CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

In the course of this research work, several tests were carried out to determine and evaluate the
mechanical properties of the reinforced brake lining samples, made from PKS and CS, epoxy
binder together with other additives. This chapter presents the tests results and analyses the data
from these tests.

4.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Module IS Sieve size (mm) Cumulative sieve Cumulative Cumulative sieve %
weight (g) retained %
38 5 0 0 100
37 4 22.5 2.59 97.41
36 3.15 23.9 2.75 97.25
35 2.5 256.7 29.5 70.5
34 2 303.3 34.85 65.15
33 1.60 398.1 45.74 54.26
32 1.25 506.9 58.24 41.76
31 1 605.4 69.56 30.44
30 0.8 611.8 70.3 29.7
29 0.63 674.6 77.51 22.49
28 0.5 698.1 80.21 19.79
27 0.4 714.5 82.1 17.9
26 0.315 780.5 89.68 10.32
25 0.25 798.2 91.72 8.28
24 0.2 798.5 91.75 8.25
23 0.16 831 95.48 4.52
20 0.08 842.6 96.82 3.18
Table 4.1 Particles distribution of PKS

Table 4.2 Moisture content of PKS

Tare number Y A7 Table 4.3 Particle size analysis of PKS
Wet weight of PKS 93.9 102.6
Total dry weight of PKS 84.3 92.9 Wet weight of PKS 1000
Tare weight 23.9 23 Dry weight of PKS 870.3
Weight of water 9.6 9.7
Dry weight of PKS 60.4 69.9
Moisture content 15.9 13.9
Mean 14.9%
Table 4.4 Particles distribution of CS
 Module IS Sieve size (mm) Cumulative sieve Cumulative Cumulative sieve %
weight (g) retained %
38 5 0 0 100
37 4 0.5 0.057 99.943
36 3.15 22.7 2.61 97.39
35 2.5 177.1 20.35 79.65
34 2 184.5 21.20 78.8
33 1.60 318.4 36.58 63.42
32 1.25 449.7 51.7 48.3
31 1 509.1 58.5 41.5
30 0.8 566.7 65.12 34.88
29 0.63 679.0 78.02 21.98
28 0.5 729.3 83.79 16.21
27 0.4 764.0 87.78 12.22
26 0.315 825.2 94.82 5.18
25 0.25 850.5 97.72 2.28
24 0.2 912.2 104.81 4.81
23 0.16 913.0 104.91 4.91
20 0.08 914.9 105.12 -5.12

Table 4.5 Moisture content of CS

Tare number Y A7 Table 4.6 Particle size analysis of CS
Wet weight of PKS 93.9 102.6
Total dry weight of PKS 84.3 92.9 Wet weight of PKS 1000
Tare weight 23.9 23 Dry weight of PKS 870.3
Weight of water 9.6 9.7
Dry weight of PKS 60.4 69.9
Moisture content 15.9 13.9
Mean 14.9%

The dry weight of PKS and CS samples was gotten using the formula
Ww
γd = Equation 4.1
MC
1+
100
Where γd = dry weight of samples, Ww=Wet weight of samples, MC = Mean moisture content.
This gave:

1000
γd =
14.9 = 870.3g
1+
100
 Table 4.7 Finer module of PKS and CS
Retained % PKS CS
Retained module 23 95.48 104.91
Retained module 26 89.68 94.82
Retained module 29 77.51 78.02
Retained module 32 58.24 51.7
Retained module 35 29.5 20.35
Retained module 38 0 0
The Finer module of PKS and CS was calculated thus:
95.48+89.68+77.51+58.24 +29.5+0
Mean finer module of PKS = =¿58.4%
6
104.91+ 94.82+78.02+5 1.7+20.35+0
Mean finer module of CS = =¿58.3%
6
4.2.1 Graphical Presentation of Grain Size Analysis Of Soil

Grain size analysis of Soil

2500

2000
percentage weight (g)

