Cite this article Research Article Keywords: composite structures/

Evangelista ACJ and Tam VWY Paper 1700082 concrete technology & manufacture/
Properties of high-strength lightweight concrete using manufactured aggregate. Received 22/12/2017; materials technology
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Construction Materials, Accepted 06/06/2018
https://doi.org/10.1680/jcoma.17.00082
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Construction Materials

Properties of high-strength lightweight

concrete using manufactured aggregate
Ana Catarina Jorge Evangelista Vivian W. Y. Tam
Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia; College of Civil Engineering,
University, Penrith, NSW, Australia Shenzhen University, China (corresponding author:
vivianwytam@gmail.com) (Orcid:0000-0002-1074-8018)

The physical and mechanical properties of high-strength lightweight concrete were investigated considering various
parameters including mixture design proportions, dosages and types of superplasticiser and silica fume and cement
content aiming at a design strength of 45 MPa. The experimental results of density, tensile strength, modulus of
elasticity and efficiency factor (ratio of compressive strength to density) were compared with empirical equations
previously proposed in the literature. In earlier studies, using expanded clay coarse aggregate of maximum size
25 mm, the lightweight concrete presented a maximum strength of 30 MPa and an efficiency factor of
18·9 MPa.dm3/kg. By reducing the maximum size to 9·5 mm, a higher compressive strength of approximately
46·9 MPa and an efficiency factor of 28·3 MPa.dm3/kg were obtained. However, using expanded shale coarse
aggregate yielded higher values of compressive strength and efficiency factor at 64·3 MPa and 36·3 MPa.dm3/kg,
respectively. The replacement of coarse expanded clay aggregate with expanded shale resulted in a high-strength
lightweight aggregate concrete with the best properties in this study: fc28 = 64·3 MPa, a density of 1·77 kg/dm3 and
an efficiency factor of 36·3 MPa.dm3/kg.

Notation 1. Introduction
Dmax maximum dimension (mm) Researchers around the world have revealed high-strength
E modulus of elasticity (GPa) lightweight concrete (HSLWC) to be an interesting alternative
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete (GPa) construction material for use in various structures such as off-
Eck characteristic value of modulus of elasticity of shore platforms, bridges built by the cantilever method, float-
concrete (GPa) ing bridges and high-rise buildings, with weight being an
Ecm secant modulus of elasticity of concrete (GPa) important variable for project considerations (Yu et al., 2015).
fc compressive strength (MPa) For structural applications, compressive strength generally
fck characteristic value of concrete compressive ranges from 40 to 60 MPa (Aslam et al., 2016). Recently,
strength (MPa) Youm et al. (2016) reported that floating offshore plants are
fct splitting-tensile strength (MPa) emerging as a promising business for the next generation in
fct,fl flexural strength Korea and highlighted that many Korean ship building and
fcu cube compressive strength of concrete (MPa) construction companies have paid additional attention to the
fcuk characteristic value cube compressive strength of feasibility of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) as an off-
concrete (MPa) shore structural material. However, Moreno et al. (2014)
fc7 7 d compressive strength (MPa) reported that increasing the compressive strength of lightweight
fc28 28 d compressive strength (MPa) concrete above 55 MPa to develop HSLWC is challenging
ft direct tension because lightweight and porous aggregate tends to limit the
ft,sp split tensile strength mechanical performance of concrete.
ε strain
εn strain at 0·4fc Due to disadvantages such as higher brittleness, different
ρ density types of fibre addition have been studied worldwide (Grabois
ρod density (oven dried) et al., 2016; Iqbal et al., 2015; Yap et al., 2015). Li et al.
ρSSD density (saturated and surface dried) (2016) showed that the addition of high-performance polypro-
σ stress pylene (HPP) fibres to lightweight concrete can significantly
σn stress at 0·4fc improve flexural toughness and impact resistance, similar

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials
to the improving effect of steel fibre. However, with the
addition of excessive HPP fibres, dispersion of the fibres
became very difficult and produced many weak interfaces. Li
et al. found the optimal HPP fibre content to be 9 kg/m3
(0·95% by vol.).
Regarding the durability aspects of lightweight concrete,
Youm et al. (2016) reported the benefits of incorporating poz-
zolanic material in concrete to enhance mechanical
properties and durability. Calcium silicate hydrates in the
cement matrix of concrete increase by pozzolanic reactions.
The fine pozzolanic particles fill spaces among clinker grains,
thereby resulting in a denser cement matrix and interfacial
transition zone between the cement matrix and aggregate;
this lowers the permeability and increases the compressive
strength of concrete. Pedro et al. (2017) reported that one
of the main differences between high-performance concrete/
high-strength concrete and conventional concrete is the fre-
quent use of supplementary cementing materials such as silica
fume (SF).
Pettigrew et al. (2016) presented the results of LWAC used in
the construction of 48-year-old bridge girders with a total unit
weight of 1600 kg/m3 (110 lb/ft3). The bridge deck showed
signs of deterioration in several areas, showing rebar exposure,
but the LWAC had a compressive strength of 38·6 MPa
(5·6 ksi) after 48 years of service.
Manufactured lightweight aggregate (LWA) is produced in
various countries and is generally known by the names of the
manufacturing brands, but is classified based on the raw
materials used in the production process (Neville and Brooks,
2010). According to ACI Committee 213 (ACI, 2014a), the
term ‘shale’ applies to aggregates of shale, slate and clay. Shale
is defined as a rock formed by sedimentation of fine particles
of clay and silt; slate is defined as particles of separable meta-
morphic rock resistant blades; clay is a natural mineral with
plastic properties composed of very fine particles formed by
hydrated aluminium silicates or magnesium silicates. LWA can
be used in concrete for thermal insulation purposes, in con-
crete masonry and in structural concrete (Holm, 1994). For
structural purposes, aggregates are generally produced using
clay, shale, slate, fly ash or blast-furnace slag (Zhang and
Gjørv, 1990a).
The density of LWA varies with particle size, with generally
higher density for fine and smaller particles than coarse par-
ticles. The magnitude of this difference also depends on the
aggregate production methods (ACI, 2014a). Therefore, vari-
ations in the aggregate grain size can also result in changes in
density. The water absorption rate of LWA depends on the
characteristics of its pores such as size, interconnection, distri-
bution and, particularly, proximity to the grain surface.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
Holm (1994) found that LWAs used for structural purposes
have absorption rates between 5% and 25%. However, the irre-
gular and vesicular surfaces of most aggregates make it proble-
matic to obtain accurate values for the determination of
absorption and density in saturated surface-dried (SSD)
conditions.
Considering environmental aspects, some researchers have
investigated lightweight concretes containing recycled
materials. Chen et al. (2013) studied LWAC with the cement
and aggregate replaced with recycled ‘green’ building materials
(e.g. sand made from waste liquid crystal display glass and
waste tyre rubber particles). The compressive strength of the
lightweight concrete increased with age and decreased with
increases in the replacement amounts. The 28 d compressive
strengths of the control group and a sample produced using
the maximum replacement of 70% were 38·1 and 3·5 MPa,
respectively.
Ahn et al. (2016) studied the thermal resistance of light-
weight concrete using recycled coal ashes, with bottom ash as
aggregate and fly ash as a portion of the binder. The results
indicated that both bottom ash and fly ash were associated
with a substantial increase in the residual strength of thermally
exposed concretes, even though the strength of the lightweight
concrete decreased as the exposure temperature increased,
retaining 19·5–51·7% of the original strength after exposure to
800°C. The residual strength ratio was considered high com-
pared with that of normal-weight concrete under similar
testing conditions, which exhibited values ranging from 10 to
35% of the control strength.
Qadi et al. (2014) conducted a research study regarding the
use of oil palm shell (OPS), an agricultural waste, as a replace-
ment for coarse aggregate in lightweight concrete. They deter-
mined the impact and crack resistance of high-strength OPS
lightweight concrete slabs, reinforced with and without differ-
ent geo-grid types and layers.
Yu et al. (2015) used commercially available LWA manufac-
tured from recycled glass in Germany to develop ultra-LWAC.
The concrete had a 28 d compressive strength above
10 N/mm2 and a thermal conductivity of about 0·12 W/(m.K).
This attempt was to develop a material suitable for monolithic
concrete structures, thus performing as both a load-bearing
element and thermal insulator.
Nemes and Józsa (2006) investigated the use of LWA produced
from expanded glass as coarse aggregate to design structural
lightweight concrete. The amount of expanded glass aggregate
was 36–56% by volume in all cases and the main results showed
that if the density increases then the 28 d compressive strength
decreases. The work aimed to obtain a concrete making optimal
 Construction Materials
use of expanded glass aggregates in which the strength of the
concrete was determined by the simultaneous failure of the
cement stone and the aggregates. Increasing the replacement
ratio of the LWA increased the strength of the LWAC up to a
certain limit at 46% by volume. In the case of higher amounts
of LWA, the density of the LWAC increased, but the compressive
strength remained constant (average 45 MPa).
2. Research significance
One of the earliest uses of lightweight reinforced concrete was
in the construction of ships and boats by the US Emergency
Fleet Building Corp during the First World War. This concrete
had a compressive strength of 34·5 MPa and specific mass of
1760 kg/m3. However, in recent years, it appears that a world-
wide tendency is to use high-performance (high compressive
strength) concrete for wide spans and durable structures. High-
performance lightweight concrete (HPLWC) mixtures include
mineral additives (SF) and chemical admixtures (superplastici-
sers). According to experimental testing of physical and mech-
anical properties, HPLWC is a technically feasible alternative
for use in structures where concrete specific weight is a signifi-
cant variable for the structural design. This research study
investigated physical and mechanical properties and the possi-
bility for their improvement.
3. Contributions to the industry
According to the Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute
(ESCSI), founded in 1952 and now comprising an organisation
of more than 55 plants in the USA, Puerto Rico, Canada,
Australia, Switzerland and Japan, the use of expanded shale
LWA in structural concrete has increased dramatically since the
Second World War, as architects, engineers and builders have
availed themselves of greatly increased research activity and
improved application technology. The first ‘skyscraper’ using
structural lightweight concrete throughout its above-ground
structure was the 18-storey Dallas Statler-Hilton, built in 1955.
Since that time, there have been many others, such as the twin
towers of Chicago’s famed 60-storey Marina City. A similar
tower in Sydney, Australia, part of the ambitious Australia
Square (1961–1967) project, set a new record as the world’s
tallest reinforced lightweight concrete building, standing
602 feet (183 m) high and featuring load-bearing precast light-
weight concrete formwork and 36 foot (11 m) span beams,
slabs, columns, precast concrete and even bricks made of light-
weight concrete (ESCSI, 2007).
Regarding the environmental aspects of lightweight concrete,
the European Expanded Clay Association (EXCA) reports that
even though producing expanded clay consumes energy and
emits carbon dioxide (CO2), the expanded clay industry is a
resource-efficient industry contributing to a competitive ‘low-
carbon’ economy. Energy is used to produce up to 5 m3 of
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
high-quality, efficient and competitive construction material
from 1 m3 of locally available raw materials. The thermal insu-
lation properties of expanded clay materials used in construc-
tion improve the energy performance of the buildings,
significantly contributing towards reducing energy consump-
tion and related carbon dioxide emissions. In Europe, the
annual production of expanded clay of the EXCA member
companies is approximately 4 500 000 m3. It is traded under
brands such as Arlita, Argex, Fibo, Laterlite, Leca, Liapor
and TechniClay. The expanded clay aggregate industry has an
estimated turnover of close to E200 million (EXCA, 2015).
According to Owens and Newman (2003), traditionally,
manufacturers of LWA have been constrained by not only the
limitations of the raw material and the method of processing
but also the requirements of the market. The properties of
lightweight concrete, and hence LWA, can be exploited in a
number of ways from its use as a structural material to its
incorporation into structures for the enhancement of thermal
insulation. In addition, lightweight concrete is more fire
resistant than ordinary concrete due to its lower thermal con-
ductivity, lower coefficient of thermal expansion and the
inherent thermal stability of an aggregate already heated to
more than 1093°C, as reported in ACI 216.1-14 (ACI, 2014b).
When slab thickness is determined by fire resistance and not
by structural criteria (e.g. joists, waffle slabs), the superior per-
formance of lightweight concrete will reduce the thickness of
slabs, resulting in significantly lower concrete volumes (Holm
and Valsangkar, 1993).
4. Research methodologies
4.1 Materials
Materials used in this research were cement, natural sand,
lightweight coarse aggregate (expanded clay and shale), SF,
superplasticiser and water.
4.1.1 Cement
Portland cement type CPV ARI (similar to American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) type III with high early
strength) with a 28 d compressive strength of 56·4 MPa was
used as the binder and did not contain mineral additions.
Table 1 presents cement properties conforming to ABNT NBR
5733:1991 (ABNT, 1991).
4.1.2 Aggregate
The manufactured aggregates used in this study were produced
in a rotary kiln at temperatures of 1200°C from raw materials
such as clay and shale. LWA characteristics were obtained
according to NBR NM 248 (ABNT, 2003a). The expanded
clay aggregate had maximum dimensions (Dmax) of 9·5, 12·5,
19 and 25 mm and fineness modulus of 4·7, 6·17, 7·0 and
7·18, respectively. The expanded shale aggregate had
 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of Portland Cement CPV ARI

Properties Standard Result

Initial setting time: min NBR NM 65 (ABNT, 2003c) 132

Final setting time: min NBR NM 65 (ABNT, 2003c) 189
Density: g/cm3 3·10
Specific surface of Blaine: cm2/g NBR NM 76 (ABNT, 1998a) 4500
Fineness modulus NBR 11579 (ABNT, 2012a) 1·72
Compressive strength – 1 d: MPa NBR 7215 (ABNT, 1997) 17·7
Compressive strength – 3 d: MPa NBR 7215 (ABNT, 1997) 43·4
Compressive strength – 7 d: MPa NBR 7215 (ABNT, 1997) 47·2
Compressive strength – 28 d: MPa NBR 7215 (ABNT, 1997) 56·4
Calcination loss: % NBR NM 18 (ABNT, 2012b) 2·19
Sulfate (SO3) content: % NBR 14656 (ABNT, 2001) 2·07
Carbon dioxide content: % NBR NM 20 (ABNT, 2012c) 1·5

Dmax = 9·5 mm and fineness modulus = 5·76. The natural sand
had a fineness modulus = 2·50.
The specific gravity and absorption of the expanded clay were
measured in accordance with the NBR NM 53 (ABNT,
2003b). The aggregate was immersed in water for 24 h to
obtain the density in the SSD condition, as well as the absorp-
tion. In addition to the specific-density condition, the density
of grains under dry conditions (in an oven at 120°C) and the
density of the impermeable material of the grains were also
determined. In the SSD condition the expanded shale LWA
(Dmax = 9·5 mm) presented a specific gravity of 1·62 kg/dm3
and absorption of 11·3%. Table 2 presents the characteristics
of expanded clay aggregate in accordance with NBR NM 53
(ABNT, 2003b).
Water absorption was determined by immersing dry aggregate
into a pycnometer for a certain period of time. The increased
mass of the Dmax = 25 mm aggregate was measured after
immersion for 2, 5, 10 and 30 min, 24 h and 14 d.
Measurements for the Dmax = 12·5 mm aggregate were taken at
3, 5, 48, 72 h and 7 d, as this allows better observation of the
aggregate behaviour before and after 24 h immersion.
According to the methodology described by Zhang and Gjørv
(1990a, 1990b), Figure 1 presents the absorption against time
for the Dmax = 25 mm and Dmax = 12·5 mm aggregates. It can
be observed that the Dmax = 25 mm aggregate showed a higher
absorption rate than the Dmax = 12·5 mm aggregate.
Due to the porosity of the LWA, it was used in the mixtures at
SSD conditions (24 h immersion) to avoid water absorption
from the mixture at the early stages of mixing, which would
reduce the concrete workability. It is believed that this con-
dition does not affect the hydration reactions of the cement
paste, and water absorbed by the aggregate should continue
the hydration of the cement by internal concrete curing
(Cusson and Hoogeveen, 2008).
4.1.3 Mineral and chemical additives
The mineral additive, SF, was used as an aqueous suspension
with a solids content of 50% by weight and specific gravity of
2·2 kg/dm3. Aiming at water reduction, a sulfonated melamine
formaldehyde superplasticiser (Sikament 320) with a specific
density of 1·2–1·21 kg/dm3 was used.
4.1.4 Water
The pH measured from five water samples during the exper-
imental period showed consistent values between 6·5 and 6·7.

Table 2. Properties of natural sand and expanded clay and shale aggregate
Sand Expanded clay Expanded clay Expanded clay Expanded clay Expanded shale
Properties Dmax = 2·4 mm Dmax = 9·5 mm Dmax = 12·5 mm Dmax = 19 mm Dmax = 25 mm Dmax = 9·5 mm

Bulk specific gravity, SSD: — 1·19 1·25 1·28 1·17 1·62

kg/dm3
Bulk specific gravity, dry: 2·67 1·09 1·15 1·6 1·01 —
kg/dm3
Apparent specific gravity: 1·54 0·62 0·60 — 0·62 —
kg/dm3
Absorption 24 h: % — 9·3 15·0 19·7 14·9 11·3

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

25 included superplasticiser and SF, presenting mortar content

variations; mixtures D, E and F included superplasticiser and
20 SF and variations of Dmax of lightweight coarse aggregate
Absorption: %

(expanded clay); mixture G include superplasticiser and

15 SF and the lightweight aggregate was expanded shale
(Dmax = 9·5 mm).
10

The slump test of 100 mm ± 20 mm was determined according

5 Dmax = 12·5 mm
Dmax = 25 mm to NBR NM 67 (ABNT, 1998b) and this parameter was used
0 to track changes in the mixture compared with the reference
0 5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 (mixture A).
Time: min
The materials were mixed according to the following pro-
Figure 1. Absorption curve of LWA cedure: (1) LWA + sand; 2 min mixing; (2) cement + 50%
water + superplasticiser; 3 min mixing; (3) 50% water + SF;
4 min mixing.

4.2 Mix proportions
The concrete mixture was designed considering that the size
distribution of the fine aggregate remained constant, but the
coarse aggregate varied (Dmax = 25, 19, 12·5 and 9·5 mm).
The dosage of water did not include the water absorbed by the
lightweight coarse aggregate. Due to the porosity of the LWA,
it was chosen to use the SSD condition for the mixtures (24 h
immersion), considering that in the early stages of mixing a
significant amount of water content is absorbed, thus reducing
the concrete workability. Concrete mixes were produced with a
constant slump of 100 ± 20 mm and using Faury’s reference
curve. This curve is related to the solid particles (aggregates
and cementitious materials) of the concrete mixes. The result-
ing percentages are relative to the solid volume occupied by
these particles and not to the total volume of concrete (Faury,
1958). Table 3 lists the concrete mixes designed according to
Faury’s method to evaluate the influence of SF and superplas-
ticiser on the mechanical properties of HSLWC.
Aiming to evaluate the factors that result in higher concrete
strength, mixture A was the reference mixture (without chemi-
cal and mineral additives); mixture B included superplasticiser;
mixtures C1, C2 and C3 included superplasticiser and SF, thus
with variations in cement content; mixtures C4, C5 and C6
In the effective water dosage of the mixture, the water absorbed
by the LWA was not included. However, water from the SF
(used in the condensed form) was included in the calculation
of the water/cementitious materials (w/cm) ratio. There was no
deduction for the water contained in the superplasticiser addi-
tive of the total water of the mixture. The volume to be added
was very small compared with the high water reductions
caused by: the composition of 550 kg/m3 of cementitious
materials and 169 l of water resulted in w/cm = 0·307; if water
was added to the superplasticiser (63% by weight liquid part),
the total water was 169 + (4·6
0·63), that is 170·9 l of water,
with w/cm = 0·31.
The concrete specimens were cast in steel moulds and consoli-
dated on a vibration table. The specimens were cured in water
(20 ± 2°C) until the time of testing. Cylinders of 100 mm

200 mm and 150 mm
300 mm were used for compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength and modulus of elasticity
tests.
4.3 Physical and mechanical properties
The physical properties of the fresh and hardened concretes
were measured and are listed in Table 4. The average slump
was in the range of 85–120 mm. The physical properties were

Table 3. Mixture proportions of the LWACs

Materials A B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D E F G
3
LWA: kg/m 505 523 502 512 505 560 441 511 483 495 483 620
Sand: kg/m3 522 571 530 553 459 377 671 531 659 592 591 649
Cement: kg/m3 500 500 500 450 550 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Water: l/m3 196 159 170 170 170 170 170 145 170 170 170 170
SF: kg/m3 — — 50 50 55 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Superplasticiser: l/m3 — 4·2 4·6 4·2 4·6 4·6 4·6 14·6 4·6 4·6 4·6 4·6
Water/cement+SF 0·39 0·31 0·31 0·34 0·28 0·31 0·31 0·26 0·31 0·31 0·31 0·31
Slump: mm 85 115 90 90 80 85 90 111 100 115 120 95

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

Table 4. Effect of chemical additive content

Mixture Superplasticiser: % Water/cement + SF fc28: MPa

C1 1 0·31 29·3 29·9 (σ = 1·9 MPa)

28·0
32·5
29·8
C6 3 0·26 33·7 31·5 (σ = 3·0 MPa)
32·7
28·0

35 35

30 30
Compressive strength: MPa

Compressive strength: MPa

25
25
20
20
15
15
10 A
B 10
5 C1 - 500 kg/m3
C1
C2 - 450 kg/m3
0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 C3 - 550 kg/m3
Age: d 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age: d
Figure 2. Effect of superplasticiser content

Figure 3. Effect of cement content

measured according to NBR 9778 (ABNT, 2005). The com-

pressive strength, splitting tensile strength and modulus of elas-
ticity were determined according to NBR 5739 (ABNT, 2007), with the addition of 3% superplasticiser, the compressive
NBR 7222 (ABNT, 2011) and NBR 8522 (ABNT, 2008), strength showed a minor increase of 11%.
respectively.

4.3.2 Effect of cement content

4.3.1 Influence of chemical and minerals admixtures
It can be seen in Figure 2 that the reference concrete
(mixture A) showed a strength gain of 23% between the ages
of 7 and 28 d compared. It also can be observed that
mixture B, incorporating superplasticiser, showed higher
strength than the mixture A at the ages of 3 and 7 d. However,
at 28 d these two mixtures showed the same compressive
strength. Mixture C1 presented a compressive strength of
29·9 MPa at 28 d, 16% higher than those obtained by mixtures
A and B.
The effect of water reduction through the use of super-
plasticiser is shown in Table 4. It can be observed that, despite
the significant 24% reduction in the water/cement+SF ratio,
Figure 3 shows the development of compressive strength at 3,
7 and 28 d of concretes containing different cement contents.
Mixtures C1, C2 and C3 showed compressive strength at 28 d
equal to 29, 25 and 27 MPa, respectively. Mostly due to the
cement type (high early strength), the results show that the
ratio fc7/fc28 was 0·90–0·95. Additionally, it is important to
notice that mixture C3 (with the higher cement content of
550 kg/m3) did not show a significant increase in compressive
strength at 28 d, mostly due to the weakness of the aggregate
in this mixture (expanded clay, Dmax = 25 mm). Several
authors (Lo et al., 2016; Wilson and Malhotra, 1988) have
also reported that the compressive strength of the LWAC
depends on the aggregate strength, the cement paste strength
and the interfacial zone bond between the aggregate and the
cement paste.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

Table 5. Maximum size aggregate influence Table 6. Mortar content effect

fc28: MPa fc28: MPa fc28: MPa fc28: MPa

100
200 150
500 100
200 150
500

Mixture C1 29·3 37·1 Mixture C1 29·3 37·1

Dmax = 25 mm 28·0 33·4 55% 28·0 33·4
32·5 31·9 32·5 31·9
29·8 — 29·8 —
Average 29·9 (σ = 1·9 MPa) 34·1 (σ = 2·7 MPa) Average 29·9 (σ = 1·9 MPa) 34·1(σ = 2·7 MPa)
Mixture D 36·9 39·0 Mixture C4 22·5 31.0
Dmax = 19 mm 40·5 39·8 50% 24·9 29·5
40·4 36·1 22·7 30·3
Average 39·3 (σ = 4·9 MPa) 38·3 (σ = 2·6 MPa) 24·9
Mixture E 44·9 43·9 Average 23·7 (σ = 1.6 MPa) 30·3 (σ = 0.8 MPa)
Dmax = 12·5 mm 48·1 43·6 Mixture C6 29·3 36·8
40·6 42·4 60% 31·5 38·9
43·4 47·5 30·8 38·8
Average 43·3 (σ = 3·1 MPa) 44·3 (σ = 2·2 MPa) 29·7
Mixture F 46·9 44·4 Average 30·4 (σ = 0·8 MPa) 38·2 (σ = 1·2 MPa)
Dmax = 9·5 mm 45·5 44·1
48·4 45·0
Average 46·9 (σ = 2·2 MPa) 44·5 (σ = 0·38 MPa)
Mixture G 66·3 — (55%); 50% and 60% mortar. According to the Faury method-
Expanded shale 62·4 — ology (Faury, 1958), the mortar percentage changes the percen-
Dmax = 9·5 mm 64·9 — tage of coarse aggregate (expanded clay) compared with the
63·7 —
fine aggregate (sand), which was also assumed to influence the
Average 64·3 (σ = 1·7 MPa) —
compressive strength.

According to the results in Table 6, a mortar percentage

4.3.3 Influence of the LWA maximum size (Dmax) reduction from 55 to 50% resulted in a 19% decrease in the
Table 5 presents the compressive strengths of mixtures C1, D, compressive strength in the cylinder specimen (CP)-
E, F and G obtained using 100 mm
200 mm and 150 mm
100
200 mm and 13% in the CP-150
300 mm. Mixture C6
300 mm cylinders to evaluate the influence of Dmax reduction (60% mortar) presented a 7% increase in strength in the
on compressive strength. 100
200 mm test specimens and 12% in the 150 mm
300
mm specimens.
Regarding both specimen sizes (cylinders 100 mm height

200 mm diameter and 150 mm height
300 mm diameter),
mixture D (Dmax = 19 mm) showed an increase of 31% and 4.3.5 Density, absorption and voids
20%, 39·3 and 38·3 MPa, respectively, compared with mixture Density (oven dried) (ρod), density (saturated and surface
C1 (Dmax = 25 mm). Additionally, mixture E (Dmax = 12·5 mm) dried) (ρSSD), absorption and voids of hardened concrete at
presented an increase of 10% and 15% compared with mixture 28 d were measured according to NBR 9778 (ABNT, 2005).
D, 43·3 and 44·3 MPa, respectively. Mixture F (Dmax = 9·5 mm)
showed an increase of 10% and 15% compared with
Table 7. Physical properties
mixture E. Mixture G with the expanded shale aggregate
(Dmax = 9·5 mm), showed a 28 d compressive strength of Absorption: Voids:
64·3 MPa, 37% higher than that achieved with the expanded Mixture ρSSD: kg/dm3 ρod: kg/dm3 % %
clay aggregate of the same Dmax, confirming the influence of A 1·60 1·44 11·1 16·4
aggregate type reported by others (Aslam, 2017; Pepe et al., B 1·68 1·56 8·0 12·5
2018). C1 1·69 1·58 7·1 11·4
C4 1·55 1·43 8·5 12·1
C5 1·73 1·65 4·9 9·1
4.3.4 Studies of the mixture parameters C6 1·64 1·56 4·7 7·6
(mortar percentage) D 1·68 1·61 5·2 8·3
E 1·71 1·64 4·6 7·5
Evaluation of the effect of mortar percentage (by volume) on F 1·77 1·66 6·7 11·2
LWAC compressive strength was achieved by considering an G 1·92 1·77 8·3 14·8
increase and decrease by 5% of the original mortar dosage

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials
Table 7 presents the results of all mixtures with 500 kg/m3
cement content. It is important to notice that these values rep-
resent the LWA absorption capacity during 28 d of concrete
curing; these results nearly match the water absorption ratio of
the LWAC and agree with other research studies (Youm et al.,
2016). The voids results represent the volume ratio of per-
meable pores to the total volume of LWAC.
The addition of chemical and mineral additives in mixture C1
reduced the voids content by 30% compared with the reference
concrete. Mixture B, with only the addition of superplasticiser,
presented a decrease of 24% compared with mixture A
(without additives).
Analyses of LWAC mixtures with superplasticiser and SF
showed that C4 (50% mortar) had the lowest density and lower
compressive strength at 28 d. It can thus be concluded that
density, absorption and voids content are inversely pro-
portional to the concrete strength.
5. Results and discussion
5.1 Efficiency factor
Considering the structural performance of lightweight con-
crete, density is a very important characteristic. The relation-
ship between compressive strength and dry density is named
the efficiency factor. The 28 d structural efficiency (compres-
sive strength/density ratio) is a parameter usually adopted for
lightweight concrete characterisation.
Figure 4 presents the efficiency factors of the LWACs. The effi-
ciency factor ranged from 16·5 to 36·3 MPa.dm3/kg, with the
highest value corresponding to concrete G (expanded shale
40
Structural efficiency: MPa.dm3/kg
35
30
25
20
17·2 16·5
15
10
0
A B
Figure 4. Efficiency factors of LWAC mixtures
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
aggregate, Dmax = 9·5 mm). The expanded clay Dmax = 25 mm
mixture results were lower than expected for high-strength con-
crete, about 25 MPa.dm3/kg). Considering the mixtures with
the expanded clay aggregate, both E (Dmax = 12·5 mm) and F
(Dmax = 9·5 mm) showed results exceeding 25 MPa.dm3/kg,
which is consistent with the definition of high-strength LWAC
cited by several authors. Mixture G, with expanded shale
(Dmax = 9·5 mm), presented a structural efficiency of
36·3 MPa.dm3/kg, 28% higher than that obtained by
mixture F with expanded clay aggregate (Dmax = 9·5 mm) and
in agreement with the results presented in the accessed techni-
cal literature (Choi et al., 2006; Kılıç et al., 2003; Malhotra,
1990; Moreno et al., 2014; Rossignolo et al., 2003; Sancak
et al., 2016).
5.2 Splitting tensile strength
Tensile strength is an important property that affects the safety
and durability of concrete (Yang, 2016). There are three
methods commonly used to evaluate tensile strength: (i) direct
tension test; (ii) splitting tensile test and (iii) flexural test.
Although the direct tension test is more accurate, the latter
two test methods are adopted by most researchers due to their
simple testing procedures (Li et al., 2016). In this study, split-
ting tensile tests were performed to evaluate the tensile behav-
iour of LWAC.
International codes and many other authors have proposed
equations for the splitting tensile and flexural strength derived
from the compressive strength (ACI, 2014a). Table 8 presents
equations for predicting flexural strength ( fct,fl ), split tensile
strength ( ft,sp) and direct tension strength ( ft), as well as
relations between compressive strength and tensile strength.
The equations provided in CEN (1992) and NS (1992) include
36·3
28·3
26·4
22·7
20·2
18·9 18·1 18 18·4
16·6
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D E F G
 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

Table 8. Relations between tensile strength and compressive strength

Reference fct,fl ft,sp ft Comments

Slate et al. (1986) 0·54 fc0·5 0·42 fc0·5 — fc ≥ 21 MPa

fc ≤ 62 MPa (only LWA)
Zhang and Gjørv (1991a, 1991b) 0·73 fcu0·5 0·23 fcu0·67 — —
Hoff (1992) — 0·49 fc0·5 — —
CEB-FIP (CEB, 1977) 0·46 fcu0·67 0·23 fcu0·67 — —
ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) 0·46 fc0·5 0·42 fc0·5 — Only LWA
ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) 0·53 fc0·5 0·48 fc0·5 — Natural sand and LWA

ρ 
NS 3473 (NS, 1992) — — 03 þ 07 06
03fcuk fct = 2/3ft,sp
2400

ρ 
EN 1992-1-1 (CEN, 1992) — — 03 þ 07 067
03fck fct = 0·9ft,sp
2400

fc in MPa and density in kg/m3

Table 9. 28 d split tensile strength

ft,sp: MPa

Mixture Cylinder 100
200 mm Cylinder 150
300 mm

E 3·53 3·8 (σ = 0·9 MPa) 3·92 3·80 (σ = 0·5 MPa)

4·49 4·10
3·22 3·38
F 5·25 4·4 (σ = 0·8 MPa) 4·41 4·6 (σ = 0·2 MPa)
4·30 4·81
3·60 4·51
G 5·25 5·6 (σ = 0·4 MPa) — —
5·44 —
5·95 —

Table 10. Relationship between compressive strength and split- confirming the significant influence of aggregate type on light-
ting tensile strength weight concrete performance.
Mixture ft,sp: MPaa fc28: MPaa ft,sp/fc: %
Table 10 presents the splitting tensile strength and compressive
E 3·75 43·3 8·7 strength of mixtures E, F and G as well as the relationship
F 4·38 46·9 9·3
G 5·55 64·3 8·6
between fc and ft,sp. The results indicate that the relationship
between the tensile strength and compressive strength for mix-
Cylinder 100
200 mm
a tures E and F and mixture G is similar.

Despite the small number of tests, the ft,sp/fc values were

concrete density; the others are only a function of compressive
strength.
Table 9 shows the split tensile strength ( ft,sp) results of LWAC
with the highest compressive strengths (E, F, G) of 28 d. The
split tensile strength tests were performed according to NBR
7222 (ABNT, 2011) and considering the reduction of aggregate
Dmax, it was possible to use 100 mm
200 mm aiming to
reduce materials consumption and wastage. The tensile
strength of mixture F (Dmax = 9·5 mm) was 17% higher than
that of mixture E (Dmax = 12·5 mm). As expected, mixture G
(expanded shale) presented the highest split tensile strength
higher than those presented in the literature (Hoff, 1992;
Malhotra, 1990; Slate et al., 1986; Zhang and Gjørv, 1991a,
1991b).
Regarding the lower compressive strength concretes, the
equations provided in CEN (1992) and Zhang and Gjørv
(1991a, 1991b) led to minor ft,sp values, while for the concretes
of higher compressive strength, ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) and
Hoff (1992) are the most conservative standards. The equation
provided by NS 3473 (NS, 1992), overestimated the ft,sp values
for most of the LWACs (expanded clay) tested by Santos et al.
(1994). However, it provided results closer to the values

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam

7
Splitting tensile strength: MPa

2
5 3 1 Slate et al. (1986)
4
1 2 Zhang and Gjørv (1991a, 1991b), CEB (1977)
4
3 Hoff (1992)
3 4 ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989)

Expanded shale, mixture G

2
Expanded clay, mixtures E and F
1
Expanded clay (Santos et al.,1994)

0 Expanded shale (Santos et al.,1994)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Compressive strength: MPa

Figure 5. Splitting tensile curves

Table 11. Modulus of elasticity equations for LWAC

Reference Equation Comments
pffiffiffiffiffi
Shah and Ahmad (1985) Ec ¼ 0036ρ15 fc Secant modulus
pffiffiffiffiffi
ρ 15
Slate et al. (1986) Ec ¼ ð3320 fc þ 6895Þ 21 MPa ≤ fc ≤ 62 MPa
2320
1440 ≤ ρ ≤ 2320 kg/m3
Secant modulus
0·67
Zhang and Gjørv (1991a, 1991b) Ec = 1190fcu Secant modulus
ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) Ec = 0·043ρ 1·5fc0·5 Secant modulus

ρ 15
NS 3473 (NS, 1992) Eck ¼ 9500 03
fck 20 MPa ≤ fck ≤ 74 MPa
2400
Secant modulus

ρ 2
EC2 (CEN, 1992) Ecm ¼ 9500 ð fcm Þ033 Secant modulus fcm = fck + 8 MPa
2400

Table 12. 28 d modulus of elasticity (1994). This is also the curve that, considering all the LWACs,
E: GPa
provided values closer to the obtained average curve (see
Figure 5).
Mixture Cylinder 150
300 mm

E 20·6 20·8 (σ = 0·4 GPa)

20·5 5.3 Modulus of elasticity
21·2 The modulus of elasticity of LWA is generally smaller than
F 21·6 21·4 (σ = 0·2 GPa) that of normal-density aggregate. Concrete contains coarse
21·3
aggregate and mortar and its elastic modulus may be reduced
—
G 24·2 25·0 (σ = 0·9 GPa) when: (a) the mortar is less rigid, depending on the pro-
24·9 portions of cement, water, fine aggregate and additives and
25·9 (b) the coarse aggregate has a lower elastic modulus (Owens
and Newman, 2003). In the absence of laboratory tests, evalu-
ation of the modulus of elasticity is commonly done using
obtained in this study. EN 1992-1-1 (CEN, 1992) led to equations that relate the compressive strength and the density
conservative values of ft compared with the results of this of the concrete. The equations suggested in the literature are
study, but were similar to the results obtained by Santos et al. shown in Table 11.

10

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials

 Construction Materials
40
35
30
Modulus of elasticity: GPa
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40
Compressive strength: MPa
Figure 6. Modulus of elasticity curves
Table 12 presents the results of the LWAC concrete with higher
compressive strength (mixtures E, F and G). The secant
modulus of elasticity at 28 d was calculated according to NBR
8522 (ABNT, 2008) using
1: E ¼ ðσ n  05 MPaÞ=ðεn  ε05 MPa Þ
where σn is the stress at 0·4fc and εn the strain at 0·4fc.
As shown in Figure 6, the results of mixtures E, F and G
could be predicted by the ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) equation.
However, some researchers (Slate et al., 1986; Zhang and
Gjørv, 1991a, 1991b) found that the equation suggested by
ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989) overestimates the modulus of elas-
ticity. Regarding the lower compressive strength LWACs more
conservative curves are produced using the equation of Zhang
and Gjørv (1991a, 1991b). Otherwise, for the higher strength
LWACs, the most conservative value is given by the equation
proposed by Shah and Ahmad (1985). The ACI 318-89 (ACI,
1989) equation is the one that best represents the results
obtained for LWAC with expanded clay aggregate, and the
curve suggested by Slate et al. (1986) is considered conservative
for estimating elasticity modulus.
6. Conclusion
This paper investigated the physical and mechanical properties
of high-strength LWAC. Pre-soaking the lightweight coarse
aggregate in water for 24 h reduced the workability loss
problem at the time of mixing the materials, yielding the
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
2
1 NS 3473 (NS, 1992)
6 2 ACI 318-89 (ACI, 1989)
4
1 3 Shah and Ahmad (1985)
5
3 4 EC2=CEB (CEN, 1992)
5 Slate et al. (1986)
6 Zhang and Gjørv (1991a, 1991b)
Expanded clay, mixtures E and F
Expanded shale, mixture G
Expanded clay (Santos et al., 1994)
Expanded shale (Santos et al., 1994)
50 60 70 80 90 100
expected slump of 100 ± 20 mm without the need for water
corrections in the mixture. A decrease in Dmax of the light-
weight coarse aggregate, the addition of SF and superplastici-
ser, and increased percentage of mortar were the factors that
contributed to the increased compressive strength. It has been
proven that the compressive strength is directly proportional to
density and inversely proportional to absorption and concrete
voids. Concrete with lightweight coarse aggregate of
Dmax = 25 mm, SF and superplasticiser achieved an increase of
27% in compressive strength, reaching a value of 31·5 MPa.
The use of lightweight coarse aggregate with Dmax = 9·5 mm
led to the maximum compressive strength value measured in
this study with expanded clay, with a value of 46·9 MPa (in
100
200 mm specimens). The density of this concrete was
1·66 kg/dm3, resulting in the highest efficiency factor of
28·3 MPa.dm3/kg. Furthermore, the highest efficiency factors
were obtained for concretes made with LWA with the lower
Dmax. A reduction in Dmax resulted in an increase in the
concrete density, the compressive strength and an increase
of efficiency factor, justifying the use of LWA with a
smaller maximum diameter. The efficiency factor was
improved because the density could reach up to 2·0 kg/dm3.
The replacement of coarse expanded clay aggregate with
expanded shale resulted in a high-performance LWAC present-
ing the highest result of this study, fc28 = 64·3 MPa, the highest
density of 1·77 kg/dm3 and the highest efficiency factor of
36·3 MPa.dm3/kg. This can provide insights for the industry in
cases where the self-weight of concrete structures (bridges,
high-rise buildings) may be more significant than other loads
(live loads, weather loads). Optimising HPLWC structural
efficiency by improving the strength to weight ratio is
11
 Construction Materials
beneficial in terms of dead load reduction in a wide range
of applications, such as bridges, precast members and thinner
slabs and beans.
REFERENCES
ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas) (1991) NBR 5733:
High early strength Portland cement – specification. ABNT,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (1997) NBR 7215: Portland cement – determination of
compressive strength. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (1998a) NBR NM 76: Portland cement – determination of
fineness loy the air permeability methody (Blaine method). ABNT,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (1998b) NBR NM 67: Concrete – slump test for determination
of the consistency. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2001) NBR 14656: Portland cement and raw material –
Chemical analysis by X-Ray spectrometry – Method of test.
ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2003a) NBR NM 248: Aggregates – sieve analysis of fine and
coarse aggregates. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2003b) NBR NM 53: Coarse aggregate – determination of the
bulk specific gravity and apparent specific gravity. ABNT,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2003c) NBR NM 65: Portland cement – determination of
setting times. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2005) NBR 9778: Hardened mortar and concrete –
determination of absorption, voids and specific gravity. ABNT,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2007) NBR 5739: Concrete – compression test of cylindrical
specimens. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2008) NBR 8522: Concrete – determination of the elasticity
modulus by compression. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2011) NBR 7222: Concrete and mortar – determination of the
tension strength by diametrical compression of cylindrical test
specimens. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2012a) NBR 11579: Portland cement – determination of
fineness index by means of the 75 μm sieve (no. 200). ABNT,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2012b) NBR NM 18: Portland cement – chemical anlysis –
determination of loss on ignition. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ABNT (2012c) NBR NM 20: Portland cement and their constituent
material – chemical analyses – determination of the carbon
dioxide by gasometry. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (1989) ACI 318-89: Building code
requirements for structural concrete. ACI, Farmington Hills,
MI, USA.
ACI (2014a) ACI 213R-14: Guide for structural lightweight aggregate
concrete. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2014b) ACI 216.1-14: Code requirements for determining fire
resistance of concrete and masonry construction assemblies. ACI,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Ahn YB, Jang JG and Lee HK (2016) Mechanical properties of
lightweight concrete made with coal ashes after exposure to
elevated temperatures. Cement & Concrete Composites 72: 27–38.
Aslam M, Shafigh P and Jumaat MZ (2016) Oil-palm by-products as
lightweight aggregate in concrete mixture: a review. Journal of
Cleaner Production 126: 56–73.
Aslam M (2017) Manufacturing of high-strength lightweight aggregate
concrete using blended coarse lightweight aggregates. Journal of
Building Engineering 13: 53–62.
12
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
CEB (Comité Euro-International du Beton) (1977) Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete: CEB/FIP Manual of Design and Technology.
Construction Press, Lancaster, UK.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation) (1992) EN 1992-1-1:
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – part 1. General rules
for buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
Chen SH, Wang HY and Jhou JW (2013) Investigating the properties of
lightweight concrete containing high contents of recycled green
building materials. Construction and Building Materials 48:
98–103.
Choi YW, Kim YJ, Shin HC and Moon HY (2006) An experimental
research on the fluidity and mechanical properties of high-strength
lightweight self-compacting concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research 36(9): 1595–1602.
Cusson D and Hoogeveen T (2008) Internal curing of high-performance
concrete with pre-soaked fine lightweight aggregate for prevention
of autogenous shrinkage cracking. Cement and Concrete Research
38(6): 757–765.
ESCSI (Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute) (2007) Reference Manual
for the Properties and Applications of Expanded Shale, Clay and
Slate Lightweight Aggregate. ESCSI, Chicago, IL, USA.
EXCA (European Expanded Clay Association) (2015) Building our
Future with Expanded Clay. See http://www.exca.eu/ (accessed
25/07/2018).
Faury J (1958) Le Béton, 3rd edn. Dunod, Paris.
Grabois TM, Cordeiro GC and Toledo Filho RD (2016) Fresh and
hardened-state properties of self-compacting lightweight concrete
reinforced with steel fibers. Construction and Building Materials
104: 284–292.
Hoff GC (1992) High strength lightweight-aggregate concrete for arctic
applications. In Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
Performance, SP-136 (Holm TA and Vaysburd AM (eds)). ACI,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Holm TA (1994) Lightweight concrete and aggregates. In Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, STP 169C
(Klieger P and Lamond JF (eds)). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp. 522–532.
Holm TA and Valsangkar AJ (1993) Expanded shale, clay, and slate
(ESCS) lightweight aggregate soil mechanics: properties and
applications. Transportation Research Record 1422: 7–13.
Iqbal S, Ali A, Holschemacher K and Bier TA (2015) Mechanical
properties of steel fiber reinforced high strength lightweight self-
compacting concrete (SHLSCC). Construction and Building
Materials 98: 325–333.
Kılıç A, Atiş CD, Yaşar E and Özcan F (2003) High-strength lightweight
concrete made with scoria aggregate containing mineral
admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research 33(10): 1595–1599.
Li JJ, Niu JG, Wan CJ, Jin B and Yin LY (2016) Investigation on
mechanical properties and microstructure of high performance
polypropylene fiber reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete.
Construction and Building Materials 118: 27–35.
Lo TY, Cui H, Memon SA and Noguchi T (2016) Manufacturing of
sintered lightweight aggregate using high-carbon fly ash and its
effect on the mechanical properties and microstructure of concrete.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112: 753–762.
Malhotra VM (1990) High strength lightweight concrete incorporation
fly ash and silica fume. In High Strength Concrete – Second
International Symposium. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA,
pp. 645–666.
Moreno D, Zunino F, Paul Á and Lopez M (2014) High strength
lightweight concrete (HSLC): challenges when moving from the
laboratory to the field. Construction and Building Materials 56:
44–52.
 Construction Materials
Nemes R and Józsa Z (2006) Strength of lightweight glass aggregate
concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 18(5): 710–714.
Neville AM and Brooks JJ (2010) Concrete Technology. Longman
Scientific & Technical, Harlow, UK.
NS (Norsk Standard) (1992) NS 3473: Concrete structures design rules.
Norsk Standard, Oslo, Norway.
Owens PL and Newman JB (2003) Lightweight aggregate manufacture.
In Advanced Concrete Technology 1: Constituent Materials
(Newman J and Choo BS (eds)). Elsevier, New York, NY, USA,
pp. 7/1–7/12.
Pedro D, de Brito J and Evangelista L (2017) Evaluation of
high-performance concrete with recycled aggregates: use of
densified silica fume as cement replacement. Construction and
Building Materials 147: 803–814.
Pepe M, Grabois TM and Silva MA (2018) Mechanical behaviour of
coarse lightweight, recycled and natural aggregates for concrete.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Construction
Materials, https://doi.org/10.1680/jcoma.17.00081.
Pettigrew CS, Barr PJ, Maguire M and Halling MW (2016) Behavior of
48-year-old double-tee bridge girders made with lightweight
concrete. Journal of Bridge Engineering 21(9), https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000921.
Qadi A, Al-Kadi Q and Al-Zaidyeen S (2014) Impact strength of oil-palm
shell on lightweight concrete slabs reinforced with a geo-grid.
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 27(10), http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001142.
Rossignolo JA, Agnesini MV and Morais JA (2003) Properties of
high-performance LWAC for precast structures with Brazilian
lightweight aggregates. Cement & Concrete Composites 25(1):
77–82.
Sancak E, Hossain K and Lachemi M (2016) Bond loss between
metakaolin-incorporated structural lightweight self-consolidating
concrete and corroded steel reinforcement. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 1(11): 1.
Santos ALF, Aves T, Almeida LC et al. (1994) Concreto Leve de Alto
Desempenho. In 36a REIBRAC, Porto Alegre, pp. 505–518.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials
Properties of high-strength lightweight
concrete using manufactured aggregate
Evangelista and Tam
Shah SP and Ahmad SH (1985) Structural properties of high strength
concrete and its application for prestressed concrete. Journal of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute 30(6): 92–119.
Slate FO, Nilson AH and Martinez S (1986) Mechanical properties of
high-strength lightweight concrete. Journal of American Concrete
Institute 83(4): 606–613.
Wilson HS and Malhotra VM (1988) Development of high strength
lightweight concrete for structural applications. International
Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete 10(2):
79–90.
Yang K (2016) Tests on direct tensile characteristics of expanded
clay lightweight aggregate concrete. Magazine of
Concrete Research 68(11): 581–592, https://doi.org/10.1680/
jmacr.15.00077.
Yap SP, Ren K, Johnson KU, Mohd A and Jumaat Z (2015) Effect of fibre
aspect ratio on the torsional behaviour of steel fibre-reinforced
normal weight concrete and lightweight concrete. Engineering
Structures 101: 24–33.
Youm KS, Moon J, Cho JY and Kim JJ (2016) Experimental study on
strength and durability of lightweight aggregate concrete
containing silica fume. Construction and Building Materials 114:
517–527.
Yu QL, Spiesz P and Brouwers HJH (2015) Ultra-lightweight concrete:
conceptual design and performance evaluation. Cement &
Concrete Composites 61: 18–28.
Zhang MH and Gjørv OE (1990a) Microstructure of the interfacial zone
between lightweight aggregate and cement paste. Cement and
Concrete Research 20(4): 610–618.
Zhang MH and Gjørv OE (1990b) Pozzolanic reactivity of lightweight
aggregates. Cement and Concrete Research 20(6): 884–890.
Zhang MH and Gjørv OE (1991a) Mechanical properties of
high-strength lightweight concrete. ACI Materials Journal 88(3):
240–247.
Zhang MH and Gjørv OE (1991b) Characteristics of lightweight
aggregates for high-strength concrete. ACI Materials Journal
88(2): 150–158.
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
13