Impact of Using Stabilized Earth Blocks on the Thermal comfort

Impact of Using Stabilized Earth Blocks on the Thermal comfort

Ayman S. Mohamed1, Dina M. Sadek

2, Osama A. Masoud

3 and Mohamed I.

Mohamed4

1 Lecturer, Faculty of Technology, Education, Beni-Suef University

2 Professor, Building Materials Research and Quality Control Institute,

Housing and Building National Research Center, Cairo

3 Professor, Architectural department, faculty of Engineering, Suez

University

4 Lecturer, Architectural department, Faculty of Industrial Education-

Suez University

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract:

There is more need in the field of urban development to provide a sustainable alternative

to building facilities. Where the materials and construction method are chosen according

to the surrounding economic conditions and these conditions are overcome by stabilized

earth blocks, making use of the existing natural resources and producing building units

from the compressed stabilized earth blocks. This research aims to use building units

from compressed stabilized earth blocks as an alternative to traditional building

materials and to achieve thermal comfort by reducing energy consumption through the

use of program design builder to rationalize energy consumption to represent economic

and environmental advantages. Building units manufactured from several types of earth

and stabilizing materials were used by 8% cement of the total weight. The compressed

stabilized earth blocks of mixtures were produced to meet the requirements of the

Egyptian Code for earth Building. The study was conducted on a residential model for

comparison with compressed stabilized earth blocks with local blocks units. Moreover, it

is better to use cement an addition at 6% and 8% ratio to have a suitable compressive

strength results, regardless of soil type without the need of using high percentages of

cement which is good for environmental and economic points of view provides energy

required to operate the building by 4.5% to 26% compared to local bricks, in addition to

availability of earth in urban and rural areas, making it suitable in terms of construction

cost for walls and types of roofs.

Keywords: Compressed stabilized Earth Blocks, Stabilization, Energy conservation,

Thermal comfort.

1- Introduction Urban development efforts face enormous challenges such as increased population

growth, limited funding and lack of resources, energy and water, thus requiring sustainable

development steps to be environmentally, economically and socially compatible to ensure

the building efficiency throughout the period of use. Construction using compressed

stabilized earth blocks as an alternative system to conventional building materials such as

concrete and brick is one of the methods used to achieve sustainability, especially in desert

areas. It depends on the use of natural soil and small percentage of stabilizer such as

cement. It is characterized by low consumption of energy used in production, low CO2

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XIII, Issue I, 2021

ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 78

emission compared to clay bricks, and low production costs. So, it is one of the best

methods to achieve sustainability.

CSEBs overcome these limitations by an increase in block density though compacting earth mixed with a stabilizers such as cement or lime using a mechanic press. This gives

more load bearing capacity and improved water resistance. CSEBs had a wide application

in construction for walling, roofing, arched openings, corbels etc. It is low cost, easy to

manufacture locally using soil, available at site and low in energy consumption because no

fuel is used for burning in block making or in transportation. With these advantages a

compressed earth block can be used for construction of houses [1].

[2] The study discusses the dialectical relationship in the trilogy of (material - energy -

comfort) in order to understand this relationship and to provide the architect with the result

in order to raise the efficiency of building techniques and to solve the problems and study

the components of the architectural space affected by the evolution of elements of

contemporary technology, including environmental dimensions and factors and their

relationship in utilizing material, energy and comfort..

[3] The problem occurs in the negligence of the climate requirements of the spaces users

due to the negligence given by the designer and owner to the climate solutions required by

the user to achieve the thermal comfort inside the spaces in spite the climate aspects and

requirements were one of the architectural main objectives.

can be made to demand low energy in their life cycle with passive and active measures as

well as using low energy materials in the construction. Low energy buildings become

sustainable constructions, provided most of its energy use for operation (electricity) is derived largely from renewable or low CO resources [4]. In order to directly address a set

of specific environmental loads caused by buildings and their operation, researchers have

increased the scope of analysis beyond pure energy accounting and applied a full life cycle

assessment analysis in their studies [5–8]. Environmental impacts like global warming

potential, acidification potential, and photo-oxidant formation potential are considered in

these studies. Seo and Hwang [9] examined and estimated CO2 emissions in the entire life

cycle of buildings. Césaire Hema [10] The buildings thermal comfort can be enhanced

via alternative sustainable materials for example compressed earth blocks rather than

conventional material that used for the walls.

Low energy buildings are the buildings having specific design that demand less operating

and life cycle energy than if built according to conventional criteria with parity of all other

conditions [11]. Design of low energy building is achieved by reducing its operating

energy through active and passive technologies. But, reduction in operating energy is generally accompanied by little increase in embodied energy of the building due to energy

intensive materials used in the energy saving measures (Fig.1). The life cycle energy

savings through operating energy reduction by installing passive and active measures for

the case studies mentioned in Refs. [12–14]. It shows that life cycle energy savings are in

accordance with reduction in operating energy which in turn is proportional to the degree

and number of passive and active energy saving measures used in the building. This

indicates that one can go on reducing energy use for operation of the building in order to

produce low energy buildings by increased use of passive and active energy saving

measures and at one stage operating energy can be made zero and thus produce zero

energy buildings (self-sufficient). A zero energy building requires neither fuels nor

electricity for its operation as all the energy it needs is locally produced (utilizing solar and

wind sources) and stored. Sartori and Hestnes [15] reviewed life cycle energy consume.

The Taos Pueblo is a historical adobe village in Taos, New Mexico – multistoried

buildings that have been constantly occupied for more than 1,000 years. It is most likely

worked in the vicinity of 1000 and 1450 A.D. and starting at 2006 it had 150 inhabitant

[16]. Fig (2) shows example of Historical adobe village, Taos, New Mexico.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 79

Fig (1): Interplay between operating and embodied energy for case studies [10].

Figure (2): Historical adobe village , Taos , New Mexico [15].

2. Experimental work production of compressed stabilized earth blocks to be used as an alternative to the construction system from concrete and bricks, and studying the effect of its use on the thermal comfort in architectural spaces, aims to the production of compressed stabilized earth blocks (250×120×90 mm). the effect of study of the compressed stabilized on the thermal comfort within the architectural spaces compared to the brick system (such as Perforated Clay Bricks, Solid Clay Bricks, Perforated Cement Brick and Solid Cement Bricks) in the walls and concrete in this phase. Eight optimum mixes from the first phase was selected. Table (1) shows the selected mixes and their proportions, used 8% cement in this phase. The more cement is added to the soil the stronger will the blocks be, especially to water resistance. It is preferable to limit the amount of cement to 8 % for economic reasons. Since adding more than 8% cement will increase the cost dramatically but will not increase the strength proportionally. the soil grading should be within the proposed grading limits according to the Egyptian code for earth building [18].

2.1 Mixing casting and curing of compressed stabilized earth blocks Casting was done at materials quality at Housing and Building Research Center. Procedures adopted to prepare compressed stabilized earth blocks was as follows:

1- After sieving soil (S1) and (S2) using 8mm sieve to remove coarse gravel particles and most of the lumps.

2- Natural soil was manually dry- mixed with cement and/or limestone, Aswan clay and clay soil so as to get a homogenous mix. Water was poured on the dry mix uniformly and mixing



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 80

was continued manually to ensure a uniform distribution of water in the mix. Mixing was done by moving the pile two times so as to get a homogenous dry mix.

3- The previously mixed were added to soil and dry mixing was carried out until obtaining homogenous color of the mix.

4- water was added to the mix and wet mixing was carried manually until obtaining well distribution of water.

5- The moisture content of the wet mix was checked by drop test.

6- The wet mix was filled into the press molds, leveled with a ripper and then compacted using Auram 3000 press.

