0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

4 Aufrufe12 SeitenVery nice paper on concrete beam design and its stability for shear reinforcement

Jan 29, 2014

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Very nice paper on concrete beam design and its stability for shear reinforcement

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

4 Aufrufe

Very nice paper on concrete beam design and its stability for shear reinforcement

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- MOS-I (Lecture 1-2) Engr. Khalid Yousaf
- Fillet Weld Size Calcul
- EC2 Continuous Beam Design
- Welding Strength Calculations
- Explantion Plate Staad
- rr220102-strength-of-materials-ii
- lecture-4
- 080
- 12907 Theory of Elasticity Exam Problems and Answers
- Steldeck Slab Design
- full2
- Beam Desing for Strength and Stifness
- abs ory
- Outline 10
- GTSUG04-KOPEC
- 1 Mech 260 Presentation
- Example 12
- XiaoChen Published Energies 07 02274
- Etabs 2013 Manual
- 6.Testing of Concrete Quality and Control

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

masonry walls by means of aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP) rods, in order to

improve the overall performance of masonry buildings under horizontal forces. The proposed

method is supported by an experimental campaign to assess the effectiveness of the

strengthening measure, and by an analytical study to develop equations suitable for design.

The experimental tests showed that the connection between adjacent masonry walls is

actually effective in increasing both their strength and stiffness. It is also shown that the

developed analytical equations satisfactorily predict the relevant design quantities.

Keywords: connection of adjacent walls; strengthening of URM; improvement of flexural behaviour;

out of plane overturning collapse; FRP strengthening.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is common to find in our cities old buildings with load bearing masonry walls that were designed

only to resist vertical loads and with no consideration of horizontal loads. This is usually reflected

in the arrangement of walls perpendicular to each other, which are not clamped along the edges.

This lack of connection may be found either in backbone (or main) walls that intersect with each

other, or in other walls considered as secondary, but made of stone that are given a structural

function, or even in walls that were independent in the original construction, because designed as

vertical load bearers or because partly independent and without a load-bearing function.

When seismically retrofitting these buildings, it may be convenient to take advantage of all existing

walls to provide resistance to horizontal forces by connecting them to each other at their intersections.

By doing so, two originally unconnected walls are made into a single one with a T-shaped cross-

section. The result is that the strength and the stiffness of each single wall are increased. This allows

avoiding insertion of additional walls or thickening of the existing ones, with all the obvious

difficulties related to these strategies. In the past, such strengthening measures were carried out by

STRENGTHENING OF MASONRY WALLS BY TRANSVERSE CONNECTION

THROUGH AFRP RODS: EXPERIMENTAL TESTS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 61

Marco Vailati

1

, Giorgio Monti

2

Manuscript received on 17

th

June 2012, reviewed and accepted on 21

st

August 2012 as per publication policies

of NED University Journal of Research.

ABSTRACT

1

Post-Doctoral Researcher, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Ph. (+39) 06 49919254,

Fax. (+39) 06 3221449, Email: marco.vailati@uniroma1.it.

2

Full Professor, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. Ph. (+39) 06 49919197,

Fax. (+39) 06 3221449, Email: giorgio.monti@uniroma1.it.

M. Vailati and G. Monti

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 62

Marco Vailati is a Post Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Structural Engineering and

Geotechnics at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy where he received his Masters in Innovation

in Design, Rehabilitation and Control of Structures: Assessment and Retrofitting in Seismic

Areas and PhD in Structural Engineering, respectively, in 2004 and 2011. His research Interests

include earthquake risk assessment of building structures, and strengthening of masonry walls

and reinforced concrete structures with advanced techniques.

drilling holes and inserting metal bars in them, which were then partially filled with mortar injections.

However, metal bars are often subjected to corrosion if not properly injected.

Therefore, a technique to connect two originally unconnected walls into a T-shaped layout has been

studied and tested, which makes use of thin rods of aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP) inserted

in small holes drilled in the flange wall. These rods are then anchored to the lateral surfaces of the

web wall through spread fibres, which are then glued onto the web wall surface, thus providing

efficient anchorage. Since the connection has to restrain the vertical sliding between the connected

walls, the rods are placed at 45, so as to provide tension components in both sliding verses.

In this way, the strengthening technique maximizes the capacity of the existing structural walls with

minimum invasivity.

2. TESTING SET-UP

The tests described below have been carried out at the Department of Structural and Geotechnical

Engineering of the Faculty of Architecture of the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

2.1 Geometry and Boundary Conditions

The configuration of the testing rig with the walls is shown in Figure 1.

The boundary conditions are: F

V

= o

0

.

t

.

l; u

v1

= u

v2

= 0; u

h

= imposed; F

h

= measured.

where o

0

is the average stress in the web wall cross-section; t and l are the web thickness and length,

respectively; u

v1

and u

v2

are the vertical imposed displacements at the two flanges; u

h

is the horizontal

imposed displacement; F

h

is the horizontal measured force. Therefore, it can be understood that all

tests were performed under displacement control, in order to follow any possible degrading branch

in the wall response.

Figure 2 shows a typical wall configuration, along with a detail of the connection with the anchorage.

The measuring equipment is constituted by five strain gauges, numbered from 1 to 5; the first four

measure the vertical relative displacements between web and flange, while the last measures the

horizontal absolute displacement.

Giorgio Monti is a Full Professor at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. His research interests

include modelling, analysis and assessment of reinforced concrete and masonry structures

under seismic excitation, structural health monitoring, strengthening techniques with innovative

materials (FRP), strategies for the preservation of historical towns, and reliability analysis of

structures and infrastructures in seismic zones. He is an active member of national and

international committees for the development of seismic design codes.

Figure 1. Configuration of testing rig and walls.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 63

2.2 Materials

Clay bricks with premixed mortar were used to build the walls, while AFRP rods were used to

connect them. The walls mean mechanical properties were: compressive strength (f

d

) = 6.00 MPa

(0.87 ksi); shear strength (t

d

) = 1.38 MPa (0.2 ksi); Youngs modulus (E) = 2,700 MPa (392 ksi);

shear modulus (G) = 900 MPa (131 ksi).

The AFRP rod properties were: tensile strength (f

yd,c

) = 1400 MPa (203 ksi); Youngs modulus (E

d,c

)

= 60,000 MPa (8.7x10

6

ksi)

The total tensile strength of the connection system was: (a) configuration 1 R

T,1

= 32 kN (7 kips);

(b) configuration 2 R

T,2

= 16 kN (3.6 kips).

In configuration 1, the spread of the terminal anchors lays along the bar axis, while in configuration

2 it is arranged at 90 (Figure 3).

2.3 Connections between web and flange walls

The connection between web and flange walls is constructed in few simple steps (Figure 4). The

details of these phases are as under

Phase a: drilling holes from the outer face of the flanges, tangent to the web wall faces

Phase b: inserting the rods through the flanges and fixing them in the hole with mortar

Phases c and d: gluing the spread ends to the surface of both walls

Phases e and f: applying aramid sheets with vinylester resin to cover and strengthen the anchorages

The AFRP rods were of 5.5 mm (0.22 in.) diameter, while the holes crossing through the flange

were of 7 mm (0.28 in.) diameter.

3. TEST RESULTS

The walls specimens consist of one web wall and two flange walls at its ends. They are instrumented

as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Displacement transducers on a masonry wall specimen. At top right the anchorage

detail of the rods.

Note: All dimensions are in mm; 25.4 mm = 1 in.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 64

M. Vailati and G. Monti

Figure 4. Construction phases of the connections between flanges and web walls.

Figure 3. Detail of AFRP rod anchorage: the two reference configurations (above), the test

configuration (below).

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 65

With reference to Figure 2, transducers 1, 2 and 3, 4 are used to measure the relative displacement

between the web wall and flanges, while transducer 5 measures the horizontal displacement between

foundation and wall head.

