Papers on the manufacture of AAC blocks from construction

and demolition (C&D) waste.

I. Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) rubble for new recycling

building products: In dry premixed mortars for masonry, in
masonry blocks, and in lightweight blocks. (Year - 2019)

The basic concept here is to use AAC rubbles to create new AAC
blocks so that the hazardous effects of AAC block elements such
as alumina and sulphates do not affect the environment when
leaching when disposed of in landfills. The 0–8 mm fine to midsize
grain range is suitable for the construction of lightweight to
medium density masonry blocks. The coarse fractions with grain
sizes more than 8 mm include intact AAC structures and are thus
acceptable for a comparable application to the core AAC product.
To produce the AAC blocks, three different mix proportions were
employed by changing the fly ash percentage, binder content, and
foaming agent.

II. Characterization and Use of Construction and Demolition

Waste from South of Brazil in the Production of Foamed
Concrete Blocks. (Year 2017)

In this article, AAC-Foam blocks were made utilising C&D wastes

with a 100 percent substitution of fine sands with C&D wastes
while keeping the cement content, C&D wastes content and w/c
ratio constant and only changing the size of the C&D wastes and
the foam percentage in the mix. Three granulometry fractions were
used: coarse (4.75–1.18 mm), medium (1.18–0.6 mm), and fine
(0.6 mm), with a foam percentage ranging from 3.8 percent to 6.7
percent by total mass.
When coarse particles were employed with a foaming agent of 3.8
percent by total mass, AAC blocks with a strength of 4MPa could
be formed.
III. Pressed lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer concrete
containing recycled lightweight concrete aggregate. (Year 2016
– Elsevier)
In this work, AAC blocks were produced utilising geopolymer
concrete with recycled concrete aggregates at various temperatures
and NaOH solutions, and it was discovered that a good AAC block
with 4.5 MPa strength and density of 1400kg/m3 can be obtained.
As a result, a possible aid in the manufacturing of AAC blocks.
The density and strength of lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer
concrete using recycled lightweight concrete aggregate (RLCA)
were investigated in this research. Crushed waste lightweight
concrete was utilised as lightweight aggregate. Geopolymer
cement was created by combining high calcium fly ash with
conventional Portland cement (OPC), as well as sodium hydroxide
and sodium silicate. The fly ash was substituted with OPC at
weight percentages of 0, 5, 10, and 15%. The results demonstrated
that lightweight geopolymer concretes with densities ranging from
1200 to 1500 kg/m3 and compressive strengths ranging from 4.5 to
17.5 MPa could be produced. The addition of RLCA to lightweight
concrete lowered both its density and strength. The inclusion of
OPC boosted the density of geopolymer concrete while increasing
its strength development.
The optimal OPC content for muscle growth was 10%. For the
lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer concrete, a NaOH
concentration of 10 M, a Sodium Silicate/NaOH ratio of 1.0, an
OPC content of 10% by weight of fly ash, a liquid/solid binder
ratio of 1.4, an RLCA/solid binder ratio of 1.8, and a curing
temperature of 60℃ were recommended which gave a
compressive strength of 17MPa.
IV. Preparation of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete from
Construction Waste (Year 2021)

This study focuses on the manufacturing of autoclaved aerated

concrete (AAC) using construction debris as the primary raw
source. The results showed that the optimum raw material mix
proportion was 55-65 percent construction waste, 15-21 percent
cement, and 18-22 percent quicklime, with 2 percent gypsum and
0.1 percent aluminium powder. The construction waste was
mechanically milled for 20 minutes and cured in an autoclave at
1.5 MPa for 6 hours. The AAC blocks obtained with compressive
strength higher than 5MPa and dry density ranging between 650 –
700 kg/m3.

Papers on the application of AAC Blocks as Shear Walls.

V. Structural Characterization of Hybrid Fiber Reinforced

Polymer (FRP)–Autoclave Aerated Concrete (AAC) Panels.

Aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight concrete with an unique

cellular structure. It weighs about one-fifth the weight of regular
concrete, has a dry bulk density of 0.4 to 0.8 g/cc, and a
compressive strength of 2 to 7 MPa. The major reason for its
improved physical characteristics is due to entrained air bubbles.
The basic concept is to utilise CFRP wrapping around AAC blocks
in both shear and tension sides to enhance strength, and it did meet
expectations. Additionally, three AAC blocks could be linked
together to form a panel, which could then be used for shear wall
construction.

The concept behind this sort of panel construction was to use

CFRP and resin to link separate blocks of AAC of size
200*200*75mm into a panel of size 600*175*75mm. The ductile
behaviour of the panels is evident in the majority of the load–
 deflection curves, indicating that the CFRP–AAC combination is
synergetic in nature.
As can be observed from the findings, the plain AAC panel had an
ultimate load of 0.9kN whereas the CFRP reinforced panel had an
ultimate load of 21kN, indicating that the reinforced AAC panel is
23 times stronger than the plain one.

VI. Using Reinforced AAC Panels to Against Earthquake Loads

(Year 2019)

AAC, which offers advantages like as heat and sound insulation,

low specific gravity, and excellent mechanical characteristics
despite its weight, has grown increasingly popular in the Turkish
building sector in recent years, and its manufacturing volume has
expanded. The August 17,1999 earthquake was one of the most
powerful in Turkey. The country experienced significant material
and spiritual devastation as a result of this earthquake; many
buildings were demolished, and many people were killed.
However, in this severe earthquake, Başiskele Anadolu retmenLi
sesi, built with reinforced AAC panels in the District of Yuvack,
Kocaeli province, survived the earthquake without major damage
in the 17 August 1999 earthquake of the two-story school
structure.

This school structure was made of reinforced AAC wall and floor
panels. The structure's panels have a compressive strength of 4
MPa. The panel connecting sections were reinforced with 12mm
diameter bars of ultimate strength 420MPa reinforcements, and the
cement mortar was applied before the panels were connected.

VII. In-plane seismic behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete block

masonry walls retrofitted with high ductile fiber-reinforced
concrete (HDC). (Year 2020 – Elsevier)
 The primary goal of this experimental investigation was to
evaluate the seismic behaviours of un-reinforced masonry URM
AAC walls before to and after retrofitting using various HDC
retrofitting setups. The experiment's goal was to compare the
efficacy of three retrofitting designs – (HDC Strips; HDC Strips
with built in Steel Bars and Single sided HDC Layer) for in-plane
seismic strengthening of unreinforced AAC block masonry walls.
The main constituents of the HDC material, were cement, fly ash,
water, fine silica sand, water-reducing admixture, and polyvinyl
alcohol (PVA) fibers.
An in-plane cyclic loading system was used to evaluate five one-
half-scale AAC block masonry walls. The primary goal of the test
was to evaluate the seismic performances of URM walls following
retrofitting with various HDC overlay arrangements.

The proposed retrofitting techniques significantly improved the

seismic behaviors of URM AAC walls. The lateral resistances
were
increased by 17% for the HDC strip-retrofitted wall.

VIII. Effects of Opening Shapes on Behaviour of Shear Walls Made

of AAC Masonry Units. (Year 2019)

In this article, AAC blocks (600*240*180 mm.) were used to build

a 4.5m*2.43m panel with a thickness of 180 mm. The panels had
three distinct openings, and a horizontal shear force of around
3000 kN (maximum) and a vertical compressive load of 1800 kN
(maximum) were applied, and cracking locations were observed
with a rate of rise of shear stress of 0.1 – 1 N/mm2 and crack
positions were noted.
The wall tests were performed on four different wall setups under
initial compressive stress values σc = 0 N/mm2, 0.75 N/mm2 and
1.0 N/mm2. In remaining three series, they used walls (external
dimensions l = 4.43 m, h = 2.43 m, t = 180 mm) with different
opening shapes denoted by convention as A, B and C. The models
were tested under different values of initial compressive stress σ c =
0.1 N/mm2, 0.5 N/mm2 or 1.0 N/mm2. The results were compared
with test results for unreinforced walls without openings, tested
under the same initial conditions.