INDIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Experimental Study on Mechanical and

Durability Behaviour of a Sustainable
Masonry Block Incorporating
Agricultural and Industrial Wastes
OPEN ACCESS

R Prakash1 ∗ , S Srividhya2 , S Sivakumar3 , P Neelamegam4

Received: 09-01-2024
Accepted: 01-02-2024
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli, 627 007,
Published: 22-02-2024
Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Builders Engineering College, Kangeyam, Tirupur, 638108,
Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Civil Engineering, PSNA College of Engineering and Technology, Dindigul,
Citation: Prakash R, Srividhya S, 624622, Tamil Nadu, India
Sivakumar S, Neelamegam P (2024) 4 Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Valliammai Engineering College, Kattankulathur,
Experimental Study on Mechanical 603203, Tamil Nadu, India
and Durability Behaviour of a
Sustainable Masonry Block
Incorporating Agricultural and
Industrial Wastes. Indian Journal of
Abstract
Science and Technology 17(9):
830-840. [Link]
Objectives: The production of conventional cement blocks consumes signifi-
10.17485/IJST/v17i9.70 cant amount of cement. The production of cement, involves significant energy
∗ consumption and releases carbon dioxide emissions, contributing to carbon
Corresponding author.
footprint. However, advancements in sustainable masonry block production
rprakash024@[Link]
have been made to minimize these drawbacks. Hence, this research aims to
Funding: None develop a sustainable masonry solid block by incorporating Rice Husk Ash
Competing Interests: None (RHA) and Flay Ash (FA). Methods: The manuscript discusses the mechan-
Copyright: © 2024 Prakash et al. ical and durability properties of sustainable masonry block and comparing
This is an open access article the result with the conventional cement blocks. The materials used are FA,
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
Lime, Gypsum, RHA, Marble Dust Powder (MDP), Stone Quarry Dust (SQD). The
License, which permits unrestricted solid blocks tested for Compressive strength, Density, Water absorption, Ini-
use, distribution, and reproduction tial rate of water absorption, efflorescence, and chemical resistance. Findings:
in any medium, provided the
original author and source are The results showed that, the addition of RHA, FA, and MDP enhanced the com-
credited. pressive strength of the solid blocks upto 46% when compared to convention
Published By Indian Society for cement block. A density reduction of 2.5% was achieved. It also exhibited a
Education and Environment (iSee) reduction in water absorption of 29.2%. IRA tests evident that the sustainable
ISSN solid blocks shows reduced water absorption levels at both the one-minute and
Print: 0974-6846 two-minute time intervals in comparison to conventional cement solid blocks.
Electronic: 0974-5645 At a one-minute time, the rate of absorption for M4 is 69% lower when com-
pared to conventional cement solid blocks. The RHA, FA and MDP admixed
blocks showed better durability properties in terms of efflorescence, and chem-
ical resistance. Novelty : This solid block production method is an innovative
methodology that supports the conservation of natural resources, reduces pol-
lution, and preserves the environment. As a result, it encourages the advance-
ment of eco-friendly technology.

[Link] 830
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

Keywords: Sustainable building blocks; Fly ash; Lime; Rice husk ash; Marble
dust; Stone quarry dust

1 Introduction
Fired clay bricks have been the primary construction materials for dwellings and
masonry constructions since ancient times up till the present day. Nevertheless, the
block’s durability, manufacturing techniques, and utilization of various components
contribute to its status as one of the most adaptable contemporary materials. Significant
adverse consequences and environmental problems have been identified in the
manufacturing process of burnt clay bricks. The cement-sand block also is a frequently
employed material for constructing masonry walls in residential units. Cement sand
blocks typically consist of around 10 to 20% cement and 80 to 90% river sand or natural
sand. Cement sand blocks include advantages such as superior durability, the ability
to be produced locally, visually appealing aesthetics even without surface treatment,
remarkable resistance to fire and floods, and minimal maintenance needs. However, the
creation of cement-sand blocks is not eco-friendly due to the adverse environmental
implications resulting from cement production and river sand excavation. In recent
years, there has been a significant emphasis on the utilization of supplemental
cementing materials (SCMs) as partial or complete replacements for cement. Fly ash,
a waste byproduct from thermal power plants, has transformed the manufacture of
solid blocks because to its inherent and prospective pozzolanic properties. The copious
waste produced by thermal power plants poses significant environmental challenges,
and its proper disposal is a pressing issue. Presently, extensive research is underway to
create eco-friendly blocks and bricks made from fly ash and industrial waste materials.
Several studies have made substantial progress in the production of bricks utilizing
different waste sources. Integrating power plant waste into composite materials can
greatly enhance sustainability and tackle environmental waste management issues (1) .
Masonry bricks and blocks are the most ancient and long-lasting construction materials.
Masonry blocks are highly durable, with a long lifespan and requiring low maintenance.
Blocks are typically categorized as clay blocks and cement blocks, based on the type of
raw material used. (2,3)
Conventional blocks, often referred to as fired clay blocks, are composed of silica,
alumina, lime, iron oxide, and magnesia. The constituent materials exhibit good
compressive strength and durability when subjected to appropriate drying and heating
processes. Cement blocks are produced using a mixture of mortar, predominantly
consisting of cement, lime, and sand. These blocks are more readily manufacturable,
necessitating not much maintenance and possessing a substantial production capacity.
One of the main benefits of cement-based blocks is their capacity to expand without
the need for heat. Nevertheless, the primary component, cement, necessitated the
application of heat during its manufacturing process. The manufacture of cement gives
rise to numerous environmental issues. Several scholars have undertaken experiments
on the use of waste materials in manufacturing masonry blocks. Kumar et al. (4)
investigated the use of fly ash (FA), rice husk ash (RHA), and marble dust (MDP) in
geopolymer bricks and obtained the compressive strength in the range of 12.4 MPa
to 18.2 MPa. Likewise, the manufacturing of red-clay blocks relies on limited natural
resources that are scarce globally. Clay is the primary component, and its extraction
from hills and fields leads to significant geological issues and exposes people to the
danger of landslides. Furthermore, the kiln-firing process of these conventional bricks
emits a significant amount of exhaust gasses, which detrimentally affects the ecological
balance of residential areas (5) .
The rapid growth of ashes has experienced a substantial surge in recent years, posing
a worldwide issue in terms of their disposal. Numerous experts are currently engaged

[Link] 831
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

in the active investigation of potential global applications for ashes. The application of ashes in various industries, such as
agriculture, paint, ceramics, environment, and building, depends on their distinctive characteristics (6) . Nevertheless, it is
important to acknowledge that a substantial proportion of produced ashes is presently deposited in specifically designated
ash landfills and similar sites (7,8) . The utilization of coal ash has the capacity to reduce environmental effect by providing
alternative approaches to the difficulties related to its disposal and by mitigating CO2 emissions (9) . Researches has demonstrated
a worldwide pattern of fast reduction in clay deposits due to continuous soil erosion. As a response to this problem, certain
countries, such as China, have taken steps to decrease the use of clay in the production of bricks (10) . The fired clay brick is widely
acknowledged as a prominent and abundant material for masonry construction, retaining its popularity due to its numerous
particular characteristics. Considerable research efforts have been dedicated to integrating waste materials into bricks during
the past century, yielding variable levels of success with a diverse waste material (11) .
Rasool et al. (12) examined the impact of adding different quantities (ranging from 0 to 15% by weight of clay) of waste
marble powder. The results verified that the use of marble powder reduced the density of bricks. The findings indicate that
including marble powder in the production of burnt clay bricks, up to a maximum of 12% by weight, can effectively decrease
environmental waste and enhance sustainability and economic efficiency in the brick industry. Nayak et al. (13) examined the
beneficial effect of fly ash in the production of bricks. Setya Winarno (14) manufactured concrete blocks using a mixture of
cement and rice husk. The results indicated that the maximal water absorption reached a value of 16.04%. The RH block’s cost
was 42.5% lower than the overall cost of standard concrete blocks.
Tam et al. (15) conducted a comparative study on pond ash and natural sand. Based on the Indian standard code, it was
concluded that pond ash can be used as a partial or complete replacement for natural sand in cement concrete to manufacture
solid blocks. Yaseen et al. (16) developed silty clay-based geopolymer bricks with lesser energy input, i.e., forming pressure of 7
MPa with curing at ambient temperature.
Kavitha and Vidhya (17) did a study to examine the utilization of various residual materials from the industry in the
production of masonry blocks. The researchers concluded that these blocks demonstrate decreased weight and improved
durability properties. Uysal et al. (18) investigated the effect of waste marble powder, brick powder, ceramic powder, glass
powder, and rice husk ash as eco-friendly aggregate in sustainable red mud-metakaolin based geopolymer composites. As a
result, substitute materials have shown a successful performance, creating significant potential in the production of a sustainable
geopolymer. Kim Hung Mo and Tung-Chai (19) investigated the influence of fly ash and bottom ash on the production of bricks
and blocks. The test findings indicated that the bottom ash has the potential to serve as an aggregate, effectively reducing the
density and thermal conductivity of bricks and blocks. The study conducted by Abbas et al. (20) examined the use of marble dust
as an extra component in the production of industrial bricks. The researchers observed that the inclusion of marble dust as an
addition led to significant improvements in the mechanical qualities of the produced bricks.
In their research, Mahdi et al. (21) investigated the utilization of rice husk ash in the manufacturing process of unfired bricks.
According to the experts, the bricks not only fulfill their original function, but also efficiently handle solid waste and offer a
unique and eco-friendly resource for construction. The utilization of bricks is particularly applicable in regional construction,
particularly for the construction of walls that do not bear significant loads. Hence, the brick/block production using Cement
and Clay makes the brick industry non-eco-friendly. The viable option is to use the various potential industrial and agricultural
wastes, namely rice husk ash, fly ash, lime, gypsum, stone quarry dust and marble powder with the change in the production
method for eco-friendly brick manufacturing. Though the plenty of literature available for the manufacturing of eco-friendly
masonry bricks/blocks, there is no standard literatures available for the sustainable block production by using husk ash, fly ash,
lime, gypsum, stone quarry dust and marble powder. Hence, this research aims to develop a sustainable masonry solid block
by incorporating Rice Husk Ash (RHA) and Flay Ash (FA).

2 Methodology
2.1 Materials
The materials used for producing solid blocks are Fly Ash (FA), Rice husk ash (RHA), Marble powder (MDP), Stone quarry dust
(SQD), lime, and gypsum. Fly ash was obtained from Mettur Thermal power plant, India. Gypsum was obtained from Udhaya
Chemical, Pallikaranai, Chennai. RHA was procured from RR enterprises, Perambur, Chennai. MDP was obtained from local
marble grinding yard. Lime is added to fly ash-based blocks to integrate the binding properties. At room temperature, the
combination of fly ash and lime results in the formation of constituents that contribute to the structural integrity of the solid
building blocks. For this study, the hydraulic lime powder is used. SQD is a byproduct of the stone-crushing process and is a
highly concentrated substance that is well-suited for usage as aggregates in construction goods, especially as fine aggregates (22) .
SQD is procured from the local crusher unit. RHA is the result of burning rice husk. Most of the volatile constituents of rice husk

[Link] 832
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

gradually dissipate after combustion, leaving behind mostly silicates as the main remaining residues. The RHA was obtained
from the local supplier. Marble powder is generated as a byproduct when marble is cut, honed, or polished.
Marble powder was procured from the local marble polishing factory. The physical properties of all materials used are shown
in Table 1 and the chemical composition are shown in Table 2. Figure 1 shows the materials used in this study. Particle size plays
an important role in mechanical properties of solid blocks (23–25) . Figure 2 shows the gradation curve of fly ash and stone dust
used in this study.

Fig 1. Materials used for producing solid blocks

Fig 2. Gradation curve of Quarry dust and Fly ash

Table 1. Physical properties of all ingredients

[Link] Parameter FA RHA Lime Gypsum MDP SQD
1 Specific gravity 2.22 2.27 2.25 2.45 2.89 3.01
2 Surface area (m2 /kg) 345 299 306 324 283 275
3 Bulk density (kg/m3 ) 1130 998 672 892 1495 1980

Table 2. Chemical composition of all ingredients

Parameter CaO SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 SO3 MgO Na2 O K2 O TiO2 P2 O5 Mn2 O3 LOI Crystal
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Water
Lime 91.9 3.75 2.09 0.5 0.05 1.19 0.43 - - - - - -
Fly ash 6.1 50.9 17.9 9.8 1.0 7.2 3.8 1.9 0.8 0.2 <0.1 0.2 -
Continued on next page

[Link] 833
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

Table 2 continued
Gypsum 32.8 0.63 0.14 0.38 45.72 - - - - - - 1.16 17.18
SQD 3.81 66.76 19.2 3.62 - 1.64 1.27 2.16 - - - - -
MDP 55.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.36 - 0.01 0.03 - 43.2 -

2.1.1 Solid Blocks production

Table 3 illustrates the ratios of solid blocks with different material compositions.

Table 3. Mix proportions

MIX ID FA (kg/m3 ) RHA Lime Gypsum SQD MDP (kg/m3 ) Water (kg/m3 )
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 )
M1 818 307 307 102 409 102 310
M2 818 307 307 102 307 204 310
M3 818 307 307 102 204 307 310
M4 818 307 307 102 102 409 310

The solid blocks are manufactured using a mould with dimensions of 200mm x 200mm x 75mm. Four different mix blends
were created in total. The various components were mixed in a dried state, using a pan mixer, in the appropriate proportions,
until a uniform mixture was achieved. After the addition of water, the mixture underwent extended agitation as a part of the
subsequent processing procedures, and was subsequently transported onto a belt conveyor. The block mould was subjected to a
hydraulic pressure of 48 tons, which led to the production of green construction blocks. These blocks were then transported on
a wooden rack and left to dry in an outdoor setting for a period of 48 hours. Afterwards, the blocks were transported to endure
a two-day period of sun drying, followed by a following 14-day for water curing. Before being transporting, the solid blocks
undergo testing. Figure 3 depicts the production procedure of a compacted block.

Fig 3. Manufacturing process of solid block

2.1.2 Testing of solid blocks

A thorough investigation has been carried out on solid blocks to evaluate their compressive strength, water absorption, density,
initial rate of absorption, efflorescence, and chemical properties. The compressive strength tests were performed at 7, 14, and
28 days, in accordance with the parameters specified in the Indian Standard (IS) 2185 (Part 1): 2005 (26) . A 2000 kN capacity
compression testing system was used for this purpose and the tests were conducted at a loading rate of 2.3 kN/s (Make: AIMIL).
The water absorption measurement was conducted after a period of 28 days, following the standards specified in IS 2185 (26) .
To evaluate the concentration of soluble salts present in a block, efflorescence test is performed.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Compressive strength
The evaluation of compressive strength is essential in assessing the appropriateness of load-bearing stones for construction
purposes. Blocks are primarily utilized for the construction of load-bearing masonry walls, columns, and footings. These load-
bearing stone constructions mostly experience compression loads. Navaratnarajah Sathiparan et al. (27) produced sustainable
blocks by using fly ash and quarry waste and tested for its compressive strength. He found that the 20% fly ash replacement
yielded the highest compressive strength. The compressive strength of various mixture is shown in Figure 4. It is found that,
the compressive strength of solid blocks ranges from 14.02 to 16.85 MPa. The M3 mixture exhibited superior crushing strength
compared to the other mixtures. This may be attributed due to the dense mix formation for the proportion of SQD and MDP.
The compressive strength of the traditional cement block (CB) was determined to be 11.52 MPa. The mix M3 demonstrates a

[Link] 834
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

strength that outperforms CB by 46.3%. As per the BIS 2185-Part 1 standard, the minimum compressive strength needed for
the solid load-bearing masonry unit of C (4.0) Grade is 4 MPa. All the sustainable solid blocks that have been designed meet
the parameters outlined by the Indian standards.

Fig 4. Compressive strength development of solid blocks

3.2 Density
Density of solid block is a vital consideration in determining the load-bearing capacity of a building or structure. Researchers (27)
found that the density range varies from 2118 kg/m3 to 2254 kg/m3 in solid block produced with quarry waste and fly ash. He
found a density reduction of upto 2.5% for fly ash substitution. In this study, three representative block samples are chosen
to determine the weight density of each combination. Figure 5 illustrates the density of solid blocks. The results indicate a
slight decrease in the density of the masonry solid blocks as the utilization of marble dust powder increases. The weight density
values for solid blocks range from 2078 to 2267 kg/m3 . The overall significance of this value is lower in comparison to that
of conventional cement solid blocks. The lower density of sustainable blocks is the advantageous because, it reduced the dead
load to the structural member which bear the wall. However, all the mix satisfies the codal provision, that is, well above the
minimum density requirements.

Fig 5. Density of Solid Blocks

3.3 Water absorption

The water absorption test is one of the important parameters for any construction materials. Water absorption is related to
surface porosity as well as structural pores (28) . This property can affect the quality of the brick/block itself and the bond strength
between the brick/block and mortar in masonry structures and can result in reducing its strength properties. Sathiparan et al. (27)
found that the water absorption of sustainable blocks with fly ash and quarry water. It was revealed that the quarry sand increased

[Link] 835
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

the water absorption, whereas the fly ash substitution does not affect the water absorption. Three block samples of each mix
combination are analyzed to evaluate their water absorption characteristic. Figure 6 depicts the water absorption properties of
solid blocks. The incorporation of marble dust powder into the block resulted in a significant reduction in water absorption.
The water absorption varies from 10.06% to a maximum of 12.00%. The solid block, designated as Mix ID M4, demonstrates a
significantly decreased water absorption capacity, 29.2% lower, as compared to the CB. The sustainable blocks consisting of FA
and RHA demonstrate a low level of water absorption. FA and RHA provide a fine texture that renders them suitable as filler
materials, as they efficiently diminish porosity and water absorption levels.

Fig 6. Water absorption of solid blocks

3.4 Efflorescence test

The test is conducted using the procedure specified in BIS 12894:2002 (24) . From the physical observation, it may be concluded
that there is no visible sign of efflorescence on any of the solid blocks.

3.5 Initial rate of Water Absorption

The study involved conducting the Initial Rate of Absorption (IRA) test on different compositions of solid blocks and
conventional cement blocks.

Fig 7. Initial rate of absorption

According to the results shown in Figure 7, the IRA value for block M4 is somewhat lower compared to the other
combinations. At a one-minute time, the rate of absorption for M4 is 69% lower compared to conventional cement solid blocks.
The sustainable solid blocks demonstrate noticeably reduced water absorption levels at both the one-minute and two-minute
time intervals in comparison to conventional cement solid blocks. The impermeability of solid blocks made from industrial
waste is responsible for their lower water absorption characteristic. The IRA values have a substantial influence on the bonding

[Link] 836
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

qualities found in block formation. An inverse correlation occurs between the outcomes of the IRA and the compressive strength
of the blocks. The solid block mixture with higher density and strength demonstrated a reduced absorption rate.

3.6 Chemical resistance

When compared to traditional cement blocks, the solid block with Mix ID M3 outperforms in mechanical characteristics,
hence it is selected for chemical resistance studies. Figures 9 and 10 show the blocks’ weight and compressive strength after
being exposed to chemicals for varying periods.
The solid block with Mix ID M3 has superior mechanical qualities when compared to ordinary cement blocks, making it the
ideal choice for conducting chemical resistance investigations. Figures 8 and 9 display the weight and compressive strength of
the blocks after being subjected to chemicals for different duration. Figure 9 illustrates the weight loss and strength reduction of
M3 and CB solid blocks after being exposed for a period of 90 days. The M3 combination demonstrated a reduction in weight
growth by 64%, 45%, and 43% when subjected to Sodium Sulphate and Sodium Chloride solutions, as compared to normal
cement blocks. The solid blocks composed of waste materials exhibited increased weight gain and decreased strength when
subjected to exposure to a sodium sulphate solution. There is a clear correlation between weight growth and the decrease in
compressive strength observed during chemical attack tests. It shows the progressive development of weight and compressive
strength, respectively, following exposure over different duration.

Fig 8. W eight of the block after chemical attack

Fig 9. Compressive strength of the block after chemical attack

The sustainable solid blocks exhibit a 52% decrease in strength compared to traditional masonry blocks when subjected to a
sodium sulphate solution. The sustainable solid block demonstrates superior performance in terms of durability, as it exhibits

[Link] 837
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

minimal weight growth and greater resistance to compressive strength compared to cement blocks. The high impermeability
of sustainable solid masonry blocks composed of fly ash, packing ash, and marble dust powder is the primary reason for this
phenomenon. Based on the findings derived from the chemical resistance investigation, it can be inferred that the sustainable
solid blocks exhibited favorable aesthetic qualities and demonstrated notably superior performance when exposed to harsh
chemical solutions. Hence, it is recommended that these blocks be utilized in challenging climatic conditions, since they are
designed to exhibit prolonged lifespan and enhanced durability.

3.7 SEM analysis

The Figure 10 (a) and (b) illustrates the SEM images of the sustainable solid block powder sample at magnifications of 500 kx
and 100 kx respectively. Most of the particles in block powder have a spherical shape and a consistent internal composition.
The particles constituting the solid block powder display a fused appearance. The object possesses a high level of density in its
texture. The microstructure of the solid block powder exhibits decreased porosity. This may be attributed to the presence of
CaOH gel formation from the fly ash. The micrograph demonstrates the existence of visible segments of fly ash, without any
identifiable porous structure observed. The increase in ingredient density could be emphasized.

Fig 10. SEM image solid block powder at (a) 200kx magnification (Scale: 200 nm) and (b) 500x magnification (Scale: 20µ m)

4 Conclusion
The manufacturing process of traditional cement blocks necessitates a significant amount of cement, rendering it
environmentally unfriendly. Therefore, this study aims to create an environmentally-friendly masonry block by integrating
agricultural and industrial by-products. Based on the findings of the experimental study, the subsequent inferences can be
derived.

• The process of making masonry blocks from waste materials is a modern method that does away with the traditional
methods of curing and burning blocks. The effective use of ash in the creation of solid blocks greatly reduces the
environmental pollution problems related to the disposal of solid waste.
• The sustainable solid block has exhibited better performance in terms of mechanical and durability characteristics when
compared to traditional cement blocks. The block M3 showed about 46 % increase in compressive strength when compared
to conventional cement blocks. Also, the incorporation of agricultural and industrial waste reduced the density, water
absorption, initial absorption rate. Efflorescence is not reported in the sustainable blocks.
• According to the BIS 2185-Part 1 standard, the minimal compressive strength required for the solid load-bearing masonry
unit of C(4.0) Grade is 4 MPa. All the sustainable solid blocks that have been designed meet the parameters outlined by
the Indian standards.
• The solid blocks composed of fly ash and rice husk ash exhibit a minimal proportion of water absorption. The block M4
exhibited about 29.2 % reduction of water absorption than that of conventional cement blocks.
• In accordance with the IS code, solid blocks that are to be used as load-bearing units are required to have a weight density
of at least 1800 kg/m3 . In this study, all the solid block result that has been seen fits the required standards.
• IRA tests evident that the sustainable solid blocks shows reduced water absorption levels at both the one-minute and two-
minute time intervals in comparison to conventional cement solid blocks. At a one-minute time, the rate of absorption
for M4 is 69% lower when compared to conventional cement solid blocks.

[Link] 838
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

• The chemical resistance study demonstrate that the M3 combination demonstrated a reduction in weight growth by 64%,
45%, and 43% when subjected to Sodium Sulphate and Sodium Chloride solutions, as compared to normal cement blocks.
• The sustainable solid blocks exhibited significant resistance to chemical degradation during different duration of exposure
to various chemicals.
• From the SEM analysis result, it could be found that high degree of compactness the texture of the object exhibits a
remarkably. The porosity of the solid block powder’s microstructure is reduced.

The implementation of sustainable solid block production using fly ash, lime, quarry dust, and marble dust powder is an
innovative method that supports the conservation of natural resources, reduces pollution, and preserves the environment. This
technique contributes to the advancement of eco-friendly technology.

References
1) Prakash R, Thenmozhi R, Raman SN. Mechanical characterisation and flexural performance of eco-friendly concrete produced with fly ash as cement
replacement and coconut shell coarse aggregate. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. 2019;18(2):131–148. Available from:
[Link]
2) Lachheb M, Youssef N, Younsi Z. A Comprehensive Review of the Improvement of the Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Unfired Clay Bricks by
Incorporating Waste Materials. Buildings. 2023;13(9):1–29. Available from: [Link]
3) Kougnigan AMJN, Mwero J, Mutuku R. Modeling of Thermal Performance and Mechanical Properties of Concrete Blocks Incorporating Plastic Bottle
Waste with Crushed Clay Bricks as Coarse Aggregates. Cogent Engineering. 2023;10(2):1–18. Available from: [Link]
2283334.
4) Kumar S, Chopra A, Ha ZU. Sustainable Geopolymer Bricks: Optimizing Fly Ash, Rice Husk Ash, and Marble Dust Composites. Research Square Preprint.
2023;p. 1–17. Available from: [Link]
5) Bashir Z, Amjad M, Raza SF, Ahmad S, Abdollahian M, Farooq M. Investigating the Impact of Shifting the Brick Kiln Industry from Conventional to
Zigzag Technology for a Sustainable Environment. Sustainability. 2023;15(10):1–16. Available from: [Link]
6) Ram AK, Mohanty S. State of the art review on physiochemical and engineering characteristics of fly ash and its applications. International Journal of Coal
Science & Technology. 2022;9(1):1–25. Available from: [Link]
7) Das D, Rout PK. A Review of Coal Fly Ash Utilization to Save the Environment. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2023;234(2). Available from:
[Link]
8) Das D, Rout PK. Coal Fly Ash Utilization in India. In: Nayyar A, Naved M, Rameshwar R, editors. New Horizons for Industry 4.0 in Modern Business .
Contributions to Environmental Sciences & Innovative Business Technology;Springer, Cham. 2023;p. 233–251. Available from: [Link]
978-3-031-20443-2_11.
9) Labidi A, Ren H, Zhu Q, Liang X, Liang J, Wang H, et al. Coal fly ash and bottom ash low-cost feedstocks for CO2 reduction using the adsorption and
catalysis processes. Science of The Total Environment. 2024;912:169179. Available from: [Link]
10) Chin WQ, Lee YH, Amran M, Fediuk R, Vatin N, Kueh A, et al. A Sustainable Reuse of Agro-Industrial Wastes into Green Cement Bricks. Materials.
2022;15(5):1–18. Available from: [Link]
11) Ramakrishnan K, Chellappa V, Chandrasekarabarathi S. Manufacturing of Low-Cost Bricks Using Waste Materials. Materials Proceedings. 2023;13(1):1–8.
Available from: [Link]
12) Rasool AM, Hameed A, Qureshi MU, Ibrahim YE, Qazi AU, Sumair A. Experimental study on strength and endurance performance of burnt clay
bricks incorporating marble waste. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2023;22(1):240–255. Available from: [Link]
13467581.2021.2024203.
13) Nayak DK, Abhilash PP, Singh R, Kumar R, Kumar V. Fly ash for sustainable construction: A review of fly ash concrete and its beneficial use case studies.
Cleaner Materials. 2022;6:1–35. Available from: [Link]
14) Winarno S. Comparative Strength and Cost of Rice Husk Concrete Block. MATEC Web of Conferences. 2019;280:1–10. Available from: https:
//[Link]/articles/matecconf/pdf/2019/29/matecconf_icsbe2019_04002.pdf.
15) Tam VWY, Le KN, Illankoon IMCS, Tran CNN, Rahme D, Liu L. Economic Impacts of Environmentally Friendly Blocks: The Case of Nu-Rock Blocks.
In: International conference on Variability of the Sun and sun-like stars: from asteroseismology to space weather, NICOM 2022: Nanotechnology
in Construction for Circular Economy ;vol. 356 of Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Singapore. Springer. 2023;p. 483–490. Available from: https:
//[Link]/10.1007/978-981-99-3330-3_49.
16) Yaseen N, Irfan-Ul-Hassan M, Saeed AUR, Rizwan SA, Afzal M. Sustainable Development and Performance Assessment of Clay-Based Geopolymer
Bricks Incorporating Fly Ash and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2022;34(4). Available from: [Link]
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004159.
17) Kavitha E, Idhya K. Strength and durability studies on sustainable eco-friendly green solid blocks. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization.
2022;42(9):2551–2565. Available from: [Link]
18) Uysal M, Aygörmez Y, Canpolat O, Cosgun T, Kuranlı ÖF. Investigation of using waste marble powder, brick powder, ceramic powder, glass powder,
and rice husk ash as eco-friendly aggregate in sustainable red mud-metakaolin based geopolymer composites. Construction and Building Materials.
2022;361:129718. Available from: [Link]
19) Mo KH, Ling TC. Utilization of coal fly ash and bottom ash in brick and block products. In: Low Carbon Stabilization and Solidification of Hazardous
Wastes. Weng. Elsevier. 2022;p. 355–371. Available from: [Link]
20) Abbas S, Baig A, Hameed R, Kazmi SMS, Munir MJ, Shaukat S. Manufacturing of Clay Bricks Using Hybrid Waste Marble Powder and Sugarcane Bagasse
Ash: A Sustainable Building Unit. Sustainability. 2023;15(20):1–21. Available from: [Link]
21) Mahdi SN, R DVB, Abdullah MMAB. Mitigation of environmental problems using brick kiln rice husk ash in geopolymer composites for sustainable
development. Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry. 2021;4:1–7. Available from: [Link]
22) Silva LS, Amario M, Stolz CM, Figueiredo KV, Haddad AN. A Comprehensive Review of Stone Dust in Concrete: Mechanical Behavior, Durability, and
Environmental Performance. Buildings. 2023;13(7):1–32. Available from: [Link]

[Link] 839
Prakash et al. / Indian Journal of Science and Technology 2024;17(9):830–840

23) Das D, Rout PK. Synthesis, Characterization and Properties of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer Materials. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance.
2021;30(5):3213–3231. Available from: [Link]
24) Debnath K, Das D, Rout PK. Effect of mechanical milling of fly ash powder on compressive strength of geopolymer. Materials Today: Proceedings.
2022;68(Part 2):242–249. Available from: [Link]
25) Das D, Rout PK. Synthesis and Characterization of Fly Ash and GBFS Based Geopolymer Material. Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry.
2021;11(6):14506–14519. Available from: [Link]
26) IS 2185 Part-1. Concrete Masonry Units - Specification Part 1, Hollow and Solid Concrete Blocks. 2005. Available from: [Link]
bis/S03/[Link].
27) Sathiparan N, Jaasim JHM, Banujan B. Sustainable production of cement masonry blocks with the combined use of fly ash and quarry waste. Materialia.
2022;26:10162. Available from: [Link]
28) Das D, Rout PK. Synthesis of Inorganic Polymeric Materials from Industrial Solid Waste. Silicon. 2023;15:1771–1791. Available from: [Link]
1007/s12633-022-02116-5.

[Link] 840