Brick Journal

8/12/2018 FindIt at UTAS
Production of bricks from waste materials--A review

Lianyang Zhang
Construction and Building Materials. 47 (Oct. 2013): p643+.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.043
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2013 Reed Business Information, Inc. (US)
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30405/description#description
Full Text:
ABSTRACT
Bricks are a widely used construction and building material around the world. Conventional bricks
are produced from clay with high temperature kiln firing or from ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
concrete, and thus contain high embodied energy and have large carbon footprint. In many areas
of the world, there is already a shortage of natural source material for production of the
conventional bricks. For environmental protection and sustainable development, extensive
research has been conducted on production of bricks from waste materials. This paper presents a
state-of-the-art review of research on utilization of waste materials to produce bricks. A wide
variety of waste materials have been studied to produce bricks with different methods. The
research can be divided into three general categories based on the methods for producing bricks
from waste materials: firing, cementing and geopolymerization. Although much research has been
conducted, the commercial production of bricks from waste materials is still very limited. The
possible reasons are related to the methods for producing bricks from waste materials, the
potential contamination from the waste materials used, the absence of relevant standards, and the
slow acceptance of waste materials-based bricks by industry and public. For wide production and
application of bricks from waste materials, further research and development is needed, not only
on the technical, economic and environmental aspects but also on standardization, government
policy and public education related to waste recycling and sustainable development.
Keywords:
Bricks
Waste materials
Firing
Cementing
Geopolymerization
Sustainable development
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Review of research on utilization of waste materials to produce
bricks
2.1. Production of bricks from waste materials through firing
2.2. Production of bricks from waste materials through cementing
2.3. Production of bricks from waste materials through
geopolymerization
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
References
1. Introduction
http://rk9dr6cc2p.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rft… 1/34
Bricks have been a major construction and building material for a long time. The dried-clay bricks
were used for the first time in 8000 BC and the fired-clay bricks were used as early as 4500 BC
[1,2]. The worldwide annual production of bricks is currently about 1391 billion units and the
demand for bricks is expected to be continuously rising [3,4]. Conventional bricks are produced
from clay with high temperature kiln firing or from ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete.
Quarrying operations for obtaining the clay are energy intensive, adversely affect the landscape,
and generate high level of wastes. The high temperature kiln firing not only consumes significant
amount of energy, but releases large quantity of greenhouse gases. Clay bricks, on average, have
an embodied energy of approximately 2.0 kWh and release about 0.41 kg of carbon dioxide
(C[O.sub.2]) per brick [5,6]. It is also noted that there is a shortage of clay in many parts of the
world. To protect the clay resource and the environment, some countries such as China have
started to limit the use of bricks made from clay [7-9].
The OPC concrete bricks are produced from OPC and aggregates. It is well known that the
production of OPC is highly energy intensive and releases significant amount of greenhouse
gases. Production of 1 kg of OPC consumes approximately 1.5 kWh of energy and releases about
1 kg of C[O.sub.2] to the atmosphere. Worldwide, production of OPC is responsible for about 7%
of all C[O.sub.2] generated [5,1012]. So the production of OPC concrete bricks also consumes
large amount of energy and releases substantial quantity of C[O.sub.2]. In addition, the aggregates
are produced from quarrying and thus have the same problems as described above for clay.
For environmental protection and sustainable development, many researchers have studied the
utilization of waste materials to produce bricks [8,9,13-15,17-66,80-85]. A wide variety of waste
materials have been studied, including fly ash, mine tailings, slags, construction and demolition
(C&D) waste, wood sawdust, cotton waste, limestone powder, paper production residue, petroleum
effluent treatment plant sludge, kraft pulp production residue, cigarette butts, waste tea, rice husk
ash, crumb rubber, and cement kiln dust. Different methods have been used to produce bricks from
waste materials.
This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of the research on utilization of different types of
waste materials to produce bricks. The advantages and disadvantages of different methods for
utilizing waste materials to produce bricks are described. The concerns related to production of
bricks from waste materials are also discussed.
2. Review of research on utilization of waste materials to produce bricks
The extensive research on utilization of waste materials to produce bricks can be divided into three
general categories based on the production methods: firing, cementing and geopolymerization, as
detailed below.
2.1. Production of bricks from waste materials through firing
This method uses waste material(s) to substitute a portion or entire amount of clay and follows the
traditional way to kiln fire the material(s) to produce bricks. Many researchers have studied the
production of bricks from waste materials based on firing (see Table 1).
Chen et al. [8] studied the feasibility of utilizing hematite tailings and class F fly ash together with
clay to produce bricks. Brick samples were prepared by using 77-100% tailings, 0-8% fly ash and
0-15% clay. Tests were performed to determine the compressive strength, water absorption and
bulk density of brick samples prepared at different conditions. Based on the results, they
recommended a tailings:fiy ash:clay ratio of 84:6:10, a forming water content of 12.5-15%, a
forming pressure of 20-25 MPa, and a firing temperature of 980-1030[degrees]C for 2 h, to
produce good quality bricks.
Lingling et al. [9] investigated the production of fired bricks by using class F fly ash to replace clay
at high volume ratios. Brick samples were prepared by mixing fly ash and clay at designed
proportion, casting the mixture into bricks, drying the bricks at ambient condition for 2 days, at 60
[degrees]C for 4 h and at 100 [degrees]C for 6 h, and firing the dried bricks in an electric furnace at
100 [degrees]C/h below 500[degrees]C, 50[degrees]C/h from 500[degrees]C to highest
temperature (1000, 1050, or 1100 [degrees]C), and at the highest temperature for 8 h. Tests were
conducted on the fired bricks to evaluate their compressive strength, water absorption, bulk
density, apparent porosity, cracking due to lime, frost and frost-melting. The results showed that
when high percentages of fly ash were used, a firing temperature about 1050 [degrees]C should be
adopted. The fired bricks with high percentages of fly ash had high compressive strength, low
water absorption, no cracking due to lime, and high resistance to frost-melting. The study also
indicated that the properties of fired bricks were improved by using pulverized fly ash (i.e., by
decreasing the particle size of the fly ash).
Kute and Deodhar [13] studied the bricks manufactured in laboratory using class F fly ash and clay.
The brick samples were prepared by mixing different amount of fly ash with clay and sufficient
quantity of water, and then compressing the mixture in a mold. The molded bricks were dried in air
for 2 days and then fired in a laboratory furnace respectively at 850 and 1000[degrees]C for 24 h.
Laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate the compressive strength and water absorption of the
produced bricks. The results indicated that the inclusion of fly ash in general increased the
compressive strength and decreased the water absorption of bricks. The highest compressive
strength of 12.4 MPa (an average of eight samples) was obtained at 40% fly ash content, with the
corresponding water absorption being 13.8%.
Chou et al. [14,15] conducted systematic study on utilization of class F fly ash to replace part of the
clay and shale in production of bricks using the conventional kiln firing procedure. Paving bricks
with up to 20 vol.% of fly ash and building bricks with up to 40 vol.% of fly ash were successfully
produced in commercial-scale production test runs, with the properties exceeding the ASTM
commercial specifications. They also conducted leaching study on the fired bricks from
commercial-scale production following US EPA Method 1320 [16]. The results indicated that the
amounts of leached metals were well below the US EPA's regulatory thresholds.
Kayali [17] studied the performance of FlashBricks, bricks produced from fly ash. The bricks were
produced by mixing fly ash with water and a small amount of commercially protected additive,
molding the mixture, drying the formed units for 3 days, and then firing them for hours. The
FlashBricks were about 28% lighter than clay bricks and had a compressive strength greater than
40 MPa. Other important performance parameters such as water absorption, modulus of rupture,
bond strength and durability also exceeded those pertaining to clay bricks.
Menezes et al. [18] evaluated the possibilities of using granite sawing wastes as alternative raw
materials in the production of ceramic bricks and tiles. The results showed that the granite sawing
wastes had physical and mineralogical characteristics that were similar to those of conventional
raw materials for ceramic bricks and tiles and could be used to partially replace the conventional
raw materials to produce ceramic bricks and tiles meeting the Brazilian standardizations.
Lin [19] studied the utilization of municipal solid waste incinerator (MSW1) slag to partially replace
clay for the production of fired clay bricks. Brick samples were heated to temperatures between
800 and 1000[degrees]C for 6 h at a heating rate of 10 [degrees]C/min. Physical, mechanical and
leaching tests were conducted on the brick samples. The results indicated that the heavy metal
concentrations in the leachate met the regulatory thresholds. Increasing the amount of MSWI slag
resulted in a decrease in the water absorption rate and an increase in the compressive strength of
the bricks. The absorption rate and compressive strength of the bricks sintered at 1000[degrees]C
met the Chinese National Standard (CNS) building requirements for second-class bricks. The
addition of MSWI slag also reduced the degree of firing shrinkage. So the MSWI slag was suitable
for partial replacement of clay in production of fired clay bricks.
Roy et al. [20] studied production of bricks by mixing different amount of gold mill railings (0-75g)
with black cotton soils or red soils. The soil-tailings bricks were dried at room temperature for 2
days and in the sun for another 3 days, and then fired in an electric furnace respectively at 750,
850, and 950 "C. The fired bricks were tested to evaluate their compressive strength, water
absorption and linear shrinkage. The results indicated that 65%, 75g, 50g and 45g of railings could
be used respectively with the four different types of soils studied to produce bricks that pass the
criteria in terms of compressive strength, water absorption and linear shrinkage.
El-Mahllawy [21] investigated the production of bricks using kaolin fine quarry residue (KFQR)
combined with granulated blast-furnace slag (GBFS) and granite-basalt fine quarry residue
(GBFQR). Brick specimens were prepared by mixing 50% of KFQR, 10-40g of GBFS and 10-40%
GBFQR, and then placing the mixture into a 50 mm cubic mold and applying a forming pressure of
22 MPa. The formed specimens were dried in an electrical dryer at 80[degrees]C for 24 h, and
then fired at different firing temperatures of 1100, 1125, 1150 and 1175[degrees]C at 5
[degrees]C/min firing rate and 4h soaking time in a muffle furnace. Tests were performed to assess
the physical, chemical and mechanical characteristics of the fired bricks against the requirements
of the Egyptian standard specification (ESS). The results showed that the bricks containing 50%
KFQR, 20% GBFQR and 30% GBFS fired at 1125[degrees]C exhibited the most satisfying
properties that meet the ESS requirements.
Sutcu and Akkurt [22] studied production of porous and lightweight bricks with reduced thermal
conductivity and acceptable compressive strength by using paper processing residues as an
additive to earthenware bricks. Mixtures containing brick raw materials and the paper processing
waste were prepared at different proportions (up to 30% by weight). The granulated powder
mixtures were compressed in a hydraulic press under a pressure of 10 MPa. The pressed
specimens were held overnight at room temperature followed by drying at 45[degrees]C for 1 h in
an oven, and then fired in a laboratory-type electrical furnace at a rate of 2.5[degrees]C/min until
600[degrees]C and subsequently at a rate of 10[degrees]C/min until 1100 [degrees]C for 1 h. Tests
were performed to evaluate the dilatomettic behavior, drying and firing shrinkages, loss on ignition,
bulk density, apparent porosity, water absorption, thermal conductivity, compressive strength and
freeze-thaw performance of the fired brick specimens. The results indicated that the paper
processing waste could be utilized together with brick raw materials to produce porous and
lightweight bricks with reduced thermal conductivity and acceptable compressive strength.
Aeslina et al. [23] investigated the recycling of cigarette butts (CBs) into fired clay bricks. The CBs
were disinfected by heat at 10S[degrees]C for 24 h and then mixed with soil at four different
percentages. The mixture was placed in molds and compacted manually at the optimum moisture
content which was found from standard compaction tests. The specimens were dried at
105[degrees]C for 24 b, removed from the molds and fired in a furnace at 1050[degrees]C. The
fired specimens were tested for density, strength, thermal conductivity and leachate characteristics.
The results indicated that cigarette butts could be regarded as a potential addition to raw materials
used in the manufacturing of light fired bricks.
Rahman [24] made fired bricks using clay-sand mixes with different percentages of rice husk ash.
The firing durations at 1000 [degrees]C were respectively 2, 4 and 6 h. The effects of rice husk ash
content on workable mixing water content, Atterberg limits, linear shrinkage, density, compressive
strength and water absorption of the bricks were investigated. The results indicated that (1) the
inclusion of rice husk ash increased the compressive strength of bricks, (2) the optimum firing
duration was 4 h at 1000 [degrees]C, and (3) the bricks made of clay-sand-rice husk ash mixes
could be used in load bearing walls.
Sengupta et al. [251 studied the utilization of petroleum effluent treatment plant sludge in preparing
