2 views

Original Title: Filho Et Al-2018-Structural Concrete (1)

Uploaded by Emil Sánchez

- IRJET-A Review on Strength Properties of Fibre and Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete
- IRJET-Design and Analysis of Bodyworks of SAE Car
- 60b7d5286485a403b5
- International Journal Impact
- ITG43r_07 Report on Structural Design and
- 482
- Sampe.2010.Bag.cdm.Qs.lvi.Ballistic.blast
- Gay Composite Materials 3edition
- Norme - Astm - d 3846 - 02
- Good Chalmers
- Binder 3
- IRJET-Progressive Damage Analysis of E-Glass Epoxy Composite Laminates
- MSE 451 Composite Materials First Part (. Giks's Conflicted Copy 2016-09-19)
- Week-12 Composite Materials
- WP3.1-031200-130
- IRJET-Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Epoxy Composite using Waste Coconut Shell Charcoal
- 7088-10507-1-SM.pdf
- r 0121703
- Strength Develpment in Cement Admixed Bangkok Clay
- 2014-11-4_فيرست.doc

You are on page 1of 12

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201600123

TECHNICAL PAPER

surface

Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho1 | Júlio Jerônimo Holtz Silva Filho2 |

Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro1 | Iporan de Figueiredo Guerrante1

1

Department of Civil Engineering, Fluminense

Federal University, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil This paper describes an analytical study about the bond between concrete and

2

Department of Civil Engineering, Pontifical glued carbon fiber composites (CFCs) using data of 2 experimental researches. A

Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio De total of 27 double compression-tension tests were carried out on specimens with

Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

2 concrete cubes (fixed and movable) connected by carbon fiber strips on opposite

Correspondence

sides. The variables were concrete strength, with the evaluation of 9 specimens

Sánchez Filho, Emil, Civil Engineering,

Fluminense Federal Universty. with strength of 20.5 to 38.1 MPa, with monotonic loading and smooth surface

Email: emilsanchez@uol.com.br for all specimens, and 18 specimens with strength of 23.2 to 40.8 MPa, with mon-

otonic loading and loading/unloading cycles and different concrete surfaces

(smooth face and rough face). The test results showed that the ultimate bond stress

slightly varies according to concrete strength in the analyzed zone. The strains of

CFCs and concrete were measured, allowing the calculation of bond stress and the

corresponding mean strain, which were compared with the values obtained by the

expression given in the international codes. The prediction of the old expression

applies to steel plates strengthening method, and the results of a more recent

expression of CFC glued to concrete given by fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010

are compared with test results. The experimental results provided graphs and cor-

relation curves for bond stress vs maximum strain, energy of fracture vs bond

stress and a relationship between the mean shear strain and concrete strength. The

expression for fracture energy given by fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010 varies

with concrete strength fc and a reasonable agreement with test data was achieved.

KEYWORDS

strengthening of RC structures by means of externally

The demand for the repair of bridges, buildings, silos, tanks, bonded sheets of CFCs has proved to be a practical alterna-

etc. due to the decreasing in their strength or the need of tive to traditional strengthening techniques. Since 1990s, a

repairing these structures due to loads that were not planned great amount of experimental and theoretical studies has

in the original design led to the development of new techni- been made to reach the ultimate capacity of beams strength-

ques for strengthening reinforced concrete (RC) structures ened on bending, shear, and bond behavior.

with the use of composite materials. The use of carbon fiber In engineering practice, concrete structures may be sub-

composite (CFC) sheets is a new and efficient method to jected to several types of loads (bending, shear and torsional

loading) that can arise within members in several ways.

Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print

publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the

However, some topics related to this type of reinforcement

authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication. need to be better understood. The fiber carbon composite is

536 © 2017 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco Structural Concrete. 2018;19:536–547.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 537

strong but lacks ductility, since it presents a linear-elastic The CFC effective length was 120 mm and width of 75 mm

behavior until the rupture. After binding to the concrete for all specimens. Figure 1 shows the layout of the speci-

structural surface, the composite must present a mechanical mens under loading (upper view) that are instrumented with

behavior with a certain level of ductility. several strain gauges on CFC and on concrete surface (lat-

The effects of impact loads on the bond strength eral view). The nomenclature of the specimens was:

between CFCs and concrete is not described in this paper,

but it is an issue that should be examined in future research. 1. MC = monotonic loading type, and CD = monotonic

The bond between carbon fibers composites and con- loading and unloading;

crete is the fundamental hypothesis of this technique and 2. L = smooth surface, and R = rough surface;

needs special attention. There is considerable amount of 3. The concrete strength at 28 days is defined by the

literature about the importance of the CFC bond strength. Roman numbers I = 23.3 MPa, II = 28.4 MPa,

See, for example, Chen and Teng,1 Chen and Teng,2 III = 37.1 MPa;

D'Antino and Triantafillou,3 Harmon and Vitkip,4 4. The Arabic numerals are the specimen numbers.

Holzenkämpfer,5 Khalifa et al,6 Leung and Alkhrdaji,7

Mazen et al,8 Miller and Nanni,9 Neubauer and Rostásy,10

All specimens of both investigations were tested in a

Teng et al,11 and Zoghi.12 More recent experimental and

special rig with a hydraulic jack between the 2 concrete

theoretical models about the behavior of RC beams

blocks.

strengthened with CFC and steel plates are given in Chen

In Pacheco,23 load was applied monotonically up to fail-

et al,13 Mofidi and Chaallal,14 Rousakis et al,15 Ferrier

ure (series MC) and with loading and unloading cycles

et al,16 Ekenel et al,17 Charalambidi et al,18 Xie and Hu,19

(series CD). Load cell, displacements transducers, and elec-

Hariche et al,20 Triantafyllou et al.21

trical resistance strain gauges were used to monitor all tests.

This paper presents an analysis of the results of 2 experi-

Table 1 shows the concrete secant elasticity modulus and

mental researches concerning the behavior of the bond

splitting strength of both researches.

strength of CFC glued to concrete blocks under

compression-tension load. All values of the experiments are

tabulated and 27-tested specimens are analyzed. The main

3 | T ES T S DA TA

objective of this work is to compare the experimental values

with those obtained by the expressions of the fib Bulletins

In order to obtain the mechanical properties of the CFC, the

and Model Code 2010.

specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM 3039.24

Table 2 shows the concrete strength at test date, the ultimate

2 | P U C - R I O EX P E R I M E N T A L force for bond strength and failure mode for all specimens.

R E S E A RC H E S All concrete tests were carried out in accordance with Bra-

zilian standards.

The experimental researches reported in Meneghel22 and The geometric and mechanical characteristics of the

Pacheco23 were carried out at the Structures and Materials CFC are:

Laboratory at PUC-Rio. —Meneghel22

Meneghel22 presents the results of an experimental Series A: tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 50 mm; Abf = 8.3 mm2,

investigation on the bond between CFC and concrete. Nine Aℓf = 6000 mm2.

cubic specimens of 200 mm width were tested while con- Series B: tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 100 mm; Abf = 16.5 mm2,

crete was in compression and CFC was in tension Aℓf = 12 000 mm2.

(Figure 1). The 28 days concrete compressive strength and for all Series ff, u = 2450 MPa,

values were 20.5 MPa, 28.7 MPa, and 38.1 MPa, and aim εf,u = 1.03 × 10− 2, Ef = 218 GPa.

variables were the concrete strength and the width of the —Pacheco23—Series I, II, and II

CFCs: 50 mm and 100 mm, with 120 mm length (2 Series, tf = 0.165 mm; bf = 75 mm; Abf = 12.4 mm2, Aℓf =

A and B). The nomenclature of the specimens was: 9000 mm2,

ff, u = 2302 MPa, εf,u = 1.07 × 10− 2, Ef = 247 GPa.

1. R = the initial prescription of the concrete strength at where

28 days is defined by 25 MPa, 35 MPa, and 45 MPa. tf—CFC thickness;

2. L = the width of CFCs strip. bf—CFC width;

3. The Arabic numerals are the specimen numbers. Abf—CFC area;

Alf—concrete area;

Pacheco's23 tests were similar to Meneghel's22 investiga- ff,u—CFC ultimate strength;

tion. They comprised the testing of 18 specimens of con- εf,u—CFC ultimate strain;

crete of 200 mm × 200 mm × 200 mm, glued with CFC. Ef—CFC elastic modulus.

538

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

Movable block

200 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm Fixed block

Load cell 200 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm

Hinge

LVDT

Pulleys

CFC

Hydraulic jack

(b)

loading of Meneghel22 and Pacheco23

4 | THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

where

4.1 | Bond strength τb—bond stress at the central point between points i

Bond stress values at each loading level were calculated by and i + 1;

εf,i, εf,i + 1—CFC strain measured at points i and i + 1,

εf , i − εf , i + 1 tf Ef respectively;

τb = ð1Þ

l0 l0—distance between points i and i + 1.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 539

TABLE 1 Mechanical properties of concrete Pacheco23 shows that, for specimens with rough surface,

Elasticity modulus Splitting strength the values of bond strength are 4.8% greater than the values

Author Series Ecs (GPa) fct (MPa) for smooth surface. Specimens CDLI-1, CDLII-1, CDLIII-1,

Meneghel22 A 18.27 2.05 CDRII-1, and CDRIII-1 were subjected to loading and

B 23.93 2.87 unloading cycles and show similar behavior to that of speci-

B 22.78 3.81 mens subjected to monotonic loading. All values were tested

Pacheco23 I 25.89 2.85 by Grubbs test with the significance level of 5%.

II 34.28 3.15

III 30.08 3.52

The mean CFC strain and the bond strength are given, 5 | F RA CT UR E E NE R G Y

respectively, by:

εf , i + εf , i + 1 The theoretical approach to the analysis of the bond

εb = ð2Þ between CFC and concrete is best evaluated through ener-

2

getic methods. The initial work on this approach between

Fu

fbu = ð3Þ 2 materials of different rigidities was studied in detail in

lb, efet bf

T. U. Braunschweig by Holzenkämpfer5 for steel plates

where glued to concrete surface. The methodologies presented in

Fu—ultimate force; fib Bulletins and Model Code 2010 follow this systematic.

lb,efet—effective bond length. The fracture energy is analyzed by means of several the-

Table 3 shows the values of the ultimate bond strength oretical approaches. The first analysis was made with the

given by expressions 1 and 3 obtained with the experimen- model of Holzenkämpfer,5 derived for steel plates glued on

tal results of Meneghel22 and Pacheco.23 concrete surface, and by the current fib approaches, which

TABLE 2 Ultimate force for bond strength and failure mode

fc Fu

Author Series Specimens ðMPaÞ ðkNÞ Failure

Meneghel22 A L50-R25-1a 26.5 9.55 Peeling-off

L50-R25-2 26.5 12.00 Peeling-off

L50-R35-1a 34.6 12.58 Debonding and peeling-off

L50-R35-2 34.6 12.77 Partial peeling-off

L50-R45-1 44.9 8.81 Debonding and peeling-off

L50-R45-2 44.9 11.69 Peeling-off

B L100-R25a 26.5 21.03 Peeling-off

L100-R35 34.6 30.64 Failure of the CFC specimens

L100-R45 44.9 25.27 Debonding and peeling-off

Pacheco23 I MCLI-1 26.3 15.56 Peeling-off

MCLI-2 28.9 14.57 Debonding and peeling-off

MCLII-1 31.8 17.65 Debonding and peeling-off

MCLII-2 31.7 15.20 Peeling-off

MCLIII-1 34.5 16.53 Debonding and peeling-off

MCLIII-2 32.7 17.06 Debonding and peeling-off

II MCRI-1 23.8 9.07 Failure of the CFC

MCRI-2 23.3 17.78 Peeling-off

MCRI-3 24.1 16.60 Peeling-off

MCRII-1 32.9 14.06 Debonding and CFC separation

MCRII-2 29.7 15.07 Peeling-off

MCRIII-1 40.8 18.51 Debonding and peeling-off

MCRIII-2 37.4 16.94 Debonding and peeling-off

III CDLI-1 23.2 13.53 Peeling-off

CDLII-1 30.5 16.78 Peeling-off

CDLIII-1 32.1 13.65 Peeling-off

IV CDRII-1 28.2 16.73 Debonding and CFC separation

CDRIII-1 39.8 15.50 Debonding and CFC separation

a

On the test date; specimens not considered (problems in the test).

540

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

vﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

TABLE 3 Experimental values of bond strength u

u 2 − bf

Bond strength (MPa) kb = t b

≥1 ð7Þ

bf

Author Series Specimens Expression 1 Expression 3

1+ b

Meneghel22 A L50-R25-2 2.85 2.00 Tables 4-6 give the values of the fracture energy calcu-

L50-R35-1 1.85 2.10 lated by expressions 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Figure 2

L50-R45-1* 1.42 − shows the linear correlation between bond strength and con-

L50-R45-2 1.48 1.95 crete strength in the researched interval. However, this is

B L100-R35a − − the only one indicative of this behavior. The relation

L100-R45 1.78 2.11 between fracture energy and concrete strength indicates that

Mean (MPa) 1.88 2.04 this dependency is linear (Figure 3). Figures 4 and 5 show

SD (MPa) 0.58 0.08 the dependencies between these 2 parameters calculated by

CV (%) 30.66 3.75 expressions of the Bulletin 14 fib26 and Bulletin 35 fib,25

Pacheco23 I MCLI-1 0.38 1.73 respectively.

MCLI-2 1.98 1.62 The correlation curves of bond strength vs fracture

MCLII-1 1.05 1.96 energy (Figures 6-8, respectively) are given by:

MCLII-2 1.15 1.69 —Holzenkämpfer5

MCLIII-1 1.45 1.84

MCLIII-2 1.59 1.90 GF , theor = 0:763fb −0:7784 ðN=mmÞ ð8Þ

II MCRI-1 a

— — —Bulletin 14 fib 26

MCRI-3 1.64 1.84 GF = 0:0619fb + 0:1546ðN=mmÞ ð9Þ

MCRII-1 2.99 1.56 —Bulletin 35 fib 25

MCRIII-1 1.72 2.06 Γ Fk = 0:0086fb + 0:1756ðN=mmÞ ð10Þ

MCRIII-2 1.94 1.88 The results obtained with expression 5 have no good

III CDLI-1 1.36 1.50 correlation (Figure 7) and neither do the results calculated

CDLII-1 1.67 1.86 with expression 6 (Figure 8). However, the CV of the

CDLIII-1 0.66 1.52 values obtained with these expressions was lower than those

IV CDRII-1 1.00 1.86 obtained with the values of expression 4.

CDRIII-1 1.70 1.72

Mean (MPa) 1.51 1.78

SD (MPa) 0.65 0.17

CV (%) 43.42 9.30 6 | S HE AR ST R E S S

All specimens Mean (MPa) 1.59 1.83

SD (MPa) 0.64 0.18 The Mohr-Coulomb criterion is the most common failure

CV (%) 40.47 10.07 criterion encountered in structural concrete analysis. It is

a

often used in predicting the failure of brittle materials and it

Specimens not considered (CFC failure).

is applied to cases of 2D stress. This theory is good enough

*Significant outlier P < .05—Grubbs test.

to describe the response of the stresses of the interface

differ from one Bulletin to another, but are similar in funda- between concrete and CFC with good precision

mental assumptions and expressions. By means of the generalized Coulomb-Mohr criterion

Holzenkämpfer5 gives (Figure 9), the concrete substratum resists the maximum

longitudinal shear stress, as seen in:

2

Fu Ef Af 1

GF, theor = 1+ ð4Þ 1 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

bf Ec Ac 2Ef tf τmax = fc fct ð11Þ

2

and the Bulletin 14 fib gives:

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ Figure 10 shows the linear dependency between the nor-

GF = 0:5c1 2 fck fctm ð5Þ fb

malized bond strength τmax and the concrete strength. This

with c1 = 0.23.

behavior is only one indicative in the researched interval

However, the Bulletin 35 fib25 gives:

and the CV of the results is low (Table 7). The normalized

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ curve maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax vs bond

Γ Fk = 0:03kb fck fctm ð6Þ ft

strength fb is linear (Figure 11) and the CV of the results is

without one expression for scale factor kb, and only pre-

low (Table 10).

scribes kb ≥ 1, but Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 541

TABLE 4 Bond strength and fracture energy of specimens with smooth surfaces

GF,theor (N/mm)

Specimens with smooth surfaces Bond strength fb (MPa) Expression 4 Expression 5 Expression 6

Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 2.00 0.80 0.19 0.26

L50-R35-1 2.10 0.88 0.26 0.35

L50-R45-1 — — — —

L50-R45-2 1.95 0.76 0.35 0.46

L100-R35 — — — —

L100-R45 2.11 0.89 0.35 0.39

23

Pacheco MCLI-1 1.73 0.53 0.23 0.28

MCLI-2 1.62 0.46 0.24 0.30

MCLII-1 1.96 0.68 0.26 0.33

MCLII-2 1.69 0.51 0.26 0.33

MCLIII-1 1.84 0.60 0.29 0.36

MCLIII-2 1.90 0.64 0.28 0.35

CDLI-1 1.50 0.40 0.22 0.27

CDLII-1 1.86 0.62 0.26 0.32

CDLIII-1 1.52 0.41 0.28 0.35

Mean 1.83 0.63 0.27 0.33

0.20 0.17 0.04 0.05

SD

11.08 26.63 16.60 16.45

CV (%)

TABLE 5 Bond strength and fracture energy of specimens with rough surfaces

GF,theor (N/mm)

Specimens with rough surfaces Bond strength fb (MPa) Expression 4 Expression 5 Expression 6

Pacheco 23

MCRI-1 — — — —

MCRI-2 1.98 0.69 0.22 0.27

MCRI-3 1.84 0.60 0.22 0.27

MCRII-1 1.56 0.43 0.27 0.33

MCRII-2 1.67 0.50 0.26 0.32

MCRIII-1 2.06 0.75 0.32 0.39

MCRIII-2 1.88 0.63 0.30 0.37

CDRII-1 1.86 0.61 0.25 0.31

CDRIII-1 1.72 0.53 0.31 0.39

Mean 1.82 0.59 0.27 0.33

SD 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.05

CV (%) 8.88 17.52 15.02 15.02

Bond

All strength Expression Expression Expression

specimens fb (MPa) 4 5 6 2.00

Mean 1.83 0.61 0.27 0.33

SD 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.05 1.50

CV (%) 10.07 23.53 15.63 15.55 y = 0.011x + 1.4707

R2 = 0.1469

1.00

7 | A N C H O R A G E LE N G T H

0.50

The researches carried out in T. U. Braunschweig in the

1990s grounded the study of bond between steel plates glued 0.00

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

to concrete, according to Holzenkämpfer5 and Neubauer and

Rostásy.10 The analytical expressions were derived with ener-

getic approach and calibrated with the test results. Nowadays, FIGURE 2 Bond strength fb vs concrete strength fc

542

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

1.00 1.00

0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80

0.70 0.70

(N/mm)

(N/mm)

0.60 0.60

0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40

y = 0.0097x + 0.2998

0.30 0.30

R2 = 0.1865

y = 0.763x - 0.7784

0.20 0.20

R2 = 0.9406

0.10 0.10

0.00 0.00

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

FIGURE 3 Fracture energy GF,theor vs concrete strength fc, Holzenkämpfer5 FIGURE 6 Fracture energy GF. theor vs bond strength fb, Holzenkämpfer5

0.50 0.50

0.45 0.45

0.40 0.40

0.35 0.35

(N/mm)

(N/mm)

0.30 0.30

0.25 0.25

0.20 0.20

R2 = 0.9322 0.10 y = 0.0619x + 0.1546

0.10 R2 = 0.0741

0.05 0.05

0.00

0.00

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

FIGURE 4 Fracture energy GF,theor vs concrete strength fc, Bulletin 14 fib26 FIGURE 7 Fracture energy GF vs bond strength fb , Bulletin 14 fib26

0.50

0.50

0.45

0.45

0.40

0.40

0.35

0.35

(N/mm)

0.30

(N/mm)

0.30

0.25

0.25

0.20 y = 0.0077x + 0.0821 0.20

0.15 R2 = 0.9228

0.15

y = 0.086x + 0.1756

0.10 0.10 R2 = 0.0935

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

FIGURE 5 Fracture energy Γ Fk vs concrete strength fc, Bulletin 35 fib25 FIGURE 8 Fracture energy Γ Fk vs bond strength fb, Bulletin 35 fib25

and the average of 2 elasticity modulus Ef = 233 GPa result

about CFC bonded to concrete, for example, the Bulletin

for the effective anchorage length lf ﬃ 86.1 mm.

35 fib,25 Bulletin 14 fib,26 and Model Code 2010 fib.27

The Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:

Holzenkämpfer5 gives the following equation for steel

plates glued to concrete surface: Ef tf

c2 = ð13Þ

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ l2f fctm

2Gf Ef tf

lf = 2 ð12Þ where, the coefficient c2 needs to be calibrated with test

τ2max

data and considering tf = 0.165 mm, lf = 86.1 mm. Table 8

Then, with mean value GF,theor = 0.615N/mm (expres- shows the results obtained.

sion 7), fb = 1.83MPa, τmax = 5.06MPa (Tables 6 and 7), The Bulletin 14 fib26 gives:

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 543

(a) (b)

(c)

longitudinal shear stress; (B) and

(C) Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion

4.50

Fu τmax τmax

4.00 fb =

ft bf lf τmax ft fb

3.50 Author Specimens ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ ðMPaÞ

3.00 Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 2.05 2.00 3.69 1.80 1.84

2.50 L50-R35-1 2.87 2.10 4.98 1.74 2.38

2.00 y = 0.0463x + 1.2931 L50-R45-1 — — — — —

1.50 R2 = 0.4554

L50-R45-2 3.81 1.95 6.54 1.72 3.36

1.00 L100-R45 3.81 2.11 6.54 1.72 3.11

0.50 23

Pacheco MCLI-1 2.85 1.73 4.33 1.52 2.50

0.00 MCLI-2 2.85 1.62 4.54 1.59 2.80

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

MCLII-1 3.15 1.96 5.00 1.59 2.55

MCLII-2 3.15 1.69 5.00 1.59 2.96

τmax MCLIII-1 3.52 1.84 5.51 1.57 3.00

FIGURE 10 Normalized bond strength fb vs concrete strength fc

MCLIII-2 3.52 1.90 5.36 1.52 2.83

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ MCRI-2 2.85 1.98 4.07 1.43 2.06

Ef tf MCRI-3 2.85 1.84 4.14 1.45 2.25

le = c2 pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð14Þ

fck fctm MCRII-1 3.15 1.56 5.09 1.62 3.26

25 MCRII-2 3.15 1.67 4.84 1.54 2.89

with c2 = 1.44. However, the Bulletin 35 fib gives:

MCRIII-1 3.52 2.06 5.99 1.70 2.91

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

MCRIII-2 3.52 1.88 5.74 1.63 3.05

Ef tf

le = ð15Þ CDLI-1 2.85 1.50 4.07 1.43 2.70

2fctm

CDLII-1 3.15 1.86 4.90 1.56 2.63

with c2 = 2 on expression 14. The Model Code 2010 fib27 CDLIII-1 3.52 1.52 5.31 1.51 3.50

gives the maximum bonded length as follows: CDRII-1 3.15 1.86 4.71 1.50 2.54

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ CDRIII-1 3.52 1.72 5.92 1.68 3.44

Ef tf Mean 1.83 5.06 1.59 2.79

lb, max = ð16Þ

kbl fctm SD 0.18 0.79 0.10 0.44

CV (%) 10.07 15.63 6.62 15.76

with lengths in mm, stress in MPa, and kbℓ = 2 obtained

from the calibration of experimental results.

544

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

2.00 2Ef 2=3

1.90 fcbm = km βℓ kb fcm ð17Þ

tf

1.80

1.70 and the design ultimate bond strength is:

1.60 sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

1.50 kk 2Ef 2=3

fcbd = β kb fcm ð18Þ

1.40 γ fD b ℓ tf

1.30

1.20 y = 0.2888x + 1.0621 where km and kk are 2 dimensionless coefficients and

R2 = 0.2562

1.10

ℓb ℓb

1.00

βℓ = 2− ð19Þ

1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20 ℓb, max ℓb, max

if ℓb ≤ ℓb,max and βℓ = 1 elsewhere, and kb is given by

FIGURE 11 Normalized maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax

ft vs bond expression 7.

strength fb The calibration of the theoretical expression with experi-

mental results gives for CFC km = 0.25, and kk = 0.17

TABLE 8 Calibrations of the coefficient c2 (Gauss distribution with 5% percentile).

fct Ef

Tables 9 and 10 present the theoretical values for experi-

Author Series ðMPaÞ ðGPaÞ c2 mental data of Meneghel22 and Pacheco.23 For the design

Meneghel22 A 2.05 218.23 2.37 parameters βℓ, fcbm, llef , and fcbm

ffu the values of le given by the

B 2.87 1.69

expressions 14, 15, and 16 were considered.

B 3.81 1.27

lf

Pacheco23 I 2.85 247.00 1.93

The expressions 14, 15, and 16 give results for le with

II 3.15 1.75 CV = 7.00%, 10.81%, and 15.00%, respectively (Table 10).

fcbm l

III 3.52 1.56 All curves ffu × lef are linear (Figure 13), and the worse

Mean 1.76 curve adjustment is given by expression 14. Figure 14

SD 0.37 shows good correlation between normalized anchorage

CV (%) 20.92

length llef and the maximum longitudinal shear stress τmax for

all expressions. For the interval 3.69 ≤ τmax ≤ 6.54, expres-

Therefore, the results given by the expressions 15 and

16 are equal and the terms of the Model Code 2010 fib27 sion 14 gives 0:88 ≤ lle:f ≤ 1:85 (Table 10), and the difference

only differ from these expressions in the appearance of the between the limits is 25.42%. Expressions 15 and 16, for

parameters. Figure 12 shows the illustration given by Model the same interval, give 0:80 ≤ lle:f ≤ 1:09 (Table 10), with a

Code 2010 fib27 about the principal parameters on bond difference between the limits of 26.61%. All curves are lin-

strength of the CFC glued to a concrete surface. ear. Figure 15 shows regular correlation between normal-

The mean of the maximum tensile stress in the exter- ized bond stress fcbm

ffu and maximum longitudinal shear stress

nally bonded reinforcement limited by bond to concrete in a

τmax for the values calculated with all expressions. All

single (uncracked) anchorage zone is given by:

curves are linear. For the interval 3.69 ≤ τmax ≤ 6.54,

expression 14 gives 0:201 ≤ fcbm

ffu ≤ 0:281, with a difference

of 28.47% between the limits (Table 10). Expressions

ffu ≤ 0:237 with a

15 and 16, in the same way, give 0:115 ≤ fcbm

great difference of 51.88% between the limits.

8 | C O NC L U S IO N S

the bond of CFC glued to concrete blocks. The simple tests

adopted in the experimental researches appear to be an effi-

cient way to determine the results for investigation of the

bond of CFC to a concrete surface. The simple test appa-

FIGURE 12 Model Code 2010 fib [28] parameters on bond analysis

ratus provided good results of the bond strength of the test

specimens.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 545

Expression Expression Expression

Author Specimens kb 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16

22

Meneghel L50-R25-2 1.183 100.6 93.7 0.96 0.92 588.60 563.10

L50-R35-1 1.183 86.6 79.2 0.85 0.73 581.70 502.30

L50-R45-1* — — — — — — —

L50-R45-2 1.183 75.6 68.7 0.65 0.44 491.40 333.60

L100-R45* 1.000 75.6 68.7 0.65 0.44 — 282.00

23

Pacheco MCLI-1 1.087 98.8 84.6 0.95 0.82 636.0 549.6

MCLI-2 1.087 96.5 84.6 0.94 0.82 627.2 549.6

MCLII-1 1.087 91.9 80.4 0.91 0.76 624.8 522.5

MCLII-2 1.087 92.0 80.4 0.91 0.76 625.3 522.5

MCLIII-1 1.087 87.6 76.1 0.86 0.67 617.3 477.1

MCLIII-2 1.087 88.8 76.1 0.88 0.67 626.7 477.1

MCRI-2 1.087 101.8 84.6 0.97 0.82 645.5 549.6

MCRI-3 1.087 101.0 84.6 0.96 0.82 643.1 549.6

MCRII-1 1.087 91.1 80.4 0.90 0.76 620.1 522.5

MCRII-2 1.087 93.5 80.4 0.92 0.76 633.8 522.5

MCRIII-1 1.087 84.0 76.1 0.82 0.67 583.7 477.1

MCRIII-2 1.087 85.8 76.1 0.84 0.67 601.9 477.1

CDLI-1 1.087 101.9 84.6 0.97 0.82 645.8 549.6

CDLII-1 1.087 92.9 80.4 0.91 0.76 630.4 522.5

CDLIII-1 1.087 89.2 76.1 0.88 0.67 629.8 477.1

CDRII-1 1.087 94.7 80.4 0.93 0.76 640.1 522.5

CDRIII-1 1.087 84.5 76.1 0.82 0.67 589.1 477.1

Mean 91.15 79.63 0.88 0.72 604.64 496.49

SD 7.68 5.64 0.09 0.12 55.50 69.80

CV (%) 8.43% 7.08% 10.09% 16.12% 9.18% 14.06%

Two experimental verifications were analyzed to show the The expression 4 for fracture energy vs concrete

viability and effectiveness of the CFC-concrete bond in the fib strength did not present a reasonable agreement with the

expressions. experimental results (Figure 3) but the curve for fracture

The behavior of the interface between the reinforcement of energy vs bond strength has good agreement with test data

CFC and the concrete substratum is complex but it can be evalu- (Figure 6).

ated in an objective way by means of the concept of mean bond The expression for fracture energy given by Bulletin

stress and fracture energy. The analyses of the 27 experimental 14 fib26 varies with concrete strength fc and a reasonable

tests results make it possible to conclude that the characteristic agreement with test data was achieved. The same is

bond stress for the 5% proportion on Gauss curve is observed for the expressions given by Bulletin 35 fib.25

f bk = fb −1:65SD = 1:83 −1:65 × 0:18 ﬃ 1:53MPa and the Table 4 shows that expression 4 gives very superior

mean bond stress for all specimens analyzed does not vary results than those of the expressions 5 and 6. This expression

with the type of concrete surface (smooth surface or rough has been calibrated with test results of bonded steel plates.

surface). The fracture energy varies linearly with the mean For the variation of normalized anchorage length llef with

bond stress. Figure 2 shows that concrete strength fc did τmax, the difference between the limits of these ratios calcu-

not considerably affect bonded stress for the cases studied. lated by expressions 14, 15, and 16 is of 9.09% for the min-

It appears that concrete strength has no significant influ- imum value and of 26.61% for the maximum value.

ence on the value of bond strength but more tests are nec- The authors recommend further future studies with a

essary to assess this matter more precisely. The expression similar approach to examine the bond behavior of CFC

of Holzenkämpfer5 gives short anchorage length lf ﬃ 86.1 glued to a concrete surface and to complement this initial

mm; in Meneghel's22 and Pacheco's23 experimental study with more experimental results, which are essential

researches, the bond length with strain was superior than for corroborating the conclusions shown in this paper.

100 mm. The coefficient c2 = 1.76 given by Bulletin The tests were carried out with static and increasing

14 fib26 was calibrated with tests results. loads but in reinforcements of bridge structures, for

546

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL.

le fcbm

lf ffu

Expression Expression

ffu

Author Specimens τ max ðMPaÞ 14 15 and 16 14 15 and 16

Meneghel22 L50-R25-2 3.69 2450 1.17 1.09 0.240 0.230

L50-R35-1 4.98 2450 1.00 0.92 0.237 0.205

L50-R45-1* — — — — — —

L50-R45-2 6.54 2450 0.88 0.80 0.201 0.136

L100-R45* 6.54 2450 0.88 0.80 - 0.115

23

Pacheco MCLI-1 4.33 2302 1.15 0.98 0.276 0.239

MCLI-2 4.54 2302 1.12 0.98 0.272 0.239

MCLII-1 5.00 2302 1.07 0.93 0.271 0.227

MCLII-2 5.00 2302 1.07 0.93 0.272 0.227

MCLIII-1 5.51 2302 1.02 0.88 0.268 0.207

MCLIII-2 5.36 2302 1.03 0.88 0.272 0.207

MCRI-2 4.07 2302 1.18 0.98 0.280 0.239

MCRI-3 4.14 2302 1.17 0.98 0.279 0.239

MCRII-1 5.09 2302 1.06 0.93 0.269 0.227

MCRII-2 4.84 2302 1.09 0.93 0.275 0.227

MCRIII-1 5.99 2302 0.97 0.88 0.254 0.207

MCRIII-2 5.74 2302 1.00 0.88 0.261 0.207

CDLI-1 4.07 2302 1.18 0.98 0.281 0.239

CDLII-1 4.90 2302 1.08 0.93 0.274 0.227

CDLIII-1 5.31 2302 1.04 0.88 0.274 0.207

CDRII-1 4.71 2302 1.10 0.93 0.278 0.227

CDRIII-1 5.92 2302 0.98 0.88 0.256 0.207

Mean 1.06 0.92 0.26 0.21

SD 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.03

CV (%) 8.43 7.08 10.81 15.00

*Significant outlier P < .05—Grubbs test.

0.35 1.50

Expression 14 Expression 14

0.30 y = 0.2332x + 0.0134 y = -0.1099x + 1.6146

R2 = 0.5468 1.25

R2 = 0.9503

0.25

1.00

0.20

0.75

0.15 Expression 15 and 16

y = -0.0789x + 1.3235

0.50 R2 = 0.9072

0.10

Expression 15 and 16

0.05 y = 0.4017x - 0.1578 0.25

R2 = 0.6744

0.00 0.00

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00

Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16 Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16

FIGURE 13 ffu vs lf

example, there are dynamic and cyclic loads. Thus, the use more complex tests that are able to capture the

authors recommend the conduction of tests that con- influence of cracks on bond behavior. These observa-

sider, among other parameters, CFC fatigue. Some tions confirm and show the importance of using ener-

future lines of research might include cracked speci- getic model to analyze the bond between CFC glued to

mens and high strength concrete. Such a study needs to concrete surface.

SANCHEZ FILHO ET AL. 547

0.35 21. Triantafyllou GG, Rousakis TC, Karabinis AI. Corroded RC beams patch

Expression 14

y = 0.2332x + 0.0134 repaired and strengthened in flexure with fiber-reinforced polymer lami-

0.30

R2 = 0.5468 nates. Composites B Eng. 2017;112:1.

0.25 22. Meneghel JM. Experimental Analysis on Bond Between Concrete and Car-

bon Fibers Composites Fabric. Master's thesis, PUC-Rio University, Rio de

0.20 Janeiro; 2005: 203.

0.15 23. Pacheco CO. Experimental Verification on CFC Concrete Bond Throughout

Expression 15 and 16 Tension-Compression Tests. Master's thesis, PUC-Rio University, Rio de

0.10 y = 0.4017x - 0.1578

Janeiro; 2006: 176.

R2 = 0.6744

24. American Society for Testing ABD Materials – ASTM – D3039/D3039.

0.05

Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite

0.00 Materials. American Society for Testing ABD Materials: USA; 2000.

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 25. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib Bulletin 35. Retrofitting of Concrete

Expression 14 Expression 15 and 16 Structures by Externally Bonded FRPs. Lausanne; 2006.

26. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib Bulletin 14. Externally Bonded FRP

Reinforcement for RC Structures. Lausanne; 2001.

FIGURE 15 ffu vs τmax

Normalized parameters fcbm 27. Fédération Internationale du Béton. fib. Model Code 2010. Fédération Inter-

nationale du Béton. Lausanne; 2010.

REFERENC ES

1. Chen JF, Teng JG. Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHIES

bonded to concrete. J Struct Eng. 2001;127(7):784-791.

2. Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP

debonding. Construct. Build Mater. 2003;17:27-41. Emil de Souza Sánchez Filho

3. D'Antino T, Triantafillou TC. Accuracy of Design-oriented formulations for Full Professor at the Fluminense

Evaluating the Flexural and Shear Capacities of FRP-Strengthened RC

Federal University

Beams. Struct Concrete. 2016;17:3.

4. Harmon T, Vitkip L. Bond Development Between Carbon Fiber Reinforced emilsanchez@uol.com.br

Polymers and Concrete. School of Engineering & Applied Science,

Washington University: USA; 1999.

5. Holzenkämpfer P. Ingenieurmodelle des Verbunds Geklebter Bewehrung

für Betonbauteile. Dr. Ing. thesis. T. U. Braunschweig, Deutschland; 1994.

6. Khalifa A, Alkhrdaji T, Nanni A, Lansburg S. Anchorage of Surface

Mounted FRP Reinforcement. Concr Int Design Constr. 1999;21:49-54.

Júlio Jerônimo Holtz Silva Filho

7. Leung CKY, Yang YA. Fracture-Based Model for Debonding of FRP Plate Professor at the Pontifical Catholic

from Concrete Substrate 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference. University of Rio de Janeiro

June 2–5. New York: Columbia University; 2002.

julioholtzfilho@yahoo.com.br

8. Mazen MA, Gyorgy LB, Kypros P. Strengthening of RC Elements by CFRP Plates

Local Failure. 2a Int. PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Budapest; 1998.

9. Miller B, Nanni A. Bond between CFRP Sheets and Concrete. 5th Materials

Congress. Cincinnati. OH. L. C. Bank Editor. May 10–12; 1999.

10. Neubauer UN, Rostásy FS. Bond Failure of CFRP-Plates at Inclined

Cracks- Experiments and Fracture Mechanics Model. Forschungsarbeiten Mayra Soares Pereira Lima Perlingeiro

1995–1999. Heft 144. iBMB TU Braunschweig, Deutschland; 1999:59-62.

11. Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. FRP Strengthened RC Structures.

Professor at the Fluminense Federal

Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons; 2002. University

12. Zoghi M, ed. The International Handbook of FRP Composites in Civil mayraperlingeiro@id.uff.br

Engineering. CRC Press: USA; 2014.

13. Chen GM, Ten JG, Chen JF. Shear strength model for FRP-strengthened RC

beams with adverse FRP-steel interaction. J Compos Constr. 2013;17(1):50-56.

14. Mofidi A, Chaallal O. Tests and design provisions for reinforced-concrete

beams strengthened in shear using FRP sheets and strips. Int J Concr Struct

Mater. 2014;8(2):117-128. Iporan de Figueiredo Guerrante

15. Rousakis TC, Saridaki ME, Mavrothalassitou SA, Hui D. Utilization of Civil Engineer, Fluminense Federal

hybrid approach towards advanced database of concrete beams strengthened

in shear with FRPs. Compos Part B Eng. 2016;85:315-335.

University

16. Ferrier E, Bigaud D, Clément JC, Hamelin P. Fatigue loading effect on RC iporan@terra.com.br

beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP. Constr Build Mater.

2011;25(2):539-546.

17. Ekenel M, Rizzo A, Myers JJ, Nanni A. Flexural fatigue behavior of reinforced

concrete beams strengthened with FRP fabric and procured laminate systems. J

Compos Constr 10.1061/(ASCE) 1090–0268. 2006;5(433):433-442.

18. Charalambidi B, Rousakis T, Karabinis A. Fatigue behavior of large-scale

reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with fiber-reinforced pol-

ymer laminates. ASCE J Comp Constr. 2016;20(5). https://doi.org/10.1061/(

How to cite this article: Sánchez Filho ES, Silva

ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000689.

19. Xie J, Hu R. Experimental study on rehabilitation of corrosion-damaged Filho JJH, Perlingeiro MSPL, de Figueiredo

reinforced concrete beams with carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Constr Guerrante I. Bond strength of carbon fiber composites

Build Mater. 2012;38:708-716. glued to concrete surface. Structural Concrete.

20. Hariche L, Ballim Y, Bouhicha M, Kenai S. Effects of reinforcement configura-

tion and sustained load on the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams affected 2018;19:536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600123

by reinforcing steel corrosion. Cement Concrete Compos. 2012;34:1202-1209.

- IRJET-A Review on Strength Properties of Fibre and Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer ConcreteUploaded byIRJET Journal
- IRJET-Design and Analysis of Bodyworks of SAE CarUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 60b7d5286485a403b5Uploaded byMohammed Imran
- International Journal ImpactUploaded byAndrea Simone
- ITG43r_07 Report on Structural Design andUploaded byHarun Alrasyid
- 482Uploaded byJason Fitch
- Sampe.2010.Bag.cdm.Qs.lvi.Ballistic.blastUploaded byBazle A. Gama
- Gay Composite Materials 3editionUploaded byPaz Gonzlez
- Norme - Astm - d 3846 - 02Uploaded byRyan Drake
- Good ChalmersUploaded byec02160
- Binder 3Uploaded byKeerthana Mohan
- IRJET-Progressive Damage Analysis of E-Glass Epoxy Composite LaminatesUploaded byIRJET Journal
- MSE 451 Composite Materials First Part (. Giks's Conflicted Copy 2016-09-19)Uploaded bymaxwell
- Week-12 Composite MaterialsUploaded byPuok Wui Ng
- WP3.1-031200-130Uploaded by엄영준
- IRJET-Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Epoxy Composite using Waste Coconut Shell CharcoalUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 7088-10507-1-SM.pdfUploaded bywalk111
- r 0121703Uploaded byarsssy
- Strength Develpment in Cement Admixed Bangkok ClayUploaded byjimmy Andres
- 2014-11-4_فيرست.docUploaded bythetegh
- IRJET-Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Epoxy Composite using Waste Coconut Shell CharcoalUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 1-s2.0-S221181281400594X-main.pdfUploaded byKuldeep Agrawal
- IJETR041272Uploaded byerpublication
- Cimini-ICCM13-2001Uploaded bylenongsa
- Astcm c1399- Obtaining Average Residual Strength Pf Fiber ReinforcedUploaded byNurul Izzati Raihan Ramzi
- BUCKLING AND BENDING PERFORMANCE OF CORRUGATED SANDWICH SLABS ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATIONUploaded byIJIERT-International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology
- Behaviour of CFRP-Strengthened Slender Square RC ColumnsUploaded byy768673
- Approach for Finding the Minimum ReiforcementUploaded bysumankanthnelluri7
- Teanch.manual AnchorsUploaded bysunnyengg
- Comparative Study on Mechanical Properties of E-Glass / Epoxy Laminates Filled with Silicon Carbide, Activated Charcoal and MicaUploaded byIRJET Journal

- Circular Concrete Tanks Without PrestressingUploaded byDampier
- Aula Dodecafonismo-Plano AulaUploaded byAle
- pub_403.pdfUploaded by10091988
- VSL Technical Report - PT Concrete Storage StructuresUploaded byTran Nguyen Khiem
- Analisis Combinatorio - K. Ribnikov(Editorial MIR).Part2.pdfUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- TESE DO MANOEL LEOPOLDINO.pdfUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- apostila_LIUploaded byedimarg
- wwwUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- TESE CHINÊS PLASTICIDADE njit-etd1995-012.pdfUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- 51625186 919 Questoes de Fisica ResolvidasUploaded byPolly408
- Filho Et Al-2018-Structural Concrete (1)Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- Laje Ponte 2Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- FOURIER.PDFUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- ASTM a 496 -01 - Steel Wire - Deformed - For Concrete ReinfUploaded byalansirqueira
- Viscoplastic MateriaUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- 63946.pdfUploaded byEmil Sánchez
- JCombault - Presentation Do8Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- LIVRO 32988036 Nilson Diseno de Estructuras de Concreto (1)Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- NBR6122_1996 - Projeto e execução de fundações - ProcedimentUploaded byJuliana Gonzalez
- 63947 (1)Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- Filho Et Al-2018-Structural Concrete (1)Uploaded byEmil Sánchez
- INFINITESIMAL CALCULUSUploaded bytaniafeynman

- sd activity of choice explanation kim hoffmanUploaded byapi-258407632
- laptop.pdfUploaded byashokg22
- Lesson Plan, 11B - What Makes Us Tick - 2018Uploaded byRăzvan Molea
- mla quizUploaded byapi-120369083
- 2numUploaded byJuan Carlos De Los Santos Santos
- avoidable and unavoidable exergy destructionUploaded byzfarah
- Tugas1_elektrokimia_Ade Hermawan.pdfUploaded byAdit Rahman
- Hull_MineralFillersPDSAcceptedManuscript.pdfUploaded byVictor Castrejon
- Basic Prosteel GuideUploaded byAi Truong
- Sie Pc 72082904Uploaded byWeiHang Wang
- Strategic ManagementUploaded byIrene Muchemi
- Material StandartUploaded byKautsari Anggun Karisma
- Maintenance Work (politeknik)Uploaded bymuhamad syazwan
- A Fatigue Primer for Structural EngineersUploaded byv
- Embedding Quotations QuizUploaded byPaige Nicole
- 336Uploaded bytugapuntocl
- Operation ResearchUploaded byGaurav Sonkar
- The Post 2012-Climate Policy of RomaniaUploaded byAndraIoanaHorcea-Milcu
- Ansh Kundli - 2009Uploaded byRohit Kumar Singh
- Gsm Call SequenceUploaded byS.M. Tanjilul Islam
- B Williams 2015 Doing Research Improve Teaching LearningUploaded bysandovalz244
- Curriculum 2013 MTech NetworkSecurityUploaded bypraveennitian_575783
- Multistage Centrifugal Pumps - Assessment of a Mixing Plane Method for Cfd AnalysisUploaded byinternational@kishorpumps.com
- Postere Pt Ugalnano3Uploaded byCornelia Bursucanu
- Theory of EstimationUploaded byTech_MX
- States of Matter Solved Questions123Uploaded byBhavesh Kumar
- Brochure ICSET 2013Uploaded byAinissesthai Guapo
- ey-transaction-2017.pdfUploaded bybbahb2015
- SL Somos WaterClear Ultra Material Specifications.pdfUploaded byTushar Prakash Chaudhari
- Howo trucks Fault Codes list - Table of diagnostic flashing codes for faults of the fuel pump system of Common Rail Diesel engine (PDF).pdfUploaded byLuciana Silveira