DOI: 10.1002/cepa.

878

F U L L PA P E R

Seismic performances of AAC masonry: A review

of experimental and numerical approaches

Lorenzo Miccoli

Xella Technologie- und Forschungsgesellschaft

mbH, Hohes Steinfeld 1, 14797, Kloster Lehnin,
Germany
Correspondence
Lorenzo Miccoli, Xella Technologie- und
Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Hohes Steinfeld 1,
14797 Kloster Lehnin, Germany.
Email: lorenzo.miccoli@xella.com
This article is a republication. It was
first published in Mauerwerk. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/dama.201800023.
Abstract
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) has been of growing interest for its structural performances,
thanks to its high strength-to-weight ratio and low bulk density. The prominent advantage of AAC
is its lightweight, this aspect in seismic-prone areas can be beneficial for the seismic performances
of a building. The focus of this paper is to provide an overview of seismic performance of load-
bearing masonry made of AAC, based on the past studies carried out in this field. Results on the
assessment of the in-plane cyclic response of walls with and without reinforcements are reported.
In addition, the response of an AAC confined masonry buildings tested on the shaking table is pre-
sented. The second part of the paper shows the numerical simulation of the building response
based on linear and nonlinear static (push-over) methods. According to authors’ findings, unre-
inforced AAC masonry buildings with a regular geometry can face low to medium seismic events.
For severe seismic events, a significant damage can be expected in AAC multistorey buildings. To
achieve higher seismic performance, the AAC masonry must be combined with other structural
systems as confined masonry or bed-joint reinforced walls.

KEYWORDS
in-plane behaviour, load-bearing masonry, push-over analysis, quasi-static testing, seismic assess-
ment, shaking table testing

1 INTRODUCTION
The legislation code for the seismic design of reinforced concrete
structures and masonry [1] include resistance requirements and limi-
tation to the deformation capacity. These values are related to experi-
mental campaigns carried out in the past on some building typologies.
However, many modern buildings have been built with techniques
and materials different from those materials for which the seismic
codes were developed. When experimental data on these modern
materials are missing, it can be difficult to justify the extension of the
code requirements for the above-mentioned materials.
This limitation is valid for the non-standard masonry techniques. On
one hand, there are traditional bricks with thick joints, vertical and hor-
izontal. On the other hand, there are blocks with thin joints, blocks with
empty vertical joints or with slots filled with mortar. Blocks using a dif-
ferent production technology and with different properties are gaining
interest, among them there is the autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC).
The good mechanical properties in relation to its low bulk density, the
high thermal and acoustic performance and easy installation allowed
to a quick spread of this material [2,3]. AAC masonry uses blocks
(different sizes available) with vertical and horizontal thin joints (in the
range of 2–3 mm) filled with glue-mortar.
The seismic performances required for a masonry building relate to
two kinds of behaviour: the local collapse mechanisms and the global
response due to the in-plane (IP) behaviour of the walls. The use of
ring beams at each floor, the attention to the connection between the
external walls and the limit to the maximal slenderness of the walls
(ratio between floor height and wall thickness) reduce the risk of local
collapse mechanisms. These mechanisms include the walls overturn-
ing, or part of them, due the out-of-plane actions. When these local
mechanisms are disabled, the building shows a box behaviour. This
behaviour is related to the IP stiffness of walls and floors. However,
for AAC masonry a specific assessment of the seismic performances
is mandatory. This assessment is necessary to set design recommen-
dations allowing to achieve the levels of safety consistent with those
required for other masonry types complying with seismic standard
requirements.
In the past decade, important studies were carried out to assess the
mechanical behaviour of AAC masonry under seismic loading. For this
reason, big-scale samples were tested under quasi-static and dynamic


c 2018 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

ce papers. 2018;2:301–309. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cepa 301

