An Experimental Study to Address the Issues of Low

Durability and Low Compressive Strength of Mud

Plaster
Prof. Riyaz Ahmad Qasab*, Aatif Mohammad Dar, Aima Ashraf, Firdous
Ahmad Parray, Mohd Rafiq Mir, Ubhat Ali and Bisma Manzoor Wani.
*Department of Civil Engineering. IUST, Awantipora 192122, J&K, India

Abstract

Mud based plasters are completely compatible with traditional materials and building techniques.
Today with low- cost mass housing as a priority, the need for plastering materials which are
efficient and economical has awakened a new interest in green materials like mud. The only
drawback is the limited durability of the material against the aggressive action exerted by external
agents as a result of which the use of mud plasters has declined over the years. To improve the
durability and strength characteristics of mud plaster, our team has proposed the use of certain
additives like shellac, jute and white clay to be used in various percentages. Samples with and
without a coating of shellac were prepared and subjected to jet impingement, sample disintegration
and unconfined compressive strength tests.

The addition of 5% jute and 5% shellac to modified mud plaster together yielded remarkable
results and has thereby been proposed as an alternative to the conventional mud plaster reinforced
with straw. A keen observation of results indicated that the rate of erosion of conventional straw
plaster was much higher as compared to that of the improved plaster. Also, the compressive
strength for the modified plaster was 13.08% higher than the conventional plaster. The straw
plaster disintegrated at a much faster rate in comparison to the improved plaster. The coated
samples reflected a marked improvement in comparison to their uncoated counterparts. So, we as
a team also suggest that an application of a coating of shellac over existing mud plastered surfaces
could serve as an effective measure in enhancing the durability characteristics.
 1. Introduction

Buildings are large consumers of energy in all countries. In regions with harsh climatic conditions,
a substantial share of energy goes to heating and cooling the buildings. This heating and air
conditioning load can be reduced through many means; notable among them is the proper design
and selection of building envelope and its building components.

Mud construction is economically beneficial. The use of excavated soil means greatly reduced
costs in comparison with other building materials. Even if this soil is transported from other
construction sites, it is usually much cheaper than industrial building materials. It saves energy.
The preparation, transport and handling of soil on site require only about 1% of the energy needed
for the production, transport and handling of reinforced concrete and other construction materials.
Mud, then produces virtually no environmental pollution.

Mud-based plasters often use mud in combination with other natural materials such as wheat straw
or cow dung, or with mineral additives, to improve the basic qualities of the mud by acting as
stabilizers, hardeners, and waterproofing agents. Even without additives, however, mud plasters
and renders can give excellent results provided that they are made and applied with skill and care
and maintained regularly.

Ever since the emergence of lime and cement-based plasters, the use of mud plasters has been
shelved. Taking note of the usual scenario with due regard to the prevalence of cement plaster, this
project was set up with the aim of showing that soil-based plasters can still be relevant in today’s
construction industry. The primary aim of the project was to improve the durability, impermeability
and strength of the mud plaster.

Extensive analysis and scrutiny of the previously published research papers was done. Also, the
traditionally trained and well experienced workmen were consulted to obtain a more detailed
knowhow about the various additives that were traditionally incorporated in mud plasters, their
method of applications and the problems encountered following application.

1.1 Literature Survey

It is known that plasterwork, and the decoration upon it, was applied more than 4,000 years ago.
Mud architecture began in Egypt and developed to its full extent alongside the Nile1 (Capaldi,
2011). The Pharaohs of Egypt used plaster surfaces in their palaces and pyramids, which still
exists in a hard and durable state today. One of the earliest archaeological examples of both
civilization and plaster is Çatalhöyük (7500 BC), located in present day Turkey. A densely
populated town, Çatalhöyük’s dwellings had mud brick walls and floors coated with a locally
available clay marl that made a suitable plaster In the Earliest European settlers’ plasterwork, a
mud plaster was used or more usually a mud- lime mixture, Old Economy Village is one such
German settlement. The early Nineteenth- Century utopian village in present-day Ambridge,
Pennsylvania, used clay plaster substrate exclusively in the brick and wood frame high architecture
of the Feast Hall, Great House and other large and commercial structures as well as in the brick,
frame and log dwellings of the society members. At present, about 15% of UNESCO Heritage
Sites is represented by earthen architectures2 (UNESCO(Accessed: 28 July2014). In the
Marcheregion (Italy), a total of 245 earthen buildings are still present according to a recent official
cataloguing.3 (Recanati, Tecnostampa, 2005, pp. 45–284).

Numerous researches have been carried out on earth-based plasters. Studies have been conducted
on the effects of various fibres like straw, sisal, banana and coconut fibres to increase properties
of the mud plaster. (César Cardoso, Rute Eires and Guimarães )(A common traditional practice is
the addition of cow dung as an additive to earthen plasters, which improves the cohesion and
plasticity of soils of low clay content. (3) Another practice is the addition of horse urine, which
acts as a hardener and improves impermeability and impact resistance.4 (Appropriate Technology
Magazine, Volume 26/Number 1th June of 1999).

Chandra et al. (1998) made a study on the use of cactus in mortars and concrete. The liquid from prickly
pear cactus used to be one of the most common additives in America. The juice from the prickly
pear cactus leaf pads will serve many functions. According to some sources, it helps the plaster set
and increases its stickiness or adhesion. Cactus juice also serves as a stabilizer in that it helps make
earthen plasters more water-resistant and more durable. It also prevents dusting.

Research has been published on the use of bitumen as an additive in earthen plasters. Investigation
have been carried out in Central Building Research Institute Roorkee and elsewhere during last 3
decades to develop a "Non-erodible mud plaster" based on bitumen cut back and have been
successfully adopted on several houses to prove it effectiveness.5(Central Building Research
Institute, Non erodable Mud Plaster, Roorkee [online]http://cbri.res.in/CSIR-
800/.../WebTech/RBEA3-NonErodableMudPlaster.pdf (accessed 23 July 2015).

Typha-reinforced clay mortars improve on common mineral mortars because they are 100 %
recyclable and their production costs (financial and in terms of energy) are low.”

As per the tests conducted on the use of cattail, it was found that the natural fibres reinforce the
clay and increase its tensile (bending) strength as well as its compressive strength. . Other positive
qualities of Typha for this application are its near-invisibility when mixed into clay mortars, its
high content of polyphenols (natural tanning agents in the cattail plant) which assure long-term
natural microbiological protection of the plant and make the plaster resistant to mildew, and the
pleasing interior design effects that can be achieved. 6 ( G. Georgiev, W. Theuerkorn, M. Krus, R.
Kilian and T. Grosskinsky)

Research has been performed on the use of wheat straw, barley straw and wood shavings in mud
plasters. Previous investigations show that earth plaster with high straw content performs much
better than earth plaster without straw in terms of duration of erosion failure. Straw cushions the
impact of water drops and prevents earth plaster from the formation of large erosion channels.7
(Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1742–8262 Journal of Building Appraisal Vol. 5, 4, 329–340).

Experiments have also been carried out on the use of oat straw in mud plasters. From the results
established, the addition of oat straw remarkably decreased both flexural and compressive strength
of plasters. The increase of added volume of oat fibre, from 10% to 20%, promotes improvement
in both flexural and compressive strength. Mechanical and physical characteristics were tested,
showing that addition of these fibres contribute to decrease linear drying shrinkage and thermal
conductivity, as well as promoting the adhesion strength of plaster to the substrate.8 (Springer,
RILEM Book Series vol. 12, p. 315-327 ).

1.2 Limitations

Cracks on Wall Plaster

This is identified as a common problem in mud houses. Plaster cracks may result from stresses
caused by movement. Cracks of plaster can be caused by incorrect plastering techniques or plaster
which has been allowed to dry too fast. One of the biggest reasons that plaster may crack is caused
by changes in the ambient moisture levels and different expansion coefficients between wall and
plaster material. Shrinkage cracks develop on wall plaster often. Fine thermal cracks are found on
the plaster in many cases. Crack width can be measured to quantify the magnitude of the problem.
The type of crack can determine the associated problems such as; if it is a shrinkage crack, it is
usually a through crack. In some instances, it can be as wide as 2 to 3 mm. Plaster cracks are
usually very fine in width.

Water Absorption

Mud walls are more prone to deteriorate with high water absorption, if not stabilized properly. In
a tropical country like India, high rainfall can cause problems unless proper detailing is done to
eliminate rain water splashing on walls. If the mud walls get saturated; wet strength of the wall
will govern the stability. This is common in houses have less eave length and low plinth level.
Frequent exposure of mud walls to water leads to absorption of water in the walls which results in
their swelling and upon evaporation during drying, shrinkage occurs. It produces structural and
surface cracks in mud walls in addition to surface erosion.

Erosion of Walls Due to Driving Rain

Adverse climatic conditions produce deteriorating effects on mud shelters. Rainwater erodes mud
walls and severity of rainfall even leads to their collapse. Most of the un-stabilized mud walls are
subjected to erosion due to driving rain. If the wall is not plastered; the erosion can get aggravated.
In case of this, erosion depth and eroded area could be measured so as to get a better view of
behavior of walls due to driving rain.

Separation of Wall Plaster

It is caused due to incompatibility of plaster and wall material not properly bonded to the wall.
Small portion of plaster separated from the wall is usually observed. This may lead to further
deterioration of wall since the protective layer is no longer available to safeguard the wall from
adverse weathering elements. The bonding of mud plasters to walls is very important.

The plaster and the wall itself should ideally be compatible so that the shear forces are transmitted
between them and not terminated at the bond. Good bonding reduces the incidence of cracking
caused by changes in ambient temperature and humidity. The plaster must be applied in coats of
recommended thickness to prevent excessive strain at the bond. In order to quantify this durability
problem, area of separated plaster and the depth of deterioration can be used

Strength of Mud Plaster

Strength in mud plaster has been a primary concern in its less prevalence in present times. The
compressive and shear strength is not as much as other plasters which leads to a decrease in
strength of the overall wall assembly. The plaster becomes brittle on drying and may come off or
crack due to low tensile strength. Load carrying capacity of the plaster is less.

