Studies on alternate mortars using fines controlled brick masonry

waste

S M Basutkar1, Shirguppe Akash2, Prabhanjana3, Rajath Kowshik K.3, M V Renuka Devi4,

1
Assistant Professor, somnathmb@rvce.edu.in,
Department of Civil Engineering, R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru, 560059, India
2
Post Graduate Student, akashshirguppe@gmail.com,
Department of Civil Engineering, R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru, 560059, India
3
Former Under Graduate Student
Department of Civil Engineering, R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru, 560059, India
4
Professor, renukadevimv@rvce.edu.in
Department of Civil Engineering, R V College of Engineering, Bengaluru, 560059, India

ABSTRACT
The fine aggregate or sand is a major component in development of all cementitious products.
Procurement of sand poses economical and environmental challenges. Various alternatives to
conventional fine aggregates were explored and reported. These alternatives are filtered sand, slag
sand, recycled construction and demolition waste, used foundry sand and many others., were used as
partial substitute to conventional fine aggregates in making mortar and concrete. Quality studies report,
considering strength requirements a maximum of 20 – 50% of alternative aggregates can be utilized as
partial replacement to conventional fine aggregates. In this study, the physical and mechanical behavior
of mortars made with brick waste as a replacement to M sand is evaluated. The fines (viz., particles
smaller than 150 μm) in fine aggregate was restricted to 15%. Basic tests such as grain size
distribution, fineness modulus, specific gravity of Msand were brick masonry waste were performed.
Two mortar proportions i.e.,1:4 and 1:5 (Cement: fine aggregate) were explored for its workability,
physical and mechanical properties. The outcome of the study indicates maximum compressive, flexure
and split tensile strength when brick masonry waste was up to 25% - 50%. Silica content in brick
masonry waste was found lesser than Msand using EDAX (Energy Dispersive Analysis of X Rays).
However, cost of mortar was found to reduce by 6.15% and 7.3% for mortar proportion 1:4 and 1:5
respectively. The embodied energy of mortar was found to reduce by 6 to 7% for every 25%
replacement of Msand replaced by brick masonry waste.

Keywords: Mortar, Msand, Brick masonry waste, Compressive strength, Cost, Embodied energy.

