1 views

Uploaded by Shahriar Kakhi

out

- EGN3365-8
- Effect of Corner Angle on Efficiency of Reinforced Concrete Joints Under Opening Bending Moments
- Engineering & Design Handbook Edited
- Concrete Basics-Guide to Steel Fibres
- Reformer Tube Metal Insp Monitoring
- doc-25-.3
- Jntuk m Tech r16 Cad Cam Syllabus
- API 510 Closed 1
- usna
- Atriculo de Analisis de La Fractura
- Seismic evaluation of FRP strengthened RC buildings subjected to near-fault
- NIST 2012 Mechanical Reliability Glaesemann
- Strength of Materials
- Use of Creep Compliance Interconverted From Complex Modulus for Thermal Cracking Prediction
- Presentation Case Study (1)
- Advanced Predicction Methods for Roadway Behaviour by Combining Numerical Simulation, Physical Modellyng and in-situ Monitoring
- Force Transfer in Epoxy Bonded Steel Concrete Joints
- 06_ngubeljak
- Blaauwendraad_1985
- A thermodynamic theory of short-term and creep rupture.rtf

You are on page 1of 12

Thermal Loading and Shrinkage

by Ulrich Huler-Combe and Jens Hartig

In general practice, for the crack control of reinforced concrete (RC) ment, and stiffness are also mutually affected. Thus, espe-

members, reinforcement corresponding to the internal forces that cially in the case of stabilized cracking, where no further

lead to single cracks must be provided. This approach is extended cracks can compensate for increasing imposed loads, the

to the cases of restrained thermal loading and concrete shrinkage, single crack approach may be questionable. In the following,

which can be considered as peculiarities of imposed loading. the theoretical basis given in MC905 and EC26 is first summa-

Therefore, an analytical model for the case of direct tension is

derived as an extension of the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 and Euro-

rized and then enhanced for thermal loading and shrinkage.

code 2 approach, which distinguishes between crack development Early theoretical studies on crack widths due to restrained

caused by thermal loading and shrinkage and the state of crack loading are given by Falkner,7 Eibl,8 and Noakowski.9,10 In

development with single cracks and the state of stabilized cracking. these studies, the considerations of kinematic compatibility

Basic examples are examined to illustrate the respective charac- between imposed strains, concrete cracking, and concrete

teristic properties and mutual influence of imposed deformations, and reinforcement strains are introduced. This approach is

crack development, and stiffness. The model is validated based on advanced in this study for the derivation of crack widths

a comparison with the experimental results. and restraint forces within the framework provided in

MC905 and EC2.6

Keywords: analytical model; cracking; imposed loading; reinforced

concrete; shrinkage; thermal loading.

The experimental results are used to validate the model.

Experiments concerning imposed loading are difficult to

INTRODUCTION perform, which may be why only few experimental data

Concrete cracking due to imposed loading originating are available, and the measured results show typically

relatively large scatter. Nevertheless, respective experiments

from temperature changes or shrinkage is a topic relevant

concerning thermal loading were performed by Falkner,7 Sule

for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. In

and van Breugel,11 Vecchio et al.,12 and Yi and Yang.13 The

ACI 318-08,1 cracking is controlled by a limitation of

experimental results by Falkner7 are used for the validation of

the allowed stress of the steel and a minimum reinforce-

the model concerning restrained thermal loading. Regarding

ment requirement. For the cases of shrinkage and temper-

concrete cracking due to shrinkage, experimental results are

ature reinforcement, ACI 318-08,1 Section 7.12, gives

given by Nejadi and Gilbert,14 which are also used for the

special recommendations. Furthermore, it is pointed out in

validation of the model.

ACI 318-08,1 Section 9.2.3, that the effects of shrinkage

and temperature should be taken into account realistically,

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

but specific guidelines are not provided. This is described

The question of crack widths and crack spacing due to

in more detail in ACI 209R-92.2 Further recommenda-

imposed loading is an enduring problem, especially for large

tions concerning the control of cracking due to shrinkage RC structures where the deformation is restrained. Although

are given in ACI 224R-01,3 Section 3.5, where it is also the particular mechanisms that govern the cracking behavior

pointed out that the minimum reinforcement requirements are relatively well understood in principle, a uniting

of ACI 318-081 may be insufficient to control crack widths representation seems to be missing. In this context, this

within the generally accepted design limits. In ACI 224.2R- study gives a consistent derivation of equations for the load-

92,4 concrete cracking due to direct tension is also treated dependent estimation of crack spacing and crack widths, as

with the special case of cracking due to restrained volume well as restraint forces due to thermal loading and shrinkage.

changes. Additionally, ACI 224.2R-924 provides equations

to determine the maximum crack widths that need to be BASICS OF CRACK WIDTH ESTIMATION

expected, while it is also noted that, in reality, a large vari- General approach

ability in the maximum crack widths may exist. The following considerations are limited to the case of

In addition to the maximum crack width, it is often neces- direct tension to improve comprehensibility, although the

sary to have information about the development of cracking extension to the case of bending is possible in principle.

and the expected crack widths at a certain load level. For Furthermore, the constitutive behavior of reinforcement

this purpose, CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (MC90)5 and and concrete is assumed to be linear-elastic associated

Eurocode 2 (EC2)6 provide a framework of equations, which

is also the basis for the following derivations. Furthermore,

MC905 and EC26 provide minimum reinforcement require- ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 1, January-February 2012.

ments related to the development of single cracks. In the case MS No. S-2009-352.R3 received September 27, 2010, and reviewed under Institute

publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights

of crack development under imposed loading, the stiffness reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the

and, as a consequence, the internal forces, decrease. Because copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be

published in the November-December 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion

of these smaller internal forces, deformations, crack develop- is received by July 1, 2012.

Ulrich Huler-Combe is a Full Professor at the Institute of Concrete Structures in the x-direction, es and ec are variables possessing different

Department of Civil Engineering at Technische Universitt Dresden, Dresden, Germany. courses. Hence, at a given coordinate x, a relative

He received his diploma from Universitt Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany, and his displacement exists between the reinforcement and matrix,

doctoral degree from Universitt Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany. His research

interests include the numerical modeling of plain and reinforced concrete structures.

which is called slip s. The distance between the crack and the

position where s = 0 is equal to lt. Furthermore, it is assumed

Jens Hartig is a Graduate Research Assistant at the Institute of Concrete Structures that the load transfer from the reinforcement to concrete

in the Department of Civil Engineering at Technische Universitt Dresden, where he occurs symmetrically to the crack.

also received his diploma. His research interests include the numerical modeling of the

tensile behavior of reinforced concrete structures. Instead of the variable strains, mean strains esm and ecm for the

reinforcement and concrete are used, which are derived with

strains due to temperature changes eT and shrinkage ecs e sm = e s ( x )dx, e cm = e c ( x )dx (3)

lt 0 lt 0

are both treated as occurrences of the imposed strain

eE. In this regard, it is insignificant whether temperature

changes result from external heating (for example, due Thus, the crack width can be calculated with

to insolation) or internal heating (for example, due to the

hydration processes in concrete). Nevertheless, the applied w = 2lt ( e sm e cm ) (4)

concrete material parameters have to be appropriate to the

concrete age at loading. The measurable strain is given in the The concrete and reinforcement possess stresses sc(x)

one-dimensional case as and ss(x) corresponding to the strains es(x) and ec(x). In a

crack, the concrete stress is scr = 0 and the reinforcement

s (1) stress has its maximum value ssr. Starting at the crack, the

e= + eE

E reinforcement stress ss(x) decreases and has its minimum

value at x = lt. Therefore, the difference value Dss = ssr

where s is the stress; and E is the Youngs modulus of ss(lt) can be established and the mean reinforcement stress

the respective material. Equation (1) is the essential basis along lt is given with

for the following derivations. The extension compared to

MC905 and EC26 is the explicit consideration of imposed s sm = s sr bt Ds s (5)

strains eE in the following derivations.

An RC bar in direct tension is considered where the where bt is an empirical factor describing the shape of the

longitudinal direction, which is equal to the loading stress distribution in the steel along x. MC905 and EC26

direction, is denoted with x. Furthermore, the bar possesses a provide different values for bt. Whereas EC26 only distin-

crack at a certain cross section. Regarding this cross section, guishes between short- and long-term loading, MC905

tension is only applied to the steel, whereas the concrete is differentiates between single crack formation and stabi-

free of stresses. This gives a potential rise to bond failure lized cracking in these cases. For simplicity, the EC26

between the concrete and reinforcement, which is not taken approach is used in the following. From the assumption

into account. Thus, corresponding to the recommendations that imposed loading is a long-term loading, a constant

in MC905 and EC2,6 a sufficient bond quality has to be value bt = 0.4 follows. A respective stress distribution

ensured to prevent bond failure. between the concrete and reinforcement is shown in Fig. 1.

The width w of a symmetrical crack can be calculated by Nevertheless, the MC905 values can also be used without

modifications of the model if necessary.

w = 2 0t e s ( x ) e c ( x ) dx

l

(2) For reasons of equilibrium, the concrete stress can be

determined with

where lt is the force transfer length; es is the strain of the

reinforcement; and ec is the strain of the concrete. In the s c ( x ) = reff s sr s s ( x ) (6)

the cross-sectional area of the steel As and the effective

cross-sectional area of the concrete Ac,eff. The concrete stress

has its maximum value at x = lt. Using Eq. (5) and (6), the

mean concrete stress along lt results in

s cm = reff bt Ds s (7)

is governed by bond stresses t(x). Due to equilibrium, it can

be stated that

Cs lt (8)

Ds s = t( x )dx

Fig. 1Stresses in stress transfer length. As 0

where Cs is the reinforcement circumference. Instead of esE, and ecE. Whereas esE, ecE, and ssr are prescribed according

the integral formulation, the mean bond stress tm is used, to the loading regime, Dss remains to be determined.

leading to

Single cracks

At load initiation, the RC tension bar is in the uncracked

Cs 4l (9) state. Because the tensile strength is subject to scatter, a

Ds s = lt t m = t t m

As ds cross section with the smallest tensile strength exists, while

its position is governed by chance. With increasing loading,

with the reinforcement diameter ds and Cs/As = 4/ds. The the first single crack develops at this cross section. Experi-

mean bond stress tm is assumed to be proportional to the mental studies by Gopalaratnam and Shah15 showed, for

example, that for a crack width larger than approximately

concrete tensile strength fct according to MC905 and EC2.6

0.05 mm (1.97 103 in.), the stress transfer in the concrete

over the crack becomes insignificant. This corresponds to the

t m = g fct (10) order of magnitude of crack width immediately after crack

development, as shown in a subsequently presented example

The proportionality constant g is defined as equal to on RC. As the consideration of concrete postcracking resis-

1.8 in MC905 for most loading situations. Thus, with tance would considerably complicate the model, whereas

Eq. (5) through (10), the relations between the stresses the influence on the cracking behavior of the bar would be

are sufficiently described. This is used to determine the insignificant, cracking of the concrete in a brittle manner is

mean strains from the mean stresses incorporating imposed assumed in the following.

With the condition that the strains es and ec are equal at x =

strains. Analogous to Eq. (1), the reinforcement strain is

lt, Dss can be determined. On the one hand, it is ss(lt) = ssr

determined with Dss and, furthermore, according to Eq. (6), sc(lt) = reffDss.

With Eq. (11) and (13), the condition es(lt) = ec(lt) leads to

s s ( x)

es ( x) = + e sE (11)

reff Ds s

Es s sr Ds s

+ e sE = + e cE (16)

Es Ec

where Es is the Youngs modulus of the reinforcement; and

esE is the imposed strains, which are assumed to be constant and Dss can be determined with

along the x-axis for simplicity. Applying Eq. (5), the mean

reinforcement strain is s sr + s E

Ds s = (17)

1 + reff a e

s sm 1

e sm =

Es

+ e sE =

Es

(s sr bt Ds s ) + e sE (12)

which contains the ratio ae = Es/Ec and a new variable E,

herein called the eigenstress

Respectively, the mean concrete strain is

s E = Es ( e cE e sE ) (18)

sc ( x)

ec ( x) = + e cE (13)

Ec

With Eq. (17), the force transfer length can be calculated

for a single crack from Eq. (15)

where Ec is the Youngs modulus of the concrete; and ecE is

the imposed strains, which are also assumed to be constant ds s sr + s E

along the x-axis. With Eq. (7), the mean concrete strain is 2lt = (19)

2 t m 1 + reff a e

given with

Furthermore, with Eq. (12) and (14), the mean strain

s 1

e cm = cm + e cE =

Ec Ec

(

reff bt Ds s + e cE ) (14) difference is

s sr + s E

Finally, lt can be expressed with Eq. (9)

e sm e cm =

Es

(1 bt ) (20)

2lt = Ds s esE, ecE, and ssr.

2t m

With increasing loading, further cracks develop in

the cross sections with the smallest tensile strength. For

where tm is a constant according to Eq. (10). Using Eq. (4), the crack spacing sr, however, the condition sr lt holds

(12), (14), and (15) for the determination of the crack widths w, true because within lt, further cracking is impossible

the variables Es, Ec, bt, reff, ds, and fct are known system values due to the decreasing concrete stresses toward the crack.

and the only variables that need to be specified are ssr, Dss, Apart from that, the position of the next single cracks is

governed by chance. Furthermore, the condition es(lt) = The crack widths w of the stabilized cracking state remain

ec(lt) still holds true. The load increase during cracking to be determined. With Dss according to Eq. (12), (14), and

depends on the scatter of the concrete tensile strength. It is (21), the mean strain difference is given with

typically relatively small compared to the ultimate load of a

sufficiently reinforced RC bar.

1 fct

Stabilized cracking

e sm e cm =

Es

s sr bt

reff

(

1 + reff a e ) + ( e sE e cE ) (24)

Further cracking between existing cracks requires suffi-

ciently large stresses transferred from the reinforcement to Compare to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-4), and EC2,6 Eq. (7.9).

the concrete. The stress transfer depends on tm and lt. In Using Eq. (4) and lt according to Eq. (22) and (24), an upper

general, the concrete stress increases with the increasing limit for w for stabilized cracking is given because fct cannot

values of tm and lt, but this is restricted by the condition sc(lt) be reached anymore.

fct. Furthermore, it can be stated with Eq. (6) that sc(lt) =

reffDss. Thus, an upper limit for the stress difference in the

CRACK WIDTH ESTIMATION

steel at higher load levels is given with AT IMPOSED LOADING

Basic approach

fct (21) For the following derivations, an RC bar of length L, which

Ds s Ds*s =

reff is fixed at both ends, is used. The concrete is loaded with an

imposed strain ecE < 0 constant over L (for example, due to

Correspondingly, with Eq. (15), an upper limit for lt is a temperature reduction). This leads to tensile stresses in the

given with concrete and it is assumed that cracks in the concrete develop.

Regarding the compatibility of deformations, the condition

fct ds (22)

2lt 2lt* = n w + L e c ( x ) dx = Du (25)

2 t m reff

(refer to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-3), with tm = 1.8fct). Assuming has to be fulfilled, as the concretes tensile strain release

two cracks with a distance of 2lt*, a new crack develops in has to be compensated by cracks (refer to Fig. 2). In this

between if Dss = Ds*s. For the new crack, lt = lt* and sr = l *t condition, n is the number of cracks, w is the mean crack

apply. Because with a given tm under normal conditions l *t is width, ec(x) is the variable concrete strain, and Du is an

too short to again reach fct, no further cracks develop in this externally applied deformation (for example, due to some

region. Hence, for the crack spacing sr, the condition support movement). It follows with Eq. (13) that

L s c ( x ) dx Du

w = L e cE + (26)

n Ec

holds, which also limits the number of cracks at a given bar

length. The state of stabilized cracking is characterized by

Thus, w is primarily determined by the total concrete

the following properties:

Further load increase is completely carried by the contraction LecE and the number of cracks. The concrete

reinforcement until its load-bearing capacity is reached; stress sc(x) results from the restraint of the free deformation

Between two cracks, a position exists where the slip s due to the bond with the reinforcement. Typically, sc(x) is a

between the concrete and reinforcement is equal to zero. tensile stress, which leads to a reduction of the term within

This position distinguishes the load-transfer lengths of the bracket of Eq. (26).

the cracks to the left and right;

At the position s = 0, the reinforcement stress has a Single cracks

minimum, whereas the concrete stress has a maximum Along the x-axis, it has to be distinguished between force-

that does not reach the concrete tensile strength. The transfer regions, where the concrete and reinforcement

respective strains behave in a similar manner; and possess different strain distributions, and regions with

The reinforcement strain increases compared to the uniform strains in the concrete and reinforcement. In the

concrete strain, which retains its course. This distin- latter region, a constant concrete stress sc(lt) exists, whereas

guishes the state of stabilized cracking from the state of in the force-transfer regions with a length of 2lt, the concrete

single cracks. stresses decrease to zero toward the crack and the mean

concrete stress is denoted with scm. Therefore, the crack

width can be derived with Eq. (26) as

1 1

w = L e cE +

n Ec

( )

n2lt s cm + ( L n2lt ) s c (lt ) Du (27)

according to Eq. (7); and 2lt = dsDss/2tm according to

Fig. 2Qualitative strain distribution in state of single Eq. (15). As a consequence, the condition for the kinematic

crack formation. compatibility is given with Eq. (27) as

L Du reff ds L The state of crack development is associated with the

w=

n

e cE +

n

+

Ec 2

2tt m

(1 bt ) Ds 2s Ds s (28)

n

condition that n2lt < L. If, otherwise, n2lt L, the state of

stabilized cracking is reached.

Furthermore, Eq. (4), (15), (17), and (20) lead to Stabilized cracking

In the stabilized cracking state, only force-transfer regions

w=

( )

ds 1 + a er eff (1 bt )

Ds 2s (29)

exist along the x-axis. Hence, the condition n2lt L = 0 holds

and Eq. (27) leads to

2t m Es

1 1 s Du

Thus, there are two equations for the unknown variables w = L e cE + n2lt s cm Du = 2lt e cE + cm (32)

n Ec Ec L

Dss and w. The solution of this problem is

where scm = reffbtDss according to Eq. (7) and 2lt = dsDss/2tm

2

1 tL t Es 1 tL according to Eq. (15). Furthermore, it is assumed that Dss =

Ds s = r a

2 n eff e

n

( L e cE Du)

2 n

reff a e , fct/reff according to Eq. (21), which leads to the requirement

(30) of the kinematic compatibility for stabilized cracking

2t m

t =

ds (1 bt ) fct ds fct Du

w= (33)

2 t m reff e cE + bt E L

c

It should be noted that ecE < 0. If the value of Dss is

known, then w can be determined with Eq. (29), the force- from which w can be directly calculated. With Eq. (4), (12),

transfer length 2lt can be determined with Eq. (15), and the (14), and (15) and considering that Dss = fct/reff, the crack

reinforcement stress at the crack ssr can be determined with width can also be expressed as

Eq. (17). In the case of imposed loading, ssr does not need to

be predefined in contrast to normal loading, but it is a result

1 fct

of the crack calculations. The force due to the imposed load

is given with fct ds

Es

s sr bt

reff

( )

1 + reff a e +

w= (34)

2 t m reff

Du

Fimp = As s sr (31) e sE e cE +

L

force because of the reduced stiffness due to cracking. Equating the last two expressions leads to the reinforce-

Finally, the value of concrete stress apart from the force- ment stress at the crack at stabilized cracking

transfer length is needed, which is given with sc(lt) = reffDss.

fct

Crack development s sr = bt Es e sE (35)

reff

The previous derivations show that for imposed loading,

the number of cracks n or the ratio L/n, respectively,

essentially influence the crack widths. Therefore, the crack which can also be used with Eq. (31) to determine the force

development is discussed in more detail in the following. It due to imposed loading. Equations (33) and (35) show that

in the case of stabilized cracking, the crack widths and

is assumed that the imposed concrete strains continuously

imposed stresses with given system parameters only depend

increase starting from zero. on the imposed strains esE and ecE. Contrary to the state of

At first, the condition |ecE| < fct/Ec holds. developing cracking, the number of cracks has no influence.

If |ecE| = fct/Ec, the first crack occurs and n = 1. Apart

from the force-transfer length, the concrete stress is Concrete creep

sc(lt), which is sc(lt) < fct due to the reduced stiffness Shrinkage is a long-lasting process leading to the question

of the bar. of the influence of concrete creep.16 Visco-elastic constitutive

With Eq. (30), Dss can be calculated, which can also be laws are available for the description of creep processes.

used to determine w and sc(lt), depending on ecE. For simplicity, a Kelvin-Voigt model with three parameters

With increasing |ecE|, sc(lt) also increases. If again is used (refer to the inset in Fig. 3). In the uniaxial case,

sc(lt) = fct, the second crack develops and n = 2. the stress-strain relationship for the concrete considering

Afterward, the concrete stress decreases again and imposed strains is given as

sc(lt) < fct applies. The following procedure is similar

to the case of n = 1.

All following cracks are treated as previously discussed, 1+ j 1

s c ( t ) + s c ( t ) = Ec ( e c e cE ) + ( e c e cE ) ,

but with an increasing n. It is assumed that the crack t tcc

spacing is sufficiently large to prevent an interaction (36)

1 E

of the cracks. If this condition is valid, the developed = c

cracks are single cracks. tcc jh

where t is time; s c is the stress rate; e c is the strain rate; Ec deformationthat is, ec = 0Eq. (36) is an ordinary first-

is the initial Youngs modulus; j is the final creep coefficient; order differential equation for sc(t), which can be solved

and h is the viscosity parameter. With a constant stress in closed form with the initial condition sc(t) = 0. Related

sc0 and without imposed strainsthat is, ecE = 0Eq. (36) solutions sc(t)/Ececs are shown in Fig. 3 for a case where Ec =

30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi), j = 2, and h = 2 106 MN/m2 per

has the time-dependent solution

day (2.9 105 ksi per day). Therefore, the parameter a = tcs/tcc

is used, which relates the velocity of creep to the velocity of

sc0 t shrinkage. For comparison, the related stress curve without

e c (t ) = 1 + j 1 exp (37) the influence of creep is shown. An affinity of all relations

Ec tcc can be seen. Taking creep into account, the restraint stresses

are limited to sc0 = Ececs/(1 + j).

where tcc is the time at which 63% of the final creep strain is As a result, in a first approach, it is sufficient to regard

reached. Large values of tcc retard creep, whereas low values the influence of creep on shrinkage by a reduction of the

accelerate it. For t = 0, the creep strain is ec = sc0/Ec, but for Youngs modulus of the concrete Ec, which can be taken into

large values of t, it is given by ec = (1 + j)sc0/Ec. With a account with a factor of 1/(1 + j). This also corresponds

predefined creep regime over time, the parameters j and h to common practice as recommended by MC905 and

can be determined. EC2,6 where limitations of the applicability of this approach

Shrinkage strains are assumed as are also specified, which are also valid for the present model.

The ratio ae is also indirectly influenced.

t

e cE ( t ) = e cs 1 exp (38) VALIDATION

tcs Thermal loading

Thorough studies on the cracking of RC tension members

where ecs is the final shrinkage strain; and tcs is the specific caused by thermal loading were performed by Falkner.7 Seven

shrinkage time. Together with a complete restraint of specimens with lengths of 6 m (236.2 in.) and constant

concrete cross sections but variable reinforcement ratios

and diameters of the reinforcing bars (refer to Table 1) were

heated in a water bath up to a temperature of 80C (176F).

Immediately after taking them out of the water bath, the

specimens were fixed in a rigid frame and cooled down to an

ambient air temperature of 20C (68F) within a period of

approximately 24 hours. Temperature differences between

the outside cross-sectional areas and core cross-sectional

areas were measured and proved to be relatively small. The

average crack width values and reinforcement stress at the

cracks in the final state are also summarized in Table 1.

A mean concrete Youngs modulus of Ec = 32,000 MN/m2

(4641 ksi) was determined. The concrete tensile strengths

were determined as the uniaxial tensile strength for each

Fig. 3Influence of creep on imposed stresses due to shrinkage. specimen (refer to Table 1). A Youngs modulus of Es =

Specimen properties

Specimen No. 1a 1b 1c 2a 2c 3a 3c

ds, mm (in.) 4 (0.16) 6 (0.24) 10 (0.39) 6 (0.24) 12 (0.47) 8 (0.32) 14 (0.55)

reff, % 0.51 0.48 0.53 0.76 0.76 1.01 1.03

2

fct, MN/m (psi) 2.43 (352.4) 2.13 (308.9) 2.05 (297.3) 2.33 (337.9) 1.95 (282.8) 2.12 (307.5) 2.00 (290.1)

Experimental results

Number of cracks 12 14 5 27 10 24 14

wm, mm (103 in.) 0.19 (7.5) 0.17 (6.7) 0.32 (12.6) 0.10 (3.9) 0.23 (9.1) 0.08 (3.2) 0.16 (6.3)

ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 427 (61.9) 406 (58.9) 373 (54.1) 296 (42.9) 283 (41.1) 257 (37.3) 240 (34.8)

Number of cracks 14 10 8 23 14 27 16

wm, mm (103 in.) 0.22 (8.7) 0.32 (12.6) 0.42 (16.5) 0.14 (5.5) 0.24 (9.5) 0.12 (4.7) 0.21 (8.3)

ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 494 (71.7) 461 (66.8) 401 (58.2) 321 (46.6) 268 (38.9) 245 (35.5) 236 (34.2)

Number of cracks 20 13 10 32 19 38 22

wm, mm (103 in.) 0.16 (6.3) 0.23 (9.1) 0.30 (11.8) 0.10 (3.4) 0.17 (6.7) 0.12 (4.7) 0.21 (8.3)

Table 2Results of experiments by Nejadi and Gilbert14 and comparison to results of model

Specimen properties

Specimen No. S1a S1b S2a S3a S3b S4a S4b

ds, mm (in.) 12 (0.47) 12 (0.47) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39)

reff, % 0.57 0.57 0.39 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.52

Experimental results

3

Elongation, mm (10 in.) 0.31 (12.2) 0.38 (15.0) 0.31 (12.2) 0.40 (15.8) 0.42 (16.5) 0.25 (9.8) 0.16 (6.3)

Number of cracks 4 4 3 1 2 3 3

wm, mm (103 in.) 0.21 (8.3) 0.18 (7.1) 0.30 (11.8) 0.84 (33.1) 0.50 (19.7) 0.23 (9.1) 0.25 (9.8)

ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 273 (39.6) 190 (27.6) 250 (36.3) 532 (77.2) 467 (67.7) 270 (39.2) 276 (40.0)

Model results

Number of cracks 4 4 3 2 2 4 4

wm, mm (103 in.) 0.25 (9.8) 0.26 (10.2) 0.33 (13.0) 0.56 (22.1) 0.56 (22.1) 0.23 (9.1) 0.21 (8.3)

ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 275 (39.9) 289 (41.9) 369 (53.5) 499 (72.4) 503 (72.9) 295 (42.8) 279 (40.5)

200,000 MN/m2 (29,008 ksi) is used for the reinforcement. different concrete batch was used. Due to the shrinkage of

The remaining values of the model are chosen with tm = the massive concrete support blocks, each specimen was

1.8fct and bt = 0.6. The latter value is appropriate for the case elongated externally to some extent, which is considered in

of the first crack formation, as proposed by MC90.5 the model by means of the external deformation Du applied

The results of the model (refer to Table 1) generally confirm to Eq. (25). The measured elongations, average values

the well-known relationship that both crack width and of crack width after 150 days, number of cracks, and the

imposed reinforcement stresses decrease with a decreasing reinforcement stresses at the cracks are given in Table 2.

reinforcement bar diameter and an increasing reinforce- The remaining parameters for the model are chosen with

ment ratio. The model overestimates the experimental crack tm = 2.5fct and bt = 2/3. This deviates from the code values

width by an average of 37%. The imposed reinforcement used previously but is in agreement with the respective values

stresses are slightly overestimated for the low and medium chosen by Nejadi and Gilbert14 for their own analytical

reinforcement stresses and slightly underestimated for the model. The values for the number of cracks, the crack width,

high reinforcement stress. A better agreement of the experi- and the reinforcement stress as computed with the model

mental and theoretical crack width values is reached with are also given in Table 2. An extra crack has been added for

an increased value of tm. A relation of tm = 2.5fct leads to an each specimen due to a notch at the midspan. The agreement

average deviation of less than 10% regarding crack width between the experimental and theoretical values seems to be

values, whereas the reinforcement stresses remain unchanged reasonable, except for Specimens S1b, S2a, and S3a, with

but the numbers of cracks increase. Thus, taking into account

respect to reinforcement stresses. Specimen S3a has only one

that for every parameter combination only one experiment

crack in the experiment arising in the specimen notch, which

was performed and uncertainties in the effectively existing

must lead to a very large crack width and reinforcement

bond parameters typically appear, the validity of the model

stress. The deviating experimental values of Specimens S1b

for thermal loading can be confirmed.

and S2a are somehow contrary to the general tendency that

Shrinkage crack widths and reinforcement stresses should increase

Experimental studies regarding the influence of shrinkage with an increasing prescribed elongation and decreasing

were performed by Nejadi and Gilbert.14 In a series of eight reinforcement ratio. Nevertheless, taking into account the

constrained RC specimens exposed to ambient temperature large uncertainties associated with experiments on concrete

and humidity over a period of 150 days, the shrinkage shrinkage, the validity of the model seems to be proven.

behavior was observed. Furthermore, the creep behavior of

companion specimens with no constraints was determined. EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION

Each specimen had a length of 2 m (78.7 in.) and was Thermal loading

connected to massive concrete blocks at its ends. Except As an example of application, an RC bar with a length L

for one specimen, the same concrete batch was used for of 2 m (78.74 in.) is used. The concrete material parameters

all specimens. The concrete properties of this batch were are assumed with fct = 3 MN/m2 (0.435 ksi) and Ec =

determined with Youngs modulus Ec = 22,810 MN/m2 30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi). The ratio between the Youngs

(3308 ksi) and tensile strength fct = 2.0 MN/m2 (0.290 ksi). moduli is ae = 6.67 and the coefficient of thermal expansion

After 122 days, the creep coefficient was determined with is aT = 1 105 K1 for both the concrete and reinforcement.

j = 1 and the shrinkage strain was determined with ecs = The bond parameters are chosen constant with tm = 1.8fct

0.457 103. For the reinforcement, a Youngs modulus and bt = 0.6, assuming that the creep effects on bond are

of Es = 200,000 MN/m2 (29,008 ksi) is again assumed in negligible in a first approach. The cross section of the

the model. concrete is assumed to be quadratic with an edge length of

For each reinforcement combination (refer to Table 2), two d = 0.1 m (3.94 in.). As reinforcement, one steel bar with

nominally identical specimens were produced, except for the diameter ds of 14 mm (0.55 in.) is chosen. This leads to As

specimens specified with S2, where for one specimen a = 1.54 cm2 (0.239 in.2), Ac,eff = 100 cm2 (15.5 in.2), and reff

Using the condition sc(lt) = fct, the second crack develops

at a thermal strain of eT = 1.738 104, which corresponds

to a temperature change of DT = 17.38 K (31.28F).

Now, it is n = 2 and the values of Dss, w, and sc(lt) can be

determined again, depending on eT. The same calculations

have to be performed for increasing n. The values for 2lt can

be calculated with Eq. (15). In this example, for n = 8, it is

n2lt > L, indicating stabilized cracking. With Eq. (33), the

crack width for n = 8 can be calculated as follows

(41)

(= 9.94e T 3.98 10 4 (in.) )

The calculated crack widths are shown in Fig. 4, where

Fig. 4Crack widths due to temperature reduction. (Note: the typical sawtooth course during the crack development

F = (K 273.15) 9/5 + 32.) is observable. After each crack event, an abrupt decrease of

the crack widths occurs because more cracks are available

to ensure kinematic compatibility. All crack widths remain

below an upper limit because further temperature changes

are compensated with further cracks. The crack widths only

exceed this limit at a temperature change of |DT| > 60

(108F) at stabilized cracking. Similar results are obtained

for ssr and are shown in Fig. 5.

In the case of thermal strains, the imposed strains are esE =

ecE = eT = aTDT with DT < 0. In contrast, in the case of concrete

shrinkage, only the concrete has imposed strains, which are

ecE = ecs < 0, whereas esE = 0. The shrinkage strains can be

quantified according to MC905 and EC2.6 Under unfavorable

conditions, the shrinkage strains may approach values up to

ecs = 1 103, which corresponds with aT = 1 105 K1 to

a temperature change of DT = 100 K (180F). Again, the

Fig. 5Reinforcement stresses at crack due to tempera- displacements of the concrete and the reinforcement at the

ture reduction. (Note: F = (K 273.15) 9/5 + 32.) ends of the bar are prescribed equal to zero.

At first, the case of single cracks and the crack development

is considered. With Eq. (30), the stress changes in the

= 0.0154. Furthermore, according to Eq. (22), lt* = 0.13 m reinforcement can be determined. It can be seen that Dss is

(5.12 in.) is given. independent of the type of imposed loadingthat is, if there

The RC bar is loaded with a temperature reduction is thermal loading or concrete shrinkage. The same is valid

DT < 0, which acts simultaneously on the concrete and for the crack widths w according to Eq. (29). In contrast, the

the reinforcement, leading to imposed strains esE = ecE reinforcement stress at the crack is given with Eq. (17) and

= eT = aTDT. The ends of the bar are fixedthat is, the (18), which are for thermal strains

displacements of the concrete and the reinforcement are

prescribed to zero at these positions and Du = 0. This is a

considerable difference from conventional uniaxial tensile

( )

s sr = 1 + reff a e Ds s (42)

loading, where displacements or forces would be applied to

and for concrete shrinkage

the bar at its ends. The thermal strain leading to the first crack

is eT = fct/Ec = 1 104, corresponding to a temperature

change of DT = 10 K (18F). With Eq. (29) and (30) and ( )

s sr = 1 + reff a e Ds s + Es e cs (43)

sc(lt) = reffDss, for n = 1, it is

It can be seen that in the case of concrete shrinkage, the

5 2

reinforcement stress is considerably lower due to ecs < 0.

Ds s = 71.42 3.412 1.008 10 eT 131.9 (MN/m ) Moreover, Dss and w are identical for thermal loading

( )

(39) and shrinkage in the stabilized cracking state because it

= 10,359 3.412 1.008 10 5 eT 19,130 (psi)

is insignificant whether an imposed reinforcement strain

exists simultaneously to an imposed concrete strain (refer to

and Eq. (33)). In contrast, the reinforcement stress at the crack

is larger for thermal loading by a value of Esecs, compared to

( )

w = 4.287 10 9 Ds s (m) = 1.164 10 9 Ds s (in.) , the case of concrete shrinkage according to Eq. (35).

The consequences of concrete creep, as described by

s c (lt ) = 0.0154 Ds s (40) Eq. (38), are presented by means of the example of shrinkage,

where esE = 0 and ecE = ecs. The creep coefficient and

viscosity parameter are assumed with j = 2 and h = 2

106 MN/m2 per day (2.9 105 ksi per day), which leads to

a Youngs modulus of the concrete of Ec = 10,000 MN/m2

(1450 ksi) and ae = 20. Apart from that, the calculations are

similar to those previously presented.

The calculated crack widths are shown in Fig. 6. For

comparison, the relationship without the influence of creep

is shown with the case of j = 0. It can be seen that in the

case considering creep, crack development starts at higher

shrinkage strains, leading to larger crack widths for single

cracks. Due to a later beginning of stabilized cracking for

j = 2 associated with the reduced stiffness of the concrete,

crack widths for stabilized cracking are lower compared to

j = 0.

The development of reinforcement stresses at the cracks Fig. 6Crack widths due to concrete shrinkage.

with increasing ecs is shown in Fig. 7. The differences

regarding the stress levels between both cases are

insignificant. Nevertheless, compared to reinforcement

stresses in the case of thermal loading (Fig. 5), considerably

lower values can be seen. This is due to the fact that in

the case of concrete shrinkage, imposed stresses result

solely from concrete contraction between cracks. Between

cracks, concrete contraction is not fully transferred to the

reinforcement due to flexible bond. The stress transfer zones

increase with increasing numbers of cracks, leading to

decreasing reinforcement stress. In the case of temperature

reduction, the steel also contracts, imposing tensile stress in

the reinforcement under constraint conditions in addition to

the tensile stress imposed by the concrete. Reinforcement

contraction leads to reinforcement stresses increasing

proportionally to the temperature decrease. This can also be

seen in Eq. (42) and (43).

Limits

The example showed that in the state of crack development, Fig. 7Reinforcement stresses at crack due to concrete

the largest crack width already occurs immediately before shrinkage.

the second crack develops, corresponding to n = 1 and sc(lt)

= reffDss = fct. Thus, it is imposed strain is given as well. Equation (46) can be further

simplified if ae is neglected, which with sE = 0 leads to

fct (44)

Ds s = Ac ,eff

reff s sr = fct (47)

As

and Eq. (29) gives the maximum crack widths in the state of

crack development. This is similar to the minimum reinforcement requirement

according to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-16), and EC2,6 Eq. (7.1).

1 Using Eq. (47) with Eq. (4), (19), and (20) and sE = 0, the

ds fct2 1 bt ae

wmax = 2 + (45) crack width is calculated with

2 t m Es reff reff

ds fct2 1 bt 1

It is independent of the imposed strains and bar lengths, wmax = (48)

whereas a large influence of fct and reff exists. The 2 t m Es reff 2

(1 + reff a e )

reinforcement stress in a crack can be determined with

Eq. (17) and (44) This will be shown again based on the previous examples.

The material parameters of the concrete are assumed as fct =

3.0 MN/m2 (0.435 ksi) and Ec = 30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi).

1 With fixed values for ae, bt, and tm, only ds and reff remain

s sr = fct + ae sE (46) as variable parameters for the determination of the crack

reff width. The respective evaluation of Eq. (45) and (48) is

shown in Fig. 8, which illustrates the strong influence of reff.

with sE according to Eq. (18) where, in the case of thermal Furthermore, it can be seen that the simplified calculation

strains, sE = 0. With Eq. (46), the maximum force due to the according to Eq. (48) underestimates the crack widths by

tively, the concept of the effective concrete area in tension

exists.5,6 This leads to a relatively simple and applicable

model, although it exhibits relatively large model uncer-

tainties. Additionally, relatively large scatter exists

concerning the concrete tensile strength and bond behavior

between the concrete and reinforcement. Correspondingly,

MC905 and EC26 state that the values of the crack widths

determined with the conventional approaches are only

estimations and not exact predictions.

NOTATION

Ac,eff = effective cross-sectional area of concrete

As = cross-sectional area of reinforcement bar

Cs = circumference of reinforcement bar

ds = diameter of reinforcement bar

E = Youngs modulus

Ec = Youngs modulus of concrete

Fig. 8Crack widths with different reinforcement diameters Es = Youngs modulus of reinforcement

and effective reinforcement ratios. Fimp = force due to restrained imposed loading

fct = tensile strength of concrete

L = length of bar

approximately 10 to 20% compared to Eq. (45). This might lt = force transfer length

be tenable, considering the simplified model and the scatter n = number of cracks

of its parameters in practice. s = slip

It remains to be determined at which value of imposed sr = crack spacing

T = temperature

strain the state of crack development is finished and the state t = time

of stabilized cracking starts. The threshold value is denoted tcc = specific creep time

with eII. Considering Fig. 3, it can be seen that the crack tcs = specific shrinkage time

widths in the stabilized cracking state according to Eq. (33) w = crack width

approximately correspond to wmax for ecE = eII according to x = longitudinal coordinate

ae = ratio between Youngs moduli of reinforcement and concrete

Eq. (45). Thus, a condition for eII is given, where the solu- bt = shape coefficient of reinforcement stress course

tion is DT = temperature change

Du = external deformation

Dss = difference between minimum and maximum reinforcement stress

1 1 bt 1 e = strain

e II = fct + (49) ec = concrete strain

Ec Es reff

e c = strain rate of concrete

ecE = imposed concrete strain

For example, this provides eII = 0.68 103 or DT = 68 K ecm = mean concrete strain

(122.4F), respectively. Such a temperature change seems ecs = concrete shrinkage strain

eE = imposed strain

to be unusual, but a corresponding shrinkage strain might be eII = strain at transition from crack development to stabilized cracking

realistic under certain circumstances. es = reinforcement strain

esE = imposed reinforcement strain

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS esm = mean reinforcement strain

Based on the presented model, essential aspects of the eT = thermal strain

h = viscosity parameter

crack development of RC due to imposed loading (for j = creep coefficient

example, thermal loading or concrete shrinkage) were reff = effective reinforcement ratio

presented. This study provides formulas for the estimation s = stress

of crack widths for immediate use within the framework of sc = concrete stress

MC905 and EC2.6 Furthermore, relations for restraint forces s c = stress rate of concrete

scm = mean concrete stress

are given. In this context, the interrelations between crack

scr = concrete stress at the crack

widths, reinforcement ratio, concrete tensile strength, and sE = eigenstress

reinforcement diameter based on kinematic compatibility ss = reinforcement stress

were shown and the connection to the concept of minimum ssm = mean reinforcement stress

reinforcement is given. Furthermore, this study distin- ssr = reinforcement stress at crack

guishes between thermal loading and concrete shrinkage and t = bond stress

tm = mean bond stress

between single cracks and stabilized cracking. Therefore,

complete deformation restraint is assumed for simplicity. A

REFERENCES

flexible deformation restraint could be taken into account in 1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural

the models by means of springs as supports. Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,

This contribution is limited to the case of tension bars Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.

with constant stresses and strains within the concrete and 2. ACI Committee 209, Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature

reinforcement. Varying stresses and strains (for example, Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92) (Reapproved 2008),

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 47 pp.

due to bending or asymmetric reinforcement distribution, 3. ACI Committee 224, Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures

respectively) require the enhancement of the model, at (ACI 224R-01) (Reapproved 2008), American Concrete Institute,

least with plane stress elements for the concrete. Alterna- Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 46 pp.

4. ACI Committee 224, Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct 11. Sule, M., and van Breugel, K., The Effect of Reinforcement on

Tension (ACI 224.2R-92) (Reapproved 2004), American Concrete Early-Age Cracking due to Autogenous Shrinkage and Thermal Effects,

Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 12 pp. Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 26, No. 5, July 2004, pp. 581-587.

5. Comit Euro-International du Bton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, 12. Vecchio, F. J.; Agostino, N.; and Angelakos, B., Reinforced

Thomas Telford, London, UK, 1998, 437 pp. Concrete Slabs Subjected to Thermal Loads, Canadian Journal of Civil

6. EN1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, European Engineering, V. 20, No. 5, Oct. 1993, pp. 741-753.

Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, 248 pp. 13. Yi, S. T., and Yang, E. I., Effect of Axial Restraint on Mechanical

7. Falkner, H., Zur Frage der Ribildung duch Eigen- und Behavior and Average Crack Spacing of Reinforced Concrete Flexural

Zwngspannungen infolge Temperatur in Stahlbetonbauteilen, DAfStb Members, Nuclear Engineering and Design, V. 228, No. 1-3, Mar. 2004,

Heft 208, Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1969, 99 pp. pp. 107-118.

8. Eibl, J., Zwngung und Ribildung von Stahlbetonstben bei 14. Nejadi, S., and Gilbert, R. I., Shrinkage Cracking and Crack Control

Behinderung der Lngsverformung, Bautechnik, V. 46, No. 11, Nov. 1969, in Restrained Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal,

pp. 373-379. V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 840-845.

9. Noakowski, P., Bemessung auf Biegezwang im Hinblick auf 15. Gopalaratnam, V. S., and Shah, S. P., Softening Response of Plain

zulssige Stahlspannung und zulssige Ribreite, Bauingenieur, V. 52, Concrete in Direct Tension, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 28, No. 3,

1977, pp. 137-144. May-June 1985, pp. 310-323.

10. Noakowski, P.: Praxisgerechtes Verfahren fr die Bemessung von 16. Bissonnette, B.; Pigeon, M.; and Vaysburd, A. M., Tensile Creep

Stahlbetonbauteilen bei Zwangbeanspruchung, Beton und Stahlbetonbau, of Concrete: Study of Its Sensitivity to Basic Parameters, ACI Materials

V. 75, No. 4, Apr. 1980, pp. 77-82 and 120-125. Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 360-368.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

- EGN3365-8Uploaded byIngenio Metalurgia
- Effect of Corner Angle on Efficiency of Reinforced Concrete Joints Under Opening Bending MomentsUploaded byValdemir Colares
- Engineering & Design Handbook EditedUploaded byHerman
- Concrete Basics-Guide to Steel FibresUploaded byEtana O-o
- Reformer Tube Metal Insp MonitoringUploaded byAbdul Rehman
- doc-25-.3Uploaded bydhruvgoku
- Jntuk m Tech r16 Cad Cam SyllabusUploaded byvenkata
- API 510 Closed 1Uploaded byEinsteinw2
- usnaUploaded byDome Stoi
- Atriculo de Analisis de La FracturaUploaded byJhon Abel
- Seismic evaluation of FRP strengthened RC buildings subjected to near-faultUploaded byMohcene Boukhezar
- NIST 2012 Mechanical Reliability GlaesemannUploaded byturboprofan
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded byPravin Polas
- Use of Creep Compliance Interconverted From Complex Modulus for Thermal Cracking PredictionUploaded byLoyda Marcela
- Presentation Case Study (1)Uploaded byAhmad Fakhrie Shah
- Advanced Predicction Methods for Roadway Behaviour by Combining Numerical Simulation, Physical Modellyng and in-situ MonitoringUploaded byrannscribd
- Force Transfer in Epoxy Bonded Steel Concrete JointsUploaded bypedraoha
- 06_ngubeljakUploaded bylaurentdupont
- Blaauwendraad_1985Uploaded byHaifaa Dhamad
- A thermodynamic theory of short-term and creep rupture.rtfUploaded byeid elsayed
- DGU2033 Material Science Chapter 3bUploaded bynitya
- Valery I. Levitas et al- Mechanochemical mechanism for fast reaction of metastable intermolecular composites based on dispersion of liquid metalUploaded byAlarmak
- K12 Durability - Deformation (1).pdfUploaded byWan Ahmad FaizFaizal
- 1-s2.0-S0734743X05000941-mainUploaded byhezigrisaro
- 10.1.1.627.9146.pdfUploaded byGregory Alvarado Chavez
- 54 FatigueUploaded bybharathvg8096
- Aircraft Structure-I ManualUploaded bysivaaero41
- Lect-4Uploaded byGaurav Agarwal
- Specifying and testing fiber reinforced shotcrete_ Advances and c.pdfUploaded byMariaN.Minaya
- jhik,v jm,jm,jmjnm,nnjUploaded byPavan Kumar Arigi

- LessDemonstrate understanding of the concepts of force and motion as applied to land and air/sea transport. Specific: 1. State the third law of motion. 2. Identify the action-reaction forces in a given situation.on 5.11Uploaded bySherwin Cayetano
- 111223-TorqueChart.pdfUploaded byMisagh
- Cyclic Tilt Spin Vector Variations of Main Belt Asteroids due to the Solar Gyro-Gravitation.Uploaded bysipora1
- MagnetismUploaded bySaurabh Pasricha
- GEAS-IECEP.pdfUploaded byMichael Cabrera Rabino
- 01 Review of River Modeling With HEC-RAS (2)Uploaded byjased
- Aatco PaperUploaded byAnonymous 0ywnNS29EG
- 1-s2.0-026087749400011W-mainUploaded byAntonio Hernandez
- Mekanika Benda Langit_Gerak Dalam Orbit & Transfer OrbitUploaded byafaqihudin
- Solved Problems in ElectromagneticsUploaded byEdwin Oandasan
- Lect12-Rigid Frames Compression and BucklingUploaded byChris
- Diana Concrete and Masonry TutorialsUploaded byImrose Bin Muhit
- Hoop TensionUploaded byKristin Brienne Leander-Renomeron
- TESTING OF HIGH STRENGTH STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE STUB COLUMNS UNDER UNIAXIAL LOAD.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- 15.02.20 StiffenssMatrix CLTUploaded bymihaidelian
- Exp 7 Centrifugal Pump CharacteristicsUploaded byJackSparrow86
- MIT8_04S13_ps1Uploaded byYul Lope
- Pile Group Stiffness for Seismic Soil-Structure InteractionUploaded byDani Goodone
- HighStrainRate_Recommended_Procedure.pdfUploaded bySivaraman Visvanathan
- Electric Power Generation Using Buoyancy-Induced VorticesUploaded byJairo Acuña
- Glulam curved beam design to EC5Uploaded byBurak Kırcal
- Syllabus Che 153Uploaded byRalf Ruffel M. Abarca
- Midterm Study GuideUploaded byjohntothep
- 4-Newton's Laws of Motion, Friction and Non-Inertial FrameUploaded bySivakumar Sarma
- Correlation Between Viscosity and v-funnel FlowUploaded byمحمد اقبال
- 34 HydrostaticsUploaded byval-ovidiu iordache
- lec5Uploaded bysasiaero
- Air Duct CalculatorUploaded byRinaldy
- 0fatigue_808.pdfUploaded bySeparator
- Homework 06Uploaded byFaltu Accnt