article

© All Rights Reserved

12 vues

article

© All Rights Reserved

- Static Design Guide lindab
- ASTM C307 TraçãoConcreto
- Mohr-Coulomb Parameters for Modelling of Concrete Structures
- EN 10168_2004_Steel products - Inspection documents.pdf
- Grinda Lamelara Simetrica
- Cracking Due to Temperature Gradient in Concrete
- Cen/Tc 250/Sc 2/Wg 2 n 0157
- 1. Prof. Kame G. S. Lsmrcs Lecture Notes Civil Engg. Dept. Datta Meghe Coemumbai Uni Limit State Method of Reinforced Concrete Design Confirming to i s 456 2000 Assumptions
- Eng Analysis
- 077 563 271 2 Moretti SE
- Chapter 1 OV Eng Ana
- Pci - Modeling Spandrels
- 802-PartI-Section2-1992(1998)
- Ch 7
- 210.pdf
- Project 12
- Magazine of Concrete Research
- 210.pdf
- Final Report (2)
- Wall Thickness Optimization

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Flexure- and tensile-coupon

are compared

data on unidirectional

to a Weibull two-parameter

graphite-epoxy

statistical-strength

composites

model

ABSTRACT--Tensile

data o n unidirectional composites

generated from a flexure test usually yield a higher strength

than observed from a standard tensile coupon. According to

a statistical-strength theory based on a Weibull distribution,

the presence of a stress gradient in the flexureqest results in

an apparent increase in tensile strength as compared to the

tensile test under uniform stress. In the present paper, this

concept is explored by utilizing data from unidirectional

graphite-epoxy composites to compare with theoretical

results generated from a two-parameter Weibull distribution. A

larger variation in tensile strength is observed from tensilecoupon data than from flexure data. Such differences are not

in accordance with strength theories based on a uniform

flaw distribution and raise questions concerning variability of

the test methods, as well as sources of material variability.

List of Symbols

B ( S ) = risk of rupture at stress S

b = width of test specimen, mm (in.)

L = length of tensile specimen or span of beam

h

S=

Sb =

So =So

Sb =

S t .=

X=

P~o =

Xo=

specimen, mm (in.)

thickness of test specimen, mm (in.)

maximum stress, MPa (psi)

characteristic bending strength, MPa (psi)

scale parameter in two-parameter Weibull

distribution

maximum likelihood estimate of So

adjusted maximum likelihood estimate for scale

parameter under bending load, MPa (psi)

characteristic tensile strength, MPa (psi)

adjusted maximum-likelihood estimate for scale

parameter under tensile load, MPa (psi)

normalized strength

scale parameter for normalized strength

maximum likelihood estimate of normalizedscale parameter

shape parameter in Weibull distribution

J.M. Whitney and M. Knight are Materials Research Engineers, Nonmetallic" Materials Division, Air Force Materials Laboratory, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, OH 45433.

Paper was presented at 1979 SESA Spring Meeting hem in San Francisco,

CA on May 20-25.

Original rnanuscripl submitted: October 12, 1979. Final version received:

January 29, 1980.

& = unbiased estimate of pooled-shape parameter for

tensile loading

~b = unbiased estimate of pooled-shape parameter

for bending

Introduction

Tensile data on unidirectional composites are often

used as one of the key factors in materials selection, and

also provide basic ply properties which are used in

laminate design. Such data generated from a unidirectionalflexure test usually yield higher strength than data obtained from a standard tensile coupon. It is primarily for

this reason that flexure data are not considered appropriate

for design purposes. This difference in apparent tensile

strengths can be accounted for, however, if one considers

the brittle nature of most polymeric-matrix composites.

In particular, a statistical-strength theory based on a

Weibull distribution' can be used to explain the difference

between unidirectional-tensile data generated from a

flexure test and a standard tensile coupon. Tbe presence

of a stress gradient in the flexure-test results in an apparent

increase in tensile strength compared to the tensile test

under uniform stress. Establishment of a viable relationship between the flexure test and standard-tensile-coupon

test would provide a potential basis for use of the flexure

test in the generation of unidirectional-design data. Since

flexure tests are easy to run and relatively inexpensive, a

large statistical-data base obtained with this method rather

than tensile coupons is far more economical.

A two-parameter Weibull model was used by Bullock 2

in correlating 4-point flexure and tensile-coupon data for

unidirectional graphite-epoxy composites.

Excellent

agreement was obtained between theory and experiment.

The Weibull model has been previously applied to ceramic

materials '.4 and more recently to randomly oriented

short-fiber composites.'

In the present work, unidirectional graphite-epoxy

tensile data are obtained on both 3-point and 4-point

flexure tests, as well as on straight-sided tensile coupons.

The influence of specimen thickness on tensile strength is

investigated in addition to the effect of stress gradient.

Thus, a much broader data base for comparison to

Weibull statistical theory is available in the current work

than presented by Bullock. 2 Unlike the experimental

variation in tensile strength vs. flexure strength is obtained

with the current data. This trend is observed in two

entirely different graphite-epoxy material systems. Such

differences are not in accordance with statistical-strength

theories based on a uniform flaw distribution. Possible

sources of this departure from classical brittle-failure

theory are discussed in detail.

Material

Tension

4-PT Flex.

3-PT Flex.

T300/5208,8 Ply

T300/5208,16 Ply

AS/3501-5,16 Ply

25

20

36

--

28

25

28

21

30

Statistical.strength Model

According to the Weibull statistical-strength theory for

brittle materials,' the probability of survival, P , at a

maximum stress level S for a uniaxial-stress field in a

homogeneous material governed by a volumetric flaw

distribution is given by

>_ S ) = R ( S )

P(S/

= exp [ - B ( S ) ]

B(S)

(5)

SA = SoA -'/~

(6)

where

(1)

is the reliability, and B is the risk of rupture. A nonuniform stress field, o, can always be written in terms of

the maximum stress in the following manner

two-parameter Weibull distribution

(2)

stress fields can be represented by a two-parameter Weibull distribution with the same shape parameter, but with

a scale parameter which will shift according to eq (6).

For the case of a simple tensile test under uniform

stress, eq (6) takes the form

o(x,y,z)

= Sf(x,y,z)

of the form

B(S)

= A

(So, c~> 0)

(3)

o0

(4)

A = Jv [ f ( x , Y , Z ) l ' ~ d V

characteristic strength, and c~ is the shape parameter

which characterizes the flaw distribution in the material.

Both of these parameters are considered to be material

properties independent of size. Thus, the risk to break will

be a function of the stress distribution in the test specimen.

Equation (3) can also be written in the form

scale parameter for uniform tension is a function of

specimen volume.

For flexural loading, the integration in eq (4) can be

performed in closed form and results in the following

relationships between the scale parameters for tension

and flexure

__

Sb

S,

~L/2

"q J L

P/2

~_29cm(9in )

P/2

t

P/2

P/2

L/h=52,

b=l.27cm(O.5in.)

h = 0 0127 cm/PLY ( 0 0 0 5 in / PLY )

Fig: 1 - - G e o m e t r y of test s p e c i m e n s

212

June 1980

]]l/,~

)]

O-point)

~,~

(4-point)

(9)

(10)

4-point flexure correspond to loading at quarter points.

In order to illustrate the effect of nonuniform stress

distribution, consider the case V, = Vb. For values of

c~ = 15 and 25, eqs (9) and (10) yield

--

Sb

=

St

1.52, a = 15

1.33, c~ = 25

(3-point)

(11)

Sb

=

St

1.31, a = 15

1.20, c~ = 25

(4-point)

(12)

--

P/2

J-

~.~-b -,,.{

Vt

[2 (c~ + 1)2 . - - ~ -

S~ _ [4(c~+ 112

S,

( a + 2)

L=15.2 cm ( 6 i n )

(8)

SA = S, = S o ( V , ) -''~

where

if- b.~

(7)

These values of c~ are typical of currently utilized composites such as glass-epoxy and graphite-epoxy. Thus, the

flexure test can, in theory, produce significantly higher

tensile strengths than the tensile test, with the 3-point

loading producing the highest strength. This is due to the

fact that the maximum stress is produced at the outer

surface in the center of the beam, while the 4-point

loading produces the maximum stress at the outer surface

throughout the center section. In particular, the smaller

Test

..T300/5208,

Si, MPa (kSl)

8 Ply,

A

oq

Tension

Tension *

Tensiont

4-Pt Flex

4-Pt Flex*

4-Pt Flext

3-Pt Flex

3-Pt Flex*

1790 (259)

1776 (257)

.

--.

2377 (344)

2377 (344)

17.7

20.4

.

.

---

16 Ply,

^T300/5208,

Sol, MPa (kSl)

.

41.4

42.6

1665

.

.

1734

1741

.

1790

1797

(~i

(241)

^AS/3501-5,

Sol, MPa (kSI)

16 Ply,

^i

ot

1506 (218)

13.3

1506 (218)

1624 (235)

-1624 (235)

1617 (234)

--

13.2

29.2

-32.7

22.9

--

18.5

.

(251)

(252)

29.3

28.7

(259)

(260)

36.7

36.2

tBased on a reduced sample size of 28.

strength.

It should be noted that eqs (9) and (10) are based on

the assumption that failure in the flexure test is a direct

function of normal stress on the tension side of the beam.

The effect of interlaminar stresses is neglected.

Specimen-thickness effects, as well as stress-gradient

effects, are also of interest. For pure tension, eq (8)

becomes

(13)

S, = S o ( L b h ) . . . .

respectively, of the tensile coupon. For specimens of

thickness h, and h~, eq (13) yields

S,,

S,~

= (h,},,,,

.~,.

,

h~ > h,

(14)

strength compared to the thick specimens. In the case of

flexural loading, the beam span, L, must also be adjusted

for any thickness change in order to assure a constant

span-to-depth ratio in the flexure test. For 3-point loading,

eq (6) becomes

Sb = So [ 2(oe + 1)~_ ( ? ) ] , / , *

bh 2

L

(3-point)

Both 8-ply and 16-ply panels were processed for T300/

5208, while only 16-ply panels were fabricated for A S /

3501-5A. Test specimens were cut from the large panels

with a diamond wheel.

Specimen geometry and dimensions for both tension

and flexure are shown in Fig. 1. For tension, a straightsided coupon was utilized in accordance with ASTM

Standard D-30397 The flexure tests were run in accordance with ASTM Standard D-7907 with the following

deviations. Loads were applied at a distance of L / 4 from

the supports, rather than at a distance of L / 3 as required

by the ASTM standard. In addition, the specimens were

13 mm (0.5 in.) wide rather than 25 mm (1.0 in.). These

deviations have become accepted practice for graphiteepoxy composites. A test matrix is shown in Table 1.

The Weibull parameters for each data set were estimated

from the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE). 8 A twosample test" was utilized for testing the equality of shape

parameters in a two-parameter Weibull distribution with

unknown scale parameters.

Weibull parameters are shown in TabJe 2 for each data

1.0

(15)

TENSION

0 8 L

" v ~

[U]['"

eq (15) yields

&~

U~"

h, > h,

(16)

thickness change will have greater effect on the flexure

test than on the tensile-coupon test. Again, thin specimens

should yield a higher characteristic strength than thick

specimens. It is also obvious that eq (16) holds for 4point bending as well as 3-point bending.

06

2~

0 4

=~184

X.

