Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

Rammed earth sample production: context, recommendations and consistency

Matthew Hall*, Youcef Djerbib
Centre for the Built Environment, Sheffield Hallam University, Unit 9 Science Park, Howard Street, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK Received 15 November 2003; received in revised form 19 November 2003; accepted 24 November 2003

Abstract A novel approach to specifying and creating rammed earth soil recipes, through a process of blending graded quarry material, has been presented. The soil recipes are highly consistent and reproducible, allowing the accurate control of parameters such as particle-size distribution. A novel technique for the consistent production of rammed earth cube samples has been presented that satisfies NZS 4298: 1998, and is in good agreement with the established Proctor standard for compaction. Under the proposed method for rammed earth sample production, the level of energy input used for compaction can be varied depending upon soil type. For a given compactive effort, the variation in dry density due to soil type did not appear to be directly related to the characteristic unconfined compressive strength of the rammed earth samples. Experimental data have been included. 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rammed earth; Sample production; Compressive strength

1. Introduction Rammed earth is an ancient earth building technique that involves dynamically compacting moist sub-soil between removable shuttering to create an in-situ monolithic compressed earth wall that is both strong and durable. The walls are free-standing and load bearing, and are typically between 300- and 600-mm thick. The dry density of rammed earth is normally between 1800 and 2200 kg y m3 and, as a construction material, should have a minimum characteristic unconfined compressive strength of 1.3 MPa w1x (1.3 N y mm2). It is worth noting that although this value is low when compared to bricks or concrete, the typical downward thrust of a single storey house is of the order 0.1 MPa (0.1 N y mm2) w2x. Rammed earth construction is prolific in the ancient world and archaeologists have discovered surviving examples in many diverse locations such as settlements from Bronze Age Minoan Crete dating back approximately 3500 years w3x. Fig. 1 shows the rammed earth wall, built approximately 1300 years ago, that surrounds
*Corresponding author. Tel.: q44-0-114-225-3200; fax: q44-0114-225-3206. E-mail address: m.hall@shu.ac.uk (M. Hall).

Horyuji Temple in Japan. The site is protected by the United Nations (UNESCO) and is Japans first World Cultural Heritage site w4x. Its very existence serves as a testament to the potential longevity and timeless appeal of rammed earth as a masonry material. Its extensive use across the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle-East and Africa have aroused a great level of interest amongst architectural conservators and archaeologists throughout the world with a keen interest in the promotion and development of earth building conservation as a science. The creation of the international Project Terra initiative, led by the Getty Conservation Institute, CRATerre-EAG and ICCROM, is one such example of this movement. The market for modern rammed earth buildings is growing rapidly in many parts of the world, none more so than Australia where in certain regions it accounts for approximately 20% of the new-build market w5x. Clearly, buildings made from earth can boast excellent sustainability credentials combined with good thermal and acoustic properties. However, it is their cost effectiveness, when compared with other masonry materials, which has allowed earth buildings to compete strongly with conventional buildings both in Australia and elsewhere w6x. In general, masonry wall construction has a number of advantages such as high durability, appear-

0950-0618/04/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2003.11.001

282

M. Hall, Y. Djerbib / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

Fig. 1. Rammed earth walls surrounding Horyuji Temple, Japan built approximately 1300 years ago (courtesy of D Henman).

ance, and flexibility of application; provided that the economics compare favourably with those of other materials masonry appears to have an excellent future w7x. Fig. 2 shows Margaret River R.C. Church in Western Australia; public buildings such as this have helped to develop the high levels of consumer confidence amongst Australians that exists today. Traditional techniques are combined with modern technologies to provide a highly sustainable material for the future of construction. Rammed earth is equally popular in certain regions of the United States, although in Britain this is still far from being realised. 2. Rammed earth soil suitability According to Houben and Guillaud w2x there is no direct reply to the question, Is this soil suitable for

Fig. 2. Sir Thomas More R.C. church, Margaret River, Western Australia (courtesy RAMTEC Pty Ltd).

construction? The earth used for making rammed earth generally refers to a sandy loam sub-soil. Topsoil is unsuitable due mainly to the significant amount of organic matter present that biodegrades, absorbs water, and is highly compressible. It must be limited to 1 or 2% of the total mass of the soil, if allowed at all w8x. Houben and Guillaud w2x of CRATerre-EAG recommend non-prescriptive parameters for a suitable rammed earth particle-size distribution. These parameters have been superimposed onto the British Standard BS1377 w9x particle-size distribution chart illustrated in Fig. 3. The sub-soils used for rammed earth production during this research have been produced by blending three component soils of known origin and properties. The components of rammed earth material are analogous to those of concrete; the inert aggregate fraction is represented by granular soils (sand and gravel), and the binder fraction is represented by cohesive soils (silt and clay). M grade grit sand and 10 mm pea gravel were sourced from Chesterfield Builders Supplies, and silty clay from Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd. The particlesize distribution of each component soil was determined in accordance with British Standard 1377: 1990 Soils for Civil Engineering Part 2: Classification. Wet sieve analysis was used to classify the granular materials and sedimentation for the cohesive material. By blending the three component soils, 10 recipes were devised for a variety of rammed earth soils that conformed to the Houben and Guillaud w2x particle-size distribution parameters. Each soil was named numerically in relation to its sand: gravel: silty clay ratio out of a total 10 components, e.g. 523, 613, 703, etc. A summary of the 10 soil types used for the experimental work is outlined in Table 1 and the particle-size distribution curve for each soil is displayed in Fig. 3. All of the soil components were first oven-dried to constant mass at a temperature of 105 8C. The silty clay was then pulverised into a coarse powder, using an electric paddle mixer, so that it would mix more easily with the sand and gravel. Each of the soil components was stored in a sealed container prior to use. The soil was mixed in batches of 10 kg (dry mass) such that a 613 soil recipe required 6 kg sand, 1 kg gravel, and 3 kg silty clay. A 10 kg batch of mixed soil is sufficient to produce four 100=100 mm cube samples. The soil components were first dry mixed and then a controlled amount of water was added to raise the soil to optimum moisture content. Mixing was performed using a variable speed 240 V Hobart paddle mixer. Perhaps a valid criticism of earth construction literature is in the choice of material used for sample production. If several locally obtained natural soils are used for testing then any results are likely to be applicable to those soils alone due to the large number of variables introduced through mineralogical composition, grain shape and particle-size distribution. In this

M. Hall, Y. Djerbib / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

283

Fig. 3. BS 1377 Particle-size distribution chart with rammed earth soil data.

study, identical soil components have been used throughout, and mixed in a variety of different proportions such that a single variable can be controlled accurately, i.e. particle-size distribution. The soils were devised using three levels of silty clay binder as a reference point, and then varying the fine y coarse aggregate ratio in a number of different combinations. In particular, this has direct relevance to those in commercial practice who are considering granular stabilisation techniques to enhance material properties prior to construction.
Table 1 Ratio of soil components for each rammed earth soil type Each soil type is mass-proportioned from a total 10 kg: Soil type 532 622 712 802 433 523 613 703 424 514 M grade grit sand (kg) 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 4 5

3. Rammed earth sample production A novel rammed earth sample production technique has been devised by the author (Hall), based on the established Proctor compaction method. Although the proctor method has been used to determine the OMC of each soil recipe, the nature and force of the dynamic compaction used for building rammed earth walls is quite different. For this reason, the methodology described here has been based upon the specifications

F10 mm pea gravel (kg) 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 1

Silty clay (kg) 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4

284

M. Hall, Y. Djerbib / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

for rammed earth soil compaction given by NZS 4298: 1998. Currently, the largest accumulation of knowledge in modern rammed earth construction is thought to exist within Australia and New Zealand. This knowledge has been produced in the form of detailed specifications in the official Government documents published by Standards New Zealand (e.g. NZS 4298: 1998). The key difference between the proposed methodology, and the existing Proctor test, is that the total required energy input for compaction is not a fixed value regardless of soil type. More or less compaction can be used depending upon soil type, and the main factors controlling dry density are particle-size distribution and the corresponding optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content (OMC) for rammed earth soils is critical in order to achieve maximum dry density through dynamic compaction, which is thought to be indexed to the strength and durability of the material. If too little water is present, then the soil cannot achieve the same level of compaction due to the greater degree of friction between the soil particles. If too much water is present, then capillary water occupies the soil pore spaces, reducing the level of achievable compaction and incising the level of porosity when the wall has dried w10x. NZS 4298: 1998 w1x states that for rammed earth production the moisture content should never be less than 3% below OMC or 5% above it. This practice was strictly observed during sample production and moisture values were intermittently observed by gravimetric determination. For each of the 10 rammed earth soils used, the OMC was confined to a value of between 7 and 9% moisture in relation to soil dry mass. The OMC for each of the 10 soils was determined in accordance with British Standard BS 1377 Part 4: Compaction w11x using the established proctor light compaction method. The laboratory-based production of rammed earth samples should reflect the on-site construction technique of rammed earth walls for test results to be meaningful and transposable. For this reason, a manual hand rammer was employed in order to replicate the type and nature of compaction forces that the soil would be subjected to in commercial rammed earth wall production. The rammer is manufactured from mild steel with a solid handle, a 98=98 mm ramming face, and weighs 6.5 kg conforming to New Zealand Standard NZS 4298: 1998 w1x. A 100=100 mm concrete cube mould was employed to facilitate the direct comparison of rammed earth with more familiar masonry materials such as concrete. A removable guide collar attachment was employed to facilitate the location of the hand rammer into the cube mould. The distance between the top of the mould and the guide collar is precisely 300 mm. The cube mould was first painted inside with form oil, as is the standard practice with rammed earth formwork, and the

moistened soil was compacted in three separate layers. It was discovered that between 750 and 800 g of soil amounted to approximately one third the height of the cube mould when compacted ensuring an additional level of standardisation. Compaction was performed in accordance with NZS 4298: 1998 w1x, which states that to achieve the correct level of compaction the handle of a 6.5 kg hand rammer should ring when dropped from a height of 300 mm onto the compacted soil. It should be noted that up until this point the fall height and number of drops is less controlled although typically the values are -300 mm and 20 drops, respectively. By this method, account is taken of the fact that a given soil type often requires a different amount of compaction than another soil type of different particle-size distribution. A further enhancement is in ensuring dimensional consistency of the sample produced to give more precise density determinations and to avoid the need for capping in a compressive strength test. After scraping away the compacted soil projecting above the top of the mould a small amount of moist soil was passed through a 2 mm British Standard sieve and sprinkled on top of the sample. This capping layer was then compacted before being smoothed by a spatula to produce a perfectly flat surface. 4. Analysis of sample consistency 1: density The consistency of samples was initially assessed by means of density determination immediately following sample production and removal from the mould. Table 2 illustrates a typical production run of 16 rammed earth cubes made with four separate batches of freshly mixed soil. The dry density between samples is consistent with a tolerance of just 0.4%, and the variation between density values obtained for the same soil using the Proctor test amounts to a mere 0.7%. Fig. 4 shows a typical rammed earth cube sample after curing. The samples were cured in a sealed curing chamber for a minimum of 28 days at a temperature of 20 8C ("18) and a relative humidity of 75% ("5%). In accordance with BS1377-Part 2: Classification, the determination of linear shrinkage revealed a value of less than 2% for the binder fraction. As the binder fraction was never more than 40% of the total soil mass this factor was judged to be insignificant. The resultant rammed earth samples were precisely 100=100=100 mm (1 litre: as per proctor standard). Upon visual assessment, samples with high binder proportions exhibited visible shrinkage cracks but were very smooth and had a hard surface finish. The high-sand content samples were very stable with no visible cracking and a patchy distribution of binder. The gravel-rich samples tended to have a smooth, hard surface finish for the most part

M. Hall, Y. Djerbib / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

285

but with interruptions by gravel y sand pockets exhibiting a pebbly texture. 5. Analysis of sample consistency 2: compressive strength To further test the consistency of sample production, as well as to compare rammed earth to conventional masonry materials, compressive strength testing was performed. The apparatus used was a Mayes SH250 compression tester. By using an independent load cell, of certified calibration, repeat testing of the Mayes SH250 apparatus revealed the machine to be consistently accurate to within 0.5% of the stated reading. The applied load rate was set to 20 kN y min, which ensured that failure of the samples occurred at a time between 30 and 90 s. New Zealand Standard NZS 4298: 1998 w1x recommends a minimum of 5 rammed earth samples for compressive strength testing, and an aspect ratio correction factor of 0.7 to be applied to the compressive stress value obtained for a cuboid sample. The value, therefore, for the characteristic unconfined compressive strength was calculated using the following formula: f sC1y1.5
D B

Fig. 4. A rammed earth cube sample.

Xs E Fx1 Xa G

(1)

where: f9sCharacteristic unconfined compressive strength, Xssstandard deviation of a series, Xasmean average of a series, x1sthe lowest result.
Table 2 Details of a rammed earth soil cube sample production run Mix 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 622 Mean average (g) Standard deviation (g) Standard deviation (%) Dry density variation: proctorysample mean (g)s14.97 Dry density variation: proctorysample mean (%)s0.701
*

For each rammed earth soil type, one representative cube sample was taken from each of the four mix batches with the fifth sample being taken from a random batch. Only four of the 10 soil types had suitable compressive strengths to satisfy the minimum requirement of 1.3 MPa outlined in NZS 4298 w1x. Fig. 5 shows the results, for each soil type, of f9 and dry density. For a given compactive effort, the variation in dry density due to soil type did not appear to be directly related to the characteristic unconfined compressive strength of the rammed earth samples. It is hypothesised that the binder y aggregate ratio is perhaps a more important factor in determining and y or controlling compressive strength values although this has not yet been proven by the authors. Good consistency of results was

Sample 622-A 622-B 622-C 622-D 622-E 622-F 622-G 622-H 622-I 622-J 622-K 622-L 622-M 622-N 622-O 622-P

Mass at production (g) 2323.0 2332.0 2312.9 2330.8 2308.6 2302.4 2332.2 2312.2 2311.2 2324.2 2314.0 2331.0 2315.9 2331.9 2327.0 2318.0 2320.6 10.08 0.434

Calculated dry mass (g)* 2137.2 2145.4 2127.9 2144.3 2123.9 2118.2 2145.6 2127.2 2126.3 2138.3 2128.9 2144.5 2130.6 2145.3 2140.8 2132.6 2135.0 9.28 0.434

Batch (kg) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Dry mass calculated using a gravimetrically determined moisture content of 8%.

286

M. Hall, Y. Djerbib / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 281286

Fig. 5. The results of f9 and dry density for each rammed earth soil type.

achieved considering the inherently significant levels of variation that can occur in soils. The standard deviation of f9, for example, never exceeded 0.2 MPa. 6. Conclusions A process of blending graded quarry material has been proposed that enables the specification and production of rammed earth soil recipes of known composition. The soil recipes are highly consistent and reproducible, allowing the accurate control of parameters such as particle-size distribution. A novel technique for the production of rammed earth cube samples has been developed that replicates on-site rammed earth wall production. It satisfies the rigorous New Zealand earth building standards, produces samples of highly consistent density and is in good agreement with the established Proctor standard for compaction. Under the proposed method for rammed earth sample production, the level of energy input used for compaction can be varied depending upon soil type. For a given compactive effort, the variation in dry density due to soil type did not appear to be directly related to the characteristic unconfined compressive strength of the rammed earth samples. Acknowledgments The author wishes to acknowledge the help of the following parties: Stephen Dobson (RAMTEC Pty Ltd)

for pictures, helpful advice and discussion; Darel Henman for Japanese pictures and translated works; Steven Hetherington (Sheffield Hallam University) for technical support and Paul Scholey (Rotherham Sand and Gravel Ltd.) for generous donation of earth materials. References
w1x Standards New Zealand. NZS 4298: 1998 Materials and workmanship for earth buildings incorporating amendment no. 1. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1998. w2x Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction a comprehensive guide. Second ed. London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1996. w3x Frederick C. (University of Sheffield) Pers. comm. w4x Henman D. Pers. comm., visited Horyuji temple site 2002Official website http:yywww.horyuji.or.jp. w5x Easton D. The rammed earth house. Vermont: The Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1996. w6x Dobson S. Continuity of tradition: new earth building. Keynote speech delivered at Terra 2000, Torquay, Devon, UK, 2000. w7x Hendry AW. Masonry walls: materials and construction. Construct Build Mater 2001;15(8):323 30. w8x King B. Buildings of earth and straw structural design for rammed earth and straw bale architecture. USA: Ecological design press, 1996. w9x British standards institute (BSI). BS 1377-2: 1990 soils for civil engineering purposes part 2: classification. London:BSI, 1990. w10x Keable J. Rammed earth structures: a code of practice. London: Intermediate technology publications, 1996. w11x British standards institute (BSI). BS 1377-4: 1990 soils for civil engineering purposes part 4: compaction. London:BSI, 1990.