60 views

Uploaded by vinaykumaryadav

composite test review

- 4.EbtisamH.hasan
- Module 06 Part 2
- Dnvgl Rp f119
- b c punmia
- Yield Point Final
- Concrete Poles
- seminar report
- D5379
- 110-M17
- True Stress-Strain Diagram
- Bolt Strength
- 12. Design, Fabrication, And Analysis of a Hybrid
- 046572
- Confined concrete behavior influencing factors
- Three-dimensional_characterization_of_textile_composites.pdf
- Assignment No 1
- Mechanical Properties of Prestressing Steel After Fire Exposure
- Composites Class
- 25.IJMPERDFEB201925
- zweben1968

You are on page 1of 18

Thermoplastic Composites

1.

There is no load then no stroke at initial point. If load is 0.1 kN then the stroke is 0.5 mm. As

the load is gradually increasing then stroke is also gradually increases. This gradual

increasing occurs up to load nearly 0.6 kN and the 3 mm stroke. Up to this there is only linear

relationship between load and the stroke. After that elastic limit comes where the jute fiber

breakage start and sudden fracture happens at the 0.6 kN load and 3 mm stroke. This failure

occurs because jute fiber has less tensile strength so load applied crosses its limit then fiber

breakage started and composite specimen cannot sustain the load and specimen sudden fail.

Also due to fiber fracture and pull out of fibers.

Conclusion:

The typical load-stroke curve obtained from the tensile test is shown in Fig. 2. From this

curve, it can be predicted that the failure behavior of the jute fiber reinforced thermoplastic

composite is brittle type.

2.

Fig 3 shows all untreated fibers with 5%, 10% and 15% weightage with thermoplastic

increase up to ultimate maximum point of tensile strength and then decreases. UF 10% goes

to maximum tensile strength 32MPa and UF5% lowest tensile strength nearly 26MPa and

UF15% in between two of them. For small fiber lenth between 1 to 2mm UF5%, UF10% and

UF15% increases tensile strength with increasing fiber length this is due to proper interfacial

bonding between jute fiber and the thermoplastic which combined the jute fiber and

thermoplastic so that separation will not occur. Due to proper interfacial bonding matrix

distributed the load on fiber and there will no separation of jute fiber and thermoplastic.

Maximum Tensile strength is nearly 2mm fiber length for all UF. Fiber length between 2 to

4mm tensile strength is decreases because of jute fiber rupture and the pull out of jute fiber

from the thermoplastic. In tensile test pull out of fiber due to proper interface of jute fiber in

one half of specimen than the other half.

3.

In fig 4 also same trend as above for Untreated fiber except the 5% treated fiber. 5% trated

fibers tensile keep increasing from increasing fiber length. Tensile strength increases 20 Mpa

to 30 Mpa between 1 to 3 mm length of fiber 5% treated fiber and from 3 to 4 mm fiber

length tensile strength increases nerly 30 to 35 Mpa. After treated 5% TF made a proper

interfacial bonding with thermoplastic. When jute fiber is treated then the moisture from jute

is removed and more surface roughness is occurred due to this jute fiber make proper bond

with thermoplastic. Because of making proper bonding thermoplastic transmitted the load and

the jute fiber bear the load. For 10% and15% TF it not happens because in thermoplastic 5%

TF is saturated limit and 10% and 15% TF exceed the saturation limit so due to this there are

no proper bonding between jute fiber and thermoplastic, tensile strength not increases.

Conclusion:

The tensile test results have been plotted in Figs. 3 & 4 as a function of fiber length. From

these figures, it is clear that as the fiber length increases, the value of tensile strength

increases and then decreases. This observation is true for almost all cases (with exception in

the case of 5% treated specimens).

Effect of the Volume Fraction of Jute Fiber on the Interlaminar Shear Stress and Tensile

Behavior Characteristics of Hybrid Glass/Jute Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite

Bar for Concrete Structures

4.

Fig 6 shows the graph between load and displacement of hybrid jute/glass fiber reinforce

polymer composite. This graph is based on different composition of natural jute and glass

fiber, jute fiber weightage are 0%, 30%, 50%, 70% and 100%. From this weight percentage

observed the behaviour of jute/glass polymer composite. When there is natural jute is 0% i.e.

pure glass fiber polymer composite, its highest load capacity up to 2500N. as natural jute

percentage increases the load capacity decreases. This is happening because of jute fiber has

less strength as compare to the glass fiber and increasing natural jute fiber simultaneous

decrease glass fiber weightage. So hybrid glass/jute polymer composite reaches to the near

strength of the natural jute. This is one reason of decrease of load capacity of hybrid

jute/glass polymer composite. Another reason is that increases natural jute weightage in

polymer decreases interfacial bonding, thats why load capacity decreases. In the graph for

natural jute 0% and 30% there is proportional limit, yielding and then elongation is occurred.

But for natural jute 50%, 70% and 100% there is no such things happening. This happend

because breakage or rupture of jute fiber and pull out from the composite and also due to not

proper interfacial bonding.

Conclusion:

Figure 6 shows load displacement curves of the HGJFRP composite bars. Initially, as the

fraction of jute fiber increased, the increase in displacement exceeded that of the load. These

results show that although the same load was imposed, the displacement increased, indicating

a decrease in overall stiffness. These initial load-displacement curves were maintained up to a

proportion of 30% jute fiber. As the proportion increased to 50, 70, and 100%, the change in

displacement exceeded that of the load, indicating that the interface between the vinyl ester

resin and jute or glass fiberswas not sufficiently strong to prevent separation. Therefore, the

fibers split while receiving the load and became bent. As the proportion of jute fiber

increased, the interface weakened.

5.

Fig 7 shows the bar chart inter-laminar shear stress of hybrid glass/jute fiber reinforced

polymer with different composition of jute weight percentage. From the fig 7 it can see

that at 0% jute maximum inter-laminar shear stress is 85 Mpa, at 100% jute minimum

inter-laminar shear stress 10MPa and as jute % increases the inter-laminar shear stress is

decreases. At 0%, 30%, 50%, 70% and 100% of jute inter laminar shear stress are 80, 50,

35, 25 and 10Mpa respectively. These happened because at 0% jute i.e. 100% glass fiber,

glass fiber have high strength than the jute. So when load is applied on the 0 % jute

polymer composite, it sustain maximum load but at the free end it observed maximum

inter-laminar shear stress and minimum separation of fibers from composite. As jute

percentage increases it cannot sustain maximum load so at free end there is minimum

inter-laminar shear stress and maximum separation of fibers occurs.

Conclusion:

Figure 7 shows that interlaminar shear stress decreased as the fraction of jute fiber

increased. Figure 8 shows a test specimen following failure. Failure appears to be the

result of interfacial separation between the surface and internal core of the HGJFRP

composite bar. This became more apparent as the proportion of jute fiber increased. With

a jute fiber fraction in the range 030%, failure occurred with little interfacial separation

between the surface and core components. The separation phenomenon was more evident

with mixing ratios of 50100%, in which separation between the core jute and glass fibers

increased, along with separation of the jute fibers themselves. The braiding process used

on the jute fiber surface was effective and prevented splitting due to interfacial separation

of the fibers.

6.

Fig 9 shows tensile load (N) and strain (%) graph of hybrid glass/jute fiber reinforced

polymer with different variation of jute (%). In the graph for jute 0%, 30% and 50%

fallow the same trend of curve. Both jute 0% and 30% on increases strain increases

tensile load and sudden fallen to 3% of strain and maximum tensile load is nearly 25000N

and 20000N respectively at 3% of strain. But jute 50% failed early at 12500N tensile load

and 1.5% strain. This is because less interfacial bonding and jute % increases. Jute 70%

failed at strain 2% and tensile load 10000N. Further increases of jute % decrease in the

tensile stress due to insufficient of interfacial bonding and rupture of jute fibers. Jute

100% show very different curve nearly up to 2% strain show increase in tensile stress up

to 5000N and the yielding at 2% strain then increases tensile load. Further it drop at 3%

strain and fail. It has the lowest tensile load 5000N.

Conclusion:

Generally, FRP composite reinforcing materials are brittle and exhibit linear elastic

behavior. The tensile load-displacement curve shown in Figure 9 indicates similar

behavior with our HGJFRP composite bars. The HGJFRP composite bar with a jute fiber

mixing ratio of 0% was a GFRP composite bar, which exhibited brittle and linear

behavior. In this work, glass fiber and jute fiber reinforcements were used. A comparison

between the dynamic properties of glass fiber and those of jute fiber revealed that the

elastic constant of the glass fiber was 71GPa and that of the jute fiber was 55 GPa (i.e.,

the elastic constant of the glass fiber was 29% greater than that of the jute fiber).The

tensile strength of the glass fiber was 3400MPa, and the strain was 4.79%; the tensile

strength of the jute fiber was 393MPa, and the strain was 0.72%.The tensile strength of

the glass fiber was 8.65 times higher than that of the jute fiber, and the deformation of the

glass fiber was 6.75 times greater than that of the jute fiber.Thus, the jute fiber failed prior

to the glass fiber.The density of jute fiber was approximately half that of glass fiber; thus,

for a given mass, the volume and number of fibers will be approximately twice that of

glass fiber. For this reason, the tensile load prior to failure was larger for FRP composite

bars with the same cross-sectional area. If the volume fraction of high-elastic-modulus

glass fiber is greater than the volume fraction of the low-elastic-modulus jute fiber, then

the composite will become brittle. This is because, following failure of the glass fiber, the

jute fiber also fails. In addition, with a glass fiber content of 30%, because the mixing

ratio of jute fiber was high, plastic deformation occurred following failure of the glass

fibers. This is due to the fact that, with a relatively low mixing ratio of glass fiber,

following failure of the glass fiber, plastic deformation occurs until the jute fiber

(partially) fails.With only jute fiber, although linear elastic brittle behavior was observed,

partial resistance of the load was observed, without failure of fiber where the surface was

treated with PVA fiber. Because of the low strength of the jute fiber, we observed the

following First, the core of the HGJFRP composite bars failed, and then the displacement

continued to increase while the PVA fiber provided resistance. Then the load decreased

during failure of the PVA fibers. In other words, following failure of the HGJFRP

composite bars, although the PVA fiber exhibited some resistance, linear elastic behavior

was observed due to the behavior of the PVA fiber.

7.

Fig4. Ultimate strength against the weight fraction; (a) pine sawdust fibres ans (b) hemp

fibres.

Fig 4(a) shows that ultimate strength and weight fraction of pine sawdust fibers. From fig

4(a) it is clearly observed that curve for tension and flexural test has completely opposite

in nature. For weight fraction between 0-2% ultimate strength increase in tensile and

decrease in flexural nearly 25MPa. This is due to proper interfacial bonding between fiber

and matrix for tensile and for flexural inter-laminar shear stress increase cause of

delamination. From 2-4%, 4-5% and 5-10% weight fraction ultimate strength decreases

for tensile and increases for flexural. This is due to increase of weight fraction % causes

fiber pull out, rupture in tensile but for flexural due to decrease in inter-laminar ultimate

strength increases.

For fig4(b) weight fraction from 2-3% both have constant ultimate strength for tensile and

flexural 24MPa and 26MPa respectively. But from 3-6% weight fraction ultimate strength

increases for tensile and decreases for flexural. This is due to proper interfacial bonding

between helm fiber and matrix in tensile and increase of inter-laminar shear stress for

flexural.

Conclusion:

Figure 4(a) and (b) show, the average values and the standard deviation of the ultimate

strength (defined as the stress at maximum load) against the weight fraction, for the pine

sawdust and hemp fibres, respectively. The ultimate strength obtained for both fibre types

presents values relatively close, once the tested composites were low reinforcement

contents and then the strength is dominated by matrix properties, but the effect of fibre

content is different for tension or bending loads. The strength in tension tends to decrease

with the increasing of the fibre content in opposite with fibre content effect in bending.

This effect is contrary to the observed with conventional glass or carbon fibres, but it is

usual in natural fibres. This mechanical behaviour was also observed by Jayaraman [5] in

tensile tests for low sisal fibre content composites. In short fibre composites, mechanical

properties, particularly tensile strength at low fibre content, decreases with the fibre

weight increasing which has been explained with dilution of the matrix and introduction

of flaws at the fibre ends where high stress concentrations occur, causing the debond

between fibre and matrix. For higher fibre content, the matrix is sufficiently restrained

and the stress is more evenly distributed becoming more effective the reinforcement

effect. By other side the ultimate strength in tension is lower than in bending. The lower

strength in tension can be caused by a higher sensibility to non homogeneous distribution

and tendency to fibre joining in agglomerates as was also observed in some specimens

with sawdust fibres. This must be indicated as the need to improve manufacture

techniques to avoid the fibre joining. The scanning electronic microscopy also shows

some bad interface adhesion being one of the factors contributing for the poor

performance of these composites.

And Filler Material

8.

Fig 2 shows graph of tensile strength of specimen before and after absorption. For sample

A, before water absorption tensile stress is 21.23 (N/mm2) and after water absorption

17.03 (N/mm2). Tensile strength decreases after water absorption because bamboo fiber

has voids so absorbed the water and from capillary action it comes out side and react with

resin. Due to reaction of water bonding between the fiber and matrix weakened and

tensile strength decreases. When compare sample A to sample B, tensile strength

increases by 70% due to addition of the micro filler 5% volume. On adding 5% volume

filler to sample tensile strength increase because filler filled the voids of bamboo fiber

and make proper bonding to resists the load and avoid crack propagation. Fillers also

avoid the water absorption due to this water reaction with polymer decreased and tensile

strength increased. Sample C is 80% higher tensile strength than the sample A due to

addition of 5% nano filler. Nano filler filled more voids than the micro filler so tensile

strength increased.

Conclusion:

The Figure-2 shows the tensile strength of the specimens A, B and C before and after

water absorption. The test results show that the specimens C with nano filler material

inclusion show high tensile strength on both cases. This may be due to the better bonding

strength between the matrix and reinforcement was good enough due to nano filler

material addition. The specimen C showed a very less strength difference of 46.34

N/mm2 and 46.082 N/mm2 on before and after water absorption. The reduction in tensile

strength was caused due to non uniform diameter of fibers, absorption of more water and

poor dispersion of fibers with matrix. The water absorption of fibers promotes to decrease

the stiffness of the fibers and formed shear stress in the interface; this creates debonding

between fiber and matrix. Also, the rate of reduction in tensile strength was depends on

duration of immersion, quantity of fiber and percentage of filler material. The addition of

filler materials may fill the small void spaces resulted on minimizing the penetration of

water. This may enhance the bonding between matrix and fibers. Among the micron and

nano filler material addition, the nano filler material added samples show better results,

this may be due to the occupying the very small voids of nano size by the nano material.

Reinforced Polyester Composites

9.

Fig1 shows the tensile strength with variation of volume fraction of fiber in composite. At

volume fraction of 0.305 there is maximum tensile strength 50MPa and at 0.116 is 28MPa.

As increases volume fraction of fiber tensile strength increases at 0.116, 0.232, 0.261 and

0.305 volume fraction tensile strength is 28, 29, 32, 40 and 50 MPa respectively. First two

volume fraction 0.116 and 0.232 have nearly same tensile strength. After second sample

0.116 volume fraction of fiber tensile strength increases 14%. Last three sample tensile

strength increases linearly. From 0.232 to 0.261 volume fraction tensile strength increases

25% and further 25% increment of tensile strength. These increment of tensile stress

happened because of addition of volume fraction of fiber sustain tensile load by making

proper interfacial bonding and support the matrix transformed load.

Conclusion:

The variation of tensile strength and tensile modulus of composite with varying fiber content

is presented in Figure 1. It was clearly evident that with increasing the fiber content in the

polyester matrix, the tensile strength is also increasing. This is due to the fact that the

polyester resin transmits and distributes the applied stress to the Borassus fibers resulting in

higher strength. Therefore, the composite can sustain higher load before failure compared to

the unreinforced polyester. The tensile strength is increased by 25.67%, 57.8%, and77.1%,

respectively, at 0.232, 0.261, and 0.305 volume fractions of fiber. The tensile strength as of

composite considered in this study is far better than that of peach palm fiber reinforced

polyester composites [11]. Further, it was found that the failure of specimen is catastrophic

without pullout of fiber from the specimen.

Mechanical Properties Of Green Coconut Fiber Reinforced Hdpe Polymer Composite

10.

Fig 6 shows graph between tensile strength and volume fraction and fiber length. As volume

fraction increases from 30 to 40 tensile stress increases due to proper bonding between matrix

and fiber. Maximum tensile strength is 17.2 MPa at 40 volume fraction. From 40 to 50

volume fraction tensile stress decreases up to 16.9MPa. It drop because cluster formation

occur and there is no proper bonding and cannot resist the load so tensile stress decreases. In

tensile strength fiber length is also affected. As fiber length is increase from 3-6 and 6-9

tensile strength decreases from 17.2-17MPa and 17-16.7MPa respectively. This is happening

because on increasing fiber length, it breaks or rupture in tensile loading due to not making

proper interfacial bonding. Also due to pull out of the fiber from matrix.

Conclusion:

The tensile strength is a predominant property in processing of composite materials. The

influence of constituent phases on the tensile strength (TS) of coconut fiber reinforced HDPE

composite can be studied by using response graph and response table. Figure 6 shows the

effect plot for tensile strength. From the graph it is inferred that, the observed tensile is higher

at the fiber volume fraction of 40% than at 30% and 50%. It is also observed that tensile

strength slightly decreases with increase in fiber length. From the response table 4 shows the

effect of constituent phases on tensile strength. From the response table, it can be asserted

that the fiber length is the main parameter which affects the tensile strength of the composite

material.

Tensile properties characterization of okra woven fiber reinforced polyester composites

11.

untreated and treated okra woven fiber reinforced polyester composites

Fig 6 shows the effect of percentage volume fraction of fiber on specific tensile strength of

untreated and treated okra woven fiber reinforced polyester composite. Okra woven fiber

tensile strength decreases 10% on increases volume fraction of fiber 0-10%. This is because

fibers pull out and not makes proper interfacial bonding with matrix. At the end of fiber more

stress concentration, so due to stress concentration crack propagates and low specific tensile

strength occurs. Then from 10-15% of volume fraction of fiber specific tensile strength

increases 15% and further specific tensile strength increases 40% on increasing 15-20%

volume fraction of fiber. This happened because of proper interfacial bonding and

contributing to sustain the tensile stress. Treated okra woven OW CT-2 showing highest

specific tensile stress 60MPa it is twice of the OW highest tensile strength. This is due to

make very strong interfacial bonding with matrix. Treated OW CT-2 becomes rough surface

and removed of water from fiber which allow to matrix for proper bonding. OW CT-1

specific tensile strength decrease 5% and then increase 50% from volume fraction 0-8% and

8-22%. From 20-22% of volume fraction of fiber OW CT-1 specific tensile strength lower

than OW. This is due to lack of bonding and pull out of the fibers.

Conclusion:

Figure 6 shows variation of specific tensile strength with percentage volume fraction of

untreated and chemically treated okra woven fiber reinforced polyester composites. From the

volume fraction of 14.35% to 19.42% specific tensile strength is almost same for okra woven

FRP composites before and after chemical treatment of okra woven fiber. At highest volume

fraction, untreated okra woven FRP composites have shown specific tensile strength 4.48%

higher than okra woven CT-1 FRP composites. Increase in treatment time under H2SO4

caused ingestion of lingo cellulose content in the fiber and also weaken the knot portions in

the okra woven fiber.

12.

Fig 10 shows the tensile modulus of different composite. GJE tensile modulus is 4.1GPa.

When 10% bone powder filler is added in GJE then tensile modulus increased by 25% of

GJEB1. This is due to adding filler in GJE it restrict the crack propagation by filling the voids

of jute fiber. It also makes a proper interfacial bonding with matrix and support in sustain the

tensile load. From GJE1 from GJE2 tensile modulus increases 21%. When in the GJE add

10% coconut shell powder tensile stress increased by 45% of GJEC1. This is due to addition

of coconut shell powder which has more strength than bone powder. From GJEC1 to GJEC2

tensile modulus is increased by 15%.

Conclusion:

Fig. 10 indicates that GJEC2 laminate has a maximum tensile modulus of 6.165 GPa, the

tensile modulus increased with increase in addition of filler content in the laminates. This

may be due to the restriction of the mobility, deformability of the matrix and the filler particle

size. Normally, the fibers in the composite restrain to the deformation of the polymer matrix

reducing the tensile strain. During tensile loading partially separated micro spaces were

created which obstructed stress propagation between the fibers and matrix.

Tensile Properties Of Natural Fiberreinforced Epoxy-Hybrid Composites

13.

Fig1 shows the tensile strength of fiber % (weight fraction) of epoxy sisal coconut spathe

hybrid composite. As fiber % increases from 0-25% then the tensile strength increased by

60% of initial strength and it linearly varies. This is happening because of increase fiber %

causes the interfacial bonding and matrix transform the load and the fibers sustain the tensile

load. From fiber % 25-30, tensile strength decreased by 8% of highest tensile strength.

Tensile strength decreased due to formation of cluster of fibers, pull of fibers and lack of

proper bonding of fibers. If fiber % increases it causes the stress concentration at the ends of

fiber, due to formation of stress concentration crack propagation start and it breaks the fiber

and matrix, decreased the tensile strength.

Conclusion:

Fig: 1; the combination of fibers used is Sisal and Coconut Spathe. In these composites there

is a considerable increase of tensile strength as the percentage of fiber increases to a

maximum of 25% and then the strength decreases. The maximum Tensile strength of 59 MPa

is obtained for 25% fiber reinforcement, there by 54 % increase in the tensile strength

compared with pure Epoxy.

14.

Fig 4 shows tensile strength of different composite with variation of fiber %. Highest tensile

strength curve shows by ridge guard and sisal fiber. Highest tensile stress is 65MPa which is

70% of the initial tensile strength. As the % of fiber increases from 0-25% the tensile strength

of the ridge guard also increases but from 25-30% fiber% it decreases. This is increases due

to the proper interfacial bonding and sustaining the transfer load by the matrix and decreases

due to for fiber % causes the improper bonding by formation of cluster and also make the

stress concentration at end of fiber, results in crack propagation. For coconut composite curve

shows lowest tensile test because its lower specific strength. By increasing the fiber % of

coconut from 0-25%, tensile strength is increases and from 25-30% fiber % tensile strength

decreases. This is increases due to the proper interfacial bonding and sustaining the transfer

load by the matrix and decreases due to for fiber % causes the improper bonding by

formation of cluster and also makes the stress concentration at end of fiber, results in crack

propagation. For coconut composite curve shows lowest tensile test because its lower specific

strength. Similarly for all composite have reason of increasing and decreasing of tensile

strength by increasing of fiber%.

Conclusion:

Fig: 4; shows the variation of tensile strength of all the combination of fibers used. The

individual reinforcements like Sisal, Ridge gourd and Coconut spathe have a maximum

tensile strength of 53 MPa, 46 MPa and 56 MPa respectively. The variation of tensile strength

with respect to the percentage of fiber shows that beyond 25% of fiber the tensile strength

decreases. The reason is as the percentage of fiber increases the interaction between the fibers

inside the composite increases i.e. there will be higher fiber to fiber contact which leads to

poor interfacial bonding between the fiber and the matrix. Due to this poor interfacial

bonding effective load transfer will not takepalce and leads to failure quickly.

Studies On Tensile Properties Of Natural Fiber Polymer Matrix Composites

15.

Fig3 shows the tensile strength of composites with variation of weightage of fiber. When coir

% is increased from 5-15% then tensile strength increases 10-21MPa because of making

proper bonding and sustaining the load transfer by matrix. But when further 5% coir %

increases, then there is drop of 25% in tensile strength. This is due to making cluster of fiber

which leads the improper bonding and more stress concentration at ends of fiber cause crack

propagation which leads the failure in composite of coir. Similarly increasing fiber % for

other fiber tensile strength is increases. Highest tensile strength for the composite

C10H10S10 is 34MPa which is 2 times of H5 and 2.5 times of C5. This is because all fiber in

10% of fiber makes good tensile strength by proper bonding.

Conclusion:

From the Tensile Test Results it is evident that all the specimens show appreciable

improvement of mechanical properties. Addition of fibers, up to 20%, in to the composites

improves tensile strength, strain rate , percentage of Elongation, Youngs Modulus. In case of

coir composites beyond 15% of coir tensile properties decreases due to poor bonding of resin

over the reinforcement. Hence decrease in properties of the specimen occurs. From above

graph it can easily indentify that the hybrid composites exhibits the good tensile strength as

compared to other composites this may because of increased in the reinforcement.

- 4.EbtisamH.hasanUploaded bysimalaravi
- Module 06 Part 2Uploaded byAviation World
- Dnvgl Rp f119Uploaded bysantasatana
- b c punmiaUploaded byPrince Singh
- Yield Point FinalUploaded byHamayoun Murtaza
- Concrete PolesUploaded byWilfredo Cruz
- seminar reportUploaded bypushparajpingulkar
- D5379Uploaded byrsugarman
- 110-M17Uploaded byYvette Orbán
- True Stress-Strain DiagramUploaded byAmruth Babu V T
- Bolt StrengthUploaded byhlsimon
- 12. Design, Fabrication, And Analysis of a HybridUploaded byvithoba shewale
- 046572Uploaded bysandia_docs
- Confined concrete behavior influencing factorsUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Three-dimensional_characterization_of_textile_composites.pdfUploaded byJean Abela
- Assignment No 1Uploaded byRoss Crema
- Mechanical Properties of Prestressing Steel After Fire ExposureUploaded byCJPATAGAN
- Composites ClassUploaded bykhemchandkumar
- 25.IJMPERDFEB201925Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- zweben1968Uploaded byashish mishra
- Chapter Four Week 10Uploaded byFildanis Fikri
- Faculty Members Personal File Content SheetUploaded byVikas Gowda
- Assignment 2 - Both TasksUploaded byjames
- EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON E-GLASS FIBER, FLY-ASH AND EPOXY RESINUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- Module 4Uploaded byprasaad08
- Uyttersprot Bryan(1)Uploaded byjaymin patel
- Round i 2017Uploaded byMuhammadNasir
- 1-s2.0-S014102961630044X-mainUploaded byJc Donnelli
- MD-Elements-02.pptxUploaded byrupert
- Static Mechanical Properties of High Density Polyethylene Based CompositesUploaded byApurva Rakesh

- LT Grade 2017 TeacherUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- eseUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Computer Intergraded Manufacturing 1Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- 60-70Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Effect of Water (1)Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- 200966153544300673Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- 349Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Tensile TestUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Journal of Composite Materials 2013 Gujjala 0021998313501924Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Integration FormulasUploaded byJoyen Sanjana
- ESE Reforms publicityUploaded byPasupuleti Sivakumar
- Information bUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Syllabus T.G.TUploaded byraajverma1000m
- JWM 2010 (UPSC) QuestionsUploaded byAnubhav Uppal
- Review PapermodifiedUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Biomedical Application on FiberUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Cad Cam Lab Week1 AssignmentsUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- ApptitudeUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- assigmnet-2Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Application of Carbon to Biomedical EnggUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Abstract for compositeUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- zoologyUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- GATE SYLABUS 2017Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Assessing Mechanical Properties of Natural Fibre Reinforced Composites for Engineering ApplicationsUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- materials-08-05451Uploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Conclusion of compositeUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- QC11....Vivek PatelUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- Lec16 SynthesisUploaded byvinaykumaryadav
- lec17Uploaded byAnsal Ahammed

- seh-25AUploaded byuocmogiandi_a
- Correlation Between Engineering Stress-strain and True Stress-strain CurveUploaded byrodrigo93_vg
- CP Carrillo HardwareUploaded byPawel Zawisla
- SIFCON frcUploaded bySougata Das
- Anchor DesignUploaded byAshok Kumar
- ASTM-F714Uploaded byWitchfinder General
- Introduction to Mechanical DesignUploaded byprabhu81
- The EncyclopHDFGHUploaded bySuzzanne Smith
- Strain Rate and Flow RateUploaded byjaydeepnarule
- Sagaseta09bUploaded byoqusous
- ERIKS - Datasheet - FKM 75-Compound 514010 WhiteUploaded byDarkedge
- A 197 - A 197M - 00 (2015)Uploaded byphaindika
- SA36Uploaded byel10bg
- 10.1007@978-3-319-59471-271Uploaded byjasimabd
- JeradDLId0759vol008issue003Uploaded byEr Harshvardhan Ingawale
- 58442 GFRCUploaded bycad0904
- Application of Titanium & Its Alloys for Automobile Parts.pdfUploaded byAhmadreza Aminian
- ASTM F 477 - 02 .pdfUploaded byRaul Humberto Mora Villamizar
- CE342Chapter1--handouts.pdfUploaded byMohamedRaahim
- Tesa Tape Technology Reference GuideUploaded byGhost_suol
- quick-view pdf.Uploaded byhdap5453
- Theori rantaiUploaded byDennis Atyugrasiwi
- Aecom-Rodic, Monnet Ispat approval.pdfUploaded byIndra Mishra
- Twi Fatigure TestingUploaded bychungndt
- 02-07-14 OK - Brochure VAM® BOLTUploaded bymsm.ele2009
- Cast IronUploaded byMiguel Angel Escalante
- Fast Dissolving Film 3Uploaded byMega Hijir
- WB1160B~WireRope&CableBrochureUploaded byResty Fadrigalan
- a1Uploaded byppgl
- StrengthUploaded byWilson Montero