European International Journal of Science and Technology ISSN: 2304-9693 www.eijst.org.

uk

Cement effects on the physical properties of expansive clay soil and

the compressive strength of compressed interlocking clay blocks

Ronoh, Victor1*, Jonah Kiptanui Too2 and James Wambua Kaluli3

1*
(Graduate Student, Civil engineering Department, Pan African University (PAUISTI)

2
(Civil engineering Department, JKUAT)

3
(Department of Biomechanical & Environmental Engineering, JKUAT)

Corresponding Author:
*Mr Ronoh Victor
Pan African University Institute of Basic Science,
Technology and Innovation, Nairobi, Box 62000-00200,
Nairobi, Kenya
Email: ronohvictor2011@gmail.com

Abstract
Building with earth is an ancient technology which is still being practiced today. The resources used in the
production of concrete blocks and fired clay bricks tend to be unsustainable. Therefore, there is need to
identify sustainable material and technologies. This study investigated the compressive strength of
compressed earth block which have been stabilized with cement. This study investigated how stabilizing soft
clays with cement affects the compressive strength of interlocking blocks. Particle size distribution,
Atterberg limits, standard proctor compaction and compressive strength tests were carried out according to
British standard procedures (BS 1377-1990: Part 2 & 4). The soil used was classified as A-7-5 in the
AASHTO classification system. Its liquid limit, plasticity index and linear shrinkage decreased while the
plastic limit, maximum dry density (MDD), and optimum moisture content (OMC) increased with increasing
cement content. The cement stabilized clay blocks had average compressive strength ranging from 0.3 MPa
to 1.1 MPa at 7 days of curing and 0.8 to 3.1MPa at 28 days of curing. This study established that to achieve
minimum strength of soil blocks (2.5 MPa); the soil should be stabilized with at least 8% cement.

Key words: Stabilize, Soil, Sustainable, Compressed earth block, Compressive strength, Cement

74
European International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 8 October, 2014

1 Introduction
Clay soil is an earth material and it’s highly and readily available for construction purposes but due to its
weakness, it requires great improvement of its properties before use. In the construction industry, clay soils
are proving to be an Engineer’s nightmare. They have high swelling and shrinkage and are very much
sensitive to changes in environment (Narasihma et al, 2014). Walls made from mud swell and crack when
exposed to alternate wet and dry weather. These are some of the factors that have made clay soil to be
classified among the least suitable soils for construction.
Large quantities of clay are generated from construction sites and dumped as waste. There is need to identify
ways of utilizing this material to enable utilization of heavy clay soils stabilization to reduce swelling and
shrinkage would be necessary. Ordinary Portland cement, one of the substances that can be used for soil
stabilization, is readily available. Compressed stabilized blocks require less cement compared to the quantity
used in the hollow concrete blocks. The amount of additives necessary to stabilize these expansive soils
depends on the mineralogical composition of the soils (Venkaramuthyalu et al 2012). Cement contents
below 2 or 3% will not actually enhance the wet compressive strength or improve stabilization (Rigassi,
1985). The minimum amount required for stabilizing soils for the production of building blocks, has been
identified as 5% by weight (Rigassi, 1985).
Stabilized earth blocks do not require kiln-firing. Therefore, production of soil blocks with stabilized soils
reduces air emission pollution and the consumption of non renewable resources. The commercial
exploitation of these resources often leads to various environmental problems such as improperly filled up
clay mines which can collect water and allow mosquitoes to breed. Extensive sand mining can lower the
river- beds and allow salt-water intrusion inland. Therefore, the development of many alternative walling
materials as possible will be of immense benefit to minimize the impact on the environment. Earth is a
cheap, environmentally friendly and abundantly available building material and has been used extensively
for wall construction around the world, particularly in developing countries (Hanifi et al, 2005) However,
there are few undesirable properties such as loss of strength when saturated with water, erosion due to wind
or driving rain and poor dimensional stability (Narasihma et al, 2014). These draw backs can be eliminated
significantly by stabilizing the soil with a chemical agent such as cement. Cement stabilized soil is generally
used as individual blocks compacted either with manual hydraulically operated machines. Significant
research data are available for these applications either as block strength or wall strength (Perera and
Jayasingh, 2003; Reddy and Jagadish, 1989).
Stabilized earth blocks are environmentally sustainable because they have low embodied energy as they use
locally available soil, low labour cost and lower quantity of cement compared to concrete blocks (Mbumbia
et al., 2000). They are environmental friendly compared to clay fired bricks as they require no burning to
acquire strength thus no cutting down of trees. Environmentally unsustainable practices such as burning
firewood and dredging river sand are also sometimes used in the production of clay fired bricks and concrete
blocks, (Agevi, 1999; Mbumbia, et al., 2000).
Therefore, concrete blocks and clay fired bricks use unsustainable materials during their local production.
River sand used for hollow concrete blocks (Shan & Meegoda, 1998) and firewood used as fuel for the
burning of clay fired bricks (Mbumbia et al., 2000) are environmentally unacceptable, and in any case likely
to face rising prices driven by increasing scarcity. Consequently the only small-scale method of block
manufacture left deals entirely with the stabilization of locally available un-graded soil. Thus this study
considers the use of cement to stabilize clay soil dumped as waste from the construction sites to produce
sustainable, low cost and environmentally friendly stabilized clay blocks for low cost housing. This is a case
study carried out in Kenya considering the excavated soils from a construction site in Juja, Kiambu County.

75
European International Journal of Science and Technology ISSN: 2304-9693 www.eijst.org.uk

2 Methodology
2.1 Materials
The raw materials used in this research include clay soil, Ordinary Portland cement (Grade 32.5) and tap
water. Black Cotton Soil was sourced from a construction site in Juja. One soil sample was taken from the
homogenous layers below 200 mm from the top of soil. This was done to limit the amount of organic matter
in the sample. The sample was left to dry and the lumps formed were crushed into small pieces and sieved
through 5mm mesh sieve in accordance with BS 1377-1 (1990).
2.2 Laboratory tests
2.2.1 Particle size distribution and Atterberg limits tests
The Particle Size Distribution and Atterberg limits for the soil sample were determined in accordance with
the British Standard procedures as outlined in BS 1377-1990: Part 2. For Atterberg limits, the soil was
sieved through 425µm sieve and the soil passing this sieve was oven dried before conducting the test. The
tests were carried out on the soil alone and soils with different proportion of cement.
A combination of sieve analysis and hydrometer test was used to determine the particle size distribution
(Figure 1). The soil was classified as A-7-5 in the AASHTO classification system and as CH (Inorganic
clays of high plasticity, fat clays) according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
2.2.2 Compaction tests
Standard Proctor compaction test, according to BS 1377–1990: Part 4 was applied to determine the
maximum dry density (MDD) and the optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soils. The soil mixtures, with
and without additives, were thoroughly mixed with various moisture contents before compaction. The first
series of compaction tests were aimed at determining the compaction properties of the unstabilized soils.
Secondly, tests were carried out to determine the proctor compaction properties of the clay upon
stabilization with varying amounts of cement.
2.2.3 Unconfined compressive strength test
Fifteen specimens for unconfined compressive tests were prepared. They were molded in a cylindrical
mould of 50 mm diameter by 100 mm height, at the OMC and MDD of each mix. The test was conducted
according to BS 1924: Part 2 – Section 4. Specimens were, after molded, cured in plastic bag for 7 days to
prevent the moisture due to change. Three specimens per mix composition were tested for unconfined
compressive strength, in accordance with BS 1924-2; 1990 Section 4, using a compression machine.
2.2.4 Block production and Compressive strength test
Batching of materials was done by weight and cement percentages were 0%, 6%, 8%, 10% and 12%. Dry
materials (clay soil and cement) were mixed first until uniform mixture was produced, then water was added
and mixing continued until a homogeneous mix was obtained. The mixed sample was then placed in the
CINVA-Ram press machine and manually pressed to produce the blocks which were extruded immediately.
They were cured in a shade while covered with polythene bag. Nine replicates of the blocks were produced
for each mix where three blocks were tested on 7, 14 and 28 days respectively. The average compressive
strength of three blocks was determined in accordance to BS EN 772-1 (2003). The results were then
analyzed to determine the minimum percentage of cement necessary for stabilizing black cotton soils and
achieves the minimum required standard of 2.5MPa as specified by Kenyan Standard, KS 02-1070:1993,
Specification for stabilized soil blocks.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Determination of soil classification
The soil consisted of 12.82% gravel, 7.92% sand and 79.26% fines (Figure 1). According to Rigassi (1985),
the range of particle distribution suitable for building of earth block is: 0 – 40% gravel, 25 - 80% sand and

