Khulna University of Engineering and Technology,

Khulna-9203

Department of Civil Engineering

CE 3200
Project and Seminar

Name of Article: Experimental investigation on the compressive

strength of foamed concrete: Effect of curing conditions, cement type,
foaming agent and dry density
Author: Devid Falliano, Dario De Domenico, Giuseppe Ricciardi, Ernesto
Gugliandolo
Date of Submission: 24/11/2023

Name: Sheikh Mohammad Ismail

Roll: 1901001
Year: 3rd
Term: 2nd
Section: A
Session: 2021-2022

1
Abstract:

This experiment shows the change of compressive strength of foamed concrete with the change
of different parameters like cement type, foaming agent, dry densities and curing condition. To
evaluate the effect of this parameters to compressive strength Two different type of cement
(Portland CEM I 52,5 R, and limestone Portland CEM II A-L 42,5 R.), three different type of
foaming agent (a protein-based and two synthetic-based) and three different curing condition
(in air and cellophane sheet at environmental temperature and in water at 30 degrees Celsius) is
used. Three different series of dry density (400, 600, 800 kg/m3) is used. The foam concrete
specimens were prepared with the pre-forming method. Each cement type is mixed with each
foaming agent and then each specimen is prepared in three different expected dry densities. 19
series of sample are prepared. Each series of sample is cured in three different condition. More
than 100 samples are prepared. Most of the previous experiment was done at different w/c ratio
but all the specimen in this experiment is prepared using a single w/c ratio. This experiment
focus on to determine the effect of different parameters on compressive strength of foamed
concrete of low density and it is exceptional from the previous different experiment as that were
focused on foamed concrete with high dry density. It is seen from the experiment that the
compressive strength of foamed concrete increase linearly with the increasing of dry density.
For same series of sample, compressive strength is highest when it is cured in cellophane sheet.
It is minimum when cured in air. Using CEM I 52,5 R cement type with Foamin C foaming
agent which has density of 800 kg/m3 and cured in cellophane sheet give the maximum
compressive strength.

Introduction:

Foamed concrete, a subset of lightweight concrete, is a specialized type that typically comprises
cement, water, preformed foam, and fine sands, often incorporating materials like fly ash or
silica fume (Ramamurthy et al., 2009). This results in a microstructure with air-voids, leading to
a density ranging from 200 to 2000 kg/m³—considerably lower than the 2200 to 2500 kg/m³
typical of regular concrete. Foamed concrete is used for both structural and non-structural
elements due to its lightweight properties, allowing for easy transportation and cost-effective

2
production with readily available ingredients. Environmental sustainability is achieved by
incorporating recycled materials. The unique characteristics of foamed concrete include its
lightweight nature, making it suitable for precast structures, cost-effectiveness, and
environmental sustainability.

Beyond these advantages, foamed concrete has gained interest in civil engineering for its
enhanced thermal insulation, fire resistance, acoustic shielding properties, and improved
workability (Kim and Lee, 2012). Despite its inherently low compressive strengths,
modifications to the cementitious matrix, such as adding silica fume, fly ash, or polypropylene
fibers, can enhance performance (Pellegrino et al., 2013). Water absorption and porosity are not
significantly affected by the type or content of ash (Faleschini et al., 2015).

In the literature, numerous studies focus on the compressive strength of foamed concrete,
exploring correlations with density, water/cement and air/cement ratios, and introducing
additives like fly ash or fibers to improve strength (Jones et al., 2005). Some studies also
investigate the microstructure using microscopic scanning techniques, examining porosity with
optical or electronic microscopes (Wee et al., 2006). Additionally, research on different foaming
agents indicates their role in thermal resistance coefficient but suggests a less significant
influence on strength (Yang et al., 2014). The paper suggests the need to verify these findings for
foamed concrete with low density (<800 kg/m³).

