ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 116-M18
Mechanical Properties of Concrete Made from Different
Expanded Lightweight Aggregates
by Kyung-Ho Lee, Keun-Hyeok Yang, Ju-Hyun Mun, and Seung-Jun Kwon
The objective of the present study is to provide a databank and
comprehensible design equations of the mechanical properties of
concrete prepared using different expanded lightweight aggre-
gates. For the statistical database, 25 lightweight aggregate
concrete (LWAC) mixtures using expanded bottom ash and dredged
soil granules were tested under design compressive strengths of
18, 24, and 35 MPa (2.61, 3.48, and 5.08 ksi) and targeted oven-
dried densities between 1300 and 1800 kg/m3 (81.6 and 112.4 lb/
ft3). Wherever feasible, the mechanical properties measured in
the present concrete specimens were compared with those data
compiled from LWAC specimens made of expanded clay and/or
fly ash granules. The mechanical properties including the moduli
of elasticity and rupture, stress-strain relationship, splitting and
direct tensile strengths, shear friction strength, and bond strength
were proposed as power functions of the compressive strength
and oven-dried density of concrete. The mechanical properties
predicted using the proposed equations closely agreed with the test
results; the coefficient of variation of the ratios between the exper-
iments and predictions was mostly less than 0.18. In addition, the
proposed formulae for the compressive strength development and
stress-strain relationship corresponded adequately with the exper-
imental response of LWAC. Meanwhile, the design equations of the
fib model resulted in overestimations while predicting the early-
strength gain, direct tensile strength, and bond strength of LWAC.
Overall, the proposed equations possessed adequate potential to
properly evaluate the different mechanical properties of concrete
prepared using expanded lightweight aggregates.
Keywords: design equations; expanded granules; lightweight aggregate
concrete; mechanical properties.
INTRODUCTION
With the gradual growth of global efforts to conserve the
natural resources and curtail the issue of depletion of natural
aggregates, a large part of the concrete industry is displaying
considerable interest in the practical application of artificial
lightweight aggregates. In addition, with global attention
on the political and social requirements for the recycling of
industrial by-products and waste materials, artificial light-
weight aggregates have been manufactured from a variety
of source materials such as fly ash, bottom ash, dredged
soil, reservoir sludge, and oil palm shell.1-5 Using indus-
trial by-products and waste materials is beneficial in terms
of sustainability goals including recirculation of resources
and restoration of landfill.6 Thus, partial or complete use
of artificial lightweight aggregates for producing concrete
can be highly effective for preserving natural resources such
as natural sand, crushed rock, and gravel, considering the
report7 emphasizing that approximately 9 billion tons of
natural aggregates are consumed annually by the concrete
industry. Moreover, it is commonly known8,9 that concrete
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
TECHNICAL PAPER
made using lightweight aggregates possesses several advan-
tages as a building material. A lower concrete density permits
the structural elements to have smaller and lighter members,
which decreases the seismic loads on the structures through
the reduction of dead load. A lower thermal conductivity
capacity of concrete is favorable to improving the energy
consumption efficiency of heating and cooling systems of
commercial and residential buildings.
Specific knowledge and a reasonable estimation of the
mechanical properties of a material are essential for reli-
able design of structures. It is commonly known10-12 that
lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) possesses infe-
rior mechanical characteristics because of high porosity
and low strength of the aggregates when compared with
the normalweight concrete (NWC) at similar compres-
sive strengths (fc′). The low strength of lightweight aggre-
gates also yields more rapid crack propagation and more
brittle fracture of concrete because the cracks mainly pass
through the aggregate particles, which results in localized
failure zones.13 Furthermore, the mechanical performance
of LWAC is significantly affected by the particle charac-
teristics including shape, angularity, substrate state, and
gradation.12 A relatively smooth substrate characteristic of
lightweight aggregate particles results in a weak interfacial
transition zone with a cement matrix, which yields a low
tensile resistance capacity of concrete. Cui et al.11 pointed
out that lightweight aggregates with a higher shape factor
are favorable to enhancing the strength of concrete. Wang
et al.14 revealed that the use of lightweight aggregates with
reasonable particle gradation contributes to reduction of the
cement content required to achieve the design strength of
concrete and enhances the tensile resistance of concrete.
Thus, the mechanical properties of LWAC significantly
depend on interfacial cohesion between aggregates and the
cement matrix, as well as the strength of the aggregates.15
This implies that fundamental research is required for an
understanding of the mechanical properties of LWAC and
for examining the reliability of design equations specified in
code provisions when lightweight aggregates with different
qualities or produced from different source materials are
used for the concrete.
As one of the positive actions in the concrete industry in
response to the global sustainability requirements, the Korean
ACI Materials Journal, V. 116, No. 2, March 2019.
MS No. M-2018-128.R1, doi: 10.14359/51712265, received May 1, 2018, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2019, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
9
Table 1—Physical properties of lightweight aggregates
Type Source materials Maximum size, mm
Expanded coarse Bottom ash and dredged soil 19
aggregate Clay and fly ash 19 to 25
Expanded fine Bottom ash and dredged soil 5 1.1
aggregate Clay and fly ash 5 0.8 to 1.0
Notes: 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 kg/m3 = 0.062 lb/ft3.
government has strived to produce artificially expanded
lightweight aggregates through the calcination process of
bottom ash and dredged soil powders. A few studies16 have
been conducted to examine the workability and compressive
strength development of LWAC using artificially expanded
bottom ash and dredged soil granules. They revealed that
the compressive strength of concrete using those types of
lightweight aggregates is comparable to that of concrete
using artificially expanded clay granules. However, there are
very limited available test data and reports on the mechan-
ical properties of LWAC using expanded bottom ash and
dredged soil granules. As a result, the reliability of the code
equations is still imprecise for concrete using those types of
lightweight aggregates.
This study aims to empirically propose the design equa-
tions for various mechanical properties of structural LWAC
prepared using expanded bottom ash and dredged soil granules
(hereafter, this concrete type is referred to as LWAC-BS). For
the statistical database, 25 LWAC-BS mixtures were prepared
with the test parameters of the design compressive strength
(fcd) of 18, 24, and 35 MPa (2.61, 3.48, and 5.08 ksi) at the
targeted ρc between 1300 and 1800 kg/m3 (81.6 and 112.4 lb/
ft3). In the mixture proportions of the concrete specimens, the
water-cement ratio (w/c) and the natural sand content (RS) for
the replacement of lightweight fine aggregates were varied
to achieve the targeted requirements. Wherever feasible, the
measured values of the mechanical properties of the present
concrete specimens were compared with those data compiled
from LWAC specimens made using expanded clay and/or
fly ash granules (hereafter, this concrete type is referred to
as LWAC-CF), by using the comprehensive database estab-
lished by Yang et al.17 and Sim.18 Straightforward empirical
equations were proposed based on nonlinear regression
analysis using test data to rationally predict the mechan-
ical properties of LWAC, such as compressive strength (fc′),
splitting (fct) and direct (ft) tensile strengths, shear friction
strength (τf), moduli of elasticity (Ec) and rupture (fr), stress-
strain relationships, and bond strength (τb) of a reinforcing
bar embedded in the concrete. The reliability of design equa-
tions specified in ACI 318-1419 and the fib model20 is also
examined by comparing with test data and the proposed
equations, wherever feasible.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study provides novel data on the mechanical prop-
erties of LWAC prepared from expanded granules produced
using different source materials and examines the reliability
of code equations through comparison with test data. The
proposed design equations for the mechanical properties
yield a more conservative and consistent applicability when
10
Bulk density, kg/m3 Water absorption, % Fineness modulus
1.0 17.2 6.4
0.8 to 1.2 4.0 to 30.0 5.0 to 7.3
12.9 4.4
8.0 to 28.0 2.4 to 2.7
compared with the predictions by code equations. Ulti-
mately, the test data and proposed equations demonstrate
that the mechanical properties of LWAC are affected by the
artificial aggregate type as well as the compressive strength
and oven-dried density of concrete.
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Materials
For all the concrete mixtures, ordinary portland cement
(OPC) conforming to ASTM Type I21 was used as a
main cementitious material. Locally available artificially
expanded granules with maximum sizes of 19 and 5 mm
(0.74 and 0.2 in.) were used for structural lightweight coarse
and fine aggregates, respectively. Bottom ash and dredged
soil were used as the source materials of the lightweight
granules. The source materials underwent various manu-
facturing processes including calcination and expansion in
large rotary kilns at approximately 1200°C (2192°F). This
process is almost identical to that for artificially expanded
clay granules. Natural sand with a maximum particle size
of 1.2 mm (0.047 in.) was also used as normalweight fine
aggregates for adjusting the grading of the lightweight fine
particles.
The lightweight aggregate particles made from bottom
ash and dredged soil were spherical in shape and had a
closed surface with a marginally smooth texture. The core
of the particle has a uniformly fine and porous structure.
The quality of the artificially expanded granules satisfies
the requirements for structural lightweight aggregates spec-
ified in ASTM C330/C330M.22 The specific gravity, water
absorption, and fineness modulus for the lightweight coarse
particles were 1.0, 17.2%, and 6.4, respectively. The corre-
sponding values for the lightweight fine aggregates were 1.1,
12.9%, and 4.4. These values were very close to the ranges
commonly measured in the expanded lightweight clay and/
or fly ash granules, as provided in the compiled database18
(Table 1). The natural sand used for replacing the light-
weight fine aggregate possessed considerably lower water
absorption of 1.6% and lower fineness modulus of 2.2.
Concrete mixture
A total of 25 LWAC-BS mixtures classified into two series
were tested, as presented in Table 2. In the first series, the fcd
varied among 18 MPa (L-group), 24 MPa (M-group), and 35
MPa (H-group) (2.61, 3.48, and 5.08 ksi). In each group, 0 to
100% (at an interval of 25%) of the lightweight fine aggregates
were replaced with natural sand. The mixture proportions
of all the concrete specimens for the targeted requirements
were determined in accordance with the procedure proposed
by Yang et al.17 Thus, the value of w/c in each group of the
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
Table 2—Range of test parameters investigated in each group
Series Group fcd, MPa
L 18
I M 24
H 35
S0 Not designed
II
S50 Not designed
Notes: In first series of mixtures, marginally lower value of w/c was selected with decrease in Rs (increase in lightweight fine aggregate content) to achieve fcd; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi;
1 kg/m3 = 0.062 lb/ft3.
first series decreased marginally with the decrease in RS to
achieve fcd. The unit water content (w) was fixed at 185 kg/m3
(11.5 lb/ft3) for L-group and 170 kg/m3 (10.5 lb/ft3)
for H-group mixtures. For M-group mixtures, w varied
from 175 to 185 kg/m3 (10.9 to 11.5 lb/ft3) for achieving the
required slump value. A lower value of w was designed with
the increase in fcd to regulate the segregation and immod-
erate bleeding in fresh concrete. In the second series, w/c
varied from 30 to 50% at intervals of 5% under the fixed
RS values of 0% (S-0 group) and 50% (S-50 group). Thus,
fcd was not previously targeted in the concrete mixtures of
the second series. The unit cement content (c) in the second
series was fixed at 400 kg/m3 (24.8 lb/ft3), indicating that w
varied from 120 to 200 kg/m3 (7.4 to 12.0 lb/ft3) according
to the investigated value of w/c. The fine aggregate-to-total
aggregate ratio was fixed to be 40% for all the concrete
mixtures. No water-reducing agent was added in any of the
concrete mixtures because adequate workability with the
initial slump exceeding 150 mm (5.85 in.) was obtained, and
segregation phenomenon was not observed.
Casting, curing, and testing
All the aggregates were prepared in a saturated surface-dry
state and dry-mixed with cement in a 0.35 m3 (12.4 ft3)
capacity mixer for 1 minute. Immediately before mixing,
the moisture content in the aggregates was measured and
then accounted for the calculation of the net unit water
content of each mixture proportion to prevent excessive
bleeding or segregation of fresh concrete owing to the high
water absorption of the lightweight aggregates. Then, water
was added, and the combination was mixed for another 1
minute. After testing the initial slump and air content of
fresh concrete, each mixture was placed into various steel
molds for preparing the specimens. All the specimens were
consolidated in accordance with the casting requirements
by vibration specified in ASTM C31/C31M.23 Immediately
after casting, all the specimens were cured under a tempera-
ture of 20 ± 2°C and relative humidity of 60 ± 5% until being
tested at the specified age. All the concrete specimens were
demolded at the age of 3 days.
The values of fc′, fct, and oven-dried density (ρc) and the
stress-strain relationship of the concrete were measured
using cylindrical specimens of dimensions 100 x 200 mm
(3.9 x 7.8 in.) at the ages of 3, 7, 28, 56, and 91 days. In
the measured stress-strain curve, the Ec was calculated as a
secant slope between zero stress and 40% of peak stress. The
fr was measured using prismatic beams with dimensions of
150 x 150 x 550 mm (5.85 x 5.85 x 21.45 in.). The value of
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
RS, % w/c w, kg/m3 c, kg/m3
0 to 100 @25 0.52 to 0.58 185 319 to 356
0 to 100 @25 0.47 to 0.53 175 to 185 330 to 394
0 to 100 @25 0.35 to 0.41 170 415 to 486
0 0.30 to 0.50 @0.05 120 to 200 400
50 0.30 to 0.50 @0.05 120 to 200 400
τb between the concrete and reinforcing steel bar was esti-
mated by the pullout test using a 150 mm (5.85 in.) cube
specimens. Deformed bars of 16 mm (0.62 in.) diameter and
yield strength of 600 MPa (87 ksi) were used for the pullout
test. The aforementioned tests were conducted in accor-
dance with the procedures specified in ASTM.24 The ft was
measured using I-shaped specimens with dimensions of 250
x 150 x 100 mm (9.75 x 5.85 x 3.9 in.) with embedded studs
at both ends. The τf of the concrete specimens was recorded
by push-off tests under a concentric load acting as pure shear
in the shear plane of the test zone. The push-off specimens
had a width, height, depth, and critical shear plane area of
300, 820, 120, and 200 x 120 mm (11.7, 31.98, 4.68, and 7.8
x 4.68 in.), respectively. Three specimens were prepared for
the measurement of each mechanical property. The mechan-
ical properties ft, τf, and τb were measured at 91 days owing
to the large number of specimens. It should be noted that the
equations of mechanical properties at the different ages were
formulated using the compressive strength measured at the
corresponding age.
DATABASE FOR LWAC-CF MIXTURE
Yang et al.8 and Sim et al.13 established a comprehensive
database of the mixture proportions and mechanical prop-
erties of LWAC-CF extracted from different sources in the
available literature. The database included 228 all-LWAC
(lightweight coarse and fine aggregates) mixtures and 884
sand-LWAC mixtures (lightweight coarse aggregates and
normalweight sand). As several manuscripts do not provide
complete information on the mixture proportions and the
physical properties of the lightweight aggregates, the abso-
lute volume method was employed to determine the dry
density of concrete. In addition, test data mentioning the
different mechanical properties of concrete are very limited
because most of experimental studies were focused on eval-
uating the workability and fc′ in terms of the mixture propor-
tions. The distribution of the various parameters in the data-
base can be summarized as listed in Table 3. None of the
LWAC-CF mixtures contain supplementary cementitious
materials. There are no available data on τb in the available
tests. In addition, tests to evaluate ft and τs are relatively
insufficient when compared to those for the other properties.
For test specimens in the database used to examine the
compressive strength with respect to the mixing proportions,
the 28-day compressive strength (fcu) and ρc of concrete
ranged between 10.9 and 77.5 MPa and 1109 and 1683 kg/m3
(1.6 and 11.24 ksi and 68.8 and 104.3 lb/ft3) for all-LWAC;
they ranged between 10.0 and 79.7 MPa and 1340 and
11
Table 3—Incidence of main parameters in database of LWAC-CF compiled from different sources
Main parameters
fcu, MPa ρc, kg/m3 w/c
Mechanical 1000 to 1400 to 1600 to 1800 to 0.5 to
properties 10 to 20 20 to 35 35 to 50 50 to 80 1400 1600 1800 2000 0.2 to 0.3 0.3 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.5 0.7
fcu, MPa 94 472 432 205 21 81 258 495 121 493 402 173
Ec, MPa 19 138 266 118 13 49 172 169 69 195 170 68
fct, MPa 35 214 193 81 2 68 158 152 41 207 206 83
fr, MPa 9 86 111 40 2 31 98 53 10 108 114 36
ft, MPa 8 58 57 — 2 29 50 5 5 45 45 23
τs, MPa — 27 19 — — 4 1 41 Not available

Notes: No data for τb are available in database for LWAC-CF specimens; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kg/m = 0.062 lb/ft .
3 3

1998 kg/m3 (1.5 and 11.56 ksi and 83.1 and 123.9 lb/ft3) for
sand-LWAC, respectively. A total of 291 data sets for high-
strength (above 40 MPa [5.8 ksi]) concrete are included for
sand-LWAC. The entrained air content (vA) per unit volume
of fresh concrete generally ranged between 0.9 and 9%. The
data ranges for fcu and ρc of concrete are 28.2 to 73.5 MPa
and 1288 to 1923 kg/m3 (4.1 to 10.66 ksi and 79.9 to 119.2
lb/ft3) for testing Ec, 13.2 to 79.7 MPa and 1288 to 1998 kg/
m3 (1.9 to 11.56 ksi and 79.9 to 123.9 lb/ft3) for testing fct,
and 14.1 to 74.4 MPa and 1298 to 1936 kg/m3 (2 to 10.79
ksi and 80.5 to 120.0 lb/ft3) for testing fr, respectively. The
tests for ft and τs were mostly conducted using concrete spec-
imens with fcu of 10.9 to 49.8 MPa (1.6 to 7.22 ksi) and ρc of
1288 to 1782 kg/m3 (79.9 to 110.5 lb/ft3).
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 4 summarizes the test results for 25 LWAC-BS
mixtures. No particular problems, such as segregation or
floating of lightweight aggregate particles, were observed in
the mixing and mold casting phases. Most mixtures exhib-
ited relatively high slump values (over 150 mm [5.85 in.]).
The air content ranged between 4.0% and 6.0%, satisfying
the requirements25 recommended for air-entrained LWAC
not exposed to freezing. In addition, the increase in RS
resulted in the increase in ρc owing to the increase in the
natural sand content.
The current discussion focuses on the formulation of
empirical equations to predict the various mechanical prop-
erties of LWAC-BS and comparisons with the common
trend that can be observed in LWAS-CF established
through the comprehensive database.8,13 The empirical
equations were formulated through nonlinear regression
analysis (NLR) using test data. In establishing the funda-
mental models for the mechanical properties, each influ-
encing parameter investigated was combined and adjusted
repeatedly by the trial-and-error approach until a relatively
higher correlation coefficient (R2) was obtained. However,
it was occasionally challenging to obtain a high R2 value
for LWAC-CF because the data were collected from various
sources with different mixing and curing methods for the
concrete and dissimilar test setup approaches to measure
the mechanical properties.
Oven-dried density
The value of ρc of LWAC can be straightforwardly deter-
mined from the absolute unit weight (wA) of each ingredient
including cementitious materials, fine and coarse aggre-
gates, water, and entrained air. The ACI 213 recommenda-
tion25 permits the determination of the dry density of LWAC
as a summation of the unit content of all the solid ingredi-
ents and an additional constant value of 50 kg/m3 (3.1 lb/ft3).
Furthermore, ρc of LWAC is commonly lower by 3 to 8%
than its air-dry density and independent of age.18 Figure 1
shows the relationship between the absolute unit weight and
ρc using the different types of expanded lightweight gran-
ules. The ρc increases with the increase in wA, indicating that
the increasing rate was insignificantly affected by the type
of lightweight aggregates. From the NLR analysis, ρc can be
straightforwardly expressed as a function of wA as follows
ρc = Ad(wA)1.1 (1)
where the experimental constant Ad was determined to be 0.45
and 0.47 for LWAC-BS and LWAC-CF, respectively. This
implies that the relationship between ρc and wA is insignifi-
cantly affected by the type of expanded lightweight aggregate.
Compressive strength development
In general, the compressive strength of LWAC is inversely
proportional to w/c and vA, but increases proportionally with
its density.18 This implies that a lower w/c is required for
LWAC of lower density to achieve the design compressive
strength. Yang et al.8 formulated an empirical equation to
evaluate fcu of LWAC from the mixing proportion condition,
as shown in Fig. 2. In accordance with the fundamental form
of their equation, the NLR analysis was conducted using the
data sets obtained from the current test and the established
database. As a result, fcu of LWAC can be estimated using the
following equation (Fig. 2)
0.95
 ρ   C  -0.1 
1.3
f cu
= Ac  c    v A  (2)
f0  ρ0  W 
where f0 (= 10 MPa [1.5 ksi]) and ρ0 (= 2300 kg/m3 [142.6
lb/ft3]) are the reference values for the 28-day compressive
strength and oven-dried density of concrete, respectively.

12 ACI Materials Journal/March 2019

Table 4—Summary of test results for LWAC-BS
Oven- Compressive strength, MPa Tensile resistance
Air dried
content Slump density ρc, ft, fct, fr, τf, τb,
Series Specimen vA, % Si, mm kg/m3 3d 7d 28 d 56 d 91 d Ec, MPa ε0 ε0.5 MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
L-0 5.8 230 1301 10.3 13.1 20.8 23.4 27.5 11,728 0.0025 0.0043 1.32 2.21 3.35 3.15 6.37
L-25 4.0 250 1409 10.0 13.0 18.9 22.1 26.2 13,007 0.0024 0.0041 1.46 2.24 3.39 3.23 6.62
L-50 5.0 245 1486 9.8 12.5 18.2 22.4 25.4 13,288 0.0024 0.0047 1.48 2.25 3.49 3.41 6.65
L-75 4.0 255 1528 9.4 11.7 17.6 21.6 24.8 14,184 0.0024 0.0052 1.75 2.28 3.52 3.87 7.10
L-100 6.2 250 1540 8.8 11.0 17.1 21.1 23.5 14,091 0.0023 0.0056 1.86 2.35 3.59 4.01 7.27
M-0 4.5 235 1366 15.6 23.0 26.7 30.3 34.1 11,200 0.0026 0.0040 1.65 2.24 4.22 3.22 6.01
M-25 4.9 210 1491 15.4 20.2 25.8 28.8 33.4 13,152 0.0025 0.0042 1.74 2.28 4.39 3.66 6.25
I M-50 4.3 230 1611 14.9 19.6 24.8 28.0 33.0 14,227 0.0025 0.0046 1.84 2.31 4.48 3.80 6.89
M-75 4.6 245 1641 13.9 18.8 24.8 28.0 32.4 14,901 0.0025 0.0048 1.87 2.34 4.50 3.87 7.13
M-100 4.6 240 1698 13.8 17.7 23.0 27.3 32.1 15,259 0.0025 0.0053 1.91 2.44 4.70 4.12 7.45
H-0 4.8 165 1605 29.1 36.1 38.9 43.6 46.3 16,981 0.0026 0.0029 1.88 2.80 4.18 3.60 7.97
H-25 4.8 175 1667 28.5 35.3 36.7 43.0 45.8 17,299 0.0026 0.0029 1.98 2.85 4.43 4.09 8.13
H-50 5.1 210 1686 27.1 34.2 35.8 42.6 44.8 17,752 0.0026 0.0030 2.07 3.36 4.67 4.12 8.10
H-75 4.8 215 1757 26.8 33.2 35.3 42.2 43.8 18,200 0.0026 0.0031 2.17 3.66 4.95 4.41 8.22
H-100 5.0 225 1783 25.9 33.1 35.1 41.3 43.6 19,374 0.0025 0.0031 2.01 3.70 5.06 4.65 8.37
S0-50 4.7 220 1312 11.2 15.6 21.8 22.8 24.8 12,100 0.0024 0.0036 1.30 2.12 3.63 2.72 6.99
S0-45 4.0 225 1288 13.3 15.9 22.4 24.6 26.4 12,314 0.0025 0.0030 1.41 2.22 3.76 2.86 7.05
S0-40 4.5 205 1309 14.6 19.4 24.1 26.6 30.3 12,984 0.0025 0.0028 1.44 2.27 3.84 2.91 7.29
S0-35 4.6 165 1330 20.5 21.6 24.7 31.0 33.5 13,584 0.0025 0.0028 1.47 2.32 3.96 3.16 7.64
S0-30 5.0 15 1394 21.2 24.6 28.9 32.3 34.1 14,566 0.0025 0.0029 2.12 2.43 4.12 3.31 8.01
II
S50-50 4.5 250 1571 17.4 20.5 28.5 32.3 34.5 15,541 0.0025 0.0035 1.23 2.01 5.49 3.66 6.48
S50-45 5.0 250 1619 20.6 23.3 30.5 35.0 38.5 16,311 0.0025 0.0035 1.87 2.18 5.49 2.79 6.87
S50-40 5.0 195 1706 26.4 31.0 35.2 40.6 42.9 17,920 0.0026 0.0035 2.08 2.22 5.74 4.23 7.78
S50-35 4.9 180 1727 30.1 34.9 37.8 43.8 45.7 18,842 0.0026 0.0034 2.28 2.24 6.11 4.61 8.34
S50-30 4.9 40 1736 34.2 38.0 43.1 47.2 49.8 20,311 0.0026 0.0035 2.79 2.40 6.54 4.64 8.94

Notes: Specimen notation includes two parts to identify group membership and test parameter investigated in each group. First and second parts in Series I specimens refer to design
compressive strength of concrete (L for fcd = 18 MPa; M for fcd = 24 MPa; and H for fcd = 35 MPa) and natural sand content (RS) for replacement of lightweight fine aggregate, respectively.
Corresponding parts in Series II specimens indicates values of RS and w/c in %, respectively. For example, specimen L-25 in Series I indicates LWAC mixture containing RS of 25%
designed to satisfy an fcd of 18 MPa. Specimen S0-50 in Series II indicates all-LWAC mixture with RS of 0% and w/c of 50%; 1 mm = 0.039 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 kg/m3 = 0.062 lb/ft3.

Fig. 1—Relationship between oven-dried density and abso-

Fig. 2—Regression analysis to predict 28-day compressive
lute unit weight. (Note: 1 kg/m3 = 0.062 lb/ft3.)
strength of LWAC.
The experimental constant Ac was determined to be 1.5 for
Figure 3 shows the typical compressive strength devel-
LWAC-BS and 1.2 for LWAC-CF. This indicates that the
opment [fc′(t)] of LWAC-BS normalized by fcu measured
LWAC-BS exhibits a marginally higher fcu when compared
in each specimen with respect to age (t, in days). All the
with the LWAC-CF of similar mixing proportions and/or
concrete specimens exhibited a parabolic curve, indicating
similar density of concrete.
that the increasing rate of the compressive strength gradu-

ACI Materials Journal/March 2019 13

Fig. 3—Typical compressive strength development of
LWAC-BS.
ally decreased with the increase in the age. With the increase
in RS (that is, with the increase in ρc) and the decrease in
w/c (that is, with the increase in fcu), the strength gain rate
at an early age tended to increase, whereas the long-term
gain rate decreased. Relative to fcu, the strength gain rates
ranged between 49 and 83% at an age of 3 days and 114
and 141% at 91 days. The corresponding values for normal-
strength NWC cured under room temperature condition are
commonly estimated to be 30 to 60% at 3 days and 110 to
115% at 91 days.26 This indicates that higher strength gain
rates at early and long-term ages were observed in the current
LWAC mixtures than in the common normal-strength NWC.
In addition, the predictions by the fib model20 exhibited a
higher strength gain at an early age but a lower strength gain
at a long-term age. Overall, the parameters that account for
the strength gain rate in prediction models should be adjusted
for LWAC, as discussed in the following.
In general, the parabolic strength gain curve of concrete
can be properly formulated using the following equation20
   28  α 
f c′(t ) = exp βc 1 −    f cu (3)
   t  
The parameter βc and power α relate to the increasing rate
of strength gain at an early age and long-term age, respec-
tively. The lower the value of βc is, the higher the strength
gain at an early age. The values of βc and α in Eq. (3) for
each LWAC-BS specimen were determined through regres-
sion analysis using the present test data. The value of α
obtained was within the range of 0.01 and 0.03, indicating an
insignificant variation in terms of the test parameters. Thus,
the value of α could be on an average set to be 0.025. Mean-
while, the value of βc tended to increase with the increase
in ρc and decrease in fcu. For the fixed value of α of 0.025,
βc was redetermined for each specimen, and then NLR
analysis was conducted considering the influencing parame-
ters. Overall, the parameter βc in Eq. (3) can be expressed for
LWAC-BS as follows (Fig. 4)
 f ρ 
1.06
βc = 34.1 0 ⋅ c  (4)
 f cu ρ0 
14
Fig. 4—Modeling of βc in Eq. (3) to predict compressive
strength development.
At present, it is challenging to assure the reliability of the
values of α and βc on the strength gain rate of LWAC-CF
owing to the inadequate available test data.
Stress-strain relationship and modulus of
elasticity
Typical stress-strain curves measured from the present
concrete specimens are plotted in Fig. 5. Yang et al.17
proposed a straightforward and rational stress-strain model
of concrete covering a wide range of fc′ (between 10 and 180
MPa [1.5 and 26.1 ksi]) and ρc (between 1200 and 4500 kg/
m3 [74.4 and 279.0 lb/ft3]). In their regression analyses to
formulate Ec, the strain (ε0) at the peak stress, and the strain
(ε0.5) at 50% of the peak stress on the descending branch,
all the LWAC data were compiled from specimens made
using expanded clay and/or fly ash granules. The form of
a compressive stress-strain curve of LWAC-BS could be
characterized as a parabola with its vertex at the peak stress,
displaying the following tendencies with the decrease in ρc:
1) the slope of the ascending branch decreased; 2) the strain
(ε0) at the peak stress increased; and 3) the stresses at the
descending branch decreased more rapidly. These tendencies
are very close to those commonly observed in LWAC-CF
specimens. However, the measured stress-strain curves
exhibited a slightly higher slope at the ascending branch
and rapider stress decrease at the descending branch when
compared with those predicted using the model by Yang et
al. This difference was more apparent with the increase in
fc′ and decrease in ρc. The lateral expansion of concrete is
significantly affected by the propagation of cracks between
the cement matrix and aggregate particles. This implies that
a lower cohesion of cementitious materials also results in
a higher likelihood of brittle failure of concrete. Moreover,
the use of aggregates with lower stiffness results in reduced
deformation resistance capacity of concrete. Thus, the slopes
of the ascending and descending branches of the stress-strain
curves of LWAC vary with the characteristics of the light-
weight aggregates.
Yang et al. derived the key parameter (β1) that determines
the shapes of the ascending and descending branches of the
stress-strain curve on the basis of numerical and statistical
analyses using the equations for the reference parameters
(Ec, ε0, and ε0.5), as presented in Table 5. To fit β1 in the
model for the present LWAC-BS specimens, the values of
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
Table 5—Summary of compressive stress-strain model of LWAC
where fc is concrete stress corresponding to strain εc; and β1 is key parameter determining slopes of ascending and descending branches of curve.
For LWAC-BS
  ( f ′)1.6  
ε 0 = 0.0023 exp 7.44  c   ;
  Ec  
0.89
 ρ 
Ec = 8090  f c′(1/3)  c  
  ρ0  
 f ′ ρ  
1.5
β1 = 0.19exp 0.54 c  0   for εc ≤ ε0;
 f 0  ρc  
    
 f ′ ρ  
1.5
β1 = 0.32exp 0.58 c  0   for εc > ε0
 f 0  ρc  
    
Fig. 5—Typical stress-strain curves of LWAC-BS. (Note: 1
MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
Ec, ε0, and ε0.5 were formulated through NLR analysis, as
shown in Fig. 6. In the same figure, test data compiled from
the LWAC-CF specimens are also presented. The values of
Ec and ε0 of LWAC-BS are marginally higher than the best-fit
curve determined from the LWAC-CF specimens, whereas
LWAC-BS exhibited lower ε0.5 values when compared with
those values measured in LWAC-CF. Overall, the equations
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
 ε 
 (β1 + 1) ⋅  c  
  ε0  
Fundamental model: f c =  β1 +1  f c′

