123 
 

 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology,  and Sciences  (ASRJETS) 

ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 

© Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers  

http://asrjetsjournal.org/  

 

Soil-Cement Bricks as an Alternative for Glass Waste 

Disposal 

André Luiz Machado
a
, Roselene Maria Schneider

b*
, Adriana Garcia do Amaral

c
, 

Rafael Soares Arruda
 d
, Flávio Alessandro Crispim

e
, Karinna Pinheiro de 

Oliveira
f
, Jennifer de Souza Onetta

g
, Letícia Tamara Hoffmann

h
 

a,b,c,d, f,g,h
Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso – Câmpus Sinop, Av. Alexandre Ferronato, 1200, Distrito 

Industrial, Sinop, 78576-267 - Brasil 

e
Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso – Unidade Sinop – Avenida dos Ingás, 3001, Jardim Imperial, CEP 

78555-000 - Brasil 

a
Email: alm281082@yahoo.com.br, 

b
Email: roselenems@yahoo.com.br, 

c
Email: adrianagamaral@gmail.com, 

d
Email: rafael.soares.arruda@gmail.com, 

e
Email: flavio.crispim@unemat.br,  

f
Email: karinna.p.o@gmail.com,  

g
Email: jenny_onetta@hotmail.com,  

h
Email: lthhoffmann@gmail.com 

 

Abstract 

Glass can be recycled an infinite number of times. However, the reverse logistics of bottles, flasks, packaging 

and others is not always economically feasible, and landfill disposal is widespread in Brazil. The reuse of glass 

waste is an alternative to recycling, hence the objective of this study was to evaluate the production conditions 

of soil-cement-glass bricks. The use of glass waste occurred in two ways, one with a cement substitute (glass 

powder) and another with a soil substitute (crushed glass), in the manufacturing of soil-cement bricks. The 

results indicated that the glass powder was ineffective in replacing cement. On the other hand, the incorporation 

of crushed glass significantly improved the mechanical resistance in the specimens. The soil-cement-glass 

bricks (mass composed of 45% soil, 45% ground glass and 10% cement) molded in conventional and alternative 

forms showed resistance to the compression established by standards at 14 and 7 days, respectively. This study 

demonstrated that bricks produced with crushed glass have advantages from the environmental and technical 

points of view, contributing to the sustainability of the industrial and civil construction sectors. 

Keywords: Waste incorporation; Reuse; Ecological Brick. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

* Corresponding author.  



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

124 
 

1. Introduction 

The growth of the global population causes an increasing waste generation, which makes it difficult and 

expensive to treat and set up its disposition. Waste reuse is a significant action to minimize such problems. The 

increased costs with raw materials and its reduced availability compels the search for alternative sources of it in 

the waste and byproducts from many processes and activities. It turns waste reuse into an important tool to 

sustainable development and environmental conservation [1]. Moreover, they help avoid and postpone waste 

disposal, as well as reduce problems, such as floods usually caused by the obstruction of drainage systems, and 

preserving natural raw material reserves. Civil construction generates large amounts of all sorts of waste, 

besides being responsible for a high consumption of natural non-renewable resources [2]. However, this sector 

has great potential to absorb solid wastes. Therefore, reclycing waste into aggregates or other components is an 

important alternative to reduce environmental impacts and to improve preservation. The number of research 

papers focused on reusing the waste from human activities in construction sites is growing [3,4,5,6]. Results 

about assessing crushed brick performance as supplementary material in recycled concrete aggregates stabilized 

with cement have shown that mixtures stabilized with up to 50% crushed bricks as supplementary material and 

with 3% cement presented appropriate physical properties and resistance consistent with requirements for the 

highway network [7]. With regard to specific waste such as glass, in Brazil data provided by ABRELPE [8] 

highlight that glass production reached approximately 3,000 t in 2008; 1,292 t of this total were produced by the 

packaging sector and 1,280 t by the flat glass sector. The disposal of approximately 20% of the produced 

packages take place in landfills or some other unknown locations. There is proven feasibility [9] concerning the 

use of glass waste in different replacement processes (and tested as a large or small aggregate), as well as a 

cementing agent in bricks, plaster and concrete. Glass from TV tubes and screens has considerable intrinsic 

strength; it absorbs water and is silica rich. The substitution of sand or pozzolan for glass waste in construction 

materials is possible, since the characteristics of glass make such substitution feasible [10]. Glass can be a great 

fine aggregate (sand) replacer in concrete manufacturing, i.e., glass-concrete is more resistant to compression 

than the standard sample [11]. However, an addition of more than 10% of glass into concrete is susceptible to 

the expansion of the mixture. Other studies showed that glass addition increased the compression strength by 

