Blog Post

Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC): Will the U.S. Ever Lighten Up?

Lighter, more fire-resistant, and a better insulator, autoclaved aerated concrete caught on in the rest of the world ages ago. It's taking a lot longer in the U.S.

The porous AAC structure comes from being "leavened" with aluminum. Photo: H+H UK

To read what manufacturers and distributors say about it, you'd think autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) was some kind of new, space-age environmental miracle.

Although it certainly has some nifty properties, AAC isn't new and isn't miraculous--but it's certainly popular in Europe, and has been for decades; according to one source, it accounted for 60% of all new construction in Germany in 2006. It has enjoyed pretty flat market share (of near zero) here in the U.S., though, since it was first introduced in the 1990s.

Is there space for AAC in the U.S. market? Should the green building community be working to make space?

How AAC is made

AAC is similar to other concrete types, except that it contains no aggregate; sand or fly ash is included, with aluminum powder added to react with one of these ingredients and "leaven" the concrete, creating tiny bubbles just like baking soda does when it reacts with the buttermilk in your muffin batter. (Your muffins are full of carbon dioxide bubbles, but AAC is full of hydrogen bubbles.)

[Note: Robert Riversong points out in comments that sand is aggregate, which I also thought when I started researching it, but after some more digging, my understanding is that the sand is used as a reactant and is therefore not considered aggregate in AAC. For more, see here.]

The concrete is poured into molds, left to rise, and then "baked" in an autoclave, which uses steam and pressure to complete the chemical reactions and speed up the curing process significantly--completing in hours rather than weeks. The resulting blocks are so full of bubbles that a block of the same size has about one-fifth the material required by regular concrete.


BuildingGreen relies on our premium members, not on advertisers. Help make our work possible.

See membership options »

Like conventional concrete masonry units, AAC is sold in a variety of block shapes and sizes, but unlike conventional units, most don't have cores. They are porous and light, like muffins, but not hollow.

Benefits of AAC

The main advantage of AAC when it was first developed in Sweden in the early 20th century was simple: it wasn't wood. It's still not wood, but in North America (unlike in Sweden at the time and in most of Europe now), wood is still plentiful and cheap.

Compared with conventional concrete, AAC still has advantages, though:

  • It uses less material--important for concrete, since portland cement is one of the most energy- and carbon-intensive building materials.
  • Despite the energy-intensive autoclaving process, manufacturers say it takes about 50% less energy to make, because of the lower portland cement content by volume (we're haven't found anyone to challenge those claims, but are still looking for data).
  • It's lighter, which cuts down on transportation costs and fuel use.
  • It's a better insulator, with a steady-state R-value just a hair above R-1 as opposed to something more like R-0.2 (neither of these factors in thermal mass, which we'll get to later).
  • Air leakage is minimal.
  • AAC also has excellent soundproofing properties.
  • It can also be used as a firebreak.

Drawbacks of AAC

In a report written for UC–Davis (PDF), Stefan Schnitzler finds few disadvantages to AAC. Here are the two demerits on his list:

  • There are few manufacturers in the U.S. (that was in 2006, and now there are almost none, since Xella has moved its Hebel operation to Mexico); this means higher costs, which is a huge barrier for adoption.
  • AAC requires a learning curve for builders, because the mortar application is more precise.

We would like to add a few drawbacks that we've found:

  • The barriers for builders don't stop with the mortar. According to Derek Taylor, owner of AAC distributor SafeCrete, the only manufacturer in North America right now is a German company whose block dimensions don't work for U.S. builders. These often need to be sawed, adding labor and fuss to a building system that's supposed to be simple. (Taylor's looking forward to two new plants coming online in the States in the next couple years.)
  • Since right now your AAC is most likely coming from Mexico, the advantages offered by lighter weight will diminish significantly as the mileage increases.
  • Thermal properties are better than those of conventional concrete, but they aren't good enough to make AAC a viable wall material (relative to BuildingGreen-recommended R-values) in most U.S. and Canadian climates without additional insulation. (The European climate, where AAC is popular, is milder.)
  • Unless rebar is added--which adds to the weight and amount of material in the blocks--AAC can only be used for low- and mid-rise construction. But it seems to be popular for single-family homes as well as schools.
  • Unlike conventional concrete, AAC can't be used as a finish; it is more porous and needs cladding or stucco on the outside so it won't absorb moisture.
AAC is popular for residential construction but not suitable for high-rise buildings without structural reinforcement. Photo: SafeCrete

Would you use AAC?

That said, AAC does appear to have significant advantages for applications where conventional concrete would normally be the best material--like in the American Southwest and in other climates where thermal mass can increase the "effective" or "mass-enhanced" R-value of the wall. Even then, its performance may still be outmatched by that of insulated concrete forms, depending on the needs of the client.

Unfortunately, much of the information we have on AAC performance in the U.S. comes from manufacturers. We'd like to hear some empirical evidence from the field.

Are you using AAC on any of your projects?

If you've used it, how did it perform? If not, what would it take for you to try it out?

Published February 1, 2012

(2012, February 1). Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC): Will the U.S. Ever Lighten Up?. Retrieved from

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.


February 2, 2012 - 4:11 am

Robert brought up a good point about the sand, and I've added something to explain that. Someone with a background in the chemistry of concrete might have more to add, which would be great. I think it is mainly a question of semantics.

Yusuf, I think that suitability for moist climates would depend on what's in the rest of the wall assembly. If it has drying potential, then moisture shouldn't be a problem, but if you started introducing materials that act as vapor barriers, the results might be harder to predict.

February 2, 2012 - 11:29 am

we have used it in a couple of projects. Once for a 2 family home, where we used 8" block with a sider-oxydro stucco finish. We had some leak issues, and i've been concerned that with the bond beams and reinforcement and cored blocks that the R value is often compromised. The client is happy though with the tightness of the house and feels it doesn't cost much to heat.
We are also using 12" blocks as back up for brick and for a trespa rain screen on a project going up now in NYC. Masons said it was easy to work with. We haven't had any issues yet, but have had to be careful they use the right screws for brick anchors etc. These are face mounted, and the size of the block has not been an issue - its been easy to channel out for electrical fixtures etc. We chose it for insulation and lower embodied energy reasons, although now we would make sure we added another layer of continuous insulation.

February 2, 2012 - 11:14 am

"•Unless rebar is added--which adds to the weight and amount of material in the blocks--AAC can only be used for low- and mid-rise construction. But it seems to be popular for single-family homes as well as schools."

You may want to check building codes in earthquake areas before recommending unreinforced masonry (URM). California has made many owners spend lots of money in the recent past to strengthen URM structures, many low-rise. Building schools with URM today seems a particularly good way to get big headlines after an earthquake.

February 1, 2012 - 11:42 pm

AAC worked wonderfully well for us in India. We have been able to do away with insulation altogether in our projects. Thereby justifying the additional cost over flyash and red sand bricks. I did know about the substantial increase in thermal conductivity with such little increase in moisture content. So does this mean that AAC blocks may not be suitable for coastal regions?

February 1, 2012 - 2:39 pm

First, I don't used buttermilk in my muffin batter, nor do I use baking soda – most bakers use baking powder with aluminum compounds, which may be linked to Alzheimer's disease – I use non-aluminum baking powder. And my muffins are not "porous and light" but rich and dense.

You say that AAC is "similar to other concrete types, except that it contains no aggregate; sand or fly ash is included". You mean it contains no coarse aggregate, since sand is fine aggregate, and the mix won't harden into calcium silicate hydrates without the silica. While the reaction produces hydrogen bubbles, it is exchanged with air before use.

AAC is somewhat porous, depending on the precise mix, density, size and configuration of pores, and it's certainly not an air barrier by itself – any more than are CMUs without a stucco coating.

While the R-value is approximately a 10-fold improvement over conventional concrete, because it's so porous and hygroscopic AAC will increase 42% in thermal conductivity with each 1% increase in moisture content by weight ("Structure and Properties of Aerated Concrete: a review", N. Narayanan, K. Ramamurthy, Building Technology and Construction Management Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India, 1999).

And the thermal mass value is quite poor – about double that of packed snow (the thermal mass index, which is the product of thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity, is about 1/60 of concrete). "In consistently cold climates, the savings may be somewhat less because this material has lower thermal mass than other types of concrete." - Portland Cement Association

Additionally, it's probably more appropriate to compare embodied energy with CMUs, not poured concrete: "…with respect to embodied energy, AAC consumes approximately 50% and 20% less energy than that needed to produce concrete and CMUs, respectively." - Autoclaved Aerated Concrete as a Green Building Material, Stefan Schnitzler, October 2006, UC Davis Extension.

So it's no wonder that AAC has not caught on in the US. The advantages are highly overrated.

February 1, 2012 - 11:54 am

I am a commercial builder in Maryland. We tried to use AAC on two projects several years ago. We could not get pricing quotes from suppliers either time despite a great deal of effort on my part. I really wanted to try this stuff out. I had a couple of masons convinced as well. But lack of pricing meant one project went to CMU and the other to GWB. Sorry to throw the suppliers under the bus, but...

I wanted to use AAC for the demising walls on some high end condos. The fire ratings and high sound proofing would have made for a great wall. But without pricing we went to GWB with some special details.

I think AAC would be a good substitute for CMU walls, but if you are using concrete for a wall you are probably picking up some serious loads and AAC likely won't cut it.