PREPARATION OF BRICKS USING BAJRA STRAW AND ITS IMPACT ON

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF STRUCTURES

PRACHURYYA KAUSHIKa, ANURAG AGARWALb, RAJESH BENIWALb

RISHI BADOLAb, ARUN SHARMAb, KUNAL BANSALb, DIPENDU BHUNIAc
a
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani 333 031, India,
e-mail: h2016038@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in
b
Undergraduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, 333 031, India
c
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani, 333 031, India

ABSTRACT — The present work gives an improved building brick formed of straw
and a strategy of forming the same. The improved brick gives a pest, sound and
moisture resistant building piece having high dimensional tolerances and being
capable of extensive use without any structural degradation. Structurally safe
building techniques are to a great extent exorbitant for the poor in developing nations
like India. Research has shown that straw bricks construction is a sustainable method
for building, from the standpoint of both materials and energy needed for heating
and cooling. Accordingly, we are developing unique earthquake safe straw bricks
building techniques which are energy efficient, affordable and indigenous
sustainable materials.
Moreover, with the increase of population in urban areas, vertical growth is eminent.
Additionally, due to increasing impact of seismic activities on the damage of
structures and related consequences, it has been observed that the importance of light
weight building blocks is escalating. Therefore, an attempt has been made through
this research to check the seismic response of structures with and without straw
bricks and comparative results are found with respect to widely used burnt clay
bricks.

Keywords — Straw, bricks, Seismic Response, Sustainable materials, light weight

building blocks, burnt clay bricks

INTRODUCTION

With the fast-growing population and tremendous rate of urbanization, the adverse
effect on nature is increasing at an alarming rate. In most of the cities, vertical
expansion is preferred over horizontal irrespective of the seismic vulnerabilities, soil
conditions and environmental impact. Whereas, as per green building concept, eco-
friendly and locally available materials should to be used as practicable as possible.
Therefore, the use of wastes, agricultural by products as building materials may
provide sustainable solution to construct light weight earthquake resistant structures.
Throughout the years, many individuals have looked long and hard at how straw
bundle structures perform in seismic tremors. Research shows that straw has an edge
over many construction materials, because of its energy efficiency, sustainability,
seismic resistance, ease of construction, environmental benefits etc. [1] Moreover, a
comparative study between straw wall systems and brick wall systems showed that
straw is a better alternative to brick construction considering various parameters such
as GWP (Global Warming Potential), PEI (Primary Energy Input) and AP
(Acidification Potential) etc. [2] There would be at least 3% more space on a 100 m2
area floor if a straw wall system was to be used, secondly brick wall requires 9.4
times more primary energy (PEI) than the straw wall. In case of Acidification
Potential, it was found out that straw wall system is 4.15 times more efficient than
the brick wall and it was also figured out that brick wall had 121 kg CO2 equivalent
per sq. m more impact on environment in terms of GWP. Straw system was found
out to be much lighter than the brick wall system. The results also showed that brick
wall is 14% more expensive than the straw wall system per sq. m. Moreover,
experiments [3] concluded that straw wall system performed well both in terms of
strength and serviceability as per Pima and California codes.
To fulfil the demand of eco-friendly construction practices, the invention of pest and
moisture resistant block from straw implies several advantages like the abundance
of material and relatively lower baling costs [4]. Similar efforts have been made to
study on compressive strength of cementitious rice straw brick in comparison to local
cement brick [5], use natural fibers in constructions in Kerala [6], recycling of agro-
waste etc. [7]
Therefore, in this study, an attempt is made create unique earthquake safe straw
bricks as construction materials which are energy efficient, affordable, indigenous
and sustainable. Different binder materials are tested to find the best possible
solution.

MATERIALS USED

Straw: Straw is an agricultural by-product, the dry stalks of different cereal plants,
after the grain and chaff have been removed. In this study locally available shredded
bajra crop straw is used since when used in the plastered walls, it provides some
thermal mass, compressive and ductile structural strength, and acceptable fire
resistance as well as thermal resistance (insulation).
Gypsum: Gypsum is a delicate sulfate mineral made out of calcium sulfate dihydrate,
with the substance equation CaSO4·2H2O which is modestly water-solvent (~2.0–
2.5 g/l at 25°C), impervious to fire and low cost.
Sand: Sand is a normally occurring granular material made out of finely partitioned
rock and mineral particles. In this study, sieved sand between grade 600 microns
(remaining) to 2.36 mm (passing) is used.
Clay: Clay is a fine-grained natural rock or soil material that combines one or more
minerals with traces of metal oxides and organic matter. Clays are plastic due to the
water content and become hard, brittle and non–plastic upon drying or firing.
Epoxy Resin: Epoxy resins are pre-polymers containing at least two epoxide groups
which are also referred to as a glycidyl or oxirane group. Paladin P-7020 Epoxy
diluents are used with drier containing isocyanates with 0.05 % Co, 0.15% Ca ,
0.05% Zr and 0.035% Mn.

METHODOLOGY

Straw samples were taken for testing the basic properties of the straw, namely
moisture content, water absorption and specific gravity. Cube specimens were
prepared with 3 different binder materials: first with water, sand and clay, second
with gypsum and water, then finally with epoxy resin. Ratios of various contents of
each binder materials were varied for the given set of constituents, to get an optimum
value of the mix design ratio. Specimens prepared with epoxy resin were oven dried
at 50°C for at least 7 days. Every specimen is tested for compressive strength after
curing or oven dried. After getting desired compressive strength, the appropriate
binder was chosen for further testing. Specimen with appropriate binder were
prepared, cured or oven dried and tested for compressive strength, load strain
relationship and water absorption. Based on the results, computer models were
generated to check the seismic response of structures with straw bricks compared to
burnt clay bricks.

RESULTS

The experimentation done to find out physical properties of straw and to figure out
the properties and behaviour of straw brick using different binder material. The water
absorption and moisture content of straw husk samples passing through 1.18 mm
sieve are found quite high and are shown in table 1 and table 2 respectively.

Table 1: Water absorption of Straw samples

Wt. of wet sample after Dry Wt. of Wt. of water % Water
S.No.
24 hrs. in water (gm) Sample (gm) absorbed (gm) Absorbed
1 323 39 284 728.2%
2 308 41 267 651.22%
3 250 31 219 706.45%
 Table 2: Moisture Content of Straw samples
Wt. of Sample Dry Wt. of Wt. of moisture Moisture
S.No.
(gm) Sample (gm) present (gm) content
1 119 114 5 4.38%
2 120 113 7 6.19%
3 78 74 4 5.4%

According to IS 1077[12] brick must be checked for some adequate compressive

strength. So, straw was checked against various binders to find out which material
provides best adhesion. Due to lack of prior research related to gypsum straw
composite Gypsum content for the cube was varied from 10% to 200% (gypsum to
straw by mass). Since small percentages of gypsum was not enough to bind the straw
(because of large straw volume) finally two cubes (15cm x 15cm x 15cm) with
gypsum to straw ratio 1:1 and 1:2 were prepared with water content around 2.5 to 3
times that of straw. After 7 days curing, the compressive strength is found very low
(0.44 MPa) compared to 3.5 MPa, the minimum compressive strength of brick as per
IS 1077. Similarly, as binder material clay and sand were used and minimum
required strength could not be achieved as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Straw Bricks with Clay and Sand as binder materials

Mix Proportion Wt. of Density of Compressive
S.No.
Water: Straw: Clay: Sand Cube(kg) Cube (kg/m3) Strength (MPa)
1 4:2:7:7 4.91 1454.81 0.44
2 5:8:2:2 2.799 829.33 0.47

Since the required compressive strength and light weight could not be achieved using
gypsum and clay-sand mixture, finally epoxy resin is used as binder. A brick was
casted in a mould of size 230mm x 115mm x 70mm with epoxy to straw in ratio of
1.5:1 (by mass) and the following results are obtained compared to commonly used
burnt clay bricks: weight of straw brick with epoxy after 7 days dry curing is 702.5
gm (24%) whereas the c0mpressive strength of straw brick with epoxy is found 3.64
MPa which is adequate.
Though the straw brick with epoxy reached minimum compressive strength criteria,
the test was not continued since the strain was very large and brick did not fail by
crushing. Water absorption of the brick is found to be 79.14%. Further, Straw bricks
with straw to epoxy ratio by mass of 1:1.0 (sample named SB110) and 1:0.5 (sample
named SB105) were tested in the universal testing machine. The results obtained are
shown in the figures 1 and 2 where CB1 refers to burnt clay brick sample. It can be
inferred from the figures that SB110 satisfies the minimum strength criteria 3.5
N/mm2. But the strain in the brick at that particular load is very large. Whereas for
SB105 the strength reduces dramatically to around half of SB110 brick while the
strain is quite large similar to the SB110.

Time vs Stress Time vs Strain

20 5
SB110 Stress SB110 Strain
Stress (MPa)

SB105 Stress SB105 Strain

Strain (%)
CB1 Stress CB1 Strain

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Time (s) Time (s)

Seismic Response Analysis using ETABSTM modelling

A 10 storey SMRF RCC structure is considered in seismic zone V, on soil type II,
having importance factor 1, 4x4 grid of 4m span, with 3.2 m each floor height. Loads
considered are 1.5 kN/m2 live load at roof, 4 kN/m2 live load at floors, 20 kN/m wall
load for burnt clay bricks and 4.5 kN/m wall load for Straw bricks. Modelling the
structure in ETABS with 300 mm x 500 mm beams, 450mm x 450 mm columns and
150 mm thick slabs, the following results are found:

Seismic Weight Base Shear (kN) Maximum Lateral

(kN) force (kN)
1000 915.6
35000 32448 250 217.1
800
30000 663.6 200
25000 23520 600 147.3
20000 150
15000 400
100
10000 200
5000 50
0 0 0
Straw Burnt Straw Burnt Straw Burnt
Brick Clay Brick Clay Brick Clay
Brick Brick Brick

CONCLUSION

It has been found from the study that binder materials like gypsum, clay and sand
are not effective to achieve appropriate compressive strength. In fact, the failure
mode was brittle for bricks with these binders. On the other hand, straw bricks with
epoxy resin binder achieved satisfactory compressive strength. Moreover, the ductile
behaviour of the bricks and light weight is quite beneficial for seismic response of
structures. Moreover, the inherent sound and thermal proof properties of straw adds
to the additional serviceability of the bricks. Therefore, with further research,
stronger, lighter and highly cost-effective straw bricks can be produces in future.

REFERENCES

1. Ashour Taha & Wu Wei, (2011), Barley: Production, Cultivation and Uses, Ch.
12 Using Barley Straw as Building Material, ISBN: 978-1-61209-745-9
2. Brojan Larisa, Petric Alja & L.Clouston Peggi, (Nov 2013), A Comparative
Study of Brick and Straw Bale Wall Systems from Environmental, Economical
and Energy Perspectives, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
ISSN 1819-6608, VOL. 8, NO. 11, 920-926
3. Faine Michael & Zhang John, (Jul 2000), A Pilot Study examining the Strength,
Compressibility and Serviceability of Rendered Straw Bale Walls for Two
Storey Load Bearing Construction, First International Conference on Ecological
Building Structure, Santa Sabina Centre, San Rafael, California July 2001, 1-14
4. Korman et al., United States Patent Application Publication- Pub. No.: US
2009/0077920 A1.
5. Garas G. L. K., Allam M. E., Gawad A. K. A. & Moneim M. A., (Dec 2013),
Displacement in Load Bearing Straw Bale Walls due to Concentric Compressive
Loading, International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER),
ISSN: 2249-6645, Vol. 3, Issue. 6, pp-3767-3773
6. Lekshmi M.S., Subha B. V., (Apr 2011), Sustainable Building Materials in
Kerala – An overview, ACEEE Int. J. on Transportation and Urban
Development, Vol. 01, No. 01,
7. Patel A. N., Salla S., Pitroda J., (Feb 2013) A Study on Utilization of Agro-
Wastes as an Innovative Material in Indian Context, International Journal for
Scientific Research, ISSN 2277-8179, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 119-124
8. Reeb Jim, Milota Mike, (May 1999), Moisture Content by the Oven-Dry Method
for Industrial Testing, 66-74
9. IS 2212: Code of practice of brick work; Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India, 1991
10. IS 3495: Methods of tests on burnt clay building bricks; Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, 1992
11. IS IS 2617: Millboard, greyboard and strawboard; Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India, 2006
12. IS 1077: Common burnt clay building bricks; Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India, 1992