|
| Author (s) | Analysis method | Parameter lists | Remark |
|
| Gholipour et al. [6] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Loading locations | Collapse of pier column was obtained when the barge impact and explosion happened on mid height |
| (i) Ship impact on pier cap, explosion on pier (S5C5V4TN) |
| (ii) Barge impact and explosion on pier cap (B2V1H0TN) |
| (iii) Barge impact and explosion on lower pier column (B2V1H4TN) |
| (iv) Barge impact and explosion on mid pier column (B2V1H7TN) |
| Impact velocities | Impact velocity beyond 3 m/s, the bridge column tends to fail by shear failure |
| (i) Low velocity (1.65 m/s) |
| (ii) Medium velocity (3 m/s) |
| (iii) High velocity (5 m/s) |
| Impact velocities | Time lag shorter than 0.5 s resulted in direct shear failure. Beyond this time lag, shear and flexural failure |
| (i) Initiation time-1 (0.09 s) |
| (ii) Initiation time-2 (0.8 s) |
| (iii) Initiation time-3 (1.62 s) |
|
| Gholipour et al. [7] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Loading locations | For near-field loading cases, localized shear failure type was obtained |
| (i) Mid-height (IMP0-BLT0) |
| (ii) Mid-base (IMP1-BLT0) |
| (iii) Base (IMP1-BLT1) |
| Loading sequence | Under near-field loading events, impact-blast showed larger damage index than blast-impact load case |
| (i) Impact-blast load |
| (ii) Blast-impact load |
| Time lags | Increase of time lag maximizes damage level (spallation) in the column |
| (i) TL = 0.121 s |
| (ii) TL = 0.124 s |
| (iii) TL = 0.137 s |
| (iv) TL = 0.160 s |
|
| Gholipour et al. [7] | FEA (LS-DYNA) | Axial load ratio | Spall type of damage decreases until ALR reaches 0.3 |
| (i) ALR = 0.1 |
| (ii) ALR = 0.3 |
| (iii) ALR = 0.5 |
| (iv) ALR = 0.8 |
| Impactor velocity | Striking velocity with and greater than 3 m/s revealed the column to have a cumulative damage mode accompanied by initiation of plastic hinges and localized shear failures |
| (i) Vimpact = 1 m/s |
| (ii) Vimpact = 3 m/s |
| (iii) Vimpact = 5 m/s |
| (iv) Vimpact = 10 m/s |
|
| Krishnan and Nair [11] | FEA (ANSYS) | Column shape | For both short and long columns, circular column revealed 2 times lesser deflection when compared to the square and rectangular columns |
| (i) Square |
| (ii) Rectangle |
| (iii) Circle |
| Long. reinf. ratio | While increasing the longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 2% to 6%, long and short RC columns minimized the deflection up to 6.3% and 6.08%, respectively |
| (i) ρl = 2% |
| (ii) ρl = 3% |
| (iii) ρl = 4% |
| (iv) ρl = 5% |
| (v) ρl = 5% |
| Tie spacing | For long and short columns, increasing tie spacing from 75 mm to 300 mm escalated the maximum displacement value by 13.18% and 15%, respectively |
| (i) S = 75 mm |
| (ii) S = 100 mm |
| (iii) S = 150 mm |
| (iv) S = 225 mm |
| (v) S = 300 mm |
|
