New Debashish & Hemant 2022

PROPERTIES OF GEO-POLYMER
BRICKS MADE WITH FLY-ASH,GGBS

& RICE-HUSK ASH
Project ID: 22039

B.Tech. Minor Project Report
submitted for fulfillment of
the requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Technology
Under Biju Pattnaik University of Technology
Submitted By
DEBASHISH GOUDA ROLL NO. 201810550
B HEMANT KUMAR ROLL NO. 201810183
2021 – 2022
Under the guidance of

Prof. Sujit Kumar Rout
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Autonomous
PROPERTIES OF GEO-POLYMER BRICKS MADE WITH FLY-ASH, RICE-HUSK ASH AND WOODEN POWDER B.Tech 2021-2022
Palur Hills, Berhampur, Odisha – 761008, India
National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) ii

ABSTRACT
This research has aims to study effect between flyash , ggbs and rice husk ash to
properties of bricks. This paper presents an economic analysis of manufacturing
geopolymer bricks for use in the construction sector. The manufacturing processes of
both geopolymer bricks and traditional fired bricks were investigated. For this study,
we collected and analyzed all phases of geopolymer brick production from the
extraction of raw materials to storage. Seven formulations of geopolymer bricks based
on clay and waste bricks were analyzed. We considered the cost of raw materials and
logistics operations in the production line of brick manufacturing.. In the case of
waste bricks, for the same production cost, the compressive strength of the
geopolymer bricks is double that of fired bricks. Hence, this study shows the
economic interest in the industrial production of geopolymer bricks. It also confirms
that future research is needed that focuses on necessary changes to the current
industrial production chain required for the manufacture of geopolymer bricks.
Geopolymer bricks contain flayash as the source material and an alkaline activator for
the activation of polymerization reaction. In this study, experimental work has been
performed on geopolymer bricks with flyash and GGBS as source material and
sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate as an activator. The molarity of sodium
hydroxide was maintained at 12M for all the mixtures and the ratio of sodium
hydroxide to sodium silicate was kept as 1:2.5. The brick properties such as
compressive strength, water absorption, acid resistance and efflorescence test were
conducted on the test specimens. Test results indicated that geopolymer concrete with
higher GGBS content resulted in higher compressive strength and better properties
compared to flyash based geopolymer brick.
KEYWORDS :
National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is our proud privilege to epitomize our deepest sense of gratitude and indebtedness
to our advisor, Prof. Sujit Kumar Rout for his valuable guidance, keen and sustained
interest, intuitive ideas and persistent endeavour. His inspiring assistance, laconic
reciprocation and affectionate care enabled us to complete our work smoothly and
successfully.
We extend our sincere thanks to Prof. Padminee Samal, B.Tech. Project
Coordinator, for giving us the opportunity and motivating us to complete the project
within stipulated period of time and providing a helping environment.
We acknowledge with immense pleasure the sustained interest, encouraging attitude
and constant inspiration rendered by Dr. Sukant K. Mohapatra (Chairman), Dr.
Priyadarshi Tripathy (Principal) and Dr. Barada Prasad Sethy (HoD) N.I.S.T.
Their continued drive for better quality in everything that happens at N.I.S.T. and
selfless inspiration has always helped us to move.
We would also like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to our parents and friends for
their unflinching support and help.
DEBASHISH GOUDA
ROLL NO. 201810550
B HEMANT KUMAR
ROLL NO. 201810183
National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.............................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................iv
1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................2
3. MATERIALS USED.................................................................................................6
3.1 FLY-ASH.....................................................................................................6
3.2 GGBS (Ground Granulated blast-furnace slag)...........................................7
3.3 Alkali Activators.........................................................................................9
4. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................11
4.1 Consistency Test of Fly-Ash......................................................................11
4.1.1 Mould.................................................................................................12
4.1.2 Casting of Mould...............................................................................12
4.2 Testing of Brick Sample............................................................................14
5. RESULTS................................................................................................................15
6.COST ANAYISIS…………………………………………………………………
15
6.1 Geopolymer Brick……………………………………………………
16
6.2 Clay Brick…………………………………………………………….16
6.3 FLY Ash Brick………………………………………………………..16
7. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................16
REFERENCES............................................................................................................17
National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Fly-Ash................................................................................................................6
Fig. 2 Fly-Ash and GGBS..............................................................................................9
Fig. 3 Alkali Activators..................................................................................................9
Fig. 4 Mixing of NaOH and Na2SiO3...........................................................................10
Fig. 5 Vicat Apparatus.................................................................................................11
Fig. 6. Mould................................................................................................................12
Fig. 7. Casting of Mould..............................................................................................12
Fig. 8. Bricks after 7 Days of oven curing...................................................................13
Fig. 9 Digital Compression Testing Machine.........................................................................14
National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) iv

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 0

1. INTRODUCTION
Brick is the most commonly used building material in India for more than 1000 years. Fired
clay bricks are most commonly used in India. But nowadays fly ash bricks have been
tremendously being used due to the reduction in cost as well as its light weight. Geopolymer
bricks are the latest innovation in the brick industry which consist of supplementary
cementitious materials such as fly ash or GGBS activated by an alkaline activator .The
application of geopolymer technology gained importance due to the reduction of the CO2
emissions by utilizing the supplementary cementitious materials in place of cement . It has
been noted that geopolymer bricks made with flyash requires higher curing temperature to
achieve higher compressive strength and lower absorption. Prepared geopolymer bricks using
waste raw materials such as clay brick waste, slaked lime waste, de-aluminated kaolin and
caustic soda. They were able to produce light weight bricks with densities around 1000
kg/m3 with a compressive strength of 1.4MPa. Formulated geopolymer bricks using ceramic
dust waste. They found that the cost of the geopolymer bricks produced from ceramic waste
resulted in the reduction of production cost of bricks. Studied the durability and leaching
behavior of geopolymer bricks made from mine tailings. They found that there was
substantial reduction in the strength of the geopolymer bricks immersed in pH=4 and seven
solutions. Performed optimization studies to find the optimum curing conditions of Fired clay
bricks and Natural pozzolona based geopolymers. Their results indicated the compressive
strength of 37 to 26 MPa has been achieved when proper production conditions are adopted.
Reviewed the development of geopolymer bricks using industrial wastes and reported that the
variation in the source materials can significantly affect the physical, chemical and
mechanical properties of alkali-activated bricks. In this research work, we aimed at

developing geopolymer bricks and studying its properties such as compressive strength, water
absorption and acid resistance test.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Roy et. al (xxxx)
Fly ash, also known as “pulverized fuel ash” in many countries such as England, Northern
Ireland, and Scotland etc. is a coal combustion product. It is composed of fine particles of
burnt fuels and fuel gases emitted from coalfired boilers. Though it was causing severe air
pollution, in the past, fly ash was usually released into the atmosphere as it is mainly a
thermal waste of coal firing thermal plants. But presently, according to air pollution control
standards, it is captured prior to release by fitting pollution control equipment. Due to its
pozzolanic nature, recycled fly ash is usually used as the production of hydraulic cement and
a complete and/or partial replacement for Portland cement in concrete production. Potential
of fly ash as a material is not only restricted to cement and concrete industries. It can be
utilized as a raw material for brick production, which will be a positive answer towards both
environmental and economic complications. The purpose of this particular study is to explore
the performance of Geopolymer brick consists of fly ash as one of its chief material. The
bricks were casted with clay soil to fly ash in the different proportion of 100:0, 80:20, 70:30,
60:40 and 50:50. Sodium fume solution was applied as an alkaline-activator and a ratio 1:2 of
water to NaOH solution was used as the binder solution. With an optimum water/binder ratio
of 0.416 and adopted dimension of (200 X 100 X 100) mm. The experimental outcomes were
compared with locally available conventional bricks.
Nicolas Youssef, Zoubeir Lafhaj and Christophe Chapiseau (xxx)
In this paper, we studied an economic analysis of the use of geopolymer brick at the
industrial level. The research presents a French case study of the brickworks in the North of
France. Different geopolymer brick formulations based on clay and waste bricks were
studied. The production cost of one metric ton of bricks and the compressive strength of the

geopolymer bricks were the two parameters used to evaluate the feasibility of production of
geopolymer bricks at the industrial level. The determination of the production cost of the
geopolymer bricks was based on the annual business model of the brickworks, which was
used to find all data sources needed. The results of this study demonstrated that the
production cost of geopolymer bricks changes significantly depending on the ingredients
used in the formulation. The geopolymer brick based on clay gives a financial gain of 5%
compared to traditional fired brick for the same compressive strength of 20 MPa. In the case
of the geopolymer bricks manufactured with waste brick, an improvement of 100% in
compressive strength can be achieved with the same production cost as fired bricks. These
results can be considered as a database for use in the production of geopolymer-based
building materials at the industrial level.
Sasikumar et. al (xxxx)
 Conclusions are arrived from the experimental study done on GPB with different
concentrations of alkaline solution and curing temperatures.
 Geopolymer bricks can be used as a viable alternative to the conventional clay bricks.
 Class F fly ash produces better strength values than the GPB specimens made with
Class C fly ash.
 It was concluded that the optimum results are obtained at 10M alkaline solution and
600C hot air oven curing temperature. Beyond 10M, the strength property doesn’t
show better results than other concentrations and increases the cost of GPB. Increase
in curing temperature increases the strength of GPB mixes, but 900C also doesn’t
produce viable results.
 Thermal curing temperature of 600C shows better results with the ratio of
Na2SiO3/NaOH is 2.5, whereas the previous literatures shows that the curing
temperature increases to 1000C when the ratio of alkaline activator is around 1.5.

 At 7 days, the crushing strength GPB specimen with 10M and 600C is 137.01% and
77.18% higher than the specimens with room temperature and 900C respectively.
 Increment in alkaline solution concentration reduces that pores on the surface of the
GPB. It results in reduced water absorption at optimum parameters.
 Generally, GPB is alkali resistive nature and shows appreciable results when the
specimens are immersed in 3% H2SO4 solution, whereas the reduction in molarity of
solution shows less than 1% loss of weight will be observed
Wan Mastura Wan Ibrahim, Kamarudin Hussin, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah,
Aeslina, Abdul Kadir “Geopolymer lightweight bricks manufactured from fly-ash and
foaming-agent.”
On the basis of the experimental work it is concluded that the compressive strength of
foamed geopolymer bricks foaming agent to water ratio (1:10) reduced in strength between
49.3- 68.6% while for the (1:20) ratio, the strength decreases between 66.7-72.9% of
strength. However, the strength for all samples increases as the curing temperature increased.
It is also analysed that water absorption of foamed geopolymer bricks for samples with 1:10
ratio of foaming agent to water was increases about 56-66% from the control samples without
foaming agent added and 62-63% more as compared to the control samples when 1:20 of
foaming agent to water ratio was used. The samples obtained in present work shows promise
in application of wall insulation materials.
This paper deals with the development of lightweight geopolymer bricks by using foaming
agent and flyash. The mix parameters analysed through a laboratory experiment with fix ratio
of sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide solution mass ratio 2.5, fly ash/alkaline activator
solution mass ratio 2.0, foaming agent/paste mass ratio 1:2 and molarity of sodium hydroxide

solution used was 12M. Different curing temperature (Room Temperature,60, 80) and
foaming agent/water mass ratio (1:10 and 1:20) were studied. Compressive strength, density
analysis, and water absorption has been investigated. The results show that the foamed
geopolymer bricks with a lowerfoam/water mass ratio (1:10)and high curing temperature
(80°C) leading to a better properties. Mixtures with a lowdensity of around 1420 kg/m3 and a
compressive strength of around 10 MPa were achieve.
Arya K.C., Alester Joseph Vanreyk and Chinku Alphons Tom “A REVIEW ON GGBS,
PAPER SLUDGE AND LATERITE SOIL IN BRICK MANUFACTURING”
From the reviewed literatures the following conclusions were made,
 Compressive strength of bricks made with Lime:GGBS and PC:GGBS shows higher
strength and less water absorption rate for 28days. Bricks made with sand and GGBS
shows better compressive strength, lesser water absorption rate and thermal
conductivity as age increases.
 Bricks made with paper sludge shows better compressive strength upto 5-15% and the
thermal conductivity decreases with increase in paper sludge.
 Increase in water absorption is the main limitation observed in increase in addition of
paper sludge.
 Bricks made with laterite soil shows improved compressive strength and water
absorption rate. Laterite soils have similar properties to that of clay whereas laterite-
clay bricks show more water absorption than that of clay bricks.

R.Divahar, S. P. Sangeetha, P. S. Aravind Raj, S. Ispara Xavier “Bricks Manufacturing
With GGBS.
Good quality bricks can be produced from stipulated proportions of slag, lime mixture and
sand. The strength characteristics of the unfired bricks tested in this study were improved
with the use of lime and GGBS as a binder.
 The amount of the clay is reduced to 20% of total use. The manufacturing process of
the bricks is simple and does not require any firing or autoclaving, specialized plant or
machinery. Therefore, the energy consumption will be much less compared with
conventional burnt clay bricks and calcium silicate bricks.
 Sufficient strength is obtained by moulding the bricks at significantly lower pressure
compared to that for calcium silicate bricks.
 Brick production using GGBS as the main stabilising agent will reduce the energy and
cost of the firing process. Appropriate research and development into new
technologies that reduce energy usage and carbon dioxideemissions are vital for
sustainable building construction. More significant engagement in the development of
new materials will help the construction industry meet global challenges and develop
business.
A. Sumathi, K. Saravana, Raja Mohan “Compressive Strength of Fly Ash Brick with
Addition of Lime, Gypsum and Quarry Dust”.
Based on the experimental study, following conclusions can be drawn regarding the strength
behavior of flyash brick.The study was conducted to find the optimum mix percentage of
flyash brick. However the brick specimen of size 230mm x 110mm x 90mm were cast for
different mix percentage of Flyash (15 to 50%), Gypsum (2%), Lime (5 to 30%) and Quarry
dust (45 to 55%). However the specimens have been tested for seven mix proportions. The

mechanical properties such as compressive strength were studied for different mix
proportions, at different curing ages. From the results it was inferred that, among the seven
proportions the maximum optimized compressive strength is obtained for optimal mix
percentage of Flyash-15% Lime-30% Gypsum-2% Quarry dust-53% as 7.91 N/mm².
Sutasa*, A. Manab L. Pitakc Effect of Rice Husk and Rice Husk Ash to
Properties of
This research has aims to study effect between rice husk and rice husk ash to properties of
bricks. Comparative adding between rice husk and rice husk ash were varied by 0 -10% by
weight. The results showed that more adding rice husk less compressive strength and density
of specimens. Otherwise the porosity increases when adding rice husk. By adding 2 % of rice
husk ash by weight is the best of bricks properties which 6.20 MPa of compressive strength,
1.68 g/cm3 of density, and 15.20% of water absorption.
The term brick refers to small units of building material, often made from fired clay and
secured with mortar, a bonding agent comprising of cement, sand, and water. Long a popular
material, brick retains heat, with-stands corrosion, and resists fire. All of bricks in Thailand
made from combination between clay and rice husk or saw dust. This combination material
sinter with brick kiln for rigidity and strengthen. The brick is the main material in
construction due to strengthen, durability, loading, compactness and light weight. The Brick’s
utility in construction of Thailand had been used since long time ago.
N.Vamsi Mohan,Prof.P.V .V.Satyanarayana ,Dr.K.Srinivasa Rao* Performance Of Rice
Husk Ash Bricks.
In this study, rice husk ash has been utilized for the preparation of bricks in partial

and full replacement of clay. Engineering properties like compressive strength, water
absorption and size and shape have been studied. From the studies, it is observed
that opti mum pr opor ti on for (RH A + Cl ay) brick s was obse r ve d as 30% RHA
and 70% Clay (Maximum of 30% RHA) as the bricks exhibited
high compressive strength and low brick weight. In full replacement of clay with 40%
RHA, 40% Lime and 20% gypsum and 50% RHA, 30% lime
and 20% gypsum gives more strength (41 kg/ cm2) when compared to all other
possible proportions after 28 days curing period.
Muhammad Ekhlasur Rahman ,*, Phang Ji Ong , Omid Nabinejad , Sumaiya Islam
Neamul Ahsan Noman Khandoker , Vikram Pakrashi and Kazi Md. Shorowordi
“Utilization of Blended Waste Materials in Bricks”
Cement is considered a key raw material for brick production. However, excessiveuse of
cement leads to a negative environment impact. Cement replaced with locally availablewaste
materials has a significant potential to address this environmental impact, especially in the
construction industry by contributing to cleaner production. The objective of this research is
to
investigate the performance of brick where cement is replaced by fly ash and palm oil fuel
ash, waste materials typically available in Malaysia, where the construction industry is on the
rise. To determine the performance of these bricks, a compressive strength test, a water
absorption test, and a thermo gravimetric analysis were carried out at different percentage
combinations of fly as hand palm oil fuel ash. The results from the tests reveal that both fly

ash and palm oil fuel ash incorporated bricks satisfy Class 1 and Class 2 load-bearing brick
requirements according to the Malaysian Standard MS76:1972 along with water absorption
requirements as per ASTM C55-11.
The thermo gravimetric analysis study confirms that the Ca(OH)2 gradually decreases due to
the increase of pozzolanic material contents (fly ash and palm oil fuel ash). Moreover, these
newlydeveloped bricks cost less than the conventional bricks.
Raghulkumar, Thirugnanasambandam “STUDY ON CONVENTIONAL AND

GEOPOLYMER BRICKS”

Bricks are widely used for construction and building material around the world. Burnt clay
brick is one of the ancient building materials. The use of waste materials in bricks can lessen
the consumption of clay material and reduce the environmental burden due to accumulation
of waste materials. Furthermore, addition of recycled materials can decrease the high carbon
footprint. The various bricks are purchased and also were manufactured using fly ash, ground
granulated blast furnace slag and alkaline solution, there is no need of clay and it is called
geo-polymer bricks. These geo-polymer bricks are becoming popular in the world now a day.
The main constituent of conventional clay bricks contains rich silica and alumina and it
replaced with various geo-polymer trial mixes. In this study, the compressive strength of
various bricks purchased and the manufactured geo-polymer bricks have been tested. The test
results are to be compared with different types of bricks.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY :
3.1FLOW CHART
 The raw materials collected such as flyash, ricehusk, GGBS, wooden powder and
alkali activators (NaOH, Na2SiO3) .
 Then we mix this raw materials in a required ratio.
 Pouring of mixture into the moulds then drying in atmospheric temperature and
pressure.
 Curing for a period of 7 days.
 Removing from the moulds .
 Then we go for checking of strength criteria .
 Compressive strength test
 Cost analysis

FIG - i
3.2 MATERIALS USED
3.2.1 FLY-ASH
Fly ash is a fine gray powder consisting mostly of spherical, glassy particles that are
produced as a byproduct in coal-fired power stations. Fly ash has pozzolanic properties,
meaning that it reacts with lime to form cementations compounds. It is commonly known as a
supplementary cementations material.
Fly ash is a residue generated in combustion and comprises the fine particles that rise with the
flue gases. Ash that does not rise is called bottom ash. In an industrial context, fly ash usually

refers to ash produced during combustion of coal. Fly ash is a heterogeneous material. The
main chemical components present in fly ash are:
1. Silicon dioxide
2. Aluminum oxide
3. Ferric oxide
Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by
electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. Since the particles solidify rapidly while suspended in
the exhaust gases, fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5
µm to 300 µm.
Fig. 1 Fly-Ash
FROM WHERE IT IS COLLECTED
AS PER IS CODE FLY ASH PROPERTIES SPECIFIC GRAVITY,
CONSISTENCY

3.2 GGBS (Ground Granulated blast-furnace slag)
Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS or GGBFS) is obtained by quenching molten
iron slag (a by-product of iron and steel-making) from a blast furnace in water or steam, to
produce a glassy , granular product that is then dried and ground into a fine powder. Ground-
granulated blast furnace slag is highly cementitious and high in calcium silicate hydrates
(CSH) which is a strength enhancing compound which improves the strength, durability and
appearance of the concrete.
A. COMPOSITION
The main components of blast furnace slag are CaO (30-50%), SiO2 (28-38%), Al2O3 (8-
24%), and MgO (1-18%). In general increasing the CaO content of the slag results in raised
slag basicity and an increase in compressive strength. The MgO and Al2O3 content show the
same trend up to respectively 10-12% and 14%, beyond which no further improvement can
be obtained. Several compositional ratios or so-called hydraulic indices have been used to
correlate slag composition with hydraulic activity the latter being mostly expressed as the
binder compressive strength.
B. APPLICATION
GGBS cement can be added to concrete in the concrete manufacturer's batching plant, along
with Portland cement, aggregates and water. The normal ratios of aggregates and water to
cementitious material in the mix remain unchanged. GGBS is used as a direct replacement for
Portland cement, on a one-to-one basis by weight. Replacement levels for GGBS vary from
30% to up to 85%. Typically 40 to 50% is used in most instances.

C. DURABILITY
GGBS cement is routinely specified in concrete to provide protection against both sulfate
attack and chloride attack. GGBS has now effectively replaced sulfate-resisting Portland
cement (SRPC) on the market for sulfate resistance because of its superior performance and
greatly reduced cost compared to SRPC. Most projects in Dublin's Docklands
including Spencer Dock are using GGBS in subsurface concrete for sulfate resistance.
Bulk Electrical Resistivity is a test method that can measure the resistivity of concrete
samples. (ASTM 1876-19) The higher electrical resistivity can be an indication of higher ion
transfer resistivity and thus higher durability. By replacing up to 50% GGBS in concrete,
researchers have shown that durability can be significantly improved.
To protect against chloride attack, GGBS is used at a replacement level of 50% in concrete.
Instances of chloride attack occur in reinforced concrete in marine environments and in road
bridges where the concrete is exposed to splashing from road de-icing salts. In
most NRA projects in Ireland GGBS is now specified in structural concrete for bridge piers
and abutments for protection against chloride attack. The use of GGBS in such instances will
increase the life of the structure by up to 50% had only Portland cement been used, and
precludes the need for more expensive reinforcing.
GGBS is also routinely used to limit the temperature rise in large concrete pours. The more
gradual hydration of GGBS cement generates both lower peak and less total overall heat than
Portland cement. This reduces thermal gradients in the concrete, which prevents the
occurrence of micro cracking which can weaken the concrete and reduce its durability, and
was used for this purpose in the construction.

D. APPEARANCE
In contrast to the stony grey of concrete made with Portland cement, the near-white color of
GGBS cement permits architects to achieve a lighter color for exposed fair-faced concrete
finishes, at no extra cost. To achieve a lighter color finish, GGBS is usually specified at
between 50% to 70% replacement levels, although levels as high as 85% can be used. GGBS
cement also produces a smoother, more defect-free surface, due to the fineness of the GGBS
particles.
E. STRENGTH
Concrete containing GGBS cement has a higher ultimate strength than concrete made with
Portland cement. It has a higher proportion of the strength-enhancing calcium silicate
hydrates (CSH) than concrete made with Portland cement only, and a reduced content of free
lime, which does not contribute to concrete strength. Concrete made with GGBS continues to
gain strength over time, and has been shown to double its 28-days.
Fig. 2 Fly-Ash and GGBS
3.3. Alkali Activators
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALKALI ACTIVATOR IN GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE.

Geopolymericaction was induced in the brick element through alkaline activators such as
NaOH and Na2SiO3 which are commercially available ,by taking into account the high cost
of K-based chemicals. NaOH with 98% purity have been dissolved in distilled water to make
NaOH solution.Commercially available Na2SiO3 is in a solution form which was used as
such.
The Alkali Activators used in this experiment are
A. Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) 12M
B. Sodium Silicate (Na2SiO3) 12M
Fig. 3 Alkali Activators
Mixing of Alkali Activators
Alkaline activator binder is a solution of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. The ratio of
sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide was kept at 2.5.

Fig. 4 Mixing of NaOH and Na2SiO3

3.3. METHODS
3.3.1 DESIGN MIX
SL. NO. FLYASH GGBS RHA MIX DESIGN

DESIGNATION
1 50% 50% ----- M1
2 50% ----- 50% M2
3 50% 20% 30% M3
4 50% 30% 20% M4
5 50% 40% 10% M5
6 40% 40% 20% M6
7 40% 30% 30% M7
8 30% 50% 20% M8
9 70% ----- 30% M9
3.3.2.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST:
 Mixing of materials was done according to the calculation.
 Cubes of size 70.6mm×70.6mm×70.6mm were casted.
 Then thereafter they were put in oven at a temp of 100 degree celcius for curing
purpose.
 Compressive strength was found out after 7 days of curing respective.

Dimension – (70.6mmx70.6mmx70.6mm)
4.1.2 Casting of Mould
Fig. 7. Casting of Mould
Bricks after 7 Days of oven curing

Fig. 8. Bricks after 7 Days of oven curing
Compressive strength test, mechanical test measuring the maximum amount of compressive
load a material can bear before fracturing. The test piece, usually in the form of a cube,
prism, or cylinder, is compressed between the platens of a compression-testing machine by a
gradually applied load.

Fig. 9 Digital Compression Testing Machine
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST
SL. NO. MIX DESIGN Compressive Strength (N/ mm2)
1 M1 6.02
2 M2 BROKEN
3 M3 14.58
4 M4 15.36
5 M5 14.306
6 M6 14.03
7 M7 12.25
8 M8 8.04
9 M9 5.9

4.2 COST ANALYSIS
6.1 GEOPOLYMER BRICK

FOR 1 GEOPOLYMER BRICK (190mm x 90 mm x90mm)
FLYASH REQUIRED = 0.8RS
GGBS REQUIRED 0.6KG= 0.15RS
RHA REQUIRED 0.4KG =0.1RS
ALKALINE ACTIVATOR = 0.16RS
MAN POWER + PROFIT = 2 RS
TOTAL = 3.21 RS
= 3.5 RS Approx
(after adding some additional cost)
6.2 CLAY BRICK
FOR 1 CLAY BRICK

AFTER ADDING
( CLAY + COAL + MANPOWER)
COST OF 1 BRICK = 7RS
6.3 FLY ASH BRICK
FOR 1 FLY ASH BRICK

AFTER ADDING
( FLYASH + MACHINERY COST + MAN POWER )
COST OF 1 BRICK = 5.5 RS APPROX
From above cost analysis it is clear that geopolymer bricks are more cost effective
as compare to both Clay Brick and Flyash brick.

CHAPTER 5
5.1CONCLUSION
From this study, we have epitomized various advantages that geopolymer bricks hold over
normal clay bricks. Using this brick in the construction field, waste materials such as fly ash,
ggbs and rice husk ash can be effectively used. Thus, the amount of waste disposing on land
can be reduced which in turn can save the environment. There are chances of emission of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the production of normal clay brick and it
can be avoided by this proposed method of production. The compressive strength of
geopolymer brick is normally greater than clay brick and it is in between 6 to 25 MPa.
Normally a good building brick should have a compressive strength equal to or greater than
3.5MPa. Here the developed geopolymerbricks has a compressive strength value of 15.3MPa.
Geopolymer bricks are lighter in weight compared to normal clay brick and it also has
relatively less water absorption capacity than normal brick due to less number of pores in it
and also due to its compact structure. The developed geopolymer brick obtains a water
absorption value equal to 8.47%. For a geopolymer brick, the water absorption rate will be in
the range of 5-12%, but a normal clay brick has a water absorption capacity ranges in
between 20-25%.
5.2 FUTURE SCOPE:

This analysis can be extended to the following areas;
 Molarity of alkaline activator solution can be varied and the effect of molarity on the
characteristics of bricks can be studied
 Properties of binders can be varied by using different types of wastes such as paper
waste, green leaf, etc.

 Effect of temperature can be studied by burning the bricks in high temperature as
other normal bricks
 The test can be conducted by using admixtures other than bentonite to study
variations such as Metakaoline, Alcofine, etc.
 Effect on reinforcement can be analysed by using this type of construction material
 Curing of the brick using oven drying can be modified by increasing the drying period
from 24 hours to 48 hours by keeping the temperature constant, that is at 110°C
 User-friendly activator solutions can be developed and the way to reduce the rate of
efflorescence formation can be studied.
ACID RESISTANT TEST

EFFLORESCENCE
WATER ABSORPTION TEST

REFERENCES
[1] Kulkarni A, Raje S, Peerzada J and Rajgor M, (2014). “A miniscule endeavour for
accomplishing hypo sludge fly ash brick in Indian context”, International Journal of
Engineering Trends and Technology, 10, 361-365.
[2] Cusido J. A., Cremades L. V., Soriano, C. and Devant, M.(2015). “Incorporation of
paper sludge in clay brick formulation”: Ten years of industrial experience, Applied
Clay Science, 108, 191–198.
[3] Okunade E. A, (2008). “The effect of wood ash and sawdust admixture on the
engineering properties of a burnt laterite” – clay brick, Journal of Applied Science 8,
(1042-1048).
[4] Gaurav Goel and Ajay S Kalamdhad, (2017). “An investigation on use of paper mill
sludge in brick manufacturing”, Construction and Building Materials, 148, 334–343.
[5] Malhotra, S. K. and Tehri, S. I (1996). “Development of bricks from granulated blast
furnace slag, Construction and Building Materials”, 10, 191-1

New Debashish &amp; Hemant 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

New Debashish &amp; Hemant 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Debashish &amp; Hemant 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROPERTIES OF GEO-POLYMER

BRICKS MADE WITH FLY-ASH,GGBS

Project ID: 22039

Under the guidance of

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Palur Hills, Berhampur, Odisha – 761008, India

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) ii

properties of bricks. This paper presents an economic analysis of manufacturing

extraction of raw materials to storage. Seven formulations of geopolymer bricks based

logistics operations in the production line of brick manufacturing.. In the case of

economic interest in the industrial production of geopolymer bricks. It also confirms

industrial production chain required for the manufacture of geopolymer bricks.

sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate as an activator. The molarity of sodium

compared to flyash based geopolymer brick.

We extend our sincere thanks to Prof. Padminee Samal, B.Tech. Project

within stipulated period of time and providing a helping environment.

We acknowledge with immense pleasure the sustained interest, encouraging attitude

and constant inspiration rendered by Dr. Sukant K. Mohapatra (Chairman), Dr.

selfless inspiration has always helped us to move.

their unflinching support and help.

ROLL NO. 201810550

ROLL NO. 201810183

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) ii

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) iii

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) iv

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 0

emissions by utilizing the supplementary cementitious materials in place of cement . It has

mechanical properties of alkali-activated bricks. In this research work, we aimed at

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 1

absorption and acid resistance test.

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 2

compared with locally available conventional bricks.

Nicolas Youssef, Zoubeir Lafhaj and Christophe Chapiseau (xxx)

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 3

production cost of geopolymer bricks changes significantly depending on the ingredients

of the geopolymer bricks manufactured with waste brick, an improvement of 100% in

results can be considered as a database for use in the production of geopolymer-based

building materials at the industrial level.

Sasikumar et. al (xxxx)

concentrations of alkaline solution and curing temperatures.

Class C fly ash.

produce viable results.

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 4

GPB. It results in reduced water absorption at optimum parameters.

specimens are immersed in 3% H2SO4 solution, whereas the reduction in molarity of

solution shows less than 1% loss of weight will be observed

in application of wall insulation materials.

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 5

compressive strength of around 10 MPa were achieve.

PAPER SLUDGE AND LATERITE SOIL IN BRICK MANUFACTURING”

From the reviewed literatures the following conclusions were made,

conductivity as age increases.

thermal conductivity decreases with increase in paper sludge.

 Increase in water absorption is the main limitation observed in increase in addition of

National Institute of Science & Technology (Autonomous) 6

R.Divahar, S. P. Sangeetha, P. S. Aravind Raj, S. Ispara Xavier “Bricks Manufacturing

with the use of lime and GGBS as a binder.

conventional burnt clay bricks and calcium silicate bricks.

 Sufficient strength is obtained by moulding the bricks at significantly lower pressure

New Debashish & Hemant 2022

New Debashish & Hemant 2022

New Debashish & Hemant 2022