Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]/journals/tsen20

Ternary combined industrial wastes for non-fired

brick

G M Sadiqul Islam, Ali A. Shubbar, Sudipta Sarker & Monower Sadique

To cite this article: G M Sadiqul Islam, Ali A. Shubbar, Sudipta Sarker & Monower Sadique
(2022) Ternary combined industrial wastes for non-fired brick, Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering, 23:2, 163-176, DOI: 10.1080/13287982.2022.2038406

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 22 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 305

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
2022, VOL. 23, NO. 2, 163–176
[Link]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Ternary combined industrial wastes for non-fired brick

a b,c a b
G M Sadiqul Islam , Ali A. Shubbar , Sudipta Sarker and Monower Sadique
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET), Chittagong, Bangladesh; bDepartment of
Civil Engineering, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK; cDepartment of Building and Construction Technical Engineering,
College of Technical Engineering, the Islamic University, Najaf, Iraq

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The demand for bricks in South Asia is increasing significantly due to growth in the construc­ Received 17 December 2020
tion sector. Bricks produced using traditional firing technique and fertile clay contribute Accepted 1 February 2022
significantly to some of the worst air pollution in the world. Therefore, the utilisation of KEYWORDS
other environment-friendly alternative to conventional bricks is considered an urgent need Brick; cement/cementitious
to conserve a clean environment and help in saving its fertile soil. This research aimed to materials; composite
explore geopolymerisation technique with ternary combined industrial waste/by-products as materials; fly ash; ground
binders including high volume Ladle Furnace Slag (LFS), Fly ash and Ground Granulated Blast granulated blast furnace
Furnace Slag (GGBS) to produce non-fired and clay-free brick alternatives. The first two slag; ladle furnace slag
byproducts are locally produced in the related iron and power industry while GGBS are
being imported by the cement industry. The results indicated that all the prepared samples
conform to the minimum compressive strength requirement of 20.7 MPa and maximum water
absorption rate of 17% for common brick with severe weathering as per ASTM C62. This highly
promising performance pronounced the use of locally available high volume LFS and other
industrial waste/by-products materials in non-fired building block production to achieve
a cleaner, environmental-friendly sustainable society as well as a sustainable route for industrial
waste management.

1. Introduction in brick production and the rest is attributed to

The brick industry has been playing a considerable unplanned rural housing (Editorial 2016). The
role in the construction industry for thousands of reported annual production of conventional bricks in
years. Dating back to 7,000 BC, hand-moulded and Bangladesh is about 25 billion, damaging approxi­
sun-dried brick production was found in southern mately 100 million tonnes of topsoil. Therefore, the
Turkey, the city of Jericho (Brick Architecture 2017). potential impact of this process has a devastating effect
Utilisation of fire in the production of clay bricks is on the environment (Correspondent 2018).
believed to be around 4500 BC (Smith, Bingel, and Air quality of Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh) is
Bown 2016). Since then, brick industry has been devel­ reported as the third worst in the world, after Delhi
oping using modern machinery such as tunnel kilns and Cairo (WHO 2016). Approximately 58% air pol­
and powerful excavation equipment, which have con­ lution of this city is attributed to brick manufacturing
siderably improved the quality and increased the capa­ and the situation is getting worsened as very few of
city of brick production (Zhang et al. 2018). these brick kilns have been constructed following
The annual production of conventional fired brick proper design and environmental rules (Editorial
reached approximately 1500 billion pieces worldwide 2016; Dhaka Tribune 2019). The country, therefore,
(Climate and Clean Air Coalition 2016; Zhang et al. is in an urgent need to utilise environmental-friendly
2018). Generally, the brick industry has always been alternative technology/material. Incorporating indus­
a resource and energy-intensive (Li et al. 2015; Weishi trial waste/byproducts for brick production without
et al. 2018). Study found the production of one brick firing can save fertile topsoil and conserve the envir­
requires 2.0 kWh energy while this associates approxi­ onment for sustainable development.
mately 0.4 kg of CO2 emission (Muñoz Velasco et al. Considering both environmental and economic
2014). Therefore, conventional fired brick production issues an alternative to the conventional bricks could
challenges the requirement of sustainable develop­ be the use of Portland Cement (PC), sand and waste
ment (Wu et al. 2012). Apart from that, the densely materials to produce concrete bricks. However, the
populated country Bangladesh is losing approximately cement clinker production is energy-intensive; pro­
1% of agricultural land annually (Dhaka Tribune duction of 1 kg clinker requires approximately 1.5 kg
2016). Approximately 17% of that soil is being used of raw materials and releases up to 1 kg of CO2 to the

CONTACT G M Sadiqul Islam gmsislam@[Link] Department of Civil Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology
(CUET), Chittagong-4349, Bangladesh
© 2022 Engineers Australia
164 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

atmosphere (Islam and Islam 2015; Binhowimal, However, the combined utilisation of locally avail­
Hanzic, and Ho 2017). Cement industry is responsible able high-volume (up to 60%) LFS along with Fly
for approximately 7% CO2 emission over the world ash and GGBS in the production of alkali-activated
(Islam, Mondal, and Islam 2010; Hawileh et al. 2017). brick could be a novel approach. Therefore, the
Therefore, production of cement based building alkali-activation technique using high-volume LFS
blocks is not a sustainable alternative solution. along with other industrial by-products (fly ash and
The steel industries in Bangladesh are mainly based GGBS) is considered in this research for the pro­
around Chittagong city (where this research was con­ duction of non-fired, clay-free eco-friendly brick
ducted) (Rahman et al. 2017). This sector is expected for Bangladesh.
to thrive due to the rapid expansion of various steel-
based projects, shipbuilding and real estate sector
(Rahman et al. 2017). Bangladeshi steel industries 2. Materials and methodology
uses 4,000,000 tons of raw materials to produce 2.1. Material
required steel (Report 2018). The steelmaking process
produces approximately 130–200 kg of various kinds 2.1.1. Aggregate
of slags (Furlani, Tonello, and Maschio 2010). This River sand obtained from local source was used as fine
anticipated expansion will enviably be an increase in aggregate. Controlled grading of the sand was used to
the amount of byproduct materials from this industry. avoid any experimental variation due to size of the
Ladle Furnace Slag (LFS), Induction Furnace Slag sand. Cumulative percentages of the material passing
(IFS) and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag through ASTM standard sieves #16, #30, #50 and #100
(GGBS) are general by-products of steel industry. (ASTM 2019a) are 100, 75, 25 and 0, respectively.
GGBS has been introduced in cement or brick produc­ Bulk-specific gravity, absorption capacity, fineness
tion due to its desirable properties (Oti, Kinuthia, and modulus and field moisture content of the river sand
Bai 2008). However, the use of LFS (produced at least are found to be 2.55, 1.66%, 2.00 and 0.68%,
30 kg/ton of steel production) in the construction respectively.
industry gained less attention and generally being
dumped as landfill (Manso et al. 2005). 2.1.2. Alkaline activators
Fly ash is another industrial by-product from coal- Preliminary tests were carried out on a single ternary
based power plants. Every year approximately 109,200 combination of binders with 4 M, 6 M and 8 M con­
tonnes of fly ash is being produced in Bangladesh, centration alkali activators. The test results indicated
which will rise to 865,000 tonnes per year by 2024 with a 4 M combined concentration of Sodium hydro­
(Islam et al. 2019). For a densely populated country, xide (NaOH) solution and Sodium silicate solution
fly ash and steel by-products will sum up an enormous (Na2SiO3) the geopolymer mortars achieved 45–50
amount to dispose and are of great concern for the MPa compressive strength. The Na2SiO3 solution con­
authority (Islam et al. 2011). Considering the chemical sisted of 51.75% H2O, 32.75% SiO2 and 15.50% Na2O,
composition of LFS, GGBS and Fly ash, the by- by weight. The use of NaOH and Na2SiO3 together in
products could be reused to reduce landfills and for the production of alkali activated brick is essential to
the economic reservation of virgin materials ensure good mechanical and durability performance
(Češnovar et al. 2019). as Na2SiO3 acts as binder or alkali reactant while
Researchers have studied bricks production from NaOH is required for the dissolution of alumina-
waste/by-products through alkali-activation (geopo­ silicate precursor (Xu and Van Deventer 2002;
lymerisation) (Zhang 2013). Alkali-activated mate­ Wang, Li, and Yan 2005; Feng et al. 2012; Liew et al.
rials are inorganic materials with ceramic-like 2016).
properties, produced by poly-condensation of raw
materials (usually rich in silica and alumina) with 2.1.3. Water
alkaline solution at ambient or slightly higher tem­ Ordinary tap water was used in this research.
peratures (Vafaei et al. 2018; Paija et al. 2020).
Researchers have studied various waste/by-product 2.1.4. Binder materials
materials for the production of alkali-activated The binder materials utilised in this research were
materials, including red mud and metakaolin (He LFS, Fly ash and GGBS from local Bangladeshi
et al. 2012), fly ash and mine tailings (Zhang, sources. The LFS and GGBS were obtained from
Ahmari, and Zhang 2011), type F fly ash (Arıöz Bangladesh Steel Re-rolling Mills and Royal
et al. 2010), copper mine tailings (Ahmari and Cement Limited, respectively, while the fly ash
Zhang 2012), fly ash and GGBS (Lawrence, Sugo, was obtained from Barapukuria Coal Burning
and Page 2008; Prakasam, Murthy, and Saffiq Power Plant. Chemical compositions of the binder
Reheman 2020), LFS (Manso et al. 2005) and materials were determined using X-ray Florescence
waste concrete (Mahakavi and Chithra 2019). Spectrometer (XRF) type Shimadzu EDX-720 given
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 165

Table 1. Chemical compositions of binders used in this study. fixed at 0.5 and 2, respectively. Additional water
Materials LFS GGBS Fly ash to binder (W/B) ratio of 0.1 was supplied for all
CaO % 54.44 42.29 3.21 mixtures to make the mixture workable. Higher
SiO2% 32.35 34.20 52.92
Al2O3% 2.57 15.60 17.12 quantity of water can hinder polycondensation of
Fe2O3% 0.74 0.40 3.58 the alkali-activated binder due to its dilution effect
MgO % 3.25 6.80 7.43
Na2O % 1.57 3.01 1.89 (Zuhua et al. 2009; Kim, Yi, and Kang 2015).
K2O % 0.09 0.1 2.77 The prepared mortar samples’ dimensions was
TiO2% 0.89 0.60 2.78
MnO % 1.61 0.30 0.06
40 × 40 × 160 mm as per BDS EN 196–1:2003 (BDS
Others % 2.50 0.80 8.25 EN 2016). Prime aim of this work is to establish mix
LOI % 3.35 5.3 4.22 details to achieve minimum compressive strength
pH 11.1 10.82 6.2
required for non-fired bricks. Therefore, the mortar
specimen size was kept conforming to compressive
strength test standards. The required ingredients
in Table 1. The chemical composition of fly ash
were mixed with an automatic mortar mixture follow­
satisfies the criteria of being low calcium fly ash
ing BDS EN 196–1 (BDS EN 2016).
(Class F) according to ASTM C618 (ASTM 2019b).
After mixing the content was transferred to the
LFS and GGBS have high CaO and SiO2 content
steel moulds and compacted in two layers. Each
therefore, calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H) gel is
layer was compacted for 60s by a mechanical jolt.
anticipated to be formed within the hydration pro­
After compaction, the specimens were kept inside
ducts in conjunction with geoploymeric gel (Yip
the mould and the exposed surfaces were sealed
and Van Deventer 2003; Yunsheng et al. 2007;
with a plastic food cover sheet. The moulds were
Liew et al. 2016). XRD patterns of the binder sam­
then placed in an air-conditioned chamber main­
ples obtained using a Rigaku Miniflex desktop type
taining a constant temperature (23 ± 2°C) and
are given in Figure 1. Each sample was analysed
relative humidity (50–60%) for the next 1 day
over the 2θ range of 3-60° at a scan rate of 1°/min
prior to placing for elevated temperature curing.
with 0.1 degree increments. Obtained XRD data
Then after a successful demoulding process, four
were used to match with Powder Diffraction File
samples from each mixture were heat cured for
(PDF) of minerals with the help of computer soft­
18 hours at 60°C in an oven. After 18 hours of
ware. The results are indication of the quantity of
heat curing, three samples was tested for compres­
specific phases present in the materials. It should
sive strength and other three were kept in constant
be noted that the method gives only an estimate of
temperature (23 ± 2°C) by wrapping with the plas­
the minerals phase present in the materials. As
tic food cover sheet to avoid moisture loss until
shown in Figure 1, the dominant minerals found
7 days and then strength test was carried out.
in LFS were Calcio-olivine, Akermanite, and Alpha
Different stages of alkali-activated mortar prepara­
Quartz low. While this was Mullite and Quartz for
tion are given in Figure 3.
fly ash and Akermanite for GGBS.
The physical size of the binder materials were eval­
uated through Particle Size Distribution (PSD) and 2.3. Programme of testing
Specific Surface Area (SSA) tests. The PSD was deter­
mined by Beckman Coulter laser particle size analyser 2.3.1. Compressive strength test
while the SSA was determined by Blaine air- Compressive strength test of mortar samples was con­
permeability apparatus. The PSD of binder materials ducted as per BDS EN 196–1:2003 (BDS EN 2016) using
is given in Figure 2 while other physical properties are a compressive strength testing machine. As the loading
presented in Table 2. area was only 40 × 40 mm, an internal jig was applied
inside the compression testing machine. For each sam­
ple, two maximum dial load readings were reported and
2.2. Mix details and preparation of the the average value of four reading from each mix was
alkali-activated mortars used for comparison purposes.

For the production of the alkali-activated mortars, 2.3.2. Water absorption test
LFS was blended with fly ash and GGBS in differ­ Water absorption is a very important property that
ent ratio as given in Table 3. The major oxide ratio usually determines the durability performance of
was calculated later to explore their relationship a bricks. The water absorption test is considered
with compressive strength obtained from the as a measurement to the compactness of bricks,
experimental results. For all the combinations, the and it can provide direct measurement to the resis­
sand-to-binder (S/B) ratio was kept as 2 while the tance of bricks to damage by freezing. The water
alkali activator-to-binder (A/B) ratio and the absorption test was conducted according to ASTM
Sodium Silicate–to–Sodium Hydroxide ratio were C67 (ASTM 2020) at the age of 7 days. For each
166 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

Figure 1. XRD patterns of binder materials. a) LFS, b) Fly ash and c) GGBS.

mixture, three cooled specimens were submerged in 2.3.3. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
clean water (soft, distilled or rain water) at 15.5– observation
30°C for 24 hours without preliminary partial High magnification image micrographs of binder
immersion. The specimens were then shifted to materials were obtain by SEM. Morphology was
boiling water for 5 hours and the mean water obtained using an EDX Oxford Inca x-act detector,
absorption (%) was determined. an FEI SEM model Inspect S and a Quanta 200 with an
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 167

Figure 2. Cumulative PSD of the binder materials.

Table 2. Physical properties of the binder materials.

Parameters Fly ash GGBS LFS samples used for the SEM testing were casted espe­
d50 (μm) 27.85 7.52 73.67 cially for this purpose and the specimens were
Mean Diameter (μm) 20.10 5.40 59.20 polished before starting the test to improve the visibi­
Blaine SSA (m2/kg) 408 590 463
Specific Gravity 2.88 2.91 2.67 lity and to easily compare the cracks, porosity and
density of the samples.

Table 3. Mixing proportions of the binder materials.

% of total binder 3. Results and discussion
Sample Name Fly ash LFS GGBS
T1 40 40 20 3.1. Compressive strength
T2 30 40 30
T3 20 40 40 Compressive strength is considered as the most
T4 30 50 20
T5 20 60 20
important property of building bricks. The specifica­
tions for severe weathering (SW) case require
a minimum compressive strength of 20.7 MPa for
accelerating voltage of 5–20 kV. Additionally, the SEM clay or shale bricks (ASTM 2017). Compressive
testing was conducted for the paste of the optimum strength results obtained from different ternary mix­
combination of the binder materials after 18 hours and tures are given in Figure 4. The 18 hours and 7 days
7 days curing. Double-sided adhesive carbon tape was compressive strength was found to be more or less
secured to a 10-mm-diameter aluminium stub and the similar for all mixtures. The results indicated that the
sample sprinkled on it. It is worth mentioning that the alkali-activated mixture having 40% LFS 20% fly ash

Figure 3. Preparation of samples.

168 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

Figure 4. Compressive strength of the alkali-activated samples.

and 40% GGBS (T3) has the highest compressive decreased. This could be due to the larger particles
strength than any other mixture and the lowest com­ and lower SSA of LSF in comparison with the Fly ash
pressive strength was obtained with batch T5 having (Islam et al. 2011). The overall results indicated that all
60% LFS, 20% fly ash and 20% GGBS. the mixtures have satisfied a minimum compressive
As shown in Figure 4, the effect of ambient tem­ strength requirement for common bricks with severe
perature curing after 18 hours of heat curing is insig­ weathering according to ASTM C62 (ASTM 2017)
nificant. The slight reduction in compressive strength only after 18 hours of heat curing. This promising
after 7 days compared to that after 18 hours is believed high early strength gaining of alkali-activated non-
to be due to the fast gel formation as a results of fired bricks indicates the potential for adapting high-
elevated temperature curing that leads to chemical strength non-fired brick production with waste/by-
deformation (expansion) and resulting in lower com­ product materials as alternative to conventional fired
pressive strength (Wang, Wang, and Tsai 2016; clay bricks.
Češnovar et al. 2019). As shown in Figure 4, the
compressive strength obtained after heat curing for 3.1.1. Compressive strength and chemical
18 hours did not improved much after keeping this composition
at ambient temperature until 7 days. This indicates Further analysis was carried out to explore if there is
either of these ternary combinations could achieve any relationship between the overall chemical compo­
minimum requirement specified by ASTM C62 sition of the ternary-blended binders and correspond­
(ASTM 2017) and therefore within a minimum possi­ ing compressive strength achieved at 18 hours and
ble time a sustainable and alternative building blocks 7 days. Figures 5–7 show the relationship between
could be prepared. compressive strengths and SiO2/Al2O3, H2O/Na2O and
The results indicated that for a fixed level of LFS Na2O/SiO2 molar ratios, respectively. The error bars of
(40%), increasing the GGBS content and reducing the compressive strength measurement are given in all
Fly ash content gave higher compressive strength. Also figures. As shown in Figure 4 earlier, the difference
keeping LFS content fixed at 40% of total binder con­ between 18 hour and 7 days compressive strength test
tent and replacing 20% of Fly ash by GGBS (T3) gave results were very close. According to Figures 5 and 6,
almost double strength than that with 40% Fly ash and strong power correlation was found between compres­
20% GGBS (T1). This could be attributed to both (i) sive strength and both SiO2/Al2O3, H2O/Na2O molar
the formation of more C-S-H gel simultaneously with ratios. With increase in these molar ratios, the com­
the geopolymeric gel as the GGBS has higher calcium pressive strength was found to be decreasing in nature.
content relative to Fly ash (Provis et al. 2012; In contrary, although the trend was not definite, an
Rakhimova and Rakhimov 2015) and (ii) to the finer increase in compressive strength was obtained with
particles and higher SSA of GGBS relative to Fly ash Na2O/SiO2 molar ratio. Earlier study (Valencia-
that enhanced the performance of the bricks during Saavedra, Mejía de Gutiérrez, and Puertas 2020) with
geopolymerisation reaction as reported in earlier study two samples reported similar trend of compressive
(Gunasekara, Law, and Setunage 2016). strength with SiO2/Al2O3 and Na2O/SiO2. As shown
Fixing the GGBS content at 20% of total binder in Figures 5 and 6, the trend indicates further test with
content and the increase of Fly ash replacement level lower molar ratios of other ternary combination could
by LFS the compressive strength was found to be strengthen this relationship.
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 169

Figure 5. Relationships between compressive strength and SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of the alkali-activated samples.

Figure 6. Relationships between compressive strength and H2O/Na2O molar ratio of the alkali-activated samples.

3.2. Water absorption particles and the high SSA of the GGBS relative to
The water absorption test was conducted as per LFS particles that enhanced the performance of the
ASTM C67 at the age of 7 days. The alkali- bricks during geopolymerisation activity
activated bricks were submerged in boiling water (Gunasekara, Law, and Setunage 2016; Roychand,
for 5 hours followed by normal water immersion De Silva, and Setunge 2018).
for 24 hours (results given in Figure 8). Results of Generally, all the alkali-activated bricks gave very
the water absorption test were found to be consis­ low water absorption. This was well satisfied with
tent with compressive strength. Increasing the GGBS the requirements for common bricks with severe
content in the mixture resulted in reduced water weathering according to ASTM C62, which limits
absorption while water absorption rate increased the maximum water absorption rate up to 17%
with the LFS content in the mixture. The lowest (ASTM 2017). This low water absorption rate
water absorption rate was obtained for mixture T3 could be attributed to a successful geopolymerisation
(40% LFS, 20% fly ash and 40% GGBS) and the reaction and thereby formation of very dense micro­
highest water absorption rate was recorded for the structure that resulted in the formation of less pores.
mixture T5 (60% LFS, 20% fly ash and 20% GGBS). Additionally, this low water absorption rate is attrib­
This behaviour could be attributed to the the finer uted to a better packing between the binder
170 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

Figure 7. Relationships between compressive strength and Na2O/SiO2 molar ratio of the alkali-activated samples.

Figure 8. Water absorption of the alkali-activated bricks.

materials and the fine aggregate that resulted from in the microstructure over curing time could be
a good interlocking of the mixture (Jain, Gupta, and distinguished using SEM (Kovler 1998; Tagnit-
Chaudhary 2019). Hamou, Vanhove, and Petrov 2005; Roychand, De
According to the results of the compressive strength Silva, and Setunge 2018). In addition, the test can
and water absorption, the utilisation of up to 60% LFS provide information on the morphology of the
satisfied the requirement for compressive strength and hydrated phases of binders (Rossen and Scrivener
water absorption for SW condition common bricks. As 2017). In this research, SEM was used to relate the
the mixture T3 (40% LFS, 20% fly ash and 40% GGBS) performance of binder materials in the production
showed the highest compressive strength and the lowest of alkali-activated bricks (Scrivener, Snellings, and
water absorption rate, it was choosen as the optimum Lothenbach 2017). The SEM images of the Fly ash,
mixture. This mixture was then used for subsequent GGBS and LFS are shown in Figure 9. Fly ash
microstructure investigation using SEM. particles generally consist of spherical shape with
some irregular shape particles. On the other hand,
the GGBS and LFS consist angular- and flaky-shape
3.3. Microstructure observations using SEM d particles with some irregular shape particles. In
SEM imaging technique has been increasingly addition, the LFS particles were generally found to
employed in cement, concrete and brick research, be coarser than that of Fly ash and GGBS particles,
especially for microstructural investigation. Changes thus SEM images agree with PSD results (Figure 2).
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 171

Figure 9. SEM images of the binder materials. a) LFS, b) Fly ash and c) GGBS.

Figure 10. SEM micrographs of the T3 paste after a) 18 hours and b) 7 days of curing.
172 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

Figure 10 shows the SEM micrographs of the T3 brick). This could be further optimised using induction
paste after 18 hours (high temperature) and 7 days furnace slag (another iron industry by product) instead
(ambient after high temperature) of curing. SEM ima­ of natural sand and reducing the strength of alkaline
ging after 18 hours of heat curing (Figure 10(a)) shows activator as the strength requirement (ASTM 2017) for
the formation of geopolymer gel at early ages. The brick is almost one-third of that achieved in this study.
microstructure was found to be homogeneous with Based on this study, entrepreneurs could decide to
some associated microcracks. An unreacted particle of initiate brick/building block industry to produce com­
FA is appeared to be present at down left corner in mercial non-fired bricks using these potential materials.
Figure 10(a). Increasing the period of curing to 7 days
resulted in the formation of denser microstructure with
gel appears evenly distributed covering most of the T3 5. Conclusion
paste surface while the associated microcracks were also The aim of this research was to explore alkali-
present. Similar to Figure 10(a), potential presence of an activation technique to produce non-fired bricks/
unreacted slag particle was appeared at the upright building blocks using locally available high-volume
corner of Figure 10(b). Generally, in high CaO content LFS and other industrial solid by-products including
system, C-S-H gel forms simultaneously with geopoly­ fly ash and GGBS. Compressive strength, water
mer gel, however, C-S-H gel forms slower than geopo­ absorption and SEM microstructure imaging tests
lymer gel (Ahmari and Zhang 2013). This is the reason were conducted to evaluate the performance of the
behind the formation of denser microstructure after mixtures. The following specific conclusion was
7 days of curing relative to that after 18 hours. obtained from this study:
Additionally, the formation of microcracks could be
due to the continuous moisture loss from the specimens ● Each ternary combined mixture conformed to
within the curing period that resulted in the slight the the compressive strength requirement
reduction in the compressive strength as given in according to ASTM C62 for common bricks
Figure 4. Similar observations were reported by with severe weathering. The water absorption
(Leong et al. 2018). These observations were consistent rate was also found well below the range for
with the results of the compressive strength and water common bricks with severe weathering according
absorption of the T3 alkali-activated brick (shown in to ASTM C62. The compressive strength
Figure 5). obtained at 18 hours heat curing did not improve
significantly after keeping these in ambient envir­
onment for 7 days.
4. Practical implications
● Good correlation was found between compressive
The study has established potential ternary combina­ strength of produced blocks and both SiO2/Al2O3,
tion of various industrial waste materials that could be H2O/Na2O molar ratios at both 18 hour and 7 days
used to produce alternative to conventional clay-fired age. With increase in these molar ratios, the com­
bricks. The waste products, namely, fly ash, GGBS and pressive strength was found to be decreasing.
ladle furnace slag are management concern for the ● Increasing the LFS content resulted in decreas­
producers. At the same time, conventional brick kilns ing the compressive strength and increasing the
are potential source of severe air pollution and con­ water absorption rate. However, by replacing fly
sumed mainly virgin raw materials. This study, there­ ash with GGBS, strength increased for a certain
fore, would help the related industry management to percentage of LFS (40% of total binder)
explore alternative option for utilising the waste and content.
conserving the environment. Economic analysis of geo­ ● The maximum compressive strength and the
polymer brick using combination of natural aggregate/ minimum water absorption rate were achieved
material and waste brick by a French study (Youssef, with 40% LFS, 20% Fly ash and 40% GGBS binder
Lafhaj, and Chapiseau 2020) indicated 5% cost-saving combination (T3). Further investigation of T3
from traditional clay fired brick. With a similar cost, the with SEM imaging revealed compacted and
compressive strength of geopolymer brick (39 MPa) hydrated microstructure with minor microcracks
using waste brick could be doubled up from control at both 18 hours and 7 days curing.
sample. In this study sample T3 (Figure 4) with con­
siderable amount of fly ash and other industrial waste From the experimental works conducted in this
(with embodied energy/carbon) in the mixture gave research, it was concluded that geopolymerisation
compressive strength of 51.5 MPa. The insignificant with a binder combination of 40% LFS, 20% Fly ash
CO2 emissions associated with the production of geo­ and 40% GGBS content could be a sustainable option
polymer brick would be only from the transportation of for the production of non-fired bricks. Further study
the industrial waste materials without burning any fossil could be carried out to quantify the reaction product as
fuel (required for heat curing of traditional clay-fired well as unreacted materials present in the mix using
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 173

EDS, FTIR and XRD combination though it was not Professor Dr G. M. Sadiqul Islam at CUET, he was involved
within the scope of this study. in research activities regarding alternative cement
composites.
Dr Sadique has been at the forefront of pioneering indus­
Acknowledgments trial and academic research for over a decade. His work has
involved successful collaboration across the UK Highways
The financial support to carry out the project was sector; public and private, SMEs, universities and manufac­
received from Research England under GCRF project. turers. His contribution extends to projects with interna­
The laboratory support provided by Chittagong tional academics has attracted global recognition with
University of Engineering & Technology (CUET), significant impact. Dr Sadique’s social and intellectual invol­
Bangladesh and Liverpool John Moores University, vement within the sector has led to a comprehensive under­
England are gratefully acknowledged. Materials supports standing of the needs of the construction materials sector.
received from BSRM Steel Mills Ltd., Royal Cement Ltd. He enthusiastically and tirelessly engages in dialogue with
and Barapukuria Coal Power Plant. them and stakeholders alike. The culmination of his
research in partnership with other UK HEIs has culminated
in the publication of 35 Journal papers and resulted in three
Disclosure statement patents; cement-free concrete, unfired brick and low sin­
tered ceramic from waste materials.
There is no potential conflict of interest.

ORCID
Funding
G M Sadiqul Islam [Link]
This work was supported by the Research England through 4694
Global Challange Research Fund (GCRF) project. Ali A. Shubbar [Link]
Sudipta Sarker [Link]
Monower Sadique [Link]
Notes on contributors 2659

G. M. Sadiqul Islam is a Professor in the Department of

Civil Engineering, Chittagong University of Engineering &
Technology (CUET). Additionally, Prof. Islam serves the
Data availability
university as Chairman, Center for Environmental Science Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings
& Engineering Research. His diverse experience in the fields of this study are available from the corresponding author
of Civil Engineering, including i) construction industry upon reasonable request.
(design and implementation); ii) teaching and consultancy
at CUET; and iii) collaborative research with universities
and Industries in Japan and the United Kingdom. He is a
Life Fellow of the Institute of Engineers Bangladesh, a References
Voting Member of the American Society of Civil
Ahmari, S., and L. Zhang. 2012. “Production of Eco-friendly
Engineers (ASCE) and a Member of the American
Bricks from Copper Mine Tailings through
Concrete Institute (ACI). Prof. Islam obtained a Bachelor's
Geopolymerization.” Construction and Building
degree in Civil Engineering (securing 1st position in his
Materials 29:323–331. doi:10.1016/[Link]­
class) from Chittagong University of Engineering and
mat.2011.10.048. Elsevier.
Technology (CUET), Bangladesh. He has also been obtained
a Masters in Built Environment from Hokkaido University, Ahmari, S., and L. Zhang. 2013. “Utilization of Cement Kiln
Japan and a PhD in Concrete and Construction from the Dust (CKD) to Enhance Mine Tailings-based
University of Dundee, the United Kingdom. Prof. Islam’s Geopolymer Bricks.” Construction and Building
research interest is sustainable construction and materials. Materials 40:1002–1011. doi:10.1016/[Link]­
mat.2012.11.069. Elsevier.
Dr. Ali Shubbar is a Civil Engineer, having industrial Arıöz, O., Kadir, K., Mustafa, T., Ahmet, T., and Taner, K.
knowledge with a full life-cycle experience in projects devel­ 2010. “Physical, Mechanical and Micro-Structural
opment. Ali’s major interest and passion are Research in the Properties of F Type Fly-Ash Based Geopolymeric
field of low carbon circular economy. Dr. Shubbar is cur­ Bricks Produced by Pressure Forming Process.”
rently working as a Research Assistant at the Eco-I Advances in Science and Technology 69:69–74. doi:
Northwest that aims to stimulate economic growth by devel­ [Link]
oping robust business-university collaborations that lead to
ASTM. 2017. “ASTM C62, Standard Specification for
R&D and innovation with economic potential.
Building Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from Clay or
Sudipta Sarker is an Environmental Engineering Masters Shale).” In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.05
student at the University of Kansas. Before that, he com­ Chemical-resistant Nonmetallic Materials; Vitrified Clay
pleted his BSc in Civil Engineering for Chittagong Pipe; Concrete Pipe; Fiber-reinforced Cement Products;
University of Engineering & Technology (CUET). Mortars And Grouts; Masonry; Precast Concrete, 4. West
Currently, he is working on biofuel production increase Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM Internatioal.
and associated land cover change effect in NE Kansas sur­ doi:10.1520/C0062-17. Accessed April 2021. [Link].
face water quality on a watershed scale. While working with org/[Link]
174 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

ASTM. 2019a. “ASTM C136/C136M, Standard Test Feng, D., J. L. Provis, J. S. J. Deventer, and G. Scherer. 2012.
Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse “Thermal Activation of Albite for the Synthesis of
Aggregates.” In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, One-Part Mix Geopolymers.” Journal of the American
04.02 Concrete And Aggregates, 5. West Ceramic Society 95 (2): 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1551-
Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International. 2916.2011.04925.x.
doi:10.1520/C0136_C0136M-19. Accessed April 2021. Furlani, E., G. Tonello, and S. Maschio. 2010. “Recycling of
[Link]/c0136_c0136m-[Link] Steel Slag and Glass Cullet from Energy Saving Lamps by
ASTM. 2019b. “ASTM C618, Standard Specification for Fast Firing Production of Ceramics.” Waste Management
Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for 30 (8–9): 1714–1719. doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.03.030.
Use in Concrete.” In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Pergamon.
04.02, 5. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM Gunasekara, C., D. W. Law, and S. Setunage. 2016. “Long
International. doi:10.1520/C0618-19. Accessed April Term Engineering Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer
[Link]/[Link] Concrete.” in Fourth International Conference on
ASTM. 2020. “ASTM C67/C67M, Standard Test Methods for Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies.
Sampling and Testing Brick and Structural Clay Tile.” In Las Vegas, USA.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 04.05 Chemical-resis­ Hawileh, R. A., J A. Abdalla, F. Fardmanesh, P. Shahsana,
tant Nonmetallic Materials; Vitrified Clay Pipe; Concrete and A. Khalili. 2017. “Performance of Reinforced
Pipe; Fiber-reinforced Cement Products; Mortars And Concrete Beams Cast with Different Percentages of
Grouts; Masonry; Precast Concrete, 17. West GGBS Replacement to Cement.” Archives of Civil and
Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International. Mechanical Engineering 17 (3): 511–519. doi:10.1016/j.
doi:10.1520/C0067_C0067M-20. Accessed April 2021. acme.2016.11.006. Elsevier B.V.
[Link]/c0067_c0067m-[Link] He, J., J. Zhang, Y. Yu, and G. Zhang, . 2012. “The Strength
BDS EN. 2016. “EN 196-1, Determination of Strength.” In and Microstructure of Two Geopolymers Derived from
Methods of Testing Cement, 36. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Metakaolin and Red Mud-fly Ash Admixture:
Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution. A Comparative Study.” Construction and Building
Binhowimal, S. A. M., L. Hanzic, and J. C. M. Ho. 2017. Materials 30: 80–91. doi:10.1016/[Link]­
“Filler to Improve Concurrent Flowability and [Link].
Segregation Performance of Concrete.” Australian Islam, M. R., Hossain, M. I., Iqbal, M. B., Rahman, M.,
Journal of Structural Engineering 18 (2): 73–85. Sarker, A., and Noor, C. A. 2019. “Utilizing Fly Ash to
doi:10.1080/13287982.2017.1333184. Taylor and Francis Improve Subgrade Properties in Bangladesh.” in
Ltd. Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019: Testing and
Brick Architecture. 2017. The history of bricks and brickmak­ Characterization of Pavement Materials - Selected
ing. Accessed 29 July 2020. Available at: [Link] Papers from the International Airfield and Highway
[Link]/about-brick/why-brick/the-history-of- Pavements Conference 2019. American Society of
bricks-brickmaking#:~:text=withoutvisiblejoints-, The Civil Engineers (ASCE), pp. 522–530. doi: 10.1061/
History of Bricks and Brickmaking,around the city of 9780784482469.052.
Jericho Islam, M. M., and M. S. Islam. 2015. “Strength and
Češnovar, M., Katja, T., Barbara, H., and Vilma, D. 2019. Durability Characteristics of Concrete Made with
“The Potential of Ladle Slag and Electric Arc Furnace Slag Fly-Ash Blended Cement.” Australian Journal of
Use in Synthesizing Alkali Activated Materials; the Structural Engineering 14 (3): 303–319.
Influence of Curing on Mechanical Properties.” Islam, G. M. S., Islam, M. M., Akter, A., and Islam, M. S.
Materials 12 (7): 1173. doi:10.3390/ma12071173. MDPI (2011) ‘Green Construction Materials – Bangladesh
AG. Perspective’, in International Conference on Mechanical
Climate and Clean Air Coalition. 2016. Mitigating black Engineering and Renewable Energy (ICMERE2011).
carbon and other pollutants from brick production. Chittagong: Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Accessed 31 July 2020. Available at: [Link]. CUET, Bangladesh Retrieved April 2021.
org/en/initiatives/bricks Islam, M. S., B. C. Mondal, and M. M. Islam. 2010. “Effect of Sea
Correspondent, S. 2018. “Shun Burnt Bricks to Save Salts on Structural Concrete in a Tidal Environment.”
Topsoil.” The Daily Star, 20 September 2018 Back Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 10 (3):
page. [Link]/backpage/news/manufactur 237–252. doi:10.1080/13287982.2010.11465048. .
ing-burnt-bricks-100m-tonnes-top-soil-ruined-year- Jain, A., R. Gupta, and S. Chaudhary. 2019. “Performance of
1636384 . Self-compacting Concrete Comprising Granite Cutting
Dhaka Tribune. 2016. 1% arable land lost each year. Waste as Fine Aggregate.” Construction and Building
Accessed 31 July 2020. Available at: [Link] Materials 221: 539–552. doi:10.1016/[Link]­
[Link]/bangladesh/2016/06/17/1-arable-land-lost- mat.2019.06.104. Elsevier.
year/ Kim, B. J., C. Yi, and K. I. Kang. 2015. “Microwave Curing of
Dhaka Tribune. 2019. Environment minister: Brick kilns Alkali-activated Binder Using Hwangtoh without
Calcination.” Construction and Building Materials
responsible for 58% air pollution in Dhaka. Accessed
98:465–475. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.08.119.
31 July 2020. Available at: [Link]/ban
Elsevier.
gladesh/environment/2019/02/14/environment- Kovler, K. 1998. “Setting and Hardening of
minister-brick-kilns-responsible-for-58-air-pollution- Gypsum-portland Cement-silica Fume Blends, Part 2:
in-dhaka Early Strength, DTA, XRD, and SEM Observations.”
Editorial. 2016. Brick Kilns King among Air Pollutants. The Cement and Concrete Research 28 (4): 523–531.
Daily Star. doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00004-0. Elsevier.
 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 175

Lawrence, S. J., H. O. Sugo, and A. W. Page. 2008. In Industries in Chittagong, Bangladesh.” Journal of
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 8 (2): Environmental Protection 8 (9): 974–989. doi:10.4236/
101–116. doi:10.1080/13287982.2008.11464991. jep.2017.89061. Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
Leong, H. Y., Dominic Ek Leong Ong, J G. Sanjayan, and Rakhimova, N. R., and R. Z. Rakhimov. 2015. “Alkali-
A. Nazari. 2018. “Strength Development of Soil–Fly Ash activated Cements and Mortars Based on Blast Furnace
Geopolymer: Assessment of Soil, Fly Ash, Alkali Slag and Red Clay Brick Waste.” Materials & Design
Activators, and Water.” Journal of Materials in Civil 85:324–331. doi:10.1016/[Link].2015.06.182. Elsevier
Engineering 30 (8): 4018171. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) Ltd.
MT.1943-5533.0002363. American Society of Civil Report, S. B. 2018. “Steel Makers Call for Slash in Customs
Engineers (ASCE). Duty, Tax.” The Daily Star.
Li, G., X. Xu, E. Chen, J. Fan, and G. Xiong. 2015. Rossen, J. E., and K. L. Scrivener. 2017. “Optimization of
“Properties of Cement-based Bricks with Oyster-shells SEM-EDS to Determine the C–A–S–H Composition in
Ash.” Journal of Cleaner Production 91: 279–287. Matured Cement Paste Samples.” Materials
10.1016/[Link].2014.12.023. Elsevier. Characterization 123: 294–306. doi:10.1016/j.
Liew, Y. M., C-Y. Heah, A B. Mohd Mustafa, and matchar.2016.11.041.
H. Kamarudin. 2016. “Structure and Properties of
Clay-based Geopolymer Cements: A Review.” Progress in Roychand, R., S. De Silva, and S. Setunge. 2018. “Nanosilica
Materials Science 83: 595–629. 10.1016/j. Modified High-Volume Fly Ash and Slag Cement
pmatsci.2016.08.002. Elsevier. Composite: Environmentally Friendly Alternative to
OPC.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 30 (4):
Mahakavi, P., and R. Chithra. 2019. “Effect of Recycled
4018043. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002220.
Coarse Aggregate and Manufactured Sand in Self American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Compacting Concrete.” Australian Journal of Scrivener, K., R. Snellings, and L. Lothenbach. 2017. A Practical
Structural Engineering. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Guide to Microstructural Analysis of Cementitious Material.
doi:10.1080/13287982.2019.1636519. First Edit. Florida, USA: CRC Press.
Manso, J. M., M. Losañez, J. A. Polanco, and Smith, A. S., P. Bingel, and A. Bown. 2016.
J. J. Gonzalez. 2005. “Ladle Furnace Slag in “Sustainability of Masonry in Construction.” In
Construction.” Journal of Materials in Civil Sustainability of Construction Materials. 2nd.
Engineering 17 (5): 513–518. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural
0899-1561(2005)17:5(513). American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE). Engineering, 245–282. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/b978-
Muñoz Velasco, P., M. P. Morales Ortíz, M. A. Mendívil 0-08-100370-1.00011-1.
Giró, and L. Muñoz Velasco. 2014. “Fired Clay Bricks Tagnit-Hamou, A., Y. Vanhove, and N. Petrov. 2005.
Manufactured by Adding Wastes as Sustainable “Microstructural Analysis of the Bond Mechanism
Construction Material - A Review.” Construction and between Polyolefin Fibers and Cement Pastes.” Cement
Building Materials 63: 97–107. 10.1016/[Link]­ and Concrete Research 35 (2): 364–370. doi:10.1016/j.
mat.2014.03.045. Elsevier. cemconres.2004.05.046. Pergamon.
Oti, J. E., J. M. Kinuthia, and J. Bai. 2008. “Using Slag for Vafaei, M., A. Allahverdi, P. Dong, and N. Bassim. 2018.
Unfired-clay Masonry-bricks.” Proceedings of Institution “Acid Attack on Geopolymer Cement Mortar Based on
of Civil Engineers: Construction Materials 161 (4): Waste-glass Powder and Calcium Aluminate Cement at
147–155. doi:10.1680/coma.2008.161.4.147. Thomas Mild Concentration.” Construction and Building
Telford Ltd. Materials 193: 363–372. 10.1016/[Link]­
Paija, N., P. K. Kolay, M. Mohanty, and S. Kumar. 2020. mat.2018.10.203. Elsevier Ltd.
“Ground Bottom Ash Application for Conventional Valencia-Saavedra, W. G., R. Mejía de Gutiérrez, and
Mortar and Geopolymer Paste.” Journal of F. Puertas. 2020. “Performance of FA-based
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 24 (1): Geopolymer Concretes Exposed to Acetic and
4019025. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000466. Sulfuric Acids.” Construction and Building Materials
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 257:119503. doi:10.1016/[Link].2020.119503.
Prakasam, G., A. R. Murthy, and M. Saffiq Reheman. 2020. Elsevier Ltd.
“Mechanical, Durability and Fracture Properties of Wang, H., H. Li, and F. Yan. 2005. “Synthesis and
Nano-modified FA/GGBS Geopolymer Mortar.” Mechanical Properties of Metakaolinite-based
Magazine of Concrete Research 72 (4): 207–216. Geopolymer.” Colloids and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical
doi:10.1680/jmacr.18.00059. ICE Publishing. and Engineering Aspects 268 (1–3): 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.
Provis, J. L., R. J. Myers, C. E. White, V. Rose, and J. S. colsurfa.2005.01.016. Elsevier.
J. van Deventer. 2012. “X-ray Microtomography Wang, W. C., H. Y. Wang, and H. C. Tsai. 2016. “Study on
Shows Pore Structure and Tortuosity in Engineering Properties of Alkali-activated Ladle Furnace
Alkali-activated Binders.” Cement and Concrete Slag Geopolymer.” Construction and Building Materials
123: 800–805. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.
Research 42 (6): 855–864. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.07.068.
cemconres.2012.03.004.
Weishi, L., L. Guoyuan, X. Ya, and H. Qifei. 2018. “The
Rahman, M. S., B. S. Barua, M. R. Karim, and M. Kamal. Properties and Formation Mechanisms of Eco-friendly
2017. “Investigation of Heavy Metals and Brick Building Materials Fabricated from Low-silicon
Radionuclide’s Impact on Environment Due to the Iron Ore Tailings.” Journal of Cleaner Production 204:
Waste Products of Different Iron Processing 685–692. 10.1016/[Link].2018.08.309. Elsevier Ltd.
176 G. M. S. ISLAM ET AL.

WHO. 2016. Ambient Air Pollution: A Global Assessment of Yunsheng, Z., S. Wei, C. Qianli, and C. Lin. 2007. “Synthesis
Exposure and Burden of Disease. Geneva, Switzerland: and Heavy Metal Immobilization Behaviors of Slag Based
World Health Organization. Accessed April 2021. Geopolymer.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 143 (1–2):
[Link] 206–213. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.09.033. Elsevier.
Wu, H. J., Z. W. Yuan, L. Zhang, and J. Bi. 2012. “Life Cycle Zhang, L. 2013. “Production of Bricks from Waste Materials
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emission of an Office - A Review.” Construction and Building Materials
Building in China.” International Journal of Life Cycle 47:643–655. doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.05.043.
Assessment 17 (2): 105–118. doi:10.1007/s11367-011- Elsevier.
0342-2. Springer Verlag. Zhang, L., S. Ahmari, and J. Zhang. 2011. “Synthesis and
Xu, H., and J. S. J. Van Deventer. 2002. “Geopolymerisation Characterization of Fly Ash Modified Mine
of Multiple Minerals.” Minerals Engineering 15 (12): Tailings-based Geopolymers.” Construction and
1131–1139. doi:10.1016/S0892-6875(02)00255-8. Perga Building Materials 25 (9): 3773–3781. doi:10.1016/[Link]­
mon. buildmat.2011.04.005. Elsevier.
Yip, C. K., and J. S. J. Van Deventer. 2003. “Microanalysis of Zhang, Z., Y. C. Wong, A. Arulrajah, and S. Horpibulsuk.
Calcium Silicate Hydrate Gel Formed within 2018. “A Review of Studies on Bricks Using Alternative
a Geopolymeric Binder.” Journal of Materials Science Materials and Approaches.” Construction and Building
38 (18): 3851–3860. doi:10.1023/A:1025904905176. Materials 188: 1101–1118. 10.1016/[Link]­
Springer. mat.2018.08.152. Elsevier Ltd.
Youssef, N., Z. Lafhaj, and C. Chapiseau. 2020. “Economic Zuhua, Z., Y. Xiao, Z. Huajun, and C. Yue. 2009. “Role of
Analysis of Geopolymer Brick Manufacturing: A French Water in the Synthesis of Calcined Kaolin-based
Case Study.” Sustainability 12 (18): 7403. doi:10.3390/ Geopolymer.” Applied Clay Science 43 (2): 218–223.
su12187403. MDPI AG. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.09.003. Elsevier.