0 Suka0 Tidak suka

145 tayangan23 halamantorsion

Feb 11, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

torsion

© All Rights Reserved

145 tayangan

torsion

© All Rights Reserved

- Welding Safety
- friction on inclined plane
- 1 Rectangular Notch
- Torsion report.pdf
- Schardt_Sheet Metal Box Lab Report
- mechanics composite materials
- Lab 3 Belt Friction Experiment
- TorsionTest Lab Report
- What is R.M.S (Root Mean Square)?
- RMS values of rectifier waveforms
- Bernoulli Apparatus
- Torsion Test
- EMEGEO-30
- notch
- TUTORIAL_Triple Integral.pdf
- Report torsion new
- 1
- Metal Box India Ltd
- flow over rectangular and v - notches
- Study of a rectangular notch

Anda di halaman 1dari 23

JULIO F. DAVALOS

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV 26506-6103, USA

Department of Civil Engineering

The University of Akron

Akron, OH 44325-3905, USA

HANI A. SALIM

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211-2200, USA

JEREMY SCHLUSSEL

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

West Virginia University

Morgantown, WV 26506-6103, USA

(Received August 10, 2000)

(Revised November 9, 2000)

of in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli of structural composite laminates from

torsion is presented. The test samples are produced by pultrusion and consist of

E-glass fiber systems and vinylester resin. Three types of rectangular samples are

used: unidirectional samples cut from plates; angle-ply and angle/cross ply samples

cut from wide-flange beams. The shear moduli are obtained from the experimental

torsional stiffnesses (T/) and data reduction techniques based on torsion solutions

by Lekhnitskii and Whitney. The classical approach of using paired samples of

different widths but same material orientation can grossly underestimate out-ofplane shear moduli. Thus, to overcome this problem, samples with material

orientations normal to each other are used, and to obtain samples of larger

dimensions than the available thicknesses of the material, the pultruded laminates

are bonded flat-wise, from which transverse strips of different widths are cut.

Consistent results are obtained by the two data reduction techniques, and the

experimental values are compared to predictions by micro/macro-mechanics models.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Qiao@uakron.edu

0021-9983/02/10 115123 $10.00/0

DOI: 10.1106/002199802023486

2002 Sage Publications

1151

1152

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

In relation to more elaborate methods, the proposed torsional approach can be easily

implemented in the laboratory, and by testing a representative volume of the

material with this method, it is expected to obtain reliable shear moduli data for

structural composites.

KEY WORDS: fiber-reinforced plastic composites, laminates, in-plane and out-ofplane shear moduli, torsion, micro/macro-mechanics, data reduction techniques.

INTRODUCTION

beams, columns, and cellular panels are

increasingly used in structural applications. Structural sections, such as wide-flange,

box, and other shapes, consist typically of arrangements of flat walls. The most common

processing method for FRP structural members is pultrusion, followed by vacuumassisted resin transfer molding (VARTM). The constituents are typically E-glass fiber

systems and vinylester or polyester resins, and the ply materials may include unidirectional

fiber bundles or roving, continuous or chopped randomly-oriented strand mats, and

stitched fabrics with orientations. In the pultrusion process, the sections are not

produced by lamination lay-up, but the arrangement of the constituent materials can be

simulated as a layered system, and the stiffness properties of each panel can be predicted

by lamination theory in terms of the ply stiffnesses computed through micromechanics [1].

Since it is nearly impossible to test the individual plies of a pultruded section, it is

required to determine the material properties at the laminate level through reliable test and

analysis methods.

Shear deformations for pultruded FRP composites can be significant [1] due to the

relatively low shear moduli of the constituents used, and therefore, the modeling of FRP

structural components should account for shear effects. In general, the evaluation of shear

stiffness and strength is a difficult task, and while a number of test methods are available,

as discussed for example by Chiao et al. [2], there can be a considerable discrepancy in the

reported results.

For fiber reinforced composite materials, it is difficult to design a test in which only pure

shear is applied. Generally, there are five acceptable test methods for evaluation of

composite shear properties [3], namely, the Iosipescu test, 45 coupon tension test, the

off-axis tension test, the rail shear test, and the torsion test. The torsion test can induce a

pure shear state of stress, provide average shear properties over a large volume of the

specimen, and minimize localized material and stress concentration effects. For a

rectangular bar under torsion, the cross-section is a plane of elastic symmetry [4], and the

center of twist is assumed to remain constant along the length of the bar. In this state, only

two of the six components of stress are not zero; i.e., xy and xz. Therefore, the shear

moduli Gxy and Gxz can be evaluated from torsion tests, which allow for larger samples to

be tested when compared to other test methods available.

Since most structural composites consist of thick or moderately-thick laminates (0.2500

0.500 or thicker), the number of test methods for determining shear moduli and strengths

is limited. In particular, torsion tests and side-notched (Iosipescu) tests are commonly

used. The torsion tests make use of either cylindrical rods [2,5] or rectangular samples [6],

while the Iosipescu shear test [3] uses a flat specimen with side notches, similar to the

sample proposed by Arcan et al. [7], to develop a state of uniform stress in the gauge

section. The computational procedure of shear moduli from torsion tests and linear elastic

1153

torsion theory for anisotropic bars [8] is well established [9]. Similarly, the Iosipescu test

method has been extensively discussed by various researchers [6,10,11].

The Iosipescu test is the most common test method to compute the in-plane shear

stiffness for composite materials, including pultruded FRP composites. The major

disadvantages of this method are the small effective sections tested, which may not be

representative of the material [11], and the stress concentration at the notched section of

the specimen [12,13]. For pultruded FRP composites [11], it has been observed that there is

significant variability in the results obtained with the Iosipescu test, which can be

attributed to the presence of material defects (resin-rich and fiber-rich zones) over the

small area tested by this method. Other drawbacks of this method are the labor-intense

sample preparation, the large number of required repetitions, and the required fabrication

of special testing fixtures. Moreover, the Iosipescu test is generally used to obtain only

in-plane shear properties.

The torsion test, on the other hand, produces pure shear state of stress in the specimen,

and the analysis of the experimental results can be easily interpreted. The torsion test also

provides average shear properties over a larger volume of the sample minimizing the

localized effect problems encountered in the Iosipescu test. In the literature, however, the

torsion test method has been used mainly for unidirectional laminates, and the procedure

consists of testing laminates with the same material orientation but varying widths [14].

In this paper, we show that this technique grossly underestimates the out-of-plane

shear modulus. A better approach is to test paired samples with two distinct material

orientations.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this paper is to propose a comprehensive combined experimental and

analytical method to effectively evaluate shear moduli for FRP structural laminates from

torsion. By simulating the pultruded panel as a layered system, the panel shear stiffness

properties are predicted by classical macromechanics and modified transverse shear

deformation theory in terms of the ply stiffnesses and compliances computed through

micromechanics. The experimental program includes testing three distinct pultruded FRP

laminates (unidirectional, angle-ply, and angle/cross-ply) under torsion, and the shear

moduli are evaluated through a new approach using paired samples with material

orientations normal to each other, as opposed to classical methods that can grossly

underestimate the out-of-plane moduli. Torsion solutions by Lekhnitskii [8] and Whitney

[13] are implemented as data-reduction methods to obtain the shear moduli. The test

methods and data-reduction techniques presented in this paper provide practical

guidelines for evaluation of shear moduli by investigators, material producers and

design engineers.

Overview of the Theory

Micromechanics and Macromechanics models are considered as fundamental tools for

the evaluation of composite materials. In this study, combined micro/macromechanics are

1154

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Material architecture of test samples: (a) unidirectional (Sample U); (b) angle-ply (Sample A) and

(c) angle- and cross-ply (Sample AC).

used to predict the laminate elastic properties. Pultruded FRP shapes are not laminated

structures in a rigorous sense; however, they are produced with material architectures that

can be simulated as laminated configurations [1]. A typical pultruded section may include

the following four types of layers (see examples in Figure 1): (1) a thin layer of randomlyoriented chopped fibers (Veil) placed on the surface of the composite. This is a resin-rich

layer primarily used as a protective coating, and its contribution to the laminate response

can be neglected; (2) continuous or Chopped Strand Mats (CSM) of different weights,

consisting of continuous or chopped randomly-oriented fibers; (3) Stitched Fabrics (SF)

with different angle orientations, and (4) roving layers that contain continuous

unidirectional fiber bundles, which contribute the most to the stiffness and strength of a

section. Each layer is modeled as a homogeneous, linearly elastic, and generally

orthotropic material. The modeling of FRP structural composites as laminates and

prediction of their stiffness properties require accurate ply stiffnesses, which can be

1155

evaluated through micromechanics by estimating the individual ply thickness and the

fiber volume fraction (Vf) of the constituents. Further information on modeling of

pultruded FRP sections and computation of Vf for simulated layer systems can be found

in Davalos et al. [1].

Several formulas of micromechanics of composites have been developed and used over

time [15], and the degree of correlation between experimental data and theoretical

predictions depends on the accuracy of the model used. In this study, we compute the ply

shear stiffnesses for the roving and stitched fabric layers using primarily a micromechanics

model for composites with periodic microstructure [16]; as an illustration, the expression

for the computation of the in-plane shear modulus G12 is

S3

1

G12 Gm Vf

Gm Gm Gf

where Gm and Gf are the shear moduli of the matrix and the fibers, respectively, and S3 is

given as

S3 0:49247 0:47603Vf 0:02748Vf2

In addition, the composite cylinder model developed by Hasin and Rosen [17], which is

based on the self-consistent theory, can provide reasonably accurate stiffness predictions

for roving and SF layers. The formula for G12 given by the composite cylinder model is

G12 Gm

1 Vf Gf 1 Vf Gm

1 Vf Gf 1 Vf Gm

For comparative purposes and because of its popularity, we also compute the elastic

properties of roving and SF layers by the inverse rule of mixtures approach [18]. For

example, the expression for G12 is given by

G12

Gm Gf

1 Vf Gf Vf Gm

Based on the assumption that the material is isotropic in the plane [19], the in-plane

shear stiffness of the CSM layers are estimated from the approximate expressions given by

Hull [20] for randomly oriented composites:

1

1

G12 E1 E2

8

4

where, E1 and E2 are computed from any of the micromechanics models described above.

Using macromechanics, the in-plane shear stiffness of a laminate can be predicted from

the shear compliance (66), which is computed from ply material properties and the inverse

of the extensional stiffness matrix [A] as

Gxy

1

66 h

1156

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

where, h is the thickness of the whole laminate. The in-plane shear modulus computed by

Equation (5) is valid for the case of the laminate under in-plane loading. For a laminate

under torsion, the in-plane shear stiffness of the laminate is computed from the twist

compliance coefficient (66), which is dependent on the stacking sequence and is evaluated

from the inverse of the bending stiffness matrix [D] as

Gxy

12

66 h3

relations for the laminate shear stress resultants are given by Vinson and Sierakowski

[21] as

Qx

Qy

A55

A45

A45

A44

xz

yz

7

where

N

1

5X

4 3

3

Qij k zk zk1 zk zk1 2

Aij

4 k1

3

h

i, j 4, 5

and zk is the distance from the mid-surface of the kth ply to the middle surface of the

laminate. Ply shear stiffness quantities Q ij k are computed from the individual ply shear

moduli G13 and G23, which are obtained from micromechanics models. Then the out-ofplane modulus of a laminate, Gxz, is

Gxz

A55

h

macroscopic responses such as bending with shear deformation, buckling loads and

vibration frequencies. For a laminate in torsion, we adopt a modified shear deformation

theory [13,22] to evaluate the effective out-of-plane shear modulus. In this case, the

transverse shear constitutive relations are of the form [22]

Qx

xz

F55 F45

9

Qy

yz

F45 F44

where

(

Qx

Qy

F44

R55

;

R44 R55 R245

Rij

F55

h=2

h=2

R44

;

R44 R55 R245

xz

yz

)

dz

F45

R45

;

R44 R55 R245

N

9 X

ij k zk zk1 8 z3 z3 1 16z5 z5 1

S

k1 2

k

k1 4

4h2 k1

3 k

h

h

i, j 4, 5

1157

and Sij k denotes the ply transverse shear compliance. Then the out-of-plane shear

modulus of a laminate, Gxz, is

Gxz

F55

h

10

The shear modulus in Equation (10) is based on the integral of weighted shear

compliances and on the assumption that the transverse shear stress distributions are

parabolic and continuous at layer interfaces.

The predicted values from Equations (6) and (10) are representative of the laminate

responses under torsion loading, and they are used in this study as baseline values for

comparisons with experimental data.

The in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli for three pultruded laminates used in this

study are predicted by the above micro/macro mechanics approach. The laminates

considered are: (1) a unidirectional sample, designated as U and obtained from a flat plate,

consisting of two continuous strand mat (CSM) layers and one roving layer [Figure 1(a)];

(2) an angle-ply (A) sample, cut from a 1200 1200 1/200 wide-flange beam, with seven

CSM layers, seven angle-ply stitched fabric (SF) layers, and six roving layers [Figure 1(b)];

and an angle/cross-ply (AC) sample, obtained also from a 1200 1200 1/200 wide-flange

beam, consisting of seven CSM layers, four cross-ply and three angle-ply SF layers, and six

roving layers [Figure 1(c)]. The reinforcements are all E-glass and the resin is Vinylester,

with material properties listed in Table 1.

The material properties and fiber volume fractions of the different plies are computed

following Davalos et al. [1] and are given in Table 2, along with the in-plane shear moduli

Table 1. Material properties of the constituents.

Material

E-glass fiber

Vinylester resina

a

E (GPa)

G (GPa)

q (g/cm3)

72.395

5.061

28.841

1.634

0.255

0.30

2.550

1.136

Ply Properties

Sample

Type

U

U

A, AC

A, AC

A, AC

AC

a

G12 (GPa)

Lamina

t

(mm)

Vf

Periodic

Microstructure

Composite

Cylinder

Inverse Rule

of Mixture

1 oz. CSM

61 yield roving

3/4 oz. CSM

45 SF

62 yield roving

0 /90 SF

0.508a

8.509b

0.381a

0.660a

0.851b

0.660a

0.236

0.410

0.236

0.362

0.627

0.370

4.357

3.536

4.205

3.205

5.852

3.256

4.424

3.652

4.276

3.294

6.219

3.350

3.945

3.907

4.237

3.489

7.138

3.553

Based on total thickness of laminate.

1158

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

Sample

Type

Ex

(GPa)

Ey

(GPa)

Equation

(5)

Equation

(6)

Equation

(8)

Equation

(10)

mxy

U

A

AC

30.192

26.366

28.310

10.446

13.259

14.858

3.627

6.412

5.343

3.772

6.247

4.475

2.958

3.813

3.813

2.958

4.199

4.199

0.327

0.396

0.300

values evaluated from micromechanics formulae. Then, using Equations (5), (6), (8) and

(10), the in-plane and out-of-plane shear properties of the laminates (Gxy and Gxz) are

evaluated and are given in Table 3; the predicted values by Equations (6) and (10) are

correlated with experimental results in subsequent sections.

TORSION SOLUTIONS

The first solution for torsion was presented by Coulomb in 1784. About 40 years later,

Navier presented a rigorous solution for torsion of circular shafts. In 1855, St. Venant

developed a torsion solution for rectangular bars that included a warping function. A

detailed discussion of torsion theories is presented by Hsu [23].

Lekhnitskii [8] applied St. Venants formulation for torsion to orthotropic materials and

obtained solutions for circular and rectangular bars with three mutually perpendicular

planes of material symmetry. Davalos et al. [9] applied this approach to orthotropic wood

samples and presented a combined analytical/experimental method to obtain principal

shear moduli. Lekhnitskiis solution can be successfully used for orthotropic samples; for

more complex materials, Whitney [13] presented a solution incorporating transverse shear

deformation for the torsion of rectangular laminated anisotropic composite plates. In the

following two sections, we briefly describe the computational algorithms of Lekhnitskiis

and Whitneys torsion solutions for anisotropic materials.

Lekhnitskiis Solution for Orthotropic Materials

A solution for the torsion of rectangular orthotropic bars in their principal material

directions was presented by Lekhnitskii [8]. In Figure 2, the sample is subjected to a

torque, T, applied about the longitudinal axis x and causing an angle of twist . The

dimensions of the sample are: a width, b thickness, and L length. The torque versus

angle of twist (T/) can be expressed as

T

ab3

Gxy

L

11a

s

"

r!#

1

32a2 Gxz X

1

2a Gxz

i

b Gxy

4 2

tanh

1

i

b Gxy

2a Gxz

11b

1159

In Equation (11), the torsional stiffness is a function of the two principal shear moduli.

When Equation (11) is reduced to an isotropic case (Gxy Gxz G) and evaluated for a

large number of terms, is denoted by k and expressed as

1

b

1 0:63

k

3

a

By substituting k for in Equation (11), we obtain St. Venants torsion solution for a

rectangular isotropic bar:

T

ab3 1

b

Gxy

1 0:63

a

L 3

12

The most commonly used approach to solve for the shear moduli in Equation (11) is to

test two samples with different cross-sectional dimensions but same material orientation

[4]. A graphical method proposed by Tarnopolskii and Kincis [24] is typically used to

solve for the shear moduli. The problem with this approach is that the out-of-plane shear

modulus, Gxz, is grossly underestimated. For example, Sumsion and Rajapakse [14]

reported Gxz values as much as 90% lower than Gxy for unidirectional transversely

isotropic composites, for which one should expect Gxz Gxy.

A better approach is to pair samples with either the same or different cross-sectional

dimensions but with material orientations normal to each other. Davalos et al. [9] used this

approach for paired orthotropic wood samples manufactured with the same crosssectional dimensions, but with principal material orientations perpendicular to one

another. The corresponding two distinct equations were then solved by a method of

successive substitutions. In this study, we modify the approach proposed by Davalos et al.

[9] to obtain a more efficient solution by the bisection method [25,26]. Pultruded FRP

structural laminates are considered, and to obtain samples of variable widths in the

xz-plane, the pultruded laminates [Figure 3(a)] were bonded flat-wise, and vertical strips

were cut from the bonded assemblies as shown in Figure 3(b).

1160

JULIO F. DAVALOS

(a)

ET AL.

(b)

Figure 3. Sample orientations for: (a) in-plane (xy) and (b) out-of-plane (xz) shear moduli.

Whitney [13] provided solutions for both pure and free torsion of plates, and the basic

assumptions of the theory are similar to those often used in macromechanics of

composites. For an anisotropic laminated plate subjected to torsion, a modified shear

deformation theory for displacements was used to derive the torsional stiffness as

T

4a

1 2= tanh =2

D66 1 2= 1 D 66 =D66 tanh =2

13

where D 66 is given by

B D B D16 B11 D16 D16 A11 B11 B16

D 66 D66 16 11 16

D11 A11 B2

11

14

Aij , Bij , and Dij are the coefficients of the inverse of the ABD matrix, and is defined as

2s3

D 66 A44 A55 A245 5

a4

A44

15

where a width of sample (Figure 3). For a symmetric orthotropic sample, we get

A45 B16 D16 0, and Equation (13) can be simplified as

4ab3 Gxy

T

2

tanh

1

2

12

where

"s#

12Gxz

a

b2 Gxy

16

1161

The Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys torsion solutions summarized above are used in

conjunction with torsion tests to evaluate the shear moduli for various laminates. The

application of torsion solutions as data reduction techniques for torsion tests is further

discussed in the Results section.

TEST SAMPLES AND PROCEDURE

The three sample types shown in Figure 1 were tested using a manually operated torsion

machine that permitted accurate measurements of applied torque and angle of twist. In

this section we describe the test specimens and methods used.

Test Samples

The unidirectional samples (U) were cut from a pultruded flat plate of thickness

9.53 mm (3/800 ) [Figure 1(a)], and both the angle-ply samples (A) and angle/cross-ply

samples (AC) were obtained from pultruded wide-flange beams 304.8 304.8 12.7 mm

(1200 1200 1/200 ); thus the thickness of these samples was 12.7 mm(1/200 ), and their fiber

architectures are shown respectively in Figures 1(b) and 1(c). For each of these three

sample-types, specimens of 0.432 m (1700 ) in length were cut in four widths: 25.4 mm (1.000 ),

38.1 mm (1.500 ), 50.8 mm (2.000 ), and 63.5 mm (2.500 ) [e.g., for the U samples, U10, U15, U20

and U25 represent the unidirectional samples with widths of 25.4 mm (1.000 ), 38.1 mm

(1.500 ), 50.8 mm (2.000 ) and 63.5 mm (2.500 ), respectively], with four replications for each

width. The orientation of these samples is described in Figure 3(a), with the width

dimension along the y-axis and the longitudinal dimension along the x-axis.

To obtain samples with larger dimensions than the available material thickness in the

xz-plane [see Figure 3(b)], flat strips were cut from the plate and beam components and

bonded flat-wise with epoxy. The bonded layered specimens were subsequently cut into

vertical strips to obtain samples with the same dimensions as those obtained directly

from the pultruded components; i.e., samples with thickness 9.53 mm (3/800 ) or 12.7 mm

(1/200 ) and width 25.4 mm (1.000 ), 38.1 mm (1.500 ), 50.8 mm (2.000 ) and 63.5 mm (2.500 ). This

approach was used to produce paired samples with same dimensions, but material

orientations normal to each other (see Figure 3). To denote the bonded samples for each

type of laminate, the letter B is added to the corresponding designation; e.g., UB identifies

the unidirectional bonded samples.

Test Procedure

The samples were tested in a manually-operated torsion machine. The torque was

applied through a large wheel at one end and a counterbalance pendulum at the other

end. To increase the accuracy of angle of twist measurement, a circular gear was fitted

concentrically through the specimen at each gage point, and the rotation of the gear

was transferred by a plastic chain to an outside small pulley in order to magnify the

displacement of a transducer (LVDT) suspended from the pulley by a plastic thread.

The angle of twist between two sections sufficiently away from the grips (ASTM D198)

was computed from the displacements of the transducers and the geometry of the

gear-and-pulley mechanism. In this study, the gauge length of 0.229 m (9.0 in) is used to

measure the angle of twist between two sections.

1162

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

The torque was applied at a rate of about three degrees per minute, for a total angle of

twist within the material elastic limit of about 10 . Each sample was tested four times, and

the torque versus angle of twist (T/) was obtained through linear regression of the data.

For further details of the experimental procedure, see Schussel [27]. The data reduction

techniques used for various torsion solutions are discussed next.

RESULTS, DATA REDUCTION METHODS AND DISCUSSION

The torsional stiffnesses (T/) for three types of laminated samples were obtained

experimentally to evaluate their shear moduli from torsion solutions. The experimental

program is organized in two parts: (1) unidirectional (U) samples and (2) angle-ply (A)

and angle/cross-ply (AC) samples.

Unidirectional Samples

This phase of the study is concerned with the response of the unidirectional samples

shown in Figure 1(a). Two approaches are used to evaluate the shear moduli Gxy and Gxz

from paired samples. The first approach consists of applying Lekhnitskiis orthotropic

torsion solution to test results of samples of different sizes but same material orientations;

in the second approach, the solutions by Lekhnitskii and Whitney are used in conjunction

with test results for samples with mutually orthogonal material orientations; i.e.,

combining samples U (cut from the pultruded plate) and UB (produced by bonding) as

shown in Figure 3. Further, as an approximation and to show the validity of transverse

isotropy for these samples, the shear moduli is also obtained from St. Venants isotropic

solution (Equation 12). The results for each method used are discussed next.

UNIDIRECTIONAL SAMPLES WITH SAME MATERIAL ORIENTATIONS

A commonly used method to evaluate shear moduli for specially orthotropic materials

(when the geometric and material axes coincide) is by torsion tests of samples with

different cross-sectional dimensions but same material orientation. However, as shown in

this study, this method can grossly underestimate the out-of-plane shear modulus Gxz.

Samples with four different widths were tested in torsion, and the average dimensions and

torsional stiffnesses of the samples, including the bonded samples to be used later, are

given in Table 4.

Following the graphical method by Tarnopolskii and Kincis [24], the results for the

unidirectional samples U with same material orientations are shown in Table 5. Based on

Table 4. Average dimensions and response of U and UB samples.

Sample

U10

U15

U20

U25

UB10

UB15

UB20

UB25

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

T//(N-m)

24.638

37.694

50.444

63.221

25.781

37.694

50.419

65.075

9.296

9.373

9.398

9.373

9.296

9.373

9.550

9.042

121.517 (COV = 2.163%)

179.085 (COV = 1.688%)

239.128 (COV = 1.047%)

63.482 (COV = 3.227%)

107.040 (COV = 4.524%)

181.686 (COV = 5.002%)

213.536 (COV = 3.115%)

1163

Table 5. Shear moduli results from U samples with one material orientation.

Sample Pairs

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

3.647

3.813

3.806

4.020

3.944

3.992

1.269

1.151

1.151

0.848

0.910

0.841

3.868 (3.65%)

1.027 (17.90%)

U10 : U15

U10 : U20

U10 : U25

U15 : U20

U15 : U25

U20 : U25

Average (COV)

transverse isotropy, it is expected that the two shear moduli be approximately equal to

each other, but in this case, the out-of-plane modulus Gxz obtained is only about 27% of

the in-plane modulus Gxy. A similar discrepancy can be observed in the results reported for

unidirectional samples by Sumsion and Rajapakse [14], who provided no explanation for

the out-of-plane modulus being as low as one-tenth of the in-plane modulus. A better

approach is to use paired samples with material orientations normal to each other, as

shown next.

UNIDIRECTIONAL SAMPLES WITH DISTINCT

MATERIAL ORIENTATIONS

To obtain shear moduli from torsion solutions by Lekhnitskii [Equation (11)] and

Whitney [Equation (16)], an effective approach is to determine the (T/) values for at least

two samples with distinct material orientations [9]. In this study, samples with the same

cross-sectional dimensions but orthogonal material orientations were paired (Figure 3),

and using Equations (11) and (16), the in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli values were

obtained. Each size group consisted of four samples in the xy direction and four samples in

the xz direction to obtain 16 sets of values for Gxy and Gxz. Furthermore, by cross-pairing

each size-group of xy samples with the four size-groups of xz samples, a total of 64 sets of

Gxy and Gxz values were obtained, with a final grand total of 256 sets of values.

Data Reduction Based on Lekhnitskiis Solution

To use Lekhnitskiis solution, Equation (11) was rewritten for each sample orientation as

Gxy

K1 L1

;

a1 b31 1

Gxz

K2 L2

a2 b32 2

17a

where

Ki

Ti

,

i

i 1, 2

17b

s

"

r!#

1

32a21 Gxz X

1

2a1 Gxz

i

b1 Gxy

tanh

1 4 2

1

i

b1 Gxy

2a1 Gxz

17c

1164

JULIO F. DAVALOS

s!#

"

r

1

32a22 Gxy X

1

2a2 Gxy

i

b2 Gxz

2 4 2

1

tanh

i

b2 Gxz

2a2 Gxy

ET AL.

17d

Both Equations (17a) need to be solved simultaneously, and to simplify the computational

effort we divide Equation (17c) by Equation (17d), resulting in

1

h

X

p i

p

1=i4 1 2a1 =i

b1 tanhi

b1 =2a1 1=

3

a2 b2 K1 L1

i1, 3, 5

18

1

X

p

a1 b1 K2 L2

1h

p i

1

2a

=i

b

1=

tanh

i

b

=2a

2

2

2

2

i4

i1, 3, 5

where

Gxz

Gxy

Now, there is only one unknown, , in Equation (18), and by solving for by the bisection

method [25,26], we can obtain the in-plane (Gxy) and out-of-plane (Gxz) shear moduli as:

(

Gxz

a31 b1

4

1

h

X

p i 32

p

1=i4 1 2a1 =i

b1 tanh i

b1 =2a1 1=

K1 L1

19a

i1, 3, 5

Gxy

Gxz

19b

Table 6 presents the results for paired samples of the same size and cross-paired samples

of different sizes. The results of this method support the assumption that an orthotropic

composite material with unidirectional fibers can be modeled as transversely isotropic.

Also, the results indicate that as the width of the sample increases, the corresponding shear

modulus on that plane increases (Table 6). To observe this effect in Table 6, see any row

for Gxy and any column for Gxz.

Data Reduction Based on Whitneys Solution

Whitneys simplified torsion solution [13] is given in Equation (16). By mathematically

rotating the coordinate system (Figure 4), the following system of equations are obtained

for the xy and xz planes:

Table 6. Shear moduli results using Lekhnitskiis solution for U samples.

Width

(mm) xz

Plane

25.781

37.694

50.419

65.075

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

xy Plane

xy Plane

24.638

37.694

50.444

63.221

24.638

37.694

50.444

63.221

2.959

2.936

2.858

2.841

3.250

3.233

3.180

3.169

3.384

3.371

3.332

3.323

3.535

3.524

3.491

3.484

2.683

2.793

3.250

3.366

2.644

2.767

3.225

3.344

2.627

2.755

3.214

3.338

2.611

2.743

3.203

3.327

(a)

1165

(b)

Figure 4. Orientation for: (a) in-plane shear and (b) out-of-plane shear moduli.

s!

p

#

"

3a1 p

T1

1 4a1 b31 Gxy

b1

1

tanh

xy-plane : K1

1 p

1 L1

12

b1

3a1

20a

p s!#

"

3a2 1

T2

1 4a2 b32 Gxy

b2 p

xz-plane : K2

tanh

1 p

2 L2

12

b2

3a2

20b

where

Gxz

Gxy

p p

p

p

3

3a1 =b1

K1

L2

a1 b1 1 1 b1 = 3a1 1= tanh

p

p

p

K2

L1

a2 b32 1 b2 = 3a2 tanh

3a2 =b2 1=

21

Again, by using the bisection method [26] and solving for the only unknown, , we can

obtain the in-plane (Gxy) and out-of-plane (Gxz) shear moduli as:

Gxy

3K1

p p

p

p

a1 b31 1 b1 = 3a1

1= tanh

3a1 =b1

Gxz Gxy

22a

22b

Table 7 presents the results for paired samples of the same size and cross-paired samples

of different sizes. Similar to the results based on Lekhnitskiis solution, the shear modulus

increases as the corresponding width of the sample increases.

1166

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

Width (mm)

xz plane

25.781

37.694

50.419

65.075

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

xy Plane

xy Plane

24.638

37.694

50.444

63.221

24.638

37.694

50.444

63.221

2.877

2.853

2.786

3.199

3.195

3.178

3.131

3.199

3.343

3.330

3.294

3.285

3.501

3.490

3.460

3.453

2.619

2.754

3.215

3.337

2.586

2.728

3.189

3.314

2.571

2.718

3.179

3.310

2.557

2.708

3.169

3.303

From Tables 6 and 7, it can be observed that the shear modulus increases as the

width of the corresponding principal plane increases. A comparative summary of average

experimental values are given in Table 8, along with predicted values from micro/macromechanics formulas [see Equations (6) and (10)]. Consistent results are obtained

by all three solutions: Lekhnitskii, Whitney, and isotropic. For the in-plane shear

modulus, the predicted value is about 16.3 and 16.9% higher than the average

experimental values of various widths from Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions,

respectively; whereas, there are correspondingly about 3.4 and 0.1% differences for

the out-of-plane shear modulus. Thus, the proposed analytical formulations can

provide reasonable shear moduli properties for unidirectional composites. A graphical

representation of the results is given in Figures 5a and 5b, clearly showing the behavior

of shear moduli with increase in sample width. As discussed above, the method using

samples of one material orientation grossly underestimates out-of-plane shear moduli

(Table 5).

Following the procedures described above, the angle-ply (A) and angle/cross-ply (AC)

samples and their corresponding bonded pairs (AB and ACB) were tested in torsion and

Table 8. Summary of Gxy and Gxz for U samples.

Shear

Modulus

Samples

Width

(mm)

a/b

Ratio

Gxy

24.638

2.65

37.694

4.02

50.444

5.37

63.221

6.75

Average (COV)

Gxz

25.781

37.694

50.419

65.075

2.77

4.02

5.28

7.20

Average (COV)

Isotropic

(GPa)

Lekhnitskii

(GPa)

Whitney

(GPa)

Predicted

(GPa)

2.882

3.282

3.344

3.496

3.254 (8.05%)

2.896

3.206

3.351

3.509

3.241 (8.06%)

2.930

3.179

3.316

3.475

3.227 (7.16%)

3.771

Equation (6)

3.034

3.199

3.241

3.372

2.641

3.041

3.227

3.344

2.586

2.734

3.185

3.316

2.958

Equation (10)

3.213 (4.34%)

3.061 (10.06%)

2.958 (11.89%)

1167

analyzed by both Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions. The fiber architectures are shown

in Figure 1(b) (samples A) and Figure 1(c) (samples AC), and the layer and laminate

properties are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The average dimensions and measured

torsional responses (T/) for the as-manufactured and bonded samples are summarized in

Table 9.

Using the sample-pairing technique by testing samples with material orientations

normal to each other (e.g., samples A and AB; samples AC and ACB), as discussed

above for the unidirectional samples, the shear moduli were obtained through data

reduction torsion solutions. The results for Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions

are given, respectively, in Tables 10 and 11. Each value reported in these tables is the

average of 16 results, corresponding to four replications per sample. As observed in

Tables 10 and 11, consistent results are obtained for both Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys

solutions.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. (a) In-plane shear modulus Gxy for U samples; (b) Out-of-plane shear modulus Gxz for U samples.

1168

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

ACB samples.

Sample

Width

(mm)

Thickness

(mm)

A10

A15

A20

A25

AB10

AB15

AB20

AB25

AC10

AC15

AC20

AC25

ACB10

ACB15

ACB20

ACB25

24.994

37.719

50.470

63.754

25.222

37.744

50.394

63.856

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

25.222

37.871

50.571

63.906

12.649

12.573

12.573

12.598

11.786

11.862

11.811

11.735

12.675

12.675

12.675

12.675

12.040

12.141

12.090

12.065

T//(N-m)

311.445

516.752

756.929

1122.146

185.585

308.939

418.072

553.605

261.299

439.600

662.312

911.575

201.557

351.071

476.616

623.885

(COV 3.22%)

(COV 8.75%)

(COV 8.18%)

(COV 9.94%)

(COV 5.63%)

(COV 6.47%)

(COV 11.91%)

(COV 6.91%)

(COV 2.85%)

(COV = 6.93%)

(COV = 7.51%)

(COV = 6.97%)

(COV = 5.78%)

(COV = 10.43%)

(COV = 5.80%)

(COV = 9.57%)

Table 10. Shear moduli results using Lekhnitskiis solution for A and AC samples.

Samples

A

AC

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

xy Plane

xy Plane

Width

(mm)

xz Plane

24.994

37.719

50.470

63.754

24.994

37.719

50.470

63.754

25.222

37.744

50.394

63.856

7.382

7.376

7.446

7.288

6.438

6.449

6.479

6.424

6.462

6.469

6.489

6.454

7.266

7.266

7.280

7.247

3.927

3.933

3.862

4.028

4.016

3.985

3.901

4.055

4.016

3.982

3.900

4.050

3.936

3.936

3.873

4.031

Width

(mm) xz

Plane

xy Plane

xy Plane

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

25.222

37.871

50.571

63.906

5.461

5.434

5.490

5.470

5.076

5.072

5.099

5.091

5.367

5.360

5.379

5.371

5.619

5.611

5.618

5.619

4.278

4.336

4.215

4.258

4.351

4.372

4.241

4.278

4.296

4.342

4.220

4.267

4.252

4.314

4.258

4.252

samples A and AC is given in Table 12, along with predicted values [Equations (6) and

(10)] from micro/macro-mechanics formulas. For the A samples, the differences are 9.3

and 5.9%, respectively, for in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli between average

experimental values based on Lekhnitskiis solution and predicted values; whereas, the

corresponding differences are 6.0 and 7.5% for the results from Whitneys solution and

predicted values. For the AC samples, compared to the average experimental values from

Lekhnitskiis solution, the predicted values are lower by 16.9 and 2.0%, respectively, for

in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli. Similarly, the corresponding predicted values are

lower by 14.6 and 0.2% than the average experimental results based on Whitneys

1169

Table 11. Shear moduli results using Whitneys solution for A and AC samples.

Samples

A

AC

Gxy (GPa)

Gxz (GPa)

xy Plane

xy Plane

Width

(mm) xz

Plane

24.994

37.719

50.470

63.754

24.994

37.719

50.470

63.754

25.222

37.744

50.394

63.856

6.864

6.840

6.882

6.857

6.243

6.240

6.260

6.212

6.334

6.332

6.345

6.313

7.149

7.142

7.151

7.121

3.865

3.897

3.842

3.875

3.920

3.929

3.864

4.023

3.911

3.924

3.860

4.020

3.842

3.882

3.833

3.997

Width

(mm) xz

Plane

xy Plane

xy Plane

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

25.222

37.871

50.571

63.906

5.197

5.159

5.195

5.175

4.960

4.945

4.964

4.955

5.281

5.266

5.279

5.271

5.549

5.535

5.545

5.538

4.169

4.271

4.173

4.229

4.207

4.293

4.188

4.240

4.156

4.262

4.169

4.224

4.118

4.239

4.153

4.213

Sample

A

Shear

Modulus

Gxy

Sample

Width

(mm)

a/b

Ratio

Lekhnitskii

(GPa)

Whitney

(GPa)

Predicted

(GPa)

24.994

37.719

50.47

63.754

1.98

3.00

4.01

5.06

7.373

6.447

6.469

7.265

6.861

6.238

6.331

7.141

6.247

Equation (6)

6.889

(7.25%)

6.643

(6.48%)

3.974

3.959

3.884

4.041

3.885

3.908

3.850

3.979

3.965

(1.63%)

3.905

(1.40%)

5.463

5.084

5.369

5.617

5.181

4.956

5.275

5.542

5.383

(4.16%)

5.239

(4.63%)

4.294

4.341

4.233

4.264

4.162

4.267

4.171

4.227

4.283

(1.07%)

4.207

(1.17%)

Average (COV)

Gxz

25.222

37.744

50.394

63.856

2.14

3.18

4.27

5.44

Average (COV)

AC

Gxy

25.070

37.795

50.495

63.830

1.98

2.98

3.98

5.04

Average (COV)

Gxz

25.222

37.871

50.571

63.906

Average (COV)

2.09

3.12

4.18

5.30

4.199

Equation (10)

4.475

Equation (6)

4.199

Equation (10)

1170

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. (a) In-plane shear modulus Gxy for A samples; (b) Out-of-plane shear modulus Gxz for A samples.

solution. Graphical representations of the results are given in Figures 6a, 6b, 7a and 7b for

samples A and AC, respectively.

For the U samples, we observed an asymptotic increase of shear moduli values as the

sample-width increases (Figures 5a and 5b). In contrast to this behavior, there is no clear

trend on the data obtained for the A and AC samples in relation to the sample-width; in

general, the experimental values are randomly distributed around a narrow band, with

relatively larger discrepancies for the A samples (Figures 6a and 6b) than for the AC

samples (Figures 7a and 7b). One reason for the large variability with the A samples can be

attributed to the larger difference between Gxy and Gxz (degree of anisotropy) than for the

AC samples, which are nearly transversely isotropic (similar to the U samples). For both A

and AC samples, the experimental values are higher than the predictions for the in-plane

shear moduli.

1171

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. (a) In-plane shear modulus Gxy for AC samples; (b) Out-of-plane shear modulus Gxz for AC samples.

CONCLUSIONS

It is shown that torsion tests of pultruded FRP composites with rectangular crosssections can be used to determine in-plane and out-of-plane shear moduli values. The

determination of out-of-plane shear moduli from samples with same material orientation

does not lead to accurate results. It is necessary to test samples with two material

orientations, which can be obtained by bonding flat laminates and cutting vertical strips

from the assemblies. Both Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions with paired samples are

recommended to obtain shear moduli values using the torsional stiffness from torsion tests

and the data reduction methods outlined in this study. Consistent results are obtained for

both Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions. The predicted in-plane and out-of-plane shear

1172

JULIO F. DAVALOS

ET AL.

moduli of the laminates are obtained from micro/macromechanics models for the case of

torsional loading [Equations (6) and (10)]. The combined experimental/analytical torsion

solutions presented in this paper can be efficiently used to obtain reliable shear moduli for

composite laminates.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The test samples were generously provided by Creative Pultrusions, Inc., Alum Bank,

PA. Partial financial support for this study was received from NSF-CRCD program.

REFERENCES

1. Davalos, J.F., Salim, H.A., Qiao, P.Z., Lopez-Anido, R. and Barbero, E.J. (1996). Analysis

and design of pultruded FRP shapes under bending. Composites, Part B: Engineering Journal,

27B(3&4): 295305.

2. Chiao, C.C., Moore, R.L. and Chiao, T.T. (1977). Measurement of shear properties of fiber

composites, Part 1: Evaluation of test methods. Composites, 8(3): 161168.

3. Adams, D.F. and Lewis, E.Q. (1995). Current status of composite material shear test method.

SAMPE Journal, 31(6): 3240.

4. Kurtz, R.D. and Sun, C.T. (1990). Composite shear moduli and strengths from torsion of thick

laminates. In: Garbo, S.P. (ed.), Composite Materials: Testing and Design. 3rd Vol., ASTM STP

1095, Philadelphia, PA: ASTM. pp. 508520.

5. Knight, M. (1982). Three-dimensional elastic moduli of graphite/epoxy. Journal of Composite

Materials, 16: 149153.

6. Adams, D.F. and Walrath, D.E. (1987). Further development of the Iosipescu shear test method.

Experimental Mechanics, 27(2): 113119.

7. Arcan, M., Hasin, Z. and Eoloshin, A. (1978). A method to produce uniform plane-stress states

with applications to fiber-reinforced materials. Experimental Mechanics, 18: 141146.

8. Lekhnitskii, S.G. (1963). Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body. San Francisco, CA:

Holden-Day Inc.,

9. Davalos, J.F., Loferski, J., Holzer, S. and Yadama,V. (1991). Transverse isotropy modeling of

3D glulam timber beams. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 3(2): 125139.

10. Swanson, S.R., Messick, M. and Toombes, G.R. (1985). Comparison of torsion tube and

Iosipescu in-plane shear test results for a carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy composite. Composites,

16(3): 220224.

11. Sonti, S.S. and Barbero, E.J. (1995). Determination of shear properties for RP pultruded

composite. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 14: 390400.

12. Arnautov, A. and Bach, T. (1996). Determination of in-plane shear characteristics of composite

materials with [ 45 ] layup. Mechanics of Materials, 32(2): 176182.

13. Whitney, J.M. (1993). Analysis of anisotropic laminated plates subjected to torsional loading.

Composites Engineering, 3(1): 8397.

14. Sumsion, H.T. and Rajapakse, D.S. (1978). Simple torsion test for shear moduli determination

of orthotropic composite. ICCM/2 Proc., Int. Conf. on Composite Materials. New York.

pp. 9941002.

15. Chamis, C.C. (1984). Simplified composites micromechanics equations for strength, fracture

toughness, and enviromental effects. NASA TM-83696. USA.

16. Luciano, R. and Barbero, E.J. (1994). Formulas for the stiffness of composites with periodic

microstructure. Int. J. of Solids and Structures, 31(21): 29332944.

1173

17. Hasin, Z. and Rosen, B.W. (1964). The elastic modeling of fiber-reinforced materials. Journal of

Applied Mechanics, 31: 223232.

18. Jones, R.M. (1975). Mechanics of Composite Materials. NewYork: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.

19. McCullough, R.L. (1971). Concept of Fiber-Resin Composites. NewYork: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

20. Hull, D. (1981). An Introduction to Composite Materials. Cambridge University Press.

21. Vinson, J.R. and Sierakowski, R.L. (1987). The Behavior of Structures Composed of Composite

Materials. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

22. Whitney, J.M. (1990). A modified shear deformation theory for laminated anisotropic plates. In:

Proceedings of the American Society for Composites, 5th Technical Conf. Lancaster, PA:

Technomic. pp. 469478.

23. Hsu, T.C. (1984). Torsion of Reinforced Concrete. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,

24. Tarnopolskii, Y.M. and Kincis, T. (1985). Static Test Methods for Composite. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co.

25. Conte, S.D. and de Boor, C. (1980). Elementary Numerical Analysis - An Algorithmic Approach.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

26. Qiao, P.Z. and Wang, J.L. (2000). A computer program for shear moduli evaluation of

structural composites from torsion tests: Lekhnitskiis and Whitneys solutions. Internal Report,

ACMSL #2000-2. Advanced Composite Materials and Structures Laboratory, Department of

Civil Engineering, The University of Akron, OH.

27. Schussel, J. (1996). Analytical and experimental evaluation of stiffnesses for FRP laminates.

Master of Science Thesis, Civil Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

28. Tomblin, J.S. (1994). Compressive strength models for pultruded glass fiber reinforced

composites. PhD Dissertation, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, West

Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

- Welding SafetyDiunggah olehY Gangadhar
- friction on inclined planeDiunggah olehhang5043
- 1 Rectangular NotchDiunggah olehAshlin Augusty
- Torsion report.pdfDiunggah olehKalKatu MaLam
- Schardt_Sheet Metal Box Lab ReportDiunggah olehschardt679
- mechanics composite materialsDiunggah olehThomas Moura
- Lab 3 Belt Friction ExperimentDiunggah olehChing Wai Yong
- TorsionTest Lab ReportDiunggah olehPranksterz Starz
- What is R.M.S (Root Mean Square)?Diunggah olehMuhammad Umair
- RMS values of rectifier waveformsDiunggah olehselaroth168
- Bernoulli ApparatusDiunggah olehDarul Imran Azmi
- Torsion TestDiunggah olehmohanadymt
- EMEGEO-30Diunggah olehArga Saputra
- notchDiunggah olehyayayayayayayana
- TUTORIAL_Triple Integral.pdfDiunggah olehAbdur Rashid
- Report torsion newDiunggah olehHepi_Reenzxs_4735
- 1Diunggah olehNg Peter Singh
- Metal Box India LtdDiunggah olehAnkanksha Sharda
- flow over rectangular and v - notchesDiunggah olehAyoi Muhd
- Study of a rectangular notchDiunggah olehShah Hossain
- Root Mean SquareDiunggah olehsenthilanview
- Practical Guide 09 Double and Triple IntegralsDiunggah olehEmil
- BoxDiunggah olehAndii Nava
- Screw JackDiunggah oleheniacnetpoint
- Screw JackDiunggah olehSanit Bhatkar
- Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Metal Box India Ltd.Diunggah olehShyam Sunder
- TorsionDiunggah olehradu20122012
- A Multi Scale Micromechanics-hydration Model for the Early-Age ElasticDiunggah olehFabrício Vitorino
- 1-s2.0-S1877705811004917-mainDiunggah olehAndres de las heras
- Dnvgl St 0490Diunggah olehCarlos Mora

- Particle SizeDiunggah olehNiroex
- StructuresDiunggah olehNiroex
- Structural Analysis LabDiunggah olehsamiee_me
- StructuralDiunggah olehNiroex
- 109 Lab 3 IgneousDiunggah olehNiroex
- 02211018 2Diunggah olehNiroex
- Meier Reports SamplesDiunggah olehNiroex
- SMHydromAnalDiunggah olehNiroex
- Mechanics of Material Lab6Diunggah olehNiroex
- L3b Hydrometer AnalysisDiunggah olehserviceability1
- Sedimentary Rocks Fall 05Diunggah olehFAZTEZ
- Bernoulli EquationDiunggah olehNiroex
- Hardened ConcreteDiunggah olehSubhendu Subhasis
- Chapter 3 Sedimentary StructuresDiunggah olehMatsurika Nee Chan
- Fluids Lab Friction LossesDiunggah olehArvin Bhurtun
- Laminar TurbulentDiunggah olehkya_ley
- Losses in PipeDiunggah olehNiroex
- Lab 4Torsion EngDiunggah olehAfnan Al-Qassam

- chapter 10-11 aotDiunggah olehapi-350127360
- Copula-Cum-Daemone-IIDiunggah olehVenefica Dementia
- The Speech of Malala YousafzaiDiunggah olehlitos_xp
- Delta Queue DemystificationDiunggah olehsudha_sap_bw3206
- No, You Really Can’t (Mary Ann Davidson Blog)Diunggah olehdfsfgsagr
- writen proposal- mr macdevittDiunggah olehapi-376567878
- Beal Crim Pro Outline - Welling 2016Diunggah olehLizzi Beal
- IP Republic Act No. 8371Diunggah olehroellen mae
- MBR Final ProposalDiunggah olehMaria Sheraz
- Rail NetDiunggah olehPratikshaMalik
- Synopsis, Building Program, Design Rationale 04042019Diunggah olehSam Charles
- Healing With Magnets March2017Diunggah olehanon_383546355
- Reproductive System Theory With Importance(AIIMS)Diunggah olehFarooque Faras
- projectDiunggah olehKhushboo Raj
- Mishkin 6ce Tb Ch27Diunggah olehJaeDukAndrewSeo
- Constitutional Law I Syllabus-Prof. Gwen de VeraDiunggah olehStephanie Lattimer
- task 5 2Diunggah olehapi-350645010
- Topic ModellingDiunggah olehcoolcirrus8945
- PCSB-LRFD-RPT(T)-CBC-CTR8.1-002 080611.docxDiunggah olehJulio Guzman
- 48954980 Science Form 4 Chapte r4Diunggah olehyeohsiewfong
- * Marcel and the White Star (Stephen Rabley)Diunggah olehPaulo Fernando
- James L. Meagher "How Christ Said the First Mass"Diunggah olehGualterio Curzio
- Uniliver v RiveraDiunggah olehDirect Luke
- Coherence in WritingDiunggah olehkhawajaumar
- CO250-webDiunggah olehKhayyam Lasi
- Lorenzo Franchi 2011Diunggah olehCris Cavali
- Nbs Technologic Paper t 2510Diunggah olehberthing
- CoffinDEDU7001-3Diunggah olehDaniel Alan
- Tutorial Questions Spring 2014Diunggah olehlalaran123
- Test-Bank-for-ORGB-2nd-Canadian-Edition-by-Nelson.pdfDiunggah oleha307092287

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.