AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF … EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF COMPOSITE BRICKS A PROJECT REPORT...

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF

COMPOSITE BRICKS

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

DEEPIKA.D 714112103013

DINESH.S 714112103015

KAMALRAJ.S 714112103027

ARUL SENTHUR NATHAN.A 714112103303

In partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

in

CIVIL ENGINEERING

SRIGURU INSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGY,

COIMBATORE.

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2016

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report titled “AN EXPERIMENTAL

INVESTIGATION OF COMPOSITE BRICKS”is the bonafide work of

DEEPIKA.D (714112103013), DINESH.S (714112103015), KAMALRAJ.S

(714112103027) and ARUL SENTHUR NATHAN.A (714112103303) who

carriedout the project work under my supervision.

SIGNATURE

Prof. C.V.BINDU, M.E.,(Ph.D.)

Head of the Department,

Department of Civil Engineering,

SriGuru Institute of Technology,

Coimbatore.

SIGNATURE

Prof. C.V.BINDU, M.E.,(Ph.D.)

SUPERVISOR

Head of the Department,

Department of Civil Engineering,

SriGuru Institute of Technology,

Coimbatore.

Certified that the candidate were examined in the project viva –voce

Examination held on……………………….

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, we would like to articulate our humble thanks to God for

showering his blessing upon us. We owe our sincere thanks to our parents who

helped, motivated and encouraged us in this endeavor.

Our thanks to the philanthropists of SriGuru Institute of Technology, for

providing us quality engineering education and sculpturing, our director and our

principal Dr. S.BABU DEVASENAPATHI, for providing all facilities.

We are extremely grateful to Prof. C.V.BINDU M.E., (Ph.D.,) Head of

the Department of Civil Engineering SriGuru Institute of Technology,

Coimbatore, for her remarkable guidance, advice and motivation in completing

this project.

We sincerely express our gratitude to our project guide Prof.

C.V.BINDU M.E., (Ph.D.,) Head of the Department of Civil Engineering,

SriGuru Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, for guidance throughout the

project.

We also thank all the teaching and non-teaching staff of the department

for encouraging and supporting us during the entire process of this project. We

also extend our gratitude to all our friends who all stood behind our project by

helping us in many aspects.

ii

ABSTRACT

Disposal of used Plastics is a major problem in the present era, as the

usage of plastics is growing day by day and it takes hundreds of years for plastic

material to degrade. So effective ways to recycle & reuse of plastics are being

formulated. According to their composition, plastics have been classified into

seven types each having their own recycle rate.

One such type HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) was taken into

consideration as it was easily available & had higher density than other types.

The used plastics were collected , ground into smaller components, melted &

pulverized in order to get granules of plastic of about 1mm size. The density of

the Pulverized plastic was found to be 460 kg/m³ & its specific gravity was

0.46. Sieve analyses were carried out & about 75% of the plastics were found to

be in the range of 1-1.7mm.

In this experimental investigation the laboratory test of fly ash bricks by

adding pulverized plastic powder. The waste plastic pulverized powder is to be

added in proportions of 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% in the volume of bricks.

The compressive strength and water absorption were determined at the

end of 7, 14 and 21 days. In this investigation at 20% of pulverized waste

plastic powder content effect of bricks on compressive strength and water

absorption were determined. Strength comparison of a normal fly ash bricks and

composite fly ash bricks. The paper also shows the cost comparison per each

block.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Introduction 1

1.3 Ash from coal combustion 3

1.3.1 Dry fly ash 3

1.3.2 Bottom ash 3

1.3.3 Pond ash 4

1.3.4 Boiler slag 4

1.3.5 FGD gypsum 4

1.4 Environmental Impacts Of Fly Ash 4

1.4.1 Hazards 4

1.5 Goal 5

1.6 Objectives 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Strength and durability of fly ash cement and

gypsum bricks 6

2.2 Utilization of pulverized plastic in cement concrete

as fine aggregate 7

3 MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3 General 8

3.1 Fly ash 8

3.1.1 Origin of the fly-ash 8

3.1.2 Properties of fly-ash 8

3.1.3 Testing of fly ash 8

3.1.3.1 Specific gravity test 8

3.1.3.2 Sieve analysis test 10

3.2 Quarry dust 12

3.2.1 Origin of quarry dust 12

3.2.2 Physical and chemical properties 12

3.2.3 Advantages of quarry dust 14

3.2.4 Disadvantages of quarry dust 14

3.2.5 Testing of fly ash 14

3.2.5.1 Specific gravity test 14

3.2.5.2 Sieve analysis test 16

3.3 Cement 18

3.4 Water 18

3.5 Pulverized waste plastic powder 18

3.5.1Properties 18

3.5.2 Physical properties 19

3.5.3 Applications 19

3.5.4 Grade selection 19

3.5.5 Advantages 20

3.5.6 Disadvantages 20

3.5.7 Applications 20

3.5.8 PH test 20

4 PROCESS OF MOULDING

4 General 23

4.1 Collection of material 23

4.2 Mixing 23

4.2.1 Proportioning of raw materials 23

4.2.2 Calculation of mix proportions 24

4.3 Casting of bricks 25

4.4 Drying of bricks 26

4.5 Curing of bricks 26

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 General 27

5.2 Testing of bricks 27

5.2.1 Compressive strength test 27

5.2.2 Water absorption test 36

5.2.3 Efflorescence test 41

5.2.4 Structure test 42

5.2.5 Soundness test 42

5.2.6 Hardness test 43

5.2.7 Dimensional tolerance 43

COMPARISON STATEMENT 44

6 CONCLUSION 45

REFERENCES 46

IS CODE REFERENCE 47

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE NO

1 Comparison between Clay brick and Fly ash Brick 2

3.1 Specific Gravity Test For Fly Ash 10

3.2 Sieve Analysis Test For Fly Ash 11

3.3 Showing The Physical Properties Of Quarry Dust

And Natural Sand 13

3.4 Showing The Typical Chemical Properties Of

Quarry Dust And Natural Sand 13

3.5 Specific Gravity Test For Fly Ash 15

3.6 Sieve Analysis Test For Quarry Dust 17

3.7 Ph Test Result 22

4.1 Mix Proportion For 3 Bricks 25

5.0 Class Designation Of Bricks 28

5.1 Compression Test On Hand Mould Clay Brick 29

5.2 Compression Test On Clay Bricks In Machine

Mould 29

5.3 Compression Test On Fly Ash Brick In Hydraulic

Mould 29

5.4.1 Compression Test On Nominal Fly Ash Brick (7

Days Curing) 30


Days Curing) 30


Days Curing) 30

5.5.1 Compression Test On Composite Fly Ash Brick 5%

PWP Powder Added At 7 Days Curing 31





5.6.1 Compression Test On Composite Fly Ash Brick

10% PWP Powder Added At 7 Days Curing 32

5.6.2 Compression Test On Composite Fly Ash Brick

10% PWP Powder Added At 14 Days Curing 32







5.7.3 Compression Test On Composite Fly Ash

Brick 15% PWP Powder Added At 21 Days Curing 33







5.9 Compressive Strength Of Composite Bricks 35

5.10 Compressive Strength Comparison Of Conventional

Bricks Composite Bricks 36

5.11.1 Water Absorption Test On Conventional Clay Brick 37

5.11.2 Water Absorption Test On Conventional Clay Brick 38

5.11.3 Water Absorption Test On Conventional Flyash Brick 38

5.11.4 Water Absorption Test On Composite Flyash Brick (0%

PWP Powder Added) 38









5.12 Water Absorption Test On Composite Bricks 40

5.13 Water Absorption Test Comparison Of Conventional And

Composite Bricks 41

5.14 Efflorescence Test Report 42

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO

1 Fly Ash “F” Class 48

2 Quarry Dust 48

3 OPC 53 Grade Cement (Dalmia) 48

4 PWP Powder (Polypropylene 48

5 PWP Powder Was Sieved Before Mixing 48

6 Mixing Of Raw Materials 49

7 Dry Mixing Of Raw Material 49

8 Wet Mixing Of Raw Materials Bricks 49

9 Moulding Of BRICKS 49

10 Air Drying Process 49

11 Curing Process 49

12 Compression test for clay brick in hand mould (sample

code H10) 50

13 Compression test for clay brick in machine mould

(sample code M4) 50

14 Compression test for fly ash brick in hydraulic mould

(sample code F2) 50

15 Compression test for nominal fly ash brick in hand

mould (sample code P12) 51

16 Compression test on composite fly ash brick 10%

PWP powder (sample code R11) 51

17 water absorption test (before and after immersion of

water) 51

18 During efflorescence test 52

19 After 24 hrs on efflorescence test 52

20 Structure test - Nominal bricks 52

21 Structure test - 5% Composite bricks 52



24 During soundness test 53

25 During hardness test 53

26 Dimension test for length wise 53

27 Dimension test for width wise 54

28 Dimension test for depth wise 54

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Fly Ash bricks are made of fly ash, lime, gypsum cement and sand. These

can be extensively used in all building constructional activities similar to that of

common burnt clay bricks. The fly ash bricks are comparatively lighter in

weight and stronger than common clay bricks. Since fly ash is being

accumulated as waste material in large quantity near thermal power plants and

creating serious environmental pollution problems, its utilization as main raw

material in the manufacture of bricks will not only create ample opportunities

for its proper and useful disposal but also help in environmental pollution

control to a greater extent in the surrounding areas of power plants.

Manufacturing of commercial brick produce a lot of air pollution. The

technology adopted for making. The fly ash bricks are eco-friendly. It is no need

fire operation in production unlike the conventional bricks Among the

traditional fossil fuel sources, coal exists in quantities capable of supplying a

large portion of nation’s energy need. That’s why the power sector in India is a

major consumer of coal in India and will continue to remain so far many years

to come. Combustion of coal in thermal power plant not only produces steam to

run electricity-generating turbine but also produces a large quantity of by-

products like fly ash etc.

1.2 INTRODUCTION

About 80 thermal power plants in India are sources of fly ash, where

around millions of tones of coal are used annually. India currently generates 100

million tones of fly ash every year. This produces 30-40 million tones of fly ash

unused every year. This disposal will need thousands hectares of storage land,

which may cause further ecological imbalance. In fact, this waste material is

simply disposed off in the form aqueous slurry on the adjoining areas. This type

2

of disposal not only converts useful agricultural land to waste ones but also

possesses a threat to the quality of environment.

The human development of united nation development programmed

indicates that annually 83-163 million hectares of land is eroded in India

causing productivity loss of about 4 to 6.3% of the total agricultural output

worth $2.4 billion. Therefore, using fly ash as a building material has assumed

great significance like never before. Several investigations have been carried out

throughout the world to make an attempt to use fly ash in many civil

engineering projects by virtue of its good properties as an ingredient of

concrete. The Comparison between Clay brick and Fly ash Brick is shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison between Clay brick and Fly ash Brick

Clay Brick Fly Ash Brick

Varying colour as per soil Uniform pleasing colour like cement

Uneven shape as hand made Uniform in shape and smooth in finish

Lightly bonded Dense composition

Plastering required No plastering required

Heavier in weight Lighter in weight

Compressive strength is around 35

kg/Cm²

Compressive strength is around 100

kg/Cm²

More porous Less porous

Thermal conductivity

1.25 – 1.35 W/m² ºC

Thermal conductivity

0.90-1.05 W/m² ºC

Water absorption 20-25% Water absorption 6-12%

3

1.3 ASH FROM COAL COMBUSTION

The quality of coal depends upon its rank and grade. The coal ranks are

arranged in an ascending order of carbon contents is:

Peat <Lignite < sub-bituminous coal< bituminous coal < anthracite

Indian coal is mostly sub-bituminous rank followed by bituminous and

lignite (brown coal). The ash content in Indian coal ranges from 35 % to 50 %.

The coal properties including calorific values differ depending upon the colliery

location. The calorific value of the Indian coal (~ 15 MJ/kg) is less than the

normal range of 21 MJ/kg to 33 MJ/kg (gross). There are generally five

categories of coal ashes available from thermal power stations. Those are:

1.3.1 Dry fly ash – It is collected from different rows of electrostatic

precipitators in dry form. The fly ash is produced from the burning of

pulverized coal in a coal-fired boiler. It is a fine grained, powdery particulate

material in nature. It is carried through the flue gas and collected from the flue

gas by means of electrostatic precipitators, bag-houses, or mechanical collection

devices such as cyclones. Fly ash is the finest of coal ash particles. It is

transported from the combustion chamber by exhaust gases.

1.3.2 Bottom ash –It is collected at the bottom of the boiler furnace and is

characterized by better geotechnical properties. Coal bottom ash and fly ash are

different physically, mineralogically and chemically. Bottom ash is a coarse,

granular, incombustible by-product that is collected from the bottom of the

furnaces that burn coal for the generation of steam, the production of electric

power or both. Bottom ash is coarser than fly ash, and grain sizes varying from

fine sand to fine gravel.

4

1.3.3 Pond ash – Bottom ashes and Fly ash are mixed together with water to

form slurry which is pumped to the ash pond area. In the ash pond the ash gets

settled and excess water is poured out. This deposited ash is called pond ash.

1.3.4 Boiler slag - Boiler slag is coarser than conventional fly ash and is formed

in cyclone boilers, which produce a molten ash that is cooled with water. Boiler

slag is generally a black granular material. It can be used in numerous

engineering applications.

1.3.5 FGD gypsum - Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) gypsum is also known as

scrubber gypsum. FGD gypsum is the by-product of an air pollution control

system that removes sulphur from the flue gas in calcium based scrubbing

systems. It is produced by employing forced oxidation in the scrubber and is

composed mostly of calcium sulphate.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FLY ASH

The World Bank has cautioned India that by 2015, disposal of coal ash

would require 1000 sq. km. of land. Since coal currently accounts for 70% of

power generation in the country, there is a need of new and innovative methods

for reducing impacts on the environment. The problem with fly ash lies in the

fact that not only does its disposal require large quantities of land, water and

energy, its fine particles, if not managed well, can become airborne. Currently

more than 120 million tones of fly ash are being generated annually in India,

with 65000 acres of land being occupied by ash ponds.

1.4.1 HAZARDS

Due to physical characteristics and large volumes generated, fly ashes pose

problems like:

5

1. It is very difficult to handle the material in dry state because it is very fine

and readily air borne even in mild wind.

2. It disturbs the ecology of that region, becomes source of soil, air and water

pollution.

3. Long inhalation of fly ash causes fibrosis of lungs, silicosis, pneumonitis

bronchitis etc.

4. Flying fine particles of ash poses problems for living near power stations,

corrode structural surfaces and affect horticulture.

5. Ultimate settlement of fly ash particles over many hectares of land in the

vicinity of power station brings about perceptible degeneration in soil

characteristics.

1.5 GOAL

The basic aim of this project is to evaluate the strength potential of fly ash

with cement & water. The aim has been achieved through covering the

following specific objectives.

