22 views

Uploaded by bekir

Blast resistance

- Reinforced Concrete I Palestine
- Retrofitting Of Reinforced Concrete Column by Steel Jacketing
- Afes Report
- CORD Training Part I Construction
- IRJET-Analytical Investigation of Beam-Column Joint Retrofitted with CFRP
- chp-3A10.1007-2F978-81-322-2190-6_42
- Efecto Del Fuego- Ingles
- Comparative Study of Gfrp Laminated Rc Column Using Experimental Results and Isis-canada
- 4AI12CSE14
- 2 1 1 a aerospacematerialsinvestigation
- 4
- Metal Building System Guidelines
- Staircase
- PIV
- FRP System in Shear Strengthening of Reinforced COncrete Structures
- Tugas Metris - Jurnal
- Kingsley Master Thesis 2005
- IRC 112-2011-1-1
- Analysis of Concrete Filled Double Skin Steel Tube (CFDST) Column with CFRP Wrapping
- Shear key.pdf

You are on page 1of 7

Effects

[ I I

by John E. Crawford, L. Javier Malvar, James W. Wesevich, Joseph Valancius, and Aaron D.

Reynolds

Analyses were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of jacketing col- RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

umns of existing reinforced concrete multistory buildings to improve their Recent events have emphasized the vulnerability of con-

survivability to attacks by explosives. Dtrerent standoff distances, charge ventional multistory buildings to blast loads. This paper as-

sizes, and steel and composite jackets were considered. Two building

sesses simple retrofit techniques in typical multistory

designs were analyzed: one in which the building members were designed

reinforced concrete buildings to improve their blast load re-

primarily for gravity loads (UBC seismic zone I) and one in which the

members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seismic zone 4). sistance. The retrofit designs considered focus on jacketing

Structural response predictions were perjotvned with the three-dimensional, concepts which have been widely applied in the mitigation

LagrangianJinite element code DYNA3D. using a concrete material model of earthquake hazards for highway bridges, mostly by the

especially designed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive California Department of Transportation.2~4 For seismic

loads. The results indicate that jacketing can be an effective means to retro- zone 4 these retrofit techniques could then have dual appli-

fit an existing facility to lessen its vulnerability to blast loads. cation. Also, the effect of standoff is evaluated as a way of

reducing the blast load on the structural elements.

Keywords blast effects; reinforced concrete; steel jacket; composites; FRE!

INTRODUCTION To illustrate the issues involved, the response of a multi-

Preliminary numerical analyses of conventional rein- story building composed of reinforced concrete columns and

forced concrete multistory buildings confirmed their vulner- floor slabs is shown in Figure 1. For this situation, a 2000

ability to attacks by explosives. The focus of these analyses pound (909 Kg) ANFO bomb was placed at a standoff of

was the response of the perimeter columns of a typical build- 20 feet (6.1 m), a burst height of 6 feet (1.83 m), and centered

ing to blast loads. Two building designs were analyzed: one on an exterior building column. To simplify the problem, the

in which the building members were designed mainly for ‘loading applied consists of only airblast (i.e., fragment and

gravity loads (UBC seismic zone 1) and one in which the debris effects are ignored). The airblast was generated sepa-

members were designed to resist seismic loads (UBC seis- rately (e.g. see reference 5). The pressures reflected off the

mic zone 4). Both cases were considered since the zone 4 de- exterior surfaces are predicted with relatively high fidelity

sign includes significantly higher lateral reinforcement (for (in contrast to, the pressure field inside the building, which is

confinement purposes) which enhances the resistance to complex and difficult to predict). The results indicate that the

shear. The numerical analyses showed that structural col: exterior perimeter columns on the first and second floors are

lapse of the building as a whole was typically started by the blown out at an early time, failing in shear near the supports.

failure of perimeter columns on the first and second floors. Failure of just a few perimeter columns results in a partial or

complete collapse of the structure (Figure 1). ConsequeMly,

Retrofit techniques consisting of strengthening the columns

the retrofit techniques analyzed concentrated on the upgrade

with round steel jackets or composite wraps were assessed.

of the perimeter columns on the first and second floors.

Structural response predictions were completed with the

three-dimensional Lagrangian finite element code

DYNA3D,’ using a concrete material model especially de-

ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 4, July-August 1997.

signed to predict nonlinear concrete responses to explosive Received September 29, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.

loads. The study also includes the use of different charge siz- Copyright 6 1997, Amencan Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the

making of copies unless permission is obtained from tbe copyright proprietors. Perti-

es and standoffs so that architectural considerations that limit nent discussion will be published in the May-June 1998 ACI Structural Journal if

received by January 1.1998.

the threat (e.g., increasing standoff) can be evaluated.

John Cmwford is a principal engineer at Karagozian and Case, Stmctuml Engi- some failure mechanisms, such as direct or punching shear

neers. His nzsearch is prbnarily n&ted to the analysis and foilun-assessment for failure, can only be approximated.

structural and mechanical systems with particular emphasis on the effects of blast and

shock on such systems..Research interests include numerical and theoretical struc-

tural analysis techniques pertaining to nonlinearity and failure, meosued response Modeling with coktlnuum’ elements

especially at high mtes of loading, and so@arr developments, particularly related to In contrast, continuum models may be very general and

contact surfaces and constitutive models.

can idealize much of the actual physics. However, they are

AC1 member L Javier M&or is a senior rcsedrch engineer with Kamgozian and

Case, Structural Engineers. He has conducted research on desig4 analysis, testing,

and numerical modeling of concrete and reinforced concrete structures subjected to time

static, dynamic, and blast loads.

Jamn Wesevich is a senior engineer with Kamgozian and Case, Structural Engi-

neers. He performs comprehensive.structuml dynamics research primarily involving

the nonlinear prediction of conventional weapons effects on various structuml com-

ponents. A signijkant amount of his research use3 DYNA3D, which now includes a

more robust formulation of concrete material model as a result of this research.

responsible for the stmctuml design of commerctal, industrial, and institutional

buildings as well as blast hamletted sturctures.

blast loads may include an array of techniques.from simple

single-degree-of-freedom models6 to full 3-D nonlinear con-

tinuum models, some of which are described this paper, An

extended discussion of the various tradeoffs involved in

model selection is beyond the scope of this paper (e.g. see

reference 7), however some of the significant features which

distinguish these types of first principle calculations are the

importance of including the effect of confinement on the disp. scale factor -e .600E+0d

concrete strength and ductility, the effect of strain rate (i.e.,

apparent material strengthening due to rapid loading), the Fig. I-Example of building modeled with structural ele-

possibility of direct shear responses (i.e., dynamic shear ments at 0.5 set

failuresT9), and the difficulty of determining the loading for

many of the structural members. A major issue in computing

a finite element response is related to the disparity between

the modeling required to capture localized shear and bending

failure mechanisms immediately after the detonation, which

usually occur over tens of milliseconds, and the modeling

needed to capture the global failure mechanisms associated

with the collapse of the structure, which occur over times on

the order of seconds. The requirement for these relatively

long calculation times (i.e., for global collapse) is largely

caused by the time needed to include gravity effects, as the

structure attempts to redistribute the gravity load, following

any localized failure of the structural elements.

To represent the structure within a finite element context,

two basic modeling approaches are available, based on the

use of either structural or continuum elements. ~

Models composed of structural elements, e.g., beam and

shell elements, are very efficient. The model shown in

Figure 1 used beams to represent the columns and shells to

represent the floors. This allowed the model to be run for

several seconds. However, these models require some sim-

plifications in the physical component idealization, and

some a priori knowledge from the analyst of the structural

response. In the case of beam and shell element models, Fig. 2-Ekample of bunker modeled with continuum ele-

ments

372

~ ACI Structural Journal / July-August 1997

Table l-Characteristics of airblast loads applied

to the first story

Peak

Peakreflected reflected

Load case Charge size, Standoff, pressure, impulse,

number lb (kg) ft(ml psi (MPa) psi-s (KPa-s)

1 10 (3.05) 8100 (55.9) ;.; if;.;;

1500 20 (6.10) 2500 (17.2)

: (682) 40 (12.2) 420 (2.9) 6.9 (6.2)

4 10 (3.05) 12,000 (82.7) 6.9 (47.6)

20 (6.10) 4400 (30.3) 3.2 (22.1)

(E) 840 (5.8) 1.6 (11.0)

2 40 (12.2)

Note Height of burst was 6 ft (I .83 m)

quire a level of expertise not readily available, particularly

when they involve nonlinear computations. As an example,

Figure 2 depicts a continuum model response of a portion of

a munitions bunker wall to the detonation of a nearby muni-

tion.”

--THREAT DlRECJ/ON

Modeling with continuum and structural elements Fig. j-overview of multistory building used in evaluation

Hybrid models having both continuum and structural ele-

ments provide an opportunity to develop accurate numerical

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE USED TO EVALUATE

predictions in the regions of most importance and efficient THE RETROFITS

calculations in the remainder of the structure. A hybrid mod-

el was used in this study, where the perimeter columns use Conventional multistory design

continuum elements for the concrete (to capture any shear To measure the effectiveness of the various retrofit de-

response) and beam elements for the steel reinforcing bars, signs, a baseline design for a multistory building was gener-

while in areas of less importance structural shell elements ated, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. Two designs were

were used to model the floor joists and slabs. developed: one in which the columns and beams were de-

signed mainly for gravity loads (i.e., consistent with UBC

VALIDATION OF RESPONSE PREDICTIONS seismic zone 1) and one in which the columns and beams

There is not much experimental data in the open literature were designed to resist seismic loads (i.e., consistent with

by which to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of the UBC seismic zone 4). This allows the evaluation to include

models used to predict the effects of blasts on structures. the effects of the increased ductility and ultimate strengths

Most test data is either compromised because of its incom- associated with a building designed for a highly active seis-

pleteness (e.g., lack of complete material characterization), mic zone.

ill-defined boundary conditions (e.g., as often occurs in tests

involving single structural members, such as slabs and Portion of building used for analysis

beams), or is derived from weapons effects programs and is To reduce computational demands, only a single bay from

not widely disseminated. One validation study that is avail- the bottom three stories of the building is used for the re-

able for models similar to the ones shown in this paper is pre- sponse predictions (Figure 5). Symmetry is assumed along

sented in reference 10. That paper studied the response of the east-west edges of this section. While this is an approxi-

substantial dividing walls to close-in charges (Figure 2). The mation, it does produce a model of reasonable accuracy and

metric for validation was the velocity of the debris, which size for evaluating the effects of jacketing. To keep the mod-

were predicted within 10 percent of the test data. el simple with little compromise to the column response, the

Maximum midspan displacement, in (cm)

Zone 1 Zone 4

Standoff, TNT yield, I

ftCm) lb (kg) No jacket Steel jacket FRP jacket No jacket Steel jacket 1 PRPjack.:et

1500 (682) 1 7 (A?\ A? I l l II\

10 (3.05)

3000 (1364) 5.2 (13.2) failure failure safe 14 (35.3)

1500 (682) 0 . 3 (0.7) 0 . 7 (1.8) 0.96 (2.4) 0 . 3 (0.7) 0 . 5 (1.3)

.-

20 (6.10) .

3000 (1364) failure 1.0 (2.5) 3.’i 03.81

\_., f&lllrp

Ill&&U11 1.1 (2.8) 2 . 9 (7.4)

1500 (682) 0.17 (0.4) safe safe safe safe safe

40 (12.2)

3000 (1364) 0.79 (2.0) safe safe safe I safe safe

Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 lb = 0.454 kg

For the cases where similar calculations indicated that no failure would occur the column was deemed safe.

GRAVITY LOAD

GRAVITY LOAD FROM FROM UPPER

UPPER STORIES

&-#I0 VERJ. -

#3 018’bc stirrups

north-south section

south edge of the bay floor and girders are fixed at the loca-

tion of the first interior column.

Loading

Airblasts at three different ranges were calculated for two

different ANFO charge sizes. The peak reflected pressure

and impulse at the mid-height of the first floor column are

given in Table 1. The gravity load is applied to each finite el-

ement within the mesh; the gravity load from the upper sto-

ries is applied as a pressure load over the top of the column,

i/,

as shown in Figure 5. Separate pressure histories are applied 2 7500 \‘MPa

to the exterior faces of the first and second story columns.

f:

Jacket concepts Li 5000

The main benefit of jacketing is gained from the effect that 2 Unconfined

increased confinement has on the strength and ductility of IS 2500 - MODEL

concrete, as shown in Figure 6. As a secondary benefit, the

jacket offers protection from fragment damage and a shape

that can more readily deflect fragments. In this application 00

the jacket will be most useful in mitigating direct shear fail- 0 12 3 4 5 6 7

urep but it can also provide increased axial and bending ca- AXIALSTRAIN

pacities. The steel jacket seams are typically welded, and

the gap between the jacket and the existing column is filled Fig. 6-Fit of material model to experimental data for concrete

with grout. Composite or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) jack-

ets can also be used. Figure 7 depicts the jacket designs used energy based localization limiter to prevent any spurious

in this study for the columns on the first and second floors of mesh sensitivity. The concrete material model includes a ra-

the building shown in Figure 3. This type of column jacket- dial strain rate enhancement in the principal stress difference

ing has been shown to significantly increase the column duc- versus pressure plane which is valid for uniaxial, biaxial and

tility, typically from a ductility of 1.5 to 1O.3V4 As a triaxial tension, as well as uniaxial and biaxial compression.

consequence this type of column retrofit (using either steel

For the analyses, an ASTM A 615 Grade 60 steel was used

or FRP jackets) has been extensively applied in California

for reinforcement, ,with a rupture strain of 13 percent. The

for highway bridge columns.*

concrete had a nominal strength of 5000 psi (34.5 MPa). For

Material models this particular study a relatively weak carbon wrap was used

The material models for the concrete and steel reinforce- with a thickness of 0.019 inch (0.5 mm) per layer, a strength

ment include elastic-plastic behavior, rate effects, and frac- of 54 ksi (372 MPa) and a stiffness of 7600 ksi (52 GPa).

ture. The new concrete material model implemented in Only six layers of the composite were applied (additional

DYNA3D”*‘* includes softening together with a fracture- layers would further stiffen the structural member and re-

1

1.4,

----

-0 WRAPS - TESTS

-m-2 WRAPS - TEST

-N- 0 WRAPS - MODEL

- 2 WRAPS - MODEL

compression tests

1.0

0.8

E

g 0.8

F

g 0.4

3

E 0.2

tn +Transverse

0.0

-0.002 -0.001 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003

Fig. 1 l-Mesh for the portion of the building studied

TENSION STRAIN COMPRESSION

jined compression test

1.0

F” 0.8

z

pc 0.6

z

g 0.4

g 0.2

0.0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

POISSON RATIO (a) cawtiolvl (b) h&ad

Fig. 9-Poisson’s ratio variation in the numerical Fig. I2-Response of zone 1 jirstjloor column for a 20-

model foot standoff and 3000 lb charge

2.0 30” SQUARE COLUMN

1.8

g 1.6-

!ii IA-

Y 12-

44” ROUND COLUMN

2 1:0-

8 0.8 -

z

g 0.6- - - - -

0.2

(a) c!.mvmtiond '**'*...STEEL JACKET

m JacLaad \

0.0 I 111 I I , , I I / / / , I , / / , , / ,

Fig. I3-Response of zone 4jrstfloor column for a 20 -ft

0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14

standofand 3000 lb charge

,TIME(MS)

duce the deflections). Figure 6 depicts some of the behaviors Fig. 14-Midspan displacemkntforfour column types (I

modeled for the concrete. Material data and details for the in. = 2.54 cm)

material models are given in references 11 through 15.

The column jacketing system is dependent on the lateral ior, are used to model the floors and floor joists. The mesh

dilation of the concrete for development of the confining ac- for the unjacketed columns is shown in Figure 11.

tion. Concrete in uniaxial unconfined compression exhibits a

constant Poisson ratio of about 0.2 until approximately 75 EFFECT OF RETROFITS

percent of the compressive strength, corresponding to a vol- The response of the building section for the steel jacket

umetric compression phase. At that point extensive internal retrofit design is illustrated by plots of the deformed shape of

cracking starts developing and the apparent Poisson ratio the first floor perimeter column, which are shown in

starts increasing to 0.5, where there is no further volume Figures 12 and 13 for various charge sizes, standoffs, and de-

variation. For increasing compression the apparent Poisson sign configurations. The corresponding response for an un-

ratio keeps increasing until the overall volumetric strain be- jacketed column is also included for comparison. As can be

comes zero, then becomes positive (net volume increase).16 seen from the results, a jacket can have a substantial benefi-

The ability of the numerical material model to reproduce the cial effect on the performance of the columns and prevent

volumetric expansion phase is the key to the proper repre- structural failure of the building as a whole.

sentation of the jacketing confinement effect. Figure 8 shows Figure 14 compares the response time history of four types

the corresponding output from the new concrete material

of columns: the original 30-inch (76 cm) square column, a

model for a single concrete element in uniaxial unconfined

44inch (112 cm) diameter circular column (resulting from

compression. The predicted variation of the apparent Pois-

rounding the square column), and the circular column with

son ratio as a function of the load is shown in Figure 9.

either a steel jacket or a composite wrap. This comparison is

ASTM C39 compression tests carried out on 6-inch (15.2

for the case of a 20-ft (6.1 m) standoff and a 1500-lb (682

cm) diameter concrete cylinders jacketed with two layers of

Kg) charge. As the confinement on the original square col-

a carbon composite resulted in a strength increase of 20 per-

umn increases the peak midspan deflection decreases. In the

cent at a peak strain of about 0.005. Figure 10 shows the test

case of the composite wrap the response could be further de-

results for plain and jacketed concrete cylinders. Figure 10

creased by increasing the number of wraps.

also shows the DYNA3D predictions for both cases. It is ap-

parent that the material model is able to properly represent T Table 2 provides a summary of the midspan deflection for

the jacketing effects. the various column designs considered. For a small standoff

With respect to the composite material, although carbon of 10 feet (3.05 m), the unjacketed column fails for both

(or graphite) and glass fibers have typically been used for charges, but a steel or composite jacket can prevent this fail-

column retrofits,* aramid fibers (e.g. Kevlar) would actually ure. For a standoff of 40 feet (12.2 m), no failure is predicted.

be more appropriate for blast loads, due to their impact resis- Zone 4 columns are somewhat more resistant to shearing.

tance. This is more apparent when the FRP jacket displacements

are compared. The relative thickness used in the composite

Mesh wrap made it less effective than the steel jacket, but similar

The concrete portions of the columns and girders are mod- improvements could be obtained by increasing the number

eled with three-dimensional eight-node brick elements; the of wraps.

reinforcement is explicitly modeled with truss elements. It should be noted, however, that while structural collapse

Shell elements, which replicate the nonlinear flexural behav- may be prevented, this is only a partial solution for the build-

ing occupants as it does not prevent the propagation of high tural Journal, Sept.-Oct. 1994, pp. 537-551.

pressures or debris within the building. 5. Major Hazards Assessment Panel Overpressure Working Party, Explo-

sions in the Process Industries, Major Hazards Monograph, Institution of

CONCLUSIONS Chemical Engineers, Rugby, U.K., 1994,74 pp.

The effects of standoff and column jacketing on enhancing 6 . Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill,

structures were analyzed. It was shown first that structural 7. Crawford, J. E., and Karagozian, J., “Behavior and Design for Struc-

tural Components to Resist Blast Loadings,” Technical Report TR-95-25,

collapse appears to result from the shearing of first and sec-

Karagozian & Case, Glendale, CA, August 1995.

ond floor perimeter columns. Jacketing the columns with a

8. Crawford, J. E.; Holland, T. J.; Mendoza P. J.; and Murtha R.,“A Fail-

steel or composite jacket prevents collapse for most of the ure Methodology Based on Shear Deformation,” Fourth ASCE Engineer-

cases studied. Although a weak composite wrap system was ing Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, Purdue University,

used in this analysis, similar responses can be obtained for Lafayette, May 1983.

steel and FRP jackets provided that enough wraps are ap- 9. Slawson, T. R., “Dynamic Shear Failure of Shallow-Buried Flat-

plied. Increasing the standoff distance, whenever possible, Roofed Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Blast Loading,” Tech-

appears as a simple solution. Further work should be per- nical Report SL-84-7, USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

formed to develop additional retrofit designs to enhance the MS, Apr. 1984.

floors, reduce debris production, and channel high pressures 10. Bogosian, D., “Parametric Analysis of 12-Inch Substantial Dividing

away from building occupants. Walls,” Technical Report TR-94-20, Karagozian & Case, Glendale, Oct.

1994.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 11. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A Concrete Mate-

While the results presented in this paper were privately funded, the au- rial Model for DYNA3D,” Proceedings of the 10th ASCE Engineering

thors would like to acknowledge the support of the Defense Nuclear Agency Mechanics Conference, Boulder, May 1995.

in developing the basic work associated with predicting and validating the 12. Malvar, L. J.; Crawford J. E.; and Wesevich J. W., “A New Concrete

response of reinforced concrete structures td airblast loadings. Material Model for DYNA3D,” Technical Reporr TR-94-14, Karagozian &

Case, Glendale, Dec. 1994.

REFERENCES 13. U.S. Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “Structures to

1. Whirley, R. G., and Engelmann, B. E., “DYNA3D: A Nonlinear Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions,” NAVFAC P-397 Design Man-

Explicit Three-Dimensional Finite Element Code for Solid and Structural

Mechanics,” User Manual, Report UCRL-MA-107254 Rev. 1, Lawrence ual, Alexandria, 1991 (also Army TM5-1300 and Air Force AFM 88-22).

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, November 1993. 14. Ross, C. A.; Thompson, P Y.; and Tedesco, J. W., “Split-Hopkinson

2. “GRP Wraps up Bridge Repairs,” Reinforced Plastics, Vol. 39, No. 7- Pressure-Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression,”

8, July-August 1995, pp. 30-32. AC1 Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 475-481.

3. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, E; and Fyfe, E., “Column Seismic Retrofit 15. Malvar, L. J., and Simons, D., “Concrete Material Modeling in

Using Fibreglass Epoxy Jackets,” Advanced Composite Materials in Explicit Computations,” Proceedings, Workshop on Recent Advances in

Bridges and Structures, First International Conference, Sherbrooke, Que- Computational Structural Dynamics and High Performance Computing,

bec, Canada, 1992, pp. 287-298.

4. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; Xiao, Y.; and Verma, R., “Steel Jacket USAE Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Apr. 1996.

Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Columns for Enhanced Shear 16. Park, R., and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley

Strength--Part 2: Test Results and Comparison with Theory,” AC1 Struc- & Sons, NY, 1975,769 pp.

- Reinforced Concrete I PalestineUploaded byVeymar Gilbert Tórrez Macías
- Retrofitting Of Reinforced Concrete Column by Steel JacketingUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Afes ReportUploaded bymello_14
- CORD Training Part I ConstructionUploaded byMishal Limbu
- IRJET-Analytical Investigation of Beam-Column Joint Retrofitted with CFRPUploaded byIRJET Journal
- chp-3A10.1007-2F978-81-322-2190-6_42Uploaded bymfhfhf
- Efecto Del Fuego- InglesUploaded byDely Dominguez
- Comparative Study of Gfrp Laminated Rc Column Using Experimental Results and Isis-canadaUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- 4AI12CSE14Uploaded bySri Rama Rao
- 2 1 1 a aerospacematerialsinvestigationUploaded byapi-254328037
- 4Uploaded bysheik
- Metal Building System GuidelinesUploaded byeagle411
- StaircaseUploaded byerkapil1120
- PIVUploaded bycaojin259
- FRP System in Shear Strengthening of Reinforced COncrete StructuresUploaded bypatricklim1982
- Tugas Metris - JurnalUploaded byM RiendRa Rahmatullah Uslani
- Kingsley Master Thesis 2005Uploaded byNwe Oo
- IRC 112-2011-1-1Uploaded byAnonymous HJ7hmihh
- Analysis of Concrete Filled Double Skin Steel Tube (CFDST) Column with CFRP WrappingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Shear key.pdfUploaded byBijaya Raula
- IRJET-Experimental and Analytical Analysis of Concrete Filled Square and Circular TubesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- ftg-shearUploaded bydarebert
- Control of Contraction Induced CrackingUploaded bygtl_qa
- DSEN 1992_Concrete DesignUploaded byAnonymous ya6gBBwHJF
- Elastic Properties of RCC under Flexural LoadingUploaded byIJMER
- ACI Rectangular Tanks2010Uploaded byRohn J Jackson
- 167 Cui ShearUploaded byJohneey Deep
- Pages From AISCDesignExamplesUploaded byAnonymous YDwBCts
- Cabrera 1996Uploaded bynndaksdnsdkasndak
- INTRODUCTION.docxUploaded byAKSHAY

- mnl-133-97_ch3.pdfUploaded bymathu
- HW-02Uploaded bybekir
- fm 5-277 bailey bridgeUploaded byMark Cheney
- HW-01Uploaded byingamarra
- HW-03Uploaded bybekir
- Lecture03 - Bridge DisastersUploaded bymarioestructura
- MNL-133-97_ch1.pdfUploaded bybekir
- MNL 133 97 Appendix AUploaded bybekir
- 3. kopru sunumUploaded bybekir
- Design Manual TRL for Small Bridges ORN9Uploaded bycargadory2k
- 9th Int Bridge Man ConferenceUploaded byLaurentiu Pavelescu
- 10th International Bridges and Structure Management.pdfUploaded byyoga arkan
- MNL-133-97_ch2.pdfUploaded byJosue Lewandowski

- Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill DamsUploaded byAndré Rosário Silva
- New Design Method for Cold-Formed PurlinsUploaded byBùi Hồng Lệnh
- Component eUploaded byDaniela Molina
- UNIT vUploaded byLakshmi Bala
- SyllabusUploaded byharshvardhan baliyan
- DynamicsUploaded byChris Kong
- 3 - Noise Reduction (1)Uploaded byKinosraj Kumaran
- 03.pptUploaded byCarlos Guiteriz
- Rpt Physics Form 5 2014Uploaded byAisyah Sahdan
- Software VerificationUploaded byucla_1985
- De Broglie berg Schrodinger Quantum ModelUploaded byEamon Barkhordarian
- activity-2-157 (1)Uploaded byGillian Amba
- Basic AVO TheoryUploaded byprincess0607
- aphy07Uploaded bynamanmittal003
- Effects of Slaking on the Strength of Clay Shales: A Critical State ApproachUploaded bymbotts
- Sparge rUploaded byGhaya Bani Rushaid
- GEOMECHANICAL PPTUploaded byhanifghaziru
- Handbook of Supersonic Aerodynamics Volume_3_sec_7Uploaded bymaurizio.desio4992
- BIS0142 - C1L8P0 - Design Tables_webUploaded byidontlikeebooks
- Upsc Class Notes Atomic and MolecularUploaded bySwashy Yadav
- Brownian Dynamics Simulation of Suspension of Rigid RodUploaded byMuraly Kallampally
- Strength of Materials Basic FormulaeUploaded byVed Vrat Nuclear
- Design of Prestressed Concrete Structures Jan 2014Uploaded byPrasad C M
- 1at1Uploaded bynkpatil
- Foundations of Classical ElectrodynamicsUploaded byM.Helmi Hariadi
- L04 Centrifugal PumpUploaded byahmad
- The Curl of a Vector FieldUploaded byManoj1508Aravind
- cmip03c.pdfUploaded byluishipp
- Stress and Strain PptUploaded byKUNAL1221
- NOTE T51Uploaded byNezrin