Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

Blast behaviour of precast segmental vs monolithic concrete beams prestressed with unbonded tendons: A numerical investigation

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTran, D.T.
dc.contributor.authorPham, T.M.
dc.contributor.authorHao, H.
dc.contributor.authorDo, T.V.
dc.contributor.authorTran, T.T.
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to numerically investigate the response of precast/prefabricated segmental concrete girders/beams (PSCBs) under detonations of high explosives. A new and effective method of applying prestressing force in tendons in LS-DYNA is explored and used. The working mechanisms of PSCBs vs conventional monolithic beams in resisting blast loads are comprehensively examined and discussed. The numerical results show that blast-induced damage to the beams is primarily caused by three different mechanisms, namely the propagations of blast-induced stress waves and plastic hinges, and the beam free-vibration deflection (global response). There are similar stress wave propagation and the resultant damage in the monolithic and segmental beams at the early stage when the joints are closed. The different damage patterns in these two beams are mainly due to the propagation of plastic hinges and the beam's free-vibration deflection. Damage is more severe and well distributed in the monolithic beam whereas damage to PSCB mainly concentrates in the segment next to the explosive and around the joints. The energy absorption mechanism provided by the relative movement between the segments is the main reason for the reduced damage in the PSCB. Although having larger displacement, the PSCB shows better blast resistance compared to the monolithic beam. Either increasing the prestressing reinforcement ratio or effective prestressing stress reduces the peak and residual displacement of the beam but increases concrete damage. Increasing the number of segments leads to a larger beam displacement response but reduces concrete damage. Energy dissipation (ED) bars are found to effectively unite the segments and hence result in the segmental beam having a similar blast behaviour as the monolithic counterpart.
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Impact Engineering, 2023; 173(104434):104434-104434
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104434
dc.identifier.issn0734-743X
dc.identifier.issn1879-3509
dc.identifier.orcidPham, T.M. [0000-0003-4901-7113]
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11541.2/35420
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.relation.fundingARC FL180100196
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FL180100196
dc.rightsCopyright 2022 Elsevier
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2022.104434
dc.subjectprecast/prefabricated segmental concrete girders/beams (PSCBs)
dc.subjectunbonded tendons
dc.subjectblast behaviour/response
dc.subjectclose-in/near-field explosions
dc.subjectLS-DYNA
dc.subjectnumerical simulation
dc.titleBlast behaviour of precast segmental vs monolithic concrete beams prestressed with unbonded tendons: A numerical investigation
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished
ror.mmsid9916791528101831

Files

Collections