International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
Brick Manufacturing using Non Biodegradable Waste
[Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link]
(Student OfDr. J. [Link] College of Engineering,Jaysingpur)
Guide:
Prof. [Link]
M.E.(C&M) , PhD
[Link] of
Engineering, Jaysingpur
Abstract and industrial by-products in the production
Practice of using waste in different building
process. Most of the researches went through
construction materials has now become common. Out of enhancing the brick quality and properties by
which brick stands out. Waste materials which are not mixing the clay with various recycled wastes a
biodegradable are given more emphasis to use in such foundry sand, granite sawing waste, harbor
projects. Due to unsuitability of fired , conventional sediments, perlite, sugarcane bagasse ash, clay
bricks and their demerits these products are used in waste and fine waste of boron, sewage sludge,
cement bricks. Glass and plastic are such products. Use waste glass from structural wall and other different
of this non-biodegradable product is growing rapidly wastes . More researches were held in developing
and creating problem of disposal of waste. bricks from wholly waste materials without
Plastic is such material that now a days everything is exploiting any sort of natural resources, in order to
made from it but it takes several million years to achieve sustainability
disintegrate which is not feasible similarly glass is used
in day to day life but due to its short life span and less Human and his activities produce a lot of
recycling has become a big hurdle to dispose. wastes. At the same time, man consumes many
These two wastes glass and plastics are used individually things. Amongst the various things man consumes,
in brick or similar paving blocks. Not before today a building materials happen to be the largest in terms
research is made to use both these together. The growth of weight being about 5 tons per capita per year,
in various types of industries together with population next only perhaps to water. Out of the total cost of
growth has resulted in enormous increase in production house construction, building materials contribute
of various types of waste materials world over. This 70% cost in developing countries like India. One of
article deals with optimistic use of these wastes to the construction sector’s major contributions to the
enhance the properties of bricks in an economical way. preservation of the environment and sustainable
development is the reuse and recycling of the waste
I. INTRODUCTION materials it generates, i.e. reducing, reusing,
The constant developmental activities in civil recycling and regenerating the residues that
engineering and growing industrial activities have originate the constructive activity. This has
created a continuous demand for building materials increased the life cycle of these materials, thereby
which satisfy all the stringent requirements reducing the amount of waste dumping and natural
regarding the short-term and long-term performance resource extraction
of the structure. As the structures of tomorrow
become taller and more complex, the materials of II. LITERATURE REVIEW
construction will be required to meet more The high performance bricks from flyash. He
demanding standards of performance than those in concluded that the flyash brick had 24 % better
force today. compressive strength and 44% higher bond strength
The current trend in bricks manufacturing has than the good quality clay brick. Also, he reported
major emphasis on the use of post-consumer wastes that the tensile strength of the flyash brick was three
288 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
times greater than the value for standard clay bricks demand of the mix increased with decreasing
(ObadaKayali, 2005) fineness modulus of the fine aggregate. All concrete
The flyash bricks with conventional masonry work blocks containing FG showed higher water
save 28% in cost compared with common red brick absorption and lower hardened density than the
and conventional masonry work. The masonry work control concrete block. For FG with particle size
with new technology Rat-Trap bond in flyash brick less than 600μm, this was more pronounced. Slight
saves 33% cost as compared to common bricks reductions in compressive strength were observed
.(Mistry 2000) with the use of coarser FG. While significant
increases in compressive strength occurred when
The values of uniformity coefficient and coefficient
the particle size of FG was reduced to less than
of curvature of flyash should vary with the type of
600μm. This indicates that finer FG exhibited
coal used. The addition of lime to the flyash
appreciable pozzolanic reactivity.(Lee et al, 2013)
increases the cementitious properties of flyash and
it was found that at 1.5% of lime, dry density was Milled waste glass was added into brick clay at a
maximum and optimum moisture content was ratio of 0% (control sample), 2.5, 5 and 10%. Four
minimum(Akhtar 2011). different series of test samples were produced by
extrusion pressing. Samples were fired at 850, 950
A parametric experimental study for producing
and 1050 °C. The microstructures of the fired
paving blocks using fine and coarse waste glass is
samples were investigated by scanning electron
presented. Some of the physical and mechanical
microscopy. The compressive strength of the fired
properties of paving blocks having various levels of
samples was significantly improved by theAddition
fine glass (FG) and coarse glass (CG) replacements
of waste glass. It was concluded that the amorphous
with fine aggregate (FA) are investigated. The test
nature of waste glass particles enhanced the
results show that the replacement of FG by FA at
sintering action and this led to better strength
level of 20% by weight has a significant effect on
behavior. (Demir, 2009)
the compressive strength, flexural strength, splitting
tensile strength and abrasion resistance of the The disposal of waste plastics (PET, PP, etc.) is a
paving blocks as compared with the control sample biggest challenge, as repeated recycling ofPET(Poly
because of pozzolonic nature of FG. It is reported in ethylene teryphthalate) bottles poses a potential
the earlier works the replacement of FG by FA at danger of being transformed to a carcinogenic
level of 20% by weight suppress the alkali-silica material and only a small proportion of PET bottles
reaction (ASR) in the concrete. The test results are being recycled. Because of costly conventional
show that the FG at level of 20% has a potential to recycling Techniques, there has been an increased
be used in the production of paving blocks. The demand for more scientific and innovative
beneficial effect on these properties of CG technologies to effectively recycle these materials.
replacement with FA is little as compared with FG. One such effort is the efficient use of waste plastic
(Turget,Yahlizade, 2009) to develop an alternative building material such as
bricks with negligible water absorption and
The effects of replacement percentages and particle
satisfactory strength in comparison with Laterite
size distribution of recycled fineglass (FG)
stone to satisfy the increasing demand of
aggregates on the properties of dry-mixed concrete
conventionalbuilding materials. From practical tests
blocks were investigated. All the mixtures were
it is found that 70% plastic is optimum and it gives
proportioned with a fixed total aggregate/cement
bricks which are 48% cheaper. (Maneeth et al,
ratio of 4 and 50% of the total aggregate was fine
2014)
aggregate. A total of 17 concrete block
mixes,including a control (0% of glass) mix, were Generally bricks are made using top soil from
produced using four different particle sizes of FG Agricultural fields or Quarries; approximately half
(Un-sieved, <2.36mm, <1.18mm and <600μm) as an acre land (about 2000 m²) top soil is required for
replacements of sand. The replacement ratios were the making of about 1 lac bricks. Top soil is
25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. Properties such as developed over a period of millions of years of
packing density, hardened density and water geological fines. This soil is very fertile. The
absorption, as well as the effects of air and water process of making bricks is responsible for the
curing upon 7 and 28-day compressive strength degradation of the environment at large. MSW is a
were studied. The results show that the water complex mixture of dry and wet wastes generated
289 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
by city dwellers. MSW screened to separate grains method. But this method has many disadvantages
less than & greater than 10 mm has shown presence and more emphasis will be given to recycling.
of partially decomposed organic and inorganic Since Bricks are basic component of a construction
substances in it. Grains greater than 10mm (glass, project. Conventionally Brick are made from
metal, plastic, paper, wood, cloth, debris) etc. can natural clay or shell material, but with the rapid
be recycled and grains less than 2.36mm can be growth in requirement and demand of bricks it is
used for brick making. Study was carried for not feasible to use burnt bricks as they are being
making construction bricks using screened MSW uneconomical with great impact on environment.
obtained from dumping ground (Ichalkaranji, Dist.- Hence we should adopt recycled waste generated
Kolhapur Maharashtra) with addition of brick from the Municipal areas instead of clay. This can
making natural soil or fly ash. As the percentage of help to produce bricks in large amount with less
MSW soil as replaced up to 15 to 20% by the environmental loss
weight natural soil, strength of bricks can be
achieved. Even though the bricks made by using
more % of MSW material does not take much load IV. METHODOLOGY
(i.e. 20% replacement of soil) than the lower % of In order to accomplish the objectives, the project
soil replaced bricks. (Lambe, Chougule, 2009) work has been divided into eight major parts. They
Majority of the people prefer burnt bricks for the are:
construction purpose which emits nearly about 1 ton 1) Material collection.
of [Link] usage of environmental friendly, 2) Study of properties of materials.
structurally sound and in expensive materials was 3) Specimen making.
used in the ancient centuries. The stabilized bricks 4) Preliminary tests.
are the one which have a low embodied energy of 5) Optimization of mix.
0.42 MJ/kg and low carbon foot print. Strength of 6) Viability and cost analysis
the bricks by using different recyclable materials 7) Comparison with conventional bricks.
like coconut fibre, granite waste and egg shell
powder. The characteristic study of brick V. SPECIMEN MAKING:
manufactured by earth (clay) material with granite Proportion of Glass-Plastic Bricks
waste, eggshell powder and coconut fibre shows the Glass and plastic are the major constituent of the
possibility to use the granite wastes and eggshell as mix proportions. From literature support, glass and
an alternative raw material in the production of clay plastic with cement, fly-ash, and crush sand are
based products leads to relief on waste disposal used as ingredients of the mix with various
concerns. The bricks are sufficiently hard in 4%, proportions. From these materials, 5 mix
8% and 12% replacement of granite waste. The proportions were used and studied in terms of
value of compression strength can be increased up compressive strength and percentage of water
to 6% of granite waste beyond that it will gradually absorption.
decrease .Since the % difference in compressive
strength is only 2.5 between 0 and 12% addition of Table 5.1 shows the details of mix proportions used
granite waste .It is concluded that up to 12% granite in the study.
waste can be added to earth material. and the Table 5.1 Details of Mix Proportions
percentage of granite waste increases with increase Sr. Constituents A B C D E
in the hardness of the brick.(R. Nithiya et al, 2016) No. (%)
1 Cement 10 10 10 10 10
III. RELEVANCE OF WORK 2 Crushed Sand 30 30 30 30 30
Disposal of the Non-Biodegradable municipal waste 3 Fly ash 54 54 54 54 54
is one of the major problem in the urban area as it
contains plastic bags, plastic bottles and glass 4 Glass 6 6 6 6 6
material which are having life more than 200 years. 5 Plastic(% 1 2 3 4 5
These material requires long time to decompose. replacement
Various methods are being applied to manage these of crush sand)
waste most common of which is land filling
290 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
All the proportions were taken on a weight basis. brittle failure and collapse suddenly. Hence greater
Glass and plastic were taken in wet condition, i.e. care should be taken while testing.
slurry form. Fly ash was taken fromShrinivasan 6.3 Water Absorption
Enterprises. In this project, Penna53 grade Ordinary
The specimen of each proportion taken for water
Portland cement has been used in all times.
absorption [Link] weight taken as w1. Then the
Generation of glass powdered dried specimen was immersed completely in clean
The glass waste which was collected could not be water at a temperature of 27 ± 2°C for 24 hours then
used directly. Before mixing with other ingredients, the specimen was removed and wiped out to remove
glass was converted into powdered form of particle any traces of water with a damp cloth. Later, the
size less than 75 microns. First the stickers, tableand specimen was weighed after it had been removed
other materials were removed. Then the glass from water as W2. The percentage of water
wasBrocken into small pieces and all Brocken absorption by mass, after 24 hours immersion in
pieces of glass was ground in grinding mill. water was noted and the average of the result of
Generation of crushed plastic each proportion was noted.
he plastic waste which was collected could not be 6.4. EFFECT AND PERFORMANCE
used directly. Before mixing with other ingredients, EVALUATION OF GLASS-PLASTIC BRICKS
plastic was converted into granular form of particle 6.4.1 Result of Density of glass-plastic brick:
size less than 4.75mm. Then the plastic was crushed Table 6.1 Density of brick
into crushing machine. Sr. No. Specimen Density
(kg/m3)
VI. PRELIMINARY TESTS ON GLASS- 1 A 1730.32
PLASTIC BRICK 2 B 1752.76
6.1 General 3 C 1738.01
4 D 1834.21
The testing of the materials was an important study
5 E 1911.17
for the fitness of material at desirable location in the
structural system. All the tests were carried out with Following graph shows weight of glass-plastic
BIS specifications. As per IS: 3495 (Part 1 to 4)- brick:
1992 recommendation, compressive strength and
2000
percentage of water absorption were examined.
6.2 Compressive Strength Development of Glass- 1900 Density (Kg/m3)
plastic Bricks 1800
Brick is one of the building elements used in the
construction of a wall and the wall is a compression 1700
member. So the use of good brick indicates how 1600
much amount of compressive strength it has. This
1 2 3 4 5
test is carried out as per the guidelines given in IS
[Link] test is the main and Mix Designation
important test for bricks. This test was carried out
by a Compression Testing Machine (CTM). This Figure 6.4Density of different types of bricks
test was carried out on the 7 and 28th day from the 6.4.2 Result of compressive strength:
date of casting of brick. Figure 5.1 shows the Table 6.2.1 compressive strength (N/mm2) result
compression test being done. The bricks were then after 7 days
tested under a uni-axial compressive force using Sr. No. Specimen N/mm2
200 tonne compressive testing machine. Since the 1 A 4.93
longitudinal deformation rises more and more, the 2 B 4.55
plunger of the CTM comes out of the cylinder in a 3 C 3.48
fast manner. When the brick failed at the higher
load, the brick did not fully collapse. Due to 4 D 4.21
presence of granular plastic the bricks may show 5 E 4.8
291 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
Table 6 .2.2 compressive strength (N/mm2) result
15
after 28 days
% Of Water
Absorption
Sr. No. Specimen n/mm2 10
5
1 A 8.22
0
2 B 6.85
1 2 3 4 5
3 C 5.85
4 D 6.80 % of plastic
5 E 7.23
Figure 6.6 Water absorption of different types of
bricks
Following graph shows variation of compressive
strength of glass-plastic brick:
6.5 Field test on glass-plastic brick
10 The following visual tests and field tests be carried
out on glass-plastic brick to ascertain good quality
strength N/mm2
5 bricks for use in works.
Compressive
1. They possess sharp and square edges.
0 2. They are of shape and size as per standard.
1 2 3 4 5 3. When struck with each other, they produce
Mix Designation clear metallic ringing sound.
4. Fracture of good bricks show uniform and
Figure 6.5 compressive strength of different bright compact structure without any voids.
types of bricks 5. They absorb minimum water when
immersed in water. The absorption should not be
more than 1/6th when immersed in water for 24
6.4.3 Result of water absorption:
hours.
Table 6.3.1water absorption result after 7 days 6. Good bricks are hard on their surface and
Sr. No. Specimen % leave no impression when scratched with nails.
1 A 10.05 7. Good bricks do not break when dropped
2 B 8.22 from 1 m height.
3 C 8.23 8. Good bricks when soaked in water and
dried; do not show white patches or white deposits
4 D 8.76 on their surface.
5 E 8.27 9. The good quality bricks could be gauged
easily by the percentage of bricks that get broken in
Table6.3.2 water absorption result after 28 days transit and stacking in the course of ordinary
handling (2 to 3%).
Sr. No. Specimen n/mm2
1 A 12.23 VII. DURABILITY OF GLASS-PLASTIC
2 B 10.91 BRICKS
3 C 11.54 7.1 General:
4 D 8.72 The tests on compressive strength and percentage of
5 E 7.81 water absorption tests showed that the mix
proportion was high in compressive strength, which
Following graph shows variation in water was weak in terms of percentage of water
absorption of glass-plastic brick: absorption and vice versa. In view of that, trial
mixes were used to found the optimized mix
proportions with sand, and the brick was studied for
292 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
acid resistance test, because paper is the major 7.3.1Test result:
constituent. This chapter delineates the [Link] Reduction in weight:
characterization study of fly ash based glass-plastic
The reduction in Weight of brickwas calculated
brick and its optimization.
using Eq. (1) and rounded off to two significant
7.2 Acid resistance test digits. However, all of test specimen was cooled
The acid attack was one of the primary chemical and their mass measured.
deterioration conditions of building material for 𝑤0−𝑤1
Reduction in weight = × 100
many years. Brick was not a chemically stable 𝑤0
material under the condition of acidic environment. 2.87−2.7
= 2.87
× 100
Acids came from the external sources to the wall
such as the earth surrounding structure, Reduction in weight= 5.92 ≈ 6 %
groundwater, rainwater and pollutants in the air. [Link] Reduction in strength:
Flyash based glass-plastic building bricks also The Compressive strength reduction shall be
contain silica and calcium. Silica is not attacked by calculated using Eq. (2) respectively, and rounded
acid, but calcium readily reacts with acids. Mineral off to two significant digits.
acids like hydrochloric, nitric, sulfuric and chromic 𝑓𝑐0−𝑓𝑐1
acids are some of the most dangerous substances to Reduction in strength = 𝑓𝑐0
× 100
the building material. Sulfuric acid solution in 8.22−7.58
= × 100
sewage, wastewater treatment plants and hot springs 8.22
deteriorates building structures hard by reacting Reduction in strength = 7.78 ≈ 8 %
with cement hydrates. The brick samples were
placed in a sulfuric acid solution (0.1N normality)
VIII. COST ANALYSIS
for7days. The weight and the compressive strength
of the specimens were measured after 7days. 8.1 General:
7.2.1 Test result Cost is an important criterion in every material
transaction. This chapter deals with the cost of
[Link] Weight Reduction: flyash based building brick containing glass and
The reduction in Weight for the Compressive plastic. The cost for the production of 1 thousand
strength specimens was calculated using Eq. (1) and brick is calculated. From that cost of one brick is
rounded off to two significant digits. However, all estimated.
of test specimen was dried and their mass measured.
The cost of all the ingredients, cement, fly ash, sand
𝑤0−𝑤1
Reduction in weight = 𝑤0
× 100 and waste glass and waste plastic is also calculated.
2.87−2.68 Finally, the cost of the individual brick is compared
= 2.87
× 100 to the conventional building bricks and the results
Reduction in weight=6.62 ≈ 7 % are described here. Consequently, the cost of all the
ingredients and individual conventional building
[Link] Reduction in strength:
bricks existing in the month of March 2017 rates in
The Compressive strength reduction shall be Jaysingpur,Taluka - Shirol, District-Kolhapur,
calculated using Eq. (2) respectively, and rounded Marharshtra, India is estimated.
off to two significant digits.
𝑓𝑐0−𝑓𝑐1
Table 8.2 cost analysis(For 1000 Bricks)
Reduction in strength= 𝑓𝑐0
× 100 Sr. Material Quantity Rate Unit Total
8.22−7.36 No (Rs.)
= 8.22
× 100
1 Cement 6.3 bag 300 / bag 1890
Reduction in strength = 10.46 ≈ 11 %
2 Crushed 972 kg 850 / m3 354
7.3 Fire Test
Sand
A brick which is used for construction should not
flammable in open flame, so this test was carried 3 Fly Ash 885 0.4 / kg 552
out for the bricks. This test was carried out only for 4 Glass 327.5 4 / kg 1310
fibrous concrete bricks. 5 Plastic 6.88 3 / kg 21
Total 4127
293 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
Considering labour Cost and tool and plant, X. RESULTS AND CONLUSION:
=10% of total material cost On the basis of results obtained, the compressive
= 4127×10/ 100 strength doesn’t vary with certain relation with the
percentage of plastic in it, so we conclude that
Total Cost =Rs. 4540/-
specimen A (1% plastic) is best suitable.
Cost of one brick = Rs. 4.54/- The optimized mix proportion is cement-10%,fly
ash-54%, crushed sand-30%,plastic-1% of crushed
IX. COMPARISON OF BRICK CASTED sand,glass-6%.
The load carrying capacity of the glass-
FROM WASTE GLASS & PLASTIC
plastic brick is 218.6% more than conventional
9.1 Density brick. But glass-plastic brick can withstand the load
The Density of bricks casted brick was 1703.32 beyond the ultimate level. So it can be suitable in
kg/m3 which is higher than 30.65% of conventional framed structure.
clay brick. The conventional clay brick shows The water absorption of glass-plastic brick is
1303.72 kg/m3 Density. This brick is relatively 12.23% which is less than clay conventional brick
heavy than conventional brick. and satisfies the IS code recommendation (IS 3495
9.2 Compressive Strength Part-2).
From the compression test, it could be seen that It is evidently concluded that the fly ash based
these bricks attained 8.22 N/[Link] bricks resist glass-plastic building bricks can be used for the
the compressive strength more than 206.6% of the construction of external walls, partition walls,
conventional clay bricks. The conventional clay compound wall, basement, etc.
brick shows maximum compressive strength of 2.58
N/mm2. The compressive strength of brick is much XI. REFERENCES:
higher than conventional clay brick .The strength
Shakir,Ali Ahmed Mohammed(2013),
difference among both the brick 5.64 N/[Link]
“Manufacturing of Bricks in the Past, in the
illustrate the behavior and compressive strength of Present and in the Future,”International
these bricks. Journal of Advances in Applied Sciences
9.3 Water Absorption (IJAAS)Vol. 2, No. 3
The water absorption of these bricks was 12.23%. It Demir Ismail, (2009), “Reuse of waste glass in
was less than 45.45 % of conventional clay bricks. building brick production,”Waste Management
The conventional brick found 22.42 % water & Research
absorption. The conventional clay brick absorb Garg S. K, “Sewage Disposal and Air Pollution
more water while the these brick absorb less water. Engineering,” Vol II, Ch. 14, Page no. 60.
John S. Manuel (2002) “How Do Paper Houses
The difference of water absorption between
Stack Up? ” Environmental Health Perspectives,
conventional clay brick and flyash based glass- Vol. 110, No. 3, pp. 126-129.
plastic brick is 10.19%. As per IS 3495-Part 2 water [Link] [Link]. (2015) “Experimental
absorption of brick should not be more than 20%. Investigation of Glass-plastic Brick”
As we come to know that these brick satisfies the International Journal of Machine and
recommendation made by IS 3495-Part 2. Construction Engineering ISSN (Online): 2394 –
9.4 Cost 3025. Volume 2 Issue 2
Lambe J. S, Chougule R. S, (2009), “A Pilot
These bricks were compared with conventional Scale Study on Use of Municipal Solid Waste in
bricks, which are available in market. Based on Making of Bricks,”IOSR Journal of Mechanical
March 2017market value, the rates of the and Civil Engineering, Second International
conventional clay bricks and these bricks were Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering
Rs.4,700/- and Rs.4540/- per 1000 bricks (SICETE)
respectively. The cost of one conventional brick is Lee Gerry, Poon Chi Sun, Wong Yuk Lung and
Rs.4.7 which is less than these bricks. The cost of Tung Chai Ling, (2013), “Effects of Recycled
one brick of this is Rs. 4.54. which is less than Fine Glass Aggregates on the Properties of Dry-
conventional brick’s market value. A comparison of Mixed Concrete Blocks,”Construction and
the cost of bricks is illustrated in Figure Building Materials; 38: 638-643.
294 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]
International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences
[Link] 2017, Volume 5, Issue 4, ISSN 2349-4476
Maneeth P. D, Pramod K, Kishor Kumar, R. Nithiya, Chris Anto. L, K.R. Vinod(2008),
ShettyShanmukha, (2014), “Utilization of Waste “Experimental investigation on bricks by using
Plastic in Manufacturing of Plastic-Soil Bricks,” various waste materials.”International journal of
International Journal of Engineering Research & latest trends in engineering and technologies
Technology (IJERT), Vol. 3 Issue 8. (IJLTET), Vol. [Link]. 8.
s SitiAishah Wahid,
Md. Safiuddin, MohdZameenJumaat, M. S. SullyfaizuraMohdRawi&NorliaMdDesa, (2015),
Saleem& R. Hashim.(2010), “Utilization of Solid “Utilization of Plastic Bottle Waste in Sand
Waste in Construction Materials.”International Bricks”.Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Journal of physical science. Vol V (13) Research
Mistry Sameer [Link]. (2000) “Flyash Brick SharmaaUmesh, KhatribAnkita and
Masonry: An Experimental Study”, Proceedings KanoungocAbhishek (2014) “Use of Micro-silica
of National Conference Gujarat, India. as Additive to Concrete-state of Art”
[Link] ,[Link] (2016), “Feasibility International Journal of Civil Engineering
of using waste glass powder in fly ash Research. Issn 2278-3652 Volume 5, Number 1,
bricks”,International Journal Of Advanced Pp. 9-12.
Engineering Technology. Turgut.P,YahlizadeE. S, (2009),“Research onto
ObadaKayali (2005), “High Performance Bricks concrete blocks with waste glass,” World
from Flyash”, Proceedings of World of Coal Academy of Science, Engineering and
Conference held in Lexington, Kentucky, USA. TechnologyInternational Journal of Civil,
Punmia B. C, Jain A. K & Jain A. K, “Building Environmental, and Structural, Construction and
Construction,” 10th edition, Ch. 06, Page no. 167 Architectural Engineering Vol: 3, No: 3.
295 [Link] VinayakSubhash, [Link], [Link] Anil,
Mr. KeskarKiranGopal, [Link], Prof. [Link]