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

net/publication/283319726

Characteristics of compacted fly ash bricks and fly ash brick masonry

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering (Madras) · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

3 1,277

2 authors:

Gourav K. B. V. Venkatarama Reddy

University of South Carolina Indian Institute of Science
10 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   2,389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Developing earth-based construction materials to provide sustainable, practical and affordable mass housing in LEDCs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gourav K. on 05 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 41, No. 2, June - July 2014  pp. 144-157 No. 41-16

Characteristics of compacted fly ash bricks and fly ash brick masonry
K. Gourav* and B. V. Venkatarama Reddy*,
 Email: venkat@civil.iisc.ernet.in

*Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560 012, India.

Received: 23 August 2012; Accepted: 10 January 2013

Fly ash is used for the manufacture of masonry units such as fly ash bricks and concrete blocks. This paper deals with
results of an experimental investigation on the characteristics of fly ash-lime-gypsum bricks and their masonry. Review
on the existing literature on fly ash bricks/blocks is presented. Characteristics (strength, absorption and durability)
of compacted fly ash – lime bricks with and without gypsum additive were examined. Compressive strength, flexure
bond strength and stress strain characteristics of fly ash brick masonry using four types of fly ash bricks and cement-
lime mortar were investigated. The results reveal that (1) it is possible to achieve 8 – 10 MPa compressive strength in
saturated state, reasonably low values of water absorption, good dimensional stability and durability characteristics
for fly ash lime gypsum bricks using 10% lime and 2% gypsum, (2) fly ash bricks of higher density can be produced
using fly ash-sand mixture, instead of fly ash alone and (3) fly ash brick masonry shows higher flexure bond strength
when compared with that of burnt clay brick masonry.

Keywords: Fly ash; bricks; fly ash brick; strength; masonry.

Fly ash is generated by burning powdered coal in coal
based thermal power plants. Fly ash can be classified
as Class F and Class C according to ASTM C6181,
and Grade I and Grade II according to I.S. 38122. The
former classification is based on the lime content while
the later one is based mainly on lime reactivity. Lime
reactivity value indicates the measure of reactivity of
pozzolanic material determined by testing a standard
cube specimen for compressive strength following
the guidelines of I.S. 38122 code. Bulk utilisation of
fly ash in the construction industry is encouraged in
order to consume the fly ash which poses threat to the
environment. Fly ash is used in the manufacture of
Portland cement, as mineral admixture in concrete, as
cement replacement material and in the manufacture of
building products such as fly ash bricks/blocks, paving
blocks and concrete blocks. Presence of silica and
alumina in reactive form in the pozzolanic materials
such as in the fly ash is responsible for the development
of cementitous compounds in the presence of calcium
hydroxide and water. The manufacturing process of
compacted fly ash bricks involves (a) mixing of fly
ash, lime, sand and additives like gypsum along with
required amount of water in a mixer, (b) the processed
mixture is compacted into to a dense brick using a
machine and (c) curing the compacted fly ash bricks
under ambient conditions by sprinkling water over
the stack of bricks. Variety of brick or block sizes can
be produced using a suitable mould in the machine.
Also, fly ash brick strength can be adjusted easily by
adjusting the lime and fly ash percentage. In India,
there are more than 700 fly ash brick manufacturing
small scale units3. Initially these units produced high
volume fly ash bricks with gypsum as an additive to
accelerate the rate of strength gain.

144 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
 Influence of various parameters (such as density,
type of curing, and inclusion of additives such as
gypsum) on strength and absorption characteristics of
compacted lime – fly ash mixtures has been explored
in greater detail in the investigations of Gourav4 and,
Reddy and Gourav5. These studies indicate that the
strength gain rate and the strength achieved greatly
depend upon the density of the fly ash brick and the
proportions of lime and gypsum in the lime stabilised
fly ash brick. The present investigation deals with the
structural characteristics of compacted fly ash bricks
and their masonry.
EARLIER INVESTIGATIONS
Earlier investigations on the use of lime-fly ash
mixtures for the manufacture of lime-fly ash bricks are
discussed in this section. Lime-fly ash-gypsum mixture
for manufacturing of compacted fly ash blocks was
explored by Chitharanjan6. Using a mix of gypsum,
lime and fly ash in the ratio of 1:5:12.5 (by volume),
compacted fly ash bricks were manufactured. He
observed a compressive strength of about 4 MPa and
high water absorption of 24% for the fly ash blocks.
The study showed that it is difficult to achieve high
density for the blocks as there was only fly ash without
any aggregates in the mix used for the block. Very high
percentage of lime and gypsum were used for block
manufacture. Bhanumathidas and Kalidas7 presented
an overview on fly ash-lime-gypsum (FaL-G) mixtures
for the manufacture fly ash bricks/blocks and concrete.
This study suggests proportions for FaL-G mix as; Fly
ash: 25 - 40%, Lime: 25 - 40%, calcined gypsum: 25 -
40% and it was claimed that FaL-G bricks manufactured
possess high compressive strength and low water
absorption without any experimental evidence.
Ambalavanan and Roja8 selected an optimum
proportion of 60:30:10 (Fly ash: Lime: Gypsum) and
examined cube compressive strengths and reported
strength values of 1.5 – 4 MPa for 30 day cured
samples. Using fly ash (20 – 80%), lime (20 – 60%)
and calcined phsopogypsum (10 – 40%) mixtures Sunil
Kumar9 attempted to test fly ash-lime-gypsum bricks
and blocks for strength and water absorption. This study
reports strengths for such bricks ranging between 2 and
8 MPa with water absorption as high as 37%. The dry
densities achieved for these bricks were in the range
of 11.5 and 12.1 kN/m3. Ambarish Ghosh and Chillar
Subbarao10 conducted micro-level studies on lime-fly
ash-gypsum compacts. This investigation indicates that
the strength of fly ash, stabilised with 6 – 10% lime and
1% gypsum resulted in 5 to 7 times increase in 28 day
strength as compared to samples without gypsum.
Bhanumathidas and Kalidas3 compiled a monograph
giving some details of fly ash-lime-gypsum technology
for the manufacture of FaL-G bricks. This compilation
shows that there is improvement in the rheology and
strength of fly ash lime mixtures due to addition of
gypsum and give specific mix proportions for the
manufacture of FaL-G bricks. The monograph is
devoid of information on structural characteristics,
optimum mix proportions of lime-fly ash-gypsum and
fly ash brick masonry. There are attempts to accelerate
the strength gain rate of compacted fly ash-lime blocks
through steam curing and autoclaving process11,12,13.
Bhanumathidas and Kalidas14 and Weiguo Shen et
al15 state that inclusion of gypsum in the lime-fly ash
matrix accelerates strength gain rate and it is possible
to obtain 2 to 3 times increase in strength by gypsum
addition in lime-fly ash mixes in addition to increase
in durability characteristics. Marinkovic and Kostic-
Pulek16 examined the use of fly ash-lime-gypsum
binder for the production of building ceramics. The
authors attempted mix proportions (by weight) having
40% fly ash, 20% lime and 40% gypsum and report 28
days dry and saturated compressive strengths of 8 MPa
and 4 MPa respectively with water absorption values
of 24 – 29%.
Majority of the earlier investigations on fly ash –
lime mixtures were focused on using gypsum additive to
lime-fly ash mixtures in order to accelerate the strength
gain rate. Earlier studies reveal that: (a) percentage of
lime used was in excess of 15% and the gypsum 10%
or more, (b) fly ash – lime – gypsum binder without any
aggregates (coarse or fine) has been explored to produce
bricks or blocks leading to a density less than 12.26 kN/
m3 for the fly ash bricks and hence more water absorption,
(c) the strength tests on lime-fly ash compacts have been
performed in air dry or partially saturated condition, and
(d) strength of stabilised bricks or blocks is sensitive to
the moisture content at the time of testing and therefore,
clear distinction between strength in saturated (wet) and
dry condition is missing.
Considering the above observations from the
literature Gourav4, and Reddy and Gourav5 carried
Journal of Structural Engineering 145
Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
out detailed investigations on strength and absorption (b) Characteristics of fly ash brick masonry
characteristics of lime-fly ash gypsum compacts and 1. Compressive strength of mortar and the
arrived at very useful conclusions for the production of masonry
compacted fly ash – lime compacts. These investigations
2. Flexure bond strength of masonry
reveal the following.
3. Stress-strain characteristics of fly ash brick
(a) Use of mixes containing fly ash and fine aggregates
masonry
like sand lead to higher density (> 17.66 kN/m3)
for the compacted fly ash – lime compacts. Higher Table 1
density results in higher strength and reduces DETAILS OF FLY ASH BRICK PROPORTIONS AND THEIR
water absorption. DESIGNATIONS BRICK SIZE (mm): 230 X 108 X 75
(b) Optimum lime-fly ash ratio yielding maximum Proportions (by weight)
Brick designation
compressive strength is about 0.75 and the optimum Lime Gypsum
gypsum content yielding maximum compressive 10.5% ----- FAL10
strength is at 2% irrespective of lime content 10.5% 2.0% FALG10
(c) Fly ash-lime compacts showed considerable 17.5% ----- FAL17
difference between the dry and wet strengths. 17.5% 2.0% FALG17
The literature survey reveals that there are limited
studies on the structural characteristics of fly ash MATERIALS USED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS
bricks/blocks and hardly any studies on the behaviour
of masonry using such bricks. Therefore, the present Fly ash from a local coal based thermal power plant was
investigation is focused on the evaluation of structural used in the experiments. Table 2 gives the characteristics
characteristics of fly ash bricks and the characteristics of fly ash. It contains of 88% silica and alumina and
of fly ash brick masonry. its lime reactivity is 4.53 MPa. The fly ash belongs to
Grade I as per the I.S. 38122 code classification and
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION Class F as per ASTM C6181 classification. Natural river
sand was used in the investigations. Figure 1 shows the
Examining the characteristics of fly ash bricks and their grain size distribution curves for the river sand used,
masonry is the main objective of the investigation. A fly ash and fly ash – sand (0.35 fly ash : 0.65 sand, by
minimum of 10 – 12% of lime by weight of fly ash weight) mixture. Commercial grade calcium hydroxide
– sand mixture becomes essential to produce fly ash- and laboratory grade calcium sulphate dihydrate
lime bricks of satisfactory strengths. Optimum gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) with 98.0% assay were used for casting
content yielding maximum compressive strength for the the specimens.
fly ash compacts is 2%5. Therefore, 10.5% and 17.5% 100
lime and 2% gypsum were chosen. Some mixes were 90
Fly Ash
River sand
chosen without gypsum for the purposes of comparison. 80 Fly ash - sand mixture (0.35 fly ash : 0.65 sand)

Table 1 gives the details of the mix proportions and fly 70

ash brick designation. Various tests performed and the 60

% Finer

50
characteristics evaluated for the fly ash bricks and their 40
masonry are as follows. 30

(a) Characteristics of fly ash bricks 20

10
1. Wet and dry compressive strength 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
2. Water absorption and Initial Rate of Absorption Grain size (mm)
(IRA) Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curves
3. Linear expansion on saturation
4. Durability Fly ash to sand ratio was maintained at 0.35 : 0.65
5. Stress-strain characteristics (fly ash : sand, by weight) for the production of fly

146 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
ash bricks. This ratio was chosen for the following
reasons.
(a) Density of the compacted lime-fly ash specimens
has controlling influence on strength. It is not
possible to exceed dry density of 12.26 kN/m3
when only fly ash is used for the production of
lime-fly ash bricks 6,8,9. It is possible to achieve
higher dry density with a combination of fly ash
and sand mixtures4,5,12.
(b) Use of high lime-fly ash ratios results in maximum
strength. Bringing down the quantity of fly ash
in a mix while maintaining a very high lime-fly
ash ratio is possible by sand addition to the mix.
Higher density and higher value of lime-fly ash
ratio result in higher strength4,5,12.
spread into a thin layer (~100 mm thickness).
Using a garden rose-can required amount of water
(10% for FAL10 and FALG10 bricks, and 12% for
FAL17 and FALG17 bricks) was sprinkled and
mixed manually with the aid of a spade in order
to ensure that moisture is uniformly distributed in
the mixture.
(3) Known amount of the fresh mixture was weighed
and poured into the machine mould. Fig. 2 shows
the filled mould ready for compaction. After
closing the lid the compaction is carried out
through the movement of a piston attached to the
toggle lever (Fig. 3).

Table 2
Characteristics of fly ash
Properties Values
1. Chemical composition (% by mass)
SiO2 61.73
Al2O3 26.30
CaO 1.7
MgO 0.65
Fe2O3 6
Na2O 0.18
SO3 0.017 Fig. 2 Mould filled with the mix and ready for compaction
2. pH 10.91
3. Lime reactivity (MPa) 4.53
4. Loss on ignition (%) 1.58
2
5. Specific surface (m /gm) 0.553
6. Specific gravity 2.07

MANUFACTURING FLY ASH BRICKS

Fly ash bricks (of size: 230  108  75 mm) were

manufactured using a manually operated machine.
The following steps were followed in manufacturing
compacted fly ash bricks.
(1) Fly ash and sand (0.35 fly ash : 0.65 sand, by weight)
were mixed in dry state. Required amounts of lime Fig. 3 Brick compaction under progress
and gypsum were added to the dry mixture. Both
these operations were carried out in a mechanical (4) After compaction stroke the lid is opened and the
mixer (for 5 minutes) such that a uniform mixture brick is ejected out (Fig. 4) and kept in a stack for
of fly ash-sand-stabiliser was obtained. curing. The stack of fly ash bricks was covered
(2) Uniform mixture of fly ash-sand-stabiliser was with wet gunny cloth and water is sprinkled three

Journal of Structural Engineering 147

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 to four times daily such that the entire stack is
moist. The bricks were cured for 28 days and then
were allowed to dry in the open atmosphere for
four weeks and then used for testing. Fig. 5 shows
the compacted fly ash bricks.
Fig. 4 Brick ejection
Fig. 5 Compacted fly ash bricks
CASTING STACK BONDED MASONRY
PRISMS
Stack bonded masonry prisms were used for determining
the compressive strength, flexure bond strength and
stress-strain relationships of the masonry. Fig. 6 shows
the dimensions of the stack bonded masonry prism.
Five bricks high masonry prisms (following ASTM
C 1314 code17 guidelines) were cast by adopting the
following procedure.
148 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
Motar joint
Brick
415 mm
10 mm
75 mm
108 mm
230 mm
Fig. 6 Stack bonded masonry prism
(1) Cured and air dried fly ash bricks were saturated
to 75% saturation value by soaking them in
water prior to the casting of masonry prisms.
Use of partially saturated bricks at the time of
construction lead to better bond strength18,19,20,21
and hence partially saturated bricks were used for
casting the masonry prisms.
(2) Stack bonded masonry prisms were prepared using
partially saturated fly ash bricks and cement-lime
mortar of proportion 1 : 1 : 6 (cement : lime : sand,
by volume) having a water-cement ratio of 1.66.
Mortar flow was kept constant at 85% for casting
the specimens. Mortar joint thickness of 10 mm
and height to width ratio of 3.85 was maintained
for all the prisms.
(3) The masonry prisms were cured for 28 days by
wrapping the prisms with wet burlap and then drying
in open air at ambient temperature for three weeks.
TESTING PROCEDURE
Compressive strength of fly ash bricks
Cured and air dried fly ash bricks were dried in an oven
at 50 oC to constant weight and then tested for strength.
The bricks attain constant weight in 48 hours of drying
in the oven at the temperature of 50oC. The bricks
were tested in oven dry condition to determine the dry
compressive strength. In order to get wet compressive
strength the bricks were saturated by soaking them
in water for 48 hours prior to the test. IS 3495 (Part
I)22 testing procedure was followed to determine the
compressive strength.
Water absorption and Initial Rate of Absorption (IRA)
Cured and air dried bricks were dried in the oven at
50 oC to constant weight. The oven dried bricks were
used for the tests in determining the water absorption
and IRA. I.S. 3495 (Part II)23 code procedure was
followed to determine the water absorption. IRA test
was performed on the fly ash bricks following the
procedure outlined in ASTM C6724.
Linear Expansion on saturation
Linear expansion on saturation of fly ash bricks was
determined using a length comparator. The experimental
set-up and the length comparator are shown in Fig. 7.
The test procedure followed is as follows.
(a) Length of the oven dried brick was measured
using a digital vernier calliper.
(b) A metal point was fixed on top surface of the
brick. Positioning the dry brick under the digital
dial gauge (Fig. 7) initial reading of the dial gauge
(least count 0.001 mm) was recorded.
Fig. 7 Test set-up for linear expansion measurement of fly ash
brick
(c) Then brick was soaked in potable water for 24
hours at room temperature. After 24 hours the
saturated specimen was taken out and positioned
in the length comparator apparatus such that the
metal point fixed on the surface of the brick faces
the dial gauge tip. The final reading of the dial
gauge was recorded. Note that the dial gauge in the
apparatus is undisturbed throughout the duration
of experiment.
(d) The difference between initial and final dial gauge
readings gives the linear expansion of the brick.
This is expressed as a percentage of the actual
length in dry state to get the linear expansion on
saturation value.
Weight loss after durability test
Durability of fly ash bricks was examined by conducting
cyclic wetting and drying and wire scratch test as per
the procedure given in ASTM D559 code25.
Stress-strain relationships for the fly ash bricks
Displacement controlled testing machine was used
to obtain the stress-strain relationships for the fly ash
bricks. Figure 8 shows the test set-up for obtaining
stress-strain relationships. Extensometer attached
to the brick acquires the vertical displacement at the
mid height of the brick over a gauge length of 50 mm.
Stress-strain relationships were obtained in saturated
condition. The bricks were saturated by soaking them
in water for 48 hours prior to the test and then tested
to obtain stress-strain relationships in wet condition.
It is implied that wet condition (saturated state) is the
critical condition for any structure.
Fig 8 Test set-up for determining stress-strain relationship of fly
ash brick
Journal of Structural Engineering 149
Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
Compressive strength and stress-strain relationships for
stack bonded masonry prisms
Compressive strength and stress-strain relationships for
fly ash brick masonry was determined by conducting
tests on stack bonded masonry prisms. Masonry prisms
were tested for compressive strength in a displacement
controlled testing machine after soaking the prisms
in water for 48 hours. Fig. 9 shows the test set-up
for obtaining compressive strength and stress-strain
relationship of masonry prism. Ultimate failure load
and the vertical displacements were recorded using the
extensometer over a gauge length of 50 mm. Though
it is preferable to use an extensometer of higher gauge
length but the machine used in the experiments had an
extensometer of only 50 mm gauge length and hence it
was positioned to cover one masonry bed joint of the
prism. Cracking pattern of the failed specimen was also
recorded.
Fig. 9 Test set-up for compressive strength and stress-strain
relationships for masonry prism
Flexure bond strength of fly ash brick masonry
Flexure bond strength of the fly ash brick masonry
was determined by testing the prisms in a modified
bond-wrench test set-up as shown in Fig.10. The prism
is positioned on a rigid concrete base and the brick
150 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
touching the rigid concrete base is fully clamped as
illustrated. The load is applied to the top most brick
of the prism through a pulley arrangement. This load
causes a moment and hence a flexural failure in the
masonry prism. Considering the load at which the prism
fails flexural bond strength of the masonry prism was
calculated. Each prism gives one value of flexure bond
strength. The flexure bond strength of the masonry was
calculated by taking the mean of six specimens.
Pulley
Clamping
Bracket
String
Mortar
Bricks
Fixing
clamp Concrete base
Sand
Fig. 10 Flexure bond strength test set-up
Compressive strength and stress-strain relationship for
the cement-lime mortar
Cement lime mortar of proportion 1 : 1 : 6 (cement :
lime : sand, by volume) was used to cast the fly ash
brick masonry prisms used in the current study. The
flow value of the mortar was determined following
the procedure given in BS 455126. Mortar with a flow
value of 85% which corresponds to a water-cement
ratio of 1.66 was used for casting the masonry prisms.
Mortar cubes (50 mm size) were prepared from the
fresh mortar used in the masonry prisms. These cubes
were cured for 28 days by soaking them in water and
then tested for compressive strength. For obtaining
stress-strain relationships of mortar, cylinders of size:
150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were cast. These
cylinders were cured by soaking in water for 28 days
and then used for testing.
Displacement controlled testing machine was
used to ascertain the stress-strain relationship for the
cylinder. Fig. 11 shows the test set-up for obtaining
stress-strain relationship. Extensometer attached to the
cylinder measures the vertical displacement at the mid
height of the cylinders over a gauge length of 50 mm.
 Compressive strength of fly ash bricks

Compressive strength (28 days) in both dry and saturated

Fig. 11 Test set-up for obtaining stress-strain relationship for
cement lime mortar
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of fly ash bricks
Results of the various tests conducted on fly ash bricks
are given in Table 3. Tests were performed to evaluate
compressive strength (wet and dry), water absorption,
linear expansion on saturation, IRA and durability.
Details of the mean values, standard deviation and dry
density of specimens tested for four types of fly ash
bricks are given in the Table 3.
(wet) state for different types of fly ash bricks is given in
Table 3. Strength results given in the Table represent the
mean values of 6 specimens. Dry density has significant
influence on compressive strength and hence the dry
density of the bricks was maintained within a narrow
range of 16.28 to 16.87 kN/m3 (~3% variation) in order
to compare the strengths of different types of bricks.
There is a considerable difference between wet and dry
strength of the fly ash bricks. Wet strength to dry strength
ratio is in the range 0.49 – 0.56. The difference between
wet and dry strength can be attributed to the presence
of un-reacted fly ash absorbing water and acting as soft
filler material in saturated condition.
Compressive strength of the fly ash bricks with
2% gypsum is higher than the bricks without gypsum.
There is 60% increase in compressive strength for the
bricks with 10.5% lime + 2% gypsum when compared
with the bricks with only 10.5% lime. For higher lime
content of 17.5% and 2% gypsum the strength increase
is 20%. With lime and gypsum (2%) combination it is
possible to achieve wet compressive strengths in the
range of 8–10 MPa and dry compressive strengths in the
range of 15–17 MPa for the fly ash bricks. Compressive
strength of local burnt clay bricks commonly used for
the construction of load bearing masonry is in the range
of 3–11 MPa20, 22.
Another important finding is achieving higher
density for the fly ash-lime-gypsum bricks. About 17
kN/m3 dry density was maintained for the fly ash bricks.
It is possible to achieve even higher densities5. This

Table 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF FLY ASH BRICKS STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES IN PARENTHESIS; DRY DENSITY OF BRICKS:
16.28 – 16.81 kN/m3
Details of the property FAL10 FALG10 FAL17 FALG17
Wet compressive strength (MPa) 4.9 (0.22) 7.8 (0.36) 7.8 (0.94) 9.5 (0.62)
Dry compressive strength (MPa) 9.3 (0.97) 14.5 (0.90) 15.8 (0.87) 16.9 (0.53)
Wet to dry compressive strength ratio 0.53 0.54 0.49 0.56
Initial Rate of Absorption (kg/m2/min.) 1.2 (0.28) 1.17 (0.10) 0.58 (0.13) 0.56 (0.14)
Water absorption (%) 13.30 (0.23) 14.21 (0.42) 14.04 (0.25) 15.55 (0.33)
Linear Expansion on saturation (%) 0.01 (0.003) 0.03 (0.009) 0.030 (0.003) 0.039 (0.003)
Weight loss after durability test (%) 1.24 (0.26) 1.89 (0.40) 0.30 (0.14) 1.45 (0.66)

Journal of Structural Engineering 151

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
was possible because of the fly ash-sand mixture. The
literature cited indicates dry density for the compacted
fly ash-lime-gypsum (without sand) mixtures in the
range of 12 – 13 kN/m3. The results clearly show that it
is possible to arrive at mix proportions to achieve any
specific desired strength.
weathering conditions. Figure 12 shows the condition
of the fly ash bricks (FAL10 and FALG17) before and
after 12 cycles of wetting and drying test. The bricks
show hardly any deterioration even after the 12 cycles
of severe weathering test.

IRA and water absorption of fly ash bricks

The water absorption values (mean of 6 specimens)

for the four different types of fly ash bricks are given
in Table 3. Water absorption for the fly ash bricks is
in the range of 13 – 16%. The water absorption of the
locally available burnt clay bricks is in the range of 11
to 18%20, 27. IRA for fly ash bricks is in the range of 0.6
– 1.3 kg/m2/minute. IRA for the local burnt clay bricks
is in the range of 1.3 to 3.5 kg/m2/minute20,27. The water
absorption and IRA values for the fly ash bricks are
well within the acceptable limits. It is to be noted here
that (from the earlier literature), 100% fly ash bricks
(without any sand addition) had water absorption in
excess of 25%.

Linear expansion on saturation and weight loss after

durability test

Linear expansion on saturation is a test standardized

for evaluating the dimensional stability of the
compacted stabilized soil blocks28,29. The laboratory
tests have shown that stabilized soil blocks with linear
expansion on saturation < 0.10% lead to satisfactory
wall performance against moist environmental
conditions30,31. The fly ash bricks tested in the present
study show linear expansion on saturation (mean of 6
specimens) in the range of 0.01 – 0.039%. This means
that the fly ash bricks have very good dimensional
stability upon saturation.
Monitoring the weight loss in the bricks after 12
cycles of artificial weathering test as defined in ASTM
D559 code25 gives the performance of fly ash bricks in
the long run. Reddy32 attempted to correlate the results
of artificial weathering test with the field observations
for stabilized soil block constructions. He concluded
that the weight loss after such a weathering test limited
to < 3% results in good quality stabilized soil blocks.
The fly ash bricks tested in the present investigations
show a weight loss in the range of 0.30 – 1.89%. These
values indicate that the fly ash bricks are expected
to show good performance when exposed to adverse
Fig. 12 Status of the FAL10 (top) and FALG17 (bottom) bricks
before and after 12 cycles of durability test
Characteristics of fly ash brick masonry
Compressive strength and flexure bond strength of fly
ash brick masonry were investigated using four different
types of fly ash bricks and cement-lime mortar. Table
4 gives the details of test results for compressive and
flexure bond strength of fly ash brick masonry.
Compressive strength of fly ash brick masonry
Compressive strength (mean of 6 specimens) of the
masonry prism, standard deviation, masonry prism
strength to brick strength ratio and mortar compressive
strength are given in the Table 4. Compressive strength
of the masonry prisms varies between 2.69 MPa and
5.37 MPa as against the fly ash brick compressive
strength ranging between 4.9 MPa and 9.5 MPa.
The masonry prism strength to brick strength ratio

152 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
varies between 0.55 and 0.69. This ratio is larger as Flexure bond strength of masonry
compared to the values obtained by Sarangapani et
Table 4 gives details of flexure bond strength (mean
al20 for the local burnt clay bricks. The masonry prism
of 6 values), standard deviation, and type of bond
compressive strength values can be used in the design
failure. Large numbers of parameters influence the
of fly ash brick masonry. It was difficult to pinpoint
development of bond between brick and the mortar.
load at the first crack as the specimens showed visible
Bond development is mainly due to the mechanical
cracking (vertical splitting cracks) at the peak load and
interlocking of cement hydration products into the brick
the number of cracks increasing with further loading.
pores at the mortar-brick interface33,34. Moisture content
Table 4 of the brick at the time of casting the masonry prisms
COMPRESSIVE AND FLEXURE BOND STRENGTH OF FLY has significant influence on bond strength18-21. Maximum
ASH BRICK MASONRY PRISMS STANDARD DEVIATION bond strength is obtained for partially saturated bricks
VALUES IN PARENTHESIS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (75% saturation). Therefore, in the present investigation
OF CEMENT LIME MORTAR: 5.25 MPa bricks were partially saturated (75%) by soaking in
Details of the FAL10 FALG10 FAL17 FALG17 water prior to casting of the masonry prisms.
property Flexure bond strength values for the different types
Prism compressive 2.69 5.37 5.34 5.31 of fly ash bricks with cement-lime mortar are in the range
strength (wet) (0.30) (1.00) (0.43) (0.71)
(MPa)
of 0.20 – 0.40 MPa, the lowest value is for the masonry
with FAL10 bricks. Sarangapani et al20 reported flexure
Prism strength / 0.55 0.69 0.69 0.56
Brick strength, bond strength values in the range of 0.088 – 0.12 MPa
ratio for masonry using local burnt clay bricks and similar
Flexure bond 0.20 0.40 0.24 0.29 cement lime mortar. Flexure bond strength of fly ash
strength (MPa) (0.07) (0.14) (0.16) (0.16) brick prisms is higher than that of prisms with local
Failure type B and C B A and B A and B burnt clay bricks. Higher bond strength for fly ash
brick masonry can be attributed to the chemical bond
Figure 13 shows a typical failure pattern of fly ash developed between lime (in the mortar) and un-reacted
brick masonry prism under compression. The prism fly ash on the brick surface. This is in addition to the
shows typical vertical splitting cracks extending across mechanical interlocking of cement hydration products
the height of the prism. The vertical splitting cracks in into brick pores, which is normal process of bond
the prism are mainly due to the development of bi-axial development between masonry unit and the mortar.
tension in the brick. There is scope for microstructure studies of the fly ash
brick-mortar interface to understand the chemical bond
development phenomenon at the interface. Such a study
is outside the scope of the present investigation.
Different types of failures observed in the flexure
bond test prisms are shown in Fig. 14. These failures can
be classified into three categories as mentioned below.
(a) Type A: Interface failure – In this type of failure
there will be complete separation of the mortar bed
joint from the brick at the brick-mortar interface
(b) Type B: Partial brick/mortar failure – The failure
surface at the brick-mortar interface will have
flexure failure of the brick as well as mortar joint.
The mortar bed joint at the interface will have 20
– 40% of failed brick portion adhering to it.
(c) Type C: Complete brick failure – Brick-mortar
Fig. 13 Typical failure of the fly ash brick masonry prism after
interface is intact, but the failure is through the
compression test

Journal of Structural Engineering 153

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
 brick close to the interface. This happens when the
flexure bond strength of the interface is more than
that of the flexure strength of fly ash brick.
has lead to increase in strength as well as modulus
for fly ash bricks. Gumaste et al27 report modulus
values of burnt clay bricks (having compressive
strength 4.6 – 8.4 MPa) in the range of 3200 – 5200
MPa. Fly ash bricks show 60 – 80% higher modulus
when compared to local burnt clay bricks.
FAL17
FALG17
9 FAL10
FALG10
8 1:1:6 Cement lime mortar

Compressive stress (MPa)

7
Interface failure Partial brick/mortar failure
6
(Type A) (Type B)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
Strain
Complete brick failure
(Type C) Fig. 15 Stress-strain relationships for fly ash bricks and cement-
lime mortar
Fig. 14 Typical failure patterns of fly ash brick prism under flexure
6
Table 4 gives the type of bond failure for the four
different types of fly ash brick masonry prisms. Majority 5
Compressive stress (MPa)

of the prisms show Type A and Type B modes of failure,

except few prisms using FAL10 bricks showing Type 4
C failure. FAL10 brick has the lowest compressive
strength among the four types of bricks. 3

Stress-strain relationship for fly ash bricks, mortar and 2 FAL17

FALG17
fly ash brick masonry FAL10
FALG10
Stress-strain relationships for fly ash bricks, mortar and 1
fly ash brick masonry are shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
Table 5 gives initial tangent modulus values (mean 6 0
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004
specimens) and strain at peak stress for mortar, bricks Strain
and masonry. The following points emerge from stress-
Fig. 16 Stress-strain relationships for fly ash brick masonry with
strain relationships shown in Figs. 15 and 16, and the 1:1:6 cement lime mortar
results given in Table 5.
(d) Initial tangent modulus of fly ash bricks is in the (e) The strain at peak stress is in the range of 0.0014
range 5300 – 9400 MPa. The modulus increases and 0.002, for fly ash bricks. The corresponding
with the increase in the strength of fly ash brick. Fly strain value for local burnt clay bricks is about
ash bricks with gypsum (FALG10 and FALG17) 0.001 (Gumaste et al27). Fly ash bricks show
show 16 – 25% higher modulus when compared to higher straining capacity when compared to burnt
fly ash bricks without gypsum. Gypsum addition clay bricks.

154 Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
(f) Initial tangent modulus varies between 4400 and mixture, instead of using fly ash alone in the brick
6500 MPa for fly ash brick masonry. Masonry production.
with fly ash lime gypsum bricks show higher Fly ash bricks possess good dimensional stability by
modulus than the masonry with fly ash bricks showing low value (0.01 - 0.04) of linear expansion on
without gypsum. The strain at peak stress for the saturation and low weight loss (< 2%) after durability
masonry is in the range of 0.002 to 0.0037, which test. These results indicate satisfactory dimensional
is 40 – 80% more than that for the fly ash bricks. stability and long-term performance when exposed to
cyclic wetting and drying weather conditions.
Table 5
Flexure bond strength for fly ash brick masonry
Stress-strain characteristics of fly ash
bricks, cement-lime mortar and fly ash brick using cement-lime mortar is high when compared with
masonry burnt clay brick (local) masonry using similar mortar.
Details of the FAL10 FALG10 FAL17 FALG17
This can be attributed to reaction between the lime
property (in the mortar) and the fly ash (on the brick surface)
1. Fly ash bricks in addition to mechanical interlocking of cement
Initial tangent 5300 8800 7600 9400 hydration products.
modulus (MPa) These investigations clearly show the possibility
Strain at peak stress 0.0017 0.0014 0.002 0.0019 of producing good quality bricks using compacted fly
2. Fly ash brick masonry ash-lime-gypsum mixtures. There is scope for selecting
Initial tangent 4400 6300 5200 6500 optimum mix ratios of fly ash, sand, lime and other
modulus (MPa) additives to obtain any specific designed strength for
Strain at peak stress 0.002 0.0021 0.0018 0.0037 the brick.
Cement lime mortar (1:1:6): Initial tangent modulus = 9100
MPa, Strain at peak stress = 0.0011 REFERENCES

The knowledge on stress-strain characteristics
is essential for analysis and design of masonry. It is
essential to understand the deformation characteristics
of new materials like fly ash bricks. The stress-strain
relationships, modulus and strain values indicate that
fly ash bricks and their masonry show higher modulus
and energy absorption capacity when compared to local
burnt clay bricks of comparable strength.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Characteristics of compacted fly ash-lime bricks and
fly ash-lime-gypsum bricks and their masonry were
discussed. These results reveal some interesting facts
about fly ash bricks and their masonry.
Compacted fly ash bricks show considerable
difference between the dry and wet compressive
strengths. Wet strength to dry strength ratio is about
0.5. It is possible to produce fly ash lime gypsum
bricks having 8 – 10 MPa wet compressive strength
and reasonably low values of water absorption. Higher
density (~17 kN/m3), higher strength and low water
absorption can be attributed to use of fly ash-sand
1. ASTM C 618 – 08a, “Standard specification for
coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan
for use in concrete”, American Society for Testing
and Materials, 2008.
2. I S: 3812 - 1981, “Specification for fly ash for use
as pozzolana and admixture”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
3. Bhanumathidas, N. and Kalidas, N, “Fly ash
for sustainable development”, Publishers: Ark
Communications, India, 2002.
4. Gourav, K, “Studies on compacted stabilized fly
ash mixtures and fly ash bricks for masonry”, M.
Sc. (Engg) thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India,
2009.
5. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Gourav, K,
“Strength of lime-fly ash compacts using different
curing techniques and additives”, Mater Structs.
(RILEM), Vol. 44, (10), 2011, pp 1793 – 1808.
6. Chitharanjan, N, “Compressed lime-fly ash-
gypsum blocks”, The Indian Concrete Journal,
Vol. 57, (6), 1983, pp 153 – 156.

