This report provides a comparison between the products cellular concrete, foam concrete and LECA concrete. The questions to be answered during the work is how the cellular concrete stands up in cost terms to the existing competitors on the market, how the concrete products differ in design work, and in which situations the concrete varieties are preferred to use. Cellular concrete is a variant of ordinary concrete, with the difference that the ballast is exchanged from stone materials to expanded polystyrene beads (EPS). This substitution gives a product with higher insulation values but lower weight than ordinary concrete. The work was carried out by designing a survey which was sent to two hundred randomly chosen companies across Sweden, to see the building industry’s opinion of the product cellular concrete. The survey showed that cellular concrete was equals its competitors in terms of price, while the product was said to be more flexible, quicker and easier to cast. Then some of the companies, who participated in the survey, were interviewed to see more carefully, how the price, the workmanship and the time for casting and dehydration differed between the products. Meanwhile, technical data were presented for the products which formed the basis for the U-value calculation and the weight analysis. The result of this work was that LECA concrete is the cheapest option, when the Uvalue is 0,40 W/(mK) and when the total thickness, including the following works, is 200 mm. Cellular concrete was found to be cheaper than foam concrete in small quantities, in the both cases, since the foam concrete must be cast in multiple layers. In addition, foam concrete requires more equipment, which results in a higher fixed cost. Foam concrete becomes, however, more profitable the larger volumes that are cast, because the fixed charges of the product are earned by the low volume cost. Cellular concrete is suitable for smaller works, especially in tight spaces where some insulation is required. Larger volumes are not beneficial because of the high volume cost. Often, the weight may be decisive in the method and material selection. On these occasions, the cellular concrete advantages through both low weight per unit volume and good thermal insulation. To screed the cellular concrete has been shown to cause large additional costs. At times, when no need to screed the concrete surface has occurred, the total cost of the product almost halved. Cellular concrete should not be cast in layers thinner than 50 mm. LECA concrete must be cast in a layer of at least 100 – 120 mm that sufficient adhesion can be obtained. This makes the product unsuitable for small castings, including castings of the existing joists below 100 mm, but works well as foundations. Of those described options, foam concrete is most suitable in larger castings. However, it appears that the main use of foam concrete has been shown to be as a filling material in road embankments.

<p>This report provides a comparison between the products cellular concrete, foam</p><p>concrete and LECA concrete. The questions to be answered during the work is how</p><p>the cellular concrete stands up in cost terms to the existing competitors on the market,</p><p>how the concrete products differ in design work, and in which situations the concrete</p><p>varieties are preferred to use.</p><p>Cellular concrete is a variant of ordinary concrete, with the difference that the ballast</p><p>is exchanged from stone materials to expanded polystyrene beads (EPS). This</p><p>substitution gives a product with higher insulation values but lower weight than</p><p>ordinary concrete.</p><p>The work was carried out by designing a survey which was sent to two hundred</p><p>randomly chosen companies across Sweden, to see the building industry’s opinion of</p><p>the product cellular concrete. The survey showed that cellular concrete was equals its</p><p>competitors in terms of price, while the product was said to be more flexible, quicker</p><p>and easier to cast.</p><p>Then some of the companies, who participated in the survey, were interviewed to see</p><p>more carefully, how the price, the workmanship and the time for casting and</p><p>dehydration differed between the products. Meanwhile, technical data were presented</p><p>for the products which formed the basis for the U-value calculation and the weight</p><p>analysis.</p><p>The result of this work was that LECA concrete is the cheapest option, when the Uvalue</p><p>is 0,40 W/(mK) and when the total thickness, including the following works, is</p><p>200 mm. Cellular concrete was found to be cheaper than foam concrete in small</p><p>quantities, in the both cases, since the foam concrete must be cast in multiple layers.</p><p>In addition, foam concrete requires more equipment, which results in a higher fixed</p><p>cost. Foam concrete becomes, however, more profitable the larger volumes that are</p><p>cast, because the fixed charges of the product are earned by the low volume cost.</p><p>Cellular concrete is suitable for smaller works, especially in tight spaces where some</p><p>insulation is required. Larger volumes are not beneficial because of the high volume</p><p>cost. Often, the weight may be decisive in the method and material selection. On these</p><p>occasions, the cellular concrete advantages through both low weight per unit volume</p><p>and good thermal insulation. To screed the cellular concrete has been shown to cause</p><p>large additional costs. At times, when no need to screed the concrete surface has</p><p>occurred, the total cost of the product almost halved. Cellular concrete should not be</p><p>cast in layers thinner than 50 mm.</p><p>LECA concrete must be cast in a layer of at least 100 – 120 mm that sufficient</p><p>adhesion can be obtained. This makes the product unsuitable for small castings,</p><p>including castings of the existing joists below 100 mm, but works well as foundations.</p><p>Of those described options, foam concrete is most suitable in larger castings.</p><p>However, it appears that the main use of foam concrete has been shown to be as a</p><p>filling material in road embankments.</p>