## 3 Verification by Comparison with Previous Experimental Results
### Validity of a Perfect Plastic Collision
#### 3.1.1 Experimental Results Used for This Investigation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Name**} & **Size of** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Rebar**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(L\) (m)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(P_{1}\) (\%)} & \(f_{\rm c}\) & \(f_{\rm c}\) & \(f_{\rm y}\) & \(P_{\rm n}\) & \(Q_{\rm m}\) & \(Q_{\rm m}\) & \(\alpha\) & \(M_{\rm b}\) (\(0\)) & \(M_{\rm bc}\) (\(0\)) & \(V\) (m/s) & \(M_{\rm w}\) (\(0\)) & \(E_{\rm b}\) (\(Q_{\rm f}\)) \\  & **Section** & \(\varphi\) & \(N\) & & & & (MPa) & (**M**/**p**) & (**R**/**N**) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline G10-1 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & 4.00 & & 2.40 & 1.49 \\ G10-2 & & & & & & & & & & & 5.00 & & 3.75 & 2.33 \\ G10-3 & & & & & & & & & & & & 6.00 & & 5.40 & 3.36 \\ G10-4 & & & & & & & & & & & & 7.00 & & 7.35 & 4.57 \\ G11-1 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 3.13 & & 2.45 & 1.76 \\ G11-2 & & & & & & & & & & & & 4.20 & & & 4.41 & 3.16 \\ G11-3 & & & & & & & & & & & & 5.05 & & 5.05 & 0.5 & 6.38 & 4.58 \\ G11-4 & & & & & & & & & & & & & 5.78 & & 6.35 & 5.99 \\ G11-5 & & & & & & & & & & & & 6.42 & & 10.30 & 7.39 \\ G11-6 & & & & & & & & & & & & 7.00 & & 12.25 & 8.79 \\ G12-1 & \(200\times 300\) & 19 & 3 & 2.7 & 2.72 & 23.6 & 407 & 103.9 & 168.1 & 1.52 & 0.405 & 0.197 & 7.67 & 0.5 & 14.71 & 10.55 \\ G13-1 & \(200\times 400\) & 25 & 2 & 2.7 & 1.45 & 23.6 & 406 & 178.3 & 400.2 & 2.11 & 0.540 & 0.262 & 7.67 & 0.5 & 14.71 & 9.65 \\ G14-1 & \(200\times 350\) & 25 & 2 & 2.7 & 1.69 & 23.6 & 406 & 149.8 & 312.2 & 1.96 & 0.473 & 0.230 & 7.67 & 0.5 & 14.71 & 10.08 \\ G15-1 & \(200\times 400\) & 29 & 2 & 2.7 & 1.84 & 23.6 & 406 & 224 & 850.1 & 3.58 & 0.540 & 0.262 & 7.67 & 0.5 & 14.71 & 9.65 \\ G16-1 & \(200\times 370\) & 25 & 2 & 2.7 & 1.58 & 23.6 & 406 & 161.2 & 371.7 & 2.16 & 0.500 & 0.243 & 7.67 & 0.5 & 14.71 & 9.90 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(\varphi\): Nominal diameter of the tensile shear, N: Number of rebars, L: Clear span length of the beam, \(\eta\): Tensile rebar ratio,\(f_{\rm c}\): Compressive strength of concrete,\(f_{\rm y}\): Yield strength of the tensile rebar, \(P_{\rm n}\): Calculated bending capacity, \(Q_{\rm m}\): Calculated shear capacity, \(\alpha\): Shear-bending capacity ratio (\(\alpha\) (\(Q_{\rm m}\)/\(P_{\rm n}\)), \(M_{\rm bc}\): Mass of beam, \(M_{\rm bc}\): Equivalent mass of beam, \(M_{\rm w}\): Mass of weight \(V\): Impact velocity of weight, \(E_{\rm b}\): Kinetic energy of weight (input energy), \(E_{\rm c}\): Transmitted energy.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._In all 36 experimental cases employed in this study, the steel weight was dropped only once from a predetermined height to the RC beam center. The RC beam was placed on a fulcrum with a lifting prevention jig. The boundary condition of the fulcrum was similar to that of the pinned support. The beams were all rectangular RC beams. The cross-sectional width, height, and span length of the test specimens varied from 150 to 250 mm, 200 to 400 mm, and 2 to 3 m, respectively. Further, the tensile rebar ratio and mass of the falling steel weight varied from 0.8% to 3.17% and from 300 to 500 kg, respectively. Furthermore, the velocity of the falling weight before collision varied from 4 to 7.67 m/s.