Goal and outline of the paper:

Research Focus: The paper outlines initial findings from an ongoing experimental study on low-
density foamed concrete specimens, with a specific emphasis on their diverse physical,
chemical, and mechanical properties.

Compressive Strength Exploration: The research centers on understanding the factors

influencing compressive strength, including cement type, foaming agent, density, and curing
conditions, observed over a 28-day period.

3
Unique Experimental Approach: Unlike other studies, the experiments maintain a fixed
water/cement ratio while adjusting foam content to achieve a target dry density, providing a
distinctive perspective on low-density foamed concrete.

Original Goal and Unforeseen Value: Although initially aimed at developing a new extrudable
foam concrete, the study's results are recognized for their broader significance in enhancing the
understanding of traditional foam concrete behavior at low densities.

Experimental Campaign:

The paper seeks to present preliminary findings from an ongoing experimental investigation
into low-density foamed concrete specimens, with a focus on their diverse physical, chemical,
and mechanical attributes. The primary emphasis is on the compressive strength and its
correlation with factors like cement type, foaming agent, density, and curing conditions over a
28-day timeframe. In a departure from other studies, the experiments maintain a consistent
water/cement ratio while adjusting the foam content to achieve the desired dry density.
Although the initial goal was to develop a new extrudable foam concrete, the obtained results
are considered valuable for gaining insights into traditional foam concrete characteristics at low
densities. Notably, varying foam contents are observed for different foaming agents due to their
stability during the cement paste mixing phase. This influence on mechanical strength,
especially in low-density scenarios, contrasts with findings in studies focusing on medium-to-
high density foam concrete. The study's comprehensive approach, encompassing diverse
mixing procedures, curing conditions, cement types, and foaming agents, yields generalizable
results that can be applicable to future investigations. The paper is organized into sections
covering the test setup, experimental results, regression curves for predicting compressive
strength, and concluding remarks.

4
Materials:

Cubic specimens were produced using two types of cement: Portland CEM I 52,5 R and
limestone Portland CEM II A-L 42,5 R, both conforming to EN 197-1 (2006) standards for mix
proportions. Each cement type underwent preparation with three different foaming agents: 1)
Foamin C (a protein-based foaming agent commonly used in foamed concrete production), 2)
SLS (a synthetic foaming agent used in various applications including soap industries), and 3)
FoamTek (a foaming agent with stability behavior similar to SLS with the cementitious paste).

The study considered three target dry densities—400, 600, and 800 kg/m³, with a tolerance of
±50 kg/m³. For each foaming agent and cement type, specimens were prepared with different
densities, resulting in a fresh density range of approximately 500 to 1000 kg/m³, wet density
from 400 to 900 kg/m³ (at natural humidity conditions after 28 days), and dry density from 350
to 850 kg/m³. In total, 19 series of specimens were created. Following demolding, the specimens
underwent curing in three distinct conditions, as explained in the subsequent section.

Specimen preparation, mix proportions and curing conditions:

The foam concrete specimens in this study were prepared using the pre-forming method,
consistent with the methodology of previous experimental studies. The process involves
initially mixing water and cement in a vertical mixer at 1200 rpm for approximately 1 minute
until a homogeneous mortar is achieved. Subsequently, the cement paste is combined with
preformed foam obtained through a dedicated foam generator. The generator mixes water,
compressed air, and a foaming agent, producing foam conveyed through a pipe into a collector
where dynamic turbulence forms it. The foaming agent concentration is 3% by volume,
resulting in foam density around 80 g/l. The foam is then added to the cement paste to create
air voids within the matrix. The foam and cement paste are mixed for at least 2 minutes at 1200
rpm until uniform distribution.

5
 Fig: Different Curing Condition

The study explores different foaming agent effects on compressive strength, particularly in low-
density scenarios, contrary to findings in studies on medium-to-high density foam concrete.
Nineteen series of specimens were created, each with varied densities. The specimens
underwent curing in three conditions: air at environmental temperature (20 ± 3 °C) with 75%
relative humidity (RH), sealed-cured in cellophane at 20 ± 3 °C and 75% RH, and water-cured at
a controlled temperature of 30 °C. The curing in cellophane was identified as the most effective.
Additionally, the study examined the impact of a superplasticizer in the concrete mix for
specific specimens, finding that a fixed water/cement ratio of 0.30 allowed for investigating
different foams' stability and their influence on compressive strength. The study also replicated
a series with a higher water/cement ratio (w/c = 0.50) to observe its effect on compressive
strength, providing valuable insights for future investigations. The density at the time of
casting, measured after 28 days in wet conditions, and in dry conditions were documented,
along with water content calculations for specimens cured in air conditions.

6
Result and discussion:

Effect of cement type: The impact of cement type on the compressive strength of analyzed
foamed concrete specimens is discussed. experimental compressive strength values are plotted
against specimen dry density for two cement types, CEM I 52,5 R and CEM II A-L 42,5 R, with a
fixed foaming agent and curing condition. As expected, compressive strength increases with
foamed concrete density. CEM I 52,5 R, paired with a protein-based foaming agent (Foamin C),
exhibits a higher rate of increase than CEM II A-L 42,5 R. However, this trend is not consistent
with synthetic foaming agents SLS and FoamTek. CEM I 52,5 R generally demonstrates higher
compressive strength, aligning with its superior mechanical characteristics. Conversely, with
synthetic foaming agents, CEM II A-L 42,5 R displays improved mechanical behavior despite its
lower cement class. This discrepancy may stem from varying hydration degrees, particularly
with synthetic foaming agents and CEM I 52,5 R, warranting further microstructural and
hydration studies in future research.

Fig: Effect of Cement Type When Foamin C Used

Fig: Effect of Cement Type When Foamtek Used

7
 Fig: Effect of Cement Type When SLC Used

Effect of foaming type: The compressive strength comparison is made based on the foaming
agent used. The analysis reveals that the protein-based foaming agent (Foamin C) is the most
effective for both CEM I 52,5 R and CEM II A-L 42,5 R at a water/cement ratio of 0.3.
Compressive strength values with Foamin C are significantly higher than those with synthetic
foaming agents SLS and FoamTek for CEM I 52,5 R. However, in CEM II A-L 42,5 R, Foamin C
remains the best foaming agent, although the differences among the three agents are less
pronounced. The influence of foaming agents is more significant in low-density foam concrete,
unlike studies focused on medium-to-high density. This difference is attributed to the impact of
air/cement ratio on strength development, especially for low densities where entrained and
entrapped air volumes play a crucial role. The stability of foams during mixing affects the foam-
to-cement ratio and the overall water-to-cement ratio, influencing the mechanical properties.
The study introduces valuable

Fig: Effect of Foaming Agent When CEM I 52.5 R Used

8
 Fig: Effect of Foaming Agent When CEM II A-L 42.5 R Used

insights into the mechanical properties of low-density foam concrete not extensively explored in
previous research. Experimental evidence indicates that specimens prepared with synthetic
foaming agents SLS and FoamTek exhibit similar compressive strength results for both cement
types, along with similar behavior during the mixing phase. Flocculation of cement particles
occurred for these specimens with the assumed water/cement ratio of 0.3, potentially
negatively impacting mechanical properties due to lower hydration degrees. Additionally,
macroscopic differences in air void distribution and microstructural heterogeneities are
observed between specimens with protein-based Foamin C and synthetic FoamTek, influencing
compressive strength development. Further details on the internal microstructure study will be
discussed in upcoming research.

Effect of curing condition: the impact of curing conditions on compressive strength is depicted
for Foamin C and FoamTek foaming agents. Air curing results in the weakest mechanical
resistance due to suboptimal hydration, while water curing at 30°C and cellophane wrapping
yield higher strengths by preventing sudden dehydration. Notably, cellophane conditions
slightly surpass water curing in strength, potentially due to varied hydration or pore
microstructure arrangements. Overall, under cellophane conditions (considered as reference),
water curing leads to Foamin C strengths of 101.95% (CEM I 52,5 R) and 87.13% (CEM II A-L
42,5 R), and FoamTek strengths of 86.6% and 98.18%, respectively. Narrow error bars indicate
reasonable agreement, with higher dispersions in water curing at high densities.

9
 Fig: Effect of Curing Condition When Foamin C Used

Fig: Effect of Curing Condition When FoamTek Used

Effect of superplasticizer: The addition of superplasticizer to the concrete mix is recognized for
enhancing strength by reducing void size and pore connectivity. In this study, specimens with
Foamin C foaming agent and CEM I 52,5 R were replicated with Sikament-330 superplasticizer
(2% of cement weight). Compressive strength values for these specimens, spanning three
densities and curing conditions, align with prior findings. The cellophane-wrapped specimens
exhibited the highest strengths, and the strength increase with dry density follows a roughly
linear trend. Superplasticizer application resulted in an average strength increase of
approximately 11%, 26%, and 9% for air, cellophane, and water curing, respectively.

Analytical regression curve for compressive strength: The analysis of experimental data from
the previous section leads to the derivation of regression curves for predicting compressive
strength in foamed concrete. These equations, based on linear interpolation of the obtained
data, are applicable to specimens with characteristics similar to those in this study and within
the explored density range. The regression model, Rc(fitting) = a + b*ρ(dry), demonstrates a

10
strong linear relationship, supported by high coefficients of determination (R2). The a
coefficient's negative value is a mathematical artifact. The proposed regression curves, specified
for different curing conditions, offer a means for preliminary compressive strength estimation
in foamed concrete with comparable foaming agents and cement types.

Concluding remarks:

In this comprehensive study, 109 foamed concrete specimens were examined to explore the
impact of various factors on 28-day compressive strength. The investigation considered curing
conditions, cement type, foaming agent, and dry density. Notably, the protein-based foaming
agent, Foamin C, demonstrated significantly higher compressive strengths than synthetic
counterparts at a fixed water/cement ratio of 0.3. The study revealed that different foaming
agents influenced the microstructure void arrangement, with Foamin C leading to smaller,
scattered air voids. Cellophane curing conditions yielded the highest strengths, while air curing
resulted in the lowest. The presence of a superplasticizer in cellophane curing increased
strengths by approximately 25%. Future research will delve into additional properties and
explore new additives for enhanced foam concrete characteristics.

Reference:

Ramamurthy K, Nambiar E K and Ranjani G I S. 2009. A classification of studies on properties

of foam concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites; 31(6): 388-396.

Kim H K, Jeon J H and Lee H K. 2012. Workability, and mechanical, acoustic and thermal
properties of lightweight aggregate concrete with a high volume of entrained air. Construction
and Building Materials; 29: 193-200.

11
Pellegrino C, Cavagnis P, Faleschini F and Brunelli K. 2013. Properties of concretes with
black/oxidizing electric arc furnace slag aggregate. Cement and Concrete Composites; 37: 232-
240.

Faleschini F, Fernández-Ruíz MA, Zanini MA, Brunelli K, Pellegrino C and Hernández-Montes

E. 2015. High performance concrete with electric arc furnace slag as aggregate: mechanical and
durability properties. Construction and Building Materials; 101: 113-121.

Jones M R, McCarthy A and Dhir R K. 2005. Recycled and secondary aggregate in foamed
concrete. WRAP Research report, the waste and resources action programme. Banbury, Oxon
OX16 0AH.

Wee T H, Babu D S, Tamilselvan T and Lin H S. 2006. Air-void systems of foamed concrete and
its effect on mechanical properties. ACI Mater J; 103(1): 45–52.

Yang K H, Lee K H, Song J K, Gong M H. 2014. Properties and sustainability of alkali-activated

slag foamed concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production; 68: 226-233.

12