7- The blocks were removed immediately after compaction and compaction was checked with a pocket penetrometer. The blocks were stacked in long piles in open air and covered with plastic sheet. Afterward, the blocks were sprinkled with water once per day for 28 days for curing .Figures (3) to (9) and (10) show the steps of mixing, casting of CSEBs and thermal conductivity test.

Fig (3): Dry mixing Fig (4):Wet mixing Fig (5): Fresh mix.

Fig (6): Auram press Fig (7):Pressing process Fig (8): The produced block

Fig(9): Stacking of the blocks Fig(10): Thermal conductivity test



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 81

Tab

le (

1):

pro

per

ties

sel

ecte

d m

ixes

(k

g/m

3).

Wa

ter

229

198

198

224

237

253

253

241

Ad

ded

ma

teri

als

Sil

ty c

lay

0

0

0

403

0

0

0

345

Asw

an

cla

y

0

0

226

0

0

0

362

0

Lim

esto

ne

0

226

0

0

0

362

0

0

Soil

S2

0

0

0

0

13

08

10

30

10

30

982

S1

16

45

12

13

12

13

11

47

0

0

0

0

Cem

ent

138

143

143

135

114

121

121

115

Iden

tifi

cati

on

of

the

mix

Co

ntr

ol

mix

(S

1)+

8%

cem

en

t

(74

%

(S1)+

26

% l

imes

ton

e) )

+ 8

% c

em

ent

(74

% (

S1)

+2

6%

Asw

an

cla

y)

)+ 8

% c

emen

t

(74

% (

S1)

+ 2

6%

sil

ty c

lay

) )+

8%

cem

ent

Co

ntr

ol

mix

(S

2)

)+ 8

% c

emen

t

(74

% (

S2)

+ 2

6%

lim

est

on

e) )

+ 8

% c

em

ent

(74

% (

S2)

+ 2

6%

Asw

an c

lay

) )+

8%

cem

ent

(74

% (

S2)

+ 2

6%

sil

ty c

lay

) )+

8%

cem

ent

Mix

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

So

il

1

4

Gra

vel

san

d

(S1)

Sil

ty

San

d

(S2)



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 82

2.2 Program Design Builder

Design Builder (Version2.2.5.004) used to evaluate the efficiency of different brick

types in achieving thermal comfort and rationalizing consumption in residential

buildings. This is done through the internal power consumption index used in the

cooling work in the residential building, and calculating the saving ratio or

rationalizing energy consumption. The program calculates the energy consumption in

the residential building (kWh).

• Program Input

1- Simulation model shall be made for two units of the social housing in an area of

90 m2 per each, which are building constructed by compressed stabilized earth units

(using non-bearing walls) as shown in Figure (11) and (12). Thermal comfort can be

attained through the wall design [19].

Fig (11): perspective snapshot Fig (12): Plan the residential building.

of the residential building.

2- Operating temperature:

Adjusting the operating temperature of air conditioners at 24°C

• Construction:

1- Walls: The exposed external walls are made of different types of bricks in thickness of 25

cm, and a comparison made between locally manufactured bricks and bricks made of

compressed stabilized earth.

2- Ceiling: Ceiling without thermal insulation.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 83

Thermal resistance of the external surface = 0.055 m2 °C / Watt.

Thermal resistance of the internal surface = 0.123 m2 °C / Watt.

The opening area of the facade area is 10% for all the facades of the residential building.

3- Climate data:

Climate data file for Aswan was used.

2.3 Simulation of building model: -

Design Builder (Version2.2.5.004) used to evaluate the efficiency of different brick types

in achieving thermal comfort and rationalizing consumption in residential buildings. This

is done through the internal power consumption index used in the cooling work in the

residential building, and calculating the saving ratio or rationalizing energy consumption.

The program calculates the energy consumption in the residential building (kWh).

