Foam Concrete ReferenceAn independent technical resource on foam concrete and cellular lightweight concrete

Foam concrete cost: what drives the price

There is no published price list worth trusting for foam concrete: material cost varies by density, binder, distance and job size more than most conventional products do. What follows is the cost structure, not a price — a formula to populate with your own quoted rates.

A cost model to populate with your own rates

Rather than quote a figure that would be wrong within a year and different in every market, the useful thing this page can do is set out the structure of the cost, so it can be filled in with rates from an actual quotation. Per cubic metre placed, the model is:

Cost = binder + foaming agent + water + filler (where used) + plant/pump hire (per m3) + labour (per m3) + haulage

Every term on the right is a quantity × a rate. The quantities for binder, filler and foaming agent are set by the mix design and given below; the rates are local, current, and yours to insert.

Plant, pump hire and labour are usually quoted per day or per hour, not per cubic metre, so each has to be divided by the volume actually placed in that time. A small job spreads a fixed hire cost over few cubic metres and prices high per unit; a large job on the same equipment prices low. Mobilisation is the single biggest reason a small job can cost more per cubic metre than a large one at identical material cost.

Binder: the dominant, density-scaling term

Cement is almost always the largest cost line, and because dry density is approximately 1.2 × binder content (plus any filler), binder cost scales directly with the density specified. Take two neat, filler-free mixes: at 400 kg/m3, 400 ÷ 1.2 = 333 kg of cement per cubic metre — 335 kg in the published worked mix on the mix design page, which also carries the water and foam volumes for that mix in full. At 1200 kg/m3 on the same neat basis, 1200 ÷ 1.2 = 1000 kg. That is roughly a third the cement for a third the density — the relationship holds in direct proportion as long as the filler content is fixed (here, zero).

The practical consequence: a low-density insulating mix is cheap on binder even though it looks expensive per tonne delivered, because so little binder goes into a cubic metre of it. A high-density structural fill mix is the reverse. Anyone comparing a cost-per-cubic-metre quote across two densities without normalising for this is not comparing like with like.

Foaming agent: small cost, large risk

Foaming agent concentrate runs at roughly one litre per cubic metre at low density, falling as density rises and less foam is needed to reach the target — 1.14 L/m3 at 400 kg/m3, 0.77 L/m3 at 1000 kg/m3, both from the worked mixes on the mix design page. At typical concentrate pricing this is a small fraction of the binder line.

What it is not small on is risk. A cheaper or wrongly diluted agent that gives an unstable foam produces a mix that fails to hold density through placing and curing, and remaking a failed pour costs far more than any saving on the concentrate. This is the wrong place to shop on price alone.

Water, filler, plant, labour and haulage

Water. A minor cost on a mains supply. On a remote site needing tankered water it becomes a logistics line worth costing separately.

Filler. Sand or another inert filler is normally far cheaper per kilogram than cement, and its main function is to displace binder at higher densities. The published 1000 kg/m3 block mix uses 400 kg of cement and 520 kg of sand; a neat, filler-free mix at the same density would need roughly 1000 ÷ 1.2 ≈ 833 kg of cement. Substituting cheap filler for over 400 kg of cement per cubic metre is why higher-density mixes generally carry filler and low-density insulating mixes generally do not — below about 600 kg/m3 there is usually not enough paste volume to carry filler without weakening the foam.

Plant and pump hire. Priced by time, not volume, so throughput on the day is what turns it into a per-cubic-metre figure. See equipment for how the classes differ.

Labour. Crew size is typically smaller than for an equivalent granular fill placed and compacted in layers, since there is no compaction pass. That saving belongs in the installed-cost comparison below, not material cost alone.

Haulage. Distance-rated, with the complication covered next: a foam concrete load is limited by volume before it is limited by weight, unlike normal concrete.

Consumption per cubic metre across densities

Multiply each row by your own unit rates for cement, sand and concentrate. Densities up to 800 kg/m3 are shown as neat cement mixes; at 1000 and 1200 kg/m3 filler is introduced, standard practice at this end of the range.

There is no single mix for a given density

The table on lightweight concrete mix quantities reaches the same dry densities on a filled basis, and the binder figures differ sharply as a result. At 800 kg/m3 a neat mix needs about 667 kg of cement per cubic metre, while a filled mix hitting the same density with 416 kg of sand needs only about 320 kg. Both are valid designs and both weigh the same when dry; one costs roughly twice as much in binder and reaches a higher strength. That choice, not the density figure, is what a quotation is really pricing, so compare quotations on the mix design and not on the density alone.

Binder and foaming agent consumption per cubic metre of finished material, by target dry density. Water/binder ratio assumed per row; foam at 50 g/L, concentrate at 1:30 dilution.
Dry densityCementFiller (sand)Foam volumeConcentrate
400 kg/m3335 kg708 L1.14 L
600 kg/m3500 kg589 L0.95 L
800 kg/m3667 kg485 L0.78 L
1000 kg/m3400 kg520 kg475 L0.77 L
1200 kg/m3450 kg660 kg403 L0.65 L

The 400 and 1000 kg/m3 rows reproduce the worked mixes on the mix design page exactly. The 600 and 800 kg/m3 rows use the same dry-density relationship at water/binder ratios of 0.50 and 0.45; the 1200 kg/m3 row uses 450 kg cement, 660 kg sand and a 0.45 w/b ratio, so that 1.2 × 450 + 660 = 1200 kg/m3.

Why the comparison has to be made at installed cost

Foam concrete's material cost per cubic metre is generally higher than ready-mix concrete's, so a comparison that stops at material cost always favours ready-mix. The comparison that matters is installed cost, where several things move in foam concrete's favour:

None of this is universal and has to be checked job by job; see the full material comparison, including where foam concrete is not the better choice, on the comparison page.

The volume-limited truck

Normal-weight concrete at 2400 kg/m3 weighs about 2400 × 0.764555 × 2.204623 ≈ 4050 lb per cubic yard. A delivery truck's payload is generally constrained by the legal road weight its chassis can carry, so a full load of normal concrete is very often a weight limit rather than a volume limit — the drum is sized close to what the chassis can legally haul at that density.

Foam concrete at 600 kg/m3 weighs about 600 × 0.764555 × 2.204623 ≈ 1010 lb per cubic yard — roughly a quarter the mass of normal concrete for the same volume. The same truck reaches its drum's volume capacity long before it comes anywhere near a legal weight limit. The constraint flips from weight to volume, which is the opposite of the usual case, and it means haulage cost per cubic metre does not fall in proportion to the mass saved: the truck still only carries one drum-full, however light that drum-full is.

What makes a quotation vary

Ranked roughly by how much they typically move the number:

When foam concrete costs more, with no offsetting saving

Foam concrete is not the cheaper option on every job, and the honest cases are worth stating plainly rather than skipped over.

In all three cases, the material and installation advantages that make foam concrete competitive elsewhere on this page simply do not apply, and pricing it as if they did produces a quotation that loses the job for the wrong reason.

Last reviewed: