Advertisement

Field-oriented tests to evaluate the workability of cob and adobe

  • A. Perrot
  • D. Rangeard
  • T. Lecompte
Original Article
  • 171 Downloads

Abstract

Due to its low environmental impact, earth construction has received lot of consideration in recent years. Furthermore, in order to improve the quality of earth construction, there is a need for a better description and control of the earth consistency or rheology. Just as for concrete with the Abrams cone, there is need for a simple and robust test that is able to provide, under field conditions, the consistency of the earth and that has results that can be used to estimate the yield stress of a fine soil used for cob or adobe. Two types of field-oriented tests are optimized for field conditions: the first one is based on the cone penetration test as used for the determination of the Atterberg limits and the second one is the ball dropping test already used onsite to check the adequacy between the earth consistency and the construction process. Finally, an experimental validation carried out on two types of soil shows that the yield stresses computed from the field-oriented tests is in agreement with the yield stresses obtained in a conventional way using a vane rheometer.

Keywords

Cob Adobe Rheological behaviour Yield stress Ball dropping test Cone penetration 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aubert JE, Maillard P, Morel JC, Al Rafii M (2015) Towards a simple compressive strength test for earth bricks? Mater Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0601-y Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azeredo G, Morel J-C, Lamarque C-H (2008) Applicability of rheometers to characterizing earth mortar behavior. Part I: experimental device and validation. Mater Struct 41:1465–1472.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9343-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bui Q-B, Morel J-C, Hans S, Meunier N (2009) Compression behaviour of non-industrial materials in civil engineering by three scale experiments: the case of rammed earth. Mater Struct 42:1101–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9446-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moevus M, Jorand Y, Olagnon C et al (2015) Earthen construction: an increase of the mechanical strength by optimizing the dispersion of the binder phase. Mater Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0595-5 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perrot A, Rangeard D, Levigneur A (2016) Linking rheological and geotechnical properties of kaolinite materials for earthen construction. Mater Struct.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0813-9 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruno AW, Gallipoli D, Perlot C, Mendes J (2017) Mechanical behaviour of hypercompacted earth for building construction. Mater Struct 50:160.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1027-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khelifi H, Lecompte T, Perrot A, Ausias G (2016) Mechanical enhancement of cement-stabilized soil by flax fibre reinforcement and extrusion processing. Mater Struct 49:1143–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khelifi H, Perrot A, Lecompte T, Ausias G (2013) Design of clay/cement mixtures for extruded building products. Mater Struct 46:999–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9949-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maskell D, Heath A, Walker P (2013) Laboratory scale testing of extruded earth masonry units. Mater Des 45:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khayat KH, Omran AF, Naji S et al (2012) Field-oriented test methods to evaluate structural build-up at rest of flowable mortar and concrete. Mater Struct 45:1547–1564.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9856-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pierre A, Lanos C, Estellé P (2013) Extension of spread-slump formulae for yield stress evaluation. Appl Rheol 23:63849Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roussel N, Coussot P (2005) “Fifty-cent rheometer” for yield stress measurements: from slump to spreading flow. J Rheol 49:705–718.  https://doi.org/10.1122/1.1879041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Active Standard ASTM D4318 (2010) Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soilsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrade FA, Al-Qureshi HA, Hotza D (2011) Measuring the plasticity of clays: a review. Appl Clay Sci 51:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2010.10.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feng T-W (2001) A linear log d—log w model for the determination of consistency limits of soils. Can Geotech J 38:1335–1342.  https://doi.org/10.1139/t01-061 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koumoto T, Houlsby GT (2001) Theory and practice of the fall cone test. Géotechnique 51:701–712.  https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.51.8.701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Delgado MCJ, Guerrero IC (2007) The selection of soils for unstabilised earth building: a normative review. Constr Build Mater 21:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Minke G (2012) Building with earth: design and technology of a sustainable architecture. Walter de Gruyter, BirkhäuserGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wasti Y (1987) Liquid and plastic limits as determined from the fall cone and the Casagrande Methods. Geotech Test J 10:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rajasekaran G, Narasimha Rao S (2004) Falling cone method to measure the strength of marine clays. Ocean Eng 31:1915–1927.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2000.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang D, Zentar R, Abriak N, Xu W (2013) Shear strength behavior of cement/lime-solidified Dunkirk sediments by fall cone tests and Vane shear tests. Geotech Test J 36:155–162Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansbo S (1957) A new approach to the determination of the shear strength of clay by the fall-cone test. Royal Swedish Geotechnical Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanaka H, Hirabayashi H, Matsuoka T, Kaneko H (2012) Use of fall cone test as measurement of shear strength for soft clay materials. Soils Found 52:590–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lootens D, Jousset P, Martinie L et al (2009) Yield stress during setting of cement pastes from penetration tests. Cem Concr Res 39:401–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor G (1948) The use of flat-ended projectiles for determining dynamic yield stress. I. Theoretical considerations. In: Proc R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci. The Royal Society, pp 289–299Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taylor GI (1946) James Forrest lecture 1946. The testing of materials at high rates of loading. J Inst Civ Eng 26:486–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forde LC, Proud WG, Walley SM (2009) Symmetrical Taylor impact studies of copper. In: Proc R Soc Lond Math Phys Eng Sci. The Royal Society, pp 769–790Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adams MJ, Aydin I, Briscoe BJ, Sinha SK (1997) A finite element analysis of the squeeze flow of an elasto-viscoplastic paste material. J Non-Newton Fluid Mech 71:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perrot A, Mélinge Y, Rangeard D et al (2012) Use of ram extruder as a combined rheo-tribometer to study the behaviour of high yield stress fluids at low strain rate. Rheol Acta 51:743–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perrot A, Rangeard D, Pierre A (2016) Structural built-up of cement-based materials used for 3D-printing extrusion techniques. Mater Struct 49:1213–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0571-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahaut F, Mokéddem S, Chateau X et al (2008) Effect of coarse particle volume fraction on the yield stress and thixotropy of cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 38:1276–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perrot A, Lecompte T, Estellé P, Amziane S (2013) Structural build-up of rigid fiber reinforced cement-based materials. Mater Struct 46:1561–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Bretagne Sud, FRE CNRS 3744, IRDLLorientFrance
  2. 2.INSA Rennes, EA 3913, LGCGMRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations