A Comparative Analysis Between the Egyptian Code, Auroville Code and Brazilian Standards for Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks/Bricks

The awareness of constructing with compressed stabilized earth bricks (CSEB) as an appropriate technology in Egypt is increasing. The Department of Architectural Engineering at MSA University took the initiative of sending a group of students and staff members to Auroville Earth Institute in India to attend an intensive training on the production of CSEB; the University however has preferred to import a hydraulic motorized press machine from Brazil instead of the Indian manual one. In this context, this paper aims at analytically comparing and highlighting similarities and differences between The Egyptian Code for Building with Stabilized Earth, Production and Use of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks – Code of Practice of Auroville Earth Institute in India and The Brazilian specifications for Ecological Bricks. The comparison covers the following points: 1) Soil selection, 2) Cement stabilization, 3) Compressive strengths and water absorption requirements, 4) Production, 5) Stacking and curing, 6) Types of foundations, and 7) Allowed building heights. It was found out that Brazil requires fewer precautions for producing CSEB. Also it accepts more sand content in selecting the suitable soil and recommends sieving the sandy soil on a 4.75 mm mesh instead of 10 mm (Egypt and India), which is widely available in the Egyptian market. Moreover, calculating and measuring the ingredients following the Brazilian Standards is easier and more user-friendly, but not as accurate as the other two codes though. The required compressive strengths in Egypt and India are similar but are double the figures required in Brazil; and the percentage of water absorption is much higher in Brazil, reaching double the first two codes. This means that the bricks approved for construction withstands less load and humidity. Although the remarkably shorter curing period in Brazil would make the produced bricks weak and not durable, together with the fewer stacking stages make the Brazilian production more tempting to follow. One should take into account though that the reasons behind this short curing could be the higher cement content in the mixture, the less strict physical requirements and the use of hydraulic press machines, widely available in Brazil. Finally, Brazil (3 floors) stands in the middle ground between Egypt (2 floors) and India (4 floors) in terms of the allowed building heights; this is in case of building loadbearing walls with CSEB.

Department

Architecture

Publisher

American Institute of Science (Public Science Framework) + EKB

Sponsor

MSA University

Copyright

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

cbn