Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of Foam Produced With Four Synthetic Surfactants

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/225338718
Relative assessment of density and stability of foam produced with four

synthetic surfactants
Article in Materials and Structures · December 2010

DOI: 10.1617/s11527-010-9582-z
CITATIONS READS
56 3,144
2 authors:
Indu Siva Ranjani Gandhi Ramamurthy K

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati Indian Institute of Technology Madras
21 PUBLICATIONS 1,043 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 5,946 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Building Materials View project
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ramamurthy K on 21 September 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Unedited final version of the paper titled
“Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of foam produced with Four Synthetic Surfactants”
authored by Indu Siva Ranjani, G., and Ramamurthy, K.,
published in "Materials and Structures, RILEM", 43 (10), 2010, 1317-1325
Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of foam produced with

Four Synthetic Surfactants
Ms.Indu Siva Ranjani, and Dr.K.Ramamurthy

Research Scholar Professor
Building Technology and Construction Management Division
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai 600036, India
Abstract
Selection of the surfactant has an impact on many of the foam properties as it affects the surface
tension and gas-liquid interfacial properties. The objective is to produce stable aqueous foam of
required density. These two characteristics are influenced by the type of surfactant, its
concentration and foam generation pressure. This study compares the density and stability of
foam produced using four synthetic surfactants namely Sodium lauryl sulfate, Sodium lauryl
ether sulfate, Sulfanol and Cocodiethanolamide through a systematic experiment design based on
Response surface methodology. The relative performance has also been assessed in terms of their
suitability for use in foamed concrete production based on ASTM test method The effect of
surfactant concentration has relatively lesser effect on foam density for Sodium lauryl sulfate and
Sulfanol irrespective of foam generation pressure adopted. The drainage is proportional to the
initial foam density for all the surfactant concentration for ionic surfactants at different foam
generation pressures. For all the four surfactants under the optimum foam generation pressure a
stable foam with drainage less than 12% in 300 seconds (by considering economy as a factor ) is
achieved. From the foam stability test based on ASTM C 796-97, it is observed that all the four
surfactants are suitable for use in foamed concrete production when optimized foam production
parameters are adopted.
Keywords: density, stability, foam, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauryl ether sulfate, sulfanol,
cocodiethanolamide.
1
1. Introduction
Foaming agents are surfactants which when present in small amounts in solution facilitate the
formation of foam and ensures stability by preventing collapse. These surfactants can be either
natural or synthetic based (origin), and ionic or non-ionic [1, 2]. Selection of surfactant has an
impact on the properties of foam as it affects the surface tension and gas-liquid interfacial
properties. The nature of the surfactant also modifies the properties of the thin liquid film which
separates the bubbles [3]. Stable aqueous foams are required in many of the industrial
applications. Several techniques have been used in earlier studies to evaluate the properties of
foam produced with surfactants. Foam density is an important property which determines its
volume to be added for achieving a desired density of foam concrete. For this purpose the initial
foam density is presently being used as the basis. But the stability of the foam may be affected
depending on the surfactant, its concentration and foam generation pressure. The fundamental
physical mechanisms causing foam instability reported are; i) coarsening caused by inter-bubble
gas transport, ii) gravitational drainage from the films, and iii) coalescence of adjacent bubbles
due to rupture of inter-bubble lamelle [4]. Drainage rate is often used to characterize the degree
of water retention ability of foam [5, 6].
Sodium lauryl sulfate is a commonly used surfactant in detergent industry. This has also been
used in the concentration range of 0.1 to 0.4% for the production of foamed gypsum of density
less than 1000 kg/m3 [7]. Studies were made on the effect of additives namely Sodium carboxyl
methyl cellulose and Galonol PBD, foam generation pressure and bubble size distribution and
temperature, on drainage of aqueous foam produced with surfactant Sodium lauryl sulfate [8-10].
Sarma and Khilar [10] observed that a more uniform bubble size distribution and high initial gas
fraction resulted in stable foam. When Sodium lauryl sulfate is ethoxylated it forms Sodium
lauryl ether sulfate with enhanced foaming properties [11]. Surfactant mixture of 2% Sulfanol as
2
foaming agent and 0.3% bone glue hydro-solution as stabilizer in the ratio 1:0.15 is reported to
produce a stable foam for which stability was assessed by the time taken for surfactant
breakdown [12].
In comparison to air aspiration method, compressed air mode of foam generation is reported to
result in foam having uniform bubble size distribution [13]. At low pressures (< 30 kPa), the
physical properties of solutions, density, viscosity and dynamic surface tension determine the size
of bubble being formed. However as the pressure and hence the flow rate of the air increases,
solution effects are negated and the bubble diameter is determined by the generation pressure
[14-17]. Aqueous foams used in fire fighting applications are mainly classified by their expansion
ratio. For foam concrete applications, the expansion ratio is defined in terms of foam density.
Foam which is over-expanded (say expansion ratio greater than 50:1) and thus of lower foam
density may collapse and increase the concrete density.
As a first step, the authors studied the effect of foam generation parameters on foam
characteristics of one typical synthetic surfactant [18]. Based on encouraging results of this study,
it was decided to undertake a systematic investigation on relative performance of four commonly
available and affordable synthetic surfactants on the foam characteristics. The relative
characteristics of foam produced with four synthetic surfactants has been studied through a
systematic experiment design based on Response surface methodology and to check their
suitability for use in foamed concrete production as per ASTM C796-97[19]. The surfactant
concentration and foam generation pressure required to produce stable foam was determined first.
As a next step, the behaviour of the foam in cement slurry was studied, which established the
stability of the foam in the mix.
3
2. Experimental investigations
2.1 Materials and Equipment used
Foam was produced by aerating four commercially available synthetic surfactants viz; Sodium
lauryl sulfate, Sodium lauryl ether sulfate, Sulfanol (ionic surfactants) and Cocodiethanolamide
(non-ionic surfactant). Table 1 shows an overview of their chemical classification. A laboratory-
scale foam generator designed and developed at IIT Madras was used wherein the foam was
generated by mixing compressed air and foaming solution in high density restrictions.
2.2 Parameters and Properties studied
For evaluating the relative characteristics of foam produced with these surfactants, a range of
surfactant concentration (Dilution ratio) from 0.5% (1:200) to 10 % (1:10) and foam generation
pressure 98 to 294 kPa, were adopted. The initial foam density was measured immediately after
its generation while the stability of foam was assessed by free drainage test prescribed by Def
Standard 42–40 [20]. A drainage pan of 1612 ml nominal volume with the centre of the conical
base rounded to accept externally a 12.7 mm bore by 25 mm long polymethyl methacrylate tube
with a 1.6mm bore brass cock at its lower end was used (Fig 1). The pan was filled with foam
and the weight of foam was measured at various time intervals after foam generation. The small
variations in the height of foam with time were accounted for in the density calculation. Response
surface methodology (RSM) using a two factor central composite design (CCD) with rotatability
or equal precision was employed to study the effect of surfactant concentration and foam
generation pressure on Initial foam density (IFD) [21,22]. For each surfactant thirteen
experimental treatments were assigned based on the CCD with two independent variables at five
levels of each variable using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS Release 8.02) [23]. The
quadratic response surface model is presented in Table 2, which were used to assess the relative
performance of foam produced with the four surfactants.
4
3. Precision and reliability of models

The adequacy of response models were determined using model analysis, coefficient of
determination (R2) analysis, and by comparing the experimental data with values predicted by
response surface models [20]. Validation of the second order polynomial regression models
carried out through additional experimental data were observed to be highly adequate to interpret
a reliable relationship between the independent variables (surfactant concentration and foam
generation pressure) and response variables (foam density at various time intervals) with a
satisfactory coefficient R2 (>0.9) for most of the regression models (Table 3). As a next step, the
relative assessment of density and stability of foam produced with four different surfactants are
discussed.
4. Initial foam density (IFD)
The effects of surfactant concentration and foam generation pressure on the initial foam density
are plotted in Figs.2, 3 and 4 respectively. For ionic surfactants i) the foam density is maximized
when the surfactant concentration and foam generation pressures are at lower and higher levels
respectively, and ii) the initial foam density decreases with an increase in surfactant concentration
of up to 4% after which there is only a marginal increase (Fig.2a). For non-ionic surfactant
(Cocodiethanolamide), i) the initial foam density increases with an increase in surfactant
concentration at lower foam generation pressure (Fig.2a), and ii) this trend is reversed at higher
foam generation pressure (Fig.2b). This is attributed to the entry of more foaming solution into
foam due to turbulence at lower surfactant concentration, which is not significant at lower foam
generation pressure unlike ionic surfactants.
For foam concrete, ASTM C 796 specifies the foam unit weight range of 32 to 64 kg/m3 with a
remark that this range could be adjusted to manufacturer’s recommendation based on foam
chemical and generator used. For the surfactant concentrations and foam generation pressures
adopted, the range of initial foam density produced with Sodium lauryl sulfate, Sodium lauryl
ether sulfate, Sulfanol and Cocodiethanolamide respectively are 20-35 kg/m3, 20-65 kg/m3, 20-40
5
kg/m3 and 40-100 kg/m3. For all the four surfactants, the initial foam density obtained is
satisfying the ASTM requirements at lower surfactant concentration and higher foam generation
pressure. But such foam with higher initial foam density was observed to contain foaming
solution entrapped with the foam due to turbulence resulting in foams with lower stability. This
aspect is confirmed by higher drop in density with time as discussed in the next section.
The foam generation pressure controls the mixing of air with foaming liquid and hence the foam
density varies with foam generation pressure. For a given surfactant concentration the initial
foam density increases with an increase in foam generation pressure for all surfactants except in
the case of Cocodiethanolamide. It is observed from Fig.3 that the effect of foam generation
pressure on the initial foam density is lower for Sodium lauryl sulfate and Sulfanol irrespective of
the surfactant concentration. Hence the densities of the foam produced using Sulfanol and
Sodium lauryl sulfate are the lowest. The ASTM specified range of initial foam density was not
achieved when foam is produced at lower foam generation pressure for surfactants Sodium lauryl
sulfate and Sulfanol. In the case of Sodium lauryl ether sulfate at higher surfactant concentration
the effect of foam generation pressure is significant. Cocodiethanolamide produces foam with
highest initial foam density irrespective of the foam generation pressure. For
Cocodiethanolamide, the foam generation pressure has significant effect on initial foam density
i.e., at higher surfactant concentration an increase in foam generation pressure results in a
reduction in initial foam density and vice versa at lower surfactant concentration.
5. Foam stability
The foam stability is assessed through the variation in foam density with time which is caused
predominantly by the drainage of diluted foaming agent entrapped along the walls of the bubbles
and to a minor extent due to breakage of foam bubbles. Figs. 4 and 5 show the variation in foam
density with time for the effect of surfactant concentration at lower and higher foam generation
6
pressures. For all the four surfactants, the drainage increases with an increase in foam generation
pressure resulting in unstable foam. For the three ionic surfactants within the range of surfactant
concentration studied, the drainage is proportional to the initial foam density at different foam
generation pressures.
The reduction in foam density is significantly higher after five minutes. For the three ionic
surfactants, within ten minutes more than 40% of foam density is reduced. In the case of
