2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)

(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

Peculiarity of Physical and Axial Compressive Strength of

Hand and Machine Made First Class Bricks Found In
Different Parts of Manipur
Khwairakpam Sachidananda1, Waikhom Victory2, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh3,
Moirangthem Johnson Singh4
1,2,3,4
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Manipur, Manipur.
ABSTRACT
Clay burnt bricks are made in different ways either by hand or by machine. In codes and books the strength of first class
bricks are meant to be same with respect to the grade of bricks but in the real scenario, the strength are different
according to the manufacturing techniques. In this paper, the differences between first class clay burnt bricks made by
hand and machine from two different places of Manipur are discussed. The compressive strength of both machine made
and handmade clay burnt bricks showed the good quality strength of bricks. The weight and volume of machine made
brick is higher than handmade bricks. The characterization of bricks made by hand and machine will enable the designer
to design the structures properly. The efflorescence and hardness test characteristics of bricks also support the quality of
bricks.
Keywords: Bricks, compressive, Physical, Manipur, handmade, machine made.

Introduction
Clay bricks are the most popular form of bricks found in Manipur. Clay bricks are generally made at heating
furnaces by mixing sand and clay properly and then heated at temperature ~800oC to 1200oC. The bricks may
be classified into handmade and machine made bricks based on the manufacturing methods. Bricks are used in
different forms either in the form of load bearing walls or as partition wall filling up the frame. The
compressive strength of bricks played an important role in making the stability of structures. The materials of
bricks also classify the bricks as clay brick, fly ash brick, concrete block brick etc. Out of these different types
of bricks, the clay bricks are the most common form of bricks in Manipur. Researchers (Sarangapani et al.,
2002; Deboucha and Hashim, 2011) studied the property of bricks, proposing empirical formulation for
prediction of strength and stress strain relation of bricks. Even though the property of brick is an essential
matter for the design purpose but no paper has been reported so far showing the difference between handmade
and machine made bricks of Manipur, as per the literature. In this paper, a comparison will be made between
the first class handmade bricks and machine made bricks found in Manipur. For this paper, two brick field has
been randomly selected, one for handmade and the other for machine made bricks. The nomenclature of the
bricks have been given as –―A for machine made bricks‖ and ―B for handmade bricks‖. The nomenclatures
have been given in such a way to avoid reclamation by the brick farms. The collected brick samples of A -
brick and B-brick farms are shown in Figure 1 following IS standard 5454 (1978).

Experiments
Various test involved to know the physical and mechanical property of bricks. These test results will show the
variation between handmade and machine made bricks. The various test involved are explained in the
following sections.
1) Dimension and weight
As per IS 1077 (1992), the dimension of both the handmade and machine made bricks are measured for
two brick farms as given in Table 1. The dimensions of the brick are measured with the plastic scale and
it showed the type of brick as non-modular bricks. The average of 10 samples of bricks dimensions
determined the dimensions of the bricks. The volumes of the machine made bricks are found to be larger
than the handmade bricks by ~ 9%. The weights are taken for both types of bricks at weighing balance as
shown in Figure 2, showing that machine made bricks are heavier than handmade bricks by about ~ 9
%.

35 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

2) Hardness
The hardness of hand and machine made bricks are checked by scratching the brick with sharp nail, so as
to see whether the marking can be seen as shown in Figure 3. The bricks showed no marking showing the
good quality of the bricks.
3) Soundness
The soundness test of brick is done by striking two bricks of either handmade or machine made bricks.
The metallic sound was produced showing good quality of the bricks.
4) Efflorescence
The efflorescence test was conducted as per IS 3495: 1992 Part 3. For this test, the bricks are immersed
in water of 25 mm depth for about 24 hours as shown in Figure 4 and the bricks were dried. Then the
bricks are check out to see any deposition of white spots.
5) Water absorption
The water absorption test is conducted as per IS 3495 Part-2. The bricks are dried in heating oven as
shown in Figure 5 for both the handmade and machine made bricks. The bricks are soaked in water for
24 hours and the weights of bricks are again taken after wiping out the surface properly as in Figure 6.
The bricks showed the difference in dry weight by about 7-11% in machine made and 5-11% in case of
handmade bricks as shown in Table 2.
6) Compressive strength test
The axial compressive strength of the test is done in UTM (Universal Testing Machine, shown in Figure
7) by maintaining the rate of loading at 14 N/mm2 per minute as per IS 3495:1992 Part 1. Before starting
the compressive test, the surface of the handmade bricks are made flat smooth by putting mortar at 1:2
ratio (cement : sand) on the frog surface of handmade bricks as shown in Figure 8. For the case of
machine made brick, the smoothest surface bricks are chosen to perform the test. To perform the test, the
brick is immersed in water for 3 days and then dried out for 24 hours. For performing the compression
test, the brick specimen is placed flat horizontally with the mortar filled frog surface facing upward in
UTM. The lower and upper faced are covered with plywood’s while placing in the compressive testing
machine as shown in typical Figure 9, to provide the smooth uniform surface while compressing. The
comparisons between handmade and machine made bricks are done by plotting load (P) vs axial
displacement (δ) as in Figure 10. The graph P vs δ showed an increase in load along with the axial
displacement but at the stage of failure of brick, the bricks cannot take no more load showing sharp
decrease of load carrying capacity. The failure patterns of the bricks are also shown in Figure 11 for both
cases showing the difference in their failure pattern. Figure 11 also showed the texture of the brick from
the broken bricks. The compressive strength of bricks is found out by dividing the maximum load
capacity of the bricks with the surface area of brick. The compressive strength of the test results are
represented as 27.11 and 21.10 N/mm2 for A-brick (machine made) and B-brick (handmade) from its
mean values as shown in Table 3.
7) Texture of bricks
The texture represents the content of the material inside the bricks. The bricks are usually made of sand
and clay. The uniformity of the material determined the strength of the bricks. The texture has been
observed after the brick got crushed in the compression test as in Figure 11. The machine made brick i.e.
A- brick showed more compact and uniform coloured surface than the handmade brick i,e. B-brick.

Observation and Discussion

The hardness and soundness test of both handmade and machine made bricks showed good quality of the
bricks, with no marking and clear ringing sound. The volumes as well as the weight of A-brick (machine
made) are more than B-brick (Handmade). The increase in weight may be due to more compactness of the
material as the texture of the bricks has shown it. The B-bricks (handmade) showed more water absorbing
capacity ranges than A-brick(machine made) as discussed in above section. The reason may be due to less
compactness of the B-bricks, as the moulding is controlled by hand while the moulding of A-brick is done by
machine. Both type of bricks showed no sign of efflorescence showing the presence of salty material within
its limit.

36 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

Conclusion
The following conclusions have been derived after the systematic testing of the bricks, both for the physical
and mechanical strength of both handmade and machine made bricks.
1) The volume and weight of machine made bricks are more than handmade but the density remains
almost similar.
2) Both handmade and machine made bricks showed good hardness and soundness test supporting good
quality of the bricks.
3) The bricks (handmade and machine made) showed no sign of efflorescence.
4) The handmade bricks showed more water absorption capacity ranges than machine made bricks.
5) The compressive strength of A-brick (machine made) and B-brick (handmade) showed good strength
of the 1st quality bricks with the values of 27.11 and 21.10 N/mm2 respectively.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully appreciate the HOD of Civil Department, for allowing us conducting our experimental
work at the Civil Department, NIT Manipur.
Note : The test results are totally based only on the tested samples.

References
Indian Standards (IS), (1978). Methods for sampling of clay building bricks, IS 5454 Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.
Indian Standards (IS), 1077 (1992). Common burnt clay building bricks-specification, IS 1077, 5th Rev., Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standards (IS), (1992a). Indian standard methods of test of burn clay building bricks—Part 1: Determination of
compressive strength, IS 3495, 3rd Rev., Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standards (IS), (1992b). Indian standard methods of test of burn clay building bricks—Part 2: Determination of
water absorption, IS 3495, 3rd Rev., Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. (2002). ―Structural characteristics of bricks, mortar and
masonry.‖ Journal of. Structural Engineers (India),29(2), 101–107.
Deboucha, S. and Hashim, R. (2011). A review on bricks and stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Research and
Essays Vol. 6(3); 499-506.
UTM (Universal Testing Machine) servo hydraulic universal testing machine, BSUT-200-JD Servo.

Table 1: Average dimensions of bricks and its density.

Brick field L (length), B (breadth), H (height), Weight Weight/Volume
cm cm cm (gm) ρ, (gm/cm3)
A-brick 23.01 10.55 6.42 3190.65 2.05
B-brick 22.31 10.01 6.41 2926.80 2.04

Table 2: Water absorption capacity of bricks.

Brick Dry weight Wet weight Weight of water % of water
Samples (gm) (gm) absorbed absorbed
A-1 3207.00 3490.00 283.00 8.82
A-2 3201.00 3425.50 224.50 7.01
A-3 3207.00 3550.50 343.50 10.71
B-1 2892.00 3064.00 172.00 5.95
B-2 2895.00 3034.00 139.00 4.80
B-3 2762.50 3068.00 305.5 11.06
37 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,
Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

Table 3: Compressive strength of bricks.

Brick Samples Compressive strength (N/mm2) of brick

A B
1 17.8 10.95
2 36.41 31.24
Mean 27.11 21.1

(a) A- bricks (b) B- bricks

Fig. 1: Sample of bricks from (a) A-brick and (b) B- brick farms.

(a) A- brick (b) B- brick

Fig 2: Typical weighing of bricks in digital balance

Fig. 3: Typical test for hardness of bricks

38 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

Fig. 4: Typical test for efflorescence

Fig. 5: Typical drying of bricks in oven

Fig.6: Bricks soaked in water bath for checking water absorption capacity.

39 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

Fig.7: UTM (Universal Testing Machine)

Fig.8: Typical handmade B-brick frog filled with mortar (1:2)

Fig. 9: Typical placing of brick in UTM

40 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh
 2 Days National Conference on Innovations in Science and Technology (NCIST-17), Sponsored by AICTE-NEQIP)
(MIT) Manipur Institute of Technology (Constituent Govt. College of Manipur University,Takyelpat, Imphal West, Manipur, India)
on 20th and 21st March 2017 ISBN: 978-81-933746-4-1

450
400
350
300
P (kN)

250
200 A-brick
150
100 B-brick
50
0
0 2 4 6 8
δ (mm)

Fig. 10: Typical plot of P (load) vs δ (displacement) for compression of burnt clay bricks of A-
brick, B-brick sample-1.

a) Failure of A- brick b) Texture of A- brick

c) Failure of B- brick d) Texture of B- brick

Fig. 11: Typical (i), failure pattern and (ii) texture of broken bricks for A-brick (a,b); B-
brick (c,d).

41 Khwairakpam Sachidananda, Waikhom Victory, Moirangthem Henthoinganba Singh,

Moirangthem Johnson Singh