Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760

www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Models relating mixture composition to the density and strength

of foam concrete using response surface methodology
E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy *

Building Technology and Construction Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Received 21 October 2005; received in revised form 11 June 2006; accepted 14 June 2006

Abstract

There have been several investigations in the past on the influence of mixture composition on the properties of foam concrete. Con-
ventionally strength is related to density alone and few models have been developed relating strength with density, porosity, gel–space
ratio, etc. Very little work has been reported in the literature in predicting the properties of foam concrete from the knowledge of its
mixture proportions. This paper discusses the development of empirical models for compressive strength and density of foam concrete
through statistically designed experiments. The response surface plots helps in visually analysing the influence of factors on the responses.
The relative influence of fly ash replacement on strength and density of foam concrete is studied by comparing it with mixes without fly
ash and brought out that replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash will help in increase in the strength of foam concrete at lower densities
allowing high strength to density ratio. Confirmatory tests have shown that the relation developed by statistical treatment of experimen-
tal results can act as a guideline in the mixture proportion of foam concrete.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Foam concrete; Response surface methodology (RSM); Fly ash replacement level; Filler–cement ratio; Strength–density ratio

1. Introduction the prediction of density and compressive strength of foam

Several of the earlier investigations on foam concrete
give a detailed discussion on its composition, physical
properties and uses [1–6]. The first comprehensive review
on cellular concrete including foam concrete was presented
by Valore [1] and a detailed treatment by Short and Kinni-
burgh [3] and Rudnai [4]. A rational proportioning method
of preformed foam concrete was proposed by Mc Cormick
[5] based on solid volume calculations. Richard [6]
reviewed the thermal and mechanical characteristics of
foam concrete. Hoff [7] reported a porosity-strength model
for cellular concrete made with Portland cement, water and
preformed foam. Durack and Weiqing [8] proposed a
strength-gel space ratio relationship for foam concrete.
Nehdi et al. [9] presented a nontraditional approach to
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 22574265; fax: +91 44 22574252.
E-mail address: vivek@iitm.ac.in (K. Ramamurthy).
concrete mixtures based on the Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) technology. For moist cured foam concrete, the
relation between strength and volumetric composition, par-
ticularly water content and air voids, has been formulated
by Tam et al. [10] using Feret’s and Power’s equation, for a
small range of water–cement ratios (0.6–0.8) and sand–
cement ratios (1.58–1.73). Kearsley and Wainwright [11–
14] investigated the effect of replacing large volume of
cement with fly ash and equations based on effective
water–cement ratio and binder ratio have been developed
to predict the strength of foam concrete made of cement
paste of different densities at different ages. Most of these
studies related strength to density, gel–space ratio or poros-
ity. Limited work has been reported on predicting the
properties of foam concrete from knowledge of its mixture
proportion.
Further, studies on foam concrete using fly ash as
partial/complete replacement for filler have proved that

0958-9465/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.06.001
 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760 753

Table 1 Table 2
Physical and chemical properties of cement and fly ash used Factors and factor levels adopted
Properties Cement Fly ash Notation Factor Low level High level
Physical F/C Filler–cement ratio 1 3
Blaine fineness 391 252 FA Fly ash as replacement 20 100
(m2/kg) for sand (%)
Specific gravity 3.13 2.09 FV Foam volume (% of total 10 50
28-day – volume of concrete)
compressive 54.7
strength (MPa)
% by IS 12269-1987 (17) % by ASTM C 618 class F fly ash conforming to ASTM C 618-89 [17] were
mass mass (Class F) (18) used. The properties of cement and fly ash used in this
Chemical study are presented in Table 1.
SiO2 19.3 – 63.6 – The mix proportions were arrived at as per the proce-
CaO 61 – 1.57 <10 dure given in ASTM C 796-97 [18]. As the standard deals
Al2O3 5.687 – 28.19 – with only cement slurry, the procedure was modified to
Fe2O3 6.036 – 2.99 –
include cement–sand–fly ash components. As the foam is
MgO 1.875 6 0.54 5 (max)
MnO – – 0.03 – added to the wet mix, the consistency of the wet mix is very
Na2O – – 0.05 – important to get the desired design density [15], which is
K2O – – 0.003 – expressed in terms of water–solids ratio required to pro-
SO3 1.67 2.5 0.26 – duce this consistency, and its range is narrow for a given
Loss on ignition 0.2963 4 0.85 –
mix. Based on several trails, the percent flow (consistency),
Soluble residue 1.489 2 – –
Al2O3/Fe2O3 0.94 0.66 – – measured in a standard flow table [19] (without raising/
SiO2 + Al2O3 – – 94.78 70 (min) dropping of the flow table as it may affect the foam bubbles
+ Fe2O3 entrained in the mix) was arrived at as 45 ± 5%. Earlier
studies by the authors have shown that within this range,
the water–solids ratio does not affect compressive strength.
the use of fly ash results in higher strength to density ratio As the water–solids requirement for obtaining this flow val-
and facilitates its high volume utilization [15]. This study ues varied for mixes with and without fly ash replacement
attempts to develop empirical models for predicting the (0.3–0.4 for mixes without fly ash and 0.35–0.6 for mixes
density and compressive strength of foam concrete from with fly ash at different replacement levels), it was decided
the mixture composition details like filler–cement ratio, to split experimental programme into two mixes, namely
addition of fly ash as partial/complete replacement for cement–sand mixes (M1) and cement–fly ash–sand mixes
sand and foam volume, through systematically designed (M2).
experiments.
2.2. Experimental design and validation
2. Experimental investigations
With an objective of developing relationships between
2.1. Materials and mixture composition the parameters and response (empirical models for com-
pressive strength and density), a statistical methods of
Foam was produced by aerating an organic based foam- experimental design based on response surface methodol-
ing agent (dilution ratio 1:5 by weight) using an indige- ogy (RSM) is adopted. For providing equal precision of
nously fabricated foam generator to a density of 40 kg/ estimates in all directions, a central composite design with
m3. 53 grade Ordinary Portland Cement [16], pulverized rotatability or equal precision is selected [20]. The factors
river sand finer than 300 lm (specific gravity = 2.52) and and factor levels are shown in Table 2. Mixture M1 has

Table 3
Observed and predicted responses for confirmation of models
Mix type Mixture composition Compressive strength, MPa Dry density, kg/m3
F/C FA, % FV, % 7-Day 28-Day 90-Day
Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed
M1 1 – 20 9.0 7.8 11.6 10.7 13.2 12.3 1282 1318
2 – 35 2.41 2.14 2.67 2.30 2.91 3.01 998 1011
3 – 50 0.25 1.20 0.52 1.23 0.84 1.54 802 787
M2 1 70 10 13.8 12.3 18.9 17.8 24.7 23.0 1194 1224
2 65 30 3.66 2.93 5.08 4.84 9.23 8.03 858 854
3 50 40 1.03 1.87 1.10 1.96 3.83 3.01 664 650
754 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760

a 50
7.8E2
1400 45

Dry density, kg/m

8.6E2

Foam volume ratio %

40
1200 9.4E2
35
1E3
1000
30 1.1E3

800 25 1.2E3

3
20 1.3E3
600
1.0 1.3E3
15

tio
1.5

ra
1.4E3

nt
2.0 10

me
10 15 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
20 25

-ce
30 35 2.5
Foam Filler-cement ratio

ler
volum 40 45
3.0

Fil
e% 50

100
b 8.4E2
1050 90 8.6E2

Fly ash replacement %

8.8E2
80
1000 9E2
70
Dry density kg/m3

950 60

50 9.2E2
900
40
9.8E2 9.4E2
850 30
20
Fly 3040 1.0 20 1E3 9.6E2
as 50 1.5 800 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
hr 60
ep 2.0
lac 70 80 ratio Filler-cement ratio
em 2.5 ent
en 90 l e r - c m
e
t % 100 3.0 Fil

Fig. 1. Response surface and contour plot for dry density for (a) Mix M1; (b) Mix M2 (FV = 30%).

two variables (F/C and FA) and M2 has three (F/C, FA For cement–sand foam concrete mix (Mix M1):
and FV). The experimental design was done using Statisti- Dry density ¼ 1655:92  18:283  ðF=CÞ  17:753  ðFVÞ
cal Analysis Software (SAS) [21], resulting in 13 and 20 7-Day strength ¼ 25:328  5:903  ðF=CÞ  0:737  ðFVÞ
experimental runs for mixes M1 and M2, respectively. þ 0:00474  ðFVÞ2 þ 0:120  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ
The fresh density of foam concrete was measured by fill- 28-Day strength ¼ 32:342  6:098  ðF=CÞ  1:004  ðFVÞ
ing a standard container. The compressive strength was
þ 0:00768  ðFVÞ2 þ 0:118  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ
determined at the age of 7, 28, 90 days using six cube spec-
imens of size 50 mm after curing by immersing in water in a 90-Day strength ¼ 38:212  7:327  ðF=CÞ  1:225  ðFVÞ
curing tank. A sample size of six was arrived at as per þ 0:00929  ðFVÞ2 þ 0:155  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ
ASTM E 122-72 [22]. The dry density was determined in
accordance with the section on Oven-Dry Weight of Test Mix M1 (without FA)
1500 Mix M2 with 20% FA
method ASTM C 495-91a [23]. Mix M2 with 60% FA
1400
The results were analysed using SAS to determine the Mix M2 with 100% FA
1300
Dry density kg/m3

quadratic response surface adopting the following sec-

1200
ond-order model (to take care of curvature in the relation-
1100
ship) for predicting fresh density and compressive strength
1000
of foam concrete:
900
800
X
k X
k XX
y ¼ b0 þ bi x i þ bii x2i þ bij xi xj 700
i¼1 i¼1 i<j 600
500
10 20 30 40 50
where, xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , k) are quantitative variables and b0, bi
Foam volume %
are the least square estimates of the regression coefficients.
The models for density and strength are given below. Fig. 2. Effect of fly ash replacement on density of foam concrete.
 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760 755

For cement–sand–fly ash foam concrete mix (Mix M2): 28-Day strength ¼ 31:179  6:279  ðF=CÞ þ 0:117  ðFAÞ
Dry density ¼ 1438:536 þ 68:465  ðF=CÞ  2:629  ðFAÞ  1:053  ðFVÞ  0:00119  ðFAÞ2 þ 0:00799  ðFVÞ2
 12:333  ðFVÞ  22:563  ðF=CÞ2  0:098  ðFVÞ2 þ 0:138  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ
þ 0:038  ðFAÞ  ðFVÞ 90-Day strength ¼ 32:002  5:348  ðF=CÞ þ 0:193  ðFAÞ
7-Day strength ¼ 23:770  3:669  ðF=CÞ  0:778  ðFVÞ  1:028  ðFVÞ  0:00140  ðFAÞ2 þ 0:00715  ðFVÞ2
þ 0:00628  ðFVÞ2 þ 0:0:082  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ þ 0:095  ðF=CÞ  ðFVÞ

7-Day compressive strength, MPa

50
14
45
12
40 0.60

Foam volume %
10 1.4
35
8
2.8
6 30
4.2
4 25
5.6
2 7.0
7.0
20
9.1 8.47.7
0
1.0 15 111111 9.8
9.8
tio

1.5 1312
13
ra

10
2.0
nt

0 15 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

me

20 25 2.5 Filler-cement ratio

-ce

30 35
Foam v 40 45
ler

olume 50 3.0
Fil

%
28-Day compressive strength, MPa

50
b 20
18 45
2.0
16 40 1.0
Foam volume %

14
12 35
10 30 4.0
8 6.0
6 25
8.0
4
20 10
2 12
0 15 14
1.0
16
1.5
o
ati

10
2.0
r

0 15 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

nt

20 25
me

30 35 2.5 Filler-cement ratio

-ce

Foam v
olume 40 45
% 50 3.0
ler
Fil

c
90-Day compressive strength, MPa

50 1.2

20 45
1.2
40
Foam volume %

15 2.2
35

10 30 4.4
6.6
25
8.8
5
20 11
13
0 15 15
1.0 18
tio

1.5 20
10
ra

0 15 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
nt
me

20 25 Filler-cement ratio
30 35 2.5
-ce

Foam v 40 45
ler

olume 50 3.0
%
Fil

Fig. 3. Response surface and contour plot for (a) 7-Day strength for Mix M1; (b) 28-Day strength for Mix M1; (c) 90-Day strength for Mix M1.
756 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760

The models contain those terms that are statically signif- of the models was also checked by examining the residuals
icant (i.e. those terms that had a T-statistics greater than for trends by looking at the diagnostic plots like normal
that of chosen significance level, 0.05 in this study). The probability plots and residual plots. To confirm the accu-
adequacy checks on strength and density models (R- racy of the prediction relations, a few tests were carried
squared value, F-value and T-statistics) satisfy statistical out with some of the factor levels chosen from the experi-
requirements (details presented in Appendix A). Adequacy mental series. The predicted and observed responses for

a 100
1.4
14 90
ngth, MPa

Fly ash replacement %

12 80
2.8
10 70
4.2
7-day compressive stre

8 60
5.6
6 50 7.0

4 40 8.4
9.8
2 30 11
100 13
0 90
10 80 20
15 70 % 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20 nt
foa 25 30 50
60
eme Foam volume %
mv 35 lac
olu 40 ep
me 40 30 hr
% 45 as
50 20 Fly

b 100
ngth, MPa

20 90
2.0
18
Fly ash replacement %

80
16 4.0
28-day compressive stre

14 70
6.0
12 60 8.0
10
50 10
8
12
6 40
4 14
30 16
2 2.0
0 100 18
10 90 20
15 80
20 70 t% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
25 60 en
Foa 30
35
50
c em Foam volume %
mv 40 la
olu 40 30 ep
me 45 20 shr
% 50 a
Fly

100
c 25 5.2
ngth, MPa

90
Fly ash replacement %

20 80 7.8

70
90-Day compressive stre

10
15
60
13
10 50
23
16
40
5
18
30
0 100
10 90 21 2.6
15 80 20
20 70 %
25 60 nt 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Foa 30
35 40
50
e me
mv 40 lac Foam volume %
olu 45 30 ep
me
% 50 20 shr
a
Fly

Fig. 4. Response surface and contour plot for (a) 7-Day strength (Mix M2, F/C ratio: 1); (b) 28-Day strength (Mix M2, F/C ratio: 1); (c) 90-Day strength
(Mix M2, F/C ratio: 1).
 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760 757

both compressive strength and density were found to sity decreased linearly with an increase in foam volume.
match within satisfactory limits as given in Table 3. The The variation in density with filler–cement ratio was very
behaviour of foam concrete for different mixture composi- less compared to that with foam volume. For mixes with
tions are discussed in the next sections by plotting the fly ash replacement (Mix M2), the density varies nonlin-
response surface graphs developed from above equations. early with filler–cement ratio and shows a peak value as
indicated by the contour plot. For a given foam volume,
3. Response surface for dry density replacement of fine aggregate with fly ash, due to its rela-
tively lower specific gravity, reduces the density of foam
The response surface and contour plot for dry density of concrete (Fig. 2). Alternately, to achieve a particular den-
foam concrete mixes M1 and M2 are shown in Fig. 1(a) and sity of foam concrete, use of fly ash results in a reduction
(b), respectively. In cement–sand mixes (Mix M1), the den- in foam volume.

a b
28-Day compressive strength, MPa

90-Day compressive strength, MPa

22 25
20
18 F/C ratio 1 F/C ratio 1
20
16 F/C ratio 2 F/C ratio 2
14 F/C ratio 3 F/C ratio 3
15
12
10
10
8
6
5
4
2
0
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
Foam volume % Foam volume %

Fig. 5. Foam volume–filler cement ratio interaction for Mix M2 at (a) 28-Day, (b) 90-Day.

a FA% :0
b
28-Day compressive strength, MPa
7-Day compressive strength, MPa

14 20 FA% :0
FA% :20
FA% :40 18 FA% :20
12
FA% :60 16 FA% :40
10 FA% :80 14 FA% :60
FA% :100 12 FA% :80
8
FA% :100
10
6 8
4 6
4
2
2
0 0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Dry density kg/m3 Dry density kg/m3

c FA% :0
90-Day compressive strength, MPa

25 FA% :20
FA% :40
20 FA% :60
FA% :80
15 FA% :100

10

600 800 1000 1200 1400

Dry density kg/m3

Fig. 6. Strength–density relationship of foam concrete mixes (filler–cement ratio 1).

758 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760

4. Response surface for compressive strength Solid line-Strength-density ratio Dotted line-Strength
F/C ratio 1 F/C ratio 1
F/C ratio 2 F/C ratio 2
Fig. 3(a)–(c) shows the response surfaces and contour F/C ratio 3 F/C ratio 3
26 22
plots for compressive strength of cement–sand mix (M1)
at the age of 7, 28, 90 days. Compressive strength varies lin-

90-day compressive strength, MPa

24 20

Strength to density ratio x 10-3

early with filler–cement ratio and nonlinearly with foam
22 18
volume. For a given foam volume, an increase in filler–
cement ratio reduces the compressive strength, while the 20 16
effect of filler–cement ratio on compressive strength is pre- 18 14
dominant at lower foam content, indicating that at higher
foam content the strength (which is very low) is mainly 16 12
controlled by the entrained pores. 14 10
As Mix M2 contains three factors, the filler–cement ratio
is kept at fixed level (one) to draw the response surface and 12 8
contour plots for compressive strength of cement–fly ash– 10 6
sand mixture and are shown in Fig. 4(a)–(c). At 7 days,
fly ash replacement percentage has no effect on the com- 0 20 40 60 80 100
Fly ash replacement %
pressive strength of foam concrete. At 28 and 90 days,
the strength increases with fly ash replacement percentage Fig. 7. Strength and strength to density variation for foam concrete
up to a certain level and decreases slightly after that, an (FV—10%).
optimum value of fly ash replacement are estimated to be
49% and 71%, respectively.
Comparing Figs. 3 and 5 it can be seen that, for foam The enhancement of strength with fly ash is not pro-
concrete mixes with 10% foam volume and when filler nounced at lower density range (higher % of foam volume)
cement ratio varied from one to three, there is about 12– especially at lower ages. This is due to the fact that at lower
55% and 6–15% of increase in strength for cement–fly
ash–sand mix than the cement–sand mix at 28 and 90 days, Table A.1a
respectively. The rate of strength development between 28 Model statistics for cement–sand mix M1
and 90 days is higher for cement–sand–fly ash mix. The Responses R-squared Adjusted R-squared F-value Prob > F
contribution of fly ash to the compressive strength due to
7-Day strength 0.962 0.942 50.02 0.0001
its pozzolanic reaction and its dependency on age is evident 28-Day strength 0.958 0.937 42.61 0.0001
from this. Similar observations of strength enhancement by 90-Day strength 0.971 0.957 67.57 0.0001
replacing fine aggregate by fly ash were reported in other Dry density 0.987 0.986 1933.8 0.0001
studies on foam concrete [8,15,24].
Fig. 5(a) and (b) shows the effect of filler–cement ratio
on compressive strength for varying foam volume content Table A.1b
and for a typical fly ash replacement level of 40% and the Effect estimates of factors for cement–sand mix M1
behaviour is found to be similar to that of cement–sand Responses Estimates Effect estimates of factors
mix. A given strength can be achieved at higher filler– F/C FV F/C * (F/C)2 (FV)2
cement ratio by reducing the foam volume, thus producing FV
an economical mixture with lower cement content. 7-Day T 6.3406 11.7082 3.2876 – 3.4608
strength Prob > T 0.0002 0.0001 0.0111 – 0.0086
5. Strength–density relations 28-Day T 4.9163 11.7611 2.2562 – 3.9186
strength Prob > T 0.0012 0.0001 0.450 – 0.0044
Using the above models, the strength and dry density for
90-Day T 5.4032 14.3841 3.1005 – 4.9584
different levels of parameters have been determined first. A strength Prob > T 0.0006 0.0001 0.0147 – 0.0011
typical variation of strength with dry density for foam con-
Dry T 3.198 -62.109 – – –
crete with a filler–cement ratio 1 at different ages is plotted density Prob > T 0.0095 0.0001 – – –
in Fig. 6. For both cement–sand and cement–fly ash–sand
mixes, compressive strength increased with increasing dry
densities, as expected, due to the lower pore volume. For Table A.2a
Model statistics for cement–sand–fly ash mix M2
a given density, as percentage fly ash replacement increases
the compressive strength increases at all ages. Together Responses R-squared Adjusted R-squared F-value Prob > F
with the pozzolanic reaction, the reduced foam volume also 7-Day strength 0.972 0.964 128.83 0.0001
contributes to this strength enhancement. Alternatively for 28-Day strength 0.978 0.969 55.46 0.0001
90-Day strength 0.975 0.964 84.48 0.0001
a given strength requirement, the density of concrete is
Dry density 0.985 0.984 530.7 0.0001
lower with increase in fly ash content.
 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760 759

