# Mechanical Performance of Confined Autoclaved Fly-Ash-Brick Masonry Walls under Cyclic Loading
## 3 Numerical Simulation Analysis and Verification
### Seismic Performance of Assembly Autoclaved Fly-Ash-Brick Wall
#### 3.3.3 Wall Materials and Seismic Performance of Walls  
From Table 4, the seismic performance of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall and the common brick wall were analyzed as follows. The load-displacement curves of those walls are shown in Figure 18, and the stiffness-displacement curves of those walls are shown in Figure 19.  
Without ring beams and constructional columns, the cracking, ultimate, and failure loads of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall WZ-1 had little difference with those of the common brick masonry wall WQ-1. Meanwhile, the cracking and ultimate displacements of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall were less than those of the common brick wall, while the failure displacements of those walls had the opposite trend. From the ultimate load to the failure load, the ratio of the failure displacement to ultimate displacement \(\Delta\mathrm{f}/\Delta\mathrm{u}\) of wall WZ-1 was increased by 27% compared to wall WQ-1.  
With the cast-in-place ring beam and the constructional column, the cracking, ultimate and failure loads of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall XWZ-1 were larger than those of the common brick wall XWQ-1. Meanwhile, the cracking displacement and ultimate displacement of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall were similar to those of the common brick wall.  
With assembly ring beam and constructional column, the cracking, ultimate and failure loads of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall ZWZ-1 were larger than those of the common brick wall ZWQ-1. Meanwhile, the cracking displacement and ultimate displacement of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall were larger than those of the common brick wall. From the ultimate load to the failure load, the ratio of the failure displacement to ultimate displacement \(\Delta\mathrm{f}/\Delta\mathrm{u}\) of wall ZWZ-1 was similar to that of wall ZWQ-1.  
Figure 16: Load–displacement curves: (**a**) common brick masonry walls; (**b**) autoclaved fly-ash-brick masonry walls.  
Figure 17: Stiffness–displacement curves: (**a**) common brick masonry walls; (**b**) autoclaved fly-ash-brick masonry walls.  
From Figures 18 and 19, without construction measures, the curvilinear trend of the load-displacement were similar to others. With the assembly and cast-in-place ring beam and the constructional column, the bearing capacity of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick walls were similar to that of the common brick walls. However, the initial stiffness of autoclaved fly-ash-brick walls was larger than that of the common brick walls, and the stiffness degradation rate was the opposite. Therefore, the seismic performance of the autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall was better than that of the common brick wall.  
4 Seismic Behavior of the Assembly Autoclaved Fly-Ash-Brick Wall under Multiple Influence Parameters  
The parameters of the numerical-simulation method were described above in Section 3.1, and then the cyclic-load test of the full-scale assembly autoclaved fly-ash-brick wall was carried out to verify the rationality of the wall model. Meanwhile, it is verified that the seismic performance of new-type assembly autoclaved fly-ash-brick walls is better than that of common brick walls. Therefore, in order to study the influencing factors on seismic performance of those walls, the 12 pieces of wall models were established by numerical modeling. By changing some parameters such as mortar strength, the rate of holes and vertical compressive values, the bearing capacity, stiffness degradation and displacement ductility were obtained and analyzed.