Available online at www.rilem.

net

3 M a t e r i a l s a n d S t r u c t u r e s 38 (July 2005) 639-650

Characteristics of cement-soil mortars

B. V. Venkatarama Reddy and A. Gupta

Department o f Civil Engineering, Indian Institute o f Science, Bangalore 560 012, India

Received. 11 May 2004; accepted." 21 September 2004

ABSTRACT
Cement-soil mortars are commonly used for the construction of soil-cement block masonry. The paper focuses on an experimental study
in understanding the various characteristics of cement soil mortars in fresh and hardened state. Workability, strength, water retentivity,
shrinkage and stress-strain characteristics of cement soil mortars and bond strength of soil-cement block couplets using such mortars are
examined. Characteristics of 1:6 cement mortar and 1:1:6 cement lime mortar are also examined for the purposes of comparison.
Workability of mortars has been quantified by conducting flow table tests. Results of flow values obtained for mortars from various
construction sites are reported. There is a linear relationship between flow and water cement ratio of the mortars. Flow increases with
increase in water-cement ratio. Very high flow value of 130% can be achieved for cement soil mortars and cement lime mortars. Reduction
in flow value from 100% to 80% leads to increase in strength and modulus of mortars. Clay fraction of the mortar mix controls the flow,
strength, density, shrinkage value and modulus of cement soil mortars. Cement-soil mortars lead to better tensile bond strength for soil-
cement block couplets when compared to the cement mortar and cement lime mortar.
1359-5997 9 2004 RILEM. All rights reserved.

Rt~SUMI~
Les mortiers de terre et ciment sont g~n~ralement utilis~s dans la construction de mafonneries en blocs de terre et ciment. Cet article
f a i t Jtat d'une ~tude expdrimentale visant gl comprendre les diverses caract~ristiques des mortiers de terre et ciment h l '~tat frais et durci.
Les caract~ristiques de viabilitY, r~sistance, r~tention d'eau, retrait et contrainte-d~formation des mortiers de terre et ciment et la
rOsistance d'adh~sion de couplets de blocs de terre et ciment utilisant de tels mortiers sont examinkes. Les caractOristiques du mortier de
ciment (1:6) et du mortier de chaux et ciment (t: 1.'6) sont dgalement examinees gl titre de comparaison. La viabilitJ des mortiers a Ot~
quantifiOe gl l'aide d'essais d'Otalement h la table h chocs. Les r~sultats des valeurs de f l u x obtenues pour les mortiers de divers sites de
construction sont rapport~s. I1 existe une relation lin~aire entre le f l u x et le rapport eau/ciment des mortiers. Le f l u x s 'accrolt h mesure que
le rapport eau/ciment augmente. La trOs haute valeur de f l u x de 130% p e u t ~tre atteinte p o u r les mortiers de terre et ciment et les mortiers
de chaux et ciment. La rdduction de la valeur de f l u x de 100 gl 80% conduit h u n accroissement de la r~sistance et du modulus des mortiers.
Une fraction d'argile du m~lange de mortier contrdle valeur et modulus p o u r le flux, la rOsistance, la densitY, le retrait des mortiers de
terre et ciment. Les mortiers de terre et ciment m~nent gl une meilleure r~sistance d'adhOsion en tension p o u r les couplets de blocs de terre
et ciment p a r rapport au mortier de ciment et au mortier de chaux.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N especially the leaner mortars (commonly used in India)

Masonry walls consist o f mortar and masonry units.
Variety o f mortars and masonry units are used for the
construction o f masonry. Mud mortar was commonly used
for the construction o f masonry in the past, especially for
the low rise structures with thicker walls. Lime mortar was
popular, especially for the construction o f palaces, places o f
worship and dwellings in India and elsewhere till the advent
of cement and cement based mortars. Lime mortars
generally possess low compressive strength but have better
workability characteristics. Pure lime mortars are rarely
used for masonry construction now. Pure cement mortars,
have poor workability characteristics coupled with low
water retentivity and poor bond strength. These problems o f
pure cement mortars can be avoided by the use o f
composite mortars. Composite mortars contain an
additional material like lime, fines like pozzolana materials,
etc. in combination with cement. Commonly used
composite mortars like cement-lime mortar possess good
workability, water retentivity and better bond strength when
compared to pure cement mortars. Replacing soil with lime
in such mortars gives cement-soil mortars which are
economical, when compared to cement mortars with
enhanced properties. Soil-cement blocks have been

1359-5997 9 2004 RILEM. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1617/14197
640 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650

extensively used for the construction o f load bearing
masonry in India and elsewhere. There are more than
12,000 buildings using soil-cement blocks in India [1].
Composite mortars like cement-soil mortars are commonly
used for such constructions. The information on the
characteristics o f cement soil mortars is very scanty. The
present study focuses on characterizing the properties o f
cement-soil mortars in fresh and hardened state.
2. EARLIER INVESTIGATIONS AND
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
made to examine the various characteristics (workability/flow,
water retentivity, compressive strength, drying shrinkage and
stress strain relationship) o f cement-soil mortars through an
experimental investigation. Properties o f conventional cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar are also determined for the
purpose o f comparison. Characteristics o f mortars such as
workability/flow, compressive strength, water retentivity,
drying shrinkage, and stress strain relationships have been
examined. Also, the tensile bond strength o f soil-cement block
couplets is examined using cement-soil mortar, cement mortar
and cement-lime mortar.

There are several investigations on mortars, focused on the 3. E X P E R I M E N T A L P R O G R A M M E

characteristics o f mortars in both fresh and hardened state.
Majority o f these studies are focused on commonly used The study focuses on characterizing the properties o f
mortars like cement mortar, cement-lime mortar, etc. There are masonry mortars. The characteristics o f mortars like
no dedicated studies on properties o f cement-soil mortars, but workability, compressive strength, water retentivity, drying
a few studies focus on cement-soil mortars as a part o f the shrinkage and stress strain relationships are determined for
investigations on the other issues o f soil-cement block cement-soil mortars, cement mortar and cement-lime mortar.
masonry. Results o f some o f the earlier studies on mortars are Details o f mortar proportions and various tests performed are
highlighted here. given in Table 1. Mix proportions for cement-soil mortars are
Chaturavadi et al. [2] made an attempt to study the based on the weight. On the other hand, mix proportions for
characteristics o f cement-soil mortar used for plastering. They cement mortar and cement-lime mortar are based on volume
found that with the partial replacement o f soil from sand in 1:6 batching. In order to minimize the errors arising in volume
(cement:sand) cement mortar, the compressive, tensile and batching, the volumes o f cement, lime and sand were
adhesive strength o f cement-soil-sand mortar increases. There converted to weight ratios based on their loose bulk densities.
is a marginal difference in the workability/flow and volume These converted ratios were used in the experiments.
change o f cement-soil mortar as compared to cement-sand In the case o f cement-soil mortar locally available red
mortar. Binda and Baronio [3] conducted tests on lime mortars loamy soil is used. This natural soil has 16% clay fraction
collected from some monumental buildings in Milan (Italy),
they found that physical and chemical properties o f materials T a b l e 1 - D e t a i l s o f test p r o g r a m m e f o r v a r i o u s
influence the reaction that take place at the interface between mortars
mortar and brick. They observed, formation o f silicates at the Mortar Mortar Properties of mortar Mortar
proportion flow examined designatiot
morro_x/brick interface is due to reaction o f silica from brick
Cement Clay (%) I II III IV V
and calcium hydroxide contained in the rich lime mortar. Kja~r (%) (%)
[4] found that when bricks (dry or partially saturated) laid on 4 100 ~' ~ r CSMA1
water rich fresh mortars, the suction o f water by the brick 8 100 ~' " '~ CSMA2
influences the bond development as well as the characteristics 5
16 100 ~' *' ~' C SMA3
o f mortar in the bed joint. Walker and Stace [5] state that water 24 100 ~' '~ '~ C SMA4
retentivity improved with the increase in lime content in 4 100 " ~' ~' " " CSMB1
cement-lime mortar, whereas in cement-soil mortars water 8 100 ~' ~' ~' *' *' CSMB2
10
retentivity increases with the increase in clay fraction o f the 16 100 ~' *' '~ ~' ~' CSMB3
mortar. Compressive strength o f cement-soil mortar decreases 24 100 *' ~' ~' *' -- CSMB4
with the increase in clay fraction, whereas it increases with 4 100 ~' ~' ~' '~ '~ CSMC1
increase in cement content o f the mix. Matthana [6] reports 8 100 ~' ~' *' ~' ~' CSMC2
15
that cement-lime mortars have low compressive strength and 16 100 ~' '~ *' ~' ~' CSMC3
elastic modulus, and show a larger ultimate strain value as 24 100 " " " " -- CSMC4
compared to pure cement mortars. Information on the 10 16 80 ~' '~ ~' ~' ~' CSMB5
15 16 80 ~' '~ ~' q ~' CSMC5
characteristics o f historic mortars can be found in the
1 Cement: 100 " '~ ~' ~' " CM1
proceedings o f RILEM workshop edited by Bartos et al. [7].
6 Sand*
Thus it is clear that there are only a couple o f studies on 1 Cement: 80 *' *' v *' *' CM2
characteristics o f cement-soil mortars. These studies have 6 Sand*
indicated that there is a benefit in using cement-soil mortar 1 Cement: 100 '~ *' '~ *' *' CLM1
when compared to pure cement mortar. From the earlier 1 Lime: 6 Sand*
studies on characterization o f properties o f mortars (as 1 Cement: 80 *' '~ ~' *' *' CLM2
summarized above) it can be seen that there is a need for a 1 Lime: 6 Sand*
systematic approach to understand the behaviour o f cement- I: Flow characteristics, II: Water retentivity, III: Compressive
soil mortars in greater detail. In this paper an attempt has been strength, IV: Drying shrinkage, V: Stress strain characteristics,
* Proportion by volume
 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650
160
Natural soil (16% clay)
140 J- Reconstituted soil (4% clay)
Reconstituted soil (8% clay)
120 @ Reconstituted soil (24% clay)
: Natural sand
lO0
i7. 80
60
40
20
0 .7. -
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
Fig. 1 - Particle size distribution curves for natural soil, sand
and reconstituted soils.
containing predominantly kaolonite clay mineral (Liquid limit
= 35%, Plasticity Index = 15.7). The clay content of the mortar
mix is varied either by diluting it with natural sand or by
removing certain sand fraction from the natural soil. Thus
cement-soil mortars with 4 different clay contents (4%, 8%,
16% and 24%) were generated. Similarly, three different
cement percentages (5%, 10% and 15%) were used. The grain
size distribution curves for natural soil, natural river sand and
reconstituted soils are shown in Fig. 1.
Properties of mortars greatly depend upon the water content
of the mix. Mortars used for masonry construction will have a
certain range of flow values influencing the workability of
mortar. Samples of fresh mortars were collected from various
sites during construction of buildings and their flow values
were determined using a flow table test in the laboratory.
Results of flow tests are summarized in Table 2. This Table
also gives the details of mortar proportion and type of masonry
unit used. The flow is in the range of 86% to 119%.
Comparing the results of flow values for mortars used in the
field, a flow of 100% has been used to investigate various
characteristics of mortars.
4. T E S T I N G PROCEDURE
4.1 Determination of workability of mortars
through flow tests
Workability of the mortar should be such that it
allows mason to spread it easily and adheres well to
the masonry units. Apart from the composition of
the mix, generally water cement ratio affects the
workability as well as the other characteristics of
mortar. Workability of the mortar is generally
characterized by conducting tests given in various
standard codes of practice like Dropping ball Test
[8], Cone impression Test [9] and Slump test [10].
A few trial tests were made to measure the
641
consistency of cement mortar using cone impression test. These
trials indicated that the depth of cone penetration is not sensitive
when water cement ratio of the 1:6 cement mortar is higher
than 1.1. Thus this test did not provide actual penetration depth
of cone at higher water cement ratio due to segregation in fresh
mortar samples. Same kind of problem seemed to be there with
dropping ball test. Hence in the present study
consistency/workability characteristics of mortar are measured
using a flow table test. Using the flow table test the flow values
of cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortars
can be easily determined with the water cement ratios having a
very wide range of flow values. BS: 4551 [8] guidelines are
followed to carry out experiments to determine the flow of
mortars. The flow of mortar is taken as average of two tests as
specified by BS: 4551 [8].
4.2 Compressive strength of mortar
Compressive strength of the mortar was obtained by testing
70mm size cube specimens. Mortar is thoroughly mixed and
filled into a metal mould in 3 layers, each layer is tamped 25
times using a standard tamping rod (specified in I.S. 2250 code
[9]). Mortar cubes prepared in this manner are removed from
the metal moulds after 24 hours of casting. The mortar cubes
aRer 28 days curing period are tested in a compression testing
machine in saturated condition. The mean of six cubes tested is
reported as compressive strength of mortar.
4.3 Water retentivity
During masonry construction, fresh mortar in the bed joints
is sandwiched between the masonry units. There will be
moisture flow between the flesh mortar bed joint and masonry
units. The amount of water sucked by masonry unit from the
mortar depends upon the porosity and the moisture content of
the masonry unit at the time of casting and the ability of the
mortar to retain/hold water against brick suction. Mortar has
cementitious materials, thus initially it requires certain amount
of water for the complete hydration of cementitious materials
to gain strength and proper bond development with the
brick/block. Water retentivity can be defined as the ability of
the fresh mortar to hold/retain water when placed in contact
with absorbent masonry units. Water retentivity of the mortar
depends on various factors like mix proportion, water-cement
ratio, type of cementitious binders, etc. Standard codes of
practice like IS: 2250 [9], ASTM C 91-95 [11] and BS: 4551
[8] give procedures to determine water retentivity of the
mortar. In the present investigation, water retentivity is
Table 2 - Flow values for fresh mortars collected from various
construction sites
* Site Mortar Flow Type of masonry
No. proportion (%) unit used for walls Mortar used for
C So S
A 1 6 101 Fired clay brick Vertical Bed Joint
A 1 6 86 Fired clay brick Horizontal Bed Joint
B 1 2 6 115 Soil-cement block Horizontal Bed Joint
C 1 3 5 119 Soil-cement block Horizontal Bed Joint
D 1 2 6 113 Soil-cement block Horizontal Bed Joint
E 1 2 6 103 Soil-cement block Horizontal Bed Joint
* Mortar samples from construction sites, C: Cement So: Soil S: Sand
642 B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650

examined for various mortar mixes by adopting the guidelines

o f BS: 4551 [8]. The mean value o f two tests is reported as the
water retentivity of mortar as specified by BS: 4551 [8].

4.4 D r y i n g s h r i n k a g e value o f m o r t a r
The drying shrinkage o f mortar is determined by
following the procedure given in A S T M C 1148-92a [12].
The drying shrinkage o f the mortar, as determined by this
method, is the measure o f decrease in length o f test
specimen in unrestrained condition, under drying condition,
after an initial period o f curing. The average o f five mortar
specimens is reported as drying shrinkage value o f mortar
as specified by A S T M C 1148-92a [12].

4.5 Stress-strain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m o r t a r s
Stress-strain relationships for various mortars are obtained
by testing mortar prism specimen o f size 150 X 150 X Fig. 2 - A typical flow pattern for cement-soil mortar at a flow
value of 100%.
300 ram, cast in wooden moulds. The
prisms are cured for a period of 28 days Table 3 - Flow values, W/C ratio and water content for cement-soil
under moist burlap. The prisms after 28 mortars
days curing are soaked in water for a Mortar Flow values (%)
period o f 48 hours prior to testing. Prisms type 40 80 100 110 130
are tested in a compression testing W/C W.C. W/C W.C. W/C W.C. W/C W.C. W/C W.C.
machine having a constant piston CSMAI 3.60 17.0 4.10 19.4 4.30 20.5 4.50 21.4 4.65 22.2
displacement rate o f 1.25mm per minute. CSM BI 1.65 15.1 1.85 17.6 2.00 18.2 2.20 20.2 2.30 21.6
The longitudinal strains are measured CSMC1 1.25 16.2 1.40 17.0 1.48 19.4 1.60 21,0 1.65 21.6
using Demec gauge of 200 mm gauge CSMA2 3.90 19.0 4.34 21.4 4.60 22.4 4.90 23.6 5.00 24.2
length. Three specimens were tested for CSMB2 2.05 18.6 2.30 20.6 2.40 21.8 2.60 23.6 2.70 24.2
each mortar proportion and the mean CSMC2 1.42 18.5 1,60 20.6 1.68 21.8 1.80 23.2 1.90 23.8
CSMA3 5.30 25.2 6.10 29.0 6.60 31.5 7.10 33.6 7.30 34.4
values are reported.
CSMB3 2.78 25.0 3.10 28.5 3.25 30.5 3.40 31.6 3.50 32.4
CSMC3 1.93 25.2 2.15 27.8 2.35 30.6 2.40 31.6 2.50 32.4
5. R E S U L T S A N D CSMA4 7.30 33.4 8.40 38.1 8.90 41.4 9.40 44.6 9.60 45.6
CSMB4 3.80 34.0 4.10 38.2 4.45 40.4 4.80 43.5 5.00 45.2
DISCUSSION CSMC4 2.50 34.5 2.90 38,8 3.10 41.6 3.20 44.0 3.40 44.8
W/C: Water-cement ratio of the mortar, W.C.: Total water content of the mortar mix
Various characteristics o f mortars are
determined by adopting test procedures as detailed in 200
previous sections. Details o f the results obtained from the 180 o 5 % Cement content (CSMA2)
experimental studies are discussed in the following 160
9 10 % C e m e n t c o n t e n t ( C S M B 2 )
sections. 9 15 % Cement content (CSMC2)
140

5.1 F l o w c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m o r t a r s g 120

3 loo
O
A typical flow pattern for cement-soil mortar at a flow ,T 80
value o f 100% is shown in Fig. 2. For a set of selected flow
6O
values, variation in water-cement ratio and water content of the
40
mortar mix for cement-soil mortars is tabulated in Table 3.
Typical relationships of mortar flow with water-cement ratio 20

and water content for cement-soil mortars with 8% clay 0 i i

fraction are shown in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. Similar 2 3 4 5

relationships can be seen for various other compositions of Water Cement ratio
cement-soil mortars. The relationship between total water
Fig. 3 - Flow versus water-cement ratio for cement-soil mortar
content of the mortar mix with the clay fraction o f cement-soil
(8% clay).
mortars for various cement contents is shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6
illustrates the variation in water cement ratio with cement
content for cement mortar and cement-lime mortar is shown in
content o f the cement-soil mortar. The variation o f water-
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. The following observations can be
cement ratio with clay fraction of the mortar mix is shown in
made from the results given in Table 3 and these figures.
Fig. 7. The flow value versus water-cement ratio mad water
 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650 643

10.5
160 Flow of Mortar at 100%
o 5 % Cement content 9 cement
140 9 10 % C e m e n t c o n t e n t .9
7.5
::0~
120 9 15%e e ~ ~ . . ~
100 6"
E
e 4.5-
o .1/,
L
E 60 3
40
1.5
20
0 ! w i i i i

0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
16 t8 20 22 24 26
Clay fraction of the mortar m i x (%)
Total water content of the mix (%)

Fig. 7 - Variation in water cement ratio of mortar mixes with

Fig. 4 - Flow versus water content for cement-soil mortar (8% clay fraction.
clay).
160
45
F l o w o f M o r t a r at 1 0 0 % 140

i..O..-
5 % cement 120
A 40
+ 10% cement / / 100
.x
E 35 80
o
It. 60
o 9 CM1
E 30 40
9 CLM1
20
e-
25 0
o
1 1.5 2 2.5

20 Water cement ratio

Fig. 8 - Variation in flow value with water cement ratio of

15 cement mortar and cement-lime mortar.
0 10 20 30
Clay fraction of mortar mix (%) 160

Fig. 5 - Variation in water content of mortar mixes with clay 140 9 CM1 .~
fraction. 120

10 100
Flow of mortar at 100%
80
. 4% clay fraction o
i, 60
--0--8% clay fraction
o
.m
-" 16% clay fraction
40
24% clay fraction
20
E
0)
r 0
k. 4 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
T o t a l w a t e r c o n t e n t o f t h e m i x (%)

Fig. 9 - Flow value versus water content of cement mortar

and cement-lime mortar.
| | i | i i

5 7 9 11 13 15 17 5.1.1 Cement-soil mortars

C e m e n t c o n t e n t o f the m o r t a r m i x (%) a) T h e flow values increase w i t h the increase in water-

c e m e n t ratio or w a t e r content o f the m o r t a r m i x
Fig. 6 - Variation in water cement ratio with cement content irrespective o f the m o r t a r composition/proportion. T h e r e
o f cement-soil mortars. is a linear relationship b e t w e e n the flow v a l u e a n d water-
644 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta /Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650

cement ratio or water content of the mortar mix for all the is a linear relationship between flow value and water
proportions o f mortars tried (typical plots shown in Figs. 3 cement ratio or water content of the mortar mix. The flow
and 4). Similar trends can be seen for cement-soil mortar value is very sensitive to the water cement ratio or water
with other clay fractions. The linear relationships shown content of the mix. For example in the case o f cement
in Fig. 3 have steep slope, indicating drastic increase in mortar, there is a three-fold increase in flow values for
the flow for a small change in water-cement ratio, about 25%-30% increase in water cement ratio or total
whereas the plots of flow value versus total water content water content of the mix. Similar trend is observed for
o f the mortar mix as shown in Fig. 4 depict a different cement soil mortar as discussed earlier.
behaviour. Here the lines for different cement contents of b) Cement-lime mortars require higher water-cement ratio
the mortar merge into one single line. This indicates that it or water content when compared to cement-mortars, to
is the clay content o f the mix, which decides water content achieve any given flow value o f less than 100%. At
required in achieving a definite flow value rather than the 100% flow both the mortars require the same water
cement content o f the mix. For example, for a flow value content (Fig. 9). For cement mortar, the maximum
o f 100%, the plot o f water content of the mortar mix value o f flow achieved is 107% without segregation,
versus clay fraction (Fig. 5) for different cement content whereas in the case o f cement-lime mortar, flow o f the
merge into one line. Since clay particles present in soil order o f 130% can be attained.
have a tendency to hold water, it is the clay fraction of the c) The amount o f water required to achieve 100% flow is
mix, which dominates the water requirement in the mortar the same for cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and
mix, instead of cement content in the case of cement-soil cement-soil mortar having clay fraction less than 8%,
mortars. To achieve 100% flow, the water requirement whereas in the case o f cement-soil mortar having
goes up by 50% when clay fraction o f the cement-soil higher clay fraction, water requirement is more. For
mortar is doubled irrespective of the cement content of the example to achieve 100% flow, the water content of
mix. the mortar mix is about 21% for cement mortar,
b) Very high flow values o f the order o f 130% can be cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortar with low
achieved at higher water-cement ratio or water content clay fraction (< 8%), whereas cement-soil mortar with
o f the mortar mix for cement-soil mortars without any 16% and 24% clay require a water content o f 31% and
segregation o f constituent materials. 42% respectively. Thus in the case o f cement-soil
c) The flow is very sensitive to the water-cement ratio or mortars, the clay fraction o f mortar mix rather than the
water content o f the mortar mix. There is a three-fold cement content o f the mix controls the water
increase in flow values for about 25%-30% increase in requirement to achieve a specified flow.
water-cement ratio or water content of the mix in almost
all the cases for cement-soil mortars. 5.2 Compressive strength and water retentivity
To achieve a definite flow value (say 100%), the water-
cement ratio decreases with the increase in cement content of Results o f compressive strength, dry density and water
the mortar mix as shown in Fig. 6. As the cement content of retentivity o f various mortar proportions are given in
the mortar mix is increased from 5% to 15%, water-cement Table 4, Variation in compressive strength o f cement-soil
ratio decreases by more than half
to achieve 100% flow, whereas the T a b l e 4 - Strength, w a t e r retentivity and stress strain characteristics o f c e m e n t -
water-cement ratio increases with soil mortars
increase in clay fraction of the Mortar Flow Water Dry Wet Water Initial Ultimate
mortar mix to achieve a definite proportion of cement density compressive retentivity tangent strain
flow value (say 100%), as mortar ratio (gm/cm 3) strength (%) modulus value
illustrated in Fig. 7. This may be
(%) (MPa) (MPa)
CSMA1 100 4.35 1.87 1.54 78
attributed to the fact that clay
CSMA2 100 4.60 1.78 1.14 88
particles present in the mortar have
CSMA3 100 6.58 1,57 0.55 89
a tendency to hold water and as the CSMA4 100 8.80 NIL 89
clay fraction of the mortar is CSMB1 100 1.96 1.92 3.42 84 3965 0.0044
increased the water requirement of CSMB2 100 2.41 1.80 2.70 88 1990 0.0031
the mortar mix increases, to CSMB3 100 3.25 1.62 1.92 90 1236 0.0039
achieve a definite flow value. CSMB4 100 4.46 1.36 1.26 90
CSMC1 100 1.49 2.00 6.76 80 10195 0.0018
5.1.2 C e m e n t m o r t a r and
CSMC2 100 1.68 1.85 5.40 87 5401 0.0017
cement lime mortar
CSMC3 100 2.35 1.63 2.70 88 2280 0.0023
a) Flow value increases with the CSMC4 100 3.08 1.37 2.00 90
increase in water cement ratio CSMB5 100 3.08 1.72 2.12 92 1348 0.0022
or the water content of the CSMC5 100 2.13 1.74 3.19 92 2510 0.0022
mortar mix for both cement CM1 100 1.65 1.90 5.40 74 4534 0.0040
mortar and cement-lime CLM1 100 1.83 1.90 5.94 82 4820 0.0026
CM2 80 1.5 1.96 6.00 81 10946 0.0019
mortar (Figs. 8 and 9). There
CLM2 80 1.7 1.94 6.21 85 11201 0.0021
 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta /Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650 645

mortar with clay fraction and cement content of the mortar

Flow of Mortar is 100% mix is shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. Fig. 12
,-, 7 9 5% Cement content shows the variation in dry density of cement-soil mortar
m
el ca 10% Cement content with clay fraction of the mortar mix. The following points
:E 6 emerge from the results presented in the Table and figures.
a) Keeping the mortar flow at 100%, the compressive
e-
== strength of cement-soil mortar decreases with the
=n 4 increase in clay fraction of the mortar mix for a given
> cement content (Fig. 10). There is a linear relationship
"~ 3 between compressive strength and clay fraction o f the
== mortar. As the clay fraction is increased by 4 fold from
e, 2
E 4%, the compressive strength decreases by 2 to 3 fold
o for a range of cement contents between 5% and 15%.
b) The compressive strength increases with the increase in
cement content of the cement-soil mortar irrespective of
6 10 14 18 22 26 the clay fraction (Fig. 11). The curves possess steeper
slope in the case of cement-soil mortar having clay
Clay fraction of mortar mix(%)
fraction less than 8% as compared to other two mortar
Fig. l0 - Compressive strength versus clay fraction for mixes having clay fraction of 16% and 24%. The
cement-soil mortar. percentage increase in strength with cement content
depends on the clay fraction of the mortar mix. It is
noticed that there is a 5-fold increase in compressive
Flow of Mortar is 100%
strength as the cement content is increased by three fold
"et~ ' 7
=E
-e=
--6
;of:% ;'2',oi ,/ from 5%. The cement-soil mortars with high clay fraction
of the order of 24% show zero wet compressive strength
__=' 121~ Cla; 'racti~ / .,= when low percentage of cement content (5%) is
==5 attempted. For high clay fraction, the mix possesses large
"~4 number of fine clay particles and hence smaller cement
> percentage (5%) is totally inadequate to stabilize, thus
"~ 3 leading to zero wet strength.
m
c) To achieve a constant flow value of 100%, the total
r~2
E water content of the mix varies (depending upon clay
o fraction) leading to different dry density values. The
dry density of the cement-soil mortars decrease with
~ ! | ! !
the increase in clay fraction of the mortar mix
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 irrespective of the cement content. There is a linear
C e m e n t content of mortar mix (%) relationship between dry density and the clay fraction
of the mortar mix (Fig. 12). One-third decrease in dry
Fig. 11 - Compressive strength with cement content for density is observed when the clay fraction of the
cement-soil mortar.
mortar is increased by 6 fold from 4% (irrespective of
2.2 cement content) keeping the flow at 100%.
Flow of Mortar is 100% d) Water retentivity of cement-soil mortar is independent
o 5% C e m e n t content
of the cement content used in the mortar, whereas it
2 increases as the clay fraction of mortar is increased.
9 10% C e m e n t content
E This can be attributed to the fact that clay particles
r tent
present in the mortar have a tendency to hold water,
E~1.8
thus as the clay fraction of the mix is increased, more
amount of water can be retained. There is an increase
1.6 of about 10%-12% in water retentivity values when
"o
clay fraction is increased from 4% to 24%.
C3 e) Compressive strength of cement-soil mortars increases
1.4 when the flow is reduced to 80% from 100%. For
example, there is an increase of 10% in compressive
1.2 strength for cement-soil mortar containing 10% cement
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 content when flow is reduced to 80% from 100%. On
Clay fraction of mortar mix (%) the other hand, an increase of 18% in compressive
strength is observed for mortars containing 15%
Fig. 12 - Dry density of cement-soil mortars versus clay cement for similar decrease in flow. There is marginal
fraction of mortar mix.
646 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650

variation in the water retentivity values of cement-soil 0.8

mortars for a similar change in mortar flow value. Flow of mortars is 100%
f) Compressive strength of cement mortar and cement-lime 0.7 --...o.~ CSM C 1 : CSMC2
at CSMC3 )K CM1
mortar is 5.4MPa and 5.94MPa respectively (at 100%
0.6 .L CLM 1
flow). The compressive strength of cement mortar shows
an increase of 10% when flow of the mortar is reduced to r 0.5
80% from 100%, whereas in the case of cement-lime
mortar, the compressive strength is not sensitive to flow 9= 0.4
.r
r
change ha the range of 80% to 100%.
c 0.3
g) Water retentivity of cement mortar and cement-lime
mortar is 74% and 82% respectively when the flow is at a 0.2
100%. In the case of cement mortar, the water retentivity
value increases (by 9%) with decrease in flow value to o.1 ~ ~
80% from 100%. On the other hand, for cement-lime
mortar water retentivity does not show much variation for 0
flow values in the range of 80 to 100%. 0 I0 20 30

h) For a flow value of 100% the compressive strength of Dying duration (days)
cement-soil mortar with clay fraction less than 10%,
containing 15% cement is in the range of 5.0MPa to Fig. 13 - Variation in drying shrinkage with drying duration
for various mortars.
6.0MPa. Similar strength values are achieved with
cement mortar (1 cement: 6 sand) and cement-lime
1.4
mortar (1 cement: 1 lime: 6 sand). It is to be noted here A Flow of Mortar is 100%
that cement-soil mortar containing 15% cement, 1 : 6 1.2 J
cement mortar and 1:1:6 cement-lime mortar, have :~ 10% Cement content / . .
o~
nearly similar percentage of cement in the mortar mix. 1 ii
i) At a flow of 100% cement-soil mortars posses better t.
water retentivity when compared to cement mortar and 0.8
cement-lime mortar. For example, cement-soil mortar
c
with 8% clay fraction has water retentivity of about 9~ 0.6
88%, whereas cement mortar and cement-lime mortar "o
have water retentivity of 74% and 82%, respectively. ~0.4
E
.m

"~ 0.2
5.3 Drying shrinkage of mortars
Shrinkage that takes place during hardening of the mortar 0 i ! m i i i

can be called as drying shrinkage. A part of drying shrinkage is 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

recovered on immersion of mortar in water. The rate of drying
shrinkage decreases with time. The drying shrinkage of mortar
could depend on various factors like water cement ratio,
cement content, type of sand/grading, clay content of soil,
curing period, etc. Drying shrinkage of mortar can cause
shrinkage cracks within as well as at the unit-mortar interface
and it can also result in impaired bond between masonry unit
and mortar [13]. The drying shrinkage of mortar is measured
in the laboratory through mortar prisms in unrestrained
conditions. It differs from that experienced in a masonry wall
where the drying shrinkage of the mortar is influenced by
restraint offered by masolu2r units, masonry unit absorption
characteristics, thickness of mortar bed joint, etc. Thus drying
shrinkage value of the mortar examined in the laboratory is
more useful for comparative purposes rather than as absolute
values.
The drying shrinkage of mortars at 25 days of drying
duration is taken as the ultimate drying shrinkage. The drying
shrinkage measured at 4 th, 11th, 18th and 25 th day of drying of
mortar specimens is given in Table 5 for various mortar
combinations. The variation of drying shrinkage with drying
duration for cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and cement-
soil mortar with 15% cement is shown in Fig. 13. The
variation of ultimate drying shrinkage of cement-soil mortar
Clay fraction of the mortar mix (%)
Fig. 14 - Variation in ultimate drying shrinkage with clay
fraction of the mortar mix.
with clay fraction of the mortar mix is shown in Fig. 14. The
following points are clear from the results of Table 5 and these
figures.
a) The drying shrinkage of the cement-soil mortars lies in
a very wide range for various combinations of cement
content and clay fraction of the mortar. For example,
the ultimate drying shrinkage for various cement-soil
mortars is in the range of 0.147% to 1.26%.
b) The drying shrinkage of the mortar increases with the
duration of drying. For 11 days duration of drying, the
drying shrinkage values for cement-soil mortars are in
the range of 60% to 90% of the ultimate drying
shrinkage.
c) The ultimate drying shrinkage of the mortar decreases
with the increase in cement content of the mortar mix.
The drying shrinkage of cement-soil mortar increases with
the increase in clay fraction of the mortar mix. There is a
linear relationship between the ultimate drying shrinkage
 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta /Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650 647

Table 5 - Drying shrinkage values for m o r t a r s I 3.5

---O---CSM B 1 9 CSMB2
Mortar Drying shrinkage (%) after A 3 -" CSMB3 )i( CSMB5
proportion 1st 4th 11th 18 th 2 5 tla

day da~r day day day 2.5

r
c/)
CSMB1 0 0.120 0.128 0.238 0.238 ~ 2
CSMB2 0 0.248 0.264 0.309 0.377
CSMB3 0 0.420 0.582 0.707 0.753 .~ 1.5
w
CSMB4 0 1.020 1.240 1.260 1.260
CSMB5 0 0.066 0.202 0.324 0.324 E
o
CJ 0.5
CSMC1 0 0.099 0.108 0.147 0.147
CSMC2 0 0.282 0.303 0.324 0.324
CSMC3 0 0.347 0.472 0.476 0.539 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
CSMC4 0 0.787 1.080 1.110 1.110 Longitudinal strain
CSMC5 0 0.021 0.169 0.350 0.350
CM1 0 0.071 0.074 0.074 0.074 Fig. 15 - Stress strain relationships for cement-soil mortar
(10% cement).
CLM1 0 0.054 0.056 0.057 0.057
CM2 0 0.023 0.027 0.029 0.029
CLM2 0 0.041 0.049 0.049 0.049
A4
r162
el
and clay fraction of mortar mix as shown in Fig. 14. The " ~ o - - - CSM C 1

percentage increase in the ultimate drying shrinkage value 9 CSMC2

is more in mortars containing higher cement content. For
example, the increase in ultimate drying shrinkage is 7.5
times for a six fold increase in clay fraction from 4% for
the mortars containing 15% cement, whereas for a similar
increase in clay fraction, it increases by 5.3 times for
mortar containing 10% cement.
d) The ultimate drying shrinkage of mortar decreases
significantly when the mortar flow is reduced to 80% from
100%. In the case of cement-soil mortar, the quantum of
decrease in the ultimate drying shrinkage values is less for
mortars containing higher cement content (15%). For
example, there is 2.3 times decrease in drying shrinkage
value for a reduction in flow to 80% from 100% for
mortars containing 10% cement. On the other hand, a
decrease of 1.5 times is observed for mortar containing
15% cement for similar decrease in flow values.
e) The ultimate drying shrinkage of cement mortar and
cement-lime mortar is significantly low as compared to
cement-soil mortars. The drying shrinkage for cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar reaches the ultimate
drying shrinkage values in about 3 to 4 days of drying.
The ultimate drying shrinkage for cement-lime mortar is
higher than for cement mortar. Effect of flow of mortars
on drying shrinkage is significant in the case of cement
mortar, whereas for cement-lime mortar a marginal
variation is observed.
There is a need for understanding the importance of
drying shrinkage on masonry bond strength and other
properties through more detailed investigations.
5.4 Stress strain characteristics of mortars
The stress strain relationships of cement-soil mortars
containing 10% and 15% cement content are shown in Figs. 15
and 16, respectively. These figures give the curves for various
==3
.0
,L CSM C3
CSMCS
"~ 2
fD
,0
et
E
,31
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Longitudinal strain
Fig. 16 - Stress strain relationships for cement-soil mortar
(15% cement).
combinations of flow and clay fraction of the mortar mix.
Fig. 17 shows the stress strain relationships for cement mortar
and cement-lime mortar with two different flow values. The
variation in modulus values of cement-soil mortar with clay
fraction of the mortar mix is shown in Fig. 18. The stress strain
characteristics like Initial Tangent Modulus and the ultimate
strain value for various proportions of mortars are tabulated in
Table 4. The following observations can be made from results
given in Table 4 and these figures.
a) The stress-strain relationships show softening behaviour
at flow values of 80% to 100%. Cement-soil mortars
containing 10% cement have Initial Tangent Modulus
values in the range of 923MPa to 3965MPa, whereas for
mortars containing 15% cement content, the modulus
value is in between 1802MPa and 10195MPa.
b) The Initial Tangent Modulus value of cement-soil mortar
is sensitive to the clay fraction of the mix. The modulus
value decreases as the clay fraction of mortar mix is
increased as shown in Fig. 18. For example, when the clay
fraction of cement-soil mortar mix is increased by four
648 B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta I Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650

6 d) The modulus values of cement-soil mortar increases by

about 10% to 20% when flow is reduced to 80% from
100%. The ultimate strain values for mortars
5 containing 10% cement decrease by 85% for a decrease
in flow value of mortar to 80% from 100%, whereas
mortars containing 15% cement content show a
marginal variation in ultimate strain values for a
similar decrease in flow values.
3
e) The cement mortar and cement-lime mortar have Initial
Tangent Modulus value of 4534MPa and 4820MPa
respectively. The ultimate strain value for cement
1 mortar and cement-lime mortar is 0.004 and 0.0026
lt'
~ lj~ ~ CMLI respectively. Matthana [7] reported higher ultimate
strain value for cement lime mortar when compared to
cement mortar. He did not keep the flow value constant
0 for these two mortars.
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 f) For both cement mortar and cement-lime mortar, there
is 2.5 times increase in the modulus values when the
Longitudinal strain
flow is lowered to 80% from 100%. This can be
Fig. 17 - Stress strain characteristics for cement mortar and attributed to the fact that as the flow is reduced, water-
cement-lime mortar. cement ratio also decreases which enhances the
stiffness of mortars, accompanied by increase in
14000 strength. There is a decrease of 50% in ultimate strain
Flow of mortar is 100% value when the flow is reduced to 80% from 100% for
9~" 12000- cement mortar. On the other hand, in the case of
O. - - ' o - - 1 0 % Cement = 15% Cement
=E
cement-lime mortar, the ultimate strain value decreases
10000-
by 20% for a similar decrease in flow value. When the
_= flow is reduced mortars become stiffer and brittle.
"1=1 g) At 100% flow, cement-soil mortar with 15% cement
o 8000-
=[ content (8% clay fraction), 1:6 cement mortar and
1:1:6 cement-lime mortar have modulus values in the
6000-
range of 4500MPa to 5500MPa. It is to be noted here
c
that these mortars posses nearly similar percentage of
I- 4000 -
. m
cement in the mortar mix.
c
h) The ultimate strain values for cement-soil mortar
-- 2000- containing 10% cement content is more as compared to
cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and cement-soil
0 i ! : i mortar containing 15% cement content. In the case of
0 4 8 12 16 20 cement-soil mortar the ultimate strain values are sensitive
Clay fraction of mortar mix (%) to the proportion of cement content and clay fraction of
the mortar mix.
Fig. 18 - Modulus values versus clay fraction for cement-soil
mortar.
6. T E N S I L E B O N D S T R E N G T H OF SOIL-
fold from 4%, there is a three fold decrease in modulus CEMENT BLOCK COUPLETS
values for mortars containing 10% cement content. On the
other hand, for similar variation in clay content a five-fold Cement-soil mortars are used for soil-cement block
decrease in modulus values is observed for cement-soil masonry construction as stated in earlier sections. It will be
mortars containing 15% cement. interesting to examine the block-mortar bond strength using
c) The cement-soil mortars containing 10% cement show various types of mortars. Hence, the tensile bond strength of
higher ultimate strain values as compared to the soil-cement block cross couplets is determined as per the
mortars with 15% cement content. The ultimate strain guidelines of ASTM C 952 [14]. Soil-cement blocks
values for mortars containing 10% cement are in the containing 6%, 8% and 12% cement content have been used
range of 0.003 to 0.0044, whereas the ultimate strain (designated as B 1, B2 and B3 respectively). These blocks were
values are in between 0.0017 to 0.0023 for mortars produced by using a manually operated machine. More
containing 15% cement. This clearly indicates that the information about soil-cement block technology can be found
cement-soil mortars having low cement content show in several research publications [5, 15 - 20]. Cement-soil
more softening behaviour. mortar having a clay fraction of 16% is used with 10% and
15% cement content. For the purpose of comparison cement
 B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta /Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650
Table 6 - Tensile bond strength for various mortar and
block combinations
Soil-cement block Tensile bond strength (MPa)
Type Compressive CM 1 CLM 1 Cement-soil mortar
strength CSMB3 CSMC3
(MPa)
B1 3.13 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.14
B2 5.63 0.16 0.18 0.13 0.20
B3 7.19 0.181 0.233 0.14 0.246
Flow value for mortar is at 100%,
Soil-cement block size: 305 X 145 X 100mm
mortar (I Cement : 6 Sand) mad Cement-lime mortar (1
Cement : 1 Lime : 6 Sand) are also tried. Table 6 gives the
details of tensile bond strength values for various combinations
of blocks and mortars while keeping the mortar flow at 100%.
The results shown in Table 6 clearly indicate that cement-soil
mortars (CSMC3) having 15% cement show better
performance in bond strength values as compared to cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar. There is a significant increase
(in the range of 25% to 55%) in tensile bond strength values of
soil-cement block couplets using cement-soil mortars
(CSMC3) as compared to cement mortar. On the other hand, a
marginal increase in bond strength of 7 to 10% is observed
using cement-soil mortar when compared to cement-lime
mortar. Leaner cement soil mortar with 10% cement content
(CSMB3) shows tensile bond strengths comparable to those
obtained using 1:6 cement mortar (CM1). Thus use of cement
soil mortars for soil-cement block masonry is more appropriate
than using pure cement mortars. It is worthwhile to make a
detailed study on bond and compressive strength of soil-
cement block masonry using cement soil mortars.
7. C O M P A R I S O N OF C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S
OF CEMENT-SOIL M O R T A R , C E M E N T
M O R T A R AND C E M E N T - L I M E M O R T A R
Various characteristics of cement soil mortar, cement
mortar and cement lime mortar were examined. A comparison
of the salient features of these mortars is given below.
a) Composite mortars like cement-soil mortar and
cement-lime mortar can attain flow values of the order
of 130%, without segregation of constituent materials,
whereas for pure cement mortars (1:6), the maximum
flow value achievable is 107%. For any given flow
value the water requirement of mortar is decided by the
clay fraction of the mortar mix rather than the cement
content for cement-soil mortar. On the other hand in
the case of cement mortar and cement-lime mortar,
water requirement is controlled by the cement
content/water cement ratio of mortar mix.
b) For a flow value of 100% (normally used for masonry
construction), the compressive strength of cement-soil
mortar with clay fraction less than 10%, containing
15% cement content is about 5 MPa to 6 MPa. Similar
strength is achieved with 1:6 cement mortar and 1:1:6
cement-lime mortar. It is to be noted here that all these
649
mortars possess nearly similar percentage of cement
in the mortar mix.
c) At a flow value of 100% cement-soil mortars posses
better water retentivity when compared to cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar. For example,
cement-soil mortar with 8% clay fraction have water
retentivity of about 88%, whereas cement mortar and
cement-lime mortar have water retentivity of 74%
and 82% respectively.
d) Cement mortar, cement-lime mortar and cement-soil
mortar with 15% cement content (8% clay fraction)
have modulus values in the range of 4500 to
5500MPa when the mortar flow is at 100%. It is to be
noted here that these mortars posses nearly same
percentage of cement in the mortar mix. Cement soil
mortar with higher clay content results in softer
mortars having lower modulus values.
e) The drying shrinkage values for cement-soil mortars
are very high as compared to cement mortar and
cement-lime mortar. The drying shrinkage of cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar attains a constant value
in about 3 to 4 days of drying time, whereas for
cement-soil mortars it is 10-12 days.
f) The cement-soil mortars (containing 15% cement
content) give higher tensile bond strength for soil-
cement block masonry as compared to 1:6 cement
mortar and 1:1:6 cement-lime mortar.
8. S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS
Cement-soil mortars are used for the construction of soil-
cement block masonry. Workability, strength, water
retentivity, shrinkage and stress-strain characteristics of
cement soil mortars and bond strength of soil-cement block
couplets using such mortars are examined in this study.
Characteristics of 1:6 cement mortar and 1:1:6 cement lime
mortar are also examined for the purposes of comparison.
Major conclusions of the study are summarized below.
a) Workability of mortars has been quantified by conducting
flow table tests. Measurement of flow values for cement
mortars and cement-soil mortars collected from various
construction sites indicate a range of flow values from
86% to 119%. This will workout to an average flow
value of about 100%. Tests on various mortars indicate a
linear relationship between flow and water cement ratio
as well as total water content of the mortar. Flow
increases with increase in water-cement ratio and water
content of the mortar. Very high flow value of 130% can
be achieved for cement soil mortars and cement lime
mortars, whereas the maximum flow achieved for 1:6
cement mortar is 107%. Thus cement soil mortars
possess better workability characteristics than pure
cement mortars of 1:6 proportions.
b) Water content required to achieve any given flow value
is controlled by the clay fraction of the mortar mix
rather than cement content of the cement soil mortar,
whereas in the case of cement mortar and cement-lime
650 B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, A. Gupta / Materials and Structures 38 (2005) 639-650
mortar cement content o f the mix controls the water
requirement to achieve any specified flow value.
c) At a constant mortar flow value, the density and
strength o f mortar decrease with increase in clay
fraction o f the mortar mix and vice-versa with the
cement content o f the mix.
d) For comparable flow values cement soil mortars
exhibit better water retentivity than cement mortar and
cement lime mortar.
e) Cement soil mortars possess higher drying shrinkage
values than cement mortar and cement lime mortar.
Implication o f drying shrinkage on masonry properties
requires further investigations.
t) Modulus value for cement soil mortars greatly depends
upon the clay fraction and cement content o f the
mortar mix. Modulus decreases with increase in clay
fraction. Initial tangent modulus values for cement soil
mortar can range between 923 - 5400MPa except in
the case o f cement soil mortar having very low clay
content (-4%). Cement soil mortar with 15% cement
(clay fraction -10%), 1:6 cement mortar and 1:1:6
cement lime mortar exhibit modulus values in the
range o f 4500 - 5000MPa.
g) Reduction in flow value from 100% to 80% leads to
increase in strength and modulus o f mortars.
h) Cement soil mortar (with 15% cement and - 1 0 % clay)
leads to better tensile bond strength for soil-cement
block couplets when compared to the 1:6 cement
mortar and 1:1:6 cement lime mortar.
REFERENCES
[1] Venkatamma Reddy, B.V., 'Progress of stabilized mud block
construction in India', Proc. National Workshop on Alternative
Building Methods, Bangalore, India, Jan. 2002, 84-94.
[2] Chaturvedi, D.C., Lal Manohar and Dhawan, B.L.,
'Investigation on the use of soil in cement-sand plasters for
buildings', The Indian ConcreteJournal (January 1959) 13- 17.
[3] Binda, L. and Baronio, G., 'Survey of brick/binder adhesion in
'Powdered Brick' Mortars and Plasters', Masonry
International Journal 2 (3) (1988) 87-92.
[4] Kj~er,E., 'The influence of suction from masonry units upon the
strength of the hardened masonry mortar', Proc. 9th Intemational
Briek/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991, 1356-1363.
!!iiiiiiii
ll
[5] Walker, P. and Stace, T., 'Properties of some cement
stabilized compressed earth blocks and mortars', Mater.
Struct. 30 (Nov. 1997) 545-551.
[6] Matthana, M.H.S., 'Strength of brick masonry and masonry
wails with openings', Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engg.,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 1996.
[7] Bartos, P.J.M., Groot, C.J.W. and Hughes, J.J. (eds.), 'Historic
Mortars: Characteristics and Tests', Proc. of International
workshop (RILEM publications s.a.r.l., 2000).
[8] BS: 4551, 'British Standard Methods of Testing Mortars,
Screeds and Plasters', British Standards Institution, U.K, 1980.
[9] IS: 2250, 'Indian standard code of practice for preparation and
use of masonry mortars', Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India, t 981.
[101 Australian Standards 1289, 'Methods of sampling and testing
mortar for masonry construction', Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia, 1993.
[11] ASTM C 91-95, 'Standard specification for masonry cement',
American Society for Testing and Materials, USA, 1995.
[12] ASTM C 1148 - 92a, 'Standard test methods for measuring the
drying shrinkage of masonry mortar', American Society for
Testing and Materials, USA, 1992.
[13] Baker, L.R., 'Some factors affecting the bond strength of
brickwork', Proc. 5th International Brick Masonry Conference,
Washington, II-9, 1979, 84-89.
[14] ASTM C 952 - 91, 'Standard test method for bond strength of
mortar to masonry units', American Society for Testing and
Materials, USA, 1991.
[15] Houben, H. and Guillaud, H., UNCHS (Habitat), 'Earth
Construction Primer', Vol. 8, CRATerre, Belgium, 1984.
[16] Olivier, M. and Mesbah Ali, 'Influence of different parameters
on the resistance of earth, used as a building material',
International Conference on Mud Architecture, Trivandrum,
India, 25th - 27th Nov., 1987.
[17] Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., 'Studies on static soil compaction
and compacted soil-cement blocks for walls', Ph.D. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India, 1991.
[18] Heathcote, K., 'Compressive strength of cement stabilized
pressed earth blocks', Building Research and Information 19
(2) (1991) 101-105.
[19] Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S., 'Influence of
soil composition on the strength and durability of soil-cement
blocks', The Indian Concrete Journal 69 (9) (1995) 517-524.
[20] Walker, P., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., Ali Mesbah and Morel,
J.-C., 'The case for compressed earth block construction',
Proc. 6th Intl. Seminar on Structural Masonry for developing
Countries, Bangalore, India, Oct. 2000, 27-35.