Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Influences of construction material type and water-cement ratio

reduction on thermal transmittance of sustainable concrete mixes
Omer Damdelen
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Cyprus

h i g h l i g h t s

The research mainly focuses on U-value of concrete.

There are 3 concrete groups for investigating the effects on U-value. (i) Group A is applied on different types of cement materials. (ii) Group B is applied
on recycled coarse aggregate (replaced 30% Natural. aggregate). (iii) Group C is applied on reducing water-cement ratio.

This research provides to improve sustainable concrete construction for future.

The research aim is helped to apply suitable materials in commercial, residential and multi-story buildings for minimizing the energy consumption
hence controlling CO2 emissions.

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

Article history: Nowadays, the exponentially increasing carbon dioxide emission makes energy efficiency an important
Received 8 October 2017 issue for architectures and engineers. In the energy consumption, the thermal performance of the build-
Received in revised form 15 November 2018 ing materials play of key role in this analysis. As a major factor in the thermal performance, the value of
Accepted 16 November 2018
heat loss is expressed by U-value or R-value in the construction industry. The value of the thermal trans-
mittance (U-Value) depends on different types of the cement, recycled coarse aggregate, and water-
cement ratio. Hence, this study has analyzed the effect of various situations on the thermal transmit-
Keywords:
tance. U-value is also defined as the inverse of R-value where the R-value is a measure expressing the
Carbon dioxide emission
Energy consumption
resistance to heat flow via given thickness of material. U-value calculations can invariably be needed
Thermal performance when establishing sustainable construction strategies for improving the sustainable development.
U and R values Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cement materials
RCA and W/C ratio

1. Introduction Thermal conductivity is one of the most influencing factors on

Sustainable energy efficiency focuses on two solutions: Efficient
green energy production (supply side) and minimizing the energy
requirements of the society (user side). Nowadays, because of the
high impact of comfort standard on the human health and life
quality, the demand for thermal comfort is increased and plays
an important role in the building structure. However the heating
and cooling systems are often applied uneconomically. Modern
technology can improve the energy efficiency of buildings. Most
of the architects and engineers widely apply thermal simulation
software tools to analyse the thermal performance of building
structure, such as concrete walls of a building, to minimize
required energy [1,2].
E-mail address: odamdelen@ciu.edu.tr
the performance of a structural element. Using thermal conductiv-
ity and thickness of the material leads to determine thermal trans-
mittance (known as ‘‘U-value”), which is an essential measure of
heat loss through the material. The reciprocal of U-value, namely
thermal resistance (known as ‘‘R-value”) is also used for conve-
nience, which represents the resistance to heat flow through the
material. The thermal dynamic properties of the whole building
can be investigated in order to optimize the choice of the envelope
materials for maximizing the thermal comfort and energy perfor-
mance leading to energy consumption [1,3]. The U-value of the
building envelope is the major factor in the determination of the
steady-state heat losses and gains [3–7].
In this study, effect of water-cement ratio reduction on thermal
dynamic properties (U- and R-values) of 28 different sustainable
concrete mixes has been investigated experimentally. The mixes
were not ready (already fabricated, standard) ones but were

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.133
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
346 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353

prepared in the laboratory for numerous proportions of different (in Group C) are values which force the acceptable or typical limits
cement materials (PFA, GGBS, SF) and recycled coarse aggregate (For instance, British Standard allows maximum 20% RCA in aggre-
(RCA). The study is in harmony with the initiative of the research, gate of concrete). These values were selected, to show the potential
namely environmental performance improvement in building con- of increased recycled material exploitation and reduced water
struction. With energy-efficiency, recycled material exploitation usage on the thermal performance, and on environmental perfor-
and minimization of water usage being considered, the work obvi- mance of future’s sustainable buildings. It’s worth mentioning that,
ously aims to expose the environmental potential of future’s sus- while using increased proportion of RCA, the mixes were formed
tainable buildings [8–10]. by following BS882 standards [12].
The mix proportions of mixes for all groups are given in Tables 1
2. Relevant equations for thermal transmittance calculation and 2. The cements were formed by mixing different cement types
in proportions following the corresponding British Standards [13].
Thermal transmittance (also known as thermal conductance) or For instance, PFA is up to 30%, GGBS is up to 65% and SF is up to 20%
U-value can be calculated by using the thickness (L) and thermal replaced in the concrete mixes. However, British Standard gives
conductivity ( k ) of the material [3,4]. permission to use up to 15% added silica fume in the concrete.
The main reason of using 20% silica fume content is to understand
U ¼ k=L ð1Þ its effect on U-value more clearly [14–16].
The reciprocal of thermal conductivity, namely thermal resistiv-
ity (r), is also convenient, which is a measure of how much a mate- 3.2. Concrete sample testing method
rial opposes to conduct heat:
The thermal conductivity, which is one of the essential param-
r ¼ 1=k ð2Þ
eters related with thermal properties of a concrete mix, is the basis
Thus, U-value can be expressed in terms of resistivity as well: of this research. The tests for obtaining thermal conductivities
were based on a test method called ‘‘hot-box”, developed by Dun-
U ¼ 1=ðrLÞ ð3Þ
dee University, applied on slabs (75 mm  300 mm  300 mm)
The reciprocal of U-value (R-value) or thermal resistance can be from the concrete mixes. The samples were tested at the end of a
convenient too, which can be expressed as follows: 28-day period [17,18].
R ¼ rL ð4Þ
3.3. Method of evaluating R & U values
The units of the relevant parameters are usually used as
follows:
The thermal dynamic properties of concrete mixes were calcu-
lated by using the thermal property data of the concrete mixes
L: thickness (m) with the formulation explained in the example in Appendix D1
k: thermal conductivity (W/m °C) of BS EN ISO 13786-2007. Microsoft Excel was used to conduct
r: thermal resistivity (m °C/W) the calculations. As is also mentioned in BS EN ISO 13786-2007,
U: thermal transmittance (W/m2 °C) thermal performance of a component is defined dependent on
R: thermal resistance (m2 °C/W) the changing boundary conditions, such as variable heat flow rate
or temperature change on either or both of the boundaries.
Obviously, as the layer of the material gets thicker, the R-value
of the material gets higher and U-value gets lower.
Table 1
Description of the concrete mixes.
3. Experimental details
Mix Description Mix Description
No. No.
3.1. Mix proportions
A1 100%OPC + 100%NCA B1 100%OPC + 70%NCA + 30%RCA
A2 55%OPC + 45%GGBS B2 55%OPC + 45%GGBS + 70%NCA
Throughout the research experiments, the CEM I concrete mixes
+ 100%NCA + 30%RCA
were designed following the steps described in BRE mix design A3 45%OPC + 55%GGBS B3 45%OPC + 55%GGBS + 70%NCA
procedure [6]. Concrete mixes were proportioned using different + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
ratios of PFA, GGBS, SF (as replacement of OPC) and RCA (as A4 35%OPC + 65%GGBS B4 35%OPC + 65%GGBS + 70%NCA
replacement of coarse aggregate). In total, 28 concrete mixes were + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
A5 90%OPC + 10%PFA B5 90%OPC + 10%PFA + 70%NCA
cast in three different groups, namely, Group A, B, C (Group A is the + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
control group). The 28-day characteristic strength concrete mixes A6 80%OPC + 20%PFA B6 80%OPC + 20%PFA + 70%NCA
in Group A and B were designed as class C40, and design character- + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
istic strength of Group C was class C50. These concrete strengths A7 70%OPC + 30%PFA B7 70%OPC + 30%PFA + 70%NCA
+ 100% NCA + 30%RCA
were selected as they are commonly adopted for constructing
A8 90%OPC + 10%SF + 100% B8 90%OPC + 10%SF + 70%NCA
concrete structures (floors, walls and columns) of commercial, NCA + 30%RCA
residential and multi-story buildings [11]. A9 85%OPC + 15%SF + 100% B9 85%OPC + 15%SF + 70%NCA
All of the concrete mixes in Group A were designed using only NCA + 30%RCA
‘‘natural” coarse aggregate (NCA) content with different types of A10 80%OPC + 20%SF + 100% B10 80%OPC + 20%SF + 70%NCA
NCA + 30%RCA
cement materials. All Group B concrete mixes were prepared using
70% NCA + 30% RCA as coarse aggregate, along with different types C1 100%OPC + 100% NCA C5 100%OPC + 70%NCA + 30%RCA
C2 45%GGBS + 55%OPC C6 55%OPC + 45%GGBS + 70%NCA
of cements. Finally, Group C concrete mixes were designed with + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
reduced water-cement ratio (as low as 0.30–0.35) for some C3 20%PFA + 80% OPC C7 80%OPC + 20%PFA + 70%NCA
selected cement types used in Groups A and B. + 100% NCA + 30%RCA
Obviously, the RCA proportion of 30% in coarse aggregate C4 20%SF + 80% OPC + 100% C8 80%OPC + 20%SF + 70%NCA
NCA + 30%RCA
(in Groups B and C) and the water-cement ratios of 0.30–0.35
 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353 347

Table 2
Details of Mix Proportion.

Constituent Materials kg/m3

Mix No. Coarse Aggregate Types of Cements Water (kg) FA/CA W/C
FA NCA RCA SF PFA GGBS OPC
A1 586 1240 – – – – 345 195 0.57 0.57
A2 586 1240 – – – 155 190 195 0.57 0.57
A3 586 1240 – – – 190 155 195 0.57 0.57
A4 586 1240 – – – 225 120 195 0.57 0.57
A5 586 1235 – – 32 – 315 185 0.53 0.53
A6 580 1222 – – 60 – 295 185 0.49 0.49
A7 575 1190 – – 82 – 272 185 0.45 0.45
A8 586 1240 – 35 – – 310 195 0.57 0.57
A9 586 1240 – 52 – – 293 195 0.57 0.57
A10 586 1240 – 70 – – 275 195 0.57 0.57
B1 597 850 365 – – – 345 204 0.59 0.59
B2 597 850 365 – – 155 190 204 0.59 0.59
B3 597 850 365 – – 190 155 204 0.59 0.59
B4 597 850 365 – – 225 120 204 0.59 0.59
B5 597 850 365 – 32 – 315 194 0.55 0.55
B6 593 845 360 – 60 – 295 189 0.51 0.51
B7 587 835 358 – 82 – 272 184 0.47 0.47
B8 597 850 365 35 – – 310 204 0.59 0.59
B9 597 850 365 52 – – 293 204 0.59 0.59
B10 597 850 365 70 – – 275 204 0.59 0.59
C1 460 1150 – – – – 557 195 0.35 0.35
C2 460 1150 – – – 306 251 195 0.35 0.35
C3 451 1132 – – 120 – 478 180 0.30 0.30
C4 460 1150 – – – – 501 195 0.35 0.35
C5 448 786 337 – – – 583 204 0.35 0.35
C6 448 786 337 35 – 262 321 204 0.35 0.35
C7 440 772 331 52 126 – 502 190 0.30 0.30
C8 448 786 337 70 – – 466 204 0.35 0.35

OPC = Ordinary Portland Cement, GGBS = Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag, PFA = Pulverised Fly Ash, SF = Silica Fume, NCA = Natural Coarse Aggregate, RCA = Recycled
Coarse Aggregate.

Variation of boundaries taken into account in this standard is only
sinusoidal boundary condition variation, for which the changes in
temperature or heat flow on these boundaries are considered.
The calculations were repeated later with the software of Concrete
Centre, and when two sets of results were compared, the differ-
ences were insignificant [5,19,20].
3.4. Materials
3.4.1. Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) used in this research is
selected based on CEM-I. The quantity of the cement is bought in
the amount that is required for the tests, so that long term storage
is prevented. In this way, the possible contact of cement with
humidity is minimized. Beside of this, bought cement is stored in
a laboratory environment for the same reason [13].
3.4.2. Pulverised fly ash (PFA)
PFA is used according to Ref. [14]. PFA is used as the second
component in the concrete production in addition to cement. PFA
used in this research is the most common type of PFA used in
the UK and is classified as CEM IV [13].
3.4.3. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)
GGBS used in the research was based on Ref. [15]. GGBS can be
easily found in the UK and classified as CEM III according to Ref.
[13]. Hanson is the supplier of GGBS material.
ting containers, so that the contamination among slurry and air is
prevented. In this way, deterionation of silica fume over time is
minimized [16]. The supplier of the silica fume is Elkem Materials
Process Service B.V. from Netherlands.
3.4.5. Types of aggregates
Generally, the type of aggregate as defined by BS EN
12620:2002+A1:2009 comes in the form of natural, manufactured
or recycled [21].
3.4.5.1. Fine aggregates (FA). In this research, fine aggregate used in
the concrete mixes consist of graded natural sand with maximum
particle sizes of 5 mm according to BS 882:1992 [12].
3.4.5.2. Natural coarse aggregate (NCA).. Throughout the research
experiments, Thames valley natural aggregate was used in con-
crete mixes with the maximum size of 20 mm according to BS
882:1992 [12].
3.4.5.3. Recycled coarse aggregate (RCA). RCA is obtained from
managing the remained, unwanted concretes and from the con-
cretes that will be destroyed. The proportional size of RCA was
used in 5–20 mm. The Day Company is the producer. RCA included
crushed concrete, hydrated cement paste which is dirtied with
minor quantities of masonry, lightweight materials, gypsum, met-
als, plastics, glasses and other substances obtained from various
sites within Greater London, according to BS 8500-Part 2 [22].

3.4.4. Silica fume (SF) 4. Results & discussion

In this research, silica fume is used based on EN 13263-1 in a
slurry format. Slurry form of silica fume is liquid containing 50% Since thermal transmittance (U-value) is mainly a measure rep-
water and 50% silica fume powder. This slurry is stored in closefit- resenting the heat loss through a structural element, the effects of
348 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353

