Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Compressive and flexural strength of fiber-reinforced foamed concrete:

Effect of fiber content, curing conditions and dry density
Devid Falliano a, Dario De Domenico a,⇑, Giuseppe Ricciardi a, Ernesto Gugliandolo b
a
Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Contrada Di Dio, 98166 Sant’Agata, Messina, Italy
b
G. Gugliandolo s.r.l., Via Galileo Galilei, 98100 Messina, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

More than 150 tests for mechanical characterization of extrudable foamed concrete.

Different reinforcement strategies to enhance the flexural strength through fibers.

Short polymer fibers embedded in the lightweight cementitious paste and GFRP mesh.

Different curing conditions and fiber contents were investigated.

Optimum reinforcement arrangement with and without GFRP mesh was identified.

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

Article history: An extensive experimental campaign was carried out to investigate the mechanical strength of fiber-
Received 1 August 2018 reinforced lightweight foamed concrete. The considered foamed concrete was prepared with a viscosity
Received in revised form 8 November 2018 enhancing agent that increases the cohesion and consistency of the cement paste at the fresh state
Accepted 23 November 2018
(extrudable foamed concrete). The flexural strength was evaluated on almost 60 small-scale prismatic
Available online 5 December 2018
beam specimens, and the compressive strength on 100 cubic specimens in accordance with two different
testing standards for comparative purposes. The effects of three different curing conditions (air, cello-
Keywords:
phane and water), three target dry densities (400, 600, 800 kg/m3), three fiber contents (0.7%, 2.0%,
Extrudable foamed concrete
Lightweight foamed concrete
5.0%), and the presence of an additional glass-fiber-reinforced-polymer (GFRP) mesh in the tensile zone
Fiber reinforced concrete of the beams (besides the short fibers) were analyzed. The polymer fibers increased the flexural capacity
GFRP mesh of the beams, especially for the low-density specimens and for the higher contents of fibers (2.0% and,
Polymer fibers above all, 5.0%), but had a negligible influence on the compressive strength. The additional GFRP mesh
Curing conditions combined with the short fibers improved the flexural capacity considerably in all the examined condi-
Dry density tions, turning out to be the best strategy for obtaining high mechanical strengths associated with low
densities typical of ultra-lightweight concrete elements.
Ó 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction realizing partition walls and infills to meet the increasingly

Lightweight foamed concrete (LWFC) is a cellular cementitious
material obtained by introducing preformed foam into the cemen-
titious matrix. This combination gives rise to the development of
air voids within the underlying microstructure of the material,
which results in a series of advantageous properties including: 1)
low self-weight, especially for low densities [1,2], which is impor-
tant in the refurbishment operations or also to lessen the loads in
the structural elements of a building; 2) thermal insulating
characteristics and acoustic absorption [3,4], which are useful for
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dario.dedomenico@unime.it (D. De Domenico).
demanding requests from the perspective of energy performance
of buildings; 3) fire resistance [5], which is also a desirable feature
in infills walls; 4) workability [6]. Additionally, enhanced variants
of the LWFC may also include other constituents that, in place of a
portion of traditional aggregates, contribute to a higher strength
and durability of the material, such as fly ash or silica fume [7],
or also recycled components like electric arc furnace slag [8,9],
recycled glass, or foundry slag [10], which is in line with a sustain-
able re-use of by-products from other manufacturing processes.
The above peculiarities are accompanied by strengths that are
gradually decreasing with decreasing densities [11]. However, it
3
is in such low-to-medium density range (< 1000 kg=m ) that the
above-mentioned positive characteristics of LWFC are better

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.197
0950-0618/Ó 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
480 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
emphasized. LWFC elements in the low-to-medium density range
are employed for non-structural elements and partitions in build-
ings, substrates in road construction [12], industrial concrete floors
[13], whereas for higher densities it might be used for structural
applications like composite walling systems [14]. Thus, an interest-
ing research theme concerns the development of strategies that
make it possible to achieve good strength without requiring the
increase of the density.
In the relevant literature, a common strategy to increase the
strength of LWFC without worsening the above peculiar character-
istics associated with low densities is the inclusion of fibers of dif-
ferent nature and in different contents embedded in the
cementitious matrix. A wide variety of fiber types were investi-
gated in this regard, including polypropylene [15–17], combination
of glass with polypropylene [18], kenaf [19,20], oil palm, steel [21],
coconut [22], recycled cellulose from waste paper [23], combina-
tion of carbon with polypropylene fibers [24]. These fibers are usu-
ally introduced in a volume content ranging from 0.2% to 1.5%. To
extend the knowledge in this field, the present paper specifically
addresses a range of fiber contents from 0.7% up to 5%, thus also
covering high fiber contents on which very few studies are present
in the relevant literature. The presence of the fibers increases the
flexural strength of LWFC, but is also effective to reduce the drying
shrinkage phenomena [25]. Alternatively, reinforcement strategies
with composite grids and fiber-reinforced meshes were also inves-
tigated in the context of lightweight concrete [26,27]. Strategies to
enhance the mechanical strength of LWFC involving the simultane-
ous presence of embedded short fibers in the cementitious matrix
(in the above specified medium-to-high volume contents) com-
bined with bi-directional grid reinforcement might be very effec-
tive, which has further motivated the present research work.
This paper presents an extensive experimental campaign
focused on a particular class of LWFC, called extrudable light-
weight foamed concrete (E-LWFC) [28]. Unlike classical LWFC, this
material is characterized by an enhanced viscosity and cohesion of
the lightweight cementitious paste at the fresh state. This peculiar-
ity, obtained through a proper viscosity enhancing agent (VEA) that
does not worsen the workability of the cementitious paste, would
allow a production via extrusion process as the material is able to
keep the dimensional stability without the need of resorting to
formwork. All this is convenient for prefabrication and innovative
production process in the building industry, thus speeding up the
construction times. Considering the innovative features of the E-
LWFC, it is interesting to investigate, from an experimental point
of view, the mechanical behavior of this new material as well as
other properties like drying shrinkage and water absorption. In
addition to the compressive and flexural strength of the E-LWFC
determined on a class of cubic specimens (more than 100) and
prismatic beam specimens (more than 60) in different conditions,
the paper is more specifically concerned with the improvement
of the mechanical characteristics via different fiber reinforcement
classic LWFC E-LWFC
Fig. 1. Green strength of LWFC, E-LWFC without fibers, and fiber-reinforced E-LWFC (specimen preparation with equal target dry density of 600 kg/m3). (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
strategies. This in line with the above-mentioned aim of obtaining
a lightweight material with acceptable strength through the use of
fibers. The effect of three different curing conditions (air, cello-
phane and water), and three target dry densities (400, 600,
800 kg/m3) was investigated. To enhance the flexural strength,
short polymer fibers were first embedded in the cementitious
matrix in three different contents by volume (0.7%, 2.0%, 5.0%), so
as to include also the effect of fibers in high volume content. To fur-
ther analyze the influence of different reinforcement strategies, in
addition to the short polymer fibers, a glass-fiber-reinforced-
polymer (GFRP) mesh was then added in the tensile zone of some
other beams. This has made it possible to identify an optimal rein-
forcement strategy among a large set of experimental data (includ-
ing more than 150 specimens), along with the interaction of the
different levels of reinforcement in E-LWFC specimens at the ana-
lyzed low-to-medium density range.
2. Experimental campaign
The experimental campaign has been carried out on both cubic specimens of
5 cm side, to determine the compressive strength according to ASTM C-109, and
prismatic beams with dimensions 40  40  160 mm, to determine the flexural
and compressive strength according to UNI EN 196–1 standards. Concerning the lat-
ter regulation, first the flexural strength is determined through a three-point-
bending test on the beam, then, compressive tests are performed on halves of the
prism broken, thus obtaining two compressive strength values for each prism. This
has made it possible to compare the compressive strength values computed with
two different methods complying with two different testing procedures.
2.1. Materials
Portland CEM I 52,5 R was used for all the prepared specimens. The mix propor-
tions of the constituting elements in the cement were established in accordance
with the EN 197-1 standards. In the relevant literature, the effect of different foam-
ing agents in LWFC was analyzed and discussed [29]. A similar investigation was
also performed by the authors in [11] for classical LWFC, and it has been found that
the protein-based foaming agent called Foamin CÒ (trademark name) was a suitable
one for achieving good compressive strengths. Building on the earlier observations
and studies, we here adopt the same foaming agent for all the considered E-LWFC
specimens. This is a liquid foaming agent with a brown color, acidity PH equal to 6.6
and specific weight 1.16 g/ml. This foaming agent has been employed to generate
the foam necessary to prepare the LWFC. Two parameters are crucial to generate
the foam: concentration of foaming agent and pressure of injected air. The former
has been set to 3% of the water volume, the latter has been assumed as 3 bar. Air,
tap water and foaming agent have been mixed in an appropriate collector in which
the turbulent flow gave rise to the foam generation. The resulting foam had a den-
sity of around 80 g/l.
To improve the cohesion and viscosity of the lightweight cement mix without
worsening the workability of the paste at the fresh state, a VEA was added in the
specimen preparation in proportion to 5% of the cement weight. Thus, the LWFC
turns into E-LWFC and gains properties of green strength, namely dimensional sta-
bility at the fresh state. Some photographs comparing the different behavior at the
fresh state between LWFC and E-LWFC are illustrated in Fig. 1 (with a photograph in
the right concerning the fiber-reinforced variant of E-LWFC).
The reinforcement materials are represented by: i) short polymer fibers with
length 20 mm, equivalent diameter 0.54 mm, specific weight 1.0 kg/dm3 and ulti-
mate tensile strength of 520 MPa according to ASTM C-116 and UNI 11039/1,2 stan-
dards; ii) bi-directional reinforcement grids of glass fibers (GFRP mesh) with
fiber-reinforced E-LWFC
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493 481

spacing 4 mm  4 mm, weight per unit area 125 g/m2, and ultimate tensile strength
of 25 kN/m according to JG 149–2003 standards. These two reinforcement compo-
nents are depicted in the photographs of Fig. 2.
2.2. Mix proportions
In this experimental campaign, attention has been focused on three different
low-to-medium target dry densities, namely 400, 600 and 800 kg/m3 with a toler-
3
ance of 50 kg=m – specimens falling outside this interval were excluded from
this experimental investigation. The adjective ‘‘dry” is here introduced as these
densities are evaluated after placing the specimens in an oven at 110 °C until a
constant weight is reached. In line with a previous research work on classical
LWFC [11], a fixed water/cement ratio equal to 0.3 was kept for all the considered
E-LWFC specimens, and the resulting foam content was varied to obtain the above
specified target dry densities accordingly. Preliminary sensitivity studies were car-
ried out to determine the correct foam content necessary for obtaining the three
target dry densities. The previous experimental investigation has made it possible
to obtain general guidelines in terms of the proportions of the various elements.
However, in comparison with the previous experimental campaign concerned
with classical LWFC, the foam content has been increased of around 40% (on aver-
age) in the E-LWFC of the present investigation. This is ascribed to the higher vis-
cosity of the cementitious paste that gives rise to an increased collapse of the
foam during the mixing phase due to the higher shear stress in comparison with
the classical LWFC.
In Table 1 we report the mix proportions of the various specimen categories
(including beam specimens and cubes), adopting the nomenclature indicated in
the footnote of the table. The ratios relevant to the mix design are indicated with
f =c; w=c and ðw þ f Þ=c; where w is the water content, f denotes the foam content
and c the cement weight. The short fiber content rf (in weight per unit volume)
is also indicated for completeness.
2.3. Specimen preparation
By referring to the schematic stages illustrated in Fig. 3, some details on the
specimen preparation are discussed in this subsection. The first step was the prepa-
ration of the cement paste by mixing cement, water and VEA according to the mix
proportions outlined above for about 1 min at speed of around 3000 rpm. In the
specimens without fibers, the foam content was gradually added (at speed
3000 rpm for 2 min) until obtaining the final mix. In the specimens with embedded
short polymer fibers, the foam was gradually introduced in the cement paste for the
first 50% content, then the first 50% content of the fibers was introduced and mixed
until a homogeneous paste was achieved, finally the remaining quantities of foam
and fibers were gradually added in order to obtain the definitive mix. Some speci-
mens were reinforced with combined short polymer fibers and GFRP mesh. The lat-
ter was placed close to the bottom external face of the beam specimens (tensile
zone), keeping around 4 mm cover.
2.4. Curing conditions
In order to assess the effect of various curing conditions due to hydration phe-
nomena occurring in the LWFC and corresponding failure modes, three different
curing conditions were analyzed, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Indeed, after de-molding,
some specimens were cured in air at environmental temperature of (20  3  C)
and in laboratory relative humidity (RH) conditions of 65–75%. This represents
the worst configuration for achieving the mechanical strength due to the premature
de-hydration associated with these conditions. Some other specimens were
wrapped within a cellophane sheet at the same temperature and RH as above,
which is a conventional procedure adopted in foamed concrete precast industry
[30] to prevent considerable evaporation of water during the curing process. Some
other specimens were cured in water at a controlled temperature of 30 °C within a
closed tank. For each mix design, for each reinforcement arrangement and for each
target dry density, one prismatic beam specimen and two cubic specimens were
prepared for each curing condition. This has led to an extensive number of speci-
mens with different characteristics, which has made it possible to scrutinize differ-
ent effects on the achievement of the mechanical strength of fiber-reinforced E-
LWFC in comparison with E-LWFC without reinforcement assumed as reference
set for comparative purposes.

2.5. Fresh density, wet density and porosity

Fig. 2. GFRP mesh (left) and short polymer fibers (right).
Reported in Table 2 are also the fresh densities cf and the wet densities cwet cor-
responding to the three target dry densities cdry mentioned above. The former is the
density evaluated at the preparation stage of the specimens, the latter is computed
after 28 days in air curing conditions at natural humidity conditions. As reported in
Table 2, the fresh density values range from around 590 to 1100 kg/m3, the wet

Table 1
Mix design of the tested specimens of E-LWFC with and without reinforcement.

Specimen categoryy Mix design

Dry density Cement Water Foam Short fiber content Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Ratio 3
cdry ½kg=m3  c ½kg=m3  w ½kg=m3  f ½kg=m3  rf ½kg=m3  w=c f =c ðw þ f Þ=c

400C 422 321 96 141 – 0.3 0.44 0.74

600C 634 479 144 170 – 0.3 0.35 0.65
800C 823 647 194 191 – 0.3 0.29 0.59
400U 408 319 96 181 – 0.3 0.57 0.87
600U 608 465 139 185 – 0.3 0.40 0.70
800U 825 648 194 182 – 0.3 0.28 0.58
400F07 382 303 91 169 6.17 0.3 0.56 0.86
600F07 639 480 144 175 6.72 0.3 0.36 0.66
400F2 440 328 98 162 17.24 0.3 0.49 0.79
600F2 631 478 143 199 19.11 0.3 0.42 0.72
800F2 796 626 188 177 18.55 0.3 0.28 0.58
800F2.1 832 650 195 201 20.10 0.3 0.31 0.61
400F5 436 327 98 161 44.5 0.3 0.49 0.79
400F5.1 420 322 97 160 43.8 0.3 0.50 0.80
600F5 622 470 141 203 44.8 0.3 0.43 0.73
800F5 804 633 190 205 48.5 0.3 0.32 0.62
400GF2 443 330 99 162 18.3 0.3 0.49 0.79
600GF2 596 429 129 176 17.2 0.3 0.41 0.71
800GF2 778 619 186 186 19.2 0.3 0.30 0.60
400GF5 435 327 98 168 44.5 0.3 0.51 0.81
600GF5 598 431 129 180 43.0 0.3 0.42 0.72
800GF5 802 631 189 201 48.5 0.3 0.32 0.62
y
The number denotes the target dry density of the mix (400, 600, 800 kg/m3), the cubes are indicated with C (cubic specimens), the un-reinforced beam type is indicated with
U (unreinforced), F (fiber-reinforced) or GF (bi-directional glass-fiber grids and short fibers) denote the reinforcement arrangement, followed by the relative content of short
fibers embedded in the cementitious matrix (0.7%, 2.0%, 5.0%).
482 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493

Fig. 3. Photographs of the specimen preparation of foamed concrete beams: a) cement, water and VEA; b) foam weighing; c) fiber-reinforced lightweight cement paste; d)
cubic specimens; e) prismatic beam specimens with GFRP mesh reinforcement; f) de-molded specimens.

Fig. 4. Curing conditions of some of the tested beams in air at environmental temperature (left), wrapped in cellophane sheet at environmental temperature (center), and in
water at controlled temperature (right).

density from 470 to 1010 kg/m3 and the dry density from 380 to 830 kg/m3. Consid- for the preparation was placed on a vibrating table and shaken strongly during the
ering the three above-defined density values, the water content of each specimen in casting operations and for 10 min after casting was completed. As can be seen from
air curing conditions is computed via the formula the photographs shown in Fig. 5, the majority of the bubbles were eliminated by the
vibrations induced by the shaking of the table and, after this operation and after de-
W wet  W dry
wa ½%  ¼  100: ð1Þ molding, the specimens were cured in cellophane for 28 days, placed in an oven at
W wet
110 °C until a constant weight was reached, and then weighed. This final weight
Additionally, the difference between fresh and wet density is calculated as value was employed for the evaluation of csolid , which turns out to be equal to
1850 kg/m3.
cf  cwet
Dc½%  ¼  100: ð2Þ
cf
2.6. Drying shrinkage and water absorption
The porosity of the specimens listed in Table 2 was evaluated through the fol-
lowing expression
It is well known that the presence of short fibers within the cementitious matrix
cdry of LWFC reduces the drying shrinkage. In these lightweight cementitious speci-
e¼1 ð3Þ
csolid mens, especially in the low density range where no aggregates are present like in
this experimental campaign, the effects of drying shrinkage are more pronounced
where csolid denotes the density of the cementitious matrix. The evaluation of csolid in comparison with traditional normal-weight concrete elements [15,20,31]. Thus,
was performed on specific cubic specimens of 5 cm side prepared without foam the inclusion of fibers may overcome a drawback encountered in this material in
(ordinary, not lightweight cement) and with the same w/c ratio equal to 0.3. Since addition to improving the tensile strength.
in these ordinary specimens the presence of air voids, despite being very low, is In this study, more focused on the mechanical strength than on the physical
unavoidable, great attention has been paid to the preparation of such additional characteristics of the E-LWFC, the drying shrinkage has been evaluated at a few ages
cubes to minimize the intrinsic porosity and eliminate possible air bubbles between within 28 days on the prismatic beam specimens. Relevant results are shown in
the specimen external faces and the formwork surfaces. Indeed, the formwork used Fig. 6. The un-reinforced specimens exhibit a shrinkage that decreases with increas-
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493 483

Table 2
Evaluation of density at different states of the specimens for air curing conditions.

Series no. Fresh density Wet density Density difference Dry density Porosity Water weight ratio
cf ½kg=m3  cwet ½kg=m3  Dc[%]1 cdry ½kg=m3  e ½% wa ½% 2

400C 589 512 13.07 422 77.19 17.58

600C 820 764 6.83 634 65.73 17.01
800C 1081 976 9.71 823 55.51 15.68
400U 609 502 17.57 408 77.94 18.72
600U 835 750 10.18 608 67.13 18.93
800U 1105 1015 8.14 825 55.40 18.72
400F07 546 473 13.37 382 79.35 19.24
600F07 855 797 6.78 639 65.46 19.82
400F2 615 535 13.01 440 76.23 17.82
600F2 883 778 11.89 631 65.89 18.89
800F2 1042 959 7.96 796 56.99 17.03
800F2.1 1090 1005 7.80 832 55.03 17.21
400F5 607 517 14.83 436 76.43 15.67
400F5.1 609 518 14.94 420 77.30 18.92
600F5 841 764 9.15 622 66.40 18.64
800F5 1041 960 7.78 804 56.54 16.25
400GF2 635 530 16.53 443 76.07 16.48
600GF2 819 730 10.87 596 67.78 18.35
800GF2 1073 975 9.13 778 57.93 20.17
400GF5 614 519 15.47 435 76.49 16.18
600GF5 805 725 9.94 598 67.66 17.47
800GF5 1062 975 8.19 802 56.65 17.74
1
Difference between fresh density and wet density (after 28 days).
2
Computed as the difference between the dry weight and the wet weight of the specimen over the wet weight.

Fig. 5. Evaluation procedure of density of the cementitious matrix csolid .

Fig. 6. Drying shrinkage evaluation of E-LWFC with and without fibers: a) trend for a few ages of un-reinforced specimens with two dry densities; b) comparative histograms
of 28-days shrinkage measurements for specimens with different contents of fibers.

ing dry density. In particular, the value found for the 800 kg/m3 is quite in line with
similar measurements reported in the relevant literature for specimens of LWFC
(not extrudable) having a comparable dry density [15]. Adding short polymer fibers
reduces the drying shrinkage of the specimens at 28 days, as illustrated in Fig. 6b).
The percentage of reduction is negligible for the 0.7% fiber content, about 35% for
the 2.0% fiber content, and around 45% for the 5.0% fiber content.
Additionally, the water absorption of the E-LWFC has also been evaluated in this
experimental campaign. To determine the water absorption we considered cubic
specimens (without fibers), some of which having a dry density falling outside
the admissible range as specified in the previous subsections (for instance, speci-
mens with dry density of around 530 and 860 kg/m3). After 28 days, the specimens
were dried in an oven at 110 °C until a constant weight was reached (w0). At this
484 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493

stage they were immersed in water and kept for 7 days and until a constant weight increase of the dry density of the specimens. Values of the water absorption per unit
was reached (w1). In normal-weight concrete the water absorption is expressed as mass and per unit volume are in the range 35–45% and 250–320 kg/m3, respectively,
the percentage increase of mass in comparison with the dry mass: in line with other literature studies [32].

w1  w0
W absorption1 ½% ¼  100: ð4Þ 2.7. Testing conditions
w0
This format has been adopted also for E-LWFC as reported in Fig. 7a). Neverthe- Two shapes of specimens were considered in this experimental study. Prismatic
less, in foamed concrete, especially for the low densities, it is more instructive to beam specimens were tested at 28 days under three-point-bending according to
evaluate the water absorption as the increase in mass per unit volume [32,33]: UNI EN 196-1 standards to evaluate the flexural strength of E-LWFC, and then
halves of the broken prism were tested in compression. Cubic specimens were also
w1  w0 tested at 28 days under compression tests according to ASTM C-109 to evaluate the
W absorption2 ½kg=m3  ¼ ð5Þ
V0 compressive strength of E-LWFC. The compressive strength values originated from
the two different testing procedures were then compared with each other.
where V 0 is the sample volume. Relevant results from Eq. (5) are reported in Fig. 7b). The tests were performed through a CONTROLS test frame model 65-L1301/FR.
It is seen that the trend is completely different in the two evaluation methods. This is This testing equipment is formed by a twin column rigid steel construction
because the dry mass increases more rapidly with the increase of the dry density (devoted to the two different shapes of the specimens) as illustrated in Fig. 8. In this
than the w1  w0 difference. However, such difference w1  w0 increases with the figure we also report some specimens tested according to the two different

Fig. 7. Water absorption of E-LWFC without fibers expressed as: a) percentage increase in mass per unit of dry mass; b) increase in mass per unit volume.

Fig. 8. Photographs of the testing equipment used in the experimental campaign: a) twin column rigid steel construction; b) flexural strength evaluated with three-point-
bending test in accordance with UNI EN 196-1 standards; c) compressive strength evaluated on half of the broken prism according to UNI EN 196-1 standards; d) compressive
strength evaluated on cubic specimens in accordance with ASTM C-109; e) prismatic beam at failure with embedded short polymer fibers.
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493 485

regulations. The load capacity of the frame devoted to the flexural tests is 15 kN,
while that of the compression tests is 250 kN. The load rate for the flexural tests
is 50 N/s, while that of the compression tests is 2400 N/s. For each test the peak load
was recorded and then the compressive and flexural strength were calculated. For
the compressive tests according to UNI EN 196-1 standards, the halves of the prism
broken were placed on two platens of 4 cm side as illustrated in Fig. 8c).
3. Flexural strength
The determination of the flexural strength of E-LWFC is of inter-
est in the context of effective lightweight walling systems in build-
ings [34]. The introduction of the reinforcement strategies
proposed in this paper is beneficial for increasing the flexural
strength of E-LWFC.
In the present experimental campaign we have investigated
the effects of different factors on the achievement of the
mechanical strength of E-LWFC, as outlined in the previous sec-
tion (curing conditions, dry densities, fiber contents and rein-
forcement arrangements). Since the variability of the
parameters considered is quite wide, the effect of single specific
factors has been analyzed separately and discussed in different
subsections of the present paper. The resulting flexural and com-
pressive strength values for all the analyzed specimens are listed
in Tables 3–8 for specimens having different conditions. The
nomenclature of the specimens follows the same general rules
as described above, with a number denoting the single test in
ascending order with increasing dry density for every curing
condition, followed by a symbol indicating the reinforcement
configuration: U stands for unreinforced; F stands for short poly-
mer fibers embedded in the cementitious paste, followed by the
content in volume as percentage (0.7%, 2%, 5%); GF stands for
combined GFRP mesh in the tensile zone of the specimens with
embedded short polymer fibers with the percentage indicated as
above. By inspection of the tables, it is seen that some speci-
mens (with 5% fibers and 400 kg/m3 target dry density) are
replicated twice to further check the consistency of the prelim-
inary trend obtained.
In the Tables 3–7 the flexural strength f t is reported for each
prismatic beam specimen tested in accordance with UNI EN 196-
1, along with the compressive strength determined on two halves
of the broken prism. Considering two values for each prism, the

Table 3
Experimental flexural and compressive strength for prismatic beam specimens without reinforcement tested in accordance with UNI EN 196–1.

Curing conditions Series no. Dry density Flexural strength Mean compressive strength st. dev. compressive strength COV strength
cdry ½kg=m3  f t ½MPa Rc ½MPa rRc ½MPa COV Rc

Air #1U 413 0.09 1.66 0.09 0.05

#2U 611 1.09 6.21 0.11 0.02
#3U 814 2.15 12.23 0.42 0.03
Cellophane #4U 413 0.12 1.71 0.10 0.06
#5U 609 1.23 6.43 0.03 0.01
#6U 824 2.40 11.87 0.48 0.04
Water #7U 398 0.10 1.52 0.13 0.09
#8U 604 1.24 6.14 0.04 0.01
#9U 838 2.53 12.07 0.24 0.02

Table 4
Experimental flexural and compressive strength for prismatic beam specimens with 0.7% short fibers tested in accordance with UNI EN 196-1.

Curing conditions Series no. Dry density Flexural strength Mean compressive strength st. dev. compressive strength COV strength
cdry ½kg=m3  f t ½MPa Rc ½MPa rRc ½MPa COV Rc

Air #1F07 405 0.1 1.82 0.06 0.03

#2F07 638 1.01 6.50 0.03 0.00
Cellophane #3F07 386 0.1 1.20 0.11 0.09
#4F07 631 1.05 6.83 0.11 0.02
Water #5F07 355 0.06 1.11 0.01 0.01
#6F07 647 1.15 6.05 0.08 0.01

Table 5
Experimental flexural and compressive strength for prismatic beam specimens with 2.0% short fibers tested in accordance with UNI EN 196-1.

Curing conditions Series no. Dry density Flexural strength Mean compressive strength st. dev. compressive strength COV strength
cdry ½kg=m3  f t ½MPa Rc ½MPa rRc ½MPa COV Rc

Air #1F2 448 0.91 1.92 0.09 0.05

#2F2 638 1.20 7.09 0.06 0.01
#3F2 778 2.26 10.34 1.89 0.18
#3F2.1 835 2.35 12.44 0.25 0.02
Cellophane #4F2 431 0.81 1.69 0.20 0.12
#5F2 636 1.40 7.12 0.04 0.01
#6F2 797 2.57 11.32 0.18 0.02
#6F2.1 827 2.72 12.84 0.33 0.02
Water #7F2 440 0.83 1.93 0.00 0.00
#8F2 619 1.67 5.33 0.19 0.04
#9F2 812 2.68 10.03 0.85 0.08
#9F2.1 833 2.38 10.28 0.59 0.06
486 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493

Table 6
Experimental flexural and compressive strength for prismatic beam specimens with 5.0% short fibers tested in accordance with UNI EN 196-1.

Curing conditions Series no. Dry density Flexural strength Mean compressive strength st. dev. compressive strength COV strength
cdry ½kg=m3  f t ½MPa Rc ½MPa rRc ½MPa COV Rc

Air #1F5 442 1.4 2.03 0.04 0.02

#1F5.1 430 1.05 1.96 0.19 0.10
#2F5 639 2.1 5.98 0.25 0.04
#3F5 803 3.94 10.41 0.32 0.03
Cellophane #4F5 435 1.59 2.76 0.15 0.06
#4F5.1 433 1.41 2.37 0.05 0.02
#5F5 625 2.33 6.42 0.04 0.01
#5F5.1 611 2.39 6.09 0.22 0.03
#5F5.2 603 2.19 6.01 0.06 0.01
#6F5 804 3.75 11.02 0.87 0.08
Water #7F5 430 1.26 1.95 0.10 0.05
#7F5.1 398 0.94 1.81 0.30 0.17
#8F5 630 2.02 4.97 0.07 0.01
#9F5 806 3.57 9.29 0.44 0.05

Table 7
Experimental flexural and compressive strength for prismatic beam specimens with GFRP mesh combined with short polymer fibers (2% in volume) tested in accordance with UNI
EN 196-1.

GFRP mesh + 2% polymer fibers GFRP mesh + 5% polymer fibers

Curing conditions Series no. Dry density Flexural strength Series no. Dry density Flexural strength

cdry ½kg=m 3 f t ½MPa cdry ½kg=m 

3 f t ½MPa

Air #1GF2 447 2.53 #1GF5 441 2.32

#2GF2 604 4.51 #2GF5 617 4.34
#3GF2 803 6.75 #3GF5 811 7.05
Cellophane #4GF2 442 2.56 #4GF5 429 2.62
#5GF2 598 4.35 #5GF5 591 4.82
#6GF2 752 7.72 #6GF5 817 7.02
Water #7GF2 439 1.94 #7GF5 435 2.01
#8GF2 586 3.44 #8GF5 587 3.46
#9GF2 780 6.24 #9GF5 778 6.86

Table 8
Experimental compressive strength of the cubic specimens tested in accordance with the ASTM C-109 standards.

Curing conditions Series no. Mean dry density st. dev. dry density COV dry density Mean compressive strength st. dev. strength COV strength
cdry ½kg=m3  rcdry ½kg=m3  COV cdry Rc ½MPa rRc ½MPa COV Rc

Air #1C 431 – – 1.98 – –

#2C 626 2.0 0.003 6.38 0.19 0.03
#3C 822 6.0 0.007 11.67 0.38 0.03
Cellophane #4C 423 – – 2.24 – –
#5C 636 1.0 0.002 6.53 0.74 0.11
#6C 824 7.0 0.009 13.38 0.25 0.02
Water #7C 416 11.0 0.027 1.56 0.66 0.42
#8C 639 4.0 0.006 5.84 0.09 0.02
#9C 823 2.0 0.002 11.68 0.28 0.02

arithmetic mean compressive strength Rc is indicated together
with the corresponding standard deviation rRc and the coefficient
of variation (COV) of the two sets of measures COV Rc . In addition
to the values listed in the tables, a series of plots are developed
to highlight the effects of specific factors on the mechanical
strength of E-LWFC.
3.1. Effect of dry density
Previous studies from the literature revealed that the dry den-
sity plays a crucial role in the achievement of the strength
[35,36], and that the water/cement and air/cement ratios may also
affect the strength values in foamed concrete specimens, especially
3
at low densities [37]. In the ultra-low density range (< 500 kg=m ),
besides the very low mechanical strength values, foamed concrete
specimens exhibit another issue related to the instability of the
mix, which, however, may be overcome as reported in [38,39].
However, such problems were not encountered in this laboratory
study.
In Fig. 9 the flexural strength values ft are reported in a three-
dimensional bar plot against the dry density of the specimens
without reinforcement (class U in Table 3) and the three different
curing conditions analyzed. By observing the experimental data
points it is seen that the flexural strength increases (more or less
linearly) with increasing dry density. In passing from 400 kg/m3
to 600 kg/m3 a marked increase of the flexural strength is
observed, which is explained by the very low strength values cor-
responding to the lowest dry densities. These ultra-low density
specimens are characterized by poor flexural strength values not
exceeding 0.15 MPa. Thus, it is reasonably expected that such very
low density specimens need some reinforcement strategy to be
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
Fig. 9. Experimental flexural strength for E-LWFC prismatic beam specimens
without reinforcement versus curing conditions and dry density.
suitable for applications involving moderate-to-high bending
stress like in building walling systems. Conversely, the transition
from 600 kg/m3 to 800 kg/m3 produces increase of the flexural
strength of around 85–100%.
3.2. Effect of curing conditions
Besides the influence of dry density, the effect of the curing con-
ditions of the specimens on the flexural strength was also ana-
lyzed. Shown in Fig. 9 is also the variability of the flexural
strength ft with the three considered curing conditions (consider-
ing a different section of the three-dimensional bar plot). The
results do not show marked differences of the flexural strength val-
ues with the curing conditions, as the highest variation between
lowest and highest strength value is, on average, 18%. Neverthe-
less, for densities of 600 kg/m3 and 800 kg/m3 it appears clear that
the best curing condition is water, and the worst is air, as normally
expected. Conversely, for the lowest target dry density of
Fig. 10. Beam after failure with different contents of short polymer fibers embedded in the cementitious paste: a) 0.7%; b) 2.0%; c) 5.0%.
Fig. 11. Ratio of the ultimate flexural strength f t of the beam reinforced with short polymer fibers to the flexural strength of the un-reinforced beams f tu for different curing
conditions and dry densities.
487
400 kg/m3 the trend is slightly different as the best curing condi-
tion is cellophane and not water. However, it is worth noting that
the very low values of the tensile strength for such 400 kg/m3 spec-
imens, reported also in Table 3, correspond to around 3% of the
maximum load capacity of the testing equipment; therefore, this
trend may be affected by some tolerance errors in this particular
set of specimens. Additionally, since with decreasing the dry den-
sity the amount of cement per unit volume reduces, it is reasonable
to expect that the curing conditions have a less marked effect in
the achievement of the final strength values.
3.3. Effect of fiber content
Three different fiber contents were analyzed, namely 0.7%, 2.0%
and 5.0% short polymer fibers as illustrated in the photographs
taken after beam failure and reported in Fig. 10.
The flexural strength with and without fibers are here com-
pared and discussed. To this end, the strength values listed in the
Tables 4–6 (specimens with short polymer fibers) are compared
with those listed in Table 3 (reference specimens) – relevant
results, in terms of f t =f tu ratio (where f tu denotes the flexural
strength of the un-reinforced beam) are reported in graphical for-
mat in Fig. 11. When the lowest content of fibers (0.7%) is
employed, the flexural strength gain is almost null in comparison
with the reference beams for all the analyzed conditions namely
the three curing conditions and the first two dry densities of 400
and 600 kg/m3, as reported in the mentioned tables. Instead,
increasing the fiber content further to 2% and 5% does lead to a
marked increase of the flexural strength in comparison with the
reference beams without reinforcement. In particular, the increase
of the flexural strength strongly depends upon the dry density, and
is influenced by the curing conditions in a less evident way. More
specifically, the increase of the flexural strength is up to 10–15
times higher than the reference beams for the lowest density of
400 kg/m3, which is due to the extremely low flexural strength
characteristics of this class of specimens. For the higher densities
of 600 and 800 kg/m3 the increase is in the range of around 20%
488 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
for the fiber content of 2.0%, and of nearly 100% for the fiber con-
tent of 5.0%. As to the influence of the curing conditions, consider-
ing the two higher densities of 600 and 800 kg/m3 the average
percentage increase is around 10% in air, almost 15% in cellophane
and water for 2.0% fiber content, and almost 90% in air, more than
70% in cellophane and more than 50% in water for 5.0% fiber con-
tent. It is concluded that there is a notable difference in the flexural
strength when passing from 2.0% to 5.0% fiber content for all the
curing conditions. The 5.0% fiber content is particularly effective
for increasing the flexural strength in the worst curing condition
(air), allowing to achieve comparable values to the other curing
conditions.
In Fig. 12 we report the trend of the flexural strength versus the
actual dry density of the specimens for the three curing conditions
and for the three fiber contents. It is seen that the strength
increases with the dry density, as already noted for the beams
without reinforcement shown in Fig. 9. More specifically, the
increase is steeper in passing from 600 to 800 kg/m3 than from
400 to 600 kg/m3, which is confirmed in the three curing condi-
tions and in the two fiber contents of 2.0% and 5.0% (less evident
in water for 2.0% fiber content). This may be explained considering
that in a representative volume size of specimens with higher den-
sity the solid phase is higher (the porosity is lower) and, thus, the
fibers collaborate with cementitious matrix in a more effective
manner and contribute to the overall strength more significantly.
3.4. Effect of GFRP mesh
For an additional group of specimens, the effect of the GFRP
mesh introduced in the tensile zone, near the bottom external face
of the prismatic beams, was also investigated. The GFRP was added
to the specimens with embedded short polymer fibers so as to
assess the potential further contribution to the flexural strength
Fig. 12. Experimental flexural strength for fiber-reinforced E-LWFC prismatic beam specimens with different contents of short polymer fibers versus dry density for different
curing conditions: a) air; b) cellophane; c) water.
Fig. 13. Ratio of the ultimate flexural strength f t of the beam reinforced with GFRP mesh to the flexural strength of the un-reinforced beams f tu for different curing conditions
and dry densities.
induced by this second level of reinforcement. The flexural
strength gain can be inferred by comparing the values listed in
Table 7 (GFRP mesh combined with 2% and 5% fiber content) with
those listed in Table 3 (reference specimens) – relevant results, in
terms of f t =f tu ratio are also reported in graphical format in Fig. 13.
Also in this case, the strength gain is enormous for the lowest
dry density of 400 kg/m3, and is comprised in the range 2–4 for
the two higher dry densities. However, unlike the previous case
of beams with short polymer fibers only, the curing conditions here
affect the strength gain in a more evident manner: in particular,
water curing conditions are associated with the lowest strength
increases for all the three dry densities. It can be noted that the
strength gain (in comparison with the reference beams) is even
higher than that of the beams with short polymer fibers only
(without GFRP mesh) discussed above, and this is clearly illus-
trated in Fig. 14. In the latter figure we report the f t =f tf ratio
(where f tf denotes the flexural strength of the corresponding beam
reinforced with the same content of short polymer fibers but with-
out GFRP mesh). This f t =f tf ratio ranges from 2 to 4 (meaning flex-
ural strength of two up to four times higher with the further
addition of GFRP mesh). Interestingly, the strength gain due to
the GFRP mesh is higher for the 2.0% fiber content than for the
5.0% fiber content (cf. Fig. 14), although the overall strength gain
compared to the reference beams is almost comparable in the
two cases (cf. Fig. 13).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the combined use of GFRP
mesh with fiber contents of 5.0% is not advantageous, as the flexu-
ral strength that can be obtained with a less amount of short poly-
mer fibers (say 2.0%) is practically the same, and there is no added
value in introducing higher fiber contents. Vice versa, for reinforce-
ment arrangements of short fibers only, the further increase of
fiber content from 2.0 to 5.0% does lead to a considerable improve-
ment of the flexural strength values (cf. Fig. 12).
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493 489

Fig. 14. Ratio of the ultimate flexural strength f t of the beam reinforced with combined GFRP mesh and short polymer fibers to the flexural strength of the corresponding
beam reinforced with the same content of short polymer fibers but without GFRP mesh f tf for different curing conditions and dry densities.

A final overview of all the flexural strength values discussed in
this section (for all the curing conditions, dry densities and rein-
forcement configurations) is depicted in the comparative his-
tograms of Fig. 15, which are consistent with all the conclusions
drawn above. The optimal strength values are obtained with com-
bination of GFRP mesh and short polymer fibers in 2.0% content.
With this optimum reinforcement arrangement the flexural
strength obtained with 600 kg/m3 density is comparable or even
higher than that associated with 800 kg/m3 and 5.0% fiber content
(without GFRP mesh). Similarly, with this optimum reinforcement
arrangement the flexural strength for 400 kg/m3 density is compa-
rable or even higher than that associated with 600 kg/m3 and 5.0%
fiber content (without GFRP mesh).
Finally, in Fig. 16 the four typical failure modes of the beams
observed in this experimental campaign are displayed. For un-
reinforced E-LWFC beams a brittle failure with a main vertical
crack developing and propagating from the top (compressive zone)
to the bottom (tensile zone) of the beams occurred – Fig. 16a). For
E-LWFC beams with short polymer fibers the failure is not sudden
and brittle as in the previous case due to the action exerted by the
fibers that resist tensile stress and enhance the overall ductility of
the lightweight cementitious matrix – Fig. 16b). For the E-LWFC
beams with combined GFRP mesh and short fibers a distinction
should be made depending on the curing conditions. For air and
cellophane, a typical bond failure with separation of concrete cover
from the GFRP mesh occurred, and the presence of the fibers makes
the main crack deviate from the load region towards the supports –
Fig. 16c); conversely, for water curing conditions a premature
rupture of the GFRP mesh was observed at the mid-span beam
soffit – Fig. 16d).
4. Compressive strength
The compressive strength values of the E-LWFC specimens were
determined through two testing standards, namely UNI EN 196–1
(on halves of the broken prism after the three-point-bending tests)
and ASTM C-109 (on cubic specimens). Results for all the analyzed
specimens concerning the former testing standards have already
been listed in the previous Tables 3–6, and are reported, in a graph-
ical format, in the comparative histograms of Fig. 17. Compressive
strength values determined on halves of the broken prism on spec-
imens with GFRP mesh were not recorded because all these spec-
imens were considerably damaged at the end of the flexural test
– see for example the photograph shown in Fig. 16c).
All the compressive strength values are plotted in Fig. 18: it is
seen that all the strengths increase almost linearly with the
increase of dry density, as already noted in previous research work
concerning classical (not extrudable) foamed concrete specimens
[11]. Thus, while the addition of fibers produce a slight deviation
from the linear trend in the case of flexural strength, this is not
so evident in the case of compressive strength.
By inspection of Figs. 17 and 18 it is noted that the compressive
strength was little influenced by the presence of the short polymer
fibers embedded in the cementitious matrix. However, a distinc-
tion can be made depending on the dry density of the specimens:
for the lower densities of 400 kg/m3 the fibers have a negligible
effect on the achieved compressive strength for all the curing con-
ditions, with a small increase especially for the higher fiber con-
tents; for intermediate and higher densities of 600–800 kg/m3
the influence is still negligible and in some cases the addition of
fibers even reduces the strength values, but this particularity is

Fig. 15. Comparative histograms of flexural strength values for different reinforcement strategies of the E-LWFC beams, for different curing conditions and target dry
densities.
490 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493

Fig. 16. Different failure modes depending on the reinforcement arrangement and curing condition: a) un-reinforced prismatic beam specimen; b) beam reinforced with
short polymer fibers; c) beam reinforced with combined GFRP mesh and polymer fibers cured in air (or cellophane); d) beam reinforced with combined GFRP mesh and
polymer fibers cured in water.

Fig. 17. Comparative histograms of compressive strength values determined in accordance with UNI EN 196-1 standards for different reinforcement strategies of the E-LWFC
specimens, for different curing conditions and target dry densities.

Fig. 18. Experimental mean compressive strength on halves of broken prism of E-LWFC specimens according to UNI EN 196-1 standards for different dry densities and the
following curing conditions: a) air; b) cellophane; c) water.
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
Fig. 19. Experimental mean compressive strength on cubic E-LWFC specimens
without reinforcement according to ASTM C-109 standards for different dry
densities and curing conditions.
related to the higher fluid phase (foam + water content) of some
specific specimens to reach the target dry density, cf. values
reported in Table 1. This is in line with other studies from the lit-
erature [20,31,40]. Indeed, the compressive strength value is
affected in a complex manner by the volume of entrained and
entrapped air provided by the foam (air/cement ratio), which is
not relevant to normal-weight concrete but of interest in light-
weight concrete, especially in the low density range as the one
analyzed in this study [37]. The combined water/cement and air/
cement ratio contributes to the overall strength values [11].
4.1. Effect of testing standards
Results concerning the ASTM C-109 testing standards are listed
in Table 8 for 9 additional cubes considered in this part of the
Fig. 20. Effect of the testing standards (UNI EN 196-1 versus ASTM C-109) on the compressive strength assessment of E-LWFC specimens.
Fig. 21. Ratio between flexural and compressive strength values f t =Rc for E-LWFC specimens with different dry densities, curing conditions and fiber contents.
491
experimental campaign (only specimens without reinforcement
were tested). These strength values are also reported in graphical
format in the three-dimensional bar plot of Fig. 19. The increase
of the compressive strength with the dry density follows the linear
trend already observed for the other testing standards reported in
Fig. 18. By inspections of the values reported in Table 8 it is seen
that the cellophane curing conditions lead to the highest compres-
sive strength values. This result is in line with an earlier study by
the authors focused on the compressive strength of classical
foamed concrete [11], and may be ascribed to a different
microstructural configuration and a different porosity of the spec-
imens cured in water and in cellophane. Further investigation in
this regard is ongoing.
It is interesting to compare the compressive strength values
computed with the two different testing methods according to
the two regulations considered in this study. Relevant comparative
histograms are depicted in Fig. 20. It is observed that there are not
marked differences between the two sets of results. Although some
studies in the relevant literature have highlighted differences on
the achievement of the compressive strength depending on the
specimen size [41], in this case such differences are not so pro-
nounced due to the very modest differences of the specimens
dimensions, namely cubes of 5 cm size for ASTM C-109 and cubes
of 4 cm size for UNI EN 196-1 (resulting from the prismatic beam
specimens broken in the flexural test, placed in between two pla-
tens having square dimensions of 4 cm size).
A final consideration on the mechanical strength of the ana-
lyzed E-LWFC regards the f t =Rc ratio between flexural and com-
pressive strength values, which is illustrated in Fig. 21. Some
interesting remarks arise by scrutinizing the trends as follows:
i) in low fiber contents or, simply, in un-reinforced specimens,
the increase of dry density from 400 to 600 kg/m3 produces
a more pronounced increase of the flexural strength than the
492 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
compressive strength, and this is confirmed by the fact the
f t =Rc ratio increases, whereas in the higher fiber contents
(2.0% and 5.0%) the opposite trend is observed – this is valid
for all the curing conditions;
ii) the increase of dry density from 600 to 800 kg/m3 does not
yield a marked variation of the f t =Rc ratio in all the fiber con-
tents and curing conditions;
iii) increasing the fiber content produces a more pronounced
increase of the flexural strength than the compressive
strength, and this is confirmed by the higher values of the
f t =Rc for all the curing conditions analyzed – this is more evi-
dent in the lowest densities of 400 kg/m3 where the f t =Rc
ratio reaches values of around 0.6 or more;
iv) in the range of 600–800 kg/m3 all the considered specimens,
except the ones with highest fiber content of 5.0% and 2.0%
for water curing conditions, exhibit a comparable f t =Rc ratio.
5. Conclusions
The flexural and compressive strength of E-LWFC with different
reinforcement strategies has been investigated through a wide
experimental campaign comprising around 100 cubic specimens
and 60 small-scale prismatic beam specimens. This research sub-
ject is very important in the low-density range, like the one ana-
lyzed in this study, to achieve a good compromise between
lightweight features and mechanical resistance, especially with
regard to the flexural strength. The latter turns out to be extremely
low for LWFC specimens having density <500 kg/m3 and, therefore,
reinforcement strategies turn out to be necessary.
This experimental work has included three curing conditions
(air, cellophane and water), three target dry densities (400, 600,
800 kg/m3), two different reinforcement strategies, namely short
polymer fibers with three different contents (0.7, 2.0 and 5.0%),
and combined short fibers with GFRP mesh placed at the tensile
zone of the beams. Based on the results of this experimental inves-
tigation the following conclusions can be drawn:
i) in line with a previous work on LWFC (not extrudable) and
with other papers from the relevant literature, the mechan-
ical characteristics are found to increase linearly in propor-
tion to the dry density of the specimens in the range of
dry densities analyzed;
ii) the compressive strength values evaluated with two differ-
ent testing standards (ASTM C-109 and UNI EN 196-1) are
comparable to each other for all the analyzed conditions:
this is due to the fact that the shape of the specimens
involved in the tests is quite similar;
iii) for the target dry density of 400 kg/m3 despite the compres-
sive strength lies in an acceptable range of 2 MPa or higher,
the corresponding flexural strength is extremely low, in the
order of 0.1 MPa; the f t =Rc ratio is about 0.05, but it
increases with the dry density up to 0.2 for both 600 and
800 kg/m3;
iv) the addition of fibers in the 0.7% content does not produce
significant mechanical strength gain in comparison with
the reference specimens without fibers for all the analyzed
conditions – correspondingly, the f t =Rc ratio follows the
same trend of the un-reinforced E-LWFC specimens as out-
lined above;
v) increasing the fiber content to 2.0% and, above all, to 5.0%,
improves the flexural strength in a considerable manner,
but it does not affect the compressive strength significantly
– as a result, the f t =Rc ratio increases for these reinforced
specimens, especially for the lowest densities of 400 kg/m3
where it is around 0.6 or higher;
vi) ignoring the enormous increase achieved at 400 kg/m3 (due
to the very low flexural strength of the un-reinforced speci-
mens), the average increase of flexural strength induced by
the short fibers is around 13% for the 2.0% fiber content,
and around 70% for the 5.0% fiber content, considering all
the curing conditions;
vii) with the second reinforcement strategy, namely GFRP mesh
combined with short polymer fibers, it has been found that
increasing the fiber content to very high values is not partic-
ularly convenient: the flexural strength that can be obtained
with GFRP mesh + 5.0% fibers is practically the same as that
of the GFRP mesh + 2.0% fibers. Consequently, there is no
added value in introducing higher fiber contents in combina-
tion with GFRP mesh;
viii) the reinforcement strategies analyzed in this experimental
investigation have made it possible to obtain good mechan-
ical strength associated with very low densities;
ix) among all the reinforcement strategies scrutinized in this
paper, the optimum reinforcement arrangement consists in
the combination of GFRP mesh + short polymer fibers at
2.0%. With this optimum reinforcement arrangement the
flexural strength obtained with 600 kg/m3 density is compa-
rable or even higher than that associated with 800 kg/m3
and 5.0% fiber content (without GFRP mesh). Similarly, with
this optimum reinforcement arrangement the flexural
strength for 400 kg/m3 density is comparable or even higher
than that associated with 600 kg/m3 and 5.0% fiber content
(without GFRP mesh).
The present work belongs to a bigger research project aimed at
developing large-scale composite walling systems having low self-
weight, good physical properties (thermal, acoustic, fire resistance)
ensured by the low densities adopted, accompanied by acceptable
strength characteristics guaranteed by the fiber reinforcement.
Further investigation will deal with an in-depth study on the pecu-
liar characteristics of the extrudable foamed concrete in compar-
ison with the classical one, including fresh-state properties,
physical, mechanical and microstructural features. Another future
research line concerns the analysis of higher dry densities than
the ones discussed in this study, which can be more suitable for
structural applications.
Conflict of interest
All authors named in the manuscript declare that they have no
conflict of interest in the present manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the company Colacem S.p.A. for sup-
plying the cement Portland CEM I 52,5 R necessary for this exper-
imental work.
References
[1] K.H. Yang, K.H. Lee, J.K. Song, M.H. Gong, Properties and sustainability of alkali-
activated slag foamed concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 68 (2014) 226–233.
[2] S. Wei, C. Yiqiang, Z. Yunsheng, M.R. Jones, Characterization and simulation of
microstructure and thermal properties of foamed concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 47 (2013) 1278–1291.
[3] S. Tada, Material design of aerated concrete-an optimum performance design,
Mater. Constr. 19 (1986) 21–26.
[4] H.K. Kim, J.H. Jeon, H.K. Lee, Workability, and mechanical, acoustic and thermal
properties of lightweight aggregate concrete with a high volume of entrained
air, Constr. Build. Mater. 29 (2012) 193–200.
[5] R.C. Valore, Cellular concrete part 2 physical properties, ACI J. 50 (1954) 817–
836.
 D. Falliano et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 479–493
[6] E.K.K. Nambiar, K. Ramamurthy, Fresh state characteristics of foam concrete,
ASCE Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 111–117.
[7] K. Ramamurthy, E.K. Nambiar, G.I.S. Ranjani, A classification of studies on
properties of foam concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (6) (2009) 388–396.
[8] F. Faleschini, M.A. Fernández-Ruíz, M.A. Zanini, K. Brunelli, C. Pellegrino, E.
Hernández-Montes, High performance concrete with electric arc furnace slag
as aggregate: mechanical and durability properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 101
(2015) 113–121.
[9] D. De Domenico, F. Faleschini, C. Pellegrino, G. Ricciardi, Structural behavior of
RC beams containing EAF slag as recycled aggregate: numerical versus
experimental results, Constr. Build. Mater. 171 (2018) 321–337.
[10] M.R. Jones, A. McCarthy, R.K. Dhir, Recycled and secondary aggregate in
foamed concrete, in: WRAP Research report, the waste and resources action
programme. Banbury, Oxon OX16 0AH, 2005.
[11] D. Falliano, D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, E. Gugliandolo, Experimental
investigation on the compressive strength of foamed concrete: effect of
curing conditions, cement type, foaming agent and dry density, Constr. Build.
Mater. 165 (2018) 735–749.
[12] M. Decký, M. Drusa, K. Zgútová, M. Blaško, M. Hájek, W. Scherfel, Foam
concrete as new material in road constructions, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 428–
433.
[13] M. Kadela, M. Kozłowski, Foamed concrete layer as sub-structure of industrial
concrete floor, Procedia Eng. 161 (2016) 468–476.
[14] M.A. Othuman Mydin, Y.C. Wang, Structural performance of lightweight steel-
foamed concrete–steel composite walling system under compression, Thin-
Walled Struct. 49 (1) (2011) 66–76.
[15] C. Bing, W. Zhen, L. Ning, Experimental research on properties of high-strength
foamed concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (1) (2011) 113–118.
[16] O. Kayali, M.N. Haque, B. Zhu, Some characteristics of high strength fiber
reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (2) (2003)
207–213.
[17] H.Y. Sun, A.M. Gong, Y.L. Peng, X. Wang, The study of foamed concrete with
polypropylene fiber and high volume fly ash, in: Applied Mechanics and
Materials, Trans Tech Publications, 2011, pp. 1039–1043.
[18] E.T. Dawood, A.J. Hamad, Toughness behaviour of high-performance
lightweight foamed concrete reinforced with hybrid fibres, Struct. Concr. 16
(4) (2015) 496–507.
[19] M.S. Mahzabin, L.J. Hock, M.S. Hossain, L.S. Kang, The influence of addition of
treated kenaf fibre in the production and properties of fibre reinforced foamed
composite, Constr. Build. Mater. 178 (2018) 518–528.
[20] H. Awang, M.H. Ahmad, M.Z. Al-Mulali, Influence of kenaf and polypropylene
fibres on mechanical and durability properties of fibre reinforced lightweight
foamed concrete, J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 10 (4) (2015) 496–508.
[21] H. Awang, M.H. Ahmad, Durability properties of foamed concrete with fiber
inclusion., WASET Int. J. Civ. Environ. Structural, Constr. Archit. Eng. 8 (3)
(2014) 273–276.
[22] M.A. Othuman Mydin, N.A. Rozlan, S. Ganesan, Experimental study on the
mechanical properties of coconut fibre reinforced lightweight foamed
concrete, J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 6 (2) (2015) 407–411.
493
[23] V. Fedorov, A. Mestnikov, Influence of cellulose fibers on structure and
properties of fiber reinforced foam concrete, in: MATEC Web of Conferences,
vol. 143, 2018, pp. 02008.
[24] W. Abbas, E. Dawood, Y. Mohammad, Properties of foamed concrete reinforced
with hybrid fibres, in: MATEC Web of Conferences; vol. 162, 2018 pp. 02012.
[25] H. Awang, M.A. Othuman Mydin, A.F. Roslan, Effects of fibre on drying
shrinkage, compressive and flexural strength of lightweight foamed concrete,
Adv. Mater. Res. 587 (2012) 144–149.
[26] J. Hulimka, R. Krzywoń, A. Je˛drzejewska, Laboratory tests of foam concrete
slabs reinforced with composite grid, Procedia Eng. 193 (2017) 337–344.
[27] D. Falliano, D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, E. Gugliandolo, Improving the
flexural capacity of extrudable foamed concrete with glass-fiber bi-directional
grid reinforcement: an experimental study, Compos. Struct. 209 (2019) 45–59.
[28] D. Falliano, D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, E. Gugliandolo, Mechanical
characterization of extrudable foamed concrete: an experimental study,
World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 12 (3) (2018) 228–232.
[29] D.K. Panesar, Cellular concrete properties and the effect of synthetic and
protein foaming agents, Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 575–584.
[30] M.R. Jones, A. McCarthy, Preliminary views on the potential of foamed
concrete as a structural material, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (1) (2005) 21–31.
[31] B. Roohollah, R.P. Hamid, A.H. Sadeghi, L. Masoud, A.M. Ali, An investigation on
adding polypropylene fibres to reinforce lightweight cement composites
(LWC), J. Eng. Fibres Fabrics 7 (4) (2012) 13–21.
[32] E.P. Kearsley, P.J. Wainwright, Porosity and permeability of foamed concrete,
Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (5) (2001) 805–812.
[33] G. Sang, Y. Zhu, G. Yang, H. Zhang, Preparation and characterization of high
porosity cement-based foam material, Constr. Build. Mater. 91 (2015) 133–
137.
[34] Z. Xu, Z. Chen, S. Yang, Effect of a new type of high-strength lightweight
foamed concrete on seismic performance of cold-formed steel shear walls,
Constr. Build. Mater. 181 (2018) 287–300.
[35] W.W. Long, J.S. Wang, Study on compressive strength and moisture content of
different grades density of foam concrete, in: International Conference on
Material Science and Application (ICMSA 2015), https://doi.org/10.2991/
icmsa-15.2015.32.
[36] M.H. Thakrele, Experimental study on foam concrete, Int. J. Civ. Struct. Environ.
Infrastruct. Eng. Res. Dev. 4 (1) (2014) 145–158.
[37] C.T. Tam, T.Y. Lim, R. Sri Ravindrarajah, S.L. Lee, Relationship between strength
and volumetric composition of moist-cured cellular concrete, Mag. Concr. Res.
39 (138) (1987) 12–18.
[38] M.R. Jones, K. Ozlutas, L. Zheng, Stability and instability of foamed concrete,
Mag. Concr. Res. 68 (11) (2016) 542–549.
[39] M.R. Jones, K. Ozlutas, L. Zheng, High-volume, ultra-low-density fly ash
foamed concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 69 (22) (2017) 1146–1156.
[40] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and
Materials, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 2006.
[41] M.A.S. Sudin, M. Ramli, Effect of specimen shape and size on the compressive
strength of foamed concrete, MATEC Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 2014.
pp. 02003.