Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste

M.TECH THESIS PRESENTATION
(2014-2016)
“DEVELOPMENT OF UNFIRED BRICKS USING INDUSTRIAL WASTE”
Presented by
Sandeep Jain
(2014CET2226)
Supervised by
Dr Shashank Bishnoi
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi
“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”
Date: 01/07/2016

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
 Introduction: Present Scenario & The Need
 Literature Review
 Research Objectives & Methodology
 Raw Material Characterization
 Experimental Work
 Experimental Result & Discussions
 Conclusions
 Future Perspectives
 References

Introduction: Present Scenario & The Need

INTRODUCTION: PRESENT SCENARIO-PROBLEM TREE
Unsustainable Production Process
Effect on Building Industry & economy,
Higher End-Consumer Prices
Environmental Damage, Carbon
Emission, Global Warming
Loss of Agricultural Top-Soil Scarcity of Landfill Sites
Poor Socio-Economic Conditions
High Energy Consumption through
Intensive Firing
High Resource Consumption
Obsolete Technologies,
Unorganised Sector
Environmental
Pollution
Increase in Industrial Waste
Effects
Problem
Causes
01/44

INTRODUCTION: PRESENT SCENARIO-OBJECTIVE TREE
Development of Unfired Brick Using Industrial Waste
Low cost to End-User As a Green Building
Component
Protection of Top-Soil
Improved Methodology in
Recycling Industrial By-Products
Low Energy Consumption in Process
(Unfired)
Saving of Natural Resources
Technological Advancement,
Organised Sector
Environmental
Awareness through Recycling
Utilization of Industrial Waste
Effects
Objective
Causes
02/44

Literature Review

LITERATURE REVIEW
Fly Ash Bricks (Fired and Unfired)
Fatih and Ümit (2001)
 Experimented to accommodate fly ash to replace clay from building brick
 Up to 60% clay replacement
 Compressive Strength increases with firing temperature
Kayali (2005)
 Conceived the idea of producing high performance fired bricks with 100% fly ash
 FlashBricks reported improved mechanical strengths and durability
Rai et al. (2013)
 Prepared and characterised the lime activated unfired bricks named as FaL-G using
fly ash
 SEM-EDXA results showed the initial formation of CASH phase with free silica
 Reported formation of CSH & CAH with increased curing time, responsible for
strength development (Pozzolanic Reaction)
 Availability of water for reaction affects strength development (25% optimal)
 Crushing strength could further be improved by increasing moulding pressure.
03/44

LITERATURE REVIEW
Optimization of Process Parameters
Chaulia and Das
(2008)
 Optimized the process parameters for fly ash brick manufacturing like water to
binder ratio, fly ash, coarse sand and stone dust by Taguchi method with an
objective function to maximize the compressive strength
 Compressive strength is a vital parameter to judge the stability and durability
 Optimum level of process parameter found to be water to binder ratio of 0.4, fly ash
of 39%, coarse sand of 24% and stone dust of 30% giving an optimized compressive
strength of 166.22 kg.cm-2 with a tolerance of ±10.97 kg.cm-2.
04/44

LITERATURE REVIEW
Utilization of Various Industrial Waste in Bricks
Weng et al. (2003)
 Explored the possible utilization of dewatered and oven dried sludge as brick
materials
 Satisfactory addition of as much as 20% sludge at 960°C
 Optimum addition of 10% sludge with 24% moisture content in a moulded mix and
firing temperature of 880°C to 960°C
Rajput et al. (2012)
 Produced the WasteCrete bricks by reuse of cotton (1-5%) and recycled paper mill
waste (89-85%) with cement (10%).
 Lightweight, & High Water absorption, tiny air pockets attributed to paper waste
 Proposed double stage press operation to preserve surface smoothness on drying
Bilgin et al. (2012)
 Experimented and analysed the possible utilization of waste marble powder in bricks
 Tried 0 to 80% replacement of clay with marble powder
 Optimum use of 10% with no sacrifice of technical properties
 >10% increases porosity, water absorption and decreases mechanical properties.
05/44

LITERATURE REVIEW
Vidhya et al. (2013)
 Utilization of pond ash and fly ash in bricks using lime as an activator, sand to
reduce laminar cracks in bricks, and gypsum to accelerate the hardening process
 Compressive strength increases with increase in lime content
 20% cost reduction
Shakir et al. (2013)
 Use of billet scale a by-product of the steel industry in brick production with fly ash,
quarry dust and OPC as a binder
 Proposed a non-conventional method of brick production using a novel flowable
method without pressing and firing
 Fly ash and quarry dust acted as a pozzolanic material with SiO2 and Al2O3 reacting
with Ca(OH)2 from hydration of cement to form CSH and CASH
Banu et al. (2013)
 Experimented the fly ash-sand-lime system with gypsum addition to produce
unfired light weight structural bricks
 Optimum mixture design as 55% fly ash, 30% sand, and 15% lime with 14% gypsum
06/44

LITERATURE REVIEW
Sumathi and Mohan
(2014)
 Investigated to obtain the optimum mix using fly ash with the addition of lime,
gypsum and quarry dust using to achieve maximum compressive strength
 Portrayed the fact that lime reacts with fly ash at normal temperature and forms
calcium silicate hydrate
Hwang and Huynh
(2015)
 Unfired building bricks (UBB) with unground rice husk ash (URHA), FA & cement
 Application of densified mixture design algorithm (DMDA), forming pressure 35MPa
Naganathan et al.
(2015)
 Investigated the performance of bricks made by using fly ash and bottom ash
 Bricks were cast using a self-compacting mixture of fly ash, bottom ash, and cement
eliminating both firing and pressing
 The peak value of strength was attained for the mix with bottom ash to fly ash ratio
of 1:1.25 and with bottom ash to cement ratio of 0.45
 Investigation showed increased fire resistance to the tune of 30% & durability
07/44

Research Objectives & Methodology

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY
 To investigate maximum utilization of local industrial waste (fly ash, pond ash, coal cinder,
quarry dust, marble dust and paper sludge) for the development of non-structural, unfired,
binder bricks through extensive laboratory work.
 To optimize the compressive strength of bricks while optimizing binder content, weight density,
water absorption, and maximizing industrial waste utilization.
 To identify variables affecting the various properties of brick.
OBJECTIVES
 Identification and Collection
of Raw Materials
 Material Characterization
 Basis for Design of Blends
 Casting of Brick Specimen
 Curing
 Testing various Properties of
Bricks
Phase 1: Initial Experimental
Programme
Phase 2: Detailed
Experimental Programme
Phase 3: Analytical Work
 Analyse Test Results and
Trends
 Identify Factors Affecting
and their Effect.
METHODOLOGY
08/44

TESTING WORK PLAN
Raw Materials
Characterization
Specific
Gravity
Loss on
Ignition
Water
Absorption
Blaine
Fineness
XRD
Isothermal
Calorimetry
Lime
Reactivity
Raw Materials
Identification & Collection
Fly Ash Pond Ash Coal Cinder
Paper
Sludge
Stone Dust Marble Dust Quicklime Gypsum
Deepnagar TPS, Bhusawal
(M.H.)
Nepanagar Paper Mill,
Burhanpur (M.P.)
Burhanpur,
(M.P.)
Kishanghar,
(Rajasthan)
Jodhpur,
(Rajasthan)
New Delhi
Tests on Specimens
Compressive
Strength
Water
Absorption
Density Efflorescence UPV
09/44

Raw Material Characterization

As per, IS: 1727-1967, IS: 1122-1974
Raw Material Fly Ash Pond Ash
Coal
Cinder
Paper
Sludge
Stone
Dust
Marble
Dust
Quicklime Gypsum
Specific Gravity 2.18 2.03 1.53 1.23 2.85 2.88 2.29 2.46
LOI @1000°C 2% 1.60% 17% 58% 0.5% 2.34% 0.76% 1.79%
Water Absorption (%) - 2.48% 9.11% 70.80% 0.97% - - -
Blaine's Fineness (m2/kg) 334.4 182.1 271.8 - - 379.4 376.4 332.9
RAW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
(a). Stone Dust (b). Pond Ash (c). Coal Cinder (d). Paper Sludge
B. IMAGE ANALYSIS
A. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
As per, IS: 1727-1967, IS: 1122-1974
10/44

C. X-RAY DIFFRACTION (XRD)
Fly Ash:
 Quartz
 Mulite
 Calcium Aluminate
Oxide
 Hematite
X-ray Diffractometer
11/44

Pond Ash:
 Quartz
 Mullite
 Sulfur Fluoride
12/44

Coal Cinder:
 Corundum
 Calcite
 Quartz
 Hematite
 Silicon
 Carbon
13/44

Paper Sludge:
 Calcium Carbonate
 Quartz
 Kaolinite
 Calcite
14/44

Stone Dust:
 Quartz
 Kaolinite
 Feldspar
15/44

Marble Dust:
 Dolomite
 Calcite
 Quartz
16/44

Quicklime:
 Calcium Hydroxide
 Quartz
 Calcite
17/44

Gypsum:
 Gypsum
 Dolomite
 Quartz
18/44

Raw Material Fly Ash Pond Ash Coal Cinder Paper Sludge
Lime Reactivity (kg/cm2) 2.62 1.77 2.92 1.87
E. CALORIMETRY:
D. LIME REACTIVITY
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 0:00
CummulativeEnergy(J/g)
Time (hours)
Fly Ash
Pond Ash
Coal Cinder
Paper Sludge
FA+PA (1:1)
24:00
19/44
As per, IS: 1727-1967, IS: 5512-1983

Experimental Work

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Series Mix ID Fly ash Stone dust Pond ash Quick lime Gypsum Water
A
PA-0% (BM) 50% 50% 0%
9% 3% 14%
PA-12.5% 50% 37.5% 12.5%
PA-25% 50% 25% 25%
PA-37.5% 50% 12.5% 37.5%
PA-50% (RM) 50% 0% 50%
A. CASTING OF TEST SPECIMENS
Series Mix ID Fly ash Stone dust Pond ash Quick lime Gypsum Water
B
PA-50% (RM) 50% 0% 50%
9% 3% 14%
PA-62.5% 37.5% 0% 62.5%
PA-75% 25% 0% 75%
PA-87.5% 12.5% 0% 87.5%
PA-100% 0% 0% 100%
2. REPLACEMENT OF FLY ASH FROM REFERENCE MIX (RM) WITH POND ASH
1. REPLACEMENT OF STONE DUST FROM BASE MIX (BM) WITH POND ASH
Shape of the Brick Specimen: Cubical
Size of the Brick Specimen: 5×5×5 cm
Forming Pressure: 15 MPa
Applied with the help of CTM
20/44

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Series Mix ID Fly ash Pond Ash Coal Cinder Quick lime Gypsum Water
C
PA-50% (RM) 50% 50% 0%
9% 3% 14%
CC-12.5% 37.5% 50% 12.5%
CC-25% 25% 50% 25%
CC-37.5% 12.5% 50% 37.5%
CC-50% 0% 50% 50%
3. REPLACEMENT OF FLY ASH FROM REFERENCE MIX (RM) WITH COAL CINDER
Series Mix ID Fly ash Pond Ash Paper Sludge Quick lime Gypsum Water
D
PA-50% (RM) 50% 50% 0%
9% 3% 14%
PS-10% 50% 50% 10%
PS-20% 50% 50% 20%
PS-30% 50% 50% 30%
4. ADDITION OF PAPER SLUDGE TO THE REFERENCE MIX (RM)
5. ADDITION OF MARBLE DUST TO THE REFERENCE MIX (RM)
Series Mix ID Fly ash Pond Ash Marble Dust Quick lime Gypsum Water
E
PA-50% (RM) 50% 50% 0%
9% 3% 14%
MD-10% 50% 50% 10%
MD-20% 50% 50% 20%
MD-30% 50% 50% 30%
21/44

EXPERIMENTAL WORK
CASTING & CURING OF TEST SPECIMENS
Curing:
By Wrapping the
Specimen inside
the gunny bag and
Sprinkling Water
Temperature: 27°C
Casting of
More than
900 Brick
Specimen
for 19
Blends
22/44

Experimental Result & Discussions

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSION
A. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Base Mix (BM) PA-12.5% PA-25% PA-37.5% PA-50%
Compressivestrength(MPa)
Series A
3 Days
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
 50% reduction of compressive strength at the age of 56 days for the complete replacement of stone dust from
the base mix results in
 Initial porosity of the system increased from 3.29% to 14.26%.
 Substantial increase in the compressive strength from 28 days to 56 days.
Compressive strength (MPa) for replacement of Stone Dust with Pond Ash in base mix
23/44
IS 3495(Part 1)-1992

 Compressive strength reduces by 50% and 45%, respectively.
 Increase in initial porosity from 14.26% to 35.07% (Series B) & and from 14.26% to 29.26% (Series C).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Series B-Replacement of fly ash with pond ash
3 Days
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
Series C-Replacement of fly ash with coal cinder
Compressive strength (MPa) for replacement of Fly Ash from reference mix with Pond Ash and Coal Cinder at different curing age
24/44

 Higher reduction in strength in case of pond ash compared to coal cinder
 Possible to utilize Coal cinder instead of fly ash in bricks
Comparison of compressive strength (MPa) for replacement of fly ash with pond ash and coal cinder at the age of 56 days
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Percentage of Fly Ash (% )
Series B
Series C
25/44

 Drastic reduction of compressive strength in series D blends with the addition of paper sludge
 Significant increase in compressive strength compared to the reference mix with the highest compressive
strength of 13.014 MPa, with a 10% marble dust.
 For marble dust, initial porosity of the blends reduced from 14.26% to 5.91%.
Compressive strength (MPa) for addition of Paper Sludge and Marble Dust to the reference mix at different curing age
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Series D-Addition of paper sludge
3 Days
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
54 Days
Series E-Addition of marble dust
26/44

 For series C, steep reduction
with every next blend
 UPV reduced by 40% as
compared to the reference
mix
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3 7 14 28 56
Ultrasonicpulsevelocity
(km/s)
Curing Age (Days)
Base Mix (BM)
PA-12.5%
PA-25%
PA-37.5%
PA-50% (RM)
B. ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY (UPV)
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3 7 14 28 56
(km/s)
Curing Age (Days)
PA-50% (RM)
PA-62.5%
PA-75%
PA-87.5%
PA-100%
Series B
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3 7 14 28 56
(km/s)
Curing Age (Days)
PA-50% (RM)
CC-12.5%
CC-25%
CC-37.5%
CC-50%
Series A
Series C
 UPV increases with an
increase in the curing age.
 Decrease in the UPV for
replacement of stone dust
with pond ash.
 For series B, 16% reduction
in the UPV from 2.20 to 1.86
km/s
27/44

B. ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY (UPV)
 For addition of Paper Sludge, UPV is drastically reduced compared to the reference mix.
 Lowest UPV value of 0.58 km/s has been reported for the 30% addition of paper sludge at the age of 56
days.
 With addition of Marble Dust, improvement in UPV.
 Highest value of UPV (2.75 km/s) at the age of 28 days is reported for the mix with 10% addition of marble
dust.
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3 7 14 28
UltrasonicPulseVelocity
(km/s)
Curing Age (Days)
PA-50% (RM)
MD-10%
MD-20%
MD-30%
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
3 7 14 28 56
(km/s)
Curing Age (Days)
PA-50% (RM)
PS-10%
PS-20%
PS-30%
Series D Series E
28/44

B1. RELATIONSHIP B/W UPV AND BULK DENSITY
 Bulk density of bricks has a direct correlation with the UPV.
 Higher the UPV, higher will be the density of bricks.
Relationship between UPV (km/s) and Bulk Density (g/cc) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.8276
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Bulkdensity(g/cc)
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)
2.52
2.13
1.66
0.69
2.59
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
29/44

B2. RELATIONSHIP B/W UPV AND WATER ABSORPTION
 Water absorption and UPV are inversely correlated.
 Higher the UPV, lower shall be the water absorption of bricks..
Relationship between UPV (km/s) and Water Absorption (%) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.8086
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Waterabsorption(%)
2.52
2.06
1.66
0.85
2.75
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
30/44

C1. CORRELATION B/W UPV AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
 Compressive strength is linearly correlated with the ultrasonic pulse velocity.
 Higher the compressive strength, higher the UPV.
R² = 0.7104
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
2.52
2.15
1.50
0.85
2.75
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
Relationship between UPV (km/s) and Compressive Strength (MPa) at the age of 28 days
31/44

C2. CORRELATION B/W WATER ABSORPTION AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
 Compressive strength is inversely proportional to the water absorption.
 As the compressive strength of the matrix decreases, the percentage water absorption increases.
Correlation between Water Absorption (%) & Compressive Strength (MPa) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.7521
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Water absorption (%)
20%
22%
20%
25%
14%
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
32/44

C3. CORRELATION B/W BULK DENSITY AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
 Bulk density of the bricks is directly correlated with the compressive strength of the bricks.
 Higher the density of the brick, higher is the compressive strength.
Correlation between Bulk Density (g/cc) & Compressive Strength (MPa) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.7676
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
Bulk density (g/cc)
1.69
1.12
1.25
1.17
1.53
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
33/44

D1. EFFECT OF INITIAL POROSITY ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
 Compressive strength and UPV are directly correlated with initial porosity in the bricks specimens
 For Series A, From 3.29% for base mix to 14.26% for reference mix.
 For series B and series C blends increased from 14.26% to 35.07% and 29.26%, respectively.
 for the addition of paper sludge increases the porosity from 14.26% to 29.26% on 10% addition.
Relationship between Initial Porosity (%) & Compressive Strength (MPa) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.7850
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Initial porosity (%)
3%
26%
17%
30%
6%
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
For Series D,
Initial Porosity
improves by
58% for 10%
MD.
34/44

D2. EFFECT OF INITIAL POROSITY ON UPV
 Higher the Initial Porosity, lower will be the UPV.
Relationship between Initial Porosity (%) & UPV (km/s) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.6507
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Ultrasonicpulsevelocity(km/s)
3%
26%
29%
36%
2%
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
35/44

D3. EFFECT OF INITIAL POROSITY ON WATER ABSORPTION
 As the initial porosity of bricks increases, water absorption also increases.
 Water absorption of brick is directly proportional with its initial porosity.
Relationship between Initial Porosity (%) &Water Absorption (%) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.8085
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Waterabsorption(%)
3%
26%
17%
30%
6%
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
36/44

D4. EFFECT OF INITIAL POROSITY ON BULK DENSITY
 The bulk density of the brick is inversely proportional with initial porosity.
 As the initial porosity increased bulk density decreases.
Relationship between Initial Porosity (%) &Water Absorption (%) at the age of 28 days
R² = 0.852
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Bulkdensity(g/cc)
3%
26%
17%
30%
6%
Series A
Series B
Series C
Series D
Series E
37/44

Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS
 Series A
 Compressive strength and UPV decreases.
 Compressive strength of ‘fly ash-pond ash-lime-gypsum’ system reduces by 50%.
 Increase of 28.5% water absorption in the RM compared to the BM.
 21% lighter Bricks compared to the base mix.
 pond ash is light weight and increases the initial porosity of the system from 3.29% to 14.26%, and has a
porous structure and finer particle size compared to stone dust, which is a heavy coarser material and
improves packing of the matrix through interlocking.
 Series B & C
 Compressive strength and UPV decreases.
 ‘Coal cinder-pond ash-lime-gypsum’ system has lower compressive strength reduction compared to
‘pond ash-lime-gypsum’. (Higher reactivity coal cinder compared to pond ash.)
 Increase of 36% and 20% water absorption compared to RM.
 16% and 18% lighter Bricks compared to the RM.
 Although coal cinder itself has a higher water absorption but it reduces the overall water absorption
capacity of the matrix due to its finer particle size. Thus, in terms of water absorption coal cinder
performs better as a replacement of fly ash.
38/44

CONCLUSIONS
 Series D
 Addition of paper sludge has a negative effect on the compressive strength, UPV, and water absorption.
 For 10% addition, it decreases the compressive strength and UPV by 13% and 59% respectively and
increases the water absorption by 29%.
 Drastic reduction in the density of the bricks.
 This is attributed to the flaky and porous structure of the paper sludge and its tendency to form lumps in
the mix which in turn is responsible for the very high initial porosity.
 Series E
 Compressive strength and UPV increases.
 Highest compressive strength of 13.014 MPa and UPV of 2.75 km/s at 28 days for 10% addition to RM.
 Improves the water absorption (15.4%) by 22% compared to RM (19.8%).
 This remarkable improvement in the compressive strength can be accredited to the finer particle size of
marble dust, which reduces the initial porosity of the blend from 14.26% to 5.91% by improving the
packing of constituent materials.
 Addition of marble dust increases the density of the bricks. With 10% addition, the density of the
reference mix increased by 14%. (heavy mass of the marble dust)
39/44

