Evaluation of Seismic Performance and Design of AAC Building Systems

Abstract

To achieve sustainability and resilience in construction, the demand for lightweight, high-strength panel systems with rapid and simple installation, as well as enhanced thermal insulation and acoustic performance, is increasing. Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), first developed in Sweden, has since been widely adopted across industrialized nations, particularly in the construction sector. Key advantages of AAC include its lightweight properties, effectiveness in reducing seismic forces, ease of installation, low thermal conductivity, fire resistance, and sound insulation. Its application significantly contributes to optimizing fuel and energy consumption, while its high compressive strength renders it a desirable material in contemporary construction practices. Given the growing demand for housing, the continued use of traditional materials and construction methods in Iran is increasingly inadequate. This study develops a design and implementation framework for a gravity-resisting and lateral load-bearing structural system using AAC elements, including reinforced blocks and panels. The proposed structural system adheres to internationally recognized building codes while incorporating Iranian seismic regulations. The design of floors and roofs employs reinforced AAC roof panels and a hybrid system combining AAC roof blocks with in-situ reinforced concrete. These elements were modeled based on sound engineering principles and evaluated through structural analysis software to compare performance outcomes. The findings indicate the influence of floor count, floor height, and building layout on the overall seismic behavior of the structure. The probability of exceeding thresholds of minor, moderate, and severe damage was analyzed under varying conditions. Specifically: (1) A comparison between one-story and two-story structures reveals reductions in the probability of exceeding partial, moderate, and severe damage thresholds by 59.7%, 94.5%, 99.3%, and 99.8%, respectively. (2) In comparing two-story and three-story structures, the respective reductions were 55.7%, 93.2%, 99.0%, and 99.7%.