FINAL YEAR PROJECT PROPOSAL

TITLE:

PERFORMANCE OF DRIED COW DUNG IN COMPARISON TO COW

DUNG ASH AS A PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT FOR
INTERLOCKING EARTH BLOCK STABILIZATION.

BY:

PATRICK ODUOR OTIENO

EN251-6615/2015

&

GEORGE GITHINJI WAHINYA

EN251-9297/2015

Supervisor
Eng. BRIAN ODERO

August 2021
 DECLARATION

We, PATRICK ODUOR OTIENO, and GEORGE GITHINJI WAHINYA do declare that
this report is our original work and to the best of our knowledge, it has not been submitted for
any degree award in any University or Institution.

Signed………………………………………………..Date………………………………

PATRICK ODUOR OTIENO:

EN251-6615/2015

Signed ………………………………………………..Date……………………………….

GEORGE GITHINJI WAHINYA

EN251-9297/2015

CERTIFICATION

This project has been submitted for examination with my authority as the University project
supervisor.

Signed …………………………………..……..Date……………………..
ENG. BRIAN ODERO

ii
 DEDICATION

First, we dedicate our work to the almighty God who takes care of all of us, reveals and
inspires into us the works of our hands.

Secondly, to our fathers and mothers who not only nurtured and educated us but are
also the sole source of psychological support through prayers during the highly
demanding and challenging moments that will result in this work.

Finally, we will dedicate our work to the engineering sector to contribute to the
research of science and advancement of life.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our deep and sincere gratitude to our supervisor Eng. Brian
Odero for his immense support, encouragement, positive criticism, valuable
suggestions and guidance during this project, without whom this work could not have
been realized.

We thank the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering of

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology for material and laboratory
support.

We thank miss Lydia for her assistance and benevolent guidance.

Finally we wish to acknowledge our family members and friends for their encouragement and
support during this project.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................ii

CERTIFICATION....................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION.........................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................iv

CHAPTER ONE.......................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1

1.0 Background Information...................................................................................................1

1.3 Problem justification.........................................................................................................3

1.4 Research objectives...........................................................................................................4

1.4.1 Main objective................................................................................................................4

1.4.2 Specific objectives..........................................................................................................4

1.5 Scope.................................................................................................................................5

1.6 Limitations........................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER TWO......................................................................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................6

2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................6

2.2 Materials in earth blocks...................................................................................................6

2.2.1 Soil.................................................................................................................................6

2.2.1.1 Soil stabilization..........................................................................................................6

2.2.1.2 Mechanical (Compaction) soil stabilization................................................................7

2.2.1.3 Physical soil stabilization............................................................................................7

2.2.1.4 Chemical soil stabilization..........................................................................................7

v
 2.2.2 Laterite soil.....................................................................................................................8

2.2.2.1 Classification of Laterites and Lateritic Soils.............................................................9

2.2.2.1 Engineering Properties of Laterites and Lateritic Soils............................................10

2.2.2.3 Structure of Laterites and Lateritic Soils...................................................................11

2.2.2.4 Soil mineralogy.........................................................................................................11

2.2.2.5 Soil pore structure.....................................................................................................12

2.2.2.6 Strength of Laterites and Lateritic Soils....................................................................13

2.2.2.7 The suitability of laterite soil for block making........................................................13

2.2.3 Pozzolanic material......................................................................................................14

2.2.3.1 Cow dung as a pozzolanic material...........................................................................14

2.2.3.2 Properties of cow dung..............................................................................................15

2.2.3.4 Properties of cow dung ash.......................................................................................15

2.2.3.5 Cow dung as a stabilizer............................................................................................16

2.3 Earth block production....................................................................................................17

2.4 Interlocking stabilized soil block technology..................................................................18

2.5 Water...............................................................................................................................20

CHAPTER THREE................................................................................................................22

METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS...............................................................................22

3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................22

3.2 Materials..........................................................................................................................22

3.2.1 Samples and sampling techniques................................................................................22

3.2.2 Preparation of stabilized soil and molding of interlocking blocks...............................23

3.3 Particle size distribution test for laterite soil...................................................................24

3.3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................24

vi
3.3.2 Apparatus.....................................................................................................................25

3.3.3 Procedure......................................................................................................................25

3.4 Atterberg limit (BS 1377, 1990).....................................................................................26

3.4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................26

3.4.2 Liquid Limit (LL).........................................................................................................27

3.4.2.1 Apparatus..................................................................................................................27

3.4.2.2 Procedure...................................................................................................................28

3.4.3 Plastic Limit (PL).........................................................................................................29

3.4.3.1 Apparatus..................................................................................................................29

3.4.3.2 Procedure...................................................................................................................29

3.4.4 Linear Shrinkage (LS)..................................................................................................30

3.4.4.1 Apparatus..................................................................................................................30

3.4.4.2 Procedure...................................................................................................................31

3.4.5 Plasticity Index (PI)......................................................................................................32

3.5 Compressive strength test................................................................................................32

3.5.1 Apparatus.....................................................................................................................33

3.6 Wet-dry density test:.......................................................................................................34

3.7 Water absorption test:......................................................................................................34

3.8 Laterite earth block production.......................................................................................34

3.8.1 Sieving..........................................................................................................................35

3.8.2 Batching.......................................................................................................................35

3.8.3 Wet mixing...................................................................................................................35

3.8.2 Molding of blocks........................................................................................................35

3.8.3 Compaction..................................................................................................................36

vii
3.8.9 Curing...........................................................................................................................36

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................37

WORK PLAN.......................................................................................................................39
BUDGET…………………….……………………..…………………

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Maasai woman coating her house with cow dung....................................................2
Figure 2.1 Interlocking laterite earth block structure...............................................................20
Figure 3.1 Sieve analysis.........................................................................................................25
Figure 3.2 Cone penetrometer................................................................................................257
Figure 3.3 Plastic limit test......................................................................................................30
Figure 3.4 Linear shrinkage molds..........................................................................................32
Figure 3.5 Compressive strength test machine........................................................................33

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Chemical composition of laterite soils.....................................................................12

Table 2.2 Cow dung composition............................................................................................15
Table 2.3 Chemical composition of cow dung ash..................................................................16
Table 3.1 Percentage Replacement Ratios...............................................................................24

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background Information

Due to the enormous number of cows available locally in a vast geographic area of the world,
cow feces is abundant. Plant fibers (mostly cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin), organic
compounds, and fragments are the primary components of cow dung in the intestine and
account for 80 to 90% of its weight. It has a lot of numerous properties. In a variety of fields,
it’s a good fuel because of its highly exothermic combustion. As a result, it is used in ceramic
kilns for the fire of cooking pots for this reason. It also has the potential to be employed in
medicine because of its antibacterial properties as it helps to remedy inflammation and pain.

Cow dung is commonly used to fertilize agricultural soils due to its high nitrogen content,
which is essential for plant growth. Adobes, like rammed earth or compressed earth blocks,
are considered green building materials because they have a low embodied carbon content
when compared to traditional materials like concrete, and baked clay bricks. As a result, new
research has emerged in recent decades, centered on the use of earth as a building material
throughout the world in the construction industry. Cow dung is used as a floor layer in adobe
structures in several countries in Africa and India. It's used in exterior coatings to stabilize
adobe blocks and plasters against erosion during the rainy season.

The water resistance and durability of adobes and plasters are improved by this empirical
approach. There is a lot of literature available on the impacts of straw debris, cement, lime,
and natural plant fibers on the physical and mechanical properties of adobes. Ngowi (1997)
reviewed land reclamation methods developed in two large villages in Botswana, where cow
dung is used as a stabilizer. The author compared cow dung to stabilizers like cement, lime,
and bitumen in terms of water absorption and compressive strength. More than twenty years
later, Vilane (2010) studied the effects of molasses, rubber, sawdust, and ordinary Portland
cement stabilizer (OPC) on the compressive strength of unburned blocks. The results
demonstrated that with suitable soil, molasses, cow grass, and sawdust can be used as

1
effective stabilizers. However, OPC stabilizer blocks achieve a higher compressive strength
limit compared to all other stabilizers. These two articles mainly focus on compressive
strength and water absorption, with little attention paid to the properties of cow dung. In
addition, the effects of adding cow dung on the microstructure of fired bricks have not been
evaluated, especially the mechanism of binding cow dung to the clay substrate.

Figure 1.1 Maasai woman coating her house with cow dung

1.2 Problem statement

In developing countries, the majority of the population cannot afford conventional blocks
made of a cement-sand mixture. Apart from a high intrinsic cost, these blocks do not currently
offer thermal comfort sufficient to renew their house. Besides cement, abundantly available
cow dung has not been considered in cost reduction and improvement of interlocking earth
block properties. Limited research has been conducted on the suitability of cow dung as a
stabilizer for interlocking earth blocks thus the number of people who would use these blocks

2
for construction is few. Cow dung also poses serious environmental concerns, across the
globe, livestock spews 14.5 percent of all greenhouse gases (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous
oxide, and fluorinated gases) released in the environment, and over half of that comes
specifically from cows, according to a United Nations report. With every episode of gas and
especially burping, cattle release methane, which is 23 times more harmful than carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas in car emissions. Besides cow’s gas, their manure can be
problematic. The phosphorus and nitrogen in cow manure, after it’s applied to farmland as
fertilizer, can run off with rainfall into local waterways, including Lake Erie, contributing to
algal blooms that turn the water green and can produce toxins harmful to drinking water. Thus
the use of cow dung in construction will promote the preservation of the environment and
natural resources through the optimization of cow dung waste.

1.3 Problem justification

Cow dung reacts with kaolinite and fine quartz to produce insoluble amine silicate, which
binds together isolated soil particles. In addition, the significant presence of fibers in cow
dung prevents the propagation of cracks in the adobe and thus strengthens the material. The
phenomenon above makes the rammed earth microstructure homogeneous with a markedly
reduced porosity. The main effect of adding cow dung was to dramatically improve the water
resistance of adobe, which led to the conclusion that adobe stabilized with cow dung is
suitable as a construction material. Affordable building materials are needed to provide
adequate housing for people around the world. The cost of conventional building materials
continues to rise as most of the population falls below the poverty line. Therefore, additional
local material must be used as an alternative to building construction. A large amount of
concrete is consumed by the construction industry. The production of Portland cement is not
only expensive and energy-intensive, but it also generates a large number of carbon
emissions. The production of cement poses environmental problems due to the emission of
gaseous pollutants. Emissions of harmful gases like CO2, NO, etc. from cement
manufacturing companies have depleted the natural environment. They have caused
environmental pollution and global warming due to the depletion of the ozone layer. Some
industrial wastes have been studied for use as cementitious materials such as fly ash, silica

3
fume, metakaolin, etc. The treatment and management of waste is a potential challenge.
Sustainable materials are currently widely considered and studied in construction engineering
research. Cow dung is the undigested residue of plants found in the intestines of cows. In cow
dung, there are high levels of protein, calcium, carbon, potassium, and phosphorus. A cow
produces about 10-15 kg of cow dung per day, containing about 28% freshwater. 34% of cow
dung becomes ash when burned. In this study, cement was replaced with cow dung ash and
dried cow dung separately as stabilizers for laterite earth blocks at rates of 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%,
8%, and 10%.

1.4 Research objectives

1.4.1 Main objective

The main objective is to investigate the performance of dried cow dung in comparison to cow
dung ash as a partial replacement of cement for interlocking laterite earth block stabilization.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study were;

i. To determine the material properties laterite soil samples.

ii. To determine the optimum mix ratios for the earth blocks.

iii. To determine the compressive strength of the stabilized earth blocks.

iv. To determine the water absorption capacity of the stabilized earth blocks.

1.5 Scope

This research will compare the Atterberg limits (plastic limit, liquid limit, and shrinkage limit)
of laterite soil treated with cow dung to laterite soil stabilized with cow dung ash, as well as
the compressive strength of the stabilized laterite blocks.

The study is also expected to test the compressive strength of the laterite blocks. The research
study will also deal with the analysis of water absorption of stabilized laterite blocks.

4
1.6 Limitations

The study will be limited to the soil from Jomo Kenyatta University of agriculture and/or its
environs.
The development of strength with time will not be investigated due to time and material
constraints.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The methodology used in this study included the literature review on construction materials
and other related fields for background information, collection of the material samples (cow
dung and laterite soil), and laboratory tests for analysis of cow dung, laterite soil, and earth
5
block properties. The following properties were tested: particle size distribution, specific
gravity, water absorption, moisture content, Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit & Plastic Limit),
workability test, and shrinkage test of laterite soil mixed with cow dung. Wet and dry density
tests, durability tests, and abrasive wear tests for the earth blocks.

2.2 Materials in earth blocks

2.2.1 Soil

The term "soil" refers to a substance that is utilized in any type of civil engineering project,
either as a foundation material to sustain the load exerted by structures or as a building
material in its own right, as in the case of earth-fill dams and highways. From this perspective,
the soil engineer is primarily concerned with the behavior of soils as a foundation and
building material.

In Africa, the soil has been used as a traditional building material for building houses (Rute,
Thomas, Aires, and Luis, 2011). One of the most common clay masonry techniques uses
adobe bricks that are dried in the sun or baked with mud. Although this technology is
inexpensive, the shape, strength, and durability of the bricks vary greatly.

2.2.1.1 Soil stabilization

Soil stabilization is the process of treating natural soil to improve its engineering qualities. Its
stability is designed to offer soil long-term features. There are three procedures of soil
stabilization namely:

a) Mechanical (compaction) soil stabilization

b) Physical soil stabilization
c) Chemical soil stabilization

2.2.1.2 Mechanical (Compaction) soil stabilization

According to (Van, 2000), soil stabilization via compaction is a process in which the particles
of soil are restricted such that they pack closer together by reducing the quantity of air in the
soil mass. The gaps of air in well-graded soils may be nearly eliminated by compacting under

6
controlled conditions, and the soil can be brought to a state where subsequent changes in
moisture have a limited tendency to occur. This increase in soil mechanical strength is
accomplished by a compaction procedure that aims to increase water resistance while
reducing permeability and porosity.

The dry density of soil, which relates to the number of solids per unit volume of soil in bulk,
is used to quantify compaction. The moisture content of the soil is the amount of water it
contains as a proportion of the dry soil's bulk.

2.2.1.3 Physical soil stabilization

The physical soil stabilization process involves adding and/or removing aggregates from a
soil sample to fix the texture, which can be accomplished using one of the following methods:

 Addition of gravel or sand to the soil as a means for reinforcement.

 Addition of clay to the soil as a binder material.
 Improvement of the soil texture by mixing different soils of varying particle sizes.
 Removal of the coarse particles from the soil.

2.2.1.4 Chemical soil stabilization

The chemical soil stabilization method entails combining soil with processed products
containing active ingredients such as Portland cement, asphalt binders, and lime (fang, 2003),
with the goal of binding soil together. The percentages of additives to be added to the soil are
dependent on the degree of improvement in the desired soil quality and classification. To
modify soil properties such as workability, gradation, and plasticity, as well as to enhance the
durability and strength sufficient to allow a thickness-reduction design, just a small amount of
the additives is usually necessary. Spreading and compacting are achieved using traditional
methods after mixing additives with soil.

2.2.2 Laterite soil

Since 1807, when discovered in India, laterite soil has been recognized as a kind of earth
material with distinctive characteristics. It is defined as "soft enough to be readily cut into

7
blocks by an iron instrument, but which upon exposure to air quickly becomes as hard as a
brick, and is reasonably resistant to the action of air and water" (Buchanan, 1974). Laterite is
a word that has been used in tropical soils. Laterite soil is a severely weathered substance rich
in iron, aluminum, or both secondary oxides. It is almost devoid of bases and primary
silicates, but considerable quantities of quartz and kaolinite may be present. It is either hard or
capable of hardening when wet and dry conditions are applied. Certain tropical soils have not
weathered as much as laterites, but they nevertheless contain high levels of sesquioxide and
kaolinite, as well as low levels of base and primary silicate; nonetheless, they are neither hard
nor capable of hardening. Such soils are known as lateritic soils, according to Lohnes and
Demirel (1987). The weathering process comprises silica leaching, the production of
colloidal sesquioxides, and the precipitation of oxides as the rock weathers, with increasing
crystallinity and dehydration. Primary feldspar, quartz, and ferromagnetic minerals are found
in the bedrock, which is converted into a porous clay system with kaolinite, sesquioxide, and
some residual quartz. Primary feldspar is transformed into kaolinite, which is then
transformed into gibbsite. The primary ferromagnetic minerals, on the other hand, are
eventually converted to diffuse goethite, well-crystallized goethite, and finally hematite.
Crystallization results in the formation of iron and/or aluminum oxide concrete. Soil
weathering is greatly influenced by the environment in which the soil is found. Parent
material, climate, geography, vegetation, and weather are all significant variables that
influence soil formation. Tropical locations with high temperatures and humid conditions,
according to this perspective, create an atmosphere conducive to intense weathering.

2.2.2.1 Classification of Laterites and Lateritic Soils

For many years, various attempts have been made to categorize laterites and lateritic soils, but
none of the suggested categorization systems has been widely recognized. These classification
systems, according to Maignan (1982), can be divided into two categories:

(a) Analytical classifications based primarily on morphological characteristics with a bias

toward soil genetic considerations.

8
(b) Synthetic classifications based on genetic factors or soil-genetic processes or properties of
pedogenetic factors or processes. 

Every categorization system, as Mohr and Van Baren (1990) point out, should have certain
specified goals. None of the above categorization methods aims to classify soils based on their
engineering behavior. Although several prominent engineering classification systems, such as
the Unified system or the American Association of State Highway Officials system, have
been used successfully for years in temperate conditions across the world, they have not been
as effective in tropical soils. These categorization methods are based on data on soil flexibility
and gradation; however, as previously stated, such properties of tropical soils are
not replicable by normal laboratory experiments. The impacts of sample preparation and
handling, which alter the natural structure of the soil, are once again responsible. Several
writers have recommended a categorization of laterites and lateritic soils for engineering
applications based on parent material and degree of weathering to avoid such issues. Fish and
Gidigas tried to apply pedagogical categories to engineering problems. Ruddock proposes an
engineering categorization based on topographic location, sample depth, and water table
depth, all of which are elements that influence the degree of weathering. For engineering
categorization of tropical soils, Lohnes and Demirel proposed using specific gravity, void
ratio, and degree of weathering. None of the proposed engineering categorization systems, on
the other hand, is yet to gain widespread adoption.

2.2.2.1 Engineering Properties of Laterites and Lateritic Soils

Plasticity and grain size distribution data for lateritic soils are very variable and unpredictable
in several investigations. Several investigators go into great depth on the causes for this.
When soils are altered, their properties change dramatically. Variations in several
characteristics of lateritic soils are caused by pre-testing drying, which is generally linked to
the dehydration of the colloidal hydrated oxides present in these soils. In most situations, the
drying-induced change is irreversible, resulting in soil with more granular properties. It's
9
nearly impossible to disseminate such a system for determining plasticity and particle size. It
is very difficult to draw an appropriate generalization for lateritic soils in terms of flexibility
and gradation due to these problems. Lohnes and Demirel (1987) are the first researchers to
emphasize the use of specific gravity as a predictor of lateritic soil engineering behavior.
Specific gravity is defined as the weighted average of the specific gravities of the minerals
that make up the soil. It is often claimed that the presence of high specific gravity minerals
increases with the age of creation in the weathering process of lateritic soils. This fact should,
of course, be represented in the value of specific gravity, which should grow as the degree of
weathering increases in lateritic soils. By graphing extractable iron concentration against
specific gravity for various chosen Puerto Rican soils, Lohnes and Demirel were able to
confirm this theory. They discovered a strong link between rising specific gravity and
increasing iron content. They also utilized data from Trow and Morton (1990) on Dominican
Republic soils to show that the quantity of goethite in the soil increases with the amount of
goethite.

The majority of studies have ignored other engineering characteristics of lateritic soils, such
as wet and dry densities, moisture content, and void ratio (or porosity). In the literature, there
is relatively little information on the characteristics of lateritic soils. This is a concern because
these characteristics have an advantage over plasticity and gradation in that the vast majority
of them are defined by bulk measurements and so are unaffected by manipulation degree.
Specific gravity, which is used to calculate the void ratio, is another parameter that is
unaffected by soil modification before testing. Furthermore, the bulk characteristics match the
behavior of undisturbed soils, providing greater information on laterites and lateritic soils
from an engineering perspective.

2.2.2.3 Structure of Laterites and Lateritic Soils

Soil structure refers to the size, shape, and arrangement of mineral grains that make up the
soil mass. The significance of soil structure is in understanding soil engineering
characteristics.  Many researchers stress this point. The soil characteristics that have been

10
inferred to have direct connections with the soil structure will be introduced in this section of
the literature review.

2.2.2.4 Soil mineralogy

The size, shape, and arrangement of soil aggregates tend to be influenced directly by soil
minerals present in the soil mass. Many researchers believe that kaolinite, gibbsite, and arid
Iron compounds are the most common minerals found in lateritic soils. It has also been
hypothesized that the occurrence of significant quantities of kaolinite occurs initially during
weathering. The quantity of kaolinite in the soil reduces as it weathers, whereas the number of
sesquioxides of iron and aluminum increases. Peterson (1990) attempted to evaluate
kaolinite's ability to form water-stable aggregates under the impact of cyclic wetting and
drying and discovered that kaolinite is a relatively inert binding agent with minimal effect on
aggregation. Many researchers, on the other hand, have observed that iron and aluminum
oxides are extremely active as binding agents. Area and Weed (1995) point out that the link
between aggregate occurrence and free iron oxide concentration remains extremely
substantial and reasonably stable at all sizes investigated (0.1-2.0 mm diameter). These results
suggest that soils with high kaolinite concentration would have limited aggregation, while
soils with high sesquioxide content will have strong aggregation.

Many researchers have suggested that the final result of lateralization in tropical soils might
be either iron oxide-rich laterite or aluminum oxide-rich laterite. The final result of
weathering, according to Sherman (1986) is closely connected to the distribution of rainfall.
He claims that the iron oxide stabilizes as a result of the climate's alternating wet and dry
seasons. However, under persistently damp conditions, alumina becomes the stabilized free
oxide, whereas iron oxide becomes unstable and leaches away. This explains why ferruginous
and aluminous, or bauxite, laterites develop in different ways. In tropical soils, titanium oxide
in the form of anatase is typically observed. Sherman (1986) studied the titanium
concentration in Hawaiian soils and discussed how it affects the weathering process.
According to the data he gave, titanium element occurrence occurs most commonly on the

11
surface of soils, more especially in the A-horizon, in a climate with distinct wet and dry
seasons.

Table 2.1 Chemical composition of laterite soils

2.2.2.5 Soil pore structure

It should be worthwhile to study the pore phase of soils in addition to the size, shape, and
distribution of the solid phase in a soil mass. The mercury injection technique is a relatively
new technology that may be used to investigate a variety of characteristics of porous
materials. Diamond (1998) was the first to use the technique to investigate the pore size
distribution of soils. After him, numerous pore size investigations have been done on
temperate soils (64, 6, 2), but not on tropical soils. The author believes that such a valuable
tool should be used in researching the pore structure of lateritic soils to gain a better
understanding of their behavior in terms of soil weathering and soil strength. Light
microscopy and, more recently, scanning electron microscopy has been the most popular
techniques for investigating the structure of lateritic soils. The quantitative definition of soil
structure using micrographs acquired from microscopic examinations is very challenging.
However, mercury porosimetry allows for the generation of many parameters from pore size
distribution curves and, at the very least, the quantification of soil pore structure.

2.2.2.6 Strength of Laterites and Lateritic Soils

A review of the strength characteristics of undisturbed samples of laterites and lateritic soils
reveals that engineering investigation of these soils has been largely neglected, even though
they have long been used as a primary engineering construction material in tropical and

12
equatorial countries. Some recent research on the strength behavior of laterites and lateritic
soils has offered little since they are either incomplete or focus on localized issues in limited
locations. Cohesion and internal friction angles in lateritic soils are typically high to very
high. The cementation that occurs among individual soil grains due to the binding action of
sesquioxides is typically attributed to this characteristic. The moisture content of the sample
examined was shown to have a significant impact on the strength behavior of lateritic soils.
Cohesion and internal friction angle are generally increased when moisture content decreases.
This is because as the soil dries out, a portion of the hydrated colloidal iron and aluminum
oxides dehydrates and forms strong connections among specific soil grains, causing an
increase in strength. Lohnes and Demirel (1997) attempted to link cohesion to the degree of
weathering in research on Puerto Rican soils and found that cohesion rises as weathering
increases.

2.2.2.7 The suitability of laterite soil for block making

Cement-stabilized laterite has been reported to be useful in building and road construction by
several researchers (Folagbade, 1998; Agbede and Manasseh, 2008; Raheem, Osuolale,
Onifade and Abubakar, 2010). The addition of small amounts of cement to a concrete mix has
been found to reduce water's weakening effect and increase strength. The Nigerian Building
and Road Research Institute (NBRRI) conducted prior research on the manufacture of laterite
bricks for use in the construction of a house (Madedor, 1992). The NBRRI suggested the
following minimal standards for laterite bricks as part of that study: a bulk density of 181
N/m3, water absorption of 12.5%, and a compressive strength of 1.65 N/mm2 with a
maximum cement content fixed at 5%.

2.2.3 Pozzolanic material

Pozzolan is the most often used mineral admixture in the concrete industry. A "pozzolan" is
defined as "a siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material that has little or no cementing
property in itself, but will chemically react with calcium hydroxide in finely divided form –
and in the presence of moisture – at ordinary temperatures to form compounds with
cementitious properties" ( Malhotra and Mehta, 1996). Volcanic ash, pumice, opaline shales,

13
burned clay, and fly ash are examples of pozzolanic materials. To be reactive, the silica in a
pozzolana must be amorphous, or glassy. Fly ash from a coal-fired power plant is a pozzolana
that produces concrete with low permeability, making it more durable and resistant to the
intrusion of harmful chemicals. Natural pozzolan and man-made pozzolan are the two types
of pozzolan. Natural pozzolans include trass, some pumicites, perlite, and Karoline, which are
all volcanic in origin. Industrial by-products such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica
fume are examples of man-made pozzolans (Güneyisi, 2004).

2.2.3.1 Cow dung as a pozzolanic material

The addition of a stabilizing agent to the soil, intimate mixing with adequate water to reach
the correct moisture content, compacting the mixture, and final curing to guarantee that the
strength potential is achieved are all part of the soil stabilization process (Sherwood, 1993).
Stabilizers in soil assist to bind soil particles together, resulting in a stronger product with
improved waterproofing and reduced shrinkage and swelling characteristics. Low-income
communities in many developing nations have long utilized cow dung as a building material.
It serves two purposes: as a binder in the manufacture of earth blocks and as a render on walls
and floors. Mohammed (1999) discovered that adding cow dung to burnt clay bricks increased
their flexibility, reduced green breakage, and served as an internal fuel source during burning,
minimizing firing cracks. He did notice, however, that the higher the percentage of cow dung
in bricks, the lower the strength and density of the bricks and the higher the water absorption.
Mohammed (1999) discovered that a mix percentage range of 5–10% dry cow dung
replacement in clay generated a 4.5N/m2 strength.

2.2.3.2 Properties of cow dung

Cow dung is the rejects of herbivorous matter which is acted upon by symbiotic bacteria
residing within the animal's rumen. Cow dung comprises organic matter including fibrous
material that passed through the cow's digestive system, among other liquid digests that have
been left after the fermentation, absorption, and filtration, then acidified, then absorbed again.
Physical properties of cow dung:
14
a) It is bulky

b) It has a large ash content

c) It has low volatile content after burning

d) Carbon content is low

e) Burning ratio is low

The exact chemical composition is mostly carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus,
etc. with salts, cells sloughed off as the digester went through the digestive tract, some urea,
mucus, as well as cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose.

Table 2.2 Cow dung composition

2.2.3.4 Properties of cow dung ash

Cow Dung Ash which is obtained by drying and burning cow dung has aluminosilicate
content. It is obtained in black color. The chemical composition of cow dung ash is mostly
determined by the type of cow dung used. Basic components can be found in the ash in
concentrations of up to a few dozen percent. The chemical makeup of the ash varies in terms
of quantity. The composition of the composition is dominated by calcium. In addition, it has a
high concentration of silica, phosphorus, and potassium. The chemical composition of cow
dung ash may change, depending on the animal species, their age, diet, and quality of feed, as
well as the condition of the animal (poor or good condition).

15
Table 2.3 Chemical composition of cow dung ash

2.2.3.5 Cow dung as a stabilizer

A large portion of the low-income communities in Kenya cannot afford conventional building
materials such as cement and other concrete inputs due to high poverty rates. Thus, buildings
are mostly constructed of blocks of earth, are sometimes stabilized with cow dung, a material
abundant in the country due to extensive livestock farming. However, the structures erected
with blocks of earth molded in this way are deteriorating rapidly, and almost every year
residents continue to work to maintain or build new homes due to the existing houses severely
degrading due to the influence of weather conditions. Additionally, in the flooding cases that
result from heavy rains, many of these earthen buildings, especially in low-field communities,
experience total collapse because mud houses could not withstand wet conditions.

This is frustrating for the residents of these communities and therefore there is a need to find
appropriate technologies that can improve and extend the life of the earthworks constructed in
the area while ensuring feasibility. This study examined structural characteristics of earth
blocks produced by combinations of cement and cow dung, with the idea that improved the
strength and durability characteristics of earth block buildings in the regions. Specifically, the
compressive strength as well as the permeability of the earth blocks produced by adding

16
cement and dried cow dung was determined and compared to those made from cow dung ash
and cement.

Here we are studying in detail the mechanical properties of cow dung ash modified concrete.
Cement is replaced by 5%, 7.5%, 10%, and 15% with cow dung ash, and compressive
strength test, tensile strength test, and flexural strength test are conducted.

2.3 Earth block production

The earliest evidence of brick production dates back to the Babylonians over 5,000 years ago.
At first, they were used in their uncooked form, simply dried in the sun, and it was not until
2500 BC that they began to be baked. The term "brick" covers a wide range of products
obtained by mixing clay, preparing it, and pouring it, before being slowly dried and finally
fired in an oven. Conville and Lee (2005) found that as the temperature rises, structural and
mineral changes occur, causing the block to harden due to high-temperature metamorphic
processes. The production of baked blocks is labor-intensive, and baking is usually done with
firewood, resulting in ecological destruction. Aside from the problem of the firing medium,
clay blocks can only be produced where suitable clay mines exist. This shortage of adobe
bricks necessitated the development of alternative technologies which resulted in the
production of adobe bricks with low environmental impact.

Over the years, the construction industry has seen the introduction of different earth
construction techniques to enhance the quality of earth construction. Some of the main
techniques include unburnt block construction, steel core construction, burial bunkers, glue
and cob, and rock earth. Unburnt brick construction mainly consists of making clay bricks by
mixing clay with the help of feet and using wooden frame molds to make bricks. However, a
disadvantage of adobe bricks is the lack of stability resulting in mass change. Cob
construction, on the other hand, does not involve the use of blocks or bricks, but rather a
created mixture of clay, sand, and straw which is then molded and compressed into liquid
shapes to make walls and roofs. This technique requires plasters to extend the life of the
building, making it more expensive.

17
Due to rapid urbanization and increasing pressure on limited resources, there is a need to
address the issues of adequate housing and sustainable interventions in the built environment.
This requires targeted action by all stakeholders of the construction industry. Customers
demand a more sustainable built environment, thus professionals must adapt and promote
sustainable construction practices through their work, the construction industry must commit
to following sustainable construction processes, and regulations should encourage, enable and
enforce sustainable construction. Interlocking Stable Ground Block (ISSB) technology is an
alternative that encourages sustainable construction through the use of locally available
resources.

2.4 Interlocking stabilized soil block technology

In Africa, the soil has long been utilized as a traditional building material for homes (Rute,
Thomas, Aires, and Luis, 2011). The use of sun-dried or kiln-fired adobe bricks with mud
mortar is one of the most popular earthen masonry methods. Despite the low cost of this
method, the bricks vary greatly in form, strength, and longevity. As a result, compacted earth
blocks are now being used. These blocks are made by pushing stabilized dirt into a mold
using a manual or hydraulic press, then curing it. These blocks were discovered to have
greater endurance and consistent geometric forms by the Germany Appropriate Technology
Exchange (GATE) in 1994.

These building blocks may be made on the construction site since the earth is accessible in
nearly every region of the planet. The fact that these blocks are not burnt and that
transportation may be unneeded makes them a cost-effective and energy-efficient construction
material. The use of stabilized blocks, on the other hand, still necessitates the use of mud
mortar, lime mortar, or cement-sand mortars to link the units. GATE (1994) claims that when
mud mortar is used, the wall's durability is usually impaired, but using lime or cement-sand
mortar increases the cost substantially. Interlocking block technology was developed in the
building sector to solve these problems. Stabilized interlocking blocks are made from locally
appropriate soil that has been stabilized and pressed in a hydraulic press mold before being
utilized in wall building for 7 days (Bansal, 2011). The blocks come in a variety of sizes and

18
are rectangular. The quantity of stabilization required is mostly determined by the soil
qualities and the desired strength. According to George's previous research on soil-cement
block manufacturing, the optimum soils must be sandy, include mostly non-expansive clay
minerals (such kaolinite), and have a sand content of more than 65 percent with a dry weight
of 18KN/m3. Lime stabilization, on the other hand, has been proven to be appropriate for
soils with a high clay concentration.  The interlocking blocks incorporate frogs (tongue and
groove joints) that allow a dry stack wall to be built by interlocking the units as a consequence
of the keying action of the blocks. The interlocking mechanism improves horizontal and
vertical alignment as well as stability. The blocks can also be made with ducts to enable wall
strengthening and the passage of service ducts through the walls. The interlocking blocks are
suited for applications with limited load-carrying capacity. The blocks, according to
Lawrence, Heath, and Walker (2008), provide environmental benefits such as the utilization
of sustainable raw materials that do not pose a biohazard, as well as lower embodied energy
and thermal mass. Except for the first course above the damp proof course, where ordinary
mortar is used, the blocks are dry piled throughout the wall building. The walls can be left
unfinished, plastered, or covered with various wall treatments. The technique of inserting
plumbing and electrical conduits during the manufacture of interlocking blocks is determined
by whether they will run through, within, or alongside the brick wall. Their positioning may
influence the wall's structural reaction to loading. Parallel-to-the-wall service conduits can be
found either within the masonry block cores or in the cavities produced after construction.
The use of hammers, on the other hand, can cause neighboring blocks to shatter causing the
walls to lose their vertical alignment. Alternatively, holes can be left in specific areas during
the building process by cutting portions off the blocks before they are set, allowing service
conduits to be accommodated. On the other hand, this may disrupt the evenness of the
interlocking block surface, resulting in laying instability. In addition, the precise location of
the penetration may be altered after the completion of construction. Furthermore, when the
building is completed, the specific position of the penetration may be changed. As a result,
including ducts in the interlocking blocks while molding them is an option. It has enabled
noise attenuation during plumbing appliance flushing operations when this has been supplied

19
(Fletcher Concrete and Infrastructure Ltd, 2008). Even with this advancement, well-designed
coordination is required to guarantee that the wall's structural reaction to loads is not
jeopardized. This will be necessary so that the walls do not collapse when they are loaded in
service or when permanent ventilation is left on during construction.

Figure 2.1 Inter locking laterite earth block structure

2.5 Water

The amount of water added to the mixture must be known for producing stabilized laterite
blocks. The amount and quality of water utilized in the block production process are crucial.
The setting of the combination, as well as the strength of the block and the coloring of its
surface, will be affected by impurities in the water. As a result, water's suitability for mixing
and curing should be considered clean. The soil paste binds platelets together, fills crevices or
gaps between soil particles, and makes it easier to flow. Due to shrinkage, excess water may
cause the block to fracture and break while drying. It's critical to use the right amount of water
throughout the block preparation process if you want to make high-quality blocks. The higher
the quality, the less water is used. If there is too much water in the mixture, the block will

20
deform easily under its weight after molding and deform when placed on uneven or bumpy
ground, resulting in shrinkage crack during drying and more time to dry.

21
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS

3.1 Introduction

This chapter demonstrates a procedural approach to the study by laying out step-by-step
processes for all of the research's tasks. It includes methods for collecting samples from the
field, preparing the materials, tools, and apparatus needed for the job, preparing soil samples,
and ultimately testing techniques. The main goal was to discuss the study findings on termite
soils and cow dung to successfully meet the research goals. The following tests were be
performed on samples in this study;

 Particle size distribution analysis

 Atterberg limit tests: Liquid limit, plastic limit, shrinkage limits, and plasticity index

 Proctor compaction test

 Compressive strength test

 Water absorption test

This will be conducted using standardized apparatus and equipment and all of these tests will
be conducted in the Soil Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Jomo
Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

3.2 Materials

3.2.1 Samples and sampling techniques

The laterite soil samples used in this study were taken from Juja in Kiambu county. To
prevent biological elements, the soil was collected at a depth of 1 meter below the earth's
surface. The soil was sieved with 6 mm holes to restrict the size of pebbles and eliminate
other big particles. The two soil samples were subjected to particle size distribution analysis.
The soil samples (three kilos each) were dried at 105°C and left overnight in a kiln, as

22
indicated in BS 1377:2. (1990). This aided in the destruction of any organic content in the soil
as well as the removal of any moisture, allowing the soil to reach its dry mass. After that, the
samples were allowed to cool to ambient temperature before sifting. Because the laboratory
was close by, cow dung was gathered from the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology cow barns. The cow dung gathered was less than 5 days old. Cow dung was
gathered mostly in the mornings after the cows were taken out to graze. Cow dung ash was
obtained by burning dried cow dung in a kiln at 650°C for 3 hours. 42.5N Portland pozzolanic
cement obtained from a Kiambu County hardware store.

3.2.2 Preparation of stabilized soil and molding of interlocking blocks

The soil was sieved through a 10 mm sieve for use in block making, with what was left on the
sieve being discarded. The amounts of laterite soil, pozzolanic cement, dried cow dung, and
cow dung ash were proportioned and batched by weight at predetermined dry weight ratios.
Table 3.1 shows the % replacement ratios on the soil using various stabilizers. To make soil
paste, the proportionate dry mix was placed in a mixing trough, and water was sprinkled on
top. The soil paste was squeezed in the hand and dumped on a hard surface to see if the water
added to the mix had attained the desired consistency. It was thought that the soil lump had
reached the requisite optimal moisture content when it split into four to six pieces. To create a
properly mixed soil paste, the soil mixture was physically mixed five times by turning from
one side to the other. The interlocking blocks were manufactured using a CINVA-Ram press
machine, with dimensions of 220 mm (length) × 220 mm (width) x 120 mm (height). The soil
paste was squeezed by hand until it was firm and hard, with an interlocking form. The freshly
formed blocks were extruded from the press machine and cured in the shade. Covering the
bricks stabilized with cow dung with plastic sheets cured them. After curing for 7, 14, and 28
days, the characteristics of the blocks were evaluated.

Soil Type Stabilizer Cement % Dried Cow Cow dung Code

23
 dung ash
laterite cement 4.5 0 0 4.5%C
5.0 0 0 5.0%C
5.5 0 0 5.5%C
6.0 0 0 6.0%C
Laterite Cement+ 3 20 0 3%C20%CD
dried cow 3 15 0 3%C15%CD
dung 3 10 0 3%C10%CD
3 5 0 3%C5%CD
Laterite Cement+ 3 0 20% 3%C20%CDA
cow dung ash 3 0 15% 3%C15%CDA
3 0 10% 3%C10%CDA
3 0 5% 3%C5%CDA

Table 3.1 Percentage Replacement Ratios

3.3 Particle size distribution test for laterite soil

3.3.1 Introduction

A particle size distribution analysis is a crucial classification test for any soil because it
provides the relative amounts of different particle sizes, allowing the researcher to determine
whether the soil contains gravel, sand, silt, or clay sizes, as well as guiding the ranges
appropriate for engineering characteristics of the soil. According to BS 1377, sieve analysis
will be performed on mixing ingredients: dried cow dung, laterite soil, and cow dung powder.

3.3.2 Apparatus

The list of the apparatus that were used in this test were:

24
 i. Metal trays
ii. A drying oven capable of maintaining a temperature of 1050C to 1100C
iii. Test sieves: 75mm, 63mm, 50mm, 37.5mm, 28mm, 20mm, 14mm, 10mm, 6.3mm,
5mm, 3.35mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600µm, 425µm, 300µm, 212µm, 150µm, 75µm
iv. Sieve brushes
v. Balance readable and accurate to 0.5g
vi. Riffle boxes
vii. Mechanical sieve shaker (optional)
viii. Scoop
ix. Evaporating dishes and Lid and receiver.

Figure 3.1 Sieve analysis

3.3.3 Procedure

The laterite soil samples were acquired by drying them in the air for at least 12 hours,
depending on the type of the sample, and then quartering or riffling a representative sample to
provide a mass of at least 5kg.

The air-dried sample was weighed to 0.1% of its total mass, then sieved through a 20mm
sieve size, with any particles too coarse to pass through the sieve being brushed off with a
wire brush until the individual particles are free of any finer material.

25
The part of the sample that was retained on the 20mm sieve was sieved on the appropriate
bigger test sieves, and the quantity retained on each sieve was weighed. Weighing the
material that passes through a 10mm sieve.

The sample was riffled and weighed to get a suitable amount of around 0.5kg. The riffled
sample was spread out in a big tray and soaked. The material was then passed through a 75µm
filter, with the material that passes through the sieve going to the garbage. All of the material
left on the sieve will be placed in a dish and dried in an oven from 105°C to 110°C before
being weighed.

The dry fractions were sieved down to the 75µm test sieve using appropriate sieves, then
weighed and the quantity reserved on each sieve recorded, as well as any finer particles
passing the 75µm test sieve. The cumulative percentage of the sample passing each sieve in
terms of weight was computed, and the grading displayed as a curve on a semi-logarithmic
chart.

3.4 Atterberg limit (BS 1377, 1990)

3.4.1 Introduction

Atterberg limits are moisture content limitations at transition points between phases, such as
solid – plastic – liquid, and whose moisture content readings are utilized to assess the laterite
soil samples' consistency. This included determining liquid limits (LL), plastic limits (PL),
and linear shrinkage limits (LS), as well as the plasticity index (PI) and modulus (PM).

3.4.2 Liquid Limit (LL)

The moisture content of oven-dry soils given as a percentage by weight of the liquid limit
(LL) is found at the transition between the plastic and liquid phases.
3.4.2.1 Apparatus.

The list of the apparatus that were used in this test were:
i. Test sieves of sizes 425 µm

26
 ii. Flat glass plate
iii. Metal straight edge
iv. Beaker or wash bottle
v. Penetrometer
vi. Palette knives or spatulas (two)
vii. Cone of stainless steel
viii. Metal cup
ix. Apparatus for moisture content determination (evaporating dish, damp cloth distilled
water, and a stopwatch)

Figure 3.2 Cone penetrometer

3.4.2.2 Procedure
On a smooth glass plate, a sample of roughly 400g of air-dried soil that passes a 425µm sieve
was put. The specimen was then added to distilled water and thoroughly combined with two
palette knives until it became a solid homogenous paste.

After that, the paste was blended for at least 10 minutes. More distilled water was added if
necessary until the initial cone penetrometer reading is around 15mm. A part of the mixed soil
was inserted in the cup without catching air voids and the surface leveled off parallel to the
base with the cup of the apparatus sitting on the base.

27
The penetration cone was be lowered to just touch the soil surface after being secured in the
elevated position. A small movement of the cup, with the cone in the proper position, just
indicated the soil surface. After that, the dial gauge was lowered to make contact with the
cone shaft, and the reading was recorded to the closest 0.1mm.

After then, the cone was freed for 5 seconds. The dial gauge was lowered to meet the cone
shaft once the cone is locked in place, and the reading was recorded to the closest 0.1mm.
The cone penetration is defined as the difference between the measurements. The cone was
then gently removed and cleaned. The process was repeated with a bit of additional wet soil in
the cup. The average of the two penetrations was recorded when the difference between the
first and second penetration measurements was less than 0.5mm. A third test was performed
when the second penetration differd from the first by more than 0.5mm but less than 1mm.
When the total range was more than 1mm, three penetrations were detected on average. When
the overall range exceeded 1mm, the soil was taken from the cup, blended, and the test was
repeated until the results were consistent.
A spatula was used to remove around 20g of dirt from the region penetrated by the cone,
which was then placed in an appropriate container and the moisture content measured. This
was done at least three times with the same sample of soil that had more distilled water added
to it. The volume of water injected was such that the four test runs covered a range of
penetration values of about 15mm to 25mm. The cup was cleaned and dried every time the
soil was removed from it for the addition of water.

The connection between moisture content and cone penetration was plotted on both linear and
logarithmic scales, with moisture content as the abscissae and cone penetration as the
ordinates. The best-suited line was drawn in a straight line. The moisture content
corresponding to a cone penetration of 20mm was used to calculate the liquid limit of the soil
sample, which was stated to the closest whole number.

28
3.4.3 Plastic Limit (PL)

The moisture level at the plastic-to-semi-solid state transition is known as the Plastic Limit
(LL). The plastic limit is calculated by rolling a bit of dirt between your fingers until you get a
thread about 3mm in diameter, and it's represented as a percentage of the oven-dried material

3.4.3.1 Apparatus

The list of the apparatus that will be used in this test are:
i. Moisture content tins
ii. Distilled water
iii. Palette Knives (two)
iv. Drying oven
v. Balance
vi. Flat glass plate
vii. Rod (3mm diameter and 100mm long)

3.4.3.2 Procedure

On the glass mixing plate, around 20g of soil prepared for the liquid limit test is placed. The
soil is then partially dried on the plate until it is flexible enough to be shaped into a ball. The
ball of soil is shaped between the fingers and rolled between the palms of the hands until tiny
fractures develop on its surface due to the heat of the hands.

The soil is split into sections and each section is rolled into a 3mm diameter thread until the
soil crumbles. The plastic limit is the first point where the soil starts to fall apart. The crushed
soil thread is immediately transferred to a suitable container and covered with a lid. This
method is performed on the remaining three soil samples, and the moisture content is
calculated. The plastic limit is determined by calculating and averaging the moisture content
of the samples.

29
 F
igure 3.3 Plastic limit test
3.4.4 Linear Shrinkage (LS)

Linear shrinkage is a measure of how much a soil sample shrinks in length after drying, given
as a percentage of its original length. The linear shrinkage sample should be collected from a
sample that is close to the moisture content of the liquid limit.

3.4.4.1 Apparatus

The list of the apparatus that will be used in this test are:
i. Brass molds
ii. Petroleum jelly
iii. Distilled water
iv. Palette knives (two)

30
 v. Drying oven
vi. Pair of Vernier calipers
vii. Flat glass plate.

3.4.4.2 Procedure

The inside walls of the brass mold are cleaned, and the internal length is precisely measured.
To prevent soil from sticking to the inner walls, a thin coating of petroleum jelly is applied.

The proportion of soil that passes through a 2.00mm sieve is determined, and an air-dried
sample that passes through a 425µm sieve is utilized to make a soil paste on a glass plate
using palette knives. The soil paste has a consistency that is close to that of liquid. The
method of applying the soil paste on the mold is done with great care to ensure that no air
pockets are present.

As a result, the mold is softly tapped into a hard surface and leveled to the top. The specimen
is initially allowed to dry in the air for about 1 hour until it separates from the mold walls. It is
then placed in the drying oven and dried for 24 hours at 105°C±5°C. After that, the mold is
removed from the oven and allowed to cool.

The soil bar's average length is then measured and recorded. The test is repeated for
specimens that have been severely cracked or damaged, making measurements impossible.
From the equation, the linear shrinkage of the soil as a ratio of the sample's initial length, Lo
(in mm): Equation 1:

(
Percent of linear shrinkage = 1−
LD
LO )
100

31
 Figure 3.4 Linear shrinkage molds

3.4.5 Plasticity Index (PI)

Plasticity Index is the difference between the liquid and the plastic limit, in other words, it is
the range of moisture content in which the soil is in the plastic state.

Plasticity Index = Liquid Limit – Plastic Limit

Plasticity index machine

3.5 Compressive strength test

When utilizing a laboratory's facilities, it's a good idea to get both the dry and wet
compressive strengths of a stabilized soil block. When moving from dry to wet circumstances,
there will always be a loss of strength. As a result, it's a good idea to make sure a machine's
capacity is large enough to crush the toughest block.
For each set of circumstances, five blocks should be tested. For blocks with an estimated
strength greater than 7 MN/m2, the time taken until the block fails should be between 0.5 and
1.5 minutes. When compressive strengths are less than 7 MN/m2, the time it takes for the
block to fail can be extended to 1 to 3 minutes.

32
After determining the maximum crushing load, the crushing strength is calculated by dividing
the crushing load by the block's cross-sectional area.

3.5.1 Apparatus

Compression testing machine 30

b) Procedure

1. The dimensions of the cured Compressed Earth Block were measured.

2. The block was then placed in the compression machine and aligned with the axis of the
loading device.
3. A load was normally applied uniformly through two stiff and flat hardened steel plates at a
rate of 180Kg/Min. These plates are meant to accommodate the surface unevenness of the
compressed earth blocks. (Block surfaces are usually sufficiently flat and parallel that only
thin plywood sheet capping is necessary).
4. The maximum load applied was recorded.
5. The appearance of the fractured face of the CEB and the type of fracture was then be
observed.

Figure 4.1: compressive strength test machine

33
3.6 Water absorption test:

Each block is weighed before the initial water immersion and again after the overnight
immersion. The % moisture absorption by weight may then be calculated using the following
formula:
W W −W D
% MC= x 100 %
WL
where: % MC= Percentage moisture absorption
WW = Weight of wetted sample
WD = Weight of dry sample

Experience shows that, if a block has less than 15 percent moisture absorption, it is likely to
exhibit good, long-term durability.

3.7 Laterite earth block production

Because the manufacturing of laterite earth blocks necessitates a great deal of movement,
proper coordination of these movements is essential for optimal output.

3.7.1 Sieving

After obtaining the laterite soil from the source, it will be air-dried and sieved through a
6mm to eliminate any undesirable elements.

3.7.2 Batching

This will be done based on volume. The proportion of laterite and cement in the soil mass will
be determined. In a diluted liquid condition, laterite will be utilized.

34
3.7.3 Wet mixing

The stabilizer (cow dung and cow dung ash) will be thoroughly mixed into the laterite soil
until a consistent and even distribution of moisture is obtained. A shovel will be used to
combine the ingredients. To determine the amount of water in the combined sample, it will be
squeezed by hand. Between the fingers, no water should come out.

3.7.4 Molding of blocks

A block press will be utilized, which is suitable for compaction of most soil types in Kenya.
The machine will be secured with nails or bolts to a 300 by 50mm wood panel. A weight will
be placed on the machine to keep it from tipping over when pressing. To prevent blocks from
adhering within the mold during loading, the interior of the mold will be greased and polished
using a brush. During each press, a strong polyethylene paper will be inserted at the bottom
and top to avoid sticking. The damp soil mixture will next be poured into the mold box. The
soil was then evenly distributed within the mold using hands. The top will then be closed, and
the handle will be raised to a vertical position, allowing the rollers to fit into their curved
places. The lever arm will then be pushed lower until it reaches the lever stop. After that, the
handle will be replaced and the mold will be opened. By pulling the handle down in the other
direction until the block comes to rest on top, the block will be expelled. The uncooked block
will then be pulled up while carefully gripping its ends. The block will be placed on level
ground and in direct sunshine.

35
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
The first set of tests was carried out was to ascertain the basic properties of laterite soil. The
second set of tests was conducted was to determine optimum mix ratio of stabilization. The
third set of tests carried out was to determine the compressive strength of earth blocks
stabilized by cow dung, and the fourth test was to determine the water absorption rate of the
earth blocks stabilized with cow dung. "Can the interlocking earth bricks stabilized with cow
dung be used as a substitute for standard cement stabilized earth blocks based on their
compressive strength?" can be questioned after all the appropriate tests have been completed.
A comparison of the results gained in the project work and those obtained by other
researchers in other regions of the world will be done before attempting to answer the issue.
It's vital to note that the interlocking blocks specimens were mature at the time of testing
while doing this examination.
4.2 Basic properties of lateritic soil

4.2.2 Sieve analysis of laterite soil test results

A set of standard sieves was used to conduct the sieve analysis. The soil grading and
categorization are explained in Table 4.1, and the Coefficient of uniformity and curvature are
shown in Table 4.1 b. Figure 4.1 depicts the particle size distribution graph. According to the
particle size study, Juja borrow pit contained acceptable proportions of sand and gravel,
allowing it to be cast without the addition of any further sand, resulting in cheaper batching
costs. The impacts of particle size distribution on cohesion and stability (subsequently
compressive strength), permeability, and capillarity are crucial, but there are also
serviceability considerations related with a specific soil's particle size distribution curve. The
S curve in the aforementioned lateritic soil showed a well-grained lateritic soil. Sandy-
GRAVEL soils have the ability to display larger deformations owing to long-term dead loads,
resulting in superior structural performance.

Table 4.1 Particle size distribution

CUMULATIVE
MASS PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE
SIEVE SIZES PERCENTAGE
RETAINED RETAINED PASSING
RETAINED
(mm) (g) (%) (%) (%)

50.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

38.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

36
 19.1 227.7 16.2 83.8 16.2
9.52 318.8 22.7 61.1 38.9
4.76 396.9 28.3 32.8 67.2
2.00 249.0 17.7 15.1 84.9
0.84 98.3 7.0 8.1 91.9
0.48 48.9 3.5 4.6 95.4
0.25 21.8 1.6 3.1 96.9
0.125 21.4 1.5 1.6 98.4
0.074 10.7 0.8 0.8 99.2
PASS 10.8 0.8 0.0 100
TOTAL 1404.3 100.0  

Percentage passing against sieve size

100

90

80

70

60
% passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

sieve sizes

Figure 4.2: Particle size distribution graph

The above gradation was plotted in order to identify the soil using both the coefficient of
uniformity (Cu) and the coefficient of curvature (C) using the BS 1377, Part 2 and 4, 1990 to
understand the behavior of the Lateritic gravel (Cc). The following formulae are used: Cu is
the soil uniformity coefficient.
D60
Cu = ...……………………………………...………………….Equation
D10
4.1

37
 10
=6.67
1.5

= 6.67 which is ˃ 6, therefore the soil is well graded

Cc = Coefficient of curvature the soil

2
D 30
C c= ……………………………………...…………….
D 10 ¿ D 60
…Equation 4.2

6∗6
=2.4
1.5∗10

= 2.4 which is < 3, therefore the soil is well graded

4.2.3 Atterberg limit test results
Table 4.2 Liquid limit table

  Initial Gauge Reading 0 0 0 0

  Final Gauge Reading  16 18 20 22

  Average Penetration        

  Container No. 24 27 39 33

A Mass of Wet soil + Container 45.80 47.20 43.58 29.04

(g)
B Mass of Dry soil + Container 38.88 41.14 37.54 22.50
(g)
C Mass of Container 22.58 27.70 24.86 9.54
(g)
D Mass of Moisture 6.92 6.06 6.04 6.54
(A - B)
E Mass of Dry soil 16.30 13.44 12.68 12.96
(B - C)
  Moisture Content: w = 100×D/E 42.45 45.09 47.63 50.46
%

38
 Penetration vs Moisture Content
23

22 22

21

20 20
Penetration (mm)

19

18 18

17

16 16

15
41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 51.00

Moisture content (%)

Figure 4.2 Graph of penetration against moisture content

Table 4.3 Plastic limit table

  Container No. 27 14

F Mass of wet soil + container (g) 24.34 25.68

G Mass of Dry soil + Container (g) 24.06 25.37

H Mass of container (g) 23.14 24.35

J Mass of Moisture (F - G) 0.28 0.31

K Mass of Dry soil (G - H) 0.92 1.02

  Moisture content: w = 100×J / K % 30.43% 30.39%

AVERAGE 30.41%

Table 4.4 Linear shrinkage table

CONE PENETRATION (mm) 20

TROUGH NO. 3

INITIAL LENGTH (Lo) 145

39
 OVEN DRIED LENGTH (Ld) 135.33

LINEAR SHRINKAGE (Ls) , Ls=Lo-Ld 9.67

SHRINKAGE PRODUCT, (Ls/Lo)*100 6.7

Table 4.5 Atterberg limits test results

TEST RESULTS

Liquid Limit LL 47 %
30.3
Plastic Limit PL 9  %
16.6
Plasticity Index PI 1 %
Linear Shrinkage LS 6.7 %

Atterberg limits test results

50

45

40

35

30
Percentage

25

20

15

10

0
Liquid Limit LL Plastic Limit PL Plasticity Index PI Linear Shrinkage LS

Figure 4.3 Penetration against Moisture content

4.3 Proctor test results

The Proctor compaction test is a laboratory process for determining the moisture content at
which a certain soil type will become most dense and attain its maximum dry density. The
material's ideal moisture content was 15.9%, with a maximum dry density of 1831 kg/m3, as
shown in Table 4.6. Appendix I depicts proctor compaction for various mix ratios as a graphs
and tables. The earth block compressing machine can apply a force of 30–40kg/cm2, and with

40
this pressure, the right moisture content must be controlled to prevent the blocks from
becoming too wet, reducing the maximum dry density. Because compressed blocks are
manufactured with a limited amount of moisture, they have a high bulk density and
homogeneity.

Table 4.6: Proctor compaction data

OMC (%) 15.9

MDD (kg/m3) 1831.0

Dry density against moisture content

1900

1850
Dry Density (kg/m3)

1800

1750

1700
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0
Moisture Content (%)

Figure 4.4: Dry density/Moisture content graph

4.4 Mechanical and physical properties of blocks

4.4.1 Physical properties of blocks

The dimensions were found to be 190mm x 150mm x 100mm as tabulated in table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Interlocking blocks physical properties

Submitted By Patrick and George Specified Length(mm) 190

Type of Block Interlocking Block Specified Height (mm) 100

Date made 15/04/2019 Specified Thickness(mm) 150

41
 Area (mm2) 28500

4.4.2 Soil moisture contents test results

The soil moisture content for the laterite soil samples was tested in the lab in order to know
the amount of water present in the soil samples to be used for the study. The results are
depicted on table 4.8.
Table 4.8: Moisture content results for Laterite soils samples

Tin Number 32 33

Weight of empty tin; (g) 28.42 26.72

Weight of empty tin + Original Laterite soil sample: (g) 120.62 140.61

Weight of Original Laterite soil sample: (g) 92.20 113.89

Weight of empty tin + Oven died Laterite soil samples: 110.76 130.33
(g)

Weight of oven dried Laterite soil samples: (g) 82.34 103.61

Weight of moisture in Laterite soil sample: (g) 9.86 10.28

weight of moisture 11.98% 9.92%

Moisture content (%) = x 100%
weight of oven dried soil
Average moisture content 10.95%

4.4.3 Compressive strength test result.

Compressive strength tests are made to determine the strength of each interlocking with an
optimum water content of 15.9% and various percentages of stabilization with cement, dried
cow dung and cow dung ash. The compressive strength results for 7 days, 14 days and 28
days are tabulated for different percentages. There was an increase in the compressive
strength in reference to an increase in the percentage of stabilization from 0% to 5% for both
stabilizing agents. After which the compressive strength dropped on addiction of cow dung
ash and dried cow dung. Cow dung ash provided more strength compared to dried cow dung.
The strength achieved id depicted in table 4.9 below.

42
4.6 Compressive strength test results

Table 4.9: Compressive strength of CEB block after 7 days of curing

Earth blocks Composition and percentages Block Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

3% cement + 0%CDA + 97% laterite 1 18.57 0.65 16.26 0.57

2 13.95 0.49
1 37.49 40.41 1.42
1.32
3% cement + 5%CDA + 92% laterite 2 43.33
1.52
1 24.66 28.03 0.98
0.87
3% cement + 10%CDA + 87% laterite 2 31.40
1.10
1 17.37 19.59 0.69
3% cement + 15%CDA + 82% laterite 0.61
2 21.81
0.77
1 10.22 12.84 0.45
0.36
3% cement + 20%CDA + 77% laterite 2 15.46 0.54

CDA stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

1.6

1.4
Compressive strength (kg/m3)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20
CDA replacement (%)

Figure 4.5 CDA stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

43
Table 4.10: Compressive strength of CEB block after 7 days of curing
CEB Composition and percentages Block Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

1 18.57 0.65 16.26 0.57

3% cement + 0%DCD + 92% laterite
2 19.95 0.70
1 26.34 0.78
0.92
3% cement + 5%DCD + 92% laterite 2 18.28 22.31
0.64
1 17.89 0.63 14.67 0.51
3% cement + 10%DCD + 87% laterite 11.45 0.40
1 11.46 10.84 0.38
3% cement + 15%DCD + 82% laterite 0.40
2 10.22
0.36
1 7.55 5.97 0.21
0.26
3% cement + 20%DCD + 77% laterite 2 4.39
0.15

DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

0.9

0.8
Compressive Strength (kg/m3)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20

DCD replacement (%)

Figure 4.6 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

44
Compressed earth blocks of varying proportions of cow dung powder ranging from 0% to20%
concentration were moulded and each of the blocks was subjected to a compression test after
7 days of curing. The maximum loads applied, average weight of each block and the
maximum compressive strength tabulated (table 4.6). From the graphical analysis of the
above results, It is clear that CEB block of 5% Cow dung replacement recorded the highest
compressive strength compared to 10% 15 % and 20% cow dung replacement.

Table 4.11: Compressive strength of CEB block after 7 days of curing

CEB Composition and percentages Block Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

1 18.57 22.64 0.78

0.65
3% cement + 5%CDA + 92% laterite 2 26.71
0.94
1 59.55 56.03 1.97
2.09
3% cement + 5%CDA + 92% laterite 2 52.51
1.84
1 47.35 43.25 1.52
1.66
3% cement + 10%CDA + 87% laterite 2 39.15
1.37
1 29.58 27.47 0.96
3% cement + 15%CDA + 82% laterite 1.04
2 25.36
0.89
1 19.55 21.16 0.73
0.69
3% cement + 20%CDA + 77% laterite 2 22.77
0.80

45
 CDA stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 14 days
2.5

2
Compressive Strength (kg/m3)

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20

CDA replacement (%)

Figure 4.7 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

Table 4.12: Compressive strength of CEB block after 14 days of curing

Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
CEB Composition and percentages Block
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

1 18.57 0.65 22.64 0.78

3% cement + 0%DCD + 92% laterite
2 26.71 0.94
1 40.12 37.16 1.31
1.41
3% cement + 5%DCD + 92% laterite 2 34.2
1.20
1 27.66 26.09 0.92
0.97
3% cement + 10%DCD + 87% laterite 2 24.52
0.86
1 10.54 12.68 0.45
3% cement + 15%DCD + 82% laterite 0.37
2 14.82
0.52
1 8.59 10.17 0.36
0.30
3% cement + 20%DCD + 77% laterite 2 11.75
0.41
Table 4.14: Compressive strength of CEB block after 14 days of curing

46
 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 14 days
1.4

1.2
Compressive Strengt (kg/m3)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15 20

DCD replacement (%)

Figure 4.7 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

Figure 4.8 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

47
Discussion:

Compressed earth blocks of varying proportions of cow dung powder ranging from 0%
to20% concentration were moulded and each of the blocks was subjected to a compression
test after 7 days of curing. The maximum loads applied, average weight of each block and
the maximum compressive strength tabulated (table 4.7). From the graphical analysis of
the above results, It is clear that CEB block of 5% Cow dung replacement recorded the
highest compressive strength compared to 10% 15 % and 20% cow dung replacement

Table 4.13: Compressive strength of CEB block after 28 days of curing

CEB Composition and percentages Block Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

1 34.57 1.21 31.67 1.11

3% cement + 5%CDA + 92% laterite
2 28.77 1.01
1 79.45 74.10 2.6
2.79
3% cement + 5%CDA + 92% laterite 2 68.75
2.41
1 43.97 46.24 1.62
1.54
3% cement + 10%CDA + 87% laterite 2 48.51
1.70
1 32.52 34.73 1.22
3% cement + 15%CDA + 82% laterite 1.14
2 36.94
1.30
1 18.24 20.63 0.74
0.64
3% cement + 20%CDA + 77% laterite 2 23.02
0.81

48
 CDA stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 28 days
3

2.5
Compressive Strength (kg/m3)

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20

CDA percentage Replacement (%)

Figure 4.9 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 7 days

Table 4.14: Compressive strength of CEB block after 14 days of curing

CEB Composition and percentages Block Max. Max. Av.Max. Av.Max.
Load Strength Load Strength
(KN) (Mpa) (KN) (Mpa)

3% cement + 0%DCD + 92% laterite 1 29.85 1.05 31.67 1.11

2 33.49 1.18
1 59.33 56.56 1.99
2.08
3% cement + 5%DCD + 92% laterite 2 53.79
1.89
1 47.61 50.53 1.76
1.67
3% cement + 10%DCD + 87% laterite 2 53.45
1.88
1 38.47 35.17 1.25
3% cement + 15%DCD + 82% laterite 1.35
2 31.87
1.12
1 15.68 17.88 0.63
0.55
3% cement + 20%DCD + 77% laterite 2 20.08
0.70

49
 DCD stabilized earth blocks compressive strength after 28 days
2.5

2
Compressive strength (kg/m3)

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20

DCD replacement (%)

Table 4.16: Compressive strength of CEB blocks after 28 days of curing

Compressed earth blocks of varying proportions of cow dung powder ranging from 0% to20%
concentration were moulded and each of the blocks was subjected to a compression test after
7 days of curing. The maximum loads applied, average weight of each block and the
maximum compressive strength tabulated. From the graphical analysis of the above results, It
is clear that CEB block of 5% Cow dung replacement recorded the highest compressive
strength compared to 10% 15 % and 20% cow dung replacement.

50
 CDA compressive strength summary at 7,14 and 28 days

3
Compressive strength (Mpa)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20

CDA Percentage Replacement

day 7 day 14 day 28

Figure 4.17: Summary of Compressive strength of CEB blocks after 7, 14 & 28 days of curing

DCD compressive strength summary at 7,14 and 28 days

2.5

2
Compressive strength (Mpa)

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5

DCD Percentage Replacement

day 7 day 14 day 28

Figure 4.17: Summary of Compressive strength of CEB blocks after 7, 14 & 28 days of curing

4.7 Water absorption tests

51
Table 4.15: Water absorption rates of CDA stabilized blocks after 24 hours of immersion
Tray Code Dry Wet %
number weight weight absorption

1 0%CDA 7426 8614 16.1

2 5%CDA 7382 8607 16.6

3 10%CDA 6751 8085 19.8

4 15%CDA 6634 8090 21.9

5 20%CDA 5779 7458 25.1

CDA stabilized blocks water absorption graph

30

25

20
Water Absorption (%)

15

10

0
0%CDA 5%CDA 10%CDA 15%CDA 20%CDA

CDA percentage replacement

Table 4.16: Compressive strength of CEB blocks after 28 days of curing

Table 4.15: Water absorption rates of DCD stabilized blocks after 24 hours of immersion

52
 Tray Code Dry Wet %
number weight weight absorption

1 0%DCD 7426 8614 16.1

2 5%DCD 6945 8184 17.8

3 10%DCD 6752 7983 18.2

4 15%DCD 6265 7938 26.7

5 20%DCD 6177 7678 24.3

DCD stabilized blocks water absorption graph

30

25

20
Water Absorption (%)

15

10

0
0%CDA 5%DCD 10%DCD 15%DCD 20%DCD

CDA percentage replacement

Table 4.16: Compressive strength of CEB blocks after 28 days of curing

There was an increase from 16.1% to 24.3% in water absorption on increasing cow dung asg
from 0% to 20%. However, the maximum water absorption of 15% recommended by KS 02-
1070 (1993) was not satisfied by the laterite soil stabilized blocks. The high absorptivity by
cow dung stabilized blocks could be contributed by voids introduced by fibrous nature of cow
dung. Fibers increase water absorption as the absorbent nature of fibers creates pathways through
soil blocks, thereby allowing more water absorption. The high permeability makes cow dung

53
stabilized blocks vulnerable to repeated swelling and shrinkage. This is likely to lead to high
rate of deterioration of blocks having higher percentages of cow dung content. The cow dung
ash stabilized blocks absorbed less water due to reduced voids caused by the fine particles
binding together with the soil.

CHAPTER FIVE

54
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
This project investigates the sieve analysis, maximum dry density, block making, the
compressive strength of the interlocking block and the suitability of dried cow dung in
comparison to cow dung ash as a partial replacement for cement in interlocking earth block
stabilization.. The following deductions were arrived at as follows:
 Sieve analysis; the lateritic soil showed properties of a well grained and well graded
which was, as a result, both coefficients of uniformity of 6.67 and coefficient of curvature
of 2.4 and S curve envelop hence. This was carried out in reference to (BS 1377-1:1990)
which yielded results within the range of research, enabling us to carry out the project
without any difficulty.
 Maximum dry density; the lateritic soil managed to achieve a maximum dry density of
1831kg/m3 and an optimum moisture content of 15.9% which was within the range of
research of compressible material as per (BS1377-4:1990).
 Compression of the interlocking block; the compression of the interlocking blocks yielded
maximum values of 2.6 N/mm 2 from stabilization with cow dung ash at 5% replacement
volume, 1.99N/mm2 from stabilization with dried cow dung at 5% replacement volume
and 1.11 N/mm2 with 3% cement stabilization only. Cow dung ash stabilized interlocking
blocks performed better compared to dried cow dung due to higher percentages of
stabilization thus indicating the strength increase with an increase in percentage
stabilization as a result of densification of the block as per (BS EN772-1:2011).
 Water absorption; cow dung ash stabilized earth blocks absorbed less water, with lower
average water absorption compared to dried cow dung stabilized earth blocks
5.2 Recommendation
To further the state-of-the-art in this field, several items for future work are possible: From
the research, it is seen that it is possible to produce lateritic blocks stabilized with cow dung
ash as well as blocks stabilized with dried cow dung. IN as much as cow dung ash produced
blocks with higher compressive strength and lower water absorption rate, dried cow dung is
recommended over cow dung ash as it is cheaper to produce and has a compressive strength
that is acceptable for use in low rise housing

55
 Stability of the block making machine; in future, the machine should be placed on a
stable foundation so as to produce well-compressed blocks.
 Cheaper methods of cow dung incineration; in future more, more advanced and
cheaper methods of incineration should be developed to enable the production of cow
dung ash more conveniently.

56
 REFERENCES

Hammond A. A. (1990). Housing in Africa, Problems, prospects, and strategies. In

proceedings: 3rd International Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing
countries, Mauritius, July 1990. P.1
Heathcote, K. A., Compressive Strength of Cement Stabilised Compressed Earth
Blocks. Building Research and Information, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 101-105, 1991
Kwadwo Adinkrah-Appiah, Evans Zoya Kpamma (2015), Improving the Structural
Characteristics of Earth Blocks as an Input of Affordable Housing for Low-
Income Northern Communities of Ghana; International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR) 4(9):4-438.
Lunt MG. Stabilized soil blocks for building. Overseas building notes. Garston:
Building Research Establishment; 1980.
Odumodu R C (1999) “Clay bricks industry in Nigeria, problem, and prospects”.
Engineering focus 3: 6:37-40.
Okello Thomas, Prof. Oyawa Walter. Dr. Ajwang Patrick (2017); Use of Cow Dung
and Local Brewery Waste as a Partial Replacement of Cement for Plastering
Low-Cost Houses. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-
JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684, ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 14, Issue 3 Ver. II
(May. - June. 2017), PP 27-32.
P. Thej Kumar, R. Harshini Reddy and DVS Bhagavanulu (2015), A Study on the
Replacement of Cement in Concrete By Using Cow Dung Ash; International
Journal of Scientific Engineering and Applied Science (IJSEAS) - Volume-1,
Issue-9, December 2015
Parsamehr, M.; Nilsson, N. Heat Generation by Cow Dung Incineration in the North
of Iran; Environmental Engineering Department, Mid Sweden University:
Östersund, Sweden, 2013.
Simango D.G. and Lyson A.A.B. (2005). Use of cow dung as a soil stabilizer for
construction of Adobe. Malawi Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 1 pp.
15-20

57
Small-Scale Manufacture of Stabilised Soil Blocks (ILO - WEP, 1987, 204 p.)
Sruthy B, Gibi Miriyam Mathew, Anisha G Krishnan, Sruthi G Raj (2017). An
Experimental Investigation on Strength of Concrete Made with Cow Dung Ash
and Glass Fibre.
Vassilev, S.V.; Vassileva, G.G.; Baxter, D. Trace element concentrations and
associations in some biomass ashes. Fuel 2014, 129, 292–313.
Walker P. Characteristics of pressed earth blocks in compression. In: Proceedings of
the 11th international brick/block masonry conference, Shanghai, China, 14–16
October; 1997. p. 1–10.

58
 APPENDIX

TEST RESULTS TABLES

Table A1 Sieve Analysis table

Before Sieve Analysis

Mass of dry soil + tray (g) 1977.5
Mass of tray (g) 573.2
Mass of dry soil screened (g) 1404.3

Table A2.1 5% CDA Proctor test results

DESCRIPTION 5% CDA3% CEMENT 92%LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 250 300 350 400 450
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5230 5303 5354 5328 5307
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1838 1911 1962 1936 1915
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3 1939 2016 2070 2042 2020 NMC
Moisture container no. 5 351 9 43 16 47 36
Mass of wet soil + container gms 101.7 108.4 83.4 88.9 78.7 98.5 106.9
Mass of dry soil + container gms 91.9 96.2 73.2 76.8 67.5 93.4 101.2
Mass of container gms 16.0 13.8 13.2 13.6 14.2 14.3 14.4
Mass of Moisture gms 9.8 12.2 10.2 12.1 11.2 5.1 5.7
Mass of Dry soil gms 75.9 82.4 60.0 63.2 53.3 79.1 86.8
MOISTURE CONTENT % 12.9 14.8 17.0 19.1 21.0 6.4 6.6
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1717 1756 1769 1714 1669 6.5

Maximum Dry Density = 1771 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 16.5 %

59
 Chart Title
1850

1800

1750

1700

1650
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

Table A2.1 10% proctor test results

DESCRIPTION 10% CDA3% CEMENT 87%LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 250 300 350 400 450
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5128 5212 5292 5300 5272
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1736 1820 1900 1908 1880
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1831 1920 2004 2013 1983 NMC
Moisture container no. 3 45 35 26 33 260 10
Mass of wet soil + container gms 88.3 79.9 79.6 83.0 79.2 121.9 105.0
Mass of dry soil + container gms 80.2 71.7 70.5 72.4 68.7 115.8 99.8
Mass of container gms 13.7 14.2 13.9 14.4 15.7 14.4 14.3
Mass of Moisture gms 8.1 8.2 9.1 10.6 10.5 6.1 5.2
Mass of Dry soil gms 66.5 57.5 56.6 58.0 53.0 101.4 85.5
MOISTURE CONTENT % 12.2 14.3 16.1 18.3 19.8 6.0 6.1
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1632 1680 1727 1702 1655 6.0

Maximum Dry Density = 1728 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 17.5 %

60
1800

1750

1700

1650

1600
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0

Table A2.1 10% proctor test results

DESCRIPTION 15% CDA 3% CEMENT 82%LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 300 350 400 450 450
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5038 5142 5234 5230 5162
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1646 1750 1842 1838 1770
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1736 1846 1943 1939 1867 NMC
Moisture container no. 11 34 31 19 45 260 10
Mass of wet soil + container gms 89.4 80.8 80.8 83.9 80.6 123.9 107.0
Mass of dry soil + container gms 80.2 71.7 70.5 72.4 68.7 115.8 99.8
Mass of container gms 13.7 14.2 13.9 14.4 15.7 14.4 14.3
Mass of Moisture gms 9.2 9.1 10.3 11.5 11.9 8.1 7.2
Mass of Dry soil gms 66.5 57.5 56.6 58.0 53.0 101.4 85.5
MOISTURE CONTENT % 13.8 15.8 18.2 19.8 22.4 8.0 8.4
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1525 1594 1644 1618 1525 8.2

Maximum Dry Density = 1644 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 18.4 %

61
1700

1650

1600

1550

1500
13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0

Table A2.1 10% proctor test results

DESCRIPTION 20% CDA 3% CEMENT 77%LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 12 14 16 18 20
Water added
mls 300 350 400 450 500
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5044 5132 5234 5210 5174
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1652 1740 1842 1818 1782
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1743 1835 1943 1918 1880 NMC
Moisture container no. 19 33 43 54 23 260 10
Mass of wet soil + container gms 92.0 82.9 83.0 86.4 82.5 121.9 105.0
Mass of dry soil + container gms 80.2 71.7 70.5 72.4 68.7 115.8 99.8
Mass of container gms 13.7 14.2 13.9 14.4 15.7 14.4 14.3
Mass of Moisture gms 11.8 11.2 12.5 14.0 13.8 6.1 5.2
Mass of Dry soil gms 66.5 57.5 56.6 58.0 53.0 101.4 85.5
MOISTURE CONTENT % 17.7 19.5 22.1 24.2 26.0 6.0 6.1
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1480 1536 1592 1545 1492 6.0

Maximum Dry Density = 1592 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 22.2 %

62
1650

1600

1550

1500

1450
17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0

Table A2.1 10% proctor test results

DESCRIPTION 5% COWDUNG 3% CEMENT 92% LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 250 300 350 400 450
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5237 5354 5362 5328 5296
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1845 1962 1970 1936 1904
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3 1946 2070 2078 2042 2008 NMC
Moisture container no. 48 41 50 34 31 26 10
Mass of wet soil + container gms 85.5 87.3 83.2 105.2 108.3 125.9 108.0
Mass of dry soil + container gms 76.4 76.7 72.1 89.3 90.6 116.5 100.0
Mass of container gms 15.6 15.2 14.4 14.7 13.1 13.9 15.0
Mass of Moisture gms 9.1 10.6 11.1 15.9 17.7 9.4 8.0
Mass of Dry soil gms 60.8 61.5 57.7 74.7 77.5 102.6 85.0
MOISTURE CONTENT % 15.0 17.2 19.2 21.3 22.8 9.2 9.4
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1693 1765 1743 1684 1635 9.3

Maximum Dry Density = 1767 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 17.5 %

63
1800

1750

1700

1650

1600
14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0

64
Table A2.1 10% proctor test results
DESCRIPTION 10% COWDUNG 3% CEMENT 87% LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 8 10 12 14 16
Water added
mls 200 250 300 350 400
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5067 5153 5239 5228 5196
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1675 1761 1847 1836 1804
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1767 1858 1948 1937 1903 NMC
Moisture container no. 51 320 330 240 360 18 11
Mass of wet soil + container gms 93.6 138.9 112.3 125.5 119.2 112.3 104.0
Mass of dry soil + container gms 84.0 121.8 97.5 106.8 100.3 106.5 99.0
Mass of container gms 15.2 13.6 15.7 14.7 14.7 13.9 15.0
Mass of Moisture gms 9.6 17.1 14.8 18.7 18.9 5.8 5.0
Mass of Dry soil gms 68.8 108.2 81.8 92.2 85.6 92.6 84.0
MOISTURE CONTENT % 14.0 15.8 18.1 20.3 22.1 6.3 6.0
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1550 1604 1650 1610 1559 6.1

Maximum Dry Density = 1650 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 18.2 %

1750

1700

1650

1600

1550
13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0

65
Table A2.1 10% proctor test results
DESCRIPTION 15% COWDUNG 3% CEMENT 82% LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/23/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 300 350 400 450 500
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5025 5106 5161 5154 5122
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1633 1714 1769 1762 1730
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1723 1808 1866 1859 1825 NMC
Moisture container no. 202 280 303 14 17 38 80
Mass of wet soil + container gms 109.7 102.0 120.3 66.2 82.8 144.9 96.4
Mass of dry soil + container gms 98.1 89.8 104.5 56.9 70.3 133.8 89.4
Mass of container gms 21.2 19.5 21.8 13.3 15.8 14.3 14.4
Mass of Moisture gms 11.6 12.2 15.8 9.3 12.5 11.1 7.0
Mass of Dry soil gms 76.9 70.3 82.7 43.6 54.5 119.5 75.0
MOISTURE CONTENT % 15.1 17.4 19.1 21.3 22.9 9.3 9.3
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1497 1541 1567 1532 1484 9.3

Maximum Dry Density = 1568 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 19.0 %

1650

1600

1550

1500

1450
15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0

66
Table A2.1 10%DCD proctor test results
DESCRIPTION 15% COWDUNG 3% CEMENT 82% LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/23/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 350 400 450 500 550
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 4964 5017 5058 5121 5107
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1572 1625 1666 1729 1715
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1658 1714 1757 1824 1809 NMC
Moisture container no. 32 13 25 210 1 38 80
Mass of wet soil + container gms 61.8 55.3 55.9 71.3 46.3 146.9 97.9
Mass of dry soil + container gms 54.9 48.8 48.5 61.8 39.6 133.8 89.4
Mass of container gms 14.4 14.9 12.9 20.7 13.0 14.3 14.4
Mass of Moisture gms 6.9 6.5 7.4 9.5 6.7 13.1 8.5
Mass of Dry soil gms 40.6 33.9 35.6 41.1 26.6 119.5 75.0
MOISTURE CONTENT % 17.0 19.2 20.8 23.1 25.2 11.0 11.3
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1417 1438 1455 1481 1445 11.1

Maximum Dry Density = 1481 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 23.0 %

1500

1450

1400
16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0

67
Table A2.1 control experiment proctor test results
DESCRIPTION CONTROL 3% CEMENT 97% LATERITE
LAYER : DATE SAMPLED:
SAMPLE NO DATE TESTED: 10/22/2021
Method of compaction:AASHTO-T-180
Material weight used gms 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
% 6 8 10 12 14
Water added
mls 200 250 300 350 400
Mass of mould + base + specimen gms 5270 5346 5403 5374 5343
Mass of mould + base gms 3392 3392 3392 3392 3392
Mass of compacted specimen gms 1878 1954 2011 1982 1951
Volume of Mould (cm )
3
948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0 948.0
BULK DENSITY kg/m
3
1981 2061 2121 2091 2058 NMC
Moisture container no. 18 53 22 141 20 38 11
Mass of wet soil + container gms 57.0 62.3 69.8 81.6 76.1 140.9 93.9
Mass of dry soil + container gms 52.5 56.4 62.4 71.6 65.6 133.8 89.4
Mass of container gms 14.0 15.1 15.8 15.2 13.3 14.3 14.3
Mass of Moisture gms 4.5 5.9 7.4 10.0 10.5 7.1 4.5
Mass of Dry soil gms 38.6 41.3 46.6 56.4 52.3 119.5 75.1
MOISTURE CONTENT % 11.7 14.3 15.9 17.7 20.1 5.9 6.0
DRY DENSITY(Kgs/m3 ) kg/m
3
1774 1804 1831 1776 1714 6.0

Maximum Dry Density = 1832 kg/m³ Optimum Moisture content(%) = 15.7 %

1900

1850

1800

1750

1700
12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0

68
69