Mechanical properties of geopolymer lightweight brick with styrofoam pellet

Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah, Muhammad Faheem Mohd Tahir, Aeslina Abdul Kadir, Kamarudin Hussin, and
W. Saiful Iskandar W. Samson

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020060 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.5003543

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003543
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1887/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Geopolymer lightweight bricks manufactured from fly ash and foaming agent
AIP Conference Proceedings 1835, 020048 (2017); 10.1063/1.4981870

Comparative study on early strength of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) activated fly ash based geopolymer
AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020059 (2017); 10.1063/1.5003542

Durability of metakaolin geopolymers with various sodium silicate/sodium hydroxide ratios against seawater
exposure
AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020063 (2017); 10.1063/1.5003546

Incorporation of polydimethylsiloxane with reduced graphene oxide and zinc oxide for tensile and electrical
properties
AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020061 (2017); 10.1063/1.5003544

Compressive and bonding strength of fly ash based geopolymer mortar

AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020058 (2017); 10.1063/1.5003541

A review on the effect of fly ash characteristics and their variations on the synthesis of fly ash based geopolymer
AIP Conference Proceedings 1887, 020041 (2017); 10.1063/1.5003524
 Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Lightweight Brick
with Styrofoam Pellet
Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah1,2,a), Muhammad Faheem Mohd Tahir1,b),
Aeslina Abdul Kadir3,1,c), Kamarudin Hussin1,d) and W. Saiful Iskandar W.
Samson1,e)
1
Center of Excellence Geopolymer and Green Technology (CEGeoGTech), School of Materials Engineering,
Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Perlis, Malaysia.
2
Faculty of Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Perlis, Malaysia.
3
Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti
Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat Johor, Malaysia
a)
Corresponding author: mustafa_albakri@unimap.edu.my
b)
faheem@unimap.edu.my
c)
aeslina@uthm.edu.my
d)
kamarudin@unimap.edu.my
e)
saiful.iskandar@gmail.com

Abstract. The utilization of fly ash in brick as partial replacement of cement is gaining immense importance today, mainly
on account of the improvement in the long-term durability of brick combined with ecological benefits. In this research, the
lightweight brick was produced by using fly ash (class F) as a main material to replace Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
in the composition of brick. Class F Fly Ash was mixed with an alkaline activator solution (a mixture of sodium silicate
and NaOH), and styrofoam pellet was added to the geopolymer mixture to produce lightweight brick. The brick was
prepared in two methods that is wet method and dry method due to different brick composition which is dry method for
composition with sand and wet method for composition without sand. The bricks were cured in room temperature at 7
aging days. After 7 days, the compressive strength, water absorption, and density of the brick were investigated, where the
optimum ratio for the best bricks has been determined from the lightweight density and has compressive strength more
than minimum standard requirement. The best bricks are further produce for curing at 60°C in oven at 28 aging days. Those
bricks also were characterized using optical microscope to measure the distribution of styrofoam in brick structure. From
the result obtained, the brick that cured at 60°C in oven at 28 aging days has high strength compare to brick that cured in
room temperature and at 7 day cured. The water absorption is decreasing as the curing temperature and aging days increased
whereas density is increasing..

INTRODUCTION
Bricks are a broadly utilized material within development and building material. In the United States, around the
range of 9 billion bricks are utilized a year. Conventional bricks typically uses earth and shale as the source material
and obliges high firing temperature for about 900–1000oC. The operations to get the earth and shale are from
quarrying. Quarrying is an operation that is unfavorably influence the landscape of the earth, and can discharge large
amount of waste materials. Moreover, the high firing temperature of conventional bricks use high amount of
energy, as well as discharges significant amount of greenhouse gases [1].

Besides production of brick by using clay, there is also production of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) brick. OPC
bricks are prepared from OPC and aggregates. Despite the fact that OPC is generally utilized as a part of cement
industry since numerous decades, it discharges greenhouse gases, which is carbon dioxide (CO2) into the environment

Green Construction and Engineering Education for Sustainable Future

AIP Conf. Proc. 1887, 020060-1–020060-7; doi: 10.1063/1.5003543
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1570-6/$30.00

020060-1
while manufactured it [2]. There are roughly about 1.5 kwh of energy and for about 1 kg of CO2 discharged to the air
for manufacturing of 1 kg of OPC. Furthermore, the usage of OPC is in building industries responsible for around the
range of 7% of all CO2 generated [3,5]. Figure 1 shows the CO2 emission by cement industry. Hence, by presenting
geopolymer on preparation of brick, it can dispense all the issues brought about by clay brick and OPC brick.

FIGURE 1. CO 2 Emission by Industries [4]

Geopolymers was initially implemented by Davidovits in 1979, and it was said that geopolymer control fantastic
mechanical performances regarding on the high compressive strength, chemical resistance and fire resistance [6].
Geopolymer is an inorganic alumina silicate polymer that is blended transcendently from silicon and aluminum
materials or from by item materials like fly ash. For example, fly ash reacts with alkaline activators to create a
cementitious material yet it does not transmit carbon dioxide [2].

Geopolymer not only gives performances practically identical to OPC in numerous requisitions, however it has
extra points of interest, incorporating inexhaustible crude material assets, fast advancement of mechanical quality,
exceptional strength, its capability to immobilize contaminants, and essentially lessened vigor utilization and
greenhouse gas emission. These qualities have make geopolymer is one of the excellent research engage as a perfect
material for sustainable development [3]. Geopolymer bricks are made with less energy consumption and easier
compared to manufacturing of clay and OPC bricks. The improvement of geopolymer brick is fundamental step
towards process bricks with better mechanical properties and ecological material [4]. Besides, geopolymer bricks
additionally can have properties very much alike to clay bricks when it is formed under suitable conditions [2].

In this research, geopolymer lightweight brick was produced by utilising low-calcium fly ash as the base material
with styrofoam pellet as filler. A mixture of sodium hydroxide solution and sodium silicate solution is used to react
with the silicon and the aluminium in the fly ash to form the paste that bound the aggregates and other unreacted
materials in the mixture to yield the geopolymer concrete.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

Raw Materials
The materials use for this study is styrofoam, fly ash, sand, alkaline activator. Styrofoam was supplied in a pellet
form whereas fly ash was supplied by TNB Manjung Power Plant that used coal for combustion material. The chemical

020060-2
composition of fly ash was shown in Table 1. Based on ASTM C618-12, the minimum amount required for silicon
dioxide (SiO2) plus aluminum oxide (Al2O3) plus iron oxide (Fe2O3) is 70% for class F fly ash. The alkaline activator
is the combination of sodium silicate that was supplied by South Pacific Chemicals Industries Sdn. Bhd. (SPCI)
Malaysia and sodium hydroxide that is in pellets form.

TABLE 1. Chemical Composition of Fly Ash

Chemical Composition Percentage (%)

Fe2O3 19.91

Al2O3 15.4

SiO2 35.7

SO3 3.55

CaO 20.8

K2O 1.85

TiO2 1.33

Mix Proportion and Process

In this study, fly ash/alkaline activator ratio is 2 while Na2SiO3/NaOH Ratio is 2.5, those ratio is the best ratio to
produce brick by using fly ash in previous study [7]. On the other hand, fly ash/sand ratio is 1.3. By having this ratio,
a lightweight weight brick can be produce [7]. Besides that, there are no specific ratios for styrofoam in the production
of lightweight brick. Since the production of geopolymer-styrofoam brick is at two different compositions which are
one having sand and the other one is without sand. Therefore, there will be several different composition of styrofoam
in lightweight brick based on the ratio of styrofoam to geopolymer by volume. The details of the mixtures are shown
in Table 2 for further understanding.

TABLE 2. Mix Proportions for Producing Geopolymer-Styrofoam Brick

Without sand : 1:0.5, 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2
Styrofoam
With sand : 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2.1:2.5

Fly Ash : Sand Ratio 1:3

Fly Ash: Alkaline Activator 2:1

Na2SiO3:NaOH 2.5:1

Sand size Passing through 4.75 mm sieve

Moulding and Curing Process

The mixture for dry method will be pour into the mould of geopolymer brick machine and need to be compress to
get a compact sample while the mixture for wet method will be cast into brick mould. The size of the brick for both

020060-3
methods should follow the British Standard BS 3921:1985, which state the dimension of a brick is 215 mm long, 102.5
mm width and 65 mm height [8]. All the samples will be cured at room temperature. After all the testing has been
conduct and the optimum ratio for best geopolymer-styrofoam brick has been determine. The production of the best
brick is followed with another curing temperature which is 60°C for 24 hours.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Water Absorption
Geopolymer Lightweight Brick without Sand. Fig. 2 shows the water absorption for geopolymer-styrofoam
brick with the same 5 different ratio of brick. Based on the trend of the graph, it can be seen the water absorption of
geopolymer-styrofoam bricks are increasing as the styrofoam content increasing. The highest water absorption is
at ratio of 1:2 at 7.43% while the lowest water absorption is at ratio of 1:0 at 3.86%. Firstly, brick is a porous structure,
the absorption of water from outside into brick is governed by capillary action [9]. Capillary action is absorption of
liquid due to surface tension forces through narrow openings [10]. So, it can prove that even though there is no pore-
forming material (styrofoam) in the brick such as at ratio 1:0, there are still water absorption occur. By adding the
styrofoam, the transportation of the water into the brick is not just by capillary action, but also by interconnected
cracks, fissures, hollows, and cavities that formed due to presence of styrofoam [9]. On the other hand, it is said that
the amount and size of apparent porosity is one of the factor that affect water absorption of bricks. In other words, the
capacity of water absorption is directly proportional to the amount and size of apparent porosity. The higher number
and the larger size of porosity the bricks have, the more water absorption of the bricks can achieve [11].

FIGURE 2. Water Absorption of Geopolymer Lightweight Brick without sand

Geopolymer Lightweight Brick with Sand. Fig. 3 shows that the water absorption for geopolymer-styrofoam
brick with the same 5 different ratio of brick eliminating the ratios 1:1.5 and 1:1 due to failure. Based on the trend of
the graph, it can be seen that the water absorption of geopolymer-styrofoam bricks are increasing as the styrofoam
content increasing. The highest water absorption is at ratio of 1:2 at 29.86% while the lowest water absorption is at
ratio of 1:0 at 12.11%. Furthermore, there is an interruption of the trend of the graph at ratio 1:2.5, since the graph
should be continuously increasing. The water absorption of ratio 1:2.5 is 16.06% which is lower than ratio 1:3 by
1.02% due to an error occur during brick making which is the volume of styrofoam does not accurate or not enough
for this ratio. Thus, with the lower styrofoam content in the brick, makes the water absorption decreasing.

020060-4
 FIGURE 3. Water Absorption of Geopolymer Lightweight Brick with sand

Compressive Strength
Geopolymer Lightweight Brick without Sand. As seen on Fig. 4, there are 5 different ratios of brick that has
been produced. By looking at the trend of the graph, it can be seen the compressive strength of geopolymer-
styrofoam bricks are decreasing as the styrofoam content increasing. The ratio of 1:0 has highest compressive strength
at 39.09 MPa while ratio of 1:2 has the lowest compressive strength at 2.45 MPa. The reason why the production of
bricks are stopped at geopolymer:styrofoam ratio 1:2, it is because of the compressive strength obtained for ratio 1:2
is 2.45 MPa which means it does not achieve the minimum standard compressive strength for brick which is 4 MPa
[8]. If the styrofoam content is further increase, then it will get a compressive strength absolutely lower than 2.45
MPa. This is due to the styrofoam which is an additive material that presence in geopolymer brick and also act as a
pore-forming material in the brick body which associated in lower the compressive strength of the bricks [12].

FIGURE 4. Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Lightweight Brick without sand

Geopolymer Lightweight Brick with Sand. Fig. 5 shows the compressive strength for geopolymer-styrofoam
brick that is produced by adding sand as fine aggregate. There are 5 different ratio of brick that has been successfully

020060-5
produced and the fly ash:sand ratio is kept constant at 1:3 for all ratio. Based on the result above, the compressive
strength of geopolymer-styrofoam brick is gradually decreased as the styrofoam content increased. Brick that has ratio
of 0:1 has the highest compressive strength at 11.23 MPa while the lowest compressive strength is ratio of 1:2 at 0.65
MPa. Moreover, there are no compressive strength values for brick at styrofoam:geopolymer ratio at 1:1.5 and 1:1
because of the failure production of bricks. This is due to fly ash could not bind all the sand and styrofoam altogether.
Fly ash acts as a binder for production of geopolymer- styrofoam brick [13]. If the styrofoam content is almost same
with fly ash content, some of the styrofoam will not attached to the sand and fly ash and resulted in failure production
of brick. Despite the production of bricks are successful until ratio 1:2, but the bricks that achieve compressive
strength more than minimum standard which is 4 MPa are ratio 0:1,1:3.5, and 1:3 only.

FIGURE 5. Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Lightweight Brick without sand

CONCLUSION
Based on the experimental result, conclusion can be made that by increasing the styrofoam in brick composition,
the compressive strength and density of the bricks decreases, though the water absorption increases due to formation
of pores because of an addition of styrofoam. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the ways for improvement and
optimization of brick so that by reducing the density, the strength of the brick is not reduced considerably and achieved
more than minimum requirement of brick strength that is more than 4 MPa. Curing temperature also lead to a higher
compressive strength, lower water absorption as well as retain the lightweight properties of the brick which is lower
than 1800 kg/m3. This is due to the geopolymerization process of fly ash is complete and there is less unreacted fly
ash after cure at 60°C.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his gratitude to the Center of Excellence Geopolymer & Green Technology
(CEGeoGTech) for funding the research project.

REFERENCES
1. A. Saeed & Z . Lianyang. Production of Eco-friendly Bricks from Copper Mine Tailings Through
Geopolymerization. pp 323-33. (2011).
2. C. J. Antony, G. Saravanan, A.K. Ramakrishnan & S. Kandasamy. Strength and Durability Studies on Fly
Ash Based Geopolymer Bricks. pp 797-808 (2013).
3. Z. Lianyang. Production of Bricks from Waste Materials – A Review. pp 643-655 (2013).

020060-6
4. Y. Zarina, A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, I.K. Nizar, and A.R. Rafiza, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 34, 37
(2013).
5. A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri & B.H. Mohammed. Geopolymer Materials for Building Industry. Retrieved on
November 11, 2013 from www.kacstbtc.org (2012).
6. A.M. Izzat, A.M.M. Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, L.M. Moga, G.C.M. Ruzaidi, M.T.M. Faheem, and A.V. Sandu,
Mater. Plast. 50, 171 (2013).
7. W. I Wan Mastura, H. Kamarudin, I. Khairul Nizar & A.M. Mustafa Al Bakri. (2012). Mechanical
Performances of Fly Ash geopolymer Bricks. Center of Excellence Geopolymer and Green Technology, School
of Material Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis.
8. British Standards Reference (BS 3921: 1985). Clay Bricks – Water Absorption.Salier Geotechnical Limited.
9. C.J.W.P. Groot and J.T.M. Gunneweg, Heron 55, 141 (2010).
10. David Harlan Nicastro. Failure Mechanisms in Building Construction. ASCE Publications. Page 77 (1997).
11. N. Phonphuak, J. Chem. Sci. Technol. 2, 95 (2013).
12. S. Veiseh and A. a. Yousefi, Iran. Polym. J. (English Ed. 12, 323 (2003).
13. Dumitru I. & Paraschiv V.. Fly Ash–based Geopolymeric Binders. Geopolymer: Green Chemistry and
Sustainable Development Solutions. pp 127 – 130.

020060-7