Cocodiethanolamide, a concentration of 4% and above results in retention of stability. The foam
produced with Cocodiethanolamide is more stable when compared to that produced with ionic
surfactants, exhibiting substantially lower drainage at high surfactant concentration. This
retardation in drainage is attributed to the high viscosity enhancing and foam stabilizing property
of Cocodiethanolamide. Also the surfactant concentration has opposite effect at lower and higher
levels of foam generation pressure for this non-ionic surfactant. This is because at lower foam
generation pressure, the effect of lower surfactant concentration on foam stability is not
significant unlike ionic surfactants as explained earlier. This is confirmed by lesser drop in foam
density with time up to 5 minutes at lower foam generation pressure when compared to higher
pressure for the non-ionic surfactant. As the usage of higher surfactant concentration is not
economical, the selection of lower concentration is preferable for use in foam concrete
production. But at very low surfactant concentration and higher foam generation pressure, though
the foam produced has high initial density, the stability is poor. Hence it appears that there is an
optimal surfactant concentration and foam generation pressure which can produce stable foam.
6. Optimization of response surface models
Having identified that the foam stability is an important factor, a multiple optimization was
carried out by numerical optimization method using SAS Release 8.02 to predict the optimum
7
levels surfactant concentration and foam generation pressure for the following criteria; minimize
percentage solution drained, maximize foam density ratio (ratio of foam density to initial foam
density) at various time intervals (to increase foam stability), minimize surfactant concentration
(to reduce cost), and to achieve a target foam output rate of at least 0.09 m3/hr which was
observed to be the minimum requirement to get uninterrupted foam production for the laboratory
foam generator used. Each response has been assigned an importance value (weightage) relative
to the other responses. Percentage solution drained and foam density ratio was assigned an
importance of 4 while the other responses were assigned of 3 out of 5 scale. Hence higher
weightage was assigned to foam stability.
From this study, the optimum surfactant concentration value is 2% and 5% when economy is
considered as one of the factors for ionic and non ionic surfactants respectively (Table 4). The
optimal surfactant concentration values for nonionic surfactant Cocodiethanolamide were 5% and
8%. However for all the four surfactants the optimum foam generation pressure ranges between
110-120 kPa under which a stable foam with drainage less than 12% in 300 seconds (by
considering economy as a factor ) is achieved. This drainage value is very low when compared to
the value of 25% drainage obtained in time not less than 210 seconds as prescribed by Def
Standard 42-40 (2002) for synthetic aqueous film forming foam for fire extinguishing. However
by assigning higher importance to foam stability (without considering economy) the solution
drained can be reduced further for ionic surfactants when higher surfactant concentration say 4%
is used.
7. Stability of foam in the mix
With the establishment of optimal surfactant concentration and foam generation pressure, as a
next step, the suitability of these four surfactants for the production of foam concrete i.e., whether
8
the requirements of ASTM C 869 [24] with respect to fresh density, strength and water
absorption of foamed cement paste are fulfilled need to be verified. This especially is essential as
the initial foam densities of foam produced by two ionic surfactants are marginally lower than the
ASTM specified range. ASTM C 796-97 furnished a way of measuring in the laboratory, the
performance of a foaming chemical to be used in producing foam for making cellular concrete
through the following equations for arriving at the foam volume required for achieving a cement
paste of known design density 641 kg/m3 and water-cement ratio of 0.58.
Vf = 1000 Va / (1000 – Wuf) (per m3 of cement paste)
Va = (0.359* Wtw + 0.7965 Wc) / 641 m3
Where Vf = volume of foam; Va = volume of air; Wuf = unit weight of foam; Wtw = total weight
of water; and Wc = weight of cement.
Foam concrete was made by mixing the cement slurry with a water-cement ratio 0.58 and
preformed foam produced from the surfactants at the optimized economical surfactant
concentration and foam generation pressure (Table 5). The stability of test mixes was assessed by
comparing the calculated and actual quantity of foam required to achieve a plastic density of
foam concrete within ±50 kg/m3 of the design value and is summarized in Table 5 along with
