2 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Laila Monteiro A Melo

Gribniak Et 2013

- 1325
- GCI 210 Résistance Des Matériaux
- Résumé ELS
- Dédicace
- t00-007
- Fundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structures
- DIPTERA Exemple
- 2 Stabilite Des Pentes Chp2
- SKILLS G05F ConceptionCalcul Portiques GuideSSB04 v4
- Construction Metallique Conception Calcul Lacroix1
- Chapitre08
- pres_Berthod_calculs_de_structure.pdf
- FORMULAIRES DES MOMENTS.pdf
- geot.2007.57.1
- ELEMENTS FLECHIS.pdf
- coursMQ41_A04
- Fascicule7 Fibres Soutènement Tunnels CL 2014
- EX 7-8
- 2441
- Exercices Statistiques Descriptive

Anda di halaman 1dari 17

DOI 10.1007/s11043-012-9184-y

accuracy analysis of predictions by different methods

Rimantas Kacianauskas · Gintaris Kaklauskas ·

Lluis Torres

Received: 2 November 2011 / Accepted: 28 July 2012 / Published online: 15 August 2012

© Springer Science+Business Media, B. V. 2012

enced by the interaction of complex physical phenomena, such as concrete creep, shrinkage

and cracking, which makes their prediction difficult. A number of approaches are proposed

by design codes with different degrees of simplification and accuracy. This paper statistically

investigates accuracy of long-term deflection predictions made by some of the most widely

used design codes (Eurocode 2, ACI 318, ACI 435, and the new Russian code SP 52-101)

and a numerical technique proposed by the authors. The accuracy is analyzed using test data

of 322 reinforced concrete members from 27 test programs reported in the literature. The

predictions of each technique are discussed, and a comparative analysis is made showing the

influence of different parameters, such as sustained loading duration, compressive strength

of concrete, loading intensity and reinforcement ratio, on the prediction accuracy.

Regression analysis

1 Introduction

Structures and structural members should be designed to satisfy both strength and service-

ability requirements. As a result of the extensive studies carried out in different countries,

the ultimate load behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) flexural members is now quite well

Department of Strength of Materials, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU),

Sauletekio av. 11, Vilnius 10223, Lithuania

e-mail: Viktor.Gribniak@vgtu.lt

Department of Bridges and Special Structures, VGTU, Vilnius, Lithuania

L. Torres

Advanced Materials and Analysis for Structural Design (AMADE), Polytechnic School,

University of Girona, Campus de Montilivi, Santo Domingo sq. 1, Girona 17071, Spain

298 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

understood. Nevertheless, due to the use of refined ultimate state theories as well as higher

strength materials, resulting in structures with longer spans and smaller depths, control of

deflections is often the governing design criterion.

Complex physical phenomena, such as concrete creep, shrinkage, and cracking, strongly

contribute to deflection increments, in such a way that due to long-term effects, deflec-

tions might increase up to 3–4 times above initial values (Espion 1988). These effects are

time-related and interdependent, which makes the prediction of deflections difficult. The

study of the deflections of RC members has been the object of research for many years and,

as a result, various methods have been proposed both for short-term and sustained load-

ing (Branson 1963, 1977; Broms 1964; Gilbert 1999; Torres et al. 2004; Kaklauskas 2004;

Balevicius 2010; Bacinskas et al. 2012, among others).

Most often structural engineers choose design code methods for the analysis of concrete

structures. Although, ensuring safe design, they have significant shortcomings, mainly due

to their inherent simplicity. Hence, the code methods cannot include many important ge-

ometrical and physical parameters resulting in lack of accuracy (Ghali 1993; Bažant and

Baweja 1995a, 1995b; Sherif and Dilger 1998; Gilbert 1999; and Balevicius and Dulinskas

2010). Using numerical techniques is an alternative to the design code methods. Recently, a

numerical procedure based on the layer section model was proposed by the authors (Bacin-

skas et al. 2012) for deformation analysis of RC flexural members subjected to sustained

loading. Study of accuracy of the proposed model was limited investigating the effect of

load duration period.

The current paper extends the statistical study of deflection prediction reported in Bacin-

skas et al. (2012). Next to load duration, the manuscript investigates the influence of vari-

ation in a model parameters such as compressive strength of concrete, loading intensity,

and reinforcement ratio on long-term deflection prediction. It also checks capability of the

proposed technique of being a useful alternative for the commonly used code methods. The

accuracy is analyzed using an experimental database of RC members collected by Espion

(1988) and test data reported by Prokopovich and Temnov (1969).

In the present analysis, four design code deflection calculation techniques have been used,

namely the Eurocode 2:2004 (CEN 2004), the Structural Building Code reported by the

American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 (ACI 318 2008), the ACI Committee

435 modification of the latter method (ACI 435 2003) and the new Russian code SP 52-

101:2006 (NIIZhB 2006) on the one hand, and the numerical technique proposed by the

authors (Bacinskas et al. 2012) on the other hand.

It is common for the code methods based on beam model to calculate the mid-span

deflection from the formula representing an approximate integration of curvature along the

member:

δ = s · κ · l02 . (1)

In this formula, s is the factor depending on a loading case covering the shape of the bending

moment distribution, κ is the curvature corresponding to the maximum moment, and l0 is

the beam span. The crucial point is to estimate the curvature.

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 299

ing two states: state I, uncracked, and state II, fully cracked. In state I, both concrete and

steel behave elastically with composite action, while in state II the contribution of tensioned

concrete is ignored and the reinforcing steel carries all the tensile force. The mean curvature

is expressed as

κ = (1 − ζ )κ1 + ζ κ2 , (2)

where κ1 and κ2 are the curvatures obtained taking into consideration the creep and the

shrinkage effects in states I and II, respectively; ζ is the distribution coefficient representing

the extent of cracking. For elements subjected to pure bending it can be obtained as

ζ = 1 − 0.5 · (Mcr /M)2 . (3)

Here M and Mcr are the applied and the cracking moments, respectively. The curvatures κ1

and κ2 are calculated as follows:

M M

κ1 = + κcs,1 ; κ2 = + κcs,2 . (4)

Ec,eff (t, t0 ) · Iel Ec,eff (t, t0 ) · Icr

Here the effective modulus of elasticity Ec,eff (t, t0 ) at time t is calculated taking into con-

sideration the creep coefficient ϕ(t, t0 ):

Ec (t0 )

Ec,eff (t, t0 ) = . (5)

1 + ϕ(t, t0 )

In the above equation, Ec (t0 ) = 1.05 · Ecm (t0 ) is the tangent modulus of elasticity of con-

crete at the time of loading; Ecm (t0 ) = [fcm (t0 )/fcm ]0.3 · Ecm is the modulus of elasticity of

concrete at the time of loading; fcm (t0 ) is the mean compressive cylinder strength at the

time of loading; fcm and Ecm are the mean compressive cylinder strength and the modulus

of elasticity of concrete at the age of 28 days; Iel and Icr are the second moments of area

of uncracked and cracked sections, respectively; κcs,1 and κcs,2 are the shrinkage-induced

curvatures in states I and II, respectively, which can be calculated as follows:

αeff · Sel αeff · Scr

κcs,1 = −εcs ; κcs,2 = −εcs . (6)

Iel Icr

Here εcs is the free shrinkage strain (assumed to be negative); αeff = Es /Ec,eff (t, t0 ) is the

steel-to-concrete effective modular ratio; Sel and Scr are the first moments of area of the

reinforcement about the centroid of the uncracked and fully cracked sections, respectively.

In Eq. (5), the creep coefficient is estimated depending on the stress level in the com-

pressed concrete σcc as shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that in practical serviceability

problems, compressive stresses of concrete due to sustained loading σcc generally do not

exceed 0.6 · fck (t0 ). In the present study, this was the adopted limitation.

concrete in compression under

long-term loading

300 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

The ACI 318-08 technique is based on the method proposed by Branson (1963, 1977), which

uses the effective moment of inertia,

Ie = Ig (Mcr /M)m + Icr 1 − (Mcr /M)m , (7)

where Ig is the second moment of area of the gross section (uncracked concrete section ig-

noring reinforcement); Icr is the second moment of area of the fully cracked section; M is the

applied bending moment; Mcr = fr Ig /yt is the cracking moment; fr = 0.623 · [fcm (t0 )]0.5

[MPa] is the modulus of rupture; yt is the distance from the centroid of the section to the

extreme tension fiber; the power m = 3 is adopted since 1971 without specifying any appli-

cation restrictions concerning the type of loading or boundary conditions.

Following ACI 318 approach, the short-term curvatures are determined as

κ = M/(Ecm · Ie ). (8)

Here Ecm is the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete.

Additional long-term deflections can be determined by multiplying the immediate deflec-

tion by the factor λδ :

λδ = ξ/ 1 + 50 · p ; p = As2 /(b · d). (9)

Here As2 is the area of compressive reinforcement, b and d are the width and the effective

depth of the section, and ξ is the time-dependent factor. Variation of the factor λδ with time

is given in Fig. 2.

In contrast to the above technique, the long-term deflections due to creep δcr and shrinkage

δcs are calculated separately:

δcr = λc · δsus , λc = 0.85 · ϕ(t, t0 )/ 1 + 50 · p ;

⎧ √

⎪

⎪ 0.7 3 p, p = 0;

εcs (t) 2 ⎨ √ √ (10)

δcs = 0.13 · Acs l0 , Acs = 0.7 3 p − p (p − p )/p, (p − p ) ≤ 3.0 %;

h ⎪

⎪

⎩

1.0, (p − p ) > 3.0 %.

Here p and p are the tensile and compressive reinforcement ratios [%], respectively, and

δsus is the initial deflection due to sustained load. The shrinkage strain εcs (t) at time t and

the creep coefficient ϕ(t, t0 ) are calculated in accordance with the ACI Committee 209 rec-

ommendations (ACI 209 2008).

long-term deflection factor

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 301

10.3 15.4 20.6 25.7 30.8 36.0 41.1 46.3 51.4 56.6 61.7

Ec , [MPa] 19.0 24.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 34.5 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 39.5

fcp , [MPa] 6.0 8.5 11.5 14.5 17.0 19.5 22.0 25.0 27.5 30.0 33.0

fct,n , [MPa] 0.85 1.10 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.10 2.25 2.45 2.60 2.75

Table 2 The creep coefficient ϕc,cr and the deformation modulus reduction εc1,red coefficients

humidity [%] 10.3 15.4 20.6 25.7 30.8 36.0 41.1 46.3 51.4 56.6 61.7

RH > 75 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 2.4 × 10−3

40 ≤ RH ≤ 75 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 2.8 × 10−3

RH < 40 5.6 4.8 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 3.4 × 10−3

Ec (t) = Ec /(1 + ϕc,cr );

M/[Ec (t) · Iel ] for M ≤ Mcr ,

κ= where Ecr = 0.9 · fcp /εc1,red ; (11)

M/[Ecr · Ie ] for M > Mcr ,

Mcr = 0.9 · fct,n · Iel /yt .

Here Iel is the second moment of area of the uncracked section, Ec is the short-term

tangent modulus of elasticity (see Table 1), fcp is the design compressive strength of

150 × 150 × 600 mm prism (Table 1) and fct,n is the characteristic tensile strength of con-

crete (Table 1); coefficients ϕc,cr and εc1,red are given in Table 2. It should be noted that the

above characteristics in the code are related to concrete grade B, but not to cylinder strength.

To ease perception for a reader, the compressive strength herein is recalculated as cylinder

strength fc using the conversion expression B ≈ 0.778 · fc,cube where 150-mm cube and

cylinder strengths are related by fc,cube ≈ 1.25 · fc .

In Eq. (11), the effective moment of inertia Ie is calculated as for fully cracked section.

To include the tension-stiffening effect, the area of tensile reinforcement As1 is divided by

the factor

ψs = 1 − 0.8 · Mcr /M ≤ 1. (12)

In the early development of the theory of RC deformation problems were simply ignored.

First attempts to assess deflections of flexural RC members were based on elastic behavior

of materials, which significantly underestimated deformations of cracked members. The

research was quite independently carried out by Nemirovsky (1948), Murashev (1950),

Gvozdev et al. (1962) and by Branson (1963, 1977), Broms (1964), Ghali and Favre (1986).

In Russia, on the basis of a large amount of test data, Murashev (1950) developed an innova-

tive method for the calculation of deformations of cracked flexural members. This method

302 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

modified by Gvozdev et al. (1962) since 1963 was introduced into the modern design code

SNiP II-V.I-62∗ (ACEA 1970). Further investigations resulted in the updated code version

SNiP 2.03.01-84∗ (NIIZhB 1989) issued in 1986. In the USA, Branson (1963) proposed

perhaps the best known method (based on the effective moment of inertia, see Sect. 2.2)

which was adopted in the design codes of the USA (ACI 318 2008), Canada, Australia, New

Zealand and a number of countries in South America. The Eurocode 2 method (CEN 2004),

based on Model Code 1990 (CEB-FIP 1991), gives an alternative approach.

Considering the deformation models, the Eurocode 2 does not use an effective moment

of inertia to compute deflection, as is done in North America. Taken from the work of Rao

(1966) and Leonhardt (1977), this tension-stiffening approach was introduced into CEB-FIP

model code for concrete structures since 1978 (CEB 1978). In Bischoff’s view (Bischoff

2008), Rao may have received his idea for the tension-stiffening model from Nemirovsky

(1948) and Murashev (1950, 1957), which seem providing some inspiration to Branson

(1977) in his original work on the effective modulus conception (Sect. 2.2). However, Mura-

shev’s approach (Murashev et al. 1971) was found to be too stiff when deflections of lightly

reinforced beams were analyzed. Therefore, Branson (1963) who initially in Eq. (7) was ex-

pecting a squared term for (Mcr /M), further found that the power m needed to be increased

from 2 up to a value of 3 for average member behavior or 4 for section behavior.

The aforementioned code SNiP 2.03.01-84∗ was the last design document in the USSR

dedicated to analysis of reinforced concrete. It could be noted that research funding after

the collapse of the USSR was substantially reduced what, naturally, led to a significant con-

traction of research in RC structures. Many former Soviet Republics for over a decade were

using the SNiP 2.03.01-84∗ as their national document. In 2001 a strategy has been devel-

oped aiming at harmonizing of the Russian codes. By the year 2015, all design documents in

Russia should be “harmonized” in accordance with the respective European guidelines (Za-

lesov et al. 2001; Nesbetaev 2007; Skvortsov 2012). The “harmonization” process aims at

modifying the governing equations to secure the calculation results matching the Eurocode

predictions (Almazov 2011). The new release of the Russian building code SP 52-101 (NI-

IZhB 2006), introduced in 2004, serves an example of such “harmonization” process. It is

relevant to note that the new version employs a simplified deformation model with fewer

empirical parameters than the SNiP 2.03.01-84∗ . In fact, the SP 52-101 model should not be

considered as a new approach, but rather an adaptation of the Eurocode 2.

Before performing the accuracy analysis, let us discuss the sources of possible differ-

ences in the long-term deformation predictions by the codes. Firstly, the codes use different

interpolation equations for prediction of flexural stiffness of a cracked member. Secondly,

the techniques are based on different material models and characteristics. As the mechanical

properties of reinforcing steel are time-independent, it is evident that the main source of

differences in the predictions is the assumed material model for concrete. Such input param-

eters as the deformation modulus, tensile strength, creep and shrinkage strains of concrete

become the key parameters of the deformation model.

It is known that deformation properties of concrete depend on the type of the aggregate,

curing conditions and the test method. Different conceptions are employed in the codes in

regard to the deformation modulus. Generally, the modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus)

of concrete is defined as the tangent modulus at the origin of the stress–strain diagram. Only

the Russian code uses the latter approach, whereas the Eurocode 2 and both ACI techniques

are based on the secant modulus conception. The Eurocode 2 relates the tangent Ec and

the secant Ecm moduli by the following dependence: Ec ≈ 1.05 · Ecm . Expressions for de-

formation modulus by the codes are given in Table 3, were fcm and fc are the 28-day and

other-age concrete compressive cylinder strengths, respectively, and ρc is the concrete den-

sity. The secant modulus dependence on the compressive strength is shown in Fig. 3a. The

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 303

Table 3 Formulas for modulus of elasticity and tensile strength of concrete [MPa]

Eurocode 2 Ecm = 22000 · (fcm /10)0.3 fctm = 0.3 · (fcm − 8)2/.3 , fcm ≤ 58 20 ≤ fcm ≤ 90

fctm = 2.12 · (1 + fcm /10), fcm > 58

ACI 318-08 Ecm = 4734 · (fc )0.5 fr = 0.623 · (fc )0.5 fc ≤ 138

ACI 435R-95 Ecm = 0.043 · ρc1.5 · (fc )0.5 fr = 0.013 · (ρc · fc )0.5 20 ≤ fc ≤ 90

SP 52-101 Ec = 54300 · fc /(21.6 + fc ) fct = 5.5 · fc /(49.7 + fc ) 10 ≤ fc ≤ 62

Fig. 3 Predictions of the elastic modulus (a) and the tensile strength (b) by the code models

most significant differences in the predictions (up to 25 %) are obtained for weak concrete.

The differences decrease with growing strength, not exceeding 7 % at fc > 45 MPa.

The tensile strength, as can be seen from Table 3, is mostly related to the compressive

strength. The relationships between the tensile and the compressive strengths for the codes

are shown in Fig. 3b. It can be observed that the ACI provides significantly higher tensile

strength predictions than the other two codes. It should be kept in mind that the codes are

based on different concepts of tensile strength. The ACI techniques use the modulus of rup-

ture (flexural tensile strength) fr , whereas the remaining two codes apply the direct tensile

strength (noted as fctm and fct for the 28-day and other-age concrete, respectively). The dif-

ference between the ACI and the Eurocode 2 predictions is practically constant being about

1 MPa; however, in relative terms it varies from 50 to 20 %.

The deformation modulus and tensile strength evolve substantially with the hardening

of the material. Similarly to the compressive strength, these parameters can be regarded as

monotonically increasing functions of the maturity of concrete. As can be seen from Table 3,

in the ACI and SP 52-101 techniques the deformation modulus and tensile strength relate to

the compressive strength fc at a specific age, whereas the Eurocode 2 predictions at time t

are based on the 28-day age parameters:

Ecm (t) = (βcc )0.3 Ecm , fct (t) = (βcc )2/3 fctm , βcc = exp s(1 − 28/t) . (13)

Here t is the age of the concrete (days) and s is a coefficient which depends on the type of

cement (for normal cement it is equal to 0.25).

Other important input parameters of the long-term deformation models are the creep

factor and the shrinkage strain of concrete. The simplified ACI 318 technique is limited by

using the additional deflection factor λδ dependent on the load duration and the compressive

304 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

h0 [mm] 100. . . 1600 26. . . 1200 –

RH [%] 20. . . 100 40. . . 100 0. . . 100

Cement [kg/m3 ] – 500. . . 1600 –

Cement type N , S or R N or R –

Slump [mm] – 0. . . 200 –

Fine-to-total aggregate ratio [%] – 30. . . 70 –

Air content [%] – ≤12 –

ts [days] – ≥1 (moist curried) –

1 to 3 (steam curried)

t0 [days] ≥1 ≥7 –

Nonlinear creep (0.45 . . . 0.6) · fck (t0 ) – –

Autogenous shrinkage + – –

reinforcement ratio p [Eq. (9)]. Figure 2 indicates that the factor λδ may increase short-term

deflections up to three times.

Other three considered codes use more sophisticated creep and shrinkage models. Their

parameters are given in Table 4, where h0 = 2 · Ac /u is the notional member size, Ac is the

cross-sectional area, u is the perimeter of the member in contact with atmosphere, and t0

and ts are the age of concrete at loading and beginning shrinkage, respectively.

As it can be observed from Tables 1, 2, and 4, the tong-term deflection analysis by the SP

52-101 technique requires specifying concrete strength and relative humidity only, thus be-

coming time-independent. On the other hand, the ACI as well as the Eurocode 2 techniques

take into account the load duration.

Analyzing the creep and shrinkage models, the codes according to their complexity can

be separated into two groups. The ACI 318 and the SP 52-101 techniques providing the

simplest approaches compose the first group, whereas the two remaining codes can be as-

signed to the second (advanced models) group. Obviously, an engineer might expect to ob-

tain more accurate deflection prediction results by applying the models from the second

group. However, it is not always the case as the predicted creep and shrinkage strains should

be considered as a stochastic variable with their expected average values and characteristics

of variation. As reported by the ACI Committee 209 (2008) the coefficients of variation for

creep and shrinkage were, respectively, 30 and 25 % for the Eurocode 2 and 30 and 41 %

for the ACI technique. Thus, the structural response should be investigated as a statistical

variable rather than a deterministic value.

The present paper statistically investigates whether simple code models may assure rea-

sonable accuracy of long-term deflection predictions. The comparative analysis has been

extended, next to code methods, to include a simple and computationally effective numeri-

cal technique recently proposed by the authors (Bacinskas et al. 2012).

This section briefly introduces the numerical technique proposed by Bacinskas et al. (2012).

The analysis of a RC section given in Fig. 4a is based on the layer section model shown in

Fig. 4b.

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 305

Fig. 5 Tension–stiffening

diagrams assumed for short-term

(t = t0 ) and long-term (t > t0 )

analyses

The iterative procedure uses the material stress–strain relationship for compressive

concrete, tensile concrete and steel. Such effects as linear and nonlinear creep, crack-

ing, tension–stiffening as well as reduction of concrete tension strength due to sustained

loading are included in the model. As shown in Fig. 4c, the shrinkage effect is mod-

eled by means of adequate actions of fictitious axial force Ncs (t) and bending moment

Mcs (t) = Ncs (t) · [yC (t) − yRC (t)].

The model uses material parameters recommended by the Eurocode 2 (see Sect. 2.1). For

the compressive concrete, the relationship shown in Fig. 1 has been employed. The behavior

of concrete in tension was simulated using the constitutive law presented in Fig. 5. The creep

factor of tensile concrete and so the effective modulus of elasticity is taken equal to that in

compression. The ultimate strain εult as the main quantitative parameter of tension–stiffening

is calculated as follows (Kaklauskas 2004):

εult = εcr (t0 ) × max 5; 32.8 − 27.6p + 7.12p 2 , εcr (t0 ) = fct (t0 )/Ecm (t0 ). (14)

Here p is the tensile reinforcement ratio [%]; fct (t0 ) and Ecm (t0 ) are the tensile strength and

the elastic modulus of concrete at time t0 ≥ 28 days determined by the Eurocode 2 formulas

from Table 3 and Eq. (13). The reduction in the tensile strength due to sustained loading is

performed as follows (Bacinskas et al. 2012):

fct (t, t0 ) = fct (t0 ) · 0.794 − 0.06 · log10 (t − t0 ) ≥ 0.45 · fct (t0 ). (15)

3 Accuracy analysis

The present study employs experimental data of 322 rectangular, I- and T cross section

specimens from 27 test programs with over 1300 observations. The experimental results

were taken from the database collected by Espion (1988) and the report conducted by

Prokopovich and Temnov (1969). The main properties of specimens are presented in Ta-

ble 5, where N is the total number of measurements in a program, kM = M/Mcr is the factor

Table 5 Main properties of test specimens

306

mm % MPa days – m2

1. 1. . . 21 264 241. . . 254 0.16. . . 1.01 17.6. . . 30.2 121. . . 288 1.13. . . 3.24 0.95. . . 0.96

2. 22 4 150 1.74 39.0 528 2.54 1.49

3. 23. . . 24 4 127 2.07 31.3. . . 35.4 88 1.23. . . 1.33 0.78

4. 25. . . 33 63 280 1.07 25.4. . . 61.6 2853. . . 3123 1.10. . . 4.49 5.64. . . 5.86

5. 34. . . 37 8 152. . . 154 1.19. . . 1.21 25.9 208 2.81. . . 3.03 0.06. . . 0.47

6. 38 2 152 1.37 19.2 728 3.11 0.38

7. 39. . . 46 46 99. . . 202 0.31. . . 2.28 20.6. . . 25.1 561. . . 2221 1.70. . . 3.86 0.88

8. 47. . . 53 14 203 3.23 16.9. . . 26.5 195. . . 281 3.04. . . 8.59 0.19

9. 54. . . 59 12 127 0.61 19.3. . . 20.1 473. . . 1825 1.15. . . 2.54 1.94. . . 2.18

10. 60. . . 89 60 76. . . 305 1.59. . . 1.67 20.1. . . 25.0 927 2.58. . . 2.88 1.51. . . 4.19

11. 90. . . 107 36 280 0.82. . . 3.53 29.8. . . 34.3 800. . . 1638 3.19. . . 8.72 0.83

12. 108. . . 127 40 152 0.29. . . 1.23 34.6. . . 47.4 326. . . 592 0.74. . . 2.92 0.98. . . 0.99

13. 128. . . 130 6 210 2.21 16.5. . . 28.5 220. . . 285 2.40. . . 3.35 0.11. . . 0.36

14. 131. . . 134 8 350 0.57. . . 1.43 26.2 360 2.70. . . 3.04 1.96

15. 135. . . 158 48 150 0.89. . . 1.40 34.6. . . 36.3 1677 0.89. . . 1.27 2.40

16. 159. . . 168 20 120 0.32. . . 0.72 43.5 1032 0.88. . . 1.93 1.31

17. 169. . . 180 278 191 0.70. . . 1.26 19.6. . . 34.7 1783. . . 1836 1.73. . . 2.60 1.07. . . 4.27

18. 181. . . 245 130 191. . . 241 0.33. . . 0.89 23.6. . . 44.8 155. . . 1028 1.09. . . 2.46 3.14. . . 6.54

19. 246. . . 251 18 203. . . 305 1.01. . . 2.07 24.4. . . 30.1 211. . . 217 3.23. . . 5.57 1.90. . . 3.87

20. 252. . . 262 81 120. . . 160 0.55. . . 0.58 20.2. . . 37.2 378. . . 532 0.94. . . 1.99 1.00. . . 1.03

21. 263. . . 264 4 203 1.30 34.1 170 2.73. . . 2.86 0.36

22. 265. . . 268 8 216 1.36. . . 2.64 33.6. . . 38.9 148. . . 178 1.67. . . 2.83 0.56

23. 269. . . 272 8 305 2.20. . . 2.64 26.9. . . 37.4 302 3.08. . . 3.22 1.00

24. 273. . . 275 6 75. . . 160 0.62. . . 0.75 26.7. . . 28.5 117 1.70. . . 2.19 0.46. . . 1.67

25. 276. . . 286 22 200. . . 212 0.42. . . 1.40 29.8 284. . . 326 1.57. . . 3.05 0.46

26. 287. . . 314 56 77 0.80. . . 1.59 16.4. . . 29.5 1832 1.42. . . 2.39 0.55. . . 2.96

27. 315. . . 322 60 160 0.56. . . 0.82 18.6. . . 24.0 800. . . 1080 2.25. . . 2.75 0.43

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 307

that represents the loading level in respect to the theoretical cracking moment (discussed in

this section below), and sl20 is the factor from Eq. (1) that depends on the loading scheme

and boundary conditions.

Deflections of the test members are compared with the predictions obtained from pre-

viously presented methods. For the analysis and comparisons, relative predictions used are

determined as the ratio

Δ = δcalc /δobs . (16)

Here δobs and δcalc are the experimentally observed and the calculated deflections, respec-

tively. Logarithmic normalization

Θ = ln(Δ) (17)

has been introduced to assure equal contribution to the accuracy of underestimated (Δ <

1) and overestimated (Δ > 1) predictions. The authors kept the view that a prediction is

safe if Δ ≥ 1 (Θ ≥ 0), meaning that the code rather overestimates than underestimates the

deflection.

Considering the relative deflection Δ as a random variable, statistical methods can be

used to assess the accuracy represented by the central tendency and variability. The cen-

tral tendency is regarded as a precision parameter of a calculation method. The postulate

of minimum variability is used to evaluate consistency of a model. Basic statistics, such as

means mΘ and mΔ estimator of the central tendency) and standard deviations sΘ and sΔ

(measure of variability), are calculated for each method. Taking into consideration transfor-

mation (17), the deflection Δ is statistically assessed using the following relationships:

mΔ = exp mΘ + 0.5 · sΘ2 , sΔ2 = m2Δ exp sΘ2 − 1 . (18)

All descriptive statistics are given in Table 6. The most striking feature is the high values of

the coefficient of variation vΔ obtained for all methods under consideration. To investigate

the reasons for that, a regression analysis was carried out.

Influence of variation in parameters, such as loading duration t , compressive strength of

concrete fcm (t0 ), loading intensity, and reinforcement ratio p, on accuracy of the predictions

are analyzed. The loading level is considered as the ratio Mcr /M, where M is the external

bending moment and Mcr is the cracking moment:

2/3

Mcr = fct · Iel /yt , fct = 0.3 fcm (t0 ) . (19)

It is important to note that the codes under discussion give rather different values for Mcr .

The authors’ experience in deformation analysis of RC members subjected to short-term

loading (Gribniak 2009) has shown that the ACI 318 significantly overestimates, whereas

the Eurocode 2 underestimates, the cracking moment. The latter is particularly evident for

ACI 318:2008 −0.079 0.637 1.131 0.800 70.7 %

ACI 435:2003 −0.083 0.490 1.037 0.540 52.1 %

SP 52-101:2006 −0.032 0.411 1.054 0.452 42.9 %

Proposed 0.078 0.350 1.150 0.416 36.1 %

308 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

concrete of smaller strength. In the authors’ view, the predictions of Mcr can be improved, if

the mean compressive strength fcm is used instead of the characteristic value fck = fcm − 8

[MPa] suggested by the Eurocode 2. The modified Eurocode 2 expression (20) for cracking

moment was further applied to define the load intensity intervals [0 . . . 1.5] taken uniform

for all the codes. It should be kept in mind that due to stochastic nature of concrete cracking,

the tensile strength is highly scattered. Therefore, assessment of the cracking resistance is

always related to certain level of uncertainty.

The ratios Δ were scattered against the analyzed parameters for each method. These

scatter plots are given in Fig. 6. The regression analysis was performed to investigate the

influence of variation of a model parameter X on scatter of deflection predictions. Taking

into consideration the transformation (17), the logarithmic scale for the ordinate axis is used

in Fig. 6. Then the regression model

Δ = exp(a + b · X), (20)

shown in Fig. 6, becomes linear (Θ = a + b · X). The values of the coefficients a and b as

well as the coefficient of correlation r are also given in this figure.

It is important that in an ideal case no correlation between Δ and X should be obtained.

The high absolute value of r indicates presence of such correlation. The coefficient b (slope)

characterizes the influence of the variation of parameter X on the precision of the method

expressed in terms of Δ. As indicated, the accuracy of a deflection prediction method should

be independent of the variation of the model parameters, i.e. b should be close to 0. The sys-

tematic error of the method is characterized by the constant a (intercept) that ideally should

approach 0. It indicates that the predicted values are equal to the experimental deflection,

i.e. the method does not have a systematic error. In this study, it will be assumed that a code

technique is safe if it systematically overestimates the measured deflections. The coefficients

a and b are shown as strikethrough (see Fig. 6) if their difference from 0 is insignificant (at

the 5 % significance level).

Influence of variation of X on Δ can be compared using the dimensionless factors

BΔ/X = b · mX /mΔ and SΔ/X = r · b · sX /sΔ . (21)

Here mX and mΔ are the mean values of the parameters X and Δ, respectively, and sX and

sΔ are the respective standard deviations. The factor BΔ/X indicates a relative increase of

Δ with a unit increment of X, whereas SΔ/X shows a relative part of variation of Δ due to

scatter of parameter X. These factors are given in Table 7 with the extreme values shown in

bold.

It should be pointed out that a regression model is developed using sample data and there-

fore it is influenced by sampling variation. Assessing the variation, widths of confidence and

prediction intervals constructed for a regression model can be analyzed. In accordance with

Draper and Smith (1998), the lower Θconf,1 and the upper Θconf,2 bounds of the (100 − α) %

confidence interval for assessing true mean value μΘ in the fixed value X0 of a parameter

might be obtained from the following condition:

1 (X0 − mX )2

Θconf,1 ≤ μΘ ≤ Θconf,2 ; Θconf,1(2) = Θ0 ± tα/2 (ν) · sΘ|X + n ;

i=1 Xi − n · mX

n 2 2

Θ0 = a + b · X0 ; ν = n − 2; (22)

n n

n

i=1 Θi − a i=1 Θi − b

2

i=1 Θi Xi

sΘ|X = ,

n−2

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 309

where n is the number of measurements (in our case n = 1306); tα (ν) is the αth quintile

of Student’s distribution with ν degrees of freedom; sΘ|X is the standard error of the esti-

mate Θ0 ; Θi and Xi are, respectively, the values of prediction ratio and a model parameter

obtained in the ith measurement.

Unlike the confidence interval that assesses the mean prediction μΘ , the prediction inter-

val estimates the likely value of the deflection prediction Θ ∗ , meaning that (100 − α) % of

forecast predictions Θ would be inside the interval. As these predictions are associated with

310 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

Eurocode 2:2004 −1.1 | 0.0 4.7 | 0.2 7.2 | 1.0 −10.1 | 4.2

ACI 318:2008 32.7 | 2.5 −9.3 | 0.2 −63.3 | 16.2 18.7 | 3.1

ACI 435:2003 19.2 | 1.4 −4.0 | 0.0 −52.9 | 18.2 16.9 | 4.1

SP 52-101:2006 −53.7 | 15.7 −7.2 | 0.2 −12.8 | 1.6 −9.5 | 1.9

Proposed −17.2 | 2.5 −2.9 | 0.1 −3.1 | 0.1 −7.8 | 1.9

prediction intervals Calculation technique Width, % Lower (unsafe)

min max bound, %

ACI 318:2008 934.5 1239.1 −940.5

ACI 435:2003 559.8 695.5 −518.2

SP 52-101:2006 434.7 507.5 −205.9

Proposed 388.7 400.0 −136.1

errors from the future observation, naturally, the prediction interval becomes wider than the

confidence interval. Analogously to Eq. (22), the prediction bounds Θpred,1 and Θpred,2 can

be given as

∗ 1 (X0 − mX )2

Θpred,1 ≤ Θ ≤ Θpred,2 ; Θpred,1(2) = Θ0 ± tα/2 (ν) · sΘ|X 1 + + n .

i=1 Xi − n · mX

n 2 2

(23)

As shown in Fig. 6, the confidence and prediction intervals for all the regression models

were calculated under the assumption of α = 5 %. The numerical parameters of the predic-

tion intervals are also given in Table 8.

Below the obtained results are discussed separately for each of the considered methods.

Eurocode 2:2004. On average it gives the deflection predictions overestimated by 29 %

(see mΔ in Table 6). Variation was the lowest among the methods (minimal value of the

coefficient of variation vΔ in Table 6). Reinforcement ratio has the most significant effect

on the accuracy: 4 % of Δ scatter can be attributed to the variation of p (see factor SΔ/p in

Table 7). Increase in p at an average of 1 % decreases Δ by 10 % (see BΔ/p in Table 7).

Other factors were less significant.

ACI 318-08. The technique demonstrates high dependence on loading intensity: deflections

are significantly underestimated at the load close to cracking, whereas the predictions im-

prove at higher load levels. On average they are overestimated by 13 % with standard devi-

ation as well as coefficient of variation being the highest among the studied methods. This

can be explained by the simplicity of the model (see Sect. 2.2). Variation in load intensity

is responsible for 16 % of scatter of the predictions. The precision is significantly affected

by the loading intensity. Moreover, it has been found to be time-dependent (BΔ/t = 63 %).

As can be observed from Fig. 6, the linear regression model is not adequate for high rein-

forcement ratio (p > 3 %). This might be associated with the extreme effect of restrained

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 311

shrinkage causing stiffness degradation due to cracking prior to the external loading. How-

ever, this issue is of minor importance as such high values of p are rarely used for bending

members.

ACI 435R-95. Being more sophisticated with regard to the ACI 318-08, it gives more accu-

rate though qualitatively similar results.

SP 52-101:2006. On average deflections are overestimated by 5 %. The accuracy is signifi-

cantly affected by the loading duration: 16 % of the scatter can be attributed to the variation

of t (see factor SΔ/t ). This is due to the fact that the code disregards shrinkage and assumes

constant creep factor. With tenfold increase in t, Δ on average decreases by 54 % (see

factor BΔ/t ). Other factors have a less significant effect on the accuracy.

Proposed numerical technique (Bacinskas et al. 2012). The method gives the lowest stan-

dard deviation with safe (overestimated) average predictions (see Table 6). The precision

is slightly dependent on the load duration. Other factors are insignificant.

Location of the confidence and the prediction intervals (see Fig. 6) with respect to the

accurate forecast (Δ = 1) serves as a key factor of the analysis. A calculation method is

regarded as precise (with the 95 % probability) if its confidence intervals include the value

1 (see the “optimal modeling” zone in Fig. 6). Otherwise, in the authors’ view, the results

on the safe side (overestimated predictions, Δ > 1) are preferred considering the underes-

timation (Δ < 1) as unsafe. As can be observed from Fig. 6, precision of the ACI codes

varies significantly with change in load intensity improving when the bending moment M

increases (well captured results were obtained for M ≥ 2 · Mcr ). The SP 52-101 predictions

are found to be dependent on the loading duration, presenting safe results only at the early

ages (t ≤ 144 days).

The Eurocode 2 and the proposed technique present analogous results: unsafe predictions

are obtained only for the members with higher amount of reinforcement. Considering the

prediction intervals (which would contain 95 % of the forecasts), the Eurocode 2 and the

proposed numerical technique demonstrate the most accurate results with respect to the

other methods. As it can be observed from Table 8, these two methods have the smallest

width of the prediction intervals. They secure the safest prediction among all methods: the

lower prediction bound does not exceed 122 % underestimation for the Eurocode 2 and

136 % for the proposed numerical technique.

4 Conclusions

Analysis of the accuracy of long-term deflection predictions using some of the most widely

used design codes, and a numerical technique proposed by the authors, has been performed.

Long-term deflection predictions have been analyzed statistically using test data of 322 re-

inforced concrete flexural members reported in the literature. Effects of variation of loading

duration, compressive strength of concrete, loading level and reinforcement ratio on the

accuracy have been analyzed. The following conclusions can be drawn for each of the pre-

diction techniques:

Eurocode 2:2004. The deflections are overestimated securing safe predictions. Accuracy

decreases for reinforcement ratios above 2.77 %.

ACI 318-08 and ACI 435R-95. The methods produce unsafe prediction margins and lack

consistency. Variation in load intensity has a significant effect on the accuracy: the predic-

tions are on the safe side for bending moment M ≥ 2 · Mcr .

312 Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313

curacy is significantly affected by loading duration with acceptable predictions at the early

stage (t ≤ 144 days).

Numerical technique. The technique has well captured the time-deflection behavior of re-

inforced concrete flexural members securing precise predictions. Unsafe predictions have

been obtained only for heavily reinforced members (p > 2.24 %).

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Research

Council of Lithuania (Research Project MIP–083/2012). Viktor Gribniak wishes to acknowledge the support

by the Research Council of Lithuania for the Postdoctoral Fellowship granted within the framework of the

EU Structural Funds (Project “Postdoctoral Fellowship Implementation in Lithuania”). The authors also wish

to thank Prof. B. Espion, Université Libre de Bruxelles, for the kindly sent reference on selected test data.

References

ACEA (Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture of USSR): Concrete and reinforced concrete struc-

tures. Design Requirements SNiP II-V.1-62* . Strojizdat, Moscow (1970) (in Russian)

ACI Committee 209: Guide for modeling and calculating shrinkage and creep in hardened concrete. ACI

209.2R-08, Farmington Hills, Michigan (2008)

ACI Committee 318: Building code requirements for structural concrete. ACI 318-08 and Commentary. ACI,

Farmington Hills, Michigan (2008)

ACI Committee 435: Control of deflection in concrete structures, ACI 435R-95. ACI, Farmington Hills,

Michigan (2003)

Almazov, V.O.: Harmonization of Russian and international standards for reinforced concrete. Tech. Regul.

Constr. Des. Eng. Surv. 1, 16–20 (2011) (in Russian)

Bacinskas, D., Kaklauskas, G., Gribniak, V., Sung, W.-P., Shih, M.-H.: Layer model for long-term deflection

analysis of cracked reinforced concrete bending members. Mech. Time-Depend. Mater. 16, 117–127

(2012)

Balevicius, R.: An average stress strain approach to creep analysis of RC uncracked elements. Mech. Time-

Depend. Mater. 14, 69–89 (2010)

Balevicius, R., Dulinskas, E.: On the prediction of non-linear creep strains. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 16, 382–386

(2010)

Bažant, Z.P., Baweja, S.: Justification and refinements of model B3 for concrete creep and shrinkage. 1. Statis-

tics and sensitivity. Mat. Struct. (RILEM) 28, 415–430 (1995a)

Bažant, Z.P., Baweja, S.: Justification and refinements of model B3 for concrete creep and shrinkage. 2. Up-

dating and theoretical basis. Mat. Struct. (RILEM) 28, 488–495 (1995b)

Bischoff, P.H.: Discussion of “Tension stiffening in lightly reinforced concrete slabs” by R. Ian Gilbert. ASCE

J. Struct. Eng. 134, 1259–1260 (2008)

Branson, D.E.: Instantaneous and time-dependent deflections of simple and continuous reinforced concrete

beams. HPR Report 7, pp. 1–78 (1963)

Branson, D.E.: Deformation of Concrete Structures. McGraw-Hill, New York (1977)

Broms, B.B.: Stress distribution, crack patterns, and failure mechanisms of reinforced concrete members.

ACI J. Proc. 61, 1535–1558 (1964)

CEB (Comité Euro-International du Béton): CEB-FIP model code for concrete structures. CEB, Paris (1978)

CEB-FIP (Comité Euro International du Béton; Fédération International de la Précontraint): CEB-FIB model

code 1990: design code. Thomas Telford, London (1991)

CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation): Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—Part 1: General rules

and rules for buildings, EN 1992-1-1:2004. CEN, Brussels (2004)

Draper, N.R., Smith, H.: Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley, New York (1998)

Espion, B.: Long-term sustained loading tests on reinforced concrete beams: a selected data base. Bulletin du

Service Génie Civil No. 88-1, Université Libre de Bruxelles (1988)

Ghali, A.: Deflection of reinforced concrete members: a critical review. ACI Struct. J. 90, 364–373 (1993)

Ghali, A., Favre, R.: Concrete Structures: Stresses and Deformations. Chapman and Hall, London (1986)

Gilbert, R.I.: Deflection calculation for reinforced concrete structures—why we sometimes get it wrong. ACI

Struct. J. 96, 1027–1032 (1999)

Gribniak, V.: Shrinkage influence on tension-stiffening of concrete structures. Doctoral thesis, Vil-

nius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius (2009). Full-text access at http://www.dart-europe.eu/

full.php?id=182160

Mech Time-Depend Mater (2013) 17:297–313 313

Gvozdev, A.A., Dmitrijev, S.A., Nemirovsky, J.M.: On deflection calculation of reinforced concrete struc-

tures according to new design code SNiP II-V.I-62. Concr. Reinf. Concr. (Beton železobet.) 6, 245–250

(1962) (in Russian)

Kaklauskas, G.: Flexural layered deformational model of reinforced concrete members. Mag. Concr. Res. 56,

575–584 (2004)

Leonhardt, F.: Crack control in concrete structures. IABSE Surveys S-4/77 (1977)

Murashev, V.I.: Crack Resistance, Stiffness and Strength of Reinforced Concrete. Mashinostroiizdat, Moscow

(1950) (in Russian)

Murashev, V.I.: Calculation of crack width and flexural rigidity of reinforced concrete members subjected to

bending. In: Proc. of RILEM Symposium on Bond and Crack Formation in Reinforced Concrete, vol. 3,

pp. 137–143 (1957)

Murashev, V.I., Sigalov, E.E., Baikov, V.N.: Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. MIR, Moscow (1971)

Nemirovsky, J.M.: Cracks influence on rigidity of reinforced concrete structures. Research report no. 8852,

Central Institute of Industrial Structures (TsNIPS), Moscow (1948) (in Russian)

Nesbetaev, G.V.: About harmonization national and European concrete and reinforced concrete standards.

In: Proc. of International Symposium Problems of Modern Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, vol. 2,

pp. 206–218 (2007) (in Russian)

NIIZhB (Reinforced Concrete Research and Technology Institute): Concrete and reinforced concrete struc-

tures, SNiP 2.03.01-84* . USSR Ministry of Building, Moscow (1989) (in Russian); SNIP Register Inc.,

Chicago (1997) (in English)

NIIZhB (Reinforced Concrete Research and Technology Institute): Concrete and reinforced concrete struc-

tures without prestressing, SP 52-101-2003. NIIZhB, Moscow (2006) (in Russian)

Prokopovich, I., Temnov, I.: Experimental tests of deformations of reinforced concrete beams. Stroit. Konstr.

13, 56–68 (1969) (in Russian)

Rao, P.S.: Basic laws governing moment redistribution in statically indeterminate reinforced concrete struc-

tures. Schriftenr. Dtsch. Aussch. Stahlbeton (DAfStb) 177 (1966), 90 pp. (in German)

Sherif, A.G., Dilger, W.H.: Critical review of CSA A23.3-94 deflection prediction for normal and high

strength concrete beams. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 25, 474–489 (1998)

Skvortsov, O.V.: Peculiarities of the national legislation on technical regulation and perspectives of European

standards application in Russian road sector. Roads Bridges 26, 41–55 (2012) (in Russian)

Torres, L., Lopez-Almansa, F., Bozzo, L.M.: Tension-stiffening model for cracked flexural concrete members.

J. Struct. Eng. 130, 1242–1251 (2004)

Zalesov, A.S., Chistiakov, E.A., Muhamediev, T.A., Klevtchov, V.A., Sharipov, R.S., Titov, I.A., Dovgaliuk,

V.I., Machno, A.S., Vaksina, N.M., Arslanbekova, L.G.: Development of general theory and nonlin-

ear design techniques of concrete and reinforced concrete structures taking into account real physical

and rheological properties of materials. Part 2: Development of calculation models and methods for

strength, cracking and deformation analysis of reinforced concrete elements subjected to bending and

axial loading. Research report Nr. K-1-1-4/2001. NIIZhB, Moscow (2001) (in Russian)

- 1325Diunggah olehAngelo John R. Javinez
- GCI 210 Résistance Des MatériauxDiunggah olehmarf1912
- Résumé ELSDiunggah olehEmmanuel Francis
- DédicaceDiunggah olehsahbi
- t00-007Diunggah olehHuang Po Chun
- Fundamental concepts in blast resistance evaluation of structuresDiunggah olehmahsa_ci80
- DIPTERA ExempleDiunggah olehlezard
- 2 Stabilite Des Pentes Chp2Diunggah olehFouad Sanhaji
- SKILLS G05F ConceptionCalcul Portiques GuideSSB04 v4Diunggah olehGuillaumeHNO
- Construction Metallique Conception Calcul Lacroix1Diunggah olehMohamedZenaidy
- Chapitre08Diunggah olehbarouniamine
- pres_Berthod_calculs_de_structure.pdfDiunggah olehMed Rjeb
- FORMULAIRES DES MOMENTS.pdfDiunggah olehFadoua Oukk
- geot.2007.57.1Diunggah olehapi-26568392
- ELEMENTS FLECHIS.pdfDiunggah olehMohamed Bah
- coursMQ41_A04Diunggah olehhouda_2008
- Fascicule7 Fibres Soutènement Tunnels CL 2014Diunggah olehAmine
- EX 7-8Diunggah olehCatalin Olteanu
- 2441Diunggah olehLaurentiu Tarbuc
- Exercices Statistiques DescriptiveDiunggah olehway
- poutres cloisons1.docDiunggah olehSaid Jabir
- 156535151-78090360-11-Traction-Copy CopyDiunggah olehDriss Saj
- 381148173-resume-charpente-metallique99-pdf_watermark (3).pdfDiunggah olehHatim Alilouch
- 8 Reg_Multiple_Colinearite_Selection_Variables.pdfDiunggah olehezouine
- 44968356 02 Traction Compression CopyDiunggah olehDriss Saj
- 1144637287_17-49-21.pdfDiunggah olehIlyes Hazmani
- CM 1 Chapitre II Caractéristiques Des MatériauxDiunggah olehAmadou Faye
- Automatic Plastic-hinge AnalysisDiunggah olehRusovic Rejhan
- Coursntraintes.pdfDiunggah olehasheitham
- 2585-2588Diunggah olehSeif Eddine

- DissLTK.pdfDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Xianglin Gu Basic Principles of Concrete StructuresDiunggah olehJimmy Garcia Mejia
- NBR 5738Diunggah olehAnthony Santos
- O Milagre Da Manhã - Hal ElrodDiunggah olehMarry Young
- EXTENSOMETRIA BÁSICADiunggah olehMárcio José Ottoni
- FUSCO, Péricles B. Estruturas de concreto - Solicitações TangenciaisDiunggah olehramonfm
- [Luiz Eloy (Auth.)] Método Dos Elementos FinitosDiunggah olehStiveGrajales
- Elementos Finitos FEM - Finite Element Procedures - K.-j. Bathe - 1996Diunggah olehEugenio Ferreras
- Propriedades mecanicas e retração do concretoDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Elastic and Inelastic Stress Analysis, Shames cozzarelliDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- David Poole Algebra LinearDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Capitulo4Diunggah olehAllan Kardec
- Kassem et al - 2011.pdfDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Kassem et al - 2011.pdfDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- ACI 301-10_Specifications_for_Structural_Concrete (2010).pdfDiunggah olehfarhadam
- NBR 08522 - 2003 - Concreto - Curva Tensão DeformaçãoDiunggah olehGato Felix
- manual construçaoDiunggah olehRaniere Kuehl
- sobre o dimensionamento de perfis de aço formados a frioDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- NBR 6118 2014 Projeto de Estrutura de Concreto ProcedimentoDiunggah olehcaliandraperini
- Plates and ShellsDiunggah olehkoteswararao_u
- NBR 15.575-2013 Guia OrientativoDiunggah olehFabio Ferro
- Influencia das condições do ambiente e idade de carregamento na fluencia por secagemDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- LATERAL STIFFNESS CHARACTERISTICS OF TALL.pdfDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Ashour Et Al_1999_Effect of the Concrete Compressive Stength and Tensile Reinforcement RatioDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- [Shames, Irving H] Elastic and Inelastic Stress analysisDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Ceb Fip Model Code 1990.pdfDiunggah olehCris Mina Vagante
- [Apostila] Concreto Armado_projeto Estrutural de Edificios - UspDiunggah olehWashington Queiroz
- Kara & Dundar - 2009 - Effect of Inertia and Deflection of a Reinforced Concrete BeamDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo
- Kara & Dundar - 2009 - Effect of Inertia and Deflection of a Reinforced Concrete BeamDiunggah olehLaila Monteiro A Melo

- 05 10 00 00 Optimisation du choix des outils de coupe pour l’usinage des poches quadrilatères en 2D½Diunggah olehميكانيك الوادي
- Dimensionnement Des ReseauxDiunggah olehMohamed Hadj Djelloul
- CavaillèsDiunggah olehgtpub
- Cours PINCH.v2Diunggah olehTino Khamphasith
- Colt LiteDiunggah olehhjduarte
- Electrostatique-electrocinetique.pdfDiunggah olehAbdou
- Dipôle RCDiunggah olehfethi1
- Al7ma04tepa0013 Sequence 02Diunggah olehnina
- cours_MXG5_2017_enligne.pdfDiunggah olehBassem Ghorbel
- Partie3.pdfDiunggah olehMoulod Mouloud
- Cours Antennes Telecoms 2012 2013Diunggah olehMohammed Benlamlih
- chap8Diunggah olehAdil Abouelhassan
- IntroductionDiunggah olehfgddhdhs
- Rapport de Stage-site 3Diunggah olehtingchi
- 44.-Corrige Colle22 Matrices Changement Bases DLDiunggah olehPeuito
- Dossier Etude de Cas 2 - Pile a CombustibleDiunggah olehdxsszsz
- La Déformation Des Roches GEO1Diunggah olehTchawaPaul
- liste Des FiguresDiunggah olehAladin Ijijr
- Exercice 1 MathDiunggah olehcours fsjes
- La Linearite Saussurienne en RetrospectionDiunggah olehrcarturo
- Fibre OptiqueDiunggah olehAmeur HEDHLI
- GCivil-Structures.docxDiunggah olehAdam Mounsi
- Calculs HTDiunggah olehqtrearzt
- Tecnisun Fiche Tech Sun110 180311webDiunggah olehTecnisun
- Complement Thevenin NortonDiunggah olehDocteur Albert Touati
- Poly_protidesDiunggah olehrad1992rad