Articulo aobre los ladrillos y como se fabrican

Apuntwa , perdon

1. Materials Research
Express
           
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Geomechanical study of the Bi-stabilization of clay
with sugarcane molasses and coconut fiber for
sustainable construction
To cite this article: Boukaré Ouédraogo et al 2025 Mater. Res. Express 12 015502
 
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
You may also like
Sustainable utilisation of sugar cane
molasses as a partial replacement to
bitumen in bituminous pavements
Jayasree Kuchu
-
Bioethanol production from sugarcane
molasses by instant dry yeast (effect of
pretreatment and fermentation
temperature)
A N Jayanti, A Sutrisno, A K Wardani et al.
-
Sub-Doppler laser cooling of fermionic 40K
atoms in three-dimensional gray optical
molasses
D. Rio Fernandes, F. Sievers, N.
Kretzschmar et al.
-
This content was downloaded from IP address 38.25.4.111 on 31/10/2025 at 02:37

2. Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ada1aa
PAPER
GeomechanicalstudyoftheBi-stabilizationofclaywithsugarcane
molassesandcoconutfiberforsustainableconstruction
Boukaré Ouédraogo
1,2,∗
, Inoussa Tougri
3
, Hassime Guengané
1,3
, Kalifa Palm
1,4
and
Dieudonné Joseph Bathiebo
1
1
Laboratoire d’Energies Thermiques Renouvelables(LETRE)/Université Joseph KI-ZERBO, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
2
Laboratoire Chimie Analytique, de Physique Spatiale et Energétique/Université Norbert ZONGO, Koudougou, Burkina Faso
3
Institut du Génie des Systèmes Industriels et Textiles/Ecole Polytechnique de Ouagadougou(EPO), Burkina Faso
4
Institute de Recherche en Sciences Appliquées et Technologies(IRSAT/CNRST), Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
∗
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail:[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
[email protected]
Keywords:Bi-stabilization, clay, coconutfiber, sugarcane molasses, compressive andflexural strength, atterberg limits
Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of the bi-stabilization of clay soils using cane molasses and
coconutfiber, focusing on improving the geotechnical and mechanical properties of clay. The
performance of the two stabilizers, both individually and in combination for bistabilization, was
assessed. The geotechnical properties were determined through sieve analysis, Proctor tests, and
Atterberg limit methods, while the mechanical properties were measured using a hydraulic press. The
results showed that cane molasses reduced plasticity, enhanced soil cohesion, and increased dry
density with molasses content. The Atterberg limits(liquid limit, plastic limit, and consistency index)
were maximized at a 4% molasses content, with respective increases of 9.28%, 44.80%, and 37.9%
compared to clay without molasses(CB). Coconutfiber improved theflexural strength by 361.9% for
CF1, whereas molasses improved the compressive strength by 12.24% compared to plain clay. Bi-
stabilization allowed for a maximum improvement inflexural strength of 509.52% compared to CB,
49.42% compared to molasses-stabilized clay bricks(CSM), and 31.96% compared to clay composites
with coconutfiber(CF). The compressive strength improved by 22.54% compared with CB, 9.21%
compared with CSM8, and 14.94% compared with CF½. In summary, bi-stabilization with sugarcane
molasses and coconutfiber provided enhanced performance compared with their individual use.
Abbreviations of Some Codes Used:
Clay Brick CB
Clay+4% of sugarcane molasses brick CSM4
Clay+8% of sugarcane molasses brick CSM8
Clay+12% of sugarcane molasses brick CSM12
Clay+0.25% of coconutfiber CF¼
Clay+0.5% of coconutfiber CF½
Clay+0.75% of coconutfiber CF¾
Clay+1% of coconutfiber CF1
Clay+4% of sugarcane molasses+0.25% coconutfiber CSMF4/¼
Clay+4% of sugarcane molasses+0.5% coconutfiber CSMF4/½
Clay+4% of sugarcane molasses+0.75% coconutfiber CSMF4/¾
Clay+4% of sugarcane molasses+1% coconutfiber CSMF4/1
OPEN ACCESS
RECEIVED
4 October 2024
REVISED
16 December 2024
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
19 December 2024
PUBLISHED
6 January 2025
Original content from this
work may be used under
the terms of theCreative
Commons Attribution 4.0
licence.
Any further distribution of
this work must maintain
attribution to the
author(s)and the title of
the work, journal citation
and DOI.
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

3. Clay+8% of sugarcane molasses+0.25% coconutfiberCSMF8/¼
Clay+8% of sugarcane molasses+0.5% coconutfiber CSMF8/½
Clay+8% of sugarcane molasses+0.75% coconutfiber CSMF8/¾
Clay+8% of sugarcane molasses+1% coconutfiber CSMF8/1
Clay+12% of sugarcane molasses+0.25% coconutfiber CSMF12/¼
Clay+12% of sugarcane molasses+0.5% coconutfiber CSMF12/½
Clay+12% of sugarcane molasses+0.75% coconutfiber CSMF12/¾
Clay+12% of sugarcane molasses+1% coconutfiber CSMF12/1
1. Introduction
Earth is an ancestral building material worldwide[1]. It is available everywhere and inexpensive. It is used in all
construction sectors for both roads and housing. In road construction, they are used for embankments, leveling
low-lying areas, and raising the ground when necessary, such as near bridges and water passages. Housing is used
as a load-bearing wall through bricks, plaster, and decorative material[2,3]. The most common construction
techniques include cobs, adobes, daubs, and rammed earth[4]. However, soil has shown limited resistance to
weather conditions, particularly to water and mechanical forces. According to[5], the weakening of the bearing
capacity of the clay-sand mixture as a material is regular due to the increase in pore water pressure caused by
severe deformation in the mixture.
Historically, it had already been challenged by stones, which offered greater resistance. Already challenged
during the early days of construction by stones, which offer greater resistance, the earth has gradually decreased
its use for construction. This decline began with the discovery of natural cement by James Parker in 1796[6]and
continued with the invention of artificial cement by Louis Vicat in 1817[7]. The cement industry has also seen a
notable development with the advent of 3D printing and improvements such as that of[8], who have shown that
the peak void length is generally between 0 and 2 times the node interval. This was made possible by a new
theoretical model of the interfacial void length distribution in 3D printed concrete that they developed.
Technological developments are also aimed at improving the performance and decarbonisation of cementitious
materials. For example,[9]report that replacing cement, natural sand and syntheticfibres in concrete with solid
waste can significantly reduce CO
2emissions. They also demonstrated that 3D concrete printing technology
using solid waste can achieve compressive andflexural strengths of 152.5 MPa and 72 MPa respectively.
Recognizing the importance of soil in construction, research has improved the quality of soil used in
construction as one of its main objectives. Several studies have been conducted on stabilizing the earth materials
to enhance their properties. Raw earth can be stabilized in three ways: mechanical, physical, and chemical.
Mechanical stabilization is achieved by compressing the soil, making it much denser[10]and more compact.
This stabilization method improves the mechanical properties of the material, notably its compressive strength
[11,12]. Physical stabilization, on the other hand, often improves the thermal properties[13,14],flexural
strength, and acoustic insulation[15]. However, it can alter certain properties, such as adsorption. Thermal
stabilization throughfiring, which is also included in physical stabilization, provides greater water resistance and
improves the thermal insulation. However, it is very energy-intensive because of thefiring process and pollution
caused by the energy sources used[16]. Chemical stabilization strengthens the structure of earth materials by
increasing their mechanical resistance[17–19], in particular its compressive strength,flexural strength and shear
strength, water resistance[20,21], such as resistance to erosion, water absorption, etc and geotechnical
properties[22], such as Atterberg limits, optimum water content and maximum dry mass. Conversely, this type
of stabilization can degrade thermal properties by increasing them[23,24].
It is evident that no single type of stabilization addresses all the shortcomings of Earth materials. This quickly
led to the idea of combining these types of stabilization to achieve better properties. In this context, a
combination of mechanical and physical stabilization was observed. This is the case with clay bricks stabilized
withfibers and compressed[25,26]and those stabilized with geopolymers and compressed[27]. There is also a
combination of mechanical and chemical stabilization for the production of cement-stabilized compressed
earth bricks[28,29]or lime stabilized compressed earth bricks[30–32].
However, a combination of chemical and physical stabilization is rare. One of the main reasons for this is the
destructive reaction between certain chemical stabilizers, particularly artificial ones, and the physical stabilizers
in organic materials. For example, when thefi
bers are not treated, cement andfibers or lime andfibers
additionally reduce the hygroscopic properties of the material[33]. One could consider Physicochemical
bistabilization using biostabilizers, such as cane molasses and plantfibers, might react less negatively with each
other. Studies on stabilizing clay with plantfibers are abundant[34–41]etc and have shown improvements in the
2
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

4. properties of clay as a building material. Conversely, the stabilization of clay with molasses has been less
explored, but the few available results in the literature[42–47]confirm an improvement in the quality of clay
following stabilization. In this context, we explore the physical and chemical stabilization of clay bricks with cane
molasses and coconutfibers. Specifically, this study focused on the following aspects:
Effect of each stabilizer(sugarcane molasses and coconutfiber)on the mechanical properties of clay
The effect of molasses on the geotechnical properties of clay,
Effect of bi-stabilization(molasses-coconutfiber mixture)on the mechanical properties of clay.
The results will be compared with each other to measure the actual improvements, and with scientific
literature to validate them.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Clay
The Clay was collected from Bonyolo village in the commune of Réo, the capital of the Sanguié province in
Burkina Faso, from a site used by local residents to make artisanal bricks(seefigure1). The samples were then
crushed and sieved. The geographical coordinates were 12°21’40″N, 2°30’47″W.
2.1.2. Coconutfiber
The coconutfiber used in this study is shown infigure2. It is stiff and coarse and can measure up to 35 cm in
length with a diameter ranging from 12 to 25μm[48]. Its lignin content is among the highest among plantfibers,
making it a strongfiber[29].
2.1.3. Sugarcane molasses
Sugarcane molasses was purchased from SN SOSUCO in Banfora, Burkina Faso. It is a black molasses. It has
many benefits: antioxidants, anti-inflammatory, provides energy, reduces the risk of cancer, is rich in iron, helps
with anemia, is beneficial for diabetics, aids weight loss, low calorie intake, helps with digestive uses, provides
healthy skin, reduces aging, supports healthy hair, reduces gray hair, laxative properties, heart, aids the immune
and nervous systems, and prevents osteoporosis[49]. In addition, molasses has several other applications in
Figure 1.(a)site and(b)extraction.
Figure 2.Sample of the coconutfiber used.
3
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

5. variousfields. Molasses obtained from sugarcane is a secondary product of the sugar industry after white sugar
production[50].
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Bricks production
Four types of bricks were produced. These are clay bricks alone, clay+fiber bricks, clay+sugarcane molasses
bricks, and clay+fiber+sugarcane molasses bricks. The different compositions of the clay+fiber bricks and
clay+sugarcane molasses bricks are listed in table1. The clay+coconutfiber and sugarcane molasses bricks are
listed in table2. The percentages are the proportions by mass of the stabilizer in relation to the dry mass of clay
(345 g)used for the brick.
2.2.2. Geotechnical characterization of the clay-sugar cane molasses mixture
This involves determining the Atterberg limits, conducting a granulometric analysis, and performing the
Proctor test on the clay-molasses mixture.
2.2.3. Granulometric analysis
The granulometric analysis, the process of which is illustrated infigure3, was performed by dry sieving after
washing using square mesh sieves ranging from 0.08 mm to 10 mm, in accordance with the NF P18-560
standard[51]. Initially, a 3.5 kg sample was taken and dried in an oven. After drying, 0.55 kg of the sample was
selected for use. The dry mass was soaked for twenty-four hours(24 h). It was then washed on two stacked sieves
with mesh sizes of 400μm and 80μm. After washing, the residue was dried in an oven for 4 h at 105°C. Finally,
the dry residue was subjected to vibration sieving for 10–15 min through sieves with mesh sizes ranging from 41
to 20 mm.
After sieving, the percentage of cumulative residues and cumulative sieving was calculated. The cumulative
residues are obtained using equation(1)As for the sieving’s, they are obtained using equation(3).
()=´r
R
M
100 1i
i
S
()å=
=
Rm 2i
i
n
i
1
where r(%)represents the cumulative residue, n is the AFNOR modulus, m(g)is the mass of the material
retained on each sieve, Ms(g)is the mass of the dry sample, and
Ri(g)is the cumulative residue.
Replacing equation(2)with its expression in equation(1)yields equation(3):
()=-Tr13ii
2.2.4. Optimal monster content and maximum dry density
The monster contents and dry densities of the various compositions: CB, CSM4, CSM8, CSM12, CF¼, CF½,
CF¾, and CF1 were determined using the Proctor Test according to the standard NFP 94–093. The clay was
crushed and sieved using a sieve with a diameter of 38 cm and mesh size of 5 mm(figure4(a)). The sieved
material was dried, divided intofive dishes, each containing 5 kg of clay, and weighed using an electronic balance
(figure4(b)). The test was conducted forfive different water contents: 14%, 16%, 18%, 20%, and 22%, weighed
on the balance(figure4(c))for all the different compositions. Before the compaction process, which is a
Table 1.Composition and designation of bricks clay+fiber and clay
+sugarcane molasses.
Clay(g) Sugar molasses Water Designation
Production of Bricks composed of clay+sugarcane molasses
345 0% — CB
345 4% — CSM4
345 8% — CSM8
345 12% — CSM12
Production of Bricks composed of clay+coconutfiber
345 0% — CB
345 0.25% — CF¼
345 0.5% — CF½
345 0.75% — CF¾
345 1% — CF1
4
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

6. Table 2.Percentage of basic materials and compositions of clay +coconutfiber+sugarcane molasses brick.
Clay(g)345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345 345
fiber 0.25% 0.5% 0.75% 1% 0.25% 0.5% 0.75% 1% 0.25% 0.5% 0.75% 1%
Molasses 4% 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 8% 12% 12% 12% 12%
Water———————— — — — —
Designation CSMF4/
1
4
CSMF4/
1
2
CSMF4/
3
4
CSMF4/1 CSMF8/
1
4
CSMF8/
1
2
CSMF8/
3
4
CSMF8/
1
4
CSMF12/
1
4
CSMF12/
1
2
CSMF12/
3
4
CSMF12/
1
4
5
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

7. common step for all the different compositions, specific procedures were adopted for the clay+sugarcane
molasses compositions and for the clay+coconutfiber compositions.
For the clay and sugarcane molasses compositions, in addition to the monster contents defined above,
different proportions of molasses were used: 4, 8, and 12%, as illustrated infigure4(d). The mixture(clay-
molasses-water)was mixed:first, the clay+molasses was mixed, and then with the required proportion of water
(figure4(f)). The mixture was then stored in buckets(figure4(g))for 24 h.
For the clay+coconutfiber compositions, the same method was adopted, replacing the sugarcane molasses
with coconutfiber in mass proportions of 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1%. The protocol is illustrated infigure5.
The maximum dry density and optimal monster content were derived from the Proctor test results. The
optimal water content is that at which the dry density is at its maximum.
After 24 h of storage, the samples were compacted according to the Proctor test protocol, as illustrated in
figure6. Specifically, 25 blows from the Proctor rammer were applied to each of the three layers as required by
the NF P94-093 standard. Subsequently, a sample was taken from each mixture, weighed, and dried in an oven at
105°C for 4 h. The parameters of moisture density, water content, and dry density were calculated using
equations(4),(6), and(7), respectively. The calculation procedure remained the same for all Proctor test
variants.
ɣ()=
-MM
V
4
h
Th m
m
where()
Mgm: the mass of the mold,MThis the total wet mass,()Vcmm
3 is the volume of the mold, and
ɣ()
h
g
cm3:
the wet density.
To determine the dry density, it isfirst necessary to determine the mass of water using equation(5)and the
water content using equation(6).
Figure 3.Process of granulometric analysis.(a)soaking,(b)and(c)washing on the 0.08 mm sieve,(d)end of washing,(e)dry residue,
(f)sieving.
Figure 4.Process for determining the maximum dry density and optimal monster content of the clay+sugarcane molasses mixtures
before the compaction stage,(a)sieving,(b)weighing of the clay,(c)weighing of water,(d)weighing of molasses,(e)clay-molasses
mixture to be mixed,(f)moistening with water,(g)storage.
Figure 5.Procédure préliminaire de détermination de la teneur en eau optimale et de la densité sèche max des composés argile+fibre
de coco avant l’étape de compactage(a)argile tamisée,(b)pesage de l’argile,(c)pesage defibre de coco,(d)argile-fibre à mélanger,(e)
pesage d’eau,(f)mouillage à la proportion l’eau indiquée,(g)stockage.
6
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

8. ()=-mmm 5ehS
where meis the mass of water,mhis the mass of the wet sample andmsis the mass of the dry sample.
()==
-
=-W
m
m
mm
m
m
m
16
e
s
hS
s
h
s
Wis the monster content of sample.
ɣ
ɣ
()=
+W1
7
b
h
()ɣ
b
g
cm 3is the dry density
2.2.5. Atterberg limits
To determine the Atterberg limits, a quartering process was performed on 50 kg of clay to ensure homogeneity.
As illustrated infigure7, the principle is the crossover or diagonal mixing’method, which is performed infive
stages. After quartering, the clay was soaked for twenty-four(24)hours and then washed using a 400μm sieve, as
shown infigure8. The passing material or aggregate was collected and allowed to settle. The liquid limit(
)WL
was determined using the Casagrande cup method, as shown infigure9, and the plastic limit( )WPwas
determined using the rolling method, as illustrated infigure10. The plasticity index(
)
IPwas obtained by
subtracting the plastic limit from the liquid limit using equation(8).
()=-IWW 8PLP
The consistency index is determined by the following relation: equation(9).
()
()=
-
I
WW
I
9
c
Ln
P
Wnis natural monster content.
2.2.6. Mechanical properties determination
These properties pertain to compressive andflexural strengths. These were obtained by using a hydraulic press.
The bricks used for these tests measure 16×4×4cm
3
. For each type of brick, the test was repeated three times
forflexural strength(figure11(a))and six times for compressive strength(figure11(b))using six half-bricks
from the three full bricks.
Figure 6.Compaction and drying process.(a)mold,(b)compaction,(c)leveling,(d)weighing,(e)drying.
Figure 7.Quartering process.
7
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

9. For theflexural strength, a three-point bending test was performed to determine the rupture force of the
sample(figure11(a)). Equation(15)is then used, which is derived from equation(11). The compressive strength
was calculated using equation(16). The sample’s rupture in bending and its crushing in compression were
observed on the computer screen(figure11(c)), and the crushed andflexural samples are shown infigures11(d)
and(e), respectively. The data were recorded directly on a computer.
Figure 8.Washing process.(a): soaking,(b): washing,(c): sieving.
Figure 9.Liquid limit test process.(a)spreading,(b)mixing,(c)paste in the apparatus,(d)samples taken.
Figure 10.Plasticity limit test process.
Figure 11.Process of mechanical testing:(a)bending,(b)compression,(c)end of test,(d)crushed samples,(e)flexed samples.
8
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

10. The maximum stress in material strength is: equation(10).
()s=- ´
M
I
Y 10
fZ
GZ
Because the stress is the opposite of the strength, we have equation(11).
()=´R
M
I
Y11F
fZ
GZ
where
MfZ: the bending moment(equation(12)),R Fis theflexural strength,IGZ: the quadratic moment of area
about the(GZ)axis(equation(13)), and Y is the distance from the axis to the ordinate(equation(14)).
()=M
FL
4
12fZ
The section being rectangular,
()=I
Lh
12
13GZ
3
()=Y
h
2
14
where L is the length of the rectangle and h is the height or thickness of the brick measured after complete drying.
By substituting equations(12)–(14)into equation(11), we obtain equation(15):
()=R
F
h
3
4
15F
2
The compressive strengths were obtained by dividing the compressive force by the area over which the
pressure force was applied(equation(16)):
()=R
F
S
16C
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Particle size distribution of the clay
Thefigure12shows the particle size distribution curve of the soil. From this curve, it can be observed that the
percentage of grains passing through the 80μm sieve is 98.5%, indicating that the material contains a very high
proportion offines. In addition, the largest grains present in the material had a maximum diameter(Dmx)of
8 mm. It is also noted that the percentage of particles passing through the 2 mm sieve was 99.8%. Thus, with
Dmx=8mm<50 mm and a sieve percentage of 98.5%(greater than 35%)at 80μm, the classification
according to the GTR standard(NF P 11-300)indicates that the studied soil material falls into class A, meaning it
is afine soil. Moreover, with a sieve percentage at 2 mm of 99.8%, the particle diameter of the material was
between 80μm and 2 mm(80μm<D<2mm), confirming that the soil material was primarily composed
of clay.
3.2. Effect of sugarcane molasses on geotechnical properties
3.2.1. Monster content and dry density
The water contents and dry densities resulting from the Proctor test are presented in table3. The values of the
maximum dry density(MDD)and optimal moisture content(OMC)pairs(g
b
;W)are highlighted in blue.
These MDD and OMC pairs for clay with 4% molasses(CSM4), 8% molasses(CSM8), and 12% molasses
(CSM12)are(1.51 g cm
−3
; 24.5%),(1.50 g cm
−3
; 23.5%), and(1.59 g cm
−3
; 22%), respectively. For CB, the
values are(1.42 g cm
−3
; 22.3%). These values represent increases of 6.34%, 5.63%, and 11.97% in the maximum
dry density for CSM4, CSM8, and CSM12, respectively, compared with CB. Generally, it is observed that the dry
density increases with sugarcane molasses content, as confirmed by[43]. The optimal moisture content of clay
with 4% and 8% molasses was higher than that of the clay alone, except for clay with 12% molasses, where
the moisture content decreased by 1.36%. For the additions of 4% and 8% molasses,[43]found dry densities
(1.53 t m
−3
and 1.5 t m
−3
, respectively)close to ours for the same compositions.
The increase in the dry density of clay stabilized with sugarcane molasses shows that molasses makes clay
more cohesive and harder. Indeed, molasses reacts with water and minerals in clay, facilitating the formation of
chemical bonds betweenfine and coarse clay particles. These new bonds reduce the porosity of the material,
thereby decreasing the number of air bubbles and the water absorption between particles. The lower the
porosity, the more compact is the material, resulting in a higher dry density. The decrease in the moisture
9
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

11. content can be attributed to the evaporation of a large amount of water from the mixture and the fact that
molasses also hydrates upon contact with water, similar to cement. Thus, molasses can be considered a binder in
the mixture. In this sense, molasses acts as a stabilizing agent to improve the properties of clay, which was also
confirmed by[52]. Thus, molasses enhances the quality of clay used for construction and road treatment.
3.2.2. Effect of sugarcane molasses on the atterberg limits
According to table4, which illustrates the Atterberg limits, it is observed that clay without molasses has lower
consistency indices, liquid limit, and plastic limit compared to clay with 4%, 8%, and 12% molasses. However,
the plasticity index remained higher for clay with molasses than for clay without molasses, indicating that the
addition of sugarcane molasses improves these geotechnical properties. Specifically, these properties are
maximized at 4% molasses content, with increases in the liquid limit, plastic limit, and consistency index of
9.28%, 44.80%, and 37.9%, respectively, compared to clay without molasses. It is also noteworthy that the
Figure 12.Particle size distribution curve of the clay.
Table 3.Monster content et dry density of clay and clay-sugarcane molasses compounds.
CSM4 CSM8 CSM12 CB
W(%)
ɣ
b
(g/cm
3
) W(%) ɣ
b
(g/cm
3
) W(%) ɣ
b
(g/cm
3
) W(%) ɣ
b
(g/cm
3
)
22.2 1.44 20.65 1.47 18.7 1.54 18.5 1.405
24.2 1.51 22.8 1.5 20.8 1.57 20 1.41
26.4 1.495 24.5 1.49 22.3 1.59 22.3 1.42
28 1.465 26.2 1.47 24.1 1.51 24.3 1.39
30.6 1.39 28.4 1.43 26.4 1.46 26.4 1.34
Table 4.Atterberg limits of CB and CSM compounds.
CB[54] CSM4 CSM8 CSM12
Liquidity Limits W
L(%) 63.6 69.5 67.2 63.6
Plasticity Limits W
P(%) 27.9 40.4 36.5 31.6
Plasticity Index I
P(%) 35.7 29.1 30.7 32
Consistency Index I
C(%) 1.456 1.99 1.81 1.62
10
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

12. Atterberg limits decreased as the percentage of molasses increased, which has also been observed by[53]and
[43]. These results indicate that among the three molasses contents used, 4% provided the best geotechnical
properties compared with 8% and 12%. The decrease in the liquid limit can be explained by the adhesive
properties of sugarcane molasses[43].
The improvement in the plasticity limit indicates increasedflexural strength, whereas the increase in the
consistency index suggests better compressive strength, and an increase in the liquid limit indicates an improved
water absorption capacity of the clay. This highlights the advantage of using sugarcane molasses as a clay
stabilizer.
One of the goals of this geotechnical analysis is to assess the effect of adding sugarcane molasses to the
classification of clay. A granulometric study classified the clay as Class A. The Atterberg limits help refine this
classification: with
<= <I25 35.7 40P (table4), the material is classified as A3, indicating that it is marly clay.
Furthermore, the consistency index
=>I1.45 1.3C , which places the clay in subclass A3ts. In other words, the
studied soil material was a highly plastic marly and silty clay, according to the GTR classification of the NF P 11-
300 standard.
The clay samples with 4%, 8%, and 12% sugarcane molasses had plasticity indices of 29.1, 30.7, and 32,
respectively, all within the range of
<<I25 40P . They therefore, they belonged to Class A3. Additionally, their
consistency indices
I
C, 1.99, 1.81, and 1.65, were greater than 1.3, placing them in subclass A3ts. Thus, the
addition of various proportions of sugarcane molasses did not change the nature of the clay.
3.2.3. Coconutfiber effect on the monster content and dry density
The evolution of water content and dry density with different mixtures is shown infigure13. The optimal
moisture contents(OMC)and maximum dry densities(MDD)of the different mixtures of clay alone(CB), clay
with 0.25% coconutfiber(CF¼), clay with 0.5% coconutfiber(CF½), clay with 0.75% coconutfiber(CF¾), and
clay with 1% coconutfiber(CF1)are presented in table5. It was observed that the optimal moisture content
decreased with an increase in the percentage by mass of coconutfiber, whereas the dry density increased. The
decrease in OMC indicates that during mixing, thefibers absorb a portion of the added water, leading to a
reduction in the water content based on thefiber content in the mixtures. The increase in dry density reflects the
greater compactness of the mixture; the strong internal cohesion between clay particles andfibers after
compaction makes the mixture denser.
Notably, the optimal moisture content of clay with 0.25% coconutfiber increased by 26.46% compared to
clay alone withoutfiber. However, it subsequently decreased with an increase infiber content, while it remained
Figure 13.Moisture content-dry density relationships in the stabilization withfiber.
Table 5.Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of clay and clay+coconutfiber.
Specimen Maximum dry density MDD (g/cm
3
) Optimum moisture content OMC(%)
CB 1.42 22.3
CF¼ 1.47 28.2
CF½ 1.48 24.9
CF¾ 1.53 24.2
CF1 1.6 23.4
11
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

13. higher than that of clay alone. This suggests that 0.25% coconutfiber is the optimalfiber content for a higher
moisture content. Thisfinding is surprising, as one might expect that an increase in thefiber percentage would
increase the optimal moisture content, given that thefibers are hydrophilic materials with the ability to absorb
and retain water. Possible explanations for this include the following:
The increase in OMC from 22.3% to 28.2% or 26.46% was due to water absorption by the coconutfiber,
which improved the water retention of the mixture, thus increasing the optimal moisture content. This may
be explained by the possible modification of the structure and texture of the clay. Indeed,fibers may create
additional spaces or alter the distribution of clay particles, which can influence the distribution and retention
of water in the mixture, thus increasing the optimal moisture content.
The decrease in the OMC can be explained by the dilution effect and saturation of the clay+coconutfiber
mixture with increasingfiber concentration.
3.3. Effect of coconutfiber stabilization on mechanical properties
3.3.1. Effect of coconutfiber on compressive strength
The compressive strength of a construction material characterizes its ability to withstand crushing force. It is
expressed in terms of pressure(MPa)according to equation(16), and the results are presented in table6for
different clay-fiber(CF)mixtures. A maximum compressive strength of 6.395 MPa was achieved with afiber
content of 0.25%, providing a modest improvement of 8.37% compared to CB. In contrast, an increase of 41%
was reported in[55]. Beyond this percentage, the strength decreased, reaching 5.423 MPa when thefiber content
reached 1%. This strength is lower than the 5.901 MPa strength of clay brick withoutfiber(CB). This
observation was confirmed by[26], who found that at 1%, 3%, and 5% coconutfibers, the compressive strength
continued to decrease significantly.[56]found that beyond 0.1% coconutfiber, the compressive strength
decreased with increasingfiber content. However, other studies[
57]and[40]have revealed that the compressive
strength peaks at 0.75%fiber. This discrepancy might be due to the non-uniform distribution of the coconut
fibers, which causes ductility in the bricks at thefiber arrangement level. This problem occurs when thefibers are
not cut to appropriate lengths and are disordered. However, this effect is generally controlled at low
concentrations.
The variation in compressive strength, which increases and then decreases beyond a certainfiber content,
can be explained by the fact that an optimal amount offibers strengthens the bonds within the clay matrix,
creating a more cohesive clay-fiber matrix. However, beyond this optimal level, the interaction between clay and
fibers decreases in favor offiber-fiber interactions, which reduces cohesion and makes the matrix more ductile.
The maximumflexural strength found in this study is higher than that reported by[58]and[55]which were
0.63 MPa and 2.7 MPa, respectively, for 0.3% basaltfibers and 0.25% coconutfibers. Additionally, the
maximum compressive strength of 5.95 MPa recorded by[59]with 1% Typhafibers was also lower than that
achieved in this study.
3.3.2. Effect of coconutfiber onflexural strength
The results of the three-point bending test, expressed in pressure(MPa), are shown in table7for the
compositions CF¼, CF½, CF¾, and CF1. Theflexural strength increased linearly with thefiber content in the
clay-fiber composite. It increased from 0.629 MPa for pure clay(CB)to 0.892 MPa for CF¼, representing a
41.81% increase. Theflexural strength increases by 167.25% for CF½, 197.14% for CF¾, and 361.9% for CF1,
reaching 1.68 MPa, 1.87 MPa, and 2.91 MPa, respectively.[60]also noted that theflexural strength increased
Table 6.Compressive strength of various coconutfiber-clay brick formulations(CF).
Specimens CB CF¼ CF½ CF¾ CF1
Bulk Density
3.04% (kg/m
3
) 1666.667 1658.768 1619.048 1605 1580
Compressive strength
0.12% (MPa) 5.901 6.395 6.292 6.065 5.423
Table 7.Flexural strength of different coconutfiber-clay brick formulations(CF).
Specimens CB CF¼ CF½ CF¾ CF1
Bulk Density
3.04% (kg/m
3
) 1666.667 1658.768 1619.048 1605 1580
Flexural strength
0.8% (MPa) 0.6285 0.8917 1.681 1.869 2.910
12
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

14. withfiber content. These improvements are attributed to the highflexural strength of coconutfibers, which
provides a clay-fiber mix with enhancedflexural resistance. This highflexural strength is due to the cellulose
content in the coconutfibers, which is 54%, according to[61]. The observedflexural strength is higher than that
achieved by[58]and[55], which were 3.5 MPa and 3.01 MPa, respectively, for 0.3% basaltfibers and 0.5%
coconutfibers in clay. These differences can be attributed to the nature of the soil, type offibers, and length of the
fibers.[62]found that at a length of 48 mm, theflexural strength decreased, whereas it increased at afiber length
of 72 mm. For refractory clay reinforced with strawfibers,[63]observed that theflexural strength increased with
the amount of straw added. However, the maximumflexural strength achieved was only 0.477 MPa with a straw
content of 4.81%, representing a modest improvement of 33.61% compared with clay without straw. These
performance levels are significantly lower than those observed in the present study.
3.4. Effect of sugarcane molasses stabilization on the mechanicals properties
The purpose of this section is to study the effect of adding molasses on compressive andflexural strengths.
3.4.1. Influence of sugarcane molasses stabilization on the compressive strength
The results of the compression tests are listed in table8. The maximum compressive strength of 6.623 MPa was
achieved with an 8% molasses content in the clay-molasses mixture, representing a 12.24% increase compared
to the clay brick without molasses(CB), which has a strength of 5.901 MPa. The compressive strength of CSM8 is
slightly higher than that of CF¼(6.395 MPa). At 12% molasses, the compressive strength decreased to
5.054 MPa, which was lower than that of CB. This result is close to that of[64], who found a maximum
compressive strength of 4.7 MPa for 12% molasses. However,[65]measured a strength of 5.78 MPa for bricks
stabilized with 4% cane molasses heated to 250°C. For other temperatures(200
°C, 150°C, and 100°C), the
compressive strengths observed for a 6% molasses content are 5.5 MPa, 5.25 MPa, and 4 MPa, respectively,
indicating that temperature increases this strength. Additionally, in their studies on reinforced adobe,[66]found
a maximum compressive strength of 4.5 MPa with the sugarcane bagasse content. As for[67], they observed a
positive interaction of sugarcane bagasse with adobe, with a compressive strength improvement of up to 60%.
In summary, the compressive strength increased by 2.46% with the addition of 4% cane molasses and by
12.24% with the addition of 8% molasses compared to that of CB. However, it decreased by 14.35% when the
molasses content increased to 12% compared with that of CB. This decrease can be explained as follows.
Moderate molasses addition may help bind clay particles more uniformly and reduce internal voids or
structural weaknesses, leading to better compaction, clay cohesion, and fewer internal defects.
At too high a concentration of molasses, the sweetness can agglomerate clay particles and alter the clay
network structure.
3.4.2. Influence of cane molasses onflexural strength
Table9presents the three-pointflexural strengths of the clay+molasses mixtures(CSM4, CSM8, CSM12)
compared to that of the clay alone(CB). CB has aflexural strength of 0.6285 MPa, which indicates that
stabilization is necessary because, according to[68]in the BS 6073 standard, the minimumflexural strength
described is 0.65 MPa for building materials used in structural applications. Theflexural strength increased with
the molasses content, reaching a maximum value of 2.571 MPa when the molasses content was 8%, representing
a 308.74% increase compared with CB. For CSM12, theflexural strength decreased to 2.035 MPa compared with
CSM4 and CSM8, although it remained higher than that of CB. This indicates that there is an optimal molasses
content to achieve maximumflexural strength. At moderate molasses concentrations(such as 4% and 8%),
Table 9.Flexural strength of CB and CSM compounds.
Specimens CB CSM4 CSM8 CSM12
Bulk Density
3.04% (kg/m
3
) 1666.667 1685.714 1957.143 1990.143
Flexural strength(MPa)
0.8% 0.6285 2.1927 2.5714 2.0346
Table 8.Compressive Strength of CB and CSM compounds.
Specimens CB CSM4 CSM8 CSM12
Bulk Density
3.04% (kg/m
3
) 1666.667 1685.714 1957.143 1990.143
Compressive strength
0.12% (MPa) 5.901 6.046 6.623 5.054
13
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

15. molasses can act as a plasticizer, improving the malleability of the clay and allowing for better particle
distribution, thereby increasingflexural strength[66]also found that the compressive strength increased with
sugarcane bagasse content and recorded aflexural strength of 1.5 MPa for a 4% sugarcane bagasse content,
which is slightly lower than that achieved in this study.
Comparing the maximumflexural strength of the CF mixtures(2.910 MPa)with that of the CSM mixtures
(2.571 MPa), it was observed that coconutfiber enhanced the ability of the bricks to resist bending stresses better
than cane molasses. However, on average, the CSM mixtures exhibited aflexural strength of 2.266 MPa, which
was higher than the 1.838 MPa of the CF mixtures(1.838 MPa).
3.5. Effect of sugarcane molasses -coconut bi-stabilization on mechanical properties
3.5.1. Effect of Bi-stabilization with molasses-fiber on compression strength
Figures14and15illustrate the compression strengths of bricks made from clay-molasses-fiber composites
(CSMF). It was observed that for coconutfiber contents of 0.25% and 1%, the molasses content had little
influence on the compression strength, as shown infigure14. The measured values are relatively close: 6.4 MPa,
6.2 MPa and 6.35 MPa for 0.25%fiber, and 4.87 MPa, 5.76 MPa and 5.68 MPa for 1%fiber, corresponding to
4%, 8%, and 12% cane molasses content, respectively. However, for afiber content of 0.5%, the compression
strength of the bricks increases with the molasses content, rising from 5.9 MPa to 6.4 MPa, 6.2 MPa and
6.35 MPa, representing increases of 8.47%, 5.08% and 7.63%, respectively, compared to the clay brick alone
(CB). A maximum compression strength of 7.23 MPa was achieved with 0.5% coconutfiber and 4% molasses
(figures14and15), which is an improvement of 22.54% compared to the simple clay brick(CB), 9.21%
compared to CSM8, and 14.94% compared to CF½.
Figure 14.Compression strength: variation with molasses content by coconutfiber content.
Figure 15.Compression strength: variation with coconutfiber content by molasses content.
14
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

16. Conversely, at 0.5% coconutfiber content, the compression strength decreased as the molasses content
increased. This reduction could be attributed to the effect of molasses on the compression strength. However,
figure15shows that with 12% molasses, the compression strength is 6.35 MPa for a 0.25%fiber content,
whereas it decreases as thefiber content increases. At 0.75%fiber, the compression strength nearly returned to
the level of the simple clay brick(5.901 MPa), except for the brick with 8% molasses(figure14). Additionally, for
1% coconutfiber, regardless of the molasses proportion, the compression strength was lower than that of the
simple clay brick(figure14). It can be concluded that the decrease in compression strength is primarily due to
the high amount of coconutfiber, which makes the brick more ductile.
3.5.2. Effect of sugarcane molasses-coconutfiber bi-stabilization onflexural strength
Figure16illustrates the three-pointflexural strength of bricks composed of clay, molasses, andfibers. Regardless
of thefiber content(¼%, ½%, ¾%, and 1%), theflexural strength increased as the molasses content increased
from 4% to 8% and then decreased when the molasses content increased from 8% to 12%. This indicates that
there is an optimal molasses content for achieving the maximumflexural strength, which was 8% in this study.
At this optimal level, the elasticity of the clay-fiber-molasses mixture increases, thereby improving theflexibility
of the brick. However, beyond this optimal level, excessive molasses can lead to saturation of the clay mixture
and affect the adhesion of coconutfibers, resulting in a decrease inflexural strength. A maximumflexural
strength of 3.84 MPa was achieved with an 8% molasses content forfiber contents of ¾% and 1%. This
represents an improvement of 509.52% compared to theflexural strength of plain clay brick(CB), 49.42%
Figure 16.Flexural strength of CSMF: variation with molasses content by coconutfiber content.
Figure 17.Flexural strength: variation with coconutfiber content by molasses content.
15
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

17. compared to bricks stabilized only with molasses(CSM), and 31.96% compared to bricks reinforced only with
coconutfiber(CF). This means that bistabilization with sugarcane molasses and coconutfibers enhances the
fiber bridging mechanism in the composite[69]. In other words, sugarcane molasses and coconutfibers bind the
soil particles together morefirmly in the composite compared to unreinforced soil samples(CB), and provide
better performance than the various CSM and CF compounds.
Moreover, for different molasses contents, theflexural strength increased with coconutfiber content, as
shown infigure17. Coconutfibers act as reinforcements within the clay matrix, enhancing the internal cohesion
of the brick and increasing the toughness of the composite material.
It was observed that theflexural strength of the CSM bricks decreased when the molasses content increased
from 8% to 12%(table9), whereas for CF bricks, it increased with thefiber content(table7). In light of these
observations, it seems that molasses is responsible for the reduction in theflexural strength of bricks composed
of molasses andfibers(CSMF)beyond the optimal level.
4. Conclusions and perspectives
Improving the mechanical and hydric properties of soil as a building material is still a topical issue. This is
because of the weaknesses of the soil in these areas. This study analyzed the effect of sugarcane molasses, coconut
fiber, and their combinations on the mechanical and geotechnical properties of adobe bricks. In practice, the
influence of sugarcane molasses on clay class, Atterberg limits and water content was investigated. The effect of
coconutfibre and sugarcane molasses on compressive andflexural strength was investigated. Several important
results were obtained:
1. stabilizers, namely sugarcane molasses and coconutfiber, increase the maximum dry density to 11.97% and
12.68% comparatively to CB, respectively,
2. the class A3ts of the clay is not modified by the interaction with the molasses of the sugar cane,
3. optimum moisture content is highest for CF
4, with an increase of 26.46% compared to CB,
4. the maximum liquid limits, plasticity and consistency index are obtained with CSM4,
5.flexural and compressive strengths were improved by 361.9% and 8.37% respectively over CB with coir,
6. molasses improvedflexural and compressive strength by 308.74% and 12.24% respectively over CB,
7. bi-stabilization increased compressive strength by 22.54% over CB, 9.21% over CSM8, and 14.94%
over CF½,
8. bi-stabilization improvedflexural strength by 509.52% over CB, 49.42% over CSM, and 31.96% over cf.
These results show that sugarcane molasses and coconutfiber are effective for bi-stabilization of clay soils,
providing significant benefits in terms of mechanical strength and moisture management. However, the analysis
did not take into account the chemical interactions between the molassesfibre and the clay, which could help to
better explain the mechanical results.
Other gaps remain in this area and require further investigation. The following are recommended:
a study to optimise blends of sugar cane molasses, coconutfibre and clay and to assess their feasibility on a
larger scale;
an investigation of the effect of bi-stabilisation with sugarcane molasses and coconutfibre on the thermal
properties of these composites for applications in the construction sector.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the International Science Program(ISP)for supporting BUF01 in Burkina
Faso. The authors express their deep gratitude to the International Institute for Water and Environmental
Engineering(2iE)and the Laboratory for Eco-Materials & Sustainable Habitats(LEMHaD)in Ouagadougou,
Burkina Faso for enabling the mechanical tests required for this research.
16
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

18. Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Data availability statement
All data that support thefindings of this study are included within the article.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Author contributions
BoukaréOUEDRAOGO: Investigation, experimental work, methodology, writing–original draft, writing–
review and editing.Inoussa TOUGRI: Conceptualization, experimental work, sample preparation,
visualization, and formatting.Hassim GUENGANE: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, writing review, and
editing.Kalifa PALM: Review, Orientation, supervision, and coordination.DieudonnéJoseph BATHIEBO:
Guidance, supervision, and coordination.
ORCID iDs
Boukaré Ouédraogo
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5160-7513
Inoussa Tougrihttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-9534
References
[1]Courard L 2021 Construction en terre, ressources secondaires et matériaux bio-sourcés: un avenir pour l’AfriqueProc. R. Acad.
Overseas Sci.115
[2]Gouny F, Fouchal F, Pop O, Maillard P and Rossignol S 2013 Mechanical behavior of an assembly of wood-geopolymer-earth bricks
Constr. Build. Mater.38110–8
[3]Almssad A, Almusaed A and Homod R Z 2022 Masonry in the context of sustainable buildings: a review of the brick role in architecture
Sustain.1414734
[4]Fabbri A, Morel J C and Gallipoli D 2018 Assessing the performance of earth building materials: a review of recent developments
RILEM Tech. Lett.346–58
[5]Shan Y, Tan S, Cui J, Yuan J and Li Y 2024 Effect of plasticfine particles on shear strength at the critical state of sand-clay mixtureCan.
Geotech. J.1–59
[6]Les origines du ciment naturel prompt 2024https://ciment-prompt-vicat.fr/histoire
[7]L'histoire de Louis Vicat 2024https://vicat.fr/a-propos-de-nous/vision/l-histoire-de-louis-vicat#:%E2%88%BC:text=Louis%
20Vicat%20invente%20le%20ciment,aux%20entrepreneurs%20de%20son%20si%C3%A8cle
[8]He Let al2024 A quasi-exponential distribution of interfacial voids and its effect on the interlayer strength of 3D printed concrete
Addit. Manuf.891–10
[9]Zhao Het al2024 Review on solid wastes incorporated cementitious material using 3D concrete printing technologyCase Stud. Constr.
Mater.21e03676
[10]Dulal P, Maharjan S, Timalsina M P, Maharjan Y, Giri A and Tamang A 2023 Engineering properties of cement-stabilized compressed
earth bricksJ. Build. Eng.77
107453
[11]Omar Sore S, Messan A, Prud’homme E, Escadeillas G and Tsobnang F 2018 Stabilization of compressed earth blocks(CEBs)by
geopolymer binder based on local materials from Burkina FasoConstr. Build. Mater.165333–45
[12]Dabakuyo I, Mutuku R N N and Onchiri R O 2022 Mechanical properties of compressed earth block stabilized with sugarcane molasses
and metakaolin-based geopolymerCiv. Eng. J.8780–95
[13]Nshimiyimana P, Messan A and Courard L 2020 Physico-mechanical and hygro-thermal properties of compressed earth blocks
stabilized with industrial and agro by-product bindersMaterials131–17
[14]Ouedraogo Met al2019 Physical, thermal and mechanical properties of adobes stabilized with fonio(Digitaria exilis)strawJ. Build.
Eng.23250–8
[15]Bakam V A, Mbishida M A and Danjuma T 2023 Acoustic property of interlocking compressed stabilized earth blocks: a sustainable
alternative for building materialsJ. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol.889–95
[16]Xin Y, Robert D, Mohajerani A, Tran P and Pramanik B K 2023 Energy efficiency of waste reformedfired clay bricks-from
manufacturing to post applicationEnergy282128755
[17]Wassie T A and Demir G 2024 Mechanical strength and microstructure of soft soil stabilized with cement, lime, and metakaolin-based
geopolymer stabilizersAdv. Civ. Eng.2024Article ID 6613742, 11 pages
[18]González-López J R, Juárez-Alvarado C A, Ayub-Francis B and Mendoza-Rangel J M 2018 Compaction effect on the compressive
strength and durability of stabilized earth blocksConstr. Build. Mater.163179–88
[19]Lachheb M, Youssef N and Younsi Z 2023 A comprehensive review of the improvement of the thermal and mechanical properties of
unfired clay bricks by incorporating waste materialsBuildings
132314
17
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

19. [20]Mohanty S K, Biswal D R, Mohapatra B G, Beriha B, Pradhan R and Sutar H 2023 Strength and stiffness evaluation of afiber-reinforced
cement-stabilizedfly ash stone dust aggregate mixtureJ. Compos. Sci.7459
[21]Touré P M, Sambou V, Faye M, Thiam A, Adj M and Azilinon D 2017 Mechanical and hygrothermal properties of compressed
stabilized earth bricks(CSEB)J. Build. Eng.13266–71
[22]Lindh P and Lemenkova P 2022 Impact of strength-enhancing admixtures on stabilization of expansive soil by addition of alternative
bindersCiv. Environ. Eng.18726–35
[23]Muhudin A A, Zami M S, Budaiwi I M and Abd El Fattah A 2024 Experimental study of thermal conductivity in soil stabilization for
sustainable construction applicationsSustain.161–24
[24]Saidi M, Cherif A S, Zeghmati B and Sediki E 2018 Stabilization effects on the thermal conductivity and sorption behavior of earth
bricksConstr. Build. Mater.167566–77
[25]Obsharova A V and Grishina A S 2021 Effect of thefiber reinforcement on the mechanical properties of clay soils, including properties
under conditions of seasonal freezing and thawingJ. Phys. Conf. Ser.1928012067
[26]Kadir A A, Zulkifly S N M, Abdullah M M A B and Sarani N A 2016 The utilization of coconutfibre intofired clay brickKey Eng. Mater.
673213–22
[27]Maskell D, Heath A and Walker P 2014 Geopolymer stabilisation of unfired earth masonry unitsKey Eng. Mater.600175–85
[28]Abessolo D, Biwole A B, Fokwa D, Koungang B M G and Baah Y B 2022 Physical, mechanical and hygroscopic behaviour of compressed
earth blocks stabilized with cement and reinforced with bamboofibresInt. J. Eng. Res. Africa5929
–41
[29]Vissac A 2014 matière enfibresMémoire du Diplôme de Spécialisation et d’Approfondissement DSA–Architecture de TerreEcole
Nationale Superieure D’architecture De Grenoblehttps://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-03035822v1/file/15350_Vissac_DSA_
Matiere_en_fibres.pdf
[30]Malkanthi S N, Balthazaar N and Perera A A D A J 2020 Lime stabilization for compressed stabilized earth blocks with reduced clay and
siltCase Stud. Constr. Mater.12e00326
[31]Barbero-Barrera M M, Jové-Sandoval F and González Iglesias S 2020 Assessment of the effect of natural hydraulic lime on the
stabilisation of compressed earth blocksConstr. Build. Mater.260119877
[32]Lahdili M, El Abbassi F E, Sakami S and Aamouche A 2022 Mechanical and thermal behavior of compressed earth bricks reinforced
with lime and coal aggregatesBuildings121–14
[33]Losini P G S, Emanuela A, Lavrik L, Caruso M, Woloszyn M, Grillet A C and Dotelli G 2022 Mechanical properties of rammed earth
stabilized with local waste and recycled materialsConstr. Technol. Archit.1113–23
[34]Babé C, Kidmo D K, Tom A, Mvondo R R N, Kola B and Djongyang N 2021 Effect of neem(Azadirachta Indica)fibers on mechanical,
thermal and durability properties of adobe bricksEnergy Reports7686–98
[35]Kaushik D and Singh S K 2021 Use of coirfiber and analysis of geotechnical properties of soilMater. Today Proc.474418–22
[36]
Hu Q, Song W and Hu J 2023 Study of the mechanical properties and water stability of microbially cured, coir-fiber-reinforced clay soil
Sustain.151–21
[37]Thanushan K and Sathiparan N 2022 Mechanical performance and durability of bananafibre and coconut coir reinforced cement
stabilized soil blocksMaterialia21101309
[38]Sadik T, Muthuraman S, Sivaraj M, Negash K, Balamurugan R and Bakthavatsalam S 2022 Mechanical behavior of polymer composites
reinforced with coir and date palm frondfibersAdv. Mater. Sci. Eng.20229882769
[39]Boobalan S C and Sivakami Devi M 2022 Investigational study on the influence of lime and coirfiber in the stabilization of expansive
soilMater. Today Proc.60311–4
[40]Widianti A, Diana W and Fikriyah Z S 2021 Unconfined compressive strength of clay strengthened by coconutfiber wasteAdvances in
Engineering Research19947–50Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Sustain. Innov. 2020–Technology, Eng. Agric.(ICoSITEA 2020)
[41]Sun Z, Zhang L, Liang D, Xiao W and Lin J 2017 Mechanical and thermal properties of PLA biocomposites reinforced by coirfibersInt.
J. Polym. Sci.20171–9
[42]Sofia L and Cuervo R 2020 Adobe bricks with sugarcane molasses and gypsum to enhance compressive strength in the city Cogua,
ColombiaRev. la Constr.19358–65
[43]Dabakuyo I, Mutuku R N and Onchiri R O 2021 Effect of sugarcane molasses on the physical properties of metakaolin based
geopolymer stabilized laterite soilInt. J. Civ. Eng.81–12
[44]Prasad Acharya D and Raj Gyawali T 2024 Investigation of the performance of natural molasses on physical and mechanical properties
of cement mortar
Ain Shams Eng. J.15102355
[45]Ndegwa J K M and Shitote S M 2012 Influence of cane molasses on plasticty of expansive clay soilInt. J. Curr. Res.4136–41(http://
journalcra.com)
[46]Malanda N, Louzolo-kimbembe P and Tamba-Nsemi Y D 2017 Etude des caractéristiques mécaniques d’une brique en terre stabilisée à
l’aide de la mélasse de canne à sucre RésuméRev. Cames-Sci. Appl. l’Ing21–9http://publication.lecames.org/
[47]Malanda N, Mfoutou N N, Madila E E N and Louzolo-Kimbembe P 2022 Microstructure offine clay soils stabilized with sugarcane
molassesOpen J. Civ. Eng.12247–69
[48]FAO 2024 Fibres du Futur consulting(https://fao.org/economic/futurefibres/fibres/coir/fr/)
[49]Pawar K and Kumar V 2021 Sugarcane Molasses: Nutrition, processing and application12–4(https://justagriculture.in/files/
magazine/2021/june/002%20Sugarcane%20Molasses.pdf)
[50]Jamir L, Kumar V, Kaur J, Kumar S and Singh H 2021 Composition, valorization and therapeutical potential of molasses: a critical
reviewEnviron. Technol. Rev.10131–42
[51]TRID 1992 Analyse granulométrique par tamisageNormalisation Française(Association Francaise De Normalisation)p18–560
[52]M’Ndegwa J K 2011 The effect of cane molasses on strength of expansive clay soilJ. Emerg. Trends Eng.21034–41
[53]Moyo P, Anga. Thuo J N and Waweru S 2024 Suitability of bagasse ash and molasses for stabilization of expansive black cotton clay soils
for subgrade construction in low-volume rural roadsInt. J. Eng. Trends Technol.72152–63
[54]Ouedraogo B, Compaore A, Derra M, Palm K and Bahiebo D J 2024 Improvement of mechanical qualities of clay material through
coconutfiber stabilizationMater. Sci. Appl.15201–12
[55]Danso H, Martinson D B, Ali M and Williams J B 2015 Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced
with naturalfibresConstr. Build. Mater.101797–809
[56]Mudiyono R 2019The Influence of Coconut Fiber on the Compressive and Flexural Strength of Paving Blocks94702–5
[57]Sujatha E R, Saisree S, Prabalini C and Aysha Farsana Z 2017 Influence of random inclusion of coconutfibres on the short term strength
of highly compressible clayIOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.80012056
[58]Tang Z, Zhang H, Pan Y, Ke L, Xiang Z and Lai Z 2023 Experimental study on mechanical properties of basalt Fiber-Clay lime mortar
and application in brick masonryConstr. Build. Mater.3981–10
18
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al

20. [59]Limami H, Manssouri I, Cherkaoui K and Khaldoun A 2021 Mechanical and physicochemical performances of reinforced unfired clay
bricks with recycled Typha-fibers waste as a construction material additiveClean. Eng. Technol.2100037
[60]Bui T T H, Boutouil M, Sebaibi N and Levacher D 2019 Effect of coconutfibres content on the mechanical properties of mortars3rd Int.
Conf. on Bio-Based Building Materials(AJCE)300–7
[61]Babu G L S and Vasudevan A K 2007 Evaluation of strength and stiffness response of coir-fibre-reinforced soilGr. Improv.11111–6
[62]Shin H, Kim K, Oh T and Yoo D 2021 Effects offiber type and specimen thickness onflexural behavior of ultra-high-performance
fiber-reinforced concrete subjected to uniaxial and biaxial stressesCase Stud. Constr. Mater.15e00726
[63]Ouedraogo B, Palm K, Ouedraogo E, Bathiebo D J and Kam S 2016 Experimental study of thermophysical and mechanical properties of
refractory clay tilled into straw-fiber stabilized blocksPhys. Sci. Int. J.121–8
[64]Malanda N, Louzolo-kimbembe P and Destin Tamba-Nsemi Y 2017 Etude des caractéristiques mécaniques d’une brique en terre
stabilisée à l’aide de la mélasse de canne à sucreRev. Cames-Sci. Appl. l’Ing21–9http://publication.lecames.org/
[65]Malanda N, Nkaya J A, Ganga G, Durvy N E N and Louzolo-Kimbémbé P 2023 Thermo-mechanical properties study of stabilized soil
bricks to sugar cane molasses and cassava starch bindersOpen J. Appl. Sci.13240–60
[66]Ouedraogo M, Bamogo H, Sanou I, Mazars V, Aubert J-E and Younoussa M 2023 Microstructural, physical, and mechanical
characteristics of adobes amended with cement-metakaolin mixturesEmergent Mater.71203–
17
[67]Corrêa L M M A A R, de Paula Protásio T, de Lima J T and Tonoli G D 2014 Mechanical properties of adobe made with sugar cane
bagasse and‘synthetic termite saliva’incorporationKey Eng. Mater.634351–6
[68]Abid R, Kamoun N, Jamoussi F and El Feki H 2022 Fabrication and properties of compressed earth brick from local Tunisian raw
materialsBol. la Soc. Esp. Ceram. y Vidr.61397–407
[69]Salih M M, Osofero A I and Imbabi M S 2020 Critical review of recent development infiber reinforced adobe bricks for sustainable
constructionFront. Struct. Civ. Eng.14839–54
19
Mater. Res. Express12(2025)015502 B Ouédraogoet al