INTRODUCTION
Construction and demolition waste (C&D) poses significant challenges worldwide, particularly in
developing countries like India and others, where these wastes are generated in large quantities during
construction and demolition activities. The improper management of C&D waste causes pollution,
traffic congestion, and a decrease in the fertility of the soil, among other environmental problems.
Despite early efforts to recycle C&D waste, its widespread adoption has been limited. However, there
is a lack of awareness among a significant portion of the infrastructure sector regarding recycling
methods. Establishing quality standards for materials and products made from recycled aggregates is
recommended to ensure product quality and encourage adoption. Use of marble dust as a substitute to
cement, results in enhancement in water resistance, shrinkage strain reduction and reduction in cement
demand by upto 33% [1]. The porosity of mortars increased upon using waste clay brick either in
presoaked or in dry condition [2]. Mortar made with marble aggregate and porcelain aggregate with
water cement ratio of 0.485 and super plasticizer of 0.004 resulted in compressive strength of the range
of 45 MPa [3]. Replacement of Incinerator bottom ash in cement mortar causes reduction in
flowability, compressive strength and unit weight. Processed Incinerator bottom ash can improve its
cementitious properties due to pozzolanic reaction [4]. Utilization of 40% ground clay brick waste as
Alkali activated cements improved strength properties of paste and mortar after 7 and 28 day of curing
[5]. Strength properties of mortars was independent on gradation of sand, although, deformation
characteristics was significantly influenced by grading of sand [6]. Strength of mortar at initial ages
increases when nano -TiO2 is added to mortar as cement substitute by 5 – 10%. The change of
orientation index for nucleus function can be attributed as the reason of strength improvement of
mortar [7]. Use of waste plastic based aggregates results in reduced density, binding capacity and
strength of mortars [8]. In case of cement mortar, the compressive strength and split tensile strength
ratio does not vary linearly. But the ratio is inversely proportional to mortar porosity [9]. Recycled
aggregates treated with Sulfoaluminate cement and fly ash treated or impregnated with sodium silicate
resulted in increased compressive strength of mortar by 34.8% and 32.4% respectively after 28 days
curing [10]. Replacing 50% of standard sand with recycled sand, along with the addition of 1%
superplasticizer, resulted in strength characteristics comparable to mortar made with standard sand and
20% reduction in elastic modulus [11]. Using fine reused concrete particles that have been dried, led to
higher slump values and improved compressive strengths compared to mortars with saturated reused
aggregates of concrete, while the sand replacement with recycled sand reduced the mortar density [12].
The use of reused fine aggregates improved compressive strength, bond strength, and flexural qualities,
although these characteristics were inferior when compared to mortars made aggregates acquired from
natural sources [13]. Due to the enhancement of the interfacial transition zone and microhardness of the
paste matrix, recycled fine aggregates (RFA) replacement was found to be favorable in boosting the
compressive strength of cement mortars [14]. Incorporating 10% fine ceramics in mortars improves
compressive and bending strengths. Considering shrinkage and permeability, 10% replacement
exhibited optimal properties despite potential limitations [15]. Use of ultra fines derived from recycled
or natural aggregates resulted in brittle abrupt failure [16]. The influence of sand grading viz., decrease
in fineness modulus led to increased water cement ratio and water retentivity, while decreasing density
and compressive strength [17]. Use of marble and brick waste are used in place of aggregate in mortars
resulted in enhanced compressive and bending strength by 7% and 56%, respectively [18]. The
consistency of mortar was greatly dependent on the utilization percentage and type of recycled
aggregate used [19, 23]. Microstructure studies indicate good adhesion of cement and brick waste after
28th day of curing and mortar production [20]. Physical and pozzolanic pore-filling effects due to
addition clay brick waste (CBW) lead to enhanced strength and density in the cured mortars [21, 25].
Similar to other recycled aggregates, use of waste brick powder resulted in linear decrement in
workability and density of mortar when water/binder ratio was maintained constant. Although, for low
percentage of brick waste utilization viz., 20%, the cement content can be decreased by 33% [26].
Findings from both, the literature survey as well as that of real time concerns of the construction sector,
two major concerns are highlighted. One, the continuous consumption of river sand and M – sand.
Second, the continuous production of construction and demolition waste. Addressing these issues will
impart multifold benefits such as conservation of natural resource and effect utilization and
management of industrial waste. Thus the current research was focused to analyse the properties and
characteristics of mortar with the sand replacement with fine aggregate sourced from construction
waste by limiting fines content.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

It is noteworthy to mention natural river sand, M-sand is sourced at an exponential rate along with
production of brick waste. Wastes such as marble dust, RCA, iron tailings and many others have found
its suitability in mortars and concrete. Brick masonry waste which accounts of about 30- 40% of
demolished building requires systematic investigation due to its limitations such as high water and
absorption characteristics, low crushing strength and reducing density and modulus of elasticity of
cementitious product.
With this intent the current study, influence of brick masonry waste as a substitute to M-sand when the
fine fraction was limited to 15% was explored. However, crushing of brick masonry waste generates
huge amount fines fraction (fine aggregate of size < 150μm IS sieve). Suitable modifications needs to
be adopted to arrive at approximate specific gravity and fineness modulus.
Cement of 53 grade was procured for the study. Manufactured sand was sourced from local vendor.
The brick masonry waste was collected from a local generator and crushed using a electricity operated
jaw crusher.
As mentioned earlier, the brick masonry waste generates large amount of fine particles passing 300μm
IS sieve. The study was focused to limit the fines (fine aggregate of size < 150μm IS sieve) to 15-20%.
Thus manual sieving was performed to separate all the fines from brick masonry waste (BMW) and M-
sand. After the manual sieving 15% of the fines was added to BMW and M-sand. This fines controlled
BMW was used as partial replacement to M-sand. Basic properties such as grain size distribution,
specific gravity was performed on fines controlled modified fine aggregate. The test results of modified
aggregate is reported in table 1 and the grain size analysis is presented in figure 1.

