mud building practices in construction projects in the gaza strip

The International Journal of Construction Management (2013) Vol. 13 No.2, xx-xx

MUD BUILDING PRACTICES IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE GAZA STRIP Dr. Nabil Ibrahim El-Sawalhi1, Hamed E. Abu Ajwa2 1

Deputy Dean Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Islamic University- Gaza. Email: [email protected] 2 Master degree, The Islamic University- Gaza

Abstract The need to use Mud in building works resulted from the shortage of construction materials in the Gaza Strip. This study investigates the applicability of using mud materials in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. The factors affecting the using of mud buildings were investigated. Techniques encountering the construction with earth materials were studied. A questionnaire survey was used which targeted the contractors that participated in the mud building practices. Two mud-building techniques were used; the Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) and Adobe techniques. The practice of using mud in building houses is very limited and comes to defy the blockade at the Gaza Strip. The idea of building houses of mud was not accepted by most surveyed contractors due to cultural aspects. The spread of building of mud was mainly affected by “needs for high maintenance, no possibility for future vertical extension, the need for intensive labors and poor resistance to weather conditions.” Keywords Mud Building, Compressed Earth Blocks, Adobe Building, Compressed Stabilized Earth Block, Gaza Strip

INTRODUCTION After the war on the Gaza Strip (December 2008) and the huge mass destruction of the buildings all over the Gaza Strip, the siege, in addition, prevented construction materials from entering Gaza. There was an urgent need to think thoroughly about alternative materials and techniques for construction. Moreover, because of the global and local shortage of resources, constructing with substitute materials such as packed sand, mud, wood and other natural materials became a crucial and important matter in our lives. Construction with mud was shown as one alternative to cement buildings. There was no recent research available about techniques that are suitable to the local market. In addition, there was a need to know the opinions of householders about accepting the notion of living in mud houses. Some organizations such as the United Nations and Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) started working with mud materials. This research investigated the practices and techniques used and the possibility of future use of mud buildings.

2 El-Sawalhi and Ajwa

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Soil has been widely used as a source of building material from thousands of years. It is an effective and economic form for housing construction. According to the United Nations, about a third of the world’s population live in earthen structures today (Arumala and Gondal, 2008). The use of earth in construction has been significant throughout human history. In addition to the creation of simple shelters, many of the world’s great feats of construction involved the use of mud or dirt. The Great Wall of China (246-209 BC) was built of earth along most of its route. Hannibal's watchtowers, built with compressed earth in Europe in 300 BC, stood for more than 600 years (Buffington and London, 2005). Around 30% of the world’s population lives in earth-made construction. Approximately 50% of the population in developing countries, including the majority of the rural population and at least 20% of the urban and suburban population, live in earthen dwellings (Houben and Guillard, 1994)[ cited in: Blondet et al., 2003]. For example, in Peru, 60% of the houses are built of adobe or rammed earth. In India, according to the 1971 Census, 73% of all buildings are made out of earth (67 million houses inhabited by 375 million people). By and large, this type of construction has been used mainly by low-income rural populations (Blondet et al., 2003). Blondet et al. (2003) illustrated that adobe mud blocks are one of the oldest and most widely used building materials. Use of these sun-dried blocks dates back to 8000 B.C. The use of adobe is very common in some of the world’s most hazard-prone regions, traditionally across Latin America, Africa, Indian sub-continent, and other parts of Asia, Middle East and Southern Europe. It was found that many construction techniques were used over the past years that use earth materials such as clay, mud, sand, stones, and other natural materials. The techniques used in building with mud materials was studied by several researchers in different directions such as [Adobe, Rammed earth, Backed-Insitu, Fire clay bricks, Tile valuating techniques, Compressed Earth Block, Compressed Stabilized earth block, and others].

ECB (2002) reported that the buildings in West Bank and the Gaza Strip are divided to traditional and contemporary buildings. The construction techniques used in traditional buildings depends on traditional materials which have good thermal properties composed of thick walls and slabs; these properties give the result of low thermal transmittance which contributes to thermal comfort inside the buildings. The construction techniques used in contemporary buildings depends on new materials such as stone and concrete with the composition of walls and slabs being relatively thin; these properties result in high thermal transmittance which negatively affects the thermal comfort inside the buildings. Kundoo (2008) illustrated that building of mud material (clay materials) have many advantageous implications. The economic sustainability means creation of new markets and opportunities for growth of sales; cost reduction through efficiency improvements and reduced energy, and raw materials use; and creation of additional added value. Using locally available low energy materials helps the money to remain

3 Mud Building Practices in Construction Projects in The Gaza Strip

in the local economy by increasing the labor component of the building cost, and by creating value addition in both the structure as well as the products. Lal, (1995, P.120) [Cited in: Zami and Lee (2008)] explained that the majority of disadvantages (i.e. problems of earth wall erosion by rain and flood water, rodents making holes in wall and floor, and poor performance during earthquake) associated with mud houses (un-stabilized earth) can be overcome by suitable improvements in design and technology. These are soil stabilizations, appropriate architecture, and improvement in structural techniques.

METHODOLGY Based on a critical review of literature, factors affecting the use of mud buildings were collected in five groups. The questions used were extracted from actual cases in the literature review and the cases studied locally in the Gaza Strip. The researcher relies on many works of research including “Sassu Mauro (2005), ECB (2002), Harris (2010), Block et al. (2010), Kundoo (2008), Rodriguez et al. (2002), Al-sakkaf (2009), Revuelta-Acosta et al. (2010), Jaquin (2009), Zami and Lee (2008), Arumala and Gondal (2008), Block et al.(2010), Buffington and London (2005), Ramage et al. (2010)”. A questionnaire survey was used to collect factual data, perceptions and attitudes of the respondents as a qualitative approach to understand their perceptions regarding the practices of mud building in Gaza Strip construction projects. The questions included three types- multiple choice questions, used widely in the questionnaire; numeric and text open-end questions: and agreement scale questions. The scale used to evaluate the factors affecting use of mud in building was: 5= Very high impact, 4= High Impact, 3 = Medium Impact, 2= Low Impact, 1= Very Low Impact. The study targeted all the contractors in the Gaza Strip who worked on mud buildings to satisfy the research aim. It was not possible to interview all contractors. The sample size represents all the parties that participated in or collected tender documents for mud buildings implemented after the 2008 war on the Gaza Strip, as well as parties who have good experience in mud building practices. The importance index was computed using the following equation: Formula Relative Importance Index (R.I.I) =

w  5n AN

5

 4 n4  3 n3  2 n2  1 n1 5N

Where W is the weighting given to each factor by the respondent, ranging from 1 to 5, (n1 = number of respondents who strongly disagree, n2 = number of respondents who disagree, n3 = number of respondents who were neutral, n4 = number of respondents who agree, n5 = number of respondents who strongly agree). A is the highest weight (i.e. 5 in the study) and N is the total number of samples. The relative importance index ranges from 0 to 1.


Table 1 summarizes the number of contractors and clients who worked on Gaza Strip mud buildings. Table 1: The Number of Contractors and Clients Worked in Mud in Gaza Strip Contractors

