14 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Erwin Simbolon

Penjelasan mengenai kriteria kekuatan batuan

- V84-4_MaterialModels
- Tut 1 2016
- Bro Stewart Pradel 2013 GeoCongress
- EUROCK 2012 101 Mohr Coulomb
- 1-s2.0-S009364131100067X-main
- GTL S08 Ex 03 Elasto Plastic Analysis of Drained Footing
- ICE Paper - Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand With a Weak Layer
- 1-s2.0-S1687404813000941-main
- 10 Triaxial Test
- Gravity Dam Design
- The Significance of Specimen End Restraint in High Pressure Triaxial Testing of Cohesive Soily Masters Thesis
- 065_SPE106573
- Eurock2004 Scribd
- Rock Engineering-5
- Www.itascacg.com PDF Iau Pub Sainsbury and Urie 2007 Rev 2
- CE 431 Welding-Lab
- 92
- 1826Introduction Lecture- DSS2014(1)
- 67
- Tunnels.theory

Anda di halaman 1dari 10

A. Lakirouhani1, H. Hasanzadehshooiili2

Email: Rou001@znu.ac.ir1, Hasanzadeh.Hadi@znu.ac.ir2

1

Master of Science Student, Civil Engineering Department, zanjan University, Zanjan, Iran.

Abstract It is not clear exactly how a rock fails, either in terms of the precise details of each micro

crack initiation and Propagation or in terms of the total structural breakdown as many micro cracks

propagate and coalesce. In both cases, the process is extremely complex and not subject to

convenient characterization through simplified models. Nevertheless, as engineers, we should like

some measure of the failure properties and the ability to predict when failure will occur. The

strength criteria of rock materials can be divided into three major groups: theoretical failure criteria,

experimental and curve fitting based criteria. And the last set of them is composed of two

mentioned sets of failure criteria. The Mohr-Coulomb criterion expresses the relation between the

shear stress and the normal stress at failure. The plane Griffith criterion which locates in theoretical

group, express the uniaxial tensile strength in terms of the strain energy required to propagate

micro cracks. One of the most widely used empirical strength criterion for intact rock and rock

masses is Hoek-Brown Criterion. In this paper we present outlines of these criteria and focus on

the Hoek-Brown criterion. The method of research is based on books and articles published in

authoritative publications and journals. As a result, various types of rock failure criteria are

classified and some useful suggestions regarding presented criteria have been presented.

Empirical criteria, Specially Hoek and Brown Criterion, Which are in good correlations with real

conditions, can be significantly much more efficient in the rock mechanics problems.

INTRODUCTION

prescribing rock failure and post failure behavior

have been two major difficulties of rock mechanics

specialists. To overcome this difficulty, a variety of

rock failure criteria and rock constitutive models

are developed based on experimental and

theoretical efforts and concepts. Like, Plane

Griffith Crack Theory (Griffith, 1921), MohrCoulomb Criterion (Coulomb, 1776) and Hoek and

Brown Failure Criterion (Hoek et al., 2002).

Because of the complexities in rock masses

behavior, which are suffering Different conditions,

such as joint effects, disturbance and anisotropic

nature of rocks, the empirical rock failure criteria

which are well-developed and comprehensively

well-prepared seem to be by far the best criteria.

Nevertheless, finding an efficient failure criterion

which can widely interpret rock failure's initiation

cannot be easily achieved. There are some

restrictions that make it difficult to opt for a useful

criterion. in order to attain a suitable criterion, It's

applicability to a wide range of rock materials,

existing a rich background for that criteria,

availability of its parameter for desired rock

materials and the criterion's possibility to be widely

some of the main aspects that should be

considered.

2

THEORETICAL CRITERIA

According to the Griffith crack theory, if with an

increase in crack length there is not any increase

in the total potential energy of the material and

applied forces system, the crack will extend

(Griffith, 1921).

For constant potential energy of applied forces,

applying the mentioned theory to the extension of

an elliptical crack, Neglecting the influence of

friction on the cracks which will close under

compression, and assuming that the elliptical

crack will propagate from the points of maximum

tensile stress concentration, P, Griffith achieved

that crack extension in plane compression follows

the following criterion (Griffith, 1921):

( 1 2) 8T 0 ( 1 + 2) = 0

2+T0 = 0

If

1 + 3 2 0

If

1 + 3 2 0

(1)

(2)

uncracked material (a positive number) (Griffith,

1924). Also 1 and 2 , are vertical and horizontal

are shown in the Figure 1.

(Brady and Brown, 2005), considering friction,

modification of Griffith' theory based on tests on

rock samples is not in a good correlation with

experimental results.

2.2 Mohr- Coulomb Strength Criterion

critical value of ,

theoretically and experimentally, declares that

shear strength of rock and of soil is a stress

dependent criterion and is written as the below

form (Coulomb, 1776):

f = c + n tan

(3)

Where f , c , n and , are shear stress along

shear plane, cohesion, normal stress on shear

plane and friction angle, respectively. This criterion

assumes that the shear plane, which is shown in

Figure 2, does not have dilation.

1B

for normal and shear stresses in the plane ab, are

presented in the equations 4-5 (Coulomb, 1776):

1

n = ( 1 + 3) + ( 1 3) cos 2

2

2

1

f = ( 1 3) sin 2

2

Also,

(6)

2c + 3 [sin 2 + tan (1 cos 2 )]

sin 2 tan (1 + cos 2 )

In which, the value for 1 presented in the

equation 6, presents limiting stress value on the

plane defined by (Coulomb, 1776). And for the

1=

(4)

(5)

4 2

be obtained by equation 7 (Coulomb, 1776).

(7)

2c cos + 3 (1 + sin )

1 sin

Also, uniaxial compressive strength and uniaxial

tensile strength regarding the Mohr-Coulomb

criterion are presented in equations 8-9,

respectively (Coulomb, 1776).

1 =

2c cos

(8)

1 sin

2c cos

(9)

T =

1 + sin

Although the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is widely

used, it is not a satisfactory peak strength criterion

for rock materials, because of three following

reasons: 1. According to Wawersik and Fairhurst

(Wawersik and Fairhurst, 1970), a major shear

fracture at peak strength does not always exist; 2.

The shear failure direction, which is predicted by

this criterion, does not always agree with

experimental observations (Brady and Brown,

2005); 3. Despite of what Mohr- Coulomb criterion

predicts, Experimental peak strength envelopes

are generally non-linear (Brady and Brown, 2005).

c=

EMPIRICAL CRITERIA

3.1.1

can be considered as a generalization to Griffith

(Fairhurst, 1964):

If m(2m 1) 1 + 3 0

If m(2m 1) 1 + 3 0

1 = t

(10)

(11)

( 1 3)2

= 2 t (m 1)2

( 1 + 3)

and in the interval of 0.6 B 0.9 (Franklin, 1971).

3.1.5

wide range of different rocks can be obtained by

the following equations (Bieniawski, 1974):

2 t

m 1

.1 +

1 + 3 2

1

= 1 + A 3

c

c

(12)

2

m = c +1

t

3.1.2 Hobb's criterion (1966)

done on nine different coals (Hobbs, 1970).

f

(13)

1 = c + 3+ F 3

In which, 1 , c and 3 , present major principle

stress, uniaxial compressive stress and minor

principle stress. Also, F and f are empirical

constants.

compressive strength tests, which are carried out

on sandstone and limestone specimens. His linear

relationship between principle stresses is

presented in the following equation (Bedonyi,

1970):

(14)

1 = c + a 3

The criterion for sandstone, crystalline limestone

and loose-textured limestone specimens is

available in equations 15- 17 (Bedonyi, 1970).

1 = 1101 + 5.397 * 3

sandstone

(15)

crystalline

limestone

(16)

loosetextured

Cm 2

limestone

Franklin's criterion (1971)

(17)

1 = 1187 + 11 .78 * 3

1 = 601.4 + 2.583 * 3

3.1.4

KPa

Cm 2

KPa

Cm 2

KPa

(20)

m = 1 / 2( 1 3)

m = 1 / 2( 1 + 3)

He found that, for considered and tested

specimens, k and c constants are equal to

and 0.90, respectively (Bieniawski, 1974).

(21)

(22)

rock

0.75

B regarding rock type in Table 1.

(Bieniawski, 1974).

2B

Rock type

Norite

A

5.0

B

0.8

Quartzite

4.5

0.78

Sandstone

4.0

0.75

Siltstone

3.0

0.7

Mudstone

3.0

0.7

3.1.6

compression and triaxial tests for more than 100

different rock types (Ramamurthy and Arora,

1993).

(23)

a

c

1 = 3 + B 3

3

B and a , are constants gained by triaxial tests

(Ramamurthy and Arora, 1993).

3.1.7

comparatives between previous linear and nonlinear criteria and is suggested as a new criterion

in the equation 18 (Franklin, 1971).

( 1 3) = 1c B ( 1+ 3)B

(19)

m

= 0.1 + B m

c

c

In which,

Where,

3.1.3

(18)

1' n = 3' n +1

B

Where,

(24)

'

1' n = 1'

c

3'

3' n = '

c

(25)

Brazilian tests (Yudhbir and Prizl, 1983).

(26)

M

c

=

B

t

(27)

(33)

3'

1'

= A + B

c

c

independent of rock type. And, its suggested value

is 0.65 (Yudhbir and Prizl, 1983). The suggested

values for B , which depends on rock type and is a

rock material constant is presented in Table 2

(Yudhbir and Prizl, 1983).

)2

(28)

2

(29)

M = 2.065 + 0.276 log 'c

'

'

In which, 1n

and 3n

are normalized effective

3' are effective principle maximum and minimum

stresses, 'c is effective uniaxial compressive

strength, M and B are two intact material

constants. Also, c and t are uniaxial

compressive and tensile strengths, which

equations 28- 29, are obtained by curve fitting

analysis (Johnston, 1985).

3.1.8

for coal and is only related to brittle failure

(Sheorey et al., 1989).

(30)

1

32

1 = 3 1+

t

Where c and t , are determined from triaxial

tests.

3.1.9

tests (Yoshida et al., 1990).

1

3 B

1 = 3 + A c S

c

Rock type

Tuff, Shale Limestone

Siltstone, Mudstone

Quartzite, Sandstone Dolerite

Norite, Granite, Quartzdiorite,

Chert

3.2.2

B

2

3

4

5

carried out on coals, considering Q classification

system (Barton et al., 1974) (Sheorey et al., 1989).

(34)

3 b m

1 = cm 1+

tm

Where, cm , tm , b m are compressive and

Tensile strength of rock mass and constant of rock

mass (in the case of coals, its value was

calculated 0.605), respectively (Sheorey et al.,

1989).

1983).

and minimum stresses and uniaxial compressive

strength. Also, A , B and S , are three strength

parameters (Yoshida et al., 1990).

It can be considered that if the parameter B is

equal to one, the criterion becomes equal to the

Mohr- Coulomb criterion.

3.2 Empirical Criteria For Rock Masses

3.2.1

(31)

(32)

A=SB

values depend on rock type and are available in

Table 3 (Yudhbir and Prizl, 1983).

on 20 trial crushed and intact model material

Description

Intact specimen

Crushed specimen ( = 1.65

Crushed specimen ( = 1.25

Indiana Limestone

Westerly Granite

Intact

Brocken

State

State

State

Phra Wihan Sandstone

Lopburi

Buriram

Ton

m3

Ton

m3

)

)

A

1.0

0.3

B

1.9

1.9

0.1

1.9

1.0

1.93

1.0

4.9

0.25

0.075

0.0

4.9

4.9

4.9

1.0

1.0

6.0

4.0

3.2.3

Mogi criterion

This criterion which is generally used as MogiCoulomb criterion is developed based in triaxial

tests (Mogi, 2007).

+3

)

oct = a + b( 1

(35)

(36)

2 2

a=

c cos

3

(37)

2 2

b=

sin

3

Where, oct represents octahedral shear stress in

failure, 1 and 3 are principle stresses. a and b

are Mogi constants. Also, c and are MohrCoulomb constants.

3.2.4

rock failure criteria widely applied by rock

mechanics specialists can be used for both intact

rocks and rock masses.

The last version of this criterion is presented in

the equation 38 (Hoek et al., 2002).

3'

+ s)

ci

GSI 100

)

mb = mi exp(

28 14 D

GSI 100

s = exp(

)

9 3D

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

a = 1 / 2 + 1 / 6(e GSI 15 e 20 3)

In which, ci and D are uniaxial compressive

strength of intact rock and disturbance factor,

respectively. Also, m i , s and a are material

constants which depend on material quality. And,

GSI is Geological Strength Index (Hoek et al.,

2002). The values for mentioned parameters are

listed in the Appendixes 1, 2 and 3.

According to the majority of rock mechanics

specialists, this rugged mentioned criterion is one

of the most important and applied rock failure

criteria, which can efficiently describe rock

behavior. Also, this criterion includes a wide range

of materials from intact rock to rock masses. From

a pristine looking view, due to various works which

is done on this criterion, this criterion is one of a

few available criteria that are presented for various

rock types. Also, this criterion uses GSI , which is

one of the best applied rock classification systems

that can be used to interpret tunnels behavior for

tunnel's support design.

4

CONCLUSION

approaches can be considered. Like: theoretical

approaches

and

empirical

approaches.

Nevertheless, because of complexities in rock

conditions and discontinuities available in the

design problems, applying a theoretical criterion

will result in unsafe or non-economical design.

Thus, the empirical criteria which are in good

correlations with real conditions can be

significantly efficient and useful in the rock

mechanics problems. Also, one of the most

appealing and useful criteria which is suggested

by a variety of rock mechanics specialists is Hoek

and brown failure criterion which includes a large

range of rock types and a wide range of rock

conditions from intact rock to rock masses.

REFRENCES

Barton, N. R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. (1974).

Engineering classification of rock masses for

the design of tunnel supports. Rock Mech., 6,

pp. 189-239.

Bedonyi, J. (1970). Laboratory tests of certain

rocks

under

axially-symmetrical

loading

conditions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd

international congress on rock mechanics,

Belgrade, 1, pp. 389-397.

Bieniawski, Z. T. (1974). Geomechanics

classification of rock masses and its application

in tunneling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd

International Congress on Rock Mechanics,

Denver, pp. 27-32.

Brady, B. H. G., and Brown, E. T. (2005). Rock

Mechanics for Underground Mining. Kluwer

Academic Publishers, New York, 645 p.

Coulomb, C. A. (1776). Essai sur une application

des r`egles de maximis et minimis a quelque

problems de statique, relatifs `a larchitecture.

Memoires de Mathematique et de Physique,

L Academie Royale des Sciences, 7, pp. 343

82.

Fairhurst, C. (1964). On the validity of the

"Brazilian" test for brittle materials. Int. J. Rock

Mech. Min., 1, pp. 515-546.

Fairhurst, C., and Cook, N. G. W. (1966). The

phenomenon of rock splitting parallel to the

direction of maximum compression in the

neighborhood of a surface. In: Proceedings of

the 1st congress of the International Society for

Rock Mechanics, Lisbon, pp. 687-692.

Franklin, J.A. (1971). Triaxial strength of rock

material. Rock Mech. 3, pp. 86-98.

and flow in solids. Phil. Trans Roy. Soc., A221,

pp. 16397.

Griffith, A. A. (1924) Theory of rupture. Proc. 1st

Congr. Appl. Mech., Delft, pp. 5563.

Hobbs, D. W. (1970). the strength and stressstrain characteristics of coal in triaxial

compression. J. Geol. 72 (2), pp. 214-231.

Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C. and Corkum, B.

(2002). Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion-2002

Edition. In: Proceedings of the 5th North

American Rock Mechanics Symposium and

17th Tunneling Association of Canada

Conference: NARMS-TAC 2002, July 7-10,

University of Toronto, pp. 267-271.

Johnston, I. W. (1985). Strength of intact

geomechanical materials. J. Geotech. Eng

ASCE, 111, pp. 730-749.

Mogi, K. (2007). Experimental Rock Mechanics,

Taylor & Francis/Balkama, London, Uk, 380.

Ramamurthy, T., and Arora, V. K. (1993). A

classification for intact and jointed rocks, In:

Geotechnical engineering of hard soils- Soft

Rocks, Anagnostopoulos et al., (Eds.),

Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5410 344 2.

Sheorey, P. R., Biswas, A. K. and Choubey, V. D.

(1989). An empirical failure criterion for rocks

and jointed rock masses. Eng. Geol. 26, pp.

141-159.

Wawersik, W. R. and Fairhurst, C. (1970). A study

of brittle rock fracture in laboratory compression

experiments. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 7(5),

pp. 56175.

Yoshida, N., Morgenstern, N. R. and Chan, D. H.

(1990). Failure criterion for stiff soils and rocks

exhibiting softening Author Affilation: Univ of

Alberta Source: can. Geotech. J., 27 (2), 195202. ISSN: 0008-3674 CODEN: CGJOAH.

Yudhbir, Lemanza, W. and Prinzl, F. (1983). An

empirical failure criterion for rock masses. In:

Proceedings of the 5th International Congress

on Rock Mechanics, Melbourne, Balkema,

Rotterdam, 1, B1- B8.

Appearance of rock mass

excavation by Tunnel Boring Machine

results in minimal disturbance to the

confined rock mass surrounding a

tunnel.

quality rock masses (no blasting)

results in minimal disturbance to the

surrounding rock mass.

Where squeezing problems result in

significant floor have, disturbance can

be severe unless a temporary invert,

as shown in thephotograph, is placed.

rock tunnel results in severe local

damage, extending 2 or 3 m, in the

surrounding rock mass.

Small

scale

blasting

in

civil

Engineering slopes results in modest

rock mass damage, particularly if

controlled blasting is used as shown

on the left hand side of the

photograph. However, stress relief

results in some disturbance.

Suggested

value of D

D=0

D=0

D=0.5

No invert

D=0.8

D=0.7

Good blasting

D=1.0

Poor blasting

significant disturbance due to heavy

production blasting and also due to

stress relief from overburden removal.

D = 1.0

Production

blasting

be carried out by ripping and dozing

and the degree of damage to the

slopes is less.

D = 0.7

Mechanical

excavation

- V84-4_MaterialModelsDiunggah olehphatmat
- Tut 1 2016Diunggah olehDian Page
- Bro Stewart Pradel 2013 GeoCongressDiunggah olehismailirfy
- EUROCK 2012 101 Mohr CoulombDiunggah olehricoo90e
- 1-s2.0-S009364131100067X-mainDiunggah olehMani Maran
- GTL S08 Ex 03 Elasto Plastic Analysis of Drained FootingDiunggah olehlinofic
- ICE Paper - Bearing Capacity of Footings on Sand With a Weak LayerDiunggah olehBobby
- 1-s2.0-S1687404813000941-mainDiunggah olehbiles1234
- 10 Triaxial TestDiunggah olehBryan Kevin Toding Manginte
- Gravity Dam DesignDiunggah olehgigiosss
- The Significance of Specimen End Restraint in High Pressure Triaxial Testing of Cohesive Soily Masters ThesisDiunggah olehBrendan Casey
- 065_SPE106573Diunggah olehhador76
- Eurock2004 ScribdDiunggah olehRomina Mwh
- Rock Engineering-5Diunggah olehtanujaayer
- Www.itascacg.com PDF Iau Pub Sainsbury and Urie 2007 Rev 2Diunggah olehGermano Matias
- CE 431 Welding-LabDiunggah olehravi
- 92Diunggah olehmaniumaiya
- 1826Introduction Lecture- DSS2014(1)Diunggah olehप्रभु नाथ सिंह
- 67Diunggah olehCorrado Candian
- Tunnels.theoryDiunggah olehdeathes
- Bracing for Blast- MSCDiunggah olehHyunkyoun Jin
- Mixed Cohesive ModelDiunggah olehnagaraju
- The performance of the building structures during past year earthquakes give the idea that the plan irregularities are one of the most sever cause of damage during the seismic excitation.docxDiunggah olehSaurabhGehlod
- Design of Circular Concrete Tanks (Ppt)Diunggah olehRoda Cadiz
- Davit Arm Support Plate CheckDiunggah olehHafizi HZnumismatic
- Gravity Dam DesignDiunggah olehcivengbridge64
- Bridge Abutment DesignDiunggah olehsharangill
- Gravity DamDiunggah olehFarhat Javed
- %28asce%290733-9445%282001%29127%3A1%2843%29Diunggah olehSiva Guru
- Liang Xie Steven ACI Structural Journal Publ VersionDiunggah olehLuis Ricardo Chavez Rivera

- 800- Tunnel Project Equipment Operating Cost BreakdownDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- Rock Mass Properties for Underground MinesDiunggah olehrobbyon
- Tunnel LiningDiunggah olehswabright
- Design of Rock Bolt and Shotcrete Support of TunnelDiunggah olehScott Downs
- Design of Rock Bolt and Shotcrete Support of TunnelDiunggah olehScott Downs
- Computation of Primary Tunnel SupportDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- Concrete Construction Article PDF_ Stamped ConcreteDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- PEPRES TKA.pdfDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- tactile-paving-surfaces.pdfDiunggah olehPradeep Kumar
- Tile Tactile Installation GuideDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- Design of Lining of Tunnels Excavated in Soil and Soft Rock.pdfDiunggah olehtradichon23
- 85018732-Analysis-of-Support-Design-Practice-at-Elmalik-Portals-of-Bolu-Tunnel-Bolu-Tuneli-Elmalik-Agzinda-Tahkimat-Tasarimi-Uygulamasinin-Analizi.pdfDiunggah olehMark Edowai
- ANALISA PERBANDINGAN DESAIN PERKUATAN SHOTCRETE + ROCKBOLT + WIREMESH DAN LINING BETON PADA TEROWONGAN STUDI KASUS DRAINAGE GALLERY TUNNEL BENDUNGAN JATIGEDEDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- 3d RomaniaDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- kk a mikroDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- 1120Diunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- Faulting and StressDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- 1737_Sedimen1b 1Diunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- kekuatan-massa-batuan.pdfDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- 4540_protozoa1Diunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- Design Reinforced Concrete PipeDiunggah olehcruceruutgjiuro
- Cover HukumDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- bab2_aspek_hidrologiDiunggah olehErwin Simbolon
- useandmisuseofQDiunggah olehmedard
- Psikotes 1Diunggah olehErwin Simbolon

- Lab #1Diunggah olehJenny HS
- NASA [J Kolecki] - Introduction to LogicDiunggah olehekhahn3
- Engineering geological clay research for a radioactive waste repository in SlovakiaDiunggah olehCarlos Washington Mercado
- 3.1 Classifying Matter Notes.docxDiunggah olehJam Ul Gee
- howtousealchemy 1Diunggah olehapi-272728353
- Week 1_ Revision and Virtual Work_moodle_blank -2017Diunggah olehJustin Tay
- Job Pile design-450 (R1).pdfDiunggah olehprudencehp
- Coke FinalDiunggah olehtwinkle_4259
- Planimeters and TheodolitesDiunggah olehJosh Garcia
- 1893783-AQA-MM2B-QP-JAN13.pdfDiunggah olehastargroup
- Pvp2009-77187-Sloshing Characteristics of Single Deck Floating Roofs in Aboveground Storage Tanks - Natural Periods and Vibration ModesDiunggah olehAnonymous wWOWz9UnW
- Experimental Study on Water Permeability and Chloride Permeability of Concrete With Ggbs as a Replacement Material for CementDiunggah olehIAEME Publication
- 1st PUC Maths Model QP 2.pdfDiunggah olehPrasad C M
- The Cone Fracture PrincipleDiunggah olehGulliver Des Grieux
- fenoles acople oxidativoDiunggah olehJuan Carlos Ortiz Lopez
- 5. Graphing Linear EquationsDiunggah olehHao Lu
- Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse.pdfDiunggah olehMarija Dojcinovska
- maechanicsDiunggah oleharasan_nb007
- ASTM C473 - 03Diunggah olehRustom Remoroza
- thyrodur_2379Diunggah olehTürker Astarlioğlu
- Physics Lab 02:Diunggah olehHamza Qureshi
- Elvin-Structures Subjected to Startup and Shutdown of Rotating MachineryDiunggah olehRm1262
- Theoretical study of axially compressed Cold Formed Steel SectionsDiunggah olehIJASCSE
- Fingerprint recognition using complex waveletsDiunggah olehallkhush
- Vergelijking Abrasieve Weerstand Van ConstructiematerialenDiunggah olehdroessaert_stijn
- ZavattaDiunggah olehLeandro Leão
- 29741728 Matrix Methods of AnalysisDiunggah olehArifsalim
- HCV Solutions EditedDiunggah olehAishwarya Praveen
- Basic Structural AnalysisDiunggah olehkspetsnaz
- Manual HaskelDiunggah olehMarcos Rodrigues Dos Santos