388
11 Experimental and Numerical Study of UHPCC-FST Columns …
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
5mm
6mm
7mm
10mm
Time (ms)
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Mid-span deflection (mm)
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
19mm
7.7mm
9mm
10mm
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(a)
(b)
0
20
40
60
80
100
30mm
20mm
25mm
59mm
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
39mm
29mm
82mm
44mm
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 11.16 Mid-span deflection time-history for the UHPCC-FST column specimen a C-1 b C-2
c C-3 d C-4, reprinted from Wu et al. (2020), copyright 2020, with permission from Elsevier
11.3.4 Comparisons of Predictions by Different Methods
Figure 11.16 shows the comparisons between the analytical mid-span deflection
time-histories predicted by above three methods with the corresponding residual
global deformation of four UHPCC-FST specimens in the present test, respectively.
It can be found that, both ALE and velocity methods give the satisfied predictions of
residual mid-span deflections of UHPCC-CFT column under close-range explosions.
Although the SDOF method is more efficient than the other two methods since it
only need to solve the differential equation of motion and the establishment of finite
element model and the numerical simulations are not required, the SDOF method
overestimates the results. Table 11.7 further gives the computation time costs of both
the ALE and velocity methods. It indicates that the computation time cost by the
ALE method is roughly more than 70 times of that by the velocity method. Therefore,
considering both the accuracy and efficiency of computations, the velocity method
is the optimal method to analyze the dynamic response of UHPCC-FST column
subjected to close-range explosion.
11 Experimental and Numerical Study of UHPCC-FST Columns …
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
5mm
6mm
7mm
10mm
Time (ms)
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Mid-span deflection (mm)
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
19mm
7.7mm
9mm
10mm
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(a)
(b)
0
20
40
60
80
100
30mm
20mm
25mm
59mm
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
39mm
29mm
82mm
44mm
Velocity method
ALE method
SDOF method
Expermental residual deformation
Time (ms)
Mid-span deflection (mm)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 11.16 Mid-span deflection time-history for the UHPCC-FST column specimen a C-1 b C-2
c C-3 d C-4, reprinted from Wu et al. (2020), copyright 2020, with permission from Elsevier
11.3.4 Comparisons of Predictions by Different Methods
Figure 11.16 shows the comparisons between the analytical mid-span deflection
time-histories predicted by above three methods with the corresponding residual
global deformation of four UHPCC-FST specimens in the present test, respectively.
It can be found that, both ALE and velocity methods give the satisfied predictions of
residual mid-span deflections of UHPCC-CFT column under close-range explosions.
Although the SDOF method is more efficient than the other two methods since it
only need to solve the differential equation of motion and the establishment of finite
element model and the numerical simulations are not required, the SDOF method
overestimates the results. Table 11.7 further gives the computation time costs of both
the ALE and velocity methods. It indicates that the computation time cost by the
ALE method is roughly more than 70 times of that by the velocity method. Therefore,
considering both the accuracy and efficiency of computations, the velocity method
is the optimal method to analyze the dynamic response of UHPCC-FST column
subjected to close-range explosion.