Clients

Participated with United Nations

With Other Clients

Clients operated in Mud practices

33

15

5 5

Total = 48 [

Forty-eight questionnaires were distributed to all contractors that were believed to be aware of and participated in mud building practices in the construction industry in the Gaza Strip. The factors used were extracted from actual cases from the literature review and the cases studied locally in the Gaza Strip. Papers and research relied upon included: Sassu Mauro (2005), ECB (2002), Harris (2010), Block et al. (2010), Kundoo (2008), Rodriguez et al. (2002), Al-sakkaf (2009), Revuelta-Acosta et al. (2010), Jaquin (2009), Zami and Lee (2008), Arumala and Gondal (2008), Buffington and London (2005), Ramage et al. (2010) and others.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results show that 44% (21) from the companies sampled are first category according to the contactors’ union classification in the Gaza Strip and 42% (20) from companies in the second category, while 14% (7) are from third category companies. This shows that all levels of contractors have interest to work in mud buildings. Most of the contractor companies are considered as large organizations according to project size in the Gaza Strip. 75% (36) of respondents had participated in one mud building project, 17% (8) of respondents had participated in two mud building projects and 6% (3) of respondents had participated in three mud building projects. While only 2% (1) of respondents had participated in four projects. The contractors who had participated in one project indicated low sharing in mud building in the Gaza Strip. It is noticed that 77% (37) of the responding contractors had participated in mud building projects during last year (2010), 13% (6) of the responding contractors had participated in mud building projects during 2009 or before, and 10% (5) of the responding contractors had participated in mud building projects during 2011. These results illustrate that the trend of working in mud building increased strongly in the last year (2010). This strengthens the importance of this research and re-enforces the contribution of the research output. The results indicated that 79 % (19) of respondents executed mud projects with cost less than 0.5 million thousand dollars, 17 % (4) executed mud projects with cost ranged from 0.5 to 1 million dollars, while only 4 % (1) executed mud projects with cost more than one and less than two million thousands. It seems that the majority of the mud building projects are financially medium size projects. It is found that 62% (15) of the contractors implemented mud building projects with United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), while 17% (4) of the contractors implemented mud building projects with MPWH, and 21% (5) of the contractors implemented mud building projects with others. This distribution can be


traced to the responsibility of UNRWA to find solutions to the problems resulted from the demolishing of houses during the war. Regarding mud construction techniques, it is found that 67% (35) of the contractors used the Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks (CSEB) technique, 25% (13) of the contractors used the Adobe technique, while only 6% (3) of the contractors used the CEB technique, and 2% (1) of the contractors used the Rammed Earth technique. The results revealed that the majority of the contractors used CSEB type mud construction which indicates the importance of the need for adding stabilizers (like cement) to improve the quality of mud buildings. Mud and adobe are widely used in many Palestinian areas to construct houses. It is believed that these houses provide the inhabitants with a more comfortable internal environment than the new concrete houses built in many areas (Khammash, 1990). These results are consistent with the results of the technique of using adobe in the Gaza Strip before 2009. Thereafter Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks (CSEB) were the most used technique in Gaza Strip because UNRWA was responsible for executing the large number of projects implemented with the intent to provide more sustainable houses.

Challenges/Factors Affecting The Use of Mud Building in The Gaza Strip The factors affecting the use of mud building were collected in five groups. These groups are: client related factors, design and consultant related factors, contractor related factors, external environmental factors, and project characteristics related factors. Each group consists of a number of sub factors. We discuss the difference between perceptions of contractors who participated with UNRWA and contractors who participate with other clients. Client Related Factors Table 2 shows agreement between contractors regarding the factors "Client culture and attitudes" and "Inadequate experience of client's staff in design and supervision.” All contractors ranked this factor in the first place, but contractors who participated with UNRWA have an importance index lower than the importance index of the contractors who participated with other clients. This indicates that the contractors working with governments found more difficulties during implementation with clients.

2

Client culture and attitudes.

3

Client previous experience in such work.

3.758

75.2

3.546

70.9

1 2 3

4.07

81

4.20

84

4.27

85

Rank

78.2

Rank

3.909

R.I.I %

Inadequate experience of client's staff in the design and supervision

With other clients Mean

1

R.I.I %

Highest factors in client related factors group

Participated with UNRWA Mean

No.

Table 2: Highest Factors Affecting Client Group

3 2 1


The factor "Client previous experience in mud works" was also considered important from the perception of both contractors. They ranked this factor in the third position but UNRWA contractors gave this factor a Relative Importance Index (R.I.I) = 70.9% and other clients’ contractors gave this factor a R.I.I =85.3%. Replication of projects implemented through the UNRWA and the similarity of building was a major cause of these results. Design and Consultant Related Factors It is clear from Table 3 that contractors have very similar perceptions and give high ranks for the same questions, especially for the first four questions.

R.I.I %

Rank

4

Mean

3

With other clients

Rank

2

Participated with UNRWA R.I.I %

1

Highest factors in design and consultant factor group Weak resistance to earthquake Poor in resistance to weather conditions Need high maintenance Need intensive labor

Mean

No.

Table 3: Highest Factors Affecting Design and Consultant Group

3.94

79

4

4.40

88

4

4.12

82

3

4.67

93

1

4.27

86

1

4.60

92

2

4.18

84

2

4.60

92

2

The results show that all contractors give similar ranks for the “Need intensive labor, Need high maintenance, Poor in resistance to weather conditions, and Weak resistance to earthquake” factors as the highest relative indexes. The results indicated that the barriers and challenges to construct mud building projects outside UNRWA are slightly higher than the challenges with non-UNRWA clients. This may result from the fact that UNRWA has high levels of experience, knowledge and trained teams that may not existed outside the type of mud used in construction (CSEB). Contractor Related Factors Table 4 indicates that close points of views about the contractor related factors “points of view” are nearly similar and give high ranks for the same questions.

R.I.I %

Rank

4

Mean

3

Rank

2

Unavailability of skills (shortage of skilled labors) Unwillingness of contractors to construct such type of work Number of skilled labors that contractor have Experience of subcontractor with the contractor

With other clients

R.I.I %

1

Highest factors in contractor factor group

Participated with UNRWA Mean

No.

Table 4: Highest Factors Affecting Contractors Group

4.09

82

1

4.53

91

1

3.52

70

4

4.27

85

4

4.03

81

3

4.20

84

5

4.09

82

1

4.33

87

2


The results show that all contractors give attention to the factor of “Experience of subcontractor with the contractor” and “Unavailability of skills” as the highest rank in this group. And the contractors who participated with other clients gave attention to the factor of “Unavailability of skills” as the highest rank in this group. The agreeability between the both parties regarding these factors is the highest rank. This proved that these factors could be considered as the highest factors affecting mud building. External Environmental Factors It is clear from the Tables 5 that there is consensus among contractors in ranking of the same questions especially among the first four questions in the external environmental factors. Table 5: Highest Factors Affecting External Environmental Group

4.27

86

2

4.40

88

2

4.39

88

1

4.80

96

1

4.06

81

3

4.07

81

3

3.82

76

4

3.73

75

4

R.I.I %

Rank

4

R.I.I %

3

Mean

Weather conditions Unwillingness of people to build their houses with mud Non-government agencies to encourage construction with mud. Unforeseen problems

With other clients

Rank

1 2

External environmental factors group

Mean

No.

Participated with UNRWA

All contractors participating in the survey gave attention to the factor “Unwillingness of people to build their houses with mud” as the highest rank in this group. This may be traced to the contemporary culture of the people who used to live in concrete houses for decades. "Weather conditions" factor was ranked as the second position. In this group, the result shows that all contractors agreed upon this factor. Project Characteristics Related Factors

3.61

72

4

3.93

79

4

3.70

74

3

3.93

79

4

4.33

87

1

4.40

88

1

4.03

81

2

4.13

83

2

3.33

67

5

4.00

80

3

R.I.I %

Rank

5

R.I.I %

4

With other clients Mean

2 3

Participated with UNRWA Rank

1

Highest factors in project characteristic factor group Land allocation problems Area of the land Number of floors required Type of clay needed Area of the buildings

Mean

No.

Table 6: Highest Factors Affecting Project Characteristic Group


Table 6 shows consensus of contractors about the project characteristics group factors. The result show that both categories of contractors gave attention to the factors “Number of floors required” and "Type of clay needed" as the highest rank in the project group. The factor “Area of the land” ranks as the forth position in this group. Contractors disagree over the “Area of the buildings” factor; where UNRWA contractors rank this factor in the ninth position and other clients’ contractors ranked this factor in third position. The other clients’ contractors considered this factor of more value than UNRWA contractors did because, in most cases, UNRWA contractors face no problem on sites where the UNRWA project was constructed in urban small areas. Ranking of The Top Ten Factors Affecting Mud Building From The Point View of All Respondents The most important factors of mud building summarized in Table 7 showed that all respondents ranked "Unwillingness of people to build their houses with mud" in the first position. The people in Gaza reject the idea of replacing their concrete houses with mud houses, resulting in the stoppage of spreading of this type of building. The second factor ranked by all respondents was "Need high maintenance". Additionally all respondent ranked “Number of floors required” in the third position. Both categories of contractors ranked “Need intensive labor”, “Weather conditions, “Poor in resistance to weather conditions, “Unavailability of skills, “Weak resistance to earthquake, “Number of skilled laborers that contractor has , “Non-government agencies to encourage construction with mud, and “Type of clay needed” as the most important factors that affect mud building projects.


Table 7: Most Ten Factors Affecting Mud Building from Point View of All Respondents

9

10

11 12

Unwillingness of people to build their houses with mud Non-government agencies to encourage construction with mud. Number of floors required Type of clay needed

0.933

78.8

4

4.400

0.828

88.0

4

4.083

0.919

81.7

9

4.121

1.083

82.4

3

4.667

0.817

93.3

1

4.292

1.031

85.8

6

4.273

0.944

85.5

1

4.600

0.828

92

2

4.375

0.914

87.5

2

4.182

1.044

83.6

2

4.600

0.507

92.0

2

4.313

0.926

86.3

4

4.091

1.182

81.8

1

4.533

0.516

90.7

1

4.229

1.036

84.6

7

4.030

1.045

80.6

3

4.200

0.414

84.0

5

4.083

0.895

81.7

9

4.091

0.980

81.8

1

4.333

0.488

86.7

2

4.167

0.859

83.3

8

4.273

0.801

85.5

2

4.400

0.737

88.0

2

4.313

0.776

86.3

4

4.394

1.059

87.9

1

4.800

0.414

96.0

1

4.521

0.922

90.4

1

4.061

0.748

81.2

3

4.067

0.884

81.3

3

4.063

0.783

81.3

10

4.333

1.058

67

1

4.400

0.737

88

1

4.354

0.956

87.1

3

4.030

0.847

80.6

2

4.133

0.516

82

2

4.063

0.755

81.3

10

std

3.939

R.I.I %

Rank

8

R.I.I %

7

std

6

Unavailability of skills Number of skilled labors that contractor have Experience of subcontractor with the contractor Weather conditions

Mean

5

Rank

4

R.I.I %

3

Mean

2

Weak resistance to earthquake Poor in resistance to weather conditions Need high maintenance Need intensive labor

Rank

1

Total

std

Factors

With other clients

Mean

No.



Groups Affecting Mud Building in Construction Projects Table 8 shows the rank of the groups that influence mud building in construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Table 8: Groups Affecting Mud Building in Construction Projects

R.I.I %

Rank

5

Mean

4

Rank

3

R.I.I %

2

Mean

Client related factors Design and consultant related factors Contractor related factors External Environme ntal factors Project characterist ics related factors

Rank

1

Total

R.I.I %

Groups

With Other Clients

Mean

No.


3.04

61

5

3.26

65

5

3.11

62

5

3.219

64

3

3.63

73

2

3.35

67

3

3.10

62

4

3.54

71

3

3.24

65

4

3.37

67

2

3.54

71

3

3.42

68

2

3.46

69

1

3.69

74

1

3.53

71

1

The group of “Client related factors" are ranked in the fifth position by contractors with R.I.I (62%). There are no factors that are included in the top ten important factors affecting mud building; the contractors agreed this group had minimal effect on use of mud in building. Design and consultant related factors were ranked in the third position with R.I.I (67%). There are four factors that are included in the top ten important factors affecting mud building. These include “Weak resistance to earthquake, Poor in resistance to weather conditions, Need high maintenance, and Need intensive labor.” The group of contractor related factors were ranked in the fourth position with R.I.I = 65%. Three factors are included the top ten factors affecting mud building. These include “Unavailability of skills” which was ranked seventh among the top ten factors, “Number of skilled labors” which was ranked ninth among the top ten factors, and “Experience of subcontractor” ranked eighth among the top ten factors. The group of “External factors affecting mud building” was ranked in the second position with (R.I.I = 68%) . In Table 7, there are three factors included in the top ten factors affecting mud building. These are, “Weather conditions”, “Unwillingness of people to build their houses with mud”, and “Non-government agencies to encourage construction with mud.” The group of "Project characteristics related factors" were ranked in the first position with R.I.I = 71%. There are two factors included in the top ten factors affecting mud building. They are, “Number of floors required”, and “Type of clay needed”.


Correlation between Groups Affecting Mud Building Table 9 presents the Pearson correlation coefficient between all groups affecting mud building. The P-Values were below α = 0.05, which means the rejection of the Null Hypothesis (Ho). However, there is no significant relationship between client’s related factors and external environmental factors. Table 9: Correlation between Groups Client Design and consultant Contractor Pearson 1 .481 Correlation Sig. (2.001 tailed) N 48 48 Pearson .481 1 Design and Correlation consultant Sig. (2.001 tailed) N 48 48 Pearson .488 .713 Correlation Contractor Sig. (2.000 .000 tailed) N 48 48 Pearson .253 .481 External Correlation Environmental Sig. (2.082 .001 tailed) N 48 48 Pearson .437 .408 Project Correlation characteristics Sig. (2.002 .004 tailed) N 48 48 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Client

External Environmental

Project characteristics

.488

.253

.437

.000

.082

.002

48

48

48

.713

.481

.408

.000

.001

.004

48

48

48

1

.414

.325

.003

.024

48

48

48

.414

1

.336

.003

.020

48

48

48

.325

.336

1

.024

.020

48

48

48

The Agreement between Contractors Regarding Factors Affecting Mud Building This section will discuss the difference between UNRWA contractors, and other clients’ contractors regarding mud-building groups. The independent samples t-test was used to test the difference in the implied means. The null hypothesis (Ho) for this test assumes no difference between the contractors’ perceptions, for a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected if the P-Value is less than α. The P value as shown in Table 10 is greater than the level of significance, α = 0.05, therefore, there are no significant differences between contractors for the three groups. However, for the groups "Contractor related factors,” and "Design and consultant related factors" the P-Value is less than 0.05 which means that there is a significant differences for these two groups. For these groups the P-value is less than the level of significance, α = 0.05, so there are differences in the agreement between UNRWA contractors, and other clients’ contractors in this groups.


Table 10: Contractors Participated with UNRWA and with Other Clients for Main Groups Affecting in Mud Building Mean

Std. Deviation

t value

3.0396

.59495

-1.146

Group/ Factor Participated with UNRWA Client related factors

Design and consultant related factors

Contractor related factors

External Environmenta l factors

Project characteristics related factors

F value

P value .258

1.054

Participated with other clients

3.2615

.67862

-1.090

.286


3.2192

.71283

-2.004

.051 2.708


3.6311

.51923

-2.255

.03


3.1042

.58289

-2.727

.009 7.130


3.5417

.30861

-3.391

.001


3.3670

.65528

-.862

.393 .005


3.5407

.62975

-.875

.389


3.4592

.62773

-1.252

.217


3.6872

.47192

-1.393

1.512 .172

All score means are ranged within (3.03 to 3.68). The low mean value indicates that the respondents are not aware about the importance of mud building as an alternative residence. The concept is relatively new. Many techniques and methods are still not known in the construction industry, which creates this vagueness in the perception trends. The challenges and barriers to utilizing these construction methods and materials are relatively high due to the cultural resistance and unavailability of skilled laborers injected in this process.