302
loading. In the first part of this paper, a review of the experimental
results achieved is reported. In the second part, an overview of the
research on the numerical simulation of seismic performances of AAC
buildings is presented.
2 SEISMIC ASSESSMENT OF AAC
BUILDINGS
For each new structural system that does not comply with the seismic
standard requirements, a specific seismic performance assessment is
required. This assessment provides design recommendation allowing
to achieve the levels of safety consistent with those required by other
types of masonry. As reported by Penna et al. [4], a procedure for com-
puting seismic performance factors was developed by Applied Tech-
nology Council (ATC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). This procedure can be used in seismic design for estimating
the strength and deformation demands on systems designed accord-
ing to methods of linear analysis but responding in nonlinear range.
The aim of this procedure, applicable to new building structural sys-
tems, is to provide a rational basis for determining the performance
and response parameters of a given building system [5]. The method-
ology is consistent with a basic life-safety performance objective of
the current seismic codes and standards. The method, exploiting non-
linear analysis techniques, explicitly accounts for possible uncertain-
ties in ground motion design, test data and modelling. According to
the Mexican Code [6], a masonry structural system designed to be
used in seismic areas is acceptable when cyclic tests on masonry walls,
made of solid or hollow blocks, are performed. The goal of these tests
is to assess IP strength, stiffness, displacement capacity and energy
dissipation. Each specimen needs to preserve its structural integrity
and resistance to vertical loads for minimum drift levels of 0.6% (solid
blocks) and 0.4% (hollow blocks). Masonry piers are tested applying
constant axial forces on the top of the wall, representing the gravity
loads, together with a cyclic horizontal displacement history, up to the
drift levels required.
Masonry specimens must satisfy a series of criteria on IP resistance,
equivalent energy dissipation and stiffness per cycle. In the European
framework, a specific assessment is mandatory in the case of block
compressive strength lower than 5 MPa, minimum value required by
EN 1998-1 [1]. For this reason, when a masonry system is not cov-
ered by a harmonized standard and standardized criteria, a document
providing information on the assessments of their structural perfor-
mances is required. This document, called European Technical Assess-
ment (ETA), provides recommendations on the use of the building
system proposed based on the experimental data and, eventually, on
numerical simulations. An ETA focused on the seismic performances
of a masonry system provides recommendation on maximum num-
ber of storey depending on the designed seismic action, in terms of
peak ground acceleration (PGA), maximum allowable average com-
pression at each floor and minimum cross-sectional area of walls in
each direction, depending on the PGA values assigned. The assessment
of the seismic performance includes characterization tests on material
MICCOLI
TA B L E 1 Physical and mechanical parameters of AAC blocks and
masonry walls tested by Rosti et al. [7]
Block Masonry Masonry
Block bulk compressive compressive shear
density strength strength strength
Block size (mm) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
500 × 250 × 300 360 3.06 1.91 0.23
components and masonry elements, addressed to define the IP
behaviour of masonry walls.
3 EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
3.1 In-plane shear-compression tests of
unreinforced masonry
Rosti et al. [7] carried out an experimental campaign aiming at inves-
tigating the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry walls. Six
walls with different slenderness ratio were tested under IP cyclic load-
ing to obtain a reliable description of the lateral cyclic behaviour.
Two squat walls with size of 2500 mm × 2000 mm × 300 mm, and
four slender walls with size of 1250 mm × 2500 mm × 300 mm
were built. Four walls were tested at the EUCENTRE laboratory in
Pavia, two walls were tested at the laboratory of Xella Technologie-
und Forschungsgesellschaft mbH in Emstal. The specimens were built
using AAC blocks of 500 mm × 250 mm × 300 mm with a bulk den-
sity of 360 kg/m3 . Physical and mechanical parameters are listed in
Table 1.
For each specimen the final crack pattern and the hysteretic curves
(horizontal force vs. displacement) are shown in Figure 1. The results
of the experimental campaign are reported in Table 2.
The results of the study carried by Rosti et al. [7] point out that
the displacement capacity of AAC masonry walls tested decreases with
increasing vertical compression stress. This behaviour is related to the
low displacement capacity of this type of masonry and implies a limit to
the applied vertical loads. For this reason, the restriction of the num-
ber of stories and/or increasing the ratio between wall and floor area
can be suggested.
Moreover, a limitation to the IP drift capacity based on the acting
vertical stress on piers is consistent with the need for controlling resid-
ual vertical displacements. These displacements are due to stress con-
centration at the toes induced by the lateral response.
The comparison between experimental and lateral strength com-
puted using code formulations [1,8] showed a good match. The authors
underline that the classical expressions are suitable to describe the
lateral strength of low-density AAC masonry, as long as a proper
value is adopted for the limit shear strength. In this study, the
limit shear strength is depending on the block longitudinal tensile
strength.
Compression tests performed after IP cyclic tests on two walls
showed a residual compressive strength in the range of 40–50% of
the initial load-bearing capacity. This experimental result is interesting
MICCOLI 303

FIGURE 1 Final crack patterns and hysteretic curves (a–f) of the walls tested by Rosti et al. [7]

TA B L E 2 Results of the IP shear-compression tests [7]

Vertical stress Horizontal load Ultimate Boundary Failure

Wall size (mm) (MPa) capacity (kN) drift (%) conditions mechanism
2500 × 2000 × 300 0.40 161.0 0.52 Double-bending Shear
2500 × 2000 × 300 0.27 144.9 0.52 Double-bending Shear
1250 × 2500 × 300 0.40 64.8 0.37 Double-bending Flexural
1250 × 2500 × 300 0.27 48.8 0.58 Double-bending Flexural
1250 × 2500 × 300 0.40 32.2 0.79 Cantilever Flexural
1250 × 2500 × 300 0.53 72.6 0.22 Double-bending Flexural

when the post-earthquake safety of unreinforced AAC masonry build- TA B L E 3 Physical and mechanical parameters of AAC blocks and
ings must be assessed. masonry walls tested by Costa et al. [9]

Costa et al. [9] carried out an experimental campaign aiming at Block Masonry Masonry
investigating the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry walls. Block bulk compressive compressive shear
density strength strength strength
Four walls with different slenderness ratio were tested under IP cyclic Block size (mm) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
tests to obtain a reliable description of the lateral cyclic behaviour. 625 × 250 × 300 484 3.31 2.20 0.28
Squat walls with size of 4500 mm × 2750 mm × 300 mm and 3000 mm
× 2750 mm × 300 mm, slender walls with size of 1500 mm × 2750 mm
× 300 mm were built. The walls were tested at the EUCENTRE labora-
tory in Pavia. The specimens were built using AAC blocks of 625 mm × For each specimen the final crack pattern and the hysteretic curves
250 mm × 300 mm. Physical and mechanical parameters are listed in (horizontal force vs. displacement) are shown in Figure 2. The results
Table 3. of the experimental campaign are reported in Table 4.
304 MICCOLI

FIGURE 2 Final crack patterns and hysteretic curves (a–d) of the walls tested by Costa et al. [9]

TA B L E 4 Results of the IP shear-compression tests [9]

Vertical stress Horizontal load Ultimate Boundary Failure

Wall size (mm) (MPa) capacity (kN) drift (%) conditions mechanism
1500 × 2750 × 300 0.44 64.4 0.60 Double-bending Flexural
1500 × 2750 × 300 0.67 48.3 0.60 Double-bending Flexural
3000 × 2750 × 300 0.44 141.7 0.70 Double-bending Shear
4500 × 2750 × 300 0.22 214.9 0.35 Double-bending Shear

