Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Recycling of high volumes of cement kiln dust in bricks industry

Mohamed M. El-Attar a, Dina M. Sadek b, *, Amir M. Salah c
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt
b
Building Materials Research and Quality Control Institute, Housing and Building National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt
c
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sustainability involves that the needs of the present generation are met without wasting, polluting,
Received 13 July 2016 harming or destroying the environment. Cement industry is one of the major industries that exert the
Received in revised form environment due to its high natural resources and energy requirements and the emission of significant
30 October 2016
amounts of carbon dioxide. Nowadays, there is a global need to use waste materials to substitute cement
Accepted 16 December 2016
Available online 18 December 2016
for limiting its environmental impact and converting these wastes into useful products for sustainability.
This paper investigates the feasibility of using cement kiln dust (CKD) as a partial substitute of cement in
the production of solid cement bricks. Two types of cement (i.e., ordinary Portland cement and sulfate
Keywords:
Bricks
resisting cement) and two cement contents (i.e., 150 and 200 kg/m3) were used. A total of twelve mixes
Cement kiln dust were prepared with 0%, 30% and 50% substitution percentage of cement by CKD. Compressive strength,
Compressive strength unit weight, water absorption and performance of bricks after submersion in magnesium sulfate and
Sulfate attack sewage water were evaluated. In addition, the environmental impact and economics of this application
Sewage water were also assessed. The results showed that up to 50% CKD could be utilized for manufacturing
Carbon footprint economical and environmental-friendly bricks with acceptable properties. Nevertheless, it is preferable
to use CKD with sulfate resisting cement instead of ordinary Portland cement. This application will not
only reduce the environmental problems associated with CKD disposal but also it will be a step towards
sustainable development by reducing the demand of cement needed in bricks industry, hence reducing
energy requirements and CO2 emissions during cement manufacturing process.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction regarded as the second largest producer of greenhouse gases

Cement is a strategic commodity since it is a key component in
construction industry. It is one of the most widely used materials
on the earth. Approximately 3.6 billion metric tons of cement is
produced globally every year, with volume predicted to rise to more
than 5 billion metric tons by 2030. The industry is growing
particularly rapidly in developing countries having a high demand
for infrastructure and housing (Felekog lu et al., 2007).
Cement is made by combining clinker with gypsum. The cement
production process requires thermal energy for producing clinker
in rotary kilns. Manufacturing of one ton of ordinary Portland
cement requires 60e130 kg of fuel oil or equivalent and about
110 KWh of electricity (Felekoglu et al., 2007). In average, it requires
about 2.8 ton raw materials (including fuels and other materials)
(Marku et al., 2012). In the meanwhile, cement industry is arguably
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dr.dina_sadek@yahoo.com (D.M. Sadek).
(Najim et al., 2014). Every ton of cement releases 0.9e1.1 ton of
carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere,
which adversely affects earth's climate pattern (National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, 2012). The high-energy requirements
and the release of significant amounts of CO2 make cement pro-
duction a concern for global warming.
On the other hand, significant quantities of dust, commonly
known as cement kiln dust (CKD), are generated during the
manufacturing of Portland cement clinker by the dry process. CKD
is a fine-grained, solid and highly alkaline waste removed from
cement-kiln-exhaust gas to prevent the build up of excessive salts
in the produced cement (Daous, 2004). It is enriched in sodium and
potassium chlorides and sulfates, as well as volatile metal com-
pounds (Naik et al., 2003). Some of the generated CKD could be
reused into cement kiln as raw feed. However, this is limited by the
alkalis concentration in CKD, which may cause the alkalis content in
cement to exceed the allowable limit (i.e., not more than 0.6%) in
addition to decreasing the efficiency of the kiln and creating
equipment failures (Maslehuddin et al., 2009). The portion of CKD

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.082
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515
that is not returned back to cement industry is disposed off. On the
worldwide scale, every year, approximately 30 million tons of CKD
are generated and approximately 80% of it remains stockpiled or
landfilled posing significant environmental problems (Hossain
et al., 2007; Konsta-Gdoutos and Shah, 2003). Disposal of CKD re-
sults not only in the consumption of land, but also in the contam-
ination of surface and ground water by chemicals and heavy metals
leached from CKD (Naik et al., 2003; Sreekrishnavilasam and
Santagata, 2006). In addition, CKD affects human health by
causing serious health hazards including asthma, skin irritation and
eyes problems (Fadhil et al., 2013). Hence, researches are being
conducted to find out efficient ways for using CKD. Some examples
of these applications are: using CKD as a stabilizing agent for sludge
and wastes, as agricultural soil amendment, as an anti-stripping
agent in hot asphalt, as a sanitary liner and in glass industry
(Adaska and Taubert, 2008; Naik et al., 2003). In addition, CKD has
been investigated for being utilized in controlled low strength
materials (Lachemi et al., 2010), in soil stabilization (Ozaa and
Gundaliya, 2013), as a removal of hazard minerals (Salem et al.,
2012) and as an activator for pozzolans (Bondar and Coakley, 2014).
On the other hand, as discussed previously, cement is not
considered as an environmental-friendly material from the stand-
point of resource and energy consumption and environmental
problems resulting from its manufacturing process (i.e., release of
greenhouse gases and generation of significant amounts of CKD)
(Moriconi, 2007). Thus, cement industry, like the rest of construc-
tion industry, is facing a number of challenges relating to energy
resources, scarcity of raw materials and growing environmental
concerns. Therefore, the implementation of “sustainable con-
struction” concept has become an essential requirement. Sustain-
ability involves that the needs of the present generation are met
without wasting, polluting, destroying the environment and
without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet
their needs (Hameed et al., 2012). This is accomplished by using less
natural materials, consuming less energy, causing lower levels of
pollution, and reducing wastes while gaining the same benefits that
can be achieved by using traditional materials and methods.
Recycling of wastes in construction industry becomes an increas-
ingly important for sustainable construction, as it could lead to
several economical and environmental benefits (Abdelfatah and
Tabsh, 2011). According to this new vision, recycling of wastes/by-
products to partially substitute cement is highly encouraged for
limiting the environmental impact of cement industry and con-
verting these wastes into useful products for sustainable con-
struction. For many years, industrial wastes such as slag, fly ash and
silica fume have been successfully used as supplementary
cementing materials in construction industry (Al-Jabri et al., 2006).
Similarly, extensive researches are being carried out for utilizing
CKD in cement-based materials (Abd El-Aleem et al., 2005; Bondar
and Coakley, 2014; Marku et al., 2012). However, the variability in
the characteristics of CKD from plant to plant, depending upon the
feed raw materials, type of kiln, dust collection facility and the fuel
used leads to uncertainty in its performance and limits its potential
application in cement-based materials (Sreekrishnavilasam and
Santagata, 2006). Furthermore, using of CKD with high amounts
of sulfate, alkalis and chlorides reduces the workability, setting
times and strength and increases the risk of sulfate expansion,
alkali-silica reaction, and steel corrosion in reinforced concrete
(Adaska and Taubert, 2008). For these reasons, most of studies have
restricted the percentage of CKD in cement-based materials at
5e10% for achieving satisfactory performance (Kunal et al., 2012;
Maslehuddin et al., 2009). Nowadays, several researches are being
conducted to improve the influence of CKD in cement-based ma-
terials by removing/lowering its alkalis content using physical,
chemical or biological treatments. However, most of these
507
treatments are expensive and the percentage of CKD in cement-
based materials is still very limited (Gebhardt, 2001; Kunal et al.,
2014).
It is evident that although extensive researches are being
conducted to find out alternative applications for CKD rather than
disposal, its characteristics restrict its widespread usage and limit
its recycling level. Exploring economical ways to make use of CKD
as a value added material has been of great concern. This study
was conducted as the first part of the work focused on the recy-
cling of high volumes of CKD in construction industry. In this
research, CKD was utilized as a partial substitute of cement (i.e.,
0%, 30% and 50%) for manufacturing solid cement bricks. This
application not only helps in utilizing high volumes of CKD, but
also reduces the consumed quantity of cement in bricks industry.
The physico-mechanical properties of the produced bricks were
evaluated by determining their unit weight, water absorption and
compressive strength, while the durability characteristics were
assessed by determining the change in the compressive strength
of bricks after being submerged for 10 months in aggressive so-
lutions. In addition, the environmental and economical evaluation
was also conducted to select the most economical and
environmental-friendly mix.
2. Materials
Crushed dolomite and natural sand were used as coarse and fine
aggregates, respectively. The nominal maximum size of crushed
dolomite was 14 mm and fineness modulus of sand was 2.6. The
density of coarse and fine aggregates was 2.7 and 2.5 t/m3,
respectively. Two types of cement were used; ordinary Portland
cement CEM I 42.4N (PC) and sulfate resisting cement CEM I-SR
42.5N (SR) from El-Suez cement company. Cements were tested for
compliance with European Standards BS-EN:197-1 (2011) and their
chemical composition is presented in Table 1.
Cement kiln dust was obtained from El-Suez Cement Com-
pany, Egypt. The density of CKD was 3.12 t/m3, which is com-
parable to that of cement. Table 1 depicts the chemical
composition of CKD. The used CKD constituted mainly of CaO
accompanied with significant anions of chloride and sulfate.
Compared with cement, CKD is characterized by higher alkalis (in
particular potassium), sulfate, chloride and LOI. High alkali con-
tent is one of the reasons precluding the recycling of CKD back
into the kiln, as it would cause the alkali content in the clinker to
exceed the maximum allowable value (Sreekrishnavilasam and
Santagata, 2006). Moreover, SiO2 and CaO contents were found
to be lower in CKD than those found in cement. The mineral-
ogical characterization of CKD was determined by X-ray diffrac-
tion (XRD) test using X'Pert Pro X-ray vertical diffractometer
equipped with monochromatic Cu-Ka radiation source. The test
was run at 40 kV and 30 mA. Scanning was performed in the
range of 5
 2q  60
with a scan rate of 2
per minute. XRD
pattern of CKD is presented in Fig. 1(a). XRD analysis indicated
that lime is the major crystalline phase in CKD whereas sylvine,
halite, quartz, portlandite and calcite are minor phases. Fig. 1(b)
shows the grading of CKD as determined by laser diffraction. It is
obvious that particle size distribution of CKD used ranged from
0.6 to 6 mm with an average particle size of 2.45 mm. Further-
more, the D10 and D90 for CKD were 1.5 and 3.6 mm, respectively.
On the other hand, cement typically consists of 15% particles
below 5 mm diameter and 5% particles above 45 mm with an
average particle size of about 15 mm (Baghchesaraei and
Baghchesaraei, 2012). Hence, CKD appears to be finer than
cement. These findings are in agreement with Marku et al. (2012)
findings that CKD has chemical, mineralogical and physical
characteristics quite different from Portland cement.
508 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515

Table 1
Chemical composition of PC, SR and CKD.

