Modeling the Prism of Termitarium-Strawbale Composite Masonry for its Bearing Capacity

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

227

Modelling the Prism of Termitarium-

Strawbale Composite Masonry for its Bearing

Capacity

V. S. Kamara1, and D. P. Katale

2 and A. A. Adedeji

3

1,2Department of Civil Engineering, Namibia University of Science

& Technology (former Polytechnic of Namibia),

Windhoek, Namibia 3Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin,

Nigeria

Abstract

The paper reports the response of termitarium-strawbale composite

prism (T-SBP) 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 allowable stress, due to compression and thermal loads,

for termitarium plastered strawbale wall is 62.2kN/m2 and of the

cement is 9.6kN/m2.

Keywords SAP2000, termitarium, strawbale, prism, stress rectangular

masonry, composite, finite element method.

1 Introduction

1.1 Termitarium

Because of the climatic condition in most part 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 houses

that 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

mineral wool and lightweight concretes, foam glass, fiberglass,


229

plastic foams, styro-foam and expanded perlite (Manohar and

Yarbrough, 2003). Besides their long-term financial benefit are the

use of inorganic insulating materials that may be harmful to human

health and body and also can cause environmental pollution, such as

emissions of toxic gas and particle, and stick to skin (Liang and Ho,

2007). Also, the production of these materials is highly energy

intensive and the eventual 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

strawbale size remained constant for various termitarium

thicknesses of 10, 15, and 25 mm.


230

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 6000.00

Strawbale 200.00

Poison’s ratio Termitarium 0.30

Strawbale 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%

(a) Composite wall

(b) One-string strawbale block

Figure 1 Plastering of stacked strawbale blocks with termitarium soil


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

Source: Bruce (2003) and Adedeji (2006)

Note: E = modulus of elasticity, c = Poisson ratio, Concrete grade

@ 30N/mm2

2. 1 Modelling Procedure Preparation 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)

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

Roof 24.0 24.82 0.20

Foundation 24.0 24.82 0.20

Strawbale 22.3 2.00 0.30

Cement plaster 19.0 20.25 0.20

Earth plaster 19.62 21.20 0.15


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-processing

When 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 involves

modeling 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 analysis and 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, Eigenvalue solution 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 was systematically subjected to

compressive and horizontal thermal loads for various heights of the

panel. Response of the panels, leading to the variation in stresses

was 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 thickness tT =

10mm on each side).

Prism (plastered strawbale at Hp = 710 mm) has size: 890mm x


10mm on each side).

Prism (plastered strawbale at Hp = 1040 mm) has size: 890mm x


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

Figure 2Termitarium-strawbale prism of different slenderness

ratio ()

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 involved expressions for the constraints of conduction,

convection, and cost function for the generation of loading equations,

while data was input to obtain the 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 (30tT 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 the plastered strawbale wall, wf =

foundation load, wr = roof load, u = earth pressure (upthrust).

𝜆 =𝐻𝑝

𝐵𝑝= 2 𝜆 =

𝐻𝑝

𝐵𝑝= 3 𝜆 =

𝐻𝑝

𝐵𝑝= 4

890 mm

tB tT

Bp

B

890 mm 890 mm

tT

Hp

B

Bp

B


235

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.

wr(kN/m)

Strawbale

Plaster

(Termitarium soil)

wf(42 kN/m)

wh(kN/m)

Q

tB tT

BP

u (kN/m)

Hp


236

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 = 1

4 1 + r 1 + s

N2 = 1

4 1 − r 1 + s

N3 = 1

4 1 − r 1 − s

N4 = 1

4 1 + r 1 − s

(1)

Hence, the coordinate interpolation for the element is;

x = N1x1 + N2x2 + N3x3 + N4x4

y = N1y1 + N2y2 + N3x3 + N4y4 (2)

4

1 2

3

b

a

r

s

Element type I


237

And the displacement interpolation function is also given as;

u = N1u1 + N2u2 + N3u3 + N4u4

v = N1v1 + N2v2 + N3v3 + N4v4 (3)

The element strain is given as;

εT = εxx εyy γxy (4)

where;

εxx =

∂u

∂x: εyy =

∂v

∂yand γxy =

∂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,

𝐊 = 𝐁 T 𝐃 𝐁 dv

v

or 𝐊 = 𝐁 T 𝐃 𝐁 tA (8)

The element stress is given as;

𝛔 = 𝐂 𝛆 = 𝐂 𝐁 𝐪 =

σx

σy

τxy

(9)


238

where

σx =E

1 − ν2εxx +

νE

1 − ν2εy

σy =νE

1 − ν2εxx +

E

1 − ν2εy

τxy =E

2 1 − ν2 γxy

(10)

also,

𝑪 =𝐸

1 − 𝜈2

1 𝜈 0𝜈 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

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


239

(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.

tT

Figure 5 Termiterium-strawbale wall under loads

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)


240

(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) 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.

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.


241

Figure 6Applied loads on termitarium plastered strawbale wall

( = 2,3)


242

Figure 7 Deformed shape of termitarium plastered strawbale wall (

=2,3)


243

Figure 8 Shear force diagram of termitarium plastered strawbale

wall ( = 2,3)


244

Figure 9 Bending moment diagram of termitarium plastered

strawbale wall( =2,3)


245

Figure 10 Minimum stress diagram of termitarium plastered

strawbale wall ( =3)


246

Figure 11 Maximum stress diagram of termitarium plastered

strawbale wall ( =3)


247

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


248

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


249

Table 3 Stresses within the termitarium plastered strawbale wall.

Area Area Elem

S11Top S22Top SMaxTop SMinTop SAngleTop

Text

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


250

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

18 7 -2.06 -47.23 1.08 -50.37 -14.31

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


251

-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

-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


252

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

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


253

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 the straw bale material.

Outside

plaster

Inside

plaster

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/m

2 38.836kN/m

2

Termitarium plastered

strawbale wall 73.14kN/m

2 67.452kN/m

2

*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/m

2).

This implies that under higher load, which is above the allowable

stresses, the collapse or response of the strawbale Termitarium

masonry 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


254

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.

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.


255

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.

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 Stabilised Termitarium 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 Building Materials, 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 with Conventional Fibrous

Insulation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Thermal

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.

http://www.ecobuildnetwork.org/strawbale

http://www.ejse.org/


256

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,

PLEA 2008–25th Conference on Passive and Low Energy

Architecture, Dublin, 22nd to 24th October 2008.

http://www.ecobuildnetwork/

Date post:	01-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	unilorin
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Modeling the Prism of Termitarium-Strawbale Composite Masonry for its Bearing Capacity

Documents