CONCLUSIONS
 Substantial increase in the compressive strength from 28 days to 56 days of curing age.
 UPV increases with increase in the curing age of brick specimen for all the blends.
 Compressive strength of bricks is linearly correlated with the ultrasonic pulse velocity.
 Compressive strength of bricks is inversely correlated to the water absorption.
 Bulk density of brick specimens is directly related to the specific gravity of the constituent raw materials and
their packing in the matrix.
 Bulk density of the bricks is directly correlated with the compressive strength of the bricks.
 Initial porosity of the blend is one of the governing factor which controls the compressive strength, UPV and
water absorption of the bricks. As the initial porosity increases, compressive strength and UPV decreases and
water absorption increases.
 Based on the result and analysis of this study, it is possible to correlate and predict the approximate
compressive strength of bricks, based on the initial porosity of the matrix.
40/44

Future perspectives

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES
 XRD and XRF analysis of the samples to study detailed phase formation behaviour.
 Identification of other variables like initial porosity and their effect on properties of bricks in order to develop a
Mix-Design methodology for commercially producing bricks.
 Optimization of other process parameters like curing condition, temperature, forming pressure etc. by further
carrying out experimental work.
 Study and testing the durability properties of bricks developed in this study.
 Study the thermal conductivity properties of bricks developed.
 Synthesis of full-scale samples to conduct the in-situ test.
 Study the economic feasibility and life-cycle assessment of brick produced, for commercial production.
41/44

References

REFERENCES
1. Liu, F., and Swithenbank, J. (1993). “The effects of particle size distribution and refractive index on fly-ash radiative properties using a
simplified approach.” International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp 1905-1912.
2. Ranganath, R. V. (1994). “A study on characterization and use of ponded fly ash as fine aggregate in mortar and concrete.” Ph.D. Thesis,
Report, IIT Delhi.
3. Scott, G. M., Smith, A. (1995). “Sludge characteristics and disposal alternatives for recycled fibre plants.” TAPPI Proceedings, Recycling
symposium, pp. 239-250.
4. Ranganath, R. V., Bhattacharjee, B., and Krishnamoorthy, S. (1996). “Influence of size fraction of ponded ash on its pozzolanic activity.” Cement
Concrete Res., Vol. 28(5), pp. 749-761.
5. Maithel, S., and Uma, R. (2000). “Environmental regulations and the Indian brick industry.” Environmental Practice Journal of the National
Association of Environmental Professionals, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 230-231.
6. Fatih, T., and Ümit, A. (2001). “Utilization of fly ash in the manufacturing of building bricks.” International Ash Utilization Symposium, Paper
13, University of Kentucky, USA.
7. Weng, C. H., Lin, D. F., and Chiang. P. C. (2003). “Utilization of sludge as brick materials.” Advances in Engineering Research, Vol.7, pp. 679-685.
8. Kayali, O. (2005). “High-performance brick from fly ash.” World of Coal Ash (WOCA), Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
9. Pappu, A., Saxenaa, M., and Asolekar, S. R. (2007). “Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling potential in building materials.”
Building and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 2311-2320.
10. Chaulia, P. K., and Das, R. (2008). “Process parameter optimization for fly ash brick by Taguchi’s method.” Material Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.
159-164.
11. Chindaprasirt, P., and Pimraksa, K. (2008). “A study of fly ash–lime granule unfired brick.” Powder Technology, Vol, 182, pp. 33–41.
12. Gracia, R., Vigil, R., Vegas, I., and Rojas, M. I. S. (2008) “The pozzolanic properties of paper sludge waste.” Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 22(7), pp. 1484-1490.
13. Dhanapandiana, S., and Shanthib, M. (2009). “Utilization of marble and granite wastes in brick products.” Journal of Industrial Pollution
Control, Vol. 25 (2), pp. 145-150.
14. Oti, J. E., Kinuthia, J. M., and Bai, J. (2009) “Engineering properties of unfired clay masonry bricks.” Engineering Geology, Vol.107, pp. 130–139.
15. Demirel, B. (2010). “The effect of the using waste marble dust as fine sand on the mechanical properties of the concrete.” International
Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 5(9), pp. 1372-1380.
42/44

REFERENCES
16. Bilgin, N., Yeprem, H. A., Arslan, S., Bilgin, A., Günay. E., and Marsoglu, M. (2012). “Use of waste marble powder in brick industry.”
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 29, pp. 449–457.
17. Ganesh, B., Bai, S. H., Nagendra, R., and Narendra, B. K. (2012). “Characterisation of pond ash as fine aggregate in concrete.” Advances in
Architecture and Civil Engineering (AARCV). Vol. 21, pp. 119.
18. Rajput, D., Bhagade, S. S., Raut, S. P., Ralegaonkar, R. V., and Mandavgane, S. A. (2012). “Reuse of cotton and recycled paper mill waste as a
building material.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 34, pp. 470-475.
19. Raut, S. P., Sedmake, R., Dhunde, S., Ralegaonkar, R. V., and Mandavgane S. A. (2012). “Reuse of recycle paper mill waste in energy absorbing
lightweight bricks.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 27, pp. 247–251.
20. Banu, T., Billah, M. M., and Gulshan, F. (2013). “Experimental studies on fly ash-sand-lime bricks with gypsum addition.” American Journal of
Material Engineering and Technology, Vol.1, No. 3, pp. 35-40.
21. Pahroraji, M., Saman, H. M., Rahmat, M. N., and Kamaruddin, K. (2013). “Compressive strength and density of unfired lightweight coal ash
brick.” International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference, Kuching, Malaysia, pp. 22-24.
22. Rai, A., Mandal, A. K., Singh, K. K., and Mankhand, T. R. (2013). “Preparation and characterization of lime activated unfired bricks made with
industrial wastes.” Internet Journal of Waste Resource, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 40-46.
23. Shakir, A. A., Naganathan, S., and Mustapha, K. N. (2013). “Properties of bricks made using fly ash, quarry dust, and billet scale.” Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 41, pp. 131-138.
24. Vidhya, K., Kandasamy, S., Malaimangal, U. S., Karthikeyan, S. R., Basha, G. S., and Junaid, H. T. (2013). “Experimental studies on pond ash
brick.” International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 06-11.
25. Zhang, L. (2013). “Production of bricks from waste materials - A review.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 47, pp. 643–655.
26. Sumathi, A., and Rajamohan K. S. (2014). “Compressive strength of fly ash brick with the addition of lime, gypsum, and quarry dust.”
International Journal of ChemTech Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 28-36.
27. Hwang, C. L., and Huynh, T. P. (2015). “Investigation on the use of fly ash and residual rice husk ash for producing unfired building bricks.”
Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 752, pp. 588-592.
28. Naganathan, S., Mohamed, A. Y. O., Mustapha, K. N. (2015) “Performance of bricks made using fly ash and bottom ash.” Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 96, pp. 576-580.
29. Sutcu, M., Alptekin, H., Erdogmus, E., Yusuf, E., and Gencel, O. (2015). “Characteristics of fired clay bricks with waste marble powder addition
as building materials.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 82, pp.1–8.
43/44

REFERENCES
30. Singh, S., Nagar, R., and Agrawal, V. (2016). “A review on properties of sustainable concrete using granite dust as a replacement for river sand.”
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 126, pp. 74-87.
31. Smarzewski, P., and Hunek, D. B. (2016). “Mechanical and durability-related properties of high-performance concrete made with coal cinder
and waste foundry sand.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol., 121, pp. 9-17.
32. A report by Development Alternatives (DA) and Technology and Action for Rural Advancement (TARA) on “Indian brick sector.”
<http://www.ecobrick.in/>
33. A report by Development Alternatives (DA) and Technology and Action for Rural Advancement (TARA) on “Challenges and issues in the Indian
brick sector.” <http://www.ecobrick.in/>
34. A status report by MSME Development Institute Govt. of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises on “Commercial utilization
of marble slurry in Rajasthan.” <www.msmedijaipur.gov.in>
35. Jain, S.K., Singh, P.S. (2009). “Manual and information brochure on the brick.” published online for Punjab State Council for Science and
Technology. <http://pscst.gov.in/>
36. Komyotra, J. S. (2005). “Brick kilns in India.” for Central Pollution Control Board’s Centre for Science & Environment,
<http://www.cseindia.org/>
37. Ranjan, S. (2012). “Fly ash bricks v/s clay bricks or conventional bricks”, <http://santoshranjanblog.blogspot.in/>
44/44

Thank You!
“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”

Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste

Similar a Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste (20)

Último

Último (20)

Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste

Notas del editor