i An update to this article is included at the end

Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 576–580

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Performance of bricks made using fly ash and bottom ash

Sivakumar Naganathan ⇑, Almamon Yousef Omer Mohamed, Kamal Nasharuddin Mustapha
Centre for Sustainable Technology and Environment, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43000 Kajang, Malaysia

h i g h l i g h t s

This paper presents the results of investigation done on performance of bricks made using industrial wastes.

A novel self compacting technique has been used to develop bricks in this investigation.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the findings of investigation carried out on bricks made using fly ash and bottom ash
Received 30 April 2015 using a non-conventional method. Bricks were cast using self-compacting mixtures of bottom ash, fly ash
Received in revised form 28 July 2015 and cement eliminating both pressing and firing. Bricks were then tested for compressive strength, mod-
Accepted 9 August 2015
ulus of rupture, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), water absorption, initial rate of suction, fire resistance
and durability. The results showed better performance compared to conventional clay bricks in the prop-
erties investigated. Compressive strength was between 7.13 and 17.36 MPa, while UPV ranged from 2.2
Keywords:
to 2.96 km/s. Increase in fly ash reduced the water absorption. Tests for fire resistance indicated that the
Bottom ash
Fly ash
bricks did not show any spalling, and, there was increase in strength of up to 30% after heating. The opti-
Brick mum ratio of bottom ash, fly ash and cement was found to be 1:1:0.45 for better performance of bricks. It
Strength is concluded that bricks developed in this study can be used as an alternative to conventional bricks and
Durability hence can contribute to sustainable development.
Initial rate of suction Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Use of bricks in the building construction is inevitable. Bricks
are mainly produced from clay and shale since decades. The con-
tinuous extraction of clay and the removal of the topsoil for brick
manufacturing cause substantial depletion of virgin resources. On
the other hand, industrial waste disposal particularly coal combus-
tion wastes have always been a concern in power plants. Statistics
show that coal combustion waste, which is mainly fly ash and bot-
tom ash, was 367 million tons in 1992, increased to 459 million in
1996 tones, 480 million tons in 2001 and keep increasing rapidly
until the present time [1]. In 2012, coal supplied around 30% of pri-
mary energy and 41% of global electricity generation. The world-
wide production of coal ashes is estimated to more than
800 million tonnes in 2012. Coal use is forecast to rise over 50%
to 2030, with developing countries responsible for 97% of this
increase, primarily to meet improved electrification rates [2].
Given this production trend, the estimated worldwide production
of coal ashes is around 13.33 billion tonnes in 2030. The reuse rate
for fly ash is around 47% whereas the reuse of bottom ash is only
around 5.28% [3]. Hence, civil engineers are obliged to find sustain-
able solution for saving the virgin resources by reusing coal ashes.
Researchers went through manufacturing bricks from various
wastes such as, bottom ash, fly ash and rice husk ash to overcome
the problems associated with the industrial wastes. One of the
ways in using such wastes in large quantities is by utilizing them
in brick manufacture [4].
This paper reports the results of an investigation done on the
performance of bricks made using coal ashes and silica fume. The
ingredients were mixed at predefined ratios and made to be flow-
able. This flowable mixture was then poured into brick moulds to
manufacture bricks. Fly ash and bottom ash when used in bricks,
will lead to bulk consumption and hence contribute to sustainable
development.
2. Experimental methods
2.1. Materials

Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) from Lafarge cement Sdn Bhd, Malaysia con-
⇑ Corresponding author. firming to MS522 Part1: 1989 as mentioned in [5] was used for all mixtures. The
E-mail address: sivaN@uniten.edu.my (S. Naganathan). specific gravity of cement was 3.15 and specific surface area was 2910 cm2 g1.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.068
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Naganathan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 576–580 577

Class F fly ash and Bottom ash were obtained from Kapar Energy Ventures Sdn Bhd, Table 2
Kapar Thermal Power Station, Selangor, Malaysia. Properties of fly ash and bottom Mixture proportions.
ash are given in Table 1. Bottom ash was dried in an oven at a temperature of 110 °C
for three hours before use to ensure it is in dry state. The bottom ash was sieved No. Mix ID Bottom ash Fly ash Cement
through a 10 mm sieve and the contents passing through the sieve was used in 1 M1A 1 1 0.25
the investigation. 2 M1B 1 1 0.35
3 M1C 1 1 0.45
2.2. Manufacture of bricks 4 M2A 1 0.75 0.25
5 M2B 1 0.75 0.35
The mix proportions of content materials are shown in Table 2. Total of 12 mix 6 M2C 1 0.75 0.45
proportions were produced. The Bottom ash and cement were firstly mixed in the 7 M3A 1 0.5 0.25
mixer in dry state for 2 min. Then, fly ash was added and mixing continued for 8 M3B 1 0.5 0.35
another 2 min. Mixer was well covered during the mixing process to avoid the 9 M3C 1 0.5 0.45
volatility of fly ash due to its light weight. Then, water was added and mixing con- 10 M4A 1 1.25 0.25
tinued for another 2 min. The mixture was then tested for flowability following the 11 M4B 1 1.25 0.35
procedure specified in ASTM D6103 [6]. The mixture is considered flowable when 12 M4C 1 1.25 0.45
the spread diameter coming from the 200 mm high tube is 200 ± 20 mm on a hor-
izontal surface [7]. Water content was adjusted until the required flowability was
achieved. The fresh mixture was then poured into brick moulds of size M2  M1
(200 mm  90 mm  60 mm), its top surface was leveled and kept covered with a I:W: ¼  100% ð1Þ
M1
wet cloth for two days in the laboratory condition after which the specimens were
removed from the moulds and transferred to curing condition of 95% relative I.W.: The weight increase in percent (%).
humidity at 22 °C. The curing condition was achieved by keeping the bricks in par- M1: The weight of brick before immersion in acidic or alkaline medium (g).
tially water filled closed storage boxes and keeping the boxes in an air conditioned M2: The weight of brick after immersion in acidic or alkaline medium (g).
room as mentioned in [8].
The corrosion resistance was measured using the following equation [13]:

2.3. Testing Sa
C:R: ¼  100% ð2Þ
Sn
Bricks were tested for strength, modulus of rupture, UPV, water absorption,
sorption, initial rate of suction (IRS) and fire behaviour. Total of 144 specimens were
Ss
tested for compressive strength. Compressive strength test was done using univer- C:R ¼  100% ð3Þ
Sn
sal testing machine of 1000 kN capacity at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days in accordance with
ASTM C 67-03 [9]. Test for modulus of rupture was made using a universal testing C.R.: The corrosion resistance (%).
machine following the procedure of ASTM C 67-03 [9]. The length of the span was Sa: The compressive strength of brick submerged in acid (MPa).
kept at 167 mm. UPV test is a function of elastic modulus and density of material. Ss: The compressive strength of brick submerged in salt (MPa).
Pulse velocity can therefore be used to assess the quality and uniformity of mate- Sn: The compressive strength of bricks cured normally (MPa).
rial. The UPV test was conducted according to BS1881-203 [10] at 7, 14, 28 and
56 days.
Water absorption is an important factor affecting the durability of brick. The 3. Results and discussion
lesser the water infiltrates into brick, the higher will be the durability of bricks.
The determination of water absorption was done at the age of 28 days according Results of various tests are reported in Table 3 and the results
to BS3921 [11]. Initial rate of suction (IRS) denotes the amount of water absorbed are discussed below.
by the brick upon contact with mortar during laying. IRS, resulting from the pres-
ence of capillary mechanism of small pores in the brick, is an important property
in masonry construction since it affects the bond strength between the brick and 3.1. Compressive strength
mortar; thus affecting water tightness and durability of masonry. Test for IRS was
done as per BS3921 [11].
Compressive strength of the bricks ranged between 7.13 and
Test for fire resistance of bricks was made by placing the bricks in an oven at
28 days of curing at a temperature of 200 °C for 20 days. The bricks were then tested 17.36 MPa. The compressive strength for conventional clay bricks
for compressive strength. This test was conducted as per ASTM C67 as mentioned in and cement bricks are 15 MPa and 12 MPa respectively [4] and
[9]. the minimum compressive strength of clay bricks is 70 kgf/cm2
Durability test examines the performance of bricks in severe environments (6.8 MPa) [14]. This indicates that the bricks produced in the inves-
resulting from acidic rain as well as sodium chloride that happens to be present
in coast areas. The durability of bricks have been assessed in terms of corrosion
tigation have satisfactory compressive strength. The relationship
resistance and increase of weight after immersion in acidic and alkaline medium. between strength and bottom ash to cement ratio (BA/C) is shown
Bricks were immersed in 1% Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) solution to emulate acidic con- in Fig. 1. It can be observed that increase in fly ash and cement
dition [12], and in 3.5% concentration of Sodium chloride (NaCl) solution for alka- increases the strength for all mixtures. This is because of the reac-
line condition. The specimens were kept in these curing conditions for 28 days as
tion of fly ash with cement during hydration. The increase of fly ash
mentioned in [4]. The following equation was used to derive the percentage of
weight increase [4]: content in the mix resulted in increased chemical reaction and
hence increase in strength [15]. It is also observed from Fig. 1 that
the strength in maximum when BA to FA ratio is 1:1.25 and this is
Table 1 because the fly ash content is highest in this mix ratio. Hence it is
Chemicals composition of constituent Materials. concluded that enhanced strength can be achieved by increase the
Chemical components Materials fly ash in the mix.
Cement Fly ash Bottom ash
SiO2 21.54 56.58 56.0 3.2. Ultrasonic pulse velocity
Al2O3 5.32 27.83 26.7
Fe2O3 3.6 4.0 5.80 UPV was conducted at 28 days of curing. Results ranged
K2O 63.6 – 2.60 between 2.2 and 2.96 km/s. The UPV of clay brick is 0.793 km/s
CaO – 4.3 0.80
TiO2 – – 1.30
and for cement brick is 1.501 km/s [4]. The bricks developed in this
SO3 2.1 – 0.10 investigation exhibited higher values of UPV compared with con-
Na2O – – 0.20 ventional bricks. As noticed in Fig. 2, UPV increases with the
MgO 1.0 1.40 0.60 increase in fly ash in all mixtures. It is also observed in Fig. 2 that
Loss in ignition 2.48 2.53 4.60
the maximum value of UPV is gained when BA to FA ratio is 1:1.25.
Espacific gravity 3.15 2.323 2.1–2.7
This is because the finer particles of fly ash fills the pores and
578 S. Naganathan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 576–580

Table 3
Hardened properties.

Name of test Mix Id.

M1A M1B M1C M2A M2B M2C M3A M3B M3C M4A M4B M4C
Fresh density (kg/m3) 1340 1440 1530 1420 1550 1665 1530 1535 1515 1555 1676 1720
UPV (km/s) 2.488 2.81 2.89 2.208 2.77 2.79 2.37 2.57 2.4 2.25 2.54 2.96
Modulus of rupture (MPa) 14.74 20.13 23.4 17.68 19.78 12.05 12.24 12.12 12.41 11.2 11.71 12.42
Strength (MPa) 9.69 10.65 15.22 7.13 11.06 13.66 7.32 8.2 8.31 11.32 14.7 17.36
Initial rate of suction (kg/m2 min) 1.5 0.83 1.17 1.69 0.923 0.978 1.82 1.21 1.767 1.26 1.41 1.66
Water absorption (%) 28.8 20.09 17.8 27.31 19.5 15.2 25.4 19.03 17.65 29.22 22.59 19.22
Fire resistance (MPa) 11.44 12.67 17.85 7.122 15.1 14.23 8.56 10.31 10.46 14.66 17.54 20.3

Fig. 1. Relationship between compressive strength and BA/C. Fig. 3. Relationship between modulus of rupture and BA/C.

pore in the matrix and makes the mix more solid [16]. However
reduces the voids [4]. The descending trend for mix 01:0.5 is this needs to be further investigated.
ignored in the analysis as the difference in UPV values are less than
10%. 3.4. Water absorption

Water absorption for the mixtures ranged between 12.6% and

3.3. Modulus of rupture
Modulus of rupture (MR) results varied from 12.08 to 23.4 MPa
for the mixtures as shown in Table 3. The minimum modulus of
rupture of brick is 0.65 MPa [4]. The bricks developed in this inves-
tigation exhibited higher values of MR than conventional bricks.
The relationship between MR and BA/C ratio for all mixtures is
shown in Fig. 3. One outlier for mix 1:0.75 is ignored in Fig. 3.
The MR is found to be lower for mixtures with BA:FA ratios of
1:0.5 and 1:1.25 as indicated in Fig. 3. It is also observed that the
MR increases for mixtures made with BA: FA ratio of 1:1 and
1:0.75. It can be stated that mixture with BA: FA ratio close to
1:1 exhibits higher values of MR. Hence BA:FA ratio of 1:1 can be
considered as optimum to achieve maximum MR. This may be
because equal amounts of FA and BA maximizes the filling of gel
29.2%. The maximum water absorption for bricks under severe
weather exposure is 17% whereas the same for bricks under mod-
erate weather exposure is 22% [17]. Most of the bricks are found to
have more water absorption values in this investigation. However
these can be used in inner walls and situations of minimal weather
exposure. Fig. 4 indicates the relationship between water absorp-
tion and BA/C ratio. It can be observed that the water absorption
values for the mixtures with BA:FA ratio of 1:0.5 are the lowest.
This is because bottom ash is not a water absorber as the percent-
age of bottom ash water absorption is only 0.3–6.1% [17]. Yet fly
ash is water absorbent material that increases the water absorp-
tion capacity of hardened matrix when it is used in the mix [5].
3.5. Initial rate of suction
The initial rate of suction (IRS) ranged from (0.83–1.82)
kg/mm2 min. The acceptable values of IRS is between 0.25 and

Fig. 2. Relationship between UPV and BA/C. Fig. 4. Relationships between water absorption and BA/C.
 S. Naganathan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 576–580 579

necessary with more rigorous testing of bricks under fire in order

to predict the behavior of bricks (see Fig. 6).

3.7. Durability

The durability of bricks are reported in terms of corrosion resis-

Fig. 5. Relationship between IRS and BA/C.
tance and increase of weight using Eqs. (1)–(3). The values are
given in Table 4. The corrosion resistance of bricks cured in acidic
condition was between (0.76–0.97)% while the same for bricks
cured in alkaline medium are alt (0.92–1.25)%. Acidic condition
tend to have more strength reduction and more increase of weight
compared to alkaline medium. In general the sulfuric acid reacts
negatively to extract Al2O3 from bottom ash and fly ash [18]. As
Al2O3 approximately holds (26–28)% of total combination of fly
ash and bottom ash, it caused the bricks to lose little of its strength.
The corrosion resistance values for clay bricks are observed to be
0.8% and 0.77% under acidic and alkaline conditions respectively.
It is clear that corrosion resistance is high for the bricks developed
in this investigation compared to clay bricks. Hence the bricks
developed in this investigation are durable. Detailed investigation
is necessary in order to understand the behavior of bricks in these
two mediums.

4. Conclusion

According to the analysis of the results and discussion, the fol-

lowing conclusions may be drawn:

The strength of bricks ranged between (7.13–17.36) MPa which

is higher than strength required for conventional bricks.
Strength increased with increase in fly ash. The peak value of
Fig. 6. Relationships between compressive strength of Fired & Unfired bricks.
strength was attained for the mixture with BA:FA ratio of
1:1.25 and with BA/C ratio of 0.45.

UPV exhibited an increasing tend with increase in fly ash. The
Table 4 UPV values of all bricks investigated were more than the
Durability results.
expected values for conventional bricks. Modulus of rupture
Mix Id. Corrosion resistance (%) Increase of weight (%) of bricks were higher than that of the normal clay and cement
Acidic Alkaline Acidic Alkaline bricks.

The optimum mix ratio of BA:FA:C was found to be 1:1:0.45 to
M1A 0.931 1.253 13.12 9.97
M1B 0.825 1.094 12.45 9.21 achieve enhanced performances in terms of the parameters
M1C 0.7617 1.002 9.22 7.27 studied.
M2A 0.961 0.972 20.27 18.44
All the bricks developed in the investigation showed increased
M2B 0.9578 0.951 16.66 17.3
fire resistance to the tune of 30%. Durability of all the bricks
M2C 0.937 0.945 13.45 10.8
M3A 0.9756 0.972 9.25 10.1
were better compared to normal clay bricks. Analysis showed
M3B 0.9608 0.934 10.11 9.51 that bricks developed in the investigation are stronger, durable
M3C 0.896 0.948 11.63 8.52 with low rate of suction. It is concluded that development of
M4A 0.926 0.967 21.85 21.66 bricks using bottom ash and fly ash is feasible.
M4B 0.817 0.923 21.28 20.24
M4C 0.779 0.916 19.07 15.8

1.5 kg/m2.min [4]. The relationship between IRS and BA/C is indi-
cated in Fig. 5. It is indicated that IRS is lowest for all mixtures
whose BA/C ratio is 0.35. Mixtures with BA:FA ratio of 1:0.5
recorded higher values of IRS. This is because of less fly ash
increases the pores and hence the increase in IRS [16]. However
this needs further investigation.
3.6. Fire resistance
The test for fire resistance was measured by measuring the
compressive strength of bricks when kept at 200 °C for 20 days.
Results shown increase in strength. The increase in strength is
around 30%. This is because the strength of cement based material
increases under hot conditions [15]. Further investigation is
Acknowledgement
Authors wish to acknowledge the Department of Civil
Engineering of Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia for facilitating
this research. This research was funded by the Universiti Tenaga
Nasional internal grant vide grant no. J 510050450.
References
[1] Hans-Joachim Feuerborn, Coal ash utilization over the world and in Europe, in:
Tel-Aviv. International Workshop. European Coal Combustion Products
Association e.V. United Nations University Press, 23rd–24th November, 2005.
[2] Hans-Joachim Feuerborn, Coal ash utilisation over the world, in: WEACAU-III:
International Workshop on Environmental Aspects of Coal Ash Utilization,
Israel, 2012.
[3] H. Karuma, M. Kaya, Usage of coal combustion bottom ash in concrete mixture,
Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 1922–1928.
580 S. Naganathan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 96 (2015) 576–580
[4] Alaa A. Shakir, Sivakumar Naganathan, Kamal Nasharuddin Mustapha,
Properties of bricks made using fly ash, quarry dust and billet scale, quarry
dust and billet scale, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 131–138.
[5] S. Naganathan, N. Subramaniam, K.N. Mustapha, Development of bricks from
thermal power plant bottom ash and fly ash, Asian J. Civil Eng. 1 (2012) 275–
287.
[6] ASTM D 6103-00, Standard Test Method for Flow Consistency of Controlled
Low Strength Material (CLSM), American Society for Testing and Materials, PA,
USA, 2000.
[7] Sivakumar Naganathan, Hashim Abdul Razak, Effects of Kaolin on the
performance of controlled law-strength material using industrial waste
incineration bottom ash, Waste Manage. Res. 28 (2010) 848–860.
[8] Hashim Abdul Razak, Sivakumar Naganathan, Siti Nadzriah Abdul Hamid,
Performance appraisal of industrial waste incineration bottom ash as
controlled low-strength material, J. Hazard. Mater. 172 (2009) 862–867.
[9] ASTM C 67-03a. Standard Test Method for Sampling Testing Brick and
Structural Clay Tile. American Standard for Testing and Materials, 2003.
[10] BS 1881-part 203, Recommendations for Measurement of Pulse Velocity
Through Concrete, British Standards Institute, United Kingdom, 1997.
[11] BSI 3921, Specifications for Clay Bricks, British Standard Institute, UK, 1985.
[12] K. Attiogbe Emmanuel, H. Rizakalla Sami, Response of concrete to sulphuric
acid attack, ACI Mater. J. 85 (1988) 481–488.
[13] M. Shahul Hameed, A.S.S. Sekar, Properties of green concrete containing quarry
rock dust and marble sludge powder as fine aggregate, Asian J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 4
(2009) 83–89.
[14] M. Ahmaruzzaman, A review on the utilization of fly ash, Energy Combust. Sci.
36 (2010) 327–363.
[15] G.D. Taylor, Materials in Construction: An Introduction, third ed., Routledge,
UK, 2000.
[16] Sp 23, Handbook on Concrete Mixes (Based on Indian Standards). Bureau of
Indian standards New Delhi, India, 1990.
[17] Craig H. Benson, Sabrina Bradshaw, User Guideline for Coal Bottom Ash and
Boiler Slag in Green Infrastructure Construction. Recycled Materials Resource
Centre, University of Wisconsin Madison, USA, 2011.
[18] Lai-shi Li, Yu-sheng Wu, Ying-ying Liu, Extraction of alumina from coal fly ash
with sulfuric acid leaching method, Chinese J. Process Eng. 11 (2) (2011).
 Update
Construction and Building Materials
Volume 110, Issue , 1 May 2016, Page 381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.181
 Construction and Building Materials 110 (2016) 381

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to ‘‘Performance of bricks made using fly ash and bottom

ash” [Constr. Build. Mater. 96 (2015) 576–580]
Sivakumar Naganathan ⇑, Almamon Yousef Omer Mohamed, Shojaeddin Jamali,
Kamal Nasharuddin Mustapha
Centre for Sustainable Technology and Environment, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, 43000 Kajang, Malaysia

The authors regret that the name of one of the contributing authors (Shojaeddin Jamali) was not included in the original manuscript and
it was deleted to due revisions made to the draft paper.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.068

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sivaN@uniten.edu.my (S. Naganathan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.181
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.