Authors Accepted Manuscript

Experimental studies on cement stabilized masonry

blocks prepared from brick powder, fine recycled
concrete aggregate and pozzolanic materials

B.M. Vinay Kumar, H. Ananthan, K.V.A. Balaji

www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII: S2352-7102(16)30216-9
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.02.007
Reference: JOBE224
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 5 October 2016
Revised date: 16 February 2017
Accepted date: 25 February 2017
Cite this article as: B.M. Vinay Kumar, H. Ananthan and K.V.A. Balaji,
Experimental studies on cement stabilized masonry blocks prepared from brick
powder, fine recycled concrete aggregate and pozzolanic materials, Journal of
Building Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.02.007
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Experimental studies on cement stabilized masonry blocks
prepared from brick powder, fine recycled concrete aggregate and
pozzolanic materials
Vinay Kumar B M1, H Ananthan2 , KVA Balaji3
1
Assistant Professor, 2Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Mysuru-570028, India.
3
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysuru-570006, India.
Correspondence to: Department of Civil Engineering, Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Mysuru-570028, India. Email address: vvietcivil@gmail.com

Abstract
This experimental work deals with the assessment of strength and water absorption
characteristics of cement stabilized masonry block (CSMB) units made with brick powder
(BP) and fine recycled concrete aggregate (FRCA) along with pozzolanic materials such as
silica fume (SF), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as partial
replacement for cement. The basic tests such as, dry density, 28 days wet compressive strength,
water absorption and rate of moisture absorption are performed on CSMB units of size
190x90x90 mm. The correction factors that are available in the literature, with respect to fired
clay bricks and compressed earth blocks, so as to account for the confinement of specimens by
platen restraints at the ends are used to assess the uniaxial strength of CSMB units. The
corrected average values of wet compressive strength of CSMB units at 28 days are found to
meet the minimum requirement of 3.5 MPa. The percentage of water absorption is found to be
higher, but, still within permissible limit of 18% by weight. The average dry density is also
found to meet the minimum requirement of 1750 kg/m3. The rate of moisture absorption with
time is found to follow an exponential trend.

Key Words: Brick powder; Fine recycled concrete aggregate; Silica fume; Fly ash; Cement
stabilized masonry block.

1 Introduction and importance of this study

Construction and demolition waste predominantly comprises of concrete and brick masonry
waste. Recycling of concrete waste is very well documented in the literature. Bricks are
considered to be the second most widely used material after concrete. Bricks are mostly treated
as waste, when broken or damaged during their production, or, from construction and
demolition activities. It is observed that brick waste contributes significantly to the waste
stream in India. The general practice of recycling brick waste is to crush and use them as
aggregates in concrete or low grade road base or sent directly for landfill. Experimental studies
are also outlined in the literature with respect to recycling of brick masonry waste [1-7]. These
studies are oriented towards the production of concrete mixes with brick masonry waste being
used as partial replacement for aggregates [1, 2, 3, 6] and cement [4, 5, 6]. It has been
observed that the higher water absorption and low unit weight, limits its usage in the concrete
mixes [1, 3, 6, 7]. Sadek has [8] investigated the possibility of manufacturing different grades
of solid cement bricks by using crushed brick aggregates for load bearing and non-load bearing
units. The authors of the present study have envisaged the utilization of brick masonry waste in
conjunction with finer fraction of recycled concrete waste to produce durable and attractive (in
terms of colour and texture) building units by using the techniques similar to those adopted in
the production of stabilized soil blocks (SSB). The importance of the present study is tangible
to the theme of sustainable construction which focuses on the minimal use of natural resources
and maximizing the use of recycled materials in the building systems. In this context, waste
from construction and demolition activity is to be considered as the resource for the production
of building materials.

2 Hypothesis and objectives of this study

It has been outlined in the literature [9-19], that the cement content, soil composition and
gradation have significant influence on the properties of SSB. The BP recovered from brick
masonry waste seems to be a technically viable material for the production of CSMB units.
Based on this premise, this experimental study is pursued with the main objective of
formulating the mix composition with maximum recycled materials and minimum cement
content for the production of CSMB units. The schematic representation of the envisaged study
with primary variables is shown in Fig.1.

Fig.1 Studied variables

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Physical properties of materials

The ordinary Portland cement of 43 grade conforming IS 8112: 2013 [20] is used in this study.
The physical properties cement and pozzolanic materials such as SF,FA and GGBS are
determined as per IS 1727-1967 [21] and those of BP and FRCA are determined based on the
procedures specified in IS 2386 - 1963 [22 ]. The results are based on two trials. The physical
properties of materials used in the study along with gradation curve for BP and FRCA are
listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Physical properties of materials

Sl.no Attributes Cement SF FA GGBS BP FRCA

1 Specific Gravity 3.08 2.46 2.17 2.43 2.41 2.2
2 Specific Surface Area - 526.5 342.6 429.6 - -
3 Standard Consistency (%) 30 31.5 29 33 - -
4 Initial Setting Time (min) 80 120 160 40 - -
5 Final Setting Time (min) 210 300 360 210 - -
6 Fineness Modulus - - - - 1.47 2.21
7 Fineness (%) 5.94 - - - - -

3.2 Chemical constituents

The chemical analysis is carried out by an ISO certified laboratory. The chemical constituents
of BP, FRCA, SF, FA and GGBS are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Chemical constituents in materials

Sl.no Oxides content (%) BP FRCA SF FA GGBS

1 Silica (SiO2) 88.53 68.15 94.27 90.73 34.81
2 Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 0.12 0.16 0.05 0.14 23.9
3 Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) 5.68 3.08 3.08 4.1 0.4
4 Calcium oxide (CaO) 0.98 14.43 0.83 2.04 35.36
5 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.75 0.8 1 1.03 4.6
6 Loss on Ignition (LOI) 3.11 13.3 0.53 0.7 0.42

3.3 Mix proportions

Several trial studies are made to fix a suitable mix proportion for the basic mix consisting of
BP and FRCA only. From mixing, compacting and demoulding considerations, the mix with
BP at 70% and FRCA at 30% by weight of the basic mix is found to be suitable. The total
cementitious content in the mix is fixed as 8% by weight of the basic mix. As partial
replacement for cement, the pozzolanic materials (SF, FA and GGBS) are used as 2% and 4%
by weight of the basic mix. Seven mix compositions are considered for the evaluation of
strength and water absorption characteristics of CSMB units. The percentages of cementitious,
FRCA and BP contents with respect to all the mix constituents put together, works out to be
slightly lesser than the aforementioned values. However, for convenience, the seven mixes are
designated as: 8C | 6C+2SF| 6C+2FA| 6C+2GGBS| 4C+4SF | 4C+4FA| 4C+4GGBS. The six
variants in the mix composition, over and above the control mix, are considered with a view to
reducing cement content in the production of CSMB units from considerations such as
economic, sustainability and maximum possible use of pozzolanic materials. The mix
constituents for all the mix variants are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Mix constituents (kg/m3)

Mix designation 8C 6C+2SF 6C+2FA 6C+2GGBS 4C+4SF 4C+4FA 4C+4GGBS

BP 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190 1190
FRCA 510 510 510 510 510 510 510
C 136 102 102 102 68 68 68
SF 0 34 0 0 68 0 0
FA 0 0 34 0 0 68 0
GGBA 0 0 0 34 0 0 68

3.4 Experimental work

The experiments are carried out in two phases. In the first phase, cube specimens are prepared
for the seven mix compositions to assess their wet compressive strength at 28 days. The test
results are used to identify a suitable mix composition with pozzolanic materials for making
CSMB units. The second phase of the study deals with the assessment of dry density, wet
compressive strength at 28 days, water absorption and rate of moisture absorption of CSMB
units of size 190 x 90 x 90mm.

3.4.1 Experimental studies on cube specimens

Initially, tests are performed on the cube specimens to assess the optimum moisture content
(OMC) for all the seven mix compositions, as well as the 28 days wet compressive strength.
Typically, determination of compressive strength in wet condition will give the weakest
strength value. Reduction in compressive strength under saturation condition can be attributed
to the development of pore water pressure in the blocks. Test results are used to assess the
potential of the mix composition with respect to attainment of a minimum wet compressive
strength = 3.5 MPa, which is one of the compliance requirements specified in IS 1725-2013
[23] for using SSB in general building construction.

3.4.1.1 Moisture content

Moisture content is very critical as the mixture must be wet enough to bind together when
compacted. It should not be too wet, so as to distort the shape when the specimens are
demoulded or too dry which can result in incomplete compaction. Hence, trail studies are made
so as to fix a range for moisture content, which can result in mixes that are neither too dry nor
too wet from mixing, compacting and demoulding considerations. The range is fixed as 13 %
to 19% by weight of the basic mix ingredients.

3.4.1.2 Casting of cube specimens

Hand mixing is done on a level surface. BP and FRCA are spread out first. The cementitious
contents are then added and mixed in dry state until the colour is uniform. The mixture is then
spread out and the required quantity of water is added and mixed thoroughly till all the
ingredients are seen to be wetted and the mix appeared to be a workable stiff mass for further
handling requirements. Seven cube specimens of size 70.6 mm are prepared with moisture
content varying from 13 to 19% by weight of the basic mix for each of the seven mix
compositions. The mix is filled into the moulds up to the top and with a collar in place excess
material is filled and compacted up to a pressure of 3.0MPa using UTM machine of 1000 kN
capacity. The excess material above the mould is removed and the surface is finished with
trowel. The sequence of stages in the preparation of cube specimens is depicted in Fig. 2.
 Fig.2: Different Stages in the preparation of cube specimens

3.4.1.3 Determination of OMC

The cube specimens are kept in the moulds for 24 hours at room temperature. The specimens
are then removed from moulds and weights are recorded, to assess their bulk densities. Next,
the cube specimens are oven dried for 24 hours and then their dry weights are recorded. The
oven dried cubes are immersed in water for 24 hours, to assess their water absorption as well as
void ratio and porosity. The water content in the mix, leading to maximum density and
minimum void ratio as well as porosity is considered as the OMC.

3.4.1.4 Determination of wet density and wet compressive strength

Six cube specimens are prepared for each of the mix variants, with appropriate OMC which is
determined by following the procedure described in the previous section. They are demoulded
after 24 hours and subjected to intermittent spray curing. After 28 days of curing, they are
tested to assess their wet density and wet compressive strength, as per the guidelines of IS
3495 (Part1): 1992 [24]. The specimens are directly soaked in water for 48 hours, prior to
testing, for determining the wet compressive strength. The specimens are tested by placing
them directly between the platens of the machine without capping.

3.4.2 Experimental studies on CSMB Units

Several SSB sizes are suggested in IS 1725-2013 [23]. In this study, only the block Size 190 x
90x90 mm is considered for making the CSMB units.

3.4.2.1 Procedure for casting CSMB units

The procedure as described in section 3.4.1.2 is followed to cast the CSMB units. The blocks
are stacked closer to each other, so as to minimize the air movement between the blocks. The
stacked units are cured by spraying water on their surfaces. Later the specimens are covered by
wet gunny bags in order to maintain dampness throughout the curing period of 28 days. The
sequence of stages in the preparation of CSMB units is depicted in Fig. 3.

Fig.3: Stages in the preparation of CSMB Units

3.4.2.2 Testing of CSMB units

These are tested for dry density, wet compressive strength at 28 days, water absorption and rate
of moisture absorption. For each of the mix composition, six units are tested. The standards
followed and the brief descriptions of the procedures are listed in the following subsections.

3.4.2.2.1 Dry density

The units are tested to assess their dry density as per the procedure outlined in IS 1725-2013
[23]. The units are dried in an oven at 100 50C to ensure constant weight condition and their
weights are recorded. The dimensions of the dried units are measured to compute the volume.
The dry density is computed as mass/volume and expressed in kg/m3.

3.4.2.2.2 Wet compressive strength

The units are tested to assess their wet compressive strength as per the guidelines outlined in IS
3495 (Part-1):1992 [24]. The units are immersed in water for 48 hours. They are then removed
and the surface is wiped to achieve saturated surface dry condition. Next they are tested using
compression testing machine with the rate of loading as 2.9 kN/sec.

3.4.2.2.3 Water absorption test

This test is carried out as per the guidelines of IS 3495 (Part-2): 1992 [25]. The CSMB units
are dried completely in the oven at a temperature of 100 to 110oC and the corresponding dry
weight is recorded. They are then immersed in water for 24 hours and then weighed again. The
increase in weight is expressed as a percentage of dry weight, to assess their water absorption
characteristics.
3.4.2.2.4 Rate of moisture absorption

The CSMB units are dried in an oven at 100 to 110oC and then allowed to cool to room
temperature and then their dry weight is recorded. Next, they are immersed in water and at
subsequent intervals of time (15, 30, 60, 120, 1440 and 2880 min), their wet weight is
measured. The percentage absorption is calculated with respect to dry weight.

3.4.2.3 Correction for friction effects

The frictional forces generated between the specimen and platens of the machine at the ends
prevent free lateral expansion and a tri-axial stress state is induced at the ends due to the
presence of lateral confining stresses. This confinement of specimens by platen restraint
increases the apparent strength of the material. For masonry blocks, the British Standard-BS
5628-1(1992) [26] considers the effects of the geometry of the blocks in the determination of
the compressive strength of masonry. The European Standard - EN 772-1 (2000) [27], suggest
a geometrical correction factor to include the effects of the aspect ratio (thickness of a
specimen / smallest characteristic length of its surface). Krefeld [28] has proposed correction
factors for fired clay bricks. Heathcote and Jankulovski [29] have proposed correction factors
for SSB. These are listed in Table 4. These values are used to arrive at the uniaxial
compressive strength of CSMB units.

Table 4 Correction factors (CF) for end confinement [30]

Aspect ratio
Correction factor
0.4 0.7 1.0 3.0 5.0
Krefelds (Fired clay bricks) 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.85 1.0
Heathcote & Jankulovski (SSB) 0.25 0.4 0.58 0.9 1.0

4 Results and discussions

4.1 Cube test results

4.1.1 OMC of the mixes

The test results of cube specimens prepared with moisture content varying from 13 % to 19%
for each of the seven mix variants are listed in Table 5. It is observed that, 15%, 16% and 17%
moisture content can yield maximum bulk density and minimum porosity in one, four, and two
mix compositions respectively.
Table 5 OMC of the mixes

Mix Water content Bulk Water absorption

Void ratio Porosity
designation (%) density (kg/m3) (%)
13 1848 18.21 0.443 0.307
14 1990 16.12 0.386 0.279
15 2047 16.04 0.386 0.279
8C 16 2103 14.65 0.354 0.262
17 2075 15.00 0.359 0.264
18 2047 15.35 0.370 0.27
19 2075 15.09 0.365 0.267

13 1933 17.97 0.437 0.304

14 1961 17.12 0.417 0.294
15 1990 17.22 0.416 0.294
6C+2SF 16 2047 15.27 0.368 0.269
17 2075 14.30 0.344 0.256
18 2047 14.82 0.357 0.263
19 2018 16.26 0.388 0.280

13 1876 17.21 0.425 0.298

14 1904 17.02 0.414 0.293
15 2018 16.29 0.403 0.287
6C+2FA
16 2047 13.76 0.324 0.244
17 1990 15.71 0.375 0.273
18 1961 16.23 0.392 0.281
13 1961 16.90 0.411 0.291
14 1990 16.10 0.392 0.282
15 2047 15.87 0.376 0.273
6C+2GGBS 16 2018 14.69 0.355 0.262
17 2075 14.46 0.350 0.260
18 2047 14.65 0.35 0.26
19 2018 15.34 0.368 0.269
13 1819 17.51 0.424 0.298
14 1961 17.06 0.408 0.290
15 1961 16.39 0.382 0.276
4C+4SF
16 1990 15.83 0.370 0.270
17 1961 17.33 0.407 0.289
18 1961 15.52 0.358 0.264

13 1904 17.99 0.433 0.302

14 1933 16.97 0.400 0.286
15 1961 16.31 0.386 0.278
4C+4FA
16 1990 16.20 0.384 0.277
17 1961 16.53 0.387 0.279
18 1990 16.11 0.376 0.273

13 1961 17.00 0.417 0.294

14 1961 16.66 0.397 0.284
15 2018 16.29 0.394 0.283
4C+4GGBS
16 1933 17.07 0.406 0.289
17 1876 18.47 0.434 0.303
18 1990 17.63 0.416 0.294
4.1.2 Wet density and 28 days compressive strength of cube specimens

The results of wet density and 28 days wet compressive strength are listed in Table 6. The 28
days wet compressive strength of all the cube specimens prepared with 8C, 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA
and 6C+2GGBS mix compositions are found to be in excess of 3.5MPa. However, in the case
of cube specimens prepared with 4C+4SF, 4C+4FA and 4C+4GGBS mix compositions the wet
compressive strength is found to be either less than or very nearly equal to 3.5MPa.

Table 6 Wet density and 28 days wet compressive strength

Mix 8C 6C+2SF 6C+2FA 6C+2GGBS 4C+4SF 4C+4FA 4C+4GGBS

1989 2046 2046 2046 2103 2046 2074
Wet 1961 2046 2046 2046 2046 2046 2046
density 1989 2018 2046 2074 2018 2018 2074
(kg/m3) 1932 2074 2046 2074 2046 2046 2046
1989 2046 2046 2046 2046 2018 2046
1989 2046 2046 2046 2046 2018 2046

Wet 6.68 5.20 4.69 4.94 3.57 2.81 3.53

comp. 6.10 3.93 3.89 4.65 3.43 3.25 2.93
5.90 4.79 5.24 5.68 3.05 2.57 3.47
strength
5.72 4.65 4.37 5.70 2.53 3.29 3.15
(MPa) 6.38 4.71 5.96 5.90 3.39 2.63 3.47
6.40 4.63 4.75 5.58 3.07 3.15 3.43

4.1.3 Statistical analysis of cube test results

The statistical analysis of test results is given in Table 7. The statistical parameters are
normalized with respect to control mix 8C. The variation of normalized average compressive
strength with respect to different mix compositions is also shown in the form of bar chart.

4.1.4 Inferences

i. It is noted that out of 8% total cementitious content, cube specimens made with 6%
cement and 2% of either SF or FA or GGBS, possess strength in excess of 3.5 MPa.

ii. The cube samples made with 4% cement and 4% of either SF or FA or GGBS are
found to have strength less than 3.5 MPa, even though, the total cementitious content is
maintained as 8%.

iii. The study has enabled to draw an important inference that, the mix composition should
have a minimum of 6% cement and 2% of either SF or FA or GGBS to achieve
 strengths in excess of 3.5MPa as per IS 1725:2013[23]. Hence CSMB units are
prepared with 8C, 6C+2SF,6C+2FA and 6C+2GGBS mix compositions only

Table 7 Statistical analysis of cube test results

Wet density (kg/m3) Wet compressive strength (MPa)

Mix
Min Max Min Max
8C 1975 23.80 1932 1989 6.20 0.36 5.72 6.68
6C+2SF 2046 17.71 2018 2074 4.65 0.41 3.93 5.20
6C+2FA 2046 0.00 2046 2046 4.82 0.72 3.89 5.96
6C+2GGBS 2055 14.46 2046 2074 5.41 0.49 4.65 5.90
4C+4SF 2051 27.90 2018 2103 3.17 0.38 2.53 3.57
4C+4FA 2032 15.30 2018 2046 2.95 0.32 2.57 3.29
4C+4GGBS 2055 14.46 2046 2074 3.33 0.24 2.93 3.53

1.20 1.00
Compressive

1.00 0.87
Normalized

0.75 0.78
Strength
Average

0.80
0.51 0.48 0.54
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
8C 6C+2SF 6C+2FA 6C+2GGBS 4C+4SF 4C+4FA 4C+4GGBS

Mix Compositions

4.2 Test results of CSMB units

4.2.1 Density and wet compressive strength

Test results are given in Table 8. It is observed that, the representative compressive strength in
all the twenty four specimens is more than the minimum strength criterion = 3.5 MPa and dry
density = 1750 kg/m3 as per IS 1725 -2013 [23].

4.2.1.1 Statistical analysis of test results

The statistical parameters such as mean, minimum and maximum values of dry and wet density
and wet compressive strength of all the four mix compositions are listed in the Table 9. It is
noted that, the representative value of average compressive strength in wet conditions, is more
than 1.5 times of the minimum requirement in all the cases. The ratio of average wet and dry
density is found to be in the range of 1.11 to 1.13.
Table 8 Density and wet compressive strength of CSMB units at 28 days

Mix 8C 6C+2SF 6C+2FA 6c+2GGBS

Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet
1832 2057 1871 2070 1823 2047 1816 2057
1875 2057 1839 2047 1862 2070 1855 2086
Density 1826 2050 1875 2073 1849 2050 1855 2089
kg/m3 1842 2037 1845 2057 1842 2070 1765 1998
1849 2076 1839 2050 1829 2057 1790 2044
1842 2053 1858 2066 1865 2070 1758 2018
5.46 6.30 6.32 4.73
Wet compressive 7.61 5.55 6.30 5.99
5.94 6.18 6.60 5.64
strength (MPa)
6.16 5.87 5.06 5.77
6.39 4.56 4.63 5.20
6.36 6.35 5.48 4.38

Table 9 Descriptive statistics of density and wet compressive strength of CSMB units

8C 6C + 2SF 6C + 2FA 6C + 2GGBS

Param
Density Density Density Density
eters fwet fwet fwet fwet
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (MPa) (kg/m3) (MPa) (kg/m3) (MPa)
(MPa)
Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet

1844 2055 6.32 1855 2061 5.80 1845 2061 5.73 1807 2049 5.29

Min 1826 2037 5.46 1839 2047 4.56 1823 2047 4.63 1758 1998 4.38

Max 1875 2076 7.61 1875 2073 6.35 1865 2070 6.6 1855 2089 5.99

4.2.1.2 Correction due to end effects

It is well known that the confinement of specimens by platen restraint increases the apparent
strength of the material. The test results of clay bricks and compressed earth blocks are usually
modified by using the correction factors listed in Table 4. The geometric correction factor
based on aspect ratio being equal to unity can be assumed as 0.7 and 0.58 as per, Krefeld [28]
and Heathkote [29] respectively. The corrected values are listed in Table 10. The average
values of wet compressive strength of CSMB units prepared from all the four mixes, meet the
minimum requirement of 3.5MPa, for CF = 0.7. However, with CF = 0.58, CSMB units
prepared from 8C mix composition satisfy the minimum requirement of 3.5MPa and those
prepared from the 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA and 6C+2GGBS mix compositions fall short by 4 %, 5%
and 12% respectively. The test results also indicate that SF or FA can be the pozzolanic
substitute for cement for making CSMB units.

Table 10 Correction due to End Effects

Aspect Compressive Mix composition

CSMB size
ratio strength 8C 6C +2SF 6C +2FA 6C +2GGBS
Test Result 6.32 5.80 5.73 5.29
Corrected value
4.42 4.06 4.01 3.70
190x90x90 1.0 with CF = 0.7
Corrected value
3.67 3.36 3.32 3.07
with CF = 0.58

4.2.2 Water absorption

Six units are tested for each of the four mix compositions to assess the water absorption
characteristics after 24 hours of immersion. These are listed in Table 11, along with their first
measure statistics such as average and standard deviation.

Table 11 Water absorption (%) after 24 hours

Sl.no 8C 6C+2SF 6C+2FA 6C+2GGBS

1 12.2 10.6 12.3 13.2
2 9.7 11.3 11.2 12.4
3 12.3 10.6 10.9 12.6
4 10.6 11.4 12.3 16.5
5 12.3 11.5 12.4 14.2
6 11.5 11.2 11.0 14.8
Statistical measures
11.3 11.1 11.7 14.0
1.08 0.4 0.72 1.55

It is observed that, this important property is also in compliance with the minimum
requirement of 18% as per IS 1725:2013[23]. Addition of SF or FA into mixes has not
influenced this property when compared with control mix 8C. However, mixes with GGBS
have recorded highest percentage water absorption. Hence, it is inferred that SF or FA can be
the pozzolanic substitute for cement for making CSMB units. From economic and availability
considerations, FA can be the preferred pozzolanic substitute for cement for making CSMB
units. In fact, the wide spread use of FA for cement replacement in concrete mixes endorses the
outcome of the study also.

4.2.3 Rate of moisture absorption

The test results of rate of moisture absorption of six CSMB specimens prepared for each of the
four mix compositions are listed in Table 12.

Table 12 Test Results of Rate of Moisture Absorption

Mix Composition Water Absorption in %

(%) by weight 15 min 30 min 60 min 120 min 1440 min 2880 min
6.2 8.2 9.9 11.4 12.2 12.4
5.6 6.9 8.0 8.8 9.7 9.9
8C 5.7 7.3 8.9 10.7 12.3 12.5
4.6 6.4 7.8 9.4 10.6 10.9
6.2 8.1 9.7 11.3 12.3 12.3
6.2 7.4 9.0 10.4 11.5 11.6
5.2 6.1 8.0 9.6 10.6 10.8
6.0 7.8 9.4 10.4 11.3 11.3
6C+2SF 5.4 6.1 7.8 9.2 10.6 10.8
7.8 8.5 10.2 10.9 11.4 11.4
7.1 8.0 10.1 10.8 11.5 11.5
7.5 8.0 9.9 10.6 11.3 11.3
6.4 8.0 10.0 11.2 12.3 12.3
5.4 7.2 8.9 10.1 11.2 11.3
6C+2FA 4.8 6.5 8.3 9.8 10.9 10.9
7.6 9.2 10.6 11.5 12.4 12.4
5.3 7.1 9.1 10.8 12.4 12.6
4.7 6.3 8.0 9.6 11.0 11.2
6.3 7.3 8.8 10.6 13.2 13.4
4.4 5.6 7.2 9.1 12.4 12.6
6C+2GGBS 6.7 8.1 9.6 11.0 12.6 13.0
14.4 15.3 15.9 16.1 16.5 16.9
8.4 9.3 10.7 12.5 14.2 14.3
10.7 11.8 13.1 14.1 14.8 15.2

4.2.4 Statistics related to moisture absorption

The descriptive statistics of rate of moisture absorption along with the curves plotted between
immersion periods and average moisture absorption are given in Table 13. The average
moisture absorption is found to follow an exponential trend. In all the four mix compositions,
more than 60% of absorption is observed to take place in the first 30 minutes of immersion
period. At 120 minutes of immersion time, the saturation is found to be at 89%, 92%, 89% and
86% of absorption at 2880min, for the mix 8C, 6C + 2SF, 6C + 2FA and 6C + 2 GGBS
respectively. However, the moisture absorption rate is found to be higher for the mix
comprising of 2% GGBS

Table 13 Descriptive statistics of rate of moisture absorption

Mix Statistical Moisture absorption (%)

compositions parameters 15 min 30 min 60 min 120 min 1440 min 2880 min
5.8 7.4 8.9 10.3 11.4 11.6
0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9
8C
Min 4.6 6.4 7.8 8.8 9.7 9.9
Max 6.2 8.2 9.9 11.4 12.3 12.5
6.5 7.4 9.2 10.3 11.1 11.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3
6C + 2SF
Min 5.2 6.1 7.8 9.2 10.6 10.8
Max 7.8 8.5 10.2 10.9 11.5 11.5
5.7 7.4 9.2 10.5 11.7 11.8
1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7
6C + 2FA
Min 4.7 6.3 8.0 9.6 10.9 10.9
Max 7.6 9.2 10.6 11.5 12.4 12.6
8.5 9.6 10.9 12.2 14.0 14.2
3.3 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.4 1.5
6C + 2 GGBS
Min 4.4 5.6 7.2 9.1 12.4 12.6
Max 14.4 15.3 15.9 16.1 16.5 16.9

5 Conclusions

The present experimental study is focused on the assessment of the suitability of BP and FRCA
recovered from masonry and concrete waste along with cement and pozzolanic materials such
 as SF, FA and GGBS available as industrial by-products in the waste stream for the production
of CSMB units for masonry construction. Following conclusions are drawn.

i. Based on the test results on cube specimens ,the OMC for mixes 8C, 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA,
6C+2GGBS is found to be about 16%, 17%, 16% and 17% respectively. Hence, the OMC,
for these mix compositions can be considered as 16%.

ii. Based on the test results on cube specimens, the minimum cement content requirement is
fixed as 6% for making CSMB units, so as to be in compliance with 28 days minimum wet
compressive strength equal to 3.5 MPa [23].

iii. The average dry densities of CSMB units prepared from mixes 8C, 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA,
6C+2GGBS are found to be more than the compliance requirement of 1750 kg/m3 [23], by
5%, 6%, 5% and 3% respectively.

iv. The average wet compressive strength at 28 days of CSMB units prepared from mixes 8C,
6C+2SF, 6C+2FA, 6C+2GGBS with CF = 0.7, are found to be more than the compliance
requirement of 3.5MPa [23], by 26%, 16%, 15% and 6% respectively.

v. With CF = 0.58, CSMB units prepared from 8C mix composition satisfy the minimum
requirement of 3.5MPa and those prepared from the 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA and 6C+2GGBS
mix compositions fall short by 4 %, 5% and 12% respectively. Hence, 6% cement content
with 2% SF or FA is considered to be the favorable mix for making CSMB units.

vi. The percentages of water absorption after 24 hours of immersion of CSMB units prepared
from mixes 8C, 6C+2SF, 6C+2FA, 6C+2GGBS are found to be 11.3, 11.1, 11.7 and 14
respectively. These are also found to be within the permissible limit of 18% [23]. However,
out of the four mix compositions, the mix with 2% GGBS is found to have higher
absorption characteristics.

vii. The percentages of moisture absorption of CSMB units prepared from mixes 8C, 6C+2SF,
6C+2FA,6C+2GGBS are found to be more than 60% for the first 30 minutes of immersion
period. At 120 minutes of immersion time, the saturation of CSMB units is found to be
nearly about 90% in all the four mix compositions. The average moisture absorption is
found to follow an exponential trend.
viii. From the economic and availability considerations, FA, can be the preferred pozzolanic
substitute for cement for making CSMB units as all the compliance requirements with
respect to dry density, strength and water absorption are favorably satisfied.

6 Outcome of this study

The present study has shown that the CSMB units can be made with mix compositions
consisting of 94% recycled materials only. The use of pozzolanic materials available as
industrial by-products in the waste stream can reduce the cement content in such units by at
least 2%. This proposition will have better acceptance from sustainability perspectives of
building systems. The authors of the present study are of the opinion, that such units cannot be
considered as an alternative to fired clay bricks or other environmentally sustainable and
economically viable options, such as, SSB, Aerated autoclaved concrete blocks and fly-ash
bricks, since they cannot certainly meet the demand. However, such units can really coexist
with them and form integrated option for recycling C&D waste consisting of concrete and
masonry chunks with adhered mortar.

7 References

[1]. F. Debieb, S. Kenai, The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as aggregate in concrete,
Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 886893.
[2]. P.B. Cachim, Mechanical properties of brick aggregate concrete, Construction and
Building Materials 23 (2009) 12921297
[3]. J. Yang,Q Du, Y Bao, Concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and crushed clay bricks,
Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 19351945.
[4]. L.Zheng , Z. Ge1, Z. Yao, R.Sun,J.Dong, The properties of concrete with recycled clay-
brick-powder, Applied Mechanics and Materials 99-100 (2011) 826-831.
[5]. Z. Ge, Z. Gao, R. Sun, L. Zheng, Mix design of concrete with recycled clay-brick-powder
using the orthogonal design method, Construction and Building Materials 31 (2012) 289
293.
[6]. A .A. Aliabdo, Abd-Elmoaty M. Abd-Elmoaty, H.H. Hassan, Utilization of crushed clay
brick in concrete industry, Alexandria Engineering Journal 53(2014), 151168.
[7]. D. Tavakoli, A. Heidari,S. H. Pilehrood, Properties of concrete made with waste clay brick
as sand incorporating nano SiO2,Indian Journal of Science and Technology,7(12) (2014)
18991905.
[8]. D.M. Sadek, Physico-mechanical properties of solid cement bricks containing recycled
aggregates, Journal of Advanced Research 3(2012), 253260.
[9]. B.V.V. Reddy, Pressed Soil-Cement Block: An Alternative Building Material for Masonry,
CIB TG 16, Sustainable Construction (1994), Tampa, Florida, USA.
[10]. P.J.Walker, Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement stabilised soil
blocks, Cement and Concrete Composites,17(4)(1995), 301-310.
[11]. B. V.V.Reddy, K. S.Jagadish, Influence of soil composition on the strength and
durability of soil-cement blocks, Indian Concrete Journal. 69(9)(1995) 517524.
[12]. P. Walker, Characteristics of pressed earth blocks in compression, 11th International
brick block masonry conference (1997), Tongji university, shanghai, china, 1-7.
[13]. P.Walker, T .Stace,Properties of some cement stabilised compressed earth blocks and
mortars, Material and Structures30 (1997) 545-551. Doi: 10.1007/BF02486398.
[14]. B. V.V.Reddy, A .Gupta, Characteristics of soil-cement blocks using highly sandy
soils, Material and Structure 38 (2005) 651-658.
[15]. B. V.V.Reddy, R. Lal. K. S.Nanjunda Rao, Optimum soil grading for the soil-cement
blocks. ASCE, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 19(2) (2007), 139-148.
[16]. Hyug-Moon Kwon, A.T. Le, N.T. Nguyen, Influence of soil grading on properties of
compressed cement-soil, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 14(6) (2010), 845-853.DOI
10.1007/s12205-010-0648-9.
[17]. B.V.V.Reddy, M.S.Latha, Influence of soil grading on the characteristics of cement
stabilised soil compacts, Materials and Structures47(2014) 16331645.DOI
10.1617/s11527-013-0142-1.
[18]. H. B.Nagaraj, M.V.Sravan, T.G.Arun, K.S.Jagadish, Role of lime with cement in long-
term strength of compressed stabilized earth blocks, International Journal of Sustainable
Built Environment3(2014), 5461.
[19]. H. B.Nagaraj,A.Rajesh, M.V.Sravan, Influence of soil gradation, proportion and
combination of admixtures onthe properties and durability of CSEBs, Construction and
Building Materials110(2016) 135144.
[20]. IS 8112 : 2013, Indian standard ordinary portland cement, 43 Grade specification,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[21]. IS : 1727 1967 (R2004), Indian standard methods of test for pozzolanic materials,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[22]. IS : 2386 1963 (R2002), Indian standard methods of test for aggregates for concrete,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[23]. IS 1725:2013, Stabilized soil blocks used in general building construction-
specification, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[24]. IS 3495 (Part 1):1992 (R2002), Indian Standard methods of tests of burnt clay building
bricks - Determination of compressive strength, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
[25]. IS 3495 (Part 2):1992 (R2002), Indian Standard methods of tests of burnt clay building
bricks - Determination of water absorption, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
[26]. Standard British (1992) BS 5628-1: code of practice for use of masonry-part 1:
Structural use of unreinforced masonry. British Standard Institution, London
[27]. European Standard (2000) EN 772-1: methods of test for masonry units-part 1:
Determination of compressive strength. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

[28]. W.J. Krefeld, Effect of shape of specimen on the apparent compressive strength of
brick masonry, Proceedings of the American Society of Materials (1938), Philadelphia,
USA, 363- 369.
[29]. K. Heathcote, E. Jankulovski, Aspect ratio correction factors for soilcrete blocks,
Australian Civil Engineering Transactions, Institution of Engineers Australia CE34(4)
(1992) 309-312.
[30]. Aubert, J.E., Maillard, P., Morel, J.C., M. Al Rafii (2016), Towards a simple
compressive strength test for earth bricks? Mater Struct 49: 1641.

HIGHLIGHTS
1. Brick masonry and concrete waste along with pozzolanic materials is used for the
production of CSMB units.
2. The corrected average values of 28 days wet compressive strength are found to meet the
minimum requirement of 3.5 MPa.
3. The percentage of water absorption is found to be within permissible limit of 18% by
weight.
4. The average dry density is found to meet the minimum requirement of 1750 kg/m3.