76
European International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 8 October, 2014

18 - 55% fines (silts and clays). This implies that the Juja soil used in the study does not meet the minimum
requirements for earth block production. In other word, the soil considered requires an improvement or
stabilization for it to be utilized in block production. Furthermore the results of the natural soil are
summarily tabulated in Table 1.
3.2 Effect of cement content on Atterberg limits
There was a reduction in plasticity index from 57.81% to 27.57% is due to liquid limit decrease from
90.25% to 75.32% and plastic limit increase from 47.75% to 32.44% with the increase of cement content
from 0% to 12% in the soil. Linear shrinkage had a constant decrease from 16.14% to 9.68% for 0% to 12%
cement content respectively (Figure 2). This fact means that floccules numbers do not have significant
change when cement content is more than 10% because the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index are
nearly becoming constant. The unstabilized soil sample had 90.25% liquid limit, 32.44% plastic limit,
57.81% plasticity index and 16.14% linear shrinkage.
The reduction in the plasticity index values resulted from the decrease in liquid limit and plastic limit. With
the decrease in the plasticity index and liquid limit, the engineering properties of soil are improved as the
shear strength of the admixed soil improves and become more workable.
3.3 Effect of cement content on soil compaction
The relation between the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) for the
cement stabilized soil mixture using standard proctor are shown in Figure 3.
It was observed that MDD increased with the increase in cement content and the OMC decreased with
increase in cement content (Figure 4). MDD increased from 1382kg/m3 for the unstabilized/natural soil to
1439kg/m3 for the stabilized soil with 12% cement content. The cement dosage was from 6% to 12% by
weight of dry soil. According to Otoko & Precious (2014), the increase in MDD with cement content may be
attributed to the relative higher specific gravity of cement to that of the soil (2.55). The increase in dry
density is a designate an improvement in the soil sample.
The OMC of the black cotton soil also increases with the increase of cement content (Figure 5) and this
might be as a result of water needed for the hydration of cement as it reacts and binds the soil particles
together, Behmanesh, J., & Mehrmousavi, Z. (2014) also reported the same. It might also be due to the
additional water held with the flocculant soil structure resulting from cement interaction. The OMC
increased from 15.8% for unstabilized soil to 21.6% for the 12% cement content in the stabilized soil.
The increase in dry density is an indicator of improvement of soil properties and that the compaction energy
is more than that of the soil in a natural state while the increase in optimum moisture content indicates that
the increasing desire for water is somewhat commensurate to the increasing amount of cement, as more
water is required for the dissociation of cement into Ca2+ and OH- ions to supply more Ca2+ for the cation
exchange reaction.
3.4 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
There was a tremendous improvement in the UCS observed after 7 days of curing period where the UCS
increased from 268KPa at 0%, 734KPa at 6%, 849KPa at 8%, 1087KPa at 10% and 1188KPa at 12% cement
content (Figure 6). The increase in cement content in the stabilized soil results in deposition of interlocking
cement gel between the soil particles binding the soil particles together and creates high strength thus the
increase in UCS with the increase in cement content.
According to Oriola, & Saminu. (2012), the increase in UCS values could be attributed to ion exchange at
the surface of clay particles. The chlorides in the cement additive reacted with the lower valence metallic
ions in the clay microstructure which resulted in agglomeration and flocculation of the clay particles. The
increase in UCS after the 7 days curing was due to the long-term hydration reaction that resulted in the
formation of newer compounds due to the presence of chlorides which are known to be stabilizing agents.

77
European International Journal of Science and Technology ISSN: 2304-9693 www.eijst.org.uk

The increase in unconfined compressive strength is due to the soil-cement reaction which is the
improvement of the engineering properties of the natural soil. When water reacts with cement in the
specimens, it bonds the components together; hence robust stone-like specimens are created resulting in high
unconfined compressive strength than for natural soil.
3.5 Blocks compressive strength
It was observed that compressive strength of unstabilized interlocking blocks (the control) varies from 0.280
N/mm2 to 0.811 N/mm2 as the curing age increases from 7 to 28 days (Figure 7). For cement stabilized
interlocking blocks it varies from 0.529 N/mm2 to 2.434 N/mm2, 0.670 N/mm2 to 2.575 N/mm2, 0.776
N/mm2 to 2.646 N/mm2 and 1.093 N/mm2 to 3.104 N/mm2 for 6%, 8%, 10% and 12% stabilization,
respectively, during the same period of curing(Figure 7).
The unstabilized blocks showed some strength but it didn’t achieve the required standard strength and
developed some cracks immediately after demoulding and kept to cure. This might be due to the chemical
nature of soil where the soil hardens and the bonds start weakening.
Compressive strength increased with increase in cement content from 0% to 12% cement content. Cement is
mainly composed of Lime (CaO) and Silica (SiO2) which react with each other and the other components in
the mix when water is added. This reaction forms combinations of Tri-calcium silicate and Di-calcium
silicate referred to as C3S and C2S in the cement literature, (Neville, 1995).
It was determined that the mixture with 8%, 10% and 12% cement content achieved the minimum required
standard compressive strength of 2.5MPa as per the Kenyan Standard, KS 02-1070:1993, Specification for
stabilized soil blocks. This implies that the blocks can be recommended for utilization in single storey
constructions and interior non load bearing walls for other construction purposes.
The chemical reaction eventually generates a matrix of interlocking crystals that cover any inert filler and
provide a high compressive strength explaining why as the cement content increases the compressive
strength also increases.

4 Conclusions
Introduction of cement in expansive clay soil resulted in reduced plasticity which is an indication of
improved soil engineering properties.
With the addition of 12% cement to black cotton soil, the maximum dry density (MDD) increased
from 1382kg/m3 for the unstabilized/natural soil to 1439kg/m3 for the stabilized soil, indicating an
improvement in the soil sample.
Addition of 12% cement to black cotton soil increased OMC from15.8% for unstabilized soil to
21.6% for the stabilized soil, indicating desire for more water with increase in cement content.
Addition of 12% cement to black cotton soil increased the unconfined compressive strength of the
soil from 268KPa for the natural soil to 1188KPa.
This study established that the minimum amount of cement required to stabilize black cotton soil and
achieve the minimum required compressive strength of 2.5MPa for a stabilized building block, was
8% by weight.

78
European International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 8 October, 2014

5 References
1. Agevi, E. (1999). Technology Dissemination in Kenya. Development Alternatives Newsletter,
Vol: 9 (11), 7-9.
2. Behmanesh, J., & Mehrmousavi, Z. (2014). Effect of Hydraulic Binders on the Geotechnical
Properties of Stabilized Clayey Soil, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. 4(3),
261–269.
3. British Standards Institution. (1990). Method of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Part
1. General requirements and sample preparation. BSI 1377: Part 1: 1990. BSI. England.
4. British Standards Institution. (1990). Method of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Part
2. Classification tests. BS 1377: Part 2: 1990. BSI. England.
5. British Standards Institution. (1990). Method of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Part
4. Compaction-related tests. BS 1377: Part 4: 1990. BSI. England.
6. British Standards Institution. (1990). Stabilized materials for civil engineering purposes. Part 1.
General requirements, sampling, sample preparation and tests on materials before stabilization.
BS 1924: Part 1: 1990. BSI. England.
7. British Standards Institution. (1990). Stabilized materials for civil engineering purposes. Part 2:
Methods of test for cement-stabilized and lime-stabilized materials. BS 1924: Part 2: 1990. BSI.
England.
8. British Standard Institution. BS EN 772-1 (2003). Specification for masonary units.
9. Kenya Standard, KS 02-1070:1993: Specification for Stabilized Soil Blocks.
10. Mbumbia, L., Mertens de Wilmars, A., & Tirlocq, J. (2000). Performance characteristics of
lateritic soil bricks fired at low temperatures: a case study of Cameroon. Journal of Construction
and Building Materials, Vol: 14 121-131.
11. Narasihma, A. V, Penchalaiah, B., Chittranjan, M., & Ramesh, P. (2014). Compressibility
Behaviour of Black Cotton Soil Admixed with Lime and Rice-Husk Ash, International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology. 3(4), 11473–11480.
12. Neville, A. M. (1995). Properties of Concrete, Longman.
13. Oriola, F. O. P., & Saminu, A. (2012). Influence of Textile Effluent Waste Water on Compacted
Lateritic Soil. The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. 17. 167–177.
14. Otoko, G. R., & Precious, K. (2014). Stabilization of Nigerian deltaic clay (Chikoko) with
groundnut shell. International Journal of Engineering and Technology Research. 2(6), 1–11.
15. Perera A. and Jayasinghe C. (2003). Strength characteristic and structural design methods for
construction earth walls. Masonry International. 16(1): 34-38.
16. Reddy B.V. and Jagadish J.S. (1989). Properties of soil – blocks masonry. International Masonry
Society. 3(2): 80-84.
17. Rigassi, Vincent. (1985). Compressed earth blocks - Volume 1: Manual of production. A
publication of the Deutsches Zentrum fur Entwicklungtechnologien-Gate.
18. Shan, H.-Y., & Meegoda, J. N. (1998). Construction use of abandoned soils, Journal of
Hazardous Materials. Vol: 58 133-145.
19. Venkaramuthyalu, P., Ramu, K., & Raju, G. V. R. P. (2012). Study on performance of
chemically stabilized expansive soil. International Journal of Advances in Engineering &
Technology, 2(1), 139–148.
20. Hanifi, B., Orhan, A., & Kaplan, H. (2005). Utilization of alternative materials in manufacturing
of mud brick. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 309–316.

79
European International Journal of Scien
ence and Technology ISSN: 2304-9693 www.eijst.org.uk

6 Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Particle size distribution off the
t soil sample
100.00
90.00
80.00
Percentage Passing (%)

70.00
60.00
50.00
Sieve analysis
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Grain
Gr Size (mm)

Table 1: Physical properties of the soil

oil
S. No. Description Measured Values
1 Specific gravity 2.55
2 Liquid limit (%) 90.25
3 Plastic limit (%) 32.44
4 Shrinkage limit (%) 16.14
5 Plasticity Index (%) 57.81
6 Maximum Dry density (Kg/m /m3) 1382
7 Optimum Moisture contentt (%)
(% 15.8
8 Colour Dark Grey

Figure 2: Effect of cement content on

n Atterberg limits
100
90
LIQUID LIMIT
Atterberg limits (%)

80
70
60 PLASTIC
LIMIT
50
40 PLASTICITY
30 INDEX

20 LINEAR
10 SHRINKAGE
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cement Contntent (%)
80
European International Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 8 October, 2014

Figure 3: Variation of Dry Density with Moisture content

1450
0% Cement
1400
Dry Density (Kg/m3)

6% Cement
8% Cement
1350 10% Cement
12% Cement
1300

1250

1200
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Moisture content (%)

Figure 4: Effects of cement content on the Dry Density Figure 5: Effects of cement on the moisture
content
1450 22
Optimum Moisture Content (%)

21
Maximum Dry Density (Kg/m3)

1430
20
19
1410
18
MDD OMC
1390 17
16
1370
15
14
1350
0 5 10 15
0 5 10 15
Cement Content (%) Cement Content (%)

Figure 5: Effect of cement content on unconfined compressive strength

1400
1200
1000
800
UCS (Kpa)

600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15
Cement Content (%)

81
European International Journal of Science and Technology ISSN: 2304-9693 www.eijst.org.uk

Figure 6: Effects of cement content on the compressive strength of interlocking blocks

3.50

3.00
Compressive Strength (MPa)

7 Days
2.50
14 Days
2.00 28 Days

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 5 10 15
Cement Content (%)

82