See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257896233

New production process for insulation blocks composed of EPS and

lightweight concrete containing pumice aggregate

Article  in  Materials and Structures · September 2012

DOI: 10.1617/s11527-012-9836-z

CITATIONS

22READS

3,989

2 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Parameters affecting cutting forces and specific cutting energy by four-axis machine of natural rocks View project

Şanlıurfa İli Sektör Analizi: Mevcut Durum, Çözüm Önerileri Strateji ve Destek Eylem Planı View project

Ali Sariisik

Harran University

21 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gencay Sariisik on 09 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

New production process for insulation blocks composedof EPS and lightweight concrete containing pumiceaggregate

Ali Sariisik • Gencay Sariisik

Received: 25 January 2011 / Accepted: 19 January 2012 / Published online: 1 February 2012

� RILEM 2012

Abstract This study introduces a new production

method for production of the insulation blocks made of

pumice aggregate, lightweight concrete and expanded

polystyrene foam (EPS). Products produced via this

method were analyzed for compliance with the Turkish

standards institution (TS EN) standards. A single-

line lightweight masonry block with 200 mm 9

400 mm 9 200 mm dimension (width 9 length 9

height) was produced to produce an insulation block

by using circular saw block cutting machine for the first

time. Physical and thermal properties of the all-in

aggregate pumice used in lightweight aggregate were

determined and the all-in aggregate pumice was

subjected to sieve analysis. After the production,

insulation blocks were subjected to some analysis

according to pre-set standards to determine their

usability as masonry unit. After the curing period

(28 days), it was found that the highest value of

deviation from the plane was 0.150 mm; deviation of

the flanges from plain parallelism was 0.40 mm; dry

density was 562 kg/m3; compressive strength value

was 2.99 N/mm2; water absorption coefficient by

capillaries was 20.63 g/mm2sn0.5; sound absorption

value of the masonry unit was 60 (dB); thermal

conductivity coefficient was 0.33 W/mK; initial shear

strength value was 0.471 N/mm2 and plaster-holding

capacity was considerably high. When compared to

other construction elements, thermal conductivity and

masonry unit weight of the insulation block and

masonry costs were found to be lower.

Keywords Insulation block � New process � Pumice

and EPS � Lightweight concrete � TS EN standards

1 Introduction

Pumice is a porous volcanic rock with amorphous

structure and composed mainly of SiO2. In chemical

terms, silica constitutes up to 75% of the pumice

content. Pumice has macro and micro-size pores and a

hardness value of 5–6 (Mohs) and specific density of

1.0–2.0 g/cm3. Since the pores are generally uncon-

nected with and distant to each other, pumice has low

permeability and high thermal and sound insulation

capacity. Due to these advantageous physical charac-

teristics, pumice is widely used in many industries [1].

Main pumice deposits in Turkey are found in

Nevsehir, Kayseri, Bitlis and Isparta Regions, with a

total reserve of nearly 3 billion m3. There are two types

of pumice: acidic and basic pumice. Acidic pumice

was used in this study since it is widely found in

Turkey [2].

A. Sariisik

Department of Mining, Faculty of Engineering,

Afyon Kocatepe University, 03200 ANS Campus,

Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

G. Sariisik (&)

Vocational School of Iscehisar, Afyon Kocatepe

University, 03750 Iscehisar/Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

e-mail: gencaysariisik@yahoo.com

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

DOI 10.1617/s11527-012-9836-z

Pumice has a pore system composed of homoge-

nously-distributed macro and micro-size pores (poros-

ity or cavity), which do not generally intersect.

Volumetric ratio of this porosity/cavity may reach

70% and, thus, pumice is a relatively lightweight

material [2–4]. Today, thermal/sound insulation is one

of the main characteristics demanded from the mate-

rials used in the construction sector. Previous studies

have shown that pumice can be used in construction

sector and in the production of lightweight masonry

bricks and lightweight concrete with high thermal (or

cold)/sound insulation capability [5–10]. In addition,

studies have been conducted on low-density, high-

porosity natural and synthetic products (other than

pumice) such as diatomite, vermiculite, expanded

perlite, expanded clays and EPS foam, instead of the

aggregates used in lightweight masonry block and

lightweight concrete production [11–23].

In today’s construction sector, pumice is most

commonly used in production of insulation brick

(bimsblock or brick) [24]. Production process of

construction brick involves following stages: classifi-

cation of pumice according to size; mixing of pumice

with appropriate quantities of cement and water;

casting; shaping via vibrating-pressing; curing; pack-

aging; and final product. The products produced at the

end of this process were in 200 9 400 9 200 mm

dimension, in accordance with the standards [25].

Present study made two changes in the classic

production process: (i) small moulds were replaced by

larger ones (1250 9 1280 9 650 mm) and (ii) instead

of bimsblock robotic production process (vibration and

cutting machine), large size insulation blocks were cut

into dimensioned insulation blocks using circular saw

block cutting machine, which is used for cutting natural

stone blocks. From this aspect present study is the first

literature study in which insulation blocks were

produced by using circular saw block cutting machine.

The TS EN 771-3 Standard defines the criteria

related to the production and sizing of lightweight

aggregate concrete masonry units and the use of these

units in the construction sector as lightweight con-

struction elements [25].

In addition, expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) was

placed in the molds at specific intervals to improve

insulation performance and reduce block weight. By

using the new method, the study aimed to produce a

construction element with a smoother surface, at lower

cost via saving workmanship and time. Pumice-

aggregate insulation block was tested to detect not

only its possible contributions in the production of

single-line, cavity wall block materials complying

with TS EN standards but also its use as a final

product. In addition, insulation block was compared to

other construction elements to make cost analysis.

2 Experimental studies

2.1 Materials

The pumice used in the present study was acidic

pumice found in Nevsehir Region of Turkey, and was

supplied by Hilal Bims Ltd. (Fig. 1).

Physical characteristics such as unit dry bulk

density, specific gravity, compactness ratio, porosity

and water absorption of the pumice aggregate were

established in accordance with TS EN Standards.

Characteristics of the pumice aggregate, cement and

EPS foam used in the study are listed in Table 1.

Portland Cement CEM-I 42.5 N including 95%

clinker and complying with TS EN 197–1 standard

was used in the present study [26]. Cement grain size

varied in 20–30 lm range. EPS insulation material

was a thermoplastic hydrocarbon, 98% of which was

composed of air and which complied with the DIN

4102 standard [27]. EPS had a density of 26.91 kg/m3

and compression strength of 0.2 MPa. Polystyrene had

a relatively low thermal conductivity value of

0.040 W/mK [28, 29].

Pumice samples (2,500 g) were collected from

different parts of the aggregate quarry for sieve

Fig. 1 Natural appearance of the all-in aggregate pumice

1346 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

analysis. Square-mesh sieves having mesh size of

16.0, 12.5, 8.0, 4.0, 2.0 and 1.0 mm were used. Study

sample was dried in an oven at 105�C (±5�C) until the

weight was stabilized. Sieves were place according to

mesh size: those with smaller mesh sizes were places

at the bottom. Above-the-sieve and below-the-sieve

samples were weighed separately [30]. Analysis of the

sieve results of the all-in aggregate pumice material

showed that 70% of the pumice was in the

12.5–16.0 mm range, 22% in the 4.0–8.0 mm range

and 8% in the 1.0–4.0 mm range (Fig. 2).

Cutting saws were made of special alloy steel and,

sockets were placed around the saw at certain intervals.

Technical properties of the circular saws used in cutting

and dimensioning of large blocks are given in Table 2.

2.2 Production process of insulation block

The all-in aggregate pumice used in the study was

produced via open mining method. It was sieved at the

quarry site using sieves with 1–16 mm mesh size and

then was transported to the factory (where the product

was produced) for the production process. Pumice

aggregate was transferred to the material silo (Fig. 3a,

b). A mechanized, computer-controlled system fed the

pumice aggregate (70–75%), cement (as binding

element, 8–15%) and water (15–20%) to a mixer for

homogeneous mixing process (Fig. 3c). 6 blocks of

EPS foam (1,250 9 650 9 110 mm) were placed into

the insulation block moulds. Then, the prepared

lightweight concrete mixture was poured into moulds

of 1,250 9 1280 9 650 mm size and was subjected to

vibration (Fig. 3d). The insulation blocks in the

moulds were allowed to cure for 3 days at room

temperature (20�C) (Fig. 3e). Then, the cured insula-

tion blocks were cut by using a modern, accurate,

automatic block cutting machine, which was adapted

from the one used in the natural stone sector (Fig. 3f).

Unlike natural stone sector, 2 vertical saws were used

instead of vertical and horizontal saw and staged

cutting was performed in circular saw cutting

machine. Vertical small-sized saw first cut the half

of the 650 mm high block and then the small-size saw

cut the other part (Fig. 3g). Large block slices of

1,250 9 650 9 200 mm, which were cut using cir-

cular saw block cutting machine, were transferred to

Table 1 Chemical and physical properties of pumice, cement

and EPS foam

Chemical and physical properties

of pumice

Unit Values

SiO2 % 70.06

Al2O3 % 12.74

Fe2O3 % 1.30

CaO % 0.85

MgO % 0.34

Na2O % 3.20

K2O % 4.06

Color – White

Mohs hardness – 6

pH – 5.5–6.0

Specific gravity kg/m3 2,260.0

Dry bulk density kg/m3 423.0

Water absorption % 34.0

Compactness ration % 18.5

Real porosity % 69.0

Visible porosity % 81.5

Thermal conductivity W/mK 0.132

Plaster holding – Very good

Specific heat capacity kcal/kg�C 0.255

Sound conductivity coefficient 0.20

Chemical and physical properties of cement

SiO2 % 21.12

Al2O3 % 5.62

Fe2O3 % 3.24

CaO % 62.94

MgO % 2.73

Specific gravity kg/m3 3100

Compressive strength 28-day MPa 43.00

Physical properties of EPS

Density kg/m3 26.91

Thermal conductivity value W/mK 0.04

Compressive strength MPa 0.20

Fig. 2 Sieve analysis results of the all-in aggregate pumice

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1347

production band by a vacuum robot machine (Fig. 3h).

Firstly, large blocks were cut into 1,250 9 200 9

200 mm diameter blocks in length dimensioning

machine and then were cut into 200 9 400 9 200

mm diameter blocks in width dimensioning machine.

Totally 54 insulation blocks were produced (Figs. 3i, 4).

Inner face of the insulation block was polystyrene

foam with average thickness of 110 mm and each

outer face was lightweight concrete plate with average

thickness of 45 mm (Fig. 5).

Flow chart of the production of classic bimsblock

(Fig. 6a) and new insulation block are given in

Fig. 6b. The insulation block was designed to utilize

pumice, cement and EPS (polystyrene foam) to

produce a new construction material with high thermal

and acoustic insulation (Fig. 7).

Table 2 Some technical properties of circular saw

Diameter

(mm)

Steel center

thickness (mm)

Number of

segments

Minimum flange

diameter (mm)

Cooling water

(l/min)

Minimum required

power (HP)

RPM

625 3.00 42 180 30–45 20 1,050

700 3.00 40 200 30–45 30 950

1,200 5.50 80 300 75–100 60 550

1,800 7.00 120 400 70–120 75 350

Fig. 3 Production process in insulation block production facility

1348 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

After completion of 28-day curing period, insula-

tion block samples were analyzed in the Pumice

Research Laboratory of SDU (Suleyman Demirel

University).

2.3 Experimental methodology

In order to comply with the masonry unit dimensions,

testing was conducted on samples with 200 9 400

9 200 mm dimension. The tests were conducted

using 54 samples collected from stock area to repre-

sent different blocks (9 tests 9 6 samples = 54

samples). Analysis values of each test were obtained

by taking arithmetic averages.

2.3.1 Analysis of face flatness

Length of two diagonals on each face (declared to be

the flat face of the insulation block according to TS EN

772-20 standard) of the block was measured to an

accuracy of 0.05 mm approach [31]. The ruler was

placed on each diagonal, respectively and the gap

(distance) between the masonry unit face and the ruler

was measured with a distance meter. In case of a

convex masonry unit face, the ruler was placed in such

way to ensure that the gap between the ruler and the

face was equal on both sides of the point where the

ruler contacted the face.

2.3.2 Dimension analysis

Standard masonry unit was fixed on a flat and stable-

size face before the measurement process, in accor-

dance with EN 772–16 [32]. The distance between the

upper flange and the lower flat face of the masonry unit

was measured from four corners. Each measurement

value is indicated by rounding to the closest 0.2 mm.

2.3.3 Analysis of dry density

Dry density tests were carried out to analyze usability

of the insulation block as a masonry unit. To make dry

density measurement of the insulation block, size and

weight of the blocks (dried in the drying oven at

105�C ± 5�C) were measured in accordance with the

TS EN 772-13 standard [33]. According to this

principle, the dry density value (qg,u) of the masonry

unit materials is used in the analysis of the loading-

transportation, thermal and sound insulation and fire-

resistance values of a block. In the present study, dry

density value according to TS EN 772–13 was

calculated using the following equation [33].

qg;u ¼ Mdry;u=Vg;u ð1Þ

here qg,u is dry density (kg/m3), Mdry,u is dry weight

(kg), Vg,u is volume (m3).

2.3.4 Compressive strength analysis

Mechanical (compressive) strength analysis of the

insulation block samples was made according to the

TS EN 772–1 standard [34], using the following

equation:

Fig. 4 Cutting modelling of the insulation block in automatic

cutting unit

Fig. 5 Dimensioning symbols and representations used for

insulation block

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1349

rc ¼ Fc=A ð2Þ

here rc is compressive strength value (N/mm2), Fc is

failure load value (N), A is the tested face area (mm2).

2.3.5 Analysis of capillary water absorption

Water absorption coefficient by capillarity was calcu-

lated in accordance with the TS EN 772–11 standard

[35]. Samples were subjected to a capillary water

absorption test. Water absorption coefficient by cap-

illarity was calculated (in g/mm2s0.5) for each block

using the following equation:

Cw;s ¼ Mso;s �Mdry;s

� �= Asp

tsoð Þ� �

� 106 ð3Þ

here Cw,s is water absorption coefficient by capillarity

(g/mm2s0.5), Mso,s is weight (g) of the sample after

time (t) contact with water, Mdry,s is weight (g) of the

sample after drying, tso is time (s) of contact with

water, As is gross area of the water contact face (mm2).

2.3.6 Thermal insulation analysis

Thermal conductivity coefficient refers to the quantity

of heat that passes through a unit volume of the

substance in a given unit of time when the difference

in temperature of the two faces is 1�C. After dried in

Fig. 6 Flow chart of insulation block production method

Fig. 7 Final appearance of insulation block product

1350 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

the drying oven at 105�C ± 5�C, the samples were put

into a thermal conductivity coefficient measurement

device. The device is composed of three chambers. A

block was placed in the middle chamber; the sensors in

the other two chambers were positioned to contact the

block face; and the temperature values of the two faces

were read from the gauge by increasing the heat

current (ampere) at each 15 min. Heat conductiv-

ity coefficient was calculated using the following

formula:

k ¼ Q:d=Dt:A ð4Þ

here k is heat conductivity coefficient (W/mK), Q is

heat (watts), d is sample section thickness (m), Dt is

sample face temperature difference (�C), A is face area

through which heat passes (m2).

Heat transition coefficient was calculated using the

following formula:

1

U¼ 1

aext

� �þ d1

k1

� �þ d2

k2

� �þ 1

aint

� �ð5Þ

here U is heat transition coefficient (W/m2K), aext is

external face thermal conduction resistance (m2K/W),

aint is inner face thermal conduction resistance (m2K/

W), d1 is polystyrene foam thickness (m), d2 is

lightweight concrete thickness (m), k1 is polystyrene

foam thermal conductivity value (W/mK), k2 is

masonry unit equivalent thermal conductivity value

(W/mK)

2.3.7 Sound insulation analysis

Sound insulation analysis was carried out in accor-

dance with the TS EN ISO 140-3 standard [36]. The

differences between the first phon measurements (E1)

and second phon measurements (E2) corresponding to

each frequency value were determined as the noise

reduction or sound insulation value (D) of the tested

insulation block. This was measured as the difference

between the sound pressure levels on both sides of the

insulation block, as expressed by the equation below:

D ¼ E1 � E2 ð6Þ

here D is sound insulation value of the masonry unit

(dB), E1 is sound pressure level of the noise which the

material was exposed to (dB), E2 is sound pressure

level of the noise passing through the material (dB).

2.3.8 Initial shear strength analysis

In-plain initial shear strength of the horizontal bearing

joints of the insulation block was tested in accordance

with the TS EN 1052–3 standard [37].

The shear strength of each sample at each com-

pressive stress level was calculated using the follow-

ing equation:

fvoi ¼ fi;max=2Ai ð7Þ

here fvoi is shear strength of each masonry sample (N/

mm2), fi,max is maximum shear load each masonry

sample could carry (N), Ai is width section area

(parallel to bearing joints) of the masonry unit (mm2).

The pre-stress value of each pressure preloading

was calculated using the equation below:

fpi ¼ fpil=Ai ð8Þ

here fpi is initial pressure stress applied to each sample

(N/mm2), fpil is initial pressure load (N).

The characteristic value of the initial shear strength

was calculated by using ‘‘fvok; fvok = 0,8 fvo’’ equation

and the characteristic value of inner friction coefficient

was calculated using ‘‘ak; tan ak = 0.8 tan a’’

equation. Here fvok is characteristic value of initial

shear strength (N/mm2) fvo: mean initial shear strength

(N/mm2).

3 Results and discussion

The ‘‘flatness of faces’’ test according to TS EN

772-20 standards indicated that the masonry unit was a

rectangular prism [31] and that the ‘‘highest deviation

from flatness’’ of the product was 0.150 mm

(Table 3).

The analysis of deviation of insulation block

flanges from plain parallelism was carried out accord-

ing to TS EN 772-16 standards [32]. Experimental

findings are listed in Table 4. The mean value of

deviation of flanges from plain parallelism was

0.40 mm. A maximum 0.40 mm dimensional devia-

tion was detected after cutting process of the insulation

block wall materials.

Since the face flatness of the bimsblock produced in

production process (vibration and pressing) was low,

extra plaster was required. As a result of this, unit cost

for masonry was high. In this new production process,

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1351

as the insulation block is produced by cutting with

circular saw in circular saw cutting machines, the

surface of the insulation block is smoother and more

even (Fig. 8).

Average unit weight of the tested insulation blocks

after the 28-day curing period was found to be

9.068 kg, and the average dry density value to be

562 kg/m3 (Table 5). Unit weight of 1 m2 wall

constructed with insulation block was calculated to

be 113.35 kg/m2 (12.5 pieces 9 9.068 kg/1 m2)

Analysis of thermal insulation performance indi-

cated that the product was in the 500 kg/m3 dry

density class. This means that the thermal conductivity

value of the element dropped considerably, thus, the

new product had higher thermal insulation capability

[38]. The dry density of the insulation block was found

to be 562 kg/m3. This shows that the thermal conduc-

tivity of the product is quite low and, therefore, it has

higher thermal insulation properties.

The TS EN 771–3 standard does not provide any

strength limit for wall block elements [25]. However,

practical examinations show that minimum block

compressive strength value is 2.76 N/mm2 and mean

compressive strength value is 2.99 N/mm2 [38].

Compressive strength analysis of the insulation blocks

showed that the strength values of blocks produced

from lightweight concrete (using each mixture com-

bination prepared at the end of 28-day curing period)

grout satisfied the required conditions. Block materials

produced from lightweight concrete grout and EPS

produced mean compressive strength value of 2.99 N/

mm2 at the end of the 28-day curing period (Table 5).

Figure 9 shows the simple linear regression

between dry density and compressive strength of the

insulation blocks. The R2 [ 0.99 value provides this

model with an important determinant coefficient in

Table 3 Results of faces flatness analysis

Sample

number

Length of first

diagonal of the

face (mm)

Length of second

diagonal of the

face (mm)

Mean diagonal

length of the

face (mm)

Max. gap between face

and ruler in the first

diagonal (mm)

Max. gap between face

and ruler in the second

diagonal (mm)

Max

deviation

from flatness

(mm)

1 451.33 451.20 451.26 0.025 0.025 0.025

2 452.27 452.34 452.30 0.225 0.225 0.225

3 451.38 451.26 451.32 0.175 0.175 0.175

4 451.85 451.85 451.85 0.175 0.175 0.175

5 452.00 451.94 451.97 0.162 0.163 0.162

6 451.11 451.09 451.10 0.137 0.138 0.138

Mean 451.66 451.61 451.63 0.150 0.150 0.150

Table 4 Results of dimensions analysis

Parallelism measurement

of the faces (mm)

Deviation of flanges from parallelism (mm)

Sample number

1 2 3 4 5 6

Means of 12 measurements 0.074 0.613 0.427 0.591 0.319 0.353

Deviation (mm) 0.40

Fig. 8 Image of smooth wall constructed without using

insulation blocks and plaster grout

1352 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

explaining regression model change. A significant

relationship was found between the dry density and

compressive strength of the insulation blocks. In a

study by Gunduz [38] it was found out that a decrease

in the unit weight of block materials resulted in a

natural decrease in the compressive strength of the

blocks. Pumice aggregates with smaller particles have

lower porosity values, which increases the unit volume

weight of the pumice.

In the present study, the proportion of pumice

aggregate was increased and the proportion of cement

was decreased. As a result of this, the unit weight of

the insulation block was reduced and thermal conduc-

tivity value was improved. Block thermal conductivity

Table 5 Results of dry density analysis and compressive strength analysis

Number Length

(mm)

Width

(mm)

Height

(mm)

Dry

weight

(kg)

Volume

(m3)

Dry density

(kg/m3)

Tested face

area (mm2)

Failure

load (N)

Compressive

strength (N/mm2)

1 404.40 200.00 199.20 8.691 0.01616 539 80880.00 227957.80 2.82

2 404.72 201.01 199.00 8.770 0.01619 542 81352.00 230888.00 2.84

3 404.06 200.14 198.83 8.664 0.01608 539 80869.00 223175.40 2.76

4 404.98 200.13 199.08 9.695 0.01613 601 81049.00 268784.60 3.32

5 404.74 201.07 198.66 9.866 0.01617 610 81381.00 275625.00 3.39

6 404.48 200.15 198.40 8.723 0.01609 542 80957.00 229761.00 2.84

Mean 404.56 200.42 198.86 9.068 0.01613 562 81081.00 242697.00 2.99

Fig. 9 Relationship between dry density and compressive

strength values of 28-day samples

Table 6 Results of thermal

insulation analysisPhysical characteristics of masonry unit Unit Value

Height mm 199.20

Length mm 404.40

Width mm 200.00

Dry weight kg 8.71

Volume m3 0.0161

Dry density kg/m3 540.00

Polystyrene foam density kg/m3 26.91

Calculation parameters

External face thermal conduction resistance (aext) m2K/W 0.04

Inner face thermal conduction resistance (aint) m2K/W 0.13

Polystyrene foam thickness (d1) mm 110

Lightweight concrete thickness (d2) mm 90

Polystyrene foam thermal conductivity value (k1) W/mK 0.033

Masonry unit equivalent thermal conductivity value (k2) W/mK 0.33

Heat transition coefficient (U) W/m2K 0.27

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1353

values (k) obtained on the basis of the analysis method

specified in TS EN 1745 standard are listed in Table 6

[39]. Mean thermal conductivity of the insulation

block after the 28-day curing period was found to be

0.33 W/mK.

Figure 10 shows the relationship between the dry

density and thermal conductivity of the insulation

blocks produced using EPS. The data indicates that

thermal conductivity increased in parallel with the

increase in dry density [38]. There is a linear relation-

ship between thermal conductivity and dry density.

Sample blocks were tested for water absorption

coefficient by capillarity, according to the TS EN

772–11 standard [35]. As indicated in Table 7, water

absorption coefficient by capillarity value was found

to be 20.63 g/mm2sn0.5.

Initial shear strength analysis was calculated for the

insulation block product, in accordance with the TS

EN 1052–3 standard [37]. As shown in Table 8, the

shear strength value of the product was found to be

0.471 N/mm2.

As presented in Fig. 11, a graphical linear regres-

sion was obtained by marking each shear strength

value fvoi corresponding to each vertical tensile value

fpi. Accordingly, there is a linear relationship between

each vertical tensile value (fpi) and corresponding

shear resistance value (fvoi).

It was found that sound insulation values of

insulation block were over 60 dB (at 800 Hz fre-

quency). According to TS 2381-2 EN ISO 717-2

Fig. 10 Relationship between dry density and thermal conduc-

tivity of 28-day samples

Table 7 Results of capillary water absorption analysis

Number Mdry.s (g) Mso.s (g) As (mm2) tso (s) Cw.s (g/mm2s0.5) Cw.s (g/mm2s)

1 8,645 8,690 80,880 600.00 22.71 0.93

2 9,686 9,733 81,352 600.12 23.56 0.96

3 9,848 9,889 80,869 600.36 20.64 0.84

4 9,723 9,748 81,049 600.18 12.57 0.51

5 9,811 9,853 81,381 600.12 21.05 0.86

6 8,830 8,873 80,957 600.42 21.61 0.88

Mean 9,424 9,464 81,081 600.18 20.36 0.83

Mdry,s, weight of the sample after drying; Mso,s, weight of the sample after time contact with water; As, gross area of the water contact

face; tso, time of contact with water; Cw,s, water absorption coefficient by capillarity

Table 8 Results of initial shear strength analysis

Number tbi (mm) fpil (N) Ai (mm2) fpi (N/mm2) fi.max (N) fvoi (N/mm2) fvo (N/mm2) a (8) fvok (N/mm2) ak (8)

1 11 5,527 39,760 0.139 49,327 0.620 0.588 24.37 0.471 19.92

2 12 6,160 39,740 0.155 53,505 0.673

3 12 7,841 39,601 0.198 54,845 0.692

4 13 11,819 39,660 0.298 58,182 0.734

5 11 17,516 39,720 0.441 61,974 0.780

6 10 20,457 39,799 0.514 65,273 0.820

fpil, initial pressure load; fpi, initial pressure stress applied to each sample; fi,max, maximum shear load each masonry sample could

carry; fvoi, shear strength of each masonry sample; fvo, mean initial shear strength (N/mm2); fvok, characteristic value of initial shear

strength

1354 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

standard [40], this value meets the required limit values

(60 dB) for sound insulation in buildings (Table 9).

The present study aimed to determine the plaster-

holding capacity of the insulation block units. A

plaster mortar having CS II-class strength values

according to TS EN 998–1 standards and a mean after-

stiffening unit volume weight of 1650 kg/m3 [41] was

used. This mortar was applied at a thickness of 20 mm

to the rated faces of each 200 9 400 9 200 mm

insulation block masonry unit. The plaster-holding

capacity of the insulation block masonry materials was

classified as ‘‘very good’’.

When compared to other equivalent construction

materials, the insulation block construction material

proved to ensure higher thermal conductivity (0.33 W/

mK) (Fig. 12). The wall unit weight in 1 m2 masonry

was found to be 119.35 kg/m2 in the insulation block

(Fig. 13). According to this finding, as the unit wall

weight of the insulation block is lower than those of

other building materials, this will reduce the load on

the building.

Fig. 11 Relationship between initial shear resistance and single

shear resistance

Table 9 Sound insulation analysis made on test samples

Sound insulation analysis

Masonry unit face density (kg/m2) 108

Dry density (kg/m3) 564

Masonry unit sound absorption value (dB) 60

Fig. 12 Comparison of

heat transition coefficient

value of the insulation block

and other masonry materials

Fig. 13 Comparison of

masonry unit weight of the

insulation block and other

masonry materials

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1355

Economic utilization of insulation block material in

1 m2 masonry according to required number of blocks

are given in Table 10 [42]. As indicated in the table,

since no plaster application is required on the wall in

insulation block and when wall construction cost,

workmanship and material costs are considered;

bimsblock is more economical than gas concrete and

sandwich brick.

4 Conclusions

Present study evaluated the compliance with TS EN

standards of pumice aggregate and EPS-added insu-

lation block produced by a new production method.

The specific production and cutting method adopted in

the study resulted in considerably smoother block

faces and edges; reduced the need to apply plaster; and

required the application of only a thin 2 cm plaster

layer. Thermal conductivity value and sound insula-

tion value of the insulation block were found to be

0.33 W/mK and 60 dB, respectively. When compared

to many other construction materials, insulation block

provides greater insulation. In addition, it was found

that the insulation block had lower masonry unit

weight when compared to other construction materi-

als. So, when insulation blocks are used, building load

will be significantly reduced.

Since the use of insulation blocks in building

construction will enable greater thermal and sound

insulation than some other wall materials (bimsblock,

gas concrete, and sandwich brick), heating and cooling

costs will be reduced. Moreover, reduction of the need

to apply plaster thanks to smooth and aesthetic faces of

the insulation block will produce time and workman-

ship savings. In addition to providing better thermal

insulation, insulation block wall materials will be

more economical than other wall materials in terms of

workmanship requirements, construction time and

energy requirements during the operational lifespan of

the building.

Acknowledgments The Insulation Block used in the present

study has been developed as a new product with the financial

support of SME’s R&D Support Program Project Nr

TUBITAK–1507/7080080. We would like to thank TUBITAK

for its valuable contributions.

References

1. Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2001) Place in the natural stone

industry toprakkale basalt 4. Industrial Minerals Sympo-

sium, Izmir

2. Gunduz L, Sariisik A, Tozacan B, Davraz M, Ugur I,

Cankıran O (1998) Pumice technology, vol 1. Suleyman

Demirel University, Turkey. pp 275–285

3. Demirdag S, Gunduz L (2008) Strength properties of vol-

canic slag aggregate lightweight concrete for high perfor-

mance masonry units. Construct Build Mater 22:135–142

4. Gunduz L, Bekar M, Sapcı N (2007) Influence of a new type

of additive on the performance of polymer-lightweight

mortar composites. Cem Concr Compos 29:594–602

5. Gunduz L (2001) Heat insulation as pumice aggregate use,

vol 4. Industrial Minerals Symposium. pp 59–68

Table 10 Cost analysis of masonry materials

Cost analysis Unit Bimsblock Gas concrete Sandwich brick Insulation block

Block dimension mm 190 9 390 9 185 200 9 400 9 200 135 9 50 9 85 200 9 400 9 200

Block weight kg/piece 11.00 8.00 5.00 9.00

Number of blocks Piece 12.50 12.50 56.00 12.50

Wastage ratio % 2.00 2.00 15.00 2.00

Material cost $/m2 7.70 13.93 10.37 19.13

Transport cost $/m2 2.67 2.67 3.00 2.67

Wastage cost $/m2 1.00 0.33 1.67 0.17

Masonry grout cost $/m2 1.75 1.00 1.75 0.23

Masonry workmanship cost $/m2 4.50 3.17 4.50 2.67

Outer plaster cost $/m2 1.50 1.17 1.50 –

Outer plaster workmanship $/m2 5.00 5.00 5.00 –

Inner plaster $/m2 2.46 2.46 2.46 0.53

Inner plaster workmanship $/m2 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.00

Total cost $/m2 29.38 32.40 32.92 27.40

1356 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357

6. Cavaleri L, Miraglia N, Papia M (2003) Pumice concrete for

structural wall panels. Eng Struct 25:115–125

7. Campione G, La Mendola L (2004) Behavior in compres-

sion of lightweight fiber reinforced concrete confined with

transverse steel reinforcement. Cem Concr Compos 26:

645–656

8. Piora LS, Piora IL (2004) Production of expanded-clay

aggregate for lightweight concrete from non-selfbloating

clays. Cem Concr Compos 26:639–643

9. Gunduz L (2008) The effects of pumice aggregate/cement

ratios on the low-strength concrete properties. Construct

Build Mater 22:721–728

10. Gunduz L (2008) Use of quartet blends containing fly ash,

scoria, perlitic pumice and cement to produce cellular hol-

low lightweight masonry blocks for non-load bearing walls.

Construct Build Mater 22:747–754

11. Sri Ravindrarajah R, Tuck A (1994) Properties of hardened

concrete containing treated expanded polystyrene beads.

Cem Concr Compos 16:273–277

12. Babu KG, Babu DS (2003) Behaviour of lightweight

expanded polystyrene concrete containing silica fume. Cem

Concr Res 33:755–762

13. Babu DS, Babu KG, Tiong-Huan W (2006) Effect of

polystyrene aggregate size on strength and moisture

migration characteristics of lightweight concrete. Cem

Concr Compos 28:520–527

14. Kayyali O, Haque M (1996) A new generation of structural

lightweight concrete. University of New South Wales,

Australia. Concrete Technology SP, 171(27):569–588

15. Demir I, Uygunoglu T (2003) Investigation of use of pumice

and diatomaceous in the production of light weight block

materials, vol 3. Crushing stone National Symposium,

pp. 107–115

16. Hossain KMA (2004) Potential use of volcanic pumice as a

construction material. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 16(6):

573–577

17. Hossain KMA, Lachemi M (2005) Thermal conductivity

and acoustic performance of volcanic pumice based com-

posites. Mater Sci Forum 480–481:611–616

18. Hossain KMA, Lachemi M (2007) Mix design, strength,

durability and fire resistance of lightweight concrete with

pumice aggregate. ACI Mater J 104(5):449–457

19. Hossain KMA (2008) Bond characteristics of plain and

deformed bars in lightweight pumice concrete. Construct

Build Mater 22:1491–1499

20. Topcu IB, Isıkdag B (2008) Effect of expanded perlite

aggregate on the properties of lightweight concrete. J Mater

Process Technol 204:34–38

21. Demirboga R, Orung I, Gul R (2001) Effect of expanded

perlite aggregate and mineral admixtures on the compres-

sive strength of low-density concretes. Cem Concr Res 31:

1627–1632

22. Bouchair A (2008) Steady state theoretical model of fired

clay hollow bricks for enhanced external wall thermal

insulation. Build Environ 43:1603–1618

23. Sari D, Pasamehmetoglu AG (2005) The effects of grada-

tion and admixture on the pumice lightweight aggregate

concrete. Cem Concr Res 35:936–942

24. Gunduz L (2005) Civil sector bimsblock. Pumice Research

Laboratory of SDU (Suleyman Demirel University), Isparta,

pp 928

25. TS EN 771-3 (2005) Specification for masonry units-Part 3:

Aggregate concrete masonry units (Dense and light-weight

aggregates), Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

26. TS EN 197-1 (2002) Cement-Part 1: Compositions and

conformity criteria for common cements. Turkish Standards

Institute, Ankara

27. DIN 4102 (1998) Part 1-B2. Reaction to fire tests: ignit-

ability of building products subjected to direct impingement

of flame. Deutsche Industry Norm, Berlin

28. Pud (Polystyrene Producers Association) (1995) Heat

insulation in the EPS, EPS manufacturers association pub-

lications. Istanbul, pp 23–32

29. Basf S (1996) Technical information. Aktiengesellchaft,

Germany, pp 180–184

30. TS 3530 EN 933-1 (1999) Tests for geometrical properties

of aggregates Part 1: Determination of particle size distri-

bution sieving method. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

31. TS EN 772-20 (2002) Methods of test for masonry units:

Part 20: Determination of flatness of faces of aggregate

concrete manufactured stone and natural stone masonry

units. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

32. TS EN 772-16 (2006) Methods of test for masonry units-

Part 16: Determination of dimensions. Turkish Standards

Institute, Ankara

33. TS EN 772-13 (2002) Methods of test for masonry units-

Part 13: determination of net and gross dry density of

masonry units (except for natural stone). Turkish Standards

Institute, Ankara

34. TS EN 772-1 (2002) Methods of test for mortar for masonry

units-Part 1: determination of compressive strength. Turkish

Standards Institute, Ankara

35. TS EN 772-11 (2002) Methods of test for masonry units-

Part 11: determination of water absorption of aggregate

concrete, manufactured stone and natural stone masonry

units. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

36. TS EN ISO 140-3 (1996) Acoustics-measurement of sound

insulation in buildings and of building elements Part 3:

laboratory measurements of airborne sound insulation of

building elements. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

37. TS EN 1052-3 (2002) Methods of test for masonry-Part 4:

determination of initial shear strength. Turkish Standards

Institute, Ankara

38. Gunduz L, Sapcı N, Bekar M (2006) A technical analysis on

improving the technical properties of pumice concretes with

expanded perlite aggregates, vol 4. Crushing stone National

Symposium, Istanbul

39. TS EN 1745 (2004) Masonry and masonry products:

methods for determining declared and design thermal val-

ues. Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara

40. TS 2381-2 EN ISO 717-2 (1996) Acoustics: rating of sound

insulation in buildings and of building elements-Part 2:

impact sound insulation, Turkish Standards Institute,

Ankara

41. TS EN 998-1 (2006) Specification for mortar for masonry-

Part 1: rendering and plastering mortar. Turkish Standards

Institute, Ankara

42. Andblok (2011) Insulated wall block, Eskisehir, Turkey,

September 2011 (http://www.izoduo.com)

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1345–1357 1357

View publication statsView publication stats