ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the strength and durability
characteristics of cassava starch stabilized compressed earth bricks at 3
different grain size ranges. Laterite obtained locally from Zaria was sieved
into 3 constituent grain sizes ranges of ≤ 2.36mm, ≤ 1.18mm and ≤ 600µm. Earth
bricks of size 140mm × 140mm × 80mm were produced with earth brick production
machine through the application of a pressure of 4N/mm2. The bricks were produced at 6
different stabilization levels with cassava starch as stabilizer for all the
grain size combinations. The stabilization level are; 0%, 4%, 8%, 12%, 16% and
20%. Result shows that cassava starch stabilized bricks attained a maximum
compressive strength of 1.83N/mm2 at 28 days strength gain. This is 10.9% higher than the NBRRI specified
minimum strength of 1.65N/mm2 for compressed stabilized earth bricks. The study also reveals grain
size ≤ 2.36mm and 20% stabilization as the overall best grain size combination
and stabilization level respectively. Maximum water absorption of 13.23% was
revealed at 28 days curing period while a good abrasion resistance accounting
for 0.15% loss in weight was attained. The study therefore concluded that earth
bricks produces with soil grain size ≤ 2.36mm and stabilized at 20% cassava
starch content are of satisfactory strength and abrasion resistance and
therefore recommended for use as interior walls and in areas of low exposure to
moisture.
|
TABLE
OF CONTENT
|
Title
page
|
i
|
Declaration
|
ii
|
Certification
|
iii
|
Acknowledgement
|
iv
|
Abstract
|
v
|
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
|
|
1.1
|
Background
|
1
|
1.2
|
Statement
of The Research Problem
|
2
|
1.3
|
Justification
|
3
|
1.4
|
Aim and
Objectives
|
4
|
1.4.1
|
Aim
|
4
|
1.4.2
|
Objectives
|
5
|
1.5
|
Methodology
|
5
|
1.6
|
Scope
and Limitation
|
6
|
1.6.1
|
Scope
|
6
|
1.6.2
|
Limitations
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER 2: LITERTURE REVIEW
|
|
72.1 Soil
Definitions
|
7
|
2.2
|
Soil
Formation
|
8
|
2.3
|
Soil
Types
|
9
|
2.3.1
|
Humus
|
10
|
2.3.2
|
Clay
Soil
|
10
|
| | | |
2.3.3
|
Sandy
Soil
|
11
|
2.3.4
Laterite Soil Type
|
11
|
2.4
|
Laterite
Formation In Nigeria
|
12
|
2.5
|
Effects
of Grain Sizes On Mechanical Properties of Soils
|
14
|
2.6
|
Soil
Stabilization
|
15
|
2.7
|
Soil
Stabilizers
|
16
|
2.8
|
Stabilization
Techniques
|
16
|
2.8.1
|
Mechanical
Stabilization
|
17
|
2.8.2
|
Cement
Stabilization
|
18
|
2.8.3
|
Lime
Stabilization
|
19
|
2.8.4
|
Bitumen
Stabilization
|
20
|
2.8.5
|
Gypsum
Stabilization
|
21
|
2.8.6
|
Pozzalana
Stabilization
|
21
|
2.9
|
Cassava
|
22
|
2.9.1
|
Cassava
Types
|
23
|
2.9.2
|
Cassava
Production in Nigeria
|
23
|
2.9.3
|
Composition
and Application of Cassava starch
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|
3.1
|
Materials
|
28
|
3.2
|
Brick
Production
|
29
|
3.3
|
Curing
|
30
|
3.4
|
Chemical
Analysis
|
30
|
3.5
|
Physical
Properties
|
30
|
3.5.1
Laterite Sample
|
30
|
3.5.2
Cassava Starch
|
32
|
3.6
Mechanical Properties
|
36
|
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION
4.1
|
Chemical
Analyses of Laterite and Starch
|
38
|
4.2
|
Physical
Properties
|
40
|
4.2.1
|
Field
Settling Test
|
40
|
4.2.2
|
Grain
Size Analysis
|
40
|
4.2.3
|
Specific
Gravity
|
41
|
4.2.4
|
Moisture
Content
|
41
|
4.2.5
|
Atterberg
Limit
|
41
|
4.2.6
|
Compaction
Characteristics
|
43
|
4.3
|
Cassava
Starch
|
43
|
4.3.1
|
Starch
Paste Consistency
|
44
|
4.3.2
|
Mix
Proportion
|
45
|
4.4
|
Mechanical
Property Tests
|
45
|
4.4.1
|
Abrasion
Resistance
|
46
|
4.4.2
|
Water
Absorption
|
47
|
4.4.3
|
Compressive
Strength
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
|
General
Summary
|
50
|
5.2
|
Summary
Of Findings
|
50
|
5.3
|
Conclusion
|
52
|
5.4
|
Recommendation
|
52
|
References
|
54
|
Appendices
|
57
|
|
|
LIST OF FIGURES
|
|
Figure
|
Page
|
2.1
|
World
Major Producers of Cassava
|
23
|
2.2
|
|
Cassava
Industrial Revolution In Nigeria
|
24
|
2.3
|
|
Crop
Production In Nigeria By States In 2002
|
26
|
4.1
|
|
Grain
Size Distribution Curve
|
40
|
4.2a
|
Variation
of MDD with Increase in Percentage Starch Stabilization
|
42
|
4.2b Variation in OMC with Increase in
Percentage Starch Stabilization
|
42
|
4.3a
|
Compressive
Strength at 28day Curing
|
47
|
4.3b Compressive Strength for ≤2.36mm
|
48
|
4.3c
|
Compressive
Strength for ≤ 1.18mm
|
48
|
4.3d Compressive Strength for ≤ 600μm
|
49
|
|
LIST OF TABLES
|
|
Table
|
|
Page
|
2.1
|
Relationship
Between Cement to Soil ratio and Shrinkage
|
19
|
2.2
|
Cassava
Production In Nigeria By Geopolitical Zones (2000-2002)
|
25
|
4.1
|
FTRI
Result of Active Functional Groups In Laterite And Starch
|
37
|
4.2
|
Mean
Values of Physical Properties of Laterite and Cassava Starch
|
39
|
4.3
|
Sieve
Analysis Results for Laterite
|
39
|
4.4
|
Starch
Paste Consistency
|
43
|
4.5
|
Proportion
of Materials in Each Stabilization Level
|
45
|
4.6
|
Abrasion
Resistance At 28 Days Curing
|
46
|
4.7
|
Water
Absorption At 28 Days Curing
|
46
|
|
LIST OF PLATES
|
|
Plate
|
|
Page
|
I
|
NBRRI
Earth Brick Production Machine
|
29
|
II Specific Gravity Test Procedure
|
33
|
III Compaction Characteristic Test Procedure
|
34
|
IV
|
Weighing
Of Bricks Before Abrasion Test
|
35
|
|
LIST OF APPENDICES
|
|
Appendix
|
Page
|
A
|
Field
Settling Test
|
57
|
B
|
Sieve
Analysis
|
58
|
C
|
Specific
Gravity
|
59
|
D
|
Moisture
Content
|
60
|
E
|
Atterberg
Limit
|
61
|
F
|
Compaction
Characteristics
|
63
|
G
|
Paste
Consistency
|
65
|
H
|
Mix
Proportion
|
66
|
I
|
Abrasion
Resistance
|
67
|
J
|
Water
Absorption
|
68
|
K
|
Compressive
Strength
|
69
|
L Field Settling Test Result
|
70
|
M Laterite Grain Size Analysis Result
|
71
|
N
|
Specific
Gravity Results
|
72
|
O
|
Moisture
Content Results
|
73
|
P
|
Atterberg
Limit Results
|
74
|
Q
|
Compaction
Characteristics Results
|
76
|
R Compressive Strength and Density At 7 Days
Curing
|
77
|
S Compressive Strength and Density At 14
Days Curing
|
78
|
T Compressive Strength and Density At 28
Days Curing
|
79
|
|
U Compressive Strength Of Bricks (N/mm2) With
Increase in Curing
|
|
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Earth as a building material is available
everywhere. In developing countries, earth construction is economically the
most efficient means to house the greatest number of people with the least
demand of resources (Al-Sakkaf, 2009). Traditional earth construction materials
such as adobe bricks suffer from moisture attack and cracks, thus the need to
continuously maintain them in order to keep them in good condition. According to Adam and Agips (2001), traditional earth construction technology has undergone
considerable developments that enhance
earth’s durability and quality as a construction material for low-cost
buildings. Such methods include rammed earth and machine pressed compressed
stabilized earth bricks. Stabilization of
these earth bricks is achieved using various methods that often involve the
use of a variety of stabilizers. Adam and Agip (2001) identified these
stabilizers to include artificial ones such as Portland cement and lime and the
natural ones such as agricultural waste amongst others.
Cassava starch which is the stabilizer in view in
this research was recently evaluated for its suitability as stabilizer and
found to improve some mechanical properties of selected soil types (Khalil
2005). Incidentally the abundance of the cassava crop in Nigeria is not in
doubt. Phillips et al (2004) pointed out that Nigeria is the highest cassava
producer in the world.
The effects of soil grain sizes in imparting
changes in mechanical behavior of soils have also been pointed out by
researchers like Wang, Lu and Shi. (2010), Rahardjo et al (2002) and many more.
This research work intends to evaluate the
possibility of further improving the strength and durability characteristics of
the cassava starch stabilized compressed earth bricks through the exploration
of mechanical behavior of different grain size range of a selected soil type.
1.2
STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
Despite the diverse number of policies and
programme adopted by the Nigerian Government, housing delivery has remained a
major challenge leading to deficits in delivery. Oluwakiyesi (2011) puts the
housing shortfall at between 16 and 18 million housing units. Ajanlekoko
(2011) pointed out that the National housing
programme launched by the Nigerian Government in1994 had a delivery target of
121,000 units to be distributed throughout the states of the Federation. Only
1,367 were completed and another 17,792 units were under construction. The
National Rolling Plan (NRP) on the other hand, puts the housing requirement of
Nigeria at a conservative annual estimate of between 500,000 and 600,000 thus
needing an estimated 250 to 300 million Naira to make up for the shortfall. It
can therefore be inferred that initiatives at enhancing housing delivery need
not be limited to housing policies and programs of Government alone but should
more importantly include reduction in overall construction cost particularly
amongst the rural populace. Ajanlekoko (2001) asserted that the rapid up-swing
in the prices of building materials in the last five years has further reduced
the affordability for most Nigerians. Oresegun (2011) noted high cost of
building materials and labour to be amongst major problems affecting housing
delivery in Nigeria. Satprem (2009) recommended among other measures, a
reduction in the amount of cement for brick making in other to enhance cost
effectiveness.
Cement availability in Nigeria has recently been
characterized by high cost, fluctuating price, scarcity and profiteering by
cement manufacturers. This fact has been attested to in a Thisday news paper
report of 24th April, 2011 captioned “amid scarcity cement producers post bumper
profit”. The report states “indications emerged last week that the unabated
shortage of cement products and its correspondent exorbitant price are raising
the profitability of local manufacturers, which are alleged to have conspired
to frustrate calls for higher importation as a way of bridging the gap between
demand and supply”. Despite the cement challenge particularly in Nigeria, it
still remains the main stabilizer in compressed earth brick production. This
research therefore intends to consolidate on the gains in the cheaper and more
readily available cassava starch stabilized compressed earth brick by
evaluating the effects of grain sizes of soil (which in this case is laterite).
1.3 JUSTIFICATION
Compressed stabilized earth bricks have been noted
to be probably the most cost effective alternative for solving the housing
problems in Nigeria. However, cement still remains the main stabilizer in earth
brick production with its attendant problems particularly in Nigeria. According
to Adam and Agips (2001) Portland cement is amongst the most widely used and
readily available stabilizer in developing countries. Satprem (2009) affirmed
that compressed earth blocks are most times stabilized with cement or lime.
Even the Nigerian Building and Road Research (NBRRI) Technological Innovation
Catalogue considers only cement as stabilizer for Compressed Stabilized Earth
Brick in its brick making technological innovation even though it (NBRRI), has
established that cement content in compressed stabilized earth bricks above 5%
is uneconomical (Agbede and Joel, 2008). There is therefore a need to search
not only for cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative stabilizers
but also for optimization of their application as brick stabilizers. An
analysis at the commencement of this study reveals that starch paste produced
from 200g of dry cassava starch powder for stabilization of 140mm ×140mm × 80mm
earth brick was sufficient for production of a minimum of 12 bricks at 5%
stabilization. However 200g of cement for the production of same size of bricks
at same stabilization level (5%) was sufficient for production of 5.2 bricks.
Furthermore, equal amount of cassava starch is at least 4 times cheaper than
cement.
The effect of soil grain sizes in
imparting changes on mechanical behavior of soils was noted by various authors.
According to Wang, et al. (2010) the mechanical properties can be obviously
different even if there is a little difference in the grain size distributions
of the undisturbed fine sand while the mechanical properties of the remoulded
and the undisturbed fine sand are different even if the grain size
distributions are the same. Verruijt (2010) classified soils according to their
grain sizes and noted that grain size is a major factor in the different
mechanical behaviour of the main types of soils i.e. sand, clay and peat while
Rahardjo et al (2002) opined that the result of index and engineering
properties of soils indicates that variation in index and engineering
properties of soils are influenced largely by the pore-size distributions
(which relates with grain sizes). These changes in mechanical behaviour as a
result of changes in grain sizes may yield an optimum result in the application
of cassava starch as stabilizer in compressed earth bricks.
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 Aim
The aim of this research work was to investigate
the effect of varying soil grain sizes on stabilized compressed earth bricks
using cassava starch as stabilizer.
1.4.2 Objectives
i. To establish the effects of varying soil grain
sizes on durability of compressed stabilized earth bricks
ii. Establish
the active chemical compounds in laterite and cassava starch
iii. To
determine the chemical reactions of laterite and cassava starch
iii.
Identify the best grain size
range (within the scope of study) for stabilization with cassava starch
iv.
Establish the effects of varying
soil grain sizes on strength of starch stabilized compressed earth bricks
1.5 METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted for this research was an
extensive review of literature, publications, journals etc on soil
stabilization as well as characteristics of the stabilizer under consideration
i.e. cassava starch. Laboratory tests were carried out in conformity with
already established procedures obtained from relevant literatures. Three sets
of cube samples each of 140 X 140 X 80mm compressed stabilized earth bricks
were cast, cured and tested at 7, 14, and 28 days respectively.
One set each of the test sample was prepared with
soil of grain size passing sieve sizes 2.36mm, 1,18mm and 600µm respectively.
Stabilization of sets of bricks was done at 0%, 4%, 8%, 12% 16% and 20%.
Similar stabilization levels with different method of compaction (using the
California Bear Ratio and Proctor mould) were established from literature.
1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
1.6.1 Scope
Only chemical, physical and mechanical analyses
were carried out on test samples. This research work was also carried out on
single soil type (laterite) which was locally sourced from Biye Borough pit
Zaria. As such no comparism was made with the performance of other soil types.
1.6.2 Limitations
1. Tests
on stabilized bricks were confined to;
a. Compressive
strength test
b. Abrasion
resistance
c. Water
absorption
2. Brick
size was limited to 140mm×140mm×80mm obtainable from the press machine
3. Compressive pressure for brick molding was limited to 4N/mm2 applicable to the moulding
machine used for brick production.
4.
Only the NBRRI manual brick
making machine was used. Not comparism was made with bricks molded with other
brick making machines.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Buyers has the right to create
dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when
you experience issue with the file received.
Dispute can only be created when
you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of
contents and content of the file you received.
ProjectShelve.com shall either
provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or
send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and
Conditions are applied.
Buyers are expected to confirm
that the material you are paying for is available on our website
ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone
through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE
BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.
In case of payment for a
material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of
ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that
is available on our website within 48 hours.
You cannot change topic after
receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.
Login To Comment