International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.

1416

Assessment of the Suitability of Some Lateritic Soils

for the Production of Compressed Stabilized Earth
Blocks in Nigeria
Emeso Beckley Ojo

Danladi Slim Matawal

Adamu Isah Katagum

Nigerian Building and Road

Research Institute,
Abuja Nigeria
Email:eojo@nbrri.gov.ng

Nigerian Building and Road Research

Institute,
Abuja Nigeria
Email:dsmatawal@yahoo.com

Nigerian Building and Road Research

Institute,
Abuja Nigeria
Email:akatagum@rocketmail.com

ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to ascertain the suitability
of lateritic soils within Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria
for earth block production. Test pieces were produced at
varying cement contents and performance characteristics
determined; compressive 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
compressive strength and durability. This implies
laboratory testing of soils is pertinent to determine
optimum stabilization content prior to production of
blocks.

Keywords-

Compressed 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 from several studies have shown that earth
construction has the potentials of addressing the provision
of affordable 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 middle/low income
earners in these countries (Arumala & Gondal, 2007). The
scarcity and/or high cost of conventional building
materials have further exacerbated the situation. This 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 Compressed
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 Employment in States (GEMS) 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,
Rahman, & 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 skilled 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 moisture resulting in a
healthier environment for the occupants (Riza et al., 2011)
However, there are guidelines which determine the
effective production and use of earth blocks. The first and
most important step in CSEB technology is the
identification of suitable soil for block 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 oxide and are usually formed from the
weathering of rock under strong oxidizing and leaching
conditions typically in tropical areas (Northmore, Culshaw,
Hobbs, Hallam & Entwisle, 1982). Previous studies have
shown that CSEBs produced from laterites obtained from
the south western part of the country did not meet the
minimum 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 compressed earth block building construction
as a tool for sustainable development for affordable
housing.

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Representative soils were extracted from 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 samples collected from these
locations.

1417

blocks was carried out through dynamic compaction in a

proctor mould. Sixty Eight (68) blows of the 4.5kg
rammer falling from 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 samples

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

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 moisture 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 performance (Maskell,
Heath & Walker, 2013). Their results showed a minimal
variation between small scale bricks produced in a
laboratory and full scale bricks. Sample preparation
comprised of manual grinding to pulverise the big lumps
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
Optimum Moisture Content (O.M.C) obtained from the
light compaction tests. Blocks were produced with varying
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 of water to ensure a
homogenous mix. The Nigerian Building code (2012)
specifies a minimum compression of 3N/mm2 for
compressed stabilised earth blocks. Compression of the

Figure 1 Sample of test piece

The blocks were cured by sprinkling twice a day and kept
in a hot humid environment by covering them with black
plastic sheets for a seven day period. After the curing
period, the test pieces were placed in an oven at 60C over
a 48hr period. Sample 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 Cement Content on Compressive

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

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

1418

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

ATTERBERG
LIMITS (%)

For this study, the effect of cement content on dry and wet
compressive strength was determined and the results are
presented.

hand, the test pieces produced from the soils from Kuje
had the lowest maximum compressive strength (3 N/mm 2).

3.1.1 Dry Compressive Strength

Figure 2 presents a plot of dry compressive strength
against cement content for the five samples. The plot
shows an overall increase of compressive strength with
increasing cement content. Results from past research
works have often shown a strong, mostly linear,
correlation between compressive strength and cement
content (Morel et al., 2005).
The plot shows an almost linear relationship between
compressive strength and cement content for all the soils
except for Games Village (GVL) soils which peaked at
6.5% cement content and began to drop. The test pieces
produced from soils from 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,
optimum cement content was observed at 6.5% for Games
Village and 8% for Anagada soil samples. On the other

Figure 2 Variation of dry compressive strength with

cement content

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

Typically, CSEBs are produced at 5% cement content.

According to the Nigerian Building code, minimum
compressive strength at seven days should not be less than
1.6 N/mm2. At 5% cement content, all the compressive
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 Bombo soils. This would suggest that at
the specified compactive effort (4N/mm2), cement content
may be as low as 3% by weight for these soils.

1419

that measured under dry conditions (Walker, 1995). Figure

4 presents the wet to dry compressive strength ratio for the
soils at the varying cement contents.
The wet to dry compressive 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 compressive strength, the test pieces
were immersed fully in water for 24hrs before determining
their load at failure. This testing procedure allows
minimum 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 from the Games village and Anagada
soils had the highest wet compressive strength (4N/mm2)
with Kuje soils having the lowest compressive strength
(1.5N/mm2). Also, 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 compressive
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 compressive strength could not
be determined for 0% cement stabilisation, as the 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

The bulk density of a soil is the mass per unit volume 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
from soils from the five locations at varying cement
contents. As with compressive 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
(Bombo 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 compression and
degree of compactive effort (Riza et al., 2011). The soils
were compacted 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 from Kurunduma and Bombo had the
highest OMC (18.5% & 18.7% respectively). From the
plot it can be observed that the cylinders produced from
these soils (Bombo and Kurunduma) had the lowest
densities. According to Bahar (2004), optimum moisture
content range between 10 to 13% for static compaction.

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

1420

3.3 Water Absorption

The major drawback 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 fractions 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 5 Variation of density with cement content

Commonly, most researchers have related the densities of
CSEBs to their compressive 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 correlation
plot between compressive strength and density from test
data obtained from this investigation.

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, maximum 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 can be observed from the plot, a significant correlation
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 implies that prior to production of blocks
on the site, the densities and compressive strengths of
prototype blocks can be determined in the laboratory.
Hence, for a given compactive effort, the quantity of
material can be weighed out and placed in a mould to
achieve a specified density.

As observed in Figure 7, the cylinders produced from soil

samples from Anagada and Games village had the lowest
rates of water absorption (9.5 12.6%) over the range of
cement content tested. Bombo had the highest water
absorption at 18%. At 5% cement stabilisation, three soils
(Anagada, Games village and Kuje) fell below the
recommended maximum value of 12% for masonry units.
The water absorption could not be determined for 0%
cement stabilisation, as the cylinders disintegrated during
the 24hr period of the test.

3.4 Suitability of soils

A major factor affecting 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

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

Rigassi (1995), the manual recommends the following

proportions for each fraction:

Gravels: 0-40%

Sands: 25-80%

Silts:10-25%

Clays: 8-30%

Figure 8 shows the particle size distribution for the five

soil samples. The thicker lines indicate the boundaries for
suitable soils as recommended in the ARS 680:1996
(Compressed Earth Blocks Code of Practice for the
Production of Compressed Earth Blocks).
From the figure, it can be observed that three soil samples
fell within the envelope (Anagada, Games village and
Kuje soil samples).

1421

range of 15 25%. The soils under investigation had

Plasticity Indices within the range of 10.6 11.9 % while
one of the soils (Kuje Soils) was found to be non- plastic.
This indicates that these soils fall within the recommended
range of P.I but have higher liquid limits.
Test pieces produced from soils from Anagada and games
village had the highest maximum compressive strengths
(7.66N/mm2 and 7.57N/mm2respectively). 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 distribution,
these soils were non-plastic and therefore recorded the
lowest maximum compressive strength of 3N/mm2. In
terms of clay content, the percentage clay content for
Bombo and Kurunduma soils exceeded the recommended
limit of 30%. Hence, maximum compressive 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. From 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.

4
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 for the soil samples. As can be
observed, only one soil sample fell within the boundaries
of the shaded portion as recommended in ARS 680:1996.

4. CONCLUSION
From 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
from this investigation show that soils which
meet the particle size distribution requirements
and fall within a range of plasticity index can
still give 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 optimum
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 relationship trend was not observed in one
of the soils as the compressive strength reduced
after 6.5% cement stabilization

Figure 9 Plasticity plot of samples

According to Riza et al (2011), the recommended
plasticity index for suitable soils should fall within the

At 3% cement content, all the compressive

strength values for the test pieces exceeded the
minimum value of 1.6N/mm2 as specified in the

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*

International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ISSN:1701-8285, Vol.37, Issue.2

Nigerian Building code. This may be attributed

to the type of compression used i.e. dynamic
compaction as compared to static compaction.
Also compactive effort of 4N/mm2 was applied
during compression as the Building code
recommends a minimum of 3N/mm2. This may
suggest at a lower cement content, blocks of
higher compressive strengths maybe produced if
dynamic compaction is used at a higher
compactive effort.
With regards to durability, some soils may
require more than 5% cement stabilization to
meet the maximum 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 optimum cement stabilization as
Durability/Water absorption is a critical property
that should be determined in the production of
CSEBs to ensure optimum performance of the
walling material throughout its service life.

Development in Nigeria. Engineering Focus.4(2) p

37-41
[8]

Maskell, D., Heath, A. and Walker, P. (2013)

Laboratory scale testing of extruded earth masonry
units

[9]

Matawal, D.S. (2012). Deformation of soils:

Settlement,
Consolidation
and
Ground
Improvement Techniques. 1st ed. Cephas and Clems
Nigeria Ltd. Abuja

[10]

Morel, J.C., Pkla, A., & Walker, P. (2005)

Compressive Strength Testing of Compressed Earth
Blocks. Construction and Building Materials, 21(2)
p303-309

[11]

Nigerian National Building Code (2006).Building

Regulations. LexisNexis Butterworth

[12]

Northmore, K.J., Culshaw, M.G., Hobbs, P.R.N.,

Hallam, J.R., & Entwisle, D.C. (1992). Engineering
Geology of Tropical Red Clays: Summary Findings
and their Applications for Engineering Purposes.
British Geological Survey Technical Report.
WN.93/1

[13]

Raheem, A.A., Falola, O.O., & Adeyeye, J.K.

(2012).Production and Testing of Lateritic
Interlocking Blocks. Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries. 17(1) p 33-48

[14]

Rigassi, V. (1995).Compressed Earth Blocks:

Manual of Production. Vol. 1.CRATerre-EAG

[15]

Riza F.V, Rahman I.A & Zaidi A.M.A

(2011).Preliminary Study of Compressed Stabilized
Earth Brick. Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences 5(9): 6-12

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

REFERENCES
[1]

Arumala, J.O. & Gondal, T. (2007) Compressed

Earth Building Blocks for Affordable Housing. The
Construction and Building Research Conference of
the Royal Chartered Institute of Surveyors. Atlanta
U.S.A

1422

[2]

BS 1377: (1990). Methods of Testing Soils for

Civil Engineering Purposes. British Standards
Institute (BSI).

[16]

UN-Habitat. (2009). Interlocking Stabilised Soil

Blocks Appropriate earth technologies in
Uganda .Nairobi: UN-Habitat.

[3]

Didel M.J., Matawal D.S. & Ojo E.B. (2014).

Comparative 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

[17]

Walker, P. (1995). Strength, durability and

Shrinkage Characteristics of Cement Stabilised Soil
Blocks. Cement and Concrete Composites 17(4) p
301-310

[4]

Heathcote, K.A. (1995). Durability of Eartwall

Buildings. Construction and Building Materials.
9(3). 185-189

[5]

Herzog, A. and Mitchell, J.K., 1963. Reactions

accompanying stabilization of clay with cement.
Highway Research Board Rec., 36: 146-171.

[6]

Houben, H. and Guillaud, H.(1994) Earth

construction: a comprehensive guide, IT
Publications, London

[7]

Madedor, A.O. (1992). The Impact of Building

Material Research on Low Cost Housing

RECENT SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS ARCHIVES | August 2015|$25.00 | 27704439|

*This article is authorized for use only by Recent Science Journal Authors, Subscribers and Partnering Institutions*