The manuscript investigates the influence of sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) on the performance of concrete with partial replacement of SCBA by 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30% (M2-M7) with cement compared with normal mix M1. It is concluded that SCBA as a partial cement replacement up to 10% recommended. The chloride permeability and electrical resistivity found superior in M2 and M3, while M3 exhibited the lowest initial surface absorption. Further, the performance of reinforced concrete beams M1, M2, and M3 are evaluated under static and impact loading. It is concluded that M3 exhibited highest ductility factor with lowest energy absorption capacity, whereas mix M2 showed the highest energy absorption capacity with lowest ductility factor. The coefficients of determination for the predicted static load and deflection from the present study found best among the chosen literature and codal provisions. The M1 show highest frequency, indicating fastest response and greatest stiffness. The mix M2 had the highest DAF which showed that the beam’s resistance to impact was greater than static loads. It is also observed that the linear and rotational inertial effect on the beams are decreasing with the increasing of SCBA in the concrete. The results demonstrate that the displacement distribution along the beam length cannot be assumed to be linear under impact loading. Similarly, literature also reported that acceleration and inertia-force distributions exhibit significant variations and assumed cannot be linear. The findings reveal that SCBA incorporation modifies the dynamic response of beams by increasing flexibility and dynamic amplification, indicating that impact resistance is governed by the coupled effects of stiffness, inertia, and deformation. The observed non-linear spatial displacement distribution highlights the location-dependent nature of the dynamic response, indicating that actual displacement variations should be considered in the analysis rather than relying solely on idealized linear displacement assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhardwaj et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: