Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Utilization of Recycled Waste as Filler in Foam

concrete

T.J. Chandni, K.B. Anand

www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII: S2352-7102(17)30753-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.04.032
Reference: JOBE477
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 27 November 2017
Revised date: 30 April 2018
Accepted date: 30 April 2018
Cite this article as: T.J. Chandni and K.B. Anand, Utilization of Recycled Waste
as Filler in Foam concrete, Journal of Building Engineering,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.04.032
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Utilization of Recycled Waste as Filler in Foam concrete
CHANDNI. T. J1 and K. B. ANAND2*
Department of Civil Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Coimbatore
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India
Email addresses: tjchandni@gmail.com (Chandni.T.J),

kb_anand@amrita.edu (K.B.Anand)

*
Corresponding author.

Abstract
The rapid urbanization has led to the enormous increase in wastes being disposed of. This paper

aims at identifying the possibility of using recycled materials such as crushed glass and plastic

wastes in foam concrete as a substitute filler for fine river sand. A protein based foaming agent

has been adopted for the study. The workability and strength of different mixes, made using

preformed foam, at varying densities using powdered glass and plastic wastes have been

investigated. Analysis of foam concrete mixes to identify air-void distribution and its

relationship to strength has been done. Effect of superplasticizer inclusion and the corresponding

change in the water to solids ratio on compressive strength has also been carried out. The study

showed that incorporation of recycled wastes is effective to produce foam concrete of strength

that will permit its use for bearing wall applications. Incorporation of PCE based superplasticizer

was observed to be effective in enhancing the strength of foam concrete.

Keywords: Foam concrete; Sustainable material; Recycled waste; Air-void structure; Water to

solids ratio

1
Post Graduate Student
2
Professor
 1. Introduction

Lightweight concrete is produced either by the inclusion of lightweight aggregates or by

replacing some of the solid material in the mix by air voids. Foam concrete is a type of cement-

based mortar which contains millions of evenly distributed and consistently sized air bubbles or

cells. Foam concrete is a self-flowing and self-compacting concrete of low self-weight,

controlled low strength, and excellent thermal insulation, consuming only minimal aggregate.

The density of foam concrete is influenced by the amount of foam added and normally ranges

from 400 kg/m3 to 1600 kg/m3 with compressive strengths varying from 1MPa to 15MPa. Table

1 summarizes some of the recent studies on foam concrete with respect to the constituent aspects

and the properties investigated.

Table 1: Salient Literature and Properties Investigated

Types of Properties Investigated
Author Foaming Filler types used Fresh State
Agent Hardened State Properties
Properties
Compressive Strength, Elastic
Synthetic Density, modulus, Thermal property,
D. K. Panesar, [1] Sand
Protein Workability Sorptivity, Air void distribution

Density,
E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, Sand Spreadability,
Organic
K. Ramamurthy, [2] Class F Fly ash Flowability

Compressive Strength,
Zhongwei Liu, et. al. [3] Protein Flowability Pore structure

Sand
E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar,
Organic Class F Fly ash Pore structure
K. Ramamurthy, [4]
Flowability,
Siong Kang Lim, et. al. [5] Synthetic Sand Spreadability Compressive Strength

Compressive Strength,
E.K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, Sand Fresh density,
Synthetic Water absorption
K. Ramamurthy, [6] Class F Fly ash Spreadability
Strength, Shrinkage
Bing, et. al. [7] Protein Class F Fly ash

Ameer A. Hilal, et. al. [8]
Ameer A. Hilal, et. al. [9]
Sand Strength, Elastic modulus,
Protein Spreadability
Fly ash- Category S Thermal properties
Sand Compressive Strength, Air void
Protein
Fly ash- Category S structure, Hydration products

Typically, three types of foaming agents are used for the production of foam concrete, namely

synthetic, protein and organic based foaming agents. These foaming agents facilitate the

formation of stable air bubbles by reducing the surface tension of the solution. It has been

observed [1] that for a protein-based foaming agent, the air voids were smaller and more uniform

in size at higher foam concrete densities than synthetic based foaming agents. The density and

stability of foam produced with four synthetic surfactants were studied [10] by the free drainage

test as prescribed in Defence Standard 42–40 [11] and foam stability test based on ASTM C 796-

97 [12]. Studies also indicate that in foam concrete mixes, foam addition considerably reduces

the mix consistency and increased foam volumes necessitate higher water to solids ratio [2]. As

per a study [3] for the same foam concrete density, a higher w/c ratio would result in a lower

relative viscosity and a weaker bubble-maintaining capacity in cement paste resulting in the

bubbles to combine easily into larger ones. It was also reported [4] that higher strength was

shown by mixes with more uniform air-void size distribution.

The type of filler material used also influences various properties of foam concrete. As the filler

materials become finer, it produces more uniform and narrower air-void distribution thereby

increasing the compressive strength [5]. Compared to sand filler foam concrete mixes, the fly ash

based mixes required relatively higher water to solids ratio and lower foam volume because of its

fineness [6]. It has been reported [7] that the incorporation of silica fume and polypropylene fiber

improved the compressive strength and the shrinkage resistance of foam concrete. Ameer A.

Hilal et al. [8,9] also observed that mineral admixtures such as fly ash and silica fume in
combination with a super-plasticizer improved the compressive strength of foam concrete.

Superplasticizer individually or in combination with other additives results in a uniform

distribution of air voids. Addition of ultrafine GGBS as partial cement replacement showed a

marginal increase in the compressive strength of foam concrete [13].

Many researchers have studied about ways in which recycled wastes can be utilized in normal

concrete. Yahya Jani and William Hogland [14], reviewed the previous works done on concrete

with waste glass as an aggregate replacement and concluded that as the particle size increases,

the alkali-silica reaction expansion also increases causing cracks in concrete. Finer waste glass

aggregate produces a pozzolanic reaction which helps in improving the mechanical properties of

the cement paste. It has been observed [15] that concrete with cement replaced by glass powder

(at 15% and 30% level) yielded higher compressive strength and low porosity due to the slow

pozzolanic reaction of glass powder. Due to the reduction in pore size and connectively, a higher

resistance against water and chloride ingress was also observed, In the experimental

investigations on ASR expansions of glass sand mortar [16], it was observed that brown glass

showed more resistance to alkali-silica reaction than green glass. This has been attributed to the

preferential occurrence of reaction in the internal cracks of green glass particles. Malek Batayneh

et al. [17] observed that plastic waste as a substitute for sand decreased the strength of concrete,

whereas adoption glass waste increased the strength. Harini et al. [18] observed that inclusion of

plastic waste as fine aggregate reduced the density of concrete and also assisted in arresting

microcracks.

Varieties of waste materials have been tried in foam concrete as fine filler, viz., fly ash [6,19,20],

incinerator bottom ash, foundry sand and quarry finer [21], expanded polystyrene and Lytag
fines [22,23], lime [24], chalk and crushed concrete [25]. The primary intention in these attempts

was to utilize the waste generated in industrial processes to reduce the density of foam concrete.

2. Significance and Objectives

The primary objective of this study is to develop a sustainable product using recyclable waste

materials thereby attempting to partially solve the problems caused by the disposal of such

waste. The waste materials have been considered as the potential replacement for aggregates in

foam concrete. Glass and plastic wastes were adopted in this study as large volumes of these

types of wastes are generated in both commercial and household activities. Research attempts

have been made to determine the feasibility of using these recycled wastes in concrete but not in

foam concrete. Glass waste and plastic waste have the advantage over other waste materials, viz.,

pozzolanic property and lower density respectively. Also, the use of the protein-based foaming

agent, which helps in the production of a stable foam, orients this study towards sustainability.

The current study aims at determining the potential use of these recycled wastes in foam concrete

by (i) Assessing the fresh state properties; (ii) Investigating the compressive strength at various

densities; (iii) Studying the relationship between the strength and air-void distribution; (iv)

Examining the influence of two families of superplasticizer on the compressive strength.

3. Experimental Details

In this study, the primary experiment variables are the types of filler materials, i.e. the recycled

glass powder and plastic powder; the types of superplasticizers used, i.e. Poly Carboxylate Ether

(PCE) and Sulphonated Naphthalene Formaldehyde (SNF); and the water to solids ratio to obtain

foam concrete of required density and consistency. For each of the designed mixes fresh and

hardened state properties was observed.

3.1 Constituent Materials

3.1.1 Binder

Locally available 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement of specific gravity 2.98, conforming to IS

12269:1987 [26] was used.

3.1.2 Filler

Two types of recycled wastes in the powdered form were used in the study

(a) Recycled glass powder – crushed waste soda-lime glass (of window panels and bottles),

of particle size finer than 90μm and specific gravity 2.36. The chemical composition of

based on EDAX analysis is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Chemical Composition of Glass Powder

Oxide % by weight
Na2O 11.07
MgO 1.59
Al2O3 0.66
SiO2 70.65
CaO 15.14
Fe2O3 0.77
TiO2 0.12

(b) Recycled thermoplastic powder – derived from polypropylene based molded furniture

(after useful life and damaged) of particle size finer than 1.18mm and specific gravity

0.9.

The particle size distribution of the filler materials are shown in Figure 1.
 110
100
90
Weight passing (%) 80
70
60
50 plastic powder
40 Glass powder
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Sieve size (mm)

Figure 1: Particle size distribution of fillers

3.1.3 Foam

The foam was generated by using a foam generator by diluting the foaming agent with water and

then aerating to create the foam. A vegetable protein-based liquid foaming agent of specific

gravity 1.2 and having a pH value of 7.5 was used in this study. Foam density was measured

immediately after the generation of foam while foam stability was measured by free drainage test

as prescribed in Defence Standard 42-40 [11]. The foam generation pressure controls the mixing

of air with foaming liquid and hence the foam density varies with foam generation pressure. For

foam concrete, ASTM C 796 [12] specifies the foam unit weight to be in the range of 32 to

64kg/m3. For evaluating the relative characteristics of foam produced with the foaming agent, a

series of trials were carried out with two surfactant concentrations (foaming agent to water ratio),

viz., 1:40 and 1:35; and aeration pressure ranging from 100KPa to 350KPa. A stable foam

density 40kg/m3 was obtained with a dilution of 1:35 and aeration pressure of 250KPa (using the

laboratory foam generator).

3.1.4 Superplasticizer

Superplasticizers belonging to two families, i.e. Poly Carboxylate Ether (PCE) and Sulphonated

Naphthalene Formaldehyde (SNF) were used in the study. The specific gravity of PCE was 1.1

and that of SNF was 1.2.

3.2 Mix Preparation

ASTM C 796 [12] suggests a method of estimating foam volume necessary to make cement

slurry of given water-cement ratio and target density. Foam concrete was prepared by the

addition of pre-formed foam (with density 40 kg/m3) into the cement-based slurry, as per

equation 1. For a target design density (D kg/m3) of foam concrete, at a particular water to solids

ratio, the quantity of cement (c kg/m3) and filler (f kg/m3) was obtained by varying the foam

volume. Initially, cement and filler were weighed and dry mixed in a mortar mixer and then

water (w kg/m3) was added incrementally to obtain a homogeneous mix. The required quantity of

foam (F kg/m3) was added to the wet mix and mixed until the foam was uniformly distributed

throughout the mix with no physical sign on the surface.

D = c + f +w + F - - - - - - - - - (1)

The actual densities of the mixes produced were ensured to vary only within ±50 kg/m3 from the

design densities.

A series of trials were carried out for each mix, by varying the water to solids ratio and the foam

volume to obtain workable mix. Mix proportioning was done based on volume. As the specific

gravity of glass powder was higher than plastic powder, it was yielding foam concrete of higher

densities. In this study, design densities for glass filler foam concrete (GFC) were fixed as 1200

kg/m3, 1400 kg/m3 and 1600 kg/m3 with cement : filler ratio as 1:1. For plastic filler foam

concrete (PFC), the design densities were 800 kg/m3, 1000 kg/m3 and 1200 kg/m3 with cement:
filler ratio 1:0.33. The variation in the cement to filler ratios was due to the large difference in

the specific gravities of the two types of fillers. Table 3 shows the range of water to solids ratio

and foam volume adopted for the trials for both fillers at each of the design densities.

Table 3: Range of water to solids ratio and foam volume for the trial mixes

Design density Foam Volume

Filler 3
W/S ratio
(kg/m ) (%)

1200 35 - 25
Glass 1400 0.35 - 0.60 25 - 15
1600 15 – 5

800 50 - 40
Plastic 1000 0.35 - 0.70 35 - 25
1200 20 - 10

3.3 Test Details

3.3.1 Fresh State Characteristics

Fresh state characteristics of foam concrete which are to be tested are the fresh density and the

spreadability. The fresh density test was done as per ASTM C796 [12]. It was evaluated by

determining the density of the freshly produced foam concrete immediately after its production.

Spreadability of foam concrete was determined by the flow cone/ mini-slump test. It was done by

filling the mix in slump cone (of top diameter 2mm, bottom diameter 5.7mm, height 3.8mm) and

raising it. The percentage of spread was obtained after measuring the spread diameter.

3.3.2 Hardened State Characteristics

3.3.2.1 Strength Test

Compressive Strength test was conducted for cubes of size 50mm x 50mm x 50mm using the

Universal Testing Machine of capacity 400kN. For each mix, 4 specimens were cast and de-
molded after 24 hours. The cubes were water cured for 28 days before testing. After 28 days of

water curing, the specimens were dried, and dry density was estimated. This was done to check

whether large variations from design density were occurring.

3.3.2.2 Air Void Structure Investigation

Air-void distribution of foam concrete was observed through the optical microscopic study with

the help of an image analysis software. For this, 50mm cubes were cut parallel to the cast face

smoothened and treated with 2 coats of black ink. After drying, talc powder was applied to the

surface to highlight the air voids. The specimen was then subjected to image analysis. A

magnification of 50x was selected and each image covering 5.72 mm2 (2.6 mm × 2.2 mm). A

total of 24 specimens were tested, 12 with each type of filler. 10 images were captured from the

cut surfaces of each mix. From the total area (57.2 mm2) of each mix analyzed, the total number

of voids, as well as the diameter of each void, was measured and classified.

3.3.3 Influence of Superplasticizer

The effect of reduced water to solids ratios was studied by adding superplasticizers. For this

study, highest density mixes were selected from each of the filler type (1600 kg/m3 and 1200

kg/m3 for GFC and PFC respectively) without changing the foam content. Two different families

of superplasticizer, viz., Poly Carboxylate Ether (PCE) and Sulphonated Naphthalene

Formaldehyde (SNF), were added at a dosage of 1.5% by weight of cement. With the addition of

plasticizers, there was a reduction in water/solid ratio and the density was maintained through a

marginal increase in solids. An earlier study [2] reports a reduction of 23% in the water to solids

ratio by the addition of naphthalene based superplasticizer at a dosage of 1.5% by weight of

cement. Use of PCE based superplasticizer for foam concrete have not been reported. 50mm
cube specimens were cast for each mix of both the filler types and were subjected to water curing

for 28 days for strength and air-void structure studies.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Fresh State Properties

In this study, the foam volume was chosen to obtain foam concrete density close to the design

density. It was observed that the type of filler affects the water to solids ratio for obtaining a mix

of density ratio (fresh density to design density) value of one and of suitable workability. From

the trials, the water to solids ratio for producing workable mixes, for GFC was observed to be

ranging from 0.45 to 0.55 whereas for PFC it was from 0.65 to 0.75. The composition of the

mixes selected for GFC and PFC at the respective design densities along with spread values are

shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Mix Composition of GFC and PFC

Design Fresh
W/S Cement Filler Water Foam Spread
Filler Mix Density Density
ratio
kg/m3 kg kg kg % kg/m3 %
GFC12 1200 0.55 376 376 414 30 1212 112
Glass GFC14 1400 0.50 455 455 455 20 1394 112
GFC16 1600 0.45 542 542 488 10 1579 100
PFC8 800 0.75 353 116 352 40 803 112
Plastic PFC10 1000 0.65 447 147 386 25 1030 125
PFC12 1200 0.65 543 179 469 15 1250 125

The higher requirement of water to solids ratio for PFC mixes may be because of the lower

specific gravity and angular shape of the plastic powder. The foam volume decreases steeply

with an increase in foam concrete density whereas the water solids ratio decreases marginally for

both the fillers. From the trials, for both fillers, the spread value was observed to be increasing
with increase in the water to solids ratio at a particular density. In low-density mixes requiring

higher foam content, reduction in spread values was observed. A reported study involving low-

density mixes [6] indicates that there are more bubbles and their adhesion with the solid particles

results in reduced spreadability.

4.2 Hardened State Properties

4.2.1 Compressive Strength

The compressive strength mainly depends on the water to solids ratio, cement content, foam

volume and the type of fillers. Table 5 shows the average compressive strength (based on testing

6 samples) of GFC and PFC respectively, at the selected design densities for each filler type.

Table 5: Compressive Strength of Mixes

Design Dry Average Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Filler Mix Density density
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) 7 day strength (CoV) 28 day strength (CoV)

GFC12 1200 1253 3.21 (0.108) 5.28 (0.088)

Glass GFC14 1400 1446 3.68 (0.051) 6.30 (0.026)

GFC16 1600 1599 6.34 (0.121) 10.26 (0.101)

PFC8 800 773 0.92 (0.127) 1.53 (0.122)

Plastic PFC10 1000 1024 1.87 (0.132) 3.03 (0.129)

PFC12 1200 1248 3.69 (0.122) 6.06 (0.135)

All the mixes showed compressive strength within the range of 1.5 N/mm2 to 10 N/mm2

observed for sand-filler foam concrete of 800kg/m3 to 1600 kg/m3 densities as reported [27]. The
strength ranges achieved indicate their suitability for different classes of application from

insulation to masonry blocks. The maximum compressive strength of 10.26 N/mm2 was obtained

for GFC at a design density of 1600 kg/m3. This may be because of the lower foam content at

higher densities. As the density of foam concrete increased, the volume of foam added was

reduced which means that lesser volume of the mix was occupied by the pores. For GFC, the

foam volume has decreased from 30% to 10% for design densities from 1200 kg/m3 to 1600

kg/m3 whereas, in the case of PFC, foam volume decreased from 40% to 15% for design

densities from 800 kg/m3 to 1200 kg/m3. GFC showed higher strength than PFC because of the

higher design densities and lower water to solids ratio for the former mixes. At all the design

densities attempted in the study, the derived strength was sufficient for it to be recommended for

masonry blocks. Studies on normal concrete utilizing glass powder as the fine aggregate [14, 28]

report an increase in strength due to the pozzolanic reaction of glass filler. This factor also would

have contributed along with the fine particle size of glass filler in attaining the higher strength of

GFC. For the same design density of 1200 kg/m3, the compressive strength of PFC was found to

be marginally higher than that of GFC. It may be attributed to the higher foam volume in the

latter. The range of strength obtained at low densities indicates its suitability for insulation

blocks.

4.2.2 Air Void Characterization

The strength of foam concrete is influenced by the air void distribution. For both fillers, it was

observed that the voids were uniformly distributed with most of the voids being in a uniform size

range at all design densities. Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show typical normal images of the specimen

cut surface for air-void analysis before and after preparation. Figures 3 (a) and (b) show the

typical microscopic images (with 50X magnification) of GFC and PFC respectively.
 (a) Before preparation (b) After preparation
Figure 2: Typical images of cut surface for air-void analysis

(a) GFC (b) PFC

Figure 3: Typical microscopic images of GFC and PFC

In the case of GFC, the voids were found to be more uniformly distributed, regular in shape and

less interconnected. This may be due to the higher fineness of glass powder filler. It has been

reported that finer filler material results in a uniform distribution of bubbles [6]. For PFC, as the

foam volume increases i.e. as foam concrete density decreases, the number of bigger sized pores
also increases suggesting merging of pores at higher foam volume. A similar observation was

observed and reported in an earlier research work [4]. The pores were of irregular shape at all

densities in general for PFC specimens. The total sectional area of voids and its percentage based

on the observed area of all mixes are presented in Table 6. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the air-

void distribution of GFC and PFC respectively.

Table 6: Total Void content of mixes

Filler Mix Area of Total area Percentage area

Type Designation Voids observed occupied by voids
(mm2) (mm2) (%)
GFC16 7.62 13.3
Glass GFC14 13.5 57.2 23.6
GFC12 17.93 31.3
PFC12 11.15 19.5
Plastic PFC10 16.98 57.2 29.7
PFC8 25.56 44.7
 100
Cumulative Frequency (%)
80

60
GFC12
40 GFC14
GFC16
20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Air void size (µm)

Figure 4: Relation between Cumulative frequency and air void size of GFC

100
Cumulative Frequency (%)

80

60
PFC8
PFC10
40
PFC12
20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Air void Size (µm)

Figure 5: Relation between Cumulative frequency and air void size of PFC

For both fillers, the percentage of area occupied by voids showed an increase with a reduction in

density. The reduction in the void area of GFC was from 31.3% to 13.3% for GFC12 to GFC16. In

PFC8, air voids constituted 44.7% of the total area analyzed and only 19.5% in case of PFC12.

Air-void parameter D90 values (indicate that only 10% of voids are larger than this size)
correlates well with the strength of foamed concrete and hence were taken into consideration for

the analysis. Figure 6 shows the relationship between air void parameter and the 28-day

compressive strength for GFC and PFC.

12

10
Compressive Strength (N/mm2 )

Glass Filler
8
Plastic Filler
1600 kg/m³
6
1400 kg/m³
1200 kg/m³
4
1200 kg/m³
1000 kg/m³
2
800 kg/m³

0
600 700 800 900
Pore Diameter (μm)

Figure 6: Relation of Strength to effective Air void parameter D90

It was observed that as the density increases, there was a reduction in pore diameter resulting in

increased strength for both fillers, similar to the observation of Ameer A. Hilal et al. [9]. For

GFC, only a small variation in D90 value was observed at different densities. The decrease in

pore diameter was higher for PFC, but a corresponding significant increase in strength was not

observed. The compressive strength was observed to increase with a reduction in the percentage

of area occupied by air voids and the D90 value. This can explain the slightly higher

compressive strength in PFC at the design density 1200kg/m3 than GFC.

4.3 Effect of Superplasticizer and Lower W/S ratio

The effect of the addition of superplasticizer and thus a reduction in water to solids ratio was

studied for the selected mixes, the mix composition of which is presented in Table 7. With the

addition of plasticizers, there was a reduction in water/solid ratio and the density was maintained

through the marginal increase in solids. Increase in cement content ranged between 9 to 16% for

different mixes. The corresponding 28 day compressive strength results are tabulated in Table 7.

Table 7: Mix Details and Compressive strength of modified GFC16 and PFC12 mixes

Type of
SP
Filler Average
(1.5%
(Design Mix W/S Foam Cement Filler Water Compressive
by CoV
Density designation Ratio (%) (kg) (kg) (kg) Strength
weight
kg/m3) (N/mm2)
of
cement)

GFC16 - P PCE 0.28 10 625.8 625.8 350.8 39.93 0.128

Glass
(1600kg/m3) GFC16 - S SNF 0.34 10 592.4 592.4 402.8 28.79 0.041

PFC12 - P PCE 0.43 15 632.6 210.9 362.7 8.85 0.061

Plastic
(1200kg/m3) PFC12 - S SNF 0.45 15 622.8 207.6 373.7 5.15 0.149

The introduction of PCE resulted in 37% and 33% reduction of the water to solids ratio in GFC

and PFC respectively, whereas SNF caused a reduction of only 24% and 30%. Hence it can be

concluded that PCE is more efficient in reducing the water to solids ratio, the reduction being

more prominent in GFC. It was observed that by the inclusion of PCE, foam concrete with both

fillers showed a higher strength. This increase in the strength was more significant for GFC when

compared to PFC. Addition of SNF also resulted in an increase in strength for GFC and no

appreciable change for PFC when compared with mixes without superplasticizer. Figure 7 and

Figure 8 show the air-void size distribution of GFC and PFC respectively.
 100
Cumulative Frequency (%)
80

60
GFC16 - P
40
GFC16 - S
GFC16
20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Air void size (µm)

Figure 7: Relation between Cumulative frequency and air void size of GFC16 mixes

100
Cumulative Frequency (%)

80

60
PFC12 - P
40
PFC12 - S
PFC12
20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Air void Size (µm)

Figure 8: Relation between Cumulative frequency and air void size of PFC12 mixes

A higher D90 value indicates the presence of more number of bigger sized pores and thus a

decrease in the compressive strength. The inclusion of superplasticizer has resulted in a decrease

in the D90 value for GFC. In the case of PFC mixes not much changes were observed with
respect to the D90 value on the addition of both superplasticizers. Even though both families of

superplasticizers could effect a reduction in water-solids ratio, a corresponding increase in

compressive strength was not observed indicating an incompatibility of plasticizers in PFC

mixes. Table 8 shows the mix parameters and properties for GFC16 and PFC12 mixes with and

without superplasticizers.

Table 8: Influence of superplasticizers on mix parameters and compressive strength

W/S D90 Compressive Strength

Filler Mix
Ratio (µm) (N/mm2)

GFC16 0.55 632 10.26

Glass GFC16 - P 0.28 545 39.93

GFC16 - S 0.34 605 28.79

PFC12 0.65 678 6.06

Plastic PFC12 - P 0.43 785 8.85

PFC12 - S 0.45 797 5.15

In all the mixes except PFC12 - S, the number and the percentage of area occupied by the voids

have decreased by the inclusion of superplasticizers. A reduction in the number and size of voids

in GFC was observed when PCE was introduced. For GFC specimens, the pores were more

regular in shape, whereas for PFC mixes there was no appreciable difference in the shape and

size of voids with respect to reference mixes. PCE based superplasticizer was effective in

enhancing the strength of foam concrete for structural applications. Strength enhancement up to

2.8 times could be achieved. Beneficial influence on the void structure has been reported [9] in a
study on sand filler based foam concrete prepared by addition of superplasticizer. Marginally

higher cement content, void structure enhancement and improved cement paste microstructure

(due to lesser water/solid ratio) contributed to an improvement in GFC compressive strength.

However, such a beneficial improvement in the air-void structure was not observed in PFC

mixes with both families of superplasticizer.

5. Conclusion

Many earlier studies have focused on utilization of waste generated in industrial processes,

whereas the current study primarily looks at wastes that are generated at commercial and

household level, particularly very low specific gravity filler like waste plastic in powder form.

The following conclusions drawn are applicable to the range of parameters investigated.

 The water to solids ratio which influences the consistency of the mix depends on the type

of filler. Optimal water to solids ratio of plastic filler foam concrete was higher than glass

filler foam concrete by 18% indicating that low specific gravity fillers require higher

water to solids ratio.

 Glass filler foam concrete showed higher compressive strength compared to plastic filler

foam concrete. Recycled glass filler foam concrete showed sufficient compressive

strength that will permit its use for bearing wall applications. Based on density, plastic

filler foam concrete yielded strengths suited either for insulation or load bearing

application.

 The air-voids were found to be uniformly distributed for both the fillers with the majority

of the voids falling in a uniform size range. The inclusion of superplasticizer has resulted

in lowering the D90 value (i.e. lesser number of bigger pores) for GFC, which

contributed to considerable strength improvement.

  In glass filler foam concrete, the inclusion of superplasticizer and a corresponding

reduction in water to solids ratio along with the marginal increase in cement content

improved the compressive strength (up to 2.8 times). Only PCE based superplasticizer

was efficient in enhancing the strength of foam concrete for structural applications.

 Both families of superplasticizers did not show much influence in improving the strength

with respect to plastic filler foam concrete.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial

or not-for-profit sectors.

References

[1] D. K. Panesar, Cellular concrete properties and the effect of synthetic and protein

foaming agents, Construction and Building Materials 44 (2013) 575–584.

[2] E. K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy, Fresh state characteristics of foam

concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 20 (2008) 111-117.

[3] Z.Liu, K.Zhao, C.Hu, Y.Tang, Effect of water-cement ratio on pore structure and

strength of foam concrete, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 2016, Article

ID 9520294 (2016) 9 pages. doi.org/10.1155/2016/9520294

[4] E. K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy, Air void characterization of foam

concrete, Cement and Concrete Research 37 (2007) 221–230.

[5] Siong Kang Lim, Cher Siang Tan, Xiao Zhao, Tung Chai Ling, Strength and toughness

of lightweight foamed concrete with different sand grading, KSCE Journal of Civil

Engineering 19 (2015) 2191-2197.

[6] E. K. Kunhanandan Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy, Influence of filler type on the properties

of foam concrete, Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 475–480.

[7] Chen Bing, Wu Zhen, Liu Ning, Experimental research on properties of high-strength

foamed concrete, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering ASCE 24 (2012) 113-118.

[8] Ameer A. Hilal, Nicholas H. Thom, Andrew R. Dawson, The use of additives to enhance

properties of pre-formed foamed concrete, IACSIT International Journal of Engineering

and Technology 7 (2015) 286-293.

[9] Ameer A. Hilal, Nicholas Howard Thom, Andrew Robert Dawson, On void structure and

strength of foamed concrete made without/with additives, Construction and Building

Materials 85 (2015) 157–164.

[10] Indu Siva Ranjani, K. Ramamurthy, Relative assessment of density and stability of

foam produced with four synthetic surfactants, Materials and Structures 43 (2010) 1317–

1325.

[11] Defence Standard code 40-42, Foam liquids, Fire extinguishing, Ministry of Defence

(2002) Issue 2.

[12] ASTM- C796, Standard Test method for foaming agents for use in producing cellular

concrete using preformed foam (2004).

[13] R. Gowri, K. B. Anand, Utilization of fly ash and ultrafine GGBS for higher strength

foam concrete, IOP Conference series: Material Science and Engineering (Accepted for

publication).

[14] Yahya Jani, William Hogland, Waste glass in the production of cement and concrete –

A review, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 2 (2014) 1767–1775.

[15] H. Du, K. H. Tan, Properties of high volume glass powder concrete, Cement Concrete

Composites 75 (2017) 22-29.

[16] H. Du, K. H. Tan, Effect of particle size on alkali-silica reaction in recycled glass

mortars, Construction and Building Materials 66 (2014) 275-285.

[17] M. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes, Waste

Management 27 (2007) 1870–1876.

[18] B. Harini, K. V. Ramana, Use of recycled plastic waste as partial replacement for fine

aggregate in concrete, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,

Engineering and Technology 4 (2015) 8596-8603.

[19] M. R. Jones, M. J. McCarthy, A. McCarthy, Moving fly ash utilization in concrete

forward: a UK perspective, In: Proceedings of the 2003 international ash utilisation

symposium, Centre for applied energy research, University of Kentucky, 2003, pp.20–

22.

[20] J. M. Durack, L. Weiqing, The properties of foamed air cured fly ash based concrete for

masonry production. in: A. Page, M.Dhanasekar, S.Lawrence (Eds.), Proceedings of

5th Australian masonry conference. Australia: Gladstone, Queensland, 1998, pp.129–

138.

[21] M. Jones, A. McCarthy, R. K. Dhir, Recycled and secondary aggregate in foamed

concrete, DTI/WRAP Aggregates Research Programme STBF13/ 13 C (2005).

[22] Y. L. Lee, Y. T. Hung, Exploitation of solid wastes with foamed concrete, in: R.K.Dhir,

M.D.Newlands, A. McCarthy (Eds.), Use of foamed concrete in construction, Thomas

Telford, London, 2005, pp.15–22.

[23] S. Van Deijk, Foam concrete, Concrete 25 (1991) 49–53.

[24] L. De Rose, J. Morris, The influence of mix design on the properties of microcellular

concrete, in: R.K.Dhir, N.A.Handerson (Eds.), Specialist techniques and materials for

construction, Thomas Telford, London, 1999, pp.185–197.

[25] D. Aldridge, T. Ansell, Foamed concrete: production and equipment design, properties,

applications and potential, In: Proceedings of one day seminar on foamed concrete:

properties, applications and latest technological developments, Loughborough

University, 2001, pp.1-7.

[26] IS 12269, Specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi, India, (1987).

[27] J. Newman, B. S. Choo, and P. Owens, Advanced Concrete Technology Processes,

Elsevier Ltd, 2003, part 2, pp. 2/7-2/9.

[28] Hongjian Du, Hongchen Jacey Gao, Wei Li, Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and

its influences on concrete properties, in: Smith (Ed.), 23rd Australasian Conference on

the Mechanics of Structures and Materials (ACMSM23), Byron Bay, NSW, Australia,

(2014), pp.267-272, ISBN: 9780994152008.

Highlights
 Identifies the potential of using recycled crushed glass and plastic waste powder
as filler in foam concrete
 Low specific gravity fillers require higher water to solids ratio for producing
workable foam concrete mixes.
 Incorporation of PCE based superplasticizer is effective in enhancing strength of
glass powder filler foam concrete.