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 BishnoiDepartment 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

“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”

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-SoilImproved 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

CalorimetryLime

Reactivity

Raw MaterialsIdentification & 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

RAW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATIONC. 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

RAW MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

E. CALORIMETRY:

D. LIME REACTIVITY

0:00 2:24 4:48 7:12 9:36 12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:000

20406080

100120140160180

Fly AshPond AshCoal CinderPaper SludgeFA+PA (1:1)

Time (hours)

Cum

mul

ative

Ene

rgy

(J/g)

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: CubicalSize of the Brick Specimen: 5×5×5 cm

Forming Pressure: 15 MPaApplied 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 WORKCASTING & 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 & DISCUSSIONA. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH


Base Mix (BM) PA-12.5% PA-25% PA-37.5% PA-50%0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3 Days7 Days14 Days28 Days56 Days

Series A

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

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).

PA-50% (RM)

PA-62.5%

PA-75%

PA-87.5%

PA-100%

PA-50% (RM)

CC-12.5%

CC-25%

CC-37.5%

CC-50%0123456789


Series B-Replacement of fly ash with pond ash

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

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

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Series BSeries C

Percentage of Fly Ash (% )

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

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

PA-50% (RM)

PS-10%

PS-20%

PS-30%

PA-50% (RM)

MD-10%

MD-20%

MD-30%0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Series D-Addition of paper sludge

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

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

3 7 14 28 561.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

Base Mix (BM)PA-12.5%PA-25%PA-37.5%PA-50% (RM)

Curing Age (Days)

Ultr

ason

ic pu

lse v

eloc

ity

(km

/s)

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONB. ULTRASONIC PULSE VELOCITY (UPV)


3 7 14 28 561.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

PA-50% (RM)PA-62.5%PA-75%PA-87.5%PA-100%

Curing Age (Days)

Ultr

ason

ic p

ulse

vel

ocity

(k

m/s

)

Series B

3 7 14 28 560.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

PA-50% (RM)CC-12.5%CC-25%CC-37.5%CC-50%

Curing Age (Days)

Ultr

ason

ic p

ulse

vel

ocity

(k

m/s

)

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

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONB. 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.

3 7 14 281.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

PA-50% (RM)MD-10%MD-20%MD-30%

Curing Age (Days)

Ultr

ason

ic P

ulse

Vel

ocity

(k

m/s

)

3 7 14 28 560.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

PA-50% (RM)PS-10%PS-20%PS-30%

Curing Age (Days)

Ultr

ason

ic p

ulse

vel

ocity

(k

m/s

)

Series D Series E

28/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONB1. 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

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.000.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.80

R² = 0.827578410091348

Se-ries1

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)

Bulk

den

sity

(g/c

c) Series ASeries BSeries CSeries DSeries E

29/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONB2. 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

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.000.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

R² = 0.808587044884859 Se-ries1Lin-ear (Series1)


Wat

er a

bsor

ption

(%)

Series ASeries BSeries CSeries DSeries E

30/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONC1. CORRELATION B/W UPV AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH


Compressive strength is linearly correlated with the ultrasonic pulse velocity.

Higher the compressive strength, higher the UPV.

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.000.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

R² = 0.71037112769609

Series1Linear (Series1)


Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

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

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONC2. 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

10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

R² = 0.752128030579874

Water absorption (%)

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

Series ASeries B

Series CSeries D

Series E

32/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIONC3. 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

0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.800.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

R² = 0.767633187141927 Series1

Bulk density (g/cc)

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

Series ASeries B

Series CSeries D

Series E

33/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIOND1. 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

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.0

14.0

R² = 0.784997325032728Series1

Initial porosity (%)

Com

pres

sive

stre

ngth

(MPa

)

Series A

Series B

Series C

Series D

Series E

For Series D, Initial Porosity improves by 58% for 10% MD.

34/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIOND2. 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

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%0.00.30.60.91.21.51.82.12.42.73.0

R² = 0.650659445053124

Series1


Ultr

ason

ic p

ulse

vel

ocity

(km

/s)

Series A

Series B

Series C

Series D

Series E

35/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIOND3. 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

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%

R² = 0.808542316842055Series1Linear (Series1)


Wat

er a

bsor

ption

(%)

Series A

Series B

Series C

Series D

Series E

36/44

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS & DISCUSSIOND4. 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

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

R² = 0.85195356828625 Series1Linear (Series1)


Bulk

den

sity

(g/c

c) 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

http://www.ecobrick.in/

http://www.ecobrick.in/

http://pscst.gov.in/

http://www.cseindia.org/

http://santoshranjanblog.blogspot.in/

Thank You!

“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”“Development of Unfired Bricks Using Industrial Waste”

Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste

Engineering

Transcript of Development of unfired bricks using industrial waste