1500

1000 Passing weight

500

0
5 2
0.
5
0.
2 07 35 16 08 05 01
0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sieve size
 Figure 4.1: Plot of Grain size analysis of soil

4.3 DISCUSSION ON MEASUREMENT OF SOIL AND FIBRES USED IN

PRODUCTION OF REINFORCED EARTH BRICK SAMPLES

4.3.1 Mix Design For Production Of Brick Samples

 Mass of weighing pan = 104g
 Volume of mold = 190 x 90 x 40 = 684,000 mm3

Table 4.2: Mass composition of 190 x 90 x 40 mm brick samples

Sample Dry mass of soil Dry mass of EFB Dry mass of Mass composition of
(S) present in Spikelet fibres Raffia fibres soil + fibres in
specimen (g) present in present in established Earth
specimen (g) specimen (g) blocks (g)

S1 782 0 0 782

S2 778.09 1.955 1.955 778.09+1.955+1.955

S3 774.91 3.91 3.91 774.91+3.91+3.91

S4 770.27 5.865 5.865 770.27+5.865+5.865

Since the mold could produce a maximum of 20 bricks at a time, 5 bricks per sample were first
produced. In order to this, the above measured dry masses of soil and fibres were multiplied by
seven so as to ensure 5 samples could be obtained when measured quantities were mixed with
distilled water to obtain paste needed to produce samples.

4.4 WATER ABSORPTION TEST RESULTS

4.4.1 Presentation of Data and Calculation of Water Absorption Rate

Table 4.3: Weight of brick samples in recorded intervals of 10 minutes during water absorption
test
Sample (S) Weight (W) of bricks in 10 minutes intervals (g)
0 min 10 min 20min 30 min 40 mins
 964 1001 1026 1040 -
S1
968 1009 1035 1054 -
970 1012 1040 1055 -
S2 978 1019 1052 1080 1098
971 1011 1045 1068 1087
975 1020 1051 1076 1092
S3 916 997 1042 - -
910 1000 1045 - -
919 1013 1058 - -
S4 872 1063 - - -
880 1055 - - -
874 1056 - - -

W 1−W 0
Rate of Water Absorption(WA )= x 100 %
W0

Calculation of Rate of water absorption of sample 1

% Rate of water absorption for brick 1 = (3.84 + 2.50 + 1.36)/3 = 2.567%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 2 = (4.24 + 2.58 + 1.84)/3 = 2.887%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 3 = (4.33 + 2.77 + 1.44)/3 = 2.847%

Average rate of water absorption of sample 1 = (2.567 + 2.887 + 2.847)/3 = 2.767%

Calculation of Rate of water absorption of sample 2

% Rate of water absorption for brick 1 = (4.19 + 3.24 + 2.66 + 1.67)/4 = 2.94%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 2 = (4.12 + 3.36 + 2.20 + 1.78)/4 = 2.865%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 3 = (4.62 + 3.04 + 2.38 + 1.49)/4 = 2.883%

Average rate of water absorption of sample 2 = (2.94+ 2.865+ 2.883)/3 = 2.896%

Calculation of Rate of water absorption of sample 3

% Rate of water absorption for brick 1 = (8.84 + 4.51)/2 = 6.675%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 2 = (9.89 + 4.5)/2 = 7.195%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 3 = (10.22 + 4.44)/2 = 7.33%

Average rate of water absorption of sample 1 = (6.675 + 7.195 + 7.33)/3 = 7.067%

Calculation of Rate of water absorption of sample 4

% Rate of water absorption for brick 1 = 21.90%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 2 = 19.886%

% Rate of water absorption for brick 3 = 20.824%

Average rate of water absorption of sample 1 = (21.90 + 19.886+ 20.824)/3 = 20.87%

Table 4.4: Average rate of water absorption of brick samples

Sample (S) Average rate of water absorption (%)
S1 2.767
S2 2.896
S3 7.067
S4 20.87

4.4.2 Graphical Presentation of Water Absorption Rate of Brick Samples

Water absorption rate (%) of brick samples

25
Water absorption rate (%)

20 20.87

15
Water absorption
10
7.067
5
2.767 2.896
0
S1 S2 S3 S4
Sample (S)
 Figure 4.2: Plot of Water absorption rate of Brick samples
From figure 4.2 above, the value of the water absorption rate for samples 1 was gotten as
2.767%, this value increased to 2.896% for samples 2 and escalated to 7.067 % and 20.87% for
samples 3 and 4. As a result the samples quickly attained saturation, which resulted in the limited
number of sample interval values.

It can be seen that the water absorption increased with an increase in the fiber content. The
higher water absorption capacity of fiber reinforced earth brick samples may be attributed to the
amount of water absorbed by the cellulose fibers, which is influenced by void volume and the
amount of cellulose material present, and both of these parameters affect density. The packing of
the fibers and the matrix becomes less efficient as the fiber content is increased, and causes the
void volume to increase, followed by a decrease in density and an increase in water absorption,

The result also shows the same trend as the observation previously conducted by Ghavami et al.,
(2000) which indicates that the fibers absorb water and expand during mixing and drying of soil.
The swelling of the fibers pushes the soil away, at least at the micro-level. At the end of the
drying process, the fibers lose the moisture and shrink back almost to their original dimensions,
leaving very fine voids around them.

4.5 COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS

4.5.1 Presentation Of Data And Compressive Strength Calculation

Table 4.5: Compressive force of earth brick samples

Sample (S) Compressive force (KN) Average Compressive
force (KN)
S1 46 42 45 43.33
S2 48 52 50 50

S3 30 30 31 30.33
 S4 28 29 27 28
Calculation of Compressive strength of sample 1

Average compressive force (Fc) = (46 + 42 + 45)/3 = 43.33 x 103N

Area of samples (A) = length x Width = 0.180 m x 0.080 m
Area = 0.0144 x 10-3 m2
FC 43.33 KN
Compressive Strength= = =¿ 3.009 x 109 N/m2
A 0.0144 x 10−3
Calculation of Compressive strength of sample 2

Average compressive force (Fc) = (48 + 52 + 50)/3 = 50 x 103N

Area of samples (A) = length x Width = 0.180 m x 0.080 m
Area = 0.0144 x 10-3 m2
FC 50 KN
Compressive Strength= = =¿ 3.472 x 109 N/m2
A 0.0144 x 10−3
Calculation of Compressive strength of sample 3

Average compressive force (Fc) = (30 + 30 + 31)/3 = 30.33 x 103N

Area of samples (A) = length x Width = 0.180 m x 0.080 m
Area = 0.0144 x 10-3 m2
FC 30.33 KN
Compressive Strength= = =¿ 2.106 x 109 N/m2
A 0.0144 x 10−3
Calculation of Compressive strength of sample 4

Average compressive force (Fc) = (28 + 29 + 27)/3 = 28 x 103N

Area of samples (A) = length x Width = 0.180 m x 0.080 m
Area = 0.0144 x 10-3 m2
FC 28 KN
Compressive Strength= = =¿ 1.944 x 109 N/m2
A 0.0144 x 10−3
 Table 4.6: Compressive Strength of earth brick samples
Sample (S) Compressive Strength (109N/m2)
S1 3.009
S2 3.472
S3 2.106
S4 1.944

4.5.2 Graphical Presentation Of Compressive Strength Of Brick Samples

Compressive strength of reinforced brick samples

4
Compressive strength(giga N/m2)

3.5 3.472
3 3.009
2.5
2 2.106
1.944 Compressive strength
1.5
1
0.5
0
S1 S2 S3 S4
Sample (S)

Figure 4.3: Plot of Compressive strength of Brick samples

The compressive strength of a material determines the load-carrying capacity of that material
before breakage. The mean values of compressive strength of the brick samples under different
fibre contents have been calculated as shown above. The plot of these values against the samples
is shown in Figure above.

The compressive strength of bricks samples are shown in figure 4.3 above. The compressive
strength increased from 3.009 x 109 N/m2 to 3.472 x 109 N/m2 for sample 2 and then dropped
abruptly to a value of 1.944 x 109 N/m2 for sample 4.

The compressive strength values of the reinforced earth bricks increased with increase in the
fibre content for sample 2 (0.25% of Raphia and EFB spikelet fibres each), as compared to that
of the control sample (S1). In this case, an increase in the compressive strength occurs because
the
fibres can withstand stresses and successfully reinforce and hold the soil.

The decrease in the compressive strength of the reinforced bricks of samples 3 and 4 (with 0.5%
and 0.75% Raphia and EFB spikelet fibres each respectively) occurred because the space
occupied by the fibres acted like voids in the soil. Such a void space could be attributed to the
high-volume fraction of the fibres, and the non-uniform fibre distribution tended to make fibres
ball or clump together. When the fibres are not evenly distributed and orientated in the soil, they
can clump together with less soil material in between to hold them together, creating more voids
and making the bricks weak.

These results are consistent with previous studies by Ugwuishiwu et al., (2018) on Natural Fibre
Induced Properties on Stabilized Earth Bricks reinforced with palm kernel fibre. Their findings
showed that the compressive strength values in CSEBs (Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks)
increased with increase in the fibre content. They concluded that the optimum palm kernel fibre
percentage that can successfully increase the maximum compressive strength of CSEBs is 4% of
the fibre content and that there was a decrease in the compressive strength of the CSEBs between
the 4% and 5% fibre reinforcement.

4.6 DENSITY TEST RESULTS

4.6.1 Presentation Of Data And Density Calculation

Table 4.7: Mass of brick samples

Sample (S) Mass of samples (g) Average mass (g)
S1 96 957 967 963
5
S2 97 974 973 975
8
S3 91 908 921 914.33
4
S4 87 872 878 873.33
0
Calculation of Density of Sample 1

Average mass = (965 + 957 + 967)/3= 963 g = 0.963 kg

Volume = length x Width x height = 0.180 m x 0.080 m x 0.040 m
Volume = 0.576 x 10-3 m3
Mass 0.963 Kg
Density= = =¿ 1.672 x 103 Kg/m3
Volume 0.576 x 10−3
Calculation of Density of Sample 2

Average mass = (978 + 974 + 973)/3 = 975 g = 0.975 kg

Volume = 0.576 x 10-3 m3
Mass 0.975 Kg
Density= = =¿ 1.693 x 103 Kg/m3
Volume 0.576 x 10−3
Calculation of Density of Sample 3

Average mass = (914 + 908 + 921)/3 = 914.33 g = 0.91433 kg

Volume = 0.576 x 10-3 m3
Mass 0.91433 Kg
Density= = =¿ 1.587 x 103 Kg/m3
Volume 0.576 x 10−3
Calculation of Density of Sample 4

Average mass = (870 + 872 + 878)/3 = 873.33 g = 0.87333 kg

Volume = 0.576 x 10-3 m3
Mass 0.87333 Kg
Density= = =¿ 1.516 x 103 Kg/m3
Volume 0.576 x 10−3

Table 4.8: Density of brick samples

Sample (S) Density (103Kg/m3)
S1 1.672
S2 1.693
S3 1.587
S4 1.516
4.6.2 Graphical Presentation Of Density Of Samples

Density of brick samples

1.75

1.7 1.693
1.672
Density (1000 Kg/m3)

1.65

1.6
1.587
Density
1.55
1.516
1.5

1.45

1.4
S1 S2 S3 S4
Sample (S)

Figure 4.4: Plot of density of Brick samples

The correlation between the fibre content in each sample and density of the tested specimens was
also studied. The mean density (kg/m3) was plotted against the respective Samples containing
varying proportions of fibres.

From figure 4.4 above, the density of the composite are observed increase from sample 1 (100%
soil) to sample 2 (0.25% of each fibre mixed with soil) reaching the maximum density
1.693kg/m3 for sample 2. The density then drops from sample 2 and attains a minimum value of
1.516kg/m3.

Thus, density decreases as the amount of fibres present in samples increases. This is possibly
attributable to lower density of the EFB spikelet and Raphia fibres compared to that of soil,
leading to lighter bricks

The density results are in line with previous studies carried out by Mahgoub et al., (2018) on
Mechanical Properties of Fibre-Reinforced Mud Bricks. Their study investigated the response of
fibre-reinforced mud bricks under loading. The fibre sources investigated included chicken
feathers and sugarcane bagasse. Their findings revealed that dry density of mud bricks decreases
as the amount of chicken feathers and sugarcane bagasse increases.
4.7 ACOUSTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REINFORCED EARTH
BRICKS
4.7.1 Presentation of Data

Table 4.9: Illustrating room sound level readings

Sample Room Sound level reading in decibels (dB) Average
s reading
A.V.R/(dB)
S1 90 89 90 88 89 91 88 90 90 8 89.4

S2 77 76 75 77 75 76 76 78 76 97 76.1
5
S3 62 60 59 62 59 60 61 62 60 5 60.4
9
S4 48 45 47 48 48 46 45 47 45 4 46.6
7

Table 4.10: Illustrating sound absorption by rooms built from Reinforced earth bricks
Sample Sound absorption by reinforced bricks A.V.R/(dB) Observation
s
S1 - - - - - - - - - - - -
S2 13 13 15 11 14 15 12 12 14 14 13.3 Good
S3 28 29 31 26 30 31 27 28 30 30 29 Very Good
S4 42 44 43 40 41 44 43 43 45 42 42.7 Excellent

From above table, it is realized that when the percentage of fibres in the reinforced earth brick
increases, the sound absorption level also increases thereby mitigating the effect of noise
pollution on houses built with these bricks.
4.7.2 Graphical Analysis Of Sound Absorption By Earth Brick Samples

Sound absorption of brick samples

45
42.7
40
35
Sound absorption (dB)

30 29
25
Sound absorption
20
15
13.3
10
5
0 0
S1 S2 S3 S4
Sample (S)

Figure 4.5: Plot of Sound absorption of bricks

The figure 4.5 above represents the amount of sound absorbed by each brick sample that is S1,
S2, S3 and S4. S1 sample was made with 100% soil and no fibres, this has the lowest sound
absorption value due to the fact that its compact and hard in nature causing the block to reflect
almost all the sound waves incident to the block surfaces while S4 with 0.75% of each fibre has
the highest sound absorption value since it contains fibres which are soft materials made up of
several layers such as lignin and hemicellulose that enhance the absorption of sound.
4.8 COMPARISON OF TESTS RESULTS WITH RESULTS FROM
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Table 4.11: Mechanical properties of compressed earth bricks obtained from current studies with
previous research
Name of Composite Compress Flexural Density Water Reference
ive strength (103Kg/ absorption
strength (MPa) m3) (%)
(MN/m2)
Influence of Empty Fruit Bunch 4 600 2 158.48 Yakum et
Stalk and Spikelet Fibres on (stalk) and al., (2018)
the Mechanical Properties of 177.97
Cement-stabilised Soil (spikelet)
Physical, Mechanical and 3 - 1.8 16.5 Danso et
Durability Properties of Soil al., (2010)
Building
Blocks Reinforced with Natural
Fibres
Study of the porosity of EFB 3.472 - 1.693 20.87 Current
Spikelet and Raphia fibres for study
mechanical and acoustic
properties

Table 4.11 shows the mechanical properties of earth bricks reinforced with natural fibres from
previous and current studies.

As it is possible to notice from the table, the average compressive strength in current study is in
range of 3- 4, compared to previous studies and the density value is close to values gotten by
previous research.. The water absorption values varied due to soil type, brick size and types of
fibres used. To collect more data to improve the knowledge of mechanical behaviour of the earth
bricks, future studies are needed to understand the interaction between fibres and the soil.