various types of cements, recycled coarse aggregate and water-
cement ratio on U-value are examined in this research. It is also
important to state that the thickness of the sample is also a signif-
icant concept in U-value of the concrete. However, all of the con-
crete samples have the same thicknesses in this research, which
is 0.075 m. Thus, by considering the obtained thermal conductivity
of each concrete mix, one can examine the effects on thermal
transmittance value. Thermal performance results of concrete
mixes are shown in Table 3.
4.1. Effects of different types of cements on R- and U-values of concrete
mixes
As is obvious from Table 3, in all groups, using some types/
ratios of the cement materials in the concrete mix can help to
decrease the thermal conductivity, hence the U-value.
Fig. 1 shows R-value along with thermal conductivity for each
concrete mix of Group A. Concrete mix A1 is the control mix of this
group (solid bar in the figure), with thermal conductivity value of
0.921 W/mK and R-value 0.08143 mW/K. For all other concrete
mixes of Group A, thermal conductivities are lower than that of
the control mix A1, which indicates an increase in R-value for each.
For cement mixes A2, A3, A4 (diagonal striped bars), GGBS was
used to replace some OPC of proportions 45%, 55%, 65%, respec-
tively. For cement mixes A5, A6, A7 (horizontal striped bars), PFA
was used to replace some OPC of proportions 10%, 20%, 30%.
Finally, for cement mixes A8, A9, and A10 (vertical striped bars),
SF was used to replace some OPC of proportions 10%, 15%, 20%,
respectively.
It is clear that, replacing some of OPC with GGBS (A2, A3, and
A4) or PFA (A5, A6 and A7) or SF (A8, A9, and A10) all help increas-
ing R-value which are proportioning to replacement increase. The
largest R-values are for the concrete mixes using PFA, while the
peak value is obtained for A7 (an R-value 13.3% larger than that
of A1), for which PFA replacement proportion is maximum (A7:
30% of OPC was replaced with PFA). This is because, PFA concrete
mixes have the lowest thermal conductivity compared to other
mixes.
It should be emphasized that, the effect of replacing OPC with
PFA is giving better results for improving R-value than replacing
OPC with GGBS. Even though the replacement proportions of
PFA (10% (A5), 20% (A6), 30% (A7)) are much smaller than those
of GGBS (45% (A2), 55% (A3), 65% (A4)), the improvements
achieved replacing OPC with PFA are significantly larger than those
of GGBS.
Fig. 2 shows U-value along with thermal conductivity for each
concrete mix of Group A. Obviously, all types of replacements
(PFA or GGBS or SF) for some proportion of OPC, helped U-values
of all concrete mixes be lower than that of control mix A1, which
becomes lower as the proportion of replacements increase. It’s
not a surprise to see the smallest U-value was achieved by concrete
mix A7 (which is 4.3% smaller than that of A1).
Ordinary Portland cement is replaced by PFA, GGBS or SF, a
direct relation with higher percentage of applying different types
of cement material, the lower the thermal conductivity was
observed. PFA, GGBS and SF have a lower density than PC content
concrete. It is related to the different types of cement materials
that have higher air-void content. This is the reason for an increase
different types of cement materials in the concrete, decrease the
thermal conductivity of concrete. This is because the density
decrease in increasing types of cement materials content. Hence
reduction of the density of the concrete causes a decline in thermal
conductivity. Such decrease is also reported by other researchers,
who have suggested that there is a relationship between density
and thermal conductivity where the thermal conductivity and U-
value increase as the density gets greater [23–25].
For instance, when OPC is replaced by Silica Fume, 10 (A8), 15
(A9) and 20% (A10), this replacement of OPC decrease the U-
value by 0.8, 2.3 and 3% respectively. On the other hand, when
45 (A2), 55 (A3) and 65% (A4) of OPC is replaced by GGBS, this
interchange decreases the U-value by 1.5, 2.3, and 2.8% corre-
spondingly. When the PFA is added in the concrete mix by 10
(A5), 20 (A6), and 30% (A7), this replacement of PC results in the

Table 3
Thermal performance results of concrete mixes.

Mix No. Thickness [mm] Compressive Strength – 28 Day [N/mm2] Density [kg/m3] Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] R-Value [m2K/W] U-Value [W/m2K]
A1 75 45 2270 0.921 0.081 3.98
A2 75 42 2255 0.88 0.085 3.92
A3 75 42 2245 0.862 0.087 3.89
A4 75 41 2235 0.851 0.088 3.87
A5 75 41 2230 0.831 0.090 3.84
A6 75 41 2220 0.82 0.091 3.82
A7 75 40 2190 0.813 0.092 3.81
A8 75 44 2265 0.902 0.083 3.95
A9 75 44 2255 0.86 0.087 3.89
A10 75 43 2250 0.84 0.089 3.86
B1 75 39 2150 0.72 0.104 3.65
B2 75 42 2135 0.67 0.112 3.55
B3 75 37 2115 0.661 0.113 3.53
B4 75 40 2110 0.642 0.117 3.49
B5 75 42 2125 0.631 0.119 3.46
B6 75 41 2120 0.61 0.123 3.41
B7 75 39 2100 0.6 0.125 3.39
B8 75 42 2140 0.69 0.109 3.59
B9 75 41 2150 0.68 0.110 3.57
B10 75 38 2135 0.65 0.115 3.50
C1 75 55 2345 0.99 0.076 4.07
C2 75 51 2330 0.931 0.081 3.99
C3 75 53 2335 0.892 0.084 3.94
C4 75 54 2345 0.901 0.083 3.95
C5 75 54 2200 0.77 0.097 3.74
C6 75 49 2180 0.73 0.103 3.67
C7 75 48 2190 0.701 0.107 3.61
C8 75 52 2185 0.75 0.100 3.70
 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353 349

0.094
0.092
0.09
0.088

R-Value (mW/K)
0.086
0.084
0.082
0.08
0.078
0.076
0.074
0.921 0.88 0.862 0.851 0.831 0.82 0.813 0.902 0.86 0.84
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

Fig. 1. Thermal conductivity varying R-value of Group A mixes.

4.00

3.95
U-Value (W/m2 K)

3.90

3.85

3.80

3.75

3.70
0.921 0.88 0.862 0.851 0.831 0.82 0.813 0.902 0.86 0.84
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)
Fig. 2. U-values varying thermal conductivity of Group A mixes.

reduction of the U-value by 3.5, 4, and 4.3% respectively. As a result
of this, it can be concluded that the higher percentage of reductions
are in PFA content concrete mixes. The primary cause of this is hav-
ing lower thermal conductivity values of PFA content concrete
mixes. Hence thermal conductivity is directly proportional thermal
transmittance (U-value) of the concrete and therefore, PFA has
lower U-value. Even the GGBS content in concrete mixes that are
more than the percentage of PFA content, GGBS affects the U-
value of concrete mix is less than PFA content concrete mixes.
That’s why GGBS content concrete mixes have greater thermal
conductivity and U-value than PFA content mixes.
As a result, it can be concluded that the higher percentage of
cement replaced, the lower thermal conductivity and U-value are
achieved. However, it is also vital to take into account the chemical
and physical properties of cement replacement. For instance, the
percentage of GGBS content in the concrete mix is higher than SF
concrete mix but the effect of SF is higher than the GGBS. As well
as this, replacing cement by silica fume reduce the thermal con-
ductivity of the concrete. The main reason is silica fume and PFA
are more reactive materials than GGBS. Silica fume is mainly based
on amorphous (non-crystalline) silicon dioxide (SiO2). The individ-
ual particles in silica fume are very small in size such as 1/100th
amount of a mean cement size. This property of silica fume and
having fine particles with the large surface area and high SiO2 con-
tent, enables silica fume to act as an extremely reactive pozolan
when this material is used in the production of concrete.
On the other hand, thermal conductivity decreased the R-value
of the concrete mixes. In other words, thermal conductivity
increased with decreasing the R-value. The main reason of the
thermal conductivity is indirect proportional with R-value theoret-
ically. At the same time, the thickness has been constant in the
entire sample. That‘s why thermal conductivity is directly affected
the R-value of the concrete. The Fig. 3 shows that cement replace-
ment materials (PFA, Silica Fume and GGBS) improved the R-value
more than OPC content mix. R-value is provided the concrete types
such as light weight or normal weight. Essentially R-value is
important for the insulating materials. The PFA content concretes
are the highest R-value more than other concrete mixes. Compar-
ing the silica fume and GGBS content concretes, the silica fume
content concretes increased the R-value more than GGBS content
concretes. Specifically, 20% Silica Fume content concrete results
in higher R-value than 65% GGBS content concrete mix.
4.2. Effects of recycled coarse aggregate on U-value of concrete mixes
The laboratory test results obtained from Group B concrete
mixes concluded that when 30% of Natural aggregate is replaced
by Recycled Coarse Aggregate, decrease in the U-value in RCA con-
tent concrete mixes are greater than the Binary cements content
concrete mixes. Beside of this, when both RCA and Cement replace-
ment materials are used together in the concrete mixes, it is shown
that the U-value of concrete mixes are affected more than used
together instead of using both separately. The main reason for a
decrease in the U-value is decreasing the density and thermal con-
ductivity of the concrete mix. This decrease is because of RCA,
greater air voids content than NCA material. On the other hand,
350 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353

4.00

3.95

U-Value [W/m2.K]
3.90

3.85

3.80

3.75

3.70
0.081 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.090 0.091 0.092 0.083 0.087 0.089
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

R-Value [m2.K/W]

Fig. 3. U-value varying R-value of Group A concrete mixes.

RCA has different types of material such as plastic, wood and etc.
This also affects thermal properties (such as density and thermal
conductivity) of concrete compared against the natural coarse
aggregate.
Fig. 4 shows the change in thermal conductivity of the R-value
of Group B concrete mixes. Recycled coarse aggregate concrete
mixes have the lowest thermal conductivity value than natural
aggregate concrete mixes. In other words, RCA content concrete
mixes have lower density than concretes comparing against the
group A. This is the main reason why R-value of Group B concrete
mixes has greater than group A concrete mixes. However, RCA con-
tent increased the R-value more than different types of cement
materials.
When the Group B concrete mixes are investigated, the concrete
mix B1 is a control mix with the thermal conductivity value of
0.72 W/mK with R-value 0.104 mW/K. As thermal conductivity
decreases, the R-value of concrete mixes increase. The highest pro-
portion of this increase in R-value is observed when 30% of OPC is
replaced by PFA and 30% RCA is used in the concrete mix whereas
the lowest increase in R-value is seen when 10% of OPC is replaced
by SF with the addition of 30% RCA in concrete mix (B8).
Fig. 5 shows U-value along with thermal conductivity for each
concrete mix of Group B. When concretes containing 100% NCA
with 100% PC (A1) is compared with 30% RCA with 100% PC con-
crete mix (B1), it is found that in B1 the U-value is 8.3% less than
A1 concrete mix. On the other hand, the greatest decrease in
U-value which is 11% of U-value in B7 concrete mix by comparing
with A7 concrete mix. This is because PFA and RCA have lower
thermal conductivity. Hence when RCA and PFA used in the con-
crete together, the reduction is higher than applying PFA and
RCA separately.
When 30% RCA content with the cement is replaced by PFA, 10
(B5), and 20% (B6) replacement of OPC resulted a reduction of the
U-value 9.9, and 10.7% by making an observation with 100% NCA
with PFA content, A5 and A6 concrete mixes respectively. When
GGBS with 30% RCA is applied in concrete mix, a decrease in the
U-value of the concrete mix is also observed. The main reason for
this is GGBS has lower thermal conductivity. For example, in the
concrete mix containing 30% RCA with the cement is replaced by
GGBS, 45 (B2), 55 (B3), and 65 (B4) % of replacement of OPC
decreased the U-value 9.4, 9.3 and 9.8% by observing from 45
(A2), 55 (A3) and 65% (A4) with 100% natural aggregate concrete
mixes. The results showed that 55% GGBS with 30% RCA concrete
mix is decreasing the U-value less than B2 and B4 concrete mixes
respectively. It means that 55% GGBS with 30% RCA has greater
thermal conductivity than 45% and 65% GGBS with 30% RCA con-
tent concrete mixes.
As well as this, when Silica Fume and Recycled coarse aggregate
are used in concrete mix, it is concluded that both materials
decrease the U-value of the concrete. For instance, 30% RCA content
with the cement is replaced by Silica Fume, 10 (B8), 15 (B9) and
20% (B10) of replacement of OPC decreased the U-value 9.1, 8.2

0.13
0.125
0.12
R-Value (mW/K)

0.115
0.11
0.105
0.1
0.095
0.09
0.72 0.67 0.661 0.642 0.631 0.61 0.6 0.69 0.68 0.65
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10

Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

Fig. 4. Thermal conductivity varying R-value of Group B concrete mixes.
 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353 351

3.70
3.65
3.60

U-Value [W/m2.K]
3.55
3.50
3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30
3.25
0.72 0.67 0.661 0.642 0.631 0.61 0.6 0.69 0.68 0.65
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
Thermal [W/m.K]

Fig. 5. U-value varying Thermal Conductivity of Group B concrete mixes.

and 9.3% respectively. The results are provided that B9 concrete
mix is decreasing at a lower rate than B8 and B10 concrete mixes.
The laboratory results show that when the recycled coarse aggre-
gate is used in the concrete mixes, it makes concrete more light
than normal concrete. This is the main reason that Group B con-
crete mixes have less thermal conductivity and U-value than other
concrete mixes in different groups. The light concretes can be used
as the best insulation properties in the buildings. Thermal insula-
tion varies with density in indirect proportional manner, meaning
that the lightweight concrete has better thermal insulation proper-
ties than normal-weight concrete.
Recycled coarse aggregate concrete mixes have the lowest ther-
mal conductivity value than natural aggregate concrete mixes. In
other words, RCA content concrete mixes have lower density con-
cretes comparing against the group A. Fig. 6 shows U-value along
with R-Value for each concrete mix of Group B. This is the main
reason why R-value of Group B concrete mixes have greater values
than group A concrete mixes. However, RCA content increased the
R-value more for different types of cement materials. Because Type
of aggregate affected thermal properties more than types of
cement materials. The highest proportion of increase in R-value
is observed when 30% of PC is replaced by PFA and in addition to
this, 30% RCA is used in the concrete mix whereas the lowest
increase in R-value is seen when 10% of PC is replaced by SF with
the addition of 30% RCA in concrete mix. The main reason for this
is the thermal conductivity of the concrete mix.
4.3. Effects of water-cement ratio on U-value of the concrete mixes
The results can be interpreted as W/C ratio is reduced with
increasing the U-value in all types of concrete mixes at Group C.
The main reason is water-cement ratio decreases with increasing
thermal conductivity. This helped to improve the U-value of con-
crete. The highest U-values are achieved in Group C when com-
pared to other groups. The reason for this is Group C has the W/
C ratio between 0.3 and 0.35. Furthermore, 100% OPC concrete
mix (C1) is the concrete mix where the highest thermal conductiv-
ity is present and hence the highest U-value is obtained.
The Fig. 7 shows the change of thermal conductivity as chang-
ing the R-value of Group C concrete mixes. The laboratory results
show that reducing the water-cement ratio in the concrete mix
increases the thermal conductivity of concrete mix. This is the
main reason why Group C concrete mixes have the lowest R-
value over all concrete mixes. In other words, Group C concrete
mixes are denser than Group A and B concrete mixes. Therefore,
Group C concrete mixes have greatest thermal conductivity value
which results in decreasing the R-value of concrete mixes at Group
C.
If reducing water-cement ratio is investigated with different
types of cement materials and recycled coarse aggregate content
concrete mixes, reducing water-cement ratio shows an increase
in thermal conductivity with decreasing R-value of concrete mix
by using different types of cements materials and RCA content of

3.70
3.65
3.60
U-Value [W/m2.K]

3.55
3.50
3.45
3.40
3.35
3.30
3.25
0.104 0.112 0.113 0.117 0.119 0.123 0.125 0.109 0.110 0.115
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10
R-Value [m2.K/W]

Fig. 6. U-value varying R-value of Group B concrete mixes.

352 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353

0.12
0.1

R- Value (mW/K)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.99 0.931 0.892 0.901 0.77 0.73 0.701 0.75
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)
Fig. 7. Thermal Conductivity varying R-value of Group C Concrete mixes.

concrete mixes. For instance, when A1, B1 and C1 concrete mixes
were compared, C1 has the higher thermal conductivity with lower
R-value than A1 and B1 concrete mixes. On the other hand, types of
aggregates are shown to affect thermal properties greater than dif-
ferent types of cement materials and reducing the water-cement
ratio of the concrete mixes. Reducing the water-cement ratio only
improves the thermal conductivity of concrete mixes. However,
the reduction in density and thermal conductivity depends on
types of aggregate used. The reason for this is due to aggregates
having greater thermal conductivity value than different types of
cement materials.
For instance, when the water cement ratio range from 0.5 to 0.6,
the density of RCA concrete is found to range between 2100 to
2150 kg/m3. When the range of the water cement ratio is between
0.3 and 0.35, the density of RCA concrete is observed as between
2150 and 2200 kg/m3. Similarly, when the water-cement ratio is
between 0.5 and 0.6, the density of Natural Aggregate concrete is
found to range between 2200 and 2270 kg/m3. At the same time,
when the water cement ratio is between 0.3 and 0.35, the density
of the natural aggregate concrete is found to be between 2335 and
2345 kg/m3.
Fig. 8 shows U-value along with Thermal Conductivity for each
concrete mix of Group C. Clearly, if the cement content increases
with increasing thermal conductivity and density of the concrete
mixes, this results in a better dry density of concrete. Excessive
water added to the paste causes problems reducing the density
of concrete. This is due to the reduction of density and increase
in porosity. The reasons for this, firstly because minimal water-
cement ratio improves the density of RCA content concrete and
secondly, this directly affects by the thermal conductivity and U-
value of the concrete. In other words, reducing water-cement ratio
is made the RCA content concrete mixes denser than the normal
range of water-cement ratio content at Group B.
Kook-Hand Kim et al. (2003) stated that the W/C ratio is a sig-
nificant factor that affects the thermal conductivity. Because the
water cement ratio is vital to produce denser concrete. The thermal
conductivity of concrete increases with a unit weight of concrete.
Since, the amount of aggregate used in cement is affected by W/
C ratio, it is vital to determine this ratio. When the cement that
has low W/C ratio is added to the paste, thermal conductivity rises
due to the cement having greater thermal conductivity compared
to water. The results showed that when RCA is used with reducing
the water-cement ratio; it improves the density and thermal con-
ductivity hence U-value of concrete [26].
For instance, Group C when 100% OPC with RCA concrete mix
(C5) is used, the thermal conductivity increased 6.94% more than
Group B, containing 100% OPC with RCA concrete mix (B1). The
highest increase in thermal conductivity obtained as increase in
15.38% by using silica fume and RCA content in concrete when
compared against B10 and C8. On the other hand, W/C ratio is min-
imized in different type of cements concrete mixes to improve the
thermal conductivity of concrete mixes. It is significant to mention
that RCA material has less thermal conductivity than natural
aggregate. However, water cement ratio is reduced to improve
the thermal conductivity of RCA content concrete. In other words,
cement content increases and makes denser RCA content concrete.
It helps to develop greater thermal conductivity and U-value of
RCA content concrete.
On the other hand, Fig. 9 shows U-value along with R-value for
each concrete mix of Group C. R-value is observed to be the lowest
in Group C where the water/cement ratio is kept at minimal com-
pared with most of the concrete mixes obtained from other groups.

4.20
4.10
U-Value [W/m2.K]

4.00
3.90
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
0.99 0.931 0.892 0.901 0.77 0.73 0.701 0.75
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Thermal y [W/m.K]

Fig. 8. U-value varying Thermal Conductivity of Group C concrete mixes.

 O. Damdelen / Construction and Building Materials 196 (2019) 345–353
4.20
4.10
4.00
3.90
U-Value [W/m2.K]
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
0.076 0.081 0.084
C1 C2 C3
R-Value [m2.K/W]
Fig. 9. U-value varying R-value of Group C concrete mixes.
The concretes in group C have the highest density than other
groups. This is due to concretes in group C having the lowest
water/cement ratio compared to other concrete mixes in other
groups. In other words, group C concrete mixes are heavier than
especially group B concrete mixes. At the same time, thermal con-
ductivity of cement is higher than the water and hence this is the
reason for U-value’s increase. When cement replacement materials
or RCA content is used with minimal water/cement ratio in con-
crete mixes, this will still improve thermal conductivity and hence
the U-value of the concrete. The laboratory results provided that
when water-cement ratio, RCA content and cement replacement
materials are considered, water/cement ratio acts as a main actor
of affecting the thermal properties of the concrete.
5. Conclusion
Since U-value of the concrete mix is related with R-value of the
concrete, R-value of the different types of cement materials con-
crete mixes are greater than other mixes. It means that the differ-
ent types of cement materials concrete mixes have lowest thermal
conductivity value. This is the main reason that the different types
of cement materials has the highest U-value in Silica Fume con-
crete mixes when compared against other the different types of
cement materials concrete mixes [GGBS, PFA]. On the other hand,
RCA decreased the U-value of the concrete mixes more than the
different types of cement materials concrete mixes. The reason is
RCA content in concrete mixes have lowest thermal conductivity
of concrete more than all groups of the concrete mixes. The other
factor is water-cement ratio of the concrete mix. When water-
cement ratio is minimized, thermal conductivity of the concrete
mix is increased with increasing U-value of the concrete mixes.
Water-cement ratio is vital for improving thermal conductivity
and U-value of the RCA and the different types of cement materials
concrete mixes.
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict interest.
References
[1] BSI, BS EN ISO 7730: 2005, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment. Analytical
Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the
PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria.
[2] A. Auliciems, S.V. Szokolay, Thermal Comfort, second ed., University of
Queensland, 2007.
[3] CIBSE Guide, Thermal Properties of Building Structures (A3), The Chartered
Institution of Buildings Services, London, 1980.
353
0.083 0.097 0.103 0.107 0.100
C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
[4] J.A. Clarke, Energy Simulation in Building Design, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, 2001.
[5] BSi, Building Components and Building Elements – Thermal Resistance and
Thermal Transmittance – Calculation Method. S.B.f.M.a. Chemicals, British
Standards, 2003, p. 11. BS EN ISO 6946:1997.
[6] Building Research Establishment, Standard U-Values, Digest 108 (Revised
1991), CI/SfB (M3), BRE Press, ISBN 0 85125 285 0, 1991, 5pp.
[7] CIBSE, Guide A: Environmental Design, Chartered Institution of Building
Services Engineers, London, 2006.
[8] British Standards Institution, BS EN 1934:1996, Thermal Performance of
Buildings – Determination of Thermal Resistance by Hot Box Method Using
Heat Flow Meter – Masonry, BSI, 1998, p. 18. ISBN 0 580 29671 7.
[9] Clay Brick, Paver Institute, The Role of Thermal Mass in Energy-Efficient House
Design, Austral Bricks, Langford, Australia, 2006.
[10] R. McMullan, Environmental Science in Buildings, sixth ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[11] British standard institute, BS8500-1+A1:2012: Method of Specifying and
Guidance for the Specified, British Standard Institute, London, 2006.
[12] BSI, BS 882, Specification for Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete,
BSI, 1992.
[13] British Standard Institute, BS EN 197–1:2011: Composition, Specifications and
Conformity Criteria for Common Cements, British Standard Institute, London,
2011.
[14] British Standard Institute, BS EN 450–1:2012: Fly ash for Concrete, Definition,
Specification and Conformity Criteria, British Standard Institute, London, 2012.
[15] British Standard Institute, BS EN 15167–1:2006: Ground Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete, Mortar and Grout, British Standard Institute,
London, 2006.
[16] British Standard Institute, BS EN 13263–1:2005+A1:2009: Silica Fume for
Concrete. Definitions, Requirements and Conformity Criteria, British Standard
Institute, London, 2005.
[17] British Standards Institution, BS EN ISO 8990:1996, Thermal insulation –
Determination of Steady-state Thermal Transmission Properties – Calibrated
and Guarded Hot Box, BSI, 1996, p. 28. ISBN 0 580 26826 8.
[18] British Standards Institution, BS EN 1934:1996, Thermal performance of
buildings –Determination of thermal resistance by hot box method using heat
flow meter – Masonry, BSI, 1998, p. 18. ISBN 0 580 29671 7.
[19] BSi, Energy Performance of Buildings – Calculation of Energy Needs for Space
Heating and Cooling Using Dynamic Methods – General Criteria and Validation
Procedures, S.P.a.S. Committee, British Standards, 2007, p. 21. BS EN
15265:2007.
[20] British Standards Institution, BS EN ISO 10456:2007, Building Materials and
Products – Hygrothermal Properties – Tabulated Design Values and
Procedures for Determining Declared and Design Thermal Values (ISO
10456:2007), BSI, 2008, p. 25. ISBN 978 0 580 55440 7.
[21] British Standard Institute, BS EN 12620–1:2009: Aggregates for Concrete,
British Standard Institute, London, 2009.
[22] BS 8500 Concrete Complementary British Standard to BS EN 206 Part 2:
Specification for Constituent Materials and Concrete, 2002.
[23] R. Demirboga, Influence of mineral admixtures on thermal conductivity and
compressive strength of mortar, Energy Build. 35 (2003) (2003) 189–192.
[24] Ramazan Demirboga, Thermo-mechanical properties of sand and high volume
mineral admixtures, Energy Build. 35 (2003) (2003) 435–439.
[25] Ramazan Demirboga, Rustem Gul, The effects of expanded perlite aggregate,
silica fume and fly ash on the thermal conductivity of light weight concrete,
Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) (2003) 723–727.
[26] Kook-Han Kim, Sang-Eun Jeon, Jin-Keun Kim, Sungchul Yang, An experimental
study on thermal conductivity of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 363–
371.