Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Fly ash lightweight aggregates in high performance concrete

O. Kayali *

University of New South Wales, The Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra 2600, Australia

Received 23 June 2007; received in revised form 19 August 2007; accepted 14 September 2007
Available online 25 October 2007

Abstract

Lightweight aggregates have been manufactured by sintering y ash and crushing the product into suitable sizes. These aggregates
possess unique characteristics that make them suitable for high strength and high performance concrete. Concrete produced using these
aggregates is around 22% lighter and at the same time 20% stronger than normal weight aggregate concrete. Drying shrinkage is around
33% less than that of normal weight concrete. Moreover, the aggregates possess high durability characteristics required in high perfor-
mance structures. The importance of the new aggregates lies mostly in the fact that superior qualities are achieved without having to
increase the cement content. Thus it is possible to reduce the amount of cement by as much as 20% without aecting the required
strength. Weight reduction may reduce precast concrete transportation costs as well as provide slender and spacious construction.
Utilising y ash to produce quality aggregates should yield signicant environmental benets.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fly ash; Aggregates; Lightweight; High strength; Concrete; Durability

1. Introduction advantages, though very important and relevant, are not

One of the more important of the industrial by-prod-
ucts, if not the most important, is y ash. Fly ash is a
by-product of the burning of coal for power generation.
Its collection and disposal are necessary processes in power
stations. It is estimated that the world production of y ash
in the year 2000 was about 600 Mt (million tonnes). Of this
amount, only about 9% got to be utilised [1]. In Australia,
in the late 1990s, about 9 million tonnes of y ash was
annually produced [2]. Less than 10% of this quantity
was used [2]. In 2003, it was reported that Australia and
New Zealand produced 12.5 Mt from which 4.1 Mt were
eectively utilised [3]. This, is a signicant improvement
over the gures of the 90s but still falls very much short
of what ought to be the case.
Fly ash, however, is a material that has many proven
advantages even when used in its raw form [4,5]. Such
*
Tel.: +61 2 62688329; fax: +61 2 62688337.
E-mail address: o.kayali@adfa.edu.au
within the scope of this article.
The use of lightweight aggregate in concrete has many
advantages [68]. These include: (a) Reduction of dead
load that may result in reduced footings sizes and lighter
and smaller upper structure. This may result in reduction
in cement quantity and possible reduction in reinforce-
ment. (b) Lighter and smaller pre-cast elements needing
smaller and less expensive handling and transporting
equipment. (c) Reductions in the sizes of columns and slab
and beam dimensions that result in larger space availabi-
lity. (d) High thermal insulation. (e) Enhanced re
resistance. Furthermore, certain structures, specically o-
shore structures which are mostly used for oil production,
require lightweight elements which can be towed easily and
have the greatest buoyancy [9]. But perhaps the most
signicant potential advantage of the use of lightweight
aggregates for concrete and building in general is the
environmental value. When the raw materials needed for
lightweight production are derived from industrial by-
products, the environment and economy of the producing
locality and country are deemed to benet. Already,

0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.09.001
2394 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399

stringent environmental limitations are imposed on mining was collected directly from the hoppers without any further
of natural aggregates in various parts of the world [810]. screening. Table 1 shows the properties of the two ash
Such production would result in benets to the community, types used in the two series. The manufactured aggregates
the environment, and the building industry. Among these are angular and possess rough surfaces. These aggregates
benets are the following: (1) Ecient recyclable disposal are crushed to the suitable sizes using crushing methods
of the y ash. (2) Helping to conserve the natural and similar to those that produce normal weight aggregates.
sometimes scarce materials of coarse aggregates and sand. In these series, the sizes ranged from nes to coarse of
(3) Sparing the country side, river beds and beaches from 20 mm nominal size.
the scarring and damaging activities of aggregate mining.
(4) Producing aggregates much lighter than the natural 2.2. Characterisation of the aggregates
aggregates. This would result in the production of signi-
cantly lighter concrete whose advantages have been men- Since the main purpose of producing the aggregates is to
tioned above. (5) Signicantly reducing the emission of use them in the making of concrete, the characteristics rel-
green house gases by reducing the need of large quantities evant to concrete making are those that the present author
of cement whose production is a major contributor to CO2 has determined. These characteristics include: Particle size
emission. (6) Establishing an industry with export potential distribution, aggregate crushing value, apparent saturated
especially to countries where natural aggregates are surface dry specic gravity, dry rodded bulk density and
depleted or, are of extremely inferior quality as in the oil water absorption capacity. All the characterisation testing
rich Middle East states [11]. was done according to AS 2758.1 [14] and AS 1141 [15].
The y ash aggregates reported here, have been manu- Table 2 shows the particle size distribution. Table 3 shows
factured using sintering but without pelletizing the aggre-
gates as has so far been the usual procedure. Instead the
aggregates were crushed from briquettes that were red
in a kiln [12]. This aggregate type will be referred to here Table 2
Typical Sieve analysis of FAA
as FAA.
In this paper, the performance of concrete made from Sieve size Mass Percentage Cumulative Cumulative
this type of lightweight aggregates is examined and com- retained, retained percentage percentage
g retained passing
pared with conventional natural gravel and sand. The
mix design was performed such that there is a constant 13.20 mm 0 0 0 100
9.50 mm 371.8 18.6 18.6 81.4
cement content regardless of the type of aggregate in use. 6.70 mm 392.5 19.6 38.2 61.8
4.75 mm 222.1 11.1 49.3 50.7
2. Materials sources and properties 2.36 mm 387.5 19.4 68.7 31.3
1.70 mm 97.9 4.9 73.6 26.4
2.1. Ash sources 1.18 mm 109.1 5.5 79.1 20.9
4.25 lm 170.8 8.6 87.7 12.3
300 lm 45.8 2.3 90 10
Two series of experiments were made on the FA aggre- 150 lm 76.7 3.8 93.8 6.2
gates. The rst series used Class F y ash conforming to <150 lm 123.0 6.2 100
ASTM standard [13]. This was obtained after the ash was Total 1997.2 100
screened and classied. The ash used in the second series

Table 1
Table 3
Properties of the y ash used in the two series
Characteristics of FAA
Chemical constituent Series 1 Series 2
Property Series 1 Series 2
Percent by mass Percent by mass
Made from Made from unscreened
SiO2 58.2 55.4 classied F ash directly from
Al2O3 28.5 25.5 ash collectors
Fe2O3 4.0 7.8 Value Value
K2O 1.50 1.1
Apparent specic gravity based 1.69 1.59
TiO2 0.9 1.7
on saturated surface dry
CaO 1.6 4.1
condition
MgO 0.8 1.0
Apparent specic gravity based 1.61 1.55
Na2O 0.4 0.3
on oven dry condition
P2O5 0.1 0.45
Dry rodded bulk density 848 862
Mn3O4 0.1 0.07
(kg/m3)
LOI 1.9 1.25
Crushing value (%) 28 26
Fineness (passing 45 lm) (%) 94 65 Absorption capacity 3.4 2.4
Specic gravity 2.28 2 (in 24 h) (%)
 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399 2395

Table 4 Table 5
Properties of the three other main aggregates Concrete mixture designa (saturated and surface dry aggregates condition)
for the three types of aggregates tested in series 1
Property SP Granite Dacite
Granite SP FAA
Apparent specic gravity based on saturated 1.72 2.77 2.51
concrete concrete concrete
surface dry condition
Apparent specic gravity based on oven dry 1.4 2.74 2.50 Cement (kg) 300 300 300
condition Silica fume (kg) 40 40 40
Dry rodded bulk density (kg/m3) 831 1478 Water (L) 172 150 193
Crushing value (%) 35 16.9 15.5 Water reducing agent (L) 0.49 0.49 0.49
Absorption capacity (in 24 h) for 12 mm coarse 8.5 0.8 0.54 Superplasticiser (L) 1.95 1.95 1.95
(%) Natural coarse aggregate (kg) 1001 0 0
Absorption capacity (in 24 h) for 6 mm coarse 8.5 Natural ne aggregate (kg) 288 0 0
(%) 12 mm SP (kg) 0 293 0
Absorption capacity (in 24 h) for 3 mm coarse 8.5 6 mm SP (kg) 0 289 0
(%) 3 mm SP (kg) 0 316 0
Absorption capacity (in 24 h) for the nes (%) 10.7 2.7 2.7 SP nes (kg) 0 233 0
Coarse FAA 12 mm (kg) 0 0 255
Coarse FAA 6 mm (kg) 0 0 255
Coarse FAA 3 mm (kg) 0 0 256
the results of the tests to determine the other relevant FAA nes (kg) 0 0 162
characteristics. Fly ash (kg) 300 300 300
At this stage, it is appropriate to show a comparison Water/cement ratio 0.57 0.5 0.64
between this aggregate and three other types. These are a
Quantities are per cubic metre of compacted concrete.
the Granite natural aggregate, the Dacite natural aggregate
(an igneous volcanic rock with a high iron content and
commonly used in Australia in concrete works), and Table 6
Concrete mixture designa (saturated and surface dry aggregates condition)
another commercially available pelletized y ash light-
for the four types of aggregates, series 2
weight aggregate which will be referred to here as SP aggre-
Granite SP Dacite FAA
gate. The relevance of the Granite and Dacite aggregate is
concrete concrete concrete concrete
that these are the natural aggregates commonly used for
Cement (kg) 370 370 370 370
good concrete production in Australia and elsewhere. On
Silica fume (kg) 56.92 56.92 56.92 56.923
the other hand, the SP aggregate is a sintered pelletized Water (L) 207.2 207.2 207.2 27.2
y ash aggregate that has been a successful commercial Water reducing agent (L) 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96
lightweight aggregate since the 1960s and can represent Superplasticiser (L) 1.43 2.85 0.71 0.00
the general characteristics of lightweight pelletized y ash Natural coarse aggregate (kg) 893.7 820
Natural ne aggregate (kg) 626.3 626.3
aggregates and their performance in concrete. Table 4 lists
123 mm Coarse SP (kg) 481.4
the properties of the three other main aggregates. SP nes (kg) 475.5
Comparison between the properties of FAA shown in Coarse FAA 123 mm (kg) 440.4
Table 3 and those of Granite, Dacite and SP shown in FAA nes (kg) 510.6
Table 4, indicates that FAA has a much less absorption Fly ash (kg) 142.3 142.3 142.3 142.3
Water/cement ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
capacity than SP. Moreover, the crushing value of FAA
Water/cementitious materials 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
is signicantly less than that of SP. Thus it is expected that ratio
FAA may produce concretes that are more durable and a
Quantities are per cubic metre of compacted concrete.
stronger than SP concretes and at the same time have com-
parable and more stable weight than SP.
of water was designed so as to achieve about the same
3. Concrete production workability as measured by the slump test. In series 1 the
FAA aggregate concrete had the highest water content
Concrete mixtures were designed and tested for the fresh and watercement ratio while in series 2 all mixtures had
and hardened relevant characteristics. The mixtures exactly the same water content and watercement ratio.
designs are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 relates to ser- The density of the fresh and compacted concrete was mea-
ies 1 while Table 6 relates to series 2. The Tables show the sured for the four types and the values are reported in
proportions based on saturated and surface dry conditions Tables 5 and 6. In both series, the FAA mixtures used
of the aggregates. They also show the mixture design for totally lightweight aggregates that included the nes.
the four types of concrete made for this study so that a
direct comparison may be made between concretes from 4. Properties of the fresh and hardened concretes
the four aggregates. The design was performed so that
the concretes of the same series possess the same cement The three types of concrete tested in series 1 had very
content and the same content of any pozzolanic materials similar workability conditions. In series 1, the slump was
that may be producing a cementitious eect. The amount very low for the three types. The three types, however, were
2396 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399

workable, easily compactable and did not exhibit segrega- Table 8

tion or bleeding. The hardened concretes were tested at Properties of fresh and hardened concretes from the four types of
aggregates, series 2
the ages of 7 and 28 days. The results are recorded in Table
7. At 7 days, only the compressive strength was deter- Property Granite Dacite SP FAA
concrete concrete concrete concrete
mined. It is observed that the value of the compressive
strength of FAA concrete is substantially higher than that Slump (mm) 75 75 85 85
Measured air content 2 2.1 6.2 3.8
of the corresponding mix made from the SP lightweight (%)
aggregate. The strength of the FAA concrete at this early Fresh density (kg/m3) 2260 2280 1770 1780
age is higher than the strength of the normal weight aggre- S.S Dry density, at 28 2285 2290 1818 1815
gate concrete made with Granite aggregates. This is in spite days (kg/m3)
of the fact that the Granite aggregate concrete is nearly 7 day compressive 38.6 37.4 34.6 40.75
strength (MPa)
20% heavier than the FAA concrete. Moreover, the appar- 28 day compressive 58.25 55.5 53.4 66.75
ent porosity, which is an indicative of surface permeability, strength (MPa)
is much lower in FAA concrete than in both SP and Gran- 28 day indirect tensile 3.55 3.45 3.70 3.75
ite concretes. This characteristic indicates that the FAA strength
concrete is probably more resistant to adverse environmen- 35 day modulus of 32 500 31 500 19 000 25 500
elasticity (MPa)
tal conditions than the previously known y ash based SP
concrete and the normal weight Granite concrete.
At the age of 28 days, the compressive strength and deections in the case of vibrations or earthquake occur-
modulus of elasticity values were determined. The 28 day rences, thus providing more ductility to the structure. On
compressive strength of FAA concrete is 63 MPa, which the other hand, this value should not be too low as to cause
is comfortably classied as high strength concrete. The excessive deections in normal service conditions. The
compressive strength recorded for SP concrete was value recorded for FAA is in between that of SP and Gran-
45 MPa, and the value for the normal weight Granite con- ite concretes. Thus it is indicative of better serviceability in
crete was 56 MPa. Thus FAA concrete has consistently structures than that of SP concrete and enhanced ductility
performed better than the two other types of concretes as when compared to Granite concrete.
far as the compressive strength is concerned. Results from series 2 are shown in Table 8. The concrete
The modulus of elasticity has been measured by the mixtures of this series possessed medium slump value and
method of strain controlled loading [16,17]. The results had excellent workability and compactability characteris-
showed that the modulus of elasticity value for FAA con- tics. Again, the results obtained in series 1 were conrmed
crete is 23.7 GPa while that for SP concrete is 16.7 GPa and by those of series 2. The 7 day and the 28 day strength val-
for Granite aggregate concrete is 32.5 GPa. It is expected ues were consistently higher than the values for SP concrete
that lightweight concrete would possess a lower value of and also higher than the values obtained for the natural
elasticity modulus. This is because the modulus of elasticity aggregate concretes. FAA concrete was 20% higher in com-
depends primarily on that of the aggregates. FAA concrete pressive strength than the common Dacite aggregate con-
has a signicantly higher modulus of elasticity than SP con- crete. It was also 14.6% stronger than Granite aggregate
crete. This indicates higher stiness of the FAA aggregate concrete. FAA concrete was 25% stronger than SP aggre-
when compared to SP aggregate. The value of the elastic gate concrete. Moreover, tensile strength values showed
modulus for FAA is expectedly lower than that of normal similar trends of higher results of FAA concrete. Again,
weight Granite concrete. This is by no means an undesir- the value of the modulus of elasticity of FAA concrete
able characteristic because a lower E-value allows larger was lower than that of Dacite or Granite concrete but
higher than SP aggregate concrete.
Table 7
Properties of fresh and hardened concretes from the three types of 5. Drying shrinkage properties
aggregates, series 1
Property Granite SP FAA The importance and eects of drying shrinkage in con-
concrete concrete concrete crete structures can not be over-emphasized [16,18]. Neville
Slump (mm) 3 3 2 has indicated that lightweight aggregate usually results in
Fresh density (kg/m3) 2232 1722 1800 higher shrinkage values mainly because of the lower mod-
Air dry density (kg/m3) 2180 1602 1780 ulus of elasticity of the aggregate [19]. Concrete practitio-
Oven dry density (kg/m3) 2134 1540 1747 ners pay a premium for the production of low shrinkage
Apparent porosity (%) 4.5 13.3 3.1
concrete whether by using low shrink Granite aggregates
7 day compressive strength 36.3 28.4 38.8
(MPa) or low shrinkage cement. There has been a worry that
28 day compressive strength 56.3 44.6 62.9 the use of lightweight aggregate concrete may increase
(MPa) shrinkage deformation and cracking. Indeed there has been
28 day modulus of elasticity 32.5 16.7 23.7 some evidence to this eect using certain lightweight aggre-
(GPa)
gates [20]. When restrained, drying shrinkage causes crack-
 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399 2397