Table 1: Specific gravity, Fineness modulus, Coefficient of Uniformity, Coefficient of Curvature

 BMW Grain size analysis
Specific Fineness
replacement
Gravity modulus D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
(%)
0 2.81 2.96 0.16 0.47 1.00 6.25 1.38
25 2.71 2.97 0.20 0.58 1.30 6.50 1.29
50 2.52 2.94 0.18 0.53 1.20 6.67 1.30
75 2.27 2.97 0.20 0.57 1.30 6.50 1.25
100 2.14 2.82 0.15 0.43 1.00 6.67 1.23

120

100
Percentage passing (%)

80 C&DW
25% C&DW
60
50% C&DW
75% C&DW
40
M-sand
20 ZII UL
ZII LL
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

Figure.1.: Grain size analysis curves for all combinations

The fines in all the mixes were restricted to 15 %. The specific gravity linearly decreased as percentage
replacement of M sand by BMW was increased. M-sand and Modified M-sand was found to confirm
Grade II category as per of IS:383-2016 [27]. All variants of sand with different proportions of
construction waste are classified as well graded.
• The study is associated with the evaluation of physical properties of mortars of proportion 1:4 and
1:5 (cement: fine aggregate).
• The fine aggregates used in mortars will be replaced by brick waste at intervals of 25 to 100 % at
increament level of 25%.
• Fines (fine aggregates <150 microns) present in the aggregate will be limited to 15% by weight of
the mortar samples.
• Properties such as compressive strength, bending strength, water absorption were studied at 7, 14
and 28 day intervals.

The mortar compression strength were evaluated by testing cube of size 50*50*50 mm conforming to
IS 10086-1999 [28]. The compression strength is determined by loading the cube with the compression
loads. The mould is placed in a compression testing machine. A constant loading of 4 MPa /min was
adopted as per IS 2250 -1980.
Mortar bending strength was evaluated by testing a beam sample of size 40mmx40mmx160mm
beams, as per ASTM 348, 349 - 14. The beam is marked such that single point loading is facilitated. A
proving ring of 100KN capacity was used to measure to failure load of cubes and beams.
The split tensile strength of mortar were evaluated using cubes of dimension 150mm *150mm *150mm
according to IS 5816-1999 [29]. An uniform loading at 1.8MPa was fixed corresponding ultimate load
was noted.

3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Compressive strength
Compressive strength of mortar was evaluated by testing cubes of dimension 5cm x 5cm x
5cm. Figure 2 presents compressive strength of mortar cube after the 7, 14 and 28-day curing. The
increase in compressive strength was of the order 15% for both the proportions when M-sand was
replaced by 25% of BMW. Further increase in BMW fraction reduced the compressive strength of
mortar. For 50% M - sand replaced mortar the strength reduced by 22% and 25.7% for 1:4 and 1:5
proportioned mortar respectively. The 25% replacement mix has the highest strength among the
variations of the order of 18 MPa for the 1:4 variant and 16.8 MPa for the 1:5 variant. The full
replacement mix appears to possess least strength varying from 6-7 MPa for both the mortar
proportion.
Compressive strength, MPa

18 7 day
15 14 day
28 day
12
9
6
3
0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
1:4 proportion 1:5 proportion
Compressive strength Compressive strength

Figure 2.: Compressive Strength for 1:4 mix proportions

3.2 Flexural and Split tensile strength

Table 2 presents the split tensile and flexural strength of the mortar made with modified fine
aggregates. The strength increased when M sand was replaced by 25% and 50% respectively.
Maximum values of flexural strength obtained were 1.31 and 1.19 MPa for 1:4 and 1:5 mortar
proportions respectively. Strength increased by 13% and 7% for 1:4 and 1:5

Table 2: Split Tensile Strength and flexural strength of mortars

1:4 mix 1:5 mix
σC σf σST σC σf σST
Replacement
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
0% 15.6 1.25 2.8 14.6 1.12 2.47
25% 18 1.31 3.01 16.8 1.19 2.56
50% 12.2 0.98 3.21 10.9 0.89 2.65
75% 9.8 0.78 1.99 9.2 0.67 1.73
100% 7.4 0.62 1.39 6.7 0.48 1.24

Mortar respectively when M sand was replaced by 50%.It was also observed from the experimental
results that the flexural strength was around 7 to 8% of compressive strength of mortar across both the
proportions. Whereas, split tensile strength had a higher variation ranging between 15% to 26% for
both mortar proportions.

3.3 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

Conventional M-sand based mortars presented higher MOE as compared to mortars made
with BMW. M-sand based mortars exhibited MOE of the value 11990 MPa and 8572 MPa for 1:4 and
1:5 cement sand mortar. When 25% M-sand was replaced by BMW, MOE of mortar samples reduced
by 22-32%. Further increase in BMW content by 50%,75%,100%, the loss of MOE to vary from 36% ,
44-52% and 59-61% respectively. Modulus of elasticity of mortar reduced as the M sand replacement
was increased; however, the reduction was not linear. Lowest moduli obtained for 100% were of the
order 4692 and 3514 MPa for 1:4 and 1:5 mortar. It was interesting to note that although the modulus
of elasticity was lowest for 100% C&D based mortar but the compressive strength of mortar was 1.5
times more than the compressive strength of conventionally used 1:6 cement sand mortar. The stress
strain curves for both the mortar proportions are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
 Table 3: Modulus of elasticity of mortars at 28 days
Replacement Modulus of elasticity (N/mm2)
(%) Mix proportion 1:4 Mix proportion 1:5
0 11990 8572
25 8169 6679
50 7693 5363
75 5652 4738
100 4672 3514

3.5
3.0
2.5
Stress (MPa)

2.0 0%
1.5 25%
50%
1.0 75%
0.5 100%

0.0
0.00000 0.00020 0.00040 0.00060 0.00080 0.00100
Strain

Figure 3.: Modulus of elasticity variation for 1:4 mix proportions

3.5
3.0
2.5
Stress (MPa)

2.0 0%
1.5 25%
50%
1.0 75%
0.5 100%

0.0
0.00000 0.00020 0.00040 0.00060 0.00080 0.00100
Strain

Figure 4.: Modulus of elasticity variation for 1:5 mix proportions

3.4 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Microstructure composition of M sand and BMW was investigated using EDAX (Energy
Dispersive Analysis of X Rays). The test was conducted on Construction Demolition Waste and M –
Sand passing 4.75mm. Presence of oxides of silicon, aluminum and calcium are investigated and
percentage weight for all aggregate samples are present in Table 4.

Table 4: Percentage weightage of compounds

Sl. Passing 4.75mm sieve
No. M sand C&D
O 58.80 64.46
Si 36.25 28.93
Al 1.00 1.90
Ca 0.59 0.51
 From table 5, it can be observed that higher silica content was available in M sand passing 4.75mm
sieve as compared BMW of same size. The chemical composition of M sand and BMW are presented
in figure 5 and percentage weight concentration are in Table 5. The reduction is mechanical properties
of mortars made by replacing M-sand by BMW may be attributed to reduced silica content in modified
fine aggregates.

Table 5: Elemental Composition of M – Sand and BMW Passing IS for 4.75mm sieve.
Elemen M - Sand BMW
t Weigh Weight Atom Weight Weight Atom
Line t % % % % Error %
% Error
CK 2.26 ± 0.59 3.5 3.65 ± 0.53 5.57
8
OK 58.80 ± 0.51 70.1 64.46 ± 0.48 73.85
0
Na K 0.51 ± 0.10 0.4 --- --- ---
2
Al K 1.00 ± 0.07 0.7 1.90 ± 0.11 1.29
1
Si K 36.25 ± 0.25 24.6 28.93 ± 0.20 18.88
2
KK 0.59 ± 0.06 0.2 --- --- ---
9
Ca K 0.59 ± 0.07 0.2 0.51 ± 0.10 0.23
8
Fe K --- --- --- 0.56 ± 0.12 0.18
Note:

Figure.5.: Peaks for 4.75mm downsize M – Sand

 Figure 6: Peaks for 4.75mm downsize C&DW

3.5 WATER ABORPTION

It was also noted that water absorption of mortar was greater influenced by the type of alternative fine
aggreagate used. As the replacement of BMW increases, the water cement ratio also increases as shown
in Table 6. This is due to the fact that masonry waste absorbs more water than M-sand. Maximum
water cement ratio was 1.3 and 1.5% for 100% M sand replaced 1:4 and 1:5 mortar. The water
absorption steadily increased with increase in the percentage of BMW. The water absorption was found
to increase by 12-13% for 25% replacement of M-sand. Further increase in BMW content by 50 - 75%
in modified sand resulted in 20% to 35%. increased water absorption of mortar cubes. Use 100% BMW
as BMW in mortar resulted in a substantial increased absorption of water by 37.5 to 40 % for both
mortar proportion. Water absorption was found to vary by 12.5,10, 15, and 6.5% for every interval of
25% replacement of M-sand by BMW for 1:4 mortar. Whereas, marginal variation was observed for
1:5 mortar.
Table 6 : Water absorption for all mixes
Replacement WA% (1:4) w/c ratio WA% (1:5) w/c ratio
0% 13.48 0.9 13.83 1
25% 15.4 1 15.99 1
50% 17.12 1.1 17.99 1.2
75% 20.16 1.2 21.22 1.3
100% 21.56 1.3 22.97 1.5

3.6 COST ANALYSIS

Table 7(a) and 7( b) represents the cost analysis of 1:4 mortar mix and 1:5 mortar mix. Cost analysis
was performed to understand variation of cost of mortar by replacing M-sand by BMW. An average of
6.125 % and 7.325 %. Cost saving was seen upon replacing M-sand by BMW at an interval of 25 %.
Material (fine aggregate) cost incurred can be reduced from 20% to 50% when M-sand is modified by
BMW for both 1:4 and 1:5 proportion mortar. The rates of various materials used for preparation of per
cubic meter mortar is considered as per schedule of rates of public works department, Karnataka 2022
[30]
Table 7(a): Cost analysis for 1:4 mortar mix for 1m3
Cost analysis (in INR)
BMW replacements (%) 0 25 50 75 100
Cement 3112 3112 3112 3112 3112
DBW 0 66 132 198 264
M - Sand 1384 1038.1 692.06 346.03 0
Labour 496 496 496 496 496
Intermediate Total 4993 4713 4433 4153 3873
Water Charges 74.9 70.7 66.5 62.3 58.1
Tools and Plants 74.9 70.7 66.5 62.3 58.1
Total material costs 5143 4855 4566 4278 3990
Contractor's profit 515 486 457 428 399
Overall costs 5658 5341 5023 4706 4389
 FINE AGGREGATE COST VARIATION
Total Fine Aggregate Cost 1384 1104.1 824.06 544.03 264
% Variation FA Cost ----- 20.22 25.36 33.98 51.47

Table 7(b): Cost analysis for 1:5 mortar mix for 1m3
Cost analysis ( in INR)
BMW replacements (%) 0 25 50 75 100
Cement 2594 2594 2594 2594 2594
DBW 0 68.75 137.5 206.25 275
M - Sand 1441.8 1081.35 720.9 360.45 0
Labour 496 496 496 496 496
Intermediate Total 4532 4241 3949 3657 3335
Water Charges 67.98 63.15 59.23 54.86 50.03
Tools and Plants 67.98 63.15 59.23 54.86 50.03
Total material costs 4668 4368 4068 3767 3436
Contractor's profit 467 437 407 377 344
Overall costs 5135 4805 4475 4144 3780
FINE AGGREGATE COST VARIATION
Total Fine Aggregate Cost 1441.8 1150.1 858.4 566.7 275
% Variation FA Cost ----- 20.23 25.36 33.98 51.47

Cost analysis was performed to understand the variation of cost mortar and modified fine aggregates
used. The cost saving of 1:4 mortar was found to vary from 5.6 for 25% to 22.43% for 100%. The
average cost reduction for every 25% of M-sand replaced by BMW was 6.15%. Similar cost saving
observed for 1:5 mortar proportion, reduction in cost observed to vary from 15.08% to 33.19%.
Average cost reduction was 7.37%.

3.7 ENERGY ANALYSIS

Table 8 (a) and 8 (b) represents the cost analysis of 1:4 mortar mix and 1:5 mortar mix. The energy
analysis considers 100 Hp jaw crusher for M sand, which is then transported to site, assuming to be
distanced at 100Km from crushing location. For C&D waste, a 7.5 Hp mobile jaw crusher is
considered. Energy analysis is done for 1 m 3 mortar quantity. Similar to cost analysis, energy analysis
for 1m3 mortar was evaluated. Maximum energy reduction of the order 21.76% and 25.11% was
observed for 1:4 and 1:5 proportional mortar made with 100% BMW as fine aggregate. Average
reduction in embodied energy for every 25% replacement of M-sand by BMW was around 6 to 7% for
1:4 and 1:5% proportioned mortar.

Table 8 (a): Energy analysis for 1:4 mortar mix for 1 m3

Total Embodied Energy (MJ/m3)
Sl. DBW Cement DBW M-Sand Total % Total
No Replace (A) (B) (C) Fine Variation (A+B+C)
-ment Agg. FA
(%) (B+C) energy
1. 0 1497.6 0 748.5 748.5 ---- 2246
2. 25 1497.6 64.9 561.4 626.3 16.33 2124
3. 50 1497.6 129.8 374.2 504.1 19.52 2002
4. 75 1497.6 194.7 187.1 381.8 24.25 1879
5. 100 1497.6 259.6 0 259.6 32.01 1757

Table 8 (b) : Energy analysis for 1:5 mortar mix for 1 m3

Total Embodied Energy (MJ/m3)
Sl. DBW Cement DBW M Sand Total % Total
No Replace (A) (B) (C) Fine Variation (A+B+C)
-ment Agg. FA
(%) (B+C) energy
1. 0 1248 0 779.7 779.7 ---- 2246
2. 25 1248 67.6 584.7 652.3 16.33 2124
3. 50 1248 135.2 389.8 525.0 19.52 2002
 4. 75 1248 202.8 194.9 397.7 24.25 1879
5. 100 1248 270.4 0 270.4 32.01 1757

4. CONCLUSIONS
1. Specific gravity of M sand and modified M sand reduced steadily from 2.81 to 2.14 as the
replacement percentage of M sand was increased from 0 to 100% of C&D waste. No considerable
variation in fineness modulus was observed as the fines percentage of fine aggregate was limited
to 10%. Fineness modulus of aggregates was found to range from 2.82 to 2.97.
2. Water cement ratio and water absorption of hardened mortar increased with increased percentage
of C&D waste. With maximum values of water cement ratio and water absorption was 1.3 – 1.5%
and 22 – 23% respectively.
3. Mortar compressive and flexural strength increased for 25% M sand replaced Mortar for both
grades. However, maximum split tensile strength was found when M sand was replaced by 50%
of C&D waste. Maximum compressive strength values were 18MPa and 16.8MPa for 1:4 and 1:5
mortar grade respectively. Maximum flexural strength values were 1.31MPa and 1.19MPa for 1:4
and 1:5 mortar grade respectively. Flexural strength was found to be around 7 – 8% of
compressive strength across all mortar grades and replacements. The maximum split tensile
strength values were 3.21MPa and 2.65MPa for 1:4 and 1:5 mortar grade respectively.
4. For every 25% M sand replacement with brick waste, 6.15 to 7.37% reduction in total cost of
mortar was observed for 1:4 and 1:5 mortar mix respectively. Maximum cost saving of the order
22.43% (1:4 mortar) to 33.19 (1:5 mortar) was observed when 100% BMW was used.
5. Average energy reduction for both the mortar proportion was found to be in the range of 6-7%.
However, mortars with 50% M-sand and 50% BMW exhibited compressive strength more than
10MPa (H1 grade as per IS 1905-1987 [31]), this results in reduction in energy for every 1m 3
mortar.

References
1. L.G. Li, Z.H. Huang, Y.P. Tan, A.K.H. Kwan, F. Liu,“Use of marble dust as paste replacement
for recycling waste and improving durability and dimensional stability of mortar”,
Construction and Building Materials,Volume 166,Pages 423-432,2018.
2. Qian Huang, Xiaohong Zhu, Guangqi Xiong, Chaoqiang Wang, Dongsheng Liu, Liang
Zhao,“Recycling of crushed waste clay brick as aggregates in cement mortars: An approach
from macro- and micro-scale investigation”,Construction and Building Materials,Volume
274,2021.
3. Mohammed Salah Nasr, Ali Abdulhussein Shubbar, Zain Al-Abideen Raed Abed, Mohammed
Sami Ibrahim,“Properties of eco-friendly cement mortar contained recycled materials from
different sources”,Journal of Building Engineering,Volume 31,2020.
4. An Cheng,“Effect of incinerator bottom ash properties on mechanical and pore size of
blended cement mortars”Materials & Design (1980-2015),Volume 36,Pages 859-864,2012,
5. Nailia R. Rakhimova, Ravil Z. Rakhimov,“Alkali-activated cements and mortars based on
blast furnace slag and red clay brick waste”, Materials & Design,Volume 85,Pages 324-
331,2015.
6. Vladimir G. Haach, Graça Vasconcelos, Paulo B. Lourenço,“Influence of aggregates grading
and water/cement ratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars”,Construction
and Building Materials,Volume 25, Issue 6,Pages 2980-2987,2011
7. Tao Meng, Yachao Yu, Xiaoqian Qian, Shulin Zhan, Kuangliang Qian,“Effect of nano-TiO2 on
the mechanical properties of cement mortar”,Construction and Building Materials,Volume
29,Pages 241-245, 2012.
8. Nabajyoti Saikia, Jorge de Brito,“Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and
concrete preparation: A review”,Construction and Building Materials,Volume 34,Pages 385-
401,2012,
9. Xudong Chen, Shengxing Wu, Jikai Zhou,“Influence of porosity on compressive and tensile
strength of cement mortar”Construction and Building Materials,Volume 40,Pages 869-
874,2013.
10. Zhihui Zhao, Shoude Wang, Lingchao Lu, Chenchen Gong,“Evaluation of pre-coated recycled
aggregate for concrete and mortar”Construction and Building Materials,Volume 43,Pages 191-
196,2013,
11. Catarina Neno , Jorge de Brito “Using Fine Recycled Concrete Aggregate for Mortar
Production” ,Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Volume 17, Pages 168-177, 2018.
12. Beijia Huang, Xiangyu Wang, Harnwei Kua, Yong Geng, Raimund Bleischwitz , Jingzheng Ren -
“Construction and demolition waste management in China through the 3R principle”,
Resources, Conservation & Recycling Volume 129, 36–44, 2018.
13. A. Schackow, D. Stringari, L. Senff, S.L. Correia, A.M. Segadães,“Influence of fired clay brick
waste additions on the durability of mortars”, Cement and Concrete Composites,
Elsevier,Volume 62,Pages 82-89, 2015.
14. Hemalatha B.R, Nagendra Prasad, B.V.Venkata Subramanya, “Construction and demolition
waste recycling for sustainable growth and development”, Journal of Environmental Research
And Development Vol. 2 Issue. 4, 2008.
15. Vladimir G. Haach, “Influence of aggregates grading and water/cement ratio in workability
and hardened properties of mortars”, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Volume
25, Pages 2980-2987, 2017
16. Zengfeng Zhao, Sébastien Remond, Denis Damidot, Weiya Xu,“Influence of fine recycled
concrete aggregates on the properties of mortars”,Construction and Building
Materials,Volume 81,Pages 179-186, 2015.
17. Raj Pillai, “Alternatives to River Sand- A Global Perspective”, Seminar Document ,
Alternatives to River Sand- A Sustainable Approach,Organized by Indian Concrete Institute –
Karnataka Bangalore Centre and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, 13th December,2013.
18. Mohammed Salah Nasr, Ali Abdulhussein Shubbar, Zain Al-Abideen Raed Abed, Mohammed
Sami Ibrahim,“Properties of eco-friendly cement mortar contained recycled materials from
different sources”, Journal of Building Engineering, Elsevier,Volume 31, Pages 101-144, 2020.
19. Rosa María Tremiño, Teresa Real-Herraiz, Viviana Letelier, José Marcos Ortega, “Four-years
influence of waste brick powder addition in the pore structure and several durability-
related parameters of cement-based mortars”, Construction and Building Materials,
Elsevier,Volume 306, Pages 124-139, 2021.
20. Xiaowei Ouyang, Liquan Wang, Jiyang Fu, Shida Xu, Yuwei Ma, “Surface properties of clay
brick powder and its influence on hydration and strength development of cement paste”,
Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Volume 300,123-158, 2021.
21. S.B.Singh, “Role of water/cement ratio on strength development of cement mortar”, Journal
of Building Engineering, Elsevier, 2020
22. S. Boukour, M.L. Benmalek, “Performance evaluation of a resinous cement mortar modified
with crushed clay brick and tire rubber aggregate”, Construction and Building Materials,
Elsevier,Volume 120, Pages 473-481, 2016.
23. Long Li, Bao Jian Zhan, Jianxin Lu, Chi Sun Poon, “Systematic evaluation of the effect of
replacing river sand by different particle size ranges of fine recycled concrete aggregates
(FRCA) in cement mortars”, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier,Volume 209,Pages
147-155, 2019.
24. G. Appa Rao, “Generalization of Abrams' law for cement mortars”, Cement and Concrete
research, Elsevier, Volume 31, Pages 495-502, 2004.
25. Xiaowei Ouyang, Liquan Wang, Jiyang Fu, Shida Xu, Yuwei Ma, “Surface properties of clay
brick powder and its influence on hydration and strength development of cement paste”,
Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Volume 300,123-158, 2021.
26. Drougkas, A., Roca, P. & Molins, C. “Compressive strength and elasticity of pure lime
mortar masonry”, Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier, Volume 149 Pages 983–999,
2016.
27. IS 383 (1970): Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources For
Concrete
28. IS: 10086 (1999); Indian standard Specification for moulds for Use in Tests of Cement and
Concrete. gov.in.is.10086, 1999.
29. IS 5816 (1999): Method of Test Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete
30. Common Schedule of Rates, Technical Working Group, Public Works Department,
Karnataka, 2022.
31. IS 1905 (1997): Method of Code of Practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry.