This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

**STUDY ON CRACK WIDTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS STRENGTHENED WITH CFRP SHEETS
**

Q. L. MA 1

1

X. Z. LU 1

L. P. YE 1

J. B. ZHUANG 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, PR China, 100084

Keywords: carbon fiber reinforced polymer sheets, reinforced concrete beam, strengthening, crack width.

1

INTRODUCTION

Strengthening concrete beams with externally bonded CFRP sheets is widely used in various applications nowadays. Besides the obvious enhancement of strength (both flexural and shear) [1], it also can effectively reduce the crack width of beams and improve the service performance [2-5]. The flexural strength of strengthened RC beams is now studied adequately while the tests and computational methods on crack width are quite limited. Many existing tests indicate that the distributing characteristics of cracks of CFRP sheet strengthened beams are different from ordinary beams. The cracks in strengthened beams could be classified into three types illuminated as follows: (1) Main cracks caused by flexural stress. When cracking load is reached, the first group of cracks appears which is labeled as group (a), and the succeeding cracks which appear between cracks of group (a) with external load increasing are labeled as group (b). As shown in Fig.1, these cracks may grow higher with external load increasing and their distribution depends on the synthetical bonding performance of reinforcement, CFRP sheets and concrete. (2) Subordinate cracks due to bond between steel reinforcement and concrete. The local bonding between steel and concrete will finally lead to appearance of local cracks surrounding the steel bars and these cracks propagate to the surface of the beam which are labeled as group (c) in Fig. 1. The lengths of these cracks are relatively short due to the local bond effect. (3) Subordinate cracks due to bond between CFRP and concrete. The opening-up of flexural cracks will also leads to the local peel off in the interface between CFRP sheets and concrete. These cracks are labeled as group (d) in Fig. 1. Furthermore, some of these cracks may intersect with main cracks which will cause looseness of concrete. When the amount of CFRP sheets is very large, all these cracks will tend to parallel to reinforcement [6-12]. Lots of existing tests indicate that strengthening with externally bonded CFRP sheets will reduce the crack width of beams effectively and the spaces between cracks reduce as well. But the restraint of CFRP sheets to the flexural cracks is limited near to the bottom surface of the beam. So the cracks of strengthened beams are usually correspondingly narrow at the two ends and wider in the middle. Since the worst result of cracking is corrosion of steel reinforcement, hence, the crack width near tensile longitudinal bars of reinforcement is studied.

2

EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE

Detailed records about cracks of beams strengthened with CFRP sheets are quite limited. In this research, 15 records [6~9, 11, 12] are collected including the test done by the authors [12], which are all shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Distribution of cracks.

1

22 Young’s Modulus (MPa) 235000 235000 235000 Tensile Strength (MPa) 3500 3550 3550 Specimen CB2 BM0 A1 A2 A3 BM1-3 BM1-4 BM1-5 BM1-6 BMII-2 BMII-3 BEAM2 BEAM3 BEAM4 CB1 Ref [9] 220000 1800 Ref [11] Ref [12] 200000 235000 2200 3550 Fig. 2 Analytical model of crack spaces. and the average bonding stress between concrete and CFRP sheets is τf.75 27.20 27. the tensile stresses of concrete. Patras.75 55. Greece.98 35.(2) and (3). a balance equation is written as σ s1 As + σ f1 Af = σ s2 As + σ f2 Af + f t Ac (1) (2) (3) (σ s1 − σ s2 ) As = τ sulmf For CFRP sheets.20 36.30 60.86 33.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras. From equations(1).94 12. σs2. 2007 Table 1 Test Label Ref [6] Ref [7] Ref [8] CFRP parameters in existing tests.10 24.50 12. Then.96 53.50 110. The average bonding stress between concrete and longitudinal bars is τs. The average flexural crack space is lmf. σf1. steel reinforcement and CFRP in adjacent section (section 2) are labeled as ft. the balance condition between section 1 and section 2 is written as follows: Separating longitudinal steel bars as an independent part. a similar equation is given by (σ f1 − σ f2 ) Af = τ f bf lmf where u is the perimeter of longitudinal bar and bf is the bonding width of CFRP sheets. σf2.10 24. respectively. 3 ANALYSIS OF CRACK SPACES The stresses of steel reinforcement and CFRP in first cracked section (section 1) are labeled as σs1. the following equation is obtained: 2 . Correspondingly. July 16-18. CFRP Area (mm2) 28.30 17.

05 and the standard deviation is 0. because the elastic modulus of CFRP is quite close to steel. Greece.08 d where c is the thickness of cover layer to reinforcement. the average crack space of CFRP sheets reinforced beams lmf and the average crack space of ordinary RC beams lm have the relationship as follows: lmf = lm 1+ β (9) where β is related to the tensile strength of concrete and the area ratio between CFRP sheets and steel bars. so the regressed kf is not a constant. ρf =(As+Af)/Ac and d is the diameter of longitudinal steel bar (mm). The average ratio between calculated results and experimental results shown in Table 3a is 1. and Af/As also affect the final result. which is written as lm = 1. so the parameter lm could be calculated following the similar way of the Code [15].Therefore. July 16-18. And from equation (6). bf.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras. which yields: As + Af 0. So by introducing strengthening influence factor β and bonding influence factor kf. ρ te (6) ρ te = where b is sectional width. With lmf and lm. lm also can be calculated. ρte is the effective tensile steel ratio of reinforcement in ordinary RC beams. By fitting the test results. respectively.41. hf are width and height of the tensile flange. but can be expressed as: kf = 0. the slippage of steel bars and CFRP sheets.5bh + (bf − b)hf (7) β= Af ( As + Af τf d −τ s 4tf τs )= Af d (kf − 1) As + Af tf (8) where kf = τ f / 4τ s . Patras. Furthermore. 2007 d ⎡ ⎤ −τ s ⎥ τf ⎢ A + Af Af 4tf )lmf ⎢1 + ( )⎥ f t Ac = 4τ s ( s d τs ⎢ As + Af ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ d τf −τ s Af 4tf Substituting lm = [1 + ( )]lmf into Eq (4) yields As + Af τs lm = where (4) ρf f t Ac 1 f t Ac d 1 ft d = = A + Af 4τ s ( s ) 4 τ s As + Af 4 τ s ρ f d (5) is synthetical effective steel ratio of reinforcement. Equation (5) has the similar form as the expression of average crack space of ordinary reinforced concrete members in Chinese code for design of concrete structures [15]. for instance. for strengthened beams with CFRP sheets. In Table 3b. the value of kf can be got from equation (8). According to Lu’s research [14]. the bonding strength τf between CFRP sheets and concrete is proportional to the tensile strength of concrete.24 Af / As (10) The results of crack spaces of strengthened beams computed by equation (6)~(10) and corresponding test results are all listed in Table 3.9c + 0. ρte is still suggested to be calculated by equation for ordinary RC beams while the area of tensile steel reinforcement As in the original equation is substituted by (As+Af). though the test results are given by ranges. Because the factors that may influence the average CFRPconcrete bond stress are more than concrete tensile strength itself. it is shown that the computed results and experimental results agree well except LS2S in Ref [12] whose testing result is larger than calculation due to the lack of web steel reinforcement. The value of kf for each specimen in Table 1 is shown in Table 2. therefore. 3 . the parameter lmf can be got.

50 17.154 0.198 85.31 82.70 19.99 BMII3 71 76.359 0.50 34.4γ 1' ) (for deformed steel bars) (11a) 10 d (1 + 2γ 1 + 0.099 0.63 1.089 0.20 25.09 79.43 125.96 BM16 62 58.40 ft (MPa) 3. lm by equation(6) Af/As lm(mm) 0.078 0. γ 1 ' is synthetical ratio of d is diameter of longitudinal bar.33 1. All the results are shown in Table 2.41 25.71 0.70 125 100 71 62 83 71 75-112 75-112 75-112 60~90 90~110 30~60 Ref [8] Ref [11] - - Table 3a Specimen Test Calculation Calculation / Test Table 3b Comparison of crack spaces with lm in Chinese code (Specimen Group 1).41 3.134 0.61 77.165 lm(Test) (mm) 80.198 89. γ1 is enhancing factor of tensile flange.038 0.099 0.079 0.120 0.35 0.122 73. 2007 Table 2 Test Ref [7] Ref [6] Ref [12] specimen BM0 CB2 CB1 BM1-3 Ref [9] BM1-4 BM1-5 BM1-6 BMII-2 BMII-3 A1 A2 A3 BEAM2 BEAM3 BEAM4 fcu (MPa) 50. use lmf from tests and lm from equation (11).60 0.30 41.263 0.20 112.75 1.60 102.188 0. a statistical value of β is obtained.097 143.68 122.45 Ref [12] LS2S 115200 176.134 0.06 2.154 0.93 94.20 25.12 84.045 0.78 2.7 225.90 0.086 0.79 Ref [11] BEAM2 60~90 79.91 BEAM3 90~110 81.83 Ref [12] CB1 104.81 72.70 34.78 1.37 0.90 0.58 84. July 16-18.13 75. kf is fitted as 4 .127 0.20 25.240 0.81 0.70 109.099 0.15 Ref [9] BM13 125 86. Then. another important model for lm proposed by Ding [13] is also discussed here which is written as lm = lm = where 7 8 d ρf (1 + 2γ 1 + 0.017 0.94 BMII2 83 82.70 34. This model is relatively simple but maybe not precise enough.077 0.013 0.15 129.599 0.45 41.240 0.65 119. flange compressive ρf = ( As + Af ) / bh0 .06 Specimen Test Calculation The above discussion is based on the model for lm proposed in Chinese Design Code.36 117.053 lm by equation (11) Af/As lm(mm) kf 0.4γ 1' ) (for plain steel bars) 8 ρf (11b) is enhancing factor of steel reinforcement.126 0.120 0.20 0.47 A2 75112 120.22 113.34 0. and then kf is computed by equation (8).359 0.020 0.90 116.06 kf 0.75 Crack spaces of tests.62 75.11 68.097 225.58 100 104.55 2.40 19. Similarly.04 0.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras.019 0. Patras.077 0.322 0.089 0.75 1.08 Comparison of crack spaces with lm in Chinese code (Specimen Group 2).33 2.122 91.06 3.60 109. Greece. According to the testing results.045 0.05 Ref [6] CB2 100 82.599 0.63 85.91 1.76 BM15 71 68.27 A3 75112 114.69 BM14 100 75.20 17.27 0.013 0.58 1.099 0. Ref [8] A1 75112 126.78 121.109 0.036 84. γ 1 ' = (bf '−b)hf ' / bh .59 0. Ref [7] BM0 80.036 0.036 75.40 19.33 2.91 2. ρf γ 1 = (bf − b)hf / bh .85 0.78 2.93 BEAM4 30~60 60.33 2.

When the stresses are analyzed.3a.22 BEAM4 30~60 65. M η h0 (1 + β f ) As (14) 5 . Table 4a Specimen Test Calculation Calculation / Test Table 4b Comparison of crack spaces with lm proposed by Ding[13] (Specimen Group 1). Ref[7] BM0 80.58 73. The Table 4b also gives a range of test results. As.60 1.43 0.13 Ref [9] BM1-3 125 92.14 BMII-3 71 87.22 BEAM3 90~110 73.74 1.24 Comparison of crack spaces with lm proposed by Ding[13] (Specimen Group 2). Then.91 Ref[6] CB2 100 95.35 Af / As + 0. (3) the longitudinal steel bars haven’t yielded. are area. Ecf. the maximum error between tests and computed results is 35%.06 Ref [11] BEAM2 60~90 73. 2007 (12) The crack spaces of strengthened RC beams obtained from Eq (11) are compared with testing results in Table 4. Greece.00 Ref [12] LS2S 115200 99. Es. the equation of calculating stress of η h0 ε s Es As M = σ s Asη h0 (1 + (1 + longitudinal steel bars is derived as follows: σs = where Acf.02 0. εs are area.15 while the coefficient of variation is 0.04 BM1-6 62 62.15. Ref [8] A1 75112 92.997.1 Stress of longitudinal steel bars The longitudinal steel stress of cracked section of beams strengthened with CFRP sheets in service stage is illustrated in Fig. respectively.82 BM1-5 71 73. Patras.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras. July 16-18.70 1. εcf. So it can be found that with Ding’s model. In Table 4a.60 1. a better prediction of crack space can be obtained.49 1. but it still shows consistent between tests and calculation.7 118. respectively.74 kf = 0.95 Ref[12] CB1 104. and the standard deviation is 0.77 0.52 Specimen Test Calculation 4 CRACK WIDTH 4.84 A3 75112 84.12 A2 75112 87.01 BMII-2 83 94. elasticity modulus and the strain of tensile CFRP sheets. (2) sectional strain follows plane-in-plane assumption. three assumptions will be considered herein: (1) tensile stress of concrete within cracked section is neglected. the mean ratio of calculated values and testing results is 0.05 BM1-4 100 81. the following equations are established with sectional balance condition: M = σ cf Acf (η h0 + a) + σ s Asη h0 (13a) 1 a ε cf Ecf Acf )( ) ) (13b) η h0 ε s Es As 1 a ε cf Ecf Acf )( ) Substituting β f = (1 + into (13a) and (13b).65 0. elasticity modulus and strain of tensile longitudinal steel bars.

The non-uniform distribution factor of stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement ψ which reflects the participation of concrete in tensile region of beams could be taken as follows according to its definition: Es lmf (16) ψ = 1.1 0.2 Average short-term crack width Similarly to the ordinary RC beams. ft is tensile strength of concrete. Patras.67. lmf is average crack space of CFRP sheets strengthened beams. 4. the error of computed stress results by Eq (14) is less than 4%. average short-term crack width of RC beams strengthened with CFRP sheets could be defined as the average difference of tensile elongation between concrete and steel reinforcement in the range of average space of main cracks. h / h0 = 1. 2007 (a)Distribution of sectional stress (b) Distribution of sectional strain Fig.415 With the definition of Af ] As + Af (19b) ρ te = approximately. A lot of parametrical discussions are implemented by changing strength of concrete. respectively.5bh + (b f − b)h f ] f tηc h (18) where bf.915 in this research. ψ is the non-uniform distribution factor of stress of longitudinal reinforcement. the non-uniform distribution factor of longitudinal steel stress ψ could be computed as follows As + Af and the regressed value of ηc / η = 0.8[0. are width and height of tensile flange.5bh + (bf − b)hf 6 . so εcf/εs could be a constant which is suggested to be1.08 and η is suggested to be 0.08 Ef = 235GPa Es = 200GPa a / h0 = 0. amount of CFRP sheets and ratio of longitudinal steel reinforcement which indicates that the factor of internal force couple arm εcf/εs changes inconspicuously. According to the Chinese code[15]. Compared with testing results [12]. July 16-18.1(1 − Mc ) M (17) Mc in equation (17) is the cracking moment of concrete of strengthened beams which could be computed as ordinary beams by M c = 0. ηc is the distance between acting points of resultant forces in tensile and compressive regions. The moment of beam strengthened with CFRP sheets in service stage is: Substituting σ f − σ s Af σ Af a (19a) + f ] σ s As + Af σ s As + Af η h0 ε f / ε s = 1. M could M = σ s ( As + Af )η h0 [1 + be written as M = σ s ( As + Af )η h0 [1 + 0. dimension of beam section. hf.1 into equation (19a).FRPRCS-8 University of Patras. Greece. the equation of crack width for CFRP sheets strengthened beams is ωm = 0.85ψ σs where σs is the stress of longitudinal steel bars at cracked section. 3 Analysis of longitudinal steel stress.

65 ft σ s ρ te (1 + 0.60 0.82 0. The column of ω’/ω [1] indicates that all the computed results are smaller than tests if α takes 1.82 0.28 which are close to the results of the ordinary beams comparatively. All the results with α=2.71 l(mm) ψ 0.57 0.85×1.331 0.32 301.96 216.02 0.22 478.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras.797 0.143 0. calculated results and test results of maximum crack width are shown in Table 6.95 0.662 ' ω (computed) ω ' (test) ω ω 0.69 0.217 0. By analyzing the values of ω’/ω[1].66=1.48 279.113 0.5 306 48 54 Ref [12] (LS2S) 60 66 78 90 M/My 0.545 0.5 Ref [12] (CB1) 204 229.66 according to statistical results.99 and the standard deviation is 0.14 0.22 1.045 0.119 0. So the final expression of maximum crack width of CFRP sheets strengthened beams is ωmax = αψ σs Es lmf (21) where α is load type coefficient which is 0.407 0.82 0.092 0.156 0. Specimen M( kN ⋅ m ) 31.5 0.95.523 0.31 359.527 0.95 σ s (MPa) 208.69 0.174 0.415 Af ) As + Af (20) Furthermore. Table 5 Comparison of crack width of testing result and computed results using eqns (6) and (10).230 0.32 84.082 0.0. (2) While lm.91 0.75 Ref [6] (BM0) 38.34 1. The average ratio of test results to computed results is 0.25 0. statistically α is modified to be 2.39 319.75 0. all the calculated results are compared with test results as follows: (1) While lm.90 1.23 0.51 0.41.192 0.355 0.217 0. kf are computed by equation (11) and equation (12) respectively.196 0.15 0.47 297.16 0.11 1. kf are computed by equation (6) and equation (10) respectively.16 which is much smaller than former expression. Different results of maximum crack width will be computed by equation (21) with different expressions of lm and kf.96 0.304 0.52 351.34 0.06 7 . 2007 ψ = 1.837 0.41 according to the Chinese code[15] for ordinary RC flexural members.1 − 0.126 0.63 0.083 0.335 0.85 1. Herein.44 1.77 1.441 225. whose average ratio of test results to computed results is 0.87 255.68 0.138 0. July 16-18.61 405.57 0.45 0.15 239.90 0.742 0.1 0.70 348.55 0.57 0. calculated results and test results of maximum crack width are shown in Table 5. and the standard deviation is 0.217 0.43 270.266 0.38 243.14 0.587 0.603 176.86 52. Patras.715 0.0 are shown in column ω’/ω [2].92 153 178.272 0.81 45. Greece. a crack propagation coefficient is needed in the computation of maximum crack width of strengthened beam with CFRP sheets in service stage under short-term loading which is considered to be 1.11 0.168 0.58 0.422 0.

596 ω (computed) ω ' (test) 0.E. J.751 0.687 0. G.92 1. March/April. “External Prestressed Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Straps for Shear Enhancement of Concrete”.41.471 0.95 0.5 Ref [12] (CB1) 204 229. X.218 0. . The first method follows the way suggested in the Chinese code [15] which could be easily used in practice.16 251. 2005.45 1. Patras. China. Specimen M (kNm) 31. it is not concerned in this research. U.202 0.69 0.14 ω' [2] ω 1..597 0.63 227.. Greece.59 322.47 1.S.763 0.67 450.50 1. and Fan.81 45.68 376. The influence of CFRP sheets on crack space.113 0.77 1.125 0. pp185-192. L. “Evaluation of Prestressed Concrete Girders Strengthened with Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Sheets”.. Proc.109 0. Winistorfer. n SUPPL. labeled [2] are calculated with α=2.765 * Results labeled [1] are calculated with α=1. November 2002.148 0. Peterman and Robert.98 1. Journal of Bridge Engineering.6 0.69 0.10 0.03 0.23 ω' [1] ω 1. further work in this field still need to be proceeded.847 0. Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. “Design Pproposals for the Debonding Strengths of FRP Strengthened RC Beams in the Chinese Design Code”.092 0.. Hong Kong.46 1.12 0. “Study on Flexural Behavior of Prestressed Carbon Fiber Sheet-concrete Composite Beams”.P. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] Ye.82 0.40 1.80 1.183 0. and the second method proposed in this paper is improved to give a more accurate prediction with less standard deviation.61 279.28 1.93 0. J.5 306 48 54 Ref [12] (LS2S) 60 66 78 90 M/My 0. 5 CONCLUSIONS In this paper.797 0. 2007 Table 6 Comparison of crack width of testing result and computed results using eqns (11) and (12). v 37.. Furthermore.78 265.34 1. pp249-256.15 1. 2005.33 1..60 0. crack width of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP sheets is studied based on the traditional crack theory of RC beams.5 0.94 l (mm) ψ 0.105 0.98 1. 2.94 0.02 0.57 0.0.03 1.63 0.42 326.57 236.57 1.34 1.52 0.25 0.95 σs (MPa) 193. 2.M.16 0.164 0.F.217 0.FRPRCS-8 University of Patras.1 0.16 201.06 0. therefore.667 118. tensile stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement at the cracked section and its non-uniform distribution factor are analyzed.084 0. pp 262-264+574 (in Chinese).43 0.138 0.86 52.407 0. Tong.J.02 1.69 0.643 0. Reed.82 0.74 303.713 0.71 341.Z. J. C.086 0.U. August.79 0.80 73. although the crack width is quite sensitive to the secondary loading in practical application. International Symposium on Bond Behaviour of FRP in Structures (BBFS 2005). and two methods for crack widths for CFRP sheets strengthened beams are proposed which give good prediction. pp 45-54. Journal of Composites for Construction.217 0.217 0.05 0.192 0.29 276. 2004.57 0.14 0.11 0.594 0. and Meier. Zhu.721 0.75 Ref [6] (BM0) 38. Less. v9. 8 .323 0. Lu. C.90 0.133 0.541 99.14 0.15 0. The tests on secondary loading are quite limited and the crack width records with secondary loading are fewer.83 0.03 226. and Chen. A. Y.51 0.68 0. July 16-18.19 1..92 153 178.066 0.

and Zhang. M. pp 61-65. “Experimental Study on Flexural RC Members Strengthened with CFRP Fabrics”.Q. GB50010-2002. Ye. A. v34. (in Chinese). and Dai. v33. pp11-15 (in Chinese).P. H. bachelor’s dissertation. pp52-58 (in Chinese). D.. Code for Design of Concrete Structures. 1991. PR China. T. PR China. Y.. China Architecture & Building Press.H. July 16-18. Zhuang. Fang.6. “Experimental Study on Concrete Beams Strengthened with Prestressed CFRP Sheets”. J.. “Experimental Researh of Flexural Debonding Performances About RC Beams Strengthened with CFRP Sheets”..D.J. L. “Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis on Flexural Beams Strengthened with CFRP Sheets”..FRPRCS-8 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] University of Patras. and Jiang. Master’s dissertation. Engineering Structures.Q. Tsinghua University.J. Southwest Jiaotong University. 9 . ACI Structural Journal. Zhao.. Master’s dissertation. Z. “Bond-Slip Models for FRP Sheets/Plates Externally Bonded to Concrete”. Ding.. “Experimental Study on Flexural Strength of RC Beams Strengthened with Continuous Carbon Fiber Sheet”. Cui. 2. China Journal of Highway and Transport. J.. Z. n 4.. Building Structure. 2005.Q. PR China. China Railway Publishing House. pp 447457. Reinforced Concrete Structure.X.B. 2. 2.6.C. “Flexural Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Externally Bonded Composite Laminates”. Ye. Lu. J. Teng.Z. Zhao. Y. v 94. v55. 2001. “Serviceability of Concrete Beams Prestressed by Carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic Bars”. Deng. Jul-Aug. W. Structural Engineers. and Yang. T. J. 2003. Liu. Zhao. v14. 2002. Building Structure.A. PR China.. 2. PR China. X. “Study on the Flexural Behavior of Concrete Bridge Deck Beam Strengthened with Carbon Fiber Sheets”. S. 2005. 2007 Abdelrahman. 1997.G. Beijing. Xie. Department of Civil Engineering. pp 45-51 (in Chinese).P. 27. Department of Civil Engineering. L.. Greece.6. pp 920-937. and Rizkalla. Z. Department of Civil Engineering... Beijing... Patras. 6. Tsinghua University.

- Recent Advances in Repair Concrete
- 1-s2.0-S0950061813005187-main
- Deterioration and Spalling of High Strength Concrete Under Fire (Read)
- 0750650591Concrete_DesignB
- Concrete Design Using Eurocode 2
- 200823
- Fiber Reinforced Sheet for Structural Retrofit
- yashu hsc
- Arr 1
- Precast Conc Floor System
- Realistic prediction of post-cracking behavior for new structural synthetic fiber reinforced concrete beams
- Behaviour of normal concrete using superplasticizer under different curing regimes.pdf
- Pre Stressed
- 9. Prestress Materials
- 507 33 Powerpoint-slides Ch8 DRCS
- Floor Concepts
- Example 2- SOLUTION-Reinforced masonry beam.pdf
- Chapter 8
- M.tech _anurag Syllabi
- CBD-AISC-360-05
- Making Test Cubes From Fresh Concrete
- Dr.S.bari BSRM Paper on Slab
- Some Notes on Concrete Fatigue_tcm45-344432
- TM 38 - Ground Floors & Pavements Part 2
- 7 Hardened Concrete
- scc
- Blast Loading Response of Reinforced Concrete Panels Reinforced With Externally Bonded GFRP Laminates
- 1296202514838-facilities
- Ccaaguide2003 t49 Res Floors Web Tbr
- Concrete and Highway Engineering Lab Manual

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd