Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Study of autoclaved aerated concrete masonry walls under vented gas

explosions
Zhan Li a,b, Li Chen a,⇑, Qin Fang a, Hong Hao b, Yadong Zhang a, Wensu Chen b, Hengbo Xiang a, Qi Bao a,c
a
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention & Mitigation of Explosion & Impact, PLA University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210007, China
b
Centre for Infrastructural Monitoring and Protection, School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia
c
PLA NO. 91058 Troop, Sanya, Hainan 572000, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A total of nine full-scale in-situ tests were carried out to investigate the performances of autoclaved aer-
Received 5 December 2016 ated concrete (AAC) masonry walls subjected to vented gas explosions. The testing data including over-
Revised 5 March 2017 pressure time histories of vented gas explosions, displacement time histories, and damage characteristics
Accepted 16 March 2017
of AAC masonry walls in each test were recorded and analysed. It was found that the responses of
Available online 2 April 2017
masonry walls mainly depend on the peak value of overpressure and couple with the time history of
gas explosion loads. Typical one-way or two-way flexural mode dominates the failure of AAC walls under
Keywords:
vented gas explosions. A detailed micro model for masonry walls was developed in LS-DYNA, incorporat-
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
Masonry wall
ing material parameters that were obtained from material tests. The accuracy of numerical model in pre-
Vented gas explosion dicting the responses of masonry walls was verified with the testing data. Parametric studies were
Field test conducted to explore the influences of block strength, boundary condition and wall thickness on the per-
Numerical simulation formances of masonry walls. The results reveal both wall thickness and boundary condition have signif-
Equivalent SDOF method icant influences on the response of the masonry wall while block strength has limited effect on its
performance. The testing data were compared with the analytical predictions by using design code
UFC 3-340-2 and equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) methods developed respectively by
Biggs and Morison. The results indicate that these predictions on one-way specimens agree well with
the testing data, while the performance of two-way specimens is overestimated by using these three
methods.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction generation mechanism of different peaks in the overpressure time

With the popularization of natural gas used in the industrial
and civilian fields, gas explosion accidents have been reported fre-
quently, which caused massive damage and structural failure [1,2].
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) has been widely used in con-
struction of load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls owing to its
low thermal conductivity, high fire resistance and lightweight.
However, the characteristics of low material strength and inhomo-
geneity lead to the vulnerability of AAC masonry walls under out-
of-plane loads [3,4]. In order to reduce the potential hazards to
structure, and enhance the safety of properties and human lives,
it is necessary to investigate dynamic response and failure mecha-
nism of AAC masonry walls under gas explosions.
In order to ensure the industrial safety, vented gas explosions
have been investigated intensively in recent decades [5–7]. The
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chenli1360@qq.com (L. Chen).
histories of gas explosion was studied. The effects of key parame-
ters including gas concentration, vent area, vent pressure and igni-
tion location on the vented gas explosion loads and different peaks
were experimentally investigated and analysed by Cooper et al. [5],
Mercx et al. [6], and Bao et al. [7]. Based on the testing data and
theoretical analyses, some formulae predicting vented gas explo-
sion loads were developed for engineering design [8,9]. It should
be noted that only peak overpressures but no time histories of
vented gas explosion loads have been considered in the design
codes, although structural responses are highly dependent on the
loading time histories. This is mainly because of a general lack of
information on gas explosion loading time history and the diffi-
culty in reliably predicting it. In the study on the anti-blast perfor-
mance of stiffened panels, i.e. blast walls for offshore platforms
reported by Louca et al. [10], the gas explosion load was simplified
as a symmetric triangle load with constant duration. This simplifi-
cation was also used by Parisi et al. [11] in their research on the tuff
masonry walls. Because of the complexity of gas explosion load

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.033
0141-0296/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460
observed in many blast tests, this oversimplification of gas explo-
sion loads may not lead to reliable prediction of structural
responses.
Although the existing study of masonry walls under gas explo-
sion was limited [12], the performance of masonry walls under
blast loads generated by high explosives have been intensively
studied owing to the increasing hazards from terrorist attacks, con-
ventional weapons and accidental explosions [13–17]. The
dynamic responses, failure modes, debris distributions and retro-
fitting techniques with different retrofitting materials were stud-
ied by conducting field blasting tests. Some of the above testing
results were used to verify numerical models. Three modelling
methods, i.e. detailed micro model, simplified micro model and
macro model were developed [18]. The damage level and the safety
scaled distance of masonry walls derived from numerical simula-
tions were recommended for engineering practice [15,19,20].
Arching effect of masonry walls was also considered in the theoret-
ical analysis [21–23]. In addition, the equivalent SDOF method was
validated and used to develop P-I diagrams for engineering appli-
cation [24]. Owing to its simplicity, the design approaches were
based largely on the equivalent SDOF method in engineering
design [25–27]. It should be noted that most previous studies were
limited to the reinforced or unreinforced concrete masonry unit
(CMU) and clay brick masonry walls.
Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), as an ‘ultra-lightweight’
concrete material with micro cellular structures, has been used
as an alternative to conventional normal-weight or lightweight
concrete products [3,4]. The existence of entrained air bubbles
enhances the physical properties, such as excellent thermal and
P1
P2
Window
P4
Probe
Fuel Cylinder Group
CH4
Concentration analyzer
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of testing setup.
445
sound insulation properties, but leads to the strength reduction
and heterogeneity of the material. In addition, AAC is of less den-
sity than traditional concrete or clay. Although the seismic perfor-
mance and fire resistance capacity of AAC masonry structures have
been well investigated [28,29], the study on the blast resistance
capacity of AAC masonry walls is very limited. Muszynski and Pur-
cell [30] conducted field tests on the air-entrained concrete (AEC)
masonry walls subjected to high explosive detonations. Their study
focused on investigating the effectiveness of using composite
materials for retrofitting the masonry wall therefore the structural
behaviour of was not emphasized in the study. Yankelevsky and
Avnon [31] carried out the tests to study the localized responses
of AAC under contact explosion and the effectiveness of surface
treatment on the wall performances. Test results showed that the
surface treatment enhanced the tensile strength and ductility of
AAC blocks, and contributed to higher resistance to tensile wave
spalling. No study of AAC masonry wall subjected to gas explosion
can be found in the open literature yet. Because the blast loads
generated by gas explosions have very different characteristics
such as lower amplitude, longer rise time, longer duration and pos-
sibly multiple peaks. As compared to those by high explosives, the
response mechanism and damage mode of ACC masonry walls sub-
jected to blast loads from gas and high-explosive explosions could
be very different. Therefore, it is necessary to study the ACC
masonry wall responses to gas explosion for reliable predictions
of the masonry wall damages and better design of protection mea-
sures for such walls to resist accidental gas explosions.
In this study, an experimental program was designed to per-
form a series of full-scale field tests on AAC masonry walls sub-
Watet tank
D1
RC chamber D2
P3
D3
Igniting pill
Testing
specimen
D4
Sliding door
D5
Explosion-proof fan
High Voltage Power Source
High speed camera
446 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460
jected to vented gas explosions. A detailed micro model was also
developed to predict the responses of AAC masonry walls by using
LS-DYNA 971. The parameters of the material model for AAC blocks
and mortar were obtained from material testing data. The predic-
tions from the numerical simulations are compared with the test-
ing data to calibrate the numerical model. The verified numerical
model was then used to study the effects of block strength, bound-
ary condition and thickness of the walls on the response of
masonry walls subjected to vented gas explosions. In addition,
the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) method was also
used to analyse the response of AAC masonry walls under gas
explosion loads. The predictions of displacement histories based
on the approaches specified respectively by Biggs, Morison and
UFC 3-340-2 are compared with testing data. The accuracies of
these three approaches in predicting the responses of AAC masonry
walls subjected to gas explosions are discussed.
2. Experimental investigations
2.1. Experimental program
A specially designed testing system was prepared for the vented
gas explosion tests. The testing system consisted of reinforced con-
crete (RC) chamber, masonry wall specimens, data-recording
2m
Block
3m
Mortar
(a) Front view of wall specimen
Fig. 2. Details of wall specimen.
Plastic film
(a) One-way specimen
Fig. 3. Boundary condition of wall specimens.
instruments and gas introducing/mixing/igniting instruments as
shown in Fig. 1.
2.1.1. Specimen preparation
Three wall specimens with dimensions of 2 m by 3 m were
made of AAC blocks with dimensions of
590 mm
120 mm
240 mm and 5 mm-thick mortar, as shown
in Fig. 2. Two types of boundary conditions were considered.
One-way specimens were constructed with the right and left
boundaries separated from the RC frames by the plastic film, as
shown in Fig. 3(a). The right and left boundaries of two-way spec-
imens were bolted into RC frames by the steel bars at an equal
space of 25 cm as shown in Fig. 3(b).
2.1.2. Data acquisition and measurement devices
The testing data including gas explosion loads, displacements
and failure modes of test walls were recorded by pressure sensors,
displacement transducers and high-speed camera, respectively.
Four piezoresistive water-cooling pressure sensors with a measur-
ing range of -20 to 150 kPa (CYG 1409, Kunshan Shuangqiao,
China) were used to record the overpressure. Pressure sensors des-
ignated as P1 to P3 were mounted on the front wall at the height of
0.2 m, 0.8 m and 2.5 m along the midline of the wall, respectively.
Pressure sensor P4 was mounted at 0.9 m off the center line with
590mm
120mm
240mm
(b) Autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) block
Steel bar
(b) Two-way specimen
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460
the height of 2.5 m. The installation of pressure sensors is shown in
Fig. 4(a). The water tank, a key part of water-cooling system, was
located on the top the RC chamber. Designated as D1 to D5, five
displacement transducers with a measuring range of 0–300 mm
(WYJL, Xian Xinmin, China) were fixed along the midline of wall
specimens at an equal space of 75 cm to acquire the displacement
time histories, as shown in Fig. 4(b). A high speed camera (FAS-
TCAM SA-Z, Photron Co., Ltd., Japan) was placed behind the test
wall about 15 meters from one side of the wall to record the failure
process of wall specimens. The signals from the pressure sensors
and displacement transducers were logged by the data acquisition
instrument (DongHua 5927, Donghua Testing Technology Co., Ltd.,
China) at a sampling rate of 30 kHz.
2.1.3. Gas introducing/mixing/igniting instruments
As a main component of natural gas, the methane was chosen as
the flammable gas in the tests and piped into the RC chamber from
the cylinder gas tanks. An infrared gas analyzer (QGS-08C, Nanjing
Xinfen, China), with a measuring range of 0–15 vol% and the accu-
racy of 0.1 vol% was employed to monitor the methane concentra-
tion. An explosion-proof fan (CBF-300, Zhejiang Dafeng Blowers,
China) was installed in the chamber to ensure the homogeneity
of gas mixture. Triggered by the high voltage power source, the
igniting pill with energy of 100 mJ fired the methane/air mixture
at the center of the RC chamber. The high voltage power source
also triggered the data acquisition instrument and the video cam-
era at the same time of ignition.
2.1.4. Test procedure
All specimens were tested under the vented gas explosion
ignited at the center of the RC chamber. Each wall was tested by
the following procedures. The first step was to place the wall spec-
Pressure sensor
(a) Pressure sensor
Displacement
transducer
(b) Displacement transducer
Fig. 4. Installation of pressure sensors and displacement transducers.
447
imen in front of the RC chamber, install the displacement transduc-
ers and seal the gap between the RC chamber and RC frame by
using foam sealant to avoid gas leakage during the course of filling
the gas. Next, the ignition pill was mounted at the center of RC
chamber and the vent cover was installed on the vent window.
Then, the methane was piped from the cylinder gas tank to the
RC chamber until the target concentration was reached. Mean-
while, the explosion-proof fan was turned on to evenly mix the
methane with air. After that, the steel sliding door was closed
and the water-cooling system for pressure sensors was turned
on. The interval between finishing the mixing and ignition was
kept at least 30 s to achieve a low and consistent initial turbulent
intensity. At last, the gas mixture was ignited by high voltage
power source. Both data acquisition system and high-speed cam-
era were triggered to record data.
2.2. Testing scheme
Nine tests were conducted to investigate the performance of
three AAC walls under gas explosion loads, as listed in Table 1.
Three wall specimens were constructed with two boundary condi-
tions. Different gas concentrations and vent covers were used to
achieve the desired gas explosion loads.
2.3. Testing results and discussions
2.3.1. Gas explosion loading
In the previous studies [7,32], the primary characteristics of gas
explosion loads have been analysed and discussed. The overpres-
sure with high frequency oscillation were acquired from four pres-
sure sensors and compared. The representative pressure-time
profiles recorded by the pressure sensor P1 are presented in this
Pressure sensor
Displacement
transducer
448 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

Table 1 paper, and the pressure time profiles are filtered to remove high
Testing scheme. frequency pressure oscillations.
Test No. Wall No. Gas Concentration Boundary Vent cover The overpressure-time histories acquired from nine tests are
(%) condition shown in Fig. 5 and summarized in Table 2. Weak vent cover (i.e.
1 W1 12.50% One-way 1.5 lm film 1.5 lm film and 6 lm film) and high methane concentration (i.e.
2 12.50% 6 lm film 12.5%) were applied in most of the tests to obtain low gas explo-
3 12.50% 4 mm glass panel sion loads as desired. As shown, the number of peaks and peak
4 W2 12.50% One-way 1.5 lm film value of gas explosion loads are different in different tests and
5 12.50% 6 lm film are sensitive to the test conditions (i.e. gas concentration level
6 9.50% 12 mm glass
panel
and vent cover). Three peaks, namely DP1 , DP 2 and DP 3 are promi-
nent in the load profiles of five tests 1/4/5/7/8, while the recorded
7 W3 12.50% Two-way 6 lm film
8 12.50% 4 mm glass panel
overpressure time histories in the other tests do not have three
9 9.50% 1.5 lm film prominent peaks. The effect of gas concentration on gas explosion
loads can be observed by comparing the data of Test 3 and Test 6.

Fig. 5. Test results for wall W1, W2 and W3.

 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460 449

Table 2
Vented gas explosion loads and mid-span displacements of wall specimens.

Test Wall DP 1 DP 4 Permanent

displacement (mm)
Peak Rise duration Maximum P/D (kPa/mm) Peak Rise duration Maximum P/D (kPa/mm)
(kPa) (ms) displacement (mm) (kPa) (ms) displacement (mm)
1 W1 0.74 180 2.16 0.34 – – – – 0.0
2 3.84 190 18.50 0.19 – – – – 1.8
3 5.15 386 – – – – – – Collapse
4 W2 0.37 200 0.37 1 – – – – 0.0
5 2.75 290 7.8 0.35 – – – – 0.6
6 13.61 190 – – – – – – Collapse
7 W3 2.91 357 2.22 1.31 – – – – 0.0
8 13.25 783 32.62 0.41 – – – – 3.8
9 1.23 130 – – 85.88 80 – – Collapse

Because the vent covers in both the Test 3 (i.e. 4 mm glass panel) peak pressure of 13.25 kPa, indicating that the two-way wall W3
and Test 6 (i.e. 12 mm glass panel) survived the gas explosions, can withstand the load with the peak overpressure more than
there was only one prominent peak in the recorded overpressure 2.5 times of the one-way wall W1.
profile since failure of wall specimens results in the relief of the
high pressure gas products inside the RC chamber. When the con-
centration changes from 12.5% (Test 3) to 9.5% (Test 6), The over- 2.3.3. Damage characteristics of AAC walls
pressure rising rate increases from 26.2 kPa/s to 145 kPa/s, and The crack/damage patterns of two wall specimens (i.e. W1 and
the peak pressure of DP1 increases from 5.15 kPa to 13.61 kPa. This W3) after Test 2 and Test 8 are shown in Fig. 6. As shown in Fig. 6
is because 9.5% stoichiometric concentration of methane results in (a), the wall specimen W1 with free boundary condition at left and
the highest laminar flame speed, which is associated with the right side experiences typical damage mode of one-way bending
burning rate and energy release of gas explosions. The most devas- and crack damage at the mid-height area of the wall. The two-
tating load is generated in Test 9, which have the vent cover of way wall specimen W3 experiences an X pattern crack damage
1.5 lm film and the methane concentration of 9.5%, as shown in as shown in Fig. 6(b). The permanent displacement of 3.8 mm is
Fig. 5(e). The load profile has two peaks, DP 1 and DP 4 . Owing to recorded at the center of the specimen after Test 8. Figs. 7–9 show
the weak vent cover of 1.5 lm film that leads to the quick pressure the failure process of wall specimens W1-W3 under devastating
relief, the value of DP1 is only 1.23 kPa, which is much lower than gas explosions, respectively. For the typical one-way wall speci-
DP4 (i.e. 85.88 kPa). Obviously, the large DP 4 causes the collapse of mens W1 and W2, a through crack similar to the typical yield line
wall specimen in Test 9. of one-way panels occurs at the horizontal middle area at the early
stage of failure process. With the rise of pressure inside the RC
chamber, the crack develops and divides the wall specimen into
2.3.2. Displacements of wall specimens
two sections. Then the wall is blown away and falls on the ground
The mid-span displacement-time histories of wall specimens
due to the gravity. In contrast, the wall specimen W3 experiences
are shown in Fig. 5. It should be noted that the displacement was
the damage mode of X pattern crack, which divides the wall spec-
not measured in the last destructive test of wall specimens (W1,
imen into four major sections. The different damage patterns are
W2 and W3) to avoid damaging the displacement transducers.
due to different boundary conditions.
The curves show similar trend with the corresponding
The effect of gas explosion loads on the failure of masonry walls
overpressure-time history profiles. Non-linear responses of wall
is investigated by comparing the failure modes of W1 and W2. As
specimens are summarized in Table 2. The ratio of peak overpres-
shown in Fig. 7, the specimen W1 is divided into two sections at
sure to maximum displacement, i.e. P/D, is also shown in the table.
the mid-span area in Test 3, under the gas explosion load with peak
As can be noticed, the plastic deformation of masonry wall
increases more significantly as compared to the peak overpressure
when the vent cover is stronger or the relief pressure DP1 is larger.
For example, for W3 in Test 7 the P/D ratio is 1.31, while in Test 8 it
decreases to 0.41 with the peak pressure increasing from 2.91 kPa
to 13.25 kPa. Similar phenomenon is found in the test data of W1
and W2.
The effect of boundary condition on the maximum displace-
ment of wall specimens is studied by comparing the test data of
Test 5 and Test 7. As given in Table 2, under the same testing con-
ditions (i.e. concentration of 12.5% and vent cover of 6 lm film),
the maximum displacement of the one-way specimen W2 is
7.8 mm in Test 5 and the two-way specimen W3 experiences the
maximum displacement of 2.22 mm in Test 7. This indicates that
the change of boundary conditions from one-way to two-way
results in about a 70% decrease in deflection. Similar conclusion
can be drawn by comparing the results from Test 3 and Test 8 with
the same testing conditions (i.e. concentration of 12.5% and vent
cover of 4 mm glass panel). In Test 3, the one-way specimen W1
collapses under the load with the peak pressure of 5.15 kPa, which (a) wall specimen (b) wall specimen
is unable to break the vent cover of 4 mm glass panel before the W1 in Test 2 W3 in Test 8
failure of masonry wall. However, in Test 8, the vent cover of
4 mm glass panel is broken before the two-way wall W3 at the Fig. 6. Damage of wall specimens.
450 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

Fig. 7. Failure process of Test 3 (one-way wall specimen W1).

Fig. 8. Failure process of Test 6 (one-way wall specimen W2).

Fig. 9. Failure process of Test 9 (two-way wall specimen W3).

value of 5.15 kPa. The wall specimen W2 with the same boundary
condition and thickness as the specimen W1 experiences a similar
damage at the early stage but more severe damage at the later
stage of Test 6 owing to higher pressure, as shown in Fig. 8. This
phenomenon can also be observed in Fig. 9. The wall W3 bursts
into pieces in Test 9 under the load with higher peak overpressure
and overpressure rising rate, which is different from damage
modes observed on other specimens. It is because the AAC blocks
of W3 fails by the high intensity stress wave due to gas explosion
loads with high peak pressure and rising rate in Test 9.
masonry walls. In this study, the anisotropic material model
⁄
Mat_96 (MAT BRITTLE DAMAGE) in LS-DYNA was used to model
the AAC blocks and mortar [33,34]. In this model, compressive fail-
ure is governed by a simplified J2 flow correction, which can be dis-
abled if unwanted. Progressive degradations of tensile and shear
strengths across smeared cracks are initiated under tensile loads.
The degradation is implemented by reducing the material’s modu-
lus normal to the smeared crack plane according to a maximum
dissipation law that incorporates exponential softening.
/1 ¼ S1 : r  f n þ kn f n ð1  exp½HaÞ 6 0 ð1Þ

3. Numerical study /2 ¼ jS2 : rj  f s þ ks f s ð1  exp½HaÞ 6 0 ð2Þ

3.1. Material model /3 ¼ jS3 : rj  f s þ ks f s ð1  exp½HaÞ 6 0 ð3Þ

The material models and their parameters are essential to where S1 ¼ n  n, S2 ¼ 1

2
ðn
 m þ m  nÞ, and S3 ¼ 1
2
ðn
 l þ l  nÞ;
ensure the reliable numerical predictions of the behaviour of m and l represent the unit vectors which form an orthonormal basis
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460 451

along with n; r is the stress tensor; f n is the critical tensile traction
that can be held across the smeared crack field; f s is the critical
shear traction that can be held across the smeared crack field; kn
and ks are coupling constants; H is the softening modulus; a is an
internal variable.
In order to determine the parameters of material models for the
AAC block and mortar, a series of laboratory tests, as shown in
Fig. 10, were conducted according to the testing standards i.e.
GB/T 11971-1997 and JGJ/T70-2009 [35,36]. The mean uniaxial
compressive strength of AAC blocks and mortar was 3.07 MPa
and 7.53 MPa, respectively. The density and Young’s modulus of
blocks and mortar are acquired from the material tests directly,
as summarized in Table 3. The Poisson’s rate, tensile limit, shear
limit, fracture toughness and shear retention factor are acquired
from references [29,34,37,38]. The parameters used in numerical
simulations are listed in Table 3. The element erosion was used
to simulate the failure of material. The maximum principal strain
at failure of block and mortar is 0.01 and 0.005, respectively, which
is calibrated with testing data by trial calculations.
3.2. Geometric model
For the detailed micro model, the AAC blocks and mortar are
modelled separately and the nodes of the mortar and AAC blocks
along their interfaces are merged. The dimensions of wall models
with thickness of 120 mm, 3.0 m height and 2.0 m width, as in

(a) AAC Block (b) Mortar

Fig. 10. Material tests of AAC block and mortar.

Table 3
Material parameters for AAC block and mortar [29,34,37,38].

Density Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Tensile limit Shear limit Compressive yield Fracture toughness Shear retention
(kg/m3) (MPa) Ratio (MPa) (MPa) stress (MPa) (N/m) factor
AAC block 625 530 0.2 0.7 1.0 3 80 0.03
Mortar 2100 2211 0.25 0.75 1.1 7.5 140 0.03

(a) Full wall model (b) Mortar model

Fig. 11. Geometric model of masonry wall.
452 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

In order to select a reasonable mesh size for the numerical

model, mesh convergence test was carried out. Three sets of mod-
els with one layer, two layers and three layers for the mortar joints
were considered along with 10 mm, 20 mm and 40 mm mesh sizes
for the blocks. In the mesh convergence test, a triangle load with
RC frame the peak value of 1 kPa and the duration of 20 ms was applied onto
the surface of the masonry wall. The mid-span displacement time
histories of the wall models with different mesh sizes were com-
pared. The results show that the displacement time histories
Masonry wall obtained from the models by using mesh sizes of 10 mm and
20 mm are in close agreement. Using smaller mesh such as the
10 mm mesh gives prediction that is more accurate. However,
the increase in computational time as compared to that with
20 mm mesh size is significant. It is also found that the effect of
number of mortar layers on the displacement is insignificant. In
view of the computational accuracy and efficiency, the combina-
tion of 20 mm mesh size for the blocks and one layer for mortar
joint was adopted for the numerical model, and used in the subse-
quent analyses. The finite element model had a total of 102,078
solid elements.

Contact surface 3.3. Boundary conditions

Properly modelling the boundary condition is critical to achieve

Fig. 12. Boundary conditions of two-way wall models.
the tests described above are shown in Fig. 11. The size of AAC
blocks is 590
240
120 mm and the thickness of mortar joints
is 5 mm, just the same as the test specimen.
the reasonable numerical result. Two kinds of boundary conditions,
i.e. simplified and real boundary conditions, were considered in the
simulations. For one-way masonry wall, the simplified boundary
condition was used in the simulation. The nodes on the top and
bottom edges of models were assumed as fixed and constrained
on three DOFs of UX, UY and UZ. As for the two-way masonry
walls, the trend of the predicted displacement history profile of
the two-way masonry wall agreed with the testing data but the
predicted peak value was only 30% of the testing results by using
the simplified boundary condition. Therefore, a more realistic

(a) Test 1 (b) Test 5

(c) Test 7 (d) Test 8

Fig. 13. Comparison of mid-span displacement between numerical predictions and testing data.
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460
boundary condition was used to simulate the two-way wall, as
shown in Fig. 12. In this case the RC frame was included in the
model and the interface between the RC frame and the masonry
wall was simulated as a tie-break contact. In LS-DYNA 971, the
tie-break contact is governed by the stress-based failure criterion
as follows [33].

2
2
jrn j jss j
þ P1 ð4Þ
fn fs
where rn is the normal stress on the contact surface; ss is the shear
stress on the contact surface; f n is the normal failure stress and f s is
the shear failure stress. This tie-break contact algorithm has been
widely used to simulate the bond-slip behaviour of structure com-
ponents. The static and dynamic coefficients of friction for the top
and bottom edges are 0.4 and the normal failure stress f n and shear
failure stress f s are zero. As to the left and right edges, the static and
dynamic coefficients of friction are 0.4. The normal failure stress f n
and shear failure stress f s are 0.5 MPa. The above parameters are
acquired from trial calculations and validated by the test data.
3.4. Validation of numerical model
Fig. 13(a and b) present the comparisons of numerical predic-
tions and test data of one-way wall specimens W1 and W2. It
shows that the predicted period of vibration and the peak value
of mid-span displacement of one-way specimens agree well with
the test data in both elastic and plastic phases. As for the two-
way specimen W3, shown in Fig. 13(c and d), it is found that the
predicted peak value and shape of displacement histories are also
close to the testing data. For instance, the predicted peak displace-
t=420ms t=460ms
(a) Test observations
t=420ms t=460ms
(b) Numerical predictions
Fig. 14. Comparison of failure mode between numerical predictions and test observations (one-way specimen W1 in Test 3).
453
ment in Test 7 is 1.77 mm, which is about 25% less than the test
data of 2.21 mm. In Test 8, the prediction of 31.2 mm in the numer-
ical model is only 4% less than the test data of 32.6 mm. The failure
modes of both one-way and two-way masonry walls simulated
from the numerical model are compared with the testing results,
as shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15, respectively. It is found that, the
predicted failure mode of one-way specimen agrees well with
the test observation when the specimen is subjected to gas explo-
sion loads. As for the two-way masonry wall that failed at higher
peak pressure and faster rising rate as discussed above, the numer-
ical simulation is still able to capture the damage characteristics of
wall specimen at the early stage, but cannot well predict the frac-
ture damage of AAC blocks into pieces, which is deemed as short-
coming of this numerical model. It is attributed to the following
reasons: 1) The material model used in this study is not precise
enough to predict the damage of AAC block subjected to high
intensity stress wave; 2) There is a difference between the simu-
lated boundary conditions and the real boundary conditions.
Although there are some shortcomings in predicting the failure
mode of masonry walls subjected to the loads at the higher peak
overpressure value and rising rate, the model successfully predicts
the masonry wall failure. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
numerical model developed in this study can give reasonably good
prediction of the structural response of AAC masonry walls against
vented gas explosions.
3.5. Parametric study
In this section, parametric studies are carried out to investigate
the effects of AAC block strength, wall thickness and boundary con-
t=500ms t=540ms
t=500ms t=540ms
454 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

t=460 ms t=500 ms t=580 ms t=620 ms

(a) Test observations

t=460 ms t=500 ms t=580 ms t=620 ms

(b) Numerical predictions
Fig. 15. Comparison of failure mode between numerical predictions and test observations (two-way specimen W3 in Test 9).

dition on the performance of AAC masonry walls under vented gas represents three DOFs of UX, UY and UZ are constrained. Table 5
explosion. The structural responses including maximum displace- summarizes the conditions of seven models analysed to examine
ment are compared herein. the effects of AAC block strength, wall thickness and boundary con-
dition on the performances of masonry walls.

3.5.1. Brief description of numerical model for parametric studies 3.5.2. Effect of block strength
A single-peak overpressure wave with a triangular shape was The effect of block strength on the response of masonry walls is
adopted for the parametric study. This simplified method of gas examined under three gas explosion loads with three peak pres-
explosion loads was also used by Louca et al. and Parisi et al. sures of 2 kPa, 4 kPa and 10 kPa, respectively. The maximum dis-
[10,11] in their studies on blast walls of offshore platforms and tuff placement time histories of masonry walls with three block
stone masonry walls, respectively. The rising rate of the pressure strength of A3.5, A5.0 and A7.5 are shown in Fig. 18. It is found that
wave was set as 400 kPa/s and the decreasing rate was set to be when the peak pressures are 2 kPa and 4 kPa, the profiles of dis-
1000 kPa/s based on the testing data. placement time histories match well with each other. When the
The masonry wall used for parametric study was 3.0 m in height peak pressure increases to 10 kPa, the deflections of masonry walls
and 2.0 m in width. The material parameters for three types of AAC with strength grade of A3.5 are the largest followed by A5.0 and
blocks, i.e. A3.5, A5.0 and A7.5 are summarized in Table 4. Three A7.5. However, the differences between the displacements are
wall thicknesses, i.e. 120 mm, 180 mm and 240 mm were consid- quite limited and the whole trend of their profiles is the same. It
ered. It should be noted that the variations of wall thickness (i.e. therefore can be concluded that the block strength has insignifi-
120 mm, 180 mm and 240 mm) in engineering practice are cant influence on the maximum displacement of the wall, espe-
achieved by changing the thickness of AAC blocks as shown in cially when the gas explosion load is of low peak pressure. This
Fig. 16. The other dimension of AAC blocks was 590 mm
240 mm phenomenon could be explained as follows: 1) when the peak
and the thickness of the mortar was 5 mm. Three types of bound- pressure of loads is low, the response of masonry walls is within
ary conditions of masonry walls (i.e. Type A/B/C) were also consid- elastic range. The structural response of masonry wall is mainly
ered in this study, as shown in Fig. 17. ‘‘Fixed” discussed here determined by the structural stiffness of masonry wall rather than
the AAC block strength; 2) the arching action and the effect of
Table 4
Material parameters of AAC blocks for different strength classes [38]. block strength on the arching action are insignificant owing to
the high slenderness ratio (wall height over thickness) of masonry
Strength Compressive yield Tensile limit Shear limit Density
walls.
class stress (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
A3.5 3.5 0.38 0.53 600
3.5.3. Effect of wall thickness
A5.0 5.0 0.46 0.75
A7.5 7.5 0.58 1.1 Three masonry walls with the thicknesses of 120 mm, 180 mm
and 240 mm are compared in this section. As shown in Fig. 19, the
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460 455

240 mm 180 mm 120 mm

2.0 m

3.0 m

Fig. 16. Dimensions of masonry walls for parametric studies.

fixed
fixed
fixed

fixed
fixed

fixed

fixed fixed fixed

(a) Type A (b) Type B (c) Type C
Fig. 17. Boundary conditions (Type A, B and C).

Table 5 placements are 22.8 mm and 9.6 mm, respectively. When the peak
Case conditions in parametric studies pressure increases to 15 kPa, the walls with the thickness of
Case Strength Block density Wall thickness Boundary 120 mm and 180 mm collapse, but the wall with the thickness of
No. class (kg/m3) (mm) condition 240 mm still survives and the maximum displacement increases
1 A3.5 600 120 Type A to 33.2 mm. It is found that with the increase of wall thickness,
2 A5.0 600 120 Type A the maximum displacement of walls reduces and the resistance
3 A7.5 600 120 Type A capacity of walls increases significantly. The results could be
4 A3.5 600 180 Type A
attributed to three reasons: 1) the structural stiffness of wall is
5 A3.5 600 240 Type A
6 A3.5 600 120 Type B enhanced with the increase of wall thickness, 2) the cracking pres-
7 A3.5 600 120 Type C sure of masonry wall increases with the increasing wall thickness,
and 3) with the increase of wall thickness, the arching action of
masonry walls is improved, which has also been reported in [22].

maximum displacements in the mid-span of three walls are com-

pared under three peak pressures of 4 kPa, 10 kPa and 15 kPa,
respectively. When the peak pressure is 4 kPa, the maximum dis-
placements of walls with thickness 120 mm, 180 mm and
240 mm are 9.1 mm, 2.5 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively. When the
thickness increases two times from 120 mm to 240 mm, the max-
imum displacement decreases nearly seven times. This phe-
nomenon has a reasonable agreement with the results of
elasticity theory because the stiffness is proportional to the wall
thickness to the power three. When the peak pressure is 10 kPa,
the wall with thickness of 120 mm collapses while the walls with
thickness 180 mm and 240 mm survive and the maximum dis-
3.5.4. Effect of boundary condition
Influences of the three types of boundary conditions (Type A/B/
C) as shown in Fig. 17 on the performances of masonry walls are
studied. The responses of masonry walls with thickness of
120 mm and three types of boundary conditions under three peak
pressures of 4 kPa, 8 kPa and 10 kPa are shown in Fig. 20. As shown
in Fig. 20(a), the maximum deflection of masonry walls drops from
9.1 mm to 3.5 mm when the boundary condition changes from
Type A to Type C under the peak pressure of 4 kPa. When the peak
pressure rises to 10 kPa, the walls with boundary condition Type A
and Type B collapse and the wall with boundary condition Type C
456 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

(a) 2 kPa (b) 4 kPa

(c) 10 kPa
Fig. 18. Displacement time histories of masonry walls with different block strengths.

(a) 4 kPa (b) 10 kPa

(c) 15 kPa
Fig. 19. Displacement time histories of masonry walls with different wall thicknesses.
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460 457

(a) 4 kPa (b) 8 kPa

(c) 10 kPa

Fig. 20. Displacement time histories of masonry walls with different boundary conditions.

survives and experiences a maximum displacement of 28.1 mm. It two-way walls, the transformation factors are obtained by the fol-
can be concluded that boundary conditions have a significant influ- lowing equations,
ence on the response of masonry walls. Z Z
1
KL ¼ KR ¼ /ðx; yÞdA ð5Þ
A
4. Simplified analytical method
Z Z
1
In this section, testing results of masonry walls are compared KM ¼ /2 ðx; yÞdA ð6Þ
A
with the analytical predictions by adopting design code of UFC 3-
340-2 and the equivalent SDOF approaches by Biggs and Morison Because of the uniformly distributed gas explosion loads, the
[25–27]. shape functions /ðx; yÞ are mainly determined by the boundary
conditions and work stages (elastic or plastic) of masonry walls.
4.1. Equivalent SDOF model The transformation factors suggested by Biggs, UFC 3-340-2 and
Morison are summarized in Table 6 [25–27]. Biggs proposed the
The equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) approach has factors and tables, which were based on the classical plate theory
been widely applied in the design of structures against accidental for deflections in the elastic range and the yield line theory in
explosions [39]. The masonry wall under gas explosion loading the plastic range. The suggested factors for two-way slabs by Mor-
was simplified into an equivalent SDOF system as shown in ison were based on the results of transient finite element analysis.
Fig. 21. According to the Newton’s laws of motion and the principle The charts, tables and formulae defining transformation factors,
of energy conservation, the real system is transformed into an resistance-deflection function presented in UFC 3-340-2 were
equivalent SDOF system by using equivalent load factor K L , equiv- derived from the equilibrium method of yield-line analysis and
alent mass factor K M and resistance factor K R . The distributions of elastic theory.
mass and load along the walls are uniform in this study. For the
4.2. Resistance-deflection function

In the SDOF modelling, the resistance-deflection function

describes the nonlinear relationship between the resistance force
and the corresponding displacement of masonry walls at key
P(t) points. The relationships can be acquired from the quasi-static
R(x)
F(t) testing of structures directly. If the quasi-static testing data is not
M
available, the resistance-deflection function also can be estimated
c from the theoretical analysis [27]. The typical resistance-
deflection functions of RC slabs, which also can be is used for rein-
X(t) forced masonry walls, are shown in Figs. 22and 23, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 22, the resistance-deflection function of reinforced
Fig. 21. SDOF simplification of masonry walls. masonry walls consists of two stages, i.e. flexural resistance and
458 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460

Table 6
Parameters in the SDOF analysis [25–27].

Parameters Two-way One-way

Biggs Morison UFC 3-340-2 Biggs/ UFC 3-340-2
Ke 701:6EI 702:4EI EIa 384EI
a2 a2 0:002189906b3 ð1t2 Þ b
3

7 7 7
1:74
10 N=m 1:75
10 N=m 1:77
10 N=m 2:83
106 N=m
Re 26:53Mt 7:52M ta þ 19:38M tb Mt a 12M n
0:07570b b
47,754 N 48,420 N 35,664 N 14,400 N
Xe Re Re Re Re
Ke Ke Ke Ke
2.74 mm 2.76 mm 1.99 mm 5.10 mm
K ep 199:8EI 199:6EI EIa 384EI
0:00247604b ð1t2 Þ
a2 a2 3 3
5b

4:96
106 N=m 4:96
106 N=m 1:56
10 N=m7

5:65
105 N=m
Rep – – Re þ Mt 0:05698846b2
2
Re –
0:08240743b
– – 45,765 N –
X ep – – X e þ RuKR
ep
e –
– – 2.64 mm –
K 0ep – – EIa –
0:007733131b3 ð1t2 Þ
– – 6
5:02
10 N=m –
Xp X e þ RuKR e
X e þ RuKR e
X ep þ
Ru Rep
X e þ RuKR e
ep ep K ’ep ep

13.22 mm 10.14 mm 9.15 mm 13.59 mm

5ðM sa þM fa Þab 8ðM n þM p Þ
a ð12aðM fa þ M sa Þ þ 9:7bðM sb þ M fb Þ
Ru 1 46:92Mt
x2 b
99,720 N 84,456 N 78,402 N 19,200 N
K LMe 0.71 0.602 0.69 0.77
K LMep 0.733 0.630 0.70 0.78
K 0LMep – – 0.71 –
K LMp 0.58 0.545 0.55 0.66

Note: a is the short span dimension of walls; b is the long span dimension of walls; E is Young’s modulus; I is the second moment of cross section per unit width; M t is the
moment resistance per unit length; Mfa , Msa , Msb , Mfb are moment resistance per unit length at fixed edges and spans; M n , M p are the moment resistance at fixed edges and
spans K LMe , K LMep , K 0LMep , K LMp are the load-mass transformation coefficients of different work stages. K e , K ep , K 0ep are the stiffness of different work stages; X e , X ep , X p are the
deflection limitation of different work stages; Re , Rep , Ru are the resistance limitation of different work stages.

tensile membrane resistance. However, the tensile stage of
resistance-deflection function can be neglected for the unrein-
forced masonry walls owing to its low ductility of structures. The
resistance-deflection functions suggested by Biggs and Morison
were simplified as two step elastic-plastic system as shown in
Fig. 23(a). However, in UFC 3-340-2, one-way masonry wall and
two-way masonry wall were proposed to have the resistance-
deflection functions of two-step elastic-plastic and three-step
elastic-plastic, which are shown in Fig. 23(a and b), respectively.
The appearance of each plastic hinge represents the change of stiff-
ness of the equivalent system. According to the recommendations
by Biggs, UFC 3-340-2 and Morison [25–27], the resistance-
deflection functions were calculated and the relevant parameters
are listed in Table 6. It should be noted that the equivalent SDOF
Flexural resistance Tensile membrane resistance
A B
Resistance (R)
models developed in this study can be used to predict the deflec-
tions of masonry walls for the cases with limited deflection. The
arching action, which affects the resistance-deflection function
after cracking, was not considered.
4.3. Comparison between testing data and SDOF predictions
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the SDOF models provided
by Biggs, UFC 3-340-2 and Morison, the SDOF predictions of the
maximum displacement for one-way specimen W1 and two-way
specimen W3 were calculated and compared with testing data.
The input parameters of masonry materials for the SDOF models
were the same as those described above which were acquired from
material tests, and the recorded load in each test was used to
derive the equivalent load in SDOF analysis. Average acceleration
method was used to integrate the SDOF equations of motion [27].
Fig. 24 shows the comparison of displacement time histories
between analytical predictions and test data. It can be found that
the predictions from the SDOF methods by Biggs and UFC 3-340-
2 agree well with the test data of Test 1, in which the response
of wall specimen W1 is elastic under a low gas explosion load, as
shown in Fig. 24(a). It is inferred that the stiffness used in the SDOF
model well reflects the stiffness of tested wall. As shown in Fig. 24

D
(b), the predicted first peak of displacement time history is in good
agreement with the testing data while there is notable difference
of permanent displacement between the SDOF prediction and the
results of Test 2. This may be caused by the following reasons: 1)
C
the predicted ultimate resistance is smaller than the actual value;
2) arching action of structures is not incorporated into the
resistance-deflection function in the SDOF model. From Fig. 24(c
and d), it is found that the predictions derived from three SDOF
Deflection (X)
methods by Biggs, Morison and UFC 3-340-2 are close to each other
because the input parameters have only slight differences. In Test
Fig. 22. Resistance-deflection function of reinforced masonry walls. 7, the predicted maximum displacement is only 50% of the testing
 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460 459

R
R

Ru Ru

Rep '
Kep
Resistance (R)

Resistance (R)
1
Kep
Kep
Re 1 Re 1

Ke Ke

1 1

Xe Xp Xm X Xe Xep Xp Xm X
Deflection (X) Deflection (X)
(a) Two step elastic-plastic (b) Three step elastic-plastic
Fig. 23. Resistance-deflection function of unreinforced masonry walls [26].

(a) Test 1 (one-way specimen W1) (b) Test 2 (one-way specimen W1)

(c) Test 7 (two-way specimen W3) (d) Test 8 (two-way specimen W3)
Fig. 24. Comparison of analytical predictions and testing data.

data and the predicted displacements are always smaller than the
testing data throughout the entire response duration. This phe-
nomenon is also observed in the comparison of Test 8. In Test 8,
the predicted maximum displacement is only 25% of the testing
data. The poor performance of these three SDOF models in predict-
ing the masonry wall responses could be contributed to the follow-
ing factors: 1) The difference of moment resistance in different
directions was neglected and the homogenization simplification
for the masonry materials was used in the SDOF models; 2) In
the SDOF models, the parameters, which were derived from ideal
fixed boundary conditions, overestimate the stiffness of structures.
These results demonstrate the methods and parameters provided
by Biggs, Morison and UFC 3-340-2, if directly applied, do not nec-
essarily yield reliable predictions of the response of two-way spec-
imens accurately.
5. Conclusion
The responses of unreinforced AAC masonry walls under vented
gas explosions were examined and analysed by using full-scale
field tests, numerical simulations and simplified analytical method.
The conclusions are summarized as follows:
(1) The dynamic responses of AAC masonry walls under vented
gas explosions depend mainly on the peak overpressure.
Typical one-way or two-way flexural modes dominate the
460 Z. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 141 (2017) 444–460
failure of masonry walls under vented gas explosions. With
the increase of peak pressure and rising rate of gas explosion
loads, the failure mode of AAC masonry walls changes from
flexural failure of the wall to combined flexural failure and
fragmentation of AAC blocks.
(2) The numerical models are developed and validated by com-
paring with the testing data of both one-way walls and two-
way walls. The results from parametric studies indicate both
masonry wall thickness and boundary conditions greatly
affect the wall responses. The influence of block strength is
however insignificant due to the weak arching action of thin
walls in this study.
(3) The equivalent SDOF models for masonry walls are estab-
lished based on the approaches by Biggs, UFC 3-340-2 and
Morison. It is found that the predictions of Biggs and UFC
on the response of one-way specimens agree well with the
testing data. All the three SDOF models by Biggs, Morison
and UFC on two-way walls underestimate the wall
responses. They should be used with caution in the analysis
of masonry wall responses to gas explosion loads.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the
National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, Grant
No. 2015CB058000), the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant Nos. 51238007, 51622812, 51427807, 51378016),
and the Australian Research Council (Grant No. LP150100259).
The first author would also like to acknowledge the financial sup-
port from the China Scholarship Council.
References
[1] Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, Van Wingerden K. Gas explosion handbook. J Hazard
Mater 1997;52:1–150.
[2] Lees F. Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification,
Assessment and Control. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
[3] Wittmann FH, Balkema A. Advances in autoclaved aerated concrete. Citeseer;
1992.
[4] Narayanan N, Ramamurthy K. Structure and properties of aerated concrete: a
review. Cement Concr Compos 2000;22:321–9.
[5] Cooper M, Fairweather M, Tite J. On the mechanisms of pressure generation in
vented explosions. Combust Flame 1986;65:1–14.
[6] Mercx W, Van Wingerden C, Pasman H. Venting of gaseous explosions. Process
Saf Prog 1993;12:40–6.
[7] Bao Q, Fang Q, Zhang Y, Chen L, Yang S, Li Z. Effects of gas concentration and
venting pressure on overpressure transients during vented explosion of
methane–air mixtures. Fuel 2016;175:40–8.
[8] NFPA-68. Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting. Quincy,
MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2007.
[9] EN-14994. Gas Explosion Venting Protective Systems. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization; 2007.
[10] Louca L, Pan Y, Harding J. Response of stiffened and unstiffened plates
subjected to blast loading. Eng Struct 1998;20:1079–86.
[11] Parisi F, Balestrieri C, Asprone D. Blast resistance of tuff stone masonry walls.
Eng Struct 2016;113:233–44.
[12] Li Z, Chen L, Fang Q, Hao H, Zhang Y, Xiang H, et al. Experimental and
numerical study of unreinforced clay brick masonry walls subjected to vented
gas explosions. Int J Impact Eng 2017.
[13] Dennis ST, Baylot JT, Woodson SC. Response of 1/4-scale concrete masonry
unit (CMU) walls to blast. J Eng Mech 2002;128:134–42.
[14] Davidson JS, Fisher JW, Hammons MI, Porter JR, Dinan RJ. Failure mechanisms
of polymer-reinforced concrete masonry walls subjected to blast. J Struct Eng
2005;131:1194–205.
[15] Chen L, Fang Q, Jiang C, Fan J, Hao H. Response and damage level of confined
masonry walls to blast. Disaster Adv 2013;6:380–94.
[16] Chen L, Fang Q, Fan J, Zhang Y, Hao H, Liu J. Responses of masonry infill walls
retrofitted with CFRP, steel wire mesh and laminated bars to blast loadings.
Adv Struct Eng 2014;17:817–36.
[17] Hao H. Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads. Aust J
Struct Eng 2009;10:37–52.
[18] Lourenco PB. Computational strategies for masonry structures. Delft, The
Netherlands: Delft University Press; 1996.
[19] Wu C, Hao H. Safe scaled distance for masonry infilled RC frame structures
subjected to airblast loads. J Perform Constr Facil 2007;21:422–31.
[20] Wang M, Hao H, Ding Y, Li Z-X. Prediction of fragment size and ejection
distance of masonry wall under blast load using homogenized masonry
material properties. Int J Impact Eng 2009;36:808–20.
[21] Zapata BJ, Weggel DC. Collapse study of an unreinforced masonry bearing wall
building subjected to internal blast loading. J Perform Constr Facil
2008;22:92–100.
[22] Abou-Zeid BM, El-Dakhakhni WW, Razaqpur AG, Foo S. Time-response
analysis of arching unreinforced concrete block walls subjected to blast
loads. J Struct Eng 2013;140:04013099.
[23] Hrynyk TD, Myers JJ. Out-of-plane behavior of URM arching walls with modern
blast retrofits: experimental results and analytical model. J Struct Eng
2008;134:1589–97.
[24] Smith NL, Tait MJ, El-Dakhakhni WW, Mekky WF. Response analysis of
reinforced concrete block infill panels under blast. J Perform Constr Facil
2016;04016059.
[25] Biggs JM. Introduction to structural dynamics. McGraw-Hill College; 1964.
[26] Morison CM. Dynamic response of walls and slabs by single-degree-of-
freedom analysis—a critical review and revision. Int J Impact Eng
2006;32:1214–47.
[27] Department-of-Defense, Structures to resist the effects of accidental
explosions, United Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3–340-02, in, 2008.
[28] Tanner JE, Varela JL, Klingner RE, Brightman MJ, Cancino U. Seismic testing of
autoclaved aerated concrete shearwalls: a comprehensive review. ACI Struct J
2005;102:374.
[29] Ferretti D, Michelini E, Rosati G. Mechanical characterization of autoclaved
aerated concrete masonry subjected to in-plane loading: experimental
investigation and FE modeling. Constr Build Mater 2015;98:353–65.
[30] Muszynski LC, Purcell MR. Use of composite reinforcement to strengthen
concrete and air-entrained concrete masonry walls against air blast. J Compos
Constr 2003;7:98–108.
[31] Yankelevsky DZ, Avnon I. Autoclaved aerated concrete behavior under
explosive action. Constr Build Mater 1998;12:359–64.
[32] Bao Q, Fang Q, Yang S, Zhang Y, Xiang H, Chen L, et al. Experimental
investigation on the deflagration load under unconfined methane-air
explosions. Fuel 2016;185:565–76.
[33] Halquist J. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Version 971. Livermore,
CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2007.
[34] Govindjee S, Kay GJ, Simo JC. Anisotropic modelling and numerical simulation
of brittle damage in concrete. Int J Numer Meth Eng 1995;38:3611–33.
[35] General-Administration-of-Quality-Supervision-Inspection-and-Quarantine-
of-PR-China. Test Methods for Mechanical Property of Aerated Concrete (GB/T
11971-1997). Beijing, China: Standards Press of China; 1998.
[36] Ministry-of-Construction-of-the-PR-China. Standard for Test Method of
Performance on Building Mortar (JGJ/T70-2009). Beijing, China: China
Architecture and Building Press; 2009.
[37] Serrano-Perez JC, Vaidya UK, Uddin N. Low velocity impact response of
autoclaved aerated concrete/CFRP sandwich plates. Compos Struct
2007;80:621–30.
[38] Argudo F, Fern J, Argudo O. Evaluation and Synthesis of Experimental Data for
Autoclaved Aerated Concrete [M.S. thesis]. The University of Texas at Austin;
2003.
[39] Hao H, Hao Y, Li J, Chen W. Review of the current practices in blast-resistant
analysis and design of concrete structures. Adv Struct Eng 2016;19:1193–223.