1.3 Objectives

1. The main objective of the project work is to assess the increase in durability of mud plaster.

2. An important objective is to explore the possibility of improving the plaster’s resistance to

erosion and to assess its impermeability to water so as to reduce damping.

3. The project also aims at increasing the strength of the mud plaster.

4. The main aim of the project work is to provide a sustainable way to address rural housing
problem due to construction material constraint.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 MATERIALS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

Materials form the substances which are used and incorporated in a scheme to obtain and forecast
results which can be beneficial to the society in terms of economy, comfort and ease of availability.
The chief material used in our project was mud keeping in view its accessibility along with several
additives to enhance its properties as a sustainable material. The properties of these materials are
explained below:

2.1.1 SOIL

The composition of traditional mud plasters varies from place to place and is an important factor
in determining durability. The clay content is particularly significant, because if it is too low the
plaster will lack strength and cohesion, and if it is too high there will be a risk of cracking due to
shrinkage, which will weaken the bond to the wall. A suitable clay content is usually around 10 to
15 per cent, but values outside this range could also be suitable depending on the type of clay. The

sand- to-silt ratio is also very important in determining the quality of a plaster. Hence the choice
of soil is an important factor that affects the quality of plaster formed.

In order to determine the most suitable soil for mud plasters in Kashmir, a survey was conducted
in different regions of Kashmir. From the survey it was concluded that Karewa soils, locally known
as Wuddar, have been traditionally used. Karewas are fresh-water (fluviatile and lacustrine)
deposits found as low flat mounds or elevated plateaus in the Valley of Kashmir and the Kishtwar
and Bhadarwah tracts of the Jammu Division. The important Karewas are found in Kulgam,
Shopian, Badgam, Qazigund, Tangmarg, Gulmarg, Baramulla, Lethpora, Chandhara, Pampore,
Bijbehara, Awantipora, Islamabad (Anantnag), Mattan, Tral and Ganderbal. The Pampore Karewa
is famous all over the world for saffron cultivation.

Karewa deposits were collected from Galinder, Pampore. The top layer of soil was removed as it
contained organic matter and various tests were then carried out to establish the soil properties.

2.1.2 SHELLAC

Shellac is a resin secreted by the female lac bug, on trees in the forests of India and Thailand. It is
processed and sold as dry flakes (pictured) and dissolved in alcohol to make liquid shellac, which
is used as a brush-on colorant, food glaze and wood finish. Shellac, the only known commercial
resin of animal origin, is a hard, tough, amorphous and easily brittle resinous solid. It is practically
odorless in the cold, but evolves a characteristic smell on heating or melting.

Shellac has many environment friendly

properties, being a natural, organic, renewable
and biodegradable product. Shellac is compatible
with many other resins, additives and raw
materials, and has good adhesion properties,
allowing it to bond to a wide range of surfaces.
Fig 1.1 showing Shellac
It has good film forming properties and when used as a coating produces a glossy finish that resists
ultra-violet light and has low water vapour and oxygen permeability, providing a protective barrier
to moisture. Specific gravity of shellac varies between I. 14 to 1.21.

PROPERTIES OF SHELLAC

1. Shellac is remarkably water-resistant and, in most cases, will stay clear after hours of
exposure to water, making it a great finish for most interior surfaces.
2. Shellac is UV-resistant and does not yellow or darken with age.
3. Shellac is an all-natural resin of insect origin that is harvested regularly and is therefore a
renewable resource.
4. Unlike other finishes shellac can be applied in cold temperatures without concern over
proper drying and curing.

2.1.3 JUTE/SACK FIBER

Jute is a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads. It is a long,
soft, shiny fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong threads. Jute fibers are composed primarily of
the plant materials cellulose, lignin, and pectin. The shrinkage ratio of clay can be reduced by the
addition of fibers such as jute.

Table 1.1 showing mechanical properties of fiber

Mechanical Properties Value

Density (g/cm3) 1.3
Elongation (%) 3.5-4.5
Tensile Strength (MPa) 393-723
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 2605

2.1.4 WHITE CLAY AND HEATED WHITE CLAY

White clay is a clay mineral, part of the group of industrial minerals. Clay is a product of the
erosion of feldspar and other minerals Endothermic dehydration of white clay begins at 550–600°C
that modifies the properties of white clay resulting in a reddish brown powder. White clay has a
low shrink– swell capacity and a low cation-exchange capacity. It is a soft, muddy, usually white,
produced by the chemical weathering of aluminium-silicate minerals like feldspar.

The tensile resistance of clay in a plastic state is termed its “binding force.” A simple method for
enhancing the binding force of very lean mud mixes is to add soil with a high clay content or even
pure clay. So white clay was chosen as additive to increase the binding force of the mud plaster.
Also, as heated-white clay decreases the permeability in cement, it was added as an additive to
study if it exhibits the same property in mud.

2.2 EXPERIMENTAL WORK

2.2.1 SAMPLE PREPRATION

At first, the oversized gravels and organic matter was removed from the soil and the soil was pulverized.
The conventional samples were initially prepared and were proceeded by the preparation of improved soil
samples whose properties were then studied relative to the former.

