A

Project Report

on

“ BIO BRICKS PRODUCTION FOR CARBON NEGATIVE

BUILDING COMPONENTS ”

Submitted By:

MISS. SHELKE PRAPTI VISHWANATH (UCE21F2097)

MISS. MORE BHAKTI GANESH (UCE20F1007)

MR. RODE MAYUR VILAS (UCE21M2096)

MISS. CHAVAN GAUTAMI JITENDRA (UCE21F2102)

Under the Guidance of

Prof. D. D. MORE

Department of Civil Engineering

Sanjivani Rural Education Society’s

SANJIVANI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KOPARGAON-

423603

(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE AFFILIATED TO SPPU,

PUNE UNIVERSITY)

Academic Year (2023-24)

I
 Sanjivani Rural Education Society’s

SANJIVANI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KOPARGAON-423603

(AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE AFFILIATED TO SPPU, PUNE UNIVERSITY)

Department of Civil Engineering

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that,

Miss. Shelke Prapti Vishwanath (UCE21F2097)

Miss. More Bhakti Ganesh (UCE20F1007)
Mr. Rode Mayur Vilas (UCE21M2096)
Miss. Chavan Gautami Jitendra (UCE21F2102)

Have successfully completed the Project work entitled,

“ BIO BRICKS PRODUCTION FOR CARBON NEGATIVE BUILDING

COMPONENTS ”

For the partial fulfilment of requirements of BTech Degree in Civil Engineering Awarded by
Sanjivani College of Engineering, Kopargaon, An Autonomous Institute Affiliated to Savitribai
Phule Pune University, Pune.

Prof. D. D. More Dr. / Prof

(Project Guide) (External Examiner)

Dr. C. L. Jejurkar Dr. A. G. Thakur

(HoD ,Dept. Civil Engg) (Director)

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives an immense pleasure to express our sincere and heartiest gratitude towards
guide Prof. D. D. More and co-guide Dr. S. V. Patankar for their guidance, encouragement,
moral support and affection through the course of project work. Guides have proven to be an
excellent teacher. We are especially appreciative to their willingness to listen and guide to find
the best solution. We are also extremely grateful to Dr. C. L. Jejurkar Head of Civil Engineering
Department, for his motivation and support during the work from time to time. We are also
thankful to our Director Dr. A. G. Thakur for permitting us to do the entire work in institution
laboratory. We are also thankful to Manager, Sanjivani Sugar Factory, Kopargaon for their
sincere help and granting us to use the raw material from the factory.

We are also thankful to all group members and Gaikwad sir lab assistance for their
co-operation and support. This work is also the outcome of the blessings, guidance and support of
our parents and family members. Lastly, our cordial thanks to all who have contributed
intellectually and materially in words and deeds for completion of this work.

Submitted By

Miss. Shelke Prapti Vishwanath

Miss. More Bhakti Ganesh

Mr. Rode Mayur Vilas

Miss. Chavan Gautami Jitendra

III
 INDEX

SR.NO. CONTENT PAGE NO.

TITLE I

CERTIFICATE II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT III

INDEX IV

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF GRAPHS VII

LIST OF PHOTOS VII

ABSTRACT VIII

1 INTRODUCTION 1-8

1.1 General 1

1.2 Growth of construction industry: India's story 1

1.3 Agriculture industry in India 3

1.4 Bio-Brick 5

1.5 Importance of Sustainable Construction Materials 6

1.6 Overview of Carbon Negativity In Building Materials 7

1.7 Overview 8

1.8 Objectives 8

2 LITERATURE SURVEY 9-11

3 METHODOLOGY 12-22

IV
 3.1 General 12

3.2 Problem Statement 12

3.3 Bio Brick Production Process 12

3.4 Materials 12

3.5 Material Preparation 14

3.6 Quality Control 15

3.7 Market Survey 15

3.8 Test Required 17

3.9 Experimental Work 18

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 23-29

4.1 General 23

4.2 Water Absorption Test 23

4.3 Compressive Strength Test Results 25

4.4 Carbon content measurement 28

5 CONCLUSION 30

PHOTO GALLERY 31-38

REFERENCES 39-41

V
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE OF TABLE PAGE NO.

1.1 Crop wise residue generated [Mt/year] in various states of 3

India

1.2 Crop wise waste generated and fraction burnt 5

3.1 Bulk Density Test 18

3.2 Proportioning of Materials for Part 1 20

3.3 Proportioning of Materials for Part 2 21

3.4 Proportioning of Materials for Part 3 22

4.1 Water absorption Test Result 24

4.2 Compressive Strength test result part 1 25

4.3 Compressive Strength test result for part 2 26

4.4 Compressive Strength test result for part 3 27

4.5 Carbon Content 29

VI
 LIST OF GRAPHS

GRAPH .NO. TITLE OF GRAPH PAGE NO.

3.1 Proportioning of Materials for Part 1 20

3.2 Proportioning of Materials for Part 2 21

3.3 Proportioning of Materials for Part 3 22

4.1 Compressive Strength test result part 1 25

4.2 Compressive Strength test result part 2 26

4.3 Compressive Strength test result part 3 27

4.4 Comparison Between 3 Parts 28

4.5 Carbon Content 29

LIST OF PHOTOS

PHOTO .NO. TITLE OF PHOTO PAGE NO.

1 Material 15

2 Water Absorption 24

VII
 ABSTRACT

India is one of the fastest-growing building construction sector, and it heavily uses the country's
finite natural resources. One of the main building materials used in the construction sector is fired
clay brick, which emits a significant amount of greenhouse gases. The goal of present work is to
demonstrate the application of alternative materials and which can be modified to fit the needs of
the Indian building construction sector. Among these materials is bio-bricks are also known as
agro-waste based brick, which shows promise as an affordable and sustainable option. It has a net-
zero carbon footprint overall and functions well as a sound and heat insulator. It also discourages
stubble burning, which is common in northern India and results in serious air pollution. Because
of its low density, it minimizes dead load in tall buildings construction, which increases the
affordability of RCC construction. The study also emphasizes how Bio-brick can be used in
different parts of a construction. Inspiring and motivating architects, designers, researchers and
builders to promote and support the development of such eco-friendly and sustainable construction
materials in the construction sector .

KEYWORDS: Eco design, sustainability, and the innovation of new product

VIII
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In India, the construction sector is the second largest industry, right behind agriculture. There is
an enormous demand for housing and other housing-related amenities due to the rapid
urbanization and exponential population expansion, which is leading to a lack of conventional
building materials. The creation of traditional construction materials contaminate the air, water,
and land while consuming a lot of energy. Therefore, new sustainable materials are required to
address the ever-increasing demand for building materials (Madurwar et al., 2013). Concurrently,
there is an increasing problem with agricultural solid wastes, which are turning into a significant
cause of air pollution in practically all emerging nations, including India.

The primary goal of the research described in this paper is to develop a helpful method for
converting solid agricultural wastes into useful building materials, therefore solving two urgent
problems at once. This research investigates the possible uses of "agro-waste," such as straw
stubbles or hay. Remaining wood, etc., as a component of sustainable bricks as an alternative
building material. These bio-bricks can be altered to fit the local market and building construction
styles, depending on the agro-waste resources that are available. Reducing the amount of natural
resources used and energy consumed can be achieved by using agro-waste as a construction
material.

It can increase the farmer's revenue because they can sell their leftover stubble rather than burning
it, which will lessen air pollution. Up cycling, which is the act of turning waste materials into new
goods with a higher environmental value than in their The agro-waste can be combined with lime,
stone dust, and water to create useful bricks (prior usage) (Oyenuga et al., 2017).

1.2 Growth of construction industry: India's story

1.2.1 The construction industry

India and China are the two economies that are expanding the quickest in the world, and both have
made significant investments in the building industry. The Indian construction sector expanded
by about 20–30% in just 2015. Over two trillion rupees are anticipated to be invested in the Indian
government's "Smart City" plan. The building companies will benefit even more from other

1
government programs like "Housing for All by 2022" (Pandit, 2017). By 2018, the construction
industry's growth is predicted to treble from 2015 levels thanks to these initiatives. It is anticipated
that the industry will receive approximately $650 billion in investment over the next 20 years
(Morris, Anindo Sarkar, Udayan Dhavalikar, 2016). The construction industry's rapid expansion
will increase the need for enormous quantities of raw materials to fuel the construction of new
buildings, aggravating the previously noted issues with pollution and material demand. Common
building supplies like steel, cement, sand, and clay bricks are being used at an alarming rate, which
makes them expensive and limited. Consequently, there is a rise in illicit mining, which causes
the ecosystem to deteriorate significantly and uncontrollably. These figures demonstrate how
critical it is to develop more environmentally friendly and sustainable solutions.

1.2.2 Demand of raw material

It is estimated that 590 million Indians would reside in cities by 2030. Large housing investments
will be necessary to support such an urbanization level (Loganathan et al., 2017). According to
Satpathy et al. (2016), India's raw material needs are projected to be approximately 15 billion
tonnes by 2030 and 25 billion tonnes by 2050. A number of resources are found in environmentally
delicate areas, such as river basins, including those of the Palar and its tributaries in Cheyyar,
Tamil Nadu (Saviour, 2012), and material extraction will have a negative impact on these areas.
On that note, river sand is the most popular option in the building industry because it contains
silica, which is hard, resilient, and inert. This encourages the indiscriminate mining of river sand,
which devastates river systems. This frequently involves unorganized organizations, which makes
it challenging for the government to supervise the sand mining business's operations. The industry
also grows since it requires little capital and yields large profits. According to some reports, illegal
sand extraction in India produced INR 10 billion (about $150 million) in revenue in 2011.India
has the largest extraction per area globally, at around 1579 tonnes/sq.km, as opposed to 454
tonnes/sq.km globally (Satpathy et al., 2016).Given that materials account for the majority of
construction expenditures, the current climate necessitates the efficient use of materials as well as
the availability of alternative building solutions.

1.2.3 Pollution and destruction of nature

According to estimates from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India is home to about
140,000 brick kilns that emit 66 million tons of CO2. In addition, it generates dangerous pollutants
such particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO).

2
About 9% of India's total greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to these kilns (Aswale, 2015).
In addition to emitting emissions, the bricks require about 350 million tons of topsoil and clay,
which erodes land and might cause a major environmental catastrophe (Banerjee, 2015). Conflicts
and ecological degradation are growing more frequent as mining intensifies. Large-scale
extraction will raise carbon emissions even further, making it harder for India to fulfil its
international climate change obligations.

1.3 Agriculture industry in India

1.3.1 Agricultural waste

After China, India is the second largest producer of agricultural waste. It produces more than 130
million-tons of Paddy straw out of which only half is used as fodder and the other half goes to
waste, either in landfills or is simply dumped somewhere (Baig, 2010; Singh and Sidhu, 2014). It
also produces more than 50 million-tons of cane bagasse. Table 1.1 (Jain et al., 2014) indicates
the state wise generation of agricultural waste across India. As can be seen, India has diverse
agricultural practices, which produces more than 500 million-tons of agricultural waste every year.
The surplus waste (84 - 141 million-tons) is usually burnt by the farmers which results in massive
air pollution causing major health hazards. A study based on Punjab alone showed that stubble
produced per acre of paddy and wheat is around 23 and 19 quintals respectively. Around 85% of
the paddy stubble is burnt in the open fields. In the case of wheat stubble around 11% was burnt.
Considering the amount of stubble being produced, even burning a smaller percentage of it can
cause considerable damage to the environment around it (Singh, 2017).

Table No. 1.1 : Crop wise residue generated [Mt/year] in various states of India

States Cereal crops Fibre crops Oilseed Sugarcane

crops
Andhra Pradesh 33.07 16.07 2.50 5.80
Arunanchal Pradesh 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.01
Assam 8.15 2.01 0.29 0.41
Bihar 19.87 3.27 0.20 1.87
Chhattisgarh 8.87 0.01 0.11 0.01
Goa 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.02
Gujarat 8.18 28.62 5.06 5.85
Haryana 24.73 7.58 2.15 1.93
Himachal Pradesh 1.95 0.00 0.01 0.02

3
 Jharkhand 7.34 0.00 0.09 0.13
Karnataka 11.73 3.55 0.81 8.80
Kerala 1.14 0.01 0.00 0.10
Madhya Pradesh 16.05 3.51 2.13 1.12
Maharashtra 8.75 19.51 0.57 22.87
Manipur 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.01
Meghalaya 0.44 0.13 0.01 0.00
Mizoram 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01
Nagaland 0.89 0.01 0.06 0.07
Orissa 13.38 0.56 0.16 0.24
Punjab 45.58 9.32 0.08 1.76
Rajasthan 22.19 2.96 9.26 0.15
Sikkim 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.00
Tamil Nadu 11.69 0.78 1.56 12.37
Tripura 1.22 0.02 0.00 0.02
Uttar Pradesh 72.02 0.04 2.49 41.13
Uttarakhand 2.40 0.00 0.03 2.11
A & N Islands 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
D & N Haveli 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Delhi 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daman & Diu 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pondicherry 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.06
All India 361.85 122.37 28.72 107.50

1.3.2 Agricultural waste in India

The Indo Gangetic plains is the highest affected region in terms of crop burning. Along with other
causes of pollution, it creates a poisonous haze every year causing widespread respiratory hazards
and even mortalities. The resulting smoke can cause multiple and lasting effects particularly on
children’s lung function compared to adults. It also causes permanent decrease in their pulmonary
function which in due course can lead to lowering the respiring capacity of the adult and thus lead
to major epidemiological hazards (Awasthi et al., 2010). In Delhi, India’s largest city, the pollution
due to crop burning has doubled between the years 1995 to 2015. The pollution in Mumbai has
increased by 1.5 times during the same period. There were approximately 80665 deaths that were
directly or indirectly caused by air pollution in the year 2015 alone (PHFI and CEH, 2017).

4
Though crop burning cannot be held solely responsible for the situation, it nonetheless is an
important contributor to the crisis. Refer to Table 1.2 (Jain et al., 2014) for crop wise residue
generation and fraction burnt in India. The table highlights the high annual production of crops
like rice paddy and sugarcane, the higher amount of residue generation contrary to their low
residue to crop ratio. Thereby, these crops by their sheer volumes become the major contributors
to Agriculture Crop Residue Burning (ACRB). This also shows the enormous potential, if all of
this waste could be used somehow as a sustainable and economically profitable material, which
will be beneficial not only for India but also for the world.

Table No . 1.2 : Crop wise waste generated and fraction burnt

Crop Annual Dry Residue Residue to Dry matter Fraction

production Generated crop ratio fraction burnt
(Mt/yr.) (Mt/yr.)
Rice paddy 153.35 192.82 1.50 0.86 0.08-0.8
Wheat 80.68 120.70 1.70 0.88 0.1-0.23
Maize 19.73 26.75 1.50 0.88 0.10
Jute 18.32 31.51 2.15 0.80 0.10
Cotton 37.86 90.86 3.00 0.80 0.10
Groundnut 7.17 11.44 2.00 0.80 0.10
Sugarcane 285.03 107.50 0.40 0.88 0.25
Rapeseed 7.20 17.28 3.00 0.80 0.10
&Mustard
Millets 18.62 21.57 1.50 0.88 0.10
Total 627.96 620.43

1.4 Bio-Brick

The process of creating bio-bricks from agro-waste usually entails using agricultural leftovers or
by-products as a major building element. By recycling waste materials and lowering the
environmental effect of typical brick manufacture, this method encourages sustainability.

 Renewable Materials

 Biodegradability

5
 Carbon Sequestration

 Lower Energy Consumption

 Microbial Processes

 Adaptability to Various Forms

 Utilization of Agricultural and Industrial Residues

 Encourages Biodiversity

1.5 Methods of Bio brick Production

1.5.1 Bio Brick By Agro Waste

In this method, agricultural waste are introduced to the raw material mixture.

1.5.2 Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation (MICP):

In this method, specific bacteria are introduced to the raw material mixture. These bacteria
facilitate the precipitation of calcium carbonate, effectively binding the organic materials and
creating a solid matrix.

1.5.3 Alkaline Activation:

Alkaline activation involves treating raw materials with alkaline solutions, such as sodium
hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. This process activates the materials, leading to improved
binding and the formation of a durable structure.

1.5.4 Fungi-Mediated Production:

Fungi, such as mycelium, can be employed to bind and consolidate organic materials. Mycelium
grows into a network, acting as a natural adhesive. This method is particularly interesting for its
potential to create bio-bricks with unique properties

1.5.5 Enzyme-Assisted Fermentation:

Enzymes can be introduced to the raw materials to accelerate the fermentation process. Enzymatic
reactions break down complex compounds, aiding in the formation of a cohesive bio-brick.

1.5.6 Lignin-Based Bio-Bricks:

6
Lignin, a complex organic polymer found in plant cell walls, can be extracted and used as a key
component in bio-brick production. The lignin serves as a natural binder, enhancing the structural
integrity of the bricks.

1.5.7 Hydrothermal Treatment:

Hydrothermal treatment involves subjecting raw materials to high-pressure steam. This process
modifies the physical and chemical properties of the materials, resulting in improved binding and
compaction.

1.5.8 Bacterial Cellulose Production:

Certain bacteria produce cellulose, a fibrous material with excellent binding properties. Bio-bricks
can be formed by incorporating bacterial cellulose into the raw material mixture.

1.5.9 Chemical Activation with Polymeric Additives:

Introduction of polymeric additives, such as biopolymers or bio-based polymers, during the

production process can enhance the cohesion and strength of bio-bricks.

1.5.10 Carbonization:

Carbonization involves subjecting organic materials to high temperatures in an oxygen-limited

environment. The resulting bio-char can then be used as a sustainable building material with
carbon-negative properties.

1.5.11 3D Printing with Bio-Inks:

Advanced 3D printing technologies enable the precise layering of bio-inks composed of organic
materials. This method allows for the creation of intricate and customized bio-brick designs.

1.5.12 Combination of Techniques:

Hybrid approaches that combine multiple methods, such as MICP and alkaline activation, can be
explored to leverage the strengths of each technique and address potential limitations.

1.6 Importance of Sustainable Construction Materials

1.6.1 Environmental Impact: Traditional construction materials, such as concrete and steel, have
significant environmental impacts in terms of resource extraction, energy consumption, and
carbon emissions.

7
1.6.2 Resource Conservation: Sustainable materials often utilize renewable resources, recycled
content, or materials with lower environmental impact, helping conserve natural resources and
reduce the ecological footprint of construction projects.

1.6.3 Energy Efficiency: Many sustainable materials are designed to be more energy-efficient
during production and use. This includes materials with improved insulation properties, reducing
the energy required for heating and cooling buildings.

1.7 Overview of Carbon Negativity In Building Materials

1.7.1 Carbon Footprint Reduction: Traditional building materials often contribute significantly
to carbon emissions during production. Carbon-negative materials, such as bio-bricks, actively
absorb and sequester carbon dioxide, helping to offset the carbon footprint associated with
construction.

1.7.2 Climate Change Mitigation: The construction industry is a major contributor to greenhouse
gas emissions. Carbon-negative building materials play a crucial role in mitigating climate change
by actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, contributing to global efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas concentrations.

1.8 Overview

The environmental concerns have been largely promoting the use of bio-based materials in the
industries as the “green” alternatives to the petroleum based counterparts. The overall focus of the
current project is on the development of biobased composites for structural applications

1.9 Objectives

The benefits of bio-brick include:

 Reduced carbon footprint

 Reduced toxicity in manufacturing
 Reduced reliance on fossil fuels
 Responsibly sourced from renewable bio-materials

8
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY

Abhjit Mukherjee et al. (2011) Conducted a thorough investigation into the use of bacterial
calcification to improve the characteristics of soil-cement bricks. The authors carried out
laboratory tests to show how adding bacteria that can precipitate calcium carbonate enhanced the
bricks' compressive strength and decreased their absorption of water. This creative method
supports the objectives of sustainable building materials by improving the mechanical qualities
while lowering the embodied energy.

Mangesh V. Madurwar et al. (2013) Concluded that Based on the availability of agro-waste
materials, sustainable construction materials are evaluated for their physico-mechanical
properties, methods of production and environmental impact. The application of agro-waste for
sustainable construction materials provides a solution which offers reduction in natural resource
use as well as energy.

Nithiya's et al. 2016 Experimental Investigation on Bricks by Using Various Waste Materials,is
a significant addition to the field of sustainable building materials. It was published in the
International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, Volume 6(3), Pages 395–
402. The primary focus of this research is on experimental analysis to determine the effects of
various waste materials on the mechanical, thermal, and physical properties of bricks.
Determining whether these waste materials are

G.H.M.J. Subashi De Silva et al. (2018) Declared that the production of fired clay bricks was
found to be a possible application for rice husk ash (RHA), a byproduct of the brick-firing process.
It is unclear how the addition of waste RHA impacts thermal and acoustic performances,
notwithstanding the possibility that it would impair the structural qualities of building materials.
For these reasons, experimental research on the structural, thermal, and acoustic properties of
burnt clay bricks made from waste RHA was conducted using industrial scale manufactures of the
bricks.

9
Chrysanthos Maraveas et al. (2020) Concluded that diverse types of agro-waste ranging from
rice husk ash (RHA), sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA), and bamboo leaves ash (BLA) among others
have been identified as potent solutions in the development of sustainable construction materials.
In this review paper, six different construction materials, made using agro-waste products, are
examined. The materials include brick/masonry elements, green concrete, insulation materials for
buildings, reinforcement materials for buildings, particleboards, and bio-based plastics. The main
criterion adopted in selecting the materials regards their popularity and wide-scale use in modern
construction applications.

V.S. Arangarajan et al. (2020) Discusses the creation of affordable, environmentally friendly
bio bricks. Although specifics from the publication are not available, it is clear that the authors'
research focuses on developing bio bricks that are both economically feasible and in line with
sustainability goals. This study may help make sustainable building materials more widely
available for use in a variety of construction projects.

Priysbrata Rautray, et al. (2021)There study explains the connection between the circular
economy model and bio-bricks, as well as the advantages it offers to the rural economy and society
at large. It can be recycled at the end of its useful life or used as filler, among other direct and
indirect advantages. It also helps to reduce air pollution. It also records the early stages of product
creation and testing. First, bio-brick building blocks were created, and then preliminary
experiments were conducted to ascertain the physical qualities. The product's forms and functions
were revised as a result of these findings. Industrial environments, such as sandwich or reinforced
board enclosures for machinery and equipment, can likewise benefit from new iterations. The
production of bio-bricks has the ability to solve the disposal issue.

Sangmesh B. et al. (2021) Concluded that numerous examinations have been conducted about
the ecological impact of the construction material. Building construction and use account for about
40% of total CO2 emissions; 15% of these emissions are related to the manufacturing of building
materials. As such, it has become imperative that the building sector adopt a more environmentally
friendly method of constructing buildings. Furthermore, the sustainability of the ecosystem is
negatively impacted by the overuse of natural and river sand, which is typically utilized as fine
aggregate in concrete. Furthermore, the production of agro-waste, or agricultural wastes, has a
negative ecological impact. After harvest, agro-waste is unavoidably produced and burned to clear

10
the landfill. Paddy husk, sugarcane, and red gram crops are examples of agro-waste that produces
ten to fifteen times as much as the genuine products.

Kshitij Waghule, et al. (2022) While the development industry is responsible for the world's
excessive energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, environmentally friendly materials
garner attention. This article investigates the effects of varying agrowaste fiber diameters on
compressive strength and other light weight block properties. In this experiment, a sample of
agrowaste fibers (0-5, 5-10, and 0-15 mm) was employed. Lime and slag were used as the block's
binder, and their constant ratios to water, agrowaste, and binder were 7.69%, 61.53%, and 38.46%,
respectively. After 28 days of hardening, the compressive strength, split tensile strength, and
flexural strength were evaluated. A comparative analysis of the capture of carbon emissions
between the AAC and agrocrete blocks will be carried out.

11
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 General

The project focuses on producing bio bricks from a combination of organic waste materials, such
as agricultural residues and biomass, along with a binding agent. The chosen materials are readily
available and can be locally sourced, reducing transportation emissions. A simple and cost-
effective production process employed that involves mixing the materials, moulding the bricks,
and curing them under controlled conditions.

3.2 Problem Statement

A bio-brick production using agro-waste involves addressing the environmental impact of

agricultural residues by exploring sustainable methods to convert these waste materials into eco-
friendly and durable building blocks. Key challenges include optimizing the conversion process,
ensuring structural integrity, and promoting widespread adoption of bio-bricks as a viable
alternative to traditional construction materials.

3.3 Bio Brick Production Process:

 Material Selection: We carefully select organic waste materials based on their availability,
carbon content, and compatibility with the binding agent.

 Mixing and Molding: The chosen materials are mixed with the binding agent to form a
homogenous mixture. This mixture is then molded into brick shapes using standardized molds.

 Curing: The bricks are cured in controlled environmental conditions to ensure proper bonding
and strength development.

3.4 Materials

3.4.1 Organic Waste Materials:

One of the defining features of bio bricks is their use of organic waste materials as a primary
component. These organic waste materials can include a wide range of biomass and agricultural
residues such as:

 Rice Husk Ash: Rice husk ash is a common choice due to its availability and high silica
content. Silica helps improve the mechanical properties of the bricks.

12
 Sawdust: Sawdust is often used as a lightweight filler material. It reduces the density of the
bricks and can improve insulation properties.
 Sugarcane Bagasse: Bagasse, a by-product of sugarcane processing, is rich in cellulose and
can serve as a binding agent when properly processed.
 Straw: Straw from crops like wheat or rice can be used to add fibrous strength to the bricks.
 Palm Kernel Shells: These shells are a waste product from palm oil production and can be
used as a lightweight aggregate.

3.4.2 Binding Agents:

Binding agents are essential to hold the organic waste materials together and give the bricks their
structural integrity. Various binding agents can be used, including:

 Cement: Portland cement is a common binding agent used in bio brick production. However,
efforts are being made to reduce the cement content to minimize the carbon footprint.
 Lime: Lime-based binders, such as hydrated lime, can be used to reduce the environmental
impact compared to cement.
 Bacterial Calcification some bio bricks utilize bacteria that can precipitate calcium carbonate,
acting as a natural binder. This approach can significantly reduce the need for conventional
binders (Mukherjee et al., 2011).
 Bio resin : Aloevera gel , jaggery , hibiscus leaves gel

3.4.3 Additives and Reinforcements:

Depending on the desired properties of the bio bricks, various additives and reinforcements can
be included:

 Natural Fibers: Adding natural fibers, such as jute, coir, or sisal,hemp, can enhance the
tensile strength and flexibility of the bricks.
 Fly Ash: Fly ash, a waste product from coal combustion, can be used to improve the bricks'
properties, including strength and durability.
 Microorganisms: In some cases, microorganisms like fungi or algae may be used to
contribute to the growth and strengthening of the bricks.

3.4.4 Water:

Water is essential for the hydration of binding agents and the proper mixing of materials during
brick production. Careful control of water content is crucial to achieve the desired consistency
and properties.

13
3.5 Material Preparation:

The first step in bio brick production is the collection and preparation of the raw materials, which
typically include organic waste materials and binding agents. These materials may have varying
particle sizes, moisture content, and impurities, so they need to be processed to achieve
consistency. The preparation process involves:

 Collection and Sourcing: Collect organic waste materials such as rice husk ash, sawdust,
straw, or other biomass residues from local sources or agricultural waste.

 Cleaning and Drying: Remove impurities, contaminants, or excess moisture from the organic
materials to ensure they meet the desired specifications for the bricks.

 Grinding and Milling: Reduce the particle size of the materials to achieve uniformity and
improve their compatibility with the binding agent. This step enhances the mixing process.

3.5.1. Mixing:

Once the organic waste materials are prepared, they are mixed with the chosen binding agent to
create a homogenous mixture. Mixing can be performed using a concrete mixer or a specialized
mixing apparatus. The key here is to ensure that the binding agent thoroughly coats and binds the
organic materials.

3.5.2 Molding:

The mixed material is then placed into molds to shape the bio bricks. These molds can come in
various sizes and shapes, depending on the intended application of the bricks. Commonly used
molds include rectangular, square, or interlocking shapes. The molding process includes:

 Compaction: The mixture is compacted within the molds to eliminate air voids and ensure
that the bricks have a consistent density.

 Demolding: After compaction, the bricks are left to cure and set within the molds for a specific
period, typically around 24 hours. After this curing time, the bricks can be removed from the
molds.

3.5.3 Curing:

Curing is a crucial step in bio brick production, as it allows the binding agents to set and harden.
During this period, the bricks are protected from extreme temperature fluctuations and excessive
moisture loss. Curing conditions may vary depending on the type of binding agent used and the
specific requirements of the bio bricks.

14
3.6 Quality Control:

Quality control measures are implemented throughout the production process to ensure that the
bio bricks meet the desired standards and specifications. Common quality control checks include:

 Compression Testing: Testing the compressive strength of the bricks to ensure they meet
minimum strength requirements for their intended use.

 Dimensional Checks: Ensuring that the bricks conform to the specified dimensions and do
not exhibit excessive variations.

 pAbsorption Testing: Measuring the water absorption capacity of the bricks to evaluate their
resistance to moisture.

3.7 Market Survey

Materials Used In Carbon-Negative Building

Components

• Sugarcane Baggasse Fibre

• Grass Fibre

• Fly Ash

• Baggasse Ash

• Coconut Shell

• Water

• Lime

• Cement

Picture 1 : Material

3.7.1 Sugarcane Baggasse Fibre

Biobricks production using sugarcane bagasse involves utilizing the fibrous residue left over after
sugarcane has been crushed to extract juice. Sugarcane bagasse is a promising raw material for
biobricks due to its abundance, low cost, and potential for sustainable use.

3.7.2 Grass Fibre

Grass fibers can be used in bio-bricks as a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to traditional
building materials. These bio-bricks are made by combining grass fibers with a binding agent,
15
often a natural resin or a biopolymer, to create a strong and durable material suitable for
construction.

3.7.3 Fly Ash

Biobricks production using fly ash involves incorporating fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion
in power plants, into the Manufacturing process. This process not only utilizes a waste material
but also contributes to the sustainable production of bricks.

3.7.4 Baggasse Ash

Biobricks production using bagasse ash involves incorporating ash derived from sugarcane
bagasse into the manufacturing process. This process not only utilizes an agricultural waste
byproduct but also contributes to sustainable brick production.

3.7.5 Coconut Shell

Biobricks production using coconut shells as a replacement for traditional aggregates involves
incorporating coconut shell particles into the manufacturing process. This sustainable approach
not only utilizes an agricultural waste byproduct but also contributes to the reduction of
environmental impact in the construction industry.

3.7.6 Water

Water is used for mixing and curing as per IS 456:2000. From durability consideration water
cement ratio should be restricted as in case of normal concrete and it should preferably be less
than 0.4 are tested for their important properties before utilization them for marking concrete

3.7.7 Lime

Lime is also commonly used in the production of bricks, contributing to the durability and
workability of the material. There are two main types of lime used in brickmaking: quicklime
(calcium oxide, CaO) and hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)₂).

3.7.8 Cement

Bio-bricks can incorporate cement as a binder to enhance their strength and durability while still
benefiting from the use of sustainable and eco-friendly materials.

16
3.8 Test required for bio bricks

3.8.1 Compressive Strength Test:

This test assesses the maximum compressive load a bio brick can withstand. It's essential to ensure
that the bricks have the required structural integrity for their intended application. The test helps
determine if the bricks meet the minimum strength standards.

3.8.2 Water Absorption Test:

Water absorption testing evaluates the ability of bio bricks to resist moisture penetration. High
water absorption can lead to reduced durability and may indicate the need for further optimization.

3.8.3 Density Measurement:

Measuring the density of bio bricks helps ensure consistency in their composition. Density affects
various properties, including insulation, weight, and structural performance.

3.8.4 Thermal Conductivity Test:

This test assesses the thermal insulation properties of bio bricks. Lower thermal conductivity
indicates better insulation, which is essential for energy-efficient buildings.

3.8.5 Durability Assessment:

Durability tests involve subjecting bio bricks to environmental conditions they may encounter
during their lifecycle, such as freeze-thaw cycles or wetting and drying cycles. These tests help
evaluate the bricks' long-term performance and resistance to deterioration.

3.8.6 Carbon Sequestration Measurement:

If one of your project objectives is to produce carbon-negative building components, you'll need
to measure the carbon sequestration potential of the bio bricks. This may involve carbon testing
before and after production to assess the net carbon sequestration.

3.8.7 Environmental Impact Assessment:

Evaluate the environmental impact of your bio bricks compared to conventional building
materials. This assessment may include life cycle assessments (LCA) to measure factors like
embodied energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource depletion.

3.8.8 Cost Analysis:

If cost-effectiveness is a project goal, conduct a cost analysis to compare the production costs of
bio bricks to traditional materials. This should consider materials, labour, and equipment costs.

17
3.8.9 Material Characterization:

Perform material characterization tests to understand the properties of the raw materials used in
bio brick production. This includes testing the organic waste materials, binding agents, and any
additives for factors like composition, particle size, and moisture content.

3.8.10 Quality Control Tests:

Implement quality control tests throughout the production process to ensure that the bio bricks
consistently meet specified standards and requirements.

3.8.11 Local Regulatory Compliance Tests:

Be aware of and comply with local regulations and standards for construction materials. Ensure
that your bio bricks meet all relevant safety and performance requirements.

3.8.12 Market Acceptance Testing (if applicable):

If you intend to bring your bio bricks to the market, consider conducting market acceptance tests
to gather feedback from potential customers or stakeholders.

3.9 Experimental Work

3.9.1 Material Testing

1) Bulk Density Test

Table No. 3.1 : Bulk Density Test

Material Weight (kg) Bulk Density

Empty Weight of Bucket 3.40
Baggase ash 1.46 0.486
Fly Ash 2.80 0.93
Cement 3.88 1.29
Baggase fibre 0.220 0.073
Grass fibre 0.200 0.067
Coconut shell 0.430 0.143

18
3.9.2 Procedure

 The process of making bio-brick starts with careful selection of the dry agro-waste, which is
then chopped to the desired size.
 A cement based slurry is prepared by adding materials. The chopped agro-waste is added to
the slurry and mixed thoroughly by hand or mechanical mixer, to create a homogenous
mixture.
 This mixture is poured into moulds (100mm x 100mm x 100mm) and rammed with wooden
block to make a compact brick block by removing extra water or voids.
 These moulds are left to dry for a day or two, after which the sides of the moulds are removed
 The brick is allowed to dry for 7-28 days.
 The testing on blocks should be done properly
 In this process no controlled or machine drying is used to make the whole process sustainable
and reduce the carbon footprint.
 The time taken to manufacture bio-bricks is comparable to air dried (naturally dried) fired clay
bricks.
 Even though these bio-bricks have less compressive strength as compared to fired clay bricks
or concrete blocks, they are quite light in weight (1.43 kg per block) i.e. almost 1/8 of fired
clay bricks and 1/10 of concrete blocks of similar volume.
 Hence, they can be effectively used in framed structure as non-load bearing walls with
excellent heat and sound insulation with minimal dead load on the structure.

19
 Table No.3.2 : Proportioning of Materials for Part 1

Material Proportion for Mortar cube

Materials Block 1 Block 2

Sugarcane Baggase 120 gm 120 gm

Coconut Shell 30 gm 30 gm

Baggasse Ash 60 gm 40 gm

Fly Ash 40 gm 40 gm

Lime - 20 gm

PROPORTIONING OF MATERIALS FOR PART 1

0
20
250 40
40
PROPORTION

200 60
40

150 30 30

100
120 120
50

0
Block 1 Block 2
NUMBER OF BLOCKS

Baggase Fibre Coconut Shell Baggase ash Fly Ash Lime

Graph No.3.1 Proportioning of Materials for Part 1

20
 Table No.3.3 : Proportioning of Materials for Part 2

Materials Material Proportion for Mortar cube

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
Cement 20 % 30 % 30 % 25 %
Fly Ash 20 % 25 % 35 % 30 %
Baggasse Ash 30 % 35 % 20 % 25 %
Baggase Fibre 10 % 5% 8% 15 %
Grass Fibre 20 % 5% 7% 5%
Mix Proportion 1:0.483:0.564: 1:0.834:0.437: 1:0.841:0.250: 1:0.864:0.376:
0.009:0.0165 0.009:0.008 0.014:0.0121 0.033:0.010

PROPORTIONING OF MATERIALS FOR PART 2

2.5
0.008
0.009 0.0167
0.033
0.0165 0.012
0.014
0.009 0.437 0.376
2 0.25
0.564
PROPORTION

1.5 0.834 0.841 0.864

0.487

1 1 1 1
0.5

0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trail 4
NUMBER OF TRIALS

Cement Fly ash Baggase Ash Baggase Fibre Grass Fibre Water

Graph No.3.2 : Proportioning of Materials for Part 2

21
 Table No.3.4 : Proportioning of Materials for Part 3

Material Proportion for Mortar cube

Trial 1 Trial 2
Materials

Cement 15 % 18 %
Fly Ash 30 % 40 %
Baggasse Ash 45 % 35 %
Baggase Fibre 6% 5%
Grass Fibre 4% 2%
Mix Proportion 1:1.44:1.12:0.022:0.013 1:1.59:0.729:0.015:0.005

PROPORTIONING OF MATERIALS FOR PART 3

4 0.013
0.022
0.005
0.015
3.5
1.12 0.729
3
PROPORTION

2.5
2 1.44 1.59

1.5
1
1 1
0.5
0
Trial 1 Trial 2
NUMBER OF TRIALS

Cement Fly ash baggase ash Baggase Fibre Grass Fibre Water

Graph No.3.3 : Proportioning of Materials for Part 3

22
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General

This chapter includes the results of the experiment designed to investigate bio brick production.
The data collected from our experiments on producing bio bricks using water absorption and
Compression test method was analysed to determine the quality and efficiency of the bio bricks
produced.

4.2 Water Absorption Test

Brick for external use must be capable of preventing rain water from passing through them to the
inside of walls of reasonable thickness. A good brick should absorb water maximum 1/7 th of the
weight of the brick. Water absorption tests on bio bricks are essential to determine their suitability
for construction, especially in environments where they will be exposed to moisture. The process
typically involves measuring the increase in weight of the bricks after being submerged in water
for a specified period.

𝑊2−𝑊1
Water Absorption % = × 100
𝑊1

4.2.1 IS Code Classification of Bricks

The classification of bricks, including bio bricks, is often guided by standards set by the Bureau
of Indian Standards (BIS). According to IS 1077:1992 (Common Burnt Clay Building Bricks -
Specification), bricks are classified into different classes based on their physical and mechanical
properties, including water absorption. The classification typically includes First Class, Second
Class, and Third Class bricks.

4.2.2 Classification for Bio Bricks:

 First Class Bio Bricks:

• Water Absorption: ≤ 20%

• Usage: High-quality construction, load-bearing walls, and external walls.

 Second Class Bio Bricks:

23
 • Water Absorption: ≤ 22%

• Usage: General construction work with plastering, load-bearing walls.

 Third Class Bio Bricks:

• Water Absorption: ≤ 25%

• Usage: Non-load-bearing walls, temporary structures, and internal walls.

Table No 4.1 : Water Absorption Test

Sr.No. Dry Weight Wet Weight Water Absorption Average

W1 (kg) W2 (kg) %
1 1.210 1.443 19.25
2 1.217 1.469 20.70 19.58
3 1.260 1.497 18.80

Water Absorption is 19.58 % so it is a First Class Brick

Picture 2 : Water Absorption

24
4.3 Compressive Strength Test

Table No. 4.2 : Compressive Strength Test For Part 1

Sr.No. No. of Test Specimen Age in Weight Load at Compressive

Trials ( 70 X 70 X 70 Days of block failure Strength
mm) (kg) (kN) (N/mm^2)

1 Trial 1 Block 1 14 1.04 8 1.63

2 Trial 2 Block 2 14 1.10 10 2.04

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST PART 1

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

2.5
2.04
(N/MM^2)

2 1.63

1.5

0.5

0
Trial 1 Trial 2
BLOCKS

Number of Blocks

Graph No 4.1 : Compressive Strength Test Part 1

25
 Table No. 4.3 : Compressive Strength Test For Part 2

Test Specimen Age Weight Load at Compressive

Sr.No No.of (100X100X100mm) in of block failure strength
Trials Days (kg) (Kn) N/mm^2
1 Block 1 7 1.210 45 4.5
Trial 1 Block 2 7 1.217 45 4.5
Block 3 7 1.260 50 5.0
2 Block 1 7 1.217 55 5.5
Trial 2 Block 2 7 1.180 55 5.5
Block 3 7 1.289 50 5.0
3 Block 1 7 1.333 50 5.0
Trial 3 Block 2 7 1.310 45 4.5
Block 3 7 1.175 40 4.0
4 Block 1 7 1.168 45 4.5
Trial 4 Block 2 7 1.198 35 3.5
Block 3 7 1.444 40 4.0

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST PART 2

6 5.5 5.5
5 5 5
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

4 4
4
N/MM^2

3.5

0
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
BLOCKS

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3

Graph No 4.2 : Compressive Strength Test part 2

26
 Table No. 4.4 : Compressive Strength Test Result For Part 3

Sr.No Number of Test Specimen Age Weight Load at Compressive

Trials (100X100X100 in of block failure strength
mm) Days (kg) kN N/mm^2
Block 1 7 1.314 50 5.0
Block 2 7 1.306 55 5.5
1 Trial 1 Block 3 7 1.402 45 4.5
Block 4 28 1.220 60 6.0
Block 5 28 1.430 55 5.5
Block 6 28 1.280 55 5.5
Block 1 7 1.198 60 6.0
Block 2 7 1.176 65 6.5
2 Trial 2 Block 3 7 1.113 60 6.0
Block 4 28 1.415 65 6.5
Block 5 28 1.110 55 5.5
Block 6 28 1.305 65 6.5

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST PART 3

7 6.5 6.5 6.5

6 6 6
6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

5
5 4.5
N/MM^2

0
Trial 1 Trial 2
BLOCKS

Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 Block 6

Graph No 4.3 : Compressive Strength Test Part 3

27
 COMPARISON BETWEEN 3 PARTS
7

6.5

5 5
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

4
N/MM^2

2
1.83

0
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
NUMBER OF PARTS
Strength

Graph No 4.4 : Comparison Between 3 Parts

4.3 Carbon content measurement

Bio-bricks as compared to burnt clay bricks is not only sustainable but also acts as a carbon sink
as it fixes more carbon dioxide than it is produced during its lifecycle. For instance, in the
prototype, the bio-brick made out of sugarcane bagasse, 900 gm of sugarcane bagasse was used
to make the block. Whereas, burning 1 kg of sugar cane bagasse produces around 710 gm of
carbon dioxide (Kulkarni and Rao, 2016). Thus, a single block of bio-brick made out of sugarcane
bagasse can store around 639 gm of carbon dioxide

In our project in Block 9 gm of sugarcane baggase was used , thus this block can store carbon di
oxide around 6.3 gm .

28
 Table No . 4.5 : Carbon Content

Sr.No. Baggase Fibres used (gm) Carbon Stored (gm )

1 120 85.2
2 120 85.2
3 9 6.39
4 9 6.39
5 14 9.94
6 33 23.43
7 22 15.62
8 15 10.65

Total carbon stored by baggase fibre is 1908.48 gm

CARBON CONTENT
120 120
120

100
85.2 85.2
CARBON CONTENT

80

60

40 33
23.43 22
14 15.62 15
20 9.94 10.65
9 6.39 9 6.39

0
Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PROPORTIONS

Baggase Fibre Used Carbon Stored

Graph No 4.5 : Carbon Content

29
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

India is one of the top three producers of waste in the world and is home to a wide variety of
agricultural crops. This produces an enormous volume of agricultural trash that needs to be
disposed of. In addition, the Indian building industry is experiencing a constant increase in demand
for raw materials, particularly bricks. The bio bricks we produced from typical agricultural waste
are incredibly inexpensive and easy to produce, and they have a much lower net carbon footprint
than conventional building materials. They offer enormous application potential in less-load
bearing wall building, noise reduction, and insulation, especially in the low-cost sector which is,
after all, a sizable market in India even though they might not be appropriate for bigger loads.

Therefore, turning agro-waste into bio-bricks could aid in addressing the relevant problems related
to the raw materials needed by the construction sector and the agro-waste produced by the
agriculture sector. We anticipate that in order for the manufacture of bio-bricks to become a self-
sustaining business, government backing and public awareness will be necessary, given the
identified limitations of the load-bearing capacities of bio-bricks. The actions listed below could
aid in the appropriate creation of this new material: To spread the new information, government
action and incentives are needed. extensive public awareness campaigns and training initiatives
for masons and builders at the local level. advertisements that aim to educate target audiences
(such as farmers) by demonstrating the advantages of turning garbage into bricks. Demonstrating
the potential of biobricks to significantly enhance the sustainable practices of the Indian
construction sector

The work done ,in the time period of performing the project was started from very basic steps
such as collecting the material ,examining the properties ,checking for parameters such as fineness
and density .The results for bulk density of material were as mentioned ,which turned out to be
satisfactory .Following the results of compressive strength test performed on the material casted
were noted after 7 days and 28 days of casting of 6 trials comprising of 3-4 samples of each
proportioning of the trial. The results obtained does not achieve the first class strength but were
up to considerable limit it means the bricks are second class .The considered strength for first class
brick can be obtained by working on the same topic and continuing the further study in future .

30
 PHOTO GALLERY

1) Quantity Of Baggase Ash 2) Quantity Of Fly Ash

3) Quantity of Grass Fibre 4) Quantity Of Baggase Fibre

31
 5) Dry Mixing

6) Proper Mixing Of Material

32
7) Casting and Tamping

8) Test Specimen of 7 Days

33
9) Test Specimen of 7 and 28 Days

9) Demolding

34
10) Bio Brick Block

11) Bio Brick

35
 12) Observation

13) Compression Test

36
 14) Compression Test

15) Blocks After Testing

37
16) Team Work

38
 REFERENCES

1. Awasthi, A., Singh, N., Mittal, S., Gupta, P.K. and Agarwal, R. (2010), “Effects of
agriculture crop residue burning on children and young on PFTs in North West India”,
Science of the Total Environment, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 408 No. 20, pp. 4440–4445.
2. Baig, M. (2010), “Biomass: Turning agricultural waste to green power in India”,
Www.Abccarbon.Com, available at: http://abccarbon.com/biomass-turning-agricultural-
waste-to-green-power-in-india/
3. Abhjit mukherjee, navdeep kaur dhami, b.v.v. reddy, and m. sudhakara reddy (2011)”
bacterial calcification for enhancing performance of low embodied energy soil-cement
bricks “international conference on sustainable construction and building materials and
technologies, vol.3, pp. 2-10
4. Ip, K. and Miller, A. (2012), “Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime wall
constructions in the UK”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 69,
pp. 1–9.
5. Saviour, M.N. (2012), “Environmental Impact of Soil and Sand Mining: a Review”,
International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 125–134
Review.
6. Madurwar, M. V, Ralegaonkar, R. V and Mandavgane, S.A. (2013), “Application of agro-
waste for sustainable construction materials: A review”, Construction and Building
Materials, Elsevier, Vol. 38, pp. 872–878.
7. Singh, Y. and Sidhu, H.S. (2014), “Management of cereal crop residues for sustainable
rice-wheat production system in the indo-gangetic plains of India”, Proceedings of the
Indian National Science Academy, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 95–114.
8. Jain, N., Bhatia, A. and Pathak, H. (2014), “Emission of air pollutants from crop residue
burning in India”, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 422–430.
9. Armstrong, L. (2015), “Building a sustainable future: The hempcrete revolution”,
Www.Cannabusiness.Com, available at: http://www.cannabusiness.com/news/science-
technology/building-a-sustainable-future-thehempcrete-revolution/
10. Asdrubali, F., D’Alessandro, F. and Schiavoni, S. (2015), “A review of unconventional
sustainable building insulation materials”, Sustainable Materials and Technologies,
Elsevier B.V., Vol. 4, pp. 1–17.
11. Aswale, S. (2015), “Brick making in india – history”, International Journal of Financial
Services Management, Vol. 4, available at:

39
 https://doi.org/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295387059_BRICK_MAKING_
IN_INDIA HISTORY.
12. Banerjee, S. (2015), “Brick kilns contribute about 9 per cent of total black carbon
emissions in India”, Cseindia.Org, available at: http://www.cseindia.org/brick-kilns-
contribute-about-9-per-cent-of-total-blackcarbon-emissions-in-india-5713.
13. Gadling, P. and Varma, M.B. (2016), “Comparative study on fly ash bricks and normal
clay bricks comparative study on fly ash bricks and normal clay bricks”, No. January 2016,
pp. 5–9.
14. Satpathy, I., Malik, J.K., Arora, N., Kapur, D.S., Saluja, S., Bhattacharjya, S. and Sekhar,
A.R. et al. (2016), “Material consumption patterns in India”,
15. Morris, A.S., Udayan Dhavalikar, V.A.S. (2016), “Examination of Affordable Housing
Policies in India”.
16. Kulkarni, N.G. and Rao, A.B. (2016), “Carbon footprint of solid clay bricks fired in clamps
of India”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 135, pp. 1396–1406.
17. Nithiya (2016),„experimental investigation on bricks by using various waste
materials‟,international journal of latest trends in engineering and technology, vol.6(3),
pp.395-402.
18. Arrigoni, A., Pelosato, R., Melià, P., Ruggieri, G., Sabbadini, S. and Dotelli, G. (2017),
“Life cycle assessment of natural building materials: the role of carbonation, mixture
components and transport in the environmental impacts of hempcrete blocks”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 149 No. October, pp. 1051–1061.
19. De Pandit, S. (2017), “The role of the pradhan mantri awas yojana (urban), 2015 in
financial inclusion in India”, International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, Vol. 8
No. 8, pp. 18959–18962. PHFI and CEH. (2017), “Air pollution and health in india : a
review of the current evidence and opportunities for the future”, available at:
https://www.ceh.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Air-Pollution-and-Health-
inIndia.pdf.
20. Son, N.K., Toan, N.P.A., Dung, T.T.T. and Huynh, N.N.T. (2017), “Investigation of agro-
concrete using byproducts of rice husk in mekong delta of vietnam”, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 171, pp. 725–733. UN. (1987), “United nations: Our common future”, available at:
https://dx.doi/org/10.2307/2621529.
21. Oyenuga, A.A., Bhamidimarri, R. and Researcher, P.D. (2017), “Upcycling ideas for
sustainable construction and demolition waste management: Challenges, opportunities and
boundaries”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and

40
 Technology (An ISO, Vol. 6 No. 3, available
at:https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2017.0603187.
22. Singh, V.K. (2017), “Alternative utilization of crop residues: Tackling negative impacts
of burning in India”, Krishijagran.Com, available at:
https://krishijagran.com/featured/alternative-utilization-of-crop-residuestackling-
negative-impacts-of-burning-in-india (accessed 27 October 2018).
23. Loganathan, S., Srinath, P., Kumaraswamy, M., Kalidindi, S. and Varghese, K. (2017),
“Identifying and addressing critical issues in the Indian construction industry: Perspectives
of large building construction clients”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries,
Vol. 22, pp. 121–144.
24. G.H.M.J. Subashi De Silva , B.V.A. Perera (2018) Effect of waste rice husk ash (RHA)
on structural, thermal and acoustic properties of fired clay bricks Journal of Building
Engineering Volume 18, July 2018, Pages 252-259
25. V.S. Arangarajan and M. Arivoli (2020) ECO FRIENDLY LOW-COST BIO-BRICK
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)
26. Chrysanthos Maraveas et al. (2020) The Sustainability of Plastic Nets in
AgricultureDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, 26504 Rio, Greece
Sustainability 2020, 12(9), 3625; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093625
27. Sangmesh B. a, Nagraj Patil b, et al. (2021) Development of sustainable alternative
materials for the construction of green buildings using agricultural residues: A review
construction and Building Materials 368 (3), 130457
28. Priysbrata Rautray, et al. (2021) Application of Bio-Bricks & Its Benefits’, in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED23), Bordeaux, France

41