12 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Pankaj Munjal

- Strength of Materials
- AISC-ASD 89.pdf
- Design of Plate Girder Bridge
- Design of Steel Structure
- Bond Development Length
- Pure Bending
- Analysis of Composite Beams Widely Spaced Connectors
- Bending of Plates and Shells
- 005A Sample Calc (1-Barrel Flume)
- Mechanics Syllabus
- Structural Support Design Guidelines 8-25-16 PDF
- 3.1
- Horizontal Shear
- 17304 - Strength of Materials
- Experience of Analysis of Bridge Structures
- Handout - Ansys Examples
- Structural Analysis of Cessna 182 Main Spar as an Open and Closed Beam Section
- Examples - Combined Stress
- 322170263-Mechanics-of-Deformable-Bodies-Solved-Problems.docx
- Me2113 Advanced Strength of Materials

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

FRP-strengthened RC beams. I: review of debonding strength

models

S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng

*

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of China

Received 11 April 2001; received in revised form 5 September 2001; accepted 12 September 2001

Abstract

Bonding of a bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) plate to the tension face of a beam has become a popular exural strengthening

method in recent years. As a result, a large number of studies have been carried out in the last decade on the behaviour of these

FRP-strengthened beams. Many of these studies reported premature failures by debonding of the FRP plate with or without the

concrete cover attached. The most commonly reported debonding failure occurs at or near the plate end, by either separation of

the concrete cover or interfacial debonding of the FRP plate from the RC beam. This and the companion paper are concerned with

strength models for such plate end debonding failures. In this paper, a comprehensive review of existing plate debonding strength

models is presented. Each model is summarised and classied into one of the three categories based on the approach taken, and

its theoretical basis claried. The review not only brings together for the rst time all existing plate end debonding strength models

into a unied framework for future reference, but also provides the necessary background information for them to be assessed in

the companion paper using a large test database assembled by the authors from the published literature. 2002 Published by

Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Debonding; FRP; RC beams; Retrotting; Strengthening; Strength models

1. Introduction

The exural strength of a reinforced concrete (RC)

beam can be increased by bonding a bre reinforced

polymer (FRP) plate to the tension face, or to the soft

in the more restricted but commonly considered case of

simply supported beams (Fig. 1). This paper is also

explicitly concerned only with soft plating of simply-

Fig. 1. RC beam bonded with an FRP soft plate.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2334-6389; fax: +852-2766-

6012.

E-mail address: cejgteng@pdyu.edu.hk (J.G. Teng).

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S0141- 0296( 01) 00105- 5

supported beams for simplicity in description, although

the conclusions are applicable to tension face plating of

beams in general.

This technique of exural strengthening has numerous

advantages such as minimum increases in structural size

and weight, ease of site handling and good corrosion

resistance, and has been widely applied in practice in

recent years. As a result, a great amount of research has

been carried out in recent years on the behaviour and

strength of these FRP-strengthened RC beams, with the

vast majority of this research being undertaken in the

past decade (e.g. [124]). This research has identied a

386 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

number of failure modes. A schematic representation of

the six main failure modes observed in tests is shown in

Fig. 2. These are herein termed (a) exural failure by

FRP rupture, (b) exural failure by crushing of com-

pressive concrete (c) shear failure, (d) concrete cover

separation, (e) plate end interfacial debonding, and (f)

intermediate crack induced interfacial debonding.

Among the six failure modes shown in Fig. 2, the rst

three are not totally different from those in conventional

RC beams, although there are some important differ-

ences [25]. The three failure modes shown on the right

are not found in conventional RC beams and are instead

modes unique to beams bonded with a soft plate. These

modes have often been referred to as premature debond-

ing failures modes, as they occur before the exural fail-

ure of the section in mode (a) or (b) or the shear failure

in mode (c) occurs.

The three modes of debonding shown in Figs. 2df

can be broadly classied into two types [25]: (a) those

that initiate at or near one of the plate ends (simply

referred to as the plate end hereafter) and then propagate

away from the plate end; and (b) those that initiate at

an intermediate exural or exural-shear crack and then

propagate from such a crack towards the plate end. The

rst type of debonding is referred to as plate end

debonding here and the second is referred to as inter-

mediate crack induced interfacial debonding. Of these

two failure modes, plate end debonding is by far the

more commonly reported failure mode. Although less

commonly reported, failures by intermediate crack

induced debonding are likely to control the strength of

a signicant portion of FRP-strengthened beams. This

paper and the companion paper [26] are concerned with

strength models for FRP-strengthened RC beams which

fail by plate end debonding.

Fig. 2. Failure modes of FRP-strengthened RC beams. (a) FRP rup-

ture; (b) Crushing of compressive concrete; (c) Shear failure; (d) Con-

crete cover separation; (e) Plate end interfacial debonding; (f) Inter-

mediate crack induced interfacial debonding.

2. Plate end debonding failures

Of the two plate end debonding failure modes, failure

by separation of the concrete cover has been far more

commonly reported (e.g. [1,5,12,20,23]). It is generally

believed that failure of the concrete cover is initiated by

the formation of a crack at or near the plate end, due to

high interfacial shear and normal stresses caused by the

abrupt termination of the plate here (e.g. [14,20,22,27]).

Detailed discussions of these interfacial stresses are

given in Smith and Teng [28] and Teng et al. [25]. Once

a crack forms in the concrete at or near the plate end,

the crack propagates to the level of the tension reinforce-

ment and then progresses horizontally, along the level

of the reinforcement, resulting in the separation of the

concrete cover [16] (Fig. 3a). Fig. 3b shows a close-

up view of the detached plate end, where the tension

reinforcement of the beam can be clearly seen. This

mode of failure has been referred to elsewhere as end-

of-plate failure through concrete [1], concrete rip-off

failure [5,23], debond at rebar layer [15], concrete

cover delamination [20], and local shear failure [27].

As the failure occurs away from the bondline, this is not

Fig. 3. FRP-plated RC beam: concrete cover separation. (a) Overall

view; (b) Close-up view.

387 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

a debonding failure mode in strict terms, although it does

stem from stress concentration near the plate end. The

term concrete cover separation adopted here has pre-

viously been used by Garden and Hollaway [16] and

Juvandes et al. [29] and appears to describe this mode

of failure most accurately (Fig. 2d).

Debonding between the FRP plate and the RC beam

(Fig. 2e), that propagates away from the plate end, has

also been observed in experiments (e.g. [2,8,30]) and is

herein referred to as plate end interfacial debonding. The

general consensus among researchers is that debonding

failures of this form are initiated by high interfacial shear

and normal stresses near the plate end that exceed the

strength of the weakest element, generally the concrete

(e.g. [14,30]). Upon debonding, a thin layer of concrete

generally remains attached to the plate [30]. This sug-

gests that failure generally occurs in the concrete adjac-

ent to the concrete-to-adhesive interface.

As both plate end debonding failure modes are due to

the same cause (i.e. high interfacial shear and normal

stresses near the plate end), plate end interfacial debond-

ing has not been differentiated from concrete cover sep-

aration in many of the existing plate end debonding

strength models.

It should be noted that plate end debonding failures

were rst observed in RC beams bonded with a steel

plate on which considerable research had already

accumulated before FRP plates became popular for plate

bonding (e.g. [3136]) and this effort continued through

the 1990s (e.g. [3741]). Much of what was learnt in

research on steel plate bonding is relevant to FRP

plate bonding.

3. Overview of existing debonding strength models

An extensive search of the existing literature has

found twelve debonding strength models. Seven of them

have been developed for FRP-plated RC beams in the

past few years [14,27,4245]. Another ve models have

been developed for plate end debonding in steel plated

beams [39,4648]. Plate end debonding occurs either by

concrete cover separation or in the concrete adjacent to

the adhesive-to-concrete interface. Although the differ-

ent mechanical properties of the bonded plate are

expected to play a signicant role, strength models can

be expected to be applicable to different types of plates

if the geometrical and material properties of plates are

properly included. It is thus not unreasonable to expect

that models developed for steel plated beams may well

be applicable to FRP-plated beams, with modications

if necessary. Therefore, all the above-mentioned models

are reviewed in this paper.

The existing debonding strength models can be classi-

ed into three categories based on their approaches,

namely (a) shear capacity based models [39,43,47], (b)

concrete tooth models [42,45,48], and (c) interfacial

stress based models (models I and II of Ziraba et al. [46],

[14,27,44]). Model II of Ziraba et al. [46] in fact com-

bines approaches (a) and (c). In addition, it should be

mentioned that Oehlers model [39] is not purely based

on the shear capacity, as it also takes into account the

interaction between shear and bending. It is worth noting

that all the models developed specically for FRP-

strengthened RC beams [14,27,44] follow the interfacial

stress based approach. On the other hand, three of the

ve models specically developed for steel plated beams

follow either the shear capacity approach [39,47] or a

combined approach (model II of Ziraba et al. [46]).

Each of the existing models is summarized and

reviewed in the rest of the paper. All models are

presented here using a consistent set of notation and in

a form that best facilitates subsequent comparisons in

the companion paper [26]. It should be noted that some

of the models are dimensionally inconsistent, and that

all models are presented in this paper based on the fol-

lowing set of consistent units: forces in Newtons (N),

lengths in millimetres (mm) and hence stresses in Mega-

pascals (MPa).

4. Shear capacity based models

The common feature of these models is that the

debonding failure strength is related to the shear strength

of the concrete with no or only partial contribution of

the steel shear reinforcement. The debonding strength is

generally given as the shear force acting at the plate end,

with or without taking into account the effect of any co-

existent moment. As interfacial stresses between the

plate and the beam need not be evaluated, the required

calculations are generally simple.

4.1. Oehlers model

Oehlers and Moran [38] and Oehlers [39] investigated

simply supported steel plated beams subjected to either

four or three point bending and developed a strength

model by rst considering two extreme positions of soft

plate termination. For a plate terminated in the constant

moment region, the following expression for the exural

debonding moment M

db,f

at the end of the plate was pro-

posed and calibrated with test results of steel plated

beams:

M

db,f

E

c

I

tr,c

f

ct

0.901E

frp

t

frp

(1)

where E

c

and E

frp

are the moduli of elasticity of the con-

crete and the FRP respectively, I

trc,c

the cracked second

moment of area of the plated section transformed to con-

crete, f

ct

the cylinder splitting tensile strength of con-

388 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

crete, and t

frp

the plate thickness. If the splitting tensile

strength is not determined from tests, f

ct

(in MPa) is

taken as 0.5f

c

where f

c

is the concrete cylinder com-

pressive strength in MPa [39]. It was suggested that in

design, this moment needs only to be compared to the

additional moment applied to the beam at the plate end

after the plate is bonded.

For a plate terminated near the support, it was pro-

posed that debonding occurs when the shear force at the

plate end V

db,s

reaches the shear capacity of the concrete

in the RC beam alone, without the contribution from the

steel shear reinforcement, based on experimental obser-

vations [39]. That is,

V

db,s

V

c

[1.4(d/2000)]b

c

d[r

s

f

c

]

1/3

(2)

where r

s

=A

s

/b

c

d is the ratio of steel tension reinforce-

ment, A

s

the area of steel tension reinforcement, b

c

the

section width and d the effective depth of the section.

The above expression for V

c

, the concrete shear capacity

in the beam, is that given by the Australian concrete

code [49] and it is a requirement that 1.4(d/2000)1.1.

For general cases where both the shear force and the

moment at the plate end are important, the following

interaction equation was suggested based on test

results [39]:

M

db,end

M

db,f

V

db,end

V

db,s

1.17 (3)

and

M

db,end

M

db,f

,V

db,end

V

db,s

(4)

In terms of the shear force at the plate end, Eq. (3) can

be re-arranged to read

V

db,end

1.17

a

M

db,f

+

1

V

db,s

(5)

and

V

db,end

aM

db,f

,V

db,end

V

db,s

(6)

where a is the distance from the support to the nearer

end of the soft plate.

4.2. Janszes model

Jansze [47] proposed a plate end debonding strength

model for steel plated beams but the background infor-

mation to the model [47] is not available to the authors.

Only the nal form of the model with general comments

given in Ahmed and van Gemert [43] is available where

it is stated that Janszes model [47] was based on the

initiation of shear cracking in an RC beam without the

contribution of shear reinforcement. The critical shear

force in the RC beam at the plate end to cause debonding

V

db,end

is given as follows

V

db,end

t

PES

b

c

d (7)

where

t

PES

0.18

3

3

d

B

mod

200

d

3

100r

s

f

c

(8)

B

mod

(1r

s

)

2

r

s

da

3

(9)

Here, B is the shear span and B

mod

a modied shear

span as given by Eq. (9). If B

mod

as dened by Eq. (9)

is greater than the actual shear span B of the beam then

the modied shear span should be given by (B

mod

+B)/2.

Janszes model [47] appears to be invalid for soft plates

terminated at the support as B

mod

becomes zero and Eq.

(8) predicts that debonding is never possible.

4.2.1. Ahmed and van Gemerts model

Ahmed and van Gemert [43] modied Janszes model

[47] to be suitable for use with FRP-plated RC beams.

