## 3 Result Analysis
### Energy Consumption
(C) Descending segment: the curve then created a descending segment that was connected to both the attenuation segment and the descending portion of the peak segment of the support reaction force-time history curve. The mid\(-\)span displacement response continued to be present. Due to the absence of significant variations and oscillations in the descending segments of the support reaction force and the attenuation section, the test beam with the bonded steel plate had a smoother descending segment. (D) Attenuation segment: as the mid\(-\)span displacement reaches its maximum value, the support response force decreases, stabilizes, and tends to zero at this point, causing the curve to enter the attenuation zone. Table 3 shows the total energy consumption and energy consumption ratio for each test item. With a range of 5.65% to 10.04%, the mid\(-\)span displacement curve integrally produces a relatively low overall energy consumption value. The following are the reasons for the low energy ratio: the impact force has a substantial value in the primary peak section; however, due to the short length of this phase, displacement has not yet begun to respond at this time, resulting in a low integral value according to the impact force-time history curve. In addition, due to the high impact force value and the inaccurate display process, the impact force value overflows and results in a negative value in the oscillating part of the curve generated by the fluctuation of the impact force-time history curve. After integration, energy consumption accounts for a small proportion at this stage. The secondary wave peak segment of the curve, which is created by the secondary peak of the impact force, accounts for the majority of the total energy consumption; nevertheless, the integral value of the curve at this point is not high due to the modest value of the impact force in the subpeak portion. The results of this study are consistent with the result of the integration of the response force-mid\(-\)span displacement curve, which shows that the overall energy consumption ratio ranges from 34.74% to 72.88%. Figure 14 shows that the four stages of the combination curve of the support reaction force and the mid\(-\)span displacement have varying energy requirements. The support response force of the platform segment does  
Figure 14: Impact force–mid\(-\)span displacement curve and support reaction force–mid\(-\)span displacement curve: (**a**) A1, (**b**) B1, (**c**) B2, and (**d**) B3. not respond and the energy consumption is almost zero at this time. The area between the ascending and descending sections and the horizontal axis of the coordinate is very large, and this stage becomes the main part of the overall energy consumption. The deflection deformation of the test beam is still progressing at this point, and because the stress wave has already reached the support and has been repeated twice in the beam body, the reaction force of the support is less inert than the impact force. Although the support reaction force steadily decreased to zero and the energy consumption was still high as the combination curve decayed, the displacement was still very high. The support response force response was obtained by the impact force transmitted together with the beam stress wave. This curve was less affected by contact stiffness and had good stability, which made it more suitable for evaluating the overall energy consumption of the beam. When compared to the A1, B1, and B2 test beams, the QR energy consumption ratio \(\gamma_{\text{R}}\) exhibited a significant increase, followed by a slight decrease as the thickness of the bonded steel plate increased. This suggests that the overall energy dissipation capacity of the test beam is strongest when it is strengthened with a 2 mm\(-\)thick steel plate. However, the stiffness of the test beam increased in line with the continued increase in the steel plate thickness.