HISTORICAL VIGNETTE:
Development of lightweight
aggregate concrete
Strength joined with durability in the evolution of lightweight aggregates
BY RICHARD W. STEIGER
DESIGNER
TRI-MEDIA STUDIOS
FARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN
oncrete, so commonly ac-
C cepted in our buildings,
b ri d g e s, highways and an
infinite variety of other
s t ru c t u re s, is taken for granted as
massive and weighty. Not necessar-
ily so! A broad spectrum of light-
weight concretes is being used to-
day. This article focuses on
concretes made with two types of
lightweight aggregates (see Figure
1). Initially there were natural light-
weight aggregates that, though
durable enough, had little relative
strength. Much later, aggregates
processed by man were developed
that were not only light in weight
but also provided the strength
missing from those early mixes. Be-
cause of these developments we
have excellent lightweight aggre-
gate concrete today that provides
both durability and structural in-
tegrity.
Early Roman lightweight
concrete
Volcanic aggregates of basalt, sco-
ria, pumice and tuff were used in
concrete by Roman engineers and
designers. Their awareness of the
differences between heavy basaltic
Figure 1. Comparison of concrete
weights. Natural lightweight
aggregates were durable enough in
early concrete, but when combined
with portland cement in the early
1800s, they could not provide the
necessary strength. About 100 years
later, a way to make strong,
lightweight aggregate was discovered
by heating shale, clay and slate until
they expanded.
aggregates and extremely light
pumice and tuff made possible the
construction of structures which
were quite sophisticated. A famous
example of this expertise is the Pan-
theon in Rome.
 A huge temple begun in 27 B.C.,
the Pantheon had the largest dome
ever constructed until modern
times; it measured about 142 feet in
diameter and rose 71 feet above its
base. Although the exact method of
construction has never been deter-
mined, two factors are known to
have contributed to its success: the
excellent quality of mortar used in
the concrete and the careful selec-
tion and grading of aggregate.
Heavy basalt was used in founda-
tions and lower walls. In upper
walls, builders mixed brick and tuff
into the concrete, and toward the
center of the vault they used the
Figure 2. The Pantheon of Rome, 27 B.C.—A.D. 124. Both vault and walls are of
concrete, faced with brick and stone. This temple is ultimate proof of the Roman
engineers’ understanding and achievement in the handling of early concrete.
(Adapted from an engraving by Giovanni Battista Piranesi, 1720-78.)
lightest of pumice (see Figure 2).
As the empire grew through mili-
tary conquest and colonization, Ro-
man engineering, building design,
and construction techniques spread
from the Middle East to other lands
surrounding the Me d i t e r ra n e a n ,
across Europe and into Britain. Re-
mains of magnificent temples,
b ri d g e s, aqueducts, amphitheaters
and roads still dot the landscape in
these areas. Many of these struc-
tures contained natural aggregate
lightweight concrete, but it is not so
evident because most of them are
faced with masonry. Although struc-
turally weak by modern standards,
because of the quality of the ce-
ment, they have neve rt h e l e s s
proved amazingly durable.
Portland cement:
A temporary setback for
lightweight aggregates
In 1824, the English bri c k l a ye r
Joseph Aspdin concocted and
patented a new cement that con-
tained pulve ri zed raw limestone
and pulve ri zed impure siliceous
materials in varying percentages.
The cement was called portland ce-
ment because of its similarity in col-
oration, when hardened, to a popu-
lar building stone quarried on the
Isle of Portland. Although Aspdin’s
material was far from equal to the
quality and strength of today’s port-
land cement, it was far superior to
other cements used then.
Before Aspdin’s time, cements
were so weak that both heavy and
lightweight aggregate concretes per-
formed about the same. The discov-
ery of portland cement changed
this. Natural lightweight aggregates
were soft and tended to crush and
shear under compression, but this
did not matter when the cement
that was used provided less strength
than the aggregate. When the new,
stronger portland cement was used,
concretes made with natural light-
weight aggregate were no longer as
strong as those made with heavy
rock and sand aggregates. Obvious-
ly, another innovation would be re-
quired to make lightweight concrete
practical once again.
Manufactured lightweight
aggregates bring new strength
Stephen J. Ha yd e, a contractor
and brickmaker of Kansas City, Mis-
souri found an old problem in brick-
making to be the answer to low
strength lightweight aggregate. For
c e n t u ri e s, brickmakers had prob-
lems with some brick bloating ab-
normally during the burning
process because the shale expanded
under high heat. Based on his con-
siderable construction experience,
Hayde thought this unusable, bloat-
ed lightweight material might make
a good lightweight aggregate for
concrete. It was hard like glass and
relatively impermeable. The air
voids that were created in the
aggregate when it was heated at
high temperatures were not inter-
connected.
Hayde was granted a patent for
his method of producing light-
weight aggregate in 1918. The
process involved use of a rotary kiln,
a long, nearly horizontal cylinder
lined with refractory material. Shale,
clay or slate placed in the upper end
of the rotating kiln was heated—and
thus expanded—as it slowly moved
down to the lower end of the kiln.
The expanded shale, clay or slate
that was produced was lightweight,
relatively impermeable and hard.
World War I ships open
the door for use of lightweight
aggregate concrete
As with so many new materials,
the market was not yet ready for this
expanded aggregate. Howe ve r, the
entry of the United States into World
War I in 1917 and the shortage of
high-grade plate steel for building
ships led to one of its first uses.
Small ships, barges and a tanker had
already been designed and built
using conventional concrete, but
marine engineers thought that
lightweight concrete might work
even better.
 One of these engineers, R. J. Wig,
determined that a large vessel
would not be economically feasible
unless the concrete had a compres-
sive strength of approximately 500
psi. Also the weight could not ex-
ceed 110 pounds per cubic foot. Wig
called on the National Bureau of
Standards and together they began
an investigation in the summer of
1918. A method of expanding slate,
clay and shale in stationary down-
draft brick kilns was developed. The
first aggregate of this type was pro-
duced on a commercial scale at a
brick plant near Birmingham, Al-
abama. Enough aggregate was pro-
duced to supply concrete for a rela-
tively small 3000-ton ship, Atlantis,
launched in December 1918.
Building the Selma
At the same time, Ha yd e’s rotary
kiln method was producing more
uniform aggregate. Wig thought this
uniform aggregate would provide
the consistent mixes required for
the thin-wall construction of large
concrete vessels, so Hayde agreed to
give free use of his patents to the
U.S. shipbuilding program.
The first large vessel to be con-
structed of structural lightweight
was the tanker Selma. She weighed
7500 tons, had a length of 434 feet, a
beam of 54 feet, and a draft with full
cargo of 26 feet; full cargo displace-
ment was 13,000 tons, and she
could do 101⁄2 knots. The lightweight
concrete hull was 5 inches thick on
the bottom and 4 inches on the
sides. Her construction re q u i re d
2660 cubic yards of concrete and
about 1165 pounds of smooth rein-
forcing bars for each cubic yard—
close to 1550 tons of steel in all.
The Selma was launched in June
1919 but by this time World War I
was over, so she went into service
transporting crude oil from Tampi-
co, Mexico to Texas Gulf Coast refin-
ery ports. After three years of con-
tinuous service the Selma ran
aground at Tampico and a large
crack was put in her hull near the
bow. The ship was towed into Galve-
ston, but because no one could
guarantee a permanent repair, the
owners towed her out into the bay
and sank her in 1923.
Durability verified after
three decades in salt water
T h i rt y-four years later the Ex-
panded Shale, Clay & Slate Institute
had the Selma’s hull inspected by
Engineers Testing Laboratory, Inc.
of Houston, Texas. The concrete 1⁄4
Figure 3. Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company, Kansas City, Missouri.
Lightweight addition in 1928-29. This
diagram shows the difference
between the extra eight floors
proposed in normal weight concrete,
versus the actual addition of fourteen
floors made possible by the use of
lightweight expanded shale concrete.
inch beneath the surface of the hull
was found to be dry with no discol-
oration from absorbed water. An ex-
amination of the interior of the hull
showed no visible cracks; it was
deemed to be in excellent condi-
tion. A comparison of the properties
of the concrete in 1953 with what
was known about it when it was
freshly placed showed beyond
doubt that the lightweight expand-
ed shale concrete had successfully
withstood the action of sea water
without damage. The re i n f o rc i n g
steel, placed only 5⁄8 inch below the
surface in many places, was also ad-
equately protected.
Early buildings reduce loads
with structural lightweight
The first commercial plant to pro-
duce Ha yd e’s expanded shale aggre-
gate began functioning in Kansas
City, Missouri in 1920. Architects
and engineers of the day were skep-
tical of his new material and were
unwilling to risk their reputations,
so the new company struggled
along until 1922. Then a bit of unex-
pected good fortune occurred. A
new gymnasium wing was to be
added to the Westport High School
in Kansas City, but the soil on the
site had poor load bearing charac-
teristics. Lightweight concrete was
ideal to avoid the difficult and heavy
foundation work required with nor-
mal concrete. The architect took a
chance, and his judgment proved
correct. Although the expanded
shale aggregate cost $6.00 a cubic
yard versus $2.50 a cubic yard for
sand and gravel, this higher price
was more than compensated for by
the reduction in dead weight.
Another existing building, the
Southwestern Bell Telephone office
building in Kansas City had origi-
nally been built as a 14-story struc-
ture. In 1928, the company wished
to add as many more floors as the
foundation would support. Studies
indicated that only eight floors
could safely be added using conven-
tional aggregate concrete but four-
teen floors could be added if struc-
tural lightweight concrete were used
instead (see Figure 3). This would
double the height of the building
and reduce total dead load of the
addition by six million pounds.
The addition was built, and the
building remains in service today,
demonstrating durability as well as
practicality.
This success was followed in 1929
by the first structural lightweight
h i g h - ri s e, the 28-story Park Plaza
Hotel in St. Louis. Both frame and
floor systems were designed to
take full advantage of lightweight
concrete.
The post-World War 11
explosion
Hayde’s patents did not expire un-
til just after World War II in 1946.
During the thirties the growth of the
expanded shale industry had been
limited by several factors: venture
capital was mighty scarce during
the depression years, there was an
early lack of technical knowledge,
and expanded shale, clay and slate
aggregates could only be produced
by Hayde or his assigns.
Spurred by the expiration of
Ha yd e’s patents and the demand
built up during the war, aggregate
producers started building more
plants. By 1955 there were 33 pro-
ducing plants in the United States
and Canada. During the depression
there had been only seven licensed
operations in the United States and
one in Canada.
Structural lightweight today
The Romans established durabili-
ty of lightweight concrete by using
natural aggregates from volcanic
deposits near at hand. After the de-
velopment of portland cement in
the early 1800s, though, it took the
discovery and development of man-
ufactured lightweight aggregates in
the early 1900s to bring stru c t u ra l
lightweight concrete to full maturity.
Processed aggregates today include:
rotary kiln expanded shales, clays
and slates; sintered shales, clays and
slates; cinders; pelletized or extrud-
ed fly ash; and expanded slag.
For architects, engineers and con-
tractors true structural lightweight
aggregate concrete has a broad
range of applications: frames and
floors for tall buildings; thin-shell
structures including hyperbolic pa-
raboloid roofs; long span bridges,
roofs and decks; and unusual sculp-
tural designs. Economies in rein-
forcing steel and foundations that
come from overall weight reduc-
tions are some of the more com-
pelling reasons for using this type of
concrete.
Acknowledgment
Thanks to the Expanded Shale, Clay &
Slate Institute for providing much of
the information on which this article is
based.
PUBLICATION#C850519
Copyright © 1985, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved