|
| Author (s) | Analysis method | Parameter lists | Remark |
|
| Gholipour et al. [8] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Reinforcement configurations | Increasing the rate of impact from 2 m/s to 12 m/s, makes specimen failure mode in shear and flexure |
| (i) Low shear (L22S6) |
| (ii) Low flexure (L12S12) |
| (iii) Sufficient shear-flexure (L22S10) |
| Loading sequences | Impact-blast and blast-impact load scenario revealed local spallation and direct shears, respectively |
| (i) Impact-blast load |
| (ii) Blast-impact load |
| Time lags | Large flexural bending moments were obtained when the sequential explosion detonated at the time of peak bending moment |
| (i) Low-rate impact (2 m/s) |
| (ii) Middle-rate impact (6.86 m/s) |
| (iii) High-rate impact (12 m/s) |
|
| Gholipour et al. [9] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Loading sequences | Severe damage (spallation) was obtained beneath the depth of the beam |
| (i) Impact-blast load |
| (ii) Blast-impact load |
| Time lags | Increasing the time lag from 2.1 ms to 20 ms revealed global shear failure mode |
| (i) tL = 2.1 ms |
| (ii) tL = 5.0 ms |
| (iii) tL = 10 ms |
| (iv) tL = 20 ms |
| Beam depths | Both peak and residual displacements increase when decreasing the beam depth |
| (i) D1 = 0.15 m |
| (ii) D2 = 0.20 m |
| (iii) 3 = 0.25 m |
|
| Gholipour et al. [9] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Span lengths | While changing the span length from 0.9 m to 1.9 m, large flexural bending moment was obtained |
| (i) L1 = 0.9 m |
| (ii) L2 = 1.4 m |
| (iii) L3 = 1.9 m |
| Longitudinal reinforcements | Increasing flexural steel ratio drops the damage index values and the path of damage |
| (i) Low flexure (C13T16) |
| (ii) High flexure (C20T25) |
| Transverse reinforcements | Beam with sufficient shear detail had small spalls |
| (i) Low shear (Фt = 6 mm @ 15 cm) |
| (ii) Sufficient shear (Фt = 16 mm @ 5 cm) |
|
