Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 7, pp 3933–3957 | Cite as

Seismic behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete low rise buildings with reinforced wall panels

  • Furkan Gokmen
  • Baris Binici
  • Alper AldemirEmail author
  • Armin Taghipour
  • Erdem Canbay
Original Research


Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) wall panels are more commonly used to construct load-bearing walls in low-rise prefabricated buildings located in seismic zones. In the scope of this study, the seismic response of buildings constructed with reinforced AAC wall panels was investigated. To this end, an in situ test was conducted on a two-story test building under reversed cyclic displacement excursions. It was determined that the test building could carry a lateral load of 60% more than its weight and has a global displacement ductility of about 3.5. The first story of the building was observed to be critical and the failure of the building was due to overturning response of the whole system. In addition, the proposed numerical models for simulating the behavior of the AAC wall panels were validated. These calibrated numerical models were utilized to conduct nonlinear static analysis of the test building and a reasonably good agreement was observed between the test results and simulations. The results of the incremental dynamic analyses demonstrated that i) the two-story test building could resist strong ground motions with PGA values up to 0.6 g without undergoing significant plastic deformations and ii) a reserve of ductility and over strength is available for the AAC panel building to survive earthquakes with PGAs reaching nearly 0.6 g. Based on these numerical results, reinforced AAC wall panel buildings appear to be good alternatives for low-rise construction in seismic regions.


Autoclaved aerated concrete AAC Vertical reinforced AAC panels Reinforced panel building In-situ test Nonlinear analysis Incremental dynamic analysis 



Authors acknowledge the financial support provided by Turkish Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Association (TAACA). The second author acknowledges the support from TUBA-GEBIP for continuing research endeavors. The contributions of Salim Azak and METU Structural Mechanics Laboratory technicians Osman Keskin, Murat Demirel and Barıs Esen during the site and laboratory work are also gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Aldemir A, Binici B, Canbay E, Yakut A (2017) Lateral load testing of an existing two-story masonry building up to near collapse. Bull Earthq Eng 15:3365–3383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldemir A, Binici B, Canbay E, Yakut A (2018) In situ lateral load testing of a two-story solid clay brick masonry building. J Perform Construct Facil 32(5):04018058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Shaleh M, Attiogbe EK (1997) Flexural strength characteristics of non-load bearing masonry walls in Kuwait. Mater Struct 30(5):277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) C1692 (2011) Standard practice for construction and testing of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) C1693 (2011) Standard specification for autoclaved aerated concrete. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) E519/E519M (2010) Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in masonry assemblages. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayudhya BUN (2016) Comparison of compressive and splitting tensile strength of autoclaved aerated concrete (aac) containing water hyacinth and polypropylene fibre subjected to elevated temperatures. Mater Struct 49:1455–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balkema AA (1992) Advances in autoclaved aerated concrete. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Rilem international symposium, Zurich, 14–16 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  9. Boggelen WV (2014) History of autoclaved aerated concrete: the short story of a long lasting building material. []. Accessed 01 Dec 2017
  10. Costa AA, Penna A, Magenes G (2011) Seismic performance of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry: from experimental testing of the in-plane capacity of walls to building response simulation. J Earthq Eng 15(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duan P, Zhang Y, Zhou X, Miao Y (2014) Application of precast aerated concrete panel used as external wallboard in China. Study Civ Eng Archit (SCEA) 3:121–124Google Scholar
  12. Elkashef M, Abdelmooty M (2015) Investigating the use of autoclaved aerated concrete as an infill in reinforced concrete sandwich panels. Mater Struct 48:2133–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Committee for Standardization (2005) Brussels, Belgium. Eurocode 6—Design of masonry structuresGoogle Scholar
  14. Galasco A, Lagomarsino S, Penna A (2002) TREMURI program: seismic analyser of 3D masonry buildings. University of GenoaGoogle Scholar
  15. Gokmen F (2017) Seismic behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete reinforced vertical panel buildings. MS thesis, Middle East Technical University, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsiao FP, Hwang SJ (2007) In-situ tests of buildings in Rei-Pu elementary school. NCREE research programs and accomplishments. National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  17. Hsiao FP, Chiou TC, Hwang SJ, Chiou YJ (2008) Field test of rc school buildings applying seismic retrofit and evaluation. NCREE research programs and accomplishments. National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, pp 9–12Google Scholar
  18. Huang X, Ni W, Cui W, Wang Z, Zhu L (2012) Preparation of autoclaved aerated concrete using copper tailings and blast furnace slag. Constr Build Mater 27:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt C (2001) Autoclaved aerated concrete panels and methods of manufacturing, and construction using, autoclaved aerated concrete panels. US Patent No: US 2001/0045070 A1Google Scholar
  20. IMI (2010) Autoclaved aerated concrete masonry units. Team IMI technology brief resource information form the international masonry institute, Issue: February. []. Accessed 01 Dec 2017
  21. Jerman M, Keppert M, Vyborny J, Cerny R (2013) Hygric, thermal and durability properties of autoclaved aerated concrete. Constr Build Mater 41:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lagomarsino S, Galasco A, Penna A (2007) Nonlinear macro-element dynamic analysis of masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of the ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Rethymno, Crete, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  23. Malyszko L, Kowalska E, Bilko P (2017) Splitting tensile behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete: comparison of different specimens’ results. Constr Build Mater 157:1190–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) (2011) Building code requirements for masonry structures and specification for masonry structures and commentaries. American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, The Masonry Society, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2009) OpenSees command language manual. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  26. Milanesi RR, Morandi P, Magenes G (2018) Local effects on RC frames induced by AAC masonry infills through FEM simulation of in-plane tests. Bull Earthq Eng 16:4053–4080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mousa MA, Uddin N (2009) Experimental and analytical study of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)/autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) sandwich panels. Eng Struct 31:2337–2344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ottl C, Schellborn H (2007) Examination of the relation between tensile/flexural strength and compressive strength of autoclaved aerated concrete according to prEN 12602. Advances in construction materials. Springer, ISBN: 978-3-540-72447-6Google Scholar
  29. Ozel M (2011) Thermal performance and optimum insulation thickness of building walls with different structure materials. Appl Therm Eng 31:3854–3863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Penna A, Mandirola M, Rota M, Magenes G (2015) Experimental assessment of the in-plane lateral capacity of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry walls with flat-truss bed-joint reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 82:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quagliarini E, Maracchini G, Clementi F (2017) Uses and limits of the Equivalent Frame Model on existing unreinforced masonry buildings for assessing their seismic risk: A review. J Build Eng 10:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ravichandran SS, Klingner RE (2012) Behavior of steel moment frames with autoclaved aerated concrete infills. ACI Struct J 109(1):83–90Google Scholar
  33. Riepe FW (2009) Method of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) wall construction. US Patent No: US 2010/0229489 A1Google Scholar
  34. Schwarz S, Hanaor A, Yankelevsky DZ (2015) Experimental response of reinforced concrete frames with AAC MASONRY INfiLL WALLS TO IN-PLANE CYCLIC LOADing. Structures 3:306–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shih CT, Chu SY, Liou YW, Hsiao FP, Huang CC, Chiou TC, Chiou YC (2015) In situ test of school buildings retrofitted with external steel-framing systems. J Struct Eng ASCE 141(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siano R, Roca R, Camata G, Pelà L, Sepe V, Spacone E, Petracca M (2018) Numerical investigation of non-linear equivalent-frame models for regular masonry walls. Eng Struct 173:512–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taghipour A (2016) Seismic behavior of vertical reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) panel walls. MS Thesis, Middle East Technical University, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanner JE (2003) Design provisions for autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) structural systems. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Tanner J, Varela J, Brightman M, Cancino U, Argudo J, Klingner R (2005) Seismic testing of autoclaved aerated concrete shearwalls: a comprehensive review. ACI Struct J 102(3):374–382Google Scholar
  40. Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC2017) Specifications for the buildings to be constructed in disaster areas draft version. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  41. Varela JL (2003) Development of R and Cd factors for the seismic design of AAC structures. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Varela-Rivera J, Fernandez-Baqueiro L, Alcocer-Canche R, Ricalde-Jimenez J, Chim-May R (2018) Shear and flexural behavior of autoclaved aerated concrete confined masonry walls. ACI Struct J 115(5):1453–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vekey RC, Bright NJ, Luckin KR, Arora SK (1986) The resistance of masonry to lateral loading. pt. 3. Research results on autoclaved aerated concrete blockwork. Struct Eng 64A(11):9Google Scholar
  44. Wang B, Wang P, Chen Y, Zhou J, Kong X, Wu H, Fan H, Jin F (2017) Blast responses of CFRP strengthened autoclaved aerated cellular concrete panels. Constr Build Mater 157:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xella Aircrete North America, Inc. (2010) Technical manual. Retrieved on August 14, 2017, from []
  46. Zovkic J, Sigmund V, Guljas I (2013) Cyclic testing of a single bay reinforced concrete frames with various types of masonry infill. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1131–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations