0% found this document useful (0 votes)

862 views158 pages

Aci sp-226-2005

Uploaded by

Abigael Valles Ramirez

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

862 views158 pages

Aci sp-226-2005

Uploaded by

Abigael Valles Ramirez

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 158

~®Sr1~W!

}[~@) ~Til]@ CS©~~w§U§c:=J

fPw©fP~[ffi]]~ ~@)
~LfillQD©JDDwt011 @)~o@~

' •· \ L \

(~,,~
@:@JfXS®C? American Concrete Institute'"
Advancing concrete knowledge
@J[J[jO!Jw £SDuB
f?®JOGJ@J fXlo f?®O!JGJ@ SP-226

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Editors
Caijun Shi
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Fouad H. Fouad American Concrete Institute®

Advancing concrete knowledge

SP-226

Copyright American Concrete Institute

DISCUSSION of individual papers in this symposium may be submitted in accordance

with general requirements of the ACI Publication Policy to ACI headquarters at the address
given below. Closing date for submission of discussion is October 2005. All discussion
approved by the Technical Activities Committee along with closing remarks by the authors
will be published in the January/February 2006 issue of either ACI Structural Joumal or ACI
Materials Journal depending on the subject emphasis of the individual paper.

The Institute is not responsible for the statements or opinions expressed in its publications.
Institute publications are not able to, nor intended to, supplant individual training,
responsibility, or judgment of the user, or the supplier, of the information presented.

The papers in this volume have been reviewed under Institute publication procedures by
individuals expert in the subject areas of the papers.

All rights reserved, including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any means,
including the making of copies by any photo process, or by any electronic or mechanical
device, printed or written or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduction or for use in
any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in writing is obtained from
the copyright proprietors.

Printed in the United States of America

Editorial production: Lindsay K. Kennedy

Library of Congress catalog card number: 2005921391

ISBN: 0-87031-175-1

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Since its inception more than 80 years ago, autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) has
enjoyed a reputation for excellent thermal insulation, acoustic, and fire-resistance
properties due to its low density and cellular structure. The production and use of AAC
in the United States, however, did not start until the mid 1990s. To promote and
encourage the use of AAC and other ultra-lightweight concrete, ACI Committee 523,
Cellular Concrete, and ACI Committee 229, Controlled Low-Strength Materials, organized
a technical session on "Controlled-Density/Controlled-Strength Concrete Materials" at
the 2003 ACI Spring Convention in Vancouver, Canada, and a session on "Aerated
Concrete- An Innovative Building Solution" at the 2003 ACI Fall Convention in Boston.
Thirteen papers were presented at these two technical sessions covering a wide range of
practical case studies and research projects on different types of ultra-lightweight
concretes, with particular focus on AAC. These papers should be of interest to the
practicing engineers, educators, and researchers in that they demonstrate the effective
use of AAC as well as other types of ultra-lightweight concrete materials.

This special publication (SP) contains eight of the 13 papers presented at the session.
Six of the papers deal with AAC and cover a wide variety of topics including material
properties, structural design, seismic performance, and design examples. The other two
papers address the acoustic and structural properties of foamed and/or aerated
lightweight concretes cured at room temperature.

On behalf of ACI Committees 229 and 523, the editors would like to thank the authors and
presenters for their contributions to the two technical sessions and this volume, the
reviewers of the original manuscripts for their constructive comments and suggestions,
and ACI staff for their great help in organizing the sessions and preparing this special
publication. It is our hope that the success of these technical sessions and the
publication of this SP will encourage and facilitate the use of AAC and other ultra-
lightweight concrete materials in construction.

Editors:

Dr. Caijun Shi Dr. Fouad H. Fouad

School of Civil Engineering and Architecture University of Alabama at Birmingham
Central South University, Changsha, China Birmingham, Alabama
CJS Technology Inc., USA
Burlington, Ontario, Canada

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
iii
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

iv
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .................................................................................................................................. iii

SP-226-1: Mechanical Properties of Plain AAC Material ................................................ I

by F. H. Fouad and J. Dembowski

SP-226-2: Guide for Using Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels:

I.- Structural Design ............................................................................................................ 17
by R. Barnett, J. E. Tanner, R. E. Klingner, and F. H. Fouad

SP-226-3: Structural Testing for Validating Reinforced AAC

Design Provisions in the U.S .............................................................................................. 29
by F. H. Fouad and J. Dembowski

SP-226-4: Technical Justification for Proposed Design Provisions for AAC Structures:

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Introduction and Shear Wall Tests ..................................................................................... 45
by R. E. Klingner. J. E. Tanner, J. L. Varela, M. Brightman, J. Argudo, and U. Cancino

SP-226-5: Technical Justification for Proposed Design Provisions for AAC Structures:
Assemblage Test and Development of Rand Cd Factors .................................................. 67
by R. E. Klingner, J. E. Tanner, and J. L. Varela

SP-226-6: Design Examples for Structural Walls and Floor/Roof Panels

Constructed of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) ........................................................ 9 I
by K. Itzler and A. Nelson

SP-226-7: Properties of Fiber-Reinforced Lightweight Concrete ................................ 123

by C. Shi, Y. Wu, and M. Riefler

SP-226-8: Acoustically Efficient Concretes through Engineered Pore Structure ....... 135
by N. Neithalath. J. Weiss, and .T. Olek

v
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
vi --`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Mechanical Properties of Plain AAC Material

by F. H. Fouad and J. Dembowski

Synopsis: Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight uniform cellular material,

first developed in Sweden in 1929. Since that time, AAC building components have been
widely used in Europe and other parts of the world. Until recently, however, AAC was
relatively unknown to the United States precast construction market. Today, AAC is
gaining rapid acceptance in the United States due primarily to increasing energy cost and
environmental concerns.
Although AAC is a well-recognized building material in Europe, very little
research work has been done on American-produced AAC components. The goal of the
testing program was to further develop the database of the material properties and
structural behavior of American-made AAC by testing plain AAC elements from three
different manufacturers. Manufacturers and designers will be provided with information
that will help to promote AAC as a reliable engineered construction material in the U.S.
Tests performed on the plain AAC consisted of compressive strength, flexural tensile
strength, shear strength, and modulus of elasticity.

Keywords: autoclaved aerated concrete; material properties;

specifications; test methods

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
1
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
2 Fouad and Dembowski
Fouad H. Fouad, FACJ, is professor and chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is Chair of
ACI Subcommittee 523A "Autoclaved Aerated Concrete," and Past Chair of ACI
Committee 523 "Cellular Concrete. He is also a member of ACI Committee 118, Use of
Computers, ACI Committee 224, Cracking, and Committee 234, Silica Fume.

Joel Dembowski, is a Transmission Line Design Engineer with Georgia Power

Company, with specialization in the analysis and design of transmission poles and
towers. He received a Bachelor's of Science and a Master's of Science in Civil
Engineering both from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in 1999 and 2001,
respectively where he was also a former graduate research assistant.

INTRODUCTION

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight uniform cellular material,

first developed in Sweden in 1929, and based on a patented process by Johan Eriksson.
However, the first major production plant was not constructed in the U.S. until 1996.
Today, AAC is gaining rapid acceptance as a new building product in the U.S. as a result
of the increasing importance placed on energy, since energy savings are realized both in
the production process of AAC and in the thermal insulation properties of the AAC
finished product [1]. The rising cost oflumber and increasing environmental concerns
have also played a role in the interest surrounding AAC.

The AAC production process is very sensitive to the quality of the materials
used in the concrete mix and their proportions. The raw materials consist of Portland
cement, finely grounded sand, and lime. In some cases, it is acceptable to replace the
finely grounded sand with fly ash. These materials are mixed with water and a small
amount of aluminum power and cast into a mold. Hydrogen gas, a product of the
reaction between the cement hydration products and the aluminum power, causes the
material to rise in the mold, creating macroscopic air cells throughout the material. After
3 to 4 hours in the mold, the material is wire-cut into blocks and steam-cured under
pressure in autoclaves for approximately 12 hours.

Emerging from the autoclave is a lightweight material with a sponge-like

cellular structure, which is ready for shipping and use. AAC is approximately !/5th the
weight of ordinary concrete, with a dry bulk density ranging from 25 to 50 pcf (400 to
1
800 Kg/m ) and the specified compressive strength ranging from 300 to I 000 psi (2 to 7
MPa). The low density and cellular structure give AAC excellent thermal and sound
insulation properties. It is also noncombustible and has low thermal conductivity. AAC
can be easily cut, drilled and nailed by using normal hand tools.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

AAC is a well-recognized building material in Europe and around the world,

with more than 300 production facilities currently operating worldwide but it is still new
to the United States. The material properties and structural behavior of AAC have been

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 3
studied in Europe, and a large body of information is available; however, very little
experimental work has been performed on American-produced material. Considerable
technical developments are still needed in the U.S. in order to provide the user with a
reasonable level of confidence. It is crucial to provide the basic engineering data to
establish fundamental properties for design with AAC.

The need for a large-scale test program that incorporates multiple manufacturers
is apparent. The test program would develop a database of material properties and
structural behavior of American-made AAC, which would serve to establish AAC as a
reliable engineered construction material. A comparison between AAC manufacturers
would also be beneficial in providing designers with the essential information and tools
necessary to enhance the design and production of AAC. Moreover, the information
gained through the; test program could be used to develop new ASTM test standards and
building code design documents for AAC. This paper reports data based on a major
study performed to evaluate the mechanical properties of AAC produced and marketed in
the U.S. [2].

SCOPE OF STUDY

The plain AAC units were furnished by three manufacturers, namely Hebel,
Ytong, and Contec. Production plants of the first two manufacturers were based in the
U.S. whereas the third manufacturer produced the AAC in Mexico. Three different AAC
grades (G I, G2, and G3) Were produced by each of the manufacturers for testing. The
mechanical properties of plain AAC that were investigated included the compressive
strength, flexural strength, shear strength, and modulus of elasticity. Table I delineates

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
the different material grades, nominal dry density limits, and the compressive strengths
requirements according to ASTM C 1386-98 "Standard Specification for Precast
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (PAAC) Wall Construction Units" [3] for the AAC tested
under this program. Test methods developed in this study are being proposed as new
ASTM test standards for AAC.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Compressive strength

Compressive strengths were determined per ASTM C 1386-98 [3). Three

samples, as shown in Figure I, were cut using a table saw from the middle third of a
standard AAC building unit (200 x 200 x 600 mm). Each cube was measured for length,
width, and height.

Since the compressive strength is dependent on the direction of rise, the samples
were tested both perpendicular and parallel to the direction of rise. The test setup is
shown in Figure 2. Load was applied at a rate such that failure occurred within one to
two minutes. Ultimate load and failure modes were recorded for each sample. The
average compressive stress of the three cube specimens (100 x 100 x 100 mm) was
calculated. The cubes were dried and the moisture content and dry bulk density were also

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
4 Fouad and Dembowski
calculated. The moisture content for the samples ranged from 8.1 to 11.3% by weight,
which is within tolerances specified by ASTM Cl386-98 of5 to 15%.

Figure 3 shows the compressive strength by manufacturer, density, and direction

relative to rise. The cubes tested perpendicular to the direction of rise consistently
yielded higher compressive strength than the cubes tested parallel to the direction of rise
for all grades tested with the exception of the Contec G1 and G2 samples. Figure 3
shows the ratios of the perpendicular to parallel test directions. Generally, the
compressive strength increases as the density of the AAC increases. This was true for all
grades test except for Ytong G3. It was found that Ytong G3 material consistently
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

performed below the G2 material in all subsequent tests.

Regarding the ASTM recommended values, which are listed in Table 1, for the
compressive strength of cubes tested perpendicular to rise, all manufacturers met the
minimum required compressive strengths except Hebel G I and Ytong G3 (Hebel G I and
Ytong G3 fell below the minimum acceptable values by 3.6 and 45%, respectively).
Regarding the ASTM values fo-r the average compressive strengths, all manufacturers
failed to achieve 360 psi for G I. Also, Ytong and Contec failed to meet the average
compressive strength for G3. The differences from the values published in the ASTM
standard do not necessarily imply a deficiency in the material properties of the AAC
tested, but shows that U.S. AAC may have somewhat different strength ranges for the
densities produced. It should be pointed out that the values in Table 1, which are based
on ASTM C1386-98, were developed based on data from European sources and are not
representative of AAC made in the U.S. Hence, changes to the ASTM standard to reflect
properties of AAC material manufactured in the U.S. are recommended.

Flexural tensile strength

The flexural tensile strength, or modulus of rupture (MOR), is an important

property in the design of AAC walls and other structural elements that may be subjected
to tensile stresses induced by various loading conditions. Two test methods were used to
determine the MOR. For each method, six specimens were tested.

Method 1 allowed for three 50 x 50 x 200 mm prisms to be cut from each third
of a standard building block (200 x 200 x 600 mm), having a shear span to depth (a/d)
ratio of 1.25 (a= 62.5 mm, d =50 mm). The prisms were then dried to 5 to 15%
moisture by weight in a ventilated oven (70 °C). The standard building block size
allowed testing in ~oth the perpendicular and parallel directions, as shown in Figure 4.
For the flexural tensile strength of Method 1, the setup, shown in Figure 5, consisted of a
simple beam with three-point loading, a span of 125 mm. and a shear span of 62.5 mm.
The loading was applied through steel rollers at a rate that caused failure in two to three
minutes; however, strips to prevent bearing failures at the loading points were
unnecessary with the small loads. The average flexural tensile strengths for Method I,
both perpendicular and parallel to rise, are shown in Figure 6. The MOR perpendicular
to rise was, on average, approximately 30% of the compressive strength perpendicular to

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 5
rise. The MOR parallel to rise was, on average, approximately 36% of the compressive
strength perpendicular to rise.

The MOR for Method I increased as the density of the material increased. This
was true for all grades tested, except Ytong G3. For Ytong G3, this behavior was
consistent with the compressive strength results. Interestingly, the MORin the parallel
direction was consistently higher than the MOR in the perpendicular direction. This
behavior was not expected, as the material is typically stronger in the direction
perpendicular to rise, as evident by the compressive strength results. However, this may
be due to the direction of the planes of weakness in the AAC. When the specimens were
loaded parallel to the direction of rise, the tensile forces developed perpendicular to the
planes of weakness, pulling them apart. Conversely, when the tensile specimens were
loaded perpendicular to the direction of rise, the tensile stresses developed parallel to the
formation of the weakness planes, allowing the specimens to carry higher tensile forces
before failure.

Method 2 typically allowed for two specimens (I 00 x 200 x 600 mm) to be cut
from a standard block (200 x 200 x 600 mm), with a shear span to depth (a/d) ratio of
I. 75 (a= 175 mm, d = 100 mm), as shown in Figure 7. These specimens can be loaded
only perpendicular to the direction of rise, therefore inducing tensile stresses parallel to
rise. The specimens were conditioned to 5 to 15% moisture by weight in a ventilated
oven at 70 oc before testing. For Method 2, a modified version of the ASTM C 78
''Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete" ( 4) setup was used to test the
specimens. The test setup is shown in Figure 8. The flexural tensile strengths for
Method 2 could only be determined for tensile stresses induced parallel to the direction of
rise. The tensile stresses for Method 2 is shown in Figure 6 and were, on average,
approximately 19% of the compressive strength perpendicular to rise.

For all manufacturers and grades, the MOR parallel to rise for Method 1 was
consistently higher by 50 to 55% on average than the MOR parallel to rise for Method 2.
The increase can be attributed to the size of the specimen, as well as the loading
configuration, specifically point load for Method I versus two-point loading for Method
2.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Shear strength

A procedure to test shear strength was developed through trial and error, as well
as based on previous research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Analytical work was performed and various size specimens were tested before the
decision was made to use a 200 x 300 x 600 mm AAC unit. It should be noted that this is
not a standard-sized block; for this test, larger blocks ("mini-jumbos") were needed to
ensure shear failures. No saw cuts were required, only the conditioning of the specimens
to the appropriate moisture content. Before testing, each block was dried to 5 to 15%
moisture in a ventilated oven at 70°C.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
6 Fouad and Dembowski
The shear strength of AAC was determined by the average of three full-size
block specimens of dimensions 200 x 300 x 600 mm tested perpendicular to rise, as
shown in Figure 9. The shear strengths ofthe three grades of AAC for Hebel, Ytong, and
Contec are shown in Figure I 0 for the specimens that were oven-dried to 5 to 15%
moisture.

Because of the difficulty and time required to condition specimens, additional

200 x 300 x 600 mm specimens were tested for each grade of material at their natural
moisture content. The specimens were not oven-conditioned and were tested at moisture
contents ranging from approximately 15 to 25% by weight. The shear strengths of these
specimens ranged from 55 to 132 psi (0.38 to 0.91 MPa). Interestingly, the shear
strengths increased for the air-cured lab specimens for every grade of AAC (except
Contec 01 ), even though they were tested at higher moisture contents. This is likely due
to micro-cracking that may develop when the AAC blocks are subjected to extended
periods of oven drying at 70 °C. However, because of the limited data, no solid
conclusions could be drawn. Further testing is needed to determine if shear strength
specimens should be tested at higher moisture contents.

It was found that the shear strength ranged from 8.9 to 25.3% of the compressive
strength for the oven-cured specimens and 13.5 to 24.7% of the compressive strength for
the lab-dried specimens. On average, the shear strength was approximately 17% of the
compressive strength of the material.

Modulus of elasticity

The secant modulus of elasticity is the change in stress divided by the change in
strain for two points. The two points used to calculate the modulus of elasticity were the
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

0.05f aac and 0.33 r aac stress levels, respectively. Three prisms (I 00 X I 00 X 300 mm),
cut as shown in Figures I 0 and II, were tested both perpendicular and parallel to rise for
Hebel 01, Ytong 02, and Contec 02. The test setup is shown in Figure 13 and the
loading cycle for each test is shown in Figure 14. Strains were recorded and the
corresponding stresses and modulus of elasticity computed. A summary of the modulus
of elasticity results is shown in Figure 15.

The stress-strain curves, plotted for the modulus of elasticity data, showed
noticeable differences between the different AAC manufacturers. The Hebel 0 I curves,
both perpendicular and parallel to rise, were linear up to failure. The Ytong 02 curves,
both perpendicular and parallel, were linear up to approximately 55% of the compressive
strength before becoming nonlinear. The Contec 02 curves, like Hebel, proved to be
more linear up to failure. However, some of the curves showed nonlinear behavior at
approximately 60% of the compressive strength.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

An experimental program was undertaken to evaluate the mechanical properties

of plain AAC produced by different manufacturers. The mechanical properties for three

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 7
grades of AAC produced by Hebel, Ytong, and Contec were investigated. Specifically,
the compressive strength, flexural tensile strength, shear strength, and modulus of
elasticity were determined.

Information gained from this study is of benefit to the design engineer.

Additionally, the test program provides useful information for the development of
material, testing, and design standards for AAC. Test methods for flexural strength.
shear strength, and modulus of elasticity were developed as part of this study and are
being used for the development of new ASTM test standards for AAC. It is also
recommended to revise the specified AAC strength values in ASTM Cl386-98 to better
reflect the material produced in the U.S.

The variation in the material properties with respect to the direction of rise
indicates that further testing may be needed for both the perpendicular and parallel
directions of AAC. Also, a study of the pore structure of the AAC material may aid in
explaining the difference in the flexural tensile strengths between the perpendicular and
parallel directions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was sponsored by the AAC Association, comprising Matrix

Building Products (Hebel), Ytong Florida, and Contec Mexicana.

REFERENCE

I. Fouad. F.H., ''PAAC- A New Precast Product in the U.S.," Manufactured Concrete
Magazine, Winter 1998.
2. Dembowski, Joel. A Study of the Material Properties and Structural Behavior of
Plain and Reinforced AAC Components, Thesis, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, 2001.
3. ASTM CI386-98, "Standard Specification for Precast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete
(PAAC) Wall Construction Units," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
4. ASTM C78, "Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete." Annual
Book ofASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
5. ASTM Cl 09M-99, "Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars (Using 2 in. or 50mm Cube Specimens)," Annual Book ofASTM
Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
1999.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
8 Fouad and Dembowski
Table 1: ASTM C 1386- 98 Physical Requirements
Average Minimum
Nominal dry
Density limits
compressive compressive
AAC Grade Density"
pcf(kg/m 3)
strength strength
pcf(kg/m3)
psi (MPa) PSi (MPa)
Gl 25 (400) 22 (350)-28 (450) 360 (2.5) 290 (2.0)
G2 31 (500) 28 (450)-34 (550) 360 (2.5) 290 (2.0)
G3 37 (600) 34 (550)-41 (650) 725 (5.0) 580 (4.0)
a The dry density is the average density ofthe matenal after bemg dned m a ventilated
oven at l 00 oc until no further weight loss occurs with successive drying.

Direction
600mm
of Rise
200mm

lOOmm

200mm

Figure I: Cube location in a standard AAC building unit

Load applied through a

spherically seated head

Figure 2: Test setup for compressive strength of AAC, 100 mm cubes

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 9
100)..--------------------------------r 1-<l
6.3
• ~fu:J. cl Perptmd!CWr to
pat31kdf-
soo 5.6

(t.:IS)
~-$

I 42~ "'
t
1.0 3J
I uJ
2.1

zoo t.4

tOO 0.7

0.0
~5 32 M 25 ~1 •o 2$ 32 3~

Hebe* Y1<>n11 Co-ni..e

Figure 3: Compressive strength of AAC cubes versus density

A.
200 X 200 X 600 JJUn
AAC Ruildin~ Unit

200 DDJ1 200mm 200mm

Cl. Perpendicular: 1 Specimen Per Block Third

50mm

~
~j[IIJ!i
i i
i i

"'
2tM)mm
Saw Cuts
Direction ofRise
Cl. Paranel: 1 Specimen Per Block Third

§ ~~a
4

~.:-=. . :.lr~~---····
5::
.·········
.....
........................... 8 ...........................
....

Direction ofRise Saw Cuts

Figure 4: Flexural tensile strength specimens for Method 1

Copyright American Concrete Institute

~~62.Smm~ i
i AAC 'l50mm
~......,,.;:~•==ll;:S:;:m:;.m:::·=~~ik--J. t
r---~--r::::::::::::::J __~~~:~~somm)
ZOOmm

Spedmen Dimensions: 50 • SO x 200 mm

u/d ~ 1.25

Figure 5: Test setup for flexural tensile strength for Method I

:wot---- M l l - - - - - - - - t a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 @ 1 - t 140-
! I
§ 1SOt---i 10$ ~
o.ro

0.35

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Z5 32 25 31 40
Hebel Yforog

Figure 6: Test result comparison for Methods I and 2

Copyright American Concrete Institute

2()() X 200 X 600 I111D

AAC Building Unit

B. Saw Cut: 2 Specimens Per Block

:::I~ --------=-=:~~----·-{ Saw Cur

600mm

C. Tensile Stresses Induced Parallel to the Direction of Rise

____.
Direction of Rise

!OOmmt

~===========~
600mm

Figure 7: Flexural tensile strength specimens for Method 2

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

SJ!<'Cimon Dim<nsioml: lOO ~ 200 l< 600 mm

!Vd" 1.7S

Figure 8: Test setup for flexural tensile strength for Method 2

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Rise
AAC 300mm
----+

Figure 9: Test setup for shear strength test

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Figure 10: Direct shear test results

Copyright American Concrete Institute

200 X 300 X 60(} mm

AAC Building Unit

Direction ofltise

B. Saw Cuts

. 0. ,. .0. ,. .0. ,I
C. I Specimen Per Block Third

[__ .. J !__
Saw Cuts

_j l_ _j •oo-
saw Cuts Direction of Rise 100 mm

Figure 11: Modulus of elasticity test specimens, perpendicular to rise

A. Mini-Jumbo Block

200 X 300 X 600 mm

AAC Building Cni.t

B.SawCuls
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

; II.
C. I Spccirru:n Per Block Half
r--··-··--··---· r-·-..-·-·--··-"-'1
,It~-
Saw cuu
S- !
DircctiOil of Rite
300 rom
'·-·---·-·--·...1
f

Figure 12: Modulus of elasticity test specimens, parallel to rise

Copyright American Concrete Institute

SllaiDGage

I StrnmBOx I 300nm
C:l!::JI:~ Cl
00 00
00 g

IOOmm

Figure 13: Test setup for modulus of elasticity

f!W.' ·······-·······---·······--······-·······-·····--·······-·--·········-·-············-·········-·-·······

Tire
("'conds)
lnit-.1 I.J.,Bting w Obtain
Co..axiaJCoudit.ioWI

Figure 14: Loading cycle diagram for modulus of elasticity tests

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

·-
(Ul)

~~o~--------------------- 11'20

1 I
J:rooooo+--...:..;.;.;.:..- ,~~

j 100000 10~ j
eoo

-
0
-250<1 YlonafH pct: C=loo32¢

Figure 15: Test results for modulus of elasticity

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Guide for Using Autoclaved Aerated Concrete

Panels: I · Structural Design

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
by R. E. Barnett, J. E. Tanner, R. E. Klingner and F. H. Fouad

Synopsis: This paper is a summary of ACJ 523.5R, which is a guide for using autoclaved
aerated concrete panels. Its design provisions are non-mandatory, and are a synthesis of
design recommendations from the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association,
and from the results of research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
(UAB), the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), and elsewhere.
This paper discusses the design equations associated with the various typical structural
uses of autoclaved aerated concrete. Those uses include flexural, axial compression,
shear, bearing, bond and development of reinforcement and special seismic design
provisions.
The design provisions of this Guide are not intended for use with unreinforced, masonry-
type AAC units. Design of those units is covered by provisions currently under
development within the Masonry Standards Joint Committee.

Keywords: autoclaved aerated concrete; panels; precast; seismic;

structural design

17
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
18 Barnett et al.
Mr. Ronald E. Barnett is the General Manger of AERCON Florida, LLC. He is a
graduate of the University of Akron with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil
Engineering and has been practicing as a registered professional engineer in the State of
Florida for 17 years. He has been active in the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete industry
since 1995. He is an active member of ACI 523, ACI 531, ASTM C15.10, ASTM
C27.60 and MSJC.

Jennifer E. Tanner is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY 82071. She is a forn1er Graduate Research Assistant at The University of
Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

Richard E. Klingner is the L. P. Gilvin Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The

University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. He is a Fellow of ACI, and is active in the
technical committee work of ACI and other technical societies. He is a member of ACI
Committee 523 (Cellular Concrete) and other ACJ committees. He is Chair of the
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (ACI 530).

Dr. Fouad H. Fouad, FACI, is professor and chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is Chair of
ACI Subcommittee 523A "Autoclaved Aerated Concrete," and Past Chair of ACI
Committee 523 "Cellular Concrete. He is also a member of AC1 Committee 118, Use of
Computers, ACI Comm. 224, Cracking, and 234, Silica Fume.

INTRODUCTION

ACJ 523.5R is a guide. Its design provisions are non-mandatory, and are a synthesis of
design recommendations from the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association,
and from the results of research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
(UAB), the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), and elsewhere.

In chapter 3 of this Guide, the proposed design provisions are introduced in narrative
form. In the appendices, more information is presented regarding specific design
provisions (Appendix A), a commentary on those provisions, and a "super-commentary"
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

with the technical justification for those provisions.

Loads for structural design of AAC elements should be taken from appropriate load
codes, such as the local building code or ASCE 7. Understrength factors (<1>-factors) for
AAC elements depend on the actions under consideration. They reflect the statistical
variability of the capacity, and the accuracy of the capacity-calculation formulas. When
failure is governed by yield and fracture of tensile reinforcement, <I>- factors are justifiably
identical to those used for reinforced concrete. When failure is governed by crushing or
diagonal tension of the AAC itself, <I>- factors are similar to those used for concrete. They
may even be higher, because the factory production of AAC leads to decreased variability
in its mechanical characteristics compared to conventional concrete.

The equations throughout this document are given in both US Customary and SI units.
The equations for US Customary units are designated as the Equation Number with an

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 19
"a" suffix. The equations for SI units are designated as the Equation Number with a "b"
suffix. When the same equation is valid for both sets of units, only one equation is
shown.

The design provisions of this Guide are not intended for use with unreinforced, masonry-
type AAC units. Design of those units is covered by provisions currently under
development within the Masonry Standards Joint Committee.

PROPOSED DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR REINFORCED AAC PANELS

Basic Design Assumptions

The proposed design provisions for reinforced AAC panels are based on the same
principles used for strength design of conventional reinforced concrete elements: strain
compatibility between AAC and reinforcement (with some modifications as noted
below); stress-strain behavior of AAC and reinforcement; and equilibrium. The design
strength of AAC in compression is based on a specified compressive strength,f'AAC·
Compliance with that specified compressive strength is verified by compressive strength
testing, using ASTM C 1386. The design strength of AAC in tension is proposed as a
function of the specified compressive strength. The design strength of reinforcement in
tension is proposed as the specified yield strength.

The modulus of elasticity for AAC is determined by

(Equation I a)

E.tAc = 887.7 f'~i.~c (Equation !b)

The splitting tensile strength, ftAAC is determined by

ftAAc = 2.4~ /AAC (Equation 2a)

(Equation 2b)

The modulus of rupture, frAAC• for AAC elements is taken as two times the splitting
tensile strength, ftAAC· However, if a section of AAC contains a horizontal leveling bed
of conventional mortar, the value offrAAC is limited to 50 psi (345 kPa) at that section and
if a section of AAC contains a bed joint using thin-bed mortar between AAC elements,
the value of frAAC is limited to 80 psi (552 kPa) at that section.

Immediate deflections are calculated using an effective flexural stiffness (Eie)

corresponding to the unfactored moment (M 8 ). The effective flexural stiffness (Ele) is
obtained by linear interpolation between the cracking point (Mer. <Per ) and the yielding
points (My, lj>y) on a bilinear moment-curvature diagram.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
20 Barnett et al.
Unless values are obtained by a more comprehensive analysis, the total long-term
deflection (including the additional long-term deflection resulting from creep and
shrinkage) of AAC flexural members is calculated the same as for immediate deflections,
but with an effective modulus equal to EAAC I 1.5.

Combinations of Flexure and Axial Load

AAC panels are designed for combinations of flexural and axial load using principles
identical to those for conventional reinforcement. Nominal capacity is computed
assuming plane sections; tensile reinforcement is assumed to be yielded; the stress in
compressive reinforcement is computed based on its strain and its stress-strain behavior;
and the distribution of compressive stress in the AAC is approximated by an equivalent
rectangular stress block.

Because reinforced AAC panels usually have equal areas of tensile and compressive
reinforcement, flexural capacity is usually "tension-controlled" or "under-reinforced."

The factor ~ 1 is tak~n as 0.67 for AAC and the minimum reinforcement of flexural
members is calculated by

As,min = (Equation 3a)

As,min ==
0.33 ../?:: bd (Equation 3b)
!,.

Shear and Torsion

As with conventional reinforced concrete elements, the shear resistance of AAC elements
is computed as the summation of a shear resistance due to the AAC itself(V AAc), and a
shear resistance due to reinforcement oriented parallel to the direction of the shear.

(Equation 4)

(Equation 5)

The shear resistance due to the AAC itself (V AAC) is computed using the web-shear
approach of ACI 318-02. The diagonal tension resistance of the AAC is expressed in
tem1s of its specified compressive strength and principal tensile stresses, including the
effects of axial loads, and is equated with this strength. This produces an expression for
V AAC in terms of the diagonal tension resistance of the AAC, arid the axial load on the
element.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

(Equation 6a)

VAAC =0.07 ~f~AC b,..d (Equation 6b)

For members subject to axial compression,

(Equation 7a)

(Equation 7b)

The shear resistance due to transverse reinforcement is computed based on the cross-
sectional area of the transverse reinforcement crossing a hypothetica145-degree crack in
the AAC. It may also be limited by bond and development of the reinforcement.

The capacity of the shear reinforcement perpendicular to the axis of the member is
calculated by

A,./,d
Vs = . (Equation 8)
s
but is limited to the bearing capacity of the AAC on the longitudinal reinforcement,
which is given by

(Equation 9)

Torsion resistance capacities for AAC have not been determined, therefore AAC is not
currently used in torsion resistant applications.

In non-seismic loading combinations, for shear friction reinforcement placed

perpendicular to the shear plane, the shear strength is calculated by,

V,, = A,1f,fl (Equation I 0)

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

(Eq'-'ation II)

where Nu is the factored normal force at the considered shear plane. or the direct shear
strength of the joint. Jl is 1.0 when AAC is placed ag~inst conventional Type "S" or
Type "N" leveling mortar and 0. 75 when placed against AAC. '

The shear strength, VAAC• for in-plane loading on walls Is taken as the Jesser of

= 0.86 f. w h ~ f~c 1 N,l (Equation 12a)

+ 2.4~~~AC e... h
VAAC

N,. .
vAAC = o.o7 e 11 • h ~J~Ac 1+ ,-;:-- I
(Equation I 2b)
0.2V ~~AC J! w h

(Equatipn 13a)

V = 170000/t ~~AC e:,.h 11 •

(Equation I3 b)
AAC h 2 (1. e )2
+ 4 ...
II'

For shear walls with AAC panels oriented vertically, the nomin~l in-plane shear strength
and flexural strength shall be determined assuming that vertical cracks exist at each
vertical joint. The shear capacity shall be detem1inecl J.!Sing Equation 7 if the panel height
divided by the panel width exceeds 3. It shall be permitted tQ design assuming vertical
cracks at every third joint, using Equation I 3.

Where the factored shear force Vu exceeds the shear strength ~V AAC• the horizontal shear
reinforcement shall ~e provideq to satisfy Equation 4 and Equation 5, where the shear
strength Vs is computed by '

where A, is the area of deformed horizontal reinforcement embedded in grout within a

distance s2 and distance d is in accordance with ACI 3 I 8, Section 1 I .1 0.4.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Reinforcement in AAC panels consists of welded-wire cages installed when the panels
are produced, and deformed reinforcement installed in 3- to 4- in. grouted cores as the
panels are erected. The maximum ratio of vertical reinforcement to area of a grouted cell
shall be 3%.

Splices oflongitudinal reinforcement are not permitted in potential plastic hinge zones.

Bond and development requirements for deformed reinforcement in grout are identical to
those used for concrete construction. Given the small sizes of deformed bars used in
AAC construction, bond between the grout and the AAC itself does not govern the bond
capacity.

Bond and development requirements for welded-wire cages embedded in AAC are quite
different from those for conventional concrete, however. Because the welded-wire cage
has a corrosion-resistant coating and the wires are not deformed, bond strength between
the coated wire and the AAC itself is negligible. Bond strength comes from bearing of
the cross wires against the AAC. For typical cross-wire spacings, local crushing of the
AAC under the cross wires can be assumed to redistribute the bearing stresses under the
cross-wires, leading to a uniform bearing strength off' AAC under every cross-wire.
Multiplying this stress by the number of cross wires and by the bearing area of each
cross-wire gives the maximum force that can be developed in the welded-wire cage
(Figure 1).

This maximum force in the welded-wire cage can limit the flexural capacity of a
reinforced AAC panel.

Factory-installed reinforcement embedded in AAC shall be designed to satisfy either

Equation 15 or 16. The spacing of cross-wires, Scross. in factory installed reinforcement
embedded in AAC is limited to less than or equal to the value required to satisfy Equation
15.

(Equation I 5)

The number of cross-wires within a distance of one sixth of the clear span of the panel,
measured in each direction from each support, shall equal or exceed the value required to
satisfy Equation I 6. In that equation, a is the shear span or one sixth of the clear span of
the panel. In other sections, the spacing shall not exceed 2smin·
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

n cross.min = ~t/J . a (Equation 16)

0.85 d 'dcross ·]cross • fAAC

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Where precast AAC elements form floor or roof diaphragms, the following provisions
shall apply:

1. The nominal shear strength at the interface of dissimilar materials shall be based on
adhesion at diaphragm joints and shall be computed as the product of the contact
area of grout and AAC and the shear strength of a grout and AAC joint plus the
product of the contact area of thin-bed mortar and AAC and the shear strength of
thin-bed mortar. The shear strengths of joints between thin-bed mortar and AAC and
grout and AAC are 18 psi (0.13 MPa) and 36 psi (0.25 MPa), respectfully.

2. The nominal shear strength of AAC floor and roof diaphragms shall be based on a
truss model subject to the following minimum provisions:

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
a. Compression struts shall not be permitted to cross panel joints and shall
intersect with tension ties in grouted keys and tension ties (chords) in
ring/bond beams.

b. Tension ties shall consist of the reinforcement in grouted keys or in a

ring/bond beam. The reinforcement in the grouted keys shall be hooked
around the longitudinal reinforcement in the ring beam with standard 90-
degree hooks oriented in a vertical plane.

c. Compression struts shall be defined within the panel. Their dimension

perpendicular to the plane of the panel shall be taken equal to the thickness
of the panel. Their dimension in the plane of the panel, measured
perpendicular to the axis of the strut, shall be taken as 6 in. The nominal
strength of compression struts shall be calculated as the product of 85
percent of the specified compressive strength of the AAC and the cross-
sectional area of the strut.

d. The nominal strength of the tension ties shall not exceed the product of the
cross-sectional area of the reinforcement and the specified yield strength of
the reinforcement.

3. The nominal shear strength shall be based on dowel action of reinforcement in the
grouted keys perpendicular to the lateral load. The nominal shear strength shall be
computed as the product of 60 percent of the cross-sectional area of the
reinforcement and the specified yield strength of the reinforcement.

Vertical tension tie requirements of ACI 318 Section 7.13.3 shall apply to all vertical
structural members, except cladding., and shall be achieved by providing connections at
horizontal joints in accordance with the following:

a. Precast columns shall not be made of AAC;

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
,`,,`---
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 25
b. Precast wall panels that comprise shear walls shall be connected at wall intersections
and at locations of longitudinal reinforcement;

c. When design forces result in no tension at the base, the ties required by (b) above,
shall be permitted to be anchored into an appropriately reinforced concrete slab on
grade.

Except for sliding shear resistance in a shear wall, connection details that rely solely on
friction caused by gravity loads shall not be used. '

For precast autoclaved aerated concrete bearing wall structures three or more stories in
height, the following minimum provisions shall apply.

a. Longitudinal and transverse ties shall be provided in floor and roof systems, and
shall be designed to transfer shear to lateral force-resisting elements. Ties shall be
provided over interior wall supports and between members and exterior walls. Ties
shall be positioned in or within 2 ft of the plane of the floor or roof system.
Longitudinal ties sha11 only be required para11el to the direction of span of the panels.

b. Longitudinal ties para11el to floor or roof slab spans shall be spaced not more than I 0
feet on centers. Provision shall be made to transfer forces around openings.

c. Transverse ties perpendicular to floor or roof slab spans sha11 be spaced not greater
than the bearing wall spacing.

d. Ties around the perimeter of each floor and roof sha11 resist the design loads acting at
that level.

e. Continuous vertical reinforcement in AAC shear walls shall be sufficient to resist the
design moments.

Bearing

To prevent local crushing of the AAC, nominal stresses are limited to f 'AAC· When AAC
floor or roof panels bear on AAC walls, shear failure of the edge of the wa11 is also
possible. This is handled by limiting the shear stress on potential inclined failure
surfaces.

The design bearing strength is limited to <Jl(0.85 /'AAC A 1), similarly as given in ACI 318
for conventional concrete.

Unless shown by test or analysis that performance will not be impaired, the fo11owing
minimum requirements shall be met:

a. Each member and its supporting system sha11 have design dimensions selected so
that, after consideration of tolerances, the distance from the edge of the support to
the end ofthe precast member in the direction ofthe span is at least 1/180 of the
clear span, but not less than:

Copyright American Concrete Institute

For beams or stemmed members 3 in.

For autoclaved aerated concrete panels 2 in.

b. Bearing pads at unarmored edges shall be set back a minimum of 1/2 in. from the
face of the support, or at least the chamfer dimension at chamfered edges.

The requirements of ACI 318 Section 12.11.1 do not apply to the positive bending
moment reinforcement for statically determinate precast AAC members. At least one-
third of such reinforcement, however, shall extend to the center of the bearing length.

Special Provisions for Seismic Design

The provisions of this section apply to design of intermediate AAC structural walls and
their associated horizontal diaphragms to resist forces induced by earthquake motions.

1. The design shear force Ye shall be determined from consideration of the maximum
forces that can occur in an AAC element. Forces in the longitudinal reinforcement
shall be determined assuming that the stress in the flexural tensile reinforcement is
1.25fy.

2. The horizontal diaphragm shall be designed to resist the design shear force, Ye.
Design according to ACI 3 I 8, Section 16.5.1.2.2 is not permitted.

The lateral load between horizontal diaphragms and AAC structural walls shall be
transferred through connectors embedded in grout in accordance with ACI 3 I 8, Section
16.

Summary and Conclusions

The "Proposed Design Provisions for Reinforced AAC Panels" is fom1atted in such a
way as to facilitate its use in conjunction with ACI 318. Many current provisions apply
directly to AAC, however this guide gives specific direction to the designer for the design
of reinforced AAC based on its behavior.

References
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Argudo, J.F., "Evaluation and Synthesis of Experimental Data for Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete," MS Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2003.

RILEM Technical Committees 78-MCA and 51-ALC, Autoclaved Aerated Concrete:

Properties, Testing and Design, RILEM Recommended Practice, E & FN Spon, London,
1993.

Fouad, Fouad, "Physical and Mechanical Properties of AAC Produced in the United
States," Report to the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association, 2002.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 27
Tanner, J.E., "Design Provisions for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) Structural
Systems," Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2003.

Notations

Ag .
gross area of sect10n, . 2 ( mm-')
m
As area of steel, in 2 (mm 2 )
A,. area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, in 2 (mm 2)
b width of compression face of member, in (mm)
d distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement, in (mm)
de ross diameter of cross-wires, in. (mm)
dlong diameter of longitudinal reinforcement, in. (mm)
EAAC modulus of elasticity of AAC, psi (MPa)
fAAc specified compressive strength of AAC. psi (MPa)
fg specified compressive strength of grout, psi (MPa)
fy specificed yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement, psi (MPa)
frAAC modulus of rupture of AAC, psi (MPa)
f; AAC splitting tensile strength of AAC by ASTM C 1386, psi (MPa)
h overall thickness of member, in (mm)
hw total height of wall from base to top, in (mm)
I cross length of reinforcement bearing on AAC, in. (mm)
e"
Nu
horizontal length ofwall, in (mm)
factored axial load normal to cross-section occurring simultaneously
withVu, lb (N)

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
s spacing of shear reinforcement in direction parallel to longitudinal
reinforcement, in (mm)
VAAc nominal shear strength provided by AAC, lb (N)
Y'sb maximum usable shear strength provided by each wire of shear
reinforcement, lb (N)
Yn nominal shear strength, lb (N)
Ys nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement, lb (N)
Vsb bearing capacity of the AAC on the anchorage wires, lb (N)
Yu factored shear force at section, lb (N)
Pns6 air-dried density of AAC by ASTM C 13 86, lb/ft 3 (kg/m 3 )
Wslrul horizontal projection of the width of the compression strut, in. (m)

References

(1) ACI 523.5R- Guide for Using Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels

Copyright American Concrete Institute

..
A,F •
f

f
AAC dcross

AAC dcross
f AAC dcross Icross

Scross

Figure 1: Bond mechanism of welded-wire cage in AAC

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Structural Testing for Validating

Reinforced AAC Design Provisions in the U.S.

by F. H. Fouad and J. Dembowski

Synopsis: Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight uniform cellular material,

first developed in Sweden in 1929. Since that time, plain and reinforced AAC building
components have been widely used in Europe and other parts of the world. Until recently.
however, AAC was relatively unknown to the United States precast construction market.
Today, AAC prefabricated elements are gaining rapid acceptance in the United States due
primarily to increasing energy cost, environmental concerns, and the ease of construction
using AAC elements. Although AAC is a well-recognized building material in Europe,
very little research work has been done on U.S.-produced AAC products.
The primary objective of this work was to study the structural behavior ofU.S.-
made reinforced AAC elements. The laboratory test program included most commonly
used reinforced AAC elements: floor panels, lintels, and wall panels. Two U.S.
manufacturers supplied the AAC elements. Floor panels and lintels were tested in
bending, whereas the wall panels were tested under axial or eccentric loading. The
ultimate load capacity, cracking, deflection, and failure mode were observed and recorded
for each test. The results provide a database that will be used to refine the analytical
methods for the structural design of reinforced AAC elements. This information is needed
to enhance AAC design methodologies and lay the foundation for establishing AAC as a
reliable engineered construction material in the U.S.

Keywords: autoclaved aerated concrete; floor panel; lintel; reinforced;

wall panel

29
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
30 Fouad and Dembowski
Fouad H. Fouad, FACI, is professor and chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is Chair of
ACI Subcommittee 523A "Autoclaved Aerated Concrete," and Past Chair of ACI
Committee 523 "Cellular Concrete. He is also a member of ACI Committee 118, Use of
Computers, ACI Committee 224, Cracking, and Committee 234, Silica Fume.

Joel Dembowski, is a Transmission Line Design Engineer with Georgia Power Company,
with specialization in the analysi~ and design of transmission poles and towers. He
received a Bachelor's of Science and a Master's of Science in Civil Engineering both

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
from the University of Alabama at Birmingham in 1999 and 200 I, respectively and was a
former graduate research assistant.

INTRODUCTION

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a lightweight uniform cellular material,

first developed in Sweden in 1929, and based on a patented process by Johan Eriksson.
AAC is a well-recognized building material in Europe and around the world, with more
than 300 production facilities currently operating worldwide but it is still new to the
United States. The first major production plant was not constructed in the U.S. until
1996. Today, AAC is gaining rapid acceptance as a new building product in the U.S. as a
result of the increasing importance placed on energy, since energy savings are realized
both in the production process of AAC and in the thermal insulation properties of the
AAC finished product [I]. The rising cost oflumber and increasing environmental
concerns have also played a role in the interest surrounding AAC.

AAC production is very sensitive to the quality of the materials used in the
concrete mix and their proportions. The raw materials consist of Portland cement, finely
ground sand, and lime. These materials are mixed with water and a small amount of
aluminum power and cast into steel molds where the steel reinforcing cages are secured.
Hydrogen gas, a product of the reaction between the cement hydration products and the
aluminum power, causes the material to rise in the mold, creating macroscopic air cells
throughout the material. After approximately 3 to 4 hours, the material is removed from
the molds and wire-cut into the required sizes and shapes. After cutting, the AAC
product is steam-cured under pressure in autoclaves for approximately 8 to 12 hours.

After autoclaving, the material is ready for shipping and use. AAC has a
lightweight and sponge-like cellular structure which is approximately l/5 1h to l/3'd the
weight of ordinary concrete, with a dry bulk density ranging from 25 to 50 pcf(400 to
3
800 Kg/m ) and the specified compressive strength ranging from 300 to I 000 psi (2 to 7
MPa). The low density and cellular structure give AAC excellent thermal and sound
insulation properties. It is also noncombustible and has low thermal conductivity.
Unreinforced AAC can be easily cut, drilled and nailed by using normal hand tools.

The material properties and structural behavior of AAC have been studied in
Europe, and a large body of information is available; however, very little experimental

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 31
work has been performed on American-produced material. It is crucial to provide the
basic engineering data to establish fundamental properties for design with AAC.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE

The primary objective of this work was to study the structural behavior of
American-made reinforced AAC elements. The laboratory test program included most
commonly used reinforced AAC elements: floor panels, lintels, and wall panels. Two
U.S. manufacturers, namely Hebel and Ytong, supplied the AAC elements. Floor panels
and lintels were tested in bending, whereas the wall panels were tested under axial
loading. The ultimate load capacity, cracking, deflection, and failure mode were
observed and recorded for each test. Tests were performed on AAC material of Grade
G2, which is most commonly used for these elements. Table 1 delineates the different
material grades, nominal dry density limits, and the compressive strengths according to
ASTM C 1386-98 "Standard Specification for Precast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete
(PAAC) Wall Construction Units" [2].

Plain reinforcing steel wire conforming to ASTM A 82 is used to construct the

reinforcing cage or mat by spot welding. It should be noted that the mechanism of force
transfer in reinforced AAC is quite different than in conventional reinforced concrete due
to the lack of bond between the steel and AAC. Further the steel reinforcement has a
corrosion-resistant coating which further degrades the bond between steel and concrete.
As result, force transfer is attained through the mechanism of bearing of cross wires
against the AAC. This fundamental difference should be considered in assessing the
structural behavior of reinforced AAC elements.

Information from this study provides a better understanding of the structural

behavior of reinforced AAC elements, and the test data obtained can be used to verify or
refine proposed analytical methods for the design of reinforced AAC. Improved design
methodologies for the material are needed to establish AAC as a reliable engineered
construction material in the U.S.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Reinforced AAC Floor Panels

Twelve reinforced floor panels of AAC Grade G2 supplied by Ytong were tested
in flexure under transverse loading. The longitudinal steel reinforcement, floor thickness,
and spans were variables in the study. A nominal compressive strength of 720 psi (5.0
MPa) was reported for the G2 material of the wall panels. Two different floor panel
thicknesses were tested. The 6-inch ( 150 mm) thick floor panels were tested at a span of
12.5 feet (381 0 mm) and the 8-inch (200 mm) thick floor panels were tested at a span of
16.5 feet (5030 mm). For both the 6 and 8-inch thick panels, three different reinforcing
schemes were used with varying amounts of longitudinal steel and a standard cross-wire
design. A summary of the floor panel test program is shown in Table 2. Figure 1

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
32 Fouad and Dembowski
provides the reinforcement pattern for the 6-inch (150 mm) floor panels, which is
identical to the reinforcement pattern of the 8-inch (200 mm) panels.

The test setup for the AAC floor panels consisted offour-point loading at the
quarter points in accordance with ASTM C 1452-00 "Standard Specification for
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Elements" [3]. A detailed diagram of the floor
panel setup is shown in Figure 2. Deflection measurements were taken at the mid-span
and quarter points of the panels.

Loading was applied in approximately 500-pound (2.22 kN) increments and

halted as cracks formed, just long enough to detect and document the crack locations and
widths. Selected panels were unloaded after the first and second cracks formed in order
to record any permanent deflection that may have occurred; otherwise, the panels were
continuously loaded after each 500-pound (2.22 kN) load increment. The loading was
also halted at 1500,3000, and 4500 pounds (6.67, 13.34, and 20.02 kN) for 5 minutes to
check the overall setup and to measure crack widths. When failure appeared imminent,
the potentiometers and dial gages were removed. The load was then applied continuously
at a rate of about 500 pounds (2.22 kN) per 30 seconds until failure.

A summary of the test results is provided in Tables 3 and 4. Once the panel
cracked, the stress carried by the AAC is transferred to the reinforcing steel. The
cracking load as a percentage of the maximum load ranged from 26 to 43% and is, on
average, approximately 30% of the failure load. The variation in the cracking load was a
function of the longitudinal steel reinforcement, the flexural tensile strength of the
material, and the thickness of the floor panel and corresponding test span. Generally, for
the same AAC grade and panel thickness, the cracking loads increased as the number of
longitudinal bars increased and were highest for the floor panels with the most
longitudinal steel reinforcement. The increase in cracking load is most likely due to a
prestressing effect created by the longitudinal reinforcement as a result of the autoclaving
process.

All of the AAC floor panels demonstrated similar cracking patterns and failure
modes. The initial cracks were flexural cracks that occurred within the mid-span of the
panels. As the loading increased, the cracks grew, and new cracks developed. Some of
the flexural cracks began to "T" off at varying loads between the different floor panels
tested. The depth of the horizontal portion of the "T" cracks was consistently 2 to 4
inches from the top, or compression face, of the panel, depending on the thickness of the
floor panel. The horizontal portion of the "T" crack sometimes extended 3 to 5 inches on
both sides of the flexural crack. Cracks, which began as flexural cracks, appeared in the
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

shear span at approximately 30 to 50% of the maximum load for the 8-inch thick floor
panels, while the 6-inch (150 mm) thick floor panels had no cracks in the shear region.
After running approximately 4 to 5 inches (100 to 125 mm) vertically, the cracks curved
towards the middle of the span under the influence of shear. The cracks then ran another
5 to I 0 inches ( 125 to 250 mm) inclined.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 33
As shown in Table 3, the average ultimate capacities of the 6-inch Ytong panels
tested at 12.5-foot (381 0 mm) spans ranged from 3920 pounds (17.44 kN) for samples
with four 7 mm longitudinal tension bars to 6010 pounds (26.73 kN) for samples with ten
7 mm longitudinal tension bars. The average ultimate capacities of the 8-inch Ytong
panels tested at 16.5-foot (381 0 mm) spans ranged from 4238 pounds (18.85 kN) for
samples with four 7 mm longitudinal tension bars to 8026 pounds (35.70 kN) for samples
with ten 7 mm longitudinal tension bars. Load versus deflection data, representing the
flexural stiffness of the floor panel, were plotted but are not included herein due to space
limitations [4]. The ratio of the ultimate load at failure, Pmax (or Wmax), to the load at first
crack, Pcrack (or Wcrack), referred to herein as the safety factor, is given in Table 3 with
values ranging from 3.1 to 4.0 for the panels tested.

The uniformly distributed load at first crack, Wcracb exceeded the superimposed
design load specified by the floor panel manufacturer in all cases, except for the 8-inch
(200 mm) thick panels containing 4longitudinal steel bars (Table 3). In this case Wcrack
fell below the specified value by approximately II %, which may be attributed to the
relatively lower steel reinforcement ratio for this size panel. Panel deflections at first
crack, as shown in Table 4, were below the arbitrarily specified limit ofSpan/300, except
for the 6-inch (ISO mm) thick panels with 10 longitudinal bars on 12.5-foot (381 0 mm)
spans where the deflections exceeded the specified limit by about 9%. The high
reinforcement ratio and short span resulted in a cracking load much greater (about 33%)
than the superimposed design load specified by the manufacturer. However, under the
actual superimposed design load as specified by the manufacturer, the deflections were
well below the specified limit.

The floor panels exhibited large vertical deflections of 2 to 3 inches (50 to 150
mm) and considerable crack widths of2 to 4 mm near failure. Yet, all floor panels
exhibited a nonviolent ductile primary failure with crushing on the compression face.
Three of the four floor panels with ten 7 mm longitudinal steel reinforcing bars exhibited
a sudden, violent secondary pullout failure. It should also be noted that all floor panels
failed at a cross bar or a stand used to hold the reinforcement in place. This is likely due
to the stress concentrations at these points.

In addition to the twelve panels tested, one of the 6-inch (150 mm) thick floor
panels was turned upside down, such that the tensile steel was located at the top, and
tested. In this configuration, the panel had four 7 mm longitudinal steel bars in the
bottom mat and six 7 mm longitudinal bars in the top mat. The purpose of testing the
panel in this configuration was to determine the effectiveness of the compression steel on
the ultimate flexural capacity. The additional two bars in the compression mat did not
improve the ultimate flexural strength of the panel. It was observed that the panel
reached the same strength as other panels with the same type of bottom reinforcement of
four 7 mm longitudinal bars.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

A total of24 lintels supplied by Hebel and Ytong were tested in flexure under
transverse loading. The test lintels were of Grade G2 material and varied in cross
sectional size, span, and reinforcement scheme as shown in Table 5. Hebel lintels had a
U-shaped stirrup reinforcing pattern, while Ytong used double reinforcing mats similar to
the floor panel reinforcement, but placed vertically in opposite sides of the cross section.
Figure 3 shows a typical reinforcement layout for Hebel lintels.

A diagram of the lintel test setup is shown in Figure 4. Four-point loading at the
quarter points was used in accordance with ASTM C 1452-00 [3]. Deflection
measurements were taken at mid-span. The load was applied in 500-pound increments
and halted as cracks formed, just long enough to detect and document the crack locations
and widths. Selected lintels were unloaded after the first and second cracks formed in
order to determine if a permanent deflection has occurred; otherwise, the lintels were

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
continuously loaded after each 500-pound load increment. When failure appeared
imminent, the potentiometer and dial gages were removed, and the load was continuously
applied at a rate of about 500 pounds per 30 seconds until failure.

A summary of the lintel test results is provided in Tables 6 and 7 for the Hebel
and Ytong lintels, respectively. Once the lintels cracked, the stresses carried by the AAC
were transferred to the reinforcing steel. For all lintels tested, the load at first crack was
approximately 15 to 42% of the maximum load carried. The average cracking load was
approximately 36% of the failure load for Hebel lintels, and approximately 26% ofthe
failure load for Ytong lintels.

The flexural stress at first crack was calculated for Hebel and Ytong lintels by
using the observed cracking load. For Hebel lintels, the stress at first crack ranged from
285 to 388 psi ( 1.97 to 2.68 MPa) (Table 6). For Ytong lintels, the stress at first crack
ranged from 96 to 178 psi (0.66 to 1.23 MPa) (Table 7). The stresses at first crack were
higher for Hebel lintels because the actual compressive strength of the Hebel AAC was
higher than Ytong's. Control cube specimens produced compressive strengths of900 and
580 psi for the Hebel and Ytong AAC materials, respectively. Nevertheless, no apparent
trends could be established from the stress at first crack data for the lintels of either
manufacturer.

The majority of the lintels exhibited approximately symmetrical cracks about the
centerline, and no difference in cracking was observed between the Hebel and Ytong
lintels. The first crack was usually a flexural crack that occurred within the mid-span of
the lintel. The ensuing cracks occurred either in the mid-span or shear span of the lintel,
depending on the cross-sectional area and the span. The cracks in the shear span would
curve inward toward the mid-span. As the loading increased, the cracks grew, and new
cracks developed. Some of the cracks began to branch at loads ranging from 4000 to
7000 pounds (17.79 to 31.14 kN), depending on the cross-section. For deeper lintels, this
range was even higher. This "branching" was common in the Ytong lintels, but occurred
in only one of the Hebel lintels. It is important to note that these cracks were not like the

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 35
'T" cracks associated with the floor panels, which would split and run horizontally. In
the lintels, the cracks would branch and continue running vertically at a slight angle.

The Hebel and Ytong lintel deflections at first crack ranged from 0.04 to 0. I 5
inches (I to 4 mm), and were well below the acceptable limit of span divided by 300.
Hebel lintel deflections at first crack were approximately one half of the allowable limit,
on average, and Ytong lintel deflections at first crack were approximately one third of the
allowable limit, on average.

The ultimate loads for Hebel lintels ranged from 8 I 80 to 23,030 pounds for the

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
different spans and cross-sections tested. For Ytong, the ultimate loads ranged from 7730
to 27,002 pounds (34.38 to 75.63 kN) for the different spans and cross sections tested.
For the deeper Ytong lintels, the amount of longitudinal tension steel also varied and
affected the ultimate capacities ofthe lintels. The average ultimate capacities of the
Hebel lintels were higher than the Ytong lintels for the same cross section size and test
span. Hebel lintels were approximately 36% higher for the 8 by 8-inch lintels tested at a
3-foot span (914 mm), and approximately 24% higher for the 8 by 8-inch (200 by 200
mm) lintels tested at a 6-foot (1830 mm) span. The difference between the ultimate
capacities of the Hebel and Ytong lintels is due to the disparity in the strength of the
AAC material, as evidenced by Hebel's control block compressive strength of900 psi
compared with Ytong's control block compressive strength of 580 psi.

Although the lintels exhibited vertical deflections and crack widths as large as
1.5 and 0.08 inches (38 and 2 mm), respectively, near failure, as with the floor panels, all
failures were nonviolent and ductile. Every lintel, except the 2 YL 8-24-10, failed in the
mid-span from the crushing of the AAC on the compression face. Visual observations of
the failures were made, and no apparent signs of the compression steel buckling were
detected. The Ytong 2 YL 8-24- I 0 developed so many cracks in the shear span that it
failed mildly in shear under gradual increase in load.

One of the Hebel lintels, 2 HL 8-8-5 Down (Table 6), was tested upside down,
with the 4 - 8 mm longitudinal steel bars placed in the top compression face and the 2 - 8
mm longitudinal bars placed in the bottom tension face. The test results showed that the
cracking load was reduced by 38%, and the ultimate capacity was reduced by 30% when
compared with the same lintels tested with the same steel reinforcement in the opposite
faces. This demonstrated the effectiveness of having two additional longitudinal bars in
the tension face. On the other hand, the additional two bars in the compression zone had
little effect on the ultimate capacity of the lintel. Interestingly, the deflections at first
crack were approximately the same for this size lintel tested with either reinforcement
schemes.

Reinforced AAC Wall Panels

A total of six Ytong vertical wall panels of AAC Grade G2 were tested under
axial or eccentric compression. A description of the test specimens is given in Table 8.
Three different wall sizes were tested: 6, 8, and 9.5-inch (150, 200, and 240 mm) thick.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
36 Fouad and Dembowski
The 6-inch ( 150 mm) thick panels were loaded concentrically, whereas eccentric loading
was used for the 8 and 9.5-inch (200 and 240 mm) thick panels. A diagram of the
reinforcement for the 6-inch thick wall panels is shown in Figure 5. The 8 and 9.5-inch
thick wall panels had the same reinforcement scheme as shown in Figure 6.

Details of the eccentrically loaded test setup are shown in Figure 7. For the 8
and 9.5-inch thick wall panels, the load was applied with an eccentricity of t/6 per ASTM
E 72-98 "Standard Test Method for Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for Building
Construction," [5) where tis the thickness of the wall panel. The panel face closer to the
applied load was referred to as the inside face, and the opposite face was referred to as
the outside face. As load was applied, the vertical and horizontal deflection was
measured. Load was applied in 20,000-pound (89 kN) increments up to 60,000 pounds
(267 kN), then in 10,000-pound (45 kN) increments until failure. The failure modes of
the wall panels were observed and recorded. Test results are provided in Table 9.

The average compressive strength of the 6-inch (150 mm) panels was
approximately 456 psi (3.14 MPa), which compared favorably with the average
compressive strength of the wall panel control block of 480 psi (3.31 MPa).
Additionally, the nominal capacity, P0 , of the 6-inch (150 mm) wall panel under
concentric loading was calculated, considering the length effect, to be 69, 118 pounds
(307 kN), which compared favorably (only 5% difference) to the average capacity from
the panel tests, Pmax = 65,720 pounds (292 kN). The small difference can be attributed to
some slight eccentricity during testing. More importantly, however, this seems to
indicate that the longitudinal steel reinforcement has very little effect on the panel's axial
load carrying capacity.

All of the wall panels exhibited a mild, nonviolent ductile failure. The panels
failed in compression when the concrete shell covering the reinforcement mat cracked.
For the eccentrically loaded wall panels, cracking ofthe AAC occurred on the inside face
of the panel. The failures happened randomly at the top or bottom of the panel, and no
apparent signs of longitudinal steel buckling were observed.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

An experimental program was undertaken to study the structural behavior of

three most common types of steel reinforced AAC elements. A total of 42 full-scale test
specimens consisted of 12 floor panels, 24 lintels, and 6 vertical wall panels. All
specimens were made of AAC Grade G2 and were supplied by manufacturers in the U.S.
Floor panels and lintels were tested in bending, whereas the wall panels were tested under
axial or eccentric compression loading. The ultimate load capacity, cracking behavior,
deflection, and failure mode were observed and recorded for each test.

Information gained through this test program provides insight and better
understanding of the structural behavior of reinforced AAC elements. The data obtained
can also be used to verity proposed analytical methods for the design of AAC. Improved

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 37
design methodologies are needed to establish AAC as a reliable engineered construction
material in the U.S.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was sponsored by the AAC Association, comprising Matrix

Building Products (Hebel), Ytong Florida, and Contec Mexicana.

REFERENCES

1. Fouad, F. H., "PAAC~A New Precast Product in the U.S.," Manufactured Concrete
Magazine, Winter 1998.

2. ASTM Cl386~98, ''Standard Specification for Precast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete

(PAAC) Wall Construction Units," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, P A, 1999.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3. ASTM Cl452-00, "Standard Specification for Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete Elements," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.

4. Dembowski, Joel. A Study of the Material Properties and Structural Behavior of

Plain and Reinforced AAC Components, Thesis, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, 2001.

5. ASTM E72-98, "Standard Test Method for Conducting Strength Tests of Panels for
Building Construction," Annual Book ofASTM Standards, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.

Table 1: AAC material grades defined by ASTM C 1386-98

Average Minimum
Nominal dry
Density limits
compressive compressive
AACGrade Densit1
pcf(Kg/m 3)
strength strength
pcf(Kg/m 3)
psi (MPa) psi (MPa)
Gl 25 (400) 22 (350)-28 (450) 360 (2.5) 290 (2.0)
G2 31 (500) 28 (450)-34 (550) 360 (2.5) 290 (2.0)
G3 37 (600) 34 (550)-41 (650) 725 (5.0) I 580 (4.0)
a. The dry dens1ty 1s the average dens1ty of the material after bemg dried in a ventilated
oven at 100 oc until no further weight loss occurs with successive drying.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Super-
~ominal Bottom Top Floor
imposed Test span Number
Manu- t'aac long. long. depth
Grade design load ft of
facturer psi steel steel in.
psf (m) specimens
(MPa) reinf.• reinr.• (mm)
(kN/ml)

4 bars- 4 bars- 46 (2.2) 12.5 (3.8) 6 (150) 2

7mm
7 mmdia. 39 (1.9) 16.5 (5.0) 8 (200) 2
dia.
Ytong G2 720 6 bars- 4 bars- 52 (2.5) 12.5 (3.8) 6 (150) 2
7mm
(31 pet) (5.0) 7mmdia.
dia.
48 (2.3) 16.5 (5.0) 8 (200) 2
3
(500kglm ) 10 bars- 4 bars- 77 (3.7) 12.5 (3.8) 6 (150) 2
7mm
7mmdia. 73 (3.5) 16.5 (5.0) 8 (200) 2
dia.
a. ASTM A 82-97a, fY == 80 ksi (550 MPa)

Table 3: Summary of Ytong AAC G2 floor panel results

Specimen w,..
Bottom-mat reinforcementW=<t. p"""' • pCJ>Ck • Pcrack SOL*• Safety
psf psf lb lb fP.,.,. psf
(kN) (kN) Longitudinal
(%) (kN/m ) (kNim2)
2 Cross (kNim2) factor
1.0.
I YF 6-24-12.5 A 4-7mm 17 -6mm 3858 1452 38 154 58 (2.8) 46 3.4
(17.16) (6.46) (7.4)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 A 4-7mm 17- 6mm 3989 1190 30 160 48 (2.3) (2.2) 3.5
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

(17.74) (5.30) (7.7)

1 YF 8-24-16.5 A 4-7mm 17-6mm 4235 1112 26 128 34 (1.6) 39 3.3
(18.83) (4.95) (6.1)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 A 4-7mm 17 • 6mm 4241 1159 27 129 35 (1.7) (1.9) 3.3
(18.86) (5.15) (6.2)
I YF 6-24-12.5 B 6-7mm 17-6mm 4551 1534 34 182 61 (2.9) 52 3.5
(20.24) (6.82) (8.7)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 B 6-7mm 17-6mm 4532 1608 35 181 64 (3.1) (2.5) 3.5
{20.16) {7.15) (8.7)
1 YF 8-24-16.5 B 6-7mm 17-6mm 5809 1567 27 176 47 (2.3) 48 3.7
(25.84) (6.97) (8.4)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 B 6-7mm 17- 6mm 6346 1741 27 192 53 (2.5) (2.3) 4.0
128.23) (7.74) (9.2)
1 YF 6-24-12.5 C I0-7mm 17 -6mm 6118 2602 43 245 104 (5) 77 3.2
(27.21) (ll.S7) (11.7)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 C 10-7mm 17 -6mm 5901 2539 43 236 102 (3.7) 3.1
(26.25) (11.3()) (11.3) _(4.9)
I YF 8-24-16.5 C 10-7mm 17 -6mm 8082 2567 32 245 78 (3.7) 73 3.4
(35.95) (11.41) (11.7)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 C I0-7mm 17 -6mm 7971 2262 28 242 69 (3.3) (3.5) 3.3
(35.46) (10.06) (11.6)
I YF 6-24-12.5 B: 6-7mm 17- 6mrn 3889 1061 27 !56 42 (2.0) - .
Down (17.30) (4.72) (7.5)
• corrected loads: accounts for additional weight of device, not including weight of the panel
{approximate weight of 6-inch panel= 17.5 psf (0.84 kN/m2), 8-inch panel= 23.3 psf (1.1 kNim2))
•• SDL = Ytong's superimposed design load

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 39
Table 4: Summ;.ry ofYtong AAC G2 Door panel deflections results
Bottom-mat reinforcern Mid span
Specimen ent Stress at deflectiop at Span I 300
cracking first crack
I.D. Longitudinal Cross psi (MPa) in. (mm) in.(mm)
1 YF 6-24-12.5 A 4-7mm 17- 6mm 189 (1.3) 0.44 (11.1) 0.50 (12.7)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 A 4- 7mm 17- 6mm 155 (1.1) 0.33 (8.4) 0.50 (12.7)
I YF 8-24-16.5 A 4 -7mm 17- 6rnm 108 (0.7) 0.32 (8.1) 0.66 (16.7)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 A 4-7mm 17- 6mm 112 (0.8) 0.28 (7.1) 0.66 (16.7)
1 YF 6-24-12.5 B 6- 7mm 17- 6mrn 200 (1.4) 0.47 (11.9) 0.50 (12.7)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 8 6 -7mm 17- 6rnm 209(1.4) 0.47 (11.9) 0.50 (12.7)
1 YF 8-24-16.5 8 6-7mm 17- 6mm 151 (l.O) 0.35 (8.9) 0.66 (16.7)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 B 6-7mm 17- 6mm 168 (1.2) 0.42 (10. 7) 0.66 (16.7)
I YF 6-24-12.5 C 10 -7mm 17- 6mm 339 (2.3) 0.55 (14) 0.50 (12.7)
2 YF 6-24-12.5 C 10 -7mm 17- 6mm 331 (2.3) 0.54 (13.7) 0.50 (12.7)
I YF 8-24-16.5 C 10 -7mm 17- 6mrn 248 (1.7) 0.51 (13) 0.66 (16.7)
2 YF 8-24-16.5 C 10 -7mm 17- 6m.m 219 (1.5) 0.44 (11.1) 0.66 (16.7)

Table 5: Lintels used in test program

!Nominal Test Lintel Lintel

Manu- Material r••c Bottom long. Top long. span width depth Number of
facturer grade psi steel reinf. steel reinf. ft in. in. specimens
(MPa) (m) (mm) (mm)

4-8 mmdia. 2-8mmdia. 3 (0.9) 8 (200) 8 (200) 2

4-8 mm dia. 2- 8mmdia. 5• (1.5) 8 (200) 8 (200) 2
Hebel G2 720 4-8 mmdia. 2-8 nundia. 6 (1.8) 8 (200) 8 (200) 2
(32 pet) (5.0) 4-8mmdia. 2-8 nun dia. 3 (0.9) 10 (250) 8 (200) 2
(510 kg/m3 4- 8mm dia. 2-8 mm dia. 5 (1.5) 10 (250) 8 (200) 2
4-8 mm dia. 2-8 mm dia. 7 (2.1) 10 (250) 8 (200) 2
4-7 mmdia. 4-7 mm dia. 3 (0.9) 8 (200) 8 (200) 2
4-7 nun dia. 4-7nundia. 6 (1.8) 8 (200) 8 (200) 2
Ytong G2 720 ~ -7 mm dia. 4-7 mm dia. 6 (1.8) 8 (200) 16 (400) 2
(31 pet) (5.0) ~ -7 nun dia. 4-7nundia. 10 (3.0) 8 (200) 16 (400) 2
(500kg/m3) 8-7 nundia. 8-7 nun dia. 10 (3.0) 8 (200) 24 (600) 2
6-7 nun dia. 6-7 nun dia. 18 (5.5) 8 (200) 24 (600) 2
..
a. AddJtiOnallmtel tested upside down.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
40 Fouad and Dembowski
Table 6: Summary of Hebel lintel test results
Stress at
Specimen U-Sbaped Reinforcement Pmax pcnck Pcnck/ Wcnu:k cracking
lb lb Pmax psf psi
J.D. Longitudinal Cross (k.N) (kN) (%) (kN/m2) aVwa)
I HL 8-8-3 6-8mmdia 20-6mmdia 22967 7221 3611
(102.16) (32.12) 31 (172.9) 381 (2.6)
2 HL 8-8-3 16271 6877 3439
(72.38) (30.59) 42 (164.7) 363 (2.5)
I HL 8-8-5 6-8 mmdia 28-6mmdia 12732 4500 1350
(56.63) (20.02) 35 (64.6) 396 (2.7)
3 HL 8-8-5 11479 4314 1294
(51.06) (19.19) 38 (62.0} 379 (2.6)
I HL 8-8-6 6-8.mmdia 30-6mmdia 10584 3900 975
(47.08) (17.35) 37 (46.7) 411 (2.8)
2 HL 8-8-6 10102 3389 847
(44.94) (15.08) 34 (40.6) 357 (2.5)
I HL 10-8-3 6-8 mmdia 20-6mmdia 17059 6322 2529
(75.88) (28.12) 37 (121.1) 267 (1.8)
2 HL 10-8-3 23031 8885 3554
(102.45) {39.52) 39 (170.2) 375 (2.6)
l HL 10-8-5 6-8mmdia 28-6 mmdia 10385 3924 942
(46.19) (17.45) 38 (45.1) 276 (1.9)
2 HL 10-8-5 13832 4768 1144
(61.53) (21.21) 34 {54.81 335 (2.3)
1 HL 10-8-7 6-8mmdia 36-6 mmdia 8178 2689 461
(36.38) (11.96) 33 (22.1) 265 (1.8)
2 HL 10-8-7 10037 3102 532
(44.65) (13.8) 31 (25.5) 305 (2. I)
2 HL 8-8-5 6-8mmdia 28-6mmdia 8471 2735 820
Down (37.68) _(12.16) 32 (39.3) -
Table 7: Summary of Ytong lintel test results
Stress at
Specimen Double-mat Reinforcement P..,.. Pcrack P.,..""f Waack cracking
lb lb Pmax psf psi
!.D. Longitudinal Cross (kN) (kN) (%) (kN/m2) (MPa)
I YL 8-8-3 13045 3977 1989
4-7mm dia 16-6mmdia (58.03) (17.69) 30 (95.2) 210(1.4)
2 YL 8-8-3 x2 x2 12127 2758 1379
(53.94) (12.27) 23 (66.0) 145(1.()}_
1 YL 8-8-6 7730 1338 401
4-7mmdia 22-6mmdia (34.38) (5.95) 17 (19.2) 141 (1.0)
2 YL 8-8-6 x2 x2 7893 2025 607
(35.11) (9.01) 26 (29.1) 214 (1.51
I YL 8-16-6 19055 5010 1253
4-7mm dia 23-6mmdia (84.76) (22.29) 26 (60.0) 132 (0.9)
2 YL 8-16-6 x2 x2 20352 4869 1217
(90.53) (21.66) 24 (58.3) 128 (0.9)
1 YL8-16-IO 11502 3014 1206
4-7mm dia 30-6mm dia (51.1 6) (13.41) 26 (57.7) 132 (0.9)
2 YL8-16-10 x2 x2 11504 4049 1620
(51.17) (18.01) 35 (77.6) 178 (1.2)
I YL 8-24-10 27002 7469 1792
8-7mmdia 36-6mmdia (120.11) (33.22) 28 (85.8) 146 (1.0)
2 YL 8-24-10 x2 x2 22490 9002 2160
(100.04) (40.04) 40 (103.4) 176 (1.2)
I YL 8-24-18 \ 14271 3002 515
6-7mmdia 48-6mmdia (63.48) (13.35) 21 (24.7) 106(0.7)
2YL8-24-18 x2 x2 16225 2424 416
(72.17) (10.78) 15 (19.9) 85 (0.6)

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Nominal Wall Wall

Longitudinal
Manu- Material f',.. height thickness Number of Axial loading
steel
facturer grade psi ft in specimens type
reinforcement
(MPa) (m) (mm)
02 8 (2.4) 6 (150)
4-6mmdia. 2 concentric
Ytong (31 pcf) 720 8 (2.4) 8 (200)
8-6 mm dia. 2 eccentric
(500kglm 3) (5.0)
8-6mmdia. 8 (2.4) 9.5 (240) 2 eccentric
Note: all specimens were 24 mches (600 mrn) m width

Table 9: Vertical wall panel results

Specimen p- Max. Gage Max. Max. Stress

J.D. defl- Length strain- strain-
inside inside
outside """

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
lb in. psi
(kN) (mm) (mm) (in./in.) (in./in.}_ (MP!I}_
I YW6-24-96 68625 0.253 64.375 0.001405 0.001452 477
(305.26) (1635) (3.3)
2 YW6-24-96 62813 2.273 64.125 0.001478 0.001276 436
(279.41) (1630) (3.0)
I YW 8-24-96 70063 2.255 64.500 0.001661 0.000617 365
(311.66) (1638) (2.5)
2 YW 8-24-96 78313 0.670 64.375 0.001702 0.000599 408
(348.35) (1635) (2.8)
I YW 9.5-24-96 82438 1.706 64.375 0.001754 0.000621 362
(366.7) (1635) (2.5)
2 YW 9.5-24-96 82063 1.983 64.375 0.001378 0.000854 360
(365.03) (1635) (2.5)
Note: Eight control blocks were tested and yielded an average compressive strength of 480 ps1
(3.3 MPa)

7mmdia.l~dinalbus

6mmlb. tiiUDVC.T.ICbml
Cm'er7JR•(22mm)

111111 I I I I II I 111111 I : : : : lt6"(150mm)

12'-8 112" ((3.9 m) 24"(600mm)

ll=l Ll ltttmll
7 mm di.a. IOJli!icndinal han
6mm•.lia.ll1U1Sver..cbm'!!
Cover 718~ (2.2 mm}

I: : : .,
• 8 • • W I
!6" (ISO nun)

12'-~ 112" (3.9 m) 24" (600mm)

--t&l
7 mm dia.lopPcudinal bars
6mmdia.tn:DSvc.:ncban.
Cover 7/811 (22 mm)

11111111 . :·: .:.... It 6·osomrn)

1::::.::.:
12'-8 112" (3.9 m) 24"(600mm)

Figure 1: Reinforcement diagram for 6-inch floor panels tested at a 12.5-foot span

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Vl U4

Figure 2: AAC floor panel test setup

Hebel Lintel: 8-8-3

1111111111 I IIIII I
4'- 4" (1320 mm)
I 1111 s·rg:::
~
8"(200mm)
1.4~
1.4~

8 mm Dia Longitudinal BiUl

Hebel Lintel: 8-8-5 6 mm Dia Transverse Bars
Cover- 1.375 in. (35 mm)

!IIIII II IIIII II II 111111111 II

6'- 4" (1930 mm)
II
Hebel Lintel: 8-8-6

1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111
7'- 4" (2230 mm)

Figure 3: Reinforcement diagram for Hebel 8 by 8-inch lintels

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Figure 4: AAC lintel test setup

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 43
Wan Panel: 6" x 24" x 8'-0'' (150 x 600 x 2440 mm)

4-6 mm diameter longitudinal ban; centered in panel

J0-5 mm diameter transverse bars
cover~ I 3/4" (45 mm)

8'-0" (2440 mm)

24"(600mm)

Figure 5: Concentrically loaded wall panel reinforcement scheme

WaU Panels: 8" X 24" X 8'-0" (200 X 600 X 2440 mm)
and 9.5'' x24" x 8'-0" (241< 600 x2440 mm)
4-6 mm diameter longirudinaJ bars in each face
20-5 mm dlamctcr transverse bars
COVCTZ" J 3t4" (45 mm)

8'-0" (2440 mm)

24"(600mm)

Figure 6: Eccentrically loaded wall panel reinforcement scheme

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Figure 7: AAC wall panel test setup

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Technical Justification for Proposed

Design Provisions for AAC Structures:
Introduction and Shear Wall Tests

by R. E. Klingner, J. E. Tanner, J. L. Varela, M. Brightman,

J. Argudo, and U. Cancino

Synopsis: This paper summarizes the initial phases of the technical justification for
proposed design provisions for AAC structures in the US. It is divided into two parts.

The first part gives general background information, and presents an overall design
strategy. Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), a lightweight cementitious material
originally developed in Europe more than 70 years ago and now widely used around the
world, has recently been introduced into the US construction market. AAC elements can
contain conventional reinforcement in grouted cores, either alone or with factory-installed
reinforcement. To facilitate the use of AAC in the US market, an integrated seismic-
qualification program has been carried out, involving general seismic design provisions,
specific element design provisions, and material specifications.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The second part describes the design and testing of a suite of 14 AAC shear wall
specimens, with aspect ratios from 0.6 to 3, under in-plane reversed cyclic loads at the
University of Texas at Austin. The results of these tests have been used to develop
predictive models and reliable design equations for AAC shear walls, the primary lateral
force-resisting element of AAC structural systems.

Keywords: autoclaved aerated concrete; cellular concrete; design;

earthquake

45
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
46 Klingner et al.
Richard E. Klingner is the L. P. Gilvin Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. He is a Fellow of ACI, and is active in the
technical committee work of ACI and other technical societies. He is a member of ACI
Committee 523 {Cellular Concrete) and other ACJ committees. He is Chair of the
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Masonry Standards Joint Committee (ACI 530).

Jennifer E. Tanner is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY 82071. She is a former Graduate Research Assistant at The University of
Texas, Austin, TX '78712.

Jorge L. Varela is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Autonomous University of

Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, MEXICO. He is a former Graduate Research Assistant, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

Matthew Brightman is an Engineer with Walter P. Moore and Associates, Houston, TX

77098. He is a former Graduate Research Assistant, The University of Texas, Austin, TX
78712.

Jaime Argudo is a Graduate Research Assistant, The University of Texas, Austin, TX

78712.

Ulises Cancino i~ a Graduate Research Assistant, The University of Texas, Austin, TX

78712.

PART 1: OVERVIEW OF CODE-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR AAC

Introduction to Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC)

Autoclaved Aerated Concrete {AAC) is a low-density cementitious product of calcium

silicate hydrates in which the low density is obtained by the formation of macroscopic air
bubbles, mainly by chemical reactions within the mass during the liquid or plastic phase
(1 ). The air bubbles are uniformly distributed and are retained in the matrix on setting,
hardening, and subsequent curing with high-pressure steam in an autoclave, to produce a
cellular structure (Figure 1). Material specifications for this product are prescribed in
ASTM C 1386 [1).

In Table 1, typical mechanical and thermal characteristics of AAC are compared with
those of conventional concrete, including conventional concrete made with lightweight
aggregates. AAC typically has one-sixth to one-third the density of conventional
concrete, and about the same ratio of compressive strength, making it potentially suitable
for cladding and infills, and for bearing-wall components of low- to medium-rise
structures. Its thermal conductivity is one-sixth or less that of concrete, making it
potentially energy-efficient. Its fire rating is slightly longer than that of conventional
concrete of the same thickness, making it potentially useful in applications where fire
resistance is important. Because of its internal porosity, AAC has very low sound
transmission, making it potentially useful acoustically.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
AAC was first produced commercially in Sweden, in 1923. Since that time, its
production and use have spread to more than 40 countries on all continents, including
North America, Central and South America, Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and
Australia. This wide experience has produced many case studies of use in different
climates, and under different building codes.

In the US, modem uses of AAC began in 1990, for residential and commercial projects in
the southeastern states. US production of plain and reinforced AAC started in 1995 in the
southeast, and has since spread to other parts of the country. AAC products include
masonry-type units, reinforced panels, and specialty elements such as lintels, floor or roof
planks, and stairs (Figure 2).

AAC elements can be produced with dimensional tolerances as small as 1/16 in. (1.5
mm). As a consequence, AAC masonry units can be laid with mortar joints
approximately 3/8 in. (9 mm) thick, and also with thinner joints. The exterior face of the
resulting AAC masonry wall is then protected from the elements using an exterior· wythe
of masonry. a cladding system, or a breathable coating resistant to penetration by liquid
water. The interior face can be plastered, furred, or painted.

AAC masonry units are laid atop a leveling bed of ASTM C270 mortar, and are shimmed
if necessary to achieve a bed course that is plumb, level and true (Figure 3). Most AAC
masonry is "thin-bed masonry," laid with joints about 1.5 mm thick. Subsequent courses
of thin-bed masonry are laid using special thin-bed mortar, using a special notched trowel
available from the AAC manufacturer. Units are laid in alignment with either the inside
or the outside plane of the wall. Minor adjustments can be made by sanding the exposed
faces of the units with a sanding board.

AAC masonry units themselves are unreinforced. Field reinforcement can be installed
horizontally in lintel units, or vertically in grouted cells 3 in. or 4 in. in diameter. AAC
masonry to be grouted is wetted thoroughly before grouting, to ensure that the grout
flows to completely fill the space to be grouted. A small-diameter vibrator is inserted in
the cell to be grouted; the grout is poured in; and the vibrator is withdrawn, consolidating
the grout.

Mortar for thin-bed AAC masonry is a polymer-fortified mixture of portland cement and
fine sand, produced by mortar manufacturers to meet performance standards approved by
AAC manufacturers. In general, AAC manufacturers have approved lists of AAC mortar
suppliers, based on internal performance criteria for AAC mortar. Those criteria
generally address minimum dry compressive strength, minimum wet compressive
strength, minimum bond strength, minimum open time, and minimum working time.
They also require that the mortar provide sufficient bond to the AAC masonry unit so that
flexural tensile strength is controlled by the flexural tensile strength of the units rather
than by the bond between units and mortar.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Because it has been used extensively in Europe for more than 70 years, AAC has been
extensively researched there. Extensive manufacturer testing is available world-wide.
In the US, basic evaluation-service testing has been carried out on structural performance,
fire resistance, and thermal and acoustical properties. In the US, structural testing has
been conducted at the University of Texas at Arlington (by Ytong); at Clemson
University (by Ytong); and at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (by Hebel,
subsequently known as Matrix, and now known as Babb). That testing verified
compressive strength, tensile strength, diagonal tensile strength, modulus of rupture, and
modulus of elasticity. Results have been circulated internally to groups developing
design provisions, but have not been published. Most recently, extensive testing of shear
walls and a two-story assemblage has been completed at The University of Texas at
Austin [2-5]. Open publication is an explicit objective of that recent research, described
in more detail here.

Seismic qualification of AAC masonry is based in general on experience in the Middle

East and Japan, and on an extensive analytical and experimental research program being
conducted at The University of Texas at Austin. That seismic qualification program is
intended to develop design models, draft code provisions, analytical models, and R and
Cd factors. It involved confirmatory material tests, more than 15 reversed cyclic load
tests on different configurations of AAC shear walls, and finally proof tests of a full-
scale, two-story AAC assemblage under quasi-static, reversed cyclic loading. That
seismic research is the topic of several other papers at this conference, and is not
discussed further here.

Possible ApproYal Approaches for AAC Masonry

At the present time,. proposed AAC masonry buildings in the US are approved on a case-
by-case basis. Product approvals are obtained through evaluation services of model code
agencies; designs are carried out in accordance with industry guidelines; and project
approvals are obtained through local building officials.

This approval approach, while feasible on a limited scale, is cumbersome and expensive.
It would be better to have AAC masonry buildings approved on a national basis. AAC
material would be addressed by ASTM material specifications; design provisions,
developed under ANSI consensus procedures, would be referenced by legally adopted
building codes; and project approvals would be obtained automatically.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

To achieve the goal of a national basis for approval of AAC masonry buildings, the
following steps are required:

o Evaluate the existing and probable future code framework for masonry and for
concrete, and determine where within that framework should design provisions
be developed for AAC masonry and for reinforced AAC panels, and where
within that framework should material specification specifications be developed.

o Using a comprehensive, integrated research program, synthesizing existing

research and conducting new research when necessary, develop the performance
data necessary to justifY a proposed design approach for AAC masonry,
including seismic design. For seismic design, carry out the experimental and
analytical research necessary to propose and justifY R and Cd factors. The
research program would be specifically set up to deliver draft code provisions,
commentary, and technical justification.

o Prepare a draft set of code provisions, code commentary, and code "super-
commentary" (extensive technical justification for proposed provisions and
commentary), for design of AAC masonry.

o Prepare a draft set of code provisions, code commentary, and code "super-
commentary" (extensive technical justification for proposed provisions and
commentary), for design using reinforced AAC panels. The design provisions
for AAC masonry and reinforced AAC panels, while possibly different in
format, should produce similar results.

o Prepare a draft set of ASTM specifications for AAC masonry, and for other
aspects of AAC construction.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

o Propose R and Cd factors for AAC masonry and reinforced AAC panel
construction.

That overall code framework is shown schematically in Figure 5, and is discussed in

detail in the rest of this paper.

Proposed Integrated Design Framework for AAC Structures

Review of Code Development Process in the US -- In the US, structural design

provisions are developed under ANSI consensus procedures, and the resulting documents
are referenced by model codes. Over the past I 0 years, model-code harmonization has
resulted in the development of a predominant harmonized model code, the International
Building Code (IBC), whose first issue was the 2000 IBC [6], and which will be updated
at 3-year intervals. Another proposed model code is being developed by the National

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
50 Klingner et al.
Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Those model codes acquire legal standing when
they are adopted by local governmental jurisdictions. Loads for structural design are
developed by ASCE 7, whose latest load standard is ASCE 7-02 [7], which will be
updated at 3-year intervals. That load standard is referenced by model codes. Material
specifications are usually developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM).

Proposed Design Pro\'isions for AAC Masonry - In the US, development of masonry
design provisions by an ANSI consensus process is the responsibility of the Masonry
Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), sponsored by the American Concrete Institute (ACI),
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and The Masonry Society (TMS).
Beginning with its 2003 edition, the IBC will essentially reference the MSJC provisions.

The MSJC design provisions, whose latest version is the 2002 MSJC Code and
Specification [8. 9], cover a wide variety of design approaches (strength, allowable-
stress, empirical) and materials (clay, concrete, glass block). Based on the combination
of test results from The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, and elsewhere, a proposed design approach was developed for AAC
masonry, with the following characteristics:

o A strength approach, consistent with Chapter 3 of the 2002 MSJC provisions.

Strength provisions are preferred over allowable-stress provisions because they
offer a more consistent factor of safety against structural failure; because they
offer a better opportunity for harmonization with design provisions for
reinforced panels; and connote reliability at the level of the material and the
structural system.

o Design provisions for flexure, shear and anchorage that are generally similar to
current strength-design provisions for other types of masonry, and that produce
final designs similar to those produced by the proposed ACI provisions for
reinforced AAC elements.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

The first set of proposed design provisions, commentary, and "super-commentary" was
introduced to the AAC Masonry Subcommittee of the MSJC early in 2002. Since then, it
has been refined in response to MSJC Main Committee ballot comments and additional
research results. Additional refinement within the MSJC process is expected to result in
the passage of successful provisions within the 2005 code cycle.

Proposed Design Provisions for Reinforced AAC Panels -- In the US, development of
design provisions for reinforced concrete under the ANSI consensus process is the
responsibility of ACI Committee 318. The 2000 IBC essentially references ACI 318-99;
the 2003 IBC is expected to reference ACI 318~02 [I OJ; and this is expected to continue
for future IBC cycles.

The design provisions of ACI 318 address the strength design of a wide variety of
conventional reinforced concrete elements similar to AAC applications, including

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 51
prefabricated wall panels. Based on the combination of test results from The University
of Texas at Austin, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and elsewhere, a proposed
design approach was developed for reinforced AAC elements, with the following
characteristics:

o A strength approach, consistent with ACI 318-02.

o Design provisions for flexure, shear and anchorage that are generally similar to
current ACI 318 strength-design provisions for reinforced concrete elements,
and that produce final designs similar to those produced by the proposed MSJC
provisions for AAC masonry.

The first set of proposed design provisions, commentary, and "super-commentary" was
introduced to ACI Subcommittee 523A (Autoclaved Aerated Cellular Concrete) in the
fall of 2002. Because ACI 523A is a relatively new subcommittee, the design provisions,
commentary, and "super-commentary" were introduced as appendices to a non-
mandatory design guide on AAC. 1t is anticipated that the guide will be refined in
response to balloting within Subcommittee 523A and Committee 523. After it has been
approved by Committee 523, it will be offered to ACI 318 as a basis for mandatory-
language design provisions and commentary, as an appendix to ACI 318. Because these
provisions must be discussed and refined within ACI Committee 318 as well as ACI 523,
their timetable for approval will probably be extended longer than for their counterpart
provisions for AAC masonry. The authors believe that a reasonable goal would be
approval within the 2008 ACl 318 cycle.

Proposed R and Cd Factors for AAC Structures -- Because seismic design is an

important aspect of the proposed design provisions for AAC structures, whether of
masonry units or reinforced panels, it is necessary to develop R and Cct factors for use
with ASCE 7, the seismic load document referenced by model codes such as the 2000
IBC.
The seismic force-reduction factor (R) specified in seismic design codes is intended to
account for energy dissipation through inelastic structural deformation (ductility), and
structural over-strength. The factor (R) is based on observation of the performance of
different structural systems in previous strong earthquakes, on technical justification, and
on tradition.

For structures of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), the force-reduction factor (R) and
the corresponding displacement-amplification factor (Cct) must be based on laboratory
test results and numerical simulation of the response of AAC structures subjected to
earthquake ground motions. The proposed factors must then be verified against the
observed response of AAC structures in strong earthquakes.

Values of R and Cct for AAC structures are being proposed in two code-development
arenas.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
52 Klingner et al.
o In the Fall of 2002, values are being proposed to ICBO ES (a model-code
evaluation service), as part of a proposed ICBO ES listing for AAC structural
components and systems. That listing is intended to facilitate the use of such
systems on a nationwide basis, until the consensus design provisions proposed
above are incorporated in MSJC and ACI documents, and referenced by model
codes.

o After approval by ICBO ES, the same values will be proposed for adoption by
ASCE 7. When adopted by ASCE 7, they will form a part of the design package
for AAC structural elements.

Proposed ASTM Specifications for AAC Construction -- ASTM traditionally deals

with specifications for materials and methods of test. For the past several years,
standards-development work regarding AAC has been going on in two committees:

o In 1998, ASTM Subcommittee C-27 .60 (Precast Concrete Elements of AAC)

developed a material standard for AAC: C 1386-98 (Standard Specification for
Precast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Wall Units). Subcommittee C27-60 has
also developed a standard for reinforced AAC panels: C 1452-00 (Standard
Specification for Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Units). That
subcommittee is also working on a standard method of test for determining the
modulus of AAC.

o Since 1998, ASTM Subcommittee C- I 5. I 0 (Autoclaved Aerated Concrete

Masonry) has been developing a standard practice for autoclaved aerated
concrete masonry. It is hoped that work on that standard will be completed
soon. It references the AAC material provisions of ASTM C 1386-98, and also
contains construction provisions. When design provisions for AAC masonry are
incorporated into the MSJC Code, it is probable that the construction provisions
wil1 be incorporated into the MSJC Specification.

Summary of Part 1

Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), a lightweight cementitious material originally

developed in Europe more than 70 years ago and now widely used around the world, has
recently been introduced into the US construction market. In this paper, code-
development efforts in the US related to AAC are summarized, with emphasis on AAC
masonry.

Using coordinated research at The University of Texas at Austin, the University of

Alabama at Birmingham, and elsewhere, integrated design provisions, commentary, and
"super-commentary" (extensive technical justification) have been developed for AAC
masonry (including field reinforcement), and for factory-reinforced AAC panels.
Masonry design provisions are being studied and refined within the Masonry Standards
Joint Committee; reinforced-panel provisions are being studied and refined within ACI
Subcommittee 523A; values for the seismic-design factors R and Cd are being developed

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 53
for use by ICBO ES and ASCT 7; and material specifications and standard practices have
been or are being developed by ASTM Subcommittee C-15.1 0 and C-27 .60.

An innovative aspect of this code-development strategy is the planning of research

deliverables to include specific draft design provisions, commentary, and supporting
"super-commentary." That aspect could usefully be applied to other materials as well.

PART 2: DESIGN AND TESTING OF AAC SHEAR WALLS

Introduction

A suite of 14 Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) shear wall specimens, with aspect
ratios (height of the point of load application divided by the plan length) from 0.6 to 3,
has been tested at the University of Texas at Austin [2-4]. The shear walls were designed
to be either shear- or flexure-dominated. The shear-dominated walls were heavily
reinforced in flexure using external reinforcement. The flexure-dominated walls had
light longitudinal reinforcement. The test setup is shown in Figure 6, and details of each
specimen are presented in Table 2. In that table, the number after the supplier's name
identifies a particular shipment of AAC material.

In-plane reversed cyclic load was applied to the specimens at UT Austin through
hydraulic rams connected to a reaction wall. The rams were attached to the specimen
through a reinforced concrete loading beam connected to the wall with a Type S leveling
bed. The walls were loaded axially by a combination of hydraulic rams, and post-
tensioned external rods. As the specimens displaced laterally in-plane, they rotated about
the compression toe; tensile forces increased in the rods on the tension side, and
decreased in the rods on the compression side. The net axial force in the UT Austin walls
remained approximately constant under reverse cyclic loading by maintaining a constant
load in the hydraulic rams through a mechanical "load maintainer" and by ensuring some
post-tensioning force remained in the external rods. A complete description of the test
set-up and results is presented in References 2, 3 and 4. Information on synthesis of data
on material tests from UT Austin, the University of Alabama at Birmingham and other
laboratories is presented in Reference 5. Information is currently being prepared on final
shear-wall tests conducted at UT Austin. 1

Additional information was obtained from a suite of 12 shear-wall tests performed by

Hebel (Germanyl Each of those walls measured 8.2 ft (2.5 m) long, 8.2 ft (2.5 m) tall
and 9.5 in. (0.24 m) thick, for an aspect ratio of 1.0. All were constructed of modular
block in one-fifth or one-half running bond. Three Hebel specimens used mortared head
joints, and were laid in one-fifth running bond. The remaining nine Hebel specimens did
not use mortar in the head joints.

1
MS Thesis in preparation, Ulises Cancino, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University
of Texas at Austin, August 2003.
2
Personal communication, Violandi Vratsanou, Hebel AG, Germany, November 2000

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
54 Klingner et al.
The specimens tested by Hebel 1 were loaded axially using uniformly spaced external
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
post-tensioning rods, whose axial tension was monitored and was kept constant.
Additional external threaded rods, with initial pre-tension less than 0.5 kip (2 kN), were
used as external reinforcement. As the Hebel specimens displaced laterally in-plane, they
rotated about the compression toe, and tensile forces increased in the rods on the tension
side. The rods on the compression side of the wall were not initially post-tensioned, so
their force did not decrease as the force in the tension rods increased. Increasing the
force in the tension rods without decreasing the force in the compression rods was
equivalent to applying an additional compressive axial load to the wall. The axial load
used to evaluate the behavior of the Hebel specimens at each state was the initial axial
load plus the summation of tensile forces in the rods at that state.

Key Behavioral Modes of AAC Shear Wall Specimens

An AAC shear wall can exhibit the following behavior modes: flexural cracking; web-
shear cracking; flexure-shear cracking; nominal flexural capacity; crushing of the
diagonal strut; and sliding shear. Depending on the level of axial load and prescriptive
reinforcement, these modes can occur singly or in combination. In the following
sections, the prediction of each mode is discussed:

Flexural Cracking of AAC Shear Walls -- Flexural cracking was observed in 11 shear
wall specimens tested at UT Austin. Flexural crackjng is governed by the modulus of
rupture of the AAC, or by the tensile bond strength across a leveling bed joint if such a
joint is present in the element under consideration. In all cases, these flexural cracks
formed between the AAC and the mortar leveling bed, indicating tensile bond failure
between the two materials. The flexural cracks occurred in both ends of the walls,
because the walls were subject to reversed cyclic load. The first occurrence of a flexural
crack is recorded as the first tested V,."' while the second occurrence of a flexural crack is
recorded as the second tested Vc,.. The lateral loads at which· flexural cracking was
observed and back-calculated tensile bond strength for each shear wail are listed in Table
3. In that table, data for shear wall specimens where shrinkage cracks formed along the
bedding mortar joint prior to testing are not presented.

Shear Wall Specimens 4 (first occurrence) and 11 (both occurrences) show the highest
modulus of rupture. In both specimens, at least one flexural crack was not observed until
it had propagated more than one-quarter the plan length of the wall. Those specimens
were not included in the calculation of mean and coefficient of variation. The mean
modulus of rupture is 68 psi, and the corresponding 20% fractile is 49.4 psi. Based on
the latter value it is proposed that the design value for modulus of rupture not exceed 50
psi if a leveling bed joint is present in the AAC element.

Web-shear Cracking of AAC Shear Walls-- Web-shear cracking is characterized by

the formation of an inclined crack in the web of the wall, when the principal tensile stress
in the web exceeds the diagonal tensile strength of the AAC. That principal stress is
given by Equation (I), in which the normal stress in the wall is n and the maximum shear
stress in the center of the web is v. Substituting the equations for shear stress and axial

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoc;laved Aerated Concrete 55
stress into the above equation, and solving for the shear, the corresponding web-shear
capacity is given by Equation (2):

3V P
[,= where v = - - and n = -
21,,.1 l,.,t
Equation ( 1)
11.5
21
vAAC -- ,t
3 [,
. 1 + _!__
[ ( j,f».f ]]
Equation (2)

Web-shear cracking was observed in all AAC shear-wall specimens tested at The
University of Texas at Austin except Shear Wall Specimen 2 (constructed of vertical
panels). In addition, the tests performed by Hebel 3 provide corroborating data on web-
shear cracking capacity. The shear strength of the AAC shear-wall specimens was
initially predicted using Equation (2). Data on partially mortared specimens are omitted
here for brevity but is given in Reference (2).

The ratio of observed to predicted web-shear cracking capacity for Shear Wall Specimen
I is significantly greater than for the other specimens, and can be considered anomalous.
For the remaining specimens, Equation (2) is unconservative.

For the shear walls with fully mortared head joints, the ratios of observed to predicted
values of V 4Ac range from 0.54 to 1.29 , with a mean of 0.69 and a COY of 17% (Figure
7). In that figure, the mean ratio of observed capacity to the predicted capacity is
represented by a solid horizontal line. The normal distribution with the same mean and
COY as the test data is also plotted on Figure 7. The lower 10% fractile of that
distribution, shown by a dashed horizontal line, is 0.54.

Equation (2) was multiplied by 0.54 so that it would correspond to the lower 10% fractile
of the ratios of observed to predicted capacities. In addition, the following substitution,
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

/, = 2.4~f 4Ac , was incorporated to produce Equation (3) (Reference 5). A similar
derivation exists for the case of shear walls with unmortared head joints; the result is
presented in Equation (4) (Reference 5). Using these equations the observed web-shear
cracking capacity is slightly greater than the predicted web-shear cracking capacity for
walls with fully mortared head joints, and with unmortared head joints. In this section
the following notation is used:.f4Ac=compressive strength of AAC; /,/"'Wall length in plan;
Pu=axialload in wall; t=nominal thickness of wall; i!nd VHc=lateralload capacity of wall
as governed by AAC.

v.4AC = 0.86 e,. f ~ f4AC 1+ P,,

2.4~/AAC e.,. f Equation (3)

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Flexure-Shear Cracking of ;\AC Shear Walls - A flexure-shear crack begins as a

horizontal crack at a height of about one-half the plan length of the wall (/w) above the
base of the wall, and then propagates diagonally through the center of the wall. The
formation of this crack is governed by the flexural tensile stress in the wall (Equation
(5)).

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
M p
(J = ---·-
S, A, Equation (5).

Based on experiments with reinforced concrete shear walls, the controlling horizontal
crack develops at a height of about /,)2. Therefore, the moment at the crack, M11cr is
VI
Mflcr = M- _,_,. where M is the moment at the base. Equation (6) presents the base
. 2
shear at the formation of the flexural portion of the flexure-shear crack. In Equation 5
and 6 the following additional notation is used: A 11=area of the wall in plan; M=design
moment in wall; f,.=modulus of rupture of AAC; Sx=section modulus of a shear wall;
V=design shear in wall; V17c,=capacity of wall as governed by flexural cracking; and
=maximum tensile stress in wall.

s,(f. +~J IJ
Vflcr = I
M "'
v 2 Equation ( 6)

ACI 318-02 uses a conservative (low) flexural tensile strength of 6-Jf: (US customary
units) substituted into Equation (6); experiments have shown an additional force of
0.6-Jf: ·td is required to develop the crack.

Flexure-shear cracking was observed in the 6 flexure-dominated shear wall specimens.

The flexural portion of the flexure-shear crack always formed first in the horizontal joint.
Based on the location of the flexural crack, the load can be predicted by Equation (6).
For AAC the modulus of rupture was calculated using /,. = 2 /, and the tested
splitting tensile strength. This value was used in Equation (6). For flexure-dominated
shear wall specimens, with the exception of Shear Wall Specimen 14a, the ratio of
observed versus predicted capacity ranges from 0.6 to 1.3. The mean ratio is 0.86 with a
COY of36%.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 57
The observed capacity is lower than that predicted because the failure occurred in the
joint between the AAC and the thin-bed mortar rather than in the AAC material itself. A
relationship for the tensile bond strength fbond between AAC and thin-bed mortar was
determined based on tests performed at UAB (Reference 5). Equation (7) presents the
tensile bond strength for compressive strengths greater than 450 psi (3.1 MPa). This
indicates that for mid- to high-strength AAC the tensile bond strength, fbond· is lower than
the modulus of rupture, j,.. The results of using the tensile bond strength rather than the
modulus of rupture in Equation (6) for the remaining specimens are presented in Table 4.
With the exception of Shear Wan Specimen 14a, the resulting average ratio of observed
Y ncr to predicted Ytlcr is 1.1 with a COY of 19%. .

Shear Wan Specimen 14a exhibited flexural cracks at the west side of the base of the wall
prior to testing. These cracks are presumed to have occurred while moving the top of the
wall (out-of-plane) approximately 1 in. (25 mm) to the east to align the rams and loading
beam.

fbond = 0.04 · f4.4C + 66 Equation (7)

Flexural cracking did not decrease the strength or stiffness of the specimens. In each case
at least one load cycle was completed before a significant loss of stiffness was observed.
Furthermore, the vertical reinforcement was sufficient to carry the load after flexure-
shear cracking occurred. Based on these conclusions, no limiting design equations are
proposed for flexure-shear cracking.

Nominal Flexural Capacity of AAC Shear Walls-- Observed versus predicted nominal
flexural capacities can be compared for flexure-dominated Shear Wan Specimen 14a,
14b, 15a and 15b. During the test of Shear Wa11 Specimen 13 and Shear Wa11 Specimen
16, the actuators used to apply the constant axial load inadvertently reached the end of
their travel. As increasing lateral drifts were applied, axial load on the wall inadvertently
increased. To successfu11y interpret those test results, the probable axial load applied to
the wa11s was back-calculated from the predicted flexural capacity, removing those two
tests from consideration for verifying observed versus predicted flexural capacity.

The nominal flexural capacity was calculated using a steel yield strength of 75 ksi (490
MPa), from mi11 reports. Traditional flexural theory was used with a maximum useful
strain of 0.003 in the AAC [5], and a value for ~ 1 of 0.67 [6]. The ratios of observed to
predicted strength range from 1.11 to 1.29, with an average of 1.19 and a COY of 5.8%.
The results may have been consistently increased due to strain hardening in the steel.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Crushing of the Diagonal Strut of AAC Shear Walls - In addition to being idealized
structura11y as a beam-column or as a diagonal tension element, an AAC shear wa11 can
also be idealized using a strut-and-tie mechanism, in which load is transferred to the
foundation through a compressive diagonal strut (Figure 8). The compressive force in the
diagonal strut is equilibrated at the base of the wan py the frictional resistance and

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
58 Klingner et al.
vertical component of compression in the diagonal strut. The diagonal strut crushes when
the compressive stress exceeds the compressive strength of the AAC.

A free-body diagram of the compressive strut is shown in Figure 9. The free-body

diagram of Figure 9a) shows the forces at the ends of the strut; the free-body diagram of
Figure 9b) shows the force inside the strut. The force in the strut is a function of the
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

geometry of the wall and horizontal projection of the diagonal strut. The geometry of a
shear wall specimen with aspect ratio of 0.6 and horizontal projection of the strut (/.,1n 11 )
eql.\al to one-quarter of the plan length of the wall, is shown in Figure 9c). From
geometry the force in the strut will be I. 7 times the vertical reaction (ratio of diagonal leg
to vertical leg of equivalent triangle). For a squat wa11, the diagonal strut can crush at
lateral loads smaiier than those corresponding to the nominal flexural capacity. Because
of the inclination of the strut, the force in the compression diagonal of a squat waJI can be
much higher than the flexural compression in the waJI toe.

Crushing of the diagonal strut was observed in Shear Wall Specimen I. The length of
crushing extended one quarter of the plan length of the wall. Based on the applied load at
crushing and the geometry of the wa11, Equation (8) was calibrated. In Equation 8, two
new variables are introduced: h=height of wall and w_,1r 111=width the compressive strut.

VAAC Q •9 JAAC fw strut

Equation (8)

In Shear Wall Specimens 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 crushing of the diagonal strut was avoided by
limiting the axial load. Since the model was adequate for waJls with aspect ratios less
than 1.5, that aspect ratio is used as an upper limit to the proposed Code equation.

Sliding Shear Capacity of AAC Shear Walls -- An AAC shear wa11 constructed of
horizontal panels or masonry-type units exhibits a bed-joint crack when the shear stress
on the bed joints exceeds the interface shear capacity, v. After the crack forms the shear
is resisted by the vertical reinforcement and by the frictional forces due to the axial load
(Figure I 0).

In the traditional shear friction mechanism, sliding over a rough interface causes the
crack at the interface to widen, stressing any reinforcement crossing the interface and
providing additional clamping force. Under reverse cyclic loading of AAC, the
roughness of the bed joints can decrease, as a result of which resistance to sliding shear is
provided primarily by dowel action of reinforcement crossing the bed joints. Sliding was
observed in tests of Shear Waii Specimen 4 and the Two-story Assemblage Specimen. In
both cases the vertical reinforcement contributed significantly to the capacity for several
cycles until local crushing and spaJling of the grout in the 3 in. (76 mm) diameter cells
and surrounding AAC began and continued throughout the test, reducing the
effectiveness of the reinforcement. Based on the observed tests results, the design

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 59
recommendation is to neglect the contribution of dowels and longitudinal steel to sliding
shear resistance. The proposed design equation for sliding shear is presented in Equation
(9).

Equation (9)
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Conclusions from Part 2

Based on the results of experimental testing of AAC shear wall specimens, reliable
design models and predictive equations have been developed and calibrated to describe
the behavior of AAC shear walls under monotonic and reversed cyclic shear loads. The
results show agreement with low COY's for shear walls with a wide range of aspect
ratios and axial loads. This research allows appropriate design provisions to be
developed for AAC shear walls in general.

OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A first part of a consistent technical basis for the design of autoclaved aerated concrete
(AAC) structures is presented. The basis includes an overview of an overall strategy for
development of design provisions in the context of the US code framework, and the
development and testing of shear wall specimens at The University of Texas at Austin.

Acknowledgments

Most of the information reported here is based on a research project on the Seismic
Behavior of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, conducted at The University of Texas at
Austin, under the sponsorship of the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Products Association.

References

I) ASTM C 1386: Specification for Precast Autoclaved Aerated Concrete High-

Precision Wall Construction Units, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.

2) Brightman, M., "AAC Shear Wall Specimens: Development of Test Setup and
Preliminary Results," MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin, May 2000.

3) Tanner, J.E., Varela, J.L., Klingner, R.E., "Seismic Testing of AAC Masonry
Shear Walls," Proceedings of the Ninth North American Masomy Conference,
Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, The Masonry Society.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
60 Klingner et al.
4) Varela, J.L., Tanner, J.E., Klingner, R.E., "Development of R and C 0 Factors
for Seismic Design of AAC Structures," Proceedings of the Ninth North
American Masonry Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, The Masonry
Society.

5) Argudo, J.F., "Evaluation and Synthesis of Experimental Data for Autoclaved

Aerated Concrete" MS Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University of
Texas at Austin, August 2003.

6) IBC 2000: International Building Code, 2000 Edition, International Code

Council, Falls Church, Virginia, 2000.

7) ASCE 7-02: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 1998.

8) Building Code Requirements for Masomy Structures (ACI 530-02 / ASCE 5-02
I TMS 402-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, and The Masonry
Society, Boulder, Colorado, 2002.

9) Specifications for Masomy Structures (ACI 530.1-02 I ASCE 6-02 I TMS 602-
02), American Concrete Institute, Fam1ington Hills, Michigan, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, and The Masonry Society,
Boulder, Colorado, 2002.
10) ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 2002.

Table 1 Typical mechanical and thermal characteristics ofAAC

Charatteristit AAC Conventional

Concrete

density, pcf(kg/m3 ) 25- so (400- 800) 80- 150 (1280- 2400)

compressive strength, fc , psi (MPa) 360- 1090 (2.5 - 7.5) 1000- 10000 (6.9 - 69)
thennal conductivity, Btu-inlfe-hr-F 0.75- 1.20 6.0- 10
fire rating, hours :!>8 :!>6
C'·

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Failure AAC Material Length Height Thick. Aspect

Specimen Mode units supplier in.(m) in. (m) in. (m) Ratio Int. Vertical Reinf.
I Shear Horiz. Panels Contec I 240 (6.1) 154(3.9) 8 (0.2) 0.64 No
2 Shear Vert. Panels Ytong I 240 (6.1) 154 (3.9) 8 (0.2) 0.64 No
3 Shear Blocks Ytong2 240 (6.1) 151 (3.8) 8 (0.2) 0.63 No
4 Shear Horiz. Panels Matrix I 240(6.1) 154 (3.9) 8 (0.2) 0.64 #5 (16 nun) at 48 in. (1.2 m)
5 Shear Blocks Conlee 2 240 (6.1) 151 (3.8) 8(0.2) 0.63 No
7 Shear Blocks Ytong2 144 (3.7) 151 (3.8) 8 (0.2) 1.05 No
9 Shear Horiz. Panels Matrix I 96 (2.4) 154 (3.9) 8(0.2) 1.60 No
II Shear Blocks Contec2 48(J.:n_ 151 (3.8j 8_(0.2) 3.15 No
# 5 (16 nun) 12 in. (0.6 m)
13 Flexure Horizontal Panels Ytong_l 72_{2.ll 154 (3.9) 8{0.2)_ 2.13 from ends
# 5 (16 nun) 4 in. (0.1 m)
14a Flexure Horizontal Panels Babb I 56_{1.41_ 154(3.9) 10 (0.3}_ 3.2 from ends
#5(16mm)4in.(O.l m)
14b Flexure Horizontal Panels Babb I 56 (1.4) 154 (3.9) I 0 (0.3) 3.2 from ends
Vertical Panels with #5 (16 mm) 8 in. (0.2 m)
15a Flexure End Blocks Babb I 112 (2.8) !54 (3.9) 10(0.3) 1.4 from ends
Vertical Panels with # 5 (16 mm) 8 in. (0.2 m)
15b Flexure End Blocks Babb I 112 (2.8) 154 (3.9) 10(0.3) 1.4 from ends
Vertical Panels with # 5 (16 mm) 8 in. (0.2 m)
16 Flexure U End Blocks Babb I 112 (2.8) 154 (3.9) 10 (0.3) 1.4 from ends
Ass em- Vertical Panels with # 5 (16 mm) 8 in. (0.2 m)
blage Flexure UEnd Blocks Babb2 112 (2.8) 154 (3.9) 10 (0.3) 1.4 from ends

Table 3: Calculated modulus of rupture ofAAC shear walls tested at U T Austin

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

First calculated Second calculated

Axial Load First tested Ver Second tested Vcr fboad fboad
Specimen kips (kN) kips (kN) kips (kN) JlSi (MPa) _psi (MPal
3 120 (534) 65.9 (293) 78.9 (351) 67.1 (0.47) 92.6 (0.64)
4 120 (534) 90.0 (400) 71.5 (318) 117.9 (0.82) 80.9 (0.56)
5 60 (267) 53.9 (240) 54.5 (243) 74.8 (0.52) 75.9 {0.53l
7 80 (356) 29.4 (131) 30.8 (137) 91.1 _{0.631 98.8 (0.69)
9 60 (267)_ 12.4 (55) 11.4(51) 77.5 (0.54) 64.7 (0.45)
11 25 (I 11) 6.8 (30) 4.9 (22) 269.5 ( 1.87) 175.7 (1.22)
l3 25 (111) 7.0 {31} 5.9 (26) 111.7 (0.78) 88.0 (0.61)
14b 5 (22) 2.9 (13) 2.9 (13) 76.5 (0.53) 76.5 (0.53)
15a 5 (22) 8.5 (38) 10.6 (47) 40.3 (0.281 55.8 (0.39}_
15b 25 (Ill) 7.8 (35) 8.3 (37) 35.1 (_0.24) 38.8 (0.27)
16 25 (Ill) 13.1J58l 2.4{11) 74.2 (0.52) NA
Assemblage 30 (134) 40.8 (0) 36.5 (162) 62.7 (0.44) 54.6 (0.38)
Mean 68.3
COV(%) 33

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
62 Klingner et al.
Table 4: Results in flexure-shear cracking ofAACflexure-dominated shear wall specimefls using tensile bond strength ofmaterial
Observed Observed
Tested Vna- Predicted Tested Vn~ Predicted V 0 .,/Predlcted V 0 .,/Predicted
p North Vt~aNortb South v....,south Vna- North Vna- North
Specimen kiPS (kN) kips (kN) Kips(kN) kips (kN) kips (kN) kips (kN) kips(kN)
13 25 (111) 9.6 (43) 6.9 (31) 10.1 (45) 6.8 130) 1.39 1.48
14a 5 (22) NIA NIA 2.8 (12) 4.8 (22) NIA 0.58
14b 5 (22) 4.9 (22) 4.8 (22) 4.6 (20) 4.8 (22) 1.01 0.95
15a 25 (Ill) 21.5 (96) 21.5 (96) 24 (107) 26.4 (118) 1.00 0.91
15b 25(111) 20(89) 20.6 (92) 17.5 (78) 19.7(88) 0.97 0.89
16 25 (111) 24 (107) 21.5 (96) 21.8 (97) 21.9 (97) 1.11 1.00

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Mean 1.07
COV(%) 19

Table 5: Observed versus predicted nominal shear capacities based on nominal flexural capacity

Predicted Observed VMa Observed VMa Observed/ Observed/

vM. kips South North Predicted VM• Predicted VMn
Specimen (kN) kips(kN) kips (k.."n South North
J4a 8.5 (38) 9.4 (42) NA 1.11 NA
14b 8.S (38) 9.9 (44) 10.1 (4S) 1.16 1.19
!Sa 23.9 (106) 28.8 (128) 30.1 (134) 1.21 1.26
ISh 23.9 (106) 26.7 (119) 30.9 037) 1.12 1.29
Averal!e 1.19
COY(%) 5.8

Figure 1: Cellular structure of AAC

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Figure 2: Sample AAC elements

Figure 3: Leveling bed of ASTM C270 mortar, and shims as needed

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Figure 4: Laying AAC masonry units using thin-bed mortar

Figure 5: Overall framework for national design basis for AAC structures

Figure 6: Test setup for shear wall specimens (UT Austin)

Copyright American Concrete Institute

:l 0.8 • ) !
> •• • r\..
-0.6
., . -. 11" • - . . - .. - -~
- ... --- -
>,Q
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

'
0.4 ----~-

--Mean
0.2 - . .-· 1Oo/o Fractile '
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Aspect Ratio
Figure 7: Ratios of observed to predicted (Equation (2)) web-shear cracking capacities
for AAC shear-wall specimens with fully mortared head joints

Frictional
forces

Figure 8: Diagonal compressive strut in an AAC shear wall

1,...
1·-=0.75
I wan
a) b) c)

Figure 9: Relationship of forces in the diagonal strut

Copyright American Concrete Institute

I I I
.II .I
I I I I
I I I

- - - - -
I I
I I

Figure I 0: Sliding shear mechanism in an AAC shear wall with horizontal panels

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Technical Justification for Proposed Design

Provisions for AAC Structures: Assemblage
Test and Development of R and C0 Factors
by R. E. Klingner, J. E. Tanner, and J. L. Varela
Synopsis: This paper summarizes the final phases of the technical justification for
proposed design provisions for AAC structures in the US. It is divided into two parts.
The first part describes the design and testing of a two-story, full-scale AAC shear wall
specimen that was designed and tested at The University of Texas at Austin, under
reversed quasi-static loads representative of those experienced in a strong earthquake.
The specimen withstood repeated reversed cycles to story drifts of about 0.3%, and
displacement ductility ratios of about 3. The specimen conformed with the two main
objectives. Those objectives were: 1) to show that the behavioral models developed for
the shear walls also govern in a building; and 2) to demonstrate that a squat wall can
exhibit failure governed by flexure.
The second part describes the development ofR and Cd factors for seismic design of AAC
structures. The seismic force-reduction factor (R) specified in seismic design codes is
intended to account for energy dissipation through inelastic deformation (ductility) and
structural over-strength. The factor (R) is based on observation of the performance of
different structural systems in previous strong earthquakes, on technical justification, and
on tradition. For structures of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), the force-reduction
factor (R) and the corresponding displacement-amplification factor (Cd) must be based on
laboratory test results and numerical simulation of the response of AAC structures
subjected to earthquake ground motions. The proposed factors must then be verified
against the observed response of AAC structures in strong earthquakes. The objectives
of this paper are: (I) to present a general procedure for selecting values of the factors (R)
and (Cd) for use in the seismic design of structures; and (2) using that procedure, to
propose preliminary values of the factors (R) and (Cd) for the seismic design of AAC
shear-wall structures. The general procedure is based on comparing the predicted
ductility and drift demands in AAC structures, as functions of the factors (R) and (C d),
with the ductility and drift capacities of AAC shear walls, as observed in quasi-static
testing under reversed cyclic loads. Nonlinear numerical simulations are carried out using
hysteretic load-displacement behavior based on test results, and using suites of natural
and synthetic ground motions from different seismically active regions of the United
States.

Keywords: autoclaved aerated concrete; cellular concrete; design;

earthquake
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
67
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
68 Klingner et al.
Richard E. Klingner is the L. P. Gilvin Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. He is a Fellow of ACI, and is active in the
technical committee work of ACI and other technical societies. He is a member of ACI
Committee 523 (Cellular Concrete) and other ACI committees. He is Chair of the
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (ACI 530).

Jennifer E. Tanner is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, WY 82071. She is a former Graduate Research Assistant at The University of
Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

Jorge L. Varela is Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Autonomous University of

Yucatan, Merida, Yucatan, MEXICO. He is a former Graduate Research Assistant, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

PART 1: DESIGN AND TESTING OF TWO-STORY AAC ASSEMBLAGE

SPECIMEN

Introduction

The Two-story Assemblage Specimen was tested on August 12, 2002. The specimen
consisted of two flanged walls connected by floor slabs (Figure 1). The walls were
constructed of vertically oriented autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) panels with internal
reinforcement and additional field-placed longitudinal reinforcement, and the floor slabs
were constructed of internally reinforced AAC panels. On the upper level, the floor
panels were oriented longitudinally; on the lower level, transversely. A complete
description of the specimen is provided in Reference 1.

Reinforcing Details
The reinforcement in the shear walls of the Two-story Assemblage Specimen consisted of
flexural (longitudinal) reinforcement and foundation dowels (Figure 2). The flexural
reinforcement continued up the height of the specimen with a splice just above the first-
story slab (first elevated slab). The dowels extended 24 in. (61 mm) above the
foundation, and were included to increase the sliding shear capacity of the specimen.
They were also placed at the level of the first elevated slab to prevent sliding at the bed of
leveling mortar placed between the vertical panels and the slab.

Instrumentation and Data Acquisition

Instrumentation was used to measure global and local behavior of the Two-story
Assemblage Specimen. Global behavior i$ characterized by the in-plane force-
displacement relationship. The horizontal displacement of each wall was measured at
each story using string potentiometers. The applied load was measured through pin load
cells which had been successfully used in previous tests of shear wall specimens at UT
Austin. Applied loads were verified using pressure transducers.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 69
The local behavior of individual components was measured and will be used to
characterize the deformation patterns in the specimen. The following measurements were
recorded for both stories of the east and west shear walls:
• Vertical deformations of each wall;
• Diagonal deformation of each story in each wall;
• Profile of floor-slab displacements with respect to the loading beam; and
• Slip between loading equipment and specimen.

The vertical displacements were measured to assess flexural deformations. The diagonal
displacements were used to calculate the shearing deformation in each wall. Profiles of
floor-slab displacements were measured to determine abnormal deformation patterns or
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

indicate slip between floor panels on the second level slab. Slip between elements was
measured using linear potentiometers mounted between the adjacent elements. Slip
values were used to detect relative movement between the loading beams and the floor
slabs, between the walls and the foundation, and between the floor slabs and the walls.
Slip at other interfaces was detern1ined visually using relative movement of the ends of
lines drawn across the interfaces.

Data were acquired in real time using a Hewlett Packard 3852 scanner. Each data
recording was assigned a load point number in ascending order. As damage occurred in
the specimen, the marks were labeled with a load point to determine the sequence of
damage in the wall.

l\laterial Tests
Tests were performed to predict the splitting tensile strength and the compressive strength
of the AAC. ASTM CI006 tests performed on AAC modular blocks from the same
shipment of AAC indicated a splitting tensile strength of 45 psi (0.31 MPa) with a COY
of 15% (moisture content of 16%). Compression tests performed on 4 in. by 8 in.
cylinders cored from the same units and air-dried to a moisture content of 6% indicated
an average strength is 495 psi (3.4 MPa) with a COY of 6%. A yield strength of 75 ksi
(517 MPa) was used; this is consistent with the mill reports for the longitudinal
reinforcement.

Summary of Loading Program

Lateral load was applied parallel to the webs of the shear walls, through reinforced
concrete loading beams attached to the slabs. Equal load was applied at each story based
on several nonlinear analyses performed using the nonlinear analysis program CANNY99
(Reference 2). The lateral loading history consisted of a series of reversed cycles to
monotonically increasing maximum load or displacement. The actuators were loaded
manually to target load values, based on predicted loads of events that would cause a
significant change in the behavior of the specimen. In this case the predicted major
events were flexural cracking and the nominal flexural capacity. The loading history
used for each actuator is shown in Figure 3. After the maximum load was reached, the

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
70 Klingner et al.
specimen was loaded based on target displacements for the tip of the wall. These were
0.5 in. (13 mm), 0.8 in. (20 mm) and 1.5 in. (38 mm).

A constant axial load was applied through the self-weight of the specimen and the
loading equipment. The total axial load on the specimen was 60 kips (267 kN). That
load level was intended to represent the axial load on the walls of an approximately 4-
story AAC building.

Summary of Specimen Behavior

Overall specimen behavior is summarized in Figure 4. Total base shear is the summation
of the equal shears applied to each floor level. Positive displacements are to the south;
negative, to the north. The load-displacement relationships for the east and west walls
are shown separately in Figure 5.

The following behaviors were observed in the Two-story AAC Assemblage:

o flexural cracking at the base;

o minor vertical cracking on the north end of the east wall;
o web-shear cracking in the webs of both walls in the lower story;
.o yielding of the flexural reinforcement at all four comers of the assemblage;
o separation of the flanges from the webs in the lower story; and
o separation of the vertical joint at the location of reinforcement at the northeast
comer.

Flexural cracking was observed at the base of the west wall at a total base shear of 48.4
kips (215 kN), corresponding to a calculated tensile bond stress of 31.5 psi (0.2 MPa).
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Flexural cracking was observed at the base of the east wall at a total base shear of 81.6
kips (364 kN), corresponding to a calculated tensile bond stress of 62.7 psi (0.4 MPa).
Both values fall below the average value of the 14 shear wall specimens previously tested
at UT Austin, which was 73 psi (0.50 MPa) with a COY of 29% (Reference 1). This
could be attributed to shrinkage cracking at the leveling bed, or to a reduced area of
leveling bed mortar. lf this additional bond-strength data from the Two-story
Assemblage Specimen were combined with data from the shear walls, the average tensile
bond strength would decrease to 68 psi (0.47 MPa) and the COY would increase to 33%.

At the location of flexural reinforcement at the north end of the east wall, a vertical crack
divided the wall into two individual walls. If the in-plane lateral stiffness of the specimen
were dominated by flexure, this crack would significantly decrease the stiffness and
strength of the specimen. For the specimen, the ratio of shear stiffness to flexural
stiffness is 1.35. Since this value is close to one, the shearing and flexural deformations
contribute about equally to the flexibility of the specimen. Because the in-plane lateral
stiffness of the specimen was influenced about equally by shear and by flexure, the
stiffness did not change much as a result of the vertical crack. Also, since the crack
occurred two feet from the flange, the loss of flexural stiffness was less than it would
have been had the crack occurred near the middle of the web.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 71
Web-shear cracking was first observed in the east wall while loading to the north at a
total base shear of I 04.2 kips ( 464 kN), and while loading to the south, at a total base
shear of 117 kips (520 kN). The corresponding values for the west wall are 119 kips (530
kN) and 117 kips (520 kN). Tests conducted to confirm the splitting tensile strength gave
an average value of 45 psi (0.3 MPa) with a COY of 15%. This corresponds to a total
base shear capacity of 118.8 kips (528 MPa) at a total axial load of 60 kips (267 kN).
This predicted value corresponds to mean capacity expressed in Equation ( 1), as
previously proposed based on shear wall tests at UT Austin (Reference 1). The following
notation is used in Equation 1: /11 . =plan length ofihe wall; t =thickness of the shear wall;
(,=splitting tensile strength, P 11 =factored design axial force in shear wall.

vAAc = 0.4 ell. t J; 1+ P,,

.t; e 11· t (1)

As the second set of web-shear cracks formed, the flexural reinforcement began to yield.
Based on strain gage readings, the flexural reinforcement in the east wall yielded at a
total base shear of 118 kips (525 kN) while loading to the north and to the south. The
flexural reinforcement in the west wall yielded at a base shear of about 130 kips (580 kN)
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

in each direction.

The initially predicted total base shear at flexural yielding at the base of each wall,
excluding the effect of dowels, under the applied axial load of 60 kips (267 kN), was 90
kips (344 kN). The base shear is detem1ined by dividing the flexural capacity by the
effective height or M/V ratio. This method is illustrated in Figure 6. The increase in
observed capacity is due to the dowels. The base shear at yielding can be predicted based
on the flexural capacity at two critical sections:

• at the base, considering the contribution of the dowels to the flexural capacity;
and
• at a critical section just above the ends of the dowels.

Including the contribution of the dowels would significantly increase the flexural
capacity at the base. Assuming the critical section at the base, the base shear capacity at
yield would be determined by calculating the flexural capacity at yield and converting it
to an equivalent base shear yield capacity by dividing by the M/V ratio presented in
Figure 6. Assuming the critical section at the point where the dowels end, the flexural
capacity would be calculated without the dowels, and would be converted to a base shear
yield capacity by dividing by the reduced lever arms between each load and the critical
section. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 1. The base shear at
yielding of the flexural reinforcement falls between the limiting cases defined by the two
critical sections noted above.

After the flexural reinforcement yielded, both walls exhibited flexural behavior,
consisting largely of rigid-body rocking. Vertical displacements were observed at the
wall bases on the tension side, due to yielding and bond deterioration of the tensile

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
72 Klingner et al.
reinforcement. Crushing of the compression toe was avoided, due to lateral support by
the flanges. The maximum loads observed in each wall was 136 kips (605 kN) loading to
the south and 144 kips (641 kN) while loading to the north. The tested flexural capacity
of each wall falls between the bounds presented in Table 1. After flexural yielding,
distributed web-shear cracks continued to form in the walls at the lower level.

Diagonal cracks formed around the dowels, separating those dowels from the webs of the
AAC shear walls (Figure 7). This reduced the effectiveness of the dowel action, which in
tum reduced the sliding-shear capacity of each wall to 48 kips (214 kN) at an axial load
of 30 kips ( 134 kN). Degradation of dowel action is also identified by spalling of AAC
around the diagonal cracks (Figure 7). Slip between the AAC shear walls and the
foundation exceeded 0.5 in. (13 mm) after LP 677, corresponding to a total base shear of
142.6 kips (634 kN). The wall displacement, corrected for this slip, is shown in Figure 8.
The final cycle loading to the south contains a correction for slip based on the results of a
previous displacement and slip.

After 3 cycles of flexural rocking, to displacement drift ratios of 0.32% (loading south)
and 0.24% (loading north), vertical cracks began to form at the interface between the web
and the flanges. As the displacements increased, the flange panel did not slide with the
web in the direction of loading, resulting in local damage to the flange and finally
instability of the flange at both the north and south ends of the specimen. At the north
end, the flange damage was accompanied by a large vertical crack in the east web (Figure
9). Testing of the Two-story Assemblage Specimen was halted due to this damage. Final
cracking patterns for each exterior face of the specimen are shown in Figure 10 through
Figure 12. The cracks shown in grey formed at the time of yielding of the flexural
reinforcement; subsequent cracks are shown in black.

Summary of Response for Part 1

Including base slip, the Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen reached drift ratios
between 0.7% and 0.85 %. Final displacement ductilities (final displacement divided by
the displacement at yielding of the flexural reinforcement), ranged from 8.3 to 11.7
(Table 2). After removing the base slip, the Two-story Assemblage Specimen reached
drift ratios between 0.24% and 0.42%, and final displacement ductilities ranged from 2.8
to 5.8 (Table 3). For design purposes, these results justify an assumption of an available
flexural ductility of at least 3.0, reasonably consistent with that observed in previous tests
of flexure-dominated AAC shear walls at UT Austin (Reference 1).

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT OF RAND Cd FACTORS FOR SEISMIC DESIGN

OF AAC STRUCTURES

Introduction

The seismic design philosophy of current United States building codes allows most
structures to undergo inelastic deformations in the event of strong earthquake ground
motions. As a result, the design lateral strength can be lower than that required to

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 73
maintain the structure in the elastic range. In the International Building Code 2000 (IBC
2000, Reference 3) the seismic force-reduction factor (R) and the displacement-
amplification factor (Cd) are expressed as a response modification coefficient and a
deflection amplification factor, respectively. The values of R and Cd are based on
observations of the performance of different structural systems in previous strong
earthquakes, on technical justification, and on tradition.

Some research has been completed on the seismic behavior of autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC) walls, primarily focusing on the behavior of walls of AAC masonry-
sized units. For example, a research project studied the performance of AAC wallettes,
and walls under lateral loads (Reference 4); another tested the flexural behavior of non-
load bearing AAC walls (Reference 5). Other research addressed the behavior and
bearing capacity of AAC walls with confining concrete elements (Reference 6), and the
out-of-plane capacity of AAC masonry walls (Reference 7).

Based on the literature review conducted, there is insufficient prior research on the
seismic performance of AAC structures to develop seismic design provisions. Sufficient
information, however, has been acquired to permit the development of design provisions
in areas with low seismic risk, such as Florida and Texas. Because there is insufficient
prior research to verify the seismic performance of AAC structures, the selection of the
seismic factors (R) and (Cd) for AAC structures needs to be based on laboratory test
results and the simulation of the seismic behavior of AAC structures subjected to
earthquakes representative of different seismic zones of the United States.

The objectives of this paper are: ( 1) to present a general procedure for selecting values of
the factors (R) and (Cd) for use in the seismic design of structures; and (2) using that
procedure, to propose preliminary values of the factors (R) and (Cd) for the seismic
design of AAC shear-wall structures. The general procedure is based on comparing the
predicted ductility and drift demands in AAC structures as functions of the ductility
reduction factor (Rd), with the ductility and drift capacities of AAC shear walls as
observed in quasi-static testing under reversed cyclic loads. Nonlinear numerical
simulations are carried out using hysteretic load-displacement behavior based on test
results, and using suites of natural and synthetic ground motions from different
seismically active regions of the United States. The proposed value of the factor (R) is
the product of the factor (Rd) and an overstrength factor (Qoverstrength), and the proposed
value of Cd is a function of the proposed value of R and the overstrength factor
(Qoverstrength)· Details are presented in Reference 8.

General Procedure for Selecting the Ductility Reduction Factor (Rd)

The factor (R) defined in the IBC 2000 code is the product of the ductility reduction
factor (~) and structural overstrength factor ( 0 ) (NEHRP 2000). A general procedure
to select the ductility reduction factor (Rd) is presented in this section. Selection of the
overstrength factor (Qoverstrength). is presented later. The procedure to select Rd is
explained for AAC shear-waif structures but it can be used for any structural system.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
76 Klingner et al.
Selection of Suites of Earthquakes for the Western US -- The SAC Phase 2 Steel
Project provided suites of earthquake ground motions for three United States cities:
Boston, MA, Los Angeles, CA and Seattle, WA (Somerville 1997). The suites of
earthquakes for Los Angeles, CA and Seattle, WA used in this project were taken from
that SAC project. The selected suites are representative of Soil Class D, and correspond
to a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

Scaling of Suites of Earthquakes-- The selected five suites of earthquakes were scaled
to represent the design seismic forces. Acceleration response spectra were calculated for
each entire suite of earthquakes and compared with corresponding design spectra. For
Charleston, Carbondale, and Memphis, acceleration response spectra were compared with
corresponding IBC 2000 Site Class C design spectra and for Los Angeles and Seattle,
with corresponding IBC 2000 Site Class D design spectra. Each entire suite was scaled
using a single scaling factor calculated as follows: (1) Calculate the elastic response
spectra for the suite of earthquakes. (2) Calculate the mean spectral accelerations of the
response spectra for periods of 0.26 seconds and 0.62 seconds. In this step, periods of
0.26 seconds and 0.62 seconds are used because they represent the natural periods of the
three-story and five-story AAC shear-wall structures studied. (3) Calculate a scaling
factor for each period as the design spectral acceleration divided by the mean spectral
acceleration. (4) The final scaling factor is the average of the two scaling factors
calculated in Step 3. Two scaling factors, however, were used for the suite of Charleston
because of the large difference between the two scaling factors calculated in Step 3.

Selection of the .Maximum Global Drift Ratio and Displacement Ductility Capacities
for AAC Sbear-\Vall Structures

The procedure proposed in this paper to select the factors (R) and (Cd) is based on a
maximum global drift ratio and displacement ductility capacities. The maximum global
drift ratio is considered to limit damage and differential movement in AAC shear-wall
structures. The maximum displacement ductility is considered to control the amount of
inelastic deformation in AAC shear-waiJ structures. The main objective on selecting drift
and ductility capacities is to provid~ reasonable limits to avoid collapse of AAC shear-
wall structures. Both drift ratio and displacement ductility capacities for AAC structures
are based on test results.

Maximum Drift Ratio Capacity for AAC Structures- Six AAC shear wall specimens
were tested at the Phil M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory at the University
of Texas at Austin. All the specimens were flexure-dominated walls tested under quasi-
static reverse cyclic loads. Physical details and axial load applied for each of the flexure-
dominated walls are presented in Table 4.

Two maximum drift ratios corresponding to loading the wall in the south and north
directions were selected for each specimen. The lllaximum drift ratios were defined
based on the following criteria: (1) a reduction on the flexural capacity of the AAC wall
of more than 10% was observed; and (2) a change on the shape of the hysteretic loop was
observed from the corresponding previous load cycle, for example, a large reduction in

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 77
the energy dissipated. The maximum drift ratio for each wall is shown in Table 5. Only
one maximum drift ratio is presented for Shear Wall Specimen 14a because it was tested
under monotonic loading.

The observed maximum drift ratio of 0.4% corresponding to Shear Wall Specimen 16
was low compared with the other observed values. Reasons for this are the following: (I)
additional axial load was applied inadvertently during the test; (2) cracking between the
end vertical panel and the U blocks at the lower north comer of the wall damaged the
north compressive toe. A replica of this specimen will be tested using Heli-fix'i!! ties
between the vertical panel and the U blocks along the wall height, to improve the
behavior of the compressive toes and the overall performance of the wall.

The observed maximum drift ratio of Shear Wall Specimen 14b was smaller in the north
direction than in the south direction. This difference can be attributed to the effect of the
cyclic loading on the overall response of the wall and to the large increment in the
imposed displacement in consecutive cycles during the test.

A value of maximum global drift ratio of I% was proposed to avoid collapse of AAC
shear-wall structures. This value corresponds to the minimum observed maximum drift
ratio of Shear Wall Specimens I3, I4a, I4b, I5a, and I5b. The maximum drift ratio of
0.4% for Shear Wall Specimen 16 was not considered because this low value of drift ratio
was associated with failure of the joint between the vertical panel and the U blocks which
can be eliminated or improved using walls with flanges, Heli-fix<B' ties, or both.

Maximum Displacement Ductility Capacity for AAC Structures - Two maximum

displacement ductilities corresponding to loading the wall in the south and north
directions were selected for each flexure-dominated wall. The maximum displacement
ductilities were defined based on the same criteria defined for selecting the maximum

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
global drift ratios. The maximum displacement ductility for each wall is shown in Table
5.

A value of maximum displacement ductility capacity of 3.5 was proposed to avoid

collapse of AAC structures. This value corresponds to the I 0% lower fractile of the
maximum displacement ductilities of Shear Wall Specimens I3, 14a, 14b, 15a and 15b.
The maximum displacement ductility of 1.67 for Shear Wall Specimen 16 was not
considered for the same reasons presented in the selection of the maximum global drift
ratio capacity.

Nonlinear Analysis

To select factors (R) and (Cd) for AAC structures, the performance of the four AAC
shear-wall structures under the selected suites of earthquakes was evaluated using the
nonlinear analysis program CANNY 99 (Reference 2).

Model for Nonlinear Walls -- Structures in the program CANNY 99 are idealized as
rigid nodes connected by line elements and springs. All structural elements are treated as

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
78 Klingner et al.
massless line elements represented by their centroidal axes, with mass concentrated at the
nodes or at the center of gravity of floors. The idealized wall element of CANNY 99
considers the wall as a line element located at the wall centerline. The wall element is
idealized using two nonlinear flexural springs, two rigid links, one nonlinear shear spring
and one axial spring (Figure 13). The nonlinear flexural springs are l'ocated at the top and
bottom of the wall centerline. Therefore, all of the nonlinearity is concentrated at the
wall ends (lumped nonlinearity).

Hysteretic Model for Nonlinear Behavior of Walls-- The hysteretic model selected to
represent the behavior of the nonlinear flexural and shear springs was the CANNY CA 7
model which uses user-input hysteretic parameters to define the loading and unloading
branches, degradation of strength and stiffness, and pinching of the hysteretic loops. The
behavior of the nonlinear flexural spring is defined by a moment-rotation curve and the
nonlinear shear spring by a force-displacement curve. The behavior of the axial spring
was defined by the elastic model ELl ofCANNY 99.

Based on the observed behavior of the six flexure-dominated walls, the hysteretic curve
of the nonlinear flexural spring was defined as follows: 0) the initial stiffness is defined
using the modulus of elasticity of AAC and a reduced moment of inertia equal to 40% of
the gross moment of inertia of the wall; (2) the post-yielding stiffness is selected as 1% of
the initial stiffness for the three-story structures and 0.5% for the five-story structures;
and (3) the degradation of the unloading stiffness is defined using a hysteretic parameter
8 of I (CANNY 99). Strength degradation and pinching are not including because they
were not observed up to a global drift ratio of I% and a displacement ductility of 3.5.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Based on the observed behavior of eight shear-dominated walls tested at Ferguson
Structural Engineering laboratory of The University of Texas at Austin as part of this
study, the hysteretic curve of the nonlinear shear spring was defined as follows: (I) the
initial stiffness is defined using the shear modulus of AAC and a reduced area equal to
40% of the gross area of the wall; (2) the stiffness after shear cracking is selected as I%
of the initial stiffness; (3) the degradation of the unloading stiffness is defined using a
hysteretic parameter e of 1; and (4) the degradation of the shear strength is defined using
a hysteretic parameter Au of 0.45 and Ae of 0 (Reference 2). Pinching of the hysteretic
loops is not included because this phenomenon was not observed in all the shear-
dominated walls.

Proposed Value ofR for AAC Structures

The procedure described above to select the ductility reduction factor (Rd) was carried
out for the four selected structures using the suites of earthquake representative of
Charleston, Carbondale, Memphis, Los Angeles and Seattle. In most cases, values of Rd
of I, 2, 3 and 4 were assumed in the proposed procedure. Linear interpolation was used
among those values to calculate critical values of Rd, (values of Rd that make the global
drift ratio and displacement ductility demands equal to the maximum global drift ratio
and displacement ductility capacities). A mean value of the factor Rd was selected for
each different structure and suite of earthquakes, as the minimum value between the

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 79
average critical values of Rd based on global drift ratio and displacement ductility
capacities. In all cases the critical value of Rd based on displacement ductility was
smaller than that based on global drift ratio. In few cases during the nonlinear analyses,
the global drift ratio demand for a value of R=Rd of I was greater than the global drift
ratio capacity of 1%. Therefore, for those particular cases, values of Rd based on that
global drift ratio were not selected. Table 6 presents the selected mean values of Rd
based on displacement ductility for the different structures and suites of earthquakes.

In Table 6, ST-1 W -3S and ST-I W -5S are the three and five-story cantilever-wall
structures, and ST-2W-3S and ST-2W-5S are the three and five-story coupled-wall
structures. The mean values of Rd presented in Table 6, for the three and five-story
cantilever-wall structures were smaller than those corresponding to the three and five-
story coupled wall structures. The reason was that the maximum inelastic displacement
and displacement ductility demands for the cantilever-wall structures are greater than
those corresponding to the coupled-wall structures.

A value of Rd of 2 is proposed for AAC shear-wall structures based on the 10% lower
fractile value of the mean values of Rd. presented in Table 6. The approach adopted here
was to select a value of Rd that would result in structural failure (exceedance of drift or
ductility capacities) less than 10% of the time under suites of earthquakes representing in
average the design spectra.

The structural overstrength factor (Doverstrength) is the product of independent overstrength

factors defined as follows (References 9, I 0): (I) development of sequential plastic
hinges in redundant structures; (2) material strengths higher than those specified in
design; (3) strength reduction factors; (4) specified sections and reinforcement patterns
greater than those required in design; (5) nonstructural elements; and (6) variation of
lateral forces.

For AAC shear-wall structures, independent overstrength factors are proposed as follows:
(I) For AAC shear-wall structures, plastic hinges at the base of the walls would form at
the same time; that is, the redundancy factor would be equal to I. (2) Assume yield
strength of reinforcing bars 10% higher than specified in design. (3) The strength
reduction factor for flexural design of walls is equal to 0.9, corresponding to an
overstrength factor of 1.1. (4) Assume selected flexural reinforcement I 0% greater than
that required in design. (5) Ignore participation of nonstructural elements. (6) The
minimum design seismic forces specified in the IBC 2000 for the four selected structures
were at least 20% greater than those obtained from the elastic modal spectral analysis.
Two probable reasons are: (1) the static analysis is a simplification of the modal spectral
analysis; and (2) cracked properties of the walls were used in the modal spectral analyses.

The product of the above independent overstrength factors is equal to 1.6. A value of
structural overstrength factor (Doverstrength) of 1.5 is proposed for AAC shear-wall
structures.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
80 Klingner et al.
The factor (R) is the product of the ductility reduction factor (Rct) and the overstrength
factor (Doverstrength)· Using the proposed ductility reduction factor (~) of 2 and the
overstrength factor (Doverstrength) of 1.5, a value of the seismic force-reduction factor (R) of
3 is proposed for AAC shear-wall structures.

Proposed Value ofCd for AAC Structures

The value of the displacement amplification factor Cct is defined as the maximum
nonlinear displacement during an earthquake (Dmax) divided by the elastic displacement
(D 5) calculated using reduced seismic design forces (Reference 9). Maximum inelastic
displacements (Dmax) for the four AAC shear-wall structures should be calculated using a
value of R of 3 and a value of Doverstrength of 1.5 (Figure 14). In that figure, Ve is the
design lateral force associated with a value of R of I, Yy is the lateral force at which
significant yield is observed in the structural system, and De and Dy are the elastic
displacements calculated using Ye and Yy respectively. Yy can be assumed
approximately equal to Ye divided by a value of R of 3, and multiplied by a value of
Doverstrength of 1.5. This final reduced force is equal to that corresponding to a value of R
of 2 and a value of Doverstrength of I represented in Figure 14 by the idealized nonlinear
behavior. Therefore, the inelastic displacements calculated using a value of R of 2 and a
value of Qomstrength of I are similar to those corresponding to a value of R of 3 and a
value of noverslrength of 1.5.

Using the maximum inelastic displacements calculated using a value of R of 3 and a

value of Qoverstrcngth of 1.5 (or value of R of 2 and Domstrength of I), values of the factor Cct
were calculated as the maximum inelastic displacement (Dmax) divided by the elastic
displacement corresponding to a value of R of 3 (De I 3 ). Mean Cct values were calculated
for each different structure and suite of earthquakes studied. Those mean values of Cct are
shown in Table 7.

The average, I 0% lower fractile, and 10% upper fractile values of mean values of Cd
were equal to 3.49, 2.79, and 4.19, respectively. The proposed value of the factor (R) of
3 is greater than the I 0% lower fractile value of the mean values of Cd of 2. 79. This
result is consistent with IBC 2000 values of R and Cd for other structural systems, for
which, values ofR are greater or equal to Cd values.

The value of R of 3 proposed for the seismic design of AAC shear-wall structures was
based on a I 0% lower fractile value to be conservative in selecting the final design
seismic forces. The value of Cd, however, should be based on an upper fractile value to
be conservative in the estimation of the maximum inelastic displacements. If the factor
(Cd) is based on the I 0% upper fractile value of 4.19, then the value of Cd would be
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

greater than the proposed value of R of 3. To be consistent with the IBC 2000, a
preliminary value of Cd of 3 is proposed for the seismic design of AAC structures.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

A general procedure for selecting values of the factors R and Cd for use in the seismic
design of different structural systems is presented. The proposed procedure is based on
comparing the predicted ductility and drift demands in AAC structures as functions of the
ductility reduction factor Rd, with the ductility and drift capacities of AAC shear walls as
observed in quasi-static testing under reversed cyclic loads. Seismic performance of
AAC shear-wall structures was evaluated using nonlinear analyses with hysteretic load-
displacement behavior based on test results, and using suites of natural and synthetic
ground motions from different seismically active regions of the United States.

Using that procedure, values of the factors Rand Cd for the seismic design of AAC shear-
wall structures are proposed. The proposed value of the factor (R) is the product of the
factor (Rd) and an overstrength factor no\'erstrength , and is equal to 3. The proposed value
of Cd is a function of the proposed value of (R) and the overstrength factor noverstrength ,
and is also equal to 3.

OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The second part of a consistent technical basis for the design of autoclaved aerated
concrete (AAC) structures is presented. The basis includes the development and testing
of a full-scale, two-story AAC assemblage at The University of Texas at Austin, the
development of a rational procedure for the establishment of R and Cd factors for the
seismic design of AAC structures, and proposed values for R and Cd based on that
procedure.

Acknowledgments

References
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

I) Tanner, J.E., Varela, J.L., Klingner, R.E., "Seismic Testing of AAC Masonry
Shear Walls," Proceedings of the Ninth North American Afasonry Conference,
Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, The Masonry Society.

2) CANNY 99, A 3-Dimensional Nonlinear Static I Dynamic Structural Analysis

Program, CANNY Structural, Vancouver, Canada, 1999.

3) IBC 2000: International Building Code, 2000 Edition, International Code

Council, Falls Church, Virginia, 2000.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
82 Klingner et al.
4) de Vekey, R. C., N. J. Bright, K. R. Luckin, and S. K. Arora, "Research results
on autoclaved aerated concrete blockwork," The Structural Engineer 64a (11 ),
pp. 332-340, 1986.

5) Al-Shaleh 1997: Al-Shaleh, Moneera and Emmanuel K. Attiogbe, "Flexural

strength characteristics of non-load bearing masonry walls in Kuwait,"
Materials and Structures June 30, pp. 277-283, 1997.

6) Dimitrov, M, 1997, "Carrying out experimental investigations to determine the

behavior and the 'bearing capacity of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete walls with
confining reinforced concrete elements, under reversible horizontal load,"
Building Research Institute NISI, Sofia, Bulgaria.

7) Gerber-Balmelli 1994: Gerber-Balmelli, Carmen and Peter Marti, "Versuche an

Porenbeton-Mauerwerk," Institut fiir Baustatik und Konstruction, Zurich,
Switzerland, November, 1994.

8) Varela 2003: Varela, J.L., Tanner, J.E., Klingner, R.E., "Development ofR and
C0 Factors for Seismic Design of AAC Structures," Proceedings of the Ninth
North American Masomy Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, 2003, The
Masonry Society.

9) NEHRP 2000, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New

Buildings and Other Structures, 2000 Edition, Part 2: Commentary. Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

10) Uang 1991: Uang C-M, "Establishing R (or Rw) and Cd Factors for Building
Seismic Provisions," Journal of (he Structural Engineering, vol 117, no.!, pp.
19-28, ASCE, 1991.

Table 1: Base shear capacity for the Two-story Assemblage Specimen foryielding of the flexural reinforcement and nominal flexural
capacity
Critical Section
BaseofWall I Too of Dowels
Base sbear at flexural Yield klos lkNl 145 (644) I 107 (47i)
Base sbear at nominal flexural eapadtv, kips (kN) 197 (877) I 117 (52!)

Table 2: Drift ratios and displacement ductilities for each wall, including base slip

Shear wall I Direction of loadlne Displacement ductility Drift ratio(o/;;)

East wall I south 11.7 0.85
East wall I north 8.3 0.70
West wall I south 8.7 0.74
West wall I north 8.6 0.73

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 83
Table 3: Drift ratios and displacement ductilities for each wall, with base slip removed

Shear wall/ Direction of loadine: Displacement ductility Drift ratio (%)

East wall/ south 5.8 0.42
East wall/ north 2.8 0.24
West wall I south 4.4 0.37
West wall/ north 2.8 0.24

Table 4 Physical details and axial load for flexure-dominated walls

Specimen Length, Thickness, Height, Aspect Axial load,

in. (m) in.(m) in. (m) ratio Ki)IS (kN}_
13 72 (1.8) 8 (0.20) 154 (3.9) 2.1 25 (lll)
14a 56 (1.4) 10 (0.25) 154 (3.9) 2.8 5 (22)
14b 56 (1.4 10 (0.25) 154 (3.9) 2.8 5 (22)
!Sa 112 (2.8) 10 (0.25) 154 (3.9) 1.4 25(111)
15b 112 (2.8) 10 (0.25) 154{3.9) 1.4 25(111)
16 112 (2.8) 10 (0.25) 154 (3.9) 1.4 25 (lll)

Table 5 Maximum drijl ratios and displacement ductilities for the flexure-dominated walls
Specimen Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
drift ratio (o/o) drift ratio(%) displacement displacement
Loading south Loading north ductility Loading ductility Loading
south north
13 1.4 1.1 4.78 3.67
14a 2 -- 5.00 -
14b 2 1 4.84 2.58
15a I I 5.56 5.93
15b I I 4.84 4.84
16 I 0.4 5.00 1.67

Table 6 Values of the factor (Rr}) for different structures and suites ofearthquakes

Suite of Earthquakes Structure Mean R.! Structure Mean R.!