Material Oxide (%) Cement mineral composition (%)

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2O K2O Cl (Loss on ignition) LOI C2S C3S C3A C4AF

PC 21 6.1 3 61.5 2.1 2.5 0.3 ‫ـــــ‬ 2.4 38.4 31.3 11.1 9.1
SR 21.4 3.67 5.05 64.73 1.5 2.05 0.3 0.22 ‫ـــــ‬ 2.6 63.2 13.7 1.2 15.4
CKD 6.1 1.37 3.09 60.56 0.44 5.41 0.64 2.56 2.75 15.04 ‫ـــــ‬ ‫ـــــ‬ ‫ـــــ‬ ‫ـــــ‬

3. Methods (i.e., PC and SR) and two cement contents (i.e., 150 and 200 kg/m3).
The first and second series (i.e., I and II) included 150 kg/m3 PC and
Four series of mixes were prepared with two types of cement 150 kg/m3 SR, respectively, while the third and fourth series (i.e., III

Fig. 1. Characteristics of CKD. (a) XRD pattern and (b) Particle size distribution.
 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515
Table 2
Proportions of bricks mixes (kg/m3).
Series Mix ID Cement CKD
I and II 0% CKD e 150 CC 150 0 1229
30% CKD e 150 CC 105 45
50% CKD e150 CC 75 75
III and IV 0% CKD e 200 CC 200 0 1203
30% CKD e 200 CC 140 60
50% CKD e 200 CC 100 100
and IV) included 200 kg/m3 PC and 200 kg/m3 SR, respectively. In
each series, CKD replaced 0%, 30% and 50% of cement weight. Water
quantity was adjusted to obtain an almost zero-slump mixes suit-
able for producing cement bricks using a mechanical press (Sadek,
2014). The composition of mixes and quantity of ingredients per
cubic meter is presented in Table 2. Each mix was identified with
the designation “A% CKD e B CC”, where “A” indicates the substi-
tution percentage of cement by CKD, “B” indicates cement content
in the control mix in this series and “CC” is the abbreviation of
cement content. As shown in Table 2, partial substitution of cement
by CKD slightly increases water demand. At 50% CKD percentage,
water quantity was increased by about 1.4% compared with 0% CKD
mixes. Similar result was published by Maslehuddin et al. (2008)
that water quantity was slightly increased from 24.6% to 24.9% by
using 10% CKD in cement paste. The increased water demand is a
result of high content of alkalis, sulfate, volatile salts and lime in
CKD, in addition to finer grading of CKD compared with cement
(Abd El-Aleem et al., 2005).
Immediately after mixing, fresh mix was compressed in me-
chanical press. From each mix, 65 bricks (25  12  6 cm size) were
prepared for testing. Bricks were left in open air in the factory for
one day then subjected to curing by sprinkling water twice per day
for 28 days. In this research, bricks containing CKD were referred as
“CKD bricks”.
The physico-mechanical properties of the bricks were evaluated
by determining their compressive strength, unit weight and water
absorption in accordance with American Standards for Testing
Materials ASTM C67-13a. Compression test was conducted at 7, 28
and 330 days, while unit weight and water absorption tests were
conducted at the age of 28 days. Unit weight is the ratio between
specimen’s dry weight and its apparent volume, while water ab-
sorption per unit volume is the ratio between the absorbed water
weight at saturation and apparent brick volume. Compression test
was conducted by applying load normal to 25  12 cm area of the
brick. Compressive strength is the ratio between failure load and
loading area of the brick.
The durability of the bricks was evaluated by determining their
behavior after exposure to aggressive environments. At the age of
28 days, bricks were divided into two groups and submerged in
sewage water and 5% magnesium sulfate solution (5% MgSO4),
respectively for 10 months. These aggressive environments were
chosen to simulate the actual applications of cement bricks either
in bathrooms or under ground floor level. The chemical composi-
tion of sewage water is depicted in Table 3. Every month, the so-
lutions were changed with fresh solutions and after 3, 5, 7 and 10
months of submersion, the bricks were tested in compression. Each
result is the average of five test specimens. The obtained
Table 3
Chemical composition of sewage water.
Organic matter (%) Total nitrogen (%) Total phosphorus (%) Total potassium (%)
52 1.8 0.9 0.17
ppm: part per million.
509
Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Water
819 168
1229 819 169
1229 819 170
802 165
1203 802 166
1203 802 168
compressive strength values were compared with those obtained at
the age of 28 days.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Physical properties
Table 4 depicts the physical properties of bricks (i.e., unit weight
and water absorption). Unit weight results varied from 1.97 to
2.22 t/m3, based on mixes composition and proportions. Unit
weight slightly decreases with the increase in CKD percentage and
decrease in cement content. The highest value for unit weight was
recorded for mix (0% CKD e 200 CC), while mix (50% CKD e 150 CC)
had the lowest value, regardless of cement type. Compared with 0%
CKD bricks, unit weight decreased by 0.8%e2.1% for 30% CKD bricks
compared with 0% CKD bricks, while it decreased by 2.8%e7.4% for
50% CKD bricks. The reason for this reduction by using CKD is
ascribed to the slight lower density of CKD compared with that of
cement.
ASTM C90-14 classifies solid cement bricks to normal weight,
medium weight and lightweight bricks with unit weights more
than 2 t/m3, 1.68e2 t/m3 and less than 1.68 t/m3, respectively. All
the produced bricks are classified as normal weight bricks except
mix (50% CKD e 150 CC) with sulfate resisting cement, which is fall
in the range of medium weight bricks.
Table 4 also shows an increase in water absorption values by
increasing CKD percentage and decreasing cement content.
Increasing cement content from 150 to 200 kg/m3 decreased the
absorption of water by 36.5% (in average), indicating the denser and
more compact microstructure of cement matrix for higher cement
content. In addition, the utilization of 30% and 50% CKD increased
the absorption percentage by 1.2e5.4% and 7.8e11.4%, respectively
in comparison with 0% CKD bricks. Mix (0% CKD e 200 CC) recorded
the lowest value for water absorption, while mix (50% CKD e 150
CC) recorded the highest value. These findings are in agreement
with those reported by Abdulabbas (2013). The increased water
absorption by using CKD may be ascribed to one or more of the
following reasons:
1 The crystallization of hydration products, because of high
chloride and sulfate content in CKD. This leads to softening and
opening of the pore system and consequently increased porosity
of the hardened CKD-cement matrix (Abd El-Aleem et al., 2005),
2 The weakening of the hardened cement matrix as a result of
increased portlandite because of high free lime content in CKD,
in addition to poor formation of calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-
H) gel due to alkalis in CKD (Khanna, 2009), and
Available nitrogen (ppm) Available phosphorus (ppm) pH
1036 114 6.7
510 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515

Table 4 72.5% for 0%, 30% and 50% CKD bricks, respectively. This finding is
Physical properties of bricks. in agreement with that reported by Sadek (2012) that increasing
Property Unit weight (t/m3) Water absorption (kg/m3) cement content from 100 to 150 and 200 kg/m3 increases the
Cement type PC SR PC SR
compressive strength of cement bricks by 45.1% and 94.9%,
respectively.
0% CKD e 150 CC 2.17 2.06 64 55
As expected, using of CKD negatively affects the compressive
30% CKD e 150 CC 2.12 2.04 65 57
50% CKD e150 CC 2.01 1.97 69 62 strength of bricks. Compressive strength decreases systematically
by increasing CKD percentage, irrespective of bricks age, cement
0% CKD e 200 CC 2.22 2.16 40 35
30% CKD e 200 CC 2.19 2.14 42 37 type or content. Evidently, mix (0% CKD e 200 CC) achieved the
50% CKD e 200 CC 2.11 2.10 45 40 highest value for compressive strength, whereas mix (50% CKD e
150 CC) recorded the lowest strength value. For 150 kg/m3 cement
content, the 28-days compressive strength decreased by 26% and
3 The increased water demand by using CKD (Table 2). 32.1% by replacing 30% and 50%, respectively of PC by CKD, while it
decreased by 10.2% and 22.5% by replacing 30% and 50%, respec-
It is obvious from Table 4 that although partial substitution of tively of SR by CKD. For 200 kg/m3 cement content, the 28-days
cement by CKD increases the absorption percentage, the highest compressive strength decreased by 12.8% and 23.7% by replacing
value of water absorption (i.e., 69 kg/m3) recorded for mix (50% 30% and 50%, respectively of PC by CKD, while it decreased by 5.1%
CKD e 150 CC) is far below the maximum limit for water absorption and 12.1% by replacing 30% and 50%, respectively of SR by CKD. This
(i.e., 208 kg/m3) in accordance with ASTM C90-14. behavior is ascribed to (Abd El-Aleem et al., 2005; Najim et al.,
2016):
4.2. Mechanical properties
1 Reduced cement content,
Fig. 2 depicts the compressive strength development of bricks. 2 Lack of CKD cementitious value since CKDcontains mainly free
In general, the strength of bricks showed an increase with age, lime, carbonated lime and raw feed minerals, which are not
regardless of mix composition. This is ascribed to hydration re- effective in developing strength,
action and accumulation of hydration products such as C-S-H in 3 The formation of higher amount of portlandite, because of high
water-filled pores to form a more dense and compact structure free lime content in CKD, leading to weakness and higher
(Abd El-Aleem et al., 2005). The compressive strength also in- porosity in the hardened cement matrix,
creases by increasing cement content. For PC bricks, increasing 4 The formation of chloro- and sulfoaluminate phases, because of
cement content from 150 to 200 kg/m3 increased the 28-days high chloride and sulfate content in CKD, leading to softening
compressive strength by 41.5%, 66.8% and 58.9% for 0%, 30% and and expansion in the hardened cement matrix, and
50% CKD bricks, respectively. For SR bricks, the 28-days 5 The increased water demand and consequently water/cement
compressive strength showed an increase by 52%, 60.7% and ratio by using CKD (Table 2).

50 50 0%CKD 30%CKD
0%CKD 30%CKD (b)
(a) 50%CKD
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

50%CKD
40 40

ASTM limit for load bearing units

30 30

20 20
ASTM limit for load bearing units
10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units 10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
7 28 330 7 28 330
Age (days) Age (days)

50 50 0%CKD 30%CKD
0%CKD 30%CKD
(c) (d)
50%CKD 50%CKD
Compressive strength (MPa)
Compressive strength (MPa)

40 40

30 30

20 20
ASTM limit for load bearing units ASTM limit for load bearing units

10 10
ASTM limit for non-load bearing units ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
7 28 330 7 28 330
Age (days) Age (days)

Fig. 2. Compressive strength of solid cement bricks. (a) with 150 kg/m3 PC, (b) with 200 kg/m3 PC, (c) with 150 kg/m3 SR and (d) with 200 kg/m3 SR.
 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515 511

It is obvious that the adverse effect of CKD on bricks strength is of 0% and 30% CKD bricks decreased after 5 months of submersion
dependant on cement type. Partial substitution of cement by CKD is in aggressive solutions, while the strength of 50% CKD bricks
more harmful on PC bricks than on SR bricks. This may be ascribed decreased after 3 months of submersion in the same solutions,
to the very low tricalcium aluminate content in SR compared with indicating the sensitivity of CKD to magnesium sulfate solution and
PC (i.e., 1.2% in SR compared with 11.1% in PC as illustrated in sewage water. Broadly speaking, after 10 months of submersion in
Table 1), and accordingly the reduction in sulfoaluminate content aggressive solutions, mix (0% CKD e 200 CC) with SR cement
formed by using CKD. Consequently, it is preferable to use CKD as a achieved the highest value of compressive strength, while mix (50%
partial substitution of SR rather than being used with PC in CKD e 150 CC) with PC cement recorded the lowest value. However,
manufacturing cement bricks. all the manufactured bricks are still classified as load-bearing bricks
ASTM C90-14 and ASTM C129-11 classify solid cement bricks to even after 10 months of submersion in aggressive solutions, as their
load-bearing bricks with compressive strength higher than 131 kg/ strengths were higher than the minimum limit for strength (i.e.,
cm2 and non-load bearing bricks with compressive strength higher 131 kg/cm2) as required by ASTM C90-14. Therefore, up to 50% of
than 41.4 kg/cm2. It is obvious that the compressive strength of all cement could be substituted by CKD for producing load-bearing
the manufactured bricks exceeds the minimum limit of strength for bricks with satisfactory behavior even after exposure to aggres-
load bearing applications and consequently high volumes of CKD, sive solutions such as magnesium sulfate and sewage water.
up to 50% of cement, could be utilized as a supplementary However, it is recommended to use a coating layer for the protec-
cementing material for producing load-bearing bricks. Hence, load- tion of CKD bricks from aggressive environments.
bearing bricks could be manufactured with very low cement con- Fig. 5 depicts the strength of bricks at the end of submersion
tent (i.e., 75 kg/m3 cement plus 75 kg/m3 CKD). period in aggressive environments. It is obvious that sewage water
is more aggressive than magnesium sulfate solution. It causes more
decrease in compressive strength, irrespective of mix composition.
4.3. Effect of aggressive solutions
The strength after 10 months of submersion in magnesium sulfate
solution decreased by 5.8e16.7% relative to the 28-days compres-
Figs. 3 and 4 depict the compressive strength of bricks sub-
sive strength, whilst for specimens submerged in sewage water, the
merged in aggressive solutions. All mixes have almost the same
reduction ranged from 12.4% to 19.4%, based on mix composition.
behavior, regardless of mix composition. Generally, the strength of
It is also evident from Fig. 5 that bricks resistance to aggressive
bricks submerged in aggressive solutions increased up to certain
solutions depends on cement type and content. Increasing cement
age afterward a continuous decrease with further submersion
content enhances the resistance of cement bricks to aggressive
period is observed. This is ascribed to two chemical reactions; the
solutions. For PC bricks, increasing cement content from 150 to
former reaction is cement hydration resulting in the formation of
200 kg/m3 reduced the reduction in the compressive strength after
denser microstructure, while the latter reaction is sulfate attack.
10 months of submersion in magnesium sulfate and sewage water
The inflection point indicates the start of deterioration. The dete-
by 16.5e48.3% and 3.9e19.1%, respectively, while for SR bricks, the
rioration rate depends on mix composition, solution type and
reduction reduced by 26.6e29.4% and 24.4e27.5%. The increased
submersion period in aggressive solution. In general, the strength

50 0%CKD 30%CKD 50 0%CKD 30%CKD

(a) 50%CKD (b)
50%CKD
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

40 40
ASTM limit for load bearing units
30 30

20 20
ASTM limit for load bearing units

10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units 10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Immersion period (month) Immersion period (month)

50 50 0%CKD 30%CKD
0%CKD 30%CKD (c) 50%CKD
(d)
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

50%CKD
40 40
ASTM limit for load bearing units
30 30

20 20 ASTM limit for load bearing units

10 10
ASTM limit for non-load bearing units ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Immersion period (month) Immersion period (month)

Fig. 3. Compressive strength of solid cement bricks after submersion in MgSO4. (a) 150 kg/m3 PC, (b) 200 kg/m3 PC, (c) 150 kg/m3 SR and (d) 200 kg/m3 SR.
512 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515

50 50 0%CKD 30%CKD
0%CKD 30%CKD (a) (b)
50%CKD

Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

50%CKD
40 40
ASTM limit for load bearing units
30 30

20 20
ASTM limit for load bearing units

10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units 10 ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Immersion period (month) Immersion period (month)

50 50 0%CKD 30%CKD
0%CKD 30%CKD (c) 50%CKD (d)
Compressive strength (MPa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

50%CKD
40 40

ASTM limit for load bearing units

30 30

20 20
ASTM limit for load bearing units

10 10
ASTM limit for non-load bearing units ASTM limit for non-load bearing units

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Immersion period (month) Immersion period (month)

Fig. 4. Compressive strength of solid cement bricks after submersion in sewage water. (a) 150 kg/m3 PC, (b) 200 kg/m3 PC, (c) 150 kg/m3 SR and (d) 200 kg/m3 SR.

resistance by increasing cement content is ascribed to the forma- specimen.

tion of denser microstructure with decreased porosity, which im- As expected, bricks resistance to magnesium sulfate and sewage
pedes the penetration of aggressive solutions into the tested water is enhanced by using SR instead of PC. Using of SR instead of

50 50
0%CKD 30%CKD 0%CKD 30%CKD
Compressive strength (MPa)

(b)
Compressive strength (MPa)

(a) 50%CKD
50%CKD 40
40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
MgSO4 Sewage water MgSO4 Sewage water
Solution type Solution type

50 50
0%CKD 30%CKD 0%CKD 30%CKD
Compressive strength (MPa)

(c) (d)
Compressive strength (MPa)

50%CKD 50%CKD
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
MgSO4 Sewage water MgSO4 Sewage water
Solution type Solution type

Fig. 5. Effect of solution type on the compressive strength of solid cement bricks after 10-months of submersion in aggressive solutions. (a) with 150 kg/m3 PC, (b) with 200 kg/m3
PC, (c) with 150 kg/m3 SR and (d) with 200 kg/m3 SR.
 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515 513

Table 5
Emission factors for ingredient/ process (Yang et al., 2015). 120

Emission factor (kgCO2e/t)

Process Emission factor

Materials (kgCO2e/kg) Cement (CEM I 42.5N) 0.93

100
Coarse aggregate 0.0075
Fine aggregate 0.0026 80
Water 0.000196

Transportation of each raw material (kgCO2e/kg.km) 5.18  105 60

Production of solid cement bricks (kgCO2e/m3 of bricks) 17.842
PC reduced the reduction in the compressive strength after 10
months of submersion in magnesium sulfate and sewage water by
14.4e37.8% and 3.05e22.5%, respectively. Sulfate ions in magne-
sium sulfate and sewage water chemically react with the hydrated
compounds in the hardened cement to form ettringite and gypsum.
The formation of these products causes softening, expansion,
cracking and loss of cohesion and strength. When SR is used instead
of PC, the formed ettringite is of minor importance due to limited
tricalcium aluminate content in SR, hence improves bricks resis-
tance to sulfate attack (Belie et al., 2004).
Bricks resistance to aggressive solutions depends also on the
substitution percentage of cement by CKD. A continuous reduction
in bricks resistance to aggressive solutions is observed by
increasing CKD percentage, irrespective of solution type. The sub-
stitution of 30% PC by CKD increased the reduction in the
compressive strength after 10 months of submersion in magnesium
sulfate and sewage water by 14.7e29.4% and 5.7e9.5%, respectively,
whilst the substitution of 50% increased the reduction by
33.8e34.1% and 12.1e22.7%, respectively in comparison with 0%
CKD bricks. For SR bricks, the substitution of 30% SR by CKD
increased the reduction in the compressive strength after 10
months of submersion in magnesium sulfate and sewage water by
5.4e7.1% and 4.2e8.6%, respectively, whilst the substitution of 50%
increased the reduction by 9.9e14.2% and 11.3e16.3%, respectively.
These findings are in agreement with those reported by Marku et al.
(2012) that mortar resistance to sodium sulfate attack decreases by
using CKD. This may be ascribed to the increased porosity in CKD-
cement matrix, which facilitates the penetration of sulfate ions.
Moreover, the high contents of portlandite and sulfoaluminate in
CKD bricks increase the amount of ettringite and gypsum formed
by sulfate attack.
Based on these results, it can be concluded that the negative
effect of CKD on bricks resistance to aggressive solutions is evident
with PC than with SR. For the same CKD percentage, using of SR
instead of PC meliorates the durability of CKD bricks. Therefore, it is
preferable to use CKD to partially substitute SR instead of
substituting PC in manufacturing cement bricks, especially in
aggressive solutions applications.
5. Environmental impact of CKD bricks
With increased environmental awareness concerning the
40
20 150 kg/m3 cement content
200 kg/m3 cement content
0
0 30 50
CKD percentage (%)
Fig. 6. Carbon footprint of the manufactured bricks as a function of cement content
and CKD percentage.
disposal problem of wastes, recycling philosophy has become an
attractive alternative to waste disposal. Recycling of CKD as a partial
cement replacement material for producing solid cement bricks
could contribute in protecting the environment from CKD disposal
problem, in addition to reducing the consumption of cement in
bricks industry, hence reducing the consumed energy and CO2
emissions from cement industry.
The environmental impact of CKD bricks has been evaluated
herein by computing the total carbon emission factor (CO2e), or in
other words carbon footprint of the manufactured bricks. It
included the emissions generated from (i) the extraction and pro-
duction of materials used in bricks industry (i.e., cement, aggre-
gates and water), (ii) the transportation of materials to bricks
factory and (iii) the manufacturing process of bricks (Sadek and El-
Attar, 2015). In this research, the only investigated mixes for carbon
footprint computations were those included ordinary Portland
cement, as it is the most common cement type used in bricks in-
dustry. Emission factors reported by Yang et al. (2015) as depicted
in Table 5 were used for calculating carbon footprint from the
manufactured cement bricks. Although CO2 emissions calculated
from the transportation phase would vary based on the distance
between brick factory and suppliers of raw materials, this variation
is expected to be less than 2% of the total emission factor (Yang
et al., 2015), which is very small and could be neglected. Hence,
the transportation distance for raw materials was assumed to be
100 km.
Table 6 illustrates carbon footprint of bricks. It is obvious that
emission factor from the transportation and production phases is
not significant relative to that emitted from the constituent mate-
rials. Moreover, although the weight of water and aggregates is
about 92e94% of the total weight of materials used in bricks mixes

Table 6
Carbon footprint of the manufactured solid cement bricks.

Series Mix ID Emission factor from each phase (kg CO2e/m3 of bricks) Total emission Total emission
factor (kg CO2e/m3 factor (kg CO2e/
Materials Transportation Production
of bricks) t of bricks)
Cement Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Water Total

I 0% CKD e 150 CC 139.5 9.22 2.13 0.03 150.88 11.39 17.84 180.11 85
30% CKD e 150 CC 97.65 9.22 2.13 0.03 109.03 11.39 17.84 138.26 66
50% CKD e150 CC 69.75 9.22 2.13 0.03 81.13 11.39 17.84 110.36 55
III 0% CKD e 200 CC 186 9.22 2.13 0.03 197.14 11.42 17.84 226.40 103
30% CKD e 200 CC 130.2 9.22 2.13 0.03 141.34 11.42 17.84 170.60 79
50% CKD e 200 CC 93 9.22 2.13 0.03 104.14 11.42 17.84 133.40 63
514 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515

Table 7
Unit cost of materials used in manufacturing solid cement bricks.

Material PC SR CKD Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Water

Cost ($/kg) 0.06926 0.07208 0 0.00950 0.00345 0.00032

(Table 2); the quantity of CO2 emitted from these materials is very available for free, and consequently it will not bring additional cost
low compared with that emitted from Portland cement, as depicted to producers. The cost for the manufacturing of 1000 brick from
in Table 6. The manufacturing of cement contributes by 63e82.2% each mix is depicted in Fig. 7. As expected, bricks cost decreases by
of the total emission factor from of the produced bricks, depending decreasing cement content and increasing CKD percentage. The
on cement content. Hence, carbon footprint of cement bricks is highest cost (in average 51.1 $/1000 brick) was recorded for cement
mainly attributed to Portland cement and it varies with cement bricks made from mix (0% CKD e 200 CC), while bricks made from
content in the mixes. mix (50% CKD e 150 CC) recorded the lowest cost (in average 35.8
A comparison between the calculated carbon footprint of the $/1000 brick) with a cost saving up to 30%. Increasing cement
manufactured bricks (i.e., 55 to 103 kgCO2e/t of bricks) and the content increased bricks cost by 7.2e13%, while 50% replacement of
reported value for clay bricks (i.e., 220 kgCO2e/t) (Dixon, 2015), cement by CKD decreased bricks cost by 20.8e25.1%. Consequently,
indicates the lower carbon footprint of the produced cement bricks CKD recycling in bricks industry, especially at high replacement
relative to clay bricks. The produced cement bricks have at least 53% levels of cement weight (up to 50%), significantly reduces bricks
lower carbon footprint than clay bricks. However, since the cost. The most economical mix from the investigated mixes was
strength values of cement bricks and clay bricks are different, it is that containing 50% CKD. This economical benefit attributes to the
better to use compressive strength as a normalization factor to decline in the consumption of the most expensive material (i.e.,
provide a comprehensive comparison between these types of cement). Another economical benefit from CKD recycling in bricks
bricks. Thus, the total emission factor of bricks per unit strength industry is the saving of CKD disposal cost.
was calculated for mixes containing PC by dividing the total
emission factor of bricks in each mix (kgCO2e/t of bricks) by their
7. Conclusions
28-days compressive strength. For clay bricks, the total emission
factor per unit strength was calculated by dividing the reported
High volumes of CKD could be beneficially used to substitute up
total emission factor of clay bricks (i.e., 220 kgCO2e/t) by its com-
to 50% of cement for manufacturing cheap and environmental-
mon compressive strength (i.e., 10.3 MPa as stated by ASTM C62-
friendly bricks. Although the utilization of CKD as a partial substi-
13a). While the total emission factor of the produced bricks per
tution of cement worsens bricks properties, the overall perfor-
their unit strength ranged from 2.2 to 3.37 kgCO2e/t/MPa, it was
mance of bricks is accepted as per standard specifications
21.36 kgCO2e/t/MPa for clay bricks, indicating the environmental
requirements. Load-bearing bricks could be manufactured with
benefit from using cement bricks instead of clay bricks. Moreover,
very low cement content (i.e., 75 kg/m3 cement plus 75 kg/m3 CKD).
cement bricks made from mix (50% CKD e 150 CC) could be
In addition, CKD-SR bricks demonstrated superior behavior
considered as environmental-friendly bricks compared with clay
compared with CKD-PC bricks. Thus, it is preferable to use CKD in
bricks. It has 86% lower emission factor per unit strength (kgCO2e/t/
combination with SR instead of being used with PC for
MPa) than clay bricks. The considerable increase in the total
manufacturing of cement bricks, especially in case of exposure to
emission factor per unit strength of clay bricks is ascribed to its
aggressive environments. Furthermore, a coating layer is recom-
production technique. Firing process of clay bricks requires inten-
mended to be used over 50% CKD bricks exposed to aggressive
sive energy and emit considerable CO2 on contrary to the
environments to ensure the long-term safety of load bearing walls.
manufacturing technique for cement bricks, which is very simple
Environmental assessment indicated the beneficial recycling of
(only mixing and pressing without heating), and thus carbon
CKD in bricks industry. Solid cement bricks made with 50% CKD as a
footprint of cement bricks is not significant.
partial substitution of cement have the lowest carbon footprint
Fig. 6 depicts the total emission factor from the produced bricks
among the manufactured bricks. It has 86% lower total emission
(kgCO2e/t of bricks). It is apparent that the total carbon emission
factor per unit strength than clay bricks. In addition, several
factor decreases sharply by decreasing cement content and
increasing CKD percentage. Total emission factor decreased by
12.7e17.5% by decreasing cement content from 200 to 150 kg/m3.
60
Moreover, it decreased by 23.3e22.4% and 35.3e38.8% by replacing
150 kg/m3 cement content 200 kg/m3 cement content
30% and 50%, respectively of cement by CKD. The highest carbon
Cost of bricks ($/1000 brick)

50
footprint was reported for cement bricks made from mix (0% CKD e
200 CC), while bricks made from mix (50% CKD e 150 CC) achieved 40
the lowest value.
30

6. Cost analysis of CKD bricks

20

The cost of the produced bricks was determined to study the 10

feasibility of using CKD in bricks industry. Bricks cost includes the PC SR
costs of constituent materials and other costs such as the trans- 0
portation cost of constituent materials to bricks factory and the 0 30 50 0 30 50
production costs of bricks. In this research, materials costs were the CKD percentage (%)
only factor taken into account to focus on CKD effect. Table 7 de-
picts the local unit costs of materials based on the collected data in Fig. 7. Cost of the manufactured bricks as a function of cement content and CKD
2016. It should be mentioned that since CKD is a by-product, it is percentage.
 M.M. El-Attar et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 506e515
financial benefits could be gained by utilizing CKD for the pro-
duction of bricks such as the lessening the consumption of cement
in bricks industry and consequently bricks cost. 50% CKD bricks are
considered as the most economical bricks amongst the investigated
mixes with about 30% cost saving. It provides ecological and
economical advantages associated with satisfactory performance.
References
Abd El-Aleem, S., Abd-El-Aziz, M., Heikal, M., El Didamony, H., 2005. Effect of
cement kiln dust substitution on chemical and physical properties and
compressive strength of portland and slag cements. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 30,
263e273.
Abdelfatah, A., Tabsh, S., 2011. Review of research on and implementation of
recycled concrete aggregate in the GCC. Adv. Civ. Eng. 1e6 article ID 567924.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/2011/567924.
Abdulabbas, Z., 2013. Utilization of cement kiln dust in concrete manufacturing.
Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 7, 111e125.
Adaska, W., Taubert, D. Beneficial uses of cement kiln dust. 50th Cement Industry
Technical Conference, 19e22 May 2008, Miami.
Al-Jabri, K., Taha, R., Al-Hashmi, A., Al-Harthy, A., 2006. Effect of copper slag and
cement by-pass dust addition on mechanical properties of concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 20, 22e331.
ASTM C129-11, Standard specification for nonloadbearing concrete masonry units,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia.
ASTM C62-13a, Standard specification for building brick (solid masonry units made
from clay or shale). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia.
ASTM C67-13a, Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural
clay tile. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia.
ASTM C90-14, Standard specification for loadbearing concrete masonry units.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Philadelphia.
Baghchesaraei, A., Baghchesaraei, O. Portland cement. International Conference on
Transport, Civil, Architecture and Environment Engineering (ICTCAEE 2012), 26-
27 December 2012, Dubai (UAE), pp. 51e55.
Belie, N., Monteny, J., Beeldens, A., Vincke, E., Gemert, D., Verstraete, W., 2004.
Experimental research and prediction of the effect of chemical and biogenic
sulfuric acid on different types of commercially produced concrete sewer pipes.
Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 2223e2236.
Bondar, D., Coakley, E., 2014. Use of gypsum and CKD to enhance early age strength
of High Volume Fly Ash (HVFA) pastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 71, 93e108.
BS EN 197e1, 2011. Cement - Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria
for Common Cements.
Daous, M., 2004. Utilization of cement kiln dust and fly ash in cement blends in
Saudi Arabia. JKAU Eng. Sci. 15, 33e45.
Dixon, W., 2015. Embodied Energy, Briefing Note. www.willmottdixon.co.uk/asset/
download/10585.
Fadhil, T., Jasim, S., Aziz, K., Ahmed, A., 2013. Influence of using white cement kiln
dust as a mineral filler on hot asphalt concrete mixture properties. Int. J. Civ.
Eng. Technol. 4, 87e96.
Felekoglu, B., Türkel, S., Baradan, B., 2007. Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh
and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Build. Environ. 42,
1795e1802.
Gebhardt, R. Method of Treating Cement Kiln Dust for Recovery and Recycle. US
Patent e 6,331,207 B1, 2001.
Hameed, M., Sekar, A., Balamurugan, L., Saraswathy, V., 2012. Self-compacting
concrete using marble sludge powder and crushed rock dust. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
515
16, 980e988.
Hossain, K., Lotfy, A., Shehata, M., Lachemi, M. Development of flowable fill products
incorporating cement kiln dust. 32nd Conference on Our World in Concrete &
Structures, 28e29 August 2007, Singapore.
Khanna, O., 2009. Characterization and Utilization of Cement Kiln Dusts (CKDs) as
Partial Replacements of Portland Cement. PhD. University of Toronto.
Konsta-Gdoutos, M., Shah, S., 2003. Hydration and properties of novel blended
cements based on cement kiln dust and blast furnace slag. Cem. Concr. Res. 33,
1269e1276.
Kunal, Siddique, R., Rajor, A., 2012. Use of cement kiln dust in cement concrete and
its leachate characteristics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 61, 59e68.
Kunal, Siddique, R., Rajor, A., 2014. Strength and microstructure analysis of bacterial
treated cement kiln dust mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 63, 49e55.
Lachemi, M., Şahmaran, M., Hossain, K., Lotfy, A., Shehata, M., 2010. Properties of
controlled low-strength materials incorporating cement kiln dust and slag.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 32, 623e629.
Marku, J., Dumi, I., Liço, E., Dilo, T., Çakaj, O., 2012. The characterization and the
utilization of cement kiln dust (CKD) as partial replacement of portland cement
in mortar and concrete production. Zastita Mater. 53, 334e344.
Maslehuddin, M., Al-Amoudi, O., Shameema, M., Rehmana, M., Ibrahim, M., 2008.
Usage of cement kiln dust in cement products e research review and pre-
liminary investigations. Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 2369e2375.
Maslehuddin, M., Al-Amoudi, O., Rahman, M., Ali, M., Barry, M., 2009. Properties of
cement kiln dust concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 23, 2357e2361.
Moriconi, G. Recyclable materials in concrete technology: sustainability and dura-
bility. First International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies, 11e13 June 2007, Coventry, UK, pp.1e12.
Naik, T., Canpolat, F., Chun, Y., 2003. Uses of CKD Other than for Flue Gas Desul-
furization. Center for By-Products Utilization. Report No. CBU-2003-35. https://
www4.uwm.edu/cbu/Papers/2003%20CBU%20Reports/REP-529.pdf.
Najim, K., Mahmod, Z., Atea, A., 2014. Experimental investigation on using Cement
Kiln Dust (CKD) as a cement replacement material in producing modified
cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 55, 5e12.
Najim, K., Al-Jumaily, I., Atea, A., 2016. Characterization of sustainable high
performance/self-compacting concrete produced using CKD as a cement
replacement material. Constr. Build. Mater. 103, 123e129.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), 2012. Concrete CO2 Fact
Sheet. http://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/CONCRETE%20CO2%20FACT%
20SHEET%20FEB%202012.pdf.
Ozaa, J., Gundaliya, P., 2013. Study of black cotton soil characteristics with cement
waste dust and lime. Procedia Eng. 51, 110e118.
Sadek, D., 2012. Physico-mechanical properties of solid cement bricks containing
recycled aggregates. J. Adv. Res. 3, 235e260.
Sadek, D., 2014. Effect of cooling technique of blast furnace slag on the thermal
behavior of solid cement bricks. J. Clean. Prod. 79, 134e141.
Sadek, M., El-Attar, M., 2015. Structural behavior of rubberized masonry walls.
J. Clean. Prod. 89, 174e186.
Salem, A., Afshin, H., Behsaz, H., 2012. Removal of lead by using Raschig rings
manufactured with mixture of cement kiln dust, zeolite and bentonite.
J. Hazard. Mater. 223, 13e23.
Sreekrishnavilasam, A., Santagata, M., 2006. Development of Criteria for the Utili-
zation of Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) in Highway Infrastructures. Joint Trans-
portation Research Program, Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2005/10. http://docs.lib.
purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1743&context¼jtrp.
Yang, K., Jung, Y., Cho, M., Tae, S., 2015. Effect of supplementary cementitious ma-
terials on reduction of CO2 emissions from concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 103,
774e783.