For preparation of straw samples, straw was bowdlerized finely with the help of workshop equipment.
To a calculated volume of soil, 25% of straw was added. The straw samples were thoroughly mixed with
well pulverized soil and a water content enough to make the mix workable.

Jute is used as a tensile reinforcement replacement. Jute sacks were finely cut to yield fine fibers which
were mixed in percentages of 5, 10 and 15 by volume of the soil with pulverized soil along with water to
form a homogenous mixture.

Shellac, available in the form of large flakes were broken down to smaller pieces and then added to water
which was then boiled and stirred continuously till it attained a desired viscosity. The shellac to water
ratio was 1:10. The solution of Shellac was then added in percentages of 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 by weight
of soil along with adequate quantity of water to make the mix workable.

White clay, obtained from the mountain ranges in Awantipora, Jammu and Kashmir, India was
pulverized and passed through 2mm sieve. This was added to soil in percentages of 10, 20, 30 and
40 by weight of soil and the samples were prepared.
The sieved white clay was heated in a muffle furnace at a temperature of 600oC and for a duration of 24
hours. A reddish brown powder was obtained which was added to the pulverized soil in percentages of
10, 20, 30 and 40 by weight and after adding adequate amount of water, samples were prepared.

All the above samples were casted into circular moulds of 4-inch diameter and 25 mm thickness and
cubical moulds of dimension 70x70 mm.

The materials yielding the best results were

selected on the basis of various tests conducted.
The optimum percentages selected were Jute 5%
with Shellac 3%, Jute 5% with Shellac 5% and
Jute 5% with Shellac 7%. These combinations
were then casted in the form of samples with
above given dimensions. These were then tested
Fig 1.2 showing circular and cubical Moulds to obtain the best combination percentage among
these.
2.2.2 TESTS ON SOIL

2.2.2.1 LIQUID LIMIT TEST

Liquid limit is the water content at which a soil is practically in a liquid state, but has infinitesimal
resistance against flow which can be measured by any standardized procedure. Liquid limit test
is carried out by simple casagrandis apparatus. The liquid limit of the selected soil
specimen is 34.5875%.

2.2.2.2 PLASTIC LIMIT TEST

Plastic limit is the water content below which the soil stops behaving as a plastic material. Plastic limit test
was performed by rolling a soil sample in 3mm threads until it cracks. The plastic limit of the soil sample
is 17.45 %.

2.2.2.3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY

Specific gravity, G, is the ratio of mass density of solids to that of water. A soil’s specific gravity largely
depends on the density of minerals making up the individual particles. Specific Gravity test was carried
out by density bottle method which yielded an average specific gravity value of 2.49
2.2.2.4 GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION

After performing the wet sieve analysis, sedimentation analysis was done.

Sedimentation analysis is most

convenient for determining the grain size
distribution of soil fraction finer than 75
microns in size. Sedimentation analysis
yielded clay content of the soil as 6.7 %
and silt content of the soil as 93.3%.

Fig 1.3 showing Particle distribution curve

2.2.3 CASTING AND MIX DESIGN

Various individual samples of jute, shellac, white clay and heated white clay were casted at
different percentages and the materials yielding the best results were selected on the basis of
various tests conducted. The optimum percentages were selected and combined in the form of
samples which were then tested to obtain the best results. Samples of straw were also made for
comparison and its percentage was taken as 25% by volume of soil.

Table 1.2 showing various percentages of different additives used in individual samples

Jute percentage (by volume of 5 10 15 - - -

soil)
Shellac paste percentage (by 0.5 1 3 5 7 10
weight of soil)
White clay percentage (by 10 20 30 40 - -
weight of soil)
Heated white clay percentage 10 20 30 40 - -
(by weight of soil)
Table 1.3 showing various percentages of additives used in combination samples

Jute percentage (by volume of 5 5 5

soil)
Shellac paste percentage (by 3 5 7
weight of soil)

2.2.4 TESTING OF SAMPLES

Various samples of straw, jute, shellac, white clay and sintered white clay were first tested individually
for all the below given tests. These samples were then casted again and then coated with shellac and were
again tested individually to study the effect of shellac coating,

From the results few combination percentages was chosen and those samples were then tested individually
for all the below given tests which yielded a single combination that was used to plaster the wall to
simulate actual field conditions.

2.2.4.1 SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION TEST

In this test, the time taken by the submerged part to disintegrate in static water was measured. At
the end of a specified period of time, the water absorption is calculated.

For this test a sample was weighed after air drying (W1) and then again weighed (W2) after placing
the sample in water for 24 hours.

Absorption percentage was found by (W2-W1)/W1 x100.

High rate of water

absorption causes
Container
deterioration of mud
plasters and is not
Specimen
acceptable.

.
Fig 1.4 showing set up of disintegration test
2.2.4.2 JET IMPINGEMENT TEST

The main cause of erosion is the impact of rain drops driven by strong wind. During the continuous rain,
moisture penetrates through-out the plaster and softness the surface of the wall in contact with the plaster,

thereby weakening the bond between the wall face and the plaster. The aim of jet impingement test as an
accelerated erosion test is to identify the behavior of the plaster against the driving rain conditions.