The global effects of this strengthening method are illustrated in Figure 5-7. Figure 5 shows the

comparison at the first cycle between unstrengthened and strengthened wall. In the strengthened

wall, the improved collaboration between the orthogonal walls gives rise to an increase in the initial

stiffness. Note that, in the strengthened wall, the stiffness is increased approximately by 40%.

Figure 5. Comparison between strengthened and unstrengthened wall at the first cycle: increase

of stiffness.

Figure 6. Horizontal force vs. relative displacement between web and flanges walls.

Figure 7. Comparison between strengthened and unstrengthened wall at ultimate: increase

of flexural capacity. At top left: detail of crushing of masonry.

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.448 kN = 1 kips

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.448 kN = 1 kips

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.448 kN = 1 kips

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 66

M. Vailati and G. Monti

For low horizontal forces, the two curves are practically coincident; however, when passing 30%

of the unstrengthened wall failure load, the connections modify the wall system response. This delay

could eventually be avoided, if need, by pretensioning the rods. In fact, a truss-like mechanism can

be activated only when the rods are sufficiently stressed in tension.

In Figure 6, the difference in terms of relative displacement between the web and flange walls can

be observed: for the unstrengthened configuration it is 0.31 mm (0.01 in.), while in the other one

it is 0.02 mm (7.8x10

-4

in.). The smaller displacement in the strengthened case is due to the presence

of the rods.

Initially, the contacting surfaces slip relatively one to each other, however, when the rods start being

pulled, they provide their contribution by imposing compatibility of the displacements of both

surfaces. After this stage, the wall system shows a significant increase of strength and ductility, as

shown in Figure 7.

In Figure 7, the curves were obtained by inverting the load path at yield displacement (curve 1),

at 50% of ultimate displacement (curve 2), at ultimate displacement (curve 3). Note that each reversal

point is marked by a circle.

As observed from the tests performed, the strengthening effectiveness strongly depends on the

correct application of the rods. In order to exploit the material mechanical properties, the rods are

inserted at 45. As a matter of fact, for a plane stress state in shear, the maximum tensile force

is inclined at 45 with respect to the vertical, as shown in Figure 8.

Two effects can be observed when reaching the ultimate limit state

1) Detachment from the wall of the aramid sheet that covers the rods anchor;

2) Loss of the flange wall verticality

In Figure 9b, a tension failure of a rod is shown, with clear signs of breakage in its cross-section.

Figure 8. Shear transfer mechanism between web wall and flange.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 67

Figure 9. Collapse by flexural mechanism of wall: (a) collapse of masonry with expulsion of

material to external direction; (b) traction failure of a rod.

4. COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL MODEL

4.1 Unconnected Walls

The stiffness obtained from the experimental results is compared to the analytical model proposed

by Tomazevic [3]

(1)

Figure 10 shows the comparison between experimental and predicted stiffness.

It can be seen in Figure 10 that Eq. (1) accurately predicts the elastic experimental stiffness, while

a 50% reduction gives a good estimate of the ultimate displacement.

Figure 10. Comparison between experimental and predicted stiffness and peak strength at

first cycle.

G

.

A

W

K

I

G h

l E

2

2h 1 1

+

o

=

.

. . . .

q r o p

Note: 25.4 mm = 1 in.; 4.448 kN = 1 kips

(a) (b)

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 68

M. Vailati and G. Monti

The wall capacity is assessed by considering two possible failure mechanisms [1, 2] that may

develop, i.e., flexural and diagonal shear, respectively, as follows

(2)

(3)

The prevailing collapse mechanism is the one with lower capacity.

Table 1 contains the parameters used to calculate the stiffness (Eq. (1)) and the capacities (Eqs. (2)

and (3)).

For the case at hand, the capacities are: f

yF

= 64.6 kN; f

yV

= 390.8 kN. Therefore, it is recognized

that failure is of the flexural type.

The experimental test on the unstrengthened walls exactly shows this behaviour, for a horizontal

force equal to 70 kN (15.7 kips), very close to the analytically predicted value. Figure 11 shows

the crack pattern, typical of a flexural failure mechanism (note that the flange walls, though present,

are not connected).

4.2 Connected Walls

The connection of the web wall to the flange walls improves the performance of the overall system,

by increasing its bending capacity thanks to the change in shape of the base cross-section, which is

h

mm

(ft.)

1850

(6)

l

mm

(ft.)

1550

(5)

t

mm

(in.)

120

(5)

Aw

mm

(in.)

1.86x10

5

(7x10

3

)

o

0.83

G

MPa

(ksi)

900

(130)

E

MPa

(ksi)

2700

(392)

f

m,d

MPa

(ksi)

6.00

(0.87)

t

0,d

MPa

(ksi)

1.38

(0.20)

o

0

MPa

(ksi)

0.97

(0.14)

Table 1 - Parameters used to evaluate the wall capacity

Figure 11. Crushing of masonry in web wall: left and right side, near foundations.

F

2

=

q r

o

f

y

H

0

p

2

1

1

0 0

0.85 f

d

.

t o o

.

.

V

f

y

t

b

=

1 . . .

.

1 5

d

.

.

1 5

d

1

0

+

o

t

w

t

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 69

now T-shaped, with a significant contribution from the compressed flange. The shearing capacity,

however, remains unaffected and equal to that of the web wall, since the flanges do not provide any

contribution to it.

The bending capacity of the T-shaped cross section is obtained by writing the equilibrium equation

of the web and flange system, considered as fully connected. Figure 12 shows a comparison of the

two configurations for adjacent and connected walls.

The equilibrium equation for the T-shaped wall is given in Eq. (4)

V

.

H = N

p

.

e

p

+

N

a

.

e

a

(4)

Rearranging Eq. (4) and introducing non-dimensional notation, the following capacity equation is

obtained

(5)

where M

U,T

is the flexural capacity of strengthened T-shaped wall; M

U,I

is the capacity of the

(unstrengthened) I-shaped wall and is given in Eq. (6); q, t and are non-dimensional factors (Eq.

(7)). Note that the first factor is of mechanical nature whereas the others are related to geometry.

Figure 12. Notation of variables and stress distribution before failure: isolated wall (left);

connected wall (right).

(6)

(7)

Applying Eq. (5) to the specific case of the test walls, characterized by the following parameters:

t= 0.077, = 4.58, q= 0.23, it is possible to assess the magnitude of the force that triggers the

bending failure mechanism (106 kN (23.8 kips)). The result is practically identical to that obtained

in the test, of 110 kN (24.7 kips).

In order to calculate the capacity of the strengthened system, in this case it is also necessary to duly

account for the contribution of the compressed flange. As it is known, Eq. (1) takes into account

both bending (K

B

) and shear (K

S

) stiffness of the walls (Eq. (8)).

(8)

M

U,T

M

U,I

=

.

(1+ t . )

t

2

.

(1 )

q

+ r q

M

U,I

=

1

2

to

0

(1 q)

r q

2

o

0

q = = =

0.85

.

f

d

; t

t

a

1

p

1

a

t

p

;

K

I

=

K

B

+ K

S

=

12EJ

h

3

1.2h

+

GA

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 70

M. Vailati and G. Monti

As mentioned above, the presence of the flange only modifies the flexural response of the wall,

leaving the shear behaviour almost unaffected.

It will, therefore, be sufficient to express the second moment of area for a T-shaped section in place

of that for the I-shaped section, in order to predict the stiffness of the strengthened system. The

second moment of area for the T-shaped section is given as

By re-defining Eq. (8) we obtain

(10)

In Eq. (10), o assumes its usual meaning. Note that the second moment of area of the T-shaped

section significantly contributes to the flange width, i.e., the part of the wall at the end involved in

the flexural resisting mechanism.

Although there is a dependency on the thickness ratios of the connected walls this type of problem

requires specific study, which can only be addressed in qualitative terms here. Considering this, it

may be helpful to address the problem according to Tomazevic [3], so that the flange width is defined

as in Figure 13.

The proposed approach must be considered in the context of a more general application of the

method in real cases, for buildings made of bricks.

In the specific case of the walls tested, the problem is not so significant, since all flanges lengths

were entirely involved in the resisting mechanism.

4.3 Design of the connections

Based on the above discussion, a design equation is proposed here for an easy application of the

method. The equation is capable of correlating the sliding force between the faces of the two

connected walls with the number of rods, which is essential for a correct design of the connection

system.

By looking at the distribution of contact stresses in Figure 12, the sliding force between the web

and flange walls can be evaluated. Since the vertical load is only applied on the web wall, the stress

at the flange base is the reaction to the combined compressive force and bending moment generated

by the horizontal force. The sliding force at the interface is thus given by

Figure 13. Definition of the geometry of the flange in the connected walls.

(11) F

s

= (0.85

.

f

d

- o

0

)

.

t

a

1

a

K

T

=

GA

w

GA

w

12EJ

T

1.2h

2

1

h

+ q r o

. .

(9)

[l

a

.

(l

p

+ t

a

)

2

- l

2

p

.

(l

a

- t

p

)]

2

- 4

.

l

a

.

l

p

.

(l

p

+ t

a

)

.

(l

a

- t

p

)

.

[(l

p

+ t

a

) - l

p

]

2

12

.

[l

a

.

(l

p

+ t

a

)- l

p

.

(l

a

- t

p

)]

J

T

=

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 71

The number of rods to be inserted to ensure that the connection resists until bending failure is then

given by

(12)

where R

T,1-2

is the connection tensile strength, according to one of the possible configurations, as

indicated in section 3. The total number of the rods to be applied is therefore equal to 4n, because

they are applied on both faces of the web wall and because they are inserted at 45.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of the performance of connected walls with that of adjacent walls (based on the

experiments carried out) indicated that a strength increase of

R

= 1.57 and displacement increase

of

d

= 3.2 was obtained. As a result, there is an increase in the capacity of about 60%, while ductility

increases by a factor of 3. Note that, beyond affecting the main resisting mechanisms, the proposed

strengthening technique provides both local and global ductility as this application can reverse the

hierarchy between failure mechanisms (shear and flexure), thus favouring the latter, which is more

ductile. Finally, it was ascertained that the developed equations are accurate in predicting both the

capacity and the stiffness of the strengthened wall system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the SACEN Company of Naples, Italy, for providing and applying the

NAILTEX AFRP rods.

NOTATION

fm = Mean compression strength

t

0

= Mean shear strength

K

e

= Stiffness of masonry wall

A

w

= Shear area of I-section

h = effective height of wall

l = Length of wall

o = Factor dependent of boundary condition (0.83 or 3.33 in case of cantilever)

t = Thickness of wall

o

0

= Mean normal tension on the total section area

H

0

= Point along the wall where the moment change sign

b = Factor depending of wall slenderness, and it can be take 1 Ob=h/l O1.5

f

yF

= Flexural capacity of wall

f

yV

= Diagonal shear capacity of wall

N

P

= Resultant of normal force on web section

N

a

= Resultant of normal force on flange section

e

p

= Eccentricity of Np

e

a

= Eccentricity of Na

K

I

= total stiffness of wall (I-shaped section)

J

T

= moment of inertia of T-shaped section

K

T

= total stiffness wall (T-shaped section)

F

S

= Sliding force at the interface web/flange

n = Number of rods

REFERENCES

[1] Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation of Italy. Istruzioni per lapplicazione delle nuove

norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008. Supplemento

ordinario n. 27 alla Gazzetta Ufficiale, 2009.

[2] Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation of Italy. Nuove Norme Tecniche per Le Costruzioni.

Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana 2008.