Ahmed and van Gemerts model [43] is given as follows

V

db,end

(t

PES

t

mod

)b

c

d (10)

where

t

MOD

t

PES

b

c

d

S

s

I

s

b

frp

S

frp

I

frp

b

a

6188.5

t4.121

b

c

d

(11)

t

0.15776f

17.2366r

s

d

B

0.9

A

sv

f

yv

sb

c

(12)

where t

PES

is given by Eq. (8), S

frp

and S

s

are the rst

moment of area of the FRP plate, and that of an equival-

ent steel plate about the neutral axis of a cracked plated

section transformed to concrete, where the equivalent

steel plate is one that has the same total tensile capacity

and width as that of the FRP plate, but with an equival-

ent thickness determined assuming that the yield stress

of steel is 550 MPa, I

frp

and I

s

are the second moments

of area of a cracked plated section transformed to con-

crete with an FRP plate and an equivalent steel plate

respectively, and b

frp

and b

a

are the widths of the FRP

and adhesive respectively. The stirrup spacing is denoted

by s, while A

sv

and f

yv

are the cross sectional area and

the yield stress of the steel stirrups respectively. For all

practical purposes b

a

is equal to b

frp

.

389 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

The modications given in Eqs. (11) and (12) appear

to rely on determining the difference in the interfacial

shear stress between the RC beam and the plate as a

result of replacing a steel plate with an FRP plate. This

difference t

mod

is then added to the shear stress t

PES

in

Eq. (8) where the shear stress is determined over a c-

titious shear span of length B

mod

. The increase in shear

strength offered by the shear reinforcement is also

included as seen in Eq. (12).

5. Concrete tooth models

Concrete tooth models make use of the concept of a

concrete tooth between two adjacent cracks deforming

like a cantilever under the action of horizontal shear

stresses at the base of the beam (Fig. 4). Debonding is

deemed to occur when these shear stresses lead to tensile

stresses at the root of the tooth that exceed the tensile

strength of the concrete. The stress in the soft plate at

debonding can then be determined by dening an effec-

tive length for the plate for end anchorage over which

a uniform shear stress is assumed.

5.1. Raoof and Zhangs model

The concept of a concrete tooth was rst described in

Zhang et al. [50]. Based on this concept, Zhang et al.

[50] and Raoof and Zhang [48] developed a strength

model to predict concrete cover separation failures in

steel plated beams. Minimum and maximum crack

widths (l

min

and l

max

respectively) are determined which

lead to a lower and an upper bound stress in the plate

to cause debonding respectively and the width of these

cracks differ by a factor of two (l

max

=2l

min

). The mini-

mum width of a crack l

min

, termed the minimum stabil-

ized crack spacing [50], is given by

l

min

A

e

f

ct

u(O

bars

+b

frp

)

(13)

where A

e

is the area of concrete in tension, u the steel-

to-concrete average bond strength, O

bars

the total per-

Fig. 4. Concrete tooth model [50].

imeter of the tension reinforcing bars. It is assumed that

u=0.28f

cu

(in MPa) and f

ct

=0.36f

cu

(in MPa) where f

cu

is the concrete cube compressive strength. For the case

of an RC beam with a single layer of steel tension

reinforcement, A

e

is twice the distance from the centroid

of the tension reinforcement to the base of the RC beam

multiplied by the width of the RC beam.

Ignoring interaction between adjacent teeth and

assuming elastic behaviour, the required shear stress to

cause failure of a tooth can be determined. Failure of

the tooth occurs when the stress at point A (Fig. 4b)

exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete. The tensile

stress at point A, s

A

, can be determined from

s

A

M

A

I

A

l

2

(14)

where M

A

=tlb

frp

h and I

A

=b

frp

l

3

/12. Here, l is the crack

spacing (minimum or maximum), h the net height of

concrete cover measured from the base of the steel ten-

sion reinforcement to the base of the concrete beam, t

the shear stress at the interface between the concrete and

the soft plate, I

A

the second moment of area of the

tooth, and M

A

the moment at the base of the tooth.

Substitution of M

A

and I

A

into Eq. (14) and assuming

that at the instant of plate debonding s

A

=f

ct

, the shear

stress at the interface between the concrete and the steel

plate based on a minimum stabilized crack spacing can

be determined as follows. In this tooth theory, all teeth

in the end anchorage zone are assumed to fail simul-

taneously at debonding.

t

min

f

ct

l

min

6h

b

c

b

frp

(15)

The minimum stress in the soft plate s

s,min

required to

cause exural cracking and failure of a tooth covering

the minimum stabilized crack spacing can then be

determined as follows [50]:

s

s(min)

0.154

L

p

h

1

b

2

c

f

cu

hb

frp

t

frp

(O

bars

+b

frp

)

(16)

where L

p

is an effective length of soft plate for end

390 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

anchorage, and h

1

is the distance from the centroid of

the tension reinforcement to the base of the RC beam.

This model has been applied only to simply-supported

beams subject to three or four point bending, for which

the limiting stress of Eq. (16) was compared to the stress

in the soft plate directly under a point load to check

the possibility of debonding. It is not clear how this

model should be applied to beams subject to other load-

ing conditions (e.g. uniformly distributed load), but it

is not unreasonable to choose the section of maximum

moment in the beam for an assessment.

In Zhang et al. [50], the effective length for end

anchorage was taken as the length of the soft plate in

the shear span (in Fig. 4a this is indicated as L

p1

). In

Raoof and Zhang [48], it was recommended that the

effective length for end anchorage be the smaller of the

length of the soft plate in the shear span L

p1

and the

following lengths L

p2

which were calibrated against test

data of steel plated RC beams that failed by plate end

debonding:

L

p2

l

min

(210.25l

min

), l

min

72 mm (17a)

L

p2

3l

min

, l

min

72 mm (17b)

In the present and the companion paper [26], only the

modied effective length for plate end anchorage as pro-

posed by Raoof and Zhang [48] is considered as this is

the more recent tooth model derived by this research

group for steel plated RC beams.

Once the stress in the plate is known, the moment to

cause separation of the plate, at the same location as

the stress, can be calculated using a conventional section

analysis with the assumption of plane section bending

in accordance with Zhang et al. [50] with the tensile

strength of concrete taken into account. A lower and an

upper bound bending moment are determined as a conse-

quence of the assumed minimum (l

min

) and maximum

(l

max

) stabilized crack spacings differing by a factor of

two.

For a simply supported beam under four point bending

with the plate positioned in the constant moment region,

Raoof and Zhang [48] specied that the effective length

should be obtained from Eq. (17) as the length of the

plate in the shear span L

p1

is zero.

5.2. Wang and Lings model

Wang and Ling [42] proposed a modication to Zhang

et al.s tooth model [50] to make it suitable for FRP-

strengthened beams. This involved modifying the aver-

age bond strength between the concrete and the plate,

leading to the following formula for the minimum

crack spacing:

l

min

A

e

f

ct

u

s

O

bars

+u

frp

b

frp

(18)

where u

s

=0.313f

c

is the average bond strength between

the steel tension reinforcement and concrete and is the

same as that used by Zhang et al. [50] assuming

f

c

=0.8f

cu

, while u

frp

is the average bond shear strength

between the FRP and the concrete and was taken as

1.96 MPa.

Once the minimum stabilised crack spacing is determ-

ined the remainder of the analysis is essentially the same

as that given in Zhang et al. [50] although the effective

length for end anchorage was taken by Wang and Ling

[42] to be the total plate length in the shear span. In

Wang and Lings model [42], the tensile strength of con-

crete was not included in the section analysis for relating

the bending moment in the beam to the stress in the

plate. Similar to the model of Zhang et al. [50], an upper

bound solution of Wang and Lings model is obtainable

by replacing their minimum crack spacing (Eq. (18))

with a maximum crack spacing which is twice the for-

mer.

5.3. Raoof and Hassanens models

Raoof and Hassanen [45] also modied Zhang et al.s

model [50] for application to FRP-plated beams. Two

expressions were presented by them for the effective

length of the FRP plate for end anchorage with two cor-

responding values for the bond strength between the FRP

and the concrete. Two new models thus resulted from

these modications. They are referred to herein as Raoof

and Hassanens model I and model II [45].

In Raoof and Hassanens model I [45], Eq. (13) is

retained to calculate the minimum stabilised crack spac-

ing. The effective length of the plate for end anchorage

is taken to be the smaller of the plate length in the shear

span (L

p1

in Fig. 4a) and the following lengths which

were calibrated with test data of FRP-plated RC beams

reported to have failed by plate end debonding [45]:

L

p2

l

min

(240.5l

min

), l

min

40 mm (19a)

L

p2

4l

min

, l

min

40 mm (19b)

In Raoof and Hassanens model II [45], the bond

strength between the FRP plate and the concrete is speci-

ed as 0.8 MPa, while the bond strength between the

steel tension reinforcement and the concrete is still the

same as that originally specied in Zhang et al. [50].

The effective length of the FRP plate for end anchorage

is dened as the smaller of the plate length in the shear

span and the following lengths which were calibrated

with test data of FRP-plated RC beams reported to have

failed by plate end debonding [45] using the new value

of FRP-to-concrete bond strength:

L

p2

l

min

(11.60.17l

min

), l

min

56.5 mm (20a)

L

p2

2l

min

, l

min

56.5 mm (20b)

Once the stabilised crack spacing and the effective

391 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

length of FRP plate for end anchorage are determined,

the remainder of the analysis is the same as that given

in Zhang et al. [50].

6. Interfacial stress based models

A popular and logical assumption is that concrete

cover separation or plate end interfacial debonding is due

to high interfacial stresses at the end of the soft plate.

Fig. 5 shows the stresses acting on an element of con-

crete adjacent to the end of the adhesive layer where t

and s

y

denote the shear and transverse normal (peeling)

stresses respectively while s

x

is the longitudinal stress.

Interfacial stress based debonding strength models

generally make use of interfacial stresses from an exist-

ing closed-form solution [e.g. 51] and a concrete failure

criterion. Models of this type include model I of Ziraba

et al. [46], and those of Varastehpour and Hamelin [14],

Saadatmanesh and Malek [27] and Tumialan et al. [44].

An alternative use of the interfacial stresses was made

in developing model II of Ziraba et al. [46]. In this

model, the ACI concrete code [52] prediction of the

shear capacity of an RC beam is modied by adjusting

the contribution of the shear stirrups to the shear capacity

of the plated RC beam. The stirrup efciency factor is

related to the peak interfacial stresses at the plate end

and was calibrated with experimental data. This model

therefore combines the shear capacity approach dis-

cussed above with interfacial stresses.

6.1. Ziraba et al.s models

Ziraba et al. [46] proposed two debonding strength

models for steel plated RC beams, one for predicting

plate end interfacial debonding and the other for pre-

dicting concrete cover separation which are termed Zir-

aba et al.s model I and II [46] respectively in this paper.

6.1.1. Model I: plate end interfacial debonding

In this model, the MohrCoulomb failure criterion is

used to dene the critical stress state at plate end interfa-

cial debonding:

ts

y

tanfC (21)

Fig. 5. Stresses acting on a concrete element adjacent to the plate end.

where t and s

y

are the peak interfacial shear and normal

stresses at the plate end, C the coefcient of cohesion,

and f the angle of internal friction. The peak interfacial

shear and normal stresses are given by

ta

1

f

ct

C

R1

V

0

f

5/4

(22)

s

y

a

2

C

R2

t (23)

where

C

R1

K

s

E

frp

b

frp

t

frp

1/2

M

0

V

0

b

frp

t

frp

I

trc,frp

b

a

(d

frp

x

trc,frp

) (24)

C

R2

t

frp

K

n

4E

frp

I

frp

1/4

(25)

where C

R1

and C

R2

are obtained from Roberts analytical

solution [51] for interfacial shear and normal stresses,

while a

1

and a

2

are empirical multipliers calibrated from

numerical studies [46] for RC beams retrotted with

steel plates. The shear stiffness K

s

and the normal stiff-

ness K

n

of the adhesive layer are given by

K

s

G

a

b

a

t

a

(26)

K

n

E

a

b

a

t

a

(27)

with E

a

, G

a

, b

a

and t

a

being the modulus of elasticity,

shear modulus, width and thickness of the adhesive layer

respectively. I

trc,frp

is the second moment of area of the

cracked plated section transformed into FRP, x

trc,frp

is

the neutral axis depth of this transformed cracked section

(distance from the compression face to the neutral axis),

I

frp

the second moment of area of the FRP plate alone,

d

frp

the distance from the compression face of the RC

beam to the centroid of the FRP plate, and M

0

and V

0

the bending moment and shear force respectively at the

plate end.

Substitution of Eqs. (22) and (23) into Eq. (21) gives

an expression for the shear force in the beam, at the plate

end, to cause plate end interfacial debonding:

V

db,end

c

C

R1

C

a

1

f

ct

(1+a

2

C

R2

tanf)

4/5

(28)

392 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

This relationship is subject to the constraint of a/h3

[46] where h is the depth of the RC beam. The following

values for a

1

, a

2

and f were specied in Ziraba et al.

[46]: a

1

=35, a

2

=1.1 and f=28. In Ziraba et al. [46] two

values of C were used for specic numerical examples,

namely 2.68 MPa and 5.36 MPa although the criteria

used for the selection of these values were not made

clear. Ziraba et al. [53] suggested that C lie between 4.80

MPa and 9.50 MPa based on experimental and numerical

ndings. For the present study [26] C has been taken as

7.15 MPa which is an average of the values given in

Ziraba et al. [53].

6.1.2. Model II: concrete cover separation

Ziraba et al. [46] modied the ACI code [52] predic-

tion of the shear capacity of an RC beam into the follow-

ing equation where k is the efciency factor of steel

shear reinforcement:

V

db,end

(V

c

kV

s

) (29)

where V

c

and V

s

are the contributions of concrete and

steel shear reinforcement to the shear capacity of an RC

beam respectively and are given in their paper by

V

c

1/6(f

c

100r

s

)b

c

d (30)

V

s

(A

sv

f

yv

d)/s (31)

In Eq. (29), k is an empirically derived stirrup efciency

factor to adjust the contribution of the steel stirrups and

is related to the peak interfacial normal stress at the plate

end. Based on a regression analysis of the test results of

fourteen steel plated RC beams which failed by concrete

cover separation, Ziraba et al. [46] proposed that

k2.4e

n

and n0.08C

R1

C

R2

10

6

(32)

6.2. Varastehpour and Hamelins model

Varastehpour and Hamelin [14] also developed a plate

end interfacial debonding strength model based on the

MohrCoulomb failure criterion (Eq. (21)). In their

model, the coefcient of cohesion C was calibrated from

single lap shear tests and the angle of internal friction f

determined from small scale FRP-plated beam tests that

failed by debonding. Details of the particular mode of

debonding exhibited by these test beams were not speci-

ed by them. An average value of 5.4 MPa was sug-

gested for C, while a value of 33 was suggested for f.

The shear stress required in the MohrCoulomb equ-

ation is given by

t

1

2

b(lV

0

)

3/2

(33)

This equation was modied from the following

expression for the shear stress between a steel soft plate

and an RC beam originally proposed by Jones et al. [32]:

tlV

0

(34)

where l is the rigidity of the section dened by

l

t

frp

E

frp

I

trc,c

E

c

(d

frp

x

trc,c

) (35)

where x

trc,c

is the neutral axis depth of a cracked section

transformed to concrete. In Eq. (33), the factor b was

introduced to account for the effect of various variables

that have a signicant inuence on the interfacial shear

stress between the RC beam and the soft plate, such as

the rigidity and thickness of the plate, geometry of the

section, and nature of loading based on a parametric

study using a numerical model which considered slip

between the plate and the RC beam. The following

expression was developed by them for b:

b

1.2610

5

B

h

0.7

t

frp

E

frp

(36)

The normal stress s

y

is related to the shear stress as fol-

lows as derived by Roberts [51]

s

y

C

R2

t (37)

The shear force in the beam, at the plate end to cause

debonding, can then be determined by

V

db,end

1.6t

2/3

max

lb

1/3

(38)

where

t

max

5.4

1+C

R2

tan33

(39)

6.3. Saadatmanesh and Maleks model

Saadatmanesh and Malek [27] developed a debonding

strength model to predict concrete cover separation in

FRP-plated beams based on the assumption that concrete

cover failure is related to high stresses at the plate end

(Fig. 5). Of the three stresses present at the end of the

soft plate, the shear stress t and the normal stress s

y

are from a closed-form solution derived by Malek et al.

[54] while the longitudinal stress is from a section bend-

ing analysis, all based on an uncracked section. This

closed-form solution was derived assuming the follow-

ing quadratic distribution for the bending moment which

can accommodate both point and uniformly-distributed

loads:

Ma

1

(xa)

2

a

2

(xa)a

3

(40)

where x is the distance along the soft plate from its left

end. For a simply supported beam subjected to three or

393 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

four point bending, the bending moment at the plate end

M

0

, for a soft plate terminated in the shear span, is

given by M

0

=a

2

a+a

3

.

Under this bending moment distribution (Eq. (40)),

the interfacial shear stress t at the plate end is given

as [54]

tt

frp

(b

3

Ab

2

) (41)

where

A

G

a

t

a

t

frp

E

frp

(42)

b

2

E

frp

I

tru,c

E

c

(d

frp

x

tru,c

)(2a

1

aa

2

) (43)

b

3

E

frp

1

I

tru,c

E

c

(d

frp

x

tru,c

)(a

1

a

2

a

2

aa

3

) (44)

2

a

1

E

frp

I

tru,c

E

c

(d

frp

x

tru,c

)

t

a

t

frp

G

a

where I

tru,c

is the uncracked second moment of area of

the plated section transformed to concrete, and x

tru,c

is

the neutral axis depth of this transformed section. The

normal stress s

y

at the plate end is [54]

s

y

K

n

2b

a

b

3

V

frp

E

frp

I

frp

0

+b

M

0

E

c

I

c

qE

frp

I

frp

b

frp

E

c

I

c

(45)

where

V

0

V

0

0.5hb

frp

t

frp

(b

3

Ab

2

) (46)

V

frp

0.5b

frp

t

2

frp

(b

3

Ab

2

) (47)

and

b

K

n

b

frp

4b

a

E

frp

I

frp

1/4

(48)

where I

c

is the second moment of area of the beam and

q a uniformly distributed load if such a load exists.

The longitudinal stress s

x

at the base of the RC beam,

at the end of the soft plate, due to a bending moment

M

0

can be determined from a bending analysis of an

uncracked section. The bending moment in the concrete

beam at the plate end is increased by an amount M

m

,

dened as follows and attributed to the peak interfacial

shear stress:

M

m

0.5hab

frp

t (49)

Once all three stress components at the plate end are

determined, the maximum principal stress can be found

as follows

s

1

s

x

+s

y

2

s

x

s

y

2

2

+t

2

(50)

At the plate end, the concrete is generally subjected to

biaxial tension. Concrete cover separation is deemed to

occur when the maximum principal stress (in MPa)

reaches the concrete splitting tensile strength, that is

when

s

1

f

ct

0.295(f

c

)

2/3

(51)

In generating numerical results using this model for

comparison in the companion paper [26], the present

authors adopted a trial and error procedure. The pro-

cedure involves iterating on a load until Eq. (51) is satis-

ed.

6.4. Tumialan et al.s model

Tumialan et al. [44] developed a concrete cover separ-

ation debonding strength model for FRP-plated beams.

Their model is in principle similar to the Saadatmanesh

and Malek model [27] reviewed above, in that the

stresses acting on a concrete element at the plate end

(Fig. 5) are determined and checked against a failure

criterion for the concrete. The differences lie in how

these stresses are evaluated. In Tumialan et al.s model

[44], the peak interfacial shear and normal stresses at the

plate end are determined from the solution of Roberts

[51] as follows:

tC

R1

E

frp

E

c

V

0

(52)

s

y

C

R2

t (53)

where C

R2

is dened by Eq. (25) while C

R1

is given by

C

R1

K

s

E

frp

b

frp

t

frp

1/2

M

0

V

0

b

frp

t

frp

I

tru,c

b

a

(d

frp

x

tru,c

) (54)

The factor C

R1

here differs from C

R1

in Reference [51]

in that the neutral axis and corresponding second

moment of area are here based on an uncracked section

transformed to concrete as opposed to a cracked section

transformed to the plate material. As a result, the modu-

lar ratio of E

frp

/E

c

is included in Eq. (52). The longitudi-

nal stress at the base of the RC beam s

x

, at the plate

end, is also determined from a bending analysis of an

uncracked section. However, the additional component

induced by the interfacial shear stress as considered by

Saadatmanesh and Malek [27] in Eq. (49) is not

included here.

Once the stresses at the plate end are determined, the

maximum principal stress s

1

can be easily determined

using Eq. (50). Failure by concrete cover separation is

deemed to occur when this maximum principal stress s

1

reaches the modulus of rupture of the concrete f

r

which

is taken as 0.689f

c

(MPa) (8.3f

c

psi, [55]).

In generating numerical results using this model for

comparison in the companion paper [26], the present

394 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

authors adopted the same trial and error procedure as

was used with Saadatmanesh and Maleks model [27].

7. Conclusions

Plate end debonding by either the separation of con-

crete cover or by interfacial debonding in the concrete

adjacent to the adhesive-to-concrete interface has been

the most commonly reported debonding failure mode in

tests on RC beams strengthened with a bonded FRP sof-

t plate. As a result, twelve strength models have been

developed to predict plate end debonding failure loads,

of which seven were developed for FRP-plated RC

beams and the other ve were developed for steel plated

RC beams. All these twelve models have been reviewed,

and classied into the following three categories based

on their approaches: (a) shear capacity based models; (b)

concrete tooth models; and (c) interfacial stress based

models. Each model has been concisely presented using

a consistent set of notation for ease of future reference

and cross comparison. In addition, the theoretical basis

of each model was explained and any relationship

between it and other models established. In the com-

panion paper [26], the performance of each of these

twelve models will be assessed using a large experi-

mental database of RC beams that failed by plate end

debonding assembled from an extensive literature sur-

vey.

Acknowledgements

Both authors wish to thank The Hong Kong Polytech-

nic University for the provision of a postdoctoral fellow-

ship to the rst author.

References

[1] Ritchie PA, Thomas DA, Lu LW, Connely GM. External

reinforcement of concrete beams using ber reinforced plastics.

ACI Structural Journal 1991;88(4):490500.

[2] Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. RC Beams strengthened with

GFRP plates. I: Experimental study. Journal of Structural Engin-

eering 1991;117(11):341733.

[3] Triantallou TC, Plevris N. Strengthening of RC beams with

epoxy-bonded bre-composite materials. Materials and Structures

1992;25:20111.

[4] Chajes MJ, Thomson TA, Januszka TF, Finch WW Jr. Flexural

strengthening of concrete beams using externally bonded com-

posite materials. Construction and Building Materials

1994;8(3):191201.

[5] Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Ghaleb

BN. Strengthening of initially loaded reinforced concrete beams

using FRP plates. ACI Structural Journal 1994;91(2):1608.

[6] Meier U. Strengthening of structures using carbon bre/epoxy

composites. Construction and Building Materials

1995;9(6):34151.

[7] Heffernan PJ, Erki MA. Equivalent capacity and efciency of

reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon bre

reinforced plastic sheets. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering

1996;23:219.

[8] Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. Experimental and ana-

lytical investigation of FRP strengthened beam response: Part I.

Magazine of Concrete Research 1996;48(177):33142.

[9] Shahawy MA, Arockiasamy M, Beitelman T, Sowrirajan R.

Reinforced concrete rectangular beams strengthened with CFRP

laminates. Composites: Part B 1996;27B:22533.

[10] Takeda K, Mitsui Y, Murakami K, Sakai H, Nakamura M. Flex-

ural behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with

carbon bre sheets. Composites Part A 1996;27A:9817.

[11] Arduini M, Nanni A. Behavior of pecracked RC beams strength-

ened with carbon FRP sheets. Journal of Composites for Con-

struction, ASCE 1997;1(2):6370.

[12] Garden HN, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM. A preliminary evaluation

of carbon bre reinforced polymer plates for strengthening

reinforced concrete members. Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings 1997;123(May):127

42.

[13] Garden HN, Quantrill RJ, Hollaway LC, Thorne AM, Parke

GAR. An experimental study of the anchorage length of carbon

bre composite plates used to strengthen reinforced concrete

beams. Construction and Building Materials 1998;12:20319.

[14] Varastehpour H, Hamelin P. Strengthening of concrete beams

using ber-reinforced plastics. Materials and Structures

1997;30:1606.

[15] Buyukozturk O, Hearing B. Failure behavior of precracked con-

crete beams retrotted with FRP. Journal of Composites for Con-

struction, ASCE 1998;2(3):13844.

[16] Garden HN, Hollaway LC. An experimental study of the inu-

ence of plate end anchorage of carbon bre composite plates used

to strengthen reinforced concrete beams. Composite Structures

1998;42:17588.

[17] Ross CA, Jerome DM, Tedesco JW, Hughes ML. Strengthening

of reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded composite

laminates. ACI Structural Journal 1999;96(2):21220.

[18] Grace NF, Sayed GA, Soliman AK, Saleh KR. Strengthening

reinforced concrete beams using ber reinforced polymer (FRP)

laminates. ACI Structural Journal 1999;96(5):86574.

[19] Swamy RN, Mukhopadhyaya P. Debonding of carbon-bre-

reinforced polymer plate from concrete beams. Proceedings of

the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and Buildings

1999;134(November):30117.

[20] Tumialan G, Serra P, Nanni A, Belarbi A. Concrete cover delami-

nation in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with carbon

ber reinforced polymer sheets. In: Dolan CW, Rizkalla SH,

Nanni A, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth International Sym-

posium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for

Reinforced Concrete Structures. Maryland (USA), 1999:725-735.