The results of the experimental campaign carried out recommend 3.2 In-plane shear-compression tests of reinforced
adopting a minimum ratio effective versus initial uncracked stiffness of masonry
70%. For the design of long unreinforced AAC shear walls, a maximum
The aim of the experimental campaign of Penna et al. [10] was to inves-
ultimate drift limit of 0.3–0.35% can be advised. Moreover, for walls
tigate the seismic performance of masonry walls reinforced with hori-
dominated by flexure failure mechanisms, a maximum ultimate drift of
zontal reinforcements. A flat-truss bed-joint reinforcement was placed
0.5% can be suggested.
every two courses in thin horizontal joints filled with thin-layer mortar.
The application of the Eurocode strength criteria for AAC masonry
The authors showed how the use of this kind of reinforcement does not
walls showed a good fit of both expected failure modes and maximum
significantly increase the level of complexity when compared with the
shear force measured in the cyclic tests. The flexural strength criterion
placement of reinforcement with vertical bars.
proposed in EN 1998-1 [1] for the assessment of existing structures
Three walls with size of 2500 mm × 2000 mm × 300 mm were
has proved to be also suitable for new AAC masonry walls. According
tested under IP cyclic tests to assess the effectiveness of the horizontal
to the opinion of Costa et al. [9], such a criterion should also be adopted
reinforcement. The walls were tested at the EUCENTRE laboratory in
for designing new masonry buildings.
Pavia. The specimens were built using AAC blocks of 625 mm × 250 mm
The shear strength limitation criterion proposed in EN 1996-
× 300 mm. Physical and mechanical parameters are listed in Table 5.
1 [8] for shear-sliding behaviour provides unrealistically low values
For each specimen, the final crack pattern and the hysteretic curves
when applied to AAC block masonry. The authors [9] obtained con-
(horizontal force vs. displacement) are shown in Figure 3. Summary
sistent results using a limit shear strength equal to four times the
of the displacement capacity of the three walls tested are reported in
value suggested in EN 1996-1. According to the authors’ opinion,
Table 6.
the adoption of a limit shear strength equal to two times the value
The three panels tested showed a typical shear behaviour, with
suggested in EN 1996-1 should be a safe choice for AAC block masonry
diagonal cracks affecting mainly the blocks and focusing especially on
design.
MICCOLI 305

TA B L E 5 Physical and mechanical parameters of AAC masonry of the resistance and strain capacity of the masonry walls could lead to
walls tested by Penna et al. [10] a substantial improvement in the overall seismic performance of the
Block Masonry Masonry entire building.
Block bulk compressive compressive shear Tanner et al. [11] tested the behaviour of reinforced AAC masonry
density strength strength strength
Block size (mm) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) walls under cyclic shear-compression at the University of Texas at
625 × 250 × 300 500 3.48 2.20a / 2.63b 0.25 Austin. The authors tested both shear and flexure dominated walls to

a
Unreinforced masonry, b Reinforced masonry.
the centre of the walls. In the reinforced walls, the final extension of
cracks was limited if compared to the unreinforced case. The most
significant damage was located in the unreinforced horizontal joints.
The presence of horizontal reinforcement allowed an increase in the
maximum deformation capacity of the wall by approximately 75% with
respect to the unreinforced solution. Consistently, the ultimate drift
ratio associated with the shear failure mechanisms increased, com-
pared to the values proposed in the literature for unreinforced AAC
masonry [9,11,12], in the range of 0.3–0.8%. The increase in shear
strength of the walls due to the flat-truss bed-joint reinforcement was
equal to 18.6%. The increase in vertical load for the third specimen
generated a reduction of the maximum horizontal displacement/drift
capacity and an increase in resistance roughly of the same order of
magnitude (21.2% and 24.7%, respectively), compared to the test with
lower axial load for the second specimen. However, the ultimate drift
limit computed for the two tests was in both cases equal to 0.8%, inde-
pendent from the level of axial load. According to authors’ findings, the
effectiveness of the horizontal reinforcement in terms of enhancement
keep the horizontal load capacity until a drift ratio of about 1%. Based
on the test results, Tanner et al. [11] developed design approaches and
equations for AAC masonry walls made of vertically oriented panels
for flexural cracking, web-shear cracking, flexural yielding and nomi-
nal flexural capacity. In addition, according to authors’ findings, base
shear capacity can be limited by frictional resistance, especially when
the sliding shear capacity is limited by friction alone.
3.3 Shaking table tests of reinforced masonry
Tomaževič and Gams [13] studied the response of confined masonry
buildings to seismic ground motion at Slovenian National Building
and Civil Engineering Institute in Ljubljana. Three 1:4 scale models
(2180 mm × 1713 mm × 2650 mm) of residential buildings with the
same distribution of walls in the building plan but different types of
floors and number of stories were tested on a uni-directional shaking
table (Figure 4a). The scale models were built using model masonry
blocks (156 mm × 63 mm × 75 mm) produced on the base of AAC
blocks with strength class 4 [14]. These blocks (625 mm × 250 mm ×
300 mm) have a bulk density of 500 kg/m3 and compressive strength of

FIGURE 3 Final crack patterns and hysteretic curves of the walls unreinforced (a) and reinforced (b,c) tested by Penna et al. [10]

TA B L E 6 Results of the IP shear-compression tests by Penna et al. [10]

Horizontal
Vertical load
stress capacity Ultimate Boundary Failure
Wall size (mm) (MPa) (kN) drift (%) conditions mechanism Reinforcement
2500 × 2000 × 300 0.40 156 0.65 Double-bending Shear No
2500 × 2000 × 300 0.40 185 0.81 Double-bending Shear Yes
2500 × 2000 × 300 0.60 231 0.86 Double-bending Shear Yes
306
F I G U R E 4 Test setup of model M3 tested by Tomaževič and Gams [13] on the shaking table (a); damage to the walls in the ground floor of model
M3 at ultimate state (b)
TA B L E 7 Physical and mechanical parameters of AAC model
masonry blocks and walls tested by Tomaževič and Gams [13]
Block Masonry Masonry
Block bulk compressive compressive shear
density strength strength strength
Block size (mm) (kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
156 × 63 × 75 496 1.59 1.49 0.25
5.00 MPa. More details of masonry parameters are reported in Table 7.
Lightweight prefabricated slabs were installed in the case of the three-
storey model M1, whereas reinforced concrete slabs were built in the
case of three-storey model M2 and four-storey model M3.
The authors point out that all buildings of the tested type will exhibit
adequate seismic behaviour, if a confined masonry system is provided.
Typical storey mechanism, characterized by a diagonal shear failure
mode of walls in the ground floor in the direction of excitation was
observed in all cases (Figure 4b). The shaking table tests indicated the
important role of vertical tie columns, which, in the particular situation
of AAC masonry with high tensile/compressive strength ratio, signifi-
cantly improved the resistance of the walls. Although the dimensions
of the tie columns did not completely comply with code requirements,
the tie columns prevented flexural failure of the walls and activated
the available higher shear resistance capacity. At ultimate state, the
tie columns prevented the disintegration of the walls and ensured the
integrity of the structure up to collapse.
The resistance of all buildings of the tested type satisfies the
demands for the construction of earthquake-resistant buildings
located in seismic hazard zones with design ground acceleration
Sag = 0.30, where soil factor S = 1.2 and design ground acceleration
for type A ground [1] is equal to 0.25. On the basis of test results, the
authors concluded that the range of values of structural behaviour fac-
tor (q), proposed in EN 1998-1 [1] for confined masonry buildings, is
adequate also for AAC masonry buildings. Taking into account the dam-
age limitation requirement, the use of value q = 2.5 is recommended.
3.4 Numerical simulations
Based on the experimental campaigns reported in the previous sec-
tion, Costa et al. [9] and Rosti et al. [7] improved numerical models to
MICCOLI
be extensively used to assess the seismic performance of a number of
prototype buildings with different characteristics, by means of both
linear and nonlinear static (push-over) analysis. Three-dimensional
models of unreinforced masonry buildings were implemented using
the TREMURI software [15]; AAC blocks with strength class 2 [14]
were used. The sliding shear strength criterion was adopted. Costa
et al. [9] calibrated the parameters to be used in the numerical sim-
ulation according the experimental behaviour of the wall reported in
Figure 2b. Then the calibrated macro-model was used to simulate the
response of different structural typologies mad of unreinforced AAC
masonry (Figure 5). The mechanical parameters of AAC masonry used
for the numerical simulation are reported in Table 8. The limit shear
strength here was assumed as depending on the block compressive
strength (fbc ), calculated in the direction perpendicular to the horizon-
tal mortar layer.
The results of the seismic analysis performed by Costa et al. [9]
allow inferring that for low to medium levels of excitation on rock sites,
the damage limit state is not generally attained. For severe excitations
(PGA = 0.35 g), significant damage can be expected in AAC multistorey
buildings. The incremental dynamic analysis of the considered struc-
tures provided a value of q = 2 for the seismic design of AAC unrein-
forced masonry buildings. According to authors findings, the adaptive
nonlinear static procedure (ADAP) provided capacity curves match-
ing well with the nonlinear dynamic envelope curves of the example
buildings. Moreover, the simplified push-over-based prediction of max-
imum displacement is not generally capable of reproducing the varia-
tion of displacement demand for increasing levels of ground motion, as
obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis. Finally, from the incremen-
tal dynamic analysis procedure a very large scatter in the displacement
demand was observed, increasing with PGA.
Penna et al. [16] assessed the seismic performance of AAC unrein-
forced masonry by means of nonlinear static seismic analysis of 11 dif-
ferent building configurations (Figure 6a). These configurations cover
a relatively wide range of number of storeys (one to three), shapes
of the building plan, wall arrangement in plan, wall density in each
direction (ratio between the sum of the cross-sectional areas of the
walls oriented in the same direction and the total floor area). The
selected building configurations were meant to be representative of
MICCOLI 307

FIGURE 5 The three structural configurations analysed by Costa et al. [9] through a building response simulation

TA B L E 8 Mechanical parameters of AAC masonry used for the numerical simulation of Costa et al. [9]

Initial Limit
Bulk Young´s Shear Compressive shear shear Non-linear Friction Softening Ultimate Ultimate
density modulus modulus strength strength strength deformability coefficient parameter drift for drift for
(kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) parameter (–) (–) (–) shear (%) flexure (%)
484 1600 416 2.2 0.125 0.26fbc 1.2 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.6

FIGURE 6 Building 3: 3D damage pattern (a) and global push-over curve (b) for the analysis providing the minimum value of PGA at ultimate limit
state [16]

TA B L E 9 Mechanical parameters of AAC masonry used for the numerical simulation of Penna et al. [16]

Initial Ultimate Ultimate

Bulk Young´s Shear Compressive shear Non-linear Friction Softening drift for drift for
density modulus modulus strength strength Limit shear deformability coefficient parameter shear flexure
(kg/m3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) strength (MPa) parameter (–) (–) (–) (%) (%)
√ 𝜎
450 1380 360 1.9 0.290 0.45fbt 1 + f D na na na 0.4 0.4
bt

na: not available.

modern masonry constructions in moderate to high seismicity regions
in Europe. The mechanical parameters of AAC masonry used for the
numerical simulation of Penna et al. [16] are reported in Table 9.
The limit shear strength was calculated according to the formulation
included in the German National Annex of EN 1996-1 [14] based on
the theory of Mann and Müller [17]. This approach associates the shear
strength of masonry to the tensile strength of the blocks (fbt ) and to
the average compression acting on the compressed part of the cross-
section (𝜎 D ).
The value of the base shear corresponding to the first element being
damaged in the structure (Fel ) is reported (dashed and dotted lines) in
the push-over diagrams (Figure 6b).
The push-over analyses allowed obtaining results in terms of
behaviour factor, basic behaviour factor, overstrength ratio and PGA
corresponding to the attainment of the ultimate limit states (ULS). All
the buildings showed a PGA corresponding to the ultimate limit state
higher than 0.1 g (with the only exception of building 11, type soil D and
E). All the analyses carried out on the different combinations of geom-
etry suggest that minimum values of q = 2.5 (including the effect of the
overstrength ratio) can be considered appropriate for the unreinforced
low-density AAC masonry. Based on the results of push-over analysis
and considering the need for appropriate limitations of the compres-
sion in masonry wall, a maximum number of storey equal to three is
suggested by Penna et al. [16].
Tomaževič and Gams [18], taking into consideration the behaviour
of AAC buildings tested on the shaking table, implemented a
numerical model with concentrated masses and storey hysteretic
rules.
In the model, storey resistance curves, calculated by a push-
over method and idealized as a tri-linear relationship, represent the
308
F I G U R E 7 Comparison of experimental and calculated resistance
envelopes for the base floor of model M3 [18]
skeleton curves of hysteretic behaviour at each mass level. The resis-
tance of the individual walls in the storey considered was assessed
through a push-over analysis. The shear resistance of the masonry
was calculated according the formulation provided by Turnšek and
Čačovič [19]. This formulation depends on tensile and compressive
strength of masonry together with the average compressive stress in
the horizontal section of the wall due to preloading. Flexural resistance
was calculated using well-known equations for unreinforced masonry
and confined masonry wall sections [20]. Each floor of the building was
modelled by springs. Both springs are bilinear and defined by maximum
shear resistance, ultimate ductility factor and effective stiffness. This
last parameter is depending on Young's modulus and shear modulus
of model masonry. The results of push-over analysis provided a good
match between the experimental and calculated resistance envelopes
(Figure 7).
Hysteretic behaviour was simulated by simple rules, defined by
experimentally determined damage and energy dissipation based stiff-
ness and strength degradation parameters. Using this relatively sim-
ple numerical model, a good agreement between the experimentally
observed and calculated nonlinear response of buildings of the tested
type was found.
Varela et al. [19] carried out a study, which included results of 14
AAC masonry wall (among which six walls were constructed with hor-
izontal panels, four with vertical panels and four with blocks) tested
under cyclic loading and numerical simulations, to propose response
modification (R) and displacement amplification (Cd ) factors for the
design of AAC structures according to the American code. The factor
R is used to calculate the reduced design seismic forces of a structural
system, and the factor Cd to estimate the total lateral displacements
through linear analysis, including the effects of inelastic deformations.
The factor R is the product of the ductility reduction factor (Rd ) and
the structural overstrength factor (Ωsystem ), whereas the value of the
displacement amplification factor Cd is defined as the maximum non-
linear displacement during an earthquake (Dmax ) divided by the elas-
tic displacement (Ds ) calculated using reduced seismic design forces
(Figure 8). Among the tested 14 walls (with different panel and
block orientations, reinforcement layouts, aspect ratios, and axial
loads), eight walls were intended to represent AAC shear walls whose
behaviour is controlled by shear and the remaining six specimens by
flexure. In the analytical phase, four typical AAC structural systems
(three- and five-storey cantilever walls, and three- and five-storey cou-
pled walls) were subjected to 10 earthquake ground motions each.
MICCOLI
FIGURE 8 Definition of R and Cd factors [12]
The nonlinear responses of these structures were predicted using non-
linear analysis models whose hysteretic characteristics were based
on the experimental results. Finally, using an iterative procedure, an
Rd value of 2, modified for probable structural overstrength factor
(Ωsystem ) of 1.5, was used to propose an R value 3 for the seismic design
of flexure-dominated AAC walls. Similarly, a Cd value of 3 was pro-
posed for the seismic design of these AAC structures. Although no
R value for AAC walls was suggested in the study mentioned [12],
Varela [21] proposed a R value equal to 1.5 based on the probable
structural overstrength factor (Ωsystem ) of 1.5, which implies essentially
elastic behaviour. Consequently, since shear-dominated behaviour is
assumed as a force controlled failure mode, no suggestion is made for
Cd .
4 CONCLUSIONS
This overview of the past studies carried on the seismic performance
of AAC masonry underlined the importance to test the effectiveness
of reinforced solutions under IP cyclic actions. Moreover, the IP cyclic
testing provided mechanical parameters and drift limits to be used in
the numerical simulation.
The nonlinear response of different building configurations using
AAC blocks with strength class 2 was predicted through push-over
analysis performed by Penna et al. [9] and Costa et al. [16]. Accord-
ing to the macro-model used by the authors, the following parame-
ters are necessary to describe the shear response of masonry panels:
bulk density, Young´s modulus, shear modulus, compressive strength,
initial shear strength, nonlinear deformability parameter (> 1), friction
coefficient, softening parameter (0–0.8), ultimate drift for shear, ulti-
mate drift for flexure and limit shear strength. As shown by the above-
mentioned studies, this last parameter can be computed according to
conservative approaches available in the literature.
A simple numerical modelling based on a lumped mass system was
used by Tomaževič and Gams [18] to simulate the dynamic response
of a confined AAC masonry building using AAC blocks with strength
class 4. Finally, on the basis of the experimental results on IP cyclic
MICCOLI
testing, Varela et al. [12] proposed response modification and displace-
ment amplification factors for the design of AAC structures.
According to findings from the mentioned studies, the unreinforced
AAC masonry can face low to medium seismic events when the geom-
etry of the building is regular. For severe seismic events, a significant
damage can be expected in AAC multi-storey buildings. To achieve
higher seismic performance, the AAC masonry must be used in combi-
nation with other structural systems using confined masonry or bed-
joint reinforced walls. However, most of the studies reported affirm
that additional analyses of different structural configurations should
be performed to confirm this statement. Further studies should be per-
formed on an extended set of building models to validate the experi-
mental results.
ORCID
Lorenzo Miccoli http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0803-7214
REFERENCES
1. European Committee for Standardization. EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
2. Narayanan N, Ramamurthy K. Structure and properties of aerated con-
crete: a review. Cem Concr Compos. 2000;22:321–329.
3. Alexanderson J. Relations between structure and mechanical prop-
erties of autoclaved aerated concrete. Cem Concr Res. 1979;9:507–
514.
4. Penna A, Magenes G, Rosti A, Mandirola M, Rota, M. Seismic assess-
ment of innovative AAC masonry solutions. Proceedings of 16th Int.
Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Padova, Italy, 2016:283–290.
5. Applied Technology Council. FEMA P695, Quantification of build-
ing seismic performance factors, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washinghton, United States of America, 2009.
6. Administración Pública del Districto Federal. Normas técnicas comple-
mentarias para diseño y construcción de estructuras de mamposteria
(Complementary technical standards for design and construction of
masonry structures), Mexico, 2004.
7. Rosti A, Penna A, Rota M, Magenes G. In-plane cyclic response of low-
density AAC URM walls. Mater Struct. 2016;49:4785–4798.
8. European Committee for Standardization. EN 1996-1: Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures-Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced
and unreinforced masonry structures. Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
9. Costa AA, Penna A, Magenes G. Seismic performance of autoclaved
aerated concrete (AAC) masonry: from experimental testing of the in-
plane capacity of walls to building response simulation. J Earthquake
Eng. 2011;15:1–31.
309
10. Penna A, Mandirola M, Rota M, Magenes G. Experimental assessment
of the in-plane lateral capacity of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
masonry walls with flat-truss bed-joint reinforcement. Constr Build
Mater. 2015;82:155–166.
11. Tanner JE, Varela JL, Klingner RE, Brightman MJ, Cancino U. Seismic
testing of autoclaved aerated concrete shearwalls: a comprehensive
review. ACI Struct J. 2005;102:374–382.
12. Varela JL, Tanner JE, Klingner RE. Development of seismic force reduc-
tion and displacement amplification factors for autoclaved aerated
concrete structures. Earthquake Spectra 2006;22:267–286.
13. Tomaževič M, Gams M. Seismic behaviour of confined autoclaved aer-
ated concrete masonry buildings: a shaking table study. Mauerwerk.
2010;14:153–160.
14. Deutsches Institut für Normung. DIN-EN 1996-1-1/NA: National
Annex – Nationally determined parameters – Eurocode 6: Design of
masonry structures, Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and unrein-
forced masonry structures. Berlin, Germany, 2012.
15. Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. TREMURI program: an
equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry
buildings. Eng Struct. 2013;56:1787–1799.
16. Penna A, Magenes G, Rota M, Mandirola M, Rosti A. Experimental-
numerical research on the seismic performance of URM buildings
made of lightweight AAC blocks/Experimentell-numerische Unter-
suchung zum seismischen Verhalten von unbewehrten Mauerw-
erksgebäuden aus Porenbetonblöcken. Mauerwerk. 2015;19:130–
143.
17. Mann W, Müller H. Failure of shear-stressed masonry. An enlarged
theory, tests and application to shear walls. Proc Brit Ceram Soc.
1982;(30):223–235.
18. Tomaževič M, Gams M. Shaking table study and modelling of seismic
behaviour of confined AAC masonry buildings. Bull Earthquake Eng.
2012;10:863–893.
19. Turnšek V, Čačovič F. Some experimental results on the strength of
brick masonry walls. Proceedings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry
Conference. 1971:149–156.
20. Tomaževič M. Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. London:
Imperial College Press; 1999.
21. Tanner JE. Design provisions for autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
structural systems. PhD thesis, the University of Texas at Austin,
2003.
How to cite this article: Miccoli L. Seismic performances
of AAC masonry: A review of experimental and numeri-
cal approaches. ce papers. 2018;2:301–309. https://doi.org/10.
1002/cepa.878