1.6 OBJECTIVES

The above goal was achieved with the following specific objectives.

Investigating the engineering properties and characteristics of the fly ash

samples collected.

Investigating the strength gain of composite material aspects associated

with the fly ash specimen collected.

Establishment of better suitable combinations of fly ash – pulverizes

waste plastic powder compositions for under laboratory test.

6

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 STRENGTH AND DURABILITY OF FLY ASH, CEMENT

AND GYPSUM BRICKS (INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL ENGINEERING

RESEARCH (IJCER) - MAY – 2014)

Nitin S. Naik, B.M.Bahadure and C.L.Jejurkar present that strength and

durability aspect of bricks prepared using Fly Ash, Cement and

Phosphogypsum.

The results of compressive strength on cubes of fly ash, cement and

phosphogypsum when cured in potable water are shows along with results of

water absorption of the cubes. This paper shows compressive strength of fly

ash, cement and phosphogypsum cubes for different mix proportions. From the

table it is clear that the said binder gives good compressive strength though the

water absorption is slightly on higher side of the I.S. requirements. When bricks

are prepared with mix M-5 and tested for compressive strength and water

absorption, it has been found that the bricks are having good compressive

strength of 6.360MPa at the age of 14 days and 9.420 MPa at the age of 28

days, which is well above the I.S. requirement of 3.5 MPa.

The water absorption of the bricks is found to be 28.44 % after

submergence in water for 28 days which is above the I.S. requirement. The

results are shown in table 3. Table 4 shows compressive strength of cubes of all

mix proportions when exposed to sulphate solution for 28 days. If it is

compared with compressive strength of cubes, it can be observed that curing in

sulphate solution has resulted in reduction in compressive strength.

Thus the bricks prepared from fly ash, cement and phosphogypsum can

offer good resistance to sulphate attack. For higher percentage of cement in the

mix the percentage reduction in compressive strength is very high i.e. up to

16%. Due to action of fly ash with sulphate solution and due to increased

percentage of phosphogypsum resistance of the mix against sulphate attack

7

increases. From the above results and discussion following conclusions can be

drawn.

2.2UTILIZATION OF PULVERIZED PLASTIC IN CEMENT

CONCRETE AS FINE AGGREGATE

(IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology

ISSN: 2319-1163 / JUNE 2013)

P. Suganthy, Dinesh Chandrasekar and Sathish Kumar. P. K

The water cement ratio of concrete is found to increase with increase in

replacement of Sand by Plastic material. The Weight of the cube decreases with

an increase in replacement of Sand by Plastic material. It is seen that the

decrease in weight is linear with increase in replacement. The variation of

strength with age of Conventional and concrete with 25% replacement Sand by

Plastic material follows a similar pattern. There is not much change in strength

with the age of concrete for Concrete which contains more than 25%

replacement of sand by plastic material.

There is Gradual decrease in strength for replacement up to 25% and then

the strength decreases rapidly for 25% to 50% of Sand by Plastic material, after

50% the strength variation is somewhat gradual. The ultimate as well as the

yield strength of concrete at 7th day decreased by about 3 to 3.2 N/mm²for

25%replacement & 4 to 6.5 N/mm² for higher replacements of Plastic when

compared to conventional concrete. The ultimate as well as the yield strength of

concrete at 14th day & 28th day decreased by about 0.2 to 1 N/mm² for 25%

replacement & 9.1to14.6 N/mm² for higher replacements of Plastic when

compared to conventional concrete.

8

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

3 GENERAL

The following ingredients are used for manufacturing the structural

element namely fly ash, quarry dust, cement, waste plastic powder and water.

To investigate the properties of the materials that were used for casting the

specimens, various laboratory tests were performed following the codes IS

2386:1963 and is 383:1970. The results are as follows.

3.1 FLYASH

3.1.1 ORIGIN OF THE FLY-ASH

The fly ash is the by-product that is formed in the thermal power plants.

This is used as a partial replacement of cement now-a-days in general cases.

3.1.2 Properties of Fly-ash:

Property Result

Specific Gravity 2.79

Fineness

Retained on 75μ

Sieve 9%

Specific Surface,

Blaine, m²/Kg 526

3.1.3 TESTING OF FLYASH

3.1.3.1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Objective

Determination of specific gravity of fly ash by pycnometer

method.

Reference Standard

IS : 2720 (Part 4) – 1985 – Method of test for soil (Part 4-Grain

size analysis)

9

Equipment & Apparatus

Pycnometer

Sieve(4.75 mm)

Weighing balance

Preparation sample

After receiving the soil sample it is dried in oven at a temperature

of 105 to 1150C for a period of 16 to 24 hours.

Procedure

Dry the pycnometer and weigh it with its cap(W1)

Take about 200 g to 300 g of oven dried soil passing through

4.75mm sieve into the pycnometer and weigh again(W2)

Add water to cover the soil and screw on the cap.

Shake the pycnometer well and connect it to the vacuum pump to

remove entrapped air for about 10 to 20 minutes.

After the air has been removed, fill the pycnometer with water and

weigh it (W3). Clean the pycnometer by washing thoroughly.

Fill the cleaned pycnometer completely with water up to its top

with cap screw on. Weigh the pycnometer after drying it on the

outside thoroughly(W4).

Calculation

The Specific gravity of soil solids (Gs) is calculated using the

following equation.

http://i1.wp.com/civilblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Soil-specific-gravity-1.jpg

10

Where,

W1=Empty weight of pycnometer

W2=Weight of pycnometer + oven dry soil

W3=Weight of pycnometer + oven dry soil + water

W4=Weight of pycnometer + water full

TABLE 3.1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST FOR FLY ASH

Sample No W1

(gm)

W2

(gm)

W3

(gm)

W4

(gm)

Specific

Gravity

1 630 840 1550 1420 2.625

2 630 950 1640 1420 3.200

3 630 1050 1675 1420 2.545

Mean 2.790

Report

The result of the specific gravity test is 2.79.

3.1.3.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

Objective

Determination of particle size distribution of fly ash.

Reference standard

IS : 2720 (Part 4) – 1985 – Method of test for soil (Part 4-Grain size

analysis)


Balance

Sieves

Sieve shaker

Preparation sample

After receiving the soil sample it is dried in air or in oven

(maintained at a temperature of 600C). If clods are there in soil sample

then it is broken with the help of wooden mallet.

11

Procedure

The sample is dried to constant mass in the oven at a temperature

of 1100±50C and all the sieves which are to be used in the analysis

are cleaned.

The oven dry sample is weighed and sieved successively on the

appropriate sieves starting with largest. Each sieve is shaken for a

period of not less than 2 minutes.

On completion of sieving the material retained on each sieve is

weighed.

Calculation

The percent retained (%), Cumulative retained (%) &

percent finer (%) is calculated.

Percent retained on each sieve = Weight of retained sample in each

sieve / Total weight of sample

The cumulative percent retained is calculated by adding

percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.

The percent finer is calculated by subtracting the cumulative

percent retained from 100 percent.

TABLE 3.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST FOR FLY ASH

Weight of Sample taken, W = 800 grams

S.No

Sieve

Opening

in mm

Weight Of Soil/

Sand Retained

in gm

Percentage

Of Weight

Retained

Cumulative

Percentage

Retained

Percentage

Finer

1 4.750 0 0 0 100

2 2.360 0 0 0 100

3 1.180 10 1.25 1.25 98.75

4 0.600 125 15.625 16.875 83.125

5 0.300 210 26.25 43.125 56.875

6 0.150 200 25 68.125 31.875

7 0.075 135 16.875 85 15

8 pan 120 15 100 0

12

Graph 1.Semi-log graph for fly ash particle size distribution

RESULT

Effective Size = 0.045mm

Fineness modulus = 3.14

Uniformity coefficient = 7.77

3.2 QUARRY DUST

3.2.1 ORIGIN OF QUARRY DUST:

The quarry dust is the by-product which is formed in the processing of

the granite stones which broken downs into the coarse aggregates of different

sizes.

3.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES:

The physical and chemical properties of quarry dust obtained by testing

the sample as per the Indian Standards are listed in the below table

4.750 2.360 1.180 0.600 0.300 0.150 0.075 pan

Series1 100 99.625 86.5 74.625 55.25 30.25 13.375 0.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120P

ER

CE

NT

AG

E O

F F

INE

R

SIEVE OPENING IN mm

SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR FLYASH

13

TABLE 3.3 SHOWING THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF QUARRY

DUST AND NATURAL SAND

Property Quarry Dust Natural Sand Test method

Specific gravity 2.54 -2.60 2.60 IS2386(Part

III)- 1963

Bulk density (kg/m³) 1720- 1810 1460 IS2386(Part

III)- 1963

Absorption (%) 1.20- 1.50 Nil IS2386(Part

III)- 1963

Moisture Content (%) Nil 1.50 IS2386(Part

III)- 1963

Fine particles less than

0.075 mm (%) 12-15 6

IS2386(Part

III)- 1963

Sieve analysis Zone-II Zone-II IS 383- 1970

TABLE 3.4 SHOWING THE TYPICAL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF

QUARRY DUST AND NATURAL SAND

Constituents Quarry Dust (%) Natural Sand (%) Test Method

SiO2 62.48 80.78

IS 4032- 1968

Al2O3 18.72 10.52

Fe2O3 6.54 1.75

CaO 4.83 3.21

MgO 2.56 0.77

Na2O Nil 1.37

K2O 3.18 1.23

TiO2 1.21 Nil

Loss of ignition 0.48 0.37

14

3.2.3 ADVANTAGES OF QUARRY DUST:

The Specific gravity depends on the nature of the rock from which it is

processed and the variation is less [3].

3.2.4 DISADVANTAGES OF QUARRY DUST:

Shrinkage is more in when compared to that of the natural river sand.

Water absorption is present so that increase the water addition to the dry mix.

3.2.5 TESTING OF FLYASH

3.2.5.1 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST

Objective

For determination of specific gravity of soil solids by pycnometer

method.

Reference Standard

IS : 2720 (Part 4) – 1985 – Method of test for soil (Part 4-Grain

size analysis)


Pycnometer

Sieve(4.75 mm)

Weighing balance

Preparation sample

After receiving the soil sample it is dried in oven at a temperature

of 105 to 1150C for a period of 16 to 24 hours.

Procedure

Dry the pycnometer and weigh it with its cap(W1)

Take about 200 g to 300 g of oven dried soil passing through

4.75mm sieve into the pycnometer and weigh again(W2)

Add water to cover the soil and screw on the cap.

15

Shake the pycnometer well and connect it to the vacuum pump to

remove entrapped air for about 10 to 20 minutes.

After the air has been removed, fill the pycnometer with water and

weigh it (W3).

Clean the pycnometer by washing thoroughly.

Fill the cleaned pycnometer completely with water up to its top

with cap screw on.

Weigh the pycnometer after drying it on the outside

thoroughly(W4).

Calculation

The Specific gravity of soil solids (Gs) is calculated using the

following equation.

Where,

W1=Empty weight of pycnometer

W2=Weight of pycnometer + oven dry soil

W3=Weight of pycnometer + oven dry soil + water

W4=Weight of pycnometer + water full

TABLE 3.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST FOR FLY ASH

Sample No W1

(gm)

W2

(gm)

W3

(gm)

W4

(gm)

Specific

Gravity

1 630 840 1550 1420 2.625

2 630 950 1640 1420 3.200

3 630 1050 1675 1420 2.545

Mean 2.790

Report

The result of the specific gravity test is 2.79.

http://i1.wp.com/civilblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Soil-specific-gravity-1.jpg

16

3.2.5.2 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST

Objective

Determination of particle size distribution of quarry dust.

Reference standard

IS: 2720 (Part 4) – 1985 – Method of test for soil (Part 4-Grain size

analysis)


Balance

Sieves

Sieve shaker

Preparation sample

After receiving the soil sample it is dried in air or in oven

(maintained at a temperature of 600C). If clods are there in soil sample

then it is broken with the help of wooden mallet.

Procedure

The sample is dried to constant mass in the oven at a temperature

of 1100 ± 50C and all the sieves which are to be used in the analysis

are cleaned.

The oven dry sample is weighed and sieved successively on the

appropriate sieves starting with largest. Each sieve is shaken for a

period of not less than 2 minutes.

On completion of sieving the material retained on each sieve is

weighed.

Calculation

The percent retained (%), Cumulative retained (%) &

percent finer (%) is calculated.

Percent retained on each sieve = Weight of retained sample in each

sieve / Total weight of sample

17

The cumulative percent retained is calculated by adding

percent retained on each sieve as a cumulative procedure.

The percent finer is calculated by subtracting the cumulative

percent retained from 100 percent

TABLE 3.6 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST FOR QUARRY DUST

Weight Of Quarry Sand Taken, W = 800 grams

S.No

Sieve

Opening

in mm

Weight of

Soil/ Sand

Retained in

gm

Percentage of

Weight

Retained

Cumulative

Percentage

Retained

Percentage

Finer

1 4.750 0 0 0 100

2 2.360 3 0.375 0.375 99.625

3 1.180 105 13.125 13.5 86.5

4 0.600 95 11.875 25.375 74.625

5 0.300 155 19.375 44.75 55.25

6 0.150 200 25 69.75 30.25

7 0.075 135 16.875 86.625 13.375

8 Pan 105 13.125 99.75 0.25

Graph 2.Semi-log graph for quarry dust particle size distribution

4.750 2.360 1.180 0.600 0.300 0.150 0.075 pan

Series1 100 99.625 86.5 74.625 55.25 30.25 13.375 0.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OF

FIN

ER

SIEVE OPENING IN mm

SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR QUARRY DUST

18

RESULT

Effective Size = 0.065mm

Fineness modulus = 3.40

Uniformity coefficient = 5.79

3.3 CEMENT

It is a binding material in concrete which binds the other materials to

forms a compact mass. Generally Ordinary Portland Cement is used for all

engineering construction works. In this project work, 53 grade OPC cement is

used for experimental study.

3.4 WATER

Clean, portable drinking water is available in the college campus is used

for casting and curing of bricks.

3.5 PULVERIZED WASTE PLASTIC POWDER

This waste powder is Polypropylene (PP) linear hydrocarbon

polymer, expressed as CnH2n. PP, like polyethylene and polybutene (PB), is a

polyolefin or saturated polymer. Polypropylene is one of those most versatile

polymers available with applications, both as a plastic and as a fibre, in virtually

all of the plastics end-use markets.

3.5.1 Properties

The properties of Polypropylene include...

Semi-rigid

Translucent

Good chemical resistance

Tough

Good fatigue resistance

Integral hinge property

19

Good heat resistance

PP does not present stress-cracking problems and offers excellent

electrical and chemical resistance at higher temperatures. While the properties

of PP are similar to those of Polyethylene, there are specific differences. These

include a lower density, higher softening point (PP doesn't melt below 160ºC,

Polyethylene, a more common plastic, will anneal at around 100ºC) and higher

rigidity and hardness. Additives are applied to all commercially produced

polypropylene resins to protect the polymer during processing and to enhance

end-use performance.

3.5.2 Physical Properties

Tensile Strength = 0.95 - 1.30 N/mm²

Notched Impact Strength = 3.0 - 30.0 KN/m²

Thermal Coefficient of expansion = 100 - 150 x 10-6

Max Cont Use Temp = 80 °C

Density = 0.905 g/cm³

3.5.3 Applications

Polypropylene can be processed by virtually all thermoplastic-processing

methods. Most typically PP Products are manufactured by: Extrusion Blow

Moulding, Injection Moulding, and General Purpose Extrusion. Expanded

Polypropylene (EPP) may be moulded in a specialist process.

3.5.4 Grade Selection

The choice of grade for any application is based on consideration of any,

or all, of the following points:

Homopolymer: stronger, stiffer - higher HDT

Copolymer: better impact, more transparent

20

MFI: ease of flow vs. toughness.

3.5.5 Advantages

Good chemical resistance. Good fatigue resistance. Better temperature

resistance than HDPE. Lower density than HDPE.

3.5.6 Disadvantages

Oxidative degradation is accelerated by contact with certain materials,

e.g. copper. High mould shrinkage and thermal expansion. High creep. Poor

U.V. resistance.

3.5.7 Applications

Buckets, bowls, crates, toys, medical components, washing machine

drums, battery cases, bottle caps. Elastomer modified for bumpers, etc. Talc

filled for additional stiffness at elevated temperatures - jug kettles, etc. OPP

films for packaging (e.g. crisps, biscuits, etc.). Fibres for carpets, sports

clothing.

3.5.8 PH test

Objective

This test method is the procedure for determining the PH of plastic

waste powder samples by use of a PH meter.

Apparatus and Materials

A 0.1 pt. (50 ml), wide-mouth glass beaker with a watch glass for

cover.

A PH meter, suitable for laboratory or field analysis, with either

one or two electrodes.

Standard buffer solutions of known PH values - standards to be

used are PH of 4.0, 7.0, and 10.0.

Distilled water.

21

A teaspoon or small scoop.

A thermometer capable of reading 77±18°F (25±10°C) to the

nearest 0.1°C.

A ¼ in. (6.3 mm) sieve conforming to the requirements of

AASHTO Designation M-92-91 (excluding Column 7, pg. 87) and

a pan.

A glass stirring rod.

A scale, minimum capacity of 1.1 lb. (500 g). It shall be accurate to

0.1% and be readable to 0.1 g.

Procedure

The material must be separated on the ¼ in. (6.3 mm) sieve. Only

the minus ¼ in. (6.3 mm) material is to be used for testing.

Weigh and place 30±0.1 g of soil into the glass beaker.

Add 30±0.1 g of distilled water to the soil sample. Stir to obtain a

soil slurry and then cover with watch glass.

The sample must stand for a minimum of one hour, stirring every

10 to 15 minutes. This is to allow the PH of the soil slurry to

stabilize.

The electrode(s) require immersion 30 seconds or longer in the

sample before reading to allow the meter to stabilize. If the meter

has an auto read system, it will automatically signal when

stabilized.

Read and record the PH value to the nearest tenth of a whole number.

22

TABLE 3.7 : pH TEST RESULT

SAMPLE NO VALUE

1 8.26

2 8.34

3 8.30

Mean value 8.30

Result

pH value of given PWP powder sample is 8.30.

This value is adoptable for construction. Limitation of pH value at any material

is 6.0 to 10.

23

PROCESS OF MOULDING

4. GENERAL

In this experimental work, the standard size of brick mould used in this

project is 220mm X 100mm x75mm. The average amount of water is used for

mixing. Mixing is made by hand mixing. Various proportions of PWP

(pulverized waste plastic) powder are 0%,5%, 10%, 15% and 20% is added with

OPC.

4.1 COLLECTION OF MATERIAL

First all the proportions are weighed. Clean the surface without any dirt,

for mixing of all materials in proper proportions. Then the mix has done with

using trowel. Add water 10 to 15% to the mix proportion. Before mixing the

PWP powder was sieved in IS 2.36mm.

4.2 MIXING

The five different types of mixtures are prepared to the requirement of BS

6073 in laboratory trials. The water proportions in the mixes are taken as

constant to determine the effect of various combinations of fly ash and PWP

powder.

Fly ash (55%)

Quarry dust (35%)

Cement (OPC) (10%)

Pulverized Waste Plastic (PWP) Powder

4.2.1 PROPORTIONING OF RAW MATERIALS

Proportioning of raw materials in an important aspect of ensuring

quality of ash bricks. The Proportioning will depend on the quality of raw

24

materials and the class of brick required. The following mix proportion is

being adopted by various types.

4.2.2 CALCULATION OF MIX PROPORTIONS

1) NOMINAL FLYASH BRICK (5% PWP POWDER ADDED BRICK)

100% = 100kg

Fly Ash 55% = 55kg

Quarry Dust 35% = 35kg

Cement 10% = 10kg

PWP POWDER 0% = 0kg

TOTAL = 100kg

2) COMPOSITE BRICK (5% PWP POWDER ADDED BRICK)

Flyash (55x95%) = 52.25% = 52.25kg

Quarry Dust (35x95%) = 33.25% = 33.25kg

Cement (10x95%) = 9.5% = 9.5kg

PWP Powder 5.0% = 5.0kg

Total = 100.0kg


Fly Ash (55X90%) = 49.5% = 49.50kg

Quarry Dust (35X90%) = 31.5% = 31.50kg

Cement (10X90%) = 9.0% = 9.00kg

PWP Powder 10% = 10.00kg

Total = 100.00kg

25


Flyash (55X85%) = 46.75% = 46.75kg

Quarry Dust (35X85%) = 29.75% = 29.75kg

Cement (10X85%) = 8.5% = 8.5kg

PWP Powder 15% = 15.00kg

Total = 100.00kg


Flyash (55X80%) = 44.0% = 49.50kg

Quarry Dust (35X80%) = 28.0% = 31.50kg

Cement (10X80%) = 8.0% = 8.00kg

PWP Powder 20.0% = 20.00kg

Total = 100.00kg

TABLE 4.1 MIX PROPORTION FOR 3 BRICKS

S.NO MATERIALS SYMBOL

NOMINAL

FLYASH

BRICK

5% PWP

POWER

ADDED

FLYASH

BRICK

10% PWP

POWER

ADDED

FLYASH

BRICK

15% PWP

POWER

ADDED

FLYASH

BRICK

20% PWP

POWER

ADDED

FLYASH

BRICK

1 FLYASH W1 5.775 5.486 5.198 4.910 4.620

2 QUARRY

DUST W2 3.675 3.492 3.302 3.124 2.940

3 CEMENT W3 1.050 0.998 0.945 0.893 0.840

4 PWP

POWDER W4 - 0.525 1.050 1.575 2.100

5 WATER L 1.750 1.850 1.850 1.850 1.850

4.3 CASTING OF BRICKS

The non-modular brick sample of size 220 X 100 X 75 mm. where

casting lab using the OPC, fly ash, PWP powder in the proper proportion. For

26

hand moulding, the mixed proportions is forced in the mould in such a way that

is fills all the corners of the mould. The proper compaction is must done. The

surplus mix was removed either by frame with and top surface was leveled.

Finally the mould is lifted up and raw bricks are left on the ground. Above

process repeated till sufficient raw bricks are ready when such bricks become

sufficiently dry for 2 minutes in direct sun light.

4.4 DRYING OF BRICKS

After the bricks are moulded they are dried. This is done on specially

prepared drying yards. Bricks are stacked in the yard 8 to 10 bricks in each row.

Bricks are dried for a period of 1 to 2 days. During drying it must be protected

from wind, rain. Sometimes bricks are dried artificially by hot gases from kiln.

But here is change of warping of bricks in case of artificial drying.

4.5 CURING OF BRICKS

Proper curing is done for 7 days to 14 days for require the strength of the

bricks.

27

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 GENERAL

Checking the strength of bricks is vital in analyzing civil engineering

design. Engineers have to be very sure about strength and worthiness of basic

building unit i.e. Bricks.

5.2 TEST OF BRICKS

Following tests are performed to check the quality of bricks.

1. Compressive Strength Test

2. Absorption Test

3. Efflorescence Test

4. Structure Test

5. Soundness Test

7. Hardness Test

8. Dimensional tolerance

5.2.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

AIM

To determine the compressive strength of bricks as per IS 3495

(Part 1) : 1992.

APPARATUS

Compression testing machine ,the compression plate of which shall have

ball seating in the form of portion of a sphere center of which coincides with the

centre of the plate.

SPECIMENS

Three numbers of whole bricks from sample collected should be taken

.the dimensions should be measured to the nearest 1mm.

28

PROCEDURE

Place the specimen with flat face s horizontal and mortar

filled face facing upwards between plates of the testing

machine.

Apply load axially at a uniform rate of 14 N/mm² per minute

till failure occurs and note maximum load at failure.

The load at failure is maximum load at which the specimen

fails to produce any further increase in the indicator reading

on the testing machine.

CALCULATION

TABLE 5.0 CLASS DESIGNATION OF BRICKS

CLASS DESIGNATION

AVERAGE WET COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH NOT

LESS THAN

N/mm² kg f/cm² ( Approx )

30 30 300

25 25 250

20 20 200

17.5 17.5 175

15 15 150

12.5 12.5 125

10 10 100

7.5 7.5 75

5 5 50

3.5 3.5 35

29

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULT

TABLE 5.1 COMPRESSION TEST ON HAND MOULD CLAY BRICK

CLAY BRICKS COMPANY NAME: POWER BRICKS,COIMBATORE

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)

Dimensions Compressive

Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength

(N/mm²) Length Width Depth

1 Hand Mould H8 3.280 220 105 75 110.6 4.79

2 Hand Mould H9 3.245 225 105 75 94.7 4.01

3 Hand Mould H10 3.235 220 105 75 116.9 5.06

Mean 4.62

TABLE 5.2 COMPRESSION TEST ON CLAY BRICKS IN MACHINE

MOULD

CLAY BRICK IN MACHINE MOULD COMPANY NAME: POWER BRICKS,COIMBATORE

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Machine Mould M4 3.225 220 105 75 170.6 7.39

2 Machine Mould M5 3.175 225 100 75 185.1 8.23

3 Machine Mould M6 3.280 220 105 75 176.9 7.66

Mean 7.76

TABLE 5.3 COMPRESSION TEST ON FLY ASH BRICK IN

HYDRAULIC MOULD

FLY ASH BRICK COMPANY NAME: INDIAN FLY ASH BRICKS,

COIMBATORE

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hydraulic Mould F1 2.760 220 110 75 125.6 5.19



Mean 4.98

30

TABLE 5.4.1 COMPRESSION TEST ON NOMINAL FLY ASH BRICK

(7 DAYS CURING)

NOMINAL FLY ASH BRICK (0% PWP POWDER ADDED)

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould P4 3.700 220 105 75 120.3 5.21

2 Hand Mould P5 3.510 225 105 75 124.6 5.27

3 Hand Mould P6 3.440 220 105 75 115.6 5.00

Mean 5.16


(14 DAYS CURING)


S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould P7 3.265 220 105 75 166.6 7.21

2 Hand Mould P8 3.130 220 105 75 172.6 7.47

3 Hand Mould P9 3.250 220 105 75 185.4 8.03

Mean 7.57


(21 DAYS CURING)


S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould P12 3.445 220 105 75 337.8 14.62

2 Hand Mould P13 3.255 220 105 75 325.6 14.10

3 Hand Mould P14 3.360 220 105 75 319.4 13.83

Mean 14.18

31

TABLE 5.5.1 COMPRESSION TEST ON COMPOSITE FLY ASH

BRICK 5% PWP POWDER ADDED AT 7 DAYS CURING

COMPOSITE FLY ASH BRICK

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould Q4 3.330 200 100 75 110.6 5.53

2 Hand Mould Q5 3.320 200 100 75 104.6 5.23

3 Hand Mould Q6 3.375 200 100 75 108.4 5.42

Mean 5.39




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould Q9 3.420 200 100 75 140.6 7.03

2 Hand Mould Q10 3.355 200 100 75 153.3 7.67

3 Hand Mould Q11 3.265 200 100 75 148.2 7.41

Mean 7.37




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould Q12 3.300 200 100 75 210.9 10.55

2 Hand Mould Q13 3.230 200 100 75 190.9 9.55

3 Hand Mould Q14 3.130 200 100 75 194.2 9.71

Mean 9.93

32




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould R1 2.645 200 100 75 104.2 5.21

2 Hand Mould R2 2.860 200 100 75 98.6 4.93

3 Hand Mould R3 2.940 200 100 75 105.4 5.27

Mean 5.14




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould R5 3.320 200 100 75 102.6 5.13

2 Hand Mould R6 3.145 200 100 75 110.2 5.51

3 Hand Mould R7 3.200 200 100 75 120.0 6.00

Mean 5.55




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould R10 3.090 200 100 75 164.7 8.24

2 Hand Mould R11 3.250 200 100 75 171.7 8.59

3 Hand Mould R12 3.140 200 100 75 168.4 8.42

Mean 8.41

33




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould S4 3.265 200 100 75 100.2 5.01

2 Hand Mould S5 3.130 200 100 75 98.0 4.90

3 Hand Mould S7 3.250 200 100 75 112.4 5.62

Mean 5.18




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould S8 3.125 200 100 75 125.6 6.28

2 Hand Mould S10 3.060 200 100 75 129.9 6.50

3 Hand Mould S11 3.015 200 100 75 108.1 5.41

Mean 6.06




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength

(N/Mm²) Length Breadth Depth

1 Hand Mould S12 3.055 200 100 75 132.7 6.64

2 Hand Mould S13 3.020 200 100 75 143.4 7.17

3 Hand Mould S14 3.105 200 100 75 152.9 7.65

Mean 7.15

34




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould T4 2.945 200 100 75 89.0 4.45

2 Hand Mould T5 2.965 200 100 75 92.4 4.62

3 Hand Mould T6 2.890 200 100 75 88.6 4.43

Mean 4.50




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength


1 Hand Mould T7 2.785 200 100 75 118.2 5.91

2 Hand Mould T8 2.670 200 100 75 110.8 5.54

3 Hand Mould T9 2.720 200 100 75 101.6 5.08

Mean 5.51




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Weight

(kg)


Load

(KN)

Compressive

Strength

(N/Mm²) Length Breadth Depth

1 Hand Mould T10 2.700 200 100 75 122.7 6.14

2 Hand Mould T11 2.610 200 100 75 137.1 6.86

3 Hand Mould T12 2.605 200 100 75 128.9 6.45

Mean 6.48

35

TABLE 5.9 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF COMPOSITE BRICKS

S.No Sample 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days

1

0%

5.21 7.21 14.62

2 5.27 7.47 14.10

3 5.00 8.03 13.83

4

5%

5.53 7.03 10.55

5 5.23 7.67 9.55

6 5.42 7.41 9.71

7

10%

5.21 5.13 8.24

8 4.93 5.51 8.54

9 5.27 6.00 8.42

10

15%

5.01 6.28 6.64

11 4.90 6.50 7.17

12 5.62 5.41 7.65

13

20%

4.45 5.91 6.14

14 4.62 5.54 6.86

15 4.43 5.08 6.45

GRAPH 5.1 SHOWS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF COMPOSITE BRICKS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

7 Days 5.21 5.27 5.00 5.53 5.23 5.42 5.21 4.93 5.27 5.01 4.90 5.62 4.45 4.62 4.43

14 Days 7.21 7.47 8.03 7.03 7.67 7.41 5.13 5.51 6.00 6.28 6.50 5.41 5.91 5.54 5.08

21 Days 14.62 14.10 13.83 10.55 9.55 9.71 8.24 8.54 8.42 6.64 7.17 7.65 6.14 6.86 6.45

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

CO

MP

RES

SIV

E ST

REN

GTH

in N

/mm

²

SAMPLE - 0% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20%

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BRICKS

36

TABLE 5.10 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH COMPARISON OF

CONVENTIONAL BRICKS COMPOSITE BRICKS

S.NO SAMPLE TYPE COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH N/mm²

% INCREASE IN

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH

1 CLAY BRICK HAND MOULD 4.62 -

2 CLAY BRICK MACHINE MOULD 7.76 67.97

3 FLYASH BRICK IN HYDRAULIC

MOULD 4.98 7.79

4 COMPOSITE BRICK (20% PWP

POWDER) IN HAND MOULD 6.48 40.26

GRAPH 5.2 SHOWS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH COMPARISON OF

CONVENTIONAL BRICKS AND COMPOSITE BRICKS

5.2.2 WATER ABSORPTION TEST

Aim

Determination of water absorption of bricks as per IS 3495

(Part-2) : 1992.

Apparatus

A sensitive balance capable of weighing within 0.1 percent of the

mass of the specimen and a ventilated oven.

0123456789

CLAY BRICKHAND MOULD

CLAY BRICKMACHINEMOULD

FLYASH BRICK INHYDRAULIC

MOULD

COMPOSITEBRICK (20% PWP

POWDER) INHAND MOULDC

OM

PR

ESSI

VE

STR

ENG

TH I

N N

/mm

²

SAMPLE TYPE

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

37

Preconditioning

• Dry the specimen in a ventilated oven at a temperature of 105 to

115°C till it attains sub-stantially constant mass.

• Cool the specimen to room temperature and obtain its weight

(M1). Specimen warm to touch shall not be used for the

purpose.

Procedure

• Immerse completely dried specimen in clean water at a temperature

of 27 ± 2°C for 24 hours.

• Remove the specimen and wipe out any traces of water with a

damp cloth and weigh the specimen.

• Complete the weighing 3 minutes after the specimen has been

removed from water (M2).

Water absorption, percent by mass, after 24-hour immersion in cold water

is given by the following formula:

Water absorption in % = (W2 – W1)/W1 x 100

WATER ABSORPTION TEST REPORT

TABLE 5.11.1 WATER ABSORPTION TEST ON CONVENTIONAL

CLAY BRICK

Clay Brick In Hand Mould Power Bricks, Coimbatore

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould H1 3.305 3.725 12.71

2 Hand Mould H2 3.305 3.710 12.25

3 Hand Mould H3 3.280 3.680 12.20

Mean 12.39

38


CLAY BRICK

Clay Brick In Machine Mould Power Bricks, Coimbatore

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Machine Mould M1 3.400 3.815 12.21

2 Machine Mould M2 3.290 3.655 11.09

3 Machine Mould M3 3.320 3.705 11.60

Mean 11.63


FLYASH BRICK

Fly ash Brick In Hydraulic

Mould Indian Fly ash Bricks, Coimbatore

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hydraulic Mould F6 2.780 3.015 8.45



Mean 7.61

TABLE 5.11.4 WATER ABSORPTION TEST ON COMPOSITE

FLYASH BRICK (0% PWP POWDER ADDED)

Nominal Fly Ash Brick

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould P1 3.445 3.710 7.69

2 Hand Mould P2 3.560 3.840 7.87

3 Hand Mould P3 3.470 3.745 7.93

Mean 7.83

39



Composite Fly Ash Brick

S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould Q1 3.060 3.280 7.19

2 Hand Mould Q2 3.040 3.245 6.74

3 Hand Mould Q3 3.040 3.230 6.25

Mean 6.73




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould R13 3.040 3.245 6.74

2 Hand Mould R14 2.985 3.190 6.87

3 Hand Mould R15 2.940 3.130 6.46

Mean 6.69




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) kg

Final

Weight

(W2) kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould S1 2.785 2.955 6.10

2 Hand Mould S2 2.810 2.985 6.23

3 Hand Mould S3 2.805 3.005 7.13

Mean 6.49

40




S.No Sample

Description

Sample

Code

Initial

Weight

(W1) Kg

Final

Weight

(W2) Kg

Water

Absorption

%

1 Hand Mould T1 2.765 2.955 6.87

2 Hand Mould T2 2.655 2.810 5.84

3 Hand Mould T3 2.600 2.765 6.35

Mean 6.35

TABLE 5.12 WATER ABSORPTION TEST ON COMPOSITE BRICKS

S.No Percentage Of PWP Powder

Added

Water Absorption

%

1 0% 7.83

2 5% 6.73

3 10% 6.69

4 15% 6.49

5 20% 6.35

GRAPH 5.3 SHOWS WATER ABSORPTION ON COMPOSITE BRICKS

0

2

4

6

8

10

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

WA

TE

R A

BS

OR

PT

ION

IN

%

PERCENTAGE OF PWP POWDER ADDED

WATER ABSORPTION

41

TABLE 5.13 WATER ABSORPTION TEST COMPARISON OF

CONVENTIONAL AND COMPOSITE BRICKS

S.NO SAMPLE TYPE WATER

ABSORPTION %

% OF DECREASE IN

WATER ABSORPTION

1 CLAY BRICK HAND MOULD 12.39 -

2 CLAY BRICK MACHINE MOULD 11.63 6.13

3 FLYASH BRICK IN HYDRAULIC

MOULD 7.61 38.58

4 COMPOSITE BRICK (20% PWP

POWDER) IN HAND MOULD 6.35 48.75

GRAPH 5.4 SHOWS WATER ABSORPTION COMPARISON ON CONVENTIONAL

AND COMPOSITE BRICKS

5.2.3 EFFLORESCENCE TEST

• The soluble salts if present in bricks cause efflorescence on the

surface of brick as per IS 3495 (Part 3) : 1992.

• Brick is immersed in water for 24hr. It is then taken out and allowed

to dry in shade. The absence of grey or white deposits on its surface

indicates absence of soluble salts. Observation is made with naked

eyes and classified as below.

• Nil – Imperceptible efflorescence

• Slight – Deposit covers area < 10% of exposed area

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CLAY BRICK HANDMOULD

CLAY BRICKMACHINE MOULD

FLYASH BRICK INHYDRAULIC MOULD

COMPOSITE BRICK(20% PWP POWDER)

IN HAND MOULD

WA

TER

AB

SOR

PTI

ON

IN

%

SAMPLE TYPE

WATER ABSORPTION %

42

• Moderate – deposit covers exposed area 10% to 50%

• Heavy – Deposit covers exposed area > 50%

• Serious – Deposits are heavy and powder or flake away the surface

TABLE 5.14 EFFLORESCENCE TEST REPORT

Conventional Brick (Hand Mould) Slight (less than 10%)

Conventional Brick (Machine Mould) Slight (less than 10%)

Fly Ash Brick (Hydraulic Mould) The grey deposit are less than 8%

Nominal Fly Ash Brick (0%) The grey deposit are less than 7%

Composite Fly Ash Brick (5%) The grey deposit are less than 7%




5.2.4 STRUCTURE TEST

A specimen is broken and its structure is examined. It should be homogeneous,

compact, and free from defects e.g. lumps and holes, etc.

This test report all composite brick samples free from lumps and holes.

5.2.5 SOUNDNESS TEST

This test is performed by striking two specimen bricks with each other. The

bricks should not break and a clear ringing sound should be produced.

This test report all composite brick samples are produced clear ringing

sounds without any breaks.

43

5.2.6 HARDNESS TEST

This test is performed by making a scratch on brick surface with the help of

finger nail. If no impression is left on surface, the brick is considered to be

sufficiently hard.

This test report all composite brick samples are hard on surface.

5.2.7 DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCE

The dimensions of, modular bricks when tested as described above as per

procedure described in appendix A on page 155 shall be within the following

limits per 20 bricks.

For non-modular size as per IS13757 : 1993.

Length 4520 to 4680 mm (4600 ± 80 mm)

Width 2240 to 2160 mm (2200 ± 40 mm )

Height 1440 to 1360 mm ( 1400 ± 40 mm ) For 70 mm high bricks

Test report:

Length (20 bricks) = 4650 mm

Width (20 bricks) = 2165 mm

Height (20 bricks) = 160 cm for 75mm high brick

44

COMPARISON STATEMENT

Compressive strength of composite bricks are decrease in strength

increase of PWP powder added. The average compressive strength of composite

bricks are 6.48N/mm2 the class designation 5 as per IS 13757: 1993.

The compressive strength of composite 20% PWP powder added fly ash

bricks are 40% more than conventional clay brick and 30% more than

conventional clay brick. The water absorption of composite 20% PWP powder

added fly ash bricks are 48% less than conventional clay brick and 16% less

than conventional clay brick.

Fly-Ash bricks are eco-friendly as it protects environment though

conservation of top soil and utilization of waste products of coal or lignite used

in thermal power plants. It is three times stronger than the conventional burnt

clay bricks. It plays a vital role in the abatement of carbon dioxide a harmful

greenhouse gas mass emission of which is threatening to throw the earth’s

atmosphere out of balance. Being lighter in weight as compared to conventional

bricks, dead load on the structure is reduced and hence saving is overall cost of

construction.

The possibility of using innovative building materials and eco-friendly

technologies, more so covering waste material like plastic and fly ash is the

need of the hour. Fly ash affects the plastic properties of bricks by improving

workability, reducing water demand, reducing segregation and bleeding, and

lowering heat of hydration. It also increases strength, reduces permeability,

reduces corrosion of reinforcing steel, increases sulphate, resistance when

compared to the conventional bricks.

45

CONCLUSION

Based on limited experimental investigations concerning compressive strength

of Brick, the following observations are made regarding the resistance of adding

PWP powder:

Compressive strength decreases on increase in percentage of PWP

Powder as compare to fly ash.

Use of PWP Powder in brick can solve the disposal problem; reduce cost

and produce a ‘greener’ Ecofriendly bricks for construction.

Environmental effects of wastes and disposal problems of waste can be

reduced through this research.

A better measure by an innovative Construction Material is formed

through this research.

It provides innovative use of class F fly ash which contains less than

20%lime.

This study helps in converting the non-valuable PWP Powder ash into

bricks and makes it valuable.

46

REFERENCES

Mucahit S, Sedat A. The use of recycled paper processing residue in

making porous brick with reduced thermal conductivity. Ceram Int

2009;35:2625–31.

S.P. Raut a,b, Rohant Sedmake c, Reuse of recycle paper mill waste in

energy absorbing light weight bricks

Faria, K. C. P., Gurgel, R. F. and Holanda, J. N. F., Recycling of

sugarcane bagasse ash waste in the production of clay bricks. J. Environ.

Manage., 2012, 101, 7–12.

Sengupta, P., Saikia, N. and Borthakur, P., Bricks from petroleum

effluent treatment plant sludge:properties and environmental

Shakir, A. A., Naganathan, S. and Mustapha, K. N., Properties of bricks

made using fly ash, quarry dustand billet scale. Constr.Build. Mater.,

2013, 41, 131–138.

Amrilphale, S. S. and Patel, M., Utilization of red mud, fly ash for

manufacturing bricks with pyrophyllite. Silic. Ind., 1987, 52(3-4), 31–35.

Om Prakash (1990), “Utilization of Pulverized (Fertilizer Plant) Fly Ash

as Low-Cost Bricks and ConstructionMaterial” M. Tech. Thesis

Submitted to MNREC, Allahabad.

47

IS CODE REFERENCE

IS: 3495-1992 (Part 1 to 4), “Methods of Tests for Burnt Clay Bricks”,

Bureau of Indian Standards, Third Revision, New Delhi.

IS: 383-1970, “Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural

sources for concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi.

IS: 8112-1989, “Specification for 43grade Ordinary Portland Cement”,

Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi.

IS: 1077-1992, “Common burnt clay building bricks – Specification”,

Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi.

48

PROJECT PHOTOS

1. COLLECTION OF MATERIALS

Figure 1: Fly ash “F” class Figure 2 : Quarry Dust

Figure 3 : OPC 53 Grade cement (Dalmia) Figure 4 : PWP powder (Polypropylene)

2. PROCESS OF BRICK MOULDING

Figure 5 : PWP Powder was sieved before mixing

49

Figure 6 : Mixing of raw materials Figure 7 : Dry mixing of raw material

Figure 8 : Wet mixing of raw materials Figure 9 : Moulding of bricks

Figure 10 : Air drying process Figure 11 : Curing process

50

3.TESTING OF BRICKS

3.1 COMPRESSION TEST

Figure 12 : Compression test for clay brick in hand mould (sample code H10)

Figure 13 : Compression test for clay brick in machine mould (sample code M4)

Figure 14 : Compression test for fly ash brick in hydraulic mould (sample code F2)

51

Figure 15 : Compression test for nominal fly ash brick in hand mould (sample code P12)

Figure 16 : Compression test on composite fly ash brick 10% PWP powder (sample

code R11)

3.2 WATER ABSORPTION TEST

Figure 17 : water absorption test (before and after immersion of water)

52

3.3 EFFLORESCENCE TEST

Figure 18 : During efflorescence test Figure 19 : after 24 hrs on efflorescence test

3.4 STRUCTURE TEST

Figure 20 : Nominal bricks Figure 21 : 5% Composite bricks

Figure 22 : 10% Composite bricks Figure 23 : 20% Composite bricks

53

3.5 SOUNDNESS TEST

Figure 24 : During soundness test

3.6 HARDNESS TEST

Figure 25 : During hardness test

3.7 DIMENSION AND TOLERANCE TEST

Figure 26 : Dimension test for length wise

54

Figure 27 : Dimension test for width wise

Figure 28 : Dimension test for depth wise

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF … EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF COMPOSITE BRICKS A PROJECT REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF … EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF COMPOSITE BRICKS A PROJECT REPORT...