Table A.2b
Effect estimates of factors for cement–sand–fly ash mix M2
Responses 7-Day 28-Day 90-Day Dry density
Estimates T Prob > T T Prob > T T Prob > T T Prob > T
F/C 5.275 0.0001 7.587 0.0001 6.256 0.0001 3.765 0.0024
FA – – 3.611 0.0031 2.9406 0.0114 10.39 0.0001
FV 20.76 0.0001 20.98 0.0001 20.50 0.0001 55.07 0.0001
F/C * FA – – – – – – – –
F/C * FV 3.259 0.0053 4.4109 0.0007 2.1791 0.0483 2.40 0.0320
FA * FV – – – – – – – –
(F/C)2 – – – – – – – –
(FA)2 – – 4.103 0.0012 3.3604 0.0051 2.36 0.0342
(FV)2 6.754 0.0001 6.9168 0.0001 4.4130 0.0007 4.144 0.0011

density range, it is the foam volume which controls the
strength of foam concrete, rather than the material proper-
ties. At 90 days, the contribution of fly ash at lower density
is seemed to be better than other lower ages.
For a given strength and density, the percentage fly ash
replacement can be appropriately selected from the
strength–density relation as shown in Fig. 6. Knowing
the filler–cement ratio and fly ash replacement level the
foam volume requirement can be calculated using the equa-
tion developed for dry density. The water requirement for
the foam concrete mixture with these parameters can be
determined based on the consistency (flow value of
45 ± 5 %). Thus the prediction relation developed using
statistical treatment of experimental results can serve as
guidelines in the design of foam concrete mixes.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of fly ash replacement on the 90-
day strength and strength–density ratio for foam concrete
with 10% foam volume and for different filler–cement
ratios. The strength–density ratio increases with finer filler
like fly ash. It can be seen that even though there is a mar-
ginal reduction in strength after around 70% fly ash
replacement level, while the strength to density ratio
remains nearly same beyond this level. Hence a 100%
replacement level will allow higher utilization of fly ash
with same strength to density ratio, with a small reduction
in strength.
6. Conclusions
Conclusions pertain to the experimental investigations
conducted and are valid for the factors and factor level
considered are summarised below.
The prediction relation developed using statistical treat-
ment of experimental results can serve as guidelines in the
design of foam concrete mixes. Fly ash when used as par-
tial/complete replacement for fine aggregate; cause an
increase in compressive strength. The replacement level
for maximum strength depends on age of testing; it is
49% at 28 days and 71% at 90 days. Replacement of sand
with fly ash in the mixture generally reduces the density,
resulting in reduced foam volume requirement for a given
density and thus indirectly contributes to strength enhance-
ment over and above the pozzolanic and filler effects. The
strength–density ratio is high for foam concrete mixes con-
taining fly ash as compared to sand.
Appendix A
See Tables A.1(a)–A.2(b).
References
[1] Valore RC. Cellular concretes—Part I. Composition and methods of
preparation. J Am Concr Inst 1954;50(48a):773–95.
[2] Valore RC. Cellular concretes—part II. Physical properties. J Am
Concr Inst 1954;50(48b):817–36.
[3] Short A, Kinniburgh W. Lightweight concretes. London: Applied
Sciences Publishers; 1978.
[4] Rudnai G. Lightweight concretes. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado;
1963.
[5] Fred C, Cormick Mc. Rational proportioning of preformed foam
cellular concrete. ACI Mater J 1967:104–9.
[6] Richard TG. Low temperature behaviour of cellular concrete. ACI
Mater J 1977;74(4):173–8.
[7] Hoff CG. Porosity-strength considerations for cellular concrete. Cem
Concr Res 1972;2:91–100.
[8] Durack JM, Weiqing L. The properties of foamed air cured fly ash
based concrete for masonry production. In: Proceedings of fifth
Australasian Masonry conference. Gladstone, Queensland, Australia,
June 1998. p. 129–38.
[9] Nehdi M, Dejebbar Y, Khan A. Neural network model for preformed
foam cellular concrete. ACI Mater J 2001;98(5):402–9.
[10] Tam CTT, Lim Y, Lee SL. Relation between strength and volumetric
composition of moist-cured cellular concrete. Mag Concr Res 1987;
39:12–8.
[11] Kearsley EP, Wainwright PJ. The effect of high fly ash content on the
compressive strength of foamed concrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:
105–12.
[12] Kearsley EP, Wainwright PJ. Porosity and permeability of foamed
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:805–12.
[13] Kearsley EP, Wainwright PJ. Ash content for optimum strength of
foamed concrete. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:241–6.
[14] Kearsley EP, Wainwright PJ. The effect of porosity on the strength of
foamed concrete. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:233–9.
[15] Kunhanandan Nambiar EK, Ramamurthy K. Influence of filler type
on the properties of foam concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2006;28:
475–80.
[16] Bureau of Indian standards. Specifications for 53 grade ordinary
Portland cement. New Delhi, BIS, 1987. IS 12269-1987.
[17] American Society for testing and materials. Standard specification for
fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolana for use as a mineral
760 E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy / Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 752–760
admixture in Portland cement concrete. Philadelphia, ASTM, 1989.
ASTM C 618-89.
[18] American Society for testing and materials. Standard test method for
foaming agents for use in producing cellular concrete using preformed
foam. Philadelphia, ASTM, 1997. ASTM C 796-97.
[19] American Society for testing and materials. Specification for flow
table for use in tests of hydraulic cement, Philadelphia, ASTM, 1998.
ASTM C 230-98.
[20] Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. New York
(NY): John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
[21] SAS Release 8.02, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
[22] American Society for testing and materials. Standard recommended
practice for choice of sample size to estimate the average quality of a
lot or process. Philadelphia, ASTM, 1972. ASTM E 122-72.
[23] American Society for testing and materials Standard test method for
compressive strength of light weight insulating concrete. Philadelphia,
ASTM, 1991. ASTM C 495-91a.
[24] Johns MR, McCarthy MJ, McCarthy A. Moving fly ash utilization in
concrete forward: a UK perspective, International ash utilization
symposium. Centre for Applied Energy Research, University of
Kentucky; 2003.