ASTM specifications. The foamed concrete made with the foam produced with all the four
surfactants, at the optimized surfactant concentration and foam generation pressure, meets the
physical requirements of ASTM, confirming the foam stability. If the foam is unstable, slightly
higher quantity of foam (to compensate for the collapsed foam) than the volume of foam
calculated as per the equations listed above would be required to attain the design density.
However, though the foam density of Sodium lauryl sulfate and Sulfanol did not meet the
minimum criteria of 32 kg/m3 as specified by ASTM Standards, the actual quantity of foam
9
required to attain the plastic density of 641 kg/m3 within ±50 kg/m3 of the design value was the
same as the calculated quantity which again confirms the stability of the mix.
8. Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from this study and discussed below are applicable to the characteristics
of materials used and the range of parameters investigated.
• For all the synthetic ionic surfactants used, the foam density increases with an increase in
foam generation pressure and decreases with an increase in surfactant concentration up to
a dosage of 4%.
• For the non ionic surfactant Cocodiethanolamide the initial foam density increases with
an increase in surfactant concentration at lower foam generation pressure with a reverse
trend at higher foam generation pressure. Also at higher surfactant concentration the foam
density decreases with an increase in foam generation pressure unlike ionic surfactants.
• The effect of surfactant concentration has relatively lesser effect on foam density for
Sodium lauryl sulfate and Sulfanol irrespective of foam generation pressure adopted.
• The drainage is proportional to the initial foam density for all the surfactant concentration
for ionic surfactants at different foam generation pressures.
• For all the four surfactants under the optimum foam generation pressure a stable foam
with drainage less than 12% in 300 seconds (by considering economy as a factor) is
achieved.
• From the foam stability test based on ASTM C 796-97, it is observed that all the four
surfactants are suitable for use in foamed concrete production when optimized foam
production parameters are adopted.
10
References
1. Myers D (1998) Surfactant Science and Technology. VCH Publishers, New York.
2. Valore RC (1954) Cellular concrete Part 1 Composition and methods of
production. ACI J 50:773-796.
3. Marze SPL, Jalmes A S, Langeven D (2005) Protein and surfactant foams: linear
rheology and dilatancy effect. Colloids Surf, A 263: 121-128.
4. Magrabi SA, Dlugogorski BZ, Jameson GJ (2001) Free drainage in aqueous
foams: Model and Experimental study. AIChE J 47: 314-327.Adnan C (2000)
Density and strength characteristics of foamed gypsum. Cement and Concrete
Com 22: 193-200.
5. Hutzler S, Cox SJ, Wang G (2005) Foam drainage in two dimensions. Colloids
Surf., A 263: 178-183.
6. Jones MR (2001) Foamed concrete for structural use. Proceedings of One Day
Seminar on Foamed Concrete: Properties. Applications and Latest Technological
Developments, Loughborough University, July 3, p.27-60.
7. Colak A (2000) Density and strength characteristics of foamed gypsum. Cement
and Concrete Com 22: 193-200.
8. Herzhaft B (1999) Rheology of aqueous foams: a literature review of some
experimental works. Oil and Gas J 54:587-596.
9. Pradhan MS, Sarma DSHS, Khilar KC (1990) Stability of aqueous foams with
polymer additives II. Effects of temperature. J.Colloid Interface Sci 139:519-526.
10. Sarma DSHS, Pandit J, Khilar KC (1988) Enhancement of stability of aqueous
foams by addition of water soluble polymers – Measurement and Analysis. J
Colloid Interface Sci 124:339-348.
11. Salagar J (2002) Surfactants types and uses. FIRP Booklet, E300-A, Version 2,
Merida Venezuela.
12. Laukaitis A, Zurauskas R, Keriene J (2005) The effect of foam polystyrene
granules on cement composite properties. Cement and Concrete Com 27: 41-47.
13. Magrabi SA, Dlugogorski BZ, Jameson GJ (2002) A comparative study of
drainage characteristics in AFFF and FFFP compressed-air fire-fighting foams.
Fire Safety J 37: 21-52.
14. Nambiar EKK, Ramamurthy K (2006) Air void characterisation of foam concrete.
Cement and Concrete Res 37: 221-230.
15. Kearsely EP, Visagie M (1999) Micro-properties of foamed concrete. In: Dhir
RK, Handerson NA (eds). Proceedings of International Conference on Specialist
Techniques and Materials for Construction, Thomas Telford, London, p. 173-184.
16. Quebaud S, Sibai M, Henry JP (1998) Use of chemical foam for improvements in
drilling by earth – pressure balanced shields in granular soils. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 13: 173-180.
11
17. Wilde PJ (1996) Foam measurement by the micro-conductivity technique: An

assessment of its sensitivity to interfacial and environmental factors. J. Colloid
Interface Sci 178: 733-739.
18. Siva Ranjani GI, Ramamurthy K (2008) Performance evaluation of synthetic
surfactant as a foaming agent. J. Colloid Interface Sci (under review).
19. ASTM C 796, Standard test method for foaming agents for use in producing
cellular concrete using preformed foam, American Society for testing and
materials, 1997.
20. Defence Standard 42-40. Foam liquids, Fire Extinguishing (Concentrates, foam,
fire extinguishing), Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom 2, 2002.
21. Montgomery DC (2001) Design and analysis of experiments. 5th edn. Wiley, New
York.
22. Myers.R, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology. Wiley, New
York.
23. SAS Release 8.02, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
24. ASTM C 869, Specification for foaming agents used in making preformed foam
for cellular concrete, American Society for testing and materials, 1991.
100 mm internal diameter
200 mm
11°
12.7 mm internal diameter x 25 mm

long Polymethyl methacrylate tube
1.6 mm Bore
brass cock
Fig 1. Experimental setup for foam drainage study (Def Standard 42-40 (2002))
12
90
80
Initial foam density (kg/m )
3
70
60 Sodium lauryl sulfate

Sodium lauryl ether sulfate
50 Sulfanol
Cocodiethanolamide
40
30
20
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Surfactant concentration (%)
(a) FGP 110 kPa
90
Sodium lauryl sulfate
80 Sodium lauryl ether sulfate
Sulfanol
70 Cocodiethanolamide
3
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
(b) FGP 294 kPa
Figure 2 Variation in initial foam density

13 with surfactant concentration
180
160
140
3

Sulfanol
100 Cocodiethanolamide
80
60
40
20
100 150 200 250 300

Foam generation pressure (kPa)
(a) SC 0.5%
90
80
70
Initial foam density (kg/m3)
60
Sulfanol
Cocodiethanolamide
40
30
20
10
100 150 200 250 300
Foam generation pressure (kPa)
(b) SC 10%
Figure 3 Variation in initial foam density 14

with foam generation pressure
70
3
3
60 Foam density at 5th minute (kg/m )
3
Foam density at 10th minute(kg/m )
50 Solid line - FGP 110 kPa
Foam density (kg/m3)
Dashed line - FGP 294 kPa

40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) Sodium lauryl sulfate
70
3
3
3
Solid line - FGP 110 kPa
50
Foam density (kg/m )
3
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(b) Sodium lauryl ether sulfate
Figure 4 Effect of SC and FGP on foam density with time for various surfactants
15
70
3
3
3
50 Solid line - FGP 110 kPa
Foam density (kg/m )

3
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(c) Sulfanol
90
80
70
Foam density (kg/m3)
60
50
40
3
30 3
Foam density at 5th minute (kg/m )
20 3
Solid line - FGP 110 kPa
10 Dashed line - FGP 294 kPa
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
(d) Cocodiethanolamide
Figure 4 Effect of SC and FGP on foam density with time for various surfactants
16
Table 1 An Overview of foaming agents used for the present study
Name of foaming Chemical General Chemical Classification

agent synonyms Group Formula based on
name charge
Sodium lauryl sulfate Sodium dodecyl Alkyl C12H25NaO4S Anionic
sulfate sulfates
Sodium lauryl ether Sodium laureth Alkyl C16H33NaO6S Anionic
sulfate sulfate ether
sulfate
Sulfanol Sodium dodecyl Linear C18H29NaO3S Anionic
benzene sulfonate alkyl
benzene
sulfonate
Cocodiethanolamide Coconut Alkanolam C16H33NO2 Non ionic
diethanolamide, ides
Cocamide DEA
17
Table 2 Response surface models for foam density at various time intervals for different surfactants
Foam property Surfactant Response surface models
SLS IFD = 20 . 12124 − 2 . 05373 * SC + 0 . 08349 * FGP − 0 . 0038 * SC * FGP + 0 . 184089 * SC 2

− 9 . 7 * 10 − 5 * FGP 2
SLES IFD = 40.96705 − 9.17408 * SC + 0.09647 * FGP + 0.671866 * SC 2

IFD
SULF IFD = 17.5775 − 0.91786 * SC + 0.02379 * FGP − 0.00565 * SC * FGP + 0.132912 * SC 2 + 0.0002 * FGP 2
CDA IFD = 68.63874 + 6.673567 * SC − 0.20224 * FGP − 0.03073 * SC * FGP − 0.00825 * SC 2 + 0.000757 * FGP 2
SLS FD = 18.39425 − 1.68899 * SC + 0.066825 * FGP − 1.17893 *10 −3 * SC * FGP + 0.15216 * SC 2 − 1.32224 *10 −4 * FGP 2
SLES FD = 36.70574 − 5.80818 * SC + 0.019059 * FGP + 0.41971 * SC 2

FD at 5th
minute
SULF FD = 20.66503 + 0.65285 * SC − 0.086648 * FGP − 3.57686 *10^ −3 * SC * FGP + 7.9726 *10 3 * SC 2 + 3.67456 *10 −4 * FGP 2
CDA FD = 59.94294 + 10.83776 * SC − 0.24160 * FGP − 0.027712 * SC * FGP − 0.31490 * SC 2 + 7.29971 * 10 −4 * FGP 2
FD at 10th SLS FD = 7.51031 − 0.19505 * SC + 1.00621*10 −4 * FGP − 2.64309 *10 −3 * SC * FGP + 0.096673 * SC 2 + 3.67349 *10 −5 * FGP 2
minute
SLES FD = 16.60996 − 2.10015 * SC − 0.035515 * FGP + 1.25622 * 10 −3 * SC * FGP + 0.14902 * SC 2 + 6.54138 * 10 −5 * FGP 2
SULF FD = 14.5659 + 0.55116 * SC − 0.11302 * FGP + 5.94545 * 10 −4 * SC * FGP − 0.036546 * SC 2 + 2.83675 * 10 −4 * FGP 2
CDA FD = 14.68048 + 22.21186 * SC − 0.22063 * FGP − 0.026326 * SC * FGP − 1.03357 * SC 2 + 6.25567 * 10 −4 * FGP 2
SLS- Sodium lauryl sulfate, SLES-Sodium laureth sulfate, SULF-Sulfanol, CDA- Cocodiethanolamide
IFD-Initial foam density, FD- Foam density, SC- surfactant concentration, FGP- Foam generation pressure
18
Table 3 R2, adjusted R2, probability values and F values for the response surface models
Foaming Regression
Variables R2 R2 adj F value
agent P value
0.9599 0.9312 <0.0001 33.48

SLS
Initial
0.9392 0.9189 <0.0001 46.34
SLES
foam
0.9247 0.8709 0.0008 17.19
SULFANOL
density
0.9529 0.9192 0.0002 28.307
CDA
0.9633 0.9371 <0.0001 36.74
SLS
Foam
0.9512 0.935 <0.0001 58.52
SLES
density at
0.9397 0.8966 0.0004 21.80
SULFANOL
5th minute
0.9945 0.9907 <0.0001 255.64
CDA
Foam 0.916 0.86 0.0012 15.26
SLS
density at 0.9327 0.8847 0.0006 19.41
SLES
10th 0.9109 0.8472 0.0015 14.31
SULFANOL
minute 0.9762 0.9592 <0.0001 57.50
CDA
Table 4 Optimized parameters and corresponding response goals
Foaming agent Surfactant Foam Initial Foam Solution Foam

Concentration Generation Foam Output Drained Density
% Pressure Density rate in 5 Ratio
kPa kg/m3 m3/hr minutes in 5
% minutes
Sodium lauryl 2 117 25 0.274 11 0.88
sulfate
Sodium lauryl 2 117 38 0.172 12 0.86
ether sulfate
Sulfanol 2 117 21 0.24 12 0.87
Cocodiethanolamide 5 122 70 0.09 0 1
19
View publication stats
Table 5 Comparison of test results with ASTM Specifications

Surfactant Foam Foam Foam concrete Actual/calculated
Name Concentration generation density Fresh Dry density Comp. Water foam required to
pressure kg/m3 density kg/m3 strength, absorption produce foam
kPa kg/m3 MPa (% by concrete within ±50
volume) kg/m3 of the design
density
Sodium lauryl 2 117 25 642 516 2.01 15 1
sulfate
Sodium lauryl 2 117 38 674 522 2.32 25 1
ether sulfate
Sulfanol 2 117 21 681 535 2.8 18 1
Cocodiethan- 5 122 70 676 527 1.4 22 1
olamide
ASTM C 869-91 Requirements 32 to 70 641±48 487±40 1.40 (min) 25% (max) 1
20

Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of Foam Produced With Four Synthetic Surfactants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of Foam Produced With Four Synthetic Surfactants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Relative assessment of density and stability of foam produced with four

Article in Materials and Structures · December 2010

Indu Siva Ranjani Gandhi Ramamurthy K

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Building Materials View project

Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Relative Assessment of Density and Stability of foam produced with

Ms.Indu Siva Ranjani, and Dr.K.Ramamurthy

of water retention ability of foam [5, 6].

density may collapse and increase the concrete density.

it was decided to undertake a systematic investigation on relative performance of four commonly

stability of the foam in the mix.

2.1 Materials and Equipment used

(non-ionic surfactant). Table 1 shows an overview of their chemical classification. A laboratory-

2.2 Parameters and Properties studied

performance of foam produced with the four surfactants.

3. Precision and reliability of models

4. Initial foam density (IFD)

(Cocodiethanolamide), i) the initial foam density increases with an increase in surfactant

generation pressure unlike ionic surfactants.

i.e., at higher surfactant concentration an increase in foam generation pressure results in a

Cocodiethanolamide, a concentration of 4% and above results in retention of stability. The foam

surfactants, exhibiting substantially lower drainage at high surfactant concentration. This

6. Optimization of response surface models

weightage was assigned to foam stability.

7. Stability of foam in the mix

Vf = 1000 Va / (1000 – Wuf) (per m3 of cement paste)

Va = (0.359* Wtw + 0.7965 Wc) / 641 m3

of water; and Wc = weight of cement.

of materials used and the range of parameters investigated.

foam generation pressure and decreases with an increase in surfactant concentration up to

an increase in surfactant concentration at lower foam generation pressure with a reverse

for ionic surfactants at different foam generation pressures.

production parameters are adopted.

17. Wilde PJ (1996) Foam measurement by the micro-conductivity technique: An

100 mm internal diameter

12.7 mm internal diameter x 25 mm

60 Sodium lauryl sulfate

(a) FGP 110 kPa

(b) FGP 294 kPa

Figure 2 Variation in initial foam density

Sodium lauryl sulfate

100 150 200 250 300

Figure 3 Variation in initial foam density 14

Dashed line - FGP 294 kPa

(a) Sodium lauryl sulfate

(b) Sodium lauryl ether sulfate

Dashed line - FGP 294 kPa

Table 1 An Overview of foaming agents used for the present study

Name of foaming Chemical General Chemical Classification

Foam property Surfactant Response surface models

SLS IFD = 20 . 12124 − 2 . 05373 * SC + 0 . 08349 * FGP − 0 . 0038 * SC * FGP + 0 . 184089 * SC 2

SLES IFD = 40.96705 − 9.17408 * SC + 0.09647 * FGP + 0.671866 * SC 2

SLES FD = 36.70574 − 5.80818 * SC + 0.019059 * FGP + 0.41971 * SC 2

0.9599 0.9312 <0.0001 33.48

Table 4 Optimized parameters and corresponding response goals

Foaming agent Surfactant Foam Initial Foam Solution Foam

Cocodiethanolamide 5 122 70 0.09 0 1

Table 5 Comparison of test results with ASTM Specifications

You might also like