environmentally acceptable masonry bricks in a commercial brick plant. The sludge was mixed
thoroughly with soil and sand at a ratio of 0.46:1:0.12. Mixtures were homogenized and used to
prepare bricks by adopting the procedure as practiced in common masonry brick manufacturing.
The bricks were air dried at ambient condition to optimum moisture content and fired in a coal-fired
Bulls trench commercial brick kiln along with the usual commercial bricks. The firing temperature
ranged from 1000 to 1100[degrees]C. The physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the
bricks were evaluated. The results indicated that (1) the addition of the sludge reduced the
requirement of process water and fuel, (2) the fired bricks containing the sludge met all the
requirements of the Indian Standard Specification, and (3) most of the toxic metals were fixed in
the vitrification process and the leachate values met the US EPA's requirement for recycling of
hazardous materials.
Demir et al. [26] investigated the potential of utilizing kraft pulp production residues in clay bricks.
Different amounts of residues were mixed with raw brick clay to produce bricks. Shaped brick
samples were dried at laboratory conditions (21[degrees]C and 40% relative humidity) for 72 b and
then dried to constant weight at 105[degrees]C in the oven. The dried samples were fired in a
laboratory type electrically heated furnace at a rate of 2[degrees]C/min until 600[degrees]C and
then at a rate of 5[degrees]C/min until 900[degrees]C for 30 min. The effect of including the sludge
on shaping, plasticity, density, porosity, water absorption and mechanical properties were
investigated. The results indicated that 2.5-5% residue additions were effective for the pore forming
in clay body with acceptable mechanical properties. It was concluded that kraft pulp residues can
be utilized in brick clay as an organic pore-forming agent.
Demir [27] studied the utilization of processed waste tea (PWT) together with clay to produce
bricks. The effects of PWT addition on the durability and mechanical properties of bricks were
investigated. Due to the organic nature of PWT, pore-forming (fired body) and binding (unfired
body) ability in clay body was investigated. Different amounts of PWT were added to the clay to
produce bricks. The test brick specimens were produced by the extrusion method. The specimens
were tested following the standard test methods. The results indicated that the inclusion of PWT
significantly increased the compressive strength of the unfired and fired brick samples. As a result,
it was concluded that PWT can be utilized in unfired and fired building bricks by taking advantage
of low cost and environmental protection.
Samara et al. [28] investigated the use of polluted river sediments after treatment in brick
production by conducting a full-scale industrial experiment at a brick factory. The polluted sediment
was first stabilized by the Novosol[R] process and then introduced in the mix-design by replacing
15% of quartz sand used in normal brick production. Approximately 15,000 perforated sediment-
amended bricks were produced and the bricks were subjected to different qualification tests. The
results indicated that the use of treated sediment resulted in significant increase in compressive
strength and firing shrinkage and decrease in porosity and water absorption. The leaching tests
showed that the quantities of heavy metals leached from crushed bricks were within the regulatory
limits.
Dondi et al. [29] studied the feasibility of utilizing PC and TV waste glass in production of clay
bricks. The results indicated that addition of up to 2% of waste glass to the clay did not bring about
significant changes to the properties of bricks. For low carbonate bricks, no significant release of
Pb, Ba, and Sr was observed during the firing and leaching processes. However, for high
carbonate bricks, some Pb volatilization during firing and Sr leaching were observed. One main
constraint for the utilization of the PC and TV waste glass is that the glass must have a particle
size below the limit of the pan mills used in brick production (<1 mm).
Haiying et al. [30] investigated the utilization of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) fly ash in
production of ceramic bricks. It was found that the optimal mixture ratio of materials, MSWI fly
ash:red ceramic clay:feldspar:gang sand, was 20:60:10:10, and the optimal sintering temperature
was 950[degrees]C. The results as a whole suggested that utilization of MSWI fly ash in production
of ceramic bricks constituted a potential means of recycling MSWI fly ash.
Eliche-Quesada et al. [31] studied the application of a variety of waste materials together with clay
to produce lightweight bricks: sawdust, spent earth from oil filtration, compost and marble. Brick
samples were fabricated respectively with 0-10% sawdust, 0-30% spent earth from oil filtration, 0-
30% compost, and 0-20% marble. A 54.5 MPa compression pressure was applied during the
molding process. The brick samples were fired in a laboratory furnace at a rate of 3[degrees]C/min
up to respectively 950 and 1050[degrees]C for 4 h. The results showed that the bricks fired at
1050[degrees]C had higher compressive strength, lower porosity and water absorption than those
at 950[degrees]C. The optimum amount of waste material which should be used was 5% sawdust,
15% spent earth from oil filtration, 10% compost, or 15% marble.
Alonso-Santurde et al. [32] studied the production of bricks by mixing green and core foundry sand
with clay in proportions 0-50% and firing at 850-1050[degrees]C. Brick specimens were prepared
and evaluated physically and mineralogically. It was found that the clay-foundry sand bricks fired at
1050[degrees]C had better physical property values while the mineralogy was not significantly
affected. The optimum amount of foundry sand to produce bricks was found to be 35% green sand
and 25% core sand.
Bilgin et al. [33] investigated the usability of waste marble dust as an additive material in industrial
brick. Waste marble dust and industrial brick mortar were mixed in different proportions to produce
brick specimens for evaluating the effect of marble dust composition on the physico-mechanical
properties of bricks. The brick specimens were pressed and sintered at three different
temperatures, 900, 1000 and 1100[degrees]C. It was found that the amount of added marble dust
had positive effect on the physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the produced industrial
brick.
Quijorna et al. [34] studied the utilization of Waelz slag and foundry sand to partially replace clay in
the production of red clay bricks. A semi-scale industrial trial was conducted by incorporating 20-
40% additions to produce bricks and then evaluating their physico-chemical, mechanical and
environmental properties. The results indicated that the incorporation of Waelz slag and foundry
sand was beneficial for improved extrusion properties during forming, lower water absorption of the
sintered brick due to reduced connected porosity, significant reduction in C[O.sub.2] and NOx
emissions during firing, and improvements in potential leachability of some pollutants in relation to
samples containing only Waelz slag or foundry sand. However, it was necessary to limit the
addition of Waelz slag to less than 30% in order to meet regulatory leaching limits for Mo. Other
physico-chemical and mechanical parameters were not significantly affected by the addition of
these industrial by-products.
Mezencevova et al. [35] conducted a laboratory-scale study to assess the feasibility of producing
fired bricks by using dredged sediments as the sole raw material or as a 50% replacement for
natural brick-making clay. Brick samples were produced by firing at temperatures between 900 and
1000[degrees]C. The test results indicated that the physical and mechanical properties of the
dredged sediment bricks generally complied with ASTM criteria for building bricks.
Faria et al. [36] investigated the recycling of sugarcane bagasse ash waste as a method to provide
raw material for clay brick production. Brick samples were produced by using up 20% of sugarcane
bagasse ash waste to replace natural clay, and then tested to determine their physical and
mechanical properties. It was found that the sugarcane bagasse ash waste was mainly composed
of crystalline silica particles and could be used as a filler in clay bricks.
2.2. Production of bricks from waste materials through cementing
This method does not need kiln firing but relies on cementing from the waste material itself or other
added cementing materials. Again, many researchers have studied the utilization of waste
materials to produce bricks based on cementing (see Table 2).
Roy et al. [20] also used gold mill tailings to make bricks by mixing them with OPC in different
proportions. The cement-tailings bricks were cured by immersing them in water for different periods
of time and their compressive strengths were determined. The bricks with 20% of cement and 14
days of curing were found to be suitable. The cost analysis revealed that the cement-tailings bricks
would be uneconomical compared to the soil-tailings bricks (see the related review in the previous
section).
Malhotra and Tehri [37] investigated the development of bricks from granulated blast furnace slag,
a byproduct of the iron and steel industry. The slag was first mixed with hydrated lime and then the
lime-slag mixture with Badarpur sand thoroughly. Brick specimens were made by pressing the
mixture in a hydraulic machine at a pressure of 4.9 MPa and then curing the molded specimens at
270-272[degrees]C and 95% humidity over a period of 28 days. The cured bricks were tested for
compressive strength (in saturated conditions), bulk density and water absorption properties. The
study revealed that good quality bricks could be produced from a slag-lime mixture and sand.
Poon et al. 1381 studied the production of concrete bricks and paving blocks using recycled
aggregates obtained from construction and demolition (C&D) waste together with OPC and/or fly
ash. A series of tests were carried out to determine the properties of the bricks and blocks
prepared with and without recycled aggregates. The test results showed that the replacement of
coarse and fine natural aggregates by recycled aggregates at the levels of 25% and 50% had little
effect on the compressive strength of the brick and block specimens, but higher levels of
replacement reduced the compressive strength. Using recycled aggregates as the replacement of
natural aggregates at the level of up to 100%, concrete paving blocks with a 28-day compressive
strength of not less than 49 MPa could be produced without the incorporation of fly ash, while
paving blocks for footway uses with a lower compressive strength of 30 MPa and masonry bricks
could be produced with the incorporation of fly ash.
Kumar [39] investigated the production of bricks and hollow blocks using class F fly ash together
with calcined phosphogypsum and mineral lime. The brick and hollow block specimens were
prepared by mixing different amounts of fly ash (60-90%), calcined phosphogypsum (5-30%) and
mineral lime (5-30%) and then placing the mixture in wooden molds. The molded bricks and hollow
blocks were covered with wet gunny bags for a week and then transferred to water filled curing
tanks at 21-25[degrees]C. To investigate the durability, the bricks and hollow blocks were cured in
an aggressive environment of sulfate solution. The cured bricks and hollow blocks were tested to
evaluate their compressive strength, water absorption, density and durability. It was observed that
these bricks and hollow blocks had sufficient strength for their use in low cost housing
development.
Li and Lin [40] studied the production of bricks by compacting class C fly ash, both high grade with
LOI (loss on ignition) = 0.03% and low grade with LOI = 9.1%, mixed with water. They tested the
compacted bricks to evaluate their compressive strength, modulus of rupture, freeze-thaw
resistance, and water absorption. The results indicated that the bricks compacted from fly ash had
higher compressive strength than ordinary commercial bricks, but lower freeze-thaw resistance. So
they could be used in certain applications. Analysis was also performed on the production cost for
the compacted fly ash bricks and the results showed that the cost would be less than 2 cents per
brick if the capital cost for a plant with a capacity of 100,000 tons per year did not exceed 1 million
dollars.
Liu and his colleagues [41-45] developed a technique to produce bricks by mixing class C fly ash
with approximately 10% water, compressing the mixture at a pressure higher than 6.9 MPa and
then curing the formed brick in a wet environment (curing chamber) at room temperature for over 2
weeks. This method relies on the self-cementing property of class C fly ash which contains a large
amount of calcium and thus does not need the usage of other cementing material. The produced
bricks had high compressive strength, good water absorption property and low permeability. To
enhance the freeze-thaw resistance, they added small amount (0.2% by weight) of air-entrainment
chemical into the bricks. They also performed detailed environmental study and the results
indicated that the produced fly ash bricks were environmentally safe.
Morchhale et al. [46] studied the production of bricks by mixing copper mine tailings with different
amounts of OPC and then compressing the mixture in a mold at a pressure of 15 MPa. The
molded bricks were transferred to a well ventilated room at ambient temperature for 24 h and then
cured in water for different periods of time. The cured brick specimens were tested to evaluate their
compressive strength and water absorption. The results indicated that the produced copper mine
tailings-cement bricks satisfied the compressive strength and water absorption requirements as
prescribed in Indian Standard (IS).
Cicek and Tanrverdi [47] investigated the production of light weight bricks by using class F fly ash
together with sand and hydrated lime. Brick samples were prepared under different conditions to
study the effect of different factors. An optimum raw material composition was found to be a
mixture of 68% fly ash, 20% sand and 12% hydrated lime. The optimum brick forming pressure
was 20 MPa and the optimum autoclaving time and pressure were found to be 6 h and 1.5 MPa
respectively. The results suggested that it is possible to produce good quality light weight bricks
from fly ash.
Turgut and Algin [48] studied the potential use of wood sawdust waste (WSW) and limestone
powder waste (LPW) combination together with Portland cement to produce lightweight bricks.
Brick samples were prepared by mixing WSW and LPW with cement at specified proportions and
then compacting the mixture in a mold for 4 h under specified pressures. The molded brick
samples were cured at room temperature for 24 h, in a tank filled with lime-saturated water at
22[degrees]C for 28 days, and then dried in a ventilated oven at 105[degrees]C for 24 h. Tests
were conducted on the bricks to evaluate their compressive strength, flexural strength, unit weight,
ultrasonic pulse velocity and water absorption. The results showed that the produced bricks satisfy
the relevant international standards. The results also showed that the high-level replacement of
WSW with LPW did not exhibit a sudden brittle fracture even beyond the failure loads, led to high
energy absorption capacity, reduced the unit weight dramatically, and introduced smother surface
compared to regular concrete bricks.
Algin and Turgut [49] tried to use cotton waste (CW) and limestone powder waste (LPW) together
with Portland cement to produce lightweight bricks. The study followed essentially the same
method as used in [48] and similar conclusions were drawn (the only difference is that CW instead
of WSW was used). Turgut [50] studied the thermal conductivity of the bricks produced from CW
and LPW.
Turgut [51,52] studied the utilization of waste glass powder (WGP) and limestone powder waste
(LPW) together with a small quantity of Portland cement to produce bricks following essentially the
same method used in 148-50]. The results indicated that the WGP used in LPW remarkably
improved the compressive strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, abrasion resistance,
freezing-thawing resistance, and thermal conductivity of LPW bricks.
Turgut and Yesilata [53] examined the potential use of crumb rubber to partially replace sand
aggregate for producing low cost and lightweight composite concrete bricks with improved thermal
resistance. The physico-mechanical and thermal insulation properties of the rubber-added
concrete bricks were investigated. The obtained compressive strength, flexural strength, splitting
strength, freeze-thaw resistance, unit weight and water absorption values met the relevant
international standards. The experimental observations also revealed that high level replacement
of crumb rubber with conventional sand aggregate did not exhibit a sudden brittle fracture even
beyond the failure loads, led to high energy absorption capacity, reduced the unit weight
dramatically, and introduced smoother surface.
Chindaprasirt and Pimraksa [54] studied the properties of fly ash-lime granule unfired bricks.
Granules were prepared from mixtures of fly ash and lime at fly ash to hydrated lime ratios of
100:0, 95:5 and 90:10 and then used to make unfired bricks using hydrothermal treatment at
temperature of 125-135[degrees]C and pressure of 0.14 MPa. The microstructures, mineralogical
compositions, mechanical properties and environmental impact of bricks were determined. The
results revealed that the strength of unfired bricks was dependent on the fineness of fly ash and
was higher with an increase in fly ash fineness. The strength of the fly ash-lime granule unfired
bricks was 47.0-62.5 MPa. In addition, the heavy elements, in particular Cd, Ni, Pb and Zn, were
efficiently retained in the fly ash-lime granule unfired brick.
Shon et al. [55] studied the utilization of stockpiled circulating fluidized bed combustion ash
(SCFBCA) with OPC, lime, class F fly ash, and/or calcium chloride to manufacture compressed
bricks. Brick specimens were prepared using a compaction pressure of 55.2 MPa and then placing
the specimens at a 23[degrees]C and 100% relative humidity room for 1 day before air curing at
room temperature. Laboratory tests were conducted on the prepared brick specimens to determine
their physical, chemical and mineralogical properties. The results indicated that SCFBCA could be
used to manufacture compressed earth bricks.
Zhao et al. [56] investigated production of load-bearing bricks from low-silicon tailings by pressing
and autoclaving, using fly ash, slag, clinker dust and some activators as the cementing material,
The tailings were mixed with the cementing material and water and then pressure molded into brick
samples under a forming pressure of 20 MPa. The formed bricks were sealed with plastic bags for
6 h and then placed into autoclave for cuing for certain period of time. The results indicated that
good quality bricks containing 83% of railings could be produced, having compressive strength up
to 16.1 MPa, bending strength 3.8 MPa, low drying shrinkage and good freeze-thaw resistance.
Turgut [57] studied the production of masonry blocks using limestone powder (LP) waste and class
C class fly ash (FA), without the addition of Portland cement. LP was mixed with FA at respectively
10%, 20% and 30% by volume, wetted and compressed under a pressure of 20 MPa in a steel
mold for 1 min to produce block samples. The formed blocks were cured at room temperature for
48 h, in water tank at 22[degrees]C for respectively 7. 28 and 90 days, and then dried in ventilated
oven at 105[degrees]C for 24 h. Tests were conducted on the produced blocks to evaluate their
compressive and flexural strengths, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), density, water absorption and
thermal conductivity. The results indicated that masonry blocks could be produced using LP, FA
and water,
Liu et al. [58] explored the feasibility of using the sludge derived from dyestuff-making wastewater
coagulation for producing unfired bricks. They tried four typical cements, OPC, ground clinker of
silicate cement, alumina cement, and slag cement, as the binder. The experimental results showed
that the cement solidified sludge could meet all performance criteria for unfired bricks at a cement/
dry sludge/water ratio of 1:0.5-0.8:0.5-0.8. The compressive strength of alumina cement solidified
sludge was the highest and exceeded 40 MPa.
Fang et al. [59] studied the utilization of low Si[O.sub.2] content copper railings to partially replace
sand to produce autoclaved sand--lime bricks. Brick specimens were prepared by mixing the
tailings with river sand and sand powder at different proportions, pressing the mixture ill a mold
under a pressure of 20 MPa and autoclaving the molded bricks. The produced bricks were tested
to evaluate their compressive strength and freeze-thaw durability. The results showed that the
copper railings with low content of Si[O.sub.2] could be used to produce autoclaved sand-lime
bricks meeting the China National Standard, if the proportion of the copper railings in the brick
batch did not exceed 50% by mass and appropriate proportions of river sand and sand powder
were added to compensate for the low Si[O.sub.2] content.
Turgut [60] investigated manufacturing of bricks by utilizing limestone powder, class C fly ash,
silica fume and water without any other components. Brick specimens were produced by mixing
limestone powder, class C fly ash and silica fume with water, compacting the mixture and curing
the formed units for periods of 7, 28 and 90 days. The brick specimens were tested to measure
their physical and mechanical properties. The results indicated that the compressive and flexural
strengths increased significantly when the silica fume content in the mixture was increased. At 20%
silica fume content, the compressive strengths of the bricks after 28 and 90 days curing time
reached 23 and 26.5 MPa respectively. It was also found that the production cost of the new bricks
was 6.4-times lower than that of traditional fired clay bricks.
Raut et al. [61] studied the utilization of recycled paper mill waste (RPMW) together with OPC to
produce light weight bricks. Brick specimens were produced by mixing RPMW and cement at
different proportions, compressing the mixture using a hand operated hydraulic press and then
solar drying the formed bricks. The brick specimens were tested following ASTM C 67-03a
standards, The results showed that bricks prepared using RPMW-cement combination was light
weight, shock absorbing and met the ASTM C 67-03a compressive strength requirements.
Zhao et al. [62] investigated the possibility of using hematite tailings as main raw material to
produce high strength autoclaved bricks. The orthogonal test results indicated that the optimum
formulation was the mixture of 70% hematite railings, 15% lime and 15% sand and the optimum
autoclave pressure and time were respectively 1.2 MPa and 6 h. The produced hematite tailings
autoclaved bricks had mechanical strength and durability conforming to the China Autoclaved
Lime-Sand Brick Standard (GBl1945-1999) for MU20 autoclaved bricks.
Zhang et al. [63] studied the production of autoclaved bricks from circulating fluidized bed
combustion (CFBC) fly ash and slag. It was shown that autoclaved bricks could be made using
77% CFBC fly ash, 20% CFBC slag and 3% cement, exhibiting good long-term volume stability
and achieving a compressive strength up to 14.3 MPa. There was no dihydrate gypsum and
ettringite formation in the autoclaved brick so that the destructive expansion could be avoided.
Zhou et al. [64] proposed and tested a novel process, called "hydration-recrystallization process",
for producing non-fired bricks from waste phosphogypsum. In this process, the press-formed bricks
were hot-dried at 180[degrees]C to dehydrate gypsum into semi-hydrated gypsum, water-
immersed to recrystallize gypsum crystals, and finally air-dried naturally to obtain the non-fired
bricks. A series of experiments were conducted based on the novel process. The results showed
that the optimal mix consisted of 75.0% phosphogypsum, 19.5% river sand, 4.0% Portland cement
and 1.5% hydrated lime and the produced bricks at the optimal condition met the requirements of
MU20 grade bricks in the Chinese standard (JC/T422-2007).
Vinai et al. [65] studied the production of bricks using coal combustion residues (CCRs) together
with cement, lateritic clayey soil and sand. 12 Dosages were tested and about 300 bricks were
produced with a hand-operated press. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) higher than 7.5
MPa was observed for bricks with 20% of laterite and 10% cement after 45 days of curing. The
produced bricks showed good mechanical strength, low weight and no health threat.
Shakir et al. [66] investigated the production of bricks using fly ash, quarry dust, and billet scale.
The procedure for producing the bricks included mixing the constituents along with cement and
water, and then forming the bricks within molds without applying pressure over them. Results of
mechanical property and durability tests were promising. The optimum ratio of both billet scale to
fly ash and billet scale to quarry dust was found to be 1:1. It was indicated that the bricks
developed in this study could be used as an alternative to conventional bricks.
2.3. Production of bricks from waste materials through geopolymerization
The different methods described above produce bricks from waste materials either using high
temperature kiln firing or relying on cementing as in the OPC concrete and thus still have the
drawbacks of high-energy consumption and large quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, researchers have studied production of bricks from waste materials based on
geopolymerization (see Table 3). Geopolymerization is a technology that relies on the chemical
reaction of amorphous silica and alumina rich solids with a high alkaline solution at ambient or
slightly elevated temperatures to form amorphous to semi-crystalline aluminosilicate inorganic
polymer or geopolymer. Geopolymer possess three-dimensional silicoaluminate structures
consisting of linked Si[O.sub.4] and Al[O.sub.4] tetrahedra by sharing all the oxygen atoms [67-74].
A general formula for the chemical composition of geopolymer is as follows:
[M.sup.+.sub.n] [[-[(Si[O.sub.2]).sub.z]-Al[O.sub.2]-].sub.n] (1)
where [M.sup.+] is an alkali cation ([Na.sup.+] or [K.sup.+]); n is the degree of polymerization; and
z is the Si/Al ratio. By tuning the Si/Al ratio (i.e., z = 1 - 15, up to 300), geopolymers with different
properties can be synthesized. Geopolymer not only provides performance comparable to OPC in
many applications, but has additional advantages, including abundant raw material resources,
rapid development of mechanical strength, good durability, superior resistance to chemical attack,
ability to immobilize contaminants, and significantly reduced energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions [72-79]. These characteristics have made geopolymer of great research interest as
an ideal material for sustainable development.
Freidin [80] studied production of geopolymer bricks from fly ash and bottom ash by using sodium
silicate solution as the alkali activator. Small cylinder specimens were prepared at different
conditions to study the effect of sodium silicate content, compaction pressure and hydrophobic
additive. The specimens were cured in ambient air at temperature of 20-23[degrees]C and RH of
35-60% for 28 days before tested. The results indicated that concrete-like building materials can be
produced from mixtures of fly ash and bottom ash by using sodium silicate solution as the alkali
activator. The full size blocks made from the concrete-like building materials met the requirements
of Israeli Standard for conventional cement concrete blocks.
Arioz et al. [81] investigated production of geopolymer bricks using class F fly ash, sodium silicate,
and sodium hydroxide solution. The bricks were produced using 30 MPa forming pressure and
treated at various temperatures for different hours in oven and steam. Tests were performed to
determine the compressive strength and density of the fly ash-based geopolymer bricks at ages of
http://rk9dr6cc2p.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&r… 10/34
7, 28 and 90 days. It was found that the compressive strength of the fly ash-based geopolymer
bricks ranged between 5 and 60 MPa and the effect of heat treatment temperature and duration on
the density of the bricks was not significant.
Chen et al. [82] studied production of geopolymer bricks using bottom ash from circulating fluidized
bed combustion and four different alkali activators: sodium silicate solution, sodium hydroxide
solution, potassium hydroxide solution, and lithium hydroxide solution. Brick samples were
produced by first mixing the bottom ash and an alkaline solution, placing the mixture into a mold
until the mold was full, and applying a force of 60 kN at the top to compress the mixture for 10 s.
Then the brick was pushed out of the mold and stored at 40[degrees]C and 100% humidity for
curing. The same liquid to solid mass ratio of 0.3 was used for all brick samples. The results
indicated that the alkali activator used has a great effect on the compressive strength of bricks. The
highest 7 day compressive strength of 18.8 MPa was obtained for brick samples prepared using 10
M potassium hydroxide solution.
Ahmari and Zhang [83] investigated utilization of copper mine tailings to produce geopolymer
bricks by using sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution as the alkali activator. They produced cylindrical
brick specimens by using different initial water contents, NaOH concentrations, forming pressures
and curing temperatures to study their effects on the physical and mechanical properties of the
copper mine tailings-based geopolymer bricks. Scanning electron microscopy (SEMI imaging and
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis were also performed to investigate the microstructure and phase
composition of the mine railings-based geopolymer bricks prepared at different conditions. The
results showed that by properly selecting the preparation condition /initial water content, NaOH
concentration, forming pressure and curing temperature), mine railings-based geopolymer bricks
could be produced to meet the ASTM requirements on compressive strength, water absorption,
and abrasion resistance for nearly all types of applications.
Ahmari and Zhang [84] studied the feasibility of using cement kiln dust (CKD) to further enhance
