Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/jobe

Recent developments in stabilized rammed earth: Testing

protocols and the recommendations for standardization
M.A. Martin-Antunes a,b,* , C. Perlot b,c , S. Espuelas a , S. Marcelino a , A. Seco a
a
Institute of Smart Cities and Department of Engineering, Public University of Navarre, 31006, Pamplona, Spain
b
Université de Pau et des Pays de L’Adour, SIAME, 64600, Anglet, France
c
Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The lack of global standardization in the testing methods for Stabilized Rammed Earth (SRE)
Stabilized rammed earth hinders progress in advancing knowledge of this sustainable construction technique. This review
Mechanical properties compiles research from the last four years on SRE, focusing on manufacturing parameters, curing
Durability
conditions, chemical stabilizer kinds, stabilizer dosage, testing methods, and mechanical and
Standardization
Review
durability properties. Based on this analysis, a methodology is proposed to define and standardize
SRE manufacturing parameters, curing, and testing conditions. The proposed methodology sug­
gests that soil particle size distribution should be optimized to enhance mechanical strength and
durability while reducing stabilizer dosage. The selection and dosage of stabilizers should be
determined based on soil characteristics and environmental considerations. The standard proctor
test is recommended for assessing manufacturing conditions, while curing should be performed
by wrapping samples in plastic at laboratory temperature. Unconfined Compressive Strength is
identified as the most relevant mechanical test and should be conducted at 7, 28, and 90 days. For
durability assessment, erosion testing and exposure to liquid water are recommended at 28 days.
This methodology represents one of the first steps toward the standardization of SRE testing
methods, which must be accepted and adopted by researchers and practitioners. By implementing
this methodology, comparable results across studies could be achieved, facilitating further
research and collaboration among researchers. Such efforts would contribute to enhancing the
available knowledge to improve the material’s performance and further promote SRE as a sus­
tainable construction technique.

1. Introduction

The rapid growth of the global population, combined with the excessive consumption of natural resources, is leading to climate
change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and resource scarcity [1,2]. In light of this scenario, sustainable development is urgently necessary
to develop solutions that preserve a healthy and balanced environment for both present and future generations [3,4]. Within this
context, the construction sector plays a crucial role, accounting for a significant portion of natural resource consumption and
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [5]. One promising solution that has gained significant attention from researchers in recent

* Corresponding author. Institute of Smart Cities and Department of Engineering, Public University of Navarre, 31006, Pamplona, Spain.
E-mail addresses: [Link]@[Link] (M.A. Martin-Antunes), [Link]@[Link] (C. Perlot), [Link]@unavarra.
es (S. Espuelas), [Link]@[Link] (S. Marcelino), [Link]@[Link] (A. Seco).

[Link]
Received 14 May 2024; Received in revised form 14 March 2025; Accepted 19 March 2025
Available online 19 March 2025
2352-7102/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
([Link]
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

years to mitigate the environmental impact of the sector is earth construction [6]. The essence of earth construction lies in its ability to
harness locally sourced raw soil in its natural state as a primary building material. This approach capitalizes on soil’s wide availability,
cost-effectiveness, and versatility while significantly reducing the environmental footprint compared to conventional construction
materials [7–9]. Thus, earth construction offers a sustainable alternative that can help minimize the sector’s environmental impact and
contribute to the broader goals of sustainable development [10].
The most widely spread earth construction method is Rammed Earth (RE) [11,12]. RE involves the systematic compaction of a
soil-water mixture into layers, using a manual or pneumatic rammer. Compaction is usually carried out in layers of 7.5–15 cm thick to
the Standard Proctor (SP) density, within temporary formworks, resulting in walls with a thickness ranging from 30 to 60 cm [13–16].
The traditional form of RE, known as Unstabilized Rammed Earth (URE), employs only soil and water, with clay acting as the sole
binder [17]. In some cases, the presence of clay acting as a binder is insufficient to achieve the desired properties for RE building.
Therefore, stabilization is often employed, resulting in Stabilized Rammed Earth (SRE). Although the use of stabilizers improves the
properties of construction materials, the lack of specific standards for characterizing SRE makes research in this field difficult [17].
Some countries have drawn up valuable local standards and some authors have proposed different testing criteria for SRE building.
Nevertheless, many of these methods are not specifically developed for SRE characterization and were adopted, many times without
any adaption, from other construction materials. For example, some authors considered concrete standards for the Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) characterization, following UNE-EN 12390–4:2020 or ASTM C39/C39M-22. For the SRE tensile strength
and the shear testing, it is usual to carry out the Brazilian test developed for concretes, in accordance with ASTM C496-96 and IS
10082, and the direct shear test developed for masonry, according to ASTM E519/E519M − 22, respectively.

Fig. 1. Structure and scope of the study based on Marathe et al. [25] and Abdolpour et al. [26].

2
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

In addition to the lack of clarity regarding which standards to use, the presence of numerous factors in SRE that influence me­
chanical results, such as the shape of the specimen or the manufacturing process, makes it difficult for authors to compare the results
obtained with the existing literature. Maniatidis and Walker [18], for instance, demonstrated that the compressive strength measured
on a cylindrical sample of reconstituted soil was higher than the strength measured on a prismatic sample. They attributed these
differences to the presence of angles in the mold that would reduce the compaction efficiency during sample fabrication, thus reducing
the UCS. Raju and Venkatarama Reddy [19] analyzed the influence of the layer’s thickness on the soil compaction. They found that the
layer thickness of 100 mm was the optimum for their soil compaction condition and that an increase in the layer thickness decreased
the UCS of the samples. Los et al. [20] and Zamanian et al. [21] observed that different curing conditions remarkably varied the
compressive strength in lime and alkali SRE respectively. They observed that higher temperatures of curing accelerated the pozzolanic
reactions and geopolymerization processes.
The lack of clear standards presents regulatory, technical and perceptual challenges that must be addressed for SRE to be globally
adopted. The absence of regulations in building codes creates uncertainty in its application, while limited awareness among pro­
fessionals hinders its acceptance [22]. In Spain, this issue is even more pronounced, as no national standards exist, and efforts related
to SRE focus primarily on conservation, maintenance, and the revival of traditional techniques [23]. To address these challenges, a
standardization in the manufacturing and testing of the SRE technique will be essential. The first step toward this goal would be the
implementation of a methodology that defines and homogenizes manufacturing parameters, curing, and testing conditions. Currently,
no comprehensive study compiles recent research while proposing a unified methodology for manufacturing, curing, and testing that
ensures consistent material characterization and facilitates cross-study comparisons. This gap complicates future standardization ef­
forts. Ávila et al. [24] gathered information from studies on SRE, primarily studies published between 2010 and 2020, and this review
helps authors compare published data more quickly. However, in their study, they concluded that standardizing the testing procedures
would be essential to obtain comparable values of the mechanical parameters of SRE.
This paper collects the newest knowledge about SRE manufacturing parameters, curing conditions, chemical stabilizer kinds,
stabilizer dosage, testing methods, and mechanical and durability properties. It also proposes a methodology that defines and ho­
mogenizes SRE manufacturing parameters, curing, and testing conditions. For that aim, all papers published in Web of Science, Scopus,
and Science Direct from 2021 to 2024 containing the words “Rammed Earth” were considered, remaining the chemically stabilized
SRE studies. The objective of this study is to propose a methodology that defines the manufacturing parameters, curing, and testing
conditions in a simple and accessible manner, facilitating the possibility of future standardization to eliminate both national and global
barriers to this sustainable construction technique. Additionally, this work compiles the knowledge from the last four years to help
authors compare the results of their studies more easily.

2. Structure and scope of the current research

The main aim of this research is to assist researchers in the field of SRE by highlighting the most critical factors to consider, as well
as the key mechanical and durability tests necessary for its characterization. This paper is organized into four main parts: The first three
parts summarize the information gathered from studies on SRE conducted between 2021 and 2024. Section 3 focuses on the materials
used by the authors. Section 4 presents the mechanical results and tests performed. Section 5 discusses the results obtained by the
authors to evaluate the material’s durability. Finally, the fourth part (section 6) offers general recommendations for researchers
working on the topic of SRE.
To ensure a rigorous and methodical approach in collecting and highlighting all available data related to chemically stabilized SRE
buildings, the authors developed a protocol based on Marathe et al. [25] and Abdolpour et al. [26], as depicted in Fig. 1. This protocol
was divided into four different steps.

Step 1: This step included the collection of different publications ranging from 2021 to 2024. Publications were sorted from Web Of
Science (WOS), Scopus, and Science Direct as the leading search platforms.
Step 2: At this stage, following the platform’s search protocol, the search string "TITLE-ABS-KEY" was employed as: "Rammed
Earth", and the search was restricted to publications from 2021 to 2024.
Step 3: To optimize time, the collected publications were screened based on their titles and abstracts to ensure alignment with the
study’s primary objectives, excluding those that fell outside the intended scope. Zotero software was utilized to identify and remove
duplicate entries from the database. Additionally, review papers were excluded from the analysis to prevent redundancy and
overlapping information.
Step 4: In this step, the collected data were organized into categories based on materials, mechanical properties, and the durability
of SRE materials. The most relevant tests for material characterization were proposed, and some future perspectives were suggested
for the SRE building sector.

3. State of the art and discussion of materials and methods for stabilized rammed earth building

3.1. Soils

The soil is the principal material for this construction technique. In the construction of rammed earth, authors typically use locally
available soil. To determine if the soil is suitable for this purpose, the most common approach is to analyze its Particle Size Distribution
(PSD), which is a physical characterization of the soil granulometry, and plasticity, a geotechnical characteristic that reflects the

3
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

interactions between soil and water [13,27–29]. The PSD is analyzed to achieve a well-graded granulometric distribution that would
indicate good mechanical performance, and the plasticity of the fines is considered because clay acts as the binder in URE. Houben
et al. [13] proposed PSD (mass repartition of soil grains in the function of the size classes) and plasticity (LL: Liquid Limit; PL: Plastic
Limit) zones most frequently considered in URE literature [17]. Since the stabilizer acts as a binder in SRE, the binding effect of clay is
less important than in URE, and its presence often reduces the effectiveness of cement stabilization [24]. Therefore, previous studies
[30] recommend that the soil for SRE should be composed of sand and fine gravel, with just enough clay to provide cohesive strength,
along with a proportion of silt to act as a void filler. Appendix 1shows the soils’ PSD and plasticity properties considered in the most
recent studies for SRE (2021–2024). Figs. 2 and 3 depict respectively the PSD and plasticity properties of the soils analyzed as well as
the Houben et al. [13] suggested criteria for the RE building.
As observed, many soils fell outside the recommendations made by Houben et al. regarding the PSD, yet all these soils, when
properly stabilized, achieved the desired mechanical and durability results (Section 3). Vivek et al. [31] found that modifying the PSD
of the studied soil by adding sand led to improve mechanical and durability results, with the soil containing the highest sand content
performing the best. However, Rosicki and Narloch [32] observed a different trend. Among four soil combinations with the same
proportion of fines, the one exhibiting the best mechanical properties was neither the one with the highest sand content nor the one
with the highest gravel content. Instead, an intermediate combination showed the best mechanical properties. Similarly, Raavi and
Dulal [33] found that a soil containing 20 % gravel-sized aggregates achieved better mechanical results than one with 30 % aggregates.
These findings highlight the complexity of soil optimization, suggesting that while a soil may not meet Houben et al.’s PSD recom­
mendations, it could still be suitable for SRE. Nonetheless, optimizing the PSD is key to significantly enhancing the mechanical and
durability properties of the material.
Fig. 3 showed that 85 % of the soils shown in Fig. 2 were in accordance with the LL-PI recommended zone. However, the authors did
not modify the soil to attempt to meet this criterion, but it was naturally achieved by the soil itself. Appendix 1shows the gravel, sand,
and fine content of each soil used by the authors, as well as the LL, PI, and their classification according to the USGS. In this table, it can
be observed that the most commonly used soils are SC and CL, which comply with the suggestions made by Houben et al. [13]. Soils
that did not meet this criterion also demonstrated good performance in the tests conducted, suggesting that, while controlling the LL
and PI is recommended, it is not strictly necessary for stabilized soils in SRE.

3.2. Stabilizers

In earth construction, stabilizers are used to improve the mechanical and durability properties of the material. This is achieved
because chemical stabilizers bond the soil particles together, creating a more resistant material matrix that increases the material’s
density, thereby enhancing its mechanical strength and potentially plugging external porosity. The reduction of porosity improves the
material’s durability properties against water, limiting the penetration of liquid water or even external agents [34]. All of this is
achieved by stabilizers forming cementitious phases: in the case of calcium-based stabilizers, two cementitious gels stand out, C-S-H
and C-A-H gels; and in the case of alkaline stabilizers, they produce geopolymers.
Appendix 2shows the stabilizer kinds and dosages, the sample manufacturing conditions, the curing methods carried out, and the
mechanical properties obtained by the different authors at 28 days and the maximum age of testing.

Fig. 2. PSD for soils considered in SRE literature and Houben et al. [13] recommended zone.

4
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Fig. 3. LL-PI recommended area for the RE building [13].

Fig. 4 shows the percentage of stabilizers used by the authors. It presents two main groups of stabilizers. The first group includes the
more conventional stabilizers, such as cement and lime, which are the most commonly used for any type of earthen construction
technique. The second group consists of non-conventional stabilizers, which primarily aim to provide an environmentally sustainable
alternative to cement.
As observed in Fig. 4, Conventional stabilizers have been used 77 % of the time to stabilize SRE, while non-conventional stabilizers
account for 23 %. Cement is the most used stabilizer, being employed in 48 % of cases. The main reason for its use is that cement
enhances mechanical and durability properties more effectively than lime [35–38]. Additionally, it is often used as a reference to
evaluate the suitability of soil for use in SRE or to assess the potential of other stabilizers [30,31,36,39–41]. The most common cement
dosages range from 2.5 % to 10 %. For low cement contents (<4 %) some authors [31,42] achieved low mechanical strength and
durability values, due to the insufficient quantity of cementitious gels and hydration products that bound the soil particles together.
However, other authors achieved good results with low cement dosages [36,39,43]. The reasons behind the differences observed by the
authors cannot be determined with certainty, as multiple variables come into play. However, the most influential factors are believed

Fig. 4. Percentage of stabilizers used by the authors.

5
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

to be the type of soil and cement used by each author, as well as variations in testing and manufacturing conditions. Despite these
differences, a clear trend was observed: all authors report good material properties when using 5 % cement. This suggests that
approximately 5 % cement may be sufficient to enhance the properties of the soil being studied. This dosage seems to be enough to bind
the soil particles together, which leads to a more complete matrix that improves the obtained results in the tests conducted.
Lime is the second stabilizer most used, being employed in 29 % of studies and it is used primarily for clayey soils. It was observed
two main groups depending on the lime dosage considered; (i) the ones that used lime contents lower than 15 % [20,36–38,44–47] and
(ii) those that used lime contents between 15 % and 30 % [35,48–53]. Unlike cement, it was not observed a clear tendency in the lime
dosage Avila et al. [46] observed a direct relationship between the lime content and the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the
RE building until a 9 % lime dosage from which no improvement of the mechanical properties was obtained. They related this strength
standstill to the limited presence of aluminosilicate minerals in the soil, suggesting that the ideal lime content could differ depending
on the mineralogical composition of the soil. A similar trend was observed by Luo et al. [48]. Since there does not appear to be a
general optimal lime dosage, as each soil behaves differently, it is recommended to conduct a preliminary study varying the lime
dosages. This will help approximate the optimal lime content in the final study, where the best mechanical and durability properties
can be achieved.
Non-conventional stabilizers have been employed in 23 % of the stabilized combinations.
Generally, non-conventional stabilizers are used to find a more sustainable alternative to conventional stabilizers (cement and
lime), as the use of conventional stabilizers may cause the SRE construction technique to lose its appeal as a sustainable construction
method. The most commonly employed materials are fly ash, used in 10 % of cases [41,54–56], and GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag), used in 7 % of cases [31,41]. These materials are typically mixed with different dosages of cement or other products as
activators, to achieve an optimal combination that usually exceeds the performance characteristics of conventional cement-based
mixtures. Other authors have studied the performance of organic stabilizers like glutinous rice and sucrose as stabilizers as well as

Table 1
Manufacturing and tessting standards considered by authors.
Ref. OMC determination UCS standard Tensile Strength Standard Shear Strength standard Durability Standard

[48] SP N/A ​ ​ ​
[60] SP N/A ​ ​ c
[54] ASTM D1557 ASTM D2166 ​ ​ ​
[61] ​ ASTM D4219-02 ​ ​ ​
[21] SP ASTM D2166 ASTM D3967 ​ ​
[47] SP ASTM D2166 ​ ​ ASTM D559
[20] SP ​ ​ ​ ​
[35] Drop test SLS 1382 ​ ​ ​ ​
[39] SP ​ ​ a ​
[42] SP IS 2720 Part-X ​ ​ IS 4332 (Part IV)
[44] SP NF EN 12390–4 Brazilian Test (IS 10082) ​ ​
[49] SP ​ ​ GB/T 50123–2019 ​
[36] SP ASTM D 2166 ​ ​ ASTM D559
[31] N/A ​ ​ ​ IS 4332 (Part IV)
[32] ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
[62] SP ​ ASTM C 496 ASTM E 519 ​
[40] SP ASTM D2166 ​ ​ ​
[50] N/A GB/T 50123–2019 ​ ​ ​
[45] SP and Drop test ​ ​ a ​
[43] N/A ​ ​ ​ ​
[51] N/A ​ ​ ​ b
[46] MP EN 12390-3 ​ ​ ​
[63] N/A ​ ​ ​ ​
[52] N/A ​ ​ a ​
[55] N/A ​ ​ ​ ASTM D559
[64] SP ​ ​ ​ d
[37] ASTM D1557-12 ASTM C39 ASTM C 496 ​ ​
[33] SP IS 4332: Part 5 IS 5816 ​ d
[65] ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
[66] N/A ASTM D2166-06, 2007 ​ ​ ​
[56] SP ASTM D4219-08 ​ ​ ASTM D560
[41] N/A AS 1012.17 AS 1012.10 ​ ​
[53] N/A ​ ​ ​ ​
[67] N/A ​ ​ ​ ​
[38] SP NF EN 12390-4 NF EN 12390–6 (brazilian test) ​ ​
[68] SP IS: 516 ​ ​ ​

Note.
a
Direct shear test.
b
Wet dry resistante
c
Drip test.
d
Wet/dry strength testing.

6
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

alkaline activated fly ashes.

The effects of these different stabilizers on mechanical and durability performance results obtained by authors are extensively
commented on in section 4 and 5 respectively.

3.3. Manufacturing moisture content

In addition to PSD and LL-PI characteristics of the soil, moisture content is known to be among the key factors that greatly influence
the value of RE mechanical properties [57,58]. The moisture content acts as soil particles lubricant during compaction and allows the
hydration of the chemical stabilizers. Usually, authors estimate the Optimal manufacturing Moisture Content (OMC) for the soil
without binder as the moisture content that allows it to reach the maximum dry density for compaction energy [59]. Table 1 shows the
standards considered in the literature to carry out the tests that determine the SRE OMC, UCS, tensile strength, shear strength, and
durability.
Table 1 shows that most studies determine the OMC using the Standard Proctor (SP) or Modified Proctor (MP) tests. However,
Kaluder et al. [45] and Zhou et al. [35] carried out the Drop Test estimate the soil’s OMC. The drop test provides a quick and simple
way to approximate the OMC, but its results are highly influenced by the researchers’ experience and judgment. In contrast, the SP and
MP tests appear to be more reliable methods for determining the OMC. In fact, Kaluder et al. [45] conducted both tests and observed
that the drop test yielded higher OMC values compared to the SP test probably due to differences in the compaction strength. In
general, the OMC usually varies between 8 % and 14 %, as shown in Appendix 2, which is an interval very similar to those previously
observed [24].
The use of additives in SRE makes it a difficult task to evaluate the OMC, as the samples cannot be oven-dry to assess the water
content due to the loss of non-evaporable water via chemical reactions (cation exchange, flocculation, and pozzolanic reactions) [69].
This is why there is no consensus on the moisture content to be used in SRE building, whereas for URE, the most common approach is to
use the OMC obtained from the Proctor test. As a result, some authors consider the use of the soil OMC for the SRE building while other
authors increase the manufacturing moisture content to consider the water needed for the additive hydration, which is not very
determinant as it is very difficult to know the exact water quantities required. Different approaches are therefore used to approximate
these water quantities. Reddy and Kumar [70], observed that building cement SRE required higher manufacturing moisture contents
than OMC to attain optimum mechanical properties. Similarly, Rathod et al. [62,64] used a moisture content 1 % higher than the SP
OMC. Kaluder et al. [45] added 4 %–6 % higher moisture content than OMC. Avila et al. [46] observed that OMC+2 % moisture
content was needed to obtain the maximum dry density in soil treated with lime. Venkatarama et al. [70] also observed that a 2 %
increase in water content above the OMC, increases strength by the order of 20–70 %. On the other hand, Standard NZS 4298 [27]
states that the moisture content during compaction can be 6 % higher or 4 % lower than the OMC, suggesting the existence of enough
water in the soil for cement hydration at lower moisture content than OMC. In the absence of a study clearly specifying the optimal
water content for use, it seems most reasonable to work with the OMC determined by the SP test, as it achieves the maximum dry
density for each combination and it probably has enough moisture content for the hydration of the binder.

4. State of the art and discussion of the mechanical properties of stabilized rammed earth building

Mechanical strength is the most important parameter design for the SRE building, based on seismic and durability regulations. As
previously stated, a significant challenge in soil construction is the absence of standardized criteria that would enable a precise
assessment of the properties of the SRE. Due to the lack of a harmonized protocol for studying the key characteristics of SRE, the results
of different studies cannot be rigorously compared; however, trends can still be identified by examining the literature. To ensure full
comparability of outcomes from the different studies, the implementation of standardized manufacturing parameters, curing condi­
tions, and testing methods would be essential. For that aim, section 6 provides an evaluation and recommendations for tests to be
carried out for the characterization of the material in SRE and its potential comparability across studies.
For any mechanical test, curing conditions and time are key factors. Appendix 2shows the great variability in curing conditions
across different studies, ranging from air curing to curing in a controlled temperature and humidity environment. Despite this vari­
ability, most authors ensure a minimum relative humidity for the complete hydration of additives. Regarding time, researchers usually
test the specimens at 7 and 28 days, as they typically follow standards related to cement-stabilized materials, for which these ages are
the most common for characterization.

4.1. Unconfined compressive strength

As shown in Appendix 2, most authors perform the UCS test, demonstrating that UCS is the primary parameter for characterizing
the mechanical strength in soil stabilization, and consequently for SRE building. As observed in Table 1, authors employed different
standards to carry out this test, but they are all based on the uniaxial compression perpendicularly to the direction of the soil layers.
Although these standards are similar, further research would be necessary, as potential differences on the standards could lead to
misinterpretations when comparing results, as these standards were originally developed for testing other types of materials such as
concrete or masonry. Despite these potential differences, trends can still be identified based on the results obtained by different au­
thors. While URE typically exhibits low UCS values, stabilization has proven to be an effective method for enhancing its mechanical
performance. For RE building, UCS is required to be between 1.3 MPa and 2 MPa [13,27]. Fig. 5 shows the UCS values obtained by the
studies that tested samples at different ages: 7, 28, 60, and 90 days and with different cement contents.

7
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Fig. 5 shows a direct relationship between UCS and curing age, with a faster strength gain at early ages (before 28 days) and a
slower improvement at later ages (after 28 days). This type of strength development over time is characteristic of cement-stabilized
materials.
In Fig. 5, a direct relationship between UCS and cement content is also observed. However, the UCS results vary among different
authors. This variation is believed to be influenced by several factors, such as the type of cement, the shape of the sample, and the type
of soil used. For instance, Zhou et al. [39] reported higher UCS values at 28 days than Zami et al. [36] for specimens with lower cement
content. Similarly, Ngo et al. [40] obtained higher UCS values at 28 days with less stabilizer than Zami et al. [36], both using samples of
the same size and shape. However, there is no detailed information available on the testing conditions or the types of soil used, and
those are key factor that must be considered when comparing results across different studies.
Fig. 6 shows the UCS obtained at 28 days in several studies regarding SRE.
As well as in Fig. 5, in Fig. 6 is observed a direct relationship between the cement dosage and the UCS values obtained by the
authors. This is attributed to the fact that a higher dosage leads to the formation of a higher quantity of cementitious gels, which create
a denser structure, thereby increasing the UCS. In general, when authors add more than 4 % cement, most achieve UCS results that
exceed the requirements established by the standards (between 1.3 MPa and 2 MPa). Additionally, it is observed that the authors who
studied cement proportions between 2.5 % and 10 % obtained an improvement in the UCS value of about 2–3 times in the specimens
with higher cement content. For example, He et al. [43] increased the level of cement from 3 % to 10 % and obtained an UCS
improvement of 3.6 times. On the other hand, Zhou et al. [39] increased the cement content from 2.5 % to 10 % and achieved only an
improvement of the UCS of 1.94 times. When SRE UCS are compared to those of URE, an improvement between 3 and 7 times can be
observed on the samples with higher cement content. This increase is higher in He et al. [43], Zami et al. [36], and Mustafa et al. [47]
studies, which observed an increase of up to 11 times for 10 % of cement content. As commented previously, the differences between
studies could be attributed to different reasons.
Lime is the second most commonly used stabilizer. Fig. 7 depicts the UCS values obtained with different lime content.
In Fig. 7, a direct relationship between UCS and the lime dosage was observed. However, the range in which the maximum UCS was
obtained was much broader than that seen with cement. The figure showed that for lime contents between 2.5 % and 15 %, UCS values
range from 1 MPa to 3 MPa, which were lower than those obtained with cement. Zhou et al. [35] and Fang et al. [51] demonstrated that
stabilizing the soil with 20 % of lime resulted in UCS values of 4.65 MPa and 3.8 MPa at 60 days respectively, and Zhou et al. [35] even
increased the UCS to 5.22 MPa with 30 % lime. On the other hand, Avila et al. [46] observed that UCS improved with lime content up to
9 %, after which no further gains were noted, attributing this to the soil’s limited aluminosilicate minerals, indicating that optimal lime
content depends on soil mineralogy. Therefore, a specific lime range cannot be recommended, and preliminary studies should be
conducted to determine the optimal dosage for maximizing a lime stabilized soil’s UCS.
Non-conventional cementitious stabilizers used by some authors also showed an improvement in UCS values compared to URE and
they demonstrated their potential as stabilizers in SRE. Fig. 8 shows the UCS values obtained by different non-conventional cemen­
titious stabilizers and dosages at 28 days compared to conventional stabilized ones (kind of stabilizer, dosage, and UCS values are
reported in Appendix 2).
Zeynali et al. [54] improved the UCS of the unstabilized soil by 8 times with the stabilization of 7 % of nano fly ashes. This
improvement was caused by the formation of cementitious gels by pozzolanic reactions of the nano fly ashes that filled the pores and

Fig. 5. UCS variation at different curing ages for different cement content.

8
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Fig. 6. UCS for different cement content at 28 days.

