Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Research

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

Earth concrete. Stabilization revisited

Henri Van Damme a,b,⁎, Hugo Houben c
a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Cambridge, MA, USA
b
bMSEN2, Multiscale Materials Science for Energy and the Environment, the Joint CNRS-MIT Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA
c
CRAterre-ENSAG, Grenoble, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Not surprisingly, with the increased awareness of environmental issues, construction with raw (crude, unbaked)
Received 29 September 2016 earth (subsoil) is gaining renewed interest. However, it suffers from a poor image and from the difficulty to meet
8 January 2017 modern productivity standards and to pass some durability tests designed for industrial materials. The recent
Accepted 23 February 2017
trend is to overcome these drawbacks by “stabilizing” the material most often with Portland cement (PC).
Available online 11 May 2017
Here we show that stabilization with PC is in general neither technically nor environmentally advisable. It brings
only moderate mechanical improvement at a high environmental cost. Rather than massively transforming crude
earth into a low quality concrete, it would be more appropriate to adapt the architectural practice and/or to look
for milder ways to improve properties. In this respect, the recent successful attempts to improve the workability
and the strength of raw earth by controlling the dispersion of its fine fraction seem to be particularly promising.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2. Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.1. Raw material: the (sub)soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.2. Traditional building techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2.2.1. Wattle and daub – cob (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.2.2. Adobe or moulded bricks (MB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.2.3. Rammed earth (RE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.2.4. Compressed earth blocks (CEB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.3. Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.4. Toward earth concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.5. Mechanical and thermal performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
2.6. Robustness of the technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3. Durability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4. Stage of development and research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.1. Patent protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5. Scale-up potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6. Equipment and processing: comparison with PC-based mortar and concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7. Investment and cost of production range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8. Simplified environmental assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9. Barriers, incentives and research priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: henrivd@mit.edu (H. Van Damme), hugo.houben@sfr.fr (H. Houben).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.035
0008-8846/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102 91

1. Introduction needed. It is inexpensive and is generally taken on the construction

“Raw” earth – or soil – has been used as a construction material for
thousands of years on a worldwide scale and it is still extensively in
use today (Fig. 1). It led to a remarkable variety of vernacular construc-
tion techniques including wattle and daub, cob, mud brick or com-
pressed earth block masonry, and rammed earth. It is estimated that
more than two billion people are currently living in earthen dwellings
and that about 10% of the world heritage properties incorporate earthen
structures [1]. Earth construction offers significant environmental ad-
vantages. The raw material is soil or, more exactly, subsoil (the use of
the organic-rich top soil horizon, if any, should be reserved for agricul-
ture). It is infinitely recyclable. No energy intensive manufacturing is
site, saving the impact and cost of transportation. Whatever the con-
struction technique, processing is kept to a minimum. In addition of
being generally nontoxic and nonpolluting, raw earth has a large ad-
sorption capacity for volatile compounds, thanks to its clay content.
Earth buildings perform also very well hygrothermally thanks to their
relatively low thermal conductivity, large thermal mass and strong
“breathability” (easy water/vapor phase change and transport) [2–4].
The tactile sensation of dry earth is also warmer than that of concrete
[4]. When taken together, these features lead to good comfort, remark-
ably small embodied energy, and light environmental impact [5].
Not surprisingly, with the increased awareness of environmental
and energetic issues, earth construction is gaining renewed interest.

Fig. 1. From left to right and from top to bottom: 1, The Vaugirard castle, Champdieu, France (www.visitesloireforez.com/château-de-vaugirard), built in the 17th century in rammed earth.
2, Salvatierra, a bioclimatic (passiv) building of 43 apartments, Beauregard, Britany, France, 2007. The building frame is in concrete and the façade in compressed earth blocks. Jean-Yves
Barrier architect. Photo Ph. Bardel. 3, Feldkirch regional hospital, Vorarlberg, Austria, 1993. A 180 m long and 6 m high rammed earth wall functions as a climate regulator. Martin Rauch
architect. Photo: Bruno Klomfar. 4, Private house, Bangalore, India. Chitra Vishwanath Architect. 5, Ricola Herb Center, Laufen Switzerland, 2014. Façade (100 m × 11 m) in rammed earth
elements built by Lehm Ton Erde GmbH. The earth was collected not further than 10 km from the construction site. Jacques Herzog & Pierre de Meuron architects. 6, Gugler Company,
Austria, completed with 160 built-in rammed earth elements. Photo: Bruno Klomfar, Vienna, office@klomfar.com.
92 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102

When implemented without industrial additives, crude earth is a totally efficient way to use cement. The aim of this contribution is to provide
and infinitely recyclable material with a remarkably low environmental some quantitative clues on these questions.
impact [5]. In addition to already providing decent dwellings to a signif-
icant fraction of humanity all over the globe, it is one of the possible so-
2. Technology
lutions to consider for facing the affordable housing challenge that the
increase of the world population is posing. However, it is also facing se-
2.1. Raw material: the (sub)soil
rious challenges, many of which stem from its still very limited use in
modern construction [5]. Earth construction is only minimally ad-
Raw earth or soil (in what follows we will use the word soil in place
dressed in construction codes and the structural performance of earthen
of the more correct subsoil for the sake of simplicity) is not a binder. It
buildings is not well documented. Many engineers are not trained to de-
should be considered as a kind of mortar or concrete. Most soils have
sign earth structures and contractors skilled in earth construction are
a broad particle size distribution, extending from sub-μm to several
not easily found in many parts of the world. In addition, earth construc-
mm or above. The finer (b2 or b5 μm, depending on the classification
tion is so far a very labor intensive technique. This leads to a relatively
scheme) fraction, defined as the “clay” fraction, is essentially composed
high cost and to time requirements incompatible with current produc-
of layered lattice silicates like kaolinite, illite, montmorillonite, or chlo-
tivity standards. It also needs more frequent maintenance than fired
rite, often associated with colloidal oxide or oxyhydroxide particles of
brick or concrete construction. On the other hand, the public perception
metals like Al and/or Fe. This fine fraction may be considered as the
of earth construction is that it is a technique viable in dry climates only,
binder - i.e. the source of cohesion - of crude earth, essentially through
although complying to simple architectural rules – build with “good
capillary and, to less extent, van der Waals and ion correlation forces
boots” (a stone or concrete foundation, in order to avoid capillary rise
[13]. Soils rich in montmorillonite exhibit large dimensional changes
and/or damage due to flooding) and a “hat” (a roof overhanging, in
with moisture content. They are unsuitable for earth construction un-
order to avoid the rain to hit directly the earthen façade) – makes it
less they are modified with a coarser material in order to incorporate
suitable for wet climates, even with heavy rainfall. Earth structures
a more rigid skeleton. Other clays like kaolinite, illite or chlorite exhibit
are considered not as structurally sound as PC concrete or wood
much less swelling (when wet) and shrinking or cracking (when dry)
frame structures, especially in seismically active regions, although
and are therefore more appropriate for earth construction.
simple technical means like incorporation of polymer meshes im-
The other granulometric fractions of soils are silt, between 2 (or 5) and
proves dramatically their resistance to shaking [6,7]. Finally, the ma-
20 (or 50) μm; sand, primarily quartz, between 20 (or 50) μm and 2 mm;
terial itself is often perceived as “dusty and dirty”, in spite of
gravel, between 2 and 20 mm, and pebbles or stones above 20 mm. They
numerous examples of luxurious historical mansions and an explo-
do not significantly contribute to cohesion in the air-dry state (i.e. when
sion of modern earthen constructions including luxurious villas, cul-
the material is in equilibrium with atmospheric water vapor pressure),
tural centers, schools, hospitals, commercial buildings, all meeting
but they do contribute to the space-filling character of the mix, hence to
the contemporary standards.
its compressive strength. In the wet state (i.e. when liquid water is
“Stabilization” with PC or other binders was introduced in earthen
added to the material), silt and fine sand soften considerably and contrib-
construction – mainly in compressed blocks and rammed earth technol-
ute to plasticity. Actually, compact soil is a cohesive-frictional granular
ogies – in order to address some of the (often unjustified) previous con-
material just like ordinary concrete, and the same universal physical
cerns. Typically, five to 10% OPC is added to the soil. Not only does this
and mechanical laws apply to both materials as far as packing, stress
improve strength, durability and resistance to water erosion, it may
propagation, failure, and rheology are concerned.
also turn some soils that are initially unsuitable into soils appropriate
The soil mixes for earth construction may be locally available soils or
for construction. In this respect, the practice in earthen building con-
engineered mixes of soils from different origins. The type of soil avail-
struction is not very different from that in road construction, either for
able and the climatic as well as site conditions are the main points to
the pavement or for the base layer [8]. In parallel, efforts have been
consider when deciding to build with earth, and which technology to
made to transfer to earthen construction the technologies used in con-
use. The physical properties of the soil that will be used represent the
crete construction. Earth-based mixes at very low water content, fluid-
most critical factor. The four main properties to consider are texture
ized with clay dispersants, can now be cast in place just like ordinary
(or particle size distribution), plasticity (ability to deform without
concrete [9,10]. Some stabilized mixes fluidized with last generation
cracking or disintegrating), compactibility (potential to reduce porosity
superplasticizers can even be operated like self-compacting or self-
by compaction), and cohesion (ability to sustain tensile stress) [14,15].
leveling concretes, with a turnover rate of the formworks – a few
Quite obviously, these are not independent properties. The particle
hours – compatible with modern construction standards [11,12].
size distribution is somehow largely controlling all the other properties.
As far as the carbon footprint of earth construction is concerned, this
Table 1, based on the Unified Soil Classification System from ASTM
evolution toward systematic use of stabilization raises a number of
D2487 standard for geotechnical engineering, summarizes the main
questions. Unstabilized crude earth should be seen as a natural concrete,
types of subsoils and their suitability to be used for earth construction.
its finer fraction (clay) providing the binding properties insuring its co-
In this classification system, the most suitable soils are silty or clayey
hesion. When stabilized with OPC, earth turns into low (hydraulic)
gravels, silty or clayey sands, and to a minor degree low plasticity silts
binder content concrete. Its strength remains relatively small, of the
and clays.
order of a few MPa, up to about twenty MPa in the very best cases.
This leads generally to the need of more massive walls than with timber,
concrete block, or (reinforced) cast concrete construction. Although this 2.2. Traditional building techniques
may have some advantages, in terms of capacity to smooth temperature
oscillations for instance, it has also drawbacks in terms of carbon foot- The large variety of natural soils has been coped with by vernacular
print. Even small relative cement contents may represent large absolute builders by developing construction techniques adapted to the proper-
volumes, and the question must be raised whether the environmentally ties of the locally available material. Together with the local environ-
friendly character of earthen construction is still preserved. Stated dif- mental – including climatic – conditions and social habits, this led to a
ferently, one would like to know in which conditions and up to what myriad of constructive cultures. However, from a purely technical per-
point the claimed environmentally friendly character of earth construc- spective, almost all traditional earth building techniques may be classi-
tion is compatible with its stabilization by PC or other mineral binders fied into four main variants: wattle and daub, cob, masonry with adobe
like lime or alkalis for instance or, conversely, in which conditions and (mud bricks), and rammed earth [14–17]. The main addition in the con-
up to what point using raw earth as aggregates is an environmentally temporary period has been the introduction of compressed earth blocks.
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102 93

Table 1
Simplified Unified Soil Classification System from ASTM D2487 with a qualitative assessment of the suitability for earth construction. The classification system is using two-letter symbols
as follows. First letter: G, gravel; S, sand; M, silt; C, clay; O, organic. Second letter: P, poorly graded (continuous particle size distribution); W, well-graded (well-separated populations); H,
high plasticity; L, low plasticity.
Adapted from [5,14].

Major divisions Group Typical soil names Suitability for earth construction
symbol (unstabilized)

Coarse-grained soils Gravels Clean gravels, with b5% passing GW Well-graded gravels Not suitable, fine soil should be
N50% retained on the 0.075 N50% retained on the 4.75 0.075 mm sieve added
mm sieve mm sieve GP Poorly graded gravels Not suitable, fine soil should be
added
Gravel with N12% fines GM Silty gravels Suitable but lacks cohesion and
erodes easily
GC Clayey gravels Suitable, sometimes fine soil has to
be added
Sands Clean sands SW Well-graded clean sands Not suitable, fine soil should be
50% or more passes the added
4.75 mm sieve SP Poorly graded clean sands Not suitable, fine soil should be
added
Sands with N12% fines SM Silty sands Suitable but lacks cohesion and
erodes easily
SC Clayey sands Suitable, sometimes fine soil has to
be added
Fine-grained soils Silts and clays Inorganic ML Silts of low plasticity, silty Suitable, but eventually lacks
N50% passes the 0.075 mm Liquid limit 50% or less fine sands cohesion
sieve CL Clays of low plasticity, lean Sometimes suitable, sandy soil
clays should be added
Organic OL Organic silts and clays of Not suitable, sometimes
low plasticity acceptable
Silts and clays Inorganic MH Silts of high plasticity Very rarely suitable
Liquid limit larger than 50% CH Clays of high plasticity, fat Rarely suitable, sandy soil should
clays be added
Organic OH Highly plastic organic silts Not suitable
and clays
Highly organic soils PT Peat and other highly Not suitable for construction
organic soils

2.2.1. Wattle and daub – cob (C)
In the very ancient wattle and daub technique (torchis in French,
tabique in Portuguese), mud mixed with straw is pressed against a rela-
tively light woven lattice of wooden strips, sometimes simple boughs.
This lattice is itself connected to a stronger vertical or inclined wooden
frame. The same type of wet earth-straw mix is used in the cob tech-
nique (bauge in French), without any support or formwork. Plastic
humps or loaves (cob is an old English word for loaf) of the mix are sim-
ply hand-packed layer by layer, forming monolithic and wide (50 to
80 cm) masonry walls. This allows for a great freedom of shapes, in par-
ticular for curved walls which are structurally more stable than rectilin-
ear walls with right angle joints. Cob is often associated with wattle and
daub. It is not very demanding in terms of soil composition. It was used
for centuries in Europe, the Middle East, equatorial Africa, parts of East
Asia, and the American Southwest. It was the predominant residential
building material in UK until the rise of inexpensive fired bricks in the
middle of the nineteenth century [5]. It is experiencing a vivid revival
in the South West of England where an estimated 40,000 cob buildings
are still in every day use [18].
2.2.2. Adobe or moulded bricks (MB)
Masonry with adobe – crude air-dried, unbaked, bricks, possibly re-
inforced with straw, also called mud bricks – is a very simple and also
a very ancient technique (Fig. 2). Adobes are generally made by filling
a wooden mould with moist earth and demoulding the crude brick as
soon as the mould is full. Densification is driven by the rising capillary
forces as the material is drying, most often in the sun. Soils suitable for
manufacturing adobes can be found all over the globe. Their particle
size distribution has an upper cutoff around a few mm (this can be ob-
tained by sieving) and their clay content is generally between ~10 and
~ 30% [14]. Adobes are moulded in the soft or plastic state, with earth
containing between ~ 5 and ~ 40% of water, depending essentially on
their clay content. The only problem is the relatively long drying time
of the raw bricks before they can be used. Industrial production of
crude earth bricks has been developed in some countries, with acceler-
ated drying in artificial conditions, with a concomitant increase of em-
bodied energy.
2.2.3. Rammed earth (RE)
The fourth widespread traditional technology is rammed earth (pisé
in French and tapial in Spanish). In this technique, moist earth is
compacted layer by layer in a formwork, forming ultimately a monolith-
ic wall (Fig. 3). Rammed earth is a labor intensive technique. Ten to
twenty cm lifts are tamped either manually with a rammer – a shaped
tool equipped with a long handle and a flat head – or mechanically
with a pneumatic ramming machine. The particle size distribution of
the material used for rammed earth is richer in coarse particles (coarse
sand, gravel, pebbles) than for adobe, and its content in dimensionally
stable clays (swelling and shrinking clays like montmorillonite should
be avoided) is smaller (~10 to ~15%). With respect to the other tradi-
tional techniques, the mix for rammed earth contains less water, be-
tween ~ 5 and ~ 15%. The mix looks dry, not soft or liquid like. The
formwork may be integral, allowing for the construction of large wall
sections at one time, but smaller repositionable formworks may also
be used. A rammed earth wall is thick, typically ~40 to ~60 cm.
2.2.4. Compressed earth blocks (CEB)
In the middle of the twentieth century, masonry with compressed
earth blocks has been introduced [14]. It is now, on equal foot with
rammed earth or perhaps ahead of it, the most widespread contempo-
rary technology of construction with raw earth. The blocks are
manufactured by pressing sieved soil into block moulds with a manual,
mechanical, or hydraulic press (Fig. 4). Like those used to manufacture
94 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102

Fig. 2. 1, Manufacture of adobe at small industrial scale in Palencia, Spain. Photo credit: Enrique Sevillano. 2, Massive storage of adobes, Villa Janna, Marrakech, Morocco. Architects: Denis
Coquard & Jalal Zemmama. Photo credit: Charlie Shepherd. 3, Contemporary unplastered adobe house, Lienzo de barro, Ecuador. Architects: Francisco Trigueros Muñoz, Elena de Oleza
Llobet & Jorge Ramòn Giacometti. Photo credit: Chaquiñan taller de Arquitectura. 4, Contemporary adobe nursery school plastered with a fine soil render, Maosi, China. Architects:
Edward Ng & Mu Jun. Photo credit: Mu Jun.

adobe, the soils used to manufacture CEB are most often classified as
clayey sandy soils, with ~10 to ~20% clay, ~10 to ~20% silt, and ~50 to
~70% sand and coarser particles, with a higher cutoff of a few mm. Com-
positions outside this range can be corrected with other earths. CEB are
denser, stronger and dimensionally more uniform than adobe blocks.
Like in the rammed earth technology, the soil of CEB is compressed in
the “dry” state (~ 5 to ~ 15% water content) but, contrary to rammed
earth compaction which is by impact, compression of soil in a CEB
press is quasi-static. The densities thus achieved are of the order of
1700 to 2300 kg/m3.
The first machine designed to make CEB, the CINVA-Ram hand press,
was created by Paul Ramirez in the nineteen fifties in the Inter-Ameri-
can Housing Center in Bogota, Colombia [19]. Many other models
were developed afterwards in India, South- and Central-America, and
Europe. A team of two or three workers – one for sieving the soil and
homogeneizing the mix, the other for filling the press and the third
one for operating it – is able to manufacture close to 500 blocks per
day. Some mobile industrial machines reach almost the same output
in 1 h. Depending on the mould, blocks may be rectangular and mono-
lithic, or they may be hollow to reduce weight. They may have a pat-
terned surface for decoration, grooves for reinforcing, or interlocking
shapes for easy mortar-free stacking, just like with concrete blocks.
2.3. Stabilization
As introduced in Section 1, it is a common practice, particularly with
CEB and rammed earth, to introduce in the earthen material a small
fraction of “stabilizer” in order to improve strength, resistance to disag-
gregation and to erosion, or to “correct” a composition which otherwise
would be unsuitable for the desired technology. Actually, stabilization is
a very old practice, especially with earthen plasters and stuccoes. Tree
resins, natural bitumen, Arabic gum, agave juice, opuntia cactus juice,
cowpats, casein from milk – just to name a few – have been used by ver-
nacular builders all over the world [14]. More recently, synthetic com-
pounds like PVC, polyvinyl acetate, acrylics, sodium silicate and many
others have also been introduced in various amounts. As far as “integral”
(bulk) stabilization is concerned, asphalt emulsions, hydrated lime, cal-
cined gypsum (plaster of Paris), PC, or supplementary cementitious ma-
terials (SCM) like silica fume, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace
slag or other pozzolans are the most frequently used stabilizers, either
alone or in association. In the case of cement or plaster of Paris, the re-
actions are hydraulic (reaction of the stabilizer with water to form hy-
drates), while with lime, and to some extent also with cement, they
are pozzolanic (reaction between the interstitial lime solution and a re-
active source of silica or silicoalumina, which may be a SCM or the soil
itself). Alkaline activation (or “geopolymerisation”) of fly ash-enriched
soils using sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide mixtures has also intro-
duced recently in rammed earth construction [20]. The company Argilus
intends to commercialize alkali-activated clay bricks in 2017 [21].
Curing is an important part of the stabilization process. The clay min-
erals of soils are much less reactive than clays purposely activated at el-
evated temperature and the kinetics of their pozzolanic reaction is slow
[22]. This is the reason why stabilized mud bricks or compressed earth
blocks have to be kept under a plastic cover or, better, cured by sprin-
kling moisture for several days before drying and using them in wall
construction.
In parallel to its practice in the construction of earthen dwellings, soil
stabilization (or “treatment”) is also a widespread technology in the
construction of roads [8,22–24]. It is estimated that about 5% of the glob-
al cement production is used in road construction. The largest part of
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102
Fig. 3. Rammed earth technology. 1, Traditional ramming by hand with small moveable wooden formwork, Africa; 2, A close look to a rammed earth wall, showing the compacted layers; 3
and 4, A modern rammed earth construction site (Martin Rauch, Lehm Ton Erde GmbH, Austria; 5, A prefabricated element put in place (Lehm Ton Erde GmbH and Ricola Herb Center).
this is used for pavements, but a significant fraction – about 20%, i.e.
~40 Mt in 2015 – is used to improve the load bearing properties of the
foundation [25]. Silt- and clay-rich soils, particularly when they are
wet, can lead to construction problems related to their plasticity and
to the difficulty to compact them. The problem is actually very similar
in rammed earth construction. The objective of the treatment with fly
ash, lime or cement is to decrease this plasticity and to make the soil
more compactable. Withy PC as stabilizer, this is usually achieved by
mixing the native soil with 3 to 10% of cement, often in place, and rolling
the wet mixture for compaction.
2.4. Toward earth concrete
Going one step further than simple stabilization with PC, several at-
tempts have been made to transfer to earthen construction the technol-
ogies used in concrete construction. The objective is to design a mix
suitable for making the earth pourable in a formwork while allowing
for the removal of the formwork in a time much shorter than what sim-
ple air-drying would have permitted. Like with PC-based concrete, the
simplest solution to make earth pourable is just to increase the water
content. However, this increases the risk of solid-solid and solid-fluid
segregation in the fresh state and the risk of shrinkage-induced cracking
in the dry state. In order to address these drawbacks, two different strat-
egies have been explored. The first, applied in Cast Earth®, is to add a
substantial amount (~15%) of a quick binder like calcined gypsum for
instance and, simultaneously, of a set retarder in order to keep the
mix workable for a time compatible with the construction technique
[26]. The introduction of a substantial amount of fine binder particles
95
limits segregation and its quick hydration is building shear strength
compatible with the removal of the formwork. The second strategy,
followed in “Pisé coulé”, is to reinforce the granular skeleton by increas-
ing the coarse aggregate and sand fractions in the mix [27]. Eventually,
both strategies may be combined, like in Cematerre® which associates
the introduction of recycled concrete aggregates and natural fibers
with that of PC and lime (~15% in total) [28].
The next and quite obvious step on the way to PC concrete-like tech-
nologies is to divest from excessive water addition and to switch to the
use of “fluidizers” in order to prevent flocculation of the fine fraction,
which is the main source of thickening and yield stress (Fig. 5). Several
good dispersing agents of clays are known, like sodium
hexametaphosphate (HMP), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), sodium
silicate (Na2SiO3), or polyacrylic acid (PAA) for instance [29–31], and
they have been shown to be also effective with most soil compositions
[9,10,32,33].
The most successful attempts to design earth-based mix that are re-
ally concrete-like used the same water reducers and superplasticizers
(SP) as those used in OPC-based concrete. Thus, TerraKorea, the team
of the Institute of Earthen Architecture in Korea has made impressive
demonstrations of earth concrete fluidized with naphthalene sulfonate
SP [34]. By tuning the granular composition and adding ~ 15% of lime
and pozzolanic material, the mix exhibit the same self-leveling proper-
ties as OPC-based self-leveling concrete.
A similar development was made at ETH Zurich using 5% addition of
calcium sulfoaluminate cement (CSA) and polycarboxylate ether SP [11,
12]. Interestingly, the CSA cement was selected not only for its binding
action after setting but also for its ability to consume water and to
96 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102
Fig. 4. Building with PC-stabilized compressed earth blocks (CEB) in Bangalore, India, 2007. 1, Sieving the soil at b2 mm; 2, Mixing the soil with OPC; 3, The manual press; 4 and 5, the house
under construction. Note the different types of blocks and the concrete elements.
accelerate drying of the soil mix and, ultimately, to allow for quick re-
moval of the formwork, after a few hours only (hydration of CSA is con-
suming more water than hydration of OPC) [35]. The formulation was
termed self-compacting clay concrete (SCCC), in reference to the fact
that the clayey fraction is supposed to remains the main binder in the
mix.
Divesting from the use of either lime, PC or CSA, Moevus et al.
succeeded in formulating a cement-free castable self-compacting clay
concrete by increasing the population of fine particles and using a clay
dispersant [9]. Crack-free pavements could be poured. However, drying
of this concrete was relatively slow and in order to apply the technology
to walls, a significant fraction of PC (4.5%) had to be introduced in order
to accelerate strength build-up [10].
The mechanism by which cement is building up the strength of wet
raw earth at early age is far from being obvious. The formation of a per-
colating network of cement hydrates - like in the setting of mortar or or-
dinary concrete - is the first possibility to consider. However,
considering the relatively low volume fraction of cement in stabilized
earth, it seems unlikely that a percolation threshold could be reached.
A second possible mechanism could stem from the consumption of
water that accompanies the hydration of cement. In wet soil, the main
reservoir of water is the water associated with the fine clayey fraction.
Hence, cement hydration is expected to induce a transfer of water
from clays to cement hydrates, thereby increasing the attractive capil-
lary forces in the clay (seen Section 2.5). This mechanism is supported
by the more effective action of CSA as compared to OPC.
A third possible mechanism for the action of cement could be related
to the flocculating action of the ions released by its reaction with water.
As soon as cement is contacted with water, rapid dissolution reactions
take place producing, among others, Ca2 + and OH− hydroxide ions.
This leads to a rapid increase of pH and ionic strength. Calcium ions
are particularly effective as clay flocculating agents. Thus, the strongly
flocculated network of clay particles may contribute significantly to
the cohesion of the earth. This mechanism is supported by recent results
showing that addition of minor amounts (0.2 to 0.5%) of lime is able to
counteract – with some short desirable delay – the dispersive action of
sodium HMP or sodium silicate and to provoke the re-flocculation of the
material [33].
Finally, it is important to mention that an alternative and promising
approach to stabilization with PC is to improve the binding properties of
the clay fraction by manipulating its microstructure. This has been
achieved recently by introducing clay dispersants (HMP, PAA), without
PC or any binder [32]. A doubling of the compressive strength of earth
mortars (from ~ 3 to ~ 6 MPa) was observed and interpreted in terms
of deflocculation of the clay aggregates in favor of a more oriented and
denser microstructure. Provided environmentally friendly clay disper-
sants become available at low cost, this may be an interesting alterna-
tive to stabilization with cement. However, it should be kept in mind
that even a low content in -admixtures (say, 0.5%) in a massive earthen
wall may represent large absolute volumes with a strong environmental
impact.
2.5. Mechanical and thermal performances
Raw earth - whatever the technology used and even after heavy sta-
bilization - remains a mechanically modest construction material. It will
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102
Fig. 5. Earth concrete. 1, Laboratory demonstration of a unstabilized pourable clay concrete formulated with only 10% of water and a HMP dispersant; 2, The same delivered on site; 3, A
wall manufactured with this concrete; 4 and 5, Demonstration of a self-leveling earth concrete stabilized with lime, University of Mokpo, South-Korea.
Photo credit: 1, 2 & 3: BAE/MarietteMoevus-Dorvaux/Les Grands Ateliers; 4 & 5: Heeyong Choi.
never compete with concrete, steel, or even wood, for being the sub-
stance of modern civil engineering works. However, it is perfectly suit-
able for one, two, or three story buildings, or even more. The historic
center of Lyon, France has several five story buildings built in
unstabilized rammed earth. The city of Shibam in Yemen, where eight
story buildings reaching thirty meters high have been built with
unstabilized sun-dried earth bricks, is an extreme example that illus-
trates the often underestimated capacities of this material.
Raw earth is a cohesive-frictional material, that is, its mechanical be-
havior is determined by the combined action of cohesion and friction. In
the conditions encountered in earthen buildings it is also an unsaturat-
ed porous medium, that is, it contains adsorbed water and liquid water
bridges (capillary water) in equilibrium with the internal atmospheric
relative humidity. Cohesion is originating from a number of attractive
inter-particle surface forces, including dispersion (van der Waals), cap-
illary, and ionic correlation forces [13,36], the relative strength of which
depends primarily on clay content, nature, and hydration state. Experi-
mental triaxial measurements and modeling on reconstructed soils led
to the conclusion that the main contribution to cohesion is provided
by the capillary forces (or matric suction, in geotechnical terms) in the
water (nano)menisci bridging the gap between clay particles or the
gap between clay particles and coarser aggregates (silt, sand) [13,36,
37]. This was confirmed by subsequent experimental data relating the
strength and stiffness of compacted earth to its water content and its
matric suction [38–40]. Both properties – strength and suction – were
found to increase linearly with the logarithm of suction (i.e., equivalent-
ly, with the logarithm of capillary pressure, or the logarithm of the aver-
age air-water interface curvature).
97
Like all cohesive-frictional materials, including PC concrete and
medicine tablets, raw earth also becomes stronger and stiffer with in-
creasing density (or, more correctly, with increasing solid volume frac-
tion, although this parameter is seldom or never considered in earthen
construction) [41–43]. This may be rationalized in terms of the increas-
ing number of adhesive and/or frictional contacts spots between parti-
cles and it emphasizes the importance of compaction. Not
surprisingly, the strength of raw earth is increasing in the order [air
dried earth (adobe, cob] b [rammed earth] b [compressed earth block]
[5,43], which is basically also the order of increasing compaction effort.
In more quantitative terms, the unconfined compressive strength of
unstabilized earth goes from a few tenths of MPa for air dried earth
(~ 0.5 to ~ 1.5 MPa for cob; ~ 1.0 to ~ 2.5 MPa for adobe) to a few MPa
for rammed earth (~ 1. to ~ 4. MPa) and compressed blocks (~ 1 to
~ 7 MPa). Stabilization with up to 10% of PC permits to multiply these
figures by approximately a factor of 2 to 3 in the best cases. We will
come back to this relatively modest result in the section devoted to
the environmental assessment. A summary of density and compressive
strength data for cob, adobe, rammed earth, compressed blocks and
other reference construction materials is shown graphically in Fig. 6, to-
gether with some thermal (thermal conductivity, thermal capacity) and
transport (water vapor diffusivity) properties.
2.6. Robustness of the technology
The table below compares the robustness of the main construction
techniques using raw earth stabilized with PC or CSA. We do not con-
sider stabilization by alkaline activation (A = adobe; B = rammed
98 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102

earth; C = compressed earth block; D = clay concrete (CC), possibly

self-compacting).

Is the technology suitable Unknown Proved possible Needs further development Not possible

1) In poor and remote regions, A, B, C D

2) By illiterate worker A, B, C D
3) With poor control of aggregates, A, B, C D
4) With poor control of water content, A, B, C D
5) Without admixtures A, B, C D
6) In hot climates A, B, C, D
7) Stability of workability at high temperatures D N.A. for A, B, C
8) In applications requiring high strength at early ages (e.g. precast) A, B, C, D
9) In the presence of common concrete contaminants A, B, C, D

3. Durability
Provided the soil composition meets the requirements of the chosen
construction technology, and provided the basic architectural rules are
respected – “good boots and a good hat” – unstabilized earthen build-
ings are durable, even in wet (but not extreme) climatic conditions.
This is proven by the hundreds of thousands of earthen buildings,
more than a century old, still occupied and still in good shape in
Western Europe. Yet, unstabilized earthen walls do not pass the du-
rability tests that were designed to set the standards for industrial
materials (spray test, drip test, wet to dry strength ratio, etc.) [44].
This weakness, especially with silty gravels and silty sands (see
Table 1), is one of the reasons for the development of stabilization
in contemporary practice. Actually, there seems to be a consensus
to consider that these tests are not adapted to earthen walls [44–46]
and that specific tests closer to natural conditions have to be developed
[47,48].
It turns out that the most relevant way to assess the durability of
earthen buildings or walls is to observe quantitatively their behavior
in natural weathering conditions. Only a few long term quantitative

Fig. 6. A semi-quantitative compilation of physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of raw earth and other reference building materials: Bulk density (kg.m−3), compressive strength
(MPa), thermal conductivity (W.m−1.K−1), thermal capacity (J.kg−1.K−1), and resistance to water vapor transport (ratio between the water vapour diffusion coefficient in air and in the
material. Note that the later parameter is a water content-dependent quantity. Symbols: RE = rammed earth; C = cob; MB = mud brick (or adobe); CEB = compressed earth block; TC =
terracotta; PC = plain concrete; CC = cellular concrete; PB = plasterboard.
Adapted from [9,10].
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102 99

studies of this type have been performed. The most extensive is proba- earth; C = compressed earth block; D = clay concrete (CC), possibly
bly that performed by [49]. More than one hundred small earthen wall self-compacting).
specimens (1.0 m × 1.1 m × 0.4 m) were built using rammed earth,
straw-earth, compressed earth block masonry, and vibrated-com- Innovation phase 1) Conceptual phase D
pressed block masonry. Different soils were used, adapted to each of 2) Laboratory evidence
these construction techniques. The walls were exposed to natural a) Unanimous A, B, C
b) Some debate
weathering conditions in wet continental climate (annual precipitation
c) Important debate on fundamental issues
1000 mm) for twenty years. The material loss due to wall erosion was Demonstration 3) Pilot plant
measured by stereo-photogrammetry. Most walls were coated with Public policy 4) Standardization
protective plasters (the assessment of which was the main purpose of a) 1 country
the study), but twenty five rammed earth walls were left unplastered. b) Some countries A, B, C
c) International
After 20 years, the average degree of erosion of the unplastered walls
Market penetration 5) Commercial
was 0.5 and 1.6% of the wall thickness for the stabilized and unstabilized a) One company, one site
earth, respectively (2 and 6.4 mm, respectively). Considering the thick- b) One company, many countries
ness of rammed earth walls (~0.5 m), the load that they have to sustain c) Few companies, several countries
d) Widely known A, B, C
at the wall base in a traditional house (~0.1–0.3 MPa), and the compres-
sive strength of rammed earth (~1 MPa), this led to the conclusion that
unstabilized rammed earth walls could easily sustain a 60 year aging 4.1. Patent protection
without maintenance and without significant loss of strength safety fac-
tor, while still keeping their aesthetic value. Actually, this 60 year esti- As far as we are aware, there is no patent protecting the stabilization
mate is a very conservative value based on the assumption that of raw earth with PC. However, several patents cover its stabilization by
erosion is a linear process. In reality, it appears that the initial erosion alkaline activation.
rate is anomalously high, due to the more porous character of the
earth layers in contact with the formwork wall (or the mould wall, in
5. Scale-up potential
the case of adobe or compressed blocks). This is a general property of
all granular materials. Thus, the actual lifetime of earthen buildings is
Being intrinsically – as long as stabilization is avoided – a low impact
expected to be even longer, in agreement with what we may observe
and circular technology, construction with earth has a large potential for
in our earthen architectural cultural heritage. In the same vein, adobe
scale-up, be it by multiplying the number of individuals who become
and CEB are expected to be even more erosion resistant, thanks to
self-builders, by increasing the number of skilled craftsman, or by devel-
their higher density.
oping construction SMEs or larger companies. Subsoil is a virtually infi-
Another conclusion that may be drawn from this study is that stabi-
nite resource on the planet, with the exception of permanently frozen
lization is often an unnecessary practice, apart from helping the material
regions, sand deserts, and naked bedrocks. Thus, availability of the
to pass inadequate durability tests. A thin and dense plaster made of fine
raw material is not expected to limit the development of construction
soil is as effective as mass stabilization for protecting earthen walls
with raw earth, at least in not-too-dense environments like rural areas,
against erosion and it is saving the use of considerable amounts of
small towns, or residential suburban areas. In developed countries, the
lime or PC.
scale-up potential of earthen construction tends to be limited by its (so
A totally different topic is the durability of earthen construction in
far) labor intensive character and by the lack of skilled workers. Both fac-
extreme weather conditions like catastrophic floods, hurricanes, mon-
tors are leading to a more expensive final result. In addition, raw earth
soon, or earthquakes. As already pointed out, simple technical means
suffers from the image of a dusty and mechanically weak material. In de-
like mass reinforcement with bamboo “rebars” and/or surface coating
veloping regions, this poor image is reinforced by social and psychological
with plastic nets improve significantly the resistance of earthen walls
factors which tend to favor more recent but not necessarily better tech-
to seismic events [6,7]. However, more fundamental work on the
nologies, be it in terms of comfort, durability, resilience, or usage cost.
dynamic characteristics of earthen buildings is needed in order to
The case of urban centers deserves special attention. There are sever-
optimize the solutions while keeping them as simple and as affordable
al reasons for that. One is the higher building density, which puts pres-
as possible [50]. The same conclusion applies to the resistance to
sure on the raw material demand. A second reason is the larger average
extreme winds.
building height which, in addition to putting pressure on the material
As far as extreme floods and rains are concerned (quasi-horizontal
demand, is imposing technical constraints on the type of construction.
monsoon rains, floods reaching a level above the stone or concrete foun-
A third one is the higher value of land, which makes the waste of
dation of the dwelling, with strong drag force), there appears to be no
space due to thick walls an unacceptable option. Taken together, these
other solution than heavy stabilization. It has been shown that CEB sta-
three points sets severe limits to the development of earthen construc-
bilized with 10% OPC keep a satisfactory compressive strength (4 to
tion in a dense modern urban environment.
8 MPa, i.e. values comparable to the strength of ordinary concrete
blocks) even after saturation with water [51]. However, at this point,
we are back to the question that has motivated this paper: Provided 6. Equipment and processing: comparison with PC-based mortar
the resources (materials, finance, skilled workers) are available, and concrete
wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the same amount of cement to
formulate a mortar or a concrete with controlled aggregates? In terms Raw earth is not a binder. It is a natural material which, with mini-
of strength and of water-, wind- and earthquake resistance, the result mal processing (densification by drying, ramming, or compression), be-
would have been significantly better. comes a natural concrete, thanks to its clayey fraction. Thus, comparison
between OPC and earth in terms of manufacturing process makes little
sense. What is meaningful though is the comparison between the
4. Stage of development and research needs equipment, processing and manpower required for building with
earth and that required to build with OPC-based products. As far as ma-
The table below compares the R&D needs of the main construction sonry is concerned, there is little difference between a wall made with
techniques using raw earth stabilized with PC or CSA. We do not consid- hollow concrete (actually, mortar) blocks and a wall made with adobe
er stabilization by alkaline activation (A = mud brick; B = rammed or CEB. Rammed earth is a particular case which has no real counterpart
100 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102

in the world of construction with concrete, with the exception of roads

and foundations where relatively dry and aggregate-rich concretes are
often used. As already pointed out, ramming is a labor-intensive process
which, so far, has seen little mechanization (conveyor belts to bring the
earth in the formwork, pneumatic compaction), except in the South-
Western states of the U.S. and in some cases in Europe, Australia and
New Zealand. The most relevant case of comparison between earth
and concrete is that of stabilized or unstabilized earth-based materials
that are pourable in a formwork thanks to the introduction of fluidizing
admixtures (like self-compacting clay concrete, SCCC). If the develop-
ment of this family of materials succeeds, then the equipment used to
build with concrete (mixing plants, trucks, steel formworks, pumps, vi-
brating needles if needed) should be entirely transferable to construc-
tion with earth. Whether this is desirable or not remains to be
assessed (see Section 8).

7. Investment and cost of production range

No manufacturing investment is needed for obtaining subsoil, ex-

cept for light digging equipment and short distance transportation
means. Some longer distance transportation cost may be considered
when the subsoil composition has to be modified by blending.

8. Simplified environmental assessment

There is no question that raw earth, when used without additives, is

an exceptionally environmentally friendly building material. Requiring
moderate work for extraction and processing, it has a very low Global
Warming Potential (GWP) (from b0.002 kg-eqCO2/kg for sun dried
bricks [52] to ~ 0.023 kg-eqCO2/kg for rammed earth [53,54]), in addi-
tion of being totally and infinitely recyclable. Among all construction
materials, this GWP is only surpassed by that of raw aggregates (with-
out transport), but aggregates (including sand) alone, without binder,
without reinforcement (fibers for instance), or without envelope, are
not suitable for making vertical walls.
This picture changes considerably when stabilization is taken into
account. Since this report is devoted to low-CO2 eco-efficient cement-
based materials, we will limit the discussion to stabilization with OPC,
the GWP of which is ~0.830 kg-eqCO2/kg. Thus, even a moderate incor-
poration – say, 5 to 10% – of OPC represents a significant increase in em-
bodied carbon (using hydrated lime would increase it even further, by
~ 50%). Using 0.023 kg-eqCO2/kg as a starting average value for the
GWP of unstabilized raw earth (subsoil), simple arithmetic shows that
stabilization with 5 to 10% OPC would boost the GWP of earth to values
between 0.064 and 0.106 kg-eqCO2/kg. As a matter of fact, the later
value is not far from the GWP of ordinary concrete, which has an aver-
age GWP of ~0.130 kg-eqCO2/kg [53–55].
It is interesting to look at stabilization from the point of view of me-
chanical performance. Stated differently, one would like to know how
effective the use of OPC is, in mechanical terms. This may be quantita-
tively estimated by calculating the so-called binder intensity index, bi, in-
troduced by Damineli et al. [56,57]. This index measures the total
amount of binder necessary to deliver one unit of a given performance
indicator, e.g. 1 MPa of compressive strength. It reads:
b 3 MPa for rammed earth; and 6 MPa for SCCC. A density of
bi ¼
p 2000 kg·m− 3 was taken as average for all materials. The results are
where b is the total consumption of binder (kg·m−3) and p is the per-
formance requirement, e.g. compressive strength (cs) after curing.
Fig. 7 illustrates the distribution of bics as a function of the compressive
strength for close to one thousand different PC concretes [56].
The binder intensity index tends clearly to decrease with the in-
crease in compressive strength, down to a plateau value of about
5 kg PC·m− 3·MPa− 1. This shows unambiguously that the binding
properties of PC are best used in compact, high performance,
Fig. 7. Binder intensity index of mud bricks (adobe), compressed earth blocks, and
rammed earth stabilized with 5 to 10% OPC, in comparison with data for PC concretes. Also
included is the index of self-compacted clay concrete (SCCC) stabilized by 5% CSA cement.
Adapted from Fig. 2b of Damineli et al. [56].
granular (aggregate + fines) matrices. Conversely, using PC as binder in
a low density matrix is a mechanically ineffective way to use cement.
Another interesting observation relates to the scatter of the bics
values, which is very broad on the low performance side of the data
point cloud, but becomes considerably narrower toward the high per-
formance end. This illustrates the fact that poor strength performances
can be obtained in many different ways (i.e. with many different granu-
lar distributions), whilst high performance concrete obey much more
rigorous packing rules [58,59].
In order to compare stabilized earth with PC concrete, we calculated
the binder intensity index of stabilized mud bricks (B), compressed
earth blocks (CEB), and rammed earth (RE) stabilized with 5 and 10%
PC. Self-compacting clay concrete (SCCC) stabilized with 5% CSA [12]
is also included in the comparison. The following average values were
taken for the compressive strength at 5 and 10% PC stabilization, respec-
tively [5]: 4 and 3 MPa for mud bricks; 20 and 15 MPa for CEB; 5 and
superimposed to the concrete data in Fig.7.
Not surprisingly, the strength values are all on the (very) low perfor-
mance side of the graph. More interesting are the index values. Actually,
the bics values fall pretty well within the (extrapolated) range of ordi-
nary concrete values, on the low strength limit of it. It appears that,
with the exception of CEB, stabilization of raw earth in bricks, rammed
earth, or clay concrete, is a very inefficient way to use cement. While
5 kg of cement per m3 is enough to obtain 1 MPa of compressive
strength with the aggregate composition of a high performance
 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102
concrete (60 MPa), it takes between 1.2 to twice as much in a com-
pressed earth block (20 MPa), which may still be acceptable, but three
times as much in SCCC (6 MPa), about seven times in rammed earth,
and about nine times in a mud brick (approximate values, based on
the selected average compressive strength).
The analysis becomes even more disturbing when the mechanical
benefits of stabilization are compared to their environmental cost.
This comparison can be made by using another index, the carbon (actu-
ally, CO2) intensity index also introduced in (Damineli et al. [56,57]):
c
ci ¼
p
where c is the total CO2 (kg·m−3) emitted in obtaining a material of
performance (e.g. compressive strength) p. Thus, cics provides informa-
tion on how much CO2 has to be emitted on average in order to obtain
1 MPa of compressive strength. The cics values calculated for stabilized
earth, using the same strength and density values as for bics, are
superimposed to those obtained by Damineli for concretes in Fig. 8.
Like in the previous case, the data points for stabilized earth fit pretty
well in the (extrapolated) cloud of data point for concretes. CEB behaves
like a concrete of moderately poor environmental and mechanical
performances. SCCC is close to the worst (in environmental terms)
formulations. Rammed earth and mud bricks have extremely poor
environmental performances, with a CO2 intensity index ~twenty and
~ twenty five times larger than the asymptotic value of high perfor-
mance concretes, respectively.
This brief environmental assessment has to be extended by taking
into account the use of new and/or alternative cementitious binders.
The overwhelming majority of stabilized earth builders use currently
cement in bags and our estimates on the environmental impact of stabi-
lization are based on the use of OPC. As the content of cement bags
evolves toward binders with a smaller carbon footprint, these estimates
will have to be updated for the better. However, it is unlikely that stabi-
lization with cementitious materials will ever be possible without im-
peding the recyclability of the material.
As far as the use of OPC is concerned, the conclusion is clear: stabili-
zation of crude earth with OPC is, in general, not an environmentally
advisable technology. It weakens the remarkably low carbon footprint
Fig. 8. CO2 intensity index of mud bricks (B), compressed earth blocks (CEB), and rammed
earth (RE) stabilized with 5 to 10% OPC, in comparison with data for PC concretes. Also
included is the index of self-compacted clay concrete (SCCC) stabilized by 5% CSA
cement. The carbon footprint of the superplasticizer (~40% of that of cement, per unit
weight) has not been taken into account. Note the change in vertical scale.
Adapted from Fig. 5 of Damineli et al. [56].
101
of the starting material and brings it within or beyond the high im-
pact-low strength zone of OPC concrete formulations. Stabilization
with OPC is not advisable in mechanical terms either. It provides very
moderate benefits while using large volume of binders. The only accept-
able case may be that of compressed blocks, but their strength remains
at least three times smaller than what the same amount of OPC would
have led to in a good concrete formulation.
In geotechnical engineering, treatment of the soil in place with PC
and/or lime is sometimes the less costly and the only scalable technolo-
gy able to confer to the material the required ability to be compacted.
In the same vein, it may be useful to emphasize how poorly fired
earth bricks perform in terms of Global Warming Potential, with an em-
bodied CO2 content of ~ 0.22 kg CO2/kg (Hammond & Jones [53–54];
Calkins [5]), about twice that of concrete blocks and about ten times
that of unstabilized CEB, not speaking about the catastrophic deforesta-
tion that their production may lead to when the fuel used to bake the
bricks is wood.
9. Barriers, incentives and research priorities
The conclusions of our simplified environmental assessment
(Section 8) do not call earthen construction into question, nor do they
rule out the use of stabilization with PC in all situations. Provided
some simple architectural rules often inscribed in the local constructive
culture are followed, construction with unstabilized subsoil is a durable
technology that has a role to play in the formidable affordable housing
challenge awaiting us in the coming decades. Our analysis just points
to the fact that stabilization with OPC is, in most situations, not worth
the effort, neither in mechanical nor in environmental terms. It brings
only moderate mechanical improvement at a rather large environmen-
tal cost. Climate change may possibly modify the architectural rules to
be followed, but rather than systematically and massively transforming
earth into a low quality PC concrete, it would be more appropriate to
adapt the architectural practice and/or to look for alternative and
more environmentally sound stabilization methods.
In this respect, the alternative approach which consists in enhancing
the compressive strength and durability (resistance to erosion, especial-
ly to heavy rain impact) of crude earth by manipulating the surface
properties and the microstructure of its clay fraction - i.e. its natural
binding phase - thanks to the addition of organic or inorganic admix-
tures in “spice-like” amounts, may well prove to be more acceptable,
provided effective, widely available, and innocuous molecules or com-
pounds with a low GWP can be identified and produced at low cost.
This will require more research.
On the other hand, one has to recognize that, for the time being, sta-
bilization with PC may still be the only affordable and scalable technol-
ogy in some situations combining unfavorable factors like unsuitable
subsoil quality, lack of aggregates, extreme climatic conditions (mon-
soon rains, floods), and very low income [60]. Paradoxically, in such ex-
treme conditions, only the wealthy class could afford the cost of the high
quality roofing and plastering as well as the extensive maintenance
demanded by unstabilized earth walls.
In addition to these socio-technical reasons, socio-psychological as-
pects have also to be taken into account. As already pointed out, earthen
construction suffers generally from a poor social image. In developing
countries, the injunction to divest of stabilization with PC and to return
to traditional vernacular methods for whatever (justified) reason may
be felt as just one more unfair constraint imposed by developed coun-
tries [60]. This type of problem is encountered in every climate change
discussion. In the field of construction materials, better technical educa-
tion may definitely help.
Acknowledgements
This review has been partly prepared within the framework of the
Interdisciplinary Center on Multiscale Materials for Energy and the
102 H. Van Damme, H. Houben / Cement and Concrete Research 114 (2018) 90–102
Environment (ICoME2 Labex, ANR-11-LABX-0053) and the Architec-
ture, Environment and Constructive Cultures (AE-CC Labex), cofunded
by the “Investissements d'Avenir” programme, managed by ANR, the
French National Research Agency.
References
[1] L. Eloundou, T. Joffroy, Earthen Architecture in today's World, in Proceedings of the
UNESCO International Colloquium on the Conservation of World Heritage Earthen
Architecture, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, 2013 www.whc.unesco.org/en/series/36/.
[2] M. Hall, D. Allinson, Assessing the effects of soil grading on the moisture content-de-
pendent thermal conductivity of stabilized rammed earth materials, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 29 (2009) 740–747.
[3] M. Hall, D. Allinson, Analysis of the hygrothermal functional properties of stabilised
rammed earth materials, Build. Environ. 44 (9) (2009) 1935–1942.
[4] P. Melià, G. Ruggieri, S. Sabbadini, G. Dotelli, Environmental impacts of natural and
conventional building materials: a case study on earth plasters, J. Clean. Prod. 80
(2014) 179–186.
[5] M. Calkins, Chapter 6 in Materials for Sustainable Sites. A Complete Guide to the
Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 2009 (457 pp.).
[6] M. Blondet, G. Villa Garcia, S. Brzev, Earthquake resistant construction of adobe
buildings: A tutorial, http://www.world-housing.net/Tutorials/AdobeTutorials,
2003, revised 2011 (accessed on April 09, 2016). EERI/IAEE World Housing Encyclo-
pedia, Earthquake Research Institute, California, USA.
[7] M. Blondet, R. Aguilar, Seismic protection of earthen buildings, in: B.V. Venkatarama
Reddy, M. Mani (Eds.), International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Interline
Publishing, Bangalore, India 2007, pp. 3–10.
[8] T.M. Petry, D.N. Little, Review of stabilization of clays and expansive soils in pave-
ments and lightly loaded structures — history, practice and future, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 14 (6) (2002).
[9] M. Moevus, L. Fontaine, R. Anger, P. Doat, Béton d'Argile Environnemental (B.A.E.),
final report, www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/BAE_RapportFinal_
Novembre2013 (short version, 78 pp.), and http://hen44.org/wp-content/uploads/
c2d2_beton_argile_environnemental_final.pdf (complete version, 877 pp.), 2013.
[10] M. Moevus-Dorvaux, L. Couvreur, B. Cloquet, L. Fontaine, R. Anger, P. Doat, Béton
d'Argile Environnemental, CRAterre Editions, Villefontaine, 2016, 87 pp., also avail-
able on http://www.amaco.org/webapp/website/website.html?id=101&read=
true&pageId=91
[11] G. Landrou, C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon, C. Brumaud, G. Habert, Development of a self-
compacted clay-based concrete: rheological, mechanical and environmental investi-
gations, World SB14 (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1054.2401.
[12] C.M. Ouellet-Plamondon, G. Habert, Self-compacted clay-based concrete (SCCC):
proof-of-concept, J. Clean. Prod. 117 (2016) 160–168.
[13] D. Gelard, L. Fontaine, S. Maximilien, C. Olagnon, J.-P. Laurent, H. Houben, H. Van
Damme, When physics revisits earth construction: recent advances in the under-
standing of the cohesion mechanism of earthen materials, in: B.V. Venkatarama
Reddy, M. Mani (Eds.), International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Interline
Publishing, Bangalore, India 2007, pp. 294–302.
[14] H. Houben, H. Guillaud, Earth Construction, ITDG Publishing, London, UK, A Compre-
hensive Guide, 1994 (362 pp.).
[15] H. Schroeder, Sustainable Building with Earth, Springer International Publishing,
2016 (560 pp.) 10.1007/978-3-319-19491-2.
[16] R. Rael, Earth Architecture, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, USA, 2009 (208
pp.).
[17] G. Minke, Building with Earth, third ed. Birkhäuser, 2012 (208 pp.).
[18] J. Abey, J. Smallcombe, Cob in contemporary architecture, in: B.V. Venkatarama
Reddy, M. Mani (Eds.), International Symposium on Earthen Structures, Interline
Publishing, Bangalore, India 2007, pp. 72–77.
[19] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Earth construction: lessons from the past for future eco-
efficient construction, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 512–519.
[20] N. Cristelo, S. Glendinning, T. Miranda, D. Oliveira, R. Silva, Soil stabilisation using al-
kaline activation of fly ash for self compacting rammed earth construction,
Constr.Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 727–735.
[21] Argilus, www.hp2a-technologies.fr, 2016 (accessed on Sept 29, 2016)
[22] D.N. Little, E.H. Males, J.R. Prusinski, B. Stewart, Cementitious Stabilization, 79th Mil-
lennium Report Series, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000
[23] D.N. Little, S. Nair, Recommended Practice for Stabilization of Subgrade Soils and
Base Materials, Contractor's Final Task Report, National Cooperative Highway Re-
search Program, Transportation Research Board, 2009 (57 pp.) onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/nchrp_w144.pdf accessed on April 23, 2016.
[24] LCPC – SETRA, Traitement des sols à la chaux et/ou aux liants hydrauliques – Appli-
cation à la réalisation de remblais et des couches de forme, Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussées and Service d'Etudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes,
Guide Technique, 2000 (240 pp.).
[25] Tapsoba, N., (private communication), LafargeHolcim Research Center, 2016.
[26] Cast Earth, www.earthhomesnow.com/cast-earth-homes.htm 2015 (accessed on
March 31, 2016).
[27] J.-M. Le Tiec, G. Paccoud, Pisé H20 – De l'eau et des grains pour un renouveau du pisé
en Rhöne-Alpes, CRATerre Editions, Villefontaine, France, 2006 (35 pp.).
[28] Cematerre Press Book (2014), accessible on www.cematerre.com.
[29] H. van Olphen, An Introduction to Clay Colloid Chemistry for Clay Technologists,
Geologists, and Soil Scientists, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 1977
(301 pp.).
[30] K.R. Rossington, U. Senapati, W.M. Carty, A critical evaluation of dispersants for clay-
based systems, Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc. 19 (1998) 77–85.
[31] D. Penner, G. Lagaly, Influence of anions on the rheological properties of clay mineral
dispersions, Appl. Clay Sci. 19 (2001) 131–142.
[32] M. Moevus, Y. Jorand, C. Olagnon, S. Maximilien, R. Anger, L. Fontaine, L. Arnaud,
Earthen construction: an increase of the mechanical strength by optimizing the dis-
persion of the binder phase, Mater. Struct. 49 (2016) 1555–1568.
[33] G. Landrou, C. Brumaud, F. Winnefeld, R.J. Flatt, G. Habert, Lime as an anti-plasticizer
for self-compacting clay concrete, Materials 9 (2016) 330, http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/ma9050330.
[34] H. Hwang, Presentation and Demonstration at the TerrAsia 2011, the 2011 Interna-
tional Conference on Earthen Architecture in Asia, Mokpo, South Korea, 2011.
[35] F. Winnefeld, B. Lothenbach, Hydration of calcium sulfoaluminate cements — exper-
imental findings and thermodynamic modelling, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2010)
1239–1247.
[36] D. Gelard, L. Fontaine, S. Maximilien, C. Olagnon, J.-P. Laurent, H. Houben, H. Van
Damme, Water and the cohesion mechanism of earthen materials. Towards an op-
timum water content for earthquake resistance, in: Bilge Isik (Ed.), Living in Earth-
en Cities, Proceedings of Kerpic'05Istanbul Technical University 2005, pp. 106–115
(ISBN 975-561-269-6).
[37] H. Van Damme, M. Zabat, J.-P. Laurent, P. Dudoignon, A. Pantet, D. Gelard, H.
Houben, Nature and Distribution of Cohesion Forces in Earthen Building Materials,
in: N. Agnew (Ed.), “Conservation of Ancient Sites on the Silk Road”, Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on the Conservation of Grotto Sites,
Dunhuang, China, June 28–July 3, 2004, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los
Angeles 2010, pp. 181–188.
[38] P.A. Jaquin, C.E. Augarde, D. Gallipoli, D.G. Toll, The strength of unstabilized rammed
earth materials, Géotechnique 59 (5) (2009) 487–490.
[39] Q.B. Bui, J.-C. Morel, S. Hans, P. Walker, Effect of moisture content on the mechanical
characteristics of rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater. 54 (2014) 163–169.
[40] F. Champiré, A. Fabbri, J.-C. Morel, H. Wong, F. McGregor, Impact of relative humidity
on the mechanical behavior of compacted earth as a building material, Constr. Build.
Mater. 110 (2016) 70–78.
[41] J.-C. Morel, A. Pkla, A.P. Walker, Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2007) 303–309.
[42] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P.M. Prasanna Kumar, Cement stabilized rammed earth.
Part A: compaction characteristics and physical properties of compacted cement
stabilized soils, Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 681–693.
[43] L. Miccoli, U. Müller, P. Fontana, Mechanical behavior of earthen materials: a com-
parison between earth block masonry, rammed earth and cob, Constr. Build.
Mater. 61 (2014) 327–339.
[44] K.A. Heathcote, Durability of earthwall buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 9 (3) (1995)
185–189.
[45] A. Guettala, A. Abibsi, H. Houari, Durability study of stabilized earth concrete under
laboratory and climatic conditions exposure, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006)
119–127.
[46] F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine, Diagnosis of assessment methods for weatherability of
stabilized compressed soil blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 163–172.
[47] M. Hall, Assessing the environmental performance of stabilized rammed earth walls
using a climatic simulation chamber, Build. Environ. 42 (2005) 139–145.
[48] F.O. Ogunye, H. Boussabaine, Development of a rainfall test rig as an aid in soil block
weathering assessment, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 173–180.
[49] Q.B. Bui, J.-C. Morel, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, W. Ghayad, Durability of rammed
earth walls exposed for 20 years to natural weathering, Build. Environ. 44 (2009)
912–919.
[50] Q.B. Bui, S. Hans, J.C. Morel, A.-P. Do, First exploratory study on dynamic character-
istics of rammed earth buildings, Eng. Struct. 33 (2011) (2011) 3690–3695.
[51] Characteristics of soil-cement blocks from different construction sites, in: S.N. Ullas,
B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, Monto Mani (Eds.), International
Symposium on Earthen Structures, Interline Publishing, Bangalore, India 2007,
pp. 141–146.
[52] S. Maïni, V. Thautam, Embodied Energy of Various Materials and Technologies – Cal-
culations and Data Compilations, Auroville Earth Institute, Auroville: AVEI, 2005 (re-
vised 2013). (21 pp.).
[53] G.P. Hammond, C.I. Jones, Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 1.6a, www.
bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/ 2008.
[54] G.P. Hammond, C.I. Jones, Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials,
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Energy 161 (Issue EN2) (2008)
87–98 http://opus.bath.ac.uk/12382/1/Hammond_&_Jones_Embodied_energy_&_
carbon_Proc_ICE-Energy_2008_161(2)_87-98.pdf.
[55] S. Lasvaux, N. Schiopu, G. Habert, J. Chevalier, J.B. Peuportier, Influence of simplifica-
tion of life cycle inventories on the accuracy of impact assessment: application to
construction products, J. Clean. Prod. 79 (2014) 142–151.
[56] B.L. Damineli, F.M. Kemeid, P.S. Aguiar, P. S., V.M. John, Measuring the eco-efficiency
of cement use, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (2010) 555–562.
[57] B.L. Damineli, R.G. Pileggi, V.M. John, Lower binder intensity eco-efficient concretes,
in: F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, J. Labrincha, V.M. John (Eds.), Eco-efficient Concrete,
Woodhead Publishing in Materials 2013, pp. 26–44.
[58] F. de Larrard, Concrete Mixture Proportioning, Taylor & Francis, 1999 (448 pp.).
[59] C. Vernet, Ultra-durable concretes: structure at the micro and nanoscale, Materials
Research Society (MRS) Bulletin 29 (5) (2004) 324–327.
[60] L. Davis, “To stabilize or not to stabilize?” – that is the question, Auroville Earth In-
stitute Newsletter (Issue 29) (2016) 4–6 (July 2016) www.earth-auroville.com/
maintenance/upmoaded_pics/2016-07-avei-newsletter.pdf accessed on Aug 13,
2016.