A simple testing device was set up in laboratory to simulate

the erosion process by rain drops. The sample was placed
at a distance of 80mm from the jet spray apparatus and
subjected to a water jet with a pressure of 0.5 bar. The depth
of erosion was noted at regular intervals for an hour or until
the complete erosion of the sample takes place.

Fig 1.5 showing Nozzle arrangement for jet

impingement test

2.2.4.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

The unconfined compressive strength is conducted on clayey soil which

can stand without confinement. In this test samples were placed on the
compression machine and after necessary adjustments proving ring
readings were taken after every 50 division lapse on the dial gauge until
the specimen fails.

Fig 1.6 showing sample in the UCS machine

2.2.5 CONSTRUCTION OF WALL

To study the behavior of plaster under natural conditions a wall was constructed of class A bricks
in mud mortar. The wall dimensions were 2x2 feet and 9 inches in thickness.

The wall was so constructed

such that two gaps were kept in
the wall by using suitable brick
closers without hampering the
structural integrity. These gaps,
however, only extended to half
the length of the wall.

Fig 1.7 showing constructed brick wall

Pipes perforated along the diameter through-out length at 0.25 feet interval, were inserted in these gaps.
These gaps were later filled with sand sieved through 4.75 mm sieve to allow proper dispersion of water
within the wall and also to hold the pipes steadfast.

2.2.6 APPLICATION OF PLASTER

The mud wall surface usually is not uniform or in plumb. So, after levelling the surfaces of the wall
conventional mud plaster having 25% straw by volume of soil was plastered on one side and a
combination plaster of jute 5% and shellac 7% was plastered on the other side.

After allowing the plaster to dry completely for a

period of 7 days, water was made to pass through the
inserted pipes into the wall. The time taken for
reflection of water marks on both the plastered
surfaces was observed.

Fig 1.8 showing plaster applied on the wall

 3. RESULTS

3.1 JET IMPINGEMENT TEST RESULTS

Table 1.4 Mud plaster specimens containing straw 25 % by volume of soil

Specimen CSS 1 CSS 2 CSS 1 (coated with shellac) CSS 2 (coated with shellac)
number

Initial 25 mm 25 mm 24mm 24mm

thickness of
sample

Time 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 40 10 60
elapsed 30 50 60 20 30 40 50
(minutes)

Measured 20 - - - - - 19 - - - - - 24 24 21 - - 24 - -
thickness of 23 23 22 20
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 19 Failure of sample after 15 Failure of sample after 41 Failure of sample after 42
minutes. minutes. minutes. minutes.

Table 1.5 Mud plaster specimens containing jute by 5% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen J5A J5B J5 (coated with a single layer

number of shellac)

Initial thickness 24 mm 23 mm 22 mm
of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 18 11 - - - - 19 16 - - - - 20 18 15 5 - -
Thickness of
sample(mm)
 Failure of sample after 23 Failure of sample after 27 Failure of sample after 42
minutes. minutes. minutes.

Fig 1.9 showing samples containing jute by 5% the volume of soil.

Table 1.6 Mud plaster specimens containing jute by 10% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen J10A J10 B J10 (coated with a single

number layer of shellac)

Initial thickness 24 mm 25 mm 22mm

of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 17 14 - - - - 16 10 - - - - 21 19 16 7 - -
thickness of
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 22 Failure of sample after 21 Failure of sample after 45

minutes. minutes. minutes.
Fig 1.10 showing samples containing jute by 10% the volume of soil.

Table 1.7 Mud plaster specimens containing jute by 15% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen J15A J15B J15 (coated with a single

number layer of shellac)

Initial thickness 25 mm 25 mm 25mm

of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 17 14 - - - - 20 13 - - - - 24 20 16 11 7 -
thickness of
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 22 Failure of sample after 26 Failure of sample after 52

minutes. minutes. minutes.

Fig 1.11 showing samples containing jute by 15% the volume of soil.
Table 1.8 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 0.5% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S0.5 A S0.5 B S0.5 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 24 mm 24 mm 24mm

sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of 19 15 12 - - - 16 12 10 - - - 23 23 22 21 19 16
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 34 Failure of sample after Sample did not fail.
minutes. 32 minutes.

Fig 1.12 showing samples containing shellac by 0.5% the weight of soil.
 Table 1.9 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 1% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S1 A S1 B S1 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 23 mm 24 mm 25mm

sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of 20 16 11 8 - - 20 15 12 7 - - 25 24 24 23 22 22
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 43 Failure of sample after 45 Sample did not fail.
minutes. minutes.

Fig 1.13 showing samples containing shellac by 1% the weight of soil.

Table 1.10 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 3% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S3 A S3 B S3 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 24 mm 25 mm 25 mm
sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of 22 20 19 15 10 - 24 19 17 15 12 - 25 25 24 24 23 23
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 52 Failure of sample after 56 Sample did not fail.
minutes. minutes.

Fig 1.14 showing samples containing shellac by 3% the weight of soil.

Table 1.11 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 5% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S5 A S5 B S5 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 23 mm 24 mm 24mm

sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 3 4 50 60

0 0

Measured thickness of 20 16 12 10 - - 23 20 11 9 - - 24 24 2 2 23 22
sample(mm) 4 3

Failure of sample after 0 Failure of sample after 47 Sample did not fail.
5 minutes. minutes.

Fig 1.15 showing samples containing shellac by 5% the weight of soil.

Table 1.12 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 7% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S7 A S7 B S7 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 25 mm 25 mm 24mm

sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

 Measured thickness of 24 22 22 19 16 15 24 23 22 21 19 17 24 24 24 23 23 23
sample(mm)

Failure of sample did Failure of sample did not Failure of sample did not
not occur. occur. occur.

Fig 1.16 showing samples containing shellac by 7% the weight of soil.

Table 1.13 Mud plaster specimens containing shellac by 10% as an additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number S10 A S10 B S10 (coated with shellac)

Initial thickness of 25 mm 25 mm 24 mm
sample

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of 25 25 24 24 24 24 25 24 24 24 23 22 24 24 24 24 23 23
sample(mm)

Failure of sample did Failure of sample did not Failure of sample did not
not occur. occur. occur.
 Fig 1.17 showing samples containing shellac by 10% the weight of soil.

Table 1.14 Mud plaster specimens containing white clay by 10% as additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number WC10 A WC10 B

Initial thickness of sample 24 mm 25 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 12 - - - - - 18 15 - - - -

Failure of sample after 19 minutes. Failure of sample after 22 minutes.

Table 1.15 Mud plaster specimens containing white clay by 20% as additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number WC20 A WC20 B

Initial thickness of sample 25 mm 25 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 15 - - - - - 8 - - - - -

Failure of sample after 17 minutes. Failure of sample after 14 minutes.

 Table 1.16 Mud plaster specimens containing white clay by 30% as additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number WC30 A WC30 B

Initial thickness of sample 24 mm 25 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of 12 - - - - - 8 - - - - -
sample(mm)

Failure of sample after 12 minutes. Failure of sample after 11 minutes.

Table 1.17 Mud plaster specimens containing white clay by 40% as additive subjected to jet
impingement test.

Specimen number WC40 A WC40 B

Initial thickness of sample 25 mm 24 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 6 - - - - - - - - - - -

Failure of sample after 12 minutes. Failure of sample after 8 minutes.

Fig 1.18 showing samples containing white clay in different percentages by weight of soil.

Table 1.18 Mud plaster specimens containing heated white clay by 10% as additive subjected
to jet impingement test

Specimen number HWC10 A HWC10 B

Initial thickness of sample 24 mm 23 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 5 - - - - - 6 - - - - -

Failure of sample after 17 minutes. Failure of sample after 14 minutes.

Table 1.19 Mud plaster specimens containing heated white clay by 20% as additive subjected
to jet impingement test

Specimen number HWC20 A HWC20 B

Initial thickness of sample 24 mm 25 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 15 - - - - - 18 - - - - -

Failure of sample after 17 minutes. Failure of sample after 16 minutes.

Table 1.20 Mud plaster specimens containing heated white clay by 30% as additive subjected
to jet impingement test

Specimen number HWC30 A HWC30 B

Initial thickness of sample 25 mm 23 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) - - - - - - - - - - - -

Failure of sample after 10 minutes. Failure of sample after 8 minutes.

Table 1.21 Mud plaster specimens containing heated white clay by 40% as additive subjected
to jet impingement test

Specimen number HWC40 A HWC40 B

Initial thickness of sample 24 mm 24 mm

Time elapsed (minutes) 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60

Measured thickness of sample(mm) 4 - - - - - - - - - - -

Failure of sample after 13 minutes. Failure of sample after 9 minutes.

Fig 1.18 showing samples containing heated white clay in different percentages by weight of soil.
Table 1.22 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING 5% JUTE (BY VOLUME OF
SOIL) AND 3 % SHELLAC AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO JET
IMPINGEMENT TEST

Specimen J5S3 J5S3 (coated with a single layer of J5S3 (coated with two layers of
number shellac) shellac)

Initial thickness 25 mm 24mm 25 mm

of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 25 25 24 24 23 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25
thickness of
sample(mm)

Fig 1.19 showing combination samples containing jute 5% by volume and shellac 3% by weight of the soil.
Table 1.23 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING 5% JUTE (BY VOLUME OF
SOIL) AND 5% SHELLAC AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO JET IMPINGEMENT
TEST

Specimen J5S5 J5S5 (coated with a single layer of J5S5 (coated with two layers of
number shellac) shellac)

Initial thickness 25mm 24mm 25mm

of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 25 25 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25
thickness of
sample(mm)

Fig 1.20 showing combination samples containing jute 5% by volume and shellac 5% by weight of the soil.
Table 1.24 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING 5% JUTE (BY VOLUME OF
SOIL) AND 7%

SHELLAC AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO JET IMPINGEMENT TEST

Specimen J5S7 J5S7 (coated with a single layer of J5S7 (coated with two layers of
number shellac) shellac)

Initial thickness 25mm 25mm 25mm

of sample

Time elapsed 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
(minutes)

Measured 25 25 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25
thickness of
sample(mm)

Fig 1.21 showing combination samples containing jute 5% by volume and shellac 7% by weight of the soil.
3.2 SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION TEST RESULTS

Table 1.25 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING SHELLAC (BY WEIGHT OF

SOIL) AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO SAMPLE DISTEGRATION TEST
Percentage of shellac in Percentage water absorption Percentage water absorption in samples
mud plaster specimens coated with shellac

S0.5% 44.81 % 38.31%

S1% 42.68 % 37.63%

S3% 41.35 % 36.40%

S5% 37.78 % 35.76%

S7% 36.11 % 35.43%

S10% 35.83 % 35.00%

Table 1.26 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING JUTE (BY VOLUME OF SOIL)
AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION TEST
Percentage of jute in mud Percentage water absorption Percentage water absorption of samples
plaster without coat coated with shellac

J5% 35.10 % 34.8 %

J10% 38.85 % 38.34 %

J15% 41.20 % 39.13 %

Table 1.27 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING WHITE CLAY (BY WEIGHT
OF SOIL) AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION TEST

Percentage of white clay in mud plaster specimens Percentage water absorption

WC 10% 29.67

WC 20% 33.53
 WC 30% 38.60

WC 40% 41.51

Table 1.28 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING HEATED WHITE CLAY (BY
WEIGHT OF SOIL) AS AN ADDITIVE SUBJECTED TO SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION
TEST
Sintered white clay (by weight of soil) Percentage absorption

HWC 10% 36.17

HWC 20% 39.81

HWC 30% 41.31

HWC 40% 42.68

Table 1.29 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING 5% JUTE (BY VOLUME OF

SOIL) AND DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES OF SHELLAC AS AN ADDITIVE
SUBJECTED TO SAMPLE DISINTEGRATION TEST
5% jute and Percentage water 5% jute and Percentage water 5% jute and Percentage water
3% absorption 5% absorption (W2 - 7% absorption (W2 -

shellac (W2W1)x100/W1 shellac W1)x100/W1 shellac W1)x100/W1

Uncoated 37.85 % Uncoated 36.07 Uncoated 33.09

Single 36.76 % Single 35.16 Single 32.66

coated coated coated

Double 36.08 % Double 35.00 Double 31.89

coated coated coated
3.3 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

Table 1.30 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING JUTE AS AN ADDITIVE

Jute 5% Jute 10% Jute 15%

Compressive Compressive Stress Compressive Stress

Stress

0.62 0.46 0.50

1.11 0.83 1.10

1.67 1.46 1.88

2.09 1.93 2.15

2.13 2.18 2.05

2.14 2.18 1.94

2.05 2.11 1.72

1.76 1.92 1.55

Fig 1.22 showing failure samples of jute.

Table 1.31 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING SHELLAC AS ADDITIVE

Shellac 0.5% Shellac 1% Shellac 3% Shellac 5% Shellac 7% Shellac 10%

Compressive Compressive Stress Compressive Stress Compressive Compressive Compressive

Stress Stress Stress Stress

0.57 0.31 0.49 0.17 0.09 0.13

0.93 0.63 0.81 0.37 0.19 0.21

1.31 1.02 1.02 0.52 0.25 0.24

1.48 1.16 1.15 0.59 0.28 0.28

1.49 1.19 1.18 0.65 0.31 0.29

1.42 1.13 1.14 0.59 0.32 0.25

1.30 1.03 1.04 0.50 0.33 0.23

- - - - 0.29 -

- - - - 0.26 -

Fig 1.23 showing failure samples of shellac.

Table 1.32 MODIFIED MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING 5% JUTE AND
DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES OF SHELLAC AS ADDITIVES
J5S3 J5J5 J5S7

Compressive Compressive Stress Compressive Stress

Stress

0.11 0.69 0.21

0.20 1.60 0.65

0.48 2.16 1.11

1.21 2.01 1.36

2.01 1.86 1.49

2.52 1.63 1.64

2.44 - 1.68

2.33 - 1.68

- - 1.59

- - 1.53

Fig 1.24 showing failure samples of various combination samples.

J5S3 J5S5 J5S10

Table 1.33 MUD PLASTER SPECIMENS CONTAINING STRAW AS ADDITIVE

Straw Stress 0.64 1.32 1.82 1.91 1.69 1.56 1.36

25% by
volume
of soil

Fig 1.25 showing failure sample of straw.

4. ANALYTICAL STUDY

In the Sample Disintegration Test, with increase in jute percentage there is more water absorption
and sample disintegrates quickly. With increase in shellac percentage water absorption decreased and
sample took quite long time to disintegrate as compared to other samples. Combination of jute and
shellac showed best results than the individual samples.

From the graph we

can say that coating
reduces water
absorption
although there is
very little
difference in water
absorption
between single
coat and double
coated samples.

Fig 1.26 showing sample disintegration results.

In jet impingement tests with increase in jute percentage decrease in thickness is more in lower
percentages. In case of sintered white clay reduction in thickness due to jet was more as compared
to normal white clay. In case of shellac with increase in shellac percentage reduction in thickness
was less. In case of combination there was less reduction in thickness in jute percentage with higher
shellac samples. In general coated samples performed better than uncoated samples and double
coated samples performed well and there was no reduction at all.

Uncoated sample showed

a greater decrease in
thickness than the coated
samples for lower
percentages of shellac.
Also, with increase in
shellac percentage there is
decrease in rate of
erosion.

Fig 1.27 showing jet impingement test results.

In unconfined compression test with increase in shellac percentage shear strength of the samples
decreased and with increase in jute percentage shear strength of the sample increased. In
combination J5S3 yielded higher shear strength but a compromise was made owing to the fact that
J5S3 had more water absorption and eroded at faster rate in Jet test than J5S5 so, J5S5 was selected
to be plastered on the wall since our main aim was to decrease permeability.
 With increase in shellac
percentage shear strength
decreases and for jute
samples shear strength
increased with increase in
jute percentage while as in
combination J5S3 showed
higher shear strength.

Fig 1.28 showing unconfined compression test results.

4. CONCLUSION

While observing all results following conclusions can be drawn;

Jute was used as 5, 10 and 15 percent by volume of soil. Jute is primarily used to strengthen the
mud plaster and to prevent cracks. While observing we found that with increase in percentage of
jute shear strength increased but on the other hand with increase in jute percentage water
absorption increase but rate of erosion under jet impingement test is less. The individual shear
strength of jute was highest in J15 and is 1.12kg/cm2. We used shellac paste as 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 7 and
10 percentages by weight of soil. Shellac was dissolved in water with dilution ratio (shellac: soil)
1:10 for binding while as for coating we kept the ratio 1:20.

It was observed that with increase in percentage of shellac water absorption decreases. In case of
uncoated shellac 0.5% water absorption is 44.91% while as for shellac 10% it is 35.83%. In case
of coated samples shellac 0.5% has water absorption 38.31% while as for shellac 10 % it is 35%.
Shear strength of shellac decreased from 0.74kg/cm2 to 0.14kg/cm2 on increasing shellac
percentage from 0.5 to 10 % shellac respectively.

Sintered white clay has greater absorption than normal white clay and it erodes at a faster rate than
normal white clay. So, we discarded use of white clay in our project owing to the fact that our
project relied on chemical free mud plaster so there was no chemical that could react with white
clay or sintered white clay. In case of uncoated samples water absorption in J5S3 was found to be
37.85% while as for J5S7 it was found to be 33.09%. For coated samples J5S3 it was observed
that water absorption is 36.76% and for J5S7 it was 32.66%. Single coat and double coat samples
do not show much variation in water absorption. In case of jet tests J5S3 showed a decrease of
3mm thickness in 60 minutes while as J5S7 showed a decrease of 1mm over a period of 60 minutes.
In unconfined compression test shear strength of J5S3 turned out to be highest (1.26 kg/cm2) while
as for J5S7 it was found to be 0.84 kg/cm2.

While keeping all these things in mind a compromise has to be made between permeability,
strength and cost. And the combination J5S5 justifies all three things to a greater extent than other
combinations.
 5. References

[1] Capaldi, X. (2011) Ancient Egyptian Mud Brick Construction: Materials, Technology, and
Implications for Modern Man, Egypt Unit Research Paper – Draft 2, 1 April [online]
https://dataplasmid.wordpress.Com/2011 (accessed 23 July 2015).

[2] UNESCO. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/. (Accessed: 28 July2014).

[3] [F. Bravi, P. Cantillo, Censimento e Catalogazione, in: Direzione Regionale per iBeni Culturali
e Paesaggistici delle Marche. Architetture di terra nelle Marche,Recanati, Tecnostampa, 2005, pp.
45–284.3]

[4] BASIN & Pratical Action. Mud plasters and renders. BASIN - Building Advisory Service and
Information Network. Original text - Appropriate Technology Magazine, Volume 26/Number 1th
June of 1999, AT Brief N.28, Edited by Practical Action Publishing, The Schumacher Centre for
Technology & Development 2002.

[5] Central Building Research Institute, non erodable Mud Plaster, Roorkee [online]
http://cbri.res.in/CSIR-800/.../WebTech/RBEA3-NonErodableMudPlaster.pdf (accessed 23 July
2015).

[6] G. Georgiev, W. Theuerkorn, M. Krus, R. Kilian and T. Grosskinsky, “The potential role of
cattail-reinforced clay plaster in sustainable building”,Fraunhofer-Institute for Building Physics
IBP Holzkirchen, Germany.

[7] Taha Ashour, Wei Wu “The influence of natural reinforcement fibres on erosion properties of
earth plaster materials for straw bale buildings” 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1742–8262
Journal of Building Appraisal Vol. 5, 4, 329–340.

[8] José Lima, Pailina Faria “Eco-efficient earthen plasters-The influence of the addition of natural
fibers” Springer, RILEM Book Series vol. 12, p. 315-327. Hardcover ISBN: 978-94-017-7513-7;
eBook ISBN 978-94-017-7515-1; ISSN: 2211-0844. Doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7515-1_24.