300
9 Dynamic Responses of Reinforced UHPCC Members Under …
Table 9.7 Shear failure surface parameters for verification tests
Test
α
λ
β
θ
α 1 λ 1
β 1
θ 1 α 2 λ 2 β 2
θ 2
This
study
85.64 72.24 0.00516 0.2262 1.0 0.4226 0.00122 0 1.0 0.5 0.00098 0
Fujikake
et al.
(2006)
116.18 97.19 0.00405 0.2328 1.0 0.4226 0.00109 0 1.0 0.5 0.00086 0
Yoo
et al.
(2015)
94.93 79.42 0.00458 0.2250 1.0 0.4226 0.00116 0 1.0 0.5 0.00093 0
Fan
et al.
(2019)
95.09 78.92 0.00448 0.2233 1.0 0.4226 0.00135 0 1.0 0.5 0.00106 0
Wei
et al.
(2019)
84.65 77.07 0.00537 0.2235 1.0 0.4226 0.00132 0 1.0 0.5 0.00041 0
Wu et al.
(2019)
85.64 72.24 0.00516 0.2262 1.0 0.4226 0.00122 0 1.0 0.5 0.00098 0
Wang
et al.
(2019a)
83.35 69.71 0.00521 0.2250 1.0 0.4226 0.00132 0 1.0 0.5 0.00041 0
Table. 9.7, the shear failure surface parameters of UHPCC for the present and existing
low-velocity impact tests are listed.
9.4.3 Comparisons of Numerical Results with Test Data
9.4.3.1 Mesh Convergency Analyses
To accurately capture the deformation and damage of specimens against lateral
impact, sufficiently small element is required in the numerical simulation, while the
corresponding computation cost will be increased correspondingly. The computational solution could be converged by refining the mesh, and the specimen U-2-AF0
was taken as an example for mesh convergence analyses at present. Figure 9.24
shows the mid-span deflection time-histories and damage contours of specimen U2-AF0 with four different element sizes, i.e., 5, 10, 20 and 30 mm. The “Fringe
Levels” presented the scalar damage parameter ranged from 0 (no damage) to 1
(complete damage). It is noted that maximum deflections for different element sizes
are similar, but larger residual deflection is caused by the refiner mesh. Regarding both
the computing efficiency and numerical accuracy, the 10 mm element was adopted
for the present numerical simulation. The hourglass energy is the negative effect of
using the reduced integration in explicit analysis to speed up the calculation. The
hourglass control do not affect the accuracy of the simulation results when hourglass
9 Dynamic Responses of Reinforced UHPCC Members Under …
Table 9.7 Shear failure surface parameters for verification tests
Test
α
λ
β
θ
α 1 λ 1
β 1
θ 1 α 2 λ 2 β 2
θ 2
This
study
85.64 72.24 0.00516 0.2262 1.0 0.4226 0.00122 0 1.0 0.5 0.00098 0
Fujikake
et al.
(2006)
116.18 97.19 0.00405 0.2328 1.0 0.4226 0.00109 0 1.0 0.5 0.00086 0
Yoo
et al.
(2015)
94.93 79.42 0.00458 0.2250 1.0 0.4226 0.00116 0 1.0 0.5 0.00093 0
Fan
et al.
(2019)
95.09 78.92 0.00448 0.2233 1.0 0.4226 0.00135 0 1.0 0.5 0.00106 0
Wei
et al.
(2019)
84.65 77.07 0.00537 0.2235 1.0 0.4226 0.00132 0 1.0 0.5 0.00041 0
Wu et al.
(2019)
85.64 72.24 0.00516 0.2262 1.0 0.4226 0.00122 0 1.0 0.5 0.00098 0
Wang
et al.
(2019a)
83.35 69.71 0.00521 0.2250 1.0 0.4226 0.00132 0 1.0 0.5 0.00041 0
Table. 9.7, the shear failure surface parameters of UHPCC for the present and existing
low-velocity impact tests are listed.
9.4.3 Comparisons of Numerical Results with Test Data
9.4.3.1 Mesh Convergency Analyses
To accurately capture the deformation and damage of specimens against lateral
impact, sufficiently small element is required in the numerical simulation, while the
corresponding computation cost will be increased correspondingly. The computational solution could be converged by refining the mesh, and the specimen U-2-AF0
was taken as an example for mesh convergence analyses at present. Figure 9.24
shows the mid-span deflection time-histories and damage contours of specimen U2-AF0 with four different element sizes, i.e., 5, 10, 20 and 30 mm. The “Fringe
Levels” presented the scalar damage parameter ranged from 0 (no damage) to 1
(complete damage). It is noted that maximum deflections for different element sizes
are similar, but larger residual deflection is caused by the refiner mesh. Regarding both
the computing efficiency and numerical accuracy, the 10 mm element was adopted
for the present numerical simulation. The hourglass energy is the negative effect of
using the reduced integration in explicit analysis to speed up the calculation. The
hourglass control do not affect the accuracy of the simulation results when hourglass