Table 9
Shrinkage properties of fresh and hardened concretes from the four types
of aggregates, series 2
Days of Shrinkage value (microstrain)
drying
Granite Dacite SP FAA
concrete concrete concrete concrete
7 590 570 550 400
14 730 740 770 520
21 770 790 820 540
28 810 800 840 560
56 850 880 890 590

ing. Besides being unsightly, shrinkage cracking is a source

of further deterioration due to the increased permeability
to water and deleterious agents and subsequent deteriora-
tion due to freezing and thawing in cold regions. A low
shrinkage concrete reduces the quantity of secondary rein- Fig. 1. FA aggregates.
forcement and thus can signicantly reduce the cost of
structures. It was therefore necessary to measure shrinkage
values when using FAA for concrete and compare the val-
ues with those of similar grade concretes from other aggre-
gates. The shrinkage sampling and measurements were
performed according to Australian Standards [21]. The
samples were all subjected to the same drying environment
after 7 days of standard normal curing. The results of the
testing are shown in Table 9. These results show that con-
crete manufactured with FAA performed signicantly bet-
ter than all the other concretes in this series. As expected,
however, the largest shrinkage was recorded for the SP
aggregate concrete. The Dacite aggregate concrete, which
is the most commonly used concrete in Australia, was only
marginally better than the SP concrete. The Granite aggre-
gate concrete also did not produce a much better result.
The factors that cause these results are discussed in more
detail in the following section.
Fig. 2. A close up of FA aggregate surface (representing approximately
3 mm).
6. Performance of FAA in concrete

The high performance of FAA concrete as far as strength
and shrinkage are concerned may be understood when a clo-
ser look is given to the nature of the individual FAA aggre-
gate. These aggregates are shown in Fig. 1. The FAA
lightweight aggregates are angular, while Granite aggre-
gates are irregular but have a smooth texture. The SP aggre-
gates, which are a lightweight sintered and pelletized type
are round and smooth as a result of the pelletizing during
their manufacturing procedure. The process of manufactur-
ing the FA aggregates results in creating a surface that is
dominated by very small bubbles that look like craters.
These are not continuous pores but have originated from
tiny bubbles that were created during the mixing, curing
and sintering of the aggregates as can be seen in Fig. 2.
This crater-like formation is essential for the function
and ecacy of the aggregates. In the concrete, they act to
enhance the adhesive and mechanical bonding with the
cement paste matrix. The strong bond that results is vital
in the increased concrete strength. In normal weight aggre-
gate concrete, the weakest area is the interfacial zone,
which is the rst to fail and acts as a crack propagator. This
is evident in Fig. 3 which shows a failure surface of a
Dacite aggregate concrete. The failure line is an extension
of the de-bonded aggregatematrix interface. The interface
is clearly separated from the hardened cement paste. Thus,
in spite of the actual strength of the aggregate itself, and
that of the hardened paste, it is the weak interface that in
eect limits the strength of the composite.
In contrast, the bond between the FAA and the matrix is
strong. This is qualitatively demonstrated in Fig. 4 which
shows FAA embedded in the matrix of concrete and
exposed after a cylinder crushing test. The interface zone
is evidently in tight and locking bond between the two
phases of the concrete. Cracking did not initiate in the
interface but rather was arrested at the interfacial zone.
This means that cracks that may occur in the aggregate
itself did not spread uncontrollably through the matrix.
This is due to both the strength of the interfacial zone
2398 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399
Fig. 3. Fracture surface in Dacite aggregate concrete.
Fig. 4. Fracture surface in FAA concrete.
and the strength of the matrix itself. The resistance of FAA
concrete to shrinkage can also be attributed to the same
eects. The tight interlocking between the FAA and the
cement paste matrix causes little internal slippage and
therefore smaller strains.
7. Protection to steel reinforcement
One of the most important aspects of durability of con-
crete structures is its ability to protect steel reinforcement
from corrosion. This protection may be achieved if the car-
bonation of concrete does not progress easily to arrive to
the reinforcement depth. Carbonation proceeds into con-
crete much quicker in polluted and urban environments
that contain carbon dioxide and other gases emitted from
industrial and transportation activities. In some aggressive
environments, concrete structures are also subjected to
chloride ion penetration. Buildings located near the sea
shore or concrete roads and bridges that get sprayed by salt
to prevent ice formation are examples of such structures. In
those environments, steel reinforcement can quickly be
contaminated with chloride ions. Such contamination
may cause pitting corrosion and thus cause serious reduc-
tion in the eective steel reinforcement. It may also cause
spalling and further deterioration.
For the purpose of evaluating the ability of FAA con-
crete to protect steel from corrosion, FAA concrete was
compared with a normal weight concrete that possessed
similar strength. The ability of concrete to resist propaga-
tion of carbonation towards the steel level is easily mea-
sured using Phenolphthalein as indicator. Carbonation
testing was done after exposing specimens for six months
to accelerated carbonation in a carbonation chamber that
administered a regime of 60% RH, 30 C temperature
and 0.3% CO2. The results showed that the average depth
of carbonation in FAA concrete was 0.5 mm while the
average depth in normal weight concrete was 5 mm.
The ability of the FAA concrete to protect steel from
chloride penetration was measured using the Rapid Chlo-
ride Penetration Test (RCPT) of AASHTO [22]. The aver-
age, for 8 samples, of the electrical charge passed through
the concrete was 1046 coulomb compared to 1620 coulomb
for normal weight concrete of comparable strength. Thus
the value for FAA concrete falls within the low to very
low chloride ion penetration category according to the
AASHTO Standards, and has showed signicantly lower
penetration value than its natural aggregate counterpart.
These results show that FAA concrete provides high level
protection to reinforcement as far as corrosion is
concerned.
8. Conclusions
1. The higher strength, lower carbonation and lower chlo-
ride penetration that were observed in lightweight con-
crete made from sintered and crushed y ash
aggregates are attributed to the strong bonding charac-
teristics that develop in the interfacial zone between the
aggregates and the cement paste. The interface in this
concrete is therefore, no longer a site of de-bonding
and crack propagation.
2. Although the lightweight aggregates are manufactured
through a process of sintering, it is concluded that pel-
letizing may adversely contribute to producing lower
strength concrete. This is because of the smooth surface
that the pelletizing process creates. The aggregates
reported here were crushed after sintering that did not
involve pelletizing. This process is believed to have cre-
ated rough surfaces that provided enhanced bond with
the concrete matrix.
3. The concrete made with FAA was 25% stronger than
that made using pelletized y ash based lightweight
aggregates. Further, the strength of the lightweight con-
crete manufactured with FAA was higher than the tradi-
tional normal weight concrete by 20%. These results
open the prospect of investigating the opportunity to
be able to reduce the quantity of cement that is required
 O. Kayali / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 23932399
to produce concrete of a specic strength. Such reduc-
tion would reduce carbon dioxide emission and hence
would be benecial to the environment. The reduction
in weight of the structure may also produce an opportu-
nity to investigate the possible reduction in the overall
cost of the construction.
4. The low carbonation depth and chloride ion penetration
point to advantages in using this type of lightweight con-
crete in aggressive climatic zones and in o-shore struc-
tures. This durability advantage is particularly
important in countries such as those of the Arabian Gulf
where the environmental conditions are extremely harsh
while at the same time reinforced concrete building
activities are unprecedented.
References
[1] Malhotra VM. Role of supplementary cementing materials in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In: Swamy RN, editor. Infra-
structure regeneration and rehabilitation improving the quality of
life through better construction. A vision for the next millenium.
Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press; 1999. p. 2742.
[2] Ryan WG. The use of y ash and granulated blast furnace slag in
concrete an environmental impact assessment. In: Environmental
advantages of concrete containing y ash and slag. Sydney, Australia:
Ash Development Association of Australia; 1997. p. 15.
[3] Heidrich C. Ash utilisation an Australian perspective. In: Interna-
tional ash utilization symposium, 2003; Lexington, Kentucky: Uni-
versity of Kentucky, 2003. paper # 3.
[4] Davies DR, Kitchener JN. Massive use of pulverised fuel ash in
concrete for the construction of a UK power station. Waste Manage
1996;16(13):16980.
[5] Shayan A, Diggins R, Ivanusec I. Eectiveness of y ash in preventing
expansion due to alkali-aggregate reaction in normal and steam-cured
concrete. Cement Concrete Res 1996;26(1):15364.
[6] Rossetti VA. Structural properties of lightweight aggregate concrete
current status and future needs. In: Concrete 95 toward better
concrete structures, 47 September. Brisbane, Australia: Concrete
Institute of Australia; 1995. p. 18793.
2399
[7] Kayali O, Haque MN. Status of structural lightweight concrete in
Australia as the new millennium dawns. Concrete Australia
2000;25(4):225.
[8] Mays GC, Barnes RA. Performance of lightweight aggregate concrete
structures in service. Struct Eng 1991;69(20):35161.
[9] Ho GC. High strength lightweight aggregate concrete current
status and future needs. High Strength Concrete, ACI SP 121.
Detroit; 1990. p. 61944.
[10] Bradhan-Roy BK. Lightweight aggregate concrete in the UK.
Concrete (London) 1996;30(6):810.
[11] Kayali O. A study of aggregates used for concrete in Kuwait. Trans
Res Rec 1984;989:2633.
[12] Kayali O, Shaw KJ, inventors; Unisearch Limited, assignee.
Aggregate for concrete and construction. USA Patent 6,802,896;
2004.
[13] ASTM. Standard specication for y ash and raw or calcined natural
pozzolan for use as a mineral admixture in portland cement concrete.
ASTM C 618-94a; 1994.
[14] Australian Standards. Aggregates and Rock for engineering
purposes. AS27581. Sydney, Standards Association of Australia;
1998.
[15] Australian Standards. Methods for sampling and testing aggregates.
AS1141. Sydney, Standards Association of Australia; 1999.
[16] Kayali O, Haque MN. A new generation of lightweight concrete. In:
Malhotra VM, editor. Advances in Concrete Technology, ACI SP-
171:ACI- Detroit, 1997. p. 56988.
[17] Mor A. Steel-concrete bond in high-strength lightweight concrete.
ACI Mater J (American Concrete Institute) 1992;89(1):7682.
[18] Haque MN, Kayali O, Al-Khaiat H. Structural lightweight concrete
an environmentally responsible material of construction. In: Dhir R,
Dyer T, Halliday J, editors. Challenges of concrete construction-
sustainable concrete construction, 511 September. Dundee, Scot-
land: Thomas Telford; 2002. p. 30512.
[19] Neville A. Properties of concrete. fourth ed. London: Longman; 1995.
pp. 419, 704.
[20] Lura P, Bisschop J. The origin of Eigenstresses in lightweight
aggregate concrete. Cement Concrete Compos 2004;26(5):44552.
[21] Australian Standards. Determination of the drying shrinkage of
concrete samples prepared in the eld or in the laboratory. AS
101213-1992. Sydney, Standards Australia; 1992.
[22] AASHTO. Standard method of test for rapid determination of the
chloride permeability of concrete. AASHTO; 1989. p. 83639.