Characterization of adobe bricks used in developing countries: Mexico as a case of study

Abstract

In Mexico adobe masonry is a traditional building material common in rural areas with low economic development and a high degree of marginalization. In addition, a growing interest in adobe masonry is noticed in two ways: for rescuing the heritage and as a rediscovered environmentally friendly building material. The problems are found of how to carry out the conservation works of the great built heritage with this material, as well as the lack of skilled people at all levels, from designer to masons, because it is a forgotten technique. Hence, some recent investigations about the obtention of adobe mechanical properties and characterization of adobe bricks, including earth blocks, have been performed. This article investigates experimentally destructive and nondestructive tests used for this purpose, especially elastic mechanical properties, considering new sensors, systems and different techniques has led to the inspection of adobe bricks. The results show, compared destructive with nondestructive methods, a good correlation between both techniques. This study contributes towards a better understanding of the elastic mechanical properties of adobe bricks built in Mexico, considered as a developing country.

Una Revisión de Ladrillos de Suelo y Cemento con Refuerzos Diversos

“…Los tipos de refuerzos, de acuerdo con los estudios disponibles, se clasificaron como: plásticos 𝑃, cemento 𝐶 y otros 𝑂 (en su mayoría fibras vegetales). Por lo tanto, en las categorías clasificadas y analizadas se encuentra el adobe-suelo tradicional sin refuerzo adicional (𝐴𝑆) (Gama-Castro et al, 2012;Gutiérrez-Villalobos et al, 2021;Illampas et al, 2014;Yetgin et al, 2008), adobe/suelo más refuerzo plástico (𝐴𝑆 + 𝑃); siendo los plásticos de refuerzo (P) utilizados en las diferentes pruebas Tereftalato de Polietileno (PET) (Ahmad et al, 2022;Araya-Letelier et al, 2019b;Ascencios-Mostacero, 2020;Aznarán-Monzón, 2018;Barturen-Payano, 2020;Bertelsen et al, 2021;Candenas-Tacac et al, 2018;Cerna-Livia & Velásquez, 2021;Correa-Carlos & Puican-Cumpa, 2021;Lozano-Rios & Valle-Fernández, 2020;Noa-Huaman & Ordoñez-Claros, 2022;Peña-Estrella & Niño-Santos, 2019;Quispe-Crises, 2017;Robalino-Sánchez, 2019;Subramania-Prasad et al, 2011;Subramania-Prasad, 2013;Tavares & Magalhães, 2019), generalmente utilizados en fibras o molido, polipropileno (PP) (Araya-Letelier et al, 2019a;Ascencios-Mostacero, 2020;Burbano-Garcia et al, 2022;Menon & Ravikumar, 2019;Muntohar et al, 2013;Nasrollahzadeh & Zare, 2020;Onochie & Balkis, 2021;Peña-Estrella & Niño-Santos, 2019;Salaou et al, 2021;Sujatha & Selsia-Devi, 2018); Vignesh et al, 2021), poliestireno (PE) (Abad-Flores, 2020;Inga-Castro, 2019;…”

“…La resistencia acorde a la norma NTP E.080 es de 0.6 MPa para adobes y de 6.86 MPa para bloques de concreto acorde a la norma NTP-E070, ambos secados a 28 días. En la categoría 𝐴𝑆, se abordan 3 estudios, cuyo refuerzo inherente es por definición paja indicado explícitamente (Illampas et al, 2014;Yetgin et al, 2008) e implícitamente (Gutiérrez-Villalobos et al, 2021). No existe sujeto de control, por lo cual 𝜎 𝑐 = 𝜎 𝑐𝑐 = 𝜎 𝑐𝑚 ; se tiene un promedio de 𝜎 𝑐 = 2.20 MPa, con un valor máximo 𝜎 𝑐 = 3.31 MPa y 𝜎 𝑐 = 1 MPa mínimo es el obtenida por Illampas et al (2014).…”