the physical and mechanical properties and the durability of the copper mine railings-based
geopolymer bricks developed in [83]. The effects of CKD content (0-10%) on unconfined
compressive strength, water absorption, and weight and strength losses after immersion in water
were studied. To shed light on the mechanism for the contribution of CKD to geopolymerization,
microscopic and spectroscopic techniques including scanning electron microscopy/energy-
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDX), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier transform infrared
(FTIR) spectroscopy were used to investigate the micro/nano-structure and the elemental and
phase composition of geopolymer brick specimens containing different amount of CKD. The results
showed significant improvement of UCS and durability when CKD was used. Water absorption,
however, slightly increased due to the hydration of Ca in the added CKD.
Kumar and Kumar [85] studied the production of geopolymer paving blocks by using red mud
together with fly ash. The influence of 0-40% red mud addition on the reaction, structure and
properties of fly ash geopolymer was studied. An improvement in intensity of reaction was
observed with the red mud addition at all replacement levels but the improvement in setting time
and compressive strength was observed only in the samples containing 5-20% red mud. Structural
characterization revealed that the rate of reaction was dependent on the NaOH concentration but
the development of mechanical properties was related to the compact microstructure which was
developed due to the combined effects of NaOH concentration, solubility of silicates and the
presence of iron oxides. Based on the study results, paving blocks using 10% and 20% red mud
were developed. These blocks met Indian Standard (IS) 15658 and the leached toxic metals were
within permissible limits.
It is noted that researchers have also studied many other types of waste materials for geopolymer
production, including red mud and rice husk ash [86], fly ash and mine tailings [87], fly ash and
concrete waste [88], blast furnace slag [89], and fly ash and blast furnace slag [90]. Although these
studies are not specifically about brick production, the results indicate that many of these wastes
are promising materials for production of geopolymer bricks.
3. Discussion
It is evident from Tables 1-3 that researchers have used various types of waste materials in
different proportions and adopted different methods to produce bricks. Different tests were
conducted on produced bricks to evaluate their properties following the various available
standards. Compressive strength and water absorption are two common parameters considered by
most researchers as required by various standards. For example, Table 4 shows the ASTM
specifications on minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and maximum water
absorption for different applications of bricks.
It is noted that although many of the studied bricks made from waste materials meet the various
standard requirements and a number of patents have been approved (see Table 5 for a partial list),
so far commercial production and application of bricks from waste materials is still very limited.
Currently, the CalStar brick from CalStar Products Inc., which is produced from 99.5% fly ash, fine
aggregates, water and less than 0.5% of proprietary material, is commercially available [91].
Sanjay Kumar from CSIR, Jamshedpur, India reported in July 2012 the commercial production of
around 0.5 million geopolymer bricks from steel slag, fly ash and GBFS combination [92]. The
possible reasons are related to the methods for producing bricks from waste materials, the
potential contamination from the waste materials, the absence of relevant standards, and the slow
acceptance of waste materials-based bricks by industry and public, as detailed below.
The method for producing bricks from waste materials through firing is very similar to the
conventional clay brick production process. Therefore, this method can be easily executed without
making major changes in the conventional clay brick production line. However, during the firing
process, contaminants within the waste material may be released and cause new contaminations.
Besides, making bricks through firing consumes significant amount of energy and releases large
quantity of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the methods for producing bricks without firing seem to
be the trend to follow in terms of energy and environmental concerns.
The method for producing bricks from waste materials through cementing is based on hydration
reactions similar to that in OPC to form mainly C-S-H and C-A-S-H phases contributing to strength.
The cementing material can be the waste material itself or other added cementing material(s) such
as OPC and lime. Since the manufacture of cementing material(s) such as OPC and lime
consumes significant amount of energy and releases large quantity of greenhouse gases, the
production of bricks from waste materials based on added cementing material(s) also has the
drawbacks of high energy consumption and large carbon footprint. When it relies on the self
cementing of waste material, the waste material has to contain a large amount of calcium (such as
class C fly ash). To ensure and accelerate the reaction kinetics, the curing process usually needs
to be conducted under pressurized steam at 125-200[degrees]C in an autoclave, which translates
itself into additional costs.
The method for producing bricks from waste materials through formation of geopolymer is based
on the relatively new geopolymerization technology which is different from the conventional
cementing technology in OPC concrete. Geopolymerization relies on the polycondensation of silica
and alumina precursors and a high alkali content to attain structural strength whereas the
conventional cementing depends on the presence of C-S-H and C-A-S-H phases for matrix
formation and strength. Production of geopolymer bricks consumes much less energy and releases
significantly lower quantity of greenhouse gases than production of conventional bricks. Besides.
geopolymer bricks have favorable physical, mechanical and chemical properties. However, the
utilization of alkali solutions brings about extra costs. The mild temperature required for curing in
some cases also leads to additional costs for production. Although geopolymer is considered by
many authors as a solution for "green" construction material, few studies have quantified the
environmental impact of geopolymer [93,94]. Therefore, detailed environmental impact assessment
of geopolymer brick production is necessary and should be compared with other brick production
methods.
Since most waste materials contain contaminants within them, for production of bricks from waste
materials using whatever method, it is important to ensure that the contaminants within the original
waste material are effectively and safely immobilized. Leaching analyses can be conducted
following USEPA, ASTM and/or other standard methods to check if the leached elements meet the
related standard criteria such as those listed in Table 6. For example, Cengizler [95], Tannverdi,
[96], Ahmari and Zhang [97], and Kumar and Kumar [85] respectively studied the leaching behavior
of heavy metals from fired fly ash bricks, non-fired autoclaved fly ash-lime bricks, copper mine
tailings-based geopolymer bricks, and red mud/fly ash-based geopolymer blocks.
The limited production and application of bricks from waste materials is also related to the absence
of relevant standards and the slow acceptance by industry and public. Standardization plays an
important role in disseminating knowledge, exploiting research results and reducing time to market
for innovations [98]. To promote the production and application of bricks from waste materials,
relevant standards should be developed. Since the existing brick manufacturers have a vested
interest in the conventional brick production technology, their interest in new technologies to
produce bricks from waste materials has been tepid. As mentioned earlier, most waste materials
contain contaminants within them. The "waste" feature of the waste material and the potential for
causing contamination and being unsafe adversely affect public acceptance of waste material-
based bricks. To promote production and application of bricks from waste materials, more work
needs to done, not only on the technical, economic and environmental aspects but also on the
government policy and public education related to waste recycling and sustainable development.
4. Conclusions
Based on the review of the various studies on production of bricks from waste materials, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
* A wide variety of waste materials have been studied for production of bricks.
* The different methods studied for producing bricks from waste materials can be divided into three
general categories: firing, cementing and geopolymerization. The firing and cementing (especially
cementing based on added cementing materials) methods for producing bricks from waste
materials still have the drawbacks of high energy consumption and large carbon footprint as the
conventional brick production methods. The method for producing bricks from waste materials
through geopolymerization seems to be the trend to follow in terms of energy and environmental
concerns.
* Although much research has been conducted, the commercial production of bricks from waste
materials is still very limited. The possible reasons are related to the methods for producing bricks
from waste materials, the potential contamination from the waste materials used, the absence of
relevant standards, and the slow acceptance of waste materials-based bricks by industry and
public.
* For wide production and utilization of bricks from waste materials, further research and
development is needed, not only on the technical, economic and environmental aspects but also
on standardization, government policy and public education.
HIGHLIGHTS
* A wide variety of waste materials have been researched for production of bricks, including mainly
fly ash and slags.
* Methods for producing bricks from waste materials can be divided into 3 categories: firing,
cementing and geopolymerization.
* Commercial production of bricks from waste materials is still very limited due to different reasons.
* Further research and development is needed to promote wide production and application of
bricks from waste materials.
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 17 February 2013
Received in revised form 27 April 2013
Accepted 5 May 2013
Available online 10 June 2013
References
[1] Brick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick#cite_note-2. Visited 14.04.13.
[2] Pacheco-Torgal F, Jalali S. Masonry units. In: Pacheco-Torgal, Jalali, editors. Eco-efficient
construction and building materials. London, UK: Springer: 2011. p. 131-42.
[3] Habla Zig-Zag Kilns Technology. The brick industry. <http:// www.hablakilns.com/industry.htm>.
Visited 15.01.13.
[4] The Freedonia Group. Brick and block--US industry study with forecasts for 2014 & 2019. Study
#2652; 2012.
[5] Reddy BW, Jagadish KS. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and
technologies. Energy Build 2003;35:129-37.
[6] Lippiatt BC. BEES 4.0--Building for environmental and economic sustainability. Technical
manual and user guide, NISTIR 7423: 2007.
[7] China Economic Trade Committee. Tenth five-year program of building materials industry.
China Build Mater 2001 ;7:7-10,
[8] Chen Y, Zhang Y, Chen T, Zhao Y, Bao S. Preparation of eco-friendly construction bricks from
hematite tailings. Constr Build Mater 2011:25:2107-11.
[9] Lingling X, Wei G, Tao W, Nanru Y. Study on fired bricks with replacing clay by fly ash in high
volume ratio. Constr Build Mater 2005:9:243-7.
[10] Malhotra VM. Role of supplementary cementing materials in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In: Gjorv OE, Sakai K, editors. Concrete technology for a sustainable development in
the 21st century. London: E&FN Spon; 2000. p. 226-35.
[11] McCaffrey R. Climate change and the cement industry. Glob Gem Lime Mag (Environ Spec
Issue) 2002:15-9.
[12] Rajamane NP, Nataraja MC, Lakshmanan N, Ambily PS. Literature survey on geopolymer
concretes and a research plan in Indian context. The Masterbuilder 2012:148-60.
[13] Kute S, Deodhar SV, Effect of fly ash and temperature on properties of burnt clay bricks. J Civ
Eng 2003;84:82-5.
[14] Chou MI, Patel V, Laird CJ, Ho KK. Chemical and engineering properties of fired bricks
containing 50weight per cent of class F fly ash. Energy Sources 2001 ;23:665-73.
[15] Chou MI, Chou SF, Patel V, Pickering MD, Stucki JW. Manufacturing fired bricks with class F
fly ash from Illinois basin coals. Combustion byproduct recycling consortium. Project number 02-
CBRC-M12. Final report; 2006.
[16] US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), Multiple extraction procedure for solid waste--
method 1320; 1980.
[17] Kayali O, High performance bricks from fly ash. In: 2005 World of coal ash (WOCA).
Lexington, Kentucky, USA: Center for Applied Energy Research; 2005.
[18] Menezes RR, Ferreira HS, Neves GA, Lira HdL, Ferreira HC. Use of granite sawing wastes in
the production of ceramic bricks and tiles. J Eur Ceram Soc 2005;25(7): 1149-58.
[19] Lin KL, Feasibility study of using brick made from municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash
slag. J Hazard Mater 2006:137(3):1810-6.
[20] Roy S, Adhikari GR, Gupta RN. Use of gold mill railings in making bricks: a feasibility study.
Waste Manage Res 2007;25:475-82.
[21] El-Mahllawy MS. Characteristics of acid resisting bricks made from quarry residues and waste
steel slag. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:1887-96.
[22] Sutcu M, Akkurt S. The use of recycled paper processing residue in making porous brick with
reduced thermal conductivity. Ceram Int 2009;35:2625-31.
[23] Aeslina AK, Abbas M, Felicity R, John B. Density. strength, thermal conductivity and leachate
characteristics of light weight fired clay bricks incorporating cigarette butts. Int J Civ Environ Eng
2010;2(4): 179-84.
[24] Rahman MA. Properties of clay-sand-rice husk ash mixed bricks. Int J Cem Compos
Lightweight Concr 1987;9(2):105-8.
[25] Sengupta P, Saikia N, Borthakur PC. Bricks from petroleum effluent treatment plant sludge:
properties and environmental characteristics. J Environ Eng 2002; 128(11): 1090-4.
[26] Demir I, Baspinar MS, Orhan M. Utilization of kraft pulp production residues in clay brick
production. Build Environ 2005;40:1533-7.
[27] Demir I. An investigation on the production of construction brick with processed waste tea.
Build Environ 2006:41:1274-8.
[28] Samara M, Lafhaj Z, Chapiseau C. Valorization of stabilized river sediments in fired clay
bricks: factory scale experiment. J Hazard Mater 2009;163(2-3):701-10.
[29] Dondi M, Guarini G, Raimondo M, Zanelli C, Recycling PC and TV waste glass in clay bricks
and roof tiles. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2009;29(6):1945-51.
[30] Haiying Z, Youcai Z, Jingyu Q. Utilization of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) fly ash
in ceramic brick: product characterization and environmental toxicity. Waste Manage (Oxford)
2011;31:331-41.
[31] Eliche-Quesada D, Corpas-lglesias FA, Perez-Villarejo L, Iglesias-Godino FJ. Recycling of

