Experimental assessment reveals thermal performance and compressive strength variances in sandwich-insulated concrete blocks, suggesting improved material selection.
The sandwich-insulated concrete block is one of the innovative building units developed to enhance thermal insulation in buildings. However, there are still some drawbacks that hinder the optimum utilization of these types of insulating blocks. Therefore, this study aims to conduct a systematic and comparative assessment of the performance of the sandwich-insulated concrete block available in the local market. To accurately assess the efficiency of the insulated concrete blocks, several samples from various sources available in the local market were collected and examined. Visual inspection, dimensional tolerance, compressive strength, physical properties, thermal performance, and environmental resistance tests have been conducted in accordance with local and international standards. The obtained experimental results revealed that the mixture proportion of the concrete shell plays a crucial role in the properties and performance of the whole insulated concrete block. Blocks with volcanic aggregates exhibited lower compressive strength, ranging between 3.19 and 5.26 MPa, but better thermal conductivity with an average of 0.25 W/m·K. In comparison, normal aggregate blocks showed higher compressive strength up to 8.12 MPa but slightly reduced thermal insulation around 0.44 W/m·K. Water absorption varied widely from 5% to 16%, and chloride contents in volcanic aggregates exceeded the permissible 1% limit. Broken edges and cracks were mainly observed in low-strength blocks, emphasizing the importance of proper curing and material selection. Durability assessments revealed that accelerated weathering experiments demonstrated the susceptibility of expanded and extruded polystyrene to UV-induced degradation. Nevertheless, all tested polystyrene samples showed high resistance to fungal attack, with varying antibacterial activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alanazi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: