Mechanical properties of on-site manufactured stabilised compressed earth blocks: an experimental investigation and proposed models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in earth construction is growing increasingly as society becomes more aware of the importance of sustainable building. A considerable number of investigations have been devoted to studying the mechanical properties of compressed earth blocks (CEBs). However, most of these studies were conducted in laboratory settings. Little focus has been directed at studying the performance of CEBs that use on-site soil and other local materials to construct small-scale housing at the same location. A total of 120 CEBs were manufactured on-site from four block mixes: coarse soil with and without Phragmites Australis (Phragmites) and fine soil with and without Phragmites. By comparing the results achieved with minimum strength requirements from different building codes, the dry compressive strengths of all four block mixes were deemed adequate for single-storey structures. The addition of Phragmites caused a slight increase in the compressive strength and a slight decrease in the flexural strength of the CEBs. A formula to estimate the flexural strength of the blocks given the compressive strength is proposed based on a database of test results from the literature and this investigation’s results. CEBs can create a sustainable building solution, especially in remote areas and Indigenous communities with limited access to conventional building materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".