7 views

Uploaded by mrinmoy

- RC Beam Design ACI 318m-11 Manual
- The World’s First RPC Road Bridge at Shepherds Gully Creek, NSW
- mantia_1
- Composite Steel Beams Shear Connectors
- Eccentrically Braced Frames
- IJSET 10 Strength and Workability
- Composite Beam Example
- A Calculation Method of Cracking Moment for the High Strength Concrete Beams Under Pure Torsion
- DSA
- ASDIP Steel - Composite Beam Verification Example
- Scale RC-3.5 m Concrete Beam (1)
- Bearing Performance Analysis Based on Ansys of Deep Beams With Opening
- CH2DesignMethodsofRC.pdf
- report
- TS 500-2000 Ex001
- Mosely
- Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing T11_99
- Material Ch21
- Design of beam Ledge according to ACI 318
- Viga Recortada Puntal Tensor

You are on page 1of 14

HBRC Journal

http://ees.elsevier.com/hbrcj

of concrete deep beam reinforced with GFRP bars

Ibrahim M. Metwally

Concrete Structures Research Inst., Housing & Building Research Centre, P.O. Box 1770, Cairo, Egypt

KEYWORDS Abstract The efcient use of FRP reinforcement in deep members has been hindered due to a lack

Deep beam; of knowledge on the behavior of such members. Till now, most of researches have mainly focused

GFRP bars; on the exural or shear behavior of shallow members longitudinally reinforced with FRP and most

Finite element; of them used testing at small scales. This paper presents numerical investigation of twelve large-

ABAQUS scale concrete deep beams internally reinforced with GFRP bars without web reinforcement failed

in shear which were experimentally tested and collected from literature. The collected specimens

cover several parameters which usually inuenced strength and behavior of deep beams as shear

span/depth ratio, the reinforcement ratio, the effective depth, and the concrete strength.

Concrete deep beams are generally analyzed using conventional methods such as empirical equa-

tions or strut and tie models. These methods however do not take into account the redistribution

of forces resulting from non-linear materials behaviors. To address this issue, non-linear nite ele-

ment analysis that incorporates non-linear material behavior as ABAQUS package is used. It was

found efcient in handling such analysis; the proposed simulation of the material in the present

study is capable of predicting the real behavior of reinforced concrete deep beam reinforced with

GFRP bars in terms of loaddeection behavior, failure load, failure mode, crack propagation,

GFRP reinforcement strain, and concrete strain distribution, similar to the tested large scale deep

beams.

2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research

Center. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

cracking and spalling of concrete, resulting in costly mainte-

E-mail address: dr_ibrahimmetwally@yahoo.com

nance and repair. An innovative solution to such a problem

Peer review under responsibility of Housing and Building National

can be provided by using ber-reinforced polymer (FRP) as

Research Center.

an alternative to steel reinforcement. FRPs are corrosion-free

materials and have recently shown a great potential for use

in structural applications because of their high strength-to-

Production and hosting by Elsevier weight ratio. Therefore, replacing the steel reinforcement with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2015.02.006

1687-4048 2015 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Housing and Building National Research Center.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

26 I.M. Metwally

the non-corrosive FRP reinforcement eliminates the potential concrete structures and, therefore, they must be taken into

of corrosion and the associated deterioration. Extensive account in predicting their ultimate load capacity as well as

research programs have been conducted to investigate the service behavior. Failure to do so simply means that the redis-

exural and shear behavior of slender (shallow) concrete mem- tribution of stresses in the structure is not taken into account

bers reinforced with FRP reinforcement [1]. Very little experi- [4]. Thus, the development of an alternative analysis method

mental data and nearly no nite element analysis exist for by FE is needed to understand its behavior. As reported by

FRP-reinforced concrete deep beams. So, shear behavior of Enem et al. [4], nite element method (FEM) offers a powerful

them has not been sufciently understood. and general analytical tool for studying the behavior of rein-

The shear capacity of deep beams is a major issue in their forced concrete deep beams. Finite element method as a tool

design. The behavior of reinforced concrete deep beams is dif- can provide realistic and satisfactory solutions for linear and

ferent from that of slender beams because of their relatively nonlinear behavior of deep beam structural elements.

larger magnitude of shearing and normal stresses. Unlike slen- Accordingly, it is very needed to generate reliable FE models

der beams, deep beams transfer shear forces to supports that can be utilized to enhance the understanding of the

through compressive stresses rather than shear stresses. fundamental structural response of the FRP-reinforced deep

There are two kinds of cracks that typically develop in deep beams and hence optimize its design.

beams: exural cracks and diagonal cracks. Diagonal cracks The main objective of this study was to investigate capabili-

eliminate the inclined principal tensile stresses required for ties of the nite element simulation for further study on

beam action and lead to a redistribution of internal stresses GFRP-reinforced concrete deep beam behavior instead of con-

so that the beam acts as a tied arch. The arch action is a func- ducting expensive time consuming experimental works of

tion of a/d (shear span/depth) and the concrete compressive large-scale structural elements.

strength, in addition to the properties of the longitudinal

reinforcement. It is expected that the arch action in FRP rein-

forced concrete would be as signicant as that in steel rein- Experimental technique

forced concrete and that the shear strength of FRP-

reinforced concrete beams having a/d less than 2.5 would be Characteristics of tested deep beams

higher than that of beams having a/d of more than 2.5 [2].

The application of the reinforced concrete deep beams within Twelve concrete deep beams internally reinforced with GFRP

structural engineering practice has risen substantially over bras were collected from literature [1]. They were constructed

the last few decades. More specially, there has been an and tested to failure. The primary test variables included the

increased practice of including deep beams in the design of tall a/d, the reinforcement ratio q, the effective depth d, and the

buildings, offshore structures, wall tanks and foundations. concrete strength fc0 . The objective of the test program was

They differ from shallow beams in that they have a relatively to assess the design parameters that inuence the strength

larger depth compared to the span length. As a result the strain and behavior of FRP-reinforced concrete deep beams without

distribution across the depth is non-linear and cannot be web reinforcement. The conguration of the specimens is given

described in terms of uni-axial stress strain characteristics [3]. in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The a/d of the specimens were selected to

Prediction of behavior of deep beams by design codes which cover a wide range of the deep beam category at the ultimate

contain empirical equations derived from experimental tests and equivalent serviceability limit states and to ll gaps in

has some limitations. They are only suitable for the tests con- the limited experimental data available on FRP-reinforced

ditions they were derived from, and most importantly, they fail concrete deep beams. Specimens were grouped into three series

to provide information on serviceability requirements such as having nominal heights h of 300, 600, and 1000 mm. To study

structural deformations and cracking. Likewise, the strut and the effect of concrete strength on the shear capacity, both nor-

tie model, although based on equilibrium solutions thus pro- mal- and high-strength concretes were used. The reinforcement

viding a safe design, does not take into account the non-linear in all specimens consisted of GFRP bars, as this is the most

material behavior and hence also fails to provide information commonly used FRP in the industry. The reinforcement ratios

on serviceability requirements. Cracking of concrete and were selected such that the stress level in the FRP would not

yielding of steel are essential features of the behavior of exceed approximately 25% of the specied tensile strength

Specimen q, % Height (h), mm Width (bw), mm Shear span (a), mm a/d Overhang length, mm* fc0 , MPa

A1N 1.49 306 310 276 1.07 874 40.2

A2N 1.47 310 310 376 1.44 874 45.4

A3N 1.47 310 310 527 2.02 874 41.3

A4H 1.47 310 310 527 2.02 623 64.6

B1N 1.70 608 300 545 1.08 605 40.5

B2N 1.71 606 300 743 1.48 605 39.9

B3N 1.71 607 300 1040 2.07 605 41.2

B4N 2.13 606 300 736 1.48 814 40.7

B5H 2.12 607 300 736 1.48 614 66.4

B6H 1.70 610 300 1040 2.06 460 68.5

C1N 1.58 1003 301 974 1.10 826 51.6

C2N 1.56 1005 304 1329 1.49 821 50.7

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 27

(fFRPu) of the GFRP bar under the equivalent serviceability Constitutive models

limit state loads [1]. Note that ACI 440.1R-06 [5] limits the ser-

vice stress level in the GFRP to 0.20 fFRPu. Overhang lengths Concrete model

were provided beyond the supports in all specimens to allow The damaged plasticity model for concrete available in the

for anchorage of the FRP reinforcement [1]. ABAQUS material library was adopted to model concrete

response, since it has been shown to perform satisfactorily in

Testing setup similar applications [7]. The mechanical properties of the used

concrete were measured experimentally for all specimens under

Deep beams were tested in a 6600 kN capacity testing frame both compression and tension as shown in Table 2.

under four-point loading as a simple beam. Five linear variable

differential transformers (LVDTs) were mounted along the

GFRP reinforcement

bottom of the specimens to measure vertical deection at the

supports, quarter-spans, and mid-span. Electrical resistance GFRP rebars were simulated as elastic isotropic one dimen-

strain gauges were applied to the FRP bars to measure the sional material until failure as recommended by Al-

strain during the test. Each specimen was loaded in ve to Musallam et al. [8], and the test results of them are tabulated

10 increments. After each increment, the deection was held in Table 3.

while the crack patterns were photographed. Data from the

instrumentation were recorded continuously until specimen Elements

failure [1].

The ABAQUS element library provides a complete geometric

Finite element study modeling capability. For this reason any combination of ele-

ments can be used to make up the model. All elements use

The general purpose FE software ABAQUS [6] was employed numerical integration to allow complete generality in material

to generate FE models to simulate numerically the structural behavior. Element properties can be dened as general section

response of the previously described concrete deep beams rein- behaviors, or each cross-section of the element can be inte-

forced with GFRP bars. The generated models were validated grated numerically, so that nonlinear response can be tracked

against all respective experimental results. accurately when needed.

28 I.M. Metwally

Beam Ultimate compressive Youngs Strain at ultimate Strain at end of Ultimate tensile Poissons

code strength, MPa modulus, MPa strength softening curve strength, MPa ratio

A1N 40.2 23,020 0.0027 0.0039 2.10 0.2

A2N 45.4 22,850 0.0028 0.0040 2.22 0.2

A3N 41.3 24,150 0.0026 0.0040 2.12 0.2

A4H 64.6 22,450 0.0032 0.0040 2.65 0.2

B1N 40.5 23,320 0.0024 0.0038 2.10 0.2

B2N 39.9 23,210 0.0025 0.0031 2.08 0.2

B3N 41.2 23,680 0.0027 0.0030 2.12 0.2

B4N 40.7 24,290 0.0025 0.003096 2.10 0.2

B5H 66.4 24,140 0.0034 0.0042 2.70 0.2

B6H 68.5 24,010 0.0033 0.0036 2.73 0.2

C1N 51.6 26,870 0.0026 0.0040 2.37 0.2

C2N 50.7 25,260 0.0027 0.0040 2.35 0.2

Bar no. Bar diameter, mm Area, mm2 Failure stress, Modulus of Rupture Poissons

(ffu), MPa elasticity, (Ef), MPa strain, % ratio (t)

#6 19 322 765 37,900 1.8 0.26

#7 22 396 709 41,100 1.7 0.26

#8 25 528 938 42,300 2 0.26

The solid (or continuum) elements in ABAQUS can be used

for linear analysis and for complex nonlinear analyses involv- In order to obtain accurate results from the FE model, all the

ing contact, plasticity, and large deformations. Regarding the elements in the model were purposely assigned the same mesh

nite element models introduced in this work, three dimen- size to ensure that each of two different materials shares the

sional 8-node rst order fully integration continuum elements same node. The type of mesh selected in the model is struc-

(C3D8 Bricks) are used to model the concrete deep beams tured. The mesh element for modeling of concrete and steel

and loading and bearing plates. The mentioned abbreviation loading and bearing plates is 8-node brick element with three

stands for translation degrees of freedom at each node (C3D8).

Discrete GFRP rebar can be dened only by truss element

which is called T3D2 (3Dimensional-2Node truss element).

Andermatt and Lubell [1] reported in their experimental work

that the used GFRP bars were coated with sand layer which

achieved a higher bond. Consequently, full bond was consid-

ered between GFRP bars and surrounding concrete in the

Truss element

The other basic components in this study are the reinforcing

bars for longitudinal reinforcement. The reinforcing bars have

mainly the task to transfer normal forces. For that purpose,

reinforcing bars modeled as three-dimensional truss elements

are sufcient for the purpose. Three dimensional 2-node rst

order truss elements (T3D2 Truss) are used to model the

reinforcing bars in the FE model of concrete beam specimens.

The mentioned abbreviation stands for

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 29

FE model. Fig. 2 shows the typical mesh of the FE model of of the deep beams reinforced with GFRP bars is shown in

deep beam specimens. Modeling and mesh generation are Fig. 3. It shows that the nite element load deection curves

developed using same techniques for all specimens. are somewhat stiffer than the experimental plots. After rst

cracking, the stiffness of the nite element models is again

higher than that of the experimental beams. There are several

Numerical analysis: verication of FE model effects that may cause the higher stiffness in the nite element

models. The most important is microcracks which are present

Loaddeection responses in the concrete for the experimental deep beams, and could be

produced by drying shrinkage in the concrete and/or handling

To verify the proposed FE model, a comparison of loadmid- of the deep beams. On the other hand, the nite element mod-

span deection response acquired from test results is demon- els do not include the microcracks. As well known that the

strated. The comparison between experimental and the microcracks reduce the stiffness of the experimental deep

numerical loaddeection curves for the mid span deection beams, for all specimens, good agreement is in loaddeection

900

500

800 450

700 400

600 350

Load, kN

Load, kN

500 300

a/d=1.1

a/d=1.4

=1.5% 250

400 =1.5%

fc = 40 MPa 200 fc = 45 MPa

300 h=300 mm

h=300 mm

150

200

100

A1N(EXP) A2N(EXP)

100 50

A1N(FEA) A2N(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

300 250

250 200

200

Load, kN

Load, kN

150

a/d=2 a/d=2

150

=1.5% =1.5%

100

fc = 41 MPa fc = 65 MPa

100 h=300 mm h=300 mm

50

50 A3N(EXP) A4H(EXP)

A3N(FEA) A4H(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1400 900

800

1200

700

1000

Load, kN

600

Load, kN

800 500

a/d=1.08 a/d=1.48

=1.7% 400 =1.71%

600

fc = 40 MPa fc = 40 MPa

h=600 mm 300 h=600 mm

400

200

200 B1N(EXP) B2N(EXP)

B1N(FEA) 100 B2N(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

30 I.M. Metwally

900

500

800

450

400 700

350 600

Load, kN

Load, kN

300 500 a/d=1.48

a/d=2.07

250 =1.71% =2.13%

400

fc = 40 MPa fc = 40 MPa

200

h=600 mm 300 h=600 mm

150

200

100

B3N(EXP) B4N(EXP)

50 100

B3N(FEA) B4N(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

1200 450

400

1000

350

800 300

Load, kN

Load, kN

a/d=1.48 250 a/d=2.06

600 =2.12%

200 =1.7%

fc = 67 MPa fc = 67 MPa

400 h=600 mm 150 h=600 mm

100

200 B5H(EXP) B6H(EXP)

50 B6H(FEA)

B5H(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

2400 1400

2200

1200

2000

1800 1000

1600 a/d=1.10

Load, kN

Load, kN

1200 fc = 51 MPa =1.56%

h=1000 mm 600 fc = 51 MPa

1000

h=1000 mm

800

400

600

400 C1N(EXP) 200 C2N(EXP)

200 C1N(FEA) C2N(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

Fig. 3 (continued)

relation prior to failure load. For each of the test deep beams, Diagonal cracking load and reserve capacity

the predicted and the measured maximum loads and

deections were in good agreement. The values given by all Prior to cracking of the concrete, an elastic stress exists in deep

specimens were similar to the analytical results; comparative members.

data are summarized in Table 4. The mean ratios of Cracking disrupts the stress distribution and a major

experimental-to-numerical ultimate load (predicted by reorientation of the internal forces occurs such that forces

ABAQUS) were 1.01 at a standard deviation of 0.05. Also, tend to ow directly from the loading points to the supports.

nite element analysis gives accurate values of mid-span deec- Arch action involves the formation of compression struts to

tion for deep beams, the average ratios of experimental to pre- directly transmit the load to the supports while the exural

dicted deection at ultimate load equal to 0.98 with standard reinforcement acts as a tie holding the base of the arch

deviation equal to 0.07. In general, the loaddeection curve together. Unlike slender members with no web reinforcement,

from the experiment and the FEM analysis were in very good deep members have substantial reserve capacity after diago-

agreement. This indicates that the constitutive models used for nal cracking as reported by Wight and MacGregor [9]. The

concrete and GFRP bars able to capture the fracture behavior diagonal-cracking strength is dened as the strength at which

of GFRP-reinforced deep beam accurately. the rst fully developed major diagonal tension crack appears

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 31

Table 4 Experimental and predicted ultimate load capacity (Pu), deection at Pu, diagonal cracking load (Pc), and reserve capacity of

GFRP-reinforced concrete deep beams.

Specimen Experimental Exp/FEA(ABAQUS) Failure mode*

Pu, kN Du, mm Pc, kN Reserve capacity (Pc/Pu) Pu Du Pc Reserve capacity

A1N 814 12.4 312 0.38 0.97 1.17 0.99 1.02 FC

A2N 471 11.3 187 0.40 1.02 0.93 0.96 0.96 SC

A3N 243 10.9 143 0.59 1.03 0.97 0.92 0.90 SC

A4H 192 9.5 163 0.85 0.93 0.99 1.05 1.13 DT

B1N 1273 9.1 387 0.30 1.04 0.93 0.94 0.89 FC

B2N 799 13.1 287 0.36 1.04 0.95 1.02 0.98 SC

B3N 431 15.3 237 0.55 0.98 0.98 1.05 1.07 SC

B4N 830 11.5 412 0.50 1.05 0.97 1.1 1.05 SC

B5H 1062 14.2 387 0.36 1.09 0.99 0.94 0.85 S

B6H 376 12.9 212 0.56 0.92 1.06 0.94 1.02 DT

C1N 2269 15.9 613 0.27 1.03 0.88 0.99 0.96 SC

C2N 1324 18.3 413 0.31 1.02 0.99 1.01 0.98 S

Mean 1.01 0.98 0.99 0.98

Standard deviation 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.08

*

DT diagonal concrete tension failure, FC exural compression failure, SC shear compression failure, and S compression strut failure.

in the shear span. The diagonal tension cracking strength was formation of arch action after inclined cracking occurred,

observed to be considerably less than the ultimate strength. and this veries through matching the experimental results

Many mechanisms may be responsible for such behavior. with F.E. analysis. The mean ratio of experimental-to-pre-

However, the major phenomenon is attributed to the arch dicted (by ABAQUS) of diagonal cracking load is 0.99 at a

action mechanism. Deep RC beams exhibited signicantly standard deviation of 0.05, and mean ratio of experimental-

enhanced shear resistance after rst diagonal cracking as a to-predicted reserve capacity is 0.98 at a standard deviation

result of strong strut action of concrete in compression. of 0.08 (Table 4). On the other hand, as reported by

The Pc/Pu (diagonal cracking load/ultimate load) ratio serves Andermatt and Lubell in their study [10] the strut-and-tie

as a measure of the reserve load capacity after the formation model in Canadian code (CSA A 23.3-04) [11] gives an aver-

of the rst inclined crack. The reserve load capacity was ana- age ratio of experimental ultimate capacities to predicted

lyzed from the experimental observations and F.E. results for ones equal to 0.81, with a standard deviation of 0.16 and

all beams (Table 4). The ratio Pc/Pu (reserve capacity) in all the strut-and-tie model in American code (ACI 318-08) [12]

deep beams lies in the range between 0.27 and 0.85 from and Egyptian code (ECP 203-07) [13] gives the mean of test

experimental results and the same ratio lies in the range to predicted values equal to 0.60 with standard deviation of

between 0.28 and 0.75 as obtained from F.E. (Table 4). 0.2. This conrms that the nite element analysis attained a

Andermatt and Lubell [9] pointed out in their paper that higher accuracy for predicting both ultimate load failure

the low or high reserve load capacity was indicative of the and diagonal cracking load than these codes.

Fig. 4 Experimental and nite element pattern of diagonal concrete tension failure (DT) for specimen B6H.

32 I.M. Metwally

Failure mechanisms 3. Shear compression failure (SC): it was the most common

failure mode, occurring in six of the specimens (Table 4).

Table 4 contains four types of failure mechanisms that were Shear compression failure was characterized by the crush-

observed experimentally by Andermatt and Lubell [1]; these ing of the concrete in the exural compression zone at the

types are tip of the main diagonal crack. The main diagonal crack

extended from the inside edge of the support plate toward

1. Diagonal concrete tension failure (DT) or splitting failure: the inside edge of the loading plate, into the exural com-

it occurred in specimens A4H and B6H. The diagonal crack pression zone. In this type of failure, the specimens would

formed in each shear span from the inside edge of the reac- fail suddenly with almost no warning and movement would

tion plate toward the inside edge of the loading plate. The occur along the diagonal crack. Fig. 6 shows a typical shear

diagonal crack extended above the diagonal line between compression failure.

the centerlines of the loading and support plates as shown 4. Compression strut failure (S): failure of the diagonal

in Fig. 4. compression struts occurred in specimens B5H and

2. Flexural compression failure (FC): it occurred in specimens C2N. In both specimens, one of the diagonal compres-

A1N and B1N. This type of failure was characterized by the sion struts would fail in a very brittle and noisy manner.

crushing of the concrete in the exural compression zone Fig. 7 shows the diagonal compression strut failure in

between the two loading plates as shown in Fig. 5. specimen B5H.

Fig. 5 Experimental and nite element pattern of exural compression failure (FC) for specimen A1N.

Fig. 6 Experimental and nite element pattern of shear compression failure (SC) for specimen A2N.

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 33

Fig. 7 Experimental and nite element pattern of compression strut failure (S) for specimen B5H.

(SC), the load decreased abruptly upon reaching the ultimate 1100 kN (EXP)

Strain in bottom GFRP layer B1N 1000 kN (EXP)

value and failure was brittle. On the other hand, for specimens 1.20E-02 900 kN (EXP)

800 kN (EXP)

that failed in exure (FC), the load remained almost constant 700 kN (EXP)

with increasing deection at ultimate, indicating ductile speci- 1.00E-02 600 kN (EXP)

500 kN (EXP)

men behavior. In all specimens, the cracks propagated toward 400 kN (EXP)

300 kN (EXP)

8.00E-03

the loading point as the load was increased. This was accom- 200 kN (EXP)

100 kN (EXP)

panied by more exural-shear cracks along the specimen shear

6.00E-03

spans. Specimens that did not fail in exure also experienced

diagonal splitting, which eventually led to a shear-compression 4.00E-03

failure resulting in the crushing of concrete in the compression

zone of deep beams. The failure of specimens was sudden and 2.00E-03

explosive and most of specimens failed in shear compression as

mentioned by Andermatt and Lubell [1]. ABAQUS can moni- 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 5.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.50E+03 2.00E+03 2.50E+03 3.00E+03

tor and capture the shape and propagation of cracks during Location along beam length, mm

loading till failure. The prediction of the failure modes of all

the beams by nite element agrees with the experimental obser- Fig. 8 Experimental reinforcement strain distribution along the

vations (Figs. 47). bottom layer of reinforcement as the load increased for beam B1N

[1].

GFRP bars reinforcement strains

100 kN (FEA)

ered as an indicator of whether and to what extent a tied arch 200 kN (FEA)

0.006 B1N

mechanism formed in the specimens. In a fully developed tied 300 kN (FEA)

Strain in bottom GFRP layer

400 kN (FEA)

arch mechanism, the strain level in the reinforcement is

0.005 500 kN (FEA)

expected to be approximately uniform from support to sup- 600 kN (FEA)

port for both experimental and FE results as shown in 700 kN (FEA)

0.004 800 kN (FEA)

Figs. 810. Andermatt and Lubell [1] reported in their experi-

900 kN (FEA)

mental study that for all specimens, the strain distribution 0.003 1000 kN (FEA)

between the supports at peak load was approximately constant 1100 kN (FEA)

1200 kN (FEA)

indicating an arch mechanism had developed. The experimen- 0.002

tal strain distribution along the bottom layer of GFRP

reinforcement of B1N as the load increased is shown in 0.001

both patterns are typical for all specimens. In the majority of 0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

the specimens, the strain in the GFRP at the center of the sup- Location along beam length, mm

port was signicantly lower than the strain whether read

(experimentally) or predicted (by FE) at mid-span. The strain Fig. 9 Predicted reinforcement strain distribution along the

readings of the bottom bar increased rapidly in the vicinity of bottom layer of reinforcement as the load increased for beam B1N

the rst crack, usually in the constant moment region by ABAQUS.

34 I.M. Metwally

0.005

100 kN (FEA)

0.0045 200 kN (FEA)

300 kN (FEA)

0.004

Strain in top GFRP layer

400 kN (FEA)

500 kN(FEA)

0.0035 600 kN (FEA)

700 kN (FEA)

0.003

800 kN (FEA)

900 kN (FEA)

0.0025

1000 kN (FEA)

0.002 1100 kN (FEA)

1200 kN (FEA)

0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Fig. 11 Simulated locations of strain gauges along the height of

Location along beam length, mm

deep beam and compression strut by nite element.

Fig. 10 Predicted reinforcement strain distribution along the top

layer of reinforcement as the load increased for beam B1N by

ABAQUS.

failure. The number of neutral axes decreases with incremental

loads and at ultimate stage only one neutral axis is present.

The compression strain in the top ber of the mid-span section

(mid-span). As more cracks formed closer to the supports, the increases as the load increases, but in the tension area, the

measured strains in the GFRP reinforcement would also strain predictions were disturbed by the cracks in this area.

increase closer to the support. In the un-cracked regions, strain As shown in Fig. 12, at the ultimate load state, the compressive

readings showed minimal strain changes in the GFRP. As strain distribution in the concrete is nonlinear as it no longer

loading progressed, the strains in the reinforcement became follows the parabolic shape or intensity linearity of normal

similar between the supports indicating the formation of a tied (shallow) beams. This condition is due to the predominant

arch mechanism. The strain level in the bottom reinforcement effect of the horizontal bar post-cracking, the reduction in

layer outside of the span of specimen B1N is relatively high at the concretes compression area and the shear deformation

the nal failure load of 1273 kN. The splitting crack that had that is prevalent in deep beams. CSA design code provision

been formed near the location of the bottom reinforcement [11] states that the maximum compression strain for steel-rein-

was caused by increase in the GFRP reinforcement strain level. forced deep beam design is 0.002, which is lower than for a

The strain of longitudinal reinforcement in all specimens did normal beam (0.003). Till now, it has no provision for FRP-

not reach 60% of ultimate tensile strain of GFRP bars reinforced deep beams. Fig. 12 shows that compression strains

(Table 3) throughout the tests. Fig. 10 shows that the F.E. of most deep beams range from 0.001 to 0.002 much lower

results of generated strain in top layer of GFRP reinforcement than those of normal beams reinforced with FRP bars which

are lower than the generated one in bottom layer, and this phe- also equal to 0.003 [5] as steel-reinforced shallow beams.

nomenon is due to that the bottom GFRP reinforcement This observation should be taken into consideration when

anchored a grater amount of force than the upper layers. designing a deep beam, since the maximum strain at the

Consequently, different design codes which incorporated strut extreme compression ber is comparatively small. The differ-

and tie method for analysis as Canadian code (CSA A 23.3-04) ence in the maximum compression strain in the extreme com-

[11], American code (ACI 318-08) [12], and Egyptian code pression ber in shallow and deep beams is due to reasons such

(ECP 203-07) [13] are not valid for analysis and design of deep as the size effect and the load transferring mechanism. The

beam reinforced with FRP bars, because they are assumed that other reason was the concrete strength. In a high strength con-

all layers of reinforcement carry the same tensile stress and so crete (HSC) beam section, a shallower compressive stress block

the same strain. However, this is only true when all reinforce- is required to equilibrate the tension zone forces. Therefore the

ment has yielded (as in the case of steel bars), which is not the neutral axis in a HSC beam is closer to the extreme compres-

case with the fully linear elastic material as FRP bars. sion ber compared to an normal concrete strength (NSC)

beam with the same reinforcement ratio. The lower neutral

Concrete strain distribution axis depth is expected to result in higher plastic strains in the

tension reinforcement, leading to ductile behavior. All these

Distribution of strains along the concrete surface of beam aforementioned reasons justify the fact that GFRP-reinforced

height at mid-span and compression strut were modeled by deep beams exhibit a lower ultimate strain in the extreme com-

nite element analysis using ABAQUS, and the various loca- pression ber. Furthermore, since deep beams have more than

tions of strain gauges to monitor the strains are shown in one neutral axis before the ultimate load, the section design

Fig. 11. Plots of the strain variations determined by the FE equation for FRP-reinforced normal (shallow) beams is not

analysis along the section height at the mid length and neutral valid for deep beams. In addition, it is important to consider

axis depth variations of all beams under rst crack load and the nonlinear behavior of GFRP-reinforced deep beams in

ultimate load are shown in Fig. 12. It shows that the strain dis- the strain and stress distribution. GFRP-reinforced deep

tribution in GFRP-reinforced concrete deep beams is nonlin- beams do not conform to Bernoullis assumptions for strain

ear. The number of neutral axis (N.A.) at ultimate load is and stress distribution. Bernoullis hypothesis facilitates the

one, while there are more than one neutral axes before ultimate exural design of reinforced concrete structures by allowing

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 35

350 350

at ultimate load

Section height, mm

section height, mm

at ultimate load 250 250

at first crack load

at first crack load

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

-0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004

Strain Strain

350 350

A3N A4H

300 300

Section height, mm

Section height, mm

250 at first crack load 250

at first crack load

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002

Strain Strain

700 700

B1N B2N

600 600

Section height, mm

Section height, mm

500 at first crack load 500

at first crack load

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

-0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002

strain Strain

Fig. 12 Concrete strain distributions and neutral axis depth variations along the section height at mid-span of all studied GFRP-

reinforced deep beams under rst crack load and ultimate load using FE modeling.

a linear strain distribution. Fig. 12 shows that GFRP-rein- mid height of these beams and may not occur in the compres-

forced deep beams are far from being linearly elastic when sion strut trajectory line. This has an important implication in

the ultimate load is reached. This nonlinearity of strain the design of GFRP-reinforced deep beams, particularly when

distribution is due to the shear deformations that are often using the Canadian code.

less obvious in FRP-reinforced shallow beams, but that

are signicant in GFRP-reinforced deep beams. Thus the 6- Inuence of FRP bar type on behavior of deep beam

internal stresses and behavior of GFRP-reinforced deep

beams cannot be determined using ordinary beam theory. This section discusses the difference between behavior of

This reiterates that deep beams do not conform to the common GFRP-reinforced deep beam and CFRP-reinforced deep

hypothesis for shallow beams that plane sections remain plane beam. To achieve this purpose, FE models were constructed

after bending. by ABAQUS for some selected specimens as A2N, A4H,

The compressive strains along the strut with the highest B1N, B6H, and C1N with replacing GFRP bars by CFRP bars

measured strain are around 0.0008. This is lower than sug- which were modeled as elastic isotropic one dimensional mate-

gested by the Canadian code (0.002) [11]. As seen in Table 5, rial until failure as recommended by Al-Musallam et al. [8],

the maximum compressive strain has occurred around of with a common properties (Ef = 120,000 MPa, ffu = 1600

36 I.M. Metwally

700 700

Section height, mm

Section height, mm

B4N

at ultimate load 500 at ultimate load 500

at first crack load

at first crack load

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002

Strain Strain

700

700

B6H

B5H 600

600

Section height, mm

at ultimate

Section height, mm

laod

500 at first crack 500

at ultimate load load

at first crack load 400

400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

-0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006

Strain Strain

1100 1100

C1N 1000 1000

C2N

900 900

Section height, mm

Section height, mm

at ultimate load

at ultimate load 800 800

at first crack load

at first crack load 700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

-0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 -0.0075 -0.005 -0.0025 0 0.0025 0.005

Strain Strain

Fig. 12 (continued)

Table 5 Maximum compressive strain along mid-span loca-

[14]. Fig. 13 shows the comparison between results, and it can

tions and compression strut line.

be seen that deep beams reinforced with GFRP bars exhibit a

Specimen ecu at mid-span ecu along the strut line signicant reduction in stiffness after the initiation of the rst

A1N 0.00346 0.000713 crack in comparison with the same beam reinforced with

A2N 0.00273 0.000794 CFRP reinforcement. At the ultimate load, the mid-span

A3N 0.00180 0.000642 deection of GFRP-reinforced deep beams as A2N, A4H,

A4H 0.00115 0.000546 B1N, B6H, and C1N was about 3.5, 2.5, 2.4, 3.6, and 1.7 times

B1N 0.00185 0.000574 more than the CFRP-reinforced ones respectively. This behav-

B2N 0.00133 0.000606 ior is attributed to the low elastic modulus of the GFRP bars

B3N 0.001275 0.000532

(40,000 MPa) compared to that of the CFRP bars

B4N 0.00111 0.000632

B5H 0.00138 0.000591 (120,000 MPa). The low modulus of elasticity of the GFRP

B6H 0.005195 0.000509 bars affects the ability of these bars to control concrete crack-

C1N 0.00197 0.000669 ing. This decreases the tension stiffening effect for concrete

C2N 0.00335 0.000645 between cracks leading to a reduced effective moment of iner-

tia and hence large deections, as was experimentally con-

ecu: concrete compressive strain at ultimate load.

rmed by Farghaly and Benmokrane [14].

Three-dimensional nonlinear nite element analysis 37

250

500

450 A4H

A2N

400 200

350

a/d=2

Load, kN

Load, kN

300 150

=1.5%

a/d=1.4

250 fc = 65 MPa

=1.5%

100 h=300 mm

200 fc = 45 MPa

150 h=300 mm

GFRP(EXP)

100 GFRP(EXP) 50 GFRP(FEA)

GFRP(FEA)

50 CFRP(FEA)

CFRP(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Central deflection, mm Central deflection, mm

1400 450

B1N 400 B6H

1200

350

1000

300

Load, kN

Load, kN

800 a/d=2.06

250

a/d=1.08 =1.7%

=1.7% 200 fc = 67 MPa

600

fc = 40 MPa h=600 mm

150

400 h=600 mm

GFRP(EXP)

GFRP(EXP) 100

GFRP(FEA)

200 GFRP(FEA)

50 CFRP(FEA)

CFRP(FEA)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2500

C1N

2000

a/d=1.10

Load, kN

1500

=1.58%

fc=51 Mpa

1000 h=1000 mm

GFRP(EXP)

500 CFRP(FEA)

GFRP(FEA)

0

0 5 10 15 20

Central deflection, mm

GFRP bars strains and concrete strains. All these indi-

cate that the constitutive models used for concrete and

In this paper, the nonlinear nite element analysis by

GFRP bars by ABAQUS are able to capture the frac-

ABAQUS was used to predict the behavior and strength of

ture behavior of GFRP-reinforced deep beam accu-

concrete deep beams reinforced with GFRP bars in large scale.

rately. Consequently, this method may be used for the

The agreement between the numerical simulations and experi-

nonlinear analysis and design of such elements very

mental ndings demonstrates the overall accuracy and reliabil-

efciently.

ity of the analytical models in predicting the response of this

2. Based on the present research, for the studied cases the

new type of structural elements. Based on the results of the

experiment results of GFRP-reinforced concrete deep

numerical simulations and comparisons with experimental

beams and the FEM analysis by ABAQUS were in very

data, the following conclusions were reached:

good agreement, The mean ratios of experimental-to-

predicted values for: ultimate load capacities equal to

1. The results from the nite element simulation agree very

1.01 with standard deviation of 0.05, mid-span deec-

well with the experimental observations, especially with

tion at ultimate load equal to 0.98 with standard

regard to loaddeection response, crack patterns at

38 I.M. Metwally

deviation of 0.07, diagonal cracking load equal to 0.99 12. Deep beam reinforced with GFRP bars showed different

with standard deviation of 0.05, and reserve capacity behavior than that of beam reinforced with CFRP bars

equal to 0.98 with standard deviation of 0.08. due to the low elastic modulus of GFRP bars. At ulti-

3. The present nite element study which has been veried mate load level, the deection of the GFRP-reinforced

through the experimental results demonstrated, that the deep concrete beam was in the range of 24 times more

abundant reserve capacity was available after the forma- than the CFRP-reinforced deep beam resulting from the

tion of the main diagonal cracks, indicated that GFRP- low elastic modulus of the GFRP bars. Thus, the deec-

reinforced concrete deep beams were able to redistribute tion, instead of strength will govern the design for con-

the internal forces and develop an arch mechanism. crete deep beam reinforced with FRP bars.

4. ABAQUS can monitor and capture the shape and prop- 13. Future work must include the formulation of a con-

agation of cracks during loading till failure. The predic- stitutive model for time dependent effects such as concrete

tions of the failure modes of all the beams by nite creep, shrinkage and re exposure. Also, experimental

element agree well with the experimental observations. testing and nite element analysis of continuous deep

5. Finite element analysis and experimental results show beams reinforced with FRP bars must be investigated.

that, as loading progressed, the strain distribution in

the longitudinal GFRP reinforcement became approxi- Conict of interest

mately uniform between the supports indicating the for-

mation of a tied arch mechanism.

6. FE analysis in this research shows that the dependence None declared.

on the current design codes as ACI 318-08, CSA A

23.3-04 and ECP-203-07 in analysis and design of References

FRP-reinforced concrete deep beams is not accurate

because they assumed that all layers of reinforcement [1] M. Andermatt, A. Lubell, Behavior of concrete deep beams

carry the same tensile stress and so the same strain; this reinforced with internal ber-reinforced polymerexperimental

study, ACI Struct. J. 110 (2013) 585594.

is not true in case of FRP reinforcement. However, this

[2] E.G. Nawy, Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach,

is only true when all reinforcement has yielded (as in Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2003.

case of steel bars), which is not the case with the fully lin- [3] S. Islam, A. Khennane, Experimental Verication of Automated

ear elastic material as FRP bars. Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams. SIMULIA

7. Concrete strain distribution in GFRP-reinforced con- Customer Conference, 2012.

crete deep beams is nonlinear, and they do not conform [4] J.I. Enem, J.C. Ezeh, M.S.W. Mbagiorgu, D.O. Onwuka,

to Bernoullis assumptions for strain and stress dis- Analysis of deep beam using Finite Element Method, Int. J.

tribution. This nonlinearity of strain distribution is due Appl. Sci. Eng. Res. 1 (2012) 348356.

to the shear deformations that are often less obvious [5] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of

in FRP-reinforced shallow beams, but that are signi- Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. ACI 440.1R-06,

American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, 2006.

cant in GFRP-reinforced deep beams.

[6] ABAQUS Standard Version 6.13-4 and ABAQUS standard

8. The number of neutral axes at ultimate load is one, while users manual. The Abaqus Software is a product of Dassault

there are more than one neutral axes before ultimate Systemes Simulia Corp., Hibbitt Karlsson & Sorensen Inc.,

failure. The number of neutral axes decreases with incre- 2014.

mental loads and at ultimate load stage only one neutral [7] R. Malm. Predicting shear type crack initiation and growth in

axis is present. concrete with non-linear nite element method. PhD thesis,

9. Maximum compression strain in the extreme compres- Department of Civil and Architectural engineering, Royal

sion ber of most GFRP-reinforced deep beams at ulti- Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm, 2009.

mate stage of loading ranges from 0.001 to 0.002 much [8] T. Al-Musallam, H. El-Sanadedy, Y. Al-Salloum, S. Al-Sayed,

lower than those of shallow beams reinforced with Experimental and numerical investigation for the exural

strengthening of RC beams using near-surface mounted steel

FRP bars (0.003). This observation should be taken into

or GFRP bars, Constr. Build. Mater. J. 40 (2013) 145161.

consideration when designing a deep beam, since the [9] J.K. Wight, J.G. MacGregor, Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics

maximum strain at the extreme compression ber is and Design, fth ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle

comparatively small. River, New Jersey, 2009.

10. The strains measured along the compression strut were [10] M. Andermatt, A. Lubell, Strength modeling of concrete deep

less than the value of 0.002 proposed by the Canadian beams reinforced with internal ber-reinforced polymer, ACI

code, with the highest measured strain reaching about Struct. J. 110 (2013), 595-05.

0.0008. This study shows that the maximum compres- [11] Canadian Standards Association, Design of concrete structures,

sion strain may not occur in the compression strut tra- A23.3-04, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga,

jectory line, and the maximum compressive strain has Ontario, Canada, 2004.

[12] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for

occurred around of mid height of GFRP-reinforced

Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-08, American

deep beams. This has an important implication in the Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 2008.

design of those beams, particularly when using the [13] Egyptian Code for Design and Construction of Concrete

Canadian code. Structures, ECP 203-07, Housing & Building National

11. Since, the nonlinear strain distribution dominates the Research Centre, 2007.

GFRP-reinforced deep members behavior, accordingly, [14] A. Farghaly, B. Benmokrane, Shear behavior of FRP-reinforced

nite element analysis is an appropriate technique for concrete deep beams without web reinforcement, J. Compos.

analysis and design of such beams. Constr. 17 (2013) 110.

- RC Beam Design ACI 318m-11 ManualUploaded byPitolwala Zuzar
- The World’s First RPC Road Bridge at Shepherds Gully Creek, NSWUploaded bytiagojosesantos
- mantia_1Uploaded bypmergos
- Composite Steel Beams Shear ConnectorsUploaded bymohamedadel100
- Eccentrically Braced FramesUploaded byHectoreRodriguezl
- IJSET 10 Strength and WorkabilityUploaded bytonydisoja
- Composite Beam ExampleUploaded byxxazninvasionxx2697
- A Calculation Method of Cracking Moment for the High Strength Concrete Beams Under Pure TorsionUploaded byTooma David
- DSAUploaded bypavanoena
- ASDIP Steel - Composite Beam Verification ExampleUploaded byedwinvizuete
- Scale RC-3.5 m Concrete Beam (1)Uploaded byf
- Bearing Performance Analysis Based on Ansys of Deep Beams With OpeningUploaded byBassem Muhanna
- CH2DesignMethodsofRC.pdfUploaded byTrav Black
- reportUploaded byHari Boya
- TS 500-2000 Ex001Uploaded bysertackcdg
- MoselyUploaded byMohak Nagrani
- Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing T11_99Uploaded byandri.kusbiantoro9761
- Material Ch21Uploaded byhemant_durgawale
- Design of beam Ledge according to ACI 318Uploaded byahmadomar89
- Viga Recortada Puntal TensorUploaded byYisus Nuñez
- Structural Design of Work Platform for SWL 250kg_m2 (1)Uploaded bySamedŠkulj
- 79-45Uploaded byjausingchi
- cracks in RC.pdfUploaded byAndreOnifeAlwynWhite
- Soil Mechanics with solved problemsUploaded byperumalbalji
- engadvanced_concept_training_-_1d_concrete_members__en_1992.pdfUploaded byJevgenijsKolupajevs
- Rapid Affordable Mass Housing Using Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum GFRG PanelsUploaded byrakshith Gowda
- 1369-4332%2E15%2E8%2E1345Uploaded byShanmuga Sundaram
- Minutes 445 2005b Kansas CityUploaded byBrandon Levine
- 297.pdfUploaded byVeblin Ruhulessin
- Secondary Design 1980Uploaded bymaheshbandham

- FeeUploaded bybrandlabBD
- AbaqusSimpleLatTorsBuckling_2010Uploaded byRajendra Prasad Kuncharapu
- bank.pdfUploaded bymrinmoy
- Emailing Focus writing updated 14-05-2019.pdfUploaded byamdadul hoque
- Fem DimensionsUploaded byakhorshidinet
- Download.docxUploaded bymrinmoy
- My documents - Copy - Copy - Copy (2).docxUploaded bymrinmoy
- My documents - Copy - Copy.docxUploaded bymrinmoy
- My DocumentsUploaded bymrinmoy
- S vs UUploaded bymrinmoy
- CDP 2Uploaded bymrinmoy
- CdpUploaded bymrinmoy
- ==QNFlzQ2UDN2ITRCFUNUploaded bymrinmoy
- BCS Exam Preparation_ LiteratureUploaded bymrinmoy
- Designofreinforcedconcretestructure 140904150603 Phpapp01 2Uploaded byalsafi118424
- My Term PaperUploaded bymrinmoy
- Johncrow1 - CopyUploaded bymrinmoy
- Tutorial Links - Copy (2)Uploaded bymrinmoy
- Question 10 & 11Uploaded bymrinmoy
- lab feeUploaded bymrinmoy
- 24_5_challan.pdfUploaded bymrinmoy
- How to Define Self Weight in AbaqusUploaded bymrinmoy
- IOSRCE015Uploaded bymrinmoy
- An Investigation Into the Former Consulate of Britain as One of 2017 HBRC JUploaded bymrinmoy
- Rebar Sizing ChartUploaded bymrinmoy
- ASTM Rebar MarkingUploaded byNay Win Shein
- 1261European SizesUploaded bymrinmoy
- 1259Australian SizesUploaded bymrinmoy
- Abaqus.nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam Experimentation2015Uploaded byoio

- SANILEC.pdfUploaded byOso Casa
- ec & us manual.pdfUploaded byRamnarayan Meena
- Manufacturing of Clad PlatesUploaded bywholenumber
- Table of Heat ConservationUploaded bynincito
- Contoh Failure AnalysisUploaded byfransiskus
- Aits 1718 Ft II Jee Advanced Paper 2Uploaded byChandan
- MatStudio CASTEP GuideUploaded byAnish Kumar
- DSC studies of retrogradation and amylose–lipid complex transition taking place in gamma irradiated wheat starchUploaded byKatalina Bravo
- UntitledUploaded byeurolex
- TRS409_scrUploaded byCowdlilac Filip C
- Biofuel cells—Recent advances and applicationsUploaded bybala11ap4598
- Adhesion Promotion Using Flame PlasmaUploaded bychristopher_kephart1
- Experiment 1Uploaded byEM Alberts
- Cracking-hydrocarbons.pdfUploaded byJeffreyChele
- Nano Materials and Water Purification - ti Si ProvocariUploaded bydaniel
- Ronson Butane Refill MSDS 1-1-2011Uploaded byM. White Dental
- Eia Vietnam Raff a2Uploaded byTaufik Achmad
- XRF Analysis of Rock PhosphateUploaded byManoj Praharaj Bhatnagar
- Research ReportUploaded byAZDOLMAN
- Process HallUploaded byUyar
- Shaft SealsUploaded byMohamed Hassan
- eth-1198-02.pdfUploaded byjinmg
- Ambrosini 2004Uploaded byTeodomiro Firmo
- Engineering MaterialsUploaded byErick Aparejado Pallada
- Alfa Laval UV White-PaperUploaded byMichael Novotny
- Davit Arm Support Plate CheckUploaded byHafizi HZnumismatic
- brushbond.pdfUploaded bypravi3434
- 16 Cellulose Acetate ElectrophoresisUploaded byLeonard Bowen
- Esp BorewellUploaded byManish Patel
- 72.IJMPERDDEC201872Uploaded byTJPRC Publications