## 3 Results and Discussion
### Overview and Final Remarks  
For ease of comparison, Table 12 provides an overview of the main physical, thermal, mechanical, and durability properties of the two batches of CEBs investigated in this study at the two ages of 28 and 180 days. In terms of physical attributes, blocks made from the finest soil (R1) have a lower bulk density than coarse-grained ones (R2), and the estimated open porosity was higher. In fact, these blocks absorbed more water during the water absorption tests, thus confirming the result. The natural moisture content at 28 days was not distinguishable between the two batches, which were probably still too humid. At 180 days, however, it was higher in the finer-textured blocks, which retain more water, as expected. From the point of view of a building material, superior thermal properties were achieved in R1 blocks. Within the same volume, smaller soil particles have a larger surface area and more contact points, which inhibit heat transfer to a greater extent. Finer-textured R1 CEBs exhibited 23% higher thermal resistance, 30% lower thermal conductivity and 20% lower diffusivity than R2 CEBs. This result agrees with the literature that relates lower density with lower thermal conductivity [7; 49]. However, strategies involving the addition or mixing of different materials in different proportions are usually used to vary the density [49; 50]. In the case of this study, the variations obtained can only be attributed to the difference in maximum particle size. It would be interesting to confirm the results with other types of soil. Regarding mechanical and durability properties, the results in the current literature are not confirmed. Blocks made from finer soil particles are not stronger or more durable [8; 9; 10]. However, results are not fully comparable as the mentioned studies either add sand or reconstitute the soil, leading to a substantial change in the natural state of the soil. In the present study--that is, in the context of the same soil quality--the mechanical properties do not exhibit such an appreciable change due to the particle size effect. The data are scattered, but all fall within a similar range. At 28 days, R1 CEBs were slightly stronger than R2 CEBs (compressive strength 12% higher). In contrast, at 180 days, the compressive strength of R1 blocks was 14% lower than that of R2 blocks. The inverse relationship of physical attributes with mechanical strength was not verified. The possibility of using UPV as a quick, non-destructive, and inexpensive tool to assess the quality of the blocks was also evaluated. At 28 days, the results obtained were not significantly different between the two mixtures. This might also be due to the higher moisture content. At 180 days, the ultrasonic pulse propagated faster in the denser R2 blocks, confirming the hypothesis of higher porosity in the R1 blocks. The UPV values showed no correspondence with mechanical parameters such as compressive strength or elastic modulus. Finally, at both ages, R1 CEBs showed slightly higher flexural strength than R2 CEBs. However, also considering the coefficients of variation, the results are superimposable. The evaluation of durability aspects is based on three types of disintegrative mechanisms. It must be remembered that all existing test methods suffer from limitations related