Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Traditional braces of earth constructions

Quiteria Angulo-Ibez , ngeles Mas-Toms, Vicente Galva-LLopis, Jos Luis Sntolaria-Montesinos
Department of Architectural Constructions, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 September 2011
Received in revised form 5 October 2011
Accepted 24 November 2011
Available online 30 December 2011
Keywords:
Earth
Adobe
Rammed earth
Wall
Traditional
Structure
Braces
Reinforcement
Stiffen

a b s t r a c t
This paper studies the structural performance of various traditional brace solutions for walls in soil based
construction comparing systems used in Spain with the most representative from Peru, Chile, Brazil, Morocco, Mexico, Cuba and others. A unique model for similar loads, seeing the differences to be analyzed,
compared and later used in new construction (sustainable and low cost architecture) and rehabilitation.
It covers both the ineffectiveness of certain braces (Buttresses and increased inside corners); increments
with wooden beams embedded and Tiranta aspada, and the signicant improvements of others, such as
ring beams, ashlars or reeds lattice to prevent the collapse of the soil based constructions against the horizontal forces of wind and earthquakes.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The natural soil, earth, etc. is a building material which has been
used for over 11,000 years. The city of Jericho, the Mesopotamian
Ziggurats, Athens, the Great Wall of China and the Andean cities
are historic examples of the use of earth as a construction material
throughout the world. At present, it is estimated that over 30% of
the worlds population still live in houses built using soil systems,
50% of which represent third world countries [19].
In many developing countries there is a lack of housing and of
construction material, resulting in the self-construction of a living
space using surrounding materials such as earth and wood. Developed countries, under criteria of sustainability, are recovering ancient construction systems which, thanks to being cost effective,
efciently achieve the desired objectives.
This is why the understanding of how soil-based constructions
work and behave is so important. Above all for the conservation
and rehabilitation of the many existing World Heritage Sites, but
also because of the necessity to construct new buildings in both
developed and developing countries.
We must study the past; learn from the mistakes and implement the positives so that new technologies and materials will allow for a better existence in accordance with peoples needs and
Corresponding author. Address: Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectnicas, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Camino Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Tel.: +34 650 31 23 13; fax: +34 963 87 74 59.
E-mail addresses: quianib@csa.upv.es (Q. Angulo), amas@csa.upv.es (. Mas),
vgalvan@csa.upv.es (V. Galva), josanmo2@arqt.upv.es (J.L. Santolaria).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.024

the overall geo-environmental and development requirements

such as safety and sustainability.
Structurally soil as a building material performs well against
compression forces but has a low tensile strength. Therefore it is
important to mold and condition the material towards compression and avoiding tensile forces. Another problem is the poor joining of rammed earth wall sections, and adobes and mortar. This
means that any seismic activity could prove extremely dangerous
for users if appropriate security measures are not taken. Improving
soil for either adobe or rammed earth walls, will improve its characteristics and structural strength [1017].
Another structural aspect of the construction design which is
concerning is that usually in earth construction, oor slabs and
roofs are not connected to walls with horizontal and vertical reinforcements. Due to this, the oor slabs or roofs do not connect directly to the framework and thus do not distribute pressure nor
reinforce the building. Walls become independent structures positioned under external loads. This worrying issue of horizontal pressure is increased in areas of regular seismic activity.
Failures that lead to the collapse of soil based constructions due
to external loads, in particular those made of adobe or rammed
earth, usually occur as follows:
The rst failure is usually due to bending. The low tensile resistance of the soil causes the walls to detach from one another in
the corners. Starting from the top, the walls become independent of each other; they become separate elements with no lateral stability.

390

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

The following failure is usually due to shear. If you control the

joint between the walls and the possible failure of the corners,
they better withstand horizontal pressures on the surface that
could lead to failure by shear and in turn the appearance of
diagonal cracks. In adobe walls, following the horizontal and
vertical joints in a diagonal direction. In rammed earth walls,
following the horizontal joints along the wall.
Finally, failure due to overturning. Once the walls become independent (bending failure) or once they begin to crack and break
(shear failure), they behave as independent rigid structures
which solely rely on their own weight and strength against
external pressures. If the acting momentum exceeds the resistant momentum, the wall or structure would collapse by falling
off balance, and the roof on top of them could also fall down.
Depending on available materials and various weights to be
borne during construction, different techniques and bracings systems have been developed all over the planet in an effort to solve
these problems. These construction systems have adapted to a
greater or lesser extent to the characteristics and the requirements
of both the terrain and the users. Depending on success, power and
communication they may have been globalized and exported to
other locations or they may have remained local.
Currently, soil based constructions are being updated in areas of
high seismicity to improve resistance against earthquakes. In addition to the improvement of earth characteristic and the traditional
guidelines and bracing systems [6,1829], other techniques and
modern elements (not being studied in this paper) are being incorporated, even if this means extra cost and the acquisition of materials that are not always available:
Columns and concrete beams as stiffeners reinforcements
attached both horizontally and vertically with earthwork inll.
A main structure of reinforced concrete with walls of rammed
earth or adobe with a sealing function. The connection between
the main structure and the earth walls to prevent walls collapsing, but not implicating the global collapse of the building, is
very important [30].
The integral masonry system, galvanized wire braided in the
form of truss in walls and slabs [3136].
Plastering the walls with reinforced mortar or geogrid or wire
mesh and cement mortar [3754].
The objectives of this study is to analyze various traditional systems of bracing earth constructions and their inuence in the response to the stresses that occur throughout the life of a building.
There is no point in making an exhaustive calculation of different braces under specic loads, but an analysis of their performance in terms of the traditional design of a single model and
with the same loads is the appropriate option. This method allows
qualitative and quantitative comparison, therefore it is necessary
to perform some structural calculations.
In conclusion, it aims to assess the braces tested in accordance
with the structural benets they provide and make some constructive recommendations arising from its application.

2. Calculation methods: description of the model, materials and loads

The calculation uses a scalar damage model for frictional plastic materials, with
a program developed by the Polytechnic University of Valencia (see Acknowledgements). In the CID, structural analysis program for CAD environments building
structures, an application has been implemented of the isotropic damage model
developed in the last two decades. This application is based on damage mechanic,
which is part of internal variables that introduce microstructural changes in the
behavior of materials, modeling the inuence of history of material behavior in
the evolution of stresses. With the proper denition of the damage function representing the material response in compression and tension, you can model the non-

linear behavior of the earth using the damage theory. The appearance of cracks and
their evolution over time describe trajectories of several damaged spots, represented as an effect of local damage in terms of material parameters and functions
that control the progression of damage to the successive state of tension at each
point. This application has been calibrated with several works and studies as well
as existing physical elements [5561].
The typological model is a traditional house with two oors above ground of
7.20  9.20 m (facade  dividing wall) and load-bearing wall parallel to facade for
supporting oor slab and ridge beam. Load-bearing walls are rammed earth wall
and/or adobe 4060 cm thick depending on their slenderness and loads. Floor slab
with wooden struts 15 cm diameter every 50 cm with inll support of vault loam
(adobe bricks and loam) or wattle and mortar on top of the beams. Pitched roof
made with logs, wattle and clay tiles supported on the load-bearing walls (facade
and intermediate wall). Ground height of 3.90 m and 6.00 m ridge. The height of
ground oor is 2.5 m.
The structural model is discretized with nite hexahedral solid elements (volumetric) for earth walls and nite bar elements (linear) in order to replace beams
and braces supported at the solid nodes and substituting oor inll for the appropriate loads. Model has 1.972 hexahedron of 0.20  0.40  0.40 m per side with 8
nodes each, 61 bars for roof and slab beams and 9 bars for lintels.
The soil based constructions to be analyzed are adobe and rammed earth walls.
Both types of construction have the same building solutions and same struts are applied, as they have the same physicalmechanical characteristics and suffer the
same type of pathology and collapse. Although they have perform slightly differently because of their different systems (the rammed earth walls are constructions
made with homogeneous material whereas adobe is composed of smaller pieces
joined together; they have been modeled as a single homogeneous material since
their overall performance is similar. Therefore, although models have been discretized as mud walls without joints, they can be compared to adobe walls.
This paper does not take into account different variants of rammed earth walls
depending on their material and composition as it seeks to analyze the inuence of
different bracing solutions in soil based construction. For the same reasons, this paper does not study other traditional systems such as wattle and daub, textile wall
elements lled with earth, and direct forming with wet loam. Wattle and daub,
thanks to their lightness and exibility of materials (rods and branches) prove to
be a good solution in areas of high seismicity risk.
The analysis adopts media and general physicalmechanical characteristics for
earth material, without material implements neither composition. A unique model
with same characteristics and loads for all braces for having an appropriate
comparison.
Earth characteristics of the corners elements were dened with less mechanical
resistance because of the difculty of creating the corners inside the frameworks
and/or poor joints with vertical recess solution. Middle and conservative physicomechanical properties has been adopted for materials from the results of tests
(from La Manchuela, Albacete, Spain) and literature [6,18,6271] (Table 1).
For the hypothesis of loads and load combinations we have adopted the values
of ofcial documents and regulations:
Selfweights loads: values from the tests results.
Live loads: based on current Spanish law [72].
Earthquakes: according to the Spanish law [73]. Values have been taken to analyze worst possible result, although this legislation would prevent the construction of soil based buildings under such conditions.
In the process of calculation three methods were employed:
Linear static calculation: based on the assumption of linear elastic performance
of materials and taking into account the balance of the structure without
becoming deformed. Loads and load combinations are considered for the two
main directions.
Nonlinear static calculation: this takes into account the stressstrain performance of nonlinear material and geometric nonlinearity, i.e. achieving balance
of the structure in its deformed state. We analyzed four independent load combinations for the two main directions, introducing proportional increases in 20
loads, taking into account geometric variations and materials:
Gravitational loads (selfweights and live loads) without majority.
Gravitational loads (selfweights and live loads) and horizontal (wind) without
majority.
Gravitational loads (selfweights and live loads) to collapse.
Gravitational loads (selfweights and live loads) and horizontal (wind) to
collapse.
Dynamicseismic calculation, we have analyzed two equivalent static load
combinations for earthquakes for the two main directions of the model.

3. Traditional analyzed braces

Before description of analyzed braces for earth construction, we
should highlight some basics concepts about the design, construction and maintenance of earth buildings. Although not the objec-

391

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

Table 1
Physico-mechanical characteristics of materials.

Earth
Earth of the corners
Ashlars
Wood
Reeds

Deformation
E (N/mm2)

Poisson

Transversal
G (N/mm2)

Density
(kg/m3)

Compressive
resistance Fc
(N/mm2)

Shear resistance
Ft (N/mm2)

Fracture energy
Gf (N/mm/mm2)

Shear
retention
factor

Reduction
factor d

500
100
20.000
11.200
20.390

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.25
0.3

208.3333
41.6667
8333.3335
4480
7842.3075

2000
2000
2500
450
750

1
0.5
20
1.5
40

0025
0.0125
2
1
60

0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

tive of this paper, they have major implications on the structural

performance:
Appropriate design elements will prevent water absorption and
leaks. The preservation and maintenance of the roof and walls
plasters, protect the soil from rain and humidity, avoiding
washing and weakening the walls.
Water presence in the walls. It is important to control moisture
content in walls in contact with the wood or reed. Wood
embedded inside the wall are protected by surrounding earth
if density is more than 600 kg/m3. In the case of walls with a
thickness exceeding 25 cm reinforced with straw, wood chips,
etc. whose density is less than 600 kg/m3, the high capillarity
of the straw will extend the exposure to moisture and drying
of the walls. This increase of moisture in terms of humidity
and time may attract insects and fungi that affect the straw
and wood causing it to rot [6].
Connection between different materials and elements to ensure
a better collaboration. Placing tie-beams such as wood or reeds
inside walls or at the top may not be efcient if they do not
work together. If the earth slides over the reinforcing element,
it will not be effective and it will be just like any soil based construction without braces.
Description of the traditional analyzed bracing models with
sketches of earth structures joints at the top part of the walls
where braces are found:

Fig. 1. Model 1. Earth walls 40 and 60 cm thick without braces.

Wooden beams embedded inside the wall as a reinforcement of

the corners. While joining the corners of the walls together, wooden struts are inserted in the longitudinal direction of the walls
that are interconnected for reinforcing the corners.
In this solution it is important to ensure the partnership between bracing wood and earth walls for is aided by a proper tied
corner. We must also control the composition, density and thickness of the walls to prevent moisture, insects and fungi rotting
the wood.

Model 1. Earth walls without braces (Fig. 1).

Adobe walls with connecting bond. Rammed earth walls with
corner framework join perfectly to create a homogeneous and continuous structure. Alternatively rammed earth walls making a vertical recess in the nished wall so that when the two walls are put
together they join perfectly [74].
The nite hexahedral solid elements of the corners were dened with less mechanical resistance because of the difculty of
creating the corners inside the frameworks and/or poor joints with
vertical recess solution.

Model 3. Earth walls 40 cm thick with reeled braces in the corners on the top oor (wooden beams 15 cm diameter at 1 m
from the inside corner). Tiranta aspada (3. Tiranta aspada)
(Fig. 3).

Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

This is the base model for implementing the analyzed braces and
comparing performances and results. It is used as the reference.
Model 1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces.
This model tests the inuence of the thickness on the structure
performance against the loads.
Model 2. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams of 15 cm
diameter and 2 m long, embedded in the corners on top oor (2.
Wooden beams embedded) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Model 2. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams 15 cm diameter and
2 m long, embedded in the corners on the top oor. Wooden beams embedded.

392

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

This solution involves reinforcing the walls through wooden

struts and wedges that attach other struts to walls in order to limit
their movement.
Accessing the wedges at the facades allows the adjustment the
tension of the log with the wall, having a good maintenance of the
brace and adjusting the working tension for dimensional variations
due to temperature and moisture of the walls and wood.
It is easy to monitor the condition of the wood as they are used
for outside walls.
Esthetic issues can dissuade the use of this brace because the
edge of the strut and the wedge can be clearly seen on the facade
at the top corner of the wall.
Model 4. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams 15 cm in
diameter at the top of the walls. Ring beams (4. Ring beams)
(Fig. 4).
Wooden beams placed on the top of the walls reinforcing all the
walls together and distributing the roof loads. Ring beams, bond
beams, tie beams or perimeter beams.
Like the model 2. Wooden beams embedded, it is important that
the ring beam and the walls work together to ensure the proper
bracing in the walls and the load sharing.
We must also control the composition, density and thickness of
the walls to prevent moisture, insects and fungi rotting the woods.
Model 5. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams 15 cm in
diameter at the top of the walls with reinforced corners. Ring
beams with reinforced corners (5. Reinforced ring beams) (Fig. 5).
Evolution of the model 4. Ring beams, by reinforcing corners
with diagonal wooden struts that are attached to the beams
increasing their lateral stability.

Replacing earth with ashlars or rough stones in the corners. We

have adopted average characteristics for the stone in the model
calculation.
The problem with this solution is the availability of material,
cost and workability of the stone.
Model 9. Earth walls 40 cm thick with internal reinforcement
made by reeds 6 cm in diameter every 40 cm vertically and horizontally (9. Reeds lattice) (Fig. 9).
Reinforcing walls by placing reeds as supporting struts just like
steel in reinforced concrete walls.
Despite being an international renown reinforcement technique, there are some difculties to overcome: it requires the
employment of more expert workers and a much longer and complex construction process due to the need to build the wall with
the reeds inside; it is impossible to check the condition of the reeds
because they are already inside the structure, so they are at risk of
becoming moist and attracting insects or fungi; the discontinuity
due to the two different materials (reeds and earth) can make wall
become weakened and cracks may appear [75].
The traditional analyzed braces are internationally standardized
with local peculiarities. Models are generally used although some
of them are more common in some countries. Models without
braces are possible only in areas without seismicity risk and not
more than one or two levels due to risk of collapse. Models 2. Wooden beams embedded, 4. Ring beams, 6. Buttresses are common in
Spain, Peru, Chile, Morocco, etc. Model 3. Tiranta aspada belongs
to Albacete, Spain. Model 5. Reinforced ring beams is common in
Cuba, Morocco, etc. Model 8. Ashlars in the corner is also used in
Spain and Morocco.
4. Experimental

Model 6. Earth walls 40 cm thick with buttresses 80 cm long (6.

Buttresses) (Fig. 6).

We have obtained the following results for the different

models:

Walls extension by buttress.

The buttress would only be possible in detached buildings limiting their use.
When using rammed earth, as Juan de Villanueva suggests [74]
a recess is made in the wall. If you use adobe, it would have to be
rigged. This solution, as already mentioned, would generate a
weaker joint which the buttress would have to support.

Efforts in the main directions with the three methods, separately for each hypothesis, load, load combination or altogether.
It is possible to analyze the damage rate, depending on the load
combinations applied to models, taking into account where and
how much damage has been caused.

Model 7. Earth walls 40 cm thick with built-up inside corners

(7. Increased inside corners) (Fig. 7).
Reinforcing joint walls made by increasing a section of the inside corner.
The rst aspect to study would be the construction process of
the increased section and how it joins to the walls.
If the increased section is next to a wall but not connected, they
will not work together and we will not achieve a sound structure.
Therefore the typical bending failure in the upper corners of the
walls will occur as in model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without
braces.
If the increased section is constructed at the same time as the
walls, they will work together. Therefore the increase in resistant
material (see model 1B. Earth wall without bracing 60 cm), will increase the resistance at those points where the bending failure
usually occurs.
Model 8. Earth walls 40 cm thick with ashlars with 80 cm long
at the corners (8. Ashlars in the corner) (Fig. 8).

Construction is presented from two opposite viewpoints (Isometrics 1 and 2) to observe the entire structure. We analyze the
stress on the three main components for the main axes (tension
Sx, Sy and Sz).
4.1. Efforts
Analyzing the efforts obtained either from a load combination
or the whole load combination, we are able to measure the performance of the structure and see the areas where the force exceeds
the materials point of resistance.
As an example of the whole process, we present efforts obtained
from model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.
Linear static method under gravity loads and wind.
We can see from the model that the largest strain is always concentrate in the area of the upper joints between walls (Fig. 10).
Nonlinear static method, under the combination of gravity and
horizontal loads until collapse.
In the graphs, with the consecutive increases of load (load at
100%, 280%, 460% and 595%), there are consecutive increases
of the pressure in the construction (Figs. 1113).

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

393

Fig. 3. Model 3. Earth walls 40 cm thick with reeled braces in the corners on the top
oor (wooden beams 15 cm diameter at 1 m from the inside corner) Tiranta
aspada.

Fig. 5. Model 5. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams 15 cm in diameter at

the top of the walls with reinforced corners. Reinforced ring beams.

Fig. 4. Model 4. Earth walls 40 cm thick with wooden beams 15 cm in diameter at

the top of the walls. Ring beams.

Fig. 6. Model 6. Earth walls 40 cm thick with buttresses 80 cm long. Buttresses.

Dynamicseismic method.
Under earthquake conditions, there are clearly two types of
common failure in the soil based construction and that would lead
to the collapse of the building either by wall overturning failure or
other unstable elements: failure by bending and shear failure (see
failures at Section 1) (Fig. 14).

Worn out material usually comes from the top of the joints between the walls, and progressively worsen as load increases, thereby collapsing the wall in two directions, thickness and height. The
collapse of the wall occurs when the cracks penetrate the wall
completely and the walls become independent without lateral stability, so continuing to support loads will lead to collapse due to
overturning failure (Fig. 15).

4.2. Damage rate

From calculating forces, we have obtained the damage rate,
which allows us to check the areas where the material stops working because it has exceeded its resistance. This is especially interesting in the non-linear structural analysis, for a load combination
and with consecutive increase in loads we can analyze the damage
in each increase and its evolution. From this concept, we can develop two studies.
4.2.1. Evolution of damage according to increasing loads
We study the models response according to consecutive increases in loads, checking damage (areas and severity) that occurs
in the structure and its readjustment.
We will continue with the example model of paragraph 4. Efforts, 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces, under a combination of gravity loads and horizontal wind until the collapse of the
model.

Fig. 7. Model 7. Earth walls 40 cm thick with built-up inside corners. Increased
inside corners.

394

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

4.2.2. Analysis of the models until their collapse

With same combination and increases, the exact load that collapses each model can be compared.
100% is the usual maximum load in the life of the building,
increasing loads until they collapse, thereby obtaining the collapse
load for each model referenced in Table 2. With all the results and
using model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces as a reference, we can compare the overall response of each of the models.
This table gives a simple and direct comparison between the
models analyzed. They show the different performances, assessing
and quantifying their effectiveness and also graphics for a better
understanding (Table 2) (Figs. 16 and 17).
The houses with cracks in the area of the Manchuela, Spain
(which have served to dene the model) have been compared with
the respective structural models. Cracks were measured and collated with the results, matching in all cases (Fig. 18).
5. Results and discussion
See the section below where we proceed to discuss results and
make comparisons between existing buildings and bibliography.
5.1. Collapse in the earth constructions without bracings
In the calculated models 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without
braces and 1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces, regardless
of the load combinations and methods, it is possible to appreciate
that the greatest tension is found in the upper corners of the walls.
If these tensions are greater than the resistance of the material,
cracks will appear making walls independent and therefore starting the process of a building collapse due to lack of lateral stability
in the walls.
In the model 1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces, with a
50% thickness increase of the walls (4060 cm) we see a signicant
increase in global resistance of the structure. As expected, increasing the section of the material increases its resistance in these
areas and therefore the overall resistance of the structure. With regard to gravity loads this is the model with the highest resistance
due to being the model with more area in its resistant section. It
also increases resistance to horizontal forces and has a greater
inertia against lateral overturning.
Analyzing the damage rate in the consecutive increases of loads,
we observe that the crack starts at the top of the walls in the corners. From one side of the wall, the crack advances as specic sections of the wall buckle under the pressure, both transversely (wall
width) and vertically (wall height). Finally, if the load that made

Fig. 8. Model 8. Earth walls 40 cm thick with ashlars 80 cm long in the corners.
Ashlars in the corners.