Los Angeles ST-1W-5S 2.37 ST-2W-5S 2.48
Seattle ST-1W-5S 2.67 ST-2W-5S 2.92
Carbondale ST-1W-5S 2.83 ST-2W-5S 3.07
Memphis ST-1W-5S 2.46 ST-2W-5S 2.66
Charleston ST-IW-5S 2.93 ST-2W-5S 2.96
Los Angeles ST-1W-3S 1.95 ST-2W-3S 2.19
Seattle ST-1W-3S 2.15 ST-2W-3S 2.52
Carbondale ST-1W-3S 2.26 ST-2W-3S 2.4
Memphis ST-1W-3S 2.20 ST-2W-3S 2.43
Charleston ST-1W-3S 2.96 ST-2W-3S 3.19
Average 2.58
Standard
Deviation 0.35
l 0% lower fractile 2.13

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Suite of Eartbguakes Structure MeanCJI Structure MeanCd

Los Angeles ST-1W-5S 4.16 ST-2W-5S 3.74
Seattle ST-1W-5S 3.47 ST-2W-5S 3.21
Carbondale ST-IW-5S 3.12 ST-2W-5S 2.93
Memphis ST-IW-5S 3.41 ST-2W-5S 3.14
Charleston ST-1W-5S 3.12 ST-2W-5S 2.90
Los Angeles ST-IW-3S 4.52 ST-2W-3S 4.44
Seattle ST-1W-3S 3.17 ST-2W-3S 3.63
Carbondale ST-IW-3S 3.87 ST-2W-3S 4.34
Memphis ST-1W-3S 3.53 ST-2W-3S 3.51
Charleston ST-1W-3S 2.87 ST-2W-3S 2.78
Average 3.49
Standard
Deviation 0.54
10% lower fractile 2.79
10% upper fractile 4.19

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Figure 1: Isometric view of Two-Story AAC Assemblage Specimen

00 00
QO

. .
J~:--------~~--------~~1
00

00 00

-
00 00 00 00 00
NCI'Ib

[l~~--------~:--------~~1]
00

. . . . .
00 00

00 00 00 00 00
co 00 00 00 00

Figure 2: Plan view of horizontal section at base, showing flexural reinforcement and
dowels in Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen

Copyright American Concrete Institute

40 178
A A II
30 133
~ ~
...
u; 20
;g. 10 1t 1\ 1\ 1t I
89
z~
44 ~
~
..
s 0
II\ I\ I \ I \ I 0
0
'lii
!. -10
\f \f \ t· \ t· -45 .
!.
v
...~
0
-20
¥
\I \I -89 ...e
0

-30
v v -134

-40
v v II -178

-50 ' l
-222
Time

Figure 3: Proposed loading history for Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen

160 ,.....-r----r-....,..--r-~-,..---,--,__,.-......,-, 712

120 1--4--+--+-+--..;.....r.p;H-""'ti--o-:" 534

~ -80
-120
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

·160 l-.....i--l.-..J..-..l..-..__~.-....._-~._.....---' -712

Average drift ratio in % (south positive)

Figure 4: Overall hysteretic behavior of Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen

80 r--.--....,--...--r--""'1'"-"'T'"-..,....-.,..--.--...., 356
60 267

i ~~~~-+---+--~-
~
i!' 20 ~-~~-+---+-:-::::.a...o+"'l
0
;;; 0 1--1--4-.eii;:..j..--:otl'
8.
~
II.
-40 1--41---h~--¥1:.dii'1'1J
.so -267
.so L_L_L.-L.....:J!:.J._L--l.:::±:=r~ -3s6
Drift ratio In % (south positive)

Figure 5: Hysteretic behavior of Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen (force per story)

Copyright American Concrete Institute

2P
+2PH 1

M=Acting moment V=Acting shear

+ 2H,1__.
H2 ______
M = _,....
v 2
Figure 6: Shear span used to calculate the base shear capacity of a wall
corresponding to a given flexural capacity

Figure 7: Example of diagonal cracks and spalling at dowel location

60~-·-··~-···········t·-·····················+···-

i:;: 40 J.-,••,.~-·~·--i········~···--··1

~Nt--~--t·-··~··-·+-------
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

~ 01----+-----+-
!.B ·20 1---~---
6

.f -40 1 - - - - + - - -
.61) 1---+---

Drift ratio It~ % {south po$itive)

Figure 8: Hysteretic behavior of Two-story AAC Assemblage Specimen

with slip removed

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Figure 9: Vertical crack at north end of east wall (top and bottom of first story wall)

Figure 10: Cracks in the east wall at the end of the test

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Figure 11 : Cracks in the west wall at the end of the test

Figure 12: Cracks in the south and north walls at the end of the test

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Actual wall element Idealized wall element of CANNY 99

Figure 13 Actual wall element and idealized wall element of CANNY 99

Vy"'V./2

v,~,Ve/3

Actual nonlinear behavior

Figure 14 Maximum inelastic displacement and elastic displacements

associated with R of 3

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Design Examples for Structural Walls and

Floor/Roof Panels Constructed of
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC)

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
by K.ltzler, P.E. and A. Nelson

Synopsis: A general overview of the approach to the design of autoclaved aerated

concrete (AAC) structural walls and floor/roof panels is presented. Variations in design
approach from concrete and masonry, and design equations specific to AAC are
discussed and provided. Design examples illustrate the proposed approach.

Keywords: AAC design; AAC floor/roof panels; AAC walls

91
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
92 ltzler and Nelson
Keith ltzler, P.E. holds a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering from SUNY
Buffalo and a Master's Degree in Civil Engineering from Columbia University, in New
York City. He is a Senior Associate with Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. where he is the
Assistant Branch Manager of the consulting firm's New York City Office. He is a voting
member of the MSJC (ACI 530) and ACI 523/523A.

Andreea Nelson is currently employed as a Structural Engineer at the New York City
office ofDewberry-Goodkind, Inc. Ms. Nelson is a graduate of the Universitatea
Tehnica de Constructii Bucuresti, Bucharest, Romania and is currently pursuing a

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Masters of Science in Civil Engineering at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in
Newark, New Jersey.

I. INTRODUCTION

AAC is a structural product that is manufactured in a variety of different

configurations ranging from blocks in a variety of sizes and thicknesses to factory
reinforced panels. AAC blocks may be field reinforced similar to conventional masonry
units. Panels are factory reinforced with small diameter ASTM-A82 wire, and depending
on the configuration of the panels may be field reinforced as well. AAC panels may be
used in wall applications or as floor and roof structural elements.

The material specifications for AAC are given in the following ASTM
Specifications:

ASTM C1386- "Standard Specification for Precast Autoclaved Aerated

Concrete (PAAC) Wall Construction Units.

ASTM C1452- "Standard Specification for Reinforced Autoclaved

Aerated Concrete Elements"

Information about strength class, materials and manufacturing information can be

found in these documents.

The design provisions for AAC in the United States have been under development
for a number of years. The Masonry Standards Joint Committee (ACI 530) and ACI
Subcommittee 523A have both been active in this area with the MSJC concentrating on
AAC wall construction, and ACJ 523A concentrating on floor and roof panel design. It is
anticipated that AAC design provisions will be included in the 2005 MSJC Code, and
ACI 523A is developing a design guide for AAC panels. Historically, design provisions
for the material have been specified in National Evaluation Reports published by the
National Evaluation Service, Inc. as sponsored by various AAC manufacturers. The most
recent updates to the design provisions will appear in an ICBO evaluation document
sponsored by the Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Producers Association. Proposed design
provisions and equations included in this paper are taken from those documents.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

An ultimate strength design approach has been adopted for AAC. Load factors are
as specified in ASCE 7-98, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures".

The design procedures are as generally set forth in the MSJC Code (particularly
Chapter 3) and ACI 318. Several modifications are required to deal with the particular
properties of AAC. Design equations that have been proposed are based on extensive
testing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Texas at Austin as
well as several other Universities and commercial laboratories (Construction Technology
Laboratories Inc, Skokie, Illinois).

III. NOTATION, DEFINITIONS, DESIGN VALUES

I. AAC Strength Class is defined in ASTM Cl386.

Strength Class Minimum Specified Compressive Strength (psi)

AAC-2 290
AAC-4 580
AAC-6 870

2. While the density of AAC of different strength classes is also specified in

ASTM Cl386 an increase in the specified densities should be considered due to
reinforcing steel, variable moisture content in the field, grout and other
considerations. As an example, for a AAC-4 material with a nominal dry
density of 37 lb/ft3 as defined per ASTM Cl386 a design density of 45 lb/ft3 is
recommended.

3. Strength Reduction Factors

a. Flexure and axial load t/J = 0.90

b. Shear t/J = 0.80 or ¢ = .85 for floor/roof
panels
c. Anchor Pullout t/J = 0.90 (AAC breakout)
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

d. Development of t/J = 0.65 (Anchor pullout)

Splices and Reinforcement t/J = 0.80
e. Bearing t/J = 0.60

Copyright American Concrete Institute

f~Ac is defined by strength class as stated in ASTM Cl386. Availabilil:y of

material varies by manufacturer, however AAC-4 with a f~Ac = 580 psi is a

commonly available material.

It should be noted that f~AC depends on the strength of the AAC material
alone; unlike concrete or clay masonry, the thin bed mortar used in AAC
construction exceeds the strength of the AAC units.

5. AAC splitting strength - hAAG

h!L1C = 2.4~ f~.1C (111-5)

6. AAC modulus of rupture- J,·AAC

J,.AAC = 2(/,AAC) (III-6)

1'
lrAAC ::;; 50psi if a section of AAC contains a horizontal leveling
bed (ASTM C270 Type M or S mortar)
or
::;; 80 psi if a section of AAC contains a thin bed mortar bed
joint.

7. AAC Modulus of Elasticity - E AAC

EAAC = 6500(f~AC t6 (III- 7) f~AC and E AAC in psi

8. AAC Shear Modulus - Ev

Ev=0.4 EAAC (111-8)

9. Nominal Shear Strength

The nominal shear strength of AAC in wall construction is computed as V n ==

VAAC + V, similar to that set forth in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.4.1.2 of the 2002
MSJC Code, except V AAC is substituted for Vm and J,~AC is substituted for/,~.
The upset values specified also apply to AAC. Additionally, for walls subject to
reversible loads due to wind or seismic loading, only deformed reinforcement
embedded in grout shall be counted as shear reinforcement.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

p
a. 1+ u ( 1 1 1-1 0-a)
2.4~/AAcz}/
Web shear cracking- fully mortared wall.

b. VAAc=0.66lwt 'J.TAAC • 1+
~
rf-
p
(111-10-b)
2.4'JfAAC/wt
Web shear cracking- unmortared head joints.

c. VAAC =0.9/wt)f~ACAn +0.05Pu (III-10-c)

Masonry other than running bond.

11. Nominal shear strength as governed by crushing of diagonal compression strut.

(Shear walls)

h./ 2
Mu
(III-11) for - - < 1.5
Vd
u v

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
For walls with Mu 2': 1.5 crushing of the diagonal compression strut need not
Vd
II V
be checked.

12. Nominal shear strength provided by reinforcement

Vs =[Avs ]1 d y
(Ill-12)

13. Nominal shear strength as governed by out of plane loading.

(III-13)

14. AAC direct shear strength

(III-14)

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Design assumptions shall be as set forth in the MSJC Code Section 3.2.2 and ACI
318 Chapter I 0, except the maximum useable strain, £ 11 , at the extreme AAC
compression fiber shall be 0.003, and the strength of the compression zone shall be
calculated as 85 percent of f~AC times 67 percent of the compression zone.

V. AAC FLOOR AND ROOF PANELS

Design of AAC Floor and Roof Panels follows the requirements of ACI 318 except
for the following:
4fj;;;
I. Pmin shall be determined as follows: Pmin = {, (V-1)
·Y
2. Deflection -The minimum thickness of AAC slabs required to satisfY deflection
requirements is determined from Table 9.5(a) of ACI 318 utilizing Footnote (a),
and the density of AAC from ASTM Cl386. Footnote (b) does not apply. Long
term deflections can be accounted for in detailed calculations using an effective
modulus of elasticity equal to E AA5{5 . (V-2)
9.5.2.3 -Immediate deflections should be calculated using an effective flexural
stiffness ( Ele) corresponding to the unfactored moment ( Ma). The effective
flexural stiffness ( Ele) should be obtained by linear interpolation between the
cracking point ( McntPcr) and the yielding points ( ( Mcr,t/Jr) on a bilinear
moment-curvature diagram. The modulus of rupture shall be as specified in
Section lll.6.

3. A significant difference between reinforced AAC and reinforced concrete is the

mechanism for the development of the factory installed reinforcing steel. Unlike
reinforced concrete, where the bond between defom1ed bars and the concrete
develops the tensile strength of the reinforcement, the tensile strength of factory
installed reinforcement, smooth ASTM A82 wire, is developed by cross wires
welded to the longitudinal reinforcement. The force in the tensile reinforcement
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

is limited by the bearing capacity of the AAC under the cross-wires.

For uniformly loaded panels the following equation has been developed:

V,,(L)
/1 . = -----"-~---- (V-3)
cross,mm 5.J(d)(dcross )(!cross )f~AC (t/J)

where:
dcross = diameter of cross wire
/cross = length of cross wire

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 97
ncross.min = minimum number of equally spaced cross
wires to a distance of L/6 from support.
0.85

EXAMPLES

Bearing Wall -In Plane Loads

10" AAC block wall

L = 16' wall length
h = 10' wall height
DL = 3.6 kif dead load
LL = 1.6 kif live load
#4 @ 24" vertical reinforcement

~~AC = 580 psi AAC compressive strength

fv = 60000 psi steel strength
fg = 3000 psi grout strength
dcore = 3 in core diameter
¢= 0.9 flexure and axial load strength
reduction factor
WAAC = 45 pcf wall density
Wall design for plane loads follows Section 3.2.6-MSJC

1. Wallloads

DL = 3.6 kif
LL = 1.6 kif.

2. Load combinations
Assume 2ft wide design strip
Pu 1.2DL + 1.6LL

1.2 ·(3.6. 2 +~
1000
•.!.Q. 2)+
12
1.6•1.6• 2

13.85k

3. Determine nominal axial compressive strength

Calculate radius of gyration.

r=~= Ju= &=2.88

Copyright American Concrete Institute

According to Section 3.2.4.1.1 -(a) fonnula 3-16 will be applied.

P n= 0.8[0.85 f' 4Ac(A11 - As)+ /yAs ](I- (-h-i) (3-16) -MSJC

· I40r

A11 = b•t = 240in 2

As in the design of conventional masonry, untied compression steel may not be counted
as contributing to compression resistence.

P,, = 86.27K
P, < ¢P,,. t/J = 0.9
13.85' < 77.64K O.K.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Use t = I 0" thick AAC wall with #4@24 centered in wall.

Wall Design For Out Of Plane Loads

8" AAC block wall

L = 8' wall length
h = 10' wall height
DL = 2 kif dead load
LL = 0.8 kif live load
w = 24.2 psf wind load
#4 @ 24" v~rtical reinforcement

f:Uc = 580 psi AAC compressive strength

f.v = 60000 psi steel strength
fg = 3000 psi grout strength
dcore = 3 in core diameter
f.1 = 1 sliding coefficient of friction
at leveling bed joint
tPshear = 0.8 shear strength reduction factor
\ i
tPbending = 0.9 bending strength reduction factor
·-ei ~~ t=8'
E 5 = 29000000 psi
wAAC = 45 psi wall density for design

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Lateral Loads- Wind Loads

w=24.2psj

2. Load Combinations

Case I 1.2 DL + 1.6LL + 0.8 W.

?,11 = 1.2DL + 1.6LL

= 1.2. 2. 2 + 1.6. 0.8. 2
= 7.36K
w111 =0.8W

=0.8•( 24.2)•2'
1000
= 0.038 Ytr
Case II 1.2 DL + O.SLL + 1.6 W

?,12 = 1.2DL + 1.5LL

= 1.2. 2. 2 + 0.5. 0.8. 2
=5.6K
W112 = 1.6W

= 1.6•( 24.2 )•2'

1000
= 0.077 Ytr

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
100 ltzler and Nelson
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
3. Detennine Nominal Shear Strength

Nominal Shear Strength is detennined according to (III-13) of this

paper.

VAAC = 0.8 •) f'AA_c psi • b • d = J.85K

pSI

Vu = 0.385K
Vu $; ¢shear VAAC
Therefore:
0.385K $: 1.48K O.K.

4. Check sliding
V.1AC = JiP,!DL ~ J1 = ].0
P,,DL ""max(P,, 11 + P,,.r 2 ) + 1.2P,,.011
o::6.32K
VAAC o::6.32K
v;, $; 5.05
0.385K $: 5.05 O.K.

5. Walls with factored axial stress of0.05fm or less- Section 3.2.5.4 (MSJC).
The procedures set forth in this section will be used when the factored axial load
stress at the location of maximum moment satisfies the requirement computed
by equation (3-23)-MSJC.

( P,, ) $; 0.05!~
Ag
P,, ""max(P.ifi, P.~r~) + P,,. =8.08K
Ag = b • t = 192in 2

-r;, =42.08psi
Ag
42.08psi $: 29psi not good

Therefore follow section 3.2.5.5.

6. Walls with factored axial stress greater than 0.05/,~- Section 3.2.5.5- MSJC.
The procedures set forth in this section shall be used for the design of masonry
walls where the factored axial load stress at the location ofthe maximum

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 101
moment exceeds 0.05 f~ . These provisions shall not be applied to walls with
factored axial load stress equal to or exceeding 0.2f~ or slenderness ratios
exceeding 30. Such walls shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 3.2.5.4 and shall have a minimum nominal thickness of6 in.

( ~ )~ O.OSJ;
42.08 psi ~ 29 psi O.K.
42.08psi ~ 0.2f'
111
42.08 psi ~ 116 psi NOT TRUE

Therefore the wall shall be designed in accordance with Section 3.2.5.4- Walls
with factored axial stress of 0.05 !,~ or less.

7. Design in accordance with Section 3.2.5.4- Walls with factored axial stress of
0.05!,~ or less. Factored moment and axial force shall be determined at the mid
height of the wall and shall be used for design. The factored moment Mu is
given by equation (3-24)-MSJC.

M 11 - w"h2
- - - + puf -+
e" p s:
uu 11
8 2
Pu =Puw +Puf .

The two cases shall be considered.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1.2DL + 1.6LL + 0.8W

pul = P,,f] + p uw

P,d = 8.08k
Will = 0.038k I ft
Assume 8, = 0.05 in
w 1h 2 e
M ul = " + Pu.fl -'-' + Pul t5u
8 2
= 0.508K- ft.= 508/b.ft.
From 3.2.5.6 MSJC

Copyright American Concrete Institute

8u =

Mer= S11 (/,.MC + ~:) Similar to(3- 32) MSJC

/,.,1AC = 2ftMc

f
ltAAC ~ 2.4r MC
•
ps1
p'Si

= 2.4J58o =57. 79 psi

J,.AAc =115.6 psi > 80psi . duetothinsetmortar joint use 80psi
bt 2
s 11
=-
6
= 256in 3
Mer = 2604.44/b- ft

508 lb-ft < 2604.44 lb-ft

8
= 5M,,h 2
" 48EACC]g
0.6
EAAC = 6500 • ( J;cc )
= 295781psi
bt 3
I=-
g 12
= 1024in 4
8,, = 0.03in < 0.05in
Therefore assumption O.K.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

1.20L + 0.5LL + 1.6W

~2 =~/2 +~ll'
=6.32K
W112 = 0.077 Y.rr
Assume 8 = 0.06in
M wuzh2 p eu + p 8
u2=- -+ u/22 u2 11
8
=994/b- ft
0 = 5Mu2h2
II 48EACC!g
8u = 2 2
(5 = 5M .h + ----'-_____::_~-
Cl
5(MuJ -Mcr)h ----"'--''------
1/ 48£ACCJg 48£ACCJcr

M cr -- Sn (J, rAAC + pAn

11
2J
=2408.9/b- ft

994/b- ft<2408.91lb- ft
2
8
= SM,j1
II 48EAAJg
= 0.059in
Therefore assumption O.K.
The factored moment M 11 to be used is given by-
Mu =max(M ,M 111 112
)

=994/b- ft

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
104 ltzler and Nelson
The design strength for out-of-plane wall loading shall be in accordance with Equation
(3-26) (MSJC):

Mu < ¢bel1dil1gM" (3- 26) MSJC

M 11 = (A s • f )' + Pu ) • ( d - !!...)
2

pu =min ( pul' pu2)

= 6.32K
pu + Asfv
a=--__;_~

0.85/~ACb
a= 1.54in

M" = (A, f:. + ~ ) ( d- ; )

=4931.13/b- ft
rPbe11di11g = 0 ·9
994/b- ft ~ 4438.02/b- ft O.K.

Check reinforcing bar size limitations:

A = Tr • (dcm-e
grout - - )
2

= 1.06in 2
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

~~3% Limitation of 4.5% in non plastic hinge area is an

Agrout
exception from MSJC.
0.20
- - = 2.8% ~ 4.5% O.K.
7.06

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 105
8. DEFLECTION DESIGN -Design procedure follows MSJC Code section
3.2.5.6 except for the formula used to determine Mu.

Maximum deflection of wall is given by relation:

5, s 0.007 h see eq. (3-29) MSJC
5, s0.007•10•12
5, s 0.84in
Determine Mser
h2
M ..e,. = wser S
= 605/b- ft

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Determine Mer

Me, ~s"(hAx+ :.J

P= (DL+LL+DL,..a11 )x2'
= 6.2K = 6200/b

M" ~ S" (!.Me + :. J

= 2395.55/b- ft
Therefore A1ser < Me,.
605/b- ft ~ 2395.55/b- ft O.K.
Detem1ine deflection
0 = 5Mserh2 see equ. (3-30) MSJC
s 48. E.4.AC!g
=0.035in
Os < OmiD<
0.035in < 0.84in therefore deflection O.K.
Use t=8" thick AAC wall with #4@24 centered in wall.

Design Of Shear Wall

h ::::10' wall height

t = 8" wall thickness

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
106 ltzler and Nelson
/w=l2.25' wall length
w=45pcf wall density
fy = 60000 psi tensile strength of steel
2
A, = 0.44in tension reinforcing (#5 bar)
~~AC = 580 psi AAC compressive strength
J.1 = 1.0 at leveling bed joint
rPshear o= 0.8 shear strength reduction factor
rPbending =0.9 bending
cc = 4in distance from edge of wall to tension reinforcing
~. = lin
2
vertical shear reinforcement
d =/w-ee distance from the compression zone to the tension
steel
Ah=0.4in2 horizontal reinforcement

<l// / / / / \ / / /S?/'77/ /7/f/7

l \ \
\._ 2~#4r{(48
I
:
r
~ '

f..-------12.25'--~----<

The loads used in this example are as fol1ows:

P, = 6.96K, Mil = 295.85K- ft, VII = 35.84K

Copyright American Concrete Institute

I. Determine Pb, Mb, at the balanced point

Balanced strain condition:

cb 0.003
-==----
d
+0.003
Es
cb- neutral axis distance for the balanced strain condition.

d /w-ee 143"
c11 84.63" = 85"
ab = cbj]I
= 85. 0.67 57"
11, 0.85 /'.Me abt- AJ.Y
== 198408/bs ~ ¢11, 178.56k

M == P, (lw _ ab) +A 1 (d _ /w)

b h 2 2 ,J,. 2

l1951160in -lbs ~¢M6 = 0.9• 11951160 = 896.34ft k

12000

2. Determine P0 - concentric load only determine h/r ratio

11
h == - - = hJ12 = 51.96 < 99
r t t
Jl2

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
108 ltzler and Nelson
According to 3.2.4.1.1 MSJC use formula (3-16) to determine nominal
axial load strength p n
2
P,tmax = 0.8(0.85 J'AAC (An -As)+ /yAs ](1- (-h-) )
140r
5 96
P,m = 0.8 • [0.85 • 580 •1176][1- ( 1. )2 ]
1
ax 140
A11 = 1176
P,, = 399928.34/bs
t/JP,, = 360K
3. Determine M0 - pure bending

a = __ AJ;.
;__.c__ _
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

0.85 e j'AAC•f
= 6.69in
a
M 0 = As • /,y • (d--)
2
= 3686892 in -lb
t/JM = 276.52 Jt- k
0

4. Compression control c>cb

a) Take c = 135 in

a= 0.67 • I 35 = 90.45 in
d-e
Is =0.003•29000•--
c
=5.15Ksi
P,, = 0.85 /~.Kat- A,fs = 354468.8/bs
t/JP,, =319K
Mn = 0.85• t,;AC at(lw -a)/2+ Asfs(d -/ /2) 11
•

= 10244163.4 7 in -lbs
¢Mil= 768.31/t-k
e = Mn I P, = 28.9 in

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Mn = 0.85 • j~Acat(lw- a) I 2 + Asf;. (d -lw I 2)

= 11713917.8in -lbs
t/JMn = 878.54 ft- k
e = Mn I~. = 42.27

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
5. Tension Control c<cb
Take c = 60in
a= 40.2in
P, = 0.85f;. 1c ta- A,fr
= 132148.81bs
¢~, = 118.93K
M, =0.85f:,c If"; a)+ A,f, ( d- ';)

= 10301305.92ft -lbs
t/JMn = 772.6 ft- k

e = Mn = 77.95"
~.
6. Determine ~,,M11 when0.10f~Ac Ag = ¢~,
0.10 J:Ac Ag = 0.1f~Aclj = 682081bs
¢~, = 68208/bs ~. = 75786.661bs
~~ = 0.85J:Acta- As/;·
= 75786.661bs
a= 25.91in
a .
c = - - = 38.67 111
0.67
I -a I
M 11 = 0.85J:Acta(~) + A,fr(d-;)

= 8021835.43in -lbs

Copyright American Concrete Institute

</JP,,(k)
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

360 0
319 768.31
223 878.54
BALANCED POINT 178.56 896.34
118.93 772.6
68.21 601.64
0 276.52

SHEAR WALL
INTERACTION P-M DIAGRAM

400~----~------~----~------------~

300

,cu- 250
ll.

e c.
--
~ ~ 200+------+------~----~--------~~~

~
C'CI

150 ···----~-~- ------~--~---

100

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Moment, M
(ft-kip)

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 111
B. Determine nominal masonry shear strength as governed by web-shear cracking.
Nominal masonry shear strength as governed by web-shear cracking, Vm, shall
be computed using equation from (III-I 0-a) of this paper. Equation (III-10-a)
applies for AAC masonry with mortared head joints.

v....c•• = 0.951.)(~,~
p
c
psz 1+ ~~~ psi
2.4 l,J psi
l

VAACII'sc = 28.25K
C. Determine nominal shear strength as governed by crushing of diagonal
M
compressive strut. For walls with --" < 1.5, nominal shear strength, V AAC,
V.,d
shall as governed by crushing of a diagonal strut, shall be computed as follows:

M" =0.69
V.,d

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
0.69 < 1.5

hPw
VAAccds =0.17f'AAc•t• ~ See(ill-11)
h~ +(0.75•/1\'r
vAACcds =77.02K
Therefore VAAC =min( VAAO<>c, VAACcds)
=28.25K
D. Determine nominal shear as governed by sliding shear. At a mortared head joint
by:
VA. 4c =¢[,uP,, + ,u( A, +A, • 2) f';.]
= 95.8 > Vumax = 35.84K

E. Nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement

V, = (~h) •f;.•d = 71.5K

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Nominal shear strength shall be computed using equation (3-18) and either
equation (3-19) or equation (3-20) from MSJC as appropriate:
vn = vm + vs (3 -18)

Mu = 0.69
V,,d
0.25 < 0.69 < 1
M
Therefore the maximum value of Vn for __u_
Vudv
between 0.25 and 1 may be interpolated.

(a) v;, : :; 6A" Vrr '

.I ,uc Mu :::;0.25
V,,dl'
A =I •t=1176
11 11'

V,, = 169.93K
(b) V,, :::; 4A"~f:cc

V,, = 113.28K
V,,max = 136.7 K obtained from interpolation.
Vn =VAAC +V5 = 88.25
Nominal masonry shear strength shall be taken as the least of the values
computed in sections C and E:
¢V 11
= min(¢sldmg VAA C slidillg ' ¢shear Vn )
1

= 70.6K
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 113
G. Check to see if design shear strength ¢Vn exceeds the shear corresponding to
the development of 1.25M 0 , except that the nominal shear strength (V 0 ) need not
exceed 2.5 times required shear strength (V u)·

V "
uLS
= l.25Mn
M
= 52.28K
II

V,,
P, = ¢P,, = 0.85J:Acta- Asfr
a= 8.45"

Mn ' ( -2-
= 0•85f AACfa /"' - + AsJ.vI' ( a-2a)
/"' )

= 345.29 ft- K
V,11 .25 = 52.28K:::;; ¢V,, = 70.6K O.K.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

AAC Floor Panel

t=IO" slab thickness

f:Ac =580 psi AAC compressive strength

fv =80000 psi tensile strength of steel (ASTM A82 wi~e)

w=45pcf panel density

AAC cover on reinforcing steel

Copyright American Concrete Institute

1----------16'-0·---------+--

[~_ \
\
\_ AAC Pconel
--~ ~- 8" wull

1. Determine the reinforcement

w = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
2
= (1.2. 58+ 1.6 •1 00 )
= 460psf
Maximum moment between supports M@ 7.73 = 13.78/t- k
M@s11pport = 2.07 Jt- k
Therefore Mu =13.78ft-k
Mil = ¢Asf~. ( d- ; )

a=
As!,..
0.85f~ACb

M="-A~" d- AsJ;
F )
II 'f/ sJ y ( 2 • 0.85 ~~ACb
0·9A, 2 S0000 2
165360 = 0.9 • A, • 80000 • 9- •
2. 0.85. 580. 24
d = 10-1 =9in
165360 = 648000As - 243407.71As 2
243407.71A/ -648000A, +165360=0
A, = 0.285in 2

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 115
trd2 = 7r. 0.3 e = 0.075in2
Take 8mm bar A¢8mm =4 4
=> Provide 4 ¢8mm bars. As = 0.3in 2
Check:

t/JMn =¢As/,· ( d- ;)

a= AJr = 0.3 • 80000 = 2 _02 in

0.85 ~~ACb 0.85 e 580 e 24
2 2
¢Mn =0.9•0.3•80000•(9- ·~ )
= 172584in-lbs =14.4/t- k > A1u
2. Determine bruin

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Prum
. =
4
Kc
/r
4
= J580 = 0.0012
80000
A, 0.3
P =-=--=0.0013>p.
bd 24•9 rum
O.K.
(V-1)

3. Check shear capacity

Shear force at distanced from the face of the interior support

b = 9+! = 13in
2
13
V,, = 3.56-0.46 • - = 3.06K
12

Shear capacity is given by formula:

VAAC = 0.8~f;Acbd
= 4161.56lbs
tP~tAC = 3329.26/bs = 3.33K
V,, = 3.06K < ¢VAAC = 3.33K O.K.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

For AAC slabs the minimum thickness tis given by equation (V-2):
I
t = -" (1.65- 0.005w)
24
(16•12-8)
= (1.65- 0.005• 37) = 11.23in >lOin
24
w=37pcf

Therefore need to check deflection

Determine cracked moment Mer

= 6.5(/~Ac t = 6.5( 5sot

6 6
EAAc = 295.78ksi elastic modulus
see(III -7)
E' = EAAC = 295.78 = 197.19ksi reduced elastic modulus
AAC 1. 5 1. 5
for long term dejlectior.
/,AAC =2.4~~~AC =2.4.J580 =57.8psi see(JJJ-5)
/,.AAC = 2(/,AAC) = 2• 57.8 = 115.6psi see(IJJ -6)

.,n -- E,s -- 29000 --147.2 moduIar ratio

EAAC 197

Ig =~
12 + 2A Sf
(t- 2
2 cc )
2

momento~"inertia o~"thegross
'J 'J

concrete cross section

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

,--.....
l__/ c
j_ __ ,-- -------. [
t I
1
:
I. ' ,r
I I
····I
-r-l
T I I
~'-Ast
• '

Asr = l]A, =147.2 • (0.075 •4) = 44.16 transformed area of steel

intheAAC
2
24 103 10 2 1
I = • +2•44.16( - • ) =3413.12in 4
g 12 2

J,,~,~Jg = 115 · 6 • ~413 · 12 =78911.33in-/bs=6.57ft-K

Mer=
-
1
-
2 2

Detennine maximum unfactored moment.

w = (58+ 100)•2 = 316psf

Mmax =9.64jt-K

Maximum unfactored moment M = 9.64ft- K >Mer = 6.57 ft- K

Copyright American Concrete Institute

/--f.rst
r------ x /// _ [ 1"
_1_,- ------/ -~

9 --- X
~-r~=24~~-r-;~+
__I 8 11 ----

bx2
17As (9-x)- pAs (x-1)-2 = 0

24x 2
44.16(9-x )-44.16(x-1)--- = 0
2
2
12x +88.32x-441.6=0 =>x=3.41"
24
fer= •~.4e +44.16(3.41-1) 2 2
+44.16(9-3.41) =1953.62in 4

cracked moment of inertia

~·
M_v = E~4Aclcr ~
d-x
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

( 80000 J
= 190109.114in-lb = 15.84ft- K

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 119
Detennine curvature at cracking, yielding and corresponding to maximum
unfactored moment.

