Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mechanical and durability properties of fly-ash cement sand composite bricks: an alternative to conventional burnt clay bricks

  • Technical paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Burnt clay brick is one of the most widely used construction materials in developing countries. However, the extensive use of burnt clay bricks has resulted in some drawbacks such as the loss of fertile land used for clay extraction and environmental problems associated with unregulated burning processes of brick kilns. This study evaluates the mechanical and durability properties of an alternative, i.e. un-burnt fly-ash bricks in comparison with conventional burnt clay bricks. The study was performed in two phases. In the first phase, the effect of type of aggregate (fine sand, coarse sand, stone dust, and stone aggregate) and forming method (press forming and vibro-compaction) on the compressive strength and water absorption of small-scale cylindrical fly ash–cement–sand compacts was studied. Using the best aggregate type and forming method found in phase I (coarse sand and press forming), full-size un-burnt fly-ash bricks were prepared in phase II and their performance was assessed in terms of mechanical (compressive strength and modulus of rupture) and durability (efflorescence, water absorption, initial rate of water absorption and sulphate resistance) properties and compared with the results of conventional clay bricks and different standards. The results showed that un-burnt fly-ash bricks can be used as an alternative material to conventional burnt clay bricks with comparable mechanical and durability properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. China Economic Trade Committee (2001) Tenth five-year program of building materials industry. China Build Mater 7:7–10

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chen Y, Zhang Y, Chen T, Zhao Y, Bao S (2011) Preparation of eco-friendly construction bricks from hematite tailings. Constr Build Mater 25:2107–2111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar R, Hooda N (2014) An experimental study on properties of fly ash bricks. Int J Res Aeronaut Mech Eng 2:56–67

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chikkatur AP, Sagar AD (2007) Cleaner power in India: towards a clean-coal technology roadmap. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge

  5. EPA-Punjab (2018) Report of the Smog Commission. Environmental Protection Department, Government of Punjab, Pakistan

  6. Zhang Z, Wong Y, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S (2018) A review of studies on bricks using alternative materials and approaches. Constr Build Mater 188:1101–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Raut SP, Ralegaonkar RV, Mandavgane SA (2011) Development of sustainable construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: a review of waste-created bricks. Constr Build Mater 25:4037–4042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Fakih A, Mohammed B, Liew M, Nikbakht E (2019) Incorporation of waste materials in the manufacture of masonry bricks: an updated review. J Build Eng 21:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferronato N, Torretta V (2019) Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a re-view of global issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang L (2013) Production of bricks from waste materials—a review. Constr Build Mater 47:643–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kubissaa W, Jaskulskia R, Kopera A, Szpetulski J (2015) Properties of concretes with natural aggregate improved by RCA addition. Procedia Eng 108:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ismail YZ (2010) Properties of bricks produced with recycled fine aggregate. Int J Civ Environ Struct Constr Arch Eng 4:670–671

    Google Scholar 

  13. Khalid FS, Herman SH, Azmi NB, Juki MI (2017) Sand cement brick containing recycled concrete aggregate as fine-aggregate replacement. MATEC Web of Conf. (Paris: EDP Sciences) 103

  14. Wahab AA, Arshad MF, Ahmad Z, Ruslan A, Ridzuan M, Haziman M, Ibrahim W (2018) Potential of bottom ash as sand replacement material to produce sand cement brick. Int J Integr Eng 10:38–42

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kartini K, Norul EZA, Fazilla B, Farhan H (2012) Development of lightweight sand-cement bricks using quarry dust, rice husk and kenaf powder for sustainability. Int J Civ Environ Eng 12:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  16. Holmes N, O’Malley H, Cribbin P, Mullen H, Keane G (2016) Performance of masonry blocks containing different proportions of incinator bottom ash. Sustain Mater Technol 8:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kayali O (2005) High performance bricks from fly ash. World of Coal Ash, Center for Applied Energy Research, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

  18. Abbas S, Saleem S, Kazmi M, Munir M (2017) Production of sustainable clay bricks using waste fly ash: mechanical and durability properties. J Build Eng 14:7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kizinievič O, Žurauskienė R, Kizinievič V, Žurauskas R (2013) Utilisation of sludge waste from water treatment for ceramic products. Constr Build Mater 41:464–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghazy MF (2020) Optimization of recycled concrete aggregate geopolymer bricks by taguchi method. Rev Constr 19:244–254

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lea F (1980) Lea’s chemistry of cement and concrete. John Wiley & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Turgut P (2010) Masonry composite material made of limestone powder and fly ash. Powder Technol 204:42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cicek MT (2007) Lime based steam autoclaved fly ash bricks. Constr Build Mater 21:1295–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Deg˘irmenci N, (2008) Utilization of phosphogypsum as raw and calcined material in manufacturing of building products. Constr Build Mater 22:1857–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shetkar A, Hanche N, Shashishankar A (2016) Experimental studies on fly ash based lime bricks. Int J Recent Adv Eng Technol 4:102–109

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang L, Sun H, Sun Z, Ma E (2016) New technology and application of brick making with coal fly ash. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 18:763–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Alam J, Khan MA, Akhtar MN (2013) Fly ash based brick tiles: an experimental study. Int J Emerg Trends Eng Dev 6:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  28. Naik N, Bahadure B, Jejurkar C (2014) Strength and durability of Fly ash, cement and gypsum bricks. Int J Comput Eng Res 4:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  29. Naganathan S, Mohamed A, Mustapha K (2015) Performance of bricks made using fly ash and bottom ash. Constr Build Mater 96:576–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ASTM C311 (2018) Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for use in Portland-cement concrete. ASTM International

  31. ASTM C618 (2019) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM International

  32. ASTM D422 (2007) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils. ASTM International

  33. ASTM C136 (2019) Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. ASTM International

  34. ASTM C33 (2018) Standard specification for concrete aggregates. ASTM International

  35. ASTM D698 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort. ASTM International

  36. ASTM C127 (2015) Standard test method for relative density (specific gravity) and absorption of coarse aggregate. ASTM International

  37. ASTM C29 (2017) Standard test method for bulk density (“unit weight”) and voids in aggregate. ASTM International

  38. BS 812 (2009) Testing aggregates. British Standards Institution

  39. ASTM C187 (2016) Standard test method for amount of water required for normal consistency of hydraulic cement paste. ASTM International

  40. ASTM C191 (2019) Standard test methods for time of setting of hydraulic cement by vicat needle. ASTM International

  41. ASTM C184 (1994) Standard test method for fineness of hydraulic cement by the 150-µm (No. 100) and 75-µm (No. 200) sieves. ASTM International

  42. BS EN196-3 (2016) Methods of testing cement: Determination of setting times and soundness. British Standards Institution

  43. Reddy BVV, Kumar PP (2011) Cement stabilised rammed earth. Part A: compaction characteristics and physical properties of compacted cement stabilized soils. Mater Struct 44:681–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Banu T, Billah MM, Gulshan F, Kurny ASW (2013) Experimental studies on fly ash-sand-lime bricks with gypsum addition. Am J Mater Eng Technol 1:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  45. ASTM D6103 (2017) Standard test method for flow consistency of controlled low strength material (CLSM). ASTM International

  46. ASTM C67 (2020) Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile. ASTM International

  47. ASTM C1012 (2018) Standard test method for length change of hydraulic-cement mortars exposed to a sulfate solution. ASTM International

  48. ASTM C62 (2017) Standard specification for building brick (solid masonry units made from clay or shale). ASTM International

  49. Sahu S, Teja P, Sarkar P, Davis R (2019) Variability in the compressive strength of fly ash bricks. J Mater Civ Eng 31:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  50. Building Code of Pakistan (1986) Ministry of Housing & Works, Environment & Urban Affairs Division. Government of Pakistan

  51. BS 3921 (1985) Standard specifications for clay bricks: British Standards Institution

  52. Qureshi A (2020) Compressive strength of fly ash bricks with lime gypsum and quarry dust. Concept book publication India Pvt

Download references

Funding

No funding has been received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering & Technology Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

    Azaz Waheed, Rizwan Azam & Muhammad Rizwan Riaz

  2. Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

    Mohamed Zawam

Authors
  1. Azaz Waheed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rizwan Azam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Rizwan Riaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohamed Zawam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Zawam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waheed, A., Azam, R., Riaz, M.R. et al. Mechanical and durability properties of fly-ash cement sand composite bricks: an alternative to conventional burnt clay bricks. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 7, 24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00630-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-021-00630-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation