2 views

Uploaded by fa.jamshidi

impact

- 2276-1
- Underground Piping Analysis
- Mechanical Properties of Materials
- 2016_43.pdf
- Terms
- Anchor Chair Design Final
- Axial Deformation
- Rr312404 Design of Machine Elements
- EIT-Mechanics-Review-Weiss
- 17C.pdf
- Strut and Tie Approach (Research Thesis)
- designmanual fyfe
- IPC2012-90677
- Chapter04 04
- 2007-01-0791
- 11639_2
- 1-s2.0-S0951833902000527-main.pdf
- Ground Support Strategies to Control Large Deformations in Minig Excavations
- Strength of Materials
- dmm1

You are on page 1of 11

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Werner Riedel a, *, Nobuaki Kawai b, Ken-ichi Kondo b

a

Fraunhofer Institut für Kurzzeitdynamik, Ernst-Mach-Institut, Eckerstraße 4, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany

b

Materials & Structures Laboratory, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta, Yokohama 226-8503, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Measurement of dynamic strength of concrete at impact relevant strain rates and pressures is the pur-

Received 27 June 2007 pose of the described study. Therefore, an experimental design of direct planar impact experiments with

Received in revised form 19 December 2007 longitudinal and transverse strain gauges is analyzed in predictive hydrocode simulations using an

Accepted 19 December 2007

elastic–plastic damage model for concrete. The calculations and ﬁrst experimental results on mortar

Available online 10 May 2008

show decreasing phase velocities of stress waves both in longitudinal and lateral gauges. The model

clearly associates it with the onset of damage, possibly interpreted as a failure wave. Numerical analysis

Keywords:

is furthermore used to compare a monolithic target block to a thoroughly assembled concrete sample in

Concrete strength

Strain rate

order to include ﬂat gauges in the material. The planned experimental procedure to derive wave speeds,

Failure wave particle velocities and strain rates from stress measurements is anticipated and validated on the basis of

Damage simulated gauge signals. The most important ﬁnding is the prediction and ﬁrst experimental conﬁr-

mation that concrete ultimate strength and damaged yield stress can be derived at strain rates in the

order of 104/s from the proposed type of experiments. This technique promises new insight into the

strength and failure processes of concrete in the challenging loading region around the characteristic

minimum of the shock particle velocity relationship.

Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

minimum.

1.1. Dynamic strength analysis and modeling approaches Moreover, concrete exhibits a complex distortional behavior.

Fig. 1, right, shows equivalent stresses at failure loads as function of

Analysis and modeling of concrete impact behavior has been an hydrostatic pressures p for four different concrete qualities be-

active research area over the last decades. A number of authors tween 35 and 140 MPa compressive strength. Eq. (1) deﬁnes the

have measured the longitudinal stress wave behavior ranging from equivalent stress seq as function of the principal stresses s1, s2, s3

low velocities up to strong shock loading as high as 20 GPa pressure for general load cases. In the special case of cylindrical symmetric

and strain rates of 106/s. Fig. 1 gives an overview of available lit- loading with s2 ¼ s3, it is equal to the stress difference Ds.

erature data by Gregson [14], Grady [11,12,13], Kipp and Chhabildas rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

[24], Ockert [28], Ishiguchi [21], Tsembelis [36,37,38] Gebbeken [9], 1h i cyl: symm:

seq ¼ ðs s2 Þ2 þðs2 s3 Þ2 þðs3 s1 Þ2 ¼ js1 s2 j

Riedel [31,32]. The dashed lines point out the remarkable drop in 2 1

the compression wave velocity Us, or better phase velocity cp [41], ¼ Ds ¼ 2s (1)

from particle velocities up between 50 and 300 m/s. The reduction

from the acoustic 1D strain longitudinal sound speeds above 1

p ¼ ðs1 þ s2 þ s3 Þ (2)

4000 m/s to less than 2000 m/s for conventional strength concrete 3

[24,32] is generally assigned to the compaction of the concrete Before failure initiation inelastic stresses start for conventional

pores and the onset of damage. Higher loading intensities (up above concrete at about 85% of the strength in uniaxial tension and above

>400 m/s) override the energy consumption of these processes. As 35% in uniaxial compression. Irreversible pore compaction is ob-

the impedances of aggregate and mortar differ most in this regime, served under hydrostatic loading. After failure shear stresses are

only supported under conﬁned conditions but are still substantial,

for example, during penetration into thick concrete targets [17]. A

number of models (e.g. Chen [5], Riedel [31], Itoh et al. [20], Geb-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 7628 9050 692; fax: þ49 7628 9050 677. beken and Ruppert [10], Malvar et al. [25]) describe elasticity,

E-mail address: riedel@emi.fraunhofer.de (W. Riedel). hardening up to failure and post-failure shear resistance by three

0734-743X/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2007.12.012

284 W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293

Fig. 1. Left: shock properties of concrete showing a decisive minimum in stress propagation speed at up ¼ 250 m/s. Data ‘Riedel 03 Conventional’ [31] used in Sections 3 and 4.

Right: static distortional strength as a function of pressure.

limit surfaces, as shown in Fig. 2. A point of discussion remains the deviation from this line along the failure surface towards higher

closure of the elastic surface towards high hydrostatic pressures by pressures. Time delayed failure has been shown to result in a two-

‘cap’ formulations. wave structure referred to as ‘failure wave’, which is especially

Strain rate dependence on these limit surfaces is so far mostly apparent in the lateral stress signal. Rise in longitudinal strain has

measured along the lines of uniaxial compressive and tensile been observed with the passing of the failure front, while lateral

stresses seq ¼ 3p (dashed lines in Fig. 4, right). Dynamic experi- strains remain negligible [26]. A distinct inﬂuence on the propa-

ments loading concrete specimens in dynamic uniaxial compres- gation of the failure wave by additional target assembly surfaces

sion can reach strain rates of several 100/s with strength increase was reported by Bourne et al. [3].

factors up to 2.5 (Bischoff [1]). Split Hopkinson-Bar measurements Micro-concrete and mortar materials have been studied with

on scaled concrete or mortar can reach 1700/s and increase factors stress gauges in the material by Tsembelis et al. [37,39] and Grote

up to 4 (Grote et al. [15]). The strain rate dependence in uniaxial et al. [16] to derive deviatoric strength and failure. Grote reports the

tension, for example using a Hopkinson-Bar in spallation conﬁgu- limit of elastic longitudinal and transverse stresses to be at 167 m/s

ration, is even stronger with dynamic strength increase factors of for PMMA plate impact which corresponds to 130 MPa compressive

4–12 at maximum strain rates from 50 to 120/s (Klepaczko [23], stress. He shows that stronger loading does not provide shear

Schuler et al. [33]). stresses above the theoretical elastic limit. Tsembelis measures the

Shock waves generate strain rates from 104 to 106/s. Dynamic stress differences Ds from 0.4 to 1.45 GPa for higher longitudinal

shear strength of brittle materials under shock loading has been stresses from 0.8 up to 6 GPa. They are almost identical for micro-

measured and simulated mainly for glass and ceramics by a number concrete and cement paste.

of authors, e.g. Kanel et al. [22], Brar et al. [4], Clifton [6], Espinosa In this work the impact shear strength analysis method is ap-

et al. [7,8], Millet et al. [26], Bourne et al. [3]. By mounting ﬂat stress plied to large mortar and concrete samples in order to measure

gauges in normal and lateral direction into specimens subjected to strength and failure at very high strain rates. The 200 mm caliber

plate impact, shear stresses s of the materials are measured. Planar allows parallel use of axial and lateral stress gauges at the same

stress and shock waves are compressing in uniaxial strain with distance from the impact plane. Numerical simulation is used be-

seq ¼ 3p(1 2n)/(1 þ n) in the elastic regime (broken line in Fig. 2, fore and after testing to predict and analyze stress and damage

right). Higher loading with permanent deformation causes evolution in monolithic and assembled concrete targets.

Fig. 2. Three surface concept for the concrete strength with hardening, failure and residual friction resistance.

W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293 285

1.2. Conﬁguration referential (moving with the material) and solved together with the

equation of state (Eqs. (6) and (11)) linking pressure p, density r and

The experimental conﬁguration under development by Kawai internal energy e. Stresses and strains are decomposed into hy-

et al. [41] is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. A U-shaped aluminium pro- drostatic pressure p and deviatoric stresses Sij. In Eq. (4a) com-

jectile (diameter 200 mm, bottom plate thickness 25 mm, collar pressive pressures and tensile stresses sij, Sij are deﬁned positive.

thickness 15 mm, overall length 100 mm) is impacted with its ﬂat The Jaumann tensor of deviatoric stress rates (Eq. (4b)) is used to

bottom onto a concrete block of overall dimension L ¼ 100 mm, integrate the strength portion of material behavior for small strain

B ¼ 100 mm, H ¼ 185 mm. In the present paper impact velocities of increments d3ij/dt (Eq. (5a)) per time step. Stress contributions from

170 m/s are considered, the impact facility is designed to allow up rotation rates drij/dt (Eq. (5b)) are eliminated to obtain an objective

to 280 m/s. Polyvinylidene ﬂuoride (PVDF) stress gauges 1–3 with material description, independent of the choice of coordinate sys-

measurement areas of 6 6 mm are placed in longitudinal di- tem and rigid body motions. Explicit time integration fulﬁlling the

rection at 10, 20 and 30 mm beneath the impact surface along the Courant–Friedrich–Levy criterion yields stability of the numerical

axis of impact. Gauge 4 measures transverse stresses in the same scheme. This combination of stress and strain referentials and time

plane as number 1 but is located 70 mm off the symmetry axis. The integration is often called ‘update Lagrange–Jaumann scheme’ and

concrete target is assembled from a number of precisely ground allows consistent large strain material description when integrated

blocks and tiles to mount the gauges between them. Tiles Ia, Ib, Ic over several time steps. Coordinates xi, velocities vi and accelera-

measure each 10 100 100 mm and are backed by block II tions are nodal variables in the computational grid, while material

(70 100 100 mm). Blocks III (100 100 20 mm) and IV properties such as mass, pressure, deviatoric stresses, internal en-

(100 100 65 mm) are attached below the resulting cube. The ergy are evaluated in the cell centre.

blocks are precisely rectiﬁed and connected with a ﬁne ﬁlm of

epoxy resin thinner than 200 mm. An additional block V of concrete Dr vv

þr i ¼ 0 (3a)

is added onto the assembly. Dt vxi

The following questions arise in context with the experimental

conﬁguration:

Dvi vp vSji

1. Does the assembly of the concrete target inﬂuence the mea- r ¼ þ þ rfi (3b)

Dt vxi vxj

surement of longitudinal and transverse stresses in comparison

to a monolithic sample?

2. When and to which extent does the assembly alter the damage

evolution and propagation? De vv vv

r ¼ rq_ p i þ Sji i (3c)

3. Can it be assumed that the lateral stress measurements in Dt vxi vxj

gauge position 4 are the same as in position 1, where the lon-

gitudinal stress is taken?

4. Which interpretation will be possible from the stress gauge

1

data? sij ¼ Sij pdij S_ ij ¼ Sij r_ jk þ Skj r_ ik þG 3_ ij dij 3_ kk (4a,b)

3

rotation correction

To clarify these points the experimental conﬁguration is nu-

merically modeled in the following.

! !

1 vvi vvj 1 vvi vvj

3_ ij ¼ þ r_ ij ¼ (5a,b)

2. Numerical simulation approach 2 vxj vxi 2 vxj vxi

Basis of the simulations is the ﬁnite difference scheme of the 2.2. Constitutive models for aluminium and epoxy

commercial hydrocode AUTODYN-V6.0 [27], which also in-

corporates ﬁnite element and smooth particle hydrodynamics Both materials are described using an equation of state in Mie–

discretisations. The differential Eqs. (3a)–(3c) are derived from Grüneisen form (Eq. (6a)) with a Hugoniot reference curve pH(r)

conservation of mass, momentum and energy in Lagrangian and the Grüneisen coefﬁcient G ¼ V(vp/ve)V to extrapolate to

Fig. 3. Experimental conﬁguration of single stage accelerator and concrete sample at TokyoTech.

286 W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293

Fig. 4. Sample geometry with concrete block structure containing longitudinal and transverse gauges. Cylindrical symmetric model of impactor and concrete sample. Mesh res-

olution of 0.2 mm describing the adhesive layer for assembled sample.

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

general material states (V denotes the volume). The Aluminium

p vf 2 p p spij seeq Y

Hugoniot curve is expressed in terms of shock velocity Us and d3ij ¼ dl 3peq ¼ 3 3 D3peq ¼ ¼

vsij 3 ij ij 3G 3G

particle velocity up using the linear approximation with the mate-

rial parameters bulk sound speed cB and slope S (Eq. (6b)). A (9a,b,c)

polynomial formulation (Eq. (6c)) is chosen for the epoxy. The " 0

! 0

! #

Yp p GT n

equation of state parameters are summarized in Table 1, left Y ¼ Y0 1 þ þ ðT 300Þð1 þ b3Þ (10)

columns. Y0 h1=3 G0

1 r

pðr; eÞ ¼ Gre þ pH 1 G 1 (6a) Elastic stresses are limited by the ﬂow rule (Eq. (8)) based on the

2 r0

von Mises equivalent stress seq (Eq. (1)). The ﬂow rule (Eq. (9a)) is

associated with the ﬂow surface, so that plastic strain increments

hð1 þ hÞ are calculated using ‘radial return’ (Eq. (9c)). Steinberg and Gui-

pH ðhÞ ¼ r0 c2B pH ðhÞ nan’s model describes the aluminium ﬂow surface depending on

½1 hðS 1Þ2

r isotropic strain hardening, pressure and temperature (Eq. (10)). All

¼ A1 h þ A2 h2 þ A3 h3 with h ¼ 1 (6b,c) material parameters are summarized in Table 1, right. A constant

r0

yield stress is assumed for the epoxy adhesive.

Elastic stress rates dSij/dt are derived via Hooke’s law in

Jaumann’s formulation (Eq. (4b)) from strain and rotation rates

(Eqs. (5a,b)). Steinberg et al.’s [34,35] model describes the alu- 2.3. Constitutive model for concrete

minium with the shear modulus G depending on pressure and

temperature. A constant shear modulus is assumed for epoxy. 2.3.1. Equation of state

" ! # The concrete equation of state for the pore free matrix material

0

G0p p GT is based on the Mie–Grüneisen form (Eq. (6a)) with a polynomial

G ¼ G0 1 þ ßþ ðT 300Þ (7)

G0 h1=3 G0 Hugoniot curve (Eq. (6c)). Herrmann’s model [18] describes po-

rosity a ¼ rmatrix/rporous as an additional state variable (Eq. (11a)).

The compaction path (Eq. (11b)) is deﬁned using the initial porosity

f sij ¼ F sij Y ¼ 0 F sij ¼ seq (8) ainit, pore crush pressure pel, lockup pressure pcomp and exponent N.

Table 1

Equation of state and strength parameters to describe the Al2024-T4 projectile and the epoxy adhesive

Al2024-T4 [34,35]

Equation of state Shock Shear modulus 2.86000Eþ07 (kPa)

Reference density 2.78500Eþ00 (g/cm3) Yield stress 2.60000Eþ05 (kPa)

Gruneisen coefﬁcient 2.00000Eþ00 (–) Maximum yield stress 7.60000Eþ05 (kPa)

Parameter CB 5.32800Eþ03 (m/s) Hardening constant 3.10000Eþ02 (–)

Parameter S 1.33800Eþ00 (–) Hardening exponent 1.85000E01 (–)

Reference temperature 3.00000Eþ02 (K) Derivative dG/dP 1.86470Eþ00 (–)

Speciﬁc heat 8.63000Eþ02 (J/kgK) Derivative dG/dT 1.76200Eþ04 (kPa)

Melting temperature 1.22000Eþ03 (K) Derivative dY/dP 1.69500E02 (–)

Epoxy adhesive

Equation of state Polynomial Shear modulus 4.08000Eþ06 (kPa)

Reference density 1.18600Eþ00 (g/cm3) Yield stress 4.00000Eþ04 (kPa)

Bulk modulus A1 8.83900Eþ06 (kPa) Eq. plastic failure strain 3.00000Eþ00 (–)

Parameter A2 1.75500Eþ07 (kPa) Reference temperature 2.93000Eþ02 (K)

Parameter A3 1.51600Eþ07 (kPa)

Parameter B0 1.13000Eþ00 (–)

Parameter B1 1.13000Eþ00 (–)

W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293 287

The employed equation of state data is derived from plate impact positive) with parameters A and N. All measures of hydrostatic

tests in [31,32] and speciﬁed in Table 2. pressure and the deviatoric strength are normalized over the

uniaxial compressive strength fc, when denoted with *. Towards

porous

p ¼ f ðrmatrix ; eÞ ! p ¼ f ðra; eÞ with low pressures the exponential form is continued by linear

" #N interpolations from the uniaxial compressive strength (seq*,p*) ¼

pcomp p (fc/fc,1/3) to shear strength (fs/fc, 0) and uniaxial tensile strength

a ¼ 1 þ ðainit 1Þ ð11a;bÞ

pcomp pel (ft/fc, ft/3fc) and extrapolated to the intersection HTL* ¼ HTL/fc with

the hydrostatic axis. The auxiliary variable HTL0 * only occurs in

Eq. (13a) to provide continuity of YTXC* at the uniaxial compres-

2.3.2. Failure surface depending on pressure, triaxiality sive strength (seq*,p*) ¼ (fc/fc,1/3). Hydrostatic pressures in ten-

and strain rate sion are limited to HTL* with correction of the internal energy for

The strength model proposed and developed in [30,31] is in- the release of the tensile pressure portion below HTL*. For such

spired by Chen’s [5] concept of three limit surfaces in stress space. states the deviatoric strength is zero, until pressures above HTL*

Fig. 2, left, shows the three surfaces describing the elastic limit Yel, occur. All above and following input parameters are summarized

failure Yfail and residual shear strength Yfric of the damaged con- in Table 2.

crete under conﬁned conditions. Rotation of the compressive meridian around the hydrostatic

axis spans the complete failure surface in stress space (Fig. 2, left).

f p; seq ; q; 3_ ¼ seq Yfail p; q; 3_ ¼ seq YTXC ðpÞR3 ðqÞFRate 3_ ¼ 0 To describe reduced strength on shear and tensile meridians it is

(12a) multiplied with a factor Q2 R3(q) 1 (Fig. 5, right). The lode angle

q describes stress triaxiality and depends on the third invariant J3

of the stress tensor (Eq. (14b)). The dimensionless function R3

Yfail p; q; 3_ ¼ YTXC ðpÞR3 ðqÞFRate 3_ (12b) (Eq. (14a), [40]) scales referring to the compressive meridian YTXC

with R3 1. The lowest value Q2 > 0.5 is reached on the tensile

n 1 meridian with principal stresses combined as sI > sII ¼ sIII. The

*

YTXC ¼ A p* HTL0* for p* (13a) ratio Q2 of tensile to compressive meridian decreases with

3

increasing pressure (from 0.684 to 0.705 for 1/3 < p/fc < 7/3). This

effect is called ‘brittle to ductile transition’ and is described by

*

YTXC ¼ 0 for p* < HTL* (13b)

Eq. (14c).

h i1

2

2 1 Q22 cos q þ ð2Q2 1Þ 4ð1 Q22 Þcos2 q þ 5Q22 4Q2

R3 ðq; Q2 Þ ¼

(14a)

4 1 Q22 cos2 q þ ð1 2Q2 Þ2

The failure surface Yfail, described by Eq. (12b) and shown in Figs. pﬃﬃﬃ

2 and 5, can be measured on hydraulic machines with triaxial 3 3 J3 27detðSÞ

cos 3q ¼ ¼ (14b)

control; some results are shown in Fig. 1, right. It is therefore taken 2 J 3=2 2s3eq

2

as reference to construct all limit surfaces. The compressive me-

ridian YTXC(p) (Eq. (13)) describes the pressure dependence for

principal stress conditions sI < sII ¼ sIII (tensile stresses deﬁned 0:5 < Q2 ¼ Q2;0 þ Bp* 1 (14c)

Table 2

Employed material data for 37.7 MPa concrete, AUTODYN [27] input to ‘RHT concrete’

Reference density 2.75000Eþ00 Brittle to ductile transition 1.05000E02 (–)

Porous density 2.16000Eþ00 (g/cm3) G (elas.)/(elas.–plas.) 2.00000Eþ00 (–)

Porous sound speed 2.92000Eþ03 (m/s) Elastic strength/ft 7.00000E01 (–)

Initial compaction pressure 2.51000Eþ04 (kPa) Elastic strength/fc 5.30000E01 (–)

Solid compaction pressure 6.00000Eþ06 (kPa) Fractured strength constant B 1.60000Eþ00 (–)

Compaction exponent 3.00000Eþ00 (–) Fractured strength exponent m 6.10000E01 (–)

Solid EOS Polynomial Comp. strain rate exp. a 3.20000E02 (–)

Bulk modulus A1 3.52700Eþ07 (kPa) Tensile strain rate exp. d 3.60000E02 (–)

Parameter A2 3.95800Eþ07 (kPa) Failure RHT Concrete

Parameter A3 9.04000Eþ06 (kPa) Damage constant, D1 4.00000E02 (–)

Parameter B0 ¼ G 1.22000Eþ00 (–) Damage constant, D2 1.00000Eþ00 (–)

Parameter B1 ¼ G 1.22000Eþ00 (–) Minimum strain to failure 1.00000E02 (–)

Reference temperature 3.00000Eþ02 (K) Residual shear modulus fraction 1.30000E01 (–)

Speciﬁc heat 6.54000Eþ02 (J/kgK) Tensile failure Hydro (Pmin)

Compaction curve Standard Erosion Geometric Strain

Strength RHT Concrete Erosion strain 2.00000Eþ00 (–)

Shear modulus 1.67000Eþ07 (kPa) Tens./comp. meridian ratio (Q2,0) 6.80500E01 (–)

Compressive strength (fc) 3.77000Eþ04 (kPa) Brittle to ductile transition B 1.05000E02 (–)

Tensile strength (ft/fc) 1.00000E01 (–)

Shear strength (fs/fc) 1.80000E01 (–)

Intact failure surface constant A 1.60000Eþ00 (–)

Intact failure surface exponent n 6.10000E01 (–)

288 W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293

Fig. 5. Deﬁnition of the failure surface by the compressive meridian and the deviatoric section. Data, e.g. by [17].

The term FRate(d3/dt) in Eqs. (12a,b) accounts for the rate en- Tension

hancement of deviatoric strength. CEB-Bulletin 187 [2] proposes

d

empirical ﬁt functions (Eqs. (15a,b) and (16a,b)) for uniaxial tensile ftd 3_

and compressive loading. In the model the strain rate inﬂuence for FRate ¼ ¼ 3_ 30 s1 (16a)

ft 3_ 0

hydrostatic pressures above fc/3 is calculated according to Eq. (15a),

for pressures below ft/3 Eq. (16a) is applied. Strain rate enhance-

ment factors FRate between these limits are linearly interpolated. By p ﬃﬃ

ftd

¼ h 3_ 3_ > 30 s1

3

this formulation the complete failure surface (Eq. (12)) is radially (16b)

dilated around the origin (p ¼ 0,seff ¼ 0) for higher strain rates, as ft

indicated by the dashed line and square measurement points in 1

Fig. 5, left. The input parameters for a and d are speciﬁed in Table 2. 3_ 0 ¼ 3 106 s1 ; d ¼

10 þ 12 fc

The units in Eqs. (15) and (16) are [MPa] for ft and fc and [1/s] for

strain rates.

Compression

log h ¼ 7d 0:492

a

f 3_

FRate ¼ cd ¼ 3_ 30 s1 ð15aÞ

fc 3_ 0

2.3.3. Elastic limit and hardening

p ﬃﬃ The initial elastic surface Yelastic of the virgin material is derived

fcd 3

¼ g 3_ 3_ > 30 s1 ð15bÞ from the failure surface Yfail using the ratio of elastic tensile and

fc

compressive stress over the respective ultimate strength (ft,el/ft and

1 fc,el/fc). For pressures below ft,el/3ft the elastic scaling function Felastic

3_ 0 ¼ 30 106 s1 ; a ¼ takes the value ft,el/ft. Above fc,el/3fc it is equal to fc,el/fc. Between

5 þ 34 fc

these bonds it is linearly interpolated with respect to the pressure.

log g ¼ 6a 0:492 The elastic surface is closed consistently with the porous equation

Fig. 6. Comparing simulated stress signals in block assembled (light colours) with monolithic target (strong colours). Comparison of lateral measurement in gauge positions 4 and 1.

W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293 289

Fig. 7. Damage plots at 15 ms (scaling 0–0.1) and 80 ms (scaling 0–1.0). Comparison of assembled target (middle) and monolithic concrete block (right) shows good agreement.

!

paction using a parabolic cap function Fcap (Eq. (17b)). The upper Yfail Yelastic Gelastic

pl;hard

3eq ¼ (18b)

cap pressure po at which deviatoric stresses are reduced to zero 3G Gelastic Gplastic

starts for the virgin material at pel. During continued compaction it

grows consistently with the current pore compaction pressure of Between the initial elastic surface and the ultimate failure sur-

the equation of state. The lower pressure pu for cap inﬂuence is fc/3. face hardening is described using Eqs. (18a,b). The loading surface

Fig. 2, right, illustrates the resulting elastic surface. Yhard is scaled between Yelastic and Yfail controlled by the equivalent

plastic strain. The plastic stiffness is speciﬁed by the input ratio

Yelastic ¼ Yfail Felastic Fcap Gelastic/(Gelastic Gplastic).

>

> 1 for p pu ¼ fc 3

< rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

When hardening states reach the ultimate strength of the con-

2

Fcap ¼ 1 ppu

for pu < p < po (17a,b) crete on the failure surface Yfail damage is accumulated during

>

> po pu

: further inelastic loading controlled by plastic strain. The model by

0 for p po ¼ pel

Holmquist and Johnson [19] is taken as basis for the evolution law.

Eqs. (19) and (20) specify how the plastic increments are normal-

ized over the effective strain to failure 3pl,fail

eq . The effective strain to

3pl

Yhard ¼ Yelastic þ

eq

Yfail Yelastic (18a) failure is depending on the hydrostatic pressure p with the shape

pl;hard parameters D1, D2 and a lower limit efmin. Contrary to the original

3eq

Fig. 8. Inﬂuence of effective gauge size for measurement of lateral stress in position 4.

290 W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293

Fig. 9. Damage initiation and associated wave structure in axial and lateral stress proﬁles (only rise shown). Right: derived dynamic strength data of from (simulated) longitudinal

and transverse stress measurements.

paper only deviatoric plastic increments contribute to the damage 200 mm by one cell size (Fig. 4, right, 80,000 cells) The whole target

evolution. Volumetric plastic increments only affect the equation of conﬁguration is modeled as one domain.

state and the elastic cap function, a detail not described by Holm-

quist. The effect of damage is modeled as a loss in deviatoric 3.1. Comparison of assembled against monolithic concrete target

strength by interpolating as Eq. (21b) between the failure surface

Yfail and residual friction resistance surface Yfric (Eq. (21a)). This As a ﬁrst predictive step, the described numerical modeling

surface can so far not be measured; this is one aim of the described approach is used to provide insight to the questions raised in

work. Until this is achieved the same pressure dependence as for Section 1.2 about the inﬂuence of the target block structure on

the intact limit surface is assumed (B ¼ A, m ¼ n). experimental measurements. Therefore, the ‘assembled’ simulation

conﬁguration with explicit description of the epoxy adhesive layers

Z 3eq

D3pl

pl;fail

1 p incremental

X eq by one cell layer of 200 mm is compared to one single monolithic

D ¼ d3eff ¼ (19) ‘block’ of concrete without adhesive. Fig. 6, left, shows the com-

3 pl;hard

eq 3pl;fail

eq ðpÞ pl;fail

3eq ðpÞ

parison of longitudinal stress signals in gauges 1–3 for both con-

ﬁgurations. The overall agreement is very good. Minor differences

D2 occur for times later than 15 ms after impact. The agreement in the

pl;fail

3eq p* ¼ D1 p* HTL* efmin (20) uniaxial compression and release phase is excellent.

Fig. 6, right, depicts the lateral stress calculations in gauge 4.

Again we note minor differences between both simulation conﬁg-

Yfric ¼ Bpm Ydamaged ¼ Yfail þ D Yfric Yfail (21a,b) urations. For the one-dimensional compression and release phase

up to 15 m differences are negligible with a very small deviation of

the second stress step at about 80 MPa.

More important is the difference of measuring lateral stresses in

3. Analysis of impact tests positions 4 and 1. For the experimental analysis of concrete shear

strength, they shall be assumed congruent, as the distance from the

The analysis of stresses will focus on the ﬁrst phase of com- impact phase is identical. However, simulations show that this

pressive loading under uniaxial strain. Therefore, the conﬁguration assumption holds only for the rising of stresses and still for the peak

can be simpliﬁed as cylindrical symmetric, which allows very high values. Release is different, which is caused by the proximity of the

mesh resolutions in order to resolve the bonding layers with projectile edge and the resulting arrival of the lateral shear release

wave. Later on the impactor cylindrical collar is keeping up the

compressive stress at gauge 4 more than the ﬂat U-bottom of

25 mm thickness at the level of gauge 1. Although still appropriate

for the analysis of pressure and peak values, gauge 4 is moved to-

wards the projectile centre line in an improved conﬁguration [41].

Bourne et al. [3] measured differences in failure propagation in

glasses when joining two high precision plates to replace one

monolithical. The here described model predicts that concrete does

not show this behavior. Fig. 7, left column, compares damage pro-

ﬁles from the impact face into the concrete near the symmetry axis.

The early phase of uniaxial compression (upper line) shows no or

negligible inﬂuence in the damage propagation. It is worthwhile to

notice that calculated damage levels of 8.5–11% are very small at

this early stage. More deviations occur when later times are con-

sidered with various release waves and multiaxial stress and shear

states acting on the concrete material. Important deviations are

found when analyzing both damage patterns proﬁles at 80 ms

Fig. 10. Evaluation of wave speeds in elastic regime, at ultimate strength and damaged. (Fig. 7, lower line). Still, the overall damage pattern is similar: A

Slope for evaluation of strain rate of shock wave. large shear damage zone occurs close to the projectile edge.

W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293 291

Fig. 11. Peak particle velocities and strain rates evaluated from stress signals compared to continuous signal from simulation.

Localized shear and bending cracks extend into the centre of the of lateral stress measurements in only one cell of 0.2 mm length

target. A distinct spallation plane is formed at 60–70 mm in the shows a two-wave structure separating at 100 MPa with a time delay

concrete target towards the rear surface. At stages later than 120 ms of about 0.5 ms for the following wave. This detail is lost when in-

the target is totally damaged and disrupted. creasing the gauge size Lgauge. The minimal resolvable time window

Summing up, the assembled concrete target with gauges be- can be approximated as the time tres ¼ Lgauge/cp,wave the wave front

tween precisely joined blocks using thin ﬁlms of epoxy resin is very needs to travel across the gauge. For a gauge length of 6 mm and the

representative for the behavior of a monolithic target during one- compressive wave traveling with cP ¼ 2230 m/s (see Section 3.3)

dimensional compression and release. Careful consideration is wave features down to tres ¼ 2.7 ms can be resolved. This is not suf-

necessary when analyzing later stress states, especially combining ﬁcient to resolve the small two-wave structure in Figs. 8 and 9.

longitudinal measurements on the symmetry axis and lateral

measurements off-axis (e.g. gauges 1 and 4). 3.3. Evaluation of dynamic strength, failure wave speed

and strain rate

3.2. Inﬂuence of gauge size

The procedure of evaluating experimental gauge signals is pre-

Resolving wave propagation details in concrete can be disturbed pared by numerical predictions. As all state variables are computed

from the following sources: in every cell, assumptions on measurements signals can be veriﬁed.

First the interpretation of the wave structures during arrival of the

– The heterogeneity of the sample causes internal reﬂections and compression wave (Figs. 6 and 9) is addressed. The elastic and

strain localizations during stress wave propagation. This plastic waves separate at 48 MPa stresses (I), but the second wave

problem has been numerically analyzed by Park et al. [29], structure (II) at 280 MPa longitudinal and 80 MPa lateral stress is of

Riedel et al. [32] and many other authors. particular interest. In Fig. 9 it is clearly associated with the onset of

– Large gauge sizes may be necessary to derive sufﬁciently ho- damage at the ultimate strength of the concrete.

mogenized state variables for unscaled concrete. This problem The stress state in terms of hydrostatic pressure and equivalent

is most signiﬁcant when the gauge extends in the direction of (shear) stress can be evaluated from the longitudinal and trans-

the wave propagation as transverse gauge 4 in the present case. verse stress signals in Fig. 9, left, using Eqs. (1) and (2). The analysis

can be continuously applied across the different limits of elastic

The size inﬂuence of the gauge size is studied by averaging the loading (I), peak strength (II) and compression of damaged material

signal along 1–30 cells spread over 0.2–6 mm in Fig. 8. Local analysis (III). Plotting as equivalent stress versus hydrostatic pressure (Fig. 9,

Fig. 12. First experimental measurements of stress signals using mortar samples. Longitudinal stress signals indicated a failure wave in experiment ‘A’, left. Successful lateral

measurements in experiment ‘B’, right, allow strength analysis in Table 4.

292 W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293

right) shows elastic loading and the beginning of hardening inside Table 4

the static failure surface. The peak stress at failure (II) lies outside Experimental concrete pressure and strength during impact

the static failure surface due to strain rate hardening. After onset of Position/time Longitudinal Lateral stress Pressure Equivalent

damage the material is further compressed along the dynamic yield stress (MPa) (MPa (MPa) stress (MPa)

surface of the damage material. The ultimate stress state (III) is 1, at ultimate strength 225 96,6 139 128

deﬁned by impact velocities and impedances. 2, at ultimate strength (122) 49 (73) (73)

1, failed 487 133 251 354

The phase speeds of the different wave portions can be evalu-

2, failed (482) (65) (197) (397)

ated as in experimental practice: the arrival time and the loading

rate are deduced at the point of highest gradient of the wave por-

tion. Fig. 10 illustrates the derivation of the longitudinal elastic

wave speed (cp,elastic ¼ 4228 m/s), the wave speed of the intact Fig. 12, right, shows experimental measurements ‘B’ with two

material at ultimate strength (cp,intact ¼ 2567 m/s), the damaged lateral gauges numbered 4 and 5 at the offsets of the longitudinal

(cp,fail ¼ 2229 m/s) and the release wave speed (crel ¼ 2000 m/s), gauges 1 and 2, but closer to the impact centre. The longitudinal

calculated as cp¼(x2 x1)/(t2 t1). gauges show again the two-wave structure which we assign to the

The longitudinal stress in the damaged material can be read as onset of damage. The lateral gauges do not display distinctly this

637 MPa from the maximum plateau of gauge 1 in Fig. 10. Using the feature because of the effective gauge length of 6 mm along the

momentum Eq. (22a) the particle velocity can be derived to 140 m/s. impact direction (see Section 3.2 and Fig. 8). Nevertheless, the

Input into mass conservation (Eq. (22b)) results in a strain of 6.27% stress tensor can be evaluated in terms of pressure and equivalent

at ultimate compression. Comparing the peak particle velocity stress according to Eqs. (1) and (2). The derived values at ultimate

deduced from the stress signal to 140 m/s and the locally simulated strength (II) under a strain rate of 14,350/s and at maximum

particle velocities in the cells (Fig. 11, left, 131 m/s), we note compression (III) beyond the failure threshold with 23,100/s are

reasonable agreement with a 6.8% over prediction for the value given in Table 4. Larger measurement series of such strength

deduced as in an experiment. measurements at highest strain rates promise unique input data for

dynamic concrete models.

s u 3

up ¼ 3 ¼ p 3_ y (22a,b,c)

r0 cp cp trise

4. Conclusions

In experimental practice the strain rate will be derived by using

the rise time of the slope again at the steepest point (see inclined The present paper describes predictive numerical simulations

dashed lines in Fig. 10). In gauge 1 this rise time corresponds to 1.75 and ﬁrst impact compression and shear stress measurements in

ms which leads to a strain rate of 3.58 104/s when using Eq. (22c). concrete materials. The experimental conﬁguration is modeled in

The rate derived in gauge 2 is very similar with 2.85 104/s. a Lagrangian hydrocode together with equation of state and dy-

Comparison to local strain rate histories in the simulation cells namic strength descriptions for concrete developed earlier and

(Fig. 11, right) reveals very good agreement. Interestingly, the summarized in Section 2. The simulations predict that thoroughly

highest strain rates are simulated at the elastic–plastic transition assembled targets with integrated gauges are representative for

and near the end of damage evolution. monolithic concrete samples, especially during the loading phase of

a planar compression or shock wave. The numerical analysis fur-

3.4. First experimental results thermore supports derivation of stress wave and particle velocities,

strains and strain rates from time-resolved stress measurements.

Fig. 12, left, shows the experimental measurement ‘A’ of the Decreasing phase velocities for compression wave portions

conﬁguration in Figs. 3 and 4. Mortar with a maximum grain size of above 200–300 MPa are observed both in simulations and ﬁrst

4 mm and uniaxial compressive strength of 37.7 MPa is used as experiments. Based on the model, the slower wave portions can be

a starting point with the perspective to testing full scale concrete in clearly attributed to the onset of damage and thus the material

the 200 mm caliber test facility. Impact velocities were 193 m/s in strength at high strain rates of 25,000/s. It is experimentally con-

both experiments ‘A’ and ‘B’. ﬁrmed by ﬁrst experiments on mortar, further justiﬁcation and

The longitudinal stress signals of gauges 1–3 show all decreasing extension to unscaled concrete has to follow. For this purpose

phase velocities of stress wave portions above 210 MPa. This ob- guidelines for the gauge size inﬂuence are given by numerically

servation is very consistent with the simulations and is attributed analyzing highlighting to the rule of thumb tres ¼ Lgauge/cp,wave.

to different wave speeds across the failure front. The compression In the proposed conﬁguration the triaxial strength is measured

wave properties before and after failure evaluated by Eq. (22) as at strain rates of 5000–15,000/s with hydrostatic pressures from 70

previously described are given in Table 3. Both measured and to 140 MPa and deviatoric stresses from 70 to 130 MPa. Higher

simulated values lie in the large scatter range of available experi- stresses may be reached by impact velocities exceeding 200 m/s in

ments in Fig. 1. The differences underline the importance of im- near future.

proved measurements and analysis at the minimum of wave speeds The technique can furthermore provide valuable data on the

at particle velocities between 30 and 300 m/s behind the failure yield surface of damaged concrete at strain rates of about 25,000/s.

wave. This is currently a major lack for dynamic concrete models in

hydrocodes. Signal predictions and ﬁrst measurements analyze the

damaged strength surface up to 250 MPa of hydrostatic and

Table 3

400 MPa equivalent stress at a strain rates of 3 104/s. Further

Compression wave properties, derived from experiments A and B using Eq. (22) on

gauge signals 1 and 2 measurements with more data, detailed evaluation and transition

to full scale concrete are very promising perspectives.

Experiment/time Wave velocity Particle Comp. Strain

cP (m/s) velocity up (m/s) strain (–) rate (1/s)

A, at ultimate strength 3623 26.1 0.00719 5490 Acknowledgements

B, at ultimate strength 2810 37.1 0.0132 14,350

A, damaged 1730 153 0.0888 28,500 The described work results from cooperation of Tokyo Institute

B, damage 1610 140 0.0865 23,100

of Technology, Materials and Structures Laboratory and the Ernst-

W. Riedel et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 36 (2009) 283–293 293

Mach-Institute of Fraunhofer Society, Germany. The author is [20] Itho M, Katayama M, Mitake S, Niwa N, Beppu M, Ishikawa N. Numerical study

on impulsive local damage of reinforce concrete structures. In: Proceedings of

grateful for the temporary assignment as visiting professor at

the structures under shock and impact, Cambridge; 2000.

TokyoTech, which made the numerical study possible. Our special [21] Ishiguchi M, Yoshida M, Nakayama Y, Matsumura T, Takahashi I, Miyake A,

thanks are due to Dr. Katayama, Itochu Technical Solutions Cor- et al. A study of the Hugoniot of mortar. Journal of Japan Explosives Society,

poration, Japan, for his continued support of the scientiﬁc exchange Kayaku Gakkaishi 2000;61(6):249–53.

[22] Kanel GI, Rasorenov SV, Fortov VE. Shock compression of condensed matters;

and work. We furthermore thank Mr. Hasegawa for his valuable 1991. p. 451–4.

work in constructing the test conﬁguration. The support in sample [23] Klepaczko JR, Bara A. Int J Impact Eng 2001;25:387–409.

preparation by K. Tanaka and K. Inoue, Tokyo Institute of Technol- [24] Kipp ME, Lalit Chhabildas C. CP429, Shock compression of condensed matter;

1997 p. 557–60.

ogy, is gratefully acknowledged. [25] Malvar LJ, Crawford JE, Wesevich JW, Simons D. Int Jn Impact Eng 1997;19:

847–73.

[26] Millet JCF, Bourne NK, Rosenberg Z. CP505, Shock compression of condensed

References matter; 1999 p. 607–610.

[27] N.N.. AUTODYN, theory manual. Horsham, UK: Century Dynamics Ltd.; 2003.

[1] Bischoff PH. Materials & Structures 1999;24:425–50. RILEM. [28] Ockert J. Ein Stoffgesetz für die Schockwellenausbreitung von Beton, disser-

[2] Bischoff PH, Schlüter F-H, editors. Concrete structures under impact and im- tation, TH Karlsruhe; 1997.

pulsive loading, synthesis report. Bulletin d’information, No. 187. Dubrovnik: [29] Park SW, Xia Q, Zhou M. Int J Imp Eng 2001;25:887–910.

Comité Euro-Internationale du Beton; September 1988. [30] Riedel W, Thoma K, Hiermaier S, Schmolinske E. Penetration of re-

[3] Bourne N, Millet J, Rosenberg Z, Murray N. J Mech Phys Solids 1998;46(10): inforced concrete by BETA-B-500. In: Proc. 9. ISIEMS, Berlin, Strausberg,

1887–908. Mai; 1999.

[4] Brar NS, Bless SJ, Rosenberg Z. Appl Phys Lett 1991;59:3396–8. [31] Riedel W. Beton unter dynamischen Lasten – Meso- und Markomechanische

[5] Chen WF. Plasticity in reinforced concrete. New York: McGraw Hill, ISBN 0-07- Modelle. In: Ernst-Mach-Institut, editor. Freiburg: Fraunhofer IRB, ISBN 3-

010687-8; 1982. 8167-6340-5; 2004. Available from: http://www.irbdirekt.de/irbbuch/; 2004.

[6] Clifton RJ. Analysis of failure waves in glasses. Appl Mech Rev 1993;46:540. [32] Riedel W, Wicklein M, Thoma K. Shock properties of conventional and high

[7] Espinosa HD, Xu Y, Brar NS. J Am Ceram Soc 1997;80:2061. strength concrete, experimental and mesomechanical analysis. Int Jn Impact

[8] Espinosa HD, Xu Y, Brar NS. J Am Ceram Soc 1997;80:2074. Engineering 2008;35:155–71.

[9] Gebbeken N, Greulich S, Pietzsch A. Int Jn Impact Engineering 2006;32:2017–31. [33] Schuler H, Mayrhofer Chr, Thoma K. Int. Jn. Impact Eng. 2006;32:1635–50.

[10] Gebbeken N, Ruppert M. Arch Appl Mech 2000;70:463–78. [34] Steinberg DJ, Cochran SG, Guinan MW. J Appl Phys 1980;51:3.

[11] Grady DE, Furnish MD. Shock compression of condensed matter; 1989. p. 621–3. [35] Steinberg DJ. Equation of state and strength properties of selected materials.

[12] Grady DE. Impact compression properties of concrete. In: Sixth international LLNL; Feb 1991.

symposium on interaction of nonnuclear munitions with structures, Panama [36] Tsembelis K, Millett JCF, Proud WG, Field JE. CP505, Shock compression of

City, Florida, May 3–7; 1993. condensed matter; 1999 p. 1267–70.

[13] Grady DE. Dynamic decompression properties of concrete from Hugoniot [37] Tsembelis K, Proud WG, Field JE. CP620, Shock compression of condensed

States – 3 to 25 GPa. Experimental Impact Physics Department; Feb. 1996. matter; 2001 p. 1414–17.

Technical Memorandum TMDG0396. [38] Tsembelis K, Proud WG, Willmott GR, Cross DLA. CP706, Shock compression of

[14] Gregson VR. A shock wave study of Fondu-Fyre WA-1 and concrete, General condensed matter; 2003 p. 1488–91.

Motors Materials and Structures Laboratori, Report MSL-70-30; 1971. [39] Tsembelis K, Proud WG. Shock compression of condensed matter. AIP; 2005. p.

[15] Grote DL, Park SW, Zhou M. Int Jn Impact Eng 2001;25:869–86. 1496–99.

[16] Grote DL, Park SW, Zhou M. Jn Appl Physics 2001;89:2115–23. [40] Willam KJ, Warnke EP. Constitutive model for the triaxial behaviour of con-

[17] Hanchak SJ, Forrestal MJ. Perforation of concrete slabs with 48 MPa (7 ksi) and 140 crete. In: International Association for Bridge Structural Engineering, seminar

MPa (20 ksi) unconﬁned compressive strengths. Int J Imp Eng 1992;12(1):1–7. on concrete structure subjected to triaxial stresses, IABSE Proc. 19, Italy; 1975.

[18] Herrmann W. Jn Appl Physics 1969;40(6):2490–9. [41] Kawai N, Inoue K, Misawa S, Riedel W, Tanaka K, Hayashi S, et al. The dynamic

[19] Holmquist TJ, Johnson GR. A computational constitutive model for concrete behavior of mortar under impact loading. AIP-CP955. In: Elert M, Furnish M,

subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and high pressures. In: Fourteenth Chau R, Holmes N, Nguyen J, editors. Shock-compression of condensed matter,

International Symposium on Ballistics, Québec; 1993. SCCM 2007. p. 549–52.

- 2276-1Uploaded byhogoyo
- Underground Piping AnalysisUploaded bysj22
- Mechanical Properties of MaterialsUploaded byAaron Dela Cruz
- 2016_43.pdfUploaded byYuliusRiefAlkhaly
- TermsUploaded bySheehan Kayne De Cardo
- Anchor Chair Design FinalUploaded byBacha Rachad
- Axial DeformationUploaded byDon Matias
- Rr312404 Design of Machine ElementsUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- EIT-Mechanics-Review-WeissUploaded byAleki Mwaura
- 17C.pdfUploaded byjankimchandra
- Strut and Tie Approach (Research Thesis)Uploaded byyyanan1118
- designmanual fyfeUploaded bymr. one
- IPC2012-90677Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Chapter04 04Uploaded byNo
- 2007-01-0791Uploaded byRadesh Vangipuram
- 11639_2Uploaded byKashan Khan
- 1-s2.0-S0951833902000527-main.pdfUploaded byCemGüler
- Ground Support Strategies to Control Large Deformations in Minig ExcavationsUploaded byAlonso Valeriano
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byletter_ashish4444
- dmm1Uploaded byandhracolleges
- Strut and TieUploaded byrajivkannan
- Modelling of Behaviour of Metals at High Strain RatesUploaded byLalit Kumar Sahu

- Chapter 4 Torsion Beams + SFD and BMD.(SOM-201)Uploaded byRaushan Jha
- unmc_H2_2010_H22G12E1-10Uploaded byFatmah El Wardagy
- Shimano XTUploaded byVennia Papadipoulou
- Carl L. Gardner and Steven J. Dwyer- Numerical Simulation of the XZ Tauri Supersonic Astrophysical JetUploaded byOlmnop
- Thesis FinalUploaded byNasim Mammadov
- IsmoUploaded byAparna Akhilesh
- Gajra Gears Summer Training ReportUploaded byLee Dunn
- D. Carder (2005 ) design guidence on the use of the row of spaced piles to stabilise clay highway slope.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- ECU List 6 5 0 New Features ListUploaded byAung Mh
- Trends in Data Center Design – ASHRAE Leads the Way to Large Energy SavingsUploaded byLaur
- DX141[1]Uploaded byElZeroMJ
- Unit-1-Introduction to Kinematics of MachinesUploaded byAdel Abdel-ghaffar
- Aircraft principal axes.pdfUploaded bydigital_ajay71
- Press Machine InspectionUploaded byMichael Miotk
- FifthUploaded byNiazi Khan
- Ed 16000Uploaded byArturo Mora Santos
- SSP0665AENUploaded byThang Tong
- Malham-fluid Mechanics NotesUploaded bycociclo
- Complete Motor Guide for RoboticsUploaded byAngie
- - Digital Flow Meter for Gas (81)Uploaded byMASSFLOWMEASUREMENTS
- 20150282 Induction Motor DesignUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- Datasheet 2RE69Uploaded byTarun Chandra
- Soil DiggingUploaded bySujata Patnaik
- Practica Senati AdjuntarUploaded byPauca Luis
- HVAC-001 Hot Water Generation Commissioning Test Protocol_verAUploaded bysonuchakde
- 6-6Uploaded byДрагиша Небитни Трифуновић
- Poroelasticity.pdfUploaded bymarcos_samudio
- formula bookletUploaded byapi-250366166
- The Hvr Journal Vol1 Issue-1Uploaded byRaghu Nandan
- Tugas Termo Lanjut Ex. 8-13Uploaded byMuhammadAsyrafHazzamy