Work

Systematic analysis of mechanical property ratios and code applicability assessment for ceramsite lightweight aggregate concrete

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: This study systematically investigated the effects of strength compatibility between lightweight aggregate and mortar, as well as aggregate volume content, on the mechanical properties of ceramsite lightweight aggregate concrete (CLWAC). CLWAC with different volume of ceramsite was designed using different strength mortars (60, 80, 110 MPa) and ceramsites (7 MPa, 23 MPa). Through integrated multiple sets of data from literature study, key mechanical property ratios for CLWAC within the strength range of 20–108 MPa were systematically established. Comparisons were made with reference values for both normal concrete and lightweight aggregate concrete from Chinese and international design codes. The results indicate that: (1) In combinations with low-strength mortar and high-strength ceramsite, compressive strength is increased with higher aggregate volume content, though the rate of increase gradually diminishes. The elastic modulus can also be slightly improved at low aggregate volume content. Conversely, in combinations with high-strength mortar and low-strength ceramsite, both compressive strength and elastic modulus are significantly reduced as aggregate volume content increases. The dominant role of ceramsite aggregates in the failure mode of CLWAC is clarified. (2) The primary mechanical ratios for CLWAC are defined as follows: the axial compressive strength to cube compressive strength ratio (hereinafter referred to as the material axial compression ratio) ranges from 0.685 to 0.990, the elastic modulus to cube compressive strength ratio from 0.223 to 0.873, the elastic modulus to axial compressive strength ratio from 0.368 to 1.052, the flexural strength to cube compressive strength ratio from 0.045 to 0.163, the splitting tensile strength to flexural strength ratio from 0.379 to 0.945, and the splitting tensile strength to cube compressive strength ratio from 0.040 to 0.126. (3) Comparisons with design codes show that, except for specific conditions such as low-strength and high-density scenarios, most code-recommended values fall within the broad data intervals obtained in this study. Among these, the values specified in EN 1992 are generally higher, followed by those in ACI 318, while JGJ/T 12 adopts relatively conservative values. Furthermore, apart from the material axial compression ratio, all other mechanical property ratios specified for normal concrete in the codes are significantly higher than those for lightweight aggregate concrete. This further confirms the fundamental differences in mechanical behavior between the two material types.

Source: Case Studies in Construction Materials

DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2026.e06531

Authors: Yuan Gao, Xiao Han

Institutions: Beijing Guodaotong Highway Design & Research Institute (China), China Communications Construction Company (China)

Language: English

Topic: Innovative concrete reinforcement materials

Subfield: Civil and Structural Engineering

Field: Engineering

Domain: Physical Sciences

SDG: Responsible consumption and production

Open Access status: gold

Estimated APC paid: $2,660