Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172

Diagnosis of assessment methods for weatherability of stabilised

compressed soil blocks
F.O. Ogunyea,*, H. Boussabaineb
a
University of Liverpool, cyo 66 Colin Drive, Eldon Wharf, Liverpool L3 6LL, UK
b
Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

Received 20 May 2000; received in revised form 9 October 2001; accepted 9 January 2002

Abstract

Stabilised compressed soil blocks (SCSBs) in building fabrics are susceptible to deterioration if their choice conflicts with the
required functionality. Various investigators to determine the weatherability potential of these materials have applied different
assessment procedures, observed to be fraught with limitations. Such procedures have produced results that often conflict with
real life situations. The current inadequately defined weatherability performance measurements require more qualitative descriptions
of the field conditions. The underlying premise in this paper is to review the practicality or otherwise of the various testing
techniques. The paper highlights some generalised framework essential for SCSBs weatherability assessment method that are
rational, explicit enough and applicable to specific and almost all intended uses under a broad range of environmental concerns.
䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Weatherability; Building material; Accelerated weathering test; Performance measurement and weatherability assessment methods

1. Introduction material and to evaluate the product using prescribed

All externally applied building products would nor-
mally undergo high profile weather impact assessment
tests to avoid over-estimating their durability capability.
Soronis w1x has given a synopsis of the critical current
reasoning and scientific overture to durability issues.
The vulnerability of most materials to differential dete-
rioration on exposure demands that every material be
designed against the damaging influences of the weather,
with each specific design proven and tested for adequate
performance. While conceding to the notion that artifi-
cial weathering devices offer the most suitable approach
to direct comparison of a wide range of material types;
the use of accelerated devices, incorporating as many of
the outdoor weather factors as possible allows these
factors to be controlled more uniformly so that standard
test conditions can be set up w2x. In this regard, artificial
test methods are used to accelerate but reproduce the
effects of exposure to weather, for quality control pur-
poses to check variations between different batches of
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: festog@yahoo.com (F.O. Ogunye).
procedures.
The most commonly used artificial test method used
in soil construction is the wet-dry cycling test. This test
was basically derived from the ASTM D559: 1989 w3x,
which was first published in 1939 and designed explic-
itly for testing the durability of soil-cement mixtures
used for highway pavement and airfield construction.
Variants of this test and other conventional tests (such
as spray tests) have evolved since then, and are broadly
categorised in this paper as accelerated weathering tests.
Although the tests are completely empirical, they do not
accurately model the full-scale field experience. Conse-
quently, the results obtained in the laboratory seldom
agree with those observed in actual practice.
Different operators at various capacities have exten-
sively applied the accelerated weathering tests, and
opinion appears to be unanimous on their performance
scale. The tests are too aggressive, excessively simpli-
fied, fail to replicate the actual environmental conditions,
bear little practical correlation with actual long-term
field performance and hence provide a conservative
estimate of durability. This opinion has far reaching

0950-0618/02/$ - see front matter 䊚 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 0 0 4 - 1
164 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
effects on the investigative approaches to the accelerated
weathering test. The emerging limitations have become
more apparent as a number of soils that failed the tests
have subsequently performed quite well in practice.
Houben and Guillaud w4x have viewed the erosion of an
exposed wall as insignificant compared with the erosion
observed in the tests. Undoubtedly, many successful
earth buildings that have survived for centuries would
be in violation of the accelerated test methods. Further-
more, examples equally abound in many countries
around the world of soil block (both stabilised and non-
stabilised) buildings performing satisfactorily for the
past several years. Apparently, the structural survival of
these block samples when exposed to the weather
confirmed that their initial resistance was higher than
originally assumed.
Although the acceptability and utilisation of concrete
and burnt brick products for permanent structures due
to their anticipated superior environmental stability
seems to be gradually eroding the status of soil blocks
as effective alternative materials, the latter cannot be
completely displaced in building programmes world-
wide, nor will their application diminish to zero or be
eclipsed by other materials. Fundamentally, the credibil-
ity of SCSBs is rooted in its environmental appropriate-
ness, low energy input in processing and handling soil,
ease of use, cheapness and affordability, availability, fire
resistance and beneficial climatic performance in some
regions. However, the proven weather impairment ten-
dency and poor moisture retardance are the major
drawbacks to their structural integrity and degree of
appropriateness in the building envelope.
It is against this background, coupled with the prob-
lems associated with the accelerated weathering test that
a new trend for soil block weatherability performance
assessment is inevitable. Essentially an understanding of
the principle mechanisms by which a material deterio-
rates should form the basis for the weathering perform-
ance analysis. One reason that some accelerated
weathering tests have not proved satisfactory, according
to Ramachandran w5x, is the method of developing the
tests by presupposing important exposure factors and
incorporating most of them in a test chamber. He argues
that it is more effective first to determine the degradation
processes and then design the test to reproduce them.
Although accelerated weathering test, as a research
devise, has been so highly regarded and widely used
and our understanding of building-related construction
issues is somehow illuminated, the expectations in the
context for which it has been developed are yet to be
fully realised. It is obvious then that the key to the
effectiveness and acceptability of accelerated weathering
test lies in the quest to reflect significant modification
in the testing procedures and measurement parameters.
This paper seeks to review existing literature on accel-
erated weathering test and to suggest some generalised
framework that could feature in a reliability-based meth-
odology for testing and assessing the weatherability
potential of SCSB in a more rational and explicit
manner. It should be applicable to specific and almost
all intended uses under any given climatic considera-
tions. The failure of this approach will make accelerated
weathering test methods remain somehow superficial,
evasive, dotted with unhelpful compromise and variety
of incompatible standards and tend to revolve around
the peripherals while the main core-the anticipated target
of adequate resistance assessment through practical
weatherability procedure-remains relatively unexplored.
2. Weatherability profile
As buildings are expected to function at a high level
of quality and reliability, all materials and components
in the building envelope are required to perform their
functions and retain them with minimum maintenance
for the period of their stated lives. Failure to attain this
performance level requirement implies that the weath-
erability threshold has been exceeded. As part of dura-
bility, weatherability deals with the weather resistance
of materials exposed to the impact of environmental
degradation factors over a specific period of time. It
connotes a substantial deterioration in the material’s
original entity on exposure to the outdoor environment.
This material deterioration generally occurs when the
environmental forces are sufficiently strong to disrupt
the binding together of the constituent particles at the
moisture imbibition point. According to Heathcote w6x,
the principal mechanism causing removal of material
from the surface of earth walls is the release of the
kinetic energy associated with raindrops impacting on
the surface; but reiterated that the resistance of earth
wall buildings to attack by driving rain is related to the
magnitude of the bond strength between particles. Clear-
ly, it is recognised that of all the degradation elements
affecting building materials and components, weathering
factors w7x are the most severe, even though not all
materials are susceptible to all the weathering factors.
The complexities associated with the interaction between
the various factors that affect deterioration account for
the weatherability process; the consequence of which
may lead to loss of surface quality w2x. This can also
account for defective components as in metals and
plastics, breakdown in aggregate stability and loss of
constituent material as in earth-wall products, and struc-
tural failure; the latter being very catastrophic. In porous
building materials, the external surface-subject to pre-
dominant variations in both temperature and moisture
content-experiences a very different environment from
that of the internal surface, which is normally dry. The
continuously changing moisture and temperature gradi-
ents across the block samples result in differential
moisture movement which triggers the phenomenon of
 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
expansion and contraction, and generates tensile strain
and internal stress sufficient enough to cause such
damage as cracking, spalling and other defects in a
building. In practice, all materials deteriorate through
time, at varying rates and under varying degradation
factors, and it is generally a steady process w8x.
The significant advancement in the weatherability
prediction of some materials used outdoors provides the
scope for more materials to be probed; while in others,
they have not been analysed in detail w9x. The require-
ment to advance the state of knowledge of weatherability
prediction and thereby minimise the obstacle to inno-
vation and improve the choice of materials has provoked
a renewed interest in research opportunities in this area.
Although the research approach needed to advance the
state of knowledge can be a complex, time-consuming
and costly exercise, it must be purposeful in identifying
the formidable obstacles to the weathering performance
of soil block materials.
The following general guidelines summarise the pri-
mary technical obstacles to weatherability prediction of
soil block materials (cf. reference w10x). These involve
the need for: (i) a methodical framework for defining
the problem explicitly before describing it, (ii) defining
the concept of durability such that it can be measured
and be related to the actual in-use conditions of the
materials, (iii) specifying all possible environmental
factors causing degradation, (iv) simulation of actual
environment and (v) mathematical models describing
the material behaviour in specific environments or appli-
cations. This line of thought offers the opportunity to
explore the full extent of what is involved in the
weatherability study.
The weather-tightness of soil block materials to the
erosive energy of raindrops is reflected in the block
quality and type of rain event, just as the erosivity of
the eroding agents and erodibility of soil are key
determining factors in soil erosion studies w11x. Further-
more, the amount of erosion is related to two types of
rain: the short-lived intense storm and the prolonged
storm of low intensity that saturates the samples. While
well-stabilised blocks may perform better than poor
quality blocks under any given climatic influence, low
intensity rain falling at low velocity and hence low
energy may not induce significant erosion, even in poor
quality blocks.
It has been recognised in soil erosion that rain falling
at low intensities is non-erosive and the threshold level
of intensity at which it becomes erosive is 25 mmyh.
From what is already known, the erosive power of rain
on soils is related to the compound parameters derived
from combinations of more than one physical property—
the product of the kinetic energy and intensity of the
storm. This forms the basis of the universal soil loss
equation (USLE) used to quantify soil erosion. How-
ever, the unpredictability of the climate at a point in
165
time means that efforts must be geared toward the
production of walling material that could offset the
destructive tendencies imposed upon them by the cli-
mate. In spite of the fact that the practice of vernacular
technology of earth construction reflects the materials,
culture, climatic conditions and skills available in a
particular society w12x, the production of quality material
should be given a prominent place. The composition
and character of the soil constituents, fabrication method
and block properties constitute important elements in
influencing the susceptibility of block material to
disintegration.
Although the criteria for establishing the quality of
material are diverse and highly variable, it appears that
strength is the overall-controlling factor. It has been
found that compressive strength is an indicator of
durability quality w13x, and that soil block materials that
satisfy the durability test must have ample strength, dry
density and low permeability characteristics. Heathcote
w6x has also proposed that the ratio of wet to dry strength
in the range of 0.33–0.50 be used as an indicator of the
durability of earth-wall components. Venkatarama Red-
dy and Jagadish w14x affirmed that pressed soil blocks
with more than 5% clay content and having dry density
greater than 1.9 gycc will possess good erosion resis-
tance. Ransom w15x noted that brick materials with high
water absorption have low resistance; for resistance
depends not only on total porosity of the material, but
also on the pore structure and in particular upon the
proportion of fine pore present: the resistance to attack
increasing as this proportion decreases. For satisfactory
performance of soil block materials, the authors are of
the opinion that strength enhancement with good mois-
ture retardance ability and excellent weather resistance
should be mutually inclusive. This opinion can only be
justified if appropriate weatherability assessment meth-
ods are put in place for evaluating the performance of
these materials across a broad range of environmental
considerations.
3. Testing techniques
Most non-stabilised earth structures experience some
form of consistent and drastic deformation arising from
the aggressive actions of the environment under the
impact of rainstorm effect, but in stabilised and com-
pressed form their resistance to weathering is greatly
improved w16x and their water resistant ability w12x
enhanced. This treatment not withstanding, SCSBs are
still prone to one form of deterioration or another.
Attempts at improving their performance such as plas-
tering and external coating application, and designing
of overhangs, surface protective features and surround-
ing structures w17x have yielded little positive result.
Several testing techniques have been developed
w6,14,18x to assess and predict the performance of soil
166 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
block materials. They include wet-dry cycling (Wire
brush), abrasive wear, spray and drip test methods as
described below:
a. In the wire brush (ASTM D559) test, the samples
are totally immersed in water at the same temperature
as the laboratory for 6 h, removed and oven-dried at
70 8C for 42 h and then brushed firmly with an
applied force of 1.5 kg on each surface and in both
directions for a total of 18–25 brush (metallic fibre)
strokes. This procedure constitutes one 48 h wetting-
drying cycle, and is repeated for 12 cycles. After
twelve test cycles, the samples are oven-dried to a
constant weight at 110 8C, and the weight loss with
respect to the initial weight calculated. Table 1 shows
details of three different wire brush tests and their
limitations on weight loss and water absorption. The
water absorption value is obtained by total immersion
of the specimen in water for a period of 24 h and on
removal the difference in weight is expressed as a
percentage of the initial weight.
b. The abrasive wear test illustrates the erosion of block
samples under the abrasive action of wind-borne sand
by attempting to simulate conditions in dry arid areas.
The samples are tested dry. A 6-kg metal brush is
used to scrub the face of the blocks in a single back
and forth motion; the procedure constitutes one cycle.
Brushing is continued for 50 cycles. The dry weight
of the materials detached is recorded per cm2 of
abraded area in order to obtain a test result that is
independent of the shape and size of the block w4x.
Smith and Webb w16x used different size of block
samples with unspecified number of cycles to deter-
mine the dry weight (mm) of abraded material.
c. The simple accelerated spray erosion test involves the
use of a shower head with a horizontal or vertical
spray-jet, allowing water at a chosen pressure to
impinge on the block surface at a pre-determined
distance from the shower head. Test details by differ-
ent operators are graphically displayed in Table 2.
d. The drip test was devised to determine the suitability
of adobe soil in building. The test involves releasing
100 ml of water in drops via a cloth wick that falls
400 mm onto the brick samples inclined at an angle
of 27 8C from the horizontal. Frencham w23x devel-
oped the approach further using brick samples from
the least exposed areas of the buildings that have
existed for periods between 60 and 120 years in an
area with average rainfall of 520 mm per year, and
related the depth of pitting in test sample to an
Erodability Index. This Index ranges from 1 (non-
erosive) to 4 (very erosive).
4. Inbuilt limitations of the techniques
Although the techniques provide a very rapid assess-
ment of durability, there are observed in-built assump-
tions and limitations to the test procedures that could
jeopardise the results and make them unrealistic for real
life applications. Some of these are common to all the
tests while others are specific to a particular test. The
following are regarded as limitations common to all the
tests:
● Absence of full-scale simulation of the appropriate
environmental conditions.
● The aggressiveness of the exposure conditions.
● Comparative analysis of results from different work-
ers is difficult and unreliable.
● Lack of correlation with actual long-term field
performance.
● The standard weight loss (%) assessment basis is
misleading.
Other specific limitations include:
● The material loss during the process of immersion is
unaccounted for wsee (3a) abovex.
● The difficulty of maintaining a consistent abrasive
effort throughout the test cycles wsee (3a) and (3b)
abovex.
● Unspecified wind-borne sand characteristics for
assessing the accuracy of the simulated condition wsee
(3b) abovex.
● Undue simplification of the test procedures wsee (3c)
abovex.
5. Evaluation of the testing techniques
The performance of soil block samples has so far
been assessed either by intensifying or by lowering the
factors of deterioration during the testing process. While
the latter gives a false sense of performance capability,
the former is suggestive of the ability to perform under
the worst exposure condition. The intensification of the
environmental factors in the test procedure to which
SCSBs are vulnerable is capable of inflicting consider-
able rigour on the specimen ingredients. Such aggressive
exposure regime can cause both physical and chemical
changes that can be potentially harmful to the integrity
of the specimen and possibly influence the test values.
In similar manner, the rapid and complete submersion
in water of the specimen is likely to impose far greater
stress than when one face were wetted in turn and water
allowed to rise through the specimen by capillarity. An
accurate simulation of environmental conditions in the
test will invariably produce reliable data and enhance
the quality of durability predictions and the difficulty
and unreliability attendant to making comparative anal-
ysis of results from different source will be minimised.
By building upon existing research work in a systematic
and coherent manner, information will be consistent and
the knowledge available will not be locked into inacces-
 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
Table 1
Wet-dry cycling (Wire brush) test

No Test parameter References

w3 x w19x w20x

1 Block specimen type Compacted soilycement mixtures in 290=90-115=80-115 mm cement 105 mm diameter cylinder and
100 mm diamater cylinder and 125 mm stabilised blocks 115.5 mm in height
depth
2 Water immersion duration (h) 6 6 6
3 Durationytemperature of oven- 42 h at 71 8C 42 h at 70 8C 42 h at 70 8C
drying
4 Brush specification Metallic fibres Wire scratch Wire scratch
5 Numberydirection of strokes 18–25, in both surface direction 18–20, vertically 20, with equal force
6 Applied abrasive force (kg) 1.5 1.5 1.5
7 No of cycles 12 12 12
8 Weight loss (%) % wt. loss with respect to initial wt., Not exceeding 10% with respect Relative performance assessed
after oven drying to constant wt. to initial wt., after oven-drying rather than compliance
at 110 8C unspecified to constant wt. at 110"5 8C with absolute standard
9 Water absorption (%) Not specified Not exceeding 10%, but 15% 17–25%

167
 168
Table 2
Spray erosion test

F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172

No Test parameter References
w4 x w14x w16x w20x w21x w22x

1 Shower head design 100 mm diam 90 mm diameter (226 holes of 100 mm diameter 100 mm diam. Unspecified Unspecified
1.15 mm diameter and densi-
ty of 3.2 holes per cm2)
2 Spray orientation Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal – Vertical
3 Incidence angle (deg) 90 90 90 90 – 90
4 Water pressure 1.4 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5
(kgycm2)
5 Impingement distance 200 175 200 200 470 250
(mm)
6 Precipitation rate – 566 – – – 227.3
(mmymin)
7 Exposure duration (h) 2 Varies, (-2) 2 2 1 0.55
8 Dimension of exposed – 305=144 290=140 105 mm diameter 150 mm diameter –
test surface (mm) cylinder cylinder
9 Specimen type – 305=144=100 mm press- 290=140=100 105 mm diameter 150 mm diameter Blockybrick
ed soil blocks of varying mm lime stab- cylinder and cylinder
soils ilised blocks 115.5 mm ht.
10 Estimation of eroded Av. depth of Erosion ratio (av. depth Considerable Considerable Max. depth of % weight loss
material 18 deepest eroded at large pointsy erosion at low erosion at low erosion
holes (mm) precipitation rate) is and less at high and less at
0.012 for laboratory and compaction high compac-
0.039 for field values pressure tion pressure
11 Extentylimits of failure Result is only Erosion should not Visual examina- Visual inspec- Depth of erosion Erosion -ys 10% of
indicative exceed 20 mm in -1 min tion for erosion tion for erosion -ys 60 mm or when the weight of the
for clay content -2% and pitting and pitting water penetrates block and -ys two of
to back of its corners
specimen deteriorate
 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
sible individual research nor be seen as irrelevant with
current thought.
Soil blocks have enormous potential for use as durable
and functional building materials, but the available test
techniques applied have generated data that are rarely
appropriate and sufficiently well defined to reliably
forecast their short- and long-term performance. The
replication of natural conditions in accelerated weather-
ing test methods is not necessarily appropriate for
generating stressful conditions pertinent to the long-term
durability of SCSBs, rather long-term exposure tests in
the field are a more reliable method for assessing the
durability of these materials. This can be achieved when
tests performed on individual block samples in the
laboratory are also done in conjunction with their final
position in wall. Unfortunately, few such tests have been
carried out on SCSBs. Consequently, laboratory tests
have been observed to bear little practical correlation
with actual long-term field performance, provide limited
data availability for field exposure performance and
yield predominantly conservative estimates. This view
has long standing implications on the investigative
approaches to accelerated weathering test. A lot of
misgiving has been expressed recently regarding the
applicability of these tests, which have been developed
from techniques used to assess other materials without
significant modification either to the test procedures or
to the assessment and interpretation of the laboratory
results. It shows the dilemma that occur when what
appears to be beneficial strategies for weather perform-
ance measurement may turn out as unpredicted triggers
for improper weathering assessment. One aspect of this
problem is the manner in which laboratory results are
interpreted. Result interpretation can be misleading if
not handled by experts or caution exercised. Many
researchers (see the references in Table 1 for example)
have specified a maximum 10% weight loss of material
as standard requirement for adequate performance, while
others have put forward lower range of less than 4%
weight loss for earth bricks stabilised with between
2.5% and 10% cement content and less than 1% weight
loss for well stabilised blocks. The specified maximum
10% weight loss deserves consideration. This specifi-
cation is applied both in relation to individual block
samples and to wall units. When viewed against indi-
vidual block samples on the one hand, the interpretation
is observed to present a gross under-estimation of the
actual field occurrences; in which case, the sample
deteriorates in less than five years, assuming one spell
of rainfall per year (SORPY) and an end of the service
life when 50% of the material is eroded. Variation to
these assumptions will invariably influence the material
longevity. Increase in the number of SORPY and
decrease in the assumed amount of material eroded will
progressively reduce the longevity. A complete deterio-
ration is imminent with five SORPY, and becomes
169
highly critical when several tens of SORPY are experi-
enced. The impracticality of this view points to a lower
specification requirement. But when viewed against its
final position in wall on the other hand, the interpretation
becomes more tolerant, and the building is expected to
last for not less than 10 years: though this is relatively
lower than what is obtained in the field. Again, applying
this specification of maximum 10% weight loss of
material to field exposures may present some difficulties;
and the issue of quantifying field measurement is rela-
tively unresolved. For all field measurements, it is
suggested that the estimate of material loss be based on
the percentage weight loss per exposed wall surface
area, as opposed to the maximum depth of pitting often
used; otherwise a scale factor be developed to correlate
the two measurements.
In the wire brush test, there is the difficulty of
maintaining a consistent abrasive effort throughout the
test cycles. The use of varying brush specifications (see
Table 1) can cast a shadow on the integrity of the
method. Doubts can equally be expressed when this
abrasive force applied is made equivalent to the simu-
lated rainfall impact. When materials are immersed in
water, there is the tendency for some of the constituent
particles to destabilise and eventually loose out due
perhaps to the weakening of the bonds structure by the
ingress of water or to the constant collision of the water
molecules on the material’s surface. Such lost out
materials have been largely unaccounted for, and their
probable insignificance is yet to be ascertained.
In the abrasive wear test, the impact of the wind-
borne sand on surface hasn’t proved to be equivalent to
the abrasive force applied in the test, hence the resistance
to the abrasive action of wind-borne sand, in the authors’
opinion hasn’t been firmly established. Moreover, the
wind-borne sand characteristics for assessing the accu-
racy of the simulated condition have neither been quan-
tified nor specified.
In the spray erosion tests, the authenticity of the
results has been marred through undue simplification of
the test procedures. The failure of the system to char-
acterise the rainfall to which samples are exposed is
largely dependent on the claim w14x that no simple
mechanisms are available which can produce a sparsely
distributed collection of droplets moving at velocities in
the range of 2–9 mys. This barrier has long been
overcome from what is now known of rainfall simula-
tion. Compromise, as evident in Table 2, were made
regarding:
i. Water pressure which has not proved an equivalent
measurement of the pressure exerted by the prevail-
ing storm in a specific locality.
ii. Spray orientation and impingement distance, which
fall short of the requirement for water drops falling
vertically through the air to approaching a terminal
170 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
velocity.
iii. Flow rate, which forms a continuous jet and is
excessively higher than what is obtained during a
heavy rainstorm.
iv. Exposure duration which doesn’t consider areas of
high rainfall and severe exposure and
v. Shower head design, which does not mimic the
actual rainfall distribution pattern.
A marked divergence of laboratory test methods from
those of real-life field experience is observed and a few
of these deserve specific reflection: (i) laboratory-scale
samples were tested only against the impact effects of
raindrops. The mechanisms of raindrops impinging on
surface, the tractive force of running water down the
wall surface and the turbulent erosion in areas of
concentrated flow, particularly in projecting areas of
walls such as window-sills, are common phenomena in
the field; although the impact effects exert greater
control in the process. The magnitude of this effect may
be a subject for further investigation, (ii) laboratory-
scale mixing is more efficient and attains thoroughness
more than any feasible field-scale method of stabiliser
incorporation. Consequently, there is the likelihood that
a significantly higher stabiliser content would be
required to ensure uniform distribution at all points
throughout the material medium, (iii) the curing proce-
dure used is unattainable in field-scale application.
Drying a sample in a thermostatically controlled drying
oven at 110"5 8C in the laboratory does not have an
exact counterpart in the field, especially in regions where
the hottest temperature does not exceed 36 8C, (iv) the
constantly changing environmental conditions can influ-
ence the permanence of the application in field expo-
sures. The weakening effect of the environmental factors
on the attractive forces binding the particles together
results in erosion. The erosion resistance developed has
been tested only with laboratory-scale specimens not
subject to the vagaries of environmental influences
before exposure to the rainstorm. Whether such resis-
tance is permanent in field-scale exposure is a subject
for further testing.
Lastly, the formula proposed by Frencham in the drip
test, takes into account buildings with very exposed
walls (add 2 to index) or for higher rainfall (add 1 to
index). The latter is deemed illogical w6x as one would
expect the variation to be proportional to the block
sample durability not additive. Hatton in Heathcote w6x
also pointed out an apparent problem in that when a
small pool of water remains trapped the pitting depth is
limited to a maximum of 12–14 mm although it is
conceded that this indicates a very erosive block that
would be unsatisfactory anyway. In general, the drip test
somehow provides a cheap method of testing bricks in
areas of rainfall approximately 500 mm per year, but its
application to areas of higher rainfall has yet to be
confirmed. However, the major defect is in its inability
to simulate rain droplets.
Thus, the continued adherence to the shortfalls of
accelerated weathering test needs re-examination or
complete reversion of the trend for a more constructive,
positive and qualitative approach to the assessment scale
if a meaningful long-term performance and service life
prediction of SCSB is to be firmly established. At best,
accelerated weathering test may be seen as forming
useful guidelines, more precise for trial plots and serving
as a means to an end and not an end in itself.
6. Weatherability assessment method
Weatherability assessment methods are appropriate
techniques developed to specifically evaluate the per-
formance of a wide range of building materials across a
broad range of environmental conditions. The variation
in the techniques depends on the type of material being
investigated. For example, the effects of weathering on
polymers—paints, plastics and rubbers—can be accel-
erated using artificial weathering machines such as
xenon arc artificial weathering machines, or QUV cab-
inets w24x. These machines use combinations of heat,
water spray, and normal or uv light as the factors that
degrade organic polymers and speed up the process. The
application of different set of degradation factors on
metallic building products including factory-coated
products such as galvanised steel, using a combination
of salt spray and xenon arc testing w25x, provides another
improved technique of assessment. A multitude of pre-
dictive and measurement techniques also exist to eval-
uate specific aspects of building performance such as
annual energy use, illuminance distribution, daylighting
etc. However, in all cases, an expert opinion is necessary
to make sure the test methods proposed would provide
a realistic assessment and that what has happened in the
machine is indeed typical of what occurs in natural
weathering. The requirement to update knowledge and
keep track with methods that could improve the quality
of various shades of material is a global phenomenon.
Sharman w26x asserted that testing of paints or plastics
by simple exposure to short-wave uv light is useless
and likely to be misleading, since the radiation energy
is too high and only one factor is being assessed.
Moreover, applying xenon arc accelerated weathering
tests on fibre-reinforced cement sheet has been found to
be totally inappropriate, since uv light does not degrade
cement-based materials. While heat and moisture are
known to affect cementitious materials in real life, the
heat and moisture regimes used in such tests will
produce little damage. Thus, the method selected to
critically assess the weatherability of any material must
be representative and realistic.
For all intent and purposes, the most urgent need for
advancing the current weatherability procedures of
 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
SCSBs is to develop a systematic, functional and per-
formance-oriented methodology to facilitate the weath-
ering process. This development would invariably
involve the application of the appropriate rainfall para-
meters derived from the rain simulation device. For the
method to be applicable to specific and almost all
intended uses under a broad range of environmental
concerns, the test parameters of rainfall intensity, drop
size, terminal velocity, kinetic energy and height of fall
etc considered as stress factors can be increased or
decreased to produce different stress level according to
the experimental design w27x. The following are there-
fore advanced as common set of generalised features
that would give credence to the weatherability assess-
ment of SCSBs:
● A rainfall intensity typical of what exists in the field.
● Wide range of drop sizes from near zero to 6.1 mm
diameter that are representative of the natural rain-
storm, and that which show systematic variation with
the intensity; the relative number of large drops tends
to increase with the rainfall rate.
● Raindrops falling from a considerable height–not less
than 2 m–to reach their terminal velocity close to 9
mys; a common sized drop of 2 mm falls between 6
and 7 mys and while raindrops terminal velocity
increases with the size, the fall height necessary to
attain terminal velocity is also dependent on the drop
size.
● An average kinetic energy value of 30 J my2 miny1
identical to natural rainfall; although very high energy
values of 69 J my2 miny1 with 7.5 min intensity of
112 mmyh w28x, or as high as 34 J my2 miny1 when
the intensity is 150 mmyh have been recorded.
● The angle of drop impact corresponding to the hori-
zontal velocity component due to wind.
It should be emphasised that all the features must act
together to produce adequate comparison with natural
rainfall, and that an appreciable sacrifice of either for
the other is irrational. Moreover, these features if prop-
erly construed and constituted, have enough potential to
offset the deficiencies of the accelerated weathering
tests. It is suggested that a scale factor be applied at
any desirable stage of the testing programme for a more
reliable result. Other characteristics that might be simu-
lated include drop and block temperature and drop shape
at impact, but they–like drop impact angle–are rather
subtle differences for most research goals. However, the
addition of unnecessary sophistication to criteria for
rainfall simulation studies may seriously complicate the
research and limit the amount of data that can be
obtained.
Importantly, the characteristics that influence the
block erosivity must first be understood and then simu-
lated using an appropriate simulation device or what
can be called a ‘hydrospill-1’, synonymous with a
171
rainfall simulator used in soil erosion research or rain
erosion rig used for determining the rain resistance of
stabilised soil blocks w29x. This is intended to be a
simple, efficient and adaptable equipment aimed at
reproducing the weather factors close to ‘real’, and
having the capacity to define appropriate targets in
assessing relative improvements in the performance of
SCSBs, and to provide the technique for obtaining block
erosion data which can be valuable for their service-life
prediction, rain resistance and maintenance strategies. A
detailed description of this equipment will be a subject
for further consideration in another paper. The establish-
ment of a coherent research programme in the area of
life-cycle performance evaluation of stabilised soil block
structures and the influence of mortar on individual
block samples used in the field need further investiga-
tion. Thus, to accurately evaluate the weatherability of
SCSB quantitatively, the major rainfall characteristics
such as intensity, drop-size, impact velocity, kinetic
energy and angle of impact must be nearly identical to
those of natural rainfall.
7. Concluding remarks
The following are the major findings from the anal-
yses of the assessment methods of SCSBs:
1. The proven weather resistance of soil block samples
has generated the requirement to measure the weath-
erability potential of these materials using accelerated
weathering test. There appears to be considerable
inconsistencies between the accelerated weathering
test and the field performance, and significant modi-
fications to these testing procedures are needed.
2. Soil block building product offers resistance to the
external forces of disruption only in so far as it can
furnish strength adequacy, excellent moisture retard-
ance ability and tolerance to weather impact forces;
either of which should make no appreciable sacrifice
for the other.
3. Characterising the erosion resistance of SCSBs is, in
the final analysis, a field-scale problem, and long-
term exposure test based not on laboratory test but
on field demonstration is a more reliable method for
assessing the weatherability potential of these
products.
4. The quality of the weatherability prediction is inti-
mately related to the accuracy of the environmental
simulation performed in the test.
5. The common set of generalised features, based on
rainfall parameters and derived from the rain simula-
tion device, have sufficient capability to counterbal-
ance the shortcomings of accelerated weathering tests
and to give solidity to the weatherability assessment
methods. A detailed description of the equipment
172 F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine / Construction and Building Materials 16 (2002) 163–172
called ‘hydrospill-1’ will be considered in another
paper.
6. Scale factors should apply where appropriate at any
stage of the testing programme, particularly when
applying laboratory results to the field experience and
during rainfall simulation events.
7. In the absence of a proper assessment procedure, the
predictability of soil blocks behaviour in the building
envelope with reasonable accuracy remains a mirage
and the anticipated credibility for effective perform-
ance is undermined.
8. Properly fabricated and soundly assessed SCSBs
could define a more qualitative description of the
weatherability measurements, and lead to structural
components having improved environmental resis-
tance which would invariably promote the products
marketability and consumer confidence in their use,
and provide a solid platform upon which the service-
life prediction is firmly rooted.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my thanks to Dr Halim Boussabaine
for the invaluable guidance and encouragement as
research supervisor and co-author of this paper. The role
of Federal University of Technology, Akure (Nigeria)
for engineering this study and that of the Commonwealth
Scholarship Commission for the financial support is
greatly acknowledged.
References
w1x Soronis G. The problem of durability in building design.
Constr Build Mater 1992;6:205 –11.
w2x Haliwell SM, Gardiner D. Artificial weathering procedures for
plastics glazing materials. Constr Build Mater 1994;8(4):233 –
41.
w3x American Society for Testing and Materials. Wetting and
drying compacted soil cement mixtures. ASTM D559, 1989.
w4x Houben H, Guillaud H. Earth construction—a comprehensive
guide. Southampton Row, London WC1B 4HH: IT Publication
Limited, 1994.
w5x Ramachandran VS. New approaches to building materials.
Proceedings of the 9th CIB Congress, National Swedish Insti-
tute for Building Research, Gavle, Sweden 1983.
w6x Heathcote KA. Durability of earth wall buildings. Constr Build
Mater 1995;9(3):185 –9.
w7x Masters LW, Brandt E. Systematic methodology for service
life prediction of building materials and components. Mater
Struct 1989;22:385 –92.
w8x Mukhopadhyaya P, Swamy PN, Lynsdale CJ. Influence of
aggressive exposure conditions on the behaviour of adhesive
bonded concrete-GFRP joints. Constr Build Mater
1998;12:427 –46.
w9x Tomiita T. Service life prediction system of polymeric materials
exposed outdoors. Constr Build Mater 1994;8(4):223 –6.
w10x Masters LW. Service life prediction, the barriers and opportu-
nities. Proc. 9th CIB Congress, Gavle, Sweden 1983;10–19.
w11x Morgan RPC. Soil erosion and conservation. UK: Longman
Scientific and Technical, 1986.
w12x May Gerald W. Standard Engineering for earth buildings. In:
McHenry PG, editor. Adobe and rammed earth buildings. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984.
w13x Carroll RF. Bricks and blocks for low cost housing. OBN 197.
BRE, International Division, UK 1992;1–14.
w14x Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS. Spray erosion studies
on pressed soil blocks. Build Environ 1987;22(2):135 –40.
w15x Ransom WH. Building Failures—diagnosis and avoidance. E
and FN Spon London. 2nd Edition 1987, reprinted 1996.
w16x Smith RG, Webb DJT. Small scale manufacture of stabilised
soil blocks. Geneva: ILO Publications, 1987.
w17x BSI. Code of practice for assessing exposure of walls to wind-
driven rain. BS 8104: 1992.
w18x Walker P. Specifications for stabilised pressed earth blocks.
Masonry Int 1996;10(1):1 –6.
w19x UNCHS (Habitat). Kenya specification for stabilised soil
blocks 1989.
w20x Waswa BN. Lime-stabilised murram as a building material in
Kenya. Mphil dissertation. University of Glamorgan, Pontyp-
ridd, UK Sept 1992.
w21x Bulletin 5. Earth-wall construction. 4th Edition. National Build-
ing Centre, Sydney. 1987. In: Heathcote KA, editor. Durability
of earth wall buildings. Constr Build Mater
1995;9(3):185–189.
w22x Cytryn S. Soil construction. State of Israel, Ministry of
Labour—Housing Division. In: Heathcote KA, editor. Durabil-
ity of earth-wall buildings: Constr Build Mater, 9(3). Jerusa-
lem: The Weizman Science Press of Israel, 1995. p. 185 –9.
w23x Frencham GJ. The performance of earth buildings. Deakin
University, Geelong 1982.
w24x Wypych J. Weathering Handbook. Toronto: Chemtec Publish-
ing, 1990.
w25x Brown HM, MacGregor ID, MacIsaac LA. Comparison of
accelerated and natural weathering of coil-coated galvanised
steel. Constr Build Mater 1991;3:123 –6.
w26x Sharman WR. Implications of the New Zealand Building Code
durability requirements. Constr Build Mater 1994;8(4):277 –
82.
w27x Lewry AJ, Crewdson LFE. Approaches to testing the durability
of materials used in the construction and maintenance of
buildings. Constr Build Mater 1994;8(4):211 –22.
w28x Lal R. Soil conservation, preventive and control measures. In:
Morgan RPC, editor. Soil conservation, problems and pros-
pects.John Wiley, 1981a. p. 175 –81.
w29x Ogunye FO. Rain resistance of stabilised soil blocks. PhD
Thesis, University of Liverpool Dec 1997.