Journal of Structural Engineering 155

Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014
7. Bhanumathidas, N. and Kalidas, N, “New trend in
bricks and blocks: The role of FaL-G”, The Indian
Conc. Jl., Vol. 66, (7), 1992, pp 389–392.
8. Ambalavanan, R. and Roja, A, “Feasibility study
on utilization of waste lime and gypsum with fly
ash”, The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 70, (11),
1996, pp 611 – 616.
9. Sunil Kumar, “A perspective study on fly ash-
lime-gypsum bricks and hollow blocks for low
cost housing development”, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 16, (8), 2002, pp 519 –
525.
10. Ambarish Ghosh and Chillara Subbarao,
“Microstructural development in fly ash modified
with lime and gypsum”, J of Mat. in Civil Eng
(ASCE), Vol. 13, (1), 2001, pp 65 – 70.
11. Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. and Lokras, S.S,
“Steam-cured stabilised soil blocks for masonry
construction”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 29, (1),
1998, pp 29 – 33.
12. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Hubli, S. R,
“Properties of lime stabilized steam-cured blocks
for masonry”, Mater Structs. (RILEM), Vol. 35,
(5), 2002, pp 293 – 300.
13. Tayfun Cicek and Mehmet Tanriverdi, “Lime based
steam autoclaved fly ash bricks”, Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 21, (6), 2007, pp
1295 – 1300.
14. Bhanumathidas, N. and Kalidas, N, “Dual role of
gypsum: Set retarder and strength accelerator”,
The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 78, (3), 2004,
pp 1 – 4.
15. Weiguo Shen., Mingkai Zhou and Qinglin Zhao,
“Study on lime-Fly ash-Phosphogypsum binder”,
Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 21, (7),
2007, pp 1480 – 1485.
16. Marinkovic, S. and Kostic-pulek, A, “Examination
of the system fly ash-lime-calcined gypsum-
water”, J of Physics & Chemistry of Solids, Vol.
68, (5–6), 2007, pp 1121– 1125.
17. ASTM C 1314 - 07, “Standard test method for
Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms”,
American Society for Testing and Materials,
2007.
156 Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 41, No. 2, june - July 2014
18. Sinha, B. P, “Model studies related to load bearing
brickwork”, PhD thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, U.K, 1967.
19. Venumadhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B.
V. and Jagadish, K. S, “Flexural bond strength
of masonry using various blocks and mortars”,
Mater Structs. (RILEM), Vol. 29, (186), 1996, pp
119-124.
20. Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. and
Jagadish, K. S, “Brick-mortar bond and masonry
compressive strength” J of Materials in Civil Eng
(ASCE), Vol. 17, (2), 2005, pp 229 – 237.
21. Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. and Ajay Gupta,
“Tensile bond strength of soil-cement block
masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars”, J of
Mat. in Civil Eng (ASCE), Vol. 18, (1), 2006, pp
36 – 45.
22. I.S: 3495 – 1992, “Methods of tests of burnt
clay building bricks – part I Determination
of compressive strength”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
23. I.S: 3495 – 1992, “Methods of tests of burnt clay
building bricks – part II Determination of water
absorption”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
24. ASTM C 67 – 08, “Standard test methods of
sampling and testing brick and structural clay
tile”, American Society for Testing and Materials,
2008.
25. ASTM D 559 – 03, “Standard test methods
for wetting and drying compacted soil-cement
mixtures”, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 2003.
26. BS: 4551 – 1980 “British standard methods of
testing mortars, screeds, and plasters”, British
Standards Institution, London, U. K.
27. Gumaste, K. S., Nanjunda Rao, K. S., Venkatarama
Reddy, B. V. and Jagadish, K. S, “Strength and
elasticity of brick masonry prisms and wallettes
under compression”, Mater Structs. (RILEM),
Vol. 40, (296), 2007, pp 241 – 253.
28. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., Richardson Lal and
Nanjunda Rao, K. S, “Optimum soil grading for
the soil-cement blocks”, J of Mat. in Civil Eng
(ASCE), Vol. 19, (2), 2007, pp 139 – 148.
29. I.S: 1725 – 2011 (2nd revision) – draft code,
“Stabilized soil blocks used in general building
construction – specification”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
30. Walker, P; Venkatarama Reddy, B. V; Mesbah, A.
and Morel, J. C, “The case for compressed earth
block construction”, Proc., 6th Int. Seminar on
Structural Masonry for Developing Countries,
Bangalore, India, 2000, pp 27 – 35.
31. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Walker, P,
“Stabilised Mud Blocks: Problems, Prospects”,
Proc. International Earth Building Conference-
2005, Sydney, Australia, pp 63 –75.
32. Venkatarama Reddy, B. V, “Long-term strength
and durability of stabilised mud blocks”, Proc.
View publication stats
3rd International Conf. on Non-Conventional
Materials and Technologies, Construction
Publishing House, March, Vietnam, 2002, pp 422
– 431.
33. Groot Casper, “Effects of water on mortar-brick
bond”, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands,
1993.
34. Lawrence, S. J. and Cao, H. T, “Microstructure
of the interface between brick and mortar”
Proc. Eighth international brick/block masonry
conference, 1988, pp 194 – 204.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
September 31, 2014)
Journal of Structural Engineering 157
Vol. 41, No. 2, JUNE - July 2014