A, _ Mer
'l'cr - E' I
AAC g

78911.33
==----,.------
197.19•103 •3413.12
== 0.000117 in- 1

==-----~---
197.19•103 •1953.62
== 0.00049 in- 1
Interpolate in order to detennine ¢ corresponding to maximum unfactored moment.
0.000117 ......... 78911.33
¢ =? 115680 ¢=0.00024
0.00049 .. ····· ..... 190109.114

Detennine long term deflections.

115680
E' I =M = = 482000000 lb- in 2
AAC e ¢ 0.00024

5long-term = wx (1 4 - 2f x 2 + lx 3 - 2a 2 f + 2a 2x 2 )
24 EI f.
5/ong-term = 0.87in
1
5 = - - = 0.8in Deflection is not O.K.
max 240

Therefore either the thickness of the panel must be increased or the area of
reinforcement must be increased.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

!_= 16•12 =32in

6 6
103
v = V., = 5 .1 8 • = 6475/bs
max fjJ 0. 8

11
vmaJ
crossmin = 5• 1• d • dcross • /cross •J'M C
(V-3)

_6_4_75_•__..:;(_16_•_12_:..)_ = 6.84 ~ 7
5.1• 9. 0.31• 22.580
d cross = 5mm. = 0 · 31t·n
/cross = (24 "- 2 "):::: 22in
Use 7 ¢8mm cross wires over first 32in

smin = ~ = 4.42 ~ 4in

7
Use 8mm wires@ 4in for the first 32in of the panel. At the continuous support use
8mm wires@ 4in on both sides of the support and for the entire cantilever. For the rest
of the panel use 8mm wires@ 8in., i.e. twice required spacing.

CONCLUSION

AAC walls and floor/roof construction can be designed utilizing the requirements set
forth in the MSJC Code and ACI 318, respectfully, with certain specific modifications
related to Autoclaved Aerated Concrete. Walls may be used as load bearing walls and
shear walls, for low and mid-rise buildings or as cladding in any type of structure. AAC
floor and roof panels are suitable for spans up to twenty feet in residential, commercial or
institutional type building construction.

REFERENCES

I. ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, 2002.

2. Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures (ACI 530-02/ASCE 5-02/TMS

402-02), Reported by the Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), 2002.

3. Tanner, Jennifer E., "Design Provisions for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC)
Structural Systems," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The University
of Texas at Austin, May 2003.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 121
4. Varela, Jorge, "Development ofR and Cd Factors for the Seismic Design of
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Structures," Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2003.

LIST OF NOTATIONS

As= area of steel

d= distance from the compression zone to tension steel
dcore = core diameter
dcross = diameter of crosswire
EAAC= AAC modulus of elasticity
Ev= AAC shear modulus
J;Ac= compressive strength of AAC

fo-1AC= AAC modulus of rupture

h.1AC = AAC splitting strength

fg= grout strength
fv= AAC direct shear strength
/,.= yield strength of steel
h= wall height
fer= cracked moment of inertia
lg= moment of inertia of gross concrete cross section
length of crosswire
A£b = moment at balanced point
Mer= cracking moment
17cross.min = minimum number of equally spaced cross wires to a distance of L/6
from support
Pb= axial load at balanced point
r= radius of gyration
t= thickness of wall
VAAC= nominal shear strength of AAC
Vn= nominal shear strength
Vs= nominal shear strength provided by reinforcement
Pmin= minimum reinforcement ratio
o= deflection

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Properties of Fiber-Reinforced
Lightweight Concrete

by C. Shi, Y. Wu and M. Riefler

Synopsis: The use of lightweight concrete has many advantages over conventional
concrete. The reduced self-weight oflightweight concrete will reduce gravity load and
seismic inertial mass. The lightweight concrete reported here has compressive strengths
from 8 to 50 MPa with dry densities from 800 to 1400 kg/m 3 , which is strong enough for
any load-bearing and non-load-bearing applications. The compressive strength to flexural
strength ratio increases as the compressive strength of the concrete increases. The
introduction of a small amount of fiber does not affect the flexural strength and drying
shrinkage of the concrete, but improves the ductility and handling properties of the
product very significantly. The lightweight concrete has a higher moisture loss during
drying, but a lower shrinkage than the normal weight concrete due to the buffer effect of
the moisture in the lightweight aggregate. Properly designed fiber-reinforced ultra
lightweight concrete can be easily cut, sawed and nailed like wood.

Keywords: density; drying shrinkage; ductility; fiber; lightweight

concrete; strength

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
123
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
124 Shi et al.
ACI member Caijun Shi is president of CJS Technology Inc., Ontario, Canada. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Calgary, Canada in concrete materials science
in 1993. He is a member of ACl committees 232, 233, 236, 523 and 555. His research
interests include design and testing of concrete materials, use of industrial by-products
and recycled materials in concrete, and stabilization/solidification of hazardous wastes
with cements. Dr. Shi has published more than 100 technical papers in these areas.

Yanzhong Wu is a Research Engineer of CJS Technology Inc., Ontario, Canada. He

received his Ph.D. from the University of Dundee, Scotland in concrete technology in
1994. His research interests include design and testing of cement and concrete materials

Monte Riefler was the president of Advanced Materials Technologies LLC and passed
away in March 2003.

INTRODUCTION

Lightweight concrete has been used for a number of applications and is also known
for its good performance and durability [ 1]. In structural applications, the self-weight of
the concrete structure is important since it represents a large portion of the total load.
The reduced self-weight of lightweight concrete will reduce gravity load and seismic
inertial mass, resulting in reduced member size and foundation force. Use of light\veight
concrete can be of interest in retrofit applications where a concrete column jacket is
desired due to architectural reason over other method such as steel or composite jackets.
In that situation, a normal weight concrete jacket might result in foundation forces that
would require expensive foundation retrofit where as a lightweight concrete jacket may
not require a footing retrofit [2]. The use oflightweight aggregate concrete in a structure
is usually predicated on lower overall costs [I]. While lightweight concrete may cost
more per cubic yard than normal weight concrete, the structure may cost less as a result
of reduced dead weight and lower foundation costs.

There are two ways to produce lightweight concrete: introduction of air into
aggregates (use of lightweight) and introduction of air bubbles into cement pastes.
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) is a great example of introduction of air into cement
paste. It uses aluminum powders to generate uniform micro-bubbles within concrete to
produce a lightweight concrete. AAC has been around for more than 70 years and
usually has strength of less than I 0 MPa. AAC is mainly used for non-load-bearing walls
or floors and has a great reputation for its excellent insulation properties and low density.
Foaming agents are attracting more and more attention to be used for the production of
cellular lightweight concrete, which can be cured like normal concrete.

The properties of lightweight aggregate concrete are dependent on the properties of

the aggregates to a great extent. Fig. I shows the effect of aggregate nature on the density
of concrete made with a variety of lightweight aggregates. The concretes can be
classified into three catalogues [1]: low-density concretes, moderate strength concretes
and structural lightweight concretes. Low-density concretes are very light are employed
chiefly for nonstructural insulation purposes. They have low unit weights, seldom

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 125
exceeding 800 kg/m 3 , low thennal conductivity and low compressive strengths, usually
less than 7 MPa. Structural concretes use aggregates that fall on the other end of the
scale and that are generally made with expanded shales, clays, slates, slags, pumice and
scoria. They have a minimal strength of 17 MPa and can reach greater than 35 MPa with
most of these aggregates. Since the unit weights of structural lightweight aggregate
concretes are considerably greater than those of low-density concretes, insulation
efficiency is lower. However, thermal conductivity values for structural lightweight
concrete are substantially better than for nonnal weight concrete. Moderate strength
concretes fall about midway between the structural and low-density concretes. Their
compressive strengths range 7 to 25 MPa and insulation characteristics are intermediate.

Fibers are widely used in concrete for a number of applications. Very limited
researches have been conducted on fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete. It is indicated
that the use of fiber can also increase the modulus of elasticity and ductility of
lightweight concrete very significantly (3). In this paper, lightweight aggregate concrete
3
with strengths from 8 to 50 MPa and dry densities from 800 to 1400 kg/m were
developed for both non-load bearing and load bearing applications. Fibers were added to
improve the ductility and handling properties of the concrete.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Lightweight concrete is being used more and more for structural and non-structural
applications. Fibers are widely used in concrete for improvement of ductility of concrete
However, very limited researches have been conducted on fiber-reinforced lightweight
concrete. This paper presents some properties of fiber-reinforced concrete with strengths
from 8 to 50 MPa and dry densities 800 to 1400 kg/m 3 • The results will provide technical
infonnation for the design and application of lightweight concrete for both structural and
non-structural uses.

EXPERIMENTATION

Materials

The cementing materials used in this study include ASTM Type I and III portland
cement, ASTM Grade 120 slag cement, and ASTM Class F coal fly ash. The
replacenment of cement with the slag or fly ash varied from 20 to 50%. Expanded shales
and clays, which meets the requirements of ASTM C 330, were used as lightweight fine
and coarse aggregates. Foaming agents and aluminum powders were used to introduce
air bubbles in cement paste in the concrete. Chopped polypropylene and nylon fibers
with length from I 0 mm were used. Their dosage was 6 kg/m 3 of concrete.

Mixing and Preparation of Specimens

A wide range of mixing proportions were designed to produce concrete with

different strengths and densities. The concrete mixtures were mixed. placed and finished
like conventional concrete. Cylinders of 10x20 em or cubes of IOxiOxlO em were

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
126 Shi et al.
prepared for compressive strength testing, 10x10x3S em beams were used for flexural
strength testing and 7.5x7.5x28 em prisms were used for drying shrinkage measurement.
Some specimens fire testing have a size of 15x50x2 em and a size of 30x30x5 em for
thermal conductivity measurement.

Two curing scenarios were used for those specimens for strength testing: standard
room temperature curing and steam curing. For standard room temperature curing, 24
hours after the casting, specimens were demolded and then cured in lime-saturated water
at 23±3°C until testing ages. Presented result is an average of three testing specimens. For
steam curing, the specimens were cured with molds. The curing scenario was 5 hours of
preset time, 3 hours of temperature raise time, 8 hours of constant temperature of 75°C
and 3 hours of cooling time. All other specimens were cured at room temperatures.

Strength Testing

If the specimens were cured in steam, they were demoulded and tested once the
specimens are cooled down to room tep1perature. If they are cured at room (emperature,
they were demoulded in the second day and tested for strength at I, 3, 7 and 28 days.
Flexural strength was measured using the third-point loading test following ASTM C78.

Drying Shrinkage and Mass Loss Measurements

The specimens were tested for drying shrinkage and mass Joss at relative humidity of
50±5% and 23±2°C. As for the steam-cured specimens, they were sealed to cool down
and then taken initial measurements of length and mass in the second day after the steam
curing. As for room temperature curing, specimens were in a fog room until 28 days for
initial measurements of length and mass.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fire Testing

In this work, a welding torch fire was used to heat the specimens. The behavior of
the specimen during the fire testing was visually observed and photographed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Compressive Strength

For given materials, the strength of th~ fiber-reinforced lightweight concrete is

dependent upon the density of the concrete. Fig.2 shows the relationship between
compressive strength and dry density of concrete made with from 0 to 50% of ASTM F
fly ash and Grade 120 slag cement after steam curing. It is noticed that the strength of
these concretes continued to increase with time when concrete samples were kept in
moist conditions because fly ash and slag hydrate more slowly than Portland cement.

The addition of fiber has no or little effects on compressive strength. However, it

was found that the use of fiber significantly increases the impact resistance and ductility

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 127
of concrete. After compression testing, it was noticed that the conventional concrete
specimen cracked along 45° diagonal line and broke, while the lightweight concrete
specimen cracked but still remained in whole piece.

Stress-Strain Relationship and Modulus of Elasticity

Fig.3 is a typical stress-strain relationship of the lightweight concrete with a

compressive strength approximately 27 MPa. For normal weight concretes, they reach
their ultimate compressive strength at strains of 0.002 regardless of strengths [4]. The
results in Fig. 3 indicated that the lightweight concrete fails at strain of around 0.003.

The secant modulus of elasticity of the materials calculated based on the strain at
about 40% of the ultimate strength is around 10.7 GPa, which is about half of regular
concrete. ACI 318 code states that the modulus of concrete (Ec) with a unit mass from
1400 to 2500 kg/m 3 can be calculated as follows [5]:

Ec = 0.043Wc1. 5 .J7}
where:
We= unit mass of concrete, kg/m 3 ;
f'c =compressive strength of concrete at 28 days, MPa.

Based on this equation, the calculated modulus of modulus elasticity of the lightweight
concrete was 11.6 GPa. Thus, the measured and calculated Modulus of elasticity of
lightweight concrete are very close and the ACI Equation is valid for the estimation of
modulus elasticity of the lightweight concrete based on its unit weight and compressive
strength.

Flexural Strength

During flexural testing, it was noticed that the specimen did not break into two
pieces even with a broad crack developed due to the presence of fiber. The flexural load
and displacement relationship is shown in Fig.4. It can be seen that a very high residual
strength can be still measured after the cracking. It was noticed that the residual strength
depended on the strength of the concrete, and the nature and dosage of the fiber used in
the concrete. As described in previous publications, the introduction of fiber did not
show a noticeable effect on flexural strength of the lightweight concrete.

It was observed that, within the studied strength range, the compressive/flexural
strength ratio increased linearly with compressive strength of concrete as shown in Fig 5.
When the compressive strength is about 6 MPa, the compressive/flexural strength ratio
was around 3. As the compressive strength reaches 45 MPa, the compressive/flexural
strength ratio reaches approximately 10, which is a typical value for conventional
concrete.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Generally speaking, the shrinkage of the concrete increased with the decrease of
strength. The drying shrinkage of batch with a 28-day strength of about 30 MPa, cured in
steam at 75°C and in fog room at 23°C, is shown in Fig.6. Results from a conventional
concrete with a water to cement ratio of 0.4 and 28-day strength of 45 MPa, are also
plotted for reference. It can be seen that the lightweight concrete displayed much lower
shrinkage than the conventional concrete during initial testing period. Although the gap
decreased with testing time, the conventional concrete still showed higher shrinkage than
the lightweight concrete even after 6 months of testing time. Initially, steam-cured .
specimens showed higher shrinkage than the specimens cured at room temperature.
However, the former gave lower shrinkage after about 7 months of testing.

Fig.7 is the mass loss during the shrinkage measurements. Although the moisture
loss of the conventional concrete is much lower than the lightweight concrete, the former
showed much higher shrinkage than the latter as described above. The drying shrinkage
behavior of concrete materials can be described by the pore size distribution and
thermodynamic behavior of water in the pores. Pore size distribution can be
characterized by r5 , which is defined as the radius of the pores where the meniscus forms;
i.e., the pores whose radii are smaller than rs are assumed to be filled with liquid water
while pores larger than this are dry. As the drying progresses, the parameter r 5 would
decrease. The smaller, the larger the capiiiary tensile forces set up at the meniscus, hence
higher the resulting shrinkage. In the lightweight, the moisture comes from large air
voids, while the moisture evaporated from regular concrete is mainly from small pores.
This explains the difference between the two types of concrete.

Thermal Conductivity

The density of concrete determines its them1al conductivity. Fig.8 is a relationship

between density and them1al conductivity of concrete developed by Valore [6]. Testing
of concrete made with different materials such as low carbon fly ash, high carbon fly ash,
blast furnace and. ground glass has indicated that the thermal conductivity-density
relationship for fiber-reinforced non-autoclaved cellular lightweight concrete still follows
the relationship as illustrated in Figure 8, and the use of those different materials does not
have an obvious effect on the thermal conductivity of concrete for a given density.

Fire Resistance

Fig.9 shows the torch-fire burning of a small lightweight concrete specimen. A

small piece of copper was placed in the heating spot and molten. However, no flame or
spalling was observed during the burning process. Fig. I 0 is a picture of the specimen
after the torch-fire burning.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

There is a good relationship between the density and compressive strength of the
concrete. The compressive/flexural strength ratio decreased linearly as the compressive
strength increase.

The introduction of fiber does not show an obvious effect the ultimate strength of the
concrete, but it provide a residual strength, which is dependent on the strength of the
concrete, and the nature and dosage of the fiber. The presence of fiber improves the
handling properties of hardened concrete significantly, especially in the low strength
range.

The lightweight concrete has a higher moisture loss than but a lower shrinkage than
the conventional concrete. The density of the concrete determines its thermal
conductivity regardless of the raw materials used.
The lightweight concrete showed good fire resistance and did not generate spalling
during the torch fire burning.

REFERENCES
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1. ACI 213-87, Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, American

Concrete Institute, 1987.

2. Kowalsky, M. J., Priestley, M. J. N. and Seible, F., Shear and Flexural Behaviour of
Lightweight Concrete Bridge Columns in Seismic Regions, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol.96, No.1, pp.l36-143, 1999.

3. Balaguru, P. and Foden A., Properties of Fiberinforced Structural Lightweight

Concrete, Vol.93, No.I, pp.62-78, 1996.

4. McCormac, J. C., Design of Reinforced Concrete, third edition, HarperCollins

College Publisher, New York, 1993.

5. ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
American Concrete I':Jstitute, 2002.

6. R. C. Valore, A study of Cellular Concrete, NBS Technical News Bulletin, National

Bureau of Standards, pp.41-43, March 1955.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
130 Shi et al.
I I
Low Density Concreb! I Modenlle Strength Concrete 1 SIJuctural Concma
I I
...-...-qo,,
......... "'""
...... Fly- ...

......
........
......
400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 kgJm'

20 40 60 80 100 120 lblft~

28-0ay Air.Ory Density

Figure 1: Approximate Unit Weight and Classification of

Lightweight Aggregate Concretes [1].

60r-----,------,------r-----,------,
I
I
I I
IG 50 I I
-------r--------~--------,---------r--------
I I
~ 1 I I I
i!. I
I
I
I
I
I
..c I I I
g, 40 -------~--------~--------1------
1 I I 1:J.
c
1: : : \ A
I I I I
.,
U) 30 -------~--------~--------~--
1 I I
-----r--------
I
I I I I
.2: I I I I
Ill I I I
Ill
-------~--------~------ ~---------~--------
I!!
Q,
I
: :
I "A I:J.1
~
I
:
E I I:J.I 'Z1 I I
0 -------~---- --------~---------L--------
0 1 I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
OL------L------L------L------~----~
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Dry Density (kglm3)

Figure 2: Relationship Between Strength and Bulk Density of

Fiber-Reinforced Lightweight Concrete.
30r---~----~----r----,----~~~
!
I I I I I
-- - ---j---------t--------+--------i------~--~---------
1 I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I

- -- I I I •
--~---------t---------:---------1---------~-------·
I I I
I

I
I

I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
------ ----- ---+---- ----..... -------- ~-- ----- --~- ... ---- --
______ j'_________ T! - - - - - - ~ --------.,------.
~ . --r--------
~
1 : I :

'
I '
I I 'I I
-------+-------- t---------:--------- ~ ------- --1---------
1 I I I I
I I I I I
I I 1 I I

0~--~----J-----L---~----~~~
0.000~.005 . 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Strain (m/m)

Figure 3: Compressive Stress-Strain Relation~hip of Lightweight Ooncrete.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

600 ---------{-----------~----------~-----------}----------
:
I
:
I
:I
:
I
Ci 500 -------i-- --- ----r ------i----------- ~----------
~ '
'C '' ''
0 400
-- --- -~-----------~----------~-----------' ----------
"'
..... 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;a 300
... ---------~-----------~----------~-----------~----------
1 I I I
:::1
><
Ill
l : : :
u: 200 ---------~-----------~----------1-----------t----------
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I
100 ---------.1-----------L----------J·----------L----------
:
I
:
I
:I
:I

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Deflection (mm)

Figure 4: Flexural Load-Deflection Relationship of Fiber-Reinforced

Cellular Lightweight Concrete.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Figure 5: Relationship Between Compressive Strength and
Compressive/Flexural Strength Ratio.

-6.12.---------------..---,
-Steam Curing
---+-- 28-day Room Temperature Curing
--+-- Conventional Portland Cement Concrete

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

Testing Time (days)

Figure 6: Drying Shrinkage of Cellular Lightweight and Conventional Concretes.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
132 Shi et al.
- ·14.0 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - . - - - - . ,
~ - e - Steam Curing i
g' ·12.0 - + - 28·day Room Temperature Curing ---- 1,·-------
~ --+-Conventional Portland Cement Concrete ,
Q ·10.0 ---- '-------
DI
.:
Q
s
1/l

~
f!
.a
1/l
0
:::5
40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Testing Time (days)

Figure 7: Moisture Loss of Cellular Lightweight and Conventional Concretes

During Drying.

1.500

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
)3
go 1.150

~
E
/'I'
,v
:; 1.000

~
~
"0
=
0
0.750

v
:: 0.500

~ /
v "'
~v
~ 0.250

a-
0.000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 HOO
Oven-Dry Density (kglm~)

Figure 8: Relationships Between Density and Thermal Conductivity of Concrete [6].

Figure 9: Torch Fire Burning of Specimen.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Figure 10: Specimen after Torch-Fire Burning.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Acoustically Efficient Concretes Through

Engineered Pore Structure

by N. Neithalath, J. Weiss, and J. Olek

Synopsis: Three classes of specialty cementitious materials were evaluated for their
potential benefits in sound absorption including a Foamed Cellular Concrete (FCC) with
density ranging from 400- 700 kg/m 3 , Enhanced Porosity Concrete (EPC) incorporating
20-25% open porosity, and a Cellulose Cement Composite (CCC) with density 1400-1700
kg/m 3 • Cylindrical specimens of these materials were tested for acoustic absorption in an
impedance tube. The FCC specimens showed absorption coefficients ranging from 0.20 to
0.30, the higher value for lower density specimens. The closed disconnected pore
network of FCC hinders sound propagation, thereby resulting in a reduced absorption,
even though the porosity is relatively high. The most beneficial acoustic absorption was
observed for EPC mixtures. When gap-graded with proper aggregate sizes, these no-fines
EPC mixtures dissipate sound energy inside the material through frictional losses. The
cellulose fiber cement composites use cellulose fibers at high volume fractions (-7.5%),
which are believed to provide continuous channels inside the material where the sound
energy can be attenuated. By engineering the pore structure (by careful aggregate
grading as in EPC, or incorporating porous inclusions like morphologically altered
cellulose fibers) cementitious materials that have the potential for significant acoustic
absorption could be developed.

Keywords: acoustic absorption; cellulose cement composite; damping;

enhanced porosity concrete; foamed cellular concrete; impedance;
porosity

135
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
136 Neithalath et al.
Narayanan Neithalath obtained his Ph.D from the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue
University, and his M.S from Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India. His research
interests include development and characterization of novel cementitious materials, and
durability and performance of cementitious composites.

Jason Weiss is an Associate Professor in the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue

University. He earned his Bachelors degree from Penn State University and M.S and
Ph.D from Northwestern University. His research interests include early age behavior of
concrete, shrinkage, fracture, and non-destructive testing. He is the chair of ACI
Committee 123, Secretary for committee 204, and 231 and member of committees 365,
446 and 522.

Jan Olek is a Professor in the School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University. His
research interests include high perfommnce cement and concrete materials,
supplementary cementitious materials and durability. He is a Fellow of the American
Concrete Institute, and member of committees 123, 211, 231, 234, and 236.

INTRODUCTION

Noise pollution affects more people than any other kind of pollution in the
modern industrialized world (I). In the United States, more people are exposed to
highway noise than from any other single noise source (2). Noise pollution is especially
annoying in densely congested urban settings where residents live near highways and
main transportation thoroughfares. The need to control noise in such environments
therefore offers an incentive to study the acoustic performance of cementitious materials.
Conventional concrete is a preferred material for the construction of noise barriers due to
its excellent perfom1ance as a sound reflecting material, but its sound absorbing
capability is extremely limited. While the construction of sound barriers impedes the
sound transmission path between vehicles and the residential and commercial
development located alongside the highways resulting in noise abatement, they tend to be
extremely costly, unsightly, and not practical for bridges and/or urban highways ( 1, 3 ). A
better method to control noise is the use of sound absorbing materials, or pavement
surfaces that result in less noise generation. It is common practice in noise control
engineering to use reduced density porous materials to achieve sound absorption. Sound
absorbing materials are used for walls, floors, and ceiling to reduce the noise that is
generated from within an enclosure.

This paper describes the results of a research study aimed at developing and
characterizing concretes with specially engineered pore structure as materials for sound
absorption. In general, sound absorbing materials are porous materials with reduced
densities. The basic principle is that the acoustic energy is converted into heat energy in
the open pores of the material, resulting in the reduction of perceived noise levels.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Cementitious materials can be classified as "rigid-framed" (the rigidity or

stiffness of the frame is much higher than that of air) materials where sound absorption is
typically believed to occur in an array of tortuous pores in the material (4,5). This
acoustic loss is attributed to the adiabatic pressure changes due to air compression (as the
air enters the pores) and expansion (as air leaves out of the pores). In addition, the
frictional losses in the pore walls also contribute to the acoustic absorption.

MATERIALS AND MIXTURES CONSIDERED

Three different cementitious materials with different porosity were considered

for this study. The method of manufacture and properties of these materials are described
in this section.

Foamed Cellular Concrete !FCC)

Foamed cellular concrete is manufactured by m1xmg cement, sand, and a

foaming agent. The material used in the study was a commercial product, and was pre-
cast in the plant. The density of the material can be varied from 300 to 1200 kg/m 3 .
Three different densities, as provided by the manufacturer, were used in this study - 450,
560, and 700 kg/m 3 • Figure 1(a) shows a cross section of foamed cellular concrete.

Enhanced Porositv Concrete (EPC)

Enhanced porosity concrete (EPC) is proportioned by gap grading the coarse

aggregates and either eliminating (or limiting) the sand volume in the matrix. Figure 1(b)
shows a typical cross section of EPC. The cement content is established by providing a
sufficient amount of paste to coat the aggregates since an excessive amount of paste may
drain through the pores of the material. The water-to-cement ratio is also kept low for the
same reason.
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Three aggregate sizes - #8, #4, and 3/8" were chosen for single sized aggregate
mixtures. The aggregate sizes shown refer to the sieve in which they were retained (for
instance, # 4 indicates that the aggregates passed through a 3/8'' (9.5 mm) sieve and were
retained on the# 4 (4.75 mm}sieve). In addition, binary blends of these mixtures were
also considered. Blends were prepared by replacing 25, 50, and 75% by weight of the
larger sized aggregates successively by smaller sized aggregates. The mixtures were
prepared using a laboratory mixer in accordance with ASTM C 192-00 (6), cast in 150 x
150 x 700 mm beam molds and consolidated using external vibration. Cylindrical
specimens, 95 mm in diameter were cored from these beams at a later age for acoustic
absorption measurements in the impedance tube.

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Morphologically altered cellulose fibers were considered as an option to

introduce sound absorbing channels in the material. The cellulose fibers used in this
study were in the form of nodules, 2-8 mm in size, and are referred to as
"macronodules"(Figure 1(c)). These nodules are aggregations of individual fibers and
therefore are porous. A cement-sand mortar with 50% aggregate volume was used. The
fiber contents used were 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0 and 7.5% by total volume.

Cement and sand were first mixed at low speed for one minute and then the
fibers were added, during mixing. Approximately three quarters of the water was needed
for proper mixing. The water was added and all ingredients were mixed at medium speed
for two minutes. The remaining water was then added with water reducer and mixed until
a uniform mixture was obtained (typically one minute). Care was taken to ensure that the
mixer did not run at a higher than required speed or for a longer than required duration to
avoid breaking down of fiber nodules in the mixer. For mixtures with high volumes of
fiber (6.0 and 7.5%), an accelerator was added since it was noticed that there was
considerable set retardation otherwise. Cylindrical specimens (95 mm in diameter) were
prepared for acoustic absorption whereas beams (75 mm x 250 mm x 25 mm) were made
for measurements of damping behavior.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Porosity Determination

Foamed Cellular Concrete (FCC)- The porosities of the FCC specimens could be related
to their densities. FCC with a density of 450 kg/m 3 had a porosity of0.75, the one with a
density of560 kg/m 3 had a porosity of0.70 and the one with density 700 kg/m 3 , 0.61.

Enhanced Porosity Concrete (EPC) - Because of the presence of large interconnected

pores in the EPC system, the following procedure was developed to determine the
porosity. The cylindrical specimens (95 mm in diameter and 150 mm long) that were
cored from bemn~ were immersed in water for 24 hours to saturate the pores in the matrix
After this period, the sample was removed from water, and the excess ·water on the sides
wiped to bring it to SSD condition. The sample was then enclosed in a latex membrane
and the bottom of the cylinder was sealed to a stainless steel plate using silicone sealant.
The mass of the sample, latex membrane, and the steel plate together (M 1) was measured.
Water was added to the top of the sample until it was filled, which indicated that all the
interconnected pores were saturated. The mass of the system filled with water was taken
(M2). The difference in the mass <'lM = (M 2-M 1) represents the water in the pores. This
mass was converted into an equivalent volume of water, and expressed as a percentage of
the total volume of the specimen to provide an indication of the total porosity.

Cellulose Cement Composite (CCC)- Porosity was determined on 75 mm x 75 mm x 25

mm prisms of composite specimens. Vacuum saturation (as described in RILEM CPC
11.3 (7)) has been followed to determine the porosity. The prisms were dried in an oven

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 139
at I 0565°C until no change in measured weight was noticed. The specimens were then
placed in a vacuum chamber for 3 hours before water was introduced to the chamber,
under vacuum. The vacuum was maintained for 6 more hours after which time the
specimens were left in water for additional I 8 hours. The saturated surface dried weight
was then determined. The water absorbed by the fibers was accounted for in the vacuum
saturated weight so as to obtain the total porosity.

Detennination of Acoustic Absmption Coefficient (a)

The acoustic absorption coefficient (a) is a measure of how well a material can
absorb sound. When a sound wave strikes a material, a portion of the sound energy is
reflected back while a portion is absorbed by the material. The absorption coefficient is
the ratio of the absorbed energy to the total incident energy.
The acoustic impedance tube was used to determine the absorption coefficient
(a) using the experimental set up as described in ASTM E I 050-98 (8) (Figure 2). The
sample was placed at one end of the cylindrical tube with a rigid backing. The specimen
was tested with a plane acoustic wave propagating along the axis of the tube. The
absorption coefficient is calculated as:
(Equation I)
where the reflection coefficient (R) is computed for frequencies ranging from I 00 to
I 600 Hz using the following equation:
ejkd, _ ejkd, p
R= u (Equation 2)
e-r<,
11 P-e-r'

where d 1 and d2 are the distances from the specimen surface to the first and second
microphones respectively (Figure 2), j is ~, k is the wa~e number (ratio of angular

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
frequency to the wave speed in the medium), and Pis the ratio of acoustic pressures.

A threshold of I 00 Hz was established because at very low frequencies; the

acoustic pressures were difficult to stabilize. Frequencies higher than I 600 Hz can be
measured accurately only when the impedance tube has a small diameter (9). To achieve
acoustic measurements over the widest range of frequencies, and to ensure that a
"standing wave" is generated inside the impedance tube, the diameter of the cylinder
should be as small as possible. However, preparation of homogeneous concrete samples
of such small sizes tends to be difficult due to the size of the aggregates. An upper limit
of 1600 Hz was used because the most prominent levels in tire-pavement interaction
noise occurs between 800 and 1200Hz (1, 10).

Specific Damping Capacity for Cellulose Cement Composites

The Specific Damping Capacity (;() was determined on 75 mm x 250 mm x 25 mm

beams according to the decaying sin wave method.
X= A, - An+i x 100% (Equation 3)
A,

Copyright American Concrete Institute

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the results of the experimental investigations conducted on

foamed cellular concrete (FCC), enhanced porosity concrete (ECC), and cellulose cement
composites (CCC) to ascertain their acoustical efficiency.

Foamed Cellular Concrete (FCC)

The acoustic absorption spectra (variation of acoustic absorption coefficient

with frequency) of FCC are given in Figure 3(a). It can readily be noticed that the peak
absorption coefficient is reduced with increasing specimen density. However, the
maximum absorption coefficient (a) of FCC is higher than that of normal mortar or
concrete. For the chosen specimen length ( 150 mm), the peak absorption coefficients
occur at a frequency of 300 - 400 Hz. The slight variations in the frequency at the peak
absorption are due to the fact that there are changes in the pore structure of the material
with changes in density .. Figure 3(b) shows the maximum absorption coefficients of all
the three FCC samples plotted against density. The maximum absorption coefficients are
in the range of 0.20-0.30. Though the FCC specimens are very light and have a high
porosity, the absorption coefficients are not particularly high due to their disconnected
pore structure, even though they are superior to nom1al concrete or mortar, which has an
a of about 0.05.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Enhanced Porositv Concrete <EPC)

The porosities of EPC (proportioned with single sized aggregates) are shown in
Figure 4(a) and the acoustic absorption spectra of these mixtures in Figure 4(b). Though
the porosities of these mixtures lie in a very narrow range (0.19-0.21), the mixture with
larger aggregate size (3/8") tend to be acoustically less efficient because of the large pore
sizes in these materials (characteristic pore size, which is the median of all pore sizes
greater than I mm in the material, is - Smm for mixtures with 3/8" aggregates, as
compared to -3 mm in mixtures with smaller sized aggregates) which do not force the
sound waves to alternatively compress and expand, which is the primary energy
expending process in these materials ( 10). This points to the fact that though the total
pore volume is a very important pore structure feature as far as acoustic absorption is
concerned, the pore sizes also play a significant role. Large pore sizes are found to be
acoustically inefficient. The acoustic perfom1ance of mixtures comprising of either #4 or
#8 aggregates alone was comparable.

As described earlier, blends of two different aggregate sizes were also used to
evaluate their efficiency in acoustic absorption. Blending of aggregates of different sizes
is expected to generate optimal porosity and pore size in EPC thus aiding in acoustic
absorption. A typical case of blending of #4 and #8 aggregates is described in this
section. The porosities of the blended mixtures are shown in Figure 5(a). It can be seen
that the highest porosity is achieved for a 50% #4, 50% #8 blend. This can be explained

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete 141
by the fact that there is an increased volume of voids in the interface in a mixture of
coarse and fine particles (II). The characteristic pore size of the EPC mixture with # 4
aggregate was found to be smaller than 2.36 mm, which is the size of # 8 aggregate.
Therefore the smaller aggregate could not fit into the pore space of the mixture with
larger size aggregates, resulting in a higher porosity. Similar explanation also applies for
the 75% #4, 25% #8 blend.
The acoustic absorption spectra for 150 mm long EPC mixtures with a blend of
#4 and #8 aggregates are given in Figure 5(b). It can be seen that for the 75% #4, 25% #8
and 50% #4, 50% #8 blends, the maximum acoustic absorption coefficients are higher
than those for single sized aggregate mixtures. It should be noted that these are the
mixtures with higher porosity, which partly explains the reason for higher acoustic
absorption. But more importantly, in these mixtures, the blending of the aggregates
creates a more acoustically efficient pore structure (with respect to pore size and
tortuosity) leading to better acoustic absorption. A thorough treatment of the acoustic
absorption characteristics of EPC with different aggregate sizes and blends could be
found elsewhere ( 10).

Cellulose Cement Composite (CCC)

The use of morphologically altered cellulose fibers for acoustic effectiveness

was based on the premise that these fibers, because of their physical nature, could provide
continuous pathways inside the material through which sound waves can propagate, and
attenuate (12). Originally, three different morphologies of cellulose fibers were
considered, but only the macronodule fiber, which was the most acoustically effective, is
discussed in this paper.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The porosity of the composite was found to increase with an increase in volume
of the fiber phase, as shown in Figure 6(a). The relationship between the porosity of the
composite (<!>composite) at any fiber volume and the porosity of the fiber free mortar matrix
(<!>mortar) can be given by:

<!J composite~ <!J mortar (I + A V f) (Equation 4)

where the value of the constant A can be considered as an indicator of the contribution of
the fiber phase to the total porosity of the composite.

The acoustic absorption spectra for CCC with macronodule fibers are shown in
Figure 6(b). For these 75 mm long specimens, the absorption peak occurs at a frequency
of approximately 500 Hz. It can be seen that an increase in fiber content increases the
maximum absorption coefficient. For a sample with no fibers, the maximum absorption
coefficient (a) is approximately 0.05 and it steadily increases to approximately 0.40 for
the composite with 7.5% volume of macro nodules. The macro nodules appear to
provide porous channels inside the specimen where the incident sound energy can enter
and attenuate. With an increase in fiber volume, it is expected that there is an increase in
the number of connected porous channels, leading to an increase in sound absorption.
The energy dissipation capacity of a material can also be defined in terms of its
specific damping capacity. This parameter is very useful in characterizing materials like

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
142 Neithalath et al.
CCC where an inclusion phase is present, the stiffness of which differs from that of the
matrix by more than one order of magnitude (the modulus of elasticity of normal mortar
is approximately 30 GPa, where as the cellulose fibers have a modulus of 1-2 GPa). The
acoustical mismatch of impedance at the interface of the constituent phases contributes
significantly to damping ( 12, 13).

For specimens with macronodules, Figure 6(c) shows the relationship between
fiber content and specific damping capacity for two different ages of curing and three
different moisture conditions (wet, dry, and rewetted). An increase in fiber volume
results in an increased damping capacity, especially for wet specimens. This may be
attributed to the fact that an increase in volume of macro nodules increases the stiffness
mismatch, resulting in higher energy dissipation in the material than it would have for a
sample without fibers. These results are also in line with observations from a study on
damping mechanisms in hardened pastes, mortar and concrete which indicated that the
damping capacity is related to the percentage of water-filled pores in the system (14),
with increased moisture leading to a higher degree of damping. Higher volumes of macro
nodules effectively increase the amount of water filled pores in the system, thereby
resulting in high damping capacity values. For the same curing conditions (7 day and 14
day wet), it can be observed that the damping capacity decreases with age, probably due
to reduction in porosity and pore water content as a result of cement hydration. The
reduction, though, is not very large in this case.

The damping capacity is extremely sensitive to the moisture content. The values
were reduced to one-fifth of the measured saturated values for composites reinforced with

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
7.5% macro nodules when the specimens were dried at 105°C. The loss of moisture and
development of microcracking may have opposing effects on damping (14). The
presence of microcracks increases damping whereas the Joss of moisture decreases
damping. When the specimens are dried at I 05°C, there are chances of formation of
microcracks, but it appears that the increase in damping capacity due to microcracking is
much smaller than the decrease due to water loss. As a result, dry specimens possess a
smaller damping capacity than wet ones. The variation in damping capacity with fiber
volume is also smaller for dried specimens. This brings out another interesting
observation. Though the acoustical mismatch between the different phases in the material
may seem to be the driving force for increased damping of composites with higher fiber
volumes, the influence of presence of large amounts of water in these mixes cannot be
neglected. On rewetting of the 14 day old specimens, it can be seen that, for composites
with macro nodules, the damping capacity increases again. The increase this time is very
significant and the value is higher than that observed for 7 day moist cured mixes,
especially at low fiber contents. This could be due to the synergestic effects of both
microcracking as well as the presence of water molecules. At higher fiber contents, this
value approaches the damping capacity observed for 7 day and 14 day wet composites
(12).

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Three porous materials, having different pore volume fractions, and vastly
varying pore structure characteristics have been studied for their effectiveness in acoustic
absorption. It has been found that the pore structure could be tailored to achieve
desirable acoustic absorption characteristics. In the case of EPC, this could be
accomplished by blending different aggregate sizes in chosen proportions, whereas for
CCC, the use of morphologically altered fibers to provide continuous channels in the
material is an option. The closed cell structure of FCC is not as effective as the other two
materials in acoustic absorption.

The conclusions from this study can be summarized as follows:

(i) FCC though having a higher porosity, has a maximum acoustic absorption
coefficient (a) in the range of only 0.20-0.30 because of its closed cell structure.
However, this value is higher than that of normal concrete (~ 0.05). CCC
incorporating high fiber volumes show a values of about 0.40, where as the
a values ofEPC were observed to be as high as 0.80.

(ii) Acoustic absorption coefficient of EPC with larger sized aggregates is found to be
typically lower, since the pore sizes also tend to be large. Larger pore sizes are
acoustically inefficient.

(iii) Blending of selected aggregate sizes in chosen proportions is found to create pore
sizes in EPC that are acoustically efficient. Higher porosity of the blends, along
with a pore structure that is tortuous enough to absorb sound waves, is believed to
be the reason for the improved acoustic absorption. The acoustic absorption of
EPC with properly chosen aggregate blends is around 0.80.

(iv) The use of morphologically altered cellulose fibers results in a moderate acoustic
absorption. The porous macronodules are expected to provide interconnected
channels inside the material where the sound waves can attenuate. The absorption
coefficient increases with an increase in fiber volume, possibly due to increased
porosity, and the generation of increased number of interconnected porous
channels in the matrix.
(v) Specific damping capacity increases with an increase in fiber content, presumably
due to an increased impedance mismatch between the cementitious matrix and the
cellulose phases.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Institute of Safe, Quiet
and Durable Highways (SQDH) and the Center for Advanced Cement Based Materials
(ACBM). The authors thank Brian Wester and Julie Reimer of Weyerhaeuser in

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
144 Neithalath et al.
providing the cellulose fibers and Ned Glysson of Elastizell Corporation in providing the
foamed concrete specimens. The work reported in this paper was performed in the
Charles Pankow Concrete Materials Laboratory and the Herrick Labs; as such the
support, which has made these labs possible, is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Sandberg, U., and Ejsmont, J.A., "Tyre/Road noise reference book". Informex,
Kisa, Sweden, 2002
2. "Guide on evaluation and attenuation of traffic noise". AASHTO, Washington D.C
1974
3. Weiss, W.J., and Olek, J., "Development of quiet and durable porous cement
concrete paving materials", proposal submitted to the Institute of Safe, Quiet, and
Durable Highways, May 2000
4. Wang, X., and Lu, T. J., "Optimized acoustic properties of cellular solids", Journal
of the Acoustic Society of America, Vol. 106, No.2, 1999, pp. 756-765
5. Voronina, N., "An empirical model for rigid frame porous materials with low
porosity", Applied Acoustics, Vol. 58, 1999, pp. 295-304
6. ·ASTM C 192-00., "Standard method of making and curing concrete test specimens
in the laboratory", American Society of Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, 2000
7. RILEM CPC 11.3, "Absorption of water by immersion under vacuum", Materials
and Structures, Vol. 17, 1984, pp. 391-94
8. ASTM E 1050-98, "Standard test method for impedance and absorption of
acoustic materials using a tube, two microphones and a digital frequency analysis
system", American Society of Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, 1998
9. Allard, J.F., "Propagation of sound in porous media- modeling sound absorbing
materials", Elsevier Applied Science, 1993
I 0. de Larrard, F., "Concrete mixture proportioning - a scientific approach", Modern
Concrete Technology Series 9, E & FN Spon, New York, 1999
11. Marolf, A., Neithalath, N., Sell, E., Wegner, K., Weiss, W.J., and Olek, J.,
"Influence of aggregate size and gradation on the acoustic absorption of enhanced
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

porosity concrete", ACI Materials Journal Vol. 101 (1), 2004. pp 82-91
12. Neithalath, N., Weiss, W.J., and Olek, J., "Acoustic performance and damping
behavior of cellulose-cement composites", Cement and Concrete Composites Vol.
26,2004, pp 359-370
13. Chen, C. P., and Lakes, R. S., "Analysis of high loss viscoelastic composites",
Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 28, 1993, pp. 4299-4304
14. Chowdhury, S. H., "Damping characteristics of reinforced and partially prestressed
concrete beams", Ph.D Thesis, Griffith University, Australia, 1999

Copyright American Concrete Institute

(a) (c)

Figure 1: (a) Typical cross section of FCC, (b) Typical cross section of EPC,
(c) Macronodule fibers used to manufacture CCC

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Figure 2: Impedance tube set up to measure acoustic absorption

Specimen length 150 mm

..B o.a
:g
c

.... 700 kg/cu.m

§£: 0.6
-8- 560 kg/cu.m 0
__.._ 460 kg/cu.m
--...-Normal mortar !
~ 0.4
i
E
...
~ 0.2

::&
0-~--,---~---,---~- ,- ~~,--l·-

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 450 500 550 600 650 700
Frequency (Hz) Density (kglm')

(a) (b)

Figure 3: (a)Acoustic absorption spectra of FCC,

(b) Variation of maximum absorption coeffieint of FCC with density

Copyright American Concrete Institute

--·- 100% 318"

0.20 ~ 0.8 -100%#4
u -100%1UJ

a-0.15
li0 0.6
0
~
~ 0.10 e.
I:
0
0.4
~
0.05 ~ 0.2

#8 #4 318" 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Aggregate olze Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4: (a) Porosity of EPC with single sized aggregates (b) Acoustic absorption spectra
of EPC with single sized aggregates. The values were obtained for each I Hz frequency.
but the symbols are shown discretely to distinguish between different specimens

0.20

l;o 0.15
"iii
e
0
a. 0.10

0.05

100% 75%#8 50%1UJ 25%#8 100%

#8 25%#4 50%#4 75%#4 #4

(a)
1.0 -,---'--.L._-'---__l_.......__ _L_ _.__.L.__ _ --+
I
-, Specimen length 150 mm _..__ 100"!..#4, 0% #8
""""""*"-
25% 114, 75% #8
.i 0.8~ -8-- 50% 114, 50% #8
u
=
8 0.6--'
I:
,ge- 0.4 -.:
s .
.1:1
< 0.2-

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Frequency (Hz)

(b)

Figure 5: (a) Porosity of EPC with blended aggregate mixtures

(b) Acoustic absorption spectra of EPC with a blend of# 4 and# 8 aggregates

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Specimen length 75 mm
----k-o%
-+-1.5%
s
I.
0.8 : 3.0%
. ++·· 4.5%
~6.0%
--G- 7.5% -

c
8 0.4
e-
~
~ 0.2

I
0 2 4 6 8 400 800 1200 16011
Fiber volume (%) Frequency (Hz.)
(a) (b)

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

(c)

Figure 6: (a) Influence of fiber volume on the porosity of CCC (b) Acoustic absorption
spectra of CCC with varying fiber volume (c) Relationship between fiber volume
and specific damping capacity of CCC

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Length
inch millimeter (mm) 25.4E+
foot meter (m) 0.3048E
yard meter (m) 0.9144E
mile (statute) kilometer (km) 1.609

Area
square inch square centimeter (cm2) 6.451

square foot square meter (m 2) 0.0929

square yard square meter (m 2 ) 0.8361

Volume (capacity)
ounce cubic centimeter (cm 3 ) 29.57
gallon cubic meter (m 3 ):j: 0.003785
cubic inch cubic centimeter (cm 3 ) 16.4
cubic foot cubic meter (m 3) 0.02832
cubic yard cuhic meter (m\i: 0.7646

Force
kilogram-force newton (N) 9.807
kip-force newton (N) 4448
pound-force newton (N) 4.448

Pressure or stress
(force per area)
kilogram-force/square meter pascal (Pa) 9.807
kip-force/square inch (ksi) megapascal (MPa) 6.895
newton/square meter (N/m 2) pascal (Pa) l.OOOE
pound-force/square foot pascal (Pa) 47.88
pound-force/square inch (psi) kilopascal (kPa) 6.895
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Bending moment or torque

inch-pound-force newton-meter (Nm) 0.1130
foot-pound-force newton-meter (Nm) 1.356
meter-kilogram-force newton-meter (Nm) 9.807

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
150 Conversion Factors-Inch-Pound to Sl (Metric)
To convert from to multiply by
Mass
ounce-mass (avoirdupois) gram (g) 28.34
pound-mass (avoirdupois) kilogram (kg) 0.4536
ton (metric) megagram (Mg) I.OOOE
ton (short, 2000 Ibm) megagram (Mg) 0.9072

Mass per volume

pound-mass/cubic foot kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m 3) 16.02

pound-mass/cubic yard 3 0.5933

kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m )
pound-ma"/gallon kilogram/cubic meter (kg/m 3) 119.8

Temperature§
deg Fahrenheit (F) deg Celsius (C) tc: (tF- 32)/1.8
deg Celsius (C) deg Fahrenheit (F) tF : I .Rtc + 32

* This selected list gives practical conversion factors of units found in concrete technology. The reference
source for information on SI units and more exact conversion factors is "Standard for Metric Practice" ASTM E
380. Symbols of metric units are given in parentheses.
t E indicates that the factor given is exact.
tOne liter (cubic decimeter) equals 0.001 m 3 or 1000 cm 3 .
§ These equations convert one temperature reading to another and include the necessary scale corrections. To
convert a difference in temperature from Fahrenheit to Celsius degrees. divide by 1.8 only, i.e., a change from 70
to 88 F represents a change of 18 For 18/1.8 : I 0 C.

--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Index

A Fouad, F. H., 1, 17, 29

AAC, 1,29
AAC design, 91
AAC floor/roof panels, 91 impedance, 135
AAC walls, 91 Itzler, K., 91
acoustic absorption, 135
Argudo, J., 45 K
autoclaved aerated concrete, 1, 17, 29, 45, Klingner, R. E., 17, 45, 67
67
L
B lightweight concrete, 123
Barnett, R. E., I 7 lintel, 29
Brightman, M., 45
M
c material properties, 1
Cancino, U., 45
cellular concrete, 45, 67 N
cellulose cement composite, 135 Neithalath, N., 135
Nelson, A., 91
D
damping, 135. 0
Dembowski, 1., 1, 29 Olek, J., 135
density, 123
design, 45, 67 p
drying shrinkage, 123 panels, 17
ductility, 123 porosity, 135
precast, 17
E
earthquake, 45, 67 R
enhanced porosity concrete, 135 reinforced, 29
Riefler, M., 123
F
fiber, 123 s
floor panel, 29 seismic, 17
foamed cellular concrete, 135 Shi, C., 123

Copyright American Concrete Institute

T
Tanner,J.E., 17,45,67
test methods, 1

v
Varela, J. L., 45, 67

w
wall panel, 29
Weiss, J., 135
Wu, Y., 123

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com
American Concrete Institute®
--`,```,,``,,,`,,,``````,,,,```,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Advancing concrete hrww/t:'Clge

Copyright American Concrete Institute

Provided by IHS under license with ACI
SP-2?~
Licensee=UNI OF NEW SOUTH WALES/9996758001
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS Not for Resale, 08/10/2015 01:23:49 MDT
Daneshlink.com

506.5-22 Preview
No ratings yet
506.5-22 Preview
6 pages
Alkali-Activated Binder Concrete Durability
No ratings yet
Alkali-Activated Binder Concrete Durability
13 pages
Aci SP-153 Vol1,2 Book - 1995
No ratings yet
Aci SP-153 Vol1,2 Book - 1995
1,195 pages
Aci 207.1R-5
No ratings yet
Aci 207.1R-5
30 pages
ACI E702.8-22 Designing Concrete Structures Evaluation of Concrete Cores Test Results According To ACI 318-19
100% (1)
ACI E702.8-22 Designing Concrete Structures Evaluation of Concrete Cores Test Results According To ACI 318-19
8 pages
NRMC CIP 26p
No ratings yet
NRMC CIP 26p
2 pages
Guide To Decorative Concrete: Reported by Joint ACI-ASCC Committee 310
No ratings yet
Guide To Decorative Concrete: Reported by Joint ACI-ASCC Committee 310
5 pages
A Review On Cement-Based Materials Used in Steel Structures As Fireproof Coating
No ratings yet
A Review On Cement-Based Materials Used in Steel Structures As Fireproof Coating
14 pages
ACI PRC 225 23 Guide To The Selection and Use of Hydraulic Cements
No ratings yet
ACI PRC 225 23 Guide To The Selection and Use of Hydraulic Cements
44 pages
ACI PRC-364.6-22: Concrete Removal in Repairs Involving Corroded Reinforcing Steel-Technote
No ratings yet
ACI PRC-364.6-22: Concrete Removal in Repairs Involving Corroded Reinforcing Steel-Technote
3 pages
Asa Catalog Web
100% (1)
Asa Catalog Web
24 pages
ACI PRC-364.8-22: Hydrodemolition For Concrete Removal in Unbonded Post-Tensioned Svstems,-Technote
No ratings yet
ACI PRC-364.8-22: Hydrodemolition For Concrete Removal in Unbonded Post-Tensioned Svstems,-Technote
3 pages
New Recommendations ASR Mitigation USBR
No ratings yet
New Recommendations ASR Mitigation USBR
24 pages
STP 15 51 Permeable Concrete
100% (1)
STP 15 51 Permeable Concrete
116 pages
Aci sp-228-2005
No ratings yet
Aci sp-228-2005
1,562 pages
نسخة من 239R-18 Ultra-High-Performance Concrete An Emerging Technology Report
100% (1)
نسخة من 239R-18 Ultra-High-Performance Concrete An Emerging Technology Report
28 pages
In Situ Concrete Strength
100% (1)
In Situ Concrete Strength
56 pages
نسخة من 241R-17 Report on Application of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials in Concrete
100% (1)
نسخة من 241R-17 Report on Application of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials in Concrete
40 pages
ACI E702 3 21 Designing Concrete Structures Acceptance of Concrete
100% (1)
ACI E702 3 21 Designing Concrete Structures Acceptance of Concrete
7 pages
305R-20 Preview
No ratings yet
305R-20 Preview
5 pages
Practitioner's Guide For Alternative Cements: Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 10
100% (2)
Practitioner's Guide For Alternative Cements: Reported by ACI Innovation Task Group 10
20 pages
003-SKM C554e19012213130
No ratings yet
003-SKM C554e19012213130
32 pages
SIKA - Tunnel Segments Production With SIKA Rapid-1
No ratings yet
SIKA - Tunnel Segments Production With SIKA Rapid-1
4 pages
Aci Committee Report
No ratings yet
Aci Committee Report
24 pages
Aci PRC-506.7-23
No ratings yet
Aci PRC-506.7-23
8 pages
Hot Weather Concrete Tips
No ratings yet
Hot Weather Concrete Tips
7 pages
Aci PRC-506.6T-17
No ratings yet
Aci PRC-506.6T-17
4 pages
ACI Committee 304 - Heavyweight Concrete - Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and Placing, ACI 304.3R-96
No ratings yet
ACI Committee 304 - Heavyweight Concrete - Measuring, Mixing, Transporting, and Placing, ACI 304.3R-96
10 pages
Aci sp-239-2006
100% (1)
Aci sp-239-2006
587 pages
006 Curing-July15
No ratings yet
006 Curing-July15
11 pages
Aci 201 Guide To Durable Concrete PDF
No ratings yet
Aci 201 Guide To Durable Concrete PDF
17 pages
Calculating Shear Friction Using An Effective Coefficient of Friction
100% (1)
Calculating Shear Friction Using An Effective Coefficient of Friction
7 pages
Crack Width Measurement
No ratings yet
Crack Width Measurement
5 pages
Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing: Standard Specification For
No ratings yet
Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and Continuous Mixing: Standard Specification For
6 pages
G03734 EpoxyInjection
No ratings yet
G03734 EpoxyInjection
12 pages
EM - 1110!2!2102 Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials For Civil Works Structures
No ratings yet
EM - 1110!2!2102 Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials For Civil Works Structures
23 pages
Aci 555R-01
100% (1)
Aci 555R-01
26 pages
The Use and Abuse of The Slump Test For Measuring The Workability of Concrete PDF
No ratings yet
The Use and Abuse of The Slump Test For Measuring The Workability of Concrete PDF
11 pages
Comparison of Is BS and ACI Methods of C
No ratings yet
Comparison of Is BS and ACI Methods of C
38 pages
8th Edition NPCA QC Manual
100% (2)
8th Edition NPCA QC Manual
181 pages
Aci sp-211-2003
No ratings yet
Aci sp-211-2003
370 pages
325.13R 06 PDF
No ratings yet
325.13R 06 PDF
40 pages
Astm C1077
No ratings yet
Astm C1077
6 pages
ACI 546.1R-80, Guide For Repair of Concrete Bridge Superstructures
100% (1)
ACI 546.1R-80, Guide For Repair of Concrete Bridge Superstructures
20 pages
Mass Concrete: Cracks & Control
100% (1)
Mass Concrete: Cracks & Control
38 pages
نسخة من 234R-06 Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete
No ratings yet
نسخة من 234R-06 Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete
63 pages
Aci Spec-308.1-23
100% (1)
Aci Spec-308.1-23
10 pages
225r 16 Guide To The Selection and Use of Hydraulic Cements
100% (1)
225r 16 Guide To The Selection and Use of Hydraulic Cements
40 pages
214.3R - 88simplified Version of The Recommended Practice For Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete PDF
No ratings yet
214.3R - 88simplified Version of The Recommended Practice For Evaluation of Strength Test Results of Concrete PDF
8 pages
D3 Creep Concrete Parte 2 Neville ACI CI 2002
No ratings yet
D3 Creep Concrete Parte 2 Neville ACI CI 2002
4 pages
AAC Blocks: Pros and Cons
No ratings yet
AAC Blocks: Pros and Cons
6 pages
Guide For Design and Construction With Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
100% (1)
Guide For Design and Construction With Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Panels
88 pages
Aerated Concrete: A Revolutionary Construction Material: April 2018
No ratings yet
Aerated Concrete: A Revolutionary Construction Material: April 2018
7 pages
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Based On Fly Ash in de
No ratings yet
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Based On Fly Ash in de
9 pages
Autoclaved Aerated Concret11
No ratings yet
Autoclaved Aerated Concret11
5 pages
Siporex Vs Solid
No ratings yet
Siporex Vs Solid
2 pages
Aerated Concrete-A Sustainable Building Material
No ratings yet
Aerated Concrete-A Sustainable Building Material
9 pages
Materials Today: Proceedings: M. Kalpana, S. Mohith
No ratings yet
Materials Today: Proceedings: M. Kalpana, S. Mohith
3 pages
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Block
No ratings yet
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Block
53 pages
AAC Blocks in Construction Study
No ratings yet
AAC Blocks in Construction Study
11 pages
Aci sp-209-2002
No ratings yet
Aci sp-209-2002
916 pages
Aci sp-215-2003
No ratings yet
Aci sp-215-2003
446 pages
Aci sp-210-2003
No ratings yet
Aci sp-210-2003
255 pages
Aci sp-219-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-219-2004
174 pages
Aci sp-220-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-220-2004
212 pages
Aci sp-238-2006
100% (1)
Aci sp-238-2006
499 pages
Aci sp-218-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-218-2004
211 pages
Aci sp-221-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-221-2004
978 pages
Aci sp-222-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-222-2004
252 pages
Aci sp-224-2004
No ratings yet
Aci sp-224-2004
220 pages
Aci sp-231-2005
No ratings yet
Aci sp-231-2005
297 pages
Aci sp-227-2005
No ratings yet
Aci sp-227-2005
398 pages
Aci sp-234-2006
No ratings yet
Aci sp-234-2006
833 pages
Physics Light Reflection Quiz
No ratings yet
Physics Light Reflection Quiz
2 pages
Formula 1 External Aerodynamics Fluent PDF
No ratings yet
Formula 1 External Aerodynamics Fluent PDF
2 pages
Douglas Dean Notas
No ratings yet
Douglas Dean Notas
2 pages
Lecture 10 - Beams On Elastic Foundations
No ratings yet
Lecture 10 - Beams On Elastic Foundations
21 pages
DI03000171 FMHM Lab Manual
No ratings yet
DI03000171 FMHM Lab Manual
94 pages
AP Physics 1: Algebra-Based: Scoring Guidelines
No ratings yet
AP Physics 1: Algebra-Based: Scoring Guidelines
22 pages
18ASL66 Design Modelling and Analysis Lab
100% (1)
18ASL66 Design Modelling and Analysis Lab
82 pages
Wiegelmann Partial Differential Equations 1
No ratings yet
Wiegelmann Partial Differential Equations 1
56 pages
WWW Scribd
No ratings yet
WWW Scribd
3 pages
Book Catalogue 2024
No ratings yet
Book Catalogue 2024
83 pages
Special Capacity Building Training Physics Trainees' Module
100% (2)
Special Capacity Building Training Physics Trainees' Module
272 pages
Refractory Material COTS Vendor Survey-AppendixB
No ratings yet
Refractory Material COTS Vendor Survey-AppendixB
6 pages
CV 2025040306433791
No ratings yet
CV 2025040306433791
3 pages
Siti Nurina Adlina Binti Roslan 2017466054
100% (2)
Siti Nurina Adlina Binti Roslan 2017466054
27 pages
Cosmos Carl Sagan
No ratings yet
Cosmos Carl Sagan
18 pages
Che 308 (Forced Convection Heat Transfer)
No ratings yet
Che 308 (Forced Convection Heat Transfer)
5 pages
Class-11th Chemistry Byjus Topicwise Notes CH 6 - A Base For Thermodynamics.
No ratings yet
Class-11th Chemistry Byjus Topicwise Notes CH 6 - A Base For Thermodynamics.
15 pages
Diode Circuit Models & Applications
No ratings yet
Diode Circuit Models & Applications
22 pages
Aditya Physics
No ratings yet
Aditya Physics
18 pages
Physics Remedial DBU-Short Notes
100% (3)
Physics Remedial DBU-Short Notes
219 pages
Systemair ASP600 CENTRIFUGAL FAN SWSI
No ratings yet
Systemair ASP600 CENTRIFUGAL FAN SWSI
4 pages
CFD Applications in Energy Engineering Research An PDF
No ratings yet
CFD Applications in Energy Engineering Research An PDF
16 pages
Extrusion & Fabrication Process Guide
No ratings yet
Extrusion & Fabrication Process Guide
6 pages
Internal Forced Convection: "!PROBLEM 8-54"
No ratings yet
Internal Forced Convection: "!PROBLEM 8-54"
10 pages
CO2 Sequestration: A Comprehensive Review
No ratings yet
CO2 Sequestration: A Comprehensive Review
23 pages
Mathematician and Their Contribution1
No ratings yet
Mathematician and Their Contribution1
17 pages
Pyq Gravitation
No ratings yet
Pyq Gravitation
25 pages
Sample WPS Form (GTAW & SMAW) Welding Procedure Specification (WPS)
100% (1)
Sample WPS Form (GTAW & SMAW) Welding Procedure Specification (WPS)
1 page
Jurnal PID
No ratings yet
Jurnal PID
7 pages
HLC Mathematics Year 8
No ratings yet
HLC Mathematics Year 8
69 pages