See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270215987

A Brief Overview of Fly Ash Brick Production

Conference Paper · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 8,099

3 authors:

Hakan Cengizler T. Çiçek

Manisa Celal Bayar University Dokuz Eylul University
42 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mehmet Tanrıverdi
Dokuz Eylul University
23 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

desulphurization of high sulphur - petroleum coke View project

All content following this page was uploaded by T. Çiçek on 30 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

A Brief Overview of Fly Ash Brick Production

Hakan Cengizler
Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.

Tayfun Çiçek
Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.

Mehmet Tanrıverdi
Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.

ABSTRACT: Fly ash is a waste material of coal firing thermal plants and its accumulation
near power plants causes severe pollution problems. Therefore, its utilization as a raw
material for brick making will be a very beneficial solution in terms of economical and
environmental aspects. In this paper, the brick industry of Turkey was briefly presented in
general terms. The methods of FA brick production and the leaching behaviours of heavy
metals were discussed. The methods of producing non-fired fly ash bricks seems to be an
advantageous way to confront the challenges for environment and ecologically sustainable
development. Additional economical benefits will also contribute to the Turkish economy
while increasing demand for greener building products will be met locally and also
globally.

INTRODUCTION

Fly ash (FA) arising from the combustion of coal is being accumulated as waste material in
large quantities near thermal power plants. FA which has pozzolanic properties creates
serious environmental pollution problems and poses serious operational constraint and
environmental hazard as a recognized environmental pollutant. In Turkey, the disposal of
FA is also a significant problem and 15 million tons of FA was generated by power plants
in 2000 (Tütünlü and Atalay, 2001). This output is expected to reach 50 million tons by the
year of 2020 (Tütünlü and Atalay, 2001). However, only about 3 % (weight per cent) FA,
mainly for cement production, is being utilized for production of building materials which
is a rather low utilization ratio compared with those in the countries such as Germany,
Holland, Belgium, UK, USA, and China (Tütünlü and Atalay, 2001; Aruntaş, 2006;
Lingbawan, 2009). Therefore, large volume utilization of FA as a main raw material to
produce building elements will be a good solution to handle such a hugely polluting
material raising environmental and economical concerns. For instance, its utilization in the
manufacture of FA bricks (FAB) will not only create ample opportunities for its proper and
useful disposal but also help in environmental pollution control to a greater extent in the
surrounding areas of power plants.
In this paper, the brick industry of Turkey is briefly presented in general terms and the
technologies used to manufacture bricks are shortly described. Methods to manufacture
FAB as an alternative to conventional fired brick are briefly overviewed. Leaching
behaviors of heavy metals are also discussed (Cengizler, 2009; Tanrıverdi, 2006).

1
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

TURKISH BRICK INDUSTRY

Raw material: The raw material of traditional brick industry is clay which is one of the
most abundant natural mineral materials on earth. Clay for the production of brick must,
however, possess some specific properties and characteristics. To satisfy production
requirements, clays must have plasticity, which permits them to be shaped or molded when
mixed with water; and they must have sufficient wet and air-dried tensile strength to
maintain their shape after forming. Also, when subjected to rising temperatures, the clay
particles must fuse together.
Clays occur in three principal forms such as surface clays, shales and fire clays, all of
which have similar chemical compositions but different physical characteristics. Surface
clays may be the upthrusts of older deposits or of more recent, sedimentary formation. As
the name implies, they are found near the surface of the earth. Shales are clays that have
been subjected to high pressures until they have hardened almost to the form of slate. Fire
clays are usually mined at deeper levels than other clays and have refractory qualities.
Clays are complex materials; surface clays and fire clays differ from shales more in
physical structure than in chemical composition. Chemically, all three are compounds of
silica and alumina with varying amounts of metallic oxides and other impurities. Although
technically metallic oxides are impurities, they act as fluxes, promoting fusion at lower
temperatures. Metallic oxides (particularly those of iron, magnesium and calcium)
influence the color of the finished fired product.
The manufacturer minimizes variations in chemical composition and physical properties
by mixing clays from different locations in the pit and from different sources. However,
because clay products have a relatively low selling price, it is not economically feasible to
refine clays to produce uniform raw materials. Since variations in properties of raw
materials must be compensated for by varying manufacturing processes, properties of
finished products from different manufacturers will also vary somewhat.
Definition of the sector and its limitations: Brick and roof tile sector which is a
subdivision of fired clay and cement products industry has been manufacturing construction
products. The production scope of the sector comprises various building bricks and roof
tiles. The main products are load-bearing floor bricks, non-load-bearing bricks, solid bricks
(clinker brick), horizontally perforated bricks, vertically perforated bricks, horizontally and
vertically perforated bricks, roof tiles (laced), hollow blocks, chimney bricks, decorative
bricks, paving bricks, and facing bricks (TUKDER, 2008).
Production process, technology and standards: The definition of brick technology is
classified according to the drying method (natural or artificial drying), manufacturing
process (labor or technology intensive), automation (automatic or semi-automatic), raw
material processing and shaping (vacuumed or non-vacuumed) and firing method (Hoffman
and tunnel furnace usage). In Turkey, the designation of the existing technology is mostly
done according to the firing method. When considered in this respect, the most common
method is Hoffman system. Brick plants working with tunnel furnaces are limited. In the
course of time, these systems are somehow merged together to bring about mixed
technologies such as Hoffman furnaces with artificial drying, tunnel furnaces with natural
drying or the mix of tunnel and Hoffman furnaces to introduce arch tunnel furnaces
(TUKDER, 2008).

2
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

The former Turkish standards TS 704, TS 705, TS 4563 and TS 4377 were abolished in
order to comply with the European standards and the new standard for bricks, TS EN 771-
1, was put into effect. Most of the producers have completed their compliance period to CE
standards (TUKDER, 2008).
Size of brick industry: There are 417 plants disseminated all over Turkey but in small
concentrations in the regions where the raw materials are easily supplied. Of 417 plants, 48
plants produce roof tiles, 8 plants produce roof tiles and bricks and the rest produce only
bricks. The total brick production capacity is 5 327 000 000 units/year which corresponds
to 15 981 100 tons/year (one unit is 3 kg). On the other hand, the total roof tile production
capacity is 609 000 000 units/year which corresponds to 1 522 500 tons/year (one unit is
2.5 kg). The total exports and imports between January and July 2008 were reported to be
20 727 582 $US and 3 535 962 $US, respectively (TUKDER, 2008).

METHODS OF FAB PRODUCTION

For more than two decades, researchers have been investigating the viability of using FA
for brick making. Prior to discussing them shortly, a simple classification of the methods
of manufacturing FAB must be done. Generally, two fundamentally different approaches
exist to make brick and other building products from FA. One is the traditional way of
brick making by firing the brick material except that the FA substitutes a portion of clay or
entire amount of clay in brick making. The other is based on the self cementing property of
Class C FA that contain a large amount of calcium. In this case, firing or heating in kilns is
not needed to obtain the final product. Instead, the bricks produced can be cured in the
same way concrete is cured. Therefore, hereafter, the bricks made from FA with different
clay replacing ratios fired at high temperatures such as 950-1200 oC will be referred to as
fired FA bricks (FFAB) and the ones produced by making use of other means at ambient
temperatures rather than sintering will be referred to as non-fired FA bricks (NFFAB).
Methods of FFAB production: In this method, FA was used as a raw material to replace
brick clay partially with different replacement ratios or with 100 % FA ratio. The mixture
of FA and clay were shaped and fired over 1100 oC to obtain FFAB. There were number of
studies all reporting positive results meeting or overtaking required standards for traditional
clay bricks (Tütünlü and Atalay, 2001; Chou et al., 2006; Chou et al., 2001; Kute and
Deodhar, 2003; Lingling et al., 2005; Pimraksa et al., 2001; Kayali, 2005; Cengizler, 2008).
On the other hand, 100 % FA bricks manufactured by Kayali’s process using technology
similar to conventional clay bricks were named Flyash Bricks (Kayali, 2005). A 100% class
‘F’ FA mixture was moulded into a brick (Flash Brick) and fired in a conventional kiln.
The finished brick was 28% lighter and 24% stronger than comparable clay bricks. It is
reported that the Flash Brick competed on all technical levels with clay bricks. The use of
FFAB was authorized in number of countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and
India (Lingbawan, 2009).
Methods of NFFAB production: The production of non-fired FA-sand-lime bricks:
The method is based on mainly CaO–SiO2–H2O (C–S–H) formation (Ball and Carroll,
1999; Baoju et al., 2001; Ma and Brown, 1997; Peng et al., 1999) due to the reaction taking
place between lime and silica in the presence of water. Calcium–silicate–hydrate is formed
by the reaction of Ca(OH)2, SiO2 and H2O under pressurized steam at 125–200 oC. In the

3
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

beginning of this reaction, a lime-rich Tobermorite gel is formed. The composition of this
gel is probably C7S4Hn. This phase reacts with residual SiO2 to form C5S4Hn and finally the
low-lime C2S3H2 phase (Al-Wakeel et al., 1999). The steam autoclaved FAB based partly
on the formation of this C–S–H phase CaO–Al2O3–SiO2–H2O (C–A–S–H), Hydrogarnet is
also found to be formed in the presence of Al2O3 (Goni et al., 2003; Klimesch and Ray,
1998). Thus, mainly C–S–H and C–A–S–H phases contribute to the hardening of FA/lime
materials since FA contains considerable amounts of Al2O3 and SiO2. In a recent research
work (Çiçek and Tanrıverdi, 2007; Tanrıverdi ve Çiçek, 2007; Çiçek ve Tanrıverdi, 2004),
FA-sand-lime bricks were produced using an F Class Turkish FA and firstly optimum FA–
sand–lime mixing ratio, brick forming pressure, steam pressure and autoclaving time were
determined. The specimens were pre-cured for about 24 h prior to autoclaving. The
specimens were steam autoclaved with maximum operating pressure of 4 MPa. Autoclaved
specimens were tested for their volume weight, compressive strength and water absorption
according to Turkish Standards TS 705 that was valid at the time the study was conducted.
The FA–sand–lime bricks produced seemed to be suitable for use as a construction material
and their properties under optimum conditions are summarized and compared with the
properties of solid clay bricks in Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of fly ash–lime bricks produced under optimum

conditions (Çiçek and Tanriverdi, 2007).
Solid clay
bricks TS 705
Fly ash (%) (%) 88 Brick type:
Hydrated lime (%) 12 1.8/100
Water (%) 14 -
Forming pressure (MPa) 35 -
Autoclave pressure (MPa) 1.5 -
Curing time (hour) 6 -
Volume weight (g/cm3) 1.12 1.8
Thermal conductivity W m−1K−1 0.36 0.7
Compressive strength (MPa) 12.0 min. 7.8
Water absorption (%) 38.3 max. 18

The production of non-fired 100 % FA bricks(NF100%FAB): H. Liu developed a

technique (Figure 1) compressing wet FA and curing the moulds for 24 hours in a steam
bath (Liu et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2007; Liu, 2005; Liu, 2007). This method,
which relies on self-cementing property of Class C FA, or FA that contain a large amount
of calcium, do not need to fire or heat the products in kilns. Instead the products can be
cured in the same way concrete is cured by keeping the products in wet environment for
more than 24 hours until the material sets and hardens due to the chemical reaction with the
water or moisture contained in the products. The reaction mentioned is the hydration
reaction that also occurs in Portland cement as explained above in the section of the
production of non-fired FA-sand-lime bricks.
There are a number of patents on the use of FA–lime mixtures for making unfired bricks
(Lingbawan, 2009; Liu, 2007). Recent researches on the advantages of both pure FA and

4
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

FA-based granules used for the production of unfired brick (Pimraksa et al., 2006;
Chindaprasirt and Pimraksa, 2008) and on masonry blocks produced using lime stone
powder waste and C class FA (Turgut, 2010) also reported positive results.
The production of non-fired alkali activated 100 % FA geopolymer bricks
(NFAA100%FAGPB): The method makes use of the alkali activation of FA. Alkali
activation is a chemical process in which a powdery aluminosilicate such as a FA is mixed
with an alkaline activator and cured at a mild temperature to promote polymerization to
produce a paste capable of setting and hardening within a reasonably short period of time to
generate compact solids (Palomo and Fernandez-Jimenez, 2011). Very broadly, the
activation process can be viewed as a series of destruction–condensation reactions in which
initially unstable structural units

Figure 1. NF100%FAB compacted in laboratory by H. Liu and his co-workers (Liu et al.,
2005; Liu, 2005) using a high-grade Class C FA.

subsequently form coagulated structures able to condense into the hydrated products
(alkaline aluminosilicate hydrate, N–A–S–H gel) (Criado et al., 2005). From the chemical
standpoint alkali activation of FA is a process that differs widely from Portland cement
hydration, but is very similar to the chemistry involved in the synthesis of a large groups of
zeolites (Al Bakri et al., 2011). There are two models of alkali activation. Activation of a
material containing primarily silicate and calcium by a low to mild alkali will produce
calcium silicate hydrate gel (C-S-H) which is similar to that formed in Portland cement but
with a lower Ca/Si ratio (Adam, 2009). The second mechanism involves the activation of
material containing primarily silicate and aluminates using a highly alkaline solution. This
reaction will form an inorganic binder through a polymerization process (Adam, 2009). The
term “Geopolymer” is used to characterize this type of reaction from the previous one, and
accordingly, the name geopolymer has been adopted for this type of binder. Therefore
bricks produced, using alkali activation process, were named as geopolymer bricks or
shortly geobricks. The geopolymeric reaction differentiates geopolymer from other types of
alkali activated materials (such as; alkali activated slag) since the product is a polymer
rather than C-S-H gel(Adam, 2009).

5
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

In a recent study (Arıöz et al., 2008a; Arıöz et al., 2008b), geopolymer bricks were
produced by using F type FA, C type FA, sodium hydroxide solution, sodium silicate
solution by means of pressure forming. Then, the geobricks were heat treated at the
temperature of 75 ºC for olymerization process. Afterwards, the compressive strength
values of the geopolymer bricks were determined. A compressive strength of 47.6 MPa was
achieved by geobrick produced by F type FA cured in air and then treated in oven for 15
hours. The test results showed that the compressive strength of geobricks increased with
increase in solution to FA ratio. The test results revealed that the heat treatment duration
considerably affected the compressive strength of geobricks. The compressive strength
increased as the heat treatment duration increased.

DISCUSSION

Of the two main methods mentioned above, the route of making fired FFAB is very similar
to conventional clay brick production. Therefore, FA can be easily incorporated in
conventional brick manufacturing without making any major change in the production line.
These methods mentioned above (Tütünlü and Atalay, 2001; Chou et al., 2006; Chou et al.,
2001; Kute and Deodhar, 2003; Lingling et al., 2005; Pimraksa et al., 2001; Kayali, 2005;
Cengizler, 2008) are easily adaptable by existing clay brick factories. But, during firing
process, sulfur dioxide is normally released from burning process. Besides, making fired
FFAB consumes expensive heat energy which is very important from economical view
point. Therefore, the second route of making NFFAB seems to be the trend to follow in
terms of environmental concerns.
The method to produce non-fired FA-sand-lime bricks is an alternative in order to use FA
as a replacement of sand. As explained above, hydration reactions similar to that in
Portland cement take place to form mainly C–S–H and C–A–S–H phases contributing to
strength. But, in order to achieve that and to accelerate the reaction kinetics, curing process
must be conducted under pressurized steam at 125–200 oC in an autoclave which translates
itself into additional costs. At this point, the balance between cost and demand should be
well established.
The production of NF100%FAB developed in USA (Liu et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2005; Liu
et al., 2007; Liu, 2005; Liu, 2007) is another alternative in this respect. Especially, no need
for extra energy to fire or cure the bricks renders this method a favorable route. But,
because it relies on self cementing property of C Class FA or FA that contains a large
amount of calcium, the consistency in FA composition is crucial. In literature, more than 24
hours curing time is mentioned until the material sets and hardens during the hydration
reactions taking place. This means the need for time and space for FAB at production site
can be a drawback. However, the continuation of strength gain even during storing and
transportation can also be mentioned as practical benefits of the method.
As to geopolymer brick production, CO2 emission for their manufacture is much less than
that for conventional brick production (Palomo, 2011) as is the case for NF100%FAB (Liu
et al., 2009). Besides, their mechanical and chemical properties are favorable (Palomo and
Fernandez-Jimenez, 2011). However, because of using alkali solutions to activate FA
brings about extra expenses. Furthermore, the mild temperatures attained for curing are also
an added cost for production. Especially the use of sodium silicate solution of which its

6
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

production leads to heavy effects (Habert et al., 2011) should be taken into account and its
use as an activator should be reduced as much as possible. Although geopolymers are
presented by many authors as a solution for “green” concrete, few studies have quantified
the environmental impact of geopolymers (Habert et al., 2011). Therefore, a detailed
environmental impact assessment of standard geopolymer brick production is necessary and
should be compared with other brick production methods.
Recently, studies were conducted towards the leaching behaviour of heavy metals from
fired (Cengizler, 2009) and non-fired (Tanrıverdi, 2006) autoclaved FA-lime bricks. The
former was composed of 40 % Seyitömer FA and 60 % brick clay while the latter was
containing 88% Seyitömer FA and 12% hydrated lime. In both studies, two different
toxicity tests were conducted on the whole FA brick pieces and ground brick material to
determine the solubility values of the elements in their matrix. The leach test procedures
performed on the bricks were TCLP (EPRI, 1987) (toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure) [Improved Method 1311] and ASTM (U.S. EPA, 1987) (American society of
testing and materials) Method A extraction procedure. TCLP method, simulating the
solubility of the elements contained in the FA brick samples under a weak acid rain water
environment, is used to check the leaching hazards of the solid wastes (it is especially
suitable for the acidic wastes). The method predicts the leaching behaviour of the trace
elements in the disposed waste during weathering. ASTM method, similar to water leaching
and simulating long-term leaching behaviour of the elements in natural circumstances, is
performed to predict the leaching behaviour of the trace elements for long-term weathering
conditions. The determination of the leaching behaviour of the trace elements in long term
stored wastes can be done using this method which is based on extended extraction with
distilled water. In terms of simulating long-term leaching behaviour of the elements in
natural circumstances, TCLP is considered to be too aggressive; whereas, water extraction,
as in the case of the Method A extraction procedure seems to be more adequate (U.S. EPA,
1987).
The results for autoclaved FA-lime bricks showed that the whole brick pieces of the non-
fired autoclaved FA lime bricks were environmentally sound in terms of the solubility of
toxic elements. Therefore, the bricks can be safely used in buildings exposed to weathering
conditions. However, Fe, Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co and Mn were detected in the leachates of the
test runs performed with ground brick samples. This indicated that the leachability of some
toxic elements was promoted if the contact surface area of the bricks with water was
increased by grinding of the brick samples. However, only Fe, Pb, Ni, Co and Mn
concentrations in the test leachates were higher than the concentrations allowed in the
drinking water standards of WHO (WHO, 2004) and TSE (TSE, 2005)0 below.
The results for fired FFAB (Table 2) indicated that, although Fe, Zn and Mn were
detected in the leachate obtained from the test run with the whole brick pieces using TCLP
method, their solubility levels were in compliance with the drinking water standards
(WHO, 2004; TSE, 2005) except the Mn concentration which is not in conformity only
with TSE. Furthermore, no detectable level of any element was found in the leachates
obtained from the test runs performed with the whole brick pieces and ground brick using
ASTM method. Therefore, it can be concluded that the fired FFAB can be safely used in
buildings exposed to weathering conditions. The solubility concentrations of the elements
such as Fe, Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni and Mn from the leachate obtained from the ground brick using

7
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

TCLP method were higher than those of the leachate obtained from the whole brick pieces
using TCLP method. This result again reflects the effect of grinding which promotes the
leaching of these elements due to the increased contact surface area with the leach solution.
Therefore, if the large surface areas of the bricks are somehow exposed to weathering
conditions acidic in nature, the leaching of above mentioned elements might be expected.
However, only Fe, Ni and Mn concentrations were determined to be higher than those
allowed in the drinking water standards of WHO and TSE (WHO, 2004; TSE, 2005).

Table 2. Concentration of the elements leached from the light weight FAB samples
(Cengizler, 2009).
Elements TCLP improved method ASTM method A extraction Drinking water
1311 (mg/L) procedure (mg/L) standards (mg/L)
Ground brick Brick piece Ground brick Brick piece WHO TSE
Fe 15.00 0.20 ND ND 0.330 0.200
Cd ND ND ND ND 0.003 0.005
Pb ND ND ND ND 0.010 0.050
Zn 0.75 0.05 ND ND 3.000 5.000
Cu 0.03 ND ND ND 2.000 3.000
Cr 0.05 ND ND ND 0.050 0.050
Ni 0.10 ND ND ND 0.020 0.050
Co ND ND ND ND 0.010 **
Sb ND ND ND ND ** 0.010
Mn 0.55 0.10 ND ND 0.4(C) 0.050
TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure; ASTM = American society of testing and materials; ND = Not
detectable; **Not available in TSE266; C: Concentrations of the substance at or below the health based guideline
value may affect the appearance, taste or odour of the water, leading to consumer complaints.

CONCLUSION

Several studies conducted on the viability of manufacturing fired brick partially or 100 %
made of FA led to rather promising results (Chou et al., 2006; Chou et al., 2001; Kute and
Deodhar, 2003; Lingling et al., 2005; Pimraksa et al., 2001; Kayali, 2005; Cengizler, 2008;
Çiçek and Tanrıverdi, 2007 Tanrıverdi ve Çiçek, 2007b; Çiçek ve Tanrıverdi, 2004;
Pimraksa et al., 2006; Chindaprasirt and Pimraksa, 2008). The use of such bricks is
authorized in many countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom and India (Lingbawan,
2009). There are also a number of patents on the use of FA–lime mixtures for making
unfired bricks (Lingbawan, 2009). Environmental concerns raised in some parts of the
world, such as in India, even resulted in legislation that obliged the brick industry to
incorporate at least 25 % FA in the brick making mixture if the industry was within 100 km
from a coal power generation plant (Lingbawan, 2009).
Using FA partially as a supplement for clay to manufacture common burnt building bricks
or totally to produce 100 % FA bricks will help to conserve natural resources and improve
environmental quality while turning this waste material gainfully into an asset. On the other

8
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

hand, either manufacturing conventional clay bricks or FFAB requires kilns fired to high
temperatures that wastes energy, pollutes air and generates greenhouse gases that contribute
to global warming. In contrast, by making use of some of the methods discussed above,
NFFAB with high FA volume ratio or even NF100%FAB are manufactured at room
temperature (Liu et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2005) and these innovative bricks using the
residual FA are considered high quality building materials by the manufacturers. They
conserve energy, cost less to manufacture, and don't contribute to air pollution or global
warming (Liu et al., 2009). Furthermore, with increasing focus on sustainable development,
there is little doubt that FAB having comparable characteristics to conventional clay bricks
will have a potential competitive edge over current products.
Therefore, the utilization of this environmentally safe waste material in the manufacture
of building bricks in Turkey will help significantly to reduce the negative environmental
impact of coal-fired power generation and clay pits while meeting increasing demands for
greener building materials domestically and globally. Furthermore, this approach will also
contribute beneficially to the Turkish economy.

ACKNOWLEGMENT

This study was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK, Project No: 111M694). The authors would like to thank to TUBITAK for
financial support.

REFERENCES

Adam, A. A., Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash-
Based Geopolymer Concrete, PhD thesis, August 2009, School of Civil, Environmental
and Chemical Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia,
Al Bakri,M.M., Mohammed, H., Kamarudi, H., Niza, K. I. and Zarina, Y., 2011. Review
on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete without Portland Cement, Journal of Engineering
and Technology Research,Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-4, January, Available online at http://
Al-Wakeel E.I., El-Korashy S.A., Uossef H effect of C–S–H phase nuclei on building
calcium silicate hydrate phase, Cem. Concr. Res.N., 1999. Promotion., Vol. 21, No.
173–180.
Arıöz, Ö., Kılınç, K., Zeybek O., Tuncan, M., Tuncan, A., Kavas, T., An Experimental
Investigation on Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Bricks, Global Roadmap for Ceramics
ICC2 Proceedings, June 29-July 4, 2008a, Verona, Italy.
Arıöz ,Ö., Kılınç, K., Tuncan, M., Tuncan, A., Zeybek, O., Kavas, T., Physical and
Mechanical Properties of Geobricks, Third International Workshop on Advanced
Ceramics (IWAC03), November 6-8, 2008b, Limoges, France.
Aruntaş, H. Y., 2006. Uçucu küllerin inşaat sektöründe kullanım potansiyeli, J. Fac. Eng.
Arch. Gazi Univ., Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 193-203.
Ball M.C., Carroll R.A., 1999. Studies of hydrothermal reactions of UK pulverized ashes.
Part 1: reactions between pulverized fuel ash and calcium hydroxide. Adv. Cem. Res.;
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 53–61.

9
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

Baoju, L., Youjun, X., Shiqiong, Z. and Jian, L., 2001. Some factors affecting early
compressive strength of steam-curing concrete with ultra fine fly ash, Cem. Concr. Res.,
Vol. 31, No.1455–1458.
Cengizler, H., 2009. Toxic elements leachability tests on light weight fly ash bricks, Asian
Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 2950–2956.
Cengizler, H., Çiçek, T. and Tanrıverdi,M., Production of Leight Weight Bricks Containing
Class F Fly Ash, 11th International Mineral Processing Symposium, 2008, pp. 995-
1002, Antalya, Turkey.
Chindaprasirt, P. and Pimraksa, K., 2008. A study of fly ash–lime granule unfired brick,
Powder Technology, Vol. 182, pp. 33–41.
Chou, Mei-In. M.; Patel, V.; Laird, C.J.; & Ho, K.K., 2001. Chemical and engineering
properties of fired bricks containing 50 weight per cent of class F fly ash, Energy
Sources, Vol. 23, pp. 665-673.
Chou, M.-In, Chou, S.-Fu, Patel, V., Pickering,M.D.and Stucki, J.W. Combustion by-
products recycling consortium, Project Number: 02-CBRC-M12 Manufacturing fired
bricks with class F fly ash from illinois basin coals, final report, September 1, 2004 –
August 31, 2006.
Criado,M., Palomo, A. And Fernandez-Jimenez, A., 2005. Alkali activation of fly ashes.
Part 1: Effect of curing conditions on the carbonation of the reaction products, Fuel,
Vol. 84, pp. 2048–2054.
Çiçek, T. and Tanrıverdi,M., 2007. Lime based steam autoclaved fly ash bricks,
Construction and Building Materials,Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.1295-1300.
Çiçek, T. ve Tanrıverdi, M., Kömüre dayalı termik santral uçucu küllerinden otoklav
yöntemi ile hafif tuğla üretimi, 5. Endüstriyel Hammaddeler Sempozyumu, 2004, pp.76-
82, İzmir, Turkey.
EPRI Report CS-5355, Evaluation of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) on Utility Wastes, (1987).
Goni, S., Guerrero, A., Luxan, M.P., and Macias, A., 2003. Activation of the fly ash
pozzolonic reaction by hydrothermal conditions, Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 33, pp. 1399–
1405.
Habert, G., d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, J.B. and Roussel, N., 2011. An environmental
evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, pp. 1229-1238.
Kayali, O., High performance bricks from fly ash, Proc. Of the World of Coal Ash
Conference, 2005, pp. 1-13, Lexington, Kentucky.
Klimesch D.S. and Ray A., 1998. Effect of quartz particle size on hydro garnet formation
during autoclaving at 180 oC in the CaO–Al2O3–SiO2–H2O system, Cem. Concr. Res.,
Vol. 28, pp. 1309-1316.
Kute, S. and Deodhar,S.V., 2003. Effect of fly ash and temperature on properties of burnt
clay bricks, Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 84, pp. 82-85.
Lingbawan,S. G. Thermal Properties of Fly Ash Bricks Initial Thesis Report, ZACM 4451
Mechanical Engineering Project Thesis and Practical Experience Initial Thesis Report
2009, UNSW@ADFA.

10
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

Lingling, X., Wei,G., Tao,W. and Nanru,Y., 2005. Study on fired bricks with replacing clay
by fly ash in high volume ratio, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 19, pp. 243-
247.
Liu, H., Banerji, S. K., Burkett,W. J. and Van Engelenhoven, J., Environmental properties
of fly ash bricks, World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, May 4-7 2009, in Lexington,
KY, USA.
Liu, H., Burkett, W. and Haynes, K., Improving Freezing and Thawing Properties of Fly
Ash Bricks, Paper presented at World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, April 14 2005,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
Liu, H., Watson, J. P., Banerji, S. and Burkett, W. J. Test of mercury vapor emission from
fly ash bricks, World Coal Ash (WOCA)Conference, May 7-10, 2007, Northern
Kentucky, USA.
Liu, H., 2005. Compacting Fly Ash to Make Bricks, Final Technical Report, NSF-SBIR
Phase I Project no. DMI-0419311, submitted to NSF, March 2005, Freight Pipeline
Company, p. 15.
Liu, H., (wo/2007/005065) method to produce durable non-vitrified fly ash bricks and
blocks, 2007).
Ma W., and Brown, P.W., 1997. Hydrothermal reactions of fly ash with Ca(OH)2 and
CaSO4 2H2O, Cem. Concr. Res. Vol. 27, pp. 1237–1248.
Palomo, A., Fernandez-Jimenez, A., Alkaline activation, procedure for transforming fly ash
into new materials. Part 1: Applications, World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference,May
9-12, 2011, in Denver, CO, USA.
Peng G., Feng N., Chan S.Y.N., 1999. Formation and strength of crystalline calcium
silicate hydrate prepared by single autoclaving process, Adv. Struct. Eng. Vol. 2. No. 3,
pp. 191–197.
Pimraksa, K., Wilhelm,M., Kochberger, M. and Wruss,W., A new approach to the
production of bricks made of 100 % fly ash, International Ash Utilization Symposium,
2001, Center for Applied Energy research, University of Kentucky, paper #84.
Pimraksa,K., Kurzweil J. and Wruss W., 2006. Advantages of Fly Ash and Fly Ash-Based
Granule Production for Unfired Brick Making, Chiang Mai J. Sci., Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.
309-320.
Tanrıverdi, M. 2006. Toxic elements leachability tests on autoclaved fly ash-lime bricks,
Asian J. Chem., Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 2310-2314.
Tanrıverdi, M. ve Çiçek,T., Otoklav yöntemi ile uçucu küllü tuğla üretiminde presleme
basıncının tuğla özelliklerine etkilerinin araştırılması, 6th International Industrial
Minerals Symposium, 2007, pp. 384-388, İzmir, Turkey.
TUKDER (The association of Turkish brick and roof tile producers), Information on brick
and roof tile industry, 2008.
Turgut, P., 2010. Masonry composite material made of limestone powder and fly ash,
Powder Technology, Vol. 204, pp. 42-47 (doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.07.004).
Tütünlü, F., and Atalay,Ü., Utilization of fly ash in manufacturing of building bricks, 22-24
October 2001, International Ash Utilization Symposium, Center for Applied Energy
Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
TSE 266, Water Intended for Human Consumption, Turkish Standards Institute, ICS
13.060.20: Drinking Water (2005).

11
 Proceedings of XIIIth International Mineral Processing Symposium – Bodrum-Turkey, 2012

(U.S. EPA) United States Environmental Protection Agency Characterization of Municipal

Waste Combustor Ashes and Leachates from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Co-
disposal Sites. I-VII, 530-SW-87-028A-E. Washington, DC, U.S.A., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (1987).
WHO (World Health Organization), Drinking-Water Quality, Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Quality, Vol. 1:3, ISBN 92 4 154638 7, Geneva, pp. 491-493 (2004).

12

View publication stats