Assessment of the Suitability of Some Lateritic Soils

for the Production of Compressed Stabilised Earth

Blocks in Nigeria
Emeso Beckley Ojo1

Danladi Slim Matawal2

Adamu Isah Katagum3

Nigerian Building and Road Research

Institute, Abuja Nigeria
eojo@nbrri.gov.ng

Nigerian Building and Road Research

Institute, Abuja Nigeria
dsmatawal@yahoo.com

Nigerian Building and Road

Research Institute, Abuja Nigeria

ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to ascertain the suitability
of laterit ic soils within Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria
for earth block production. Test pieces were produced at
varying cement contents and performance characteristics
determined; comp ressive strength, density and water
absorption. The results show that only one soil satisfied
the suitability requirements with regards to particle size
distribution and plasticity. Consequently, the soils
required various levels of stabilization to meet the
requirements for co mpressive strength and durability.
This implies laboratory testing of soils is pertinent to
determine optimu m stabilizat ion content prior to
production of blocks.
Keywords- Co mpressed Stabilised Earth blocks, laterites,
compressive strength, water absorption, particle size
distribution, plasticity.

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent times, there has been resurgence of earth
construction due to growing environmental concerns.
Findings fro m several studies have shown that earth
construction has the potentials of addressing the provision
of affo rdable houses especially in developing
countries(Didel, Matawal, & Ojo, 2014; Zami & Lee,
2011). Provision of housing has continued to be a global
challenge as a result of the exponential growth of
population, low Gross National Product and consequent
reduced purchasing power of the midd le/low inco me
earners in these countries (Aru mala&Gondal, 2007). The
scarcity and /or high cost of conventional build ing
materials have further exacerbated the situation.T his has
led to various researches into development of locally
available building materials and construction techniques
to enhance access to housing for all.
The use of Co mpressed Stabilised Earth Blocks as a
walling material is a sustainable construction technique as
it is affordable, durable and accessible. However, it has
been observed that there is an apparent apathy towards its
use in developing countries due to lack of knowledge
about its physical and socio-economic properties. A 2013

survey on the usage of earth blocks in Nigeria conducted

by two organisations: Growth and Emp loy ment in States
(GEM S) and the German Society for International
Cooperation (GIZ) revealed that one of the major factors
resulting in the poor patronage of earth blocks in Nigeria
is the scarcity of data on the properties of the blocks.
When compared with alternatives such as fired brick and
sandcrete blocks, CSEBs offers lower construction costs
at comparable quality, is suitable for a wide range of
environments, and dramatically reduces the impact on the
environment (Riza, Rah man, &Zaidi, 2011). Other
advantages include: it ensures the use of locally available
construction materials thereby reducing transportation
costs; ensures the availability of quality and affordable
housing for a wider population; creates job opportunities
as the technology requires semi s killed labour which are
easily transferable to locals; it generates local revenue as
the materials and labour are sourced locally; and it is more
energy efficient considering its lower embodied energy.
CSEBs have very good insulation and thermal properties
and also possess the ability to absorb atmospheric
mo isture resulting in a healthier environment fo r the
occupants (Riza et al., 2011)
However, there are guidelines which determine the
effective p roduction and use of earth blocks. The first and
most important step in CSEB technology is the
identification of suitable soil for b lock production and the
availability in the required quantity. Soil suitability is best
ascertained by laboratory techniques but field
identification techniques can be very useful in the absence
of a laboratory. In Nigeria, laterites are typically used for
the production of CSEBs as a result of its abundance in
most parts of the country. They are residual soils which
are rich in iron o xide and are usually formed fro m the
weathering of rock under strong oxidizing and leaching
conditions typically in tropical areas (North more,
Culshaw, Hobbs, Hallam & Entwisle, 1982). Previous
studies have shown that CSEBs produced fro m laterites
obtained from the southwestern part of the country did not
meet the minimu m seven day dry compressive strength of
1.60 N/ mm2 as specified in the Nigerian Building Code
(Raheem, Falola, &Adeyeye, 2012).
The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the
suitability of some laterites collected within the Federal
Capital Territory (F.C.T) Abuja for the production of
compressed stabilized earth blocks with a view to
promoting co mpressed earth block building construction

as a tool fo r sustainable development for affordable

housing.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Representative soils were ext racted fro m identified laterite
borrow pits in various locations within the F.C.T. Table 1
presents the coordinates of the locations and the
designations for the soil samp les collected fro m these
locations.

of water to ensure a ho mogenous mix. The Nigerian

Building code (2012) specifies a min imu m co mpression
of 3N/ mm2 for co mpressed stabilised earth blocks.
Co mpression of the blocks was carried out through
dynamic co mpaction in a p roctor mould. Sixty Eight(68)
blows of the 4.5kg rammer falling fro m a height of
450mm, were applied on three layers in order to achieve a
compactive effort of 4N/mm2 based on the equation below

Table 1 Location of soil s amples

Location

Coordinates

Kurunduma
(KRD)
Bombo
(BMB)
Anagada
(ANA)
Games Village
(GVL)
Kuje
(KUJ)

N 090037.6E 0073158.5
N 091043.6E 0072238.5
N 090125.40E 0071042.74
N 090019.4E 0072545.3
N 085225.8E 0071349.8

Figure 1 Sample of test piece

The samples obtained were first tested to determine their
basic geotechnical properties for the purpose of
identifying and classifying the soils. The samples were
tested in accordance with BS 1377:1990. The tests
conducted were as follows: natural mo isture content,
particle density, atterberg limits, particle size distribution
and compaction. The results of the preliminary testing of
soils are presented in Table 2.

2.1 Production of Test Pieces

The test pieces were produced in the laboratory following
the guidelines specified in the GTZ Manual of production
of compressed earth blocks (Rigassi, 1995). Researchers
have shown that laboratory evaluation of CSEBs also
provides reliable data on material perfo rmance (Maskell,
Heath & Walker, 2013). Their results showed a minimal
variation between s mall scale bricks produced in a
laboratory and full scale bricks.
Sample p reparation co mprised of manual grinding to
pulverise the big lu mps in order to disintegrate particles
held up by clay. Screening was performed by passing the
material through the 20mm sieve size to remove particles
which were too coarse. The materials required (cement,
soil and water) were calculated and measured out as dry
weights. The blocks were produced at water contents
which were 95% of the Optimu m Moisture Content
(O.M .C) obtained fro m the light compaction tests. Blocks
were produced with vary ing cement contents: 0%, 3%,
5%, 6.5% and 8% dry weight of soil. Mixing of the dry
materials was first carried out before the gradual addition

The blocks were cured by sprinkling twice a day and

kept in a hot humid environ ment by covering them with
black p lastic sheets for a seven day period. After the
curing period, the test pieces were p laced in an oven at
60C over a 48hr period. Samp le weights were taken at
intervals until the difference between successive weights
was less than 0.1%.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance characteristics of CSEBs as walling
materials were determined with respect to its compressive
strength, water absorption (i.e durability) and density. The
results are discussed below:

3.1 Effect of Ce ment Content on Compressive

Strength
The compressive strength of CSEB (as is the case with
other masonry units) is the most universally accepted
parameter fo r determining the quality of the unit (Morel,
Pkla, & Walker, 2005). This parameter is primarily
dependent on the nature of the s oil and quantity/type of
stabiliser used. Other factors may include type of
compaction and compaction pressure. Past studies have
shown that optimu m cement content for stabilisation is
between 5% 10%, with cement contents above 10%
having negative impact on the block (Riza et al, 2011).

Table 2 Geotechnical Properties of soil

LOCATION

KRD

BMB

ANA

GVL

KUJ

MOISTURE CONTENT (% )

15.22

15.51

13.05

5.93

12.27

Gravel

14

Sand

38

34

51

41

60

Silt

14

28

28

17

28

Clay

34

32

16

28

10

Liquid Limit

41.2

41.4

28.8

44.2

45.6

Plastic Limit

29.7

31.2

16.9

32.5

NP

Linear Shrinkage

8.05

8.49

7.19

9.07

4.8

Plasticity Index

11.6

10.6

11.9

11.7

--

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

2.46

2.49

2.48

2.61

2.60

MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (Mg/m3 )

1.72

1.72

1.83

1.77

1.69

OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (% )

18.5

18.7

13.8

16.5

17.8

SOIL CLASSIFICATION (USCS)

ML

ML

SC

SM

SM

PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION

ATTERB ERG
LIMITS (% )

For this study, the effect of cement content on dry and wet
compressive strength was determined and the results are
presented.
3.1.1 Dry Compressive Strength
Figure 2 presents a plot of dry co mpressive strength
against cement content for the five samples. The plot
shows an overall increase of compressive strength with
increasing cement content. Results fro m past research
works have often shown a strong, mostly linear,
correlation between co mpressive strength and cement
content (Morel et al., 2005).
The plot shows an almost linear relat ionship between
compressive strength and cement content for all the soils
except for Games Village (GVL) soils wh ich peaked at
6.5% cement content and began to drop. The test pieces
produced from soils fro m Anagada and Games village had
the highest compressive strengths and ranged from 1.84 7.66 N/ mm2 and 1.14 7.57N/ mm2 respectively. However,
optimu m cement content was observed at 6.5% for Games
Village and 8% for Anagada soil samples. On the other
hand, the test pieces produced from the soils fro m Kuje
had the lowest maximu m co mpressive strength (3
N/mm2 )..

Figure 2 Variation of dry compressive strength with

cement content

Typically, CSEBs are produced at 5% cement content.

According to the Nigerian Build ing code, min imu m
compressive strength at seven days should not be less than
1.6 N/ mm2 . At 5% cement content, all the co mpressive
strengths were above 1.6 N/ mm2. The compressive
strengths ranged from 2.65 - 5.52 N/ mm2 . At 3% cement
content, all the test pieces had also exceeded this
recommended characteristic strength of 1.60 N/ mm2 with
the exception of Bo mbo soils. This would suggest that at
the specified co mpactive effort (4N/ mm2 ), cement content
may be as low as 3% by weight for these soils.

cylinders disintegrated within the 24hr immersion prior to

the test.
Depending on soil properties and cement content, the wet
compressive strength of CSEBs is typically around 50%
of that measured under dry conditions (Walker, 1995).
Figure 4 presents the wet to dry co mpressive strength
ratio for the soils at the varying cement contents.
The wet to dry co mpressive strength ratios ranged from
0.3 to 0.55 over the range of cement content with the
ratios peaking at 6.5% cement content.

3.1.2 Wet Compressive Strength

For most investigations, the wet compressive strength is
also determined. The determination of compressive
strength in the wet condition gives the strength
characteristic at its weakest condition (Riza et al., 2011).
To determine the wet co mpressive strength, the test pieces
were immersed fully in water fo r 24hrs before
determining their load at failure. This testing procedure
allo ws min imu m strength to be determined under easily
controlled and replicable moisture conditions, though
these represent conditions unlikely to be experienced in
practice (Morel et al., 2005).

Figure 4 Wet to dry compressive strength ratio

3.2 Density

Figure 3 Variation of wet compressive strength with

cement content
As observed in the dry compressive strength tests,
cylinders produced fro m the Games village and Anagada
soils had the highest wet compressive strength (4N/ mm2 )
with Ku je soils having the lowest compressive strength
(1.5N/ mm2 ). A lso, there was an observed increase in
compressive strength with increase in cement content
within the range of cement content tested for all the
cylinders except for games village where co mpressive
strength dropped at 6.5%. At 5% cement content, wet
compressive strength for all the samples ranged between
1.41-2.47N/ mm2 . The wet co mpressive strength could not
be determined for 0% cement stabilisation, as the

The bulk density of a soil is the mass per unit volu me of

the soil sample including its water content. The density of
the laterite blocks is therefore a measure of the
effectiveness of the compression of the sample. The
density was determined using the linear measurement
method since the test pieces had a regular geometric
shape. The density of CSEBs is typically within the range
of 1500 2000kg/m3 (Riza et al., 2011). Figure 5 presents
a plot of the varying densities of the cylinders produced
fro m soils fro m the five locations at varying cement
contents. As with comp ressive strength, the Anagada and
Games village soils had the highest densities: 1938kg/ m3
at 5% and 1889kg/m3 at 6.5% cement contents
respectively. The lowest density observed was 1610 kg/ m3
(Bo mbo at 0%). Hence, all samples fell within the typical
range of densities. There was an observed reduction in
densities at cement content above 5% for Anagada,
Games village and Kuje soils.
The dry density of CSEBs is largely dependent on the soil
properties, moisture content during co mpression and
degree of co mpactive effort (Riza et al., 2011). The soils
were co mpacted at moisture contents within the range of
the OMC obtained from the proctor compaction test.
Results from the proctor compaction test show Anagada

soils had the lowest OMC (13.8%) as presented in Table 2

while the soils fro m Ku runduma and Bo mbo had the
highest OMC (18.5% & 18.7% respectively). Fro m the
plot it can be observed that the cylinders produced from
these soils (Bo mbo and Kurunduma) had the lowest
densities. According to Bahar (2004), optimu m mo isture
content range between 10 to 13% for static compaction.

As can be observed fro m the plot, a significant correlat ion

exists between the compressive strengths and densities for
all the cylinders produced. This implies that given
sufficient data, the compressive strength can be modelled
on site for a known density without having to crush the
samples. Also, it imp lies that prior to production of b locks
on the site, the densities and compressive strengths of
prototype blocks can be determined in the laboratory.
Hence, for a given co mpactive effort, the quantity of
material can be weighed out and placed in a mould to
achieve a specified density.

3.3 Water Absorption

Figure 5 Variation of density with cement content

Co mmonly, most researchers have related the densities of
CSEBs to their comp ressive strengths. It has been
recorded that the compressive strength of individual
blocks consistently increases as dry density increases
(Houben&Guillaud, 1994). Figure 7 shows a correlat ion
plot between compressive strength and density from test
data obtained from this investigation.

The major drawbac k on the use of earth as masonry

blocks is its high water absorption characteristics which
affect the overall performance of the blocks in terms of
durability. Hence, the addition of cement to earth masonry
is basically to improve its strength properties and reduce
the rate of water absorption. Water absorption is a
function of clay content and high rate of water absorption
results in swelling of clay fract ions which leads to a loss
of strength over time. The blocks were fully immersed for
24hrs and the percentage increase in weight was
determined as the water absorption. This method of total
immersion depicts the worst condition of exposure to
water
Figure 7 presents a plot of water absorption against
cement content for the cylinders produced for all the soils.
A general reduction of water absorption can be observed
for all soils with increasing cement content. According to
the standard, maximu m water absorption for masonry
units should be 12%.

Figure 7 Variation of water absorption with cement

content
Figure 6 Correlation plot of compressive strength against
density

As observed in Figure 7, the cylinders produced from soil

samples fro m Anagada and Games village had the lowest

rates of water absorption (9.5 12.6%) over the range of

cement content tested. Bo mbo had the highest water
absorption at 18%. At 5% cement s tabilisation, three soils
(Anagada, Games village and Ku je) fell below the
recommended maximu m value of 12% for masonry units.
The water absorption could not be determined fo r 0%
cement stabilisation, as the cylinders disintegrated during
the 24hr period of the test.

3.4 Suitability of soils

A major factor affect ing the performance of CSEBs is the
selection of suitable soils for use. The suitability of soils
depends on its gravel, sands, silts and clay portions.
Determining the proportions of each fraction gives an
indication of the suitability of the soil. As specified in
Rigassi (1995), the manual reco mmends the following
proportions for each fraction:
Gravels: 0-40%
Sands: 25-80%
Silts:10-25%
Clays: 8-30%
Figure 8 shows the particle size d istribution for the five
soil samples. The thicker lines indicate the boundaries for
suitable soils as recommended in the ARS 680:1996
(Co mpressed Earth Blocks Code of Practice for the
Production of Compressed Earth Blocks).
Fro m the figure, it can be observed that three soil samples
fell within the envelope (Anagada, Games village and
Kuje soil samples).

Figure 8 Particle size distribution curves for soil samples

Similarly, the plasticity of the soil is expected to fall

within the limits of the shaded area as recommended in
ARS 680:1996. Figure 9 presents a plot of the plasticity
index and liquid limit fo r the soil samples. As can be
observed, only one soil sample fell within the boundaries 4.
of the shaded portion as recommended in ARS 680:1996.

Figure 9 Plasticity plot of samples

According to Riza et al (2011), the reco mmended

plasticity index for suitable soils should fall within the
range of 15 25%. The soils under investigation had
Plasticity Indices with in the range of 10.6 11.9 % while
one of the soils (Kuje So ils) was found to be non- plastic.
This indicates that these soils fall with in the
recommended range of P.I but have higher liquid limits.
Test pieces produced fro m soils fro m Anagada and games
village had the highest maximu m co mpressive strengths
(7.66N/ mm2 and 7.57N/ mm2 respectively). Both of the
soils satisfied the requirements for particle size
distribution but only the Anagada soils satisfied the
requirements for plasticity. Although the Kuje soils
satisfied the requirements for particle size d istribution,
these soils were non-plastic and therefore recorded the
lowest maximu m comp ressive strength of 3N/ mm2 . In
terms of clay content, the percentage clay content for
Bo mbo and Kurunduma soils exceeded the recommended
limit of 30%. Hence, maximu m co mpressive strength for
both soils was observed at about 6N/mm2 .
With regards to water absorption, although the cylinders
produced from Anagada had the lowest rates of water
absorption, cylinders produced from Kuje and games
village soils performed just as satisfactorily. These three
soils satisfied the requirements for particle size
distribution, but only Anagada soils satisfied the
requirements for plasticity. This would suggest that the
envelope for plasticity may need to be adjusted to include
soils with higher liquid limits. Fro m this investigation, it
can be concluded that the two distinct properties of soils
which govern their suitability for use as CSEBs are the
particle size distribution as well as plasticity index.

CONCLUSION
Fro m the investigation
conclusions can be drawn:

conducted,

the

following

 In selecting suitable soils for use in CSEB

production, recommended guidelines have been
proposed with regards to particle size
distribution and plasticity. However, results
fro m this investigation show that soils which
meet the particle size distribution requirements
and fall within a range of plasticity index can
still g ive satisfactory results. Hence, it may be
necessary to conduct laboratory tests on soils
prior to CSEB production to determine
suitability of soils in order to ascertain optimu m
cement stabilisation especially for large
projects.
Past studies have shown that increase in cement
content typically results in an increase in
compressive strength. This linear relationship
was observed for all the soils tested over the
stabilization range (i.e 0 8 %). However, this
linear relat ionship trend was not observed in
one of the soils as the compressive strength
reduced after 6.5% cement stabilisation
At 3% cement content, all the compressive
strength values for the test pieces exceeded the
minimu m value of 1.6N/ mm2 as specified in the
Nigerian Building code. Th is may be attributed
to the type of co mpression used i.e dynamic
compaction as co mpared to static co mpaction.
Also compactive effort of 4N/ mm2 was applied
during compression as the Building code
recommends a minimu m of 3N/ mm2 . This may
suggest at a lower cement content, blocks of
higher comp ressive strengths maybe produced if

dynamic co mpaction is used at a higher

compactive effort.
With regards to durability, some soils may
require mo re than 5% cement stabilisation to
meet the maximu m requirement of 12% water
absorption while others may require lower than
5% cement stabilization. Hence, as stated
earlier, it is imperative to conduct preliminary
tests on soils prior to block production to
ascertain the optimu m cement stabilization as
Durability/Water absorption is a critical
property that should be determined in the
production of CSEBs to ensure optimu m
performance of the walling material throughout
its service life.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support for
the execution of this study from the Nigerian Building and
Road Research Institute.

[6]

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Arumala, J.O. & Gondal, T. (2007) Co mpressed

Earth Bu ild ing Blocks for A ffordable Housing.
The Construction and Building Research
Conference of the Royal Chartered Institute of
Surveyors. Atlanta U.S.A
BS 1377: (1990). Methods of Testing Soils for
Civil Engineering Purposes. British Standards
Institute (BSI).
Didel M.J., Matawal D.S. & Ojo E.B. (2014).
Co mparative Cost Analysis of Compressed
Stabilised Earth Blocks and Sandcrete Blocks in
Affordable Housing Delivery in Nigeria.
Proceedings of International Housing Summit on
Achieving Affordable Housing in Nigeria.Abuja
Nigeria
Heathcote, K.A. (1995). Durability of Eart wall
Buildings.Construction
and
Build ing
Materials.9(3). 185-189
Herzog, A. and Mitchell, J.K., 1963. React ions
accompanying stabilization of clay with cement.
Highway Research Board Rec., 36: 146-171.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

Houben, H. and Gu illaud, H.(1994) Earth

construction: a co mprehensive guide, IT
Publications, London
Madedor, A.O. (1992). The Impact of Bu ild ing
Material Research on Low Cost Housing
Develop ment in Nigeria. Engineering Focus.4(2) p
37-41
Maskell, D., Heath, A. and Walker, P. (2013)
Laboratory scale testing of ext ruded earth masonry
uni
Matawal, D.S. (2012). Defo rmation of soils:
Settlement,
Consolidation
and
Ground
Improvement Techniques. 1st ed. Cephas and
Clems Nigeria Ltd.Abuja
Morel, J.C., Pkla, A., & Walker, P. (2005)
Co mpressive Strength Testing of Co mpressed
Earth Blocks.
Construction and Building
Materials, 21(2) p303-309
Nigerian Nat ional Building Code (2006).Bu ild ing
Regulations. LexisNexis Butterworths
Northmo re, K.J., Culshaw, M.G., Hobbs, P.R.N.,
Hallam, J.R., &Entwisle, D.C. (1992). Engineering
Geology of Tropical Red Clays: Su mmary
Findings and their Applications for Engineering
Purposes.British Geological Survey Technical
Report. WN.93/1

[13]

[14]
[15]

[16]

[17]

Raheem, A.A., Falo la, O.O., & Adeyeye, J.K.

(2012).Production and Testing of Lateritic
Interlocking Blocks. Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries. 17(1) p 33-48
Rigassi, V. (1995).Co mpressed Earth Blocks :
Manual of Production. Vol 1.CRATerre-EA G
Riza F.V, Rah man I.A &Zaidi A.M.A
(2011).Preliminary
Study
of
Co mpressed
Stabilized Earth Brick.Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences 5(9): 6-12
UN-Hab itat.(2009). Interlocking Stabilised Soil
Blocks Appropriate earth technologies in
Uganda .Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
Walker, P. (1995). St rength, durability and
Shrin kage Characteristics of Cement Stabilised
Soil Blocks.Cement and Concrete Composites
17(4) p 301-310