Seismic performance assessment of AAC masonry

A. Penna,
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, Pavia

M. Rota & G. Magenes

University of Pavia

S. Frumento
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, Pavia

ABSTRACT
This work investigates the performance of Aerated Autoclaved Concrete (AAC) masonry for applications in
seismic areas. Nonlinear static (pushover) analyses are performed on 10 modern masonry building prototypes
using a macro-element frame type model of the structure. The mechanical properties of the material are derived
from experimental results, whenever available, or from code based considerations in the other cases. The results
show that for the considered building configurations and modelling assumptions, unreinforced AAC masonry
with an intermediate unit density (450 kg/m3) allows satisfactory seismic performance, at least in low to
moderate seismicity areas.

Keywords: Seismic assessment, masonry structures, AAC

1. INTRODUCTION

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight material obtained by a selection of raw materials
subjected to chemical reactions under physically controlled conditions (temperature and pressure). It is
characterised by a fine cellular structure made of calcium silicate hydrate matrix, which provides
excellent properties of thermal insulation and fire resistance. These characteristics, together with the
significant regularity of mechanical properties and the easiness of laying and working, justify the use
of AAC as a construction material, both for non-structural and structural applications.

The need to assess the seismic performance of AAC masonry arose in different countries in the last
years and it is still the subject of ongoing research (e.g. Varela et al. 2006, Costa et al. 2010). The use
of AAC for load-bearing walls is quite common in low seismicity areas in Central and Northern
Europe, where its thermal insulation properties are particularly appreciated. An increasing attention to
energy efficient buildings is now supporting the adoption of a material with such characteristics also in
higher seismicity regions. The light weight of this material reduces the seismic inertial forces with
respect to other materials. However, the thermal insulation capacity of AAC decreases with increasing
material density which, in turn, favourably affects compressive strength. The limited compressive
strength of AAC units typically adopted in non seismic areas could be seen as a hindrance towards its
use in seismic areas. However, since material density (and hence compressive strength) can be
controlled during the production process, it is interesting to evaluate the seismic performance of
different types of unit, in order to identify a satisfactory behaviour both in terms of structural safety
and thermal insulation properties, with reference to the level of seismic hazard expected for the site.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF AAC MASONRY

2.1. Mechanical properties of AAC

As known from the literature, the mechanical properties of AAC units depend on their density, due to
their production process. As the unit density increases (and hence the void percentage decreases) there
is an improvement of the mechanical properties of the unit and, as a consequence, also of the masonry.
A unit density equal to ρunit = 450 kg/m3, which could represent a good compromise between structural
and thermal insulation performance, has been adopted for this research, also because of the availability
of experimental information. The density value influences all the other mechanical properties and, in
particular, the characteristic compressive strength of the unit, fbk, and of the masonry, fk. For a unit
with the selected density, the value of the normalised mean compressive strength, fb, is provided by the
producer. For design purposes, the characteristic compressive strength of masonry can be determined
using a correlation with the normalised mean compressive strength of the unit, such as the equation of
the EC6 (2005) for unreinforced masonry with head-joints and bed-joints filled with thin-layer glue
mortar, i.e. fk = 0.8fb0.85. Knowing fk it is possible, through probabilistic considerations, to estimate an
approximate value for the mean compressive strength of AAC masonry. Experimental vertical
compression tests on AAC walls, carried out at the University of Pavia and at the University of Kassel
(Penna et al. 2008; Fehling and Sturz 2008) showed that AAC walls have a masonry compressive
strength characterised by a very low dispersion. Since the coefficient of variation is below 5%, the
coefficient relating the mean strength fm to its characteristic value fk can be prudentially taken equal to
0.9, assuming a confidence interval of 95%, based on the available statistical sample, i.e. fm = fk /0.9.

The mean initial shear strength, with reference to the EC6 (2005) formulation (see also the following
section 2.2) has been assumed as fvm0 = 0.30 MPa, i.e. the value indicated in EC6 for the characteristic
initial shear strength; in the absence of more accurate experimental results or information, the mean
value can be assumed equal to the characteristic one. The limit shear strength fvlim = 0.26fb has been
assumed based on previous experimental results on AAC walls (Costa et al. 2010). Ultimate drift
limits have been distinguished depending on the failure mechanism: for shear failures, a drift limit δs =
0.35% has been assumed, while for flexural failure, a value of ultimate drift δf = 0.5% has been used
according to experimental results on AAC masonry walls (Penna et al. 2008). Table 2.1 summarises
the mechanical properties that have been used in this study. It is noted that the value of the shear
modulus G is obtained by assuming the relationship with the elastic Young modulus G=0.3E; ρmasonry
is the masonry density.