 εc  
+ β
  ε 0  1

 
For LWAC-CF (Yang et al.’s model)
  f ′ 
ε 0 = 0.0016 exp  240  c   ;
  Ec  
1.17
ρ 
; Ec = 8470 f c′(1/3)  c  ;
 ρ0 
  f ′  ρ  
0.67 1.17
β1 = 0.2exp 0.73  c   0   for εc ≤ ε0;
  f 0   ρc  
   
  f ′  ρ  
0.67 1.17
β1 = 0.41exp 0.77  c   0   for εc > ε0
  f 0   ρc  
   
for Ec, ε0, and ε0.5 were modified, and then β1 was formulated
for LWAC-BS in accordance with the approach generalized in
Yang et al.’s model. Ultimately, the stress-strain relationship
of LWAC could be generalized as summarized in Table 5.
Tensile resistance capacity
Figure 7 shows the regression analysis results for the
tensile resistance capacities using the present test data and
LWAC-CF specimens available in the database. Owing to a
lower increasing rate in the tensile resistance capacity than
that of fc′, most of the code equations19,20 have proposed the
tensile resistance capacity as a power function of fc′. Consid-
ering the tensile resistance capacity of LWAC to be less than
that of NWC, the code equations introduce the modification
factors. The ACI 318-14 provision19 specifies the constant
values of the modification factors as 0.85 for sand-LWAC
and 0.75 for all-LWAC for evaluating the fr, whereas the fib
model20 formulates the modification factor as a linear func-
tion of ρc for evaluating ft. Choi et al.27 demonstrated that the
ft of LWAC can be optimally formulated as a power function
of the governing parameters of fc′ and ρc to represent the
reduced cohesion between the lightweight aggregate parti-
cles and cement matrix and the aggregate fracture response
along the cracks. In addition, Yang and Ashour28 indicated that
a more reliable approach is to express the modification factor
as a power-function of ρc rather than a linear function of ρc
to account for the softened aggregate interlock at crack inter-
faces. Hence, the tensile resistance capacity of LWAC can be
n1 n2
formulated using the following forms: ( f c′) (ρc /ρ0 ) , where
αs, n1, and n2 are experimental coefficients. Thus, from the LNR
analysis, the equations for ft, fct, and fr can be expressed as
follows
αt
 2

0.1  ρ 
f t = At  ( f c′) ⋅  c   (5)
  ρ0  
15
Fig. 6—Regression analysis for reference parameters in
Fig. 7—Regression analysis for tensile resistance capacity
stress-strain relationship. (Note: 1 GPa = 145 ksi.)
of LWAC. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
αs
  ρc  
0.6
Shear friction strength
f ct = As  ( f c′) ⋅    (6) As the magnitude of the primary tensile and compressive
  ρ0  
stresses acting on an element under a pure shear stress state
is equivalent to that of the shear stress at the shear plane, the
αr
  ρc  
1.5
frictional failure of a concrete member is critically governed
f r = Ar  ( f c′) ⋅    (7) by the magnitude of the primary tensile stress along the
  ρ0  
shear cracking planes. Thus, τf decreased with the decrease
in ρc, and the increasing rate in τf with respect to fc′ was not
The best-fit values of At, αt, As, αs, Ar, and αr in the Eq. (5) linear, as shown in Table 4. This trend was similar to the
to (7) were determined to be 2.38, 0.67, 0.79, 0.41, 1.21, and observations for the tensile strength. Kwon et al.29 pointed
0.44 for LWAC-BS, respectively. The corresponding values out that the shear friction behavior of monolithic concrete
for LWAC-CF were 1.68, 1.66, 0.46, 0.58, 0.93, and 0.52, joints under pure shear can be reasonably interpreted by
respectively. the upper-bound theorem of concrete plasticity. In addition,
their numerical analysis approach accounts for various coef-

16 ACI Materials Journal/March 2019

Fig. 8—Modeling for shear friction strength of LWAC-BS.
(Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
ficients including the effectiveness factor for compression,
ratio of effective tensile to compressive strengths, and angle
of concrete friction using the stress-strain relationships in
compression and tension. Meanwhile, most equations30 have
been proposed based on regression analysis using test data,
particularly for non-reinforced concrete joints, for a straight-
forward estimation of τf. Overall, NLR analysis for simple
equation was conducted as follows (Fig. 8)
αf
 0.1  ρ 
2
 tical values determined using the design equations of ACI
τ f = Af  ( f c′) ⋅  c  
  ρ0  
where the experimental constants Af and αf were determined
to be 5.0 and 0.63 for LWAC-BS, respectively. For LWAC-
CF, the best-fit curve could not be obtained because avail-
able tests were mostly conducted under the variation of the
maximum aggregate size at a constant range of compressive
strength and density of concrete.
Bond strength
All the concrete specimens subjected to the pullout
tests were governed by the splitting failure of concrete
rather than the pullout failure of a reinforcing bar. The fib
model20 considers τb of the unconfined concrete that failed
under tensile splitting as a function of the square root of fc′;
however, the model does not account for any of the details
on the reduced cohesion between LWAC and a reinforcing
bar. The bond performance between concrete and the rein-
forcing bar depends on the cohesion of the concrete along
the bar surface and the bearing capacity at the bar ribs. If the
cohesion and bearing resistance capacity are higher than the
tensile resistance of concrete, τb is determined by the split-
ting failure of concrete. Hence, τb of LWAC governed by
splitting failure can be formulated using a similar format as
the regression analysis of the tensile resistance capacity. As
a result, τb of LWAC-BS by splitting failure can be expressed
as follows (Fig. 9)
αb
  ρ 
τ b = Ab  ( f c′) ⋅  c  
  ρ0  
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
Fig. 9—Modeling for bond strength of LWAC-BS governed
by splitting failure. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.)
where the experimental constants Ab and αb were determined
to be 3.6 and 0.23, respectively. These constants would be
modified for LWAC-CF through further collection of test data.
Comparisons of test results and predictions
Table 6 summarizes the mean (γm), standard deviation (γs),
and coefficient of variation (γv) of the ratios of the measured
and predicted magnitudes of various mechanical properties
of concrete using different expanded lightweight aggregate
particles. The table also includes the corresponding statis-
(8)
318-1419 and fib model20 provisions, wherever feasible. For
the compressive strength gain with different ages and stress-
strain relationships, the mean (γe,m) and standard deviation
(γe,s) of the normalized root-mean-square error values were
calculated from direct comparisons for each LWAC-BS
specimen, as presented in Table 7, although typical compari-
sons are presented in Fig. 3 and 5, respectively. The mechan-
ical properties predicted using the proposed equations were
in good agreement with the test results. The values of γm and
γs determined from the LWAC-BS specimens ranged from
0.89 to 1.03 and from 0.05 to 0.13, respectively. The corre-
sponding values were from 0.85 to 1.06 and from 0.05 to
0.18 for LWAC-CF specimens, respectively. As a result, the
values of γv were mostly less than 0.18. Thus, the accuracy of
the proposed equations was not sensitive to fc′ and ρc. Mean-
while, the ACI 318-14 equations tended to underestimate
fr, although an adequate agreement for Ec as observed. The
fib model exhibited overestimation in predicting ft and τb,
indicating the γm values of 0.69 and 0.60 for the LWAC-BS
specimens, respectively.
The proposed equations also yielded a good conforma-
tion with the measured compressive strength development
and stress-strain relationship, regardless of fc′ and ρc. The
predicted compressive strength gains closely agreed with
the test results, showing that predictions were mostly
within ±20% of the measured values. The values of γe,m
and γe,s determined from the direct comparison of compres-
sive strength development are 0.10 and 0.05, respectively.
The values of γe,m and γe,s determined from the compar-
ison of the stress-strain relationship are 0.20 and 0.11,
(9)
respectively, revealing that the proposed model provides
superior accuracy in predicting both the ascending and
descending branches of the stress-strain curves of LWAC.
17
Table 6—Summary of statistical values of ratios between measured and predicted properties of LWAC
Experiments/predictions
LWAC-BS LWAC-CF
Mechanical
properties ρc fcu Ec ε0 ft fct fr τf τb ρc fcu Ec ε0 ft fct fr τf τb
γm 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.98 1.03 0.89 1.01 0.99 0.99 1.06 1.00 0.86 0.99 1.01 0.85 1.02 NA NA
Proposed
γs 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.13 0.11 NA NA
model
γv 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.11 NA NA
γm 1.00 — 0.99 — — — 1.54 — — 1.06 — 0.85 — — — 1.59 — —
ACI
γs 0.06 — 0.05 — — — 0.17 — — 0.06 — 0.08 — — — 0.17 — —
318-14
γv 0.06 — 0.05 — — — 0.11 — — 0.06 — 0.09 — — — 0.11 — —
γm — — 1.04 1.15 0.69 0.95 1.02 — 0.60 — — 0.85 1.08 0.33 1.18 1.00 — NA
fib model γs — — 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.15 0.11 — 0.05 — — 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.14 — NA
γv — — 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.10 — 0.08 — — 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.04 0.14 — NA

Note: Test data for τf and τb of LWAC-CF are not available.

Table 7—Comparisons of normalized root-mean-
square error obtained from each LWAC-BS specimen
Compressive strength
development Stress-strain relationship
Statistical Proposed Proposed
values model fib model model
γe,m 0.10 0.40 0.20
γe,s 0.05 0.14 0.11
Meanwhile, the predictions by the fib model do not corre-
spond adequately with the measured compressive strength
development and stress-strain relationship, indicating that
the values of γe,m determined for those relationships were
0.40 and 0.40, respectively. Ultimately, the proposed equa-
tions exhibited a reasonable potential to properly evaluate
the different mechanical properties of concrete using the
expanded lightweight aggregates, although more reliable
test data are required for high-strength concrete.
CONCLUSIONS
From the experimental estimation and proposals for
empirical equations of various mechanical properties of
concrete using different expanded lightweight aggregates,
the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. The increasing rate of the oven-dried density (ρc) of
LWAC with respect to the absolute volume weight of each
concrete ingredient was insignificantly affected by the type
of the expanded lightweight aggregates.
2. With the increase in ρc and the decrease in the 28-day
compressive strength (fcu), the strength gain rate at an early
age tended to increase, whereas the long-term gain rate
decreased.
3. The measured stress-strain curves of LWAC using
expanded bottom ash and dredged soil granules exhib-
ited a marginally higher slope at the ascending branch and
more rapid stress decrease at the descending branch, when
compared with those predicted using the model by Yang et
al. for LWAC using expanded clay and/or fly ash granules.
This difference was more notable with the increase in the
compressive strength (fc′) of concrete and decrease in ρc.
4. The mechanical properties predicted using the proposed
equations were in adequate agreement with the test results,
demonstrating that the accuracy of the proposed equations
fib model was not sensitive to the type of lightweight aggregates.
The values of the mean (γm) and standard deviation (γs) of
0.40
the ratios between the experiments and predictions ranged
0.20 from 0.89 to 1.03 and from 0.05 to 0.13, respectively, for
LWAC specimens using expanded bottom ash and dredged
soil granules. The corresponding values for LWAC using
expanded clay and fly ash granules were from 0.85 to 1.06
and from 0.05 to 0.18, respectively.
5. The proposed equations also yielded an adequate confor-
mation with the measured compressive strength development
and stress-strain relationship regardless of fc′ and ρc.
6. The ACI 318-14 equations tended to underestimate
the modulus of rupture of LWAC. The fib model exhibited
overestimation in predicting the direct tensile strength and
bond strength of LWAC. In addition, the predictions by the
fib model do not correspond adequately with the measured
compressive strength development and stress-strain rela-
tionship of LWAC prepared using expanded bottom ash and
dredged soil granules.
AUTHOR BIOS
Kyung-Ho Lee is a Graduate Student at Kyonggi University, Suwon, South
Korea. His research interests include the mechanical properties of light-
weight aggregate concrete.
Keun-Hyeok Yang is a Professor at Kyonggi University. His research
interests include the development of sustainable concrete materials and
structural technology.
Jy-Hyun Mun is an Assistant Professor at Kyonggi University. His
research interests include the development of structural lightweight aggre-
gate concrete using high-volume supplementary cementitious materials and
seismic strengthening technology of masonry walls.
Seung-Jun Kwon is an Associate Professor at Hannam University,
Daejeon, South Korea. His research interests include modeling of micro-
structure and deterioration analysis in cement composites using neural
network algorithms, and strengthening techniques for concrete structures.

18 ACI Materials Journal/March 2019

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea Government (MSIP) (No.
NRF-2017R1A2B3008463)
REFERENCES
1. Öz, H. O.; Gesoglu, M.; Guneyisi, E.; and Sor, N. H., “Self-Consoli-
dating Concrete Made with Cold-bonded Fly Ash Lightweight Aggregates,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 114, No. 3, May-June 2017, pp. 385-395. doi:
10.14359/51689606
2. Hunag, L. J.; Wang, H. Y.; and Wang, S. Y., “A Study of the Dura-
bility of Recycled Green Building Materials in Lightweight Aggregate
Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 96, 2015, pp. 353-359.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.018
3. Lotfy, A.; Hossain, K. M. A.; and Lachemi, M., “Transport and Dura-
bility Properties of Self-Consolidating Concrete Using Three Types of
Lightweight Aggregates,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
2016, pp. 679-690. doi: 10.14359/51689112
4. Kim, H. K., and Lee, H. K., “Autogenous Shrinkage Reduction
with Untreated Coal Bottom Ash for High-Strength Concrete,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 113, No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 277-285. doi:
10.14359/51688700
5. Soltan, A. M. M.; Kahl, W. A.; El-Raoof, F. A.; El-Kaliouby, B. A. H.;
Serry, M. A. K.; and Abdel-Kader, N. A., “Lightweight Aggregates from
Mixtures of Granite Wastes with Clay,” Journal of Cleaner Production,
V. 117, 2016, pp. 139-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.017
6. Khankhaje, E.; Salim, M. R.; Mirza, J.; Hussin, M. W.; and Rafie-
izonooz, M., “Properties of Sustainable Lightweight Pervious Concrete
Containing Oil Palm Kernel Shell as Coarse Aggregate,” Construction
and Building Materials, V. 126, 2016, pp. 1054-1065. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.09.010
7. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. M. J., Concrete: Microstructure, Prop-
erties, and Materials, McGraw Hill Professional, New York, 2013.
8. Yang, K. H.; Kim, G. H.; and Choi, Y. H., “An Initial Trial Mixture
Proportioning Procedure for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 55, 2014, pp. 431-439. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.108
9. Wang, H. Y., and Tsai, K. C., “Engineering Properties of Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete Made from Dredged Silt,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 28, No. 5, 2006, pp. 481-485. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2005.12.005
10. Chandra, S., and Berntsson, L., Lightweight Aggregate Concrete:
Science, Technology and Applications, Noyes Publications, New York,
2003.
11. Cui, H. Z.; Lo, T. Y.; Memon, S. A.; Xing, F.; and Shi, X., “Analytical
Model for Compressive Strength, Elastic Modulus and Peak Strain of Struc-
tural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” Construction and Building Mate-
rials, V. 36, 2012, pp. 1036-1043. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.034
12. He, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; and Zhou, Y., “Effects of Particle Char-
acteristics of Lightweight Aggregate on Mechanical Properties of Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 72,
No. 7, 2014, pp. 270-282. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.043
13. Sim, J. I.; Yang, K. H.; Kim, H. Y.; and Choi, B. J., “Size and Shape
Effects on Compressive Strength of Lightweight Concrete,” Construction
ACI Materials Journal/March 2019
and Building Materials, V. 38, No. 1, 2013, pp. 854-864. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.09.073
14. Wang, Q.; Yan, P.; Yang, J.; and Zhang, B., “Influence of Steel
Slag on Mechanical Properties and Durability of Concrete,” Construc-
tion & Building Materials, V. 47, 2013, pp. 1414-1420. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.06.044
15. Wasserman, R., and Bentur, A., “Interfacial Interactions in Light-
weight Aggregate Concretes and Their Influence on the Concrete Strength,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 18, No. 1, 1996, pp. 67-76. doi:
10.1016/0958-9465(96)00002-9
16. Lee, K. H., and Yang, K. H., “Evaluation on Compressive Strength
Development of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete using Expanded Bottom
Ash and Dredged Soil Granules,” Journal of Architectural Institute of
Korea, V. 34, No. 7, 2018, pp. 19-26.
17. Yang, K. H.; Mun, J. H.; Cho, M. S.; and Kang, T. H. K., “A Stress-
Strain Model for Various Unconfined Concrete in Compression,” ACI
Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, July-Aug. 2014, pp. 819-826.
18. Sim, J. I., “The Influence of Unit Weight of Concrete on Size Effect
of Compressive Strength, Direct Tensile Strength and Fracture Energy,”
PhD dissertation, Kyonggi University, Suwon, South Korea, 2013.
19. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
20. Comité Euro-International du Beton, “fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010,” International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib),
Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
21. ASTM C150/C150M-12, “Standard Specification for Portland
Cement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 9 pp.
22. ASTM C330/C330M-09, “Standard Specification for Lightweight
Aggregates for Structural Concrete,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2009, 4 pp.
23. ASTM C31/C31M-10, “Standard Practice for Making and Curing
Concrete Test Specimens in the Field,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2010, 6 pp.
24. ASTM C900-06, “Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of
Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006,
10 pp.
25. ACI Committee 213, “Guide for Structural Lightweight-Aggregate
Concrete (ACI 213R-14),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2014, 53 pp.
26. Neville, A., Properties of Concrete, fifth edition, Pearson Education
Limited, Harlow, UK, 2011.
27. Choi, S. J.; Yang, K. H.; Sim, J. I.; and Choi, B. J., “Direct Tensile
Strength of Lightweight Concrete with Different Specimen Depths and
Aggregate Sizes,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 63, 2014, pp.
132-141. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.055
28. Yang, K. H., and Ashour, A. F., “Modification Factor for Shear
Capacity of Lightweight Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 112,
No. 4, July-Aug. 2015, pp. 485-492. doi: 10.14359/51687658
29. Kwon, S. J.; Yang, K.-H.; Hwang, Y.-H.; and Ashour, A. F., “Shear
Friction Strength of Monolithic Concrete Interfaces,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 69, No. 5, 2017, pp. 230-244. doi: 10.1680/jmacr.16.00190
30. Harries, K. A.; Zeno, G.; and Shahrooz, B., “Toward an Improved
Understanding of Shear-Friction Behavior,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 109, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2012, pp. 835-844.
19
APPLY FOR
ACI Foundation
Research Grants
The ACI Foundation annually funds research projects with grants
up to $50,000. The Foundation seeks to advance the concrete
industry through the funding of concrete research projects that
further the knowledge and sustainability of concrete materials,
construction, and structures.

• Topics are encouraged from all areas of concrete research;

• A letter of support of the research concept by an ACI Technical
Committee is required;
• Industry partnering and project cost sharing are encouraged;
• Principal investigators must follow the ACI Foundation’s
published Concrete Research Council Grant Proposal Guide.

The Foundation will begin accepting proposals at the end of

August through December 1. Applications are submitted online
at concreteresearchcouncil.org.