Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Evaluation of compressed stabilized earth block properties using

crushed brick waste
Pardhasaradhi Kasinikota ⇑, Deb Dulal Tripura
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Agartala, Tripura 799046, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the engineering properties of compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEBs) incorpo-
Received 10 November 2020 rating crushed brick waste as alternative to soil-sand mixture as well as sand. The work was undertaken
Received in revised form 15 January 2021 in two phases: in first phase, the influence of crushed brick waste to replace soil-sand mix without jeop-
Accepted 23 January 2021
ardizing the original performance along with resistance against sulfate attack has been highlighted.
Available online 12 February 2021
Further, microscopic studies were performed to examine the compounds developed. Then, the influence
of crushed brick waste particle size and replacement ratio to replace natural sand has been studied. The
Keywords:
results show that inclusion of crushed brick waste in soil-sand mixture significantly improved the block
Compressed stabilized earth blocks
Crushed brick waste
performance, especially under wetting–drying cycles and sulfate attack. The X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and
Sulfate attack Scanning electron microscope (SEM) studies confirmed that inclusion of crushed brick waste leads to bet-
Particle size ter resistant against external attacks. Crushed brick waste particle size and replacement ratio has signif-
Strength icant influence on block strength and water absorption. The addition of 20% crushed brick waste with
Water absorption particle size 0/4.75 mm increases the compressive and flexural strength; beyond that the resistance
decreases due to inferior properties of crushed brick waste. On the other hand, removal of powder con-
tent negatively affected the block strength. The replacement of sand with very fines content up to 20% is
encouraging beyond that the strength decreases drastically due to higher porosity and water absorption
of crushed brick waste. Irrespective of crushed brick waste particle size, water absorption increases with
replacement ratio.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since antiquity, bricks have been used for construction as sun-
baked (unfired) bricks and fired bricks. Today brick is considered
as one of the principal material in buildings [1]. Despite the supe-
riority of fired bricks over traditional bricks, they are energy inten-
sive. Especially, developing countries like India largely depend on
fired brick for low cost housing resulting in unsustainable develop-
ment [2]. With the development of modern construction materials
like concrete and steel, the earth construction has been abandoned.
Nevertheless, it is projected that more than two billion people pre-
sently lives in earthen houses across the world [3]. Now with
growing concerns on environmental degradation and energy con-
sumption associated with industrialized materials, the earth con-
struction is gaining renewed interest as a sustainable building
material [3].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pardhu.saradhi87@gmail.com (P. Kasinikota).
Earth buildings has several advantages over houses built with
concrete and fired clay bricks such as low embodied energy, ther-
mal comfort, environmental-friendly, locally available and eco-
nomical [4,5]. Among the various construction techniques, the
most prominent are adobe, cob, rammed earth, compressed earth
block (CEB) and wattle and daub. CEB is modern form of the adobe
brick, involves the static compaction of moist soil using manual or
hydraulic press thus achieving densities in range between 1700 to
2300 kg/m3 [3,6]. However the inherent deficiencies of natural
earth such as low strength, affinity to water are preventing its
acceptance in modern construction society. In addition, lack of
design standards for CEB and wide variation of soils depending
on geographic location, limiting its dissemination [3,7]. The perfor-
mance of CEB against water can be improved through soil stabiliza-
tion. Cement is the most widely used stabilizer for fabrication of
compressed stabilized earth blocks CSEBs as it provides higher
strength and durability under different conditions [7,8]. Other sta-
bilizers such as lime, gypsum and bitumen rendered satisfactory
results [7,9,10]. Nonetheless, the knowledge of various types of
soils is essential to select suitable stabilizer type. Studies reported
increase in CSEB strength with increase in cement content; how-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122520
0950-0618/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
ever the cement content greater than 10% by soil weight is uneco-
nomical [1,5,8,10]. The CEB performance is primarily governed by
the soil characteristics and particle size distribution[3,11]. Each
fraction has significant impact on the mechanical behavior. A slight
variation in grading can vary the soil structure, plasticity, cohesion
and permeability [12]. The recommended particle size distribution
of soils for CEB has been stated by various earthen standards
[13,14]. Extensive research has been undertaken on influence of
soil grading on compressed stabilized earth block properties
[8,9,11,15–20]. According to these studies the best results were
obtained with soil fractions in following ranges: sand and gravel
55–75%, silt 15–30% and clay 10–30%, respectively. Addition of
sand/ crushed sand/ crushed gravel to soils with excess clay or silt
or lacking sand content is recommended [14]. In addition, soils
with higher fines are unfavorable for CEB construction [13]. Con-
versely, bricks made of soil having 98% fines showed desirable
strength and satisfactory durability performance when stabilized
with cement and fly ash based geopolymerization [21]. Bachar
et al. [22] reported soils with 91.3% fines stabilized with 30% dune
sand and 12% cement achieved acceptable strength. Sekhar and
nayak [23] achieved satisfactory strength for highly fine grained
soil (88% clay/silt) with addition of 20% coarse grained granulated
blast furnace slag and 6% cement. Eslam et al. [24] found soil with
88% fines was suitable for compressed earth blocks when stabilized
with 40% coarse sand and 6% cement. Hallal et al. [25] found
cement stabilized soils with 76% fines exhibited satisfactory
strength. More recently, Limami et al. [26] evidenced reasonable
strength for bricks using clay (less than50 lm). From the above
studies, it was evident that highly fine grained soils are also suit-
able for CSEBs through either stabilizing with cement and/or sand
addition.
The potential use of stockpiled circulating fluidized bed com-
bustion ash (SCFBCA) in CEB production was addressed [27]. Series
of mixtures were prepared using grounded (finer) and ungrounded
(0/10 mm) SCFBCA in combination with different proportions of
sand, clay stabilized with various stabilizers. Mixtures with clay
and grounded SCFBCA showed higher strength than with clay
and ungrounded SCFBCA, attributed to effect of finer size SCFBCA.
González-López et al. [10] studied the significance of granulometry
of sand on un-stabilized and stabilized compressed earth block
properties using different stabilizers and compaction forces. Blocks
made by mixing clay and sand in which the sand gradation is var-
ied initially to select the best composition. The results showed that
by changing the granulometry of the clay-sand mix the compres-
sive strength improved by 200% for the same binder dosage. Reddy
and Latha [11] showed that fine grained soils prepared by blending
soil with silt from manufacturing sand are superior to the coarse
grained soils made of soil and natural sand at all proportions when
stabilized with cement. Limami et al. [28] investigated the proper-
ties of unfired clay bricks using polymeric wastes as HDPE granules
and PET flakes. Bricks were produced using clay soil with three
types of grain sizes of HDPE and PET
(d
1mm; 1 < d
3mm; 3 < d
6mm) at different percentages.
Regardless of grain size, addition of polymer wastes reduced the
compressive strength of bricks at all incorporation rates due to
increase in porosity and reduction in clay fraction. Bricks with
HDPE waste registered higher strength than PET samples. Further-
more, smaller the grain size and substitution ratio of waste the
higher strength obtained compared to other types due to lower
porosity. It was inferred that type of polymer, size and substitution
ratio strongly influenced the brick performance. Literature clears
that the particle size of constituents has significant influence on
block properties.
Currently, construction and demolition waste is becoming a
serious environmental burden in many countries, significantly
constitute of concrete and masonry debris with huge potential
2
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
and high resource value for recycling and reuse. In India, most of
the waste is dumped as landfill due to lack of specific treatment
plants for segregation [29]. According to Ministry of housing and
urban affairs (MoHUA) India, the construction industry is expected
to grow at a rate of 7–8% in the next decade due to rapid urbaniza-
tion [30]. The main raw materials such as sand, soil, aggregates and
lime stone are natural resources have significant impact on envi-
ronment and particularly sand is facing implications due to ecolog-
ical imbalance whose conservation is of vital importance.
Currently, in India the annual consumption of sand and soil are
about 750 and 350 million tones. Despite of its abundant availabil-
ity, soil is also depleting whose usage should be minimized
through integration of various wastes and industrial by-products
[1]. In 2018, Buildings Materials & Technology Promotion Council
(BMTPC), MoHUA estimated that the annual production of con-
struction and demolition waste in India is approximately 100 mil-
lion tonnes [30]. It is confirmed that, construction and demolition
waste can be reused in form of recycled concrete, ceramic and
mixed aggregate to substitute the natural aggregate to develop a
green building material [31]. Further, the particle size of recycled
aggregate considerably influences the fresh and hardened proper-
ties of cement mortar [32,33].
Several studies endorsed the utilization of construction and
demolition waste as a recycled fine and coarse aggregate in com-
pressed earth blocks and rammed earth engendered comparable
results. Taghiloha [34] developed a sustainable construction mate-
rial for stabilized rammed earth construction by replacing natural
sand and gravel in artificial soil with recycled aggregates. Soils
were prepared by mixing different percentages of clay and silt, nat-
ural sand of 0/2 mm, 0/4 mm and gravel of 4/10 mm, 10/20 mm.
Mixtures with recycled aggregates attained lower strength com-
pared to reference samples although exceeded the minimum
acceptable strength whilst the shrinkage increased yet within the
limits. However, the effect of replacing natural sand explicitly with
ceramic waste was not reported. Oti et al. [35] addressed the fea-
sibility of brick dust waste 0.15/6 mm to partially replace the clay
in production of unfired clay bricks stabilized with ground granu-
lated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and lime. Bricks were made with
brick dust waste of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% percentages. Incorpo-
ration of brick dust waste up to 20% improved the compressive
strength, while the water absorption, linear expansion and weight
loss after freezing and thawing cycles increased with brick dust
percentage. However, the optimum content of brick dust waste
was not reported. Jayasinghe et al. [36] explored the properties
of stabilized rammed earth with incorporating concrete waste of
size 0/19 mm. It was shown that walls incorporated with concrete
waste provided satisfactory results for single and double storey
buildings. Seco et al. [37] examined the possibility of concrete
and ceramic wastes of 0/4 mm to substitute clay soil in fabrication
of unfired bricks using various stabilizers at 4–10% dosage. Based
on the workability requirements, the maximum replacement levels
of soil by concrete and ceramic wastes are established as 50% and
30%. Bricks incorporated with ceramic waste recorded higher com-
pressive strength than control and concrete waste incorporated
bricks for all types and combinations of stabilizers. While, bricks
incorporated with concrete waste displayed superior freezing-
thawing resistance. Bogas et al. [7] investigated the physical,
mechanical and durability performance of un-stabilized, 8%
cement stabilized, 4% cement and 4% lime stabilized compressed
earth blocks with 15% recycled aggregates as partial replacement
of soil. The recycled aggregates employed consisted of concrete,
fired brick and cement mortar with maximum particle size of
2 mm. It was pointed that CSEBs with partial substitution of recy-
cled aggregates showed results comparable with conventional
CSEB. Cement stabilization was more effective than the combina-
tion of lime and cement, which satisfied the minimum strength
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

requirement under saturated conditions. However, the effect of
recycled aggregates separately was not studied. Jyothi et al. [38]
examined the properties of soil-brick powder- lime pozzolanic
cement geo polymer mixtures. Brick powder used was sieved
through 90 l. The mix with soil-brick powder of 1:1 ratio and
10% lime pozzolanic cement achieved higher strength, which was
attributed to pozzolanic reaction by brick powder and geo-
polymerization. Arrigoni et al. [39] investigated the mechanical,
sustainability and hygroscopic properties of stabilized rammed
earth with incorporation of recycled concrete aggregates (RCA).
Cement stabilized mixtures were produced with locally available
crushed limestone; engineered soil prepared using kaolin clay,
sand, silica flour and gravel with RCA passed through 6/19 mm
at 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% percentages. It was deduced that grain size
distribution greatly influenced the strength rather than the RCA
substitution. Mechanical resistance decreased with RCA substitu-
tion although did not affect the durability. Joshi et al. [40] pre-
sented the characteristics of cement stabilized adobe blocks
using demolished brick masonry waste (DMW) passed through
4.75 mm as replacement to natural soil. The results indicated that
the DMW in range of 60–80% provided superior performance.
Except at 20% replacement, the compressive and flexural strength,
dry density improved and initial rate of water absorption, water
absorption and weight loss after wetting–drying cycles reduced
with incorporation of DMW and the optimum percentage was
70%. Stress–strain characteristics indicated that the elastic modu-
lus increased with addition of DMW, SEM studies revealed that
the addition of DMW increased the concentration of hydrated
products. Joshi et al. [41] examined the suitability of utilizing nat-
ural soil, crushed brick masonry powder and LD slag individually
and combinations as alternative to natural sand (Zone II) in pro-
duction of stabilized mud concrete. A wide range of mixtures were
made with different combinations. It was noted that the mixtures
with soil as fine aggregate offered most economical sustainable
solution. In mixtures with combination of soil and construction
and demolition waste, the mix with 100% mortar waste attained
higher strength than with brick waste. In summary, although many
studies addressed the characteristics of CSEBs with brick waste,
only few researchers highlighted the influence of brick waste as
substitute to soil-sand and sand to develop CSEBs. Especially, the
knowledge on effect of brick waste particle size and replacement
ratio as alternative to sand was scanty.
Few studies shed light on sulfate resistance of CSEBs. Sulfate
generally present in soils, seawater, ground water, industrial efflu-
ents, in acid rain or in air and can cause damage under cyclic wet-
dry conditions [42]. Reduction in block strength with duration of
sulfate exposure was reported by [21]. In contrast, Increase in
block compressive strength and reduction of tensile resistance
was found after 12 days in sulfate medium [43]. In addition,
increase in strength for coarse grained soils and decrease for fine
grained soils after sulfate exposure was observed [44]. The perfor-
mance of CSEB under external sulfate attack based on capillary
absorption procedure was proposed and noted that higher sulfate
concentrations greatly damaged the blocks [42]. Further, the
mechanical properties and water absorption of CSEB with an aim
to specify the optimum amounts of different sizes of crushed brick
waste to replace sand with improved behavior. The results
obtained after experimental and microscopic studies were ana-
lyzed, discussed and compared with the control mixture.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Soil
The soil used was collected from west-side of Agartala, Tripura
at a depth of 0.5–1.5 m below existing ground level. To assess the
soil suitability particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, shrinkage
limit, free swell index and standard proctor compaction tests were
performed in accordance with IS 2720 [45–50]. The index proper-
ties of soil are outlined in Table 1 with liquid and plastic limits are
50.48% and 27.12%. The grain size distribution is illustrated in
Fig. 1, indicating that the soil is highly fine grained with 97.35%
clay and silt fraction. According to Indian standard soil classifica-
tion system (ISSCS) the soil is classified as CH. To determine the
mineralogical composition X-ray diffraction (XRD) was conducted
using PANanlaytical X-ray diffract meter with Cu-Ka radiation.
The data was collected in a 2h range 5°70°. XRD data in Fig. 2
revealed that soil is mainly dominated by kaolinite, Illite and
quartz minerals. The activity of soil is 0.76 indicating normally
active which is in consistent with the mineralogy data.
The grain size distribution of soil fall outside the recommended
envelope of IS 1725 [14] and AS HB 195 [13] for making com-
pressed earth blocks. The optimum clay content of soil for CEB var-
ied from 8.65% to 22% depending on soil type [11,16,17,20]. Further
AS HB 195 [13] and IS 1725 [14] recommended a sand content of
30–75% and 50–80% suitable for CEB production. Very often the
soil grading is altered by diluting with sand to improve the skele-
ton as well to reduce the shrinkage [19]. Thus, mixtures were pre-
pared with different ratios of sand-soil to found the optimum mix
ratio. A soil-sand mix of ratio 30:70 attained the maximum dry
density is selected, which is compliant with earlier studies [8,16].
Muntohar [51] selected an optimum proportion of soil-sand (70–
30) mixtures based on proctor test results. CSEB made of highly
fine grained soil with coarse sand 50–60% attained maximum den-
sity and compressive strength [24].
2.2. Sand and crushed brick waste
Locally available natural river sand of white color was used.
Crushed brick waste was procured from local crushing plant. The
particle size distribution for sand and crushed brick waste are
Table 1
Properties of Soil and Reconstituted soil.
Property Soil Reconstituted
soil (RS)

author suggested mechanical tests while assessing the resistance Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit 50.48% 21.3%
against sulfate attack. Plastic Limit 27.12% 15.8%
Plasticity Index 23.36% 5.5%
Thus, bearing on literature the author felt the need to under-
Grain size Sand 2.65% 70.41%
stand the properties of CSEBs with brick waste as a substitute to distribution Silt 67.21% 20.53%
reconstituted soil (soil-sand) and sand. The study intend to address Clay 30.14% 9.06%
the specific objectives: the influence of crushed brick waste as a Proctor Test Optimum moisture 18.83% 10.77%
substitute to soil-sand mixture at both macro level through deter- content (OMC)
Maximum dry density 1634 kg/ 1928 kg/m3
mination of mechanical (Dry and wet compressive strength, Flexu- (MDD) m3
ral strength) and durability tests such as wetting–drying and Swell Index 3.4% –
sulfate attack and micro level using scanning electron microscope Activity 0.76 –
(SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Also, the effect of shrinkage limit 16.88% –
IS soil classification CH SM
crushed brick waste particle size and replacement ratio on
3
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of Soil, Natural sand, Reconstituted soil and Crushed brick waste.

Fig. 2. XRD data of raw materials used; G- Gypsum, Q-Quartz, C-Calcite, K-Kaolinite, I-Illite,

shown in Fig. 1. The physical properties ascertained by following IS and crushed brick waste are primarily composed of quartz mineral
2386 and IS 383 [52,53] are presented in Table 2. Table 3 pictorially with traces of calcite in sand.
represents the details of different fractions of natural sand and
crushed brick waste. XRD analyses in Fig. 2 shows that both sand 2.3. Cement

The ordinary Portland cement of 43 grade confirming to IS 8112

Table 2 [54] is used. All mixtures are cement stabilized with maximum 10%
Physical properties of natural sand and crushed brick waste. by weight of soil as greater contents are uneconomical [8].
Sl. No Property Natural sand Crushed brick waste
1 Fineness modulus 1.6 2.2
2.4. Determination of OMC and MDD
2 Specific gravity 2.6 2.5
3 Loose bulk density 1410 kg/m3 1213 kg/m3 The OMC for mixtures with and without crushed brick waste
4 Compacted bulk density 1575 kg/m3 1381 kg/m3 was determined following the IS 2720 part VII [49], as it indicates
5 Water absorption 1.05% 12.26%
the moisture content at which a specific compaction force would
4
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
Table 3
Details of granular fractions of Natural sand and Crushed brick waste.
Particle size fraction (mm) 4.75–0.6
Natural sand
Crushed brick waste
provide the maximum dry density [5]. It is used as a reference such
that a close relation with static compaction press optimum mois-
ture content was noticed [4,7,19,55,56].
2.5. Mixture proportions and nomenclature
A total of 20 composite mixtures were prepared and categorized
in two phases. In phase I, the soil-sand mixture was replaced by
crushed brick waste at 6%, 12%, 18% and 24% respectively. In sec-
ond phase the sand was replaced by three different particle sizes
of crushed brick waste namely 0/4.75 mm, 0.15/4.75 mm and less
than 0.15 mm at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% respectively. The
summary of production and test run of CSEB samples is given in
Table 4. The material proportions of mixes are listed in Tables 5-
6. The quantities of ingredients aforementioned are by weight pro-
portion. The grain size curves of mixtures studied are presented in
Fig. 3.
2.6. Production of CSEBs
A hand operated manual press with a compaction ratio of 1.85
was used to manufacture CSEBs of dimension 290x140x100 mm as
shown in Fig. 4(a). The dried soil is in lumps was pulverized man-
ually using rammer then sieved through 1 mm sieve. The sand and
crushed brick waste are also screened from 4.75 mm sieve. The
quantities of air dried ingredients such as soil, sand, crushed brick
waste and cement as obtained from calculations were weighed and
mixed as follows. Initially, the soil and sand were mixed then
crushed brick waste was added, further blending is continued, after
that cement was added and thoroughly mixed until a homoge-
neous mixture was obtained. The quantity of water determined
individually for each mix through proctor test is adopted for mold-
ing blocks. This requisite amount of water was sprinkled gradually
on to the dry mixture and turn over several times to attain uniform
distribution of moisture. The prepared wet mixture was then intro-
duced into mould of press using scoop, any excess material was
removed. The mix was then compressed manually by static com-
paction and the block was ejected immediately and placed care-
fully in a level surface, Fig. 4(b). The ejected blocks were weighed
and cured for 28 days under wet gunny bags after 24 hrs of casting
and were then air dried for 7 days in the laboratory before testing.
In phase I, the incorporation of crushed brick waste was con-
fined to 24% because the block starts to crumble beyond this per-
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
0.6–0.3 0.3–0.15 < 0.15
centage which may be attributed to the low clay content of soil
(5.8%), which agrees with Seco et al. [37] reported that the maxi-
mum substitution of ceramic waste was 30% based on workability.
This can be explained from the fact that soil containing low clay
content may experience difficulties to handle the blocks immedi-
ately after pressing due to lack of initial cohesion [57].
2.7. Tests scheme
For each variation five samples were tested to determine the
compressive strength, water absorption and three samples for flex-
ural strength. Compression test was performed in a 200 ton capac-
ity compression testing machine, capable of applying load
uniformly to failure. Both dry and saturated (i.e. after immersed
in water for 24 hrs prior to testing) compressive strengths were
determined by placing the CSEB between two 15 mm thick steel
plates and loaded. The compressive strength of block was calcu-
lated from its failure load and cross-sectional area. Three points
flexural test was performed in accordance with HB 195 [13] to
determine the flexural strength of CSEBs. The blocks were tested
over a span of 230 mm using a 400 kN capacity universal testing
machine (UTM) at a constant loading rate of 2.5 kN/min until fail-
ure. Water absorption of CSEBs after 24 hrs immersion was deter-
mined according to IS 3495 part II [58] which is similar to ASTM
C67 [59].
To examine the durability, alternate wetting–drying and sulfate
attack tests were carried out on phase I blocks. Alternate wetting–
drying test was performed in accordance with IS 1725 [14] which
is similar to ASTM D559-96 [60] with slight modifications. Prior to
test, blocks were dried in oven at 60 °C till constant weight is
attained and the initial dry weight is recorded. Then the blocks
were soaked in water at room temperature for 5 h, followed by
oven dried at 70 °C for a period of 42 h. Remove the blocks from
oven and using wire brush scratch twice on all sides of blocks cor-
responding to a force of 1.5 kgf. The process of wetting–drying
including abrasion constitute one cycle. Twelve such cycles were
repeated, and then blocks are oven dried at 60° C till to reach con-
stant weight. Finally, the dry weight of block is noted. The mass
loss is determined based on the initial and final dry weight.
To assess the sulfate resistance, blocks were exposed to 3%
sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) solution at room temperature. The proce-
dure proposed by Bezerra et al. [42] was adopted. Initially, the
blocks were oven dried at 110 °C for 24 hrs and dry weights were
5
 Table 4

P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura

Production and test run of CSEB samples.
c
Phase Mix type/ Description Compressive strength (MPa) Flexural strength Water Alternate wetting–drying Sulfate attack
d
Sample type (MPa) absorption c(%)
Microstructural
Compressive Flexural strength d(MPa) Compressive Flexural analysis
strength c(MPa) strength c(MPa) strength
d
(MPa)
Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry
p p p p p p p p
a
I CS CSEB sample with 0% crushed brick waste p p p p p p p p
SEM, XRD
C6 CSEB sample with 6% crushed brick waste p p p p p p p p
x
C12 CSEB sample with 12% crushed brick waste p p p p p p p p
x
C18 CSEB sample with 18% crushed brick waste p p p p p p p p
x
C24 CSEB sample with 24% crushed brick waste p p p p
SEM, XRD
IIb 20CF CSEB sample with 20% crushed brick waste of full (F) x x x x x
particle size 0/4.75 mm p p p p
40CF CSEB sample with 40% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size 0/4.75 mm p p p p
60CF CSEB sample with 60% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size 0/4.75 mm p p p p
80CF CSEB with 80% crushed brick waste of full particle size 0/ x x x x x
4.75 mm p p p p
100CF CSEB sample with 100% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size 0/4.75 mm p p p p
20CM CSEB sample with 20% crushed brick waste of medium (M) x x x x x
particle size 0.15/4.75 mm p p p p
40CM CSEB sample with 40% crushed brick waste of medium x x x x x
particle size 0.15/4.75 mm p p p p
60CM CSEB sample with 60% crushed brick waste of medium x x x x x
particle size 0.15/4.75 mm
6

p p p p
80CM CSEB sample with 80% crushed brick waste of medium x x x x x
particle size 0.15/4.75 mm p p p p
100CM CSEB sample with 100% crushed brick waste of medium x x x x x
particle size 0.15/4.75 mm p p p p
20CL CSEB sample with 20% crushed brick waste of particle size x x x x x
lesser (L) than 0.15 mm p p p p
40CL CSEB sample with 40% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size lesser than 0.15 mm p p p p
60CL CSEB sample with 60% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size lesser than 0.15 mm p p p p
80CL CSEB sample with 80% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x

Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

size lesser than 0.15 mm p p p p
100CL CSEB sample with 100% crushed brick waste of full particle x x x x x
size lesser than 0.15 mm

Note: a: Soil-sand mixture replaced with crushed brick waste, b: Sand replaced with crushed brick waste, c: Average of five samples, d: Average of three samples, CSEB: Compressed stabilized earth block, SEM: Scanning electron
microscope, XRD: X-ray diffraction.
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Table 5
Mix proportions and standard compaction results of phase I.

Phase Crushed brick Soil-sand Cement Optimum moisture content Maximum Dry Density Coefficient of Coefficient of
I waste (%) (%) (%) (OMC-%) (MDD- kg/m3) uniformity(Cu) curvature (Cc)
Mix
CS – 100 10 10.45 1932 102.4 7.7
C6 6 94 10 11.11 1909 96.8 11.1
C12 12 88 10 11.93 1896 89 12.3
C18 18 82 10 12.15 1886 85.7 12.2
C24 24 76 10 12.7 1875 82.6 13.5

Table 6
Mix proportions of phase II.

Phase II Soil (%) Sand (%) Crushed brick waste (%) Cement(%) Coefficientof uniformity(Cu) Coefficientof curvature
(Cc)
Mix CF CM CL CF CM CL
20CF/20CM/20CL 30 56 14 10 105.6 107.8 95.1 0.91 8.2 0.42
40CF/40CM/40CL 30 42 28 10 111.2 122.7 78 0.56 7.7 0.45
60CF/60CM/60CL 30 28 42 10 119.5 142 63.7 0.37 7.2 0.86
80CF/80CM/80CL 30 14 56 10 132.2 168.7 - 0.30 6.9 -
100CF/100CM/100CL 30 0 70 10 152 207 - 0.24 6.9 -

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curves of mixtures. (a) Phase I- crushed brick waste as substitute to soil-sand mixture (0–24%) and (b) Phase II crushed brick waste as
substitute to sand  0/4.75 mm (CF), (c) 0.15/4.75 mm (CM) and (d) less than 0.15 mm (CL).

noted. The blocks were then placed inside the plastic container block as depicted in Fig. 6. The solution was replaced to 2 cm at
over the support bars and the prepared sulfate solution is poured regular intervals, after 1 week the samples were taken out of the
gently till to reach a height of 2 cm from the bottom surface of solution and weighted. The container was emptied and blocks

7
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Fig. 4. HADUL PRESS- (a) CEB making machine (b) Blocks produced.

Fig. 5. OMC and MDD characteristics of phase I and II mixtures.

was allowed to air dry for 2 weeks and weighted. In this study the diffractometer with Cu-Ka radiation, the data was collected using
number of cycles was limited to two. A minimum of five samples 2h angle in the range of 5°–70°.
mean is reported as mass variation. After completion of wetting–
drying cycles and sulfate attack, the blocks were tested to deter-
3. Results and discussion
mine the compressive and flexural strength.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscope
3.1. OMC and MDD characteristics
(SEM) tests were performed on phase I blocks after different expo-
sure conditions to investigate the mineralogical composition,
3.1.1. Influence of crushed brick waste as substitute to soil-sand
microstructure and morphology. A (CARL ZEISS-SIGMA 300) FE-
mixture
SEM was employed to examine the products formed. XRD mea-
The OMC and MDD of mixtures with 0%, 6%, 12%, 18% and 24% of
surements were taken on powdered samples using PANanlaytical
crushed brick waste are depicted in Fig. 5(a). It can be deduced that
8
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Fig. 6. Sulfate attack test.

Fig. 7. Status of blocks after wetting –drying cycles.

addition of crushed brick waste decreases the MDD and OMC
increases, respectively. This was due to lower density and high
water absorption of crushed brick waste. As the crushed brick
waste content varies from 0 to 24% the OMC increased from
10.45% to 12.70% and MDD decreased from 1932 kg/m3 to
1875 kg/m3 respectively. Tests results are listed in Table 4.
3.1.2. Influence of crushed brick waste particle size and dosage as
substitute to sand in soil- sand mixture
The influence of crushed brick waste particle size and replace-
ment ratio on OMC and MDD of soil-sand-cement mixtures are
shown in Fig. 5(b)-(d) and Table 7. For the three different particle
sizes, the MDD decreases and OMC increases with crushed brick
waste replacement ratio compared to control mix. The lower bulk
density and high porous nature of crushed brick waste as well as
change in particle size distribution and corresponding packing
potential are the plausible explanations.
When the sand is replaced with crushed brick waste particle
size between 0/4.75 mm (CF), the MDD and OMC values for 20%,
40%, 60%, 80% and 100% replacement ratios are ranging between
1875 kg/m3–1658 kg/m3 and 12.17–16.66%, respectively. Similarly,
the values of MDD and OMC corresponding to the particle sizes
0.15/4.75 mm (CM) and less than 0.15 mm (CL) vary from
1860 kg/m31645 kg/m3 and 11.84–16.26%; 1848 kg/m3–
1540 kg/m3 and 12.71–21.60%, respectively as tabulated in Table 7.
The highest MDD value obtained for the 20CF (20% of sand was
replaced by crushed brick waste of particle size between
0/4.75 mm) whereas the lowest OMC was achieved for 20CM
(20% of sand was replaced with crushed brick waste particle size
between 0.15/4.75 mm). Especially, at all replacement ratios the
MDD values are greater for CF mixtures and OMCs are lower for
CM mixtures. The higher MDD values for CF mixtures are attribu-
ted to filling effect of fines. On the other hand, removal of fines
leads to lower OMC in CM mixtures.

Table 7
Summary of phase II optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) test results.

Mix OMC (%) MDD (kg/m3) Mix OMC (%) MDD (kg/m3) Mix OMC (%) MDD (kg/m3)
20CF 12.18 1875 20CM 11.75 1860 20CL 12.72 1848
40CF 13.62 1825 40CM 13.22 1804 40CL 13.97 1755
60CF 15.19 1756 60CM 14.75 1740 60CL 15.64 1707
80CF 16.32 1703 80CM 15.67 1694 80CL 16.82 1616
100CF 16.66 1658 100CM 16.26 1645 100CL 21.6 1540

9
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
The highest OMC and lowest MDD was obtained when sand is
completely replaced with crushed brick waste of particle size less
than 0.15 mm (CL100) which is due to large surface area, water
absorption and lower density of fine particles compared to sand.
Overall, the MDD values are higher for CF mixtures followed by
CM and CL whereas the OMC values are higher for CL followed
by CF and CM respectively.
3.2. Dry and wet compressive strength
3.2.1. Influence of crushed brick waste as substitute to soil-sand
mixture
The dry and wet compressive strength results of CSEBs with and
without crushed brick waste after 28 days curing are given in
Fig. 10(a). It can be seen that the incorporation of crushed brick
waste improves the compressive strength significantly compared
to control sample; this observation agrees with the earlier studies
[35,37,40]. The average dry and wet compressive strengths
achieved were lies in range of 8.20–9.57 MPa and 7.16–8.43 MPa
corresponding to 0–24% crushed brick waste contents, are included
in Table 8 with standard deviation. This increase can be attributed
to pozzolanic effect of crushed brick waste and better particle size
distribution as reported by [35,37]. For better insight, the particle
size distribution of mixtures is considered, the coefficient of unifor-
mity and curvatures exhibit an obvious correlation with compres-
sive strengths. While testing, two types of failure modes were
mostly encountered. The typical hour glass failure shown in
Fig. 9(b) developed due to platen restraint effect and in Fig. 9(c)
the face failure generated due to uneven compaction force applied
to block during production which is in consistent with [61].
The strength reduction after 24 h immersion was varying
between 11.73 and 13.6%. The reason for this low strength reduc-
tion was expected due to filling the voids between the sand parti-
cles with crushed brick waste fines as well as decrease in clay
content lead to improvement in effectiveness of cement with sand
grains [8,23], whereas development of pore water pressure and liq-
uefaction of un-stabilized clay minerals caused for strength decre-
ment in soaking condition as explained by [8]. These results are in
consistent with previous studies, where the loss of strength was
between 10 and 23% for samples with 4–10% PC and 30% ceramic
waste [37], 5–20% loss was documented for soil-sand-lime-rice
hush ash mixtures [51] and 19–33% loss reported for cement stabi-
lized soil- granulated blast furnace slag mixtures [23], respectively.
Conversely, increase in strength after 12 days soaking in water was
evidenced [43].
3.2.2. Influence of crushed brick waste particle size and dosage as
substitute to sand in soil- sand mixture
The average dry and wet compressive strengths of blocks with
three types of crushed brick waste at different replacement per-
centages are illustrated in Fig. 13(a) and (b). The results show that
the strength of blocks incorporating three types of crushed brick
waste decreases with increase in replacement percentage relative
to control sample. However, the strength of CF blocks (produced
Table 8
Summary of Phase I test results.
Mix/Sample Dry compressive Wet compressive
strength (MPa) strength (MPa)
Average SD Average SD
CS 8.20 0.2 7.16 0.21
C6 8.53 0.22 7.37 0.31
C12 8.83 0.29 7.7 0.36
C18 9.24 0.34 8.15 0.26
C24 9.57 0.24 8.43 0.31
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
with crushed brick waste of 0/4.75 mm size) increased initially
for 20% replacement and then gradually decreased for further
replacements. The dry and wet strength of 20CF block increases
by 11.27% and 12.9% compared to control CSEB. For the crushed
brick waste replacement ratios of 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% the
dry strength decreases by 3.87%, 6.78%, 10.44% and 11.97%; wet
strength reduced by 3.97%, 10.65%, 13.92% and 15.06% respectively.
The increase in strength for 20CF was due to combined effect of
pozzolanic properties and filing effect of crushed brick waste fines,
this agrees with [33,37]. On the other hand the reduction in
strength at higher substitutions can be attributed to increase in
fines content that increase the porosity as well as inferior proper-
ties of crushed brick waste relative to sand. However, a micro-
scopic study is warranted to confirm the conclusions. Similar
trends were obtained for cement mortar with ceramic masonry
aggregates [62,63].
Both dry and wet strengths of blocks containing crushed brick
waste of particle size 0.15/4.75 mm (CM) decreases steadily with
replacement percentage. The absence of crushed brick waste fines
negatively affected the strength, as the increase in quantity of coar-
ser particles with incorporation ratio appear to increase the voids.
Similar observations when coarser ceramic aggregates used
instead of finer sand in stabilized rammed earth by [34]. Arrigoni
et al. [39] confirmed that specimens with 100% rammed recycled
concrete aggregates showed higher porosity than traditionally sta-
bilized rammed earth mixtures. For 100% replacement ratio
(100CM) the dry and wet strength decreases by about 25.51%
and 28.17% compared to control sample. As it can be clearly seen
in Fig. 13(a) and (b), the substitution of sand with 20% crushed
brick waste particle size less than 0.15 mm (CL) resulted in slightly
higher strength and then decreases drastically with further
replacement level. For 20% substitution, the block strengths in
dry and wet state are 9.21% and 11.13% higher than the control.
With further increase in substitution rate up to 100%, the corre-
sponding decrease in dry and wet strengths are in the range of
9.36–55.01% and 11.13–68.59% respectively. Test results are
included in Table 10.
The dry and wet compressive strength of blocks produced with
20CF are higher than the 20CM blocks by 1.14 and 1.2 times. The
improved strength in 20CF was anticipated because of presence
of fines. In general, crushed brick waste fines less than 75 mm are
reactive because of firing at high temperatures [31]. During this
process, active siliceous and aluminous compounds were devel-
oped. These components chemically react with hydration products
of cement to form additional calcium silicate hydrates leading to
strength enhancement. Thus it is clear that fines had a considerable
effect on block compressive strength as noticed by [33]. In addi-
tion, when compared to 20CM, the dry and wet strength of 20CL
blocks increases by about 1.12 and 1.2 times respectively. Micro
filling and pozzolanic reaction of fines in 20CL contributed to
higher strength as pointed by [32]. However, beyond 40% the
strength of CL blocks was much lower than CF and CM blocks,
which may be attributed to increase in porosity and water absorp-
tion with incorporation of fines. This is in accordant with
Flexural strength Water absorption (%) Wet-Dry strength ratio
(MPa)
Average SD Average SD
2.19 0.04 8.41 0.29 0.87
2.25 0.07 9.06 0.18 0.86
2.43 0.06 9.44 0.22 0.87
2.58 0.08 9.94 0.19 0.88
2.65 0.09 10.52 0.2 0.88
10
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Fig. 8. Status of blocks after exposed to sulfate medium.

Fig. 9. Compression test of block: a) Test setup b) Hourglass failure; and c) Face failure.

Fig. 10. Test results of phase I blocks.

11
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Table 9
Results of Phase I samples underwent wetting–drying cycles and sulfate attack.

Mix/Sample Wetting-Drying Cycles Sulfate Attack

Dry compressive Flexural strength Mass Loss (%) Dry compressive Flexural strength Mass Gain (%)
strength (MPa) (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa)
Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD
CS 11.24 0.78 2.22 0.05 0.94 10.63 0.48 2.54 0.07 1.05
C6 12.09 0.86 2.51 0.09 2.55 11.29 0.59 2.79 0.05 0.18
C12 12.98 0.74 2.88 0.06 3.09 11.7 0.68 3.05 0.07 0.25
C18 13.56 0.8 3.07 0.05 4.43 12.46 0.76 3.25 0.07 0.43
C24 14.05 0.77 3.16 0.08 4.72 12.95 0.87 3.38 0.08 0.53

Table 10
Summary of phase II test results.

Mix/Sample Dry compressive Wet compressive Flexural strength Water absorption (%) Wet-Dry strength ratio
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa)
Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD
20CF 9.13 0.3 8.08 0.22 2.51 0.07 10.95 0.59 0.89
40CF 7.88 0.29 6.87 0.36 2.07 0.09 13.41 0.48 0.87
60CF 7.65 0.39 6.39 0.67 1.96 0.08 14.92 0.43 0.84
80CF 7.35 0.31 6.16 0.47 1.88 0.09 15.85 0.33 0.84
100CF 7.22 0.6 6.08 0.16 1.74 0.08 17.14 0.56 0.84
20CM 7.97 0.21 6.79 0.34 2.14 0.04 11.64 0.47 0.85
40CM 7.81 0.28 6.2 0.18 2.11 0.03 13.83 0.35 0.79
60CM 7.59 0.27 6.11 0.21 1.98 0.06 15.1 0.38 0.8
80CM 6.75 0.51 5.66 0.37 1.94 0.09 16.24 0.55 0.84
100CM 6.11 0.3 5.14 0.3 1.85 0.06 18.16 0.59 0.84
20CL 8.96 0.47 7.95 0.37 2.03 0.13 10.62 0.54 0.89
40CL 7.43 0.49 6.13 0.14 1.73 0.11 14.02 0.66 0.82
60CL 5.63 0.37 4.76 0.22 1.37 0.09 17.54 0.55 0.85
80CL 4.88 0.11 4.16 0.38 1.16 0.08 22.89 0.67 0.85
100CL 3.69 0.14 2.25 0.15 0.89 0.08 28.03 0.55 0.61

Corinaldesi et al. [63] who showed that finer brick waste used
instead of sand increases the porosity of mortar. These results
affirm that the crushed brick waste particle size has notable influ-
ence on block strength.
The particle size distribution of mixtures has also been taken in
to consideration to explain the strength trend with crushed brick
waste substitution rate. Although, the increase in compressive
strength at low replacement rates indicate that there exist an opti-
mum particle size distribution for CF and CL blocks. However, the
coefficient of uniformity and curvatures for theses mixtures pre-
sented in Table 6 did not provide a definite correlation with
strength, which agrees with Arrigoni et al. [39], found no clear cor-
relation of particle size distribution with strength for stabilized
rammed earth with recycled concrete aggregates.
Overall, 20CF block achieved higher compressive strength in
both dry and wet state, followed by 20CL whereas for 20CM the
strength in dry state is slightly less than control but in wet condi-
tion decreased significantly. The wet-dry strength ratio for CF, CM
and CL blocks differ between 0.84 and 0.89, 0.79–0.85 and 0.61–
0.89 respectively.
3.3. Flexural strength
3.3.1. Influence of crushed brick waste as substitute to soil-sand
mixture
The flexural strength results and their standard deviation of
blocks corresponding to phase I, are provided in Table 8. Similar
to behavior of compressive strength; the flexural strength of blocks
incorporating crushed brick waste was higher than the control. As
shown in Fig. 10(b), the highest strength 2.65 MPa was attained for
blocks produced with 24% crushed brick waste. The increase in
percentage strength lies in the range of 2.9% to 21.16% as the
crushed brick waste content increased from 6 to 24%.The reason
12
for better performance was the pozzolanic activity of crushed brick
waste and better grain size distribution resulted in good bonding
between crushed brick waste and cement-soil matrix. Apart from
pozzolanicity other parameters such as shape and roughness of
crushed brick waste also contribute for strength development
[33]. All blocks failed by splitting into two halves under three point
loading. The mean flexural strength of blocks was about 26–28% of
mean compressive strength.
3.3.2. Influence of crushed brick waste particle size and dosage as
substitute to sand in soil- sand mixture
The flexural strength of blocks incorporating three types of
crushed brick waste is summarized in Table 10 and Fig. 13(c). It
is evident that except for 20CF block, the flexural strength of blocks
comprising three types of crushed brick waste decreases with
increase in replacement percentage. The highest flexural strength
of 2.51 MPa was obtained for 20CF blocks, is 14.5% greater than
the control sample strength. Beyond 20%, the strength of CF blocks
decreases linearly for crushed brick waste contents of 40% to 100%
and the percentage decrease ranges from 5.5 to 20.4% with respect
to control. The reason for the initial increase was explained by poz-
zolanic reactivity and roughness of crushed brick waste and later
decrease at higher replacements was due to increase in amount
of higher fines well as inferior properties of crushed brick waste
[33,63].
Just as analogous to compressive strength, the flexural strength
of blocks produced with 0.15/4.75 mm decreased steadily with
replacement ratio. The percentage strength reduction varies
between 2.43 and 15.37% as the crushed brick waste content varies
from 20 to 100%. However, the loss of flexural strength at 100%
replacement (15.37%) was lower than that of compressive strength
(23.50%) which indicates that the removal of fines less than
0.15 mm did not showed significant impact on flexural strength.
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Substitution of sand with crushed brick waste particle size less

than 0.15 mm led to a decrease in flexural strength. When com-
pared to control sample, the flexural strength of 20CL, 40CL,
60CL, 80CL and 100CL blocks decreases by 7.15%, 21.15%, 37.60%,
46.88% and 59.36%, respectively. Except for 20CL, the strength of
blocks steeply decreased with further replacement due to increase
in water requirement with higher percentage of crushed brick
waste fines which are considerably weak and highly porous as
compared to sand. This was justified by compaction characteristics
that the percentage increase in OMC of CL blocks lies in range of
33.68–106.62% as substitution rate varies from 40 to 100%.
The flexural strength of 20CF was 1.2 times greater than the
20CM. However, the strengths of 40CF, 60CF, 80CF and 100CF
decreases by 1.74%, 1.18%, 3.26% and 5.94% respectively with
respect to corresponding percentages of CM blocks, which corrob-
orates the removal of crushed brick waste fines, had no consider-
able affect on flexural strength, in fact a slight increase was
observed at higher replacements for CM blocks, but in both cases
Fig. 11. Water absorption of phase I blocks.
the strength decreases compared to control mix. The better perfor-
mance of CM blocks was explained by angularity and roughness of
water absorption with crushed brick waste replacement ratio up
crushed brick waste, which are beneficial for developing bonding
to 70%, thereafter increases with further incorporation. These dif-
between crushed brick waste and soil–cement matrix. On the other
ferences may be because of sand being replaced with crushed brick
hand, crushed brick waste inherent porous nature led to a lower
waste in this study instead of soil.
flexural strength.
In blocks produced with 0.15/4.75 mm (CM), less than 0.15 mm
The flexural strength of CF and CM blocks are higher than the
(CL) the water absorption values are 38.50%, 64.54%, 79.62%, 93.2%
blocks produced with crushed brick waste size less than
and 116%; 26.37%, 66.82% 108.73% 172.36% and 233.5% respectively
0.15 mm (CL) by about 1.23–1.95 and 1.05–2.08 times as the
higher than the control, as the crushed brick waste substitution ratio
replacement percentage varies from 20 to 100% respectively. This
varies from 20% to 100%. Reddy and Latha [11] noticed higher water
is attributed to presence of coarser crushed brick waste particles
absorption when soil was replaced with silt size stone dust than with
in CM and CF blocks, especially for greater than 40% replacement
sand. From the above results, it manifests that incorporation of finer
ratios, as witnessed in previous studies [63]. Among all the mix-
size crushed brick waste leading to higher absorption. These results
tures studied, the lowest strength was achieved for 100CL blocks,
confirm the wet compressive strength behavior.
0.89 MPa. It is evident that incorporation of very fine brick waste
Despite removal of powder content, the blocks produced with
in larger quantities was detrimental to the flexural strength.
0.15/4.75 mm (CM) showed slightly higher water absorption than
Overall, the CSEBs exceeded the minimum flexural strength
the blocks produced with 0/4.75 mm (CF). The increase in water
value, 0.25 MPa specified by NZS 4298 [64] for load bearing
absorption values are approximately ± 6% as the replacement per-
masonry. The flexural strengths of CF, CM and CL blocks were
centage varies from 20% to 100%. It appeared to be contradictory
about 24–27%, 26–30% and 22–24% of corresponding compressive
with respect to OMC values; however the presence of fines in CF
strength. It was summarized that on one hand removal of fines
mixtures improved the microstructure by filling the pores as well
from crushed brick waste had no notable influence on flexural
as reacting with calcium hydroxide leading to dense matrix that
strength. On the other hand, crushed brick waste fines & its per-
reduces the water absorption. Especially, it was found that the
centage replacement significantly influenced the block strength.
water absorption of blocks produced with CL was less than the
The optimum strength was obtained for mix containing 20% of
CF and CM at 20% substitution. In fact, up to 40% substitution ratio
crushed brick waste with particle size 4.75–0 mm (20CF).
the values are comparable to CF and CM mixtures. This could be
owing to filling of voids with crushed brick waste fines that hinders
3.4. Water absorption
the water entrance in block, whereas at replacements greater than
40% this effect was no more evidenced. Indeed, at higher replace-
3.4.1. Influence of crushed brick waste as substitute to soil-sand
ment ratios the water absorption of these blocks increases drasti-
mixture
cally. Furthermore, beyond 60% replacement the water
The water absorption of phase I blocks increases with increase
absorption of CL blocks is exceeding the recommended value of
in crushed brick waste content and varies from 8.41% to 10.52%
18% prescribed in IS 1725 [14] and 20% stated in NBR 4892 [65]
as the crushed brick waste dosage increases from 0 to 24%, as
as well as ASTM C62 [66] for building bricks under different weath-
shown in Fig. 11 and Table 8. Oti et al. [35] reported 2.62–8.37%
ering conditions. This was primarily attributed to higher water
for lime-GGBS stabilized earth bricks with brick dust content up
absorption of finer particles compared to coarser particle of
to 20%.
crushed brick waste.
Overall, in one hand the removal of powder content did not
3.4.2. Influence of crushed brick waste particle size and dosage as
show much variation in water absorption. On the other hand the
substitute to sand in soil- sand mixture
finer size crushed brick waste resulted in higher water absorption,
The effect of crushed brick waste particle size and replacement
which confirms its dependency on particle size.
ratio on water absorption of blocks is shown in Fig. 13(d). The
result indicates that, irrespective of particle size the water absorp-
tion increases as the percentage replacement increases. As it can be 3.5. Durability tests
seen in Fig. 13(d), for blocks produced with 0/4.75 mm (CF) the
water absorption values of 20CF, 40CF, 60CF, 80CF and 100CF In this section, the durability of CSEBs with incorporation of
blocks are 30.30%,59.60%,77.55%, 88.60% and 104% higher than crushed brick waste (0–24%) as substitute to soil-sand mixture
the control. In contrast, Joshi et al. [40] reported the decrease in under different conditions are presented.
13
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

3.5.1. Wetting-drying resistance into cementitious material, it reacts with portlandite and alu-
After completion of test, blocks were examined for any cracks/ minum phases to form gypsum & ettringite, which are basically
spalling. All blocks showed minor loss of surface particles and cor- expansive in nature [68]. However, during initial period of expo-
ner damages; however the blocks containing crushed brick waste sure these two compounds fill the pores in composite structure
exhibited better resistance against abrasion because of good adhe- and make it dense that will contribute to strength enhancement.
sion between particles and matrix. Fig. 7 shows the appearance of For blocks produced with crushed brick waste, the reaction
blocks after 12 cycles. between crushed brick waste powder and portlandite led to pro-
To evaluate the effect of accelerated weathering on the mechan- duction of supplementary CSH gels resulted in a higher strength.
ical performance, these blocks were tested to determine compres- Thus the reduction of amount of calcium hydroxide in matrix
sive and flexural strength. The results are illustrated in Fig. 10(c) enhanced the resistance against sulfate attack.
and (d), Table 9. As shown in Fig. 10(c), the compressive strength
of blocks underwent wetting–drying cycles are higher than the ini-
3.5.3. Mass variation
tial values obtained at ambient curing. The highest strength of
Mass variation of blocks containing 0–24% of crushed brick
14.05 MPa was achieved by block produced with 24% crushed brick
waste subjected to wetting–drying cycles and to two cycles of 3%
waste (C24). It has been found that the strength of control block
Na2SO4 solution is illustrated in Fig. 12. The mass loss increases
increases by 37% after wetting–drying test, similarly for blocks
with increase in crushed brick waste content and varies between
with crushed brick waste varying from 6 to 24% the strength gain
0.94 and 4.72% as the crushed brick waste varies from 0 to 24%
lies in the range of 42–47%, respectively (Table 9). Results are in
(Table 9). Except for control (CS) and 6% crushed brick waste (C6)
consistent with studies Chaibeddra and Kharchi [44] reported
block, the mass loss of blocks with 12%, 18%, 24% crushed brick
more than 100%; and up to 160% strength increment by Arrigoni
waste is exceeding the limiting value of 3% specified by IS 1725
et al. [67] after wetting–drying cycles. The compressive strength
[14], however these values are less than the maximum value of
of blocks containing 6–24% crushed brick waste increases by
5% in rainy climate, as recommended by ASTM D559-96 [60]. The
1.08–1.25 times as compared with control. These increments are
mass loss was due to detachment of soil particles by pore-water
attributed to acceleration of cement hydration as well as poz-
pressure after immersion and brushing process. Furthermore, the
zolanic reaction of crushed brick waste under alternate wet and
higher water absorption of crushed brick waste induces more
dry at 70 °C temperature leading to production of additional cal-
swelling/shrinkage on wetting–drying resulted in higher mass loss.
cium silicate hydrate (CSH) gel that further improved the rigidity
These results are complied with [9,17] evidenced mass losses up
of matrix [9,25].
to ± 6.5% at 8% cement content with varying clay contents.
The flexural strength of blocks went through wetting–drying
Blocks exposed to sodium sulfate solution showed gain in mass,
cycles improved compared to initial values as shown in Fig. 10
Fig. 12. It is worthwhile to mention that, unlike oven drying in wet/
(d). The strength values were typically between 2.22 and
dry cycles, the blocks are air dried after Na2SO4 exposure. The high-
3.16 MPa for the blocks with 0–24% of crushed brick waste. Fur-
est mass gain was shown by control sample of 1.05%. Though the
thermore, when compared to control the flexural strength
mass gain increases with increase in crushed brick waste content,
increases by about 1.13–1.42 times as the crushed brick waste
the block containing 24% crushed brick waste exhibited lower
increases from 6 to 24%. This improvement was explained by
increase in mass than the control. This behavior is typically due
higher roughness and irregular shape of crushed brick waste than
to formation of more ettringite crystals in control block compared
sand in addition to pozzolanic reaction.
to blocks with crushed brick waste, which fill the pores and conse-
quently led to increase in mass of control block. Table 9 lists the
3.5.2. Sulfate resistance
average values.
Typical aspect of blocks after sulfate attack is shown in Fig. 8.
No visible damages/spalling appeared on the blocks. However, a
thin layer of efflorescence developed on control block sides and 3.5.4. XRD and SEM analysis
faces. Whereas for blocks produced with crushed brick waste, no To substantiate the mechanical performance and to identify the
sign of efflorescence was observed. Fig. 10(c) and (d) presents the products formed, XRD and SEM analysis were performed on con-
results of blocks with crushed brick waste content of 0–24%, before trol block (CS) and sample with 24% crushed brick waste (C24),
and after exposure to 3% sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) solution. All before and after subjected to wetting–drying cycles and sulfate
blocks exposed to sulfate attack showed higher compressive attack. The results of XRD are presented in Fig. 14. The control
strength than the initial values noted at 28 days of air curing as block (CS) contained the phases such as quartz, portlandite, little
depicted in Fig. 11(c). The highest strength was registered for the
block with 24% crushed brick waste of 12.95 MPa. The compressive
strength of control blocks (CS) increases by 29.65% after exposure
to two cycles in Na2SO4 solution. Similarly, for blocks with 6–24%
crushed brick waste the increase in strength after Na2SO4 exposure
varies in the range of 32.43–35.37%, respectively (Table 9). This
increase is in consistent with earlier studies [43,44]. Moreover,
compared to control the increase in strength was about 1.06–
1.22 times as the crushed brick waste varies from 6 to 24%.
The flexural strength of blocks exposed to 3% Na2SO4 improved
compared to control sample. As the crushed brick waste content
varies from 0 to 24% the strength values were between 2.5 MPa
and 3.57 MPa as shown in Fig. 10(d). The flexural strength of blocks
with 6%, 12%, 18% and 24% crushed brick waste increases by 1.10–
1.33 times than the control. The reasons for improved behavior are
explained as follows: In case of control block, the strength
improvement was induced by cement hydration effect as well as
filler effect of ettringite. In general, when sulfate was introduced Fig. 12. Mass variation of phase I blocks.

14
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Fig. 13. Test results of phase II blocks.

Fig. 14. XRD data of CS and C24 samples before and after wetting–drying cycles (WD), sulfate attack (SA); E-Ettringite, CAH- Calcium aluminate hydrates, P- Portlandite (CH),
G- Gypsum, Q-Quartz, and CSH-Calcium silicate hydrates.

amount of ettringite; calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) and calcium This indicates the strength improvement in C24 was because of
aluminate hydrates (CAH). In case of C24 block, the portlandite pozzolanic reaction between the crushed brick waste and
intensity was reduced due to pozzolanicity of crushed brick waste. portlandite.

15
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
CS sample subjected to wetting–drying cycles showed increase
in the peak of ettringite and the reduction in portlandite due to for-
mation of additional cementitious compounds during the curing
process employed [9,44]. The above observation corroborates the
experimental results presented in Table 9. No significant difference
was noticed in C24 sample after wetting–drying cycles. In case of
sulfate exposure, the formation of ettringite and gypsum was more
pronounced in CS sample; this could be explained by decrease in
the peaks of CAH and CH phases on reaction with sulfate. Unlike
CS sample, the ettringite formation in C24 was much lower which
was attributed to decrease in amount of portlandite (CH) by the
pozzolanic activity of crushed brick waste leading to a higher resis-
tance against sulfate solution.
The SEM micrographs of samples in Fig. 15 are with and with-
out crushed brick waste exposed to different environmental condi-
tions. As shown in Fig. 15(a) the unexposed CS sample displayed a
Fig. 15. SEM images of control (CS): (a)- (c) and 24% crushed brick waste (C24) samples: (d)-(f).
16
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
homogeneous structure with CSH and CAH formation with a very
few amount of ettringite. After wetting–drying cycles, Fig. 15(b)
illustrates the microstructure was dominant with CSH crystals as
well as the ettringite formation was apparent, this observation
confirmed the findings of XRD analysis. When exposed to 3% sul-
fate solution, the microstructure shown in Fig. 15(c) was domi-
nated by clusters of ettringite needles. The reason might be due
to presence of calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) and portlandite
(CH) that reacts with sulfate medium to from ettringite [21]. These
ettringite crystals are responsible for the mass gain and strength
development by filling the pores of microstructure as suggested
by [68]. Thus in this study the formation of ettringite is
advantageous.
The SEM image of unexposed C24 sample in Fig. 15(d) showed a
more compact structure with well establishment of CSH and CAH
compounds. The pozzolanic nature of crushed brick waste could
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
be the possible explanation. The microstructure shown in Fig. 15(e)
became much denser under W-D cycles due to additional curing.
Particularly, the crushed brick waste particles uniformly dis-
tributed over the matrix and induced a strong bond with soil–ce-
ment matrix. This was attributed to rough and irregular surface
of crushed brick waste lead to higher strength in C24 samples. In
sulfate exposed sample Fig. 15(f), the microstructure remains
undisturbed except the formation of a little amount of ettringite.
4. Conclusions
A detailed experimental study was conducted to evaluate the
influence of crushed brick waste to replace soil-sand mixture and
its particle size and replacement ratio as a substitute to sand on
the properties of compressed stabilized earth blocks. In addition,
microscopic studies are also highlighted. The following conclusions
drawn based on the experimental results:
 The OMC increases and MDD decreases as the percentage of
crushed brick waste increases. This is primarily due to higher
water absorption and lower density of crushed brick waste
compared to natural sand as well as change in particle size dis-
tribution and corresponding packing potential.
 The compressive (wet-dry) and flexural strengths enhanced
with crushed brick waste addition of up to 24%. After wet-
ting–drying cycles, sulfate exposure the strengths further
improved due to formation of additional compounds. Despite
within the limits, the mass loss after wetting–drying cycles
increases with the crushed brick waste percentage. Whereas,
mass gain was noticed when exposed to sulfate medium, the
highest mass gain was observed in control sample. The block
containing 24% crushed brick waste reported the highest
mechanical resistance and better durability performance.
 Crushed brick waste particle size and replacement ratio signifi-
cantly influence the OMC-MDD characteristics and mechanical
properties. The removal of fines leads to decrease in OMC of
mixtures than the other particle sizes. The highest OMC value
of 21.60% is obtained for the 100CL mixture.
 For the three different particle sizes, the compressive and flex-
ural strengths of blocks decreases as the replacement level pro-
gressed to 100%, except for 20CF and 20CL blocks. The strengths
of 20CF blocks is higher than the control, while for 20CL blocks
the compressive strength was higher and flexural strength was
lower compared to control.
 The removal of fines less than 0.15 mm lowers the compressive
strength compared to CF blocks and control sample, whereas no
significant impact was observed on flexural strength. In fact, the
strength was improved compared to CF at higher replacement
levels.
 Blocks prepared by replacing the sand with crushed brick waste
fines less than 0.15 mm (CL) showed adverse effects beyond 40%
replacement. Both the compressive and flexural strength
decreases by more than 50% corresponding to 100% replace-
ment, thus complete replacement of sand with crushed brick
waste fines is not recommended.
 In phase I and II, irrespective of particle size the water absorp-
tion of blocks increases as the crushed brick waste percentage
increases. The highest water absorption of 28.03% was noticed
at 100% replacement level of sand by finer crushed brick waste
(100CL).
 The optimum content of crushed brick waste to substitute sand
with improved behavior is 20% for particle sizes 0/4.75 mm and
less than 0.15 mm. The sand can be totally replaced with
crushed brick waste 0/4.75 and 0.15/4.75 mm with acceptable
strengths and up to 80% with crushed brick waste less than
17
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
0.15 mm with satisfactory strengths. However, it should be
mentioned that the water absorption of 100CF and 100CM
blocks and also CL blocks beyond 40% replacement were much
than higher than control. Thus, further investigation is needed
to assess the long term durability performance of blocks.
 The microscopic studies substantiate the presence of ettringite
formation in control samples when subjected to wetting–drying
cycles and sulfate solution, while in C24 sample mild presence
was noticed.
The present study demonstrated that crushed brick waste has
potential to replace soil-sand mixture and sand for the production
of compressed earth blocks without compromising mechanical and
durability performance by highlighting the influence of particle
size and replacement ratio. However, further investigation is
needed to assess the long-term performance such as ageing tests.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kasinikota Pardhasaradhi: Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - original draft. Deb Dulal Tripura: Concep-
tualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support provided by Central
Research Facility, National Institute of Technology Agartala during
the experimental program. Moreover, the authors thankfully
acknowledge the Central Instrumentation Center, Tripura Univer-
sity for SEM testing.
Funding
This work was supported by Science and Engineering Research
Board (SERB), Grant no: EEQ/2017/000001, Department of Science
and Technology, Government of India.
References
[1] A.L. Murmu, A. Patel, Towards sustainable bricks production: An overview,
Constr. Build. Mater. 165 (2018) 112–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.01.038.
[2] Y. Kulshreshtha, N.J.A. Mota, K.S. Jagadish, J. Bredenoord, P.J. Vardon, M.C.M.
van Loosdrecht, H.M. Jonkers, The potential and current status of earthen
material for low-cost housing in rural India, Constr. Build. Mater. 247 (2020)
118615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118615.
[3] H. VanDamme, H. Houben, Earth concrete. Stabilization revisited, Cem. Concr.
Res. 114 (2018) 90–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.035.
[4] P.J. Walker, Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks and earth block
masonry, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (2004) 497–506, https://doi.org/10.1061/0899-
1561(2004)16:5(497).
[5] D.D. Tripura, K.D. Singh, Characteristic properties of cement-stabilized
rammed earth blocks, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (2014) 1–8, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001170.
[6] ASTM E2392, Standard Guide for Design of Earthen Wall Building Systems,
ASTM Int. 04 (2010) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1520/E2392.
[7] J.A. Bogas, M. Silva, M. Glória Gomes, Unstabilized and stabilized compressed
earth blocks with partial incorporation of recycled aggregates, Int. J. Arch.
Herit. 13 (4) (2019) 569–584, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15583058.2018.1442891.
[8] P.J. Walker, Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of cement
stabilised soil blocks, Cem. Concr. Compos. 17 (4) (1995) 301–310, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(95)00019-9.
[9] H.B. Nagaraj, A. Rajesh, M.V. Sravan, Influence of soil gradation, proportion and
combination of admixtures on the properties and durability of CSEBs, Constr.
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520

Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 135–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [35] J.E. Oti, J.M. Kinuthia, R.B. Robinson, The development of unfired clay building
j.conbuildmat.2016.02.023. material using Brick Dust Waste and Mercia mudstone clay, Appl. Clay Sci. 102
[10] J.R. González-López, C.A. Juárez-Alvarado, B. Ayub-Francis, J.M. Mendoza- (2014) 148–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.09.031.
Rangel, Compaction effect on the compressive strength and durability of [36] C. Jayasinghe, W.M.C.D.J. Fonseka, Y.M. Abeygunawardhene, Load bearing
stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 163 (2018) 179–188, https://doi. properties of composite masonry constructed with recycled building
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.074. demolition waste and cement stabilized rammed earth, Constr. Build. Mater.
[11] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, M.S. Latha, Influence of soil grading on the 102 (2016) 471–477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.136.
characteristics of cement stabilised soil compacts, Mater. Constr. 47 (10) [37] A. Seco, J. Omer, S. Marcelino, S. Espuelas, E. Prieto, Sustainable unfired bricks
(2014) 1633–1645, https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-013-0142-1. manufacturing from construction and demolition wastes, Constr. Build. Mater.
[12] C.H. Kouakou, J.C. Morel, Strength and elasto-plastic properties of non- 167 (2018) 154–165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.026.
industrial building materials manufactured with clay as a natural binder, [38] T.K. Jyothi, P.T. Jitha, S.K. Pattaje, K.S. Jagadish, R. V. Ranganath, S. Raghunath,
Appl. Clay Sci. 44 (1-2) (2009) 27–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Studies on the strength development of lime–pozzolana cement–soil–brick
j.clay.2008.12.019. powder based geopolymer composites, Inst. Eng. Ser. A. 100 (2019) 329–336.
[13] Standard Australia, The Australian earth building handbook, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-018-0350-3.
[14] Indian Standard., Stabilized soil blocks used in general building construction- [39] A. Arrigoni, C.T.S. Beckett, D. Ciancio, R. Pelosato, G. Dotelli, A.C. Grillet,
Specification, IS 1725, New Delhi, India. (2013). Rammed Earth incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregate: a sustainable,
[15] R. Goodary, G.L. Lecomte-Nana, C. Petit, D.S. Smith, Investigation of the resistant and breathable construction solution, Resour. Conserv. Recy. 137
strength development in cement-stabilised soils of volcanic origin, Constr. (2018) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.025.
Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012) 592–598, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [40] A.M. Joshi, S.M. Basutkar, M.I. Ahmed, M. Keshava, R. Seshagiri Rao, S.J. Kaup,
j.conbuildmat.2011.08.054. Performance of stabilized adobe blocks prepared using construction and
[16] H.-M. Kwon, A.T. Le, N.T. Nguyen, Influence of soil grading on properties of demolition waste, J. Build. Path. Rehabil. 4 (2019) 1–14, https://doi.org/
compressed cement-soil, KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 14 (6) (2010) 845–853, https://doi. 10.1007/s41024-019-0052-x.
org/10.1007/s12205-010-0648-9. [41] K.S.J. Ashwin M. Joshi , S. M. Basutkar, Stabilized Mud Concrete for Sustainable
[17] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, R. Lal, K.S. Nanjunda Rao, Optimum soil grading for Construction, in: J.M.P.Q. Delgado (Ed.), Sustain. Mater. Build. Constr., Springer,
the soil-cement blocks, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2) (2007) 139–148, https://doi. 2020: pp. 135–147.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:2(139). [42] W.V.D.C. Bezerra, G.A. Azeredo, External sulfate attack on compressed
[18] B.V.V. Reddy, A. Gupta, Characteristics of soil-cement blocks using highly stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 255–264, https://
sandy soils, Mater. Constr. 38 (2005) 651, https://doi.org/10.1617/14265. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.115.
[19] R. Bahar, M. Benazzoug, S. Kenai, Performance of compacted cement-stabilised [43] Z. Assia, F. Fazia, H. Abdelmadjid, Sustainability of the stabilized earth blocs
soil, Cem. Concr. Compos. 26 (7) (2004) 811–820, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. under chemicals attack’s effects and environmental conditions, Constr. Build.
cemconcomp.2004.01.003. Mater. 212 (2019) 787–798, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[20] M.C. Jiménez Delgado, I.C. Guerrero, The selection of soils for unstabilised j.conbuildmat.2019.03.324.
earth building: A normative review, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 237– [44] S. Chaibeddra, F. Kharchi, Performance of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks
251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.006. in sulphated medium, J. Build. Eng. 25 (2019) 100814, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[21] P. Sukmak, P. De Silva, S. Horpibulsuk, P. Chindaprasirt, Sulfate resistance of j.jobe.2019.100814.
clay-portland cement and clay high-calcium fly ash geopolymer, J. Mater. Civ. [45] Indian Standard., Methods of test for soils: Determination of specific gravity,
Eng. 27 (5) (2015) 04014158, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943- Fine grained soils, IS 2720 (Part 3), New Delhi, India. (1980).
5533.0001112. [46] Indian Standard., Methods of test for soils: grain size analysis, IS 2720 (Part 4),
[22] M. Bachar, L. Azzouz, M. Rabehi, B. Mezghiche, Characterization of a stabilized New Delhi, India. (1985).
earth concrete and the effect of incorporation of aggregates of cork on its [47] Indian Standard., Methods of test for soils: Determination of liquid limit and
thermo-mechanical properties: Experimental study and modeling, Constr. plastic limit, IS 2720 (Part 5), New Delhi, India. (1985).
Build. Mater. 74 (2015) 259–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [48] Indian Standard., Methods of test for soils: Determination of shrinkage factors,
j.conbuildmat.2014.09.106. IS 2720 (Part 6), New Delhi, India. (1972).
[23] D.C. Sekhar, S. Nayak, Utilization of granulated blast furnace slag and cement [49] Indian Standard., Methods of Test for Soils: Determination of Water Content-
in the manufacture of compressed stabilized earth blocks, Constr. Build. Mater. Dry Density Relation using Light Compaction, IS 2720 (Part 7), New Delhi,
161 (2018) 531–536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.125. India. (1980).
[24] M.S. Islam, Tausif-E-Elahi, A.R. Shahriar, K. Nahar, T.R. Hossain, Strength and [50] Indian Standard., Method of test for soils: Determination of free swell index of
durability characteristics of cement-sand stabilized earth blocks, J. Mater. Civ. soils, IS 2720 (Part 40), New Delhi, India. (1977).
Eng. 32 (5) (2020) 04020087, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943- [51] Agus Setyo Muntohar, Engineering characteristics of the compressed-
5533.0003176. stabilized earth brick, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (11) (2011) 4215–4220,
[25] M.M. Hallal, S. Sadek, S.S. Najjar, Evaluation of engineering characteristics of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.061.
stabilized rammed-earth material sourced from natural fines-rich soil, J. [52] Indian Standard., Method of Test for aggregate for concrete., IS 2386 (Part 3),
Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (11) (2018) 04018273, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) New Delhi, India. (1963).
MT.1943-5533.0002481. [53] Indian Standard., Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates From Natural
[26] H. Limami, I. Manssouri, K. Cherkaoui, A. Khaldoun, Physicochemical, Sources for Concrete, IS 383, New Delhi, India. (1970).
mechanical and thermal performance of lightweight bricks with recycled [54] Indian Standard., Specification for 43 grade ordinary portland cement, IS 8112,
date pits waste additives, J. Build. Eng. 34 (2021) 101867, https://doi.org/ New Delhi, India. (2013).
10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101867. [55] Seick Omar Sore, Adamah Messan, Elodie Prud’homme, Gilles Escadeillas,
[27] C.-S. Shon, D. Saylak, D.G. Zollinger, Potential use of stockpiled circulating François Tsobnang, Stabilization of compressed earth blocks (CEBs) by
fluidized bed combustion ashes in manufacturing compressed earth bricks, geopolymer binder based on local materials from Burkina Faso, Constr.
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 2062–2071, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Build. Mater. 165 (2018) 333–345, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2008.08.025. j.conbuildmat.2018.01.051.
[28] H. Limami, I. Manssouri, K. Cherkaoui, A. Khaldoun, Study of the suitability of [56] A.R.G. Azevedo, T.M. Marvila, W. Júnior Fernandes, J. Alexandre, G.C. Xavier, E.
unfired clay bricks with polymeric HDPE & PET wastes additives as a B. Zanelato, N.A. Cerqueira, L.G. Pedroti, B.C. Mendes, Assessing the potential of
construction material, J. Build. Eng. 27 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sludge generated by the pulp and paper industry in assembling locking blocks,
jobe.2019.100956 100956. J. Build. Eng. 23 (2019) 334–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.012.
[29] S. Jain, S. Singhal, S. Pandey, Environmental life cycle assessment of [57] R.A. Silva, E. Soares, D.V. Oliveira, T. Miranda, N.M. Cristelo, D. Leitão,
construction and demolition waste recycling: A case of urban India, Resour. Mechanical characterisation of dry-stack masonry made of CEBs stabilised
Conserv. Recy. 155 (2020) 104642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. with alkaline activation, Constr. Build. Mater. 75 (2015) 349–358, https://doi.
resconrec.2019.104642. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.038.
[30] G. of I. MoHUA, Strategy for Promoting Processing of Construction and [58] Indian Standard., Methods of tests of burnt clay building bricks, IS 3495 (Part
Demolition (C&D) Waste and Utilisation of Recycled Products, 2018. 2), New Delhi, India. (1992).
[31] C.L. Wong, K.H. Mo, S.P. Yap, U.J. Alengaram, T. Ling, Potential use of brick [59] ASTM C67, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and
waste as alternate concrete-making materials: A review, J. Clean. Prod. 195 Structural Clay Tile., ASTM Int. 04 (2019) 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0067.
(2018) 226–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.193. [60] ASTM D559, Standard Test Methods for Wetting and Drying Compacted Soil-
[32] João Silva, Jorge de Brito, Rosário Veiga, Incorporation of fine ceramics in Cement Mixtures, ASTM Int. 04 (2011) 1–8.
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (1) (2009) 556–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [61] K. Mak, C. Macdougall, A. Fam, Freeze-thaw performance of on-site
j.conbuildmat.2007.10.014. manufactured compressed earth blocks: effect of water repellent and other
[33] J. Silva, J. de Brito, R. Veiga, Recycled red-clay ceramic construction and additives, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2016) 04016034, https://doi.org/10.1061/
demolition waste for mortars production, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (3) (2010) 236– (ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001512.
244, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2010)22:3(236). [62] E.F. Ledesma, J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, J.M. Fernández, J. De Brito, Maximum
[34] L. Taghiloha, Using rammed earth mixed with recycled aggregate as a feasible use of recycled sand from construction and demolition waste for eco-
construction material, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos, mortar production - Part-I: ceramic masonry waste, J. Clean. Prod. 87 (2015)
Canales y Puertos de Barcelona. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 692–706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.084.
Barcelona, Spain, 2013.

18
P. Kasinikota and Deb Dulal Tripura
[63] V. Corinaldesi, Environmentally-friendly bedding mortars for repair of
historical buildings, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 778–784, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.131.
[64] NZS, 4298, Materials and workmanship for earth buildings, Stand. New Zeal.
(1998).
[65] ABNT – NBR 8492, Tijolo maciço de solo-cimento – Determinação da
resistência à compressão e da absorção de água (Massive earth cement
bricks – determination of compressive strength and water absorption), (2012).
[66] ASTM C62, Standard Specification for Building Brick (Solid Masonry Units
Made From Clay or Shale), ASTM Int. (2012) 10–13.
19
Construction and Building Materials 280 (2021) 122520
[67] A. Arrigoni, R. Pelosato, G. Dotelli, C.T.S. Beckett, D. Ciancio, Weathering’ s
beneficial effect on waste-stabilised rammed earth: a chemical and
microstructural investigation, Constr. Build. Mater. 140 (2017) 157–166,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.009.
[68] Kaiwei Liu, Yueming Wang, Ning-Jun Jiang, Aiguo Wang, Daosheng Sun,
Xingxing Chen, Effect of aluminate content in cement on the long-term sulfate
resistance of cement stabilized sand, Mar. Georesources Geotechnol. 38 (7)
(2020) 844–853, https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2019.1635235.