International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 2, February 2018, pp. 926–933, Article ID: IJCIET_09_02_089

Available online at http://http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARITIVE STUDY OF CLAY BRICKS AND

STABILISED SOIL-CEMENT BRICKS WITH
AND WITHOUT FOUNDRY SAND AS
REPLACEMENT
S. Soundharya
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS),
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

K. Harish Kumar, A. Mahathir Mohamed, K. Manikandan

Final Year student, B.E. Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Vels Institute of Science, Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS),
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
An adequate shelter is a basic human need, yet about 80% of the rural populations
in developing countries still live in spontaneous low quality settlements, as they
cannot afford the high cost of building materials. One alternative for the expensive
materials is to use natural soil stabilized bricks because they have been identified as
low cost material with the potential of reducing the problem of living in sub-standard
houses. An upcoming and worldwide spoken concept is the development of green
environment, where the use of natural building materials are encouraged in order to
reduce the environmental heat evolved from the man-made building materials. The
above said technology uses the available soil on site, which is stabilized with a small
amount of cement or/and lime depending on the characteristics of the soil so as to
improve the engineering properties of the produced blocks. This project is also done
to show the comparison between the clay bricks and stabilized soil cement bricks with
and without foundry sand in terms of various structural properties like compressive
strength, durability, etc., and also the cost comparison is being carried out.
Key words: soil-cement bricks, ecology, stabilization, binder material, foundry sand.
Cite this Article: S. Soundharya, K. Harish Kumar, A. Mahathir Mohamed, K.
Manikandan, Comparitive Study of Clay Bricks and Stabilised Soil-Cement Bricks
with and without Foundry Sand as Replacement. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 2018, pp. 926-933.
http://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=9&Issue=2

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 926 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparitive Study of Clay Bricks and Stabilised Soil-Cement Bricks with and without Foundry Sand as
Replacement

1. INTRODUCTION
Soil being the most vital raw material, is used widely in many developing countries and in
rural areas as an efficient means of housing for a larger number of people with minimal
resources. Cement, steel, timber, plastics and glass are the commonly used construction
materials. A huge expenditure on non-renewable resources is required for manufacturing
these raw materials and this is detrimental to the environment. For example, steel and cement
factories emit toxic gases leading to air pollution. Excessive quarrying of limestone for lime
burning or cement manufacturing has disturbed the ecological balance. In addition, these
conventional materials are usually transported over great distances thus contributing to the
spending of fossil fuel energy.
The ecological concerns can be addressed by adopting earth-based construction
techniques. The use of earth in the form of burnt bricks is harmful to the environment.
The burning of bricks in the vicinity of fields damages plant life while the extraction of soil
for brick making causes collection of water in pools creating unhygienic conditions and
erosion of good agricultural soil.
The soil’s characteristics as a building material, has both pros and cons depending on its
requirements, applications and the context. Use of earthen materials is advantageous since it is
available in large quantities, at low price, easy to use and fire resistant etc., and the short
comings are principally low mechanical characteristics, unsatisfactory resistance to
weathering and liability to volume changes especially in the case of clayey soils. The burnt
brick walls consume significant amounts of fuel energy. Since there is energy crisis,
alternatives to wood such as coal, are not cheap either and in any case are desperately needed
for other purposes including cooking. Hence there is a need for an alternative way of using
soil wall construction.

2. STABILIZATION OF SOIL WITH CEMENT

Soil stabilization in the broadest sense is the alteration of any property of a soil to improve its
engineering performance. The chief factors affecting the quality of soil-cement are soil type,
cement content, compaction and method of mixing. Of these the soil type is by far the most
important factor since, if it is unsuitable, little can be done to make the soil-cement
satisfactory

3. COMPRESSED STABILIZED SOIL-CEMENT BRICKS

Soil cement blocks are cost effective and energy efficient alternative materials to the normal
burnt clay bricks used for construction of buildings. Soil cement blocks are also known as
stabilized mud blocks (SMB) or stabilized compressed earth block (SCEB).Ordinary Portland
cement is the most usual stabilizer added 5 to 10% by weight to the soil. Other stabilizers like
lime, pozzolana or a combination of cement and lime are also used. Building with earth is one
of the ancient technologies which still remain alive in the space untouched by civilization.
Interests on sustainable green building material has created compressed earth stabilized blocks
that attracts people for its low carbon content especially in the production stage. The
properties and benefits of CSEB compared to conventional brick especially in strength and
durability had already been demonstrated in past researches. The proper use of stabilizers with
right compressibility will improve the performance of CSEB. Results were found that
compressed stabilized earth bricks are comparable with every respect of burnt clay brick.
CSEB are ultimately more advantageous compared to conventional clay bricks in terms
such as green environment, eco-friendly, strength comparison, durability and thermal

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 927 editor@iaeme.com

 S. Soundharya, K. Harish Kumar, A. Mahathir Mohamed, K. Manikandan

conductivity. The average density of CSEB is almost equivalent with the common brick
(Fetra Venny Riza et al, 2011). CSEB promotes healthier building material and cost reducing
not only in production but also in service cost. This project is to show the percentage of
reduction in rate on the usage of CSEB. Based on past review of experimental and field
investigation on clay bricks and CSEB, results showed that major usage in the world for
construction is clay bricks. Past results showed that many researches showed that
environmentally friendly bricks are a major requirement and the manufacture of clay bricks
also requires high energy to burn due to the emission of Co 2 gas from this process. The
reduction in of transportation time, cost and attendant pollution can also make CSEB more
environment friendly than other materials. This project is to show the comparison in quantity
and overall rate of CSEB and conventional clay bricks (Sadek Deboucha et al, 2010).

4. FOUNDRY SAND
The sand moulds that are used in metal castings are usually recyclable. When repeatedly used,
they lose their characteristics and become unsuitable for further use in the manufacturing
process, which are then discarded as a waste. They are of two types as moulding sand and
core sand. Molding sand is the sand which is compacted and shaped according to a pattern
that is going to be produced.
The major components in foundry sand are
 Quartz sand / silica sand (70-80%)
 Clay (5-15%)
 Additives (25%)
 Water (up to 4%).

The dust particles obtained as a by-product are the dust particles which are cleaned sand
and large lumps of fine sand. These used sands contain a variety of binders depending on the
specific application for which they were used. A binder is defined as a material that gives
binding action to the sand mixture. Clay is the most common binder used in moulds. Typical
moulding sand contains approximately 4% to 10% clay. Hence this foundry sand is replaced
partially and fully here, in order to achieve the properties of clay in binding.

5. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Conventional soil-cement blocks have their compositions of the following two types.
Type 1
 Soil or raw earth
 OPC (3-6%)
 Water (10-11%)
 Sand + Crushed stone dust (optional)
Type 2
 Soil or raw earth
 Water (10-11%)
 Sand + Crushed stone dust (or) Fine gravel
 Lime and Pozzolana Cement are the alternative soil stabilizing materials.
Optimum percentage of materials
 (Sand, Fine Gravel) = 75%
 Silt + Clay = 20%
 Cement = 5%

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 928 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparitive Study of Clay Bricks and Stabilised Soil-Cement Bricks with and without Foundry Sand as
Replacement

In this project type 2 materials for casting CSEB are used. Initially, the soil samples were
tested for their suitability. The type of soil was found to be silty sand or poorly graded sand
– silt mixture. The tests for Atterberg’s limits were done and the average water content was
found to be 41.1% and the specific gravity was found to be 2.685 for sand and 2.695 for fine
gravel. The variation of shear strain was noted using UCC test. Totally, there were four sets of
bricks that were cast. Each set was cast by varying the proportions of the materials as below.
There are four sets of bricks cast.Each brick mould was of size 230 x 115 x 75 mm and
compression was given to the bricks using hydraulic machine compress.After carrying out the
tests for the sample, four sets of mix ratios were arrived for casting stabilized soil-cement
bricks.
 SET-1 (Varying silt + clay content) by Weight of Blocks
 SET-2 (Varying Cement Content) by Weight of Blocks
 SET-3 (Partial replacement of sand by foundry sand) by Weight of Blocks
 SET-4 (Total replacement of sand by Foundry sand) by Weight of Blocks

In set-1, the clay and silt content was varied from 20% to 40% and cement content was
fixed as 5%. In set-2, the silt and clay content was kept constant as 20% and cement content
was varied from 4% to 6%. In set-3,the clay and silt content was varied from 20% to 40%and
cement content was fixed as 5%. Here, the sand was replaced partially with foundry sand. In
set-4, the silt and clay content was kept constant as 20% and cement content was varied from
4% to 6% and the sand was totally replaced by foundry sand. Each set had 15 numbers of
bricks out of which every 3 bricks were subjected to different days of curing and testing. The
stabilized soil-cement bricks were cast in a fly ash brick making unit, by mixing the
ingredients in required proportion and then placed in a hydraulic compress of capacity 26.3
kg/m2. Then after attaining full compaction, the denser bricks are removed from the mould
through a belt conveyor. Each set was cast and the compressive strength values for 3, 7, 21
and 28 days respectively were determined and then a comparison on costs was arrived as a
percentage. This cost comparison was done by proposing a simple residential plan and
arriving at their estimate of construction.

6. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1 Chart showing variation in compressive strength for Set-1

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 929 editor@iaeme.com

 S. Soundharya, K. Harish Kumar, A. Mahathir Mohamed, K. Manikandan

Figure 2 Chart showing variation in compressive strength for Set-2

Figure 3 Chart showing variation in compressive strength for Set-3

Figure 4 Chart showing variation in compressive strength for Set-4

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 930 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparitive Study of Clay Bricks and Stabilised Soil-Cement Bricks with and without Foundry Sand as
Replacement

Figure 5 Chart showing overall variation in compressive strength of all sets of bricks

It is found that the compressive strength values for set-1 gradually decreased as the
percentage of clay increased and cement content was kept constant. In set-2, the compressive
strength values decreased as the percentage of cement varied from 4% to 6% and the clay
content being kept constant at 20% by weight of blocks. In set-3, where the sand was replaced
partially with foundry sand, the brick containing 20% clay ad 5% cement exhibited a higher
compressive strength value than the other two mixes. The compressive strength kept
escalating in set 4 for every mix, where sand was totally replaced with foundry sand. This is
because of the amount of clay that is present in the foundry sand. Foundry sand exhibits
binding property by itself due to the silica-clay content present in it. In addition, when cement
is used as stabilizer, the set-4 bricks exhibited excellent strength properties.

Figure 6(a) Compressed CSEB Figure 6(b) Casted CSEB samples

7. CONCLUSIONS
 It is found that the rate of CSEB is Rs.9.3 per brick which is higher than the rate of
conventional clay bricks, but the overall cost of construction of the building using CSEB has
been reduced upto 67% by the cost of clay bricks.
 The strength has been found to be very high of 11.23 N/mm2 for the blocks casted using total
replacement by foundry sand.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 931 editor@iaeme.com

 S. Soundharya, K. Harish Kumar, A. Mahathir Mohamed, K. Manikandan

 For a given percentage of cement, there is a range of clay content in which the blocks satisfy
the strength requirement. Above and below this range the strength will be less.
 The soil cement blocks with 4% - 5% of cement satisfy the dry compressive strength
requirement only with actual clay content of 20% at 41.1% of water content.
 Due to the high clay content (15%) in foundry sand, the bricks replaced with foundry sand
totally for sand, exhibited very high compressive strength.
 Thus, the compressed stabilized soil-cement bricks are very economical and eco-friendly to
the environment and could achieve a desirable compressive strength.

REFERENCES
[1] I.M. Attar, Prof. A.K. Gupta “Application of Foundry Sand in Civil Construction”
International Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering,PP 38-42.
[2] Eknath P. Salokhe, D.B. Desai “Application of Foundry Sand in Manufacture of
Concrete” International Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, PP 43-48.
[3] Mahima Ganesan, Dr. Sreevidya V., Salim P.M. “Waste Foundry Sand as A Replacement
for Fine Aggregate in High Strength Solid Masonry Blocks” International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 5, Issue 5,PP
6878-6886, May 2016.
[4] Baba Sheshu Waziri, Zanna Alhaji Lawan, Mustapha, Ma’aji Mala “Properties of
Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) For Low Cost Housing Construction: A
Preliminary Investigation” International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering
and Technology, Volume 4, Issue 2, PP 39-46, November 2013.
[5] Prof A.S. Manjarekar, Ravi D., Gulpatil, Vivek P. Patil, Ranjit S., Nikam, Chetali M. Jeur
“Utilization of Plastic Waste in Foundry Sand Bricks” International Journal for Research
in Applied Science & Engineering Technology,Volume 5, Issue 3, PP 1114-1119, March
2017.
[6] Bhudev Pandey, Neelesh Kumar Singh “Manufacturing of Stabilized Soil Bricks”
International Journals of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Volume 14, Issue 3, Ver.
II,PP 36-40, (May-June 2017).
[7] Pathariya Sarawati C., Rana Jaykrushna K, Shah Palas A, Mehta Jay G, Prof. Patel Ankit
N” Application of Waste Foundry Sand for Evolution of Low Cost Concrete”
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Volume 4, Issue 10, PP
4281-4286, October 2013.
[8] Smit M. Kacha, Abhay V. Nakum, Ankur C. Bhojayata “Use of Used Foundry Sand in
Concrete: A State of Art Review” international journal of research in engineering and
technology, PP 586-589, February 2014.
[9] Swapnil H. Patil “Research on Inter Locking Stabilised Soil Bricks (I.S.S.B.) A Literature
Survey” international journal of research in engineering and technology, PP 375-378,
March 2016.
[10] Vinu Prakash, Amal Raj, Aravind S, Basil Mathew, Sumith V R “Studies on Stabilized
Mud Block as A Construction Material’’Journals of Materials in Civil Engineering, Issue
1, Volume 3, page no:19-24, January 2016.
[11] Peter Walker “Characteristics of Pressed Earth Blocks in Compression’’Journals of
Materials in Civil Engineering, PP1-10, October 1997.
[12] Alka Rani “Stabilized Mud Blocks as Construction Material”Journals of Materials in Civil
Engineering,Volume 7, PP1-10, January 2016.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 932 editor@iaeme.com

 Comparitive Study of Clay Bricks and Stabilised Soil-Cement Bricks with and without Foundry Sand as
Replacement

[13] B.V.Venkatarama Reddy “Pressed Soil Cement Blocks: An Alternative Building Material
for Masonry” journals of materials in civil engineering, PP 425-433, November 1994.
[14] Rashmi S, Jagadish K S, Nethravathi S “Stabilized Mud Motor” journals of materials in
civil engineering, PP 26-29, May 2014.
[15] B. N. Patowary, N. Nath, I. Hussain, H.J. Kakoti “Study of Compressed Stabilized Earth
Block”Journals of Materials in Civil Engineering,Volume 5, Issue 6, PP 1-4, June 2015.
[16] Mr.S.S. Jadhav, Dr.S.N. Tande, Mr.A.C.Dubal “Beneficial Reuse of Waste Foundry Sand
in Concrete”International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering,
Volume 7, Issue 3, PP 74-95,March 2017.
[17] Pendhari Ankush R., Demse Dhananjay G, Nikam Madhuri E, Karpe Balraj E, Khairnar
Parmod R, Suryawanshi Priyanka R “Partial Replacement of Sand by Waste Foundry
Sand” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 4, Issue 5,
PP 2771-2776, May 2017.
[18] N.E. Quaranta, N.S Lalla, M.G. Caligaris, A.R. Boccaccini, C.M. Vieira “Ceramic Tiles
Adding Waste Foundry Sand to Diierent Clays” international journal of innovative
research in advanced engineering, PP 99-108, May 2010.
[19] Tarun R. Naik, Member, ASCE and Shiw S. Singh, “Permeability of Flowable Slurry
Materials Containing Foundry Sand Fly Ash”international journal of innovative research
in advanced engineering, PP 446-452, 1997.
[20] Khandakar M. Anwar Hossain, M. ASCE “Stabilized Soils Incorporating Combination of
Rise Husk Ash and Cement Kiln Dust”international journal of sustainable construction
engineering and technology, PP 1320-1327, 2011.
[21] Deb Dulal Tirupura, S.M. ASCE, Konjengbam Darun Kumar Singh, “Characteristic
Properties of Cement Stabilized Rammed Earth Blocks” international journal of
sustainable construction engineering and technology,PP 1-8, 2009.
[22] Pathariya Sarawati C., Rana Jaykrushna K, Shah Palas A, Mehta Jay G, Prof. Patel Ankit
N” Application of Waste Foundry Sand for Evolution of Low Cost Concrete” international
journal of sustainable construction engineering and technology, PP 4281-4286, October
2002.
[23] Vinu Prakash, Amal Raj, Aravind S, Basil Mathew, Sumith V R “Studies on Stabilized
Mud Block as A Construction Material’’ journals of materials in civil engineering, PP 19-
24, January 2016.
[24] Sheshu Waziri, Zanna Alhaji Lawan, Mustapha, Ma’aji Mala “Properties of Compressed
Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) For Low Cost Housing Construction: A Preliminary
Investigation” journals of materials in civil engineering, PP 39-46, November 2015.
[25] B. N. Patowary, N. Nath, I. Hussain, H.J. Kakoti “Study of Compressed Stabilized Earth
Block” journals of materials in civil engineering, PP 1-4, June 2015.
[26] V.Y Katte, J.F.N Seukep, A Moundom, A.S.L Wouatong and K.B. V Kamgang The
Effect of Partial Replacement of Waste Water Treatment Sludge on The Properties of
Burnt Clay Brick. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 2017,
pp. 567–583.

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJCIET 933 editor@iaeme.com