PSI - Issue 70

M. Vignesh et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 70 (2025) 650–657

654

Fig 3. Compressive strength of all mixes

4.3.Strength analysis of samples using M-sand and WFS Based on the industrial fly ash brick producer’s report from Indore, India, the mix combination of FC 60%, M sand 20% and Lime 20% was taken and the strength of specimens using M sand and WFS as filler materials were compared. Total replacement of WFS for M-sand in mixes FC60WS20 and FC70WS20 showed 149% and 31.8% increase in compressive strength with respect to FC60MS20 and FC70MS20. Sankarapandian et al., (2024) suggested strength gain of brick samples with WFS related to increase in SiO 2 . WFS is also pozzolanic than m-sand which helps in the formation of C-S-H gel that is very important for strength gain (Iloh et al., 2019). Mix FC60WS20 is taken as the control sample for this entire study. Figure 4a depicts these results.

a.)

b.)

Fig 4. Effect of a.) WFS replacement for M-sand b.)WMP substitution.

4.4. Effect of WMP substitution as binder WMP contains CaO more than 50% (Amin et al., 2020) which could provide strength improvement to the specimens hence it can be used as a partial replacement for Lime. 5%and 10% replacement of WMP in the place of lime, resulted in 9.34% and 3.35% increase in strength compared to the control sample FC60WS20 as depicted in Figure 4b. The results are in line with the values proposed byAndreani et al., (2024). The rise in compressive strength occurs with replacement of waste marble powder (WMP) at 5% and 10% because of the content of CaCO 3 and increased fineness of WMP which improves hydration, also it fills the pores thereby increasing the packing density of the bricks which leads to increase in strength (Alyamac et al., 2009). Further addition of WMP beyond 10% increases