top of page

This website is intended to be a world-wide resource for AAC. But today's blog is going to expand upon the last post by focusing on a single area of the world: the USA, Canada, and the UK. In other words, the English-speaking north (apologies, Quebec). Their economic hegemony and importance in the world economy is obvious. So it's relevant to ask: why are they particularly resistant to using AAC when the entire rest of the world (where supply is available) embraces it?


The UK, same as Europe, embraced AAC in the post-WWII era. It is still available there. But as mentioned in the last post, its use in RAAC is not very popular right now, due to a combination of unrealistic expectations and AAC characteristics that impede detection of imminent RAAC failure. Media descriptions of these problems leave out important context that are approaching anti-AAC hysteria, and has now spread to Canada.


In the short term, anti-RAAC hysteria isn't likely to penetrate the US consumers because there really aren't any. Extensive forests of pine have made lumber the religion of construction in the US. But now its forests are proving finite, wood quality is diminishing, and lumber costs are increasing. The US' lack of experience with AAC means that potential consumers can confuse RAAC with AAC. It's not unreasonable to suggest that negative impressions from the US' English-speaking North neighbors will reduce interest in AAC.


I have included pictures of some of the world's most iconic bridges so that you can spot the trend. What are they all made of? Materials have specific uses. Metal is great for spans; concrete, not as much. Concrete is great when dealing with compression and shear. For spans, concrete has to be reinforced. What do the walls of buildings handle? Surprise! Compression and shear. RAAC, when used as flooring and ceiling, is about span. Forces in tension. Even so, it has done a superb job (see last post). But it is not the same as using AAC for structural walls.


The current miniscule AAC market in the US consists of fire walls (i.e., interior walls) and building claddings, both applications as panels. The cladding panels are typically 2 inches (5 cm) thick. Talk to any current producer, distributor, or builder of AAC in the US and they will tell you that this is the future of AAC in the US. Go ahead, try to find one with a different narrative. I dare you. You won't.


Is this 3-D chess or stupid optimism? How many firewalls does the US need? Can firewalls meet standards with other materials (yes.)? What does anyone with even 10 minutes of experience understand to be the most valid objection to using AAC when costs are equal or cheaper than the alternative material? It is the unaesthetic hairline cracks, which can become structural issues in (surprise) panels.

These cracks are almost always vertical, in the direction of the compression force. I'm not an engineer, so don't take my word for it, but I've been told they have little consequence for the strength of the wall because the force is travelling parallel to the crack. But if your panel is just cladding, it really doesn't matter since it's just hanging on to the side of your building. What's more important is that your wall look nice. Smooth. Not cracked. But I'm sure the experts know. There will never be any cracks and Americans will now fall in love with AAC. The will use it everywhere.


Or, some panels will crack. AAC will develop a reputation: "light weight is cheap." Sure, that's hypocritical considering Americans use plastic and foam everywhere (most of the lumber buildings are held together by glue [in the OSB] and tape [to prevent vapor penetration at seams]). But in thin sections, yes, AAC is brittle. Blocks absorb bullets but corners fall off if you look at them wrong. And Americans will never want to trust AAC in any use. And its use will vanish in the English-speaking north. It feels to this author like AAC is headed for ridicule, bans, and permanent disdain.


OK, so what? Who cares if these countries reject AAC, even when AAC makes the most sense? They are economic hegemonies and if their building infrastructure isn't using the product with the most value, that inefficiency is their own problem. Give the rest of the world a chance to do better. The lack of interest by some of the world's leading economies isn't slowing the spread of AAC elsewhere.


A "go your own way" attitude is very much aligned with the American worship of individual freedom. If the US chooses to ridicule scientists and China chooses to honor scientists, then they can't complain when American industry doesn't innovate and declines. Accept the consequences. As an American, I've always heard that this is the best way to learn. We call it "the school of hard knocks." I've found that in the real world, it's better to learn from the mistakes of others. Also, the challengers can cheer the struggles of the champion, but we have one world in which waste is waste. It is a defeat for us all.


The decades-long attempt to increase AAC market share is undeniably an unmitigated failure. Over 30 years, I have talked to end-consumers, as well as multiple producers, distributors, and builders. The latter have all assured me that their strategy is the best possible, and when they are barely hanging on or going under, they provide me a long list of forces that were beyond their control and almost made failure inevitable. A tacit admission that they recognized from the beginning that they were not living in reality, but, hey. They tried. Meanwhile, AAC expands everywhere else across the world.


Is the current strategy of firewalls and cladding panels the key to AAC market success in the English-speaking North? See you in 30 years.














 

If you were to read this BBC report on RAAC (Reinforced AAC panels), you could be forgiven for thinking that RAAC is a terrible, unsafe building material that is coming for your children. You could be forgiven for thinking your incompetent government has been hiding its "risks" since "1961" - the horror! Generations of nefarious greed (because it is "cheaper," "quicker," and "easier," even though it is "weaker," "crumbling," and "less durable"), thus putting public safety at risk! It's even being linked to the ancient nightmare, asbestos, in the article that provided the featured photo (copyrighted to NORAC, 2024).


Let's start with the fact that there's no asbestos in RAAC. The concern would be that if repairs have to be made, it could disturb other materials that contain asbestos. That's true of any repair of any building material and really isn't the fault of RAAC. Maybe just don't use asbestos? That's not to say any concrete or rock won't also produce dust you don't want to breathe (e.g., silicosis), but dust from cured concrete isn't much of a concern if you leave it alone. In perspective, you're currently eating a credit card's worth of plastic every week, your body is riddled with PFAS chemicals... there's a lot bigger problems to worry about.


So back to the UK's crisis. I've heard a lot of hysteria coming from this little island (and one science center in Canada) about RAAC. So is the sky (uh, roof...) falling?


Let's address the biggest fear first. Yes, it is weaker than regular concrete. Probably by a factor of 10! So instead of 34 MPa (5k psi), residential AAC may be 4 MPa (5.8k psi). Quick! What's the MPa of a frame wall? Wouldn't it be better to make a house with a material that has 10,000 MPa? How much MPa do you need? Can we agree that weaker doesn't mean bad as long as it's strong enough to do what it needs to do?


Second, the strength of any concrete, including AAC and RAAC, is in compression. But all the RAAC that we're concerned about are panels that make the roof, which are mainly in tension. While the term RAAC is developing a reputation of rotted garbage, not a single wall panel (or even floor panel, which is also in tension!) has failed. Our issue is water.


As the BBC article states, "...RAAC is often coated with another material, such as bitumen..." Note: every other type of concrete and frame roof is also coated with something like bitumen. The article then says bitumen "can also degrade." Incorrect. It will degrade. If there's any scandal at all here, it's that apparently these buildings weren't maintained. Can someone in the construction industry please chime in with what happens if you never maintain a flat roof??


All concrete can spall and expose its steel reinforcement to corrosion. Most bridges (made with the high! strength! normal! concrete!) are given 75 year lifespans in the US. Nothing is forever. And yes, it's sometimes harder to detect spalling in RAAC (not good) because all AAC is just so. dang. good. at absorbing and localizing impacts. Regular concrete has capillaries (long tubes) that allow for deep water penetration (and cracking). AAC has bubbles and their "shells" create a matrix that resists water penetration. So saying, "the bubbles allow water to enter the material" is bonkers. Yes, water will eventually get in, but do you know anything about regular concrete, where water penetration is much worse?


A little simple math to perhaps reduce the panic. All materials have a service life. I have seen this "30 year" lifespan tossed around by many sources, including structural engineers in England & Canada. I have been unable to find a source for this claim. Apparently, one manufacturer said this at some point?


I hardly think the UK government made a bad decision choosing RAAC if that's the case. RAAC has been used in the UK since the 1950s. Consider a panel installed in 1975. That panel is now 50 years old. And there has been one failure across hundreds, probably thousands, of buildings that use RAAC as their roof. Some panels are 70 years old, others 35. They quickly and inexpensively rebuilt a country devastated by war. I would say they've done a good job. It seems a little crazy to say they last 30 years when your own reporting is evidence they last much longer.


I'm not saying I would recommend them. I like materials that are designed for their purpose. If I need a material that can handle compression, I like concrete & rock. If I need a material for spans (i.e., compression & tension), I like steel or wood trusses.


If you want a reasoned and non-hysterical take on the situation, I recommend this podcast from Engineering Matters (episode 236 on Spotify).


All buildings need to be maintained. If you want to build something that will last 500 years, don't build in the US. Some RAAC will have to be replaced in the near future because the buildings were poorly maintained. Other RAAC will have to be replaced in the next decades because nothing lasts forever and it's a weaker concrete. It's being asked to do something that no modern concrete does: cover spans (yes, the strength of concrete covering a span is coming from its internal reinforcement, not the concrete. And for the sake of all that's holy, if you want it to last, stop using steel, which corrodes).


No, this does not mean that AAC should not be used as a building material. For many builds, AAC is the far superior material. Don't transmogrify well-known limitations of RAAC into misplaced criticisms of AAC. Everyone stay in your lane!


(Apologies to the BBC, journalists can't be expected to be experts on everything, but the engineers who are grinding an axe and failing to put reality into terms a layperson can understand, who are failing to provide context? No apology will be forthcoming.)




A company that I'm not familiar with, GMI, released this market report for AAC two days ago. Here's the link if you'd like more information or to purchase this report. Although I don't know anything about the accuracy or cost of the report, I have a few things...


How reliable is the estimate? I know less than nothing about it. But will the market be 67% larger in 8 years? Was it $13 billion globally in 2016 (i.e., 8 years ago), and if not is there evidence that growth is happening at a faster or slower rate?


Keep in mind the data in this report is an estimate and is for the entire global market. For your market, the amount of AAC being used could be $0. In the USA, for example, the amount of AAC being used commercially is much higher than what is being used residentially, but this report says world-wide, this is inverted.


Mostly, I take issue with this statement: "This lack of awareness [from potential customers] often results in a preference for traditional building materials, even when AAC could offer better long-term benefits." People buy what is available. They are buying on location, lot price, square footage, number of rooms, amenities, builder reputation, and appearance - especially those frickin' granite countertops. Gotta have granite, you know? What is behind the paint is so low on most consumers' lists, it's axiomatic.


Graphs: why are all the pictographs in shades of blue? do their computers not render other colors?


Overall, there is some good information in the free public-facing portion of the report, so it's worth reading if you just want to learn more. It's a quick read. If you purchase this report, please share any insights you'd like.

 

2022-05

  • w-facebook
bottom of page