Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Effect of molarity in geo polymer earth brick reinforced with

T
fibrous coir wastes using sandy soil and quarry dust as fine
aggregate. (Case study)
⁎
P. Palanisamya,b, , P. Suresh Kumarc
a
Dept. Civil Engg., Anna University, Chennai, 600025, Tamil Nadu, India
b
S.S.C.E.T., Sankari, Salem Dt., Tamil Nadu, India
c
University College of Engineering, Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu, India

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: The studies are mainly carried out on strength development for various grades of geo-polymer
Fiber reinforced geo-polymer earth brick mortar with varying molarity (M) for producing geo-polymer earth brick (GPEB). The studies are
Geo-polymer mortar using sandy soil and focused on use of more sandy soil sieved from the raw earth available at site and quarry dust on
quarry dust as fine-aggregate replaced with river sand for making the un-burnt brick. The brick is reinforced with fibrous coir
Nature fibrous coir wastes
waste to increase shear strength and further pressed by hand compaction. Geo-polymer mortar is
Un-burnt brick
Alternate to compressed stabilized earth block
based on an inorganic alumina silicate binder system and it has more advantages of quick
strength gain, negligence of water curing, best mechanical properties, eco-friendly, sustainable
and alternate to ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based mortar. Fly Ash (FA), Ground Granulated
Blast-furnace Slag (GGBS), sandy soil sieved from earth and Quarry Dust (QD) are mixed with
alkaline solution in different molarities 6 M, 8 M and 10 M to prepare specimens. Specimens are
tested against workability, compressive strength, and water absorption test, rate of water ab-
sorption, abraded test and also fiber content of the brick. The research found that the brick is
made by FA & GGBS as binders and soil & quarry dust as fine aggregate in ratio of
0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 with fibrous coir waste 1% and alkaline solution 10 M for preparing mortar to
produce, excellent compressive strength, low water absorption, low rate of absorption, good
abrasive resistance etc., The new brick is placed an alternate to compressed stabilized earth
block, cement block and traditional burnt brick.

1. Introduction

Every year the production of cement is increased by 10% in the world. The production of one ton of cement emits [1] ap-
proximately one ton of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Hendricks et al. [2] is provided a brief review of the opportunities for
emission reduction from the cement industry. Ernest Worerell and Lynn Price etal, have reported that CO₂ emission from the global
cement industry in India about 2000 million metric tonnes of CO₂ was emitted in the year of 2010. The current contribution of
greenhouse gas emission from Portland cement production is about 1.5 billion tonnes annually or about 7% to the earth’s atmosphere.
The amount of cement may be reduced by using other cementing materials. Fly ash [3] from thermal power plants is used for
cementing materials in this case.
Highly alkaline liquids [4] are used to produce alumino-silicates binder material, reacted with source materials such as GGBS &

⁎
Corresponding author at: Dean I/C, University College of Engineering, Ariyalur-621704, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail addresses: mpspps3@gmail.com (P. Palanisamy), erpsuresh@rediffmail.com (P.S. Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.01.009
Received 19 September 2017; Received in revised form 18 December 2017; Accepted 19 January 2018
2214-5095/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

FA and formed an inorganic geo-polymeric binder. Geo-polymer is a type of inorganic polymer composite [5] to form a substantial
element of an environmentally sustainable construction and building products industry by replacing or supplementing the con-
ventional cement mortar and concrete. Studies conducted on geo-polymer concrete, have proved that it is the best substitute to
Portland cement concrete [6,7] and achieved the compressive strength of the concrete for higher molarity ratio [8].
The binder system can be used to produce, mortar containing river sand or any suitable material as fine aggregate. Sustainable
and alternative materials are demanded to replace the river sand to prevent environmental issues. The selected soil [9] available at
site that have a sandy fraction (4.75 mm to 0.075 mm) of more than 65% was used for fine-aggregate.
Sandy soil containing less than 65% has to be suitably modified [10–12] by mixing the soil with coarser material like quarry dust
or alternate material for sand.
The Coir Industry of Tamil Nadu state in India produces wastes during the manufacturing process of new coir products. Even
though coir waste is biodegradable the rate of degradation is very slow due to high lignin content. Accumulation of waste materials
has caused serious environmental problems. Coir fiber can be utilized as reinforcement for making bricks. Here the most important
work is to analyze the characteristics of brick and to examine the possibility of improving its strength and durability by reinforcing
with degradable fibrous waste material [13].
Based on recent studies (TIFAC) there would be a short fall [14] in the production of bricks or blocks. To overcome this and go for
green brick production, there is a need for sustainability to building materials especially bricks. Researchers have tried to use fly ash,
steel slag, rice husk ash, Lime stone dust, welding flux slag, marble dust, granite sawing powder and other waste products into bricks
so as to improve their sustainability [15,16]. With Reference to this, the research found that, the Geo polymer earth brick (GPEB) is
relatively new and is prepared by Geo-polymer mortar such as Fly Ash, Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag, and sandy soil sieved
from earth and Quarry Dust (QD) mixed with alkaline solution and hand compacted. It has the advantages of quick strength gain,
negligence of water curing, best mechanical properties, eco-friendly, sustainable, un-burnt and alternate to ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) based mortar.

2. Objectives

The principal objectives of the research are the development of brick with different combinations of FA and GGBS and to study the
influence of GGBS on GPEB. The types of GPEB mixes are (i) 10% GGBS and 90% FA, (ii) 30% GGBS and 70% FA, (iii) 50% GGBS and
50% FA, (iv) 70% FA and 30% GGBS, (v) 90% FA and 10% GGBS. To study the effect of concentration of alkaline activator solution in
GPEB; the molar ratios considered were 6 M, 8 M and 10 M sodium hydroxide solutions. Also to know the maximum ratio of sandy
soil utilized as fine aggregate was studied because of more availability of source material at site. To study the influence of coir fiber
content in GPEB; The percentage of fiber mixes were (i) 0.5% of total weight of block, (ii) 1.0% of total weight of block, (iii) 1.5% of
total weight of block taken.

3. Experimental investigations

3.1. Materials used to produce GPEB

The materials used for the production of bricks were fly ash, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag, Excavated Earth (Soil),
Quarry Dust, Alkaline Activator Solution and Fibrous Coir Wastes.

3.2. Fly ash

During the coal combustion process in thermal power stations, FA is one of the waste residues and it consists of the fine particles
within the flue gases. The elements of FA may vary depending upon the source of materials and burning of coal. It contains surplus
amount of silicate and aluminum oxide (ASTM C 618–1993.Class C) FA produced from lignite or sub-bituminous coal like lignite from
Neyveli in Tamil Nadu is in this category and has both pozzolanic & cementious properties [17]. The chemical properties of fly ash
are given in Table 1.

3.3. GGBS

In the manufacturing process of iron, the iron ore, lime stone and coke materials are melted at 1500° C. During the melting process
two by-products such as molten iron and molten slag are produced. The molten slag comprises mostly silicates and CaO from the
original iron ore and combined some oxides from the limestone. The process of granulating the slag involves cooling the molten slag
through high-pressure water jets. The rapid cooling prevents the formation of large crystals, and the resulting granular materials are

Table 1
Chemical properties of fly ash.

SiO2 % Al2O7 % CaO% Fe2O3 % Na2O3 % MgO% SO3 % Chlorides% LOI (%)

61.12 31.23 3.2 1.5 1.35 0.75 0.53 0.05 0.9

348
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Table 2
Chemical properties of GGBS.

Glass SiO + MgO + CaO MgO Sulphide Sulphur Sulphite content Chlorides MnO LOI%

90 76 8.46 0.54 0.23 0.01 0.05 0.19

comprised of 95 percent non-crystalline calcium and aluminum silicates. By drying the granular slag material and then grinding to
form a very fine powder GGBS is obtained. The chemical properties of GGBS are given in Table 2.

3.4. Soil

Locally available soil was taken from the site (the proposed construction of a men’s hostel building inside the university premises)
for this experimental work. Preliminary investigation and rough assessment done through simple sensitive tests like smell, touch,
compression tests, plasticity and cohesion of soil showed that the soil was satisfactory to be used as fine aggregate and good for
production of GPEB.
The top soil was removed out because it contained organic matter and the soil below 0.45 m ground level was excavated and
processed by sieving it through 4.75 mm and retained on a 75 μm sieve. Basic physical properties of soil were tested as per (IS: 2720
Part 5) code to confirm its suitability for replacing river sand and also to confirm it would stabilize [18,19] with geo-polymer well to
make the brick. The test results obtained are tabulated in Table 3.
The results obtained from the sieve analysis test are plotted in Fig. 1 and the curve refers to particle size distribution of soil in the
earth.
The soil can be classified as well graded soil as it contained a good representation of particle of all sizes. In this study soil was used
as fine aggregate hence the sand fraction of soil only was taken. The soil finer than75 μm was rejected. The coarser fraction only was
used for this study.

3.5. Quarry dust

Sieve analysis of fine aggregates was carried out and a fineness modulus of 3.3 was obtained. The bulk density of quarry dust loose
was 1540 kg/m3 and compacted 1751 kg/m3. The specific gravity was 2.4.

3.6. Fibrous waste additives

Coir fiber wastes (Fig. 2) are collected from the coir products industry nearby the local area. For this study fiber lengths between
25 and 50 mm were used. The physical and chemical properties of waste fiber are tabulated in Table 4.

3.7. Alkaline liquid

For the polymerization process, a combined solution of Na2SiO3 and NaOH was used as alkali activator. Sodium silicate solution
was purchased locally in bulk. NaOH flakes with 97% to 98% purity were purchased from the local Salem market NaOH solids were
dissolved with water to make the solution. The concentration was measured in terms of molarity of Sodium hydroxide based solution
and was kept at 6 M, 8 M and 10 M for laboratory trials as indicated in Table 5. Sodium based solutions are availed at less cost
compared to calcium based solutions.

Table 3
Physical properties of sample soil.

S.No. Characteristics Value Units

1 Specific gravity 2.43 –

2 Bulk density – –
3 Loose soil density 1520 Kg/m3
4 Compacted soil density 1670 Kg/m3
5 Sand fraction (4.75 mm–75 μ) (Wet sieve analysis) 70 %
6 Fineness Modulus 2.76 –
7 Plastic limit 27 %
8 Liquid limit 34 %

349
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution.

Fig. 2. Coir fiber samples.

Table 4
Physical and chemical properties of coir wastes.

Physical Chemical

Diameter 0.31 mm Lignin 39.63%

Density 1.35 g/cc Cellulose 23%
Tenacity 14.9 Ash 3%
Breaking elongation 25.53% Pectin 2.4%
Swelling in water 87.35%

Table 5
Molarity of alkaline activator solution.

Required Molarity Weight in grams of sodium Hydroxide

6 M × 40 (m.wt.) 240
8 M × 40 320
10 M × 40 400

4. Methodology

4.1. Specimen preparation

For the preliminary investigation, NaOH and NaSiO3 solution were mixed together at least one day in advance, prior mixing with
the dry materials.

4.2. Dry mixing

Binding material 1% to 50%of total quantity in the ratio 1:2((FA:GGBS): soil) (with soil passing through 4.75 mm sieve and
retained on 75 μm sieve) was added and mixed in predetermined proportions in a tray for three minutes until a uniform color
appeared.

350
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 3. Wooden mould of a specimen.

4.3. Wet mixing

At the end of dry mixing, alkaline liquids were added and the wet mixing continued for another four minutes similar to pre-
paration of cement mortar. Then the activator solution at the specified fluid ratio was added and mixed. While mixing, balls of mortar
were formed. These were broken by gloved hands press or crushing in between hands with rubbing until a uniform mix was obtained.
The mortar was filled in locally prepared wooden plank moulds of (Fig. 3) 7.62 sq.cm size and compacted by hand to produce
7.62 cmcube specimens (Figs. 4–7). The specimens were demolded after hand compaction had finished. The demolded specimens
were cured in open air in the lab [20] until tested without curing. For each set of parameters 3 cubes were cast with three each for
7 days strength. These cubes were cast as laboratory trial for final casting of specimen.

4.4. First case

Mortar proportion 1:2; FA & GGBS: Soil & QD. Binder proportion (FA: GGBS): 90:10; 70:30; 50:50; 30:70; 10:90; Fluid-to-Binder
Ratio (F/B): 0.3, 6M& 8 M solution. Different trial specimens were made of binder material in the above proportions, F/B ratio of 0.3,
and molarity of 6 M & 8 M solution. The ambient cured specimens were compressed at the end of 7 & 28 days. The uniaxial com-
pressive strength results are shown in Table 6. The Compressive strength of the trial specimen is expressed in N/mm2.

4.5. Second case

Trial specimens were made of F/B ratio of 0.3 and 6 M & 8 M solution and were related more to the minimum compressive
strength of conventional blocks. Especially, the binder ratio of 30: 70 is stronger than 50:50 but the second one had good portability
like mixing, casting, demolding etc. Hence 50:50 case F/B ratios 0.3, 10 M solution proportion was adopted for making the best brick.
The strength was proportional to the quantity of QD in the mortar. The binder composition between ((50:50) FA: GGBS) & 30:70
provided strength variations of 10% only. This is not much variation in strength in this band of binder proportion (Fig. 8).
For producing the best brick, using more local material such as soil, considering less cost, portability of mortar, and improved
compressive strength, the specimens were made of FA/GGBS of 50/50 with F/B ratio of 0.3,10 M solution and ratio of (0.5:0.5:1.75:
0.25) (FA: GGBS: Soil: Quarry Dust (QD). The mix gave the best result. The ambient cured specimens were tested for compressive
strength for 7 & 28 days and strength obtained are given in Table 7. The compressive strengths of the trial specimens expressed in N/
mm2. The mixes were tested with reinforced fibrous waste coir content of 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% as indicated in Table 8. From the test
trials 1% content of coir waste gives the best result and hence has been adopted.

Fig. 4. Specimen of GPEB.

351
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 5. Specimen of GPEB.

Fig. 6. Specimen of a GPEB.

Fig. 7. Specimen of a GPEB.

Table 6
Trial specimen compressive strength.

Mix Id Molar ratio Binder Composition Mix proportion Liquid to binder Compressive strength Compressive strength
FA:GGBS Binder:soil ratio (7days) MPa (28days) MPa

GPEBT1 6M(240) 90:10 1:2 0.3 1.550 1.946

GPEBT1 8M(320) 90:10 1:2 0.3 2.549 3.272
GPEBT2 6M(240) 70:30 1:2 0.3 1.378 1.894
GPEBT2 8M(320) 70:30 1:2 0.3 2.755 3.444
GPEBT3 6M(240) 50:50 1:2 0.3 1.033 1.378
GPEBT3 8M(320) 50:50 1:2 0.3 3.100 4.133
GPEBT4 6M(240) 30:70 1:2 0.3 1.722 2.411
GPEBT4 8M(320) 30:70 1:2 0.3 3.444 4.478
GPEBT5 6M(240) 10:90 1:2 0.3 0.861 1.033
GPEBT5 8M(320) 10:90 1:2 0.3 2.928 3.789

352
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 8. Compressive strength test of a specimen.

Table 7
Trial specimen compressive strength.

Mix Id Molar ratio Binder Composition Mix proportion Liquid to binder Compressive strength Compressive strength
FA:GGBS Soil:Quarry dust ratio (7days) MPa (28days) MPa

GPEBT1 10M(400) 50:50 1.75: 0.25 0.3 4.478 5.683

GPEBT2 10M(400) 50:50 1.5: 0.50 0.3 5.855 6.544
GPEBT3 10M(400) 50:50 1.25:0.75 0.3 6.200 6.889
GPEBT4 10M(400) 50:50 1:1 0.3 7.578 8.611
GPEBT5 10M(400) 50:50 1:2 0.3 8.956 9.817

Table 8
Trial Mix designation of fiber reinforced GPEB.

Mix designation Mix proportion by weight (%) Binder (FA:GGBS):(soil: quarry dust):fiber

CFC 0.5 (0.5:0.5):(1.75:0.25):0.5%

CFC 1 (0.5:0.5):(1.75:0.25):1%
CFC 1.5 (0.5:0.5):(1.75:0.25):1.5%

5. Final casting

Initially, FA and GGBS were mixed in a dry condition in the ratio of 0.5:0.5. Then the soil and QD passing through 4.75 mm and
retained on 75 μm sieve were added to get dry mortar in proportion of (Soil: Quarry Dust) 1.75:0.25 then a coir waste content of 1%
and finally, activator 10 M solution F/B ratio of 0.3 was added and mixed manually until the mix was uniform.
Water was added as per the limit of Optimum moisture content of soil and excess water was also added to get a fine mortar. The
mortar was filled half in the mould of size 23cm × 10cm × 7 cm and hand compacted once.The remaining half of the mix was filled
and compacted in the mould. The specimen were demoulded and kept in room temperature without any curing regime until tested.

6. Results and discussion

6.1. Compressive strength

Compressive strength is an essential property which varies with curing time and curing temperature along with other factors. In
the present study, the specimens were ambient cured without any special curing regime (only cured in open air in the lab at room
temp.). The specimen was placed with flat face horizontal in the platform of the compression testing machine shown in Fig. 7 and the
maximum load at failure was noted. The blocks were tested for compressive strength test [20] for 7 and 28 days. The results obtained

Table 9
Dry compressive strength of mixes formulated study of GPEB.

Mix Id. without/with Molar ratio Fiber Mix proportionBinder:Soil:Quarry Liquid to Dry Compressive strength Dry Compressive strength
fiber content In dust binder (7days) MPa without/ (28days) MPa without/
% ratio With fiber With fiber

GPEB1 GPEB1f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.650 5.511 5.511 6.544

GPEB2 GPEB2f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.822 5.683 5.683 6.544
GPEB2 GPEB3f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0,3 4.822 5.855 5.683 6.544
GPEB4 GPEB4f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.994 6.028 5.683 6.544
GPEB5 GPEB5f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.994 6.028 5.855 6.372
Avg. 4.856 5.821 5.683 6.510

353
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Table 10
Wet compressive strength of mixes formulated study of GPEB.

Mix Id. without/with Molar ratio Fiber Mix proportion Liquid to Wet Compressive strength Wet Compressive strength
fiber content In% Binder:Soil:Quarry dust binder ratio (7days) MPa without/With (28days) MPa without/With
fiber fiber

GPEB1 GPEB1f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.445 5.312 5.112 6.013

GPEB2 GPEB2f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.267 4.987 4.779 5.546
GPEB2 GPEB3f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0,3 4.34 5.141 4.991 5.878
GPEB4 GPEB4f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.256 4.988 5.056 6.005
GPEB5 GPEB5f 10 M (400) 1 0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 0.3 4.724 5.455 5.157 6.223
Avg. 4.406 5.177 5.019 5.933

are given in Tables 9 and 10 and Figs. 9 and 10.

In this section, the strength increment of ambient cured bricks is discussed with reference to the factors considered at the selected
levels. Experimental results are explained in the form of tables, facilitating the discussions. Data are represented showing the increase
in compressive strength with the age of the specimen. At each stage of age, five blocks were tested for compressive strength. The
average result of 5 blocks showed an increased strength proportional to age at the end of 7 and 28-th day strength was obtained as 4.9
and 5.7 respectively which were significantly greater than a normal conventional block. The studies showed that an improvement in
the compressive strength of fiber stabilized blocks in the range of 5.8-6.5. Stabilization of bricks was reinforced with coir cutting
wastes @1% which showed an improvement of a further 20%.
Attempts to use higher fiber content resulted in a decreasing strength and similarly, using less than 1% gave lower values, so 1%
appeared to be the optimum fiber content. Sudden failure did not occur which proves more ductility and tensile strength when the
optimum fiber content was used.

6.2. Weight loss

After the blocks were cast by hand compaction, they were tested for the change in weight with age. 5 blocks were weighed until
there was no further change in weight of the blocks. Table 11 below shows the change in weight with age of blocks. From the table
there was an original loss of weight for the initial 6 days after casting. After that it was found that the weight remained constant with
age of the blocks. The average change in weight loss was found to be nearly 2–3% when compared with weight at the one day age.

6.3. Rate of water absorption

When constructing block masonry, mortar is placed and then the blocks are laid on the mortar. In that time, the block is going to
absorb water from the mortar. Very fine pores in the brick suck the water from fresh mortar. This suction, provided it is not excessive,
will help to strengthen the masonry wall. To get the best bond, it is important to match the absorption [21] of the brick to the water
retaining properties of mortar. The bond strength will suffer both in case of more absorption and less absorption of brick pores. The
initial rate of absorption test was measured the amount of water a dry brick can soak up during the first minute of contact with water.
Bricks were placed in water in different position (stretcher & header wise) to study initial rate of absorption. The level of water
was poured at a height of 5 mm from base and the time of immersion had taken for one minute. The readings are given in Table 12.

6.4. Water absorption

The water absorption is directly proportional to the durability factor. Lower water absorption blocks tend to be more durable. The

Fig. 9. Variations of a compressive strength (Dry).

354
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 10. Variations of compressive strength (Wet).

Table 11
Weight Loss with age.

Days GPEB-WL1 GPEB-WL2 GPEB-WL3 GPEB-WL4

1 2.59 2.74 2.65 2.63

7 2.24 2.34 2.25 2.43
8 1.80 1.98 1.67 1.87
% Change 2.21 2.35 2.19 2.31

Table 12
Rate of water absorption.

Block position Average rate of water absorption Kg/m2/min

GPEB Clay blocks Cement blocks

230 × 100 6.89 6.23 1.45

230 × 70 5.76 3.90 0.75
100 × 70 2.05 3.47 0.25

blocks were immersed in clean water fully at a temperature of 27 ± 2 °C for 24 h. The blocks were removed after 24 h and wiped, to
remove any traces of water, with a damp cloth and then weighed. According to IS 3495 Part-II, 1996. The water absorption of blocks
shall not exceed 15%. The water absorption of the bricks was merely 8%. This is well within the standards without using fiber and
using 1% fiber, the water absorption was 6.6% only. The results are given in Table 13 & Fig. 11.

6.5. Abrasion test

The abrasion test is one of the tests to find the durability of blocks. For abrasion test samples were collected after 28 days. The
specimens were weighed before abrasion test and then the specimens were placed on a wooden flat surface and thereafter, a wire
brush was stroked 50 times through the surface of the specimen using a backward and forward motion, the backward and forward
motion was taken as one stroke. After brushing, the specimens were weighed on a balance and the weight after abrasion was taken.
Weight data was recorded before and after the test and the results are given in Table 14 & Fig. 12. From the table, the results show
that the abrasion resistance increase with an increase in percentage of stabilized content and with molarity of solution.

7. Sustainability characteristics

The studies consider only the embodied energy in the production of bricks. Here the transportation energy is not considered in the

Table 13
Water absorption test results.

Sl.No Specimen name Without/with fiber Water absorption% Without/with 1%fiber

1 GPB-W1/f1 7.8/6.7
2 GPB-W2/f2 7.1/6.5
3 GPB-W3/f3 7.0/6.6

355
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Fig. 11. Variations of water absorption.

Table 14
Abrasive test results.

Sl.No Specimen name Abraded soil in% Without/with fiber

1 GPB-A1/f1 0.33/0.21
2 GPB-A2/f2 0.38/0.22
3 GPB-A3/f3 0.22/0.15

Fig. 12. Variations of abraded soil.

Fig. 13. Embodied energy of a GPEB.

356
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Table 15
Embodied energy of a GPEB.

Material Embodied Energy MJ/Kg Material Required for One GPEB Kg Total embodied Energy in one GPEB (MJ)

Fly ash 0.00 1.37 0.00

GGBS 0.31 1.37 0.42
Soil 0.00 1.1 0.00
Quarry Dust 0.10 0.55 0.05
NaOH solution 4.98 0.14 0.69
Na2SiO3 solution 5.37 0.28 1.50
2.66 MJ

analysis. The calculation of embodied energy for a brick is shown in Fig. 13 and it is tabulated in Table 15.

8. Economic characteristics

The quantity of materials required to prepare a brick in kg/m3 are listed in Table 16 and the total costs are mentioned in Table 17
& Fig. 14. The price of single unit of brick is estimated to be around Rs.28.10. The cost of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate
contributes more to the cost of brick. Future research has been carried out to produce sodium silicate by a cost effective method
which will reduce the price in due course.

9. Conclusion

This study compared the strength behavior of brick over compressed stabilized earth blocks, traditional brick and other types of
blocks and focused to produce GPEB reinforced with coir fiber wastes using the different ratios of FA, GGBS, Soil, QD, Coir wastes and
alkaline solution. The results were as follows.
For the optimum brick, FA & GGBS as binding materials and soil & quarry dust as fine aggregate(FA:GGBS:Soil:QD) in the ratio of
0.5:0.5:1.75:0.25 with fibrous coir waste content of 1% and Molarity (M) of NaOH in the activated solution 10 M was used to prepare
the mix to produce excellent compressive strength, low water absorption, low rate of absorption (quantity of water/absorption area of
block, for one minute duration), good abrasion resistance and sustainable brick compared with other types of blocks and bricks. These
bricks reinforced with coir waste were non-Portland cement based bricks and utilized a combination of soil and industrial wastes
based on availability and nature of soil. This experimental study concluded that they are considered to be a viable Eco-friendly
alternative to conventional blocks.
The technology ensures lower energy consumption, drastically reduced emission of greenhouse gases and conservation of precious
natural resources leading to environmentally friendly, eco- compatible and sustainable development of the construction industry.
Finally this research has proved that geo-polymer earth brick reinforced with coir cutting wastes can be successfully proposed for load
bearing structures construction with the improved strength characteristics.

10. Scope for further study

It is possible to produce GPEB without any OPC but using FA and GGBS as binder and 100% QD as fine aggregate or manufactured
sand instead of sandy Soil. It is also possible to produce GPEB without any OPC but using FA, GGBS and machine sawing granite
powder as binder and fine aggregate material either Soil or QD, Soil & QD, river sand, manufacturing sand and any other equivalent
material.
GPEB will be produced by using FA & GGBS as binder material and introduced artificial fiber or polymer instead of coir fiber
reinforcement for further research. Destruction waste bituminous coarse aggregate will be used instead of QD for modifying GPEB in
future research works. GPEB will be tested against seismic force because of more ductility and also check the suitability for seismic
resistant structures.

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

Table 16
Materials requirement of a GPEB/Cum.

Fly ash GGBS Soil Quarry dust Coir Fiber NaOH Solution Na2SiO3 Solution Extra Water

213 213 700 174 19 45 90 465

357
P. Palanisamy, P.S. Kumar Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 347–358

Table 17
Cost of a GPEB.

Material Cost per kg In Rs. Material required For one GPB(Kg) Total cost for One GPB in Rs.

Fly ash 1.5 1.37 2.07

GGBS 1.5 1.37 2.07
Soil Free of cost 1.10 0.00
Coir fiber Free of cost 0.05 0.00
Quarry dust 0.5 0.55 0.27

Fig. 14. Cost of a GPEB.

Acknowledgements

My sincere gratitude due to Dr.P.SURESHKUMAR, Dean i/c, Dept. of civil engineering, University College of engineering,
Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu, for his valuable guidance. I would like to thank the Auroville Earth Institute which directly created an idea for
this project. I would also like to thank the reviewers and editors who helped to revise the article.

References

[1] Mahaesenan, Natesan, Steve Smith, Kenneth Humphreys, Y. Kaya, The cement industry and global climate change,CO2 industry Emissions, Greenhouse Gas
Control Technologies-6th International Conference (2003) 995–1000.
[2] Ernst Worerell, Lynn Price, et al., CO₂ emission from the global cement industry, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26 (2001) 303–329.
[3] T. Oswal, V.C. Manojkumar, Experimental investigations on strength, durability, sustainability, and economic characteristics of geo-polymer concrete blocks, Int.
J. Res. Eng. Technol. 3 (6) (2014) 115–122.
[4] Boskovic Ivana, Zejak Radomir, The influence of Raw mixtures and activators characteristics on red-mud based geo-polymers, JCAE 17 (no.1) (2013) 34–40.
[5] J. Davidovits, Geo-polymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Therm. Anal. 37 (1991) 1633–1656.
[6] D. Hardjito, B.V. Rangan, Development and Properties of Low Calcium Fly Ash Based Geo-polymer Concrete Research Report GCI, Faculty of Engineering,
Curtain University of Technology, 2005, pp. 100–212.
[7] M.I.A. Aleem, P.D. Arumairaj, Optimum mix for the geo-polymer concrete, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 5 (March (3)) (2012) 2299–2301.
[8] B.S.K. Reddy, J. Varaprasad, K.N.K. Reddy, Strength and workability of low lime fly ash based geo-polymer concrete, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (December (12))
(2010) 1188–1189.
[9] FAO. Corporate Document Repository, Earth as building material, www.fao.org, [Accessed in 2010].
[10] B.V. Bahoria, D.K. Parbat, P.B. Nagannaik, Replacement of natural sand in concrete by waste products: a state of art, J. Environ. Res. Develop. 7 (4A) (2013)
1651–1656.
[11] C.K. Madheswaran, G. Gnanasundar, Utilization of quarry dust and slag for replacement of sand in concret, National Conference ENTROIDOS-13 (2013) 55–70.
[12] Park Jin-soo, Kim Myung, Recycling of waste sludge of cathode-ray tube manufacturing units as additive in Asphalt concrete mix, JERD 8 (1) (2013) 82–87.
[13] G. Khosrow, R.D.T. Filhoand, N.P. Barbosaand, Behavior of composite soil reinforced with natural fibers, Cem. Concr. Compos. 21 (1999) 39–48.
[14] Technology information Forecasting and Assessment Council, Fly Ash Bricks TMS085, TIFAC, New Delhi, 2000.
[15] S. Ahmari, L. Zhang, Production of Eco-friendly bricks from copper mining tailings through geo-polymerization, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (April) (2012) 323–331.
[16] J.S. Bennet, M. Sudakar, C. Natarajan, Development of coal ash – GGBS based geo polymer bricks, Eur. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2 (5) (2013) 133–139.
[17] ASTM-C 618 Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolana for use in concrete.
[18] O.S. Olaniyan, R.A. Olaoye, O.M. Okeyinka, D.B. Olaniyan, Soil stabilization techniques using sodium hydroxide additives, IJCEE-IJENS Vol.11 (No.6) (2011)
9–22.
[19] K. Kabiraj, U.K. Mandal, Experimental and feasibility study on stabilized compacted earth block using local resources, IJCSE 2 (3) (2012) 838–850.
[20] G.S. Manjunath, C. Radhakrishnan, Giridhar, Maheshjadhav, Compressive strength development in ambient cured Geo polymer mortar, IJESE Volume 04 & 06
(SPL (October)) (2011) 830–834 ISSN: 0974-5904.
[21] IS-3495-1976, Method of tests on burnt clay blocks (part-I), “Determination of compressive strength”, and (part-II), “Determination of water absorption”.

358