Fig. 7. UCS for different lime content and curing age.

bonded the soil particles. Despite this improvement, they only obtained UCS values of 0.4 MPa, which did not meet the required UCS
conditions [13,27]. Zarasvand et al. [61] observed that increasing the cement content and adding 5 and 10 % of wood fly ash improved
the UCS due to the cementitious effect and pozzolanic reactions. Vivek et al. [31] improved the UCS considerably, reaching an
improvement compared to URE samples of 15.2 times on samples stabilized with 5 % cement and 20 % GGBS. They observed that the
enhancement in the performance characteristics may be due to improved coverage of the surface area of expansive clay particles
resulting from the addition of GGBS, stabilizing the clay particles and preventing their expansion. Zamanian et al. [21] studied four
different alkaline activator concentrations, and they observed that the UCS increased significantly by increasing the molarity of the
NaOH from 4 to 12 M. They attributed this increase to the higher degree of geopolymerization in GGBS. In addition to the common
observation that the UCS improved as the dosage of stabilizer increased, they also observed that a warmer curing environment ac­
celerates the increase of the mechanical properties, as higher temperature accelerated the geopolymerization process. Naeini et al. [56]
observed that in SRE samples where geopolymerization and pozzolanic reactions simultaneously occurred, the soil matrix was denser,

9
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Fig. 8. UCS for different non-conventional cementitious stabilizers types and dosages at 28 days.

and the mechanical strengths were improved. Ngo et al. [40] also used as an alkaline activator a NaOH with Na2SiO3 solution with a
Na2SiO3/NaOH = 1,5 ratio. They combined it with 20 % fly ash achieving better UCS values than those reached by the samples
stabilized with 8 % cement and improved by 6.2 times the URE UCS values. Shaaban [55] stabilized soil with different fly ash dosages.
They obtained an improvement in the UCS with a 20 % of fly ashes content of 3 times higher than the unstabilized soil samples. Meek
et al. [41] used different proportions of fly ash, GGBS, silica fume, lime, and NaOH to stabilize the samples, achieving the highest UCS
values of all research in the last years. They achieved an improvement of 2 times with the alkali-activated samples compared to the
ones stabilized with 9.15 % of cement. Fang et al. [51] added different sucrose content up to 10 % to a soil stabilized with 20 % of lime.
They observed the maximum UCS values with 5 % of optimum sucrose dosage. Li et al. [67] used solidified loess with calcined ginger
nuts as a stabilizer but they obtained UCS values under the lower SRE UCS recommendation of 1.3 MPa. Darshan et al. [68] stabilized
the soil with cow dung and proved that soil with 2 % cow dung improved mechanical properties, obtaining an improvement in UCS of 2
times compared to the URE. Contrary to the general trend, Zhou et al. [39] added glutinous rice to two different cement-treated
samples and they obtained the same UCS values as those samples with only cement.
In general, non-conventional stabilizers demonstrated good UCS values, improving upon those obtained for URE. These studies
highlight the potential of the non-conventional stabilizers as substitutes for conventional stabilizers such as cement and lime. In
particular, fly ashes and GGBS proved to be an effective and efficient alternative for stabilizing soils in SRE.

4.2. Tensile and flexural strength

Similar to concrete, a vulnerability of SRE lies in its notably lower tensile strength when contrasted with its compressive strength.
Nevertheless, tensile strength remains an exceptionally significant parameter in the context of SRE failure, particularly under extreme
loading circumstances like soil quakes. Furthermore [71,72], substantiated that the interface between two layers of RE exhibits an
even lower tensile strength than the SRE layer itself, thereby designating these interfaces as crucial locations within SRE structures.
The tensile strength test can be performed using both direct and indirect methods. The direct approach involves using a ’butterfly’
specimen, fractured at its midpoint [73],due to the challenges in crafting specimens with such restricted geometries this method has
face limited success. This can be observed in Table 1, which presents the different standards employed by various authors for con­
ducting the test. The table highlights a predominant use of indirect methods, such as the Brazilian test.
In general, the most effective method for improving the tensile strength of SRE samples is through the incorporation of fibers. This
explains why only a limited number of authors have examined this property in chemically stabilized specimens without fibers [74].
The results obtained by the authors are shown in Appendix 2, where the tensile strength values are shown to be approximately 10–20 %
of the UCS values obtained. This relationship is consistent with previous studies, where a similar correlation between tensile strength
and UCS was observed [75,76].
Flexural strength was only studied by Rathod and Reddy [62] in the last four years of research, and they observed that the flexural

10
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

strength was higher when the force was applied perpendicular to the layers rather than parallel, in accordance with previous studies
[77].

4.3. Shear strength

SRE is primarily used in constructions where the main load is compressive, such as load-bearing walls, which has led to limited
studies on its shear strength. However, in seismically active regions, understanding its shear strength is especially crucial for designing
resilient and safe structures. To assess SRE shear strength, conventional geotechnical and masonry testing methods are commonly
utilized. Table 1 shows the most common test for determining shear strength.
Fig. 9 shows that all authors obtained shear strength values between 0.1 MPa and 0.95 MPa independently of the stabilizer kind and
dosage percentage (Appendix 2).
In Fig. 9, a direct relationship between the stabilizer dosage and shear strength was observed. Additionally, based on the data
obtained by Zhou et al. [35] and Zhu et al. [49] it was observed that samples stabilized with cement achieve higher strengths compared
to those stabilized with lime.
When studying the shear strength, the literature emphasizes the importance of understanding the shear strength of the material
within the layer and on the interface of the layer [78]. Despite this recommendations, only Zhou et al. [35] studied this aspect in the
past four years of research, obtaining better results for intralayer properties than for interlayer ones, in accordance with previous
studies [79,80]. The limited number of studies analyzing shear strength suggests that, although it is an interesting property, its
investigation is typically reserved for specific cases rather than for characterizing the most critical properties of an SRE material.

4.4. Cohesion and friction angle

Most studies on SRE, similar to those on shear strength, have focused on characterizing its UCS, often overlooking cohesion and
friction angle. Yet, these parameters can be valuable for understanding the material’s full mechanical behaviour, particularly when
developing a computational model of an SRE structure. Typically, cohesion and friction angles are experimentally derived through the
direct shear test, a method applicable for the evaluation of both the cohesion and friction angles. As is shown in Table 1, the majority of
the papers available in the literature do not identify the testing methods, the testing parameters, the type of cohesion and the type of
friction angles obtained.
Table 2 shows the cohesion and friction values obtained by the authors with different stabilizer types and dosages.
In Table 2, cohesion and friction angle exhibit an indirect relationship; however, no clear direct or indirect correlation with the
stabilizer dosage was identified. Due to the limited number of studies analyzing these parameters, general conclusion cannot be drawn
from this test. At 28 days, Kaluder et al. [45] observed an increase in cohesion and friction angles of 138.5 % and 21.3 % respectively,
compared with the values of the samples tested at the day of sample manufacturing. Zhao et al. [52] observed contradictory effects in
the soil cohesion and friction angle when different dosages of lime or cement were used as stabilizers. Zhou et al. [35] studied
intralayer and interlayer cohesion and friction angles and concluded that interlayer cohesion was always smaller than intralayer
cohesion, whereas interlayer values were reversed. Zeynali et al. [54] also studied the cohesion and friction angles of the fly ashes

Fig. 9. Shear strength values for different stabilizer types and dosages.

11
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Table 2
Cohesion (c) and friction angle values for different stabilizer types and dosage.
Ref. Cement (%) Lime (%) c (MPa) Angle

[35], intralayer 0 – 0.26 50.9

10 – 0.77 19.1
15 – 0.78 33.2
– 20 0.64 37.6
– 30 0.79 25.1

[35], interlayer 0 – 0.08 32.2

10 – 0.23 68.9
15 – 0.35 63.8
– 20 0.28 32.3
– 30 0.19 58.9

[45] – 0 0.38 39.0

– 4 0.23 45.0
– 8 0.36 31.0

[50] 0 – 0.10 32.2

10 – 0.20 68.9
15 – 0.60 24.3
– 20 0.30 32.3
– 30 0.20 58.9

stabilized soil but they obtained low cohesion values.

5. State of the art and discussion of durability test in stabilized rammed earth building

The study of durability aims to assess how performance is maintained over time under the effect of external stresses. There are two
main kinds of environmental expositions depending on the SRE situation in the building: the ones exposed to the external atmosphere
and internal walls. For externally exposed SRE, the most damaging action is that of liquid water, which destabilizes the bond between
clay particles and modifies the suction equilibrium [81]. Mechanical properties are particularly weakened in the presence of water,
and for certain pathological water contents, ruin can occur [81]. An important requirement of earth-based building materials is,
therefore, their sensitivity to liquid water, and this is one of the main reasons why they are stabilized with additives. For internal SRE,
erosion due to the inhabitants’ use is the most damaging environmental concern. Given the variability of these actions, several
durability tests are proposed. Beckett et al. [82] identified twelve different tests for characterizing SRE durability. The review
demonstrated that no unified method to assess material durability exists and that different methods are adopted for different materials,
based on the presumed ability to pass the test in question. Table 3 shows the results obtained by different authors for durability tests in
the last four years of research.
Table 3 shows that in the last four years, five articles presented results for the wetting and drying test, three articles performed the
UCS test at soaked conditions to achieve the wet/dry compressive strength ratio, one article presented a drip test and another one
carried out the freeze/thaw test for SRE (Table 1).
The standards used by the authors to perform the wetting and drying test are ASTM D559 and IS 4332 (Part IV). In this test, cy­
lindrical specimens are totally immersed in room-temperature water for 5 h and dried at 71 ◦ C for 42 h. Then, the sample surface is
brushed with a wire brush, covering the entire surface area twice for a total of 25 brush strokes. This procedure is repeated for a total of
12 cycles. After 12 cycles, the total mass loss of the samples is measured to determine if material have good durability properties. EM
1110-2-1913 [83] proposed a mass loss limit of 6 % to consider that a material has good durability, while Mustafa et al. [47]
established a criterion of 8 %. The results obtained by the authors demonstrated that the cement dosage and curing time have a positive
effect on the durability of the samples [31,36,47]. Zami et al. [36] and Mustafa et al. [47] observed that the samples stabilized with
lime had difficulties passing this test. In the case of Zami et al. [36], they omitted the lime-stabilized samples’ durability testing
because these samples failed to meet the suggested UCS strength criteria of 1.3 MPa [13], while Mustafa et al. [47] observed a worse
performance of the lime-stabilized samples compared to the cement-stabilized ones at the same dosages. Although the wetting and
drying test measures the mass loss experienced by the specimens, Fang et al. [51] and Shaaban [55] conducted this test without
providing the mass loss data of the specimens, even though they subjected the specimens to different cycles of wetting and drying.
Shaaban [55] observed a direct relationship between the fly ash dosage and the sample durability of the stabilized soil. Fang et al. [51]
subjected the specimens to 10 wet and dry cycles (soaked in water for 24 h and dried for 4 h at 60 ◦ C) as an accelerated deterioration
process after 28 days of sample curing. They found out that the specimens with 1 % sucrose had the best wet-dry resistance and that the
resistance was drastically reduced above 3 % sucrose addition in the rammed soil-lime material.
Strength testing for durability assessment involves comparing the material’s UCS when it is dried in an oven at 60–70 ◦ C (until the
samples reach constant weight) to its strength after the specimen has been immersed in water for 24–48 h. Different minimum ratios
between the wet and dry strength ratios are recommended for a material to be considered sufficiently durable. Heathcote [84] sug­
gested a ratio of wet-to-dry strength of 0.33–0.50. Recent studies [33,42,64] show that wet-to-dry ratios higher than 0.4 are obtained
for a cement content higher than 5 %, even exceeding the 0.5 ratio with cement dosages equal to or higher than 7 %. Vikas et al. [42]

12
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Table 3
Durability test results obtained by authors.
REF. STABILIZER % WEIGHT UCS BEFORE UCS AFTER DURABILITY TEST WET-TO-DRY
LOSS (%) DURABILITY TEST COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
UCS TESTING COMMENTS
RATIO
(MPA)

[47] – – N/A 0.6 – Weight loss values after 12 wet/dry/brush ​

Cement 2.5 10 1.2 ​ cycles for C soil ​
Cement 5 2.5 2.8 ​ ​
Cement 7.5 2 4.4 ​ ​
Cement 10 2 6.3 ​ ​
Cement 12.5 1.5 7.9 ​ ​
Cement 15 1 10.3 ​ ​
Lime 2.5 15 0.7 ​ ​
Lime 5 6 1.0 ​ ​
Lime 7.5 5 1.0 ​ ​
Lime 10 4 1.1 ​ ​
Lime 12.5 3 1.7 ​ ​
Lime 15 3.5 1.5 ​ ​

[42] – – – 0.6 N/A UCS values of dry and soaked specimens –

Cement 2 ​ 0.9 N/A –
Cement 4 ​ 2.0 0.5 0.24
Cement 6 ​ 2.9 1.3 0.47
Cement 8 ​ 4.3 2.5 0.57

[36] Cement 5 0.7 2 – Weight loss values after 12 wet/dry/brush –

Cement 7.5 N/A 2.5 ​ cycles ​
Cement 10 0.3 3.3 ​ ​
Cement 15 0.1 4.7 ​ ​

[31] – 0 Lost their 0.3 – Weight loss values after 12 wet/dry/brush –

integrity cycles + UCS values at 90 days after wet/
Cement 5 5.1 0.9 2.3 dry/brush test ​
5 % Cement + 7 % 3.2 1.9 3.7 ​
GGBS
5 % Cement + 14 % 1.7 2.3 4.0 ​
GGBS
5 % Cement + 20 % 1.6 4.5 6.2 ​
GGBS

[51] Lime 20 N/A 3.4 2.0 UCS values after subjecting the specimens –
20 % Lime + 1% ​ 3.2 2.3 to 10 wet and dry cycles ​
Sucrose
20 % Lime + 3% ​ 4.4 2.2 ​
Sucrose
20 % Lime + 5% ​ 4.9 1.5 ​
Sucrose
20 % Lime + 10 % ​ 2.9 1.3 ​
Sucrose

[55] – 0 N/A 1.0 0.2 UCS values after subjecting the specimens –
Fly ash 5 ​ 2.2 1.2 to 3 wet and dry cycles ​
Fly ash 10 ​ 2.6 1.5 ​
Fly ash 15 ​ 2.9 1.7 ​
Fly ash 20 ​ 3.3 2.1 ​
[64] Cement 7 – 3.8 2.2 UCS values of dry and soaked specimens 0.58
Cement 10 ​ 6.3 3.7 0.59

[33] Cement 10 – 5.6 2.9 UCS values of dry and soaked specimens 0.52
Cement 10 ​ 7.6 4.1 0.54
Cement 10 ​ 8.6 4.7 0.54
Cement 10 ​ 8.0 4.4 0.55
Cement 10 ​ 5.7 3.0 0.52
Cement 10 ​ 6.8 3.4 0.53
Cement 10 ​ 6.4 3.4 0.54

[56] 10 % Cement, 0 % N/A 2.4 3.1 UCS values after subjecting the specimens –
Pulp mill fly ash to 6 freeze/thaw cycles
5 % Cement, 5 % ​ 0.9 0.9 ​
Pulp mill fly ash
5 % Cement, 10 % ​ 1.5 1.6 ​
Pulp mill fly ash
5 % Cement, 20 % ​ 1.9 1.5 ​
Pulp mill fly ash
(continued on next page)

13
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Table 3 (continued )
REF. STABILIZER % WEIGHT UCS BEFORE UCS AFTER DURABILITY TEST WET-TO-DRY
LOSS (%) DURABILITY TEST COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
UCS TESTING COMMENTS
RATIO
(MPA)

5 % Cement, 5 % ​ 2.9 broken ​

Pulp mill fly ash, 8 M
alkali activated
5 % Cement, 5 % ​ 3.4 broken ​
Pulp mill fly ash, 10
M alkali activated
5 % Cement, 5 % ​ 3.2 broken ​
Pulp mill fly ash, 12
M alkali activated
5 % Cement, 5 % ​ 3.0 2.6 ​
Pulp mill fly ash
5 % Cement, 10 % ​ 3.0 2.8 ​
Pulp mill fly ash
5 % Cement, 20 % ​ 2.2 1.6 ​
Pulp mill fly ash

identified that for 4 % of cement content, the wet-to-dry compressive ratio was very low, reaching a value of 0.24. But with the study of
soil with higher sand content and soil with higher plastic clay, they reached ratio values of 0.53 and 0.35 respectively.

6. New methodology to characterize stabilized rammed earth building material

Based on the conducted state-of-the-art review, the following methodology is proposed for authors in the SRE building sector.
Fig. 10 presents these recommendations in a graphical format.
It was observed that any type of soil can be used for SRE building, as the stabilizers counteract the negative effects of poorly graded
or non-cohesive soils. However, as observed in various studies [31–33], soils should be optimized to achieve better mechanical and
durability performances while also reducing the stabilizer dosages. Therefore, although it is not mandatory, optimizing the soil is
recommended for its use in SRE. Furthermore, a study has demonstrated the effectiveness of the Taguchi statistical method for
optimizing a mix for use in RE building [85]. This opens the possibility for authors to optimize the soil in an easy and efficient way.
The stabilizer kind to be employed depends on the different objectives of the authors. If the main objective of the author is to study
the potential of soil to be used as a material in SRE construction, the use of cement appears to be the most appropriate. Cement is the
most commonly used stabilizer, allowing for conclusions to be drawn in comparison to other studies. When using cement, the most
suitable dosage seems to range between 2.5 % and 10 %. Lime, as previously known, is more suitable for stabilizing clayey soils. The
lime dosage is very wide and depends on the specific soil, so authors should conduct studies for each particular case to optimize the
dosage used. If the goal is to reduce the environmental footprint of cement and seek a more sustainable alternative, a non-conventional
stabilizer should be used. GGBS and fly ash have been the most commonly employed materials by authors, showing significant po­
tential in developing a non-conventional stabilizer for SRE. However, the search for new sustainable stabilizers remains ongoing, and
any research that enhances current knowledge is welcome. As these are individual cases, the dosage depends on the author’s expertise
and knowledge, as well as the available literature on other earth construction techniques.
The optimal moisture content for SRE remains uncertain, as some authors recommend using more water than the OMC, others
suggest using the exact OMC, and some advocate for less. There is no clear positive trend supporting any of these approaches, and
further research would be necessary. However, it is well established that the OMC determined by the SP test yields the maximum dry
density. Therefore, using the OMC for each specific combination when manufacturing specimens is recommended. The SP test, widely

Fig. 10. New method to characterize stabilized rammed earth building material.

14
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

used by authors, minimizes errors associated with methods like the drop test, ensuring more reliable results.
To evaluate the mechanical strength of SRE, the most relevant property is the UCS, as evidenced by its widespread use among
researchers. Table 1 presents the standards applied by various authors. Further research would be necessary to determine whether all
these standards are equally valid and to identify potential discrepancies between them, as the testing speed is faster in ASTM D2166
than in UNE-EN 12390–3. Until studies establish which standard is most appropriate for SRE, the standards listed in Table 1 appear
valid for general use. The UCS value required to consider a combination suitable for SRE construction must exceed the suggested range
for SRE, which is between 1.3 MPa and 2 MPa. While assessing tensile or shear strength could be valuable for specific investigations,
UCS remains the most critical parameter for general studies.
For durability characterization, two environmental exposures are particularly important: erosion and exposure to liquid water. The
most used test to evaluate resistance to erosion is the Wetting and Drying Durability Test (ASTM D559). In this test, specimens undergo
12 cycles of wetting, drying, and brushing, and the total mass loss of the combinations is measured. A specimen is considered to have
good durability characteristics if the total mass loss is less than 6 %, as proposed by EM 1110-2-1913 [83]. Regarding exposure to
liquid water, authors typically conduct UCS tests after submerging the specimen in water for 24 h. The same standard used for dry UCS
testing should be applied for the soaked UCS test. From these two values, the wet/dry ratio is calculated. According to Heathcote, this
ratio should be between 0.33 and 0.5 to determine whether a combination meets the durability requirements for exposure to liquid
water.
As observed in Appendix 2, the shape of the specimens and the compaction methods used by different authors vary significantly,
making it difficult to establish a universal recommendation. However, for conducting the three previously recommended tests (UCS,
soaked UCS, and the Wetting and Drying durability test), a standardized specimen shape can be adopted, as ASTM D559 specifies the
use of cylindrical specimens, which could serve as a common format. This study recommends using the SP test method for both the
mold shape and compaction energy when manufacturing specimens. Firstly, the mold and compaction energy are well-defined in the
SP test standard and are commonly available in most laboratories. This is evidenced by the widespread use of the SP test to determine
the OMC. Additionally, using the OMC obtained from the SP test ensures consistency in moisture content and compaction energy
during specimen preparation. While ASTM D559 specifies higher cylindrical specimens than those used in the SP test, it is important to
note that standards like ASTM D559, originally designed for cement-stabilized soils, have been adapted for SRE characterization. Given
that no specific standard exists for SRE there is a need for consistency across studies. Thus, following the SP protocol for specimen
preparation offers a standardized, widely recognized, and practical approach for SRE builders. This would promote comparability and
reliability in research findings.
Significant variability in curing conditions was observed among the considered references, ranging from air curing to controlled
temperature and humidity settings. Despite these differences, most studies ensure minimum relative humidity conditions to facilitate
the complete hydration of stabilizers in SRE. Therefore, it is recommended to cure specimens under laboratory conditions, ideally
wrapped in plastic to retain moisture.
The appropriate curing age depends on the specific test being conducted. For UCS tests, researchers typically follow standards
related to cement-stabilized materials, commonly using 7 and 28-day curing periods. Additionally, a 90-day curing period would be
beneficial, especially for non-conventional stabilizers, which often continue to hydrate beyond the standard cement timeframe. For
soaked UCS tests, characterization at 28 days is standard practice. Regarding the Wetting and Drying durability test, although the
ASTM standard specifies testing at 7 days, this guideline was originally intended for cement-stabilized soils. Consequently, and as most
authors have done, conducting this test at 28 days is more appropriate for SRE, allowing sufficient hydration time for alternative
stabilizers and providing a more accurate assessment of erosion resistance.
Testing conditions also vary based on the type of test. Generally, UCS standards do not fix the test conditions that condition the
samples’ humidity, while soaked UCS and Wetting and Drying standards do. To standardize UCS results, it is advisable to dry spec­
imens at 60 ◦ C before testing. Additionally, drying the specimens in an oven at 60 ◦ C until a constant weight is achieved is a practical
and accessible procedure for most laboratories, and it eliminates the variability due to moisture content. This method not only
standardizes the process but also provides the UCS value in a dried state, which can be used when conducting the soaked UCS test to
determine the wet/dry ratio.

7. Future research

The methodology proposed in this article aims to be one of the first steps toward standardizing the testing methodology for studying
SRE materials. It provides recommendations on manufacturing parameters, curing, and testing conditions in a simple and accessible
manner. However, further research is necessary to achieve a full standardization that removes both national and global barriers to this
construction technique.
Given the numerous variables at play, several future research directions should be considered. First, initial studies should focus on
defining the potential differences that arise when using different UCS tests, as many follow similar testing conditions but differ in
parameters such as testing speed. Conducting such a study would help eliminate the influence of different standards on UCS and soaked
UCS values obtained by various authors, making comparisons between studies more reliable.
Additionally, it would be valuable to investigate the effects of different curing conditions to determine the most sustainable and
efficient method that ensures proper hydration of the stabilizers.
Regarding manufacturing conditions, such as the water content used for sample preparation, the proposed methodology is believed
to provide well-defined parameters that effectively minimize variables affecting the results. While further studies are always welcome,
researchers should prioritize efforts on other variables.

15
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

As for soil types and stabilizers, ongoing research is necessary, particularly in promising areas such as improving soil properties or
exploring non-conventional stabilizers like GGBS, which offer sustainable alternatives to traditional stabilizers.

8. Conclusions

The number of publications related to SRE as a building material highlights the interest in this environmentally friendly con­
struction method. This study compiles the latest advances of manufacturing parameters, curing conditions, chemical stabilizer kinds,
stabilizer dosage, testing methods, mechanical and durability of the last four years of SRE literature. This information highlights the
wide variety of tests conducted by the authors, as well as the diverse manufacturing and testing conditions. This study has proposed a
methodology to characterize the SRE material, defining the manufacturing and curing conditions, as well as the tests to identify the
most important parameters of mechanical strength and durability. This methodology is one of the first steps toward standardizing SRE
literature results and making them fully comparable, although further research is still needed to achieve a proper standardization of
the methodology.

Table A.1
PSD plasticity and USGS classification of the soils used by each author.

REFERENCE SOIL GRAVEL (>2 mm SAND (2 mm > particles FINES (SILT + CLAY) (0.06 LL PI USGS
particles) >0.06 mm) mm > particles) (%) (%) CLASSIFICATION

[48] Hakka soil 0 90 10 70 34 –

[60] Kechene soil 0.03 8.12 91.85 26.6 25 –
[54] Khavaran soil 0 20 80 32 17 CL
[61] Kelowna soil 0 100 0 – – SP
[21] Shahid soil 50 43 7 52 24 SW
[47] Red 22 62 16 43.7 17.0 SM
​ Yellow 10 74.7 15.3 33.5 17.8 SC
​ White 0 73.8 26.2 34.1 15.1 SC
​ Brown 0 74 26 17.5 2.3 SM
[20] Vinge soil 10 50 40 28 16 –
[35] Xi’an soil 50 38 12 26 12 –
[39] Guanzhong soil 30.3 34.7 35 26 12 –
[42] Red soil 1 37 62 43 19 CL
​ Black cotton soil 2 22 76 67 45 CH
​ Moorum soil 7 73 20 33 16 SC
[44] Sand soil 22 40 38 32.8 10.6 SC
[49] Bailuyuan soil 0 5 95 34.7 21.0 –
[36] Soil 1 3 92.5 4.5 35.6 14.1 SC
​ Soil 2 12 67.5 20.5 28.4 6.7 SC
[31] Set1 5 48.4 46.6 33.6 13.9 SC
​ Set2 2.5 74.2 23.3 – – –
​ Set3 2 79.3 18.7 – – –
[32] 703 0 70 30 – – –
​ 613 10 60 30 – – –
​ 523 20 50 30 – – –
​ 433 30 40 30 – – –
[62] Bengaluru soil 15 67 18 26.0 11.2 SC
[40] Binh soil 0 25.4 74.6 36.5 16.9 CL
[50] Yongding soil – – – 70 36 OH
[45] M4 21.6 29.6 48.8 37.4 16.3 CL
[43] Soil 1 20 60 20 – – –
​ Soil 2 20 50 30 – – –
[51] Zhejiang soil – – – – – –
[46] Padul soil 22 63 15 – – SC
[63] Shanxi soil 50 20 30 26 10 –
[52] – – – – – – –
[55] Excavation soil 56.7 19.4 23.9 31.5 18.5 –
[64] Reconstituted 15 67 18 26 11.2 SC
soil
[37] Local soil 20 45 35 26.1 11.3 –
[33] NABA 0 68 22 23.1 9.3 –
​ NA10 10 61.2 28.8 23.1 9.3 –
​ NA20 20 54.4 25.6 23.1 9.3 –
​ NA30 30 47.6 22.4 23.1 9.3 –
​ BA10 10 61.2 28.8 23.1 9.3 –
​ BA20 20 54.4 25.6 23.1 9.3 –
​ BA30 30 47.6 22.4 23.1 9.3 –
[65] 433 30 40 30 – – –
[66] Shahr soil 2 43 55 17.7 4.1 CL-ML
(continued on next page)

16
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

Table A.1 (continued )

REFERENCE SOIL GRAVEL (>2 mm SAND (2 mm > particles FINES (SILT + CLAY) (0.06 LL PI USGS
particles) >0.06 mm) mm > particles) (%) (%) CLASSIFICATION

[56] S100 20 79 1 – – SP
​ S75CB15 16.7 66.3 17.0 – – SP
​ S70CB15 16.5 65.5 18.0 – – SP
​ S60CB15 16 63.7 20.3 – – SP
[41] CL 20 80 0 – – SW
​ BC 35 65 0 – – SW
​ [Link] 19.2 76.7 4.1 – – SW
​ [Link] 33.3 61.9 4.8 – – SW
​ CL.L 19.0 76.2 4.8 – – SW
​ BC.L 33.3 61.9 4.8 – – SW
[53] Fujiain soil 3 32 65 – – –
[67] Lintan soil 0 20 80 28.5 16.2 CL
[38] Agadir soil 22 43 35 32.8 10.6 SC
[68] Darshan soil 13.0 53.9 33.1 – – SM

CRediT authorship contribution statement

M.A. Martin-Antunes: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. C.
Perlot: Visualization, Supervision, Conceptualization. S. Espuelas: Visualization, Data curation. S. Marcelino: Project administra­
tion, Formal analysis. A. Seco: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Universidad Pública de Navarra via a doctoral grant to Miguel A. Martin (1204/2022).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [Link]

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

[1] M.M. Maja, S.F. Ayano, The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries, Earth
Syst Environ 5 (2021) 271–283, [Link]
[2] E. Ganivet, Growth in human population and consumption both need to be addressed to reach an ecologically sustainable future, Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22
(2020) 4979–4998, [Link]
[3] B. Baldassarre, G. Calabretta, I.O. Karpen, N. Bocken, E.J. Hultink, Responsible design thinking for sustainable development: critical literature review, new
conceptual framework, and research agenda, J. Bus. Ethics 195 (2024) 25–46, [Link]
[4] W. Leal Filho, U. Tortato, F. Frankenberger (Eds.), Integrating Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development: Addressing Challenges and Creating
Opportunities, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, [Link]
[5] L. Chen, L. Huang, J. Hua, Z. Chen, L. Wei, A.I. Osman, S. Fawzy, D.W. Rooney, L. Dong, P.-S. Yap, Green construction for low-carbon cities: a review, Environ.
Chem. Lett. 21 (2023) 1627–1657, [Link]
[6] L. Librelotto, P. Ferroli, K. Fahfouhi, F. Craveiro, H. Bártolo, The potential of earth as a construction material: review and perspectives, in: J.R.D.C.S. Galvão,
P. Brito, F.D.S. Neves, H.D.A. Almeida, S.D.J.M. Mourato, C. Nobre (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Water Energy Food and
Sustainability (ICoWEFS 2023), Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024, pp. 623–633, [Link]
[7] J.C. Morel, A. Mesbah, M. Oggero, P. Walker, Building houses with local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction, Build.
Environ. 36 (2001) 1119–1126, [Link]
[8] L. Soudani, A. Fabbri, J.-C. Morel, M. Woloszyn, P.-A. Chabriac, H. Wong, A.-C. Grillet, Assessment of the validity of some common assumptions in hygrothermal
modeling of earth based materials, Energy Build. 116 (2016) 498–511, [Link]
[9] P. Taylor, R.J. Fuller, M.B. Luther, Energy use and thermal comfort in a rammed earth office building, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 793–800, [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2007.05.013.
[10] United Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. [Link] 2015.

17
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

[11] S. Burroughs, Recommendations for the selection, stabilization, and compaction of soil for rammed earth wall construction, Journal of Green Building 5 (2010)
101–114, [Link]
[12] I. Arto, R. Gallego, H. Cifuentes, E. Puertas, M.L. Gutiérrez-Carrillo, Fracture behavior of rammed earth in historic buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 289 (2021)
123167, [Link]
[13] H. Houben, H. Guillaud, CRAterre, Intermediate Technology Publications, Earth Construction: a Comprehensive Guide, Intermediate Technology Publications,
London, UK, 1994.
[14] H. Nowamooz, C. Chazallon, Finite element modelling of a rammed earth wall, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2112–2121, [Link]
conbuildmat.2010.11.021.
[15] R. El-Nabouch, Q.-B. Bui, O. Plé, P. Perrotin, Assessing the in-plane seismic performance of rammed earth walls by using horizontal loading tests, Eng. Struct.
145 (2017) 153–161, [Link]
[16] D. Alex, Recognition of a heritage in danger: rammed-earth architecture in Lyon city, France, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 143 (2018) 012054, [Link]
org/10.1088/1755-1315/143/1/012054.
[17] F. Ávila, E. Puertas, R. Gallego, Characterization of the mechanical and physical properties of unstabilized rammed earth: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 270
(2021) 121435, [Link]
[18] V. Maniatidis, P. Walker, Structural capacity of rammed earth in compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 230–238, [Link]
1561(2008)20:3(230.
[19] L. Raju, B. Reddy, Influence of layer thickness and plasticizers on the characteristics of cement-stabilized rammed earth, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (2018), https://
[Link]/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002539.
[20] A.S. Los, M. Næraa-Nicolajsen, I.M.G. Bertelsen, Lime Stabilized Rammed Earth – Influence of Curing and Drying Conditions, RILEM Bookseries, 2023,
pp. 249–258, [Link]
[21] M. Zamanian, M. Salimi, M. Payan, A. Noorzad, M. Hassanvandian, Development of high-strength rammed earth walls with alkali-activated ground granulated
blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and waste tire textile fiber (WTTF) as a step towards low-carbon building materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 394 (2023), [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2023.132180.
[22] N. Kriplani, [Re]Integrating Rammed Earth: Regulatory and Material Challenges and Opportunities of Rammed Earth Construction in Ontario, 2024.
[23] J.J. Martín-del-Rio, J. Canivell, M. Torres-González, E.J. Mascort-Albea, R. Romero-Hernández, J.M. Alducin-Ochoa, F.J. Alejandre-Sánchez, Analysis of the
materials and state of conservation of the medieval rammed earth walls of Seville (Spain), J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021) 103381, [Link]
jobe.2021.103381.
[24] F. Ávila, E. Puertas, R. Gallego, Characterization of the mechanical and physical properties of stabilized rammed earth: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 325
(2022) 126693, [Link]
[25] S. Marathe, Ł. Sadowski, N. Shree, Geopolymer and alkali-activated permeable concrete pavements: bibliometrics and systematic current state of the art review,
applications, and perspectives, Constr. Build. Mater. 421 (2024) 135586, [Link]
[26] H. Abdolpour, P. Niewiadomski, Ł. Sadowski, Recycling of steel fibres and spent equilibrium catalyst in ultra-high performance concrete: literature review,
research gaps, and future development, Constr. Build. Mater. 309 (2021) 125147, [Link]
[27] New Zealand Standard, NZS 4298:1998. Materials and workmanship for earth buildings, \, [Link]
standards/nzs4298/, 1998.
[28] P. Walker, Standards Australia, HB 195-2002 the Australian Earth Building Handbook, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, Australia, 2002.
[29] Seismic Earth Construction Regulation” (RPCT 2011), (n.d.).
[30] V. Maniatidis, P. Walker, A review of rammed earth construction, Dev. Rammed Earth UK Hous (May) (2003) 109. URL, [Link]
rammedearth/[Link].
[31] A.N. Vivek, P.P. Kumar, M.H. Reddy, Experimental study on long-term strength and performance of rammed earth stabilized with mineral admixtures, El-Cezeri
J. Sci. and Eng. 9 (2022) 1136–1148, [Link]
[32] L. Rosicki, P. Narloch, Studies on the ageing of cement stabilized rammed earth material in different exposure conditions, Materials 15 (2022), [Link]
10.3390/ma15031090.
[33] S. Raavi, D. Dulal, Ultrasonic pulse velocity and statistical analysis for predicting and evaluating the properties of rammed earth with natural and brick
aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 298 (2021), [Link]
[34] A.W. Bruno, Hygro-mechanical Characterisation of Hypercompacted Earth for Building Construction, (n.d.).
[35] T. Zhou, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, L. Zhang, W. Tan, Investigation of intralayer and interlayer shear properties of stabilized rammed earth by direct shear tests,
Constr. Build. Mater. 367 (2023), [Link]
[36] M. Zami, A. Ewebajo, O. Al-Amoudi, M. Al-Osta, Y. Mustafa, Compressive strength and wetting-drying cycles of Al-hofuf “hamrah” soil stabilized with cement
and lime, Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 47 (2022) 13249–13264, [Link]
[37] M. Ramezanpour, A. Eslami, H. Ronagh, Seismic performance of stabilised/unstabilised rammed earth walls, Eng. Struct. 245 (2021), [Link]
[Link].2021.112982.
[38] A. Koutous, E. Hilali, Reinforcing rammed earth with plant fibers: a case study, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 14 (2021), [Link]
e00514.
[39] T. Zhou, H. Zhang, B. Li, L. Zhang, W. Tan, Evaluation of compressive strength of cement-stabilized rammed earth wall by ultrasonic-rebound combined method,
J. Build. Eng. 68 (2023), [Link]
[40] T. Ngo, V. Phan, D. Schwede, D. Nguyen, Q. Bui, Assessing influences of different factors on the compressive strength of geopolymer-stabilised compacted earth,
JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN CERAMIC SOCIETY 58 (2022) 379–395, [Link]
[41] A. Meek, M. Elchalakani, C. Beckett, M. Dong, Alternative stabilised rammed earth materials incorporating recycled waste and industrial by-products: a study of
mechanical properties, flexure and bond strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 277 (2021), [Link]
[42] K. Vikas, V. Ramana Murthy, G.V. Ramana, Stabilized Soil as a Sustainable Construction Material Using the Rammed Earth Technique, Springer Science and
Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2023, [Link]
[43] L. He, B. Khadka, X. Sun, M. Li, J. Jiang, Compressive strength of rammed earth filled steel tubular stub columns, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 17 (2022), https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2022.e01379.
[44] A. Koutous, E. Hilali, Compression stress-strain curve of rammed earth: measuring and modelling, Result. Eng. 18 (2023), [Link]
rineng.2023.101012.
[45] J. Kaluder, I. Kraus, A. Peric, L. Kraus, Shear strength of reproduced soil mixtures based on samples from rammed earth walls from eastern Croatia, APPLIED
SCIENCES-BASEL 12 (2022), [Link]
[46] F. Avila, E. Puertas, R. Gallego, Mechanical characterization of lime-stabilized rammed earth: lime content and strength development, Constr. Build. Mater. 350
(2022), [Link]
[47] Y. Mustafa, O. Al-Amoudi, M. Zami, M. Al-Osta, Strength and durability assessment of stabilized Najd soil for usage as earth construction materials, Bull. Eng.
Geol. Environ. 82 (2023), [Link]
[48] Y. Luo, J. Xu, Y. Huang, P. Ni, W. Li, Impact of relative humidity on strength and microscopic pore structure of air lime-stabilized compressed earth, Mater.
Struct. 57 (2024) 135, [Link]
[49] C. Zhu, S. Wang, Z. Ma, X. Dong, M. Zhang, Model investigation of anti-seepage measures for the foundation of a heritage building based on soil improvement,
Int. J. Architect. Herit. 16 (2022) 1414–1431, [Link]
[50] Y. Luo, H. Zhong, F. Bao, Z. Guo, P. Ni, Insights into natural and carbonation curing of ancient Chinese rammed earth mixed with brown sugar, Constr. Build.
Mater. 317 (2022), [Link]

18
M.A. Martin-Antunes et al. Journal of Building Engineering 106 (2025) 112436

[51] S. Fang, C. Meng, K. Zhang, W. Hu, X. Liu, New insight into the craftsmanship of sucrose-modified rammed earth-lime materials, J. Asian Architect. Build Eng.
21 (2022) 1019–1028, [Link]
[52] X. Zhao, Y. Zhang, T. Zhou, W. Li, Experimental study on mechanical properties of weak interface of rammed earth structure, in: Int. Conf. Hydraul. Civ. Eng.
Smart Water Conserv. Intell. Disaster Reduct. Forum, ICHCE SWIDR, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2021, pp. 614–620, [Link]
10.1109/ICHCESWIDR54323.2021.9656288.
[53] Y. Luo, P. Zhou, H. Ma, P. Ni, N. Ding, Y. Xu, Energy dissipation of rammed earth-timber joints under cyclic loading, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 145 (2021),
[Link]
[54] Y. Zeynali, H. Niroumand, R. Moayed, Stabilizing cohesive soils with Micro- and Nano- fly ash as Eco-friendly Materials: an experimental study, Constr. Build.
Mater. 399 (2023), [Link]
[55] M. Shaaban, Sustainability of excavation soil and red brick waste in rammed earth, Civil Engi, Arc 9 (2021) 789–798, [Link]
cea.2021.090320.
[56] A. Naeini, S. Siddiqua, C. Cherian, A novel stabilized rammed earth using pulp mill fly ash as alternative low carbon cementing material, Constr. Build. Mater.
300 (2021), [Link]
[57] B. Mužíková, T. Plaček Otcovská, P. Padevět, Modulus of ELASCITY of unfired rammed earth, Acta Parasitol. Pol. 15 (2018) 63–68, [Link]
APP.2018.15.0063.
[58] P. Wangmo, K.C. Shrestha, M. Miyamoto, T. Aoki, Assessment of out-of-plane behavior of rammed earth walls by pull-down tests, Int. J. Architect. Herit. 13
(2019) 273–287, [Link]
[59] A. Peric, I. Kraus, J. Kaluder, L. Kraus, Experimental campaigns on mechanical properties and seismic performance of unstabilized rammed earth-A literature
review, Buildings 11 (2021), [Link]
[60] E.A. Amede, G.G. Aklilu, H.W. Kidane, A.D. Dalbiso, Examining the viability and benefits of cement-stabilized rammed earth as an affordable and durable
walling material in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Cogent Engineering 11 (2024), [Link]
[61] K. Zarasvand, S. Narani, S. Siddiqua, Thermal insulation enhancement of rammed earth using wood fly ash and calcium bentonite, Constr. Build. Mater. 409
(2023), [Link]
[62] R. Rathod, B. Reddy, Behaviour of plain and fibre reinforced cement stabilised rammed earth under compression, tension and shear, Constr. Build. Mater. 344
(2022), [Link]
[63] T. Zhou, Z. Zhang, Z. Su, P. Tian, Seismic performance test of rammed earth wall with different structural columns, Adv. Struct. Eng. 24 (2021) 107–118,
[Link]
[64] R. Rathod, B. Reddy, Strength and stress-strain characteristics of fibre reinforced cement stabilised rammed earth, Mater. Struct. 54 (2021), [Link]
10.1617/s11527-021-01640-x.
[65] P. Narloch, W. Piatkiewicz, B. Pietruszka, The effect of cement addition on water vapour resistance factor of rammed earth, Materials 14 (2021), [Link]
org/10.3390/ma14092249.
[66] S. Narani, P. Zare, M. Abbaspour, A. Fahimifar, S. Siddiqua, S. Hosseini, Evaluation of fiber-reinforced and cement-stabilized rammed-earth composite under
cyclic loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 296 (2021), [Link]
[67] Q. Li, B. Dang, C. Kong, E. Peng, W. Cao, X. Hu, D. Li, Research on properties of solidified loess with calcined ginger nuts in rammed earth for sapping area of
earthen sites, in: A.E.-F. Abomohra, E. Fong (Eds.), E3S Web Conf., EDP Sciences, 2021, [Link]
[68] H.C. Darshan, K.H. Mamatha, S.V. Dinesh, B.M. Latha, Effectiveness of Cow Dung for Rammed Earth Application, Springer Science and Business Media
Deutschland GmbH, 2021, [Link]
[69] D. Ciancio, C.T.S. Beckett, J.A.H. Carraro, Optimum lime content identification for lime-stabilised rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 59–65,
[Link]
[70] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, P. Prasanna Kumar, Cement stabilised rammed earth. Part A: compaction characteristics and physical properties of compacted cement
stabilised soils, Mater. Struct. 44 (2011) 681–693, [Link]
[71] D. Ciancio, C. Augarde, Capacity of unreinforced rammed earth walls subject to lateral wind force: elastic analysis versus ultimate strength analysis, Mater.
Struct. 46 (2013) 1569–1585, [Link]
[72] H. Araki, J. Koseki, T. Sato, Tensile strength of compacted rammed earth materials, Soils Found. 56 (2016) 189–204, [Link]
sandf.2016.02.003.
[73] H.N. Abhilash, E. Hamard, C.T.S. Beckett, J.-C. Morel, H. Varum, D. Silveira, I. Ioannou, R. Illampas, Mechanical Behaviour of Earth Building Materials, Springer
Science and Business Media B.V, 2022, [Link]
[74] A. Losini, A. Grillet, M. Bellotto, M. Woloszyn, G. Dotelli, Natural additives and biopolymers for raw earth construction stabilization-a review, Constr. Build.
Mater. 304 (2021), [Link]
[75] S.S.D. Raavi, D.D. Tripura, Predicting and evaluating the engineering properties of unstabilized and cement stabilized fibre reinforced rammed earth blocks,
Constr. Build. Mater. 262 (2020) 120845, [Link]
[76] V. Toufigh, E. Kianfar, The effects of stabilizers on the thermal and the mechanical properties of rammed earth at various humidities and their environmental
impacts, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 616–629, [Link]
[77] E. Bernat-Maso, L. Gil, C. Escrig, Textile-reinforced rammed earth: experimental characterisation of flexural strength and thoughness, Constr. Build. Mater. 106
(2016) 470–479, [Link]
[78] L. Miccoli, D.V. Oliveira, R.A. Silva, U. Müller, L. Schueremans, Static behaviour of rammed earth: experimental testing and finite element modelling, Mater.
Struct. 48 (2015) 3443–3456, [Link]
[79] R. El-Nabouch, Q.-B. Bui, O. Plé, P. Perrotin, Characterizing the shear parameters of rammed earth material by using a full-scale direct shear box, Constr. Build.
Mater. 171 (2018) 414–420, [Link]
[80] J.S.J. Cheah, P. Walker, A. Heath, T.K.K.B. Morgan, Evaluating shear test methods for stabilised rammed earth, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
Construction Materials 165 (2012) 325–334, [Link]
[81] D. Spennemann, Earth to earth: patterns of environmental decay affecting modern pise walls, Buildings 12 (2022), [Link]
buildings12060748.
[82] C.T.S. Beckett, P.A. Jaquin, J.-C. Morel, Weathering the storm: a framework to assess the resistance of earthen structures to water damage, Constr. Build. Mater.
242 (2020) 118098, [Link]
[83] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1913, Desing and construction of levees. [Link]
EngineerManuals/EM_1110-[Link], 2000.
[84] K.A. Heathcote, Durability of earthwall buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 9 (1995) 185–189, [Link]
[85] M.A. Martin-Antunes, E. Prieto, B. Garcia, C. Perlot, A. Seco, A methodology to optimize natural by-product mixes for rammed earth construction based on the
Taguchi method, Appl. Sci. 14 (2024), [Link]

19