0.2

Two graphite-epoxy material systems were chosen for

this investigation, T300/5208 (Narmco) and A S / 3 5 0 1 - 5 A

(Hercules). Unidirectional panels were fabricated in an

autoclave according to each manufacturer's recommended

cure cycle. The average fiber-volume content was 70

I

08

1

09

I

1.0

T300/5208 graphite-epoxy c o m p o s i t e s

Experimental

Mechanics

9 213

S(MPa)

1400

I0

1600

1800

2000

I

TENSION

T500/5208

tol

0.8

St = !665 MPa

loading,T300/5208graphite-epoxy

composites

'~

X ~

06

"~

~ / - S ~ :I790MPa

(259 KSI)

u3

0.4

5~ =18 4

8 PLY

0.2

2;o

0171

:500

S(KSI)

in Ref. 9, it was necessary to reduce the number of

replicates in some data sets so that equal sample sizes

could be obtained within each material system. This was

accomplished by numbering the failures in each data set

to be reduced from lowest strength to highest strength

and using a table of random numbers to discard the

appropriate number of specimens. WeibuU parameters

were then determined from the reduced sets by use of

MLE. The resulting shape parameters, ~i, represented

estimates for equal sample sizes within each material

system and the tabulated data from Ref. 9 could then be

applied. Weibull parameters associated with equal-samplesize sets are also shown in Table 2.

For cases in which the shape parameters satisfied the

two-sample test criterion for a confidence level of 98

percent, a data-pooling technique was used to estimate a

shape parameter for the pooled population. The approach

utilized in the present paper involves normalizing each

data set included in the pooling procedure by its estimated

characteristic strength ~~ and the resulting normalized

strength data was fit to a two-parameter Weibull distribution, again utilizirig MLE. For a perfect fit to the

data-pooling scheme, the scale parameter of the pooled

distribution should be exactly unity. Each scale parameter

of the individual distributions were adjusted, however, to

produce an exact value of unity for the pooled-scale

parameter. In particular

A

rSpi = X o S o i

(17)

parameter for the ith data set, the MLE estimate of the

pooled-location parameter, and the MLE estimate of the

location parameter for the ith data set, respectively. It

should be noted that MLE is asymptotically unbiased,

i.e., it is a biased estimator for small sample sizesP Unbiasing factors are tabulated in Ref. 11. Values of pooled

parameters were adjusted for bias and denoted by &v-

I0 ~

BENDING ~

0.8 ~

[0]

06

T3_OOJ52o8

o ss

090

within each material system failed to indicate a constant

value of a i . Application of the two-sample test to flexure

095

"~,q~

that pooling procedures would be appropriate for each of

these test methods. Since tensile-coupon data on AS/

3501-5A composites were obtained for only one specimen

geometry, data pooling could only be accomplished on

flexure strength for this material.

Comparison between strength data and Weibull distributions obtained from the data-reduction procedures

are shown in Figs. 2-9. Data points are converted to

probabilities of survival from the "median rank" (MR)

defined as

MR

Discussion of Results

too

1.05

x

Fig.4--PooledWeibulldistributionfor flexuralloading,

T300/5208graphite-epoxycomposites

00%

0.3

n+0.4

j -

(18)

where j is the survival order number (data listed in decreasing order of strength) and n is the total number of

samples tested. Pooled-shape parameters are denoted by

1600

I 014OO

O

\O

~_\

06

2200

~_~ g

O 3PT, 16 PLY

r~c~

~ 3PT, 8PLY

gb =1734MP(]

2400

BENDING

T300/5208

\o~

08

04

S(MPo)

2000

1800

~] OI

Sb=2377 MISo

~[3 O~r

loading, T300/5208 graphite-epoxy

composites

"~

= 1790 MPo

02

0

200

225

,,L,

250

\q

275

StKSI)

300

325

I ~

350

S(MPa)

I100

1.0

1300

1500

1700

TENSION

0.8

AS/3501-5A

0.6

~)~

?,--128

g,

: 1499 MPa

loading, AS/3501-5A graphite-epoxy

composites

~3

(217 KSI)

04

0.2

~0

150

175

~ '- ~ 0 ~

O608 ~

m

N

I-~

200

S(KSI)

225

ab :251

04

02

O

O 80

I

O 85

J

090

I,

095

X

I

IOO

105

AS/3501-5A graphite-epoxy composites

JO

250

bending, respectively.

Note that, for both graphite-epoxy material systems,

the ratio of bending-shape parameters to tension-shape

parameters, ~b/~,, is approximately 2, which is a departure

from classical Weibull theory. The characteristic flexure

strengths are, however, consistently higher than the

characteristic tensile strengths as predicted by the Weibull

failure model.

The difference obtained in shape parameters between

tensile coupons and flexure tests suggests that their

failures are governed by two different flaw distributions.

Typical failure modes for tension and flexure demonstrate

the same brooming type of failure mode for both loading

methods. Tension tends to produce a more catastrophic

failure due to the uniform stress field, while flexure

loading produces a more localized failure due to stress

gradients. Similar modes could lead one to believe that the

failures are governed by the same flaw distribution. This

can, however, be misleading as further discussion will

show.

S(MPe)

1500

1300

I0,

I ~

(3 I 0

1900

~Q.~

~

0.8

1700

BENDING

(4PT)

AS/3501-5A~ _

E

Sb=1624M P o ~

(235 KSI)

~

04

02

i

017!

200

225

S(KSI)

.250

275

AS/3501-5A

graphite-epoxy

composites

S(MP~)

1300

p

tO

1500

I

08

O6

0.4

BENDING

(SPT)

~

AS/SSOL-~

1900

17OO

I

Sb=1617MPo

(234KS~1

Esterline, and Chuck Fowler of the University of Dayton

Research Institute for the fabrication and testing of

composite specimens.

(~

~

References

I

200

225

S(KSI)

250

275

graphite-epoxy

composites

data is specimen misalignment which induces bending

and/or a nonuniform stress field. The straight-sided

geometry associated with composite tensile coupons makes

them particularly sensitive to misalignment, with unidirectional composites being the most sensitive due to the

high ratio of axial to transverse strength and stiffness. It

can easily be seen from eqs (3) and (4) that a constant

nonuniform stress field will change the characteristic

strength but not the shape parameter. Misalignment,

however, is likely to induce a nonuniform stress field

which varies from specimen to specimen depending on the

degree and nature of the misalignment. Such variations

can reduce the estimated value of the shape parameter,

~g, by producing artificially large scatter in measured

tensile strengths.

It is obvious from the data presented that the experimental results do not correlate with a two-parameter Weibull statistical model. This lack of correlation may be a

result of test methodology or may simply be an indication

that the Weibull distribution is an inadequate model for

describing failure in the fiber direction for a unidirectional

fiber-reinforced composite. It is important from a design

standpoint to determine the precise source of the discrepancy. This can only be accomplished by establishing

failure mechanisms. Until this is done, it appears that any

attempt to predict tensile-coupon data from flexural data

for design purposes is premature.

Acknowledgments

~t~= 2 5 I

175

216

Conclusions

b \

02

AS/3501-5A

is the extremely high tensile-strength values obtained

from 3-point flexural loading of 8-ply T300/5208 unidirectional composites. It is possible that the ratio of

load-nose radius-to-specimen thickness is too large,

producing a distributed load rather than a concentrated

load.

One final observation concerning the data, is the

obvious possibility that the Weibull distribution is not a

valid model for describing failure in the fiber direction for

a unidirectional fiber-reinforced composite.

It should be noted that Figs. 2-9 do not indicate a

minimum strength at the origin, but are simply for convenience plotted with an initial point corresponding to a

very high reliability. For example, the origin of Fig. 2

(x = 0.75) corresponds to a reliability of 0.9950 and not

to a reliability of 1. For any value o f x > 0, R ( x ) < 1.

June 1980

lng. Vetenskaps Akad. Hand/ (Roy Swedish Inst. Eng. Research Proc.),

NR 151 (1939).

2. Bullock, R.E., "'Strength Ratios o f Composite Materials in Flexure

and in Tension, "' J. o f Camp. Marls, 8, 200 (1974).

3. Daniel, I.M. and 14"eil, N.A., "The Influence o f Stress Gradient

Upon Fracture o f Brittle Materials," A S M E Paper ~,o. 63-H'A-228,

presented at Winter Annual Meeting, Amer, Sac. o f Mech. Eng., Philadelphia, PA, Nov. 17-22, 1963.

4. Weil, N.A. and Daniel, I.M., "Analysis o f Fracture Probabilities

in Uniformly Stressed Brittle Materials, " J. o f the Amer. Car. Sac., 47,

268 (1964).

5. Knight, M. and Hahn, H.T., "'Strength and Elastic Modulus o f a

Randomly-Distributed Short Fiber Composites," J. o f Camp. Marls, 9,

77 (1975),

6. A S T M Standard D-3"039, "Standard Test Method for Tensile

Properties o f Oriented Fiber Composites, "" Book o f A S T M Standards,

Part 36, 721 (1978).

7, A S T M Standard D-790, "'Standard Test Method for Flexural

Properties o f Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials, " Book o f A S T M

Standards, Part 35, 321 (1979).

8. Mann, N.R., Schafer, R.E. and Singpurwalla, N.D., Method for

Statistical Analysis o f Reliability and Life Data, John H'i/ey and Sons,

New York (1974).

9. Thoman, Darrel R. and Bain, Lee J., "Two Sample Tests in the

Weibull Distribution," Technometrics, I 1, 805 (1969).

10. Wolf, R.V. and Lemon, G.H., Reliability Prediction for Composite Joints--Bonded and Bolted Air Force Technical Report AFML-TR74-197 (March 1976).

11. Thoman, Darrel R., Bain, Lee J. and Antle, Charles E., "'Inferences on the Parameters o f the 14eibull Distribution, " Technonletrics,

11 (3), 445-460 (Aug. 1969),

- Static Design Guide lindabTransféré parErmal Beqiraj
- ASTM C307 TraçãoConcretoTransféré parLeandro Chiusoli
- Mohr-Coulomb Parameters for Modelling of Concrete StructuresTransféré parDiego Alejandro Flores Ortíz
- EN 10168_2004_Steel products - Inspection documents.pdfTransféré parBogdan
- Grinda Lamelara SimetricaTransféré parButziu Bogdan
- Cracking Due to Temperature Gradient in ConcreteTransféré parfdelfin
- Cen/Tc 250/Sc 2/Wg 2 n 0157Transféré parRobertA6
- 1. Prof. Kame G. S. Lsmrcs Lecture Notes Civil Engg. Dept. Datta Meghe Coemumbai Uni Limit State Method of Reinforced Concrete Design Confirming to i s 456 2000 AssumptionsTransféré parconfig_str
- Eng AnalysisTransféré parAbera Zewdu
- 077 563 271 2 Moretti SETransféré parRaghavendra Doneriya
- Chapter 1 OV Eng AnaTransféré parumanathrp
- Pci - Modeling SpandrelsTransféré parkiss_59856786
- 802-PartI-Section2-1992(1998)Transféré parJagal Udaya
- Ch 7Transféré parzetseat
- 210.pdfTransféré parssibirasi
- Project 12Transféré parPrashit Nayak
- Magazine of Concrete ResearchTransféré paroutlee
- 210.pdfTransféré parupnishda
- Final Report (2)Transféré parEileenWong
- Wall Thickness OptimizationTransféré parPutune Mbah Dulah Kastari
- 1-s2.0-S2211812814005161-mainTransféré parsulastri
- CWI Chapter 06Transféré parHuỳnh Văn Nghĩa
- bdfhfbhdfgdgTransféré parRomil Sampayo
- Crack Width Analysis (1).pdfTransféré parAhmed Ben Hmida
- Caltrans Seismic Design Spec Steel Bridges 2nd Ed 2016Transféré pardiogogreb
- 3A - Flexural Behaviour of BeamsTransféré parNoman Tariq Malkani
- Bolted Connections ProbsTransféré parOuseppachan Ambooken
- Investigation_Report_on_Structural_Safety_of_Large_Container_Ships_EN_ClassNK.pdfTransféré parBogdan Nedelcu
- Santos 2018Transféré parRehman Hasan Tyeb
- AnsysTransféré parEng Tr

- artigoTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- ChapterTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- art%3A10.1007%2Fs10853-007-2444-6.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- L29.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- AntioxidantsTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- artigoTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Lecture4.pdfTransféré parUMA MAHESH
- a6.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Characterization of voids in fibre reinforced composite materials.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 1-s2.0-S0870831214000056-main.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- New Approaches to Halogen Free Polyolefin Flame ReTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- ARTK_LPR_9783446406353_0001Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Elvaloy RigidPVC BrochureTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 07 Chapter 1Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 177-187Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- b702511dTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 10 SFR548371503661)Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 81320040107Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 2013-fallTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 2013-06_RheologyTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Polymer rheology and processing(-´è‹±--Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 608-155Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- ASTM D1014.pdfTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Ami Cable 2015 ArkemaTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 1-s2.0-S0032386109003322-main3Transféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Astm d3895Transféré parRetno Witantri
- EPL 0000143 ArticleTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- Polymer JournalTransféré parabilio_j_vieira
- 4 Microstructure-based Modeling of the Creep Behavior of Long Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics PDFTransféré parabilio_j_vieira

- Fatigue and Crack Initiation - George C. SihTransféré parVAIBHAV AHER
- Mechanics of Materials _ Chapter 5Transféré parClaudia534
- 2013 Iepc PolkTransféré parmg
- Fluid MechanicsTransféré parMohan Kumar
- Direct ShearTransféré parkictodd
- 4. Yang Corbels FinalTransféré parShishir Kumar Nayak
- Geas Sample ProblemsTransféré parroy016
- PhysicsTransféré parUjjwal Rastogi
- AGARD_Design.pdfTransféré parPedro Carrasco
- Problem SetTransféré parXy
- 2ndcatalystissueTransféré parClaudia See
- Concrete Part & Fracture MechanicsTransféré partimsyki
- DC Motor ModelTransféré parHossam Dawood
- TOS 06 Student's Copy.pdfTransféré parCed Calzado
- Mechanics Of Materials Chap 1Transféré parHaseeb Riaz
- Chap4 Closed SystemTransféré parGerman Mendia
- Biot Savart LawsTransféré parFatinHalim
- Functional Assessment of Biomechanics System- Human Body Inverse Dynamics Using Inertial Motion CaptureTransféré parChristina Reyes
- Magneto StaticsTransféré parMaisha Kéim
- 3 (1)Transféré parThe Predator
- q1 1998Transféré parAlaa Shammaa
- Quest Electrostatics 4 KeyTransféré parAnonymous i4CIG14g
- TWO PHASE FLOWTransféré parVikrant Deshmukh
- Pages From Chapter 18-9Transféré parta
- Behaviour and Strengthening of RC T-girders in Torsion and Shear (Deifalla Phd Thesis)Transféré parfefahim
- electric forceTransféré parapi-286017195
- sci20 unitb 2 3Transféré parapi-207957230
- FEMA [Cyclic Behavior of Steel Beam to Column Joints].pdfTransféré parLolita
- Motion Analysis of Floating StructureTransféré parIvandito Herdayanditya
- Analysis of FrameTransféré parAnonymous nwByj9L

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.