[3] Tomazevic M. Earthquake resistant design of masonry buildings. Series on Innovation in

Structures and Construction., England, Imperial College Press London, 1981. p. 109-158.

F

s

n = round

2

.

w

2

.

R

T,1-2

o p

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012 72

M. Vailati and G. Monti

[4] Menegotto M, Monti G, Salvini S, Vailati M. Improvement of Transverse Connection of

Masonry Walls through AFRP Bars. In: Ye L, Yue Q, Peng F, Editors. Proceeding of 5th

International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering. Beijing, China: 2010.

p. 947-950.

[5] Anthoine A, Magonette G, Magenes G. Shear-compression Testing and Analysis of Brick

Masonry Walls. In: Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

Rotterdam, Netherlands: 1995.

[6] Magenes G, Calvi GM. Cyclic Behaviour of Brick Masonry Walls. In: Proceedings of 10th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 1992.

[7] Magenes G, Calvi GM. In-plane Seismic Response of Brick Masonry Walls. Earthq Eng Struc

Dyn 1997;26(11):1091-1112.

[8] Turnek V, Cacovic F. Some Experimental Results on the Strength of Brick Masonry Walls.

In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, England:

1971. p. 149-156.

[9] Turnsek V, Sheppard P. The Shear and Flexural Resistance of Masonry Walls. In: Procedure

of the International Research Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Skopje, Macedonia:

1980. p. 517-573.

[10] Turco V, Secondin S, Morbin A, Valluzzi M.R, Modena C. Flexural and Shear Strengthening

of Un-reinforced Masonry with FRP Bars. Comp Sci Tech 2006;66(2):289-296.

[11] Tumialan G, Micelli F, Nanni A. Strengthening of Masonry Structures with FRP Composites.

In: Chang PC, Editor. Proceedings of the 2001 Structural Congress and Exposition. Washington

DC, USA: 2001. p. 1-8.

- MOS-I (Lecture 1-2) Engr. Khalid YousafHochgeladen vonKhalid Yousaf
- Fillet Weld Size CalculHochgeladen vonRUDHRA DHANASEKAR
- EC2 Continuous Beam DesignHochgeladen vonikanyu79
- Welding Strength CalculationsHochgeladen vonVikash Yadav
- Explantion Plate StaadHochgeladen vonAshish Loya
- rr220102-strength-of-materials-iiHochgeladen vonSRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- lecture-4Hochgeladen vonrajeshkumarmbcet
- 080Hochgeladen vonStefano Del Tedesco
- 12907 Theory of Elasticity Exam Problems and AnswersHochgeladen voncoolzero
- Steldeck Slab DesignHochgeladen vonJason Ubaub Cellona
- full2Hochgeladen vonKishore Yenugudhati
- Beam Desing for Strength and StifnessHochgeladen vonSantosh Kumar
- abs oryHochgeladen vonAlex Pizano
- Outline 10Hochgeladen vonCarlos Rene Mamani Trujillo
- GTSUG04-KOPECHochgeladen vonjesusgameboy
- 1 Mech 260 PresentationHochgeladen von777894292
- Example 12Hochgeladen vonMoonze
- XiaoChen Published Energies 07 02274Hochgeladen vonneuchenxiao
- Etabs 2013 ManualHochgeladen vonAGNayis
- 6.Testing of Concrete Quality and ControlHochgeladen vonNiraj Jha
- Calculation Note-Construction Case StructureHochgeladen vonDe Dao Van
- Open-Mode Delamination Stress Curved SandwichHochgeladen vonsovsep
- Combined Torsion and BendingHochgeladen vonfefahim
- 10.1.1.943.8494.pdfHochgeladen voncad0904
- Chap10.pdfHochgeladen vonNhan
- Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Shell Elements Osman Burkan Isgor MSc ThesisHochgeladen voncargadory2k
- Anchor Bolts DesignHochgeladen vonAKSHAY BHATKAR
- Japan.pdfHochgeladen vonraghuveer11
- 2013 - 1.pdfHochgeladen vonTeju Ashu
- eje1Hochgeladen vonNicolás Merino

- Aashto Pedestrian Bridge catalogueHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 472Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- 160901-TC21_TOR_R07Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- seismo-tectonic routes of PakistanHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Addresses 1Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- hazusicgmanualHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Heavy Monsoon Downpour Lashes KarachiHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Structural Health MonitoringHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 1020302Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- Appendices 4Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- Guidebook on Technologies for Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation ISRO Satyabrata SahuHochgeladen vonS.Alec Knowle
- Self_Assessment_Manual.pdfHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Environment and Urbanization 2003 Ahmed 33 42Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- First General StatutesHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Karachi to Kotri- The First Railways in PakistanHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Heidarzadeh Et Al 2008 OE Historical Tsunami in Makran Subduction ZoneHochgeladen vonrashidking
- scanned cardsHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Collaborative Simulation Interface for Planning Disaster MeasuresHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 14_S07-013Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- Shscp 11 ArchHochgeladen vonrashidking
- Seismic Analysis - Conc Build - D ValueHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 178Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- 1.3153330 HAZUS Second ImportantHochgeladen vonrashidking
- FlashHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 2008 Earthquake ConferenceHochgeladen vonrashidking
- 1079EV2344619057KWSB120515Hochgeladen vonrashidking
- Dpr Historic Structure Assessment FormHochgeladen vonrashidking
- BOE is Structural 3.2Hochgeladen vonaomareltayeb
- 02 - Design of Steel Tension MembersHochgeladen vonPrabhumk07

- assignment of structure engineeringHochgeladen vonkkhan_451062
- 4 Building Codes ACI EC2Hochgeladen vonKenyl Nguyen
- Experimental Elasticity 2ed - SearleHochgeladen vonjrfisico2011
- Mech 6441 Outline 2014Hochgeladen von王子丹
- Analysis of Earth DamHochgeladen vonMojtaba Mohebinia
- Assignment IHochgeladen vonSam Smith
- SciencesHochgeladen vonaisha
- chapter9a.pdfHochgeladen vonYirga Bezabeh
- CVEN214- Lecture 4 Axial Loads -Dr. Wael AlnahhalHochgeladen vonNadeenMohamed
- FEM in Geotech EngineeringHochgeladen vonLeo Xu
- Investigation Effects Twin Tunnel Excavations Beneath Road UnderpassHochgeladen vonAfendi Ariff
- High Strain RatesHochgeladen vonemre
- Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams ZP 14Hochgeladen vonZdenko
- 55529477-FootingHochgeladen vonsom_bs79
- published_abstract.docxHochgeladen vonHannah Zhou
- 3 SlimDek Structural 48240Hochgeladen vonKonstantinos Kalemis
- Evaluation of Properties of Steel Reinforcing Bars for Seismic DesignHochgeladen vonAbdissa Bekele
- 010307-Spring Constants & SSI_2001Hochgeladen vonlimara65
- DIN-1048Hochgeladen vonMostafa Hussein Abdou
- L36 Marston TheoryHochgeladen vonMuhammad Mustafa
- is.1893.1.2002.pdfHochgeladen vonnrama002
- Simple Connection DesignHochgeladen vonwisnu_bayusakti
- Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson Ratio of ConcreteHochgeladen vonSushil Sawant
- Piping StressHochgeladen vonVivekanandan Mahendran
- Defect-dominated Fatigue Behavior in Type 630 Stainless SteelHochgeladen vonsivalogan
- 5 EG- CE- Engineering Properties of Rocks PRT.ppsHochgeladen vonHisham Essa
- State-of-the-art review of FRP strengthened RC slabsHochgeladen vonInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Seismic Design PrinciplesHochgeladen vonmahesh
- 20 Modified Von Karman Equations for Elastic Nanoplates With Surface Tension and Surface ElasticityHochgeladen vonBoonme Chinnaboon
- Soil Mechanics and Foundation EngineeringsHochgeladen vonFeras

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.