USEP 9(2) T SBP a Civil PON 2013

Kamara, et al. USEP: Journal of Research Information in Civil Engineering, 9(2), 2012

Modelling the Prism of Termitarium-Strawbale Composite Masonry for its Bearing

Capacity

V. S. Kamara1, and D. P. Katale2 and A. A. Adedeji3

1,2Department of Civil Engineering, University of Science & Technology (former Polytechnic of Namibia),

Windhoek, Namibia3Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin,

Nigeria

Abstract

The paper reports the response of termitarium-strawbale composite prism (T-SBP) and its accessibility to be used under compression (vertical) and thermal(lateral) loads, using SAP2000 for the finite element method of analysis. The analysis was carried out considering the same thickness of T-SBP formed rectangular section with different heights. The parameters of stresses under certain pressures and their comparative results were obtained from stresses and applied loads. The comparison of the results between the termitarium plastered strawbale masonry and the cement plastered strawbale masonry shows that the former has much more stresses affected by the loadings than the later, given that maximum stress for termitarium plastered strawbale wall is 62.2kN/m2 and of the cement is 9.6kN/m2.

KeywordsSAP2000, termitarium, strawbale, prism, stress rectangular masonry, composite, finite element method.

1 Introduction

1.1 Termitarium

Because of the climatic condition in mostpart of the Namibia,shapes and sizes of habited and abandoned termite moulds do exist,

228


especially along the Namibian coast line where they are found in abundance. With the present quest for arable land, the spread of such moulds limit the usage of such land, hence the need to look at alternative use of such moulds that will benefit society According to recent surveys (Kamara and Katale, 2012), one of the areas where soil in such moulds can be beneficial is in the construction of affordable or low cost housing especially traditional African housesthat spans far back as in the 18th and 19th century. Survey conducted by one of the authors revealed that most of the traditional African houses that have been in existence for decades and sometime centuries with little or low maintenance are one way or the other made of termitarium or soils that have similar properties with it. Moisture content and other engineering parameters were investigated in both scenarios and their engineering properties were deduced. The finding revealed technical information of habited stabilized termitarium and the maximum compressive strength of 7 N/mm2 with the 50% mix proportion compared favourably with that of standard bricks widely used in the construction industry in Namibia. The research opens the way for extensive research on the viability of using such material and any closely related soil properties to termitarium in construction industry.

1.2 Strawbale

Each year grain farmers battle with the remains of their harvest, straw. Straw doesn't decompose very rapidly and becomes a burden for the farmers. The burning of straw produces CO2. Enough straw is produced everywhere in the world reaching over 100 million ton, from farms and wilds in their natural habitats, every year and its burning produces 1.85 million ton of CO2, for which many efforts were directed to find alternatives to burning of straw. Walls, from plastered strawbale blocks, provide super insulated houses (against heat or cold) with a reduction in CO2 emission; cause a net decrease in greenhouse gas emission; and provide U-value (thermal transmittance/(unit area and temperature)) of 0.13 compared with conventional sandcrete wall of 3.3. The wall is cost effective; and currently it costs 0.25 of sandcrete wall (Adedeji 2010,Nehemiah 2003). Commonly used inorganic building insulating materials are

229


mineral wool and lightweight concretes, foam glass, fiberglass, plastic foams, styro-foam and expanded perlite(Manoharand Yarbrough, 2003). Besides their long-term financial benefit are the useof inorganic insulating materials that may be harmful to human health and body and also can causeenvironmental pollution, such as emissions of toxic gas and particle, and stick to skin (Liangand Ho, 2007). Also, the production of these materials is highly energy intensive and theeventual disposal is an environmental hazard (Panyakaew and Fotios, 2008). Therefore,alternative materials having same or better properties as the conventional material need tobe explored as it can offer lower cost (Mohd et al., 2011).

One of the alternative materials that has been widely investigated is the strawbale material which is very innocuous and can be used as a structural and durable element for a two-storey building to replace sandcrete wall.

2. Methodology

A typical example of prototype stacked strawbale plastered with termitarium soil is shown in Figure 1 from which different prism heights were cut out, subjected to compression and thermal loads. The data collected for the proper execution of this project were collected from these properties data are presented in the Table 1.

Special attention was paid to the wall models for its time-dependence due to static loads from thermal and compressive forces for the analyses and optimisation design. Eigen-value solutions were embarked upon using two applications using SAP2000 and LISA. In the analysis, the masonry panels, in the form of prism, were provided for the prescribed loads for various heights, while the strawbalesize remained constant for various termitarium thicknesses of 10, 15, and 25 mm.

230

Composite wall

One-string strawbale blockFigure 1 Plastering of stacked strawbale blocks with termitarium soil


Table1 Materials property for termitarium-strawbale prism (T-SBP)Property of sample of T-SBP Detail Data (Static

analysis)Sample material Termitarium-

Strawbale Prism Elastic modulus (E) N/mm2

Termitarium 6000.00Strawbale 200.00

Poison’s ratio Termitarium 0.30Strawbale 0.23

Dimension of T-SBP Strawbale 890mm x 220mm x 220mm

Vertical load, kN T-SBP 42

Thermal horizontal equivalent load, kN

T-SBP 1.92

Moisture Contents Termitarium 17.50 %

Strawbale 5.5%

231


Saturated density (average), kN/m3

Termitarium 34.45

Strawbale 23.20

Bulk density (Average), kN/m3

Termitarium 12.16

Strawbale 22.3

Compressive Strength, N/mm2

Termitarium(5% mix propotion )

7.992

Strawbale 2.23

Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

Termitarium (7 -25 0C)

0.020 – 0.035

Strawbale (@220-400mm thick and 15-220 kN/m3, 15-32 oC)

0.055 – 0.085

Table 2 Other properties of materials units

Elements Density ( kN/m3) E (N/mm2.E2) c

Roof 24.0 24.82 0.20Foundation 24.0 24.82 0.20Strawbale 22.3 2.00 0.30Cement plaster 19.0 20.25 0.20Earth plaster 19.62 21.20 0.15

Source: Bruce (2003) and Adedeji (2006)Note: E = modulus of elasticity, c = Poisson ratio, Concrete grade @ 30N/mm2

2. 1 Modelling ProcedurePreparation of model and analytical data Definition of problem with aims and objectives for the

sources of facts and data, using SAP2000 Simplification of dimensions for 2D modelling Ascertaining the model for time-dependent(dynamics) or

time-independent(static)

232


Quality of database was considered before proceeding for modelling

2.2 Initial and Boundary Conditions

These are to be fixed before the commencement of the analysis using software: e.g., essential, natural and mixed boundary conditions.

2.3 Solutions

Preparation of mathematical formulation Qualitative formulation: the need to explore without expletively

solving qualitative analysis Quantitative formulation: by taking into consideration the

analytical, physical and computation method.Pre-processing and post-processingWhen FEM is to be considered, the two above are carried out: Pre-processing, here parameters were given as domain

geometry, initial and boundary conditions and constants for the problem formulation. - Value of universal constants;- Formulation of grid; mesh generation of the domain into

mesh generation that encompasses decretisation of the domain in to elements/nodal points;

- Dimensioning for 2D; and- Performing the real simulation of the problem with

particular numerical method.(In other words, this involvesdmodeling of the structure, specifying the type and strength of the materials, applying all the relevant loads and specifying the code to be used for the analysisand design)

Post-processing: Results were obtained and processed for the reflection in terms of tables, charts, graphs, contours, bar charts etc. (i.e. This stage involves the interpretation of the results produced by the software (Adedeji, 2007).

233


3. Analysis Investigation

In order to carry out the analysis, Eigenvaluesolution was obtained by the application of SAP2000 in the following sequences:

- Creation of model;- Finite element incidences;- End conditions;- Load application;- Solution – analysis types;- Analysis of the input; and- Extent of output results.

The prism masonry panel wassystematicallysubjectedto compressive and horizontal thermal loads for various heights of the panel. Response of the panels, leading to the variation in stresseswas observed to conclude results.

3.1 Termitarium-Strawbale Prism (panel) Dimensions

1 bale size is 890mm x 220mm x 220mm (LP x BP x HP) (Bruce, 2006)Prism (plastered strawbale at Hp= 470 mm) has size: 890mm x 240mm x 480mm (including termitarium plaster thicknesstT = 10mm on each side).Prism (plastered strawbale at Hp = 710 mm) has size: 890mm x 240mm x 710mm (including termitarium plaster thicknesstT = 10mm on each side).Prism (plastered strawbale at Hp = 1040 mm) has size: 890mm x 240mm x 1040mm (including termitarium plaster thickness tT = 10mm (minimum thickness on each side). See Figure 2 for the variation in slenderness ratio.

3.2 Application of Loads

Vertical load N = NB + NT

at NT=2NB, then load on NB = N = NT + 0.5NT

Where NB = compression load on strawbale and NT = compression load on termitarium panels. It is assumed that 2tT +tB = BP

234

890 mm

tBtT

BpB

890 m

m

890

mm

tT

HpB

BpB


Figure 2Termitarium-strawbale prism of different slendernessratio ()

4. Modal Analysis

4.1 Design of a Plastered Strawbale Wall

The optimal design using finite element was embarked upon and was based on conduction, convection, cost function and loading. Analyses were given below on how the constraints for conduction, convection, and cost function and loading equations were generated, how data was input appropriately and arrived at required solutions. Figure 3 shows the cross-section of strawbale wall of a building and also shows the loading applied to the wall. Where HP = height of the strawbale wall, tB = thickness of the strawbale (28tT mm), tT = thickness of the plaster (15mm each), BP = total thickness of the plastered strawbale wall (30tp mm), b = breadth of the wall (assumed value = 1000mm), ww = wind load (0.33kN/m height (Asonibare 2007, Adedeji and Ige 2011)), Q = heat transfer through

235

wr(kN/m)

Strawbale

Plaster(Termitarium soil)

wf(42 kN/m)

wh(kN/m)

Q

tB tT

BP

u (kN/m)

Hp


the plastered strawbale wall, wf = foundation load, wr = roof load, u = earth pressure (upthrust).

tT

Figure 3 Cross section of a strawbale wall with applied loading.

In order to determine the stress generated in the T-SBP, isoparametric element represented in Figure 4 was used.

236

4

12

3

b

a

r

s

Element type I


Figure 4 Isoparametric element definitions

4.2. Generation of Equations for the Discrete Elements.

The elements are higher order two–dimensional isoparametric quadrilateral and triangular elements. For the quadrilateral elements aselement type 1 is shown in Figure 4, while its shape function is expressed in Equation (1) and other interpolation functions are shown in Equations (2) to (11).. The interpolation function (Shape function) is defined for the four nodal points as;

N1=14

(1+r ) (1+s)

N2=14

(1−r ) (1+s )

N 3=14

(1−r ) (1−s )

N 4=14

(1+r ) (1−s )} (1)

Hence, the coordinate interpolation for the element is;

237


x=N 1 x1+N2 x2+N3 x3+N 4 x4

y=N1 y1+N2 y2+N3 x3+N 4 y4} (2)

And the displacement interpolation function is also given as;

u=N1 u1+N2u2+N3 u3+N4 u4

v=N1 v1+N 2 v2+N 3 v3+N 4 v4} (3)

The element strain is given as;

ε T=[ εxx ε yy γ xy ] (4)

where;

ε xx=∂u∂ x

: ε yy=∂ v∂ y

¿ γ xy=∂ u∂ y

+ ∂ v∂ x

(5)

Evaluating the displacement, we need to evaluate

∂∂ r

=J∂

∂ x(6)

Where J is the Jacobian operator, shown as;

{ ∂∂r∂

∂ s} ¿ [ ∂ x

∂r∂ y∂r

∂ x∂ s

∂ y∂ s

] { ∂∂ x∂

∂ y} (7)

For any value of r and s, – 1 ≤ r ≤ + 1 and –1 ≤ s ≤ +1,r = riand s = sj

The stiffness matrix is calculated from,

238


[ K ]=∫v

❑

[B ]T [D ] [B ]dv ¿ [ K ]= [B ]T [ D ] [ B ] tA (8)

The element stress is given as;

{σ }=[C ] {ε }=[C ] [B ] {q }={σ x

σ y

τ xy} (9)

where

σx=E

1−ν2 ε xx+νE

1−ν2 ε y

σ y=νE

1−ν2 εxx+E

1−ν2 ε y

τ xy=E

2 (1−ν2 )γ xy

} (10)

also,

[C ]= E1−ν2 [1 ν 0

ν 1 0

0 01−ν

2] (11)

5. A Typical Analytical Example

In order to verify the capability of this numerical procedure, the following assumptions are made for the termitarium plastered strawbale wall and the properties in Table 1 were also considered. With the use of SAP2000 (Adedeji and Ige 2011,Lofti 2001), the analytical example shown in Figure 5 refers to show the effects of contact between the strawbale and the plastering composition. A particular value was entered on a computer system, using SAP2000, as the applied loads and quantities of the heat energies, which was

239

wr(42 kN/m)

Strawbale

Plaster(Termitarium soil)

wf(42 kN/m)

wh(2.25kN/m)

Hp(0.47, 0.71, 1.0m )

Q

tB (220 ~ 240) tT

BP(240 ~ 450)

u (10.0 kN/m)


transferred by conduction and convection i.e. Composite (combined) stress constraint values of height, h, = 0.48, 0.71 and 1.01 m with total maximum thickness, BP, = 0.45m.

5.1 Stability Analyses

The loading on the strawbale structure used in this work is basically the static loading i.e. applied loads (both vertical and horizontal loading), the load due to the self weight of the wall and the upthrust.

These loadings are shown below:

(a) Vertical Loading(i) Upthrust, U = 0.5γhbt for quadrilateral structures = 4.5 kN

In which γ = density of water, h = height of upthrust, b = breadth of upthrust, t = thickness.

240


tT

Figure 5 Termiterium-strawbale wall under loads

(ii) Foundation load and roof load (assumed) Wf = Wr = 18kN

(iii) Plaster self weight,WT = γVT= 8.83kN

(iv) Strawbaleself weight,WB = γVB= 10.04kN

Therefore, total vertical loading = 42.24 kN

(b) Horizontal Loading

(i) Wind load,

(ii) Heat transfer, Wq= (0.3 + 1.62) = 1.92kN/m x 1 = 1.92kN

Therefore, total horizontal loading = 1.92 + 0.33 = 2.25kN

(c) Sliding Criteria

Factor of safety; F.S. = Net vertical loading= 18.67 Net Horizontal loading

Therefore, (18.67 kN> 1.6, Hence, sliding criteria is favorably satisfied.

241


5.2 Stresses Analysis Using SAP2000

The Figures 6 –12show the diagrammatic procedure for the analytical example (combined loading) from SAP2000 on how the structure has been analyzed for the prism slenderness ratio, = 2 and 3). It should be noted that all the analysed prism have zero coordinates origin at their principal axes.

242


Figure 6Applied loads on termitarium plastered strawbale wall( = 2,3)

243


Figure 7 Deformed shape oftermitarium plastered strawbale wall ( =2,3)

244


Figure 8 Shear force diagram of termitarium plastered strawbale wall

( = 2,3)

245


Figure 9 Bending moment diagram of termitarium plastered strawbale wall( =2,3)

246


Figure 10 Minimum stress diagram of termitarium plastered strawbalewall( =3)

247


Figure 11Maximum stress diagram of termitarium plastered strawbale wall ( =3)

248


Figure 12 Both minimum and maximum stress diagram of termitarium-plastered strawbale wall( =3)

However, Figure 13 shows the discretization of the wall into finite elements. The results shown in Table 3are the typical values of

249


the stresses from the analytical example (combined loading) from SAP2000 and the stresses between the plaster composition and the strawbale as well as the stresses in the middle of the strawbale.

Figure 13 Discretization of the plastered strawbale wall

Table 3 Stresses within the termitarium plastered strawbale wall.Are Area S11Top S22Top SMaxTop SMinTop SAngleTop

250


a ElemText

kN/m2 Degrees

12 1 1.91 44.56 47.09 -0.62 -76.682

12 1 -9.38 14.4 16.7 -11.68 -73.456

12 1 3.77 -15.52 6.49 -18.24 -19.387

12 1 -1.32 -44.44 1.19 -46.95 -13.191

13 2 -4.58 -60.78 -1.23 -64.13 13.344

13 2 2.51 -21.78 6.69 -25.96 20.962

13 2 -10.84 20.12 23.57 -14.3 72.414

13 2 4.68 60.8 64.16 1.33 76.639

14 3 -9.93 14.29 15.16 -10.8 -79.43

14 3 -0.28 4.78 6.03 -1.54 -65.978

14 3 -1.01 -5.04 0.43 -6.49 -27.228

14 3 4.23 -15.43 5.29 -16.49 -12.737

15 4 2.97 -21.69 5.06 -23.77 15.588

15 4 -0.65 -3.2 3.59 -7.43 38.304

15 4 -0.73 2.92 6.76 -4.57 54.419

15 4 -11.41 20 21.69 -13.09 77.294

16 5 -1.62 4.51 5.35 -2.47 -70.846

16 5 -0.74 4.16 5.13 -1.7 -67.883

16 5 -0.2 -4.34 0.89 -5.43 -24.482

16 5 0.74 -4.69 1.66 -5.61 -20.884

17 6 1.06 -2.86 4.4 -6.2 34.163

17 6 0.41 -1.93 4.27 -5.79 38.248

17 6 -1.01 1.82 5.49 -4.69 53.058

17 6 -2.35 2.6 5.63 -5.39 58.345

18 7 -1.81 46.45 49.42 -4.77 -76.474

18 7 -0.092 44.16 47.26 -3.19 -75.645

18 7 -3.64 -44.9 -0.34 -48.2 -15.213

18 7 -2.06 -47.23 1.08 -50.37 -14.31

251


19 8 -5.48 -64.33 -1.51 -68.31 14.126

19 8 -6.91 -61.25 -2.74 -65.41 14.941

19 8 3.85 60.64 64.65 -0.16 75.596

19 8 1.98 63.63 67.45 -1.84 76.423

Table 3contd

S11Bot S22Bot S12Bot SMaxBot SMinBot SAngleBot

KN/m2

Degrees

-3.86 -44.95 10.68 -1.25 -47.56 13.73

7.43 -14.79 7.79 9.89 -17.25 17.528

-5.32 15.21 7.79 17.83 -7.94 71.392

-0.23 44.13 10.68 46.57 -2.67 77.149

3.03 60.47 -13.9 63.66 -0.16 -77.083

-4.06 21.47 -10.77 25.41 -8 -69.92

8.78 -20.53 -10.77 12.31 -24.06 -18.162

-6.75 -61.22 -13.9 -3.4 -64.56 -13.524

8.15 -14.64 4.73 9.09 -15.58 11.27

-1.49 -5.13 2.9 0.11 -6.74 28.952

-0.53 4.73 2.9 6.01 -1.82 66.096

-5.77 15.12 4.73 16.14 -6.8 77.819

-4.52 21.38 -7.33 23.31 -6.45 -75.252

-0.9 2.89 -5.27 6.6 -4.61 -54.886

-1.1 -3.29 -5.27 3.19 -7.58 -39.137

9.57 -20.37 -7.33 11.27 -22.07 -13.038

.0186 -4.83 2.51 1.08 -5.9 22.991

-0.87 -4.48 2.49 0.4 -5.75 27.023

0.2 4.34 2.49 5.51 -0.97 64.903

-0.74 4.69 2.51 5.67 -1.72 68.615

-1.19 2.83 -4.84 6.06 -4.42 -56.288

-0.13 1.99 -4.82 5.87 -4.01 -51.205

252


-1.34 -2.29 -4.82 3.03 -6.66 -42.21

0.11 -3.05 -4.84 3.62 -6.56 -35.962

-0.6 -46.94 12.32 2.47 -50.01 14.004

-2.32 -44.64 12.1 0.9 -47.85 14.879

-0.38 44.1 12.1 47.18 -3.45 75.726

-1.95 46.43 12.32 49.38 -4.91 76.502

1.47 63.53 -15.61 67.24 -2.23 -76.648

2.89 60.45 -15.39 64.3 -0.97 -75.929

-6.26 -61.12 -15.39 -2.24 -65.14 -14.649

Table 3 cntd

SVMBot S13Avg S23Avg SMaxAvg SAngleAvg

KN/m2 Degrees

46.94 -8.96 -27.37 28.8 -108.13

23.79 -8.96 -7.67 11.8 -139.43

22.86 4.04 -7.67 8.67 -62.257

47.95 4.04 -27.37 27.66 -81.612

63.74 5.63 38.03 38.44 81.577

30.21 5.63 11.46 12.77 63.839

32.04 -12.32 11.46 16.83 137.066

62.93 -12.32 38.03 39.97 107.954

21.62 7.65 -8.45 11.4 -47.822

6.8 7.65 -1.81 7.86 -13.329

7.1 -4.16 -1.81 4.54 -156.458

20.4 -4.16 -8.45 9.42 -116.23

27.12 -2.88 12.26 12.59 103.201

9.75 -2.88 0.4 2.9 172.084

9.58 8.47 0.4 8.48 2.703

29.37 8.47 12.26 14.9 55.359

6.5 9.96 -2.78 10.34 -15.591

253


5.96 9.96 -2.55 10.28 -14.349

6.05 -10.31 -2.55 10.62 -166.123

6.7 -10.31 -2.78 10.68 -164.918

9.11 -8.48 1.63 8.64 169.141

8.6 -8.66 1.06 8.72 173.036

8.58 15.36 1.03 15.4 3.829

8.94 14.98 1.57 15.06 6.003

51.29 19.16 -28.79 34.59 -56.351

48.31 19.16 -27.25 33.32 -54.884

49 -17.44 -27.25 32.35 -122.614

52.01 -17.44 -28.79 33.66 -121.201

68.38 -15.74 40.29 43.26 111.338

64.79 -15.74 38.26 41.37 112.359

64.05 20.94 38.26 43.62 61.312

6. Discussion of Results

It was observed from the analysis that the minimum and maximum stresses between the plaster compositions and the strawbale material shows that the use of termitarium plaster can hold a strawbale from deflecting for the wall prism of HP = 2. The adequacy of this type of design can be measured in terms of the minimum acceptable drift of the strawbale work system. The minimum acceptable drift is given by as 1m ≤ HP ≤ 4m and 0.36m ≤ BP ≤ 0.45 m, where BP is the maximum thickness attained, HP is the height of the strawbale wall. For the height of the strawbale HP = 1m and thickness, BP = 0.45m, the maximum stresses allowable and calculated using SAP2000 are also shown in the Tables 4 and 5 for both cement (Adedeji, 2011) and termitarium plaster composition.

Table 4.Minimum and maximum stresses between each of the plaster compositions and thestrawbale material.

Outside plaster

Inside plaster

254


Plaster composition

Minimum stress

Maximum stress

Minimum stress

Maximum stress

*Cement -9.8 9.6 -19.3 18.3

Termitarium -60.0 62.2 -6.3 6.5*Adedeji (2011)

Table 5Differences between the allowable and calculated stresses for both plaster compositions.

Wall composition Maximum allowable stress

Maximum calculated stress using SAP2000

*Cement plastered strawbale wall

70.14kN/m2 38.836kN/m2

Termitarium plastered strawbale wall

73.14kN/m2 67.452kN/m2

*Adedeji (2011)

7. Concluding Remarks

Termitarium plastered strawbale wall as a material has shown adequate resistance against vertical loading, as there are referenced evidences in this case. In the same vein, the comparison of the results between that of termitarium plastered strawbale wall and of the cement show that the earth wall has much more stresses affected by loading than the cement (i.e. maximum stress for termitarium plastered strawbale wall is 62.2kN/m2 and of cement is 9.6kN/m2). This implies that under higher load, which isabove the allowable stresses, the collapse or response of the strawbaleTermitariummasonry will be significantly higher compared to that of cement strawbale masonry.

Also the allowable stresses (i.e. 70.14kN/m2 for cement plastered strawbale masonry and 73.14kN/m2 for termitarium plastered strawbale masonry) are lower than that of the calculated stresses using SAP2000, i.e. 38.836kN/m2 for cement plastered strawbale masonry and 64.2kN/m2 for the termitarium plastered strawbale masonry, which implies that the stress stability of the plastered strawbale wall are adequate after using the best fit variables for wall design.

255


From this work, it could also be recommended that further work be done on this project to incorporate other aspects on other plaster composition to produce optimum solutions to engineering problems.

References

Adedeji A A and S. P. Ige, (2011) Comparative Study of Seismic Analysis for Reinforced Concrete Frame Infilled with masonry and Shape Memory Alloy Wire, Trends in Applied Science Research, Academic Journal Inc., 6(5), pp 426-437, DOI:10.3923/tasr.2011.426-437.

Adedeji, A. A. (2010), Interaction Analysis and Optimal Design of Composite Action of Plastered Straw Bale, Multidiscipline Modeling in Materials and Structures, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2011, pp. 146-169, DOI 10.1108/15736101111157091

Adedeji, A. A. (2007), Introduction and Design of Straw bale Masonry, Olad Publishers & Printing Enterprises.

Adedeji, A. A. (2002), “Thermal Effects on the Bearing Capacity of Earth Wall in Optimal Design”, Association for the Advancement of Modelling and Simulation Techniques in Enterprises (AMSE), France, Modelling B-2002, Vol.71.No.3, pp.17 – 28.

Adedeji, A. A. (2006), “Seismic Analysis of Earth Wall Gravity Dams Using Decoupled Modal Approach”, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ilorin, Global Research Publication, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 1-17.Amazon nails (2001), “Information guide to straw-bale building”, Nebraska, pp 1-82.

Bruce King, (2003), “Load-bearing straw bale structures—a summary of testing and experience to date”, Ecological Building Network (EBNet), www.ecobuildnetwork.org/strawbale.

256

http://www.ecobuildnetwork.org/strawbale


Bruce King (2006), “Design of Straw Bale Buildings”, Green Building Press, San Rafael, CA.

Kamara, V. S. and D. P.Katale. 2012. Comparison of the Compressive Strength of StabilisedTermitarium Brick with Conventional Concrete Bricks Produced in Namibia, Proceedings of CIVIL2012 @ UNILORIN 4th Annual &2nd International Conference of Civil Engineering, 4-6 July, 2012, pp.225 – 232.

Liang, H.H., M. C. Ho. 2007. Toxicity characteristics of commercially manufactured insulation materials for building applications in Taiwan. Construction BuildingMaterials, 21, pp.1254-1261

Lofti, V. (2001), “Seismic Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams using Decoupled Modal Approach in Time Domain”, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, www.ejse.org, pp.102 – 116.

Manohar, K., Yarbrough, D.W. (2003). A comparison of Biodegradable Fiber Insulation withConventional Fibrous Insulation, Proceedings of the International Conference onThermal Insulation, Volume 18, January 13–15, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia,U.S.A., Product Safety Corporation, pp.133-140.

Miller, B. E. (1992), “Optimization of building design variables”, MS, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Co.

Mohd, Y.Y., H. Sihombing, A. R. Jeefferie, M. A. Z. Ahmad, A. G. Balamurugan, M. N. Norazman, A. Shohaimi. 2011. Optimization of coconut fibers toward heat insulator applications. Global Engineers & Technologist Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp.35-40.Nehemiah. S, (2003), “Thermal performance of a strawbale wall system and ecological building network”,www.ecobuildnetwork, pp 1-7.

Panyakaew, S., S. Fotios.(2008). Agricultural waste materials as thermal insulation for dwellings in Thailand. Preliminary Results,

257

http://www.ecobuildnetwork/

http://www.ejse.org/


PLEA 2008–25th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Dublin, 22nd to 24th October 2008.

258

USEP 9(2) T SBP a Civil PON 2013

Documents

Transcript of USEP 9(2) T SBP a Civil PON 2013