of cement 10%
Normal consistency 28% at 7mm penetration
Specific gravity 3.15

2.3 Steel slag characteristics –

The byproduct of the steel is used as the partial replacement for the soil
since the clay percentage is more and the sand percentage has to be
managed so as to get an optimum level of mix proportion prescribed as per
(Arooz et al 2017)[4]. The soil as a whole of 54% is added with 36% of
steel slag and making a total 90%. The steel slag is yet another type of waste
for the sustainability. The table 4.3 records the specific gravity, density and
water absorption as it is a chemically inherit and possible similar properties
of sand only for this particular study.
Table 4.3 – Experimental results on physical properties of steel slag
Characteristics Result
Specific gravity 2.6
Density 1.28 gm/cc
Water absorption 4.34%

3. METHODS
3.1 Proportioning
Proportioning involves preparation of raw material suitable for the
study which includes excavation, physical examination and other. Mix
design is the next step in proportioning which in turn gives us the possible
and best proportion suitable for the study. A well-defined casting, curing
and testing is followed along.
The raw materials used for the study is the locally available soil, ordinary
Portland cement besides industrial wastes like steel slag and Fly ash are also
used for the current work.
Soil preparation in general, should be ready by sieving it through 4.75mm
sieve to get rid of gravel, lumps of clay, roots, etc. Preliminary
investigation on the soil is done to arrive with the particle size distribution,
liquidity and plasticity limit. The soil so selected should have the prescribed
range of sand, silt and clay content. The steel slag is studied for its
properties like water absorption, specific gravity and density with a well
graded grain size distribution. The stabilizer so selected is the Ordinary
Portland cement and Flyash as part of the study.

3.2 Mix design for Adobe blocks.

To arrive with the best mix design for the adobe block,. Trial and error tests
are done on proposed mix with variation in cement percentage to stabilize
the required compressive strength is achieved. By the mix design,
proportion of 90% soil , 8% of cement and Flysah of 2% is adopted. The
water content of 18% is adopted as per [4] (Arooz et al 2017). The soil was
inflicted more with clay hence the proportion of soil having 58% sand, 14%
silt and 28% of clay. As per the Jagdish (2007) [12], the amount of sand
content in the soil is 65- 75%, clay of 5 to 15% with stabilizing agent of
upto 6%. Hence the clay content so obtained in the present study has to be
altered to bring down the clay content.

3.3 Casting and curing –

Adobe method is adopted to prepare blocks as per. Wooden moulds
of size 90mmx90mmx190mm as per BIS [16] are prepared. The mixture is
compacted well by making smooth balls and by dropping them from a
height of 0.5 meters, so that the soil will compact in the mould without any
voids, the corners and edges are to be given special attention and hence can
be compacted by hands in order to avoid honeycombing. Moulds are first
cured by hand sprinkling for initial three days a couple of times each day.
After the first curing, three days wet curing technique is employed for
natural process. During this technique wet gunny bags are placed on moulds
and cured just once in a day.

(a) (b)
(c)
 (d) (e)
Figure 1. (a) Adobe Mould, (b) Casting , (c) Batching (d) Identity Nominiclature and (e)
Curing.

3.3 Experimental investigation

The compressive strength of the stabilized mud blocks is done accordance
with the BIS code [17] to determine the amount of pressure the blocks can
resist without collapsing the compressive strength is done in accordance
with BIS code [16]. The compressive strength depends on the soil type and
amount of stabilizer used to form the block. Maximum strengths are
obtained by proper mixing of suitable materials. The compressive strength
of a block is an important engineering property.
It was established from a literature Jagdish (2007) [12], that the durability of
the stabilized blocks increases with increase in its strength. The abode
blocks are tested for 5 proportions by varying the stabilizer percentage. For
an optimum range of 10%stabilizing agent the strength variations are
recorded for the compression load. The testing is done on blocks were for 7,
14 and 28 days compressive strength. The test results are discussed along
the time and proportional variations

III. RESULTS

4.4 Production process of samples-

After the mix design the blocks are prepared for five proportions by
proportioning the binder content 8% and 2% of lime content. Table 4.4
tabulates the soil, steel slag, flyash, cement content and lime proportioning
that is planned for the study. Dry mixing is carried out with these
proportions and 18% of water is added to the mixture so as to maintain the
workability. The mixed machine mixed sample is then used hand moulding
for the block preparation as per IS 1725-1982. Proportion of 40% FA ,40%
cement and 20% lime, 60% FA and 40% cement, 40% FA and 60% cement,
20% FA and 80% cement, 0% FA and 100% cement were considered.

Table -4.4 Proportions of the materials

Soil (Kg) Steel Slag(Kg) Fly Ash (kg) Cement(kg) Lime
54 36 --- 7.2 ---
54 36 1.44 20% 5.76 80% --- ---
54 36 2.88 40% 4.32 60% --- ---
54 36 4.32 60% 2.88 40% --- ---
54 36 2.88 40% 2.88 40% 1.44 kg 20%

4.4 compression test-

The compression test on the adobe block are carried out as per the
procedure prscribed in IS 3495(Part1) 1976, which stipulates minimum
compressive strength for burnt brick not less than 1.9Mpa for class 20 and
2.9 Mpa for class 30 bricks. The adobe blocks are prepared for five
proprtion with variation in the cement content. For each proprtion three
specimen are tetsed for compressive strength for 7 days, 14days and 28 days
of curing. Table 4.5 summarise the avergae of the three specimen tested for
compressive strength in the universal compression testing machine.
Table -4.5 Compression strenght of block

7 days strength 14 days 28 days

(Mpa) strength(Mpa) strength(Mpa)
1st Proportion 2.13 2.40 3.97
2nd Proportion 2.27 3.07 4.58
3rd Proportion 2.23 2.53 4.2
4th Proportion 1.47 2.07 3.11
5th Proportion 1.95 2.37 3.31

5th Proportion
3.5
compresssive strength in Mpa

3.1

2.7

2.3

1.9

1.5
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time in days

4th Proportion
3.3
compressive strength in Mpa

3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time in days

(a) (b)
 3rd Proportion
4.5

compressive strength in Mpa

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time in days

2nd Proportion
5
compressive strength in Mpa

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Axis Title

(c) (d)
 1st Proportion
4.5

compressive strength in Mpa

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time in dasy

(e) (f)
Figure 2. Compression test plot on time in days verses compression strength for (a) 40%
FA ,40% cement and 20% lime, (b) 60% FA and 40% cement, (c) 40% FA and 60% cement,
(d) 20% FA and 80% cement, (e) 0% FA and 100% cement and (f) compression test setup.

comparitive study on vriaion in proporton

31
28 28 28 28 28
28
25
22
Time in days

19
1st Proportion
16 14 14 1414 14 2nd Proportion

13 3rd Proportion
4th Proportion
10
7 7 7 77 5th Proportion
7
1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.9
Strength in Mpa
 Figure 3. A comparitive plot on Compression strength with time in days .

5
4.58 7 days strength
4.5 4.2
(MPa)

compressive strength in Mpa

3.97
4
3.5 3.07 3.11 3.31
3 2.53
2.4 2.37
2.5 2.13
2.27 2.23
2.07 1.95
2
1.47
1.5
1
0.5
0

Figure 4. A comparitive plot on Compression strength with time in days and proportions.

Inference
Table 4.5 and the respective graph is as shown in Figure 2,3 and 4 elaborate
that the maximum strength is obtained for 20% fly ash and 80% cement. On
further increase in percentage of fly ash we can see the decrease in
compressive strength for 3rd and 4th proportion. On addition of lime it can be
seen from graph that the blocks have gained some strength compared to the
earlier proportion.

IV. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

5.1 Conclusion
In the experimental study conducted by P.Kasinatha Pandian et al.
The compressive strength for 4% and 10% cement (binder) stabilized blocks
was 2.59 Mpa and 5.42 Mpa respectively. In the present study the
compressive strength obtained for 8% cement was 3.97 Mpa which is more
than the minimum requirement (3.5 Mpa) as per BIS. It is observed that
replacement of 20% of cement with fly ash as stabilizer to selected soil was
effective in increasing compressive strength to 4.58 Mpa, where further
increase in fly ash content the strength decreased. But the strength has
increased on introducing lime content; this might be due to the calcium
content of lime and siliceous content of steel slag.
5.2 Summary
Steel is an industrial waste and contains toxic elements such Cr, Ni and Zn,
hence if dumped in open lands will affect human life. It has to be recycled.
Use of steel slag reduces use of sand which helps in conserving natural
resources. Also, Use of steel slag has accounted for strength when lime
content is used. Manufacture of cement releases many harmful gases into
the atmosphere, hence there is a need of reducing use of cement to protect
environment, and use of industrial waste such as fly ash can minimize the
use of cement to a certain extent. Replacement of 20% cement with fly ash
has improved the strength and was
5.4 Scope of future work
The experiments carried out in the present study are limited. The different
areas that are, to be explored in the future are 10% binder can be used
proportioning cement and fly ash and additional lime can be added to it.
Strength characteristics can be determined for different water cement ratio.
Further behaviour of these blocks can be determined by conducting prism
test.
REFERENCES
[1] Towards A Zero-Emission, Efficient, And Resilient Buildings And Construction
Sector, Tomliak, Kyryl, Global Status Report, 2017, 20-35
[2] Construction And Demolition Waste Management – A Review Markandeya Raju
Ponnada1 And Kameswari P2 1 Professor, Department Of Civil Engineering Mvgr
College Of Engineering, Vizianagaram – 535005, Andhra Pradesh
[3] “Characteristics Of Soil-Cement Blocks Using Highly Sandy Soils”,
B.V.Venkatarama Reddy And A.Gupta, Material Structures, Volume-38, Article-
651. 2005
[4] ”Experimental Investigation And Feasibility Study On Stabilized Compacted Earth
Block Using Local Resources”, Kabiraj.K And Mandal.U.K, International Journal
Of Civil And Structural Engineering, Volume 2, No 3.2012
[5] “Studies on Stabilised Adobe Blocks” By Bharath. B, Maheshwar Reddy. L,
Juberahmed Pathan, Rahul. R. Patel, International Journal Of Research In
Engineering And Technology, Volume-3, Issue:6, Pg 259-264 2014.
[6] “Cement Stabilized Soil Blocks Admixed With Sugarcane Bagasse Ash”, By Jijo
James, P.Kasinatha Pandian, K.Deepika, J.Manikanda Venkatesh, V.Manikandan,
And P.Manikumaran, Journal Of Engineering, Vol. 2016, Article Id 7940239,
2016.
[7] “Experiments in Earth Construction In India, Living In Earthen Cities”- By K.S
Jagadish, Itu Istanbul, Turkiye, July 2005, Pp 6-7.
 [8] “Strength And Elastic Properties Of Stabilized Mud Block Using Cement-Soil
Mortars”, By B. V. Venkatarama Reddy And Ajay Gupta, Journal Of Materials In
Civil Engineering, Vol.18, No.3, June 2006, Pp 472-476.
[9] “Tensile Bond Strength Of Soil Cement Block Masonry Couplets Using Cement
Soil Mortars”, By B.V. Venkatarama Reddy And Ajay Gupta, Journal Of Materials
In Civil Engineering, Vol.18, No.1, 2006, Pp 36-45.
[10] “Optimum Soil Grading For The Soil Cement Blocks”, By B. V. Venkatarama
Reddy, Richardson Lal And Nanjunda Rao, Journal Of Materials In Civil
Engineering, Vol.19, No.2, September 2007, Pp 139-148.
[11] ‘Mud-concrete block (MCB): Mix design and durability characteristic”, F. R.
Arooz, R U Halwatura. Department of civil engineering, university of Maratuwa,
Sri Lanka. Case studies in construction materials 8(2018) 39-50.
[[12]] “Influence Ofof Soil Compaction Onon Strength And Durability Of Soil- Cement
Block”, B.V.Venkatarama Reddy and A.Gupta, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol 69.
No. 9, Sep 1995.
[12][[13]] IS 1905 1987 Code Practice For The Structural Use Of Unreinforced
Masonry, Bureau Of Indian Standard
[13][[14]] IS 12269-1987- Specification for 53 Grade OP
[14][[15]] IS 5454 – 1978 - Method of sampling of clay building bricks IS 5454 – 1978
[15] IS 1077 (1992): Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks –Specification
[[16]] IS 3495 (Parts I TO IV) 1976 - Method of test for burnt-clay building bricks.
[16][[17]] BIS, “Specification for soil based blocks used in
general building construction,” IS 1725, 1982.
[17][[18]] IS:2720 (Part .I) 1983- Preparation of dry sample (soil)
[18][[19]] IS:2720 (Part .III) 1980 Sect/1- Determination of water content (moisture
content)
[19][[20]] IS: 2720 (Part. III) 1980 Sect/2 Determination of specific gravity of fine
grained soil
[20][[21]] IS: 2720 (Part. III) 1980 Sect/2 -Determination of specific gravity of fine,
medium & coarse grained soil.
[21][[22]] Grain size analysis IS:2720 (Part.4) 1985
[22][[23]] Determination of Liquid and plastic limit IS:2720 (Part.5) 1985

J. Thomas and H. Jennings, “Mineral and oxide composition

of portland cement,” 5–9, 2000, http://iti.northwestern.edu/
[1] cement/monograph/Monograph3 6.html.

P. J. Walker, “Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics

of cement stabilised soil blocks,” Cement and Concrete
Composites,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 301–310, 1995.

P L Verma and S R Mehra use of soil cement in house construction in the

Punjab, indian concrete journal, vol. 24, april 1950.

B V venkatarama Reddy. Studies on static soil compaction and

Sub-Bases forHeavily Trafficked Roads,
TransportResearchLaboratory,
Berkshire, UK, 2003, http://www.transport-links.org/
transport links/filearea/documentstore/106 Literature%20Review%
20Stabilised%20sub-bases.pdf.
[50] BIS, “Parts 1–4: methods of tests of burnt clay building brick,”
IS
3495, 1992.