Fig. 9. Model 9. Earth walls 40 cm thick with internal reinforcement made by reeds
6 cm in diameter every 40 cm vertically and horizontally. Reeds lattice.

both walls separate from each other continues, it causes the collapse of the structure.
This process corresponds to the usual failure of the soil based
construction mentioned in Section 1 due to low tensile strength
of earth.
5.2. Collapse in the earth constructions with braces
Each model of traditional brace brings different advantages and
disadvantages which are developed in this section. Not all models
solve the problem of joints between walls in the upper part by the
lack of tensile strength of the earth.
In the case of the following models 2. Wooden beams embedded,
3. Tiranta aspada, 4. Ring beams and 5. Reinforced ring beams
although the joints between the walls crack, separating the walls
from one another, the braces supply some reinforcement allowing
the walls to continue to work together, limiting the collapse due to
failure in the joints.
The models 2. Wooden beams embedded and 3. Tiranta aspada
produce a signicant increase in resistance against cracking at
the top of the corners due to the effect of being attached to each
other. As result, there is a redistribution of tension along the wooden strut, acting only at the joint between the walls. But in the case
of model 3. Reeled brace better results are produced due to it being
bound and braced.
In the models 4. Ring beams and 5. Reinforced ring beams, the
placement of a wooden beam attached to the top of the earth walls
ensures a greater join between the different walls and thus a better
structure overall. Moreover, the ring beam provides a better sharing and distribution of the loads. These solutions slightly increase
the resistance to gravity loads and are the ones that work best
against horizontal loads.
The 6. Buttresses model, despite increasing the inertia of the
walls, this does not solve the problem of bracing the walls because
of a awed joint, so weakness in the top of the joints between walls
continues.
The model 7. Increased inside corners, although constructed
simultaneously with the walls and working together with increased resistant section in corners, it does not solve the problem
of reinforcement between walls because of a awed joint. It just increases the resistant sections as in model 1B. Earth walls 60 cm
thick without braces.
In model 8. Ashlars in the corner, reinforced corners with ashlars
strengthen the joints between the walls due to the higher tensile

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

395

Fig. 10. Linear static method under gravity loads and wind. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

Fig. 11. Nonlinear static method, under the combination of gravity and horizontal loads until collapse X axis. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

Fig. 12. Nonlinear static method, under the combination of gravity and horizontal loads until collapse Y axis. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

and bending resistance of stone instead of an earth based material.

Stone is not a suitable material for tensile effort, so it could collapse too due to lack of proper bracing.
In model 9. Reeds lattice, the reeds have a high tensile and bending resistance. This solution, like a reinforced concrete wall, increases the resistance of the structure against horizontal loads
due to the horizontal and vertical bound, allowing each material
to perform the appropriate functions according to their
characteristics.

5.3. Comparison of models according to the damage rate until collapse

From Table 2. Collapse load and reference rate:
Under gravity loads, the table shows that all models are in the
same range of values, with models braced slightly above unity
due to their walls being 40 cm thick. Here we highlight model
1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces, with an increase of
20 cm thickness (50% thickness) increased by 25% the overall

396

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

Fig. 13. Nonlinear static method, under the combination of gravity and horizontal loads until collapse Z axis. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

Fig. 14. Dynamicseismic method. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

Fig. 15. Nonlinear static method, under the combination of gravity and horizontal loads until collapse. Damage rate. Model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces.

resistance of the structure against gravitational loads; the logical consequence of this being that earth walls are the elements
that transmit vertical loads. Therefore, increasing their thickness will increase the resistant area and hence its resistance
to these loads.
Under gravitational and horizontal loads (wind) we can see that
any bracing system substantially increases the overall resistance of the structure. While model 1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick

without braces increases the overall resistance by 39%, reinforcement with wooden struts increase the overall resistance to
these loads between 48% and 118% depending on the system.
Braces that one act at the corners considerably increase the
resistance. Model 2. Wooden beams embedded increases by 48%,
while model 3. Tiranta aspada has an increased resistance of 64%.
This implies that with the same materials that oor slabs are made

397

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

Table 2
Collapse load and reference rate.
Gravitational

1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick without braces

1B. Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces
2. Wooden beams embedded
3. Tiranta aspada
4. Ring beams
3. Reinforced ring beams
6. Buttresses
7. Increased inside comers
8. Ashlars in the corner
9. Reeds lattice

Gravitational and horizontal

Collapse load (%)

Reference rate (%)

Collapse load (%)

Reference rate (%)

600
750
600
600
640
685
600
600
660
600

100
125
100
100
107
114
100
100
110
100

280
390
415
460
610
610
325
305
595
595

100
139
148
164
218
218
116
109
213
213

Fig. 16. Collapse load.

Fig. 17. Reference rate.

of (wooden struts), intertwining the corners at the top, greatly increases the overall strength of the structure in comparison with the
same building without any kind of brace. Simply acting directly on
top of the joints between the walls, the areas where a usual bending failure would occur in an earth construction.
Models 4. Ring beams and 5. Reinforced ring beams double the
global resistance of the model without braces increasing by
118%. This is a result of monolithic structure and the redistribution

of pressure. Beams placed at the top of the walls (wooden beams of

the same characteristics and dimensions as oor slab beams) allow
the whole structure to work together in a more uniform distribution of weight throughout the structure and increasing its overall
strength.
Model 6. Buttresses minimally increases the overall strength by
16%. Despite the continuation of the walls with buttresses that increase the inertia, this model presents the same problems with the

Fig. 18. Concordance between buildings and calculation models.

398

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

joints between the different walls that also happens in the soil
based constructions without braces, so it does not increase its
overall strength. Buttresses can be interesting in long walls without intermediate reinforcement for avoiding overturning failure.
Model 7. Increased inside corners has a minimal increase in the
global resistance. It would be logical that increasing the resistant
section in the areas where collapse usually occurs (see model 1B.
Earth walls 60 cm thick without braces) would increase the overall
resistance. The problem with this solution is whether the increased
corner is attached to the wall or not. Creating the increased corner
after the walls were already built would cause them not to be
structurally sound and fulll their purpose. So in this construction
process, this model will work as model 1A. Earth walls 40 cm thick
without braces.
Model 8. Ashlars in the corner, replaces the earth from the corners with ashlars or rough stones. The increase of the tensile resistance of the stone, increases the global resistance of the structure.
Model 9. Reeds lattice, doubles the global resistance with an increase of 113%. Reeds, due to their high tensile and bending resistance, are responsible for supporting the tensile force in the
structure, working like steel bars in reinforced concrete, sewing
and absorbing the tensile stresses.

6. Conclusions
The soil based constructions, and in particular rammed earth
walls and adobe, are vulnerable to tensile forces which are derived
mainly from important horizontal external loads. This is accentuated in the case of earthquakes: earthquakes with 0.20 g acceleration can bring soil based constructions without braces to the brink
of a collapse; and these kinds of earthquakes are frequent in area of
high seismic activity where people continue to live and build earth
constructions.
The common failure of these buildings comes from the top of
the joint between walls, becoming independent, losing lateral stability and giving way to collapse.
Traditionally, bracing systems have been used with the aim of
reducing this problem, which becomes more or less important
depending on the characteristics of the building and weight to be
borne.
Two aspects of the braces which need to be checked are: correct
anchoring between the reinforcing element and the wall to prevent
slippage and separation that would otherwise not work together;
and in the case of wooden struts or reeds inside the walls, the control of the composition, density and thickness of the walls to prevent moisture inside and the possible rotting of the woodreed.
Among the models that act only in the corners, 2. Wooden beams
embedded and 3. Tiranta aspada, do not show big differences.
Although model 3. Tiranta aspada has more resistance and can be
controlled better due to the fact that it remains seen.
Models that act on the entire building, 4. Ring beams and 5. Reinforced ring beams, are the ones with the best performance. They act
on the whole structure and promote collaboration between all
walls and provide a better distribution of weight. It is necessary
to ensure that the joint between the wooden beams and the walls
is adequate therefore eliminating possible differential movement.
This solution is part of all seismic guidelines of soil based constructions being reinforced horizontally or vertically.
Model 9. Reeds lattice is highly resistant thanks to the reinforcing of the reeds; but rotting can be a problem if the problem of having moisture inside the walls is not solved. In addition, recent
studies have shown that the discontinuities generated in the earth
wall by the reeds, can be a problem too.
Model 8. Ashlars in the corner presents a good performance because of the higher tensile resistance of the stone than the earth.

Models 6. Buttresses and 7. Increased inside corners do not significantly improve global resistance of the structure.
Therefore we recommend using models 4. Ring beams and 5.
Reinforced ring beams as solutions for earth constructions.
As shown, the bracing of the walls signicantly increases their
ability to withstand horizontal loads by creating an adequate joint
between two walls. Braces are a necessity for global stability and
monolithic nature of the earth buildings, and is an essential security element in seismic areas.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to express their Gratitudes to: Adolfo Alonso
Dura, Ph.D. Architect, Professor of the University Institute of Heritage Restoration of the Polytechnic University of Valencia, for the
calculation program and his time.

References
[1] Dethier J. Down to earth: adobe architecture, an old idea, a new future, ruth
eaton, facts on le. New York; 1983.
[2] Easton D. The rammed earth house. White river Junction: Chelsea Green
Publishing Company; 1996.
[3] Lynne E, Adams C, et al. Alternative construction: contemporary natural
building methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons Inc.; 2000.
[4] McHenry Jr PG. Adobe and rammed earth buildings. New York: John Wiley &
sons Inc.; 1984.
[5] McHenry Jr PG. The adobe story. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico
Press; 2000.
[6] Minke G. Manual de construccin en tierra (Lehmbau-Handbuch). Editorial Fin
de Siglo; 2005.
[7] Oliver P. Earth as a building material today. Oxford Art J Arch 1983;5(2).
[8] Rael R. Earth architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 2009.
[9] Rodrguez MA, Saroza B. Determination of the optimum composition of adobe
brick for a school in Cuba. Mater de constr Abril-junio 2006;56:282.
[10] Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T. Investigation of bre reinforced mud brick as a
building material. Constr Build Mater 2005;19(4):3138.
[11] Degirmenci N. The using of waste phosphogypsum and natural gypsum in
adobe stabilization. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(6):12204.
[12] Galn-Marn C, Rivera-Gmez C, Petric J. Clay-based composite stabilized with
natural polymer and bre. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(8):14628.
[13] Hall M, Djerbib Y. Rammed earth sample production: context,
recommendations and consistency. Constr Build Mater 2004;18(4):2816.
[14] Hossain KMA, Mol L. Some engineering properties of stabilized clayey soils
incorporating natural pozzolans and industrial wastes. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(8):3495501.
[15] Muntohar AS. Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth
brick. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(11):421520.
[16] Turanli L, Saritas A. Strengthening the structural behavior of adobe walls
through the use of plaster reinforcement mesh. Constr Build Mater
2011;25(4):174752.
[17] Yetgin S, avdar , avdar A. The effects of the ber contents on the mechanic
properties of the adobes. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(3):2227.
[18] Barrionuevo R. Investigacin tecnolgica aplicada: domocaa. Informes de la
Construccin Julioseptiembre 2011;63:523.
[19] Blondet M, Garcia GV, Brzev S. Earthquake-resistant construction of adobe
buildings. EERI/IAEE world housing encyclopedia; 2003.
[20] Brzev S, Tomazevic M, Lutman M, Bostenaru Dan M, D Ayala D, Greene M. The
world housing encyclopedia: an online resource on housing construction in
high seismic risk areas of the world. <www.world-housing.net>.
[21] Dowling D. Adobe housing in El Salvador: earthquake performance and
seismic improvement. In: Rose WI, Bommer JJ, Lpez DL, Carr MJ, Major JJ,
editors. Natural hazards in El Salvador. Geological Society of America; 2004.
[22] Dowling D. Improved adobe mudbrick in application child-care centre
construction in El Salvador. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Vancouver, Canada, Paper 705; August, 2004.
[23] Maz Equipo. La casa de adobe sismorresistente. El Salvador: Asociacin
Equipo Maz; 2001.
[24] Flores L, Pacheco M, Reyes C. Algunos estudios sobre el comportamiento y
rehabilitacin de la vivienda rural de adobe. Mxico: CENAPRED (Centro
Nacional de Prevencin de Desastres), Informe IEG/03/01; 2001.
[25] IAEE (International Association for Earthquake Engineering). Guidelines for
earthquake resistant non-engineered construction, Tokyo: IAEE; 1986.
[26] Murty CVR, Charleson AW. Using the world housing encyclopedia to improve
house earthquake safety. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Beijing, China; October, 2008.
[27] Prez A. Manual tcnica para la produccin y construccin con adobe
natural. Cuba: Habitat; 2001.

Q. Angulo-Ibez et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 389399

[28] Roselund N. Buttresses, pilasters and adobe wall stability, workshop on the
seismic retrot of historic adobe buildings: earthen building technologies.
California; 1995.
[29] Woodward B. Mudbrick notes. 2nd ed. Wollombi, Australia: Earthways; 1996.
[30] Borri A, Castori G, Grazini A. Retrotting of masonry building with reinforced
masonry ring-beam. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(5):1892901.
[31] Adell JM. La fbrica armada. Madrid: Munilla-Lera; 2000.
[32] Adell JM, Bustamante R, Dvila D. La vivienda de adobe sismorresistente con el
Sistema de Albailera Integral. Seminario Internacional SismoAdobe, Lima,
Per; 2005.
[33] Adell JM, Lauret B. El sistema de albailera integral AllWall con BHH/BLOC+.
Informes de la Construccin 2005;57:495.
[34] Adell JM, Bustamante R, Garca Santos B, Lauret S. The integral masonry system
with earth-based materials: rubble based earthquake resistant at construction.
In: Proceedings of international symposium on earthern structures, Bangalore,
India; 2007.
[35] Blondet M, Torrealva D, Villa Garca G, Ginocchio F, Madueo I. Reforzamiento
de construcciones de adobe con elementos producidos industrialmente:
estudio preliminar, PUCP, Lima, Per; 2004.
[36] Orta B, Adell JM, Bustamante R, Garca A, Vega S. Ensayo en lima (Per) de
edicio de adobe sismorresistente construido con el sistema de albailera
integral. Informes de la Construccin 2009;61:515.
[37] Blondet M, Torrealva D, Villa-Garcia G, Ginocchio Fy Madueno I. Uso de
materiales industriales para la construccin de viviendas seguras de adobe.
Memorias del congreso internacional earthbuild 2005, NSW: faculty of design,
architecture and building, University of Technology, Sydney; 2005.
[38] Blondet M, Vargas J, Tarque N, Velasquez J. Experimental study of synthetic
mesh reinforcement of historical adobe buildings, vol 2. SAHC2006, Macmillan
India Ltd., New Delhi; 2006.
[39] Blondet M, Aguilar R. Seismic protection of earthen buildings. Conferencia
internacional de ingeniera ssmica, Lima, Per, Agosto; 2007.
[40] Blondet M, Vargas J, Tarque N. Available low-cost technologies tos improve the
seismic performance of earthen houses in developing countries. In: The 14th
world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China; October, 2008.
[41] Blondet M, Vargas J, Patron P, Stanojevich M, Rubios A. A human
development approach for the construction of safe and healthy adobe
houses in seismic areas. In: Kerpic08 learning from earthen architecture in
climate change international conference, Paper code 45, Cyprus International
University, Lefkosa; September 2008.
[42] Blondet M, Vargas J, Tarque N, Iwaki C. Construccin sismorresistente en
tierra: la gran experiencia contempornea de la ponticia universidad catlica
del per (seismic resistant earthen construction: the contemporary experience
at the ponticia universidad catlica del per). Informes de la Construccin
Julioseptiembre 2011;63:523.
[43] Torrealva D, Acero J. Refuerzo ssmico de vivienda de adobe con malla exterior
compatible. Memorias del seminario internacional de arquitectura,
construccin y conservacin de edicaciones en tierra en reas ssmicas,
SismoAdobe, PUCP, Lima, Per; 2005.
[44] Zegarra L, Quiun D, San Bartolom A, Giesecke A. Reforzamiento de viviendas
de adobe existentes. Primera parte: ensayos ssmicos de muros u. Memorias
del XI congreso nacional de ingeniera civil, Colegio de Ingenieros del Per,
Trujillo; 1997.
[45] Zegarra L, Quiun D, San Bartolom A, Giesecke A. Reforzamiento de viviendas
de adobe existentes. Segunda parte: ensayos ssmicos de mdulos. Memorias
del XI congreso nacional de ingeniera civil, Colegio de Ingenieros del Per,
Trujillo; 1997.
[46] Zegarra L, Quiun D, San Bartolom A, Giesecke A, Reforzamiento de viviendas
existentes de adobe. proyecto centro regional de sismologa para amrica del
sur (CERESIS) cooperacin alemana al desarrollo (GTZ) ponticia
universidad catolica del peru (PUCP). Memorias del XII congreso nacional de
ingeniera civil, Colegio de Ingenieros del Peru, Huanuco; 1999.
[47] Zegarra L, Quiun D, San Bartolom A. Comportamiento ante el terremoto del
23-06-2001 de las viviendas de adobe reforzadas en moquegua, tacna y arica.

