The main goal of this project was to replace the conventional Red Clay bricks with Fly Ash Bricks. We know that Bricks are one of the most important parts of any construction project. With the new advancements of the present construction industry, there is a significant need to incorporate the use of industrial and agricultural by-products and waste products along with the traditional construction materials. Recycling such wastes by utilizing them into building materials is a moderate solution for the pollution issues. Sand is getting depleted day by day and in order to save our mineral wealth, in this study it was decided to use Quarry Dust (Waste material) as a replacement for sand instead of using the top most fertile soil for the process of making the bricks which further leads to declining in agricultural soil and in order to save the top most fertile soil and environment, fly ash as a replacement was used. The main intention behind doing the project on High strength Fly ash bricks is to determine the optimum mixture among all the samples of three different batches in order to use that type of bricks for the construction process. After performing all the necessary tests, it can be readily inferred that the sample consisting of 50% Fly Ash, 40% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement & 15% GGBS shows the highest value of the compressive strength among all the bricks i.e., 15.42 MPa (at 28 days of testing) and in case of Water absorption, it was observed that the least water absorption value is obtained in the sample that consists of 50% Fly Ash, 40% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement and 0% GGBS i.e., 6.40% (at 28 days of testing). In the case of bulk density, all the bricks at the age of 28 days of testing achieve the bulk density in the range of 2-2.2 g/cm3 which is generally taken as the ideal value for brick masonry. After going through all the economical and environmental aspects, it was finally concluded that the sample, consists of 50% Fly Ash, 40% Quarry Dust,10% Cement & 0% GGBS.

1. Development of High Strength Fly ash Bricks using Quarry Sand and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) for Structural Applications
Major Project
Development of High Strength Fly ash
Bricks using Quarry Dust and Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)
for Structural Applications
Under the guidance of : Dr. Bharat Bhushan Jindal
Group Members : Abhinandan Gupta 18bce003
Archit Kashyap 18bce012
Hari Arya 18bce028
Paras Pandita 18bce044
Sudhanshu Baigra 18bce053
Ronak Pal Singh Bali 18bce062

2. • CLAY BRICKS are made of clay which is collected from fertile land or the top soil and to use it in bulk quantity is
nothing else than wasting agricultural land.
• Fly ash bricks are made of waste materials which come from the combustion of coal in thermal power plants, it is
pozzolanic material and dumping it in open is wasting of such useful product.
• This is the prime reason that makes Fly ash bricks more preferable than Clay bricks.
• NATURAL RIVER SAND in used in the manufacturing of the Fly Ash bricks.
• But natural and good quality sand is getting depleted very fast.
• Excessive sand mining can alter the river bed, force the river to change course, erode banks and lead to flooding.
• It also destroys the habitat of aquatic animals and micro-organisms besides affecting groundwater recharge.
Objective of the study : Replacing the natural sand with Quarry Dust and GGBFS as an additive
to develop the High Strength Fly ash Bricks for Structural Applications
Problem Formulation

3. Citations and briefings of the research papers explored
Authors Observations
Andodariya et.al (2017) The result reveals that 20 percent of RSDW replacement is the best option for achieving the
maximum compressive strength. Also quarry dust waste(QDW) and fly ash replacement
increases compressive strength. With rise in percentage of QDW, so does water absorption
capacity, however all QDW-made bricks have lower water absorption than conventional bricks.
IS 3495: 1992 Part I was used to obtain the results.
Alan et.al (2015) • In compression test, Fly Ash brick with 1% PET at 28 days gave an optimum value of 18.67
N/mm2 while for the clay brick is only 7.5 N/mm2.
• The brick density of Sample B which consists of 62.5% Quarry Dust and 7.5% O.P.C and 1%
PET seems to give better results than control value of Fly Ash Bricks.
• In Impact Test, no bricks of any samples were forced to break while the clay bricks were
broken into two pieces.
Balaraju et.al (2015) It was concluded that the QFAC (Quarry Dust Fly Ash Cement Brick) that they used in this shows
that QFAC bricks is better in all aspects such as strength, economy and environment. QFAC
bricks are strong and have minimal heat conductivity and water absorption. When compared
to regular bricks, the 28-day flexural strength was almost twice as high. It is also recommended
that bricks with an 8 percent water absorption rate are almost 10 times more resilient to salt
assault than bricks with a 20 percent water absorption rate.

4. Citations and briefings of the research papers explored
Authors Observations
Bhatt et.al (2017) Fly ash construction bricks have 2 times the compressive strength of a typical clay brick. Out of
all the samples, 10% Fly Ash, 35% Lime, 3% Gypsum, and 52% Potter Sand had the most
optimal combination percentage for high compressive strength at a particle size of 600
microns. It follows from the results above that compressive strength will rise as particle size
decreases.
Kumar et.al (2014) According to the experimental investigation, class I conventional bricks have a compressive
strength of around 40% less than Fly ash bricks with 5% cement, which have a strength of 152.1
kg/cm2. It is concluded that the Compressive Strength of Fly ash brick with 0% cement is 27%
more than that of class I conventional brick.
Sumathi and Mohan
(2015)
Compressive Strength, Water Absorption, Efflorescence, and other tests were conducted on
bricks in an effort to determine the ideal Fly Ash mix ratio. Studying the mechanical
characteristics, such as Compressive strength , and testing the specimens for seven mix
proportions led to the conclusion that, of the seven proportions, Fly Ash at 15%, Lime at 30%,
Gypsum at 2%, and Quarry Dust at 53% yielded the highest optimized compressive strength of
7.91 N/mm2.

5. Citations and briefings of the research papers explored
Authors Observations
Gadling and Varma
(2016)
Fly Ash bricks have been uniform in shape and smooth in the finish. Furthermore, Plastering is
required in case of normal clay bricks whereas no plastering is required in case of Fly Ash bricks.
It was also observed by the authors that the Compressive Strength of Fly Ash bricks is more
than that of the Clay bricks. Fly ash used as wasted product and environment is directly
protected by reducing solid waste disposal. The average Compressive Strength of fly ash brick is
(9 N/mm2) according to authors.
Mistry et.al (2011)” • Their results indicates that the fly ash bricks with conventional masonary work save almost
28% saving in cost with common red brick.
• Rat trap bond in flyash bricks have 33% saving in cost as compared to common bricks.
• Their results shows that the Fal-G bricks are more safe, economical and having high strength
as compared to conventional bricks.
• As compare to conventional brick masonry prism compressive strength it is between 13.75
kg/cm2 to 121.80 kg/cm2 at 28 days strength. While FaL-G brick prism strength is
88.83kg/cm2 for cement mortar (1:6) and 85.05 kg/cm2 for fly ash mortar (1:6) just in 14
days. It can be increased up to 135 kg/cm2 to 145kg/cm2 at 28 days.

6. Citations and briefings of the research papers explored
Authors Observations
Hake et.al (2017) • The low-cost bricks alternately reduced the cost of building
• The bricks produced were environment friendly as it uses the industrial waste i.e, fly ash
which is having major problem of disposal.
• Reduction in percentage of soil is beneficial to save the agricultural soil.
• Bricks produce of such types consumes less energy during the manufacturing process and
generally do not emit greenhouse gases.

7. Materials and Equipment
• Materials Used
• Fly Ash
• Quarry Dust
• Sand
• Cement (OPC: 43 Grade)
• GGBS
• Water
• Equipment Used
• Trowel
• Sieves
• Head Pan
• Shovel
• Steel Brick Molds
• Tamping Rod
• Scoop
• Weighing Machine
• Gloves

8. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch A
Fly Ash 50 50 50 50
Sand 40 40 40 40
Quarry Dust 0 0 0 0
Cement 10 10 10 10
GGBS 0 5 10 15
Mix design:-
• Batch A consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 40 % Sand , 10 % Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The percentage of GGBS is in proportion to weight of cement.

9. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch A
Fly Ash 1875g 1875g 1875g 1875g
Sand 1500g 1500g 1500g 1500g
Quarry Dust 0g 0g 0g 0g
Cement 375g 375g 375g 375g
GGBS 0g 18.7g 37.5g 56.2g
Mix design:-
• Batch A consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 40 % Sand , 10 % Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The percentage of GGBS is in proportion to weight of cement.

10. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch B
Fly Ash 50 50 50 50
Sand 0 0 0 0
Quarry Dust 40 40 40 40
Cement 10 10 10 10
GGBS 0 5 10 15
Mix design:-
• Batch B consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 0% Sand, 40% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The water-cement ratio we considered was 0.35.

11. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch B
Fly Ash 1875g 1875g 1875g 1875g
Sand 0g 0g 0g 0g
Quarry Dust 1500g 1500g 1500g 1500g
Cement 375g 375g 375g 375g
GGBS 0g 18.7g 37.5g 56.2g
Mix design:-
• Batch B consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 0% Sand, 40% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The water-cement ratio we considered was 0.35.

12. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch C
Fly Ash 50 50 50 50
Sand 20 20 20 20
Quarry Dust 20 20 20 20
Cement 10 10 10 10
GGBS 0 5 10 15
Mix design:-
• Batch C consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 20% Sand, 20% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The water-cement ratio we considered was 0.35.

13. Methodology
Mix Proportions
Materials Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Batch C
Fly Ash 1875g 1875g 1875g 1875g
Sand 750g 750g 750g 750g
Quarry Dust 750g 750g 750g 750g
Cement 375g 375g 375g 375g
GGBS 0g 18.7g 37.5g 56.2g
Mix design:-
• Batch C consists of 50% of Fly Ash, 20% Sand, 20% Quarry Dust, 10% Cement and 0-15% GGBS.
• The 0-15% of GGBS with 5% increment in samples.
• The water-cement ratio we considered was 0.35.

14. Methodology
Tests on Materials:
Tests Results
Sieve Analysis of Quarry Dust Zone: 3 and Fineness Modulus: 3.15
Sieve Analysis of Sand Zone: 4 and Fineness Modulus: 2.83

15. Methodology
Tests on Materials:
Tests Results
Fineness of Cement 274 sqm per kg*
* Fineness was provided by
manufacturer through the certificate
attached.

16. Removal of Brick Moulds
Casting in Brick Moulds
Wet Mixing of Materials
Dry Mixing of Materials
Weighing of Materials
Sieving of Materials
Methodology

17. Methodology

18. Methodology

19. Methodology

20. Methodology

21. Methodology

22. Methodology

23. Experimental Investigation
Compression Test:-

24. Experimental Investigation
Water Absorption:-

25. Experimental Investigation
Bulk Density:-

26. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4
Compressive Strength Comaprison
7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Results of Investigations
Compressive Strength Test:
Sample Fly
Ash
Quarry
Dust
Sand Cement GGBS
A1 50% 0% 40% 10% 0%
A2 50% 0% 40% 10% 5%
A3 50% 0% 40% 10% 10%
A4 50% 0% 40% 10% 15%
B1 50% 40% 0% 10% 0%
B2 50% 40% 0% 10% 5%
B3 50% 40% 0% 10% 10%
B4 50% 40% 0% 10% 15%
C1 50% 20% 20% 10% 0%
C2 50% 20% 20% 10% 5%
C3 50% 20% 20% 10% 10%
C4 50% 20% 20% 10% 15%
• All Values are in N/mm2

27. 0
5
10
15
20
25
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4
Water Absorption Comparison
7 Day 14 Day 28 Day
Results of Investigations
Water Absorption Test:
• All Values are in percentage
Sample Fly
Ash
Quarry
Dust
Sand Cement GGBS
A1 50% 0% 40% 10% 0%
A2 50% 0% 40% 10% 5%
A3 50% 0% 40% 10% 10%
A4 50% 0% 40% 10% 15%
B1 50% 40% 0% 10% 0%
B2 50% 40% 0% 10% 5%
B3 50% 40% 0% 10% 10%
B4 50% 40% 0% 10% 15%
C1 50% 20% 20% 10% 0%
C2 50% 20% 20% 10% 5%
C3 50% 20% 20% 10% 10%
C4 50% 20% 20% 10% 15%

28. 1.85
1.9
1.95
2
2.05
2.1
2.15
2.2
2.25
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4
Bulk Density Comparison
28 Day
Results of Investigations
Bulk Density Test:
• All Values are in g/cm3
Sample Fly
Ash
Quarry
Dust
Sand Cement GGBS
A1 50% 0% 40% 10% 0%
A2 50% 0% 40% 10% 5%
A3 50% 0% 40% 10% 10%
A4 50% 0% 40% 10% 15%
B1 50% 40% 0% 10% 0%
B2 50% 40% 0% 10% 5%
B3 50% 40% 0% 10% 10%
B4 50% 40% 0% 10% 15%
C1 50% 20% 20% 10% 0%
C2 50% 20% 20% 10% 5%
C3 50% 20% 20% 10% 10%
C4 50% 20% 20% 10% 15%

29. Conclusion
 Based on the fact that sample B4 of the bricks has the maximum compressive strength of all the brick samples (15.42 MPa), we can
readily conclude that it has the best combination.
 Sample B4's average compressive strength at 28 days is 16.55 and 10 percent higher than that of samples A4 and C4, respectively. The
compressive strength may be estimated to rise with each incremental 5% increase in GGBS in each sample.
 It has been established by graph analysis that Bricks from Batch A absorb water at a rate that is significantly greater than Bricks from
Batch B and C. It can be pointed out the ideal samples for Water Absorption are B1, B2, B3, B4, C1 and C2 with values of 6.40, 6.80,
7.07, 8.15, 8.70, 10.52 percent respectively.
 Bricks from Batch B exhibit the best water absorption results at 28 days, having value in between 6 and 8 percent. This is because the
water absorption helps to build a solid bond between the brick and mortar and protects against acid attack and efflorescence. The
minimum Water Absorption is observed in the sample B1 which is 6.40% which is almost 2.21 and 1.36 times lower than that of samples
A1 and C1 respectively.
 After 28 days of testing, it was found that every brick of 3 batches i.e., Batch A, B, and C, fell below the desired brick masonry value of
2-2.2 g/cm3.
 However, the highest value of Bulk density is observed in sample B4 i.e., 2.18 g/cm3 and the lowest value of bulk density is observed in
sample A2 i.e., 1.97 g/cm3.The maximum bulk density at 28 days testing is observed in the sample B4 which is 2.18 g/cm3, which is
almost 3.80 and 2.80 percent higher than that of samples A4 and C4 respectively.

30. References
Bhatt, V., Kaushik, S., Kumar, G., Mishra, R., Singh Gaur, L., & Kashap, R. (2017). Study and Analysis of Compressive Strength with Varying Material Composition Ratio
and Curing Temperature for Fly ash Bricks. International Journal on Emerging Technologies (Special Issue NCETST-2017), 8(1), 733–740. www.researchtrend.net
FLY ASH BRICKS MASONRY: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY. (2011). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281273136
Gadling, P. P., & Varma, M. B. (2016). Comparative Study on Fly Ash Bricks and Normal Clay Bricks. In IJSRD-International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development| (Vol. 4). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321528151
Hake, D., Acharya, A., Fasale, B., Nagare, Y., post GHR COEM Chas Ahmednagar, A., & COEM Chas Ahmednagar, G. (n.d.). ANALYZE EFFECT OF HIGH VOLUME
FLY ASH BRICKS-REVIEW (Vol. 3). www.ijariie.com
Karthikeyan, D. K., Nagarajan, D. N., & Sivaprakasam, D. S. (2019). Study on Innovative Building Materials Used in Fly Ash Bricks Manufacturing with Various Mix
Proportion.
Kejkar, R. B., Wanjari, S. P., Sharma, D., & Rajankar, R. (2018). Experiment Investigation and Physical Performance of Geopolymer Fly Ash Bricks. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 431(9). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/431/9/092005

31. Koganti, S. P., & Chappidi, H. (2016). Geotechnical Properties of Quarry Dust. In Article in Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303859484
Kumar, R., Patyal, V., Lallotra, B., & Kumar Ashish, D. (2014). STUDY OF PROPERTIES OF LIGHT WEIGHT FLY ASH BRICK. In International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications. AET-29th.
Kumar Sahu, M., & Bhilai, G. (2017). in Critical Review on Types of Bricks Type 2: Fly Ash Bricks CRITICAL REVIEW ON TYPES OF BRICKS TYPE 2: FLY ASH
BRICKS Civil engineering department. In International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering (Issue 5). http://iraj.
Mainuddin, M. (n.d.). AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON DIFFERENT MATERIAL PROPERTIES REQUIRED FOR MAKING OF FLY ASH BRICK Fly ash brick making
View project RCA and FLY ash brick making View project. www.iaraindia.com
Malaviya, S. K., Chatterjee, B., & Singh, K. K. (1999). Fly ash-An emerging alternative building material.
Priya, G. S., & Prasath, L. S. (2019). EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON FLYASH BRICKS BY USING GRANITE SAW DUST (Issue 6).
Sumathi, A., Saravana, K., & Mohan, R. (2014). Compressive Strength of Fly Ash Brick with Addition of Lime, Gypsum and Quarry Dust. In International Journal of
ChemTech Research CODEN (Vol. 7, Issue 01).
References

32. Thank You