16%, and the concrete flexion resistance by 14% [12]. Glass waste can be applied to manufacturing ceramic 

glazes, because glass addition leads to a product with aesthetical and mechanical features similar to the standard 

glazes, which makes ceramic surface water proof, colored and bright [13]. Besides plasters, bricks and concrete, 

soil-cement bricks are another alternative to waste disposal. Soil-cement bricks are a soil-cement mixture, and 

their manufacture is easy, since it occurs through manual molding and it requires neither burning nor expert 

professionals in its production and use [14]. There are literature reports of waste incorporation in soil-cement 

bricks. Incorporation of paper and cellulose waste in soil-cement bricks demonstrate that the incorporation 

meets the normative requirements in terms of compression strength and water absorption [15]. The addition of 

coconut fiber powder, rice husk and brachiaria bark to soil-cement bricks suggests that the mechanical 

resistance and water absorption properties are not affected if some of those vegetal wastes substituted cement up 

to 10% [16].  Results from the use of waste from water treatment plants into soil-cement bricks showed that it 

helps to reduce the environmental impacts of the water treatment plants [17]. The addition of used foundry sand 

together with gravel dust reduced water absorption and provided an acceptable level of mechanical resistance, in 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

125 
 

accordance with established soil-cement standards [18]. In this work we examined the feasibility of recycling 

glass for the production of soil-cement bricks. We used ground glass as a replacement for cement, and powdered 

glass as a soil replacement, in the making of soil-cement bricks. It is environmentally reasonable by the use of 

recycled materials to replace natural resources, contributing to greater sustainability of building materials. 

2. Material and methods 

The materials used in this research were soils (Red latosol and Yellow latosol), glass waste and Portland cement. 

There were two kinds of experimental steps. In the first one, we replaced part of the cement with glass powder; 

in the second one, we tested replacing the soil with crushed glass. 

2.1. Glass waste  

The used glass was waste of flat glass, obtained from a glazing company located in northern Brazil. It presented 

big pieces (1 to 20 cm) and it was necessary to ground and sieve into two particle sizes: glass powder (smaller 

than 0.045 mm) and crushed glass (0.425 to 2 mm). The replacement of cement mass with glass powder to 

produce test specimens occurred in order to test a possible pozzolanic effect. Cement replacement with glass 

powder consisted of the following rates: 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%. Crushed glass replaced soil in test specimens 

and bricks manufacturing. Soil (red latosol) replacement with crushed glass followed a 50% ratio, in mass. The 

granulometric crushed glass ranged from 0.425 to 2.00 mm, which corresponds to the mean and gross sand 

granulometry, since most of the sand in the red latosol was fine sand. According to the technical 

recommendations, granular soils have a stronger ability to gather with cement [19,20]. 

2.2. Physical properties  

At Table 1 we can see the physical properties of the soils and soil-waste samples. The classifications of soil and 

soil-waste mixtures occur by granulometric assays and consistence limits (liquid and plastic limits). Soil and 

soil-waste were classified by comparing these results to results recorded by the National Transportation 

Infrastructure Department – DNIT [21] that uses the Transportation Research Board (TRB) classification. The 

Brazilian Portland Cement Association [22] recommends the TRB system. TRB gathers soil groups and sub-

groups based on granulometric features and workability. The soil and soil-waste texture are presented in Table 

1, based on the NBR 7181 [23] and sand, silt and clay contents. 

1 [25]; 2 difference between LL and LP [26]; 3 [27]; 4 AASTHO-TRB adapted from ABCP [22]; 5 based on the 

TRB classification. * Proportion of ground glass that attributes the best texture characteristics to the soil that 

receives cement, according to the TRB Classification. 

 

 

 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

126 
 

Table 1: Physical properties of the soils and soil-waste samples 

Parameter 

Soils, waste and mixture types 

Red latosol 
Yellow 

latosol 

Crushed 

glass 

Red Latosol (50%) 

+ crushed glass 

(50%)* 

LL
1
 % 17 33 -- 17 

IP
2
 % Non-plastic 13 -- Non-plastic 

Maximum Dry Unit Weight, kN m
3
 18,96 15,44 - 19,40 

Optimum Moisture Content
3
 % 12 21 -- 10 

TRB classification
4
 A-2-4 A-6 -- A-1b 

Optimum cement
5
 % mass 7 12  10 

Total sand % 68 27 100 84 

Mean and Coarse sand (0.425 <diameter < 

4.75 mm), % 
4 11 100 52 

Fine sand (0.075 <diameter < 0.425 mm), % 64 16 - 32 

Silt and clay (<0.002 < diameter < 0.075 

mm), % 
32 73 - 16 

The optimum cement percentage described in Table 1 is a basic recommendation. However, we also tested 

higher and lower cement contents than the value recommended for the molding of test specimens. For test 

specimen molding, optimum moisture determination is necessary and occurs by compaction assay, based on the 

NBR 12023 [24], for cement-free, added-cement and waste-replaced soils. The optimum humidity rates in 

regards to apparent specific dry mass – which was measured in compaction trials – revealed that the optimum 

humidity for the red latosol was at around 12%, and at 21% for the yellow latosol. When cement was added, the 

optimum humidity rates showed no significant change in regards to the cement-free soil. Water works as a 

lubricant among soil particles. Hence, the surface contact area is larger in soils that have thin granulometry, and 

more water is required for such lubrication to take place. That is why the optimum humidity for the yellow 

latosol is higher. 

2.3. Test specimens and soil-cement bricks manufacturing 

The molding of test specimens occurs in cylindrical molds. After demolded, the specimens had a cure time in 

humid environment for seven days, according to NBR numbers 12024 [27] and 12025 [28]. At first, we molded 

test specimens of soil cement with red and yellow latosol, without glass waste. Secondly, for the test specimens 

that reached the acceptable level of mechanical resistance, we molded test specimens with soil-waste cement. 

For the soil replaced by crushed glass the used percentage of cement was between 5 and 13%. For the cement 

replacement by glass powder we molded the specimens at ratios of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% in the cement dose 

that reached the minimal resistance required by standards. 

2.4. Soil-cement-glass bricks manufacturing 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

127 
 

We manufactured soil-cement-glass bricks in two different ways. At first we molded conventional soil cement 

bricks. The dimensions of these bricks were 30x15x7.5 cm [29,30], with two holes, molded in the contractor’s 

hydraulic press. The store of bricks were in a humid environment for seven days after molding. A soil-cement 

perforated brick manufactured (brick with two roles) followed the 50% soil + 50% crushed glass waste mixture 

and 10% cement, by taking into account the standards and the economic feasibility. Secondly, we manufactured 

bricks in an alternative form to that specified in the standard, i.e., bricks in dimensions 20x10x5 cm produced in 

wooden molds. The mixture of soil-cement-waste took place in a concrete mixer, and water was added in order 

to achieve optimum cement plaster consistency. We then transferred the mixture into the molds and submitted 

them to slight trepidations in a way as to avoid bubbles. The molds humid cure took place for 24 hours. They 

were then demolded left in the shadow to cure. 

2.5. Compressive strength assay     

Test specimens and bricks compressive strength assays happened in accordance to the NBRs numbers 12025 

[28] and 8492 [31], respectively, in a universal testing machine at speed 1 mm.min-1. The compressive strength 

assays took place at the 7th, 14th and 28th day following test specimens and brick molding. Before the 

compression strength assay the bricks suffered a cut in half (perpendicular to their bigger dimension). The two 

faces and the cutter faces were reversed and bonded with a thin layer of Portland cement plaster (2 to 3mm 

thick), according to the NBR 8492 [31]. We immersed the test specimens (for 4 hours) and the prepared bricks 

(for 6 hours) in water before the compression strength assays. 

2.6. Water absorption assay 

After the bricks stayed in the stove until their mass was constant, we weighed them. Then we immersed them in 

water for 24 hours and weighed them again, according to the NBR 8492 [31]. The water absorption calculation 

occurs using Equation 1. 

A = [(m2 – m1)/m2]*100   (1) 

Wherein, A is water absorption (%); m2 is the saturated bricks mass, expressed in grams (g); m1 is the stove-

dried bricks mass, expressed in grams (g). 

2.7. Experimental design and statistical analysis 

We adopted the completely randomized design for the experiments. The treatments followed a 2x7 factorial 

arrangement in the cement-ratio investigation stage, two soil types were used: Red and Yellow Latosol, as well 

as seven traces of cement (5%, 6%, 7%, 9%, 10%, 12% and 13%), with five repetitions. For the test of the effect 

of cement replacement with powder glass, we investigate five treatments (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of 

cement substitution by powder glass), with five repetitions. Finally, for the effects of aging and brick type on 

compression strength we followed the 2x3 factorial arrangement, by using two brick types (perforated or 

massive with alternative molding) at three different ages (7, 14 and 28 days), with seven repetitions. We used 

analysis of variance (ANOVA) in all inferences. For variables whose ANOVA value was significant (P <0.05), 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

128 
 

we used the Tukey test or regression analysis. 

3. Results and discussion 

3.1. Cement replacement by powder glass   

Results showed that the higher the glass waste rate, the lower the mean resistance to compression (P <0.05) 

(Figure 1). Test specimens composed of 75% and 100% cement replacement disintegrated easily after 

immersion in water. These outcomes evidenced that glass powder did not have the cementing effect on the soil 

mixture. Replacing cement with glass at 25 and 50% caused the bodies of proof to show resistance to 

compression, which points out that lower amounts of cement not only were effective, but also promoted better 

aggregation of soil particles, and it helped keep bodies of proof intact. At the soil replacement amounts of 75 

and 100%, bodies of proof initially demonstrated certain stability, but then lost integrity when wetted, since the 

pozzolanic effect that held the particles together was lost.  

 

Figure 1: Compression strength in test specimens due to cement replacement by powder glass (Experimental 

data: closed circles) 

Different from records in the current study, some studies point out to the strong pozzolanic effect of glass to 

enhance cement resistance features in concrete when using cathode ray tube glass as an aggregate [32]. Still, 

studies demonstrated that the addition of glass powder up to 20% can be used as the replacement of cement to 

improve the hardened, and long-term properties of concrete like the compressive strength of concrete. Concrete 

strength decreases with the increase in glass powder replacement due to the smooth surface of glass powder that 

impedes the adhesion of cement paste and that slows the formation of hydration products due to an increasing 

percentage of glass powder [33]. The pastes produced with glass powder exhibited a relatively low compressive 

strength due to very little or no pozzolanic reaction. But the same study showed that increasing the temperature 

from room temperature to 300 °C can improve the compressive strength pastes. This improvement is mainly 

attributed to the cement hydration enhancement and acceleration of pozzolanic reaction [34]. 

3.2. Compressive strength in test specimens with different cement contents 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

129 
 

Results of compressive strength applied to test specimens molded for Red and Yellow latosols, with different 

cement contents, evidenced that the resistance to compression behavior changed depending on the treatment 

(Figure 2). Variance analysis (P <0.05) pointed out significant differences between soil types. It proved that the 

Yellow latosol resistance is lower than that of the Red latosol. Large amounts of fine aggregates (like silt and 

clay, Table 1)) are responsible for weakening the agglutinating effect between cement and the soil.  With regard 

to cement content, the Red latosol (Figure 2) tends to increase the resistance to compression due to the higher 

cement content (P<0.05). The Yellow latosol (Figure 2) tended to increase resistance between contents 6% and 

10%, so it remained almost constant between 10% and 13% (P <0.05). The yellow latosol is predominant if 

compared to the red latosol in the area where we conducted this study. However, due to its texture – which has a 

high percentage of silt and clay – it is not the optimum soil for manufacturing soil-cement bricks. Even with so-

considered high amounts of cement, resistance to compression does not reach the minimum requirements. Based 

on recommendations in the NBR 8491 [29], the minimum resistance value for the application of sealing 

elements on walls is 2 MPa. Such value was only accomplished with 13% cement in Red latosol; thus, the 

cement content necessary to reach 2 MPa resistance is higher than the optimum content recommended by the 

soil classification (7%) and also higher than the value recommended by the literature as the maximum 

economically-viable cement incorporation (10%). Higher amounts of cement increase the resistance to 

compression, but manufacture costs make it unfeasible [35]. 

 

Figure 2: Compression strength in test specimens manufactured with Red and Yellow latosols. (Experimental 

data: closed and opened circles; regression model (P<0.05): dashed lines) 

Although cement reacts even with fine soils and tends to stabilize them, the resistance of the colloid/cement 

structure is significantly weaker than that of the granular/cement structure [19]. Therefore, the presence of silt 

and clay does not compromise the reaction of cement, but impairs mechanic resistance rates. Clay minerals are 

attracted closer together during shrinkage and generate hydrogen bridges, which gives rise to increased strength. 

The process of shrinkage takes, depending on the drying conditions, several weeks until it is completed. In 

comparison, the crystal lattice of the cement is completed after about 1 day preventing the shrinkage due to their 

rod-shaped crystals. The clay minerals are not able to interconnect and lose their cohesion [36]. 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

130 
 

3.3. Compressive strength in test specimens - soil replacement with glass residue  

The statistical analysis evidenced the significant effect of cement content on the soil-waste glass mixture 

compression strength (P <0.05) (Figure 3). Only cement contents above 10% reached minimal resistance to 

compression 2 MPa. The average resistance to the compression was approximately 50% of the value 

recommended by the standard (2 MPa) based on the value recommended by the TRB classification (10% 

cement). 

 

Figure 3: Compression strength in test specimens manufactured with soil and waste (red latosol (50%) + 

crushed glass (50%)) and cement content. (Experimental data: closed circles; regression model (P<0.05): dashed 

lines) 

We observed that a crushed glass incorporation (Figure 3) increased the compression strength of the test 

specimens (Figure 2). We expected such behavior, since the crushed glass incorporation in Red latosols 

occurred in order to change the TRB rating, making the mixture fit into class A-1 (Table 1). Soils defined with 

A-1 characteristics are better for cement stabilization. The change in the rate order points out to a higher amount 

of sand and a lower amount of fine aggregates. This condition was defined as optimized for the manufacture of 

soil-cement bricks from the red latosol. Soils presenting very a fine particle size require high cement content 

because they present higher specific surface; consequently, they also demand larger water volume, which has a 

negative effect on mixture workability and increases costs [36]. In the process of molding and curing the 

samples, Moreira and his colleagues [37] observed that the roof tiles incorporated in soil-cement mixtures 

absorb water that should be used for hydration of the cement; therefore, the strength decreases. Avoiding the use 

of very fine materials prevent water absorb that should be adopted for hydration of the cement, which prevents 

chemical reactions from occurring. Therefore, the possibility of incorporating waste into cement-base mixtures 

is a contribution from civil construction to the recycling of harmful wastes, since it can improve the 

development of new materials, as demonstrated by Sadek [38] when reusing crushed clay bricks as recycled 

aggregates.  

3.4. Soil-cement-glass mixture perforated brick 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

131 
 

The recorded results showed that there was an increase in the average compression resistance of soil-cement-

glass perforated bricks against time. The values were 1.72 MPa at day seven, 2.02 MPa at day fourteen and 2.16 

MPa at day 28 (P <0.05). The higher compressive strength value than the reference value, 2 MPa, occurred after 

14 curing days. The mean compressive strength value was lower than that recorded for assays conducted with 

cylindrical test specimens. Considering that the produced specimens and bricks consisted of the same contents, 

the difference between them can possibly be explained by the strength applied to the molds. The strength in 

bricks pressing was lower than that applied to test specimen molding. Standard rules pose that the manufacture 

of bodies of proof must obey minimum and specific requirements in regards to pressing conditions, whereas the 

manufacture of bricks does not require the same amount of energy for the pressing. Age proved to be an 

important factor related to cement. It’s a relevant factor for the process (Table 2). There was a 25% resistance to 

compression increase, when 28-day bricks were compared to 7-day cure bricks. Souza; Segantini; Pereira [39] 

assessed block resistance for 240 days and recorded a 300% resistance gain. Reference [40] found more than 

100% resistance gain at the age of 120 days, when the bricks were compared to 7-day bricks [41].  The water 

absorption of the soil-cement-glass mixture perforated brick presented an average value of 14.5% ± 0.9. It is an 

appropriate value for this kind of brick (less than 20% water absorption). In bricks, excess water entry makes 

them heavy, which can prove to be a problem in regards to the resistance of walls, for instance. Besides, the 

main agents of deterioration require the presence and movement of water within the material itself, so the 

presence of water can cause damage to the product. Hence, the absorption of the product has a great effect on its 

durability [42]. 

3.5. Soil-cement-glass mixture massive brick - alternative molding        

The compression strength values were 2.01 MPa at the 7th curing day, 2.09 MPa at the 14th day and 2.29 MPa 

at the 28th day (P <0.05). Results indicate that massive bricks present higher resistance values than the 

conventional ones (Table 2). Massive bricks at the 7th curing day presented higher resistance to compression 

than the values defined in the standard (reference value). 

Table 2: Compression strength in perforated and massive soil-cement bricks. 

Brick type 
Curring time (days) 

7 14 28 

Perforated 1.71 A 2.02 B 2.16 C 

Massive 2.01 A 2.09 A 2.29 B 

*Means followed by the same letter in the column did not statistically differ in the Tukey test at a 5% 

probability level.    

Assumingly, the two factors were determining to the highest resistance to compression in massive bricks. High 

moisture content (22,4%) during the molding of massive molding bricks possibly favored cement hydration 

reactions. Porosity slightly reduced the indices of voids due to the molding procedure and it favored resistance 

gain. Yet another factor is linked to the physical requirements, since the conventional bricks we manufactured 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

132 
 

had two holes, which provides more surfaces that are favorable to rupture.  However, because molding energy 

was lower, such difference in mechanical resistance diminished as the curing age advanced. Leonel et a. [18] 

reported that reduction in mechanical properties may occur due do brick geometries with holes. Water 

absorption at the 7th curing day was 14.3%±0.1, which was appropriate for values set in the standard. 

4. Conclusion 

We observed that cement replacement with glass powder did not contribute to a resistance gain in the test 

specimens, thus, it is not viable as a cement replacement.  On the other hand, the 50% soil + 50% glass waste 

mixture presented the minimum compressive strength at a 10% cement content. The soil-cement-waste bricks 

presented the minimum resistance required at the 14th curing day. However, alternative brick molding reaches 

the resistance recommended by the standard at all ages. Both molded-block types present water absorption 

values below the recommended limits. This study has shown that the proposed brick presents advantages from 

an environmental and technical point of view, contributing to sustainability in the industrial sector and in civil 

construction. 

5. Recommendations 

Recycling of wastes as natural aggregates is not only economically viable but it is also considered an 

environmentally friendly approach. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), the National Council for 

Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher 

Education Personnel (Capes).  

References 

[1]. A. Minelgaitė, G. Liobikienė. “Waste problem in European Union and its influence on waste 

management behaviours”. Science of the Total Environment, vol. 667, pp. 86–93, 2019. 

[2]. M. L. P. Antunes, A. Botignon de Sá, P. S. Oliveira, E. C. Rangel. “Utilization of gypsum from 

construction and demolition waste in Portland cement mortar”. Cerâmica, vol. 65(Suppl 1), pp. 1-6, 

2019. 

[3]. A. L. Luza, J. Acordi, D. C. N. Fabris, F. Raupp-Pereira, M. D. M. Innocentini et al. “Obtainment of 

chemically bonded ceramics from industrial waste”. Cerâmica, vol. 64, pp. 498-506, 2018. 

[4]. S. Angelone, M. Cauhapé Casaux, M. Borghi, F. O. Martinez. “Green pavements: reuse of plastic 

waste in asphalt mixtures”. Material and Structures, vol. 49, pp. 1655, 2016. 

[5]. J. G. Uliana, J. L. Calmon, G. L. Vieira, J. E. S. L. Teixeira, E. Nunes. “Heat treatment of processing 

sludge of ornamental rocks: application as pozzolan in cement matrices”. Ibracon Structures and 

Materials Journal, vol. 8(2), pp. 100-123, 2015. 

[6]. R. Oliveira, J. Brito, R. Veiga. “Incorporation of fine glass aggregates in renderings”. Teoria e Prática 



American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

133 
 

na Engenharia Civil, vol. 21, pp.25-39, 2013.  

[7]. M. M. Disfani, A. Arulrajaha, H. Haghighi, A. Mohammadinia, S. Horpibulsuk S. “Flexural beam 

fatigue strength evaluation of crushed brick as a supplementary material in cement stabilized recycled 

concrete aggregates”. Construction and Building Materials, vol. 68, pp. 667–676, 2014. 

[8]. Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Special Waste Companies - ABRELPE (Associação 

Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública e Resíduos Especiais). 2008. Panorama of solid waste in 

Brazil (Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil). São Paulo: ABRELPE. p. 196. Available: 

https://abrelpe.org.br/panorama/ [Mar 10, 2020]. 

[9]. A. M. Rashad. “Recycled waste glass as fine aggregate replacement in cementitious materials based on 

Portland cement”. Construction and Building Materials, vol. 72, pp. 340–357, 2014. 

[10]. Z. Yao, T. C. Ling, P. K. Sarker, W. Su, J. Liu, W. Wu, J. Tang. “Recycling difficult-to-treat e-waste 

cathode-ray-tube glass as construction and building materials: A critical review’. Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 81, pp. 595–604, 2018. 

[11]. L. A. Pereira-De-Oliveira, J. P. Castro-Gomes, P. M. S. Santos. “The potential pozzolanic activity of 

glass and red-clay ceramic waste as cement mortars components’. Construction and Building Materials, 

vol. 31, pp. 197-203, 2012.  

[12]. J. Wartman, D. G. Grubb, A. S. M. Nasim. “Select engineering characteristics of crushed glass”. 

Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 16(6), pp. 26–39, 2004.  

[13]. L. M. Schabbach, F. Andreola, I. Lancellotti, L. Barbieri. “Minimization of Pb content in a ceramic 

glaze by reformulation the composition with secondary raw materials”. Ceramics International, vol. 

37(4), pp. 1367–1375, 2011.  

[14]. M. I. B. Souza, A. A. S. Segantini, J. A. Pereira. “Soil-cement pressed bricks made with concrete 

wastes”. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, vol. 12, pp. 205-212, 2008.  

[15]. M. L. Pinheiro, R. A. S. S. A. Alvarenga, B. C. Ribeiro, P. R. Silva Júnior, M. S. Sarmet et al. 

“Experimental evaluation of pressed blocks of soil-cement with grits addition”. Ambiente Construído, 

vol. 13(2), pp. 29-46, 2013.  

[16]. R. C. Ferreira, J. C. C. Gobo, A. H. N. Cunha. “Incorporation of rice and brachiaria husk and their 

effects on physical and mechanical properties of soil-cement bricks”. Engenharia Agrícola, vol. 28(1), 

pp. 1-11, 2008.  

[17]. P. L. Rodrigues, F. N. J. Holanda. Recycling of water treatment plant waste for production of soil-

cement bricks. Procedias Material Science, vol. 8, pp. 194-202, 2013. 

[18]. R. F. Leonel, M. V. Folgueras, L. V. O. Dalla Valentina, S. R. Prim, G. A. Prates et al. 

“Characterization of soil-cement bricks with incorporation of used foundry sand”. Cerâmica, vol. 63, 

pp. 329-335, 2017. 

[19]. R. C. Ferreira, W. J. Freire. “Physical and mechanical behavior of soil mini panels treated with 

chemical additives”. Engenharia Agrícola, vol. 25(3), pp. 585-597, 2005.  

[20]. T. V. Lima, J. Alexandre, M. G. Alves. “Estabilização de Solos argilosos para a produção de blocos 

ecológicos”. Revista Engenharia Civil, vol. 34, pp. 15-26. 2009.  

[21]. National Department of Transport Infrastructure -  DNIT (Departamento Nacional de Infraestrutura de 

Transportes). 2006. Paving Manual (Manual de pavimentação). 3
rd

 edition. Rio de Janeiro: IPR. 

https://abrelpe.org.br/panorama/


American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

134 
 

Available: 

http://www1.dnit.gov.br/arquivos_internet/ipr/ipr_new/manuais/Manual%20de%20Pavimenta%E7%E

3o_05.12.06.pdf [Jul 15, 2019]. 

[22]. Brazilian Portland Cement Association – ABCP- (Associação Brasileira de Cimento Portland). 2004. 

Dosages of soil-cement mixtures: dosing standards and test methods (Dosagens das misturas de solo-

cimento: normas de dosagem e métodos de ensaio) (ET-35). 3
rd

 atual. rev. São Paulo: ABCP. 

Available: https://abcp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ET-

35_Solo_cimento_Normas_dosagem_metodos_ensaios.pdf [May 5, 2019]. 

[23]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2016a. NBR 7181: Solo - Análise granulométrica. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[24]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2012a. NBR 12023 - Soil-cement - Compaction test method. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[25]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2016b.  NBR 6459: Determinação do limite de liquidez. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[26]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2016c.  NBR 7180: Solo - Determinação do limite de plasticidade. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[27]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2012b. NBR 12024: Solo-cimento – Moldagem e cura de corpos de prova cilíndricos - Procedimento. 

Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[28]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas).  

2012c. NBR 12025: Solo-cimento – Ensaio de compressão simples de corpos de prova cilíndricos- 

Método de ensaio. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[29]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2012d. NBR 8491: Tijolo de solo-cimento - Requisitos. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[30]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas).  

2012e. NBR 10833: Fabricação de tijolo e bloco de solo-cimento com utilização de prensa manual ou 

hidráulica – Procedimento. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[31]. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards - ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas). 

2012f. NBR 8492: Tijolo de solo-cimento – Análise de dimensional, determinação da resistência a 

compressão e da absorção de água – Método de Ensaio. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. 

[32]. D. Romero, J. James, R. Mora, C. D. Hays. “Study on the mechanical and environmental properties of 

concrete containing cathode ray tube glass aggregate”. Waste Management, vol. 33, pp. 1659–1666, 

2013.  

[33]. A. Mehtaa, D. K. Ashish. “Silica fume and waste glass in cement concrete production: A review”. 

Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 29, pp. 100888, 2020. 

[34]. B. Li, T. C. Ling, J. G. Yu, J. Wu, W. Chen. “Cement pastes modified with recycled glass and 

supplementary cementitious material”. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 241, pp. 1-8, 2019. 

[35]. A. L. Murmu, A. Patel. “Towards sustainable bricks production: An overview”. Construction and 

Building Materials, vol. 165, pp. 112–125, 2018. 

[36]. P. Zak, T. Ashour, A. Korjenic, S. Korjenic, W. Wu. “The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, 

https://abcp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ET-35_Solo_cimento_Normas_dosagem_metodos_ensaios.pdf
https://abcp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ET-35_Solo_cimento_Normas_dosagem_metodos_ensaios.pdf


American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No  1, pp 123-135 

 

135 
 

gypsum and cement on compressive strength of earth bricks materials”. Construction and Building 

Materials, vol. 106, pp.179–188, 2016. 

[37]. E. B. Moreira, J. A. Baldovino, J. L. Rose, L. R. S. Izzo. “Effects of porosity, dry unit weight, cement 

content and void/cement ratio on unconfined compressive strength of roof tile waste-silty soil 

mixtures”. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 369-378, 2019. 

[38]. D. M. Sadek. “Physico-mechanical properties of solid cement bricks containing recycled aggregates”. 

Journal of Advanced Research, vol. 3, pp. 253-260. 2012. 

[39]. M. I. B. Souza, A. A. S. Segantini, J. A. Pereira. “Tijolos prensados de solo-cimento confeccionados 

com resíduos de concreto”. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, vol. 12, pp. 205-

212, 2008. 

[40]. A. A. S. Segantini, P. Wada. “Estudo de dosagem de tijolos de solo-cimento com adição de resíduos de 

construção e demolição”. Acta Scientiarum, vol. 33(2), pp. 179-183, 2001. 

[41]. J. K. Mitchell. “Soil improvement - state of the art” in Selected Geotechnical Papers of James K. 

Mitchell: Civil Engineering Classics. I. M. Idriss, Ed. Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineer, 

2001, pp. 474-524 

[42]. B. R. França, A. R. G. Azevedo, S. N. Monteiro, F. C. Garcia Filho, M. T. Marvila et al. “Durability of 

Soil-Cement Blocks with the Incorporation of Limestone Residues from the Processing of Marble”. 

Materials Research, vol. 21(Suppl.1), pp. 11-18, 2018.