[48]
[49]

[50]
[51]

[52]
[53]
[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]

[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]

399

Memorias del XIII congreso nacional de ingeniera civil, Colegio de Ingenieros

del Per, Puno; 2001.
Borri A, Castori G, Corradi M. Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened
by high strength steel cords. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):494503.
Faella C, Martinelli E, Nigro E, Paciello S. Shear capacity of masonry walls
externally strengthened by a cement-based composite material: an
experimental campaign. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(1):8493.
Luccioni B, Rougier VC. In-plane retrotting of masonry panels with bre
reinforced composite materials. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(4):177288.
Papanicolaou C, Triantallou T, Lekka M. Externally bonded grids as
strengthening and seismic retrotting materials of masonry panels. Constr
Build Mater 2011;25(2):50414.
Priestley MJN, Seible F. Design of seismic retrot measures for concrete and
masonry structures. Constr Build Mater December 1995;9(6):36577.
Su Y, Wu C, Griffth MC. Modelling of the bondslip behavior in FRP reinforced
masonry. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(1):32834.
Willis CR, Yang Q, Seracino R, Grifth MC. Damaged masonry walls in two-way
bending retrotted with vertical FRP strips. Constr Build Mater
2009;23(4):1591604.
Alonso Dur A. Un modelo de integracin del anlisis estructural en entornos
de cad para estructuras de edicacin. Doctoral thesis. Department of
continuum mechanics and structural theory, school of architecture,
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia; Diciembre, 2003.
De Mazarredo Aznar L. Calibrado de modelo de dao escalar con ensayos
experimentales aplicado a materiales friccionales. Research paper of
department of continuum mechanics and structural theory. School of
Architecture, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia; Septiembre, 2011.
Hanganu AD, Barbat AH, Oate E. Metodologa de evaluacin del deterioro en
estructuras de hormign armado. Monografa CIMNE n 39, Julio; 1997.
Oliver J. Modelado de la suracin en estructuras de hormign. Monografa
CIMNE, n 15, Enero; 1993.
Oller S. Modelizacin numrica de materiales friccionales. Monografa CIMNE
n 3, Enero; 1991.
Oller S. Fractura mecnica. Un enfoque global, CIMNE, Barcelona; 2001.
Oate E, Hanganu A, Barbat A, et al. Structural analysis and durability
assessment of historical construction using a nite element damage model.
CIMNE, Barcelona; 1996.
Rauch M, Kapnger O. Rammed earth (lehm un architektur). Basel: Birkhauser;
2001.
Bauluz G, Barcena P. Bases para el diseo y construccin con
tapial. Madrid: Ministerio de Obras Pblicas y Transportes; 1992.
Normativa de construccion con tierra neozelandesa NZ 4297;1998.
Font F, Hidalgo P. Arquitecturas de tapia. Castelln: Collegi Ocial
dAparelladors i Arquitectes Tcnics de Castell; 2010.
Walker P, Keable R, Martin J, Maniatidis V. Rammed earth, design and
construction guidelines. BRE Bookshop; 2005.
Guigou C. La tierra como material de construccin. Colegio Ocial de
arquitectos de Canarias; 2002.
Hidalgo O. Bamb, el regalo de los dioses. Bamboscar2@007mundo.com,
Bogota.
Moromi IN. Informe de la investigacin de propiedades del bamb.
Kumar A. Bamboo for sustainable development. In: INBAR Proceedings n 7,
Netherlands; 2002.
Regueiro y Gonzles-Barros M. Conferencia sobre normativa tcnica de piedra
natural. Instituto Geolgico y Minero de Espaa. <www.imeg.es>.
Cdigo tcnico de la edicacin. Documento bsico de seguridad estructural
acciones de la edicacin.
NCSE-02, Norma de construccin sismorresistente: parte general y edicacin.
Villanueva J, Arte de Albailera. Ocina de don francisco martnez dvila.
Madrid; 1827.
Getty Trust JP. In: Proceedings of the getty seismic adobe project 2006
colloquium. Getty Center, Los Angeles; 1113 April, 2006.