CE is differentiated from contained gravel (CG) or contained sand (CS) by the use of damp, tamped, cured cohesive fill. CE can be modular, built in poly-propylene rice bag material containers, or solid, built in mesh tubing that allows earthen fill to solidify between courses. Types of Contained Earth CG, filled with pumice or ordinary gravel and/ or small stones, is often used as water-resistant base walls under CE, which also provides an effective capillary break. Soilbags used mostly in horizontal applications by civil engineers contain loose fill which includes both CG and CS. CG courses, like soilbags, may contribute base isolation and/or vibration damping qualities,Liu, Sihong, Y. Wang, J. Gao, and Y. Jin (2011) URL Cyclic Simple Shear Tests on Base Isolation Using Soilbags] Advanced Materials Research Vols. 243–249 pp 893– 896 Yamamoto , Haruyuki and H. Cheng (2012) "Development Study on Device To Reduce Seismic Response by Using Soil-bags Assemblies," in Research, Development, and Practice in Structural Engineering and Construction, V. Singh and A. Yazdani (eds.), ASEA-Sec-1, Perth, 28 November – 2 December 2012 although out-of-plane strength needs research. Need for or use of metal components are disputed, including rebar hammered into walls Geiger , Owen (2011) Earthbag Building Guide: Vertical Walls Step-by-Step (ebook) and barbed wire between courses, although static friction of smooth bag-to-bag surfaces of heavy modular CE walls is 0.4 with no adhesion.Pelly, Ralph (2009) Plastic Limit Analysis of Earthbag Structures. University of Bath (dissertation) p. 21 Engineering knowledge of earthbag has been growing.Earthbag Testing Research Summary More is known about the performance of walls made with sand or dry or uncured soil than about the overwhelming majority of earthbag buildings which have used damp, cohesive soil fill. Reports based on tests of soilbags and loose or granular fill (or uncured fill) assumes that soil strength is less important to wall strength than bag fabric strength for.Canadell, Samuel, A. Blanco and S. Cavalero (2016)  Comprehensive Design Method for Earthbag and Superadobe  . Materials and Design 96 (2016) 270- 282 However, shear tests show clearly that stronger cured, cohesive fill increases contained earth wall strength substantially.Stouter, P. (May 2017) Estimated Shear Strengths of Contained Earth Walls CE compared to New Zealand wall strengths Earthquake damage results confirm the validity of New Zealand's detailed standards for non-engineered adobe and rammed earth Morris , Hugh, R. Walker and T. Drupsteen (2011)  Modern and historic earth buildings: Observations of the 4th September 2010 Darfield Earthquake  Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 14- 16 April 2011, Auckland, NZ which allow unreinforced buildings to 0.6 g force levels. For comparison to NZS 4299 the following risk levels are based roughly on 0.2 second spectral acceleration (Ss) from 2\% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Builders may refer to the Unified Facilities Handbook online US Army Core of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Engineer Center. (2012) Unified Facilities Criteria: Structural Engineering. pp. 134- 158 for these values for some cities worldwide. These risk levels are based on ultimate strength, but deformation limits may require stiffer detailing or lower risk levels. Seismic Risk Levels- Eastern Hemisphere Seismic Risk Levels-Western hemisphere
CE is differentiated from contained gravel (CG) or contained sand (CS) by the use of damp, tamped, cured cohesive fill. CE can be modular, built in poly-propylene rice bag material containers, or solid, built in mesh tubing that allows earthen fill to solidify between courses. Types of contained earth CG, filled with pumice or ordinary gravel and/ or small stones, is often used as water-resistant base walls under CE, which also provides an effective capillary break. Soilbags used mostly in horizontal applications by civil engineers contain loose fill which includes both CG and CS. CG courses, like soilbags, may contribute base isolation and/or vibration damping qualities,Liu, Sihong, Y. Wang, J. Gao, and Y. Jin (2011) URL Cyclic Simple Shear Tests on Base Isolation Using Soilbags] Advanced Materials Research Vols. 243–249 pp 893– 896Yamamoto , Haruyuki and H. Cheng (2012) "Development Study on Device To Reduce Seismic Response by Using Soil-bags Assemblies," in Research, Development, and Practice in Structural Engineering and Construction, V. Singh and A. Yazdani (eds.), ASEA-Sec-1, Perth, 28 November – 2 December 2012 although out-of-plane strength needs research. Need for or use of metal components are disputed, including rebar hammered into wallsGeiger , Owen (2011) Earthbag Building Guide: Vertical Walls Step-by-Step (ebook) and barbed wire between courses, although static friction of smooth bag-to-bag surfaces of heavy modular CE walls is 0.4 with no adhesion.Pelly, Ralph (2009) Plastic Limit Analysis of Earthbag Structures. University of Bath (dissertation) p. 21 Engineering knowledge of earthbag has been growing.Earthbag Testing Research Summary More is known about the performance of walls made with sand or dry or uncured soil than about the overwhelming majority of earthbag buildings which have used damp, cohesive soil fill. Reports based on tests of soilbags and loose or granular fill (or uncured fill) assumes that soil strength is less important to wall strength than bag fabric strength for.Canadell, Samuel, A. Blanco and S. Cavalero (2016) " Comprehensive Design Method for Earthbag and Superadobe " . Materials and Design 96 (2016) 270– 282 However, shear tests show clearly that stronger cured, cohesive fill increases contained earth wall strength substantially.Stouter, P. (May 2017) Estimated Shear Strengths of Contained Earth Walls CE compared to New Zealand wall strengths Earthquake damage results confirm the validity of New Zealand's detailed standards for non-engineered adobe and rammed earthMorris , Hugh, R. Walker and T. Drupsteen (2011) " Modern and historic earth buildings: Observations of the 4th September 2010 Darfield Earthquake ", Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 14– 16 April 2011, Auckland, NZ which allow unreinforced buildings to 0.6 g force levels. For comparison to NZS 4299 the following risk levels are based roughly on 0.2 second spectral acceleration (Ss) from 2\% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Builders may refer to the Unified Facilities Handbook onlineUS Army Core of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and Air Force Engineer Center. (2012) Unified Facilities Criteria: Structural Engineering. pp. 134– 158 for these values for some cities worldwide. These risk levels are based on ultimate strength, but deformation limits may require stiffer detailing or lower risk levels. Seismic Risk Levels- Eastern Hemisphere Seismic Risk Levels-Western hemisphere
R
Contained Earth
contained earth
R
896 Yamamoto
896Yamamoto
R
walls Geiger
wallsGeiger
A
"
A
"
R
270-
270–
R
earth Morris
earthMorris
A
"
A
",
R
14-
14–
R
online US
onlineUS
R
134-
134–