3. Results and discussions

3.1 The impacts of using bricks of compressed stabilized earth on the thermal comfort and

rationalization of energy consumption inside the residential building:

In this section, the results of the various mixtures assessment of the compressed

stabilized earth bricks and produced soil shall be presented in the study. The schedules

tables (2), (3) and (4) show the results of the bricks types' simulation (Compressive

strenght, Thermal conductivity- Density- Specific Heat). And made from traditional

bricks (such as Perforated Clay Bricks, Solid Clay Bricks, Perforated Cement Brick and

Solid Cement Bricks) on thermal comfort.

• Mixtures manufactured from gravel sand soil (Group I)

(Un- load Bering).

The Figure (13) shows the total electric power consumed to achieve the thermal comfort of the

technique of the compressed stabilized earth bricks manufactured from the sandy gravel soil. The

Figure (14) shows the saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures

compared to the control mixture (mixture No. 1) which contains the soil, cement and water

without any other additions. The Figures shows that the rate of the annual electric power

consumption of the wall-based system of the bricks manufactured from the control mixtures is

(75646.82) KW/year. The mixtures containing additional materials, whether limestone powder,

Aswan clay or clay soil achieve saving in the power consumption compared to the control



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 84

mixture. The mixture containing the clay soil achieves (74% sandy soil + 26% clay soil) which

achieve the highest saving ratio of the electric power (7.6%). The following mixture is the soil

which contains the Aswan clay (74% sandy soil + 26% Aswan clay) and achieves the least saving

ratio of electric power (2.8%). Finally, the soil which contains the limestone powder (74% sandy

soil + 26% limestone powder) (saving ratio of 0.8%) compared to the control mixtures (100%

sandy soil). Therefore, it's preferred to use a mixture of clay and sand soil to achieve better results

in term of the thermal comfort, followed by the Aswan clay then the limestone powder than using

the soil without additional materials because these materials improve the compressive resistance

of the produced units which affects the bearing strength of the walls, The density of CEB varieties

between 1700 up to 2200 kg/m3, while thermal conductivity varieties between 0.8 up to 1.2

W/(m·K). But, the adopted thermal properties, i.e., 1920 kg/m3 and 1.0 W/(m·K), were based on

local blocks [ 20].

Table (2): Results compressive strength and thermal conductivity of CSEBs

Thermal conductivityThermal conductivityThermal conductivityThermal conductivity

(W/m.k)

compressive

strength (Kg/cm2)

Identification of the mix Mix Types

Earth

1.069 57.31 100% Soil 1

Gra

vel

san

d s

oil

(Gro

up

I) 1.034 78.5 74% Soil + 26% Limestone 2

0.946 67.7 74% Soil + 26% Aswan clay 3

0.756 66.5 74% Soil + 26 % Silty clay 4

0.848 74.8 100% Soil 1

Sil

ty s

an

d s

oil

(Gro

up

II)

0.789 55.9 74% Soil+ 26% Limestone 2

0.723 61.9 74 % Soil+ 26% Aswan clay 3

0.548 57.6 74 % Soil+ 26% Silty clay 4



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 85

Figure (13): Total electric power consumed to achieve the thermal comfort of

the technique of the compressed stabilized earth blocks manufactured from

the sandy gravel soil.

Figure (14) Saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various

mixtures compared to the control mixture (100% Gravel sand).

• Mixtures manufactured from Silty sand soil (Group II) (loads Bering).

The Figure (15) shows the total electric power consumed to achieve the thermal

comfort of the technique of the compressed stabilized earth bricks manufactured

from the sandy gravel soil. The Figure (16) shows the saving ratio of the electric

power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the control mixture

(mixture No. 1) which contains the soil, cement and water without any other

additions. The Figures shows that the rate of the annual electric power

consumption of the wall-based system of the bricks manufactured from the control



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 86

mixtures is (72064.04) KW/year. The mixtures containing additional materials,

whether limestone powder, Aswan clay or clay soil achieve saving in the power

consumption compared to the control mixture. The mixture containing the clay

soil achieves (74% Silty sand soil + 26% clay soil) which achieve the highest

saving ratio of the electric power (7.6%). The following mixture is the soil which

contains the Aswan clay (74% Silty sand soil + 26% Aswan clay) and achieves the

least saving ratio of electric power (3.9%). Finally, the soil which contains the

limestone powder (74% Silty sand soil + 26% limestone powder) (saving ratio of

1.7%) compared to the control mixtures (100% Silty sand soil). Therefore, it's

preferred to use a mixture of clay and Silty sand soil to achieve better results in

term of the thermal comfort, followed by the Aswan clay then the limestone

powder than using the soil without additional materials because these materials

improve the compressive resistance of the produced units which affects the

bearing strength of the walls.

Figure (15): Total electric power consumed to achieve the thermal comfort of the

technique of the compressed stabilized earth blocks manufactured from the Silty

sand soil.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 87

Figure (16) Saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various

mixtures compared to the control mixture (100% Silty sand).

The figure (17) shows the impact of the soil type on the electric power amount

consumed to achieve the thermal comfort. The figure (18) shows the saving ratio of

the electric power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the mixture

containing sandy soil, cement and water. The figure shows that the use of the

alluvial silty sand soil is generally useful in reducing the consuming ratio of the

electric power consumed to achieve the thermal comfort compared to the gravel

sand soil, as the saving ratio ranges from 7.6% to 12% as per the used material type.

Therefore, in the high-temperature areas, it is preferred to use silty sandy soil than

gravel sandy soil. It's also shown that the mixture containing the alluvial silty sandy

soil plus the alluvial silty clay achieve the highest saving ratio of the electric power

in general, followed by the mixture that contains alluvial sandy soil plus Aswan

clay while the silty sand soil achieve the highest consumption of the electric power.

Therefore, it's preferred to use a mixture of soil and some materials available in the

national environment to improve the resistance of the units and to reduce its

consumption of the electric power.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 88

Figure (17) Impact of the soil type on the electric power amount consumed to

achieve the thermal comfort

Figure (18): Saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various

mixtures (Control mix 100% gravel sand)



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 89

3.2 Comparison of the national bricks used in the Egyptian market:-

The various four types of the bricks nationally used in the Egyptian markets, are evaluated

and the following schedule demonstrates the results of evaluating bricks types in terms of

achieving the thermal comfort inside the residential building and rationalizing the electric

power consumption.

• There are four brick types available in the national market and they are compared as

follows:

1- Perforated Clay bricks. 2- Solid Clay bricks.

3- Perforated cement bricks. 4- Solid cements bricks.

The figure (19) shows the total consumption of the electric power for achieving the thermal

comfort by building system using bricks. It's also shown by the figures that the annual rate

of the electric power consumption of the wall-based system manufactured from the bricks

of the perforated cement bricks (83599.95) KW/year. The comparison between all various

types of the national bricks shows that the hollow clay bricks are the best alternative which

achieves the highest saving of the electric power consumption which is nationally

consumed in a percentage of 18.6% compared to the cement hollow bricks.

Figure (19) Total consumption of the electric power for achieving the thermal

comfort by building system bricks local.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 90

Table (3): Results of the simulation made from traditional bricks units.

Table (4): Results of the simulation compressed stabilized earth blocks units.

Comparison of the national bricks used in the Egyptian market:-

The various four types of the bricks nationally used in the Egyptian markets, are evaluated and the following schedule demonstrates the results of evaluating bricks types in terms of achieving the thermal comfort inside the residential building and rationalizing the electric power consumption.

There are four brick types available in the national market and they are compared as follows:

1- Perforated Clay bricks. 2- Solid Clay bricks.

3- Perforated cement bricks. 4- Solid cements bricks.

The schedule (20) shows the saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the perforated cement bricks. The shows that the use of the alluvial silty sandy soil generally reduces the consumption of the electric power used to achieve the thermal comfort compared to the perforated cement bricks, as the saving ratio is 33.2% as per the type of the added material.

The schedule (21) shows the saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the solid cement bricks and that the use of the alluvial silty sandy soil generally reduces the consumption of the electric power used to achieve the thermal comfort compared to the solid cement bricks, as the saving ratio is 29.5% as per the type of the material added.

Total

Cooling

(Kwh/year)

U-Value

W/m2.K

external

Walls 25cm

U-Value

W/m2.K

Internal

Walls 25cm

Specific

Heat

(J/kg.Co)

[61]

Density

(Kg/m3)

[61]

Thermal

conductivity

(W/m.k)

[61]

Types of Bricks

Mix

68060.62 1.705 1.478 840 1790 0.6 Perforated clay bricks 1

75652.73 1.961 2.381 829 1950 1.0 Solid clay bricks 2

83599.95 2.174 2.703 880 1800 1.6 Solid cement bricks 3

79183.70 2.402 2.402 880 1140 1.25 Perforated cement bricks 4

Specific Heat

(J/kg.Co)

Density

(Kg/m3)

Thermal Thermal Thermal Thermal

conductivityconductivityconductivityconductivity

(W/m.k)

Identification of the mix

Mix

Types

Earth

835 1892 1.069 100% Soil 1

Gra

vel

san

d s

oil

(Gro

up

I) 833 1930 1.034 74% Soil + 26% Limestone 2

830 1933 0.946 74% Soil + 26% Aswan clay 3

828 1844 0.756 74% Soil + 26 % Silty clay 4

829 1723 0.848 100% Soil 1

Sil

ty s

an

d s

oil

(Gro

up

II)

827 1715 0.789 74% Soil+ 26% Limestone 2

826 1756 0.723 74 % Soil+ 26% Aswan clay 3

825 1629 0.548 74 % Soil+ 26% Silty clay 4



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 91

The schedule (22) also shows the saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the solid clay bricks, as the saving ratio is 26.2% as per the type of the material added.

The schedule (23) also shows the saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures compared to the perforated clay bricks and that the use of the alluvial sandy soil generally reduces the consumption of the electric power used to achieve the thermal comfort compared to the perforated clay bricks as the saving ratio is 18% as per the type of the material added. Therefore, it's better in the high-temperature areas to use the silty sandy soil than the gravel sandy soil. It's shown that the mixture containing the silty sandy soil in addition to the alluvial silty clay soil gives the highest saving ratio of the electric power in general. The following mixture is that contains the alluvial sandy soil in addition to the limestone powder while the mixture which achieves contains the silty sand soil gives the highest consumption of the electric power. Thus, it's recommended to use a mixture of the soil in addition to some materials which is available in the national environment to improve the resistance of the units and to reduce its consumption of the electric power.

Figure (20): Saving ratio of the electric power consumed for the various mixtures

compared to the perforated cement bricks



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 92


compared to the solid cement bricks


compared to the solid clay bricks



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 93


compared to the perforated clay bricks.

6- CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the tests the following conclusions can be

drawn:-

1- Well graded soil is preferable to be used in the production of compressed

stabilized earth blocks.

2-Using the cement as a stabilizer improves the compressive strength of earth

cubes. For economic thought, 8% cement content was selected as a control

mix for all in incoming experimentations.

3- Gravel sandy soil is better is better than silty -sand soil. Moreover, it is

better to use cement an addition at 6% and 8% ratio to have a suitable

compressive strength results, regardless of soil type without the need of using

high percentages of cement which is good for environmental and economic

points of view.

4- The using the silty sandy soils than the gravel sandy soils are better in the

high-temperature areas. It's shown that the mixture containing the silty sandy

soil in addition to the alluvial silty clay soil gives the highest saving ratio of

the electric power.

5- The use of the alluvial silty sandy soil reduces the consumption of the

electric power used to achieve the thermal comfort compared to the perforated

cement bricks, solid clay bricks and perforated clay bricks as the saving ratio

is 33.2%, 26.2% and 18.2% respectively as per the type of the added material.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 94

7- Future Researches

1- Future researches are needed to investigate and study the durability of

CSEBs.

2- Economical study should be performed for both using soils and

stabilizes.

3- Theoretical model should be investigated and compared with results

from the experimental program.

4- Low cost and less energy consumption of CSEB should be studied.

Acknowledgements

The authors are gratefully acknowledge the financial support from Beni-Suef

University, university performance development center, support and project finance

office.

Reference

]1[ E. A. Adam and A. R. A. Agib, “Compressed stabilised earth block

manufacture in Sudan,” Fr. Paris Print. by Graphoprint UNESCO, 2001.

[2] M. N. El-Menshawy, The Effect of Building Technology and the Environment

on the Architectural Space and Its Role in Achieving Thermal Comfort. MA,

Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, 2014.

[3] M. El-Esawy, Effect of the exterior design of the building on the thermal

acquisition and thermal comfort of the users, a curriculum for the environmental

design of the external envelope of the buildings. MA, Department of Architecture,

Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, 2003.

[4] M. Zimmermann, H.-J. Althaus, A. Haas, Benchmarks for sustainable

construction a contribution to develop a standard, Energy and Buildings 37 (2005)

1147–1157.

[5] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Environmental life cycle assessment of a

commercial office building in Thailand, International Journal of Life cycle

Assessment (2008).

[6] S. Junnila, A. Horvath, A.A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of office

buildings in Europe and the United States, Journal of Infrastructure Systems (2006)

10–17.

[7] B.L.P. Peuportier, Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation

of single family houses in the French context, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001) 443–

450.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 95

[8] K. Adalberth, A. Almgren, E.H. Petersen, Life cycle assessment of four

multifamily buildings, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable

Buildings 2 (2001) 1–21.

[9] S. Seo, Y. Hwang, Estimation of CO emissions in life cycle of residential

buildings, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127 (5) (2001)

414–418.

10- Césaire Hema 1,2,* , Adamah Messan 1 , Abdou Lawane 1 and Geo_rey Van

Moeseke 2, Impact of the Design of Walls Made of Compressed Earth Blocks on

the Thermal Comfort of Housing in Hot Climate. Buildings (2020), 10, 157.

[11] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and

lowenergy buildings: a review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 249–257.

[12] K. Adalberth, Energy use in four multi-family houses during their life cycle,

International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1 (1999) 1–20.

[13] S. Citherlet, T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants

of a family house during its whole life span, Building and Environment 42 (2007)

591–598.

[14] B.N. Winther, A.G. Hestnes, Solar versus green: the analysis of a Norwegian

Row House, Solar Energy 66 (6) (1999) 387–393.

[15] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy,

energy need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37

(2002) 429–435.

[16] H. Schroeder, “The Development of Earth Building,” in Sustainable Building

with Earth",Springer, pp. 1–46, 2016.

[18] “Egyptian code for earth building SEBs,” in pp.395, 2017, .

[19] Brambilla, A.; Bonvin, J.; Flourentzou, F.; Jusselme, T. On the influence of

thermal mass and natural ventilation on overheating risk in oces. Buildings 2018, 8,

47.

[20] - Sore, S.O.; Messan, A.; Prud’Homme, E.; Escadeillas, G.; Tsobnang, F.

Stabilization of compressed earth blocks (CEBs) by geopolymer binder based on

local materials from Burkina Faso. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 165, 333–345.



ISSN No : 1006-7930

Page No: 96

Impact of Using Stabilized Earth Blocks on the Thermal comfort

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Using Stabilized Earth Blocks on the Thermal comfort