CONCLUSION Mud building construction came to satisfy the urgent needs in the Gaza Strip after the 2008 war due to non-availability of construction materials. The idea of building houses of mud was not accepted by most surveyed contractors due to cultural aspects. The spread of building with mud was mainly affected by “Need for high maintenance, No possibility for future vertical extension, Need for intensive laborers, and Poor resistance to weather conditions.” The most used mud building methods are Compressed Stabilized Earth Block (SCEB) and adobe techniques.


REFERENCES Al-sakkaf, Y. (2009). "Durability properties of stabilized earth blocks", Ph. D research- Un-published, Universiti SAINS Malaysia (2009). Arumala, J. O., and Gondal, T. (2008)." Can compressed earth Building blocks be A viable building material for affordable housing?." FIBRE series- University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Department of Technology- USA. Block, P., DeJong, M., Davis, L., and Ochsendorf, J. (2010)." Tile vaulted systems for low-cost construction in Africa." African Technology Development Forum (ATDF) Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1/2 2010, Available from: [Accessed 15 November, 2010] Blondet, M., Garcia, M. G.V., and Brzev, S. (2003). "Earthquake-Resistant Construction of Adobe Buildings: A Tutorial", Published as a contribution to the EERI/IAEE World Housing Encyclopedia , Available from: [Accessed 13 November, 2010] Buffington, J. and London, T. (2005)." Building a Sustainable Venture: The Mountain Institute’s Earth Brick Machine." The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Kenan-Flagler Business School-Case study". ECB (2002). "Energy Codes for Buildings-Construction Techniques Survey in Palestinian Territories", Available from [Accessed 13 February, 2011] Harris, C. (2010), "Earth Building - Techniques, applications, & potential.” Centre for Alternative Technology-Clean Slate Magazine. Jaquin, P. (2009)." How mud bricks work – using unsaturated soil mechanics principles to explain the material properties of earth buildings." EWB-UK Research Conference 2009, Hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering February 20, Institution: Ramboll Whitbybird (formerly Durham University), Previously published: (Geotechnique, February 2009). Khammash, K. (1990). "Construction Techniques Survey in Palestinian Territories." Establishing, Adoption, and Implementation of Energy Codes for Buildings), Jordan, 2002. Kundoo, A. (2008). "Building With Fire- Baked-Insitu Mud Houses Of India: Evolution And Analysis Of Ray Meeker’s Experiments." Bachelor of Architecture (Un-published)-Berlin. Ramage, M. H., Ochsendorf, J., Rich, P., Bellamy, J. K. and Block, P. (2010). "Design and Construction of the Mapungubwe National Park Interpretive Centre, South Africa", African Technology Development Forum (ATDF) Journal Volume 7, Issue 1/2 2010 Available from < http://www.atdforum.org/> [Accessed 15 November, 2010] Revuelta-Acosta, J. D., A. Garcia-Diaz, G.M., Soto-Zarazua and E. Rico-Garcia, (2010). "Adobe as a sustainable material: A thermal performance." Journal of Applied Science 10 (19): 2211-2216, 2010, ISSN1812-5654, Asian Network for Scientific Information. Rodriguez, I. V., Yacante, I. M., and Reiloba (2002). “Traditional Adobe House with Reinforcement.” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE), Adobe/Earthen House, Case of: Mud walls with horizontal wood elements, Argentina. Available [


from: [Accessed 5 December, 2010] Sassu, M. (2005). "Vernacular Housing Construction." University of Pisa, Italy Available from: [Accessed 28 January, 2011] Zami, M. S. & Lee, A. (2008)." Contemporary earth construction in urban housing – stabilised or unstabilised?." School of the Built Environment, University of Salford, Maxwell Building, United Kingdom.