Table 2.1. Mechanical properties of AAC units

ρunit ρmasonry E G fb fbk fk fm fvm0 fvlim δs δf
[kg/m3] [kg/m3] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [%]
450 550 1500 450 3.25 2.8 2.2 2.4 0.3 0.85 0.35 0.5

2.2. Strength criteria for AAC structural elements

The in-plane strength of a masonry panel subjected to lateral loading is determined as the minimum of
two failure criteria: shear and flexure. Costa et al. (2010) compared the maximum strength exhibited
by AAC walls, tested within an extended experimental campaign, with the values predicted by
applying these widely used strength criteria. The good agreement they found demonstrates that
classical formulations may be successfully used to compute the expected maximum resistance of
unreinforced AAC masonry panels.

For what concerns the shear failure mode, the formulation reported in the EC6 (2005) has been
adopted, which takes into account both the shear-sliding (based on the Coulomb criterion) and the
diagonal shear failure mechanisms. The latter is considered by introducing a limitation on the shear
strength (fvlim) which corresponds to a failure mode with the formation of diagonal shear cracks
through the units. The shear strength is given by Vsl = f v ⋅ l '⋅ t , where l’ is the depth of the compressed
N
area of the wall, t is the wall thickness, f v = f vm0 + µ ≤ f v lim is the masonry shear strength
l '⋅ t
accounting for the presence of vertical load N, fvm0 is the initial shear strength (cohesion), µ is the
friction coefficient assumed equal to 0.4. EC6 and NTC08 propose a different criterion to determine
fvlim. The value suggested by the Italian code is fv,lim =1.4 fbh ≤ 2.2 MPa, where fbh is the compressive
strength of the blocks in the wall in-plane horizontal direction. Hence, for the considered AAC blocks
fv,lim = 2.2 MPa. According to EC6, the recommended value is fv,lim = 0.065fb, where fb is the
normalised compressive strength of the unit in the vertical direction. If this latter proposal is followed,
fv,lim would result lower than the value adopted for the initial shear strength in the absence of vertical
load (0.3 MPa). The ratio suggested in EC6, proposed for a wide variety of masonry units, is probably
not adequate for AAC units, which are characterised by a rather high tensile to compressive strength
ratio. In this study a limit value of fv,lim = 0.26 fb has been assumed in the calculations. This coefficient
(0.26) was derived from the interpretation of some experimental results on AAC walls (Costa et al.
2010).

The flexural resistance of a masonry pier is governed by partialisation and local crushing of the
compressed part, commonly known as toe crushing. The formulation reported in Annex C of EC8-3
(2005) for the shear force capacity of a masonry wall controlled by flexure has been adopted:
l⋅N ⎛ N ⎞
Vf = ⎜⎜1 − 1.15 ⎟ (2.1)
2⋅ H0 ⎝ l ⋅ t ⋅ f m ⎟⎠
where fm is the masonry compressive strength, l is the wall length and H0 is the distance between the
section where the flexural capacity is attained and the contraflexure point.

3. BUILDING PROTOTYPES

10 unreinforced masonry building prototypes, realised with thin vertical and horizontal mortar layers,
have been selected as to represent significant examples of modern masonry constructions. The
geometrical characteristics of these buildings are summarised in Table 3.1, where Lx and Ly are
building dimensions in the x and y direction respectively and %Ax and %Ay are percentage ratios of the
area of masonry walls, parallel to x and y respectively, with respect to the total floor area. For all these
building prototypes, a common wall thickness of 0.3 m and an inter-storey height of 3 m were
considered. An AAC prefabricated floor with a 5 cm r.c. slab (with a self weight of 2.98 kN/m2) has
been assumed for all building configurations, with an additional dead load, including weights of floor
rough and pavement, equal to 1.5 kN/m2. The roof is assumed to be realised with the same typology as
the floors, hence with a self weight of 2.98 + 1.5 = 4.48 kN/m2 which is the dead load acting on the
slab. The presence of a r.c. ring beam is assumed at the floor levels. Figure 1 shows an axonometric
view of the building models used for the analyses.

Table 3.1. Geometrical characteristics of the selected building prototypes

Building No. of Lx [m] Ly [m] Lmax/Lmin %Ax %Ay
storeys
1 2 16.70 13.70 1.22 4.24 5.82
2 3 18.75 8.12 2.31 6.87 7.25
3 3 19.00 18.00 1.06 3.91 4.08
4 2 11.44 9.54 1.2 5.39 4.31
5 2 13.20 11.25 1.17 6.04 5.44
6 1 13.20 11.25 1.17 4.42 3.55
7 2 10.55 11.00 1.04 7.18 8.05
8 3 22.48 12.29 1.83 6.71 5.56
9 2 25.50 11.00 2.32 4.92 5.88
10 2 35.94 14.94 2.41 4.14 5.26
4. NUMERICAL ANALYSES

4.1. Equivalent frame-type modelling of masonry buildings

Analytical methods for modelling the seismic response of masonry structures have made significant
progress in the last decades, particularly in the field of finite element analyses (e.g. Lourenço 2002;
Milani et al. 2006; Brasile et al. 2007; Calderini and Lagomarsino 2008). Still, despite such progress,
each model has a range of validity which needs to be understood with care, and the use of such tools
requires high expertise, and in many cases can be applied to problems that are limited in size. For this
reason, several methods based on macro-element discretisation have been developed, requiring a low
to moderate computational burden and providing yet accurate results. These methods are typically
combined with a frame-type idealisation of the structure (e.g. Magenes 2000; Roca et al. 2005;
Lagomarsino and Cattari 2009).

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10

Figure 1. Axonometric projections of the building models considered for the analyses.

In this work, 3D modelling of the building is based on some hypotheses on its structural and seismic
behaviour: each wall of the building is subdivided into walls (piers) and spandrel beams (or lintels),
described by 2 node frame elements and connected by rigid nodes. The walls are the bearing elements,
while the floors, apart from sharing vertical loads to the walls, are usually considered as planar
stiffening elements (modelled as orthotropic 3-4 nodes membrane elements), on which the horizontal
actions distribution between the walls depends. The local flexural behaviour of the floors and the wall
out-of-plane response are considered negligible with respect to the global building response, which is
governed by their in-plane behaviour. This is acceptable for buildings in which vertical and horizontal
elements are properly connected by means of good detailing and/or appropriate devices (tie rods
and/or tie beams). Moreover, stiff diaphragms and low height/thickness ratios for the walls may also
contribute in making out-of-plane response a secondary phenomenon. Analyses have been carried out
with the software TREMURI, a frame-type macro-element global analysis program developed at the
University of Genoa (Galasco et al. 2006), which is able to perform nonlinear time history analyses on
masonry buildings.

4.2. Nonlinear static seismic analyses and performance-based assessment

Several current building codes (e.g. ATC40, EC8-1, NTC08 among others) propose nonlinear static
analyses to study the response of structures to lateral loads using a procedure called pushover. This
analysis is based on a maximum displacement prediction, which depends on the definition of an
equivalent elastic perfectly-plastic single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure, derived from the
capacity curve obtained from a pushover analysis. Pushover analysis can be carried out by applying to
the structure a system of horizontal forces. The relative force ratios can be kept constant, while the
horizontal displacement of a control node is increased. The earthquake is typically represented through
a response spectrum, either in acceleration or displacement, which may be reduced by a ductility-
dependent factor or, alternatively, by an equivalent damping coefficient defined based on
considerations on hysteresis. The result of the analysis is a capacity curve, expressed in terms of total
base shear versus the displacement of the control node. This curve is then transformed into an
equivalent nonlinear SDOF structure curve, by reducing both base shear and displacement by a modal
factor. For a discussion on the issues related to pushover analysis for masonry buildings (limits of
applicability, choice of the control node, pros and cons of different force distributions, etc.) the reader
is referred to specific works on the topic (e.g. Galasco et al. 2006). The capacity curve can be
approximated by an equivalent bilinear curve (Figure 2).

F
Fel,max

(q -1)*F
0 y

Fmax
Fy=Fu
(OSR-1)*F el

Fel

dy dFel,max du
d
Figure 2. Parameters for the definition of the behaviour factor q; F is the base shear, while d is the displacement
of the control node.

From this representation, it is possible to define the behaviour factor q, given by Eq. (4.1), which can
also be written as the product of two contributions taking into account the energy dissipation capacity
of the structure (q0) and its strength capacity beyond the elastic limit or overstrength, OSR (Magenes
2006)
F F Fy
q = el ,max = el ,max ⋅ = q 0 ⋅ OSR (4.1)
Fel Fy Fel
The behaviour factor synthesises in a simplified way the effects of several elements involved in the
definition of the capacity such as the deformation of the system in the post-elastic range (system
ductility), the energy dissipation capacity and the force redistribution capacity after damage of one or
more structural elements occurs. The behaviour factor q is an approximation of the ratio of the seismic
forces that the structure would experience if its response was completely elastic to the minimum
seismic forces that may be used in the design, with a conventional elastic analysis model, still ensuring
a satisfactory response of the structure (i.e. the deformation capacity is not exceeded). The pushover
analysis also allows to evaluate the overstrength ratio, the resistance and the deformation demand on
elements, the distribution of inelastic demand on buildings designed using the behaviour factor q and
finally the consequences of failure of an element on the performance of the entire structure.

The so called N2 method (Fajfar, 1999), proposed by EC8-1 and NTC08, has been adopted for the
analysis. According to this procedure, that will not be described in detail in this paper, the lateral
behaviour of a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structure, represented by the pushover curve in
terms of base shear and top displacement, is converted into the nonlinear response of a SDOF system.
Different approaches can be used for approximating pushover curves with equivalent bilinear curves,
which imply dissimilar final values of both available displacement ductility and displacement demand.
The approach proposed in the Annex B of EC8-1 (2005) has been used. It is based on the equal energy
criterion, fixing the maximum strength and considering the displacement range between zero and the
ultimate displacement corresponding, for masonry structures, to a certain strength decrease (e.g. 20%
of maximum lateral strength as suggested by Annex C of EC8-3). Therefore, the bilinear idealisation,
still based on the equal energy criterion, requires the definition of either an equivalent maximum
strength or an equivalent initial stiffness. The procedure of NTC08 defines an initial stiffness secant to
the pushover curve in the first point attaining 70% of the maximum lateral strength.

4.3. Limit states

At least two performance limit states are usually considered in seismic design/assessment of buildings:
• Damage limitation state (DLS);
• Ultimate limit state (ULS) or life safety limit state.
For the purpose of the present study, the DLS displacement threshold has been assumed as the
minimum displacement corresponding to the attainment of the maximum base shear and the damage
inter-storey drift limit of 0.3% (ratio between difference of horizontal displacements of two vertically
aligned nodes belonging to the same wall and to consecutive floors and inter-storey height). The ULS
displacement threshold has been assumed as the displacement corresponding to a strength decrease
equal to 20% of the maximum lateral strength on the pushover curve, as recommended both in EC8-3
and NTC08.

5. RESULTS OBTAINED

For each of the 10 selected building prototypes, pushover analyses have been carried out with two
force distributions, one proportional to masses and one proportional to the first mode of vibration of
the structure. Analyses were carried out by applying the seismic forces along the two principal
directions of the building, called x and y, both positive and negative, and considering or not the
accidental eccentricity of the centre of mass with respect to its nominal position in both directions (5%
of the dimension of the building perpendicular to the direction of analysis), for a total of 24 analyses
for each structural configuration. Table 5.1 summarises the minimum values obtained from all the
analyses performed for each building configuration, for the behaviour factor q and for the PGA
corresponding to the attainment of the damage limitation state (PGADLS) and ultimate limit state
(PGAULS). All results refer to analyses carried out on a soil belonging to the soil category B of EC8-1.
Also, a cracked over uncracked stiffness ratio of 80% was assumed based on the interpretation of
experimental results. The minimum values of q are also reported in the left part of Figure 3.
Observation of the plot shows that minimum values of q for the considered buildings range between 2
and 8.2 (comprehensive of the OSR). It can be noticed that the minimum value of q corresponds to
building 9 (analysis in y direction). This may be due to the presence of continuous walls of equal size
and length in the y direction, which affect the force redistribution after the elastic limit, leading to a
lower value of OSR and therefore of q. On the other hand, a relatively high value of ultimate PGA is
associated to building 9 (see Table 5.1 and Figure 3), thanks to the wall continuity and hence the
higher masonry resisting area in the y direction. The right part of Figure 3 shows the minimum values
obtained for the PGA corresponding to the two considered damage states. Minimum values of PGADLS
range between 0.11g and 0.32g, while minimum values of PGAULS are between 0.2g and 0.42g. The
highest values correspond in both cases to building 7, which shows a fairly compact configuration,
with a rather high masonry wall percentage in both directions.

Table 5.1. Minimum values obtained from all analyses for each building prototype
Building q PGADLS PGAULS
1 5.67 0.14 0.23
2 3.34 0.11 0.2
3 8.23 0.15 0.22
4 7.55 0.11 0.23
5 3.55 0.14 0.26
6 6.24 0.25 0.33
7 4.53 0.32 0.42
8 3.65 0.18 0.22
9 1.98 0.18 0.28
10 3.12 0.19 0.28

9 0.45
8 0.40 PGAULS
7 0.35 PGADLS
6 0.30
PGA [g]

5 0.25
q

4 0.20
3 0.15
2 0.10
1 0.05
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Building Building

Figure 3. Minimum values of q (left) and minimum values of PGADLS and PGAULS (right) obtained from all the
analyses, for each building .

The left part of Figure 4 shows a 3D view of the damage pattern at ultimate conditions, obtained for
the analysis corresponding to the minimum value of PGAULS (building 2, analysis 16 in the x direction
with a modal force distribution and negative eccentricity). The colours refer to the different failure
mechanisms: in this case a soft storey shear-dominated mechanism occurs at the top storey. The right
part of the same figure reports the corresponding global pushover curve and its bilinear approximation
for the equivalent SDOF structure.

0.3

0.25

0.2
F*/m* [g]

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
d* [cm]

Figure 4. An example of a 3D damage pattern (left) and global pushover curve (right) for the analysis of
building 2 in the x direction, with forces proportional to the first mode of vibration and negative eccentricity.
6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents the results of nonlinear static analyses carried out on ten AAC masonry building
prototypes, to evaluate the seismic performance of this type of masonry. These analyses show that
AAC masonry can exhibit a satisfactory seismic performance, provided the value of compressive
strength, on which the other material properties directly depend, is not too low. Analyses have been
carried out with a value of unit density equal to ρunit = 450 kg/m3. In this case, all selected building
configurations showed a value of the PGA corresponding to the attainment of the damage limitation
state higher than 0.10 g and a PGA corresponding to the attainment of the ultimate limit state higher
than 0.20 g. The nonlinear analyses demonstrated once more that masonry buildings have significant
post-elastic resources, which should be reflected in the behaviour factor adopted in design. These
preliminary results show that AAC masonry appears to be a construction system potentially suitable in
low to moderate seismicity regions.

REFERENCES

ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, California.
Brasile, S., Casciaro, R. and Formica, G. (2007). Multilevel approach for brick masonry walls part II: On the use
of equivalent continua. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196,4801-4810.
Calderini, C. and Lagomarsino, S. (2008). A continuum model for in-plane anisotropic inelastic behaviour of
masonry. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 134:2,209-220.
Costa, A.A., Penna, A. and Magenes, G. (2010). Seismic performance of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
buildings: from experimental testing of the in-plane capacity of piers to building response simulation.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Accepted for publication.
EN 1996-1-1 (2005). Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures, Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures, CEN.
EN 1998-1 (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings, CEN.
EN 1998-3 (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: Assessment and
retrofitting of buildings, CEN.
Fajfar, P. (1999). Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 28:9,979-993.
Fehling, E. and Sturz, J. (2008) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Schubtragverhalten von
Porenbetonwandscheiben. Report University of Kassel – in german.
Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S. and Penna, A. (2006). On the use of pushover analysis for existing masonry
buildings. In: Proc. 1st ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lagomarsino, S. and Cattari, S. (2009). Non linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings by the equivalent
frame model. In: Proc. DACH Conference, Zurich.
Lourenço, P.B. (2002). Computations on historic masonry structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials 4:3,301-319.
Magenes, G. (2000). A method for pushover analysis in seismic assessment of masonry buildings. In: Proc. 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver.
Magenes, G. (2006) Masonry building design in seismic areas: recent experiences and prospects from a european
standpoint. In: Proc. 1st ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland.
Milani, G., Lourenço, P.B. and Tralli, A. (2006). Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls, Part I: Failure
surfaces; Part II: Structural examples. Computers and Structures 84,166-195.
NTC08 (2008). Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Decreto
Ministeriale del 14 gennaio 2008, Supplemento ordinario alla G.U. n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008 – in Italian.
Penna, A., Magenes, G., Calvi, G.M. and Costa, A.A. (2008) Seismic performance of AAC infill and bearing
walls with different reinforcement solutions. In: Proc. 14th International Brick and Block Masonry
Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Roca, P., Molins, C. and Mari, A.R. (2005) Strength capacity of masonry wall structures by the equivalent frame
method. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 131:10,1601-1610.
Varela, J.L., Tanner, J.E. and Klingner, R.E. (2006). Development of seismic force reduction and displacement
amplification factors for autoclaved aerated concrete structures. Earthquake Spectra 22:1,267-286.