Construction

and Building

MATERIALS

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Compressive strength testing of compressed earth blocks

Jean-Claude Morel a, Abalo Pkla a, Peter Walker
a

b,*

Departement Genie Civil et Batiment, URA 1652 CNRS, Ecole Nationale des Travaux Publics de l Etat,
Rue Maurice Audin, 69518 Vaulx en Velin cedex, France
b
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Received 22 April 2004; received in revised form 15 August 2005; accepted 18 August 2005
Available online 11 October 2005

Abstract
As with other masonry units, compressive strength is a basic measure of quality for compressed earth blocks. However, as compressed
earth blocks are produced in a great variety of sizes the inuence of block geometry on measured strength, primarily through platen
restraint eects, must be taken into account. The paper outlines current methodologies used to determine compressive strength of compressed earth blocks, including direct testing, the RILEM test and indirect exural strength testing. The inuence of block geometry
(aspect ratio), test procedure and basic material parameters (dry density, cement content, moisture content) are also discussed. Proposals
for the future development of compressive strength testing of compressed earth blocks are outlined.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Compressive strength testing; Compressed earth blocks; Aspect ratio

1. Introduction
Plain masonry elements, such as loadbearing walls, arches and vaults, have developed to take advantage of the
materials relatively high compressive strength. The capacity of masonry in compression is strongly related to the
compressive strength of the masonry units (stone, brick,
and block), as well as mortar strength, bonding pattern
and many other factors. Though other parameters, such
as density, frost resistance and water absorption, may be
specied in design, compressive strength has become a basic and universally accepted unit of measurement to specify
the quality of masonry units. The relative ease of undertaking laboratory compressive strength testing has also contributed to its universality as an expression of material
quality.
For many centuries hand moulded unburnt mud blocks,
adobes, have been used for loadbearing masonry structures. Though adobes are most used for lightly loaded sin-

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1225 386646; fax: +44 1225 386691.
E-mail address: p.walker@bath.ac.uk (P. Walker).

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.021

gle and two-storey residential building, adobes have also

been used to construct 10-storey high buildings in Yemen
[1]. Over the past fty years compressed earth blocks have
developed and been increasingly used, especially in developing countries such as Mayotte [2,3]. In context of this
study, earth is a clayey soil with variable quantity and quality of clay depending on the building site. The clay fraction
is generally less than in earth used for adobe blocks, and is
typically less than 25% of dry mass. Considerable variations in the composition of earth makes the measurement
of compressive strength, and other physical characteristics,
of compressed earth blocks an important quality control
measure for manufacturers and builders.
Compaction of moist soil, often combined with 410%
cement stabilisation, signicantly improves compressive
strength and water resistance in comparison with traditional adobe blocks. Dimensional stability and tolerances
are also much improved, allowing construction procedures
similar to red clay and concrete block masonry, rather
than the wet hand moulded method generally used for
adobe.
Quality control strength testing of compressed earth
blocks has often followed procedures developed for red

304

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

clay and concrete block units [4]. However, the suitability of these procedures has largely not been checked by
scientic study. The compressive strength of compressed
earth blocks can be many times lower than similar red
bricks. Resistance is also signicantly inuenced by moisture content.
Previous studies have reported on the compressive
strength characteristics of compressed earth blocks [513].
Strength is improved by compactive eort (density) and cement content (generally linear correlation), but reduced by
increasing moisture content and clay content (cement stabilised blocks). National and international standards have
also developed for compressed earth block test procedures
[4,1416]. However, unlike other masonry units, there is little general consensus on test procedure for compressed
earth blocks. Should blocks be tested wet or dry? How
should dimensional eects, such as aspect ratio, and platen
restraint be taken into account?
This paper reviews the current situation and seeks to inform the on-going debate on the development of compressive strength test procedures for compressed earth blocks.
A number of the dierent test procedures currently in use
are described and, where possible, compared. Results of
experimental studies are also presented. The compressive
strength of blocks measured by diering tests is also compared with other parameters, such as three-point bending
strength.
2. Outline of compression test procedures
2.1. Background
Experimental compressive strength of materials such as
concrete, stone, red and unred clay is a function of test
specimen dimensions. Load is normally applied uniformly
through two sti and at hardened steel platens. As compressive stress increases the test specimen expands laterally,
however, due to friction along the interface between the
platen and test specimen, lateral expansion of the specimen
is conned. This connement of specimens by platen restraint increases apparent strength of the material. As the
distance between the platens, relative to the specimen thickness (aspect ratio), increases the platen restraint eect
reduces.
In materials that are readily cast, such as concrete and
mortar, the enhancement in compressive strength is accommodated by specifying a standard test specimen size and
shape, usually cube or cylinder. Though test results are
not true (unconned) values for compressive strength of
the material, by adopting a standard geometry comparison
between dierent samples and specied requirements is
readily achieved. However, when testing preformed, rather
than cast, specimens of varying size, such as masonry units,
the eects of specimen geometry on unit strength is not as
easily accommodated. The approaches adopted in testing
of red clay, concrete and compressed earth block testing
are discussed within the following section.

2.2. Compressive strength testing red clay and concrete

masonry units
The compressive strength of both red clay and concrete
masonry units is determined by load testing single units in a
compression testing device, in a manner similar to the testing of cast concrete and mortar cubes. To accommodate
surface unevenness units are either temporarily capped
with either 34 mm thick plywood or similar sheeting, or
capped with a thin layer of cementitious or gypsum based
mortar. Units satisfying dimensional requirements can generally be tested between temporary cappings. Bricks containing frogs and other recesses are generally lled in
with a suitable strength mortar, though cellular and hollow
units are usually tested with the voids unlled and strength
expressed as a function of gross, rather than net, cross-sectional area. In countries, such as Australia, where hollow
concrete blocks are laid on two parallel thin beds of mortar
along their faces (face shell bedding), unit compressive
strength is correspondingly determined by applying the test
load through the two face shell capping strips [17].
In countries where red clay bricks are generally manufactured in one standard size, such as the UK where nearly
all bricks are nominally 215 102.5 65 mm, geometrical
eects on apparent brick strength are ignored as specimen geometry is uniform, as with concrete cube or cylinder testing. Similarly in having a standard test geometry
design values for material properties, expressed as a function of concrete cylinder or unit brick strength, are readily
obtained.
Concrete masonry blocks come in a much greater variety of sizes and formats (solid, cellular and hollow). Consequently in the current British Standard for masonry [18] the
eects of unit geometry are catered for in determination of
design compressive strength of concrete block masonry by
expressing values as a function of both apparent block
strength and geometry. Alternatively in the draft Eurocode
for structural masonry, block strengths are normalised by
applying a shape factor to account for aspect ratio eects
[19]. In Australia similar geometrical variations in both
red clay and concrete blocks are also catered for by applying a geometrical correction factor. The empirically based
aspect ratio correction factor [20] seeks to remove the inuence of platen restraint by converting test values to unconned strengths (dened as that achieved by specimen with
an aspect ratio of at least 5). For standard Australian red
clay brick, measuring 230 110 76 mm, the aspect ratio
correction factor is 0.60, for example.
2.3. Compressive strength testing compressed earth blocks
2.3.1. Direct unit strength
The procedure adopted in many national standards and
codes of practice is similar to that used for red clay
and concrete blocks [4]. Individual units are capped and
tested directly between platens. Block surfaces are usually
suciently at and parallel that only thin plywood sheet

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

capping is necessary. As blocks are also typically solid

preparation of recesses and voids is not necessary. Blocks
are generally tested in the direction in which they have been
pressed which is also the direction in which they are generally laid. Test samples generally comprises between 5 and
10 blocks.
There are a few internationally recognised standard
compressed earth block sizes, such as 295 140 90 mm,
corresponding to the type of block press in use. However,
in general block sizes vary widely [1,15]. The method of
production, in general non-industrial, enables the manufacturer to vary block size, and shape, to suit requirements by
using mould inserts.
Geometrical eects on individual block compressive
strength are generally treated in one of two ways. In many
cases standard test procedures make no attempt to correct
test result for platen connement. Average or characteristic
compressive strength is simply expressed following statistical manipulation of individual test results [4]. In an alternative approach, used in both Australia [15,21] and New
Zealand [14], platen restraint eects are catered for by factoring test values with an aspect correction factor. Correction factors used, Table 1, are generally the same as derived
for red clay units, though other work has suggested alternatives believed to be more appropriate to compressed
earth blocks [22].
In some cases cubes cut from solid blocks have been
tested in direct compression instead. However, comparative strength testing of blocks and cubes of same material
show poor direct correlation, though in this case cubes
were pressed separately rather than cut from the blocks
[13]. By testing cubes eects of geometry on compressive
strength might be readily accommodated. However, the effects of material non-uniformity arising from the manufacturing process require further investigation.
2.3.2. RILEM test
In an attempt to directly measure unconned compressive strength of compressed earth blocks RILEM Technical
Committee 164 has proposed the test set-up shown in
Fig. 1 [23]. To double the slenderness ratio of the test specimen, blocks are halved and stacked bonded using an earth
mortar bed joint. The earth mortar joint replicates masonry construction and enables even and uniform stress
transfer between stacked blocks. To enable even transfer
of stress between platens and blocks the specimens are
capped with a layer of neoprene. A sheet of Teon is also
placed between the platen and specimen at each end to
Table 1
Aspect ratio correction factors
Aspect ratio

0.4

0.7

1.0

3.0

Krefelds correction factor

(use linear interpolation)

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.85

1.00

Heathcote and Jankulovskis

correction factor (non-linear)

0.25

0.40

0.58

0.90

1.00

P5.0

305

Fig. 1. RILEM test set-up.

minimise friction. Half blocks may be prepared following

splitting strength test, an indirect tensile strength test similar to the Brazilian test performed on concrete cylinders.
In development of this test results have been compared
with those from cylinder tests of similar material. The test
seeks to replicate compressive strength developed by cylinder of aspect ratio 1.5:1, which is seen as giving unconned
strength value [9,23]. Compressive strength test results
using the RILEM procedure have been independently
checked by three research laboratories in France and
North Africa [9,12,24]. Compressive strengths using this
procedure are compared with values obtained from cylinder tests or testing half blocks (with Teon sheeting in
place to reduce friction) in Fig. 2.
All of the compressed earth blocks have been made
using a manual press and consequently compressive
strengths are in a range of 23 MPa. Though higher
strengths are achievable using hydraulic presses and/or
higher cement contents, compressive strengths in the range
23 MPa are most typical.
Results are from materials with and without cement stabilisation, each point representing an average of between 2
and 13 repeat tests. On average the RILEM test under-estimates the unconned compressive strength of blocks or
cylinders. Variation between the RILEM and cylinder test
result is in part due to variations in material dry density between the two dierent methods of manufacture.

306

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

results show considerable scatter but there is widely considered to be sucient evidence to enable lower bound prediction of compressive strength based on exural strength [26].
Design guidelines and standards have adopted this approach. Disadvantages of the test method include susceptibility to defects in the blocks (shrinkage cracks). Another,
less widely accepted, indirect test method is the splitting
test, akin to the Brazilian test used for concrete, in which
the block is loaded in compression through two thin steel
bars along opposing faces. This induces indirect tensile
stress, causing the block to split along the line of the load.
The advantage of this methodology is the greatly reduced
forces required to induce failure. Blocks from this test
can also be used in the RILEM compression strength test,
enabling direct correlation between the two measured
results.

Compressive strength (MPa)

y = 1.1339x
2
R = 0.7332
2

1
data from pkla 2002, Half block test
data from hakimi 1996, Cylinder test
data from olivier 1994, Cylinder test

0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

RILEM prism compressive strength (MPa)

Fig. 2. Comparison of unconned block or cylinder strengths and
RILEM prism compressive strength.

The inclusion of a mortar joint in the test specimen alters the specimen format and behaviour. The test is no
longer simply on an individual masonry unit, but eectively on a simple stacked bonded masonry prism. The
mortar joint, even if made from identical material, is
weaker and less sti than the blocks, due to higher initial
moisture content and lack of compaction. In compression
greater lateral expansion of the mortar joint places the
blocks in a state of compression and biaxial lateral tension [25], whereas restraint of the blocks places the mortar
joint in a state of triaxial compression. Inclusion of mortar joint introduces a further variable into the test set-up,
with performance of specimens also dependent on the
quality of work in combining half blocks and mortar
joint.
2.3.3. Indirect tests
A small number of indirect compressive strength tests
have been developed, primarily in order to allow in situ
quality control testing of materials in the absence of laboratory testing facilities. The most widely quoted indirect
test methodology is the three-point bending test. Blocks
are subject to single point loading under simply supported
conditions through to failure. Forces required to induce
failure in this manner are typically 80150 times lower than
that required to induce failure under uniform compression
and as such are normally quite achievable under site conditions, without resort to sophisticated equipment. Flexural
failure stress is calculated assuming pure bending (maximum moment divided by elastic section modulus), ignoring
the other potentially signicant eects such as shear and
compressive membrane action (arching). Correlation between compressive and three-point bending strength has
been established experimentally by a number of workers;

3. Compressive strength characteristics of compressed earth

blocks
3.1. Inuence of specimen geometry
As previously discussed the geometry of test blocks has
a signicant inuence on the value of measured compressive strength using the standard test methodology
described in Section 2.3.1. The apparent strength enhancement due to platen restraint depends on the ratio of height
to thickness (aspect ratio) of the block. As previously outlined one approach adopted is to correct measured strength
by a single aspect ratio correction factor. The distinct
advantage of this approach is that it enables a variety of
dierent block sizes to be used, but of course it relies on
accurate correction factors.
To date, the correction factors in use were established
for red clay masonry rather than weaker and non-uniform
compressed earth blocks. Geometric eects on compressive
strength of compressed earth blocks stem not only from
platen restraint, but also inuence of friction during block
manufacture. Density of blocks produced using single acting ram presses is not constant, but reduces with height
away from the ram face due to friction along the mould
sides. Experimental studies have conrmed that the apparent unconned compressive strength value is achieved
when the aspect ratio reaches 5 [11,20]. However, beyond
an aspect ratio of 1.5 the compressed earth block material
is unlikely to be homogeneous, due to friction during manufacture [23,27]. Though conned strengths have shown
signicant scatter at lower aspect ratios, the correction factors proposed by Krefeld [20] would seem to provide a reasonable improvement of the data.
Walker [28] has also reported on the inuence of block
geometry on RILEM test results. For varying sized blocks,
made from the same material, results of the RILEM test
procedure do not correspond to the results of direct block
tests. Under direct (conned) compression block strength
increased from 8.5 MPa (aspect ratio 125/140) to
16.0 MPa (45/140) despite a 3% reduction in density of

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

307

strengths and prism test results is similar to that shown

in Fig. 2 above, though prism strengths are around 300%
lower than the corresponding adjusted block strength. Unlike the previous correlation there is no direct parity between adjusted block strength and the RILEM test
strength. This disparity might suggest, together with the results in Fig. 2, that the Krefeld aspect ratio correction factors are incorrect.

the thinner block. The experimental skew in apparent

strength due to geometry is at least 88% of the measured
performance. When the same blocks were tested using the
RILEM test the thinnest block produced the least compressive strength, 2.26 MPa compared to 3.14 MPa for the
125 mm high block. In this case the geometric eect is reversed (lowest strength for the thinnest block), and much
reduced in comparison with the direct strength test, with
the experimental skew only around 28% of the measured
data. Geometric eects are least evident when aspect ratio
correction factors are applied to the conned direct block
values, yielding strengths of 5.7 MPa (125/140) and
6.4 MPa (45/140), respectively. However, considering all
dry densities for these corrected data still leads to a coecient of variation of 26%.
The inuence of block geometry on RILEM test
strength is expected from classical masonry behaviour
[25], as the single mortar bed joint remained approximately 10 mm thick throughout. For thinner blocks the
10 mm mortar joint has had a signicantly greater eect
on prism strength, Fig. 3. Direct unit compression results
have been corrected using the aspect ratio factors proposed by Heathcote and Jankulovski [22], as summarised
in Table 1. Though there is no correction for mortar joint
thickness in Fig. 3, this geometric eect, might in future
be mitigated by adjustment of mortar joint thickness in
accordance with varying block height; this warrants further investigation. It should also be noted that in practice
the variation in compressed earth block geometry is not
as extreme as described above, but it is possible to extend
this work to adobe where the variation in block geometry
can be even greater.

Cement is added to compressed earth blocks to improve

durability and, indirectly, wet compressive strength. Data
produced by various researchers show strong, often linear,
correlation between compressive strength and cement
content. Data shown in Fig. 6 is typical of the relationship
between direct compressive strength and cement content.

3.2. Inuence of test procedure

3.5. Inuence of moisture content

Compressive strengths derived from diering test procedures or specimens have been compared in experimental
studies. Correlation between the RILEM test and adjusted
strength values from direct testing whole blocks is shown in
Fig. 4. The correlation between the adjusted block

Moisture content of blocks at testing has a signicant

inuence on resultant compressive strength. Blocks are
typically tested at oven dry or ambient air dry moisture

R2 = 0.7029

Compressive Strength (MPa)

3.5
3
2.5
2

R = 0.985

2
1.5

corrected= unconfined value

procedure (a)

Compressive strength of compressed earth blocks is

strongly related to dry density achieved in compaction.
Compressive strength of individual blocks consistently increases as dry density increases, Fig. 5. This relationship
between strength and density has been consistently proven
by test data over the past 20 years [1]. In India block compressive strength is controlled through density [13]. Prior to
production the density and compressive strength of prototype blocks are determined in the laboratory. Subsequently
block density, for given a compactive eort, is ensured by
carefully measuring, by mass, the quantity of material
added to the mould.
3.4. Inuence of cement content

20

Block compressive strength (MPa)

3.3. Inuence of dry density

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4

y = 3.0338x
R2 = 0.5957

0.5
0

0.0

40

60

80

100

120

140

CEB height (mm)

Fig. 3. Eect of block height on RILEM test compressive strength.

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

RILEM compressive strength (MPa)

Fig. 4. Comparison between RILEM prism strength and direct block

strength.

308

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

16.0

Rilem test

soil with bentonite and 4% cement

14.0

Compression strength (MPa)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

soil with kaolinite with 4% cement

soil with kaolinite, no cement

Direct unit compression corrected

with Heathcote

12.0

R = 0.5507

10.0
8.0
6.0

R = 0.8193

4.0
2.0
0.0

Compression strength from 3 point bending test (MPa)

1
1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

Dry density (Mg/m )

Fig. 7. Comparison between RILEM test and bending strength estimation

of compressive strength from Eq. (1).

Fig. 5. Relationship between dry density and compressive strength.

4. Three-point bending test

conditions, reecting that under service conditions.
Strength reduces as moisture content increases due to
the softening of binders by water and development of
pore water pressures. For plain soil, unstabilised, blocks
compressive strength when saturated is zero. Though
there is some variation, depending on soil properties
and cement content, compressive strength of cement stabilised blocks following water saturation is typically around
50% of that measured under dry conditions [10]. Moisture
contents of unstabilised materials at testing should ideally
reect in-service conditions. Testing cement stabilised
blocks following saturation allows minimum strength to
be determined under easily controlled and replicable moisture conditions, though conditions unlikely to be experienced in practice. The inclusion of mortar joint in the
RILEM test makes strength determination under saturated conditions dicult, and more typically testing is
undertaken under ambient air-dry conditions.

20

Compressive Strength (MPa)

18

Guettala 1997
Walker 2000

16
14
12
10

The three-point bending test has been recommended and

used as a simple indirect means to measure compressive
strength of compressed earth blocks [26,29]. Flexural modulus of rupture is determined assuming simple, pure, bending. However, recent research has proposed alternative
formulation in recognition of the arching action that is postulated to occur in the blocks as a result of the small span
to depth ratios that inevitably occur [30]. The equivalent
compressive strength rcif is given by
q
2
PL 1 4eL 2
rcif
;
1
2h0 el
where P is failure load of the three-point bending test, L
span between two roller supports, e the height of the
block, l the width of the block and h0 a characteristic
height, taken as 23 mm for typical sized compressed earth
blocks [30].
In both cases, classical bending [26] or using Eq. (1)
[29], there is a linear relationship between direct compressive strength and the strength given by the three-point
bending test. Fig. 7 based on both the RILEM test procedure and that derived indirectly from three-point bending
test using Eq. (1). Though for only a few test results the
correlation may be considered encouraging. Whereas the
correlation is poor with unconned direct unit compression test.

5. Summary and conclusions

6
4
2
0
0

10

12

14

Cement content (%)

Fig. 6. Eect of cement addition on CEB compressive strength.

Compressed earth blocks are produced in a greater variety of unit sizes than many other masonry blocks. If compressive strength is to remain a meaningful and general
characteristic dening quality and suitability of compressed
earth blocks, the inuence of unit geometry on performance
needs to be accommodated in a reliable and consistent manner.

J.-C. Morel et al. / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 303309

To date, the most recommended compressive strength

test procedure used for compressed earth blocks undertake
direct, conned, tests on single units. To accommodate geometric variation aspect ratio correction factors, developed
for red clay masonry, have been adopted. Test results
show wide variation and suggest that at the low aspect ratios typical for most blocks, the current aspect ratio correction factors may not be suitable. Cutting standard shaped
specimens from solid blocks, such as cubes, might be an
alternative solution to this problem, though the eects of
material non-uniformity needs to be further evaluated.
RILEM Technical Committee 164 has proposed an
alternative test method that represents a radical departure
for testing masonry units. Blocks are tested together with a
mortar joint in a prism. Though results have shown that
the test performance is less dependent on variation in block
geometry, the test procedure may provide an unconned
masonry strength rather than block strength. The RILEM
test is also dependent on mortar performance and quality
of work in preparation of the prism.
Indirect testing, such as the three-point bending test, can
provide an indication of relative strength. However, the
test results are subject to considerable scatter. Recent
developments in stress analysis of three-point test performance could improve reliability of this simple test, but further work is required to assess its generality, including the
eects of material type, block geometry and method of
manufacture on performance.
In conclusion, further research work is required to investigate the inuence of geometric eects on compressive
strength performance if a generalised test procedure is to
be developed and widely accepted. Direct testing of blocks
needs to correlate unconned performance with conned
for a variety of block sizes and materials. As eects such
as manufacture procedure are likely to have a signicant
inuence, a single universal relationship may not be forthcoming. The signicance of mortar properties (materials,
thickness) and block height on RILEM test needs further
investigation before the test can be universally accepted.
However, as fundamentally the direct block test and
RILEM test measure two dierent parameters, it might
be that in the future the two test procedures will co-exist
alongside each other.
References
[1] Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction: a comprehensive
guide. London: IT Publications; 1994.
[2] Guillaud H, Joroy T, Odul P. Compressed earth blocks: Volume II.
Manual of design and construction. Eshborn Germany: Vieweg; 1995.
[3] Heathcote K. An investigation into the erosion of earth walls, PhD
Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia; 2002.
[4] Walker P. Specications for stabilised pressed earth blocks. Masonry
Int 1996;10(1):16.
[5] Lunt MG. Stabilised soil blocks for building. Overseas building
notes. Garston: Building Research Establishment; 1980.

309

[6] Olivier M, Mesbah A. Le materiau terre: Essai de compactage

statique pour la fabrication de briques de terres compressees. Bull
Liaison Labo P et Ch 1986;146:3743.
[7] Heathcote K. Compressive strength of cement stabilised pressed earth
blocks. Build Res Inf 1991;19(2):1015.
[8] Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS. Inuence of soil composition on
strength and durability of soil-cement blocks. Indian Concrete J
1995;69(9).
[9] Olivier M, Mesbah A, El Gharbi Z, Morel JC. Test method for
strength test on blocks of compressed earth. Mater Struct
1997;30(November):5157 [in French].
[10] Walker P. Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of
cement stabilised soil blocks. Cement Concrete Comp 1995;17(4):
301310.
[11] Walker P. Characteristics of pressed earth blocks in compression. In:
Proceedings of the 11th international brick/block masonry conference, Shanghai, China, 1416 October; 1997. p. 110.
[12] Pkla A. Caracterisation en compression simple des blocs de terre
comprimees (btc): application aux maconneries btc-mortier de terre,
PhD, INSA, Lyon; 2002.
[13] Venkatarama Reddy BV, Sudhakar MR, Arun Kumar MK. Characteristics of stabilised mud blocks using ash-modied soils. Indian
Concrete J 2003;2(February):90311.
[14] New Zealand Standard 4298: 1998. Materials and workmanship for
earth buildings. Standards New Zealand.
[15] Standards Australia Handbook 194. The Australian earth building
handbook. Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia; 2002.
[16] Centre for the Development of Enterprise. Compressed earth blocks
testing procedures, CDE, Brussels, Belgium; 2000.
[17] Standards Australia Standard 2733. Concrete masonry units, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia; 1984.
[18] British Standard 5628-1: 1992. Code of practice for use of masonry
Part 1: Structural use of unreinforced masonry. BSI.
[19] British Standard prEN 1996-1-1:2003. Eurocode 6. Design of
masonry structures. BSI.
[20] Krefeld WJ. Eect of shape of specimen on the apparent compressive
strength of brick masonry. In: Proceedings of the American society of
materials, Philadelphia, USA; 1938. p. 3639.
[21] Middleton GF. Earth-wall construction, Bulletin 5, CSIRO Division
of building, construction and engineering. 4th ed. Sydney; 1992
[revised by Schneider LM].
[22] Heathcote K, Jankulovski E. Aspect ratio correction factors for
soilcrete blocks. Australian civil engineering transactions, vol. CE34,
4. Australia: Institution of Engineers; 1992. p. 30912.
[23] Olivier M. Le materiau terre, compactage, comportement, application
aux structures en blocs de terre, PhD, INSA, Lyon; 1994.
[24] Hakimi A, Yamani A, Ouissi H. Rapport: Resultats dessais de
resistance mecaniques surechantillons de terre comprimee. Mater
Struct 1996;29:6008.
[25] Hendry AW. Structural brickwork. London: Macmillan; 1981.
[26] Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS. Field evaluation of pressed
soil-cement blocks, in In: Proceedings of the 4th international seminar
on structural masonry for developing countries, Madras; 1990. p.
16875.
[27] Mesbah A, Morel JC, Olivier M. Comportement des sols ns argileux
pendant un essai de compactage statique: determination des parame`tres pertinents. Mater Struct 1999;32:68794.
[28] Walker P. Strength and durability testing of earth blocks. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international seminar on structural masonry
for developing countries, Bangalore, India; 2000. p. 1118.
[29] Morel JC, Pkla A. A model to measure compressive strength of
compressed earth blocks with the three point bending test. Constr
Build Mater 2002;16:30310.
[30] Morel JC, Pkla A, Di benedetto H. Interpretation en compression ou
traction de lessai de exion en trois points. Rev Fr Genie Civil
2003;7:22137.