© 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

An Experimental Study on the Use of Eucalyptus Ash

and Granite Cut Dust in Stabilised Mud Blocks
1
Sarvaswini H.C, 2Theertharama N, 3Sharath. M Y, 4Anil kumar S

PG Students,
Department of Civil Engineering,
AIT, Chikkamagluru, Karnataka, India

Abstract: The current research work is commenced from studying literature related to compressed stabilized mud blocks,
masonry mortar and masonry. The main methodology involves production of compressed stabilized mud blocks and
evaluation of optimum water content, optimum GCD and maximum dry density. Further work is carried out by selecting
the optimum combination and the physical, mechanical properties of optimum combination is investigated according to IS
3495-992. Work also includes finding supplementary materials for natural sand and cement in the preparation of masonry
mortar. Further work is carried out by studying the properties of masonry mortar by using eucalyptus ash and GCD as a
supplementary materials for cement and sand respectively. Grading curve obtained for the all in aggregate compared with
the grading curve according to IS 2116-1980, and grading curve denotes that GCD can be used as a supplementary
material for the preparation of masonry mortar.

KEYWORDS- Eucalyptus ash, Granite Cut Dust, Cement Replacement, Stabilized Mud Blocks.

I. INTRODUCTION
Mud brick construction is not a new technology and dates back several thousand years, in various forms. Recently it has been
utilized and investigated as a possible form of sustainable building block for construction in developing and the developed
countries. In masonry construction a wide range of building blocks are available some of the commonly used blocks are country
made bricks, table mould bricks, wire cut bricks, solid and hollow concrete blocks, size stones, etc. Some of the lesser known
alternative building blocks are Fly-ash bricks, Fal-G blocks and Mud blocks. Eucalyptus branches, twigs and firewood are widely
used as a primary fuel for firing of bricks in brick manufacturing factories of MalurTaluk.. Around 500 tons of Eucalyptus ash is
generated per year as a byproduct of combustion of eucalyptus branches and leaves in kilns of these brick manufacturing
industries and other wood burning factories.

Granite Industry Waste: Granite industries or granite factories carry out the process of cutting huge graniterocks to desired
shapes and sizes, these processes lead to generation two types of waste, one is solid wastes which are rejected pieces of granite
from which desired shapes or sizes of granite cannot be extracted, and the other is cutting and polishing dust which is carried by
the water sprinkled to cool and lubricate the cutting blades and stored in sedimentation tanks. These wastes are usually dumped
around the factories. In the current research work the granite cutting dust used as a replacement material for soil, the replacement
for soil by granite cutting dust is done from 10 to 100 percent by weight of soil. This method is followed to maintain the balance
between the utilization of natural available soil and industrial waste product (Granite Cutting Dust).

II. STABILIZED MUD BLOCK

Stabilized mud block (CSEB) is an eco-friendly, cost effective, energy efficient and lowcarbon emission alternative for
wall construction. Stabilized mud block can be manufactured from a mixture of suitable soil-sand and stabilizers such as Portland
cement or a combination of lime and Portland cement. A uniform mixture of soil-sand-stabilizer is compacted into a high density
block at optimum moisture content using a machine. The blocks so manufactured are cured and then shall be used for masonry
construction. Stabilized mud blocks having strength and performance equivalent to or better than that of burnt clay bricks are
being produced and used. Load bearing masonry buildings of up to 4 storey height have been built using CSEB. Properly
prepared CSEB blocks do not disintegrate upon soaking in water for any length of time and the exposed buildings can perform
satisfactorily over one’s life time. CSEB buildings can be made earthquake resistant. Stabilized mud blocks can also be used for
other building components such as roof/floor slabs, masonry shell structures (vaults and domes), etc.

III.SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
To achieve the main objectives of this project work, we have drawn some of the specific objectives.
1. Checking suitability of eucalyptus ash and granite cutting dust as replacement materials for cement and soil respectively
in the production of compressed stabilized mud blocks.
2. To recycle the eucalyptus ash and granite cutting dust in a suitable manner by avoiding the disposal.
3. Investigate mud bricks made with the combination of Soil, Granite cutting dust, and eucalyptus ash and compare them,
quantitatively, to cement stabilized bricks for mechanical properties. i.e.Compressive strength, Water absorption, Dry
density, Dimensionality Test.

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 442
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

IV. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

1) Optimization of water content:
 This method includes evaluating the lower and upper limits of water content for the production of uniformly sized
compressed stabilized mud block.
 Fresh density of block is taken as 1.90g/cc. manually operated MARDINI block pressing machine used for the
production of compressed stabilized mud block. The size of the block is 230*108*100mm. Therefore dry weight of
materials taken as 4720grams.
Density = 𝑴𝒂𝒔𝒔/𝑽𝒐𝒍𝒖𝒎𝒆
 Optimization of water content mainly includes production as well as evaluating the density (i.e fresh and dry) of the
compressed stabilized mud blocks. In this method the compressed stabilized mud blocks were prepared with only
soil (without stabilizer) and water percentage varied from 7 to 14 by dry weight of soil.
 After evaluating the fresh density, the blocks were kept free from direct sun light and rain, for an about 24 hours.
After that blocks were sun dried for an about 24 hours to evaluate the dry density of the blocks.

2) Optimization of Granite Cutting Dust Percentage

This method mainly involves production as well as evaluating the density (i.e. dry and wet) of the compressed stabilized
mud block. Compressed stabilized mud block were casted with replacing the soil by GCD (without stabilizers).
Replacement for soil is done at the rate of 10 to 100% by dry weight of soil. Water percentage for the wet mix is
obtained on the basis of step 3 (i.e 10% by dry weight of materials). The procedures to evaluate the wet and dry density
are mentioned in the step 3.

5) Finding the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of stabilized mud block
Like, other method mentioned above this method also involves casting and evaluating the density (i.e. Dry and Wet) of
compressed stabilized mud blocks. The compressed stabilized mud blocks were prepared with combination of soil plus
GCD and cement used as a stabilizing agent. The lower limit and upper limit for GCD percentage were found on the
basis of step 4(i.e lower limit=10% and upper limit 50%). Typically cement binder is added between 4 to 10%. But for
the current research work 8% is considered as an optimum. Water content for the wet mix is fixed on the basis of step 3.
The procedure to evaluate the dry density and wet density mentioned in step 3. Graph was plotted for all the
combinations. Depending upon maximum dry density achieved the three combinations were selected for the further
methodology. Table in chapter 5 gives the complete details for relation between maximum density and moisture content.
Following are the abbreviated form of all the five combinations:
C1=90% soil + 10% GCD
C2=80% soil + 20%GCD
C3=70% soil + 30% GCD
C4= 60% soil + 40% GCD
C5 = 50% soil + 50% GCD
P1, P2,.P6 are the 8 to 13% of water by dry weight of modified soilmaterials.

6) Comparison Of Strength Parameters For Selected Three Combinations:

This method involves the casting the blocks with C2P5, C3P4 and C4P4 combinations. The blocks were tested for its wet
as well as dry compressive strength. The testing is done at the interval of 3, 7 and 28 days. The method of determination
of compressive strength of compressed stabilized mud blocks is done according to IS 3495-1992(PART I). The test
results are given in the chapter 5.

7)Evaluating the Physical and Mechanical Properties of the final combination:

By considering economy and the strength parameter, out of three above mentioned combination (i.e C2P5, C3P4 and
C4P4) one of the combinations was selected for further methodology. Following are the some of the methodology that
has to be implemented on the final combination.

 Block Density
 Dimensionality of Blocks
 Determination of compressive strength
 Determination of water absorption
8) Sieve Analysis of All in Aggregates
Sieve analysis of all in aggregates is conducted according to the procedure given in IS 2386(PART I). The main
objective of this method is to find the alternative material for the natural river sand. Natural river sand used as inert
material for the preparation of masonry mortar. The methodology is started by studying the mortar making mortar
properties of GCD. IS 2386(PART VI) laid down the procedure to evaluate the mortar making properties of GCD. Test
results on all in aggregates are provided in the chapter 7. Following are the abbreviated form of all the combinations:
GCD1= 90%SAND + 10% GCD ; GCD7= 30% SAND + 70% GCD
GCD2= 80%SAND + 20% GCD : GCD8= 20% SAND + 80% GCD
GCD3= 70% SAND + 30% GCD : GCD9= 10% SAND + 90% GCD
GCD4= 60% SAND + 40% GCD : GCD=100%

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 443
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

GCD5= 50%SAND + 50% GCD

GCD6= 40% SAND + 60% GCD

(1) (2) (3)

(4) (5) (6)

Fig. 1 Experimental Works Carried out in Lab

V RESULTS AND DESCISSION

1) Optimization of water content:

Table1. Optimization of water content(Compressed Block Made with Only Soil and Varying Percentage of Water)

Sl.no Percentage Of Water Added Fresh Weight of Wet Density Dry Weight of Block( After Dry Density
by Dry Weight of Soil Block in Grams (g/cc) 24 Hours ) in Grams of Soil(g/Cc)

1 8 4860 1.95 4680 1.88

2 9 4880 1.96 4660 1.87
3 10 4980 2 4840 1.95
4 11 4920 1.98 4700 1.89
5 12 5020 2.02 4820 1.94

Fig. 2Density Vs Water Content Curve (Optimization of Water Content)

2.04 Optimization Of Water Content

Wet
Density
Density(g/cc)

1.99
of Block
1.94 Dry
Density
1.89
of Block
1.84
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Percentage Of water Added

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 444
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

2) Optimization of Granite Cutting Dust Percentage:

Table 2.Optimization of Granite Cutting Dust Percentage (Soil Block Made With Combination of Soil +GCD and with 10
Percentage of Water)

Combination Combination of Fresh Weight of Wet Density Dry Weight of Block( After Dry Density
No. Soil +GCD Block in Grams (g/cc) 24 Hours ) in Grams of Soil(g/cc)
1 90+10 4990 2 4760 1.91
2 80+20 4960 1.99 4710 1.89
3 70+30 5020 2.02 4760 1.91
4 60+40 4960 1.99 4710 1.81
5 50+50 4970 2 4710 1.81

2.05 Optimization Of GCDcontent

2
Wet
Density (g/cc)

1.95 Density
1.9 of Soil

1.85
Dry
1.8 Density
of Soil
1.75
0 1 2 Combination
3 no. 4 5 6

Fig. 3 Density vs Water Content (Optimization of GCD Percentage)

3) Dimensionality Test:

Dimensionality test is conducted as per IS-1725:1982 and the results have been tabulated.

Table3. Test Results on Dimensionality

Obtained value Avg. dimension of
Ideal value Permissible variation
in mm each block
Length wise 230X20=4.60m 4600 ± 80mm 4604 230.2
Width wise 108X20=2.16m 2160 ± 40mm 2163 108.5
Height wise 100X20=2.00m 2000 ± 40mm 1965 98.25

4) Compressive Strength
Table 4. Test Results on Compressive Strength

Combination no. Dry Compressive Wet Compressive

Strengthin(N/mm2) Strengthin(N/mm2)
8%ce+0%E ash 9.43 5.1
7%ce+1%E ash 8.71 4.98
6%ce+2%E ash 8.49 4.12
5%ce+3%E ash 7.35 3.34
4%ce+4%E ash 6.46 2.25
3%ce+5%E ash 4.65 1.05
2%ce+6%E ash 3.8 -
1%ce+7%E ash 2.5 -
0%ce+8%E ash 2 -

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 445
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

10

Compressive
Wet and Dry Compressive Strength at 28 days

Strength In
N/mm2
5
0 dry
wet

Combination No.
Fig. 4 Wet and Dry Compressive Strength at 28 days

5) Water Absorption
Table 5. Test Results on Water Absorption

Combination No. % Water Absorbed

8%ce+0%E ash 11.5
7%ce+1%E ash 11
6%ce+2%E ash 10.60
5%ce+3%E ash 10.11
4%ce+4%E ash 9.90
3%ce+5%E ash 9.55
2%ce+6%E ash -
1%ce+7%E ash -
0%ce+8%E ash -

13 Test Results On Water Absorption

12
11
Water Absorption

10
9
8
7
6
5
%

4
3
2
1
0

Combination No.

Fig. 5 Water Absorption Values

6) Block Density Test

Table 6. Test Results on Block Density

Combination No. Block density in g/cc

8%ce+0%E ash 2.003

7%ce+1%E ash 1.99

6%ce+2%E ash 1.96

5%ce+3%E ash 1.94

4%ce+4%E ash 1.92

3%ce+5%E ash 1.91

2%ce+6%E ash 1.9

1%ce+7%E ash 1.89

0%ce+8%E ash 1.89

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 446
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

2.02 Block Density in g/Cc

2
1.98

Block Density In g/Cc

1.96
1.94
1.92
1.9
1.88
1.86
1.84
1.82

Combination No.

Fig. 6 Block Density Values

7) Sieve Analysis of All In Aggregates

Table 7.Values of Sieve Analysis of all in Aggregates

Sieve % Finer % Finer % Finer % Finer % Finer % Finer % Finer % Finer % For % Finer
Size in for C1 for C2 for C3 For C4 For C5 For C6 For C7 For C8 C9 According
mm to2116:1980
4.75 99.89 96.9 97.3 97.6 98.1 98.5 98.1 98.5 99.3 100
2.36 89.79 90.8 90.6 93 93.9 95.8 95.5 96.9 98 90 to 100
1.18 63.39 70.7 71.9 78.4 81.1 85.4 87.2 91.9 95 70 to 100
0.6 30.79 43.5 46.5 55.5 61.3 67.8 72.1 77.8 82.5 40 to 100
0.3 11.49 18.9 22.9 28 33.6 38.3 32.5 36.2 31.3 5 to 70
0.15 6.99 8.3 11.1 13.6 18.7 20.5 22.8 25.7 20.3 0 to 15
PAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Grading Curve for all in Aggregates

110
90%SAND + 10%
100 GCD
90 80% SAND + 20%
Percentage Finer

80 GCD
70% SAND + 30%
70
GCD
60 60%SAND + 40%
50 GCD
40 50 % SAND + 50%
30 GCD
40% SAND +60%
20 GCD
10 30% SAND + 70%
0 GCD
0.1 1 in mm
Sieve Size 10

Fig. 7 Grading Curve for all in Aggregates

VI CONCLUSIONS

1. Fineness modulus of GCD is, 2.26, which lies between 2.2-2.6 therefore procured GCD can be used as in stabilized
mud blocks.
2. .The blocks with eucalyptus ash content were found to have smoother finish and well defined corners and edges.
3. Eucalyptus ash based stabilized mud blocks with the stabilizer combination 5%Ce + 3%E ash has a wet compressive
strength of 3.34 N/mm2 and dry compressive strength of 7.35N/mm2. The blocks of this stabilizer combination
satisfies all the specifications of class 30 grade of CSEB as provided in IS: 1725-1982.

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 447
 © 2017 IJRTI | Volume 2, Issue 6 | ISSN: 2456-3315

4. Eucalyptus ash based stabilized mud blocks with less than 2% cement content have no wet compressive strength since
it get dissolves , but these blocks have dry compressive strength of 3.8N/mm2, 2.5N/mm2 and 2N/mm2 respectively
5. The water absorption values of blocks are within the limits and reduce with increasein eucalyptus ash content,
eucalyptus ash acts as a filler material filling up pores and gapesbetween the soil particles.
6. By conducting sieve analysis of all in aggregates it can be conclude that, GCD can be used as supplementary material
for natural river sand.

REFERENCES

[1] Dr. R.Kumutha and Dr. K. Vijai, S.Prskash, K.Rajesh Kumar , S.Sakthi&ShembiangMarthong “Feasibility study on
utilization of laterite soil for stabilized earth blocks”Dr.R.Kumutha et al, Research Desk, 2013, Jul-Sep 2(3). 229-236
[2] Halima Chemani1 and Bachir Chemani2- “Valorization of wood sawdust in making porous clay brick”-Vol. 8(15), pp.
609-614, 18 April, 2013
[3] Kabiraj K, Prof. Mandal. U.K.,”Experimental investigation and feasibility study on stabilized compacted earth block
using local resources”, International Journal Of Civil And Structural Engineering, Volume 2, No 3, 2012.
[4] MaurícioFontes Vieira, MônicaCastoldiBorlini, Sergio NevesMonteiro “Use of Eucalyptus Firewood Ash into Clayey
Ceramic”-Materials Science Forum Vols. 660-661 (2010) pp 860-865
[5] RajuSathish Kumar, JanardhanaMaganti, Darga Kumar Nandyala,” Rice Husk Ash Stabilized Compressed Earth
Block , Sustainable Construction Building Material”, International Journal Of Civil Engineering And Technology,
Volume 3,Issue1,January-June(2012).
[6] Rudi Setiadji and Andriati Amir Husin-“utilization of eucalyptus oil refineries waste for cement particle board”-
International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering & Technology (ISSN: 2180-3242) Vol 3, Issue 2, 2012
[7] Rui A. Silva , Edgar Soares , Daniel V. Oliveira , Tiago Miranda , Nuno M. Cristelo , DinisLeitão” Mechanical
Characterisation Of Dry-Stack Masonry Made Of Cebs
[8] Stabilised With Alkaline Activation” Construction And Building Materials.
[9] IS 2386(Part I)-1963 : Particle Size And Shape
[10] IS 2386(Part I)-1963 :Determination Of Material Finer Than 75µ
[11] IS 2386(Part II)-1963: Determination of Clay Lumps
[12] IS 2386(Part II)-1963:Estimation of Organic Impurities
[13] IS:4031(PART II)-1999) -Determination Of Fineness
[14] IS:4031(PART IV)-1988) –Determination Of Consistency Of Standard Cement Paste
[15] IS:4031(PART V)-1988 –Determination Of Setting Times

IJRTI1706079 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation (www.ijrti.org) 448