sawdust, spent earth from oil filtration, compost and marble residues for brick manufacturing.
Constr Build Mater 2012;34:275-84.
[32] Alonso-Santurde R, Coz A, Viguri JR. Andres A. Recycling of foundry by-products in the
ceramic industry: green and core sand in clay bricks. Constr Build Mater 2012;27:97-106.
[33] Bilgin N, Yeprem HA. Arslan S, Bilgin A, Gunay E, Marsoglu M. Use of waste marble powder
in brick industry. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:449-57.
[34] Quijorna N, Coz A, Andres A, Cheeseman C. Recycling of Waelz slag and waste foundry sand
in red clay bricks. Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;65:1-10.
[35] Mezencevova A. Yeboah NN. Burns SE, Kahn LF, Kurtis KE. Utilization of Savannah harbor
river sediment as the primary raw material in production of fired brick. J Environ Manage
2012:113:128-36.
[36] Faria KCP. Gurgel RF, Holanda JNF. Recycling of sugarcane bagasse ash waste in the
production of clay bricks. J Environ Manage 2012;101:7-12.
[37] Malhotra SK, Tehri SP. Development of bricks from granulated blast furnace slag. Constr Build
Mater 1996;10:191-3.
[38] Pooh CS, Kou SC, Lain L. Use of recycled aggregates in molded concrete bricks and blocks.
Constr Build Mater 2002; 16:281-9.
[39] Kumar S. A perspective study on fly ash-lime-gypsum bricks and hollow blocks for low cost
housing development. Constr Build Mater 2002;16:519-25.
[40] Li Y, Lin Y. Compacting solid waste materials generated in Missouri to form new products.
Final technical report to the solid waste management program. Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR). Contact no. MDNR 000381. submitted by Capsule Pipeline Research Center.
University of Missouri Columbia, USA; 2002. p. 90.
[41] Liu H. Compacting fly ash to make bricks. Final technical report, NSF-SBIR phase I project no,
DM1-0419311. Freight Pipeline Company: 2005. p. 15.
[42] Liu H. Burkett W, Haynes K. Improving freezing and thawing properties of fly ash bricks. In:
World of coal ash conference, April 14, 2005. Lexington, Kentucky, USA; 2005.
[43] Liu H, Watson ]P, Banerji S, Burkett WJ. Test of mercury vapor emission from fly ash bricks. In:
World coal ash conference, May 7-10. 2007, Northern Kentucky. USA; 2007.
[44] Liu H, Banerji SK, Burkett WJ, Van Engelenhoven]. Environmental properties of fly ash bricks.
In: World of coal ash conference. May 4-7, 2009, Lexington, KY. USA; 2009.
[45] Liu H, Van Engelenhoven J. Use of ASTM standards for testing freeze-thaw resistance of fly
ash bricks. In: World of coal ash conference, May 4-7, 2009, Lexington, KY, USA; 2009.
[46] Morchhale RK, Ramakrishnan N, Diodorkar N. Bulk utilization of copper mine tailings in
production of bricks. J Inst Eng Indian Civ Eng Div 2006;87:13-6.
[47] Cicek T, Tanrverdi M. Lime based steam autoclaved By ash bricks. Constr Build Mater
2007:2007(21):1295-300.
[48] Turgut P, Algin 14M. Limestone dust and wood sawdust as brick material. Build Environ
2007;42:3399-403.
[49] Algin HM, Turgut P. Cotton and limestone powder wastes as brick material. Constr Build Mater
2008;22(6):1074-80.
[50] Turgut P. Research into artificial limestone composites with cotton waste. Jordan J Civ Eng
2013:7(1): 126-31.
[51] Turgut P. Limestone dust and glass powder wastes as new brick material. Mater Struct
2008;41(5):805-13.
[52] Turgut P. Properties of masonry blocks produced with waste limestone sawdust and glass
powder. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(7):1422-7.
[53] Turgut P, Yesilata B. Physico-mechanical and thermal performances of newly develop rubber-
added bricks. Energy Build 2008;40:679-88.
[54] Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. A study of fly ash-lime granule unfired brick. Powder Technol
2008; 182:33-41.
[55] Shon CS, Saylak D, Zollinger DG. Potential use of stockpiled circulating fluidized bed
combustion ashes in manufacturing compressed earth bricks. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:2062-
71.
[56] Zhao F-Q, Zhao J, Liu H-J. Autoclaved brick from low-silicon tailings. Constr Build Mater
2009;23:538-41.
[57] Turgut P. Masonry composite material made of limestone powder and fly ash. Powder Technol
2010;204:42-7.
[58] Liu Z, Chen Q, Xie X, Xue G, Du F, Ning Q, et al. Utilization of the sludge derived from
dyestuff-making wastewater coagulation for unfired bricks. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:1699-706.
[59] Fang Y, Gu Y, Kang Q, Wen Q, Dai P. Utilization of copper tailing for autoclaved sand-lime
brick. Constr Build Mater 2011;25:867-72.
[60] Turgut P. Manufacturing of building bricks without Portland cement. J Cleaner Prod
2012;37:361-7.
[61] Raut SP, Sedmake R, Dhunde S, Ralegaonkar RV, Mandavgane SA. Reuse of recycle paper
mill waste in energy absorbing light weight bricks. Constr Build Mater 2012;27:247-51.
[62] Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Chen T, Cben Y, Bao S. Preparation of high strength autoclaved bricks from
hematite railings. Constr Build Mater 2012;28:450-5.
[63] Zhang Z, Qian J, You C, Hu C. Use of circulating fluidized bed combustion fly ash and slag in
autoclaved brick. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:109-16.
[64] Zhou J, Gao 14, Shu Z, Wang Y, Yah C. Utilization of waste phosphogypsum to prepare non-
fired bricks by a novel hydration-recrystallization process. Constr Build Mater 2012;34:114-9.
[65] Vinai R, Lawane A, Minane JR, Amadou A. Coal combustion residues valorisation: research
and development on compressed brick production. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:1088-96.
[66] Shakir AA, Naganathan S, Mustapha KN. Properties of bricks made using fly ash, quarry dust
and billet scale. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:131-8.
[67] Davidovits J. High-alkali cements for 21st century concrete. In: Metha PK, editor. Proceedings
of V. Mohan Malhortra symposium: concrete technology, past, present and future. ACI SP-144;
1994. p. 383-97.
[68] Duxson P, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, Van Deventer JSJ.
Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. J Mater 5ci 2007;42:2917-33.
[69] Majidi B. Geopolymer technology, from fundamentals to advanced applications: a review.

Mater Technol 2009;24(2):79-87.
[70] Davidovits J. Soft mineralogy and geopolymers. In: Proceedings 1st international conference
on geopolymers, vol. 1. Compiegne, France; June 1988. p. 19-24.
[71] Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal

1991;37(8):1633-56.
[72] Shi C, Krivenko PV, Roy DM. Alkali-activated cements and concrete. London and New York:
Taylor & Francis; 2006.
[73] Dimas D, Giannopoulou I, Panias D. Polymerization in sodium silicate solutions: a

fundamental process in geopolymerization technology. J Mater Sci 2009;44:3719-30.
[74] He J, Zhang J, Yu Y, Zhang G. The strength and microstructure of two geopolymers derived
from metakaolin and red mud-fly ash admixture: a comparative study. Constr Build Mater
2012;30:80-91.
[75] Van Deventer JSJ, Provis J, Duxson P, Lukey GC. Technological, environmental and
commercial drivers for the use of geopolymers in a sustainable material industry. In: International
symposium of advanced processing of metals and materials; 2006. p. 241-52.
[76] Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT. Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem
Concr Res 1999;29(18):1323-9.
[77] Li Z, Ding Z, Zhang Y. Development of sustainable cementitious materials. In: Proceedings of

international workshop on sustainable development and concrete technology, Beijing, China; 2004.
p. 55-76.
[78] Drechsler M, Graham A. Innovative material technologies: bringing resources sustainability to

construction and mining industries. In: 48th Institute of quarrying conference, Adelide, SA,
Australia; 2005.
[79] Shi C, Fernandez-Jimenez A. Stabilization/solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes

with alkali-activated cements. J Hazard Mater 2006; 137(3): 1656-63.
[80] Freidin C. Cementless pressed blocks from waste products of coal-firing power station. Constr
Build Mater 2007;21 : 12-8.
[81] Arioz O, Kilinc K, Tuncan M, Tuncan A, Kavas T. Physical, mechanical and micro-structural
properties of F type fly-ash based geopolymeric bricks produced by pressure forming process. Adv
Sci Technol 2010;69:69-74.
[82] Chen C, Li Q, Shen L, Zhai J. Feasibility of manufacturing geopolymer bricks using circulating
fluidized bed combustion bottom ash. Environ Technol 2012;33:1313-21.
[83] Ahmari S, Zhang L. Production of eco-friendly bricks from copper mine tailings through
geopolymerization. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:323-31.
[84] Ahmari S, Zhang L. Utilization of cement kiln dust (CKD) to enhance mine tailings-based
geopolymer bricks. Constr Build Mater 2013;40:1002-11.
[85] Kumar A, Kumar S. Development of paving blocks from synergistic use of red mud and fly ash
using geopolymerization. Constr Build Mater 2013;38:865-71.
[86] He J, Jie Y, Zhang J, Yu Y, Zhang G. Synthesis and characterization of red mud and rice husk
ash-based geopolymer composites. Cem Concr Compos 2013;37:108-18.
[87] Zhang L, Ahmari S, Zhang J. Synthesis and characterization of fly ash modified mine tailings-
based geopolymers. Constr Build Mater 201 ] ;25(9):3773-81.
[88] Ahmari S, Ren X, Toufigh V, Zhang L. Production of geopolymeric binder from blended waste
concrete powder and fly ash. Constr Build Mater 2012;35:718-29.
[89] Hu S, Wang H, Zhang G, Ding Q. Bonding and abrasion resistance of geopolymeric repair
material made with steel slag. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:239-44.
[90] Nath 5K, Kumar S. Influence of iron making slags on strength and microstructure of fly ash
geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 2013;38:924-30.
[91] <http://calstarproducts.com/products/fly-ash-brick-fab/>. Visited 11.05.12.
[92] Davidovits J. Keynote: state of the geopolymer R&D. The geopolymer camp 2012, IUT,
University of Picardie, July 9-11, Saint-Quentin, France; 2012.
[93] Habert G, d'Espinose de Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N. An environmental evaluation of

geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Cleaner Prod 2011 :
19:1229-38.
[94] Pacheco-Torgal F, Abdollahnejad Z, Cam6es AF, Jamshidi M, Ding Y. Durability of alkali-

activated binders: a clear advantage over Portland cement or an unproven issue? Constr Build
Mater 2012;30:400-5.
[95] Cengizler H. Toxic elements leachability tests on light weight fly ash bricks. Asian J Chem
2009;21:2950-6.
[96] Tannverdi M. Toxic elements leachability tests on autoclaved fly ash-lime bricks. Asian J Chem
2006; 18:2310-4.
[97] Ahmari S, Zhang L. Durability and leaching behavior of mine tailings-based geopolymer bricks.
Constr Build Mater 2013;44:743-50.
[98] Sanjuan MA, Zaragoza A, Agui JCL. Standardization for an innovative world. Cem Concr Res
2011;41:767-74.
Lianyang Zhang *
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

85721, USA
* Tel.: +1 520 6260532; fax: +1 520 6212550.
E-mail address: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.043
Table 1
Studies on production of bricks from waste materials through firing.
No. Waste material (wt.%) Brick size (mm)
1 Hematite tailings (77-100%) and 50 x 50

class F fly ash (0-8%) (cylinder)
2 Class F fly ash (0, 50, 60, 70, and 60 x 60 x 25

80 vol.%)
3 Class F fly ash (0%, 20%, 40%, and 95 x 45 x 45

60%)
4 Class F fly ash (0-60 vol.%) Various sizes
5 Fly ash (100%) --
6 Granite sawing wastes (0-60%) Various sizes
7 Municipal solid waste incinerator 50 x 25 x 50

slag (0-40%)
8 Gold mill tailings (0-75%) 100 x 100 x 76
9 Kaolin fine quarry residue (50%), 50 x 50 x 50
granulated blast-furnace slag (10-

40%), granite-basalt fine quarry
residue (10-40%)
10 Paper production residues (0%, 10%, 85 x 85 x 10

20%, and 30%)
11 Cigarette butts (0%, 2.5%, 5% and 300 x 100 x 50

10%)
12 Rice husk ash (0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 50 x 50 x 50

20%)
13 Petroleum effluent treatment plant 280 x 130 x 170

sludge (41%)
14 Kraft pulp production residue 33 x 40

(2.5%) (cylinder),
25 x 25 x 150
15 Waste tea (5%) 100 x 70 x 40
16 River sediments (15%) 60 x 220 x 220
17 PC and TV waste glass (<2%) 100 x 20 x 10
18 Municipal solid waste incineration --

fly ash (20%)
19 Sawdust (0-10%), spent earth from 30 x 10 x 60

oil filtration (0-30%), compost (0-
30%), or marble (0-20%)
20 Foundry by-products (0-50%) 150 x 30 x 15
21 Waste marble powder (20-100%) 41 x 8 x 8
22 Waelz slag and waste foundry sand 100 x 80 x 20

(20-40%)
23 River sediment (100% or 50%) 54 x 54 x

(5-10)
24 Sugarcane bagasse ash waste (up to 25 mm

20%) (diameter)
No. Drying/firing condition Tests conducted
1 Dried in an oven at 105[degrees]C Compressive strength,

for 6-8 h and then fired in an water absorption, bulk
electric furnace at 6[degrees]C- density
min until 850-1050[degrees]C forth
2 Dried at ambient condition for 2 Compressive strength,

days, at 60[degrees]C for 4 h and water absorption, bulk
at 100[degrees]C for 6 h, and fired density, apparent

in an electric furnace at porosity, cracking due to
100[degrees]C/h below lime, frost and frost-
500[degrees]C, 50[degrees]C/h from melting
500[degrees]C to 1000, 1050 or
1100[degrees]C, and at the highest
temperature for 8 h
3 Dried in air for 2 days and then Compressive strength,

fired in a laboratory furnace at water absorption
respectively 850 and 1000[degrees]C
for 24 h
4 Following the process of a Compressive strength,

commercial clay brick plant water absorption,
leaching
5 Dried for 3 days and then fired at Compressive strength,

1000-1300[degrees]C for hours water absorption, modulus
of rupture, density, bond
strength, durability
6 Fired at different temperatures Compressive strength,

between 750 and 1200[degrees]C water absorption, modulus
of rupture
7 Air-dried at room temperature for Compressive strength,

24 h, oven dried at 80[degrees]C water absorption,
for 24 h, and finally fired at 800, density, firing
900, or 1000[degrees]C for 6 h shrinkage, weight loss on
ignition, TCLP
8 Dried at room temperature for 2 Compressive strength,

days, in the sun for 3 days, and water absorption, linear
then fired in an electric furnace shrinkage
at 750, 850, or 950[degrees]C for 9
h
9 Dried in an electric dryer at Compressive strength,

80[degrees]C for 24 h, and then water absorption, bulk
fired at different temperatures of density
1100, 1125, 1150 and 1175[degrees]C
at 5[degrees]C/min and 4 h soaking
time in a muffle furnace under
oxidizing condition
10 Held overnight at room temperature Compressive strength,

followed by drying at 45[degrees]C water absorption, bulk
for 1 h in an oven, then fired in density, apparent
an electrical furnace at porosity, thermal
2.S[degrees]C/min until conductivity
600[degrees]C and then at
10[degrees]C/min until
1100[degrees]C, for 1 h
11 Dried at 105[degrees]C for 24 h, Compressive strength,

and then fired in a furnace at water absorption,
1050[degrees]C density, thermal
conductivity, leaching
12 Dried in the sun at 30[degrees]C Compressive strength,

for 8 days, at 105[degrees]C for 24 water absorption, density
h in an oven, and then fired in a
furnace continuously at 250, 500,
750[degrees]C for 2 h each and
finally at 1000[degrees]C for 2, 4
or 6 h
13 Dried at room temperature and then Compressive strength,

fired in a coal-fired Bulls trench water absorption,
commercial brick kiln along with leaching
usual commercial bricks at 1000-
1100[degrees]C
14 Dried at 21[degrees]C for 72 h and Compressive strength,

then at 105[degrees]C in the oven, water absorption, density
and subsequently fired at
2[degrees]C/min until 600[degrees]C
and then at 5[degrees]C/min until
900[degrees]C for 30 min
15 Dried at 21[degrees]C for 72 h and Compressive strength,

then at 105[degrees]C in the oven, water absorption, density
and subsequently fired at
2[degrees]C/min until 600[degrees]C
and then at 5[degrees]C/min until
900[degrees]C for 2 h
16 Dried through a tunnel drier up to Compressive strength,

80[degrees]C and then fired through water absorption,
a tunnel kiln with a maximum porosity, firing
temperature of 1000[degrees]C shrinkage, leaching,
permeability, freeze-
thaw
17 Dried at ambient temperature in a Bending strength, water

non/controlled atmosphere for 48 h absorption, open
and then in an electric oven at porosity, bulk density,
100[degrees]C overnight, and firing shrinkage,
finally fired in an electric leaching
chamber kiln at 100[degrees]C/h
until 900, 950 or 1000[degrees]C
forth
18 Dried at around 60[degrees]C and Compressive strength,

then fired at 950[degrees]C water absorption,
shrinkage, leaching
19 Fired in a laboratory furnace at Compressive strength,

3[degrees]C/min up to 950 or water absorption, bulk
1050[degrees]C for 4 h density, apparent

porosity
20 Fired in a laboratory muffle at Flexural strength, water

2[degrees]C/min up to 850, 950 or absorption, density,
1050[degrees]C for 3.5 h apparent porosity
21 Fired in an electrical furnace at Flexural strength, water

5[degrees]C/min up to at 900, 1000 absorption, bulk density,
or 1100[degrees]C for 3 h porosity
22 Dried at 96/104[degrees]C and fired Flexural strength, water

in an industry tunnel kiln to a absorption, density, open
maximum temperature of porosity, leaching
850[degrees]C (heating rate
-0.85[degrees]C/min, cooling rate
-1.14[degrees]C/min, and soaking
time of 1 h)
23 Dried in an oven at temperature Compressive strength,

gradually increasing from 25 to water absorption, firing
110[degrees]C until no change in shrinkage, freeze-thaw
mass, and then fired in an electric
laboratory furnace at different
temperatures from 900 to
1000[degrees]C with variations in
heating rate and holding duration
at the maximum temperature
24 Dried at 110 -C for 24 h and then Linear shrinkage, water

fired in an electric kiln at absorption, apparent
1100[degrees]C (24 h cold to cold) density, tensile strength
No. Reference
1 [8]
2 [9]
3 [13]
4 [14,15]
5 [17]
6 [18]
7 [19]
8 [20]
9 [21]
10 [22]
11 [23]
12 [24]
13 [25]
14 [26]
15 [27]
16 [28]
17 [29]
18 [30]
19 [31]
20 [32]
21 [33]
22 [34]
23 [35]
24 [36]
Table 2
Studies on production of bricks from waste materials through
cementing.
No. Waste material Cementing

(wt.%) material
1 Gold mill tailings OPC

(0-75%)
2 Granulated blast Hydrated lime

furnace slag
(5-35%)
3 Recycled OPC alone or both

aggregates OPC and fly ash
(replacing 25-
100% of natural
aggregates)
4 Class F fly ash Calcined

(60-90%) phosphogypsum
and mineral lime
5 Class C fly ash Fly ash itself

(100%)
6 Class C fly ash Fly ash itself

(100%)
7 Copper mine OPC

tailings (8%, 12%
and 15%)
8 Class F fly ash Hydrated lime

(50-80%)
9 Wood sawdust OPC

and limestone
powder
(86-89%)
10 Cotton waste OPC

and limestone
powder
(84-89%)
11 Waste glass OPC

powder and
limestone
powder (89%)
12 Crumb rubber OPC

(0-29%)
13 Class F fly ash Hydrated lime

(95% and 100%)
14 Stockpiled OPC, lime, and/or

circulating class F fly ash
fluidized bed
combustion ash
(58.3-100%)
15 Low-silicon Fly ash, slag,

tailings (83%) clinker dust and
some activators
16 Limestone Class C fly ash

powder and class itself
C fly ash (100%)
17 Sludge from CPC, ground

dyestuff-making silicate cement
wastewater clinker, alumina
coagulation (33- cement, or slag
50%) cement
18 Low Si[O.sub.2] Lime

content copper
tailings (0-88%)
19 Limestone Class C fly ash

powder, class C and/or silica fume
fly ash, and silica
fume (100%)
20 Recycle paper OPC

mill waste
(80-95%)
21 Hematite tailings Lime

(70%)
22 CFBC fly ash OPC or lime

(77-100%)and
slag (0-20%)
23 Waste OPC and hydrated

phosphogypsum lime
(75)
24 Coal combustion OPC

residues (70%,
90vo1A)
25 Fly ash, quarry OPC

dust, and billet
scale (85% and
90%)
No. Brick size (mm) Curing condition
1 100 x 100 x 76 Cured in water for different

periods of time
2 190 x 90 x 90 Cured at 95% humidity and at a

temperature of 270-272[degrees]C
for 28 days
3 225 x 105 x 75 Bricks: cured in air at room

temperature for 28 days: Blocks:
cured in a steam bath at
65[degrees]C for 6 h and then
further cured in air at room
temperature until 28 days
4 220 x 110 x 75, Covered with wet gunny bags for a

150 x 150 x 150 week and then cured in water filled
(hollow block) tanks at 23[degrees]2[degrees]C
5 200 x 100 x 55 Cured in a moist room at 23

[+ or -] 2[degrees]C and relative
humidity not less than 95%
6 200 x 100 x 55 Cured in a wet environment (curing

chamber) at room temperature for
over 2 weeks
7 190 x 90 x 90 Placed in well ventilated room at

ambient temperature for 24 h and
then cured in water
8 45 (diameter) Pre-cured for about 24 h and then

steamed autoclaved at pressure 0.5-
2 MPa for 3-12 h
9 105 x 95 x 75 Cured at room temperature for 24 h,

in lime-saturated water tank at
22[degrees]C for 28 days, and then
dried in ventilated oven at

in lime-saturated water tank at
11 Various Cured at room temperature for 24 h,

in lime/saturated water tank at
dried in ventilated oven at 105/
12 105 x 100 x 75 Cured in air for 6 h, in lime-

saturated water tank at
13 15 x 65 x 10 Put in moist chamber at 98% RH for

3 days, and then autoclaved at 125-
135[degrees]C & 0.14 MPa pressure
for 4 h
14 90 x 65 x 90 Placed at 23[degrees]C and 100% RH

room for 1 day, and then cured in
air at room temperature for
different period of time
15 240 x 115 x 53 Sealed in plastic bag for 6 h, and

then cured in autoclave for certain
period of time

in water tank at 22[degrees]C for
7, 28 and 90 days, and then dried
in ventilated oven at 105[degrees]C
for 24 h
17 40 x 40 x 160 Cured at 20[degrees]C in 100%

humidity for 24 h, and then cured

in water at 20[degrees]C for 28
days
18 100 x 100 x 50 Heated-up for 2 h to 170-

190[degrees]C, stayed for 5-8 h,
and then cooled-down for 3 h
19 225 x 105 x 75 Cured by spraying additional water

on the surface at room temperature
for 48 h, and then cured in water
for different times
20 230 x 105 x 80 Solar dried
21 50 x 23 Pre-cured for about 24 h, and then

(cylinder) steam autoclaved for certain period
of time
22 50 x 50 Cured at 25-30[degrees]C
(cylinder) temperature and 80-90% humidity for
240 x 115 x 53 a certain period of time, and then
autoclaved for 3-8 h
23 240 x 115 x 53 Wet cured for 1 day, dried at

180[degrees]C for 2 h, immersed in
water for 1 h, and naturally cured
24 140 x 140 x 90 Moistened through water spraying

and covered by a black plastic
sheet
25 200 x 90 x 60 Covered with wet burlap overnight,

and then cured in plastic storage
boxes at 22[degrees]C and 95% RH
No. Tests conducted Reference
1 Compressive strength [20]
2 Compressive strength, [37]

bulk density, water
absorption

density, drying shrinkage

water absorption,
density, durability

water absorption, modulus
of rupture, freeze thaw
6 Compressive strength, [41-45]

water absorption,
permeability, freeze-
thaw, leaching

water absorption

water absorption, unit
weight, thermal
conductivity

water absorption,
flexural strength, unit
weight, UPV test
10 Compressive strength, [49,50]

water absorption,
weight, UPV test, thermal
conductivity
11 Compressive strength, [51,52]

water absorption,
weight, UPV test,
abrasion resistance,
freezing-thawing
resistance, thermal
conductivity

water absorption,
flexural strength, freeze
thaw resistance, unit
weight, UPV test

water absorption, bulk
density, leaching

water absorption density
15 Compressive and bending [56]

strengths, freeze-thaw
resistance, dry shrinkage

water absorption,
flexural strength,
density. UPV test,
thermal conductivity

freeze-thaw resistance,
leaching

freeze-thaw resistance

flexural strength,
density, water
absorption, porosity,
thermal conductivity

water absorption,
specific weight, voidage,
moisture content

flexural strength,

water absorption, dry-
shrinkage, bulk density,

bending strength, water
absorption, freeze thaw
resistance

unit weight

water absorption, modulus
of rupture, UPV,
efflorescence and
durability
Table 3
Studies on production of bricks from waste materials through
geopolymerization.
No. Waste material Alkali activator

(wt.%)
1 Fly ash and Sodium silicate solution

bottom ash (100%)
2 Class F fly ash Sodium silicate and sodium

(100%) hydroxide solution
3 Bottom ash from Sodium silicate solution, sodium

circulating hydroxide solution, potassium
fluidized bed hydroxide solution, and lithium
combustion hydroxide solution
(100%)
4 Copper mine Sodium hydroxide solution

tailings (100%)
5 Copper mine Sodium hydroxide solution

tailings (90-100%)
and cement kiln
dust (0-10%)
6 Fly ash (80% and 1:1 Mix of sodium hydroxide

90%) and red mud solution and sodium silicate
(20% and 10%) solution
No. Brick size (mm) Curing condition
1 40 x 57 Cured in ambient air at 20-

(cylinder), 23[degrees]C and RH 35-60% for 28
300 x 140 x 90 days
2 190 x 90 x 50 Treated in oven and steam at 40,

60, 80, 100[degrees]C for 2, 4, 6,
24, 48, 72 h, and then cured at
ambient condition
3 100 x 100 x 200 Cured at 40[degrees]C and 100%

humidity for different periods of
time
4 33.4 x 72.5 Cured in an oven at 60-

(cylinder) 120[degrees]C for 7 days
5 33.4 x 72.5 Cured in an oven at 90[degrees]C

(cylinder) for 7 days
6 1 shaped block Covered with plastic lid and

cured at ambient temperature
for 28 days
No. Tests conducted Reference

water uptake, water
absorption

density
3 Compressive strength [82]

water absorption,
abrasion resistance

water absorption,
durability

water absorption,
splitting tensile
strength, flexural
strength, abrasion
resistance, leaching
Table 4
ASTM specifications for different applications of bricks.
Title of ASTM Minimum

specification designation Type/grade UCS (MPa)
Structural clay C34-03 LBX (a) 9.6 (c)

load bearing LBX 4.8 (d)
wall tile LB (b) 6.8 (c)
LB 4.8 (d)
Building brick C62-10 SW (f) 20.7

MW (g) 17.2
NW (h) 10.3
Solid masonry C126-99 Vertical coring 20.7

unit Horizontal coring 13.8
Facing brick C216-07a SW 20.7

MW 17.2
Pedestrian and C902-07 SX 55.2

light
traffic paving MX 20.7
brick NX 20.7
Title of ASTM Maximum water

specification designation Type/grade absorption (%)
Structural clay C34-03 LBX (a) 16 (e)

load bearing LBX 16 (e)
wall tile LB (b) 25 (e)
LB 25 (e)
Building brick C62-10 SW (f) 17

MW (g) 22
NW (h) No limit
Solid masonry C126-99 Vertical coring NA

unit Horizontal coring NA
Facing brick C216-07a SW 17 (i)

MW 22 (i)
Pedestrian and C902-07 SX 8

light
traffic paving MX 14
brick NX No limit
(a) LBX = load bearing exposed.
(b) LB = load bearing non-exposed.
(c) End construction use.
(d) Side construction use.
(e) Based on 1 h boiling water absorption.
(f) Severe weathering.
(g) Moderate weathering.
(h) Negligible weathering.
(i) Based on 5 h boiling water absorption.
Table 5
Patents for production of bricks from waste materials. (a)
Patent no. Title
US20120031306 Bricks and method of forming bricks with high coal

ash content using a press mold machine and
variable firing trays
US7998268 Method to produce durable non-vitrified fly ash
bricks and blocks
US6440884 Composition and process for making building bricks
and tiles
US6068803 Method of making building blocks from coal
combustion waste and related products
US5366548 Volcanic fly ash and kiln dust compositions, and a
process for making articles there from
WO/1996/022952 Structural products produced from fly ash
US5362319 Process for treating fly ash and bottom ash and
the resulting product
US5358760 Process for producing solid bricks from fly ash,
bottom ash, lime, gypsum, and calcium carbonate
US4780144 Method for producing a building element from a fly
ash comprising material and building element
formed
US4476235 Green molded product containing asbestos tailings
suitable for firing
US3886244 Method for producing bricks from red mud
Patent no. Inventor/year Source material

US20120031306 Belden et al./2012 Fly ash
US7998268 Liu/2011 Fly ash
US6440884 Devagnanam/ Clay, sludge and sand

2002
US6068803 Weyand et al./ Fly ash, bottom ash, & rock
2000 mineral fines
US5366548 Riddle/1996 Volcanic fly ash and kiln
dust
WO/1996/022952 Strabala/1996 Fly ash
US5362319 Johnson/1994 Fly ash and bottom ash
US5358760 Furlong and Fly ash, bottom ash, gypsum,

Hearne/1994 calcium carbonate, & lime
US4780144 Loggers/1988 Fly ash and slaked lime
US4476235 Chevalier/1984 Asbestos tailings
US3886244 Bayer et al./1975 Red mud
(a) Based on the search on http://www.freepatentsonline.com/.
Table 6
Concentration limit on different leached elements based on different
standards.
Standard Concentration limit (ppm)
Al Hg Ag Ba Cr Mn Ni
USEPA NA 5.0 5.0 100 5.0 NA 5.0

DIN NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Greek 2.5-10.0 NA NA NA NA 1.0-2.0 0.2-0.5
Standard Concentration limit (ppm)
Cu Zn As Se Cd Pb
USEPA NA NA 5.0 1.0 1.0 5.0

DIN 2.0-5.0 2.0-5.0 NA NA NA NA
Greek 0.25-0.5 2.5-5.0 NA NA NA NA
Zhang, Lianyang
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)

Zhang, Lianyang. "Production of bricks from waste materials--A review." Construction and Building
Materials, Oct. 2013, p. 643+. Academic OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A348785945/AONE?u=utas1&sid=AONE&xid=5d375372.
Accessed 12 Aug. 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A348785945

Brick Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brick Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/12/2018 FindIt at UTAS

Production of bricks from waste materials--A review

2. Review of research on utilization of waste materials to produce bricks

2.1. Production of bricks from waste materials through firing

2.2. Production of bricks from waste materials through cementing

2.3. Production of bricks from waste materials through geopolymerization

[M.sup.+.sub.n] [[-[(Si[O.sub.2]).sub.z]-Al[O.sub.2]-].sub.n] (1)

Received 17 February 2013

Received in revised form 27 April 2013

Accepted 5 May 2013

Available online 10 June 2013

[1] Brick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick#cite_note-2. Visited 14.04.13.

[31] Eliche-Quesada D, Corpas-lglesias FA, Perez-Villarejo L, Iglesias-Godino FJ. Recycling of

[69] Majidi B. Geopolymer technology, from fundamentals to advanced applications: a review.

[71] Davidovits J. Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal

[73] Dimas D, Giannopoulou I, Panias D. Polymerization in sodium silicate solutions: a

[77] Li Z, Ding Z, Zhang Y. Development of sustainable cementitious materials. In: Proceedings of

[78] Drechsler M, Graham A. Innovative material technologies: bringing resources sustainability to

[79] Shi C, Fernandez-Jimenez A. Stabilization/solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes

[91] <http://calstarproducts.com/products/fly-ash-brick-fab/>. Visited 11.05.12.

[93] Habert G, d'Espinose de Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N. An environmental evaluation of

[94] Pacheco-Torgal F, Abdollahnejad Z, Cam6es AF, Jamshidi M, Ding Y. Durability of alkali-

Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

* Tel.: +1 520 6260532; fax: +1 520 6212550.

E-mail address: lyzhang@email.arizona.edu

No. Waste material (wt.%) Brick size (mm)

1 Hematite tailings (77-100%) and 50 x 50

2 Class F fly ash (0, 50, 60, 70, and 60 x 60 x 25

3 Class F fly ash (0%, 20%, 40%, and 95 x 45 x 45

4 Class F fly ash (0-60 vol.%) Various sizes

5 Fly ash (100%) --

6 Granite sawing wastes (0-60%) Various sizes

7 Municipal solid waste incinerator 50 x 25 x 50

8 Gold mill tailings (0-75%) 100 x 100 x 76

9 Kaolin fine quarry residue (50%), 50 x 50 x 50

granulated blast-furnace slag (10-

10 Paper production residues (0%, 10%, 85 x 85 x 10

11 Cigarette butts (0%, 2.5%, 5% and 300 x 100 x 50

12 Rice husk ash (0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 50 x 50 x 50

13 Petroleum effluent treatment plant 280 x 130 x 170

14 Kraft pulp production residue 33 x 40

15 Waste tea (5%) 100 x 70 x 40

16 River sediments (15%) 60 x 220 x 220

17 PC and TV waste glass (<2%) 100 x 20 x 10

18 Municipal solid waste incineration --

19 Sawdust (0-10%), spent earth from 30 x 10 x 60

20 Foundry by-products (0-50%) 150 x 30 x 15

21 Waste marble powder (20-100%) 41 x 8 x 8

22 Waelz slag and waste foundry sand 100 x 80 x 20

23 River sediment (100% or 50%) 54 x 54 x

24 Sugarcane bagasse ash waste (up to 25 mm

No. Drying/firing condition Tests conducted

1 Dried in an oven at 105[degrees]C Compressive strength,

2 Dried at ambient condition for 2 Compressive strength,

at 100[degrees]C for 6 h, and fired density, apparent

3 Dried in air for 2 days and then Compressive strength,

4 Following the process of a Compressive strength,

5 Dried for 3 days and then fired at Compressive strength,

6 Fired at different temperatures Compressive strength,

7 Air-dried at room temperature for Compressive strength,

8 Dried at room temperature for 2 Compressive strength,

9 Dried in an electric dryer at Compressive strength,

10 Held overnight at room temperature Compressive strength,