[21] Ramana VPV, Kant T, Morton SE, Dutta PK, Mukherjee A,

Desai YM. Behavior of CFRPC strengthened reinforced concrete

beams with varying degrees of strengthening. Composites: Part

B 2000;31:46170.

[22] Mukhopadhyaya P, Swamy N. Interface shear stress: a new

design criterion for plate debonding. Journal of Composites for

Construction, ASCE 2001;5(1):3543.

[23] Nguyen DM, Chan TK, Cheong HK. Brittle failure and bond

development length of CFRP-concrete beams. Journal of Com-

posites for Construction, ASCE 2001;5(1):127.

[24] Rahimi H, Hutchinson A. Concrete beams strengthened with

externally bonded FRP plates. Journal of Composites for Con-

struction, ASCE 2001;5(1):4456.

[25] Teng JG, Chen JF, Smith ST, Lam L. RC structures strengthened

with FRP composites. Research Centre for Advanced Technology

in Structural Engineering, Department of Civil and Structural

395 S.T. Smith, J.G. Teng / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 385395

Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong

Kong, China, December 2000.

[26] Smith ST, Teng JG. FRP-strengthened RC beams. II: assessment

of debonding strength models. Engineering Structures,

2002;24(4):397417.

[27] Saadatmanesh H, Malek AM. Design guidelines for exural

strengthening of RC beams with FRP plates. Journal of Com-

posites for Construction, ASCE 1998;2(4):15864.

[28] Smith ST, Teng JG. Interfacial stresses in plated RC beams.

Engineering Structures 2001;23:85771.

[29] Juvandes L, Figueiras JA, Marques AT. Performance of concrete

beams strengthened with CFRP laminates. In: Saadatmanesh H,

Ehsani MR, editors. Proceedings of the Second International Con-

ference on Composites in Infrastructure (ICCI). Arizona, USA,

1998.

[30] Taljsten B. Concrete beams strengthened for bending using

CFRP-sheets. In: Forde MC, editor. Proceedings of the Eighth

International Conference on Advanced Composites for Concrete

Repair. London, UK, 1999.

[31] Jones R, Swamy RN, Bloxham J, Bouderbalah A. Composite

behaviour of concrete beams with epoxy bonded external

reinforcement. The International Journal of Cement Composites

2 1980;2:91107.

[32] Jones R, Swamy RN, Charif A. Plate separation and anchorage of

reinforced concrete beams strengthened with epoxy-bonded steel

plates. The Structural Engineer 1988;66(5):8594.

[33] Macdonald MD, Calder AJJ. Bonded steel plating for strengthen-

ing concrete structures. International Journal of Adhesion and

Adhesives 1982;2(2):11927.

[34] Swamy RN, Jones R, Ang TH. Under- and over-reinforced con-

crete beams with glued steel plates. The International Journal of

Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete 4 1982;4(1):19

32.

[35] Swamy RN, Jones R, Bloxham JW. Structural behaviour of

reinforced concrete beams strengthened by epoxy-bonded steel

plates. The Structural Engineer 1987;65A(2):5968.

[36] Swamy RN, Jones R, Charif A. The effect of external plate

reinforcement on the strengthening of structurally damaged RC

beams. The Structural Engineer 1989;67(3):4556.

[37] Basunbul IA, Gubati AA, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Baluch MH.

Repaired reinforced concrete beams. ACI Materials Journal

1990;87(4):34854.

[38] Oehlers DJ, Moran JP. Premature failure of externally plated

reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE 1990;116(4):97895.

[39] Oehlers DJ. Reinforced concrete beams with plates glued to their

softs. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE

1992;118(8):202338.

[40] Hussain M, Sharif A, Basunbul IA, Baluch MH, Al-Sulaimani

GJ. Flexural behavior of precracked reinforced concrete beams

strengthened externally by steel plates. ACI Structural Journal

1995;92(1):1422.

[41] Ashrafuddin M, Baluch MH, Sharif A, Al-Sulaimani GJ, Azad

AK, Khan AR. Peeling and diagonal tension failures in steel

plated R/C beams. Construction and Building Materials

1999;13:45967.

[42] Wang CY, Ling FS. Prediction model for the debonding failure

of cracked RC beams with externally bonded FRP sheets. In:

Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Com-

posites in Infrastructure (ICCI), Arizona, USA, 1998:548562.

[43] Ahmed O, van Gemert D. Effect of longitudinal carbon ber

reinforced plastic laminates on shear capacity of reinforced con-

crete beams. In: Dolan CW, Rizkalla SH, Nanni A, editors. Pro-

ceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fiber

Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete

Structures. Maryland, USA, 1999:933943.

[44] Tumialan G, Belarbi A, Nanni A. Reinforced concrete beams

strengthened with CFRP composites: failure due to concrete

cover delamination. Department of Civil Engineering, Center for

Infrastructure Engineering Studies, Report No. CIES-99/01, Uni-

versity of Missouri-Rolla, USA: 1999.

[45] Raoof M, Hassanen MAH. Peeling failure of reinforced concrete

beams with bre-reinforced plastic or steel plates glued to their

softs. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Struc-

tures and Buildings 2000;140(August):291305.

[46] Ziraba YN, Baluch MH, Basunbul IA, Sharif AM, Azad AK, Al-

Sulaimani GJ. Guidelines towards the design of reinforced con-

crete beams with external plates. ACI Structural Journal

1994;91(6):63946.

[47] Jansze W. Strengthening of RC Members in Bending by Exter-

nally Bonded Steel Plates. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Tech-

nology, Delft, 1997.

[48] Raoof M, Zhang S. An insight into the structural behaviour of

reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded plates. Pro-

ceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and

Buildings 1997;122(November):47792.

[49] AS 3600. Concrete Structures, AS 3600, Standards Australia,

Sydney, Australia, 1988.

[50] Zhang S, Raoof M, Wood LA. Prediction of peeling failure of

reinforced concrete beams with externally bonded steel plates.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Structures and

Buildings 1995;110(August):25768.

[51] Roberts TM. Approximate analysis of shear and normal stress

concentrations in the adhesive layer of plated RC beams. The

Structural Engineer 1989;67(12):22933.

[52] ACI 318-95. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

(318-95) and Commentary (318R-95). American Concrete Insti-

tute (ACI), Fifth Printing, Michigan, USA, 1999.

[53] Ziraba YN, Baluch MH, Basunbul IA, Azad AK, Al-Sulaimani

GJ, Sharif AM. Combined experimental-numerical approach to

characterization of steel-concrete interface. Materials and Struc-

tures 1995;28:51825.

[54] Malek AM, Saadatmanesh H, Ehsani MR. Prediction of failure

load of R/C beams strengthened with FRP plate due to stress

concentration at the plate end. ACI Structural Journal

1998;95(1):14252.

[55] Mirza S, Hatzinikolas M, MacGregor J. Statistical descriptions

of the strength of concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE 1979;105(ST6):102137.

- Strength of MaterialsDiunggah olehTochi Krishna Abhishek
- AISC-ASD 89.pdfDiunggah olehKang Mas Wiralodra
- Design of Plate Girder BridgeDiunggah olehvijayunity
- Design of Steel StructureDiunggah olehTuklal Chaudhary
- Bond Development LengthDiunggah olehAbhinav Sethi
- Pure BendingDiunggah olehJun Nelo Galicia
- Analysis of Composite Beams Widely Spaced ConnectorsDiunggah olehJames O'Hara
- Bending of Plates and ShellsDiunggah olehHarish Kuppusamy
- 005A Sample Calc (1-Barrel Flume)Diunggah olehArief
- Mechanics SyllabusDiunggah olehdawdda
- Structural Support Design Guidelines 8-25-16 PDFDiunggah olehsbalu12674
- 3.1Diunggah olehSathish P
- Horizontal ShearDiunggah olehAnay Karambelkar
- 17304 - Strength of MaterialsDiunggah olehMohammed Aaquib
- Experience of Analysis of Bridge StructuresDiunggah olehBambang Tutuko Sudiro
- Handout - Ansys ExamplesDiunggah olehthehighlife1080
- Structural Analysis of Cessna 182 Main Spar as an Open and Closed Beam SectionDiunggah olehXitlaliChávez
- Examples - Combined StressDiunggah olehamdeva
- 322170263-Mechanics-of-Deformable-Bodies-Solved-Problems.docxDiunggah olehIsabelle Luna
- Me2113 Advanced Strength of MaterialsDiunggah olehDinesh Kumar Rathore
- Ramin Shamshiri FEM Project2Diunggah olehRaminShamshiri
- Mathcad - Quick Check Stack Joint SleeveDiunggah olehRomil Sampayo
- SomDiunggah olehSagarBhiwandikar
- coursecodeand courseoutline.docxDiunggah olehYonas YG
- imp234Diunggah olehvempadareddy
- B tech syllabus.pdfDiunggah olehshib swain
- Seismic_Behavior_and_Design_of_Base_Plat.pdfDiunggah olehLeonardo Perez Montes
- Park and Paulay - Cap.7 Shear - Pp 270-319Diunggah olehEric Guggino
- 2222Diunggah olehBorhan Shaikat
- Photoelasticity in PipesDiunggah olehCharles Zappa

- 666.full.pdfDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Template Artikel - English.docxDiunggah olehAkmal Muhni
- BULK SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION OF AGGREGATEDiunggah olehsattiric
- Effects of Maha Mrityunjaya and Gayatri MantrasDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Inspire Faculty Results Jan 18 .PDFDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- BrochureDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- 7279138Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Mesic Bridge 1994Diunggah olehJulio Garcia Serafin
- Calcium Silicate Insulation BrochureDiunggah olehibson045001256
- I.S.EN196-1-2016Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- I.S.EN196-1-2016Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- s Mm 0401005Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Zhang 2017Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- CIL Template White UpdatedDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- CIL Template White UpdatedDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Guide Foundation SupervisionDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Epoxy-Young.pdfDiunggah olehNguyen Thanh Duc BK
- NA to SS EN 1998-1-2013.pdfDiunggah olehromanch2204
- Guide Foundation SupervisionDiunggah olehmkpasha55mp
- EN_ISO_10426-1{2000}_(E) codifiedDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- OGDev CementDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- OGDev CementDiunggah olehAnonymous LEVNDh4
- Malaysia Visa App FormDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- 1-s2.0-S0920410513001915-mainDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- File ServeDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- 392450Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Proceedings of the ICE - Structures and Buildings Volume 156 Issue 1 2003 [Doi 10.1680%2Fstbu.2003.156.1.51] Teng, J. G.; Chen, J. F.; Smith, S. T.; Lam, L. -- Behaviour and Strength of FRP-streDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- Available CodesDiunggah olehPankaj Munjal
- susac2017Diunggah olehPankaj Munjal

- R. Nagendra -Paper on Mix Proportioning as Per is 10262-2009Diunggah olehVinod Jogur
- tranverse and longitudinal jiontsDiunggah olehMohit Sharma
- Post-tensioned-Slabs-1.pdfDiunggah olehAshraf Abu-mahfoud
- Safe Room Designs - Tiny House 2019 Catalog - Revised 1-4-2019Diunggah olehRick Clarke
- Sand CastingDiunggah olehrana123**
- Kirby Product SpecificationsDiunggah olehAzhar Shaikh
- EstimatesDiunggah olehMary O. Clemente
- Upgrading Cabinet BTS 3900A to Version D V2 20140421Diunggah olehJeremy Gabriel
- Strainer_305_datasheet_english.pdfDiunggah olehGeorge_Wabag_2014
- MASTERKURE 100WBDiunggah olehDoby Yuniardi
- 5050-7143-1-PB.pdfDiunggah olehMichael Asmith Unique
- Mud BrickDiunggah olehabc
- Clariant FRDiunggah olehChanakya
- Tabel besi IspatindoDiunggah olehtonni.s36
- Masonry WorkDiunggah olehIbrahim Mostazid
- Studebaker Ls Ss 17Diunggah olehAlyssa
- ufc 4-151-10 general criteria for waterfront construction (10 september 2001)Diunggah olehBob Vines
- 2162103.pdfDiunggah olehRajkumar A
- PDS Sika Waterbars EGDiunggah olehKorupolu
- hdpe props.xlsxDiunggah olehnirajlamichhane
- Min Tek Pyro Metallurgy 1Diunggah olehBernard García Durán
- mold.pptxDiunggah olehSuresh Rajagopal
- National Workshop on Is_456-2000Diunggah olehThomas Martin
- PE100 Pipeline Design, Installation and Jointing - Muscat Handout.pdfDiunggah olehayaz
- WTI Screw Thread InsertsDiunggah olehAce Industrial Supplies
- PCA Chapter 15 - Specify, Design, ProportionDiunggah olehgreat_triskelion
- 001Joint ChecksheetDiunggah olehMahibul Hasan
- Materials & Process for NDT Technology (ASNT Specific)Diunggah olehAbderrahmane Gaouas
- Stainless Steel Grade 316 Properties Fabrication and ApplicationsDiunggah olehhariya03240681
- Concrete PileDiunggah olehNasyafa Kasyura Abdikas