Evaluation of properties of cellular light

weight concrete
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020034 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127158
Published Online: 25 September 2019

Devansh Jain, Anubhav Kumar Hindoriya, and Sudhir S. Bhadauria

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Lightweight foamed concrete for prefabricated house

AIP Conference Proceedings 1778, 030029 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4965763

Prevention of corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete

AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020035 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127159

Experimental study for the utilization of marble powder and in construction industry
AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020025 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127149

AIP Conference Proceedings 2158, 020034 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127158 2158, 020034

© 2019 Author(s).
 Evaluation of Properties of Cellular Light Weight Concrete

Devansh Jain1, a), Anubhav Kumar Hindoriya2, b) and Sudhir S. Bhadauria3, c)

1, 3
Department of Civil Engineering, University Institute of Technology – RGPV, Bhopal, India.
2
Structural Engineer, Bhopal 462 011, India.
a)
Corresponding author: devansh.jain@live.com
b)
hindoriya03anu@gmail.com
c)
ssbrgpv@gamil.com

Abstract. Cellular Light Weight Concrete (CLWC) is relatively a new material having cementitious properties, incorporated with
mechanically entrained foam in the cement based slurry or mortar which can manufacture in a varying densities ranging from 300
kg/m³ to 1850 kg/m³. With the increase in future requirement of the construction material, the CLWC is presently believed to
have a promising future. CLWC is a versatile material, which is generally used in non-load bearing structural elements, having
lower strength than conventional concrete. It is quite renowned for some application for the reason that it’s self-weight (which is
light in weight) such as reduction of dead load of the structure, thermal insulating materials, acoustic insulating materials and
non-structural partitions walls. Since it has low strength, some material is used in order to increase the strength of the CLWC.
The applications of CLWC are very limited due least knowledge about its properties and stability.

CLWC, fairly a new material as compare to conventional concrete, has become more popular material in construction industry.
Fly ash and Silica fume are getting more attention nowadays since their uses usually improve the properties of mixed cement
concrete, economical and reduction of harmful environmental effects. The properties of CLWC vary according to a different type
of mixture and its composition.

This study investigates the mechanical and physical properties of CLWC specifically dry density, water absorption and
compressive strength. In this study, the cubes are casted for different target densities 800 to 1000 kg/m³, 1000 to 1200 kg/m³ and
1200 to 1400 kg/m³ by varying the fly ash content 50% to 80% at the interval of 5% and corresponding decrease in cement
content 50% to 20%. The water content of all mixes are kept constant as 40% of weight of cement and fly ash combined. The
foam consists of one part of foaming agent diluted with 35 parts of water. As the amount of foam affects the dry density of
concrete, hence foam content is varied from 1% to 1.5% to get different target density. After getting the optimum content of fly
ash, the cement content is further reduced by adding silica fume. Silica fume is incorporated in the mix 0% to 15% at the interval
of 5% by the weight of cement and tested for same mechanical and physical properties.

INTRODUCTION

Cellular light weight concrete, as indicated by its name, the concrete having self-weight lighter than the
conventional concrete. This provides almost similar strength to normal strength concrete having lower grades.
Lightweight concrete is defined as concrete having density (air-dry) below 2000 kg/m³ as compared to normal
concrete with a density in the region of 2350 kg/m³ [1]. The concept behind in the manufacturing of the CLWC is to
create porous microstructure by entrapment of air bubbles in the concrete mix. This can be done by adding pre-
formed foam or chemical surfactant which reacts during the mixing to create air bubbles in the mix. The air bubbles

Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Materials and Structures for Civil Infrastructures (SMSCI2019)
AIP Conf. Proc. 2158, 020034-1–020034-19; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127158
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1903-2/$30.00

020034-1
continue their size, shape and remain stable for the period of the setting process. Diameter of air bubbles ranging
from 0.1 and 1 mm. The “skin” of voids or bubbles must be able to withstand mixing, transportation and
compaction. This air bubbles gives foamed concrete its lightweight property. As there is no coarse aggregate, is used
in CLWC, the term concrete is strictly speaking inappropriate [2].
Mechanical foaming can be done in two principal ways [3]. “By pre-foaming foam, a suitable agent with water
and then adding the foam with the paste or mortar”; and “By adding a quantity of foaming agent to the slurry and
aerated the mixture into a stable mass of required density”.
The most commonly used foaming agents are based on protein hydrolyzed or synthetic surfactants [4]. They are
formulated to produce air bubbles which are more stable and able to resist the physical and chemical forces executed
during mixing, placing and hardening.
The main objectives of this study are as follows:
1. To determine properties of CLWC such as dry density, compressive strength and water absorption for
various target densities. In CLWC the fly ash content is varied from 50% to 80% at the regular interval of 5% and
correspondingly the cement content is decreased to find out optimum proportion of cement content and fly ash for
optimal dry density and compressive strength with least water absorption.
2. To study effect of partial replacement of cement by silica fume in CLWC. The cement is replaced with
silica fume in 5%, 10% and 15% percentages for cement and fly ash proportions corresponding to optimum mix and
results are reported through parameters such as dry density, compressive strength and water absorption.

LITERATURE REVIEW

N. Narayanan and K. Ramamurthy (2000) investigated from their experiments; the properties of aerated concrete
get affected by compositional variation as well as curing (moist curing or autoclaving). In the aerated concrete with
fly ash, cement is precipitated or coated on the surface of the fly ash particles primary to encapsulation of spheres of
fly ash however all particles are not encapsulated because it is three times of cement by weight. Which work as
nucleation sites for the hydration of cement due to this hydration is incomplete and aerated concrete with fly ash
gives lesser strength along with the reduced density. Fly ash reduced the rate of hydration results in loss of adsorbed
water from the surface of partially reacted and unreacted particles and increasing the drying shrinkage five times
more than the aerated concrete with sand. The microstructure of moist-cured aerated concrete with sand at the age of
90 days. The aerated concrete with sand, hydration products had been formed completely, indicated by the
continuity of the matrix [5].
The relative variations in the degree of hydration affect the Aerated concrete; the cement hydrates former while
the sand and fly ash as filler material hydrates latter which is considerably slow process. Autoclaved concrete
products are practically more stable as compared to non-autoclaved because it may undergoes changes in structure
with time. Autoclaving results in higher strength due to better crystallinity, and it affected when the fly ash is
presents in the mix. Also the drying shrinkage of Autoclaved concrete with fly is high as compare to sand.
Narayanan and Ramamurthy (2000) carried out the study of the properties of aerated concrete like physical,
mechanical, chemical and functional characteristics. The pore formation methods influence the microstructure and
its properties. In aerated concrete material structure is characterised by solid microporous matrix and macropores
which form due to expansion of mass by aeration. Although system of air voids remain identical, but the difference
is there in the structure of AAC and Non-Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (NAAC) due to variation in hydration.
Which shows the variation in their properties. In the autoclaving process, fine siliceous material chemically reacts
with calcareous material (lime or cement) and forming the microcrystalline structure. Properties such as strength,
permeability, shrinkage related to its porosity and pore size distribution, and higher porosity of aerated concrete
increase the macropore volume which results in thinner pore walls with reduced micropore volume share. The
reduction in density due to formation of large macropores is found to cause a significant drop in strength. However,
compressive strength linearly increases with density. Autoclave curing increases the compressive strength as high
temperature and pressure due to formation of stable form of tobermorite. On the other hand the strength increases of
NAAC, 30- 80 % between age of 28 days to 6 months and remaining beyond this period due the process of
carvonation. AAC and NAAC with fly ash as fully or partially replacement of filler proved that the use of fly ash
gives higher strength to density ratio. Drying shrinkage occurs in aerated concrete, due to the loss of adsorbed water
from material because of its high porosity and specific surface of pores. Decrease in pore size is reported to increase
shrinkage [6].

020034-2
 McGovern (2000) concluded that foam produced from protein based surfactants has smaller size bubble, is more
stable and has a stronger closed bubble structure compared to the foam produced using synthetic surfactants.
Therefore, protein based surfactants would be best suited for the production of Lightweight Foam Concrete of
comparatively high density and high strength. The stability of foam is depends on its density and the type of
surfactant. The foam has to endure the pressure of the cement paste or mortar mix and the chemical environment of
the concrete until the concrete get set and strong enough to maintain the structure. Some external factors affect the
stability of the foam such as vibration, evaporation, wind and temperature [7].
Kearsley and Wainwrigth(2001) investigated the effect on the permeability and porosity of foam concrete by
partially replacing volumes of cement with fly ash. They concluded that permeability increased with increasing the
fly ash content and porosity and porosity depended on the dry density of the concrete [8].
E.P. Kearsley, P.J. Wainwright (2001) investigated that the long term compressive strength of foamed concrete,
28 days and 1-year compressive strength is the function of dry density and it is slightly affected by the percentage of
cement replaced by the fly ash. Using the higher content of fly ash does not affect the long term compressive
strength of well cured foamed concrete. Higher portion of fly ash in the foamed concrete need a longer period of
time to reach their ultimate strength, also the strength obtained from this could be higher than the strength that can
be achieved by using cement only [9].
E.P. Kearsley, P.J. Wainwright (2002) investigated, the optimum strength of foamed concrete by increasing the
ash content by replacing cement up to 75% by weight. In foamed concrete High ash content results in reduction in
compressive strength at early age. Also reduced the rate of hydration but the long term compressive strength was
improved, by using 75% of ash content replacing cement. Optimum content of ash is age dependent, although
porosity also affects the strength of the foamed concrete [10].
Kearsley And Mostert (2005) and Ramamurthy et al (2009), reported foam concrete can be defined as mortar or
cement paste which contains stable air or gas cells, produced by suitable foaming agents, uniformly distributed in
the matrix. Which possesses high flowablity, better thermal insulation properties, controlled low strength and low
density. There were also some uncertainty factors like type of foaming agent, foam preparation system and foam
concrete mix preparation [11,12].
Ramamurthy et al (2009) reported that foam can be produced by wet foam system or dry foam system. Dry foam
is produced by forcing the foaming agent and water solution, into a foam generator using compressed air. Where the
solution is highly aerated and transformed into a uniform and stable foam. This stable foam must be able to resist the
pressure of the cement slurry until the concrete get set and strong enough to maintain the structure. Otherwise it may
adversely affects the properties of the foam concrete. Whereas the wet foam is produced by spraying the foaming
agent and water solution over a fine mesh [12].
Kunhanandan and ramamurthy(2007) carried out the study and evaluated the relationships between foam
concrete properties and pore structure parameters. And they concluded that size, spacing and volume of the air voids
in the aerated concrete influence the strength and density [13].
Md Azree Othuman Mydin et al. (2010) carried out the study on mechanical properties of lightweight foamed
concrete at elevated temperatures. Compressive cylinder tests and three point bending tests were carried out for two
different densities of lightweight foamed concrete at different temperatures from ambient to up to 600oc. the
porosity of lightweight foamed concrete is higher for high density as the temperature increased from ambient to up
to 600oc, while the changes in porosity for lower densities lightweight foamed concrete is more moderate. The
compressive strength of lightweight foamed concrete decreased with temperature. The material lost the absorbed
water, free water and chemically bound water, due to this lost water micro cracking developed which results in
reduction in compressive strength. The loss of mechanical properties of lightweight foamed concrete, found at
higher temperature. Also the results demonstrate the loss of stiffness at elevated temperature occurs predominantly
after about 90oc, regardless of densities [14].
Khamphee Jitchaiyaphum et al. (2011) investigated that the compressive strength of CLWC for a given density
is higher having high content of fly ash in the mix. The relationship between pore size and compressive strength for
CLWC using fly ash as filler for a given density, the strength increased with increase in fly ash content. it also
contribute in strength enhancement by minimizing the volume of pores and uniformly distributed in the mix. Water
absorption is high for high compressive strength because for a given CLWC mix, increased density corresponds to
increase in paste volume of capillary pore at the same reduction in foam volume of artificial pore [15].
FahrizalZulkarnain et al. (2011) investigated that compressive strength of foamed concrete is mainly a function
of dry density and is only slightly affected by the percentage of cement replaced by silica fume. Large proportion of
silica fume did not significantly affect the long-term compressive strength. The compressive strength of foam

020034-3
concrete with silica fume is higher than the foam concrete without silica fume and the difference of strength between
foam concrete with silica and control samples is approximately same for all age [16].
K. Krishna Bhavani Siram(2012) carried out his research on Cellular Light-Weight Concrete Blocks as a
Replacement of Burnt Clay Bricks and she found that the clay brick production industry is a major source of air
pollution in developing countries. The major issues in environmental improvement involve improving the
combustion efficiency of existing kilns, and upgrading kilns to newer and more efficient process designs. The
process of manufacturing clay bricks also requires high energy to burn due to the emission of CO2 gas in the
process. Her study has shown that the use of fly ash in foamed concrete, either can greatly improve its properties.
Most of the cleaner production effort is required in India and hence Cellular Light-Weight Concrete blocks may be
used as a replacement of burnt clay bricks, for construction purpose, which is advantageous in terms of general
construction properties as well as eco-friendliness [17].
K. Krishna Bhavani Siram(2013) on her study he concluded that Foams formed from protein based surfactants
have smaller bubble size, are more stable and have a stronger closed bubble structure compared to the foam
produced using synthetic surfactants. Hence, they are high strength foam concretes. The density of foam concrete is
the function of volume of foam that is added to the cement paste. The compressive strength of foamed concrete is an
inverse function of the density of the material [18].
M. Roderick Jones et al. (2013) investigated that instability increased with reducing foamed concrete density.
Stability can be maintain by using a fast setting time and fine particle size cement to produce stable foamed concrete
at ultra-low densities. The initial setting time not more than 25 minutes always resulted in stable foamed concrete
with densities down to 150 kg/m³. And time below it, mix set more quickly for practical purposes. Fine fly ash gave
stable foamed concrete at ultra-low density compared to coarser fly ash; even the setting time was same. Also
improve the insulating nature of foamed concrete because it reduced heat of hydration significantly. For density 300
kg/m³, foamed concrete with 30% fly ash absorb up to 25% more sound compared to foamed concrete having no-fly
ash. 30% fine fly ash contained in foamed concrete reduced the thermal conductivity around 7% whereas it is just
4% with coarser fly ash for densities 200 and 300 kg/m³. The difference is due to higher fineness which improves
the bubble structure and yield more closed bubbles. Thermal conductivity increased when fly ash contained is 70%
and more. Fly ash also improves the microstructure of foamed concrete, after long-term curing. Fly ash more than
50% yields the foamed concrete with denser microstructure and thicker walls [19].
U. Johnson Alengaram et al. (2013) focused on the thermal conductivity of foamed OPS concrete of density in
the range of 1100-1600 kg/m³ and investigated that the thermal conductivity of concrete increases with higher
density. The lowest thermal conductivity was found for density 1100 kg/m³ which similar to lightweight concrete
with expanded perlite aggregate. Thermal conductivity and compressive strength of density 1500 and 1600 kg/m³
verify the RILEM classification and can be used as structural and insulating concrete in which tiny air voids
introduced due to foam act as an insulator. In low density foamed concrete, more foam is introduced results in high
amount of air voids are presented in concrete which is a good insulator. The thermal conductivity of foam concrete
is lower than the conventional blocks and bricks [20].
Ali J. Hamad (2014) carried out his research and he found that, Aerated lightweight concrete is unlike
conventional concrete in some mix materials and properties. Aerated lightweight concrete does not contain coarse
aggregate, and it is possess many beneficial such as low density with higher strength compared with conventional
concrete, enhanced in thermal and sound insulation, reduced dead load in the could result several advantages in
decrease structural elements and reduce the transferred load to the foundations and bearing capacity. Foamed
concrete is different in agent of forming air-voids as compared with AAC. The air-voids in foamed concrete formed
by foam agent, this operation is physical processing. Against the air-voids in AAC formed by addition aluminum
powder to the other materials and reaction between them, and this operation is chemical processing. The air-voids
are homogenous distribution within aerated lightweight concrete. The compressive strength of foamed concrete can
be developed reach to structural strength compared with AAC. Aerated lightweight concrete is consider economy in
materials and consumption of by-product and wastes materials such as fly ash [21].
P. S. Bhandari et al. (2014) carried out a research on CLWC in term of density and compressive strength and
concluded that, compressive strength for CLWC is low for lower density mixture. The increments of voids
throughout the sample caused by the foam in the mixture lower the density. As a result, compressive strength also
decreases with the increment of those voids. Compressive strength of 53 grade cement is slightly higher than 43
grade cement, but as strength increases its density also increases. CLWC is acceptable for framed structure. CLWC
can be suitable for earthquake areas [22].

020034-4
 Nagesh Mustapure et al. (2014) carried out his research on CLWC blocks for varying grades of density and he
concluded that the compressive strength of CLWC Blocks for 800 kg/m³, 900 kg/m³, 1000 kg/m³ and 1100 kg/m³ is
2.6 N/mm2, 3.2 N/mm2, 3.8 N/mm2 and 5.8 N/mm2 for water curing and 2.7 N/mm2, 3.3 N/mm2, 4.1 N/mm2 and
5.8 N/mm2 for steam curing. The water absorption of CLC Blocks for 800 kg/m³, 900 kg/m³, 1000 kg/m³ and 1100
kg/m³ is 11.87 %, 11.51 %, 11.37 % and 10.96 % for water curing and 11.68 % , 11.47 % , 11.26 % and 10.90 % for
steam curing. The thermal conductivity of CLC Blocks varies with density. The thermal conductivity of CLC blocks
for 800 kg/m³, 900 kg/m³, 1000 kg/m³ and 1100 kg/m³ is 0.32 watts per meter kelvin (W/(m. K)), 0.34 W/m.k, 0.36
W/m.k and 0.37 W/m.k for both water and steam curing. The excellent insulating property of foam concrete is due
to the great number of closed cavities forming the multi-cellular structure [23].
T. Sivakumar et al (2014), investigated the properties of foamed concrete containing Nano-silica as additives
(added to the foaming agent) with the plain foamed concrete. The use of Nano Silica in the foamed concrete has
found to improve concrete workability and strength. It also resists the water penetration. It is found that even the
addition of small quantity of Nano Silica (0.25%) increase the strength up to 10% at the age of 28 days. Nano silica
accelerates the reactions of hydration of both C3S and cement-ash mortar as a result of large and highly reactive
surface of the Nano particles. It is found to be more effective to enhancing the strength of concrete than silica fume.
The strength studies carried out on 7th, 14th and 28th day indicated that the samples produced by using nano-SiO2
modified foamed concrete has only very marginal increase in the compressive and tensile strength as compared to
the witness sample. X-Ray Diffraction is also carried out to study the hydration phase of the foamed concrete. The
corresponding peaks are highlighted for the hydrated concrete at 24 hours and 7days. The pattern of the XRD,
evident that the hydration is not postponed by the addition of Nano Silica in the foamed concrete as in the strength
development phase; hydrates of calcium silicate, aluminite, and ferrite are well formed [24].
Maheshkumar H. Thakrele (2014) investigated the properties of foam concrete with or without sand and he
concluded that the density of the foam concrete has inversely relation to the percentage of foam, added to mortar or
slurry. The compressive strength of foam concrete increased with ageing and also fine aggregate played the major
role to increase the compressive strength. The compressive strength for lower density was low and increased for
higher density foam concrete. Foam concrete can be used in partition walls in buildings which results in reduction in
self-weight of structure [25].
E. Ikponmwosa et al. (2014)) discussed the properties of foam concrete. Foam concrete is highly workable
because of its free-flowing and self-levelling nature and therefore it gives the collapse slump. But for higher density
foam concrete it can be done and at this density material still maintains its self-compacting properties, so that no
compaction is needed. Stability of foam concrete is depends on the stability of foam produced. To be stable means
the foam, in the foam of air bubbles, is able to go through the whole production process without collapse. Air cured
foam concrete developed higher strength than the water cured foam concrete at all the curing age. The compressive
strength at 60 days and 90 days for air cured foam concrete remains same while the compressive strength for water
cured foam concrete continues to increase. It is due to continues strength forming hydration process by water curing.
The splitting tensile strength and the modulus of rupture increased with curing age and water absorption is very less
1.03% only [26].
A. S. Kanagalakshmi et al. (2015) in his research found that the total cost of CLWC is 23% of total burnt clay
brick cost. The key advantage seems to be its low density which enables it to be handled without carnage. Single
process installation reduces transportation charges considerably. Cast in situ production, simply pouring and leveling
property reduces labor and supervision costs. As the dead load of building is reduced to a great extent, the quantity
of reinforcement can be minimized. Foam concrete (1200 kg/m³) is two times more thermally resistant than burnt
clay bricks hence usage of internal air conditioning cost can be reduced. Allows controlled discharge into narrow
openings and hence directly reduces wastage of concrete at the site. Self-compacting and self-leveling nature of
foam concrete with quarry dust completely eliminates the need for compaction equipment. [27]
Ashish S. Moon et al. (2015) study on Foam Concrete as A Green Building Material concluded that CLWC can
be used indifferent density ranges for specific type of application in civil construction project. And Higher Density
Range of CLWC, density range from 1,200 kg/m³ (Having 28-day cube crushing strength of 65 kg/cm2;) to 1800
kg/m³ (Crushing strength 250 kg/cm2;) is reckoned as structural grade material. It is utilized for the construction
load carrying structural elements like walls, slabs, pre-cast blocks or of any other types of Reinforced Pre-cast
elements like cladding units etc [28].
Ameer A. Hilal et al. [2015] investigated the performance of additives, mineral admixtures- silica fume and fly
ash and super-plasticizer which improves the workability as well as strength of the foamed concrete, also higher
compressive strength to density ratio. Other properties as indirect tensile and flexural strength were higher for
foamed concrete with additives to conventional foamed concrete significantly. Thermal conductivity slightly

020034-5
increased in the dry state, due to making of cement paste denser and less porous, in addition of additives and
plasticizer. However, owing to reduced thermal conductivity and water absorption in saturated state was slightly
lower for foamed concrete with additives than conventional foamed concrete [29].
Ravi Shankar S et al. (2015) carried out his research on Experiment on Foam Concrete with Quarry Dust as
Partial Replacement for Filler and he concluded that, the compressive Strength of Foam concrete increase with
increase in density of foam concrete. Higher Density does not always mean it has to give a higher strength. The
water content also plays a major role in providing strength to foam concrete. Foam Concrete is more sensitive to
water content than normal concrete. Concrete normally has a certain water demand to obtain workability. The
strength of concrete decreases with the water-cement ratio increases. Ideal water/cement ratio is between 0.5-
0.7.Replacement of sand with quarry Dust is likely to result in an increase in compressive strength of foam concrete.
Replacement of sand with quarry dust should be limited to 30% as results show that replacement more that 30%
results in decrease in compressive strength. This is due to the fact that addition of more amount of quarry dust will
result in the breakage of bubbles which will lead to decrease in stability of the bubbles which will lead to decrease in
compressive strength [30].

CLWC is a versatile material used the construction works. The applications of CLWC blocks is limited due to
lack of understanding of production of this material and its structural performance, because the reason behind, it is
relatively a new material as compare to conventional materials. Here the comparison is done between CLWC blocks
with other conventional materials like burnt clay bricks, hollow concrete bricks and fly ash bricks. The comparison
contains various parameters to define the feasibility of the CLWC blocks, as given in table 1.

TABLE 1. Comparison between cellular light weight concrete and other conventional material [27, 39].
S.
Hollow Concrete
No Parameter CLWC Block Burnt Clay Brick Fly Ash Brick
Brick
.
Top soil of
Cement, Fly ash, agricultural land
Cement, sand,
Basic Raw Material and other silica fume, and wood, coal, Cement, Fly ash,
1 fly ash, lime and
inputs water, Foaming Bagasse and sand, aggregate
aggregate
agent other fuel for
firing
Plant / On-site Process in brick Mobile or Plant / On-site
2 Production process
Production kiln stationary plant Production
3-12/ 25-60/70-
3 Compressive strength kg/cm2 40-125 30-150 30-150
160
300-600/ 800-
4 Dry Density(kg/m3) 1800-2000 1900-2200 900-2100
1000 /1200-1800
6 Sound insulation Superior Poor Better Normal
7 Thermal Insulation Superior Poor Good Normal
Gains strength No Gains
8 Aging Yes Slightly
with age strength with age
Very easy, can
9 Ease in working be cut, nailed Normal Difficult Normal
and drilled
Pollution free,
Least energy
creates smoke,
requirement,
Uses high no smoke, low
consumes fly ash
energy for firing Low energy, No energy used in
10 Eco Friendliness which is a waste
in kiln, smoke hydraulic press
from thermal
Agricultural land and mixing.
power plant,
becomes useless.
Green building
product

020034-6
 From the parameters discussed in the table, the CLWC is green building material. The basic raw materials are
cement, fly ash, silica fume, water and foaming agent. CLWC blocks are relatively good material as it uses the waste
material like fly ash in a huge amount with cement. Production of CLWC blocks, required least energy and free of
pollution. Compressive strength is relatively low for lower density blocks, and increases with higher densities. It
also gains strength with age. It is produced in various densities ranging from 350 kg/m3 to 1850 kg/m3 as per
requirement of the work. Thermal and sound insulation increased with relatively low density blocks which is
superior as compare to other conventional materials. The working with this blocks is very easy as it can be cut,
nailed and drilled.
Among the multiple construction applications, masonry structures form the largest proportion. The different
materials like burnt clay bricks, hollow concrete bricks and fly ash bricks, are used in construction works which can
be replaced by the CLWC blocks economically.

MATERIALS USED

In this study, Ordinary Portland cement 53 grade is used conforming to IS 12269-1987. Potable water,
confirming to IS 456: 2000. Fly ash is taken from Satpura Thermal Power Station, Sarni, Betul, Madhya Pradesh.
Specific gravity of fly ash is 2.25. Silica fume is taken from Nagpur, Maharashtra. Specific gravity of silica fume is
2.12. Foam Agent - Protein based standard foaming agents or hydrolyzed protein agents are made by protein
hydrolysis from animal proteins such as keratin (horn meal and hoof), cattle hooves and fish scales, blood and
saponin, and casein of cows, pigs and other remainders of animal carcasses. This leads not only to occasional
variations in quality, due to the differing raw materials used in different batches, but also to the very intense stench
of such foaming agents[31] [32] [33]. Protein based foaming agents are relatively crude materials because they are
obtained from hydrolyzed animal carcass during the process of biodegradation. Their self-life is about 1 year under
sealed conditions.

MIX PROPORTION

There is no standard method of mix design of CLWC. From the literatures reviewed, it is quite significant that
the density is the prime factor to be considered for manufacturing the CLWC. The properties of CLWC are directly
or indirectly related to its density. On the basis of trial and error method the target density is achieved in the mix
design of CLWC. A tolerance on density was considered around 200 kg/m³ of the target density. The target densities
for the CLWC are 800-1000 kg/m³, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400 kg/m³, for various compositions of cement
and fly ash. The foam used in present study consists of one part of foaming agent diluted with 35 parts of water.
This value is as recommended in previous researches [25] [34]. The amount of foam affects the dry density of
concrete, as the amount of foam increases the density of the mix decreases. Hence foam content is varied 1.5%,
1.25% and 1% to get different target density 800-1000 kg/m³, 1000-1200 kg/m³, and 1200-1400 kg/m³ respectively.
The water content of all mixes used in the study are kept constant as 40% of weight of cement and fly ash combined.
A. Designation of the mix.
The designation of various mixes is done using alphanumeric character. Initial characters refer to the type of mix
as given:
i. CF - Mix containing cement and fly ash in various proportions.
ii. CFS - Mix containing cement, fly ash and silica fume. The cement is replaced by silica fume.
The rest of two characters are designated as A1, B1, C1 etc. which refer to different proportions of mixes. For
example, in CF-A1 mix, CF refers to the mix containing cement and fly ash, “A” refers to ratio of cement and fly
ash which is 50:50 and 1 refers to target density of 800-1000 kg/m³.
After getting the optimum in terms of compressive strength of CLWC at CF-D1, CF-D2 and CF-D3. Trial mix
was also prepared for optimum composition of cement and fly, by replacing the cement content with silica fume 0%,
5%, 10% and 15% by weight of cement for same target densities. Mix proportion of CLWC is given in table 2 and
Mix proportion of CLWC using silica fume is given in table 3.

020034-7
 TABLE 2. Mix proportion for CLWC

Mix Name Cement Content Fly Ash Content Water Content Foam Content
For target density 800-1000 kg/m³
CF-A1 50% 50% 40% 1.5%
CF-B1 45% 55% 40% 1.5%
CF-C1 40% 60% 40% 1.5%
CF-D1 35% 65% 40% 1.5%
CF-E1 30% 70% 40% 1.5%
CF-F1 25% 75% 40% 1.5%
CF-G1 20% 80% 40% 1.5%
CF-A1 50% 50% 40% 1.5%
For target density 1000-1200 kg/m³
CF-A2 50% 50% 40% 1.25%
CF-B2 45% 55% 40% 1.25%
CF-C2 40% 60% 40% 1.25%
CF-D2 35% 65% 40% 1.25%
CF-E2 30% 70% 40% 1.25%
CF-F2 25% 75% 40% 1.25%
CF-G2 20% 80% 40% 1.25%
For target density 1200-1400 kg/m³
CF-A3 50% 50% 40% 1.0%
CF-B3 45% 55% 40% 1.0%
CF-C3 40% 60% 40% 1.0%
CF-D3 35% 65% 40% 1.0%
CF-E3 30% 70% 40% 1.0%
CF-F3 25% 75% 40% 1.0%
CF-G3 20% 80% 40% 1.0%

TABLE 3. Mix proportion of CLWC using silica fume.

Mix Name Cement Content Silica Fume % by Fly Ash Content Water Content Foam Content
weight of Cement
For target density 800-1000 kg/m³
CF-D1 35% 0% 65% 40% 1.5%
CFS-A1 33.25% 1.75% (5% of cement) 65% 40% 1.5%
CFS-B1 31.5% 3.5% (10% of cement) 65% 40% 1.5%
5.25% (15% of
CFS-C1 29.75% 65% 40% 1.5%
cement)
For target density 1000-1200 kg/m³.
CF-D2 35% 0% 65% 40% 1.25%
CFS-A2 33.25% 1.75% (5% of cement) 65% 40% 1.25%
CFS-B2 31.5% 3.5% (10% of cement) 65% 40% 1.25%
5.25% (15% of
CFS-C2 29.75% 65% 40% 1.25%
cement)
For target density 1200-1400 kg/m³.
CF-D3 35% 0% 65% 40% 1.0%
CFS-A3 33.25% 1.75% (5% of cement) 65% 40% 1.0%
CFS-B3 31.5% 3.5% (10% of cement) 65% 40% 1.0%
5.25% (15% of
CFS-C3 29.75% 65% 40% 1.0%
cement)

020034-8
 MIX PROCEDURE

The manufacturing procedure is thoroughly different from conventional concrete because mix design is not fit
for light weight cellular concrete. It’s done by trial and error process.
The manufacturing of CLWC finishes in two stages.
A. Preparation of cement based slurry with fly ash and silica fume.
B. Formation of foam by using pre-foaming method.
Start with the first stage, fly ash and water mixed thoroughly for few minutes to attain good consistency. Add
cement and mix well again for few minutes until the cement based slurry is attained homogenous consistency. The
second stage is started with hydrolysed protein based foaming agent. The foaming agent is diluted with water (the
dilution ratio is 1:35) and make the solution. Prepared foaming agent and water solution send into the foam
generator which is mainly a foam producing unit. Foam generator sucks the solution and compressed air is blown.
Compressed air expands the foaming agent when it goes through the foam lance and converted into the stable foam.
Lastly, the foam is mixed thoroughly with the cement based slurry. Stable foam makes the cellular matrix in it
and CLWC is prepared.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Using cement and fly ash

Table 4 shows result of CLWC using cement and fly ash, which shows result of dry density compressive strength
and water absorption.

TABLE 4. Results of mix proportion of CLWC.

Compressive Strength Water

Cement Fly Ash Dry Density
Mix Name absorption
Content Content (kg/m3) 7 days 28 days (%)
For target density 800-1000 kg/m³.
CF-A1 50% 50% 878 0.89 1.86 20.87
CF-B1 45% 55% 895 1.03 2.42 20.13
CF-C1 40% 60% 932 1.24 2.71 19.17
CF-D1 35% 65% 968 1.7 3.26 14.46
CF-E1 30% 70% 940 1.57 3.05 17.15
CF-F1 25% 75% 916 0.97 1.95 17.88
CF-G1 20% 80% 909 0.83 1.52 18.67
3
For target density 1000-1200 kg/m .
CF-A2 50% 50% 1063 1.64 2.73 19.52
CF-B2 45% 55% 1087 1.56 3.59 18.44
CF-C2 40% 60% 1136 1.76 3.88 17.81
CF-D2 35% 65% 1156 1.98 4.12 12.34
CF-E2 30% 70% 1144 1.69 3.81 15.3
CF-F2 25% 75% 1099 1.28 2.93 16.53
CF-G2 20% 80% 1079 0.81 2.46 17.18

020034-9
 TABLE 4. Results of mix proportion of CLWC (contd.)

Compressive Strength
Cement Fly Ash Dry Density Water
Mix Name absorption
Content Content (kg/m3) 7 days 28 days
(%)
For target density 1200-1400 kg/m3.
CF-A3 50% 50% 1298 1.67 3.67 13.95
CF-B3 45% 55% 1321 1.83 4.66 13.1
CF-C3 40% 60% 1346 2.09 4.74 12.81
CF-D3 35% 65% 1366 2.3 5.36 10.46
CF-E3 30% 70% 1351 2.03 4.84 12.12
CF-F3 25% 75% 1325 1.51 3.79 14.09
CF-G3 20% 80% 1304 1.32 3.55 14.67

i. Dry Density
The results of dry density of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400
kg/m3 (using cement and fly ash) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 1, graph 2 and graph 3, as the fly ash
content increases with 50% to 80% and corresponding decrease in cement content, the dry density is found to
increase till cement content is 35%. After further decrease in cement content and corresponding increase in fly ash,
density kept decreasing. Graph 1-3 shows result of dry density.

FIGURE 1 Dry density for target density 800-1000 kg/m³.

FIGURE 2 Dry density for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³.

020034-10
 FIGURE 3 Dry density for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³.

ii. Compressive strength

The results of compressive strength of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-
1400 kg/m3 (using cement and fly ash) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 4, graph 2 and graph 3, as the
cement content decreases up to 35% and corresponding increases in fly ash content, compressive strength is found to
be increases. Further decreases in cement content, the compressive strength reduces. It is found that higher
compressive strength comes from higher density material. Graph 4-6 shows result of compressive strength test.

FIGURE 4 Compressive Strength for target density 800-1000 kg/m³.

FIGURE 5 Compressive Strength for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³.

FIGURE 6 Compressive Strength for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³.

020034-11
 iii. Water absorption
The results of water absorption of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400
kg/m3 (using cement and fly ash) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 7, graph 8 and graph 9, water absorption
is minimum for concrete having higher density. Water absorption decreases as the density increases and increases as
the density decreases. Graph 7-9 shows result of water absorption test.

FIGURE 7 Water absorption for target density 800-1000 kg/m³.

FIGURE 8 Water absorption for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³.

FIGURE 9 Water absorption for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³.

B. Using cement, fly ash and silica fume.

From table 4, the mix having optimum compressive strength obtain from target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-
1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400 kg/m3 is further proportioned with silica fume given in table 5.

020034-12
 TABLE 5. Results of mix proportion of CLWC (silica fume)

Compressive Strength Water

Cement Fly Ash Dry Density
Mix Name Silica fume absorption
Content Content (kg/m3) 7 days 28 days (%)
3
For target density 800-1000 kg/m
CF-D1 35% 65% 0% 968 1.7 3.26 14.46
1.75%
CFS-A1 33.25% 65% (5% of 977 1.96 3.89 13.88
cement)
3.5%
CFS-B1 31.5% 65% (10% of 983 2.14 4.27 13.15
cement)
5.25%
CFS-C1 29.75% 65% (15% of 972 2.03 4.02 13.51
cement)
For target density 1000-1200 kg/m3.
CF-D2 35% 65% 0% 1156 1.98 4.12 12.34
1.75%
CFS-A2 33.25% 65% (5% of 1167 2.12 4.67 11.52
cement)
3.5%
CFS-B2 31.5% 65% (10% of 1179 2.57 5.09 10.79
cement)
5.25%
CFS-C2 29.75% 65% (15% of 1159 2.23 4.83 11.02
cement)
For target density 1200-1400 kg/m3.
CF-D3 35% 65% 0% 1366 2.3 5.3 10.46
1.75%
CFS-A3 33.25% 65% (5% of 1373 2.52 5.95 9.56
cement)
3.5%
CFS-B3 31.5% 65% (10% of 1391 2.94 6.42 9.02
cement)
5.25%
CFS-C3 29.75% 65% (15% of 1386 2.67 6.11 9.98
cement)

i. Dry Density
The results of dry density of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400
kg/m3 (using cement fly ash and silica fume) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 10, graph 11 and graph 12, as
the fly ash content is fixed at 65% and silica fume is incorporated in 5%, 10% and 15% by weight of cement. The
dry density is found to increase till silica fume content is 10%. After further increase in silica fume content, density
kept decreasing. Graph 10-12 shows result of dry density (with silica fume).

020034-13
 FIGURE 10 Dry density for target density 800-1000 kg/m³ (with silica)

FIGURE 11 Dry density for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³ (with silica)

FIGURE 12 Dry density for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³.

ii. Compressive strength

The results of compressive strength of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-
1400 kg/m3 (using cement fly ash and silica fume) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 13, graph 14 and graph
15, as the fly ash content is fixed at 65% and silica fume is incorporated in 5%, 10% and 15% by weight of cement.
The compressive strength is found to increase till silica fume content is 10%. After further increase in silica fume
content, compressive strength kept decreasing. The increase in strength from 7 days to 28 days for mix having silica
fume content 10%, is 99.5%, 98% and 118% for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400
kg/m3 respectively. Graph 13-15 shows result of compressive strength test (with silica fume).

020034-14
 FIGURE 13 Compressive Strength for target density 800-1000 kg/m³ (with silica fume)

FIGURE 14 Compressive Strength for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³ (with silica fume)

FIGURE 15 Compressive Strength for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³ (with silica fume).

iii. Water absorption

The results of water absorption of CLWC for target densities 800-1000 kg/m3, 1000-1200 kg/m3 and 1200-1400
kg/m3 (using cement fly ash and silica fume) given in the table no. 4. From the graph 16, graph 17 and graph 18, as
the fly ash content is fixed at 65% and silica fume is incorporated in 5%, 10% and 15% by weight of cement. The
water absorption is found to decrease till silica fume content is 10% and maintained minimum value. After further
increase in silica fume content, water absorption is found to increase. Graph 16-18 Shows result of water absorption
test (with Silica fume).

FIGURE 16 Water absorption for target density 800-1000 kg/m³ (with silica fume).

020034-15
 FIGURE 17 Water absorption for target density 1000-1200 kg/m³ (with silica fume).

FIGURE 18 Water absorption for target density 1200-1400 kg/m³ (with silica fume).

OPTIMUM VALUE OBSERVATION

Optimum values of comes out from test performed on CLWC block and then relation between the test result is
derived. Graphs 19-21 is plotted between compressive strength vs dry density, water absorption vs compressive
strength and water absorption vs dry density respectively.

FIGURE 19 Compressive strength vs. dry density for optimum mix (with silica fume).

020034-16
 FIGURE 20 Water absorption vs. compressive strength for optimum mix (with silica fume).

FIGURE 21 Water absorption vs. dry density for optimum mix (with silica fume).

CONCLUSIONS

Cellular lightweight concrete is eco-friendly green construction material; it uses fly ash which is the waste
product of thermal power plant and also has potential to save material in greater extent. The traditional bricks are
completely replaced by the foam concrete and also reduced the pollution which emits during the burning of clay
bricks (major source of air pollution in developing countries). The key advantage of cellular lightweight concrete is
its low density, proper sound and thermal insulation. Low density of Cellular lightweight concrete, reduced dead
load results in several advantages like decreases structural elements and reduces the transferred load to the
foundations and bearing capacity.
Following conclusions are drawn from the current study;
1. CLWC mix in the ratio of 35:65 for cement content and fly ash content has been found to be optimum with
respect to compressive strength, for all target densities between 800-1400 kg/m3.
2. Direct proportional increase in compressive strength in proportion to dry density has been observed in
CLWC. An increase of 64.42% in compressive strength has been observed for dry density variation from 800-
1400 kg/m3.
3. Direct proportional increase in dry density in the range of 800-1400 kg/m3 have been observed for reduction
in water absorption by 27.66% in the CLWC.
4. For a 35:65 proportion of cement and fly ash content for optimum compressive strength, study for
replacement of cement by silica fume (an industrial waste by-product) in 5%, 10% and 15% proportion has
been done and cement replacement by silica fume in proportion of 10% has been found to be optimum for
strength and water absorption for CLWC of various densities.

020034-17
 REFERENCES

1. H. J. Goodman, “Low-density Concrete. Fulton's Concrete Technology, EdAddis, B. J. Seventh (revised)

Edition,” Portland Cement Institute, Midrand, South Africa, pp. 281-285, (1994).
2. A. Neville and J. Brooks, Concrete Technology, 2, Ed., Harlow [etc.]: Prentice Hall/Pearson, (2010), pp. 351-
352.
3. W. H. Taylor, “The production, properties and uses of foamed concrete,” Precast Concrete, pp. 83-96, (1974).
4. BRE Digest, “Autoclaved aerated concrete,” Building Research Establishment Digest 342, (1989).
5. N. Narayanan and K. Ramamurthy, “Microstructural investigations on aerated concrete,” Cement and Concrete
Research, 30, pp. 457-464, (2000).
6. N. Narayanan and K. Ramamurthy, “Structure and properties of aerated concrete: a review,” Cement &
Concrete Composites, 22, pp. 321-329,( 2000).
7. G. McGovern, “Manufacture and supply of ready-mix foamed concrete,” in One day awareness seminar on
‘Foamed concrete: Properties, applications and potential’, University of Dundee, 2000.
8. E. Kearsley and P. Wainwright, “Porosity and permeability of foamed concrete,” Cement and Concrete
Research, 31, pp. 805-812, (2001).
9. E. Kearsleya and P. Wainwright, “The effect of high fly ash content on the compressive strength of foamed
concrete.,” Cement and Concrete Research, 31, pp. 105-112, 2001.
10. E. Kearsley and P. Wainwright, “Ash content for optimum strength of foamed concrete,” Cement and Concrete
Research, 32, p. 241–246, 2002.
11. E. Kearsley and H. Mostert, “Designing Mix Composition of foam concrete with high fly ash contents,” in Use
Of Foamed Concrete In Construction, International Conference, University Of Dundee, Scotland, 2005.
12. K. Ramamurthy and I. S. G. Kunhanandan E.K., “A classification of studies on properties of foam concrete,”
Cement & Concrete Composites, 31, pp. 388-396, 2009.
13. K. Kunhanandan and E. Ramamurthy, “Air void characterisation of foam concrete,” Cement and Concrete
Research, 37, pp. 221-230, 2007.
14. M. A. O. Mydin and Y. C. Wang, “An Experimental Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Lightweight
Foamed Concrete Subjected to Elevated Temperatures up to 600°C,” CRL Letters, 1 (4), 2010.
15. K. Jitchaiyaphum, T. Sinsiria and P. Chindaprasirt, “Cellular Lightweight Concrete Containing Pozzolan
Materials,” The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, 14, p.
1157–1164, 2011.
16. F. Zulkarnain and M. Ramli, “Durability of Performance Foamed Concrete Mix Design with Silica Fume for
Housing Development,” Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, 5, pp. 518-527, 2011.
17. K. B. Siram, “Cellular Light-Weight Concrete Blocks as a Replacement of Burnt Clay Bricks,” International
Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 2, 2012.
18. K. K. B. Siram, “Foam Concrete - The Present Generation’s Building Solution,” International Journal of Civil,
Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD), 3, pp. 59-
62, 2013.
19. M. R. Jones, K. Ozlutas, A. Ouzounidou and R. F. Rathbone, “Behaviour of PC/CSA/FA Blends in Foamed
Concrete,” in World of coal ash (WOCA) Conference- April 22-25, 2013, Lexington, KY, 2013.
20. U. J. Alengaram, B. A. A. Muhit, M. Z. b. Jumaat and M. L. Y. Jing, “A comparison of the thermal
conductivity of oil palm shell foamed concrete with conventional materials,” Materials and Design, 2013.
21. A. J. Hamad, “Materials, Production, Properties and Application of Aerated Lightweight Concrete: Review,”
International Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, 2, 2014.
22. P.S.Bhandari and K. Tajne, “Cellular Lightweight Concrete Using Fly Ash,” International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(11), (2014).
23. N. Mustapure and H.Eramma, “Experimental Investigation on Cellular Lightweight Concrete Blocks For
Varying Grades Of Density,” International Journal of Advanced Technology in Engineering and Science, 2(8),
pp. 2348-7550 , (2014).
24. T. Sivakumar, P. Prabha, B. Bhuvaneshwari and R. Regupathi, “Characteristics of Functionally Modified
Foamed Concrete by Nano-Silica,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 3,
2014.

020034-18
25. M. H. Thakrele, “Experimental Study On Foam Concrete,” International Journal of Civil, Structural,
Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD), 4, pp. 145-158,
(2014).
26. E. Ikponmwosa, F. Falade and C. Fapohunda, “A review and investigations of some properties of foamed
aerated concrete,” Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), 33(1,) pp. 1-9,( 2014).
27. D. A. S. Kanagalakshmi, K. Sasikumar and E. B. Pravin, “An Investigation On Foam Concrete With Quarry
Dust Replacement For Filler In Mix Design,” International Journal of Emerging Technology in Computer
Science & Electronics (IJETCSE), 13(1), (2015).
28. A. S. Moon, D. V. Varghese and S. S. Waghmare, “Foam Concrete as A Green Building Material,”
International Journal For Research In Emerging Science And Technology, 2 (9), (2015).
29. A. A. Hilal, N. H. Thom and A. R. Dawson, “The Use of Additives to Enhance Properties of Pre-Formed
Foamed Concrete,” IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7, (2015).
30. R. S. S and J. A. Joy, “Experiment on Foam Concrete with Quarry Dust as Partial Replacement for Filler,”
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 4, (2015).
31. K. C. Brady, G. R. A. Watts and M. R. Jones, "Specification for foamed concrete," TRL Limited - Project
Report (PR/IS/40/01), 2001.
32. K. J. Byun, H. W. Song and S. S. Park, "Development of structural lightweight foamed concrete using polymer
foam agent," (1998).
33. K. A. M. Gelim, Mechanical and physical properties of fly ash foamed concrete, M.S. thesis, Faculty of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), (2011).
34. J. A. J. Ravi Shankar S, “Experiment on Foam Concrete with Quarry Dust as Partial Replacement for Filler,”
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 4, (2015).
35. IS: 456:2000 “Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice”.
36. IS: 516-1959 “Methods of Test for strength of Concrete”.
37. IS: 12269-1987 “Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 Grade — Specification”.
38. IS: 3495-1992 Part-2 “Determination Of Water Absorption”.
39. A. K. Marunmale and A.C.Attar, “Designing, developing and testing of cellular lightweight concrete brick
(clc) wall built in rat-trap bond,” Current Trends in Technology and Science, ISSN: 2279- 0535, 3(4), (June-
July 2014), 2014.

020034-19